of the kind into the primitive creation-stories preserved in Genesis.  Now-a-days, however, we have mostly got over the first shock to our family pride.  We are all Darwinians in a passive kind of way.  But we need to darwinize actively.  In the sciences that have to do with plants, and with the rest of the animals besides man, naturalists have been so active in their darwinizing that the pre-Darwinian stuff is once for all laid by on the shelf.  When man, however, engages on the subject of his noble self, the tendency still is to say:  We accept Darwinism so long as it is not allowed to count, so long as we may go on believing the same old stuff in the same old way.

How do we anthropologists propose to combat this tendency?  By working away at our subject, and persuading people to have a look at our results.  Once people take up anthropology, they may be trusted not to drop it again.  It is like learning to sleep with your window open.  What could be more stupefying than to shut yourself up in a closet and swallow your own gas?  But is it any less stupefying to shut yourself up within the last few thousand years of the history of your own corner of the world, and suck in the stale atmosphere of its own self-generated prejudices?  Or, to vary the metaphor, anthropology is like travel.  Every one starts by thinking that there is nothing so perfect as his own parish.  But let a man go aboard ship to visit foreign parts, and, when he returns home, he will cause that parish to wake up.

With Darwin, then, we anthropologists say:  Let any and every portion of human history be studied in the light of the whole history of mankind, and against the background of the history of living things in general.  It is the Darwinian outlook that matters.  None of Darwin’s particular doctrines will necessarily endure the test of time and trial.  Into the melting-pot must they go as often as any man of science deems it fitting.  But Darwinism as the touch of nature that makes the whole world kin can hardly pass away.  At any rate, anthropology stands or falls with the working hypothesis, derived from Darwinism, of a fundamental kinship and continuity amid change between all the forms of human life.

It remains to add that, hitherto, anthropology has devoted most of its attention to the peoples of rude—­that is to say, of simple—­culture, who are vulgarly known to us as “savages.”  The main reason for this, I suppose, is that nobody much minds so long as the darwinizing kind of history confines itself to outsiders.  Only when it is applied to self and friends is it resented as an impertinence.  But, although it has always up to now pursued the line of least resistance, anthropology does not abate one jot or tittle of its claim to be the whole science, in the sense of the whole history, of man.  As regards the word, call it science, or history, or anthropology, or anything else—­what does it matter?  As regards the thing, however, there can be no compromise.  We anthropologists are out to secure this:  that there shall not be one kind of history for savages and another kind for ourselves, but the same kind of history, with the same evolutionary principle running right through it, for all men, civilized and savage, present and past.