h.o.m.o-culture.

by Martin Luther Holbrook.

PREFACE.

During all ages since man came to himself, there have been enlightened ones seeking to improve the race. The methods proposed have been various, and in accordance with the knowledge and development of the time in which they have appeared. Some have believed that education and environment were all-sufficient; others that abstinence from intoxicating drinks would suffice. A very considerable number have held the idea that by prenatal culture alone the mother can mould her unborn child into any desired form. The disciples of Darwin, many of them, have held that natural and s.e.xual selection have been the chief factors employed by nature to bring about race improvement.

No doubt all these factors have been more or less effectual, but the time has come for man to take special interest in his own evolution, to study and apply, so far as possible, all the factors that will in any way promote race improvement. In the past this has not been done. We are not yet able to do it perfectly, our knowledge is too deficient, lack of interest is too universal, but we can make a beginning; greater thoughtfulness may be given to suitable marriages; improved environment may be secured; better hygienic conditions taken advantage of; food may be improved; the knowledge we have gained in improving animals and plants, so far as applicable, may aid us; air, exercise, water, employment, social conditions, wealth and poverty, prenatal conditions, all have an influence on offspring, and man should be able, to some extent, to make them all tell to the advantage of future generations.

Whatever the conditions of existence, man is able by his intellect to modify and improve them, and make them favorably serve unborn children.

Herbert Spencer says: "On observing what energies are expended by father and mother to attain worldly successes and fulfil social ambition, we are reminded how relatively small is the s.p.a.ce occupied by their ambition to make their descendants physically, morally and intellectually superior. Yet this is the ambition which will replace those they now so eagerly pursue, and which, instead of perpetual disappointments, will bring permanent satisfactions."

If the chapters included in this volume should help to arouse in the minds of readers, and especially the younger portion of them, some healthy feelings relating to the improvement of offspring it will have fulfilled its aim.

Two of them have been given as lectures before societies, the main object of which was the discussion of subjects bearing on evolution and human progress, and they are included in this volume because they have a close relation to the main subject, but the others were written especially for this work.

While there may appear in a few cases a slight amount of repet.i.tion, the author trusts the reader will not consider it as unpardonable.

With these few words I send the work on its mission hoping it will bear good fruit.

M. L. H.

STIRPICULTURE.

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

Stirpiculture in this extended sense was not unknown to the ancients, both in theory and in practice. As to the former, the most noted example is that of Plato, who, in his "Republic," proposed certain arrangements as to marriage and the bringing up of children which he thought would improve the race, and hence be beneficial to the State. The State was to Plato all in all, and he considered that it should form one great family. This idea could not be carried into effect, however, so long as independent families existed, and therefore those arrangements had for one of their chief aims the abolition of what we regard as family life.

This Plato thought was the best for the State, and the advantage which was supposed to accrue to it by the absence of separate families is expressed in a marginal note, which says: "There will be no private interests among them, and therefore no lawsuits or trials for a.s.sault or violence to elders."

PLATO'S RESTRICTIONS ON PARENTAGE.--The end would hardly seem to justify the means, in these days, at least, when violence to elders is an uncommon incident; but how was the community of wives and children by which it was sought to be attained to be brought about? It is said, "The best of either s.e.x should be united with the best as often, and the inferior with the inferior as seldom, as possible." Thus the people were to be cla.s.sified into "best" and "inferior," and while the former were to be brought together as often as possible, the latter were not to be united at all if it could be avoided. There was no question of marriage in either case. In the one, the union was for the purpose of obtaining children, and in the other for the simple gratification of the pa.s.sions; for only the offspring of the union between the s.e.xes in the "best"

cla.s.s were to be reared. The children of the inferior cla.s.s were not to be reared, "if the flock is to be maintained in first-cla.s.s condition."

This infanticide would matter little to the parents, as they had no control over their coming together, nor concern with the rearing of their offspring. Lots were to be drawn by the "less worthy" on each occasion of their being brought together. This was that they might accuse their ill-luck and not the rulers, in case their partners were not to their liking. The State was to provide not only what men and women were to be s.e.xually united, but the ages within which this was to be permitted for the purpose of obtaining offspring. For a woman, the beginning of childbearing for the State was fixed at twenty years of age, and it was to continue until forty. For men, the period of procreation is said to be between twenty-five and fifty-five years of age. After the specified ages men and women were to be allowed to "range at will," except within certain prescribed degrees, but on the understanding that no children born to such unions were to be reared. It is evident that under such a system the actual relationship between the members of the State family could be known only to its rulers; but to provide against the union of persons too nearly related by blood, all those who were "begotten at the time their fathers and mothers came together" were regarded as brothers and sisters. But even brothers and sisters might be united "if the lot favors them, and they receive the sanction of the Pythian oracle." Thus far for the breeding of children laid down in Plato's "Republic." As to the rearing of them, we need only say that the children allowed to live were to be placed in the custody of guardians, to be appointed by the State from among the most worthy of either s.e.x, who were to bring them up in accordance with the principles of virtue.

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

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

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

PLUTARCH ON THE TRAINING OF CHILDREN.--In his "Morals," Plutarch gives a dissertation on the training of children, the first portion of which deals with stirpiculture in the limited sense of the term, but is very inadequate. Indeed, the only advice he gives is that a man should not keep company with harlots or concubines, because children by them are "blemished in their birth" by their base extraction; and that no man should "keep company with his wife for issue's sake but when he is sober," lest he beget a drunkard. The main portion of Plutarch's treatise is concerned with the education of children, which is the second part of stirpiculture as a system of complete cultivation.

Introductory to the subject of education he speaks of nursing, to which he attaches much importance. Plutarch insists on the necessity of mothers nursing their own children; nature, by providing them with two b.r.e.a.s.t.s, showing them that they can nurse even twins. But if they cannot, they are to choose the best nurses they can get, and such as are bred after the Greek fashion. For, "as it is needful that the members of children should be shaped aright as soon as they are born, that they may not afterwards prove crooked and distorted, so it is no less expedient that their manners be well fashioned from the very beginning; for childhood is a tender thing, and easily wrought into any shape."

After referring to the importance of the choice of good companions for a child, Plutarch proceeds to consider the question of education, which he speaks of as the matter of most concern. As to education in general, he points out that a concurrence of three things is necessary to the "completing of virtue in practice," which is the aim of that process, that is: Nature, reason or learning, and use or exercise; For, "if nature be not improved by instruction, it is blind; if instruction be not a.s.sisted by nature, it is maimed; and if exercise fail of the a.s.sistance of both, it is imperfect as to the attainment of its end."

There cannot be "instruction"--a term which is here used as equivalent to "education," although the latter has a wider signification than the former, and being equivalent to mental cultivation,--without a teacher, and Plutarch says well, "we are to look after such masters for our children as are blameless in their lives, not justly reprovable for their manners, and of the best experience in teaching. For the very spring and root of honesty and virtue lies in the felicity of lighting on good education." He is, indeed, so much impressed with its value that he affirms: "The one chief thing in this matter--which compriseth the beginning, middle and end of all--is good education and regular instruction." These two "afford great help and a.s.sistance towards the attainment of virtue and felicity." He adds: "Learning alone, of all things in our possession, is immortal and divine."

Plutarch dwells on various other matters connected with education better fitted for his times than ours, but he refers to the importance of example in words that are deserving of careful consideration. He says: "The chiefest thing that fathers are to look to is, that they themselves become effectual examples to their children, by doing all those things which belong to them, and avoiding all vicious practices, that in their lives, as in a gla.s.s, their children may see enough to give them an aversion to all ill words and actions. For those that chide children for such faults as they themselves fall into unconsciously accuse themselves, under their children's names. And if they are altogether vicious in their own lives, they lose the right of reprehending their very servants, and much more do they forfeit it to their sons... . . Wherefore we are to apply our minds to all such practices as may conduce to the good breeding of our children."

It is not improbable that the marriage regulations ascribed to Lycurgus were based on inst.i.tutions already in existence among the Spartans. From the statement of Polybius, that the brothers of a house often had one wife between them, it has been inferred that in Sparta the Tibetan form of polyandry was practiced. According to Plutarch, another curious marriage custom prevailed, showing that the Spartans, who differed in various respects from other Greeks, had retained primitive habits.

Thus, the bridegroom carried off the bride by violence, and for some time after this "marriage by capture" he visited her "with great caution and apprehension" of being discovered by the rest of the family; the bride at the same time exerted all her art to contrive convenient opportunities for their private meetings. And this they did, not for a short time only, but some of them even had children before they had an interview with their wives in the daytime! This custom had much in common with the _sadica_ marriages of the early Arabs, who, as we are told by Professor Robertson Smith, allowed a woman, while she remained with her own tribe, to receive the clandestine visits of a lover. Her offspring were recognized as legitimate and became members of the tribe.

The incident of "capture" could not occur, as it was a general custom in ancient Arabia for a husband to live among his wife's kinsfolk.

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

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

MAKING CHILDREN THE PROPERTY OF THE STATE.--The principles which were embodied in the scheme proposed by Plato, in his "Republic," to bring about an improvement in the race are mainly two: First, restriction on the formation of procreative unions; second, infanticide. The breaking up of private or separate families necessarily resulted from the operation of his "marriage" regulations, and was intended to emphasize the idea which Plato, like Lycurgus, insisted on, that the children belonged to the State. Lycurgus sought to enforce the same idea by allowing wives to have intercourse with other men than their husbands, thus making children "common" in some sense, while retaining the separate family intact. Thus he introduced, or rather it should be said, established a modified form of polyandrous marriage; Plato's system, on the other hand, being one of mere pairing, as in the breeding of animals. In either case the union of very near relations was not permitted, that is, between brother and sister, or parent and child. Yet Lycurgus allowed marriage between a half-brother and sister by the same mother. Curiously enough, this was forbidden by the Athenian law, which permitted a brother and sister by the same father only to intermarry.

The Greek rule, as laid down in Smith's "Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities," was that "proximity of blood or consanguinity was not, with some few exceptions, a bar to marriage," although direct lineal descent was so. Moreover, there was no attempt to enforce consanguineous marriages, so as to ensure purity of blood, such as was customary among the Incas of Peru, the laws of which required that the oldest son and daughter of the sovereign should intermarry because the Incas were descended from the Sun, and the Sun had married his sister the Moon, and had united in marriage his two first children! A more practical reason was found in the rule that the kingdom should be inherited through both parents. Hence it was not permitted to mix the blood of the Sun, or rather of those who claimed solar descent, with that of men.

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

It must be affirmed, however, that the whole subject of the improvement of the race was dealt with by Plato, and, indeed, by the ancients generally, in a very crude and superficial manner. This has been well pointed out by Professor B. Jowett in the Introduction to his translation of Plato's "Republic." Professor Jowett objects generally that the great error in the speculations of Plato and others on the improvement of the race is, "that the difference between men and the animals is forgotten in them." The human being is regarded with the eye of a dog or bird fancier, or at best of a slave owner; the higher or human qualities are left out. The breeder of animals aims chiefly at size or speed or strength; in a few cases, at courage and temper; most often the fitness of the animal for food is the greatest desideratum.

But mankind are not bred to be eaten, nor yet for their superiority in fighting or in running or in drawing carts. Nor does the improvement of the human race consist merely in the increase of the bones and flesh, but in the growth and enlightenment of the mind. Hence there must be a marriage of true minds as well as of bodies; of imagination and reason as well as of l.u.s.ts and instincts. Men and women without feeling or imagination are justly called brutes; yet Plato takes away these qualities and puts nothing in their place, not even the desire of a n.o.ble offspring, since parents are not to know their own children. The most important transaction of social life he who is the idealist philosopher converts into the most brutal. For the pair are to have no relation to each other but at the hymeneal festival; their children are not theirs, but the State's; nor is any tie of affection to unite them.

Yet the a.n.a.logy of the animals might have saved Plato from a gigantic error if he had not lost sight of his own ill.u.s.tration! For the "n.o.bler sort of birds and beasts" nourish and protect their offspring and are faithful to one another! It is certainly surprising, as Jowett says, that the greatest of ancient philosophers should, in his marriage regulations, have fallen into the error of separating body and mind. He did so probably through a false notion of the antagonism between the family and the State, and hence, as Lycurgus did not aim at destroying family life he escaped that error.

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

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

s.e.xUAL SELECTION.--Professor Romanes, after referring to those facts, which are considered in detail by his great predecessor, states the theory of s.e.xual selection as follows: "There can be no question that the courtship of birds is a highly elaborate business, in which the males do their best to surpa.s.s one another in charming the females.

Obviously the inference is that the males do not take all this trouble for nothing; but that the females give their consent to pair with the males whose personal appearance, or whose voice, proves to be the most attractive. But, if so, the young of the male bird who is thus _selected_ will inherit his superior beauty; and thus, in successive generations, a continuous advance will be made in the beauty of plumage or of song, as the case may be,--both the origin and development of beauty in the animal world being thus supposed due to the esthetic taste of the animals themselves."

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

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

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

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

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

With reference to selection by the women, Darwin shows that among savages they have much more to say in their marriages than is usually supposed. He remarks: "They can tempt the men they prefer, and can sometimes reject those whom they dislike, either before or after their marriage. Preference on the part of the women, steadily acting in any one direction, would ultimately affect the character of the tribe, for the women would generally choose, not merely the handsomest men, according to their standard of taste, but those who were at the same time best able to defend and support them. Such well-endowed pairs would commonly rear a larger number of offspring than the less favored."