486 SOMATOLOGY 



soon to find the most satisfactory form of organization of anthropo- 

 logical science established in America. 



For, after all, is it not here that the most favorable conditions 

 exist for a rearrangement in accordance with the needs of the 

 younger sciences? On the other hand, in those countries where so 

 many scientific institutions, more or less old, struggle with each 

 other, so to speak, for space and means, there prevail ideas which, 

 if carried out even only in part, would seem chimerical. Prudent 

 thinkers abstain from these by a sort of instinctive self-restraint, 

 or else keep to themselves such daring notions whose very expres- 

 sion would hardly be tolerated in certain mediocre universities. 

 Thus it is that every new science secures its proper place only after 

 a certain period of time, be it of longer or shorter duration, - 

 which, in its history, constitutes a stage that may be termed its 

 "hard times." 



The fact that anthropology, during forty or fifty years, in France, 

 passed through such a period, marks the momentous innovation 

 involved in the rise of this science. 



Anthropology has existed everywhere, not only for the past fifty 

 years, but throughout the centuries as well. Human anatomy and 

 physiology had been assigned to physicians under the title of med- 

 ical sciences; ethnology was discussed by historians and philo- 

 logists. A professor in the Jardin des Plantes, Paris, holding the 

 chair of Mammalogy, could have assumed the anthropological title 

 without being subjected to hostile criticism. Besides, a long time 

 before, Kant had designated a part of his teaching at Konigsberg by 

 the term "anthropology," and several other writers had made use 

 of the name, attributing to it a significance far more comprehensive 

 than is ever implied at the present time. 



In truth, the history of anthropology were not complete without 

 reverting to the first positive notions concerning man. Nowhere 

 are the aims and objects of anthropology more eloquently ex- 

 pressed than in those two words: yvu9i cream-ov. They express but 

 a simple wish, yet it is a wish which reflects great honor upon 

 the Greek philosopher, for it implies the recognition of that one 

 requirement to which our anthropology should correspond in order 

 that it may be precisely what it should be. 



Thus it is that the study of man, necessarily approached from 

 many sides and various points of view by physicians, naturalists, 

 and philosophers, should be found broken up in such a way that 

 even the progress of the various divisions seems to have become 

 an obstacle to the formation of the integrality of its conception. 



If a congress similar to this one at St. Louis had been organized 

 fifty years ago, it is very doubtful whether among its 128 sections 

 there had been a single one devoted to anthropology. 



