SCIENCE. 



[Vol. XVI. No. 408 



But even with this unexpected aid from the opposing side, 

 I do not think Dr. Bell's views are to be accepted as those 

 which should govern the deaf, in all cases, in their choice of 

 partners for life. Much less do I approve of the wholesale 

 encouragement to deaf-mute intermarriages given by Dr. 

 Gillett. 



Were my advice sought by a young deaf-mute, heart-free, 

 and untrammelled by any engagement, I should say that if 

 he or she could marry, on a basis of sincere affection, one 

 possessed of hearing, such a union would be far more to be 

 desired than one with a deaf partner. Such a marriage as 

 I would recommend first would do much towards taking the 

 deaf partner out of the narrow circle of deaf-mute society, 

 with which the deaf are too apt to be content; it would bring 

 a most important element of comfort and practical assistance 

 to the married pair; it would furnish an essential advantage 

 in the training of the chiluren and in the .management of 

 the household. But no argument ought to be necessary to 

 prove that a family where one parent can hear has great 

 advantages over one where both parents are deaf; and in the 

 last analysis the interest of the family must take the preced- 

 ence over that of the individual, for it is the family, and 

 not the individual, that constitutes the unit of society. 

 Many deaf-mutes think more happiness is to be found in a 

 marriage with a deaf person than with one who hears; but 

 this is by no means as certain as Dr. Gillett, or the deaf 

 themselves, suppose, for it involves a question that has not 

 yet been settled, and may never be. I have known some 

 intermarriages of the deaf to result in wretched unhappiness, 

 but I do not for that reason conclude that such marriages 

 must always, or even often, be unhappy. It is undoubtedly 

 true that some marriages of deaf people with those who hear 

 have turned out badly, but Dr. Gillett's admission that he 

 has known " most beautiful and happy unions of this kind " 

 is a sufficient answer to all objection to such unions; and to 

 his admission I may be permitted to add the testimony from 

 experience, of both a son and a brother, that marriage be- 

 tween the deaf and the hearing may be entirely happy and 

 essentially successful. 



But I would not have my deaf friends who have inter- 

 married feel that I am putting them under a wholesale con- 

 demnation by urging the union of the deaf with the hearing 

 as the ideal marriage for them. I am perfectly aware that 

 circumstances may arise under which it becomes extremely 

 diificult for a deaf person not to take a deaf partner. I am 

 old-fashioned enough to believe in falling in love, even in 

 this mercantile age, and in remaining in love through long 

 years of happy married life; and I should be the last to lay 

 a rude hand on a tie that had grown up between two deaf 

 young people which seemed likely to ultimate in that greatest 

 of Heaven's boons, a marriage of sincere affection In such 

 a case my friendly advice would be to look well into the 

 causes which made the young people deaf, and ascertain 

 whether there was a family tendency towards the disability or 

 not; and if it appeared that no such tendency existed, or that 

 it was very slight, I certainly should not " forbid the bans." 



If, on the other hand, such a condition in the families was 

 disclosed as to render the birth of deaf children probable, a 

 reason for hesitation would surely be recognized which 

 every truly benevolent and unselfish mind would regard as 



I have several personal friends who have remained un- 

 married because of the existence in their families of certain 

 mental or physical defects likely to descend to offspring: 

 and as 1 honor them for their unselfishness, so would I rank 

 high in my esteem a deaf person who lived single for a 

 similar reason. But the consideration of this aspect of the 

 question need not be extended : it can be dismissed with the 

 advice to all young deaf people to look carefully into the 

 matter of "family deafness" before their hearts become en- 

 tangled with any one, and govern themselves accordingly, 

 remembering all the time that their ideal marriage, because 

 best for the family, is with one who hears. 



Turning now to the second point proposed for considera- 

 tion in this article, the education of the deaf, I desire to 

 direct attention to several errors which have of late attained 

 popularity and credence, as supposed truths, with many 

 people : — 



1. That the oral teaching of the deaf is a new method. 



2. That all deaf chi'dren can be successfully taught to 

 speak. 



3. That under the oral method deaf children can be taught 

 the vernacular use of language more easily and perfectly 

 than under the manual method. 



4. That the use of the sign-language is a hinderance to the 

 best results in teaching the deaf. 



5. That signs can and ought to be dispensed with in edu- 

 cating the deaf. 



6. That the sign-language obtained a foothold in this coun- 

 try merely through accident. 



7. That it is now dying out. 



8. That the oral method is greatly superior to the manual, 

 and is rapidly supplanting it. 



So far from its being through accident that the sign-lan- 

 guage obtained a foothold in this country, the facts are, that 

 the founder of deaf-mute instruction in America, Thomas 

 Hopkins Gallaudet, sought for many months in England to 

 gain a knowledge of English methods of teaching the deaf 

 which made little use of signs; that the schools of Great 

 Britain were closed against him ; that, while he stood jjatiently 

 knocking at their doors, he met in London the distinguished 

 French teacher of the deaf, the Abbe Sicard, and his talented 

 pupil, Laurent Clerc; that on Sicard's invitation Mr. Gal- 

 laudet repaired to Paris, where he found the manual method 

 of De I'Epee, which made free use of the sign-language, in 

 most successful operation; that he acquired a knowledge of 

 that method, believing, with good reason, that it was well 

 adapted to secure the education of all the deaf; that he intro- 

 duced that method into America, where it has been preserved 

 from 1817 to the present time, with results to thousands of 

 deaf children more beneficent and satisfactory, on the whole, 

 than have attended the education of the deaf in any other 

 country under any method. 



The sign-language', far from dying out in this country, is 

 to-day made use of in a greater number of schools, and with 

 a larger number of pupils, than it has been in any year 

 since its introduction seventy-three years ago. 



The first oral school in America in which it was under- 

 taken to dispense with signs was established in 1867, when 

 the number of schools for the deaf was thirty. Since that 

 time fifty one schools have been established in the United 

 States and Canada, having 2,157 pupils. In thirty-five of 



