4(!0 



Till-; Journal of Hkrkditv 



cicnt to give point to an educational 

 propaganda. It is likely in the long 

 run to prove wiser and more beneficial 

 than an advocacy of more radical 

 measures. In spirit and intent it 

 accords very well with the advice of 

 the wise and experienced in .such 

 matters at all times. 'Marry only for 

 love,' said William Penn. 'but be sure 

 that thou lovest what is lovely.' This 

 sage aphorism may be interpreted to 

 mean that we should so cultivate our 

 ai>preciation of what is best in humanity 

 as to be attracted only by those who 

 possess desirable qualities. I fanc\- that 

 this state of things is what positive 

 eugenics hopes to accomplish or aid in 

 accomplishing; not by force, not even 

 by deliberate persuasion, but by bring- 

 ing to the consciousness of educated 

 people a realization of the fact that the 

 welfare of the next generation will be 

 influenced by the way they marry, as 

 well as by the way they live." 



PENSIONS FOR MOTHERS. 



Dr. Ellwood dicsusses and dismisses 

 a number of proposals that have been 

 made in tlie line of positive eugenics. 

 Pensions to mothers and mothers' 

 eomix'nsation do not appeal to him as 

 desirable. "Are we going to put every 

 service which individuals render to 

 society upon a money basis?", he asks, 

 "or are there not some services which we 

 can not pay adequately for with money, 

 and which we should not attempt to 

 pay for with money, because it degrades 

 them? Is not ])arenthood such a ser- 

 vice? Would not the women who would 

 accept compensation for motherhood be 

 the very sort of women whom we might 

 least desire to be mothers? 



"We must, then," he concludes, 

 "give up for the present, at least, the 

 idea of the encouragement of parent- 

 hood in any material way. The whole 

 question, therefore, of jjositive eugenics 

 reduces itself at once to the question of 

 the ideals o^ life which we should 

 encourage in the young. It, therefore, 

 becomes primarily a matter of education 

 rather than legislation. 



"This means, of course, that young 

 men and women must, even at a very 

 early age, be given right ideals of mar- 

 riage and ])arenthood. If they are to 



make a more reasonable selection of 

 mates, not only must the widest acquain- 

 tance between young people be en- 

 couraged by society, but they must also 

 be given somewhat different standards 

 of selection than most of them have at 

 the present time. The ideals of good 

 manners, social jjopularity, good looks, 

 and wealth, must be replaced with the 

 ideals of health, intellectual ability, and 

 moral character. When these latter 

 qualities come to be put first in the 

 mutual choice of the sexes in marriage, 

 there can be no doubt that the benefit 

 to society will be incalculable." 



Dr. Keller takes his stand squarely on 

 the basis laid down by Galton. The 

 latter hoped that eugenics would be 

 ' ' introduced into the national conscience 

 like a new religion;" Dr. Keller recog- 

 nizes the possibility of such an event as 

 being a proper field for the sociologist, 

 and discusses it at length and interest- 

 ingly. It is easy enough to talk about 

 it; the question is, can society really 

 control one of the strongest passions 

 for its own purposes? Has it been able 

 to do so in the past? He points to the 

 taboos that have been in force at one 

 time and another: taboos on consan- 

 guineous marriages, on exogamy, on 

 endogamy, on polygamy; in some cases, 

 indeed, effective taboos on all marriage, 

 as with priests. Nor need we stop with 

 l^rimitivc ])coples, nor with the restraint 

 of one passion alone. 



EFFECTIVE TABOOS. 



"Consider the case of the Hebrews in 

 respect to the food taboo, and the taboo 

 u])on imions within certain degrees of 

 l^lood-kinship. Consider the strength 

 of the taboos lurking in present-day 

 conventions respecting, say, the eating 

 of human flesh or the marriage of the 

 closest kin. If the same distaste were 

 to forbid ncMi-eugenic unions which 

 exists to ])revent the eating of the flesh 

 of cats, the aim of the eugenists would 

 be in large ])art attained." Or, to take 

 a more frivolous and recent case. Dr. 

 Keller mentions the fonner vogue of 

 knee-length golf trousers, and the com- 

 plete disa])i3earanee of them in the 

 United States at present. "There is 

 now a taboo — perfectly irrational in 

 almost every res])cct — upon this style 



