<p>This paper aims to reevaluate and reexamine the program that Edward Evans-Pritchard (known as "E-P"to his colleagues) tried to complete within the history of anthropological thought. It also examines the inheritance from his intellectual legacy and methods, reconsidering them in the context of contemporary issues. Among E-P's programs and interests, demonstrated in his ethnographic books, articles, lectures, and private letters, the following aspects are particularly treated in this paper: (1) His continued attempt to clarify society as the entire field of human interests, and hence as the source of the selective principle that controls attention. (2) His insistence that anthropology was a kind of historiography, and therefore ultimately one of philosophy and art, as it "interpreted" rather than "explained." (3) His consistent return to Montesquieu, whom he regarded as the original founder of modern anthropological thought, though E-P himself gradually developed an anti-sociological attitude and identified himself as "just an ethnographer." As already noted by Mary Douglas, E-P demanded an account of real lives in ordinary circumstances, rejecting misleading distinctions between "primitive" and "modern" in his book on the Azande. However, his intention was not necessarily understood by his successors. Even recent scholars, both in U.K. and elsewhere, who argued for the modernity of witchcraft during 1980s to 1990s, tried to show that witchcraft in Africa was not simply a practice of the "pre-modern" world but that it formed part of the modern world free of Western intellectualism. Their questions were derived from this prejudice: "Why do Africans still believe in witchcraft, though they were already civilized and modernized?" Opposed to such a prejudice, E-P tried to show that no one was primarily controlled by reason at any place or in any epoch. One may note again that he referred to Vilfledo Pareto's work when criticizing Levy-Bruhl's thesis that "savages are pre-logical in contrast to Europeans who are logical." E-P's profound philosophical skepticism concerning modern Western academic habits is also examined in the paper, though it is already known that he was also "a child of his era." His intellectual legacy and successors (especially Godfrey Lienhardt) continue to inspire us as profound commentaries on what anthropologists ought to describe and interpret about the languages and behavior of people they come into contact with, as well as on what questions they should ask in the field. They are also interesting and important critiques of modern Western intellectualism, representationism, language centrism, and dualism, as well as the subject-object and mind-body dichotomies. The style that Masuda and Nagashima referred to as the "school of intellectual history" is always to be remembered as one of the important characteristics of their academic practices. E-P's ethnographies on witchcraft among the Azande or on the Nuer religion appear at a glance to have renounced a consistent, reasonable interpretation. This paper notes that they instead represented a criticism of Western intellectualism and accountability, and still contain suggestions for non-Western scholars today. Moreover, E-P's empirical and humanistic fieldwork methods still give us suggestions for carrying out fruitful collaborative work between anthropologists and "natives," given the drastic changes in the ideal and physical circumstances for practicing anthropological fieldwork and writing ethnographies. E-P noted that his Azande book was written for the descendants of his Azande informants. It is not too difficult to find Azande in Africa and elsewhere who can read English texts of E-P and give comments and criticisms. We must sincerely think about how we</p><p>(View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)</p>