any existing ape, before even the most imperfect form of speech could have come into use; out we may confidently believe that the continued use and advancement of this power would have rearted on the mind itself, by enabling and encouraging it to carry on long trains of thought. A complex train of thought can no more be carried on without the aid of words, whether spoken or silent, than a long calculation without the use of figures or algebra. It appears, also, that even an ordinary train of thought almost requires, or is greatly facilitated by some form of language, for the dumb, deaf, and blind girl, Laura Bridgman, was observed to use her fingers whilst dreaming." Nevertheless, a long succession of vivid and connected ideas may pass through the mind without the aid of any form of language, as we may infer from the movements of dogs during their dreams. We have, also, seen that animals are able to reason to a certain extent, manifestly without the aid of language. The intimate connection between the brain, as it is now developed in us, and the faculty of speech, is well shewn by those curious cases of brain-disease in which speech is specially affected, as when the power to remember substantives is lost, whilst other words can be correctly used, or where substantives of a certain class, or all except the initial letters of substantives and proper names are forgotten." There is no more improbability in the continued use of the mental and vocal organs leading to inherited changes in their structure and functions, than in the case of handwriting, which depends partly on the form of the hand and partly on the disposition of the mind; and hand-writing is certainly inherited."

Several writers, more especially Prof. Max Müller, 62 have lately insisted that the use of language implies the power of forming general concepts; and that as no animals are supposed to possess this power, an impossible barrier is formed between them and man." 63 With respect to animals, I have already

endeavoured to show that they have this power, at least in a rude and incipient degree. As far as concerns infants of from ten to eleven months old, and deaf-mutes, it seems to me incredible, that they should be able to connect certain sounds with certain general ideas as quickly as they do, unless such ideas were already formed in their minds. The same remark may be extended to the more intelligent animals; as Mr. Leslie Stephen observes," "A dog frames a general concept of cats or sheep, "and knows the corresponding words as well as a philosopher. "And the capacity to understand is as good a proof of vocal intelligence, though in an inferior degree, as the capacity to "speak."

66

Why the organs now used for speech should have been originally perfected for this purpose, rather than any other organs, it is not difficult to see. Ants have considerable powers of intercommunication by means of their antennæ, as shewn by Huber, who devotes a whole chapter to their language. We might have used our fingers as efficient instruments, for a person with practice can report to a deaf man every word of a speech rapidly delivered at a public meeting; but the loss of our hands, whilst thus employed, would have been a serious inconvenience. As all the higher mammals possess vocal organs, constructed on the same general plan as ours, and used as a means of communication, it was obviously probable that these same organs would be still further developed if the power of communication had to be improved; and this has been effected by the aid of adjoining and well adapted parts, namely the tongue and lips. The fact of the higher apes not using their vocal organs for speech, no doubt depends on their intelligence not having been sufficiently advanced.

65

"thinking, to the distinctness and

66

variety and complexity of cogni"tions to the full mastery of con"sciousness; therefore he would "fain make thought absolutely im"possible without speech, identify"ing the faculty with its instru❝inent. He might just as reason"ably assert that the human hand

cannot act without a tool. With such a doctrine to start from, he cannot stop short of Müller's "worst paradoxes, that an infant "(in fans, not speaking) is not a human being, and that deaf-mutes do not become possessed of reason until they learn to twist their

The possession by them of

"fingers into imitation of spoken "words." Max Muller gives in italics (Lectures on Mr. Darwin's Philosophy of Language,' 1873, third lecture) the following aphorism: "There is no thought with"out words, as little as there are "words without thought." What a strange definition must here be given to the word thought!

64Essays on Free-thinking,' &c., 1873, p. 82.

65 See some good remarks to this effect by Dr. Maudsley, The Physiology and Pathology of Mind, 1868, p. 199.

66

organs, which with long-continued practice might have been used for speech, although not thus used, is paralleled by the case of many birds which possess organs fitted for singing, though they never sing. Thus, the nightingale and crow have vocal organs similarly constructed, these being used by the former for diversified song, and by the latter only for croaking." If it be asked why apes have not had their intellects developed to the same degree as that of man, general causes only can be assigned in answer, and it is unreasonable to expect anything more definite, considering our ignorance with respect to the successive stages of development through which each creature has passed.

The formation of different languages and of distinct species, and the proofs that both have been developed through a gradual process, are curiously parallel.67 But we can trace the formation of many words further back than that of species, for we can perceive how they actually arose from the imitation of various sounds. We find in distinct languages striking homologies due to community of descent, and analogies due to a similar process of formation. The manner in which certain letters or sounds change when others change is very like correlated growth. We have in both cases the reduplication of parts, the effects of longcontinued use, and so forth. The frequent presence of rudiments, both in languages and in species, is still more remarkable. The letter m in the word um, means I; so that in the expression I am, a superfluous and useless rudiment has been retained. In the spelling also of words, letters often remain as the rudiments of ancient forms of pronunciation. Languages, like organic beings, can be classed in groups under groups; and they can be classed either naturally according to descent, or artificially by other characters. Dominant languages and dialects spread widely, and lead to the gradual extinction of other tongues. A language, like a species, when once extinct, never, as Sir C. Lyell remarks, reappears. The same language never has two birth-places. Distinct languages may be crossed or blended together.68 We see variability in every tongue, and new display any unusual capacity for imitation. 'Researches in Zoology,' 1834, p. 158.

An

66 Macgillivray, 'Hist. of British Birds,' vol. ii. 1839, p. 29. excellent observer, Mr. Blackwall, remarks that the magpie learns to pronounce single words, and even short sentences, more readily than almost any other British bird; yet, as he adds, after long and closely investigating its habits, ne has Bever known it, in a state of nature,

67 See the very interesting parallelism between the development of species and languages, given by Sir C. Lyell in 'The Geolog. Evidences of the Antiquity of Man,' 1863, chap. xxiii.

es See remarks to this effect by

words are continually cropping up; but as there is a limit to the powers of the memory, single words, like whole languages, gradually become extinct. As Max Müller 69 has well remarked:-" A struggle for life is constantly going on amongst "the words and grammatical forms in each language. The "better, the shorter, the easier forms are constantly gaining the upper hand, and they owe their success to their own inherent "virtue." To these more important causes of the survival of certain words, mere novelty and fashion may be added; for there is in the mind of man a strong love for slight changes in all things. The survival or preservation of certain favoured words in the struggle for existence is natural selection.

The perfectly regular and wonderfully complex construction of the languages of many barbarous nations has often been advanced as a proof, either of the divine origin of these languages, or of the high art and former civilisation of their founders. Thus F. von Schlegel writes: "In those languages "which appear to be at the lowest grade of intellectual culture, we frequently observe a very high and elaborate degree of art "in their grammatical structure. This is especially the case "with the Basque and the Lapponian, and many of the Ame“rican languages.'70 But it is assuredly an error to speak of any language as an art, in the sense of its having been elaborately and methodically formed. Philologists now admit that conjugations, declensions, &c., originally existed as distinct words, since joined together; and as such words express the most obvious relations between objects and persons, it is not surprising that they should have been used by the men of most races during the earliest ages. With respect to perfection, the following illustration will best shew how easily we may err: a Crinoid sometimes consists of no less than 150,000 pieces of shell," all arranged with perfect symmetry in radiating lines; but a naturalist does not consider an animal of this kind as more perfect than a bilateral one with comparatively few parts, and with none of these parts alike, excepting on the opposite sides of the body. He justly considers the differentiation and specialisation of organs as the test of perfection. So with languages; the most symmetrical and complex ought not to be ranked above irregular, abbreviated, and bastardised languages, which have

the Rev. F. W. Farrar, in an interesting article, entitled 'Philo .ogy and Darwinism' in Nature,' March 24th, 1870, p. 528.

49.

9 Nature,' Jan. 6th, 1870, p. 257.

70 Quoted by C. S. Wake, 'Chap ters on Man,' 1868, p. 101.

"Buckland, Bridgewater Trea. tise,' p. 411.

borrowed expressive words and useful forms of construction from various conquering, conquered, or immigrant races.

From these few and imperfect remarks I conclude that the extremely complex and regular construction of many barbarous languages, is no proof that they owe their origin to a special act of creation.72 Nor, as we have seen, does the faculty of articulate speech in itself offer any insuperable objection to the belief that man has been developed from some lower form.

Sense of Beauty.--This sense has been declared to be peculiar to man. I refer here only to the pleasure given by certain colours, forms, and sounds, and which may fairly be called a sense of the beautiful; with cultivated men such sensations are, however, intimately associated with complex ideas and trains of thought. When we behold a male bird elaborately displaying his graceful plumes or splendid colours before the female, whilst other birds, not thus decorated, make no such display, it is impossible to doubt that she admires the beauty of her male partner. As women everywhere deck themselves with these plumes, the beauty of such ornaments cannot be disputed. As we shall see later, the nests of humming-birds, and the playing passages of bower-birds are tastefully ornamented with gaily-coloured objects; and this shews that they must receive some kind of pleasure from the sight of such things. With the great majority of animals, however, the taste for the beautiful is confined, as far as we can judge, to the attractions of the opposite sex. The sweet strains poured forth by many male birds during the season of love, are certainly admired by the females, of which fact evidence will hereafter be given. If female birds had been incapable of appreciating the beautiful colours, the ornaments, and voices of their male partners, all the labour and anxiety exhibited by the latter in displaying their charms before the females would have been thrown away; and this it is impossible to admit. Why certain bright colours should excite pleasure cannot, I presume, be explained, any more than why certain flavours and scents are agreeable; but habit has something to do with the result, for that which is at first unpleasant to our senses, ultimately becomes pleasant, and habits are inherited. With respect to sounds, Helmholtz has explained to a certain extent on physiological principles, why harmonies and certain cadences are agreeable. But besides this, sounds frequently recurring at irregular intervals are

12 See some good remarks os he mplification of languages, by Sir

J. Lubbock, 'Origin of Civilisation, 1870, p. 278.