786 EEPORT— 1891. 



The old scliool maintained that every word consisted of a root and of certain 

 derivative suffixes, pretixes, and infixes. The modern school maintained that there 

 existed neither roots by themselves nor suffixes, prefixes, and infixes by themselves, 

 and that the theory of agglutination — of gluing suffixes to roots — was absurd. 

 The old school looked upon these suftixes as originallj^ independent and significative 

 words ; the modern scliool declined to accept this view except in a few irrefragable 

 instances. I think the more accurate reasoners are coming back to the opinion 

 held by the old school, that all formal elements of language were originally sub- 

 stantial, and therefore significative ; that they are the remnants of predicative or 

 demonstrative words. It is true we cannot always prove this as cleaily as in the 

 case of such words as hard-ship, luis-dom, man-hood, 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 mente, in claramente, clairement, 

 continues to exist by itself, as when we say in Spanish clara, concisa y elegantc- 

 mente. It is perfectly true that the French, when they say that a hammer falls 

 loxvrdement, or heavily, do not deliberately take the suffix ment — originally the 

 Latin mente, ' with a mind ' — and glue it to their adjective lourd. 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 ii fortement, iiomfort, 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 Professor Iliibschmann 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 be- 

 longed, by certain peculiarities, to the Indie or Sanskritic branch. Professor 

 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 retro- 

 spect. 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 recollections 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 femporis 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 

 discovery in Africa, in Central Asia, in America, in Polynesia, and in Australia, 

 such as can hardly be matched in any previous century. 



But what seems to me even more important than the mere increase of material 

 is the new spirit in which ^.nthropology has been studied during the last genera- 

 tion. 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 Anthropolosry 

 the labours of these volunteers, or fiumcs-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 



