As being the actual possessor of the advantages in question， the parent is usually in a position either to hand them over directly to his children， or to make their acquisition comparatively easy.Wealth， the most obvious and tangible source of caste， is transmissible， even in the freest societies， under the sanction and protection of law.And wealth is convertible not only into material goods but， if the holder has a little tact and sense， into other and finer advantages梕ducational opportunities， business and professional openings， travel and intercourse with people of refinement and culture.Against this we must， of course， offset the diminished motive to exertion， the lack of rough-and-tumble experience， and other disad--vantages which inherited wealth， especially if large， is apt to bring with it； but that it does， as a rule， perpetuate the more conventional sorts of superiority is undeniable.
And such intangible advantages as culture， manners， good associations and the like， whether associated with wealth or not， are practically heritable， since they are chiefly derived by children from a social environment determined by the personality and standing of their parents.
Indeed， irrespective of any intention toward or from inheritance， there is a strong drift toward it due to mere familiarity.It is commonly the line of least resistance.The father knows much about his own trade and those closely related to it， little about others； and the son shares his point of view.So when the latter comes to fix upon a career he is likely， in the absence of any decided individuality of preference， to take the way that lies most open to him.Of course he may lack the ability to carry the paternal function； but this， though common enough， does not affect the majority of cases.The functions that require a peculiar type of natural ability， while of the first importance， since they include all marked originality， are not very numerous， sound character and training， with fair intelligence， being ordinarily sufficient.Even in the learned professions， such as law， medicine， teaching and the ministry， the great majority of practitioners hold their own by common sense and assiduity rather than by special aptitude.
To the best of my observation， there are many men serving as foremen in various sorts of handicraft， or as farmers， who have natural capacity adequate for success in law， commerce or politics.A man of good， all-round ability will succeed in that line of work which he finds ready to his hand， but only a few will break away from their antecedents and seek a wholly different line.And if their work affords them health， thought and mastery， why should they wish to change it if they could ？
I would not have it supposed， however (because I dwell thus upon opportunity)， that I agree with those whose zeal for education and training leads them to depreciate natural differences.I do not know how to talk with men who believe in native equality： it seems to me that they lack common sense and observation.How can they fail to see that children in the same family， even twins， as Mr.Galton has shown， are often widely divergent in ability， one destined to leadership and another to obscurity ？
The two variables of personality， " nature and nurture，" are without doubt of equal diversity and importance， and they must work together to bring about any notable achievement.Natural ability is essential； but， no matter how great， it cannot know or develop its power without opportunity.
Indeed， great natural faculty is often more dependent on circumstance than is mediocrity梑ecause of some trait， like extreme sensitiveness， that unfits it for miscellaneous competition.Opportunity， moreover， means different things in different cases， and is not to be identified with wealth or facile circumstances of any sort.Some degrees and kinds of difficulty are helpful， others not.
And yet， leaving out， on the one hand， unusual talent or energy， and， on the other， decided weakness or dulness， the mass of men are guided chiefly by early surroundings and training， which determine for them， in a general way what sort of life they will take up， and contribute much to their success or failure in it.Society， even in a comparatively free country， is thus vaguely divided into hereditary strata or sections， from which the majority do not depart.
If the transmission of function from father to son has become established， a caste spirit， a sentiment in favor of such transmission and opposed to the passage from one class into another， may arise and be shared even by the unprivileged classes.The individual then thinks of himself and his family as identified with his caste， and sympathizes with others who have the same feeling.The caste thus becomes a psychical organism， consolidated by community of sentiment and tradition.In some measure the ruling class in England， for example， has hung together in this way， and the same is partly true of the lower orders.No doubt there is generally some protest against a hereditary system on the part of restless members of the lower castes梒ertainly this was always the case in Europe 梑ut it may be practically insignificant.
And out of caste sentiment arise institutions， social， political and economic條ike the mediaeval system in Europe， much of which still survives梬hose tendency is to define and perpetuate hereditary distinctions.
I have， perhaps， said enough to make it clear that an impulse toward caste is found in human nature itself.Whether it spreads through and dominates the system of life， as in India， or remains subordinate， as with us， depends upon the strength or weakness of other impulses which limit its operation.
As certain types of vegetation， like the ferns， which at one time were dominant in the forests， are now overshadowed by plants of higher organization， so caste， which we must， on the whole， reckon to be an inferior principle， tends to be supplanted by something freer and more rational.
Endnotes See the memoir on the subject in his lnquiries into Human Faculty.
