January 30, 1891.] 



SCIENCE. 



59 



spectable academy where youth are entertained and edu- 

 cated, and this illusion will soon be dispelled. Why one 

 who insists that the deaf are laboring under a " very great 

 calamity " should so unfairly misrepi'esent their case seems 

 to " unreflective minds " incomprehensible. It is no answer 

 to say that all the hearing lad receives is paid for by his 

 friends, while the public pays for what the deaf receive, 

 since the accumulations of the rich are all received from the 

 public; so that whether paid for directly by the public, or 

 through the circuition of private intermediaries, it all comes 

 out of the public. 



Dr. Bell's figuring in the same number of Science is a 

 most surprising feat of mathematical gymnastics. I should 

 be sorry to think that all of his calculations and conclusions 

 were as baseless as this. Quoting my statement that " not 

 two per cent of the deaf are children of deaf parents," he 

 immediately proceeds to speak of "Dr. G-illett's two per 

 cent," and represents me as affirming what I explicitly 

 denied. He might as well have figured on five or ten or 

 twenty per cent, so far as any thing I have said is con- 

 cerned, and would have evolved a much more imposing 

 Jack o' lantern. Having a false premise, his calculations 

 are worthless even if amusing. Unfortunately, many per- 

 sons seeing them over his great name will be deceived by 

 them. 



I have never named any percentage of deaf offspring 

 from deaf parentage. I do not know what it is. My ob- 

 servation is too limited. I doubt if any one knows. But I 

 am quite sure that the marriage of a few congenital deaf- 

 mutes " with one another" is not going to inoculate the 

 whole world with the "very great calamity" of deafness. 

 If he deserts the question as a practical one, and treats it 

 merely as an interesting question of scientific inquiry upon 

 heredity, I have comparatively little interest in it. It inter- 

 ests me chiefly as a practical question. As such I have 

 given it some attention for a number of years. I can only 

 study it in the light of the facts I have, which are almost 

 wholly among my own pupils. I think it quite probable 

 that different conclusions would be arrived at from the study 

 of pupils in other institutions, and that probably they would 

 agree in no two or three groups of deaf-mutes, or of pupils 

 of the same institution in different decades and quarter-cen- 

 turies, owing to the prevalence of different diseases that 

 cause deafness, and the variance in their virulence at differ- 

 ent times. 



Dr. Bell repeats my interrogatory, " Shut out from church 

 privileges, as preaching of the Word, prayer-meetings, 

 socials, receptions, lectures, concerts, parties, what remains 

 to them of all that makes life pleasurable to us ? " The 

 question is easy of answer. There is open to then> a world 

 of beauty and grandeur, full of fragrance and loveliness, the 

 treasures of literature and art, which they may appreciate 

 as highly, and enjoy as intensely, as those who hear. 



" Sermons in stones. 

 Books in running brooks. 

 And good in every thing." 



There are many needy and distressed to whom they can 

 minister, receiving therefrom the highest satisfaction known 

 to mortal man. Most of that which makes life noble aud 

 worth living is still attainable to them, if they improve their 

 opportunities. 



I regret that my knowledge of the paet school-life of my 

 pupils is not more complete than it is, and also that in my 

 earlier experience I did not secure more exact statistics. 



Sometimes it is extremely difficult to obtain the precise in- 

 formation desired. Occasionally positive refusals to give it 

 are encountered. The vital statistics gathered at institutions 

 for the deaf are usually taken from an educational stand- 

 point, aud consequently some deaf children who lost hearing 

 very young are classed and recorded as congenitally deaf. 

 For educational purposes this classification is very well; but 

 for biological and anthropological study such statistics are 

 defective, and cause confusion. For the study of heredity 

 they are misleading. I am persuaded that we are far from 

 having an accurate knowledge of some of the primal causes 

 of deafness. One quite prolific cause has been entirely over- 

 looked, owing to the delicacy of the subject, and the diffi- 

 culty of acquiring correct information in such cases. It 

 could be appropriately discussed in a medical journal, but 

 in a popular periodical its consideration may not be accept- 

 able. 



The cause to which I refer is psychological, aud the 

 mode of its operation is obscure. Just how mind or spirit 

 operates on matter we do not know, but the fact is undenia- 

 ble. I am quite positive, from knowledge obtained during 

 a long period of years, that prenatal impressions are respon- 

 sible for many cases of deafness which have been attributed 

 to other causes, including heredity and family predisposition. 

 Within my observation there have been more cases of deaf- 

 ness from this cause than of deaf offspring from deaf parent- 

 age 



Dr Bell inquires with reference to certain statistics I pub- 

 lished five years ago. I am bound to admit, that, while at 

 the time I thought them approximately correct, I have since 

 gained additional information that somewhat changes con- 

 clusions from theirstudy. I have had 2,158 pupils, of whom 

 1,580 have been discharged from the institution. No doubt 

 a considerable number of these have contracted marriages 

 of which I have not received information, but I have learned 

 of the marriage of 378 of them. They were parties to 233 

 marriages. 



Thirty-three married hearing partners. Of these, seven 

 were congenitally deaf. Of thirty-two of these thirty-three 

 couples, all the children could hear. Of one of these couples, 

 the mother being congenitally deaf, two children could hear 

 and two were born deaf. 



Of thirteen couples, both parties were congenitally deaf. 

 Of twelve of these couples, all the children could hear. Of 

 one of these couples, two children could hear and one was 

 born deaf. 



Of fifty-one couples, one party was congenitally deaf, and 

 one was adventitiously deaf. Of these fifty-one couples, one 

 couple had one hearing and four adventitiously deaf chil- 

 dren ; one couple had one hearing and one adventitiously 

 deaf child ; three couples had one congenitally deaf child ; 

 one couple had two congenitally deaf children. 



Of twenty-five couples, both parties were adventitiously 

 deaf. Of twenty-three of these couples, all the children 

 could hear ; of one of these couples, one child could hear 

 and one is congenitally deaf ; of one of these couples, four 

 children hear aud one is adventitiously deaf. 



But I have had other pupils whose parents, though deaf, 

 were educated elsewhere. Two sisters boru deaf were chil- 

 dren of a deaf father and hearing mother. Two brothers — 

 one congenitally and one adventitiously deaf — • were the 

 children of deaf parents ; but whether the parents were con- 

 genitally or adventitiously deaf, I have been unable to learn. 

 One boy was adventitiously deaf whose father was deaf, but 

 of whose mother I have no information. 



