Ancient Eugenics

HUMPHREY

MILFORD

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS,

AMEN

CORNER, E.C,

ANCIENT

EUGENICS

THE

ARNOLD

PRIZE

ESSAY

FOR

1913

BY

ALLEN

G.

_ROPER,

B.A,

LATESCHOLAR OF KEBLK COLLEGE

rods ticy6vovs.

\*

B.

H.

BLACKWELL, BROAD STREET

ANCIENT

EUGENICS

THE

_{preface to} a _{history of Eugenics}

_may

be

com-piled

from

barbarism, for the first Eugenist

was

not the _{Spartan legislator,} but _{the primitive savage}

who

_{killed his sickly child.}

The

cosmic _process

was

checked

and

_superseded

_by

another as ruthless as

Nature's

own

method

of elimination.

The

lower

the

_community,

the

more

_rapidly it _reproduces

itself.

There

is

an

_{extravagant production} of

raw

material,

and

the

_way

of Nature, " red intooth

and

claw/' is _{the ruthless rejection} of all that is

super-fluous.

When

thereis

no

differential birth-rate, the

result _{of foresight}

and

self-control,

and

the

attain-ment

of_{a higher}level of civilization,

Nature

_adjusts

the balance

_{by means}

of a differential death-rate.

In the _days

when

human

or animal foe threatened

on

_every side,

when

" force

and

fraud

were

the

two

cardinal virtues,"

and

thelifeof

man

was

"solitary,

poor, nasty, brutish,

and

short," natural selection

must

have been

ruthless

and

severe.

Some

concep-tion of the wasteful _processes of

Nature

dawned

upon

the_{savage mind.}

While

_theylivedtheirshort

lives, the weakly, thedeformed,

and

_{the superfluous}

were

a

burden

to the tribe.

Human

law, super-seding natural law, strove to eliminate

them

at

Ancient Eugenics

birth. This

was

the atavisticbasis

on

which

subse-quent Eugenics

was

built.

InGreece, thetheory

underwent

alogical

develop-ment.

Even

in a later _age of

_dawning

civilization,

war

confronted

men

with this

same

_problem

of the

ruthless extermination of the unfit. It

was

recog-nized that the occurrence of the non-viable child

was

inevitable,

but

remedial legislation, reaching a

step further back, essayed

by

anticipation to reduce

this waste of life to a

minimum.

It

was

realized

that to increase the _productivity of the best stock

is a

more

_important

measure than

_{to repress the}

productivity of the worst.

Out

of the Negative

aspect ofEugenics develops the Positive.

With

the

advance

of civilization, conditions

be-come

_increasingly stable:

War

is still imminent,

but, instead of being

an

essential element of

exist-ence, it is _regarded as _{a necessary} evil. _Nature,

forging additional

weapons,

hastens the elimination

of the unfit

_by

disease.

Some

form

of _Eugenics is

still _necessary,

but

in the altered conditions a

new

ideal is born.

The

_conception of a race of warriors

merges

into the ideal of astate of _healthy citizens.

All these formulations of _Eugenics are aristocratic

and

_{parochial; they} are to benefit _{the people} of a

single state,

and

only a section within that state.

Any

wider _conception of racial _regeneration

was

impossible to a people

who

dichotomized the state

into free citizens

and

_{living instruments,} the world into Greeks

and

barbarians.

cosmo-Ancient

_Eugenics

politanism which, instead of _widening the ideal of

humanity,

centred itself

on

the interests ofthe

indi-vidual.

Modern

_Eugenics is based

on

Evolution

not a _passive form,

but one

that concedes

some

latitude to the _guiding action of the

human

will.1

Without

some

such _{postulate, egotism}

becomes

a

rational creed

amid

the social welter

and

world-weariness ofa_deliquescent civilization.

Man

is cut

off _sharply

and

_definitely

from

all that

went

before

and

all that follows.

_Only

the isolated _egoremains, "

a sort of

_{complementary}

Nirvana,"

and

the

philo-sophy

of " Ichsucht," of self-centred _{individualism,}

ends in

Hedonism

or ascetic alienation

from an

inexplicable universe.

No

scheme

of social reform

can

bear fruit insuch

_{an atmosphere}

_{of philosophic}

negation. Like Plato's philosopher,

man

shelters

from

the _tempest

behind

the wall.

Three

_conceptions of the cosmic _{process are}

pos-sible.

We

_may

maintainthat thereis

no such

thing

as progress, that life is a

mere

_{pointless reiteration}

of _age after _age till there

comes

the _predestined

cataclysm;

we

may

believe in a primeval age of

innocence

and

happiness, a golden age, or astateof

nature diablementideal; finally,

we

may

trust in the

gradual evolution of

mankind

towards a terrestrial

Paradise,

hoping

that

"

on

our heels a fresh perfec-tion treads, a

_power

more

_strong in _beauty,

born

of us,

and

fated to excelusas

we

passinglory that old darkness/'

This conception of

man

as heir of all the _ages,

1

Galton, " Essaysin _Eugenics,"p. 68. 3

Ancient Eugenics

though

vaguely anticipated

by

Anaximander,

was

impossible to

an

age

which

knew

nothingof biology.

No

_system

of _Eugenics is

likely to flourish side

by

sidewith thebelief in

an

_{unprogressive}or_degenerate

humanity,

steadily

and

inevitably declining

from

primordial perfection.

So

long as the city state

survived, patriotism prevailed over pessimism,

and

ideals_{of regeneration}

were

more

than

theidle

dreams

of the _philosopher.

But

the

_{growing prominence}

assigned to the theoretic life

shows

the _gradual

growth

of despair. After Aristotle, Eugenics takes

its _place

_among

the _forgotten ideals of the

past.

But

a

_thought

or _{a theory}

which

has once

quick-ened

into life

becomes

immortal. It

_may

_change

its _form,

but

it never _perishes.

_Throughout

time

it is _ceaselessly

_renewing

its existence.

While

in-fanticide is

_everywhere

_{disappearing, there}

remain

still _{the principles}

simultaneously developed.

Three

centuries_{ago Eugenics}

was

the

_Utopian

dream

of

an

imprisoned

monk.

A

century later Steele,

more

in

jest

than

in earnest, suggested that

one might wear

any

passion out of a family

by

culture, as skilful

gardeners blot a colour out of a _tulip that hurts its beauty.1

But

neither science nor _{public opinion}

was

_ready to _respond. It

was

not till late in the nineteenth century that the crude

human

_breeding

of the Spartans, in altered

form

and

in

new

condi-tions,

became

the_{scientific stirpiculture of} Galton.

1

Tatter,vol.ii.,No.175, 1709;quoted byHavelockEllis, "

Social_Hygiene."

Ancient

_Eugenics

To

read thesmall minuscule of _{Ancient Eugenics,} it is

expedient first to scan the uncials of

modern

theory.

Beneath

the

new

form

engendered

by

altered conditions, with the unessential

and

acci-dental _passing

_away

into other _{combinations,} there remains

an

essential _{identity of} form. _History

can

only be

an attempted

interpretation of earlier ages

by

the

modes

of

_thought

current in our

own.

The

foreground of

human

life

we

can

seewith exactness, but the _past is foreshortened

_by

the

_atmosphere

of time.

Under

the

modern

conditions of civilization,

elimination

_by

international or individual violence

is_{steadilydecreasing.}

Nature

has

found an

_equally

effective

_weapon

in the _process of urbanization. Disease spreads rapidly

amid

conditions inimical in

the _{highest degree} to _{healthy living.}

But

while

infanticide forms the basis

on

which

the ancient

system

was

built, the abolition of _{that practice} has

been

the _{starting-point} for the

New

_Eugenics. It

has confronted us with problems

unknown

to a pre-Christian _age.

The

Ancients

_attempted

to

combat

the wasteful

processes of

Nature

by

eliminating the non-viable

at _birth; our efforts,

on

the contrary,

have been

directed to the _prolongationof their lives. Instead

of _sacrificing the unfit in the interests of the fit,

we

have employed

every resource of

modern

science "

to

_keep

_alight the feeble flame oflife in the

base-born

childofa_{degenerateparent/'}* 1

Tredgold, "

Eugenicsand FutureProgress ofMan."

Ancient Eugenics

The

_weapons

_forged

_by

Nature have been

taken

from

her hands. Side

_by

side with_{the rapid} multi-plicationoftheunfittherehas

been

a

marked

decline

in the birth-rate of the useful classes of the

com-munity.

The

relatively strongest survive,

but

their

strength has suffered

from

the influences

which

brought

extinction to the weaker. This is

one

of the _{problems caused}

_by

a

humaner

sentiment.

In the second _place, the abolition of infanticide

has confronted us with _{the necessity} of _knowledge.

The

methods

ofthe breederare ruthless

and

_precise.

He

slaughters orhespares,

and

divergentvariations

are a matter of

no

moment.

So

_{the Spartans}

and

Plato, with this _analogy before them,

were

saved

from

_{the necessity} of

_any

_deeper

_knowledge

_by

the

preventive check of infanticide. If

Nature

erred in her intentions, this art

was

at

hand

to _rectify her

mistakes. Infanticide saved the Greeks

from

the

problems of heredity.

For

all _{practical purposes} our

_knowledge

is as

infinitesimal as in the

_days

of Plato.

The

methods

of _biometry

and

statistics, the actuarial side of

heredity, deal merely with the characteristics of

groups. Mendelism, dealing with the individual,

finds verification in

man

_only in the case of

feeble-mindedness

and

in the inheritance of certain

de-formities.

_Any

constructive

scheme

of _Eugenics is

impossible

under

the limitations of our knowledge.

Apart from

the question of heredity, there is the

problem

of selection.

_Though

_physique is _easily

estimated,

and

correlated, perhaps, as Galton held,

Ancient Eugenics

with other

_good

_qualities, the

modern

_{Eugenist has}

before

him

no

_simple

_homogeneous

ideal.

He

has

to recognize the psychical as well as the physical

aspect of theintricate mosaicof

human

personality.

The

self-sacrificers

and

the self-tormentors claim

their _place

no

less

than

a

Marcus

Aurelius or

an

Adam

Bede.1

_Even

though

we

hold it _{possible to} compile a list _{of qualities for selection universally}

acceptable,

we

cannot,

under

_{the present limitations}

of our _{knowledge, prove personal} value to be

synonymous

with reproductive value.

No

scheme

of

economic

_{Eugenics, inferring} the _aptitudes of

individuals

from

social _{position orincome, can} solve

the hopeless perplexities that wait

_upon

construc-tive methods. _Passing

from

the _municipality to

the world, Eugenics is confronted

_by

the _conflicting

ideals _{not only} of alternative characters,

but

also of incompatible civilizations. Since differentiation is

an

_{indispensable} factor in

human

_progress, there

arises the further

_problem

of a

_Eugenic

_ethnology.

This, then, is the

_shape

modern

_{theory has}

as-sumed

in

answer

to the

demands

of

modern

civiliza-tion. Lost in _{Egotism, Eugenics}

found

_opposition

no

less formidable in a _spirit of

_imprudent

altruism.

Only

the scientific altruism of _{to-day has rendered}

it once

more

_practicable.

From

its _originin the unreflective intuitionofthe

atavistic _past

we

will trace the

_growth

ofthe _theory

till it _passedinto _{the pages} of Aristotle,

and

became

1

Galton, "Essaysin _{Eugenics,"p. 36.}

Ancient Eugenics

lost to

view

amid

the throes of a _pessimistic

and

decadent _age.

Infanticide

and

_{Exposure, terms}

which

in _early

ages

were

virtually

synonymous,

appear

on

first

consideration to

have been

practised

among

un-civilized tribes for a _{bewildering multiplicity} of

reasons.1

_There

is the female infanticide of

China

and

the Isles of the

Southern

Pacific, the

male

infanticide of the

_Abipones

of _Paraguay,

and

the

indiscriminate massacre of _{the Gagas,}

who,

killing

every child alike, steal

from

_{a neighbouring} tribe.

There

are the Indians

who

offer

_up

children to

Moloch

or

drown them

in the

_Ganges;

the

Cartha-ginians sacrifice

them

to Kronos, the

Mexicans

to

the rain _god.

There

is the

murder

of twins

and

albinosinArebo,

and

the cannibalism of the

Abori-gines. In Mingrelia, "

when

_they

have

not the wherewithal to

maintain

_{them, they hold} it a _piece

of charity to

murder

infants

new

born."

There

are

the Biluchi,

who

kill all their natural children,

and

there is the

modern

factor of

shame.

Co-existing with all these various _{practices there}

is the _definitely

_Eugenic

motive.

_Among

the

Aborigines, all

deformed

children are killed as

soon

as born.

The

_savages of

Guiana

kill

_any

child that

is "

deformed, feeble, or bothersome."

The

Fans

kill all _{sickly children.} In Central

America

"it is suspected that infant

murder

is _{responsible for} the

rarity of the deformed." In

Tonquin

we

hear ofa

1

McLennan, " Studies in Ancient _{History," chap.} viL,

passim.

Ancient

_Eugenics

law which

forbids the _exposing or _strangling of

children, be _they ever so deformed. In _Japan,

deformed

children

were

killed or reared _according

to the father's _pleasure.

_Among

the Prussians the aged

and

infirm, the sick

and

deformed,

were

un-hesitatingly

put

to death.

The

_question arises, therefore,

whether

the

Eu-genic

motive

first led to the institution of

infanti-cide, or

whether

it

was

_{merely a by-product, a}later

growth, springing out of a practice

which

owed

its

inception to totally different causes. Setting aside

infanticide

when

_prompted

_by

mere

_brutality or

cannibalistic _cravings,

and

_excluding the

modern

factor of shame,

which was

_{unknown among}

primi-tive _peoples, the motives

_may

be classified as

irrational orrational.

Irrational motives are the _religious or

super-stitious, rational the _Eugenic.

Between

these

two

there isawideline ofdemarcation.

The

_{origin of religious infanticide} is obscure. It

may

be merely evidence offiendish _passion.

There

may

be in it

_something

of a sacramental meal, or

possibly the primal idea in its

_many

variations is

the _gain of

some

benefit

_by

the sacrifice of

some-thing of value. In

any

case,

whatever

the basic

intention, the _religious motive in infanticide has

no

relation to the _Eugenic.

Such

_{melancholy theology}

implies

some

degree of social organization,

and

was,

therefore, a later

and

_{independent conception.}

Only

some

powerful

and

long-continued pressure could

_{have brought about}

the reversalofsentiments

Ancient Eugenics

which

must

have been

innate in _primitive

man

as

much

as in other animals.

The

_{impelling sources}

were

two

want

and

war, or

both

incombination

not

want

in the

form

of famine, which,

_working

its

own

cure, not infrequently leaves

an

increased

prosperity

behind

it, nor

war

asbrief

and

desolating

in its effects as warfare _{of to-day,}

but

rather that long-enduring warfare pressing

on

generation after

generation,

which

is the State of _Hostility. This

was

the

normal

_{state of early}

man,

a condition of

affairs _inseparable

from

_independent life in small

communities.

_Jacob

and Esau

_go

their _separate

ways,

form

different habits

and

different _languages.

Estrangement

follows inevitably.

Even

before

man

became

his

own

worst

_enemy,

brute creation

must

have

furnished formidable foes to the

naked

and

defenceless savage.

There

must

have been pending

want

at this _{early stage of} life.

Under

_{pressure of}want, the

_group

must

_adjusttheir

numbers

to the available food;

under

pressure of war, the

same

_problem

rises in still

more

_urgent

form.

From

these circumstances arises _{the practice}

of infanticide. It is _{circumstance, says Plato,}

and

not

man, which

makes

the laws.1

The

nomadic

group, passing

from

district to

dis-trict in search of food,

would

find the children a

burden.

The

first infanticides, casual rather

than

premeditated,

were

in the nature of a desertion.

This _preparing the

_way

for

an

extension of the

practice

would

lead to its _adoption in the _attempt

1

"Laws," 709.

Ancient Eugenics

to adjust

numbers

to the available food-supply. In

the

same

_way

non-combatants would

_{be regarded} in the nature of _impedimenta, since _they

consumed

food without _{benefiting thegroup} in return.

The

first _system of infanticide is, therefore, a

policy of despair.

The

firstvictims

would

_probably

be the _deformed, the

maimed, and

the weaklings,

and

female infanticide

would

follow.

The

_problem

of the maintenance of the race _arising

would

lead to

male

infanticide

whenever

there

was

a _{deficiency of}

women

;hence the custom, sofar

from

beingmerely

callous

and

brutal,

and an argument

for

man's

in-ferioritytothebeast, is a_proofof_{the highest}

intelli-gence.

These_{barbaric Eugenics,} therefore, eliminating at

birth those

foredoomed

to _perish in _{the struggle}

for existence, were concerned with _questions both of _quantity

and

_quality. Limitation of numbers,

though

it does not itselfconstitute " _aggeneration "

of the race, _improves to a considerable _degree the

individuals of

which

the race is constituted.

When

the undesired children are out of the _way,

more

attention _{can be paid} to the desired.

The

_savage

bred _{recklessly, compensating} his recklessness

_by

infanticide, but a natural

law

of civilization has superseded the artificial

law

of _primitive

man.

Control of _{reproduction,}

and

_resulting

from

it

a

falling birth-rate

and

a diminished death-rate, is a tendency which, first

_showing

itself in _Imperial

Rome,

is _{conspicuous to-day} in _every civilized

community.

Ancient Eugenics

Infanticide, sanctioned

by

longusage, passed into the

law

of civilized nations. It _appearsinthe legis-lationof Solon,1

though

thegrounds forits_adoption

are uncertain, while at

Rome

it

was

ordained

_by

the

Twelve

Tables for a _definitely

_Eugenic

motive.

A

child_{conspicuously}

deformed

was

to_{be immediately}

destroyed.2

But

this limitation

was

frustrated

by

the control conceded to the father, which, restricted

in Greece

_by

all _legislators alike,

was

as arbitrary

in

Rome

as in Gaul.8

So

at

Rome

the

_Eugenic

motive fades into the

background,

and

abuses

become

so frequent that

they

have

to be checked

by

further _legislation.

Romulus

is said to

have

forbidden the

murder

of

sons

and

first-born _daughters,4

and

the "

Lex

Gen-tilicia "

of theFabii,

who

were

in_danger of

extinc-tion, decreed that _every child

born

must

be reared.

Under

the

_Empire

we

find Seneca _asserting once

more

the

_Eugenic

_{justification of infanticide.} "

We

drown

the _weakling

and

_{the monstrosity.} It is not

passion, butreason, to separate the useless

from

the

fit."5

Two

distinct tendencies _appear, control of

1

According to Sext. Empiricus (Pyrrhon.,

"

Hypot.,"

iii. _24^, Solon conceded to the father the _power of killing

his children. Taken in conjunction withthe limitation of

the _{patriapotestas,} this_{appearsimprobable. According}to

Plutarch (Solon, xxii.), he sanctioned the exposure of

naturalchildren. 2 " Insignis ad deformitatem " (Cic., "

De

Leg.," iii. _8). 3 Cces., "

De

Bell. Gall.,"vi. 19.

4

Dionysius, ii. 28. 5 "

De

Ira," i. 18.

Ancient Eugenics

reproduction diminishing infanticide

among

the

upper classes, _{exposure taking} its _place

_among

the Jower.

The

_gloomy

satiristsof the _{Early Empire,} instead

of_{inveighing against the practice of exposure,}abused the _foresight

which

_superseded it, and, so far

from

recognizing the tendency as

one

demanded

in the

altruistic interests of the race,

saw

in it _merely

egotistic subservience to the

"

captatores."

The

TToAuTratSta?

a6\a

of Gaius _{Julius or the jus} trium

liberorum of

_Augustus

were futile _attempts to

combat an

essential

law

of civilization.

The

lower classes,

on

_{the contrary, propagating} recklessly

amid

extreme

pauperism

for_rapid

multi-plication is the concomitant of

bad

environment

resorted to _exposure,

which

is the antithesis of

Eugenic infanticide. _Quintilian, indeed, declared that the _{exposed rarely} survived,1 but the

possi-bilities of _gain

must have

led to _frequent

pre-servation " vel

ad

_lupanar vel

ad

servitutem."2 Occasionally the luckless childfallsintothe

hands

of unscrupulous mendicants,

who

maim

it

and

exhibit it _{for gain.}3

The

existence of a

numerous

class of

SpeTTToi,

was

a

problem

with

which

Pliny

had

to

deal.

So the Christian Councils

and

the Christian

Em-perors set themselves

vehemently

to _oppose the

practice, but, using palliation instead ofprevention,

1 "

Dec.," cccvi. 6. 2

Lact., "

De

Vero Cultu.,"lib. vi.

3

Seneca, "Controv.," v. 33.

Eugenics

relieved the world of

_{one problem and}

left another

in its _{place. Despite thelegislation of Constantine,}

Valentinian,

and

Justinian, exposurestill continued.

Marble vesselsat the

door

of the churches

_produced

theevil_turningslide,

and

graduallythere

came

into being hospitals, asylums, refuges, creches, receiving

and

_tending the blind, the deaf, the

dumb,

the

crippled,

and

defective,

and

with

much

good

has

also

come

much

evil.

Out

of the failure of the

Christian Fathers to find the _right solution to a

difficult

_problem

has arisen the _imperative

need

for

thescientific altruism of _Eugenics.

Beyond

infanticide, which, despite its

_many

per-versions,

was

in _{part Eugenic,} the

Romans made

no

consciouseffort to builda

scheme

of racial

regen-eration.

Whatever

the _appeal of " _patient

Lace-daemon

" to the sentimental _vulgarity of the

Romans,

they learnt

no

lesson

from

their

admira-tion,

_though

the _biographer of

_Lycurgus

lectured to Domitian. In the crude

scheme

of the

Germans

Tacitus finds

_{no Eugenic}

moral.

Restrictive marriage, perhaps,

would

have been

a

perilous lesson toteachtotheCaesars, in

whom,

from

Julius the epileptic to

Nero

the

madman,

psycholo-gists find clearproofofhereditary insanity. Pliny's boastthatfor600_years

Rome

had

known

no

doctors

shows

that there

was

little interest

_among

the

Romans

in

schemes

of _hygiene or social reform.

The

Greeks themselves

had

_{long ago forgotten the}

teachingof Plato

and

Aristotle.

Eugenics

was

lost in

Stoicism,

and

Stoicism

was

the creed of the

_Empire.

Ancient Eugenics

"

This age is worse

than

the _{previous age,}

and

our father will _{beget worse offspring} still."

And

Aratus voices _again the

lament

of Horace: "

What

an

_age the _golden sires

have

left behind them,

and

your

children will be worse

even than

_you

I"1

_The

Golden

_Age

of

Rome

_lay for ever inthe _past.

InGreece, thetheory

underwent

alogical

develop-ment. State-controlled infanticide _passes into a

definite

scheme

of _{Negative Eugenics.}

The

Nega-tive _{aspect, giving} rise to the Positive, fades into

the _background,

and

is retained _merely as a check

on

_{the imperfections} ofaconstructivescheme.

The

_systematized infanticide of _Sparta, so far

from

_beingarecrudescence toatavism,is

an advance

towards civilization.

A

custom which

had

been

so deeply implanted in the race

_by

_ages of barbarism,

and

had

resisted for centuries the incessant warfare

of the Christian Fathers at

Rome,

would

not _easily

have been

_uprooted in Greece.

To

_supersede the

reckless

and

_{capricious brutality} of individuals

_by

state infanticide

on

a definite basis

was

an

essential

gain to

_{humanity, however}

much

the _Spartans

_may

have been

actuated

_by

ulterior motives.

The

_destiny of the

new-born

child is

no

_longer

decreed in the _privacy of the

_home;

it is

_brought

instead into the Council Hall before the Elders of

the tribe. If well set

_up

and

_strong, it is to be

reared; otherwise,

doomed

as useless, it is cast into

the fateful

chasm on

the_{slopes of}

Mount

_Taygetus, for _{they hold} that " it

was

better for the child

and

1 "

Phenom.," 123-124.

Eugenics

the _city that

one

not

born

from

the _beginning to comeliness

and

strengthshould notlive."1

Selective infanticide

can

_only rest

on

_{a physical}

basis; there is

no

_speculation in latent _capacity.

There was

no

listof

_unhealthy

_geniusesinthe annals

of_Sparta,

no

St. Paul,

no

Mohammed,

no

_Schumann,

no

De

_Quincey.

Even

if selection

had

been

less

rigorous,

and

genius

had

been

conceded the right to

live,

environment

would have

denied it _{the right}

to _{develop. Sparta,} content that

Athens

should

be the Kulturstaat of Greece, _{cared only} that the

military

hegemony

shouldbe her unchallengedright.

Once

infanticide

had become

_{a system,} its

recogni-tion as a _pis alter

would

suggest regulation of

mar-riage.

By

retention of infanticide as ancillary to the Constructive

Scheme,

the anomalies of _heredity

admitted of_{a simple}

and

ruthless solution.

Positive _{Eugenics, not only} in the _past, but also

to-day, is based

on

the _analogy of animal _breeding.

The

_Spartans

were

the first to realize the

incon-sistency of

improving

the breed of their dogs

and

horses,

and

leaving to

human

kind the reckless

propagation of the _mentally defective, the diseased,

and

the unfit.2

The

use of _{analogy presents}

_many

_pitfalls to be surmounted,

and

it is _easy to see the _absurdity of

any

conception of Eugenics as a sort of higher

cattle-breeding. Full experimental control is not

possible with

man

as it is with animals

and

plants.

The

_{analogy, literally} accepted,

would

require a

1

Plut.,

"

Lye.," 16. 2 Ibid., xv. 25.

Ancient Eugenics

race of

_supermen,

or

some

outsidescientific_authority

manipulating a lower stock for its

own

_advantage.

Human

_Eugenics, to be effective,

can

never be a

cold-blooded _{selection of partners}

from

without; it

must

_{be voluntary,}

and from

within, resulting

from

a

new

ethicalsenseofthe individual's relation to the

social _group.

In the second _place, the

whole

world of _spiritual motives lies outside the _province of the breeder.

He

is faced with

no

_problem

of differentiation.

With

a clear

and

_homogeneous

ideal before him, he

sets himself to its _{attainment, killing}

and

preserving with simple

and

ruthless _precision.

The

_Spartan

system

was

partly aliteralacceptanceofthe analogy,

partly aspiritualization.

There

was

no

cold-blooded

selectionof_partners,

and no

interferencewith sexual

attraction.

The Romantic

ideal

was

the _discovery of the late

Greek

world

under

the

Roman

_Empire, but

_any

sentiment that existed at _Sparta

was

as

unhampered

as

romance

_to-day in the _theory of

modern

_Eugenists.

Marriage

was

by

simulated abduction.1

_The

story quoted

by

Athenaeus ofblind selectionina

darkened

room

_may

be _rejected as a _{palpable absurdity.}2

The

_only restriction

was

in the matter of _age3 a

regulation

which

was

the

commonplace

of

Greek

thought from

the

_days

of Hesiod4 _{to the time of}

1

Plut., "Lye.," xv. 15.

2

Ath., "Deipn.," xiii. _553^. 3

Plut., "Lye.," 15; Xen., "Reip.Lac.," i. _7.

4

"Op.

et_{Dies," 695} et_seq.

Eugenics

Aristotle.

Modern

_{knowledge shows}

the influence

of _{parentalage notonly}

_upon

the_{physique, but}also

upon

the character of the _offspring.1

The

_Spartans, therefore, were, withinthese limits,

unfettered in their choice of brides, but

were

punished for abuse of the liberty

conceded

them.

There

was

a _{penalty appointed} for _celibacy, a penalty for late marriage, but the third

and

the

greatest penalty

was

for a

bad

marriage.2

A

further concession, the _{privilege only} of the

worthy, isseeninthe _{compliances permitted}

on

the partofthewife, thatshe

_{might produce}

childrenfor

the state.

So

far

from

this _{practice being} a recru-descence to the habits of _{the early savage,}3 or

an

instance of

an

_Aryan

custom

akin to the

Hebrew

Levirate,4 it

seems

obvious that it

was

a

_Eugenic

measure

_suggested

_by

_{the analogy} of the breeder.5 Thus, it

appears that within

Eugenic

limits

con-siderable _play

was

conceded

to

human

_personality.

Itistrue thatthe_bearingofchildren

was

_regarded

as the essential function of

women,

and

this view,

though

biologically justified,

seems

to ignore that

other _aspect of _marriage

mutual

assistance

and

companionship.6

But

even

in free

Athens

the ideal

1

Mario, "Influence of _Ageof _{Parents on Psychophysical}

Characters of _Offspring. " Paper read before _Eugenics Congress, 1912.

2

Stobaeus,Ixvii.16. VidePlut.,

"

Lysand.fin.," p.451^6.

3

Barker, "Political _Thought of Plato and Aristotle," P-

153-4

Mahaffy, "

Greek Literature," vol.ii., part2, p. 68.

6 Plut., " Lye.," xv. 30. 6 Ibid., " Lye. etNum.," 4. 18

Ancient Eugenics

of a Nausicaa, Penelope, or

Andromache,

had

been

superseded long since

_by

_{a conception} of

woman

which

_{regarded her} aslittle

more

than

a_procreative

drudge.

Love

marriages

and

genuineaffection

were

commoner

in _Sparta

than

in Athens.

The

conduct

of _Agesistrata

and

Kratesickleia1

_on

_{the death of}

theirhusbands,

_though

it is evidenceat alater date,

shows

traces of _{genuine feeling.} In this _respect, therefore, the Spartan practice

was

not

remote

from

modern

ideals,

but

infanticide, eliminating the unfit

atbirth, offered asolutionof the

_{problem which}

we

can

_only

_hope

to solve

_by

the scientific _application

of the _{principles ofheredity.}

The

_Spartan

method

of _breeding avoided the

pitfalls of analogy; their

aim

_implied a literal

ac-ceptance.

The modern

problem

is the selection of

qualities

on

a basis

broad enough

to represent the

natural differentiation of individuals

and

nations,

the

_problem

of a

_Eugenic

_ethnology.

The

_Spartans, like the breeder of animals, bred for a_{singlequality}

and

a _single

uniform

_{type. Setting} life

on

a

phy-sical basis, regarding bodily efficiency as the only

quality ofuse to a military brotherhood, they

pur-sued their

aim

with the ruthless _precision of the

breeder. It

was

a

narrow

and

_egotistical aim, but

consistent with a Constructive

scheme

of _Eugenics

which

_{can only be maintained}

_by

_eliminating un-desiredelements atbirth.

At

the

same

time the selection of _{physique has}

certain obvious _advantages.

To

the Greeks,

be-1

Plut., "Agis," 20;

"

Kleom.," 37, 38.

Ancient Eugenics

lievingonlyinthe

beauty

ofthespirit

when

reflected

in the

_beauty

of the flesh, the

_good

body

was

the

necessary correlation of the

good

soul.

_Though

there

was

no

conscious assertion of this relation

among

the _Spartans, there

_may

have been

some

latent recognition helping to justify their aim.

Moreover, while there is

no

_dynamometer

of

intelli-gence, physique admits of easy estimation.

There

is therefore a certain _{justification} for the _simple

and

unscientific

_dogma

of the _{Spartan lawgiver:}

"'If the _parents are _strong, the children will

be

strong."

The

_Spartans realized that to secure the fitness

of the child it

must

be

_{guarded even}

before birth

_by

bestowing

due

care

on

the food

and

habits of the

future mother. Antenatal _{influences explain}

_many

of the _{apparent anomalies} of _heredity, but, while

recognizing the value of the Spartan aim, a nobler

conception of

_humanity

_rejects their

method.

Sedentary occupations can

no

longer be assigned to slaves.1 _Society still rests

on

a basis of lower labour.

He

"that

holdeth the

_plough"

must

still

"maintain

the state of the _{world," but he} is

no

longer a

mere

means, a living instrument, excluded

from

_{every political} privilege

and

every social

reform.

The

limited

and

aristocratic _Eugenics of

Sparta is _{amplified into} a

scheme which embraces

every class of the

_community.

But

this extension

involves fresh complexities.

By

state interference

invarious_{ways, such} as endeavours to

_modify

"the

1

Xen., " Reip. Lac.,"3. 20

Ancient

_Eugenics

influence of _{the factory system}

on

the

women

who

would

be the mothers of the next _generation,"

we

attempt to palliate

where

the Spartans were content

to neglect.

The

_{Spartans recognized} that environment as

well as heredity is a factor in the

_development

of

man.

There is a

scheme

_{of physical} education for

men

and

women,

and

the one

narrow

aim was

so

exclusively pursued, that it

was

said of

them

that

they could not

even

read.1

Modern

education

on

its wider basis affords

no

_parallel with _{the Spartan,}

but the bureaucratic control of the _buagor, the

ilarch,

and

the melliran,

and

a

common

centre of

supervision

have

similarities with certain

modern

ideals. Itis claimed_{that the control already}

estab-lished for certain classes of children, _during limited

periods, should be exerted over all children,

and

extend through the

whole

course of their evolution. There is to be

_compulsory

control as well as

com-pulsory education,

and

there is

an

institution

which

isto_{be frequented}

_by

all children,

on whose

develop-ment

there is

no

effective control at

home.

2

These methodically organized institutions, _harmonizing

well

_enough

with the monistic

view

of the _Spartan

state, could neverbe adjustedto

modern

_conceptions

of individual_right.

Apart from

the questionof quality, there is also

the _question of _quantity.

Modern

_Eugenists are

1

Isoc.,

"

Panath.Or.," xv. 277.

2 _{Dr. Querton,} "

_On

Practical Organization of _Eugenic

Action." Readbefore _{Eugenics Congress.} 21

Eugenics

faced with the

_problem

of the _diminishing

numbers

ofthe

_upper

classes

and

_{the rapid multiplication of}

the lower.

The

_Spartans

were

concerned with the

same

_problem

in a different _aspect; this _tendency,

suffered to

run

its course _unchecked,

meant

to

them

extermination

_by

_{war; to-day} it

means

elimination

by

disease.

The

_{Spartans were a} small

_immigrant

_band, face

to face with

an

extensive

and

_powerful

autochtho-nous population a

_camp

in the centre of ahostile

country.

"

_We

are

few

in the midst of

_many

enemies "

was

the

_{warning spoken}

_by

Brasidas,1

and

this _position of _{constant danger} affected the

problem

in

two

_ways.

There

must

be

no

_falling

birth-rate

_among

_{the Spartans,}

no unchecked

fer-tility

among

their subjects.

Three

measures

_{were employed}

to maintain the

number

of _{the Spartans}: _preventionof emigration,2

penalties for celibacy,

3

_and

rewards for _fertility.4

The

man

with three children

was

to be excused the

night watch, the

man

with four

was

to be

immune

from

taxation.

A

third

measure

known

to the

ancient world, the enfranchisementof aliens,

though

adopted at times

under

the ancient Kings,5

was

rendered _impossible

_by

the later exclusion of _every

foreigner

from

the land.

Avoidance

of

moral

or

physical corruption

was

set before preservation of

1

Thuc., iv. 126. 2

Xen., " Reip. Lac.,"xiv.

3

Pint., "Lye.," 15; Athenaeus, xiii. _553^.

4

Ar., " Pol.," 12706.

5

Ibid., 12700.

Ancient Eugenics

numbers.1

_The

alienis a _disturbing elementin

_any

Eugenic scheme.

The

natural _tendency of civilization, a declining

birth-rate,

would have

_brought destruction

_upon

Sparta. Nevertheless, this_attempt to maintain the

numbers

of the citizens

seems

to

have

met

with

littlesuccess.

_Xenophon

_speaksof_Spartaas

_having

the smallest _population in Greece.2 Aristotle tells

us that oncethe

numbers

of the _Spartans

amounted

to 10,000: in his _{time they}

were

not

even

1,000,

though

the _country

was

able to_support 1,500 horse

and

30,000 foot.

The

city unable to support one

shock

was

ruined. Aristotle finds the cause of

failure in the

_unequal

division of _property.3

But

nowhere

have

_attempts to interferewith the

down-ward

courseof the birth-rate

met

withsuccess: _they

were

doomed

to failure in _Sparta as _they failed in

Imperial

Rome.

There

is a

moral

in the tale of

Plutarch, that Antiorus, the only son of Lycurgus,

died childless,

dooming

the race to extinction.4

In_{limiting the}

numbers

of_{the subject population,}

the drastic

methods

of _{the KpvTneia} admitted of

no

failure. Infanticide

was

brutal, but it

was

set

on

a

rational basis; this indiscriminate

and

covert

mas-sacre

on

the

_vague

_{pretext of} fear or _suspicion,

was

possible only to a people not fully

emerged from

barbarism.

On

one

occasion

more

than

2,000

were

made away

with, "

on

account of their

_youth

and

great

numbers."

Even

Plutarch, with all his

1 Plut., " Lye.," 27. 2 " Reip. Lac.," i. 3 " Pol.," 12700. * " Lye.," xxxi. 25. 23

Ancient Eugenics

Laconism, censured the _KpvTrreLa as

an

"abominable work,"

and

refused it a _place

_among

the measures

of_Lycurgus.1

The

_productivity of the worst classes

must

be

checked

no

less _to-day in the interests _{of Eugenics,}

but not

_by

such

methods

as these.

We

_may

_improve

their environment, so that _response to

_improved

conditions

_may

result in a natural limitation, or

with the increase of

_knowledge

we

_may

forbid their

propagation, but the

method

of massacre died with

the decadence_{of Sparta.}

These

inchoate _Eugenics

had

their

measure

of success.

The modern

school of

_Anthropo

-geogra-phy, following in the footsteps of Mill

and

Buckle

in

an

_{older generation,}

would

attribute to material

environment

their limitations

and

their _greatness.

Surrounded

_by

discontented _subjects

and

hostile

serfs, with enemies at theirvery doors,

and no

point

in the land a _day's

march

_away, it

was

natural that they passed their

_days

as in a

_camp:

shut

_away

in

"

hollow

Lacedsemon

with its

_many

vales," it

was

natural that _they

had

no

share in _{the progress} of

the world

round

them.

But

in the _{seventh century}

Lyricpoetry

had

found

a

new

home

on

the

banks

of

the Eurotas.

_Terpander

the Lesbian,

Alcman

the

Lydian, Cinaethon the Spartan,

show

that there

was

a time

when

Lacedaemon

also

had

cultivated the Muses.

The

nobles _{lived luxuriously: the}

indi-vidual

was

free.

The

_Lycurgean

_discipline

was

therefore

no

arbi-1 "

Lye.," xxviii. 20.

Ancient

_Eugenics

trary product of circumstances: it

was

a deliberate

and

calculated _policy.

As

such, it is_easyto criticize its limitations, to assert that it mistook the

means

for the end, that it fitted the citizen _only for war,

and

unfitted

him

for _peace.1 It is wilful _neglect of

factsto declarethat the_onlysuccessachieved

was

the

success of the _{disciplined against the undisciplined:}

that the _{only veneration} the _Spartans received

was

the veneration_{of conquerors.}2

Their

whole

aim

was

narrow, calculated,

and

egotistic; their Eugenic

system was

merely ancillary tothe,one _occupationof

war

: _neglectingallthe

com-plexity of

man's

psychical nature, it

aimed

at the

improvement

of a _{single aspect} of _humanity,

and

that not _{the highest: sacrificing} the

Sudra

caste in

the interests of the Brahmins, it

aimed

_only at the production of a breed of supermen. Nevertheless, it is clear that within its

narrow

confines this rude

system

succeeded. Sparta has

been

proclaimed the only state in

which

_{the physical}

_improvement

of the race

was

undoubted, while the chastity

and

refine-ment

of

both

sexes

was

_unimpaired.3

_"It

is _easy

to see," declared

_Xenophon,

"that these measures with regard to _{child-bearing,}

_opposed

as _they

were

to the

customs

of the rest of Greece,

produced

a

race _excelling in size

and

_strength.

Not

_easily

would

one find _{people healthier or}

more

_physically

useful

than

the _Spartans."4

1

Ar.,"Pol.," 13250, 13336. 2 Ibid., 13386,13246.

3

MahafEy,

"

GreekLiterature," vol.ii., part i, p.201.

4 "

Reip. Lac.,"i. _{10; v.9.}

Eugenics

The

_Lampito

of _{Aristophanes, introduced} as the

representative of her race,

shows

how

the _Spartan

women

_impressed the rest of Greece. _Beauty,

physique, self-control these were the accepted

characteristics of _{the type.}1

Sparta

was

the pro-verbial land of fair

women.

2

The

direct influence of _{Spartan Eugenics}

was

infinitesimal. It

was

an honour

to

have

_{a Spartan}

nurse

_{and good form}

to affect the _{rude abruptness}

of the _Spartan

_{manner, but no attempt was}

ever

made

to _adopt their _{training or} institutions.

There

were

the _{paper-polities} of Plato

and

Diogenes,

but

their legacy to the world

was

only

"Words

and

_writings."3

The

Athenians of the

fifth _century

had

_nothing but

_contempt

for the

institutions of their rivals, voiced in the _patriotic

travesties _{of Euripides.}4 _Sparta

was

the national

foe,

and

_Sparta fell _{into early} decadence.

Xenophon

lamented

that in his time the _Spartans

neither

_obeyed

God

nor the

Laws

of _Lycurgus.5

Already,

when

Plato wrote the Laws, there are signs

that _Sparta

was

_falling into _disrepute,

and

the

Politics of Aristotle

shows an imminent

_degeneracy:

Aresbears the

_yoke

of_{Aphrodite,liberty}has

become

licence. _Agis III. _attempted in vain to restore the old

_Lycurgean

_discipline,

which

had become

a

mere

1

"Lysistrat.,"78.

2

Athenseus,xiii. _{566$(jcaXXtarras} yevv&ffiis r&s _"ywat/cas).

3

Pint.,"Lye.,"31.

4

Thuc.,ii._{39; Xen., "Mem.,"}iii._{5; Eurip.,} "_Androm.,"

597, etc.

6

Xen., "Reip. Lac.," xiv. 7.

Ancient

_Eugenics

shadow and

a

name.

Kleomenes

attained

some

measure

of success, but foreign

arms

intervened.

Nevertheless, the

_empty

husk

of the ancient

_system

lasted with _{strange persistence}

_through

centuries

of _neglect. If the _{Spartan Eugenics}

had

taken

some

account ofthose other tendencies of its earlier history, its influence

on

the world

_{might have been}

of greater importance.

The

Ancients, struck

_by

certain obvious

resem-blances, believed that the _Spartan constitution

was

in _{part a plagiarism of the Cretan.}

The

laws

and

institutions of both countries

aimed

_{at creating} a

classof warriors,1_{but in}

general

most

new

things are

an improvement

upon

theold,2

and

theCretansnever

reached

_{back beyond}

the educationof the _youth.

The

_{physical training} at Crete

_may

have

sug-gested its _{parallel at Sparta,} but its broader basis

of culture _belonged to Crete alone. Like _Sparta,

Crete

endeavoured

_by

artificial _{interference to}

regu-latethe

_growth

of its_{population, raising} its

numbers

by

forbidding celibacy, reducing

them by

a curious

measure

which

has

no

_parallel elsewhere.3 In this

matterof _Eugenics,therefore, Sparta

owes

but little to Crete.

The

constitution of _Carthage

was

also declared

by

Aristotle to bear a close resemblance in

some

particulars to the Spartan.4

But

there is

no

trace

i

Plato, " Laws," 630 E. 2

AT., " Pol.," 12720.

3 _Ibid.,

12720. According to McLennan, the _practice

would bethe resultoffemaleinfanticide.

4

Ibid., 12730.

Anciant Eugenics

at _Carthage of

_any

institution _{having a}

_Eugenic

tendency.

There

is infanticide, but infanticide

merely as a phase of a general

custom

of

human

sacrifice.1

There

is,however, oneother ancient race,

_amongst

whom

we

findtraces of

_Eugenic

_practice the_sturdy

warriors of

Germania

Transrhenana, or Barbara.

They

were not, indeed,

an

utterly primitive people:

of art

and

literature _they

were

almost _entirely ig-norant;of thecivilizationof

Greek

and

Italiancities

they

knew

nothing; but they possessed a definite social _{organization,}

and

a _religion not _lacking in

nobler elements.

Unfortunately, our only authority is a writer

con-cerned

more

with ethics

than

_{history, treating} facts

with a certain Procrustean

freedom

to fit a

pre-conceived_{morality. History}

becomes

the

handmaid

to

moral

contrast,

and

there are the errors of

im-perfect information,

on

which no

light is

thrown

_by

others

who

have

dealtwith this

same

_people.

It

was

a _{system, so} far as

one

could _{judge, that}

relied

on

_positive

methods.

"

To

limit the

number

of their children or to _put to death

_any

of the later

born, they regarded as

an

act

repugnant

to

human

nature _(flagitium).

There

are

no

rewards for the

childless."2

Two

distinct _points are involved in

this _approbation uncontrolled _reproduction

and

absence of callous infanticide.

At Rome,

_among

the

_many

excuses for _exposure or infanticide

recog-1

Diod., xx. 14; Plut.,

"

De

sera num. vindic.," 6.

2

Tac., "German.," 19and20.

Ancient

_Eugenics

nized

_by

custom,

was

the birth of a child after the

will

had

been

made.

1 _{This does not}

necessarily prove the total absence of infanticide

_among

the

Germans;

it _{merely indicates the prohibition} of the

practice

from

callous indolence or

on

the grounds

of _superfluity. Tacitus, however,

makes

the

same

statementofthe_Jews, to

whom,

havingbefore

them

the injunction to increase

and

_{multiply, the}

whole

practice

would

naturally be abhorrent. Possibly,

therefore, the

Germans,

in contradistinction to almost all _{ancient peoples,}

had

refused to sanction the

custom

on

_any

basis whatever.

Inthematter ofuncontrolled _{reproduction, a high}

birth-rate,

_though

_{negatived almost invariably}

_by

a _{corresponding} death-rate,

was

a natural ideal

amongst

a people threatened with constant

deple-tion

_by

_{the severity of military} selection. Tacitus,

ignorant of relativism, failed to see that the evil

he

deprecatedin

Rome

was

the inevitable result of the tendency

which

he lauded

amongst

the

Germans.

The

basis of selection

was

stature as well as

strength. Infanticide, therefore,

would have been

impossible as a check

on

failure. _{Early marriages}

wereforbidden, butinsteadof_{a penalty}

on

the

child-less,

we

find

_{an encouragement}

of _celibacy.2

It

seems, therefore, that there

was some

endeavour to

limit the

number

of children,

which found no

place

in the Tacitean

scheme

of

German

_morality.

In _{place of the Spartan} " _compliance"

we

find

polygamy on

alimitedscale, conceded asa privilege

1

Cic.,

"

De

Oratore,"i._57. 2 Caes.,

"

Bell.Gall.,"vi.21.