To the Editor of the ETHNOLOGICAL JOURNAL. SIR, I wish to crave some few sticks of composition in your Journal, in order to say something upon an assertion made in your issue of September. I refer to page 142, where you state that "Anthropology was never looked upon in this country as a distinct science from Ethnology until the Anthropological Society of London was formed, nor, we believe, in France, till the Anthropological Society of Paris was formed." May I ask to which Anthropological Society of Paris you refer? In 1845-6 an attempt was made, and statutes printed, now in my possession, to establish such a society. The then French Government refused their sanction to those statutes upon political grounds-the present free and enlightened Government promoted, rather than rejected, the present Anthropological Society of France. So much acerbity has been evinced about this matter, ink needlessly wasted, and dissension aroused, that it would surely be wise to rather consider the science of man, than somewhat irrelevant distinctions of terms. In the scientific language sanctioned by Europe, Anthropology is the equivalent adopted since 1501. Ethnology is recent, and open to much criticism. As reasonable men let us be exact, or our whole machinery, in consequence of petty differences, will get out of gear, and what position would any one of us be authorized to occupy in such case? To stultify inquiries into man and his nature by personalities, is sheer folly, and I would strongly urge that while a reformation of the terminology be conceded, on the part of Ethnologists, the interests of the common quest be held in view by both parties to the inquiries relating to the subject. I am, Sir, Yours very truly, KENNETH R. H. MACKENZIE. Chiswick, 18th September, 1865. THE ETHNOLOGICAL JOURNAL. OUR correspondent Mr. Mackenzie has recalled attention to the differences existing among the students of the Science of Man, respecting the use of the word Ethnology, and thus forced us again to recur to a topic on which we have sufficiently expressed our opinions already, and would now prefer leaving in the hands of others. In answer to his inquiry, we have to observe that we, of course, refer to the existing Anthropological Society of Paris, and not to the one which never came into existence, and which therefore has had no influence on the course of thought. It is not unnatural that a jealous government, in a troublesome time, should have looked on this new society as a superfluity, since its scientific objects were essentially the same as those of the then existing Ethnological Society, and they may have thus been led to regard it as a possible mask for political aims. However, be this as it may, we see no reason for supposing that the society was projected because it was felt that Ethnology was an unsuitable name for the science of man, and therefore our statement needs no modification. We entirely agree with our correspondent in regretting that any discords should have been excited in this matter, but we must remind him that none were excited previous to the year 1863, and that all the printer's ink expended on the subject in this country since then, up to June or July last, has been expended by Anthropologists, and mainly, if not exclusively, in the authorized publications of the Anthropological Society of London. During this interval of two years and a half, Ethnologists have looked on and held their peace; no ink has been wasted, and as far as we remember no public comments made, except the few remarks forced from two or three leading members of the body, in their official and legislative capacity at the meetings of the British Association in 1863 and 1864, and yet during all this time they were exposed to a merciless cannonade from Presidential Addresses, Editorial Prefaces, and Quarterly Reviews! Really this is too absurd. Our correspondent benevolently lectures us upon the impropriety of finessing about terms, as if the whole affair were not the exclusive work of his own people. We have neither finessed nor interfered; we have no quarrel with the word "Anthropology," nor do we seek to limit its import: Ethnologists simply claim the right of choosing their own nomenclature, and defining it in their own way; and as their choice and their definitions long antedate those of their Anthropological brethren, our correspondent is but enacting the fable of "the wolf and the lamb" when he charges them with having troubled the waters. The real grievance appears to be that the lamb has proved a tougher customer than was at all expected, and not only objects to being eaten, but actually turns upon the wolf and repels his attack. We join our correspondent in his wish for the return of peace, but then it is not to us, but to his own people, that he should address himself; we are as anxious as himself to let the matter drop. It is becoming tiresome, and we feel ashamed at having to waste time and words on so foolish and uncalled-for a controversy; but while others insist on keeping it open we have no alternative. "Let there be peace," said the Federal hosts to the beleagured Confederates. "It is precisely what we fight for," was the reply. "Let us alone, and there is peace.' This is our answer to our invaders. The moment they cease, we cease; but we object to being annihilated for the simple convenience of any scientific body, however large. Man, WE would commend to the attention of our readers the article on Savage and Civilized," in a preceding page; it offers a bold and honourable challenge, made in the fairest spirit of scientific controversy, and we can hardly doubt that it will be accepted, and we trust, too, in the same fair spirit. There is much more in the letter than may meet a superficial glance; and though, for ourselves, we differ from its main conclusion, we cordially recognize the fact that that conclusion is based on a great central truth, which, rightly interpreted, would speedily settle all our differences. However, we only speak now to acknowledge the importance of the issues raised, for though we are all familiar with the theory of degeneration in its traditional and dogmatic aspect, it is only beginning to claim attention as a genuinely scientific thesis, and on this ground it is well entitled to a respectful and earnest consideration, for on the one hand it probes the most important phenomena of biological science, and on the other the existing status of our historical knowledge, while it somewhat daringly confronts the accumulation of facts which recent research has brought to light in reference to the early condition of the human family. THE position of an Editor is not exactly the most enviable of human conditions, even though it may freely be allowed to have some pleasant aspects, and certainly some amusing ones; but of all Editors the new Editor is the one who is apt to be most hardly dealt with. The veteran is recognized; we know what he is about, we know what to expect from him, and see that it is useless to plague him. Even at the worst, we take him as a necessary evil, and make our arrangements accordingly. But the new hand is a different matter. He is expected to be plastic, docile, reasonable; and strenuous are the efforts made to lead him into the right path, and severe the penalties imposed if those efforts prove abortive, or even threaten to prove so. Duly to respond to those efforts would be to enact, every day of his life, the fable of the "Old Man and his Ass," and so the poor Editor has sooner or later to turn restive, take his own course, and accept its alternatives. Though not altogether new to our trade, our work is new, and therefore we are duly passing through the inevitable ordeal, and tasting-not, certainly, "the sweets of office," but, we presume, those wholesome bitters which are to stimulate appetite, and give a zest to enjoyment—when it comes. We have placed before our readers a programme of our plan and intentions; but that, with some of them, evidently counts for nothing: there are people who always insist on seeing recondite meanings everywhere, and who practically carry out the theory that language was invented for the purpose of enabling man to conceal his thoughts. These can read the signs of the times from very faint indications indeed, and they have already made some notable discoveries. A critic, in a most respectable northern journal, The Scotsman, has discovered, amongst other things, first, that this work. is the organ of the Ethnological Society, and owes its origin to the Anthropological secession; and secondly, that one of the main purposes for which it was established is to oppose the Darwinian theory! The first inference is not altogether unnatural considering the general tendency to reason on the principle of post hoc, ergo propter hoc; but the ground for the latter is slight indeed, being nothing more than the purely accidental coincidence that two of our writers have simultaneously expressed views opposed to Darwinism. Upon this basis comes the strange inference that a society, which is proud to number among its members many of the most eminent of the Darwinians, has set on foot a journal for the purpose of writing down Darwinism! The real facts of the case are so amusingly in contrast with the inference, that we are sorry we cannot place them before our critic, and enable him to share in our mirth. But this is nothing to the disgrace we have incurred by the attack of our correspondent Ethnicus on Phrenology, and by the further delinquency of not having allowed him to be answered in a style quite unsuitable, in our opinion, to a scientific journal. Our friends are precipitate. They do not see into the mile-stone as far as they fancy. With a little patience they will find that things will right themselves, gradually assume their true proportions, and they will certainly find that no scientific argument of any real value, and expressed in terms suitable to scientific controversy, will ever be denied admission into these pages, whatever ology it may support or oppose. ANSWERS TO CORRESPONDENTS. J. W.-The work in question is no longer in the hands of the trade; but if our correspondent will send us his full address, we will forward to him the Number he asks for. Editorial Communications, Books for Review, &c., are to be addressed to the Editor, care of Messrs. TrÜBNER & Co., 60, Paternoster Row, London; or, F. A. BROCKHAUS, Leipsic. ETHNOLOGICAL JOURNAL: A MONTHLY RECORD OF Ethnological Research and Criticism. THE high interest which the Science of Man has of late assumed, the many important questions involved in it, and the constantly increasing number of its students and cultivators, demand more facilities for the communication of facts and the discussion of opinions than our existing periodical literature affords; and it is in view of this demand that the present work is offered to the notice of the Public. THE ETHNOLOGICAL JOURNAL will be conducted on the broadest and most liberal basis-not seeking to reflect any particular class of opinions, but open to all communications of merit directly bearing on its subject. Embracing in its sphere the entire Science of Man, in the most comprehensive import of the term, no department of research will be deemed foreign to its scope which tends to throw light on the nature, origin, or history of humanity, on its place in the scale of being, or its relations to the inferior forms of life. In fact, all the great questions of the science will be fully and carefully discussed, and always, we trust, with the combined independence and moderation which should ever characterize the pursuit of truth. Criticism will, of course, constitute an important feature in such a work. The various theories of leading writers will be carefully and candidly examined; and, as far as may be practicable, all new publications of importance will be briefly noticed or formally reviewed. Neither will it be content with simply collecting materials and discussing opinions: it will also keep prominently in view the higher aims of every true science the organisation of facts, and the evolution and application of principles; for these alone can give meaning to phenomena, or utility to knowledge. Among other details of current intelligence, THE ETHNOLOGICAI. JOURNAL will regularly publish the Official Reports of the Proceedings and Discussions of the Ethnological Society of London; and we may add that the promises of literary co-operation already received from distinguished writers leave us no room for doubting that this work will ere long be entitled to claim a high and useful place in the literature of our science. THE ETHNOLOGICAL JOURNAL is published on the 1st of every month, PRICE Editorial Communications, Books for Review, &c., are to be addressed to the |