Natural selection, which is the central doctrine of Darwinism, has been explained as the "survival of the fittest." On this process has depended the progress observable throughout organic nature to which the term evolution is applied; for, although there has been from time to time degradation, that is, a retrogression, this has had relation only to particular forms, organic life as a whole evidencing progress towards perfection. When man appeared as the culmination of evolution under terrestrial conditions, natural selection would seem almost to have finished its work, which was taken up, however, by man himself, who was able by "artificial" selection to secure results similar to those which Nature had attained. This is true especially in relation to animals, the domestication of which has always been practiced by man, even while in a state of nature. Domestication is primarily a psychical process, but it is attended with physical changes consequent on confinement and variation in food and habits. This alone would hardly account, however, for the great number of varieties among animals that have been long domesticated, and it is probable that actual "stirpiculture" has been practiced from very early times. This term is derived from the Latin stirpis, a stock or race, and cultus, culture or cultivation, and it means, therefore, the cultivation of a stock or race, although it has come to be used in the sense of the "breeding of offspring," and particularly of human offspring. It is evident, however, that in relation to man this is too restricted a sense, and it must be extended so as to embrace as well the rearing and training as the breeding of children, in fact, cultivation in its widest sense, in which is always implied the idea of improvement.

Stirpiculture in this extended sense was not unknown to the ancients, both in theory and in practice. As to the former, the most noted example is that of Plato, who, in his "Republic," proposed certain arrangements as to marriage and the bringing up of children which he thought would improve the race, and hence be beneficial to the State. The State was to Plato all in all, and he considered that it should form one great family. This idea could not be carried into effect, however, so long as independent families existed, and therefore those arrangements had for one of their chief aims the abolition of what we regard as family life. This Plato thought was the best for the State, and the advantage which was supposed to accrue to it by the absence of separate families is expressed in a marginal note, which says: "There will be no private interests among them, and therefore no lawsuits or trials for assault or violence to elders."

Plato's Restrictions on Parentage.—The end would hardly seem to justify the means, in these days, at least, when violence to elders is an uncommon incident; but how was the community of wives and children by which it was sought to be attained to be brought about? It is said, "The best of either sex should be united with the best as often, and the inferior with the inferior as seldom, as possible." Thus the people were to be classified into "best" and "inferior," and while the former were to be brought together as often as possible, the latter were not to be united at all if it could be avoided. There was no question of marriage in either case. In the one, the union was for the purpose of obtaining children, and in the other for the simple gratification of the passions; for only the offspring of the union between the sexes in the "best" class were to be reared. The children of the inferior class were not to be reared, "if the flock is to be maintained in first-class condition." This infanticide would matter little to the parents, as they had no control over their coming together, nor concern with the rearing of their offspring. Lots were to be drawn by the "less worthy" on each occasion of their being brought together. This was that they might accuse their ill-luck and not the rulers, in case their partners were not to their liking. The State was to provide not only what men and women were to be sexually united, but the ages within which this was to be permitted for the purpose of obtaining offspring. For a woman, the beginning of childbearing for the State was fixed at twenty years of age, and it was to continue until forty. For men, the period of procreation is said to be between twenty-five and fifty-five years of age. After the specified ages men and women were to be allowed to "range at will," except within certain prescribed degrees, but on the understanding that no children born to such unions were to be reared. It is evident that under such a system the actual relationship between the members of the State family could be known only to its rulers; but to provide against the union of persons too nearly related by blood, all those who were "begotten at the time their fathers and mothers came together" were regarded as brothers and sisters. But even brothers and sisters might be united "if the lot favors them, and they receive the sanction of the Pythian oracle." Thus far for the breeding of children laid down in Plato's "Republic." As to the rearing of them, we need only say that the children allowed to live were to be placed in the custody of guardians, to be appointed by the State from among the most worthy of either sex, who were to bring them up in accordance with the principles of virtue.

The idea which formed the basis of the regulations as to marriage in the "Republic" was carried into practice by Lycurgus in his government of Sparta. We are told by Plutarch in his "Lives," that Lycurgus considered children not so much the property of their parents as of the State, "and therefore he could not have them begotten by ordinary persons, but by the best men in it." But he did not attempt to break up the private family, as was proposed by Plato. He sought rather to enlarge its boundaries by allowing the introduction of a fresh paternal element when this could be done with advantage to the State. Thus, he approved of a man in years introducing to his young wife a "handsome and honest" young man, that she might bear a child by him. Moreover, if a man of character became impassioned of a married woman on account of her honesty and beautiful children, he might treat with her husband for the loan of her, "that so planting in a beauty-bearing soil, he might produce excellent children, the congenial offspring of excellent parents." The principles which influenced Lycurgus were the same as those sought to be applied by Plato, although in a different way. Plutarch says, "He observed the vanity and absurdity of other nations, where people study to have their horses and dogs of the finest breed they can procure, either by interest or money, and yet keep their wives shut up, that they may have children by none but themselves, though they may happen to be doting, decrepid or infirm." Hence Lycurgus sought to drive away the passion of jealousy "by making it quite as reputable to have children in common with persons of merit, as to avoid all offensive freedom in their own behaviour to their wives."

Lycurgan Laws.—According to Plutarch, the regulations enforced by Lycurgus, so far from encouraging licentiousness of the women, such as afterwards prevailed in Sparta, did just the reverse, as adultery was not known among them. That the system was beneficial to the State by tending to secure healthy offspring is probable; but Lycurgus took other means of bringing about this result. His requiring girls to dance naked in public was intended to teach them modesty. But we are told further: "He ordered the virgins to exercise themselves in running, wrestling and throwing quoits and darts, that their bodies being strong and vigorous, the children produced by them might be the same; and that, thus fortified by exercise, they might the better support the pangs of childbirth, and be delivered with safety." Moreover, he provided against the propagation of disease and deformation by directing that only such children should be reared as passed examination by the most ancient men of the tribe. If a child were strong and well-proportioned, they gave orders for its education and assigned it one of the nine thousand shares of land. Thus infanticide was a recognized part of the Spartan system, as it was in that of Plato. The elders of the tribe were very careful about the nurses to whom the children were assigned. When seven years old, the children were enrolled in companies, where they were all kept under the same order and discipline, and had their exercises and recreations in common. The boy of best conduct and courage was made captain, and their whole education was one of obedience. As for learning, Plutarch says they had just what was absolutely necessary; and certainly it was not such as could be recommended for imitation in these days.

Xenophon, in his essay on "The Lacedemonian Republic," adds little to what Plutarch tells us with reference to the marriage regulations of Lycurgus. He remarks, however, that marriage was not allowed until the body was in full strength, as this was conducive "to the procreation of a robust and manly offspring." He affirms, also, that those who were allowed by arrangement to associate with other men's wives were men who had an aversion to living with a wife of their own!

Plutarch on the Training of Children.—In his "Morals," Plutarch gives a dissertation on the training of children, the first portion of which deals with stirpiculture in the limited sense of the term, but is very inadequate. Indeed, the only advice he gives is that a man should not keep company with harlots or concubines, because children by them are "blemished in their birth" by their base extraction; and that no man should "keep company with his wife for issue's sake but when he is sober," lest he beget a drunkard. The main portion of Plutarch's treatise is concerned with the education of children, which is the second part of stirpiculture as a system of complete cultivation. Introductory to the subject of education he speaks of nursing, to which he attaches much importance. Plutarch insists on the necessity of mothers nursing their own children; nature, by providing them with two breasts, showing them that they can nurse even twins. But if they cannot, they are to choose the best nurses they can get, and such as are bred after the Greek fashion. For, "as it is needful that the members of children should be shaped aright as soon as they are born, that they may not afterwards prove crooked and distorted, so it is no less expedient that their manners be well fashioned from the very beginning; for childhood is a tender thing, and easily wrought into any shape."

After referring to the importance of the choice of good companions for a child, Plutarch proceeds to consider the question of education, which he speaks of as the matter of most concern. As to education in general, he points out that a concurrence of three things is necessary to the "completing of virtue in practice," which is the aim of that process, that is: Nature, reason or learning, and use or exercise; For, "if nature be not improved by instruction, it is blind; if instruction be not assisted by nature, it is maimed; and if exercise fail of the assistance of both, it is imperfect as to the attainment of its end." There cannot be "instruction"—a term which is here used as equivalent to "education," although the latter has a wider signification than the former, and being equivalent to mental cultivation,—without a teacher, and Plutarch says well, "we are to look after such masters for our children as are blameless in their lives, not justly reprovable for their manners, and of the best experience in teaching. For the very spring and root of honesty and virtue lies in the felicity of lighting on good education." He is, indeed, so much impressed with its value that he affirms: "The one chief thing in this matter—which compriseth the beginning, middle and end of all—is good education and regular instruction." These two "afford great help and assistance towards the attainment of virtue and felicity." He adds: "Learning alone, of all things in our possession, is immortal and divine." Plutarch dwells on various other matters connected with education better fitted for his times than ours, but he refers to the importance of example in words that are deserving of careful consideration. He says: "The chiefest thing that fathers are to look to is, that they themselves become effectual examples to their children, by doing all those things which belong to them, and avoiding all vicious practices, that in their lives, as in a glass, their children may see enough to give them an aversion to all ill words and actions. For those that chide children for such faults as they themselves fall into unconsciously accuse themselves, under their children's names. And if they are altogether vicious in their own lives, they lose the right of reprehending their very servants, and much more do they forfeit it to their sons..... Wherefore we are to apply our minds to all such practices as may conduce to the good breeding of our children."

It is not improbable that the marriage regulations ascribed to Lycurgus were based on institutions already in existence among the Spartans. From the statement of Polybius, that the brothers of a house often had one wife between them, it has been inferred that in Sparta the Tibetan form of polyandry was practiced. According to Plutarch, another curious marriage custom prevailed, showing that the Spartans, who differed in various respects from other Greeks, had retained primitive habits. Thus, the bridegroom carried off the bride by violence, and for some time after this "marriage by capture" he visited her "with great caution and apprehension" of being discovered by the rest of the family; the bride at the same time exerted all her art to contrive convenient opportunities for their private meetings. And this they did, not for a short time only, but some of them even had children before they had an interview with their wives in the daytime! This custom had much in common with the sadica marriages of the early Arabs, who, as we are told by Professor Robertson Smith, allowed a woman, while she remained with her own tribe, to receive the clandestine visits of a lover. Her offspring were recognized as legitimate and became members of the tribe. The incident of "capture" could not occur, as it was a general custom in ancient Arabia for a husband to live among his wife's kinsfolk.

Infanticide Among the Greeks.—The practice of infanticide, which was the only mode by which Lycurgus, or even Plato in his imaginary republic, could really insure the existence of a healthy and vigorous population, was undoubtedly a survival from primitive times. The sacredness of infant life is the result of the high moral tone which has accompanied the spread of Christianity; and it may be said to be almost unknown outside of the Christian era. Various reasons are assigned by different peoples for the practice of infanticide; but one cause universally operative is the objection to rearing malformed or unhealthy offspring. Savages adopt various modes of improving, according to their ideas, the physical appearance of their children. Giving the proper form to the nose is considered a very important matter by the native Australian mother and by the Polynesian Islanders; as, indeed, it was by the ancient Persians, among whom the molding of the nose to the proper curve was essential, especially in the royal family. The flat head of the American Indian of the northwest coast was at one time considered a beauty, and was restricted to the members of the tribe, slaves not being allowed to undergo the necessary head compression. The small artificial foot of the Chinese lady is another case in point. But however much the physical appearance might be altered, no effect could thus be made in the general physique of the race. The most easy way of keeping this up to a proper standard is to destroy all the infants that possess physical defects; and such a course is adopted by many savages, although it is by no means the most influential cause of infanticide.

Group Marriage.—A remarkable system of relationships, with which is combined a series of regulations framed with the object of pointing out what persons are entitled to enter into the marital relation, is found to be prevalent in nearly all uncivilized peoples. The members of a tribe are divided into two or more groups, each of which consists of persons who are nearly related by blood, and who are forbidden, therefore, to intermarry. One of the tribes of Central Australia, the Dieyerie, has a legend which explains the marriage system common to them and to all the other tribes, as being intended to prevent the evil effects of intermarriage between persons very near of kin. The story is valuable as showing the opinion entertained by savages as to the effect on the race of breeding in and in—a subject to which we may have occasion to make further reference. Dr. J. F. McLennan and other writers on primitive marriage refer to the practice among certain civilized peoples of antiquity of what we regard as incestuous marriage, in support of the view that in the early history of mankind intercourse between the sexes was promiscuous.[21:A] Such an explanation is entirely uncalled for, however, as the custom was intended to secure purity of blood, that is, blood of a particular line of ancestors. Such marriages were known only to a few peoples, and they were evidently of comparatively late origin. Whether the purity of blood was attended with improvement of the stock may be doubted; as, whatever may have been the actual origin of the marriage regulations of the numerous peoples among whom the classificatory system of relationship is established, they are intended, without question, to prevent the intermarriage of persons who are regarded as near blood relations, the general disapproval of which must have had some sufficient reason, or, at all events, must have originated in ideas supposed to furnish good grounds for it.

Making Children the Property of the State.—The principles which were embodied in the scheme proposed by Plato, in his "Republic," to bring about an improvement in the race are mainly two: First, restriction on the formation of procreative unions; second, infanticide. The breaking up of private or separate families necessarily resulted from the operation of his "marriage" regulations, and was intended to emphasize the idea which Plato, like Lycurgus, insisted on, that the children belonged to the State. Lycurgus sought to enforce the same idea by allowing wives to have intercourse with other men than their husbands, thus making children "common" in some sense, while retaining the separate family intact. Thus he introduced, or rather it should be said, established a modified form of polyandrous marriage; Plato's system, on the other hand, being one of mere pairing, as in the breeding of animals. In either case the union of very near relations was not permitted, that is, between brother and sister, or parent and child. Yet Lycurgus allowed marriage between a half-brother and sister by the same mother. Curiously enough, this was forbidden by the Athenian law, which permitted a brother and sister by the same father only to intermarry. The Greek rule, as laid down in Smith's "Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities," was that "proximity of blood or consanguinity was not, with some few exceptions, a bar to marriage," although direct lineal descent was so. Moreover, there was no attempt to enforce consanguineous marriages, so as to ensure purity of blood, such as was customary among the Incas of Peru, the laws of which required that the oldest son and daughter of the sovereign should intermarry because the Incas were descended from the Sun, and the Sun had married his sister the Moon, and had united in marriage his two first children! A more practical reason was found in the rule that the kingdom should be inherited through both parents. Hence it was not permitted to mix the blood of the Sun, or rather of those who claimed solar descent, with that of men.

Grecian Methods Not Suitable To Our Time.—It is evident that the principles which governed the ancients in their endeavors to improve the race are not capable of application at the present day, under the conditions of modern civilization. Instead of placing further restrictions on marriage, the tendency now is to loosen those which have hitherto existed, although certain regulations, such as relate to age, consent, etc., are recognized as necessary for the interests of the State. Moreover, greater facilities are given than were formerly allowed for dissolving ill-assorted unions, thus getting rid of the excuse for the formation of irregular connections. Nevertheless, the interests of neither society at large nor of individuals will permit of the introduction of the temporary or occasional pairing system, which is a return to an animal state, and, therefore, not worthy of the dignity implied in the term, marriage, and which is inconsistent with true family life. It would be liable to all kinds of abuse, and would become, in most cases, a legalized system of prostitution, thus dragging society down to a lower level instead of raising it, and tending to the deterioration, instead of the improvement, of the race, if not to its extinction. As to infanticide, this certainly would not be tolerated by public opinion, although it is now largely resorted to under the guise of abortion. To legalize child-killing under any circumstances would be to offer a premium for murder, even if it were permitted only with the express sanction in every case of the officials of the State. There is now no justification for such a course, as the education of those who appear to be on a mental level with the animals has been carried so far that the term "idiot" may soon have to be dropped from our vocabulary.

It must be affirmed, however, that the whole subject of the improvement of the race was dealt with by Plato, and, indeed, by the ancients generally, in a very crude and superficial manner. This has been well pointed out by Professor B. Jowett in the Introduction to his translation of Plato's "Republic." Professor Jowett objects generally that the great error in the speculations of Plato and others on the improvement of the race is, "that the difference between men and the animals is forgotten in them." The human being is regarded with the eye of a dog or bird fancier, or at best of a slave owner; the higher or human qualities are left out. The breeder of animals aims chiefly at size or speed or strength; in a few cases, at courage and temper; most often the fitness of the animal for food is the greatest desideratum. But mankind are not bred to be eaten, nor yet for their superiority in fighting or in running or in drawing carts. Nor does the improvement of the human race consist merely in the increase of the bones and flesh, but in the growth and enlightenment of the mind. Hence there must be a marriage of true minds as well as of bodies; of imagination and reason as well as of lusts and instincts. Men and women without feeling or imagination are justly called brutes; yet Plato takes away these qualities and puts nothing in their place, not even the desire of a noble offspring, since parents are not to know their own children. The most important transaction of social life he who is the idealist philosopher converts into the most brutal. For the pair are to have no relation to each other but at the hymeneal festival; their children are not theirs, but the State's; nor is any tie of affection to unite them. Yet the analogy of the animals might have saved Plato from a gigantic error if he had not lost sight of his own illustration! For the "nobler sort of birds and beasts" nourish and protect their offspring and are faithful to one another! It is certainly surprising, as Jowett says, that the greatest of ancient philosophers should, in his marriage regulations, have fallen into the error of separating body and mind. He did so probably through a false notion of the antagonism between the family and the State, and hence, as Lycurgus did not aim at destroying family life he escaped that error.

And yet there is nothing to show that the marriage regulations of Lycurgus had any real effect on the children of the State. That the early Spartans were a hardy and courageous people is undoubtedly true; but apart from the practice of infanticide, which would necessarily get rid of the weak, their character and conduct can be explained by reference merely to the system of training, both of youth and maidens, which Lycurgus rigidly enforced. Lacedemon was essentially a military republic, and its rulers aimed to breed soldiers, rather than men in the noble sense in which the term "man" is now used. Indeed, there is nothing to show that any compulsory attempt to improve the race has ever been successful, apart from the effect which the destruction of feeble and deformed offspring may have, and the influence of the severe training of those who are allowed to survive.

Nevertheless, the human race has vastly improved since its first appearance on the earth, if the teachings of the doctrine of evolution are true and applicable to man as well as to the inferior animals. The passage from the native Australian to the European is a long one, and yet they are supposed to represent a common primitive stock. The steps by which the European has been gradually developed, with his special characteristics, cannot now be traced; but one of the chief agencies to which the result is due is that to which Darwin applied the term, "sexual selection." As natural selection has relation to adaptation, and its aim is "the survival of the fittest," so sexual selection has reference to beauty, and its object is the perpetuation of the most beautiful, according to the taste of the peoples practicing it. Darwin was the first to point out the importance of sexual selection for certain purposes which, as stated by Professor G. J. Romanes, in his "Darwin and after Darwin,"[28:A] "have no reference to utility or the preservation of life." The latter writer in treating of the subject affirms it is universally admitted that the higher animals do not pair indiscriminately, the members of either sex preferring "those individuals of the opposite sex which are to them most attractive." Many birds and certain mammals clearly display the esthetic sense, which is shown by the former particularly in the adorning of their nests with colored objects; and it is reflected in the personal appearance of the animals themselves. During the pairing season, birds take on their most brilliant plumage, and the males take great pains to exhibit their charms before the females, actively competing with one another in so doing. There is similar rivalry among song birds, who strive to see which can best please the females by their singing.

Sexual Selection.—Professor Romanes, after referring to those facts, which are considered in detail by his great predecessor, states the theory of sexual selection as follows: "There can be no question that the courtship of birds is a highly elaborate business, in which the males do their best to surpass one another in charming the females. Obviously the inference is that the males do not take all this trouble for nothing; but that the females give their consent to pair with the males whose personal appearance, or whose voice, proves to be the most attractive. But, if so, the young of the male bird who is thus selected will inherit his superior beauty; and thus, in successive generations, a continuous advance will be made in the beauty of plumage or of song, as the case may be,—both the origin and development of beauty in the animal world being thus supposed due to the esthetic taste of the animals themselves."

It is not necessary to refer particularly to the evidence in support of the theory of sexual selection. There can be no doubt that it is a most important factor in the perpetuation and increase of certain characters, those which come within the category of "beautiful," the very existence of which proves them to be beneficial to the stock to which the animals exhibiting them belong. The fundamental fact is that they have "the effect of charming the females into a performance of the sexual act;" an opinion which is supported by the more general fact that "both among quadrupeds and birds, individuals of the one sex are capable of feeling a strong antipathy against, or a strong preference for, certain individuals of the opposite sex."

These statements are applicable also to man, with whom the principle of sexual selection must have been influential to at least the same degree as among the lower animals. It may be expected, indeed, to be more influential, as the esthetic taste with which it is associated becomes more highly developed with man than with any member of the animal kingdom. Even here it is not a question of mere coloration. The theory of sexual selection as framed by Darwin is concerned, as Romanes points out, not so much with color itself as with the particular disposition of color in the form of ornamental patterns. These have a kind of structural value, and certain birds, moreover, possess actual structural peculiarities, such as ornamental appendages to the beak, the only use of which would appear to be to charm the female during courtship. We may suppose, therefore, that sexual selection has affected not merely what may be termed the superficial characters of man, but to some extent, at least, those which have a structural value.

The principle of sexual selection is applicable primarily to the characteristics of the male; but Darwin supposes them to have been transferred to the other sex, and through them transmitted to the race generally. In his "Descent of Man," he remarks of the actual influence over the race of that principle: "The nervous system not only regulates most of the existing functions of the body, but has indirectly influenced the progressive development of various bodily structures and of certain mental qualities. Courage, pugnacity, perseverance, size and strength of body, weapons of all kinds, musical organs, both vocal and instrumental, bright colours and ornamental appendages have all been indirectly gained by the one sex or the other, through the exertion of choice, the influence of love and jealousy, and the appropriation of the beautiful in sound, colour or form; and these powers of the mind manifestly depend on the development of the brain."

That sexual selection has actually resulted in modification of human physical structure, Darwin thinks can be shown by reference to the ancient Persians, whose type was greatly improved by intermarriage with the beautiful Georgian and Circassian women. He refers to several similar cases, and particularly to the Jollofs of West Africa, whose handsome appearance is said to be due to their retaining for wives only their most beautiful slaves, the others being sold.

Sexual selection may be operative for the improvement of the race through the action of either man or woman, and the conditions of its activity are different in either case. As to the action of man, Darwin says in relation to primitive peoples: "The strongest and most vigorous men—those who could best defend and hunt for their families, who were provided with the best weapons and possessed the most property, such as a large number of dogs or other animals—would succeed in rearing a greater average number of offspring than the weaker and poorer members of the same tribe. There can, also, be no doubt that such men would generally be able to select the more attractive women. At present, the chiefs of nearly every tribe throughout the world succeed in obtaining more than one wife."

With reference to selection by the women, Darwin shows that among savages they have much more to say in their marriages than is usually supposed. He remarks: "They can tempt the men they prefer, and can sometimes reject those whom they dislike, either before or after their marriage. Preference on the part of the women, steadily acting in any one direction, would ultimately affect the character of the tribe, for the women would generally choose, not merely the handsomest men, according to their standard of taste, but those who were at the same time best able to defend and support them. Such well-endowed pairs would commonly rear a larger number of offspring than the less favored." Darwin adds: "The same result would obviously follow in a still more marked manner if there were selection on both sides, that is, if the more attractive, and at the same time more powerful men were to prefer, and were preferred by, the more attractive women. And this double form of selection seems actually to have occurred, especially during the earlier periods of our long history."

The investigations of Darwin as to the operation of sexual selection had reference chiefly to the modification of physical characters. He did not altogether lose sight, however, of its possible influence in affecting for the better the mental characteristics of the race. He concludes his enquiry by the remark that "Man might by selection do something, not only for the bodily constitution and frame of his offspring, but for their intellectual and moral qualities. Both sexes ought to refrain from marriage if they are in any marked degree inferior in body or mind; but such hopes are Utopian, and will never be even partially realized until the laws of inheritance are thoroughly known. Every one does good service who aids towards this end."

It is in the application of the principle of sexual selection to the mental characteristics of man, that any real improvement of the race, viewed as consisting of human beings and not of mere animals, must be brought about. Beauty of physical form and feature is of importance in human relations only so far as it is associated with beauty of mind and character, that is, with high intellectual and moral attainments. That these often go together is true, but it is not always the case. Grant Allen says: "To be sound in wind and limb; to be healthy of body and mind; to be educated; to be emancipated; to be free, to be beautiful—these things are ends towards which all should strive, and by attaining which all are happier in themselves, and more useful to others." But physical and intellectual perfection are not always found together, as was observed by Darwin, when he mentioned among the causes which interfere with the physical action of sexual selection the fact that men are largely attracted by the mental charms of women. Professor Jowett affirms truly that "Many of the noblest specimens of the human race have been among the weakest physically. TyrtÆns or Æsop, or our own Newton, would have been destroyed at Sparta, and some of the fairest and strongest men and women have been among the wickedest and worst." Hence, he properly infers that "Not by the Platonic device of uniting the strong and the fair with the strong and the fair, regardless of sentiment and morality, nor yet by his other device of combining dissimilar natures, have mankind gradually passed from the brutality and licentiousness of primitive marriage to marriage Christian and civilized."

The truth of this inference cannot be denied, because to leave out of view considerations of sentiment and morality would fatally vitiate any scheme for the improvement of the human race. But Professor Jowett affirms that, "We do not know how by artificial means any improvement in the breed can be effected." The problem is no doubt a complex one. As he points out, a child has usually thirty progenitors only four steps back, and whatever truth there may be in the inheritance of special physical characters, "We have a difficulty in distinguishing what is a true inheritance of genius or other qualities, and what is mere imitation or the result of similar circumstances. Great men and great women have rarely had great fathers and mothers." Professor Jowett thinks, indeed, that too much importance may be ascribed to heredity. He says: "The doctrine of heredity may seem to take out of our hands the conduct of our lives, but it is the idea, not the fact, which is really terrible to us. For what we have received from our ancestors is only a fraction of what we are or may become. The knowledge that drunkenness or insanity has been prevalent in a family may be the best safeguard against their recurrence in a future generation. The parent will be most awake to the vices or diseases in his child of which he is most sensible within himself. The whole of life may be directed to their prevention or cure. The traces of corruption may become fainter, or be wholly effaced; the inherited tendency to vice and crime may be eradicated. And so heredity, from being a curse, may become a blessing. We acknowledge that in the matter of our birth, as in our nature generally, there are previous circumstances which affect us. But on this platform of circumstances, or within this wall of necessity, we have still the power of creating a life for availment by the reforming energy of the human will."

There is much truth in these remarks of Professor Jowett, but they do not affect the argument in favor of the possibility of bringing about an improvement in the race if the proper means are adopted. It would not be any wiser for the strong and healthy to marry with the sick and weak, because the latter happen to be highly intellectual or moral, than to marry with the strong and healthy if these physical characters are united with mental weakness or immorality. There is a consensus of opinion at the present day, that what should be aimed at is the union of physical perfection with that of intellect and character, in the persuasion that steps towards this end will ultimately lead to the general improvement of the human race.

Difficulties in the Way.—The difficulty is to devise and carry out some scheme for the purpose which shall be both feasible and agreeable to public sentiment. The latter consideration would prevent any attempt at active stirpiculture under State direction, although the State might indirectly affect the result by subsidiary regulations as to marriage and training of children. There is nothing, however, to prevent the systematic efforts of private individuals, and in such cases the causes which Darwin cites as interfering with the physical action of sexual selection would not operate. The most systematic experiment in stirpiculture of modern times was that originated by John Humphrey Noyes at the Oneida Community, in central New York, from 1868 to 1879. A paper on this experiment was read by Anita Newcomb McGee before the American Science Association in August, 1891, which was published in "The American Anthropologist," 1891, and the following facts are taken from that paper.

An Experiment in Stirpiculture.—Noyes was the founder of a religious sect, the members of which, owing to their desire for freedom from sin, were called Perfectionists. Holiness was the first principle of their creed, and Noyes thought to transmit that condition from one generation to another by a process of stirpiculture. To overcome the "selfishness" of monogamic marriage he devised a "system of regulated promiscuity, beginning at earliest puberty, and by a method of his own invention he separated the amative from the propagative functions." Its first principle was that of a judicious in and in breeding, with occasional mingling of foreign blood, as in stock-raising. The second principle adopted was that of "careful selection of individuals for breeding purposes. Genealogies were studied and medical histories compiled." A committee, headed by Noyes, selected the holiest members who were free from physical defects, intellectual and other considerations being given less weight at first, although in later years they received more consideration. The parents were of all ages, but the father was always older than the mother. Some sympathy between the persons mated was always required; and if a proposition for union came from two individuals it was allowed if no objections were found. Noyes held that uncle and niece are as much related as father and daughter, because brothers have identical blood, and that cousins are in the same relation to each other as half brothers. In the Oneida Community uncles and nieces twice paired, and it is noticeable that a considerable proportion of the children had Noyes' blood on one or both sides. The founder himself had nine children in the Community, to which belonged also his brother, his two sisters and their children. As to the care of the children, this belonged exclusively to the mothers for the first nine months, after which for a further nine months they took charge of their offspring at night only. When eighteen months old, the children were transferred to a separate department which was managed by those who had shown themselves specially fitted for the work.

Let us see what was the result of Noyes' experiment. Of the sixty[39:A] children born, five died at or near childbirth from unforeseen causes depending upon the mother. All the others were alive at the date of Mrs. McGee's communication, except a boy who was reared in spite of weakness, and died from a trifling malady when about sixteen years of age. All the children were strong and healthy, the boys being tall—several over six feet—broad-shouldered and finely proportioned; the girls robust and well-built. It is remarkable, that among the children between five and nine years of age, thirteen were boys and six only were girls. With reference to their intellectual ability, it is stated by Mrs. McGee that, of the oldest sixteen boys, ten were in business, chiefly employed as clerks, foremen, etc., in the manufactories of the joint stock company. The eleventh was a musician of repute; another a medical student; one passed through college and studied law; one was a college senior, and one entered college after winning State and local scholarships, and gave great mathematical promise. The sixteenth boy was a mechanic, and the only one employed in manual labor. Of the six girls between eighteen and twenty-two years, three are said by Mrs. McGee to be especially intellectual. The mothers of these children usually belonged to the classes employed in manual labor, while the fathers, with the exception of the Noyes family and half a dozen lawyers, doctors and clergymen, were all farmers and mechanics. It is noteworthy that, as a rule, the fathers were the intellectual superiors of their mates, "and enquiry develops the fact, known in the Community, that in these cases the children are markedly superior to the maternal stock."

When this system of complex marriage had been in operation twenty years, the desire to return to the old system of monogamy arose, and it became so strong in the Community that its founder retired from it, and on August 26, 1879, complex marriage was renounced, although nominally "in deference to public sentiment." Twenty-five couples who had been married before entering the Community again became husband and wife, and twenty marriages between other individuals took place within four months after the abandonment of the stirpicultural experiment. There were then in the Community two hundred and sixteen adults and eighty-three children under twenty years of age.

So far as the real object which the founder of the Oneida Community had in view in his marriage system, it was undoubtedly a failure, as of the offspring, in spite of their early doctrinal training, only a very few are church members, and but one is a Perfectionist. This is the son of an uncle and a niece, both of Noyes' blood. From a physical and intellectual standpoint the experiment would seem to have given promise of success, but it continued too short a time to be of much scientific value. The result may be stated in the words of Mrs. McGee, who says that the complete failure to perpetuate the church through stirpiculture "would seem to indicate that, while our race would doubtless be greatly benefited by more attention to laws of breeding, yet to attempt promulgation of a belief by this means alone is only to court defeat. In spite of the energy and magnetism of so remarkable a man as Noyes, in spite of his long-continued efforts, and just when success seemed within his grasp, his one misjudgment of human nature bore fruit, the neglected instinct of monogamy arose in its might and crushed to nothing the whole structure, and he, the builder, went last of all. With the close of his life, April 13, 1886, ended a unique and interesting history."

Intermarriage.—We have seen that the founder of the Oneida Community permitted the intermarriage of uncle and niece, although he considered them related as nearly as father and daughter. This question of the intermarriage of near blood relations is an important one in its bearing on the question of stirpiculture, and as already mentioned, it has engaged the attention of nearly all the lower races of mankind. It has, indeed, been provided against by the marriage restrictions of most uncultured peoples, and their systems of relationship clearly point out what persons are within the permitted limits of marriage. It appears to be the general rule that the children of two brothers or of two sisters, whether own or tribal, cannot intermarry, but that the children of a brother and those of a sister may be thus united, although sometimes this is not allowed where own brother and sister are concerned.[42:A]

The question of the effect on offspring of consanguineous marriages was some time ago particularly enquired into by Mr. A. H. Huth, who, after a consideration of all the information available, came, in his work, "The Marriage of Near Kin," to the following conclusions:

"1—That any deterioration through the marriage of near kin, per se, even if there be such a thing in the lower animals, is impossible in man, owing to the slow propagation of the species. "2—That any deterioration through the chance accumulation of an idiosyncrasy, though more likely to occur in families where the marriage of blood relations was habitual, practically does not occur oftener than in other marriages, or it would be more easily demonstrated.

"3—That, seeing the doubt, to say the least of it, which exists concerning the effect for harm of marriages between near kin, and on the other hand the certainty that whenever and wherever marriage is impeded a direct and proportionate impulse is given to the practice of immorality, it is advisable not to extend the prohibition against marriage beyond the third collateral degree, and to permit all marriages of affinity excepting those in the direct ascending or descending line."

There appears to be no doubt that what are regarded among Christian peoples as incestuous marriages are not desirable. How far marriage unions between first cousins are advisable depends, as appears from Mr. Huth's remarks, on considerations which affect the question generally. If there are any serious physical, intellectual or moral defects on either side, no marriage should take place.

Woman's Selective Action.—Apart from the question of consanguinity, the principles which should govern all marriages is that of sexual selection, which should have reference, however, not merely to physical characters, but also to mental and moral characteristics. In applying this principle, it must be remembered that while man, like the male of all animals, does the courting, woman, like all females, makes the selection; at least this is the general rule among the most cultured peoples. Thus it is evident that woman possesses the power of largely influencing the improvement of the human race, and in this fact we may see the possibility of this being effected by the operation of general social causes, without having recourse to individual experiments, such as that undertaken by Noyes, which are necessarily limited in their action, and may, after all, have like practical result. If all women could be induced to combine for that end they could probably bring about the desired improvement by their own efforts.

On this subject the well-known naturalist, Mr. A. R. Wallace, has some judicious remarks in an article on "Human Progress, Past and Future," in The Arena for January, 1892. Mr. Wallace, who accepts the views of Weismann as to the non-inheritance of acquired characters, thinks that the physical and moral evils and degradation attendant on the conditions of modern city life will have no permanent effects, when a more rational and elevating system of social organization is brought about. The most important agency in this social regeneration will be the selective action of woman, under the influence of her newly acquired freedom and higher education. Says Mr. Wallace: "When such social changes have been effected that no woman will be compelled, either by hunger, isolation or social compulsion, to sell herself, whether in or out of wedlock, and when all women alike shall feel the refining influence of a true harmonizing education, of beautiful and elevating surroundings, and of a public opinion which shall be founded on the highest aspirations of their age and country, the result will be a form of human selection which will bring about a continuous advance in the average status of the race. Under such conditions, all who are deformed either in body or mind, though they may be able to lead happy and contented lives, will, as a rule, leave no children to inherit their deformity. Even now we find many women who do not marry because they have never found the man of their ideal. When no woman will be compelled to marry for a bare living or for a comfortable home, those who remain unmarried from their own free choice will certainly increase in number, while many others, having no inducement to an early marriage, will wait until they meet with a partner who is really congenial to them. In such a reformed society the vicious man, the man of degraded taste or of feeble intellect, will have little chance of finding a wife, and his bad qualities will die out with himself. The most perfect and beautiful in body and mind will, on the other hand, be most sought and therefore be most likely to marry early, the less highly endowed later, and the least gifted in any way the latest of all; and this will be the case with both sexes. From this varying age of marriage, as Mr. Galton has shown, there will result a more rapid increase of the former than of the latter, and this cause continuing at work for successive generations will at length bring the average man to be the equal of those who are now among the more advanced of the race."

We have here the application of the principle of sexual selection in its highest sense, although limited in action to women, and it is undoubtedly the phase of stirpiculture which will become operative when the "emancipation of women" is completed. There is one feature of modern society which may retard its operation, and which was referred to by Darwin as interfering with the physical effect of sexual selection in the past. Wealth is now, more than ever before, an important factor in society, and not only man's but woman's choice in matrimony is often governed by money considerations. The possession of wealth may be evidence of mental astuteness, but not necessarily of high morality, and until it ceases to be sought after in marriage it will seriously interfere with the improvement of the race on its higher planes.

The sexual selection which Mr. Wallace so ably advocates is to be exercised by woman, and hence its efficiency will depend on the fitness of woman, not only to choose proper partners in marriage, but to communicate the highest physical and mental characters to her offspring. She can transmit only what she herself possesses, and she will choose that which is in sympathy with her own feelings and desires, so that if she is to affect the race beneficially, she must seek first her own perfection. Hence the great importance of the woman's movement of the present day, the basis of which is the better development of her physical, mental and moral faculties, without which she cannot expect to have the increased social privileges to which she may aspire. The greatest social privilege women can have is to be the chief agent in the improvement of the race, and through it the regeneration of society itself. Lady May Jeune, in reply to those who think that the present relations between mothers and daughters threaten family disruption, observes, "That woman was created for the purpose of being the wife and mother of mankind no one can deny, and that none of the discoveries of science or any attempt to solve the mysteries of life have brought her one bit nearer the knowledge of how to unburden herself of these responsibilities, is also a fact." This must be true if the race is to be continued; for without wives there can be no mothers. Being possible mothers, therefore, it is necessary, if the race and society are to be improved, that women shall acquire the highest physical, intellectual and moral education they are capable of, and if they require the same qualities in their husbands, the problem we are considering will be solved.

Man's and Woman's Co-operation.—We have here the central idea of the New Hedonism advocated by Mr. Grant Allen, whose views necessitate the active agency of man as well as of woman. This is only reasonable, seeing that offspring depend on the co-operation of two factors, and that if either of them is defective the offspring must share in the defect. "Self-development is an aim of all," says Mr. Grant Allen, "an aim which will make all stronger and braver, and wiser, and better. It will make each in the end more helpful to humanity. To be sound in wind and limb; to be healthy of body and mind; to be educated, to be emancipated, to be free, to be beautiful—these things are ends towards which all should strive, and by attaining which all are happier in themselves, and more useful to others." Hence the New Hedonism teaches that "to prepare ourselves for the duties of paternity and maternity, by making ourselves as vigorous and healthful as we can be is a duty we owe to all our children unborn and to one another." This applies as well to "the body spiritual, intellectual and esthetic" as to the physical body. Mr. Grant Allen thinks the theory he advocates will introduce a new system, which "will not include the selling of self into loveless union for a night or for a lifetime; the bearing of children by a mother to a man she despises or loathes or shrinks from; the production by force, sanctified by law, of hereditary drunkards, hereditary epileptics, hereditary consumptives, hereditary criminals. We shall expect in the future a purer and truer relation between father and mother, parent and child. We shall expect some sanctity to attach to the idea of paternity, some thought and care to be given beforehand to the duties of motherhood. We will not admit that the chance union of two unfit persons, who ought never to have made themselves parents at all, or ought never to have made themselves parents with one another, can be rendered holy and harmless by the hands of a priest extended to bless a bought love, or a bargain of impure marriage. In one word, for the first time in the history of the race, we shall evolve the totally new idea of responsibility in parentage. And as part of this responsibility we shall include the two antithetical, but correlative, doctrines of a moral abstinence from fatherhood and motherhood on the part of the unfit, and a moral obligation to fatherhood and motherhood on the part of the noblest, the purest, the sanest, the healthiest, the most able among us. We will not doom to forced celibacy half our finest mothers."

The Individual's Rights.—From the racial standpoint these views are just and cannot be controverted, but something must be allowed to the individual. The relative position and rights of the race and the individual are in a dispute, which has become intensified since the development of the theory of evolution. But the individual is the beginning of the race and he should be its end. Therefore, in seeking to improve the race, violence must not be done to the highest sentiments of the individual. It is a fact that many highly cultured individuals have a repugnance to certain aspects of married life, and this repugnance appears to be justified by the further fact that a high state of refinement is often attended with loss of physical productiveness. One of the most curious results of Galton's enquiries into heredity was that wealthy families have a tendency to die out in heiresses, which is partly, but not wholly, dependent on the fact that childbearing is more often the accompaniment of poverty than of luxurious living.

The personal disinclination to marry attendant on intellectual refinement is still more likely to be possessed by those of high spirituality. This is quite natural, notwithstanding the statement of Mr. Grant Allen, which is undoubtedly true, that the origin and basis of all that is best and highest within us is to be found in the sex-instinct. Love may have begotten "all higher arts and all higher customs," and yet love may in the process itself become sexless, as it is when it assumes the noblest form, that of divine charity for our fellowmen. As well might we continue to perpetuate in our highest actions the nature of the ape-man because we are descendants of this creature, as let the idea of sex always rule our thoughts. With the individual the physical influence of sex is weakened and finally ceases, although it ever remains constant in the race, and hence the influence of the idea of sex over the mind of the individual should be similarly affected. "In Heaven," said the founder of Christianity, "there is neither marrying nor giving in marriage," and in that highest mental condition, which is heaven on earth, the sense of sex has ceased to be operative, having given place to the spiritual sense which is the noblest attribute of man because the last to be developed.

We have here, however, a question between the individual and the race, and it does not affect the main contention that the improvement of the race, which includes that of the individual, is to be found in the application of the principle of selection. This must necessarily be chiefly in the hands of women, although both men and women must co-operate to bring about the best results, by seeking first of all to improve their own natures by physical, intellectual and moral culture. The statement of the case according to that principle, and the aim to be attained, exhibit the dignity and importance of the subject of stirpiculture. Theoretically this is admitted on all hands, and as soon as the conditions of the subject are clearly understood there will be no practical difficulty in carrying the principle into effect, so that it may have its legitimate consequences.

What parents have to realize is the necessity of so training and instructing their children that they may become capable of being the parents of perfect offspring. The good tree only can bear good fruit. But this is not the real starting point of stirpiculture. An essential factor, and one that is seldom thought of, is the spirit in which the inception of offspring is undertaken. Marriage was to the ancients a sacred state, because it was associated with the religion of the domestic altar, and because the perpetuation of the family, which was its aim, was required by the necessity of having a son to perform the sacred rites at that altar after the death of his father. The perpetuation of the family was thus a sacred duty, and the consummation of marriage partook of this character. According to the ancient Persian religion, the union of man and woman is the act most agreeable to God, and the act of consummation is directed to be sanctified, and a prayer directed to God that He would bless it. Marriage must be conducted in this spirit, rather than as a means of gratifying the passions, if the happiest results are to be obtained from the application of the principle of sexual selection.

Spiritual Sympathy in Marriage.—That supposes, however, the existence of spiritual sympathy between those who are united in marriage, and this sympathy must form the true basis of all improvements in the race. It was the neglect of this feature, the want of which must render any attempt to carry out Plato's ideas on the subject of marriage futile, that put a stop to the experiments undertaken by his latest imitator, Noyes. His adherents simply made a return to the monogamy which is the heritage of all the Aryan peoples, and which is based on the union of two hearts, and not merely of two persons. This is the first application of the principle of sexual selection above the animal plane, and it must be continued notwithstanding that the range of selection is extended so as to embrace also the intellectual and moral planes.

How far the State may ultimately be called on to aid in the improvement of the race, in accordance with the ideas we have been considering, is doubtful. It can aid very materially in placing restraints on too early marriage, and by insisting on the attainment of a proper standard of physical training and of mental culture before marriage is entered on. There is no reason, moreover, why the State should not interfere to prevent the marriage of those who are too near of kin, or who by reason of physical or mental ailment, or by their moral defects are not fit subjects for the propagation of the race. The objection to this interference with personal liberty is so strong, however, that even so rational a procedure as preventing the spread, through marriage alliances, of disease and crime cannot yet obtain the sanction of public opinion. This will be educated with the general improvement of the race that must gradually take place through other agencies, and then the State will have merely to carry into effect the decrees of the people, which will be expressed in no uncertain language when woman has attained to the influence to which her own perfected condition will entitle her.

[21:A] Mr. Darwin accepted this view at first; but in a note to the second edition of his "Descent of Man" he says: "C. Staniland Wake argues strongly against the views held by these three writers on the former prevalence of almost promiscuous intercourse." See "Development of Kinship and Marriage." Redway, London. 1888.