420 ON THE SPEECH OP BRUTES. 



brutal not. Homer, fo long ago as his times, afferted 

 this diffindlion. And the commentators, are fain to 

 extol him highly for having found an excellent epithet 

 for man, by frequently ftyling him p^pi uv^ooirog, 

 i. e. man who can divide his voice. Confequently, we 

 deny the brutes the capacity or faculty of dividing out 

 their founds. 



This is by no means to be underftood in its full ex- 

 tent,- and without limitation, lince daily experience is 

 in manifeft contradiction to it ; which teaches us that 

 brutes can very varioully divide their founds. It muft 

 therefore be underflood of particular tones ; and we 

 ..ihould fay : The tones of brutes cannot, like human 

 words, be diflblved into fyllables and letters. 



But here too the matter is fufceptible of a two-fold 

 meaning. It may flgnify: The brutal founds are in 

 their nature indiffoluble into fyllables and letters. But 

 it may alfo flgnify : Mankind know not how the brutal 

 founds are to be diflblved into the fyllables and letters 

 known to them. If we adopt the latter fignification as 

 the true one, then the confequence is by no means 

 that the human fpeech has a pre-eminence above the 

 brutal. Only thus much follows : Mankind underfhmd 

 not the fpeech of brutes ; which is more to their dif- 

 grace than that of the brutes ; but the brutal fpeech is 

 as little degraded below the human., as the fineft com- 

 pofition of a mufical air is debafed, by being rendered 

 more agreeable to the undifciplined ear of an ignorant 

 perfon by the manner of finging of a ballad-woman. 



Should then the human fpeech have a pre-eminence 

 above that of the brutes, becaufe the former and the 

 latter is not; then muft the firft fignification be admit- 

 ted; 



