ON THE SPEECH OF BRUTES. 423 



were written, would not every one verfed in the notes, 

 know all the names of the notes directly on feeing 

 them, and read them to others at pleafure ? But a 

 language that admits of being written and read, cannot 

 properly be called an inarticulate fpeech. As little, in 

 my mind, as mufic, regularly compofed, can be 

 called inarticulate. 



But mufic is no language, it will perhaps be objected. 

 I grant it is not fo with mankind. But can it not 

 therefore be fo with brutes ? Why may not ideas be 

 connected with tacts compofed of particular notes, as 

 they are with words compofed of fyllahles and letters ? 

 Cicero, at leaft, fays, that no mufic is equal to a well- 

 compofed fpeech, fupported by an elegant pronuncia- 

 tion ; and I flatter myfelf, that if I was but matter 

 of fome fkill in mufic, it would not be difficult for me 

 to prove this matter by fufhcient evidence. In Ger- 

 many there is a well-known ftory of an expert organift, 

 who, knowing that the celebrated Bach was among his 

 auditors in the church, but wifhed to be concealed, 

 made the organ, by a delicate touch, fpeak the word 

 Bach, which was immediately understood by the great 

 mufician below. Probably it may not be the nature 

 of the animal tones that renders this impoilible, but 

 our ignorance, or rather the names which we could or 

 ihould give them. Had I been in company with the 

 famous Bach, on the above occafion, I fhould not have 

 dreamt that the organ pronounced his name. But 

 would it therefore have been the lefs pronounced? 

 or fbould I not have heard what Bach heard ? 



Before I conclude, I muft crave leave to offer a 

 queftion which perhaps may only prove my ignorance 



H i 4 . in 



