152 SECTIONAL ADDRESSES. 



has, however, been a tendency during the past few years to trace these 

 modern conditions back into the past, sometimes into the remote past, 

 and to use for purposes of coanparison instances drawn from the social 

 organisation or economic conditions of communities living under simpler 

 conditions. While these studies must, to some extent, overlap those 

 of the anthropolo'gist, their methods, and especially their points of view, 

 :are different. We are working from the simple to the complex ; they 

 begin with more highly developed conditions and thence work back to 

 the more primitive. 



Lastly, we must not forget the students of the classical languages. 

 These studies have been severely attacked of late, and their value to 

 humanity disparaged. In spite of many advantages which they possess 

 at schools and universities, they have been losing in popularity, and 

 the reason is not far to seek. So long as there were fresh works to be 

 studied and commentated, and imperfect texts to be emended and 

 elucidated, there was no lack of devotees to classical literature. This 

 was the case in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Later 

 on comparative philology gave fresh life to such studies, and there was 

 work to be done in comparing Greek with Latin and both with other 

 Aryan tongues ; certain views current among mid-nineteenth-century 

 philologists gave also an impetus to the re-study of Greek mythology. 

 But about 1890 such studies became unfashionable in this country, and 

 many classical scholars, at a loss for a line of research, turned to anthro- 

 pology with great advantage both to themselves and to us. This move- 

 ment was crystallised by the appearance of ' Anthropology and the 

 Classics ' in 1908, and since that date the two studies have kept in the 

 closest touch. 



It is doubtless as a result of these converging movements that the 

 general pubUc is taking an intense int-erest in anthropological studies 

 at the present time, and that works of a general nature, summing up 

 the state of knowledge in its different branches, are in great request by 

 the general reader. The educated public, and many, too, whose oppor- 

 tunities for study have been more restricted, wish to know more of 

 the Science of Man, yet I fear they are too often perplexed by the dis- 

 cordant utterances of anthropologists, many of whom seem to be far 

 from certain as to the message they have to deliver. 



In their turn not a few anthropologists feel a like uncertainty as 

 to the ultimate purpose of their studies, and are far from clear as to 

 how the results of their investigations can be of any benefit to humanity. 

 These are points well worthy of our serious consideration ; for, as we 

 were reminded from this chair two years ago,^ anthropology, if it is to 

 do its duty, must be useful to the State, or at least to humanity in 

 general. Even the scope of the science is by no means clear to all, 

 and would be differently defined by various students. It may not be 

 out of place, therefore, first of all to consider in detail the scope and 

 content of anthropology, then its aims and the services it may render 

 to mankind. 



To the outside world anthropology seems to consist of the study of 



^ Karl Pearson ; Address to the Anthropological Section. Brit. Assoc. 

 Report, 1920, 140-1. 



