bet of human thoughts, which he had been employed in forming, and which, probably, (as Fontenelle has remarked,) had some relation to his universal language.

The new nomenclature which has been introduced into chemistry, seems to me to furnish a striking illustration of the effect of appropriate and well defined expressions, in aiding the intellectual powers; and the period is probably not far distant, when similar innovations will be attempted in some of the other sciences.

V. Of the purposes to which the powers of Abstraction and Generalization are subservient. It has been already shown, that, without the use of signs, all our knowledge must necessarily have been limited to individuals, and that we should have been perfectly incapable both of classification and general reasoning. Some authors have maintained, that without the power of generalization, (which, I have endeavored to show, means nothing more than the capacity of employing general terms,) it would have been impossible for us to have carried on any species of reasoning whatever. But I cannot help thinking that this opinion is erroneous; or, at least, that it is very imperfectly stated. The truth is, it appears to me to be just in one sense of the word reasoning, but false in another; and I even suspect it is false in that sense of the word in which it is most commonly employed. Before, therefore, it is laid down as a general proposition, the meaning we are to annex to this very vague and ambiguous term, should be ascertained with precision.

One kind of reasoning can be carried on without generalization, and without language. — It has been remarked by several writers, that the expectation which we feel of the continuance of the laws of nature, is not founded upon reasoning; and different theories have of late been proposed to account for its origin. Mr. Hume resolves it into the association of ideas. Dr. Reid, on the other hand, maintains, that it is an original principle of our constitution, which does not admit of any explanation; and which, therefore, is to be ranked among those general and ultimate facts, beyond which philosophy is unable to proceed. Without this principle of expectation, it would be impossible

for us to accommodate our conduct to the established course of nature; and, accordingly, we find that it is a principle coeval with our very existence, and, in some measure, common to man with the lower animals.

It is an obvious consequence of this doctrine, that, although philosophers be accustomed to state what are commonly called the laws of nature in the form of general propositions, it is by no means necessary for the practical purposes of life, that we should express them in this manner, or even that we should express them in words at all. The philosopher, for example, may state it as a law of nature, that "fire scorches;" or that "heavy bodies, when unsupported, fall downwards;" but long before. the use of artificial signs, and even before the dawn of reason, a child learns to act upon both of these suppositions. In doing so, it is influenced merely by the instinctive principle which has now been mentioned, directed in its operation (as is the case with many other instincts) by the experience of the individual. If man, therefore, had been destined for no other purposes than to acquire such an acquaintance with the course of nature as is necessary for the preservation of his animal existence, he might have fulfilled all the ends of his being without the use of language.

As we are enabled, by our instinctive anticipation of physical events, to accommodate our conduct to what we foresee is to happen, so we are enabled, in many cases, to increase our power, by employing physical causes as instruments for the accomplishment of our purposes; nay, we can employ a series of such causes, so as to accomplish very remote effects. We can employ the agency of air, to increase the heat of a furnace; the furnace, to render iron malleable; and the iron, to all the various purposes of the mechanical arts. Now it appears to me, that all this may be conceived and done without the aid of language; and yet, assuredly, to discover a series of means subservient to a particular end, or, in other words, an effort of mechanical invention, implies, according to the common doctrines of philosophers, the exercise of our reasoning powers. In this sense, therefore, of the word reasoning, I am inclined to think, that it

is not essentially connected with the faculty of generalization, or with the use of signs.

It is some confirmation of this conclusion, that savages, whose minds are almost wholly occupied with particulars, and who have neither inclination nor capacity for general speculations, are yet occasionally observed to employ a long train of means for accomplishing a particular purpose. Even something of this kind, but in a very inferior degree, may, I think, be remarked in the other animals; and that they do not carry it further, is probably not the effect of their want of generalization, but of the imperfection of some of those faculties which are common to them with our species; particularly of their powers of attention and recollection. The instances which are commonly produced, to prove that they are not destitute of the power of reasoning, are all examples of that species of contrivance which has been mentioned; and are perfectly distinct from those intellectual processes to which the use of signs is essentially subservient.*

As a further confirmation of the same doctrine, it may be remarked, that there is no class of speculative men who are in

* One of the best attested instances which I have met with, of sagacity in the lower animals, is mentioned by M. Bailly, in his "Lettre sur les Animaux," addressed to M. Le Roy:

["One of my friends, an intelligent and trustworthy man, related to me two facts of which he was an eye-witness. He had a very sagacious monkey, and was wont to amuse himself by giving it nuts, which it was very fond of; but he placed them so far off, that the monkey, being held back by its chain, could not reach them. After many unsuccessful efforts, which served only to sharpen its invention, the monkey, seeing a servant pass by with a napkin under his arm, caught the napkin from him, and made use of it to brush the nut within reach. The mode of cracking the nut required a new invention; the monkey succeeded by placing the nut on the ground, and letting a stone fall on it from above, so as to break it. You see, Sir, that without knowing as well as Galileo the laws of falling bodies, the monkey had observed the force which these bodies acquire by falling. But it once happened that this expedient failed. One rainy day, the ground was soft, and the nut sunk into it without breaking. What did the monkey do? He found a piece of tile, on which he placed the nut, and then the fall of the stone broke it, without driving it into the ground."

general so much at a loss to convey their ideas as men of mechanical invention. This, I think, can only arise from their being accustomed to direct their attention immediately to the subjects of their consideration, without the use of signs. Philosophers who speculate on questions which require the employment of words as an instrument of thought, are seldom deficient in a facility of expression.

Whether that particular species of mechanical contrivance which has now been mentioned, and which consists merely in employing a series of physical causes to accomplish an effect which we cannot produce immediately, should or should not be dignified with the name of reasoning, I shall not now inquire. It is sufficient for my present purpose to remark, that it is essentially different from those intellectual processes to which the use of signs is indispensably necessary. At the same time, I am ready to acknowledge, that what I have now said, is not strictly applicable to those more complicated mechanical inventions, in which a variety of powers are made to conspire at once to produce a particular effect. Such contrivances, perhaps, may be found to involve processes of the mind which cannot be carried on without signs. But these questions will fall more properly under our consideration when we enter on the subject of reasoning.

When words are necessary to thought. - In general, it may be remarked, that in so far as our thoughts relate merely to individual objects, or to individual events, which we have actually

(We need not question the good faith of the reporter of this anecdote. The only doubt is, whether the animal had not previously, without his knowledge, been taught how to use these expedients.)]

But admitting the facts to be accurately stated, they will still leave an essential distinction between man and brutes; for in none of the contrivances here mentioned, is there any thing analogous to those intellectual processes which lead the mind to general conclusions, and which (according to the foregoing doctrine) imply the use of general terms. Those powers, therefore, which enable us to classify objects, and to employ signs as an instrument of thought, are, as far as we can judge, peculiar to the human species.

perceived, and of which we retain a distinct remembrance,* we are not under the necessity of employing words. It frequently, however, happens, that when the subjects of our consideration are particular, our reasoning with respect to them may involve very general notions; and, in such cases, although we may conceive, without the use of words, the things about which we reason, yet we must necessarily have recourse to language in carrying on our speculations concerning them. If the subjects of our reasonings be general, (under which description I include all our reasonings, whether more or less comprehensive, which do not relate merely to individuals,) words are the sole objects about which our thoughts are employed. According as these words are comprehensive or limited in their signification, the conclusions we form will be more or less general; but this accidental circumstance does not in the least affect the nature of the intellectual process; so that it may be laid down as a proposition which holds without any exception, that in every case in which we extend our speculations beyond individuals, language is not only a useful auxiliary, but is the sole instrument by which they are carried on.

Difference between the speculations of the philosopher and of the

* I have thought it proper to add this limitation of the general proposition, because individual objects, and individual events, which have not fallen under the examination of our senses, cannot possibly be made the subject of our consideration but by means of language. The manner in which we think of such objects and events, is accurately described in the following passage of Wollaston; however unphilosophical the conclusion may be which he deduces from his reasoning.

"A man is not known ever the more to posterity, because his name is transmitted to them; he doth not live, because his name does. When it is said, Julius Cæsar subdued Gaul, beat Pompey, changed the commonwealth into a monarchy, etc., it is the same thing as to say the conqueror of Pompey was Cæsar; that is, Cæsar, and the conqueror of Pompey, are the same thing; and Cæsar is as much known by the one distinction as the other. The amount is only this: that the conqueror of Pompey conquered Pompey; or somebody conquered Pompey; or rather, since Pompey is as little known now as Cæsar, somebody conquered somebody. Such a poor business is this boasted immortality; and such, as has been here described, is the thing called glory among us!"