414 
of that which is proper to intellectual man 
and most important to his kind may be out- 
lined. 
II. 
According to the lexicographer, humanity 
denotes: (1) the condition or quality of be- 
ing human ; (2) the character of being hu- 
mane; (3) the character of being well bred ; 
(4) mankind collectively, and (5) secular 
learning or literature.** The fourth of these 
definitions connotes Man—the genus Homo, 
object-matter of the broad science of an- 
thropology—viewed in a distinct way, 7. e., 
as a mass or composite body rather than 
discrete individuals. The fifth definition 
connotes but a limited field in a vast do- 
main, and is scholastic, if not archaic; with 
this sense the term is chiefly used in oppo- 
sition to divinity, often in the plural form 
(though there is good precedent for the use 
of this plural form in a more general and at 
the same time a more definite sense).+ The 
first three definitions connote a wide range 
of attributes of Man which, albeit well rec- 
ognized by all intelligent people, are rarely 
reckoned among the objects-matter of an- 
thropology, seldom included within the pale 
of science ; yet it is these attributes that es- 
pecially distinguish Man and set him apart 
from the mineral, vegetal and animal 
worlds, and exalt him above the rocks and 
plants and beasts of simple nature. 
Although commonplace, these definitions 
are worthy of careful consideration in that 
they summarize the substance of intelligent 
thought since the beginning of writing—in- 
deed, since its own beginning in the remote 
unwritten past—and particularly during the 
era of unprecedented intellectual activity 
and scientific progress dating from the 
issue of Bacon’s Novum Organum ; they carry 
* Condensed and rearranged from the ‘Standard’ 
and ‘Century’ Dictionaries. 
+ £. g., in ‘The Humanities,’ by J. W. Powell ; 
SCIENCE, New Series, Vol. I., 1895, pp. 15-18. 
SCIENCE. 
(N.S. Voz. VI. No. 142. 
the wisdom of the ages, and especially of 
these later days during which wisdom pre- 
vails as never before. Viewed separately 
or in connection with contemporary defini- 
tions relating to mankind, they indicate 
general (although vague) recognition of 
certain specific attributes of Man, not as an 
animal, but as an ill-defined something 
known as a human being. When the his- 
tory of thought condensed into the set 
phrases of the lexicographer is scanned, it is 
found that bitter controversy has been en- 
gendered by the diverse aspects of Man as 
seen from opposite sides; the disputants, 
like the storied knights of old, have ad- 
mired the object, one as silver and the other 
as gold, and have done doughty battle in 
defense of their one-sided vision ; the biol- 
ogist, with eyes trained by observation and 
reason sharpened by long study of living 
things, sees the silvern side and sounds 
trumpet for man as an animal, while the 
litterateur and statesman and philanthropist 
are half-dazzled by the golden glory of Man 
as a thing supernal. The fair conclusion is 
that both are right as to what they see and 
both wrong as to what they fail to see; and 
in the light of this conclusion it is clear—if 
the general judgment of the body of thinlk- 
ers is worth anything—that man has an an- 
imal basis on which a noble superstructure is 
borne. The definitions of the lexicographer, 
who voices the thought of the world, show 
that among general thinkers the idea of hu- 
manity prevails over the idea of animality, 
while the current literature of science indi- 
cates that the idea of animality is dominant 
in scientific circles; indeed, some writers on 
anthropology, the Science of Man, restrict 
the term to knowledge of the mammalian 
order Bimana, a limitation excluding the 
essential characteristics of Man as a thought- 
ful and emotional being and as an integral 
part of a collective and interdependent as- 
semblage. Any attempt to harmonize these 
opposing ideas must begin with definite 
