« PreviousContinue »
SPEECH AS A BARRIER BETWEEN MAN AND BEAST.
IF we ask, Are irrational animals endowed with the powers of investigation ; its ability to stifle the voice faculty of speech ? we are met by three sections of ad- of instinct, not only for high good, but for base evil; vanced scientists at the very threshold of the discus- its strange, contradictory power of either looking sion. The skeptic is in doubt as to whether there is forward to a higher destiny in a Hereafter, or of any such distinction as the distinction between rational looking backword to the unclean Ape, as a near and irrational animals. The agnostic does not know- relative, without the faintest idea of ever associating and claims no one else can know-whether there is any with it, or trying to form it into a new political party. such distinction or not. The monistic philosopher, | Whereas the Anthropoid Apes are supposed to have Ernst Heinrich Haeckel, endeavors to prove in “Evo differentiated from common Apes, and finally into Men, lution of Man” that Reason, as a frontier post be | mostly by withdrawing themselves from association tween Man and Beast, is altogether untenable. Either with the coarser Apes, this human Reason is capable, we must take Reason in its narrow sense, argues ( in the case of Ernst Haeckel, of looking upon the Haeckel-and in that case it is lacking in most Men as Anthropoid Ape as a more suitable ancestor than a well as in the lower animals; or we must take it in its “God-like Adam,” and nevertheless develops into a broader and lower sense, in which case it is present in ) giant intellect of the nineteenth century. Man can such animals as the Horse, Elephant, Dog and Ape, as think as he sees fit about his relations with Apes and well as in the human species. Under such circum “other cattle," and yet remain Man; but if the stances it is evident that we cannot satisfactorily dis Anthropoid Apes had not gone off by themselves and cuss the question by beginning at either Reason or commenced to chatter and talk and get their heads toSpeech as a barrier between Man and Beast. If the gether, so the coarser Apes could not understand them, atheistic evolution or development theory has been they would never have differentiated ; and even Evoluestablished, there is no distinction or barrier between tion itself could never have changed them into even Man and Beast, except a mere matter of higher devel Bushmen, much less into the sagacious Lake-Dwellers opment in the former than in the latter. Beasts have of Switzerland, or the liberty-loving Mound-Builders of both Speech and Reason as well as Man has, and there these States. is no barrier here. Going still further down the scale . With these limitations as to the development of of organisms, we reach forms of life which have noth | human from brutal intelligence, we have no objections ing but skulless brain-bladders. The Mind in these to urge against a notable article in the Atlantic Monthly organisms cannot develop with its organ, the brain, for September, 1891, by Mr. E. P. Evans, on “Speech as for the brain has not yet differentiated in them. At a Barrier between Man and Beast." In reply to Max this point in the scale, at all events, development of Müller's dictum that “no animal has ever spoken,” Mind has not yet begun.
| Mr. E. P. Evans asserts that parrots and ravens utter We hold that atheistic evolution cannot stand, un- ) articulate sounds as distinctly as the average cockney, less it stands as an entirety. The question is not, Does and in most cases make quite as intelligent and edifyReason develop in connection with its organ, the brain ? | ing use of them for the expression of ideas. Again : as Haeckel discusses it; but does Reason develop « In the course of ages, and as the result of long procgradually all along the line from the undifferentiated esses of evolution and transformation, monkeys have Amoeba, up through skulless brain-bladders, and, learned to speak, but when they have acquired this finally, in connection with its organ, the brain, in the faculty we call them men.” higher Beasts and in Man? Was it Reason, or merely If we call them Men, instead of Monkeys, when they intelligence, which was developing, all along the line, have gained the power of speech, the question is, Do until Man came upon the scene? If it is Reason, as we, as it were, call them by their right name? Is it between Man and the higher Beasts, why not Reason, proper, scientific, to make the distinction ? If it is not, as between the primitive slime and Protomonas? then Man is not only descended from the unclean Ape,
If we begin to call it Reason, as distinct from intel- / but he is a shameless pretender, usurper and tyrant. ligence, anywhere in the line of development, why not He snatches from the monkey the priceless heritage begin at Man? Does not Man-even the Australian of speech, and hies him to cities and towns, leaving in Bushman-show an intelligence which even in its de- | the woods of barbarous countries the sagacious little gradation is quite distinct from the intelligence of animals which he has robbed—and which now, perthe Ape? Haeckel quotes with approval the lines of force, chatter and pine away, while Man takes com Goethe's “ Mephistopheles":
fort and enjoys even free speech. On the other hand,
if it is true that Man alone can justly lay claim to the " He calls it Reason, but thou see'st Its use but makes him beastlier than the beast."
power of speech, then, of course, speech is a barrier
between man and beast. Is it an insurmountable Instinct keeps the beast within the bounds of barrier ? According to Mr. E. P. Evans, when the nature, but reason conferred upon the Bushman, and Monkey speaks we call it Man. In this sense the upon others besides the Bushman, is a dangerous barrier of speech is an insurmountable barrier; where possession. It controls nature. Here is the dividing speech begins the beast ends. line. This is human Reason, with its almost limitless But does human speech develop from brutal speech?
Max Müller stops at roots or “phonetic cells" as "ul- | so far as language is concerned, we cannot oppose Mr. timate facts in the analysis of language,' and virtually Darwin's argument, and that Man has, or at least may says to the philologist, “ Thus far shalt thou go, and have been, developed from some lower animal.”. no further, and here shall thy researches be stayed." Mr. Evans replies that according to the theory of “The scholar,” he declares, “begins and ends with evolution the language of animals has not yet reached these phonetic types; or, if he ignores them, and the root stage and never can reach it; for it would traces words back to the cries of animals or to the in- | then become articulate speech, and be no longer the terjections of men, he does so at his peril. The philos- | language of animals, but the language of Man. But opher goes beyond, and he discovers in the line which this is surely no evidence or indication that one may separates rational from emotional language, concept- | not grow out of the other; on the contrary, it rather ual from intuitional knowledge-in the roots of lan- | suggests the possibility of such growth and developguage he discovers the true barrier between Man and ment. Beast.”
We cannot be certain, however, that animals may Replying to this argument, Mr. Evans declares not have general concepts. When a dog, in eager purthat the philologist, who recognizes in the roots of suit of some object, yelps, ak-ak, how do we know that language the Ultima Thule beyond which he dare not this sharp utterance, which expresses the strong and push his investigations, confesses thereby his incom impatient desire of the dog to overtake the object, may petency to solve the problem of the origin of language, not stand in the canine mind for the general concept and must resign this field of inquiry to the zoöpsychol of quickness? It is used in pursuing all animals and ogist, who, freeing himself from the trammels and inanimate things—bird, hare, squirrel, stick or stoneillusions of metaphysics, seeks to find a firm basis for and cannot therefore denote any single one of them, his science in the strict and systematic study of facts. but must have a general signification. For aught we Imagine the folly of the physiologist who should say know, the language of animals may be made up of unto his fellow-scientists : “In your researches you must developed roots vaguely expressive of general conbegin and end with cells. If, in studying organic cepts, or may even contain derivative sounds. structures, you go back of cells and endeavor to dis- Mr. Darwin asserted that, since becoming domesticover the laws underlying their origin, you do so at cated, the dog has learned to bark in as many as five your peril. Beware of the dangerous seductions of or six distinct tones : eagerness, as in the chase; ancytoblast and cytogenesis and treacherous quagmires ger, as well as growling ; the yelp or howl of despair, of protoplasm."
when shut up; the baying at night; the bark of joy, In this, Mr. E. P. Evans presumes that the “ origin when starting on a walk with his master; and the of cells” has been clearly traced. If there is good ad very distinct one of demand or supplication, as when vice to be found anywhere on the subject of the shad- wishing for a door or window to be opened. owy development and spontaneous generation which Says Mr. E. P. Evans: “This variety of tones, precedes the cell in atheistic evolution, that advice expressing different desires and emotions in an animal would be, Do not say you understand how primitive that, in its wild state, could not bark at all, marks a slime in the bottom of the primordial sea ever became very considerable advance in the power of vocal uttera thing of life and a cell-unless you do understand it. | ance as the result of association with man." Unless you see that such might have been the fact, do In closing this very curious and highly entertaining not say that you so see. If the tracing of the roots of | article, Mr. Evans thinks it would be superfluous to human language from the roots of brutal language is multiply instances of the capability of understanding to depend on anything like the arguments adduced by articulate speech manifested by monkeys, horses, dogs, Haeckel in his attempt to make cells out of primitive cats, elephants, birds, and other animals that acquire slime, then indeed do the roots of monkey language this power, as children do, through the ear and by the need careful mulching for a few more winters.
exercise of attention. They also show a nice discrimBut Mr. Evans admits it is only natural that the ination in distinguishing between words similar in philologist should think thus, being so absorbed in the sound. A parrot or a raven masters a new sentence laws which govern the transmutation of words that he by repeating it, and working at it, just as a schoolcomes to regard these metamorphoses as finalities, and boy solves a hard problem. These birds associate never goes behind and beyond them. We must look, sounds with objects, and thus invent names for them. therefore, not to comparative philology, but to com Every dog is a “bow-wow," and every cat a “miauparative psychology, for the discovery of the origin of miau.” The denotive term has an onomato-poetic language. Philology has to do with the growth and origin, and by the process of generalization is applied development of speech out of roots, which are assumed to all animals of the species; it is not necessary that to be ultimate and unanalyzable elements, like the the parrot should have heard each individual dog bark purely hypothetical particles which the physicist calls or cat mew before giving it its appropriate name. A atoms; but as to the nature and genesis of roots them- raven belonging to Gotthard Heidegger, a clergyman selves the philologist of to-day is as puzzled and per and rector of the gymnasium in Zürich, was constantly plexed as was the old Vedic poet, when, in the presence picking up words dropped in general conversation, and of the universe and its mysterious generation, he could using them afterward in the most surprising manner. only utter the pathetic and helpless cry, “Who, indeed, Even animals whose laryngeal apparatus is not knows, who can declare, whence it sprang, whence this structurally adapted to the production of articulate evolution ?”
sounds may be taught to utter them. Leibnitz men“Show me only one root in the language of ani tions a dog which had learned to pronounce thirty mals,” says Max Müller, “such as ak, to be sharp and words distinctly. In the Dumfries Journal of January, quick, and from it two derivatives, as asva, the quick | 1829, an account is given of a dog which called out one—the horse—and acutus, sharp or quick-witted ; “ William” so as to be clearly understood ; and Mr. nay, show me one animal that has the power of form- Romanes cites the case of an English terrier which had ing roots, that can put one and two together, and been taught to say, “How are you, grandmam?” realize the simplest dual concept; show me one animal | The careful and systematic experiments now being that can think and say 'two,' and I should say that, made in this direction by Professor A. Graham Bell SPEECH AS A BARRIER BETWEEN MAN AND BEAST.
and other scientists are exceedingly interesting, and Man's Place in Nature' from the 'only' Huxley. may lead to important results.
He will then entertain a fellow-feeling for the Ape In view of these facts, it is evident that the barrier | as an unfortunate, poor relation who was left behind between human and animal intelligence, once deemed in 'natural selection or the struggle for existence, impassable, is becoming more and more imperceptible, etc., even more so than for a next-door neighbor who and with the rapid progress of zoöpsychological re lacks force of character and general organic strength, search will soon disappear altogether. “When we re because of certain habits and traits in his parents. member,” says Professor Sayce, “the inarticulate Your child should be trained to point with pride to an clicks which still form part of the Bushman's lan- | ambitious, go-ahead Ape-Man from which came chilguage, it would seem as if no line of division could be dren who could build a fire and others which hung head drawn between Man and Beast, even when language downward from a tree by their tails and are doing it is made the test.” Apes make use of similar clicks yet-to amuse some attractive female Ape. for a like purpose, and these sounds are doubtless sur “It is far nobler to have such an ancestor, who had vivals of speech before it became distinctively articulate. I | two kinds of children, some with erect mien, who broke
Whatever may be the value of the facts presented the old Man-Ape's heart by their insubordination, arby Mr. Evans, it cannot be disputed that the whole rogance and strange, outlandish, articulate chattering theory of atheistic evolution has one apparently insur -this is the crowd you and your child are descended mountable barrier to overcome before it can be gen from-and others, whe were only collateral relatives erally accepted by the great majority of men. This to your child and you, and who stayed with their probarrier Haeckel calls “human arrogance.” Man's in genitor, comforted his declining years by making him stinctive dislike to be told that he is the same-only a eat at the second table, if he could find anything, and little different, owing to adaptation as the Ape that finally let him die and rot on top of the ground to save grins at him in the menagerie and pays no taxes; and funeral expenses. It is far nobler, we monists say, to that Man's mind, “the human reason” which evolu have such a versatile, though badly used ancestor, tionists are wont to ridicule, does not separate him than to be descended from a God-like Adam, whom the from the American Ape with the flat nose that claims black International,' and the rest of the churches tell relationship with the Mound-Builders, nor from the you about, for the sole purpose of getting your money, foreign Ape with the up-and-down nose, that used to tickling your vanity and keeping you in ecclesiastical throw cocoanuts, worth ten cents each, at English | leading strings. Bear in mind, now, we do not say sailors, to keep the sailors from climbing the trees to that Man is descended from the Ape. In fact, we hold get them: this instinctive dislike is called “human that these low-down, flat-nosed, long-tailed American arrogance.” Haeckel avers that this prejudice is very Apes are not in any way connected with Man's deunbecoming in people who sometimes lay claim to a scent, and only very slightly, as a mere offshoot, with proper and highly becoming humility of spirit.
| man's pedigree. What we say and can easily prove, We propose to show, among other things, that in if you will just bear in mind the natural descent of this Haeckel, and all who believe as he does, are turn Man from the lower animal, is this: That Men and ing traitor to their own species. If the struggle for Apes are both descended from the same parent; that existence and progress among organisms are at work this same parent form is probably extinct; that if it among all living beings, let us think we are not related is not, we will probably find him somewhere in Africa to the Ape and such cattle, even if we are. Was it or Asia. It or he is either black, yellow or brown; not such arrogance as this, according to evolution, that either Mongolian, Malay or Ethiopian. The real Apes caused a few choice Apes to go off by themselves as a that you and your little boy are descended from never select set and develop into Men-Apes, then into Ape- came to America until they became Men.” Men, and, finally, to drop the ape from their family Exciting prejudice against the development theory name altogether? Did not this arrogance in the course is entirely uncalled for, as intense prejudice against it of time cause them to go in out of the rain and cold already exists. We distinctly disclaim any attempt to and heat, so that they eventually shed their hair, for do so in asking the reader to take monism home to himthe most part? What caused them to get their heads self, especially the “ Ape Question." The argument together and talk, instead of chattering, so that the that the foregoing enforces and illustrates is this : “cawser" Apes could not know what they were saying Adaptation is one of the mechanical causes of athe
-if it was not arrogance ? Could anything but arro istic evolution. In this a prominent factor is a sense gance impel them to make flint arrowheads with which of superiority, pride, arrogance, on the part of indito kill the cave-bear for a grand reception dinner of the viduals of a species who are about to change their select set, instead of climbing a tree to get away from habits of life, to submit to the mechanical cause or law Bruin? Mere'humility of spirit” and knowing“Man's of adaptation to develop, as man is said to have done, Place in Nature” as well as a disciple of Huxley says from the Ape-Man parent form. This is a fixed and he does, would have caused the bottom to drop out of unalterable law; it is necessary, this causal connection the whole enterprise; and the other Apes would have between a sense of superiority, pride and arrogance, the laugh on the select few, who had great expectations and the change in the habits of life. If that sense of and absurd pretensions without the ability to realize on superiority was necessary as between Ape-Men and them.
other Ape-Men-the sense of superiority on the part of Huxley's Law gives, in substance, the following ac Man toward Apes—the customary "arrogance" is count of the “Place in Nature" occupied, for exam much more necessary, and Man cannot think that he is ple, by your baby boy, one year old, in whom neither allied to Apes. The atheistic evolutionists are men. reason nor speech has yet awakened: “Your child Therefore they cannot think that their views on the is less above the Ape of the future, and perhaps of Ape Question are anything but arrant nonsense. Their the present, than a human of the future, or perhaps readers are Men, therefore they cannot think what of the present, is above him. This child may be these monistic books try to prove. As between Men, nearer to the Ape in every essential characteristic those individuals compelled, by atheistic evolution, to than he is to a highly-developed buman. When your rise not at all or very slo vly above their present conchild is old enough to study, let him first learn dition, cannot think themselves equal to those above
of present, thehe Ape
them; and those who are compelled to rise cannot but to a country where Apes and Ape-Men did not intrude look down upon their weaker brethren. This last is a to remind the emigrants of their discreditable pedidistinction within the species; the other is a distinction gree; add Heredity and Adaptation and the Struggle between one species and another. Finally, what the for Existence; contemplate the weeding out of the human mind cannot think-but must think the con ne'er-do-weels; bring Natural Selection upon the scene, trary-is not true. Therefore, by the atheistic evolu- | whereby male and female of the weaker class, and of tionist's own laws, and according to his necessary con- l others more worthy, are snubbed and jilted and swinnection between cause and effect, Man is not descended dled out of their property and given over to dishonest from, nor allied to, the Ape nor an Ape-Man form. guardians, executors, administrators and assigns, and
In this we are grasping a really vital point, if con allowed to die bachelors and old maids; let this connection between cause and effect everywhere is neces tinue among the emigrants for a few thousand years, sary, inevitable. When Man differentiated from Ape and we will show you a race under the control of the Men, as the latter had previously differentiated from fixed and unalterable laws of Heredity and Adaptation Apes, it was necessary that the “progressive element,” to such an extent that they cannot think themselves tbe “only ” Men in the one case, and the “only" Ape- allied to Apes or Ape-Men. And what the human Men in the other, should consider themselves, after a mind cannot think-but must think the contrary-is few generations, as entirely distinct from Apes in the false. At all events, why waste ime and talents tryone case and Ape-Men in the other. Now, instead of ing to make the human species think that, the cona few generations, give us an epoch, or even an age, or trary of which the “ only " evolution theory compels a few thousand years; then give us a general migration us to think?
TABLE OF DIVISIONS OF THE ARYAN LANGUAGES.
THE English language-the offspring of the Anglo-Saxon-is one of the Low German dialects which form part of the Teutonic branch of the Indo-European or Aryan languages. The Aryan languages may be divided into six principal branches :
VL • INDIAN,
TEOTONIC. SLAVONIC. The Teutonic branch is divided into three classes, the Low German, High German and Scandina vian :
L Gadhelic or Erse.
Grimm's Law OF THE INTERCHANGE OF CONSONANT SOUNDS.
THE evidence that the group of languages known as closed but that a thin stream of breath continues to the Aryan languages form a family—that is, are all escape with the sound of a whisper. Hence the name sister-dialects of one common mother-tongue-consists aspirate given to such articulations. Now, interin their grammatical forms being the same, and in their changes do take place between members of these having a great many words in common. In judging | vertical series—that is, one sharp takes the place of whether an individual word in one of these tongues is another, as in Welsh, pen; Gaelic, kin; or in Rusreally the saine with a word in another of the tongues, sian, Feodor for Theodore. Such instances, however, we are no longer guided by mere similarity of sound; are comparatively rare and sporadic. It is between on the contrary, identity of sound is generally a pre members of the horizontal orders that interchanges sumption that a proposed etymology is wrong. Words chiefly take place that is, labials with labials, dentals are constantly undergoing change, and each language with dentals, etc.; and it is with these interchanges follows its own fashion in making those changes. Cor that Grimm's Law deals. responding words, therefore, in the several languages The substance of the Law may be presented in a must, as a rule, in the long course of ages have come tabular form, as follows: to differ greatly; and these differences follow certain laws which it is possible to ascertain. Unless, then, a
(1) Classical ........, Sharp. Flat. Aspirate. (2) Low German.....Aspirate.
Flat. proposed identification accord with those laws, it is in
(3) High German....Flat. Aspirate. Sharp. admissible. We are not at liberty to suppose any arbitrary omission of a letter, or substitution of one let The table may be thus read : A classical sharp labial, ter for another, as was the fashion in the old guessing as p, is represented in Low German by the aspirate school of etymology.
labial f, and in High German by the flat labial b; and Of the laws of interchange of sounds in the Indo so of the other orders. European family, the most important is that known as Griinm's Law, so called after the famous German phi
EXAMPLES lologist who investigated it. It exhibits the relations
(A) INTERCHANGE OF LABIALS.
0. H. GERMAN. sical, including Sanskrit, Greek and Latin; (2) Low
Sans., Gr., L. pater.. E. father, Goth. fadrs vatar.
Gr. pteron (peteron).. E. feather........... vedar, Ger. feder. German, which we may take Gothic and English as L. pulex............
E. flea, Scot. flech...
vlo, Ger. floh. representing ; (3) High German, especially Old High
A.S. reaf, E. reave.... roub.
hanaf, Ger. hanf. German, in which the Law is more consistently carried
L. fra(n)go........ E. break, Goth, brikan prechan, Ger. brechen out than in modern High German.
Gr. phu, L. fu..... E. be.................. Ipim (1 am). The scope of the Law is confined to the interchanges
(B) INTERCHANGE OF LINGUO-DENTALS. among the following consonant sounds, which are here
L. tenuis.............. E. thin................ | dunni, Ger. dünn. arranged so as to show their relations to one another:
E. thatch, Goth. thak.
Gr. odont, L. dent.... E. tooth, Goth. | zand, Ger. zahn. Sharp. Flat. Aspirato
th (2) ntal ........t
Gr. thugater.......... E. daughter, Goth.
Gr. ther, L. fera ...... | E. deer................ I tior. The horizontal division into three orders depends on
(C) INTERCHANGE OF GUTTURALS the organ chiefly used in the utterance. The differ
L. claudus............ | E. halt
halz. ences between the vertical series are more easily felt Gr. kard. L. cord..... E. heart...
herza. than described. Pronounce first ip and then ib; in the L. octo................
E. eight, Goth. ahtan. ahte, Ger. acht. Gr. gonu.....
| E. knee.............. first the lips are completely closed, and the sound or
chnio. L. ager.............
E. acre, Goth. akrs... achar, Ger. acker. voice from the larynx abruptly cut off. In the second Gr. chen, L. anser E. goose...............
kans, Ger. gans. the lips are also completely shut, but a muffled voice is
L. hortus...... | E. garden, Goth. gards I karto, Ger. garten. continued for a moment; it is produced by the vocal chords being still kept in a state of tension, and the It will be observed that there are a good many exbreath continuing to issue through them into the cavity ceptions to the Law, especially in the case of the of the mouth for a brief space after the lips are closed. aspirates; the influence of adjoining letters often Next pronounce if ; in this, although the voice-sound causes anomalies. The Law holds good oftenest in abruptly ceases, the lip-aperture is not so completely the beginning of words.