THE subjects
to be discussed in this chapter
are of the highest
interest, but are treated by
me in an imperfect and fragmentary
manner. Mr. Wallace, in an admirable
paper before referred to,* argues
that man, after he had partially
acquired those intellectual and
moral faculties which distinguish
him from the lower animals, would
have been but little liable to
bodily modifications through
natural selection or any other
means. For man is enabled through
his mental
faculties "to keep with an unchanged body in harmony with the changing
universe." He has great power of adapting his habits to new conditions of life.
He invents weapons, tools, and various stratagems to procure food and to defend
himself. When he migrates into a colder climate he uses clothes, builds sheds,
and makes fires; and by the aid of fire cooks food otherwise indigestible. He
aids his fellow-men in many ways, and anticipates future events. Even at a remote
period he
practised some division of labour.
* Anthropological Review, May,
1864, p. clviii.
The lower animals, on the other
hand, must have their bodily
structure modified in order to
survive under greatly changed
conditions. They must be rendered
stronger, or acquire more effective
teeth or claws, for defence against
new enemies; or they must be
reduced in size, so as to escape
detection and danger. When they
migrate into a colder climate,
they must become clothed with
thicker fur, or have their constitutions
altered. If they fail to be thus
modified, they will cease to
exist.
The case, however, is widely
different, as Mr. Wallace has
with justice insisted, in relation
to the intellectual and moral
faculties of man. These faculties
are variable; and we have every
reason to believe that the variations
tend to be inherited. Therefore,
if they were formerly of high
importance to primeval man and
to his ape-like progenitors,
they would have been perfected
or advanced through natural selection.
Of the high importance of the
intellectual faculties there
can be no doubt, for man mainly
owes to them his predominant
position in the world. We can
see, that in the rudest state
of society, the individuals who
were the most sagacious, who
invented and used the best weapons
or traps, and who were best able
to defend themselves, would rear
the greatest number of offspring.
The tribes, which included the
largest number of men thus endowed,
would increase in number and
supplant other tribes. Numbers
depend primarily on the means
of subsistence, and this depends
partly on the physical nature
of the country, but in a much
higher degree on the arts which
are there practised. As a tribe
increases and is victorious,
it is often still further increased
by the absorption of other tribes.*
The stature and strength of the
men of a tribe are likewise of
some importance for its success,
and these depend in part on the
nature and amount of the food
which can be obtained. In Europe
the men of the Bronze period
were supplanted by a race more
powerful, and, judging from their
sword-handles, with larger hands;*(2)
but their success was probably
still more due to their superiority
in the arts.
* After a time the members of
tribes which are absorbed into
another tribe assume, as Sir
Henry Maine remarks (Ancient
Law, 1861, p. 131), that they
are the co-descendants of the
same ancestors.
*(2) Morlot, Soc. Vaud. Sc.
Nat., 1860, p. 294.
All that we know about savages,
or may infer from their traditions
and from old monuments, the history
of which is quite forgotten by
the present inhabitants, shew
that from the remotest times
successful tribes have supplanted
other tribes. Relics of extinct
or forgotten tribes have been
discovered throughout the civilised
regions of the earth, on the
wild plains of America, and on
the isolated islands in the Pacific
Ocean. At the present day civilised
nations are everywhere supplanting
barbarous nations, excepting
where the climate opposes a deadly
barrier; and they succeed mainly,
though not exclusively, through
their arts, which are the products
of the intellect. It is, therefore,
highly probable that with mankind
the intellectual faculties have
been mainly and gradually perfected
through natural selection; and
this conclusion is sufficient
for our purpose. Undoubtedly
it would be interesting to trace
the development of each separate
faculty from the state in which
it exists in the lower animals
to that in which it exists in
man; but neither my ability nor
knowledge permits the attempt.
It deserves notice that, as
soon as the progenitors of man
became social (and this probably
occurred at a very early period),
the principle of imitation, and
reason, and experience would
have increased, and much modified
the intellectual powers in a
way, of which we see only traces
in the lower animals. Apes are
much given to imitation, as are
the lowest savages; and the simple
fact previously referred to,
that after a time no animal can
be caught in the same place by
the same sort of trap, shews
that animals learn by experience,
and imitate the caution of others.
Now, if some one man in a tribe,
more sagacious than the others,
invented a new snare or weapon,
or other means of attack or defence,
the plainest self-interest, without
the assistance of much reasoning
power, would prompt the other
members to imitate him; and all
would thus profit. The habitual
practice of each new art must
likewise in some slight degree
strengthen the intellect. If
the new invention were an important
one, the tribe would increase
in number, spread, and supplant
other tribes. In a tribe thus
rendered more numerous there
would always be a rather greater
chance of the birth of other
superior and inventive members.
If such men left children to
inherit their mental superiority,
the chance of the birth of still
more ingenious members would
be somewhat better, and in a
very small tribe decidedly better.
Even if they left no children,
the tribe would still include
their blood-relations; and it
has been ascertained by agriculturists*
that by preserving and breeding
from the family of an animal,
which when slaughtered was found
to be valuable, the desired character
has been obtained.
* I have given instances in
my Variation of Animals under
Domestication, vol. ii., p. 196.
Turning now to the social and
moral faculties. In order that
primeval men, or the apelike
progenitors of man, should become
social, they must have acquired
the same instinctive feelings,
which impel other animals to
live in a body; and they no doubt
exhibited the same general disposition.
They would have felt uneasy when
separated from their comrades,
for whom they would have felt
some degree of love; they would
have warned each other of danger,
and have given mutual aid in
attack or defence. All this implies
some degree of sympathy, fidelity,
and courage. Such social qualities,
the paramount importance of which
to the lower animals is disputed
by no one, were no doubt acquired
by the progenitors of man in
a similar manner, namely, through
natural selection, aided by inherited
habit. When two tribes of primeval
man, living in the same country,
came into competition, if (other
circumstances being equal) the
one tribe included a great number
of courageous, sympathetic and
faithful members, who were always
ready to warn each other of danger,
to aid and defend each other,
this tribe would succeed better
and conquer the other. Let it
be borne in mind how all-important
in the never-ceasing wars of
savages, fidelity and courage
must be. The advantage which
disciplined soldiers have over
undisciplined hordes follows
chiefly from the confidence which
each man feels in his comrades.
Obedience, as Mr. Bagehot has
well shewn,* is of the highest
value, for any form of government
is better than none. Selfish
and contentious people will not
cohere, and without coherence
nothing can be effected. A tribe
rich in the above qualities would
spread and be victorious over
other tribes: but in the course
of time it would, judging from
all past history, be in its turn
overcome by some other tribe
still more highly endowed. Thus
the social and moral qualities
would tend slowly to advance
and be diffused throughout the
world.
* See a remarkable
series of articles on "Physics and Politics," in
the Fortnightly Review, Nov.,
1867; April 1, 1868; July 1,
1869, since separately published.
But it may be asked, how within
the limits of the same tribe
did a large number of members
first become endowed with these
social and moral qualities, and
how was the standard of excellence
raised? It is extremely doubtful
whether the offspring of the
more sympathetic and benevolent
parents, or of those who were
the most faithful to their comrades,
would be reared in greater numbers
than the children of selfish
and treacherous parents belonging
to the same tribe. He who was
ready to sacrifice his life,
as many a savage has been, rather
than betray his comrades, would
often leave no offspring to inherit
his noble nature. The bravest
men, who were always willing
to come to the front in war,
and who freely risked their lives
for others, would on an average
perish in larger numbers than
other men. Therefore, it hardly
seems probable that the number
of men gifted with such virtues,
or that the standard of their
excellence, could be increased
through natural selection, that
is, by the survival of the fittest;
for we are not here speaking
of one tribe being victorious
over another.
Although the circumstances,
leading to an increase in the
number of those thus endowed
within the same tribe, are too
complex to be clearly followed
out, we can trace some of the
probable steps. In the first
place, as the reasoning powers
and foresight of the members
became improved, each man would
soon learn that if he aided his
fellow-men, he would commonly
receive aid in return. From this
low motive he might acquire the
habit of aiding his fellows;
and the habit of performing benevolent
actions certainly strengthens
the feeling of sympathy which
gives the first impulse to benevolent
actions. Habits, moreover, followed
during many generations probably
tend to be inherited.
But another and much more powerful
stimulus to the development of
the social virtues, is afforded
by the praise and the blame of
our fellow-men. To the instinct
of sympathy, as we have already
seen, it is primarily due, that
we habitually bestow both praises
and blame on others, whilst we
love the former and dread the
latter when applied to ourselves;
and this instinct no doubt was
originally acquired, like all
the other social instincts, through
natural selection. At how early
a period the progenitors of man
in the course of their development,
became capable of feeling and
being impelled by, the praise
or blame of their fellow-creatures,
we cannot of course say. But
it appears that even dogs appreciate
encouragement, praise, and blame.
The rudest savages feel the sentiment
of glory, as they clearly show
by preserving the trophies of
their prowess, by their habit
of excessive boasting, and even
by the extreme care which they
take of their personal appearance
and decorations; for unless they
regarded the opinion of their
comrades, such habits would be
senseless.
They certainly feel shame at
the breach of some of their lesser
rules, and apparently remorse,
as shewn by the case of the Australian
who grew thin and could not rest
from having delayed to murder
some other woman, so as to propitiate
his dead wife's spirit. Though
I have not met with any other
recorded case, it is scarcely
credible that a savage, who will
sacrifice his life rather than
betray his tribe, or one who
will deliver himself up as a
prisoner rather than break his
parole,* would not feel remorse
in his inmost soul, if he had
failed in a duty, which he held
sacred.
* Mr. Wallace gives cases in
his Contributions to the Theory
of Natural Selection, 1870, p.
354.
We may therefore conclude that
primeval man, at a very remote
period, was influenced by the
praise and blame of his fellows.
It is obvious, that the members
of the same tribe would approve
of conduct which appeared to
them to be for the general good,
and would reprobate that which
appeared evil. To do good unto
others- to do unto others as
ye would they should do unto
you- is the foundation-stone
of morality. It is, therefore,
hardly possible to exaggerate
the importance during rude times
of the love of praise and the
dread of blame. A man who was
not impelled by any deep, instinctive
feeling, to sacrifice his life
for the good of others, yet was
roused to such actions by a sense
of glory, would by his example
excite the same wish for glory
in other men, and would strengthen
by exercise the noble feeling
of admiration. He might thus
do far more good to his tribe
than by begetting offspring with
a tendency to inherit his own
high character.
With increased
experience and reason, man
perceives the more
remote consequences of his actions,
and the self-regarding virtues,
such as temperance, chastity, &c.,
which during early times are,
as we have before seen, utterly
disregarded, come to be highly
esteemed or even held sacred.
I need not, however, repeat what
I have said on this head in the
fourth chapter. Ultimately our
moral sense or conscience becomes
a highly complex sentiment- originating
in the social instincts, largely
guided by the approbation of
our fellow-men, ruled by reason,
self-interest, and in later times
by deep religious feelings, and
confirmed by instruction and
habit.
It must not be forgotten that
although a high standard of morality
gives but a slight or no advantage
to each individual man and his
children over the other men of
the same tribe, yet that an increase
in the number of well-endowed
men and an advancement in the
standard of morality will certainly
give an immense advantage to
one tribe over another. A tribe
including many members who, from
possessing in a high degree the
spirit of patriotism, fidelity,
obedience, courage, and sympathy,
were always ready to aid one
another, and to sacrifice themselves
for the common good, would be
victorious over most other tribes;
and this would be natural selection.
At all times throughout the world
tribes have supplanted other
tribes; and as morality is one
important element in their success,
the standard of morality and
the number of well-endowed men
will thus everywhere tend to
rise and increase.
It is, however,
very difficult to form any
judgment why one
particular tribe and not another
has been successful and has risen
in the scale of civilisation.
Many savages are in the same
condition as when first discovered
several centuries ago. As Mr.
Bagehot has remarked, we are
apt to look at the progress as
normal in human society; but
history refutes this. The ancients
did not even entertain the idea,
nor do the Oriental nations at
the present day. According to
another high authority, Sir Henry
Maine, "The greatest part of
mankind has never shewn a particle
of desire that its civil institutions
should be improved."* Progress
seems to depend on many concurrent
favourable conditions, far too
complex to be followed out. But
it has often been remarked, that
a cool climate, from leading
to industry and to the various
arts, has been highly favourable
thereto. The Esquimaux, pressed
by hard necessity, have succeeded
in many ingenious inventions,
but their climate has been too
severe for continued progress.
Nomadic habits, whether over
wide plains, or through the dense
forests of the tropics, or along
the shores of the sea, have in
every case been highly detrimental.
Whilst observing the barbarous
inhabitants of Tierra del Fuego,
it struck me that the possession
of some property, a fixed abode,
and the union of many families
under a chief, were the indispensable
requisites for civilisation.
Such habits almost necessitate
the cultivation of the ground
and the first steps in cultivation
would probably result, as I have
elsewhere shewn,*(2) from some
such accident as the seeds of
a fruit-tree falling on a heap
of refuse, and producing an unusually
fine variety. The problem, however,
of the first advance of savages
towards civilisation is at present
much too difficult to be solved.
* Ancient Law, 1861, p. 22.
For Mr. Bagehot's remarks, Fortnightly
Review, April 1, 1868, p. 452.
*(2) The Variation of Animals
and Plants under Domestication,
vol. i., p. 309.
Natural Selection as affecting
Civilised Nations.- I have hitherto
only considered the advancement
of man from a semi-human condition
to that of the modern savage.
But some remarks on the action
of natural selection on civilised
nations may be worth adding.
This subject has been ably discussed
by Mr. W. R. Greg,* and previously
by Mr. Wallace and Mr. Galton.*(2)
Most of my remarks are taken
from these three authors. With
savages, the weak in body or
mind are soon eliminated; and
those that survive commonly exhibit
a vigorous state of health. We
civilised men, on the other hand,
do our utmost to check the process
of elimination; we build asylums
for the imbecile, the maimed,
and the sick; we institute poor-laws;
and our medical men exert their
utmost skill to save the life
of every one to the last moment.
There is reason to believe that
vaccination has preserved thousands,
who from a weak constitution
would formerly have succumbed
to small-pox. Thus the weak members
of civilised societies propagate
their kind. No one who has attended
to the breeding of domestic animals
will doubt that this must be
highly injurious to the race
of man. It is surprising how
soon a want of care, or care
wrongly directed, leads to the
degeneration of a domestic race;
but excepting in the case of
man himself, hardly any one is
so ignorant as to allow his worst
animals to breed.
* Fraser's Magazine, Sept.,
1868, p. 353. This article seems
to have struck many persons,
and has given rise to two remarkable
essays and a rejoinder in the
Spectator, Oct. 3 and 17, 1868.
It has also been discussed in
the Quarterly Journal of Science,
1869, p. 152, and by Mr. Lawson
Tait in the Dublin Quarterly
Journal of Medical Science, Feb.,
1869, and by Mr. E. Ray Lankester
in his Comparative Longevity,
1870, p. 128. Similar views appeared
previously in the Australasian,
July 13, 1867. I have borrowed
ideas from several of these writers.
*(2) For Mr. Wallace, see Anthropological
Review, as before cited. Mr.
Galton in Macmillan's Magazine,
Aug., 1865, p. 318; also his
great work, Hereditary Genius,
1870.
The aid which we feel impelled
to give to the helpless is mainly
an incidental result of the instinct
of sympathy, which was originally
acquired as part of the social
instincts, but subsequently rendered,
in the manner previously indicated,
more tender and more widely diffused.
Nor could we check our sympathy,
even at the urging of hard reason,
without deterioration in the
noblest part of our nature. The
surgeon may harden himself whilst
performing an operation, for
he knows that he is acting for
the good of his patient; but
if we were intentionally to neglect
the weak and helpless, it could
only be for a contingent benefit,
with an overwhelming present
evil. We must therefore bear
the undoubtedly bad effects of
the weak surviving and propagating
their kind; but there appears
to be at least one check in steady
action, namely that the weaker
and inferior members of society
do not marry so freely as the
sound; and this check might be
indefinitely increased by the
weak in body or mind refraining
from marriage, though this is
more to be hoped for than expected.
In every country in which a
large standing army is kept up,
the finest young men are taken
by the conscription or are enlisted.
They are thus exposed to early
death during war, are often tempted
into vice, and are prevented
from marrying during the prime
of life. On the other hand the
shorter and feebler men, with
poor constitutions, are left
at home, and consequently have
a much better chance of marrying
and propagating their kind.*
* Prof. H. Fick (Einfluss der
Naturwissenschaft auf das Recht,
June, 1872) has some good remarks
on this head, and on other such
points.
Man accumulates property and
bequeaths it to his children,
so that the children of the rich
have an advantage over the poor
in the race for success, independently
of bodily or mental superiority.
On the other hand, the children
of parents who are short-lived,
and are therefore on an average
deficient in health and vigour,
come into their property sooner
than other children, and will
be likely to marry earlier, and
leave a larger number of offspring
to inherit their inferior constitutions.
But the inheritance of property
by itself is very far from an
evil; for without the accumulation
of capital the arts could not
progress; and it is chiefly through
their power that the civilised
races have extended, and are
now everywhere extending their
range, so as to take the place
of the lower races. Nor does
the moderate accumulation of
wealth interfere with the process
of selection. When a poor man
becomes moderately rich, his
children enter trades or professions
in which there is struggle enough,
so that the able in body and
mind succeed best. The presence
of a body of well-instructed
men, who have not to labour for
their daily bread, is important
to a degree which cannot be over-estimated;
as all high intellectual work
is carried on by them, and on
such work, material progress
of all kinds mainly depends,
not to mention other and higher
advantages. No doubt wealth when
very great tends to convert men
into useless drones, but their
number is never large; and some
degree of elimination here occurs,
for we daily see rich men, who
happen to be fools or profligate,
squandering away their wealth.
Primogeniture with entailed
estates is a more direct evil,
though it may formerly have been
a great advantage by the creation
of a dominant class, and any
government is better than none.
Most eldest sons, though they
may be weak in body or mind,
marry, whilst the younger sons,
however superior in these respects,
do not so generally marry. Nor
can worthless eldest sons with
entailed estates squander their
wealth. But here, as elsewhere,
the relations of civilised life
are so complex that some compensatory
checks intervene. The men who
are rich through primogeniture
are able to select generation
after generation the more beautiful
and charming women; and these
must generally be healthy in
body and active in mind. The
evil consequences, such as they
may be, of the continued preservation
of the same line of descent,
without any selection, are checked
by men of rank always wishing
to increase their wealth and
power; and this they effect by
marrying heiresses. But the daughters
of parents who have produced
single children, are themselves,
as Mr. Galton* has shewn, apt
to be sterile; and thus noble
families are continually cut
off in the direct line, and their
wealth flows into some side channel;
but unfortunately this channel
is not determined by superiority
of any kind.
* Hereditary Genius, 1870, pp.
132-140.
Although civilisation thus checks
in many ways the action of natural
selection, it apparently favours
the better development of the
body, by means of good food and
the freedom from occasional hardships.
This may be inferred from civilised
men having been found, wherever
compared, to be physically stronger
than savages.* They appear also
to have equal powers of endurance,
as has been proved in many adventurous
expeditions. Even the great luxury
of the rich can be but little
detrimental; for the expectation
of life of our aristocracy, at
all ages and of both sexes, is
very little inferior to that
of healthy English lives in the
lower classes.*(2)
* Quatrefages, Revue des Cours
Scientifiques 1867-68, p. 659.
*(2) See the fifth and sixth
columns compiled from good authorities,
in the table given in Mr. E.
R. Lankester's Comparative Longevity,
1870, p. 115.
We will now look to the intellectual
faculties. If in each grade of
society the members were divided
into two equal bodies, the one
including the intellectually
superior and the other the inferior,
there can be little doubt that
the former would succeed best
in all occupations, and rear
a greater number of children.
Even in the lowest walks of life,
skill and ability must be of
some advantage; though in many
occupations, owing to the great
division of labour, a very small
one. Hence in civilised nations
there will be some tendency to
an increase both in the number
and in the standard of the intellectually
able. But I do not wish to assert
that this tendency may not be
more than counterbalanced in
other ways, as by the multiplication
of the reckless and improvident;
but even to such as these, ability
must be some advantage.
It has often
been objected to views like
the foregoing, that
the most eminent men who have
ever lived have left no offspring
to inherit their great intellect.
Mr. Galton says, "I regret I
am unable to solve the simple
question whether, and how far,
men and women who are prodigies
of genius are infertile. I have,
however, shewn that men of eminence
are by no means so."* Great lawgivers,
the founders of beneficent religions,
great philosophers and discoverers
in science, aid the progress
of mankind in a far higher degree
by their works than by leaving
a numerous progeny. In the case
of corporeal structures, it is
the selection of the slightly
better-endowed and the elimination
of the slightly less well-endowed
individuals, and not the preservation
of strongly-marked and rare anomalies,
that leads to the advancement
of a species.*(2) So it will
be with the intellectual faculties,
since the somewhat abler men
in each grade of society succeed
rather better than the less able,
and consequently increase in
number, if not otherwise prevented.
When in any nation the standard
of intellect and the number of
intellectual men have increased,
we may expect from the law of
the deviation from an average,
that prodigies of genius will,
as shewn by Mr. Galton, appear
somewhat more frequently than
before.
* Hereditary Genius, 1870, p.
330.
*(2) Origin of Species.(OOS)
In regard to the moral qualities,
some elimination of the worst
dispositions is always in progress
even in the most civilised nations.
Malefactors are executed, or
imprisoned for long periods,
so that they cannot freely transmit
their bad qualities. Melancholic
and insane persons are confined,
or commit suicide. Violent and
quarrelsome men often come to
a bloody end. The restless who
will not follow any steady occupation-
and this relic of barbarism is
a great check to civilisation*
- emigrate to newly-settled countries;
where they prove useful pioneers.
Intemperance is so highly destructive,
that the expectation of life
of the intemperate, at the age
of thirty for instance, is only
13.8 years; whilst for the rural
labourers of England at the same
age it is 40.59 years.*(2) Profligate
women bear few children, and
profligate men rarely marry;
both suffer from disease. In
the breeding of domestic animals,
the elimination of those individuals,
though few in number, which are
in any marked manner inferior,
is by no means an unimportant
element towards success. This
especially holds good with injurious
characters which tend to reappear
through reversion, such as blackness
in sheep; and with mankind some
of the worst dispositions, which
occasionally without any assignable
cause make their appearance in
families, may perhaps be reversions
to a savage state, from which
we are not removed by very many
generations. This view seems
indeed recognised in the common
expression that such men are
the black sheep of the family.
* Hereditary Genius, 1870, p.
347.
*(2) E Ray Lankester,
Comparative Longevity, 1870,
p. 115. The
table of the intemperate is from
Neison's Vital Statistics. In
regard to profligacy, see Dr.
Farr, "Influence of Marriage
on Mortality," Nat. Assoc. for
the Promotion of Social Science,
1858.
With civilised nations, as far
as an advanced standard of morality,
and an increased number of fairly
good men are concerned, natural
selection apparently effects
but little; though the fundamental
social instincts were originally
thus gained. But I have already
said enough, whilst treating
of the lower races, on the causes
which lead to the advance of
morality, namely, the approbation
of our fellow-men- the strengthening
of our sympathies by habit- example
and imitation- reason- experience,
and even self-interest- instruction
during youth, and religious feelings.
A most important
obstacle in civilised countries
to an increase
in the number of men of a superior
class has been strongly insisted
on by Mr. Greg and Mr. Galton,*
namely, the fact that the very
poor and reckless, who are often
degraded by vice, almost invariably
marry early, whilst the careful
and frugal, who are generally
otherwise virtuous, marry late
in life, so that they may be
able to support themselves and
their children in comfort. Those
who marry early produce within
a given period not only a greater
number of generations, but, as
shewn by Dr. Duncan,*(2) they
produce many more children. The
children, moreover, that are
borne by mothers during the prime
of life are heavier and larger,
and therefore probably more vigorous,
than those born at other periods.
Thus the reckless, degraded,
and often vicious members of
society, tend to increase at
a quicker rate than the provident
and generally virtuous members.
Or as Mr. Greg puts the case: "The
careless, squalid, unaspiring
Irishman multiplies like rabbits:
the frugal, foreseeing, self-respecting,
ambitious Scot, stern in his
morality, spiritual in his faith,
sagacious and disciplined in
his intelligence, passes his
best years in struggle and in
celibacy, marries late, and leaves
few behind him. Given a land
originally peopled by a thousand
Saxons and a thousand Celts-
and in a dozen generations five-sixths
of the population would be Celts,
but five-sixths of the property,
of the power, of the intellect,
would belong to the one-sixth
of Saxons that remained. In the
eternal 'struggle for existence,'
it would be the inferior and
less favoured race that had prevailed-
and prevailed by virtue not of
its good qualities but of its
faults."
* Fraser's Magazine, Sept.,
1868, p. 353. Macmillan's Magazine,
Aug., 1865, p. 318. The Rev.
F. W. Farrar (Fraser's Magazine,
Aug., 1870, p. 264) takes a different
view.
*(2) "On the Laws of the Fertility
of Women," in Transactions of
the Royal Society, Edinburgh,
vol. xxiv., p. 287; now published
separately under the title of
Fecundity, Fertility, and Sterility,
1871. See, also, Mr. Galton,
Hereditary Genius pp. 352-357,
for observations to the above
effect.
There are, however,
some checks to this downward
tendency. We
have seen that the intemperate
suffer from a high rate of mortality,
and the extremely profligate
leave few offspring. The poorest
classes crowd into towns, and
it has been proved by Dr. Stark
from the statistics of ten years
in Scotland,* that at all ages
the death-rate is higher in towns
than in rural districts, "and
during the first five years of
life the town death-rate is almost
exactly double that of the rural
districts." As these returns
include both the rich and the
poor, no doubt more than twice
the number of births would be
requisite to keep up the number
of the very poor inhabitants
in the towns, relatively to those
in the country. With women, marriage
at too early an age is highly
injurious; for it has been found
in France that, "Twice as many
wives under twenty die in the
year, as died out of the same
number of the unmarried." The
mortality, also, of husbands
under twenty is "excessively
high,"*(2) but what the cause
of this may be, seems doubtful.
Lastly, if the men who prudently
delay marrying until they can
bring up their families in comfort,
were to select, as they often
do, women in the prime of life,
the rate of increase in the better
class would be only slightly
lessened.
* Tenth Annual
Report of Births, Deaths, &c.,
in Scotland, 1867, p. xxix.
*(2) These quotations
are taken from our highest
authority on
such questions, namely, Dr. Farr,
in his paper "On the Influence
of Marriage on the Mortality
of the French People," read before
the Nat. Assoc. for the Promotion
of Social Science, 1858.
It was established
from an enormous body of statistics,
taken during
1853, that the unmarried men
throughout France, between the
ages of twenty and eighty, die
in a much larger proportion than
the married: for instance, out
of every 1000 unmarried men,
between the ages of twenty and
thirty, 11.3 annually died, whilst
of the married, only 6.5 died.*
A similar law was proved to hold
good, during the years 1863 and
1864, with the entire population
above the age of twenty in Scotland:
for instance, out of every 1000
unmarried men, between the ages
of twenty and thirty, 14.97 annually
died, whilst of the married only
7.24 died, that is less than
half.*(2) Dr. Stark remarks on
this, "Bachelorhood is more destructive
to life than the most unwholesome
trades, or than residence in
an unwholesome house or district
where there has never been the
most distant attempt at sanitary
improvement." He considers that
the lessened mortality is the
direct result of "marriage, and
the more regular domestic habits
which attend that state." He
admits, however, that the intemperate,
profligate, and criminal classes,
whose duration of life is low,
do not commonly marry; and it
must likewise be admitted that
men with a weak constitution,
ill health, or any great infirmity
in body or mind, will often not
wish to marry, or will be rejected.
Dr. Stark seems to have come
to the conclusion that marriage
in itself is a main cause of
prolonged life, from finding
that aged married men still have
a considerable advantage in this
respect over the unmarried of
the same advanced age; but every
one must have known instances
of men, who with weak health
during youth did not marry, and
yet have survived to old age,
though remaining weak, and therefore
with a lessened chance of life
or of marrying. There is another
remarkable circumstance which
seems to support Dr. Stark's
conclusion, namely, that widows
and widowers in France suffer
in comparison with the married
a very heavy rate of mortality;
but Dr. Farr attributes this
to the poverty and evil habits
consequent on the disruption
of the family, and to grief.
On the whole we may conclude
with Dr. Farr that the lesser
mortality of married than of
unmarried men, which seems to
be a general law, "is mainly
due to the constant elimination
of imperfect types, and to the
skilful selection of the finest
individuals out of each successive
generation"; the selection relating
only to the marriage state, and
acting on all corporeal, intellectual,
and moral qualities.*(3) We may,
therefore, infer that sound and
good men who out of prudence
remain for a time unmarried,
do not suffer a high rate of
mortality.
* Dr. Farr, ibid. The quotations
given below are extracted from
the same striking paper.
*(2) I have
taken the mean of the quinquennial
means, given
in the Tenth Annual Report of
Births, Deaths, &c., in Scotland,
1867. The quotation from Dr.
Stark is copied from an article
in the Daily News, Oct. 17, 1868.
which Dr. Farr considers very
carefully written.
*(3) Dr. Duncan
remarks (Fecundity, Fertility, &c., 1871, p. 334)
on this subject: "At every age
the healthy and beautiful go
over from the unmarried side
to the married, leaving the unmarried
columns crowded with the sickly
and unfortunate."
If the various checks specified
in the two last paragraphs, and
perhaps others as yet unknown,
do not prevent the reckless,
the vicious and otherwise inferior
members of society from increasing
at a quicker rate than the better
class of men, the nation will
retrograde, as has too often
occurred in the history of the
world. We must remember that
progress is no invariable rule.
It is very difficult to say why
one civilised nation rises, becomes
more powerful, and spreads more
widely, than another; or why
the same nation progresses more
quickly at one time than at another.
We can only say that it depends
on an increase in the actual
number of the population, on
the number of men endowed with
high intellectual and moral faculties,
as well as on their standard
of excellence. Corporeal structure
appears to have little influence,
except so far as vigour of body
leads to vigour of mind.
It has been
urged by several writers that
as high intellectual
powers are advantageous to a
nation, the old Greeks, who stood
some grades higher in intellect
than any race that has ever existed,*
ought, if the power of natural
selection were real, to have
risen still higher in the scale,
increased in number, and stocked
the whole of Europe. Here we
have the tacit assumption, so
often made with respect to corporeal
structures, that there is some
innate tendency towards continued
development in mind and body.
But development of all kinds
depends on many concurrent favourable
circumstances. Natural selection
acts only tentatively. Individuals
and races may have acquired certain
indisputable advantages, and
yet have perished from failing
in other characters. The Greeks
may have retrograded from a want
of coherence between the many
small states, from the small
size of their whole country,
from the practice of slavery,
or from extreme sensuality; for
they did not succumb until "they
were enervated and corrupt to
the very core."*(2) The western
nations of Europe, who now so
immeasurably surpass their former
savage progenitors, and stand
at the summit of civilisation,
owe little or none of their superiority
to direct inheritance from the
old Greeks, though they owe much
to the written works of that
wonderful people.
* See the ingenious and original
argument on this subject by Mr.
Galton, Hereditary Genius, pp.
340-342.
*(2) Mr. Greg, Fraser's Magazine,
Sept., 1868, p. 357.
Who can positively say why the
Spanish nation, so dominant at
one time, has been distanced
in the race? The awakening of
the nations of Europe from the
dark ages is a still more perplexing
problem. At that early period,
as Mr. Galton has remarked, almost
all the men of a gentle nature,
those given to meditation or
culture of the mind, had no refuge
except in the bosom of a Church
which demanded celibacy;* and
this could hardly fail to have
had a deteriorating influence
on each successive generation.
During this same period the Holy
Inquisition selected with extreme
care the freest and boldest men
in order to burn or imprison
them. In Spain alone some of
the best men- those who doubted
and questioned, and without doubting
there can be no progress- were
eliminated during three centuries
at the rate of a thousand a year.
The evil which the Catholic Church
has thus effected is incalculable,
though no doubt counterbalanced
to a certain, perhaps to a large,
extent in other ways; nevertheless,
Europe has progressed at an unparalleled
rate.
* Hereditary Genius, 1870, pp.
357-359. The Rev. F. W. Farrar
(Fraser's Magazine, Aug., 1870,
p. 257) advances arguments on
the other side. Sir C. Lyell
had already (Principles of Geology,
vol. ii., 1868, p. 489), in a
striking passage, called attention
to the evil influence of the
Holy Inquisition in having, through
selection, lowered the general
standard of intelligence in Europe.
The remarkable
success of the English as colonists,
compared
to other European nations, has
been ascribed to their "daring
and persistent energy"; a result
which is well illustrated by
comparing the progress of the
Canadians of English and French
extraction; but who can say how
the English gained their energy?
There is apparently much truth
in the belief that the wonderful
progress of the United States,
as well as the character of the
people, are the results of natural
selection; for the more energetic,
restless, and courageous men
from all parts of Europe have
emigrated during the last ten
or twelve generations to that
great country, and have there
succeeded best.* Looking to the
distant future, I do not think
that the Rev. Mr. Zincke takes
an exaggerated view when he says:*(2) "All
other series of events- as that
which resulted in the culture
of mind in Greece, and that which
resulted in the empire of Rome-
only appear to have purpose and
value when viewed in connection
with, or rather as subsidiary
to... the great stream of Anglo-Saxon
emigration to the west." Obscure
as is the problem of the advance
of civilisation, we can at least
see that a nation which produced
during a lengthened period the
greatest number of highly intellectual,
energetic, brave, patriotic,
and benevolent men, would generally
prevail over less favoured nations.
* Mr. Galton,
Macmillan's Magazine, August,
1865, p. 325. See also,
Nature, "On Darwinism and National
Life," Dec., 1869, p. 184.
*(2) Last Winter in the United
States, 1868, p. 29.
Natural selection follows from
the struggle for existence; and
this from a rapid rate of increase.
It is impossible not to regret
bitterly, but whether wisely
is another question, the rate
at which man tends to increase;
for this leads in barbarous tribes
to infanticide and many other
evils, and in civilised nations
to abject poverty, celibacy,
and to the late marriages of
the prudent. But as man suffers
from the same physical evils
as the lower animals, he has
no right to expect an immunity
from the evils consequent on
the struggle for existence. Had
he not been subjected during
primeval times to natural selection,
assuredly he would never have
attained to his present rank.
Since we see in many parts of
the world enormous areas of the
most fertile land capable of
supporting numerous happy homes,
but peopled only by a few wandering
savages, it might be argued that
the struggle for existence had
not been sufficiently severe
to force man upwards to his highest
standard. Judging from all that
we know of man and the lower
animals, there has always been
sufficient variability in their
intellectual and moral faculties,
for a steady advance through
natural selection. No doubt such
advance demands many favourable
concurrent circumstances; but
it may well be doubted whether
the most favourable would have
sufficed, had not the rate of
increase been rapid, and the
consequent struggle for existence
extremely severe. It even appears
from what we see, for instance,
in parts of S. America, that
a people which may be called
civilised, such as the Spanish
settlers, is liable to become
indolent and to retrograde, when
the conditions of life are very
easy. With highly civilised nations
continued progress depends in
a subordinate degree on natural
selection; for such nations do
not supplant and exterminate
one another as do savage tribes.
Nevertheless the more intelligent
members within the same community
will succeed better in the long
run than the inferior, and leave
a more numerous progeny, and
this is a form of natural selection.
The more efficient causes of
progress seem to consist of a
good education during youth whilst
the brain is impressible, and
of a high standard of excellence,
inculcated by the ablest and
best men, embodied in the laws,
customs and traditions of the
nation, and enforced by public
opinion. It should, however,
be borne in mind, that the enforcement
of public opinion depends on
our appreciation of the approbation
and disapprobation of others;
and this appreciation is founded
on our sympathy, which it can
hardly be doubted was originally
developed through natural selection
as one of the most important
elements of the social instincts.*
* I am much
indebted to Mr. John Morley
for some good criticisms
on this subject: see, also Broca, "Les
Selections," Revue d'Anthropologie,
1872.
On the evidence that all civilised
nations were once barbarous.-
The present subject has been
treated in so full and admirable
a manner by Sir J. Lubbock,*
Mr. Tylor, Mr. M'Lennan, and
others, that I need here give
only the briefest summary of
their results. The arguments
recently advanced by the Duke
of Argyll*(2) and formerly by
Archbishop Whately, in favour
of the belief that man came into
the world as a civilised being,
and that all savages have since
undergone degradation, seem to
me weak in comparison with those
advanced on the other side. Many
nations, no doubt, have fallen
away in civilisation, and some
may have lapsed into utter barbarism,
though on this latter head I
have met with no evidence. The
Fuegians were probably compelled
by other conquering hordes to
settle in their inhospitable
country, and they may have become
in consequence somewhat more
degraded; but it would be difficult
to prove that they have fallen
much below the Botocudos, who
inhabit the finest parts of Brazil.
* "On the Origin of Civilisation," Proceedings
of the Ethnological Society,
Nov. 26, 1867.
*(2) Primeval Man, 1869.
The evidence
that all civilised nations
are the descendants of
barbarians, consists, on the
one side, of clear traces of
their former low condition in
still-existing customs, beliefs,
language, &c.; and on the other
side, of proofs that savages
are independently able to raise
themselves a few steps in the
scale of civilisation, and have
actually thus risen. The evidence
on the first head is extremely
curious, but cannot be here given:
I refer to such cases as that
of the art of enumeration, which,
as Mr. Tylor clearly shews by
reference to the words still
used in some places, originated
in counting the fingers, first
of one hand and then of the other,
and lastly of the toes. We have
traces of this in our own decimal
system, and in the Roman numerals,
where, after the V, which is
supposed to be an abbreviated
picture of a human hand, we pass
on to VI, &c., when the other
hand no doubt was used. So again, "When
we speak of three-score and ten,
we are counting by the vigesimal
system, each score thus ideally
made, standing for 20- for 'one
man' as a Mexican or Carib would
put it."* According to a large
and increasing school of philologists,
every language bears the marks
of its slow and gradual evolution.
So it is with the art of writing,
for letters are rudiments of
pictorial representations. It
is hardly possible to read Mr.
M'Lennan's work*(2) and not admit
that almost all civilised nations
still retain traces of such rude
habits as the forcible capture
of wives. What ancient nation,
as the same author asks, can
be named that was originally
monogamous? The primitive idea
of justice, as shewn by the law
of battle and other customs of
which vestiges still remain,
was likewise most rude. Many
existing superstitions are the
remnants of former false religious
beliefs. The highest form of
religion- the grand idea of God
hating sin and loving righteousness-
was unknown during primeval times.
* Royal Institution of Great
Britain, March 15, 1867. Also,
Researches into the Early History
of Mankind, 1865.
*(2) Primitive
Marriage, 1865. See, likewise,
an excellent article,
evidently by the same author,
in the North British Review,
July, 1869. Also, Mr. L. H. Morgan, "A
Conjectural Solution of the Origin
of the Class, System of Relationship," in
Proc. American Acad. of Sciences,
vol. vii., Feb., 1868. Prof.
Schaaffhausen (Anthropolog. Review,
Oct., 1869, p. 373) remarks on "the
vestiges of human sacrifices
found both in Homer and the Old
Testament."
Turning to the other kind of
evidence: Sir J. Lubbock has
shewn that some savages have
recently improved a little in
some of their simpler arts. From
the extremely curious account
which he gives of the weapons,
tools, and arts, in use amongst
savages in various parts of the
world, it cannot be doubted that
these have nearly all been independent
discoveries, excepting perhaps
the art of making fire.* The
Australian boomerang is a good
instance of one such independent
discovery. The Tahitians when
first visited had advanced in
many respects beyond the inhabitants
of most of the other Polynesian
islands. There are no just grounds
for the belief that the high
culture of the native Peruvians
and Mexicans was derived from
abroad;*(2) many native plants
were there cultivated, and a
few native animals domesticated.
We should bear in mind that,
judging from the small influence
of most missionaries, a wandering
crew from some semi-civilised
land, if washed to the shores
of America, would not have produced
any marked effect on the natives,
unless they had already become
somewhat advanced. Looking to
a very remote period in the history
of the world, we find, to use
Sir J. Lubbock's well-known terms,
a paleolithic and neolithic period;
and no one will pretend that
the art of grinding rough flint
tools was a borrowed one. In
all parts of Europe, as far east
as Greece, in Palestine, India,
Japan, New Zealand, and Africa,
including Egypt, flint tools
have been discovered in abundance;
and of their use the existing
inhabitants retain no tradition.
There is also indirect evidence
of their former use by the Chinese
and ancient Jews. Hence there
can hardly be a doubt that the
inhabitants of these countries,
which include nearly the whole
civilised world, were once in
a barbarous condition. To believe
that man was aboriginally civilised
and then suffered utter degradation
in so many regions, is to take
a pitiably low view of human
nature. It is apparently a truer
and more cheerful view that progress
has been much more general than
retrogression; that man has risen,
though by slow and interrupted
steps, from a lowly condition
to the highest standard as yet
attained by him in knowledge,
morals and religion.
* Sir J. Lubbock, Prehistoric
Times, 2nd ed., 1869, chaps.
xv. and xvi. et passim. See also
the excellent 9th chapter in
Tylor's Early History of Mankind,
2nd ed., 1870.
*(2) Dr. F. Muller has made
some good remarks to this effect
in the Reise der Novara: Anthropolog.
Theil, Abtheil. iii., 1868, s.
127. |