THE INDIVIDUALITY OF ANTHROPOLOGY 487 



The science of mankind would doubtless have been distributed 

 among several sections, in several departments. Ethnology, per- 

 haps, would have obtained a distinct place in such a congress, and 

 might possibly have tolerated some contributions in ethnic cranio- 

 graphy from Morton or Retzius. A Huxley or a Boucher de Perthes 

 might have had a hearing in some more or less anthropological 

 section of philosophy, but surely not under the title of " Official 

 Speakers." 



How changed do we find the position of anthropology a decade 

 later, still under an ethnological guise, but nevertheless permitting 

 the introduction, with the study of the races, of the human species 

 considered as a whole as well as in all its subdivisions, not even 

 excluding the study of the individual. Moreover, this new plan of 

 anthropological study could not thereafter be limited or distorted 

 to suit the peculiar ideas of this or that author. The formation 

 of autonomous and liberally conducted anthropological societies 

 afforded an ample guarantee in this regard, and secured for the 

 science of mankind that measure of extensibility which it should 

 logically be permitted to enjoy. 



And, after all, in a centre accessible to questions of all kinds 

 relating to the knowledge of human beings, the comparison of 

 such questions, it is self-evident, is favorable to the understand- 

 ing of their mutual relations. In a pioneer society of anthropo- 

 logy this condition must, as with the other branches, expand be- 

 yond the original simple conceptions of anthropological science 

 which its founders themselves had had. That is why the date of 

 the foundation of this pioneer society should, in the history of the 

 sciences, mark the actual beginning of the individualization of 

 anthropology. I say the beginning because the process whicn I 

 will endeavor to outline required time. Moreover, it is significant 

 that these logical needs engaged a place suitable to their action, 

 but they do not operate without friction of thought and of indi- 

 viduals ensuing. This is involved even in the very mechanism of 

 progress, and one has grown familiar with the conflicts which thus 

 result. 



The creation of anthropological societies was a preliminary step, 

 and relatively easy to take. Private institutions, dependent upon 

 their own resources, are not to be considered with other institutions 

 or with secular traditions. 



Not even for the research laboratories or for the departments 

 of instruction was the work absorbing enough, and therefore un- 

 likely to become a profession. Hence it was an innovation which 

 could not establish and maintain itself without passing through 

 "hard times." Space and money were unavailable, and in the be- 

 ginning already the needs seemed destined to increase. Mean- 



