XL.] HABIT AND VARIATION IN HISTORY. 171 



without intelligence might know the names of things, 

 but he could not combine the words into sentences having 

 a meaning ; and this, I believe, is the case with some 

 idiots. A person without memory, on the contrary, might 

 conceivably think, but for want of knowing the necessary 

 words he could not express his thoughts in words. Memory 

 and intelligence are thus both necessary to the use of 

 language ; and as memory is a case of habit, it follows 

 that habit and intelligence co-operate in the use and in 

 the formation of language just as they do in organization 

 and in mind. I think this cannot be disputed, whatever 

 may be our conclusion as to the ultimate nature of intel- 

 ligence; but in the present state of the science of language 

 it is not so evident as it will be at some future time. The 

 science of comparative grammar has not as yet got beyond Conipa- 

 comparative etymology ; the students of the science are at gi-ammar 

 present concentrating their whole attention on the habitual is as yet 

 element in language, namely the words ; this is needful parative 

 at present, and may probably continue to be so for a long etymology, 

 time. But it may not always be so ; a science of com- parative 

 parative syntax will surely be possible, so soon as mate- ^^^\^^ ^^ 

 rials enough have been accumulated. By the formation of lioped for. 

 such a science the logical element in language will be 

 brought into the same prominence, and may, perhaps, 

 come to be as well understood as the habitual, or verbal, 

 element is now. I do not think it is too much to hope 

 that some fellow-countryman of Bopp and Grimm, or 

 perhaps of Sir "\V. Hamilton or of Professor Boole, may 

 yet so trace the connexion between the laws of language 

 and the laws of logic as to throw light on both. I am 

 not able to make a beginning at that subject. I go on 

 to show how very close is the resemblance between the 

 action of the habitual principle in organization and in 

 language. 



Language is an organism. This is no mere metaphor. Language 

 The definition of an organism is that it consists of parts ^^f;," :,„, 



o r organism. 



which are all in functional relation to each other; and 

 the words of a sentence are thus functionally related. 

 Organization is not the cause of life, but life is the 



