XVI. I am aware, however, of the argument that may be used in favour
of the vulgar opinion. I may be told, that customs and manners are
commonly derived from the genius or disposition, and the genius
or disposition from temperament. How else could the constitution
of parents be communicated to their children, by means of which
communication we see them inherit their infirmities? In the same manner
then, may their geniuses and dispositions be communicated.
XVII. But this argument fails in many parts of it; first, because by
the commixture of the two sexes, which is indispensable in generation,
there may result to the children a third temperament, unlike to that of
both father and mother. Secondly, because it is not probable, that the
seminal matter is in all its parts homogeneous; and to this principle,
I think, should chiefly be attributed the notable dissimilarity that
we find in some brothers. Thirdly, because many different principles
have their influence on the temperament; for example, the accidental
disposition of the parents at the time of generation, the various
affections of the mother during the formation of the fœtus, the
alterations of the atmosphere in this period, childrens aliment in
their infancy, and many other things.
XVIII. From hence I conclude, the vulgar prognostic, that the short
or long lives of children, depend upon the much or little time
their parents lived, is to the last degree fallible and void of all
probability; because from all the principles we have pointed out,
the temperament of the parents with respect to the children, may be
vitiated or amended; for we every day see healthy children born of
sickly parents, and sickly children born of healthy ones. It is true,
that there are some diseases which have the stamp or mark of hereditary
ones; but I conclude, this originates, or is derived from a vitiated
quality which pervades the whole seminal matter; but this is proper
or confined to very few diseases, nor is it so proper or certain with
regard to those few, as not to be many times falsified. My father was
gouty, but I am not so, neither is any one of my brothers.
XIX. I add, that even admitting some communication of genius or manners
from parents to children, this argument in no shape favours the ancient
nobility, who are descended from a very remote origin; the reason is,
because in every generation there is a sensible alteration, sufficient
to introduce some dissimilitude with respect to the immediate
progenitor, and in the accumulation of many, the unlikeness becomes so
great, as in a manner to efface all appearance of kindred or relation
between them. What expectation then can a man entertain, of inheriting
even a small portion of the generosity of his illustrious progenitors,
the heroes from whom he derived the lustre of his house, and to whom
he looks up, at the remote distance of many centuries? By so many
more grandfathers he reckons, by so many more degrees is he removed
from the original generous influence. In every generation he goes on
to lose a part of it; and when they become very numerous, he at last
arrives at losing it intirely. It is most likely that the Thespiades,
or sons which Hercules had by the daughters of Thespis, inherited a
good portion of the strength of their father; and that, in the sons of
the Thespiades, the robustness of the grandfather was more curtailed,
and that the descendants of these, in the course of two or three
generations, would come to be no stronger that the ordinary race of men.