PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS. 459 



to the transitional period in the history of this country that connects tlie chrono- 

 logically primitive with the modern. We need more students willing and able 

 to undertake such bridge-work. So long as we merely attack human history 

 at its two ends (so to speak), there will be on the part of the several groups 

 concerned a tendency to lose touch. They will thus be apt to exaggerate 

 such divergence in respect to working methods as must inevitably occur when- 

 ever there is the slightest difference as regards quality of subject-matter. 

 There is much that I could say, did time allow, about the value of proto- 

 history, as it is sometimes termed, that is, the study of the emergence of 

 civilisation out of barbarism, as a means of fostering a deeper sense of 

 solidarity between those who study human development from the contrasted 

 standpoints of a rudimentary and a matured culture. All honoTir, then, to 

 Sir Laurence Gomme as a pioneer in this little-frequented field. Again, let us 

 honour him as an early promoter of that so-called ethnological method of which 

 so nrnch has lately been heard. This point is well brought out in a very 

 sympathetic account of Sir Laurence Gomme's life-work from the pen of 

 Dr. Haddon. I need not here anticipate what I have to say about the 

 scientific and educational importance of such a method and point of view. 

 My only concern at present is to lay stress once more on those qualities of the 

 true pioneer, the initiative, the self-reliance, the divinatory impulse, which 

 we shall always associate with the memory of Sir Laurence Gomme. Science 

 as well as war has its roll of honour; and therein, for our encouragement, let 

 us reverently inscribe his name. 



The question to which I beg to call attention on the present occasion is, 

 What function ought AnthroiJology to fulfil among the higher studies of a 

 modern University? The subject may be commonplace, but it is certainly not 

 luitimely. At the present moment those of us who are university teachers in any 

 of the warring countries are feeling like fish out of water. Our occupation is to 

 a large extent suspended ; and already it seems a lifetime since we were assist- 

 ing, each after his own fashion, in the normal development of science. 



Usus abit vits; : bellis consumpsimus sevum. 



Can the hiatus be bridged, the broken highway mended ? Never, if memories 

 are to prevail with us; but, if hopes, then it goes equally without saying that 

 we shall somehow manage to carry on more actively and successfully than ever. 

 So the only problem for brave and hopeful rnen is. How ? Ignoring our present 

 troubles, we are all thinking about the future of University education, and 

 reform is in the air. 



Of course, every University has difficulties of its own to meet; and my 

 own University of Oxford, with eight centuries of growth to look back on, is 

 likely to be more deeply affected by the sundering of traditions due to the War 

 than such of i^s sister-institutions as are of more recent stamp. Now, when I 

 discuss University matters, the case of Oxford is bound to weigh with me 

 predominantly; and, indeed, no man of science could wish me to neglect what 

 after all is bound to be my nearest and richest source of experience. But 

 various kind friends and colleagues hailing from other Universities in Great 

 Britain, France, and the United States have furnished me with copious informa- 

 tion concerning their home conditions ; so that I shall not altogether lack 

 authority if I venture to frame conclusions of a general nature. Besides, it is 

 not on behalf of any University but rather as representing the interests of the 

 science of Anthropology, that I am entitled to speak in my present capacity. I 

 do indeed firmly hold that anthropological teaching and research can be 

 admitted to the most ample status in the curriculum of any modern University 

 without injury to established industries and activities. But even if this were 

 not so — even if it needed a sort of surgical operation to engraft the new in the 

 old' — ^we anthropologists must, I think, insist on the fullest recognition of our 

 science among University studies, realising as we are especially able to do its 

 immense educational value as a humanising discipline. Let me not, however, 

 rouse prejudice at the outset by seeming to adopt an aggressive tone. ' Live and 

 let live ' iis the safest motto for the University reformer ; and I have no doubt 

 that the peaceful penetration whereby Anthropology has of late becTi almost 

 imperceptibly coming to its own in the leading Universities of the world will 



