* * * * *
A writer on heredity says that if a person has not inherited the music disposition, he will never become a musician, although he may acquire a knowledge of music; and that a person not born with the potentiality of the poetical disposition will never be a poet, although he may gain a knowledge of prosody. This is a dogmatic statement, but it does not amount to much after all; for it can be turned around by saying that if a person does not become a musician or a poet, the inference is that he has not inherited the faculties. Thus it is mainly a question of words and phrases.
At all events let the aspirant to the Muses put the matter to a practical test. Let him strive to become a poet or a musician; and if he succeeds, he can say: "See, I must have inherited the power." If he fails, why then he can foist the blame upon heredity.
But surely it would be difficult, in many cases of musical genius, to trace the effect to heredity. Still harder would it be, reversing the process, to predict such hereditament. So the above-quoted theory is only tantamount to an acknowledgment of the facts and the provision of a plausible formulation of them.
Characteristics come partly from the parental and ancestral soil wherein the human seed grows; partly from the mental atmosphere of the race and community; partly from one's education; and partly from qualities which the Individual himself has brought over from his own past. All of these concomitants have to be taken into account in considering the question of heredity. Needless to say, nobody should permit his efforts and aspirations to be relaxed in consequence of any dogma or theory which may tend to cast discouragement thereon.
* * * * *
To be conscious of one's ignorance is to have taken the first step from folly towards wisdom; and doubtless the tremendous overhauling that is now taking place in the stock of our ideas should be taken as a hopeful sign rather than an omen of woe. Hence the fact that chaos, as it seems, reigns in our ideas about the science of agriculture may be regarded as the sign that something is about to hatch out.
According to quotations made by The Literary Digest, a university professor of agricultural science takes to task the Bureau of Soils of the United States Department of Agriculture. These opponents take diametrically opposite views with regard to the care of the soil. The Bureau is credited, on the strength of quotations from its circulars, with maintaining that the soil contains an inexhaustible fund of plant food which is continually replaced by natural processes. Its opponents declare that this teaching is wrong and disastrous. The professor in question claims to have taken the opinions of most of the land-grant experiment stations, and maintains that the opinions of the Bureau are derided by these and by most other authorities in this country and in Europe. The soil needs to be taken care of, or else it will become barren. History is quoted in support.
This controversy indicates that our theories are in a state of chaos. The more we learn about agriculture, the more there is to learn; for each new discovery opens up a new field. Plants need mineral food; they need nitrogen; they need bacteria to help them get the nitrogen. The chemist, the physicist, and the biologist all have a say in agriculture. Some of the great nations of the past seem to have known a good deal about agriculture; and probably there is a good deal of their knowledge that has not yet been transmitted or revived.
* * * * *