OF MAN. '2^;^ 



have imagined, to a defe£l in their organs, that 

 animals are denied the facuky of ipeech. The 

 tongue of a monkey has been difcovered by a- 

 natomifts to be as perfedt as that of a m.an *. 

 The monkey, therefore, would fpeak, if it could 

 think. If the train of its tbouglits were analo- 

 gous to that of ours, it would fpeak the language 

 of men; and fuppofing the order and manner 

 of its thinking to be peculiar to the fpecies, it 

 would ftill fpeak a language intelligible to its 

 neighbours. But apes have never been difco- 

 vered converfmg together. Inftead, therefore, 

 of thinking in a manner analogous to man, they 

 fcem not to have the fmalleft order or train in 

 their thoughts. As they exprefs nothing that 

 exhibits combination or arrangement, it follows, 

 either that they do not think, or that the limits 

 of their thinking are extremely narrow. 



As feveral ipecies of animals are capable of 

 being taught to pronounce words, and even to 

 repeat fentences, this is an invincible proof that 

 the want of fpeech among them is not owing 

 to any defeat in their organs. Many other 

 brutes might, perhaps, be taught to articulate 

 words t ; l^^^tj t^ make them conceive the ideas 

 which thefe words exprefs, is beyond the power 

 of art. They feem to articulate and to repeat 

 merely like an echo or a machine. They are 



defedive, 



* Sec M. Perault, Hillory of Animals, 

 f Leibnit'/ mentions a dog that had been taught to pro- 

 nounce feveral French and German words. 



