622 PROGRESS AND POSITION OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL SCIENCES. 



and therefore I think nothing human to be foreign to me," expresses 

 the ground upon which the anthropological sciences claim from us a 

 special attention. 



I may illustrate what I have said as to the varied endowments of 

 anthropologists by a reference to the names of four distinguished men 

 who have occupied in previous years the place which it falls to my lot 

 to fill to-day — most unworthily, as I can not but acknowledge, when I 

 think of their preeminent qualifications. When the association last 

 met at Bristol, in 1875, anthropology was not a section, but only a 

 department, and it was presided over by Rolleston. There may be 

 some here who recollect the address he then delivered, informed from 

 beginning to end with that happy and playful wit which was charac- 

 teristic of him ; but all will know how great he was in anatomy, what 

 a wide range of classical and other learning he possessed, and how he 

 delighted to bring it to bear on every anthropological subject that was 

 presented to his notice. In 1878 Huxley was the chairman of this 

 department. It is only necessary to mention the name of that illus- 

 trious biologist to recall to your memory how much anthropology owes 

 to him. Eight years before he had been president of the association 

 itself, and seven years before that had published his Evidence as to 

 Man's Place in Nature. Brilliant as his successes were in other 

 branches of scientific investigation, I can not but think that anthro- 

 pology was with him a favorite pursuit. His writings upon that 

 subject possess a wonderful charm of style. In 1883 the chairman 

 was Pengelly, who for many years rendered service to anthropology by 

 his exploration of Kent's Cavern and other caves, and who happily 

 illustrated the close relation that exists between geology and anthro- 

 pology. His biography, recently published, must have reminded many 

 of us of the amiable qualities which adorned his character. Finally, in 

 1886, two years after anthropology had become a section, its president 

 was Sir George Campbell, a practical ethnologist, a traveler, an admin- 

 istrator, a legislator, a geographer, who passed through a long career 

 of public" life with honor and distinction. All my other predecessors 

 are, I am glad to say, still living, and I make no mention of them. 

 The few names I have cited — selected by the accidental circumstance 

 that they are no longer with us — are sufficient to show what varied 

 gilts and pursuits are combined in the study of anthropology. 



There is another side to the question. Great as is the diversity of 

 the anthropological sciences, their unity is still more remarkable. The 

 student of man must study the whole man. No true knowledge of any 

 human group, any more than of a human individual, is obtained by 

 observation of physical characters alone. Modes of thought, language, 

 arts, and history must also be investigated. This simultaneous inves 

 tigatiou involves in each case the same logical methods and processes. 

 It will in general be attended with the same results. If it be true that 

 the order of the universe is expressed in continuity and not in cataclysm, 



