ken words. So that unquestionably we give to some natural signs a significancy, which we do not, and cannot give to others, and still less to those forms of language which are purely arbitrary. This being the case, it seems to be reasonable to conclude, that the mind has an original power of interpreting to some extent.

(5) This power seems to be necessary as an introductory step to the formation of all conventional language. Artificial language, whether we regard it as written or spoken, is arbitrary, and a matter of mere agreement. But if it were not of divine original, as many writers have contended, it is evident, that there must have been some antecedent signs, by means of which such agreement was first formed. And we can think of no instrument, which could have been employed to this end, except the instinctive power of interpreting those signs of gesture, tones of voice, and movements of the countenance, which we find from the earliest period of life to be expressive of emotions and the passions.

There is another consideration on this subject, in addition to those already alluded to, which it is proper to men- I tion, although the train of thought cannot be pursued to any length. The brute creation, as well as men, have their natural signs. They are destitute, it is true, of the natural language of the countenance; but they are rich in that of the voice. Every mountain and forest is vocal with the lowing of herds, the bleating of flocks, the threatening cries of animals of prey, and the infinitely varied notes of birds. By the sounds, which are continually sent forth, they communicate to each other their joys and sorrows, their jealousies and hopes, their attachments and their aversions; and probably no one doubts, that they are instinctively interpreted, for it is not easy to see, in what other way they could be understood. But if the Creator has given this power of interpretation to brutes, we cannot well suppose, that he has altogether withholden it from men, when he has given them the same natural signs, and with an originally equal necessity of their being interpreted.

§. 9. Considerations on the use of natural signs.

Before dismissing the subject of this chapter, it remains

429

to be remarked, that it is one of no little practical importance, although it may be often thought otherwise.

An attention to natural signs could hardly fail to be of advantage in infant schools, and in all cases of instruction of very young children. The knowledge, which is suited to their minds,is that, which we have already described as having an external origin. Consequently, the objects or actions, with which they are to be made acquainted, must be presentBut in the abed to the sight or some other of the senses. sence of objects, the instructer, if he have studied the language of natural signs, will be able to convey the meaning of many words by gestures; a method, which will secure the purpose designed, and will not be wanting in interest to the little pupils."Notwithstanding, (says Dugald Stewart,) the decline of natural language in consequence of the use of artificial signs, the acquaintance which we still have with the former, (however imperfect,) is of essential service in teaching children the meaning of the latter. This may be easily exemplified by first reading over to a child one of Æsop's fables without taking your eye from the book, or using any inflection of voice; and afterwards telling him the same story with the commentary of your face, and gestures, and tones.

Again, the doctrine of natural signs is deserving of greater attention than it has received, when it is considered in connection with the Deaf and Dumb. No small acquaintance with them is implied, in being able to fix upon such as are suitable in the instruction of these unfortunate persons. And the worth of such acquaintance, therefore, can be conjectured from its subserviency to their improvement and happiness. If there were no other result, the labor attending the study of natural signs, would be amply repaid by this.

Furthermore, some knowledge of natural signs might be found profitable to all travellers and sojourners among nations of an unknown tongue, and among others to Missionaries. It is one of the pleasing features of the present times, that men, from almost all the civilized parts of the world, are gone out to announce in heathen lands the glad news of the Gospel. One of the American missionaries in India, remarking on the acquisition of languages, observes, that, in receiv

ing lessons from his instructer, they were often compelled to resort to signs and gestures, in order at all to understand each 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 diversity 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 color 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.

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

CHAPTER SECOND.

ORAL SIGNS OR SPEECH.

§. 10. 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 or 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; and we may even add, of probability; although it does not appear to be susceptible 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 entirely 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 the circumstance, that he either then or before obviously stood in need of it, and also by the consideration of that beneficence, which is continually manifested in the dealings of the Supreme Being with his creatures.

§. 11. 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 favor 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.