156 LANG 
extant contains the only rational cofiuogony known to the 
ancient nations; and that book reprefents the firft human 
inhabitants of this earth, not only as reafoning and fpeak- 
ing animals, but alfo as in a ftate of high perfection and 
'happinefs, of which they were deprived for difobedience 
to their Creator. Mofes, fetting atide his claim to infpi- 
Tation, deferves, from the confidence of his narrative, at 
leak as much credit as Mofchus, or Democritus, or Epi¬ 
curus ; and from his prior antiquity, if antiquity could 
on this fubjett have any weight, he would deferve more, 
as having lived nearer to the period of which they ali write. 
Yet we do not mean to fay that a reference to fcripture 
will decide the controverfy. ,£ God brought every bead 
of the field and every fowl of the air unto Adam, to fee 
■what he would call them ; and whatfoever Adam called 
every living creature, that was the name thereof. And 
Adam gave names to all cattle, &c.” Gen. ii. 19, 20. Here 
we are not told whether the Almighty had previoufly in- 
fpired Adam with language, or whether Adam invented 
it himfelf. 
But the queftion refpefiing the origin of language may 
be decided without relting in authority of any kind, mere¬ 
ly by confidering the nature of fpeech, and the mental 
and corporeal powers of man. Thofe who maintain it to 
be of human invention, fuppofe men at firft to have been 
iblitary animals, afterwards to have herded together with¬ 
out government or fuborcfination, then to have formed 
political locieties, and by their own exertions to have ad¬ 
vanced from the groffett ignorance to the refinements of 
fcience. But, fay the reafoners vvhofe caufe we are now 
-pleading, this is a luppofiticn contrary to all hiftory and 
all experience. There is not upon record a fingle inffance 
well authenticated of a people emerging by their own ef¬ 
forts from barbarilin to civilization. There have indeed 
been many nations raifed from the ftate of favages ; but 
it is known that they were polifhed, not by their own re¬ 
peated exertions, but by the influence of individuals or 
colonies from nations more enlightened than themlelves. 
The original favages of Greece were tamed by the Pelafgi, 
a foreign tribe 5 and were afterwards further polifhed by 
Orpheus, Cecrops, Cadmus, See. who derived their know¬ 
ledge from Egypt and the Eaft. The ancient Romans, a 
ferocious and motley crew, received the bieflings of law 
and religion from a fucceffion of foreign kings; and the 
conquefts of Rome at a later period contributed to civi¬ 
lize the reft of Europe. In America, the only two na¬ 
tions which at the invalion of the Spaniards could be faid 
to have advanced a fingle ftep from barbarifm, were in¬ 
debted for their fuperiority over the other tribes, not to 
the gradual and unaffifted progrefs of the human mind, 
but to the wife inftitutions of foreign legiflators. 
From what has been obferved in tracing the progrefs of 
jnan from the favage ftate to that of political focietv, ex¬ 
perience teaches us that in every art it is much eafier to" 
improve than to invent. The human mind, when put 
into the proper track, is indeed capable of making great 
advances in arts and fciences; but, if any credit be due 
to the records of hiftory, it has not, in a people funk in 
ignorance and barbarity, fufftcient vigour to difeover that 
track, or to conceive a ftate different from the prefent. 
If the rudeft inhabitants of America and other countries 
have continued, as there is every reafon to believe they 
have continued, for ages in the fame unvaried ftate of 
barbarifm; how is it imaginable that people fo much 
ruder than they, as to be ignorant of all language, ftiould 
think of inventing an art fo difficult as that of fpeech, or 
even to frame a conception of the thing ? In building, 
fifhing, hunting, navigating,&c. they might imitate the in- 
itinftive arts of other animals; but there is no other animal 
that expreffes its fenfations and affections by arbitrary ar¬ 
ticulate founds. It is faid that, before language could be 
invented, mankind mull have exifted for ages in large po¬ 
litical focieties, and have carried on in concert fome com¬ 
mon work ; but, if inarticulate cries, and the natural vi¬ 
able figns of the paflions ami affections, were modes of 
U A G E. 
communication fufficiently accurate to keep a large fociety 
together for ages, and to direCt its members in the execu¬ 
tion of fome common work, what could be their induce¬ 
ment to the invention of an art fo ufeful and difficult as 
that of language? Let us however fuppofe, fay the ad¬ 
vocates for the caufe which we are now fupporting, that 
different nations of favages fet about inventing an art of 
communicating their thoughts, which experience had 
taught them was not abfoiutely neceffary ; how came they 
all, without exception, to think of the one art of articu¬ 
lating the voice for this purpofe ? Inarticulate cries, out 
of which language is fabricated, have indeed an initinCtive 
connexion with our paflions and affections ; but there are 
geftures and expreffions of countenance with which our 
paftions and affections are in the fame manner connected. 
If the natural cries of paflion could be fo modified and 
enlarged as to be capable of communicating to the hearer 
every idea in the mind of the fpeaker, it is certain that 
the natural geftures could be fo modified as to anfwer the 
very fame purpofe; and it is ftrange that, among the feve- 
rai nations who invented languages, not one ftiould have 
/tumbled upon fabricating- viable figns of their ideas, but 
that all ftiould have agreed to denote them by articulated 
founds. Every nation whofe language is narrow and rude 
fupplies its defects by violent gefticulation ; and there¬ 
fore, as much lefs genius is exerted in the improvement of 
any art than was requifite for its firft invention, it is na-^ 
tural to fuppofe, that, had men been left to devife for 
themfelvcs a method of communicating their thoughts, 
they would not have attempted any other than that by 
which they now improve the language tranfinitted by their 
fathers. It is vain to urge that articulate founds are fit¬ 
ter for the purpofe of communicating thought than vifi- 
ble gefticulation ; for, though this may be true, itisatruth. 
which could hardly occur to favages, who had never ex¬ 
perienced the fitnefs of either ; and if, to counterbalance 
the fuperior fitnelsof articulation, its extreme difficulty be 
taken into view, it muft appear little lefs than miraculous 
that every favage tribe ftiould think of it rather than the 
eafier method of artificial gefticulation. Savages, it is well 
known, are remarkable for their indolence, and for always 
preferring eafe to utility; but their modes of life give 
fuch pliancy to their bodies, that they could with very 
little trouble bend their limbs and members into any po- 
fitions agreed upon as the figns of ideas. This is fo far 
from being the cafe with refpeCt to the organs of articu¬ 
lation, that it is with extreme difficulty, if at all, that a 
man advanced in life can be taught to articulate any found 
which he has not been accultomed to hear. No foreigner 
who comes to England after the age of thirty ever pro¬ 
nounces the language tolerably well; an Englifhman of 
that age can hardly be taught to utter the guttural found 
which a Scotchman gives to the Greek or even the 
French found of the vowel u ; and of the folitary favages 
who have been caught in different forefts, we know not 
that there has been one who, after the age of manhood, 
learned to articulate any language fo as to make himfelf 
readily undtrftood. The prefent age has indeed fur- 
niftied many inftances of deaf perfons being taught to 
fpeak intelligibly by fleilful matters moulding the organs 
of the mouth into the politions proper for articulating the 
voice ; (fee Dumbness, vol. vi. p. 115.) but who was to 
perform this tafk among the inventors of language, when 
all mankind were equally ignorant of the means by which 
articulation is effected ? In a word, daily experience in¬ 
forms us, that men who have not learned to articulate in 
their childhood never afterwards acquire the faculty of 
fpeech but by fuch helps as favages cannot obtain ; and 
therefore, if fpeech was invented at all, it muft have been 
either by children who were incapable of invention, or by- 
men who were incapable of fpeech. A thoufand, nay a 
million, of children co-uld not think of inventing a lan¬ 
guage. While the organs are pliable, there is not under- 
ftanding enough to frame the conception of a language j 
and, by the time that there is underltanding, the organs 
1 ace 
