essays on life, art and science-第19章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


is　the　same　thing；　about　reason；　we　shall　not　find　the　want　of　an
academic　definition　hinder　us　from　a　reasonable　conclusion。　　What
nurse　or　mother　will　doubt　that　her　infant　child　can　reason　within
the　limits　of　its　own　experience；　long　before　it　can　formulate　its
reason　in　articulately　worded　thought？　　If　the　development　of　any
given　animal　is；　as　our　opponents　themselves　admit；　an　epitome　of
the　history　of　its　whole　anterior　development；　surely　the　fact　that
speech　is　an　accomplishment　acquired　after　birth　so　artificially
that　children　who　have　gone　wild　in　the　woods　lose　it　if　they　have
ever　learned　it；　points　to　the　conclusion　that　man's　ancestors　only
learned　to　express　themselves　in　articulate　language　at　a
comparatively　recent　period。　　Granted　that　they　learn　to　think　and
reason　continually　the　more　and　more　fully　for　having　done　so；　will
common　sense　permit　us　to　suppose　that　they　could　neither　think　nor
reason　at　all　till　they　could　convey　their　ideas　in　words？

I　will　return　later　to　the　reason　of　the　lower　animals；　but　will　now
deal　with　the　question　what　it　is　that　constitutes　language　in　the
most　comprehensive　sense　that　can　be　properly　attached　to　it。　　I
have　said　already　that　language　to　be　language　at　all　must　not　only
convey　fairly　definite　coherent　ideas；　but　must　also　convey　them　to
another　living　being。　　Whenever　two　living　beings　have　conveyed　and
received　ideas；　there　has　been　language；　whether　looks　or　gestures
or　words　spoken　or　written　have　been　the　vehicle　by　means　of　which
the　ideas　have　travelled。　　Some　ideas　crawl；　some　run；　some　fly；　and
in　this　case　words　are　the　wings　they　fly　with；　but　they　are　only
the　wings　of　thought　or　of　ideas；　they　are　not　the　thought　or　ideas
themselves；　nor　yet；　as　Professor　Max　Muller　would　have　it；
inseparably　connected　with　them。　　Last　summer　I　was　at　an　inn　in
Sicily；　where　there　was　a　deaf　and　dumb　waiter；　he　had　been　born　so；
and　could　neither　write　nor　read。　　What　had　he　to　do　with　words　or
words　with　him？　　Are　we　to　say；　then；　that　this　most　active；　amiable
and　intelligent　fellow　could　neither　think　nor　reason？　　One　day　I
had　had　my　dinner　and　had　left　the　hotel。　　A　friend　came　in；　and　the
waiter　saw　him　look　for　me　in　the　place　I　generally　occupied。　　He
instantly　came　up　to　my　friend；　and　moved　his　two　forefingers　in　a
way　that　suggested　two　people　going　about　together；　this　meant　〃your
friend〃；　he　then　moved　his　forefingers　horizontally　across　his　eyes；
this　meant；　〃who　wears　divided　spectacles〃；　he　made　two　fierce　marks
over　the　sockets　of　his　eyes；　this　meant；　〃with　the　heavy　eyebrows〃；
he　pulled　his　chin；　and　then　touched　his　white　shirt；　to　say　that　my
beard　was　white。　　Having　thus　identified　me　as　a　friend　of　the
person　he　was　speaking　to；　and　as　having　a　white　beard；　heavy
eyebrows；　and　wearing　divided　spectacles；　he　made　a　munching
movement　with　his　jaws　to　say　that　I　had　had　my　dinner；　and　finally；
by　making　two　fingers　imitate　walking　on　the　table；　he　explained
that　I　had　gone　away。　　My　friend；　however；　wanted　to　know　how　long　I
had　been　gone；　so　he　pulled　out　his　watch　and　looked　inquiringly。
The　man　at　once　slapped　himself　on　the　back；　and　held　up　the　five
fingers　of　one　hand；　to　say　it　was　five　minutes　ago。　　All　this　was
done　as　rapidly　as　though　it　had　been　said　in　words；　and　my　friend；
who　knew　the　man　well；　understood　without　a　moment's　hesitation。
Are　we　to　say　that　this　man　had　no　thought；　nor　reason；　nor
language；　merely　because　he　had　not　a　single　word　of　any　kind　in　his
head；　which　I　am　assured　he　had　not；　for；　as　I　have　said；　he　could
not　speak　with　his　fingers？　　Is　it　possible　to　deny　that　a　dialogue…
…an　intelligent　conversationhad　passed　between　the　two　men？　　And
if　conversation；　then　surely　it　is　technical　and　pedantic　to　deny
that　all　the　essential　elements　of　language　were　present。　　The　signs
and　tokens　used　by　this　poor　fellow　were　as　rude　an　instrument　of
expression；　in　comparison　with　ordinary　language；　as　going　on　one's
hands　and　knees　is　in　comparison　with　walking；　or　as　walking
compared　with　going　by　train；　but　it　is　as　great　an　abuse　of　words
to　limit　the　word　〃language〃　to　mere　words　written　or　spoken；　as　it
would　be　to　limit　the　idea　of　a　locomotive　to　a　railway　engine。
This　may　indeed　pass　in　ordinary　conversation；　where　so　much　must　be
suppressed　if　talk　is　to　be　got　through　at　all；　but　it　is
intolerable　when　we　are　inquiring　about　the　relations　between
thought　and　words。　　To　do　so　is　to　let　words　become　as　it　were　the
masters　of　thought；　on　the　ground　that　the　fact　of　their　being　only
its　servants　and　appendages　is　so　obvious　that　it　is　generally
allowed　to　go　without　saying。

If　all　that　Professor　Max　Muller　means　to　say　is；　that　no　animal　but
man　commands　an　articulate　language；　with　verbs　and　nouns；　or　is
ever　likely　to　command　one　（and　I　question　whether　in　reality　he
means　much　more　than　this）；　no　one　will　differ　from　him。　　No　dog　or
elephant　has　one　word　for　bread；　another　for　meat；　and　another　for
water。　　Yet；　when　we　watch　a　cat　or　dog　dreaming；　as　they　often
evidently　do；　can　we　doubt　that　the　dream　is　accompanied　by　a　mental
image　of　the　thing　that　is　dreamed　of；　much　like　what　we　experience
in　dreams　ourselves；　and　much　doubtless　like　the　mental　images　which
must　have　passed　through　the　mind　of　my　deaf　and　dumb　waiter？　　If
they　have　mental　images　in　sleep；　can　we　doubt　that　waking；　also；
they　picture　things　before　their　mind's　eyes；　and　see　them　much　as
we　dotoo　vaguely　indeed　to　admit　of　our　thinking　that　we　actually
see　the　objects　themselves；　but　definitely　enough　for　us　to　be　able
to　recognise　the　idea　or　object　of　which　we　are　thinking；　and　to
connect　it　with　any　other　idea；　object；　or　sign　that　we　may　think
appropriate？

Here　we　have　touched　on　the　second　essential　element　of　language。
We　laid　it　down；　that　its　essence　lay　in　the　communication　of　an
idea　from　one　intelligent　being　to　another；　but　no　ideas　can　be
communicated　at　all　except　by　the　aid　of　conventions　to　which　both
parties　have　agreed　to　attach　an　identical　meaning。　　The　agreement
may　be　very　informal；　and　may　pass　so　unconsciously　from　one
generation　to　another　that　its　existence　can　only　be　recognised　by
the　aid　of　much　introspection；　but　it　will　be　always　there。　　A
sayer；　a　sayee；　and　a　convention；　no　matter　what；　agreed　upon
between　them　as　inseparably　attached　to　the　idea　which　it　is
intended　to　conveythese　comprise　all　the　essentials　of　language。
Where　these　are　present　there　is　language；　where　any　of　them　are
wanting　there　is　no　language。　　It　is　not　necessary　for　the　sayee　to
be　able　to　speak　and　become　a　sayer。　　If　he　comprehends　the　sayer
that　is　to　say；　if　he　attaches　the　same　meaning　to　a　certain　symbol
as　the　sayer　doesif　he　is　a　party　to　the　bargain　whereby　it　is
agreed　upon　by　both　that　any　given　symbol　shall　be　attached
invariably　to　a　certain　idea；　so　that　in　virtue　of　the　principle　of
associated　ideas　the　symbol　shall　never　be　present　without
immediately　carrying　the　idea　along　with　it；　then　all　the　essentials
of　language　are　complied　with；　and　there　has　been　true　speech　though
never　a　word　was　spoken。

The　lower　animals；　therefore；　many　of　them；　possess　a　part　of　our
own　language；　though　they　cannot　speak　it；　and　hence　do　not　possess
it　so　fully　as　we　do。　　They　cannot　say　〃bread；〃　〃meat；〃　or　〃water；〃
but　there　are　many　that　readily　learn　what　ideas　they　ought　to
attach　to　these　symbols　when　they　are　presented　to　them。　　It　is　idle
to　say　that　a　cat　does　not　know　what　the　cat's…meat　man　means　when
he　says　〃meat。〃　　The　cat　knows　just　as　well；　neither　better　nor
worse　than　the　cat's…meat　man　does；　and　a　great　deal　better　than　I
myself　understand　much　that　is　said　by　some　very　clever　people　at
Oxford　or　Cambridge。　　There　is　more　true　employment　of　language；
more　bona　fide　currency　of　speech；　between　a　sayer　and　a　sayee　who
understand　each　other；　though　neither　of　them　can　speak　a　word；　than
between　a　sayer　who　can　speak　with　the　tongues　of　men　and　of　angels
without　being　clear　about　his　own　meaning；　and　a　sayee　who　can
himself　utter　the　same　words；　but　who　is　only　in　imperfect　agreement
with　the　sayer　as　to　the　ideas　which　the　words　or　symbols　that　he
utters　are　intended　to　convey。　　The　nature　of　the　symbols　counts　for
nothing；　the　gist　of　the　matter　is　in　the　perfect　harmony　between
sayer　and　sayee　as　to　the　significance　that　is　to　be　associated　with
them。

Professor　Max　Muller　admits　that　we　share　with　the　lower　animals
what　he　calls　an　emotional　language；　and　continues　that　we　may　call
their　interjections　and　imitations　language　if　we　like；　as　we　speak
of　the　language　of　the　eyes　or　the　eloquence　of　mute　nature；　but　he
warns　us　against　mistaking　metaphor　for　fact。　　It　is　indeed　mere
metaphor　to　talk　of　the　eloquence　of　mute　nature；　or　the　language　of
winds　and　waves。　　There　is　no　intercommunion　of　mind　with　mind　by
means　of　a　covenanted　symbol；　but　it　is　only　an　apparent；　not　a
real；　metaphor　to　say　that　two　pairs　of　eyes　have　spoken　when　they
have　signalled　to　one　another　something　which　they　both　understand。
A　schoolboy　at　home　for　the　holidays　wants　another　plate　of　pudding；
and　does　not　like　to　apply　officially　for　more。　　He　catches　the
servant's　eye　and　looks　at　the　pudding；　the　servant　understands；
takes　his　plate　without　a　word；　and　gets　him　some。　　Is　it　metaphor
to　say　that　the　boy　asked　the　servant　to　do　this；　or　is　it　not
rather　pedantry　to　insist　on　the　letter　of　a　bond　and　deny　its
spirit；　by　denying　that　language　passed；　on　the　ground　that　the
symbols　covenanted　upon　and　assented　to　by　both　were　uttered　and
received　by　eyes　and　not　by　mouth　and　ears？　　When　the　lady　drank　to
the　gentleman　only　with　her　eyes；　and　he　pledged　with　his；　was　there
no　conversation　because　there　was　neither　noun　nor　verb？　　Eyes　are
verbs；　and　glasses　of　wine　are　good　nouns　enough　as　between　those
who　understand　one　another。　　Whether　the　ideas　underlying　them　are
expressed　and　conveyed　by　eyeage　or　by　tonguage　is　a　detail　that
matters　nothing。

But　everything　we　say　is　metaphorical　if　we　choose　to　be　captious。
Scratch　the　simplest　expressions；　and　you　will　find　the　metaphor。
Written　words　are　handage；　inkage　and　paperage；　it　is　only　by
metaphor；　or　substitution　and　transposition　of　ideas；　that　we　can
call　them　language。　　They　are　indeed　potential　language；　and　the
symbols　employed　presuppose　nouns；　verbs；　and　the　other　parts　of
speech；　but　for　the　most　part　it　is　in　what　we　read　between　the
lines　that　the　profounder　meaning　of　any　letter　is　conveyed。　　There
are　words　unwritten　and　untranslatable　into　any　nouns　that　are
nevertheless　felt　as　above；　about　and　underneath　the　gross　material
symbols　that　lie　scrawled　upon　the　paper；　and　the　deeper　the　feeling
with　which　anything　is　written　the　more　pregnant　will　it　be　of
meaning　which　can　be　conveyed　securely　enough；　but　which　loses
rather　than　gains　if　it　is　squeezed　into　a　sentence；　and　limited　by
the　parts　of　speech。　　The　language　is　not　in　the　words　but　in　the
heart…to…heartness　of　the　thing；　which　is　helped　by　words；　but　is
nearer　and　farther　than　they。　　A　correspondent　wrote　to　me　once；
many　years　ago；　〃If　I　could　think　to　you　withou