155 
LANGUAGE. 
Btbuth they are broken into parts and refolvable into fyl- 
lables. 
It being thus evident that there is no inftincHve articu¬ 
lated language, it lias become an inquiry no lefs curious 
than important, how mankind were firft induced to fabri¬ 
cate articulate founds, and to employ them for the pur- 
pofe of communicating their thoughts. Children learn to 
fpeak by infenfible imitation ; and, when advanced fome 
years in life, they ftudy foreign languages under proper 
inftru&ors; but the firft men had no l'peakers to imitate, 
and no formed language to ftudy; by what means then 
did they learn to fpeak ? On this queftion only two opi¬ 
nions can poffibly be formed. Either language muft have 
been originally revealed from heaven, or it muft be the 
fruit of human induftry. The greater part of Jews and 
Chriftians, and even fome of the wifeft Pagans, have em¬ 
braced the former opinion. The latter opinion is held by 
Diodorus Siculus, Lucretius, Horace, and many other 
Greek and Roman writers, who confider language as one 
of the arts invented by man. The fifftMiien, lay thej', 
lived for fome time in woods and caves after the manner 
of beafts, uttering only confufed and indiftinfl noifes ; 
till, afi'ociating for mutual aftiftance, they came by degrees 
to ufe articulate founds mutually agreed upon for the ar¬ 
bitrary figns or marks of thofe ideas in the' mind of the 
fpeaker which he wanted to communicate to the hearer. 
This opinion fprung from the atomic cofmogony which 
was framed by Mofchus the Phenician, and afterwards 
improved by Democritus and Epicurus ; and, though it is 
part of a fyftem in which the firft men are reprefented as 
having grown out of the earth like trees and other vege¬ 
tables, it has been adopted by feveral modern writers of 
high rank in the republic of letters, and is certainly in 
itfelf worthy of examination. 
The raoft learned, and on every account the moft re- 
fpeflable, author who now fupports this opinion, candidly 
acknowledges, that, if language was invented, it was of 
very difficult invention, and far beyond the reach of the 
groffeft favages. Accordingly he holds, that, though men 
■were originally folitary animals, and had no natural pro- 
penfity to the focial life ; yet, before language could be in¬ 
vented, they muft have been aflociated for ages, and have 
carried on of concert fome common work. Nay, he is 
decidedly of opinion, that, before the invention of an art 
fo difficult as language, men muft not only have herded 
together, but have alfo formed fome kind of civil polity, 
have exifted in that political ftate a very long time, and 
have acquired fuch powers of abftraftion as to be able to 
form general ideas. But it is obvious, that men could 
not have inftituted civil polity, or h3ve carried on of con¬ 
cert any common work, without communicating their de- 
iigns to each other; and there are four ways by which the 
author thinks that this could have been done before the 
invention of fpeech ; viz. ift, Inarticulate cries, expreffive 
of fentiments and paffions j ad. Geftures and the expref- 
fion of countenance ; 3d. Imitative founds expreffive of 
audible things ; and, 4th. Painting, by which vifible ob¬ 
jects may be reprefented. 
Of thefe four ways of communication it is plain, that 
only two have any connection with language, viz. inarti¬ 
culate cries and imitative founds ; and of thefe the author 
abandons the latter as having contributed nothing to the 
invention of articulation, though he thinks it may have 
helped to advance its progrefs. “I am difpofed (fays he) 
to believe, that the framing of words with an analogy to 
the found of the things expreffed by them belongs rather 
to languages of art than to the firft languages fpoken by 
rude and barbarous nations.” It is therefore inarticulate 
cries only that muft have given rife to the formation of 
language. Such cries are ufed by all animals who have 
any ufe of voice to exprefs their wants ; and the faft is, 
that all barbarous nations have cries expreffing different 
things, fuch as joy, grief, terror, furprife, and the like. 
Thefe, together with geftures and expreffion of the coun¬ 
tenance, were undoubtedly the methods of communica¬ 
tion firft ufed by men ; and we have but to fuppofe (fays 
our author) a great number of our fpecies carrying on 
fome common bufmefs, and convening together by figns 
and cries ; and we have men juft in a liate proper for the 
invention of language. For, if we fuppofe their numbers 
to increafe, their wants would increafe alfo; and then thefe 
twcx methods of communication would become too con¬ 
fined for that larger iphere of life which their wants would 
make necefiary. The only«thing then that remained to 
be done was to give a greater variety to the inftinilive 
cries ; and, as the natural progrefs is from what is eafy to 
what is more difficult, the firll variation would be merely 
by tones from low to high, and from grave to acute. But 
this variety could not anfvver all the purpofes of fpeech 
in fociety ; and, being advanced fo far, it was natural that 
an animal fo fagacious as man fliould go on farther, and 
come at laft to the only other variation remaining, namely, 
articulation. The firft articulation would be very fimple, 
the voice being broken, and diftipguifhed only by a few 
vowels and confonants. And, as all natural cries are from 
the throat and larynx, with little or no operation of the 
organs of the mouth, it is natural to fuppofe, that the firft 
languages were for the greater part fpoken from the throat; 
that what confonants were ufed to vary the cries, were 
moftly guttural; and that the organs of the mouth would 
at firft be very little employed. 
From this account of the origin of language it appears, 
that the firft founds articulated were the natural cries by 
which men fignified their wants and defires to one ano¬ 
ther, fuch as calling one another for certain purpofes, and 
other fuch things as were moft necefiary for carrying or* 
any joint work ; then in procefs of time other cries would 
be articulated, to fignify, that fuch and fuch ahlions had 
been performed or were performing, or that fuch and fuch 
events had happened relative to the common bufinefs. 
The names would be invented of fuch objefts as they were 
converfant with ; but, as we cannot fuppofe favages to be 
deep in abltradtion or Ikilful in the art of arranging things 
according to their genera and fpecies, all things however 
fimilar, except perhaps the individuals of the lowed fpe¬ 
cies, would be expreffed by different words not related to 
each other either by derivation or compofition. Thus 
would language grow by degrees ; and, as it grew, it would 
be more and more broken and articulated by confonants j 
but Itill the words would retain a great deal of their ori¬ 
ginal nature of animal cries. And thus things would go 
on, words unrelated Itill multiplying, till at laft the lan¬ 
guage would become too cumberfome for ufe; and then 
art would be obliged to interpofe, and form a language 
upon a few: radical words, according to the rules and me¬ 
thod of etymology. 
Thofe who think that language was originally revealed 
from heaven, confider this account of its human inven¬ 
tion as a feries of mere fuppofitions hanging loofely toge¬ 
ther, and the whole fufpended from r.o fixed principle. 
The opinions of Diodorus, Vitruvius, Horace, Lucretius, 
and Cicero, which are frequently quoted in its fupporf, 
are in their eftimation of no greater authority than the 
opinions of other men ; for, as language was formed and, 
brought to a great degree of perfection long before the 
era of any hiitorian with whom we are acquainted, the 
antiquity of the Greek and Roman writers, who are com- 
paratively of yefterday, gives them no advantage in this 
inquiry over the philofophers of France and England. 
Ariftotle has defined man to be %aoi an imitative 
animal; and the definition is certainly lb far juft, that man 
is much more remarkable for imitation than invention ; 
and therefore, fay the real’oners on this fide of the quef¬ 
tion, had the human race been originally mute, they would 
have continued fo to the end of time, unlefs they had 
been taught to fpeak by fome fuperior intelligence. 
That tiie firft man fprung from the earth like vegeta¬ 
bles, no modern philofopher has ventured to aflert; nor 
does there anywhere appear fufficient evidence that men 
were originally in tire ftate of favages. The oldeft book 
extant 
