« PreviousContinue »
only express his gratification at the way in which this discussion had been carried on by Dr. Cleland, Mr. Turner, Mr. Church, and Dr. Embleton, and expressed himself entirely in accordance with the anatomical facts, as well as the interpretation of the reviewers' version of these facts which these gentlemen had that day promulgated. He wished also to take that opportunity of expressing the very great pleasure he felt on reading the very able paper on the Chimpanzee by Dr. Embleton; and so long as they had scientific facts of this nature, met, as they always ought to be, in a fair spirit, unaccompanied by garbled versions of writers' statements, he should always consider himself proud to enter the lists with such learned anatomists as Dr. Embleton, Mr. Turner, Dr. Cleland, and Mr. Church.
Dr. Davy did not see how the gentleman who had just spoken could with any justice assert that garbled versions had been brought before the section, seeing that the passages which Mr. Blake desired to be read were read both by the gentleman himself and by Professor Rolleston. He trusted, therefore, that the offensive expression would be withdrawn.
Mr. BLAKE would willingly withdraw the word, if it was offensive to the section, and say that the construction put upon the article by Professor Rolleston was certainly not that which the writer wished to convey.
Here for the present we must conclude our notice of the proceedings of the Association. We have not reported a paper read by Mr. Richard Lee, on the extinction of races, which is of the less importance, as no discussion took place on his paper, and we understand it will ere long be read before the Anthropological Society of London. We shall then be able to present it to our readers at our next issue. We shall speak of Captain Grant's paper, on noticing the forthcoming work by Messrs. Speke and Grant. We can find nothing in Mr. Craft's paper on “Dahomey” which is worth printing. The object of the paper seemed to be to throw discredit on the account which had been sent to this country by M. Jules Gérard; but it was evident that most of the revolting scenes described by that traveller were admitted to exist by Mr. Craft. He, however, denied that they were so revolting. It is very significant that M. Jules Gérard, in his letter to the Duke of Wellington, should have said so markedly, that he was sorry Captain Burton was not present to confirm what he asserted. Mr. Craft was present with M. Jules Gérard, and it is not a little ominous that this traveller never refers to Mr. Craft as a witness. We are sorry to hear that Sir Roderick Murchison at once accepted Mr. Craft's account as correct, and even went so far as to say that “ M. Gérard had probably indulged a little in imagination from, the desire to render the description of his journey as graphic as possible.”
We hope this assertion was made in the heat of debate, and not as intentionally throwing discredit on the veracity of M. Jules Gérard, who, being in a foreign country, was unable to reply to the attacks made against him in his absence. Let us have patience and hear both sides of the question, before we condemn a traveller, and a foreigner, in this wholesale manner. In the meantime we would suggest to Sir R. Murchison, and to anthropologists generally, whether they do not think that much of the difference in the accounts of the two witnesses may be explained by the two travellers having different “instincts"? Mr. Craft has a certain amount of African blood in his veins, and this must influence his innate ideas. We can, therefore, readily understand that scenes which would be very horrible to M. Jules Gérard, would not appear in such hideous colours to a Mulatto, like Mr. William Craft. While on the subject of half-breeds, we should mention some interesting episodes respecting Mr. Craft, who was put forward as a “pure Negro," and continually described and spoken of as a “fine specimen of his race.” What race? we asked, but could get no reply. In the Journal of the Association he was described as “ an African Gentleman.” But Dr. Philip Carpenter objected to this, and in a letter to the President said, “Mr. Craft is not an African but an American gentleman, having been born in the Southern States of America.” Mr. Craft then cleared up the confusion of ideas as to his race, by saying, “ he considered himself an Englishman of African parentage, unfortunately born in America.” But this is not quite satisfactory, as Mr. Craft knows kimself that one of his parents is a Euro-American, and the other he has never alleged to be of really pure African blood.
This episode well represents the confusion which exists respecting the terminology of anthropological science, and we hope that the promised Report of the Anthropological Society on this subject will soon be issued, that some of this confusion may be removed. We cannot conclude our report without expressing our thanks to the local newspapers of Newcastle for the admirable manner in which the sectional meetings were reprinted, especially in the Newcastle Chronicle.
It was not without regret that we looked in vain for the face of the man who has been the Chief Secretary of Section E for many yearswe allude to Dr. Norton Shaw. We presume the President forgot to allude to the loss the Section had sustained in no longer having that intelligent, able, and courteous geographer to act as Secretary. We also noticed that the two other Secretaries who have acted with Dr. Shaw for some years past did not act this year,
Mr. C. R. Markham has taken Dr. Shaw's place, and Mr. Carter Blake the place of Dr. Hunt. Mr. Thomas Wright was prevented by other engagements from attending the meeting this year. Mr. Crawfurd was present, fighting his battles with all comers, as of old. We venture to say that there is no man who attends the meetings of the Association who has had more fighting than this venerable member, and there is evidently no one who so thoroughly enjoys asking his friends “ to tread on the tail of his coat." His opinions on all ethnological subjects are just as they were forty years ago, at which time Mr. Crawfurd, to his lasting honour, was one of the first to raise his voice against the stereotyped popular ideas which then existed respecting man's past history. We trust he may long be spared to attend the Association, and we feel sure that none will more heartily join in this wish than those who are most opposed to his scientific teaching and his antiprogressive ideas. We can scarcely ask of a hard-headed Scotchman of eighty years of age that he shall advance with the times; but we hope, for his own reputation, that Mr. Crawfurd will not, in his maturer years, help to arrest the cause of scientific truth, of which he has been so brave a champion during the last fifty years. We heartily coincide with Mr. Crawfurd's remarks on proposing a vote of thanks to the President, when he said, “Nature evidently intended Sir Roderick Murchison to be a President. He combined in the most happy proportions firmness and amenity, and always made the meetings over which he presided pleasant and profitable.”
Before we conclude our report, we feel it our duty to express our earnest desire that Section E may long be spared that painful exhibition of personal animus which has, during the last few years, been introduced into the discussions of Section D. It will, perhaps, hardly be believed when we state the fact that, on a paper being read by Mr. Carter Blake, in Section D, on “Syndactyly in Man and A pes," a member of the Association was allowed to get up and make a long tirade against the writer of some anonymous article in the Edinburgh Review of April last. Not a word of discussion took place on Mr. Blake's paper, but the time of the Section was taken up by listening to Dr. Rolleston's grievances against this anonymous writer. We were glad, however, to hear the severe castigation which Mr. Blake administered to him, and which will, we trust, make him more cautious not to attack again in debate one who is evidently so much his superior.
Section E was much indebted to Professor Daniel Wilson, of Toronto, for many excellent speeches. We are glad also to be able to find a full and original report of the excellent speech on Archæ. ology made by Mr. George Tate, the well-known antiquary and geologist, and active Secretary of the Berwickshire Naturalists' Field Club. To the character of the speeches generally we will quote the words of the esteemed President, who said, “I have been a member of the Association from its foundation, and I must say that I never presided on any occasion on which there have been such numerous audiences, and so many admirable discussions. I may add, that I have never presided on any occasion on which I have seen so much good feeling exhibited, not only by persons around me on this platform, but by all those who have taken part in the proceedings.” These were Sir R. Murchison's parting words to the Section, and we must now close our report. The Association has sustained a very severe loss in being deprived of the valuable services of Professor Phillips, who has from the commencement of the Association been its most energetic and able manager. A universal feeling of regret is felt throughout the Association at his loss. We hope he may long live to enjoy his well-earned popularity, and that his example will be the means of inducing his successors to follow in his disinterested and impartial footsteps. We believe that universal satisfaction is felt at the selection of Sir Charles Lyell as President for the ensuing year. Anthropologists have especial reason to be satisfied, for no one has of late years done more for the progress of Anthropological science than Sir Charles Lyell. We were glad to see him in Section E this year, and hope that for the future we shall see him far oftener. Everything bids fair to make the next meeting at Bath successful. We trust that during the time that will elapse before the meeting, Anthropologists will bestir themselves to bring all their forces together, and thus help to secure the formal recognition of Anthropological science by the Association. We understand that notice has been given by Dr. Hunt, that Section E shall for the future be devoted to “Geography, Ethnology, and Anthropology." A general rumour prevailed that there was to be a sub-section especially devoted to Anthropology. We think, however, that an increase of the number of sections is objectionable, and we see no necessity for such a division. As an independent journal, devoted to Anthropological science, we shall feel it our duty to advocate a union of Anthropology with the present Geographical and Ethnological section.
WAITZ'S INTRODUCTION TO ANTHROPOLOGY,
Only a few months have elapsed since the Anthropological Society of London announced that they intended publishing a translation of the first volume of “Waitz's Anthropology of Primitive Peoples," and now, just as we go to press, the volume is issued to the Fellows. We shall only be able to give a short outline of the first impression which the work has made on us. In the first place, we must say that the rapid manner in which the book has been produced is most creditable to the Society, and especially to the editor, Mr. Collingwood. We hope this good example will be followed by other editors of works which are announced to be published by the Society. The Anthropological Society, if they had done nothing else, and should now cease their labours, would have effected very much for Anthropological science. Therefore, for the first time in the history of British scientific literature, we have a compendium of modern Anthropological science. It is almost enough to shame our national pride to think that such a york should not come from one of our own countrymen; and yet, with all the merits of this work, we still see that a German alone could have written it. Its very value for anthropological students consists in its defects. Many will take the book up and ask, “Is the author a Monogenist or a Polygenist?” But, we are glad to say, they will have to read the book before they will get their curiosity gratified. Nothing will help to do away more effectually with that shallow school of thought, which makes all science relating to man resolve itself into a solution of the problem of man's origin. This volume will help to put the science of Anthropology in a proper light before the scientific men of this country. It is a matter of amazement to find that the science of Anthropology is only just receiving a recognition from men of science. We may not agree entirely with the exact position which he assigns to Anthropology, but we cordially endorse his statement that “it is requisite to declare in this place, once for all, that Anthropology is to be considered as an empirical science, because its subject, Man, is only known to us empirically, and hence it is requisite to study man by the same method which is applied to the investigation of all other natural objects.”
The author has traced the gradual rise of Anthropological science, and the different meanings which have been attached to Anthropology, and very properly limits the sphere of this science, and shows VOL. I.-NO, III.