252 
single one of them would he intelligible to any person, unless taught their 
meaning by means of spoken language. Nine-tenths of the gesticulations 
which Professor Young exhibited before us appeared to me to be rather speech 
interpreted by signs, than signs significant in themselves ; and but for his 
verbal explanations, I confess I should not have understood their meaning in 
the least. There is a curious passage in one of Montaigne’s Essays, perhaps 
bearing on the Professor’s side, with which I shall conclude. Montaigne con- 
sidered that beasts may speak, for all we can tell, because, he observes, we 
can say all we have to say by signs. Then he goes on : •“ Quoi des mains ? 
Nos requerons, nous promettons, appellons, congedions, menaceons, prions, 
supplions, nions, refusons, interrogeons, admirons, nombrons, confessons, 
repentons, craignons, vergoignons, doubtons, instruisons, commandons, absol- 
vons, injurions, mesprisons, desfions, despitons, flattons, applaudissons, 
benissons, humilions, mocquons, reconcilions, recommendons, festoyons, re- 
jouissons, complaignons, attristons, descomf ortons, desesperons, estonnons, 
escrions, taisons, et quoi non ? ” 
There we have the same idea as in the paper ; but I must add that I do 
not understand how any savage, who only knew gesture-language, could ever 
have such ideas at all, or understand one half of the things signified by those 
words, and the fine shades of thought they often express. 
Rev. Dr. Irons. — I think we are scarcely doing justice to the paper of Pro- 
fessor Young, if we forget he began by telling us he could pretend to no demon- 
stration in such a matter. He merely endeavoured to accumulate all the 
probabilities of the case ; and with respect to those examples of deaf-mutes, they 
were by no means all his argument, — they were only illustrations which he in- 
troduced, like the mythical savage with whom he could communicate, who was 
not deaf ; and I think without at all proving his point, which he never 
attempted, he suggested the great probability of the difficulty of originating 
a language, if man had been created a mute savage. And when Mr 
Warington affirms that there is a probability, if man was created in a 
civilized condition, that he would form a language for himself, I think he 
is bound, in fairness to Professor Young, to show how he could meet the 
dilemma which the Professor put before us, that civilization implies lan- 
guage, as much as language implies civilization. Let us meet the issue 
fairly, and see whether there is a probability, or an improbability, of savages 
inventing speech. It occurs to me that the illustrations drawn by Mr. 
Warington do not apply to the Professor’s argument, which was put 
forward to meet the idea of man being a monkey previously, and gradually 
becoming man. The primitive men were said to be of the lowest type, and 
the Fiji Islanders were particularly mentioned as an instance. Now they 
have no civilization surrounding them to suggest the thoughts like those 
which might be suggested to civilized mutes by what they see. The very 
language originating thought and producing high desires could not have been 
excited if these mutes had been in the position of the Fiji Islanders, or of a 
still lower class, namely, a people just risen above the monkey. 
Rev. Dr. Thornton. — At the risk of being called to order, I shall first, Sir, 
