September 25, 1891.] 



SCIENCE. 



171 



1 think the more accurate reasoners are coming back to the 

 opinion held by the old school, that all formal elements of language 

 were originally substantial, and therefore significative ; that they 

 are the remnants of predicative or demonstrative words. It is 

 true that we cannot always prove this as clearly as in the case of 

 such words as hard-ship, wisdom, 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 sufiix 

 like mente in elaramenU, clairemenie, continues to exist by itself, 

 as when we say in Spanish elara, concisa y elegantemente. It is 

 perfectly true that the French, when they say that a hammer falls 

 lourdement, 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 mean- 

 ing; 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 it fortement, iiomfort, could mean " bravely," 

 then why not lourdement, from lourd. "heavily?" But in the 

 €nd there is no escape from Bunsen's fundamental principle that 

 «very thing 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 Sanscrit, Persian, 

 or Greek. Bunsen, in 1847, treated Armenian as a separate branch 

 of Aryan speech ; and that it is so was proved by Professor Hiibsch- 

 mann 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 belonged, by certain peculiarities, to 

 the Indie or Sanscrit branch. Professor Darmsteter has proved 

 but lately that it shares its most essential characteristics in com- 

 mon 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 retrospect. 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 temporis acti. Cer- 

 tainly not. If one tries to recall what anthropology was in 1847, 

 and then considers what it is now, its progress seems most mar- 

 vellous. 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 Amer- 

 ica, 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 in- 

 crease of material is the new spirit in which anthropology has 

 been studied during the last generation. I do not mean to de- 

 preciate the labors of the so called dilettanti. After all, dilettanti 

 are lovers of knowledge, and in a study such as the study of an- 

 thropology the labors of these volunteers, or franc-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 a real 

 science, and it is now guided by principles as strict and as rigor- 

 ous as any other science — such as zoology, botany, mineralogy, 

 and all the rest. Many theories which were very popular fifty 

 years ago are now completely exploded; nay, some of the very 

 principles by which our science was then guided have been dis- 

 carded. Let me give you one more instance — perhaps the most 



important one — as determining the right direction of anthropo- 

 logical studies. 



At our meeting in 1847 it was taken for granted that the study 

 of comparative philology would be in future the only safe founda- 

 tion for the study of anthropology. Linguistic ethnology was a 

 very favorite term used by Bunsen, Prichard, Latham, and others. 

 It was, in fact, the chief purpose of Bunsen's paper to show that 

 the whole of mankind could be classified according to language. 

 I protested against this view at the time, and in 18.54 I published 

 ray formal protest in a letter to Bunsen, " On the Turanian Lan- 

 guages." In a chapter called "Ethnology versus Phonology" I 

 called, if not for a complete divorce, at least for a judicial separa- 

 tion between the study of philology and the study of ethnology. 

 " Ethnological race," I said, "and phonological race are not com- 

 mensurate, except in ante-historical times, or, perhaps, at the 

 very dawn of history. With the migration of tribes, their wars, 

 their colonies, their conquests and alliances, which, if we may 

 judge from their effects, must have been much more violent in the 

 ethnic than ever in the political periods of history, it is impossible 

 to imagine that race and language should continue to run parallel. 

 The physiologist should pursue his own science, unconcerned 

 about language. Let him see how far the skulls, or the hair, or 

 the color of the skin, of different tribes admits of classification; 

 but to the sound of their words his ear should be as deaf as that 

 of the ornithologist's to the notes of caged birds. If his Caucasian 

 class includes nations or individuals speaking Aryan (Greek), 

 Turanian (Turkish), and Semitic (Hebrew) languages, it is not his 

 fault. His system must not be altered to suit another system. 

 There is a better solution both for his difficulties and for those of 

 the phonologist than mutual compromise. The phonologist should 

 collect his evidence, arrange his classes, divide and combine as if 

 no Blumenbach had ever looked at skulls, as if no Camper had 

 ever measured facial angles, as if no Owen had ever examined 

 the basis of a cranium. His evidence is the evidence of language, 

 and nothing else ; this he must follow, even thovigh in the teeth 

 of history, physical or political. . . . There ought to be no com- 

 promise between ethnological and phonological science. It is only 

 by stating the glaring contradictions between the two that truth 

 can be elicited." 



At first my protest met with no response; nay, curiously 

 enough, I have often been supposed to be the strongest advocate 

 of the theory which I so fiercely attacked. Perhaps I was not en- 

 tirely without blame, for, having once delivered my soul, I al- 

 lowed myself occasionally the freedom to speak of the Aryan or 

 the Semitic race, meaning thereby no more than the people, who- 

 ever and whatever they were, who spoke Aryan or Semitic lan- 

 guages. I wish we could distinguish in English as in Hebrew be- 

 tween nations and languages. Thus in the Book of Daniel, iii. 4, 

 " the herald cried aloud, . . . O people, nations, and languages." 

 Why then should we not distinguish between nations and lan- 

 guages? But to put an end to every possible misunderstanding, 

 I declared at last that to speak of "an Aryan skull would be as 

 great a monstrosity as to speak of a dolichocephalic language." 



I do not mean to say that this old heresy, which went by the 

 name of linguistic ethnology, is at present entirely extinct. But 

 among all serious students, whether physiologists or philologists, 

 it is by this time recognized that the divorce between ethnology 

 and philology, granted if only for incompatibility of temper, has 

 been productive of nothing but good. 



Instead of attempting to classify mankind as a whole, students 

 are now engaged in classing skulls, in classing hair, and teeth, 

 and skin. Many solid results have been secured by these special 

 researches; but, as yet, no two classifications, based on these 

 characteristics, have been made to run parallel. 



The most natural classification is, no doubt,, that according to 

 the color of the skin. This .gives us a black, a'brown, a yellow, a 

 red, and a white race, with several subdivisions. This classifica- 

 tion has often been despised as unscientific; but it may still turn 

 out far more valuable than is at present supposed. 



The next classification is that by the color of the eyes, as black, 

 brown, hazel, gray, and blue. This subject also has attracted 

 much attention of late, and, within certain limits, the results 

 have proved very valuable. 



