me, is the fact that the semen, so far as one can judge by ordinary means of observation, is undiminished in quantity and unchanged in character. (Of course, the microscope would reveal its fatal lack.)

“My wife is delighted at having fear banished from our love, and, taken all in all, it certainly seems as if life would mean more to us both.  Incidentally, the health of both of us seems better than usual, particularly so in my wife’s case, and this she attributes to a soothing influence that is attained by allowing the seminal fluid to be deposited in a perfectly normal manner, and remain in contact with the vaginal secretions until it naturally passes off.

“This operation being comparatively new, and, as yet, not often done on others than the insane, criminal, etc., I thought it might be of interest to you.  If I shed even the faintest ray of light on this greatest of all human problems ...  I shall be glad indeed.”

    Such a case, with its so far satisfactory issue, certainly
    deserves to be placed on record, though it may well be that at
    present it will not be widely imitated.

The earliest advocacy of castration, which I have met with as a part of negative eugenics, for the specific “purpose of prophylaxis as applied to race improvement and the protection of society,” is by Dr. F.E.  Daniel, of Texas, and dates from 1893.[447] Daniel mixed up, however, somewhat inextricably, castration as a method of purifying the race, a method which can be carried out with the concurrence of the individual operated on, with castration as a punishment, to be inflicted for rape, sodomy, bestiality, pederasty and even habitual masturbation, the method of its performance, moreover, to be the extremely barbarous and primitive method of total ablation of the sexual organs.  In more recent years somewhat more equitable, practical, and scientific methods of castration have been advocated, not involving the removal of the sexual glands or organs, and not as a punishment, but simply for the sake of protecting the community and the race from the burden of probably unproductive and possibly dangerous members.  Naecke has, from 1899 onwards, repeatedly urged the social advantages of this measure.[448] The propagation of the inferior elements of society, Naecke insists, brings unhappiness into the family and is a source of great expense to the State.  He regards castration as the only effective method of prevention, and concludes that it is, therefore, our duty to adopt it, just as we have adopted vaccination, taking care to secure the consent of the subject himself or his guardian, of the civil authorities, and, if necessary, of a committee of experts.  Professor Angelo Zuccarelli of Naples has also, from 1899 onwards, emphasized the importance of castration in the sterilization of the epileptic, the insane of various classes, the alcoholic, the tuberculous, and instinctive criminals,