Anniversary address delivered before the Anthropological Society of London, January 3rd, 1866 / by James Hunt.

  • Hunt, James, 1833-1869.
Date:
1866
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Anniversary address delivered before the Anthropological Society of London, January 3rd, 1866 / by James Hunt. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    11/24 (page 9)
    tioii is truly very curious . . . and when all this shall have passed away, no one will ever believe in the historical reality of this resistance.” The struggle began twenty years ago, and may perhaps go on for that time longer. When the Council of the British Association recommended that the science of man should be included in the Biological Section, they no doubt anticipated that this arrangement, being some concession to our demands, might bo accepted by us. The authorities of the British Association are now trying to do what w'as attempted with anthro¬ pology more than thirty years ago in Germany. Nasse, writing in 1823, and speaking of the attempt at separation of the different branches of anthropological science, says: “ This separation has been very injurious to antliropological inquiry; for, according to it, man has been delivered up to two separate faculties—his psychical part to philosophers, his physical part to physiologists. Even at present, en¬ deavours are still being made to keep these inquiries separate.” It is not a little strange that some of our men of science should assume the same attitude towards anthropology as that taken upwards of forty years ago by some men of science in Germany. Why all this dread of anthropology 1 Why do men who have spent the earlier part of their lives in furthering the cause of science, endea¬ vour to attain public applause from the masses by arresting its further development h What made a leading member of the British Associa¬ tion utter the vain boast that he had made “ the coffin of the anthro¬ pologists ”1 The reply to the last question may perhaps be found in the speech of Cassius. “ Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world Like a Colossus ; and we petty men Walk under his huge legs, and peep about To find ourselves dishonourable graves.” Such boasters do much to bring the name and the cause of science into contem})t. It should ever be the object of those who conduct this Society, to do so in such a truly scientific manner, as not to allow it to fall into the state of one, at least, of our existing scientific societies. I allude to the unfortunate position to which Sir Koderick Murchison, Bart., has brought the Uoyal Geographical Society. From a useful scien¬ tific body of students of physical geography, this society has degenerated under his regime to a fashionable reunion. This is not the fault of the ])Ortion of science to which that society should be devoted, but is an admirable illustration of the evil effects of courting public applause. 1 merely mention the Geographical Society as an illustration of what this Society may become if she were to depart from her original pro- gmmme, or forget which should be the true aim of every scientific body. I am aware that there are many of the leading geographers of this country who are fully sensible of the present state of their science ill England; and in time, I have no doubt that the Royal Geographi¬ cal Society will resume its sphere of scientific usefulness. So much misconception and confusion have arisen in this country with regard to the word anthropology, that 1 believe our real claims are not yet fully understood even by the leading members of the