62 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



ment. Formerly, Anthropology, the natural history of man, was not 

 represented in philosophical bodies, nor by the periodical press. Now, 

 in Paris alone there are two Philosophical Societies occupied exclusively 

 with this science, and two large publications equally devoted to it. 

 At the Museum the teaching of anthropology is older. It is there 

 aided by a collection which is still the best in the world. 



I do not hesitate to say that it is one of the glories of France to 

 have given by these methods an example to the entire world an 

 example followed to-day in America as well as in Europe. And I 

 wish to make you take a part in this movement, by giving you some 

 serious notion of the ensemble of the human family. 



This, gentlemen, is much more difficult for me than for my associ- 

 ates. In all these lectures we are to speak of only a single being, 

 man. Consequently, there will be an intimate union between them, so 

 much so that any person who should miss a lecture would find difficulty 

 in thoroughly understanding those that follow. To remove this diffi- 

 culty, I mean to shape my teaching so that each lecture will form as 

 definite a whole as possible. Then, at the commencement of each 

 lecture, I shall endeavor to give, in a few words, a resum'e of the pre- 

 ceding. In this way I hope to carry you to the end without ceasing 

 to be understood. 



Each lecture, then, will be a sort of chapter of what we might call 

 Popular Anthropology. 



By-and-by I hope that these lectures will be collected into a 

 volume, and I shall be very proud if one day they merit the ad- 

 jective I have employed if, in reality, they become popular among 

 you. 



Let us enter, then, upon our first chapter. Since man is the sub 

 ject of our discourse, we must first ask what he is. But, before answer- 

 ing, I ought to enter into some explanation. 



This question has been often asked, but generally by theologians 

 or by philosophers. Theologians have answei-ed in the name of dog- 

 ma and religion ; philosophers in the name of metaphysics and abstrac- 

 tion. Let it be well understood between us that I shall take neither 

 of these grounds, but shall avoid, with great care, both that of theolo- 

 gy and that of philosophy. Before I became professor at the Museum, 

 I was occupied with the study of animals I was a naturalist. It is as 

 a naturalist that I have taken my chair at the Institute. At the Mu- 

 seum I remain what I was, and nothing else. I shall continue the 

 same at Vincennes, leaving to theologians theology, to philosophers 

 philosophy, limiting myself in the name of science, and, above all, in 

 the name of natural science. 



Let us now return to the question I was about to put : "What is 

 man ? 



It is evidently useless to insist that man is neither a mineral nor a 

 vegetable that he is neither a stone nor a plant. But is he an animal ? 



