TRANSACTIONS OF SECTION H. 791 



opinion which I expressed forty years ago, that there ought to be a complete sepa- 

 ration between Philology and JPhysioIogy. And yet, if I were asked whether such 

 a divorce should now be made absolute, I should say, No. There have been so 

 many unexpected discoveries of new facts, and so many surprising combinations of 

 old facts, that we must iilways be prepared to hear some new evidence, if only that 

 evidence is brought forward according to the rules which govern the court of true 

 science. It may be that in time the classification of skulls, hair, eyes, and skin 

 may be brought into harmony with the classification of language. We may even 

 go so far as to admit, as a postulate, that the two must have run parallel, at least 

 in the beginning of all things. But with the evidence before us at present mere 

 wrangling, mere iteration of exploded assertions, mere contradictions, will produce 

 no effect on that true jurj^ which in every country hardlj^ ever consists of more 

 than twelve trusty men, but with whom the final verdict rests. The very things 

 that most catch the popular ear will by them be ruled out of court. But every 

 single new word, common tu all the Aryan languages, and telling of some climatic, 

 geographical, historical, or physiological circumstance in the earliest life of the 

 speakers of Aryan speech, will betruly welcome to philologists quite as much as 

 a skull from an earl}^ geological stratum is to the physiologist, and both to the 

 anthropologist, in the widest sense of tliat name. 



But, if all this is so, if the alliance between rhilolngy and Physiology has 

 hitherto done nothing but mischief, what right, it may be asked, had I to accept the 

 honour of presiding over this Section of Anthropology? If you will allow me to 

 occupy your valuable time a little longer, I shall explain, as shortly as possible, 

 why I thought that I, as a philologist, might do some small amount of good as 

 President of the Anthropological Section. 



In spite of all that I have said against the unholy alliance between Physiology 

 and Philology, Ihavefelt for years — and I believe I am now supported in my opinion 

 by all competent anthropologists — that a knowledge of languages must be con- 

 sidered in future as a sine qua non for every anthropologist. 



Anthropology, as you know, has increased so rapidly that it seems to say now, 

 Nihil humani a me alienum puto. So long as Anthropology treated only of the 

 anatomy of the human body, any surgeon might have become an excellent anthro- 

 pologist. But now, when Anthropology includes the study of the earliest thoughts 

 of man, his customs, his laws, his traditions, his legends, his religions, ay, even 

 his early philosophies, a student of Anthropology without an accurate knowledge of 

 languages, without the conscience of a scholar, is like a sailor without a compass. 



No one disputes this with regard to nations who possess a literature. No one 

 would listen to a man describing the peculiarities of the Greek, the Roman, the 

 Jew, the Arab, the Chinese, without knowing their languages and being capable 

 of reading tlie master-works of tlieir literature. We know how often men who 

 have devoted the whole of their life to tlie study, for instance, of Hebrew differ 

 not only as to the meaning of certain words and passages, but as to tlie very 

 character of the Jews. One authority states that the Jews, and not onlj^ the Jews, 

 but all Semitic nations, were possessed of a monotheistic instinct. Another 

 authority shows that all Semitic nations, not excluding the Jews, were polytheistic 

 in their religion, and that the Jehovah of the Jews was not conceived at first as 

 the Supreme Deity, but as a national god only, as the God of the Jews, who, 

 according to the latest view, was originally a fetish or a totem, like all other gods. 



You know how widely classical scholars differ on the character of Greeks and 

 Romans, on the meaning of their customs, the purpose of their religious cere- 

 monies — nay, the very essence of their gods. And yet there was a time, not very 

 long ago, when anthropologists woidd rely on the descriptions of casual travellers, 

 who, after spending a few weeks, or even afewyears, among tribes whose language 

 was utterlyuuknown to them, gave the most marvellous accounts of their customs, 

 their laws, and even of their religion. It may be said that anybody can describe 

 what he sees, even though unable to converse with the people. I say, Decidedly 

 no; and I am supported in this opinion by the most competent judges. Dr. 

 Codrington, who has just published his excellent book on the ' Melanesians : Their 

 Anthropology and Folk-lore,' spent twenty-four years among the Melanesians, 



