NATURE 



501 



THLRSDAV, SEPTEMBER 



1904. 



lllE SCOPE OF ANTHROPOLOGY. 

 SLie'iice dc rHoiiiiiic ct Methode anthropologique. By 

 Alphonse Cels. Pp. vi + 467. (Paris: Felix Mean ; 

 Bruxelles : J. Lebegue et Cie., 1904.) Price 7 francs. 



THERE has always been a great difference of 

 opinion about the scope of the science of anthro- 

 pology. Huxley's view was that anthropology deals 

 with the whole structure, history, and development 

 of man. .A^nother authority subdivides the subject 

 as follows: — (i) Man's place in nature, i.e. his re- 

 lation or standing to the animal kingdom as a 

 whole; (2) his origin, whether from one pair or other- 

 ^^ ise ; (3) classification of races, with delineation of 

 their chief characteristics ; (4) antiquity of man ; (5) 

 language; (6) development of civilisation as a whole. 

 Mr. Fallaize, in a paper read last year before the 

 .Xnthropological Institute, has given the following 

 main subdivisions: — (A) man's place in nature; 

 (B) physical structure; (C) physical functions; (D) 

 specifically human activities ; and makes divisions (2) 

 and (3) of the previous classification subdivisions of 

 his class (A). 



These examples will illustrate the wide variety of 

 opinions held by authorities about the scope and the 

 method of classification of the subject-matter of anthro- 

 pology. The impression one gets from the consider- 

 iition of these schemes is that it is not within the 

 capacity of any one man to be an anthropologist in 

 the widest sense of the term. The definitions of the 

 ■scope of anthropology given above include many 

 separate sciences, such as anatomy, physiology, 

 philology, archjeology, which in themselves are 

 sufficient to absorb the energies of any single student, 

 .and which were in existence before the science of 

 anthropology was created. Many branches of the 

 study of man must therefore as a matter of prac- 

 tical convenience be abandoned to special sciences, 

 and if a science of anthropology is to have any raison 

 d'etre it must be content to take the results of the 

 studies of the anatomist, the physiologist, the 

 psychologist, the archaeologist, &c., and to coordinate 

 and correlate these results with the view of discovering 

 the more general laws of human nature. 



The sciences at present generally included among 

 anthropological studies have not been created by a 

 subdivision of the whole subject-matter relating to 

 man into watertight compartments, but usually some 

 end of special theoretical or practical interest has 

 formed a centre around which the science has been 

 built up. For example, the interest excited by the 

 perception of the great differences in the characteristics 

 of different races has led to the creation of the science 

 of ethnology, and the object of this science is to utilise 

 all knowledge which may throw any light on the ques- 

 tion of race. It overlaps without completely including 

 prehistoric ardueology, anthropometrics, psychology, 

 and many other sciences. 



This appears to be the only practical way of studying 

 anthropology, but there can be no doubt that a great 

 deal might be gained by the careful setting out of the 

 NO. 182 1, VOL. 70] 



whole of the subject-matter which, in the widest sense, 

 could be taken as included in a complete science of 

 man. New subjects of study which were previously 

 overlooked may in this way be suggested, and new 

 subordinate sciences created. 



This very useful work has been well done by M. 

 Cels in the book under review in a very suggestive 

 though somewhat diffuse and fanciful style. About 

 one-half of the book is devoted to an exposition of the 

 logical methods of science, and as these methods are 

 not more specially applicable to anthropology than to 

 any other science, this part of his work might very 

 well have been omitted or given in a much more con- 

 densed form. The same information might be found 

 in any modern treatise on logic. 



When we come. to the part of M. Cels's work which 

 is more especially relevant to its title, we find 

 his subdivision of the subject-matter of the science of 

 man interesting, suggestive, and well worth the 

 attentive study of anthropologists. 



Anthropology, according to M. Cels, is to be divided 

 in the first place into two main subdivions, namely, 

 the study of the nature of man and the study of the 

 life of man, i.e. man is to be studied from the static 

 point of view and from the dynamic point of view. 

 In the second place, each of these main divisions is 

 again subdivided into the study of the intrinsic and 

 extrinsic conditions of their existence. Finally, each 

 of these four subdivisions is again subdivided into 

 three, in the first of which man is regarded as a Unity, 

 i.e. as an individual, in the second as a Duality, i.e. 

 as made up of body and mind, and thirdly as a 

 Harmony, i.e. as a bisexual being which is only com- 

 pleted by the union of the two sexes for the reproduc- 

 tion of the species. 



This division of the subject-matter of anthropology 

 appears in some respects a little fanciful, but it is 

 very plausibly worked out by M. Cels in his treatise. 

 The author's view of anthropology is that it includes 

 the study of the body and the mind of man, in their 

 constitution as well as in their activity. This part of 

 the subject is fairly well covered by the exist- 

 ing sciences of anatomy, physiology, and psychology. 

 M. Cels also emphasises the necessity of studying the 

 environment of man, namely, the earth on which he 

 lives, his fellow-men and lower animals, and any other 

 influence which reacts on his organism and on its 

 activity. The effects of the moral as well as the 

 material environment must be studied. The study 

 of the influence of environment on mankind has not 

 received so much attention from anthropologists as it 

 deserves. 



As a matter of practical convenience, the detailed 

 study of the body and mind of the individual man 

 must be abandoned to anatom}', physiology, and 

 psychology ; anthropology can only concern itself with 

 the coordination of the results of these sciences. It 

 may compare the anatomy, physiology, and psychology 

 of different races of contemporary men, or of men of 

 the present with those of the past. This field is to a 

 great extent covered bv physical anthropologv, pre- 

 historic archaeology, the study of culture, and experi- 

 mental psychology. 



Y 



