which has no real individuality," perhaps he shows a rather
But is this conclusion legitimate? Is there really a direct, obvious, and simple climatic influence? How much might be said on the subject! The author remarks that in Italy, which he has chosen as the subject of study, the number of sexual crimes is in direct relation to the physiological energy of the individuals, as evidenced by the birth-rate-which is, moreover, in direct proportion to the increase in number of crimes against the person. The counter-proof is striking. The number of sexual criminals is in inverse ratio to that of diseases and cases of degeneracy: and, in fact, there are infinitely more people in hospital and invalided from epilepsy, cretinism, goitre, and mental maladies in the North of Italy than in the South. But are physiological energy and a high birth-rate, and, inversely, degeneracy and mental diseases in this case, and always, due to climate? Crimes against morals and crimes against the person seem to obey the same law. Is this law, then, of a geographical order, so that we can speak of the law of climate? And if it is true that crimes against morals are more numerous where suicide is less frequent and popular education less advanced, are we to conclude that suicide and ignorance are, in their tum, the direct results of climate?