mical control-are alike used so frequently in or by man to conceal-not to express-his real sentiments.

It may or may not be true that, as Talleyrand says, 'language was given to us for the concealment of our thoughts.' But it is certainly abundantly true that man frequently makes use of words to pervert or obscure his real ideas or feelings. It is, however, a mere assumption, and an incorrect one, that in other animals there is always a transparency or intelligibility of motive, feeling, or thought -that he who runs may read' the ideas, the wants, or wishes of his dog, for instance.

In point of fact, as is pointed out in the chapter on 'Deception,' the language employed is not necessarily or always a key to the real emotions, desires, or designs of shrewd, cunning, ingenious animals. They are quite capable, for adequate reasons, of masking their real intentions of misrepresenting their real condition, so as constantly to deceive man himself and throw him off his guard.

Even among the most highly civilised races of man, and in the most highly educated individuals, the natural, universal language of emotion asserts itself as dominant over all other, conventional forms of language. Dr. Gustav Jäger refers, for instance, to the simple emotional cry produced by intense feeling, such as the fear of death (Büchner).

Let us ever remember that, among even civilised racesa. Different nations do not understand each others' language-spoken, written, and printed-without laborious study and incessant practice.

b. In the same people the written, printed, or spoken language of the educated is little, or not at all, understood by the uneducated classes; the language of the metaphysician or mathematician, theologian or poet, philosopher or man of science, is utterly unintelligible to the common run of the populace.

c. The application or use of mere spoken, written, and printed language is therefore very limited.

And on the other hand let us bear in mind that

d. The only form of language which is universal in man and intelligible among all races and peoples is that which

is common to other animals, and equally useful to them and to man. Laughter and weeping, the shout of joy, the cry of alarm, the groan of pain, or the other sounds, the looks, attitudes, gestures, or other signs whereby both man and animals express their feelings of body or mind-constitute a common or natural language, understood as a rule by all races, genera, and species.

The mental phenomena of deaf-mutism in the most highly civilised communities, in relation to man's modes of expressing his feelings and ideas, are most instructive. The congenitally deaf and dumb, in whom the dumbness is the natural result of the deafness, are ignorant of all ordinary written and spoken language;' but, nevertheless, they are quite capable of education to a high degree.

This instruction of the deaf-mute is conducted partly by gestures and signs, whereby is imparted a knowledge of things. In a church for deaf-mutes in New York, we are told, one service every Sunday is conducted in the language of signs.' Sounds, therefore, are not necessary to the communication of ideas; a circumstance that is shown, moreover, by the fact that it is a common thing for a man to teach himself to read a language though he cannot pronounce it' ('Chambers's Encyclopædia ').

Again, the expressiveness of attitude in man, in relation both to ideas and emotions, is well illustrated by the phenomena of braidism or hypnotism (Carpenter)—of what is commonly but erroneously described as animal magnetism, electro-biology, or mesmerism.

CHAPTER XII.

LANGUAGE IN OTHER ANIMALS.

IN contempt, pity, or ignorance-or perhaps under the influence of all these feelings or conditions-man is in the habit of designating the lower animals 'poor dumb creatures.' The fact is, however, that they possess a language much more comprehensive than, and quite as eloquent as, his ownmuch more generally intelligible than is his verbal language, which is merely one form of language or expression-that only with which he, in his pride and prejudice, is most familiar.

Certain animals are not absolutely unacquainted with verbal language-with speech-as is shown in another chapter; but they have a very affluent language of sound, look, and action, capable of expressing not only emotion but ideas or thoughts, plans or intentions, wishes or requirements. Houzeau points out the inferiority of the language of certain savages to that of various animals, and Darwin shows the superior expressiveness to mere words of the inarticulate cries, which, along with feature-play, eye or look language, and gesture or attitude, are common to man with other animals.

There is sometimes a superiority in eloquence in favour of the lower animals as regards the mode of expression of the same emotion-for instance, of love and humility in the dog.

Man falls into many grave or absurd errors from his ignorance of animal language, which language naturally becomes intelligible just in proportion as it is studied. He gives much pains in his youth to the study of the languages of ancient Greece or Rome, or of modern Germany and

France, and he finds too frequently, after long courses of serious effort, that his knowledge of them is very imperfect.

But it never appears to strike him as equally necessary, if he is to understand the language of the lower animals, that he must give a corresponding attention to its study. Even in our universities, or wherever-as in Germany-it is scientifically taught or studied, comparative philology includes only the spoken, written, and printed languages of man.

The very name philology is literally a fondness for wordsmere words--that is, for one form merely of the expression of feeling or thought. Comparative language, however, should obviously include all forms of expression, not those only that are vocal or that are represented by words. A chair or professorship of comparative language should exist in all our great universities, and due attention should be given to those rudimentary forms of expression that are common to other animals with man, and that are much more practically important than that limited form of language which is spoken, written, or printed.

As has been pointed out in the preceding chapter, even in man himself the latter form or forms of language do not always occur, while in such birds as the parrot very distinct speech and very appropriate remarks are occasionally exhibited or made. In a succeeding chapter it is shown that by mutual understanding of each other's language conversation becomes possible between man and his dog.

Man soon learns to understand the meaning or significance of the feature-changes, of the gestures, attitudes, or movements, of the vocal utterances, of other animals when it becomes his interest to do so-when, in order to their training, for instance, for this or that purpose of his own, he has to interpret their thoughts and feelings, gauge their tempers and temperament, form an estimate of their character or capabilities, ascertain the kind and amount of their intelligence. And similarly the dog, elephant, horse, and other animals, when a sufficient motive arises, and they have the necessary opportunity, speedily learn man's language-not the meaning of his looks and acts merely, but frequently of his words, phrases, and conversation.

Dog language is quite a study of itself, including the separate study of the

1. Language of the voice-bark, howl, whine, snarl, growl.

2. Language of the eye and look.

3. Language of the tail and ear.

4. Language of the general attitude-movement, aspect, or gesture.

Bird language-the language of song in birds-is another study by itself, and attention may well be separately given to the different modes of expression in particular groups, such as poultry, cage birds, and parrots. Ant language, again, is equally peculiar and interesting.

Nay, the different intonations of a single sound may prove quite a study of itself—for instance, the bark or howl of the dog, the mewing or caterwauling of the cat.

The diversity of language, or its forms, even in a single family, is sometimes very marked, as much so as it is in the various races of mankind. Thus among ants inhabiting a given locality there may be said to be different peoples, using a different language and occupying different ant-hills or nests, each people or tribe being as much distinguished by its language as by its territory or district (Houzeau).

The recent experiments of Professor Ferrier, according to his own interpretation of the phenomena, tend to show that human and animal language are identical-that the barking of the dog and mewing of the cat are the equivalents of speech in man, and that the faculty of language in man and other animals has virtually the same seat in the brain. He describes opening the mouth, putting out the tongue, and barking in the dog, mewing and spitting or hissing in the cat, as 'signs corresponding to speech.' But it needed not the experiment of the physiologist or the pathologist, or the research of the anatomist, to tell us that the dog's bark, the cat's mew, and the horse's neigh, as well as corresponding vocal expressions in other animals, are the analogues of speech or speaking in man.

Language in animals-whatever be its nature-is both (a) natural and (b) acquired. In the latter case it may be