HILL, J. A. Comparative Fecundity of Women of Native and Foreign Parentage in the United States. In Quarterly Publications of American Statistical Society, December, 1913.

HIRSCH, M. Fruchtabtreibung und Prueventivverkehr in Zusammenhang mit dem Gebuertenrueckgang. 1914.

HOFFMAN, F. L. Maternity Statistics of Rhode Island, in Problems in Eugenics. 1912. P. 334 ff.

KUCZYNSKI, R. Fecundity of Native and Foreign Born. Quarterly Journal of Economics, November, 1901, and February, 1902.

MARCHE, M. L. La fertilité des mariages suivant le profession et la situation sociale, in Problems in Eugenics, p. 195 ff.

NEWSHOLME, A. The Declining Birth-rate. 1911.

PEARL, R. The Inheritance of Fecundity, in Problems in Eugenics, p. 47 ff.

PEARSON, KARL, et al. Correlation of Fertility with Social Value. 1913.

SALEEBY, C. W. The Methods of Race Regeneration. 1911. SCHALLMAYER, W. Vererbung v. Auslese im Lebenslauf der Völker. 1903.

CHAPTER X

SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS

Many ages ago man emerged from his ape-like chrysalis and began his long journey. Of all the earlier stages the records are gone beyond recall and the story of his career can only be reconstructed in vaguest outlines from the hints given us by existing savages and the application of existing knowledge as to the conditions under which he lived. In this attempt we are likely to fall into serious error because we look at things through our own eyes and we interpret his life both physical and mental in the light of our own experiences.

It seems certain that early man lived in small groups, probably in a warm climate for he was without clothes, and that he lived largely on fruits. We know that in his day he was surrounded by immense fierce animals from which he could only flee when attacked, for weapons of defense were not yet his.

Of necessity then he lived in a world of fear and that emotion must have been dominant in his mind. Driven by this and other emotions, he acts. More gifted in mind than other animals, he considers the results of his acts, both by himself and by communication with his fellows; and discovers that certain acts under given circumstances bring happy results, while others are disastrous. He learns to play, gather food, hunt, fish, etc., in companies and comes to think of the world in terms of others as well as self. Out of this process he finally evolves language,

and out of it too comes that more or less organized method of looking at the world and its problems which we term his philosophy. It must be emphasized that his philosophy is the outgrowth of his acts, his acts in turn are caused by his emotions. He does not start out with a standard set of rules to meet the emergencies of life, but develops such standards as the result of trying to keep himself alive and meet the needs of the body.

At some time he begins to ask himself as to the nature of other forms of life. He sees that animals eat, drink, sleep and perform the other physical functions as he does. He sees in them many of his own emotions. He does things under the stimulus of his emotions; so do they. Hence there is a great resemblance between himself and them. Could he but learn their language he might converse with them. All causes to him then become personal. Even the events of nature which we think of in terms of law are to him but indications of the action of personality. Ultimately he thinks of the world as peopled with spirits or beings without bodies. No one has traced this evolution in happier fashion than Spencer.

The man looks down into the still pool of water and sees a face. He does not know that it is his face. How could he? He knows nothing of the reflection of light, yet there is a face visible to all onlookers. He calls, and from the cliff echoes and reëchoes the sound of his voice and even the very word or cry. Some one is evidently repeating what he has said. Yet no one can be seen. He sleeps, and dreams of some great experience which he tells to his comrades only to be told that he has been asleep all the time and has not moved from the spot. He knows better. Has he not just done this or that, no matter what friends may say? He sees some one in a coma, and

prepares to dispose of the body, when lo, the friend returns to life. Here, then, is the only answer, there must be a spirit within him which is not confined to the body but may wander over earth at will. The Tagalogs of the Philippines today believe that it is dangerous to waken a man suddenly lest his spirit be found absent and dire results follow. So too the awe-inspiring phenomena, fire, thunder, lightning, tornado, even sickness and final death, come to be thought of in terms of persons.

Now, such a development but illustrates the distinction between belief and knowledge. Belief arises from suggestion, discussion, analogy; while knowledge is the result of observation, experiment, comparison. Knowledge must rest on accurate analysis, belief depends on an assumption of accuracy. Belief may lead to knowledge, but it is quite as likely to lead to error. Knowledge may be verified belief, but more than likely it is verified heresy. Belief strengthens with passing years and the longer it is held the less open to evidence the believer becomes. Knowledge is always seeking new tests of its own adequacy. Belief thus becomes a means of checking progress; knowledge demands more knowledge to explain the things as yet not understood. In early man these two attitudes must have been blended and confused as often as they are today but the distinction is clear.

Out of this medley of knowledge and belief arise the customs, folkways, standards and institutions by which man's life is regulated. To them he subscribes and uses all his power to make his children subscribe. Finally these appear as family, church, state and all the rest, occupying more or less distinct fields. Not so in early days. Life is still a unit. There is no clear, sharp thinking from different standpoints, hence there is no definite

separation of the functions of different agencies. They overlap in endless confusion. Only gradually do they assume more specialized tasks and their functions in different lands by no means agree.

In course of time man comes to think of his earthly career as merely part of a continued existence. He portrays the future as offering rewards and punishments for virtue or vice and thus gains a tremendous support for the standards he is attempting to teach the young. Moreover, this conception eases mightily some of his ethical problems. Vice is not always punished on earth, virtue is often its own only reward, but if there is a future life we may expect punishment for the wicked or the oppressor and compensation for the one who has endured hardship here. This leads to the conception that there is a standard of right and wrong not based on the relative and fluctuating conditions of everyday life. All human groups have tried to develop this final standard because of its marked influence on present conduct, if for no other reason.

There arise thus at least three sets of moralities whose interrelations are often confusing. There is first the morality of the group to which any individual belongs. A little contact with other groups reveals the fact that they have their own standards and that they differ in many ways. Above these is the ethical or religious standard which in its turn often differs materially from the other codes. To which of these sets is obedience due? Primitive man has no trouble in answering this question. The code of the outsider has no application to him though it may do for the outsider. Morality lies in the wholehearted acceptance and execution of the group code which is usually thought of as acceptable to God. It is only an advanced society involving many and conflicting elements