History related to other Sciences 586 



a definite place in the coordinated whole of knowledge, and relate it 

 more closely to other sciences. It had indeed a defined logical place 

 in systems such as Hegel's and Comte's ; but Darwinism certified its 

 standing convincingly and without more ado. The prevailing 

 doctrine that man was created ex abrupto had placed history in 

 an isolated position, disconnected with the sciences of nature. 

 Anthropology, which deals with the animal anthropos, now comes 

 into line with zoology, and brings it into relation with history 1 . 

 Man's condition at the present day is the result of a series of 

 transformations, going back to the most primitive phase of society, 

 which is the ideal (unattainable) beginning of history. But that 

 beginning had emerged without any breach of continuity from a 

 development which carries us back to a quadrimane ancestor, still 

 further back (according to Darwin's conjecture) to a marine animal 

 of the ascidian type, and then through remoter periods to the lowest 

 form of organism. It is essential in this theory that though links 

 have been lost there was no break in the gradual development ; and 

 this conception of a continuous progress in the evolution of life, 

 resulting in the appearance of uncivilised Anthropos, helped to 

 reinforce, and increase a belief in, the conception of the history of 

 civilised Anthropos as itself also a continuous progressive develop- 

 ment. 



13. Thus the diffusion of the Darwinian theory of the origin of 

 man, by emphasising the idea of continuity and breaking down the 

 barriers between the human and animal kingdoms, has had an 

 important effect in establishing the position of history among the 

 sciences which deal with telluric development. The perspective of 

 history is merged in a larger perspective of development. As one of 

 the objects of biology is to find the exact steps in the genealogy of 

 man from the lowest organic form, so the scope of history is to 

 determine the stages in the unique causal series from the most 

 rudimentary to the present state of human civilisation. 



It is to be observed that the interest in historical research implied 

 by this conception need not be that of Comte. In the Positive 

 Philosophy history is part of sociology ; the interest in it is to 

 discover the sociological laws. In the view of which I have just 

 spoken, history is permitted to be an end in itself; the reconstrm -lion 



1 It is to be observed that history is (not only different in scope but) not coextensive 

 with anthropology in time. For it deals only with the development of man in BOoietiee, 

 whereas anthropology includes in its definition the proto-anthropic period when onthropo* 

 was still non-social, whether he lived in herds like the chimpanzee, or alone like the mak 

 ourang-outang. (It has been well shown by Majewski that congregatu-ns-hords. Boob, 

 packs, &c.-of animals are not societies ; the characteristic of a society is different.atH.n ol 

 function. Bee hives, ant hills, may be called quasi-societies ; but in their case On 

 which perform distinct functions are morphologically different.) 



