430 



NATURE 



[September 3, 1891 



and therefore significative ; that they are the remnants of pre- 

 dicative or demonstrative words. It is true we cannot always 

 prove this as clearly as in the case of such words as hard-ship, 

 wis-dom, manhood, where hood can be traced back to had, 

 which in Anglo-Saxon exists as an independent word, meaning 

 state or quality. Nor do we often find that a suffix like viente, 

 in claramentc, clairemeni, continues to exist by itself, as when 

 we say in Spanish clara, concisay elegantemente. It is perfectly 

 true that the French, when they say that a hammer falls lourde- 

 ment, or heavily, do not deliberately take the suffix merit— 

 originally the Latin viente, "with a mind "—and glue it to 

 their adjective lowd. Here the new school has done good 

 service in showing the working of that instinct of analogy which 

 is a most important element in the historical development of 

 human speech. One compound was formed in which mente 

 retained its own meaning ; for instance, forti mente, " with a 

 brave mind." But when this had come to mean bravely, and no 

 more, the working of analogy began ; and \ifortement, from fort, 

 could mean "bravely," then why not lourdement, from lourd, 

 "heavily?" But in the end there is no escape from Bunsen's 

 fundamental principle that everything in language was originally 

 language — that is, was significative, was substantial, was material 

 — before it became purely formal. 



But it is not only with regard to these general problems that 

 Bunsen has anticipated the verdict of our own time. Some of 

 his answers to more special questions also show that he was 

 right when many of his contemporaries, and even successors, 

 were wrong. It has long been a question, for instance, whether 

 the Armenian language belonged to the Iranic branch of the 

 Aryan family, or whether it formed an independent branch, like 

 Sanskrit, Persian, or Greek. Bunsen, in 1847, treated Armenian 

 as a separate branch of Aryan speech ; and that it is so was 

 proved by Prof. Hiibschmann in 1883. 



Again, there has been a long controversy whether the language 

 of the Afghans belonged to the Indie or the Iranic branch. 

 Dr. Trumpp tried to show that it belonged, by certain peculiari- 

 ties, to the Indie or Sanskritic branch. Prof. Darmesteter has 

 proved but lately that it shares its most essential characteristics 

 in common with Persian. Here, too, Bunsen guessed rightly — 

 for I do not mean to say that it was more than a guess — when 

 he stated that "Pushtu, the language of the Afghans, belongs 

 to the Persian branch." 



I hope you will forgive me for having detained you so long 

 with a mere retrospect. I could not deny myself the satisfaction 

 of paying this tribute of gratitude and respect to my departed 

 friend, Baron Bunsen. To have known him belongs to the 

 most cherished 1 ecollections of my life. But though I am myself 

 an old man — much older than Bunsen was at our meeting in 

 1847 — do not suppose that I came here as a mere laudator 

 temporis acti. Certainly not. If one tries to recall what 

 anthropology was in 1847, and then considers what it is now, 

 its progress seems most marvellous. I do not think so much 

 of the new materials which have been collected from all parts 

 of the world. These last fifty years have been an age of dis- 

 covery in Africa, in Central Asia, in America, in Polynesia, 

 and in Australia, such as can hardly be matched in any previous 

 century. 



But what seem? to me even more important than the mere 

 increase of material is the new spirit in which anthropology 

 has been studied during the last generation. I do not mean 

 to depreciate the labours of so-called dilettanti. After all, 

 dilettanti are lovers of knowledge, and in a study such as the 

 study of anthropology the labours of these volunteers, or 

 franc-tireurs, have often proved most valuable. But the study 

 of man in every part of the world has ceased to be a subject for 

 curiosity only. It has been raised to the dignity, but also to 

 the responsibility, of a real science, and it is now guided by 

 principles as strict and as rigorous as any other science — such 

 as zoology, botany, mineralogy, and all the rest. Many theories 

 which were very popular fifiy years ago are now completely 

 exploded ; nay, some of thfe very principles by which our science 

 was then guided have been discarded. Let me give you one 

 instance — perhaps the most important one— as determining the 

 right direction of anthropological studies. 



At our meeting in 1847 it was taken for granted that the study 

 of comparative philology would be in future the only safe 

 foundation for the study of anthropology. Linguistic ethnology 

 was a very favourite term used by Bunsen, Prichard, Latham, 

 and others. It was, in fact, the chief purpose of Bunsen's paper 

 to show that the whole of mankind could be classified according 



NO. I I 40, VOL. 44] 



to language. I protested against this view at the time, and in 

 1853 I published my formal protest in a letter to Bunsen, "On 

 the Turanian Languages." In a chapter called "Ethnology 

 versus Phonology" I called, if not for a complete divorce, at 

 least for a judicial separation between the study of philology 

 and the study of ethnology. "Ethnological race," I said, 

 "and phonological race are not commensurate, except in ante- 

 historical times, or, perhaps, at the very dawn of history. With 

 the migration of tribes, their wars, their colonies, their con- 

 quests and alliances, which, if we may judge from their effects, 

 must have been much more violent in the ethnic than ever in the 

 political periods of history, it is impossible to imagine that race 

 and language should continue to run parallel. The physiologist 

 should pursue his own science, unconcerned about language. 

 Let him see how far the skulls, or the hair, or the colour, or the 

 skin of different tribes admit of classification ; but to the sound 

 of their words his ear should be as deaf as that of the ornitho- 

 logist's to the notes of caged birds. If his Caucasian class 

 includes nations or individuals speaking Aryan (Greek), Turanian 

 (Turkish), and Semitic (Hebrew) languages, it is not his fault. 

 His system must not be altered to suit another system. There 

 is a better solution both for his difficulties and for those of the 

 phonologist than mutual compromise. The phonologist should 

 collect his evidence, arrange his classes, divide and combine as 

 if no Blumenbach had ever looked at skulls, as if no Camper 

 had ever measured facial angles, as if no Owen had ever 

 examined the basis of a cranium. His evidence is the evidence 

 of language, and nothing else ; this he must follow, even though 

 in the teeth of history, physical or political. . . . There ought 

 to be no compromise between ethnological and phonological 

 science. It is only by stating the glaring contradictions between 

 the two that truth can be elicited." 



At first my protest met with no response ; nay, curiously 

 enough, I have often been supposed to be the strongest advocate 

 of the theory which I so fiercely attacked. Perhaps I was 

 not entirely without blame, for, having once delivered my soul, 

 I allowed myself occasionally the freedom to speak of the Aryan 

 or the Semitic race, meaning thereby no more than the people, 

 whoever and whatever they were, who spoke Aryan or Semitic 

 languages. I wish we could distinguish in English as in 

 Hebrew between nations and languages. Thus in the Book of 

 Daniel, iii. 4, " the herald cried aloud, . . . O people, nations, 

 and languages." Why then should we not distinguish between 

 nations and languages ? But to put an end to every possible 

 misunderstanding, I declared at last that to speak of " an Aryan 

 skull would be as great a monstrosity as to speak of a dolicho- 

 cephalic language." 



I do not mean to say that this old heresy, which went by the 

 name of linguistic ethnology, is at present entirely extinct. 

 But among all serious students, whether physiologists or 

 philologists, it is by this time recognized that the divorce 

 bet\\een ethnology and philology, granted if only for incom- 

 patibility of temper, has been productive of nothing but good. 



Instead of attempting to classify mankind as a whole, students 

 are now engaged in classing skulls, in classing hair, and teeth, 

 and skin. Many solid results have been secured by these special 

 researchts ; but, as yet, no two classifications, based on these 

 characteristics, have been made to run parallel. 



The most natural classification is, no doubt, that according 

 to the colour of the skin. This gives us a black, a brown, a 

 yellow, a red, and a white race, with several subdivisions. 

 This classification has often been despised as unscientific; but 

 it may still turn out far more valuable than is at present sup- 

 posed. 



The next classification is that by the colour of the eyes, as 

 black, brown, hazel, grey, and blue. This subject also has 

 attracted much attention of late, and, within certain limits, the 

 results have proved very valuable. 



The most favourite classification, however, has always been 

 that according to the skulls. The skull, as the shell of the brain, 

 has by many students been supposed to betray something of 

 the spiritual essence of man ; and who can doubt that the 

 general features of the skull, if taken in large averages, do 

 correspond to the general features of human character? We 

 have only to look round to see men with heads like a cannon- 

 ball and others with heads like a hawk. This distinction has 

 formed the foundation for a more scientific classification into 

 brae hy cephalic, dolichocephalic, and mesocephalic skulls. The 

 proportion of 80 : 100 between the transverse and longitudinal 

 diameter gives us the ordinary or mesocephalic type, the pro- 



