EDITOR S PREFACE. XIU 



opinion, and thus become, in addition to editor, critic and 

 commentator. If the work had not been pubb'shed under 

 the auspices of the society, I might have felt it my duty to 

 state where I differed from the author ; but under actual 

 circumstances, I have only done so when I considered there 

 was an absolute necessity, or where the discovery of new 

 facts had invalidated the author's conclusions. 



Nor do I think it necessary here to advance my own 

 views respecting some Anthropological questions upon 

 which this work treats. I need only say that I am willing 

 to accept such of the facts as shall on future inquiry 

 prove to be true. Possibly, no man will agree with all 

 the conclusions arrived at by Professor Vogt, but I am 

 quite ready to accept such of his opinions as can be 

 logically deduced from well-ascertained facts. 



While, however, I hold both myself and the society 

 entirely free from any responsibility as to the author's 

 asserted facts or deductions, I should not be doing my 

 duty as Editor if I were not to make some excuse 

 for the attacks made by him on theological dogmas. In 

 Germany men of science and theologians look upon one 

 another with a mutual contempt, while in this country 

 scientific men entertain respect for theologians, and the 

 latter fortunately have a profound admiration for students 

 of science, and (when properly educated) have not the 

 effrontery to combat the teachings of pure inductive 

 science. In Germany, too, science is used as a political 

 engine to overthrow the arrogant assumptions of kingcraft 

 and priestcraft, from the evil influence of which we now in 

 England sufier little. 



If M. Vogt had been an Englishman I should certainly 

 have highly censured a man of such profound and 

 extensive views for wasting his energies in attacking 



