370 
means by the immateriality of speech. If he merely maintains 
that the utterance of language is the mechanical expression of 
immaterial thought, I fail to see what connection his published 
researches into the non-localization of speech in the third left frontal 
convolution of the brain, (which he asserts form “ a powerful and 
original argument against the dangerous heresy of Darwinism”) 
have to do with the subject, but the expression he makes use of in 
p. 181, that speech like the soul is probably an attribute, an 
immaterial “nescio quid,” is hardly consistent with such a view. 
We may agree with him that a comprehension of the origin of 
language is beyond the limits of our present knowledge, but he 
must produce a somewhat stronger argument than “ nescio quid ” to 
establish his position of the immateriality of speech. He says, in 
effect, “ I do not believe that primeval man learned to speak by 
any natural process, because I cannot understand how such process 
could have taken place,” but to prove the fallacy of Darwinism, he 
should show, not that such an origin seems to him unlikely, but 
that it is incredible, which it would not be easy to do. He claims, 
however, to have established that the views of Professor Broca and 
others, who assert that the faculty of speech is located in a certain 
part of the brain, are erroneous. Granting, for the sake of argu- 
ment, that Professor Broca is wrong,* in what way does that prove 
that Dr. Bateman is right? The overthrow of his opponent’s views 
may possibly clear the way for a discussion of his own, but his ad- 
versaries being vanquished, he must bring forward some real argu- 
ments in support of his position that speech is immaterial, and 
these I have looked for in vain. If the theory of the localization 
of speech were one of the main supports on which Darwinism 
rested, its destruction would weaken that which had been built 
upon it ; but this is not the case, and it matters therefore little 
to evolutionists whether it be true or not. The immateriality of 
speech, and its localization in a certain part of the brain, are not 
the only two possible explanations of the matter. 
# In a recent review of Dr. Bateman’s book in Brain , the editor, Dr- 
Bucknill, does not admit that this is at all satisfactorily mado out 
