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.

    15/24 (page 13)
    avoid all questions which in any way bear on religion. I regret that we cannot act upon this well-meant suggestion. Religion is essentially an anthropological character, and in that light we shall always have to consider it. We cannot even describe the psychological characters of the different races, without dwelling on the tendency of some to ])elieve in monotheism, and of others in polytheism. No anthropolo¬ gist, worthy of the name, can fail to observe these things, or to record them. While, however, it is our duty to take cognisance of wdiat men do believe, we disclaim every wish or desire to prescribe for them what they ought or ought not to believe. It is here we draw the line of demarcation; and those who take the trouble to examine it, will be compelled to avow that it is a broad and distinct one. We are a young society, and desire to conform as far as possible to the existing rules of scientific societies; but this conformation with old-established societies must be more that of spirit than of action. Founded as our Society is on many of the rules of the Geological Society, I hope the same spirit of independence and determination to fight against public opinion exists amongst us, as existed, and even now exists, amongst some of the great champions of scientific truth and freedom of inquiry, such as Buckland, Adam Sedgwick, De la Beche, Lyell, Darwin; and, indeed, all these men have shown that they valued the cause of truth more than public applause. This sympathy with all true scientific workers of the day, I hope will always exist amongst us : but the working out of the administra¬ tion of our Society cannot be done precisely on any existing model. Our success has been unprecedented in the history of scientific societies of this metropolis; and this success must be ascribed more to the suit¬ ability of oim plan to the wants of the time than to any other cause. must strive to imitate w’^hat is good in all societies; and we can estimate at their true value the denunciations of those whose lan¬ guage is of that nature which can alone be dictated by rancorous jealousy. Great as has been the success of our parent society in Paris, it bears, as jM. Broca writes me, no comparison to the rapid progress our own Society has made within so short a time. It affords me much gratification, also, to announce that the part of our plan which has been much condemned in some quarters, viz., the publication of tmnslations of foreign works, is to be followed by our fellow students at Moscow. We must all rejoice that such is to be the case. Let us never forget that there is but one science of anthropology, although there are many languages in which that science is enunciated. Tlie Moscow society intend to publish their own works in Russian, into which language English works are to be translated. I mention this fact with peculiar gratification, because it illustrates the appreciation of the plan of our own Society. It is of importance, also, that we should enlarge our sphere of usefulness by increasing the number of our Fellows, or we shall not long be able to retain the leading position, as regards numbers, which we now possess amongst the different anthropological societies