may be noted that Reibmayr, in his recent Entwicklungsgeschichte des Genics und Talentes, argues that the superior races, and superior individuals, in the human species, have been produced by an unconscious adherence to exactly these principles.) “By segregating superior families, and by breeding these in-and-in, superior varieties of human beings might be produced, which would be comparable to the thoroughbreds in all the domestic races.”  He illustrates this by the early history of the Jews.

Noyes finally criticises the present method, or lack of method, in matters of propagation.  Our marriage system, he states, “leaves mating to be determined by a general scramble.”  By ignoring, also, the great difference between the sexes in reproductive power, it “restricts each man, whatever may be his potency and his value, to the amount of production of which one woman, chosen blindly, may be capable.”  Moreover, he continues, “practically it discriminates against the best, and in favor of the worst; for, while the good man will be limited by his conscience to what the law allows, the bad man, free from moral check, will distribute his seed beyond the legal limits, as widely as he dares.”  “We are safe every way in saying that there is no possibility of carrying the two precepts of scientific propagation into an institution which pretends to no discrimination, allows no suppression, gives no more liberty to the best than to the worst, and which, in fact, must inevitably discriminate the wrong way, so long as the inferior classes are most prolific and least amenable to the admonitions of science and morality.”  In modifying our sexual institutions, Noyes insists there are two essential points to remember:  the preservation of liberty, and the preservation of the home.  There must be no compulsion about human scientific propagation; it must be autonomous, directed by self-government, “by the free choice of those who love science well enough to ’make themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven’s sake.’” The home, also, must be preserved, since “marriage is the best thing for man as he is;” but it is necessary to enlarge the home, for, “if all could learn to love other children than their own, there would be nothing to hinder scientific propagation in the midst of homes far better than any that now exist.”

This memorable pamphlet contains no exposition of the precise measures adopted by the Oneida Community to carry out these principles.  The two essential points were, as we know, “male continence” (see ante p. 553), and the enlarged family, in which all the men were the actual or potential mates of all the women, but no union for propagation took place, except as the result of reason and deliberate resolve.  “The community,” says H.J.  Seymour, one of the original members (The Oneida Community, 1894, p. 5), “was a family, as distinctly separated from surrounding society as ordinary