History related to other Sciences 535 
a definite place in the coordinated whole of knowledge, and relate it 
more closely to other sciences. It had indeed a defined logical place 
in systems such as Hegel’s and Comte’s ; but Darwinism certified its 
standing convincingly and without more ado. The prevailing 
doctrine that man was created ex abrupto had placed history in 
an isolated position, disconnected with the sciences of nature. 
Anthropology, which deals with the animal anthropos, now comes 
into line with zoology, and brings it into relation with history?. 
Man’s condition at the present day is the result of a series of 
transformations, going back to the most primitive phase of society, 
which is the ideal (unattainable) beginning of history. But that 
beginning had emerged without any breach of continuity from a 
development which carries us back to a quadrimane ancestor, still 
further back (according to Darwin’s conjecture) to a marine animal 
of the ascidian type, and then through remoter periods to the lowest 
form of organism. It is essential in this theory that though links 
have been lost there was no break in the gradual development ; and 
this conception of a continuous progress in the evolution of life, 
resulting in the appearance of uncivilised Anthropos, helped to 
reinforce, and increase a belief in, the conception of the history of 
civilised Anthropos as itself also a continuous progressive develop- 
ment. 
13. Thus the diffusion of the Darwinian theory of the origin of 
man, by emphasising the idea of continuity and breaking down the 
barriers between the human and animal kingdoms, has had an 
important effect in establishing the position of history among the 
sciences which deal with telluric development. The perspective of 
history is merged in a larger perspective of development. As one of 
the objects of biology is to find the exact steps in the genealogy of 
man from the lowest organic form, so the scope of history is to 
determine the stages in the unique causal series from the most 
rudimentary to the present state of human civilisation. 
It is to be observed that the interest in historical research implied 
by this conception need not be that of Comte. In the Positive 
Philosophy history is part of sociology; the interest in it is to 
discover the sociological Jaws. In the view of which I have just 
spoken, history is permitted to be an end in itself; the reconstruction 
1 It is to be observed that history is (not only different in scope but) not coextensive 
with anthropology in time. For it deals only with the development of man in societies, 
whereas anthropology includes in its definition the proto-anthropic period when anthropos 
was still non-social, whether he lived in herds like the chimpanzee, or alone like the male 
ourang-outang. (It has been well shown by Majewski that congregations—herds, flocks, 
packs, &c.—of animals are not societies ; the characteristic of a society is differentiation of 
function. Bee hives, ant hills, may be called quasi-societies ; but in their case the classes 
whieh perform distinct functions are morphologically different.) 
