news of the Gospel. One of the American missionaries in India, remarking on the acquisition of languages, observes, that, in receiving lessons from his instructer, they were often compelled to resort to signs and gestures, in order at all to understand cach other.Similar aids may be expected to be afforded from this source, in all other cases analogous to this. Lucian has somewhere made mention of a king, whose dominions bordered on the Euxine sea, who, happening to be at Rome in the reign of Nero, and having seen a pantomime perform, begged him of the emperor as a present, in order that he might employ him as an interpreter, among the nations in his neighborhood, with whom he could have no intercourse on account of the didiversity of language.*These are not unimportant considerations, and there is ground for making this remark, also, that a knowledge of natural signs is subservient, in some measure, to the success of the fine or liberal arts, particularly sculpture and painting, and also to the successful exhibition of the art of oratory.

The arts of sculpture and painting are addressed to the eye; and one great object in those arts is to express emotions. Those, therefore, who practise them, must study the connection between the illuminations of the eye, the colour and muscular movements of the face, and the general attitude, which are the natural outward signs, and the internal feelings which correspond to them. It is not possible, that a single trait of character or even a single feeling should be conveyed by those admirable arts, except by means of natural signs. And hence the obvious conclusion, that no man can excel in them, without a knowledge of that form of language. Similar remarks will apply to the orator. He addresses the eye as well as the ear; and whenever he combines the language of looks, tones, and gestures with the arbitrary signs of articulate speech, he cannot fail to increase the interest of his hearers,

*Se Stewart's Philosophy of the Mind, Part. II, Chap. I, §. 1.

CHAPTER SECOND.

ORAL SIGNS OR SPEECH.

§. 108. Remarks on the original formation of oral signs.

ALTHOUGH we cannot but admire the wise provision of nature, in furnishing men with natural signs, it ought to excite our gratitude, that they are not left, in the communication of their thoughts and affections from one to another, to the assistances merely, which are given them in that way. Possessed of the organs of speech, they are capable of forming signs, which are addressed to the ear, and which, from their very nature, are in a great degree conventional and arbitrary. And we stop a moment to remark here, that we find, in this use of the organs of speech, a striking instance of the direction and power, which the mental nature is capable of giving to the bodily action, and of the value of mental endowments in general. The brute animals are known to possess the physical requisites of articulation in a considerable degree; and some of their tribes have been frequently taught to utter the names of persons, and even distinctly to repeat whole sentences. Nevertheless we do not find among the brute animals an oral language, a system of conventional sounds of their own making, and the general use and intercourse of speech. They are not only destitute of the preliminary

requisite of the natural signs of the countenance, but the formation of a conventional language implies also the exercise of a degree of intellect, which they do not possess. Nothing short of the high capacities of the human mind is capable of securing this great result.

And such is the undeniable difficulty of employing the complicated machinery of articulation so as to form words, it is proper to remark in this place, that there has even been a doubt in the minds of some, whether men, if wholly left to their own efforts, would ever have acquired this power. Such persons admit, that others may acquire the power by a long and laborious process of imitating, after it has been once attained; (and in fact we daily see this, in the case of children;) but they cannot easily persuade themselves, that the unaided faculties of the mind were equal to the original acquisition.

Hence it has been the opinion of the persons now alluded to, that we are indebted for the power of forming oral signs, or of speaking, to the direct interference of the Deity himself in behalf of our first parents. This is undoubtedly a matter of opinion, but not of clear and decided proof. The Bible, which is designed rather to subserve the moral and religious interests of mankind, than to gratify antiquarian curiosity, does not set us at rest on this point. It does indeed say, that God brought the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air to Adam to see what he would call them; but it is not said, that God gave the names himself, or that he directly aided Adam in giving them; although the supposition, that such assistance was granted, may be held to be supported by that beneficence, which is continually manifested in the dealings of the Supreme Being with his creatures.

109. Of the possibility of forming an oral language without divine aid.

With the assurance, which is so abundantly given in Revelation, that in ancient times the Supreme Being had communications with his creatures in diverse ways,no reasonable objection can be felt to the doctrine, which makes

God the direct author of oral language, provided there be found in the scriptures sufficient evidence in favour of it. At the same time, notwithstanding the difficulties that beset the whole inquiry, it cannot be denied, that some reasons may be proposed in support of the opinion, that the formation of an oral language is within the unaided reach of the human faculties, of which God also is the author.

It is admitted, that if a man be placed in utter solitude, and be permitted to grow up in that situation, there is no reason to anticipate, that he will ever have the command of articulate speech. The effort to obtain it is too great, when he finds no one around him, with whom to compare his labours, to sympathize in his discouragements, and to cheer him on to a successful termination. But his prospect is very different in the bosom of society; he there finds a multitude of incitements and assistances, which in the other situation he would be destitute of; and although it would cost him many a struggle, he would probably find himself rewarded at last for his labors, in the possession of their object.

But if it be admitted, that man, existing in society, would be able to acquire the power of articulate speech, the next inquiry is, what more is wanting in order to institute an oral language? Simply this; he must form a convention or agreement with his associates, by means of which distinct and separate sounds shall be made to stand for separate and definite objects.-And having arrived at this point in the inquiry, we shall no doubt be called upon to show, how such convention or agreement could possibly be made. And it must be acknowledged, there is but one answer it can be made by means of natural signs, and in that way alone.

Natural signs are not only indispensable in the original formation of oral language; but were it not for their assistance, it would be impossible to teach oral language to children, even after it had once been formed. When a mother teaches her native tongue to her children, she utters a particular sound; the child himself perhaps utters

the same sound; but how does the child know, that the sound is to stand for a particular object, for a watch, a chair, a table, a man, &c. ?It is evident, that he can form the association of the sign with the thing signified, only through the agency of the antecedent language of natural signs. By means of tones of the voice, changes of the countenance, and gestures, the mother succeeds in awakening an interest in the child, and in communicating her general design; she then points to the object at the same time with the utterance of the sound or name; and she repeats this process, till the child, by the aid of its instinctive power of interpreting natural signs, fully comprehends the meaning of the articulate sound.*

It will be remembered, that the inquiry, which has been attended to in this section, is not, whether the original formation of oral language by man's unaided effort is probable; (for that is an inquiry, which is placed by our ignorance of antiquity in a great measure beyond our reach ;) but merely whether it be possible? On the subject, even as thus stated, it must be admitted, that there have been diverse and conflicting opinions; and it accordingly commends itself the more to each one's private reflections and judgment. Among the conflicting opinions just referred to, there may be found in the writings of Chateaubriand, a passage, worthy of some consideration. In answer to M. de Bonald, who asserted the impossibility of the entirely human origin of oral language, and had referred in confirmation of his sentiments to the deaf and dumb, that distinguished writer has the following remarks." The reasoning, that he draws from the deaf and dumb, in favour of speech being taught, is not perhaps thoroughly conclusive. It may be said, you take your example in an exception, and you seek your proof in an imperfection of nature. Let us suppose a Savage in possession of his senses, but not having speech; this man, pressed by hunger, meets in the forest some object proper to satisfy it, he utters a cry of joy at seeing it, or at carrying it to his mouth.

*See De Gerando's Histoire des Systemes de Philosophie, Tome I, Chap. 3d, Note B.