2 
the Anthropological Society of London in February, 1864;* the 
second was published in the Ethnological Journal for October 
1865, with the title, “ Man, Savage and Civilized : an Appeal 
to Facts ; ” and the third was the first paper I had the honour 
of reading before the Victoria Institute, in our first session 
in July, 1866, f “On the various Theories of Man’s Past and 
Present Condition,” the greater portion of which Paper was 
subsequently read in the Ethnological Section of the British 
Association for the Advancement of Science, at Nottingham, 
in August, 18664 
2. In all these Essays my object was to rebut and relute the 
notion that man could either have been created m a low and 
almost brutal condition, like what we now find him to be among 
the lowest and most ignorant savage races ; or that he could 
ever have been transmuted from some kind of monkey or othei 
beast, by natural selection or any other natural process, into 
man. In the first of these papers I said: “Apart from the 
physiological objections (which seem to be insuperable) to the 
theory of transmutation, the grand issue to be decided by 
anthropologians will mainly depend upon what we can discover, 
as to whether savage man can civilize himself or not. it not, 
there simply cannot be a doubt that the ‘ primitive man was 
neither a savage nor his ancestor an ape. And, . apart Irom 
theories altogether, the existence of mankind, both in a civilized 
and savage condition, naturally suggests to us the inquiry : lo 
which of these distinctive classes did the primitive man probably 
belong ?” This showed that I was quite prepared to discuss this 
question with reference to existing facts, and not to press too 
hardly upon the Darwinians to-justify their extravagant specula- 
tions as to man’s origin, which go beyond all our knowledge and 
experience of the facts of the animal creation and ot human 
nature. I also then said : “ Before this question can be satis- 
factorily answered, however, or even discussed with advantage, 
it seems necessary to arrive at some definite understanding as 
to the meaning of the word civilization with reference to 
anthropological considerations.” > ^ T -i 
3. It is to supply this desideratum I now write. Bui 1 have 
also another object— a pledge to fulfil— which I must endea- 
vour at the same time to accomplish; and that is, to reply o 
a Paper by Sir John Lubbock on the same subject. His 
Paper I heard read in the Ethnological Society of London on 
26th November, 1867, and by his courtesy I have since been 
furnished with a copy of it. It was afterwards read by him at 
* Anthrop. Rev., vol. ii. p. cxv. et seq. 
Journ. of Trans., yol. i. p. 174, et seq. 
J lb; p. 214. 
