THE DEVELOPMENT OF LANGUAGE. 133 



even need on all occasions for the words to be transmitted to him with deliber- 

 ate intention, and by a human mouth ; sometimes the child seizes them in the 

 involuntary sounds he utters, or in the accidental sounds he catches." And he 

 cites a remarkable example from Francis Lieber (" Smithsonian Contributions 

 to Knowledge," Vol. 2, p. 15) : — 



" A member of my own family," saj's Mr. Lieber, " showed, in early infancy, 

 a peculiar tendency to form new words, partly from sounds which the child 

 caught, as to icohior to stop, fi'om the interjection ivoh used by waggoners when 

 they wish to stop their horses ; partly from symphenomenal emissions of 

 sounds. Thus, when the boy was a little above a year old, he had made and 

 established in the nursery the word nim for everj'thing fit to eat. I had 

 watched the groMth of this word. First, he expressed his satisfaction at seeing 

 his meal, when hungry, by the natural humming sound, which we might 

 express thus, hm. Gradually, as his organs of speech became more skilful, 

 and repetition made the sound more familiar and clearer, it changed into the 

 more articulate um and im. Finallj', an n was placed before it, nim being 

 much easier to pronounce than im, when the mouth has been closed. But soon 

 the growing mind began to generalize, and nim came to signify everything 

 edible ; so that the boy would add the words good or had, which he had learned 

 in the meantime. He now would say cjood nim, had nim, his nurse adopting 

 the word -with him. On one occasion he said fie nim, for had, repulsive to eat. 

 There is no doubt but that a verb to nim, for to eat, would have developed 

 itself, had not the ripenixig mind adopted the vernacular language, which was 

 offered to it readj^ made." 



M. Taine, though he dwells much and forcibly on the phj'-siological -view, 

 including especially the functions of the brain, does not indicate the peculiar 

 light which that study casts on the subject in question. This has been lately 

 done by his countryman, the distinguished anthropologist, Dr. Topinard, in 

 his notable lecture on "The last stages of the genealogy of man," published 

 in his Revue d'Anthropologie for May, 188S. After referring to the fact- 

 suggested by an argument of Professor Vogt — that the young monkey is more 

 intelligent than the adult. Dr. Topinard remarks: — " But this greater intelli- 

 gence of the young is the rule -nnth all animals, including man, if we consider 

 the facts. At this stage the brain is larger, relatively to the body ; it is in a 

 naamier virgin, more impressionable ; it grows extremely fast, and seeks only to 

 absorb, to work, to turn to use the blood wliich it receives. What is more 

 marvellous than the way in which our children learn to speak, to read, to 

 write ! Should we be capable, we adults, of the amount of rapid memory 

 demanded by the mass of M'ords and ideas Avhich we impress upon them ? " 



It is satisfactory to be able to adduce, in confirmation of the ideas set forth 

 in the preceding paper, these striking facts and arguments, from two of the 

 highest authorities in Europe on questions of mental philosophy and physiology. 

 For the reference to the jjassage in il. Taine's book I am indebted to the cour- 

 tesy of Professor Max Midler, who is naturally interested in the results of an 



