most cases, a legalized system of prostitution, thus dragging society down to a lower level instead of raising it, and tending to the deterioration, instead of the improvement, of the race, if not to its extinction. As to infanticide, this certainly would not be tolerated by public opinion, although it is now largely resorted to under the guise of abortion. To legalize child-killing under any circumstances would be to offer a premium for murder, even if it were permitted only with the express sanction in every case of the officials of the State. There is now no justification for such a course, as the education of those who appear to be on a mental level with the animals has been carried so far that the term "idiot" may soon have to be dropped from our vocabulary.

It must be affirmed, however, that the whole subject of the improvement of the race was dealt with by Plato, and, indeed, by the ancients generally, in a very crude and superficial manner. This has been well pointed out by Professor B. Jowett in the Introduction to his translation of Plato's "Republic." Professor Jowett objects generally that the great error in the speculations of Plato and others on the improvement of the race is, "that the difference between men and the animals is forgotten in them." The human being is regarded with the eye of a dog or bird fancier, or at best of a slave owner; the higher or human qualities are left out. The breeder of animals aims chiefly at size or speed or strength; in a few cases, at courage and temper; most often the fitness of the animal for food is the greatest desideratum. But mankind are not bred to be eaten, nor yet for their superiority in fighting or in running or in drawing carts. Nor does the improvement of the human race consist merely in the increase of the bones and flesh, but in the growth and enlightenment of the mind. Hence there must be a marriage of true minds as well as of bodies; of imagination and reason as well as of lusts and instincts. Men and women without feeling or imagination are justly called brutes; yet Plato takes away these qualities and puts nothing in their place, not even the desire of a noble offspring, since parents are not to know their own children. The most important transaction of social life he who is the idealist philosopher converts into the most brutal. For the pair are to have no relation to each other but at the hymeneal festival; their children are not theirs, but the State's; nor is any tie of affection to unite them. Yet the analogy of the animals might have saved Plato from a gigantic error if he had not lost sight of his own illustration! For the "nobler sort of birds and beasts" nourish and protect their offspring and are faithful to one another! It is certainly surprising, as Jowett says, that the greatest of ancient philosophers should, in his marriage regulations, have fallen into the error of separating body and mind. He did so probably through a false notion of the antagonism between the family and the State, and hence, as Lycurgus did not aim at destroying family life he escaped that error.

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

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

Sexual Selection.—Professor Romanes, after referring to those facts, which are considered in detail by his great predecessor, states the theory of sexual selection as follows: "There can be no question that the courtship of birds is a highly elaborate business, in which the males do their best to surpass one another in charming the females. Obviously the inference is that the males do not take all this trouble for nothing; but that the females give their consent to pair with the males whose personal appearance, or whose voice, proves to be the most attractive. But, if so, the young of the male bird who is thus selected will inherit his superior beauty; and thus, in successive generations, a continuous advance will be made in the beauty of plumage or of song, as the case may be,—both the origin and development of beauty in the animal world being thus supposed due to the esthetic taste of the animals themselves."

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

These statements are applicable also to man,