The famous individual factors are only ordinary human qualities, like courage, strength, needs, intelligence, etc. etc., [110] which men possess in differing degrees, and which in like circumstances lead the one rather than the other to commit a crime. These qualities in themselves, however, have nothing to do with crime. Professor Manouvrier expresses my thought on this subject in the following: “There are, however, certain individuals more moved to crime than others, in circumstances otherwise equal. Certainly, as man is more given to crime than woman, as a robust and bold man is more given to crimes of violence than one who is miserable and timid, etc., yet each type of character finds some kind of crime practicable, if only arson. The athlete will be more inclined to strike, the smooth talker to play the confidence man, but we do not for that reason indict muscular strength, nor ready speech, nor boldness, nor agility, nor address. No more do we indict violence or trickery, qualities defined from the vicious use made of qualities valuable for honest purposes.” [111] The reasoning of Professor Ferri, that there is in every crime, besides others, an anthropological factor, is only the statement of the fact, known long before the rise of modern criminology, that the predisposition to crime is not the same with all men. This predisposition, as we have seen, considered by itself, has nothing to do with crime as such. So much the more is the conclusion of Professor Ferri and the Italian school in general absolutely false, when they deduce from the undeniable fact that the predisposition is not the same for all, the notion that this predisposition is by nature pathological. Thus we have finally come to two other groups of anthropological factors: the organic constitution of the criminal, as, for example, the anomalies of the skull, brain, etc. and the psychical constitution of the criminal, as, for example, the anomalies of intelligence and feeling. [112] This is the special territory of the Italian school: the criminal is a being apart—“genus homo criminalis”—with special stigmata peculiar to him; there is a criminal type, anatomically recognizable; most criminals are born-criminals, etc. The explanation of this special character is to be found in atavism, an hypothesis later replaced by that of epilepsy; finally it has been claimed that the character of the criminal is in general of a pathological nature.