214 TEE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



equivalent embodiment) is not possible, that the science of the growth 

 and development of language is the only true science of the growth 

 and development of mind, and that "this revelation of the oneness of 

 thought and language means a complete revolution in i^hilosophy " 

 (vol. i, p. 50). 



It is not needful for us to speak of Professor Max Miiller's right to 

 be heard on any subject to which he devotes his attention, nor of his 

 erudition, his agreeable literary style, the service he has rendered to 

 science and literature, nor of the lovable personal character of the 

 man. All these things everybody allows. Our purpose then, is — prem- 

 ising that " The Science of Thought " is full of interest, and displays, 

 as usual in his books, the author's great philological learning — to ex- 

 amine the main thesis of the work ; to determine, if possible, whether 

 it is true, and, if so, whether or not it effects any *' revolution in phi- 

 losophy." 



" The Science of Thought " is not a general psychological treatise. 

 It is an adjunct to the science of language, to w^hich it belongs, rather 

 than to psychology. It is less expository than polemical, and the gist 

 of the work is the argument to prove that thought (in the author's 

 meaning of the term) depends absolutely upon language, and that the 

 w^ay to study the human mind is to study human language. 



Of course, it is essential to note carefully in the first place the 

 author's use of the term " thought." His book has aroused quite a 

 controversy already, and a dozen or more letters on the subject have 

 been published in " Nature," and reproduced in " The Open Court," of 

 Chicago. They are from the pens of Francis Galton, the Duke of 

 Argyll, Mr, Hyde Clark, Mr. T. Mellard Reade, George J. Romanes, 

 and others, with replies by Professor Max Miiller. They present va- 

 rious considerations to show the error of the latter, such as the cases 

 of deaf-and-dumb people, sudden aphasia in disease, and the results of 

 personal introspection. Mr. Galton in one of his letters charges that 

 Professor Miiller has not told the reader what he means by "thought," 

 to which the author rather indignantly replies that the definition is 

 found on his first page, which at least it is usual for reviewers of books 

 to look at, if they go no farther. After so explicit a direction, we cer- 

 tainly shall not incur the reproach of saying that there is no such defi- 

 nition ; but, in our judgment, the author would have succeeded better 

 if he had left his definition more indefinite. 



Professor Max Miiller means by thought " the act of thinking," 

 and by thinking "no more than combining." "I think, means the 

 same as the Latin cor/ito, namely, co-agito, *I bring together,' only 

 with the proviso that bringing together or combining implies separat- 

 ing, for we can not combine two or many things without at the same 

 time separating them from all the rest. Hobbes expressed the same 

 truth long ago, when he said that all our thinking consisted in ad- 

 dition and subtraction." " Much, however, depends upon what we 



