ogy of other cases. We not only find, for instance, in human nature, a love of the truth and a disposition to utter it, but a corresponding principle of belief; and, by analogy, we should be led to expect, in like manner, a corresponding power of interpretation, where we find a system of signs susceptible of being interpreted.

(2.) But there are other circumstances which seem to afford direct and positive proof of what we should thus be led to expect. The power of interpreting natural signs is noticed at a very early period, long before the ability to interpret arbitrary signs. Children understand the meaning of smiles and frowns, of a soothing or threatening tone of voice, of the expressions of joy and grief, at a time of life when they cannot be supposed capable of so much observation as to remark the connexion between a passion and its external effect. While they are months learning the alphabet, and years elapse before they can read a book with facility, they read and understand the signs of nature as soon as their ears are opened to hear and their eyes to see, and without the aid of a laborious system of training.

§ 8. Further evidence of the instinctive interpretation of natural signs.

(3.) There is another train of thought tending to illustrate this subject. It is an undoubted matter of fact, that the knowledge of the intellectual operations and of the passions cannot be fully communicated to their pupils by instructers of the deaf and dumb in the ordinary modes. They cannot here, as in the case of external objects, write the name, and then point to the object in explanation of it. They are obliged to rely almost wholly on natural signs, particularly those of the countenance, in the explanation of what is taking place within. And when an instructer, who is well versed in the language of such signs, throws the workings of the soul into the looks, it is interesting to see with what avidity and ease his unfortunate pupils decipher this dialect of flesh and blood and muscular motion. It cannot be said here that the power of interpretation depends on the previous experience of the pupils, because we suppose the instructer (which is often the fact) is expressing mental acts and operations with

which they have hitherto been unacquainted, or with which, as existing in the mind of another, they cannot possibly be made acquainted in any other way.

(4.) Those signs which are maintained to be susceptible of an instinctive interpretation affect us more than others. The passions of hatred, love, and anger interest us much more strongly when they are represented in the countenance than when they are expressed by mere written or spoken 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 mention, 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 to be remarked, that it is one of no little practical importance, although it may often be 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 presented to the sight or some other of the senses. But, in the absence 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 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 inflexion of voice; and afterward 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 connexion 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 labour 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 receiving 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 neighbourhood, 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 connexion 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.-Sinilar remarks

* See Stewart's Philosophy of the Mind, part ii., chap. i., § 1.

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.

CHAPTER II.

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.