The first appearance of the word in English was probably in the seventeenth century, when an anonymous book was published bearing the title _Anthropologie Abstracted; or, The idea of Humane nature reflected in briefe Philosophicall and anatomical collections_ (1655). The author defines his subject thus:— Anthropologie, or the history of human nature, is, in the vulgar (yet just) impression, distinguished into two volumes: the first entitled _Psychologie_, the nature of the rational soule discoursed; the other anatomie, or the fabrick or structure of the body of man revealed in dissection ... of the former we shall in a distracted rehersall, deliver our collections.[2] Footnote 2: See Bendyshe, p. 356. The meaning of the word was scarcely clear in the beginning of the nineteenth century, when we find, in the _British Encyclopædia_ of 1822, the following definitions, “A discourse upon human nature,” and “Among Divines, that manner of expression by which the inspired writers attribute human parts and passions to God.” Concerning the present use of the term “Anthropology,” few will take exception to the definition given by Topinard in his _l’Anthropologie_ (1876): “Anthropology is the branch of natural history which treats of man and the races of man.” It may be yet more succinctly described as “the science of man,” which comprises two main divisions—the one which deals with the natural man (ανθρωπος, or _homo_); the other which is concerned with man in relation to his fellows, or, in other words, with social man (εθνορ, or _socius_). At the end of the Introduction we give the classification which we propose to adopt. It should, however, be stated that, whereas in this country we employ the term “Anthropology” to cover the whole subject, it is common on the Continent to restrict the term to what we designate as “Physical Anthropology,” “Anthropography,” or “Somatology.” [Sidenote: =Fundamental Conceptions.=] The beginnings of anthropology may probably be traced to what Professor Giddings (1896) has termed the “consciousness of kind,” but what Dr. McDougall (1898) has more definitely recognised as showing the gregarious impulse. He says (pp. 299-300):— The gregarious impulse of any animal receives satisfaction only through the presence of animals similar to itself, and the closer the similarity the greater is the satisfaction.... Just so, in any human being the instinct operates most powerfully in relation to, and receives the highest degree of satisfaction from the presence of, the human beings who most closely resemble that individual, those who behave in like manner and respond to the same situations with similar emotions. [Illustration: _Andree, Parallelen. N. r. Tafel. III._ BUSHMEN RAIDING KAFIR CATTLE. (_After R. Andree._) ] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [Illustration: