-
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