{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_42913/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_42913","id":"gutenberg_42913","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/42913","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Health & Medicine","Category: Parenthood & Family Relations","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Eugenics"],"text":"PARENTHOOD AND RACE CULTURE\n\n\n\n\n                        BOOKS BY THE SAME AUTHOR\n\n                    \u201cWORRY: THE DISEASE OF THE AGE\u201d\n                      \u201cEVOLUTION: THE MASTER KEY\u201d\n                   \u201cHEALTH, STRENGTH, AND HAPPINESS\u201d\n                               Etc., Etc.\n\n\n\n\n                               PARENTHOOD\n\n                                  AND\n\n                              RACE CULTURE\n\n                         An Outline of Eugenics\n\n\n                                   BY\n                         CALEB WILLIAMS SALEEBY\n                   M.D., Ch.B., F.Z.S., F.R.S. Edin.\n\n       FELLOW OF THE OBSTETRICAL SOCIETY OF EDINBURGH, MEMBER OF\n           COUNCIL OF THE EUGENICS EDUCATION SOCIETY, OF THE\n            SOCIOLOGICAL SOCIETY, AND OF THE NATIONAL LEAGUE\n                 FOR PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND IMPROVEMENT\n                    MEMBER OF THE ROYAL INSTITUTION\n                       AND OF THE SOCIETY FOR THE\n                           STUDY OF INEBRIETY\n                               ETC., ETC.\n\n\n                          [Illustration: Logo]\n\n\n                       CASSELL AND COMPANY, LTD.\n                LONDON, NEW YORK, TORONTO AND MELBOURNE\n                                  1909\n\n\n\n\n                          ALL RIGHTS RESERVED\n\n\n\n\n                               Dedicated\n                                   TO\n                             FRANCIS GALTON\n                                  THE\n                     AUGUST MASTER OF ALL EUGENISTS\n\n\n\n\n                                PREFACE\n\n\nThis book, a first attempt to survey and define the whole field of\neugenics, appears in the year which finds us celebrating the centenary\nof the birth of Charles Darwin and the jubilee of the publication\nof _The Origin of Species_. It is a humble tribute to that immortal\nname, for it is based upon the idea of _selection for parenthood_\nas determining the nature, fate and worth of living races, which is\nDarwin's chief contribution to thought, and which finds in eugenics its\nsupreme application. The book is also a tribute to the august pioneer\nwho initiated the modern study of eugenics in the light of his cousin's\nprinciple. A few years ago I all but persuaded Mr. Galton himself to\nwrite a general introduction to eugenics, but he felt bound to withdraw\nfrom that undertaking, and has given us instead his Memories, which we\ncould ill have spared.\n\nThe present volume seeks to supply what is undoubtedly a real need\nat the present day--a general introduction to eugenics which is at\nleast considered and responsible. I am indebted to more than one\npair of searching and illustrious eyes, which I may not name, for\nreading the proofs of this volume. My best hopes for its utility are\nbased upon this fact. If there be any other reason for hope it is\nthat during the last six years I have not only written incessantly on\neugenics, but have spoken upon various aspects of it some hundreds\nof times to audiences as various as one can well imagine--a mainly\nclerical assembly at Lambeth Palace with the Primate in the Chair,\ndrawing-rooms of title, working-class audiences from the Clyde to\nthe Thames. It has been my rule to invite questions whenever it was\npossible. Such a discipline is invaluable. It gives new ideas and\npoints of view, discovers the existing forms of prejudice, sharply\ncorrects the tendency to partial statement. It is my hope that these\nmany hours of cross-examination will be profitable to the present\nreader.\n\nIt has been sought to define the scope of eugenics, and my consistent\naim has been, if possible, to preserve its natural unity without\nfalling into the error, which I seem to see almost everywhere, of\nexcluding what is strictly eugenic. Our primary idea, beyond dispute,\nis selection for parenthood based upon the facts of heredity. This,\nhowever, is not an end, but a means. Some eugenists seem to forget\nthe distinction. Our end is a better race. If then, beyond selecting\nfor parenthood, it be desirable to take care of those selected--as,\nfor instance, to protect the expectant mother from alcohol, lead or\nsyphilis--that is strict eugenics on any definition worth a moment's\nnotice. It then appears, of course, that our demands come into contact\nwith those prejudices which political parties call their principles.\nA given eugenic proposal or argument, for instance, may be stamped\nas \u201cSocialist\u201d or as \u201cIndividualist,\u201d and people who have labelled\ntheir eyes with these catchwords, which eugenics will ere long make\nobsolete, proceed to judge eugenics by them. But the question is not\nwhether a given proposal is socialistic, individualistic or anything\nelse, but whether it is eugenic. If it is eugenic, that is final. To\nthis all parties will come, and by this all parties will be judged.\nThe question is not whether eugenics is, for instance, socialist, but\nwhether socialism is eugenic. I claim for eugenics that it is the final\nand only judge of all proposals and principles, however labelled, new\nor old, orthodox or heterodox. Some years ago I ventured to coin\nthe word eugenist, which is now the accepted term. With that label I\nbelieve any man or woman may well be content. If this be granted, the\nold catchwords and the bias they create forgotten, we may be prepared\nto consider what the scope of eugenics really is.\n\nEugenics is not, for instance, a sub-section of applied mathematics.\nIt is at once a science, and a religion, based upon the laws of life,\nand recognising in them the foundation of society. We shall some day\nhave a eugenic sociology, to which the first part of this volume seeks\nto contribute: and the sociology and politics which have not yet\ndiscovered that man is mortal will go to their own place.\n\nOnly when we begin to think and work continuously at eugenics is its\nrange revealed. The present volume is a mere introduction to the\nprinciples of the subject: the full elucidation of its practice is a\nproblem for generations to come. Nor is it easy to set logical limits\nto our inquiry. We may say that eugenics deals with conceptions: and\nthat the care of the expectant mother is outside its scope: but of what\nuse is it to have a eugenic conception if its product is thereafter\nto be ruined by, for instance, the introduction of lead into the\nmother's organism? Again, the care of the individual is, in part, a\neugenic concern: for if we desire his offspring we desire that he shall\nnot contract transmissible disease nor vitiate his tissues with such\na racial poison as alcohol. Plainly, everything that affects every\npossible parent is a matter of eugenic concern: and not only those\nfactors which affect the choice for parenthood.\n\nIt follows that the second portion of this volume, which deals with the\npractice of eugenics, cannot be more than merely indicative. In the\navailable space it has been attempted to define certain constituents\nof practical eugenics, but in any case the entire ground has not been\nsurveyed. The concept of the _racial poisons_ may be commended to\nspecial consideration. Whether a poison be so-called \u201cchemical,\u201d as\nlead, or made by a living organism, as the poison of syphilis, is of\ngreat practical importance, because of the infection involved in the\nsecond case: but, in principle, both cases belong to the same category.\nSooner or later, eugenists must face the transmissible infections,\nand repudiate as hideous and devilish the so-called morality which\ndiscountenances any attempt to save unborn innocence from a nameless\nfate. He or she who would rather leave this matter is placing\n\u201creligion\u201d or \u201cmorality\u201d or \u201cpolitics\u201d above the welfare of the life\nto come, and therein continuing the daily prostitution of those great\nnames.\n\nAgain, the practice of eugenics may be commended and accepted as the\nbusiness of the patriot: and two chapters have been devoted to the\nquestion as seen from the national point of view. I am of nothing\nmore certain than that the choice for Great Britain to-day is between\nnational eugenics and the fate of all her Imperial predecessors from\nBabylon to Spain. The whole book might have been written from this\nstandpoint, but such a book would have been beneath the true eugenic\nplane, which is not national but human. I believe in the patriotism of\nWilliam Watson, who desires the continuance of his country because, as\nhe addresses her,\n\n    \u201cO England, should'st thou one day fall,\n    .     .     .     .     .     .     .\n    Justice were thenceforth weaker throughout all\n    The world, and truth less passionately free,\n    And God the poorer for thine overthrow.\u201d\n\nThis is a patriotism as splendid and vital as the patriotism of the\nmusic-halls and of the political and journalistic makers of wars is\nfoul and fatal: and it is only in terms of such patriotism that the\nappeal to love of country is permissible in the advocacy of eugenics,\nwhich is a concern for all mankind.\n\nThe prophet of that kind of Imperialism which has destroyed so many\nEmpires, has lately approved the emigration of our best to the\nColonies, on the ground that \u201cit is good to give the second eleven\na chance.\u201d But as students of history know, it is at the heart that\nEmpires rot. The case of Ireland is at present an insoluble one\nbecause the emigration of the worthiest has had full sway. So with the\nagricultural intellect: the \u201cfirst eleven\u201d having gone to the towns.\nRome sent her \u201cfirst eleven\u201d to her Colonies: if you were not good\nenough to be a Roman soldier you could at least remain and be a Roman\nfather: and the children of such fathers perished in the downfall of\nthe Empire which they could no longer sustain. I can imagine no more\nfoolish or disastrous advice than this of Mr. Kipling's, in commending\nthat transportation of the worthiest which, thoroughly enough persisted\nin, must inevitably mean our ruin.\n\nThe national aspect of eugenics suggests its international aspect, and\nits inter-racial aspect. Not having spent six weeks rushing through\nthe United States, I am unfortunately dubious as to the worth of any\nopinions I may possess regarding the most urgent form of this question\nto-day. I mistrust not merely the brilliant students who, unhampered\nby biological knowledge, pierce to the bottom of this question in\nthe course of such a tour, but also the humanitarian bias of those\nwho, like M. Finot, or the distinguished American sociologist, Mr.\nGraham Brooks, would almost have us believe that the negro is mentally\nand morally the equal of the Caucasian. Least of all does one trust\nthe vulgar opinions of the man in the street. Wisdom on this matter\nwaits for the advent of real knowledge. Similarly in the matter of\nCaucasian-Mongolian unions. I question whether any living man knows\nenough to warrant the expression of any decided opinion on this\nsubject. Merely I here recognise miscegenation in general as a problem\nin eugenics, to which increasing attention must yearly be devoted.\nBut it would have been ridiculous to attempt to deal with that great\nsubject here. As for the marriage of cousins, to take the opposite\ncase, I always reply to the question, \u201cShould cousins marry?\u201d that it\ndepends upon the cousins. The good qualities of a good stock, the bad\nqualities of a bad stock, are naturally accentuated by such unions: I\ndoubt whether there is much more to be said about them.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIn the following general study of a subject to which no human affair\nis wholly alien, it has been impossible to deal adequately with the\ngreat question of eugenic education--that is to say, education _as for\nparenthood_. If only to emphasise its overwhelming importance, one\nmust here insist upon the argument. There is, I believe, no greater\nneed for society to-day than to recognise that education must include,\n_must culminate in_, preparation for the supreme duty of parenthood.\nThis involves instruction regarding those bodily functions which exist\nnot for the body nor for the present at all, but for the future life\nof mankind. The exercise of these functions depends upon an instinct\nwhich I have for some time been in the habit of terming the _racial\ninstinct_--a name which at once suggests to us that we are to represent\nthis instinct, to the boy or girl at puberty, not as something the\nsatisfaction of which is an end in itself--that is the false and\ndegrading assertion which will be made by the teachers whom youth will\ncertainly find, if we fail in our duty--but as existing for what is\nimmeasurably higher than any selfish end. Youth must be taught that\nit is for man the self-conscious, \u201cmade with such large discourse,\nlooking before and after,\u201d as Hamlet says, to deal with his instincts\nin terms of their purpose, as no creature but man can do. The boy and\ngirl must learn that the racial instinct exists for the highest of\nends--the continuance and ultimate elevation of the life of mankind.\nIt is a sacred trust for the life of this world to come. We must teach\nour boys what it is to be really \u201cmanly\u201d--the fine word used by the\ntempter of youth when he means \u201cbeast-ly.\u201d To be manly is to be master\nof this instinct. And the \u201chigher education\u201d of our girls, as we must\nteach ourselves, will be lower, not higher, if it does not serve and\nconserve the future mother, both by teaching her how to care for and\nguard her body, which is the temple of life to come, and how afterwards\nto be a right educator of her children. The leading idea upon which one\nwould insist is that the key to any of the right and useful methods\nof eugenic education is to be found in the conception of the racial\ninstinct as existing for parenthood, and to be guarded, reverenced,\neducated for that supreme end. It is for the reader who may be\nresponsible for youth of either sex with this key to solve the problem\non the lines best suited to his or her particular case.\n\nBy the application of mathematical methods to statistics we can\nascertain their real meaning, if they have any. If, as frequently\nhappens, they have none, mathematical analysis is worse than useless.\nMr. Galton is the pioneer of this study, which Professor Karl Pearson\nhas named biometrics. Biometrics is not eugenics, as some have\nsupposed, but is a branch of scientific enquiry which, like genetics,\nobstetrics and many more, contributes to the foundations of eugenics.\nIn the Appendix reference is made to various publications, mostly\ninexpensive, which deal with biometrics. In the text I have availed\nmyself of biometric, genetic and other results impartially. Differences\nof opinion between this school and that of scientific workers are to\nbe regretted by the eugenist; but it is for him to accept and use\nknowledge of eugenic significance no matter by what method it has been\nobtained. Directly he fails to do so he ceases to be a eugenist and\nbecomes the ordinary partisan. No reference is made in the following\npages, for instance, to the _law of ancestral inheritance_, formulated\nby the Master to whom the volume is dedicated and of whom all eugenists\nare the followers. I believe that law, despite its beauty, to be\nwithout basis in fact and incompatible with demonstrated Mendelian\nphenomena: and though the book is dedicated to Mr. Galton, it is more\ndeeply dedicated to the Future. This, indeed, is the _Credo_ of the\neugenist: _Expecto resurrectionem mortuorum, et vitam venturi saeculi._\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWoman is Nature's supreme instrument of the future. The eugenist is\ntherefore deeply concerned with her education, her psychology, the\nconditions which permit her to exercise her great natural function\nof choosing the fathers of the future, the age at which she should\nmarry, and the compatibility between the discharge of her incomparable\nfunction of motherhood and the lesser functions which some women now\nassume. Obstetrics, and the modern physiology and psychology of sex,\nmust thus be harnessed to the service of eugenics, and I hope to employ\nthem for the elucidation, in a future volume, of the problems of woman\nand womanhood, thus regarded.\n\n\n\n\n                                CONTENTS\n\n\n                                 PART I\n\n                         THE THEORY OF EUGENICS\n\n   CHAPTER                                                      PAGE\n    1.  Introductory                                               1\n    2.  The Exchequer of Life                                     17\n    3.  Natural Selection and the Law of Love                     35\n    4.  The Selection of Mind                                     52\n    5.  The Multiplication of Man                                 71\n    6.  The Growth of Individuality                               86\n    7.  Heredity and Race-Culture                                 99\n    8.  Education and Race-Culture                               120\n    9.  The Supremacy of Motherhood                              145\n   10.  Marriage and Maternalism                                 160\n\n\n                                PART II\n\n                        THE PRACTICE OF EUGENICS\n\n   11.  Negative Eugenics                                        171\n   12.  Selection through Marriage                               184\n   13.  The Racial Poisons: Alcohol                              205\n   14.  The Racial Poisons: Lead, Narcotics, Syphilis            246\n   15.  National Eugenics: Race-Culture and History              254\n   16.  National Eugenics: Mr. Balfour on Decadence              279\n   17.  The Promise of Race-Culture                              287\n\n   APPENDIX Concerning Books to Read                             305\n\n   INDEX                                                         321\n\n\n\n\n                      PARENTHOOD AND RACE CULTURE\n\n\n\n\n                    PART I.--THE THEORY OF EUGENICS\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER I\n\n                              INTRODUCTORY\n\n                    \u201cA little child shall lead them\u201d\n\n\nThis book will be mere foolishness to those who repeat the inhuman and\nanimal cry that we have to take the world as we find it--the motto of\nthe impotent, the forgotten, the cowardly and selfish, or the merely\nvegetable, in all ages. The capital fact of man, as distinguished\nfrom the lower animals and from plants, is that he does not have to\ntake the world as he finds it, that he does not merely adapt himself\nto his environment, but that he himself is a creator of his world. If\nour ancestors had taken and left the world as they found it, we should\nbe little more than erected monkeys to-day. For none who accept the\nhopeless dogma is this book written. They are welcome to take and leave\nthe world as they find it; they are of no consequence to the world; and\ntheir existence is of interest only in so far as it is another instance\nof that amazing wastefulness of Nature in her generations, with which\nthis book will be so largely concerned.\n\nBeginning, perhaps, some six million years ago, the fact which we call\nhuman life has persisted hitherto, and shows no signs of exhaustion,\nmuch less impending extinction, being indeed more abundant numerically\nand more dominant over other forms of life and over the inanimate\nworld to-day than ever before. It is a continuous phenomenon. The\nlife of every blood corpuscle or skin cell of every human being now\nalive is absolutely continuous with that of the living cells of the\nfirst human beings--if not, indeed, as most biologists appear to\nbelieve, of the first life upon the earth. Yet this continuous life\nhas been and apparently always must be lived in a tissue of amazing\ndiscontinuity--amazing, at least, to those who can see the wonderful in\nthe commonplace. For though the world-phenomenon which we call Man has\nbeen so long continuous, and is at this moment perhaps as much modified\nby the total past as if it were really a single undying individual,\nyet only a few decades ago, a mere second in the history of the earth,\nno human being now alive was in existence. \u201cAs for man, his days are\nas grass: as a flower of the field, so he flourisheth. For the wind\npasseth over it, and it is gone; and the place thereof shall know it\nno more.\u201d Indeed, not merely are we individually as grass, but in a\nfew years the hand that writes these words, and the tissues of eye\nand brain whereby they are perceived, will actually _be_ grass. Here,\nthen, is the colossal paradox: absolute and literal continuity of life,\nevery cell from a preceding cell throughout the ages--_omnis cellula e\ncellula_; yet three times in every century the living and only wealth\nof nations is reduced to dust, and is raised up again from helpless\ninfancy. Where else is such catastrophic continuity?\n\nEach individual enters the world in a fashion the dramatic and\nsensational character of which can be realised by none who have not\nwitnessed it; and in a few years the individual dies, scarcely less\ndramatically as a rule, and sometimes more so. This continuous and\napparently invincible thing, human life, which began so humbly and to\nthe sound of no trumpets, in Southern Asia or the neighbourhood of the\nCaspian Sea, but which has never looked back since its birth, and\nis now the dominant fact of what might well be an astonished earth,\ndepends in every age and from moment to moment upon here a baby, there\na baby and there yet another; these curious little objects being of all\nliving things, animal or vegetable, young or old, large or small, the\nmost utterly helpless and incompetent, incapable even of finding for\nthemselves the breasts that were made for them. If but one of all the\n\u201chungry generations\u201d that have preceded us had failed to secure the\ncare and love of its predecessor, the curtain would have come down and\na not unpromising though hitherto sufficiently grotesque drama would\nhave been ended for ever.\n\nThis discontinuity it is which persuades many of us to conceive\nhuman life to be not so much a mighty maze without a plan, as a mere\nstringing of beads on an endless cord of which one end arose in Mother\nEarth, whilst the other may come at any time--but goes nowhere. The\nbeads, which we call generations, vary in size and colour, no doubt,\nbut on no system; each one makes a fresh start; the average difference\nbetween them is merely one of position; and the result is merely to\nmake the string longer. Or the generations might be conceived as the\nlinks of an indeterminate chain, necessarily held to each other:\nbut suggesting not at all the idea of a living process such that\nits every step is fraught with eternal consequence. In a word, we\nincline to think that History merely goes on repeating itself, and we\nhave to learn that History never repeats itself. Every generation is\nepoch-making.\n\nIt is thus to the conception of parenthood as the vital and organic\nlink of life that we are forced: and the whole of this book is\nreally concerned with parenthood. We shall see, in due course, that\nno generation, whether of men or animals or plants, determines or\nprovides, as a whole, the future of the race. Only a percentage, as\na rule a very small percentage indeed, of any species reach maturity,\nand fewer still become parents. Amongst ourselves, one-tenth of any\ngeneration gives birth to one-half the next. These it is who, in the\nlong run, make History: a Kant or a Spencer, dying childless, may\nleave what we call immortal works; but unless the parents of each new\ngeneration are rightly chosen or \u201cselected\u201d--to use the technical\nword--a new generation may at any time arise to whom the greatest\nachievements of the past are nothing. The newcomers will be as swine\nto these pearls, the immortality of which is always conditional upon\nthe capacity of those who come after to appreciate them. There is\nhere expressed the distinction between two kinds of progress: the\ntraditional progress which is dependent upon transmitted achievement,\nbut in its turn is dependent upon racial progress--this last being the\nkind of progress of which the history of pre-human life upon the planet\nis so largely the record and of which mankind is the finest fruit\nhitherto.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIt is possible that a concrete case, common enough, and thus the more\nsignificant, may appeal to the reader, and help us to realise afresh\nthe conditions under which human life actually persists.\n\nForced inside a motor-omnibus one evening, for lack of room outside,\nI found myself opposite a woman, poorly-clothed, with a wedding-ring\nupon her finger and a baby in her arms. The child was covered with a\nblack shawl and its face could not be seen. It was evidently asleep.\nIt should have been in its cot at that hour. The mother's face roused\nfeelings which a sonnet of Wordsworth's might have expressed, or a\npainting by some artist with a soul, a Rembrandt or a Watts, such as\nwe may look for in vain amongst the be-lettered to-day. Here was the\nspectacle of mother and child, which all the great historic religions,\nfrom Buddhism to Christianity, have rightly worshipped; the spectacle\nwhich more nearly symbolises the sublime than any other upon which the\neye of a man, himself once such a child, can rest; the spectacle which\nalone epitomises the life of mankind and the unalterable conditions of\nall human life and all human societies, reminding us at once of our\nindividual mortality, and the immortality of our race--\n\n      \u201cWhile we, the brave, the mighty and the wise,\n    We Men, who in our morn of youth defied\n    The Elements, must vanish;--be it so!\n      Enough, if something from our hands have power\n      To live, and act, and serve the future hour:\u201d\n\n--the spectacle which alone, if any can, may reconcile us to death;\nthe spectacle of that which alone can sanctify the love of the sexes;\nthe spectacle of motherhood in being, the supreme duty and supreme\nprivilege of womanhood--\u201ca mother is a mother still, the holiest thing\nalive.\u201d\n\nThis woman, utterly unconscious of the dignity of her attitude and of\nthe contrast between herself and the imitation of a woman, elegantly\nclothed, who sat next her, giving her not a thought nor a glance, nor\nyet room for the elbow bent in its divine office, was probably some\nthirty-two or three years old, as time is measured by the revolutions\nof the earth around the sun. Measured by some more relevant gauge,\nshe was evidently aged, her face grey and drawn, desperately tired,\nyet placid--not with due exultation but with the calm of one who has\nno hope. She was too weary to draw the child to her bosom, and her\narms lay upon her knees; but instead she bent her body downwards to\nher baby. She looked straight out in front of her, not at me nor at\nthe passing phantasms beyond, but at nothing. The eyes were open but\nthey were too tired to see. The face had no beauty of feature nor of\ncolour nor of intelligence, but it was wholly beautiful, made so by\nmotherhood; and I think she must have held some faith. The tint of her\nskin and of her eyeballs spoke of the impoverishment of her blood, her\nneed of sleep and rest and ease of mind. She will probably be killed\nby consumption within five years and will certainly never hold a\ngrand-child in her arms. The pathologist may lay this crime at the door\nof the tubercle bacillus; but a prophet would lay it at the reader's\ndoor and mine.\n\nWhile we read and write, play at politics or ping-pong, this woman\nand myriads like her are doing the essential work of the world. _The\nworm waits for us as well as for her and them: and in a few years her\nchildren and theirs will be Mankind._ We need a prophet to cry aloud\nand spare not; to tell us that if this is the fate of mothers in the\nranks which supply the overwhelming proportion of our children, our\nnation may number Shakespeare and Newton amongst the glories of its\npast, and the lands of ancient empires amongst its present possessions,\nbut it can have no future; that if, worshipping what it is pleased to\ncall success, it has no tears nor even eyes for such failures as these,\nit may walk in the ways of its insensible heart and in the sight of\nits blind eyes, yet it is walking not in its sleep but in its death,\nis already doomed and damned almost past recall; and that, if it is to\nbe saved, there will avail not \u201cbroadening the basis of taxation,\u201d nor\nteaching in churches the worship of the Holy Mother and Holy Child,\nwhilst Motherhood is blasphemed at their very doors, but this and this\nonly--the establishment, not in statutes but in the consciences of men\nand women, of a true religion based upon these perdurable and evident\ndogmas--that all human life is holy, all mothers and all children,\nthat history is made in the nursery, that the individual dies, that\ntherefore children determine the destinies of all civilisations, that\nthe race or society which succeeds with its mammoth ships and its\nmanufactures but fails to produce men and women, is on the brink of\nirretrievable doom; that the body of man is an animal, endowed with\nthe inherited animal instincts necessary for self-preservation and the\nperpetuation of the race, but that, if the possession of this body by a\nconscious spirit, \u201clooking before and after,\u201d is anything more than a\n\u201csport\u201d of the evolutionary forces, it demands that, the blind animal\ninstincts notwithstanding, the desecration of motherhood, the perennial\nslaughter and injury of children, the casual unconsidered birth of\nchildren for whom there is no room or light or air or food, and of\nchildren whose inheritance condemns them to misery, insanity or crime,\nmust cease; and that the recurrent drama of human love and struggle\nreaches its happy ending not when the protagonists are married, but\nwhen they join hands over a little child that promises to be a worthy\nheir of all the ages. This religion must teach that the spectacle of a\nprematurely aged and weary and hopeless mother, which he who runs or\nrides may see, produced by our rude foreshadowings of civilisation, is\nan affront to all honest and thoughtful eyes: that where there are no\nmothers, such as mothers should be, the people will assuredly perish,\nthough everything they touch should turn to gold, though science and\nart and philosophy should flourish as never before. I believe that\nhistory, rightly read, teaches these tremendous lessons.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIn our own day the bounds of imagination are undoubtedly widening.\nMeans of communication, the press, the camera, the decadence of\nobsolete dogmas, making room for the simple daily truths of morality\nwhich have \u201cthe dignity of dateless age\u201d and are too hard for the teeth\nof time--these account in large measure for the fact that the happier\nhalf of the world is at last beginning to realise how the other half\nlives. There is perhaps more divine discontent with things as they are\nthan ever heretofore: this being due, as has been suggested, perhaps\nas much to the modern aids of imagination as to any inherent increase\nof sympathy. Science, too, in the form of sociology and economics,\nadds warrant to the demand for some radical reform of the conditions\nof life. It teaches that all forms of life are interdependent; that\nsociety is thus an organism in more than merely loose analogy; that\nthe classes pay abundantly for the state of the masses: whilst\nmedicine teaches that the tuberculosis, for instance, which slays\nso many members of the middle and upper classes, is bred by and in\nthe overcrowding of the lower classes, this and many other diseases\npromising to resist all measures less radical than the abolition of\nhalf our current social practice.\n\nHence it is that we hear so much of social reform; and the promises of\nrepresentatives of many political -isms jostle one another at the gates\nof our ears. The Anarchist at one extreme, and the Collectivist at the\nother, with the Individualist and the Socialist somewhere between,\noffer their panaceas. To me, I confess, they seem little better than\nthe scholastic metaphysicians of old days, like them mistaking words\nfor things, incapable of understanding each other, evading precise\ndefinition and using terms which never mean the same thing twice as\nmissiles and weapons of abuse: and, above all, mistaking means for ends.\n\nBut the leading error common to them all, as I seem to see it, is their\nconception of society as a stable thing--a piece of machinery which\nmust be properly \u201cassembled,\u201d as the engineers say; forgetful of the\nextraordinary discontinuity which inheres in the swift-approaching\ndeath of all its parts, and their replacement by helpless immaturity.\nThe first fact of society really is that all its individuals are\nmortal. This we all know, but I question whether even Herbert Spencer\nfully reckoned with it; and certainly the common run of social\nspeculators have not begun to realise what it means. Human life is\nmade up of generations, and the key to all progress lies in the nature\nof the relation between one generation and another. Spencer records\nthe case of an Oxford graduate, desirous to be his secretary, who did\nnot know that the population of Great Britain is increasing. Here is\na capital present fact of the--merely quantitative--relation between\nsuccessive generations. So far as any influence on their theory or\npractice is concerned, it is still unknown to nearly all our advisers.\nYet this fact of the ceaseless multiplication of man, which has\ndistinguished him from the first, and is absolutely peculiar to him of\nall living species, animal or vegetable, as Sir E. Ray Lankester has\nlately pointed out, is the source of the major facts of history and the\nbesetting condition of every social problem that can be named at this\nhour.\n\nThe professional and dedicated teachers of morality seem to be in\nlittle better case. They believe in babies, perhaps, as the prime\nand only really valid source of the weal and wealth and strength of\nnations, and as the great moralisers and humanisers of the generation\nthat gives them birth. They are beginning to join in that public outcry\nagainst infant mortality which will yet abolish this abominable stain\nupon our time. But they are lamentably uninformed. They do not know,\nfor instance, that a high infant mortality habitually goes with a high\nbirth-rate, not only in human society but in all living species; and\nthey have yet to appreciate the proposition which I have so often\nadvanced and which, to me at any rate, seems absolutely self-evident,\nthat until we have learnt how to keep alive all the healthy babies\nnow born--that is to say, not less than ninety per cent. of all, the\nbabies in the slums included--it is monstrous to cry for more, _to\nbe similarly slain_. These bewailings about our mercifully falling\nbirth-rate, uncoupled with any attention to the slaughter of the\nchildren actually born, are pitiable in their blindness and would be\nlamentable if they had any effect--of which there is fortunately no\nsign whatever, but indeed the contrary.\n\nHumanitarian sentiment, also, is terribly misguided. \u201cWhy always the\nbenefit of the future, has the present no claim upon us?\u201d I have been\nasked. Assuredly all sentient life, and therefore pre-eminently all\nhuman life, in which sentiency is so incommensurably intensified by\nself-consciousness, the power of \u201clooking before and after,\u201d has a\nclaim upon us: but the question could have been asked by no one whose\nimagination had been worthily employed. Our posterity will in due\ncourse be as actual and present as we, their deeds and sufferings and\nhopes as actual and present as ours. They outnumber us as the ocean\noutweighs a raindrop; to avert evil from one of them is as much as to\nrelieve evil in one of us,--how much more to prevent the misery of five\nin the next generation, fifty in the next and unnumbered hosts beyond?\nTo serve the future of the race is not to benefit a fiction: the men\nand women of a hundred and a thousand years hence will be as real\nas we. And to serve the future is to put out our talent at compound\ninterest a thousand-fold compounded. The weak imagination would rather\nbuild a sanatorium for consumptives and see it filled with grateful\npatients. This is a palpable, sensible good, for which the meanest\nvisual faculty suffices: but the strong imagination would rather open\nthe closed windows of nurseries or work at the mechanical problems\nof ventilation, aye, or even at the structure of the bacteriological\nmicroscope--finding the spectacle, in the mind's eye, of healthy men\nand women fifty years hence as grateful and as real a reward as the\nsight of a sanatorium in the present. The pace of progress will be\nincalculably hastened when men, whether workers or bequeathers or\nadministrators, enlarge their imaginations so as to perceive that the\nfuture will be, and therefore indeed is, as real as the present.[1] I\nappeal to the reason of the kind-hearted reader. Would you rather make\none man or child happy now, or two or a thousand a century hence?\n\nIt is, in a word, the idea of continuous causation or evolution that\nexplains the remarkable contrast between our outlook on the future and\nour fathers'. In older--that is to say, younger--days, men's interest\nin posterity was most na\u00efvely and quaintly selfish. If they raised a\nmonument or did any piece of work which obviously would endure beyond\nthe span of their own lives, their chief motive seems to have been\nthat we should think well of them, nor forget how well they thought\nof themselves. They were not concerned with us, but with our opinion\nof them. They were anxious about the verdict of posterity; and the\nverdict is that they little realised their responsibility for us,\nor betrayed it if they did. There is also the frank attitude of Sir\nBoyle Roche's famous bull, \u201cWhat has posterity done for us?\u201d This is\na quite familiar and conspicuous sentiment--as familiar as any other\nform of selfishness: but it is as if a father should say, \u201cWhat have\nmy children done for me?\u201d and is open to the same condemnation. We\nare assuredly responsible for posterity as any parent for any child.\nBefore the nineteenth century this fact could be realised by very few.\nTo-day, when the truth of organic evolution is a commonplace, and when\nthe plasticity of the forces of evolution is slowly becoming realised,\nwe must face our tremendous responsibility and privilege in a spirit\nworthy of those to whom such mighty truths have been revealed.\n\nParenthood and birth--in these the whole is summed. At the mercy of\nthese are all past discovery, all past achievement in art or science,\nin action or in thought. The human species, secure though it be, is\nonly a race after all; only a sequence of runners who _quasi cursores,\nvita\u00ef lampada tradunt_--like runners, hand on the lamp of life, as\nLucretius said. This it is which, to the thoughtful observer, makes\neach birth such an overwhelming event. It is a great event for the\nmother and the father, but how much greater if its consequences be\nonly half realised. Education in its full sense, \u201cthe provision of an\nenvironment,\u201d as I would define it, is a mighty and necessary force,\nfor nothing but potentiality is given at birth: but no education, no\ninfluence of traditional progress, can avail, unless the potentialities\nwhich these must unfold are worthy. The baby comes tumbling headlong\ninto the world. The fate of all the to-morrows depends upon it.\nHitherto its happening has depended upon factors animal and casual\nenough, utterly improvident, concerned but rarely with this tremendous\nconsequence. Fate may be mistress, but she works only too often by\nChance, as Goethe remarked. Fate and Chance hitherto have never\nfailed to keep up the supply which the death of the individual makes\nimperative: and forces have been at work determining for progress,\nto some extent, but most imperfectly, the parentage of these headlong\nbabies. Yet the human intelligence cannot remain satisfied with their\nworking--and much less so when it realises how they can be controlled,\nhow effectively, and to what high ends. The physician may and must\nconcern himself, on these occasions, with the immediate needs of the\nmother and the child, and when these are satisfied he may feel that\nhis duty has been done; but, as he journeys homewards, he must surely\nreflect--that this astonishing thing, then, has happened again, as\nindeed it has happened many times this very day; that whilst this baby\nis to become an individual man or woman, an end in himself or herself,\nin its young loins and in those of its like are the hosts of all the\nunborn who are yet to be. If, then, these babies differ widely from\neach other, as they do; if these differences are, on the whole, capable\nof prediction in terms of heredity; if the future state of mankind is\ninvolved in these differences, which will in their turn be transmitted\nto the children of such as themselves become parents; and if this\nbusiness of parenthood will be confined to only a _small_ proportion\nof these babies, _of whom one-half will never reach puberty_; if\nthese things be so, as they are, cannot these babies be chosen in\nanticipation, there being thus effected an enormous vital economy,\nNature being commanded to the highest ends by the only method, which\nis to obey her, as Bacon said; and the human intelligence thus making\nits supreme achievement--the ethical direction and vast acceleration of\nracial progress? What man can do for animals and plants, can he not do\nfor himself? Give imagination its fleetest and strongest wing, it can\nnever conceive a task so worth the doing.\n\nThis, and this alone, is what requires to be brought home to the\ngeneral reader and the reformer alike. Says Mr. H. G. Wells: \u201cIt seemed\nto me then that to prevent the multiplication of people below a certain\nstandard, and to encourage the multiplication of exceptionally superior\npeople, was the only real and permanent way of mending the ills of the\nworld. I think that still.\u201d And then, in a few sketchy pages, Mr. Wells\ndiscredits, as with one glance of great eyes, the very proposal which\nhe thinks to be the only real and permanent way of mending the ills\nof the world. Not one man in thousands has got so far as to hold this\nopinion; and it is the more lamentable that Mr. Wells, having reached\nit, should hold it in the loose, formal, and inoperative fashion in\nwhich the man in the street or the woman in the pew holds the dogmas of\northodox theology. We need to educate public opinion--that \u201cchaos of\nprejudices\u201d--up to Mr. Wells' standard, and then we need to accomplish\nthe much harder task of converting a mere intellectual speculation into\na living belief.\n\nBut so surely as this belief, the crowning and practical conclusion\nto which all the teachings of modern biology converge, comes to life\nin men's minds, so surely the difficulties will be met, not only on\npaper but also in practice. \u201cWhere there's a will there's a way.\u201d\nMeanwhile men are content to work at the impermanent, if not indeed\nat measures which directly war against the selection of the best for\nparenthood: they do not realise the stern necessity of obeying Nature\nin this respect--for it is Her selection of parents that alone has\nraised us from the beast and the worm--and since necessity alone,\nwhether inner or outer, whether of character or circumstance, is the\nmother of invention, they fail to find the methods by which our ideal\ncan be carried out. There is nothing, either in the character of\nthe individual man and woman, or in the structure of society, that\nmakes the ideal of race-culture impossible to-day: nor must action\nwait for further knowledge of heredity. Little though we surely know\nso far, we have abundance of assured knowledge for immediate action\nin many directions--knowledge which is agreed upon by Lamarckians\nand neo-Lamarckians, Darwinians and Weismannians, Mendelians and\nbiometricians alike. All of these agree, for instance, as to the\nfact that the insane tendency is transmissible and is transmitted by\nheredity. We need only public opinion to say, \u201cThen most surely those\nwho have such a tendency must forgo parenthood.\u201d\n\nFor it is public opinion that governs the world. If it were, as it will\nbe one day--which may these pages hasten--an elementary and radical\ntruth, as familiar and as cogent to all, man in the House or man in\nthe public-house, as the fact of the earth's gravitation--that racial\nmaintenance, much more racial progress, depends absolutely upon the\nselection of parents; if the establishment of this selective process in\nthe best and widest manner were the admitted goal of all legislation\nand all social and political speculation--who can question that the\nthing would be practicable and indeed easy? Without the formation of\npublic opinion this is as hopelessly Utopian and inaccessible an ideal\nas words ever framed; public opinion once formed, nothing could be more\npalpably feasible. Hence Mr. Galton's wisdom in demanding that, before\nwe dictate courses of procedure, and even before we can expect profit\nfrom scientific investigation, whether by the biometric method of which\nhe is the founder, or by any other, _public opinion must be formed_;\nthat the idea of eugenics or good-breeding must be instilled into the\nconscience of civilisation like a new religion--a religion of the most\nlofty and austere, because the most unselfish, morality, a religion\nwhich sets before it a sublime ideal, terrestrial indeed in its chosen\ntheatre, but celestial in its theme, human in its means, but literally\nsuperhuman in its goal. If the intrinsic ennoblement of mankind does\nnot answer to this eulogy, where is the ideal that does?\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER II\n\n                         THE EXCHEQUER OF LIFE\n\n  \u201cThis last lustrum has enabled us to make an astounding discovery,\n  of which neither Adam Smith nor Cobden nor Malthus dreamed--that\n  a nation is composed not of property nor of provinces, but of\n  men.\u201d--Tille (1904), quoted by Forel.\n\n\nThe main thesis which the last chapter was intended to introduce is, in\nthe words of Ruskin, simply this: \u201cThere is no wealth but life.\u201d The\nassumption throughout this book is that Ruskin is the real founder of\npolitical economy, he first of moderns having seen this supreme truth.\n\nWe speak of a nation's possessions, but possessions imply a possessor\nor possessors. Wealth, as Ruskin teaches us, is \u201cthe possession of the\nvaluable by the valiant.\u201d If our national possessions were made over\nto a race of monkeys, \u201cthey being inherently and eternally incapable\nof wealth,\u201d what would they be worth? Furthermore, to possess and to\nbe possessed by, are totally diverse things. Says Ruskin, \u201cLately in\na wreck of a Californian ship, one of the passengers fastened a belt\nabout him with two hundred pounds of gold in it, with which he was\nfound afterwards at the bottom. Now, as he was sinking--had he the gold\nor had the gold him?\u201d\n\n=Vital economics.=--We have already alluded to the unique property\nof mankind in virtue of which the radical character of the essential\nwealth, which is life, has only too commonly been forgotten. In the\ncase of any animal or vegetable species we should have no difficulty,\nif asked regarding its \u201csuccess\u201d and \u201cprospects,\u201d in directing our\nenquiry to essentials. We should examine the individuals of that\nspecies, young and old, its death-rate and its birth-rate, and these\nwould supply us with the answer. In the case of man there is the almost\nincalculable complication involved in the fact that he is capable of\nmaking external acquirements,--material possessions and spiritual\npossessions which, so long as he remains capable of possessing them,\nare of real value, and, on account of what they mean for life, are a\ntrue though secondary wealth. Amongst civilised mankind, therefore, the\nessential question as to the breed of men and women is obscured by the\nsecondary question as to their traditional or transmitted possessions\nor external acquirements. But if we remember the case of the drowning\nman and his gold we shall realise that, fundamentally, the case is the\nsame for the human as for any other species. No one can openly question\nthis, but not one publicist or politician in a thousand believes it in\nany living sense. The true function of government, said Ruskin, is the\nproduction and recognition of human worth. This has only to be said to\nbe admitted; it is one of the thoughts that shine, as Joubert says. No\none denies it and no one acts upon it.\n\nIn this sense such a phrase as the National Exchequer begins to take on\na new meaning, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer loses every whit of\nhis importance, except in so far as his proceedings tend towards, or\naway from, the production and recognition of human worth. He plays with\nmoney, whereas the Chancellor of the real Exchequer would work for life.\n\n=The facts of childhood to-day.=--But since human life is\ndiscontinuous, since three times in a century the essential wealth of\nnations is reduced to dust, and raised again from helpless infancy,\nour urgent business is with the children of the nation. What, then, in\ngeneral, are the facts of the National Exchequer thus conceived?\n\nWe find that, so far as ordinary physical health is concerned,\nthe majority of human babies--including, for instance, so-called\nAnglo-Saxon babies--are physically healthy at birth. On the other hand,\na certain proportion are as definitely and obviously unhealthy at the\nvery start as the more fortunate majority are healthy. If certain\ninfluences, such as alcohol and _some few_ diseases, have been in\noperation, the babies may be already doomed--not national wealth, but\nnational _illth_. In the absence of these pernicious factors, there is,\non the whole, _physical_ fitness. The ratio is perhaps as ninety to ten\nper cent.\n\nHere then, is, on the whole, a ceaseless supply of essential wealth;\nphysically, at any rate, of good enough quality. As every one knows, or\nshould know, the greater part of it we immediately proceed to deface\nand destroy. Our mouths are full of argument concerning the principles\nof what we are pleased to conceive as political economy. The principles\nof vital economy we do not enquire into but outrage and defy at every\nturn. So horribly and wastefully are we misguided that in point of\nfact we actually destroy altogether the greater number, not of all\nthe children merely, but even of the fit and healthy children; and\nit may forcibly be argued that, before any one proceeds to attempt\nany choice amongst the children, as to which shall in their turn\nbecome parents and which shall not, it would be well, apart from any\nquestion of discrimination, to revise radically the methods which at\npresent permit this wholesale destruction. Whilst we kill outright\nby hundreds of thousands every year, we damage for life far more,\nincluding a very large proportion of those who, as things at present\nare, will in their turn become the parents who alone are the makers\nof the real wealth of nations. If this destructive process had the\neffect which common notions of heredity would lead us to expect, then\nmost certainly not merely would Britain, for instance, be doomed, but\nthe very name would long ago have become \u201cone with Nineveh and Tyre.\u201d\nBut though this destructive process (which it is best to describe as\nresulting in deterioration rather than degeneration) has been long\ncontinued, and though, in consequence of the great economic changes of\nlast century and the rush into the cities with their over-crowding,\nit is perhaps more disastrous now than ever before: _yet_ it remains\ntrue that most of the babies born in the slums are splendid little\nspecimens of humanity--so far as physique is concerned--bearing no\nmarks of degeneration to correspond with the deterioration of their\nparents. In a word, heredity works--the racial poisons apart, as we\nshall see--so that each generation gets a fresh start. _If there be no\nprocess of selection_, each new generation begins where its predecessor\nbegan and is as a whole neither worse nor better, whether physically or\npsychically.\n\n=Eugenics and infant mortality.=--In the face of the foregoing, which\nmerely outlines the appalling indictment that ought to be framed\nagainst civilisation for its treatment of its children, it is evidently\nincumbent upon us to answer the objector who should say that the\nwhole purpose and argument of our present enquiry is premature, and\nthat surely our first business should be not to propose any novel and\nrevolutionary doctrine as to the choice of parents and of children, but\nrather to stop this child slaughter and child damage--in other words,\nthat we should devote ourselves rather, not to providing children\nwith a good heredity, but to providing them with a good environment,\nit being only too demonstrable that the environment we at present\nprovide for the great majority of them is deadly and abominable in the\nextreme. This argument is all the stronger because most of the children\nare admittedly fit physically at birth. It would seem as if there were\nlittle to complain of in their heredity, whilst there is certainly\nalmost everything to complain of in their environment.\n\nIf this objection is to be met at all, we must be most careful and\nserious in our going. Whatever conclusions we come to we must at any\nrate be sure that we do not impugn or deny the instant, immediate and\nconstant law of love which declares that there can be no adequate ideal\nshort of doing our best for all children, once they are born--nay,\nmore, from the very moment, months before, at which their individual\nhistory starts. Whoso suggests that, as a present and immediate\npolicy, it is not right to care for all children, healthy or diseased,\nwelcome or unwelcome, nurseried in Park Lane or in the slums, may have\nplausible and even so-called eugenic arguments on his side, but his\nproposal is essentially immoral and therefore essentially false. For\nall children actually in being--whether they await or have passed the\nparticular moment of birth--it is our duty, ideal and real, to do our\nutmost. The believer in the principle of race-culture or eugenics--whom\nI shall hereafter, as for some years past, call the eugenist--may\nbelieve that it would have been better had some of these children never\nbeen born; he may believe that, in the present unorganised state of\nsociety, in the present dethroned state of motherhood, it were vastly\nbetter had many even of the healthy majority never been born. He may\nbe convinced that, since so many of them will certainly die, failing\nour feeble efforts to save childhood, their birth is a misfortune: but\non no terms and for no objects whatever does, or can, the eugenist\npropose that any of these children, even though from the moment of\nbirth they be riddled with disease, should be allowed to die. Though\nsome will say that the keeping alive of diseased children, or even of\nmany children at first healthy, is a disaster, I maintain that no such\nquestion of choice, selection or discrimination can find any warrant\nin any form of morality--eugenic or other--from the moment at which\nthe child in question began its individual existence. Those of us who\nadvocate the eugenic idea must be perpetually on our guard against the\ninsidious alliance of any who, agreeing with our premises, declare\nthat it is a mistake, for instance, to prosecute a campaign against\ninfant mortality. I myself have had a share--by a continuous propaganda\nstarted in 1902--in making this last a publicly recognised question,\nwhilst, on the other hand, I have done my best to popularise the idea\nof eugenics. Let me repeat here what I have already said elsewhere:\nthat I strenuously repudiate any suggestion that the eugenic end is\nlegitimately or effectively to be served by permitting the infant\nmortality to continue. The distinguished Egyptologist, Professor\nFlinders Petrie, in his recent book _Janus in Modern Life_, describes\nas follows the results of the present crusade against infant mortality,\nas he conceives them:--\u201cWe must agree that it would be of the lower or\nlowest type of careless, thriftless, dirty, and incapable families that\nthe increase [of surviving children] would be obtained. Is it worth\nwhile to dilute our increase of population by ten per cent. more of the\nmost inferior kind? Will England be stronger for having one-thirtieth\nmore, and that of the worst stock, added to the population every year?\nThis movement is doing away with one of the few remains of natural\nweeding out of the unfit that our civilisation has left to us. And it\nwill certainly cause more misery than happiness in the course of a\ncentury.\u201d\n\nHere, plainly, is a serious argument. We are bound to sympathise with\nits underlying assumption, viz., that not all babies are such as we\ncan desire to carry on the race. Still more must we sympathise with\nany author whatever who has imagination and foresight enough to write\nanywhere, on any subject, wrongly or rightly, such a sentence as \u201cand\nit will certainly cause more misery than happiness in the course of\na century.\u201d We need more such authors. But without going into the\nwhole argument here--as, for instance, regarding the singular use of\nthe word \u201cnatural\u201d--I do most entirely deny the right of the eugenic\nidea to any voice or place as to the fate of children _once they have\ncome into being_. Another writer, arguing on the same lines, says _\u00e0\npropos_ of the abolition of infant mortality: \u201cThis last change which,\nas the Huddersfield experiment shows, is easy of accomplishment, is\nlikely to be completely effected in the next few years, and we shall\nthen have abolished the one factor which in any important degree at\npresent tends to redress the balance between the rates of reproduction\nof the superior and the inferior classes.\u201d These are the words of\nDr. W. McDougall, the distinguished psychologist. Dr. McDougall has\nsubsequently shown that he repudiates the apparent deduction from them,\nand entirely approves of the present campaign of mercy to childhood.\nNevertheless, these arguments, plainly derived from the principle\nof natural selection, do express a most important truth--viz., that\nindiscriminate survival must lead to racial decadence, whether in man,\nmicrobe or moss. I submit that the difficulty can be solved only by the\neugenic principle.\n\nThe fittest must become parents, and the unfit[2] must not; then kill\nthe unfit, says Nature. And this indeed, in all living species other\nthan man, is what Nature does. But \u201cthou shalt not kill,\u201d says the\nmoral law--not even the unfit. As the foregoing will have shown, some\nthinkers to-day propose to avail themselves in this dilemma of the \u201cNew\nDecalogue\u201d:--\n\n    \u201cThou shalt not kill but need'st not strive\n    Officiously to keep alive.\u201d\n\nThis is no solution of the problem. There is only one solution, and\nthat is the eugenic solution. Nature can preserve a race only by\ndestroying the unfit. We who are intelligent must preserve and elevate\nthe race by preventing the unfit from ever coming into existence at\nall. We must replace Nature's selective death-rate by a selective\nbirth-rate. This is merciful and supremely moral; it means vast economy\nin life and money and time and suffering; it is natural at bottom, but\nit is Nature raised to her highest power in that almost supra-natural\nfact--the moral intelligence of man.\n\n=The dilemma defined.=--The moral law, and our natural human sympathy,\ninsist that we should seek to preserve all the children that come into\nthe world, to amplify the health of the healthy, and to neutralise,\nas far as possible, the unfitness of the unfit. A mother brings her\nmalformed baby to the surgeon, and he does his best to patch up the\ngaps left by the imperfect processes of development. Otherwise the\nbaby will die. Who dares look that mother in the face and say \u201cAh,\nbut it is better for the race that your child should die!\u201d Such a\ndoctrine, I submit, blasphemes our humanity; it is intolerable to\nany decent person who will pause to think what it means: and yet,\nin so saying, we seem to defy Nature with her imperative law of the\nsurvival of the fittest only. Pre-eugenic writers on evolution state\nthe case in all its hardness. Dr. Archdall Reid says that \u201cIf we\nwish to improve the individual, we must attend to his acquirements by\nproviding proper shelter, food, and training.\u201d Well, we do wish to\nimprove the individual, and to preserve the individual! We do not wish\nthe super-man on the terms of Nietzsche--the super-man obtained at\nthe cost of love would turn out to be inferior to any brute-beast, an\nintellectual fiend. But, Dr. Reid goes on to say, \u201csuch means will not\neffect an improvement of the race.... On the contrary, they will cause\ndeterioration[3] by an increased survival of the unfit.\u201d The provision\nof \u201cproper shelter, food and training\u201d will cause racial decadence!\nIs it not evident, then, that such provisions must rather be styled\nimproper, and that we must refrain from doing anything for the defects\nand needs of the individual, lest a worse thing befall the race? This\nis an outrageous proposition, yet it is offered us as a necessary\ninference from the principle of natural selection or the survival of\nthe fittest--which no one now dares to dispute.\n\nHerbert Spencer, to whom we owe the phrase \u201cthe survival of the\nfittest,\u201d expresses this critical difficulty as follows: \u201cThe law\nthat each creature shall take the benefits and the evils of its own\nnature has been the law under which life has evolved thus far. Any\narrangements which, in a considerable degree, prevent superiority from\nprofiting by the rewards of superiority, or shield inferiority from the\nevils it entails--any arrangements which tend to make it as well to be\ninferior as to be superior, are arrangements diametrically opposed to\nthe progress of organisation, and the reaching of a higher life.\u201d This\nis permanently and necessarily true, and in our care for childhood we\nhave to reckon with it. Yet even Spencer himself did not pursue this\nsupremely important enquiry to what I shall in a moment submit to be\nits logical and almost incredibly hopeful conclusion.\n\nHuxley, writing his well-known Romanes Lecture, \u201cEvolution and Ethics,\u201d\nat a time when, unfortunately, he had somewhat parted company with\nSpencer, and was too ready to accept any argument that made against\nSpencer's political views, cuts the Gordian knot in an astonishingly\nunsatisfactory fashion. He declares that \u201cthe ethical progress of\nsociety depends, not on imitating the cosmic process [that is, the\nselection of the fittest], still less in running away from it, but in\ncombating it.\u201d This is shallow thinking and very poor philosophy. One\nwonders how Huxley can have forgotten the great dictum of Bacon that\nNature can be commanded only by obeying her. He declares that moral\nevolution is the direct contradiction and antithesis of the process of\norganic evolution hitherto. He says, \u201cSocial progress means a checking\nof the cosmic process at every step and the substitution for it of\nanother, which may be called the ethical process;\u201d and he declares\nit to be a fallacy to suppose \u201cthat because on the whole animals and\nplants have advanced in perfection of organisation, by means of the\nstruggle for existence and the consequent survival of the fittest;\ntherefore men in society, men as ethical beings, must look to the same\nprocess to help them towards perfection.\u201d\n\nWith all this Huxley offers us no real solution whatever, no hint\nthat he has realised in any degree what must be the consequences of\nindiscriminate survival. It is astonishing how personal bias, so alien\nto the whole character of the man as a rule, blinded him to a solution\nwhich, as it seems to me, stared him in the face. Assuredly we can\ntransmute and elevate and raise to its highest power what he calls\nthe cosmic process, and can reconcile cosmic with ethical evolution,\n_by extending to the unfit all our sympathy but forbidding them\nparenthood_. I deny that the provision of a proper environment for the\nindividual entails racial deterioration. Cosmic and moral evolution\nare compatible if, whilst caring for each individual, whether maim,\nhalt, blind, or insane, and whilst admitting the categorical imperative\nof the law of love which demands our care for him, we continue to\nobey the indication of Nature, which forbids such an individual to\nperpetuate his infirmity. Nature has no choice; if she is to avert the\ncoming of the unfit race she must summarily extinguish its potential\nancestor, but we can prohibit the reproduction of his infirmity whilst\ndoing all we can for the success of his individual life. This is the\nideal course indicated and approved by biology and morality alike.\n\n=The eugenic reconciliation.=--I submit, then, that there is no\ninconsistency in fighting simultaneously for the preservation and\ncare of all babies and all children without discrimination of any\nkind--and, on the other hand, in declaring that, if the degeneration\nof the race is to be averted, still more if racial, which is the only\nsure, progress, is to be attained, we must have the worthy and only the\nworthy to be the parents of the future. I submit further that only the\neugenist can maintain his position in this matter at the present day.\n\nOn his one hand is the improvident humanitarian with his feeling\nheart, he who, seeing misery and disease and death, whether in\nbabyhood, childhood, or at any other time of life, seeks to improve\nthe environment and so relieve these evils. Close beside this wholly\nindiscriminate humanitarianism is that which declares that with\nchildhood is the future and therefore devotes its energies especially\nto the young, is grateful for every baby born, whatever its state, and\nwhen adult years are reached, assumes that all will be well for the\nfuture, though the principle of natural selection is thus made of none\neffect.\n\nOn the other side of the eugenists stand those whom we may for short\ncall the Nietzscheans. They see one-half of the truth of natural\nselection; they see that through struggle and internecine war, species\nhave hitherto maintained themselves or ascended. They declare that all\nimprovement of the environment, or at any rate all humanitarian effort,\ntends to abrogate the struggle for existence, and even, as is only\ntoo often true, to select unworth and let worth go to the wall. This\nschool then declares that infant mortality is a blessing and charity\nan unmitigated curse. In short, that we must go back as quickly as\npossible to the order of the beast.\n\nBetween these two, surely, the eugenist stands, declaring that each has\na great truth, but that his teaching, and his alone, involves their\nco-ordination and reconciliation. He agrees with the humanitarian that\nno child should cry or starve or work or die--or at any rate this\nparticular eugenist does--and he agrees with the Nietzschean that\nto abrogate, and still more, to reverse, the principle of natural\nselection, is to set our faces for the goal of racial death. But\nfurther, the eugenist declares that the indiscriminate humanitarian,\nblind to the truth which the Nietzschean sees, would heap up, if\npermitted, disaster upon disaster; whilst he repudiates as horrible and\nghastly the Nietzschean doctrine that morality must go by the board if\nthe race is to be raised:--that we must be damned to be saved.\n\nOur age is now awakening, at last, to the cry of the children. The\ntendency of legislation and opinion in every civilised country is\none and the same. For this humanitarianism let only him who thinks\nof any child as a brat refuse to give thanks. But it is the business\nof all who, whilst loving children and still in love with love, are\nyet acquainted with the principles of organic evolution--in short,\nthe business of all humane men of science, men of science who have\nnot ceased to be human--whilst aiding, abetting and directing this\nhumanitarian effort by every means in their power, to teach and preach,\nin season and out of season, that unless meanwhile we make terms with\nthe principle of selection, the choice of worth for parents, and the\nrejection of the unworthy, _not as individuals but as parents_, we\nshall assuredly breed for posterity, whose lives and happiness and\nmoral welfare are in our hands, evils that can adequately neither be\nnamed nor numbered. Already, together with much blessed good, this\nindiscriminate humanitarianism has done much evil. Many of our most\ninstant and, for this generation, insoluble problems are the lamentable\nfruit of this inherently good thing. The eugenist declares that this\nfruit is not necessary, that if it were necessary he could see no way\nout of our morass and would echo the half-wish of Huxley for some\nkindly comet that should put a term to human history altogether; and,\nin short, that only by the eugenic means can the humanitarian end be\nattained.\n\nDuring the last year or two of the campaign against infant mortality\nmany things have become clear, and none clearer than the fundamental\ncompatibility between this campaign and the principles of eugenics. As\nthese two efforts wall be predominant in the real politics of all the\nyears to come, a few more words must here be devoted to the relation\nbetween them.\n\nGranted that the highest of all objects is the making of worthy human\nbeings, it is quite evident that we must attend equally to the two\nfactors which determine all human life--heredity and environment.\nEugenics stands for the principle of heredity--the principle that the\nright children shall be born. The campaign against infant mortality\nstands for a good environment[4]--so that children, when born, may\nsurvive and thrive. Obviously eugenics would be of no use if the\nchildren could not survive, and no human infant can survive unless\nit be born into a moral environment: no motherhood, no man. The two\ncampaigns, then, are strictly complementary. We must endeavour to rid\nourselves of the popular notion that the whole result of the campaign\nagainst infant mortality can be measured by the number of babies\nwhose death is prevented. The infant mortality is merely an index of\na widespread social disease--an index and an extreme symptom. But\nfor every baby killed many are damaged; and to remove the causes of\ninfant mortality is to remove the causes which at present effect the\ndeterioration of millions of human beings. The eugenic campaign, then,\nwithout the other would be almost futile.\n\n=The time for eugenics.=--On our principles the eugenic question can\nbe decently raised only _before conception_. The unyoked germ-cells\nof any individual, though alive, are not entitled to claim protection\nfrom the principle that life is sacred. It is permitted to allow them\nto die; but from the moment of conception a new individual has been\nformed--a new living human individual, even though it only consists of\na single cell, product of the union of the parental germ-cells: and\nwe shall not be safe unless we regard this being as sacred and its\ndestruction--except in order to save the life of the mother--as murder,\neven at this as at any later stage. If the eugenist should raise his\nvoice, and say that this individual should not be born, he must be\nregarded exactly as if he were to recommend infanticide or the lethal\nchamber for unfit individuals. In such a case he would have entirely\nmistaken the whole principle of (negative) eugenics, which is _not_\nto elevate the race by the destruction of the unfit, at any stage,\nante-natal or post-natal, but to do so by prohibiting the conception\nof the unfit. Directly the new human individual is formed the eugenic\nquestion is too late in that case. It is now the eugenist's duty,\nbecause it is every one's duty, to regard the new individual, whether\nborn or yet unborn, as an end in himself or herself. But when the\nquestion arises whether that individual is to become a parent, then the\neugenic question can and must be raised.\n\nCircumstances might arise in which \u201ccase-law\u201d might be applicable. It\nmight be thought better to destroy the syphilitic child rather than\nallow it to come into the world. But we cannot make these distinctions.\nThe question is simply one of expediency, and the only expedient thing\nis that there shall be no paltering with the principle that when a\nnew human life is conceived our duty is to preserve it, whether it\nwere conceived only twenty-four hours ago or whether it be a decrepit\nand helpless centenarian. The instant we let this principle go we are\nproposing to revert to Nature's method of keeping up the level of a\nrace by murder. It is improper, then, for any one on eugenic grounds to\nprotest against proposals for the arrest of infant mortality. He should\nhave spoken sooner; at this stage he must hold his peace.\n\n=The two campaigns complementary.=--Yet further: not only is it evident\nthat the campaign against infant mortality (which is, in a word, the\ncampaign for the provision of a proper environment for the young) is\nobviously necessary for the fulfilment of the eugenic ideal--since\nwhat would be the good of choosing the right parents if their children\nare then to be slain?--but it can be shown conversely that the object\nof those who are working against infant mortality can never be fully\nattained except by means of eugenics. Eugenics apart, we can and\nshall reduce the infant mortality to a mere fraction of what it is\nat present, by preventing the destruction of that great majority of\nbabies who are born healthy. Even, however, when we have provided an\nideal environment for every baby that comes into the world, we shall\nnot have abolished infant mortality, since there will always remain a\nproportion, say ten per cent., whom not even an ideal environment can\nsave. They should never have been conceived. At the Infantile Mortality\nConference held in London in 1908, this was clearly recognised by more\nthan one speaker. The maternalist must have the eugenist to help him if\nhis ideal is to be attained.\n\nNot only is the ideal of the two campaigns one and the same; not only\nis each necessary for the other, but their methods are the same.\nIt is true that at first this was not evident, since when we began\nto fight against infant mortality many temporary expedients of no\neugenic relevance were adopted, such as the _cr\u00e8che_ and the infant\nmilk depot. But in the interval between the Conferences of 1906 and\n1908 many things became clear: so that, whereas the papers at the\nfirst Conference were only accidentally connected, the programme\nof the second proceeded upon a principle--the principle of the\nsupremacy of motherhood. We see now that the one fundamental method\nby which infantile mortality may be checked is by the elevation of\nmotherhood. In the words of our President, Mr. John Burns, \u201cyou\nmust glorify, dignify, and purify motherhood by every means in your\npower.\u201d Thus the first two papers read at the first morning's meeting\nof the Conference--a brief paper by the present writer on \u201cThe Human\nMother,\u201d and an admirable paper by Miss Alice Ravenhill on \u201cEducation\nfor Motherhood\u201d--might equally well have been read at a Eugenics\nConference. The opponent of infant mortality and the eugenist appeal\nto the same principle and avow the same creed: that parenthood is\nsacred, that it must not be casually undertaken, that it demands the\nmost assiduous preparation of body and intellect and emotions. When, at\nlast, these principles are believed and acted upon, infant mortality\nwill be a thing of the past and national eugenics a thing of the\npresent.\n\nIt is essential in this first general study of the subject to state\nthe true nature of the relation between these two campaigns, to\nwhich every succeeding year of the present century will find more\nand more attention devoted. Between them they succeed in beginning\nat the beginning, and it would be a disaster, indeed, if they were\nincompatible. On the contrary, they are complementary and mutually\nindispensable. As the years go on they will engage between them the\nsympathy and the assistance of all serious people. In the year 1907\ninfant mortality was first named in a speech by a Prime Minister, and\nin that same year it was first mentioned in the Christmas-Day sermon\nat St. Paul's Cathedral; in that year also Parliament passed the Early\nNotification of Births Act, the first substantial legislative provision\nwhich sets our feet on the road towards the goal of a true national\nestimate of the value of parenthood. We are about to discover that\nthe true politics is domestics, since there is no wealth but life and\nlife begins at home. We are going to have the right kind of life born,\nand we are going to take care of it when it is born. We shall raise a\ngeneration which looks upon the ordinary money-changing politician as\nan impudent public nuisance, and the brutal, blood-stained Imperialist,\nshouting about the Empire which his very existence almost suffices to\ncondemn, whilst he battens on the cannibal sale of alcoholic poison\nto babies and the mothers of future babies, as the very type of those\ntraitors--they of its own household--who have helped to destroy every\nEmpire in history. We propose to rebuild the living foundations of\nempire. To this end we shall preach a New Imperialism, warning England\nto beware lest her veins become choked with yellow dirt, and demanding\nthat over all her legislative chambers there be carved the more than\ngolden words, \u201cThere is no Wealth but Life.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER III\n\n                 NATURAL SELECTION AND THE LAW OF LOVE\n\n    \u201cTruth justifies herself; and as she dwells\n    With hope, who would not follow where she leads?\u201d\n                                            Wordsworth.\n\n  \u201cLa plus haute t\u00e2che de l'action morale est le travail pour le bien\n  des g\u00e9n\u00e9rations futures.\u201d--Forel.\n\n\nBefore looking more closely than we are commonly apt to do at the\nmeaning of the phrases \u201cnatural selection\u201d and \u201csurvival of the\nfittest,\u201d let us exercise the right of man the moral being, as\ndistinguished from man the scientist or observer of Nature, to pass\nethical judgments upon the facts which it is the business of all the\nsciences, except ethics itself, merely to record and interpret in and\nfor themselves. We are beginning at last, half a century after the\npublication of the _Origin of Species_ in 1859, to realise the power\nof the law of selection; what is the moral judgment which is to be\npassed upon it? In a passage from the last page of Herbert Spencer's\nAutobiography, we find words which may be quoted on both sides: \u201cWhen\nwe think of the myriads of years of the Earth's past, during which have\narisen and passed away low forms of creatures, small and great, which,\n_murdering and being murdered, have gradually evolved_,[5] how shall we\nanswer the question--To what end?\u201d\n\n\u201cMurdering and being murdered\u201d suggests the adverse, and \u201chave\ngradually evolved,\u201d the favourable, ethical judgment.\n\nMany thinkers, finding Nature \u201cso careless of the single life,\u201d finding\nthe murderous struggle for existence the dominant fact of the history\nof the living world, return an adverse verdict. Amongst them are to be\nfound not merely those who are inclined, by temperament or imperfect\neducation, to rebellion against any conclusions of science, but also,\nas we saw in the second chapter, such a great biologist as Huxley.\nIn another part of the lecture already cited he says that the Stoics\nfailed to see\n\n  \u201c... that cosmic nature is no school of virtue, but the headquarters\n  of the enemy of ethical nature. The logic of facts was necessary to\n  convince them that the cosmos works through the lower nature of man,\n  not for righteousness, but against it.... The practice of that which\n  is ethically best--what we call goodness or virtue--involves a course\n  of conduct which, in all respects, is opposed to that which leads to\n  success in the cosmic struggle for existence.\u201d\n\nIn other words, honesty is the _worst_ policy: and to worship natural\nselection is to deify the devil.\n\nThe reader will realise that, if we are to succeed in establishing\nthe claim of natural selection to be the natural model upon which\nthose who desire the progress of society are to base their policy, it\nis necessary to controvert the doctrine that natural selection is an\nanti-moral process. But let us hear the other side.\n\nThe directly contrary view, then, is taken that though, truly\nenough, there has been and is much \u201cmurdering and being murdered,\u201d\nyet organisms \u201chave gradually evolved\u201d towards fitness for their\nsurroundings, or the _milieu environnant_ of Lamarck, which we\ntranslate environment; and that since fitness or adaptation obviously\nmakes for happiness, and since the moral being man has himself been\nthus evolved, the process of natural selection, \u201cmurdering and being\nmurdered\u201d notwithstanding, is essentially beneficent.\n\nThe controversy is embittered and complicated by the fact that ultimate\nquestions of religion and philosophy are involved. Is the Universe\nmoral, as Emerson asserted it was, or is it immoral? A recent opponent\nof the orthodox creed of a benevolent Deity teaches that \u201cThe Lesson\nof Evolution\u201d is to disprove the idea of benevolence behind or in\nNature: \u201cThe story of life has been a story of pain and cruelty of the\nmost ghastly description.\u201d The age-long fact of \u201cmurdering and being\nmurdered\u201d is the weapon with which he attacks the theist: who, _per\ncontra_, points to the beneficent result, the exquisite adaptation of\nall species to the circumstances of their life, and the evolution of\nlove itself.\n\nWe may remind ourselves of those great lines of Mr. George Meredith,\n\n              \u201c... sure reward\n    We have whom knowledge crowns;\n    Who see in mould the rose unfold,\n    _The soul through blood and tears_.\u201d\n\nThe one camp points to the \u201cblood and tears\u201d and asks for a verdict\naccordingly. The other points to \u201cthe soul\u201d as their product, and asks\nfor a verdict accordingly. But surely we need only to have the case\nfairly stated, in order to realise that the \u201cblood and tears\u201d are true\nbut only half the truth, \u201cthe soul\u201d true but only half the truth.\nNatural Selection is a colossal paradox--the doing evil that good may\ncome. The evil is undoubtedly done, and the good undoubtedly comes. Is\nnot this the only verdict that is in consonance with all the facts? Is\nit not less than philosophic to look at the process alone, or to look\nat the result alone? Is any real end to be served by the incessant cry\nthat we should keep our eyes fixed on the \u201cblood and tears\u201d alone, or\non \u201cthe soul\u201d alone? Is not the poet right when he says that the sure\nreward of knowledge is not to see either half of the truth as if it\nwere the whole, but to see unfold \u201cthe soul through blood and tears?\u201d\n\nAny attempt to cast up accounts between the evil of the process and\nthe good of the result--especially any attempt based on the assumption\nthat the process has yet achieved its final result--would be not\nonly premature in the eyes of those who can look forwards, but would\nbe irrelevant to our present enquiry. I certainly am with those who\nrepudiate as misleading Mill's description of Nature as a \u201cvast\nslaughter-house,\u201d and will declare that, apart from self-conscious\nand supremely sensitive man, it is easy to exaggerate the misery and\nto minimise the joy of the sub-human world. But our business here\nis with the process and its results in man himself, in whom alone\nare possible the heights of ecstasy and the depths of agony: and the\nthesis--the sublime thesis, we may avouch--of the present discussion\nis that, whatever the balance between the evil of the process of\nNatural Selection and the good of its results in the natural state,\nyet when it is transmuted, as it may be, by the moral intelligence of\nman, according to the principles of race-culture or eugenics, the good\nof the result can be attained, more abundantly and incomparably more\nrapidly, than ever heretofore, _whilst the evil of the process can be\nabolished altogether_. True or false, is this not a sublime thesis?\n\n=Nature must be cruel to be kind.=--If organic fitness or adaptation\nto the circumstances of life is to be secured, Nature must choose\nfor future parents, out of every new generation, only those whose\ninborn characters make for this adaptation, and who, in virtue of\nthe fact we call heredity, will tend to transmit this fitness to\ntheir offspring. Now it is often convenient to personify Nature,\nbut we must not be misled. The process is really an automatic, not\nan intelligently directed one. In order that it shall be possible,\ncertain conditions must obtain. The choice or selection depends not\nmerely upon the provision of a variety from which to choose--this\nbeing afforded by what is called variation, which is the correlative\nof heredity, both being obvious facts in any well-filled nursery--but\nalso upon the production of _more_ young creatures than there is or\nwill be room for. (If there be room for all, so that all survive,\nthere can be no selection, and instead of survival of the fittest\nthere will be indiscriminate survival.) The choice is effected amongst\nthis superfluity by an internecine \u201cstruggle for existence\u201d: hence\nthe \u201cmurdering and being murdered,\u201d hence the \u201cblood and tears.\u201d The\nmotor force of the whole process may be symbolised as the \u201cwill to\nlife,\u201d ever seeking to realise itself in more abundance and with more\nsuccess--with more and more approximation to perfect adaptation. The\nwill to death is no ingredient of the will to life. Nature is, so\nto say, by no means desirous of the process of \u201cmurdering and being\nmurdered\u201d: very much on the contrary. It is life, more life, and\nfitter life, that is her desire: the \u201cmurdering and being murdered,\u201d\nthe \u201cblood and tears\u201d are no part of her aim. But they are inevitable,\nthough lamentable, if her aim is to be realised. She _must_ be cruel to\nbe kind--a little cruel to be very kind.[6]\n\nIt is _imaginable_, though no more, that natural selection, in certain\ncircumstances, might have worked otherwise: the penalty for less as\nagainst greater fitness might _imaginably_ have been not death but\nmerely sterility--the denial of future parenthood. This is the ideal\nof race-culture. Had this been possible, Nature could have effected\nher end, which is fitter and fuller life, without having incidentally\nto mete out premature death to such an overwhelming majority of all\nher creatures. But, actually, this was not possible: and, unless\nthe end was to be sacrificed, Nature was compelled--to keep up the\nfigure--summarily to kill right and left. Permitted to reach maturity,\nthe unfit as well as the fit would multiply; and since, in general, the\nlower the form of life the greater its fertility, the species could not\npossibly advance, or even maintain itself at the level already gained.\n\nTo drop the figure, the process is a mechanical and automatic one, and\nits appalling wastefulness and indisputable cruelty are inevitably\ninvolved, whilst it so remains.\n\n=Intelligence may be kind to be kinder.=--But--and here is the\ngreat event--this mechanical, automatic, non-intelligent process\nhas latterly given birth to intelligence, the moral intelligence of\nman: and the question now to be answered is, what modification can\nintelligence effect in the moral-immoral process that has created\nit? Must intelligence abrogate that process altogether, as Huxley\ndeclares, on the grounds of its murderous methods? Must intelligence\nsimply look on, recognise, but not reconstruct? Must intelligence\nreverse the process--as indeed it is now doing in many cases--so\nthat in the new environment of which itself is a factor, that which\nformerly was unfitness shall become fitness, and _vice vers\u00e2_? _Or_\nis it conceivable that intelligence can transmute the process, so\nthat, whilst hitherto mechanical, automatic, and therefore inevitably\nmurderous, it shall become _intelligent_, pressing towards the sublime\nend, and reforming the murderous means?\n\nHear Mr. Galton himself (_Sociological Papers_, 1905, p. 52):--\n\n  \u201cPurely passive, or what may be styled mechanical evolution, displays\n  the awe-inspiring spectacle of a vast eddy of organic turmoil ... it\n  is moulded by blind and wasteful processes, namely, by an extravagant\n  production of raw material and the ruthless rejection of all that\n  is superfluous, through the blundering steps of trial and error....\n  Evolution is in any case a grand phantasmagoria, but it assumes an\n  infinitely more interesting aspect under the knowledge that the\n  intelligent action of the human will is, in some small measure,\n  capable of directing its course. Man has the power of doing this\n  largely so far as the evolution of humanity is concerned; he has\n  already affected the quality and distribution of organic life so\n  widely that the changes on the surface of the earth, merely through\n  his disforestings and agriculture, would be recognisable from a\n  distance as great as that of the moon.\u201d\n\nHear also Sir E. Ray Lankester, in the Romanes Lecture[7] for 1905:\n\u201cMan is ... a product of the definite and orderly evolution which is\nuniversal, a being resulting from and driven by the one great nexus of\nmechanism which we call Nature. He stands alone, face to face with that\nrelentless mechanism. It is his destiny to understand and to control\nit.\u201d\n\n\u201cNature's insurgent son,\u201d Professor Lankester calls man in this\nlecture: and yet again there recurs that mighty aphorism of Bacon,\nwhich might well be printed on every page of these chapters, \u201cNature\nis to be commanded only by obeying her.\u201d The struggle for existence is\nthe terrible fact of Nature, but is only a means to an end. It is our\ndestiny to command the end whilst _humanising_ the means.\n\n=The struggle for existence.=--The ideal of eugenics or race-culture\nis to abolish the brutal elements of the struggle for existence\nwhilst gaining its great end. The nature of this struggle is commonly\nmisapprehended and, as I cannot improve upon the words of Professor\nLankester, I shall freely use them in the attempt to show what it\nreally is. He says:--\n\n  \u201cThe world, the earth's surface, is practically full, that is to\n  say, fully occupied. Only one pair of young can grow up to take the\n  place of the pair--male and female--which have launched a dozen, or\n  it may be as many as a hundred thousand, young individuals on the\n  world.... The \u2018struggle for existence\u2019 of Darwin is the struggle\n  amongst all the superabundant young of a given species, in a given\n  area, to gain the necessary food, to escape voracious enemies, and\n  gain protection from excesses of heat, cold, moisture, and dryness.\n  One pair in the new generation--only one pair--survive for every\n  parental pair. Animal population does not increase: \u2018Increase and\n  multiply\u2019 has never been said by Nature to her lower creatures.\n  Locally, and from time to time, owing to exceptional changes, a\n  species may multiply here and decrease there; but it is important\n  to realise that the \u2018struggle for existence\u2019 in Nature--that is to\n  say, among the animals and plants of this earth untouched by man--is\n  a desperate one, however tranquil and peaceful the battlefield may\n  appear to us. The struggle for existence takes place, not as a\n  clever French writer glibly informs his readers, between different\n  species, but between individuals of the same species, brothers and\n  sisters and cousins.... In Nature's struggle for existence, death,\n  immediate obliteration, is the fate of the vanquished, whilst the\n  only reward to the victors--few, very few, but rare and beautiful in\n  the fitness which has carried them to victory--is the permission to\n  reproduce their kind--to carry on by heredity to another generation\n  the specific qualities by which they triumphed.\n\n  \u201cIt is not generally realised how severe is the pressure and\n  competition in Nature--not between different species, but between the\n  immature population of one and the same species, precisely because\n  they are of the same species and have exactly the same needs.... A\n  distinctive quality in the beauty of natural productions (in which\n  man delights) is due to the unobtrusive yet tremendous slaughter of\n  the unfit which is incessantly going on and the absolute restriction\n  of the privilege of parentage to the happy few who attain to the\n  standard described as \u2018the fittest.\u2019\u201d\n\n=The survival of the fittest.=--Now let us look closely at this most\nfamous of all Spencer's phrases, \u201cthe survival of the fittest,\u201d and try\nto understand its full and exact meaning. There is no phrase in any\nlanguage so frequently misinterpreted. Even a writer who should know\nbetter makes this mistake. Mr. H. G. Wells speaks[8] of \u201cthat same lack\nof a fine appreciation of facts that enabled Herbert Spencer to coin\nthose two most unfortunate terms _Evolution_ and the _Survival of the\nFittest_. The implication is that the _best_ reproduces and survives.\nNow really it is the _better_ that survives and not the _best_.\u201d What\nthe correction is supposed to signify I do not know, but the whole\npassage is nonsense. The implication is neither that the _best_ nor\nthe _better_ survive, but the fittest--or if Mr. Wells prefers, for it\nmatters not one whit--the fitter. This lack of a fine appreciation of\nwords is not, unfortunately, peculiar to Mr. Wells. There is no word\nin the language that more exactly expresses the fact than the word\nfittest: as Darwin recognised when he promptly incorporated Spencer's\nphrase in the second edition of the _Origin of Species_ as the best\ninterpretation of his own phrase \u201cnatural selection\u201d![9] Fitness is\nthe capacity to fit: a thing that is fit is a thing that _fits_. A\nliving creature survives in proportion as it fits its environment--the\nphysical environment in the case of vegetables and the lower animals,\nthe physical, social, intellectual and moral environment in the case\nof man. The kind of glove that most perfectly fits the hand is the\nfittest glove and will survive in the struggle for existence between\ngloves. If, instead of a glove, we take a living creature, say a\nmicrobe, the kind of microbe that best fits into the environment\nprovided by, say, human blood, is the fittest and will survive and be\nthe cause of our commonest disease. Thus the tubercle bacillus is at\nonce the _fittest_ microbe and, not the best, but the worst. Among\nourselves, the newspaper devoted to yesterday's murder is the fittest\nand survives, ousting the newspaper which reckons with the crucifixion,\nor the murder of Socrates or Bruno. In a society of blackguardism, the\nbiggest blackguard is the fittest man and will survive: he is also the\nworst. In another society the best man is the fittest and survives. The\ncapacity to fit into the environment is the capacity that determines\nsurvival: it has no moral connotation whatever. If Herbert Spencer had\nwritten the survival of the better, as Mr. Wells desires, he would have\nwritten palpable nonsense: as it was he used the fittest word--in this\ncase also the best, because the truest. Referring to the queen-bee,\nwho destroys her own daughters, Darwin says, \u201cundoubtedly this is for\nthe good of the community; maternal love or maternal hatred, though\nthe latter fortunately is most rare, is all the same to the inexorable\nprinciple of natural selection.\u201d\n\nIf natural selection were the survival of the better, as Mr. Wells\nwould have us believe, there would be nothing for eugenics or\nrace-culture to do: and heaven would long ago have come to earth. If\nin all ages the better men and women had survived and become parents,\nearth would long ago have become a demi-paradise indeed, there would\nhave been no arrests, no reversals in the history of human progress,\nand life would be already what, some day, it will be, when there is\nachieved the eugenic ideal--which is precisely that the best or better\nmembers of our race shall be the selected for the supreme profession\nof parenthood. In other words, the eugenic ideal, the ideal of\nrace-culture, is _to ensure that the fittest shall be the best_.\nAlways, everywhere, without a solitary exception, human, animal or\nvegetable, the fittest have ultimately survived and must survive. Once\nrealise what is the meaning of the word fit--best seen in the verb \u201cto\nfit\u201d--and we shall see that, as Herbert Spencer pointed out in his\noverwhelming reply to the late Lord Salisbury's attack on evolution,\nthe idea of the survival of the fittest is a necessity of thought.[10]\n\nBut, alas, the idea of the survival of the best or the better is not\na necessity of thought! The fittest microbes are the worst from our\npoint of view, because they are most inimical to the highest forms\nof life; the fittest newspaper may be the worst, because it panders\nto the worst but most widespread and irresponsible elements in human\nnature; everything and every one that succeeds, succeeds because it or\nhe fits the conditions: but to succeed is not necessarily to be good.\nIndeed everything that exists at all, living or lifeless, an atom or an\nanimal, a molecule or a moon, exists because it can exist, because it\nfits the conditions of existence: there is no moral question involved,\nbut only a mechanical one. The business of eugenics or race-culture is\nto make an environment, conditions of law and public opinion, _such\nthat the fittest shall be the best and the best the fittest therein_.\n\nIf memory may be trusted, the primary meaning of the word _fit_ has\nnot hitherto been called in by any one to elucidate the meaning of\nSpencer's phrase: perhaps it may be hoped that we shall at last begin\nto understand it, if we remember that a thing is fit because it fits.\nIt is best not to be too sanguine, however, and therefore we may\nattempt to illustrate the case from another aspect.\n\n=Survival-value.=--Every living thing and nearly every character\nor feature of a living thing that survives, survives because it\nhas value or capacity for life--which may be called, in Professor\nLloyd Morgan's phrase, _survival-value_. The character that gives\nan organism survival-value, or value for life, the character that\nenables it to fit its environment, may be of any order. The atom, as\nI have said elsewhere, is an organism writ small. The kinds of atoms\nthat have survived in the age-long struggle for existence between\natoms are those that have survival-value on account of their internal\nstability: as Empedocles argued ages ago. In the case of living\nthings, which individually die, it is evident that the capacity to\nreproduce themselves is one of supreme survival-value. If mankind lost\nthis capacity, all its other characters of survival-value, such as\nintelligence, would obviously avail it nought. Certain valuable members\nof society may fall short in this cardinal respect, and therefore\nbecome extinct. Indeed, other forms of survival-value, as we shall see,\nseem to be in large measure inimical to fertility: and this is perhaps\nthe chief obstacle to eugenics.[11]\n\nFertility apart, the character having survival-value may take a\nthousand forms. In the case of the parasitic microbe it is an evil\ncharacter, the power to produce toxins or poisons. In the case of\nthe tiger it is the possession of large and powerful bones and claws\nand muscles and teeth. In the case of the ox it is a complicated\nand efficient digestive apparatus, enabling it to fit into a\nfood-environment which is too innutritious to sustain the life of\ncreatures not so endowed. Nature seeks only the fittest; not the best\nbut the best-adapted; she asks no moral questions. A Keats, a Spinoza,\nor a Schubert must go under if his factors of survival-value do not\nenable him to resist those of the tubercle bacillus, its toxins or\npoisons. She welcomes the parasitic tapeworm, all hooks and mouth or\nstomach, because these give it survival-value; and so on.\n\nThe business of eugenics or race-culture, then, is to create an\nenvironment such that those characters which we desire as moral\nand intelligent beings shall be endowed with the highest possible\nsurvival-value, as against those which ally so many men with the\nmicrobe and the tapeworm. There are those who live in society to-day,\nand reproduce their like, in virtue of the poisons they produce, in\nvirtue of their tenacious hooks and voracious stomachs. If society be\norganised so that these are factors of more survival-value than the\ndisinterested search for truth, or mother-love, or the power to create\ngreat poetry or music--then, according to the inevitable and universal\nlaw of the survival of the fittest, our parasites will oust our poets\nand our poisoners our philosophers. These things have happened and may\nhappen again at any time. It does not matter that the good thing, in\nvirtue of survival-value then superior, has been evolved. Nature never\ngives a final verdict in favour of good or bad but only and always in\nfavour of the fit. Let the conditions change, so that rapacity fits\nthem better than righteousness, or--as in a completely \u201ccollectivist\u201d\nstate--vegetableness rather than virility, and the thing we call high\nwill go under before the thing we call low. Nature recognises neither\nhigh nor low but only fitness or value for life in the conditions that\nactually obtain. These laws enthroned and dethroned the civilisations\nof the past: they have enthroned and may dethrone us. But this end is\nnot inevitable, since man--and this is his great character--not merely\nreacts to his environment, as all creatures must, but can create and\nrecreate it. The business of eugenics or race-culture is to create an\nenvironment such that the human characters of which the human spirit\napproves shall in it outweigh those of which we disapprove. Make it\nfittest to be best and the best will win--not because it is the best,\nbut because it is the fittest: had the worst been the fittest it would\nhave won. In society to-day both forms of the process may be observed.\nThe balance between them determines its destiny. It is the business of\neugenics to throw the whole weight of human purpose into the scale of\nthe good.\n\n=Evolution not necessarily progress.=--No excessive space has been\ndevoted to this distinction between the fittest and the best and to\nthe real meaning of Spencer's famous phrase, if perchance it should\navail in any degree to dispel one of the commonest of the many common\ndelusions regarding the nature of organic evolution and its outcome.\nThis delusion is that progress is an inevitable law of nature.[12]\nThe great process of history, as revealed by biology, displays as its\nsupreme fact the occurrence of progress. The principles of evolution\nteach that this progress--as, for instance, in the evolution of man--is\na product of the survival of the fittest; whilst we are also reminded\nthat the survival of the fittest is a necessary truth: but it does not\nfollow that progress is inevitable.\n\nIn the first place, natural selection involves selection. Where all\nthe young members of a new generation of any species survive, and\nparenthood becomes not a privilege but a common and universal function,\nplainly the process is in abeyance: and, in the second place, since\nthe survival of the fittest is not the survival of the best, but only\nthe survival of the best adapted, the process may at any time take the\nform of retrogression rather than that of progress. The assumption\nthat, because progress has been effected through natural selection, we\nneed do no more than fold our hands, or unfold them merely to applaud,\ninvolves the denial of one of the most familiar facts of natural\nhistory--the fact of racial degeneration. The parasitic microbes, the\nparasitic worms, the barnacles, innumerable living creatures both\nanimal and vegetable, individuals and races of mankind, to-day as in\nall ages--these prove only too clearly that the process of the survival\nof the fittest may make as definitely for retrogression in one case as\nfor progress in another.\n\nBy all means let us infer from the facts of organic evolution the\nconclusion that further progress must surely be possible, so much\nprogress having already been achieved as is represented by the\ndifference between inorganic matter or the am\u0153ba or microbe on the one\nhand, and man on the other hand. But let us most earnestly beware of\nthe false and disastrous optimism which should suppose that because\nthe survival of the fittest has often, and indeed most often, meant\nthe survival of the best, it means always that and nothing else. On\nthe contrary, we must learn that, even in natural circumstances,\napart from any interference by man, the survival of the fittest often\nmeans racial degeneration--a tapeworm kept in spirits should stand\nupon the study mantelpiece of all who think with Mr. Wells that the\nsurvival of the fittest means the survival of the better; and still\nmore notably we must learn that the interference of man in the case of\nhis own species, sometimes of evil intent, sometimes for the highest\nends, with the process of natural selection, has repeatedly led, and\nis now in large part leading, to nothing other than that process of\nracial degeneration of which the tapeworm and the barnacle should be\nour perpetual reminders. The case becomes serious enough when man\ninterferes with the process of selection merely with the effect of\nsuspending it, wholly or in part: but it becomes far more serious\nwhen his interference constitutes a reversal of the process. This\nmost supremely disastrous of all conceivable consequences of man's\nintelligence and moral sense is known as reversed selection, and must\nbe carefully studied hereafter. Meanwhile, we must devote some space to\na most important consideration--namely, that though Nature is impartial\nin her choice, and will, for instance, allow the poisons of a microbe\nsuch as the tubercle bacillus to destroy the life of a Spinoza or a\nKeats or a Schubert, yet, on the whole, the survival-value of the\nmental, spiritual, or psychical in all its forms does persistently tend\nto outweigh that of the physical or material--of this great truth the\nevolution and dominance of man himself being the supreme example.\n\nThe very fact of progress, which I would define as the emergence\nand increasing dominance of mind, demonstrates--it being remembered\nthat natural selection has no moral prejudices--that even in a world\nof claws and toxins the psychical must have possessed sufficient\nsurvival-value to survive. It is quite evident that even the lowliest\npsychical characters, such as sharpness of sensation, discrimination,\nand memory, must be of value in the struggle for life. More and more we\nmight expect to find, and do actually find in the course of evolution,\nthat creatures live by their wits, rather than by force of bone or\nmuscle. The psychical was certainly given no unfair start--on the\ncontrary. It has had to struggle for its emergence; it has emerged only\nwhere there has been struggle and has done so because it could--because\nof its superior survival-value. It has the right which belongs to\nmight--in the world of life there is no other.[13]\n\nBy no means less evident is the inherently superior survival-value\nof the psychical, if we turn from its aspects of sensation and\nintelligence to those which are all summed up under the word love.\nNotwithstanding Nietzsche's mad misconception of the Darwinian theory,\nno one who has studied the facts of reproduction and its conditions\nin the world of life can question the incalculable survival-value\nof love in animal history. The success of those most ancient of all\nsocieties, of which the ant-heap and the bee-hive are the types,\ndepends absolutely upon the self-sacrifice of the individual. If we\npass upwards from the insects to the lowest vertebrates, we find\nthe survival-value of love proved by the comparison between various\nspecies of fish, and its increasing importance may be traced upwards\nthrough amphibia, reptiles, birds and mammals in succession, up to\nman. Natural selection thus actually selects morality. Without love no\nbaby could live for twenty-four hours. Every human being that exists\nor ever has existed or ever will exist is a product of mother-love or\nfoster-mother-love, and I am well entitled to say, as I have so often\nsaid, _no morals, no man_. The creature in whom organic morality is at\nits height has become the lord of the earth in virtue of that morality\nwhich natural selection has selected, not from any moral bias, but\nbecause of its superior survival-value.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER IV\n\n                         THE SELECTION OF MIND\n\n  \u201cMany are the mighty things, but none is mightier than man.... He\n  conquers by his devices the tenant of the fields.\u201d--Sophocles.\n\n  \u201cL'homme n'est qu'un roseau, le plus faible de la Nature; mais c'est\n  un roseau pensant.\u201d--Pascal.\n\n  \u201cThe soul of all improvement is the improvement of the\n  soul.\u201d--Burchell.\n\n\nWhereas, in its beginning, _mind_, or the psychical in all its aspects,\nwas merely a useful property of _body_, all organic progress may be\nconceived in terms of a change in this original relation between them.\nIn man, the mental or psychical has become the essential thing, and the\nbody its servant. We are well prepared, then, to accept the proposition\nthat in our own day and for our own species, the plane upon which\nnatural selection works has largely been transferred, and, indeed, if\nany further progress is to be effected, _must_ be transferred, from\nthe bodily or physical to the mental or psychical. A certain most\nremarkable fact in the anatomy of man may be cited, as we shall see, in\nsupport of this proposition.\n\nWe need not venture upon the controversial ground of the relation or\nultimate unity of mind and body; nor need we set up any suggestion of\nantagonism between them. All, however, are absolutely agreed that the\npsychical in all its forms, whatever it really be, has a consistent\nrelation of the most intimate kind with that part of the body which\nwe call the nervous system. For our present purposes the nature of\nthis relation matters nothing at all, and in place of the phrase,\nthe \u201cselection of mind,\u201d I should be quite content, if the reader so\nprefers, to speak of the selection of nerve or nervous selection. And\nif I may for a moment anticipate the conclusion, we may say that, in\nand for the future, the process of selection for life and parenthood,\nas it occurs in mankind, must be based, if the highest results are to\nbe obtained, upon the principle that the selection of bodily qualities\nother than those of the nervous system is of value only in so far as\nthese serve the nervous or psychical qualities. For practical and for\ntheoretical purposes we must accept the dictum of Professor Forel that\n\u201cthe brain is the man\u201d--or, to be more accurate and less epigrammatic,\nthe nervous system is the man. If, then, we counsel or approve of any\nselection of bone or muscle or digestion, or any other bodily organ or\nfunction; if we select for physical health, physical energy, longevity,\nor immunity from disease--our estimate of these things, one and all,\nmust be wholly determined by the services which they can perform for\nthe nervous system, whether as its instruments, its guarantors of\nhealth and persistence, or otherwise. But we are not to regard any of\nthese things as ends in themselves--notwithstanding the fact that this\ntemptation will constantly beset us. So to do is implicitly to deny and\nrenounce the supreme character of man--which is that, in him, mind or\nnervous system is the master, and the rest of the body, with all its\nattributes, the servant.\n\n=The body still necessary.=--Should anyone suppose that the principles\nhere laid down would speedily involve us, if executed, in a host\nof disasters, let him reconsider that conclusion. Utterly ignorant\nor jocose persons have hinted, more or less definitely, that if a\nrace of mankind were to be bred for brains, the product would be a\nmost misbegotten creature approaching as near as possible--and that\nimperfectly enough--to the ideal of disembodied thought, a creature\nmonstrous as to head, impotent and puny as to limbs, and, in effect,\nthe least effective of living creatures. This supposition may be\ncommended as the last word in the way of nonsense. It depends upon\nan abysmal ignorance of the necessary and permanent relations which\nsubsist between mind and body. It assumes that the healthy mind can\nbe obtained without the healthy body; it is totally unaware that the\nnervous system cannot work properly unless the blood be well aerated by\nactive lungs and distributed by a healthy heart; that unless certain\nglands, of which these people have never heard, are acting properly,\nthe nervous system falls into decadence, and the man becomes an\nimbecile. To breed for brains is most assuredly to breed for body too:\nonly that the end in view will guide us as to what points of body to\nbreed for. For instance, it would prevent us from having any foolish\nambitions as to increasing the stature of the race, or the average\nweight of its muscular apparatus. Stature may be a point to breed for\nin the race-culture of giraffes and muscle in the race-culture of the\nhippopotamus: but such bodily characters are of no moment for man,\nwho is above all things a mind. Whilst we shall pay little attention\nto these, we or our descendants will be abundantly concerned with the\npreservation and culture of those many bodily characters upon which\nthe health and vigour and sanity and durability of the nervous system\ndepend.\n\nFurther, notwithstanding all the nonsense that has been written\nconcerning the man of the future, with bald and swollen head,\nbe-goggled eyes, toothless gums, and wicker-work skeleton, those\nwho know the alphabet of physiology and psychology are warranted in\nbelieving that wisely to breed for brains will be to breed for beauty\ntoo--not of the skin-deep but of the mind-deep variety--and also for\ngrace and energy and versatility of physique. Those who worship brawn\nas brawn may be commended to the ox; those who respect brawn as the\ninstrument of brain, and value it not by its horse-power but by its\ncapacity as the agent of purpose, will find nothing to complain of in\nthe kinds of men and women whom a wise eugenics has for its ideal.\n\n=The erect attitude.=--And now we must briefly consider that \u201cmost\nremarkable fact in the anatomy of man\u201d to which allusion was made in\nthe first paragraph. It is that, as the most philosophic anatomists are\nnow coming to believe, the body of man actually represents the goal of\nphysical evolution. Of course the common opinion is, quite apart from\nscience, that man is the highest of creatures, and that there is no\nmore to be expected. But the doctrine of evolution regards man as the\nlatest, not necessarily the last, term in an age-long process which is\nby no means completed, and from the evolutionary point of view it is\nthus a daring and, at first hearing, a preposterous thing to say that,\nso far as the physical aspects of organic evolution are concerned, the\nbody of man apparently represents the logical and final conclusion of\nthe age-long process which has produced it. Let us attempt very briefly\nto outline the argument.\n\nWe may say that a great step was taken when from the chaos of the\ninvertebrate or backbone-less animals there emerged the first\nvertebrates. This unquestionably occurred in the sea, the first\nbackbone being evolved in a fish-like creature which, in the course of\ntime, developed two lateral fins. These became modified into two pairs\nof limbs, the sole function of which was locomotion. In the next group\nof vertebrates, the amphibia--such as the frog--we see these limbs\nterminating each in five digits. (The frog, so to say, decided that\nwe should count in tens.) Now some creatures have specialised their\nlimbs at the cost of certain fingers. The horse, for instance, walks\non the nails (the hoofs) of its middle fingers and its middle toes.\nIn the main line of ascent, however, none of these precious fingers\n(and toes)--how precious let the typist or the pianist say--have been\nsacrificed. There has been, however, in later ages a tendency towards\nthe specialisation of the front limbs. Used for locomotion at times,\nthey are also used for grasping and tearing and holding, as in the\ncase of the tiger, a member of the carnivora, a relatively late and\nhigh group of mammals. But the carnivore does not carry its food to\nits mouth, and the cat carries her kittens in her mouth and not with\nher paws. In the apes and monkeys, however, this specialisation goes\nfurther, and things are actually carried by the hands to the mouth--a\nvery great advance on the tiger, who fixes his food with his \u201chands,\u201d\nand then carries his mouth to it. Food to mouth instead of mouth to\nfood is a much later stage in evolution, a fact which may be recalled\nwhen we watch the table manners of certain people. Finally, in man the\nspecialisation reaches its natural limit by the _complete_ liberation\nof the fore-limbs from the purposes of locomotion--though the crawling\ngait of a child recalls the base degrees by which we did ascend.\n\nThis great change depends upon an alteration in the axis of the body.\nThe first fishes, like present fishes, were horizontal animals, but\ngradually the axis has become altered, in the main line of progress,\nuntil the semi-erect apes yield to man the erect, or \u201cman the erected,\u201d\nas Stevenson called him. The son of horizontal animals, he is himself\nvertical: the \u201cpronograde\u201d has become \u201corthograde.\u201d Thus the phrase,\n\u201cthe ascent of man,\u201d may be read in two senses. This capital fact has\ndepended upon a shifting of the centre of gravity of the body, which\nin adult man lies behind the hip-joints, whereas in his ancestors and\nin the small baby (still in the four-footed stage) it lies in front\nof the hip-joints. Thus, whilst other creatures tend naturally to\nfall forwards, so that they must use their fore-limbs for support and\nlocomotion, the whole body of man above the hip-joints tends naturally\nto fall backwards, being prevented from doing so by two great ligaments\nwhich lie in front of the hip-joints and have a unique development in\nman. The complete erection of the spine means that the skull, instead\nof being suspended in front, is now poised upon the top of the spinal\ncolumn. The field of vision is enormously enlarged, and it is possible\nto sweep a great extent of horizon at a moment's notice. But the\ncomplete discharge of the fore-limbs from the function of locomotion\nhas far vaster consequences, especially as they now assume the function\nof educating their master, the brain, and enabling him to employ them\nfor higher and higher purposes.\n\nThus, when we ask ourselves whether there is any further goal for\nphysical evolution, the answer is that none can be seen. So far as\nphysical evolution is concerned the goal has been attained with the\nerect attitude. Future changes in the anatomy of man will not be\npositive but negative. There doubtless will be a certain lightening of\nthe ship, the casting overboard of inherited superfluities, but that is\nall: except that we may hope for certain modifications in the way of\nincreasing the adaptation of the body to the erect attitude, which at\npresent bears very hardly in many ways upon the body of man, and much\nmore so upon the body of woman.\n\nThus race-culture will certainly not aim at the breeding of physical\nfreaks of any kind, nor yet at such things as stature. It must begin by\nclearly recognising what are the factors which in man possess supreme\nsurvival-value, and it must aim at their reinforcement rather than at\nthe maintenance of those factors which, of dominant value in lower\nforms of life, have been superseded in him. A few words will suffice\nto show in what fashion man has already shed vital characters which,\nsuperfluous and burdensome for him, have in former times been of the\nutmost survival-value.\n\n=The denudation of man.=--As contrasted with the whole mass of his\npredecessors, man comes into the world denuded of defensive armour,\ndestitute of offensive weapons, possessed alone of the potentialities\nof the psychical. So far as defence is concerned, he has neither fur\nnor feathers nor scales, but is the most naked and thinnest skinned of\nanimals. In his _Autobiography_, Spencer tells us how he and Huxley,\nsitting on the cliff at St. Andrews and watching some boys bathing,\n\u201cmarvelled over the fact, seeming especially strange when they are no\nlonger disguised by clothes, that human beings should dominate over all\nother creatures and play the wonderful part they do on the earth.\u201d[14]\nBut man is not only without armour against either living enemies or\ncold; he is also without weapons of attack. His teeth are practically\nworthless in this respect, not only on account of their small size but\nalso because his chin, a unique possession, and the shape of his jaws,\nmake them singularly unfit for catching or grasping. For claws he has\nmerely nails, capable only of the feeblest scratching; he can discharge\nno poisons from his mouth; he cannot envelop himself in darkness\nin order to hide himself; his speediest and most enduring runner is\na breathless laggard. And, lastly, he is at first almost bereft of\ninstinct, has to be burnt in order to dread the fire, and cannot find\nhis own way to the breast. His sole instrument of dominance is his mind\nin all its attributes.\n\nOn the grounds thus indicated, we must be wholly opposed to all\nproposals for race education and race-culture, and to all social\npractices, which assume more or less consciously that, for all his\nboasting, man is after all only an animal: whilst we must applaud the\nselection and culture of the physical exactly in so far as, but no\nfurther than, it makes for health and strength of the psychical--or, if\nthe reader dislikes these expressions, the health and strength of that\nparticular part of the physical which we call the nervous system.\n\nIt used to be generally asserted that whilst, in a civilised community,\nwe do not expect to find the biggest or most muscular man King or\nPrime Minister, yet amongst savage tribes it _is_ the physical, muscle\nand bone and brutality, that determines leadership. This, however, we\nnow know to be untrue even for the earliest stages of society that\nanthropologists can recognise. The leader of the savage tribe is not\nthe biggest man but the cleverest. The suggestion is therefore that,\neven in the earliest stages of human society, the plane of selection\nhas already been largely transferred from brawn to brain or from\nphysique to _psyche_. It has always been so, we may be well sure. The\nDrift men of Taubach, living in the inter-glacial period, could kill\nthe full-grown elephant and rhinoceros. Says Professor Ranke: \u201cIt is\nthe mind of man that shows itself superior to the most powerful brute\nforce, even where we meet him for the first time.\u201d This remains true\nwhether the brute force be displayed in brutes or in other men.\n\nThe great fact of intelligence, as against material apparatus of\nany kind and even as against rigid instinct, is its limitless\napplicability. With this one instrument man achieves what without it\ncould be achieved only by a creature who combined in his own person\nevery kind of material apparatus, offensive and defensive, locomotor or\nwhat not, which animal life, and vegetable life too, have invented in\nthe past--and not even by such a creature. Man is a poor pedestrian,\nbut his mind makes locomotives which rival or surpass the fish of the\nsea, the antelope on land, if not yet the bird of the air; his teeth\nare of poor quality, but his mind supplies him with artificial ones and\nenables him to cook and otherwise to prepare his food. All the physical\nmethods are self-limited, but the method of mind has no limits; it is\neven more than cumulative, and multiplies its capacities by geometrical\nprogression.\n\n=The cult of muscle.=--A word must really be said here, in accordance\nwith all the foregoing argument, against the recent revival of what\nmay be called the Cult of Muscle. This cult of muscle, or belief\nin physical culture, so called, as the true means of race-culture,\nundoubtedly requires to have its absurd pretensions censured. We now\nhave many flourishing schools of physical culture which desire to\npersuade us to a belief in the monstrous anachronism that, even in man,\nmuscle and bone are still pre-eminent. They want as many people as\npossible to believe that the only thing really worth aiming at is what\nthey understand by physical culture. They pride themselves upon knowing\nthe names and positions of all the muscles in the body, and on being\nable to provide us with instruments to develop all these muscles: they\nare there and they ought to be developed, and you are a mere parody of\nwhat a man ought to be unless they are developed--none of them must\nbe neglected. Many people have been persuaded of these doctrines, and\nthere is no doubt that the physical culture schools do thus develop a\nlarge number of muscles which have no present service for man and would\notherwise have been allowed to rest in a decent obscurity.\n\nIn order to prove this point, let us instance a few muscles which it\nis utterly absurd to regard as still possessing any survival-value for\nman. In the sole of the foot there are four distinct layers of muscles,\nby means of which it is theoretically possible to turn each individual\ntoe to the left or the right, independently of its neighbours, and to\nmove the various parts of each toe upon themselves, just as in the case\nof the fingers. All this muscular apparatus is a mere survival, worth\nnothing at all for the special purposes of the human foot. In point of\nfact the human foot is now decadent, and probably not more than two\nor three specimens of feet in a hundred contain the complete normal\nequipment of muscles, bones and joints--as Sir William Turner showed\nmany years ago. Thus many feet are possessed of muscles designed to\nact upon joints which have not been developed at all in the feet in\nquestion and which, if they were there, would not be of the smallest\nuse. To take another instance, we do not now use our external ears\nfor the purpose of catching sound, though we still possess muscles\nwhich, if thrown into action, would move the external ear in various\ndirections. Again, there is a flat, thin stratum of muscle on the\nfront of the neck, corresponding to a muscle which in the dog and the\nhorse is quite important, but which is of no use to us. All would be\nagreed as to the absurdity of devoting continued conscious effort to\nthe development of these particular muscles; but in point of fact we\nhave a whole host of muscles which are in a similar case, and which\nare nevertheless objects of the most tender solicitude on the part of\nthe physical culturist. In general, this modern craze, whilst highly\nprofitable to those who foster it, is most misguided and reactionary.\nModern knowledge of heredity teaches us that our descendants will not\nprofit muscularly in the slightest degree because of our devotion to\nthese relics: the blacksmith's baby has promise of no bigger biceps\nthan any one else's. Further, the over-doing of muscular culture\nis responsible for the consumption of a large amount of energy. A\nmuscle is a highly vital and active organ, requiring a large amount\nof nourishment, which its possessor has to obtain, consume, digest\nand distribute. The more time and energy spent in sustaining useless\nmuscles, the less is available for immeasurably more important\nconcerns. Man does not live by brawn alone: he _does_ live by brain\nalone.\n\n=Strength versus skill.=--So far as true race-culture is concerned,\nwe should regard our muscles merely as servants or instruments of the\nwill. Since we have learnt to employ external forces for our purposes,\nthe mere bulk of a muscle is now a matter of little importance. Of the\nutmost importance, on the other hand, is the power to co-ordinate and\ngraduate the activity of our muscles, so that they may become highly\ntrained servants. This is a matter, however, not of muscle at all but\nof nervous education. Its foundation cannot be laid by mechanical\nthings like dumb-bells and exercises, but by games, in which will and\npurpose and co-ordination are incessantly employed. In other words, the\nonly physical culture worth talking about is nervous culture.\n\nThe principles here laid down are daily defied in very large measure in\nour nurseries, our schools, and our barrack yards. The play of a child,\nspontaneous and purposeful, is supremely human and characteristic.\nAlthough, when considered from the outside, it is simply a means of\nmuscular development, properly considered it is really _the_ means of\nnervous development. Here we see muscles used as human muscles should\nalone be used--as instruments of mind. In schools the same principles\nshould be recognised. From the biological and psychological point of\nview the playing-field is immeasurably superior to the gymnasium.\nBut it is in the barrack yard that the pitiable confusion between\nthe survival-value of mind and muscle respectively in man is most\nludicrously and disastrously exemplified.\n\nThe glorious truth upon which we appear to act is that man is an\nanimated machine; that the business of the soldier is not to think,\nnot to be an individual, but to be an assemblage of muscles. We see\nthe marks of this idea even in a fine poem: \u201cTheir's not to reason\nwhy, their's but to do or die\u201d--which, of course, might just as well\nbe said of a stud of horses or motor-cars. Further, our worship of the\nmachine is, consistently enough, an unintelligent worship. We do not\neven recognise the best conditions for its action. Every year hundreds\nof young soldiers, originally healthy, have their hearts and lungs and\nother vital organs permanently injured by the imbecile attitude of\nchest--that of abnormal expansion--which they are required to adopt\nduring hard work. Army doctors are now protesting against this, but it\nis in accordance with the fitness of things that the cult of muscle as\nagainst intelligence should be unintelligent.\n\nI repeat that whilst in the study of race-culture the physical cannot\nbe ignored, since the psychical is so largely dependent upon it,\nyet the physical is of worth to us only in so far as it serves the\npsychical. The race the culture of which we propose to undertake has\nlong ago determined to abandon the physical in itself as an instrument\nof success. We are not attempting the culture of the cretaceous\nreptiles, which staked their all upon muscle, and finally, having\nbecome as large as houses--and as agile--suffered extinction. We are\nattempting the culture of a species which, so far as the physical is\nconcerned, has long ago crossed the Rubicon or burnt its boats. Even\nif Mr. Sandow and the drill-sergeant had their way to the utmost, and,\nhaving finally eliminated all traces of mind, succeeded in producing\nthe strongest and most perfect physical machine that could be made from\nthe human body, the species so produced would go down in a generation\nbefore the elements or before any living species that may be named.\nMan has staked his all upon mind. The only physical development\nthat is really worth anything to such a race is that which educates\nintelligence and morality, on the one hand, and serves for their\nexpression, on the other.\n\nIf there is any salient and irresistible tendency in our civilisation\nto-day, it is the persistent decadence of muscle and of all of which\nmuscle is the type, as an instrument of survival-value. The development\nof machinery, much deplored by the short-sighted, is in the direct line\nof progress, because it reduces the importance of muscle and throws\nall its weight into the scale of mind. Hewers of wood and drawers of\nwater are becoming less and less necessary, not because mechanical\nforce is not needed but because the human intelligence is learning how\nto supersede the human machine as its source. Every development of\nmachinery makes the man who can merely offer his muscles of less value\nto the community. Long ago--not so very long ago in some cases--it was\nquite sufficient for a man to be able to say \u201cI am a good machine:\u201d he\nwas worth his keep and had his chance of becoming a parent; but the man\nwhom society wants now-a-days is not the man who is a good machine but\nthe man who can make one. These elementary truths are hidden, however,\nfrom the political quacks who discourse to us upon unemployment.\n\nHerbert Spencer's remark that it is necessary to be a good animal\nhas an element of truth in it which was utterly ignored and needed\nproclamation at that time; but it is necessary to be a good animal only\nin so far as that state makes for being a good man--and not an iota\nfurther.\n\nThe present interest in many most important aspects of physical\neducation, such as may be summed up under the phrase \u201cschool hygiene,\u201d\nmust not blind us to the great principle that physical education is a\nmeans and not an end. Our present educational system, which permits\nschooling to end just when it should begin, or rather sooner, and\nwhich, even through our Government Departments, permits boys to be\nused as little more than animated machines, such as telegraph boys--is\nvery largely responsible for the great national evil of unemployment,\nwhich we treat with soup-kitchens. We shall revise a large proportion\nof our educational, political and social methods just so soon as--but\nnot before--we get into our heads the idea that in human society,\nand pre-eminently in society to-day, the survival-value of mind\nand consequently the selection of mind must predominate over the\nsurvival-value and consequent selection of muscle. Further, whatever\nfactors tend to enhance the survival-value of the physical are _ipso\nfacto_ making for retrogression and a return to the order of the beast.\nWhatever tend to enhance the survival-value of the psychical--by which\nI most assuredly include not only intelligence but, for instance,\nmotherhood--are _ipso facto_ forces of progress. The products of\nprogress are not machinery but men, and the well-drilled-machine idea\nof a man ought to be as obsolete as more than one recent war has proved\nit disastrous.\n\nThere is here to be read no pessimistic suggestion that the psychical\nis in any permanent danger. No one can think so who knows its strength\nand the relative impotence of the physical, but it is certainly\npossible that the course of progress may be greatly delayed in any\ngiven nation or race by worship of the physical, or even, as Sparta\nshows, by worship of what may be called the physical virtues as against\nthe moral and intellectual virtues. But those who are interested in the\nsurvival of any particular race or nation have to remember that arrest\nor retardation of progress therein, relatively to its wiser neighbours,\nmust, before long, result in its utter downfall.\n\n=What are we to choose?=--The argument that the selection of mind has\nbeen dominant throughout human history is reinforced by such knowledge\nof that history as we possess. There is no record of any race that\nestablished itself in virtue of great stature or exceptional muscular\nstrength. Even in cases of the most purely military dominance, it was\nnot force as such, but discipline and method, that determined success;\nwhilst some of the greatest soldiers in history have been physically\nthe smallest. The statement of the anthropologists, already alluded to,\nregarding the selection of the leading men in primitive tribes, may\nsafely be taken as always true: selection in human society has always\nbeen, in the main, selection of that which, for survival-value, is the\ndominant character of man, _mind_ in its widest sense. We shall see,\nlater, that _physical eugenics_ can by no means be ignored: but our\nguiding principle must be that the physical is of worth only in so far\nas it serves the psychical, and is worse than worthless in so far as it\ndoes not. It would surely be well, for instance, that we should breed\nfor \u201cenergy,\u201d to use Mr. Galton's term: but the energy we desire, and\nthe energy he commends, is nervous, not muscular. The confusion between\ntwo radically different things, vitality and muscularity, is, however,\nalmost universal, though it will not stand a moment's examination.\nIn a volume devoted to personal hygiene I have discussed this point,\nwhich is of real moment both for the individual and for the theory of\neugenics.[15]\n\nIt is of interest to note, in passing from this question, that inherent\nfacts of the human constitution would interdict us if we thought it\na fit ideal to breed for stature or bulk. Giants are essentially\nmorbid--not favourable but unfavourable variations. They are very\nfrequently childless and almost constantly slow-witted. Their condition\nis really a mild form of a well-marked and highly characteristic\ndisease known as acromegaly, and distinguished by great enlargement\nof the face and extremities. The malady depends upon peculiarities in\nthe glandular activities of the body: _and the state of these which\nmakes for great stature and bulk makes against intelligence_. It is\nsuggested, then, that any considerable increase of human bulk and\nstature could only be obtained at the cost of intelligence. It would be\nvery dear at the price.\n\nWhen we come to the subject of selection for parenthood in man through\nthe preferences exhibited by individuals for members of the opposite\nsex, we shall see that what Darwin called \u201csexual selection\u201d is\ncertainly a reality in the case of man, whether or not it be so in the\ncase of the lower animals. We shall see that this most potent factor\nin human evolution acts even now very favourably, and is capable of\nhaving its value enormously enhanced. In the selection of husbands,\nnervous or psychical factors are notably of high survival-value in\ncivilised communities. In the selection of wives the survival-value of\nthe physical is still very high: but it may be hoped and believed that\nthe present tendency is to attach relatively less importance to them\nand more to the psychical elements of the chosen. This tendency must be\nfurthered to the utmost point beyond which the physical requisites for\nmotherhood would suffer weakening--but no further.\n\n=How are we to estimate civic worth?=--We have already observed that\nit is incorrect to use the word \u201cfit\u201d as if it were synonymous with\n\u201cworthy.\u201d If we insist on using this term, which means only \u201cadapted\nto conditions,\u201d we must define those conditions. We must say that we\ndesire to further the production of those who are fit for citizenship,\nand to disfavour the production of those who are unfit for citizenship.\nWe shall thereby dispose at least of those vexatious objectors who\ntell us that many eminent criminals are individually superior to many\neminent judges. The statement is doubtless untrue, but if it were\ntrue it would still be irrelevant. A criminal may be individually a\nremarkable personality, but in so far as he is a criminal he is unfit\nfor citizenship.\n\nIt is far better to use consistently Mr. Galton's phrase, \u201ccivic\nworth,\u201d or, for short, \u201cworth.\u201d We may here note Mr. Galton's most\nrecent remarks on what he means by worth:--\n\n  \u201cBy this I mean the civic worthiness, or the Value to the State of a\n  person, as it would probably be assessed by experts or, say, by such\n  of his fellow-workers as have earned the respect of the community\n  in the midst of which they live. Thus the worth of soldiers would\n  be such as it would be rated by respected soldiers, students by\n  students, business men by business men, artists by artists, and so\n  on. The State is a vastly complex organism, and the hope of obtaining\n  a Proportional Representation of its best parts should be an avowed\n  object of issuing invitations to these gatherings.\n\n  \u201cSpeaking only for myself, if I had to classify persons according\n  to Worth, I should consider each of them under the three heads of\n  Physique, Ability, and Character, subject to the provision that\n  inferiority in any one of the three should outweigh superiority in\n  the other two. I rank Physique first, because it is not only very\n  valuable in itself and allied to many other good qualities, but has\n  the additional merit of being easily rated. Ability I should place\n  second on similar grounds, and Character third, though in real\n  importance it stands first of all.\u201d[16]\n\nWe shall certainly misunderstand this quotation unless we clearly\nrealise that Mr. Galton is speaking of eugenic worth--that is to say,\nof worth in relation to parenthood and heredity. No one, of course,\nwould assert for a moment that inferiority in the matter of physique\noutweighed superiority in ability and character, so far as our estimate\nof an individual as an individual is concerned, nor yet so far as\nour estimate of him as a citizen is concerned. But from the eugenic\nstandpoint, as a parent of citizens to come, such a person, though\nhe may have himself saved the State, is on the average rightly to be\nregarded as unworthy on the eugenic scale--it being assumed, of course,\nthat the inferiority of physique in the person in question is either\nnative and therefore transmissible, or else due to forms of disease, or\npoisoning, such as, according to our knowledge of ante-natal pathology,\nwill probably involve degeneracy on the part of his children. I would\nadd that love is as precious as ability, if not more so, and that we\nshould aim at its increase by making parenthood the most responsible\nact in life, so that children are born only to those who love children\nand who will transmit their high measure of the parental instinct and\nthe tender emotion which is its correlate.[17]\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER V\n\n                       THE MULTIPLICATION OF MAN\n\n                        \u201cIncrease and multiply\u201d\n\n\nThe ceaseless multiplication of man is one of the facts which\ndistinguish him from all other living species, animal or vegetable.[18]\n\nWe must not be misled by such a case as that of the multiplication\nof rabbits in Australia. Apart from such circumstances as human\ninterference, the earth is already crammed with life of a kind, not the\nhighest life nor the most intense life, but at any rate fully extended\nlife. Man alone multiplies persistently, irresistibly, and has done\nso from the very first, so that, arising locally, he is now diffused\nover the whole surface of the earth. To quote from Professor Lankester\nagain: \u201cMan is Nature's rebel. Where Nature says Die! Man says I will\nlive! According to the law previously in universal operation man should\nhave been limited in geographical area, killed by extremes of cold or\nof heat, subject to starvation if one kind of diet were unobtainable,\nand should have been unable to increase and multiply, just as are his\nanimal relatives, without losing his specific structure.... But man's\nwits and his will have enabled him ... to \u2018increase and multiply,\u2019 as\nno other animal, without change of form.\u201d\n\nNot only has man made himself the only animal which constantly\nincreases in numbers, but this increase, as Professor Lankester points\nout in another part of his lecture, already threatening certain\ndifficulties, will be much more rapid than at present, assuming the\nbirth-rate to remain where it is, when disease is controlled. It\nis within our power, as Pasteur declared long ago, to abolish all\nparasitic, infectious or epidemic disease. This must be and will\nbe done--within a century, I have little doubt. The problem of the\nincrease of human population will become more pressing than ever.\nProfessor Lankester suggests that in one or five centuries the\ndifficulty raised by our multiplication \u201cwould, if let alone, force\nitself upon a desperate humanity, brutalised by over-crowding and the\nstruggle for food. A return to Nature's terrible selection of the\nfittest may, it is conceivable, be in this way in store for us. But\nit is more probable that humanity will submit to a restriction by the\ncommunity in respect of the right to multiply.\u201d The lecturer added that\nwe must therefore perfect our knowledge of heredity in man, as to which\n\u201cthere is absolutely no provision in any civilised community, and no\nconception among the people or their leaders, that it is a matter which\nconcerns anyone but farmers.\u201d\n\n=The secret of multiplication.=--Professor Lankester, however, omits\nto point out the astonishing paradox involved in the fact that--as\nI pointed out at the Royal Institution in 1907--man, the only\nceaselessly multiplying animal, has the lowest birth-rate of any living\ncreature.[19] From the purely arithmetical point of view, what does it\nmean? We may defer at present any deeper interpretation.\n\nIt means necessarily and obviously that the effective means of\nmultiplication is not a high birth-rate but a low death-rate. It is\na necessary inference from the paradox in question that the infant\ndeath-rate and the general death-rate in man are the lowest anywhere\nto be found. Producing fewer young he alone multiplies.[20] It follows\nthat a smaller proportion of those young must die. Unless it is\nsupposed by bishops and others, then, that a peculiar value attaches to\nthe production of a baby shortly to be buried, the suggestion evidently\nis the same as that to which every humanitarian and social and\npatriotic impulse guides us, namely, the reduction of the death-rate\nand especially the infant mortality. This is the true way in which\nto insure the more rapid multiplication of man, if that be desired.\nI believe it is not to be desired, but in any case the reduction of\nthe death-rate and especially of the infant mortality is a worthy and\nnecessary end in itself, and need not inevitably lead to our undue\nmultiplication provided that the birth-rate falls. Hence the eugenists\nand the Episcopal Bench may join hands so far as the reduction of the\ndeath-rate is concerned, and the only persons with whom a practical\nquarrel remains are those who--in effect--applaud the mother who boasts\nthat she has buried twelve.\n\n=The facts of human multiplication.=--Human population continues to\nincrease notwithstanding any changes in the birth-rate. This fact\nremains true, as shown by the latest obtainable figures. It should be\none of the dogmas never absent from the foreground of the statesman's\nmind. Apparently nothing, however, will induce us to take this little\nforethought. When we build a bridge across the Thames, we ignore it;\nwhen we widen a bridge we ignore it likewise. When we make a new street\nwe ignore it; when we build railways and railway stations we ignore\nit--excusably, perhaps, in this case; when we build hospitals we ignore\nit: four times out of five there is no room for the addition of a\nsingle ward in time to come. We have not yet even learnt, as they are\nlearning in America and Germany, how to acquire the outlying lands of\ncities for the public possession, so that they may be properly employed\nas the city grows. The man who builds himself a villa on the outskirts\nof a city, ignores it, and is staggered by it in ten years. The lover\nof nature and the country ignores it: \u201cJust look at this,\u201d he says,\n\u201cthis was in the country when first I knew it, look at these horrible\nrows of villas!\u201d The only possible reply to such a person is simply,\n\u201cWell, my dear sir, what do you propose? General infanticide?\u201d Most\nimportant of all, this fact, that, to take the case of Great Britain,\nsome half million babies are born every year in excess over the number\nof all who die at all ages, is forgotten by our statesmen--or rather by\nour politicians. It could, of course, not be forgotten by a statesman.\nQuite apart from remoter consequences, especially in relation to the\nwheat supply, this persistent multiplication--which one has actually\nheard denied on the ground that the birth-rate is falling--is of urgent\nmoment to all of us.\n\nIn 1907 the Census Bureau of Washington published some figures on the\nmortality statistics of nations, a summary of which may be quoted:\n\u201cIn all parts of the civilised world both the birth-rates and the\ndeath-rates tend to decrease, and, as a rule, those countries having\nthe lowest death-rates have also the lowest birth-rates. In Europe\nthe lowest birth-rate is that of France, the highest those of Servia\nand Roumania. The lowest death-rates are in Sweden and Norway; the\nhighest in Russia and Spain. The downward tendency of the birth-\nand death-rates is best shown by diagrams prepared by the French\nGovernment, and it is probable that the downward tendency is actually\nsteeper than the diagrams show, because both births and deaths are more\naccurately registered than formerly.\u201d\n\nBut these statements are by no means necessarily incompatible with\nsteady increase of population, which, of course, increases so long as\nthe birth-rate exceeds the death-rate. I quote a few figures from the\n_Science Year Book_ of 1908:\n\nIn 1890 the total population of the world was estimated at\n1,487,900,000.\n\n      Aryan (Europe, Persia, India, etc.)  545,000,000\n      Mongolian (N. and E. Asia)           630,000,000\n      Semitic (N. Africa)                   65,000,000\n      Negro (C. Africa)                    150,000,000\n      Malay and Polynesian                  35,000,000\n      American Indian                       15,000,000\n\nThe total figure now must be something like sixteen hundred millions at\nleast.\n\nDensity of population, in so far as it means what is commonly called\nover-crowding, is an important factor in the death-rate, and has a most\ninimical influence upon race-culture--in virtue of the opportunity\nafforded to the racial poisons--syphilis, alcohol, etc. Thus Sweden\nhas the lowest death-rate in Europe, and has much the least density\nof population--only 29 per square mile as compared with our own 341.\nIf now the fact of the increase of population, with all that it means\nand will mean, may be taken as dealt with and accepted, there will be\nno danger of leading the reader to false conclusions if we insist upon\nthe fall of the birth-rate, which in Great Britain in 1908 was the\nlowest on record. The death-rate, however, persistently falls also.\nThe reader who thinks that the birth-rate alone determines the increase\nof population, and those who believe in polygamy on the ground that it\nnecessarily makes for the rapid multiplication and therefore strength\nof a nation, should compare the death-rate of London, which is under\n16, with that of Bombay, which is just under 79. It is asserted that in\nmany large Indian cities the infant mortality approaches one-half of\nall the children born. What it amounts to in such cities as Canton and\nPekin we can only surmise with horror.\n\nNotwithstanding the persistent fall in the birth-rate of London the\nrate of increase in population remains stupendous, according to the\ncalculations of Mr. Cottrell, which may be quoted from the _Science\nYear Book_ of 1908. He estimates the population of Greater London in\n1910 at about 7\u00bd millions, and in 1920 at well over 8\u00bd millions--the\nfalling birth-rate notwithstanding.\n\nThe increase of population of five great countries may be briefly noted\nhere. In all, with the possible exception of Russia, the birth-rate is\nrapidly falling. In the course of the nineteenth century the population\nof\n\n    Russia (in Europe)  rose from 38 to 105,000,000\n    France               \"    \"   26  \"  38,000,000\n    Germany              \"    \"   23  \"  55,000,000\n    Great Britain        \"    \"   15  \"  40,000,000\n    United States        \"    \"    5  \"  75,000,000\n\nThese are merely approximate figures, but accurate enough to be of\nvalue. It need hardly be pointed out that immigration accounts for the\ndisproportionate increase of population in the United States. But it\nmay be added that the imminent arrest or control of this immigration\nwill assuredly have the most serious and pressing consequences for\nEurope. Plainly it must hasten the coming of national eugenics.\n\n=The case of Germany.=--Especial interest and importance attach for\nmany reasons to the case of Germany in this connection, and, as\nmight be expected, many precise facts are available. Here I shall\navail myself freely of the paper contributed by Dr. Sombart to the\n_International_ for December, 1907. In the first seven years of this\ncentury the population of Germany increased almost ten per cent.\nThe figure in 1870 was 40.8 millions and in 1907 61 millions. The\npopulation is increasing yearly at the rate of about 800,000, as\ncompared with about half a million in the case of Great Britain. In\nFrance in 1907 the population actually declined by a few thousands. In\nregard to the growth of population Germany is now at the head of all\ncivilised countries, excepting those cases in which immigration has\naugmented the number of inhabitants. Does this expansion of population\ndepend upon an increasing birth-rate or a diminishing death-rate?\nThe fact, in strict parallel with the biological generalisation\nalready made, is that \u201cGermany's population is increasing so swiftly\nbecause the death-rate has been falling steadily. At the beginning\nof the period, 1870-1880, there were nearly 30 deaths per thousand\ninhabitants, while in recent years only about 20 deaths in every\nthousand inhabitants have taken place each year.... Notwithstanding,\nthe birth-rate during the last ten years, during which the principal\ngrowth of population occurs, has not in anywise increased in Germany.\nIndeed, by careful investigation it becomes apparent that it has\ndeclined almost unintermittently for a generation.\u201d The average\nbirth-rate for the ten years 1871-1880 was 40.7, for 1891-1900 the\naverage was 37.4. Since then it has fallen further, and in 1905 the\nfigure was 34, the lowest on record. As Dr. Sombart observes, we shall\nonly appreciate these figures if we regard them as an expression of\na tendency which will continue, and that this is so he proves. He\nobserves that \u201cthe more highly advanced the country, the lower its\nbirth-rate.... From this we may already draw the conclusion that a\ndiminution of births is a concomitant of our progress in civilisation.\nSecondly, this is confirmed by the fact that the falling-off in the\nbirth-rate must be attributed largely to the big cities.... As a third\nstatistical argument that the birth-rate declines with the advance\nof civilisation, the fact may be cited that in the quarters of the\nwell-to-do still fewer children are born than in those of the poor.\u201d\n(In London, as we have seen, the birth-rate is highest in Stepney and\nlowest in Hampstead).\n\nDr. Sombart finally points out what must never be forgotten--that an\nincrease in population, dependent upon a fall in the death-rate, whilst\nthe birth-rate also falls, is necessarily self-limited. The decrease\nof the death-rate is limited by definite natural age-limits, and \u201cthis\nindicates that the increase of population in Germany is gradually\nentering upon a period of less activity, and will perhaps quite cease\nwithin a conceivable period unless other causes operate in the opposite\ndirection.\u201d\n\n=The yellow peril.=--The facts regarding the yellow races are extremely\ndifficult to ascertain. It appears, however, that the birth-rate in\nJapan has almost doubled in 27 years--rising from 17.1 to 31. (I\ndoubt the accuracy of the earlier figure.) In China the population\nis largely controlled by infanticide, but there is little doubt that\nthe main contention of Pearson was correct, and that the yellow races\nare multiplying much more rapidly than the white races. It does\nnot necessarily follow, however, as we shall see, that this means\nyellow ascendancy, any more than a similar comparison would mean\nmicrobic ascendancy. It is not quantity but quality of life that\ngives survival-value and dominance. This disparity between white and\nyellow rates of increase is by far the most pregnant of contemporary\nphenomena. In the present introductory volume it can merely be named.\nBut since we shall not survive in virtue of quantity, I, for one, am\nwell assured that the choice for Western civilisation will ere long be\nthe final one between eugenics or extinction.\n\n=The wheat problem.=--Meanwhile, we must consider briefly the question\nevidently raised by this fact of human multiplication. As an expert\nhas lately said, the rise in the price of wheat \u201cis not the transitory\nresult of market manipulation and \u2018corners,\u2019 forcing prices up to an\nunnatural level, but of perfectly natural and irresistible causes\nwhich, for all that, are the more anxious and disquieting. The truth is\nwe are for the first time beginning to feel individually the effect of\na great natural process--the race which started long ago between the\npopulation of the world and the growth of the world's wheat supply. In\nthis race the growth of the world's population has been outstripping\nthe growth of its wheat-food production, and the consequence has been\na total growing shortage, in spite of the opening of vast new areas in\nCanada and the Argentina.\u201d In this connection one of the best papers\nin Great Britain--the _Westminster Gazette_--cheerfully remarked in\na leading article that, after all, we need not be alarmed as to the\ndifficulty in increasing the supply of wheat, since population would,\nin any case, adapt itself to the food-supply. This is true, indeed:\nthere will never be more human beings than there is food to feed. But\nthe question is, how will the population be kept down? In a word, is it\nto be by the awful and bloody processes of Nature or by the conscious,\nprovident and humane methods of man?\n\nWe are reminded of the argument advanced by Sir William Crookes in\nhis Presidential Address to the British Association in 1898. The\ndistinguished author has himself written an invaluable book on the\nsubject which has been carefully revised and supplemented, and must be\nread by the serious student.[21] We may note from the point of view of\nthe student of dietetics that wheat is and remains, on physiological\nexamination, what the proverb suggests. Bread is the staff of life,\nwheat being, in proportion to its price, by far the best and cheapest\nof all foods.\n\nThe argument of Sir William Crookes was advanced exactly a century\nafter the publication of the great essay of Malthus which we must soon\nconsider. In the whole intervening century no one, capable of being\nheard, had considered the question. The relation of Crookes to the\nearlier thinker remains, though it is curious that Malthus was not\nmentioned by his successor. Writing now, a decade later, I wish merely\nto point out that Sir William's argument is found valid. He observed\nthat \u201cthe actual and potential wheat-producing capacity of the United\nStates is--and will be, for years to come--the dominant factor in the\nworld's bread-supply.\u201d Now the recent expert from whom we have already\nquoted declares that \u201cformer great wheat exporting countries like the\nUnited States, as well as Russia and India, while their production\nremains as high, are sending far less abroad under the pressure of\ntheir own increasing needs. In this connection it may be recorded\nthat a great American corn expert declares that in twenty-five years\nthe United States will want all, or very nearly all, of her wheat\nproduction for herself, and will have very little indeed to send us.\u201d\nIn 1898 Sir William said, \u201cA permanently higher price for wheat is,\nI fear, a calamity that ere long must be faced.\u201d As everyone knows,\nthis prophecy is now being fulfilled. Sir William declared that \u201cthe\naugmentation of the world's eating population in a geometrical ratio\u201d\nis a proved fact. The phrase means, of course, simply that the yearly\nincrease increases. On the other hand, the wheat supply is subject to\na yearly increase which does not itself increase--in other words the\nincrease is in an arithmetical ratio. This, a century later, precisely\nillustrates the principle of Malthus. Sir William also declared that\nexports of wheat from the United States are only of present interest,\nand that \u201cwithin a generation the ever-increasing population of the\nUnited States will consume all the wheat grown within its borders, and\nwill be driven to import, and, like ourselves, will scramble for the\nlion's share of the wheat crop of the world.\u201d\n\nNext to the United States Russia is the greatest wheat exporter, but\nthe Russian peasant population increases more rapidly than any other in\nEurope, even though it is inadequately fed, and this source of supply\nmust fail ere very long. As Sir William points out, the Caucasian\ncivilisation is indeed founded upon bread. \u201cOther races vastly superior\nto us in numbers, but differing widely in material and intellectual\nprogress, are eaters of Indian corn, rice, millet and other\ngrains; but none of these grains have the food-value, concentrated\nhealth-sustaining power of wheat.\u201d Sir William's argument was, and is,\nthat we must learn how to fix the nitrogen of the atmosphere--that is\nto say, how to combine it in forms on which the plant can feed. \u201cThe\nfixation of nitrogen is a question of the not far distant future.\nUnless we can class it among certainties to come, the great Caucasian\nrace will cease to be foremost in the world, and will be squeezed out\nof existence by races to whom wheat and bread is not the staff of life.\u201d\n\nSir William Crookes was himself the pioneer in the discovery of the\nelectric method of fixing the atmospheric nitrogen, and now, a decade\nafter the delivery of his address, this method is in successful\ncommercial employment in Scandinavia. There is also a method of sowing\nthe bacteria which are capable of fixing nitrogen and this, according\nto some, has been already proved practicable. Further, the Mendelians\noffer us the possibility of new varieties of wheat having more grains\nto the stalk than we obtain at present. By these methods the output\nof the land devoted to wheat may be doubled or trebled, but it is\nevident that even then there will be an impassable limit. We have to\nface, indeed, the evident but unconsidered fact that _there must be a\nmaximum possible human population for this finite earth_, whether a\nbread-eating population or any other. I do not propose to speculate\nregarding this evident truth. If human life is worth living and is the\nhighest life we know, we may desire to obtain that maximum population,\nbut it must be obtained, and its limits observed, by the humane and\ndecent processes which man is capable of putting into practice, and not\nby the check of starvation.\n\nIt is of great interest to the British reader to look at the question\nbriefly from his point of view. At the present time our wheat\nproduction is no more than one-eighth of our needs, and in twenty-five\nyears, when the supply from the United States will probably have\nceased, we shall require 40,000,000 quarters of wheat per annum. Yet\nalready, in time of peace, careful observers such as the Rt. Hon.\nCharles Booth and Mr. Seebohm Rowntree declare that thirty per cent.\nof our own population are living on the verge of starvation. Our\navailable supply of food of all kinds at any moment would last us\nabout three weeks. How many of us realise what a war would mean for\nthis country? Yet in the face of facts such as these, the majority of\nthose who attempt to guide public opinion are urging us to increase our\nbirth-rate and still pin their faith to quantity rather than quality of\npopulation as our great need.\n\n=The theory of Malthus.=--The reader who is interested in general\nbiology will realise, of course, that we are here back to the great\nargument of Malthus, advanced in 1798 in his _Essay on the Principle of\nPopulation_. Malthus was a great and sincere thinker, a high and true\nmoralist, and the people who have a vague notion that his name has some\nconnection with immoral principles of any kind have no acquaintance\nwith the subject. It is of the deepest interest for the history of\nthought to know that it was the work of Malthus which suggested,\nindependently, both to Charles Darwin and to Dr. Alfred Russel Wallace,\nthat principle of natural selection, the survival of the fittest and\ntheir choice for parenthood, the discovery of which constituted one of\nthe great epochs in the history of human knowledge, and which is the\ncardinal principle underlying the whole modern conception of eugenics\nor race-culture.\n\nMalthus found in all life the constant tendency to increase beyond the\nnourishment available. In a given area, not even the utmost imaginable\nimprovement in developing the resources of the soil can or could keep\npace with the unchecked increase of population.[22] This applies alike\nto Great Britain and to the whole world. At bottom, then, the check\nto population--and this is true of microbes or men--is want of food,\nnotwithstanding that this is never the immediate and obvious check\nexcept in cases of actual famine. There must therefore be a \u201cstruggle\nfor existence,\u201d and as Darwin and Wallace saw, it follows as a\nnecessary truth that, to use Spencer's term, the fittest must survive.\nThe question is whether we are to accept starvation as, at bottom,\nthe factor controlling population (which, in any case, must be and\nis controlled) or whether we can substitute something better--as for\ninstance, the moral self-control which Malthus recommended. The single\nprecept of this much maligned thinker was \u201cDo not marry till you have a\nfair prospect of supporting a family\u201d--a fairly decent and respectable\ndoctrine. In the words of Mr. Kirkup, \u201cthe greatest and highest moral\nresult of his principle is that it clearly and emphatically teaches the\nresponsibility of parentage, and it declares the sin of those who bring\nhuman beings into the world for whose physical, intellectual, and moral\nwell-being no satisfactory provision is made.\u201d Who, alas, will declare\nthat even after a century and a decade this great lesson is yet learnt?\n\nIt is to be added, first, that though improvement in agriculture is to\nbe commended on every conceivable ground, and though it may in some\ndegree relieve and postpone the difficulty, it is infinitely incapable\nof abolishing it. Nothing but necessity can check the prolificness of\nlife. To this doctrine, however, there is, as we shall shortly see,\na great excepting principle, unrecognised by Malthus, discovered by\nHerbert Spencer, and of vast and universal importance. Secondly, it is\nto be noted that emigration--a real remedy for over-population--is so\nonly for a time. It cannot possibly abolish the problem--short of the\ndevelopment of interplanetary communication, if then; and the observer\nof contemporary politics must be well aware, as Germany, for instance,\nis well aware already, that its effectiveness as a practical remedy for\nover-population in some European countries is already being arrested by\nthe invaded states.\n\nThe references already made to the work of Sir William Crookes will\nsuffice to show that the teaching of Malthus is of practical importance\nto us to-day, and not least to the population of Great Britain. I am\ntempted to quote the actual case in this connection of a young student\nof biology who applied for Malthus's book at one of the greatest\nofficial libraries in this country. He was looked at as a shameless\nyoung rascal, and the librarian curtly said, \u201cWe have no books of\nthat kind here.\u201d I commend this exquisite instance of misapplied and\nperfectly ignorant British prudery to Mr. Bernard Shaw: not even he\ncould imagine anything to surpass it. No more impeccably decent book\nthan this of \u201cParson Malthus\u201d has ever been written, and I have no\nadequate comment for the fact that its nature and contents were not\nmerely wholly unknown but grossly misimagined by this responsible\nofficial, and that it could not be obtained in the great library of\nscience in question.\n\nWe pass in the following chapter to the momentous discovery of Herbert\nSpencer that the great truth seen by Malthus was not a whole but a\nhalf-truth, and that there is a compensating principle, which is at\nonce a source of inspiration and of difficulty to the eugenist. It is\nin general the principle that as life ascends it becomes less prolific,\nand its consequences are infinitely more vast than the phrase at first\nsuggests. Had this principle been discovered by a Continental thinker\nor by a member of a British University instead of by a man who never\npassed an examination, it would not now need the discussion which we\nshall have to give it.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER VI\n\n                      THE GROWTH OF INDIVIDUALITY\n\n\n=The laws of multiplication.=--Implicit or explicit approval of a\nfalling birth-rate involves opposition to the opinion of the man in\nthe street, the general opinion of the medical profession,[23] the\nbench of bishops and the social prophet and publicist in general.\nNevertheless a fall in the birth-rate is a factor in organic progress,\nand, in general, the level of any species is in inverse proportion to\nits birth-rate, from bacteria to the most civilised classes of men in\nthe most civilised countries of to-day. But in truth the uninformed\nopinion, totally contrary to the whole history of life and to the most\nobvious comparative facts of the birth-rate amongst and within present\nday human societies, was utterly disposed of forty years ago in the\nclosing chapter of the greatest contribution yet made to philosophic\nbiology--Herbert Spencer's _Principles of Biology_. The last chapter\nof that masterpiece is entitled \u201cThe Laws of Multiplication.\u201d\nUnfortunately it has not been read by one in ten thousand of those who\nthink themselves entitled to hold, and even to express, opinions about\nthe birth-rate. Spencer's discovery is the complementary half-truth\nto the discovery of Malthus, and just as the law of Malthus is\npessimistic, so the law of Spencer is optimistic. In a word, Malthus\nassumed--indeed, formally declared--that there was no natural factor of\nan internal kind tending to limit the rate of vital fertility. Spencer\ndiscovered that there is such a factor, which can and does limit and\nhas been limiting vegetable, animal, and human fertility since the dawn\nof life.\n\nAll reproduction involves an expenditure of energy in some degree on\nthe part of the parent. Now the energy available by any individual is\nfinite. If he expends it all upon reproduction, he himself, or she\nherself, must cease to exist. This happens in all the lowest forms\nof life, which multiply by fission or simple splitting. The young\nbacteria are their sub-divided parent. At the other extreme is the\ncase of the individual who retains the whole of his energy for his own\ndevelopment and life, and has no offspring at all. Such consummate\nbachelor philosophers as Kant and Spencer may be quoted, and the list\nof childless men of genius might be extended quite indefinitely. This\nis not to declare this last state to be the ideal, but merely to point\nout the logical extremes.\n\nSpencer's principle is that there is an \u201cAntagonism,\u201d or, as we\nmay rather say, an inverse ratio, between \u201cIndividuation\u201d and\n\u201cGenesis\u201d--between the proportion of energy expended upon the\nindividual and the proportion expended upon the continuance of the\nrace. Thus \u201cIndividuation,\u201d meaning all those processes which maintain\nand expand the life of the individual, and \u201cGenesis,\u201d meaning all\nthose processes which involve the formation of new individuals--are\nnecessarily antagonistic. Every higher degree of individual evolution\nis followed by a lower degree of race multiplication, and _vice vers\u00e2_.\nIncrease in bulk (_cf._ the elephant), complexity or activity involves\ndiminution in fertility, and _vice vers\u00e2_. This is an obvious _\u00e0\npriori_ principle.\n\nShould the reader declare that there must be something the matter with\nan asserted principle of progress which leads in theory or in practice\nto the production of a childless generation, and therefore the end of\nall progress, and that this principle suggests that the most completely\ndeveloped man and woman cannot be parents--then I would join in the\nchorus of fathers and mothers generally, who would say that, in human\nparenthood, if not, indeed, in sub-human parenthood, the antagonism\nis reconciled in a higher unity; that the best and most complete\ndevelopment of the individual is effected only through parenthood, in\ndue degree--as Spencer, himself childless, formally declared.\n\nIt is impossible here to show how complete is the evidence for\nSpencer's law, both from the side of logical necessity and from the\nside of observation. In order to indicate the overwhelming character\nof the evidence, one would have to transcribe the whole of his\nlong chapter, and to add to it all our modern knowledge of human\nbirth-rates. This cannot be done, but even without it we may venture\nto say that people who regard a falling birth-rate as in itself, and\nobviously, a sign of racial degeneration or immorality, or approaching\nweakness or failure of any kind, can have made no substantial additions\nto their knowledge of the subject since they themselves formed items in\nthe birth-rate.\n\nSpencer goes on to show, with profound insight, that, in general,\ngreater individuality, or, to put it in other words, the more highly\nevolved organism, \u201c_though less fertile absolutely, is the more fertile\nrelatively_.\u201d The supreme instance of this truth is, of course, the\ncase of man, in whom individuation has reached its unprecedented\nheight, who is _absolutely_ the least fertile of creatures,[24] and\nyet who is _relatively_ the most fertile--unique in his actual and\npersistent multiplication.\n\n=Their action in man.=--Within the human species the laws of\nmultiplication hold. It is still worth while, after half a century, to\nquote Spencer's remark as to infertility in women due to mental labour\ncarried to excess--\u201cmost of the flat-chested girls who survive their\nhigh-pressure education are incompetent to bear a well-developed infant\nand to supply it with the natural food for the natural period.\u201d On all\nhands people with opened eyes are rightly urging this truth upon us\nto-day. In the United States the so-called higher education of girls\nhas been proved in effect to sterilise them--and these the flower of\nthe nation's girlhood, and therefore, rightly, the very elect for\nmotherhood. Here is simply an instance of the Spencerian principle in\nits most unfortunate misdirection by man.\n\nBefore leaving Spencer, we must refer briefly to the predictions,\nbased upon the foregoing principles, with which he concluded his great\nwork. The further evolution of man, he declares, must take mainly the\ndirection of a higher intellectual and emotional development. Hitherto,\nand even to-day, pressure of population is the original cause of human\ncompetition, application, discipline, expenditure of energy--and one\nmay add, the possibility of continued selection. Excess of fertility,\nthen, says Spencer, is the cause of man's evolution, but \u201cman's further\nevolution itself necessitates a decline in his fertility.\u201d The future\nprogress of civilisation will be accompanied by increased development\nof individuality, emotional and intellectual. As Spencer observes, this\ndoes not necessarily mean a mentally laborious life, for as mental\nactivity \u201cgradually becomes organic, it will become spontaneous and\npleasurable.\u201d\n\nFinally, the necessary antagonism between individuality and parenthood\nensures the ultimate attainment of the highest form of the maintenance\nof the race--\u201c... _a form in which the amount of life shall be the\ngreatest possible, and the births and deaths the fewest possible_.\u201d\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIf now we look back at the law of Malthus we shall realise the\nenormous significance of the law of Spencer. In this respect we have\nthe advantage over Malthus that we are aware, as he was not, of the\ngreat fact of organic evolution. We discover, then, that an actual\nconsequence of the pressure of population, leading as it does to the\nstruggle for existence, and, in the main, the survival of higher types,\nis that the rate of fertility falls. This conception of the fall in\nthe birth-rate--which, it is maintained, has been a great factor in\nall organic progress--was entirely absent from the mind of Malthus.\nIn a word, the unlimited multiplication which Malthus observed leads\nto its own correction. It provides abundance of material for natural\nselection to work upon, and then the survival-value of individuation,\nwherever it appears, asserts itself, with the consequence that the rate\nof multiplication declines. This is actually to be observed to-day.\nMalthus desired that we should postpone marriage to later ages so\nas to lower the birth-rate. The increasing necessity and demand for\nindividuation is effecting that which Malthus desired. The average age\nat marriage has been rising in our own country in both sexes during the\nlast thirty years: and the evidence shows that as civilisation advances\nthe age of marriage becomes later and later. Professor Metchnikoff has\ndiscussed some aspects of this question in his book _The Nature of Man_.\n\n=The intensive culture of life.=--For every student of progress, and\nnot least for the eugenist, Spencer's law is a warrant of hope and a\npromise of better things to come. It teaches that in the development\nof higher--that is to say, more specialised--that is to say, more\nindividualised--organic types, Nature is working already, and has\nbeen working for ages, towards the elimination of the brutal elements\nin the struggle for existence. This is, of course, what every worker\nfor progress, and every eugenist in especial, desires. Spencer's\ndiscovery teaches also that individuality compensates a species for\nloss of high fertility. The survival-value of individuation is greater\nthan the survival-value of rapid multiplication. _The very fact of\nprogress is the replacement of lower by higher life, the supersession\nof the quantitative by the qualitative criterion of survival-value,\nthe increasing dominance of mind over matter, the substitution of the\nintensive for the merely extensive cultivation of life._ These various\nphrases express, I believe, various aspects of one and the same great\nfact, and I only wish it were possible to include here an exhaustive\nstudy of the conception which may be expressed by the phrase \u201cthe\nintensity of life\u201d--as distinguished from its mere extension. There is,\nI believe, a real and significant analogy between the introduction of\nwhat is called intensive cultivation in agriculture, and the eugenic\nprinciple which seeks to replace the extensive by the intensive\ncultivation of human life.\n\n=The eugenic difficulty.=--But it will be already evident to the reader\nthat, though Spencer's law offers hope and warrant to the eugenist,\nit also poses him with a permanent and ineradicable difficulty which\nis inherent in natural necessity--viz., the difficulty that, in\nconsequence of the operation of this law, those very classes or members\nof a society whose parenthood he most desires must be, in general, the\nleast fertile. Throughout the animal world the lesser fertility of\nhigher species is no real handicap to them, as we know; but where the\nconditions of selection are so profoundly modified as in human society,\nthe case is very different. Furthermore, amongst mankind individuality\nhas often grown, and does grow, to such an extent that parenthood\ndisappears altogether. Indeed, Spencer's law expresses itself--and\nthe eugenist must qualify his hopes by the fact--in the practical\ninfertility of many[25] of the most highly individualised and even\nunique personalities, that is to say, in the ranks of what we call\ngenius. To this subject we must return.\n\nA notable section in Mr. Galton's great work, _Inquiries into Human\nFaculty_, states very plainly the difficulty for the eugenist involved\nin Spencer's law, under its more statistical aspect. What are the\nrelative effects of early and late marriages? Mr. Galton proves,\nmathematically, that in a very few generations a group of persons who\nmarry late will be simply bred down and more than supplanted by those\nwho marry early. Now no one will dispute that the less individualised,\nthe lower types, the more nearly animal, do in general marry earlier,\nand are more fertile. Here, then, is an anti-eugenic tendency in\nhuman society, depending really upon Spencer's law and requiring us\nto recognise and counteract it by throwing all the weight we can\nupon the side of progress, which means _increasing to our utmost the\nsurvival-value and the effective fertility of the higher types_.\n\nMuch more space might be spent upon this gravest of problems for the\neugenist--the fact that the very persons from whom he desires to\nrecruit the future on account of their greater individuality are also\non that very account the persons who, by natural necessity, tend to be\nless fertile. The difficulty shows itself in the male sex, but it shows\nitself still more conspicuously in the female sex, where the proportion\nof the individual energy devoted to the race, as compared with that\ndevoted to individuation, is necessarily far higher, and must so remain\nif the race is to persist. Primarily, the body of woman is the temple\nof life to come--and _therefore_, as we shall some day teach our girls,\nthe holy of holies. Without going further into this matter now, it\nmay be suggested that a cardinal principle of practical importance\nis involved. It is that the individual development of women, their\nhigher education, their self-expression in works of art and thought and\npractice, cannot safely be carried to the point at which motherhood\nis compromised; else the race in question will necessarily disappear\nand be replaced by any race whatsoever, the women of which continue to\nbe mothers. There are women of the worker bee type whom this argument\nannoys intensely. No one wants _them_ to be mothers.\n\nThe proposition that all progress in the psychical world depends upon\nindividuality, just as all organic progress, and indeed, all organic\nevolution, depends upon the physical individuality which biologists\ncall variation, may suggest to the reader the importance which must\nattach to our study of talent and genius, and the possibility of aiding\ntheir production. Meanwhile, we must look a little further at the\ngeneral question of individuality or quality _versus_ quantity from the\ninternational point of view.\n\n=Quantity versus quality.=--The reader will understand how it is\nthat anyone writing from the biological standpoint must view with\nsomething like contempt the common assumption that, in international\ncompetition, mere statistics of population furnish, as such, final\nand adequate data for prophecy. Let us remind ourselves once more\nthat, according to these crude criteria, which were really superseded\nuntold \u00e6ons ago, the dominance of the world must belong in the near\nfuture not to Russia, with its balance of more than two million births\nper annum, rather than to France, with its approximately stationary\npopulation, but to the bacteria, the growth of population amongst\nwhich, if it be not controlled by the less fertile creature we call\nman, may be of simply inexpressible magnitude. But the world is not,\nand will not be, ruled by bacteria, their fertility notwithstanding.\nIndeed, the disease-producing bacteria have already had sentence of\ndeath pronounced upon them by the higher intelligence of man, and\nthat sentence will be carried out within a century. Similarly within\nthe bounds of humanity we must recognise the limitations of mere\nstatistics. The population of France, some forty years ago, consisted\nof so many millions of units. The figure does not matter,--let us put\nit at 30,000,001. Now that 1, so to say, was called Louis Pasteur,\nand from the point of view of statistics or those who think they can\npredict history by counting heads, he was only an almost infinitesimal\nfraction, about one-thirty-millionth part, of the French people. Yet,\nas Huxley pointed out long ago, his mind sufficed to pay the entire\nindemnity exacted from France after the Franco-Prussian war. This\nsingle unit was worth more than a host of soldiers of the merely\nmechanical kind. Or take Athens, with its population of 30,000 people,\nmostly slaves, and consider its influence upon the world. Or, indeed,\ngo where you please, whether to the history of nations or the history\nof religion or science or art, and ask whether the counting of heads,\nthe ordinary census taking which indeed amounts merely to weighing\nnations by the ton, is an adequate one. In estimating national\ncapital by the methods of vital statistics alone, we are in a far\nworse case than he would be who estimated monetary wealth by numbers\nof coins, without considering whether they were pounds, shillings or\npence, whether they were genuine or counterfeit. The illustration is\nludicrously inadequate, as every illustration must be, simply because\nthe human case is unique. In the units of a population, which many\nprophets treat as if they were all of equal value, there are not merely\ndifferences to which the difference between a sovereign and a penny\noffers no parallel; there is not merely an enormous quantity of bogus\nor counterfeit units, but there is a very large number of units in\nevery population which, so far from adding to the value of the rest,\nsubtract from it, are parasitic upon it. Students of money will find\nno parallel to this. Yet in the face of facts which ought to be common\nintellectual property amongst school-children, we find many writers,\nbishops, socialist economists, moralists, schoolboy Imperialists, and\nthe rest, pointing merely to the quantitative question of population\nas if it were everything, though they must surely know that, if\ninternational competition were the highest state of mankind, and if\nthe work of Kelvin and Lister had been sold at its real worth by us to\nthe rest of the world, those two men alone, in their services to life,\nand in the power which they give us over life, would be equal in value\nto, shall we say, the lower four-fifths of the whole birth-rate during\nthe last generation. All human history teaches, as all animal history\nteaches in lesser degree, that quality and individuality is everything,\nthat quantity is nothing or far worse than nothing _except in so far\nas it is quantity of quality_: yet though this lesson is written upon\nevery page of the past, the greater number of our publicists and our\npublic advisers still implicitly deny it. As Mr. Crackanthorpe put it,\nspeaking of the figures for 1907, it is not the defective numbers, but\nthe numbers of defectives, that should give us concern.\n\n=Mass versus mind.=--John Ruskin called Darwin \u201ca dim comet, wagging\nits tail of phosphorescent nothing against the steadfast stars\u201d--a\ndescription as delightful as it is foolish. Yet the conception of\neugenics, which is indeed a necessary deduction from Darwin's great\ndiscovery, finds abundant warrant and support in Ruskin's own wonderful\nwritings, and here I quote, from _Time and Tide_, some sentences which\nstill require to be read and remembered by the majority of our present\nadvisers. He says:--\n\n  \u201cAnd the question of numbers is wholly immaterial, compared with\n  that of character; or rather, its own materialness depends on the\n  prior determination of character. Make your nation consist of\n  knaves, and, as Emerson said long ago, it is but the case of any\n  other vermin--the more, the worse. Or, to put the matter in narrower\n  limits, it is a matter of no final concern to any parent whether he\n  shall have two children, or four; but matter of quite final concern\n  whether those he has shall, or shall not, deserve to be hanged....\n  You have to consider first, by what methods of land distribution you\n  can maintain the greatest number of healthy persons; and secondly\n  whether, if, by any other mode of distribution and relative ethical\n  laws, you can raise their character, while you diminish their\n  numbers, such sacrifices should be made, and to what extent?... The\n  French and British public may and will, with many other publics, be\n  at last brought ... to see farther that a nation's real strength\n  and happiness do not depend upon properties and territories, nor on\n  machinery for their defence, but on their getting such territory as\n  they _have_, well filled with none but respectable persons, which is\n  a way of _infinitely_ enlarging one's territory, feasible to every\n  potentate.\u201d\n\nSurely it is not necessary, one feels, and yet one knows it is\nnecessary, again to lay down propositions of such shining truth, and\none wonders whether they shine so brightly as to blind those who should\nsee them: or what can conceivably be the explanation of such arguments\nas those of the Bishop of London and others who, in the face of our\nmonstrous infant and child mortality, the awful pressure of population\nand over-crowding in our great cities, where every year a larger and\nlarger proportion of the population lives, and is born and dies--plead\nfor a higher birth-rate on moral grounds, of all amazing grounds\nconceivable; and those also who, from the military or so-called\nImperial point of view, regarding men primarily as \u201cfood for powder,\u201d\nin Shakespeare's phrase, read and quote statistics of population in\norder to promulgate the same advice?\n\nTo the moralist we need make no reply except simply to name the infant\nmortality which is at last coming to be recognised everywhere as,\nperhaps, the most abominable of all our scandals. To the militarist I\nwould quote the case of our ally, Japan. He recalls the war between\nChina and Japan, and its issue, and has some idea, perhaps, of the\npopulation ratio of those two Empires. How was it that Providence was\non the side of the small battalions? He recalls also the Russo-Japanese\nwar and its issue; and the population ratio of the two Empires in that\ncase. How many other instances does not military history afford of\nthe truth that in the human species mind is the master of matter? One\nwould suppose that a critical historical enquiry had been made, proving\nthat the results of all past wars could have been predicted by the\nsimple method of estimating the total aggregate weight of the combatant\nnations in flesh and blood and bone! More than this, if the development\nof the art of warfare means anything, if there has been any such\ndevelopment since the days of fists and stones, it means, as all human\ndevelopment in every sphere means, the increasing dominance of mind\nover matter, character and initiative over machinery, _dead or alive_.\nMeanwhile, the estimate of warriors in terms of the scale and the foot\nrule are still accepted just as if they had not been rendered obsolete\nfor ever with the passing of the \u201cdragons of the prime.\u201d\n\nAs regards the psychical worth of the soldier, is it not recognised,\nthough too commonly forgotten, when we applaud the value of the veteran\nor of seasoned troops? Physically the veteran is, on the average,\ninferior to the younger man. It is the psychical that gives him\nhis worth, just as it was patriotism and sobriety that enabled the\nfew sober Japanese to beat the many drunken Russians. It is safe to\nprophesy that, in all future war, the numerical criterion, which in\neffect weighs armies by the ton, as if war were merely a tug-of-war,\nwill become less and less important--if, indeed, it is not already\nnegligible; whilst the purely psychical qualities, from generalship and\nstrategy and hygiene to initiative, judgment, accuracy, memory, and\ndown finally to mere brutal red-blooded courage, will determine the\nissue.\n\nPlatitude, of course, but if true, why ignored? Why cannot our military\nadvisers learn, in this respect, from the Navy? Owing to the very\nnature of the sea as compared with the land, in relation to the merely\nphysical capacities of man, a Navy must be more intelligent than an\nArmy, just as it requires more intelligence to make a boat than to\nwalk; and it is in the Navy that the mechanical factor has been most\ncompletely transferred, so that the human machinery is at a discount\nand the steel machinery made by the human mind is much, whilst the\nvalue of the psychical in all its aspects dominates and controls\nthe whole. Great Britain, as the foremost naval power in the world,\nshould long ago have left to its ultimate fate amongst other nations\nthe idea that quantity--so many tons of soldiers and so many tons of\nsailors--affords an estimate of the warring force of a nation: even if\nthe whole history of this little isle and the possession of our present\nEmpire did not teach, as the history of Rome taught and as the history\nof Athens teaches in another sphere, that not mass but mind makes a\nnation great.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER VII\n\n                       HEREDITY AND RACE-CULTURE\n\n  \u201cWe cannot but feel that the application of biological results\n  is _only beginning_, and beginning with a tardiness which is a\n  reproach to human foresight. There can be no doubt that it would\n  pay the British nation to put aside a million a year for research\n  on eugenics, or the improvement of the human breed.\u201d (Prof. J. A.\n  Thomson, _Heredity_, 1908.)\n\n\nIt is evident that the facts and principles of heredity lie at the\nvery basis of eugenics or race-culture in any of its forms, practical\nor impractical, scientific or unscientific. Our continual assumption\nthroughout is that _like tends to beget like_, and it is on this ground\nthat we desire to make parenthood the privilege of those whom we regard\nas _inherently_ the best. If there were no such thing as heredity there\ncould be no possibility of race-culture--nor indeed should we be here\nto discuss it. If a man's children were equally likely to be acorns or\nbabies or tadpoles, the living world would not be the living world we\nknow.\n\nThe potency of heredity is obscured to uncritical examination by the\nfact that that which is inheritable is that which was innate, inherent\nor germinal in the parent, as we shall shortly see. We, however, are\napt to compare the child with the parent, who has perhaps been much\nmodified by circumstances, so that the resemblance between father\nand child may seem to be slight. Yet if we could bring back before\nus that father, as he was, say at the age of two, and compare him\nwith his two-year-old child, we should perhaps be astonished by the\nresemblance. But we see the acquirements or acquired characters of the\nparent; make no distinction between them and his inherent characters;\nfail to discover these acquired characters in his child;--and discount\nthe importance of heredity. Then, again, the eugenist may be utterly\nconfounded if he estimates the parental value of an individual without\nreference to this limitation of heredity. Here is a man of culture and\naccomplishment; his children, then, will presumably tend to be cultured\nand accomplished. But every kind of advantage that forethought and\nlove and money can afford may have been showered upon that man. So far\nas native endowment was concerned, he may have indeed been far below\nmediocrity. Now it is native endowment alone that he can transmit, and\nour eugenic estimate of him is therefore erroneous and will lead to\ndisappointment. It is impossible to lay too great stress upon the truth\nthat in all eugenic plans or demands or practices we are assuming the\nfact of inheritance, and that therefore it is our first business to\ndistinguish absolutely between that which tends to be inherited and\nthat which, on the other hand, is never inherited.\n\nYet again, this distinction is of almost incalculable social moment in\nso far as it affects the process of selection actually occurring in\nsociety. This, perhaps, has not been adequately recognised. One may\nrepeat a former statement of this point, which is cardinal for the\neugenist:--\n\n  \u201cEven supposing that we were all identical at birth, yet, since\n  we would come to differ from one another in virtue of different\n  acquirements, due to our adaptation to differing environments,\n  natural selection would ultimately have different individuals\n  from which to select. Those who had made the most advantageous\n  acquirements, such as industry or great knowledge, would tend to\n  survive and prosper, whilst those who had made disadvantageous\n  acquirements, such as laziness or the loss of sight or limbs, would\n  be pushed to the wall. That process, of course, occurs in society\n  at the present day to a greater or less degree, but it has only\n  immediate and temporary or contemporary consequences. For if we\n  recall the assertion that acquirements cannot be transmitted, we\n  shall see that the selection of those who have made advantageous\n  acquirements cannot benefit the next generation, since these\n  acquirements die with their makers. The only process of natural\n  selection which can result in progress is one which consists in\n  the selection of favourable ... inborn and therefore transmissible\n  characters, such as good digestion, the musical sense, exceptional\n  intelligence, the sympathetic temperament or what not (in so far as\n  these are inborn)--the reason being that such are transmissible and\n  that the children of persons so selected will tend to inherit their\n  parents' good fortune. There is a fictitious way in which we speak\n  of a child inheriting his father's acquirements, as when his father\n  has acquired a fortune; but the child does much better to inherit\n  his father's good sense or good health, which were characters inborn\n  in him. Acquirements, then, are all very well for the day, but it is\n  inborn characters that alone count for the morrow.\u201d[26]\n\nIt may be added that the time is coming when there will be a radical\n\u201ctransvaluation,\u201d as Nietzsche would say, of the two fashions in which\na father \u201cleaves\u201d something to his children. When a question is asked\non this head now-a-days, we mean, foolishly enough, to enquire how\nmuch money the father left his child, and we say of a man that he has\n\u201cinherited\u201d a fortune. We can see plainly enough, as Theognis did\ntwo thousand five hundred years ago, that such an \u201cinheritance\u201d may\nand often does work in an anti-eugenic fashion. The gilded fool is\nswallowed by the maiden whose native sense would have rejected such a\npill without its coat, and so the most pitiable degenerate becomes the\nfather of his like. This point will be alluded to later. The present\nargument is that when we ask what a father \u201cleft\u201d his children, we\nshould really desire to learn what he _gave_ them when he was still\nalive and begot them. These vital, or mortal, characters which they\ninherit--shall we say good health or insanity--are of incalculably\nmore moment to them as individuals than any monetary fortune, and of\nincalculably more moment for the future. Yet again is it true that\nthere is no wealth but life, and the best \u201cfortune\u201d or wealth that you\ncan leave your children is sane and vigorous life.\n\n=The case of slum childhood.=--We have already seen that even in the\nslums the children make a fresh start in a wonderful way, that their\nstunted growth, their proneness to disease, are mainly due to their\nenvironment, which it is therefore our duty to improve. This is _in\ngeneral_ true, and depends evidently upon the fact that the acquired\ndeterioration of the parents--_e.g._, dental decay--is not transmitted\nto their children--poisonings apart--so that the children make a fresh\nstart where their parents did. It is necessary to point this out\nagain and again, as the present writer for one has long been weary\nof doing, because it indicates our immediate duty in this respect,\nand forbids us to shirk it with any too-comprehensive phrases about\n\u201cnational degeneration.\u201d Now who could have predicted that this plain\nand simple truth would be regarded by some people as constituting a\ndenial--on strict scientific grounds, and as the very latest scientific\npronouncement--of the principle of heredity? \u201cThe bubble of heredity\nhas been pricked,\u201d says Mr. Bernard Shaw.\n\nBut popular muddleheadedness does not affect the palpable and universal\ntruth that the _inherent_ characters of parents do tend to be inherited\nby their children; nor yet that these inherent characters differ\nprofoundly in different individuals; nor yet the eugenic argument,\nwhich is that for purposes of parenthood, which means for the entire\nfuture, some of these should be taken and others left.\n\n\u201cYe shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns,\nor figs of thistles?... Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.\u201d\nThese classical words surely have a special value for the eugenist. As\nwe have said, it is his particular necessity, alike in theory and in\npractice, to \u201cknow\u201d the real nature, the innate, inherent, germinal\ncharacters, of the individuals who may or may not be parents: and\nthese, as we have seen, are frequently obscured by the action of the\nenvironment--as, for instance, in the population of the slums on\nthe one hand, or the man of factitious culture on the other hand.\nBut \u201cby their fruits ye shall know them.\u201d In general, the children\ninherit what was innate in their parents, and in many an instance the\nsurest way in which you could ascertain what the parent really was by\nnature--what, as we say, Nature \u201cmeant\u201d him to be--is by a study of\nhis children. Only, of course, we must take the children very young\nindeed, before environment has made its mark upon them also, for better\nor for worse. Thus, when we find the new-born baby of some pallid,\nhalf-starved, stunted mother in the slums, to be healthy and vigorous\nand beautiful,[27] by this fruit we shall know what the mother might\nand should have been. A healthy baby goes far to demonstrate that the\nstock is healthy. This is one of the cardinal truths which emerge from\nthe study of infant mortality, and it may be perhaps permitted to\nwarn some students of race-culture of the errors into which they are\nbound to fall if they do not reckon with what the student of infant\nmortality is constantly asserting: viz., that the babies of the slums,\nseen early, before ignorance and neglect have had their way with\nthem, are physically vigorous and promising in certainly not less than\nninety per cent. of cases. This primarily demonstrates, of course, the\nmurderous nature of our infant mortality; but it also demonstrates to\nthe eugenist that these classes are perhaps not so unworthy as he may\nfancy. By their new-born babies ye shall know them. It is under the\ninfluence of such considerations that the present writer, for one, is\nsomewhat chary of predictions and proposals based upon the relative\nfertility of different classes of the community or of the masses as\ncompared with the classes. Directly the eugenist begins to talk in\nterms of _social_ classes (as Mr. Galton has never done), he is skating\non thin ice, and if it lets him through, he will find the remains of\nmany of his rash predecessors beneath it.[28]\n\nIn fine, then, if we observe the distinction between the innate and\nthe acquired, which is the distinction between the transmissible and\nthe intransmissible, this is so far from denying the fact of heredity\nat all as in reality to emphasise its potency whilst undoubtedly\ndiminishing its range.\n\n=A criticism of terms.=--In order that this distinction may be clear\nand never forgotten, it is well to look to our vocabulary--words\nbeing good servants but bad masters. We should certainly have this\nvocabulary purged altogether of a certain word in common and uncritical\nemployment, especially by the medical profession. This is the\nthoroughly misleading, indeterminate and useless word \u201ccongenital.\u201d\nNot on one occasion in a hundred of its use does any examined meaning\nattach to it. The word is commonly used as the equivalent of innate,\ninherent, inborn or germinal. Now nothing is truly innate or inborn\nsave what was present in the germ. But with childish confusion of\nthought, we persist in attaching quite undeserved importance to the\n_birth_ of those animals which are brought forth \u201calive\u201d--as if a\nbird's egg were not alive. Hence we speak of any character present at\nbirth as congenital, and then we assume that congenital is synonymous\nwith inherent or germinal. But it is an irrelevant detail that a young\nmammal happens to leave its mother at the ninth week or month. During\nthe whole period that it spends within its mother, it is to be regarded\nas an individual organism with its own environment. If that environment\nso affects it as to strangle a limb, the result is an acquirement,\nthough it may be present at birth. An acquirement is an acquirement,\nwhether it be acquired five minutes or months before, or five minutes\nor months after, the change of environment which we call birth.\nThus a character may be congenital--that is, present at birth--but\nnot inherent or germinal, not inborn at the _real birth_, which was\nthe union of the maternal and paternal germ-cells at conception.\nSuch congenital characters are really acquirements, and--poisonings\napart--are not transmissible. In common discussion this distinction\nis wholly ignored; and two distinct things, fundamentally different\nin origin and in potency, are lumped together under the blessed word\n\u201ccongenital.\u201d\n\nThis word is equally foolish and useless in an opposite direction.\nIt constantly leads those who use it to suppose that the inherent\ncharacters of an individual are conterminous with his congenital\ncharacters or his characters at birth, and that thus any characters\nwhich he displays at a later age are acquired. All this comes\nof the absurdly delusive significance attached to the change of\nenvironment called birth, and may doubtless be traced historically to\nthe remotest superstitions which imagined that a baby is not alive\nuntil it is born and breathes, or that the soul or breath or _pneuma_\nor \u201cvital principle\u201d is breathed into it at the moment of birth. We\nknow, however, that a man may display for the first time at the age\nof twenty or sixty a character which was as truly inherent in his\nconstitution as his nose or his spinal column--perhaps a beard, perhaps\na mental character, perhaps a disease, or what not. Now this was not\ncongenital though it was inherent. But as long as the stupid[29] word\n\u201ccongenital\u201d is used as it is, we shall fail to realise that inherent\ncharacters may display themselves in an individual at any time after\nbirth as at any time before birth. Thus, to sum up, a character may be\ncongenital or rather _pre-congenital_, yet not inherent but acquired:\na character may be post-congenital, yet not acquired but inherent. Now\nthe all-important question as regards heredity is not at what date in\nthe history of an individual a character appears--as, for instance,\nbefore birth or after birth; but, whether that character is inherent\nand therefore transmissible and therefore a possible architect of the\nfuture of mankind; or merely an acquirement, with which--the racial\npoisons apart--heredity has no concern.\n\nIt is suggested, then, that the word congenital be expunged from the\nvocabulary of science, or that, if it be retained, some meaning or\nother--any will do--be attached to it. If the word is to be retained,\nand if it be agreed to attach a meaning to it, probably \u201cat birth\u201d\nwould be the most convenient. If this were agreed upon, then the\nphrase \u201ccongenital blindness,\u201d now in common use, could be retained,\nas it would then accurately indicate the nature of the blindness in\nquestion, which is due almost invariably, if not invariably, to an\ninfection acquired at the moment of birth.\n\nYet further. When we say that a man's intelligence or length of limb\nor whatever it be is hereditary, we mean in ordinary speech that this\ncharacter can be traced in one or more of his ancestors; and that is,\nof course, an accurate use of the term. But Shakespeare, for instance,\nhad unremarkable ancestors, so that no one would say that his genius\nwas hereditary; are we, then, to say that it was acquired? Every one\nwould protest at once that a poet is born and not made--than which\nthere is certainly no truer popular saying. What, then, is to be said\nof it if it was neither hereditary nor acquired? The truth is that\nlanguage is again at fault. Shakespeare's genius was of inherent or\ngerminal origin--the poet is born and not made: or, more accurately,\nthe poet is conceived and not made, either before birth or after it.\nTherefore, though Shakespeare did not inherit his mother's genius or\nhis father's genius, neither of them having such a gift to transmit,\nyet his genius was certainly potential either in the maternal or\npaternal germ-cell which united to form him, or in both; or at the\nleast arose in consequence of that compromise or rearrangement or\nsettlement, shall we say, which is in effect always agreed upon by the\ntwo germ-cells in bi-parental reproduction. Now the two germ-cells are\nthe hereditary material. They were given to Shakespeare by his parents;\nnay more, they made him. His genius, then, was hereditary in an\nabsolutely correct sense of the word, yet not in the sense of ordinary\nspeech, nor even in the sense in which it is employed by Mr. Galton in\nhis book on _Hereditary Genius_. This confusion of terms is responsible\nfor much confusion of thought. It must the more urgently be cleared up\nbecause of the discoveries in heredity initiated by the Abbot Mendel,\nforty years ago, and now included in the department of the science of\nheredity which is called Mendelism. We learn from this that highly\ndefinite characters may appear in offspring though there was no sign of\nthem in either parent. These, then, are not hereditary in the sense of\nordinary speech. Yet, in a more accurate sense of the word they can be\nproved to be hereditary--nay more, the manner and proportion of their\ntransmission can be predicted in the most exact mathematical terms.\nThese characters were not present in the parent's body; they did not\nlie open to view in the parent; they were not patent in the parent.\nThey were latent, however, they lay hid, in the parent, or rather in\nthe germ-plasm of which that parent was the host. In many such cases,\nif we go back a generation further we find that the character in\nquestion was patent in a grand-parent. A mother's son may suffer from\nh\u00e6mophilia or the bleeding disease, yet she is not a \u201cbleeder,\u201d nor is\nthe boy's father; but her father was a bleeder, and the disease is, of\ncourse, hereditary in her son, though neither of his parents displayed\na trace of it.\n\nThus an individual may inherit or may have inherent in the germ-cells\nfrom which he was formed characters which were not present in either\nparent. They were, however, potentially present in the germ-cells of\nwhich those parents were the trustees.\n\nBut, the reader will say, do we find in the case of every \u201csport\u201d or\n\u201ctransilient variation,\u201d such as Shakespeare, that the new character\nwas, after all, present in some one or other of his ancestors though\nabsent in his immediate parents? The answer is negative, certainly.\nBut genius, to take this case, is a combination of qualities. And the\nMendelians are now able to call into existence organisms of new kinds\nby combination of qualities derived from one parent, or rather from one\nparental line, with other qualities, formerly apparently incompatible\nwith them derived from the other parental line. Thus Professor Biffen\nof Cambridge has called into existence a new kind of wheat such as\nnever existed before--a wheat combining the quality technically called\n\u201cstrength,\u201d hitherto lacking in all kinds of wheat capable of being\nprofitably grown in Great Britain, with the power of yielding a large\ncrop and other good qualities found in home-grown wheat. He has also\nproduced a wheat which, together with other desirable qualities, is\nimmune from the disease known as \u201crust,\u201d this immunity having never\nbeen found before associated with the other good qualities in question.\nThese advances will not long be limited to the vegetable world merely.\nPerhaps it requires no very great imagination, after all, to suppose\nthat even something like that combination of qualities which we call\ngenius may some day be produced at will in mankind.\n\nSuch a new wheat, then,--I will not say such a Shakespeare--owes its\nunique and unprecedented properties to heredity, and yet there was\nnever anything like it before. Its \u201cgenius\u201d is not \u201chereditary.\u201d\n\nThe words _innate_ and _inborn_ are harmless and may be employed,\nthough the apparent emphasis on birth is rather unfortunate. We mean,\nhowever, by innate or inborn qualities, qualities which were potential\nin the germ. The genius of Shakespeare was innate or inborn. It was\npresent potentially at his real birth, the union of the parental cells.\nIt preceded his \u201cbirth\u201d in the ordinary sense of the word: Shakespeare,\nwhen only _in embryo_, was a Shakespeare _in embryo_.\n\nBetter still is the word _inherent_, which, of course, literally means\n\u201csticking in.\u201d By anything inherent we mean that which was there from\nthe first as part and parcel of, as indeed essential to, the entity\nto which we refer. Now inherent characters are always inherited in\nthe accurate sense that they inhere in the germ-cells, which are\nthe inherited material. As these germ-cells make us or as we are\nmade out of them, it follows, of course, that all our potentialities\nwhatsoever, our ultimate fates in every particular, partly depend upon\ninheritance.[30]\n\n_Nature_ and _nurture_ are antithetic terms of Shakespearean origin\nwhich are in frequent use and much favoured by Mr. Galton. That which\ncomes by nature is the inborn, inherent, or germinal; and that is due\nto nurture which is the result of the converse of the germinal with the\nenvironment--a man's accent, for instance.\n\nPerhaps, in some ways, _germinal_ is the most useful word of all,\nthough inherent is so convenient and familiar, as well as being\naccurate etymologically, that it has been employed throughout this\nbook. Not only is the word germinal strictly accurate, but also it\nsuggests the idea of the germ-plasm, and has the particular virtue of\navoiding all reference to the change of environment to which young\nmammals are subjected and which is called birth.\n\nThere remains the terminological difficulty that, as I have tried to\nshow, the individual may display characters which were potential in the\ngerm, inherent and necessarily inherited, though they did not appear in\nthe parent nor yet in any ancestor. We have to face the paradox, then,\nthat in natural inheritance a parent can transmit what he has not got,\nthough this does not apply to the unnatural inheritance of property in\nhuman society. Now what word is there which shall indicate the origin\nor at least the time and conditions of origin, of such characters\nas these? They are germinal, yet they are--in some cases--not wholly\npresent in either of the germ-cells which united to form the new\nindividual in question. They are present, however, in the new single\ncell from which this individual, like every living organism, takes its\norigin.[31] The terms \u201ccongerminal\u201d or \u201cconceptional\u201d might be employed.\n\n\u201cAcquired character,\u201d even, is a bad term. It replaced\n\u201cfunctionally-produced modification,\u201d which was long employed by\nSpencer. The blacksmith's biceps answers to this phrase. It is this\nand other such modifications that are non-transmissible. Alcoholic\ndegeneration is not a \u201cfunctionally-produced modification,\u201d but it\nis an \u201cacquired character,\u201d as is lead poisoning. These do produce\nresults in offspring--naturally enough. If the older phrase were still\nthe one employed, we should see that the Weismannian argument as to\nnon-transmission does not apply to _such_ \u201cacquired characters.\u201d\n\nThe word \u201creversion,\u201d also, not to say \u201catavism,\u201d may well be dropped.\nThe attempted justification of its older meaning by Professor\nThomson has led to severe and conclusive Mendelian criticism. The\n\u201creversion\u201d of fancy pigeons to the blue ancestor is simply due\nto the coming together of Mendelian units long separated. The\n\u201creversion\u201d of the feeble-minded is not reversion but the result of\npoisoning--_di_version, or _per_version, if you like. Primitive man was\nnot feeble-minded, nor is the ape. Science has no further use for the\nword as it is at present employed.\n\n=Maternal impressions.=--We are now, at last, after our attempt to\nclear up the vocabulary of heredity, in a position to consider\ncertain doctrines and popular beliefs which bear very directly upon\nrace-culture. Realising, for instance, that \u201ccongenital\u201d means nothing;\nrealising as perhaps some of us have not so clearly realised before,\n_when_ exactly it is that the new human being comes into existence, we\nshall be prepared to understand how definite and indisputable are the\ndenials which science offers to certain popular ideas.\n\nThus, for instance, in the interests of race-culture, or, to be more\nparticular, in the interests of her unborn baby, the expectant mother\nmay faithfully follow the example of Lucy in _The Ordeal of Richard\nFeverel_.[32] Does this have its intended effect? The answer is an\nunqualified negative. Consider the case. The baby is at this time\nalready a baby, though rather small and uncanny, floating in a fluid of\nits own manufacture. Its sole connection with its mother is by means\nof its umbilical cord--that is to say, blood vessels, arterial and\nvenous. There is no nervous connection whatever: absolutely nothing but\nthe blood-stream, carried along a system of tubes. This blood is the\nchild's blood, which it sends forth from itself along the umbilical\ncord to a special organ, the placenta or after-birth, half made by\nitself and half made by the mother, in which the child's blood travels\nin thin vessels so close to the mother's blood that their contents can\nbe interchanged. Yet the two streams never actually mix. The child's\nblood, having disposed of its carbonic acid and waste-products to the\nmother's blood, and having received therefrom oxygen and food, returns\nso laden to the child. Pray how is the mother's reading of history to\nmake the child a historian? If, after birth, a small operation were\nperformed, so that some of the mother's blood should run along an\nartificial tube into one of her baby's veins, the effective connection\nbetween the two organisms would in a sense be actually closer than it\nwas before birth, when, as has been said, the two streams are always\nkept apart. Should we expect such an operation to serve the child for\neducation? If the mother then acquired a scar should we expect it to\ngive the child a similar scar?\n\nWe see now why the learning of geometry on the part of the mother\nbefore its birth will not set her baby upon that royal road to geometry\nof which Euclid rightly denied the existence--any more than after\nits birth. Such a thing does not happen, and there is no conceivable\nmeans by which it could happen--unless we are to call in telepathy.\nAll maternal hopes and efforts of this kind are utterly misguided: as\nmisguided as if the father entertained similar hopes. Let the devoted\nmother acquaint herself not with what historians are pleased to call\nhistory, but with the history of the developing human mind and body, so\nthat she may be a fit educator of her child when it is born.\n\nLet her also realise that her blood is everything to her child. It is\nfood and air and organ of excretion. If she introduces alcohol into\nher blood in any considerable quantity she is feeding her child on\npoisoned food. Surely the reader must see the distinction between a\ncase like this and the supposed transmission of historical knowledge or\neven historical aptitude from mother to baby by the diligent perusal of\nhistories. Yet though the distinction is so palpable and evident, there\nare extremists who believe and even print their beliefs that the denial\nof the one (supposed) possibility, which is palpably inconceivable,\nlogically carries with it a denial of the other possibility, which is\nindeed a palpable necessity. Or, to state the criticism in another way,\nthere are those who, if we protest that the introduction of poisons\ninto the mother's organism must surely involve risk to the child who is\nnourished by her blood, will retort, \u201cOh, well, I suppose you believe\nthat if you learn a number of languages before your next child is born,\nhe or she will be a linguist!\u201d[33]\n\n=Hereditary genius.=--Mr. Galton's world-famous work on _Hereditary\nGenius_ was published in 1869 and reprinted with a most valuable\nadditional chapter in 1892. It has long been out of print, however, and\nfor the definite purpose of attempting to arouse the reader's interest\nin it so that he may somehow or other obtain a copy to read, I may here\ngo over one or two points, chosen to that end. The argument, of course,\nis that ability is hereditary.[34]\n\nThis, in the judgment of most unbiassed people, Mr. Galton conclusively\nproved: and we do not at all realise to-day how repugnant and\nrevolutionary this doctrine appeared to popular opinion some forty\nyears ago. Mr. Galton has, however, followed up his citation of facts\non more than one occasion since,[35] and those who now deny his view\nbelong to that very large majority of any population which finds\nitself able to pronounce confidently upon the value of an author's\nwork without the labour, found necessary by less fortunate people, of\nreading it.\n\nThe following quotation states the question of national eugenics in\nfinal form:--\n\n  \u201cAs an example of what could be sought with advantage, let us\n  suppose that we take a number, sufficient for statistical purposes,\n  of persons occupying different social classes, those who are the\n  least efficient in physical, intellectual, and moral grounds forming\n  our lowest class, and those who are the most efficient forming our\n  highest class. The question to be solved relates to the hereditary\n  permanence of the several classes. What proportion of each class\n  is descended from parents who belong to the same class, and what\n  proportion is descended from parents who belong to each of the other\n  classes? Do those persons who have honourably succeeded in life,\n  and who are presumably, on the whole, the most valuable portion of\n  our human stock, contribute on the aggregate their fair share of\n  posterity to the next generation? If not, do they contribute more\n  or less than their fair share, and in what degree? In other words,\n  is the evolution of man in each particular country favourably or\n  injuriously affected by its special form of civilisation?\n\n  \u201cEnough is already known to make it certain that the productiveness\n  of both the extreme classes, the best and the worst, falls short of\n  the average of the nation as a whole. Therefore, the most prolific\n  class necessarily lies between the two extremes, but at what\n  intermediate point does it lie? Taken altogether, on any reasonable\n  principle, are the natural gifts of the most prolific class, bodily,\n  intellectual, and moral, above or below the line of national\n  mediocrity? If above that line, then the existing conditions are\n  favourable to the improvement of the race. If they are below that\n  line, they must work towards its degradation.\u201d\n\nThe main body of the book deals with enquiries in special cases--the\njudges of England between 1660 and 1865, statesmen, commanders,\nauthors, men of science, poets, musicians, painters, divines, senior\nclassics of Cambridge, oarsmen and wrestlers.\n\nThe concluding chapters should be printed in gold. Only one or two\nnotes can here be made. Mr. Galton believes that the dark ages were\nlargely due to the celibacy enjoined by religious orders on their\nvotaries:--\n\n  \u201cWhenever a man or woman was possessed of a gentle nature that\n  fitted him or her to deeds of charity, to meditation, to literature\n  or to art, the social condition of the time was such that they had\n  no refuge elsewhere than in the bosom of the Church. But the Church\n  chose to preach and exact celibacy, and the consequence was that\n  these gentle natures had no continuance, and thus, by a policy\n  so singularly unwise and suicidal that I am hardly able to speak\n  of it without impatience, the Church brutalised the breed of our\n  forefathers. She acted precisely as if she had aimed at selecting\n  the rudest portion of the community to be, alone, parents of future\n  generations. She practised the arts which breeders would use, who\n  aimed at creating ferocious, currish, and stupid natures. No wonder\n  that club law prevailed for centuries over Europe; the wonder rather\n  is that enough good remained in the veins of Europeans to enable\n  their race to rise to its present very moderate level of natural\n  morality.\u201d\n\nYet further:--\n\n  \u201cThe policy of the religious world in Europe was exerted in another\n  direction, with hardly less cruel effect on the nature of future\n  generations, by means of persecutions which brought thousands of the\n  foremost thinkers and men of political aptitudes to the scaffold, or\n  imprisoned them during a large part of their manhood, or drove them\n  as emigrants into other lands. In every one of these cases the check\n  upon their leaving issue was very considerable. Hence the Church,\n  having first captured all the gentle natures and condemned them to\n  celibacy, made another sweep of her huge nets, this time fishing\n  in stirring waters, to catch those who were the most fearless,\n  truth-seeking, and intelligent, in their modes of thought, and\n  therefore the most suitable parents of a high civilisation, and put\n  a strong check, if not a direct stop, to their progeny. Those she\n  reserved on these occasions, to breed the generations of the future,\n  were the servile, the indifferent, and, again, the stupid. Thus, as\n  she--to repeat my expression--brutalised human nature by her system\n  of celibacy applied to the gentle, she demoralised it by her system\n  of persecution of the intelligent, the sincere, and the free. It is\n  enough to make the blood boil to think of the blind folly that has\n  caused the foremost nations of struggling humanity to be the heirs of\n  such hateful ancestry, and that has so bred our instincts as to keep\n  them in an unnecessarily long-continued antagonism with the essential\n  requirements of a steadily advancing civilisation.\u201d\n\nFor this final quotation no apology is needed:--\n\n  \u201cThe best form of civilisation in respect to the improvement of the\n  race, would be one in which society was not costly; where incomes\n  were chiefly derived from professional sources, and not much through\n  inheritance; where every lad had a chance of showing his abilities,\n  and, if highly gifted, was enabled to achieve a first-class education\n  and entrance into professional life, by the liberal help of the\n  exhibitions and scholarships which he had gained in his early youth;\n  where marriage was held in as high honour as in ancient Jewish times;\n  where the pride of race was encouraged (of course I do not refer to\n  the nonsensical sentiment of the present day, that goes under that\n  name); where the weak could find a welcome and a refuge in celibate\n  monasteries or sisterhoods, and lastly, where the better sort of\n  emigrants and refugees from other lands were invited and welcomed,\n  and their descendants naturalised.\u201d\n\n=The study of psychical inheritance.=--This early work of Mr. Galton\nhas been followed by much more on the same lines. Contemporary\npsychology, however, is _just beginning_ to indicate the lines on\nwhich new enquiry is needed. The na\u00efve assertions of the actuary as\nto the inheritance of, say, \u201cconscientiousness\u201d are not useful to the\npsychologist, who has some idea of the structure and history of that\nmost complex social product we call conscience. The psychologists\nmust analyse out for us those elementary units of the mind upon\nwhich experience and the social state, education and suggestion act,\nto make human nature as we know it. The reader may be directed to\nDr. McDougall's recent work on _Social Psychology_--written at the\npresent writer's suggestion--for an outline analysis of what is really\ninherent, and therefore alone transmissible, in the human mind--certain\ninstincts and impulses, together with native varieties in capacity of\nmemory, and so on. Recently the Mendelians have entered this field,\nand they have the advantage of realising the importance of dealing\nwith real primary units. Their law seems to apply to the musical sense\nin man and to the brooding instinct in the hen.[36] The line of study\nhere suggested is earnestly commended to the psychologists for their\n_indispensable_ help.\n\n=Eugenics and parties.=--Let us once again consider the fashion in\nwhich men and women are classified to the eugenic eye. We have already\nrealised that the most essential division _of fact_ is that between\nthose who will and those who will not be parents. The most essential\ndivision _of ideal_ is of those who are worthy and those who are not\nworthy to be parents. It is the object of eugenics to make the real and\nthe ideal divisions coincide. And let us here say with all possible\nforce that before such classifications as these all others are trivial\nand nearly all others impudent. The eugenist has nothing to do with the\nlow game called party politics: terms like socialism and so forth mean\nvery little for him. He may or may not be a socialist, but if he be,\nat least he does not subscribe to what, so far as I can judge, is the\nfirst article in the creed of socialism--that all evil is of economic\norigin; he knows that there is much evil of germinal origin. As for\nconservatism and liberalism, he might have some use for these terms\nif the creed of conservatism were that there is no wealth but life,\nwhich must be conserved; and the creed of liberalism that life has not\nyet reached its zenith, and there must be liberty for all progressive\nvariations of body and mind and thought and practice. As it is, all\nthese things are somewhat nauseating. If and when there is a thinking\nparty, and that party will have the eugenist, he will doubtless join\nit. Meanwhile he appeals to that great and growing section of the\ncommunity which knows party-politics for the humbug and sham that it\nis, and the House of Commons as a lethal chamber for souls.\n\nSimilarly, the eugenic classification of mankind cuts right across\nthe ordinary social classification. The parasite and the parent of\nparasites must be branded, whether he be at the top or the bottom of\nthe social scale. The quality of the germ-plasm which men and women\ncarry is the supremely important thing. Its architecture is the\narchitect of all empires. Year by year we shall more surely be able\nto infer the nature and the worth of the germ-plasm in particular\ncases, though its host may have been veneered or, on the other hand,\nrepressed; and year by year the basal facts of heredity will furnish\never surer criteria for the theory and practice of a New Imperialism\nwhich knows, for instance, what militarism did for Rome and Napoleon\nfor France, and which will some day sweep all the money changers out of\nthe Temple of Life.[37]\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER VIII\n\n                       EDUCATION AND RACE-CULTURE\n\n  \u201cEducation is but the giving or withholding of\n  opportunity.\u201d--Bateson.\n\n\nIt is true that education can seem to accomplish miracles; that in a\nsingle generation the results of an ideal education would be amazing.\nIt is true, also, that in certain epochs of history, when wise counsels\nhave prevailed, great results have been attained. It is true that at\npresent scarcely a man or woman amongst us, if any, has reached the\nfull stature which would have been attained under an ideal system\nof education. It is true, finally, that no system of race-culture\ncan ignore education or be effective without it. Though the general\nquestion of education is not the specific question of the present\nvolume, yet there is only too good reason for some brief allusion to\nthe subject here, especially since it bears on the question of the\nmeasure of importance which we ascribe to heredity.\n\n=Modern education--the destruction of mind.=--When we observe in such\ncontrasted cases as those of Herbert Spencer and Wordsworth, for\ninstance, that absence of early education, especially in the first\nseptennium, has co-existed with the subsequent efflorescence of the\nmightiest genius, we may almost be inclined to enquire whether genius\ncould not in effect be made to order even in the very next generation\nby the simple device of suspending the process which we are pleased to\ncall education. Doubtless that is scarcely so, though every one who has\nany knowledge of the subject is well assured that mere suspension of\nthe present destructive process might suffice to produce a population\nthat would wonder at its ancestors.\n\nA simple analogy will show the disastrous character of the present\nprocess, which may be briefly described as \u201ceducation\u201d by cram\nand emetic. It is as if you filled a child's stomach to repletion\nwith marbles, pieces of coal and similar material incapable of\ndigestion--the more worthless the material the more accurate the\nanalogy: then applied an emetic and estimated your success by the\ncompleteness with which everything was returned, more especially if it\nwas returned \u201cunchanged,\u201d as the doctors say. Just so do we cram the\nchild's mental stomach, its memory, with a selection of dead facts of\nhistory and the like (at least when they are not fictions) and then\napply a violent emetic called an examination (which like most other\nemetics causes much depression) and estimate our success by the number\nof statements which the child vomits on to the examination paper--if\nthe reader will excuse me. Further, if we are what we usually are, we\nprefer that the statements shall come back \u201cunchanged\u201d--showing no\nsigns of mental digestion. We call this \u201ctraining the memory.\u201d\n\nSuch a process as one has imagined in the physical case would assuredly\nruin the physical digestion for life. In the mental case, which is not\nimaginary but actual, a similar result ensues. It is thus unfair to\nthe Anglo-Saxon germ-plasm to credit it with the abundant stupidity\nof its products. Much of this stupidity is factitious and artificial.\nWe shall continue to produce it so long as by education or drawing\nforth we understand intrusion or thrusting in, and so long as the\nonly drawing forth which we practise is by means of the emetics we\ncall examinations. The present type of education is a curse to modern\nchildhood and a menace to the future. The teacher who cannot tell\nwhether a child is doing well without formally examining it, should\nbe heaving bricks; but such a teacher does not exist. In Berlin they\nare now learning that the depression caused by these emetics, for which\nthe best physical parallel is antimony, often leads to child suicide--a\nsteadily-increasing phenomenon mainly due to educational over-pressure\nand worry about examinations.\n\nShort of such appalling disasters, however, we have to reckon with\nthe existence of this enormous amount of stupidity, which those who\nfortunately escaped such education in childhood have to drag along\nwith them in the long struggle towards the stars. This dead weight of\ninertia lamentably retards progress.\n\nOur factitious stupidity is injurious both in the governing and the\ngoverned. As Professor Patrick Geddes once remarked to the present\nwriter, there are three kinds of governments: the government of the\nfuture--as yet only ideal, which believes that there are ideas and\nthat they may be worth acting upon: the second is instanced by the\nRussian government, which believes that there are ideas, but fears and\nsuppresses them: the third by the British government, which denies\nthat there are ideas at all, and prefers the method of \u201cmuddling\nthrough\u201d--to use a Cabinet Minister's contented phrase--though truth is\none and error infinite, though there are a million ways of going wrong\nfor one of going right. This characteristic is not to be attributed to\nany germinal stupidity of the ruling classes in England. If it were we\nshould of course look upon the decadence of their birth-rate with the\nutmost gratitude. It is a factitious product of their education. If you\nhave been treated with marbles and emetics long enough, you may begin\nto question whether there is such a thing as nourishing food; if you\nhave been crammed with dead facts, and then compelled to disgorge them,\nyou may well question whether there are such things as nourishing facts\nor ideas.\n\nNot less disastrous is this factitious stupidity amongst the governed.\nIt produces, of course, the kind of man with whom we are all familiar.\nHaving at great labour been taught to read, he is incapable of reading\nanything but rubbish. He never thinks for himself, and if he does you\nwish he had not, so inadequate is his machinery and so deplorable\nthe result. He believes in politicians. He is, as we have said, so\nmuch dead weight for the reformer, whose energy is diverted from the\ndiscovery of new truth by the need of directing the eyes of stupidity\nto the old, though it shines as the sun in his strength.\n\nTherefore, let not the reader suppose that in the advocacy of eugenics\nor race-culture we have become blinded to the possibilities offered us\nby reasonable education even of the very heterogeneous material offered\nus by heredity.\n\n=The limits of education--individual and racial.=--Yet it must be\nmaintained that, though we cannot do without education, and though\nsomething infinitely better than we practise at present will be\nnecessary if the ideal of race-culture is ever to be realised, yet\neducation alone, however good, can never enable us to achieve our end.\nIt must be maintained, in the first place, that education is limited\nin its powers by the inherent nature of the educated material--it is a\nprocess of _drawing out_, and you cannot draw out what is not there:\nand secondly, that its value, so far as the nature of individuals\nis concerned, is confined to the individuals in question and is not\nreproduced or maintained in their children. Thus education alone would\nhave similar material to act upon from age to age, would have to make\na fresh beginning in each generation, and its results, however good,\nrelatively, would still be limited and finite. We shall do well,\nperhaps, to obtain and retain an adequate definition of education.\nNo true conception of education was possible, notwithstanding the\nderivation of the word, so long as the child's mind was likened to\na piece of \u201cpure white paper\u201d for us to write upon: or an empty box\nwaiting to be filled. The _tabula rasa_ of Locke is, we now know, the\nlast thing in the world to resemble a child's mind. Indeed, if any\nsuch figure be demanded, the child's mind is a piece of mosaic--made\nof ancestral pieces--and education is the process of realising what is\nso given. Or, if a child's mind is a portmanteau, to educate is not to\npack but to unpack it. We understand, at least, that education never\ncan begin at the beginning, nor anywhere near it--that, as Professor\nMacCunn says in his admirable book, _The Making of Character_, \u201cthe\npage of the youngest life is so far from being blank that it bears upon\nit characters in comparison with which the faded ink of pal\u00e6ography is\nas recent history.\u201d\n\nWe are learning, too, though none but the very few know this, that the\nprocess by which the \u201cfaded ink\u201d is made visible must not be credited\nwith having done the writing: any more than the fire to which you hold\na paper written upon with ink that fire makes visible. Still less do we\nrealise that what really seems to be the product of education is often\nthe result of an inherent mechanism now developed, which was not yet\nformed when we began the educational process. One reason why the baby\ncannot walk is that it has not the nervous apparatus. A child may walk\nat the first attempt, if that attempt be delayed until the machinery is\ndeveloped. A child may similarly speak sentences at the first attempt.\nVery commonly we start teaching a child something, which, after some\nyears, it learns. We have done nothing but interfere. The learning is\nnone of our doing: merely the mental apparatus is now evolved--and lo!\nthe result. At birth the sucking apparatus is perfect. If we could,\ndoubtless we should start teaching the unborn infant to suck long\nbefore the machinery was ready--and should applaud ourselves for its\nfacility at birth; only that probably this facility would be impaired\nby our efforts, as many capacities of later development are damaged by\nour interference. What we understand, or misunderstand, by education\nshould begin approximately when a child is seven. The first seven years\nof life should really have the term of childhood confined to them,\nfor there is a natural term so indicated. The growth of the brain is\na matter of the first seven years almost wholly. It grows relatively\nlittle after that period; and until that is completed the physical\napparatus of mind is not ready for educational interference. Without\nany such interference, and with merely the provision of conditions,\nphysical and mental, for its spontaneous development, the brain of\nthe seven year old will suffice for surprising things--so surprising\nthat if their evolution were possible under any system of schooling\npractised before that date, we should applaud it as ideal. Probably\nthere is no such system--much less any that will improve on the\nspontaneous process.\n\n=Education the provision of an environment.=--We are prepared, then,\nto realise the limits to the action of education upon the individual.\nWe shall not confuse this great and many-sided thing with such of its\nfactors as instruction or schooling. It is not intrusion but education:\n\u201cthe guidance of growth,\u201d to use Sir James Crichton-Browne's phrase.\nThis guidance, this process of unpacking, educing or realising, is\naccomplished by the action of circumstances or the environment.\nEnvironment is a large word and is invariably abused when it is used\nin less than the large sense. Here it includes, for instance, air and\nfood, mother-love and the schoolmaster. I therefore define education\nas _the provision of an environment_. This definition prepares us to\nunderstand the limitations of the process. If we think of education as\na packing or cramming process, we shall err in this respect; we shall\nexpect limitless results from education provided that one packs early\nand tightly and carefully enough. It is this erroneous conception\nwhich rules us and daily betrays us in practice. If, however, we think\nof education as the provision of an environment, capable of creating\nnothing, but merely of causing the expression or the repression of\npotential characters inherent in the individual educated, then we shall\nbegin to recast our methods on the lines determined by this truth. Yet,\nfurther, we shall begin to understand the cardinal truth, one of the\nmany platitudes which we have yet to appreciate, that \u201cyou cannot make\na silk purse out of a sow's ear.\u201d\n\n=Heredity and environment.=--Let us consider the question in general\nterms. The characters of any living thing are determined by two\nfactors--heredity and environment. The old phrases were character and\ncircumstances, but they were less than useful, since character is\nmodified by circumstances. Now one of the most important questions\nin the world, and not least for the eugenist, is as to the relative\nimportance of these two factors. The technical terms may not be in\nour mouths, but we discuss this instance or that of the question in\npoint almost every day of our lives. One part of the business of\nphilosophy and of science is not only to answer questions but to ask\nthem correctly. This question is always wrongly asked, and therefore\ncannot be answered, or is incorrectly answered. We persist in using\nthe mathematical idea of addition, and we seek to show that, say,\nseventy per cent. of the result is due to the innate factor and thirty\nper cent. to the acquired. But the truth is that so long as we begin\nwith this idea we may prove what we please. If we keep our attention\nfixed upon the environmental or educational factor we can easily and\ncorrectly demonstrate that in certain circumstances Mozart would\nhave been tone-deaf and Shakespeare a gibbering idiot--hence, but\nincorrectly, we argue that environment is practically everything. _Per\ncontra_, we can easily and correctly demonstrate that no education\nin the world could enable a door-mat or a cabbage or ourselves to\nwrite _Don Giovanni_ or _Hamlet_--hence, but incorrectly, we argue\nthat the material to be operated upon is everything. We have to\nlearn, however, that the analogy _is one not of addition but of\nmultiplication_. Neither inheritance nor environment, as such, gives\nanything. The environmental factor may be potentially one hundred--an\nideal education--but the innate or inherited factor may be nothing, as\nwhen the pupil is a door-mat or a fool. The result then is nothing.\nDarwin had the trombone played to a plant, but he did not make a\nPalestrina. No academy of music will make a beetroot into a Beethoven,\nthough I dare say a well-trained beetroot might write a musical comedy.\nThe point is that one hundred multiplied by nothing equals nothing.\nSimilarly, the innate factor may be one hundred, as in the case of a\npotential genius, but he may be brought up upon alcohol and curses\namongst savages, and the result again is nothing. Keep the idea of\nmultiplication in the mind, and the facts are seen rightly. No matter\nhow big either factor be, if it be multiplied by nothing it yields\nnothing, or if it be multiplied by a fraction, as in the ordinary\neducation of a genius, it yields less than it should. But in this\ncontroversy people persist in assuming that inheritance or education\ngives definitely so much which is there anyhow, whereas, really,\nit only supplies a potential figure, which may realise infinity or\nnothing, according to what it is multiplied by. With all deference, I\nsubmit this as a real answer to these endless disputes.\n\nBut further, granted that neither factor in itself produces any\nactuality, which is normally the weightier of the two factors? We must\nmake the qualification, \u201cnormally,\u201d because such a thing as disease or\npoison, included in the environmental factor, will dominate the result,\ncompletely overshadowing the importance of whatever heredity gave. Such\nthings apart, however, we may be thoroughly assured that heredity is\nthe weightier of the two factors. The more we study education, the more\nwe recognise its true nature. Indeed, the more we realise its ideal,\nthe more do we realise its limitations. The more we study education\nthe more important does heredity appear. If the reader has not had\nopportunities of observing children for himself let him refer to such\na book as Mr. Galton's _Inquiries into Human Faculty_, and he will\nbegin to realise how large is the factor given by inheritance and how\nrelatively small is the factor given by education.\n\n=Education can educate only what heredity gives.=--Heredity, as\nthe eugenist must never forget, gives not actualities but only\npotentialities. It depends upon circumstances whether they shall\nbecome actualities. That, however, we all know. No one supposes that\neducation is superfluous or impotent. We do, however, persistently\nforget the converse truth that education, on the other hand, makes no\ndefinite contribution, but merely multiplies--or alas, divides--the\npotentialities given by inheritance. These potentialities constitute\na limiting condition which no education can transcend. Education can\neducate only what heredity gives. Long ago Helvetius thought, as did\nKant, that the differences between men were due to differences in\neducation. But it is not so. We make, of course, the most ridiculous\nclaims for education. The remark wrongly attributed to the Duke of\nWellington, that \u201cthe battle of Waterloo was won on the playing-fields\nof Eton,\u201d is an instance in point. Recently, when Francis Thompson,\nthe poet, died, the local newspaper of his birthplace said that it\nshould be proud to have produced him. We may laugh at this conception\nof the genesis of genius, but we all talk in this fashion. A genius\nwas educated at Eton, and we say that Eton produced him. The truth\nis, of course, that Eton failed to destroy him. (One says Eton for\nconvenience, but the name of any accepted school will do.) If Eton\nproduced him, why does not it produce thousands like him? There is\nplenty of material: but it is not the right material. We should\ncease to speak, in our pride for our own _Alma Mater_ or our own\nmethods, as if education created genius or anything else. Men are born\nunequal. To realise the nature of education is not only to avoid the\npopular assumption that an ideal education will do everything for us,\nforgetting that no amount of polishing will make pewter shine like\nsilver; it is not only to send us back to the principle of selection\nin recognition of the power of inheritance; it is not merely to\ndispose of the idea that men are born inherently equal; but it is\nalso to combat the idea that education is a levelling process. On the\ncontrary, it accentuates the differences between men. You may confuse\nthe unpolished pebble and the diamond, but not when education has done\nits utmost for both. If education were a process of addition to what\ninheritance gives, it would almost level men: the addition of a large\nsum to figures such as, say, 1, 2, and 3, would almost obliterate\ntheir original disproportion. But the analogy is with multiplication,\nas I have suggested: and the larger the sum by which 1, 2 and 3 are\nmultiplied, the greater is the disparity between the products. This\nis, perhaps, one of the truths of vast importance which the common rim\nof contemporary Socialism implicitly denies: though it is of course\nabundantly recognised by such a socialist as that master-thinker\nProfessor Forel. The socialist's panacea, ideal education for all, is\nmuch to be desired, and will accomplish much, as we began by admitting;\nbut it is not a panacea. Those who believe it to be such do not\nunderstand the nature of education nor its limitations. They should\nremember the remark of Epictetus, \u201cthe condition and characteristic\nof a fool is this: he never expects from himself profit nor harm, but\nfrom externals.\u201d The dogma of the unthinking socialist--who exists,\nthough he is doubtless rarer than the unthinking individualist--is\nthat all evil is of economic origin: correct your economics and your\neducation and you obliterate evil. But it is not so. As Lowell said,\n\u201cA great part of human suffering has its root in the nature of man,\nand not in that of his institutions.\u201d When by means of eugenics we\ncan give education the right material to work upon, we shall have a\nUtopia, and as for forms of government they may be left for fools to\ncontest. Forel, incomparably the greatest socialist thinker of the\nday, sees this. He makes his Utopian predictions not so much as to\nmere externals, like clothing and language, but as regards the kind of\nman and woman: and, unlike some writers, he entitles himself to paint\nthese pictures, for in that great eugenic treatise _Die Sexuel Frage_,\nhe tells us how to realise them by pedagogic reform working upon the\nmaterials provided by human selection. A paragraph may be quoted from\nForel:--\n\n  \u201cMalgr\u00e9 tout l'enthousiasme qu'on doit montrer pour une p\u00e9dagogie\n  rationelle, il ne faut jamais oublier qu'elle est incapable de\n  remplacer la s\u00e9lection. Elle sert au but imm\u00e9diat et rapproch\u00e9, qui\n  est d'utiliser le mieux possible le mat\u00e9rial humain tel qu'il existe\n  maintenant. Mais, par elle-m\u00eame, elle n'am\u00e9liore en rien la qualit\u00e9\n  des germes \u00e0 venir. Elle peut, n\u00e9anmoins, gr\u00e2ce \u00e0 l'instruction\n  donn\u00e9e \u00e0 la jeunesse sur la valeur sociale de la s\u00e9lection, la\n  pr\u00e9parer \u00e0 mettre cette derni\u00e8re en \u0153uvre.\u201d #/\n\nand another from Spencer:--\n\n  \u201cWe are not among those who believe in Lord Palmerston's dogma,\n  that all children are born good. On the whole, the opposite dogma,\n  untenable as it is, seems to us less wide of the truth. Nor do we\n  agree with those who think that, by skilful discipline, children\n  may be made altogether what they should be. Contrariwise, we are\n  satisfied that though imperfections of nature may be diminished by\n  wise management, they cannot be removed by it. The notion that an\n  ideal humanity might be forthwith produced by a perfect system of\n  education, is near akin to that implied in the poems of Shelley, that\n  would make mankind give up their old institutions and prejudices, all\n  the evils in the world would at once disappear; neither notion being\n  acceptable to such as have dispassionately studied human affairs.\u201d\n\n=Ruskin on education and inequality.=--Three great paragraphs may be\nquoted from Ruskin's _Time and Tide_:--\n\n  \u201c... Education _was desired by the lower orders because they thought\n  it would make them upper orders_, and be a leveller and effacer of\n  distinctions. They will be mightily astonished, when they really\n  get it, to find that it is, on the contrary, the fatallest of all\n  discerners and enforcers of distinctions; piercing, even to the\n  division of the joints and marrow, to find out wherein your body and\n  soul are less, or greater, than other bodies and souls, and to sign\n  deed of separation with unequivocal seal.\n\n  \u201c171. Education is, indeed, of all differences not divinely\n  appointed, an instant effacer and reconciler. Whatever is undivinely\n  poor, it will make rich; whatever is undivinely maimed, and halt, and\n  blind, it will make whole, and equal, and seeing. The blind and the\n  lame are to it as to David at the siege of the Tower of the Kings,\n  \u2018hated of David's soul.\u2019 But there are other divinely-appointed\n  differences, eternal as the ranks of the everlasting hills, and as\n  the strength of their ceaseless waters. And these, education does not\n  do away with; but measures, manifests, and employs.\n\n  \u201cIn the handful of shingle which you gather from the sea-beach, which\n  the indiscriminate sea, with equality of fraternal foam, has only\n  educated to be, every one, round, you will see little difference\n  between the noble and the mean stones. But the jeweller's trenchant\n  education of them will tell you another story. Even the meanest\n  will be the better for it, but the noblest so much better that you\n  can class the two together no more. The fair veins and colours are\n  all clear now, and so stern is nature's intent regarding this, that\n  not only will the polish show which is best, but the best will take\n  most polish. You shall not merely see they have more virtue than the\n  others, but see that more of virtue more clearly; and the less virtue\n  there is, the more dimly you shall see what there is of it.\n\n  \u201c172. And the law about education, which is sorrowfullest to vulgar\n  pride, is this--that all its gains are at compound interest; so that,\n  as our work proceeds, every hour throws us farther behind the greater\n  men with whom we began on equal terms. Two children go to school hand\n  in hand, and spell for half an hour over the same page. Through all\n  their lives, never shall they spell from the same page more. One is\n  presently a page a-head, two pages, ten pages--and evermore, though\n  each toils equally, the interval enlarges--at birth nothing, at death\n  infinite.\u201d\n\nSo much for one relation of this question to Socialism. Quite lately\n(_The New Age_, April 11th, 1908) Mr. Havelock Ellis has summed the\nmatter up as follows:--\n\n  \u201cEducation has been put at the beginning, when it ought to have\n  been put at the end. It matters comparatively little what sort of\n  education we give children; the primary matter is what sort of\n  children we have got to educate. That is the most fundamental of\n  questions. It lies deeper even than the great question of Socialism\n  versus Individualism, and indeed touches a foundation that is\n  common to both. The best organised social system is only a house\n  of cards if it cannot be constructed with sound individuals; and\n  no individualism worth the name is possible, unless a sound social\n  organisation permits the breeding of individuals who count. On this\n  plane Socialism and Individualism move in the same circle.\u201d\n\nWe cannot agree with Socialism when, as we think, it assumes that\nall evil is of economic or of educational origin. The student of\nheredity finds elements of evil abundant in poisoned germ-plasm and\nnot absent from the best. Surely, surely, the products of progress are\nnot mechanisms but men; and surely no economic system as such can be\nthe only mechanism worth naming--which would be one that made men. The\ngerm-plasm is such a mechanism, indeed; and hence its quality is all\nimportant.\n\nBut if Socialism, sooner than any other party, is going to identify\nitself with the economic principle of Ruskin that \u201cthere is no wealth\nbut life\u201d; and if in its discussion of the conditions of industry it\nwill concern itself primarily with the culture of the racial life,\nwhich is the vital industry of any people (and basis enough for a New\nImperialism, or at least a New Patriotism, that might be quite decent);\nif so, then it seems to me that we must look to the socialists for\nsalvation. But books which describe future externals, books which\nassume that education is a panacea, forgetting that education can\neducate only what heredity gives, turn us away again when we are almost\npersuaded. The _economic_ panacea must fail (at least as a panacea);\nthe _educational_ panacea must fail; the _eugenic_ panacea may not fail.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nEducation, then, cannot achieve our ideal of race-culture. No matter\nhow good our polishing, we must have silver and diamonds to work upon,\nnot pewter and pebbles. When we have the right material to work upon,\nour labour will not be wasted, or far worse than wasted, as it now too\noften is.\n\n=Education a Sisyphean task.=--But the belief in education as in itself\nan adequate instrument of race-culture chiefly depends upon the popular\ndoctrine as to its influence upon the race. It is supposed, in a word,\nthat if we educate the parents, the child will begin where the parents\nleft off. This is the doctrine of Lamarck, who said that if the necks\nof the parent giraffe were educated or drawn out, the baby giraffe\nwould have this anatomical acquirement transmitted to it, and, so to\nspeak, when it grew up, would be able to begin feeding on the leaves of\ntrees at the level where its parents had to leave off. In the course\nof its life its own neck would become elongated or educated, and its\nchildren would outstretch both itself and their grand-parents. This\ndoctrine of the transmission of acquired characters by heredity, as\nwe have seen, is, at the present day, repudiated by biologists. It\nis generally believed by the medical profession and by the public,\nnotwithstanding the fact that, for instance, the skin of the heel of\nevery new baby is almost as thin and delicate as it is anywhere else,\nthough for unthinkable generations all the ancestors of that baby on\nboth sides have greatly thickened the skin of both heels by the act of\nwalking.\n\nIt is quite evident that, if the Lamarckian theory were true, education\nwould be a completely adequate instrument of race-culture, incomparable\nin its rapidity and certainty. It would not reform the world in a\nsingle generation because, as we have seen, its results would be\nlimited by the inherent nature of its material; but since those results\nwould involve the vast amelioration of the material upon which it\nworked in the second generation, mankind would be little lower than\nthe angels in a century. The good habits acquired by one generation\nwould be innate in the next. If the father learnt one language in\naddition to his own, the child would start with the knowledge of two,\nwaiting only for opportunity, and could accumulate more and hand them\non to its child. \u201cMy father's environment would be my heredity.\u201d If we\ndesired muscular strength we could in two generations produce a race\namongst whom Sandow would be a puny weakling. We should not need to\ndiscuss any question of selection for parenthood. Without any such\nprocess we could answer Browning's prayer and \u201celevate the race at\nonce\u201d--physically, mentally and morally.\n\nBut the Lamarckian theory does not correspond with facts. The\nresults of education, physical, mental, or moral, are limited to the\nindividuals educated. The children do not begin where the parents left\noff, but they make a fresh start where the parents did. Thus even\nthough we had and employed an ideal method of education, we should make\nno permanent improvement by its means alone in the breed of mankind,\nany more than the breeder of race-horses could attain his end by the\nsame means. In each generation the same problem, the same difficulties,\nthe same limitations inherent in the nature of the new material, would\nhave to be faced. We must learn from the horse-breeder, who knows that\nthe blood of a single horse, Eclipse, runs in the veins of the great\nmajority of winners since his time.\n\nIt is exceedingly difficult to dispossess the popular mind of the\nLamarckian idea, the more especially as members of the medical\nprofession, who are regarded as authorities on heredity, contentedly\naccept this idea themselves. Yet the advocates of eugenics or\nrace-culture have to recognise that, so long as the Lamarckian idea\nobtains, their crusade will fail to find a hearing. We believe that\nnothing can really be accomplished in the way of race-culture until\npublic opinion--that \u201cchaos of prejudices,\u201d as Huxley called it--is\nmarshalled on our side. But the popular notion of heredity is a most\nformidable obstacle. The Lamarckian idea seems to provide a method for\nthe improvement of a species which cannot be surpassed for simplicity,\nrapidity and certainty. It even excludes the possibility of mistakes.\nYou cannot go wrong if you simply educate every one to the utmost.\nDoubtless some persons are more suited for parenthood than others, but\nonly let education be wise and universal, and any question of selection\nby marriage or otherwise will be superfluous. A thousand difficulties\noffered by public sentiment, by convention, by the churches, by the\nlarge measure of uncertainty which attends the working of heredity,\ncould be ignored, if race-culture were simply a matter of education.\n\nNevertheless, these difficulties have to be faced by the eugenist. The\npopular misconception of heredity--instanced by Sir James Simpson's\nbelief, not inexcusable sixty years ago, that the education of a\nfuture mother will enlarge her child's brain--must be removed. It can\nscarcely be doubted that the sway of the Lamarckian idea will soon be\ndiminished, and then, at last, those who are interested in the future\nwill discover that only by the process of selection for parenthood,\nwhich has brought mankind thus far, can further progress be assured.\n\n=Real functions of education for race-culture.=--Nevertheless education\nhas a true function for race-culture in addition to the obvious fact\nof its necessity in order to realise the inherent potentialities\nof the individual. One of its functions is to provide a level of\npublic opinion and public taste such that the finer specimens of each\ngeneration shall receive their due reward and shall not be crushed out\nof existence or perverted. There is a passage in Goethe which suggests\nthe true function of education, and makes us suspect that, so far as\nmany kinds of genius and talent are concerned, our immediate business\nis perhaps less to endeavour to produce them by breeding--if that be\npossible--than to make the most of them when they are vouchsafed us.\nSays Goethe:--\n\n  \u201cWe admire the Tragedies of the ancient Greeks; but to take a\n  correct view of the case, we ought to admire the period and the\n  nation in which their production was possible rather than the\n  individual authors; for though these pieces differ in some points\n  from each other, and though one of these poets appears somewhat\n  greater and more finished than the other, still, taking all things\n  together, only one decided character runs through the whole.\n\n  \u201cThis is the character of grandeur, fitness, soundness, human\n  perfection, elevated wisdom, sublime thought, pure, strong intuition,\n  and whatever other qualities one might enumerate. But when we find\n  all these qualities, not only in the dramatic works which have come\n  down to us, but also in lyrical and epic works--in the philosophers,\n  orators, and historians, and in an equally high degree in the works\n  of plastic art that have come down to us--we must feel convinced that\n  such qualities did not merely belong to individuals, but were the\n  current property of the nation and the whole period.\u201d\n\n=Education as to the principle of selection.=--Further, the hope\nmay be warranted that, though education, as such, will not achieve\nthe ideal of true race-culture, and though it has never hitherto\naverted the ultimate failure of all civilisations, yet the case may\nbe different to-day, in that our acquired or traditional progress,\ntransmitted by the process of education accumulating from age to\nage--not in our blood and bone and brain, but mainly in books, whereby\nthe non-transmission of the results of education is circumvented in a\nsense--has reached the point at which the laws of racial or inherent\nprogress have been revealed to us, as to none of our predecessors.[38]\nHaving the knowledge of these laws it is possible that we may avert our\npredecessors' fate by putting them into force. If we do not, we must\nultimately become \u201cone with Nineveh and Tyre.\u201d Fifty years have now\nelapsed since the principle of natural selection was demonstrated for\nall time by the genius of Darwin. We must not be guilty of starting\nto tell the story of organic evolution and leaving out the point. So\nlong as we supposed that man was created as he is, the idea of racial\nprogress was an absurdity. It is the correct thing now-a-days to decry\nthe possibility of human perfection. This possibility is rightly to be\ndecried if it be assumed that ideal education of the present material\nor anything like it would realise perfection. We have seen that it\nwould not. It is the principle of selection, in which Darwin has\neducated us, that must be taught to all mankind, and thus education may\nindeed become the factor of an effective race-culture.\n\n=The power of individual opinion.=--Since ultimately opinion rules the\nworld, it is for us to create sound opinion. That is the purpose of\nthis book. But every individual may be a centre of eugenic opinion,\nand the time has assuredly come for attempting to realise this ideal,\nthough a thousand years should pass before the facts of heredity are\ncompletely ascertained and understood. The main principles are of the\nsimplest character, and can be readily imparted to a child. Especially\ndoes the responsibility fall upon parents and those who are in charge\nof childhood.\n\nThe young people of the next and all succeeding generations must be\ntaught the supreme sanctity of parenthood. The little boy who asks\nwhat he is to become when he grows up, must be taught that the highest\nprofession and privilege he can aspire to is responsible fatherhood;\nthe little girl may less frequently ask these questions, the answer to\nwhich has been imparted to her by her own Mother-Nature--as the doll\ninstinct, so little appreciated or utilised, sufficiently demonstrates;\nbut she likewise must be taught reverence for Motherhood. As childhood\ngives place to youth, what may be called the eugenic sense must be\ncultivated as a cardinal aspect of the moral sense itself; so that even\npersonal inclination--at the controllable and self-controllable stage\nwhich precedes \u201chead over ears\u201d affection--will wither when it is\ndirected to some one who, on any ground, offends the educated eugenic\nsense. There is here a field for moral education of the highest and\nmost valuable kind, both for the individual and for the race. Is there\nany other aspect of duty which can claim a higher warrant? Is there any\nhitherto so wholly ignored?\n\nThe preceding paragraph is re-printed from a brief account of its\nobjects written for the Eugenics Education Society, as a Society\nwhich amongst other purposes exists \u201cto further eugenic teaching at\nhome and in the schools and elsewhere.\u201d The difficulties of teaching\nthis subject to children are more apparent than real. I may freely\nconfess that though I have been speaking, writing, and thinking about\neugenics for six years, I did not realise the importance of eugenic\neducation until I heard the views of some of the women who belong\nto this Society, and even then I was at first sceptical as to its\npracticability. The subject has been entirely ignored by the pioneers\nof this matter. But if we turn to such a work as Forel's masterpiece\nwe begin to realise that the eugenic education of children is the real\nbeginning at the beginning, that it is in fact indispensable, and must\nbe antecedent to all legislation in the direction of positive eugenics,\nthough not to certain forms of legislation in the direction of negative\neugenics.[39] In the earlier chapters of his great work Professor Forel\noffers the parent and the guardian abundant, detailed and accurate\nguidance as to the lines and methods of this teaching. It is urgently\nnecessary for both sexes, but more especially for girls, who may suffer\nincredibly from the cruel prudery ordained by Mrs. Grundy, the only\nold woman to whom the word \u201chag\u201d should be applied. We must remove the\nreproach of Herbert Spencer, made nearly fifty years ago in words\nwhich may well be quoted:--\n\n  \u201cThe greatest defect in our programmes of education is entirely\n  overlooked. While much is being done in the detailed improvement\n  of our systems in respect both of matter and manner, the most\n  pressing desideratum, to prepare the young for the duties of life,\n  is tacitly admitted to be the end which parents and schoolmasters\n  should have in view; and happily, the value of the things taught,\n  and the goodness of the methods followed in teaching them, are now\n  ostensibly judged by their fitness to this end. The propriety of\n  substituting for an exclusively classical training, a training in\n  which the modern languages shall have a share, is argued on this\n  ground. The necessity of increasing the amount of science is urged\n  for like reasons. But though some care is taken to fit youth of\n  both sexes for society and citizenship, no care whatever is taken\n  to fit them for the position of parents. While it is seen that\n  for the purpose of gaining a livelihood, an elaborate preparation\n  is needed, it appears to be thought that for the bringing up of\n  children, no preparation whatever is needed. While many years are\n  spent by a boy in gaining knowledge of which the chief value is that\n  it constitutes \u2018the education of a gentleman\u2019; and while many years\n  are spent by a girl in those decorative acquirements which fit her\n  for evening parties; not an hour is spent by either in preparation\n  for that gravest of all responsibilities--the management of a family.\n  Is it that this responsibility is but a remote contingency? On the\n  contrary, it is sure to devolve on nine out of ten. Is it that the\n  discharge of it is easy? Certainly not; of all functions which the\n  adult has to fulfil, this is the most difficult. Is it that each may\n  be trusted by self-instruction to fit himself, or herself, for the\n  office of parent? No; not only is the need for such self-instruction\n  unrecognised, but the complexity of the subject renders it the one of\n  all others in which self-instruction is least likely to succeed.\u201d\n\n=The lines of eugenic education.=--The teaching of the main facts of\nheredity must come first in order to the end of eugenic education.\nThe vegetable world is at our service in this regard, the products of\nhorticulture with their beauty and grace and novelty are illustrations\none and all of what heredity means and what the due choice of parents\nwill effect. There need be no personal allusions at this stage; the\nthing can be presented in an impersonal biological setting. And as\nheredity produces these wonderful results in plants, so also does it\nin the animal world. Numberless domestic forms are at our service. You\ntake your children and your dog to the Zoological gardens, and show the\nresemblance between wolf and dog. What easier, then, than to point out\nthat by consistent choosing for many generations of the least ferocious\nwolves, you may make a domesticated race?[40]\n\nThe mind of any child that has fortunately escaped \u201ceducation\u201d will\nmake the transition for itself from sub-human races to mankind, and\ninstances will occur, say, where extreme short-sightedness or deafness\nappears in children whose parents were similarly afflicted, and were\nperhaps closely related. At yet a later age a boy or girl may learn the\ndoom which often falls upon the children of drunkards.\n\nAnd then may it not be possible, when a little boy asks what he is to\nbe when he grows up, to suggest that the highest profession to which\nhe can be called, for which he may strive to make himself worthy, is\nfatherhood? And when the racial instinct awakes, would it be wrong,\nimproper, indecent, to teach that it has a purpose, that no attribute\nof mind or body has a higher purpose, that this is holy ground? Or is\nit better that by silence, both as to the fact and as to its meaning,\nwe should make it unmentionable, indecent, dishonourable? The Bible is\nused now-a-days as an instrument of political immorality, but if and\nwhen it should be employed for the function of other great literature,\nthere is a passage sufficiently relevant to our present argument.[41]\n\nPerhaps we are wrong in regarding and treating the racial instinct as\nif it were animal and low, a thing as far as possible to be ignored,\nrepressed, treated with silent contempt in education and elsewhere. We\nmay be wrong in practice because the method is not successful, because\nthe development of this instinct is inevitable and little short of\nimperious in every normal child if that child is ever to become a man\nor a woman, and because our silence does not involve the silence of\nless responsible persons who are less likely even than we ourselves to\nteach the young enquirer that this thing exists for parenthood, and is\ntherefore holy and to be treated as such.\n\nPerhaps we are wrong in principle also, since that which exists for\nparenthood, and without which the continuance and future terrestrial\nhope of mankind is impossible, cannot be animal and low, unless human\nlife, even at its best attained or attainable, be animal and low. Our\nbusiness rather is to treat this great fact in a spirit worthy of the\npurpose for which it exists; and therefore, as part of that process of\neducation by which we desire to make the young into reasonable, moral\nand fully human beings, to teach explicitly, without unworthy shame,\nthat this thing exists for the highest of purposes that nothing which\nthe future holds for boy or girl can conceivably be higher or happier\nthan worthy parenthood, however commonplace that may appear to common\neyes, and that accordingly this instinct is to be guarded, treated,\nused, honoured as for parenthood, a fact which immediately raises it\nfrom the egoistic to the altruistic plane. We have to learn and to\nteach that worthy parenthood is the highest end which education can\nachieve--highest alike on the ground of its services to the individual\nand its services to the future, and the relation of the racial instinct\nto parenthood being what it is, we have to look upon it in that light,\nat once austere and splendid.\n\nIn the teaching of girls, only a false and disastrous prudery offers\nany great obstacle. The idea of motherhood is essentially natural to\nthe normal girl. It is the eugenic education of boys that is more\ndifficult, and the possibility of which will be questioned in some\nquarters, especially by those who regard the type of boy evolved in\nsemi-monastic institutions, devoid of feminine influence, as a normal\nand unchangeable being. Co-educationists, however, are teaching us\nto revise that opinion, and will yet demonstrate, perhaps, that the\ninculcation of the idea of fatherhood is not so impossible nor so\nalien to the boy nature as some would suppose. If such a duty devolved\nupon the present writer, he would feel inclined, perhaps, to present\nhis teaching in terms of patriotism. He would urge that \u201cthere is no\nwealth but life\u201d; that nations are made not of provinces nor property\nbut of people; that modern biology is teaching historians to explain\nsuch phenomena as the fall of Rome in terms of the quality of the\nnational life; that therefore, individuals being mortal, parenthood\nnecessarily takes its place as the supreme factor of national destiny;\nthat the true patriotism must therefore concern itself with the\nconditions and the quality of parenthood--much less with its quantity;\nthat the patriotism which ignores these truths is ignorant and must be\ndisastrous; that we must turn our attention therefore from flag waving\nto questions of individual conduct; that if alcohol and syphilis,\nfor instance, can be demonstrated to be what I would call racial\npoisons, the young patriot must make himself aware of their relation to\nparenthood, and must act upon his knowledge of that relation. It can\nthus be demonstrated that righteousness exalteth a nation not only in\nthe spiritual but also in the most concrete sense.\n\nTo this we shall come. We may even recognise eugenic education as the\nmost urgent need of the day, as the most radical and rational, perhaps\neven the most hopeful, of the methods by which the cleansing of the\ncity, and much more, is to be achieved. We must create a eugenic aspect\nfor the moral sense. We can associate this alike with individual and\ncivic duty, and with those very ideals to which, as we all know,\nthe young most readily respond. Thus I believe it shall be said of\nus in the after time that we have raised up the foundations of many\ngenerations.\n\nAnd so, finally, the unselfish significance of marriage might\nconceivably be taught, alike to boys and girls, and especially in the\ncase of undoubtedly good stocks might we inculcate, as Mr. Galton has\npointed out, a rational pride in ancestry--that is to say, a rational\npride in the quality of the germ-plasm which has been entrusted to us.\nAnd so may be cultivated a eugenic aspect of the moral sense--which\nis immeasurably more plastic than any but the student of moral ideas\nknows--and, thus endowed, the young man or woman will be prepared\nfor the possibility of marriage. It is perfectly conceivable that in\ndays to come the argument--in any case false--that affection never\nbrooks control, may become wholly irrelevant, when there arises a\ngeneration in whose members there has been cultivated or created\nthe eugenic sense. It is conceivable that, just as to-day the mere\npossibility of falling in love is arrested by any of a thousand trivial\nconsiderations, so misplaced affection may be incapable of arising\nbecause its possible object affronts the educated eugenic sense. The\nnatural basis for such education already exists. But the natural\neugenic sense still works mainly on the physical plane, and although we\nowe to it the maintenance of our present modest standard of physical\nbeauty, we aim at higher ideals--and will one day thus attain them.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER IX\n\n                      THE SUPREMACY OF MOTHERHOOD\n\n  \u201cThe dregs of the human species--the blind, the deaf mute, the\n  degenerate, the imbecile, the epileptic--are better protected than\n  pregnant women.\u201d--Bouchacourt.\n\n  \u201cI hold that the two crowning and most accursed sins of the society\n  of this present day are the carelessness with which it regards the\n  betrayal of women, and the brutality with which it suffers the\n  neglect of children.\u201d--Ruskin.\n\n\nA chapter must be included here concerning a question which can never\nsafely be ignored in any consideration of race-culture, but the\nimportance of which, as I think I see it, is recognised by no one\nwho has concerned himself at all with this subject, from Mr. Francis\nGalton himself downwards. We must all be agreed, Mr. Galton declares,\nas to the propriety of breeding, if it be possible, for health, energy\nand ability, whatever else may be doubtful. To this I would add that,\nwhether we are agreed or not, we must breed for motherhood, and that,\neven if we do not, we shall have to reckon with it. The general eugenic\nposition, I fancy, is that the requirements which we should make of\nboth sexes, the mothers of the future as well as the fathers, are\nessentially identical: but it seems to me that we have not yet reckoned\nwith the vast importance of motherhood as a factor in the evolution\nof all the higher species of animals, and its absolute supremacy,\ninevitable and persistent whether recognised or ignored, in the case of\nman. Any system of eugenics or race-culture, any system of government,\nany proposal for social reform--as, for instance, the reduction of\ninfant mortality--which fails to reckon with motherhood or falls\nshort of adequately appraising it, is foredoomed to failure and will\ncontinue to fail so long as the basal facts of human nature and the\ndevelopment of the human individual retain even approximately their\npresent character. Whatever proposals for eugenics or race-culture be\nmade or carried out, the fact will remain that the race is made up of\nmortal individuals; that every one of these begins its visible life as\na helpless baby, and that the system which does not permit the babies\nto survive, _they_ will not permit to survive.\n\nThis is a general and universal proposition, admitting of no\nexceptions, past, present or to come. It applies equally to conscious\nsystems of race-culture, to forms of marriage, to forms of government,\nto any other social institution or practice or character that can be\nnamed or conceived. Upon every one of these the babies pronounce a\njudgment from which there is no appeal. The baby may be a potential\nNewton, Shakespeare, Beethoven or Buddha, but it is at its birth the\nmost helpless thing alive, the potentialities of which avail it not one\nwhit. It is in more need of care, immediate and continuous, than a baby\nmicrobe or a baby cat, whatever the unpublished glories of which its\nbrain contains the promise; and in the total absence of any apparatus,\nmechanical, legal, or scientific, which can provide the mother's breast\nand the mother's love, individual motherhood, in its exquisitely\ncomplementary aspects, physical and psychical, will remain the dominant\nfactor of history so long as the final judgments upon every present and\nthe final determinations for every future lie in the hands of helpless\nbabyhood--which will be the case so long as man is mortal. When, if\never, science, having previously conquered disease, identifies the\ncauses of natural death and removes them, then motherhood and babyhood\nmay be thrown upon the rubbish heap; but until that hour they are\nenthroned by decree of Nature, and can be dethroned only at the cost of\nHer certain and annihilative vengeance.\n\nIt is the master paradox that at his first appearance the lord of the\nearth should be the most helpless of living things. Consider a new-born\nbaby. \u201cUnable to stand, much less to wander in search of food; very\nnearly deaf; all but blind; well-nigh indiscriminating as to the nature\nof what is presented to its mouth; utterly unable to keep itself clean,\nyet highly susceptible to the effects of dirt; able to indicate its\nneeds only by alternately turning its head, open-mouthed, from side to\nside and then crying; possessed of an almost ludicrously hypersensitive\ninterior; unable to fast for more than two or three hours, yet having\nthe most precise and complicated dietetic requirements; needing the\nmost carefully maintained warmth; easily injured by draughts; the prey\nof bacteria (which take up a permanent abode in its alimentary canal\nby the eleventh day)--where is to be found a more complete picture of\nhelpless dependence?\u201d[42] How comes it that this creature is to be\nlord of the earth, and a member of the only species which succeeds in\ncontinually multiplying itself?\n\n=Motherhood and intelligence.=--We have maintained that the vital\ncharacter which is of supreme survival-value for man is his\nintelligence, and this, as we know, is his unique possession. It is\nvery largely for intelligence, therefore, that race-culture or eugenics\nproposes, if possible, to work. But if there be certain conditions\nwhich must be complied with before intelligence can possibly be\nevolved, eugenics will come to disaster should it ignore them. These\nconditions do exist, and have hitherto been entirely ignored by all\nstudents of this question. Let certain great facts be observed.\n\nWhy is the human baby the most helpless of all creatures? Since it is\nto become the most capable, should it not, even in its infant state,\nshow signs of its coming superiority? What is the meaning of this\nparadox?\n\nThe answer is that, so far as physical weapons of offence and defence\nare concerned, these have disappeared because intelligence makes them\nsuperfluous or even burdensome. But the peculiar helplessness of the\nhuman infant depends not upon its nakedness in the physical sense but\nupon its lack of very nearly all instinctive capacities. It is this\nabsence of effective instincts which distinguishes the baby from the\nyoung of all other creatures. Why should its endowment in this respect\nbe so inferior?\n\nIt is because of the fact that, if instinct is to give rise to\nintelligence, it must be plastic. A purely instinctive creature reacts\nto certain sets of circumstances in certain effortless, perfect and\nfixed ways. The reactions are the whole of its psychical life. They\nneed no education, being as perfectly performed on the first occasion\nas on the last, and in many instances being performed only once in the\nwhole history of the creature in question. But, on the other hand, they\nare almost incapable of education, and even in the cases where they\nlack absolute perfection at first, they only require the merest modicum\nof opportunity in order to acquire it. Perfect within their limits,\nthey are yet most definitely limited. They never achieve the new,\nthey are utterly at fault in novel circumstances, and they are wholly\nincapable of creating circumstances.\n\nA creature cannot be at once purely instinctive and intelligent. An\ninstinctive action is simply a compound reflex action, a highly adapted\nautomatism: now automatism and intelligence are necessarily inversely\nproportional. It is possible for an intelligent creature to acquire\nautomatisms, which are popularly described as instinctive. They are\nnot instincts, however, but the acquired equivalents of instincts:\n\u201csecondary automatisms.\u201d If they are used to replace intelligence, the\nindividual, in so far, sinks from the human to the sub-human level.\nTheir proper function is to leave the intelligence free for higher\npurposes more worthy of it than, say, the act of dressing oneself.\n\nIn order that an intelligent creature should be evolved it was\nnecessary that instinct should become plastic. Intelligence could not\nbe superposed upon a complete and final instinctive equipment. You\ncannot determine your own acts if they are already determined for\nyou by your nervous organisation. The incomparable superiority of\nintelligence depends upon its limitless and creative character, in\nvirtue of which, as Disraeli puts it, \u201cmen are not the creatures of\ncircumstances: circumstances are the creatures of men.\u201d But whilst\nintelligence can learn everything, it has everything to learn, and the\nmost nearly intelligent creature whom the earth affords thus begins\nhis independent life almost wholly bereft of all the instruments\nwhich have served the lower creatures so well, whilst, on the other\nhand, he is provided with an utterly undeveloped, and indeed, at\nthat time non-existent, weapon which, even if it did exist, he could\nnot use. Hence the unique helplessness of the human baby: one of\nthe most wonderful and little appreciated facts in the whole of\nnature--effectively hidden from the glass eyes of the kind of man who\ncalls a baby a \u201cbrat,\u201d but, to eyes that can see, not only the master\nparadox from the philosophical point of view but also a fact of the\nutmost moment from the practical point of view.\n\n=The evolution of motherhood.=--It directly follows that motherhood is\nsupremely important in the case of man. It is the historical fact that\nits importance in the history of the animal world has been steadily\nincreasing throughout \u00e6onian time. The most successful and ancient\nsocieties we know, those of the social insects, which antedate by\nincalculable ages even the first vertebrates, could not survive for a\nsingle generation without the motherhood or foster-motherhood to which\nthe worker females sacrifice their lives and their own chances of\nphysical maternity.\n\nThe development of maternal care may be steadily traced throughout the\nvertebrate series--_pari passu_ with the evolution of sexual relations\ntowards the ideal of monogamy, which is ideal just because of its\nincomparable services to motherhood. But whilst motherhood is of the\nutmost service for lower creatures, tending always to lessen infant\nmortality--if it may be so called--and to increase the proportion\nof life to death and birth, it is of supreme service in the case of\nman because of the absolute dependence upon it of intelligence, the\nsolitary but unexampled weapon with which he has won the earth. Hence\nin breeding for intelligence we cannot afford to ignore that upon which\nintelligence depends. Even if we could produce genius at will, we\nshould find our young geniuses just as dependent upon motherhood as the\ncommon run of mankind. Newton himself was a seven months' baby, and the\npotentialities of gravitation and the calculus and the laws of motion\nin his brain could not save him: motherhood could and did.\n\nEven our least biological reformers must admit that purely physical\nmotherhood, up to the point of birth, can scarcely be omitted in any\nschemes for social reform or race-culture. Some of them will even\nadmit that purely physical motherhood, so far as the mother's breasts\nare concerned, cannot wisely be dispensed with. The psychical aspects\nof motherhood, however, many of these writers--I do not call them\nthinkers--ignore. In relation to infant mortality--which is the most\nobvious symptom of causes productive of vast and widespread physical\ndeterioration amongst the survivors, and which must be abolished\nbefore any really effective race-culture is possible--it is worth\nnoting that motherhood cannot safely be superseded. I do not believe\nin the _cr\u00e8che_ or the municipal milk dep\u00f4t except as stop-gaps, or\nas object-lessons for those who imagine that the slaughtered babies\nare not slaughtered but die of inherent defect, and that therefore\ninfant mortality is a beneficent process. In working for the reduction\nof this evil we must work through and by motherhood. In some future\nage, boasting the elements of sanity, our girls will be instructed in\nthese matters. At present the most important profession in the world is\nalmost entirely carried on by unskilled labour, and until this state\nof things is put an end to, it is almost idle to talk of race-culture\nat all. But under our present system of education, false and rotten as\nit is in principles and details alike, it is necessary for us to send\nvisitors to the homes of the classes which, in effect, supply almost\nthe whole of the future population of the country, and to establish\nschools for mothers on every hand.\n\n=Psychical motherhood.=--I confess myself opposed to the principle\nof bribing a woman to become a mother, whether overtly or covertly,\nwhether in the guise of State-aid or in the form of eugenic premiums\nfor maternity. It may sound very well to offer a bonus for the\nproduction of babies by mothers whom the State or any eugenic power\nconsiders fit and worthy. But though the bonus may help motherhood\nin its physical aspects, the importance of which no one questions,\nI do not see what service it renders to motherhood in its psychical\naspects--which are at least equally important. What is the outlook for\nthe baby when the bonus is spent? In fact, with all deference to Mr.\nGalton, and with such deference as may be due to the literary triflers\nwho have discussed this matter, I am inclined to think that a cardinal\nrequisite for a mother is love of children. Ignorant this may be, and\nindeed at first always is, but if it is there it can be instructed. The\nwoman who does not think the possession of a baby a sufficient prize is\nno fit object, I should say, for any other kind of bribe or lure. The\nwoman who \u201cwould rather have a spare bedroom than a baby\u201d is the woman\nwhom I do not want to have a baby. Thus I look with suspicion on any\nproposals which assume that the psychical elements of motherhood are of\nlittle moment in eugenics. I see no sign or prospect that they can be\ndispensed with, and I think eugenics is going to work on wrong lines if\nit proposes to ignore them. Even if you turn out Nature with a fork she\nwill yet return--_tamen usque recurret_.\n\nIn this question we should be able to derive great assistance from\nbiography. Real guidance, I believe, is obtained from this source, but\nonly a pitiable fraction of that which should be obtained. Scientific\nbiography is yet to seek, and it is the ironical fact that when Herbert\nSpencer, in his _Autobiography_, devoted a large amount of space to\nthe discussion of _both_ his parents and their relatives, the literary\ncritics were bored to death. Nevertheless, we cannot know too much\nabout the ancestry, on both sides, and the early environment, of great\nmen. At present it is always tacitly assumed that a great man is the\nson of his father alone. The biographer would probably admit, if\npressed, that doubtless some woman or other was involved in the matter,\nand that her name was so and so--if any one thinks it worth mentioning.\nOn the score of heredity alone, however, we derive, men and women\nalike, with absolute equality from both parents; and we cannot know too\nmuch about the mothers of men of genius. Such knowledge would often\navail us materially in cases where the paternal ancestry offers little\nexplanation of the child's destiny.\n\nWe do owe, however, to great men themselves many warm and unqualified\ntributes to their mothers, not on the score of heredity, but on the\nscore of the psychical aspects of motherhood. This, indeed, is one of\nthe great lessons of biography which some eugenists have forgotten.\nIt is all very well to breed for intelligence, but intelligence needs\nnurture and guidance, and that need is the more urgent, the more\npowerful and original the intelligence in question. The physical\nfunctions of motherhood from the moment of birth onwards can be\neffected, no doubt, though at very great cost, by means of incubators\nand milk laboratories, and so forth. But there is no counterfeiting\nor replacing the psychical component of complete maternity, and a\ngeneration of the highest intelligence borne by unmaternal women would\nprobably succeed only in writing the blackest and maddest page in\nhistory.\n\n=The eugenic demand for love.=--Mr. Galton desires that we breed for\nphysique, ability, and energy. But we also need more love, and we must\nbreed for that. Nothing is easier or more inevitable once we make\nhuman parenthood conscious and deliberate. When children are born only\nto those who love children, and who will tend to transmit their high\nmeasure of that parental instinct from which all love is derived, we\nshall bring to earth a heaven compared with which the theologian's is\nbut a fool's paradise.\n\nThe first requisite, then, for the mothers of the future, the elements\nof physical health being assumed, is that they should be motherly. They\nmay or may not, in addition, be worthy of such exquisite titles as\n\u201cthe female Shakespeare of America,\u201d but they must have motherliness\nto begin with. For this indispensable thing there is no substitute. It\nmust certainly be granted, and the fact should not be ignored, that the\nhidden spring of motherliness in a girl may be revealed only by actual\nmaternity, and the frivolous damsel who used to think babies \u201csilly\nsqualling things\u201d may be mightily transformed when the silly squalling\nthing is her own--and the Fifth Symphony sound and fury signifying\nnothing compared with its slightest whimper. I will grant even that the\nmaternal instinct is so deeply rooted and universal that its absence\nmust be regarded as either a rare abnormality or else as the product of\nthe grossest mal-education in the wide sense. But the reader will not\nblame me for insisting at such length upon what, as he would think, no\none could deny, when he discovers that these salient truths are denied,\nand that in what should be the sacred name of eugenics, they are openly\nflouted and defied.\n\nBefore we go on to consider these perversions of a great idea, it may\nbriefly be observed that, though fatherhood is historically a mushroom\ngrowth compared with motherhood, and though its importance is vastly\nless, yet as a complementary principle, aiding and abetting motherhood,\nand making for its most perfect expression, fatherhood played a great\npart in animal evolution, in the right line of progress, ages before\nman appeared upon the earth at all, and that its work is not yet done.\nTo this subject we must return. Meanwhile it is well to note the\ndangers with which eugenics is at present threatened in the form of\ncertain proposals which, if for a time they became popular--and they\nhave elements making for popularity--would inevitably throw the gravest\ndiscredit upon the whole subject.\n\n=Eugenics and the family.=--Certain remarkable tendencies invoking\nthe name of eugenics are now to be observed in Germany. These have\nconsiderable funds, much enthusiasm, journalistic support, and even a\nlarge measure of assistance in academic circles. In pursuance of the\nidea of eugenics there is a movement the nature of which is indicated\nby the following quotation from a private letter:--\n\n  \u201cI wonder if your attention was drawn to the German projects of the\n  reform of the Family. They all aim at improving the German race and\n  rendering decisive its superiority over all others. The means seem\n  to be too revolutionary. The more modern wish the establishment of\n  the matriarchal family (_ein nach Mutterrecht_), the more logical\n  require universal polygamy and polyandry, an individualisation of\n  Society. Others hope to increase the production of German geniuses\n  by the \u2018hellenic friendship.\u2019[!] The three movements are strongly\n  organised, command large pecuniary means, a phalanx of original and\n  prolific writers, and enthusiastic devotion to their cause. More\n  even than the support of Courts and aristocracy is, in my eyes, that\n  of the Universities. It is there that the destinies of Germany have\n  always been shaped, and if they are determined to reform the Family\n  in that way, it will be done.... The Herren Professoren are terribly\n  in earnest, yet they say things which even to the least prejudiced\n  minds appear ridiculous and even vulgar. Still, their projects have\n  some relation to Eugenics, and to Sociology in general.\u201d\n\nThis sufficiently indicates the dangers run by the eugenic principle\nat the hands of those who see in it an instrument of protest and\nrebellion against established things. We dare not repudiate the sacred\nprinciples of protest and rebellion, which have been the conditions of\nall progress, but believing in motherhood as we must, believing it to\nbe authorised by nature herself and not by any human conventions, we\nmust deplore any tendencies such as the two last cited. For us in this\ncountry, however, a more immediate interest attaches to the views of a\nmuch admired and discussed writer who claims to be a social philosopher\nof the first order, and whose claims must now be examined.\n\nThe opinions of Mr. Bernard Shaw on the question of eugenics may be\nquoted from his contribution to the subject published in _Sociological\nPapers_ 1904, pp. 74, 75, in discussion of Mr. Galton's great paper.\nMr. Shaw begins by saying: \u201cI agree with the paper and go so far as\nto say that there is now no reasonable excuse for refusing to face the\nfact that nothing but a eugenic religion can save our civilisation from\nthe fate that has overtaken all previous civilisations.\u201d And further:--\n\n  \u201cI am afraid we must make up our minds either to face a considerable\n  shock to vulgar opinion in this matter or to let eugenics alone....\n  What we must fight for is freedom to breed the race without being\n  hampered by the mass of irrelevant conditions implied in the\n  institution of marriage. If our morality is attacked, we can carry\n  the war into the enemy's country by reminding the public that the\n  real objection to breeding by marriage is that marriage places no\n  restraint on debauchery, so long as it is monogamic.... What we need\n  is freedom for people who have never seen each other before and never\n  intend to see one another again, to produce children under certain\n  definite public conditions, without loss of honour.\u201d\n\nThe conception of individual fatherhood here stated involves a\ndeliberate reversion to the order of the beast: it excludes individual\nfatherhood from any function in aiding motherhood or in serving the\nfuture. It involves, of course, the total abolition of the family. It\ndenies and flouts the very best elements in human nature. It assumes\nthat the best women will find motherhood worth while without the\ninterest and sympathy and help and protection of the father. It does\nnot, however, condemn or exclude the psychical functions of motherhood,\nsince so far as this quotation goes it might be assumed that the mother\nwould be permitted to live with her own child. On this point, however,\nMr. Shaw offered us further guidance in his controversy with myself in\nthe _Pall Mall Gazette_, in December, 1907. One or two of his _dicta_\nmust here be quoted--they followed upon my remark, \u201cAnything less like\na mother than the State I find it hard to imagine\u201d:--\n\n  \u201cWhen the State left the children to the mothers, they got no\n  schooling; they were sent out to work under inhuman conditions,\n  under-ground and over-ground for atrociously long hours, as soon as\n  they were able to walk; they died of typhus fever in heaps; they grew\n  up to be as wicked to their own children as their parents had been to\n  them. State socialism rescued them from the worst of that, and means\n  to rescue them from all of it. I now publicly challenge Dr. Saleeby\n  to propose, if he dares, to withdraw the hand of the State and\n  abandon the children to their mothers as they fall.... All I need say\n  is that before Dr. Saleeby can persuade me to sacrifice the future\n  of human society to his maternalism, he will have to tackle me with\n  harder weapons than the indignant enthusiasm of a young man's mother\n  worship.\u201d\n\nMr. Shaw's teaching constitutes a brutal and deliberate libel upon the\nhighest aspects of womanhood. For his own purposes he attributes to the\nmothers all the abominations which, as every one knows, have lain and\nin some measure still lie, at the door of the State. The man who has\nthis opinion of motherhood is complacently ignorant of the elements of\nthe subject. His charge is denied by every one who has worked as doctor\nor nurse or visitor or missionary amongst the poorer classes, and knows\nthat the mothers there met are of the very salt of the earth.\n\nIt is well to state plainly here that these utterly irresponsible\n_dicta_ have absolutely no relation or resemblance whatever to the\nopinions or proposals of Mr. Francis Galton himself, who desires to\neffect race-culture through marriage, and whose whole propaganda is\nbased upon this assumption. This we shall afterwards see. Meanwhile\nwe may note Mr. Galton's own words: \u201cThe aim of eugenics is to bring\nas many influences as can be reasonably employed, to cause the useful\nclasses in the community to contribute more than their proportion to\nthe next generation.\u201d Mr. Galton would be the first to assert that\ninfluences designed to supersede motherhood and to abolish everything\nbut the physical aspect of fatherhood, would not be reasonable, but\ninsane in the highest degree.\n\nThe ideal of race-culture without fatherhood or motherhood, except in\nthe mere physiological sense, constitutes a denial of the greatest\nfacts in evolution, as we have seen. It ignores everything that is\nknown and daily witnessed regarding the development of the individual,\nand the formation of character, without which intelligence is a curse.\nThere is not the slightest fear that any such reversion to the order\nof the beast is possible, absolutely forbidden as it is by the laws of\nhuman nature. There is, however, reasonable ground for apprehension,\nespecially when the recent developments in Germany are remembered,\nthat the public may obtain its notions of eugenics in a highly-garbled\nform.[43]\n\nIt must be asserted as fervently and plainly as possible that, if the\nidea of race-culture is even in the smallest degree to be realised,\nit must work through motherhood and fatherhood not less in their\npsychical than in their physical aspects. It is time to have done with\nthe gross delusions of Nietzsche regarding the nature and course of\norganic evolution. Morality is not an invention of man but man the\nchild of morality, and it is not by the abolition of motherhood, in\nwhich morality originated, nor of fatherhood, its first ally, that\nthe super-man is to be evolved: but by the attainment of those lofty\nconceptions of the function, the responsibility and the privilege of\nparenthood which it is the first business of eugenics to inculcate.\n\nAs for marriage, invaluable though at its best it be for the completion\nand ennoblement of the individual life, its great function for society\nand for the race is in relation to childhood. Thus considered, the\ndictum of Professor Westermarck may be understood, that children are\nnot the result of marriage but marriage the result of children.\nThis, in other words, is to say that marriage has become evolved\nand established as a social institution because of its services to\nrace-culture. It is, in short, the supreme eugenic institution. This\ngreat subject must next occupy our attention.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER X\n\n                        MARRIAGE AND MATERNALISM\n\n\nOur present concern is the relation of marriage to race-culture,\nand for this purpose we must investigate an epoch ages before the\ninstitution of human marriage, ages before mankind itself. We must\nfirst remind ourselves of what may be called the trend of progress\nfrom the first in respect of that reproduction upon which all species\ndepend, all living individuals being mortal.\n\nAt first, in the effort for survival and increase, life tried\nthe quantitative method. If we take the present day bacteria as\nrepresentatives of the primitive method, we see that not quality nor\nindividuality but quantity and numbers are the means by which, in\ntheir case, life seeks to establish itself more abundantly. We express\nour own birth-rate in its proportion per year to one thousand living:\nbut twenty thousand bacteria injected into a rabbit have been found\nto multiply into twelve thousand million in one day. \u201cOne bacterium\nhas been actually observed to rear a small family of eighty thousand\nwithin a period of twenty-four hours.\u201d \u201cThe cholera bacillus can\nduplicate every twenty minutes, and might thus in one day become\n5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, with the weight, according to the\ncalculations of Cohn, of about 7,366 tons. In a few days, at this rate,\nthere would be a mass of bacteria as big as the moon, huge enough to\nfill the whole ocean.\u201d\n\nIf now we trace the history of life up to man, we find in him--as\nwe have seen--the lowest birth-rate of any animal and the longest\nante-natal period in proportion to his body weight, the longest\nperiod of maternal feeding, and by far the lowest infant mortality\nand general death-rate. A chief fact of progress has been, in a word,\nthe supersession of the quantitative by the qualitative criterion of\nsurvival-value. Immeasurably vast vital economy and efficiency have\nthus been effected. The tendency of progress, in short--a tendency\ncoincident with the evolution of ever higher and higher species--is to\npass from the horrible Gargantuan wastefulness of the older methods\ntowards the evident but yet lamentably unrealised ideal--that every\nchild born shall reach maturity. This great historical tendency, which\nwill ultimately involve the restriction of parenthood to the fit, fine\nand relatively few, has occurred under the impartial rule of natural\nselection simply and solely because it has endowed with survival-value\nthe successive species in which it has been demonstrated.\n\n=The rise of parenthood.=--Consistently with this fact and with\nthe argument of the previous chapter is the tendency towards\nthe lengthening of infancy, a very characteristic condition of\nthe evolution of the higher forms of life. This lengthening and\naccentuation of infancy makes for variety of development, and, as\nwe have seen, is supremely instanced in man, where it depends upon,\nand makes possible, the transmutation of fixed instincts into the\nplastic thing we call intelligence. Thus, to quote the words of Dr.\nParsons,[44] \u201cwe find that as infancy is prolonged in the progress\nof species, the care given to offspring by parents is increased. It\nextends over a longer period and it is directed more and more towards\nthe total welfare of offspring. The need of a potentially many-sided\nand enduring kind of parental care is filled through the social group\nwe call the family.\u201d\n\nApart from those immensely significant creatures, the social insects,\nwe find well-marked though primitive signs of motherhood amongst the\nfishes, and in a few cases, such as the stickleback, the beginnings of\nfatherhood. But it is not until we reach the mammals, and especially\nthe monkeys and apes, that we find a great development of motherhood,\nfar more prolonged and far more important than the more frequently\nextolled parental care found amongst the birds.\n\nVery interesting, however, in the case of the fishes is the fact\nobserved by Sutherland that \u201cas soon as the slightest trace of parental\ncare is discovered the chance of survival is increased and the\nbirth-rate is lowered.\u201d As a general summary these words of Dr. Parsons\nwill serve:--\u201cDiminution of offspring is a threefold gain to a species.\n(1) It lessens the vital drain upon the parent. (2) It enables the\nsize and capacity of the limited number of offspring to be increased.\n(3) In the case of the higher developments of parental care after\nbirth, it concentrates the advantage of that care upon a few instead of\nscattering it, and thereby weakening its influence, upon many.\u201d\n\nNow how are these facts connected with that relation between the\nparents which we call marriage, temporary or permanent, foreshadowed or\nperfected?\n\n_It may be submitted that the racial function or survival-value of\nmarriage in all its forms, low or high, animal or human, consists in\nits services to the principle of motherhood, these services depending\nupon the help and strength which are afforded to motherhood by\nfatherhood._\n\n=Animal marriage.=--Let us now look very briefly at the facts of animal\nmarriage from this point of view. The phrase, animal marriage, may\npossibly offend the reader, but is there any reason to be offended\nat the suggestion that the principle of marriage actually has a\nwarrant older even than mankind? It has lately been pointed out by a\ndistinguished naturalist, Mr. Ernest Thompson Seton, that animals, like\nmen, have long been groping, so to say, for an ideal form of marriage.\nWe now know, as will be shown, that, contrary to popular opinion,\npromiscuity does not prevail amongst the lowest races of men. Equally\nfalse is the popular notion that promiscuity prevails amongst most of\nthe lower animals. Promiscuity, it is true, does occur, but so also\ndoes strict monogamy, \u201cand promiscuous animals, such as rabbits and\nvoles, while high in the scale of fecundity, are low in the scale of\ngeneral development.\u201d Says Mr. Seton: \u201cIt is commonly remarked that\nwhile the Mosaic law did not expressly forbid polygamy, it surrounded\nmarriage with so many restrictions that by living up to the spirit\nof them the Hebrew ultimately was forced into pure monogamy. It is\nextremely interesting to note that the animals, in their blind groping\nfor an ideal form of union, have gone through the same stages, and have\narrived at exactly the same conclusion. Monogamy is their best solution\nof the marriage question, and is the rule among all the higher and most\nsuccessful animals.\u201d\n\nThe moose, Mr. Seton tells us, has several wives in one season but only\none at a time. The hawks practise monogamy lasting for one season, \u201cthe\nmale staying with the family, and sharing the care of the young till\nthey are well-grown.\u201d The wolves consort for life, but the death of\none leaves the other free to mate again. There is a fourth method \u201cin\nwhich they pair for life, and, in case of death, the survivor remains\ndisconsolate and alone to the end. This seems absurd. It is the way of\nthe geese.\u201d The point especially to be insisted upon as regards animal\nmarriage is its evident service to their race-culture, in accordance\nwith the principle here laid down that _marriage is of value because it\nsupports motherhood by fatherhood_, and that its different forms are\nof value in proportion as they do so more or less effectively. We may\nnote also, as a corollary to this, that marriage must be more important\nin proportion as the young of a species are helpless and in proportion\nas their helplessness is long continued. The importance of marriage for\nman, therefore, must necessarily be higher than for any of the lower\nanimals.\n\n=Human marriage.=--We must turn now to human marriage, and the\nprinciple which we must remember is that of survival-value. We are\ndiscussing a natural phenomenon exhibited by living creatures. This is\nwhat so few people realise when they speak of marriage. They cannot\ndisabuse themselves of the idea that it is a human invention, and\nespecially an ecclesiastical invention. Thus, on the one hand, it\nis supported by persons who base its claims on mystical or dogmatic\ngrounds; whilst, on the other hand, it is attacked by those who are\nopposed to ecclesiasticism or religion of any kind, and attacked in\nthe name of science--in which, if the fact could only be recognised,\nis found every possible warrant and sanction, and indeed imperative\ndemand, for this most precious of all institutions. Here we must\nendeavour to look upon it as an exceedingly ancient fact of life,\nvastly more ancient than mankind; and in judging it and explaining\nit we must apply Nature's universal criterion, which is that of\nits survival-value or service to race-culture. Let us then glance\nvery briefly at the actual facts of human marriage--conceived as an\ninstitution by which the survival-value of fatherhood is added to that\nof motherhood.\n\nThe pioneer student of marriage from the standpoint of science was\nHerbert Spencer, who with great labour supported the conclusion that\nmonogamy is the highest, best and latest form of marriage. But in the\nabsence of the great mass of evidence which is now before us, Spencer\ntoo readily assumed the truth of the popular notion that promiscuity\nwas the primitive state, and taught that human marriage has developed\nfrom this through polygamy towards the ideal of monogamy. The work\nof Professor Westermarck, however--Spencer's chief follower in this\npath--has shown, and later writers have abundantly confirmed it, that\nthis primitive promiscuity never existed. There is no nation or race\nor clan of man now extant, however primitive or barbaric, that has\nnot definite marriage laws; there is no society on earth, however\nrude, that does not punish the unfaithful wife. Furthermore, polygamy,\nthe only historical rival of monogamy, is now known to have played a\nquite trivial part in history, not merely compared with monogamy, but\nas compared with that which it was supposed to have played. Even in\ncountries which we call polygamous to-day, polygamy is the relatively\nrare exception and monogamy the rule. On this most important question\nit is well, however, to quote the words of Professor Westermarck\nhimself:--\n\n  \u201cThe great majority of peoples are, as a rule, monogamous, and\n  the other forms of marriage are usually modified in a monogamous\n  direction.\u201d \u201cAs to the history of the forms of human marriage, two\n  inferences regarding monogamy and polygyny may be made with absolute\n  certainty; monogamy, always the predominant form of marriage, has\n  been more prevalent at the lowest stages of civilisation than at\n  somewhat higher stages; whilst, at a still higher stage, polygyny has\n  again, to a great extent, yielded to monogamy.\u201d \u201cWe may thus take it\n  for granted that civilisation, up to a certain point, is favourable\n  to polygyny; but it is equally certain that in its highest forms\n  it leads to monogamy.\u201d \u201cBut, though civilisation up to a certain\n  point is favourable to polygyny, _its higher forms invariably and\n  necessarily lead to monogamy_.\u201d\n\nIt is the principle of survival-value that explains the dominance of\nmonogamy at all stages of human society--with the single exception\nof continuously and wholly militant societies, in which polygamy\nobtained in consequence of the great numerical excess of women. It is\nthe fate of the children, in which everything is involved, that has\ndetermined the history of human marriage. Furthermore, we may see here\none more illustration of the truth that quality is ousting quantity in\nthe course of progress, and that a low birth-rate represents a more\nadvanced stage than a high birth-rate. The birth-rate under polygamy\nis undoubtedly high, but polygamy does not make for the survival and\nhealth of the children, and the infant mortality is gigantic. As I have\nsaid elsewhere, \u201cthe form of marriage which does not permit the babies\nto survive, _they_ do not permit to survive. There is the beginning and\nthe end of the whole matter in a nutshell. It is not a question of the\nfather's taste and fancy, but of what he leaves above ground when the\nworms are eating him below.... No system yet conceived can compare for\na moment with monogamy in respect of the one criterion which time and\ndeath recognise, the fate of the children.\u201d\n\nIn a word, the wholly adequate and only possible explanation of\nthe historical fact of the dominance of monogamy is its supreme\nsurvival-value. It has competed with every other kind of sex relation\nand has been selected by natural selection because of its supreme\nservice for race-culture--the most perfect conceivable addition of\nfatherhood to motherhood.\n\n=Plato and motherhood.=--Thus eugenics must repudiate not only the\nideas of Mr. Shaw on this subject, but the teaching of Plato, from whom\nMr. Shaw's ideas on this particular subject are apparently derived. It\nis in the fifth book of his _Republic_ that the pioneer eugenist lays\ndown his ideas for race-culture. He realised, indeed, the importance,\nafter birth, of the nurture of children--\u201cit is of considerable, nay,\nof the utmost importance to the State, when this is rightly performed\nor otherwise;\u201d and he refers also to their nurture while very young,\n\u201cin the period between their generation and their education, which\nseems to be the most troublesome of all.\u201d His method involved a\ncomplete community of wives and children amongst the guardians of the\nState, and on no account were the parents to know their own children\nnor the children their parents. The best were to be chosen for parents,\non the analogy of animal race-culture by man. The children of inferior\nparents were to be killed. The others were to be conveyed to the common\nnursery of the city, but every precaution was to be taken that _no\nmother should know her own child_. This practice was to be the cardinal\npoint of the Republic and \u201cthe cause of the greatest good to the city.\u201d\n\nWe see here, then, that the very first proposals for race-culture\ninvolved the destruction of marriage and the family, and a total denial\nof the value of the psychical aspects of motherhood and fatherhood\nalike. Plato's first critic, however, his own great pupil Aristotle,\ndevoted the best part of his work, the _Politics_, to showing that the\nsuggestions of Plato were not only wrong in themselves, but would not\nsecure his end. Aristotle showed, in the words of Mr. Barker, that \u201cthe\ndestruction of the family, and the substitution in its place of one\nvast clan, would lead but to the destruction of warm feelings, and the\nsubstitution of a sentiment which is to them as water is to wine....\nSo with the system of common marriage, as opposed to monogamy. The one\nencourages at best a poor and shadowy sentiment, while it denies to\nman the satisfaction of natural instinct and the education of family\nlife; the other is natural and right, both because it is based on those\ninstincts, and because it satisfies the moral nature of man, in giving\nhim objects of permanent yet vivid interest above and beyond himself.\u201d\nThe truth of this matter is that the rest may reason and welcome--but\nwe fathers know.\n\n=Marriage a eugenic instrument.=--It has definitely to be stated, then,\nthat the abolition of marriage and the family is in no degree whatever\na part of the eugenic proposal. We desire to achieve race-culture by\nand through marriage, on the lines which indeed many lower races of\nmen successfully practise at the present day. We must make parenthood\nmore responsible, not less so. It will afterwards be shown that the\nsuggested incompatibility between marriage and the family, on the one\nhand, and race-culture or eugenics on the other, does not exist. It\nwill be shown that we have in marriage not only the greatest instrument\nof race-culture that has yet been employed--half-consciously--by man,\nbut also an instrument supremely fitted, and indeed without a rival,\nfor the conscious, deliberate, and scientific intentions of modern\neugenists. The applicability of marriage for this purpose will be\nshown by reference to actual facts. Mr. Galton himself has shown how\neffectively an educated public opinion can employ marriage for the\npurposes of race-culture, its services to which have indeed led to its\nevolution. It has furthermore to be added that only the formation of\npublic opinion can ever lead to the ideal which we desire. This opinion\nalready exists in some degree as regards one or two transmissible\ndiseases, and, though without adequate scientific warrant, as regards\nthe marriage of first cousins. In these respects it is not without some\nmeasure of effectiveness, and the fact is of the utmost promise.\n\n\u201cMarriage,\u201d said Goethe, \u201cis the origin and the summit of all\ncivilisation.\u201d Perhaps it would be more accurate to say _the family_\nrather than _marriage_. The childless marriage may be and often is a\nthing of the utmost beauty and value to the individuals concerned,\nbut it is certainly not the origin of civilisation, and if it be\nits summit it is also its grave. The eugenic support of marriage,\ntherefore, depends upon a belief in the family, and that form of\nmarriage will commend itself which provides the best form of family.\nFrom the point of view of certain eugenists, polygamy would be\ndesirable in many cases, as extending the parental opportunities of\nthe man of fine physique or intellectual distinction. The problem\nremains, however, as to the nurture of the children so obtained, and\nhistorical study returns us a very clear answer as to the relative\nmerits of the polygamous family and the monogamous family. It is this\nlast that pre-eminently justifies itself on the score of its services\nto childhood and therefore to the race. Its survival is a matter of\nabsolute certainty, because of its survival-value. Neither Plato nor\nMr. Shaw, nor any kind of collectivist legislation will permanently\nabolish it.\n\n=The principle of maternalism.=--The merits of monogamy can be\ndefined in terms of the principle which I would venture to call\nmaternalism--the principle of the permanent and radical importance of\nmotherhood and whatever institutions afford it the greatest aid.\n\nMaternalism would point, I think, to the supreme paradox that the\ndominant creature of the earth is born of woman, and born the most\nabsolutely helpless of all living creatures whatsoever, animal or\nvegetable; it would note that this utter dependence upon others, mother\nor foster-mother, is not only the most unqualified known, but the\nlongest maintained; it would observe that of all the human beings now\nalive, all that have lived, all that are to be, not one could survive\nits birth for twenty-four hours but for motherhood; it would note that\nonly motherhood has rendered possible the development of instinct into\nthat intelligence which, itself dependent upon motherhood for the\npossibility of its development, has dependent upon it the fact that\nthe earth is now man's and the fulness thereof; and to the advocates\nof all the political -isms that can be named, and the small proportion\nof them that can be defined, it would apply its specific criterion:\nDo you regard the safeguarding and the ennoblement of motherhood as\nthe proximate end of all political action, the end through which\nthe ultimate ends, the production and recognition of human worth,\ncan alone be attained; do you realise that marriage is invaluable\n_because_ it makes for the enthronement of motherhood as nothing else\never did or can; do you realise that, metaphors about State maternity\nnotwithstanding, the State has neither womb nor breasts, these most\nreverend and divine of all vital organs being the appanage of the\nindividual mother alone?\n\nThe maternalist principle being assumed, and the value of monogamy on\nthe ground that it supports motherhood by fatherhood, the forthcoming\ndiscussion as to the possibilities of race-culture will assume the\npersistence of monogamy and will centre upon the possibility of\nselecting or rejecting, for the purposes of race-culture, those who are\navailable for entrance into the marriage state. The reader who has not\nstudied social anthropology--and this is true of nearly all the critics\nof eugenics, very few of whom have studied anything--will be astounded,\nI believe, to discover the practically unlimited extent to which public\nopinion, whether or not formulated as law, has always been capable of\ncontrolling marriage, and therefore, race-culture.\n\n=Proposed definition of marriage.=--Recognising the existence\nof subhuman marriage, we may be at a loss to define marriage as\ndistinguished from sex-relations in general. It is that form of\nsex-relation which involves or is adapted to _common parental care_ of\nthe offspring--the support of motherhood by fatherhood.\n\n\n\n\n                   PART II--THE PRACTICE OF EUGENICS\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER XI\n\n                           NEGATIVE EUGENICS\n\n  N'abandonnons pas l'avenir de notre race \u00e0 la fatalit\u00e9 d'Allah;\n  cr\u00e9ons-le nous-m\u00eames.--Forel.\n\n  \u201cIt is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed,\n  leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but except in the case\n  of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst\n  animals to breed.\n\n  \u201cWith savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated, and\n  those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We\n  civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process\n  of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maim and the\n  sick; we institute poor laws; and our medical men exert their utmost\n  skill to save the life of everyone to the last moment.... Thus the\n  weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who\n  has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this\n  must be highly injurious to the race of man.\u201d--Darwin, _The Descent\n  of Man_, 1871. Pt. i., chap. v.\n\n\nHitherto we have mainly concerned ourselves with broad aspects of\ntheory, endeavouring to prove that conscious race-culture is a\nnecessity for any civilisation which is to endure, and to show how\nalone it can be effected. But evidently for a great many of the\npractical proposals that might be, and for not a few that have been,\nbased upon these views, public opinion is not ripe. We may be thankful\nto believe that for some it will never be ripe: it would be rotten\nfirst. Marriage, for instance, we hold sacred and essential: we find\nintolerable the idea of the human stud-farm; we are very dubious as\nto the help of surgery; we are much more than dubious as to the\nlethal chamber. It is necessary to be reasonable, and, in seeking\nthe superman, to remain at least human. Now if we are to achieve any\nimmediate success we must clearly divide our proposals, as the present\nwriter did some years ago, with Mr. Galton's approval, into two\nclasses: _positive eugenics_ and _negative eugenics_. The one would\nseek to encourage the parenthood of the worthy, the other to discourage\nthe parenthood of the unworthy. Positive eugenics is the original\neugenics, but, as the writer endeavoured to show at the time, negative\neugenics is one with it in principle. The two are complementary, and\nare both practised by Nature: natural selection is one with natural\nrejection. To choose is to refuse.\n\nIn regard to positive eugenics I, for one, must ever make the criticism\nthat I cannot believe in the propriety of attempting to bribe into\nparenthood people who have no love of children: we have to consider\nthe parental environment of the children we desire, as well as their\ninnate quality. Thus, positive eugenics must largely take the form, at\npresent, of removing such disabilities as now weigh upon the desirable\nmembers of the community, especially of the more prudent sort.\n\nFor instance, it was recently pointed out by a correspondent of the\n_Morning Post_ that in Great Britain, despite the alarm caused by the\ndecreasing marriage-rate, no one has protested against--\n\n  \u201c... the tax which the propertied middle classes have to pay on\n  marriage.... To take a few instances. Two persons each having \u00a3160 a\n  year marry. Previous to marriage they were exempt from income tax;\n  after marriage they pay \u00a36 per annum. Two persons each having \u00a3400 a\n  year pay \u00a318 before and \u00a330 after marriage. Similarly the additional\n  income tax payable on marriage by people each having \u00a3600 a year is\n  \u00a39, by those having \u00a31,200 a year \u00a330, and by those having \u00a32,000 a\n  year \u00a350. It is difficult to see how our legislators arrived at this\n  result unless they started to average the incomes of married people\n  and then forgot to divide by two.... If, as I contend, a man and his\n  wife should be counted as two people, not one, should not children\n  also be counted in any scheme of graduated taxation, and an income\n  be divided by the number of persons it has to support in order to\n  fix the rate at which the tax is to be charged? It is ridiculous to\n  suppose that a man with a wife and six children is as well off on\n  \u00a31,000 a year as a bachelor with the same income. It is, I believe,\n  acknowledged that the moderately well-off professional classes marry\n  later and have fewer children than the wage-earners, and I think\n  there can be no doubt that the special burthens they have to bear\n  is a material influence contributing to this result. Thus, while we\n  are deploring the decadence of the race, the State is doing what it\n  can to discourage marriage in a class whose children would in all\n  probability prove its most valued citizens.\u201d\n\nBut it is in negative eugenics that we can accomplish most at this\nstage, and in so doing can steadily educate public opinion, the\nprofessional jesters notwithstanding. There is here a field for action\nwhich does not demand a great revolution in the popular point of view;\nand, further, does not require us to wait for certainty until the facts\nand laws of heredity have been much further elucidated. The services\nwhich a conscious race-culture, thus directed, may even now accomplish,\ncan scarcely be over-estimated; and even if we cannot reach the public\nheart at once we can reach the public head by means of the public\npocket--which will benefit obviously and greatly when these proposals\nare carried out. As Thoreau observes, for a thousand who are lopping\noff the branches of an evil there is but one striking at its roots. If\nwe strike at the roots of certain grave and costly evils of the present\nday, we shall abundantly demonstrate that this is a matter of the most\nvital economy.\n\n=The deaf and dumb.=--We might begin with the case of the _deaf and\ndumb_, since the facts here are utterly beyond dispute. The condition\nknown as deaf-mutism is congenital or due to innate defect in about\none-half of all the cases in Great Britain. Says Dr. Love,[45] \u201cIn\nevery institution examples may be found of deaf-mute children who have\none or two deaf parents or grand-parents, and of two or more deaf-mute\nchildren belonging to one family.\u201d A recent report from Japan is of\na similar order, and the evidence might be multiplied indefinitely.\nThe obvious conclusion that the inherently deaf should not marry \u201cis\ngenerally conceded by those who work amongst the deaf, but the present\narrangements for the education of the deaf, and their management in\nmissions and institutes for the deaf during the period of adolescence,\nis eminently fitted to encourage union between the congenitally\ndeaf. If not during the school period, at least during the period of\nadolescence, everything should be done to discourage the association\nof the deaf and dumb with each other, and the danger of their meeting\nwith those similarly afflicted should be constantly kept before the\ncongenitally deaf by those in charge of them.\u201d Dr. Love quotes the\nfollowing newspaper report: \u201cAt an inquest yesterday, on William\nEarnshaw, 59, a St. Pancras saddler, it was stated that the relatives\ncould not identify the body, as the wife and sister were blind, deaf\nand dumb, and that the four children were deaf and dumb. The deceased\nwas deaf and dumb, and was so when he was married.\u201d\n\n=The feeble-minded.=--The case of the _feeble-minded_ is of course\nparallel. The problem would be at once reduced to negligible\nproportions if all cases of feeble-mindedness were dealt with as they\nshould be. These unfortunate people might lead quite happy lives,\nthe utmost be done for their feeble capacities, the supreme demands\nof the law of love be completely but providently complied with.\nThe feeble-minded girl might be protected from herself and from\nothers--her fate otherwise is often too deplorable for definition--and\nthe interests of the future be not compromised. These words were\nwritten whilst awaiting the long overdue Report of the Royal Commission\non this subject--which abundantly confirms them. The proportion of\nthe mentally defective in Great Britain is now 0.83 per cent., and it\nis doubtless rising yearly. Only by the recognition and application\nof negative eugenics can this evil be cured. I have elsewhere[46]\ndiscussed the supposed objection which will be raised in the name of\n\u201cliberty\u201d by persons who think in words instead of realities. The right\ncare of the feeble-minded involves the greatest happiness and liberty\nand self-development possible for them. The interests of the individual\nand the race are one. What liberty has the feeble-minded prostitute,\nsuch as our streets are filled with?\n\n=The insane.=--As regards obvious _insanity_, the same principles of\nnegative eugenics must be enforced. It is probably fair to say that the\nwhole trend of modern research has been to accentuate the importance,\nif not indeed the indispensableness, of the inherent or inherited\nfactor in the production of insanity. Yet, on the other hand, the trend\nof treatment of the insane has undoubtedly been towards permitting\nthem more liberty, sometimes of the kind which the principles of\nrace-culture must condemn. It is well, of course, that we should\nbe humane in our treatment of the insane. It is well that curative\nmedicine should do its utmost for them, and it seems well, at first\nsight, that the proportion of discharges from asylums on the score of\nrecovery should be as high as it is. But at this point the possibility\nof the gravest criticism evidently arises. I have no intention\nwhatever of exposing the question of race-culture to legitimate\ncriticism by laying down dogmatically any doctrines as to the perpetual\nincarceration of insane persons, including those who have been, but\nare not now, insane. Pope was, of course, right when he hinted at the\nnearness of the relation between _certain forms_ of genius and certain\nforms of insanity. It may well be that if we could provide a fit\nenvironment we might welcome the children of some of those, highly and\nperhaps uniquely gifted in brain, who, under the stress of the ordinary\nenvironment of modern life, have broken down for shorter or longer\nperiods. On the other hand, there are forms of insanity which, beyond\nall dispute, should utterly preclude their victims from parenthood. As\na result of recent controversies it seems on the whole probable, if not\ncertain, that the apparent persistent increase in the proportion of\nthe insane in civilised countries generally during many years past, is\na real increase, and not due simply to such factors as more stringent\ncertification or increase of public confidence in lunatic asylums. If,\nthen, there be in process a real increase in the proportion of the\ninsane, who will question that no time should be lost in ascertaining\nthe extent--undoubtedly most considerable--to which the principles of\nnegative eugenics can be invoked in order to arrest it?\n\nAs regards _epilepsy_ and _epileptic insanity_ there can be no\nquestion. There is, of course, such a thing as acquired epilepsy, and\nwe may even assume for the sake of the argument that no inherent and\ntherefore transmissible factor of predisposition is involved in such\ncases. Yet, wholly excluding them, there remains the vast majority\nof cases in which epilepsy and epileptic insanity are unquestionably\ngerminal in origin, and therefore transmissible. The principle of\nnegative eugenics cannot too soon be applied here.\n\n=The criminal.=--When we come to consider the question of _crime_\nthe cautious and responsible eugenist is bound to be wary--chiefly,\nperhaps, because such a vast amount of sheer nonsense has been written\non this subject. The whole question, of course, is the old one, Is it\nheredity or environment that produces the criminal? If and when it is\nthe environment, race-culture has nothing to do with the question,\nsince the merely acquired criminality is, as we know, not in any\ndegree transmissible. If the criminal, however, is always or ever a\n\u201cborn criminal,\u201d then the eugenist is intimately concerned. At the\none extreme are those who tell us that the idea of crime is a purely\nconventional one, that the criminal is the product of circumstances or\nenvironment, and that we, in his case, would have done likewise. The\nremedy for crime, then, is education. It is pointed out, however, that\neducation merely modifies the variety of crime. There is less murder\nbut more swindling, and so forth. Then, on the other hand, there are\nthose who declare that criminality is innate, and that if we are to\nmake an end of crime we must attach surgeons to our gaols; or at any\nrate must extend the principle of the life-sentence.\n\nDoubtless, the truth lies between these two extremes. In the face\nof the work of Lombroso and his school, exaggerated though their\nconclusions often be, we cannot dispute the existence of the born\ncriminal, and the criminal type. There are undoubtedly many such\npersons in modern society. There is an abundance of crime which no\neducation, practised or imaginable, would eliminate. Present-day\npsychology and medicine, and, for the matter of that, ordinary\ncommon-sense, can readily distinguish cases at both extremes--the\n_mattoid_ or semi-insane criminal at one end, and the decent citizen\nwho yields to exceptional temptation at the other end. Thus, even\nthough there remain a vast number of cases where our knowledge is\ninsufficient, we could accomplish great things already if the born\ncriminal, the habitual criminal and his like were rationally treated\nby society, on the lines of the reformatory, the labour colony,\nindeterminate sentences, and such other methods as aim, successfully or\nunsuccessfully, at the reform of the individual, whilst incidentally\nprotecting the race. Here, as in some other cases, the nature of the\nenvironment provided for their children by certain sections of the\ncommunity may be taken into account when we decide whether they are\nto be prohibited from parenthood. Heredity or no heredity, we cannot\ndesire to have children born into the alcoholic home; heredity or no\nheredity, we cannot desire to have children born into the criminal\nenvironment. In Great Britain we are no longer to manufacture criminals\nin hundreds by sending children to prison. It remains to be seen, after\nthe practical disappearance of the made criminal, what proportion\nof crime is really due to the born criminal. He, when found, must\ncertainly be dealt with on the lines indicated by our principles.[47]\n\n=Other cases.=--So far we have considered exclusively diseases and\ndisorders of the brain, the question of alcoholism being deferred to\na special chapter. When we come to other forms of defect or disease\nwe find a long gradation of instances: at the one extreme being cases\nwhere the fact of disastrous inheritance is palpable and inevitable,\nwhilst at the other extreme are kinds of disease and defect as to which\nthe share of heredity is still very uncertain. In some instances, then,\nthe eugenist is bound to lay down the most emphatic propositions,\nas, for instance, that parenthood on the part of men suffering from\ncertain diseases is and should and must be regarded and treated as a\ncrime of the most heinous order: whilst in other instances all we can\nsay is that here is a direction in which more knowledge is needed.\n\nSome particular cases may be referred to.\n\nThe diseases known as Daltonism or colour-blindness, and h\u00e6mophilia\nor the \u201cbleeding disease,\u201d are certainly hereditary. The sufferers\nare usually male, but the disease is commonly transmitted by their\ndaughters (who do not themselves suffer) to their male descendants.\nAs regards colour-blindness, the defect is evidently insufficient\nto concern the eugenist, but h\u00e6mophilia is a serious disease, the\ntransmission of which should not be excused. It may seem hard to assert\nthat the daughter of a h\u00e6mophilic father should not become a mother,\nshe herself being free from all disease. But it has to be remembered\nthat the possibility of this hardship depends upon the fact that a\nh\u00e6mophilic man has become a father, as he should not have done.\n\nThis point, as to the amount of hardship involved in the observance\nof negative race-culture, has always to be kept in mind. If negative\neugenics were generally enforced upon a given generation some\npersons would, of course, suffer in greater or less degree from the\ndisabilities imposed upon them. But their number would depend upon the\nneglect of eugenics by previous generations, and _thereafter the number\nof those upon whom our principles pressed hardly would be relatively\nminute_.\n\n=Eugenics and tuberculosis.=--It would not be correct to say that\nthe old view of consumption regarded it as hereditary. In this and a\nhundred other matters, medical, astronomical, or what we please, if\nwe go back to the Arabic students, or further, to the Greeks, we are\nlucky enough to find sound observation and reasoning. Many quotations\nmight be made to show that the infectious nature of tuberculosis was\nrecognised long ago, just as the revolution of the earth round the\nsun was recognised a millennium and a half before Copernicus. But\nthe view of our more immediate fathers was that tuberculosis is a\nhereditary degeneration, and the medical profession proclaimed with no\nuncertain sound the hopeless and paralysing doctrine that an almost\ncertain doom hung over the children of the consumptive. Then, in\nmemorable succession, came Villemin, Pasteur, and lastly Koch, with\nhis discovery of the bacillus in 1882. The doctrine was then altered\nin its statement. There was, of course, no choice in the matter, since\nit was easy to show that not one new-born baby in millions harbours\na tubercle bacillus; so all-but-miraculous and, rightly considered,\nbeautiful are the ante-natal defences. It was taught, then, that we\ninherit a predisposition from consumptive parents, that the bacillus\nis ubiquitous, and that variations in susceptibility determine the\nincidence of the disease in one and not in another. It was lightly\nassumed (simply through what may be called the inertia of belief)\nthat these variations in susceptibility were hereditary; but we are\nwholly without evidence that the hereditary factor counts for anything\nsubstantial, even assuming that it appreciably exists at all. These\ndifferences, so far from being inherent, may be _most palpably_\nacquired. Under-feeding, alcohol, and influenza, let us say, will\nadequately prepare any human soil. Furthermore, we are learning that\nthe bacillus is nothing like so ubiquitous as used to be supposed.\nTuberculosis is now sometimes described as a dwelling disease. It might\nprobably be described with still more accuracy as a bed-room disease,\nor a bed-room and public-house disease. It has been evident for many\nyears past that the more we learnt about tuberculosis the less did\nwe talk about heredity; and in one of the most recent authoritative\npronouncements[48] upon the subject, the lecturer did not even allude\nto heredity at all. Many readers will be up in arms at once with\napparently contrary instances; and much labour may be spent in the\nmathematical analysis of statistical data--as that of cases where a\nfather and a child have tuberculosis. But suppose the father kissed the\nchild? What have you proved regarding heredity? No mathematics can get\nmore out of the data than is in them.\n\nThe statistics designed to measure the degree of inheritance in this\ndisease labour under the cardinal fallacy of assuming that where father\nand son suffer, the case is one of inheritance, and then proceed to\nmeasure the average extent of this inheritance. These statistics are\nso much waste paper and ink--assuming what they claim to prove. They\ndo not allow for the fact that the child is very frequently exposed\nin grave measure to infection by the parent; they ignore wholly,\nindeed, the entire question of exposure to infection, both as regards\nits extent in time and the virulence of the infection in question.\nAt the present day, discussions as to the inheritance of consumption\nand tuberculosis in general are not fit for practical application:\nand a practical disservice is rendered by those who seek to divert\npublic attention from the removable environmental causes upon which\nthe disease mainly depends. We know, for instance, that the incidence\nof tuberculosis is directly proportional to over-crowding: this being\nuniversally true, we must work to abolish over-crowding and to provide\nfresh air for every one by day and by night. When that is done,\nalcoholism disposed of, and our milk-supply purified, we may turn to\nthe question of heredity: but the incidence of the disease will then\npresent merely trivial instead of the present appalling proportions.\n\nIt is not asserted that inherent variations in susceptibility to\nthis disease are not existent. The case would be unique if it were\nso. But it is asserted that the more we learn of the disease the\nless importance we attach to this factor, and the more surely do\nwe see that the three syllables constituting the word \u201cinfection\u201d\nsubstantially suffice to dispose of all the confident dogmas with\nwhich we are too familiar. One is almost tempted to quote a forcible\nphrase of Mill's, and say that, given this point of view, \u201conce\nquestioned, they are doomed.\u201d The only method of accurately studying\nthe question of inherited predisposition would be by comparative study\nof the resistance of new-born infants as measured by their \u201copsonic\nindex\u201d--which may be (very roughly) described as the measure of the\npower of the white cells of the blood to eat up tubercle bacilli.[49]\nNor will even this method be free from fallacy.\n\nThe present writer believes that eugenics is going to save the world;\nthat there is no study of such urgent and practical importance as that\nof heredity; that if we get the right people born and the wrong people\nnot born, forms of government and such questions will be left even\nwithout fools to contest regarding them. Thus he has every bias in\nfavour of emphasising the hereditary factor in tuberculosis. The fact\nwill at least not discredit the foregoing views, which are in absolute\naccord with those of Dr. Newsholme, our leading authority, in his\nrecent work upon the subject.\n\nNothing need here be said about cancer, the best and most recent\nevidence tending to show that the disease is not hereditary.\n\nThe foregoing may briefly suffice to illustrate the general proposition\nthat negative eugenics will seek to define the diseases and defects\nwhich are really hereditary, to name those the transmission of which\nis already certainly known to occur, and to raise the average of the\nrace by interfering as far as may be with the parenthood of persons\nsuffering from these transmissible disorders. Only thus can certain\nof the gravest evils of society, as, for instance, feeble-mindedness,\ninsanity, and crime due to inherited degeneracy, be suppressed: and if\nrace-culture were absolutely incapable of effecting anything whatever\nin the way of increasing the fertility of the worthiest classes and\nindividuals, its services in the negative direction here briefly\noutlined would still be of incalculable value. No other proposal will\nsave so much life, present and to come: and save so much gold in doing\nso--as one would insist if one were writing a eugenic primer for\npoliticians. To this policy we shall most certainly come: but here,\nas in other cases, I trust far more in the influence of an educated\npublic opinion than in legislation; though there are certain forms of\ntransmissible disease, interfering in no way with the responsibility of\nthe individual, the transmission of which should be visited with the\nutmost rigour of the law and regarded as utterly criminal no less than\nsheer murder.\n\nIn the next chapter, recognising marriage as the human mode of\nselection, we must consider it in its relation to eugenics, both\npositive and negative.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XII\n\n                       SELECTION THROUGH MARRIAGE\n\n\n=Historical evidence of control of marriage: Westermarck's\nevidence.=--To begin with the most recent refutation of the doctrine\nthat marriage selection is uncontrollable, one may quote from the\ninaugural lecture delivered by Dr. Westermarck in December, 1907, on\nhis appointment as Professor of Sociology in the University of London.\nHe said:--\n\n  \u201cFor instance, when the suggestion has been made that the law should\n  step in and prevent unfit individuals from contracting marriage,\n  the objection has at once been raised that any such measure would\n  be impracticable. Now we find that many savages have tried the\n  experiment and succeeded. Mr. Im Thurn tells us that among the wild\n  Indians of Guiana, a man, before he is allowed to choose a wife, must\n  prove that he can do a man's work and is able to support himself\n  and his family. In various Bechuana and Kaffir tribes, according\n  to Livingstone, a youth is prohibited from marrying until he has\n  killed a rhinoceros. Among the Dyaks of Borneo no one can marry\n  until he has in his possession a certain number of human skulls.\n  Among the Arabs of Upper Egypt a man must undergo an ordeal of\n  whipping by the relatives of his bride, in order to test his courage;\n  and if he wishes to be considered worth having, he must receive\n  the chastisement, which is sometimes exceedingly severe, with an\n  expression of enjoyment.\n\n  \u201cI do not say that these particular methods are worthy of slavish\n  imitation, but the principle underlying them is certainly excellent,\n  and especially the fact that they are recognised and enforced by\n  custom shows that it has been quite possible among many people to\n  prohibit certain unfit individuals from marrying. The question\n  naturally arises whether, after all, something of the same kind may\n  not be possible among ourselves.\u201d\n\n=Mr. Galton's evidence.=--But Mr. Galton himself, with his\ncharacteristic thoroughness, and in full recognition of the fact that\nthis young science must meet ignorant as well as other objections, read\nbefore the Sociological Society[50] a paper entitled \u201cRestrictions\nin Marriage,\u201d with special reference to the objection \u201cthat human\nnature would never brook interference with the freedom of marriage....\nHow far have marriage restrictions proved effective, when sanctified\nby the religion of the time, by custom and by law? I appeal from\narmchair criticism to historical facts.\u201d Mr. Galton then proceeds to\nquote seven forms of restriction in marriage which have actually been\npractised--monogamy, endogamy, exogamy, Australian marriages, taboo,\nprohibited degrees and celibacy. He shows how powerful under each of\nthese heads is the influence of \u201cimmaterial motives\u201d upon marriage\nselection, how they may all become hallowed by religion, accepted as\ncustom and enforced by law. \u201cPersons who are born under their various\nrules, live under them without any objection. They are unconscious of\ntheir restrictions as we are unaware of the tension of the atmosphere.\u201d\nIn many cases the establishment of monogamy and the prohibition\nof polygamy \u201chas been due not to any natural instinct against the\npractice, but to consideration of social well-being.\u201d \u201cIt was penal\nfor a Greek to marry a barbarian, for a Roman patrician to marry a\nplebeian, for a Hindoo of one caste to marry one of another caste,\nand so forth. Similar restrictions have been enforced in multitudes\nof communities, even under the penalty of death.\u201d Cases from ancient\nJewish law are quoted; and, to take a very different case, that of the\nmarriage rule amongst the Australian bushmen, it is shown that \u201cthe\ncogency of this rule is due to custom, religion and law, and is so\nstrong that nearly all Australians would be horrified at the idea of\nbreaking it.\u201d Passing further on, one need offer no excuse for quoting,\nregarding marriage in general, the following words of the founder of\neugenics:--\u201c_The institution of marriage as now sanctified by religion\nand safeguarded by law in the more highly civilised nations, may not\nbe ideally perfect, nor may it be universally accepted in future\ntimes, but it is the best that has hitherto been devised for the\nparties primarily concerned, for their children, for home life, and for\nsociety._\u201d\n\nMr. Galton then proceeds to show how extensive are the restrictions in\nmarriage already recognised and practised amongst ourselves and quite\ncontentedly accepted. He proves also that our objection to marriage\nwithin prohibited degrees depends mainly upon what he calls immaterial\nconsiderations, and adds \u201cit is quite conceivable that a non-eugenic\nmarriage should hereafter excite no less loathing than that of a\nbrother and sister would do now.\u201d Then, in allusion to the possibility\n\u201cof a whole-hearted acceptance of eugenics as a national religion ...\nthe thorough conviction by a nation that no worthier object exists\nfor man than the improvement of his own race,\u201d Mr. Galton shows from\nthe history of conventual life what abundant evidence there is \u201cof\nthe power of religious authority in directing and withstanding the\ntendencies of human nature towards freedom in marriage.\u201d This paper\nwas discussed by no less than twenty-six authorities, British and\nContinental, and in his reply Mr. Galton observes that not one of them\nimpugns his main conclusion \u201cthat history tells how restrictions in\nmarriage, even of an excessive kind, have been contentedly accepted\nvery widely, under the guidance of what I called immaterial motives.\u201d\nLastly, we may note Mr. Galton's admirable distinction between the\ntwo stages of love, \u201cthat of slight inclination and that of falling\nthoroughly into love, for it is the first of these rather than the\nsecond that I hope the popular feeling of the future will successfully\nresist. Every match-making mother appreciates the difference. If a\ngirl is taught to look upon a class of men as tabooed, whether owing\nto rank, creed, connections or other causes, she does not regard them\nas possible husbands and turns her thoughts elsewhere. The proverbial\n\u2018Mrs. Grundy\u2019 has enormous influence in checking the marriages she\nconsiders indiscreet.\u201d\n\nSurely all the foregoing suffices to show, first, that eugenics or\nrace-culture is compatible with marriage, and secondly, that it is\ncompatible with the love of the sexes--two conclusions of the most\ncardinal and fundamental importance. This importance it is, and the\nobstinate stupidity of critics of a kind, which must excuse me for\nhaving devoted so much space to propositions which the thoughtful\nreader would naturally have arrived at for himself.\n\n=The present influence of marriage on race-culture.=--We must turn now\nfrom the past to the present aspect of the question, viz., the actual\nrelation of marriage to eugenics at the present day. Its nature is\nvery much disputed. On the one hand, there are those who see in our\npresent methods what has elsewhere been called reversed selection--that\nis to say, an anti-eugenic process, involving the mating of the least\ndesirable. On the other hand, there are many conservative critics who,\nstarting from a general opposition to any new thing, such as eugenics,\nmaintain that we are doing very well as we are, and that, without any\nconscious interference, as they call it--as if there were no such\ninterference--selection by marriage is actually working for the eugenic\nend. Dr. Maudsley, for instance, is \u201cnot sure but that nature in its\nown blind impulsive way does not manage things better than we can by\nany light of reason\u201d: an astounding opinion from the veteran pioneer\nwho has devoted so many decades to successfully modifying natural\nprocesses by the light of his own splendid reason!\n\nThis most important question, as to what is actually happening within\nthe limits of marriage, may legitimately be regarded as substantially\nequivalent to the question of the extent and nature of selection,\nfor good or for evil, as it occurs in society to-day. If we remember\nthat an overwhelming proportion of children are born in wedlock,\nthat the death-rate of illegitimate children is gigantic, whilst\nthe illegitimate birth-rate is generally falling, we shall be fully\nentitled to assume that the answer to the one question is the answer\nto the other; in a word, if under the present conditions of selection\nfor marriage we find a eugenic tendency or an anti-eugenic tendency or\na mere neutrality, the answer will be, _on the whole_, the approximate\nanswer to the larger question as to the present state of selection\nfor parenthood and therefore of our racial prospects, marriage or no\nmarriage. The conclusion which we shall maintain is that _both forms\nof selection occur in society to-day_--the selection of the desirable\nand the selection of the undesirable. We shall go ludicrously wrong\nif we agree, with one party, that society in general to-day exhibits\nreversed selection; or, with the second party, that everything is\ngoing on admirably on the whole; or, with the third party, which\njumbles the whole mass of facts and tendencies, and declares that\nthere is no process of selection of any kind occurring in society\nto-day--an opinion which, in the face of disease, the enormous\npremature death-rate, and the fact that whilst vast numbers of women\nare unmarried, the choice of women for marriage does not occur by lot,\nbeggars comment; is a girl with a birth-mark covering half her face,\nor a nose destroyed by transmissible disease, as likely to marry as\na \u201cbeauty\u201d? If not, surely we actually select to-day for beauty and\ntherefore for whatever beauty depends upon--for instance, health. But\nreally it cannot be necessary to deal seriously with the proposition\nthat no selection occurs in society to-day.\n\nLet us attempt to state clearly the point at issue. There is granted,\nin the first place, that by far the greater part of all parenthood,\nin civilised and uncivilised communities alike, occurs within the\nlimits of marriage; to which may be added that, owing to the excessive\ndeath-rate of illegitimate children, the proportion of effective\nparenthood, so to say, that occurs within the limits of marriage is\neven larger; and this intervention of marriage, and any selection that\nmay be involved in it, steadily recur from generation to generation.\nThus even those born outside wedlock will nevertheless be selected\nfor parenthood, on their own part, mainly by the selective factors in\nmarriage.\n\n=Selection by marriage has the last word.=--It follows, then, though\nthe fact is almost constantly ignored by eugenic writers, that\nselection by marriage in effect has the last word. Thus supposing\nthat all other forms of selection, depending upon, for instance,\nthe various causes of death amongst the immature, were what we call\nreversed selection; or supposing that, as is actually the case, society\npermitted large numbers of the so-called unfit to survive,--even\nso, marriage selection (if it meant that many or most of these were\nrejected by it) would control and correct the dangerous tendency. On\nall hands, scientific and unscientific, we have writers telling us of\nthe disastrous multiplication of the unfit. Such multiplication does\noccur and is disastrous. Yet hitherto they have failed to recognise\nthat if--to take an extreme case--all these unfit are rejected\nby marriage selection--that is to say, do not themselves become\nparents--this alarming multiplication is, after all, not a persistent\nfactor in racial change, but merely the throwing up or throwing aside\nin each generation of a certain number of undesirables _whose breed\ngets no further_. Of course there would be much less urgent need for\neugenics if this last were wholly and happily the case. Our object,\nindeed, is to make it the case: but so long as selection by marriage\nexists,--and its occurrence is palpably indisputable--_it is a\nserious flaw in the common argument to assume that the production and\npreservation of undesirables necessarily involves their own parenthood\nin due course_. It is necessary that strict statistical enquiry be\nmade on this point. It would show, I believe, that the marriage-rate\n_and the birth-rate_ amongst the _grossly_ unfit is much lower than\nthat of the general community, or, in other words, that the influence\nand value of selection by marriage (which, as we have shown, is in\neffect selection for parenthood, the only selection that ultimately\nmatters) has not yet been fully appreciated. I very strongly incline\nto the view that if this protective factor were not constantly at\nwork, the \u201cmultiplication of the unfit\u201d would long ago have led to\nthe destruction of every civilised nation on the earth: they would\nhave swamped us long ago. Indeed, the proposition may be laid down\nthat, supreme and indispensable as are the services of marriage to\nrace-culture, in its protection of motherhood, and the support of\nmotherhood by fatherhood, probably the services of marriage as in\neffect the working of sexual selection are worthy of being rated\nalmost, if not quite, as high.\n\n=Sexual selection is certainly true of mankind.=--Before adducing\nthe outlines of the evidence in favour of marriage as an instrument\nof selection, it may be well to point out that here we are really\ndiscussing what Darwin called \u201csexual selection,\u201d modified by the\npsychology and peculiar characters of mankind. We must protect\nourselves from the critics who will remind us that sexual selection\nis very largely discredited to-day, rather more than a generation\nafter Darwin's enunciation of it in _The Descent of Man_ (1871). The\ncontroversy regarding sexual selection as the producer of feathers\nand markings and song, and so forth, amongst the lower animals, is\nfortunately quite irrelevant to our present discussion, which is\nconcerned with mankind. We can afford to note with equanimity the\nobservation that, in lower species, no mature female goes unmated,\nfor instance; the fact remains that in the case of mankind a very\nconsiderable percentage of women remain unmarried. The case is similar\nas regards the male sex. In short, one may declare that, whether or not\nsexual selection is possible, or occurs, or accomplishes anything, in\nthe case of the lower animals, it palpably and patently is possible,\nand does occur, amongst mankind, and especially amongst civilised\npeoples, in the form of selection by or for marriage--which, as we have\nseen, is in effect selection for parenthood. Let us first note the\nstatistical evidence regarding marriage-selection of health and energy.\n\n=Spencer on marital longevity.=--We are all aware that married people\nlive longer, on the average, than unmarried people, the conclusion\nbeing, \u201cof course,\u201d that marriage is good for the health. But some are\ntaken and others left in this respect, and if, for any conceivable\nreason, health is a factor making for selection by marriage, that may\nbe a real explanation, in whole or in part, of the longer life of\nmarried people. Considering the risks to life involved in motherhood,\nthe superior longevity of married as compared with unmarried women\nwould be incomprehensible except on some such assumption. Yet it is\nthe fact, so imperfect still is the entry of the idea of selection\ninto the popular and even the expert mind, that the superior longevity\nof married people is still constantly asserted to mean that marriage\nmakes for long life; every year, when the statistics are printed, this\nargument may be seen in the newspapers, and I remember encountering it\nin the _Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica_, to my utter astonishment.\n\nThis uncritical conclusion was disposed of by the author of the phrase\n\u201cthe survival of the fittest\u201d--appropriately enough--more than thirty\nyears ago. If the reader will turn to Herbert Spencer's _Study of\nSociology_ (a masterpiece which may be commended to the publishers\nfor the purpose of indexing--twenty editions without an index are too\nmany) he will find in Chapter V. a discussion of this question. It is\nan astonishing thing that though Spencer conclusively exposed it a\ngeneration ago, the childish fallacy is still apparently as flourishing\nas ever. He shows how the greater healthfulness of married life was\nsupposed to be proved by Dr. Stark from comparison of the rates of\nmortality among the married and among the celibate. Then no less an\nauthority than M. Bertillon went into the matter and contributed a\npaper called \u201cThe Influence of Marriage\u201d--thus begging the question in\nits very title--to the Brussels Academy of Medicine. He showed that,\nfrom twenty-five to thirty years of age, several Continental countries\nbeing taken into the reckoning, \u201cthe mortality per thousand is 4 in\nmarried men, 10.4 in bachelors, and 22 in widows. This beneficial\ninfluence of marriage is manifested at all ages, being always more\nstrongly marked in men than in women.\u201d The absurdity of the apparent\nconclusion regarding widows is surely, as Spencer says, too obvious\nfor discussion. But, for the rest, Spencer goes on to show that,\nin reality, \u201cmarriage and longevity are concomitant results of the\nsame cause\u201d--in other words, \u201cthat superior quality of organisation\nwhich conduces to long life also conduces to marriage. It is normally\naccompanied by a predominance of the instincts and emotions prompting\nmarriage; there goes along with it that power[51] which can secure the\nmeans of making marriage practicable; and it increases the probability\nof success in courtship.\u201d Spencer shows how \u201cof men whose marriages\ndepend upon getting the needful income,\u201d those who will succeed\nare in general \u201cthe best, physically and mentally--the strong, the\nintellectually capable, the morally well-balanced.\u201d He shows also\nhow \u201cwomen are attracted towards men of power--physical, emotional,\nintellectual; and obviously their freedom of choice leads them, in many\ncases, to refuse inferior samples of men; especially the malformed, the\ndiseased, and those who are ill-developed, physically and mentally.\nSo that, in so far as marriage is determined by female selection,\nthe average result on men is that while the best easily get wives, a\ncertain proportion of the worst are left without wives.\u201d\n\nVery likely the stupid conclusion into which so many distinguished\nmen have been betrayed will survive for many years yet amongst less\ndistinguished people, but at any rate we may free our minds from it\nhere, and may recognise in the figures to which I have referred, and\nwhich are of the same order to-day, the statistical proof of what any\nobserver, however casual, might have inferred from what he sees even\namongst his own friends only--that marriage is, as it probably always\nhas been, a selective agent of much value in preserving and augmenting\nthe desirable inherent qualities of the race. It is, of course, the\nobject of race-culture or eugenics to strengthen the hands of marriage\nin this respect to the utmost possible degree.\n\n=Woman as practical eugenist.=--We must especially note one most\nimportant matter, radically affecting race-culture, which is referred\nto by Herbert Spencer in the passage cited, and has been greatly\ninsisted upon by Dr. Alfred Russel Wallace, the co-discoverer with\nDarwin of the principle of natural selection. The matter in question\nis the possibility of race-culture through the choice of their\nhusbands by women. Not long ago Dr. Wallace[52] described selection\nthrough marriage as the \u201cmore permanently effective agency through\nwhich the improvement of human character may be achieved.\u201d This, in\nhis opinion, can only be perfectly achieved \u201cwhen a greatly improved\nsocial system renders all our women economically and socially free to\nchoose; while a rational and complete education will have taught them\nthe importance of their choice both to themselves and to humanity....\nIt will act through the agency of well-known facts and principles of\nhuman nature, leading to a continuous reduction of the lower types in\neach successive generation, and it is the only mode yet suggested which\nwill automatically and naturally effect this.\u201d Thus \u201cfor the first\ntime in the history of mankind his Character--his very Human Nature\nitself--will be improved by the slow but certain action of a pure and\nbeautiful form of selection--a selection which will act, not through\nstruggle and death, but through brotherhood and love.\u201d\n\nDr. Wallace is a socialist, and he believes that only through socialism\ncan we achieve \u201cthat perfect freedom of choice in marriage which will\nonly be possible when all are economically equal, and no question of\nsocial rank or material advantage can have the slightest influence in\ndetermining that choice.\u201d As I have said elsewhere, I would call myself\nneither a socialist nor an anti-socialist, but if labels are necessary,\na eugenist and maternalist. As such, I can only say that this argument\nfor socialism--that it is the necessary condition of eugenics or\nrace-culture--is, for me, incomparably the best argument for that\ncreed; and if it were proved that only through socialism could the\nutmost be made of women's choice of husbands, then no argument against\nsocialism could have any appreciable weight at all. The fundamental\nand permanent argument against certain of the highly various and\nincompatible doctrines which, for our confusion, are commonly lumped\ntogether as socialism, is that they would arrest the process by which\nNature rewards worth and permits it to perpetuate itself. If, then,\nit can be shown, as may or may not be the case, that only through\nsocialism can male worth be most effectively chosen and male unworth be\nrejected for fatherhood, the supreme--that is, the eugenic--argument\nagainst socialism becomes the conclusive argument in its favour.\n\n=The field of choice.=--But, however this may be, there can be no\nquestion that the eugenic purpose, as well as the happiness and\nelevation of individuals in the present, will be greatly served\nby whatever measures increase, to the utmost extent possible, the\nopportunities for choice in marriage afforded to women and also to men.\nOne of the most amazing and satisfactory facts about marriage as at\npresent practised is, I think, the large proportion--often estimated\nat seventy-five per cent.--of unions which, apart from any eugenic\nquestion, turn out happily, in Great Britain, at any rate. What makes\nthis fact more amazing is the almost incredible limitation of the\nfield of choice within which both sexes are still confined as a whole.\nIf the reader will consider the cases most familiar to him or her,\nit will surely be admitted that the considerable success of marriage\ntakes on an astonishing aspect when the present strait conditions of\nchoice are taken into account. I am convinced that few more radical and\nfar-reaching, because eugenic, reforms can be conceived than any which,\nin accordance with Dr. Wallace's argument, tend to widen the field of\nchoice, and that not for one sex only but for both. He would be a rash\nman who ventured to allot superior value to the selection of man by\nwoman rather than of woman by man, or _vice vers\u00e2_.\n\nQuite apart from any deeper and more difficult reforms, such as Dr.\nWallace alludes to, I am sure that even the mere widening of the\nfield of choice, as such, is most desirable. To take an instance,\nwhich the reader may very likely think trivial and absurd, I have\nwitnessed in my brief career as a hockey player two unions most happy\nand eugenic in every way, which entirely depended upon the existence\nof the amusement called mixed hockey--whereat the contracting parties\nmet one another! It is not asserted that these two cases suffice for\nworld-wide generalisation. They are merely cited as instances which\nset at least one hockey player thinking, even on the field--the field\nof choice. It is a great argument, because it is a eugenic argument,\nin favour of community of sports and amusements amongst young people\nof both sexes, that it does widen the field of choice in marriage, and\nthat in doing so it also tends to favour those factors of selection\nwhich the eugenist would desire to see selected: and this especially as\ncompared with the ball-room. I think that the reader will agree that\nthe conditions, the \u201catmosphere,\u201d the costume, and the other features\nof what young people call a \u201cdance,\u201d whilst undoubtedly serving the\npurpose of marriage and widening somewhat a field of choice which might\notherwise be ludicrously and impracticably restricted, compare most\nunfavourably with the conditions of even the mixed hockey field, which,\ndecried though they often be, are to my mind immeasurably healthier on\nevery conceivable ground than those of the ball-room, and not least of\nall on the eugenic ground of the prominence gained by most desirable\nqualities, of which mere strength and energy and neuro-muscular skill\nare quite the least, whilst unselfishness, capacity for self-control,\npatience, real gallantry--as when a male \u201cfull back\u201d refrains from\nhitting the ball with all his might against the toes of a girl\n\u201cforward\u201d--the sporting spirit and other true and radical virtues, are\nthe greatest. It is undoubtedly the case that the personal factors,\nphysical and psychical, which determine the mutual attraction of young\npeople, have dependent upon them the whole of human destiny. In society\nto-day, what one may call the incidence of parenthood, upon which all\nthe future necessarily depends, _is_ determined by nothing other than\nthe humanised form of what Darwin called \u201csexual selection.\u201d Therefore,\nit is not trivial but supremely important to discuss the conditions\nunder which the selection obtains.[53]\n\nIt has already been suggested that in order to enhance the eugenic\nvalue of marriage we should endeavour to widen the field of choice, at\npresent ludicrously restricted by custom, class, religion, economic\nposition, and so forth. The increased locomotion of to-day will be of\nreal eugenic service to the race in this respect, I believe.\n\nThen it has been hinted that young people should meet one another\nunder conditions which make prominent the psychical and put the merely\nphysical or animal into the background--_e.g._ on the hockey field or\nthe ice or in the \u201cliterary circle,\u201d rather than in the ball-room. This\nproposition accords, of course, with what has been said elsewhere as to\nthat great factor of progress which I define as the enhancement of the\nsurvival-value of the psychical as against that of the physical. (Note\nthe obvious sequence--survival-value, selection-value, marriage-value,\nparenthood-value, progress-value.) This proposition and the last might\nboth be worked out, I believe, in considerable detail and not without\nprofit.\n\nArguing on the same lines, we may agree that even such a small matter,\nusually considered wholly domestic, as the length of engagements,\nis of eugenic or racial importance. The eugenist, I think, must\nwelcome long engagements simply because, though they may involve a\nreduced marriage-rate and a reduced birth-rate--the latter partly in\nconsequence of the reduced marriage-rate, and partly because of the\nlater age at marriage--they tend by the mere operation of time, as\nwe say, to enhance the importance of the psychical and to reduce the\nimportance of the physical factors which determine sexual attraction.\n\nTo these three points a fourth, of great importance, must be added.\nIt is that we should favour, as far as possible, those factors of\nchoice for marriage which are inherent, and therefore transmissible,\nas against those which are acquired, accidental, and therefore not\ntransmissible, _and therefore_ of no racial or eugenic importance.\nThis, of course, is the point made by Dr. Wallace in the article\nquoted above--or at any rate it is involved in the point he makes.\nI simply mean that every time a marriage is brought about by, for\ninstance, money, the eugenic value of marriage is at least nullified\nand may become actually anti-eugenic. Again I say, _if_ Socialism, or\nthe abolition of (_un_-natural) inheritance, be necessary in order\nthat selection for marriage shall be determined by the possession of\npersonal qualities of racial value rather than the power of the purse,\nwhich has always been a racial curse, then the sooner socialism is\nestablished the better.\n\n=The eugenic value of contemporary marriage.=--The first purpose of\nthis chapter has been to show that in marriage, wherever, and in so\nfar as, it is determined by the mutual attractiveness of young people,\nthere exists a eugenic factor in society to-day; and since the race\nis in effect recruited by the married people, this aspect of marriage\ndeserves the closest study and attention. I commend this subject, _the\neugenic value of contemporary marriage_, to the small but rapidly\nincreasing number of students who realise that eugenics or race-culture\nwill be the supreme science of the future, and who are now devoting\nthemselves to its foundations. No more important and urgent enquiry can\nbe undertaken at this stage. Which, for instance, is the more eugenic,\nthe English system or the French?\n\nThe second purpose has been to show that one may believe in and work\nfor eugenics or race-culture without proposing to overthrow all human\ninstitutions, or to adopt the methods of the stud-farm, or to initiate\na vast campaign of surgery, or sensational and drastic legislation, or\neven, yet, the employment of marriage certificates. One or all of these\nthings may have their place, now or hereafter; or may, on the other\nhand, be far worse than futile. But most assuredly it is possible now\nfor the individual parent of marriageable children, for the clergyman,\nthe leader of fashion, the doctor, not to start but to strengthen\nsuch by no means impotent eugenic forces as already exist in society,\nwithout outraging sentiment or custom--indeed, without attracting\npublic attention to their action at all.\n\nEugenics has already suffered much at the hands of its so-called\nfriends. It is to be hoped that a real service may be discharged by\nthis attempt to show that on the highest, most accurate and scientific\neugenic grounds, we may recognise, claim and welcome every father and\nmother who desire that the son or daughter whom they care for shall\nmarry for psychical and not for physical love. Every such parent is a\neugenist, in effect, though his sole motive may be the welfare of his\nindividual child.\n\nAt present we interfere with marriage on every imaginable ground, many\nutterly trivial, many worse. We encourage or discourage on economic\ngrounds; we recognize many taboos, of caste, creed, colour. It is not\nfor us, certainly, acting as we do, to be offended at the suggestion\nthat we should use our influence to affect marriage on the highest\nconceivable ground--the life of mankind to come. What we really need\nis not so much the abolition of Mrs. Grundy as her conversion to the\neugenic idea. It is the business of those who believe that eugenics is\nthe greatest ideal in the world to make a eugenist of Mrs. Grundy, as\nwe shall some day: and then it will be realised how potent for good\npublic opinion may become, once it is rightly educated.\n\nSays Mr. Galton, in his latest contribution to the subject:--\n\n  \u201cThe power of social opinion is apt to be rather under-rated than\n  over-rated. Like the atmosphere which we breathe and by which we\n  live, social opinion operates powerfully without our being conscious\n  of its existence. Everyone knows that governments, manners, and\n  beliefs which were thought to be right, decorous, and true at one\n  period have been judged wrong, indecorous, and false at another; and\n  that views which we have heard expressed by those in authority over\n  us in our childhood and early manhood tend to become axiomatic and\n  unchangeable in mature life.\n\n  \u201cSpeaking for myself only, I look forward to local eugenic action in\n  numerous directions, including the accumulation of considerable funds\n  to start young couples of \u2018worthy\u2019 qualities in their married life,\n  and to assist them and their families at critical times. The gifts\n  to those who are the reverse of \u2018worthy\u2019 are enormous in amount; it\n  is stated that the charitable donations in the year 1907 amounted to\n  \u00a34,868,050. I am not prepared to say how much of this was judiciously\n  spent, or in what ways, but merely quote the figures to justify the\n  inference that many of the thousands of persons who are willing to\n  give freely at the prompting of a sentiment based upon compassion,\n  might be persuaded to give largely also in response to a more virile\n  sentiment, based on the desire of promoting the natural gifts and the\n  National Efficiency of future generations.\n\n  \u201cIn circumscribed communities especially, social approval and\n  disapproval exert a potent force. Its presence is only too easily\n  read by every one who is the object of either, in the countenances,\n  bearing, and manner of those with whom they daily meet and converse.\n  Is it then, I ask, too much to expect that when a public opinion in\n  favour of Eugenics has once taken sure hold of such communities and\n  has been accepted by them as a quasi-religion, the result will be\n  manifested in sundry and very effective modes of action which are as\n  yet untried and many of them even unforeseen?\u201d\n\n=\u201cBreach of promise\u201d and race-culture.=--It may be added that perhaps\nwe shall have to learn to reconsider our ill-judged and stupid\ncensoriousness, directed against young people who get engaged but then\nbecome tired of one another--as they accurately say, discover that they\nare not suited for one another. Not only is it obvious that we are\nfools in denouncing this discovery of impermanence in their attraction,\nhappily made before marriage, whilst we ignore the disasters of\nits lamentably _postmature_ discovery, after marriage: but also it\nshould be obvious that the eugenic end is negatively served whenever\nwhat would have been an unfortunate union is broken off in time. Our\nimbecile standard of honour, and the law of breach of promise, which\nis outrageously abused, at present condemn the man, for instance, who\nfinds that he has made a mistake, whilst passively applauding him who,\nfinding his mistake, thinks it his duty to make it irreparable. Far\nbetter would it be that the man incapable of forming an attachment made\nof the non-material ties which last, should not marry at all. The man\nwho cannot see, or seeing, cannot find it in his heart to love, the\nspiritual beauties of womanhood, is just the man who can be safely\nomitted in the eugenist's scheme for fatherhood.\n\nThe plea of insanity is, in English law, no protection against a\nclaim for damages for breach of promise to marry, unless it be proved\ninsanity at date of contract in the defendant. A valid contract once\nmade, it is no excuse for non-performance that insanity has been\ndiscovered in the family of the other party. This wicked law must be\naltered.\n\n=The need for further study.=--In his study of this subject the student\nwill naturally turn to Mr. Havelock Ellis's volume entitled _Sexual\nSelection in Man_.[54] This, of course, has its own scientific value\nas a statement of facts, notwithstanding its intensely nauseating\ncharacter. But anything less relevant to what most of us understand\nby psychology it would be difficult to imagine. The book considers\n_seriatim_, touch, smell, hearing, and vision as the bases of so-called\nlove. It thus deals with \u201csensology,\u201d not psychology. Indeed, to the\nbest of one's recollection, after very close and careful reading, there\nis no allusion to the human mind in it anywhere. If men and women were\nsimply animals, this book would doubtless cover the ground, and perhaps\nthe word \u201cpsychology\u201d would even be justified in connection with it.\nFrom end to end men and women are consistently treated as animals and\nno more. Since, however, the human species is possessed of psychical\ncharacters which distinguish it from the lower animals, it is not\nunreasonable to suppose that a volume which really dealt with sexual\nselection in man would, to say the least of it, recognise the existence\nof those characters--even if only to reject them as irrelevant to the\nsubject under discussion.\n\nThe foregoing remarks do not imply that the purely anatomical and\nsensory factors are irrelevant to the selection of parents in any\ngeneration, and for methodological purposes it might be of value to\nabstract from the factors of sexual selection in human society such\nthings as odour and contour. But it would be urgently necessary in\nthe course of such a study, if it were to be other than extremely\nmisleading, to observe that this selection of factors was made for\npurposes of convenience and that the relation of their importance to\nthat of other factors was a matter for further and by no means casual\nconsideration.\n\nWe may certainly agree with Mr. Havelock Ellis that sexual selection\noccurs in human society, and may welcome his volume as supporting that\nassertion. There follows the extremely interesting and indeed urgent\nnecessity of ascertaining what the factors of this selection really\nare, what is their relative potency, and what is their capacity for\nmodification. We may further enquire whether they tend to be eugenic.\nA contribution to this subject is furnished by Mr. Ellis when he shows\nthat width of \u201chips\u201d is a female character commonly admired by men.\nSince a wide pelvis is one which can accommodate and safely give birth\nto a large f\u0153tal head, there is here, as a practically solitary case,\na bearing on the eugenic issue: large heads mean, in general, large\nbrains, and it would be ill for the white races if men admired hips as\nnarrow as those of, for instance, the negress, whose pelvis could not\nfind room for the average head of a purely white baby, and who suffers\nterribly in many cases where the father is white, especially if the\nchild be a boy.\n\nMeanwhile we must wait for studies of this great question from various\npoints of view: notably for a study of the economics of sexual\nselection as it obtains in human society. Yet further, we require\na detailed study of the influence of legislation, custom and public\nopinion upon sexual selection--on the lines of Mr. Galton's paper on\n\u201cRestrictions in Marriage.\u201d Mr. Havelock Ellis has more than adequately\ndealt with the nervous physiology of sexual selection; there remain the\npsychology and sociology of it--these latter comprehending, one may\nsuppose, ninety-nine per cent. of the whole subject. In the preceding\npages allusion has been made to one or two of the more salient aspects\nof this matter.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XIII\n\n                    THE RACIAL POISONS: ALCOHOL[55]\n\n\nIn the first chapter of our second Part, which deals with the practice\nof eugenics, there were introduced, defined, and briefly illustrated,\nthe terms _positive eugenics_ and _negative eugenics_. Of these the\nlatter, as the more urgent and the more completely and immediately\npracticable, claims our special attention; though the present writer,\nnotwithstanding that he has devoted to it the greater part of his\neugenic work, is bound to protest that the positive increase of ability\nand worth is never to be regarded as of secondary importance. The two\nmethods are, of course, complementary in practice, as they are one\nin principle--to select is to reject, to choose is to refuse. The\npreceding chapter, on selection (and rejection) through marriage, has\ndealt with the conditions under which both aims are to be pursued.\nIn the following pages we must discuss a specially urgent and\npracticable and indisputable portion of negative eugenic practice:\nnone the less urgent because of the contemporary emergence and future\nworld-importance of sober nations, such as Japan and Turkey. The term\n_racial poisons_, introduced by the present writer in the year 1907,\nis self-explanatory. After dealing with the most important of these\npoisons, we shall proceed, in the next chapter, to discuss some others.\nThe racial poisons constitute a special department of eugenics which\nhas not hitherto been considered by the pioneers of this subject, but\nfor which I press the claim of the utmost gravity and moment, and which\nI conceive to be certainly a part, and a most important part, of our\nmanifold yet single subject.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe argument of this chapter is that parenthood must be forbidden to\nthe dipsomaniac, the chronic inebriate or the drunkard, whether male\nor female; and this whether Lamarck or Galton and Weismann be right,\nor whether, as we may believe with Galton and Weismann themselves,\nthe controversy between the two parties is wholly irrelevant to the\nquestion in hand. This conclusion, that on no grounds whatever,\ntheoretical or practical, can we continue to permit parenthood on the\npart of the drunkard, is one temperance reform, perhaps the only one,\non which disagreement is absolutely impossible. It is, further, the\nmost radical that can be named within the sphere of practical politics,\nand it is conspicuously practicable. It has hitherto been lamentably\nneglected by workers and reformers of all schools. Indeed, at the time\nof writing, the London County Council, governing the greatest city in\nthe world, is pursuing a course of action in this regard, which will be\ndetailed later, and which, as will appear, is misguided and deplorable\nin the last degree.\n\n=Alcohol and heredity.=--According to Dr. Archdall Reid, \u201calcohol,\nyear after year, eliminates from the race a great number of people so\nconstituted that intoxication affords them keen delight, leaving the\nperpetuation of the race in great measure to those on whom intoxication\nconfers little or no delight.... Now since alcohol weeds out enormous\nnumbers of people of a particular type, it is a stringent agent of\nselection--an agent of selection more stringent than any one disease.\u201d\nThe factor that really makes the drunkard \u201cis certainly inborn, and\ntherefore as certainly transmissible to offspring. The man who has it\nis cursed with the \u2018alcohol diathesis,\u2019 with the \u2018predisposition to\ndrunkenness.\u2019 Thus most savages are keenly capable of enjoying drink,\nand their offspring inherit the capacity.\u201d F\u00e9r\u00e9 has shown that \u201cit\nis one of the characteristics of the degenerate that they are prone\nto have recourse to the poisons, like alcohol and morphia, which\nhasten their decadence and elimination.\u201d Thus, as Dr. W. C. Sullivan\npoints out, alcohol \u201cmight certainly be adjudged a salutary evil if\nits incidence were limited to individuals whose extreme inferiority\nof organisation renders them wholly undesirable and useless to the\ncommunity. _But this is very far from being the case._\u201d[56]\n\nThe whole crux of the question lies in this last sentence. Alcohol\ncertainly destroys many degenerate stocks, and that is good, though it\nwould be better to do what we shall do some day--hasten and ameliorate\nthe process by forbidding parenthood to the degenerate. _But does\nalcohol also make degenerates; does it even make more degenerates than\nit destroys?_ A somewhat similar difficulty arises in the case of\ninfant mortality. The causes of infant mortality destroy many children\ninherently unfit, diseased or weakly. But we are not justified in\nkeeping up our infant mortality, if we find, as we do, that for every\ndiseased child whom they destroy they kill many who were healthy at\nbirth and damage for life many more.\n\nA man is born sober--in most cases, but not always,[57] as we shall\nsee--and any changes produced in his body by alcohol are \u201cacquired.\u201d\nTherefore, rejecting Lamarck, are we to reject the doctrine that the\neffects produced by alcohol on parents are transmitted to offspring?\n\nThe controversy between Lamarck and Weismann has _absolutely nothing\nto do with the question_. Let us consider what would be a case of\nLamarckian transmission in the sense which the modern student of\nheredity denies. The birth of a child with a scar on its scalp, to a\nfather who had acquired a similar scar before the child was conceived,\nwould be such a case: and this does not happen. Or suppose that instead\nof a scar on the scalp the father has an inflammatory change, not so\ndissimilar to a scar, produced by alcohol in the membranes covering\nhis brain. Then it would be a case of Lamarckian transmission if the\nmembranes of his baby's brain were similarly affected; and this does\nnot happen. Such is the kind of transmission of which exhaustive\nexperiment and observation fail to find a conclusive instance anywhere.\n\nBut what has such a supposition to do with the theory, as definitely\nsupported by observation and experiment as the other is not, that if a\nman saturates his body with alcohol carried by his blood, he injures\nall the tissues which are nourished by that blood, including the racial\nelements of his body with the rest: and therefore that his child may be\ndegenerate?\n\nWhat says Weismann himself? In _The Germ-Plasm_, p. 386, under the\nheading \u201cThe influence of temporary abnormal conditions of the parents\non the child,\u201d he writes as follows:--\n\n  \u201cAlthough I do not consider that the cases which come under the\n  above heading have anything to do with heredity, I should not like to\n  leave them entirely on one side.\n\n  \u201cIt has often been supposed that drunkenness of the parents at the\n  time of conception may have a harmful effect on the nature of the\n  offspring. The child is said to be born in a weak bodily and mental\n  condition, and inclined to idiocy, or even to madness, etc., although\n  the parents may be quite normal both physically and mentally.\n\n  \u201cCases certainly exist in which drunken parents have given rise to\n  a completely normal child, although this is not a convincing proof\n  against the above-named view; and in spite of the fact that most, or\n  perhaps even all, the statements with regard to the injurious effects\n  on the offspring will not bear a very close criticism,[58] I am\n  unwilling to entirely deny the _possibility_ that a harmful influence\n  may be exerted in such cases. These, however, have nothing to do with\n  heredity, but are concerned with an _affection of the germ by means\n  of an external influence_.\u201d\n\nWeismann goes on to quote cases showing how germ-cells may be injured\nby various agents, and continues:--\n\n  \u201cIt does not appear to me impossible that an intermixture of alcohol\n  with the blood of the parents may produce similar effects on the ovum\n  and sperm cell. According to the relative quantity of alcohol either\n  an exciting or a depressing influence might be exerted, either of\n  which would lead to abnormal development....\n\n  \u201c_New_ predispositions can certainly never arise owing to such\n  deviations from the normal course of development, and therefore\n  a modification of the process of heredity itself is out of the\n  question. It is, however, conceivable that more or less considerable\n  abnormalities may affect the course of development, and either\n  cause the death of the embryo, or else produce more or less marked\n  deformities. The question as to whether such deformities really\n  result in consequence of the drunken condition of the parents can\n  only be decided by observation.\u201d[59]\n\nThis is all that Weismann has to say on the subject, since, not\nreferring to functionally-produced modifications,[60] it does not\nconcern his theory of heredity at all: yet it is upon this theory that\nthe most palpable facts of the racial influence of alcohol are denied.\nWeismann's own remarks are quite open to criticism, as, for instance,\nwhere he denies that new predispositions can arise in the manner\nindicated. This is possibly only a question of words, and Weismann is\nperhaps merely denying that alcohol can produce progressive variations.\nAlso his remarkably brief discussion of the subject seems to concern\nitself mainly with the influence of alcohol on the germ-cells _just\nbefore their union_. He has not a word to say regarding the influence\non the germinal tissues of years of soaking in alcohol. It suffices,\nhowever, to make the point which is quite clearly made, that the\nWeismannians are going absurdly beyond their book in denying what,\nindeed, the book of Nature demonstrates.\n\nLet us turn now to the experimental side of this question. An American\nbotanist, Dr. T. D. MacDougal, read an address on \u201cHeredity and\nEnvironic Forces\u201d at the Chicago Meeting of the American Association\nfor the Advancement of Science in 1907. His experiments require\nconfirmation, but may be provisionally accepted. He has permanently\nmodified the germ-plasm of plants under the influence of various\nchemicals. There is here a vast field for experiment with alcohol.\nI quote one paragraph indicating the remarkable results of these\nexperiments. The reader will see their bearing on our present question,\nand will also see that they do not for a moment affect Weismann's\ndenial of the doctrine that by cutting off rats' tails you can produce\na race of tailless rats, or that by learning a language you can save\nyour future children the trouble of doing so for themselves:--\n\n  \u201cIt was found that the injection of various solutions into ovaries\n  of Raimannia was followed by the production of seeds bearing\n  qualities not exhibited by the parent, wholly irreversible, and fully\n  transmissible in successive generations. One of the seeds produced\n  by a plant of _\u0152nothera biennis_ which had been treated with zinc\n  sulphate differed so widely from the parental form that it could be\n  distinguished from it by a novice. This new form has been tested to\n  the third generation, and transmits all its characteristics fully.\u201d\n\n=Alcohol a proved racial poison.=--But the reader will rightly desire\nsome kind of experimental proof that alcohol itself can act as a cause\nof racial degeneration. We may first refer to the chapter on alcoholism\nand human degeneration in Dr. W. C. Sullivan's _Alcoholism, a Chapter\nin Social Pathology_,[61] for a recent _r\u00e9sum\u00e9_ of the subject.\nWithout actually quoting Weismann, Dr. Sullivan begins by showing\nthat, as we have seen, the doctrinal objection of Dr. Reid and others\nto the theory of alcoholic degeneration is quite irrelevant--\u201cthe\neffects attributed to parental alcoholism are not in the category of\ntransmitted acquirements at all; they are the results, expressed in\ndefect and deviation of development, of a deleterious influence exerted\non the germ-cells, either directly through the alcohol circulating in\nthe blood, or indirectly, through the deterioration of the parental\norganism in which these cells are lodged, and from which they draw\ntheir nutriment.\u201d Later Dr. Sullivan points out that the racial effects\nof alcoholism in man are similar to those obtained by experimental\nintoxication in the lower animals. Combemale, for instance, found\nthat pups begotten of a healthy bitch by an alcoholised dog were\ncongenitally feeble and showed a marked degree of asymmetry of the\nbrain. Recent experiments have shown the same thing as regards other\npoisons, and it is especially to be noted that in the experiments\ncited the mother was healthy. They prove that _paternal_ alcoholism\nalone (all questions of the nourishment of the growing child before\nbirth, for instance, thus being excluded) can determine degeneration.\nMr. Galton[62] himself long ago quoted the case \u201cof a man who, after\nbegetting several normal children, became a drunkard and had imbecile\noffspring\u201d; and another case has been recorded \u201cof a healthy woman who,\nwhen married to a drunken husband, had five sickly children, dying in\ninfancy, but in subsequent union with a healthy man, bore normal and\nvigorous children.\u201d\n\nOther intoxications show similar results though they are not _yet_ of\ngrave racial importance. For instance, \u201ca man who had had two healthy\nchildren acquired the cocaine habit, and while suffering from the\nsymptoms of chronic poisoning engendered two idiots.\u201d Brouardel and\nothers have observed that the expectant mother who is a morphinomaniac\nmay give birth to a child who shows all the phenomena of the morphia\nhabit.\n\nDemme has traced the appalling contrast between the offspring in ten\nsober families, and in ten families where one or both parents suffered\nfrom chronic alcoholism. Dr. Sullivan himself, realising the obviously\ngreater importance of maternal alcoholism, since here we have the\naction of poisoned food--the maternal blood--upon the child before\nbirth, made an enquiry of his own. He found that\n\n  \u201c... of 600 children born of 120 drunken mothers 335 (55.8 per cent.)\n  died in infancy or were still-born, and that several of the survivors\n  were mentally defective, and as many as 4.1 per cent. were epileptic.\n  Many of these women had female relatives, sisters or daughters,\n  of sober habits and married to sober husbands; on comparing the\n  death-rate amongst the children of the sober mothers with that\n  amongst the children of the drunken women of the same stock, the\n  former was found to be 23.9 per cent., the latter 55.2 per cent., or\n  nearly two and a half times as much. It was further observed that in\n  the drunken families there was a progressive rise in the death-rate\n  from the earlier to the later born children.\u201d\n\nDr. Sullivan cites as a typical alcoholic family one in which \u201cthe\nfirst three children were healthy, the fourth was of defective\nintelligence, the fifth was an epileptic idiot, the sixth was\ndead-born, and finally the productive career ended with an abortion.\u201d\nDr. Claye Shaw told the Interdepartmental Committee on Physical\nDeterioration, \u201cwe have inebriate mothers, and either abortions or\ndegenerate children. The teleological[63] relationship between the\ntwo seems to be as certain as any other conditions of cause and\neffect.\u201d The general rule is that any narcotic substance affects highly\ndeveloped tissues sooner and more markedly than simpler tissues, and\nso it is in the case of alcohol and the infant. It is the developing\nnervous system that is most markedly affected. This leads, of course,\nto an increased child mortality, especially by way of convulsions.\nThis was the cause of sixty per cent. of all the deaths that occurred\namongst the six hundred children in Dr. Sullivan's series. But it has\nespecially to be remembered that a large number of children whose\nnervous systems are injured for life by parental and more especially by\nmaternal alcoholism do not die either as infants or children. Instead\nof dying of convulsions they live as epileptics. Of the children in Dr.\nSullivan's series \u201c219 lived beyond infancy, and of these 9, or 4.1 per\ncent., became epileptic, as compared with 0.1 per cent. of the whole\npopulation.\u201d Other observers have found epilepsy in 12 per cent. and\neven 15 per cent. of the children of alcoholic parents. Of course these\ndata, as such, do not demonstrate Dr. Sullivan's conclusion that \u201cthis\naction of alcoholism on the health and vitality of the stock is the\nmost serious of the evils that intemperance brings on the community.\u201d\n\nDr. Sullivan's enquiries show a very high rate of still-births and\nabortions amongst the children of drunken mothers--quite sufficient\nto prove that \u201cthe detrimental effect of maternal alcoholism must be\nin a large measure due to a direct influence on the germ-cells and\non the developing embryo, and cannot be explained as merely a result\nof the neglect and malnutrition from which the children of a drunken\nmother are naturally apt to suffer.\u201d The point is of some theoretical\nimportance. Practically it matters little; _in either case the drunken\nwoman must not become a mother_.\n\nThe same conclusion is reached even though we accord unlimited weight\nto the unquestionably valid argument that the drunkard is himself\nor herself usually degenerate from the first, and that the children\nare therefore degenerate, and would indeed be degenerate even if the\nparents had taken no alcohol. Let us, then, erroneously enough, but for\nthe sake of the argument, assume that solely and always alcoholism is\na symptom of degeneracy. It is, then, an indication of unfitness for\nparenthood no less, and the practical issue is the same: one radical\ncure for alcoholism, at any rate, is the prohibition of parenthood on\nthe part of the alcoholic.[64]\n\n=The most recent evidence.=--The most thorough and comprehensive\nenquiry into this matter yet made is also the most recent. We owe it to\nDr. W. A. Potts, of the University of Birmingham, who did valuable work\nas Medical Investigator to the Royal Commission on the Care and Control\nof the Feeble-minded. His paper, entitled \u201cThe Relation of Alcohol to\nFeeble-mindedness,\u201d is printed in the _British Journal of Inebriety_\nfor January, 1909, together with communications from many authorities.\nIt is quite impossible to summarise here the enormous mass of evidence\nwhich Dr. Potts has accumulated from the literature of the subject, and\nto which he has added his own work. I believe that nothing could be\nmore moderate and assured than the following conclusions, to which he\ncommits himself after a study of the subject the quality and range of\nwhich can only be appreciated at first hand:--\n\n  \u201c... the evidence is not clear that alcoholism, by itself, in\n  the father will produce amentia; but it is quite plain that in\n  combination with other bad factors it is a most unfavourable element,\n  while maternal drinking, and drinking continued through more than one\n  generation, are potent influences in mental degeneracy.\u201d\n\nIt is impossible, within the scope of the present volume, to analyse\nin detail the Report of the Royal Commission on the Care and Control\nof the Feeble-minded. In this present outline of eugenics it is our\nbusiness, however, to show main principles, and as the principle\nexpressed in the phrase \u201cracial poisons\u201d is to my mind absolutely\ncardinal for eugenics, it is necessary here to comment, as I have\nalready done in the _Journal_ above quoted, upon the following most\nunfortunate deliverance of the Commissioners: \u201cThat both on the grounds\nof fact and of theory, there is the highest degree of probability that\nfeeble-mindedness is usually spontaneous in origin--that is, not due to\ninfluences acting on the parent....\u201d\n\nThe word spontaneous has, of course, no meaning for science, or rather\nis a denial of the fundamental axiom of science that causation is\nuniversal. What the Commissioners mean when they say spontaneous is\n\u201csportaneous,\u201d like the occasional production of a nectarine by a peach\ntree. Apart from this highly suspicious phraseology, there is the still\nmore unfortunate fact that the Commissioners have lent their authority\nto the view that feeble-mindedness is not due to influences acting on\nthe parent. The modern student of syphilis will be astonished at this\npronouncement, and also the student of lead-poisoning, as we shall see\nin the following chapter.\n\nEvery reader of Dr. Potts's admirable paper will realise that this\nconclusion of the Commissioners--\u201cnot due to influences acting on the\nparent\u201d--is directly opposed to an extraordinary mass of evidence\nand to the opinion of, I suppose, every authority on the subject,\nBritish, Continental or American. The Commissioners' reference to\n\u201ctheory,\u201d coupled with portions of the evidence given before them by\nwitnesses who suppose that the alleged influence of alcohol as a cause\nof feeble-mindedness controverts the doctrine of the non-transmission\nof \u201cacquired characters,\u201d makes it necessary to point out for the\nhundredth time that, for lack of analysis and criticism of terms,\nthe most prominent followers of Galton and Weismann persistently\nmisunderstand their masters' teaching. The modern doctrine of the\nindividual as the trustee of the germ-cells and of the non-transmission\nof acquired characters is Mr. Galton's. Mr. Galton himself does not\nquestion and never has questioned the possibility that alcohol may\ncause feeble-mindedness. There is no reason why he should. If we take\nthe somewhat unusual course of consulting the words of the masters\nbefore we swear by them, we find--as has been shown--that Weismann, who\nsubsequently stated and has so greatly supported Mr. Galton's view,\nhas expressly repudiated the Commissioners' idea of his \u201ctheory.\u201d The\nGalton-Weismann doctrine is a doctrine of heredity proper,--the organic\nrelation of living generations. It does not assert that there are two\nunconnected universes--the one made of germ-plasm and the other of the\nrest of nature. The \u201cgrounds of theory,\u201d or rather, our elementary\nphysiological knowledge of the nutrition of the germ-plasm by the blood\nof its host, are in reality precisely the grounds which would lead us\nto expect those consequences of parental alcoholism which in fact we\nfind.\n\n=Alcoholism as a symptom of degeneracy.=--We have seen that alcohol\nmay be a cause of degeneracy: we now have to recognize the converse\nrelation. For an authoritative and radical discussion of the problem,\nthe reader may be referred to the second Norman Kerr Memorial\nLecture, delivered by Dr. Welsh Branthwaite, H.M. Inspector under the\nInebriates' Act, in 1907.[65] He speaks as \u201cthe only man in close touch\nwith all inebriates under legal detention in England.\u201d He reaches most\nimportant conclusions which are generally accepted, as the discussion\nshows. He says, \u201cthe more I see of habitual drunkards, the more I am\nconvinced that the real condition we have to study, the trouble we\nhave to fight, and the source of all the mischief, is ... defect[66]\nin mental mechanism, generally congenital, sometimes more or less\nacquired.... In the absence of alcohol, the same persons, instead of\nmeriting the term inebriate would have proved unreliable in many ways;\nthey would have been called ne'er-do-weels, profligates, persons of\nlax morality, excitably or abnormally passionate individuals, persons\nof melancholic tendency or eccentric.... It seems to me exceedingly\ndoubtful whether habitual inebriety ... is ever really acquired in the\nstrictest sense of the word--_i.e._ in the absence of some measure\nof pre-existing defect.\u201d Having studied 2,277 inebriates, committed\nunder the Inebriates Acts, up to December 31st, 1906, Dr. Branthwaite\n_finds 62.6 per cent. of these mentally defective_. The remainder he\nregards as of average mental capacity, using, however, an exceedingly\nlow standard of what that capacity is. He concludes that in a large\nmajority of police-court cases, \u201cmental disease was the condition for\nwhich they were repeatedly imprisoned--mental disease merely masked by\nalcoholic indulgence.... The majority of our insane inebriates have\nbecome alcoholic because of their tendency to insanity.... Certain\npeculiarities in cranial conformation, general physique, and conduct,\nhave long been recognised as evidences of congenital defect. Nearly\nall the 1,375 cases included in the two defective sections of our\ntable have given evidence of possessing some of these characteristic\npeculiarities, and _it is morally certain that the large majority of\nthem started life handicapped by imperfect brain development_.\u201d[67]\nThe lecture is accompanied with many photographs clearly showing the\nphysical marks of congenital defect, and Dr. Branthwaite remarks that\n\u201ceven the untrained eye should meet with no difficulty in recognising\n\u2018something wrong\u2019 with all of them.\u201d\n\nOf the proportion of mentally defective inebriates (62.6 per cent.\nof the whole) mentioned by Dr. Branthwaite, _all_ are \u201cpractically\nhopeless from a reformation standpoint.\u201d This is a sufficient\ncomment, if any were needed, upon repeated imprisonment for habitual\ndrunkenness--which, as Dr. Branthwaite says, \u201cis indefensible and\ninhumane.\u201d He adds in closing that, in his judgment, habitual\ndrunkenness, so far as women are concerned, has materially increased,\nduring the last twenty-five years, \u201cwhich I have spent entirely amongst\ndrunkards and drunkenness.\u201d The unfortunate people whom he studies\n\u201c_are not in the least affected by orthodox temperance efforts; they\ncontinue to propagate drunkenness, and thereby nullify the good results\nof temperance energy. Their children, born of defective parents, and\neducated by their surroundings, grow up without a chance of decent\nlife, and constitute the reserve from which the strength of our present\narmy of habituals is maintained. Truly we have neglected in the past,\nand are still neglecting, the main source of drunkard supply--the\ndrunkard himself; cripple that, and we should soon see some good result\nfrom our work._\u201d\n\nA foremost authority, Dr. F. W. Mott, F.R.S., has independently\nreached the same conclusion as Dr. Branthwaite--that the chronic\ninebriate comes as a rule of an inherently tainted stock. (Dr. Mott,\nhowever, reminds us that \u201cif alcohol is a weed killer, preventing the\nperpetuation of poor types, it is probably even more effective as a\nweed producer.\u201d) Professor David Ferrier, F.R.S., the great pioneer\nof brain localisation, in reference to these people, speaks of \u201cthe\nrisk of propagation of a race of drunkards and imbeciles.\u201d Dr. J. C.\nDunlop, H.M. Inspector under the Inebriates Act, Scotland, states that\nhis experience leads him to precisely the same conclusion as that of\nDr. Branthwaite. Dr. A. R. Urquhart, an asylum authority, affirms\nthat chronic inebriety \u201cis largely an affair of heredity ... is a\nsymptom of mental defect, disorder, or disease.\u201d Dr. Fleck, another\nauthority, says: \u201cIt is my strong conviction that a large percentage\nof our mentally defective children, including idiots, imbeciles and\nepileptics, are the descendants of drunkards.\u201d Mr. McAdam Eccles, the\ndistinguished surgeon, agrees; so does Dr. Langdon Down, Physician to\nthe National Association for the Welfare of the Feeble-minded; so does\nMr. Thomas Holmes, the Secretary of the Howard Association, who remarks\nthat \u201cour habitual criminals, equally with our mental inebriates, are\nnot responsible beings, but victims of mental disease.\u201d Finally Miss\nKirby, Secretary of the National Association for the Feeble-minded,\ninsists upon the obvious conclusion that these people must be detained\npermanently. She says, \u201cWhen one case of a dissolute feeble-minded\nwoman in America is quoted as the mother of nine feeble-minded\nchildren, we see the cause why inebriate homes, and also reformatories,\npenitentiaries, and workhouses are full to overflowing, and society\ntaxed beyond bearing to keep them there. _Such institutions outnumber\nhomes for the feeble-minded._\u201d[68] Speaking of the 62.6 per cent. noted\nby Dr. Branthwaite, she says, \u201cWould it not have been the more logical\ncourse to have dealt with them in earlier years?\u201d Now what would that\nhave accomplished? _It would have saved the future._\n\n=The inebriate as parent.=--Is it a mere supposition that these women\nbecome mothers? Amongst those committed as criminal inebriates (under\nthe London County Council) in 1905-6, three hundred and sixty-five of\nthose admitted to reformatories had two thousand two hundred children.\nThese are the official figures. As to the quality of these children\nthere is unfortunately no possibility of question.\n\nWe may quote from Dr. Sullivan a notable enquiry:--\n\n  \u201cEven more striking results with regard to the several forms of\n  degeneracy were obtained by Legrain, who investigated the question\n  from a somewhat different point of view. Selecting from the material\n  at his disposal all those cases in which ancestral intemperance had\n  appeared to exercise a causal influence, and working out their family\n  history, he collected 215 observations of heredo-alcoholism referring\n  to one generation, 98 referring to two generations, and 7 referring\n  to three generations. Of the children of the first generation, 508\n  in number, 196 were mentally degenerate, the affection of the brain\n  being shown more particularly by moral and emotional abnormality,\n  while intellectual defects were less pronounced; 106 were insane, 52\n  were epileptic, 16 suffered from hystero-epilepsy, and 3 from chorea;\n  and 39 had convulsions in infancy. Amongst the children of the second\n  generation, who numbered 294, the intellectual defects were more\n  marked, idiocy, imbecility, or debility, being noted in the offspring\n  of 54 out of the 98 families investigated. In 23 out of the 33\n  families in which the children of the second generation had reached\n  adult age, one or more of them were insane. Epilepsy was found in\n  40 families, infantile convulsions in 42, and meningitis in 14.\n  The third generation in 7 families was represented by 17 children,\n  all of whom were weak-minded, imbecile, or idiotic; 2 suffered,\n  moreover, from moral insanity, 2 from hysteria, and 2 from epilepsy;\n  3 were scrofulous, and 4 had convulsions in childhood. In the three\n  generations taken together there were, in addition to the children\n  referred to above, 174 infants who were dead-born or died shortly\n  after birth.\u201d\n\nTherefore, the chronic inebriate must not become a parent. Let it be\nsaid that these people are wicked or have no self-control, drink for\nfun or love of degradation, then become drunkards, and prejudicially\naffect their children. The conclusion is the same. Have any theory of\nheredity you please--Lamarckianism, Darwin's pangenesis, Weismannism,\nMendelism; it matters not a straw. Look at the thing from the\nuncharitable religious point of view, or from the charitable scientific\nview which realizes, in the case of these women, that to know all is to\npardon all--the conclusion is still the same.\n\n=The present scandal of London's inebriates.=--This, then, being so,\nabundance of official evidence having been gathered in addition to all\nthe unofficial evidence, let us consider the shameful facts which are\nin process as I write, and are still so, on revision of these pages a\nyear later. They are outlined in the reply of Mr. Herbert Gladstone,\nthe Home Secretary, to a question in the House of Commons. The reply\nis printed in full in _The Times_, Feb. 19th, 1908. There was a paltry\nsquabble between the Government and the London County Council as to the\nexact number of shillings that each was to contribute per week for the\nmaintenance of inebriates. The London County Council was plainly in\nthe wrong, its ignorance being sufficiently indicated by the letter to\n_The Times_, which I will quote. The result of the squabble is that, as\nMr. G. R. Sims said, \u201cWe shall have something like five hundred women,\nall habitual drunkards, passing in and out of the prisons, a peril to\npublicans, a pest to the police, an evil example to the women with whom\nthey mix, and free to bring children into the world, their little lives\npoisoned at the source.\u201d We have therefore reverted to the shameful,\nbrutal, and disastrous system sufficiently indicated by the history of\nJane Cakebread, at whom, when one was a schoolboy as ignorant as those\nwho now govern us, one used to laugh because she had been convicted\nso many hundreds of times.[69] As the present writer said in raising\nthe matter at a meeting of the Eugenics Education Society, the future\nchildren of these women are not only doomed by the very nature of\ntheir germ-plasm, but they will actually be many times intoxicated not\nmerely in their cradles but before their birth. There is no wealth but\nlife, and this future wealth of England is to be fed on poisoned food\nand many times made drunken before it sees the light. The meeting of\nthe Society passed a unanimous resolution--\u201cThat this society enters\na protest against the present administration of the Inebriates Act,\nwhereby through the closing of inebriate homes some hundreds of chronic\ninebriate women will be set adrift in London, with an inevitably\ndeteriorating result to the race.\u201d[70]\n\nFor this particular scandal the London County Council was the more to\nblame. Let not the reader suppose that a Liberal Government, however,\nwas likely to remedy the immoderate ignorance of a \u201cModerate\u201d County\nCouncil on this matter. Mr. Gladstone's reply in Parliament was an\nexceptionally long one, but it did not contain a syllable to suggest\nthat any question of the future is involved, or that a woman may become\na mother. Further, the Licensing Bill introduced just when we were\ndrawing public attention to this scandal contained nowhere any hint of\nthe principle that you must attack drunkenness by attacking \u201cthe main\nsource of drunkard supply--the drunkard himself.\u201d These, the reader\nwill remember, are the words of His Majesty's Inspector. There is no\nquestion of party-feeling, then, the reader will understand, in what\nhas here been said. Whether labelled Liberal, Conservative, Progressive\nor Moderate, ignorance is still ignorance, and when in action is still\nwhat Goethe called it, the most dangerous thing in the world.\n\nPure ignorance, of course, is one of the things against which the\nadvocate of race-culture must fight. The lack of imagination, however,\nis another. At present we have few homes for the feeble-minded, and\nmany for what the feeble-minded become: few for prevention, which\nis possible and cheap, many for cure, which is impossible and dear.\nThe average county councillor or politician, of course, is rather\nmore short-sighted than the average man, simply because you cannot\nbe far-sighted and a partisan. What his defect of vision requires is\nimpossible, but it would be effective. It is that the consequences of\nunworthy parenthood should be immediate, instead of taking months or\nyears to develop. Any one, even a politician, can see cause and effect\nwhen they are close enough together. It is the little interval that\nthe political eye cannot pierce. Nevertheless, we shall one day learn\nto think of the next generation, and then there will be an end of the\npolitician who thinks only of the next election.\n\n=Ignorance on its defence.=--The state of what has no excuse for being\nuninformed opinion was only too well illustrated in a letter from the\nChairman of the Public Control Committee of the London County Council\nwhich appeared in _The Times_ for Feb. 27th, 1908. In defending\nthe London County Council the writer used the following words:\n\u201cReformation, not mere detention, was its object when it instituted\nits reformatory under the Inebriates Acts.... The case of the Public\nControl Committee is that the removal and detention of the hopeless\nhabituals is a matter for the police.\u201d The explanation aggravates\nthe offence. In the face of reiterated expert opinion, which has no\ndissentient, as to the practical impossibility of reformation--you\ncannot _re_form what has never been formed, viz., a normally developed\nbrain--here we find a man in this responsible position, a man who has\nthe power to put his ignorance into action, telling us that the London\nCounty Council aims at the impossible in this respect; whilst, in utter\ndefiance of the future and of the useless brutality of the police-court\nmethod, he tells us that these \u201chopeless habituals\u201d are a matter for\nthe police. Then, by way of making the thing complete, he speaks of\n\u201cmere detention.\u201d What he calls \u201cmere detention\u201d is everything, for it\nsaves the future by preventing parenthood on the part of members of the\ncommunity who, more certainly than any others that can be named, are\nunworthy of it. The adjective \u201cmere\u201d is only too adequate a measure\nof the state of opinion which, by such retrograde courses as that\nunder discussion, promises to destroy the British people ere long--and\ntherefore, of course, the Empire of which that people is the living and\nnecessary foundation.\n\nIt may be noted in passing that the word \u201creformatory,\u201d employed in\nthe Inebriates Act of 1898, is a highly unfortunate one. It suggests\na practically impossible hope, and it ignores what, I submit, must\nand will ere long be regarded as the essential purpose, function and\nvalue of the detention of inebriates--the prohibition of parenthood\non their part. In the case of women beyond the child-bearing age,\nthe whole case is radically altered. If it amuses the legislature to\ncherish fantastic hopes, let it speak about the reformation of these\nwomen. If it prefers the futile and disgusting cruelty of the Jane\nCakebread method for such women, when the plan for reformation is found\nto fail, that is no affair of ours in the present volume. Such women\nhave been in effect sterilised by natural processes, and the advocate\nof race-culture can afford to ignore them, for they do not concern\nhim. Let me note, however, that, of 294 female inebriates admitted to\nreformatories in the year 1906, 170 were under forty years of age,\n92, of whom a considerable proportion would be possible mothers, were\nbetween forty and fifty, and only 32 of the total were over fifty years\nof age.[71] It may be said that the lives of these unhappy women tend\nto be terminated early. The only pity is that our present blindness\nand ignorance in dealing with them are not neutralised, so far as\nthe future is concerned, by death at much earlier ages. If such a\nreflection strikes the reader as cruel, how much more cruel are those\nwho are responsible for the present case of the women inebriates of\nLondon?\n\nThe _Pall Mall Gazette_, on March 4th, 1908, gave the utmost prominence\nto an article of mine on this subject, entitled \u201cAn Urgent Public\nScandal, The Case of London's Inebriates.\u201d In this article I quoted\n_The Times_ letter referred to above, and levelled the most vigorous\nindictment I could against the authors of the outrage under discussion.\nNone of them ventured to reply. In the _Referee_ for March 8th, 1908,\nhowever, a member of the Public Control Committee of the London County\nCouncil made an attempt to defend its action. The curious reader may\nrefer to that letter as one more instance of that absolute blindness\nto the nature of the problem and to any question of the future which\nhad already been indicated in _The Times_ letter from the Chairman of\nthe Committee. Taking these two letters together, we may say that never\nhas a public outrage committed by men in authority been more lamely or\nignorantly defended.\n\n=Ignorance in action--the present facts.=--Since the beginning of\nJanuary, 1908, the brutal course decreed by the London County Council\nhas been pursued. The wretched and deeply-to-be-pitied women have been\nand are being discharged at the rate of some twenty to twenty-five\nper month as their terms expire. The wiser sort of magistrates and\nthe police-court missionaries are at their wits' ends, and no wonder.\nThis country offers these women at the moment no refuge whatever;\nnothing but the degrading and destructive round--police-court, prison,\npublic-house, pavement; _da capo_. Writing to _The Times_ in relation\nto the correspondence there published (April 18th, 1908) between the\nLondon County Council and the Eugenics Education Society, Sir Alfred\nReynolds, Chairman of the State Inebriate Reformatory Visiting Board\nand a Visiting Justice of Holloway Prison, said (April 21st, 1908):--\n\n  \u201cThe correspondence published in _The Times_ of April 18, between the\n  London County Council and the President of the Eugenics Education\n  Society convinces me more than ever that the dispute between the\n  London County Council and the Treasury is a scandal and folly of the\n  worst description. For the sake of 6d. per case per day, the London\n  County Council (the same body which receives half a million sterling\n  from the sale of intoxicating liquor) has made it impossible for\n  the metropolitan magistrates to carry out the Act of 1898, and the\n  result is that 500 of the worst female inebriates are alternately on\n  the streets or in prison again, and the former scenes of horror and\n  drunken violence reappear. Holloway Prison will soon fill up again,\n  and all the good which has been done during the last few years will\n  be lost.... I will not trouble you further, except by emphasising\n  what I have said by adding that since January last year 1,500 women\n  have been notified to Scotland Yard as always in and out of prison\n  from the County of London, are qualified for inebriate homes, and\n  at the present moment there are over 50 of this number in Holloway\n  Prison serving absolutely useless short terms of imprisonment.\u201d\n\n=The London County Council performs a service for philosophy.=--As\nwe have seen, there exists or seems to exist a radical antagonism in\ncertain groups of cases between the interests of the individual and\nthe interests of the race. You may preserve the quality of the race,\nas the Spartans did, by exposing defective infants; you may be kind to\nfeeble-minded children, as we are, but you will injure the race in the\nlong run. Darwin saw this more than a generation ago, but instead of\nsuggesting the prohibition of parenthood to the unfit, he said that we\nmust bear the ill effects of their multiplication rather than sacrifice\nthe law of love. Huxley similarly said that moral evolution consisted\nin opposing natural evolution. Now it has for some time been evident\nthat this antagonism need not be radical if, whilst devoting hospitals\nand charity and medical science to the care of the unfit, we deny them\nthe privilege of parenthood. On the other hand, the London County\nCouncil by its present action has performed a service to biological\nphilosophy by showing that _it is possible to combine the maximum of\nbrutality to the individual and to the present with the maximum of\ninjury to the race and to the future_. In his report for 1906 Dr.\nBranthwaite cites the history of a girl who, at the age of fifteen\nyears and nine months, was convicted in 1881 for being drunk and\ndisorderly. During the next quarter of a century she was sentenced 115\ntimes, and in January, 1906, was sent to a reformatory. She has twice\nattempted to commit suicide. Her case is, of course, now hopeless, and\nDr. Branthwaite predicts that her life will end by suicide. Let any one\nread Dr. Branthwaite's Report or Dr. Robert Jones's account of Jane\nCakebread, or let him acquaint himself with instances as they are to\nbe daily seen, and he will agree that the maximum of brutality is no\nexcessive phrase to describe the policy of shame at present pursued in\nLondon: if, indeed, seeing that we now have knowledge, it should not be\ndescribed as something still worse.\n\nAs for the injury to the future, we already know what the present\npolicy effects. We may grant, then, to the London County Council\nthat it has performed a service for philosophy in showing that it is\npossible to combine both kinds of evil in one harmonious policy. Nor\nlet the reader suppose that any partisan feeling infects this protest.\nThe Government is also to blame. Even had the L.C.C. declined to\ncontribute anything at all to the cost of the proper policy, no really\neducated and honourable Government had any choice but to undertake\nall the cost itself--even at the cost of office! Better were--in Mr.\nBalfour's words, the wisest he ever uttered--\u201cthe barren exchange of\none set of tyrants, or jobbers, for another,\u201d than the horrible birth\nof thousands of feeble-minded babies.\n\n=The argument from economy.=--It would be easy to show that the present\npolicy is not economical even as regards the cost of these women\nthemselves, and even if it be assumed that gold is wealth. But consider\nthe remoter cost. During the period when the present writer was making\npublic protests very nearly every day on this matter without any\nimmediate effect, and only one month after the London County Council\nhad attempted to defend itself on the ground of economy when challenged\nby the Eugenics Education Society, there was formally opened, with\na flourish of trumpets, the eighty-seventh school for feeble-minded\nchildren established by the London County Council. It accommodates\nsixty such children (besides sixty physically defective). This school\ncost \u00a36,000 to build alone. The sixty feeble-minded children whom it\naccommodates are not a very large proportion of the 7,000 admittedly\nfeeble-minded school children in London--a number which is probably\nnot more than a third or a fourth of the real number. It has been\nexhaustively proved that feeble-minded children are mainly, at any\ngiven time, the progeny of feeble-minded persons such as constitute\nthe majority of chronic inebriates. Ignorance is again in action.\nOn the one hand, the London County Council, quarrelling over pence,\neffectively suspends the working of the Inebriates Acts, and thus\nensures that the supply of feeble-minded children shall be kept up. On\nthe other hand, it takes these children, cares for them until they are\ncapable of becoming parents, and then turns them upon the world. The\nChairman at the opening ceremony of the school referred to said that\n\u201cat the special schools work was being done which would advance the\nintelligence of the pupils, and thus benefit the entire race.\u201d It would\nbe difficult to concentrate more ignorance in fewer words or in ten\ntimes as many.\n\n=A Home Office Committee appointed.=--The almost continuous protest of\ntwo months did, however, bear fruit, the Home Secretary appointing a\nCommittee to consider the question of the amendment of the Inebriates\nActs. But the legal brutalities described are still being perpetrated,\nand the future is being compromised. The London County Council may be\nadvised to make arrangements for building a few score more schools for\ndefective children in anticipation of the growing need which it is\nassuring.\n\nNever again, when it is past, must we permit the present abominable\npolicy. It is for public opinion to effect this, and public opinion has\nonly to be directed to the case in order to realise its nature. If the\nreader pleases he may discount altogether the eugenic argument, though\nI believe that in the long run that is more important than any other.\nBut if he confines his attention solely to the cruelties perpetrated\nupon these helpless women, infinitely more sinned against than sinning,\nand especially if he considers the testimony of Sir Alfred Reynolds\nabove quoted, he will surely lend his aid to put an end to a state of\naffairs which is a disgrace to our civilisation. We talk of progress,\nand we are indeed incalculably indebted to our ancestors, but let any\none consider the case of the poor child, now a wrecked woman, quoted\nabove, and let him consider what it may be to be an heir of all the\nages in the greatest city of the world to-day.\n\nIt will be sufficiently evident that if any warrant were needed for\nthe formation of the Eugenics Education Society or for the publication\nof the present volume, it would be found only too abundantly in the\noutrage upon decency and morality and science and the future which is\nat present in perpetration. Further, if any warrant were required for\nthe incessant reiteration of the principle that there is no wealth\nbut life, it would be found in the fact that this outrage is being\ncommitted in the name of economy. Yet even if the sane and sober London\nratepayer were saved a few shillings now, as he will not be, his\nchildren will have to pay pounds in the future for the support of these\nwomen's children. Economy, forsooth, when the rates of London benefited\nto the extent of \u00a3559,000 out of the sale of intoxicating liquors in\n1905, and spent \u00a38,000 in the maintenance of committed inebriates! Need\none apologise for declaring again, that we require a new political\neconomy which teaches that gold is for the purchase of life, and not\nlife for the purchase of gold. For the public outrage under discussion,\nwhereby an untold measure of life, present and to come, \u201cbreathing and\nto be,\u201d is to be destroyed and defiled for a squabble over shillings,\none can adequately quote only the words of Romeo to the apothecary:\n\u201cThere is thy gold; worse poison to men's souls, doing more murders in\nthis loathsome world, than those poor compounds that thou may'st not\nsell.\u201d\n\n=The last touches of art.=--If this protest hurts any one's\nfeelings, that cannot be helped. When the production of thousands\nof feeble-minded children is involved, the self-esteem of what Mr.\nGeorge Meredith calls the \u201caccepted imbecile\u201d does not matter. The\nquestion is, How soon do we propose to rectify our present course in\nthis respect?--a course which is a shame and a disgrace to our age and\nnation, and which shall in any case be placed on record in printed\nwords, as well as in young children stamped with degeneracy--in order\nto point for future ages the question \u201c_An nescis, mi fili, quantilla\nprudentia regitur orbis?_\u201d \u201cWith how little wisdom\u201d--and, whilst\nperpetrating this shame, ignoring the _one_ indisputable means by which\nlegislation can and must check drunkenness, nearly all other measures\nhaving failed since Babylon was an Empire, they were quarrelling\nabout a temperance measure, so-called, which regarded the question of\ntransference of money from one pocket to another as vital, and ignored\nthe one vital question, which is the question of life: a measure\nshowing scarcely a sign, either in its text or in the words of its\nsupporters or in the words of its opponents, that the question of the\nfuture race had ever entered into the head of a public man; a measure\nwhich left the protection of children from the public-house to the\ndiscretion of local magistrates; a measure which certainly, whatever\nelse it might effect, could not have been more carefully drawn if its\nobject were to promote that secret drinking amongst women[72] which\nmeans the poisoning of the racial life even before it sees the light.\nThis, then, \u201c_mi fili_,\u201d was what was called practical statesmanship\nin the year 1908 of the Christian Era: and in order that no last touch\nmight be wanted from the hand of ignorance and the blasphemous idolatry\nwhich worships gold to the neglect of the only true god, which is\nlife, they announced just at this time the issue of a Royal Commission\nto enquire and report upon the manufacture and variations in the\ncomposition of whiskey. It has been a public joke for years past that\nno one can answer the question, \u201cWhat is whiskey?\u201d Well, then, I will\nanswer the question, and we may save the labour of such commissions\nhereafter. Whiskey is a _racial poison_, and there is nothing else to\nknow about it worth knowing _for the future_. Those who will never\nbecome, or can no longer become, fathers or mothers, may do as they\nplease about whiskey, so far as the ideal of eugenics or race-culture\nis concerned. They may say, if they like, that their personal habits\nare their affair and concern no one else. Under the influence of\nwhiskey they may, perhaps, even believe this. But for those who are\nto be the fathers and mothers of the future, such a plea is idle. The\nquestion is not solely their affair; it is the affair of the unborn,\nand we who champion the unborn are bound to say so.\n\nThe time will come when it is recognised that there are two classes\nof active mind in society: those who worship and uphold the past, and\nwill always sacrifice the living to the dead, nay more, the unborn to\nthe dead. The ultimate fate of these is the fate of her who looked\nbackwards to the shame and destruction from which she had escaped.\nShe was turned into a pillar of salt. And there are those who worship\nand work for the future, who will, without hesitation, sacrifice the\ninterests of the dead (who are no longer interested) to those of the\nliving and the coming race--nay, more, who will even sacrifice the\ninterests of a few worthless living to those of many yet unborn, _that\nthey may be worthy_. Let the dead bury their dead; let the worshippers\nof the dead and the dying ask themselves whether the life that is and\nthe life that is to be do not demand their homage and service. Not\nuntil some such principles as these are recognised shall we rightly\ndeal with the drink problem, amongst many others, and bring to it the\nmental and moral enlightenment which makes for life on the higher\nplane, just as surely and just as indispensably as the light of the sun\ncreates all life whatsoever.\n\n=Mr. Balfour on legislation.=--Surely the moral of this argument is\nclear. The most important, the most radical, the most practicable of\nall temperance measures is that which attacks the main source of supply\nof the drunkard. When a Licensing Bill is brought before the House of\nCommons, Mr. Balfour repeats the ancient piece of nonsense that you\ncannot make people moral by Act of Parliament--an assertion that any\nchild can see to be a muddle. We may let that pass for the moment,\nbut Mr. Balfour is a thinker, a student of biology, and heredity in\nespecial, and he has lately been lecturing on \u201cDecadence.\u201d Might it\nnot have been expected that such a man would take an opportunity to\nsay what the humblest serious student of the subject would have said,\nand thereby to bring far more damaging criticism against the opposing\nparty's bill than any he hinted at? He might have said, \u201cYour bill,\neven if passed, will accomplish little, or relatively little, at great\ncost, because you have no grasp of the principles of the subject. You\nhave no idea of what drunkenness really is. If your bill were worth a\nstraw it would seek as a primary principle to safeguard the race by\narresting the supply of potential drunkards. Your endless financial\nclauses deal merely with the re-distribution of money, but your bill\nhas no clause that deals with the only business of governments, the\ncreation and the economy of the only real wealth, which is human life.\u201d\nThat is what the ex-Premier did not say. He had plenty of passion,\nplenty of party-feeling to give fire to his words, but so far as\nknowledge is concerned or any conception of what alone is the wealth\nof nations, there was nothing to choose between Mr. Balfour and Mr.\nAsquith. Passion you must have if you are to do anything, but not\nparty-passion: whereas if you have passion for life and for children,\nnot only will it be effective, but, notwithstanding all that the\npsychologists tell us as to the vitiation of judgment by emotion, it\nwill actually teach you the supreme and eternal truths.\n\nIn this book hitherto little has been said as to formal eugenic\nlegislation. I believe with Etienne that it is opinion which governs\nthe world: legislation in front of public opinion brings all law into\ncontempt. But in his first speech opposing the Licensing Bill of\n1908, Mr. Balfour, the author of the Licensing Bill of 1904, decried\nlegislation. \u201cIntemperance,\u201d he said, \u201cis a vice\u201d: and legislation\ncan do practically nothing in dealing with a vice. Plainly Mr.\nBalfour is ignorant of the nature of intemperance, which largely\ndepends upon transmitted and inherent brain defect. He therefore\nlost his opportunity of pointing out in what fashion you _can_\nactually, notwithstanding the parrots, make people sober by Act of\nParliament--viz., by forbidding parenthood to those whose children\nwould almost certainly become drunkards. We who are not politicians,\nmuch less ex-Premiers, must make our own proposals then. Last year's\ncriticism of the London County Council began, I believe, to educate\npublic opinion to the necessary point. In the name of race-culture and\nthe New Patriotism, in the name of morality and charity and science,\nwe must demand, obtain and carry into effect the most stringent and\ncomprehensive legislation, such as effectively to forbid parenthood\non the part of the chronic inebriate. Ere long, the person who would\nhave become a chronic inebriate will be cared for and protected during\nchildhood and thereafter,--with the same result. This solution of the\nproblem is denounced, says Dr. Archdall Reid,\n\n  \u201c... as horrible, as Malthusian, as immoral, as impracticable....\n  The alternative is more horrible and more immoral still. If by any\n  means we save the inebriates of this generation, but permit them\n  to have offspring, future generations must deal with an increased\n  number of inebriates.... The experience of many centuries has\n  rendered it sufficiently plain, that while there is drink, there\n  will be drunkards till the race be purged of them. We have therefore\n  no real choice between Temperance Reform by the abolition of drink,\n  and Temperance Reform by the elimination of the drunkard....\n  Which is the worse; that miserable drunkards shall bear wretched\n  children to a fate of starvation and neglect and early death, or of\n  subsequent drunkenness and crime, or that, by our deliberate act,\n  the procreation of children shall be forbidden them? We are on the\n  horns of a dilemma from which there is no escape.... But our time has\n  seen the labours of Darwin. We know now the great secret. Science\n  has given us knowledge and with it power. We have learnt that if we\n  labour for the individual alone, we shall surely fail; but that if\n  we make our sacrifice greater, if we labour for the race as well, we\n  must succeed. Let us then by all means seek to save the individual\n  drunkard; with all our power let us endeavour to make and keep him\n  sober; but let us strive also to eradicate the type; for, as I have\n  said, if we do it not quickly and with mercy, Nature will do it\n  slowly and with infinite cruelty.\u201d\n\n=Women and children first.=--The noble cry on a sinking ship is\n\u201cwomen and children first.\u201d This perhaps is a plea for the service of\nhelplessness as such, though it might be equally warranted as a demand\nfor the sacrifice of the present to the future. And assuredly the cry\nfor a sinking society must also be \u201cwomen and children first.\u201d It is\nwell if the cry be raised when the ship of state is not yet sinking,\nbut only water-logged or alcohol-logged. Temperance legislation and the\nagitation for temperance reform are themselves in need of reform. Their\nappalling record of failure--for it is such a record--should help even\nthe fanatic, one thinks, to accept the introduction of the eugenic idea\nas a new principle of life for the temperance cause. In the present\nstate of custom and opinion, the teetotaler cannot force his own wise\nhabits upon the vast majority who do not agree with him. If he has an\ninfinite amount of energy and resources, let him spend as much of both\nas he pleases upon the sort of propaganda with which we are familiar:\nhe will, by the hypothesis, still have an infinite amount of both\navailable for the cause to which the principle of race-culture would\ndirect him. If, however, his energy and resources are finite,--if,\nindeed, they are by no means excessive in proportion to the urgent\ntask which the ideal of race-culture asks of him, then let him not\nfritter away a moment or a penny or a breath until he has achieved the\nprocess of salvage or salvation which is expressed in the phrase \u201cwomen\nand children first.\u201d More accurately, perhaps, our cry must be \u201cparents\nand possible parents first,\u201d and this for present practical purposes is\nequivalent to \u201cwomen and children first.\u201d\n\nIt would have been well if the temperance propaganda from the first,\nsay two generations ago in Great Britain, had adopted this motto.\nBut its adoption is far more urgent to-day in consequence of the\nfact, unfortunately no longer to be questioned, that drinking amongst\nwomen, the mothers of the future, is, and has been for some time,\nsteadily increasing. Children yet unborn must be protected from the\ninjury which may be inflicted upon them by those who will be their\nmothers. Yet though there is more need for action in this regard than\never before, and though Mr. G. R. Sims in his books _The Cry of the\nChildren_ and _The Black Stain_ has lately drawn wide attention to\nthe subject, we have seen that the principle of women and children\nfirst, a principle derived from the ideal of race-culture, and directly\nserving that ideal, was almost wholly ignored in the Licensing Bill of\n1908. The motto \u201cMoney, not motherhood,\u201d is a bad one for the framers\nof a temperance measure. If ever we have a temperance measure worthy\nthe name the motto of its framers will be \u201cMotherhood, not money.\u201d\nSuch a measure will most certainly have to introduce the principle\nof indeterminate sentences--or rather, indeterminate _care_--in\nthe treatment of the chronic inebriate. There is no possibility\nof two opinions as to the urgent and indispensable necessity of\nsuch treatment, nor yet as to its scrupulous humanity both for the\nunfortunate victim himself or herself and for the unborn.\n\nThe word \u201creformatory\u201d had better be abolished from official language,\nsince it leads accredited people to write to _The Times_ such\nfoolishness as \u201creformation, not mere detention.\u201d\n\nFurther, the expense of dealing with the chronic inebriate in this, the\nonly humane and economical way, had better fall entirely and directly\nupon the state. It must not be possible again for a local authority,\neven the London County Council, however ignorant or criminally\ncareless, to commit a public indecency like that already recorded--but\nthe full record of which none of us will live to see.\n\n=An unpunished magistrate.=--Yet again, in this measure there must\nbe some means of compelling such magistrates as cannot be educated.\nAt present, even when accommodation is provided, the unfortunate\ncreature of the Jane Cakebread type, when she is only just beginning\nto enter into competition with that horrible record, and when she is\ntherefore most dangerous as regards the possibility of motherhood,\ncan be detained only by the magistrate's order. Now it is very much\nless trouble for all concerned to say \u201cfive shillings or a week\u201d than\nto make the necessary enquiries in such cases. Further, in putting\nthis measure of one's dreams upon the statute book, we shall have to\nremember that the idea of protective care and the eugenic idea are, to\nsay the least, not native in the mind of every magistrate. In Dr. Welsh\nBranthwaite's report for 1906, there is quoted a case where a woman had\nbeen habitually drunken for at least thirteen years previous to her\ncommittal to a reformatory. Her known sentences included 27 fines, and\n138 terms of imprisonment. She was feeble-minded. On the termination\nof her reformatory sentence the discharge certificate described her as\n\u201cquite unfit to control her own actions,\u201d and \u201ccertain to succumb to\nthe first temptation to drink.\u201d The woman was found drunk a few hours\nafter discharge. Said the magistrate, \u201cthis case clearly proves that\nit is almost useless trying to reform such women as this.... I think,\nafter all, the old way is best and therefore I sentence her to one\nmonth with hard labour.\u201d I refrain from suggesting a suitable sentence\nfor the magistrate: doubtless he got off scot-free.\n\nSurely we might agree, as regards this racial poison, that at least\nparenthood and the future must be kept out of its clutches. It may be,\nit assuredly is, a deplorable thing that the woman of fifty, to take\nan instance, should become alcoholic, but at the worst this is only\nthe fate of an individual--in the main at any rate. Such principles\nas these will some day be the cardinal principles of legislation, and\nnot only in regard to alcohol. The time will and must come when public\nopinion will urge, whether in the name of a New Imperialism or of\ncommon morality or of self-protection, that in our attempts to deal\nwith alcohol we shall begin by removing its fingers from the throat of\nthe race: \u201cWomen and children first.\u201d\n\n=The Report of the Inebriates Committee.=--In January, 1909, the\nCommittee which was at last appointed to consider this matter made its\nReport.[73] I have not the literary capacity to comment adequately upon\nthe political wisdom which brings in a Licensing Bill, devotes vast\nlabour and much time to it and has it rejected by the House of Lords,\nwhile such a Committee as this is at work. The spirit of the politician\nwho spoke of \u201cthose damned professors\u201d still reigns over us, and will\ncertainly ruin us unless speedily deposed. However, here is the Report,\nand its recommendations are earnestly to be commended to the study of\nall students. New legislation, as it shows, is urgently required, and\nit is pre-eminently the duty of every eugenist to hasten its coming.\nThis is not a party question, but merely a national one, and will\ntherefore be dealt with by politicians only under external pressure,\nsuch as produced the Committee itself. The finger of public opinion\nmust apply that pressure forthwith.\n\nThe recommendations of the Committee are so admirable and thorough and\neugenic in effect as to temper one's disappointment that the Report\ncontains no definite, overt recognition of the eugenic idea. I had\nhoped that the evidence prepared and submitted to the Committee for\nthe Eugenics Education Society would suffice to ensure the recognition\nof the eugenic idea in the Report, for the first time, we may suppose,\nin official history. For the present we may merely note that the\nsuggestions made in preceding pages are confirmed by the Committee's\nReport, and that the next legislation bearing on the question of\ntemperance will undoubtedly have to attack the subject in this radical\nmanner--by what will be in effect the sterilisation of the habitual\ndrinker of either sex and any social status. The Committee do not\nrecognise that that is what their Report involves, much less that that\ngives it its real value; but so it is, as the year 1950 will be late\nenough to show.\n\nMuch time and trouble were spent in preparing for the Eugenics\nEducation Society answers to many of the questions submitted to it by\nthe Committee, and the Society may fairly claim, I think, that its\noriginal services to this matter were well-continued. The present\nwriter also prepared for the Society a Memorandum (Minutes of Evidence,\np. 189), which perhaps fairly sums up, in the briefest possible space,\nthe indisputable relations between alcohol and parenthood, and which\nmay therefore be reprinted here. The reader will notice an omission\nin that nothing is said as to the effects of alcohol in injuring\nthe germ-cells of healthy stock of either sex. The omission was made\nin order that nothing possibly disputable might be included. It has\nalready been argued that on grounds both of fact and of theory there\nis every reason to recognise in alcohol, as in syphilis and in lead,\na racial poison, originating racial degeneration which, in accordance\nwith generally recognised principles, shows itself in the latest,\nhighest and therefore most delicate portions of the organism.\n\nThe Memorandum is as follows:--\n\n\u201cIt may be pointed out that the children of the drunkard are on the\naverage less capable of citizenship on account of\n\n  \u201c(a) The inheritance of nervous defect inherent in the parent.\n\n  \u201c(b) Intra-uterine alcoholic poisoning in cases where the mother is\n       an inebriate.\n\n  \u201c(c) Neglect, ill-feeding, accidents, blows, etc., which are\n       responsible on the one hand for much infant mortality, and\n       combined with the possible causes before mentioned, for the\n       ultimate production of adults defective both in body and mind.\n\n\u201cIt would appear, then, that the drunkard, if not effectively\nrestrained, conduces to the production of a defective race, involving a\ngrave financial burden upon the sober portion of the community, to say\nnothing of higher considerations. It therefore seems to the Eugenics\nEducation Society of extreme importance that some substantial effort\nshould be made for the reform of existing drunkards, or the permanent\ncontrol of the irreformable.\n\n\u201cScientific warrant for the foregoing propositions is now to be\nfound in no small abundance. Reference may be made, for instance, to\nthe chapter on \u2018Alcoholism and Human Degeneration,\u2019 in Dr. W. C.\nSullivan's recent work _Alcoholism_ (Nisbet, 1906). Dr. Sullivan quotes\nthe results of more than a dozen observers in this and other countries,\nand special attention may be drawn to his own well-known study of the\nhistory of 600 children born of 120 drunken mothers. The works of\nProfessor Forel of Zurich are widely known in this connection, notably\n_Die Sexuel Frage_, and _The Hygiene of Nerves and Mind_ (Translation,\nMurray, 1907). Parental alcoholism as a true cause of epilepsy in the\noffspring is now generally recognised. For numerous and detailed proofs\nfrom many sources reference may be made to page 210 of the last work\nnamed.\n\n\u201cIt is not necessary, however, to go over the ground which has\ndoubtless been covered by the Royal Commission on the Care and Control\nof the Feeble-minded.\n\n\u201cThe existing laws comply to only a very small and almost negligible\nextent with the eugenic requirement. They only deal with (a) the very\nminute proportion of inebriates who can be induced to voluntarily sign\naway their liberty, and (b) those who are also criminal or all but\nhopeless and who have done harm already, either as individuals or in\nbecoming parents. The third group of inebriates (c) not included in\n(a) or (b) constitutes the overwhelming majority of the whole. They\nare absolutely untouched by the present law, and further powers are\nurgently required to deal with them.\n\n\u201cSuch legislation would be by no means without precedent, and may avail\nitself of the experience of several of our own colonies and various\nforeign countries. Such methods as compulsory control on petition,\nguardianship and so forth are in employment, for instance, in the\nAustralian Commonwealth and New Zealand, California, Connecticut,\nMassachusetts, various cantons in Switzerland, Nova Scotia, etc.\n\n\u201cTo sum up, the Society advocates the retention of the present law so\nfar as classes (a) and (b) are concerned, but would most strongly urge\nthe addition of powers to deal with that great majority of inebriates\nwhom the present law does not touch.\u201d\n\n\n=The friends of alcohol.=--Those who defend the alcoholic poisoning\nof the race may be easily classified. Some few honestly stand for\nliberty. Like Archbishop Magee, they would rather see England free\nthan England sober, not asking in what sense England drunken could be\ncalled free. Some are merely irritated by the temperance fanatic. Many\nfear that their personal comfort may be interfered with. But probably\nthe overwhelming majority are concerned with their pockets. They live\nby this cannibal trade; by selling death and the slaughter of babies,\nfeeble-mindedness and insanity, consumption and worse diseases, crime\nand pauperism, degradation of body and mind in a thousand forms, to the\npresent generation and therefore to the future, the unconsulted party\nto the bargain. Their motto is \u201cYour money and your life.\u201d So powerful\nare they that most of them are frank. They form associations for their\ndefence, and hold mass meetings at which they condemn any temperance\nmeasure that is before the country, \u201cwhilst ready to welcome any real\ntemperance reform.\u201d They demand adequate compensation: though, if they\ndisgorged every farthing they possess, and devoted themselves body and\nsoul for the rest of their lives to the human cause, they could never\ncompensate us who are alive, let alone the dead or the unborn, for the\nhuman ruin on which they build their success. They build their palaces\nbefore our eyes; one of the largest and newest, not far from Piccadilly\nCircus, I often pass; but where most see only fine stone, the student\nof infant mortality, the lover of children, he who works and looks\nfor the life of this world to come, sees the bodies of the children of\nmen and is tempted to recall the curse of Joshua, \u201cHe shall lay the\nfoundation thereof in his firstborn, and in his youngest son shall he\nset up the gates of it.\u201d\n\n=Alcoholic Imperialism.=--At least let the alcoholic party refrain from\ncalling themselves Imperialists. Amongst them, for instance, is the\n\u201cImperial bard,\u201d the \u201cpoet of empire,\u201d he who has appealed to the \u201cgod\nof our fathers,\u201d and who warns us lest it shall be said that \u201call our\npomp of yesterday is one with Nineveh and Tyre\u201d: and appeals to deity--\n\n    \u201cJudge of the Nations, spare us yet,\n    Lest we forget, lest we forget!\u201d\n\nThis prophet of what some may think a blasphemous Imperialism gives\nhis name to the association which frankly in this matter of alcohol\nstands for gold as against life. We are to beware lest \u201cdrunk with\nsight of power\u201d we boast as do the \u201clesser breeds\u201d to whom the \u201cawful\nHand\u201d of God has not granted dominion: nor are we to put our trust in\nreeking tube and iron shard. We may freely call ourselves Imperialists,\nhowever, even though we should be numbered amongst those whom Ruskin,\nhimself the son of a wine merchant, called the \u201cvendors of death.\u201d One\nwonders whether the \u201cLord God\u201d exists that he can withhold his \u201cawful\nHand\u201d at such a spectacle as this. If some amongst us are to win gold\nby the sale of this racial poison, and if it must be so, let them at\nleast be consistent, and label themselves _the very littlest of little\nEnglanders_, which they are. An alcoholic Imperialism is of the kind\nwhich no Empire can long survive.\n\nThose of us whom such things as these make sick, and who yet, with\ntrue poets like Wordsworth, are proud of \u201cthe tongue that Shakespeare\nspake,\u201d and who with him declare:--\n\n    \u201cIt is not to be thought of that the Flood\n    Of British freedom, which, to the open sea\n    Of the world's praise, from dark antiquity\n    Hath flowed, .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .\n     .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .\n    That this most famous Stream in bogs and sands\n    Should perish; and to evil and to good\n    Be lost for ever\u201d\n\n--those of us who know that the foundations of any empire are living\nmen and women, and that, _to quote Mr. Kipling_, \u201cwhen breeds are in\nthe making everything is worth while,\u201d may wonder what process has been\nafoot that in three generations English poetry should pass from the\nsonnets of Wordsworth to \u201cDuke's son, cook's son,\u201d etc.; and may even\nat times, especially those of us who know what alcohol costs in life,\nfeel a momentary recession of our faith that Great Britain need not now\nbe writing the last page of her great history. Meanwhile, we read the\ncontroversy in Parliament and the press concerning alcohol. We see the\ncannibal cause of beer and spirits, which makes many widows and orphans\nevery day,[74] represented, with an effrontery to which no parallel can\never be imagined, as the cause of widows and children, and we recall\nthe lines which Wordsworth wrote rather more than a century ago:--\n\n    \u201cHow piteous, then, that there should be such dearth\n    Of knowledge; that whole myriads should unite\n    To work against themselves such fell despite;\n    Should come in frenzy and in drunken mirth,\n    Impatient to put out the only light\n    Of liberty that yet remains on earth!\u201d\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XIV\n\n             THE RACIAL POISONS: LEAD, NARCOTICS, SYPHILIS\n\n\nThe term racial poisons teaches us to distinguish, amongst substances\nknown to be poisonous to the individual, those which injure the\ngerm-plasm: and amongst substances poisonous to the expectant mother\nherself, we must distinguish those which may also poison her unborn\nchild. Alcohol is pre-eminently _the_ racial poison, thus defined, and\nI plead for its recognition as primarily a racial poison, this being\nimmeasurably the most important aspect of the whole alcohol question.\nReaders of Professor Forel will not lightly question this assertion.\n\nThe total number of racial poisons is, of course, very large. Amongst\nthem must theoretically be included all abortifacient drugs. There\nare also various poisons of disease to be included in this category.\nLater pages must be devoted to what is by far the most important of\nthese. But we may observe in passing that such a disease as rheumatic\nfever or acute rheumatism has especial significance for the student of\nrace-culture since, as he knows, its poisons circulating in the blood\nof an expectant mother may not only injure her own heart for life but\nmay pass through the placenta and deform the valves of the child's\nheart, with the subsequent result loosely described as \u201ccongenital\nheart disease.\u201d The conditions giving rise to rheumatic fever, then,\nare conditions from which the expectant mother, even more than the\nordinary individual, is entitled to be protected. But this is of minor\nimportance. We may here refer, however, to one or two striking cases,\nespecially since they bear in some degree upon social and individual\nduty.\n\n=The racial influence of lead.=--In the first place, it is necessary to\ndraw attention to a really notable racial poison, viz., lead.\n\nSays Sir Thomas Oliver,[75] \u201cLead destroys the reproductive powers\nof both men and women, but its special influence upon women during\npregnancy is the cause of a great destruction of human life.\u201d It may be\nsaid that in a sense the production of miscarriages and still-births,\nand also of infant mortality by lead, does not concern the student\nof race-culture. Nevertheless some of these children survive. Says\nSir Thomas Oliver: \u201cI have seen both cretinism and imbecility in\ninfants in whom, as there could have been no possible influence of\nalcohol, and presumably none of syphilis, the occupation of one or\nother parent as a lead worker must have determined the imperfectly\ndeveloped nervous system of the child.\u201d Later he says (page 202):\n\u201cSalp\u00e9tri\u00e8re and Bic\u00eatre are large hospitals in Paris set aside for\nthe reception and treatment of nervous diseases. The experience of the\nphysicians of these institutions is unrivalled. One of the physicians,\nM. Roques, speaking of the degenerates found in these hospitals, says\nthat slowly induced lead poisoning on the part of both parents or in\none or other of them is not only a cause of repeated abortions, high\npercentage of still-births and high death-rate of infants, but is the\ncause of convulsions, imbecility, and idiocy in many of the children\nwho survive the first year of existence. Of nineteen children born\nto parents who were lead workers, Rennert found that one child was\nstill-born and that seventeen were macrocephalic. In his studies upon\nhereditary degeneration and idiocy, Bourneville places house-painters\nin the unenviable first rank of the occupations followed by parents of\nmentally weak children. Out of eighty-seven cases relating to unhealthy\ntrades, fifty-one were connected with white lead in some form or\nanother, while syphilis was only responsible for nineteen.\u201d\n\nThis racial influence of lead is by no means generally recognised--even\nby Royal Commissioners. Its parallelism with the case of alcohol is\nstriking. We may note, for instance, that paternal lead-poisoning,\nlike paternal alcoholism, can cause degeneration in the offspring, if\nnot indeed death before or shortly after birth. To quote Oliver again:\n\u201cTaking seven healthy women who were married to lead workers, and in\nwhom there was a total of thirty-two pregnancies, Lewin tells us that\nthe results were as follows: eleven miscarriages, one still-birth,\neight children died within the first year after birth, four in the\nsecond year, five in the third, and one subsequent to this, leaving\nonly two children out of thirty-two pregnancies, as likely to live to\nmanhood. In cases where women have a series of miscarriages so long as\ntheir husbands worked in lead, a change of industrial occupation on\nthe part of the husbands restores to the wives normal child-bearing\npowers.\u201d According to the statistical enquiry of Rennert, the malign\ninfluence of lead is exerted upon the next generation, ninety-four\ntimes out of one hundred when both parents have been working in lead,\nninety-two times when the mother alone is affected, and sixty-three\ntimes when it is the father alone who has worked in lead. Here, then,\nas in the case of alcohol, the racial poison may act either through\nthe father or through the mother, but especially through the mother.\nThe importance of the demonstration as regards the father in the\ncase of both poisons is that it means a poisoning of the paternal\ngerm-cell. The facts may be commended to those extremists, so much more\nWeismannian than Weismann, who regard the germ-cells as existing in a\nuniverse of their own, wholly unrelated to the rest of existence.\n\nAnother extremely interesting parallel between these two racial poisons\nmay be noted. It is found, according to Professor Oliver, that \u201cwhile\nfollowing a healthy occupation these women, after having frequently\nmiscarried when working in lead factories, would have two or three\nliving healthy children, but circumstances necessitating the return of\nthese women to town, and resumption of work in the lead factory, they\nin each successive pregnancy again miscarried.\u201d He then quotes the\nfollowing most remarkable case: \u201cMrs. K., aged thirty-four, had four\nchildren before going into the factory and two children after. She then\nhad six miscarriages in succession, when she came under my care in the\nRoyal Infirmary, having become the victim of plumbism and having lost\nthe power in her arms and legs. She made a slow but good recovery and\ndid not return to the lead works. In her next pregnancy she went to\nfull term and gave birth to a living child.\u201d\n\nWe see here that, as is also true in the case of alcoholism, the\ngerminal tissue itself may escape or at any rate may recover from the\neffects of chronic poisoning of the individual who is its host. The\nrace is more resistant than the individual. If, however, the poisoning\ncontinues whilst a new individual is being formed--that is to say,\nduring pregnancy--that new individual succumbs, and indeed is far more\ngravely affected than its mother. Such a pregnant woman presents three\ndistinct living objects for our study. Her own body is one: and this\nis already developed. It has some measure of resistance to the poison\nbut is gravely affected. The embryo is the second; it is developing\nand because developing is susceptible. It is usually killed before\nbirth. The third is the germ-plasm or the race, and this, as we have\nseen, may withstand the poison so well that when the poisoning is\ndiscontinued healthy children may be produced from it. Undoubtedly\nthe case is the same as regards alcohol. The race or germ-plasm is\nmost resistant, the developing individual is least resistant, and the\nadult individual--that is to say, the mother--occupies an intermediate\nposition in this respect.\n\nThis parallelism, which has escaped previous observers, may be pointed\nout and its remarkable interest and significance suggested as a\ndefinite advance upon the absurd view that the germ-plasm is incapable\nof being poisoned. On the contrary, we know that many poisons will\nkill it outright, so that sterility results. But its high degree of\nresistance is a fact of great interest. Doubtless Dr. Archdall Reid's\nacute explanation of it is correct: namely, that natural selection\nwould tend to evolve a resistant germ-plasm. Dr. Reid will, I think, be\ninterested to notice in these remarkable observations on lead-poisoning\na conspicuous illustration of this resistance.\n\nOur business here, however, is with the practical issue. This\nfortunately is plain, nor are there the same difficulties of vested\ninterests which arise in the case of alcohol. Lead-poisoning must be\nended in the interests of race-culture and the essential wealth of\nthe nation, or, if it is to be continued, it must at least have its\nclutches kept clear of parenthood.\n\n=The possible racial influence of narcotics.=--Alcohol is of course a\nnarcotic poison, or, more precisely still, a narcotic-irritant poison,\nbut here we may briefly refer to the possible racial influence of\ncertain other poisons. There is, for instance, the case, noted on p.\n212, of the disastrous racial consequences of the cocaine habit. The\nmatter demands only a paragraph, since for the present, at least, it\nis of small general importance, and since we must beware of going\nbeyond the facts; but when once the idea of race-culture has reached\nthe popular and professional mind--the latter at present frequently\nfeeding the pregnant woman with alcohol, as we all know--the whole\nquestion of narcomania will have to be looked at from this aspect, and\nthe measure of danger in particular cases will then be ascertained. It\nis probably safe to assume, however, that, on the whole, alcohol will\nbe found to stand somewhat apart from other narcotics, and for the\nreason that it is not a pure narcotic but also an irritant. Thus, to\ntake the case of opium, it will probably be very difficult and, one may\nhope, impossible to show that, shall we say, opium smoking or eating\nhas an injurious racial influence where it is practised. Here we have a\nnarcotic which is not an irritant. The individual may recover perfectly\nfrom its abuse, as he may often fail to recover from the abuse of\nalcohol, since this poison leaves permanent changes in the brain, and\nelsewhere, dependent upon the fact that it is not merely a narcotic but\nalso a local irritant. The action of a pure narcotic on the germ-plasm\nas compared with the action of a narcotic which is also an irritant may\nafford a parallel. The abuse of opium by the expectant mother (see p.\n212) is not of the same order: it means simply dosing a _very_ small\nbaby with opium.\n\n=Tobacco and the race.=--The poisonous compounds absorbed from tobacco\nsmoke are of interest in this connection. The question as to the\nproportion of nicotine included amongst them is immaterial here.\nIt suffices to know, as we do, that certain substances, doubtless\nincluding some proportion of nicotine, rapidly absorbed into the blood\nby the smoker, are poisons to the individual body. The familiar fact of\nthe acquirement of immunity affects in no degree the statement as to\nthe toxic character of these substances.\n\nNo one but the fanatic would venture to say that any racial\ndegeneration can be traced to tobacco-smoking. It would be hard to\nprove the existence of any injury thus inflicted upon the children of\nthe father who is a smoker, though the question of the acquirement of\nimmunity is not without relevance here. The immunising substances or\nanti-toxins which are doubtless produced in the smoker's blood may\nprotect the germ-plasm which he bears as well as his own body.\n\nBut in the case of the expectant mother there is more warrant for\noffering an opinion even in the absence hitherto of definite evidence.\nApart from any opinion as to the propriety of smoking by women in\ngeneral, there is a definite issue in the case of the expectant mother.\nA very young child is now being exposed to the poisons of tobacco\nsmoke, and if we are right in passing laws to prevent this poisoning in\nthe case of the urchin of eight years (who is really, of course, eight\nyears and nine months old), what shall we say regarding the unborn\nchild who is only eight months old? I have observed that the expectant\nmother may have her liking for tobacco replaced by violent dislike\nduring pregnancy.\n\n=The poison of syphilis.=--Brief mention must here be made of syphilis\nas a racial poison. Sooner or later the eugenic campaign must and will\nface this question, about which a murderous silence is now maintained.\nNo other disease can rival syphilis in its hideous influence upon\nparenthood and the future. But it is no crime for a man to marry,\ninfect his innocent bride and their children: no crime against the\nlaws of our little lawgivers, but a heinous outrage against Nature's\ndecrees. When, at last, our laws are based on Nature's laws, criminal\nmarriages of this kind may be put an end to.\n\nThe lay reader should acquaint himself with the play of Brieux, _Les\nAvari\u00e9s_. The student may be referred to Forel's _Sexual Question_,\nDr. C. F. Marshall's _Syphilology and Venereal Diseases_, and his\narticle, \u201cAlcohol and Syphilis\u201d in the _British Journal of Inebriety_,\nJanuary, 1908.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThis chapter and the last do not profess to do more than indicate the\nfield of eugenics which the term racial poisons suggests. Our business\nin the present volume is, if possible, to see eugenics whole: to treat\nof this new science adequately is not for one author or one generation.\nIt is earnestly to be hoped that the medical profession will speedily\ntake up this question of the racial poisons. Already the profession is\nbeginning to become the great instrument of _individual hygiene_: and\nevery year will enhance the importance of this work, as compared with\nthe cure of disease. Now negative eugenics is substantially _racial\nhygiene_: and the next great epoch in the evolution of medicine and the\nmedical profession will be the enrolment of its knowledge and influence\nin the cause of racial hygiene. May this book do a little to hasten\nthat day.\n\nThe two next chapters are designed to introduce that aspect of our\nsubject which may be called National Eugenics, and especially with\nreference to decadence. Here is a matter which appeals to minds of type\nand training often very different from the typical medical mind. But it\nis part of one's purpose to show, if possible, that the historian must\nbecome a eugenist, just as the physician must, for eugenics needs and\nclaims the work and help of both.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER XV\n\n            NATIONAL EUGENICS: RACE-CULTURE AND HISTORY[76]\n\n\nThe reader will not expect to be insulted here with any discussion of\nthe garbage and gossip, records of scoundrels, courts and courtesans,\nbattles, murder and theft, which we were taught at school, under the\ngreat name of history.[77] If history be, as nearly all historians have\nconceived it, and as Gibbon defined it, \u201clittle more than the register\nof the crimes, follies, and misfortunes of mankind,\u201d it is an empty and\ncontemptible study, save for the social pathologist. But if history,\nwithout by any means ignoring great men or underrating their influence,\nis, or should be, the record of the past life of mankind, of progress\nand decadence, the rise and fall of Empires and civilisations, and\ntheir mutual reactions; if it be the record of the intermittent ascent\nof man, \u201csagging but pertinacious\u201d; if this record be subject to the\nlaw of causation, and therefore susceptible, in theory, at least, of\nexplanation as well as description; if its factors are at work to-day\nand will shape the destiny of all the to-morrows; if it be neither\nphantasmagoria nor panorama nor pageant nor procession but _process_,\nin short, an organic drama,--then, indeed, it is more than worthy\nof all the study and thought of all who ever study or ever think.\nEspecially must it appeal to us, who boast a tradition greater than the\nworld has ever yet seen, and kinship with men who represent the utmost\nof which the human spirit has yet shown itself capable,--to us who\nspeak the tongue that Shakespeare spake, but to whom the names of all\nour Imperial predecessors, from Babylon to Spain, serve as a perpetual\n_memento mori_. Our special question here is whether there are inherent\nand necessary reasons why our predecessors' fate must sooner or later\nbe ours. Must races die?--or, if we are sceptical about races and more\nespecially about the so-called Anglo-Saxon race, must civilisations,\nstates, or nations die? What comment does modern biology, or the theory\nof organic evolution, make upon the familiar words of Byron in his\naddress to the ocean?--\n\n    \u201cThy shores are empires, changed in all save thee--\n    Assyria, Greece, Rome, Carthage, what are they?\n    Thy waters wasted them while they were free\n    And many a tyrant since: their shores obey\n    The stranger, slave, or savage.\u201d\n\nAnd these, a few pages earlier in the same poem:--\n\n    \u201cThere is the moral of all human tales;\n    'Tis but the same rehearsal of the past,\n    First Freedom and then Glory--when that fails,\n    Wealth, vice, corruption--barbarism at last.\n    And History, with all her volumes vast,\n    Hath but _one_ page\u201d....\n\nNations, races, civilisations rise, we shall all agree, because to\ninherent virtue of breed they add sound customs and laws, acquirements\nof discipline and knowledge. But, these acquirements made, power\nestablished, and crescent from year to year--why do they _then_ fall?\nIf they can _make_ a place for themselves, how much easier should it\nnot be to _maintain_ it?\n\nTwo explanations, each falsely asserting itself to be rooted in\nbiological fact, have long been cited and are still cited in order to\naccount for these supreme tragedies of history.\n\n=The fallacy of racial senility.=--The first may claim Plato and\nAristotle as its founders, and consists of an argument from analogy.\nRaces may be conceived in similar terms to individuals. There are many\nresemblances between a society--a \u201csocial organism,\u201d to use Herbert\nSpencer's phrase--and an individual organism. Just, then, as the\nindividual is mortal, so is the race. Each has its birth, its period of\nyouth and growth, its maturity, and, finally, its decadence, senility\nand death. So runs the common argument.\n\nWe must reply, however, that biology, so far from confirming it,\ndeclares as the capital fact which contrasts the individual and the\nrace that, whilst the individual is doomed to die from inherent causes,\nthe race is naturally immortal. The tendency of life is not to die but\nto live. If individuals die, that is doubtless because, as I believe,\nmore life and fuller is thus attained than if life bodied itself in\nimmortal forms: but the germ-plasm is immortal; it has no inherent\ntendency either to degenerate or to die. Species exist and flourish\nnow which are millions of years older than mankind. \u201cThe individual\nwithers, the race is more and more.\u201d\n\nIt may be added that, in historical instances, civilisations have, on\nthe one hand, persisted, and, on the other, fallen, despite change,\nand even substitution, in the races which created them: and, on the\nother hand, the most conspicuously persistent of all races in the\nhistoric epoch, the Jews, have survived one Empire after another of\ntheir oppressors, but have never had an Empire of their own. Thus, so\nfar as the historian is concerned, it is not races at all that die,\nbut civilisations and Empires. Plato's argument from the individual to\nthe race is therefore irrelevant, as well as untrue. The fatalistic\nconception to which it tempts us, saying that races must die, just as\nindividuals must, and that therefore it is idle to repine or oppose,\nis utterly unwarrantable and extremely unhealthy. To take our own\ncase, despite the talk about our own racial decadence, nearly all our\nbabies still come into the world fit and strong and healthy--the racial\npoisons apart. We kill them in scores of thousands every year, but this\ninfant mortality is not a sign that the race is dying, but a sign that\neven the most splendid living material can be killed or damaged if you\ntry hard enough. The babies do not die because races are mortal, but\nbecause individuals are and we kill them. The babies drink poison,\neat poison, and breathe poison, and in due course die. The theory of\nracial senility, inapplicable everywhere because untrue, is most of all\ninapplicable here. If a race became sterile, Plato and Aristotle would\nbe right. There is no such instance in history, apart from well-defined\nexternal, _not inherent_, causes, as in the case of the Tasmanians.\nDismissing this analogy, we may also dismiss, as based upon nothing\nbetter, the idea that the great tragedies of history were necessary\nevents at all. We must look elsewhere than amongst the inherent and\nnecessary factors of racial life for the causes which determine these\ntragedies; and we shall be entitled to assume as conceivable the\nproposition that, notwithstanding the consistent fall of all our\npredecessors, the causes are not inevitable, but, being external and\nenvironmental, may possibly be controlled: man being not only creature\nbut creator also.\n\n=The Lamarckian explanation of decadence.=--The second of the two false\ninterpretations of history in terms of biology is still, and always\nhas been, widely credited. When historians have paid any attention to\nthe breed of a people as determining its destiny, they have invariably\nadded to the fallacy of racial senility this no less fecund error. It\nis that, in consequence of success, a people become idle, thoughtless,\nunenterprising, luxurious, and that these _acquired characters are\ntransmitted_ to succeeding generations so that, finally, there is\nproduced a degenerate people unable to bear the burden of Empire--and\nthen the crash comes. The historian usually introduces the idea\nalready dismissed by saying that a \u201cyoung and vigorous race\u201d invaded\nthe Imperial territories--and so forth. The terms \u201cyoung\u201d and \u201cold,\u201d\napplied to human races, usually mean nothing at all.\n\nThe reader will recognise, of course, in this doctrine of the\ntransmission to children of characters acquired by their parents, the\nexplanation of organic evolution advanced by Lamarck rather more than\na century ago. It is employed by historians for the explanation of\nboth the processes they record, progress and retrogression. Thus they\nsuppose that for many generations a race is disciplined, and so at last\nthere is produced a race with discipline in its very bone; or for many\ngenerations a nation finds it necessary to make adventure upon the sea,\nand so at last there is produced a generation of predestined sailors\nwith blue water in its blood. And in similar terms moral and physical\nretrogression or degeneration are explained.\n\nLet us consider the contrast between the interpretation which accepts\nthe Lamarckian theory of the transmission of acquired characters and\nthat which does not. Consider the babies of a new generation. According\nto Lamarck, these have in their blood and brain the consequences of\nthe habits of their ancestors. If these have been idle and luxurious,\nthe new babies are predestined to be idle and luxurious too. This,\nin short, is a \u201cdying nation.\u201d But, if acquired characters are not\ntransmitted, the new generation is, on the whole, not much better, not\nmuch worse, than its predecessors--so far as this supposed factor of\nchange is concerned. Each generation makes a fresh start, as we see in\nthe babies of our slums to-day. It does not begin where the last left\noff--whether that means beginning at a higher or at a lower level than\nthat at which the last started: but it makes a fresh start where the\nlast did.\n\nNow, in general, we have seen that Lamarck's theory is discredited.\nThe view of Mr. Galton is accepted, that acquired characters are not\ntransmitted, either for good or for evil. If there are no other factors\nof racial degeneration or racial advance, then races do not degenerate\nor advance, but make a fresh start every generation: and Empires rise\nand fall without any relation to the breed of the Imperial people--an\nincredible proposition.\n\n=The racial poisons and decadence.=--Certain apparent, though not\nreal, exceptions exist to the denial of the Lamarckian theory of the\ntransmission of acquired characters. These exceptions are furnished by\nwhat I have called the _racial poisons_. Alcohol, for instance, is a\nsubstance, certainly poisonous in all but very small doses, if not in\nthem, which is carried by the blood to every part of the body and may\nand does injure its _racial_ elements. Thus a true racial degeneration\nmay be caused by its means: and the possibility of this is not to\nbe ignored. Other poisons, such as those of certain diseases, act\nsimilarly.\n\nWe must therefore note in passing a biological factor of historical\nimportance, though hitherto entirely unrecognised by historians, and\nthat is disease. Certain of our diseases, and especially consumption\nor tuberculosis, are at present making history by their extermination\nof aboriginal races. Minute living creatures, which we call microbes,\nare introduced into the new and favourable environment constituted by\nthe blood and tissues of human races hitherto unacquainted with them:\nand the consequences are known to all. But further, it has lately been\nsuggested as highly probable, by Professor Ross and others, that the\nfall of Greece, that incalculable disaster for mankind, was due to\nthe invasion not of human foes but of the humble living species which\nare responsible for the disease miscalled malaria. The evidence for\nthis view is by no means slight, and the most recent explanation of\nan event so abrupt and so disastrous is in all likelihood the correct\none. Malaria, like alcohol, produces true racial degeneration, its\npoisons affecting those _racial elements_ of which the individual body,\nbiologically conceived, is merely the ephemeral host: recalling the\ngreat line of Lucretius, \u201c_et quasi cursores, vita\u00ef lampada tradunt_.\u201d\nTo lame the runner is not to injure the torch he bears--acquired\ncharacters are not transmitted; but the racial poison makes dim the\nlamp ere the runner passes it on.\n\n=Selection and racial change.=--But, leaving poisons out of the\nquestion, races of men and animals _do_ undergo change, progressive\nand retrogressive, in consequence of the action of another factor than\nthat advanced by Lamarck: and this is the factor of \u201cnatural selection\u201d\nor \u201csurvival of the fittest.\u201d If, of any generation, individuals of a\ncertain kind are chosen by the environment for survival and parenthood,\nthe character of the species will change accordingly. If what we call\nthe best are chosen, their goodness will be transmitted in some degree,\nand the race will advance: if what we call the worst are chosen,\ntheir badness will be transmitted in some degree, and the race will\ndegenerate.\n\n=The two kinds of progress.=--Now in the case of all species other than\nman, the only possible progress is this racial or inherent progress,\ndependent upon a choice or selection of parents, and comparable in some\nmeasure, as Darwin showed, with the change similarly produced in the\nselective breeding or \u201cartificial selection\u201d of the lower animals by\nman. But in the case of man himself, there is a wholly different kind\nof progress also attainable, which is not inherent or racial progress\nat all, but yet is real progress: and which has the most important\nrelations to the inherent or racial progress that might be achieved by\nthe process of natural selection, or the choice of parents.\n\nIt has been laid down that acquired characters are not transmissible\nby heredity: but man has learnt--and it is well for him--to circumvent\nthe laws of heredity by transmitting his spiritual acquirements through\nlanguage and art. Even before writing there was tradition, passed on\nfrom mouth to mouth. As long as man was without writing he advanced\nlittle faster than other creatures, we may surmise: we know that he\nhas an undistinguished past of probably at least six million years:\nbut with speech _and writing_ came the transmission of acquirements\nin this special sense; not that the past education of a mother will\nenlarge her baby's brain, but that she can teach her daughter what she\nhas learnt, and so the child can begin where the parent left off, just\nas Lamarck wrongly imagined to be the case with the young giraffe, that\nhe supposed to profit by the stretching of the parental necks. It is\nthis transmission of spiritual acquirements--outside the germ-plasm\nand in defiance of its laws--that explains the amazing advance of man\nin the last ten or twenty thousand years as compared with the almost\nspeechless ages before them.\n\nThis kind of progress is peculiar to man,[78] it is the gift of\nintelligence, and we may call it traditional or acquired progress. It\nis an utterly different thing from inherent or racial progress, an\nimprovement in the breed dependent upon the happy choice of parents.\nAnd it is surely evident, on a moment's consideration, that acquired\nprogress is compatible with inherent decadence. To use Coleridge's\nimage, a dwarf may see further than a giant if he sits on the giant's\nshoulders: yet he is a dwarf and the other a giant. Any schoolboy now\nknows more than Aristotle, and that is true progress of a kind, but the\nschoolboy may well be a dwarf compared with Aristotle, and may belong\nto a race degenerate when compared with his; _and that is inherent or\nracial decadence subsisting with acquired or traditional progress_.\n\nNow whilst the accumulation of knowledge and art and power\nfrom age to age is real progress, it evidently depends for its\nstability and persistence upon the quality of the race.[79] If the\nrace degenerates--through, say, the selection of the worst for\nparenthood--the time will come when its heritage is too much for it.\nThe pearls of the ancestral art are now cast before swine, and are\ntrampled on: statues, temples, books are destroyed or burnt or lost. If\nan Empire has been built, the degenerate race cannot sustain it. _There\nis no wealth but life: and if the quality of the life fails, neither\nbattleships nor libraries nor symphonies nor anything else will save a\nnation._ This we all know, though no one who observed our legislation\nor read our Parliamentary debates would suspect that it had ever\nentered into our minds. Empires and civilisations, then, have fallen,\ndespite the strength and magnitude of the superstructure, because the\nfoundations decayed: and the bigger and heavier the superstructure the\nless could it survive their failure. If the Fiji islanders degenerate,\nthere is little consequence: if the breed of Romans degenerate, all\ntheir vast mass of acquired progress and power crushes them into\ndramatic ruin. This image, I believe, truly expresses the relation\nbetween the two wholly distinct kinds of progress, which we have yet\nto learn to distinguish. Acquired progress will not compensate for\nracial or inherent decadence. If the race is going down, it will not\ncompensate to add another colony to your Empire: on the contrary,\nthe bigger the Empire the stronger must be the race: the bigger the\nsuperstructure the stronger the foundations. Acquired progress is real\nprogress, but it is always dependent for its maintenance upon racial or\ninherent progress--or, at least, upon racial maintenance.\n\n=Nothing fails like success.=--I believe, then, that civilisations\nand Empires have succumbed because they represented only acquired\nor traditional or educational progress and this availed not at all\nwhen the races that built them up began to degenerate. Now the only\nexplanation of racial degeneration yet offered by the historians--apart\nfrom the foolish one of racial senility--is the Lamarckian one of\nthe transmission of habits of luxury and idleness from parent to\nchild: an explanation which the modern study of heredity empowers us\nto repudiate. What theory of this alleged degeneration is there to\noffer in its place: and especially what theory which explains racial\ndegeneration amongst not the conquered but the conquerors: amongst the\nsuccessful, the Imperial, the cultured, the leisured, the well-catered\nfor in all respects, bodily and mental? Why is it that not enslaved but\nImperial peoples degenerate? Why is it that nothing fails like success?\n\nWhat I believe to be the true and sufficient answer has been given\nby no historian: but the key to it is only fifty years old. The\nreason is that no race or species, vegetable or animal or human,\ncan maintain--much less raise--its organic level unless its best be\nselected for parenthood. It is true of a race as of an individual that\nit must work for its living--so to speak--if it is not to degenerate.\nWhen the terms are too easy, down you go. The tape-worm has given\nup even digesting for its living, and we know its degeneracy--all\nhooks and mouth. Society works and hands over its predigested food\nto such social parasites amongst ourselves. You must struggle or\nyou will degenerate--even if only with rhyme or counterpoint, not\nnecessarily for bread. \u201cEffort is the law,\u201d as Ruskin said: whether for\na livelihood or for enjoyment. Living things are the product of the\nstruggle for existence: we are thus evolved strugglers by constitution:\nand directly we cease to struggle we forfeit the possibilities of our\nbirthright. \u201cThou, O God,\u201d said Leonardo, \u201chast given all good things\nto man at the price of labour.\u201d\n\nThe case is the same with races. Directly the conditions become too\neasy, selection ceases, and it is as successful to be incompetent or\nlazy or vicious as to be worthy. The hard conditions that kept weeding\nout the unworthy are now relaxed and the fine race they made goes back\nagain. Finally there occurs the phenomenon of _reversed selection_,\nwhen it is fitter to be bad than good, cowardly than brave--as when\nreligious persecution murders all who are true to themselves and spares\nhypocrites and apostates: or when healthy children are killed in\nfactories whilst feeble-minded children or deaf-mutes are carefully\ntended until maturity and then sent into the world to reproduce their\nmaladies. Under reversed selection such results are obtained as a\nbreeder of race-horses or plants would obtain if he went to work on\nsimilar lines: the race degenerates rapidly: and if it be an Imperial\nrace its Empire comes crashing down about its ears. All Empires and\ncivilisations hitherto have involved the partial or complete arrest\nor reversal of the process of natural selection: and the racial\ndegeneration which necessarily ensued has been the cause of their\ninvariable doom.\n\nWhen a primitive race is making its way by force, selection is\nstringent. The weak, cowardly, diseased, stupid are expunged from\ngeneration to generation. As civilisation advances, a higher ethical\nlevel is reached: all true civilisation tending to abrogate and\nameliorate the struggle for existence. The diseased and weakly and\nfeeble-minded are no longer left to pay the penalty sternly exacted\nby Nature for unfitness: they are allowed to survive and multiply. A\nsuccessful race can apparently afford to permit this, as a race that is\nfighting for its existence cannot. But in reality no race can afford\nthis absolutely fatal process.\n\nThere is thus a real risk involved in the accumulation of acquired,\ntraditional or educational progress. Not only does it tend to\nabrogate or even to reverse selection, but it serves to disguise\nthe consequences of this abrogation. If a subhuman race degenerates\nthe fact is evident: but such a nation as our own may quite well\ndegenerate whilst the accumulation of acquired progress, transmitted\nby education, almost completely cloaks the fact _for a time_. We may\nbe congratulating ourselves upon our progress, upon our knowledge, our\nscience and art, our institutions, legal and charitable, whilst all\nthe time the breed is undergoing retrogression.\n\nWe see now, I think, the explanation of the truth expressed by\nGibbon,--\u201call that is human must retrograde if it do not advance.\u201d Why\nshould this be so? Why should it not be possible merely to maintain\na position gained? The answer is that the civilisation which merely\nmaintains its position is one in which selection has ceased: if\nselection had not ceased, the position would be more than maintained,\nthere would be advance. But without selection the breed will certainly\ndegenerate, the lower individuals multiplying more rapidly than higher\nones, in accordance with Spencer's law that the higher the type of the\nindividual the less rapidly does he multiply; and thus the race which\nis not advancing is retrograding, as Gibbon declared.\n\nNatural selection is the sole factor of efficient and permanent\nprogress, but the traditional or acquired progress which we call\ncivilisation tends to thwart or abrogate or even invert this process. I\nthus believe that the conditions necessary for the _secure_ ascent of\nany race, an ascent secured in its very blood, made stable in its very\nbone, have not yet been achieved in history: _and I advance this as the\nreason why history records no enduring Empire_.\n\n=Some historical instances.=--In the face of certain facts of\ncontemporary history I do not for a moment assert that there are\nno other causes of Imperial failure than the arrest or reversal of\nselection. But I do assert that if this is not the cause, then, in\nthe absence of the transmission of acquired characters, the race has\nnot degenerated, and is capable of reasserting itself. Only by the\narrest or reversal of selection can a race degenerate--apart from the\nracial poisons. If, then, a civilisation or Empire has fallen through\ncauses altogether non-biological--through carelessness, or neglect\nof motherhood or alteration of ideals--the changes in character so\nproduced are not transmitted to the children, and the race is not\ndegenerate but merely deteriorated in each generation.\n\nFor instance, we have been brought up to believe that there is no\npossible future for Spain; it is a dying nation, a senile individual,\na people of degenerates; it has had its day, which can never return.\nThe historian explains this by the false analogy between a race and\nan individual, and by the false Lamarckian theory of heredity. To\nthese the biologist retorts with comments upon their falsity, and with\nthe conviction that since Spain, even allowing for the anti-eugenic\nlabours of the Inquisition, has not been subjected to the only\nprocess which can ensure real degeneration--viz., the consistent and\nstringent selection of the worst--she is yet capable of regeneration.\nRegeneration is not really the word, because there has been little real\ndegeneration, but only the successive deterioration of successive and\nundegenerate generations.\n\nIf we took an animal species that _has_ degenerated, such as the\nintestinal parasites, and endeavoured to regenerate them, we\nshould begin to realise the magnitude of our task. That is not\nthe task for Spain, the biologist asserts. Merely the environment\nmust be altered,--not the mountain ranges and the rivers, Buckle\nnotwithstanding, but the really potent factors in the environment, the\nspiritual and psychical and social factors--and the deterioration of\neach new generation, inherently undegenerate, will cease. I am using\nthese opposed terms with great care and of set purpose.\n\nAnd the biologist is right. The facts concerning which so many\nhistorians have shaken their heads, and upon which they have based\nso many moralisings and theories of history, the facts which they\nhave cited in support of their false analogies and misconceptions of\nheredity--due, of course, to the errors of former biology--turn out to\nbe not facts at all, or, at any rate, only facts of the moment. The\n\u201cdying nation,\u201d as Lord Salisbury called it, has occasion to alter\nits psychical environment. It introduces the practice of education;\nit begins to shake off the yoke of ecclesiasticism; and what are the\nconsequences?\n\nThe new generation is found to be potentially little worse and little\nbetter than its predecessors of the sixteenth century. There has been\nno national or racial degeneration. The environment is modified for\nthe better, _i.e._, so as to choose the better, and Spain, as they say\nin misleading phrase, \u201ctakes on a new lease of life.\u201d The historian of\nthe present day, knowing as a historian what qualities of blood have\nbeen in the Spanish people, and basing his theories upon sound biology,\nmust confidently assert that that blood, incapable, as he knows, of\ndegeneration by any Lamarckian process, may still retain its ancient\nquality and will yet make history.\n\nBut the historian might well write a volume upon the same thesis\nas applied to China and Japan. We know historically what were the\nimmediate effects in one generation of a total change of environment in\nJapan. That change has not yet occurred in China, but must inevitably\noccur. Consider for a moment how the historian, made far-sighted\nand clear-sighted by biology, must contemplate the history of this\nastounding people. The popular belief used to be that China illustrated\nthe so-called law of nations. It was the decadent, though monstrous,\nrelic of an ancient civilisation; it had had its day. Inevitable\ndegeneration, which must befall all peoples, had come upon it. Behold\nit in the paralysis which precedes death!\n\nBut in the light of the facts of Japan, the man in the street and the\nhistorian alike have in this case found modern biology superfluous in\nenabling them to arrive at sound conclusions. They now believe what\nthe Darwinian has been compelled to believe for half a century, and\nmore strongly than ever during the latter part of that period, when the\ndoctrine of the transmission of modifications was finally discredited.\nA clever writer invents the phrase \u201cthe yellow peril,\u201d and people\ndiscard their old theories. The metaphor must be changed. This is not\nparalysis, but merely slumber. Doubtless, it is an unnatural slumber;\ndoubtless, it is not the slumber which brings renewed strength. It\nis suspense or stupor, not recuperation; but assuredly it is not\nparalysis. Who now would dare to say that China has had its day, even\nif he still clings to the old fictions about Spain?\n\n=Motherhood and history.=--Here, also, reference must again be made\nto another factor of history to which, as I think, the biologist must\nattach enormous importance, but which no historian yet has adequately\nreckoned with. Our prime assumption from beginning to end is that\n\u201cthere is no wealth but life,\u201d or, if one may venture to improve upon\nRuskin, _there is no wealth but mind_; and in the attempt to suggest\ninterpretations of history based upon this truth, so little recked of\nby the historian, we have considered the life in question from the\npoint of view of its determination by heredity, and its varying value\naccording to the inherent and transmissible characters selected in each\ngeneration. But a word must be said as to the other factor which, with\nheredity, determines the character of the individual--and that factor\nis the environment. I wish merely to note the most important aspect\nof the environment of human beings, and to observe that historians\nhitherto have wholly ignored it; yet its influence is incalculable. I\nrefer to motherhood.\n\nOne might have the most perfect system of selection of the finest\nand highest individuals for parenthood; but the babies whose\npotentialities--heredity gives no more--are so splendid, are always,\nwill be always, dependent upon motherhood. What was the state of\nmotherhood during the decline and fall of the Roman Empire? This factor\ncounts in history; and always will count so long as, three times in\nevery century, the only wealth of nations is reduced to dust, and is\nraised again from helpless infancy. As to Rome we know little, whatever\nmay be suspected: but we know that here in the heart of the greatest\nEmpire in history--and it is at the heart that Empires rot--thousands\nof mothers go out every day to tend dead machines, whilst their own\nflesh and blood, with whom lies the Imperial destiny, are tended anyhow\nor not at all. It may yet be said by some enlightened historian of the\nfuture that the living wealth of this people, in the twentieth century,\nbegan to be eaten away by the cancer which we call \u201cmarried women's\nlabour,\u201d and that, as will be evident to that historian's readers, its\ndamnation was sure. To-day our historians and politicians think in\nterms of regiments and tariffs and \u201cDreadnoughts\u201d: the time will come\nwhen they must think in terms of babies and motherhood. We must think\nin such terms too if we wish Great Britain to be much longer great.\nMeanwhile some of us see the perennial slaughter of babies in this\nland, and the deterioration of many for every one killed outright, the\nwaste of mothers' travail and tears: and we recall Ruskin's words:--\n\n  \u201cNevertheless, it is open, I repeat, to serious question, which\n  I leave to the reader's pondering, whether, among national\n  manufactures, that of Souls of a good quality may not at last turn\n  out a quite leadingly lucrative one? Nay, in some far-away and yet\n  undreamt-of hour, I can even imagine that England may cast all\n  thoughts of possessive wealth back to the barbaric nations among whom\n  they first arose; and that, while the sands of the Indus and adamant\n  of Golconda may yet stiffen the housings of the charger, and flash\n  from the turban of the slave, she, as a Christian mother, may at last\n  attain to the virtues and the treasures of a Heathen one, and be able\n  to lead forth her Sons, saying:--\n\n                         \u201cThese are MY Jewels.\u201d\n\nHad all Roman mothers been Cornelias, would Rome have fallen?[80]\nConsider the imitation mothers--no longer mammalia--to be found in\ncertain classes to-day--mothers who should be ashamed to look any\ntabby-cat in the face; consider the ignorant and downtrodden mothers\namongst our lower classes; and ask whether these things are not making\nhistory.\n\n=The survival of the Jews.=--The principles the discussion of which has\nhere been attempted had all been set down before it suddenly seemed\nclear that they found their warrant and application in the unexampled\nriddle of the persistence and success, throughout more than two\nthousand years and a thousand vicissitudes, of the Jewish people. It is\ntrue that we have here no exception to the apparent law that Empires\nare mortal, for within this period there never was a Jewish Empire: the\nJews were never subject to the risk involved for racial or inherent\nprogress by the possession of great acquired powers. But just as the\nfall of Empires has often _not_ been the fall of races--various races\nhaving at various times carried on the same Imperial tradition--so\nthe persistence of the Jews, as contrasted with the impermanence of\nEmpires, _has_ been the persistence of a race. I believe that the\nprinciples already laid down offer us an adequate explanation of this\nunique case: and further, that if we had begun with the case of the\nJews, endeavouring, by the investigation of their case, to explain the\ncontrasted case of other races and of all Empires hitherto, we should\nhave arrived at the same principles.\n\nIt has been asserted that that race or people decays in which selection\nceases or is reversed; that in the absence of selection of the\nworthy for parenthood, no species, vegetable, animal or human, can\nprosper--much less progress. Now the Jews, the one human race of which\nwe know assuredly that it has persisted unimpaired, have been the most\ncontinuously and stringently selected of any race, I suppose, that can\nbe named. Every measure of persecution and repression practised against\nthem by the people amongst whom they have lived, has directly tended\ntowards the very end which those people least desired to compass.\nOther peoples found themselves prosperous through the efforts of their\nfathers; the struggle for existence abated; it was, so to say, as fit\nto be unfit as to be fit--with the inevitable result. But this has\nnever been the case of the Jews. They have always had to struggle for\nlife intensely: and their unexampled struggle has been a great source\nof their unexampled strength. The Jew who was a weakling or a fool\nhad no chance at all; the weaklings and the fools being weeded out,\nintensity and strength of mind became the common heritage of this\namazing people.\n\nSecondly, there was everything to favour motherhood. Here religious\nprecept and ethical tradition joined with stem necessity to the same\nend--the end which always meant a new and strong beginning for the next\ngeneration. Even to-day all observers are agreed that infant mortality\nis at a minimum amongst the Jews; their children are superior in height\nand weight and chest measurement to Gentile children brought up amidst\npoverty far less intense in our own great cities; _in a better material\nenvironment, but a far inferior maternal environment_. The Jewish\nmother is the mother of children innately superior, on the average,\nsince they are the fruit of such long ages of stringent parental\nselection, and she makes more of them because she fails to nurse them\nonly in the rarest cases, when she has no choice, and because in\nevery detail her maternal care is incomparably superior to that of\nher Gentile sister. Given a high standard of motherhood in a highly\nselected race, what other result than that we daily witness and envy\ncan we expect?\n\nThirdly, the Jews do not abuse alcohol, and thus avoid one of the few\ncauses of true racial degeneration apart from selection of the worst\nfor parenthood.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIf these principles are valid, it is evident that our redemption from\nthe fate of all our predecessors is to be found only in Eugenics--the\nselection of the best for parenthood. In his address to the\nSociological Society in 1904, in which he defined this term, Mr. Galton\nnamed as one of the duties before the Society, \u201chistorical enquiry\ninto the rates with which the various classes of society (classified\naccording to civic usefulness) have contributed to the population at\nvarious times, in ancient and modern nations.\u201d \u201cThere is strong reason\nfor believing,\u201d he continued, \u201cthat national rise and decline is\nclosely connected with this influence.\u201d[81]\n\n=What is a good environment?=--Using the word environment in its widest\nsense, including, for instance, public opinion--and its use in any\nsense less wide is always erroneous and misleading--we may say that it\nis our business to provide the environment which selects the best for\nparenthood and discourages the parenthood of the worst--say the deaf\nand dumb, the feeble-minded, the insane, the epileptic, the inebriate,\nthose afflicted with hereditary disease of other kinds, and so forth.\nOur principles should enable us, also, I think, to define what we\nmean by a good environment. Comprehensive and indiscriminate charity\nmeans a good environment for many in a sense, but it may also mean the\nselection of the worst for parenthood--_e.g._, the feeble-minded. This\n\u201cgood\u201d environment _then_ means the degeneration of the race. We must\ntherefore _appraise environment in terms of its selective action_.\nA good environment is that which selects the good, and the best\nenvironment is that which selects the best; discovers them, makes the\nutmost of them, and confers upon them the supreme privilege and duty of\nparenthood. That and that alone is the best environment, and all other\nmoral judgments upon environment are fallacious and will be disastrous.\n\n=The necessary conclusion.=--National Eugenics teaches that the first\nduty of all governments and patriots and good citizens is, to quote\nRuskin again, \u201cthe production and recognition of human worth, the\ndetection and extinction of human unworthiness.\u201d The idea is not\nnew-fangled, but was clearly laid down by Plato, and by Theognis two\ncenturies before him.\n\nEugenics is a project of the most elevated and provident morality,\naiming at no object less sublime than the ennoblement of mankind; and\nif one may suggest its motto it would be, _The products of progress\nare not mechanisms but men_. It is based upon the principle of the\nselection or choice of the superior for parenthood, which has been\nthe essential factor of all progress in the world of life, but which\nall civilisations have tended in some degree to abrogate--or even to\nreverse, as when the feeble-minded child is cared for till maturity and\nsent out into the world to produce its like, whilst healthy children\nare daily destroyed by ignorance and neglect.\n\n\u201cThrough Nature only can we ascend\u201d--and the merit of the eugenic\nproposal is that it is built upon \u201cthe solid ground of nature.\u201d\n\nTo the economist, it declares that _the culture of the racial life is\nthe vital industry of any people_.\n\nIt is to work through marriage, an institution more ancient than\nmankind, and supremely valuable in its services to childhood--with\nwhich lies all human destiny.\n\nEugenics appeals to the individual, asking for a little imagination,\nwhich will make us realise that the future will one day be the present\nand that to serve it is to serve no fiction or phantom, but a reality\nas real as the present generation.\n\nIt teaches the responsibility of the noblest and most sacred of all\nprofessions, which is parenthood, and it makes a sober and dignified\nclaim to be regarded as a constituent of the religion of the future.\n\nIt goes to the root of the matter; where the well-meaning, but\nshort-sighted, pin their faith on the hospitals, the eugenist seeks\nto brand the transmission of hereditary disease as a crime, and thus\nliterally to extirpate it altogether.\n\nThat its methods are practicable is proved by the fact that it is\npractised--as by the northern society for the \u201c_permanent_ care of the\nfeeble-minded,\u201d which serves the present and the future simultaneously\nand reconciles the law of love with the earlier law of nature--which\nasserts that parenthood must be denied to the unworthy--without blame\nor malice, but without exception. It suggests the principles of a New\nImperialism, and offers, I submit, our sole chance of escape from the\nfate which has overtaken all previous civilisations. It honours men and\nwomen by declaring that human parenthood is crowned with responsibility\nto the unborn, and to all time coming, and that man, the animal in\nbody, is also a self-conscious being, \u201clooking before and after,\u201d who\nis human because he is responsible, and to whom the laws of nature have\nbeen revealed, not to satisfy an intellectual curiosity, but for the\nhighest end conceivable--the elevation of his race.\n\nLet me quote a fine passage from Wordsworth's \u201cPrelude\u201d:--\n\n    \u201cWith settling judgments now of what would last\n    And what would disappear; prepared to find\n    Presumption, folly, madness, in the men\n    Who thrust themselves upon the passive world\n    As Rulers of the world; to see in these,\n    Even when the public welfare is their aim,\n    Plans without thought, or built on theories\n    Vague and unsound; and having brought the books\n    Of modern statists to their proper test,\n    Life, human life, with all its sacred claims\n    Of sex and age, and heaven-descended rights,\n    Mortal, or those beyond the reach of death;\n    And having thus discerned how dire a thing\n    Is worshipped in that idol proudly named\n    \u2018The Wealth of Nations\u2019; where alone that wealth\n    Is lodged, and how increased; and having gained\n    A more judicious knowledge of the worth\n    And dignity of individual man,\n    No composition of the brain, but man\n    Of whom we read, the man whom we behold\n    With our own eyes--I could not but enquire--\n    Not with less interest than heretofore,\n    But greater, though in spirit more subdued--\n    Why is this glorious creature to be found\n    One only in ten thousand? What one is,\n    Why may not millions be? What bars are thrown\n    By Nature in the way of such a hope?\u201d\n\nConsider how far we have come, the base degrees by which we did ascend,\nand answer with Shakespeare, \u201cThere are many events in the womb of\ntime which will be delivered.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XVI\n\n              NATIONAL EUGENICS: MR. BALFOUR ON DECADENCE\n\n  (1) \u201cIf the various checks specified in the two last paragraphs,\n  and perhaps others as yet unknown, do not prevent the reckless, the\n  vicious, and otherwise inferior members of society from increasing\n  at a quicker rate than the better class of men, the nation will\n  retrograde, as has too often occurred in the history of the world.\n  We must remember that progress is no invariable rule. It is very\n  difficult to say why one civilised nation rises, becomes more\n  powerful, and spreads more widely, than another; or why the same\n  nation progresses more quickly at one time than at another. We can\n  only say that it depends on an increase in the actual number of the\n  population, on the number of the men endowed with high intellectual\n  and moral faculties, as well as on their standard of excellence.\n  Corporeal structure appears to have little influence, except so far\n  as vigour of body leads to vigour of mind.\u201d--Darwin, _The Descent of\n  Man_, 1871.\n\n  (2) Referring to \u201cthe rates with which the various classes of\n  society (classified according to civic usefulness) have contributed\n  to the population at various times, in ancient and modern nations,\u201d\n  Mr. Francis Galton said \u201cthere is strong reason for believing\n  that national rise and decline is closely connected with this\n  influence.\u201d--Galton, _Sociological Papers_, 1904, p. 47.\n\n  (3) \u201cThe inexplicable decline and fall of nations following from no\n  apparent external cause receives instant light from the relative\n  fertility of the fitter and unfitter elements combined with what we\n  now know of the laws of inheritance.\u201d[82]--Pearson, 1904.\n\n  (4) To the question, What were the causes of the fall of\n  Rome? Mr. Balfour replies, \u201cI feel disposed to answer,\n  Decadence.\u201d[83]--Balfour, 1908.\n\n\nThe lecture of which the previous chapter is the written form was\nprepared and delivered before I had an opportunity of seeing Mr. A. J.\nBalfour's lecture on \u201cDecadence\u201d delivered a few days before. That has\nsince been printed, and is well worthy of our attention. In Mr. Balfour\nwe have a representative political thinker, an experimental statesman\nand, furthermore, a former President of the British Association, deeply\ninterested in, and favourably disposed towards, scientific enquiry and\nthe scientific method. Further, this lecture has been widely noticed,\nthough all the criticisms I have seen seem to me to miss the point.\nNo apology, then, is necessary for a special discussion of this most\nsuggestive lecture in direct relation with the foregoing theory of its\nsubject.\n\nPolitical and national decadence is Mr. Balfour's theme, and we note\nfirst that here is a contemporary thinker, not unread in recent\nbiology, including the work of Weismann, who is prepared to make use\nof the idea that societies are inherently mortal, as individuals are.\nOne wonders when we shall be rid of this pernicious instance of the\nargument from analogy, which is already much more than two thousand\nyears old.\n\nNext it may be noticed that, though Mr. Balfour has deliberately\ndiscussed the idea of natural selection, he has been led wholly\nastray from its true relation to the question under discussion by\nreason of falling into the common error which Sir E. Ray Lankester\nhas recently exposed, as Huxley did several decades ago. Mr. Balfour\nconceives natural selection to issue from the struggle for existence\nbetween species or societies. It has already been pointed out that the\nall-important natural selection is not between species or societies\nbut within them. The struggle for existence is fought out mainly\nbetween the immature individuals of any species or society. Its issue\ndetermines the survivors for parenthood and the future. Mr. Balfour\nmust have read Professor Ray Lankester's recent Romanes Lecture in\nwhich all this is so clearly shown, but he has unfortunately retained\nthe popular conception of natural selection as acting between species\nor societies, and has in consequence failed, I will not say to find,\nbut even to discuss in any adequate measure, the theory of racial\nand national decadence, defined in the preceding chapter. He merely\ndiscusses \u201ccompetition between groups of communities,\u201d and rightly\nfinds it inadequate to account for the great tragedies of history.\n\nThere follows a passage which may be heartily assented to, on the very\ngrounds on which the entire lecture may be welcomed, namely, that\nit suggests the inadequacy of the common explanations of national\ndecadence advanced by historians. Says Mr. Balfour:--\n\n  \u201cIt is in vain that historians enumerate the public calamities which\n  preceded, and no doubt contributed to, the final catastrophe. Civil\n  dissensions, military disasters, pestilences, famines, tyrants,\n  tax-gatherers, growing burdens, and waning wealth--the gloomy\n  catalogue is unrolled before our eyes, yet somehow it does not in all\n  cases wholly satisfy us: we feel that some of these diseases are of a\n  kind which a vigorous body politic should easily be able to survive,\n  that others are secondary symptoms of some obscurer malady, and that\n  in neither case do they supply us with the full explanation of which\n  we are in search.\u201d\n\nOne must heartily thank the author for the abundant demonstration\nwhich follows, well warranting our feeling that these explanations do\nnot suffice--nor yet, in the case of Rome, diminution of population,\nnor the \u201cbrutalities of the gladiatorial shows,\u201d nor \u201cthe gratuitous\ndistribution of bread to the urban mobs,\u201d nor yet slavery, lately\ndeclared, by Mr. W. R. Paterson, in his _Nemesis of Nations_, to be\n_the_ cause of the fall of empires. As Mr. Balfour says, \u201cWho can\nbelieve that this immemorial custom could, in its decline, destroy\nthe civilisation which, in its vigour, it had helped to create?\u201d It\nwould have been more important, perhaps, to consider, as Mr. Balfour\ndoes not, the latest view, advanced by Professor Ronald Ross, that the\nincursion of malaria may have had something to do with the fall of Rome.\n\n=Mr. Balfour's theory--decadence the cause of decadence.=--Mr. Balfour\nthen falls back upon \u201cdecadence \"as the explanation, and to the\ncritic of this elegant hypothesis that decadence is due to decadence,\nreplies that it is something to recognise the possibility of \"subtle\nchanges in the social tissues of old communities.\u201d One regrets all\nthe more that he should not have considered anti-eugenic practices\nas possibly accounting for these subtle changes. One must, however,\nquote the excellent passage in which Mr. Balfour supports his use of\nthe word decadence, though one utterly disagrees with the suggestion\nthat the term \u201cold age\u201d might be its equivalent. He says: \u201cThe facile\ngeneralisations with which we so often season the study of dry historic\nfact; the habits of political discussion which induce us to catalogue\nfor purposes of debate the outward signs that distinguish (as we are\nprone to think) the standing from the falling state, hide the obscurer,\nbut more potent, forces which silently prepare the fate of empires.\u201d\n\nWe may note with interest (and surely with surprise when we consider\nJapan and Spain and the China of to-morrow), Mr. Balfour's rejection\nof the doctrine that \u201carrested progress, and even decadence, may be\nbut the prelude to a new period of vigorous growth. So that even those\nraces or nations which seem frozen into eternal immobility may base\nupon experience their hopes of an awakening spring.\u201d It is, I fancy,\nMr. Balfour's fondness for the Platonic idea of senility in the race\nas in the individual, that leads him to question what can surely\nbe no longer denied. Thus a little later we find him saying, \u201c_If\ncivilisations wear out, and races become effete_, why should we expect\nto progress indefinitely, why for us alone is the doom of man to be\nreversed?\u201d\n\nNowhere in this lecture is there any recognition of what, I confess,\nseems to me to be an obvious and necessary truth, the distinction\nbetween the two kinds of progress--racial progress due to the choice\nof the best for parenthood, and acquired or traditional progress. It\nmay be suggested that no one can usefully discuss decadence or progress\nuntil he has seen and perceived this absolutely cardinal distinction,\nsuggested in my Royal Institution lectures in February, 1907, as one\nof the great lessons taught by the study of biology to the student of\nprogress.\n\nMr. Balfour does indeed avoid all those false solutions which depend\nupon a Lamarckian belief in the transmission of acquired characters.\nThis, however, instead of leading him to insist upon the Darwinian\ncontribution to the study of decadence--the idea of _selection_--causes\nhim to regard the racial question as unimportant. He notes one or\ntwo of the fashions in which the quality of a race may be modified,\nthus influencing national character, and then dismisses this question\n(wherein, as I cannot doubt, everything material lies) with the remark,\n\u201cBut such changes are not likely, I suppose, to be considerable,\nexcept perhaps those due to the mixture of races--and that only in new\ncountries.\u201d--Reaching page 45, the reader finds himself confident that\nnow at length the writer has put his finger on the crux of the problem.\nYet that is how he dismisses it; adding, indeed, to make it quite\nclear, the following words: \u201cThe flexible element in any society, that\nwhich is susceptible of progress or decadence, must therefore be looked\nfor rather in the physical and psychical conditions affecting the life\nof its component units, than in their inherited constitution.\u201d\n\nNot a word as to cessation of selection! This omission, which is,\nindeed, the omission of _the_ fact of decadence, mainly depends, one\nfancies, upon that erroneous conception of natural selection as acting\nbetween species and societies rather than within them, which for so\nmany decades the biologist has been at pains to correct. One would\nindeed have thought that, for a scholar and student like Mr. Balfour,\nWordsworth's great sonnet would have sufficed to set up a train of\nthought which, fusing with ordinary biological principles, would have\nled him to what I believe to be the truth. Let us for a moment turn to\nits consideration:--\n\n    \u201cWhen I have borne in memory what has tamed\n    Great Nations, how ennobling thoughts depart\n    When men change swords for ledgers....\u201d\n\nShould not this be enough to suggest to us the real meaning of the\nconsequence which has followed when men changed swords for ledgers,\nand which even those who hate war as a vile blasphemy against life\nmust recognise? It is that, as we have seen, when a nation is making\nits way there is selection of the fittest by the stern arbitrament of\nwar, in which the battle is to the individually strong and fleet and\nbrave and quick-witted. Later, \u201cwhen men change swords for ledgers,\u201d\nselection ceases; and that is why nothing fails like success. Yet later\nstill, as France should know, selection by war must take the form of\nreversed selection, the flower of a nation's youth being immolated on\nthe battle-field, whilst its future is determined by the weak and small\nand diseased, whom the recruiting sergeant rejects. \u201cYou are not good\nenough to be a soldier,\u201d he says; \u201cstay at home and be a father.\u201d That\nwas what Napoleon did for France.\n\nBut to return--for the relations of war to eugenics would really demand\na volume--it may be noted that, though rejecting the Lamarckian\ntheory--the theory on which nothing should succeed like success--Mr.\nBalfour nowhere emphasises the amazing paradox of history that nothing\nfails like success. If we consider this fact with the idea of natural\nselection in our minds (not between societies but within them), we\ncannot fail to perceive that success involves failure because it\ninvolves failure of selection, and therefore indiscriminate survival;\nor indeed, survival of the worst.\n\n=Politics and domestics.=--It is, perhaps, a noteworthy comment upon\nwhat may be called the political state of mind, that even when the idea\nof natural selection has entered it, the bias is towards associating it\nwith international and not with intra-national or domestic politics.\nThe time will come, however, when the politician--or shall we say\nthe statesman?--realises that it is the domestic policy, it is the\ninternal struggle for survival within a society, that conditions\nand fore-ordains all international politics. The history of nations\nis determined not on the battlefield but in the nursery, and the\nbattalions which give lasting victory are battalions of babies. _The\npolitics of the future will be domestics._\n\nHaving rejected so many solutions of his problem, and having ignored\nthe solution which is advanced in this volume, Mr. Balfour is reduced\nto such desperate resorts as phrases like this: \u201cThe point at which\nthe energy of advance is exhausted\u201d--a mere meaningless phrase; and\neven such an explanation as that through \u201cmere weariness of spirit the\ncommunity resigns itself to ... stagnation.\u201d One is inclined to throw\nup one's hands and ask--Do you, then, who deny the Lamarckian theory,\nsuppose that the fresh children come into the world with this \u201cmere\nweariness of spirit\u201d? Has this been observed in children? Is there\nanything conceivable that has been less observed in children, in all\ntimes and all places? And if that be so, what kind of explanation of\ndecadence is this?\n\n=Science and industry.=--Lastly, in a series of fine passages, Mr.\nBalfour offers us some hope in the help of science. Politics, says our\nex-Premier, too often means \u201cthe barren exchange of one set of tyrants\nor jobbers, for another\u201d: a Daniel come to judgment. We owe the modern\nspirit and modern progress, he tells us, neither to politicians nor to\npolitical institutions, nor to theologians nor to philosophers, but\nto science, which, he well says, \u201cis the great instrument of social\nchange, all the greater because its object is not change but knowledge;\nand its silent appropriation of this dominant function, amid the\ndin of political and religious strife, is the most vital of all the\nrevolutions which have marked the development of modern civilisation.\u201d\n\nAnd our cause of hope is \u201ca social force, new in magnitude if not in\nkind ... the modern alliance between pure science and industry.\u201d To\nthis I answer a thousand times yes, but I must define the kind of\nindustry. It is the culture of the racial life which is the vital\nindustry of any nation, and which Mr. Balfour has not even distantly\nalluded to. I agree that our hope for the future is to be found in\nscience: that, as has been said already, perchance our acquired or\ntraditional progress in knowledge has now reached the point at which we\nhave sufficient to reveal to us the necessity of racial progress and\nthe means by which that may be effected.\n\n\u201cScience and industry,\u201d--yes, indeed! But the industry is to be the\nmaking not of machines but men. _The products of progress are not\nmechanisms but men_, and one may now ask, What is the industry whose\nproducts can be named in the same breath with the men and women who\nshall yet be produced by the supreme industry of race-culture?\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XVII\n\n                      THE PROMISE OF RACE-CULTURE\n\n                        \u201cThe best is yet to be.\u201d\n\n\nIn its form of what we have called _negative_ eugenics, the practice\nof our principle would assuredly reduce to an incalculable extent the\namount of human defect, mental and physical, which each generation\nnow exhibits. This alone, as has been said, would be far more than\nsufficient to justify us. A world without hereditary disease of mind\nand body, and its grave social consequences, would alone warrant the\nhint of Ruskin that posterity may some day look back upon us with\n\u201cincredulous disdain.\u201d Yet, assuming that this could be accomplished,\nas it will be accomplished, what more is to be hoped for? Must\nrace-culture cease merely when it has raised the average of the\ncommunity by reducing to a minimum the proportion of those who are\nthus grossly defective in mind or body? Such disease apart, are we to\nbe content, must we be content, with the present level of mediocrity\nin respect of intelligence and temper and moral sentiment? Can we\nanticipate a London in which the present ratio of musical comedy\nto great opera will be reversed, in which the works of Mr. George\nMeredith will sell in hundreds of thousands, whilst some of our popular\nnovelists will have to find other means of earning a living? Can we\nmake for a critical democracy which no political party can fool, and\nwhich will choose its best to govern it? Yet more, can we undertake,\nnow or hereafter, to provide every generation with its own Shakespeare\nand Beethoven and Tintoretto and Newton? What, in a word, is the\npromise of _positive_ eugenics? It is to this aspect of the question\nthat Mr. Galton has mainly directed himself. Indeed he was led to\nformulate the principles and ideals of the new science by his study of\nhereditary genius some four decades ago. Let us now attempt to answer\nsome of these questions.\n\n=The production of genius.=--And first as to the production of genius.\nIt is this, perhaps, that has been the main butt of the jesters who\npass for philosophers with some of us to-day. It may be said at once\nthat neither Mr. Galton nor any other responsible person has ever\nasserted that we can produce genius at will. The difficulties in the\nway of such a project--at present--are almost innumerable. One or two\nmay be cited.\n\nIn the first place, there is the cardinal--but by no means\nuniversal--difficulty that the genius is too commonly so occupied with\nthe development and expansion of his own individuality that he has\nlittle time or energy for the purposes of the race. This, of course, is\nan example of Spencer's great generalisation as to the antagonism or\ninverse ratio between individuation and genesis.\n\nAgain, there is the generalisation of heredity formulated by Mr.\nGalton, and named by him the _law of regression towards mediocrity_.\nIt asserts that the children of those who are above or below the mean\nof a race, tend to return towards that mean. The children of the born\ncriminal will be probably somewhat less criminal in tendency than he,\nthough more criminal than the average citizen. The children of the\nman of genius, if he has any, will probably be nearer mediocrity than\nhe, though on the average possessing greater talent than the average\ncitizen. It is thus not in the nature of sheer genius to reproduce\non its own level. It is only the critics who are wholly ignorant of\nthe elementary facts of heredity that attribute to the eugenist an\nexpectation of which no one knows the absurdity so well as he does.\n\nOn the other hand, it is impossible to question that the hereditary\ntransmission of genius or great talent does occur. One may cite at\nrandom such cases as that of the Bach family, Thomas and Matthew\nArnold, James and John Stuart Mill: and the reader who is inclined\nto believe that there is no law or likelihood in this matter, must\ncertainly make himself acquainted with Mr. Galton's _Hereditary\nGenius_, and with such a paper as that which he printed in\n_Sociological Papers_, 1904, furnishing an \u201cindex to achievements of\nnear kinsfolk of some of the Fellows of the Royal Society.\u201d There is,\nof course, the obvious fallacy involved in the possibility that not\nheredity but environment was really responsible for many of these\ncases. It must have been a great thing to have such a father as James\nMill. But it would be equally idle to imagine that the evidence can\nbe dismissed with this criticism. A Matthew Arnold, a John Stuart\nMill, could not be manufactured out of any chance material by an ideal\neducation continued for a thousand years.\n\n=The transmission of genius.=--One single instance of the transmission\nof genius or great talent in a family may be cited. We shall take the\nfamily which produced Charles Darwin, the discoverer of the fundamental\nprinciple of eugenics, and his first cousin, Francis Galton. Darwin's\ngrandfather was Erasmus Darwin, physician, poet and philosopher, and\nindependent expounder of the doctrine of organic evolution. Darwin's\nfather was a distinguished physician, described by his son as \u201cthe\nwisest man I ever knew.\u201d Darwin's maternal grandfather was Josiah\nWedgwood, the famous founder of the pottery works. Amongst his first\ncousins is Mr. Francis Galton. He has five living sons, each a man of\ngreat distinction, including Mr. Francis Darwin and Sir George Darwin,\nboth of them original thinkers, honoured by the presidency of the\nBritish Association. No one will put such a case as this down to pure\nchance or to the influence of environment alone. This is evidently,\nlike many others, a greatly distinguished stock. The worth of such\nfamilies to a nation is wholly beyond any one's powers of estimation.\nWhat if Erasmus Darwin had never married!\n\nNo student of human heredity can doubt that, however limited our\nimmediate hopes, facts such as those alluded to furnish promise of\ngreat things for the future. But let us turn now from genius to what we\nusually call talent.\n\n=The production of talent.=--There can be no question that amongst\nthe promises of race-culture is the possibility of breeding such\nthings as talent and the mental energy upon which talent so largely\ndepends. In his _Inquiries into Human Faculty_, Mr. Galton shows the\nremarkable extent to which energy or the capacity for labour underlies\nintellectual achievement. He says, of energy--\n\n  \u201cIt is consistent with all the robust virtues, and makes a large\n  practice of them possible. It is the measure of fulness of life; the\n  more energy the more abundance of it; no energy at all is death;\n  idiots are feeble and listless. In the enquiries I made on the\n  antecedents of men of science no points came out more strongly than\n  that the leaders of scientific thought were generally gifted with\n  remarkable energy, and that they had inherited the gift of it from\n  their parents and grandparents. I have since found the same to be\n  the case in other careers.... It may be objected that if the race\n  were too healthy and energetic there would be insufficient call\n  for the exercise of the pitying and self-denying virtues, and the\n  character of men would grow harder in consequence. But it does not\n  seem reasonable to preserve sickly breeds for the sole purpose of\n  tending them, as the breed of foxes is preserved solely for sport\n  and its attendant advantages. There is little fear that misery will\n  ever cease from the land, or that the compassionate will fail to\n  find objects for their compassion; but at present the supply vastly\n  exceeds the demand: the land is over-stocked and over-burdened with\n  the listless and the incapable. In any scheme of eugenics, energy is\n  the most important quality to favour; it is, as we have seen, the\n  basis of living action, and it is eminently transmissible by descent.\u201d\n\nNeed it be pointed out that any political system which ceases to favour\nor actively disfavours energy, making it as profitable to be lazy as to\nbe active, is anti-eugenic, and must inevitably lead to disaster? That,\nhowever, by the way. Our present point is that eugenics can reasonably\npromise, when its principles are recognised, to multiply the human[84]\nand diminish the vegetable type in the community. In so doing, it\nwill greatly further the production of talent, and therefore of that\ntraditional or acquired progress which men of talent and genius create.\nSuch a result will also further, though indirectly, the production\nof genius itself. For, as Mr. Galton points out, \u201cmen of an order of\nability which is now very rare, would become more frequent, because the\nlevel out of which they rose would itself have risen.\u201d\n\nThis is by no means the only fashion in which an effective and\npracticable race-culture would serve genius, and I shall not be blamed\nfor considering this matter further by any reader who realises, however\nfaintly, what the man of genius is worth to the world. If it were shown\npossible to establish such social conditions that genius could never\nflower in them, we should realise that their establishment would mean\nthe putting of an end to progress and the blasting of all the highest\nhopes of the highest of all ages.\n\nThe immediate need of this age, as of all ages, is perhaps not so much\nthe birth of babies capable of developing into men and women of genius,\nas the full exploitation of the possibilities of genius with which,\nas I fancy, every generation on the average is about as well endowed\nas any other. There is, of course, the popular doctrine that there are\nno mute inglorious Miltons, that \u201cgenius will out,\u201d and that therefore\nif it does not appear, it is not there to appear. In expressing the\ncompelling power of genius in many cases, this doctrine is not without\ntruth. Yet history abounds in instances where genius has been destroyed\nby environment--and we can only guess how many more instances there\nare of which history has no record. To take the single case of musical\ngenius, it is a lamentable thought that there may be those now living\nwhose natural endowments, in a favourable environment, would have\nenabled them to write symphonies fit to place beside Beethoven's, but\nwhom some environmental factors--conventional, economic, educational,\nor what not--have silenced; or worse, have persuaded to write such\nsterile nullities as need not here be instanced. There is surely no\nwaste in all this wasteful world so lamentable as this waste of genius.\n\nIf, then, anyone could devise for us a means by which the genius,\npotentially existing at any time, were realised, he would have\nperformed in effect a service equivalent to that of which eugenics\nrepudiates the present possibility--the actual creation of genius. But\nif we consider what the conditions are which cause the waste of genius,\nwe realise at once that they mainly inhere in the level of the human\nenvironment of the priceless potentiality in question. As we noted\nelsewhere, in an age like that of Pericles genius springs up on all\nhands. It is encouraged and welcomed because the average level of the\nhuman environment in which it finds itself is so high. But if eugenics\ncan raise the average level of intelligence, in so doing not merely\ndoes it render more likely, as Mr. Galton points out, the production\nof men of the highest ability, but it provides those conditions in\nwhich men of genius, now swamped, can swim. We could not undertake\nto produce a Shakespeare, but we might reasonably hope to produce a\ngeneration which would not damage or destroy its Shakespeares. And even\nif men of genius still found it necessary, as men of genius have found\nit necessary, to \u201cplay to the gallery,\u201d they would play, as Mr. Galton\nsays of the demagogue in a eugenic age, \u201cto a more sensible gallery\nthan at present.\u201d\n\nDarwin somewhere points out that it is not the scientific, but the\nunscientific man who denies future possibilities. Thus though an\nadvocate of eugenics may be applauded for his judgment if he declares\nthat the creation of genius will for ever be impossible, yet I should\nnot care to assert that the ultimate limitations of eugenics can thus\nbe defined. We have yet to hear the last of Mendelism.\n\n=Eugenics and unemployment.=--Let us look now at another aspect of\nthe promise of race-culture. When the time comes that quality rather\nthan quantity is the ideal of those who concern themselves with the\npopulation question, it is quite evident that not a few of the social\nproblems which we now find utterly insoluble will disappear. In\nthis brief outline, we can only allude to one or two points. Take,\nfor instance, the question of unemployment. We know that some by no\nmeans small proportion of the unemployed were really destined to be\nunemployable from the first, as for instance by reason of hereditary\ndisease. It were better for them and for us had they never been\nborn. Many more of the unemployed have been made unemployable by the\ninfluence of over-crowding, to which they were subjected in their\nyears of development. Is there, can there be, any real and permanent\nremedy for over-crowding, but the erection of parenthood into an act of\npersonal and provident responsibility?\n\n=Eugenics and woman.=--Take, again, the woman question. No one will\ndeny that in many of its gravest forms, especially in its economic\nform, and the question of the employment of women, wisely or horribly,\nthis depends (to a degree which few, I think, realise) upon the\nfact that there are now, for instance, 1,300,000 women in excess in\nthis country. Is it then proposed, the reader will say, by means of\nrace-culture to exterminate the superfluous woman? Indeed, no. But is\nthe reader aware that Nature is not responsible for the existence of\nthe superfluous woman? There are more boys than girls born in the ratio\nof about 103 or 104 to 100: and Nature means them all to live, boys and\ngirls alike. If they did so live, we should have merely the problem of\nthe superfluous man, which would not be an economic problem at all.\nBut we destroy hosts of all the children that are born, and since male\norganisms are in general less resistant than female organisms, we\ndestroy a disproportionate number of boys, so that the natural balance\nof the sexes is inverted. Unlike ancient societies, we largely practise\n_male_ infanticide. Can the reader believe that there is any permanent\nand final means of arresting this wastage of child-life, with its\nsingular and far-reaching consequences,--other than the elevation of\nparenthood, on the principles which race-culture enjoins, even wholly\napart from the question of the selection of parents? We shall not\nsucceed in keeping all the children alive (with a trivial number of\nexceptions), thereby abolishing the superfluous woman by keeping alive\nthe boy who should have grown up to be her partner, until we greatly\nreduce the birth-rate; as it must and will be reduced when the ideal of\nrace-culture is realised, and no child comes into the world that is not\nalready loved and desired in anticipation.\n\n=Eugenics and cruelty to children.=--This ideal, also, offers us in its\nrealisation the only complete remedy for the present ghastly cruelty\nunder which so many children suffer even in Great Britain, even in the\ntwentieth century. Is the reader aware that the National Society for\nthe Prevention of Cruelty to Children enquired into the ill-treatment\nor cruel neglect of 115,000 children in the year beginning April 1st,\n1906? It has been reasonably and carefully estimated that \u201cover half a\nmillion children are involved in the total of the wastage of child-life\nand the torture and neglect of child-life in a single year.\u201d Surely\nMr. G. R. Sims, to whom I would offer a hearty tribute for his recent\nservices to childhood, is justified in saying, \u201cAgainst the guilt of\nrace-suicide our men of science are everywhere preaching their sermons\nto-day. It is against the guilt of race-murder that the cry of the\nchildren should ring through the land.\u201d As regards race suicide and the\nmen of science, I am not so sure as to the assertion. But the truth of\nthe second sentence quoted is as indisputable as it is horrible.\n\nNow no legislation conceivable will wholly cure this evil nor avert its\nconsequences. At bottom it depends upon human nature, and you can cure\nit only by curing the defect of human nature. This, in general, is of\ncourse beyond the immediate powers of man, but evidently we should gain\nthe same end if only we could confine the advent of children to those\nparents who desired them--that is to say, those in whom human nature\ndisplayed the first, if not indeed almost the only, requisite for\nthe happiness of childhood. To this most beneficent and wholly moral\nend we shall come, notwithstanding the blind and pitiable guidance\nof most of our accredited moral teachers to-day. By no other means\nthan the realisation of the ideal defined, that every new baby shall\nbe loved and desired in anticipation--an ideal which is perfectly\npracticable--can the black stain of child murder and child torture and\nchild neglect be removed from our civilisation.\n\n=Ruskin and race-culture.=--The name of Ruskin, perhaps, would not\noccur to the reader as likely to afford support to the fair hopes of\nthe eugenist. Consider then, these words from _Time and Tide_:--\n\n  \u201cYou leave your marriages to be settled by supply and demand,\n  instead of wholesome law. And thus, among your youths and maidens,\n  the improvident, incontinent, selfish, and foolish ones marry,\n  whether you will or not; and beget families of children necessarily\n  inheritors in a great degree of these parental dispositions; and\n  for whom, supposing they had the best dispositions in the world,\n  you have thus provided, by way of educators, the foolishest fathers\n  and mothers you could find; (the only rational sentence in their\n  letters, usually, is the invariable one, in which they declare\n  themselves \u2018incapable of providing for their children's education\u2019).\n  On the other hand, whosoever is wise, patient, unselfish, and pure\n  among your youth, you keep maid or bachelor; wasting their best days\n  of natural life in painful sacrifice, forbidding them their best\n  help and best reward, and carefully excluding their prudence and\n  tenderness from any offices of parental duty. Is not this a beatific\n  and beautifully sagacious system for a Celestial Empire, such as that\n  of these British Isles?\u201d\n\nApart from the point as to wholesome law rather than the education of\nopinion as the eugenic means, the foregoing passage must win the assent\nand respect of every eugenist. It indicates the promise of race-culture\nas it appeared to John Ruskin. The passage has been quoted in full not\nfor the benefit of the ordinary thoughtful reader but for that of the\nprofessional literary man who, in this remarkable age, so far as I can\njudge, reads nothing but what he writes, and thus qualifies himself for\ndismissing Spencer or Darwin or Galton in any casual phrase--meanwhile\ncondemning Ruskin, whom he probably professes to adore.\n\n=Race-culture and human variety.=--Now let us turn to another question.\nLet it be asserted most emphatically that, if there is anything in the\nworld which eugenics or race-culture does _not_ promise or desire, it\nis the production of a uniform type of man. This delusion, for which\nthere has never been any warrant at all, possesses many of the critics\nof eugenics, and they have made pretty play with it, just as they do\nwith their other delusions. Let us note one or two facts which bear\nupon this most undesirable ideal.\n\nIn the first place, it is unattainable because of the existence of what\nwe call variation. No apparatus conceivable would suffice to eliminate\nfrom every generation those who varied from the accepted type.\n\nIn the second place, this uniformity is supremely undesirable from\nthe purely evolutionary point of view, because its attainment would\nmean the arrest of all progress. All organic evolution, as we know,\ndepends upon the struggle between creatures possessing variations and\nthe consequent selection of those variations which constitute their\npossessors best adapted or fitted to the particular environment.\nIf there is no variation there can be no evolution. To aim at the\nsuppression of variation, therefore, on supposed eugenic grounds (which\nwould be involved in aiming at any uniform type of mankind) would be to\naim at destroying the necessary condition of all racial progress. The\nmere fact that the critics of race-culture attribute to evolutionists,\nof all people, the desire to suppress variation, is a pathognomic\nsymptom of their critical quality.\n\nAnd, of course, quite independently of the evolutionary function of\nvariation--though this is cardinal and must never be forgotten by the\npolitician of any school, since what we call individuality is variation\non the human plane--the value of variation in ordinary life is wholly\nincalculable. It is not merely that, as Mr. Galton says, \u201cThere are\na vast number of conflicting ideals, of alternative characters, of\nincompatible civilisations; but they are wanted to give fulness and\ninterest to life. Society would be very dull if every man resembled the\nhighly estimable Marcus Aurelius or Adam Bede.\u201d The question is not\nmerely as to the interest of life. Much more important is the fact that\nit takes all sorts to make a world. What is the development of society\nbut the result of the psychological division of labour in the social\norganism? And how could such division of labour be carried out if we\nhad not various types of labourers? What would be the good of science\nif there were no poetry or music to live for? How would poetry and\nmusic help us if we had not men of science to protect our shores from\nplague?\n\nObviously the existence of men of most various types is a necessity\nfor any highly organised society. Even if eugenics were capable--as\nit is not--of producing a complete and balanced type, fit up to a\npoint to turn out a satisfactory poem, a satisfactory symphony or a\nsatisfactory sofa, the utmost could not be expected of such a man in\nany of these directions. In a word, as long as their activities are\nnot anti-social, men cannot be of too various types. We require mystic\nand mathematician, poet and pathologist. Only, we want good specimens\nof each. \u201cThe aim of eugenics,\u201d says Mr. Galton, \u201cis to represent\neach class or sect by its best specimens; that done, to leave them\nto work out their common civilisation in their own way.... Special\naptitudes would be assessed highly by those who possessed them, as the\nartistic faculties by artists, fearlessness of enquiry and veracity by\nscientists, religious absorption by mystics, and so on. There would be\nself-sacrificers, self-tormentors, and other exceptional idealists.\u201d\nBut at least it is better to have good rather than bad specimens of\nany kind, whatever that kind may be. Mr. Galton thinks that all except\ncranks would agree as to including health, energy, ability, manliness\nand courteous disposition amongst qualities uniformly desirable--alike\nin poet and pathologist. We should desire also uniformity as to the\nabsence of the anti-social proclivities of the born criminal. So much\nuniformity being granted, let us have with it the utmost conceivable\nvariety,--more, indeed, than most of us can conceive.\n\nThis point, of course, is cardinal from the point of view of practice.\nNo progress could be made with eugenics, it would be impossible even\nto form a Eugenics Education Society, if each of us were to regard the\nparticular type he belongs to as the ideal, and were to seek merely to\nobtain the best specimens of that type. The doctrine that it takes all\nsorts to make a world--a doctrine very hard for youth to learn, yet\nunconsciously learnt by all who are capable of learning at all--must be\nregarded as a cardinal truth for the eugenist. But he wisely seeks good\nspecimens rather than bad. Poets certainly, but not poetasters; jesters\ncertainly, but not clever fools, who stand Truth on her head and then\nmake street-boy gestures at her.\n\n=Time and its treasure.=--Taking the modern estimates of the\nphysicists, we are assured that the total period of past human\nexistence is very brief compared with what may reasonably be predicted.\nGranted, then, practically unlimited time, what inherent limits are\nthere to the upward development of man as a moral and intellectual\nbeing? Shall we answer this question by a study of the nature of\nmatter? Plainly not. Shall we answer it by a study of the nature of\nmind? Surely not, for the study of existing mind cannot inform us as\nto what mind might be. One source of guidance alone we have, and this\nis the amazing contrast which exists between the mind of man at its\nhighest, and mind in its humblest animal forms: or shall we say even\nbetween the highest and lowest manifestations of mind within the human\nspecies? The measureless height of the ascent thus indicated offers\nus no warrant for the conclusion that, as we stand on the heights\nof our life, our \u201cglimpse of a height that is higher\u201d is only an\nhallucination. On the contrary.\n\nThere is no warrant whatever for supposing that the forces which have\nbrought us thus far are yet exhausted: they have their origin in the\ninexhaustible. Who, gazing on the earth of a hundred million years\nago, could have predicted life--could have recognised, in the forces\nthen at work and the matter in which they were displayed, the promise\nand potency of all terrestrial life? Who, contemplating life at a much\nlater stage, even later mammalian, could have seen in the simian the\nprophecy of man? Who, examining the earliest nervous ganglia, could\nhave foreseen the human cerebrum? The fact that we can imagine nothing\nhigher than ourselves, that we make even our gods in our own image,\noffers no warrant for supposing that nothing higher will ever be,\nWhat ape could have predicted man, what reptile the bird, what am\u0153ba\nthe bee? \u201cThere are many events in the womb of time which will be\ndelivered,\u201d and the fairest of her sons and daughters are yet to be.\n\nBut even grant, for the sake of the argument, that the intelligence of\na Newton, the musical faculty of a Bach, the moral nature of any good\nmother anywhere, represent the utmost limits of which the evolution\nof the psychical is capable. There is every reason to deny this, but\nlet us for the moment assume it true. There still remains the thought\nof Wordsworth, \u201cWhat one is, why may not millions be?\u201d--a thought to\nwhich Spencer has also given utterance. What is shown possible for\nhuman nature here and there, he says, is conceivable for human nature\nat large. It is possible for a human being, whilst still remaining\nhuman, to be a Shakespeare or a St. Francis: these things are thus\ndemonstrably within the possibilities of human nature. It is therefore\nat the least conceivable that, in the course of almost infinite time\n(even assuming, say, that intelligence must ever be limited, as even\nNewton's intelligence was limited), some such capacities as his may be\ncommon property amongst men of the scientific type; and so with other\ntypes. We may answer Wordsworth that there is no bar thrown by Nature\nin the way of such a hope.\n\n=What is possible?=--This, of course, is speculation and of no\nimmediate value. I would merely remind the reader that the doctrine of\noptimism, as regards the future of mankind, which the principles of\nrace-culture assume and which they desire to justify, was definitely\nshared by the great pioneers to whom we owe our understanding of those\nprinciples. Notwithstanding grave nervous disorder, such as makes\npessimists of most men, both Darwin and Spencer were compelled by their\nstudy of Nature to this rational optimism as regards man's future.\nThe doctrine of organic evolution, and of the age-long ascent of man\nthrough the selection of the fittest (who have, _on the whole_, been\nthe _best_) for parenthood, is one not of despair but of hope. Exactly\nhalf a century ago it struck horror into the minds of our predecessors.\nMan, then, is only an erected ape, they thought--as if any historical\ndoctrine, however true, could shorten the dizzy distance to which man\nhas climbed since he was simian: and man being an ape, they thought\nhis high dreams palpably vain. But the measure of the accomplished\nhints at the measure of the possible, and the value of the historical\nfacts lies not in themselves, all facts as such being as dead as are\nthe individual atoms of the living body, but in the principles which\ngrow out of them. It is of no importance as such that man has simian\nancestors; it is of immeasurable importance that he should learn by\nwhat processes he has become human, and by what, indeed, they became\nsimian--which would have been a proud adjective for its own day. The\nprinciples of organic progress matter for us because they are the\nprinciples of race-culture, the only sure means of human progress. Our\nlooking backwards does not turn us into pillars of salt, but teaches us\nthat the best is yet to be, and how alone it is to be attained.\n\nElsewhere the optimistic argument of Wordsworth is quoted. Hear also\nJohn Ruskin:--\n\n  \u201cThere is as yet no ascertained limit to the nobleness of person and\n  mind which the human creature may attain, by persevering observance\n  of the laws of God respecting its birth and training.\u201d[85]\n\nand Herbert Spencer:--\n\n  \u201cWhat now characterises the exceptionally high may be expected\n  eventually to characterise all. For that which the best human nature\n  is capable of, is within the reach of human nature at large.\u201d[86]\n\nand Francis Galton:--\n\n  \u201cThere is nothing either in the history of domestic animals or in\n  that of evolution to make us doubt that a race of sane men may be\n  formed, who shall be as much superior, mentally and morally, to the\n  modern European, as the modern European is to the lowest of the Negro\n  races.\n\n  \u201cIt is earnestly to be hoped that enquiries will be increasingly\n  directed into historical facts, with the view of estimating the\n  possible effects of reasonable political action in the future, in\n  gradually raising the present miserably low standard of the human\n  race to one in which the Utopias in the dreamland of philanthropists\n  may become practical possibilities.\u201d[87]\n\n=Conclusion--Eugenics and Religion.=--In an early chapter it was\nattempted to show that eugenics is not merely moral, but is of the\nvery heart of morality. We saw that it involves taking no life, that,\nrather, it desires to make philanthropy more philanthropic, that, at\nany rate so far as this eugenist is concerned, it recognises and bows\nto the supreme law of love: and claims to serve that law, and the ideal\nof social morality, which is the making of human worth. Eugenics may or\nmay not be practicable, it may or may not be based upon natural truth,\nbut it is assuredly moral: though I, for one, would proclaim eternal\nwar between this real morality and the damnable sham which approves the\nunbridled transmission of the most hideous diseases, rotting body and\nsoul, in the interests of good.\n\nAnd if religion, whatever its origin and the more questionable chapters\nin its past, be now \u201cmorality touched with emotion,\u201d I claim that\neugenics is religious, is and will ever be a religion. Elsewhere[88]\nI have attempted to show that religion has survived and will survive\nbecause of its survival-value--its services to the life of the\nsocieties wherein it flourishes. The religion of the future, it was\nsought to argue, will be that which \u201cbest serves Nature's unswerving\ndesire--fulness of life.\u201d The Founder of the Christian religion said,\n\u201cI am come that ye might have life, and that ye might have it more\nabundantly.\u201d It is higher and more abundant life that is the eugenic\nideal. Progress I define as the emergence and increasing dominance of\nmind. Of progress, thus conceived, man is the highest fruit hitherto.\nHe is also its appointed agent, and eugenics is his instrument.\n\nTo this end he must use all the powers which have blossomed in him from\nthe dust. He must claim Art: and indeed in Wagner's great music-drama,\nat the moment when the prophetic Br\u00fcnnhilde tells Sieglinde who has\njust lost her mate that she, the expectant mother, may look for the\nresurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come in the child\nSiegfried; and when the heroic theme is pronounced for the first time\nand followed by that which signifies redemption by love--then, I think,\nthe eugenist may thrill not merely to the music, or to the humanity\nof the story, but to the spiritual and scientific truth which it\nsymbolises.\n\nIf the struggle towards individual perfection be religious, so,\nassuredly, is the struggle, less egoistic, indeed, towards racial\nperfection. If the historic meaning and purport of religion are as I\nconceive them, and if its future evolution may thence be inferred,\nthere can be no doubt in the prophecy that in ages to come those high\naspirations and spiritual visions which astronomy has dishoused from\namongst the stars, and which, at their best, were ever selfish, will\nfind a place on this human earth of ours. If we have transferred our\nhopes from heaven to earth and from ourselves to our children, they are\nnot less religious. And they that shall be of us shall build the old\nwaste places; for we shall raise up the foundations of many generations:\n\n    \u201cWe feed the high tradition of the world,\n    And leave our spirits in our children's breasts.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n                                APPENDIX\n\n                        CONCERNING BOOKS TO READ\n\n\nThe preceding pages are of course only tentative, preliminary and\nintroductory. I have merely tried to make a beginning. No better\npurpose can be achieved than that the reader should proceed to study\nthe subject for himself. A few pages may therefore be devoted to the\nnames of some of the books which will be found useful. This is in no\nsense a complete bibliography, nor even a tithe of such a bibliography.\nBut the reader who makes a beginning with the books here named, or even\nwith a well-chosen half dozen of them, will thereafter need no one to\ntell him that the culture of the human race on scientific principles\nwill be the supreme science of all the future, the supreme goal of all\nstatesmen, the object and the final judge of all legislation.\n\nWhere it is thought that useful remarks can be made they will be made,\nbut neither their presence nor absence nor their length is to be taken\nas any index to the writer's opinion of the relative value of the works\nin question.\n\n_Heredity._ (The Progressive Science Series, 1908.) By Professor J. A.\nThomson, M.A.\n\nThis is the most recent and most valuable for general purposes of all\nbooks on the subject of heredity. No layman should express opinions\non heredity or eugenics until he has read it, for it is extremely\nimprobable that they will be valuable. Professor Thomson covers the\nwhole ground with extreme lucidity and care and impartiality. The book\nis readable, nay more, fascinating from end to end, and it is liberally\nand usefully illustrated. It is the first general treatise on heredity\nwhich leads consciously, yet as of necessity, towards eugenics as the\ncrown and goal of the whole study, and in this respect it undoubtedly\nmarks an epoch.\n\n_The Methods and Scope of Genetics._ (1908.) By W. Bateson, M.A., F.R.S.\n\nThis is the inaugural lecture, destined, I have little doubt, to become\nhistoric, which was delivered by Professor Bateson on his appointment\nto the new Darwin Chair of Biology at Cambridge. It is purposely\nincluded here for very good reasons. The reader who begins his serious\nstudy of heredity with Professor Thomson's work must be informed that\nthough the author gives an interesting account of Mendelism, he is not\na Mendelian, and neither his account of Mendelism nor his estimate of\nit is at all adequate for the present day. In truth there is the study\nof heredity before Mendelism and after, and though eugenics owes its\nmodern origin to the founder of the school of biometrics, and though\namong his followers there are to be found many who decry and oppose the\nMendelians, it is for the eugenist of single purpose to take the truth\nwherever it is to be found. It is now idle to deny either the general\ntruth or the stupendous promise of Mendelism. Many vital phenomena\nbesides heredity are studied by the statistical method, and are put\ndown by it to heredity. The Mendelians take seeds of known origin, and\nplant them and note the result. They carry out experimental breeding\nnot only amongst plants but amongst the higher animals, including\nmammals who, in all essentials of structure and function, are one with\nourselves. It is not possible, I believe, to over-estimate the supreme\nimportance of Mendelian enquiry for eugenics. Eugenics is founded\nupon heredity, and genetics, which is Professor Bateson's name for\nthe physiology of heredity and variation, is now working at the very\nheart of those natural phenomena upon which eugenics depends. This\nlecture of Professor Bateson's is by the far the best introduction\nto Mendelism that exists, besides being the most recent and the most\nauthoritative possible. With the lucidity of the born teacher (whose\nfaculty, I have no doubt, is a Mendelian unit, not always inherited\nby the born observer) the author explains the essence of Mendelism.\nThe usual expositor has not proceeded far upon his way before he is\nencumbering himself and the learner with the phenomena of dominance\nand recessiveness, which are not cardinal and are highly involved.\nProfessor Bateson makes no allusion to them. But he gives an account\nof Mendelism which it is impossible to put down without finishing, and\nwhich is elementary in the highest sense of the word. In the later\npages the author preaches eugenics with a vigour and conviction not\nunworthy of notice as coming from the leader of a school which is\nutterly opposed in principle and in methods, if not in results, to the\nschool of biometrics founded by the founder of eugenics. I insist upon\nthis because there is a half-instructed ignorance abroad which has\nheard the name of Mendel, and seeks thereby to discredit Darwin and\nnatural selection, Mr. Galton and eugenics. Hear Professor Bateson:--\n\n\u201cIf there are societies which refuse to apply the new knowledge,\nthe fault will not lie with Genetics. I think it needs but little\nobservation of the newer civilisations to foresee that _they_ will\napply every scrap of scientific knowledge which can help them, or seems\nto help them in the struggle, and I am good enough selectionist to know\nthat in that day the fate of the recalcitrant communities is sealed.\u201d\n\n_Hereditary Genius, An Inquiry into its Laws and Consequences._ By\nFrancis Galton.\n\nThis is the classical and pioneer enquiry, far beyond my praise\nor appraisement. The main text is not long, is easily read and is\nextremely interesting. The reader should acquaint himself also with Mr.\nConstable's recent criticism, _Poverty and Hereditary Genius_.\n\n_A Study of British Genius._ (1904.) By Havelock Ellis.\n\nThis is an extremely interesting book, which should be read in\nassociation with the foregoing, to which it is a criticism and\nsupplement. The greater part of the volume is concerned with the\nstudy of genius from the point of view of heredity--in terms of\nnationality and race, and of individual parentage. Very great labour\nand scholarship have been expended to very high purpose in this work.\n\n_Inquiries into Human Faculty._ (1883.) By Francis Galton.\n\nThis is the next in order of Mr. Galton's works, _Hereditary Genius_\ndating from 1869. It has recently been reprinted in Dent's \u201cEveryman's\nLibrary,\u201d and can thus be purchased for one shilling.\n\n_Natural Inheritance._ (1889.) By Francis Galton.\n\n_Memories of my Life._ (1908.) By Francis Galton.\n\nThis is Mr. Galton's latest book, and apart from its personal\nfascination must be read by the serious eugenist if only on account\nof its last five chapters, and especially the last two, which deal\nwith Heredity and Race Improvement. What could be more interesting\nand significant, for instance, than to find Mr. Galton in 1908 saying\nof himself in 1865, \u201cI was too much disposed to think of marriage\nunder some regulation, and not enough of the effects of self-interest\nand of social and religious sentiment.\u201d Mr. Galton comments on the\nwrongheadedness of objectors to eugenics. I fancy, however, that the\nfamiliar misrepresentations will soon cease to be possible. The whole\nof this brief last chapter must be carefully read and studied. At\nleast I must quote the following paragraph:--\n\n\u201cWhat I desire is that the importance of eugenic marriages should be\nreckoned at its just value, neither too high nor too low, and that\neugenics should form one of the many considerations by which marriages\nare promoted or hindered, as they are by social position, adequate\nfortune, and similarity of creed. I can believe hereafter that it will\nbe felt as derogatory to a person of exceptionally good stock to marry\ninto an inferior one as it is for a person of high Austrian rank to\nmarry one who has not sixteen heraldic quarterings. I also hope that\nsocial recognition of an appropriate kind will be given to healthy,\ncapable, and large families, and that social influence will be exerted\ntowards the encouragement of eugenic marriages.\u201d\n\nThis volume, a model for all future autobiographers, ends with the\nfollowing splendid statement of the eugenic creed:--\n\n\u201cA true philanthropist concerns himself not only with society as a\nwhole, but also with as many of the individuals who compose it as the\nrange of his affections can include. If a man devotes himself solely to\nthe good of a nation as a whole, his tastes must be impersonal and his\nconclusions so far heartless, deserving the ill title of \u2018dismal\u2019 with\nwhich Carlyle labelled statistics. If, on the other hand, he attends\nonly to certain individuals in whom he happens to take an interest, he\nbecomes guided by favouritism and is oblivious of the rights of others\nand of the futurity of the race. Charity refers to the individual;\nStatesmanship to the nation; Eugenics cares for both.\n\n\u201cIt is known that a considerable part of the huge stream of British\ncharity furthers by indirect and unsuspected ways the production of the\nUnfit; it is most desirable that money and other attention bestowed\non harmful forms of charity should be diverted to the production and\nwell-being of the Fit. For clearness of explanation we may divide newly\nmarried couples into three classes, with respect to the probable civic\nworth of their offspring. There would be a small class of \u2018desirables,\u2019\na large class of \u2018passables,\u2019 of whom nothing more will be said here,\nand a small class of \u2018undesirables.\u2019 It would clearly be advantageous\nto the country if social and moral support as well as timely material\nhelp were extended to the desirables, and not monopolised as it is now\napt to be by the undesirables.\n\n\u201cI take eugenics very seriously, feeling that its principles ought to\nbecome one of the dominant motives in a civilised nation, much as if\nthey were one of its religious tenets. I have often expressed myself in\nthis sense, and will conclude this book by briefly reiterating my views.\n\n\u201cIndividuals appear to me as partial detachments from the infinite\nocean of Being, and this world as a stage on which Evolution takes\nplace, principally hitherto by means of Natural Selection, which\nachieves the good of the whole with scant regard to that of the\nindividual.\n\n\u201cMan is gifted with pity and other kindly feelings; he has also the\npower of preventing many kinds of suffering. I conceive it to fall well\nwithin his province to replace Natural Selection by other processes\nthat are more merciful and not less effective.\n\n\u201cThis is precisely the aim of eugenics. Its first object is to check\nthe birth-rate of the Unfit, instead of allowing them to come into\nbeing, though doomed in large numbers to perish prematurely. The second\nobject is the improvement of the race by furthering the productivity\nof the Fit by early marriages and healthful rearing of their children.\nNatural Selection rests upon excessive production and wholesale\ndestruction; Eugenics on bringing no more individuals into the world\nthan can be properly cared for, and those only of the best stock.\u201d\n\n_Heredity and Selection in Sociology._ (1907.) By George\nChatterton-Hill.\n\nThis is a useful and interesting work, the nature of which is well\nindicated by its title. It contains many purely eugenic chapters, and\ncannot be ignored by the student.\n\n_The Germ-plasm, A Theory of Heredity._ (The Contemporary Science\nSeries. 1893.) By August Weismann.\n\nThis is Weismann's great work. It should be studied by politicians and\nothers who still interpret all social phenomena in terms of Lamarckian\ntheory, and also by modern writers who are so much more Weismannian\nthan Weismann.\n\n_The Evolution Theory._ (1904.) Translated by J. Arthur Thomson and M.\nR. Thomson. By August Weismann.\n\n_The Principles of Heredity._ (1905.) By G. Archdall Reid.\n\nThis is a very interesting and extremely Weismannian book which\ncontains the most recent statement of the author's remarkable enquiries\ninto the influence of disease as a factor of human selection.\n\n_Variation in Animals and Plants._ (The International Scientific\nSeries. 1903.) By H. M. Vernon.\n\n_Variation, Heredity and Evolution._ (1906.) By R. H. Lock.\n\n_The Origin of Species._ (1869. Last (sixth) edition. Reprinted 1901.)\nBy Charles Darwin.\n\n_The Descent of Man._ (1871. Second edition, 1874. Reprinted 1906.) By\nCharles Darwin.\n\nThese classics now cost only half-a-crown apiece.\n\nThe beginner should read _The Descent of Man_ first, I think. Some\nof the earlier chapters are of the utmost eugenic value, and would be\nfound immensely interesting by modern lecturers on decadence, and the\nlike.\n\n_Darwinism To-day._ (1907.) By Vernon L. Kellogg.\n\nAn interesting and scholarly recent criticism, containing much matter\nstrictly relevant to eugenics.\n\n_The Evolution of Sex._ (The Contemporary Science Series. Revised\nedition, 1901. Originally published in 1899.) By Patrick Geddes and J.\nArthur Thomson.\n\nA famous book, yet to be discovered by most \u201cauthorities\u201d on the Woman\nQuestion.\n\n_A History of Matrimonial Institutions._ (1904.) By G. E. Howard.\n\nThis is a three-volume treatise, extremely comprehensive, and\nespecially valuable as a guide to the literature of the subject. Only\nthe professional student can be expected to read it from cover to\ncover, but it is invaluable for purposes of reference.\n\n_The History of Human Marriage._ By E. Westermarck.\n\nThis rightly celebrated and epoch-making work demonstrates in especial\nthe survival-value of monogamy, and its historical dominance as a\nmarriage form.\n\n_The Evolution of Marriage._ (The Contemporary Science Series.) By\nProfessor Letourneau.\n\n_The Principles of Population._ By T. R. Malthus.\n\nThe substance of this may be conveniently read in the extracts\npublished in the _Economic Classics_ by Macmillan (1905).\n\n_The Principles of Biology._ By Herbert Spencer.\n\nThe last section, \u201cThe Laws of Multiplication,\u201d _must_ be read as the\nexpression of the missing half of the truth discovered by Malthus. It\nis tiresome, nearly half a century after Spencer's enunciation of his\nlaw, to have to read the remarks of some modern writers who continue\nto assume that Malthus expressed not merely the truth but the whole\ntruth.\n\n_The Republic of Plato._\n\nApart from the lines of Theognis quoted by Darwin in _The Descent of\nMan_, which are some two centuries older than Plato, the fifth book of\nthe _Republic_ is the earliest discussion in literature of the idea of\neugenics, and utterly wild though we may consider most of the proposals\nof Plato--or Socrates--to be, these early thinkers are yet more modern\nand more scientific and more fundamental than all their successors,\neven including our modern Utopia makers who have come after Darwin,\nin recognising that it is the quality of the citizen which will make\na Utopia possible. The following will suffice to show that after more\nthan two thousand years we can still learn from the fundamental idea of\nPlato's fifth chapter:--\n\n  \u201cIt is plain, then, that after this we must make marriages as much\n  as possible sacred; but the most advantageous should be most sacred.\n  By all means. How then shall they be most advantageous? Tell me\n  that, Glauco, for I see in your houses dogs of chace, and a great\n  many excellent birds. Have you then indeed ever attended at all,\n  in any respect, to their marriages, and the propagation of their\n  species? How? said he. First of all, that among these, although they\n  be excellent themselves, are there not some who are most excellent?\n  There are. Whether then do you breed from all of them alike? or are\n  you careful to breed chiefly from the best? From the best. But how?\n  From the youngest or from the oldest, or from those who are most\n  in their prime? From those in their prime. And if the breed be not\n  of this kind, you reckon that the race of birds and dogs greatly\n  degenerates. I reckon so, replied he. And what think you as to\n  horses, said I, and other animals? is the case any otherwise with\n  respect to these? That, said he, were absurd.\u201d\n\nPlato proposed to destroy the family, and to \u201cpractise every art that\nno mother should know her own child.\u201d He also approved of infanticide.\nNevertheless, this fifth book of the _Republic_ is interesting and\nvaluable reading, and it is especially well to note that this pioneer\nof Utopianism and Socialism possessed the idea which almost all living\nSocialists, except Dr. A. R. Wallace and Professors Forel and Pearson,\nlack, that we must first make the Utopian and Utopia will follow.\n\n_The Family._ (1906.) By Elsie Clews Parsons.\n\nThis recent, scholarly and lucid book, of which any living man might\nwell be proud, may follow the reading of the utterly unconcerned and\ntaken-for-granted fashion in which Socrates and Plato proposed to\ndestroy the family. Lecture VIII., on \u201cSexual Choice,\u201d is brief, but\nthe references following it are extremely valuable and complete. It is\nevident that one of the books which will have to be written on eugenics\nin the near future must deal with the whole question of marriage and\nhuman selection both in its historical and in its contemporary aspects.\n\n\u201cThe Possible Improvement of the Human Breed under Existing Conditions\nof Law and Sentiment.\u201d _Nature_, 1901, p. 659; _Smithsonian Report_,\nWashington, 1901, p. 523. By Francis Galton.\n\nThis was the Huxley Lecture of the Anthropological Institute in 1901,\nand the contemporary interest in eugenics may be said to date from it.\n\n\u201cEugenics, its Definition, Scope and Aims.\u201d (_Sociological Papers._\n1904.) By Francis Galton.\n\nThis remarkable lecture constituted a further introduction of the\nsubject, and it is somewhat of the nature of an impertinence for\nthe professional jester, who is not acquainted with a line of it,\nto dismiss eugenics with a phrase as if this lecture had never been\nwritten or were unobtainable. Mr. Galton there defined eugenics as\n\u201cthe science which deals with all influences that improve the inborn\nqualities of a race....\u201d The definition given in the _Century\nDictionary_ is unauthoritative, incorrect, and misses the entire point.\n\nAn extremely valuable discussion follows this lecture, and it is\nabsolutely necessary for the student to acquaint himself with the whole\nof these pages (45-99).\n\n_Restrictions in Marriage: Studies in National Eugenics: Eugenics as a\nFactor in Religion._ By Francis Galton.\n\nThese are memoirs communicated to the Sociological Society in 1905, and\npublished together with the subsequent discussions in _Sociological\nPapers_ (1905). The three memoirs are also published separately under\none cover.\n\n_Probability, the Foundation of Eugenics._ The Herbert Spencer Lecture\nof 1907. By Francis Galton.\n\nThis lecture contains a very brief historical outline of the recent\nprogress of eugenic enquiry and a simple discussion of the mathematical\nmethod of studying heredity. It must, of course, be read by every\nserious student.\n\n_National Life from the Standpoint of Science._ (1905.) By Karl Pearson.\n\nThis is a reprint of a lecture delivered by Professor Pearson in 1900,\ntogether with some other valuable contributions of his to the subject.\nThere is scarcely a better introduction to eugenics.\n\n_The Scope and Importance to the State of the Science of National\nEugenics._ The Robert Boyle Lecture, 1907. (Second edition, 1909.) By\nKarl Pearson.\n\nThis fine lecture should be carefully read. It gives some index to the\nquantity and quality of the work done by Professor Pearson and his\nfollowers since the Francis Galton Eugenics Laboratory was founded.\n\n_Population and Progress._ (1907.) By Montague Crackanthorpe, K.C.\n\nThough only published recently, part of this book goes back far. The\nfirst chapter is indeed a reprint of a eugenic article published in the\n_Fortnightly Review_ as far back as 1872. Some of us may perhaps be\ninclined to forget that more than a generation ago Mr. Crackanthorpe\nhad grasped the great truths which we are now trying to spread, and\nhad courageously expressed them in the face of ignorance and prejudice\neven greater than those of to-day. This is unquestionably a book which\nevery student must read, but the press generally, with some notable\nexceptions, have fought rather shy of it. It was sent to the present\nwriter at his request from a leading morning paper which trusts him,\nand he wrote a column on it, most careful in diction and moderate in\nopinion, which was, nevertheless, not printed. One of the leading\nmedical papers devoted a long article to the book, written on the\ngeneral principle that it is right for a medical paper to differ\nfrom any non-medical person who approaches the closed neighbourhood\nof medical enquiry. Another leading medical paper considered Mr.\nCrackanthorpe's \u201cideal\u201d to be \u201cbeyond present accomplishment,\u201d and\nfeared it must have \u201cmany generations of probation before it could\nhope to enter the sphere of practical politics.\u201d I venture to say that\n_Population and Progress_, dealing, as it does, with a subject that\nreally matters, contains more fundamental practical politics--in the\ntrue sense of that word--than has been discussed in most of our current\nnewspapers since they were first established.\n\n_Race-Culture or Race-Suicide._ (1906.) By R. R. Rentoul.\n\nThis is a second and enlarged edition of a remarkable pamphlet\npublished by Dr. Rentoul in 1903 under the title _Proposed\nSterilisation of Certain Mental and Physical Degenerates. An Appeal\nto Asylum Managers and Others._ Dr. Rentoul's own description of this\npamphlet is as follows:--\u201cIn it I called attention to the large\nand increasing number of the insane in the United Kingdom; to our\ndisgraceful system of child-marriages; to the growing suicide rate;\nto our disgusting system of inducing certain mentally and physically\ndiseased persons to marry; and to a slight operation which I was the\nfirst to propose as a means of checking the increase in the number of\nthe insane, and in preventing innocent offspring from being cursed by\nsome parental blemish.\u201d\n\n_Education._ (Originally published in 1861. New edition, with the\nauthor's latest corrections, 1906.) By Herbert Spencer.\n\nThis is the classic which marks an epoch in the personal development\nof every one who reads it, and which made an epoch in the history of\neducation: the book was probably of more service to woman, owing to its\nliberation of girlhood, than any other of its century.\n\n_The Study of Sociology._ (International Scientific Series. Originally\npublished in 1873. Twentieth edition, 1903.) By Herbert Spencer.\n\nThis is, of course, _the_ introduction to sociology, written for that\npurpose by a master, and in every respect a masterpiece. It contains\nmany eugenic references and arguments. As far as the eugenic education\nof the adult is concerned, this is rightly the preliminary work.\n\nBesides _The Evolution of Sex_ and Mrs. Parson's book on _The Family_,\nthere are many others relevant to the question of woman and eugenics,\nof which one or two may be noted here.\n\n_Sex and Society, Studies in the Social Psychology of Sex._ (1907.) By\nW. I. Thomas.\n\nThis is a very readable and recent work, and for the general reader\nmuch the most suitable of any that I know.\n\n_Man and Woman._ (Contemporary Science Series.) By Havelock Ellis.\n\nA very clear and readable book.\n\n_Youth--its Education, Regimen and Hygiene._ (1907.) By Stanley Hall.\n\nThis is a new and abbreviated version of Professor Stanley Hall's two\nwell-known volumes on _Adolescence_, published in 1904. For the general\nreader this much smaller work is very suitable, and especial attention\nmay be directed to Chapter XI., \u201cThe Education of Girls.\u201d\n\nIt would have been presumptuous and absurd to attempt, in the course of\na merely introductory volume, to deal, by anything more than allusion\nto its existence, with the great question of human parenthood in\nrelation to race. Most urgently this question, of course, concerns the\nnegro problem in America. The student who has to trust entirely to\nsecond-hand knowledge had best be silent. Lest, however, the reader\nshould imagine that the older doctrines of race can be accepted without\nreserve, he will do well to study very carefully the latter part of Dr.\nArchdall Reid's book, already referred to, and, with extreme caution,\nthe following:--\n\n_Race Prejudice._ (1906.) By Jean Finot.\n\nThis book most of us must believe to be extreme, but it should be read:\nit bears on what may be called international eugenics, and the whole\nquestion of inter-racial marriage.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nOn matters of transmissible disease and racial poisons there is much\nliterature. Only one or two books can be referred to here.\n\n_The Diseases of Society: The Vice and Crime Problem._ (1904.) By G. F.\nLydston.\n\nThis, of course, is not a pleasant book, and it is open to much\ncriticism in many respects, but it is well worth reading, especially\nin association with Dr. Rentoul's work.\n\n_Malaria--A Neglected Factor in the History of Greece and Rome._\n(1907.) By W. H. S. Jones, with an introduction by Ronald Ross.\n\nThis is a recent historical study and may be a very substantial\ncontribution to the study of decadence.\n\n_Alcoholism._ (1906.) By W. C. Sullivan.\n\nThis little book of Dr. Sullivan's contains a useful and scrupulously\nmoderate chapter on the relation of alcohol to human degeneration.\n\n_The Drink Problem._ (1907.) By Fourteen Medical Authorities.\n\n_The Children of the Nation._ (1906.) By Sir John Gorst.\n\n_Infant Mortality._ (1906.) By George Newman.\n\n_The Hygiene of Mind._ (1906.) By T. S. Clouston.\n\n_Diseases of Occupation._ (1908.) By Sir T. Oliver.\n\n_The Prevention of Tuberculosis._ (1908.) By A. Newsholme.\n\nThese volumes all deal in part with questions of racial poisoning and\nracial hygiene.\n\n_Alcoholism--A Study in Heredity._ (1901.) By Archdall Reid.\n\n_Alcohol and the Human Body._ (1907.) By Sir Victor Horsley and Mary D.\nSturge.\n\n_Hygiene of Nerves and Mind._ (The Progressive Science Series. 1907.)\nBy August Forel.\n\n_Inebriety--Its Causation and Control._ (The second Norman Kerr\nMemorial Lecture, published in the _British Journal of Inebriety_,\nJanuary, 1908.) By R. Welsh Branthwaite.\n\n_Reports of the Inspector under the Inebriates Acts._ Especially those\nfor the years 1904, 1905, 1906.\n\n_The Cry of the Children: The Black Stain._ (1907.) By G. R. Sims.\n\nThe above are especially recommended to politicians. Sooner or later,\nas never yet, knowledge will have to be applied to the drink question\nas it bears upon the quality of the race. The knowledge exists, and is\nnot difficult to acquire or understand. The references given are quite\nsufficient to enable any one of mediocre intelligence to frame a bill\ndealing with alcohol which would be worth all its predecessors put\ntogether, and would arouse far less opposition than any one of them.\n\n_Reports of the National Conference on Infantile Mortality_ 1906\nand 1908 (P. S. King & Co.). In the 1906 Report note especially Dr.\nBallantyne's paper on the unborn infant, and in the 1908 Report, Miss\nAlice Ravenhill's paper on the education of girls.\n\nIt must be repeated that the foregoing names are merely noted as\nincluding, perhaps, the greater number of the books with which the\nserious beginner would do well to make a start. That is all. It would\nbe both unfair and unwise, however, to omit any mention of at least\nthree wonderful little books of John Ruskin's: _Unto this Last_,\n_Munera Pulveris_ and _Time and Tide_, which add to their great\nqualities of soul and style some of the most forcible and wisest\nthings that have ever been written on race-culture and its absolutely\nfundamental relation to morality, patriotism and true economics.\n\nIf the reader desires the name of only one book, that is certainly _The\nSexual Question_ (1908), by Professor August Forel. This has no rival\nanywhere, and cannot be overpraised.\n\n\n\n\nFootnotes:\n\n[1] A tribute is due to the anonymous pioneer of sane and provident\nphilanthropy who lately gave \u00a320,000 to the London Hospital\nfor research. Such a thing is a commonplace in New York, it is\nunprecedented in London.\n\n[2] The word is used in the ordinary loose sense, to which there\nis no objection provided that there be no misunderstanding of its\nexact scientific meaning, as in Spencer's phrase \u201csurvival of the\nfittest\u201d--_i.e._ not the best, but the best adapted. See p. 43.\n\n[3] \u201cDegeneration,\u201d I think, is the best word for the racial,\n\u201cdeterioration\u201d for the individual, change.\n\n[4] That is in the ordinary sense of the words, not in the more exact\nsense--as I think--in which a good environment would be defined as that\nwhich selects the good for parenthood.\n\n[5] Italics mine.\n\n[6] We have seen that Huxley's assertion of the fundamental opposition\nbetween moral and cosmic evolution is unwarrantable. We do recognise,\nhowever, that in our present practice this opposition exists. Our\nancestors were cruel to the insane, but at least they prevented them\nfrom multiplying. We are blindly kind to them, and therefore in the\nlong run cruel. But the dilemma, kind to be cruel, or cruel to be kind,\nis not necessary. It is quite possible, as we have asserted, to be\nat once kind to the individual and protective of the future. On the\nother hand, it is also possible to be cruel to both. The London County\nCouncil offers us, at the time of writing, a demonstration of this.\nSending wretched inebriates on the round of police-court, prison and\nstreet, with intermittent gestations, rather than expend a shilling a\nday, per individual, in decently detaining them, it serves at least the\nphilosophic purpose of demonstrating that it is possible to combine the\nmaximum of brutality to the individual and the present with the maximum\nof injury to the race and the future.\n\n[7] Reprinted in _The Kingdom of Man_ (Constable).\n\n[8] _Sociological Papers_, 1905, p. 59.\n\n[9] Whilst allowing due weight to Mr. Wells' opinion, we may also\nnote that of Charles Darwin who, referring to his own phrase, natural\nselection, says, \u201cBut the expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer\nof the Survival of the Fittest is more accurate.\u201d (_Origin of Species_,\npopular edition, p. 76.)\n\n[10] _Collected Essays_, vol. i. p. 493. A valuable controversy but\npoor sport. Thinker _versus_ politician is scarcely a match.\n\n[11] This is discussed at length in the writer's paper, \u201cThe Obstacles\nto Eugenics,\u201d read before the Sociological Society, March 8, 1909.\n\n[12] Spencer introduced the non-moral word evolution in 1857, _in order\nto_ avoid the moral connotation of the word progress, which he had\nformerly employed.\n\n[13] In his recent work, _The Origin of Vertebrates_, Dr. W. H.\nGaskell, F.R.S., has adduced much evidence in support of this thesis.\nHe says, \u201cThe law of progress is this: The race is not to the swift nor\nto the strong, but to the wise.\u201d And again; \u201cAs for the individual,\nso for the nation; as for the nation, so for the race; the law of\nevolution teaches that in all cases brain-power wins. Throughout, from\nthe dawn of animal life up to the present day, the evidence given in\nthis book suggests that the same law has always held. In all cases,\nupward progress is associated with the development of the central\nnervous system. The law for the whole animal kingdom is the same as for\nthe individual. \u2018Success in this world depends upon brains.\u2019\u201d\n\n[14] We may recall the words of Lear:--\n\n\u201cIs man no more than this? Consider him well: Thou owest the worm no\nsilk, the beast no hide, the sheep no wool, the cat no perfume:....\nThou art the thing itself: unaccommodated man is no more but such a\npoor, bare, forked animal as thou art.\u201d\n\n[15] Says Darwin, \u201cSo little is this subject understood, that I have\nheard surprise repeatedly expressed at such great monsters as the\nMastodon ... having become extinct; as if mere bodily strength gave\nvictory in the battle of life. Mere size, on the contrary, would in\nsome cases determine ... quicker extermination from the greater amount\nof requisite food.\u201d In the Russo-Japanese War, one of the effective\nfactors was the greater area of the Russian soldier as a target, and\nthe disparity between the food requirements of the little victors and\nthe big losers.\n\n[16] Quoted from a Paper read by Mr. Galton before the Eugenics\nEducation Society, October 14, 1908, and published in _Nature_, October\n22, 1908.\n\n[17] See the author's paper, \u201cThe Psychology of Parenthood,\u201d _Eugenics\nReview_, April, 1909.\n\n[18] An authoritative statement on this point has already been quoted\nfrom Sir E. Ray Lankester's Romanes Lecture of 1905, p. 42.\n\n[19] The exception of one or two large animals, like the elephant, is\nnot important. In proportion to body weight man's birth-rate is lower\nthan theirs. And it is to be noted that the \u201cinfant\u201d mortality is very\nlow in this case, where the birth-rate is so low. Says Darwin, of the\nyoung elephant. \u201cNone are destroyed by beasts of prey; for even the\ntiger in India most rarely dares to attack a young elephant protected\nby its dam.\u201d The dam has no factory to go to, and no beast of prey to\nsell her alcohol.\n\n[20] \u201cThe fulmar petrel lays but one egg, yet it is believed to be\nthe most numerous bird in the world.\u201d (_Origin of Species_, popular\nedition, p. 81).\n\n[21] _The Wheat Problem_, by Sir Wm. Crookes, F.R.S., 2nd edition,\n1905. The _Chemical News_ Office, 15, Newcastle St., Farringdon St.,\nE.C.\n\n[22] See Chap. iii. of the _Origin of Species_.\n\n[23] Including even such an exceptional student as Dr. George Newman,\nwho, in his book on _Infant Mortality_, regards a falling birth-rate\nas an essential evil, and actually declares without qualification\nthat the factors \u201cwhich lower the birth-rate tend to raise the infant\ndeath-rate.\u201d\n\n[24] It is not necessary to point out again the exception of the\nelephant, nor to explain it.\n\n[25] Mr. Galton believes their number has been exaggerated.\n\n[26] Quoted from the author's lectures on _Individualism and\nCollectivism_ (Williams and Norgate, 1906).\n\n[27] As is usually the case, except when the mother or the father is\nalcoholic or syphilitic.\n\n[28] If we make a diagram of society, with the social strata labelled,\nand then proceed to make a eugenic comment upon it, certainly the\nline dividing the sheep from the goats, _as for parenthood_, would\nnot be horizontal, at any level. Nor would it be vertical--as if the\nproportions of worth and unworth were the same in all classes. Some\nwould draw it diagonally, counting most of the aristocracy good and\nmost of the lowest strata bad: others would slope it the other way.\nI should not venture to draw it at all: there are individuals good\nand bad in all classes and races, and their relative proportions are\nunknown, at least to me.\n\n[29] \u201cFor words are wise men's counters, they do but reckon by them;\nbut they are the money of fools\u201d (Hobbes, _Leviathan_, Pt. I. chap iv.).\n\n[30] It might be supposed that the words \u201cinherent\u201d and \u201cinherited\u201d\nwere allied etymologically. This is not so. \u201cInherit\u201d is derived from\n\u201cheir,\u201d and this from a verb meaning \u201cto take.\u201d In natural inheritance\nthe heir inherits what is inherent in the germ-cells which make him.\nSays Professor Thomson: \u201cThe organisation of the fertilised ovum is the\ninheritance\u201d--_and the heir_, we may add.\n\n[31] Unless indeed it be an organism so lowly as only to consist of one\ncell throughout.\n\n[32] The reader will remember the chapter, \u201cA Berry to the Rescue.\u201d\n\u201cSays Lucy demurely: \u2018Now you know why I read history, and that sort\nof books.... I only read sensible books and talk of serious things ...\nbecause I have heard say ... dear Mrs. Berry! don't you understand\nnow?\u2019\u201d\n\n[33] Contrast Mr. Galton, the propounder of the now accepted view:--\n\n\u201cAs a general rule, with scarcely any exception that cannot be ascribed\nto other influences, such as bad nutrition or transmitted microbes,\nthe injuries or habits of the parents are found to have no effect on\nthe natural form or faculties of the child.\u201d (_Hereditary Genius_,\nPrefatory Chapter to the Edition of 1892, p. xv.)\n\n[34] In the later edition Mr. Galton discusses the question of the\ntitle, and says that if it could now be altered, it should appear as\n_Hereditary Ability_. We may note that, as the author says himself,\n\u201cThe reader will find a studious abstinence throughout the work from\nspeaking of genius as a special quality.\u201d\n\n[35] The reader may note \u201cA Eugenic Investigation: Index to\nAchievements of Near Kinsfolk of some of the Fellows of the Royal\nSociety,\u201d _Sociological Papers_, 1904, pp. 85-99 (Macmillan); also\n_Noteworthy Families_ (John Murray, 1906).\n\n[36] These researches have not yet been published.\n\n[37] In the later chapters of a former book, \u201cHealth, Strength, and\nHappiness\u201d (Grant Richards, London; Mitchell Kennerley, New York,\n1908), I have discussed various aspects of heredity from the eugenic\npoint of view more fully than has been possible here.\n\n[38] See the last sentence of the quotation from Forel on p. 130.\n\n[39] For definition of these terms see Chap. xi.\n\n[40] By some such means we may hope that man too may some day become\ndomesticated without losing his fertility!\n\n[41] 1 Corinthians xii. 22, 23, 24.\n\n[42] Quoted from the Author's _Evolution the Master Key_.\n\n[43] Mr. G. K. Chesterton, one of the most amusing of contemporary\nphenomena, has lately said: \u201cThe most serious sociologists, the most\nstately professors of eugenics, calmly propose that, \u2018for the good\nof the race,\u2019 people should be forcibly married to each other by\nthe police.\u201d Readers unacquainted with Mr. Chesterton's standard of\naccuracy and methods of criticism might be misled by this gay invention.\n\n[44] _The Family_, p. 20.\n\n[45] _Encyclop\u00e6dia Medica_, vol. ii., Article \u201cDeaf-Mutism.\u201d\n\n[46] In a lecture, \u201cThe Obstacles to Eugenics,\u201d delivered before the\nSociological Society, March 8, 1909.\n\n[47] Since these words were written there has been passed the\n\u201cPrevention of Crimes Act,\u201d which is the first attempt in this country\nto apply the elementary truths of the subject in legislation. As an\nessentially eugenic proposal it is to be heartily welcomed.\n\n[48] Dr. Bulstrode's Lecture to the Royal Institution, May 15, 1908.\n\n[49] This suggestion, first made by the present writer in March, 1908,\nand in the paper referred to on p. 205, is, I believe, to be the\nsubject of an official enquiry.\n\n[50] _Sociological Papers_ (Macmillan, 1905), p. 3.\n\n[51] \u201cIn any scheme of eugenics, energy is the most important quality\nto favour; it is, as we have seen, the basis of every action, and it is\neminently transmissible by descent.\u201d--Galton.\n\n[52] _Fortnightly Review_, January, 1908.\n\n[53] \u201cAs the German philosopher Schopenhauer remarks, the final aim\nof all love intrigues, be they comic or tragic, is really of more\nimportance than all other ends in human life. What it all turns upon is\nnothing less than the composition of the next generation.... It is not\nthe weal or woe of any one individual, but that of the human race to\ncome, which is at stake.\u201d--Darwin, _Descent of Man_, p. 893.\n\n[54] _Studies in the Psychology of Sex_, vol. iv. (F. A. Davis Co.,\nPhiladelphia, 1905).\n\n[55] Part of the matter of this chapter was included in papers entitled\n\u201cRacial Hygiene or Negative Eugenics, with special reference to the\nExtirpation of Alcoholism,\u201d read before the Congress of the Royal\nInstitute of Public Health, at Buxton, 1908, and \u201cAlcoholism and\nEugenics,\u201d read before the Society for the Study of Inebriety, April,\n1909.\n\n[56] Italics mine.\n\n[57] To-day many of the children who make our destiny are born drunk,\nowing to maternal intoxication during labour: I have myself attended\nthe birth of such children, both in Edinburgh and in York.\n\n[58] This was written in 1892, before the accumulation of the modern\nevidence on the subject.\n\n[59] \u201cAlcohol taken into the stomach can be demonstrated in the\ntesticle or ovary within a few minutes, and, like any other poison,\nmay injure the sperm or the germ element therein contained. As a\nresult of this intoxication of the primary elements, children may be\nconceived and born who become idiots, epileptics, or feeble-minded.\nTherefore it comes about that even before conception a fault may\nbe present.\u201d--McAdam Eccles, F.R.C.S., in the _British Journal of\nInebriety_, April, 1908.\n\n[60] See p. 111.\n\n[61] London: James Nisbet and Co., 1906.\n\n[62] Will our modern extremists be good enough to remember that Mr.\nGalton is the prime author of the doctrine that functionally-produced\nmodifications are not inherited?\n\n[63] The use of this word thus is unusual, to say the least of it. Dr.\nClaye Shaw simply means _causal relation_.\n\n[64] The subject of alcoholism and race-culture really demands a\nlarge volume. There is no space here to detail the fashion in which\nthe drunken mother poisons her child after birth, when she nurses\nit, since, as has been chemically proved, alcohol is excreted in her\nmilk. Says a most distinguished authority, Mrs. Scharlieb, \u201cthe child,\nthen, absolutely receives alcohol as part of his diet, with the worst\neffect upon his organs, for alcohol has a greater effect upon cells\nin proportion to their immaturity\u201d (\u201cThe Drink Problem,\u201d in the New\nLibrary of Medicine), and Dr. Sullivan refers to \u201cnumerous cases on\nrecord of convulsions and other disorders occurring in infants when\nthe nurse has taken liquor, and ceasing when she has been put on a\nnon-alcoholic diet.\u201d The reader may be referred to my brief paper,\n\u201cAlcohol and Infancy,\u201d published in the form of a tract by the Church\nof England Temperance Society.\n\n[65] This is printed in the _British Journal of Inebriety_, January,\n1908, under the title \u201cInebriety, its Causation and Control\u201d--with\ncomments by numerous authorities.\n\n[66] The author says \u201cinherent defect.\u201d I have omitted the adjective,\nas it is obviously misused. _Antecedent_ would have been the better\nword, surely.\n\n[67] Italics mine.\n\n[68] Italics mine. A thousand pounds for cure--which does not cure--and\ntwopence for prevention is, of course, the rule with a half-educated\nnation always.\n\n[69] She died in a lunatic asylum. I have not heard that society ever\noffered her a public apology for its brutality to her.\n\n[70] See _Times_ report, February 28, 1908.\n\n[71] Report of the Inspector under the Inebriates Acts for the year\n1906.\n\n[72] This drinking by women, which means drinking by mothers present,\nexpectant or possible, is rapidly increasing in Great Britain, though\nalmost unknown in our Colonies. It is at the heart that Empires rot.\n\n[73] Cd. 4438. Price 4\u00bdd. Volume of evidence Cd. 4439. Price 2s.\n\n[74] A careful and detailed enquiry by the present writer, published\nin the _Westminster Gazette_ (Nov. 21, 1908), _Daily Chronicle_, and\n_Manchester Guardian_, and hitherto unchallenged, showed that, on\nthe most moderate reckoning, alcohol makes 124 widows and orphans in\nEngland and Wales every day, or more than 45,000 per annum.\n\n[75] _Diseases of Occupation_, by Sir Thomas Oliver. (The New Library\nof Medicine, 1908.)\n\n[76] This chapter contains the substance of the author's Friday evening\ndiscourse, entitled \u201cBiology and History,\u201d delivered before the Royal\nInstitution of Great Britain and Ireland, February 14, 1908. The\nsubstance of two lectures to the Royal Institution, entitled \u201cBiology\nand Progress,\u201d and delivered in February, 1907, is also included in the\npresent volume.\n\n[77] \u201cIt is thus everywhere that foolish Rumour babbles not of what\nwas done, but of what was misdone or undone; and foolish History\n(ever, more or less, the written epitomised synopsis of Rumour)\nknows so little that were not as well unknown. Attila invasions,\nWalter-the-Penniless Crusades, Sicilian Vespers, Thirty-Years' Wars:\nmere sin and misery; not work, but hindrance of work! For the Earth,\nall this while, was yearly green and yellow with her kind harvests;\nthe hand of the craftsman, the mind of the thinker rested not: and so,\nafter all, and in spite of all, we have this so glorious high-domed\nblossoming World; concerning which, poor History may well ask, with\nwonder, Whence _it_ came? She knows so little of it, knows so much\nof what obstructed it, what would have rendered it impossible. Such,\nnevertheless, by necessity or foolish choice, is her rule and practice;\nwhereby that paradox, \u2018Happy the people whose annals are vacant,\u2019 is\nnot without its true side.\u201d--Carlyle, _French Revolution_.\n\n\u201cIn a little while it would come to be felt that the true history of\na nation was indeed not of its wars but of its households.\u201d--Ruskin,\n_Time and Tide_.\n\n[78] \u201cLiterature, taken in all its bearings, forms the grand line of\ndemarcation between the human and the animal kingdoms.\u201d--William Godwin.\n\n[79] See the Author's paper, \u201cThe Essential Factor of Progress,\u201d\npublished in the _Monthly Review_, April, 1906.\n\n[80] Gibbon does not enlighten us much on such vital matters: but my\nattention has been called to the following passage, not irrelevant\nhere. It is from the _Attic Nights_ of Aulus Gellius, Book xii., chap.\ni., written about A.D. 150--Gibbon's critical epoch. I use the free\ntranslation of Mr. Quintin Waddington:--\n\n\u201cOnce when I was with the philosopher Favorinus, word was brought to\nhim that the wife of one of his disciples had just given birth to a son.\n\n\u201c\u2018Let us go,\u2019 said he, \u2018to enquire after the mother, and to\ncongratulate the father.\u2019 The latter was a noble of Senatorial rank.\n\n\u201cAll of us who were present accompanied him to the house and went in\nwith him. Meeting the father in the hall, he embraced and congratulated\nhim, and, sitting down, enquired how his wife had come through the\nordeal. And when he heard that the young mother, overcome with fatigue,\nwas now sleeping, he began to speak more freely.\n\n\u201c\u2018Of course,\u2019 said he, \u2018she will suckle the child herself.\u2019 And when\nthe girl's mother said that her daughter must be spared, and nurses\nobtained in order that the heavy strain of nursing the child should\nnot be added to what she had already gone through, \u2018I beg of you, dear\nlady,\u2019 said he, \u2018to allow her to be a whole mother to her child. Is it\nnot against nature, and being only half a mother, to give birth to a\nchild, and then at once to send him away? To have nourished with her\nown blood and in her own body a something that she had never seen,\nand then to refuse it her own milk, now that she sees it living, a\nhuman being, demanding a mother's care? Or are you one of those who\nthink that nature gave a woman breasts, not that she might feed her\nchildren, but as pretty little hillocks to give her bust a pleasing\ncontour? Many indeed of our present-day ladies--whom you are far from\nresembling--do try to dry up and repress that sacred fount of the body,\nthe nourisher of the human race, even at the risk they run from turning\nback and corrupting their milk, lest it should take off from the charm\nof their beauty. In doing this they act with the same folly as those,\nwho, by the use of drugs and so forth, endeavour to destroy the very\nembryo in their bodies, lest a furrow should mar the smoothness of\ntheir skin, and they should spoil their figures in becoming mothers.\nIf the destruction of a human being in its first inception, whilst it\nis being formed, whilst it is yet coming to life, and is still in the\nhands of its artificer, Nature, be deserving of public detestation and\nhorror, is it not nearly as bad to deprive the child of his proper\nand congenial nutriment to which he is accustomed, now that he is\nperfected, is born into the world, is a child?\n\n\u201cBut it makes no difference--for as they say--so long as the child is\nnourished and lives, with whose milk it is done.\n\n\u201cWhy does he who says this, since he is so dull in understanding\nnature, think it also of no consequence in whose womb and from whose\nblood the child is formed and fashioned? For is there not now in\nthe breasts the same blood--whitened, it is true, by agration and\nheat--which was before in the womb? And is not the wisdom of Nature\nto be seen in this, that as soon as the blood has done its work of\nforming the body down below, and the time of birth has come, it betakes\nitself to the upper parts of the body, and is ready to cherish the\nspark of life and light by furnishing to the new-born babe his known\nand accustomed food? And so it is not an idle belief, that, just as the\nstrength and character of the seed have their influence in determining\nthe likeness of the body and mind, so do the nature and properties of\nthe milk do their part in effecting the same results. And this has\nbeen noticed, not in man alone, but in cattle as well. For if kids are\nbrought up on the milk of ewes, or lambs on that of goats, it is agreed\nthat the latter have stiffer wool, the former softer hair. In the case\nof timber and fruit trees, too, the qualities of the water and soil\nfrom which they draw their nourishment have more influence in stunting\nor augmenting their growth than those of the seed which is sewn, and\noften you may see a vigorous and healthy tree when transplanted into\nanother place perish owing to the poverty of the soil.\n\n\u201cIs it then a reasonable thing to corrupt the fine qualities of\nthe new-born man, well endowed as to both body and mind so far as\nparentage is concerned, with the unsuitable nourishment of degenerate\nand foreign milk? Especially is this the case, if she whom you get\nto supply the milk is a slave or of servile estate, and--as is very\noften the case--of a foreign and barbarous race, if she is dishonest,\nugly, unchaste, or _addicted to drink_. For generally any woman who\nhappens to have milk is called in, without further enquiry as to her\nsuitability in other respects. Shall we allow this babe of ours to be\ntainted by pernicious contagion, and to draw life into his body and\nmind from a body and mind debased?\n\n\"This is the reason why we are so often surprised that the children of\nchaste mothers resemble their parents neither in body nor character.\n\n\u201c... And besides these considerations, who can afford to ignore or\nbelittle the fact that those who desert their offspring and send them\naway from themselves, and make them over to others to nurse, cut, or at\nleast loosen and weaken that chain and connection of mind and affection\nby which Nature attaches children to their parents. For when the child,\nsent elsewhere, is away from sight, the vigour of maternal solicitude\nlittle by little dies away, and the call of motherly instinct grows\nsilent, and forgetfulness of a child sent away to nurse is not much\nless complete than that of one lost by death.\n\n\u201cA child's thoughts and the love he is ever ready to give, are\noccupied, moreover, with her alone from whom he derives his food, and\nsoon he has neither feeling nor affection for the mother who bore him.\nThe foundations of the filial feelings with which we are born being\nthus sapped and undermined, whatever affection children thus brought\nup may seem to have for father and mother, for the most part is not\nnatural love, but the result of social convention.\u2019\u201d\n\n[81] Cf. the similar dicta of Darwin and Pearson (p. 279).\n\n[82] _National Life from the Standpoint of Science_, p. 99.\n\n[83] \u201cDecadence,\u201d Henry Sidgwick Memorial Lecture, by the Rt. Hon.\nA. J. Balfour, M.P., delivered at Newnham College, January 25, 1908.\n(Cambridge University Press.)\n\n[84] \u201cRestless activity proves the man,\u201d as Goethe says.\n\n[85] _Munera Pulveris_, par. 6.\n\n[86] _The Data of Ethics_, par. 97.\n\n[87] _Hereditary Genius_, Prefatory Chapter to Edition of 1902, pp. x.\nand xxvii.\n\n[88] \u201cThe Survival-Value of Religion,\u201d _Fortnightly Review_, April,\n1906.\n\n\n\n\n                           INDEX OF SUBJECTS\n\n\n  Ability, inheritance of, 114\n\n  \u201cAcquired characters,\u201d defined, 111\n\n  Acquired characters, Lamarckian theory of the transmission of, 283\n\n  ---- progress, 262\n\n  ---- ----, dangers of, 265\n\n  ---- ---- _versus_ natural selection, 266\n\n  Acquirements, transmission of, by the art of writing, 261\n\n  ---- _versus_ inborn characters, 101\n\n  Acromegaly, 67\n\n  \u201cAdam Bede\u201d, 298\n\n  \u201cAdolescence,\u201d by Prof. Stanley Hall, 318\n\n  Alcohol, a racial poison, 211, 259\n\n  ----, an agent of selection, 206\n\n  ---- and eugenics, 206\n\n  ----, and heredity, 206\n\n  ---- and human degeneration, 242\n\n  ---- and parenthood, 241\n\n  ----, effects of, on the racial organs, 208, 209 (_note_)\n\n  ----, elimination by, 206\n\n  ----, the friends of, 243\n\n  ---- trade, the, and widows and orphans, 245\n\n  \u201cAlcohol and Infancy,\u201d by Dr. Saleeby, 214\n\n  \u201cAlcohol and the Human Body,\u201d by Sir Victor Horsley and Mary D.\n      Sturge, 319\n\n  Alcoholic Imperialism, 244\n\n  Alcoholism and the London County Council, 206\n\n  ----, both a cause and a symptom of degeneracy, 217\n\n  ----, parental, its influence on the offspring, 211\n\n  \u201cAlcoholism, a Chapter in Social Pathology,\u201d by Dr. W. C. Sullivan,\n      211, 242, 319\n\n  \u201cAlcoholism, a Study in Heredity,\u201d by G. Archdall Reid, 319\n\n  Ancestral inheritance, the law of, xiv\n\n  Ancestry of men of genius, 152\n\n  ----, paternal and maternal, of equal importance, 152\n\n  Animal life and monogamy, 163\n\n  ---- marriage, 162\n\n  Animals and promiscuity, 163\n\n  ----, the higher, and monogamy, 163\n\n  Army, inferior intelligence of the, to that of the Navy, 98\n\n  \u201cAtavism,\u201d defined, 111\n\n  \u201cAttic Nights, The,\u201d of Aulus Gellius, 271 (_note_)\n\n  Australia, control of drunkards in, 242\n\n  \u201cAutobiography\u201d of Herbert Spencer, 58, 152\n\n  \u201cAvari\u00e9s, Les,\u201d by Brieux, 252\n\n\n  Bacteria, domination of, 93\n\n  ----, rate of increase of, 160\n\n  Bibliography of eugenics, 305\n\n  ---- of racial poisons, 318\n\n  ---- of transmissible diseases, 318\n\n  Biography, as a guide to heredity, 152\n\n  ----, neglect of ancestral data in, 152\n\n  \u201cBiology and History,\u201d by Dr. Saleeby, 254 (_note_)\n\n  \u201cBiology, The Principles of,\u201d by Herbert Spencer, 312\n\n  Biometrics, the study of, xiii\n\n  Birth-rate, falling, eugenic aspect of the, 10\n\n  ---- in China, 78\n\n  ---- in Japan, 78\n\n  ---- of man, 72\n\n  ----, statistics of, 74\n\n  Births, ratio of, of the sexes, 294\n\n  \u201cBlack Stain, The,\u201d by G. R. Sims, 237, 319\n\n  Body, the necessity of the, 53\n\n  ----, relation of the, to the mind, 52\n\n  Brains, breeding for, 54\n\n  Breeding for brains, 54\n\n  ---- for energy, 66\n\n  ---- for intelligence, 147, 150, 153\n\n  ---- for motherhood, 145, 146\n\n\n  Celibacy, non-eugenic results of, 116\n\n  Census, the uselessness of the, 6, 94\n\n  \u201cCentury Dictionary, The,\u201d on eugenics, 314\n\n  Characters, inborn, _versus_ acquirements, 101\n\n  Child-birth, superstition about, 106\n\n  Children, eugenics and cruelty to, 295\n\n  ----, Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to, 295\n\n  \u201cChildren of the Nation, The,\u201d by Sir John Gorst, 319\n\n  China, the birth-rate in, 78\n\n  ----, racial state of, 274\n\n  Church, non-eugenic action of the, 116\n\n  Civic worth, 68\n\n  Civilisation, ideal, 117\n\n  Civilisations, the decay of, 255\n\n  Cocaine, the racial influence of, 250\n\n  \u201cCollectivism, Individualism and,\u201d by Dr. Saleeby, 101 (_note_)\n\n  Colour-blindness, _see_ Daltonism\n\n  Conception, attitude of eugenics before and after, 30\n\n  \u201cCongenital\u201d defined, 105, 112\n\n  \u201cConscientiousness\u201d, 117\n\n  Crime, eugenics and, 177\n\n  ----, theories of, 177\n\n  ----, treatment of, 178\n\n  Criminality and civic worth, 68\n\n  \u201cCry of the Children, The,\u201d by G. R. Sims, 237, 319\n\n\n  Daltonism and heredity, 179\n\n  \u201cDark ages,\u201d caused by the celibacy of the fittest, 116\n\n  \u201cDarwinism To-day,\u201d by Vernon L. Kellogg, 312\n\n  \u201cData of Ethics, The,\u201d by Spencer, 302 (_note_)\n\n  Deaf-mutism and heredity, 173\n\n  Death-rate, a low, the cause of the multiplication of man, 73\n\n  ----, influence of density of population on the, 75\n\n  ----, limitation of the, 78\n\n  ----, statistics of the, 74\n\n  Decadence, National, 279\n\n  \u201cDecadence,\u201d by A. J. Balfour, 279\n\n  \u201cDegeneration,\u201d defined, 25 (_note_)\n\n  Degeneration, human, and alcohol, 217, 242\n\n  ----, racial, 49\n\n  \u201cDescent of Man, The,\u201d by Charles Darwin, 171, 191, 197, 279, 311\n\n  \u201cDeterioration,\u201d defined, 25 (_note_)\n\n  Diminution of offspring, the eugenic value of, 162\n\n  Disease, latency of, 108\n\n  Diseases, transmissible, bibliography of, 318\n\n  \u201cDiseases of Occupation,\u201d by Sir Thomas Oliver, 247 (_note_), 319\n\n  \u201cDiseases of Society: The Vice and Crime Problem,\u201d by G. K. Lydston,\n      318\n\n  Domestics, the politics of the future, 33, 285\n\n  \u201cDrink Problem, The,\u201d by Fourteen Medical Authorities, 319\n\n  \u201cDrink Problem, The,\u201d by Mrs. Scharlieb, 214\n\n  Drunkard, influence of the, on the race, 241\n\n  ----, marriage and parentage of the, 220, 235\n\n  ----, the habitual, control of, in various countries, 242\n\n  ----, ----, treatment of, by the London County Council, 39 (_note_),\n      220-238\n\n  Drunkenness, habitual, imprisonment as a treatment for, 218\n\n  ----, increase of, 218\n\n\n  Early Notification of Births Act, 33\n\n  \u201cEconomic Classics\u201d, 312\n\n  Education, age at which to begin, 125\n\n  ---- and heredity, 128\n\n  ---- and inequality, 131\n\n  ---- and race culture, 120\n\n  ----, eugenic, 139\n\n  ---- for parenthood, xii, 138\n\n  ----, higher, of woman, non-eugenic effects of, xiii, 89\n\n  ---- in the principle of selection, 137\n\n  ----, modern, the destruction of mind, 120\n\n  ----, sexual, of children, 139\n\n  ----, ----, of girls, 318\n\n  ----, the limits of, 123\n\n  ----, the provision of an environment, 12, 125\n\n  ----, the real functions of, 136\n\n  \u201cEducation,\u201d by Herbert Spencer, 317\n\n  Elephant, birth-rate of the, 72 (_note_)\n\n  Emigration, the eugenic evils of, xi\n\n  ----, a remedy for over-population, 84\n\n  Energetic cost of reproduction, the, 87\n\n  Energy, breeding for, 66\n\n  ----, eugenic value of, 291\n\n  Environment, education the provision of, 12, 125\n\n  ----, effects of, 103\n\n  ----, good, defined, 275\n\n  ---- and heredity, 126\n\n  ----, of motherhood, the, 270\n\n  Epilepsy, eugenics and, 176\n\n  Erect attitude, the, 55\n\n  \u201cEssential Factor of Progress, The,\u201d by Dr. Saleeby, 262\n\n  Eugenic sense, the creation of a, 144\n\n  Eugenics and alcohol, 206\n\n  ----, bibliography of, 305\n\n  ---- and conception, 30\n\n  ---- and crime, 177\n\n  ---- and cruelty to children, 295\n\n  ---- and Daltonism, 179\n\n  ---- and h\u00e6mophilia, 179\n\n  ---- and insanity, 175\n\n  ----, defined, viii, 315\n\n  ----, epilepsy and, 176\n\n  ----, feeble-minded, the, and, 174\n\n  ----, higher education of woman, and, 89\n\n  ---- in Germany, 154\n\n  ----, infant mortality, and, 20\n\n  ----, international, xi\n\n  ----, Nietzscheanism and, 28\n\n  ----, politics and, 118\n\n  ----, positive and negative, 172\n\n  ----, present influence of, on marriage, 187\n\n  ----, religion and, 303\n\n  ----, the aims of, summarized, 276, 309\n\n  ----, the classes of society and, 119\n\n  ----, the length of marriage engagements and, 198\n\n  ----, the morality of, 303\n\n  ----, tuberculosis and, 178\n\n  ----, unemployment and, 293\n\n  ----, woman and, 294\n\n  Eugenics Education Society, the, 222, 229, 230, 299\n\n  ---- ---- ----, the history and objects of, 139\n\n  ---- ---- ----, the Inebriates Committee and, 240\n\n  ---- ---- ----, the reform of drunkards and, 241\n\n  \u201cEugenics as a Factor in Religion,\u201d by F. Galton, 315\n\n  \u201cEugenics, Its Definition, Scope, and Aims,\u201d by F. Galton, 314\n\n  \u201cEugenics, National, Studies in,\u201d by F. Galton, 315\n\n  \u201cEugenics, National, The Scope and Importance to the State of the\n      Science of,\u201d by Karl Pearson, 315\n\n  \u201cEugenics, Probability the Foundation of,\u201d by F. Galton, 315\n\n  \u201cEugenics, The Obstacles to,\u201d by Dr. Saleeby, 175 (_note_)\n\n  Evolution and progress, 48\n\n  ----, introduction of the term, 48 (_note_)\n\n  \u201cEvolution of Marriage, The,\u201d by Prof. Letourneau, 312\n\n  \u201cEvolution of Sex, The,\u201d by Patrick Geddes and J. Arthur Thomson, 312\n\n  \u201cEvolution, the Master Key,\u201d by Dr. Saleeby, 147\n\n  \u201cEvolution Theory, The,\u201d by August Weismann, 311\n\n  Examinations, mental emetics, 121\n\n\n  \u201cFamily, The,\u201d by Mrs. Elsie Clews Parsons, 161, 314\n\n  Fatherhood, eugenic, importance of, 154\n\n  ----, individual, 156\n\n  Feeble-minded, eugenics and the, 174\n\n  ----, the London County Council and the, 229\n\n  ----, the Royal Commission on the, 215, 242\n\n  \u201cFittest,\u201d defined, 43\n\n  France, effect of Napoleonic wars on, 284\n\n  ----, increase of population in, 76\n\n  Francis Galton Eugenics Laboratory, the, 315\n\n  \u201cFrench Revolution, The,\u201d by Carlyle, 254 (_note_)\n\n  Fulmar petrel, the multiplication of the, 73 (_note_)\n\n\n  Generation, the independence of every, 3\n\n  Genesis, individuation and, 87\n\n  \u201cGenetics, the Methods and Scope of,\u201d by Prof. W. Bateson, 306\n\n  Genius, infertility of, 287, 92\n\n  ----, the production of, 289\n\n  ----, the transmission of, 289\n\n  ----, the value of, to the world, 291\n\n  \u201cGenius, British, A Study of,\u201d by Havelock Ellis, 308\n\n  \u201cGenius, Hereditary,\u201d by F. Galton, _see_ Hereditary Genius\n\n  Germany, eugenics in, 158\n\n  ----, increase of population in, 76, 77\n\n  \u201cGerminal,\u201d defined, 110\n\n  Germ-plasm, immortality of the, 256\n\n  \u201cGerm-plasm, A Theory of Heredity, The,\u201d by August Weismann, 208, 311\n\n  Girls, the sexual education of, 318\n\n  Great Britain, increase of population in, 76\n\n  Greece, the fall of, 260\n\n  Gymnasium _versus_ playing fields, 63\n\n\n  H\u00e6mophilia and heredity, 179\n\n  Hampstead, birth-rate of, the lowest in London, 78\n\n  \u201cHealth, Strength and Happiness,\u201d by Dr. Saleeby, 119 (_note_)\n\n  \u201cHereditary Genius,\u201d by F. Galton, 107, 114, 289, 302 (_note_), 307,\n      308\n\n  Heredity, alcohol and, 206\n\n  ----, biography a guide to, 152\n\n  ----, Daltonism and, 179\n\n  ----, deaf-mutism and, 173\n\n  ----, education and, 128\n\n  ----, environment and, 126, 269\n\n  ----, h\u00e6mophilia and, 179\n\n  ----, obscured by acquired characters, 99\n\n  ----, race culture and, 99\n\n  ----, tuberculosis and, 179\n\n  \u201cHeredity,\u201d by Prof. J. A. Thomson, 99, 305\n\n  \u201cHeredity and Environic Forces,\u201d Dr. T. D. MacDougal on, 212\n\n  \u201cHeredity and Selection in Sociology,\u201d by George Chatterton-Hill, 311\n\n  \u201cHeredity, Alcoholism, A Study in,\u201d by G. Archdall Reid, 319\n\n  \u201cHeredity, The Germ-Plasm, A Theory of,\u201d by August Weismann, 311\n\n  \u201cHeredity, The Principles of,\u201d by G. Archdall Reid, 311\n\n  \u201cHistory,\u201d defined, 254\n\n  \u201cHistory of Human Marriage, The,\u201d by E., Westermarck, 312\n\n  \u201cHistory of Matrimonial Institutions, A,\u201d by G. E. Howard, 312\n\n  \u201cHuman Breed, The Possible Improvement of the, etc.,\u201d by F. Galton,\n      314\n\n  \u201cHuman Faculty, Inquiries into,\u201d by F. Galton, 308\n\n  Humanitarianism, indiscriminate, 27\n\n  Hygiene, individual and racial, 253\n\n  ----, school, 65\n\n  \u201cHygiene of Mind, The,\u201d by T. S. Clouston, 319\n\n  \u201cHygiene of Nerves and Mind,\u201d by August Forel, 242, 319\n\n\n  Imperialism, alcoholic, 244\n\n  ----, the old and the new, 33, 34\n\n  India as a wheat-producing country, 80\n\n  Individual _versus_ race, 256\n\n  \u201cIndividualism and Collectivism,\u201d by Dr. Saleeby, 101 (_note_)\n\n  Individuation and genesis, 87\n\n  Inebriates, _see_ Drunkards\n\n  ---- Act, the, 222, 224, 225, 230\n\n  ---- ----, reports of the inspector under, 319\n\n  ---- Committee, the Report of the, 239\n\n  Inebriety, _see_ Drunkenness\n\n  \u201cInebriety, Its Causation and Control,\u201d by R. Welsh Branthwaite, 319\n\n  Infancy, helplessness of, 3, 147, 148\n\n  ----, the mind of, 124\n\n  ----, the, of slum children, 102\n\n  \u201cInfancy, Alcohol and,\u201d by Dr. Saleeby, 214\n\n  Infant mortality, 19, 97, 104, 150, 207, 257, 294\n\n  ---- ---- among the Jews, 274\n\n  ---- ----, eugenics and, 20, 29, 31\n\n  ---- ----, first public mention of, 33\n\n  ---- ---- in the east, 76\n\n  ---- ----, polygamy and, 166\n\n  ---- ----, reports of the 1908 conference on, 320\n\n  ---- ----, the war against, 21\n\n  \u201cInfant Mortality,\u201d by Dr. George Newman, 86, 319\n\n  \u201cInherent,\u201d defined, 109\n\n  Inheritance, pecuniary, non-eugenic influence of, 101\n\n  ----, _see_ Heredity\n\n  \u201cInquiries into Human Faculty,\u201d by F. Galton, 92, 128, 290, 308\n\n  Inquisition, anti-eugenic effects of the, 267\n\n  Insanity, \u201cbreach of promise\u201d and, 202\n\n  ----, eugenics and, 175\n\n  ----, increase of, 176\n\n  Instinct, plasticity of, 148, 149\n\n  Intelligence, breeding for, 147, 150, 153\n\n  ----, the creation of, 149\n\n  ----, nature and, 40\n\n  \u201cIntensity of life,\u201d the, 91\n\n\n  \u201cJanus in Modern Life,\u201d by Prof. Flinders Petrie, 22\n\n  Japan, birth-rate in, 78\n\n  ----, the racial development of, 268\n\n  Jews, the, alcohol and, 275\n\n  ---- motherhood and, 274\n\n  ----, the survival of, 272\n\n\n  \u201cKingdom of Man, The,\u201d by Sir E. Ray Lankester, 41 (_note_)\n\n\n  Lamarckian theory of heredity, the, 134, 135, 208, 283\n\n  ---- ---- of racial degeneration, 258, 261\n\n  Lead, a racial poison, 247\n\n  \u201cLeviathan,\u201d by Hobbes, 106 (_note_)\n\n  Licensing Bill of 1908, the, 223, 232-237\n\n  Life, the continuity of, 2\n\n  London County Council, alcoholism and, 206\n\n  ---- ---- ----, feeble-minded children and, 229\n\n  ---- ---- ----, the treatment of inebriates by, 39 (_note_), 220-238\n\n  ---- Hospital, gift to, 11 (_note_)\n\n  Longevity, marriage and, 191\n\n  Love, eugenic value of, 70\n\n  ----, motherhood and, 152\n\n  ----, survival value of, 51\n\n  ----, the two stages of, 186\n\n\n  \u201cMaking of Character, The,\u201d by Prof. MacCunn, 124\n\n  Malaria, a racial poison, 260\n\n  \u201cMalaria, A Neglected Factor in the History of Greece and Rome,\u201d by\n      W. H. S. Jones, 260, 282, 319\n\n  Man, the denudation and defencelessness of, 58\n\n  ----, the foundation of Empire, 262\n\n  ----, the future of, 299\n\n  ----, the latest product of evolution, 55\n\n  ----, the multiplication of, 71\n\n  \u201cMan and Woman,\u201d by Havelock Ellis, 318\n\n  Marriage, animal, 162\n\n  ----, average age at, 90\n\n  ----, breach of promise of, and race culture, 201\n\n  ----, ---- ----, the law of, 202\n\n  ----, childless, 168\n\n  ----, contemporary, eugenic value of, 198\n\n  ----, control of, 184, 186\n\n  ----, defined, 170\n\n  ----, engagement of, eugenics and the length of, 198\n\n  ----, eugenic, 309\n\n  ----, ----, preparation for, 144\n\n  ----, ----, utility of, 162, 163, 168\n\n  ----, happiness in, extent of, 195\n\n  ----, human, 164\n\n  ----, inter-racial, xi\n\n  ----, longevity and, 191\n\n  ----, \u201cmixed\u201d games and, 196, 197\n\n  ---- of cousins, xii, 168\n\n  ---- of the deaf and dumb, 173\n\n  ----, present influence of, on eugenics, 187\n\n  ----, procreation, the paramount function of, 158\n\n  ----, selection for, 189\n\n  ----, ----, by woman, 194\n\n  ----, socialism and, 198\n\n  ----, survival-value of, 164\n\n  ---- systems, English and French, 199\n\n  ----, the ball-room and, 196, 197\n\n  ----, the field of choice in, 195\n\n  ----, the Income Tax and, 174\n\n  ----, the, of inebriates, 235\n\n  ----, the sanctity of, 313\n\n  ----, unselfish, 144\n\n  \u201cMarriage, Human, The History of,\u201d by E., Westermarck, 312\n\n  \u201cMarriage, Restrictions in,\u201d by F. Galton, 185, 204, 315\n\n  \u201cMarriage, The Evolution of,\u201d by Prof. Letourneau, 312\n\n  Married women's labour, 270\n\n  \u201cMass _versus_ mind\u201d, 95\n\n  Maternal care, development of, 150\n\n  ---- impressions, 111\n\n  Maternalism, the principle of, 169\n\n  Maternity, _see_ Motherhood\n\n  \u201cMatrimonial Institutions, A History of,\u201d by G. E. Howard, 312\n\n  \u201cMemories of my Life,\u201d by F. Galton, vii, 308\n\n  Mendelism, 108, 118, 293\n\n  \u201cMethods and Scope of Genetics, The,\u201d by Prof. W. Bateson, 306\n\n  Mind, selection of, 52\n\n  ----, the ascent of, 300\n\n  ----, the determinator of leadership, 59\n\n  ----, the master in war, 97\n\n  ----, the relation of, to the body, 52\n\n  ---- _versus_ mass, 95\n\n  ---- ---- muscle, 65\n\n  \u201cMind, The Hygiene of,\u201d by T. S. Clouston, 319\n\n  \u201cMind, Hygiene of Nerves and,\u201d by August Forel, 319\n\n  Monogamy, eugenic value of, 165, 170\n\n  ----, survival-value of, 166\n\n  ---- the ideal condition, 150\n\n  ---- the rule among higher animals, 163\n\n  Morality, survival-value of, 51\n\n  Morphinomania, parental, its influence on the offspring, 212\n\n  Motherhood, 169\n\n  ---- and love, 152\n\n  ----, breeding for, 145, 146\n\n  ---- carried on by unskilled labour, 151\n\n  ---- during the decline of Rome, 270, 271 (_note_)\n\n  ----, education for, 151\n\n  ----, history and, 269\n\n  ----, Jewish, 274\n\n  ----, psychical, 151, 153\n\n  ----, the elevation of, 32\n\n  ----, the environment provided by, 269\n\n  ----, the evolution of, 149\n\n  ----, the safeguarding of, 170\n\n  ----, the subsidisation of, 151\n\n  Mothers, school for, 151\n\n  Multiplication of man, a low death-rate the cause of, 73\n\n  ---- ----, the laws of, 86\n\n  ---- ----, the rate of, 90\n\n  ---- of the unfit, 189, 279\n\n  \u201cMunera Pulveris,\u201d by John Ruskin, 302 (_note_), 320\n\n  Muscle, right training of, 62\n\n  ----, the cult of, 60\n\n  ---- _versus_ Mind, 65\n\n  Muscles, useless, 61\n\n\n  Narcotics, irritant and non-irritant, 251\n\n  ----, possible racial influence of, 250\n\n  \u201cNational Life from the Standpoint of Science,\u201d by Karl Pearson, 279,\n      315\n\n  \u201cNatural Inheritance,\u201d by F. Galton, 308\n\n  Natural selection, 35 _et seq._\n\n  ---- ---- and racial degeneration, 260\n\n  ---- ---- _versus_ acquired progress, 266\n\n  Nature, the cruelty of, 38\n\n  \u201cNature,\u201d defined, 110\n\n  \u201cNature of Man, The,\u201d by Metchinkoff, 90\n\n  Navy, superior intelligence of the, to that of the Army, 98\n\n  \u201cNemesis of Nations, The,\u201d by W. R. Paterson, 281\n\n  New Zealand, control of drunkards in, 242\n\n  Nicotine, racial influence of, 251\n\n  Nietzscheanism, eugenics and, 28\n\n  Nitrogen, the fixation of, 81\n\n  \u201cNoteworthy Families\u201d, 114 (_note_)\n\n  \u201cNurture,\u201d defined, 110\n\n\n  \u201cObstacles to Eugenics, The,\u201d by Dr. Saleeby, 175 (_note_)\n\n  Opinion, individual, power of, 138\n\n  ----, public, the education of, 14, 15\n\n  ----, the creation of, 138\n\n  Opium, possible racial influence of, 251\n\n  \u201cOrdeal of Richard Feverel, The,\u201d by George Meredith, 112 (_note_)\n\n  \u201cOrigin of Species, The,\u201d by Charles Darwin, vii, 73 (_note_), 311\n\n  \u201cOrigin of Vertebrates, The,\u201d by Dr. W. H. Gaskell, 50 (_note_)\n\n  Overcrowding, 20\n\n  ---- and tuberculosis, 181\n\n  ---- and unemployment, 293\n\n\n  Parenthood, alcohol and, 241\n\n  ----, classification of society for, 104 (_note_)\n\n  ----, education for, xii, 138\n\n  ----, eugenic power of, 199\n\n  ---- of inebriates, 220\n\n  ----, selection for, vii, viii\n\n  ----, the elevation of, 293, 294\n\n  ----, the link of life, 3\n\n  ----, the most desirable, 91\n\n  ----, the rise of, 161\n\n  ----, the sanctity of, 138\n\n  Parents, selection of, 4\n\n  ----, proportion of, to population, 4\n\n  Paris, hospitals in, 247\n\n  Physique, eugenic, importance of, 69\n\n  Playing fields _versus_ gymnasia, 63\n\n  Politics, defined, 286\n\n  ----, domestics the future, 33, 285\n\n  ----, eugenics and, 118\n\n  \u201cPolitics,\u201d Aristotle's, 167\n\n  Polygamy and infant mortality, 166\n\n  ----, significance of, 165\n\n  Population, density of, influence of the, on the death rate, 75\n\n  ----, increase of, and the food supply, 79\n\n  ----, ----, emigration a remedy for, 84\n\n  ----, ----, safe extent of, 93\n\n  ----, ----, statistics of, 75, 76\n\n  ----, quantity _versus_ quality of, 93\n\n  ----, starvation a controller of, 84\n\n  ----, statistics of, as data for prophecy, 93\n\n  ----, survival-value of, 90, 91\n\n  ----, the test of, 95\n\n  \u201cPopulation and Progress,\u201d by Montague Crackanthorpe, 315\n\n  \u201cPopulation, The Principles of,\u201d by T. R. Malthus, 83, 85, 312\n\n  \u201cPossible Improvement of the Human Breed, etc.,\u201d by F. Galton, 314\n\n  Posterity, our duty to, 10\n\n  \u201cPoverty and Hereditary Genius,\u201d by Constable, 308\n\n  Prevention of Crimes Act, The, 179 (_note_)\n\n  \u201cPrevention of Tuberculosis, The,\u201d by Dr. A. Newsholme, 319\n\n  \u201cPrinciples of Biology, The,\u201d by Herbert Spencer, 86, 312\n\n  \u201cPrinciples of Heredity, The,\u201d by G. Archdall Reid, 311\n\n  \u201cPrinciples of Population, The,\u201d by T. R. Malthus, _see_ \u201cPopulation,\n      The Principles of\u201d\n\n  \u201cProbability, the Foundation of Eugenics,\u201d by F. Galton, 315\n\n  Progress, acquired, _see_ Acquired progress\n\n  ---- defined, 50, 303\n\n  ----, evolution and, 48\n\n  ---- of achievement, and of the race, 4\n\n  ----, racial and acquired, 262\n\n  \u201cProgress, Population and,\u201d by Montague Crackanthorpe, 315\n\n  Promiscuity among animals, 163\n\n  Public opinion, education of, 14, 15\n\n\n  Quality _versus_ quantity, 293\n\n\n  Race, immortality of, 256\n\n  ---- _versus_ individual, 256\n\n  Race-culture and human variety, 297\n\n  ----, education and, 120\n\n  ----, socialism and, 133\n\n  ----, the promise of, 287\n\n  \u201cRace-Culture or Race Suicide,\u201d by R. R. Rentoul, 316\n\n  \u201cRace Prejudice,\u201d by Jean Finot, 318\n\n  Racial degeneration and natural selection, 260\n\n  ---- ----, cause of, 263\n\n  ---- ----, the Lamarckian theory of, 258, 263\n\n  ---- instinct, education of the, xii\n\n  ---- poisons, the, x, 246\n\n  ---- ---- and decadence, 259\n\n  ---- ----, bibliography of, 318\n\n  \u201cRacial poisons,\u201d introduction of the term, 205\n\n  \u201cRacial Hygiene or Negative Eugenics,\u201d by Dr. Saleeby, 205\n\n  Racial senility, the fallacy of, 256\n\n  \u201cReformatory,\u201d the word, 238\n\n  Regression towards mediocrity, the law of, 288\n\n  Religion, eugenics and, 303\n\n  ----, the survival-value of, 303\n\n  \u201cReligion, Eugenics as a Factor in,\u201d by F. Galton, 315\n\n  Religious persecution, non-eugenic results of, 116, 264\n\n  Reproduction, the cost of, in energy, 87\n\n  \u201cRepublic, The,\u201d of Plato, 166, 313\n\n  \u201cRestrictions in Marriage,\u201d by F. Galton, 185, 204, 315\n\n  Reversed selection, 265\n\n  ---- ----, the final cause of racial decay, 264, 266\n\n  ---- ----, war a cause of, 284\n\n  \u201cReversion,\u201d defined, 111\n\n  Rome, the decline of, 281\n\n  ----, motherhood during the decline of, 270\n\n  Russia, increase of population in, 76\n\n  ---- as a wheat-producing country, 80, 81\n\n\n  \u201cSchool hygiene\u201d, 65\n\n  \u201cScope and Importance to the State of the Science of National\n      Eugenics, The,\u201d by Karl Pearson, 315\n\n  Selection, alcohol an agent in, 206\n\n  ---- and racial change, 260\n\n  ---- by marriage, 189\n\n  ---- for parentage, vii, viii\n\n  ----, natural, _see_ Natural Selection\n\n  ---- of mind, 52\n\n  ---- of woman, for marriage, 189\n\n  ----, reversed, _see_ Reversed Selection\n\n  ----, sexual, 67, 190, 197, 202\n\n  ----, the principle of, education in, 137\n\n  \u201cSex and Society,\u201d by W. I. Thomas, 317\n\n  \u201cSex, The Evolution of,\u201d by Patrick Geddes and J. Arthur Thomson, 312\n\n  \u201cSexual Choice\u201d, 314\n\n  Sexual education of children, 139\n\n  ---- ---- of girls, 318\n\n  ---- selection, 67, 190, 197, 202\n\n  \u201cSexual Selection in Man,\u201d by Havelock Ellis, 202\n\n  \u201cSexuel Frage, Die\u201d (The Sexual Question), by August Forel, 130, 242,\n      253, 320\n\n  Siegfried, the story of, 304\n\n  \u201cSocial Psychology,\u201d by Dr. McDougall, 117\n\n  Socialism and education, 129, 130, 132\n\n  ---- and marriage, 198\n\n  ---- and race-culture, 133\n\n  ---- and selection for marriage, 194\n\n  Society, the classification of, and eugenics, 119\n\n  ----, classification of, for parenthood, 104 (_note_)\n\n  \u201cSociety, The Diseases of,\u201d by G. F. Lydston, 318\n\n  \u201cSociety, Sex and,\u201d by W. I. Thomas, 317\n\n  \u201cSociological Papers\u201d, 41, 114 (_note_), 185 (_note_), 279, 289, 314,\n      315\n\n  Sociological Society, the, 275\n\n  \u201cSociology, Heredity and Selection in,\u201d by G. Chatterton-Hill, 311\n\n  \u201cSociology, The Study of,\u201d by Herbert Spencer, 317\n\n  Soldiers, mistaken muscular training of, 63\n\n  Spain, the racial condition of, 267, 268\n\n  \u201cSpontaneous,\u201d defined, 215\n\n  Starvation as a controller of population, 84\n\n  ----, extent of, in England, 82\n\n  Stepney, birth-rate of, the highest in London, 78\n\n  Sterilization of mental and physical degenerates, 316\n\n  Strength _versus_ skill, 62\n\n  \u201cStruggle for existence,\u201d the, 42, 83, 280\n\n  \u201cStudies in National Eugenics,\u201d by F. Galton, 315\n\n  \u201cStudies in the Psychology of Sex\u201d, 202\n\n  \u201cStudy of British Genius, A,\u201d by Havelock Ellis, 308\n\n  \u201cStudy of Sociology, The,\u201d by Herbert Spencer, 192, 317\n\n  \u201cSurvival of the fittest,\u201d the, 43, 49\n\n  Survival-value, 46\n\n  ---- of love, 51\n\n  ---- of monogamy, 51\n\n  ---- of population, 90, 91\n\n  ---- of religion, the, 303\n\n  ---- of the tape-worm, 47\n\n  ----, physical _versus_ psychical, 50\n\n  \u201cSurvival-Value of Religion, The,\u201d by Dr. Saleeby, 303\n\n  Syphilis, a racial poison, 252\n\n  \u201cSyphilology and Venereal Diseases,\u201d by Dr. C. F. Marshall, 253\n\n\n  Talent, the production of, 290\n\n  Tape-worm, survival value of the, 47\n\n  Tasmanians, racial disappearance of the, 257\n\n  Taubach, the Driftmen of, 59\n\n  Temperance legislation, the failure of, 236\n\n  \u201cTime and Tide,\u201d by John Ruskin, 96, 131, 254 (_note_), 296, 320\n\n  Tobacco and the race, 257\n\n  ----, influence of, on pregnancy, 252\n\n  Tuberculosis, eugenics and, 179\n\n  ----, heredity and, 180\n\n  ----, overcrowding and, 181\n\n  ----, racial extermination by, 260\n\n  \u201cTuberculosis, The Prevention of,\u201d by A. Newsholme, 319\n\n\n  Unemployment, eugenics and, 293\n\n  ----, overcrowding and, 293\n\n  United States, control of drunkards in the, 242\n\n  ---- ----, higher education of woman in the, 89\n\n  ---- ----, increase of population in the, 76\n\n  ---- ----, the, a wheat-producing country, 80, 81\n\n  \u201cUnto this Last,\u201d by John Ruskin, 320\n\n\n  Variation, 297\n\n  \u201cVariation, Heredity and Evolution,\u201d by R. H. Lock, 311\n\n  \u201cVariations in Animals and Plants,\u201d by H. M. Vernon, 311\n\n  Vertebrates, evolution of the, 55\n\n  Vital economy, the principle of, 17, 19\n\n\n  War, a cause of reversed selection, 284\n\n  ----, mind the master in, 97\n\n  Wealth, Ruskin's definition of, 17\n\n  \u201cWestminster Gazette, The,\u201d on the population and the food supply, 79\n\n  Wheat, improvement in, 82\n\n  ---- problem, the, 79\n\n  \u201cWheat Problem, The,\u201d by Sir William Crookes, 80\n\n  Wheat, Prof. Biffen's, 109\n\n  Whiskey, defined, 232\n\n  \u201cWidows and Orphans,\u201d and the alcohol trade, 245\n\n  Woman and eugenics, 193, 294\n\n  ----, employment of, 294\n\n  ----, the higher education of, non-eugenic effects of, 89\n\n  Women, married, and labour, 270\n\n  ----, secret drinking by, 232\n\n  ----, selection for marriage by, 194\n\n  Work, the eugenic necessity of, 264\n\n  Writing, the art of, as a means of transmission, 261\n\n\n  \u201cYellow Peril,\u201d the, 78, 269\n\n  \u201cYouth, its Education, Regimen and Hygiene,\u201d by Stanley Hall, 318\n\n\n\n\n                             INDEX OF NAMES\n\n\n  Aristotle, 262\n\n  ---- on motherhood, 167\n\n  ---- on racial decay, 256, 257\n\n  ----, \u201cPolitics,\u201d by, 167\n\n  Arnold, Matthew, 289\n\n  ----, Thomas, 289\n\n  Asquith, H. H., 234\n\n\n  Bach, 300\n\n  ---- family, the, 289\n\n  Bacon on the command of Nature, 13, 26, 41\n\n  Balfour, A. J., 228\n\n  ----, ----, on decadence, 234, 279, 280\n\n  ----, ----, on intemperance, 235\n\n  ----, ----, on legislation, 233\n\n  ----, ----, on Licensing Bill of 1908, 233\n\n  ----, ----, on politics, 286\n\n  Ballantyne, Dr., on the unborn infant, 320\n\n  Barker, Ernest, on the destruction of marriage, 167\n\n  Bateson, Prof. W., \u201cMethods and Scope of Genetics,\u201d by, 306\n\n  Bateson, Prof. W., on education, 120\n\n  ----, ----, on Mendelism, 306\n\n  Beethoven, 127, 146, 289, 292\n\n  Bertillon, M., on marital longevity, 192\n\n  Biffen, Prof., and his experiments on wheat, 109\n\n  Booth, the Rt. Hon. Charles, on the extent of starvation, 82\n\n  Bouchacourt on the care of motherhood, 145\n\n  Bourneville, on lead poisoning, 247\n\n  Branthwaite, Dr. R. Welsh, 228, 238\n\n  ----, ----, \u201cInebriety, Its Causation and Control,\u201d by, 217 (_note_),\n      319\n\n  ----, ----, on alcoholism as a symptom of degeneracy, 217\n\n  Brieux, \u201cLes Avari\u00e9s\u201d, 252\n\n  Brooks, Graham, on the Negro race, xi\n\n  Brouardel, parental morphinomania, 212\n\n  Browning, Robert, 135\n\n  Buckle, 267\n\n  Buddha, 146\n\n  Bulstrode, Dr., on tuberculosis, 181 (_note_)\n\n  Burchell, 52\n\n  Burns, the Rt. Hon. John, on motherhood, 32\n\n  Byron on the decay of nations, 255\n\n\n  Cakebread, Jane, the case of, 222, 225, 228, 238\n\n  Carlyle, Thomas, 309\n\n  ----, ----, on history, 254 (_note_)\n\n  ----, ----, \u201cThe French Revolution,\u201d by, 254 (_note_)\n\n  Chatterton-Hill, George, \u201cHeredity and Selection in Sociology,\u201d by,\n      311\n\n  Chesterton, G. K., on eugenics, 158 (_note_)\n\n  Clouston, T. S., \u201cThe Hygiene of Mind,\u201d by, 319\n\n  Cobden, Richard, 17\n\n  Cohn on the multiplication of bacteria, 160\n\n  Coleridge, 262\n\n  Combemale, experiments of, in alcoholism, 211\n\n  Constable, \u201cPoverty and Hereditary Genius,\u201d by, 308\n\n  Copernicus, 180\n\n  Cottrell, Mr., on the population of London, 76\n\n  Crackanthorpe, Mr. Montague, on the birth rate, 95\n\n  ----, ----, \u201cPopulation and Progress,\u201d by, 315\n\n  Crichton-Browne, Sir James, on education, 125\n\n  Crookes, Sir William, 85\n\n  ----, ----, on the wheat supply, 80\n\n  ----, ----, \u201cThe Wheat Problem,\u201d by, 80\n\n\n  Darwin, Charles, 42, 236, 296, 301, 307, 313\n\n  ----, ----, and the effect of music on plants, 127\n\n  ----, ----, centenary of the birth of, vii\n\n  ----, ----, his talented ancestry and kindred, 289\n\n  ----, ----, on degeneration, 171\n\n  ----, ----, on national rise and decline, 275 (_note_)\n\n  ----, ----, on natural selection, 83, 137, 260, 261\n\n  ----, ----, on sexual selection, 67, 190, 197\n\n  ----, ----, on the elephant, 72 (_note_)\n\n  ----, ----, on the future, 293\n\n  ----, ----, on the multiplication of the unfit, 227, 279\n\n  ----, ----, on the queen bee, 44\n\n  ----, ----, on vitality and muscularity, 67 (_note_)\n\n  ----, ----, Ruskin on, 95\n\n  ----, ----, \u201cThe Descent of Man,\u201d by, 171, 191, 197, 279, 311\n\n  ----, ----, \u201cThe Origin of Species,\u201d by, 43, 73 (_note_), 311\n\n  Darwin, Erasmus, the grandfather of Charles Darwin, 289, 290\n\n  ----, Francis, 290\n\n  ----, Sir George, 290\n\n  Demme and parental alcoholism, 212\n\n  Disraeli on circumstances, 149\n\n  Down, Dr. Langdon, on drunkenness and the feeble-minded, 219\n\n  Dunlop, Dr. A. R., on habitual drunkenness, 219\n\n\n  Eccles, McAdam, on alcohol and the racial organs, 209\n\n  ----, ----, on drunkenness, 221\n\n  Ellis, Havelock, \u201cA Study of British Genius,\u201d by, 308\n\n  ----, ----, \u201cMan and Woman,\u201d by, 318\n\n  ----, ----, on drunkenness, 219\n\n  ----, ----, on sexual selection, 202, 204\n\n  ----, ----, on socialism and education, 132\n\n  ----, ----, \u201cSexual Selection in Man,\u201d by, 202\n\n  Emerson on mass _versus_ mind, 96\n\n  ---- on the morality of the universe, 37\n\n  Empedocles on survival value, 46\n\n  Epictetus on fools, 130\n\n  Etienne on opinion as ruler, 234\n\n\n  F\u00e9r\u00e9 on alcohol, 207\n\n  Ferrier, Prof. David, on habitual drunkenness, 219\n\n  Finot, Jean, on the Negro race, xi\n\n  ----, ----, \u201cRace Prejudice,\u201d by, 318\n\n  Fleck, Dr., on drunkenness and the feeble-minded, 219\n\n  Forel, Prof. August, 17, 137\n\n  ----, ----, \u201cDie Sexuel Frage,\u201d by 130, 242, 253, 320\n\n  ----, ----, \u201cHygiene of Nerves and Mind,\u201d by, 242, 319\n\n  ----, ----, on alcohol as a racial poison, 244\n\n  ----, ----, on alcoholism and heredity, 242\n\n  ----, ----, on education, 129, 130\n\n  ----, ----, on our duty to posterity, 35\n\n  ----, ----, on the future of the race, 171\n\n  ----, ----, on the nervous system, 53\n\n  ----, ----, on the sexual education of children, 139\n\n\n  Galton, Francis, vii, 110, 206, 293, 307\n\n  ----, ----, and acquired characters, the non-transmission of, 114\n      (_note_), 216, 259\n\n  ----, ----, and biometrics, xiii\n\n  ----, ----, and eugenics, positive and negative, 172\n\n  ----, ----, and G. B. Shaw, 155\n\n  ----, ----, and the law of regression towards mediocrity, 289\n\n  ----, ----, \u201cEugenics as a Factor in Religion,\u201d by, 315\n\n  ----, ----, \u201cEugenics, its Definition, Scope, and Aims,\u201d by, 314\n\n  ----, ----, \u201cHereditary Genius,\u201d by 107, 114, 289, 302 (_note_), 307,\n      308\n\n  ----, ----, his kinship to Darwin, 289\n\n  ----, ----, \u201cInquiries into Human Faculty,\u201d by, 92, 128, 290, 308\n\n  ----, ----, \u201cMemories of my Life,\u201d by, vii, 308\n\n  ----, ----, \u201cNatural Inheritance,\u201d by, 308\n\n  ----, ----, on ancestry, a rational pride in, 144\n\n  ----, ----, on breeding for ability, 153\n\n  ----, ----, ---- energy, 67, 153\n\n  ----, ----, ---- health, 145, 153\n\n  ----, ----, on civic worth, 68\n\n  ----, ----, on civilisation, 117\n\n  ----, ----, on energy, 193 (_note_), 290\n\n  ----, ----, on eugenics, the meaning and the aims of, 157, 298, 315\n\n  ----, ----, on functionally produced modifications, the\n      non-inheritance of, 211\n\n  ----, ----, on genius, hereditary, 107, 114\n\n  ----, ----, ----, the quality of, 114 (_note_)\n\n  ----, ----, on human intelligence, 41\n\n  ----, ----, on human variety, 298\n\n  ----, ----, on marriage, eugenic, 168\n\n  ----, ----, ----, late, 92\n\n  ----, ----, ----, the subsidisation of, 200\n\n  ----, ----, on motherhood, the subsidisation of, 157\n\n  ----, ----, on national eugenics, 115\n\n  ----, ----, on national rise and decline, 279\n\n  ----, ----, on public opinion, the formation of, 15\n\n  ----, ----, on society, the eugenic value of the various classes of,\n      104\n\n  ----, ----, on sociology, the duties of, 275\n\n  ----, ----, on the desirable qualities, 299\n\n  ----, ----, on the future of man, 302\n\n  ----, ----, on the production of genius, 288\n\n  ----, ----, on the production of talent, 292\n\n  ----, ----, \u201cProbability the Foundation of Eugenics,\u201d by, 315\n\n  ----, ----, \u201cRestrictions in Marriage,\u201d by, 185, 204, 315\n\n  ----, ----, \u201cStudies in National Eugenics,\u201d by, 315\n\n  ----, ----, \u201cThe Possible Improvement of the Human Breed, under\n      existing Conditions of Law and Sentiment,\u201d by, 314\n\n  Gaskell, Dr. W. H., \u201cThe Origin of Vertebrates,\u201d by, 50 (_note_)\n\n  Geddes, Prof. Patrick, on Government, 122\n\n  ----, ----, \u201cThe Evolution of Sex,\u201d by, and Prof. J. A. Thomson, 312\n\n  Gibbon, 271 (_note_)\n\n  ---- on history, 254\n\n  ---- on the necessity for advance or retrogression, 266\n\n  Gladstone, Herbert, and the treatment of chronic inebriates by the\n      London County Council, 222, 223\n\n  Godwin, William, on literature, 262 (_note_)\n\n  Goethe on activity, 291 (_note_)\n\n  ---- on fate and chance, 12\n\n  ---- on ignorance, 223\n\n  ---- on marriage, 168\n\n  ---- on the education of race, 136\n\n  Gorst, Sir John, \u201cThe Children of the Nation,\u201d by, 319\n\n\n  Hall, Prof. Stanley, \u201cAdolescence,\u201d by, 318\n\n  ----, ----, \u201cYouth, its Education, Regimen and Hygiene,\u201d by, 318\n\n  Helvetius on the influence of education, 128\n\n  Hobbes, Thomas, on \u201cWords\u201d, 106\n\n  ----, ----, \u201cLeviathan,\u201d by, 106 (_note_)\n\n  Holmes, Mr. Thomas, on habitual drunkenness, 220\n\n  Horsley, Sir Victor, and Mary D. Sturge, \u201cAlcohol and the Human\n      Body,\u201d by, 319\n\n  Howard, G. E., \u201cA History of Matrimonial Institutions,\u201d by, 312\n\n  Huxley, 29, 40, 58, 280, 281\n\n  ----, \u201cEvolution and Ethics,\u201d by, 26\n\n  ---- on cosmic nature, 26, 36, 39 (_note_)\n\n  ---- on Pasteur, 94\n\n  ---- on public opinion, 135\n\n  ---- on the multiplication of the unfit, 227\n\n\n  Im Thurn, Mr., on marriage customs of Guiana, 184\n\n\n  Jones, Dr. Robert, on the case of Jane Cakebread, 328\n\n  Jones, W. H. S., \u201cMalaria: a Neglected Factor in the History of\n      Greece and Rome,\u201d by, 319\n\n  Joubert, 18\n\n\n  Kant, 4, 87\n\n  ---- on the influence of education, 128\n\n  Keats, 46, 50\n\n  Kellogg, Vernon L., \u201cDarwinism To-day,\u201d by, 312\n\n  Kelvin, Lord, his services to life, 95\n\n  Kipling, Rudyard, and imperialism, 244, 245\n\n  ----, ----, on breeds in the making, 245\n\n  ----, ----, on emigration, 9\n\n  Kirby, Miss, on the feeble-minded, 220\n\n  Kirkup, Thomas, on Malthusianism, 84\n\n  Koch and tuberculosis, 180\n\n\n  Lamarck, 36\n\n  ---- on inheritance of acquired characters, 134, 258, 259, 261\n\n  ---- _versus_ Weismann, 206, 207, 208\n\n  Lankester, Sir E. Ray, on man, the controller of nature, 41\n\n  ----, ----, on the multiplication of man, 9, 71, 72\n\n  ----, ----, on the struggle for existence, 42, 280\n\n  ----, ----, \u201cThe Kingdom of Man,\u201d by, 41 (_note_)\n\n  Legrain on alcoholism and heredity, 220\n\n  Leonardo da Vinci, 264\n\n  Letourneau, Prof., \u201cThe Evolution of Marriage,\u201d by, 312\n\n  Lewin on lead poisoning, 248\n\n  Lister, Lord, his services to life, 95\n\n  Livingstone, Dr., on African marriage customs, 184\n\n  Lock, R. H., \u201cVariation, Heredity and Evolution,\u201d by, 311\n\n  Lombroso, criminological work of, 177\n\n  London, Bishop of, on the falling birth-rate, 96\n\n  Love, Dr., on deaf-mutism, 174\n\n  Lowell, J. R., on human suffering, 130\n\n  Lucretius, 12, 260\n\n  Lydston, G. F., \u201cThe Diseases of Society: the Vice and Crime\n      Problem,\u201d by, 318\n\n\n  MacCunn, Prof., on the infant mind, 124\n\n  ----, ----, \u201cThe Making of Character,\u201d by, 124\n\n  MacDougal, Dr. T. D., on \u201cHeredity and Environic Forces\u201d, 210\n\n  McDougall, Dr. W., on infant mortality, 23\n\n  ----, ----, on transmissible characters, 117\n\n  ----, ----, \u201cSocial Psychology,\u201d by, 117\n\n  Magee, Archbishop, 243\n\n  Malthus, T. R., 17, 313\n\n  ----, ----, his theory, 80, 83\n\n  ----, ----, ignorance as to his essay, 85\n\n  ----, ----, importance of his doctrine to-day, 85\n\n  ----, ----, \u201cThe Principles of Population,\u201d by, 83, 85, 312\n\n  Marcus Aurelius, 298\n\n  Marshall, Dr. C. F., on alcohol and syphilis, 253\n\n  ----, ----, \u201cSyphilology\u201d by, 253\n\n  Maudsley, Dr., on eugenics, 187\n\n  Mendel, the theory of, 108, 307\n\n  Meredith, George, 37, 231, 287\n\n  ----, ----, \u201cThe Ordeal of Richard Feverel,\u201d by, 112 (_note_)\n\n  Metchnikoff, on age at marriage, 90\n\n  ----, \u201cThe Nature of Man,\u201d by, 90\n\n  Mill, James, 289\n\n  ----, John Stuart, 182, 289\n\n  ----, ----, on nature, 38\n\n  Milton, 292\n\n  Morgan, Prof. Lloyd, \u201cSurvival Value\u201d, 46\n\n  Mott, Dr. F. W., on habitual drunkenness, 219\n\n  Mozart, 126\n\n\n  Napoleon, the wars of, cause of reversed selection in France, 284\n\n  Newman, Dr. George, on the falling birth-rate, 86 (_note_)\n\n  ----, ----, \u201cInfant Mortality,\u201d by, 86, 319\n\n  Newsholme, Dr. A., on tuberculosis, 182\n\n  ----, ----, \u201cThe Prevention of Tuberculosis,\u201d by, 319\n\n  Newton, Sir Isaac, 6, 146, 288, 300, 301\n\n  ----, saved by motherhood, 150\n\n  Nietzsche and the Darwinian theory, 51\n\n  ---- and the super-man theory, 25\n\n  ---- and \u201ctransvaluation,\u201d 101\n\n  ---- on organic evolution, 158\n\n\n  Oliver, Sir Thomas, on lead poisoning, 247, 248, 249\n\n  ----, ----, \u201cDiseases of Occupation,\u201d by, 247 (_note_), 319\n\n\n  Palestrina, 127\n\n  Palmerston, Lord, 131\n\n  Parsons, Dr. Elsie Clews, on diminution of offspring, 162\n\n  ----, ----, on parentage, 161, 162\n\n  ----, ----, \u201cThe Family,\u201d by, 314\n\n  Pascal, 52\n\n  Pasteur and tuberculosis, 180\n\n  ----, his value to the French nation, 94\n\n  ---- on the abolition of disease, 72\n\n  Paterson, W. R., on slavery, the cause of the fall of empires, 281\n\n  ----, ----, \u201cThe Nemesis of Nations,\u201d by, 281\n\n  Pearson, Prof. Karl, 314\n\n  ----, ----, and biometrics, xiii\n\n  ----, ----, \u201cNational Life from the Standpoint of Science,\u201d by, 279,\n      315\n\n  ----, ----, on national rise and decline, 275 (_note_), 279\n\n  ----, ----, on the multiplication of the yellow races, 78\n\n  ----, ----, \u201cThe Scope and Importance to the State of the Science of\n      National Eugenics,\u201d by, 315\n\n  Pericles, 292\n\n  Petrie, Prof. Flinders, \u201cJanus in Modern Life,\u201d by, 22\n\n  ----, ----, on infantile mortality, 22\n\n  Plato and motherhood, 166\n\n  ---- and the destruction of the family, 169, 313\n\n  ---- on the duty of Governments, 276\n\n  ---- on racial decay, 256, 257\n\n  ---- on the sanctity of marriage, 313\n\n  ---- on the State as mother, 313\n\n  ----, \u201cThe Republic,\u201d of, 166, 313, 314\n\n  Pope, on genius and insanity, 176\n\n  Potts, Dr. W. A., on \u201cThe Relation of Alcohol to Feeble-mindedness\u201d,\n      214, 216\n\n\n  Ranke, Prof., on the mind of man, 59\n\n  Ravenhill, Miss Alice, on \u201cEducation for Motherhood\u201d, 32\n\n  ----, ----, on the education of girls, 320\n\n  Reid, Dr. Archdall, on alcohol, 206, 211\n\n  ----, ----, on humanitarianism and deterioration, 24, 25\n\n  ----, ----, on the marriage of drunkards, 235\n\n  ----, ----, on the resistance of the germ-plasm, 250\n\n  ----, ----, \u201cAlcoholism, A Study in Heredity,\u201d by, 319\n\n  ----, ----, \u201cThe Principles of Heredity,\u201d by, 311\n\n  Rembrandt, 4\n\n  Rennert on lead poisoning, 247, 248\n\n  Rentoul, Dr. R. R., on the sterilisation of mental and physical\n      degenerates, 316\n\n  ----, ----, \u201cRace Culture or Race Suicide,\u201d by, 316\n\n  Reynolds, Sir Alfred, on the treatment of inebriates, 226, 230\n\n  Roche, Sir Boyle, on posterity, 11\n\n  Roques on lead poisoning, 247\n\n  Ross, Prof. Ronald, \u201cMalaria, A Neglected Factor in the History of\n      Greece and Rome,\u201d introduced by, 319\n\n  ----, ----, on malaria as a cause of national decay, 260, 282\n\n  Rowntree, B. Seebohm, on the extent of starvation, 82\n\n  Ruskin, John, \u201cMunera Pulveris,\u201d by, 302 (_note_), 320\n\n  ----, \u201cTime and Tide,\u201d by, 96, 131, 254 (_note_), 296, 320\n\n  ----, \u201cUnto this Last,\u201d by, 320\n\n  ---- on Darwin, 95\n\n  ---- on education and inequality, 131\n\n  ---- on life the only wealth, 17, 133, 269\n\n  ---- on marriage, 296\n\n  ---- on mass _versus_ mind, 96\n\n  ---- on posterity, 287\n\n  ---- on the duty of Governments, 18, 276\n\n  ---- on the future of man, 302\n\n  ---- on the manufacture of souls, 270\n\n  ---- on the neglect of children, 145\n\n  ---- on the neglect of woman, 145\n\n  ---- on true history, 254 (_note_)\n\n  ---- on work, 264\n\n\n  St. Francis, 301\n\n  Saleeby, Dr., \u201cAlcohol and Infancy,\u201d by, 214\n\n  ----, ----, and G. B. Shaw, his controversy on marriage with, 157\n\n  ----, ----, \u201cEvolution, the Master Key,\u201d by, 147\n\n  ----, ----, \u201cHealth, Strength and Happiness,\u201d by, 119 (_note_)\n\n  ----, ----, \u201cIndividualism and Collectivism,\u201d by, 101 (_note_)\n\n  ----, ----, \u201cObstacles to Eugenics,\u201d by, 175 (_note_)\n\n  ----, ----, on biology and history, 254 (_note_)\n\n  ----, ----, on London's inebriates, the case of, 226\n\n  ----, ----, on progress, 262\n\n  ----, ----, on the survival-value of religion, 303\n\n  ----, ----, on widows and orphans made by alcohol, 245\n\n  ----, ----, \u201cThe Essential Factor of Progress,\u201d by, 262\n\n  Salisbury, Lord, his attack on evolution, 45\n\n  ----, ----, on Spain a dying nation, 268\n\n  Sandow, 135\n\n  ---- and the development of physique, 64\n\n  Scharlieb, Mrs., on maternal alcoholism, 214 (_note_)\n\n  ----, ----, \u201cThe Drink Problem,\u201d by, 214 (_note_)\n\n  Schopenhauer on love intrigue, 197 (_note_)\n\n  Schubert, 46, 50\n\n  Seton, Ernest Thompson, on animal marriage, 163\n\n  Shakespeare, 6, 126, 146, 245, 255, 287, 293, 301\n\n  ----, ancestry of, 107-109\n\n  ----, quoted, xii, 58 (_note_), 97, 231, 278\n\n  Shaw, Dr. Claye, on maternal alcoholism, 213\n\n  ----, George Bernard, 85, 169\n\n  ----, ----, on eugenics, 155, 156\n\n  ----, ----, on heredity, 102\n\n  ----, ----, on marriage, his controversy with Dr. Saleeby, 157\n\n  ----, ----, on motherhood, 166\n\n  Shaw, Dr. Claye, on the State as mother, 156\n\n  Shelley, 131\n\n  Simpson, Sir James, on the inheritance of acquired characters, 136\n\n  Sims, G. R., on children, the protection of, 237\n\n  ----, ----, on habitual drunkards, the treatment of, 222\n\n  ----, ----, \u201con the cry of the children\u201d, 295\n\n  ----, ----, \u201cThe Black Stain,\u201d by, 237, 319\n\n  ----, ----, \u201cThe Cry of the Children,\u201d by, 237, 319\n\n  Smith, Adam, 17\n\n  Socrates, 313, 314\n\n  Sombart, Dr., on the population of Germany, 77\n\n  Sophocles, quoted, 52\n\n  Spencer, Herbert, 4, 9, 85, 296, 300\n\n  ----, absence of early education of, 120\n\n  ---- and evolution, 43, 48\n\n  ---- and functionally produced modifications, 111\n\n  ---- and his reply to Lord Salisbury's attack on evolution, 45\n\n  ---- and Huxley, 26\n\n  ---- and \u201csocial organisms\u201d, 256\n\n  ---- on the cosmic process, 25\n\n  ---- on the defencelessness of man, 58\n\n  ---- on education, 131\n\n  ---- on education for parenthood, 140\n\n  ---- on human fertility, 89, 90, 91, 92\n\n  ---- on individuation and genesis, 288\n\n  ---- on marital longevity, 191, 192\n\n  ---- on marriage, 164\n\n  ---- on natural selection, 35\n\n  ---- on parenthood, 88\n\n  ---- on the future of man, 301, 302\n\n  ---- on the laws of multiplication, 86, 87, 266\n\n  ---- on woman and selection for marriage, 193\n\n  ----, the ancestry of, 152\n\n  ----, the \u201cAutobiography\u201d of, 35, 58, 65, 152\n\n  ----, \u201cThe Data of Ethics,\u201d by, 302 (_note_)\n\n  ----, \u201cthe survival of the fittest\u201d, 23 (_note_), 43, 44, 84, 260\n\n  ----, \u201cEducation,\u201d by, 317\n\n  ----, \u201cThe Principles of Biology,\u201d by, 86, 312\n\n  ----, \u201cThe Study of Sociology,\u201d by, 192, 317\n\n  Spinoza, 46, 50\n\n  Stark, Dr., on marital longevity, 192\n\n  Sturge, Mary D., and Sir Victor Horsley, \u201cAlcohol and the Human\n      Body,\u201d by, 319\n\n  Sullivan, Dr. W. C., \u201cAlcoholism,\u201d by, 211, 242, 319\n\n  ----, ----, on alcohol and alcoholism, 207, 211-213, 220\n\n  Sutherland on parental care, 162\n\n\n  Theognis on pecuniary inheritance, 101\n\n  ---- on the duty of Governments, 276\n\n  Thomas, W. I., \u201cSex and Society,\u201d by, 317\n\n  Thompson, Francis, 128\n\n  Thomson, Prof. J. A., \u201cHeredity,\u201d by, 99, 305\n\n  ----, ----, on \u201cinheritance\u201d, 110 (_note_)\n\n  ----, ----, on race culture, 99\n\n  ----, ----, on reversion, 111\n\n  ----, ----, \u201cThe Evolution of Sex,\u201d by, and Patrick Geddes, 312\n\n  ----, ----, translator of Weismann, 311\n\n  ----, M. R., translator of Weismann, 311\n\n  Thoreau, quoted, 173\n\n  Tille on man the wealth of nations, 17\n\n  Tintoretto, 288\n\n  Turner, Sir William, on the human foot, 61\n\n\n  Urquhart, Dr. A. R., on habitual drunkenness, 219\n\n\n  Vernon, H. M., \u201cVariations in Animals and Plants,\u201d by, 311\n\n  Villemin and tuberculosis, 180\n\n\n  Waddington, Mr. Quintin, his translation of Aulus Gellius, 271\n      (_note_)\n\n  Wagner, \u201cSiegfried\u201d, 303\n\n  Wallace, Alfred Russel, 314\n\n  ----, ----, on matrimonial choice by women, 194\n\n  ----, ----, on natural selection, 83\n\n  Watson, William, the patriotism of, x\n\n  Watts, G. F., 4\n\n  Wedgwood, Josiah, maternal grandfather of Charles Darwin, 289\n\n  Weismann, August, 206, 211, 216, 248, 280\n\n  ----, his controversy with Lamarck, 208\n\n  ----, on parental alcoholism, 208-210\n\n  ----, \u201cThe Germ-Plasm: a Theory in Heredity,\u201d by, 208, 311\n\n  ----, \u201cThe Evolution Theory,\u201d by, 311\n\n  Wellington, Duke of, 128\n\n  Wells, H. G., on the multiplication of the unfit, 14\n\n  ---- on Spencer's terminology, 43, 44, 49\n\n  Westermarck, Dr. E., on marriage, 158, 165\n\n  ----, ----, on the control of marriage, 184\n\n  ----, ----, \u201cThe History of Human Marriage,\u201d by, 312\n\n  Wordsworth, 4, 244, 301, 302\n\n  ----, absence of early education of, 120\n\n  ---- on the decay of nations, 284\n\n  ----, quoted, 35, 277, 300\n\n\nPrinted by The East of England Printing Works, London and Norwich\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nTranscriber's notes:\n\nThis text was produced using page images of the book available from the\nInternet Archive ( http://archive.org/details/parenthoodracec00sale ).\nEvery effort has been made to convey accurately the original work.\n\nThree typographical corrections have been made: in \u201cmillenium\u201d,\n\u201csymptons\u201d, and \u201cbe becomes guided by\u201d.\n\nQuotation marks have been added to balance quotes when missing,\nand when supported by other sources; similarly with other cases of\nobviously missing punctuation.\n\nInconsistent hyphenation has been retained (e.g. \u201covercrowding\u201d vs.\n\u201cover-crowding\u201d).\n\nItalic text is surrounded by _underscores_.\n\nBold text is surrounded by =equal signs=.\n\nText in small capitals, such as quote attributions and the table of\ncontents detail, has been rendered in regular case.\n\nIndex entries that use Roman numerals (referring to the Preface) have\neach had two pages added due to obvious errors in the original.\n\nFootnotes have been numbered and collected at the end of the text but\nbefore the indices.","title":"Parenthood and Race Culture: An Outline of Eugenics","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":110405}