1
10
3
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/37c9a618aaf86f108c5fff7f5dcb2ded.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=RuZpZfgcNt0caJkH2lqfg0GTzvHj7kUkdjTqygg6xPUcAuJeCdi-X7gkoCZ9VHixGYBBfp%7EFFUqUiEsFR675Qzzv7s1otmBH-0nP626i6-bK4rJAihXcU0lpIU4qugEyKan3hHF%7EOjjuDTxOQRHME-vhxmk7eWcbslZC%7Em%7EghhweTSc7Qh2YS6vNECzvYpGkFBymD7nFxwckQ5bfHT6cQHd5sT3nYCWdjk43Cpi1fauYdWMBRAtBH2YeO0oePCnUPdC5w3RJjl4ienVZywFmOPKEExxY2lQpSQe6BIUhnB6vTxyNLcFQPqwrvyy4dW-zqCLEmgW9AeN1D85kRjjQEQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
e0322d8972cd44381069bdaf523428cb
PDF Text
Text
SCIENTIFIC PROPAGATION.
BY JOHN HUMPHREY NOYES.
T is generally agreed among the highest thinkers that sociology
is the science around which all other sciences are finally to be
organized. But this nucleus is manifestly complex, and we may
still inquire, where is the nucleolus ?—which of the departments
into which sociology is divisible is the center of the center ? The an
swer, if it has not yet been uttered, is fast forming in the general
mind. The vital center of sociology, toward which all eyes are turn
ing, is the science which presides over reproduction. It is becoming
clear that the foundations of scientific society are to be laid in the sci
entific propagation of human beings.
In perfecting animals we attend to two things, viz., blood and train
ing ; and we put blood first. But in the case of human beings we
have thus far left blood to take care of itself, and have given all of our
attention to training. Education is well advanced, but we are begin
ning to see that it is like the ancient writing of manuscripts, a slow
process, with many drawbacks. We labor to perfect the individual, but
what we want is the art of multiplying copies of our work. Educa
tion is waiting for its printing-press, and its printing-press is to be
scientific propagation.
The duty of the human race to improve itself by intelligent pro
creation has certainly been seen, in some dim way, from the earliest
ages. The analogy between breeding animals and breeding men is so
obvious, that it must have thrust itself upon the reflections of the wise
at least as long ago as when Jacob overreached Laban by cunningly
managing the impregnation of his flocks. Four hundred years before
the Christian era, Plato represented Socrates as urging on his pupils
this analogy and the duty resulting from it, in the following plain
terms:
Z
“ Tell me this, Glaucon; in your house I see both sporting dogs and a great
number of well-bred birds ; have you ever attended to their pairing and bringing
forth young?”
“ How? ” said he.
“ First of all, among these, though all be well-bred, are not some of them far
better than all the rest ? ”
“ They are.”
“ Do you breed, then, from all alike; or are you anxious to do so, as far as pos
sible, from the best breeds ? ”
“ From the best,”
�98
SCIENTIFIC
PROPAGATION.
“But how? from the youngest or the oldest, or from those quite iu their
prime ? ”
From those in their prime.”
“ And if they are not thus bred, you consider that the breed, both of birds and
dogs, greatly degenerates ? ”
“ I do,” replied he.
“ And what think you as to horses,” said I, “ and other animals ; is the case
otherwise with respect to them ? ”
“ It were absurd to think so,” said he.
“ How strange, my dear fellow! ” said I; “ what extremely perfect government
must we have, if the same applies to the human race ! ”
“ Nevertheless it is so,” replied he.
Republic, Book 5, Chap. 8.
Perhaps Socrates died for this bold criticism; but his thought did
_ not die. This same argument from analogy, which has thus been
pressing on the human conscience in all ages, has become actually
clamorous in modern times. The physical sciences, as they have been
successively developed, have all turned by inevitable instinct toward their
predestined center. Their drift has constantly been from the inorganic
to the organic, and from the organic to. the reproductive. Agassiz passes
from geology to biology, and finds the secret of biology in embryology.
Darwin gathers all he finds in the botany and zoology of all ages into
the demonstration that plants and animals can be molded ad libitum
by attention to the laws of reproduction.
His object was to establish a theory looking backward to the origin
of species, but the practical result of his labors has been to establish a
theory looking forward to the duty of scientific propagation. His great
theme is the plasticity of living forms. He shows, first, how nature
alone, in the countless ages of the past, has slowly transmuted plants
and animals; then how the unsystematic care of man, since the dawn
of intelligence, has hastened these changes; and finally how modern
science and skill have rapidly perfected the races that are subservient to
human use. In all this he has been at work on Plato’s argument. He
has not dared to make the application, but others have not dared to
ignore it, and to them Darwin has been an awful preacher of the law
of God.
Along with the evolution of the physical sciences, there has been
an enormous growth of zeal and skill in practical breeding. Every
plant and animal that man can lay hands upon has been put through a
course of variations and brought to high perfection. And every suc
cess in practical breeding has added emphasis to the law that com
mands man to improve his own race by scientific propagation. Every
melting pear, every red-cheeked apple, every mealy potato that modern
skill presents us, bids us go to work on the final task of producing the
best possible varieties of human beings. Every race-horse, every
straight-backed bull, every premium pig tells us what we can do and
what we must do for man. What are all our gay cattle fairs, but eloquent
reminders of the long-neglected duty of scientific human propagation ?
�SCIENTIFIC • PR OF A GA T IO N.
99
And this preaching has not been wholly without effect. There is
evidently much resulting conviction among those who read and thiuk
on scientific subjects. Nobody really attempts to obey the law pro
pounded, or even expects to ; but all approve of it. In this as in other
cases, we “ consent unto the law that it is good, but how to perform
that which is good we find not.”
Phrenologists, popular physiologists, and reformers of various kinds
have long been busy carrying over the laws of Darwin into the public
conscience, translating analogy into application ; and it is remarkable
how common it has become for books and newspapers to acknowledge
the duty of scientific propagation, and confess that in this matter “ we
are all miserable sinners.” In a rapid run through a mass of popular
literature nearest at hand, we have met with the following specimens
of out-cropping conviction:
“ With the acceptance by scientific thinkers of the principles of structural
transformation upon which Mr. Darwin’s theory is based, must needs come their
recognition by men of unscientific education, and their application to individual
life. No scientific thought, thoroughly established and wrought into the belief of
the common people, can be without its influence upon their life. Men have as
much need to apply the doctrine of Mr. Darwin to themselves as to their horses
and cattle.”—American Exchange and Review.
“ Consider agriculture, horticulture, flori-culture, the stock-raisers, even the
‘ fanciers,’ and borrow from them the lessons they practice so accurately. Think of
it! Years of study have resulted in volumes of registered observations and deduc
tions for the improvement of the brute races. The horse, the ox, the swine, and
every other domestic animal has been raised to a higher type of physical being.
Even flowers and vegetables are thought worthy of this same care ; yet the pre
cious casket of the human soul is left to dwindle down from one stage of degen
eracy to another, till a large proportion of the human race are employed in the
vocations that can only flourish upon human decay.”—Dr. Chaklotte Loziek, in
the Tribune.
“Agricultural reports have teemed with lessons for breeding and taking care of
all our stock except the most precious—that of ourselves and our children. The
Atlantic cable sinks to insignificance compared with the science of the develop
ment of man. We exhibit beautiful animal stock, but deformed, erysipelatory,
rickety, narrow-chested, dyspeptic, teeth-rotten, flabby-muscled, scrofulous, crook
ed-backed, bad-jointed girls and boys, with diseased kidneys, diseased livers, and
bad nerves. Let all agricultural orators open their mouths against these terrible
evils of the land.”—American Institute Transactions for 1858, p- 160.
“What is needed, in order to improve the physical characteristics of American
children, is. in the first place, to find out wherein they deviate from the true model,
and then to set at work influences which, under the laws of reproduction, shall
directly tend to induce conformity thereto, instead of deformity. It is just as easy
to improve the breed of children as the breeds of domestic animals ; for the human
organism is as impressible in this respect as the organisms of animals, and, I think,
rather more so—the susceptibility in this direction being in ratio to the rank.
“ If it be true that, in the case of a sheep, you can, by proper heed to certain
laws, including as these do certain conditions of living, so change a species of that
animal that, from being a small animal with a small quantity of wool, it, shall be
come a large animal with only a small quantity of wool; or from being a large ani
mal with a small quantity of wool, it shall become less in size, but with a larger
�100
SCIENTIFIC PROPAGATION.
fleece, you have reached a point in the modification of the animal structure which
may seriously affect all its vital conditions. If this can be done in the case of one
species of animals, it can in others—in truth, in all others—and man forms no ex
ception to the rule.”—Dr. Jackson, in ‘'Laws of Life.”
We ask our friends to read our extracts from Darwin attentively, and see if
they do not discern, looming in the background of the facts here presented, a most
gigantic question affecting the future of human society—that, namely, relating to
its scientific propagation. If the races of plants and animals have been so far im
proved as is there shown, by attention to selection in breeding, the question comes
up in force, what is man about at this late day, that he is not applying the same
principles and observations in a scientific manner to the improvement of his own
race ? If the farmer achieves with perfect certainty the elevation of his flocks and
herds to a certain standard of form and size, beauty and disposition, by observing
the fixed laws of propagation, why should not something be done systematically
for man in the same way ? Why should not beauty and noble grace of person, and
every other desirable quality of men and women, internal and external, be propa
gated and intensified beyond all former precedent, by the application of the same
scientific principles of breeding that produce such desirable results in the case of
sheep, cattle and horses ? Farmers and herdsmen all over the civilized world are
enthusiastic in regard to matters that relate to the improvement of stock. Socie
ties are founded, principles are discovered and practically applied, and the ends of
the earth are ransacked for desirable animals with which to cross and develop new
excellencies. But while this is true of the animals below us, man leaves the infi
nitely higher question of his own propagation to the control of chance, ignorance,
and blind passion. The place where science should rule most of all, is ruled by the
least science ; the subject around which the highest enthusiasm should cluster, is
viewed with the most indifference. Human Breeding should be the foremost ques
tion of the age, transcending in its sublime interest all present political and scien
tific questions, and should be practically studied by all. May the time hasten wheD
this shall be ! ’’—Religious Paper.
A writer in the Galaxy (a popular monthly) closes a brilliant account
of horse-breeding with the following argumentitm ad hominem :
“ In the language of the clergy, permit me to make a personal application:
At this moment ten times as much care and thought and money are devoted
to the production of perfect horses or pigs, as to men and women. By observance
of the sgme care, and application of the same rules, as above stated for horses, it is
possible to produce a race of men and women which shall be healthy, spirited, hand
some and enduring. The world is full of weedy, homely, suffering human beings,
and who is to blame ? A man has as good a right to be handsome as a pig, a
woman as a horse, certainly.
“Are we then demented? It is a very curious question, one which we com
mend to the careful consideration of the ‘ Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals.’ ”
So far we have come since Plato; and yet all this is only an appli
cation of the little Socratic argument that we quoted, written two
thousand years ago.
Let us not make too much of these confessions. This swelling
flood of conviction has burst no barriers yet. It is well known that
the present constitution of society absolutely precludes, in man’s case,
anything like what has been done for plants and animals; and these
confessors have no idea of changing the constitution of society. They
�SCIENTIFIC
PROPAGATION.
101
cry aloud for what ought to be done; but when they come to the how,
their voices grow feeble. Thus the writer in the Exchange and Review,
whose doughty preaching stands first among the above quotations, im
mediately after it falls off into such mumbling as this:
“ Passion ancl ignorance have too long held sway over the motives which prompt
the best of us to assume the relation upon which our own as well as the happiness
of our children depends. That ordinary mortals shall consider the future advance
ment of the race in the selection of their wives, is rather more than our knowl
edge of human nature justifies us in hoping. Nor are we quite prepared to adopt
the extreme materialistic view, and relinquish the institution of marriage in
favor of a selected class whose sole duty it shall be to improve and elevate the type
of the race. But in a general way we can suffer ourselves to be influenced in the
choice of our wives by the knowledge that the mental and physical qualities we
bring to the union must be blended and intermixed in the natures of our children ;
and the reflection that the habits of our life and thought, and the various condi
tions into which we are driven, or suffer ourselves to drift, have their immediate
and necessary outgrowth in those natures, should produce some effect upon our
own self-conduct and control.”
Galton, alate English writer, has actually gone forward a step beyond
Darwin in the Platonian argument. He demonstrates by elaborate sta
tistics that genius and all other good qualities are hereditary in human
families. Nobody doubted this before; but it is a satisfaction to have
such a point seized and fortified by science. He passes over from anal
ogy to the beginning of direct proof that human nature is as plastic
and obedient to the laws of reproduction as that of animals and plants,
and therefore as properly the subject of scientific treatment. The ob
ject of his book, he says, is to show “ that a man’s natural abilities are
derived by inheritance, under exactly the same limitations as are the
form and physical features of the whole organic world. Consequently,
as it is easy, notwithstanding those limitations, to obtain by careful
selection a permanent breed of dogs or horses gifted with peculiar
powers of running or of doing anything else, so it would be quite
practicable to produce a highly gifted race of men by judicious mar
riages during several consecutive generations.” So far Galton advances
beyond Darwin’s line. But when he comes to the point where it is
necessary to look beyond his theory to the duties it suggests, he sub
sides into the meekest conservatism. “ It would be writing to no use
ful purpose,” he says, “ were I to discuss the effect that might be pro
duced on population by such social arrangements as existed in Sparta,
[which arrangements were only a distant approach to the system which
all breeders of animals pursue.] They are so alien and repulsive to
modern feelings that it is useless to say anything about them; so I
shall confine my remarks to agencies that are actually at work, and
upon which there can be no hesitation in speaking.” Then he goes
on to show what can be done by wise marriages, much in the vein of
the phrenologists.
A writer in the new English journal of science called “ Nature,”
�102
SCIENTIFIC
PROPAGATION.
even discusses, after a fashion, the possibility of improving the human
race by applying the Darwinian principles. But it is curious to see
how gingerly he touches the practical part of the subject. After show
ing that in the case of wild animals which mate without interference,
any improvement by variation must be exceedingly slow, and that in
the case of domestic animals, owing to scientific propagation, the prog
ress is incomparably more rapid, he speaks thus cautiously and mys
teriously of the human problem :
“ The case of man is intermediate in rapidity of progress to the other two.
The development of improved qualities can not be insured by judicious mating,
because as a rule human beings are capricious enough to marry without first
laying a case for opinion before Mr. Darwin. Neither would it be easy, nor perhaps
even allowable, to extend any special protection by law or custom to those who may
be, physically and intellectually, the finest examples of our race. Still, two things
may be done ; we may vary the circumstances of life by judicious legislation, and
still more easily by judicious non-legislation, so as to multiply the conditions favor
able to the development of a higher type ; and by the same means we may also
encourage, or at least abstain from discouraging, the perpetuation of the species by
the most exalted individuals for the time being to be found.”
This last hint is the boldest we have seen; and yet it is but a hint.
Thus we find the public generally, and even the most advanced
'writers, simply under conviction in the presence of the law of scientific
propagation. The commandment has come; we all acknowledge it
and preach it, and “delight, in it after the inward man, but we see
another law in our members warring against the law of our minds.”
Duty is plain; we say we ought to do it—we must do it; but we cam
not. The law of God urges us on ; but the law of society holds us
back. This is a bad position. Either our convictions ought to become
stronger and deeper till they break a way into obedience, or we ought
to be relieved of them altogether.
The boldest course is the safest. Let us take an honest and steady
look at the law. Let us march right up to this terrible analogy which
has been so long troubling the world, and find out exactly what it is,
and how far the obligation which it suggests is legitimate. What
ought to be done can be done. It is only in the timidity of ignorance
that duty seems impracticable.
In order to get clearer ideas of the analogy which is pressing upon
us, and of the duty which results from it, we propose for fresh consid
eration the following questions: 1. What has been done for plants and
animals ? 2. How has it been done ? 3. How far and by what means
can the same be done for human beings ? This last question will
require a survey of the special difficulties in the case of man, and will
lead to some criticism of existing institutions. Without much formal
ity the remainder of this article will be devoted to the discussion of
these questions.
To show what has been done for plants and animals, we cannot do
better than to put Darwin on the stand. His testimony is known to
�SCIENTIFIC
PROPAGATION-
103
philosophers, but it ought to be familiar to everybody. The following
are quotations from his late work on the results of Domestication :
“ As to plants, no one supposes that our choicest productions have been pro
duced by a single variation from the aboriginal stock. We have proofs that this is
not so in some cases, in which exact records have been kept; thus, to give a very
trifling instance, the steadily increasing size of the common gooseberry may be
quoted. We see an astonishing improvement in many florists’ flowers, when the
flowers of the present' day are compared with drawings made only twenty or thirty
years ago. * * * And the gradual process of improvement through longer
periods may plainly be recognized in the increased size and beauty which we now
see in the varieties of the heartsease, rose, pelargonium, dahlia, and other plants,
when compared with the older varieties or with their parent-stocks. No one would
ever expect to get a first-rate heartsease or dahlia from the seed of a wild plant.
No one would expect to raise a first-rate melting pear from the seed of the wild
pear, though he might succeed from a poor seedling growing wild, if it had come
from a garden stock. The pear, though cultivated in classical times, appears, from
Pliny’s description, to have been a fruit of very inferior quality. The art which
has produced such splendid results from such poor materials has consisted in
always cultivating the best known variety, sowing its seeds, and, when a slightly
better variety has chanced to appear, selecting it, and so onward. * * *
11 Let us now briefly consider the steps by which domestic races of animals have
been produced, either from one or from several allied species. Some little effect
may, perhaps, be attributed to the direct action of the external conditions of life,
and some little to habit; but he would be a bold man who would account by such
agencies for the differences of a dray and a race-horse, a grayhound and blood
hound, a carrier and tumbler-pigeon. One of the most remarkable features in our
domesticated races is that we see in them adaptation, not indeed to the animal’s or
plant’s own good, but to man’s use or fancy. Some variations useful to him have
probably arisen suddenly, or by one step ; many botanists, for instance, believe that
the fuller’s teazle, with its hooks, which cannot be rivalled by any mechanical con
trivance, is only a variety of the wild Dipsacus; and this amount of change may
have suddenly arisen in a seedling. So it has probably been with the turnspit
dog ; and this is known to have been the case with the ancon sheep. But when
we compare the dray-horse and race-horse, the dromedary and camel, the various
breeds of sheep fitted either for cultivated land or mountain pasture, with the wool
of one breed good for one purpose, and that of another breed for another purpose ;
when we compare the many breeds of dogs, each good for man in very different
ways ; when we compare the game-cock, so pertinacious in battle, with other breeds
so little quarrelsome, with ‘ everlasting layers ’ which never desire to set, and with
the bantam so small and elegant; when we compare the host of agricultural, culi
nary, orchard and flower-garden races of plants, most useful to man at different
seasons and for different purposes, or so beautiful in his eyes, we must, I think, look
further than to mere variability. We cannot suppose that all the breeds were sud
denly produced as perfect and as useful as we now see them; indeed, in several
cases, we know that this has not been their history. The key is man’s power of
accumulation ; man adds them up in certain directions useful to him. In this
sense he may be said to make for himself useful breeds.
“ The great power of this principle of selection is not hypothetical. It is certain
that several of our eminent breeders have, even within a single lifetime, modified
to a large extent some breeds of cattle and sheep. In order fully to realize what
they have done, it is almost necessary to read several of the many treatises devoted
to this subject, and to inspect the animals. Breeders habitually speak of an ani
mal’s organization as something quite plastic, which they can model almost as they
please. If I had space I could quote numerous passages to this effect from highly
�104
SCIENTIFIC
PROPAGATION.
competent authorities. Youatt, who was probably better acquainted with the
works of agriculturists than almost any other individual, and who was himself a
very good judge of an animal, speaks of the principle of selection as ‘that which
enables the agriculturist not only to modify the character of his flock, but to change
it altogether. It is the magician’s wand, by means of which he may summon into
life whatever form and mold he pleases.’ Lord Somerville, speaking of what
breeders have done for sheep, says :—‘ It would seem as if they had chalked out
upon a wall a form perfect in itself, and then had given it existence.’ That most
skillful breeder, Sir John Sebright, used to say, with respect to pigeons, that ‘he
would produce any given feather in three years, but it would take him six years to
obtain head and beak.’ * * *
“ What man has effected within recent times in England by methodical selec
tion, is clearly shown by our exhibitions of improved quadrupeds and fancy birds.
With respect to cattle, sheep, and pigs, we owe their great improvement to a long
series of well-known names—Bakewell, Colling, Ellman, Bates, Jonas Webb, Lords
Leicester and Western, Fisher Hobbs, and others. Agricultural writers are unani
mous on the power of selection : any number of statements to this effect could be
quoted; a few will suffice. A great breeder of shorthorns says : ‘ In the anatomy
of the shoulder modern breeders have made great improvements on the Ketton
shorthorns by correcting the defect in the knuckle or shoulder-joint, and by laying
the top of the shoulder more snugly into the crop, and thereby filling up the hol
low behind it. * * * The eye has its fashion at different periods ; at one time
the eye high and outstanding from the head, and at another time the sleepy eye
sunk into the head; but these extremes have merged into the medium of a full,
clear, and prominent eye with a placid look.’
“Again, hear what an excellent judge of pigs says: ‘The legs should be no
longer than just to prevent the animal’s belly from trailing on the ground. The
leg is the least profitable portion of the hog, and we therefore require no more of it
than is absolutely necessary for the support of the rest.’ Let any one compare the
wild boar with any improved breed, and he will see how effectually the legs have
been shortened.
“Few persons except breeders are aware of the systematic care taken in select
ing animals, and of the necessity of having a clear and almost prophetic vision into
futurity. Lord Spencer’s skill and judgment were well known ; and he writes: ‘ It
is therefore very desirable, before any man commences to breed either cattle or
sheep, that he should make up his mind as to the shape and qualities he wishes to
obtain, and steadily pursue this object.’ Lord Somerville, in speaking of the mar
velous improvement of the New Leicester sheep effected by Bakewell and his suc
cessors, says : ‘ It would seem as if they had first drawn a perfect form, and then
given it life.’ Youatt urges the necessity of annually drafting each flock, as many
animals will certainly degenerate ‘from the standard of excellence which the
breeder has established in his own mind.’ Even with a bird of such little importtance as the canary, long ago (1780-1790) rules were established, and a standard of
perfection was fixed, according to which the London fanciers tried to breed the
several sub-varieties. A great winner of prizes at the pigeon-shows, in describing
the short-faced almond tumbler, says : ‘ There are many first-rate fanciers who are
particularly partial to what is called the goldfinch beak, which is very beautiful;
others say, take a full-size round cherry; then take a barley-corn, and judiciously
placing and thrusting it into the cherry, form as it were your beak ; and that is not
all, for it will form a good head and beak, provided, as I said before, it is judi
ciously done; others take an oat; but as I think the goldfinch-beak the hand
somest, I would advise the inexperienced fancier to get the head of a goldfinch, and
keep it by him for his observation.’ Wonderfully different as is the beak of the
rock-pigeon and goldfinch, undoubtedly, as far as external shape and proportions
are concerned, the end has been nearly gained.
�SCIENTIFIC
•
E *
■
K
PROPAGATION.
105
“ Not only should our animals be examined with the greatest care whilst alive,
but, as Anderson remarks, their carcasses should be scrutinized, ‘ so as to breed
from the descendants of such only as, in the language of the butcher, cut up well.’
The ‘ grain of the meat’ in cattle, and'its being well marbled with fat, and the
greater or less accumulation of fat in the abdomen of our sheep, have been attended
to with success. So with poultry ; a writer, speaking of Cochin-China fowls, which
are said to differ much in the quality of their flesh, says, ‘ the best mode is to purcliase two young,brother cocks, kill, dress, and serve up one; if he be indifferent,
similarly dispose of the other, and try again ; if, however, he be fine and wellflavored, his brother will not be amiss for breeding purposes for the table.’
“ The great principle of the division of labor has been brought to bear on selection. In certain districts ‘ the breeding of bulls is confined to a very limited num
ber of persons, who. by devoting their whole attention to this department, are able
from year to year to furnish a class of bulls which are steadily improving the gene
ral breed of the district.’ The rearing and letting of choice rams has long been, as
is well known, a chief source of profit to several eminent breeders. In parts of
Germany this principle is carried with merino sheep to an extreme point. ‘ So im
portant is the proper selection of breeding animals considered, that the best flock
masters do not trust to their own judgment, or to that of their shepherds, but em
ploy persons calied “ sheep-classifiers,” who make it their special business to attend
to this part of the management of several flocks, and thus to preserve, or, if possi
ble, to improve, the best qualities of both parents in the lambs.’ In Saxony, when
the lambs are weaned, each in his turn is placed upon a table, that his wool and
form may be minutely observed. ‘The finest are selected for breeding, and receive
a first mark. When they are one year old, and prior to shearing them, another
close examination of those previously marked takes place : those in which no defect
can be found receive a second mark, and the rest are condemned. A few months
afterwards a third and last scrutiny is made ; the prime rams and ewes receive a
third and final mark ; but the slightest blemish is sufficient to cause the rejection
of the animal.' These sheep are bred and valued almost exclusively for the fine
ness of their wool; and the result corresponds with the labor bestowed on their
selection. Instruments have been invented to measure accurately the thickness
of the fibres ; and ‘ an Austrian fleece has been produced of which twelve hairs
equalled in thickness one from a Leicester sheep.’ * * *
“ The care which successful breeders take in matching their birds is surprising.
Sir John Sebright, whose fame is perpetuated by the ‘ Sebright Bantam,’ used to
spend ‘two and three days in examining, consulting, and disputing with a friend
which were the best of five or six birds.’ Mr, Bult, whose Pouter-pigeons won so
many prizes, and were exported to North America under the charge of a man sent
on purpose, told me that he always deliberated for several days before he matched
each pair. Hence we can understand the advice of an eminent fancier, who writes,
‘ I would here particularly guard you against having too great a variety of pigeons;
otherwise you will know a little of all, but nothing about one as it ought to be
known.’ Apparently it transcends the power of the human intellect to breed all
kinds : 1 it is possible that there may be a few fanciers that have a good general
knowledge of fancy pigeons ; but there are many more who labor under the delu
sion of supposing they know what they do not.’ The excellence of one sub-variety,
the almond-tumbler, lies in the plumage, carriage, head, beak, and eye ,’ but it is
too presumptuous in the beginner to try for all these points. The great judge
above quoted says, ‘there are some young fanciers who are over-covetous, who go
for all the above five properties at once; they have their reward by getting noth
ing.’ We thus see that breeding even fancy pigeons is no simple art: we may
smile at the solemnity of these precepts, but he who laughs will win no prizes.”—
Da/rwin’s Animals and Plants under Domestication.
�106
SCIENTIFIC
PROPAGATION.
Our primary object in these citations was to show what has been
done for plants and animals; but they also partly answer our second
question as to the how. It is necessary, however, to bring into more
prominence two or three of the practical measures by which the domes
tic races have been perfected.
The art of the animal-breeder, so far as mere propagation is con
cerned, is all contained in two precepts, viz.: Breed from the best, and
Breed in and in; and these precepts are reducible to one; for, after a
choice stock has been commenced, breeding in and in is breeding from
the best. The second precept simply prescribes for choice varieties
what the first prescribes for choice individuals. Now it happens that
these are the very precepts of the scientific law of propagation which,
if applied to human generation, would impinge most violently on the
constitution and feelings of society. Breeding from the best means in
tolerable discrimination—suppression for some, and large liberty for
others ; and breeding in and in means incest. In order, therefore, to
get the law derived from, analogy honestly before us in all its bearings
on human interests, we must enlarge on these features of scientific
propagation.
The negative part of breeding from the best, which is the suppres
sion of the poorest, is effected in the case of the lower animals by two
measures, viz.: 1. Castration; and 2. Confinement. The positive part
of the process is carried on by selecting for propagation the best indivi
duals of both sexes, but especially males.
The special importance of selection in respect to males is founded
on the constitutional difference between the sexes as to the amount of
reproduction of which they are respectively capable. For example, a
mare can produce, at the very most, only about fifteen colts in her
whole lifetime. But a stallion can produce a hundred in a single year.
The thorough-bred horse Messenger, in the course of his life, begot a
thousand; Hambletonian begot eleven hundred; and a descendant of
Hambletonian begot twelve hundred. And for proof that the male
transmits his special qualities on this great scale, it is recorded that the
English racer, Eclipse, begot three hundred and thirty-four horses that
won races; and King Herod begot four hundred and ninety-four suc
cessful racers. So that, with reference to direct action on the character
of a single generation, the male has the advantage over the female in
the ratio of more than fifty to one. And although the female may pro
duce very great results in the second generation—since any one of her
male offspring taking her place, may produce his thousand, conveying
her characteristics—yet it must ever remain true that the principal
means of breeding choice stocks is by the selection of males. Thus the
present generation of fine horses in this country, numbering probably
its millions, is said to have come mainly from less' than a half dozen
famous stallions. A writer in the Galaxy, before referred to, gives the
following account of the process by which our national trotting horse
has been created:
�SCIENTIFIC
PROPAGATION.
107
“ England has produced or perfected the race-horse; America, the road-horse.
England, by great care, great skill, and vast expenditure of money, has perfected
the race-horse ; wonderfully fine, and altogether useless. America, by great care,
great skill, and a considerable expenditure of money, has produced the trotter;
altogether valuable—that is the difference.
“ This quality—the swift trot—has been, in a sense, created by man, and is now
transmitted and perpetuated. How ?
“ By breeding from such horses as showed such a tendency, and by training the
progeny so as to create increased speed, which increased speed has been transmitted
and intensified. It has now reached a single mile in 2 minutes 171 seconds, and
twenty miles within the hour. What more can be done ? No man can tell.
“ The history of tiffs achievement in breeding can be traced. I said to Mr.
Goldsmith, the great horse-breeder at Walnut Grove, ‘ Whence comes tiffs tremen
dous trotting action, as shown in the American road-horse. Racing men assert that
the natural feist gait of the horse is the run, and that no high-bred horse trots fast
naturally.’
“ ‘ I will show you a little of the natural fast gait,’ said he.
“ Then were brought in succession three young horses, three-year-olds. They
were turned loose in the open field, and went trotting away at a great stride, head
and tail erect. Then they were scared along by running at them ; the dog went
after them, and still they trotted fast; if they broke into a run, they came down
again almost instantly; it was evident that they had a fast trot, which was the
gait they preferred.
“ ‘ What is your explanation of this matter ?’ said I.
“ ‘ I will tell you. There have stood in this country the following stallions, all,
except Bellfounder and Abdallah, thoroughbreds, and they nearly so :
Messenger, about 1795.
Baronet, about 1795.
Seagull, about 1820.
Bellfounder, about 1831-32.
American Star, about 1840.
Abdallah, about 1848-50.
And some others. Of these, Messenger, Bellfounder, American Star, and Abdallah
were natural trotters, and it is asserted that Messenger has come in at the end of a
running race on a fast trot. Out of these natural thoroughbred trotters have come
our great road horses.’ ”—G-alamy, March, 1869.
We must remind the reader that we are not now attempting to lay
down the law for human propagation, but only to give a clear idea of
the methods pursued by animal-breeders. Perhaps reasons may be
found for treating man exceptionally; and possibly the breeders have
not yet found the very best way of treating animals. However these
things may be, our present business is to exhibit without disguise or
suppression the processes by which animals are being perfected; and
for this purpose we ask some further attention to the principle of
selecting males, and the physiological facts upon which that principle
is founded.
In the propagation of any race, of course two things must be kept
in view, viz., Quantity and Quality—increase of numbers and increase
of value. And it will be seen from what we have stated above, in
regard to the difference between the sexes as to the power of reproduc
tion, that the function of the female bears a special relation to the in
crease of numbers, and that of tlie male to increase of value. To sim
plify the matter, suppose we have a hundred males and a hundred
females to breed from. Now it is evident that in order to produce the
�108
SCIENTIFIC
PROPAGATION.
■
greatest number, we must keep all the females breeding up to their full
capacity. But it is not necessary to keep all the males thus breeding.
If ninety-nine of them out of the hundred were castrated, the one left
might fertilize all the germs in the hundred females, and the numbers
produced would be the same as if all the males were in full potency
and doing their best. Hence it is clear that, without diminishing the
quantity of production, we may exercise a very stringent discrimina
tion in selecting males. The whole doctrine of the matter may be
reduced to the following general formula : The quantity of production
will be in direct proportion to the number of fertile females; and the
value produced, so far as it depends on selection, will be nearly in in
verse proportion to the number of fertilizing males.
These are the first principles of animal breeding as it stands.
Whether and how far they will be found to be transfer able to human
generation may remain an open question. But it is best for us, at all
events, to know exactly what we are talking about when we use the
Platonian argument for scientific propagation.
Let us now look at the second precept of the animal breeders, which
requires breeding in and in. Darwin says that the object aimed at by
eminent breeders is always “to make a new strain or sub-breed, supe
rior to anything previously existing.” This, let us observe, is quite a
different matter from general efforts to improve whole races. It is one
thing to seek in any existing race the best animals we can find to breed
from, which has always been done more or less, and which implies no
segregation; and it is another tiling to start a distinct family and keep
its blood pure by separation from the mass of its own race. It is this
last method that has produced the Ayrshires and the Shorthorns and
the Leicesters. The terms “thorough-bred,” “blooded-stock,” “pure
blood,” etc., have no meaning except as they refer to this method of
segregation. This indeed is the principal work of modern science in
propagation, as distinguished from the unsystematic improvements
made in all past ages. It deserves a distinct name, and we will take
the liberty to call it. Stirpiculture.
Now it is obvious that this method of breeding must begin with a
pair, or, at most., with a small number of chosen animals, and must
proceed by propagating exclusively, or nearly so, within its own circle.
In fact it is a return to the conditions which are generally supposed to
have existed at the beginning of all species, the human race included.
It is an attempt to create a new race by selecting a new Adam and Eve,
and separating them and their progeny from all previous races. This
process implies breeding in and in, in two senses. First there must be,
in the early stages, mating between very near relatives, as there was in
Adam’s family; and secondly, there must be, in all stages, mating be
tween members of the same general .sfocZ; who are all related more or
less closely. This last kind of mating is properly called breeding in
and in, though it may not be incest in the human sense of the word.
�SCIENTIFIC
PROPAGATION.
109
As a matter of fact it is well known that animal breeders pay very little
attention to the principles of the law of incest in any stage of their pro
ceedings. It is even a matter of doubt and disputation among them
whether there is any harm in the closest and longest breeding between
relatives. Darwin and the best authorities among the breeders incline
to the opinion that long-continued mating of relatives, near or remote,
leads finally to weakness of constitution and infertility. But they all
agree that breeding in and in must be the general law for choice
stocks, and that whatever infusion of foreign blood may be necessary
must be altogether exceptional. And the general opinion among them
is that the necessity of infusion of foreign blood may be obviated alto
gether by keeping several flocks of the same family in conservatories
at some distance from each other, and exchanging breeders between
them. Darwin has a long chapter on the effects of close interbreeding
and crosses, from which we quote the following specimens:
“ That evil directly follows from any degree of close interbreeding has been
denied by many persons ; but rarely by any practical breeder ; and never, as far as
I know, by one who has largely bred animals which propagate their kind quickly.
Many physiologists attribute the evil exclusively to the combination and conse
quent increase of morbid tendencies common to both parents : that this is an active
source of mischief there can be no doubt. It is unfortunately too notorious that
men and various domestic animals endowed with a wretched constitution, and with
a strong hereditary disposition to disease, if not actually ill, are fully capable of
procreating their kind. Close interbreeding, on the other hand, induces sterility;
and this indicates something quite distinct from the augmentation of morbid ten
dencies common to both parents. The evidence I have collected convinces me that
it is a great law of nature, that all organic beings profit from an occasional cross
with individuals not closely related to them in blood; and that, on the other hand,
long-continued close interbreeding is injurious.
* * * “ The evil consequences of long-continued close interbreeding are not
so easily recognized as the good effects from crossing, for the deterioration is
gradual. Nevertheless it is the general opinion of those who have had most expe
rience, especially with animals which propagate quickly, that evil does inevitably
follow sooner or later, but at different rates with different animals. No doubt a
false belief may widely prevail like a superstition ; yet it is difficult to suppose that
so many acute and original observers have all been deceived at the expense of much
cost and trouble. A male animal may sometimes be paired with his daughter,
granddaughter, and so on, even for several generations, without any manifest bad
results; but the experiment has never been tried of matching brothers and sisters,
which is considered the closest form of interbreeding, for an equal number of gen
*
erations
There is good reason to believe that by keeping the members of the
* The degrees of consanguinity, as reckoned by animal-breeders, are different
from those of either the common or the civil law. When Blackstone asks “ Why
Titius and his brother are related,” and answers, “ Because they are both derived
from the same father,” he presents but half the truth. They are related because
they are both descended from the same father u/itZ the same mother. This addition
doubles the relation, and brings them nearer to each other than they are to either
of their parents. A son has fifty per cent, of the blood of his father; but he has
one hundred per cent, of the blood of his brother; for they both have fifty per cent,
of the blood of their father and fifty per cent, of the blood of their mother, making
iu each one hundred per cent, of the same combination. Brothers having thus
absolutely the same blood, it follows that uncles have the same relation to nephews
�110
SCIENTIFIC
PROPAGATION.
same family in distinct bodies, especially if exposed to somewhat different condi
tions of life, and by occasionally crossing these families, the evil results may be
much diminished, or quite eliminated.
* * * “ With cattle there can be no doubt that extremely close interbreed
ing may be long carried on, advantageously with respect to external characters,
and with no manifestly apparent evil as far as constitution is concerned. The same
remark is applicable to sheep. Whether these animals have gradually been ren
dered less susceptible than others to this evil, in order to permit them to live in
herds—a habit which leads the old and vigorous males to expel all intruders, and
in consequence often to pair with their own daughters—I will not pretend to de
cide. The case of Bake well’s Longhorns, which were closely interbred for a long
period, has often been quoted; yet Youatt says the breed ‘had acquired a delicacy
of constitution inconsistent with common management,’ and ‘ the propagation of
the species was not always certain.’ But the Shorthorns offer the most striking
case of close interbreeding ; for instance, the famous bull Favorite (who was him
self the offspring of a half-brother and sister from Foljambe) was matched with his
own daughter, granddaughter, and great-granddaughter; so that the produce of
this last union, or the great-great-granddaughter, had
or 93.75 per cent, of the
blood of Favorite in her veins. This cow was matched with the bull Wellington,
having 62.5 per cent, of Favorite blood in his veins, and produced Clarissa; Clarissa
was matched with the bull Lancaster, having 68.75 of the same blood, and she
yielded valuable offspring. Nevertheless Collings, who reared these animals, and
was a strong advocate for close breeding, once crossed his stock with a Galloway,
and the cows from this cross realized the highest prices. Bates’s herd was esteemed
the most celebrated in the world. For thirteen years he bred most closely in and
in ; but during the next seventeen years, though he had the most exalted notion of
the value of his own stock, he thrice infused fresh blood into his herd: it is said
that he did this, not to improve the form of his animals, but on account of their
lessened fertility. Mr. Bates’s own view, as given by a celebrated breeder, was,
that ‘to breed in and infiw a bad stock was ruin and devastation; yet that the
practice may be safely followed within certain limits, when the parents so related
are descended from first-rate animals.’ We thus see that there has been extremely
close interbreeding with the Shorthorns; but Nathusius, after the most careful
study of their pedigrees, says that he can find no instance of a breeder who has
strictly followed this practice during his whole life. From this study and his own
experience, he concludes that close interbreeding is necessary to ennoble the stock ;
but that in effecting this the greatest care is necessary, on account of the tendency
to infertility and weakness.®
and nieces as that of fathers to children ; and cousins, having each fifty per cent,
of the blood of brothers, i. e., of the same blood, are in the same relation to each
other as that of half-brothers. Thus, according to the breeders’ reckoning, incest
between father and daughter is precisely the same as between uncle and niece;
and incest between half-brother and sister is the same as between cousins, and so
on.—J. H. N.
* It is worth mentioning that the finest collection of thoroughbred cattle in
America—that of Walcott and Campbell, at the New York Mills, near Utica, N. Y.
—is a herd of Shorthorns descended from these very animals bred in England by
Collings and Bates. The writer of this article has a copy of the herd-book in which
their pedigrees are given. The bull Favorite is often mentioned among their pro
genitors ; and one of the finest of them is a descendant of the triple incest men
tioned above. The writer has also had the pleasure of inspecting the herd, under
the polite guidance of its manager, Mr. Gibson, and can testify, as an eye-witness,
to their wonderful size and beauty. One of the cows measures twenty-eight inches
in breadth across the hips. Eleven thousand dollars have been refused for another.
Breeding in and in is still going on in this American branch of the Shorthorn
family, as it has been for many generations in the original English stock.—J. H. N.
�SCIENTIFIC
PROPAGATION.
Ill
* * * “ With sheep there has often been long-continued interbreeding within
the limits of the same flock; but whether the nearest relations have been matched
so frequently as in the case of Shorthorn cattle, I do not know. The Messrs.
Brown, during fifty years, have never infused fresh blood into their excellent flock
of Leicesters. Since 1810 Mr. Barford has acted on the same principle with the
Foscote flock. He asserts that half a century of experience has convinced him that
when two nearly related animals are quite sound in constitution, in-and-in breed
ing does not induce degeneracy; but he adds that he ‘ does not pride himself on
breeding from the nearest affinities.’ In France the Naz flock has been bred for
sixty years without the introduction of a single strange ram. Nevertheless, most
great breeders of sheep have protested against close interbreeding prolonged for too
great a length of time. The most celebrated of recent breeders, Jonas Webb, kept
five separate families to work on, thus ‘ retaining the requisite distance of relation
ship between the sexes.’ ”
We have now perhaps a sufficient view of what has been done for
the lower races, and how it has been done. The laws of scientific
propagation, so far as analogy can teach them, are before us. It is time
to inquire how far and by what means these laws can be applied to
the human race.
In the first place, there can be no rational doubt that the laws of
physiology are in general the same for man as for other animals. In
deed the most important of these laws, so far as our present subject is
concerned, has just been scientifically fastened upon man by Mr. Galton. He demonstrates that not only the physical qualities of individ
uals and races, but their intellectual, artistic, and moral characteristics,
and even their spiritual proclivities, are as transmissible as the speed of
horses. There can be no doubt that if it were possible for men and
women to be directed in their propagation by superior beings, as ani
mals are, or by their own sincere enthusiasm for science, the results of
suppressing the poorest and breeding from the best would be the same
for them, as for cattle and sheep. There can be no doubt that, if it
were compatible with public morality and with the proper care of
women and children, to “ give special privileges to the most exalted in
dividuals in the perpetuation of the species,” as the English journal of
science suggested, the elevation of the human species would be as rapid
as that of any of the lower races. Indeed the difference between the
sexes in regard to the power of reproduction, which is the reason for
special selection of males, is even wider in the case of man than in that
of horses; and, though existing institutions wholly ignore it, we may
be sure that, in the nature of things, it gives man superior possibilities
of improvement of blood. Finally, there can be no doubt that by
segregating superior families, and by breeding them in and in, superior
varieties of human beings might be produced which would be compar
able to the thoroughbreds in all the domestic races.
We have in history at least one splendid demonstration of the
powrer of segregation and breeding in and in, which goes far toward
establishing the entire parallelism between man and the lower animals
in respect to the laws of propagation. The Jews may fairly be regarded
�112
s
c i A' /v r ii>'i c n. ft o r a <.
i ti
on
as a distinct and superior variety of the human race. Here is an exhi
bition of the interbreeding out of which that stock issued:
The curved, broken lines indicate marriages. They show that
Abraham married his sister (though she was only a half-sister, accord
ing to Genesis xx. 12); that Nalior married his niece; that Isaac mar
ried the daughter of his cousin, Bethuel, who also was son of Milcah,
another cousin ; that Lot, the progenitor of Ruth, who was a progeni
tress of David and Christ, propagated by his own daughter; that Jacob
married two of his first cousins on his mother’s side, who were also the
granddaughters of one of his father’s cousins, and great-granddaughters
of another; that Bethuel was grandson of Terah by his father, and
great-grandson by his mother; that Rebecca and Laban, the children
of Bethuel, could thus trace their lineage to Terah by two lines, i. e.,
through Nahor and Haran; that Isaac could trace his lineage to Terah
by two other lines, i. e., through Abraham and Sarah ; and conse
quently that Jacob, the child of Isaac and Rebecca, could trace his
lineage to Terah through four lines, i. e., through all four of Terah’s
children. \
These probably are not half the connections that actually existed
between the first generations of the Jewish stock. We are not in
formed where Haran, Bethuel, Lot, and Laban got their wives ; but we
may presume, from the fashion of the family, that they found them, or
some of them, within the circle of their own kindred.
Thus it is evident that the Jewish stock was at first established by
a very complicated system of breeding in and in. Afterward Moses
made laws against marriages of relatives; but it should be observed also
that the rite of circumcision and the whole moral force of the Mosaic
economy favored segregation, and was opposed to foreign marriages.
The policy of the Jewish institutions, as seen in the times of Ezra and
Nehemiab, was as severe against marriage with the heathen as against
/'a...,,
-
�SCIENTIFIC
PROPAGATION.
113
incest. The truth, therefore, is, that the original practice of breeding
in and in, though ultimately prohibited in reference to individual rela
tionships, was continued and enforced on the national scale. The
Jews, as a people, have always been breeding in and in. Mating be
tween very close relatives was necessary at the beginning, and not
necessary afterward; and so it is and must be in every development of
a new stock. As the numbers increase, close relationships can be
avoided, and yet the blood can be kept pure.
We conclude, therefore, that breeding in and in was the first and
general law of Jewish stirpiculture. At the same time it is evident
that there was an exceptional policy at work by which foreign blood
was introduced from time to time into the Jewish stock. This policy
is seen in the cases of Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba, etc., and doubtless ex
isted to a large extent in less notable cases that are not seen. Infusion
of the best Gentile blood has always been an important incidental of
Jewish stirpiculture.
We have, then, as the result of this historical view, two principles
contrasted and yet cooperative—breeding in and in the first law, and
foreign infusion the second; the first controlling, the second excep
tional. These are precisely the two laws, as we have seen, that Darwin
and the cattle-breeders are promulgating. And to complete the par
allel, we can even discern in the two widely-separated colonies of
Terah’s descendants, and the interbreeding between them in the times
of Isaac and Jacob, an arrangement exactly like the separate conserva
tories recommended by our modern authorities to eliminate the evils of
breeding in and in. So that the essential laws of scientific propaga
tion, as developed in animal breeding, have, in this renowned instance,
already been carried over to human beings, and have produced the
most perfect race in history.
Though it must be conceded that, in the present state of human
passions and institutions, there are many and great difficulties in the
way of our going back to the natural simplicity of the Hebrew fathers
or forward to the scientific simplicity of the cattle-breeders, yet it is
important to know and remember that these difficulties are not physio
logical, but sentimental. As the old theologians used to say, our in
ability to obey the law of God is not natural, but moral. We are too
selfish and sensual and ignorant to do for ourselves what we have done
for animals, and we have surrounded ourselves with institutions cor
responding to and required by our selfishness and sensuality and igno
rance. But for all that we need not give up the hope of better things,
at least in some far-off future. If the difficulties in our way were
natural and physiological, no amount of science or grace could ever
overcome them; but as they are only passional and institutional, we
may set the very highest standard of thorough-breeding before us as
our goal, and believe that every advance of civilization and science is
carrying us toward it.
�114
SCIENTIFIC
PROPAGATION.
The advantage of holding on to our birthright of hope lies in the
fact that it keeps us in the way of free thought and free discussion.
We cannot agree with Galton that “it would be writing to no useful
purpose to discuss social arrangements that are alien and repulsive to
modern feelings,” and that we must confine our attention “ to agencies
that are actually at work.” True science does not thus wait on human
movements. We hold that the very highest premiums ought to be
offered for new social inventions favorable to the scientific propagation
of human beings. And the freest discussion of such inventions would
not necessarily involve any treason to existing society, while it would
gradually and safely prepare transitions which are inevitable.
And now,, as liege subjects of that great law which we have, been
bringing to view, and which is manifestly pressing on all men both by
analogy and by direct demonstration, we propose to set an example of
free thought and free discussion, by criticising some of the institutions
that confront that law, and by looking beyond them as far as we can
toward measures which in time to come may lead on to full obedience.
1. Undoubtedly the institution of marriage is an absolute bar to
scientific propagation. It distributes the business of procreation in a
manner similar to that of animals which pair in a wild state ; that is,
it leaves mating to be determined by a general scramble, without attempt
at scientific direction. Even if the phrenologists and scientific experts
had full power to rearrange the pairs from time to time according to
their adaptations, there would still be nothing like the systematic selec
tion of the best and suppression of the poorest, which is perfecting the
lower animals. How much progress would the horse-breeders expect
to make if they were only at liberty to bring their animals together in
exclusive pairs ?
As we have already intimated, marriage ignores thé' great difference
between the reproductive powers of the sexes, and restricts each man,
whatever may be his potency and his value, to the amount of produc
tion of which one woman, chosen blindly, may be capable. And while
this unnatural and unscientific restriction is theoretically equal for all,
practically it discriminates against the begt and in favor of the worst ;
for while the good man will be limited by his conscience to what the
law allows, the bad man, free from moral check, will distribute his seed
beyond the legal limits as widely as he dares. Moreover there is a
fundamental fallacy in the pet theory of the halfwayists that science
may somehow be insinuated into marriage by instructing the upper
classes how to mate judiciously. For what is gained in one quarter by
such management must be lost in another. The principle of the case
may be seen better in a small example than in a large one. Suppose
we have simply four candidates for pairing instead of four millions—
viz., a superior man and a superior woman, and an inferior man and
an inferior woman. The advocates of judicious mating would bring
about a union between the superior man and the superior woman ; and
�SCIENTIFIC
PROPAGATION.
115
this pair doubtless would have some fine children. But this arrange
ment would also compel a union between the inferior man and the
inferior woman, and they would certainly have some very poor chil
dren. How much would be gained on the whole by this operation,
especially if, as generally happens, the inferior pair should prove to be
most prolific ? So on the large scale, the lucky ones who get the good
mates of course leave the refuse to the unlucky ones; and the result is
simply no progress, except that of “making the rich richer, and the
poor poorer.” We are safe every way in saying that there is no possi
bility of carrying the two precepts of scientific propagation into an in
stitution which pretends to no discrimination, allows no suppression,
gives no more liberty to the best than to the worst, and which, in fact,
must inevitably discriminate the wrong way, so long as the inferior
classes are most prolific and least amenable to the admonitions of sci
ence and morality.
What then ? Are we necessarily the enemies of marriage because
we say these things ? By no means. We still concede that marriage
is the best thing for man as he is. It is the glory of marriage that it
utilizes the passions of men so as to make them provide homes for
women and children. This is a prime necessity of propagation, scien
tific or unscientific, and must be well cared for at all events, even if we
have to postpone the application of science to improvements in repro
duction. Animals are perfected, as we said at the beginning, by atten
tion to two things—training and blood. Thus far training, with home
as the indispensable means of training, has been necessarily the main
object of human institutions, and doubtless marriage has been the best
arrangement that could be devised for this single end. But it certainly
is not adapted to the final and superior object of improving blood.
We give marriage the credit that belongs to it, and hope it may remain
till institutions shall be devised that shall provide for both training
and blood.
2. As the general law of marriage forbids breeding from the best, so
the special law and public opinion against consanguineous marriages
forbids breeding in and in. And as there is no sure line of demarca
tion between incest and the allowable degrees of consanguinity in mar
riage, the tendency of high-toned moralists is generally to extend the
domain of the law of incest, and so make all approach to scientific
propagation as difficult as possible. Thus there have been movements
in various quarters within a few years to place marrying a deceased
wife’s sister under the ban of law; and the State of New Hampshire
has quite recently forbidden the marriage of first cousins as incestuous.
At the same time it must be acknowledged that an opposite tendency
has manifested itself among scientific men in Europe and in this coun
try. The pressure of analogy from animal-breeding has led physiolo
gists and ethnologists to re-examine the old doctrines in regard to con
sanguineous connections, and venture on some resistance to the pre
�116
SCIENTIFIC
PROPAGATION.»
vailing ideas of incest. This is done very carefully, of course, so as not
to give shocks. The most that has been attempted has been to defend
the marriages of cousins, dropping an occasional hint in extenuation
of the pairing of uncles with nieces. A memorable controversy on this
line was in progress some years ago among the savants of France, in
the course of which Dr. E. Dally read before the Anthropological
Society of Paris a learned article, entitled “ An Inquiry into Consan
guineous Marriages and Pure Races,” which article was afterwards pub
lished in the “Anthropological Review” of London (May, 1864), and
was pronounced “excellent” by Mr. Darwin. To show how far the
scrutiny of the old doctrines has proceeded, we extract from this article
as follows:
“ A distinguished pupil of the Paris hospitals, M. B----- , has communicated to
me a case of consanguineous marriage drawn from his own family. I here give a
copy of his note on the subject:
“ ‘ It seems, from information which has been handed down to me by my family,
relating to a period of about one hundred and fifty years (i. e., counting from the
great-grandfather of my father), that five generations have married among their
first cousins; the degree of relationship has never descended beyond the first
cousins, excepting in two cases, where the daughters of first cousins have been mar
ried by their second cousins. These five generations have contracted a certain num
ber of marriages which I am not able to particularize, and in which the mean num
ber of children has been three or four. The total number of branches as direct as
collaterals has been one hundred and twenty to one hundred and forty. There has
been no idiot or deaf-mute, met with. I may add that the number of branches
is the more surprising since a great number of them have devoted themselves to a
life of celibacy, or have made religious professions.’
* * * “M. Périer has mentioned, according to M. Yvan, the beauty of the
inhabitants of the island of Reunion, who descend from a few couples only, and yet
have known how to preserve their purity of blood. Most of the French colonies,
where they are prosperous, offer the same character ; in fact, we may remark even
in France itself, isolated spots or isolated groups of individuals in the heart of a
mixed population ; there are very few travelers who have not noticed it, and this
has never been with a view of establishing their degeneracy. Among this number
are most of the little fishing villages on the coast of France, where the sailor-popu
lation lives side by side with the agriculturists, without ever marrying among
them. Such is Pauillac (Gironde), about which my friend, Doctor Ferrier, has
written me a letter, from which I take this extract: ‘Pauillac contains one thou
sand seven hundred inhabitants ; most of them are robust, vigorous, and well-made
sailors ; the women are renowned for their beauty aud the clearness of their com
plexion. There is, perhaps, no other place in France where consanguineous mar
riages are more frequent, and where the case of military exemption is more rare.’
The inhabitants of Batz are either workers in salt-pits or fens. Their hygienic con
dition is admirable, and misery is unknown in the country. I find, besides, from
my notes, that there are very few of the inhabitants who are relatives beyond the
sixth degree; for the most part their relationship is of the third or fifth degree:
the children are numerous, and average from two to eight in each marriaga1
“ M. Subler, in a recent journey, has been able to establish the extraordinary
beauty of the inhabitants of Gaust, in the valley of Assau, in the midst of the
Pyrenees. The custom of marrying relations is so inveterate among them that,
before marrying an inhabitant of another commune, the young men of Gaust ask
permission of the chief men of the place. Our friend, M. Maximin Legrand, has
mentioned the same facts about the town of Ecuelles, near Verdun-sur-Saone : and
�SCIENTIFIC PROPAGATION.
117
I tliink I could quote a hundred, perhaps a thousand, places in France which fulfill
the same conditions.”
*
In the course of his article Dr. Dally discusses the pure races, such
as the European aristocracies and the Jews, and concludes that in
these examples vital power and beauty have been the result of close
interbreeding.
There has been quite recently a notable tendency to similar discus
sions and conclusions among physiologists in this country; and we
have late news from England that Parliament has finally legalized the
marriage of a deceased wife’s sister. So far there is certainly a weaken
ing of the barriers against scientific propagation.
3. Besides the general difficulties which science has to contend
with in the laws of marriage and incest, defended by the whole mass
of religionists and moralists, there are particular sects which sin against
tbe law of scientific propagation in special ways, and with a high hand.
Let us look at some of them.
The Catholic Church forbids its priests to marry. But its priests
are its best men. Therefore the Catholic Church discriminates directly
and outrageously against the laws of scientific propagation. In effect
it castrates the finest animals in its flocks. It encourages the lowest
scavenger to breed ad libitum, and forbids Father Hyacinthe to leave a
single copy of himself behind him. We join Galton in the following
invective:
“ The long period of the dark ages under which Europe has lain, is due, I
believe, in a very considerable degree to the celibacy enjoined by religious orders
on their votaries. Whenever a man or woman was possessed of a gentle nature
that fitted him or her to deeds of charity, to meditation, to literature, or to art, the
social condition of the times was such that they had no refuge elsewhere than in
the bosom of the Church. But the Church chose to preach and exact celibacy.
The consequence was that these gentle natures had no continuance, and thus, by a
policy so singularly unwise and suicidal that I am hardly able to speak of it with
out impatience, the Church brutalized the breed of our forefathers. She acted pre
cisely as if she had aimed at selecting the rudest portion of the community to be,
alone, the parents of future generations. She practiced the arts which breeders
would use who aimed at creating ferocious, currish, and stupid natures. No won
der that club-law prevailed for centuries ovei’ Europe ; the wonder rather is, that
enough good remained in the veins of Europeans to enable their race to rise to its
present very moderate level of natural morality.”
The Shakers are in the same position with the Catholics. They
claim to be the noblest and purest people in the world, a sacred gene
ration, raised by grace high above the rest of mankind; and yet, with
full powers to propagate their kind, they virtually castrate themselves,
and expend their labors and wealth on their own comfort and on mis
begotten adopted children, leaving the production of future genera
tions to common sinners.» Doubtless they excuse themselves by appeal
ing to the examples of Jesus and Paul; but they wrong those martyrs
of the past. Jesus and Paul were soldiers who had not where to lay
their heads, and well they might refrain from taking women and chil
dren into their terrible warfare. But the Shakers live in peace and
�118
SCIENTIFIC
PROPAGATION.
plenty, having the best of houses, farms and barns, and actually breed
the best of horses and cattle. So that they have no such excuse as the
early Christians had for refusing to breed men. We doubt not that
they are sinning in ignorance; but that only makes it the more our
duty to tell them that, with their large communistic conservatories,
and their material and spiritual wealth, they are just the people to take
hold of scientific propagation in earnest, and in advance of the rest of
the world; and they could not do a better thing for themselves or for
mankind than to expend the vast fund of self-denial and cross-bearing
purity which they have accumulated in celibacy on a conscientious and
persevering effort to institute among themselves the noble art of breed
ing from the best.
It is curious to observe that while the law of scientific propagation
on the one hand thus criticises some of the holiest institutions and
sects, on the other it finds traces of good in some of the vilest forms of
existing society. For instance, polygamy, so far as the fact of obtain
ing and supporting many wives implies that a man is superior to his
fellows, is an approximation at least to nature’s wild form of breeding
from the best, which is more than can be said of monogamic mar
riage. Again, slavery is always more or less a system of control over
propagation; and so far as the interest of masters leads to selection,
like that practiced in animal-breeding, it tends to the elevation of the
subject race. Probably the negroes have risen in the scale of being
faster than their masters, for the same reason that horses and cattle
under man’s control rise faster than man himself. Even common
licentiousness, cursed as it is, is sometimes not without compensations
in the light of the propagative law. It is very probable that the feudal
custom which gave barons the first privilege of every marriage among
their retainers, base and oppressive though it was, actually improved
the blood of the lower classes. We see that Providence frequently
allows very superior men to be also very attractive to women, and very
licentious. Perhaps with all the immediate evil that they do to morals,
they do some good to the blood of after generations. Who can say
how much the present race of men in Connecticut owe to the number
less adulteries and fornications of Pierrepont Edwards ? Corrupt as he
was, he must have distributed a good deal of the blood of his noble
father, Jonathan Edwards; and so we may hope the human race got a
secret profit out of him. Such are the compensations of nature and
Providence.
Dare we now look beyond present institutions to the possibilities
of the future ? We may at least point out briefly the main boundaries
of what is needed and must come. The institutions that shall at some
future time supercede marriage and its accessories, whatever may be
their details, must include certain essentials, negative and positive,
which can be foreseen now with entire certainty.
In the first place they must not lessen human liberty. Here we
touch the main point of difference between the cases of animals and
�SCIENTIFIC PROPAGATION.
119
men, and the point of difficulty for our whole problem. Animals,
under the unlimited control of man, can easily be kept apart and
brought together as science prescribes. But man as a race has no
visible superior. That fact declares that his destiny is self-government.
And in accordance with that destiny, the institutions that scientific
propagation waits for must be founded on self-government. The
liberty already won must not be diminished, but increased. If there
is to be suppression, it must not be by castration and confinement, as
in the case of animals, or even by law and public opinion, as men are
now controlled, but by the free choice of those who love science well
enough to “make themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s
sake.” If mating is to be brought about without regard to the senti
mental specialities that now control it, this must be done only for those
whose liberty consists in obeying rational laws, because they love truth
more than sentimentalism.
There is another thing that the institutions of the future must not
do; they must not injure home. Here we touch another point of
difference between the cases of animals and human beings. Man has
a social nature that demands very different treatment from that of
animals. The best part of human happiness consists in sexual and
parental love, and the best part of human education consists in the
training of these passions in the school of home. That school must
not be superceded or weakened by the new arrangements, but must be
honored more than ever.
Can this be done consistently with the changes which scientific
propagation requires ? That is the hard question which science has
now to solve. We offer but a hint toward its solution. If home
could be enlarged to the scale, for instance, of the Shaker families, and
if men and women could be taught to enjoy love that stops short of
propagation, and if all could learn to love other children than their
own, there would be nothing to hinder scientific propagation in the
midst of homes far better than any that now exist. The Shakers claim
that by making the Church the unit of society, they have the best of
homes even now, without enjoying sexual and parental love in the
direct way. How much more complete might be their home-life if
they should some time heed our suggestion, to introduce home-propa
gation in the self-denying way which science requires, and for which
their long cross-bearing has prepared them.
Something of this kind, undertaken by intelligent and conscien
tious men, endowed with abundant wealth, and under the sanction of
government, may ultimately combine home and liberty, with scientific
propagation. And it is for such inventions as this, or others more per
tinent and hopeful, that discussion ought to be set free, and kings and
congresses, social science societies, ethnological societies, philanthro
pists of all kinds, and rich men who wish to dispose well of their
money, should be offering the very highest premiums.
At all events the practical difficulties of our problem must not turn
�120
SCIENTIFIC- PROPAGATION.
us away from the study and discussion of it. The great law which
Plato and Darwin and Galton are preaching, is pressing hard upon us,
and will never cease to press till we do our duty under it. And the
need of doing something' for the radical improvement of humanity is
imminent. Galton calls earnestly for a new race. Hear his appeal:
“ It seems to me most essential to the well-being of future generations, that the
average standard of ability of the present time should be raised. Civilization is a
new condition imposed upon man by the course of events, just as in the history of
geological changes new conditions have continually been imposed on different, races
of animals. They have had the effect either of modifying the nature of the races
through the process of natural selection, whenever the changes were sufficiently
slow and the race sufficiently pliant, or of destroying them altogether, when the
changes were too abrupt or the race unyielding. The number of the races of man
kind that have been entirely destroyed under the pressure of the requirements of
an increasing civilization, reads us a terrible lesson. Probably in no former period
of the world has the destruction of the races of any animal whatever been effected
over such wide areas, and with such startling rapidity, as in the case of savage man.
In the North American continent, in the West Indian islands, in the Cape of Good
Hope, in Australia, New Zealand, and Van Diemen’s Land, the human denizens of
vast regions have been entirely swept away in the short space of three centuries,
less by the pressure of a stronger race than through the influence of a civilization
they were incapable of supporting. And we too, the foremost laborers in creating
this civilization, are beginning to show ourselves incapable of keeping pace with
our own work. The needs of centralization, communication, and culture call for
more brains and mental stamina than the average of our race possess. We are in
crying want for a greater fund of ability in all- stations of life, for neither the classes
of statesmen, philosophers, artisans, nor laborers are up to the modern complexity
of their several professions. An extended civilization like ours comprises more in
terests than the ordinary statesmen or philosophers of our present race are capable
of dealing with, and it exacts more intelligent work than our ordinary artisans and
laborers are capable of performing. Our race is overweighted, and appears likely
to be drudged into degeneracy by demands that exceed its powers.”
In another point of view, a tremendous crisis is upon us. The
socialisms and spiritualisms which have engaged public attention in
the last thirty years seem to have weakened the very constitution of
society. Free love, easy divorce, foeticide, general licentiousness, and
scandalous law-trials in high life, are the symptoms of the times.
Many believe that marriage is dying. • Is it not remarkable that in this
state of things the loud call for scientific propagation is rising ? Is
there not a rational and even Providential connection between these
phenomena ? If the powers above are summoning us to the great en
terprise of peopling the planet with a new race, why should not the
old institutions, which are too narrow for such an enterprise, be pass
ing away ? The birth of the new always comes with agony and rup
ture to the old. At all events, whether the time for the decease of
marriage has come or not, let us not doubt that it must come before
the will of God can be done on earth as it is in heaven; and let us be
ready, when it does come, to make sure that the formative idea of the
dispensation to come after it shall be nothing less than scientific
propagation.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Scientific propagation
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [New York]
Collation: [97]-120 p. ; 26 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed on blue paper. From Modern Thinker, no. 1, 1870. John Humphrey Noyes was an American preacher, radical religious philosopher, and Utopian socialist.
Please note that this pamphlet contains language and ideas that may be upsetting to readers. These reflect the time in which the pamphlet was written and the ideologies of the author.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Noyes, John Humphrey, 1811-1886
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1870]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[American News Company]
Subject
The topic of the resource
Eugenics
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Scientific propagation), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5417
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Biology
Conway Tracts
Eugenics
Evolution
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/d12c7b52e743976e8024e85a736ce062.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=JKk0ukiqqyaV1TabuSURHe66dUC8lVCPuUR8WHDuVnF4qdJi8ZooIIWW3IrgPL9G8QJEvnl7s%7EvK2M0%7ES92WBchTpOYpltK85saHY5EDI2nBXKeIXjO5xDsIGdjoxVHmdesMtxL0z8QmBzJPNq%7El9U7buc0n8GFMp5my3VlknRKOp%7EoUQYC9BmEjMlHiRgs3RBoPKWQOjoBzWkqJ4ogX9AC4PwLZTFsGbRGKDElUsyPiVyOWoKhWCHTj1L2qBV04O%7EeII-p%7EMXF9qGaEwF%7EhoF2zjzLGCfMArNXLbnzlzOv%7EA3CCpcpFIfNgJSs6Cc7XbgrK2sywbIx-8nDVGwTdhw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
b370e2b7bfef54971f88a8e5fa7052fd
PDF Text
Text
St&ies of feature Society.
NATURAL ETHICS
IN THEORY AND PRACTICE. J
X
Kk • -’M' J...';? l
BMMpEpyP? ■'.<--
.
»
■
Qxkraets from TSfjree J&eetures given for tfje jK
Ethics of Nature Society,
'■'■<
BY
C. W. SALEEBY, M.D., F.R.S.E.
., WATTS & Co.,
17, Johnson’s Court, Fleet Street, London.
1912.
>
PRICE 2d.
�the ethics of nature
SOCIETY is an Association for the
Harmonious Development of Life
through the practice of Ethics based
on the Laws of Nature, and for the
Propagation of the truth that the
history of Life in
its
evolution
provides a complete justification for
asserting that there is such a thing
as the Ethics of Nature.
Morality
therefore has natural sanction and
natural criteria.
�B.3II )
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
ETHICS OF NATURE SOCIETY.
Natural Ethics
IN THEORY AND
PRACTICE.
Extracts from Three Lectures given for the
ETHICS OF NATURE SOCIETY
BY
C. W. SALEEBY, M.D., F.R.S.E.
WATTS & Co.)
ty, Johnson’s Court, Fleet Street, London
1912.
��THE
ORIGIN
OF
MORALITY.
[Reprinted from the Ethics of Nature Review.]
Before turning to- his subject for the evening, Dr. Saleeby
spoke of the three delusions which are prevalent as to the
origin of Morality—delusions which arise in part from a mis
understanding of the word Morality.
Of these three, the first and oldest is that Morality finds its
basis either in some kind of authoritative power or definite
law from on High (the Mosaic laws, the Koran, etc.), or in
persons representative of someone to whom that power was
given (the “divine right of Kings,” the clergy, etc.). Accord
ing to this delusion, Morality has no natural criterion, and
cannot be judged by its effects, but by an authorised code of
conduct only.
The second delusion is that Morality has
arisen without any definite cause or purpose, through Cus
tom; and the third and most important, which is
the common assertion of ecclesiasticism, is that there
is no natural, spontaneous, inherent Morality in Man.
Even John Stuart Mill, in his “Utilitarianism,” lays
it down that morals are not born in a man,
but
are acquired characteristics imposed on the individual by his
surroundings, and having no root in his own nature—that
man’s is a purely selfish nature, acting by means of external
pressure. It may be taken as an indication of the progress
of the last five and twenty years, that this delusion is so
rapidly dying out.
In turning to the true conception of the Origin of Morality,
Dr. Saleeby gave a definition of the term which coincides en
tirely (as did indeed his lecture from first to last) with the
views of the Ethics of Nature Society, not only in senti
ment, but in actual expression.
“Morality is that which
makes for more life as against less, and for higher life as
against lower.” The definition grows clearest- when we under
stand what Nature means by “higher” life.
Having definitely defined Morality in terms of life, we must
turn for its history to the History of Life, which is purely
�4
evolutionary.
Past historians, past the history of churches,
past human dogmas, we come down to the beginnings of Life
as it must somehow have arisen on our planet. Already in
the vegetable world, the; marvellous structures devisied by
Nature for the nurture of the young plant, point to- Morality,
according to our definition, since they make for life. Pass
ing to the animal world, as Herbert Spencer once said, in
discussing the subject, even when the first single cell divided
itself into two, there was the rude foreshadowing of Moral
action—here was a being not wholly selfish.
Morality has thus its origin of origins in that great necessity
of Life to reproduce itself—a necessity which arose in the
presence and irrevocability of Death. The arrangements
made in Nature for reproduction are connected from the' first
with Morality, and the sacrifices involved in the process- in
crease steadily as the scale of life ascends.
Through the animal world, past the invertebrates-, past the
lower forms of vertebrates (fish-, amphibia-, birds) to the- mam
malia, from the duckmole and the kangaroo up to- the remark
able monkey tribes, a-nd thence to Human-kind, the scale of
progress may be said to be uninterrupted. In due sequence
with the general trend, the amount of care, labour, and life
devoted by the parents (and especially by the mother) to
the young, grows ever greater.
More and more stress is
laid on Morality, because there is more and more, need for it.
From the historical level, we come to the level of positive
interpretations, being confronted at the first with the query
whether this Mora-lit-y, which is an ever increasing thing in
the history of Evolution, has arisen through a particular in
clination of nature in that- direction; and we conclude that
this is undoubtedly not the case, since the na-t-ural law isi uni
versally the Darwinian law of the survival of the- fittest—of
those best suited to their particular time, environment, and
circumstances.
Yet, though we see that Nature is strictly impartial, a-nd
will indifferently choose teeth and claws with murderous in
tent, or the most delicate o-f reproductive organs imposing
absolute self-abnegation and personal risk, it is always in
so far as one or other makes for Life and Higher Life.
Nature’s bias is vital, and Morality has consequently den
�5
veloped in Nature because of its superior survival value. Not
withstanding that Morality was handicapped from the first,
it has won through by that value alone.
In order to appreciate what Morality has done for man, let
us consider by what means a man survives in the world; not
indeed by means of a defensive armour, nor by any offensive
weapons, nor by reason of his strength or of his fleetness, but
because of his Intellect, that great instrument of adaptabilityAnd this instrument comes to him through Morality, since
an intelligent being can only develop, under maternal care,
and will develop only as Morality continues to increase.
Morality is no invention of men, or of priests, or of amiable
enthusiasts; it is the maker of man, and is as necessary to
all further development as it has been necessary from the
first to natural Evolution.
Having existed from all time,
being far older than mankind, and older in consequence than
all churches and dogmas and creeds-—Morality will doubtless
survive1 them all.
�G
NATURE
AND
ETHICS.
The subject is too large to be dealt with at all completely,
and I propose expressing only my own attitude as a student
of Nature, from the standpoint of the biologist. The subject,
taken more narrowly, lies between Ethics and Biology, the
Science of Life.
The biologist finds more particularly in the history of life, in
its evolution, complete justification for asserting that there is
such a thing asi an Ethics of Nature; that Morality has
natural sanction and natural criteria.
For Moral Education we generally have recourse to the
method of former generations ; we refer thei questioning child,
not to any ultimate sanction, but to1 an all-seeing and all
judging power; and in order to make our own commands
complied with, we offer the old alternative of punishment and
reward.
So long as the right people are ruling, and so long
as there isi sufficient faith in the authoritative source which
they plead, the problem is simple enough.
But at such a
time as this, when doubt is expressed not only as to what
is right and what wrong, but even as to the actual existence
of Right and Wrong at all, the matter of Moral Education
and the moral basis is entirely changed, and become extremely
complicated.
We no longer believe in the Fall of Man; we are beginning
to understand the Ascent of Man. The fact isi, we are clearly
living in a moral interregnum; the original and older sano
tions of morality have broken down; those who still profess
them will be found to be acting in accordance with what we
call “right," simply through their own nature, or custom
and public opinion, and not by a real belief in the sanction
which they assert.
We all know that there is a distinction between Right and
Wrong; there are certain sentiments or instincts which do
tell us, in crucial instances, how we should act, irrespective
of rewards, irrespective of any sanction, irrespective
of any thing outside ourselves.
But this is not sufficient
for all needs; we ask what moral anchorage there can be—•
not only what is right, but why it is right.
�7
It is to meet this demand, to which Herbert Spencer gave
expression in his “Data of Ethics,” that some come forward
to-day with what may be termed. “Ethics of Life”-—with what
Ellen Key calls the Religion of Life.
Her books are well
worth reading; for hers is no mystic confession or creed, she
simply lays down certain ideas, certain plans, for personal
and universal conduct; which she refers to> as the Religion
of Life. She believes, as the Ethics of Nature Society does,
that in Life and its laws are detailed information and direc
tion as to what is right and wrong.
Professor Bergson’s Philosophy of Life strengthens this
theory immeasurably.
He has, from his standpoint asi a
student of Biology, a clear feeling that in the very facts of Life
are to be found certain data on which to build a moral code.
It is extremely difficult to refer to facts of Nature without
seeming to give implication of design, purpose, or intent.
Looking at the facts of the living world (in both low and high
forms of life), there is distinctly a “thrust” or impetus (as
Bergson has it, an “elan vital”} which seeks to achieve more
life. This seems to me a perfectly just statement. Whether
Life is to be considered as an almost conscious Entity, striving
to realise its o-wn partly idealised purposes, as our individual
lives do, we can hardly say.
But it certainly does appear
so. Life is, above all, says Prof. Bergson, “ a tendency to act
cn inert matter”—reminding one of certain biologists who
have argued that life looks as if it were seeking to turn as
much lifeless matter as possible into living matter.
This
argument of Bergson reminds one also- of two passages in
Shelley,s “Adonais”:
“Through wood. and. stream and field and hill and ocean
A quickening life from the Earth’s heart has bursit.”
. . . “the one Spirit’s plastic stress
Sweeps through the dull dense world, compelling there
All new successions to the forms they wear.”
It is as though Life were something behind Matter, striving
to express itself; it isi as if that plan which Tennyson sums
up aS “More Life and fuller” were the purpose of living
Nature.
Above all, this may be seen in contemplating the
history of Life.
First of all we see no life at all, then we
find traces of very simple life; and finally life as we know it
to-day; through all the process there seems an almost irresist
�8
ible desire of Life to multiply, to magnify, to intensify itself.
This is shown not only in the life of the individual, but in
those ulterior purposes for which more and more the individ
ual appears' to be designed, and to which more, and more he is
devoted.
We are- all acquainted with the great paradox of Weismann
ism, that the individual exists only for the race, to be the
host of the immortal germ-plasm, so- that all bodies are simply
designed for the making of more life in the future, for parent
hood, for the enhancement of life, and, above all, for its in
tensive culture—the making of forms- less numerous, but with
greater intensity of what may be called the living flame.
This view, which is more and more justified, is the biological
statement of the functions of the individual a® designed (if
1 may use the word) throughout all the process' of evolution
less for its own life’s sake than for the making of more- life,
widespread.
Of that age-long process we; are the1 product.
What, then, of that aspect of living Nature which has
been regarded as nearly murderous, not only a-s non-moral,
but actually as anti-moral?
John Stuart Mill spoke of living Nature- as a- “slaughter
house”; Tennyson pictured Nature “red in tooth and claw”
We are all a-ware of the destruction of life, full-grown or
immature, in the processes of Nature; many forms of life are
designed to- do murder, are ruthless1 instruments for death.
Can the proposition of Nature’s desire for Life and Morality
be compatible with the enormous- amount of futile death we
see on all hands, and with the construction of creatures de
signed to give death ? Certainly it can !
In the first place, when we point to the destruction and
worse than wast-e- amongst the immature (animals, fish, seeds,
etc.), we forget that- those who are destroyed serve for the
food and life of other—largely of higher—formsThe waste
is only apparent.
We should first- have looked to the causes
of death before we- called it so.
If a fish produces- one- mil
lion eggs yearly, and perhaps only two reach maturity to
replace their parents, it- does not follow that there has- been
meaningless, fut-ile murders of the others; for they have- gone
to serve Nature in another way, by giving food to other
species.
�9
Nature sets out to make more life and fuller; not to de
stroy. Animals that hunt and kill for their food possess teeth
and claws which, though instruments of murder on the one
hand, on closer inspection prove' to be instruments1 for life,
since by them life is sustained. This comment may to some
extent remove the existing doubt whether Nature affords a
sanction for moral conduct.
Moral conduct is that which makes for more life; and since
Life is to be measured in terms of quality as well as in terms
of quantity, we must make the further proviso' that Nature
works for intenser (we may safely say for higher) forms;
that is, for more life confined in a. narrower space. The ten
dency to subsist for that belief, to evolve, from that, and to
move upon that, forms the basis of the. Ethics of Nature
Society.
Moral conduct on these' lines will be either that
which makes for more life as against less, or that which makes
for higher life as against lower1.
Lack of time prevents, me from attempting, this evening,
to meet, or even to name, all the, difficulties which the subject
brings up; they will be dealt, with at, future lectures; but, I
do want to repeat that if any of you think this is; a thing
to look into, you should read Bergson’s “Creative Evolution,”
and Ellen Key’s “Love- and Marriage” (the book has an un
fortunate title, but the moral and social conduct, which she
derives from that theory which it is difficult to avoid calling
the Purpose of Life,, isi extremely valuable). These books' I
recommend to be read in association with M. Deshumbert’s
“The Ethics of Nature,” which is entirely devoted to the
statement of our present thesis.
The, new theory of Morality, and of the nature of Morality,
is based more and more on Biology, relying greatly upon the
facts of our natural instincts, especially the parental instinct,
and their function. Thus Dr- Mercier, of the Charing Cross
Hospital, in his new book, “Conduct and its Disorders,” has
come to look at conduct from, the, point of view of Biology,
and to controvert the old, wildly delusive doctrine that in
man the instincts' have disappeared, and that in place of
instincts he has intelligence.
Intelligence is not a motor,
it is a pilot, and if we really had lost our instincts we should
sit like Job motionlessly contemplating life, instead of which
�10
we move and do1. The springs of our conduct are those, very
instincts which a few years ago, we were said not to possess.
On all this subject, Dr. McDougall is the master and pioneer,
in his “Social Psychology.”
We possess just such instincts as animals in their essential
nature, and they underlie all our emotions. Thus the emotion
of wonder is the subjective side of what we call the instinct
of curiosity. The parental instinct is correlative in us, with
“tender emotion.” The more you examine the parental in
stinct, whether it be exhibited in actual, or foster, or non
parents, tire more you see that it is the source of all the actions
which, consciously or unconsciously, you and I call moral, or
good, or right. You find it in the mother who lives, and if
need be dies, for her child; you find it in the old maid with
her cats; you find it in the doctor with his patient.
Psy
chologists have argued that parental instinct is what I may
call anticipatory gratitude; it is nothing of the kind.
It
is an instinctive feeling for life which is young' or is in need,
and which we can help; and it is by no means confined to
our own species (where reward in some form might be antici
pated), but is shown in other species, not self-conscious, which
cannot anticipate future repayment.
There is good, reason
to suppose that if you fuse this instinct, with, others; in o-ur
nature; you will produce those qualities which we call moral.
The ultimate justification for believing that these acts are
moral, is that somehow or other they serve (or will, or can
serve) the general life; we recognise in them, at least, an ele
ment of life-saving. It may be only serving an idea, it may
be serving only one particular class.
My particular cause
for existence is to serve Eugenics, on the theory that we can
do most for the general life by devoting our energies to the
life that is still unborn.
A final question arises if one, desires to make converts
either for Eugenics or for the Ethics of Nature Society: the
old question of “What has posterity done for me?” or, in the
words of Shylock: “On what compulsion must I; tell me
that.” There is, of course, no obvious profit, and no obvious
reason, but what does the astronomer ask, who, spends his
life in amassing stellar data which, in perhaps five hundred
years or so; but not, till then, will be of immense cosmological
value ?
�11
We cannot promise on this theory any direct reward to< be
gained, but it will, nevertheless, be involved in the truth that
virtue is its own reward. That is to say, if there be in any
one of us a native, ineradicable instinct which is essentially
parental, a vital instinct, a desire to serve life, we will get out
of it just that same satisfaction which follows when we yield
to the prompting of any other instincts, whose satisfaction
satisfies themJust as in the1 case1 of the astronomer, the
labour given and the knowledge one day to be gained—so
here, the life one day to be made or saved—these are the in
volved reward. Beyond such reward as this, the Religion of
Life or the Ethics of Nature has none to, offer. But has any
ci her Religion or Creed the warrant to offer more; and is not
this enou.Q'h ?
�12
NATURAL
ETHICS
AND
EUGENICS.
Reprinted from the Ethics of Nature Review.]
The object of this lecture was to show that the* practical
principles of Eugenics are* not only compatible with, but are
the actual outcome of the moral evolution described in the
first lecture, and to explain the theory and practice of
Eugenics in their relation to human life.
“By Eugenics I understaind the project of making the
highest human beings possible.”
The chief factors in this
process, as especially named by Sir Francis Galton are
“Nature and Nurture.” The Eugenics which concerns itself
with the natural or hereditary causes, is called by Dr. Saleeby
the primary factor- The nurtural or environmental takes the
place of secondary factor.
This is inverting the* customary
order, where environment is generally represented as answer
ing most, if not the whole of the question.
But although
neither of the factors could stand without the other, Eugenists
on biological grounds insist that environment is distinctly
secondary.
Primary Eugenics must again be separately defined and sub
divided.
From the point of view of heredity it is evident
that'—assuming the existence of this fact—parenthood must
be encouraged on the part of the worthy. This is the first aim
of the Eugenist, and goes by the name of Positive Eugenics.
Secondly, it is quite evident that the converse of Positive
Eugenics must be to discourage' parenthood on the part of the
unworthy. This is known as Negative Eugenics. And
thirdly, the Eugenics which stands between healthy stocks*
and those prime causes of degeneration generally understood
to-day under the name of racial poisons, the Eugenics, in
short, which strives to keep the worthy worthy, is termed
Preventive Eugenics.
Now as regards the relation of Eugenics to the theory and
practice of Natural Ethics, Positive Eugenics, in the first
place, is a process evidently approved by Nature, being simply
the process of natural selection by which those beings who
�are capable of reproducing their species survive and multiply.
Only one point arises here, which has to be met: there are
some Eugenists (and Mr. Bernard Shaw is amongst the num
ber) who propose that this business of encouraging parent
hood oni the part of the1 worthy should be- carried out by the
abolition of marriage.
Marriage—and more especially
monogamous marriagei—is strictly in keeping with the prin
ciples of the Ethics of Nature Society, being conducive, not
to most life as concerns a high birth-rate, but certainly to
most life as concerns a low death-rate. Also', marriage makes
the father responsible psychologically and socially for his chil
dren; this aspect of monogamy has to be considered. Posi
tive Eugenics will endeavour to work through marriage, which
is a natural institution far older than any decree^ or church,
and to improve it for the Eugenic purpose. The chief method
of Positive Eugenics to-day, is education for parenthood. The
education of the young should be from the very start a pre
paration for parenthood, and should not cease, as it now
most commonly does, at that time when it is most needed;
namely, at the age of adolescence.
Negative Eugenics certainly has a natural sanction.
Natural selection might with equal truth be called. Natural
rejection. Now the question arises, are we to apply the- prin
ciple of Natural Rejection to mankind, with the object of
preventing the parenthood of the unworthy ? It would cer
tainly appear to be a natural proceeding.
But here- the
Ethics of Nature Society says: We are not to kill, on the
contrary, we are to fight for those who- cannot fight1 for them
selves; whereas Nature says these' are- to be exterminated.
This apparent opposition between the natural and the moral
course of action was dwelt upon at some length by Huxley,
in his Romanes Lecture, on “Evolution and Ethics.
In
this lecture he describes cosmic evolution as being a ruthless
process where life advances by means of a general slaughter,
and where it is merely a case of “each for himself and the devil
take the hindmost,.” Moral evolution, hei said, is the, absolute
antithesis to the natural; Moral evolution is the care of the
hindmost, and necessitates at all times a course- exactly o-ppo
site to the model we have in Nature.
There are different
opinions as to- Huxley’s reasons for expressing himself in this
�14
unjustifiable manner on a subject which he was obviously
viewing at the time in a totally false light. And perhaps the
simplest and clearest of all explanations is that this very Leer
ture was written at a period of unfortunate estrangement
between Herbert Spencer and Huxley, and may have been
meant deliberately to set at defiance the principles and tenets
of Herbert Spencer, who maintained that “ there is a natural
evolutionary basis for Ethics?’
Darwin, in his Origin of Species, confesses that we keep
alive numbers of persons who, by natural selection, would
certainly have been exterminated; but, he adds, in, this case
we cannot follow the natural model. And there Darwin left
it; there was this antinomy between the “natural” course
and man s higher nature, and although it was obviously a
wrong thing to let the degenerate multiply, Darwin felt that
we must be content to let him multiply, because we are under
a. moral obligation to keep him alive.
There are Eugenists when want us to, throw moral evolution
overboard, as being mere sentimentalism, and to go straight
for the destruction of the unfit by means of exposing degen
erate babies, as the Spartans did, by means of lethal chambers,
and by reverting to all the horrors, of our grandfathers’ time,
the gallows, chains, and death by starvation for the feeble
minded- These are: the Eugenistsi who take the sacred name
of Eugenics in vain. Eugenics has nothing to do with kill
ing anybody at any stage of life whatever.
Human life,
such as it may be, is a, sacred thing, and cannot, be1 treated
with contempt at any stage whatever of its development.
What the Eugenist may do; however, is> this; he, may distin
guish between the right to live and the right to become a
parent. And this is the simple solution which both Huxley
and Darwin missedIn this simple solution the antinomy
which both Huxley and Darwin saw between cosmic and
moral evolution disappears.
Negative Eugenics is going to proceed, first of all, along
the lines of killing nobody, and secondly, of taking' care of the
unfit under the best possible conditions.
The distinction
between the process of natural selection and the process advo
cated by Eugenists, might bei put thus: Eugenics replaces
a selective death-rate by a selective birth-rate.
Erom the
�15
point of view of philosophy and the Ethics of Nature Society,
this course of action furnishes thei solution of the apparent
antinomy between cosmic and natural evolution.
Passing to the third division of Eugenics, it seems that
whilst we try to encourage parenthood on the part of the
worthy, and to discourage it on the part of the unworthy,
we must be prepared also to oppose the degradation of healthy
stocks through contact with, or as a result of, racial poisons.
Of these poisonous agencies, there are some which we are
certain of; how many there may be that are yet unknown
remains to be proved.
Alcohol, lead, arsenic, phosphorus,
and one or two diseases are decidedly transmissible to the
future, commonly by direct transference from parent to off
spring.
These are the poisons which Eugenists must fight
against, and they are false to their creed and to' their great
mission, if they fail to do all they can to root them out. The
chief, most urgent, most important task seems to be to inter
fere with maternal alcoholism.
Eugenics has nothing to do with decrying attempts to im
prove environment. But unfortunately many Eugenists have
merely taken it up as an alternative programme to social re
form; also, in. these same hands, it has become a new instru
ment for the resurrection of snobbery, on the totally unwar
ranted view that certain classes, sections, or sets of society
are biologically or innately superior to others. No one has
yet adduced evidence to prove that what we call the “better”
classes are naturally better, though they certainly are better
looking, better fed, better rested. Nor has it yet been ascer
tained what would be the results of giving the food and
sleep of the better, to the lower class children.
Nurtural
advantages are responsible for most of, if not all, the
physical superiority of the upper as against the lower classes.
As to psychological superiority, evidence is absolutely nil.
It is said that a man’s way of spending his leisure gives the
man in his true light; and judging by the way in which the
“upper” classes spend their spare time, there is certainly no
indication of superiority.
Eugenics must not be taken as an alternative' to providing
the needful factors for a child, bom or unborn.
Only that
society is truly moral and well organised which makes
�16
provision for every child.
Adequate provision and
adequate nurture for every child, would be no great
tax on our purses, for it would bring as a natural
consequence the abolition of many prisons, hospitals,
and asylums.
It is curious that, whilst it is not Socialism
to spend money on hospitals for the care of tuberculous,
rickety, or otherwise diseased children, it is Socialism to spend
a fraction of this money on those children at an earlier stage
of their lives; though it is obviously much cleaner, cheaper,
and pleasanter to follow this method, than to continue in
cur present method of vainly attempting to1 cure what might
and should have been prevented.
In closing, Dr. Saleeby added that he considered the
Eugenic programme to consort completely with the canons' of
the Ethics of Nature Society.
Printed at tlie “Croydon Guardian11 Offices 145 and 147, North End Croyddii;
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Natural ethics in theory and practice : extracts from three lectures given for the Ethics of Nature Society
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Saleeby, Caleb Williams
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 16 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: Reprinted in part from Ethics of Nature Review. "The Ethics of Nature Society is an association for the harmonious development of life through the practice of ethics based on the laws of nature..." -- Inside front cover. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Please note that this pamphlet contains language and ideas that may be upsetting to readers. These reflect the time in which the pamphlet was written and the ideologies of the author.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Watts & Co.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1912
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N602
Subject
The topic of the resource
Ethics
Eugenics
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Natural ethics in theory and practice : extracts from three lectures given for the Ethics of Nature Society), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Ethics
Eugenics
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/004337cce2039b4ca5e5d76ac43e30c1.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=L8Y-SBxfKTxIfhDzuAIi-Kyz%7EMf4IpMy5uZDo4hggF6wBV4oF0Xj727BavpC-wuL16QFBz1JiTpKvHYFEOPorGNkUuCTXy-EyarMJdSdIEB8WUPxTKubg-43icey3Oc7jLSgVrkrS4dJgI4Mpetfld9mBNHfQU0EWHxGPkxpF%7EgkYYpkDO3bLwXDGUu2VERj-3cPHF8IB32SPC0jNaUMkO%7EEBBBYk4E14zBWA2AjlD1zZBCr9tmrFKO%7Elnl3k1sk0GtBo1AzWTLF-Or-VNI4Kyh3I9SSgi5PUxy1Uumy-ulfqrpYaY8a0onqsgqdu1EwJh4NqBDyDNw9eyA9nqiLUg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
1921669fe040706ee7b33562f3550193
PDF Text
Text
■158
Noses: What they Mean, and How to Use them.
fact, the retaliation of the free subject against the cruelties of the
Spaniard. Thomas Cobham, the son of Lord Cobham, was one
of these—one of a thousand—who, like him, scoured the ocean
far and near, and made his name as terrible to Spain as the In
quisition was terrible to the world. Then there was a baser
order of marauders—water-thieves, hanging about the mouth of
the river and making a handsome harvest. Then rose Sir John
Hawkins—chief of pirates and privateersmen—making his
golden gains by his charter for carrying on an extensive Negro
slave-trade; and thus England ventured forth from her ports
and coasts, and while she had always manifested seafaring apti
tudes, now held aloft her trident and standard of maritime
dominion and power. Here we must close, and lay down these
volumes, full of striking incident and writing; displaying
genius, at home in the knowledge of human nature, and in the
mastery of language by which such knowledge is best conveyed.
We cannot too highly pronounce upon the carefulness, the great
reading and patience these volumes evidence, and have no doubt
that they, and the volumes succeeding them, will give the most
complete and magnificent picture of that period of our history,
which, while it awakens within us perhaps a greater, certainly
an equal, pride than any other, leaves less, than any other, as a
subject for regret.
III.
NOSES: WHAT THEY MEAN, AND HOW TO USE
*
THEM
“ In Nature’s infinite book of secrecy
A little can 1 read.”
Antony and Cleopatra, i. 2.
“ Homines enim ad Deos nulla re proprius accedunt, quam salutem
hominibus dando.”— Cicero pro Ligario, c. 38.
6i A LL things are double one against another,” says the
A wisdom of the Son of Sirach. All things stand not only
for themselves, but as signs of something else. It is upon this
axiom that physiognomy rests. There is a quality throughout
the universe whereby the nature of things may be interpreted
from their form, so that the external appearance is a sign or
* Nasology; or, Hints towards a Classification of Noses.
Warwick. Bichard Bentley. 1848.
By Eden
�159
Is Physiognomy a Science ?
symbol of the internal constitution and quality. The stag, is
not born with the disposition of the tiger, nor the sheep with
that of the wolf. In the animal creation similarity of form
implies community of nature. A simple glance satisfies us that
a certain animal is a horse ; but what a mass of possible know
ledge, and what a complication of inscrutable mysteries is affili
ated to that simple glance, and comprised in that simple term.
A child can seize the formal idea, as swift as light can impress
the retina. But fifty years of study will not teach the huntsman,
the anatomist, or the philosopher, one tithe of what is symbolized
by that phenomenon, even so far as it may be known by the hu
man intellect, leaving out of the question altogether those secrets
that cannot be penetrated, though they, too, are symbolized in the
phenomenal appearance. Well may the subtle Hamlet cry, “There
“ are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt
“ of in your philosophy.” The crowd of men are always
hankering after signs and wonders, but the wise and perceptive
feel themselves beset with signs of so difficult interpretation,
that the signs to them are wonders. Wonderment betokens
ignorance. “Not to admire,” Horace wrote, “is all the art I
know to make men happy,” it may be so, but wonderment is a
sign of philosophy also. There is a certain enthusiasm of ad
miration that constitutes the true temper of the philosophical
mind. The wonderment of ignorance is mental stupefaction
before a great object; the wonderment of philosophy is not
bestowed upon things, but upon the fecundity of signification
that lies wrapped up in them.
So far, then, from physiognomy not being a science, almost
everything in science is physiognomy. All advancement of
science depends on the reading of signs, and in every age the
best interpreter of symbols is king of the epoch. Columbus, as
he stood upon the beach, saw a sugar-cane washed up, and, as
its structure tallied with no known plant of the Old World, he
concluded a New World from it, and found in it a corroboration
of the Pythagorean tradition, that the world was round,—an idea
that he had long meditated. What was this, but a great mind
reading a little sign ? Lord Bacon observed the sterility of the
Aristotelian philosophy, as practised by the men of his time.
He also saw that what we call antiquity was the youth of the
world, and therefore, that “ the authority of antiquity ” was to
be exploded, because the most ancient time is the present, and
ought to be the wisest. Let us, he would say, use the past
wisely, extracting that which is good, but never rest in it in a
sterile manner ; and so he preached utility and the doctrine of
experiment, which is nothing else than an attempt to make
M2
�160
Noses : What they Mean, and How to Use them.
signs teach.—the mustard-seed, growing up to a great tree.
Newton, in the falling body, built up a theory of the firmament
on that little sign. Every grand discovery springs from some
little sign that a great seer reads, though nobody was able to
interpret it before. The interpretation of things unseen from
things seen, the reading of insides from outsides is the sole way
of advancing science, and this is physiognomy.
Physiognomy, however, is now restricted to the interpreta
tion of human character from the conformation of the body ; but
especially from the features of the face, as no other part is now
ever seen; and in this sense, every man and woman of average
intellect and discrimination is a sort of physiognomist. Every
human face that we meet is raying out all manner of influences
upon us, sufficient to move us to action, or to incite us to reflec
tion, though we do not consciously analyse the motives so excited
in us. A stranger enters a railway carriage with beaming face,
cheery voice, and open manners, and the inmates who have
travelled twenty miles, without a word, suddenly find themselves
in a hubbub of conversation, in which all are talkers and none
listeners. Even silent men become infected with the mania at
such moments; perhaps for the very reason that there is nobody
to pay attention. Physiognomy commenced all this excitement,
the company were put into good humour by the phenomenon of
the cheery face, which some happy first word perhaps confirmed,
and the strong social faculties of garrulity and imitation easily
did the rest.
This strange magnetism of feature and bodily development is
seen to exist in children, in dogs, cats, and all domestic animals,
as well as in adults, and perhaps, in children, even in a much
higher degree, for it seems to be a part of modern social education
to eradicate all instinctive manifestations as a point of good
breeding ; upon the principle, probably, that education is to cor
rect nature and not to evolve it,—with the sagacious corollary,
that what you cannot correct you must conceal. But, though all
men, women, and even dogs and children are physiognomists by
nature, no philosopher, from Aristotle to Lavater, has recorded
anything universal or systematic on the subject. Physiognomy
was a favourite and fashionable study in Pome in the time
of the Empire, but yet nobody put on record any solid
observations, out of which a constructive genius might build up
a system, and we may still say with the melancholy Duncan,
“There’s no art to find the mind’s construction in the face.”
A man of infinite tact, like Lavater, can read a great deal more
in a face, or in a movement, than others can; but it seems that
this is an incommunicable gift, and that such signs are only
�Gall.
161
interpretable by those in some sympathy with them. Certainly
there are many natural languages spoken in the earth, which to
most human beings are quite dead and silent ones. For instance,
all the talk that beasts hold with each other: the neighing and the
braying of the horse and ass ; the bellowing of the bull, or the
lowing of the cow, fill up indeed the landscape of our ear, and
with the eye affect the mind most delicately with “ each rural
“ sight, each rural sound,” but convey not that definite idea
which the brutes in their modest oratory intend. These natural
languages, then, are not understood by man, though in the
East, from time immemorial, certain cunning men and magi have
professed the interpretation. Some have supposed that Adam
could converse with the beasts and birds of Paradise, and the
remarkable fact of the serpent’s addressing Eve with miraculous
organ of speech, seems to excite no surprise whatever in her
mind. Dim footprints of this, travelling down the lapse of time,
in the patriarchal and impressionable East, may account for the
still circulating tradition. Even in the East, however, these
beliefs or living poetries are growing shadowy, and curling the
corners of men’s lips as they are pushed farther towards the
region of mythological fiction. We always refuse to believe
what we have not sufficient dignity to conceive, and it has yet
to be learned that a man’s true intellectual stature consists, not
in his knowledge and reason, but in the breadth of his Divine
faith above and beyond these.
Perhaps the best physiognomical attempt that has recently
been made is that which was set on foot by Grail and Spurzheim,
early in this century. It had everything to captivate the fancy
of novelty-mongers as it presented a sufficient display of reason
ing to make it acceptable to an epoch which pretended to conduct
science upon the Baconian method of experiment. The mania
has now nearly died out, and it is remarkable that no European
physiologist of any reputation has given in his adhesion to the
bases on which it professed to be grounded. Phrenology has
not grown into science, but, on the contrary, has receded from
the position in which Gall left it. Gall was a man of real
genius, as any one may see who takes the trouble to read Dr.
Elliotson’s IZzmrw Physiology, from which it appears that, with
keen intuition, he struck out many new thoughts, and knew
exactly how far to carry them, and when to drop them. Spurzheim was merely his hired assistant, and unfortunately pla
giarised his master, and has managed here, in England, to shut
him out of his just reputation. The dissection of the brain, by
following the thread of the nerves instead of absurdly cutting
transverse slices (which was a step in advance of all the anato-
�162
Noses : What they Mean, and How to Use them.
mists of that day) was a brilliant discovery, and most important
in its effects; but it is Gall’s discovery and not Spurzheim’s.
Spurzheim’s books show that he was dominated by an idea,
and so far he is respectable; but that idea belonged to Gall.
Spurzheim suppressed the fact, and so far he is not respectable.
That there are organs in the brain for every faculty is a
gratuitous and, some say, a ridiculous supposition. That
every one of these organs has a surface reaching to the skull,
and that none of these special organs lie in the centre. That
the one exposed surface corresponds exactly to the exterior sur
face oi’ outward bump on the skull, and by which alone, during
life, it can be judged of by experimentalists, and that even sup
posing all the foregoing to be true), a single surface could give
any sufficient index to the general development of the embedded
parts of the organ, form together so many doubtful and im
probable postulates, that any reasoning founded upon them must
be deemed futile and inconclusive.
Still there remains to phrenology that which physiognomy
always discerned in it, a general signature, betokening the qualities
and powers of the brain working under its bony case ; and
craniology, not phrenology, was the right name to call it by. No
doubt the forehead partially shows the aesthetical faculties, the
temples and mid region the intellectual and ideal faculties, and
the top of the head the will and the conscientious faculties, and
the back and under part the animal appetites. But m so partial
and unsure a manner, that the greatest tact and study can only
render 1 man in 10,000 at all a competent guesser. A good and
shrewd guess is the highest point to be reached, until a very great
deal more has been done than we have yet done, or dreamt of
doing.
The popular mind has a singular faculty of adopting and
cherishing any error of false philosophy that it can seize without
study or reasoning, by an act of simple apprehension. In this
sense, phrenology has done most serious injury. Every vulga
rian with two eyes can tell whether a man’s head is large or
small, and, upon the strength of this contemptible act of obser
vation, takes upon him to pronounce on the capacity of every
body he meets in society or business. Perhaps the most
injurious exercise of this fallacy is seen in families, and in
schools, where one child is esteemed wiser and more naturally
gifted than another, because its head measures half-an-inch more
across the forehead than another ; and a boy of ten is told that
his brother of eight will always be before him, because he has a
larger brain; or Papa is looked down upon, because Master
George, his mother’s son and image, at fifteen can wear his hat.
�Hats— Heads.
163
This is studying human idiosyncrasies with a vengeance,
when Gall’s cranioscopy, instead of founding a collegiate truth
is, thanks to an all disseminating and farthing press, popularised
into “ a science of hatting.” Let these measurers take a little
anecdote, and chew the cud of the lesson it contains : Medwin,
in his “ Conversations of Lord Byron,” relates, that when a
gentleman’s dinner-party of twelve or thirteen broke up, and
was separating for home, in the hall they began for amusement,
such as delights some people after dinner, to try each other’s
hats, and none of the party could get Byron’s hat on—yes, cries
the phrenologist, but poetical heads are lofty, not broad. Is
that so ? or is the assertion only broad and not lofty ?
In this matter take a few words of good sense out of Polemon, who, if not the pupil of Xenocrates, at any rate lived
before Origen, because he is named by him in his book against
Celsus. Polemon says, in his chapter on the Head—“ A very
“ small head argues a man deficient in sensibility and without
“ intelligence. A head larger than true symmetry allows, indicates
“ quick sensibility, accompanied with cowardice and an illiberal
“ disposition. A very large head shows want of sensibility and
“ extreme intractability (now this is what the scientific hatter
“ delights in). An oblique (Xo^orr/c) head argues impudence
“ or shamelessness. Those who have very very lofty heads are
“ presumptuous and self-willed (audaSac). Those who have
“ the parts behind the temples low, are spiritless men. Those
“who have the parts behind the temples on both sides of the
“ head low, are deceitful and vindictive. But the middle of
“ the head (k^oXt)
when gently lowered or rounded,
“ (xOafiaXr) Tiplya), the head being in other respects well propor“ tioned and erect (i.e. having the line of the face nearly parallel
“ to the line of the spine), is the best of all the heads whether for
“ sensibility or great intellectual power (/zsyaXdi/otav).”
If one might hazard a conjecture without knowledge, this
chapter upon the head, of which the above is the whole,
would show that the writer, Polemon, was the pupil of
Xenocrates. It embodies in a loose popular manner the result
of that wonderful Greek philosophy, which prevailed from the
time of Pythagoras down to a few of the successors of Plato,
by which mathematical principles of harmonic proportion were
brought to bear upon all aesthetic productions, — painting,
sculpture, architecture, &c. Art, then (and never since then),
was wedded, as it should be, to the absolute reason with a suc
cess that Europe rings with even to this hour, and hopes
again, to attain to, without any study of principles, by the mere
servility of imitation. The oblique head, observe, is shameless,
�164
Noses : What they Mean, and How to Use them,
impudent, that is to say, it has no fine qualities. "Whatever wit
or faculty it has, it puts to the immediate service of its own
base, carnal, and selfish ends. Its perceptive faculties, if so
strong an expression may be permitted where so little is known,
operate directly upon the cerebellum—as commonly they do in
the brute creation. The front presses upon the back, with no
space left for the intervention of the glorious middle-God of
*
reason.
Therefore the oblique head is impudence, which (oh
ye vulgar, listen with “ attent ear ! ”) is only another word for
worthlessness. But the erect head, ev /zEysOouc syovcra Kai
6p06rr)oc, is of all others the most perceptive and high-minded.
The physiognomical value, therefore, of phrenology must give
way before the broader and more commanding law of harmoni
cal proportion; and the organs that have been mapped out by
Dr. Gall and George Combe must be regarded as a chime
rical attempt to account for mental operations by partitioning
off special localities in the brain as the centres of action appor
tioned to the special faculties. We can separate sensations,
perceptions, and reason, as being mental operations essentially
differing from each other in their nature. We can discern in
some degree by what we feel, that animal sensations lie at the
back, and have a more immediate connexion with the spine ; that
perception is placed in front, and that the brain is blind in the
rear just as much as the skull is, and that over-exertion causes
tightness and pain across the brow. We can also perceive, with
some approach to distinctness, that mathematical and meta
physical reasoning, in fact every species of hard thinking, if
continued too long, causes pain in the upper region of the brain.
But anything more special than this we can scarcely arrive at
—as far as we can judge from watching attentively our own feel
ings immediately consequent upon efforts of thought, we must
candidly allow that such efforts appear quite consentaneous,
single, homogeneous, and collective, an act of the whole brain
substance, and by no means an act of any one point or corner of
the brain. You can separate the cerebrum from the cerebellum ;
and if there were organs, it is analogically probable that dissec
tion would show their existence, and that an anatomist could do
what Coleridge condemns Spurzheim for pretending to do,
namely, to distinguish a bit of Benevolence from a bit of Vener
ation. So far, however, is this from being the case, that com
parative anatomy can detect no difference between the brain-sub
stance of man’s brain and that of other animals, sufficient to prove
reason to be an appanage of one and not of the other, beyond
Medio tutissimus ibis, because the most reasonable course generally.
�Comparative Anatomy of the Brain.
165
what we have specified above—the larger development in the
human species of the central and upper portions of the brain, that
stand between and separate the sensitive portion at the back from
the perceptive portion in front. This does not at all affect the
value of any really well-observed physiognomical signs that craniologists have found ; such as that a wall-sided head is calculative,
that a horizontal line across the forehead, as in Milton and
Beethoven, denotes musical faculty. That a prominent eye de
pressed downward, so that the under eyelid seems swollen, betokens
language. That a projection in the centre of the forehead is
noticeable in popular preachers, who illustrate by similitudes
and analogy rather than by reasoning, and so on. These may
be perfectly true signs, and yet not at all prove the existence of
an organ appropriate to them, or rather an organ of which they
are the physical result. For it is quite natural to suppose that
the operations of the brain are accompanied by peculiar motions,
each distinct species of mental operation having its own motion.
We may also further suppose that all natural gifts and endow
ments of the essential soul enable it to communicate, from the
earliest brain-formation, that peculiar cerebral motion, which
will, at ripeness, have shaped the brain into a fitting instrument
for the enunciation of the gift.
“ Spiritus intus alit, totamque infusa per artus,
Mens agitat molem et magno se corpore miscet.”
PEneid. vi., 726, 7.
If so, it will thus have made the cave of the skull plastically
suitable, and you may read the external sign as phrenological
observers have read it, notwithstanding that you repudiate the
doctrine of special organs, by which they, as we think vainly,
attempt to explain it.
The doctrine thus put forth accounts for many psychological
phenomena which phrenology could never touch in the way of
explanation. It also stands in a very remarkable manner as an
exponent of the finite nature of the human understanding. It
fixes the boundary beyond which no strength of human genius
can carry us one step. It encourages inquiry into the physical
formation and structure of the cerebral mass, the laws which
regulate its growth, and the external circumstances most con
ducive to its perfection as a stable and sensitive instrument and
organ for the use of the soul. But whilst it helps to explain
the phenomena of life, it asserts the existence of an imperishable
something, utterly depurated from, and antecedent to all matter,
and manifestations of matter : and it sets up this stupendous a
priori secret, writing up at the portal of its terrible postern, “Thus
�166
Noses : Wliat they Mean, and Hon to Use them.
far shalt thou go, and no farther.” Call it vital principle, soul,
or spirit—your terminology is of no consequence. On the hither
side all is composed of matter, and though much is hidden,
nothing is either hopeless or unintelligible to a genuine investi
gator. All on the further side is secret and silent, except to
faith, which is impressed by it, “as a substance of things hoped
for,” though without knowledge. All but this is a riddle, with a
solution, if we can only find it. This, itself, is a mystery that
we never can find till death; a mystery without a solution.
Modern anthropologists are proudly preaching the reverse of
this just now, and holding out the vain hope that all things
dark will one day become illuminated by the lamp of science.
Much that is dark may become light, how much who shall say ?
But human science will not be all light till it sets up a lamp in
place of the sun, and can abolish night-time totally. At present
we burn daylight and admonish the wise man—poor forkedradish and screaming mandrake as we think him—of his birth,
naked as that of the desert colt of the wild ass; of the pitiful
draff of his diurnal digestion ; of the passage of filth from every
invisible pore in his whole body ; and of death, close at hand,
to take him, stripping him as at birth, to the ass’s colt again—of
naked skin, and of knowledge not much better clad. A little
modesty in radishes were a commendable quality. Humility is
appropriate to vegetables growing on the ground.
We are not anxious to enter into the psychological aspects of
this doctrine, yet it is quite obvious that it bears profoundly upon
the vexed questions of madness and sleep, delirium and sanity,
disease and health. If it be true, the very spirit of the philosophy
and science of the day which is materialistic must be untrue.
To us, at present, all this is nothing. We take it merely for a
physiognomical postulate, that the soul builds its own house ;
and if so, the tenement will describe the tenant, and every fea
ture betray to him who can well read signs, the quality of
the indwelling artificer.
“ Throw (meta)physic to the dogs,”—we were to speak of
noses and so we will, for what, in a world entirely made up
of appearances, or, as scientific people call it, phenomena, is the
use of attending to the unseen, or, to anything whatever that
does not show. We know many men, quite excellent people in
their way, of whom we are persuaded, that they would never
brush their hair, or put on a clean shirt, if, like Perseus, they
carried a Grorgon’s head that rendered them invisible, and yet,
who but they, scented and civeted in St. James’s Street on a Court
day, with Poole’s coat and kid gloves point device ? If there is
one thing more than another that is expensive in this world, it
�The Grand Nose.
167
z
is the eyes of other people. Most of us would sit still, such is
the indolent propensity of man, were it not that we should be
seen to be idle. The unseen and the remote are as nothing to
these wise men—the very stars are a nuisance to him who wants
his dinner. Did not M. Henrion de Pensey say to Laplace, Chaptal, and Berthollet, scientific lights all three, “ I regard the dis“ covery of a dish as a far more interesting event than the dis“ covery of a star, for we have always stars enough, but it is
“ not so with dishes.”
Therefore, as we cannot see the brain, and much less the
spirit, sold, ghost, thinking principle, essence, or Divine particle,
whose business is that of dancing-master to the pericranium or
academy, therefore let us give up thinking about them alto
gether, and come down to the nose, which, as Lavater says, is
“ the foundation or abutment of the brain, upon this the whole
“ arch of the forehead rests, and without it the mouth and
“ cheeks would be oppressed by miserable ruins.” A great fact
is here recorded by this celebrated physiognomist, and we could
make great profit of it if we could only bring ourselves 1 o inter
pret it, as accomplished critics usually do, clean contrary to the
author’s intention. For would it not become immediately ap
parent that Lavater considered the nose as the understanding
itself, as that which renders a brain possible, for you cannot build
anything without a foundation. The only difference between
this and every other foundation is, that the superstructure is in
visible, and the foundation itself seen. But then, the principle
of life reverses physical laws, so this is just as it should be, and
the nose is the efficient cause of the brain. This may suffice
to show what a little ingenuity might effect.
He says very well, however, that there are thousands of beau
tiful eyes for one beautiful nose, and that a grand nose always
denotes an extraordinary character. He then runs on to de
scribe this talismanic and charm-bearing nose, and some of
these notifications are very indistinct indeed. It should be of
equal length with the forehead. This is as old as Ficinus, who
says that three noses on end should make the length of the face;
but erroneously, for they make no distinction of sex. Yet an
attentive reader will see that Lavater (iii. p. 185) is speaking of
the masculine nose, and it is very nearly the true proportion.
But the female nose, of correct symmetry, is longer in propor
tion than the male (though the reverse is generally held to be
the case), because the mass of the man’s head should be larger
and squarer than that of the woman : and as the nose does not
vary in the same degree as the mass of the head, the woman’s
is larger in proportion than the man’s. “ This nose then,” says
�168
Noses : What they Mean, and How to Use them.
Lavater, “ should have a broad back or spine, the edges being
“ parallel, but somewhat broader above the centre. At the
“ bottom it should stand out a third of its length from the face;
“ near the eye it must have at least half-an-inch in breadth.”
Has not Martial said well, “Non cuicunque datum est habere
“ nasum ?” Lavater adds, “ such a nose is of more worth than
“ a kingdom.” It should be recollected that he had seen the
French revolution and some of the desolations of Napoleon, so
that kingdoms just at that time were not remarkably valuable.
Small-nosed people, even with a hollow profile, may be very
good souls, he admits, but their worth consists in suffering, and
learning, and in the enjoyment of poetry. But the arched
noses they can command and destroy. Your straight noses are
a mean between the two, and can act and suffer equally. Do
not despair ye ugly-nosed ambitious, for he adds that Boerhaave
and Socrates were as to this ugly, more or less, and yet great,
only their character was of fortitude and gentleness. But if
your ambition is for cutting throats and trampling upon your
fellow-creatures, do not attempt it unless your nose is curved
like Solyman’s scimitar, and as broad as the bill of a duck.
It is clear, however, although the above remark may appear
to be more amusing than solid, that the nervous masses, whether
as marrow or as brain, possess a bone-forming faculty. Na
turally we might expect that the most delicate modification of
matter to be found amongst all the corporeal substances would
be found connected with, if not creative of, the firmest and most
solid, so that the nervous masses not only do create bone, but,
a, priori, might be expected to do so. The next step, then, is to
ascertain which feature of the face is in closest connexion with
the brain, and has the most bony formation. Certainly not the
eyes, the ears, nor the mouth, but the nose. The nose is half
bone, the other half is of gristle. This renders it by structure
the most solid, immoveable, and, in one sense, inexpressive of
the features. The eyes and mouth wave and move to every
transient gust of feeling and passion like a tall corn-stalk in
the wind. But the upper and bony region of the nose is a stoic,
and quite contemns human passion. This emotional inexpres
siveness and exemption from the infirmities of joy and sorrow,
and the troublesome proclivities that “flesh is heir to,” gives it
another kind of expression, which is unique, namely, the cha
racter of the brain. Marvellous bony monument and gnomon
of intellect, which reverses other signatures in the world, where
the hard gives its impress to that which is not hard. Here is a
mystery; that which is soft sets its stamp and seal upon that
which is not soft.
�Classification of Six Noses.
169
The nose is the only feature in the face which is compounded of
solid bone and cartilage; the two substances combining together
to form a complete and continuous whole. The upper or bony struc
ture indicates the natural character of the intellect; the lower or
gristly structure indicates the quality, culture, and activity of
the intellect. The upper part is made for us; the lower part we
may to a great extent make or mar for ourselves.
Having reached this point, it may now be desirable to attempt
some classification of noses, and in order to do so we propose to
avail ourselves of certain hints set down in a remarkably clever
little book, by Eden Warwick, under the title given at the com
mencement of this Paper. There are, it seems, only six kinds
of noses that are distinctly marked, and this classification is well
known and of long standing; for an antique gem in the Floren
tine Museum gives us five out of the six. There are, however,
in nature very few pure specimens of any class; almost all the
noses one meets with are of a composite character, and are all
naturally accompanied with equally composite mental charac
teristics.
Class I. The Homan Nose.
II. The Grecian Nose.
III. The Cogitative or wide-nostrilled Nose.
IV. The Jewish Nose.
V. The Snub Nose.
VI. The Turn-up Nose, or Celestial.
The first three classes are the noble type of uose, the latter
three are of the sordid and contemptible type. The noble clas
sification was observed physiognomically from the very earliest
times, for we have them distinctly portrayed in the Hindoo
Trimurti in the caves of Elephanta. In this three-headed deity
the profile of Vishnu, the “ Preserver,” is of a purely Greek
model; whilst that of Siva, “ the Destroyer,” has a rough and
energic Homan nose. But Brahma, “ the Creator,” has a
broad cogitative nostril, betokening wisdom and thought of the
profoundest order. This is very remarkable as showing that in
the early ages of the world; although there was much less of
what we call philosophy, there was a much more accurate intui
tion of truth than, in these latter times, we are ready to allow.
Indeed, in many things so far are we from progressing, that we
have actually retrograded. All must admit that the human race
in 6000 years ought to have progressed; few, except the very
reckless and the very ignorant, will assert that it actually has not.
Two reasons chiefly conduce to neutralise human advancement.
The vices of mankind, and the natural tendency of thought to
destroy the faculty of observation. To elaborate the proof of
�170
Noses : What they Mean, and How to Use them.
this lies out of our province, and for the present it will suffice
to indicate the circle.
For clear observation the mind must be unsophisticated, but
the natural tendency of thought is to sophisticate. Active men
despise contemplative men, and vice versa. Great activity of the
senses dims the internal light of thought. From Scaliger’s col
lection, it appears that the Arabs have a proverb—“ Wall up
“ your five windows” (i.e. the five senses) “that your house and
“ its tenant may have light.” Thought is internal, and is best
pursued by a withdrawal from external nature, whilst observa
tion is the minute scrutiny of it. This is an almost irremedi
able defect, and coupled with our vices effectually puts a stop to
any continuous progress of the race. If you had asked the
Royal Academy to furnish a fitting conception of a three
headed symbol of deity, can you persuade yourself it would
have approached the physiognomical significance of the Hindoo
Trimurti. No. The mind had an intuition, then, of simplicity,
and was free “ from philosophy and vain deceit.” If we wish
to progress, we must “ try back ” many steps and weary. For
the sophisticated to unlearn error, is harder than to the unso
phisticated the invention of truth. Let us pass away, however,
from the wonderful vision of old time, lest the noses of the
present day begin to snore, which is a bad habit, as we propose
to show before we have done.
The Roman nose is indicative of the highest energy of
character, especially when the nose is coarse and rugged, which
the Roman commonly is. Nature is very chary in supplying
rulers, dukes, and leaders to mankind, yet man is so exceedingly
proud, that he cannot be brought to a heartfelt acknowledgment
of this great fact. Hence spring all the diverse schemes and
forms by which philosophers, statesmen, and quacks, have
tried to bring about good government. Their object has been
to contrive a system in spite of nature, to say in fact, “ Beldam,
“ you are slow to produce real kings, so slow that we must for
“ market purposes set up sham ones ; and if possible get rid of
“ your troublesome royal man, when you do send him, as a
“ nuisance ; for we cannot give up our sham one, systematically
“ crutched up in dignity and unapproachableness as we have made
“ him.” Political-mongery would all dissipate into thin air, if
instead of talking about forms, men had discretion and virtue
enough to pick out by election Nature’s born-commanders for
every State-post throughout a Commonwealth. Some people say
gold is the king, some say intellect, some say education, and so
on, but none of these is king. The king is born, not made,
just as the poet is, only the corn-eating multitude cannot re-
�A Boman Nose.
171
cognise him, as he walks untitled amongst them. Nos numeri
sumus et frages consumere nati.
The Roman nose is energetic and fit for command, it delights
in action, it disregards opposition, it takes no counsel of its fears,
but steadily pursues its object by the means and instruments most
likely to accomplish it. It has a great self-reliance, is not fond
of talking, is “ little blessed with the set phrase of peace,” it is
sententious, brief, puts much in a little, knows precisely the
value of words, and gets a rhythm out of fitness; never seeks rich
melody, and would reject the elegance of Isocrates, if even it
might be had. This is the spirit that breathes through a Roman
nose; it is strong, is sagacious, not self-willed, but large-willed,
swift, eagle-sighted, for an adequate object ready to sacrifice
all the world, not sparing itself; ready in the sternest way to
embody in act the dictates of its boldest reason, undazzled by
any phantom of the imagination, not unconscientious, as acute
and peaked moralists pronounce it, but never dreaming that
its conscience and its reason can by possibility stand asunder,
or be twain.
Such a spirit as this must rule all that come in contact with
it, only as it is taciturn, not eloquent,—rather impotent in
drawing-rooms, and not very studious of the steps of the back
stairs,—it may never come in contact with the public, and so
never become as the Homeric phrase has it, ava^ avSpojv—king
of men. Such a spirit has a Roman nose, and probably no
other can have it. This is not new in the world, it is only for
gotten. Suetonius, in his life of Titus, says that Titus, and
Britannicus, the son of the Emperor Claudius, were brought up
together under the same masters, and in the same manner.
Narcissus, a freed man, introduced a metaposcopist, or diviner
by physiogonomy, that he should examine Britannicus, and he
constantly affirmed of Titus standing by, that he, and not
Britannicus should reign. Titus, we know, had a nose between
Roman and Jewish ; and, no doubt if we could ascertain it,
Britannicus had a pug, and therefore was unfit for the throne
of the Caesars, which rendered the divination very simple.
Had he, however, lived in these days, routine would have set
Britannicus on the throne. Pug-royals are dominant everywhere.
Suetonius is also careful to describe the physiogonomy of
Augustus, as having wavy hair, eyebrows that meet, well-pro
portioned ears, brilliant eyes, and a nose rising eminently at
the top, and depressed a little towards the bottom, which Casaubon
interprets as pure aquiline. Plato had an inkling of this, for
he calls the Roman “ the Royal nose.” To take men for
governors and generals by the nose, is not so ridiculous after all,
�172
Noses : What they Mean, and How to Use them.
though it implies the reversal of present practice, wherein it is
necessary that the elected should first take the people by the
nose. In this case, it is the folly of the people that constitutes
the candidate’s best qualification. In that there is at least some
thing generic in the individual himself.
One fact, that can never be got over by any amount of scep
tical analysis, is that the race, which for a good thousand years
held the dominion of the western world, has bequeathed its
name to this peculiar nose; which we are now representing as
typical of practicalness, energy of will, and rude power. The
Roman nose, the aquiline nose of the great people, whose eagle
standard seldom appeared upon a battlefield, except to claim a
victory. . Even to this day, there is energy in the Italian face;
and foolish as many will think it, nothing better indicates the
possibility of a regenerated Italy, than the abundant Roman
noses still abiding there. Lavater notes, that the nose of the
Italian is large and energetic.
All the warriors have this nose—
Julius Caesar.
Bruce.
William the Conqueror.
Wellington.
Edward the First.
Gen. Sir C. Napier.
Henri Quatre.
Zumalacarregui, the terrible
Henry VII.
Carlist General;
and many others that cannot be recapitulated.
Then there are noses that are partly Greek and partly
Roman, noses of less energy than the pure Roman, but of larger
capacity :—
Alexander the Great.
Constantine.
Napoleon.
Here is a case quite in point. Napoleon was a statesman of
stupendous purposes and designs, abler in the administration of
the physical forces of an empire than even in the field. He is
dominated by furious and passionate ambition; is rejoiced like,
a child to think that when other men can only get a paragraph,
he shall have a page of history all to himself. He is busy with
fine arts, loves to talk about music with composers, and bids
them to introduce more airs into their writings; revels in
abstract speculation, and boasts that as there could not be two
Newtons, Napoleon must take the sword. Wellington had none
of this false glare and brilliancy about him. His brain was
sober, and he saw more clearly into the nothingness of life. He
could not move mankind by operating upon their imagination,
and he fell back upon the stern laws of duty strictly fulfilled by
himself, and strictly exacted of others. When the two men
�A good allowance of Nose.
173
came to Waterloo, the Graeco-Roman nose fell to pieces before
the Roman nose. And in exile, though truth was by no means
a family failing with the Napoleons, Napoleon admitted that
the fate of Waterloo was not an accident. “ Wellington/’ ho
said, “ has all my coup d’ceil, with greater coolness.” For the
same reasons precisely, Caesar would have assuredly defeated
Alexander, could they have met in a fair field, chronology
permitting. It is mentioned in the capital little book before
us, that Napoleon was himself a judge of noses; “ Give me,”
he said, “ a man with a good allowance of nose. Strange as it
“may appear, whenever I want any good head-work done, I
“ choose a man—provided his education has been suitable—
“ with a large nose.”
.
- Almost all the poets and painters have Greek noses.. Writers,
philosophers,, thinkers, sculptors, have Greek noses,, or RomanoGreek, and these are generally expressive of delicacy; they may
look aggressive and combative, but they will not often show a
strong, practical, unconscious force of will. These people are
impressible—they could not be that if they had a will. They
are feminine, take after their mothers, and play shuttlecock to
fortune s battledore. We do not mean /that many of them are
not obstinate, but obstinacy implies a stupid want of will, and
where there is capacity it springs from. the consciousness of a
weak will. The firm man is never obstinate, he knows he can
never, be compromised, but can always exert his will at the
right moment. It would be well if the truth of these remarks
could be thoroughly recognised, so that the great capacities
might enrich the strong wills, and the mighty wills respect,
consult, and fortify the great capacities;. wed each other, as it
were, to fructify in the world. Whilst they stand asunder, we
must expect to see Augustan, Cromwellian, or Napoleonic des
potisms, sapping the foundation of all true liberty as often as
the combination of a high type of the Romano-Greek meets in
one individual.
, The third class which our guide, in his Hints, sets down,
is what he calls the cogitative nose. It may be found in men
of all tastes, gifts, and callings, and it depends on breadth; of
this he says ingeniously:—
“ It would be wrong to regard it as a mere coincidence, that
after having, from deduction a posteriori, learnt that the com“ mon property is exhibited in the breadth of the nose, we find
“ that if we were,
to consider in which part of the nose a
“ common property was to be looked for, we must decide to take
m the breadth, for the profile is already in every part mapped
“ out, and appropriated to special properties.”
FEBRUARY---- VOL. VI.
N
�174'
Noses : What they Mean, and Hoze to Use them.
We have no objection to all this, for, as a matter of fact, it
tallies quite with our own view, as will be seen hereafter, per
haps. But we object to the classification of a property, namely,
cogitativeness, common to all profiles of whatever stamp, as a
class in itself. It involves a cross division—a Roman nose, a
Greek nose, a Jewish nose, or any of their compounds may
possess this characteristic, it does not show mental character,
which this nasal classification is especially intended to show; it
only shows the quality and quantity, or the intensity of thought
that has been brought to bear in the development of a character.
The author himself seems to be instinctively aware of this, for
he devotes a whole chapter as a receipt “ How to get a cogita“ tive nose.” Now, if we can make our own nose, it can be no
more an index to the natural character than were those “ sup“ piemental noses,” and “ sympathetic snouts ” of Taliacotius,
mentioned in ‘Hudibras.’
Setting aside the classification, there is no doubt much that
is very true contained in the observation. You will never be
able to find a man of intense reflective powers having a nose
thin and sharp at the nostril. The grand nose of Lavater, we
have already described, but the cogitative nose is something
quite different from it. It only refers to the gristly parts below
the bridge of the nose. It may, or may not, be found in con
nexion with beauty. Oliver Cromwell’s is truly ugly, but so
indicative of vigour and portentous energy that a sensitive man
might throw himself into a fit of terror by mere dint of gazing
on its dropping, flesh-point, rostrated, and broadly incurved,
like the adze of a shipwright. Coleridge’s forms a remarkable
contrast to Cromwell’s. It has the broad thoughtful character
in a very large degree, but in other respects it is a weak, a
lamentably weak nose, only a quarter of the length of the face,
whilst, Cromwell’s exceeds a third. There is no physiognomy
in all picture galleries, sculptor’s chisel-work, or numismatic
record, since kings first struck their type in metal, that stands
out like terrible old Noll’s, for a man to govern, lead a fight,
yet on the whole do justice. There is a wavy beautifulness
about Philip’s head of Coleridge—but we are upon noses, and
must say, “ alas, that nose !” There is nothing commoner than
the defect of that nose. Every tenth man you meet is Lillipu
tian-Roman ; and whilst such superlative energy belongs to the
genuine eagle-beak, that the sagacious Greeks bestowed it on
Jupiter himself, this Lilliput-Roman is the very antithesis of
will. Embellish it prodigally as you will with gifts, it has no
power. It is weaker than a ‘ snub.’ It is at the opposite pole to
Roman energy. Beware of trusting business to a Lilliput
�Epochal Noses.
175
Roman. Yet we have seen these noses pretending to authority,
to be fathers of a family, and to have a wife in subjection to
them. Subjection ! why, nothing could make anything on earth
submit to them, but another inch in length tacked on to them!
Another characteristic connected with these noses is their
epochal occurrence, when great intellectual and political events
have stirred the passions and the minds of men. In the time
of Charles the First and the Protectorate, the cogitative Roman
nose distinguishes almost all the leading characters. Look at
Samuel Butler’s nose, immortal in wit and profound good sense,
what a curved proboscis it is, and of what cogitative breadth.
Even Mil ton’s, though of Grecian type, in earlier life, when he
threw himself into politics, grew broad and large. But this
distinction disappeared in the butterfly race that succeeded on
the accession of Charles II. Though he himself, nurtured as
he was in the stormy time, retained in all his levity the latent
power and outward development of the large proboscis. And
so did Waller.
The difference is startling when you turn from this period to
the noses of the French Revolution, and the general expression
of the countenance. Prettiness distinguishes the nose, and
cruelty the face of these men. One sees distinctly in the French
countenances, what history demonstrates, that those men were
leaders by accident, rapidly succeeded each other, and were the
product or scum of chaos and anarchy. It was not their indi
vidual will shaping events, and grandly directing, that raised
them to that eminence, but a volcanic eruption that tosses out
stones in showers, which quickly drop, yet leaves a cloud of
ashes, and lightest dross, floating for a time, until blown away
miles to seaward. It has been said that words etymologically
considered are “ fossil history,” and so the noses of an epoch
are a synopsis of its history.
There are difficulties in the way of determining what is and
what is not a cogitative nose, for there are many broad noses
and very few cogitative, and the cogitative nose in youth is not
much expanded, just as infants may be said to have no noses,
but only a perforated cartilage. Then, as age increases, the
nose spreads generally. Still it holds that broad nostrils and
a broad base, when the rest of the nose gives corresponding
signs of strength, are indicative of reflective exercise and conse
quent brain power. We read that the breath of life was breathed
into man’s nostrils, and it is very natural to gather thence that
the man of fine breathing faculty should possess a greater or at
least a more awakened vital principle, and possess a spirit or
breath of higher worth and strain.
N2
�176
Noses : What they Mean, and How to Use them.
The Jewish nose comes next: it is like the bill of a hawk,
and bows out with an equal convexity from the root to the tip.
It is a shrewd and useful arch, possessing much practical saga
city, knowledge of men’s character, and knowing well the prac
tical and profitable application of that knowledge. In the
Hints it is very justly said that it should be called the
Syrian nose, for they all have it. All Phcenicia, Tyre and
Sidon, Carthage, Carthagena, and the old trade to the British
Isles, if not to Mexico, testify to the commercial shrewdness of
these mid-sea traffickers, and to enlarge upon the present Jew
ish faculty throughout Europe would certainly be quite superflous. But, on the other hand, no better reply to the claim set
up by Disraeli and others, for the superiority of the Jewish
mind in intellectual feats can possibly be made than to assert
their intense commercial shrewdness : splendid metaphysic and
aesthetic or even scientific brain, cannot be combined with this
astonishing practicalness. Take one or the other, but not both.
Adam Smith had this nose, and he, first of all men, deified the
vice of society, making an absurd wealth the test of nations, as
men of the world make it the test of individuals. Corregio had
it, and was the most miserly of mankind. Vespasian and Titus
both had this nose, and both were avaricious to a degree. The
Jewish nose, therefore, seems to indicate commercial faculty or
great avarice. In commerce, where it meets with opportunities
of freely satisfying its acquisitiveness, it is simply shrewd and
unscrupulous, but when it is shut away from these opportu
nities, it tries to amass by penurious saving. Commonly we
find that men of business are much freer of their purse when
engaged in business than when they have quitted it. It should
be recollected, that few persons are born with true magnanimity,
which seems, after all, to be little else than a fine balance of
mind,—they are therefore naturally, either prodigally disposed,
or misers. Those of the latter class when funds are coming in
daily, are less tempted to hoard, but the moment their income
is fixed, however large the amount, they will not willingly
disburse a shilling. Women are generally more penurious
than men, for this simple reason, that as they have fewer means
than men have of making money, the acquisitiveness which is
common to ordinary minds of both sexes takes in them the ava
ricious form.
There remain the snub nose and the turn-up nose. Few are
the illustrious who have ever carried either. But if illustrious,
they are only so as Boswell was, by an accidental ray of light
falling on them. It only illustrates the wearer as a snub and a
�Compensation for a Broken Nose.
177
snob, and stands as a warning to others, that oblivion and mul
titudinous herding is the alone safe station for such men to dwell
nn. Let them be where no light is, for history permits no favour
able paragraph to be recorded of a snub. Thou didst wisely
and well, Richard Cromwell, with that nose of thine, to resign
the Protectorate for a life of obscurity, and “ to retire,” as
Carlyle has it, “ to Arcadian felicity, and wedded life in the
“ country,” and die, as was most fit, exceedingly old and un
noteworthy, down away at Cheshunt, eleven miles from Shore
ditch Church, as we reckon them on the great North road. It
happened, as the parish register alone knows, just two years
before the House of Hanover came in. Placid old man, why
not have lived two years more, and so have seen England ruled,
by three distinct, not kings, but families.
It would be pleasant to enter now into national physiognomy,
at least as to the nasal branch of it. To speak of all types, from
a grand Caucasian down to the gross broad pug of a negro. To
trace the Syrian nose and Arab, and the bulbous round nose
of England. To see how noses have sometimes been held in
estimation, and sometimes in abhorrence. Odd views are to be
found indeed : why not ? when Cicero has said, that “ there was
“ never yet a foolish thing, but some philosopher has said it ?” In
Asia and Africa for instance, the Crim Tartars and the Hotten
tots used to break their children’s noses, accounting it a most
remarkable piece of folly that their noses should stand in the
way of their eyes. Here, in Europe, we have always venerated
the nose, and have considered that the character of a man was
contained in it. As we gather from the old practice of cutting
off the nose, or slitting it as a punishment and symbol of a lost
character. The Frankish Ripuary laws (the oldest code of
French laws extant, older than the Salic, which latter Montes
quieu has talked about, and so few have read) valued a freeman’s
nose, if mutilated, at one hundred sous of gold, or about £64 !
sterling of our money—and the test of the mutilation was to be
if he could not wipe it, at mucare non posset; but if he could wipe
it, 50 sous was thought a sufficient compensation. An assault, it
seems, was not then so cheap as it is now, for we may now break
every bone in a man’s body, in eluding his Roman bridge, for £5 !
but then we are civilised highly, and you will observe that all
highly-cultivated people are very delicate about punishing,
though they are not particular about committing crimes. There
is no place in the world in which you can sin so cheap, nor do
wrong with so much impunity, as in the metropolis of England.
First, because vice abounds, and rarity keeps up prices ; se-
�178
Noses : What they Mean, and How to Use them.
condly, because observation is often eluded ; and lastly, because,
if you are found out, a highly-civilised race is sympathising
and does not punish.
But, to follow our noses, the wife of Jenghis Khan was a
celebrated beauty, for she had only two holes for a nose, and
probably a space of perhaps three or four inches, though some
say five or six between the eyes. The Calmuck rule is, that the
less the nose is, the greater the beauty. Accordingly if there should
be any appearance of it budding, they knock it in. There the
nose goes for nothing; but in Rome they thought so much of a
nose, that everything else went for nothing. For Martial puts
the nose for the whole statue (Lib. v., Epig. 26), which is one
of the boldest figures of synecdoche ever ventured on.
Although it has been very hotly disputed, true and earnest
students find that there is an absolute ideal of beauty, but in the
present state of things great latitude must be given to varying
tastes. Goldsmith says, that the Roman ladies are praised for
little else than the redness of their hair; and adds, that the
nose of the Grecian Venus presents an actual deformity, as it
falls in a straight line from the forehead. It is singular that
he should take this to illustrate the difference of taste, for it is
precisely that which Mr. Hay, in the most convincing manner,
*
proves to result from the Greek knowledge of absolute beauty;
the completion by highest art of that which Nature in her finest
types strives towards or shadows out, though she has accom
plished it, perhaps in no one instance, since the world began.
One thing is very well established, that however much the
nose of civilised races may excel in beauty of form those
of less advanced races, the noses of the latter perform their
office much better. For White, of Manchester, out of Pallas,
says, “ that the Calmuck, by applying his nose to the hole of a fox
“ or other animal, can tell whether he be at home or not.” We
read too, that the negroes of the Antilles can distinguish by the
mere smell between the footsteps of a Frenchman and a negro.
Of course the Frenchman smells much the worse, as the dirtiest
negro is cleaner than the man who wears boots.
There is, however, another use of the nose besides the sense
of smell, which is commonly lost sight of amongst us. It is
this which we propose to point out to our readers. In the fore •
going remarks we have tried to show the symbolisation of noses,
let us now go a step further and teach the elementary lesson of
how to use such noses as we have. Let no reader exclaim against
* Science of the Proportion of the Human Head. By D. R. Hay. 1849.
�The chief Use of the Nose.
179
the folly of teaching men, in a world six thousand years old, how to
use the nostrils, an apparatus they are supposed to have been using
ever since the world began. It is not because a thing is absurd
that it is less true, far from it, everything seems absurd that is true
—and every true man seems to be ridiculous. The witty Athenians
it has been said, with Xantippe—his wife—made fun of Socrates.
And the Roman ladies in polite society told many amusing
tales of Cato. But Socrates was Socrates, and Cato Cato for
all that. Laughter in some sense depends upon a perversion of
reason, and the only laughing animal is man. So it would be a
good rule if, when we have enjoyed a hearty laugh, we would,
remember, that the perversion lies much oftener in the laugher,,
than in the object laughed at.
We are going now to teach our readers to use their nose,, and',
when they have had a most excellent laugh at the proposition,,
and at our expense, we request them, by the help of the above
axiom, to go through what follows with attention, and to endea
vour to find out on whichside the perversion lies. But first,by way
of reprisal in the shape of laughter, let us relate from Southey’s
‘ Omniana,’ a little anecdote of scientific wisdom, after-which
much eccentricity may be pardoned to any individuaL “ I have:
“ seen,” he says, “ the pineal gland handed round upon a saucer,
at an anatomical lecture, as the seat of the soul:—‘ Seat of; the
soul, gentlemen ; that is supposed to be the seat of the soul;’’”'
If, after this, we should assert, as we have no intention of assert
ing, that “ the nostrils are the seat of the soul, gentlemen,”’ it
would not be folly that would keep us without company.
The exciting cause of the following remarks is an extraordi
nary little work lately published, from the pen of Mr. George*
Catlin, the well-known artist, who lived and travelled amongst
the Red Indian tribes of America. All who know him personallyrecognise him for a man of shrewd observation and patient
habit. This quaint book of his will stand as a monument of the
value of simple observation and truth-seeking, when many
clamorous works of scientific ambition, now enjoying great
reputation, have perished from the shelves of all positive and
practical readers, and have retired to that large grave of the
bookstall, the literary bookworm’s library, or the literal book
worm’s tooth of oblivion.
In his intercourse with the American tribes, Catlin was struck
with their surprising immunity from the diseases incident' to
man in civilized society. But that which chiefly struck him
The Breath of Life, by Geo. Catlin. Trubner and. Co. London, 1862.
�180
Noses : What they Mean, and How to Use them.
(p. 5) was the undeviating regularity, whiteness, and soundness
of their teeth, which commonly last them to the end of their
days, and to the most advanced age. He thinks that civilized
man, better sheltered, less exposed, better fed, and enjoying the
auxiliary of medical skill (?) ought to preserve a better sanitary
condition than his apparently less fortunate brother ; but he dis
tinctly tells us that the reverse is the case. We accept this de
cision as perfectly well-founded, and beg such of our readers as
are well up in the books of American travel to suspend their
ready objection—“ How then are the tribes dying out so fast ? ”
Wait a while, and in due time an answer shall be given.
First, let us remark that the laws of health are so ill under
stood, that it is difficult to say where they are best or where they
worst attended to. The only way of judging is by the negative
test, namely, where there is least disease. If the Greeks have
more diseases and the barbarians less, we may be sure that bar
barians live most conformably to the laws of health. But we
do not understand enough of Hygiene to say that they do so
and so, and that they therefore, have health. The modern study
of medicine is the study of disease not health. Health is nothing
to the medical man, he cannot live by health, that is, what other
men live by ; when they lose it they go to him, and not till then.
It is true there are abundant codes and treatises upon health, but
in almost the whole of them you discover that the author has
passed his life, not in severely studying how to preserve health,
but how to restore it when lost. Generally speaking, such
works as there are upon the subject, are from the pens of prac
titioners who have retired with a competency, but who, all the
while they were observing, were observing from the wrong point
of view. Deny it as people may, the feature of ancient books,
Galen, Hippocrates, Paulus JEgineta, Celsus and the rest, is
the large space devoted to the de sanitate tuendd—the preserva
tion of health. The feature of modern medical books is, the one
view—how to treat disease. This simple fact is pregnant, but of
course, ten thousand optimists are ready to show why this is,
and to prove that it is just as it ought to be. We are content
to record that it is.
Having alleged ignorance of the laws of health considered as
a science, we may still compare the civilized condition of man
with the savage, and say, whether it seems that the civilized
must needs be less healthful. The evils of savage life consist in
occasional want of food, too great exposure to the inclemencies
of weather, the want of proper exercise of the mental faculties,
and the sudden violence of enemies. The evils of civilized life
on the other hand, form a much more extensive list. An over
�Diet > III Health; Bad Blood.
181
supply of provision leads to an over-indulgence of every sensual
appetite. The pampered and cloyed stomach and palate grow
luxurious and critical, and the cook is called in to supply by
art the defects of a vitiated digestion. Stimulants, wine, beer,
tea, coffee, become a part of the daily and habitual food of
the masses, and are called in the false language of those who
use them, the “ simple necessaries of life.” Spirits are next re
sorted to, as being cheaper and more condensed in form, and
these too are taken up into the daily dietary of the population.
Can it be supposed that the blood of the masses, nourished daily
upon such exciting fluids, and that too from childhood, can ever
attain to the cool, well-concocted healthy blood, that, in less
luxurious times, went to make bone, and springy fibre,, elastic
veins and electrical nerves ? Again, the vocations by which men
obtain their daily bread in civilized life, are, with a few excep
tions, all unhealthy. Men tend to curdle, into centres, and
cities grow, then unhealthiness of residence is added. Poverty
and profuse wealth meet—unhealthy poverty reacts upon un
healthy stimulants. Then the poor starve the rich out in the
matter of health, for the rich never were robustly healthy, and
the poor cannot now recruit them with health. At last, the
whole mass, high and low festers with ill-health. Hospitals,
madhouses, dentists, medical practitioners, sanatoriums, bene
volent institutions abound everywhere. Do they mean charity
or science ? No. They mean decomposition of the masses, and
the signification of all this building of bricks, and press activity
in reporting of cases, lies in two words “ bad blood.”—It means
that we have lost the art of concocting a cool juice.
Besides all this, what we call education, circulation of know
ledge, elevation of the masses consists, in ninety-nine cases out of
a hundred, in over-stimulating the brain by cruelly stimulating
its intellectual volitions, as we have already over-stimulated the
body. The stamina of a people is broken down by what we
style civilization. Let not the reader point with pride to the
fine grown young men that some aristocratic and middle-class
families produce, or to what men of this stamp did in the Crimea,
and the “pluck” (oh that word I) which they showed. Why
should we deceive ourselves—pluck is not stamina. Nobody
will dare to say that these men were or are any of them equal
to cope in hardship and privation, or even in a momentary trial
of strength with the yeomanry of two centuries ago, nor yet
with the bare-legged Highland regiments of last century ; if
not, what is pluck but an euphonic phrase, simulating old heroism
and prowess, whilst what it really stands for is a sort of dare
devil galvanic action under excitement. Ask, ten years hence,
�182
Noses : What they Mean, and How to Use them.
for the Oxford boat-crew of this year, and five shall be dead or
suffering from disease of the heart. Yet “pluck” won the
boat-race.
Taking these things into account in all their infinite ramifications—which we cannot even hint at here—it is pretty clear
that in the matter of health the savage has the best of it.
Whether that advantage is a necessary one is another question
altogether.
It has been the fashion, Catlin says, with most travellers to
assert that the mortality is greater amongst the savage races
than amongst the civilized. If this were true, it would prevent
us from referring to the savages for a hint in practice, though it
would not justify us in continuing as we are. But it is not
true. Modern travellers compile from previous travellers, and
see very little of what they write about with their own eyes.
In this Catlin differs from them; he has spent years with the
Red Skins, has lived with them, travelled with them, come to
Europe with them; has gone again and again into their central
districts, and has lived alone in the interior and upon their
borders, and he stoutly denies their premature mortality.
Excepting amongst those communities of savages which had been
corrupted................... by the dissipations and vices introduced amongst
them by the civilized people.
He says that fear has deterred most writers from venturing
amongst them; but that if they had done as he had done they
would have found.
That there always exists a broad and moving barrier between savage
and civilized communities, when the first shaking of hands and
acquaintance takes place, and over which the demoralizing and deadly
effects of dissipation are taught and practised; and from which, unfor
tunately, both for the character of the barbarous races, and the benefit
of science, the customs and the personal appearance of the savage are
gathered and portrayed to the world.
Amongst a people who have no bills of mortality and no sta
tistics, it is not easy to procure exact accounts; but Catlin was
at great pains to inquire of the chiefs and medical men what
was the mortality of children under ten years, for the ten years
previous to the time of asking the question, and he generally
received for reply, none, or three; one from a kick, one from
a rattlesnake, and one drowned. All from causes that might
have killed adults. He visited the burial-places, where they
place the skulls after the biers have fallen down, in circles, and
the proportion of the crania of children was incredibly small.
Tn this country nearly half the human race die under the age
�Mr. Catlin.
183
of five. Setting all controversial points aside, Mr. Catlin was
quite convinced by personal observation that the growth, deve
lopment, and general health of the Red Skins was immeasur
ably superior to that of the white races, and he devoted his whole
attention to discover if possible some cause that might account
for the disease of the one and the immunity of the other race.
The perfection of the teeth of all these barbarous tribes, their
beautiful whiteness and regularity struck his attention very
forcibly. At last, after much pondering to very little purpose,
he observed that the Indian mothers sit carefully watching by
the cradle of their infants as the child falls to sleep for the pur
pose of pressing the lips together closely. A wild or natural
child almost instinctively contracts this habit; but if not, the
watchful mother enforces it, even exercising great severity, if
necessary, to establish it. Of course, when once the habit is
formed, it is fixed for life. The curious part of this is that the
Indians are perfectly well acquainted with the concomitant ad
vantages which belong to the practice, for when Catlin asked
the reason of this so, to him, strange custom of the mothers and
the medicine men, they replied promptly that it was done “ to
“ ensure their good looks, and to prolong their lives.”
Mr. Catlin relates of himself that for three years he had de
voted his time to the study of the law, and for three years more
he had practised it, but he found it dry and crabbed. He relin
quished it for the still more sedentary employment of portrait
painting. This mode of life he pursued for eight years with
terrible detriment to his health. At thirty-four he set out,
strangely impelled, for the wilderness, canvass and brushes in
hand, determined to come back with rich treasures in the shape
of ethnographic records, or to perish in the attempt. His health
was very feeble at this time : he himself attributed his ill-health
to the sedentary habits of life ; but his physician pronounced it
to be disease of the lungs. He determined to take his own
course, and set out on his hazardous enterprise. Of necessity he
soon found himself lying out shelterless at night between a
couple of buffalo-skins spread on the wet grass, where he had
to breathe the dew and fog and chilly airs of night.
At first he woke constantly in great pain, suffering much from
disorder of the lungs, sometimes even spitting blood. On the
day following a night of such exposure, he suffered considerably
from the state of his lungs. He became conscious that he was
drawing in malaria through the open mouth, and he determined,
cost what effort it might, to keep his lips and. teeth firmly closed
during the day, and up to the last moment of consciousness before
sleep. He immediately felt some relief, and by constant and
�184
Noses : What they Mean, and How to Use them.
unwearied efforts he at last acquired the desired habit. He
overcame the disease of the lungs, and during all subsequent
exposure found himself freer from aches and pains than he had
ever been in his previous life.
Otic cannot quite go the length of our amiable enthusiast in
attributing, the whole of the grand effect achieved, to the simple
fact of closing the mouth : though it seems very probable that
if he had not acquired the habit, he would have lost his life.
But we must bear in mind, that he put away at the same time
the sedentary habit, the late hours, the hard head-work, the bad
air, and stimulating diet of civilized life, and sabstituted for
them, active exercise, simple food and rough, and, during the
daytime, at least, a perpetual supply of fresh air. The exercise
helped digestion and muscular development, the diet was cool
ing, and suppressed the low fever under which he suffered,
whilst the oxygenating air vitalised the blood. Thirty-five is
a climacterical period, and if a right impulse be given to the
system then, the general health often becomes better than it
ever was before. To this radical and constitutional change he
superadded the excellent habit of breathing perpetually through
the nostrils, sleeping and waking, and thereby capped the arch
of health.
What may be the amount of advantage to be derived from
this particular habit, we cannot, with our limited experience, be
expected to determine, but that it must be very great, should be
apparent almost at a glance to every man of average intelligence
the moment it is pointed out to him. Say that we inhale and ex
hale breath only twenty times in a minute—if we inhale cold air
directly into the lungs, instead of circuitously, as nature in
tended (by going which circuit it would have reached them
several degrees warmer than it actually does reach them), is it
not easy to see what the aggregate of wrong-doing twenty
times every minute must amount to, when extended over the
greater part of the twenty-four hours. The whole temperature
of the body must be affected, and the lungs become congested,
or even inflamed, and thus cease to perform their proper
functions. The rate of breathing greatly affects the operations
of the whole system—the circulation of the blood, the pulsation
of the heart—in fact, the regular and uniform working of the
whole body depend upon it. If this be disturbed, the proper
nervous tension is disturbed with it, and the brain itself, dis
turbed in its presidency, reacts in disease upon the whole
circle of the organs and their functions. It is not therefore by
any means so small a matter as to some it may at first sight
appear, whether they breathe in one way or in the other;
�Indian Races—Catlin—Kant.
185
since breathing through the mouth may at once, and must, at
last, disturb the temperature of the whole system, and its perio
dical functions. Breathing communicates motion to the body;
and we have shown above how probable it is that the brain
actually owes its configuration to certain spirals of motion ap
pertaining to the life-germ. If so, how close the link must be
between healthy breathing and perfect cerebral development.
The physical and spiritual touch at this point—and current lan
guage hits this mark, in the phrase which designates a man of
remarkable character as “ a great spirit,” or “ a master spirit.”
As wise men, we ought not to be ashamed to learn from- the
primitive races such things as they are able to teach us,
especially when Catlin throws out the consoling remark, that
their advantage over us consists not in their being ahead of .us
but behind us, and “ consequently not so far departed from
“ Nature’s wise and provident regulations as to lose the benefit
“of them.” Yet, strange to say, the greatest philosopher that
Germany has produced—the celebrated and immortal Kant—
originated the self-same hint. He has left a record of it in his
paper on “ The Power of Resolution over Disease.”
In that paper he tells us that his chest was flat and narrow,
leaving but very little play to the heart and lungs.. This was a
structural evil, but he goes on to add, and we must give it in his
own words, for .it is most original, and must not be injured,
that:—
Some years ago I was at times afflicted with cold in my head, and a
cough, which became so much the more unpleasant, as they generally
made their appearance at night when I went to bed.
Having become impatient at being thus prevented from sleeping, I
resolved, in order if possible.to remedy the former disease, to draw
breath through my nose, with my lips closed. This I did at first with
some difficulty, but by perseverance the pipe became always clearer,
and I at last succeeded in performing this operation with perfect ease,
and immediately fell asleep.
It is certainly a very important dietetic prescriptiom to endeavour to
acquire a habit of drawing breath through the nose, so as to perform this
operation in the same manner, even in the most profound sleep. One
who has acquired this custom will awake immediately as soon as he
opens his mouth; at first a little frightened, as was the case with my
self, before I became properly habituated. When one is obliged to
walk fast, or to move uphill, a still greater degree of resolution is requi
site ; but in every case it would be better to moderate the exertion than
to make an exception fronj the rule. This principle may, in like
manner, be applied to every kind of severe exercise.
He adds that his young friends and pupils praised this maxim
as salutary. He then says :—
�186
Noses : What they Mean, and How to Use them.
It deserves notice, that, although, in. speaking for any length of time
the act of breathing would appear to be performed through the mouth,
which is so often opened; and, of course, this rule transgressed with
impunity; yet this is by no means the case. The operation is per
formed likewise through the nose; for, were the nose stuffed at the
time we should say of the orator, “he speaks through the nose;”
whereas, in reality, he does not: and, on the other hand, if the nose
is clear, we say, “ he does not speak through the nose,’’ while, in fact,
he does. A singular contradiction in terms, indeed, as Professor
Lichtenberg humorously, but very justly, observes.
He remarks that the unpleasant sensation of thirst, when no
other means are at hand, may be allayed by means of several
strong draughts of breath through the nose. In connexion
with this latter remark, though not in connexion with our
subject, it has been found that bathing the nose with water, or
even moistening it, will remove thirst. Captain Shaw found
that moistening the calves of the legs, removed thirst occasioned
by walking in hot weather. This would seem to show, that
thirst is more a nervous sensation than an appetite of the body.
Little doubt can be entertained that that is a right practice,
which is alike supported by the induction of a cultivated
philosopher, and the instinctive usage of a primitive race. If
we had only this to advance, it ought to convince every reflective
mind. But some few points still remain to be touched upon
before we have quite done. One is that on mentioning the curious
observation of Mr. Catlin to any one, and recommending its adop
tion, you will, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, meet with ;
“ Oh yes, no doubt it is a very good thing, and I always do keep
“ my mouth closed.” It is not according to the custom prevalent
in civilized society to set men right in any statement, still less,
of course, to prove that they are wrong; on the contrary, polite
ness demands that you appear to believe them until they turn
their back, and then you laugh at them for their absurdity.
Did we, or did we not, remark above that there is perversion in
laughter ? However we look at the teeth of this man who says
that he always keeps the mouth closed, and perceive that his
teeth are of a rusty colour, that some are black with metallic
plugging, that some have dropped out like the paling of a
sluggard’s garden ; the lower eyelids are drawn down, there is
a pleat at the side of the nose, and no indication of firmness in
the midline of the lips. You meet him in the East wind, and
he has a proverb that it blows in his teeth,—how could it if he
shut his mouth ? He runs fifty yards to catch the omnibus,
and you see the hot steam puffing out between the lips, and you
think that where that comes out the cold goes in. You have
�Teeth—Savage and Civilized.
187
tried him on circumstantial evidence, and you bring him in
open-mouthed. In the same way nobody will admit that he
snores. But it is an infallible rule that he whose mouth is open
during the day whilst he is conscious, cannot keep it closed
during the night when he is unconscious. Catlin gives faces
which can be seen nowhere but in so-called civilized com
munities. Civilized man he says is an open-mouthed animal,
and the American Indians call the white men “ pale faces ” and
“ black mouths/’ He asked an Ioway Indian how he liked the
white people. “Well,” he replied, “suppose, mouth shut,
pretty coot—mouth open, no coot—me no like um, not much
the rest of the party laughed, and said that all the Indians were
struck with the teeth of the white people, their derangement,
blackness, deformity, and the number which are lost, and they
philosophically added, that they believed them to be destroyed
by the number of lies that passed over them.
Observe that these so-called savages have no dentist, and use
no dentifrice, and no toothbrush, yet their teeth are perfect. The
teeth and the eyes are, as Catlin remarks, immersed in liquids
which nourish and protect them. By opening the mouth the
saliva is evaporated, and dryness of the mouth, is a necessary con
sequence. The mucous membrane, with its perpetually moistened
surface, cannot be subjected to the direct action of the caustic
air, without manifest injury to its function. No wood can resist
alternate drying and wetting, but decays at once, and so do the
teeth, though not so quickly, as possessing in themselves a re
parative power. Especially when you add to this unnatural
evaporation, an alternate current of hot and cold air passing
outwards and inwards twenty times in the course of a minute.
So that the dental art and science, beautiful as it may be con
sidered as an ingenious adaptation of means to an end, is not to
be regarded as an advantage which we enjoy over the savage,
for Nature renders him altogether independent of it, and
therefore superior to it.
The regularity of the teeth of an Indian child, is in a great
measure, the result of having the mouth constantly kept shut
by the care of the mother. The teeth, like all the other
members of the body, have an individual as well as a corporate
life dependent upon the vital principle, but independent of the
general organisation, and that to a much greater extent than
is commonly supposed, each tooth has a separate power of
growth which it exercises without limit until it meets with
opposition. When the mouth is closed, the under teeth press
gently against the upper, and the mutual antagonism keeps
them all of one length and height; but if an opposing tooth
�188
Noses : What they Mean, and How to Use them.
drops out, the remaining one immediately grows up into the
vacant space in an irregular and unguided fashion and becomes
a tusk frightful to look upon, still spending its strength in
riotous overgrowth, it drops out as its partner did before. To
attain regularity, the teeth ordinarily require merely to meet
and/eeZ each other constantly.
Mr. Catlin gives the position of an Indian’s head when he is
lying asleep, whether on the face or on the back; in both cases
the mouth is firmly closed. The arrangement of the pillow
must be such as to throw the head forward^ so that the chin is
supported by the bedclothes, which rest upon the breastbone;
the mouth cannot then drop in sleep. Especial care, however,
is to be taken that no part of the pillow gets under the shoulder,
which in our beds it invariably does, and thereby destroys the
whole use of a pillow. For then the shoulders are raised and
the head falls back, the neck is painfully stretched, and the
jaws must be drawn asunder.
There is a further observation on this point, which Mr. Catlin
has not recorded. . It is the attitude in which men of the
higher orders of society hold themselves in standing or walking,
and which is commonly supposed by these people fhcmsplycs,
and by dancing-masters universally, to constitute a “ com man d“ ing carriage.” It consists in being preternaturally erect, as
very stout men are, who are compelled to hollow the back like a
bow, in order that they may be able to hold up the. convexity
in front. With this excessive erectness, they throw the head
up, so that the chin stands out, and the eyes .look as if they
scorned the ground. This is a very common attitude with them
when standing. When they walk they still endeavour to retain
the air of command, and the consequence is that they cannot
walk fast, which is very undignified—“ all haste is vulgar”-—but
with a stately step must go upon their heels, and scarcely make
any use whatever of their toes. Indeed, the bootmaker has
generally taken care that they shall not. commit that, breach
of good manners. This is perfectly absurd, for the proper
position for walking renders a forward inclination necessary.
Captain Barclay, who walked 1000 miles in 1000 successive
hours, used to bend forward the body, and to throw the weight
on the knees; he took a short step and raised his feet only a
few inches from the ground. This is the proper attitude for
all quick walking; and leisurely walking only differs from it in
requiring a less angle of inclination.
Our objection to the “air of command” is confined to the
act of throwing back the head, and thereby stretching the fore
part of 'the neck too much. This stretching of the neck, slight
�“ Read: Mark : Learn : and Inwardly Digest.”
189
as it seems to be, is unnatural and unhealthy ; it causes rigidity,
it exposes the tightened skin too much to the action of the air;
it creates a tendency to bronchitis, causes the mouth to open,
and places the nostrils in an upward position, very unfavourable
to respiration, it also damages the parallel between the line of
the face and that of the spine, which ought always to be pre
served as much as possible, whether for the sake of health or
the Greek ideal of beauty. It may be judged trifling to discuss
matters apparently so minute and unimportant. We quite admit
that there is no grandeur about them, and that they do not in any
way recommend themselves to the poetical imagination. But
to breathe freely is no trifle, it is a matter of life and death, and
those who condescend to observe these trifles will be little
troubled with diseases of the throat or chest.
Some will reply, as we have said before, that it is rather late in
the 6000th year of the World to commence teaching us how to
use our noses. No doubt it is so. But the question is not whether
the lesson comes late or early, so much as whether the lesson is
needed now that it does come. Walk from Fulham to White
chapel, or from Brixton to the Swiss Cottage, and count amongst
the thousands how many keep the mouth closed, or hold the head
in a good position for respiration ; a day’s walk will not yield you
two hundred examples. The true reason why the lesson seems
to come late is, that in civilized life natural instincts are lost.
Artificial habits bring ill-health in their train, and then study
and slow reasoning upon the fragmentary experience of succes
sive generations, have to piece together in the form of systematic
rules that which the instinct of a savage would, without any
reflection whatever, have led him at once to practise. Does
anyone still doubt that the science of the time is utterly ignorant
of the use of the nose ? Look at the respirators; the printed
directions which accompany them enjoin upon the wearer the
necessity of learning to breathe through the mouth / and to persons
with delicate lungs they even recommend sleeping in them.
What plainer proof can be given that science needs to be
taught how to use the nose ? The nose is a natural respirator,
acts in fact, precisely in the same way in warming the air inhaled,
as the respirator does, only it directs it through the right chan
nel instead of through the wrong. But the nose can do more
than this by its delicate membranes, and by its peculiar nervous
developments; it can actually purify the air, as a filter purifies
water. Nowhere is the atmosphere pure enough to be breathed
without first passing through this natural strainer. A man at
the bottom of a well may breathe mephitic air for some time,
but if he open his mouth, or call for help, he is struck down at
FEBRUARY.---- VOL. VI.
O
�190
Noses: What they Mean, and How to Use them.
once. Many poisons, vegetable and mineral, may be inhaled
through the nose with perfect impunity, which kill if inhaled
at the mouth. When one man kills a rattlesnake, keeping his
mouth shut he experiences no ill effect, but if he talk to his
comrades or call to them, the effluvium causes a deadly sickness,
and sometimes even death.
Catlin tells a strange tale of a passage he made in 1857 in the
mail steamer from Monte Video to Pernambuco, having on board
eighty passengers, thirty of whom died of yellow fever. He
quietly scanned the faces of those he met at table and on deck,
and he noted six or seven more open-mouthed than the rest,
these he set down for lost in his own mind; in a day or more
their seats were vacated, and he afterwards recognised their
faces when they were brought on deck, before being committed
to their final resting-place, if rest be to be had in the deep sea
—that fittest sepulchre of all sepulchres, as being an emblem of
Eternity. He adds, as his firm conviction with regard to cholera,
that if all the open-mouthed would quit a city, the cholera
would commit no ravages amongst those who remained. This
might be true in more ways than one, for when all the openmouthed had departed many a large town would not muster a
hundred inhabitants !
One more anecdote, and we have done. When Catlin resided
in one of the Sioux villages, on the upper Missouri, a quarrel
arose between one of the Fur Company's men and a Sioux.
The Indian gave a challenge. The two were to fight in the
prairie, stripped to the skin and unattended, their own knives
were to be the weapons. Before the conflict took place, whilst
both parties, perfectly prepared, were seated on the ground,
Catlin and the factor succeeded in effecting a reconciliation,
and finally, “ a shaking of hands?’ Catlin, when alone with the
Indian, asked him if he had not felt afraid of his antagonist,
who was a more athletic and larger man. “Not a bit,” was the
prompt answer. “ I never fear harm from a man who can’t
“ shut his mouth, no matter how large or strong he may be.”
Catlin was struck with this, for he too had felt that if they had
fought the white man must have fallen. The closed mouth
means firmness as well as health; is a symbol of character as
well as of physique.
We have now tried to bring before the world the importance
of property using the nose, with what effect time only can
show ; we have also put together a few straggling hints upon
the interpretation of noses. It now remains that those who
may imagine that our remarks are irrelevant, or inconse
quent. should open their mouths vociferously in denunciation,
�Robertson’s Sermons.—Fourth Series.
191
and whilst they blacken us, blacken their own teeth also, for
thus they will be truly civilized, and the savages will acknow
ledge them for genuine “ black mouths.” But from such as agree
with us, we ask no praise, no waste of breath, for breath is
Divine ; we say to them as, thanks to Catlin and to Kant, we
say to all, “ Shut your mouth.”
IV.
ROBERTSON'S SERMONS.—FOURTH SERIES
*
E believe this volume will be found to contain, in average
V proportion, those various remarkable excellencies which
characterised the three preceding series of the lamented and,
now, so widely-beloved Frederick Robertson. Upon the publi
cation of the first series, the Eclectic spoke warmly of the merits
of these most individual and distinctive sermons ; and it is not
long since we attempted some analysis of those phases of the
preacher's thought, which we deem unhappy, and even dangerous.
In this notice, therefore, we need do little more than introduce
the volume to the notice of our readers. That power of genius,
which made Mr. Robertson so remarkable, and gives to his
sermons so lofty and foremost a place among the pulpit teach
ings of his time, pervades the volume. Delightful reading not
less than preaching, because, being a man of genius, so free
and tender, and truth-loving, his sermons are entirely exempt
from that mannerism which not only seems to be the property
of particular preachers, but of sermons in general. Had this
not been the case, they could not have had so amazing a share
of posthumous popularity. As specimens of preparation for the
pulpit, the sermons of Mr. Robertson are very instructive to
preachers. We understand none of them to have been pre
pared for the press, perhaps few prepared with any idea to
another eye than that, of the preacher. Some are recollections,
notes taken down by friends. The volume before us is more
fragmentary and incomplete than either of its predecessors, yet
it has all its author’s directness, earnest practicalness of aim,
and, for the most part, unmistakable transparency of meaning.
Now, we suspect, had Mr. Robertson prepared more elaborately,
with a nice eye to finish; had he brought his cultured and
t
Sermons, Preached at Trinity Chapel, Brighton.
Frederick W. Robertson, M.A. Fourth Series.
and Co.
By the Rev.
Smith, Elder
o2
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Noses : What they mean, and how to use them
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Warwick, Eden
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [s.l.]
Collation: p. 158-191 ; 21 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[s.n.]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[n.d.]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5693
Subject
The topic of the resource
Eugenics
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br />This work (Noses : What they mean, and how to use them), identified by <span><a href="www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Eugenics