[71] The whole argument seems to have little foundation. Are we to assume, for example, that the “average ability” of the Greeks before and after their great period, or of the English before and after the Elizabethan age, was enormously inferior because the proportion of very illustrious men was so much less? Why should not the average be higher, the ability (through intermarriage) being more equally distributed?
[72] If Galton had referred only to the Athenians of the great period, as Wallace imagined, the statement would have been even more absurd. It would then mean that an African tribe of blacks might suddenly become as intelligent as ourselves, continue so for two generations, and then relapse at once into their old barbarism. Yet Dr. Verrall went some distance in this direction, for he says the Athenians of the great period “had plainly an immense superiority of mind in comparison with their predecessors.” (The Bacchants of Euripides, p. 168).
[73] I may add, however, one personal remark. I am quite well aware—and my friends persistently and painfully impress the fact upon me—that this book will be reviewed by gentlemen who have been imbued from youth with even greater enthusiasm, seeing that the tendency has grown stronger and stronger since that time. Those reviewers will probably feel shocked that the naked facts should be set before the general public. I can quite understand this feeling, but I do not sympathize with it. Truth comes first, and I have no sympathy with the feminine view of truth ([see p. 343]), which is the same as the Jesuitical view. I do, however, sympathize with them in one respect, that the truth should be stated at an unfortunate time, when the beautiful Greek language and its glorious literature seem likely to be put on a back shelf with Hebrew and Sanskrit. It will be a sad thing if this should happen (I would much prefer to sacrifice the inferior Latin, in spite of the special reasons for its study), but the first and last word always is—Truth.
[74] “May moderation befriend me, the finest gift of the gods.”
[75] It would be interesting to trace the earliest references to love of Nature. They may, perhaps, be found in the Bible. In the Song of Solomon (which, however, in its present form is now supposed to date back only to the Fourth Century, B.C., and, therefore not to be by Solomon) we have the spring-song of love, with flowers and budding trees and vines and the singing of birds (II, 10-13). Professor Naylor also reminds me of our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount, “Consider the lilies, etc.”
I repeat here what I say in the [Preface] that Professor Naylor takes no responsibility for any of the views I express in my notes on the Greeks.
[76] Their actual life was of course indescribably squalid and filthy, as could only be expected in a primitive race.
[77] Even as regards the human form Greek art is limited, as is seen in the Laocoon where the boys are simply miniature men. (The Laocoon, although of very late date, is nevertheless Greek with all the traditions of the art behind it.) I know very little on this subject, but it seems to me that something of much importance yet remains to be discovered about Greek sculpture.
[78] An excessive importance is attached to the cold conventional foliated designs.