Ptn/rhologiral /nvcutiifntiotui 249 



varied horcMlitary fuculties of (litToront iiion, and of the Kroat diflbroncea in different familieH 

 (iiid racKK, to Ifiirii how fur lii.story may hftv« kIiowii the pnioticiihility (»f Mupplaiitin^ inefficient 

 liuiuiin Ktot^k by lK'tt<T xtniins, Hiid to consider whether it iiiiKht not U< our duty to do «» hy 

 Much effortH iw may !><■  ^'-rtinn <»iirs«!lve.s to further tho ends of evi.I 're 



nipidly and with K'HH il ntn were left to their own coume I tliou irr 



to procetsi like tlio surveyor of u new country, and endeavour to fix in the first iublauou a» 

 truly us I could the position of mvcimI nirdinal |X)int«." (pp. 1-2.) 



It is clear from tliis j that Galton recognised he was a pioneer. 



He was, indeed, the first to grasp that if evohition be the true doctrine of 

 the development of living forms, then it is desirable for rational man 

 to take stock of his varieties, mental and physical, to mejisure their 

 evolutionary value, and to throw himself into sympathy with the changes 

 Nature foreshadows for his kind. The intention of (lalton's work is to touch 

 on various topics more or loss coimected with the cultivation of race or, as he 

 puts it (p. 24), with "eugenic" questions'. Galton proposes to tell us the range 

 of qualities Ibund in man and therein must lie man's po.ssibilityof improvement. 

 Is it not a religious duty of tlu^ mtMi of to-day to leave their race butter than 

 they found it? Or, as Ilomanes phrased Galton's idea: Is it not man's high 

 prerogative to cooperate with the unknown Worker in pn)moting the great 

 work { The world wiis not ripe for such a doctrine in 188'5, and, needless to 

 say, it raised theological ire. The Guardian published a thoroughly hostile 

 review from which 1 cite a few sentences: 



"The author cannot even refrain from trespa-ssinj; upon the territory of those with whom 

 he is at issue, a territory which for hiui is not matter, which cannot be st«n, or touched or 

 measured or weiglunl — and so cannot In* prove<l (by his method of proof) to exist. We are 

 henceforth to apply oursi-lvos U) elicit the 're/iijious sij^niticance' of the do<'trine of evolution; 

 whether if we substitute" for religious anti-relujiouH, Mr Galton would be able to demonstrate 

 any difi'ert"nct> in the meaning conveyed by the words he uses we take leave to doubt." 



Speaking of Galton's remarks on the herd (see our p. 74) the critic writes: 



"A small tril)e is sure to be slaughtered or enslaved; a large one falls to pieces through its 

 own 'unwioldinc8.s.' Tt must be 'either deficient in centralisation or straightened for food or 

 both.' '8i>lf-reliant individuals' i\n- reijuired; but neither too few nor t<K> many. The import- 

 ance of gregarious instincts in savagt^ life is fully set forth; but they are not equally im[>ortant 

 to 'all forms of sjivagi> life.' Natural sekn-tion tends to give one leader 'and to oppress super- 

 abundant lejuier.s.' As we have been tAiight l)efore, this wonderful law of natural selection 

 creates and tiestroys, rtKiuces and enlarges, raises and represses, origiiuites and ainiihilates." 



Galton, as we know, discussed only the objective eflBcacy of prayer (see 

 our pp. 115-17), and the critic cites nis words with the comment we give 

 following them : 



' "That is, witli questions Ijearing on what is termed in (Jreek i^ujeneg, namely, good in 

 stock, hei-e<litarily endoweil with noble qualities. This and the allietl word.s, ettgeneia, etc., are 

 equally applicable to men, brute's and plants. We greatly want a brief word to express the 

 science of improving stock, which is by no means continwl to ({ue.stions of judicious mating, 

 but which, esiH'cially in the case of nuui, takivs cogniamce of all intluences that tend in however 

 remote a degree to give to the niore suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of pre- 

 vailing speedily over the less suitable than they otherwise would have had. The word eugenic* 

 would sufficiently express the idea; it is at lenst a neater word and a more generalised one 

 than viriculture, which I once ventured to use." (pp. 24-r> ; see our p. 1 10.) Thus the name for 

 the science of eugenics was invented just forty years ago. 



p o u 32 



