METHOD OF MENTAL ANTHROPOLOGY 585 



general evolution of human thought, particularly in its earlier 

 stages. This comparative study of the mind of man is thus 

 analogous to the comparative study of his body which is under- 

 taken by anatomy and physiology. But whereas comparative 

 anatomy and physiology extend the range of their comparisons 

 far beyond the human species so as to include the whole gamut 

 of animated being, mental anthropology is content for the 

 present to limit its comparisons to the members of our own kind. 

 Yet the limitation is doubtless only temporary ; it is to be ex- 

 pected that in time a growing knowledge of the mental processes 

 of the lower animals will permit of a comparison of them with 

 the corresponding processes in the mind of man, a comparison 

 which could hardly fail to throw light on many problems as yet 

 unsolved. 



But while in the interest of the science of man a greatly 

 extended application of the comparative method is desirable 

 and in the future inevitable, some well-meaning but injudicious 

 friends of anthropology would limit the application of the 

 method still more narrowly than I have assumed to be tempor- 

 arily necessary or advisable. They would apparently refuse to 

 allow us to compare the thoughts and institutions, the arts and 

 crafts, of distant races with each other, and would only allow 

 us to compare those of neighbouring races. A little reflection 

 may convince us that any such restriction, even if it were 

 practicable, would be unwise ; nay, that, were it enforced, it 

 would be disastrous. We compare things on the ground of 

 their similarity, and similarity is not affected by distance. 

 Radium is alike on the earth and in the sun ; it would be absurd 

 to refuse to compare them on the ground that they are separated 

 by many millions of miles. What would be thought of any 

 other science which imposed on itself the restriction which 

 some of our friends would inflict on anthropology ? Would 

 geology prosper if it confined its investigation, say, of sedi- 

 mentary rocks to those of England and refused to compare 

 those of Asia and America ? How would zoology fare if the 

 zoologist were forbidden to compare the animals of his own 

 country with the animals of distant countries ? the dogs, say, of 

 Wales with the dogs of Africa and Australia ? The futility, 

 nay, the inherent absurdity, of the proposed restriction is so 

 manifest that simply to state the proposal explicitly should 

 suffice to expose it. Disguised in the fallacious form of a pru- 

 dent precept, the nostrum is commonly administered to the 

 sufferer with a trite tag from Dr. Johnson about surveying man- 

 kind from China to Peru, as if the mere idea of instituting such 

 a survey were too preposterous for serious consideration. Yet 

 the same men who level this taunt at anthropology would not 

 dream of directing a similar' igibe at the sciences of geology, 



