The Project Gutenberg eBook of Essays in eugenics
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: Essays in eugenics
Author: Francis Galton
Release date: June 10, 2024 [eBook #73802]
Language: English
Original publication: London: The Eugenics Education Society, 1909
Credits: Daniel Lowe, deaurider and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ESSAYS IN EUGENICS ***
ESSAYS IN EUGENICS.
BY
SIR FRANCIS GALTON, F.R.S.
London:
THE EUGENICS EDUCATION SOCIETY.
1909.
PREFACE.
The following Essays are re-printed in the chronological order of their
delivery. They will, therefore, help to show something of the progress
of Eugenics during the last few years, and to explain my own views upon
its aims and methods, which often have been, and still sometimes are,
absurdly misrepresented. The practice of Eugenics has already obtained a
considerable hold on popular estimation, and is steadily acquiring the
status of a practical question, and not that of a mere vision in Utopia.
The power by which Eugenic reform must chiefly be effected, is that of
Popular Opinion, which is amply strong enough for that purpose whenever
it shall be roused. Public Opinion has done as much as this on many past
occasions and in various countries, of which much evidence is given in
the Essay on Restrictions in Marriage. It is now ordering our acts more
intimately than we are apt to suspect, because the dictates of Public
Opinion become so thoroughly assimilated that they seem to be original
and individual to those who are guided by them. By comparing the current
ideas at widely different epochs and under widely different
civilizations we are able to ascertain what part of our convictions is
really innate and permanent, and what part has been acquired and is
transient.
It is above all things needful for the successful progress of Eugenics
that its advocates should move discreetly and claim no more efficacy on
its behalf than the future will confirm; otherwise a re-action will be
invited. A great deal of investigation is still needed to shew the limit
of practical Eugenics, yet enough has been already determined to justify
large efforts to instruct the public in an authoritative way, as to the
results hitherto obtained by sound reasoning, applied to the undoubted
facts of social experience.
My best thanks are due to the Editor of Nature, to the Council of the
Sociological Society, and to the Clarendon Press of Oxford, for
permission to reprint those among the following essays that first
appeared in their Publications.
FRANCIS GALTON.
CONTENTS.
PAGE.
I. THE POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENT OF THE HUMAN BREED UNDER EXISTING
CONDITIONS OF LAW AND SENTIMENT 1
II. EUGENICS, ITS DEFINITION, SCOPE, AND AIMS 35
III. RESTRICTIONS IN MARRIAGE 44
IV. STUDIES IN NATIONAL EUGENICS 60
V. EUGENICS AS A FACTOR IN RELIGION 68
VI. PROBABILITY, THE FOUNDATION OF EUGENICS 73
VII. LOCAL ASSOCIATIONS FOR PROMOTING EUGENICS 100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration: STANDARD SCHEME OF DESCENT]
THE POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENT OF THE HUMAN BREED,
UNDER THE EXISTING CONDITIONS OF LAW AND SENTIMENT.[1]
In fulfilling the honourable charge that has been entrusted to me of
delivering the Huxley lecture, I shall endeavour to carry out what I
understand to have been the wish of its founders, namely, to treat
broadly some new topic belonging to a class in which Huxley himself
would have felt a keen interest, rather than to expatiate on his
character and the work of his noble life.
That which I have selected for to-night is one which has occupied my
thoughts for many years, and to which a large part of my published
inquiries have borne a direct though silent reference. Indeed, the
remarks I am about to make would serve as an additional chapter to my
books on “Hereditary Genius” and on “Natural Inheritance.” My subject
will be the possible improvement of the human race under the existing
conditions of law and sentiment. It has not hitherto been approached
along the ways that recent knowledge has laid open, and it occupies in
consequence a less dignified position in scientific estimation than it
might. It is smiled at as most desirable in itself and possibly worthy
of academic discussion, but absolutely out of the question as a
practical problem. My aim in this lecture is to show cause for a
different opinion. Indeed I hope to induce anthropologists to regard
human improvement as a subject that should be kept openly and squarely
in view, not only on account of its transcendent importance, but also
because it affords excellent but neglected fields for investigation. I
shall show that our knowledge is already sufficient to justify the
pursuit of this perhaps the grandest of all objects, but that we know
less of the conditions upon which success depends than we might and
ought to ascertain. The limits of our knowledge and of our ignorance
will become clearer as we proceed.
_Human Variety._—The natural character and faculties of human beings
differ at least as widely as those of the domesticated animals, such as
dogs and horses, with whom we are familiar. In disposition some are
gentle and good-tempered, others surly and vicious; some are courageous,
others timid; some are eager, others sluggish; some have large powers of
endurance, others are quickly fatigued; some are muscular and powerful,
others are weak; some are intelligent, others stupid; some have
tenacious memories of places and persons, others frequently stray and
are slow at recognising. The number and variety of aptitudes, especially
in dogs, is truly remarkable; among the most notable being the tendency
to herd sheep, to point and to retrieve. So it is with the various
natural qualities that go towards the making of civic worth in man.
Whether it be in character, disposition, energy, intellect, or physical
power, we each receive at our birth a definite endowment, allegorised by
the parable related in St. Matthew, some receiving many talents, others
few; but each person being responsible for the profitable use of that
which has been entrusted to him.
_Distribution of Qualities in a Nation._—Experience shows that while
talents are distributed in endless different degrees, the frequency of
those different degrees follows certain statistical laws, of which the
best known is the Normal Law of Frequency. This is the result whenever
variations are due to the combined action of many small and different
causes, whatever may be the causes and whatever the object in which the
variations occur, just as twice 2 always makes 4, whatever the objects
may be. It therefore holds true with approximate precision for variables
of totally different sorts, as, for instance, stature of man, errors
made by astronomers in judging minute intervals of time, bullet marks
around the bull’s-eye in target practice, and differences of marks
gained by candidates at competitive examinations. There is no mystery
about the fundamental principles of this abstract law; it rests on such
simple fundamental conceptions as, that if we toss two pence in the air
they will, in the long run, come down one head and one tail twice as
often as both heads or both tails. I will assume then, that the talents,
so to speak, that go to the formation of civic worth are distributed
with rough approximation according to this familiar law. In doing so, I
in no way disregard the admirable work of Prof. Karl Pearson on the
distribution of qualities, for which he was adjudged the Darwin Medal of
the Royal Society a few years ago. He has amply proved that we must not
blindly trust the Normal Law of Frequency; in fact, that when variations
are minutely studied they rarely fall into that perfect symmetry about
the mean value which is one of its consequences. Nevertheless, my
conscience is clear in using this law in the way I am about to. I say
that _if_ certain qualities vary normally, such and such will be the
results; that these qualities are of a class that are found, whenever
they have been tested, to vary normally to a fair degree of
approximation, and consequently we may infer that our results are
trustworthy indications of real facts.
A talent is a sum whose exact value few of us care to know, although we
all appreciate the inner sense of the beautiful parable. I will,
therefore, venture to adapt the phraseology of the allegory to my
present purpose by substituting for “talent” the words “normal-talent.”
The value of this normal talent in respect to each and any specified
quality or faculty is such that one-quarter of the people receive for
their respective shares more than one normal-talent _over and above_ the
average of all the shares. Our normal-talent is therefore identical with
what is technically known as the “probable error.” Therefrom the whole
of the following table starts into life, evolved from that of the
“_probability integral_.”
TABLE I.—_Normal distribution (to the nearest_ per _ten-thousand
and to the nearest_ per _hundred.)_
─────┬───┬───┬────┬────┬─┬────┬────┬───┬───┬──────┬──────
│–4°│–3°│ –2°│ –1°│M│ +1°│ +2°│+3°│+4°│ │
─────┼───┼───┼────┼────┼─┼────┼────┼───┼───┼──────┼──────
_v_ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │V and │
and │_u_│_t_│_s_ │_r_ │ │ R │ S │ T │ U │above.│Total
below│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
─────┼───┼───┼────┼────┼─┼────┼────┼───┼───┼──────┼──────
35│180│672│1613│2500│ │2500│1613│672│180│ 35 │10,000
─────┴───┼───┼────┼────┼─┼────┼────┼───┼───┴──────┼──────
2 │ 7│ 16│ 25│ │ 25│ 16│ 7│ 2 │ 100
─────────┴───┴────┴────┴─┴────┴────┴───┴──────────┴──────
It expresses the distribution of any normal quality, or any group of
normal qualities, among 10,000 persons in terms of the normal-talent.
The M in the upper line occupies the position of Mediocrity, or that of
the average of what all have received: the +1°, +2°, etc., and the –1°,
–2°, etc., refer to normal talents. These numerals stand as graduations
at the heads of the vertical lines by which the table is divided. The
entries between the divisions are the numbers per 10,000 of those who
receive sums between the amounts specified by those divisions. Thus, by
the hypothesis, 2500 receive more than M but less than M +1°, 1613
receive more than M +1° but less than M +2°, and so on. The terminals
have only an inner limit, thus 35 receive more than 4°, some to perhaps
a very large and indefinite amount. The divisions might have been
carried much farther, but the numbers in the classes between them would
become less and less trustworthy. The left half of the series exactly
reflects the right half. As it will be useful henceforth to distinguish
these classes, I have used the _capital_ or large letters R, S, T, U, V,
for those above mediocrity and corresponding _italic_ or small letters,
_r_, _s_, _t_, _u_, _v_, for those below mediocrity, _r_ being the
counterpart of R, _s_ of S, and so on.
In the lowest line the same values are given, but more roughly, to the
nearest whole percentage.
It will assist in comprehending the values of different grades of civic
worth to compare them with the corresponding grades of adult male
stature in our nation. I will take the figures from my “Natural
Inheritance,” premising that the distribution of stature in various
peoples has been well investigated and shown to be closely normal. The
average height of the adult males, to whom my figures refer, was nearly
5 feet 8 inches, and the value of their “normal-talent” (which is a
measure of the spread of distribution) was very nearly 1–3/4 inches.
From these data it is easily reckoned that Class U would contain men
whose heights exceed 6 feet 1–1/4 inches. Even they are tall enough to
overlook a hatless mob, while the higher classes, such as V, W and X,
tower above it in an increasingly marked degree. So the civic worth
(however that term may be defined) of U-class men, and still more of
V-class, are notably superior to the crowd, though they are far below
the heroic order. The rarity of a V-class man in each specified quality
or group of qualities is as 35 in 10,000, or say, for the convenience of
using round numbers, as 1 to 300. A man of the W class is ten times
rarer, and of the X class rarer still; but I shall avoid giving any more
exact definition of X than as a value considerably rarer than V. This
gives a general but just idea of the distribution throughout a
population of each and every quality taken separately so far as it is
normally distributed. As already mentioned, it does the same for _any_
group of normal qualities; thus, if marks for classics and for
mathematics were severally normal in their distribution, the combined
marks gained by each candidate in both those subjects would be
distributed normally also, this being one of the many interesting
properties of the law of frequency.
_Comparison of the Normal Classes with those of Mr. Booth._—Let us now
compare the normal classes with those into which Mr. Charles Booth has
divided the population of all London in a way that corresponds not
unfairly with the ordinary conception of grades of civic worth. He
reckons them from the lowest upwards, and gives the numbers in each
class for East London. Afterwards he treats all London in a similar
manner, except that sometimes he combines two classes into one and gives
the joint result. For my present purpose, I had to couple them somewhat
differently, first disentangling them as I best could. There seemed no
better way of doing this than by assigning to the members of each
couplet the same proportions that they had in East London. Though this
was certainly not accurate, it is probably not far wrong. Mr. Booth has
taken unheard of pains in this great work of his to arrive at accurate
results, but he emphatically says that his classes cannot be separated
sharply from one another. On the contrary, their frontiers blend, and
this justifies me in taking slight liberties with his figures. His class
A consists of criminals, semi-criminals, loafers and some others, who
are in number at the rate of 1 per cent. in all London—that is 100 per
10,000, or nearly three times as many as the _v_ class: they therefore
include the whole of _v_ and spread upwards into the _u_. His class B
consists of very poor persons who subsist on casual earnings, many of
whom are inevitably poor from shiftlessness, idleness or drink. The
numbers in this and the A class combined closely correspond with those
in _t_ and all below _t_.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE II.—_Comparison of Mr. Booth’s Classification of All
London with the Normal Classes._
────┬─────────────────────────────────────────────┬───────┬─────────┬───────┬────┬────────
│ │ │ │ │ │Normal
Nos.│ Mr. Booth’s classes. │Approx.│Resorted.│Approx.│Nos.│classes.
────┼─────────────────────────────────────────────┼───────┼─────────┼───────┼────┼────────
97│ H. All above G │ 100 │ 100 │ 100 │ 89│ T and
│ │ │ │ │ │ above
────┼─────────────────────────────────────────────┼───────┼─────────┼───────┼────┼────────
│⎧G. Lower Middle ⎫│ │ ⎧ 150 │ 150 │ 161│ S
200│⎩F. High-class labour above 30s. per week ⎭│ 200 │ ⎨ ├───────┼────┼────────
│ │ │ ⎩ 50 ⎫ │ │ │
────┼─────────────────────────────────────────────┼───────┤ ⎬ │ 250 │ 250│ R
│ E. Regular standard earnings from 22s. to ⎫│ │ ⎧ 200 ⎭ │ │ │
382│ 30s. per week ⎭│ 400 │ ⎨ ├───────┼────┼────────
│ │ │ ⎩ 200 ⎫ │ │ │
────┼─────────────────────────────────────────────┼───────┤ ⎬ │ 250 │ 250│ _r_
│⎧D. Regular earnings under 22s. per week ⎫│ │ ⎧ 50 ⎭ │ │ │
227│⎩C. Intermittent earnings, improvident, poor⎭│ 200 │ ⎨ ├───────┼────┼────────
│ │ │ ⎩ 150 │ 150 │ 161│ _s_
────┼─────────────────────────────────────────────┼───────┤ ├───────┼────┼────────
94│⎧B. Casual; very poor ⎫│ 100 │ 100 │ 100 │ 89│ _t_ and
│⎩A. Criminals, loafers, &c. ⎭│ │ │ │ │ below
────┴─────────────────────────────────────────────┴───────┴─────────┴───────┴────┴────────
1000 1000 1000 1000
The two columns headed “Nos.” give respectively the numbers per
thousand in Mr. Booth’s and in the Normal Classes.
Class C are supported by intermittent earnings; they are a hard-working
people, but have a very bad character for improvidence and
shiftlessness. In Class D the earnings are regular, but at the low rate
of twenty-one shillings or less a week, so none of them rise above
poverty, though none are very poor. D and C together correspond to the
whole of _s_ combined with the lower fifth of _r_. The next class, E, is
the largest of any, and comprises all those with regular standard
earnings of twenty-two to thirty shillings a week. This class is the
recognised field for all forms of co-operation and combination; in short
for trades unions. It corresponds to the upper four-fifths of _r_,
combined with the lower four-fifths of R. It is therefore essentially
the mediocre class, standing as far below the highest in civic worth as
it stands above the lowest class with its criminals and semi-criminals.
Next above this large mass of mediocrity comes the honourable class _F_,
which consists of better paid artisans and foremen. These are able to
provide adequately for old age, and their sons become clerks and so
forth. _G_ is the lower middle class of shopkeepers, small employers,
clerks and subordinate professional men, who as a rule are hard-working,
energetic and sober. F and G combined correspond to the upper fifth of R
and the whole of S, and are, therefore, a counterpart to D and C. All
above G are put together by Mr. Booth into one class H, which
corresponds to our T, U, V and above, and is the counterpart of his two
lowermost classes, A and B. So far, then, as these figures go, civic
worth is distributed in fair approximation to the normal law of
frequency. We also see that the classes _t_, _u_, _v_ and below are
undesirables.
_Worth of Children._—The brains of the nation lie in the higher of our
classes. If such people as would be classed W or X could be
distinguishable as children and procurable by money in order to be
reared as Englishmen, it would be a cheap bargain for the nation to buy
them at the rate of many hundred or some thousands of pounds per head.
Dr. Farr, the eminent statistician, endeavoured to estimate the money
worth of an average baby born to the wife of an Essex labourer and
thenceforward living during the usual time and in the ordinary way of
his class. Dr. Farr, with accomplished actuarial skill, capitalised the
value at the child’s birth of two classes of events, the one the cost of
maintenance while a child and when helpless through old age, the other
its earnings as boy and man. On balancing the two sides of the account
the value of the baby was found to be five pounds. On a similar
principle, the worth of an X-class baby would be reckoned in thousands
of pounds. Some such “talented” folk fail, but most succeed, and many
succeed greatly. They found great industries, establish vast
undertakings, increase the wealth of multitudes and amass large fortunes
for themselves. Others, whether they be rich or poor, are the guides and
light of the nation, raising its tone, enlightening its difficulties and
imposing its ideals. The great gain that England received through the
immigration of the Huguenots would be insignificant to what she would
derive from an annual addition of a few hundred children of the classes
W and X. I have tried, but not yet succeeded to my satisfaction, to make
an approximate estimate of the worth of a child at birth according to
the class he is destined to occupy when adult. It is an eminently
important subject for future investigators, for the amount of care and
cost that might profitably be expended in improving the race clearly
depends on its result.
_Descent of Qualities in a Population._—Let us now endeavour to obtain a
correct understanding of the way in which the varying qualities of each
generation are derived from those of its predecessor. How many, for
example, of the V class in the offspring come respectively from the V,
U, T, S and other classes of parentage? The means of calculating this
question for a normal population are given fully in my “Natural
Inheritance.” There are three main senses in which the word parentage
might be used. They differ widely, so the calculations must be modified
accordingly, (1) The amount of the quality or faculty in question may be
known in each parent. (2) It may be known in only one parent. (3) The
two parents may belong to the same class, a V-class father in the scale
of male classification always marrying a V-class mother, occupying
identically the same position in the scale of female classification.
I select this last case to work out as being the one with which we shall
here be chiefly concerned. It has the further merit of escaping some
tedious preliminary details about converting female faculties into their
corresponding male equivalents, before men and women can be treated
statistically on equal terms. I shall assume in what follows that we are
dealing with an ideal population, in which all marriages are equally
fertile, and which is statistically the same in successive generations
both in numbers and in qualities, so many per cent. being always this,
so many always that, and so on. Further, I shall take no notice of
offspring who die before they reach the age of marriage, nor shall I
regard the slight numerical inequality of the sexes, but will simply
suppose that each parentage produces one couplet of grown-up filials, an
adult man and an adult woman.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE III.—_Descent of Qualities in a Population. (The
difference between the sexes only affects the value of the Unit
of the Scale of Distribution.)_
_Conditions._—(1) Parents to be always alike in class, (2)
Statistics of population to continue unchanged, (3) Normal Law
of Frequency to be applicable throughout.
────────────────────────────────────────────┬───────┬───┬────┬────┬────┬────┬───┬──────┬────────────
_Per_ 100 Father (or _Mothers_). │ 2 │ 7 │ 16 │ 25 │ 25 │ 16 │ 7 │ 2 │ 100
│ ╭─┴─╮ │ │ │ │ │ │ │╭─┴─╮ │
_Per_ 10,000 ” │ 35 180│671│1614│2500│2500│1614│672│180 35│ 10,000
────────────────────────────────────────────┼───────┼───┼────┼────┼────┼────┼───┼──────┼────────────
Names of classes │_v_ _u_│_t_│_s_ │_r_ │ R │ S │ T │ U V │ Totals
────────────────────────────────────────────┼───────┼───┼────┼────┼────┼────┼───┼──────┼────────────
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Sons (or
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │_daughters_)
Sons ⎫ of 35 ⎧ Fathers ⎫ of V │ │ │ │ │ 1│ 6│ 12│ 10 6│ 35
_Daughters_ ⎭ ⎩ _Mothers_ ⎭ class │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
” 180 ” ” U │ │ │ │ 4│ 20│ 52│ 61│ 33 10│ 180
” 671 ” ” T │ │ │ 7│ 44│ 150│ 234│170│ 57 10│ 672
” 1614 ” ” S │ │ 6│ 57│ 253│ 512│ 509│224│ 47 5│ 1613
” 2500 ” ” R │ 3│ 42│ 248│ 678│ 860│ 510│140│ 18 3│ 2502
” 2500 ” ” _r_│ 3 18│140│ 510│ 860│ 678│ 248│ 42│ 3 │ 2502
” 1614 ” ” _s_│ 5 47│224│ 509│ 512│ 253│ 57│ 6│ │ 1613
” 671 ” ” _t_│ 10 57│170│ 234│ 150│ 44│ 7│ │ │ 672
” 180 ” ” _u_│ 10 33│ 61│ 52│ 20│ 4│ │ │ │ 180
” 35 ” ” _v_│ 6 10│ 12│ 6│ 1│ │ │ │ │ 35
────────────────────────────────────────────┼───────┼───┼────┼────┼────┼────┼───┼──────┼────────────
Total 10,000 Fathers (or _Mothers_) │ 34 168│655│1623│2522│2522│1623│655│168 34│ 10,004
│ ╰─┬─╯ │ │ │ │ │ │ │╰─┬─╯ │
” 100 ” │ 2 │ 7│ 16│ 25│ 25│ 16│ 7│ 2 │
────────────────────────────────────────────┴───────┴───┴────┴────┴────┴────┴───┴──────┴────────────
_Note._—The agreement in distribution between fathers (or _mothers_) and
sons (or _daughters_) is exact to the nearest whole per centage. The
slight discrepancy in the ten-thousandths is mainly due to the classes
being too few and too wide; theoretically they should be extremely
numerous and narrow.
The result is shown to the nearest whole per thousand in the table up to
“V and above,” to the nearest ten thousands. They may be read either as
applying to fathers and their sons when adult, or to mothers and their
daughters when adult, or, again, to parentages and filial couplets. I
will not now attempt to explain the details of the calculation to those
to whom these methods are new. Those who are familiar with them will
easily understand the exact process from what follows. There are three
points of reference in a scheme of descent which may be respectively
named “mid-parental,” “genetic” and “filial” centres. In the present
case of both parents being alike, the position of the mid-parental
centre is identical with that of either parent separately. The position
of the filial centre is that from which the children disperse. The
genetic centre occupies the same position in the parental series that
the filial centre does in the filial series. “Natural Inheritance”
contains abundant proof, both observational and theoretical, that the
genetic centre is not and cannot be identical with the parental centre,
but is always more mediocre, owing to the combination of ancestral
influences—which are generally mediocre—with the purely parental ones.
It also shows that the regression from the parental to the genetic
centre, in the case of stature at least, would amount to two-thirds
under the conditions we are now supposing. The regression is indicated
in the diagram used to illustrate this paper, by converging lines which
are directed towards the same point below, but are stopped at one-third
of the distance on the way to it. The contents of each parental class
are supposed to be concentrated at the foot of the median axis of that
class, this being the vertical line that divides its contents into equal
parts. Its position is approximately, but not exactly, half-way between
the divisions that bound it, and is as easily calculated for the extreme
classes, which have no outer terminals, as for any of the others. These
median points are respectively taken to be the positions of the parental
centres of the whole of each of the classes; therefore the positions
attained by the converging lines that proceed from them at the points
where they are stopped, represent the genetic centres. From these the
filials disperse to the right and left with a “spread” that can be shown
to be three-quarters that of the parentages. Calculation easily
determines the number of the filials that fall into the class in which
the filial centre is situated, and of those that spread into the classes
on each side. When the parental contributions from all the classes to
each filial class are added together they will express the distribution
of the quality among the whole of the offspring. Now it will be observed
in the table that the numbers in the classes of the offspring are
identical with those of the parents, when they are reckoned to the
nearest whole percentage, as should be the case according to the
hypothesis. Had the classes been narrower and more numerous, and if the
calculations had been carried on to two more places of decimals, the
correspondence would have been identical to the nearest ten-thousandth.
It was unnecessary to take the trouble of doing this, as the table
affords a sufficient basis for what I am about to say. Though it does
not profess to be more than approximately true in detail, it is
certainly trustworthy in its general form, including as it does the
effects of regression, filial dispersion, and the equation that connects
a parental generation with a filial one when they are statistically
alike. Minor corrections will be hereafter required, and can be applied
when we have a better knowledge of the material. In the meantime it will
serve as a standard table of descent from each generation of a people to
its successor.
* * * * *
_Economy of Effort._—I shall now use the table to show the economy of
concentrating our attention upon the highest classes. We will therefore
trace the origin of the V class—which is the highest in the table. Of
its 34 or 35 sons, 6 come from V parentages, 10 from U, 10 from T, 5
from S, 3 from R, and none from any class below R. But the numbers of
the contributing parentages have also to be taken into account. When
this is done, we see that the lower classes make their scores owing to
their quantity and not to their quality; for while 35 V-class parents
suffice to produce 6 sons of the V class, it takes 2500 R-class fathers
to produce 3 of them. Consequently the richness in produce of V-class
parentages is to that of the R-class in an inverse ratio, or as 143 to
1. Similarly, the richness in produce of V-class children from
parentages of the classes U, T, S, respectively, is as 3, 11–1/2, and
55, to 1. Moreover, nearly one-half of the produce of V-class parentages
are V or U taken together, and nearly three-quarters of them are either
V, U or T. If then we desire to increase the output of V-class
offspring, by far the most profitable parents to work upon would be
those of the V-class, and in a threefold less degree those of the U
class.
When both parents are of the V class the quality of parentages is
greatly superior to those in which only one parent is a V. In that case
the regression of the genetic centre goes twice as far back towards
mediocrity, and the spread of the distribution among filials becomes
nine-tenths of that among the parents, instead of being only
three-quarters. The effect is shown in table IV.
There is a difference of fully two divisions in the position of the
genetic centre, that of the single V parentage being only a trifle
nearer mediocrity than that of the double T. Hence it would be bad
economy to spend much effort in furthering marriages with a higher class
on only one side.
TABLE IV.—_Distribution of sons. (1) One parent of class V., the
other unknown. (2) Both parents of class V (from Table II., with
decimal point and an 0)._
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Distribution of Sons
──────────────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬──────
│ _t_ │ _s_ │ _r_ │ R │ S │ T │ U │ V │ Total
──────────────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼──────
One V-parent │ 0·3│ 1·2│ 3·5│ 7·9│ 9·6│ 7·5│ 3·6│ 1·3│ 34·3
Two V-parents │ │ │ │ 3·0│ 5·0│ 10·0│ 10·0│ 6·0│ 34·0
──────────────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴──────
Position of the filial centre of (1) = 1·44, of (2) = 2·89. When both
parents are T it = 1·58.
_Marriage of like to like._—In each class of society there is a strong
tendency to intermarriage, which produces a marked effect in the
richness of brain power of the more cultured families. It produces a
still more marked effect of another kind at the lowest step of the
social scale, as will be painfully evident from the following extracts
from the work of Mr. C. Booth (i. 38), which refer to his Class A, who
form, as has been said, the lowermost third of our “_v_ and below.”
“Their life is the life of savages, with vicissitudes of extreme
hardship and occasional excess. From them come the battered figures who
slouch through the streets and play the beggar or the bully. They render
no useful service, they create no wealth; more often they destroy it.
They degrade whatever they touch, and as individuals are perhaps
incapable of improvement ... but I do not mean to say that there are not
individuals of every sort to be found in the mass. Those who are able to
wash the mud may find some gems in it. There are at any rate many very
piteous cases. Whatever doubt there may be as to the exact numbers of
this class, it is certain that they bear a very small proportion to the
rest of the population, or even to class B, with which they are mixed up
and from which it is at times difficult to separate them.... They are
barbarians, but they are a handful....” He says further, “It is much to
be desired and to be hoped that this class may become less hereditary in
its character; there appears to be no doubt that it is now hereditary to
a very considerable extent.”
Many who are familiar with the habits of these people do not hesitate to
say that it would be an economy and a great benefit to the country if
all habitual criminals were resolutely segregated under merciful
surveillance and peremptorily denied opportunities for producing
offspring. It would abolish a source of suffering and misery to a future
generation, and would cause no unwarrantable hardship in this.
_Diplomas._—It will be remembered that Mr. Booth’s classification did
not help us beyond classes higher than S in civic worth. If a strong and
widely felt desire should arise to discover young men whose position was
of the V, W or X order, there would not be much difficulty in doing so.
Let us imagine, for a moment, what might be done in any great
University, where the students are in continual competition in studies,
in athletics, or in public meetings, and where their characters are
publicly known to associates and to tutors. Before attempting to make a
selection, acceptable definitions of civic worth would have to be made
in alternative terms, for there are many forms of civic worth. The
number of men of the V, W or X classes whom the University was qualified
to contribute annually must also be ascertained. As was said, the
proportion in the general population of the V class to the remainder is
as 1 to 300, and that of the W class as 1 in 3000. But students are a
somewhat selected body because the cleverest youths, in a scholastic
sense, usually find their way to Universities. A considerably high
level, both intellectually and physically, would be required as a
qualification for candidature. The limited number who had not been
automatically weeded away by this condition might be submitted in some
appropriate way to the independent votes of fellow-students on the one
hand, and of tutors on the other, whose ideals of character and merit
necessarily differ. This ordeal would reduce the possible winners to a
very small number, out of which an independent committee might be
trusted to make the ultimate selection. They would be guided by personal
interviews. They would take into consideration all favourable points in
the family histories of the candidates, giving appropriate hereditary
weight to each. Probably they would agree to pass over unfavourable
points, unless they were notorious and flagrant, owing to the great
difficulty of ascertaining the real truth about them. Ample experience
in making selections has been acquired even by scientific societies,
most of which work well, including perhaps the award of their medals,
which the fortunate recipients at least are tempted to consider
judicious. The opportunities for selecting women in this way are
unfortunately fewer, owing to the smaller number of female students
between whom comparisons might be made on equal terms. In the selection
of women, when nothing is known of their athletic proficiency, it would
be especially necessary to pass a high and careful medical examination;
and as their personal qualities do not usually admit of being tested so
thoroughly as those of men, it would be necessary to lay all the more
stress on hereditary family qualities, including those of fertility and
prepotency.
_Correlation between Promise in Youth and subsequent Performance._—No
serious difficulty seems to stand in the way of classifying and giving
satisfactory diplomas to youths of either sex, supposing there were a
strong demand for it. But some real difficulty does lie in the
question—Would such a classification be a trustworthy forecast of
qualities in later life? The scheme of descent of qualities may hold
good between the parents and the offspring at similar ages, but that is
not the information we really want. It is the descent of qualities from
men to men, not from youths to youths. The accidents that make or mar a
career do not enter into the scope of this difficulty. It resides
entirely in the fact that the development does not cease at the time of
youth, especially in the higher natures, but that faculties and
capabilities which were then latent subsequently unfold and become
prominent. Putting aside the effects of serious illness, I do not
suppose there is any risk of retrogression in capacity before old age
comes on. The mental powers that a youth possesses continue with him as
a man; but other faculties and new dispositions may arise and alter the
balance of his character. He may cease to be efficient in the way of
which he gave promise, and he may perhaps become efficient in unexpected
directions.
The correlation between youthful promise and performance in mature life
has never been properly investigated. Its measurement presents no
greater difficulty, so far as I can foresee, than in other problems
which have been successfully attacked. It is one of those alluded to in
the beginning of this lecture as bearing on race-improvement, and being
on its own merits suitable for anthropological inquiry. Let me add that
I think its neglect by the vast army of highly educated persons who are
connected with the present huge system of competitive examinations to be
gross and unpardonable. Neither schoolmasters, tutors, officials of the
Universities, nor of the State department of education, have ever to my
knowledge taken any serious step to solve this important problem, though
the value of the present elaborate system of examinations cannot be
rightly estimated until it is solved. When the value of the correlation
between youthful promise and adult performance shall have been
determined, the figures given in the table of descent will have to be
reconsidered.
_Augmentation of Favoured Stock._—The possibility of improving the race
of a nation depends on the power of increasing the productivity of the
best stock. This is far more important than that of repressing the
productivity of the worst. They both raise the average, the latter by
reducing the undesirables, the former by increasing those who will
become the lights of the nation. It is therefore all important to prove
that favour to selected individuals might so increase their productivity
as to warrant the expenditure in money and care that would be
necessitated. An enthusiasm to improve the race would probably express
itself by granting diplomas to a select class of young men and women, by
encouraging their intermarriages, by hastening the time of marriage of
women of that high class, and by provision for rearing children
healthily. The means that might be employed to compass these ends are
dowries, especially for those to whom moderate sums are important,
assured help in emergencies during the early years of married life,
healthy homes, the pressure of public opinion, honours, and above all
the introduction of motives of religious or quasi-religious character.
Indeed, an enthusiasm to improve the race is so noble in its aim that it
might well give rise to the sense of a religious obligation. In other
lands there are abundant instances in which religious motives make early
marriages a matter of custom, and continued celibacy to be regarded as a
disgrace, if not a crime. The customs of the Hindoos, also of the Jews,
especially in ancient times, bear this out. In all costly civilisations
there is a tendency to shrink from marriage on prudential grounds. It
would, however, be possible so to alter the conditions of life that the
most prudent course for an X class person should lie exactly opposite to
its present direction, for he or she might find that there were
advantages and not disadvantages in early marriage, and that the most
prudent course was to follow the natural instincts.
We have now to consider the probable gain in the number and worth of
adult offspring to these favoured couples. First as regards the effect
of reducing the age at marriage. There is unquestionably a tendency
among cultured women to delay or even to abstain from marriage; they
dislike the sacrifice of freedom and leisure, of opportunities for study
and of cultured companionship. This has to be reckoned with. I heard of
the reply of a lady official of a College for Women to a visitor who
inquired as to the after life of the students. She answered that
one-third profited by it, another third gained little good, and a third
were failures. “But what become of the failures?” “Oh, they marry.”
There appears to be a considerable difference between the earliest age
at which it is physiologically desirable that a woman should marry and
that at which the ablest, or at least the most cultured, women usually
do. Acceleration in the time of marriage, often amounting to 7 years, as
from 28 or 29 to 21 or 22, under influences such as those mentioned
above, is by no means improbable. What would be its effect on
productivity? It might be expected to act in two ways:—
(1) By shortening each generation by an amount roughly proportionate to
the diminution in age at which marriage occurs. Suppose the span of each
generation to be shortened by one-sixth, so that six take the place of
five, and that the productivity of each marriage is unaltered, it
follows that one-sixth more children will be brought into the world
during the same time, which is, roughly equivalent to increasing the
productivity of an unshortened generation by that amount.
(2) By saving from certain barrenness the earlier part of the
child-bearing period of the woman. Authorities differ so much as to the
direct gain of fertility due to early marriage that it is dangerous to
express an opinion. The large and thriving families that I have known
were the offspring of mothers who married very young.
The next influence to be considered is that of healthy homes. These and
a simple life certainly conduce to fertility. They also act indirectly
by preserving lives that would otherwise fail to reach adult age. It is
not necessarily the weakest who perish in this way, for instance,
zymotic disease falls indiscriminately on the weak and the strong.
Again, the children would be healthier and therefore more likely in
their turn to become parents of a healthy stock. The great danger to
high civilisations, and remarkably so to our own, is the exhaustive
drain upon the rural districts to supply large towns. Those who come up
to the towns may produce large families, but there is much reason to
believe that these dwindle away in subsequent generations. In short, the
towns sterilise rural vigour.
As one of the reasons for choosing the selected class would be that of
hereditary fertility, it follows that the selected class would respond
more than other classes to the above influences.
I do not attempt to appraise the strength of the combined six influences
just described. If each added one-sixth to the produce the number of
offspring would be doubled. This does not seem impossible considering
the large families of colonists, and of those in many rural districts;
but it is a high estimate. Perhaps the fairest approximation may be that
these influences would cause the X women to bring into the world an
average of one adult son and one adult daughter _in addition_ to what
they would otherwise have produced. The table of descent applies to one
son or to one daughter per couple; it may now be read as specifying the
net gain and showing its distribution. Should this estimate be thought
too high, the results may be diminished accordingly.
It is no absurd idea that outside influences should hasten the age of
marrying and make it customary for the best to marry the best. A
superficial objection is sure to be urged that the fancies of young
people are so incalculable and so irresistible that they cannot be
guided. No doubt they are so in some exceptional cases. I lately heard
from a lady who belonged to a county family of position that a great
aunt of hers had scandalised her own domestic circle two generations ago
by falling in love with the undertaker at her father’s funeral and
insisting on marrying him. Strange vagaries occur, but considerations of
social position and of fortune, with frequent opportunities of
intercourse, tell much more in the long run than sudden fancies that
want roots. In a community deeply impressed with the desire of
encouraging marriages between persons of equally high ability, the
social pressure directed to produce the desired end would be so great as
to ensure a notable amount of success.
* * * * *
_Profit and Loss._—The problem to be solved now assumes a clear shape. A
child of the X class (whatever X signifies) would have been worth so and
so at its birth, and one of each of the other grades respectively would
have been worth so and so; 100 X parentages can be made to produce a net
gain of 100 adult sons and 100 adult daughters who will be distributed
among the classes according to the standard table of descent. The total
value of the prospective produce of the 100 parentages can then be
estimated by an actuary, and consequently the sum that it is legitimate
to spend in favouring an X parentage. The clear and distinct statement
of a problem is often more than half way towards its solution. There
seems no reason why this one should not be solved between limiting
values that are not too wide apart to be useful.
* * * * *
_Existing Activities._—Leaving aside profitable expenditure from a
purely money point of view, the existence should be borne in mind of
immense voluntary activities that have nobler aims. The annual voluntary
contributions in the British Isles to public charities alone amount, on
the lowest computation, to fourteen million pounds, a sum which Sir H.
Burdett asserts on good grounds is by no means the maximum
obtainable.[2]
(“Hospitals and Charities,” 1898, p. 85.)
There are other activities long since existing which might well be
extended. I will not dwell, as I am tempted to do, on the endowments of
scholarships and the like, which aim at finding and educating the
fittest youths for the work of the nation; but I will refer to that
wholesome practice during all ages of wealthy persons interesting
themselves in and befriending poor but promising lads. The number of men
who have owed their start in a successful life to help of this kind must
have struck every reader of biographies. This relationship of befriender
and befriended is hardly to be expressed in English by a simple word
that does not connote more than is intended. The word “patron” is
odious. Recollecting Dr. Johnson’s abhorrence of the patrons of his day,
I turned to an early edition of his dictionary in hope of deriving some
amusement as well as instruction from his definition of the word, and I
was not disappointed. He defines “patron” as “a wretch who supports with
insolence and is repaid with flattery.” That is totally opposed to what
I would advocate, namely, a kindly and honourable relation between a
wealthy man who has made his position in the world and a youth who is
avowedly his equal in natural gifts, but who has yet to make it. It is
one in which each party may well take pride and I feel sure that if its
value were more widely understood it would become commoner than it is.
Many degrees may be imagined that lie between mere befriendment and
actual adoption, and which would be more or less effective in freeing
capable youths from the hindrances of narrow circumstances; in enabling
girls to marry early and suitably, and in securing favour for their
subsequent offspring. Something in this direction is commonly but half
unconsciously done by many great landowners whose employments for man
and wife, together with good cottages, are given to exceptionally
deserving couples. The advantage of being connected with a great and
liberally managed estate being widely appreciated, there are usually
more applicants than vacancies, so selection can be exercised. The
consequence is that the class of men found upon these properties is
markedly superior to those in similar positions elsewhere. It might well
become a point of honour, and as much an avowed object, for noble
families to gather fine specimens of humanity around them, as it is to
procure and maintain fine breeds of cattle and so forth, which are
costly, but repay in satisfaction.
There is yet another existing form of princely benevolence which might
be so extended as to exercise a large effect on race improvement. I mean
the provision to exceptionally promising young couples of healthy and
convenient houses at low rentals. A continually renewed settlement of
this kind can be easily imagined, free from the taint of patronage, and
analogous to colleges with their self-elected fellowships and rooms for
residence, that should become an exceedingly desirable residence for a
specified time. It would be so in the same way that a good club by its
own social advantages attracts desirable candidates. The tone of the
place would be higher than elsewhere, on account of the high quality of
the inmates, and it would be distinguished by an air of energy,
intelligence, health and self-respect and by mutual helpfulness.
_Prospects._—It is pleasant to contrive Utopias, and I have indulged in
many, of which a great society is one, publishing intelligence and
memoirs, holding yearly elections, administering large funds,
establishing personal relations like a missionary society with its
missionaries, keeping elaborate registers and discussing them
statistically with honest precision. But the first and pressing point is
to thoroughly justify any crusade at all in favour of race improvement.
More is wanted in the way of unbiased scientific inquiry along the many
roads I have hurried over, to make every stepping-stone safe and secure,
and to make it certain that the game is really worth the candle. All I
dare hope to effect by this lecture is to prove that in seeking for the
improvement of the race we aim at what is apparently possible to
accomplish, and that we are justified in following every path in a
resolute and hopeful spirit that seems to lead towards that end. The
magnitude of the inquiry is enormous, but its object is one of the
highest man can accomplish. The faculties of future generations will
necessarily be distributed according to laws of heredity, whose
statistical effects are no longer vague, for they are measured and
expressed in formulæ. We cannot doubt the existence of a great power
ready to hand and capable of being directed with vast benefit as soon as
we shall have learnt to understand and to apply it. To no nation is a
high human breed more necessary than to our own, for we plant our stock
all over the world and lay the foundation of the dispositions and
capacities of future millions of the human race.
EUGENICS: ITS DEFINITION, SCOPE AND AIMS.[3]
Eugenics is the science which deals with all influences that improve the
inborn qualities of a race; also with those that develop them to the
utmost advantage. The improvement of the inborn qualities, or stock, of
some one human population, will alone be discussed here.
What is meant by improvement? What by the syllable _Eu_ in Eugenics,
whose English equivalent is _good_? There is considerable difference
between goodness in the several qualities and in that of the character
as a whole. The character depends largely on the _proportion_ between
qualities whose balance may be much influenced by education. We must
therefore leave morals as far as possible out of the discussion, not
entangling ourselves with the almost hopeless difficulties they raise as
to whether a character as a whole is good or bad. Moreover, the goodness
or badness of character is not absolute, but relative to the current
form of civilisation. A fable will best explain what is meant. Let the
scene be the Zoological Gardens in the quiet hours of the night, and
suppose that, as in old fables, the animals are able to converse, and
that some very wise creature who had easy access to all the cages, say a
philosophic sparrow or rat, was engaged in collecting the opinions of
all sorts of animals with a view of elaborating a system of absolute
morality. It is needless to enlarge on the contrariety of ideals between
the beasts that prey and those they prey upon, between those of the
animals that have to work hard for their food and the sedentary
parasites that cling to their bodies and suck their blood, and so forth.
A large number of suffrages in favour of maternal affection would be
obtained, but most species of fish would repudiate it, while among the
voices of birds would be heard the musical protest of the cuckoo. Though
no agreement could be reached as to absolute morality, the essentials of
Eugenics may be easily defined. All creatures would agree that it was
better to be healthy than sick, vigorous than weak, well fitted than
ill-fitted for their part in life. In short that it was better to be
good rather than bad specimens of their kind, whatever that kind might
be. So with men. There are a vast number of conflicting ideals of
alternative characters, of incompatible civilisations; but all are
wanted to give fulness and interest to life. Society would be very dull
if every man resembled the highly estimable Marcus Aurelius or Adam
Bede. The aim of Eugenics is to represent each class or sect by its best
specimens; that done, to leave them to work out their common
civilisation in their own way.
A considerable list of qualities can be easily compiled that nearly
every one except “cranks” would take into account when picking out the
best specimens of his class. It would include health, energy, ability,
manliness and courteous disposition. Recollect that the natural
differences between dogs are highly marked in all these respects, and
that men are quite as variable by nature as other animals in their
respective species. Special aptitudes would be assessed highly by those
who possessed them, as the artistic faculties by artists, fearlessness
of inquiry and veracity by scientists, religious absorption by mystics,
and so on. There would be self-sacrificers, self-tormentors and other
exceptional idealists, but the representatives of these would be better
members of a community than the body of their electors. They would have
more of those qualities that are needed in a State, more vigour, more
ability, and more consistency of purpose. The community might be trusted
to refuse representatives of criminals, and of others whom it rates as
undesirable.
Let us for a moment suppose that the practice of Eugenics should
hereafter raise the average quality of our nation to that of its better
moiety at the present day and consider the gain. The general tone of
domestic, social and political life would be higher. The race as a whole
would be less foolish, less frivolous, less excitable and politically
more provident than now. Its demagogues who “played to the gallery”
would play to a more sensible gallery than at present. We should be
better fitted to fulfil our vast imperial opportunities. Lastly, men of
an order of ability which is now very rare, would become more frequent,
because the level out of which they rose would itself have risen.
The aim of Eugenics is to bring as many influences as can be reasonably
employed, to cause the useful classes in the community to contribute
_more_ than their proportion to the next generation.
The course of procedure that lies within the functions of a learned and
active Society such as the Sociological may become, would be somewhat as
follows:—
1. Dissemination of a knowledge of the laws of heredity so far as they
are surely known, and promotion of their farther study. Few seem to be
aware how greatly the knowledge of what may be termed the _actuarial_
side of heredity has advanced in recent years. The _average_ closeness
of kinship in each degree now admits of exact definition and of being
treated mathematically, like birth and death-rates, and the other topics
with which actuaries are concerned.
2. Historical inquiry into the rates with which the various classes of
society (classified according to civic usefulness) have contributed to
the population at various times, in ancient and modern nations. There is
strong reason for believing that national rise and decline is closely
connected with this influence. It seems to be the tendency of high
civilisation to check fertility in the upper classes, through numerous
causes, some of which are well known, others are inferred, and others
again are wholly obscure. The latter class are apparently analogous to
those which bar the fertility of most species of wild animals in
zoological gardens. Out of the hundreds and thousands of species that
have been tamed, very few indeed are fertile when their liberty is
restricted and their struggles for livelihood are abolished; those which
are so and are otherwise useful to man becoming domesticated. There is
perhaps some connection between this obscure action and the
disappearance of most savage races when brought into contact with high
civilization, though there are other and well-known concomitant causes.
But while most barbarous races disappear, some, like the negro, do not.
It may therefore be expected that types of our race will be found to
exist which can be highly civilised without losing fertility; nay, they
may become more fertile under artificial conditions, as is the case with
many domestic animals.
3. Systematic collection of facts showing the circumstances under which
large and thriving families have most frequently originated; in other
words, the _conditions_ of Eugenics. The names of the thriving families
in England have yet to be learnt, and the conditions under which they
have arisen. We cannot hope to make much advance in the science of
Eugenics without a careful study of facts that are now accessible with
difficulty, if at all. The definition of a thriving family, such as will
pass muster for the moment at least is one in which the children have
gained distinctly superior positions to those who were their class-mates
in early life. Families may be considered “large” that contain not less
than three adult male children. It would be no great burden to a Society
including many members who had Eugenics at heart, to initiate and to
preserve a large collection of such records for the use of statistical
students. The committee charged with the task would have to consider
very carefully the form of their circular and the persons entrusted to
distribute it. The circular should be simple, and as brief as possible,
consistent with asking all questions that are likely to be answered
truly, and which would be important to the inquiry. They should ask, at
least in the first instance, only for as much information as could be
easily, and would be readily, supplied by any member of the family
appealed to. The point to be ascertained is the _status_ of the two
parents at the time of their marriage, whence its more or less eugenic
character might have been predicted, if the larger knowledge that we now
hope to obtain had then existed. Some account would, of course, be
wanted of their race, profession, and residence; also of their own
respective parentages, and of their brothers and sisters. Finally, the
reasons would be required why the children deserved to be entitled a
“thriving” family, to distinguish worthy from unworthy success. This
manuscript collection might hereafter develop into a “golden book” of
thriving families. The Chinese, whose customs have often much sound
sense, make their honours retrospective. We might learn from them to
show that respect to the parents of noteworthy children, which the
contributors of such valuable assets to the national wealth richly
deserve. The act of systematically collecting records of thriving
families would have the further advantage of familiarising the public
with the fact that Eugenics had at length become a subject of serious
scientific study by an energetic Society.
4. Influences affecting Marriage. The remarks of Lord Bacon in his essay
on Death may appropriately be quoted here. He says with the view of
minimising its terrors:
“There is no passion in the mind of men so weak but it mates and
masters the fear of death. - Revenge triumphs over death; love
slights it; honour aspireth to it; grief flyeth to it; fear
pre-occupateth it.”
Exactly the same kind of considerations apply to marriage. The passion
of love seems so overpowering that it may be thought folly to try to
direct its course. But plain facts do not confirm this view. Social
influences of all kinds have immense power in the end, and they are very
various. If unsuitable marriages from the Eugenic point of view were
banned socially, or even regarded with the unreasonable disfavour which
some attach to cousin-marriages, very few would be made. The multitude
of marriage restrictions that have proved prohibitive among uncivilised
people would require a volume to describe.
5. Persistence in setting forth the national importance of Eugenics.
There are three stages to be passed through. _Firstly_ it must be made
familiar as an academic question, until its exact importance has been
understood and accepted as a fact; _Secondly_ it must be recognised as a
subject whose practical development deserves serious consideration; and
_Thirdly_ it must be introduced into the national conscience, like a new
religion. It has, indeed, strong claims to become an orthodox religious
tenet of the future, for Eugenics co-operates with the workings of
Nature by securing that humanity shall be represented by the fittest
races. What Nature does blindly, slowly, and ruthlessly, man may do
providently, quickly, and kindly. As it lies within his power, so it
becomes his duty to work in that direction; just as it is his duty to
succour neighbours who suffer misfortune. The improvement of our stock
seems to me one of the highest objects that we can reasonably attempt.
We are ignorant of the ultimate destinies of humanity, but feel
perfectly sure that it is as noble a work to raise its level in the
sense already explained, as it would be disgraceful to abase it. I see
no impossibility in Eugenics becoming a religious dogma among mankind,
but its details must first be worked out sedulously in the study.
Over-zeal leading to hasty action would do harm, by holding out
expectations of a near golden age, which will certainly be falsified and
cause the science to be discredited. The first and main point is to
secure the general intellectual acceptance of Eugenics as a hopeful and
most important study. Then let its principles work into the heart of the
nation, who will gradually give practical effect to them in ways that we
may not wholly foresee.
RESTRICTIONS IN MARRIAGE.[4]
It is proposed in the following remarks to meet an objection that has
been repeatedly urged against the possible adoption of any system of
Eugenics, namely, that human nature would never brook interference with
the freedom of marriage.
In my reply, I shall proceed on the not unreasonable assumption, that
when the subject of Eugenics shall be well understood, and when its
lofty objects shall have become generally appreciated, they will meet
with some recognition both from the religious sense of the people and
from its laws. The question now to be considered is, how far have
marriage restrictions proved effective, when sanctified by the religion
of the time, by custom, and by law? I appeal from arm-chair criticism to
historical facts.
To this end, a brief history will be given of a few widely spread
customs. It will be seen that with scant exceptions they are based on
social expediency, and not on natural instincts. Each of the following
paragraphs might have been expanded into a long chapter had that seemed
necessary. Those who desire to investigate the subject further can
easily do so by referring to standard works in anthropology, among the
most useful of which, for the present purpose, are Frazer’s _Golden
Bough_, Westermarck’s _History of Marriage_, Huth’s _Marriage of Near
Kin_, and Crawley’s _Mystic Rose_.
1. MONOGAMY. It is impossible to label mankind by one general term,
either as animals who instinctively take a plurality of mates, or who
consort with only one, for history suggests the one condition as often
as the other. Probably different races, like different individuals, vary
considerably in their natural instincts. Polygamy may be understood
either as having a plurality of wives; or, as having one principal wife
and many secondary but still legitimate wives, or any other recognised
but less legitimate connections; in one or other of these forms it is
now permitted—by religion, customs, and law—to at least one-half of the
population of the world, though its practice may be restricted to a few,
on account of cost, domestic peace, and the insufficiency of females.
Polygamy holds its ground firmly throughout the Moslem world. It exists
throughout India and China in modified forms, and it is entirely in
accord with the sentiments both of men and women in the larger part of
negro Africa. It was regarded as a matter of course in the early
Biblical days. Jacob’s twelve children were born of four mothers all
living at the same time, namely, Leah, and her sister Rachel, and their
respective handmaids Bilhah and Zilpah. Long afterwards, the Jewish
kings emulated the luxurious habits of neighbouring potentates and
carried polygamy to an extreme degree. For Solomon, see I Kings xi. 3.
For his son Rehoboam, see II Chron. xi. 21. The history of the
subsequent practice of the custom among the Jews is obscure, but the
Talmud contains no law against polygamy. It must have ceased in Judæa by
the time of the Christian Era. It was not then allowed in either Greece
or Rome. Polygamy was unchecked by law in profligate Egypt, but a
reactionary and ascetic spirit existed, and some celibate communities
were formed in the service of Isis, who seem to have exercised a large
though indirect influence in introducing celibacy into the early
Christian Church. The restriction of marriage to one living wife
subsequently became the religion and the law of all Christian nations,
though licence has been widely tolerated in royal and other
distinguished families, as in those of some of our English kings.
Polygamy was openly introduced into Mormonism by Brigham Young, who left
seventeen wives, and fifty-six children. He died in 1877; polygamy was
suppressed soon after (_Encyc. Brit._, xvi. 827.)
It is unnecessary for my present purpose to go further into the
voluminous data connected with marriages such as these in all parts of
the world. Enough has been said to show that the prohibition of
polygamy, under severe penalties by civil and ecclesiastical law, has
been due not to any natural instinct against the practice, but to
consideration of social well-being. I conclude that equally strict
limitations to freedom of marriage might, under the pressure of worthy
motives, be hereafter enacted for Eugenic and other purposes.
2. ENDOGAMY, or the custom of marrying exclusively _within_ one’s own
tribe or caste, has been sanctioned by religion and enforced by law, in
all parts of the world, but chiefly in long settled nations where there
is wealth to bequeath and where neighbouring communities profess
different creeds. The details of this custom, and the severity of its
enforcement, have everywhere varied from century to century. It was
penal for a Greek to marry a barbarian, for a Roman patrician to marry a
plebeian, for a Hindu of one caste to marry one of another caste, and so
forth. Similar restrictions have been enforced in multitudes of
communities, even under the penalty of death.
A very typical instance of the power of law over the freedom of choice
in marriage, and which was by no means confined to Judæa, is that known
as the Levirate. It shows that family property and honour were once held
by the Jews to dominate over individual preferences. The Mosaic law
actually _compelled_ a man to marry the widow of his brother if he left
no male issue. (Deuteron. xxv.) Should the brother refuse, “then shall
his brother’s wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and
loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face; and she shall
answer and say, so shall it be done unto the man that doth not build up
his brother’s house. And his name shall be called in Israel the house of
him that hath his shoe loosed.” The form of this custom survives to the
present day and is fully described and illustrated under the article
“Halizah” (= taking off, untying) in the _Jewish Cyclopædia_. Jewish
widows are now almost invariably remarried with this ceremony. They are
as we might describe it, “given away” by a kinsman of the deceased
husband, who puts on a shoe of an orthodox shape which is kept for the
purpose, the widow unties the shoe, spits, but now on the _ground_, and
repeats the specified words.
The duties attached to family property led to the history, which is very
strange to the ideas of the present day, of Ruth’s advances to Boaz
under the advice of her mother. “It came to pass at midnight” that Boaz
“was startled (see marginal note in the Revised Version) and turned
himself, and behold a woman lay at his feet,” who had come in “softly
and uncovered his feet and laid her down.” He told her to lie still
until the early morning and then to go away. She returned home and told
her mother, who said, “Sit still, my daughter, until thou know how the
matter will fall, for the man will not rest until he have finished the
thing this day.” She was right. Boaz took legal steps to disembarrass
himself of the claims of a still nearer kinsman, “who drew off his
shoe”; so Boaz married Ruth. Nothing could be purer from the point of
view of those days, than the history of Ruth. The feelings of the modern
social world would be shocked if the same thing were to take place now
in England.
Evidence from the various customs relating to endogamy show how choice
in marriage may be dictated by religious custom. That is, by a custom
founded on a religious view of family property and family descent.
Eugenics deal with what is more valuable than money or lands, namely the
heritage of a high character, capable brains, fine physique, and vigour;
in short, with all that is most desirable for a family to possess as a
birthright. It aims at the evolution and preservation of high races of
men, and it as well deserves to be strictly enforced as a religious
duty, as the Levirate law ever was.
3. EXOGAMY is, or has been, as widely spread as the opposed rule of
endogamy just described. It is the duty enforced by custom, religion,
and law, of marrying _outside_ one’s own clan, and is usually in force
amongst small and barbarous communities. Its former distribution is
attested by the survival in nearly all countries, of ceremonies based on
“marriage by capture.” The remarkable monograph on this subject by the
late Mr. McLennan is of peculiar interest. It was one of the earliest,
and perhaps the most successful, of all attempts to decipher prehistoric
customs by means of those now existing among barbarians, and by the
marks they have left on the traditional practices of civilised nations,
including ourselves. Before his time those customs were regarded as
foolish, and fitted only for antiquarian trifling. In small fighting
communities of barbarians, daughters are a burden; they are usually
killed while infants, so few women are found in a tribe who were born in
it. It may sometimes happen that the community has been recently formed
by warriors who brought no women, and who, like the Romans in the old
story, could only supply themselves by capturing those of neighbouring
tribes. The custom of capture grows; it becomes glorified because each
wife is a living trophy of the captor’s heroism, and marriage within the
tribe soon comes to be considered an unmanly, and at last a shameful
act. The modern instances of this among barbarians are very numerous.
4. AUSTRALIAN MARRIAGES. The following is a brief clue, and apparently a
true one, to the complicated marriage restrictions among Australian
bushmen, which are enforced by the penalty of death, and which seem to
be partly endogamous in origin and partly otherwise. The example is
typical of those of many other tribes that differ in detail.
A and B are two tribal classes; 1 and 2 are two other and _independent_
divisions of the tribe (probably by totems). Any person, taken at
random, is equally likely to have either letter or either numeral by
birthright, and his or her numeral and letter are well known to all the
community. Hence the members of the tribe are sub-classed into four
sub-divisions, A1, A2, B1, B2. The rule is that a man may marry those
women only, whose letter and numeral are both different to his own. Thus
A1 can marry only B2, the other three sub-divisions A1, A2, and B1 being
absolutely barred to him. As to the children, there is a difference of
practice in different parts: in the cases most often described, the
child takes its father’s letter and its mother’s numeral, which
determines class by paternal descent. In other cases the arrangement
runs in the contrary way, that is by maternal descent.
The cogency of this rule is due to custom, religion and law, and is so
strong that nearly all Australians would be horrified at the idea of
breaking it. If anyone dared to do so, he would probably be clubbed to
death.
Here then is another restriction to the freedom of marriage which might
with equal propriety have been applied to the furtherance of some form
of Eugenics.
5. TABOO. The survival of young animals largely depends on their
inherent timidity, their keen sensitiveness to warnings of danger by
their parents and others, and to their tenacious recollection of them.
It is so with human children, who are easily terrified by nurses’ tales
and thereby receive more or less durable impressions.
A vast complex of motives can be brought to bear upon the naturally
susceptible minds of children, and of uneducated adults who are mentally
little more than big children. The constituents of this complex are not
sharply distinguishable, but they form a recognisable whole that has not
yet received an appropriate name, in which religion, superstition,
custom, tradition, law, and authority all have part. This group of
motives will for the present purpose be entitled “immaterial” in
contrast to material ones. My contention is that the experience of all
ages and all nations shows that the immaterial motives are frequently
far stronger than the material ones, the relative power of the two being
well illustrated by the tyranny of taboo in many instances, called as it
is by different names in different places. The facts relating to taboo
form a voluminous literature, the full effect of which cannot be
conveyed by brief summaries. It shows how, in most parts of the world,
acts that are apparently insignificant, have been invested with ideal
importance, and how the doing of this or that has been followed by
outlawry or death, and how the mere terror of having unwittingly broken
a taboo, may suffice to kill the man who broke it. If non-eugenic unions
were prohibited by such taboos, none would take place.
6. PROHIBITED DEGREES. The institution of marriage, as now sanctified by
religion and safeguarded by law in the more highly civilised nations,
may not be ideally perfect, nor may it be universally accepted in future
times, but it is the best that has hitherto been devised for the parties
primarily concerned, for their children, for home life, and for society.
The degrees of kinship within which marriage is prohibited, is with one
exception quite in accordance with modern sentiment, the exception being
the disallowal of marriage with the sister of a deceased wife, the
propriety of which is greatly disputed and need not be discussed here.
The marriage of a brother and sister would excite a feeling of loathing
among us that seems implanted by nature, but which further inquiry will
show, has mainly arisen from tradition and custom.
We will begin by giving due weight to certain assigned motives. (1)
Indifference and even repugnance between boys and girls, irrespectively
of relationship, who have been reared in the same barbarian home. (2)
Close likeness, as between the members of a thorough-bred stock, causes
some sexual indifference: thus highly bred dogs lose much of their
sexual desire for one another, and are apt to consort with mongrels. (3)
Contrast is an element in sexual attraction which has not yet been
discussed quantitatively. Great resemblance creates indifference, and
great dissimilarity is repugnant. The maximum of attractiveness must lie
somewhere between the two, at a point not yet ascertained. (4) The harm
due to continued interbreeding has been considered, as I think, without
sufficient warrant, to cause a presumed strong natural and instinctive
_repugnance_ to the marriage of near kin. The facts are that close and
continued interbreeding invariably does harm after a few generations,
but that a single cross with near kinsfolk is practically innocuous. Of
course a sense of repugnance might become correlated with any harmful
practice, but there is no evidence that it is _repugnance_ with which
interbreeding is correlated, but only _indifference_; this is equally
effective in preventing it, but is quite another thing. (5) The
strongest reason of all in civilised countries appears to be the earnest
desire not to infringe the sanctity and freedom of the social relations
of a family group, but this has nothing to do with instinctive sexual
repugnance. Yet it is through the latter motive alone, so far as I can
judge, that we have acquired our apparently instinctive horror of
marrying within near degrees.
Next as to facts. History shows that the horror now felt so strongly did
not exist in early times. Abraham married his half-sister Sarah, “she is
indeed the sister, the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my
mother, and she became my wife.” (Gen. XX. 12). Amram, the father of
Moses and Aaron, married his aunt, his father’s sister Jochabed. The
Egyptians were accustomed to marry sisters. It is unnecessary to go
earlier back in Egyptian history than to Ptolemies, who, being a new
dynasty, would not have dared to make the marriages they did in a
conservative country, unless popular opinion allowed it. Their dynasty
includes its founder Ceraunus, who is not numbered; the numbering begins
with his son Soter, and goes on to Ptolemy XIII., the second husband of
Cleopatra. Leaving out her first husband, Ptolemy XII., as he was a mere
boy, and taking in Ceraunus, there are thirteen Ptolemies to be
considered. Between them, they contracted eleven incestuous marriages,
eight with whole sisters, one with a half-sister, and two with nieces.
Of course the object was to keep the royal line pure, as was done by the
ancient Peruvians. It would be tedious to follow out the laws enforced
at various times and in the various states of Greece during the
classical ages. Marriage was at one time permitted in Athens between
half-brothers and half-sisters, and the marriage between uncle and niece
was thought commendable in the time of Pericles, when it was prompted by
family considerations. In Rome the practice varied much, but there were
always severe restrictions. Even in its dissolute period, public opinion
was shocked by the marriage of Claudius with his niece.
A great deal more evidence could easily be adduced, but the foregoing
suffices to prove that there is no instinctive repugnance felt
universally by man, to marriage within the prohibited degrees, but that
its present strength is mainly due to what I call immaterial
considerations. It is quite conceivable that a non-eugenic marriage
should hereafter excite no less loathing than that of a brother and
sister would do now.
7. CELIBACY. The dictates of religion in respect to the opposite duties
of leading celibate lives, and of continuing families, have been
contradictory. In many nations it is and has been considered a disgrace
to bear no children, and in other nations celibacy has been raised to
the rank of a virtue of the highest order. The ascetic character of the
African portion of the early Christian Church, as already remarked,
introduced the merits of celibate life into its teaching. During the
fifty or so generations that have elapsed since the establishment of
Christianity, the nunneries and monasteries, and the celibate lives of
Catholic priests, have had vast social effects, how far for good and how
far for evil need not be discussed here. The point which I wish to
enforce is the potency, not only of the religious sense in aiding or
deterring marriage, but more especially the influence and authority of
ministers of religion in enforcing celibacy. They have notoriously used
it when aid has been invoked by members of the family on grounds that
are not religious at all, but merely of family expediency. Thus, at some
times and in some Christian nations, every girl who did not marry while
still young, was practically compelled to enter a nunnery from which
escape was afterwards impossible.
It is easy to let the imagination run wild on the supposition of a
whole-hearted acceptance of Eugenics as a national religion; that is of
the thorough conviction by a nation that no worthier object exists for
man than the improvement of his own race; and when efforts as great as
those by which nunneries and monasteries were endowed and maintained
should be directed to fulfil an opposite purpose. I will not enter
further into this. Suffice it to say, that the history of conventual
life affords abundant evidence on a very large scale, of the power of
religious authority in directing and withstanding the tendencies of
human nature towards freedom in marriage.
CONCLUSION.—Seven different subjects have now been touched upon. They
are monogamy, endogamy, exogamy, Australian marriages, taboo, prohibited
degrees and celibacy. It has been shown under each of these heads how
powerful are the various combinations of immaterial motives upon
marriage selection, how they may all become hallowed by religion,
accepted as custom and enforced by law. Persons who are born under their
various rules live under them without any objection. They are
unconscious of their restrictions, as we are unaware of the tension of
the atmosphere. The subservience of civilised races to their several
religious superstitions, customs, authority, and the rest, is frequently
as abject as that of barbarians. The same classes of motives that direct
other races, direct ours, so a knowledge of their customs helps us to
realise the wide range of what we may ourselves hereafter adopt, for
reasons that will be as satisfactory to us in those future times, as
theirs are or were to them, at the time when they prevailed.
Reference has frequently been made to the probability of Eugenics
hereafter receiving the sanction of religion. It may be asked, “how can
it be shown that Eugenics fall within the purview of our own.” It
cannot, any more than the duty of making provision for the future needs
of oneself and family, which is a cardinal feature of modern
civilization, can be deduced from the Sermon on the Mount. Religious
precepts, founded on the ethics and practice of olden days, require to
be reinterpreted to make them conform to the needs of progressive
nations. Ours are already so far behind modern requirements that much of
our practice and our profession cannot be reconciled without
illegitimate casuistry. It seems to me that few things are more needed
by us in England than a revision of our religion, to adapt it to the
intelligence and needs of the present time. A form of it is wanted that
shall be founded on reasonable bases and enforced by reasonable hopes
and fears, and that preaches honest morals in unambiguous language,
which good men who take their part in the work of the world, and who
know the dangers of sentimentalism, may pursue without reservation.
STUDIES IN NATIONAL EUGENICS[5]
It was stated in the _Times_, January, 26, 1905, that at a meeting of
the Senate of the University of London, Mr. Edgar Schuster, M.A., of New
College, Oxford, was appointed to the Francis Galton Research Fellowship
in National Eugenics. “Mr. Schuster will in particular carry out
investigations into the history of classes and families, and deliver
lectures and publish memoirs on the subjects of his investigations.”
Now that this appointment has been made, it seems well to publish a
suitable list of subjects for eugenic inquiry. It will be a programme
that binds no one, not even myself, for I have not yet had the advantage
of discussing it with others, and may hereafter wish to largely revise
and improve what is now provisionally sketched. The use of this paper
lies in its giving a general outline of what, according to my present
view, requires careful investigation, of course not all at once, but
step by step, at possibly long intervals.
I. Estimation of the average quality of the offspring of married
couples, from their personal and ancestral data. This includes questions
of fertility, and the determination of the “probable error” of the
estimate for individuals, according to the data employed.
(_a_) “Biographical Index to Gifted Families,” modern and recent, for
publication. It might be drawn up on the same principle as my “Index to
Achievements of Near Kinsfolk of some of the Fellows of the Royal
Society” (see “Sociological Papers,” Vol. I., p. 85). The Index refers
only to facts creditable to the family, and to such of these as have
already appeared in publications, which are quoted as authority for the
statements. Other biographical facts that may be collected concerning
these families are to be preserved for statistical use only.
(_b_) Biographies of capable families, who do not rank as “gifted,” are
to be collected, and kept in MS., for statistical use, but with option
of publication.
(_c_) Biographies of families, who, as a whole, are distinctly below the
average in health, mind, or physique, are to be collected. These include
the families of persons in asylums of all kinds, hospitals, and prisons.
To be kept for statistical use only.
(_d_) Parentage and progeny of representatives of each of the social
classes of the community, to determine how far each class is derived
from, and contributes to, its own and other classes. This inquiry must
be carefully planned beforehand.
(_e_) Insurance Office data. An attempt to be made to carry out the
suggestions of Mr. Palin Egerton, “Sociological Papers,” Vol. I., p. 62,
of obtaining material that the authorities would not object to give, and
whose discussion might be advantageous to themselves as well as to
Eugenics. The matter is now under consideration, so more cannot be said.
II. Effects of action by the State and by Public Institutions.
(_f_) Habitual criminals. Public opinion is beginning to regard with
favour the project of a prolonged segregation of habitual criminals, for
the purpose of restricting their opportunities for (1) continuing their
depredations, and (2) producing low class offspring. The enquiries
spoken of above (see _c_) will measure the importance of the latter
object.
(_g_) Feeble minded. Aid given to Institutions for the feeble minded are
open to the suspicions that they may eventually promote their marriage
and the production of offspring like themselves. Inquiries are needed to
test the truth of this suspicion.
(_h_) Grants towards higher education. Money spent in the higher
education of those who are intellectually unable to profit by it lessens
the sum available for those who can do so. It might be expected that aid
systematically given on a large scale to the more capable would have
considerable eugenic effect, but the subject is complex and needs
investigation.
(_i_) Indiscriminate charity, including out-door relief. There is good
reason to believe that the effects of indiscriminate charity are notably
non-eugenic. This topic affords a wide field for inquiry.
III. Other influences that further or restrain particular classes of
marriage.
The instances are numerous in recent times in which social influences
have restrained or furthered freedom of marriage. A judicious selection
of these would be useful, and might be undertaken as time admits. I have
myself just communicated to the Sociological Society a memoir entitled
“Restrictions in Marriage,” in which remarkable instances are given of
the dominant power of religion, law and custom. This will suggest the
sort of work now in view, where less powerful influences have produced
statistical effects of appreciable amount.
IV. Heredity.
The facts after being collected are to be discussed, for improving our
knowledge of the laws both actuarial and of physiological heredity, the
recent methods of advanced statistics being of course used. It is
possible that a study of the effect on the offspring of differences in
the parental qualities may prove important.
It is to be considered whether a study of Eurasians, that is, of the
descendants of Hindoo and English parents, might not be advocated in
proper quarters, both on its own merits as a topic of national
importance and as a test of the applicability of the Mendelian
hypotheses to men. Eurasians have by this time intermarried during three
consecutive generations in sufficient numbers to yield trustworthy
results.
V. Literature.
A vast amount of material that bears on Eugenics exists in print, much
of which is valuable and should be hunted out and catalogued. Many
scientific societies, medical, actuarial, and others, publish such
material from time to time. The experiences of breeders of stock of all
kinds, and those of horticulturists, fall within this category.
VI. Co-operation.
After good work shall have been done and become widely recognised, the
influence of eugenic students in stimulating others to contribute to
their inquiries may become powerful. It is too soon to speculate on
this, but every good opportunity should be seized to further
co-operation, as well as the knowledge and application of Eugenics.
VII. Certificates.
In some future time, dependent on circumstances, I look forward to a
suitable authority issuing Eugenic certificates to candidates for them.
They would imply a more than an average share of the several qualities
of at least goodness of constitution, of physique, and of mental
capacity. Examinations upon which such certificates might be granted are
already carried on, but separately; some by the medical advisers of
insurance offices, some by medical men as to physical fitness for the
army, navy and Indian services, and others in the ordinary scholastic
examinations. Supposing constitution, physique and intellect to be three
independent variables (which they are not), the men who rank among the
upper third of each group would form only one twenty-seventh part of the
population. Even allowing largely for the correlation of those
qualities, it follows that a moderate severity of selection in each of a
few particulars would lead to a severe all-round selection. It is not
necessary to pursue this further.
* * * * *
The above brief memorandum does not profess to deal with more than the
pressing problems in Eugenics. As that science becomes better known, and
the bases on which it rests are more soundly established, new problems
will arise, especially such as relate to its practical application. All
this must bide its time; there is no good reason to anticipate it now.
Of course useful suggestions in the present embryonic condition of
Eugenic study would be timely, and might prove very helpful to students.
MR. GALTON’S REPLY TO REMARKS MADE DURING THE DISCUSSION THAT FOLLOWED.
This Society has cause to congratulate itself on the zeal and energy
which has brought together so large a body of opinion. We have had
verbal contributions from four eminent specialists in anthropology: Dr.
Haddon, Dr. Mott, Mr. Crawley, and Dr. Westermarck, and numerous written
communications have been furnished by well known persons. At the time
that I am revising and extending these words no less than twenty-six
contributions to the discussion are in print. Want of space compels me
to confine my reply to those remarks that seem more especially to
require it, and to do so very briefly, for Eugenics is a wide study,
with an uncounted number of side issues into which those who discuss it
are tempted to stray. If, however, sure advance is to be made, these
issues must be thoroughly explored, one by one, and partial discussion
should as far as possible be avoided. To change the simile, we have to
deal with a formidable chain of strongholds, which must be severally
attacked in force, reduced, and disposed of, before we can proceed
freely.
In the first place, it is a satisfaction to find that no one impugns the
conclusion which my memoir was written to justify, that history tells
how restrictions in marriage, even of an excessive kind, have been
contentedly accepted very widely, under the guidance of what I called
“immaterial motives.” This is all I had in view when writing it.
_Certificates._—One of the comments on which I will remark is that
if certificates were now offered to those who passed certain
examinations into health, physique, moral and intellectual powers,
and hereditary gifts, great mistakes would be made by the
examiners. I fully agree that it is too early to devise a
satisfactory system of marks for giving what might be styled
“honour-certificates,” because we do not yet possess sufficient
data to go upon. On the other hand there are persons who are
exceptionally and unquestionably unfit to contribute offspring to
the nation, such as those mentioned in Dr. Mott’s bold proposals.
The best methods of dealing with these are now ripe for immediate
consideration.
_Breeding for points._—It is objected by many that there cannot be
unanimity on the “points” that it is most desirable to breed for.
I fully discussed this objection in my memoir read here last
spring, showing that some qualities such as health and vigour were
thought by all to be desirable, and the opposite undesirable, and
that this sufficed to give a first direction to our aims. It is a
safe starting point, though a great deal more has to be inquired
into as we proceed on our way. I think that some contributors to
this discussion have been needlessly alarmed. No question has been
raised by me of breeding men like animals for particular points,
to the disregard of all-round efficiency in physical, intellectual
(including moral), and hereditary qualifications. Moreover, as
statistics have shown, the best qualities are largely correlated.
The youths who became judges, bishops, statesmen, and leaders of
progress in England could have furnished formidable athletic teams
in their times. There is a tale, I know not how far founded on
fact, that Queen Elizabeth had an eye to the calves of the legs of
those she selected for bishops. There is something to be said in
favour of selecting men by their physical characteristics for
other than physical purposes. It would decidedly be safer to do so
than to trust to pure chance.
_The residue._—It is also objected that if the inferior moiety of
a race are left to intermarry, their produce will be increasingly
inferior. This is certainly an error. The law of “regression
towards mediocrity” insures that their offspring as a whole, will
be superior to themselves, and if as I sincerely hope, a freer
action will be hereafter allowed to selective agencies than
hitherto, the portion of the offspring so selected would be better
still. The influences that now _withstand_ the free action of
selective agencies are numerous, they include indiscriminate
charity.
_Passion of love._—The argument has been repeated that love is too
strong a passion to be restrained by such means as would be
tolerated at the present time. I regret that I did not express the
distinction that ought to have been made between its two stages,
that of slight inclination and that of falling thoroughly into
love, for it is the first of these rather than the second that I
hope the popular feeling of the future will successfully resist.
Every match-making mother appreciates the difference. If a girl is
taught to look upon a class of men as tabooed, whether owing to
rank, creed, connections, or other causes, she does not regard
them as possible husbands and turns her thoughts elsewhere. The
proverbial “Mrs. Grundy” has enormous influence in checking the
marriages she considers indiscreet.
_Eugenics as a factor in religion._—Remarks have been made
concerning eugenics as a religion; this will be the subject of the
brief memoir that follows these remarks.
It is much to be desired that competent persons would severally take up
one or other of the many topics mentioned in my second memoir, or others
of a similar kind, and work it thoroughly out as they would any ordinary
scientific problem; in this way solid progress would be made. I must be
allowed to re-emphasise my opinion that an immense amount of
investigation has to be accomplished before a definite system of
Eugenics can be safely framed.
EUGENICS AS A FACTOR IN RELIGION.
Eugenics strengthens the sense of social duty in so many important
particulars that the conclusions derived from its study ought to find a
welcome home in every tolerant religion. It promotes a far-sighted
philanthropy, the acceptance of parentage as a serious responsibility,
and a higher conception of patriotism. The creed of eugenics is founded
upon the idea of evolution; not on a passive form of it, but on one that
can to some extent direct its own course. Purely passive, or what may be
styled mechanical evolution, displays the awe inspiring spectacle of a
vast eddy of organic turmoil, originating we know not how, and
travelling we know not whither. It forms a continuous whole from first
to last, reaching backward beyond our earliest knowledge and stretching
forward as far as we think we can foresee. But it is moulded by blind
and wasteful processes, namely, by an extravagant production of raw
material and the ruthless rejection of all that is superfluous, through
the blundering steps of trial and error. The condition at each
successive moment of this huge system, as it issues from the already
quiet past and is about to invade the still undisturbed future, is one
of violent internal commotion. Its elements are in constant flux and
change, though its general form alters but slowly. In this respect it
resembles the curious stream of cloud that sometimes seems attached to a
mountain top during the continuance of a strong breeze; its constituents
are always changing, though its shape as a whole hardly varies.
Evolution is in any case a grand phantasmagoria, but it assumes an
infinitely more interesting aspect under the knowledge that the
intelligent action of the human will is, in some small measure, capable
of guiding its course. Man has the power of doing this largely so far as
the evolution of humanity is concerned; he has already affected the
quality and distribution of organic life so widely that the changes on
the surface of the earth, merely through his disforestings and
agriculture, would be recognisable from a distance as great as that of
the moon.
* * * * *
As regards the practical side of eugenics, we need not linger to re-open
the unending argument whether man possesses any creative power of will
at all, or whether his will is not also predetermined by blind forces or
by intelligent agencies behind the veil, and whether the belief that man
can act independently is more than a mere illusion. This matters little
in practice, because men, whether fatalists or not, work with equal
vigour whenever they perceive they have the power to act effectively.
Eugenic belief extends the function of philanthropy to future
generations, it renders its action more pervading than hitherto, by
dealing with families and societies in their entirety, and it enforces
the importance of the marriage covenant by directing serious attention
to the probable quality of the future offspring. It sternly forbids all
forms of sentimental charity that are harmful to the race, while it
eagerly seeks opportunity for acts of personal kindness, as some
equivalent to the loss of what it forbids. It brings the tie of kinship
into prominence and strongly encourages love and interest in family and
race. In brief, eugenics is a virile creed, full of hopefulness, and
appealing to many of the noblest feelings of our nature.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration: _ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE HERBERT SPENCER LECTURE 1907._]
PROBABILITY, THE FOUNDATION OF EUGENICS.[6]
The request so honourable to myself, to be the Herbert Spencer lecturer
of this year, aroused a multitude of vivid recollections. Spencer’s
strong personality, his complete devotion to a self-imposed and
life-long task, together with rare gleams of tenderness visible amidst a
wilderness of abstract thought, have left a unique impression on my mind
that years fail to weaken.
I do not propose to speak of his writings; they have been fully
commented on elsewhere, but I desire to acknowledge my personal debt to
him, which is large. It lies in what I gained through his readiness to
discuss any ideas I happened to be full of at the time, with quick
sympathy and keen criticism. It was his custom for many afternoons to
spend an hour or two of rest in the old smoking room of the Athenaeum
Club, strolling into an adjoining compartment for a game of billiards
when the table was free. Day after day on those afternoons I enjoyed
brief talks with him, which were often of exceptional interest to
myself. All that kind of comfort and pleasure has long ago passed from
me. Among the many things of which age deprives us, I regret few more
than the loss of contemporaries. When I was young I felt diffident in
the presence of my seniors, partly owing to a sense that the ideas of
the young cannot be in complete sympathy with those of the old. Now that
I myself am old it seems to me that my much younger friends keenly
perceive the same difference, and I lose much of that outspoken
criticism which is an invaluable help to all who investigate.
HISTORY OF EUGENICS.
It must have surprised you as it did myself to find the new word
‘Eugenics’ in the title both of the Boyle Lecture, delivered in Oxford
about a fortnight ago, and of this. It was an accident, not a deliberate
concurrence, and I accept it as a happy omen. The field of Eugenics is
so wide that there is no need for myself, the second lecturer, to plant
my feet in the footsteps of the first; on the contrary, it gives freedom
by absolving me from saying much that had to be said in one way or
another. I fully concur in the views so ably presented by my friend and
co-adjutor, Professor Karl Pearson, and am glad to be dispensed from
further allusion to subjects that formed a large portion of his lecture,
on which he is a far better guide and an infinitely higher authority
than myself.
In giving the following sketch of the history of Eugenics I am obliged
to be egotistical, because I kindled the feeble flame that struggled
doubtfully for a time until it caught hold of adjacent stores of
suitable material, and became a brisk fire, burning freely by itself,
and again because I have had much to do with its progress quite
recently.
The word ‘Eugenics’ was coined and used by me in my book _Human
Faculty_, published as long ago as 1883, which has long been out of
print; it is, however, soon to be re-published in a cheap form.[7] In it
I emphasized the essential brotherhood of mankind, heredity being to my
mind a very real thing; also the belief that we are born to act, and not
to wait for help like able-bodied idlers, whining for doles. Individuals
appear to me as finite detachments from an infinite ocean of being,
temporarily endowed with executive powers. This is the only answer I can
give to myself in reply to the perpetually recurring questions of ‘Why?
whence? and whither?’ The immediate ‘whither?’ does not seem wholly
dark, as some little information may be gleaned concerning the direction
in which Nature, so far as we know of it, is now moving—Namely, towards
the evolution of mind, body, and character in increasing energy and
co-adaptation.
I have often wondered that the poem of Hyperion, by Keats—that
magnificent torso of an incompleted work—has not been placed in the very
forefront of past speculations on evolution. Keats is so thorough that
he makes the very Divinities to be its product. The earliest gods such
as Coelus, born out of Chaos, are vague entities, they engender Saturn,
Oceanus, Hyperion, and the Titan brood, who supersede them. These in
their turn are ousted from dominion by their own issue, the Olympian
Gods. A notable advance occurs at each successive stage in the quality
of the Divinities. When Hyperion, newly terrified by signs of impending
overthrow, lies prostrate on the earth ‘his ancient mother, for some
comfort yet,’ the voice of Coelus from the universal space, thus
‘whispered low and solemn in his ear ... yet do thou strive, for thou
art capable ... my life is but the life of winds and tides, no more than
winds and tides can I prevail, but thou canst.’ I have quoted only
disjointed fragments of this wonderful poem, enough to serve as a
reminder to those who know it, but will add ten consecutive lines from
the speech of the fallen Oceanus to his comrades, which give a summary
of evolution as here described:
As Heaven and Earth are fairer, fairer far
Than Chaos and black Darkness, though once chiefs,
And as we show beyond that Heaven and Earth
In form and shape compact and beautiful,
In Will, in action free, companionship,
And thousand other signs of purer life;
So on our heels a fresh perfection treads
A power more strong in beauty, born of us
And fated to excel us, as we pass
In glory that old Darkness.
He ends with ‘this is the truth, and let it be your balm.’ The poem is a
noble conception, founded on the crude cosmogony of the ancient Greeks.
The ideas have long held my fancy that we men may be the chief, and
perhaps the only executives on earth. That we are detached on active
service with, it may be only illusory, powers of free-will. Also that we
are in some way accountable for our success or failure to further
certain obscure ends, to be guessed as best we can. That though our
instructions are obscure they are sufficiently clear to justify our
interference with the pitiless course of Nature, whenever it seems
possible to attain the goal towards which it moves, by gentler and
kindlier ways. I expressed these views as forcibly as I then could in
the above-mentioned book, with especial reference to improving the
racial qualities of mankind, where the truest piety seems to me to
reside in taking action, and not in submissive acquiescence to the
routine of Nature. It was thought impious at one time to attach
lightning conductors to churches, as showing a want of trust in the
tutelary care of the Deity to whom they were dedicated; now I think most
persons would be inclined to apply some contemptuous epithet to such as
obstinately refused, on those grounds, to erect them.
The direct pursuit of studies in Eugenics, as to what could practically
be done, and the amount of change in racial qualities that could
reasonably be anticipated, did not at first attract investigators. The
idea of effecting an improvement in that direction was too much in
advance of the march of popular imagination, so I had to wait. In the
meantime I occupied myself with collateral problems, more especially
with that of dealing measurably with faculties that are variously
distributed in a large population. The results were published in my
‘Natural Inheritance’ in 1889, and I shall have occasion to utilize some
of them later on, in this very lecture. The publication of that book
proved to be more timely than the former. The methods were greatly
elaborated by Professor Karl Pearson, and applied by him to Biometry.
Professor Weldon, of this University, whose untimely death is widely
deplored, aided powerfully. A new science was thus created primarily on
behalf of Biometry, but equally applicable to Eugenics, because their
provinces overlap.
The publication of _Biometrika_, in which I took little more than a
nominal part, appeared in 1901.
Being myself appointed Huxley Lecturer before the Anthropological
Institute in 1901 I took for my title ‘The possible improvement of the
Human Breed under the existing conditions of Law and Sentiment’
(_Nature_, November 1, 1901, _Report of the Smithsonian Institute,
Washington_, for the same year, and reprinted in this volume.)
The next and a very important step towards Eugenics was made by
Professor Karl Pearson in his Huxley Lecture of 1903 entitled ‘The Laws
of Inheritance in Man’ (_Biometrika_, vol. iii). It contains a most
valuable compendium of work achieved and of objects in view; also the
following passage (p. 159), which is preceded by forcible reasons for
his conclusions:
We are ceasing as a nation to breed intelligence as we did fifty
to a hundred years ago. The mentally better stock in the nation is
not reproducing itself at the same rate as it did of old; the less
able and the less energetic are more fertile than the better
stocks. No scheme of wider or more thorough education will bring
up, in the scale of intelligence, hereditary weakness to the level
of hereditary strength. The only remedy, if one be possible at
all, is to alter the relative fertility of the good and the bad
stocks in the community.
Again in 1904, having been asked by the newly-formed Sociological
Society to contribute a memoir, I did so on ‘Eugenics, its definition,
aim and scope.’ This was followed up in 1905 by three memoirs,
‘Restrictions in Marriage,’ ‘Studies in National Eugenics,’ and
‘Eugenics as a factor in Religion,’ which were published in the Memoirs
of that Society with comments thereon by more than twenty different
authorities (_Sociological Papers_, published for the Sociological
Society (Macmillan), vols. i and ii. These are re-published here). The
subject of Eugenics being thus formally launched, and the time appearing
ripe, I offered a small endowment to the University of London, to found
a Research Fellowship on its behalf. The offer was cordially accepted,
so Eugenics gained the recognition of its importance by the University
of London and a home for its study in University College. Mr. Edgar
Schuster, of this University, became Research Fellow in 1905, and I am
much indebted to his care in nurturing the young undertaking and for the
memoirs he has contributed, part of which must still remain for a short
time unpublished.
When the date for Mr. Schuster’s retirement approached it was advisable
to utilize the experience so far gained in reorganizing the Office.
Professor Pearson and myself, in consultation with the authorities of
the University of London, elaborated a scheme at the beginning of this
year, which is a decided advance, and shows every sign of vitality and
endurance. Mr. David Heron, a Mathematical Scholar of St. Andrew’s, is
now a Research Fellow; Miss Ethel Elderton, who has done excellent and
expert work from the beginning, is deservedly raised to the position of
Research Scholar; and the partial services of a trained Computer have
been secured. An event of the highest importance to the future of the
Office is that Professor Karl Pearson has undertaken, at my urgent
request, that general supervision of its work which advancing age and
infirmities preclude me from giving. He will, I trust, treat it much as
an _annexe_ to his adjacent biometric laboratory, for many studies in
Eugenics might, with equal propriety, be carried on in either of them,
and the same methods of precise analysis which are due to the
mathematical skill and untiring energy of Professor Pearson are used in
both. The Office now bears the name of the Eugenics Laboratory, and its
temporary home is in 88 Gower Street. (It is now, 1909, housed in the
University buildings.) The phrase ‘National Eugenics’ is defined as ‘the
study of agencies under social control that may improve or impair the
racial qualities of future generations, either physically or mentally.’
The Laboratory has already begun to publish memoirs on its own account,
and I now rest satisfied in the belief that, with a fair share of good
luck, this young Institution will prosper and grow into an important
centre of research.
APPLICATION OF THEORIES OF PROBABILITY TO EUGENICS.
Eugenics seeks for quantitative results. It is not contented with such
vague words as ‘much’ or ‘little,’ but endeavours to determine ‘how
much’ or ‘how little’ in precise and trustworthy figures. A simple
example will show the importance of this. Let us suppose a class of
persons, called _A_, who are afflicted with some form and some specified
degree of degeneracy, as inferred from personal observations, and from
family history, and let class _B_ consist of the offspring of _A_. We
already know only too well that when the grade of _A_ is very low, that
of the average _B_ will be below par and mischievous to the community,
but how mischievous will it probably be? This question is of a familiar
kind, easily to be answered when a sufficiency of facts have been
collected. But a second question arises. What will be the
trustworthiness of the forecast derived from averages when it is applied
to individuals? This is a kind of question that is not familiar, and
rarely taken into account, although it too could be answered easily as
follows. The average mischief done by each _B_ individual to the
community may for brevity be called _M_: the mischiefs done by the
several individuals differ more or less from _M_ by amounts whose
average may be called _D_. In other words _D_ is the average amount of
the individual deviations from _M_. _D_ thus becomes the measure of
untrustworthiness. The smaller _D_ is, the more precise the forecast,
and the stronger the justification for taking such drastic measures
against the propagation of class _B_ as would be consonant to the
feelings if the forecast were known to be infallible. On the other hand,
a large _D_ signifies a corresponding degree of uncertainty, and a risk
that might be faced without reproach through a sentiment akin to that
expressed in the maxim ‘It is better that many guilty should escape than
that one innocent person should suffer.’ But that is not the sentiment
by which natural selection is guided, and it is dangerous to yield far
to it.
There can be no doubt that a thorough investigation of the kind
described, even if confined to a single grade and to a single form of
degeneracy, would be a serious undertaking. Masses of trustworthy
material must be collected, usually with great difficulty, and be
afterwards treated with skill and labour by methods that few at present
are competent to employ. An extended investigation into the good or evil
done to the State by the offspring of many different classes of persons,
some of civic value, others the reverse, implies a huge volume of work
sufficient to occupy Eugenics laboratories for an indefinite time.
OBJECT LESSONS IN THE METHODS OF BIOMETRY.
I propose now to speak of those fundamental principles of the laws of
Probability that are chiefly concerned in the newer methods of Biometry,
and consequently of Eugenics. Most persons of ordinary education seem to
know nothing about them, not even understanding their technical terms,
much less appreciating the cogency of their results. This popular
ignorance so obstructs the path of Eugenics that I venture to tax your
attention by proposing a method of partly dispelling it. Let me first
say that no one can be more conscious than myself of the large amount of
study that is required to qualify a man to deal adequately with the
mathematical methods of Biometry, or that any man can hope for much
success in that direction unless he is possessed of appropriate
faculties and a strong brain. On the other hand, I hold an opinion
likely at first sight to scandalize biometricians and which I must
justify, that the fundamental ideas on which abstruse problems of
Probability are based admit of being so presented to any intelligent
person as to be grasped by him, even though he be quite ignorant of
mathematics. The conditions of doing so are that the lessons shall be as
far as possible ‘Object lessons,’ in which real objects shall be handled
as in the Kindergarten system, and simple operations performed and not
only talked about. I am anxious to make myself so far understood, that
some teachers of science may be induced to elaborate the course that I
present now only in outline. It seems to me suitably divisible into a
course of five lessons of one hour each, which would be sufficient to
introduce the learner into a new world of ideas, extraordinarily wide in
their application. A proper notion of what is meant by Correlation
requires some knowledge of the principal features of Variation, and will
be the goal towards which the lessons lead.
To most persons Variability implies something indefinite and capricious.
They require to be taught that it, like Proteus in the old fable, can be
seized, securely bound, and utilized; that it can be defined and
measured. It was disregarded by the old methods of statistics, that
concerned themselves solely with Averages. The average amount of various
measurable faculties or events in a multitude of persons was determined
by simple methods, the individual variations being left out of account
as too difficult to deal with. A population was treated by the old
methods as a structureless atom, but the newer methods treat it as a
compound unit. It will be a considerable intellectual gain to an
otherwise educated person, to fully understand the way in which this can
be done, and this and such like matters the proposed course of lessons
is intended to make clear. It cannot be expected that in the few
available minutes more than an outline can be given here of what is
intended to be conveyed in perhaps thirty-fold as much time with the aid
of profuse illustrations by objects and diagrams. At the risk of being
wearisome, it is, however, necessary to offer the following syllabus of
what is proposed, for an outline of what teachers might fill in.
The object of the first lesson would be to explain and illustrate
Variability of Size, Weight, Number, &c., by exhibiting samples of
specimens that have been marshalled at random (Fig. 1), or arrayed in
order of their magnitude (Fig. 2). Thus when variations of length were
considered, objects of suitable size, such as chestnuts, acorns,
hazel-nuts, stones of wall fruit, might be arrayed as beads on a string.
It will be shown that an ‘Array’ of Variates of any kind falls into a
continuous series. That each variate differs little from its neighbours
about the middles of the Arrays, but that such differences increase
rapidly towards their extremities. Abundant illustration would be
required, and much handling of specimens.
Arrays of Variates of the same class strung together, differing
considerably in the number of the objects they each contain, would be
laid side by side and their middlemost variates or ‘Medians’ (Fig. 3)
would be compared. It would be shown that as a rule the Medians become
very similar to one another when the numbers in the Arrays are large. It
must then be dogmatically explained that double accuracy usually
accompanies a four-fold number, treble accuracy a nine-fold number, and
so on.
(This concludes the first lesson, during which the words and
significations of Variability, Variate, Array, and Median will have been
learnt.)
The second lesson is intended to give more precision to the idea of an
Array. The variates in any one of these strung loosely on a cord, should
be disposed at equal distances apart in front of an equal number of
compartments, like horses in the front of a row of stalls (Fig. 4), and
their tops joined. There will be one more side to the row of stalls than
there are horses, otherwise a side of one of the extreme stalls would be
wanting. Thus there are two ways of indicating the position of a
particular variate, either by its _serial number_ as ‘first,’ ‘second,’
‘third,’ or so on, or by _degrees_ like those of a thermometer. In the
latter case the sides of the stalls serve as degrees, counting the first
of them as 0°, making one more graduation than the number of objects, as
it should be. The difference between these two methods has to be made
clear, and that while the serial position of the Median object is always
the same in any two Arrays whatever be the number of variates, the
serial position of their subdivisions cannot be the same, the ignored
half interval at either end varying in width according to the number of
variates, and becoming considerable when that number is small.
Lines of proportionate length will then be drawn on a blackboard, and
the limits of the Array will be also drawn, at a half interval from
either of its ends. The base is then to be divided centesimally.
Next join the tops of the lines with a smooth curve, and wipe out
everything except the curve, the Limit at either side, and the
Centesimally divided Base (Fig. 5). This figure forms a Scheme of
Distribution of Variates. Explain clearly that its shape is independent
of the number of Variates, so long as they are sufficiently numerous to
secure statistical constancy.
Show numerous schemes of variates of different kinds, and remark on the
prevalent family likeness between the bounding curves. (Words and
meanings learnt—Schemes of Distribution, Centesimal graduation of base.)
The third lesson passes from Variates, measured upwards from the base,
to Deviates measured upwards or downwards from the Median, and treated
as positive or negative values accordingly (Fig. 6).
Draw a Scheme of Variates on the blackboard, and show that it consists
of two parts; the median which represents a constant, and the curve
which represents the variations from it. Draw a horizontal line from
limit to limit, through the top of the Median to serve as Axis to the
Curve. Divide the Axis centesimally, and wipe out everything except
Curve, Axis, and Limits. This forms a Scheme of Distribution of
Deviates. Draw ordinates from the axis to the curve at the 25th and 75th
divisions. These are the ‘Quartile’ deviates.
At this stage the Genesis of the theoretical Normal curve might be
briefly explained and the generality of its application; also some of
its beautiful properties of reproduction. Many of the diagrams already
shown would be again employed to show the prevalence of approximately
normal distributions. Exceptions of strongly marked Skew curves would be
exhibited and their genesis briefly described.
It will then be explained that while the ordinate at _any_ specified
centesimal division in two normal curves of deviation measures their
relative variability, the Quartile is commonly employed as the unit of
variability under the almost grotesque name of ‘Probable Error,’ which
is intended to signify that the length of any Deviate in the system is
as likely as not to exceed or to fall short of it. This, by
construction, is the case of either Quartile.
(New words and meanings—Scheme of Distribution of Deviates, Axis,
Normal, Skew, Quartile, and Probable Error.)
In the fourth lesson it has to be explained that the Curve of Normal
Distribution is not a direct result of calculation, neither does the
formula that expresses it lend itself so freely to further calculation,
as the curve of Frequency. Their shapes differ; the first is an Ogive,
the second (Fig. 7) is Bell-shaped. In the curve of Frequency the
Deviations are reckoned from the Mean of all the Variates, and not from
the Median. Mean and Median are the same in Normal Curves, but may
differ much in others. Either of these normal curves can be transformed
into the other, as is best exemplified by using a Polygon (Fig. 8)
instead of the Curve, consisting of a series of rectangles differing in
height by the same amounts, but having widths respectively
representative of the frequencies of 1, 3, 3, 1. (This is one of those
known as a Binomial series, whose genesis might be briefly explained.)
If these rectangles are arrayed in order of their widths, side by side,
they become the equivalents of the ogival curve of Distribution. Now if
each of these latter rectangles be slid parallel to itself up to either
limit, their bases will overlap and they become equivalent to the
bell-shaped curve of Frequency with its base vertical.
The curve of Frequency contains no easily perceived unit of variability
like the Quartile of the Curve of Distribution. It is therefore not
suited for and was not used as a first illustration, but the formula
that expresses it is by far the more suitable of the two for
calculation. Its unit of variability is what is called the ‘Standard
Deviation,’ whose genesis will admit of illustration. How the
calculations are made for finding its value is far beyond the reach of
the present lessons. The calculated ordinates of the normal curve must
be accepted by the learner much as the time of day by his watch, though
he be ignorant of the principles of its construction. Much further
beyond his reach are the formulae used to express quasi-normal and skew
curves. They require a previous knowledge of rather advanced
mathematics.
(New words and ideas—Curve of Frequency, Standard Deviation, Mean,
Binomial Series).
The fifth and last lesson deals with the measurement of Correlation,
that is, with the closeness of the relation between any two systems
whose variations are due partly to causes common to both, and partly to
causes special to each. It applies to nearly every social relation, as
to environment and health, social position and fertility, the kinship of
parent to child, of uncle to nephew, &c. It may be mechanically
illustrated by the movements of two pulleys with weights attached,
suspended from a cord held by one of the hands of three different
persons, 1, 2, and 3. No. 2 holds the middle of the cord, one half of
which then passes round one of the pulleys up to the hand of No. 1; the
other half similarly round the other pulley up to the hand of No. 3. The
hands of Nos. 1, 2, and 3 move up and down quite independently, but as
the movements of both weights are simultaneously controlled in part by
No. 2, they become ‘correlated.’
The formation of a table of correlations on paper ruled in squares, is
easily explained on the blackboard (Fig. 9). The pairs of correlated
values _A_ and _B_ have to be expressed in units of their respective
variabilities. They are then sorted into the squares of the
paper,—vertically according to the magnitudes of _A_, horizontally
according to those of _B_—, and the Mean of each partial array of _B_
values, corresponding to each grade of _A_, has to be determined. It is
found theoretically that where variability is normal, the Means of _B_
lie practically in a straight line on the face of the Table, and
observation shows they do so in most other cases. It follows that the
average deviation of a _B_ value bears a constant ratio to the deviation
of the corresponding _A_ value. This ratio is called the ‘Index of
Correlation,’ and is expressed by a single figure. For example: if the
thigh-bone of many persons deviate ‘very much’ from the usual length of
the thigh-bones of their race, the average of the lengths of the
corresponding arm-bones will differ ‘much,’ but not ‘very much,’ from
the usual length of arm-bones, and the ratio between this ‘very much’
and ‘much’ is constant and in the same direction, whatever be the
numerical value attached to the word ‘very much.’ Lastly, the
trustworthiness of the Index of Correlation, when applied to individual
cases, is readily calculable. When the closeness of correlation is
absolute, it is expressed by the number 1·0; and by 0·0, when the
correlation is nil.
(New words and ideas—Correlation and Index of Correlation.)
This concludes what I have to say on these suggested Object lessons. It
will have been tedious to follow in its necessarily much compressed
form,—but will serve, I trust, to convey its main purpose of showing
that a very brief course of lessons, copiously illustrated by diagrams
and objects to handle, would give an acceptable introduction to the
newer methods employed in Biometry and in Eugenics. Further, that when
read leisurely by experts in its printed form, it would give them
sufficient guidance for elaborating details.
INFLUENCE OF COLLECTIVE TRUTHS UPON INDIVIDUAL CONDUCT.
We have thus far been concerned with Probability, determined by methods
that take cognizance of Variations, and yield exact results, thereby
affording a solid foundation for action. But the stage on which human
action takes place is a superstructure into which emotion enters, we are
guided on it less by Certainties and by Probabilities than by Assurance
to a greater or lesser degree. The word Assurance is derived from
_sure_, which itself is an abbreviation of _secure_, that is of
_se- cura_, or without misgiving. It is a contented attitude of mind
largely dependent on custom, prejudice, or other unreasonable influences
which reformers have to overcome, and some of which they are apt to
utilize on their own behalf. Human nature is such that we rarely find
our way by the pure light of reason, but while peering through
spectacles furnished with coloured and distorting glasses.
Locke seems to confound certainty with assurance in his forcible
description of the way in which men are guided in their daily affairs
(_Human Understanding_, iv. 14, par. 1):
Man would be at a great loss if he had nothing to direct him but
what has the certainty of true knowledge. For that being very
short and scanty, he would be often utterly in the dark, and in
most of the actions of his life, perfectly at a stand, had he
nothing to guide him in the absence of clear and certain
knowledge. He that will not eat till he has demonstration that it
will nourish him, he that will not stir till he infallibly knows
the business he goes about will succeed, will have little else to
do than to sit still and perish.
A society may be considered as a highly complex organism, with a
consciousness of its own, caring only for itself, establishing
regulations and customs for its collective advantage, and creating a
code of opinions to subserve that end. It is hard to over-rate its power
over the individual in regard to any obvious particular on which it
emphatically insists. I trust in some future time that one of those
particulars will be the practice of Eugenics. Otherwise the influence of
collective truths on individual conduct is deplorably weak, as expressed
by the lines:—
For others’ follies teach us not,
Nor much their wisdom teaches,
But chief of solid worth is what
Our own experience preaches.
Professor Westermarck, among many other remarks in which I fully concur,
has aptly stated (_Sociological Papers_, published for the Sociological
Society. Macmillan, 1906, vol. ii., p. 24), with reference to one
obstacle which prevents individuals from perceiving the importance of
Eugenics, ‘the prevalent opinion that almost anybody is good enough to
marry is chiefly due to the fact that in this case, cause and effect,
marriage and the feebleness of the offspring, are so distant from each
other that the _near-sighted eye_ does not distinctly perceive the
connexion between them.’ (The Italics are mine.)
The enlightenment of individuals is a necessary preamble to practical
Eugenics, but social opinion is the tyrant by whose praise or blame the
principles of Eugenics may be expected hereafter to influence individual
conduct. Public opinion may, however, be easily directed into different
channels by opportune pressure. A common conviction that change in the
established order of some particular codes of conduct would be
impossible, because of the shock that the idea of doing so gives to our
present ideas, bears some resemblance to the conviction of lovers that
their present sentiments will endure for ever. Conviction, which is that
very Assurance of which mention has just been made, is proved by
reiterated experience to be a highly fallacious guide. Love is
notoriously fickle in despite of the fervent and genuine protestations
of lovers, and so is public opinion. I gave a list of extraordinary
variations of the latter in respect to restrictions it enforced on the
freedom of marriage, at various times and places (_Sociological Papers_,
quoted above). Much could be added to that list, but I will not now
discuss the effects of public opinion on such a serious question. I will
take a much smaller instance which occurred before the time to which the
recollections of most persons can now reach, but which I myself recall
vividly. It is the simple matter of hair on the face of male adults.
When I was young, it was an unpardonable offence for any English person
other than a cavalry officer, or perhaps someone of high social rank, to
wear a moustache. Foreigners did so and were tolerated, otherwise the
assumption of a moustache was in popular opinion worse than wicked, for
it was atrociously bad style. Then came the Crimean War and the winter
of Balaclava, during which it was cruel to compel the infantry to shave
themselves every morning. So their beards began to grow, and this broke
a long established custom. On the return of the army to England the
fashion of beards spread among the laity, but stopped short of the
clergy. These, however, soon began to show dissatisfaction; they said
the beard was a sign of manliness that ought not to be suppressed, and
so forth, and at length the moment arrived. A distinguished clergyman,
happily still living, ‘bearded’ his Bishop on a critical occasion. The
Bishop yielded without protest, and forthwith hair began to sprout in a
thousand pulpits where it had never appeared before within the memory of
man.
It would be no small shock to public sentiment if our athletes in
running public races were to strip themselves stark naked, yet that
custom was rather suddenly introduced into Greece. Plato says (Republic
V, par. 452, Jowett’s translation):
Not long ago the Greeks were of the opinion, which is still
generally received among the barbarians, that the sight of a naked
man was ridiculous and improper, and when first the Cretans and
the Lacedaemonians introduced naked exercises, the wits of that
day might have ridiculed them....
Thucydides (I. 6) also refers to the same change as occurring ‘quite
lately’.
Public opinion is commonly far in advance of private morality, because
society as a whole keenly appreciates acts that tend to its advantage,
and condemns those that do not. It applauds acts of heroism that perhaps
not one of the applauders would be disposed to emulate. It is
instructive to observe cases in which the benevolence of public opinion
has out-stripped that of the Law—which, for example, takes no notice of
such acts as are enshrined in the parable of the good Samaritan. A man
on his journey was robbed, wounded and left by the wayside. A priest and
a Levite successively pass by and take no heed of him. A Samaritan
follows, takes pity, binds his wounds, and bears him to a place of
safety. Public opinion keenly condemns the priest and the Levite, and
praises the Samaritan, but our criminal law is indifferent to such acts.
It is most severe on misadventure due to the neglect of a definite duty,
but careless about those due to the absence of common philanthropy. Its
callousness in this respect is painfully shown in the following
quotations (Kenny, _Outlines of Criminal Law_, 1902, p. 121, per Hawkins
in Reg. v. Paine, _Times_, February 25, 1880):
If I saw a man who was not under my charge, taking up a tumbler of
poison, I should not be guilty of any crime by not stopping him. I
am under no legal obligation to protect a stranger.
That is probably what the priest and the Levite of the parable said to
themselves.
A still more emphatic example is in the _Digest of Criminal Law_, by
Justice Sir James Stephen, 1887, p. 154. Reg. v. Smith, 2 C. and P.,
449:
_A_ sees _B_ drowning and is able to help him by holding out his
hand. _A_ abstains from doing so in order that _B_ may be drowned,
and _B_ is drowned. _A_ has committed no offence.
It appears, from a footnote, that this case has been discussed in a
striking manner by Lord Macaulay in his notes on the Indian Penal Code,
which I have not yet been able to consult.
Enough has been written elsewhere by myself and others to show that
whenever public opinion is strongly roused it will lead to action,
however contradictory it may be to previous custom and sentiment.
Considering that public opinion is guided by the sense of what best
serves the interests of society as a whole, it is reasonable to expect
that it will be strongly exerted in favour of Eugenics when a
sufficiency of evidence shall have been collected to make the truths on
which it rests plain to all. That moment has not yet arrived. Enough is
already known to those who have studied the question to leave no doubt
in their minds about the general results, but not enough is
quantitatively known to justify legislation or other action except in
extreme cases. Continued studies will be required for some time to come,
and the pace must not be hurried. When the desired fulness of
information shall have been acquired then, and not till then, will be
the fit moment to proclaim a ‘Jehad,’ or Holy War against customs and
prejudices that impair the physical and moral qualities of our race.
LOCAL ASSOCIATIONS FOR PROMOTING EUGENICS[8]
I propose to take the present opportunity of submitting some views of my
own relating to that large province of eugenics which is concerned with
favouring the families of those who are exceptionally fit for
citizenship. Consequently, little or nothing will be said relating to
what has been well termed by Dr. Saleeby “negative” eugenics, namely,
the hindrance of the marriages and the production of offspring by the
exceptionally unfit. The latter is unquestionably the more pressing
subject of the two, but it will soon be forced on the attention of the
legislature by the recent report of the Royal Commission on the
Feeble-minded. We may be content to await for awhile the discussions to
which it will give rise, and which I am sure the members of this society
will follow with keen interest, and with readiness to intervene when
what may be advanced seems likely to result in actions of an
anti-eugenic character.
The remarks I am about to make were suggested by hearing of a desire to
further eugenics by means of local associations more or less affiliated
to our own, combined with much doubt as to the most appropriate methods
of establishing and conducting them. It is upon this very important
branch of our wide subject that I propose to offer a few remarks.
It is difficult, while explaining what I have in view, to steer a course
that shall keep clear of the mud flats of platitude on the one hand, and
not come to grief against the rocks of over-precision on the other.
There is no clear issue out of mere platitudes, while there is great
danger in entering into details. A good scheme may be entirely
compromised merely on account of public opinion not being ripe to
receive it in the proposed form, or through a discovered flaw in some
non-essential part of it. Experience shows that the safest course in a
new undertaking is to proceed warily and tentatively towards the desired
end, rather than freely and rashly along a predetermined route, however
carefully it may have been elaborated on paper.
Again, whatever scheme of action is proposed for adoption must be
neither Utopian nor extravagant, but accordant throughout with British
sentiment and practice.
The successful establishment of any general system of constructive
eugenics will, in my view (which I put forward with diffidence), depend
largely upon the efforts of local associations acting in close harmony
with a central society, like our own. A prominent part of its business
will then consist in affording opportunities for the interchange of
ideas and for the registration and comparison of results. Such a central
society would tend to bring about a general uniformity of administration
the value of which is so obvious that I do not stop to insist on it.
Assuming, as I do, that the powers at the command of the local
associations will be almost purely social, let us consider how those
associations might be formed and conducted so as to become exceedingly
influential.
It is necessary to be somewhat precise at the outset, so I will begin
with the by no means improbable supposition that in a given district a
few individuals, some of them of local importance, are keenly desirous
of starting a local association or society, and are prepared to take
trouble to that end. How should they set to work?
Their initial step would seem to be to form themselves into a
provisional executive committee, and to nominate a president, council,
and other officers of the new society. This done, the society in
question, though it would have no legal corporate existence, may be
taken as formed.
The committee would next provide, with the aid of the central society,
for a few sane and sensible lectures to be given on eugenics, including
the A B C of heredity, at some convenient spot, and they would exert
themselves to arouse a wide interest in the subjects by making it known
in the district. They would seek the co-operation of the local medical
men, clergy, and lawyers, of the sanitary authorities, and of all
officials whose administrative duties bring them into contact with
various classes of society, and they would endeavour to collect round
this nucleus that portion of the local community which was likely to be
brought into sympathy with the eugenic cause. Every political
organisation, every philanthropic agency, proceeds on some such lines as
I have just sketched out.
The committee might next issue, on the part of the president and council
of the new society, a series of invitations to guests at their social
gatherings, where differences of rank should be studiously ignored. The
judicious management of these gatherings would, of course, require
considerable tact, but there are abundant precedents for them, among
which I need only mention the meetings of the Primrose League at one end
of the scale, and those held in Toynbee Hall at the other end. Given a
not inclement day, an hour suitable to the occasion, a park or large
garden to meet in, these informal yet select reunions might be made
exceedingly pleasant, and very helpful to the eugenic cause.
The inquiries made by the committee when they were considering the names
of strangers to whom invitations ought to be sent, would put them in
possession of a large fund of information concerning the qualities of
many notable individuals in their district, and their family histories.
These family histories should be utilised for eugenic studies, and it
should be the duty of the local council to cause them to be tabulated in
an orderly way, and to communicate the more significant of them to the
central society.
The chief of the notable qualities, to which I refer in the preceding
paragraph, is the possession of what I will briefly call by the general
term of “Worth.” By this I mean the civic worthiness, or the value to
the State, of a person, as it would probably be assessed by experts, or,
say, by such of his fellow-workers as have earned the respect of the
community in the midst of which they live. Thus the worth of soldiers
would be such as it would be rated by respected soldiers, students by
students, business men by business men, artists by artists, and so on.
The State is a vastly complex organism, and the hope of obtaining a
proportional representation of its best parts should be an avowed object
of issuing invitations to these gatherings.
Speaking only for myself, if I had to classify persons according to
worth, I should consider each of them under the three heads of physique,
ability, and character, subject to the provision that inferiority in any
one of the three should outweigh superiority in the other two. I rank
physique first, because it is not only very valuable in itself and
allied to many other good qualities, but has the additional merit of
being easily rated. Ability I should place second on similar grounds,
and character third, though in real importance it stands first of all.
It is very difficult to rate character justly; the tenure of a position
of trust is only a partial test of it, though a good one so far as it
goes. Again, I wish to say emphatically that in what I have thrown out I
have no desire to impose my own judgment on others, especially as I feel
persuaded that almost any intelligent committee would so distribute
their invitations to strangers as to include most, though perhaps not
all, of the notable persons in the district.
By the continued action of local associations as described thus far, a
very large amount of good work in eugenics would be incidentally done.
Family histories would become familiar topics, the existence of good
stocks would be discovered, and many persons of “worth” would be
appreciated and made acquainted with each other who were formerly known
only to a very restricted circle. It is probable that these persons, in
their struggle to obtain appointments, would often receive valuable help
from local sympathisers with eugenic principles. If local societies did
no more than this for many years to come, they would have fully
justified their existence by their valuable services.
A danger to which these societies will be liable arises from the
inadequate knowledge joined to great zeal of some of the most active
among their probable members. It may be said, without mincing words,
with regard to much that has already been published, that the subject of
eugenics is particularly attractive to “cranks.” The councils of local
societies will therefore be obliged to exercise great caution before
accepting the memoirs offered to them, and much discretion in keeping
discussions within the bounds of sobriety and common sense. The basis of
eugenics is already firmly established, namely, that the offspring of
“worthy” parents are, _on the whole_, more highly gifted by nature with
faculties that conduce to “worthiness” than the offspring of less
“worthy” parents. On the other hand, forecasts in respect to particular
cases may be quite wrong. They have to be based on imperfect data. It
cannot be too emphatically repeated that a great deal of careful
statistical work has yet to be accomplished before the science of
eugenics can make large advances.
I hesitate to speculate farther. A tree will have been planted; let it
grow. Perhaps those who may thereafter feel themselves or be considered
by others to be the possessors of notable eugenic qualities—let us for
brevity call them “Eugenes”—will form their own clubs and look after
their own interests. It is impossible to foresee what the state of
public opinion will then be. Many elements of strength are needed, many
dangers have to be evaded or overcome, before associations of Eugenes
could be formed that would be stable in themselves, useful as
institutions, and approved of by the outside world.
The suggestion I made in the earlier part of this paper that the
executive committee of local associations should co-operate, wherever
practicable, with local administrative authorities, proceeded on the
assumption that the inhabitants of the districts selected as the eugenic
“field” had a public spirit of their own and a sense of common interest.
This sense would be greatly strengthened by the enlargement of mutual
acquaintanceship and the spread of the eugenic idea consequent on the
tactful action of the committee. It ought not to be difficult to arouse
in the inhabitants a just pride in their own civic worthiness, analogous
to the pride which a soldier feels in the good reputation of his
regiment or a lad in that of his school. By this means a strong local
eugenic opinion might easily be formed. It would be silently assisted by
local object lessons, in which the benefits derived through following
eugenic rules and the bad effects of disregarding them were plainly to
be discerned.
The power of social opinion is apt to be underrated rather then
overrated. Like the atmosphere which we breathe and in which we move,
social opinion operates powerfully without our being conscious of its
weight. Everyone knows that governments, manners, and beliefs which were
thought to be right, decorous, and true at one period have been judged
wrong, indecorous, and false at another; and that views which we have
heard expressed by those in authority over us in our childhood and early
manhood tend to become axiomatic and unchangeable in mature life.
In circumscribed communities especially, social approval and disapproval
exert a potent force. Its presence is only too easily read by those who
are the object of either, in the countenances, bearing, and manner of
persons whom they daily meet and converse with. Is it, then, I ask, too
much to expect that when a public opinion in favour of eugenics has once
taken sure hold of such communities and has been accepted by them as a
quasi-religion, the result will be manifested in sundry and very
effective modes of action which are as yet untried, and many of them
even unforeseen?
Speaking for myself only, I look forward to local eugenic action in
numerous directions, of which I will now specify one. It is the
accumulation of considerable funds to start young couples of “worthy”
qualities in their married life, and to assist them and their families
at critical times. The gifts to those who are the reverse of “worthy”
are enormous in amount; it is stated that the charitable donations or
bequests in the year 1907 amounted to 4,868,050_l._ I am not prepared to
say how much of this was judiciously spent, or in what ways, but merely
quote the figures to justify the inference that many of the thousands of
persons who are willing to give freely at the prompting of a sentiment
based upon compassion might be persuaded to give largely also in
response to the more virile desire of promoting the natural gifts and
the national efficiency of future generations.
Footnotes
Footnote 1:
The second Huxley Lecture of the Anthropological Institute, delivered
by Francis Galton, D.C.L., D.Sc., F.R.S., on October 29, 1901.
Footnote 2:
The 80 charitable bequests of and exceeding £9000, made in 1808 alone,
amounted to more than 3–1/2 millions of pounds. (Whitaker’s Almanack
to 1909, p. 433).
“It being far more humane to _prevent_ suffering than to _alleviate_
it after it has occurred, why will not charitably disposed persons
leave substantial sums of money to the furtherance of Eugenic Study
and practice, and of popularising the result? The money would be well
bestowed.” _Francis Galton, 1909._
I learn on high legal authority that the form of bequest which would
be most appropriate in present circumstances, and be free from the
pit-falls that lie in the way of charitable bequests, is “I bequeath
to my trusted friend A.B., of ....., absolutely, the sum of £...... in
the hope and confidence that he will apply the same in furtherance of
Eugenic Study and practice, but without imposing on him any trust or
legal obligation so to do.” F.G.
Footnote 3:
Read before the Sociological Society at a Meeting in the School of
Economics and Political Science (London University), on May 16th,
1904. Professor KARL PEARSON, F.R.S., in the chair.
Footnote 4:
Read before the Sociological Society, on Tuesday, February 14th, at a
meeting in the School of Economics and Political Science (University
of London), Clare Market, W.C., Dr. E. WESTERMARCK in the Chair.
Footnote 5:
Communicated at a meeting of the Sociological Society held in the
School of Economics and Political Science (University of London),
Clare Market, W.C., on Tuesday, February 14th, at 4 p.m.
Footnote 6:
The Herbert Spencer Lecture delivered before the University at Oxford,
June 5th, 1907.
Footnote 7:
Dent’s “Everyman’s Library,” price One Shilling.
Footnote 8:
Address to a meeting of the Eugenics Education Society at the Grafton
Galleries, on October 14th, 1908.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
=Transcriber’s Notes=
Some inconsistencies in spelling, hyphenation, and punctuation have been
retained.
This file uses _underscores_ to indicate italic text.
Two charts have been omitted from the text version of this eBook. They
were too complex to render into text. They are included as images in the
other versions.
1. “STANDARD SCHEME OF DESCENT” just after the Table of Contents
2. “Illustrations of the Herbert Spencer Lecture 1907.” on p. 72.
Other charts were rendered as text. Some of them are wide.
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ESSAYS IN EUGENICS ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may
do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark
license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person
or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual
works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting
free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily
comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when
you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work
on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed,
performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws
of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works
posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has
agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™
works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than
are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right
of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,
Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state
visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
