Theories of the Origin of Language 519 
vibrations, by the answer which they give. Gold rings differently 
from tin, wood rings differently from stone; and different sounds are 
produced according to the nature of each percussion. It may be 
the same with man, the most highly organised of nature’s work}.” 
Max Miiller’s repudiation of this theory was, however, not very 
whole-hearted for he proceeds later in the same argument: “Heyse’s 
theory, which I neither adopted nor rejected, but which, as will be 
seen, is by no means incompatible with that which for many years 
has been gaining on me, and which of late has been so clearly 
formulated by Professor Noiré, has been assailed with ridicule and 
torn to pieces, often by persons who did not even suspect how much 
truth was hidden behind its paradoxical appearance. We are still 
very far from being able to identify roots with nervous vibrations, 
but if it should appear hereafter that sensuous vibrations supply at 
least the raw material of roots, it is quite possible that the theory, 
proposed by Oken and Heyse, will retain its place in the history of 
the various attempts at solving the problem of the origin of language, 
when other theories, which in our own days were received with 
popular applause, will be completely forgotten?.” 
Like a good deal else that has been written on the origin of 
language, this statement perhaps is not likely to be altogether clear 
‘to the plain man, who may feel that even the “raw material of roots” 
is some distance removed from nervous vibrations, though obviously 
without the existence of afferent and efferent nerves articulate speech 
would be impossible. But Heyse’s theory undoubtedly was that every 
thought or idea which occurred to the mind of man for the first time 
had its own special phonetic expression, and that this responsive 
faculty, when its object was thus fulfilled, became extinct. Apart 
from the philosophical question whether the mind acts without 
external stimulus, into which it is not necessary to enter here, it is 
clear that this theory can neither be proved nor disproved, because 
it postulates that this faculty existed only when language first began, 
and later altogether disappeared. As we have already seen, it is 
impossible for us to know what happened at the first beginnings of 
language, because we have no information from any period even 
approximately so remote; nor are we likely to attain it. Even in 
their earliest stages the great families of language which possess a 
history extending over many centuries—the Indo-Germanic and the 
Semitic—have very little in common. With the exception of Chinese, 
the languages which are apparently of a simpler or more primitive 
formation have either a history which, compared with that of the 
families mentioned, is very short, or, as in the case of the vast 
majority, have no history beyond the time extending only over a 
1 Max Miiller as above, translating from Heyse. 9 Science of Thought, p. 212. 
