NATURE 
___ beginners we should expect to be confined to the very 
simplest deductions, and these should be most carefully 
graduated, whereas the exercises before us do not seem 
~ to be arranged in any very clearly-defined order. For 
instance, at one time we are in the first book, in the next 
question in the sixth book, and then back to the third, 
and soon. The references are apparently to Euclid, but 
not to editions in use in this country, as our author inserts 
on pp. 118, 120, 121, propositions which figure as Euc. vi. 
B, C, D, in Simson’s text; on p. 126 a solution is given 
from Lardiner’s (sc) Euclid. 
. The solution on p. 112 strikes us as not being the 
neatest that can be given of the exercise, and the figures 
on pp. 109, 110 are a little wrong. Having had our 
' grumble, we must now say that we think Mr. Constable 
has produced a very fair book, with neat solutions and 
good figures, but we do not consider such a book called 
for. Every mathematical master has such a collection 
either in manuscript or ready for vévé@ voce teaching, and 
has the more advanced works of McDowell and Casey on 
‘his shelves We can, however, suggest that the little 
book may be of use in preparation for University Local, 
and other examinations, though we do not see its suita- 
bility for deginners. 
Algebya. Part II. By E. J. Gross, M.A. 
Edition. (London: Rivington, 1882.) 
: WE are glad to see that this work has been so appre- 
ciated, that a second edition has been called for. The 
main defect of the first edition, in our opinion, was the 
- plentiful crop of errata. This volume, we notice, has not 
been at all altered in the text, but very many of the errors 
_~ have been corrected: we wish we could say that all errors 
had been removed, but this is not so. There are one or two 
curious slips: thus, for instance, in the Answers, p. 313, 
a correction is retained from the earlier edition, whilst 
the indicated alteration has been made in the text. 
Barring the errata, we again confidently commend Mr. 
Gross’s book. 
i 7 
Second 
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 
: [Zhe Editor does not hold himself responsible for opinions expressed 
by his correspondents. Neither can he undertake to return, 
or to correspond with the writers of, rejected manuscripts, 
No nolice ts taken of anonymous communications. 
[Zhe Editor urgently requests correspondents to keep their letters 
as short as possible, The pressure on his space is so great 
that it ts impossible otherwise to ensure the appearance even 
of communications containing interesting and novel facts. | 
Pronunciation of Deaf Mutes who have been Taught 
to Speak 
7 THE conclusions arrived at by M. Hément (Comptes Rendus, 
xcili. pp. 754, $61, 1095) and Mr, Axon (NATURE, vol. xxv. 
pp. 101, 409 ; Comptes Rendus, xcili. p. 904) concerning the 
influence of heredity upon the speech of the deaf cannpt be 
accepted unless it can be shown that the peculiarities of utterance 
to which they have directed attention could not have arisen in the 
ordinary way by imitation of the speech of others. 
Before we can decide whether any observed peculiarity in the 
utterance of a deaf person is due to inheritance or to imitation, 
we must know (1) at what age he became deaf ; (2) whether the 
deafness was total or partial ; and (3) whether, since the acqui- 
sition of speech by the sense of sight, the deaf subject has 
associated with persons who speak with the accent of his native 
district. 
The remarks of M. Hément are valuable as the result of 
personal observations, but he has failed to be explicit upon these 
important points. 
The cases referred to by Mr. Axon are equally inconclusive 
for the following reasons :— 
1. In the first case noted (NATURE, vol. xxv. p. 101) —which 
is also the one to which Mr. Axon directs special attention in his 
recent letter to NATURE, vol. xxv. p. 409—we have a case of 
undoubted imitation through the sense of hearing. 
Indeed it is stated in the PA‘/, Trans. No. 312, that some 
- 
y : : ; ~ Bee 
[March 16, 1882 
weeks after recovery from an illness, this young man (Daniel 
Fraser) ‘‘hegan to Azar and in process of time to understand 
speech. This naturally disposed him to imitate what he heard 
and to attempt to speak.” 
The account from which this is quoted, is evidently intended 
simply as a record of a case of recovery of hearing in a deaf 
mute, with subsequent acquisition of speech; and Mr. Axon 
ne! 
> 
* 
himself admits that the writer mentions the inheritance of the 
Highland accent ‘‘in a purely incidental manner.” 
With due deference to Mr, Axon’s opinion, it appears to me 
that this is not a case in point, and that it is not entitled to the 
same consideration as that of a person who, remaining deaf, 
acquired speech through the sense of sight, and has no oppor- 
tunity of imitating by ear the pronunciation of others. It must 
also be remembered that this case is quoted from an old number 
of the Phil. Trans., and cannot now be verified. 
2. The circumstances quoted from the ‘‘ Life and Journals o 
George Ticknor” (NATURE, vol. xxv. p. 101) are unreliable, 
because Ticknor assumed that all the pupils in the deaf and 
dumb schools he examined could never have heard a human 
sound,’ whereas it is now known that a very large proportion of 
the deaf and dumb (probably more than 50 per cent.).could hear 
in infancy, and that of these a large proportion could also speak 
before becoming deaf. 
3. In regard to the case of ‘‘E. R.,” who had been taught 
articulation by Mr, Alley, of Manchester, Mr, Axon says, ‘‘ that 
he became deaf and dumb aé a very early age” (NATURE, vol. 
xxv. p. 191), but neglects to state at what age, which is very 
important—nor had Mr, Axon himself heard the articulation of 
this young man. 
These are all the instances I know of, in which it is claimed 
that the pronunciation of any deaf person was due to inheritance, 
and I think I have shown that in all these cases the necessary 
data for such a conclusion have been wanting. I have already 
stated in a former communication (NATURE, vol. xxv. p. 124, 
Comptes rendus, xciii, p. 1036) that I have examined the pronun- 
ciation of at least goo deaf children who have been taught to 
speak, without finding a single instance of peculiarity that could 
correctly be attributed to heredity. If any further argument is 
needed against inheritance of pronunciation, it is to be found in 
the universal fact that children who are born deaf are a/ways 
also dumb, 
That there is no incapacity of the vocal organs to account for 
this is evident, for these so called ‘* deaf-mutes’’ are now taught, 
through the medium of the sense of sight, to control the move- 
ments of their vocal organs so as to give utterance to intelligible 
words. 
When we examine the languages and dialects of the world, I 
think we find that they have something in common, while each 
retain distinctive characteristics of its own. There seems to 
be a universal tendency to express the emoéions in the same way. 
We speak, in fact, two languages at the same time :—One—the 
language of thought—arbitrary and conventional, acquired by 
imitation and not hereditary, consisting of articulations consti- 
tuting words and sentences which can be recorded and preserved 
in written books; the other—the language of the emotions— 
natural and universal, consisting of looks and gestures, and of 
intonations of the voice. There seems good reason for the 
belief that this natural language of the emotions is instinctive, 
and therefore hereditary. From my own personal observations 
I feel sure that those who are interested in questions of heredity 
will find a rich field for inquiry in the study of the facial expres- 
sions and gestures of very young blind children; and in the 
natural sounds and the modulations of the voice of deaf infants. 
Rome, March 6 ALEXANDER GRAHAM BELL 
IN his letter on the above subject in NATURE (vol. xxv. p. 
409) Mr, Axon appears not to appreciate the value of negative 
testimony in scientific investigation, 
The citation of cases in support of M. Hément’s statement 
that deaf mutes who have been taught to speak do so with the 
accent of their native districts, obviously implies the promulgation 
of a theory that dialectal accent is due to physiological 
peculiarities (? of the verbal organs), and that these are 
hereditary. This is shown by the objections raised to Prof. 
Graham Bell’s statement that all such phenomena are due to 
“the unconscious recollection of former speech, and cannot be 
« “ Not one 0? the pupils ef corse can ever have heard a human sound,”” 
&e. “Life and Journals of George Ticknor.” London, 1876. Vol. I. 
p. 196. 
we <> 
_ 
. 
