80 miles by rail east-southeast of Montgomery, on the Chattahoochee River, and on the Central of Georgia Railroad (Map: Alabama, D 4). It is a shipping point of some importance and has manufactures of cotton goods, cottonseed oil, buggies, and fertilizers. The water works and lighting plant are owned and operated by the city. Pop., 1900, 4532; 1910, 4259. ested in the maiden and thought she would make a suitable wife for the Emperor. She was married to the Emperor in 421 A.D. For many years, however, Pulcheria ruled in the Imperial household and councils, Eudocia, according to Nicephorus, "submitting to her as mother and Augusta"; but in 447 a quarrel broke out between them in regard to the Eutychian heresy, of which Eudocia had become a supporter. (See EUTYCHES.) At first Eudocia was triumphant, and Pulcheria was banished; but in a short time the Emperor was reconciled to his sister and treated Eudocia so harshly that she retired to Jerusalem, where she died 460-61 A.D. Her latter days were spent in works of piety and charity. Through the influence of the famous Simeon Stylites, she was induced to renounce Eutychianism and become an orthodox Catholic Christian. She wrote a poem in heroic verse on the victory obtained by the troops of Theodosius over the Persians, 421 or 422 A.D.; a paraphrase of eight books of Scripture; parapl hrase of Daniel and Zechariah; and a poem in three books on the history and martyr dom of Cyprian and Justina. A work called Homerocentones, composed of verses taken from Homer, and so arranged as to give a history of the fall of man and of his redemption by Christ, has also (but without sufficient reason) been attributed to her. Consult: Gregorovius, Athenaïs (Leipzig, 1892); Ludwich, Eudocia Augustæ Carminum Reliquia (Königsberg, 1893); Cambridge Medieval History, vol. i (New York, 1911). EUDO DE STELLA. See EON. EUDOXIA FEODOROVNA, få ́ð-dð-rôv'nå (1669-1731). A czarina of Russia. She was a the daughter of the Boyar Feodor Lopukhin, and at the age of 19 was married to Peter the Great, who was at that time 17. Her family belonged to the Conservative party, and this fact and her staid piety alienated Peter from her. In 1698, apparently for refusing to agree to a divorce, she was imprisoned in the convent of Susdal. Upon the trial of her son Alexis was brought to Moscow (1718), and was for adultery and forced to confess her and upon the condemnation of Alexis she was transferred to the monastery of Staraya Lodoga, near Schlüsselburg. cession to the throne of her grandson, Peter II, enabled her to return to Moscow, where she died. EUDOX'US (Lat., from Gk. Eudogos, Eudoxos) (c.408-355 B.C.). One of the most promi she tried guilt; nent was tius that speaks of him as In 1728 the ac He was EUGA'NEAN HILLS (named after the ancient Italic tribe of Eugaine). A range of hills in the western part of the Province of Padua, near Padua, north Italy (Map: Italy, F 2). They are of volcanic formation and quite isolated. The highest point, Monte Venda, has an altitude of over 1900 feet. The range contains a number of mineral springs and valuable stone and marble quarries. EUGANEI. See EUGANEAN HILLS. EUGEN, oi-gan', FRIEDRICH KARL, DUKE OF WÜRTTEMBERG (1788-1857). A Russian general, born at Oels, Germany. His father's sister was the wife of the Emperor Paul of Russia. While still a child, he was created major general. He participated in the campaign of 1806-07 in Prussia and of 1810 in Turkey. He was made lieutenant general after the battle of Smolensk (Aug. 17, 1812) and distinguished himself in the engagements at Borodino, Tarutino, Krasnoi, Lützen, Bautzen, Kulm, and Leipzig. He was commander of the Seventh Russian Army Corps during the Russo-Turkish War of 1828 and retired from the service after the Peace of Adrianople, devoting himself to study. He composed some music, including Lieder, symphonies, and an opera Die Geisterbraut, which was produced in Breslau in 1830. Feldzuge des Jahres 1812 in Russland (1846) principal works are Erinnerungen aus and Memoiren (1862), a volume of interesting recollections. of the Greek mathematicians. born in Cnidus, was a pupil of Archytas, who head of the Pythagorean school at Tarentum, and studied for a few months under Plato. He founded a school at Cyzicus. Diogenes Laër cian, legislator, and geometer. an astronomer, physiIt is thought Euclid, v, and xiii, 1-5, dealing with proportion and the five regular polyhedra, is largely due to him. He is said to have invented & curve called the iπяожÉВη (horse fetter), an 8 on its side. EUDOXUS, OF CYZICUS. the second century bian Sea. Later, working independently, he made explored, for Ptolemy Euergetes, the AraStrabo made use of his discoveries. Voyages along the west coast of Africa. Consult Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography, vol. ii B.C. two like A Greek explorer, (London, 1879). His dem EUGENE, û-jen'. A city and the county seat of Lane Co., Oreg., 124 miles by rail south by west of Portland, on the Willamette River, and on the Southern Pacific, the Oregon Electric, and the Portland, Eugene, and Eastern railroads (Map: Oregon, B 3). The University of Oregon, opened in 1876, and the Eugene Bible University are situated here, and there is a Carnegie library. The city is the commercial centre for the fertile agricultural country of the upper Willamette valley, which is noted for its wealth of timber, and which also contains de posits of gold and silver. The industrial establishments include canneries, flouring, woolen, saw, and planing mills, sash, door, furniture, and excelsior factories, ironworks, and machine shops, tanneries, brickyards, etc. Under a charter of 1893 the government is vested in a mayor, elected biennially, and a municipal council. Eugene was first settled in 1854 and was incorporated 10 years later. It owns its water works and electric-light plant. Pop., 1900, 3236; 1910, 9009; 1914 (U. S. est.), 12,083; 1920, 10,593. EUGÈNE, ĕ'zhân', FRANÇOIS (1663-1736). A celebrated Austrian general, best known as Prince Eugène of Savoy, his full name being François-Eugène de Savoie-Carignan. He was the son of Eugène Maurice, Count of Soissons and of Olympia Mancini, a niece of Cardinal Mazarin, and was born in Paris, Oct. 18, 1663. The banishment of his mother to the Low Countries, by the order of Louis XIV, and the refusal of the King to grant him a commission in the army, so incensed Eugène against France that he indignantly renounced his country and entered the service of the Emperor Leopold I as a volunteer against the Turks. Though barely 20 years of age and without military training, he displayed extraordinary talents in war, especially at the famous siege of Vienna in 1683. He soon rose to a high position in the army. In the war of the Coalition against Louis XIV (1689-97) he took an active part in the fighting in Italy and in 1691 was raised to the command of the Imperial army in Piedmont. It was about this time that Louis XIV offered him the bâton of a marshal of France, the generalship of Champagne, and a large pension, but Eugène refused all such advances. In 1693 he was made a field marshal of Austria, and on his return to Vienna he was placed at the head of the army of Hungary and defeated the Turks, with immense slaughter, in the famous battle of Zenta, Sept. 11, 1697. In 1701 the War of the Spanish Succession broke out, and Eugène was put in command of the army in Italy; but his forces were too small for him to accomplish anything of importance. In the year 1703, being appointed president of the council of war, he became thenceforth the prime mover of every military undertaking. He first took the command of the Imperial army in Germany, and with Marlborough gained a brilliant victory at Blenheim, Aug. 13, 1704, over the French and Bavarians. Eugène afterward saved Turin, and expelled the French from Italy in the year 1706. He shared, too, with Marlborough the glory of the fields of Oudenarde in 1708 and Malplaquet in 1709; but, being erippled in his resources by the retirement of Holland and England from the contest, he was unable to withstand the enemy on the Rhine. The defeat of his Dutch allies by Villars at Denain, July 24, 1712, was followed by other disasters, until the Peace of Rastadt (1714) put an end to the war. In 1716, on the renewal of the war against the Turks, Eugène defeated an army of 180,000 men at Peterswardein, took Temesvár, and in the year 1717, after a bloody battle, gained possession of Belgrade. After the Peace of Passarowitz, which was concluded in the following year, he returned to Vienna, where during the succeeding years of peace he labored with unwearied energies in the cabinet. When the question of the succession to the throne of Poland brought on a new war with France (1733-35), Eugène appeared again on the Rhine; but, being now advanced in years and destitute of sufficient resources, he was unable to accomplish anything of importance. After the peace he returned to Vienna, where he died April 21, 1736, leaving an immense fortune to his niece, the Princess Victoria of Savoy. In his later years he was a patron of art and literature. Among the common people of Germany and Austria his fame lives in songs, as "Prinz Eugen der edle Ritter"; his reputation as a great military leader is firmly established. Bibliography. The most elaborate work on Prince Eugène is that of Arneth, Prinz Eugen von Savoyen (Vienna, 1858): for a popular biography, consult Malleson, Prince Eugene of Savoy (London, 1888). Other important works are: Kausler, Das Leben des Prinzen Eugen von Savoyen, etc. (Freiburg, 1838-39); Von Sybel, Prinz Eugen von Savoyen (Munich, 1861); Heller. Militarische Korrespondenz der Prinzen Eugen ron Savoyen, etc. (Vienna, 1848): Von Landmann, Die Begründung der Grossmachtstel lung Oesterreich-Ungarns Prinz Eugen (Munich, 1905). EUGENE ARAM, û-jén' à'ram. A novel by Bulwer Lytton, published in 1832. See ARAM, EUGENE. An EUGENE ONEGIN, oigần ônh gừn opera by Tschaikowski (q.v.), first produced in Moscow, March 29, 1879; in the United States, Feb. 2, 1908 (New York, in concert form). EUGENIA. See MYRTACEÆ. EUGEN'ICS (from Gk. evyerýs, eugenēs, well born). The science of the improvement of the human race by better breeding. The modern movement for the adoption of various eugenie principles owes its inception as well as much of its present status to the consistent efforts of the late Sir Francis Galton, by whom the word "eugenics" was first employed. Galton was interested both in the scientific and in the prac tical aspects of the subject. On the scientific side his thinking was much influenced by the biological researches of his more famous cousin, Charles Darwin. A number of the biological principles upon which the science of eugenics rests were known, however, much earlier than Darwin's time. By means of these principles agriculturalists and stock breeders had long been making innumerable improvements in the quality of plants and animals. As Darwin himself pointed out, the principle of selection, the most fundamental of all the principles emphasized by the eugenist, was known even to the ancient Chinese. Explicit rules of selection appear also in the works of some of the Roman classical writers. The principle of selection did not attract much notice from scientists, however, until Darwin published his Origin of Species (1859). This book quickly drew attention to the fact that man, like the lower animals, has passed through a long evolution in which his bodily and probably his mental characteristics have been materially altered. The notion that further modifications of a desirable sort might be brought about in the race by purposive selection of innate traits inevitably followed. Thus Darwin laid the theoretical basis for eugenics. It was the publication of Galton's two famous articles on "Heredity, Talent and Character" in Macmillan's Magazine for July and August. 1865, however, that may be said to have definitely inaugurated the attempt to apply biological theories to the practical problem of the improvement of the human race. Impressed by the plasticity of the physical forms of animals under the breeders' selection. Galton in these articles announced his purpose of showing more pointedly than had hitherto been attempted that the mental qualities of men are equally under control. His main thesis was that inherited ability was the chief reason for the recurrence of talent in distinguished families. This thesis he supported by a mass of biographical evidence to show how strikingly the frequent occurrence of able sons of able men indicates that mental qualities quite as much as physical traits are subject to the principles of natural inheritance. The practical conclusion he expressed in characteristically striking fashion. "How vastly would the offspring be improved," he exclaims, "supposing distinguished women to be commonly married to distinguished men, generation after generation . . . according to rules of which we are now ignorant, but which a study of the subject would be sure to evolve." Four years later, in 1869, appeared Gal ton's monumental work Hereditary Genius. In this-the classic of eugenic literature-Galton not only reiterated his belief in eugenic principles, but with highly scientific precision attempted to apply mathematical principles of the law of deviation from an average to the determination of the frequency with which the occurrence of talented progeny from talented ancestry might be expected normally. In this same work was incorporated a chapter on "Influences that Affect the Natural Ability of Nations." In this chapter are marshaled facts and arguments to show how actual modifications of human quality have occurred by means of influences that are or can be made subject to man's own control. The sterilizing effect upon the ability of subsequent generations produced by the decimation of talented men during the Spanish Inquisition is emphasized. In the same work, also, is clearly stated the evident but tremendously significant fact that, other things being equal, the group or nation which, on the average, has the least interval between generations and which possesses the highest average fertility will, through the mere fact of superiority in the rate of increase, eventually outnumber and overcome competing groups or nations. Such, then, were the beginnings of a science, itself hardly yet beyond the period of infancy. For many years after these beginnings little was accomplished in the immediate field of eugenies. During the latter quarter of the nineteenth century, however, practically all biologists became convinced of the soundness of Darwin's fundamental position. The public also became less skeptical of biological doctrines. When, therefore, in 1900 there occurred two events of prime importance for eugenics, the ground was prepared for widespread interest in the entire subject. The first of these two events was a lecture on "National Life from the Standpoint of Science," delivered at Newcastle, England, by Prof. Karl Pearson, perhaps the most ardent of all Galton's disciples. The other event was the rediscovery by four independent experimenters of the biological relationship now known as the Mendelian laws of heredity. Pearson's lecture abounded with such vigorous statements as these: "Bear in mind that one-quarter only of the married people of the country-say a sixth to an eighth of the adult populationproduce 50 per cent of the next generation. You will then see how essential it is for the maintenance of a physically and mentally fit race that this one-sixth to one-eighth of our population should be drawn from the best and not from the worst stocks. A nation that begins to tamper with its fertility may have changed its national characteristics before two generations have passed." Coming, as it did, when the English nation was wondering whether the reverses it had sustained in South Africa might not indicate a definite deterioration in the quality of the population of the country, Pearson's lecture created a profound impression upon the public mind. On the other hand, the rediscovery of the principles which had been announced by Gregor Mendel in 1866, but which had been forgotten, created an equally profound impression upon the biologists. The result was a revival of interest in theories of heredity. over, the fact that the Mendelian laws were discovered by the experimental method caused the enthusiastic adoption of this method, in biology, by investigators throughout the world. More How significant for the science of eugenics these developments have proved can be appreciated only by those who thoroughly understand the biological principles involved. For out of the differences in the views of those who, like Karl Pearson, have followed Galton's lead and the views of those who, like Prof. Charles B. Davenport, director of the Eugenics Laboratory at Cold Spring Harbor, N. Y., have been impressed chiefly with the importance of the Mendelian laws and the results of the experimental method, there has grown up a mass of controversial literature that it would be impossible to summarize here. The chief theoretical problems, however, may be indicated briefly, and their importance for eugenics pointed out. The controversial points are largely in the field of the theory of heredity. Preliminary to their discussion a short statement of certain general biological and eugenic principles accepted by both schools will be advantageous. The fundamental doctrine of eugenics, as before indicated, is that of selection. Selection, in the biological and eugenic sense, occurs when within a species one organic type differing from another in hereditary characteristics contributes a larger proportion of progeny to the next generation than does the type from which it differs. Thus, inasmuch as certain types of feeble. mindedness tend to be hereditary, selection will operate to increase the proportion of feebleminded in the next generation if feeble-minded persons have more progeny, on the average, than do parents who are normal. Contrary to a somewhat popular belief, however, selection in the biological sense does not occur, in all probability, if the differences in parental types are merely due to training. Thus, e.g., there is probably no selective effect when parents who differ from others merely because they are highly educated contribute a greater or less proportion of progeny to the next generation than do uneducated parents. This is because education is an acquired trait and is not transmitted by heredity. If, however, it could be proved that the educated classes are possessed, on average, of greater natural ability than are the uneducated classes in any community, then a selective effect would be shown to occur whenever one class is more fertile than another, provided, of course, the differences in natural ability between the two classes tend to reappear in the offspring. Neither Pearsonian nor Mendelian doubts the fact that some classes of persons are more fertile than other classes, and that profound social and probably important eugenic changes are the result of such differ ences. the The real problem is one of heredity and may be stated as follows: first, do different classes of men differ in important hereditary traits? Second, if so, do they transmit their differences in full force or in diminished intensity? Third, is the transmission of significant traits to all of the progeny or only to some? Fourth, if only to some, what is the probability that a given proportion of the progeny will inherit a given amount of the characteristic? Fifth, can the characteristics of progeny be predicted in the case of individuals or only on the average for large numbers? Sixth, are different traits inherited independently, or, if one characteristic of an ancestor is shown to reappear in a way capable of definite statement, do other characteristics of the same ancestor reappear in the same way? An illustration of each point will show the relation of each to the problem of better breeding. First, it makes little difference to the welfare of man whether blue-eyed parents tend to produce blue-eyed children. It is of profound importance if mentally gifted parents have gifted children. Second, if the children are gifted in a degree equal to that of their parents, the stock will not deteriorate; if, however, there is a diminished intensity of the trait inherited, the stock will become mediocre in a few generations. Third, if all the children in herit a desirable trait, the desirable effect, upon the next generation of the population, of a few fertile marriages of persons of talent will be greater than if only a portion of the children do so. Fourth, if only a portion of the children inherit the gift, the degree of effect upon the next generation will depend upon the proportionate number who do inherit the trait. Fifth, unless the characteristics of the progeny of particular individuals can be predicted, practical efforts to increase or diminish the fertility of particular individuals are useless. Average results would confine practical measures entirely to encouraging or discouraging the fertility of large classes of men. Action against an individual who belonged to a class whose progeny contained on the average a large proportion of persons possessing undesirable innate traits could profitably be taken only on the ground that the probability of undesirable progeny was so great that social expediency required the suppression of the stock, in spite of the possibility that the progeny of that particular individual might prove to be entirely normal. In addition to the foregoing points there are, of course, many other important questions in volved. Not the least among these is the determination in the case of a given individual whether a given trait deemed desirable or undesirable is, as a matter of fact, an hereditary trait or whether it is a trait due merely to the peculiar circumstances in which the individual's life has been passed. From the foregoing it will appear that the theoretical problems of eugenics are not simple. Thus far only a beginning has been made towards their solution. With Galton, the scientifically minded man must still confess ignorance, for the most part, of the particular rules by which to render eugenic progress a certainty. The reasons for this ignorance will appear by briefly indicating the various positions that are held by scientists of repute on some of the theoretical points just enumerated. With respect to the following statement, however, it must be remembered that not only are innumerable controversial details involved, but also that frequent additions to knowledge are being made in the details of each subject. The first of the enumerated points, of course, involves the whole eugenic question. The eugenist holds that men differ greatly in important hereditary mental as well as physical traits. He has reputable opponents who hold the contrary. Pointing to the unity of all organic life, the eugenist emphasizes the fact that biological laws which hold for animals and in many instances are known to be true of man's physical characteristics could hardly fail to hold true of many of his mental traits. He thinks that the known hereditary character of feeble-minded ness and of various forms of nervous diseases is but one of the more readily detected instances. He contends that the great frequency with which eminent men are the sons or near relatives of eminent men-a fact of which there is abundant evidence in the researches of Galton and others proves beyond a doubt that important hereditary differences exist among individuals. The extreme eugenist may even emphasize these differences to the extent of holding that different races of men are much superior in native mental ability to others. Some scientists, on the other hand, like the late Prof. Lester F. Ward and the anthropologist Prof. Franz Boas, have held that there is little if any difference in average innate mental ability among different races. These writers also contend that the differences among individuals within any given race are far greater than whatever differences there may be among the races themselves. In consequence these writers hold that some men of every race are likely to show a high degree of ability. They hold also that eminent men have eminent progeny in large part because they provide exceptional opportunities for their offspring. Argument on these general grounds, however, is not extremely fruitful. Better re sults may be anticipated from the recording, generation after generation, of the various mental traits of individuals who are related by birth and deducing laws of heredity in man from facts which, to some extent at least, can be freed from the effects of environmental as opposed to hereditary influences. Work of this character has been started by Davenport at the Eugenics Record Office in Cold Spring Harbor, N. Y., and also under the direction of the Eugenics Laboratory in England. One of the most hopeful developments in this field is the socalled "Binet test," by means of which various mental traits of individuals are measured with some degree of accuracy. Another development of importance is Professor Thorndike's systematic studies, undertaken at Columbia University, to ascertain the degree of separability among mental traits (i.e., whether mental ability is a general or a complex fact). On the basis of such work as these men are doing it may become possible eventually to state positively and in quantitative form the degree to which men differ in innate traits rather than merely to assume that they do differ. With respect to the other five questions there is a fundamental difference of approach within the ranks of the eugenists. These differences in method yield differences in results. The five questions require quantitative analysis, and both schools present their results in statistical form. The Pearsonian, however, is always stating averages obtained from large numbers of cases. The Mendelian is always presenting the facts gleaned from experiments upon individual lines of inheritance. There have been many attempts to reconcile the results of both schools, but none have attained complete success. Other differences in the results of the two schools arise. however, from differences in underlying biologi. cal assumptions. The Pearsonians--or Biometricians, as they are often called-assume that the traits of individuals vary to a greater or less extent from a normal or usual value. For example, the average height of 683 upper middle-class English males was found by Galton to be 69.215 centimeters. Some of the individuals, of course, were taller and some were shorter— there were variations from the average height. The Mendelians, on the other hand, have studied for the most part traits that are termed alter EUGENICS 159 as native. For example, a person is either blueeyed or he is not. It may ultimately prove that the first assumption is true with respect to some traits, and that the second is true with to others. The difference is a fundarespect mental one. It is of great practical significance, also, because under certain conditions an alternative character which "Mendelizes" may entirely disappear in a single generation from certain lines of progeny. See HEREDITY, section on Mendelian Laws, paragraph on "Segregation." Under such circumstances, therefore, the complete disappearance of an objectionable Mendelian trait could be brought about by selective Another difmating in a single generation. between the schools arises from the fact ference that the Biometricians deal with traits simple which upon further investigation may prove to be complex. Stature, conceivably, may be the resultant of three "unit" characters-one determining height of the cranium, another the length of neck and trunk, and a third the length of the legs. It may easily be proved that from the standpoint of eugenics, as Davenport holds, sitting height is more important than standing height. And so also with other more signifiIf mental ability should cant characteristics. prove to be the resultant of many "unit" characters, from the Mendelian point of view, probable, and if each of these "unit" characters happens to follow different modes of inheritance, as might also prove to be the case, the problem of controlling the inheritance of such a complex set of characters would evidently be one of great difficulty. Up to the present time examples of the operation of the Mendelian laws, however, have been found chiefly among the lower animals and plants. small number of cases only have the traits man, thus far, been shown to follow these Eye color, brachydactylism, certain forms of cataract, various affections of the skin and hair, color blindness, and night blindness are representative examples. The frequency of abnormalities in this list is due, probably, to the fact that records for several generations are required to demonstrate the law, and abnormalities attract notice more than variations in normal traits. seems In a of laws. as, There is little doubt that many other human traits of far more importance than these will be shown, eventually, to follow the Mendelian laws of inheritance. Until proof is adduced, however, concerning the applicability of the Mendelian laws to important mental in man, it is evident that the practical measures possible wherever these laws operate must await further extension of knowledge. traits "2. Historical inquiry into the rates with for believing that national rise and decline is From the foregoing it is apparent that the problem of eugenics is essentially biological in its nature. Its future development depends upon the future of the biological sciences, and no amount of popular agitation will hasten the attainment of adequate biological knowledge. wise militate "3. Systematic collection of facts showing the circumstances under which large and thriving families have most frequently originated; in other words, the conditions of eugenics. These facts, however, in no of heredity and "4. Influences affecting marriage. Social influences of all kinds have immense power in the end, and they are very various. If unsuitable marriages from the eugenic point of view were banned socially, or even regarded with the unreasonable disfavor which some attach to cousin marriages, very few would be made. The multitude of marriage restrictions that have proved prohibitive among uncivilized people would require a volume to describe. Dissemination of a knowledge of the laws seem ... "5. Persistence in setting forth the national importance of eugenics. There are three stages to be passed through. First, it must be made familiar as an academic question, until its exact importance has been understood and accepted as a fact; secondly, it must be recognized as a serious consideration; and, thirdly, it must be subject whose practical development deserves introduced into the national conscience, like a new religion. . . . I see no impossibility in eugenics becoming a religious dogma among mankind, but its details must first be worked out sedulously in the study. Overzeal leading to hasty action would do harm. "The first and main point is to secure the general intellectual acceptance of eugenics as a hopeful and most important study. Then let its principles work into the heart of the nation, who [sic] will gradually give practical effect to them in ways that we may not wholly foresee." These suggestions, it will be noted, are conservative. They emphasize the study of conditions rather than hasty application of dogmatic assumptions. Some time after they were made Galton added to them the idea that at some future time some suitable authority might be established to issue |