| By Author | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Title | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Language |
|
Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ] Look for this book on Amazon Tweet |
Title: The Speech of Monkeys
Author: Garner, Richard Lynch, 1848-1920
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Speech of Monkeys" ***
THE
SPEECH OF MONKEYS
Heinemann's Scientific Handbooks.
_Each Volume Crown 8vo, Uniformly Bound and Illustrated._
=MANUAL OF ASSAYING GOLD, SILVER, COPPER, AND LEAD ORES.= By WALTER LEE
BROWN, B.Sc. Revised, Corrected, and considerably Enlarged, with a
chapter on the Assaying of Fuel, &c. By A. B. GRIFFITHS, Ph.D., F.R.S.
(Edin.), F.C.S. 7s. 6d.
_Financial World._--"The most complete and practical manual on
everything which concerns assaying of all which have come before
us."
=GEODESY.= By J. HOWARD GORE. 5s.
_Science Gossip._--"It is the best we could recommend to all
geodetic students. It is full and clear, thoroughly accurate,
and up to date in all matters of earth-measurements."
=THE PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF GASES.= By ARTHUR L. KIMBALL. 5s.
_Chemical News._--"The man of culture who wishes for a general
and accurate acquaintance with the physical properties of gases,
will find in Mr. Kimball's work just what he requires."
=HEAT AS A FORM OF ENERGY.= BY R. H. THURSTON. 5s.
_Journal of Microscopy and Natural Science._--"The author
presents in popular language an outline of the growth of our
modern philosophy of the form of energy known as heat."
=A MANUAL OF BACTERIOLOGY.= By A. B. GRIFFITHS, Ph.D., F.R.S.
(Edin.), F.C.S.
[_In the Press._
LONDON:
WILLIAM HEINEMANN,
21 BEDFORD STREET, W.C.
THE
SPEECH OF MONKEYS
BY
R. L. GARNER
LONDON
WILLIAM HEINEMANN
1892
[_All rights reserved_]
* * * * *
_To_
_MY DEVOTED WIFE_
_Whose zeal for my success is the light which guides me along the
highway of my labours, and to those earnest friends, Mr. Walter S.
Logan, Judge Charles P. Daly, Mr. James Muhlenberg Bailey, Mr. Samuel S.
McClure, Hon. O. B. Potter, Dr. Alexander Melville Bell, Hon. John Hay,
Professor S. E. Tillman, Mrs. Henry Draper, Mr. J. V. V. Booream, Mr. G.
Hilton Scribner, and Mr. B. Schlesinger, who have opened their purse as
they opened their hearts, and afforded me that aid which made it
possible for me to continue my researches. With them I shall gladly
share the glory of all that my efforts may achieve, and to them, with
profound and affectionate gratitude, this first contribution to Science
on this subject is justly dedicated by_
_THE AUTHOR._
* * * * *
PREFACE
I desire here to express my gratitude to _The New Review_, _The North
American Review_, _The Cosmopolitan_, _The Forum_, and many of the
leading journals of America, for the use of their valuable and popular
pages through which my work has been given to the public. To the press,
English and American, I gladly pay my tribute of thanks for the liberal
discussion, candid criticism, and kind consideration which they have
bestowed upon my efforts to solve the great problem of speech.
In contributing to Science this mite, I do not mean to intimate that my
task has been completed, for I am aware that I have only begun to
explore the field through which we may hope to pass beyond the confines
of our own realm and invade the lower spheres of life.
This volume is intended as a record of my work, and a voluntary report
of my progress, to let the world know with what results my labours have
been rewarded, and with the hope that it may be the means of inducing
others to pursue like investigations.
In prosecuting my studies I have had no precedents to guide me, no
literature to consult, and no landmarks by which to steer my course. I
have, therefore, been compelled to find my own means, suggest my own
experiments, and solve my own problems. Not a line on this subject is to
be found in all the literature of the world, and yet the results which I
have obtained have far surpassed my highest hopes. Considering the
difficulties under which I have been compelled to work, I have been
rewarded with results for which I dared not hope, and this inspires me
to believe that my success will meet my highest wishes when I am placed
in touch with such subjects as I expect to find in the forests of
Tropical Africa.
Only a few of my experiments are recorded in this volume, but as they
illustrate my methods and set forth the results, they will serve to
show, in a measure, the scope of my work.
In the latter part of this work will be found a definition of the word
Speech as I have used it, and the deductions which I have made from my
experiments. I have not ventured into any extreme theories, either to
confirm or controvert the opinions of others, but simply commit to the
world these initial facts, and the working hypotheses upon which I have
proceeded to obtain them.
In Chapter XXI. I have mentioned the particular characteristics which
mark the sound of monkeys as speech, and distinguish them from mere
automatic sounds.
With all the gravity of sincere conviction I commit this volume to the
friends of Science as the first contribution upon this subject.
R. L. GARNER.
NEW YORK, _June 1, 1892_.
CONTENTS
CHAPTER I. PAGE
Early Impressions--First Observations of Monkeys--First Efforts
to Learn their Speech--Barriers--The Phonograph Used--A Visit to
Jokes--My Efforts to Speak to Him--The Sound of Alarm Inspires
Terror
1
CHAPTER II.
The Reconciliation--The Acquaintance of Jennie--The
Salutation--The Words for Food and Drink--Little Banquo, Dago,
McGinty, and others
14
CHAPTER III.
Monkeys have favourite Colours--Can distinguish Numbers and
Quantity--Music and Art very limited
24
CHAPTER IV.
Pedro's Speech Recorded--Delivered to Puck through the
Phonograph--Little Darwin learns a new Word
34
CHAPTER V.
Five little Brown Cousins: Mickie, Nemo, Dodo, Nigger, and
McGinty--Nemo apologises to Dodo
47
CHAPTER VI.
Dago Talks about the Weather--Tells me of his Troubles--Dodo in
the "Balcony Scene"--Her Portrait by a great Artist
59
CHAPTER VII.
Interpretation of Words--Specific Words and Signs--The Negative
Sign and Sounds--Affirmative Expressions--Possible Origin of
Negative and Positive Signs
69
CHAPTER VIII.
Meeting with Nellie--Nellie was my Guest--Her Speech and
Manners--The little Blind Girl--One of Nellie's Friends--Her
Sight and Hearing--Her Toys, and how she Played with Them
83
CHAPTER IX.
Nellie's Affections--A little Flirtation--Some of my Personal
Friends
97
CHAPTER X.
The Capuchin Vocabulary--What I have Found--What I Foresee in it
105
CHAPTER XI.
The Word for Food in the Rhesus Dialect--The Rhesus Sound of
Alarm--The Dialect of the White-face--Dolly Varden, "Uncle
Rhemus," and others
111
CHAPTER XII.
Atelles or Spider Monkeys--The Common Macaque--Java Monkeys, and
what they say--A Happy Family
121
CHAPTER XIII.
The Extent of my Experiments--Apes and Baboons--Miscellaneous
Records of Sound--The Vocal Index
131
CHAPTER XIV.
Monkeys and the Mirror--Some of their Antics--Baby Macaque and
her Papa--Some other Monkeys
138
CHAPTER XV.
Man and Ape--Their Physical Relations--Their Mental
Relations--Evolution was the Means--Who was the Progenitor of
the Ape?--The Scale of Life
146
CHAPTER XVI.
The Faculty of Thought--Emotion and Thought--Instinct and
Reason--Monkeys Reason--Some Examples
156
CHAPTER XVII.
Speech Defined--The True Nature of Speech--The Use of
Speech--The Limitations of Speech
169
CHAPTER XVIII.
The Motives of Speech--Expression--The Beginning of Human
Speech--The Present Condition of Speech
177
CHAPTER XIX.
Language embraces Speech--Speech, Words, Grammar, and Rhetoric
183
CHAPTER XX.
Life and Consciousness--Consciousness and Emotion--Emotion and
Thought--Thought and Expression--Expression and Speech--The
Vocal Organs and Sound--Speech in City and Country--Music,
Passions, and Taste--Life and Reason
190
CHAPTER XXI.
Certain Marks which Characterise the Sounds of Monkeys as
Speech--Sounds Accompanied by Gestures--Certain Acts follow
certain Sounds--They acquire new Sounds--Their Speech addressed
to certain Individuals--Deliberation and Premeditation--They
remember and anticipate Results--Thought and Reason
200
CHAPTER XXII.
The Phonograph as an Aid to Science--Vowels the Basis of
Phonation--Consonants Developed from a Vowel Basis--Vowels are
Compound--The Analysis of Vowels by the Phonograph--Current
Theories of Sound--Augmentation of Sounds--Sound Waves and Sound
Units--Consonants among the Lower Races
208
CHAPTER XXIII.
The Human Voice--Human Bagpipe--Human Piccolo, Flute, and
Fife--The Voice as a Whistle--Music and Noise--Dr. Bell and his
"Visible Speech"
219
CHAPTER XXIV.
Some Curious Facts in Vocal Growth--Children and
Consonants--Single, Double, and Treble Consonants--Sounds of
Birds--Fishes and their Language--Insects and their Language
224
CHAPTER XXV.
Facts and Fancies of Speech--Language in the Vegetable
Kingdom--Language in the Mineral Kingdom
237
CHAPTER XXVI.
THE SPEECH AND REASON OF DOMESTIC ANIMALS.
Dash and the Baby--Two Collies talk--Eunice understands her
Mistress--Two Dogs and the Phonograph--A Canine Family--Cats and
Dogs--Insects--Signs and Sounds
246
* * * * *
THE SPEECH OF MONKEYS
CHAPTER I.
Early Impressions--First Observations of Monkeys--First Efforts
to Learn their Speech--Barriers--The Phonograph Used--A Visit to
Jokes--My Efforts to Speak to Him--The Sound of Alarm inspires
Terror.
From childhood, I have believed that all kinds of animals have some mode
of speech by which they could talk among their own kind, and have often
wondered why man had never tried to learn it. I often wondered how it
occurred to man to whistle to a horse or dog instead of using some sound
more like their own; and even yet I am at a loss to know how such a
sound has ever become a fixed means of calling these animals. I was not
alone in my belief that all animals had some way to make known to others
some certain things; but to my mind the means had never been well
defined.
[Sidenote: FIRST OBSERVATIONS OF MONKEYS]
About eight years ago, in the Cincinnati Zoological Garden, I was deeply
impressed by the conduct of a number of monkeys occupying a cage with a
huge, savage mandril, which they seemed very much to fear and dislike.
By means of a wall, the cage was divided into two compartments, through
which was a small doorway, just large enough to allow the occupants of
the cage to pass from one room to the other. The inner compartment of
the cage was used for their winter quarters and sleeping apartments; the
outer, consisting simply of a well-constructed iron cage, was intended
for exercise and summer occupancy. Every movement of this mandril seemed
to be closely watched by the monkeys that were in a position to see him,
and instantly reported to the others in the adjoining compartment. I
watched them for hours, and felt assured that they had a form of speech
by means of which they communicated with each other. During the time I
remained, I discovered that a certain sound would invariably cause them
to act in a certain way, and, in the course of my visit, I discovered
that I could myself tell, by the sounds the monkeys would make, just
what the mandril was doing--that is, I could tell whether he was asleep
or whether he was moving about in his cage. Having interpreted one or
two of these sounds, I felt inspired with the belief that I could learn
them, and felt that the "key to the secret chamber" was within my grasp.
I regarded the task of learning the speech of a monkey as very much the
same as learning that of some strange race of mankind, more difficult in
the degree of its inferiority, but less in volume.
Year by year, as new ideas were revealed to me, new barriers arose, and
I began to realise how great a task was mine. One difficulty was to
utter the sounds I heard, another was to recall them, and yet another
to translate them. But impelled by an inordinate hope and not
discouraged by poor success, I continued my studies, as best I could, in
the Gardens of New York, Philadelphia, Cincinnati and Chicago, and with
such specimens as I could find from time to time with travelling shows,
hand-organs, aboard some ship, or kept as a family pet. I must
acknowledge my debt of gratitude to all these little creatures who have
aided me in the study of their native tongue.
[Sidenote: ACTING AS INTERPRETER]
Having contended for some years with the difficulties mentioned, a new
idea dawned upon me, and, after maturely considering it, I felt assured
of ultimate success. I went to Washington, and proposed the novel
experiment of acting as interpreter between two monkeys. Of course this
first evoked from the great fathers of science a smile of incredulity;
but when I explained the means by which I expected to accomplish this, a
shadow of seriousness came over the faces of those dignitaries to whom
I first proposed the novel feat. I procured a phonograph upon which to
record the sounds of the monkeys. I separated two monkeys which had
occupied the same cage together for some time, and placed them in
separate rooms of the building where they could not see or hear each
other. I then arranged the phonograph near the cage of the female, and
by various means induced her to utter a few sounds, which were recorded
on the cylinder of the phonograph. The machine was then placed near the
cage containing the male, and the record repeated to him and his conduct
closely studied. He gave evident signs of recognising the sounds, and at
once began a search for the mysterious monkey doing the talking. His
perplexity at this strange affair cannot well be described. The familiar
voice of his mate would induce him to approach, but that squeaking,
chattering horn was a feature which he could not comprehend. He traced
the sounds, however, to the horn from which they came, and, failing to
find his mate, thrust his arm into the horn quite up to his shoulder,
then withdrew it, and peeped into it again and again. The expressions of
his face were indeed a study. I then secured a few sounds of his voice
and delivered them to the female, who showed some signs of interest, but
the record was very imperfect and her manner seemed quite indifferent.
In this experiment, for the first time in the history of language, was
the Simian speech reduced to record; and while the results were not
fully up to my hopes, they served to inspire me to further efforts to
find the fountain-head from which flows out the great river of human
speech. Having satisfied myself that each one recognised the sound made
by the other when delivered through the phonograph, I felt rewarded for
my labour and assured of the possibility of learning the language of
monkeys. The faith of others was strengthened also, and while this
experiment was very crude and imperfect, it served to convince me that
my opinions were correct as to the speech of these animals.
[Sidenote: RECORDS OF SOUNDS]
In this case I noticed the defects which occurred in my work and
provided against them, as well as I could, for the future. Soon after
this I went to Chicago and Cincinnati, where I made a number of records
of the sounds of a great number of monkeys, and among others I secured a
splendid record of the two chimpanzees contained in the Cincinnati
collection, which I brought home with me for study. The records that I
made of various specimens of the Simian race I repeated to myself over
and over, until I became familiar with them, and learned to imitate a
few of them, mostly by the use of mechanical devices. After having
accomplished this I returned to Chicago, and went at once to visit a
small Capuchin monkey whose record had been my chief study. Standing
near his cage, I imitated a sound which I had translated "milk," but
from many tests I concluded it meant "food," which opinion has been
somewhat modified by many later experiments which led me to believe
that he uses it in a still wider sense. It is difficult to find any
formula of human speech equivalent to it. While the Capuchin uses it
relating to food and sometimes to drink, I was unable to detect any
difference in the sounds. He also seemed to connect the same sound to
every kindly office done him, and to use it as a kind of "Shibboleth."
More recently, however, I have detected in the sound slight changes of
inflection under different conditions, until I am now led to believe
that the meaning of the word depends somewhat, if not wholly, on its
modulation. The phonetic effect is rich and rather flute-like, and the
word resembles somewhat the word "who." Its dominant is a pure vocal
"u," sounded like "oo" in "too," which has a faint initial "wh," both
elements of which are sounded, and the word ends with a vanishing "w."
The literal formula by which I would represent it is "wh-oo-w." The word
which I have translated "drink" begins with a faint guttural "ch," and
glides through a sound resembling the French diphthong "eu," and ends
with a slight "y" sound as in "ye."
So far I have found no trace of the English vowels "a," "i," or "o,"
unless it be in the sound emitted under stress of great alarm or in case
of assault, in which I find a close resemblance to the vowel "i," short
as in "it."
[Sidenote: FIELD OF OPERATIONS EXTENDED]
After having acquired a sound or two, I extended my field of operations
and began to try my skill as a Simian linguist on every specimen with
which I came in contact.
In Charleston, a gentleman owns a fine specimen of the brown Cebus whose
name is Jokes. He is naturally shy of strangers, but on my first visit
to him I addressed him in his native tongue, and he really seemed to
regard me very kindly; he would eat from my hand and allow me to caress
him through the bars of his cage. He eyed me with evident curiosity, but
invariably responded to the word which I uttered in his own language.
On my third visit to him I determined to try the effect of the peculiar
sound of "alarm" or "assault" which I had learned from one of this
species; but I cannot very well represent it in letters. While he was
eating from my hand, I gave this peculiar piercing note, and he
instantly sprang to a perch in the top of his cage, thence in and out of
his sleeping apartment with great speed, and almost wild with fear.
[Sidenote: HARSH MEANS RESORTED TO]
As I repeated the sound his fears seemed to increase, until from a mere
sense of compassion I desisted. No amount of coaxing would induce him to
return to me or to accept any offer of peace which I could make. I
retired to a distance of about twenty feet from his cage, and his master
induced him to descend from the perch, which he did, with the greatest
reluctance and suspicion. I gave the sound again from where I stood, and
it produced almost the same results as before. The monkey gave out a
singular sound in response to my efforts to appease him, but refused to
become reconciled. After the lapse of eight or ten days, I had not been
able to reinstate myself in his good graces, or to induce him to accept
anything whatever from me. At this juncture I resorted to harsher means
of bringing him to terms, and began to threaten him with a rod. At first
he resented this, but soon yielded and came down merely from fear. He
would place the side of his head on the floor, put out his tongue, and
utter a very plaintive sound having a slight interrogative inflection.
At first this act quite defied interpretation; but during the same
period I was visiting a little monkey called Jack. For strangers, we
were quite good friends, and Jack allowed me many liberties which the
family assured me he had uniformly refused to others. On one of my
visits he displayed his temper, and made an attack upon me because I
refused to let go of a saucer from which I was feeding him with some
milk. I jerked him up by the chain and slapped him sharply, whereupon
he instantly laid the side of his head on the floor, put out his tongue,
and made just such a sound as Jokes had made a number of times before.
It occurred to me that it was a sign of surrender, and many subsequent
tests have confirmed this opinion. Mrs. M. French Sheldon, in her
journey through East Africa, shot a small monkey in a forest near Lake
Charla. She described to me how the little fellow stood high up in a
tree and chattered to her in his sharp, musical voice, until at the
crack of her gun he fell mortally wounded. When he was laid dying at her
feet, he turned his bright little eyes pleadingly upon her as if to ask
for pity. Touched by his appeal, she took the little creature in her
arms to try to soothe him. Again and again he would touch his tongue to
her hand as if kissing it, and seemed to wish in the hour of death to be
caressed, even by the hand that slew him, and which had taken from him
without reward that life which could be of no value except to spend in
the wild forest where his kindred monkeys live.
[Sidenote: MODE OF EXPRESSING SUBMISSION]
This peculiar mode of expressing submission seems to be very widely
used, and from her description of the actions of that monkey, his
conduct must have been identical with that of the Cebus; and to my mind
may justly be interpreted to mean, "Pity me, I will not harm you." I
have recently learned that a Scotch naturalist, commenting on my
description of this act and its meaning, quite agrees with me, and
states that he has observed the same thing in other species of monkeys.
CHAPTER II.
The Reconciliation--The Acquaintance of Jennie--The
Salutation--The Words for Food and Drink--Little Banquo, Dago,
McGinty, and others.
[Sidenote: ACQUAINTANCE OF JENNIE]
During a period of many weeks I visited Jokes almost daily, but after
the lapse of more than two months I had not won him back nor quieted his
suspicions against me. On my approach, he would manifest great fear and
go through the act of humiliation described above. I observed that he
entertained an intense hatred for a negro boy on the place, who teased
and vexed him on all occasions. I had the boy come near the cage, and
Jokes fairly raved with anger. I took a stick and pretended to beat the
boy, and this delighted Jokes very greatly. I held the boy near enough
to the cage to allow the monkey to scratch and pull his clothes, and
this would fill his little Simian soul with joy. I would then release
the boy, and to the evident pleasure of Jokes I would drive him away by
throwing wads of paper at him. I repeated this a number of times, and by
such means we again became the best of friends. After each encounter
with the boy, he would come up to the bars, touch my hand with his
tongue, chatter and play with my fingers, and show every sign of
confidence and friendship. He always warned me of the approach of any
one, and his conduct towards them was largely governed by my own. He
never failed, after this, to salute me with the sound described in the
first chapter. About the same time I paid a few visits to another little
monkey of the same species, named "Jennie." Her master had warned me in
advance that she was not well disposed towards strangers. At my request,
he had her chained in a small side yard which he forbade any of the
family entering. When I approached the little lady for the first time,
I gave her the usual salutation, which she responded to, and seemed to
understand. I unceremoniously sat down by her side and fed her from my
hands. She eyed me with evident interest and curiosity, while I studied
her every act and expression. During the process of this mutual
investigation, a negro girl who lived with the family, overcome by
curiosity, stealthily came into the yard and came up within a few feet
of us. I determined to sacrifice this girl upon the altar of science, so
I arose and placed her between the monkey and myself, and vigorously
sounded the alarm or menace. "Jennie" flew into a fury, while I
continued to sound the alarm and at the same time pretended to attack
the girl with a club and some paper wads, thus causing the monkey to
believe that the girl had uttered the alarm and made the assault. I then
drove the girl from the yard with a great show of violence, and for days
afterwards she could not feed or approach the little Simian. This
confirmed my opinion of the meaning of the sound, which can be fairly
imitated by placing the back of the hand gently on the mouth and kissing
it with great force, prolonging the sound for some seconds. This
imitation, however, is indifferent, and its quality is especially
noticeable when analysed on the phonograph. The pitch corresponds to the
highest "F" sharp on the piano, while the word "food" is four octaves
lower and the word "drink" three.
[Sidenote: THE GARDEN IN CINCINNATI]
On one occasion I visited the Garden in Cincinnati, and found in a cage
a small Capuchin, to whom I gave the name of Banquo. It was near night
and the visitors had left the house, and the little monkey, worried out
by the day's annoyance from visitors, sat quietly in the back of his
cage as though he was glad another day was done. I approached the cage
and uttered the sound which I have described and translated "drink." My
first effort caught his attention and caused him to turn and look at me.
He then arose and answered me with the same word, and came at once to
the front of the cage. He looked at me as if in doubt, and I repeated
the word. He responded with the same and turned to a small pan in his
cage, which he took up and placed near the door through which the keeper
usually passed his food, returned to me, and uttered the word again. I
asked the keeper for some milk, which he did not have, but brought me
some water instead. The efforts of my little Simian friend to secure the
glass were very earnest, and his pleading manner and tone assured me of
his extreme thirst. I allowed him to dip his hand into the glass, and he
would then lick the water from his fingers and reach again. I kept the
glass out of reach of his hand, and he would repeat the sound earnestly
and look at me beseechingly, as if to say, "Please give me some more." I
was thus convinced that the word which I had translated "milk" must also
mean "water," and from this and other tests I at last determined that
it meant "drink" in its broad sense, and possibly "thirst." It evidently
expressed his desire for something with which to allay his thirst. The
sound is very difficult to imitate, and quite impossible to write
exactly.
[Sidenote: IMITATING SOUNDS]
On one of my visits to the Chicago Garden, I stood with my side to a
cage containing a small Capuchin and gave the sound which I had
translated "milk." It caused him to turn and look at me, and on
repeating the sound a few times, he answered me very distinctly with the
same, picking up the pan from which he usually drank; and as I repeated
the word, he brought the pan to the front of the cage, set it down, and
came up to the bars and uttered the word distinctly. I had not shown him
any milk or any kind of food, but the man in charge, at my request,
brought me some milk, which I gave to him. He drank it with great
delight, then looked at me and held up his pan, repeating the sound. I
am quite sure that he used the same sound each time that he wanted
milk. During this same visit, I tried many experiments with the word
which I am now convinced means "food" or "hunger." And I was led to the
belief that he used the same word for apple, carrot, bread and banana;
but a few later experiments have led me to modify this view in a
measure, since the phonograph shows me slight variations of the sound,
and I now think it probable that these faint inflections may possibly
indicate a difference in the kinds of food he has in mind. However, they
usually recognise this sound, even when poorly imitated. I am impressed
with the firm belief that in this word I have found the clue to the
great secret of speech; and while I have taken only one short step in
the direction of its solution, I have pointed out the way which leads to
it.
[Sidenote: BROWN CAPUCHINS]
In the fall of 1891, I visited New York for the purpose of experimenting
with the monkeys in Central Park. Early one morning I repaired to the
monkey-house, and for the first time approached a cage containing five
brown Capuchins, whom I saluted with the word which I have translated
"food," and which seems to be an "open-sesame" to the hearts of all
monkeys of this species. On delivering this word, one of them responded
promptly and came to the front of the cage. I repeated it two or three
times and the remaining four came to the front, and as I thrust my
fingers through the bars of the cage, they took hold of them and began
playing with great familiarity and apparent pleasure. They seemed to
recognise the sound, and to realise that it had been delivered to them
by myself. Whether they regarded me as a great ape, monkey, or some
other kind of animal speaking their tongue, I do not know. But they
evidently understood the sound, though up to this time I had shown them
no food or water. A little later I secured some apples and carrots, and
gave them in small bits in response to their continual requests for
food, and this further confirmed my belief that I had translated the
word correctly. This was gratifying to me in view of the fact that I
was accompanied by two gentlemen who had been permitted to witness the
experiment, and it was evident to them that the monkeys understood the
sound. I placed the phonograph in order and made a record of the sound,
which I preserved for study. After an absence of some days, I returned
to the Park and went to the monkey-house. They recognised me as I
entered the door, notwithstanding there were many visitors present. They
began begging me to come to their cage, which I did, and gave them my
hand to play with. One of them in particular, whose name is "McGinty,"
showed every sign of pleasure at my visit; he would play with my
fingers, hug them, and caress them in the most affectionate manner.
Another occupant of the same cage had shown a disposition to become
friendly with me, and on this occasion came bravely to the bars of the
cage and showed a desire to share the pleasure of my visit with his
little Simian brother. But this was denied him on any terms by
"McGinty," who pounced upon him and drove him away, as he also did the
other monkeys in the cage in order to monopolise my entire society
himself. He refused to allow any other inmate of the cage to receive my
caresses or any part of the food that I had brought them. I spent the
past winter in Washington and New York, much of the time in company with
these little creatures, and have made many novel and curious
experiments, some of which have resulted in surprises to myself.
[Sidenote: MONKEYS CAN COUNT] Among the facts which I have obtained, I
may state that certain monkeys can count three; that they discern values
by quantity and by number; that they have favourite colours, and are
pleased with some musical sounds. And I shall explain how I arrived at
some of these conclusions, in order that I may not be supposed to have
merely guessed at them.
CHAPTER III.
Monkeys have favourite Colours--Can distinguish Numbers and
Quantity--Music and Art very limited.
[Sidenote: MONKEYS HAVE FAVOURITE COLOURS]
In order to ascertain whether monkeys have any choice of colours or not,
I selected some bright candies, balls, marbles, bits of ribbon, &c. I
took a piece of pasteboard, and on it placed a few bright-coloured bits
of candy, which I offered to a monkey and watched to see whether he
would select a certain colour or not. In this experiment I generally
used two colours at a time, and changed their places from time to time
in order to determine whether he selected the colour by design or
accident. After having determined which of two colours he preferred, I
substituted a third colour for the one which he cared least for, and
continued thus until I exhausted the list of bright colours. By
changing the arrangement of the objects a great number of times, it
could be ascertained with comparative certainty whether the colour was
his preference or not. I find that all monkeys do not select the same
colour, nor does the same monkey invariably select the same colour at
different times; but I think, as a rule, that bright green is a
favourite colour with the Capuchin, and their second choice is white. In
a few cases, white seemed to be their preference. I have sometimes used
paper wads of various colours, or bits of candy of the same flavour
rolled in various coloured papers. They seemed to choose the same
colours in selecting their toys. I have sometimes used artificial
flowers, and find, as a rule, that they will select a flower having many
green leaves about it. It may be that they associate this colour with
some green food which they are fond of, and consequently that they are
influenced by this in selecting other things. I kept a cup for a monkey
to drink milk from, on the sides of which were some brilliant flowers
and green leaves, and she would frequently quit drinking the milk to
play with the flowers on the cup, and seemed never able to understand
why she could not get hold of them. In one test I had a board about two
feet long, and laid a few pieces of white and pink candies in four
places on it. The monkey took the white from each pile before touching
the pink, except in one instance it took the pink piece from one pile. I
repeated this test many times. In another test I took a white paper ball
in one hand and a pink one in the other, and held out my hands to the
monkey, who selected the white one nearly every time, although I changed
hands with the balls from time to time. These experiments were mostly
confined to the Cebus monkeys, but a few of them were made with
Macaques. They seem to be attracted generally by all brilliant colours,
but when reduced to a choice between two, such seems to be their tastes.
[Sidenote: CAN DISTINGUISH NUMBERS]
In my efforts to ascertain their mathematical skill, I would take in
one hand a little platter containing one nut, or one small bit of
something to eat, such as a piece of apple or carrot cut into a small
cube. In the other hand I held a small platter, with two or three such
articles of the same size and colour, and holding them just out of reach
of the monkey and changing them from hand to hand, I observed that the
monkey would try to reach the one containing the greater number. He
readily discerned which platter contained one and which contained two or
three pieces. I was long in doubt whether he distinguished by number or
by quantity, and my belief was that it was by quantity only. I first
determined that he could tell singular from plural, by making the one
piece larger and sometimes of a different shape, and from his choice of
these I quite satisfied my own mind that he could distinguish by number.
[Sidenote: THE TEST WITH MARBLES] I next set out to find how far in
numerals his acquirements reached, and after a great number of
indecisive trials I fell upon this simple plan: I took a little square
wooden box and made a hole in one side just large enough for the monkey
to withdraw his hand with a marble in it. I took three marbles of the
same size and colour, and gave them to the monkey to play with. After a
time I put the marbles in a box and allowed him to take them out, which
he could do by taking out only one at a time. I repeated this several
times, so as to impress his mind with the number of marbles in the box.
I then concealed one of the marbles and returned two to the box. On
taking them out, he evidently missed the absent one, felt in the box,
arose, and looked around where he had been sitting. Then he would put
his hand into the box again and look at me; but failing to find it, he
became reconciled, and began to play with the two. When he had become
content with the two, I abstracted one of them, and when he failed to
find it he began to search for it, and seemed quite unwilling to proceed
without it. He would put the one back into the box and take it out
again, as if in hope that it might find the other. I helped him to look
for the missing marbles, and, of course, soon found them. When he
learned that I could find the lost marbles, he would appeal to me as
soon as he missed them, and in several instances he would take his
little black fingers and open my lips to see if I had concealed them in
my mouth, the place where all monkeys conceal what they wish to keep in
safety from other monkeys, who never venture to put their fingers into
one another's mouth, and when any article is once lodged in a monkey's
mouth it is safe from the reach of all the tribe. I repeated this until
I felt quite sure of the ability of my subject to count three, and I
then increased the number of marbles to four. When I would abstract one
of them, sometimes he seemed to miss it, or at least to be in doubt, but
would soon proceed with his play and not worry himself about it; yet he
rarely failed to show that he was aware that something was wrong.
Whether he missed one from four, or only acted on general principles, I
do not know; but that he missed one from three was quite evident.
I may here add that there is a great difference in different specimens,
and their tastes vary like those of human beings. The same idea is much
clearer to some monkeys than it is to others, and a choice of colours
much more definite; but I think that all of them assign to different
numbers a difference of value. Some are talkative and others taciturn. I
think I may state with safety that the Cebus is the most intelligent and
talkative of all the monkeys I have known; that the Old World monkeys,
as a group, are more taciturn and less intelligent than the New World
monkeys, but I do not mean to include the anthropoid apes in this
remark.
[Sidenote: MUSICAL RECORDS ON PHONOGRAPH]
As a test of their taste for music or musical sounds, I took three
little bells, which I suspended by three strings, one end of which was
tied to a button. The bells were all alike, except that from two of them
I had removed the clappers. I dropped the bells through the meshes of
the cage about a foot apart, and allowed the monkey to play with them. I
soon discovered that he was attracted by the one which contained the
clapper. He played with it, and soon became quite absorbed in it. I
attracted his attention to another part of the cage with some food, and
while he was thus diverted I changed the position of the bells by
withdrawing and dropping them through other meshes. On his return he
would go to the place he had left, and, of course, get a bell with no
clapper in it. He would drop this and take another, until he found the
one with the clapper, which showed clearly that the sound was a part of
the attraction. I have repeated to monkeys many musical records on the
phonograph, but frequently they show no sign of concern, while at other
times they display some interest. It may be, however, that music, as we
understand it, is somewhat too high for them. Musical sounds seem to
attract and afford them pleasure, but they do not appreciate melody or
rhythm. As monkeys readily discern the larger of two pieces of food from
the smaller, and by the aid of concrete things can count a limited
number, I feel justified in saying that they have the first principles
of mathematics as dealing with numbers and quantity in a concrete form.
Their ability to distinguish colours and their selection thereof, would
indicate that they possess the first rudiment of art as dealing with
colour. And the fact that they are attracted in a slight degree by
musical sounds shows that they possess the germ from which music itself
is born. I must not be understood to claim that they possess anything
more than the mere germ from which such faculties might have been
evolved. I do not think that they have any names for numbers, colours or
quantities, nor do I think that they possess an abstract idea of these
things, except in the feeblest degree; but as the concrete must have
preceded the abstract idea in the development of human reason, it
impresses me that these creatures are now in a condition such as man
has once passed through in the course of his evolution; and it is not
difficult to understand how such feeble faculties may develop into the
very highest degree of strength and usefulness by constant use and
culture.
[Sidenote: RUDIMENTS OF FACULTIES]
We find in them the rudiments from which all the faculties possessed by
man could easily develop, including thought, reason, speech, and the
moral and social traits of man. In brief, they appear to have at least
the raw material out of which is made the most exalted attributes of
man, and I shall not contest with them the right of such possession.
CHAPTER IV.
Pedro's Speech Recorded--Delivered to Puck through the
Phonograph--Little Darwin learns a new Word.
[Sidenote: PEDRO THE CAPUCHIN]
In the Washington collection there is a little Capuchin by the name of
Pedro. When I first visited this bright little monk he occupied a cage
in common with several other monkeys of different kinds. All of them
seemed to impose upon little Pedro, and a young spider monkey in the
cage found special delight in catching him by the tail and dragging him
around the floor of the cage. I interfered on behalf of Pedro, and drove
the spider monkey away. On account of this, Pedro soon began to look
upon me as his benefactor, and when he would see me he would scream and
beg for me to come to him. I induced the keeper to place him in a small
cage to himself, and this he seemed to appreciate very much. When I
would go to record his sounds on the phonograph, I held him in one hand,
while he would take the tube in his tiny black hands, hold it close up
to his mouth, and talk into it just like a good little boy who knew what
to do and how to do it. He would sometimes laugh and always chatter to
me as long as he could see me. He would sit on my hand and kiss my
cheeks, put his mouth up to my ear and chatter just as though he knew
what my ears were for. He was quite fond of the head-keeper and also of
the director, but he entertained a great dislike for one of the
assistant-keepers, and he has very often told me some very bad things
about that man, but I could not understand them. I shall long remember
how this dear little monk would cuddle up under my chin, and try so hard
to make me understand some sad story which seemed to be the burden of
his life. He readily understood the sounds of his own speech which I
repeated to him, and I have made some of the best records of his voice
that I have ever succeeded in making of any monkey, some of which I have
preserved up to this time. They present a wide range of sounds, and I
have studied them with special care and pleasure because I knew that
they were addressed to me in person; and being aware that the little
creature was uttering these sounds to me with the hope that I would
understand them, I was more anxious to learn just what he really said to
me in this record than if it had contained only some casual remark not
addressed to me. This little Simian was born in the Amazon Valley in
Brazil, and was named for the late Emperor.
[Sidenote: PUCK AND THE PHONOGRAPH]
A short time ago I borrowed from a dealer in Washington a little
Capuchin called Puck, and had him sent to my apartments, where I kept a
phonograph. I placed the cage in front of the machine upon which I had
adjusted the horn, and had placed the record of my little friend Pedro.
I concealed myself in an adjoining room, where I could watch the
conduct of my subject through a small hole in the door. I had a string
attached to the lever of the machine and drawn taut through another hole
in the door, so that I could start the machine at any desired moment,
and at the same time avoid attracting the attention of the monkey,
either by my presence or by allowing him to see anything move. After a
time, when everything was quiet, I set the machine in motion and treated
him to a phonographic recital by little Pedro. This speech was
distinctly delivered through the horn to Puck, from whose actions it was
evident that he recognised it as the voice of one of his tribe. He
looked at the horn in surprise and made a sound or two, glanced around
the room and again uttered a couple of sounds as he retired from the
horn, apparently somewhat afraid. Again the horn delivered some
exclamations in a pure Capuchin dialect, which Puck seemed to regard as
sounds of some importance. He cautiously advanced and made a feeble
response, but a quick, sharp sound from the horn seemed to startle him,
and failing to find any trace of a monkey, except the sound of a voice,
he looked at the horn with evident suspicion, and scarcely ventured to
answer any sound it made. When I had delivered to him the contents of
the record I entered the room again, and this seemed to afford him some
relief.
[Sidenote: PUCK'S VOICE AND ACTIONS]
A little later I adjusted my apparatus for another trial, and this time
I hung a small mirror just above the mouth of the horn. Then retiring
again from the room I left him to examine his new surroundings, and he
soon discovered the new monkey in the glass and began to caress and
chatter to it. After a while I started the phonograph again by means of
the string, and when the horn began to deliver its Simian oration it
appeared to disconcert and perplex Puck. He would look at the image in
the glass, then he would look into the horn; he would retire with a
feeble grunt and a kind of inquisitive grin, showing his little white
teeth, and acting as though in doubt whether to regard the affair as a
joke, or to treat it as a grim and scientific fact. His voice and
actions were exactly like those of a child, declaring in words that he
was not afraid, but betraying fear in every act, and finally blending
his feelings into a genuine cry. Puck did not cry, but the evidence of
fear made the grin on his face rather ghostly. Again he would approach
the mirror, then listen to the sounds which came from the horn, and it
appeared from his conduct that there was a conflict somewhere. It was
evident that he did not believe that the monkey which he saw in the
glass was making the sounds which came from the horn. He repeatedly put
his mouth to the glass, and caressed the image which he saw there, and
at the same time showed a grave suspicion and some concern about the one
which he heard in the horn, and tried to keep away from it as much as
possible. His conduct in this case was a source of surprise to me, as
the sounds contained in the record which I had repeated to him were all
uttered in a mood of anxious, earnest entreaty, which to me seemed to
contain no sound of anger, warning, or alarm, but which, on the
contrary, I had interpreted as a kind of love speech, full of music and
tenderness. I had not learned the exact meaning of any one of the sounds
contained in this cylinder, but had ascribed in a collective and general
way such a meaning to this speech. But from Puck's conduct I was led to
believe that it was a general complaint of some kind against those
monkeys in that other cage who had made life a burden to little Pedro.
One thing was clear to my mind, and that is that Puck interpreted the
actions of the monkey which he saw in the glass to mean one thing, and
the sounds which he heard from the horn to mean quite another.
[Sidenote: FORM OF SPEECH USED BY MONKEYS]
I do not think that their language is capable of shaping sentences into
narrative or giving any detail in a complaint, for I have never seen
anything yet among them which would justify one in ascribing to them so
high a type of speech; but in terms of general grievance it may have
conveyed to Puck the idea of a monkey in distress, and hence his desire
to avoid it; while the image in the glass presented to him a picture of
his own mood, and he therefore had no cause to shun it. I do think,
however, that the present form of speech used by monkeys is developed
far above a mere series of grunts and groans, and that some species
among them have a much more copious and expressive form of speech than
others. From many experiments with the phonograph, I am prepared to say
with certainty that some have much higher phonetic types than others. I
have traced some slight inflections which I think beyond a doubt modify
the values of their sounds. I find that some monkeys do not make some of
these inflections at all, although the phonation of a species is
generally uniform in other respects. In some cases it seems to me that
the inflections differ slightly in the same species, but long and
constant association seems to unify these dialects in some degree, very
much the same as like causes blend and unify the dialects of human
speech. I have found one instance in which a Capuchin had acquired two
sounds which strictly belonged to the tongue of the white-faced Cebus. I
was surprised when I heard him utter the sounds, and thought at first
that they were common to the speech of both varieties; but on inquiry I
found that he had been confined in a cage with the white-face for nearly
four years, and hence my belief that he acquired them during that time.
The most remarkable case which has come under my observation is one in
which a young white-face has acquired the sound which means food in the
Capuchin tongue. This event occurred under my own eyes. I regard this
matter as so noteworthy and attended by such conditions as to show that
the monkey had a motive in learning the sound, that I shall relate the
case in detail.
[Sidenote: THE WHITE-FACED CEBUS]
In the room where the monkeys were kept by a dealer in Washington, there
was a cage which contained a young white-faced Cebus of rather more than
average intelligence. He was a quiet, sedate, and thoughtful little
monk, whose grey hair and beard gave him quite a venerable aspect, and
for this reason I called him Darwin. From some cause unknown to me he
was afraid of me, and I showed him but little attention. On the same
shelf and in an adjacent cage lived the little Capuchin, Puck. The cages
were only separated by an open wire partition, through which they could
easily see and hear each other. For some weeks I visited Puck almost
daily, and in response to his sound for food I always supplied him with
some nuts, banana, or other food. I never gave him any of these things
to eat unless he would ask me for them in his own speech. On one of my
visits my attention was attracted by little Darwin, who was uttering a
strange sound which I had never before heard one of his species utter. I
did not recognise the sound at first, but very soon discovered that it
was intended to imitate the sound of the Capuchin, in response to which
I always gave Puck some nice morsel of food. Darwin had undoubtedly
observed that this sound made by Puck was always rewarded with something
good to eat, and his evident motive was to secure a like reward. After
this I always gave him some food in acknowledgment of his efforts, and I
observed from day to day that he improved in making this sound, until at
last it could scarcely be detected from the sound made by Puck. This was
accomplished within a period of less than six weeks from my first visit.
In this case, at least, I have seen one step taken by a monkey in
learning the tongue of another. This was most interesting to me in view
of the fact that I had long believed, and had announced as my belief,
that no monkey ever acquired the sounds made by another species, or,
indeed, ever tried to do so. I admit, however, that this one instance
alone is sufficient to cause me to recede from a conclusion thus
rendered untenable, and the short time in which this one feat was
accomplished would indicate that the difficulty was not so great as I
had regarded it. [Sidenote: SPEECH USUALLY LIMITED] I still regard it as
a rule, however, that monkeys do not learn each other's speech, but the
rule is not without exceptions. I have observed, and called attention to
the fact, that when two monkeys of different species are caged together,
that each one will learn to understand the speech of the other, but does
not try to speak it as a rule. When he replies at all, it is always in
his own vernacular. I wish to impress the fact, that monkeys do not
generally carry on a connected conversation. Their speech is usually
limited to a single sound or remark, which is replied to in the same
manner; and to suppose that their conversations are elaborate or of a
highly social character, is to go beyond the bounds of reason. This is
the respect in which the masses fail to understand the real nature of
the speech of monkeys or other animals.
CHAPTER V.
Five little Brown Cousins: Mickie, Nemo, Dodo, Nigger, and
McGinty--Nemo apologises to Dodo.
During the past winter there lived in Central Park a bright, fine,
little monkey by the name of Mickie. He did not belong to the Park, but
was merely kept as a guest of the city during the absence of his master
in Europe. Mickie is a well-built, robust, good-natured monkey of the
Capuchin variety. He does not talk much except when he wants food or
drink, but he and I are the best of friends, and I frequently go into
his cage to have a romp with him and his four little cousins.
When I first began to visit the Park in the fall of 1891, Mickie showed
a disposition to cultivate my acquaintance, and as it ripened into a
friendship day by day, we found great pleasure in each other's society.
As the monkey-house was open to the public at nine o'clock in the
morning, I had to make my calls at sunrise or thereabouts, in order to
avoid the visitors who daily throng this building.
[Sidenote: NEMO AND MICKIE]
In this cage was kept another little boarder of the same species, which
belonged to Mr. G. Hilton Scribner, of Yonkers. The keeper did not know
the name or anything of the past history of this little stranger, and
for want of some identity and a name I called him Nemo. He was a timid,
taciturn little fellow, quite intelligent, and possessed of an amount of
diplomacy equal to that of some human beings. He was the smallest monkey
in the cage, on which account he was somewhat shy of the others. He was
thoughtful, peaceable, but full of "guile." He sought on all occasions
to keep on the best terms with Mickie, to whom he would toady like a
sycophant. He would put his little arms about Mickie's neck and hang on
to him in the most affectionate manner. He would follow him like a
shadow, and stay by him like a last hope. If anything ever aroused the
temper of Mickie it was sure to make Nemo mad too; if Mickie was
diverted and would laugh, Nemo would laugh also if he was suffering with
a toothache. He was as completely under the control of Mickie as the
curl in Mickie's tail. When I first began to visit them Nemo would see
Mickie bite my fingers while we were playing, and he supposed it was
done in anger. Nemo never lost a chance to bite my fingers, which he
would always do with all his might, but his little teeth were not strong
enough to hurt me very much. He would only do this after seeing Mickie
bite me, and he did not evince any anger in the act, but appeared to do
so merely as a duty. He would sneak up to my hands and bite me unawares;
then he would run to Mickie and put his arm about his neck just as you
have seen some boys do when trying to curry favour with a larger boy.
On one occasion while in the cage with them he slipped up to me and bit
my finger, for which I kindly boxed his little ears. I would then give
Mickie my finger and allow him to bite it, after doing which I slapped
him gently and then give it to him again. I would then allow Nemo to
bite my finger, and if he bit it too hard I would slap him again, and in
this manner soon taught him to understand that Mickie only bit me in
fun, and he evidently learned that this was a fact. He did not appear,
however, to catch the point clearly or see any reason therefor, but on
all occasions thereafter he would take my finger in his mouth and hold
it in his teeth, which were scarcely closed upon it. This he would do
for a minute at a time without having the least apparent motive except
that he had seen Mickie do so. [Sidenote: MICKIE'S ATTACHMENT] Often
while holding my finger in this manner, with a look of seriousness
worthy of a supreme judge, he would roll his little eyes at me in the
most inquiring manner, as if to say "how is that"? When he once
realised that Mickie was so much attached to me, Nemo always showed a
desire to be on friendly terms with me; and when I would go into the
cage to play with Mickie and McGinty, he always wanted to be counted in
the game. When I had anything for them to eat he always wanted a seat of
honour at the table, and he would at times want to fight for me when the
other monkeys got too friendly. Poor little fellow, he is now dead, but
the image of his cute little face and original character are deeply
imprinted on my mind. I was never able to secure a record of the sounds
of his little voice, though I have often heard him talk. He had a soft
musical voice, and great power of facial expression.
[Sidenote: APOLOGY TO DODO]
One of the most remarkable things I have ever observed among monkeys was
done by this little fellow. On two separate occasions I have seen him
apologise to Dodo in the most humble manner for something he had done,
and I tried very hard to secure a record of this particular speech, in
which I totally failed, as I could not foreknow when such an act would
be done, and therefore could not have my phonograph in place to obtain
such a record. I called the attention of Mr. F. S. Church, the eminent
artist, to this act, with the hope that he might be able to make a
sketch of Nemo while in this attitude. I do not know what the offence
was, but the pose and expression as well as the speech were very
impressive. He sat in a crouching position, with the left hand clasping
the right wrist, and delivered his speech in a most energetic but humble
manner. The expression on his face could not be misunderstood. After a
few moments he paused briefly, and then seemed to repeat the same thing
some two or three times. The manner of his delivery was very suggestive,
and his demeanour was conciliatory. When he had quite finished his
speech, Dodo, to whom the apology was being made, and who had listened
to it in perfect silence, delivered a sound blow with her right hand on
the left side of the face of the little penitent, to which he responded
with a soft cry, while Dodo turned and left him without further debate.
I also called the attention of the keeper to this act, and he assured me
that he had repeatedly witnessed the same. What the subject of his
speech was or the cause which brought it about I am not able to say, nor
can I say with certainty to what extent he explained, but that it was an
apology, or explanation of some kind at least, I have not the slightest
doubt. I do not believe, of course, that his speech contained any
details concerning the offence, but that it expressed regret, penitence,
or submission does not to my mind admit of a doubt. I have seen a few
other cases somewhat similar to this, but none of them comparing in
point of polish and pathos to that of Nemo in his unique little speech.
Nigger was of this same species: he was in poor health most of the
winter, being afflicted with some spinal trouble. But, notwithstanding
his affliction, he was a good talker. His infirmity, however, placed him
at the mercy of the other inmates of the cage, and as monkeys are
naturally cruel and entirely destitute of sympathy, the daily life of
Nigger could not be expected to be a very happy one. From this state of
facts Nigger usually kept to himself, and was not intimate with any
other monkey in the cage. I have frequently given Nigger some choice
bits of food while I was in the cage, and protected him from the other
monkeys while he was eating it. This he seemed to fully appreciate, and
always located himself at a certain point in the cage where his defence
could be effected with the least difficulty. Nigger frequently indulged
in the most pathetic and touching appeals to his keeper, and went
through many of the gestures, sounds, and contortions which will be
described in the next chapter, as a part of the speech and conduct of
Dodo, some of whose remarkable poses and expressions have been
faithfully portrayed by Mr. Church.
[Sidenote: McGINTY AT CENTRAL PARK]
Among my personal friends of the Simian race, there is none more devoted
to me than little McGinty, another winter boarder at Central Park. From
the first of my acquaintance with McGinty we had been staunch friends,
and when I go to visit him he expresses the most unbounded delight. He
will reach his little arms through the bars of the cage, and put his
hands on my cheeks, hold his mouth up to the wires, and talk to me at
great length. When I go into the cage he will place himself on a perch
in the cage, where he will sit with his arms around my neck, lick my
cheeks affectionately, pull my ears, and chatter to me in a sweet but
plaintive tone. When Mickie joins the play, which he invariably does, by
climbing or jumping on to my shoulders, and interrupting the
_tête-à-tête_ between McGinty and myself, poor little McGinty's
jealousy, which is his supreme passion, causes him to retire in
disgust, and he will sometimes pout for several minutes without even
accepting food from me. After he has pouted for a while, however, he
will sometimes make overtures of reconciliation and seek by various
means to divert my attention. One of his favourite means of renewing
favour with me, was to whip poor little Nigger. He would look at me and
laugh, grin and make grimaces, and then dash off at Nigger and want to
eat him up. He did not seem to understand why I objected to this
whipping Nigger. Monkeys do not regard it as a breach of honour to whip
the helpless and feeble members of their tribe. They are not unlike a
large percentage of mankind. They always hunt for easy prey, and want to
fight something that is easily whipped. They are not great cowards, but
when once whipped they rarely attempt the second time to contest matters
with their victors. [Sidenote: CAGE OF CAPUCHIN MONKEYS] In this cage,
containing five brown Capuchin monkeys, it was not difficult to see
that Mickie ran things to suit himself. McGinty was the only one of the
four in the cage with him that ever contested any right with Mickie, and
for a long time it was a question in my mind who was to win in the end.
The next to them in authority was Dodo, who never attempted to control
Mickie or McGinty, but always made Nemo and Nigger stand about. Fourth
in line of authority was Nemo, who always resented any offence from
others by making Nigger take a corner; and the only victims that Nigger
had were the little white-faces, which never fight anything and are
always on the run. When it was finally decided between Mickie and
McGinty that Mickie should be captain, McGinty readily accepted the
place of first lieutenant, which rank he has continued to hold without
challenge. When once the question is settled among the cage of Simians,
the debate does not appear to be renewed at any future time. They never
go to court with their grievances, and rarely appeal a second time to
force when the question has once been decided against them. Some human
beings might profit by studying this trait of monkeys.
CHAPTER VI.
Dago Talks about the Weather--Tells me of his Troubles--Dodo in
the "Balcony Scene"--Her Portrait by a great Artist.
On one of my visits to Chicago, in the autumn of 1890, I went to pay my
respects to Dago, the little brown monkey in Lincoln Park. He had been
sick for a while, and had not fully recovered, although he was able to
receive visitors, and his appetite for pea-nuts was fairly well
restored. On the morning of which I speak, it was dark and stormy. A
fierce wind and terrible rain prevailed from the north-west. I went to
the building just after daylight, in order to be alone with the monkey,
and when I entered the house, Frenchie, the head-keeper, told me how
very sick little Dago had been since I had left him on the day before.
I approached the cage and began to caress him, to which he replied in
low whimpering tones, as though he understood the nature of what I was
saying to him. Presently he raised himself erect upon his hind feet, and
placing his hands on his side, pressed and rubbed it as though he was in
great pain, and uttered some sounds in a low, piping voice. The sound
itself was pathetic, and when accented by his gestures, it was really
very touching. [Sidenote: DAGO AND THE WEATHER] At this juncture, a hard
gust of wind and rain dashed against the window near his cage, whereupon
the little monk turned away from me, ran to the window and looked out,
and uttered a sound quite different from the ones he had just been
delivering to me. Still standing erect, he appeared deeply interested,
and stood for a few moments at the window, during which time he would
turn his head towards me and utter this sound. That the sound he uttered
was addressed to me could not be doubted, and his manner in doing so was
very human-like. Then returning to me, still standing erect, he would
renew this plaintive speech in the most earnest manner, and continue it
until another gust would call him to the window. I observed that each
time he went to the window he uttered the same sound, as well as I could
detect by ear, and would stand for some time watching out of the window,
and occasionally turn his head and repeat this sound to me. When
returning to me again, he would resume his sad story, whatever it was. I
secured a good record of that part of his speech which was made when
near me at the front of the cage, but the remarks made while at the
window were not so well recorded, yet they were audible, and I
reproduced them on the phonograph at a subsequent visit. My opinion was
that the sound he uttered while at the window must allude in some way to
the state of the weather, and this opinion was confirmed by the fact
that on a later occasion, when I repeated the record to him, the weather
was fair; but when the machine repeated those sounds which he had
uttered at the window on the day of the storm, it would cause him to
turn away and look out of the window; while at the other part of the
record he evinced but little interest, and, in fact, seemed rather to
avoid the phonograph as though the sounds suggested something which he
disliked. I am quite sure that the remarks which he made to me at the
front of the cage were a complaint of some kind, and, from its
intonation and the manner in which it was delivered, I believed that it
was an expression of pain. It occurred to me that the state of the
weather might have something to do with his feelings, and that he was
conscious of this fact, and desired to inform me of it.
About a year from that time, I became quite intimate with a feeble
little monkey, which is described elsewhere by the name of Pedro, and of
whose speech I made a good record. The sounds of his speech so closely
resembled those made by Dago, that I was not able to see that they
differed in any respect, except in loudness. Unfortunately, the
cylinders containing Dago's record had been broken in shipping, and I
was therefore unable to compare the two by analysis; but the sounds
themselves resembled in a striking degree, and the manner of delivery
was not wholly unlike, except that Pedro did not assume the same pose
nor emphasise them with the same gestures.
[Sidenote: DODO, THE JULIET OF THE TRIBE]
During my stay in New York the past winter, I have been frequently
entertained by a like speech from little Dodo, who was the Juliet of the
Simian tribe. She belonged to the same species as the others, but her
oratory was of a type far superior to that of any other of its kind that
I have ever heard. At almost any hour of the day, at the approach of her
keeper, she would stand upright and deliver to him the most touching and
impassioned address. The sounds which she used, and the gestures with
which she accented them, as far as I could determine, were the same as
those used by Dago and Pedro in their remarks to me as above described,
except that Dodo delivered her lines in a much more impressive manner
than either of the others. [Sidenote: DODO AND HER KEEPER] I asked the
keeper to go into the cage with me, and see if he could take her into
his hands. We entered the cage, and after a little coaxing she allowed
him to take her into his arms, and after caressing her for a while, and
assuring her that no harm was meant, she would put her slender little
arms about his neck, and cuddle her head up under his chin like an
injured child. She would caress him by licking his cheeks and chattering
to him in a voice full of sympathy, and an air of affection worthy of a
human being. During most of this time she would continue her pathetic
speech without a moment's pause, and was not willing under any
conditions to be separated from him. The only time at which she would
ever show any anger at me, or threaten me with assault, would be when I
would attempt to lay hands on her keeper, or release him from her warm
embrace. At such times, however, she would fly at me with great fury,
and attempt to tear my very clothes off, and on these occasions she
would not allow any other inmate of the cage to approach him, or to
receive his attention or caresses. The sounds which she uttered were
pitiful at times, and the tale she told must have been full of the
deepest woe. I have not been able up to this time to translate these
sounds literally, but their import cannot be misunderstood. My belief is
that her speech was a complaint against the inmates of the cage, and
that she was begging her keeper not to leave her alone in that great
iron prison, with all those big, bad monkeys, who were so cruel to her.
One reason for believing this to be the nature of her speech, is that in
all cases where I have heard this speech and seen these gestures made,
the conditions were such as to indicate that such was its nature. It
has, however, every appearance of love-making of the most intense type.
It is quite impossible to describe fully and accurately the sounds, and
much more so the gestures, made on these occasions, so that the reader
would be impressed as with the real act and speech. Dodo would stand
erect on her feet, cross her hands on her heart, and in the most
touching but graceful manner go through with the most indescribable
contortions; she would sway her body from side to side, turn her head in
the most coquettish manner, and move her folded hands dramatically,
while her face would be adorned with a Simian grin of the first order,
and the soft, rich notes of her voice were perfectly musical. She would
bend her body into every graceful curve that can be imagined, move her
feet with the grace of the minuet, and continue her fervent speech as
long as the object of her admiration appeared to be touched by her
appeals. Her voice would range from pitch to pitch and from key to key,
and, with her arms folded, she would glide across the floor of her cage
with the grace of a ballet girl; and I have seen her stand with her eyes
fixed upon her keeper, and hold her face in such a position as not to
lose sight of him for a moment, and at the same time turn her body
entirely around, in her tracks, with the skill which no contortionist
has ever attained. [Sidenote: MONKEYS SHED TEARS] During these orations
I have observed the little tears standing in the corner of her eyes,
which indicated that she herself must have felt what her speech was
intended to convey. These little creatures do not shed tears in such
abundance as human beings do, but they are real tears, and are doubtless
the result of the same causes that move the human eyes to tears.
It has been my experience that these sounds appeal directly to our
better feelings. What there is in the sound itself I cannot say, but it
touches some chord in the human heart which vibrates in response to it.
It has impressed me with the thought that all our senses are like the
strings of some great harp, each one having a certain tension; so that
any sound produced through an emotion would find response in that chord
which is in unison with it. Indeed, I have thought that our emotions and
sensations may be like the diatonic scale in music, and that the organs
through which they act may respond in tones and semitones, and that each
multiple of any fundamental tone will affect the chord in unison with
it, like the strings upon a musical instrument. The logical deduction
thence would be, that our sympathies and affections are the chords, and
our aversions and contempt the discords, of that great harp of passion.
CHAPTER VII.
Interpretation of Words--Specific Words and Signs--The Negative
Sign and Sounds--Affirmative Expressions--Possible Origin of
Negative and Positive Signs.
In my intercourse with these little creatures, I cannot forget how often
I have caught the spirit of their tones when no ray of meaning as mere
words of speech had dawned upon me, and it is partly through such means
that I have been able to interpret them. As a rule, each act of a monkey
is attended by some sound, and each sound by some act, which, to another
monkey of the same species, always means a certain thing. There are many
cases, perhaps, in which acquired words or shades of dialect are not
quite clear to them, just as we often find in human speech; but monkeys
appear to meet this difficulty and overcome it, just as men do. They
talk with one another on a limited number of subjects, but in very few
words, which they frequently repeat if necessary. Their language is
purely one of sounds, and while those sounds are accompanied by signs,
as a rule, I think they are quite able to get along better with the
sounds alone than with the signs alone. The rules by which we may
interpret the sounds of Simian speech are the same as those by which we
would interpret human speech. If you should be cast away upon an island
inhabited by some strange race of people whose speech was so unlike your
own that you could not understand a single word of it, you would watch
the actions of those people and see what act they did in connection with
any sound they made, and in this way you would gradually learn to
associate a certain sound with a certain act, until at last you would be
able to understand the sound without seeing the act at all; and such is
the simple line I have pursued in the study of the speech of this
little race--only I have been compelled to resort to some very novel
means of doing my part of the talking. Since I have been so long
associated with them, I have learned to know in many cases what act they
will perform in response to certain sounds; and as I grow more and more
familiar with these sounds, I become better able to distinguish them,
just as we do with human speech.
[Sidenote: SPECIFIC TERMS]
Until recently, I have believed that their sounds were so limited in
number as to preclude any specific terms in their vocabulary; but now I
am inclined to modify this opinion somewhat, as I have reason to believe
that they have some specific terms--such as a word for monkey, another
word for fruit, and so on. They do not specify, perhaps, the various
kinds of monkeys; but monkeys in general, in contradistinction to birds
or dogs. Their word for fruit does not specify the kind, but only means
fruit in a collective sense, and only as a kind of food. I am not
positive as yet that their specific terms may even go so far as this,
but I infer that such may be the case from one fact which I have
observed in my experience. When I show a monkey his image in a mirror,
he utters a sound on seeing it, especially if he has been kept away from
other monkeys for a long time; and all monkeys of the same species, so
far as I have observed, under like conditions use the same sound and
address it in the same way to the image in the glass. In a few instances
I have seen strange monkeys brought in contact with each other, and have
observed that they use this same sound on their first meeting. The sound
is always uttered in a low, soft tone, and appears to have the value of
a salutation. When kept in a cage with other monkeys, they do not appear
to salute the image in the glass, but chatter to it, and show less
surprise at seeing it than in cases where they have been kept alone for
some time.
In cases where monkeys have been fed for a long time on bread and milk,
or on any one kind of food, when a banana is shown him he uses a sound
which the phonograph shows to differ slightly from the ordinary food
sound. I have recently had reason to suspect that this difference of
inflection somewhat qualifies the sound, and has a tendency to make it
more specific. The rapidity with which these creatures utter their
speech is so great that only such ears as theirs can detect these very
slight inflections. I am now directing my observations and experiments
to this end, with the hope that I may determine with certainty in what
degree they qualify their sounds, by inflections or otherwise. I have
observed that in the phonograph the sounds which formerly appeared to me
to be the same are easily distinguished when treated in the manner
described in the second part of this work, where I describe at length
some of my experiments with this wonderful machine.
[Sidenote: THE NEGATIVE SIGN]
One of the most certain of my discoveries in the Simian speech, is the
negative sign and the word "no." The sign is made by shaking the head
from side to side in a fashion almost exactly like that used by man to
express the same idea. I have no longer any doubt of the intent and
meaning of this sign, and the many tests to which I have subjected it
compel me accept the result as final.
[Sidenote: SIGN COMMON TO MAN AND SIMIAN]
A little more than a year ago, my attention was called to this sign by
the children who own the little Capuchin, Jack, in Charlestown. A number
of times they said to him in my presence, "Jack, you must go to bed." At
which he would shake his little black head, as if he really did not wish
to comply. I watched this with great interest; but it was my belief at
that time that he had been trained to do this, and that the sign did not
really signify to him anything at all. The children, however, declared
to me that he really meant "no." To believe that he meant this would
presuppose that he understood the combination of words quoted; and this
was beyond the limits of my faith, although it was certain that a
repetition of the sentence always elicited from him the same sign,
which indicated that he recognised it as the same sentence or
combination of sounds, and gave it the same reply each time. I concluded
that he had been taught to associate this sign with some sound--for
instance, "bed" or "go"; but since that time I have found the sign to be
almost universal with this species of monkey, and they use the sign to
express negation. I have seen them use the sign in response to certain
things which were wholly new to them, but where the idea was clear to
them and they desired to express dissent. The fact that this sign is
common to both man and Simian, I regard as more than a mere coincidence;
and I believe that in this sign I have found the psycho-physical basis
of expression.
I have made scores of experiments on this subject, and I find this sign
a fixed factor of expression. In one case, where I tried to induce a
monkey to allow me to take him into my hands from the hand of his
master, he would shake his head each time, and make a peculiar sound
somewhat like a suppressed cluck. I would try to coax him with nuts, in
response to which he would make the same sound and sign each time, and
his actions showed beyond all controversy his intention. I had taught a
monkey to drink milk from a bottle by sucking it through a rubber
nipple, and after he had satisfied his thirst, when I would try to force
the bottle to his lips, he would invariably respond by a shake of the
head in the manner described, and at the same time utter a clucking
sound. I tried many similar experiments with three or four other
monkeys, and secured the same result in each case. In another instance,
where a monkey was confined in a small cage so that I could easily catch
him in order to tame him by handling, when I would put my hand into the
cage to catch him, he would shake his head in this manner and accompany
the act by a plaintive sound which was so touching, that I could not
obtain my own consent to persecute the little prisoner by compelling him
to submit to my caresses. I have found that the little rogue, McGinty,
in Central Park does the same thing at times when I go into the cage and
attempt to put my hands on him, and especially when he has taken refuge
in a corner to nurse his jealousy. While I remain outside the cage, he
is so devoted to me that he will scarcely leave me to get something to
eat; but when I enter the cage, and reach out my hand toward him, he
will shake his little head and utter that peculiar clucking sound. Many
of these tests I have repeated over and over with the same results, and,
noting the conditions at the time, I am thoroughly convinced that the
sign and sound mean "no." I have observed that this sign is always made
in the same manner; but sometimes it is accompanied by a clucking sound,
while at other times it is a soft whimpering sound, almost like a low
plaintive whistle. [Sidenote: SIGN USED WITHOUT SOUND] The sign is
frequently used without the sound at all, and I must impress it upon my
reader that these results do not always present themselves in every
experiment, as much depends upon the mood and surroundings of the
subject. I have found that one advantage is to have the monkey confined
in a very small cage, as otherwise he will turn away and get out of your
reach when you press anything upon him that he does not want. I have
also found much better results by having the monkey alone, and where he
can neither see nor hear other monkeys.
Having discovered the sign of negation among the Simians, I began an
investigation to ascertain how far it could be found among the races of
mankind. I have carried my search far beyond the limits of local
inquiry, and up to this time I have found only a few trifling exceptions
in the use of this sign among all the races of men, and those few
exceptions are found among the Caucasian race, and appear to be confined
to Southern Europe. I have heard that among certain island tribes of
Polynesia these signs are reversed, but I have been assured by two
officers of the English navy and two of the United States navy, who have
visited the islands in question, that such is not the case. Among the
Indians, Mongolians, and Negroes I have found no noteworthy exceptions.
I have inquired among mothers who have raised families to ascertain when
they first observed this sign as an expression among their children; and
from the consensus of opinion it appears that this is about the first
sign used by infants to express negation.
[Sidenote: THE POSITIVE SIGN]
I have not found the positive sign, or sign of affirmation, by a nod of
the head, to be so general, yet it has a wide range within the human
family, and appears to be used to some extent among the lower primates.
Seeking a source from which these signs may have originated, I have
concluded that they may arise from two circumstances. The negative sign
doubtless comes from an effort to turn the head away from something
which is not desired, and that with such an intent it has gradually
crystallised into an instinctive expression of negation or refusal;
while the nod of affirmation or approval may have grown out of the
intuitive lowering of the head, as an act of submission or acquiescence,
or from reaching the head forward to receive something desired, or they
may have come from these two causes conjointly.
[Sidenote: ALPHABET FOR SIMIAN SPEECH]
This is only one of a great many points in which the speech of Simians
coincides with that of man. It is true we have no letters in our
alphabet with which to represent the sounds of their speech, nor have we
the phonetic equivalence of their speech in our language; but it is also
true that our alphabet does not fully represent or correctly express the
entire phonetic range of our own speech; but the fact that our speech is
not founded upon the same phonetic basis, or built up into the same
phonetic structures, is no reason that their speech is not as truly
speech as our own. That there are no letters in any alphabet which
represent the phonetic elements of Simian speech, is doubtless due to
the fact that there has never been any demand for such; but the same
genius which invented an alphabet for human speech, actuated by the same
motives and led by the same incentives, could as easily invent an
alphabet for Simian speech. It is not only true that the phonetic
elements of our language are not represented by the characters of our
alphabet, but the same is true to some extent of our words, which do not
quite keep pace with human thought. In the higher types of human speech
there are thousands of words and ideas which cannot be translated into
or expressed by any savage tongue, because no savage ever had use for
them, and no savage tongue contains their equivalence. The growth of
speech is always measured by the growth of mind. They are not always of
the same extent, but always bear a common ratio. It is a mental product,
and must be equal to the task of coining thoughts into words. It is
essential to all social order, and no community could long survive as
such without it. It is as much the product of mind and matter as salt is
the product of chlorine and sodium.
CHAPTER VIII.
Meeting with Nellie--Nellie was my Guest--Her Speech and
Manners--The little Blind Girl--One of Nellie's Friends--Her
Sight and Hearing--Her Toys, and how she Played with them.
One of the most intelligent of all the brown Capuchins that I have ever
seen was Nellie, who belonged to a dealer in Washington. When she
arrived there, I was invited to call and see her. I introduced myself in
my usual way, by giving her the sound for food, to which she promptly
replied. She was rather informal, and we were soon engaged in a chat on
that subject, the one above all others that would interest a monkey. On
my second visit she was like an old acquaintance, and we had a fine
time. On my third visit she allowed me to put my hands into her cage,
and handle her with impunity. On my next visit I took her out of the
cage, and we had a real romp. This continued for some days, during which
time she would answer me on all occasions when I used the word for food
or drink. She had grown quite fond of me, and always recognised me as I
entered the door. [Sidenote: NELLIE AND THE BLIND GIRL] About this time
there came to Washington a little girl who was deaf, dumb, and blind;
she was accompanied by her teacher, who acted as her interpreter. One of
the greatest desires of this little girl's life was to see a live
monkey--that is, to see it with her fingers. The dealer who owned the
monkey sent for me to come down and show it to her, as I could handle
the monkey for her. I took Nellie from the cage, and when any one except
myself would put hands upon her she would growl and scold and show her
temper; and when the little blind girl first attempted to put her hands
on her, Nellie did not like it at all. I stroked the child's hair and
cheeks with my own hand first, and then with Nellie's; she looked up at
me in an inquiring manner, and uttered one of those soft, flute-like
sounds a few times, and then began to pull at the cheeks and ears of the
child. Within a few moments they were like old friends and playmates,
and for nearly an hour they afforded each other great pleasure, at the
end of which time they separated with reluctance. The little Simian
acted as if she was conscious of the sad affliction of the child, but
seemed at perfect ease with her, although she would decline the
tenderest approach of others. She would look at the child's eyes, which
were not disfigured, but lacked expression, and then look up at me as if
to indicate that she was aware that the child was blind, and the little
girl appeared not to be aware that monkeys could bite at all. It was a
beautiful and touching scene, and one in which the lamp of instinct shed
its feeble light on all around.
On the following day, by an accident in which I really had no part,
except that of being present, Nellie escaped from her cage, and climbed
up on a shelf occupied by some bird-cages. As she attempted to climb up,
of course the light wicker cages with their little yellow occupants fell
to the floor by the dozen. I tried to induce her to return or to come to
me, but the falling cages, the cry of the birds, the talking of parrots,
and the scream of other monkeys, frightened poor Nellie almost out of
her wits. Thinking that I was the cause of her trouble, because I was
present, she would scream with fright at my approach. She was not an
exception to that general rule which governs monkeydom, which is to
suspect every one of doing wrong except itself.
I had her removed to my apartment, where I supplied her with bells and
toys, and fed her on the fat of the land; and by this means we slowly
knitted together the broken bones of our friendship once more. But when
once a monkey has grown suspicious of you they never recover entirely
from it, it seems, for in every act thereafter, however slight, you can
readily see that they suspect you of it; but with great care and caution
you can make them almost forget the trouble. While I kept Nellie at my
rooms I made some good records of her speech on the phonograph, and
studied her with special care; but as the province of this work is the
speech of that little race, I must forego the pleasure of telling some
intensely funny things with which she entertained me, excepting so far
as they are relevant to speech.
[Sidenote: NELLIE'S FONDNESS FOR A LITTLE BOY]
A frequent and welcome visitor to my study was a bright little boy,
about six years old, for whom Nellie entertained a great fondness, as
she also did for my wife. At the sight of the boy Nellie would go into
perfect raptures, and when he would leave her, she would call him so
earnestly and whine so pitifully that one could not refrain from
sympathy. On his return she would laugh audibly, and give every sign of
extreme joy. She never tired of his company, nor gave any part of her
attention to others when he was present. Some children living next door
always found great delight in calling to see Nellie, and she always
showed her pleasure at their visits. On these occasions, Nellie made it
a point to entertain them, and always showed herself to the best
advantage. When I wished to make a good record of her sounds, and
especially of her laughter, I always brought the little boy to my aid.
The boy would conceal himself in the room, and after Nellie had called
him a few times he would jump out from his place of concealment and
surprise her, whereupon she would laugh till she could be heard through
the whole house; and in this manner I secured some of the best records I
have ever made of the laughter of any monkey. When the boy would conceal
himself again, I secured the peculiar sound with which she would try to
attract his attention. The sound which she used in calling him or my
wife was unlike that which she made for any other purpose; and while it
is difficult to say whether the grammatical value of this sound is that
of a noun or of a verb, it is evident that it was used for the special
purpose of calling or attracting attention. If its value is that of a
noun, it has not, in my opinion, any specific character, but a term
which would be applied alike to boys, monkeys, horses, birds, or any
other thing which she might desire to call. If in its nature it is a
verb, it is equivalent to the name of the act, and combines the force of
the imperative and infinitive moods.
[Sidenote: EMOTIONS OF MAN AND SIMIAN]
The uniform expression of the emotions of man and Simian is such as to
suggest that, if thought was developed from emotion and speech was
developed from thought, that the expressions of emotion were the
rudiments from which speech is developed.
A striking point of resemblance between human speech and that of the
Simian is found in a word which Nellie used to warn me of approaching
danger. It is not that sound which I have elsewhere described as the
alarm-sound, and which is used only in case of imminent and awful
danger; but this sound is used in case of remote danger or in announcing
something unusual. As nearly as I can represent the sound by letters, it
would be "e-c-g-k," and with this word I have been warned by these
little friends many times since I first heard it from Nellie.
[Sidenote: NELLIE'S ACTIONS ALMOST HUMAN]
In the following experiment this sound was used with great effect.
Nellie's cage occupied a place in my study near my desk. She would stay
awake at night as long as the light was kept burning, and as I have
always kept late hours, I did not violate the rule of my life in order
to give her a good night's rest. About two o'clock one morning, when I
was about to retire, I found Nellie wide awake. I drew my chair up to
her cage, and sat watching her pranks as she tried to entertain me with
bells and toys. I tied a long thread to a glove, which I placed in a
corner of the room at a distance of several feet from me, but without
letting her see it. I held one end of the string in my hand, I drew the
glove obliquely across the floor towards the cage. When I first
tightened the string, which I had drawn across one knee and under the
other, the glove moved very slightly, and this her quick eye caught at
the very first motion. Standing almost on tip-toe, her mouth half open,
she would peep cautiously at the glove, and then in a low whisper would
say "e-c-g-k"! And every second or so would repeat it, at the same time
watching me, to see whether I was aware of the approach of this goblin.
Her actions were almost human, while her movements were as stealthy as
those of a cat. As the glove came closer and closer she became more and
more demonstrative, and when at last she saw the monster climbing up the
leg of my trousers, she uttered the sound aloud and very rapidly, and
tried to get to the object, which she evidently thought was some living
thing. She detected the thread with which I drew the glove across the
floor, but seemed in doubt as to what part it played in this act. I saw
her eyes several times follow the thread from my knee to the glove, but
I do not think she discovered what caused the glove to move. Having done
this for a few times, however, with about the same result each time, I
relieved her anxiety and fright by allowing her to examine the glove,
which she did with marked interest for a moment and then turned away. I
tried the same thing over again, but failed to elicit from her the
slightest interest after she had examined the glove.
[Sidenote: SOUND OF WARNING]
It will be observed that when Nellie first discovered the glove moving
on the floor, as she attempted to call my attention in a low whisper,
and as the object approached me she became more earnest, and uttered the
sound somewhat louder, and when she discovered the monster, as she
regarded it, climbing up my leg, she uttered her warning in a loud
voice, not a scream or a yell, but in a tone sufficiently loud for the
distance over which the warning was conveyed. The fact of her whispering
indicates that her idea of sound was well defined; her purpose was to
warn me of the approaching danger without alarming the object against
which her warning was intended to prepare me; and as the danger
approached me, her warning became more urgent, and when she saw the
danger was at hand her warning was no longer concealed or restrained.
Another sound which these little creatures use in a somewhat similar
manner, is a word which may be represented by the letters "c-h-i." The
"c-h" is guttural like the final "ch" in German, and "i" short like the
sound of "i" in hit. This sound is used to give warning of the approach
of something which the monkey does not fear, such as approaching
footsteps or the sound of voices; and this sound Nellie always used to
warn my wife of my approach when I was coming up the stairway. The rooms
which I occupied while I kept Nellie were located on the second floor,
and the dining-room was on the ground-floor; and hence there were two
flights of stairs between, both of which were carpeted. So acute was
her sense of hearing, that she would detect my footsteps on the lower
stairway, and warn my wife of my approach. She manifested no interest,
as a rule, in the sounds made by other persons passing up and down the
stairway, which indicated that she not only heard the sounds of my
footsteps but recognised them. The first intimation she would give of my
coming was always in a whisper. She would first make the sound "c-h-i,"
and then she would stop and listen. She would repeat the sound and
listen again, and as I would approach the door in the hall she would
lift her voice to its natural pitch, and utter this sound three or four
times in quick succession; and when I turned the door-knob she would
show some excitement, and when I entered the room she would always
express her satisfaction with a little chuckle. This sound she did not
use except to announce something of which she was not afraid, but when
she apprehended danger from the cause of the sound, she would use the
word "e-c-g-k," and when greatly alarmed she would use the sound which I
have described in the former chapter as that of intense alarm or
assault.
[Sidenote: MONKEYS DO NOT TALK WHEN ALONE]
Nellie was an affectionate little creature, and could not bear to be
left alone, even when supplied with toys and everything she wanted to
eat. When she would see me put on my overcoat, or get my hat and cane,
she knew what it meant; and when she would see my wife, to whom she was
much devoted, put on her cloak and bonnet, she at once foresaw that she
would be left alone. Then she would plead and beg and chatter, until she
sometimes dissuaded my wife, and she seemed aware that she had
accomplished her purpose. I have watched her by the hour, through a
small hole in the door, and when quite alone she would play with her
toys in perfect silence, and sometimes for hours together she would not
utter a single word. She was not an exception to the rule which I have
mentioned heretofore, that monkeys do not talk when alone, or when it is
not necessary to their comfort or pleasure; and while I am aware that
their speech is far inferior to human speech, yet in it there is an
eloquence that soothes, and a meaning that appeals to the human heart.
CHAPTER IX.
Affections--A little Flirtation--Some of my personal Friends.
Nellie had spent much of her life in captivity and had been used to the
society of children, for whom she showed the greatest fondness, and
rarely ever betrayed the slightest aversion to any of them. She
delighted to pat their cheeks, pull their ears, and tangle their hair.
One of her favourite pastimes was to pull the hairpins out of my wife's
hair so that she could get hold of it the better to play with, and my
wife has often remarked that Nellie would make an excellent lady's-maid.
She would clean one's finger-nails with the skill of a manicure. She
would pick every shred, ravelling, or speck from one's clothing. Her
aversions and attachments were equally strong. She was not selfish in
selecting her friends, nor did she seem to be influenced by age or
beauty.
[Sidenote: MONKEYS SHOULD HAVE TOYS]
To let her out of her cage and give her something to play with was
happiness enough for her, and I almost think she preferred such a life
to the freedom of her Amazon forests. But you cannot afford to turn one
out of the cage in a room where there is anything that can be torn or
broken, as they enjoy such mischief in the highest degree. Nellie would
beg me so piteously to be taken from her little iron prison that I could
not have the cruelty to refuse her, even at the cost of some trouble in
preparing the room for her; and as we retain these little captives
against their will, and treat them worse than slaves by keeping them in
close confinement, I think we should at least try to amuse them. It is
true they do not have to toil, but I think it would be more humane to
make them work in the open air than to confine them so closely, and then
deprive them of every source of pleasure. As an act of humanity and
simple justice, I would impress upon those who keep such little pets how
important a thing it is to keep them supplied with toys. They are just
like children in this respect, and for a trifle one can furnish them
with all the toys they need. It is cruel, absolutely cruel, to keep
these little creatures confined in solitude and deny them the simple
pleasure they find in playing with a bell, ball or marbles; and besides
this, a trifling outlay in this way will very much prolong their lives.
A monkey is always happy if he has something to play with and plenty to
eat. [Sidenote: NELLIE WITH THE MATCH-BOX] I do not know of any
investment of mine which ever yielded such a great return in pleasure as
one little pocket match-safe which cost me twenty-five cents, and which
I gave to Nellie one evening to play with. I had put into it a small key
to make it rattle, and also some bits of candy. She rattled the box, and
found some pleasure in the noise it made. I showed her a few times how
to press the spring in order to open it, but her little black fingers
were not strong enough to release the spring and make the lid fly open.
However, she caught the idea, and knew that the spring was the secret
which held it; and when she found that she could not open it with her
fingers, she tried it with her teeth. Failing in this, she turned to the
wall, and standing upright on the top of her cage, she took the box in
both hands and struck the spring against the wall until the lid flew
open. She was perfectly delighted at the result, and for the hundredth
time at least I closed the box for her to open again. On the following
day, when some friends came in to visit her, I gave her the match-box to
open again. On this occasion, however, she was in her cage and could not
reach the wall through its meshes, and hence had nothing against which
to strike the spring to force it open. After looking around her in all
directions and striking the box against the wires of her cage a few
times, she discovered a block of wood in her cage about six inches
square by an inch thick, and this she took and mounted her perch.
Balancing the block on the perch she held it with the left foot, while
with her right foot she held on to the perch, and with her tail wound
through the meshes of her cage to steady herself, she carefully adjusted
the match-box in her hands in such a manner as to protect her fingers
from the blow. Then striking the spring against the block of wood the
lid flew open, and she fairly screamed with delight, and held the box up
with pride, wanting me to close the lid again, in order that she might
open it.
Finding that the late hours which I kept were beginning to tell on
Nellie, and that during the day from time to time I would catch her
taking a little nap, I concluded to use some curtains around her cage to
avoid disturbing her rest. I drew them around the cage, lapped them
over, and pinned them down in front. Then I turned down the light and
kept quiet for a while to allow her to go to sleep. After the lapse of
a few minutes, I slowly turned up the light and resumed my writing. In
an instant I heard the curtains rustle, and looked around, and there I
saw her little brown eyes peeping through the folds of the curtains,
which she held apart with her little black hands. When she saw what it
was that caused all this disturbance, she chattered to me in her soft
rich tones, and tried so hard to pull the curtains apart that I removed
them from her cage so that she could look around the room. To see her
holding the curtains apart in that graceful manner, turning her head
from side to side, peeping and smiling at me, and talking in such low
tones, was so much like a real flirtation that one who has not seen the
like cannot fully appreciate it. And only those who have experienced the
warm and unselfish friendship of these little creatures can realise how
strong the attachment becomes. When once you enjoy the confidence of a
monkey, nothing can shake it, except some act of your own, or one at
least which they attribute to you. Their little ears are proof against
gossip, and their tongues are free from it.
[Sidenote: THE LOVE OF MONKEYS]
Among the little captives of the Simian race who spend their lives in
iron prisons to gratify the cruelty of man, and not to expiate some
crime committed or inherent, I have many little friends to whom I am
attached, and whose devotion to me is as warm and sincere, so far as I
can see, as that of any human being. I must confess that I cannot
discern in what intrinsic way the love they have for me differs from my
own for them. I cannot see in what respect their love is less divine
than is my own. I cannot see in what respect the affections of a dog for
a kind master differ from those of a child for a kind parent, nor can I
see in what respect the sense of fear for a cruel master differs from
that of a child for a cruel parent. It is mere sentiment that ascribes
to those of a child a higher source than the same passions in the
dog--the dog could have loved or feared another master just as well; and
filial love or fear would have reached out its tendrils just as far with
all the ties of kindred blood removed. It has been said that one is able
to assign a definite reason _why_, and that the other is a vague
impulse; but I am too obtuse to understand how reason actuates to love,
and instinct to a mere attachment. I cannot believe that in the
essential and ultimate nature of these passions there can be shown any
real difference. Whether it be reason or instinct in man, the affections
of the lower animals are actuated by the same motives, governed by the
same conditions, and guided by the same reasons as those of man. I shall
not soon forget some of my monkey friends, and I am sure they will not
forget me; for I see them sometimes after months of absence, and they
usually recognise me at sight and show every sign of pleasure at my
return.
CHAPTER X.
The Capuchin Vocabulary--What I have Found--What I Foresee in
it.
Up to this time I have been able to determine with a fair degree of
certainty nine words or sounds belonging to Capuchins, some of which
sounds are so inflected as to have two or three different meanings, I
think. The sound which I have translated food and found to have a much
wider meaning, long perplexed me, because I found it used under so many
conditions and had not been able to detect any difference of modulation.
I find one form of this sound used for food in general, but when
modulated in a certain way seems to specify the kind of food. I observed
that this sound seemed to be a salutation or peacemaking term with them,
which I attributed to the fact that food was the central thought of
every monkey's life, and that consequently that word would naturally be
the most important of his whole speech. During the past winter, I found
that another modulation of this word expressed a wish to obtain a thing,
and appeared to me to be almost equivalent to the verb "give," when used
in the imperative mood, something like this, "Give me that." I have
succeeded a great number of times, by the use of this word, in inducing
McGinty to give me a part of his food, and on many occasions to hand me
from his cage a ball, a club, or some such thing that I had given him to
play with. Under suitable conditions, I could soon determine to what
extent these inflections control their actions, but with the
surroundings of a zoological garden the task is very difficult. However,
I am quite satisfied that the sound which I have translated food is
shaded by them into several kindred meanings.
The word "drink" appears to be more fixed, both in its form and
meaning. I have not yet been able to detect any difference in the sound
whether water, milk, or other liquids be desired; but this is quite
natural, since they have but little variety in the things they drink.
[Sidenote: SOUNDS "WEATHER" AND "LOVE"]
The sound which I had thought meant "weather," or in some way alluded to
the state of the weather, I am not sure how far that may be relied upon
as a separate word. It was so closely connected to the speech of
discontent or pain when made by little Dago, that I have not been able
since to separate the sounds, and I finally abandoned it as a separate
word; but reviewing my work, and recalling the peculiar conduct of this
monkey and the conditions attending it, I believe it is safe to say that
he had in mind the state of the weather.
The sound which I have translated "love" is only in the sense of firm
and ardent friendship. The expressions of love between sexes I have not
been able as yet to find with certainty. A few sounds, however, made
under certain conditions, I have reason to believe bear upon this
subject, but I am not yet ready to announce my opinions thereon.
The "alarm" sound, as I have translated it, has been described; but
among the Capuchins I find three kindred words, quite unlike as mere
sounds, but closely allied in meaning. The one just mentioned is used
under the stress of great fear, or in case of assault. It is a shrill,
piercing sound, very loud and very high in pitch. The second word,
"e-c-g-k," used only to express apprehension, or as a warning of the
approach of a thing they fear or do not like; and the last of these,
which is a guttural whisper, is used merely to call attention to the
approach of something which the monkey does not fear or dislike, which I
have spelt "c-h-i."
I have referred elsewhere, without describing it, to the sound which
Nellie used for calling, and which she employed when attempting to
dissuade my wife from going out and leaving her alone. It is a peculiar
sound, something like a whine, but very plaintive and suggestive. I
cannot represent it in letters.
[Sidenote: THE CAPUCHIN TONGUE]
There are many sounds about which I am yet in doubt, and some shades of
meaning are not clear, but these sounds described include the greater
part of my knowledge of the Capuchin tongue, and I shall now proceed to
the sounds of some of the other monkeys.
Standing on this frail bridge of speech, I see into that broad field of
life and thought which lies beyond the confines of our care, and into
which, through the gates that I have now unlocked, may soon be borne the
sunshine of human intellect. What prophet now can foretell the relations
which may yet obtain between the human race and those inferior forms
which fill some place in the design, and execute some function in the
economy of nature?
A knowledge of their language cannot injure man, and may conduce to the
good of others, because it would lessen man's selfishness, widen his
mercy, and restrain his cruelty. It would not place man more remote from
his divinity, nor change the state of facts which now exist. Their
speech is the only gateway to their minds, and through it we must pass
if we would learn their secret thoughts and measure the distance from
mind to mind.
CHAPTER XI.
The Word for Food in the Rhesus Dialect--The Rhesus Sound of
Alarm--The Dialect of the White-face--Dolly Varden, "Uncle
Remus," and others.
From a number of sounds uttered by the Rhesus monkeys, I finally
selected the word which, for many reasons, I believed meant food, and
was the equivalent in meaning to that word in the Capuchin tongue. The
phonetic character of the words differs very widely. The sound uttered
by the Rhesus, as nearly as I can represent it by letters, is "nqu-u-w."
The "u" sound is about the same as in the Capuchin word, but on close
examination with the phonograph it appears to be uttered in five
syllables very slightly separated, while the ear only detects two.
One of the most unique of my experiments I made in Central Park, in the
autumn of 1891. I secured a very fine phonograph record of the food
sound of the Rhesus monkeys belonging to the Park. During the following
night there arrived at the Park a shipment of Rhesus monkeys, just from
their home in the east of Asia. There were seven of these new monkeys,
three adult females and four babies, one of whom was left an orphan by
the death of its mother in her passage across the ocean. At my request
the superintendent had these monkeys stored in the vacant room in the
upper story of the Old Armoury building. They had never seen the monkeys
in Central Park, nor had they ever been brought near enough to the
monkey-house for them to learn by any means that any other monkeys were
about. About sunrise I repaired to this room, where I had my phonograph
placed in order, and I enjoined those who were present, by special
permission, not to do anything to attract the attention of the monkeys,
nor under any condition to show them any food or anything to drink.
Having arranged my phonograph, I delivered to them the sounds contained
on my cylinder which I had recorded on the day preceding. Up to this
time not a sound had been uttered by any inmate of the shipping cage.
The instant my phonograph began to reproduce the record, the seven new
monkeys began to answer vociferously. After having delivered this record
to them, I gave them time to become quiet again. I showed them some
carrots and apples, on seeing which they began to utter the same sounds
which they had uttered before, and this time I secured a good record of
their sounds to compare with the others.
[Sidenote: RHESUS MONKEYS]
The alarm-sound as given by the Rhesus is very energetic, but not so
shrill nor sharp as that of the Capuchin, nor have I discovered more
than one such sound. As they are not of a high order of intelligence,
nor kindly disposed unless kept in fear, I have not given them a great
amount of study, but their sounds come more closely to the range of the
human voice than do the sounds of the Cebus, which I regard as the
Caucasian of monkeys.
The Rhesus is not very intelligent, but when reared in captivity appears
to be capable of some degree of domestication. The adult reared in a
wild state shows many phases of vicious and uncongenial temper. When
well cared for, they are rather hardy and undergo training quite well.
They are not a handsome animal, being of a faded tan colour on the back,
merged into a yellowish white on the less exposed parts. They have large
cheek-pouches which, when not filled with food, allow the skin on the
neck and jaws to hang in folds, which give them an appearance of extreme
emaciation, and when full of food they are so distended as to present
rather an unpleasant aspect.
The sounds which the Rhesus utters in anger are harsh and unmusical,
while their sound for food is soft and sympathetic, and I have made a
machine which imitates it quite well. The Rhesus belong to the genus
_Macacus_, one of the oldest and largest of all Simian genera.
I have found the word in the dialect of the white-faced Cebus which
corresponds in value to those sounds described in the dialects of the
Capuchin and Rhesus monkeys meaning food, but I cannot give the faintest
idea of the sound by any combination of letters, nor have I as yet
devised any means by which I can imitate it. I recorded this sound on
the phonograph more than a year ago, but only within the last few months
have been able to tell its meaning.
[Sidenote: SOUND OF DANGER]
Another sound which is made by this species to express apprehension of
remote danger, such as an approaching footstep or some unusual sound, I
have also learned. It is very much the same phonetically as that sound
which he utters in case of great and sudden alarm, but uttered with much
less energy. It resembles slightly the alarm-sound of the Capuchin, but
up to this time I have not been able to make a good record of it.
Another sound which is peculiar to this species I think is used as a
kind of salutation or expression of friendship, which phonetically is
quite unlike the corresponding sound in any other dialect that I have
studied.
I must mention Dolly Varden, who belongs to this species, and with whom
I was at one time on very warm terms of friendship. Dolly was very fond
of me, and would laugh and play with me by the hour. Her laughter was
very human-like, except that it was silent, and in all our play during
the lapse of some weeks she never uttered a sound, not even so much as a
growl, although I tried by every possible means to induce her to talk.
It has occurred to me since that time that she may have been deaf and
dumb, but I did not think of testing her on these points while I had an
opportunity. It is not usual for monkeys to laugh in silence, although
they frequently laugh aloud like human beings; but it is not a common
thing for them to remain silent at all times and under all conditions.
Dolly was good-natured, playful, and always showed every sign of
pleasure at my visits.
[Sidenote: "UNCLE REMUS"]
In Central Park there is a monkey of this species which I call "Uncle
Remus." He is quite fond of me, and, for my amusement, he always wants
to whip a little baby monk in the same cage with him whenever I go to
visit them. This species belongs to the same genus as the Capuchin, but
they differ in mental calibre as widely as the Caucasian differs from
the Negro; but in this case the colours are reversed. I have seen a few
fairly intelligent white-faces and a great many very stupid Capuchins,
but, to strike an average from a great number of each kind, they will be
found very widely separated in brain power.
The white-faced Cebus always has a languid expression, and looks like
some poor, decrepit old man, who has borne a great burden of care
through a long life, and finds his toil and patience ill-requited and is
now awaiting his last call. He always has a sad face, and looks as if
his friends were false. His type of speech is very far inferior to that
of the Capuchin, and I do not regard him as a good subject for my work.
[Sidenote: JIM AND THE MANGABY]
I have learned the food sound in the dialect of the sooty Mangaby, but I
have not been able to record it sufficiently well to study; but it is
one of the most peculiar sounds in the whole range of Simian speech. The
phonetic elements are nearly like "wuh-uh-uh," but the manner in which
it is delivered is very singular. It appears to be intermixed with a
peculiar clucking sound, and each sound seems independent of the other,
although so closely joined in their utterance as to sound almost like
they were uttered simultaneously by separate means. It is a deep
guttural, below the middle pitch of the human voice, while the clucking
element appears much higher in pitch, and the whole sound is marked with
a strong tremolo effect. The syllables are uttered in rapid succession,
and this peculiar sound under different conditions is uttered in at
least three different degrees of pitch about an octave apart, but the
contour appears to me the same in each. This species talks but little,
is very shy, makes few friends, and is afraid of the phonograph; hence I
have never been able to make a good record of its voice. I was
cultivating the friendship of Jim, who recently died in Central Park,
and we were getting on the best of terms; but the little Mangaby that
survives him is very shy and suspicious. Immediately after Jim's death,
however, when I would visit the Garden, she would always jump on the
perch and take the same position that Jim had occupied whenever I would
feed him. During his lifetime, she always kept her distance and never
would take anything out of my hand, because she was afraid of him; but
as soon as he was out of the way she assumed his place, and would utter
the same sound that he had uttered at my approach. She evidently was
aware of the fact that Jim and I were friends, that I always gave him
something good to eat at that particular place in the cage, and that he
always sat in a certain position when I gave it to him. I do not regard
this species as very intelligent, nor their language as being of a high
type; but they have a very human-like face, almost without hair, and
very large and expressive eyes. They abound in West Africa, and have
been colonised with success in the island of Mauritius; they are not
very common in captivity, but much more so than some other species of
less interest.
CHAPTER XII.
Atelles or Spider Monkeys--The Common Macaque--Java Monkeys, and
what they say--A Happy Family.
I have caught one sound from the spider monkey by which I have been able
to attract the attention of others of the same species, but I am as yet
uncertain about its meaning. I do not believe that it has any reference
to food; but I think perhaps it is a term of friendship, or a sound of
endearment. One reason for this belief is, that I have heard it used on
several occasions when a monkey of this kind would see its image in a
mirror. I have used the sound in Washington, Philadelphia, and Atlanta,
and induced the monkey addressed to respond to it and come to me. I
almost concluded at one time that this species was nearly dumb, until I
saw one enraged by a green monkey that occupied an adjoining cage. On
this occasion she raised her voice to an extremely high pitch, and
uttered a sound having great volume and significance. This she repeated
several times, and it was the first time I had ever seen a spider monkey
show any sign of resentment. On another occasion, where this same
specimen saw a brilliant peacock near the window by her cage, the sounds
which she made at that strange object were loud, clear, and varied.
I have read with surprise an account of a spider monkey which Dr.
Gardner had with him in his travels through South America. He describes
it as the most intelligent of all monkeys, but I cannot believe that his
experience with monkeys was sufficient to rank him as an authority on
that subject. I do not pretend, however, to know all that there is to be
known concerning this species, but so far as my study of them goes they
scarcely laugh, cry, or show any sign of emotion. They do not usually
resent anything; thus they are harmless and timid. Their long, lean,
half-clad limbs look like the ghost of poverty, and their slow, cautious
movements like decrepitude begging alms. They would be objects of pity
if they only had sense enough to know how Nature has slighted them.
[Sidenote: "JESS"]
I have recently received a letter from Mr. A. E. McCall, of Bath, New
York, enclosing a photograph of a monkey of this kind, by the name of
"Jess." The gentleman tells me that he has been giving some time to the
study of the actions and language of this monkey, and assures me that it
is very docile, and follows him like a dog, and kindly offers to make
such experiments with it as I may suggest, by which to aid me in the
pursuit of my own researches, and I shall take advantage of his kind
offer.
I am aware that there are exceptions to all rules, and I am not disposed
to deprive the spider monkey of the place he may deserve in the scale of
Simian life by reason of his intellect or speech; but as this book is a
record of what I know, and not what I have heard of, I shall for the
present be compelled to place the spider monkey very far down in the
scale of intellect and speech.
The common Macaque is a strong, well-built monkey, of a dark grey
colour, with a short stubby tail. He has but few friends, and at times
appears to regret having any at all. He is quite active, energetic, and
aggressive. He endures captivity well, but as a rule never becomes quite
tame or trustworthy. His speech is of a low type, but he has a very
singular expression of the mouth, which seems to indicate friendship. In
fact, there are several different species of the genus _Macacus_ that
use this peculiar movement of the lips. They thrust the head forward and
lower it slightly, and in this position work their lips as if talking
with the greatest possible energy, but without uttering a sound. They do
not do this for food, but I have seen them do it to their image in the
glass, and have had them do so with me a great number of times. I have
been told by some that this is meant as a sign of anger or assault, but
my own observations tend to attribute to it exactly the reverse of this
meaning. Occasionally, when I have offered them food, I have observed
them do this; but I do not think it referred to the food, unless it was
intended as a vote of thanks. The first monkey whose voice I ever
captured on the phonograph belonged to this tribe; he is still in the
Washington collection, and bears the name of "Prince," under which name
he may go down to history as the first monkey whose speech was ever
recorded. But whatever his fame may become on that account, I do not
think he will ever justly obtain the reputation of being an amiable
monkey.
[Sidenote: JAVA MONKEYS]
Among the Java monkeys are several varieties which make very good pets.
They show a fair degree of intelligence and docility, and are not
generally very vicious. I have not succeeded in making any very good
records of these monkeys, although I have observed, without the aid of
the phonograph, that they have one or two very distinct and well-marked
sounds. I have not up to this time attempted to differentiate their
sounds, but in a general way have interpreted the meanings of one or two
groups of them, especially those of a friendly character. I may with
propriety remark here, that in all the different tongues of monkeys
there appear to be certain words which are much more significant, of a
much better phonetic type, than the others, and occur much more
frequently among their sounds. This appears to be true of the speech or
sounds of all the lower animals.
[Sidenote: MONKEYS RECOGNISE BY SIGHT]
In a former chapter I have described the happy little family in Central
Park, which consisted of the five little brown cousins, only a few
months ago; but death has reduced their number to two. In this
connection I shall mention a very important fact concerning the use of
the natural senses of these animals. I have several times been assured
that monkeys depended more upon their sense of smell than upon that of
sight as a means of recognition, and that in this respect they were very
much like the canines. I have made frequent tests of the power of their
senses, and am prepared to say with certainty that such is not the case.
When I visit the Park, I frequently enter at Sixty-fourth Street and
Fifth Avenue, at which place there is a flight of stairs leading from
the street down to a large plazza in front of the Old Armoury; and
something more than a hundred feet from the foot of the stairway, and
nearly at right angles to it, is a window opening into the monkey-house
by the cage occupied by these particular monkeys. When I descend the
stairway and come within view of this window, they frequently see me as
I reach the plazza, and the keeper always knows of my approach by the
conduct of the monkeys, who recognise me the instant I come in sight at
that distance. At other times I have approached the house from another
direction, and come within a few feet of their cage, where I have stood
for some time, in order to ascertain whether they were aware of my
presence; and on a few occasions have slipped into the house with the
crowd, and they did not detect my presence except by sight. It is
evident, if they depended upon the sense of smell, that they would have
discovered my presence when so near them, although they could not see
me. But no matter what the condition of the weather, or how many people
are present, the instant one of them sees me he spreads the news, and
every inmate of the cage rushes to the window and begins to scream at
the top of his voice. If their sense of smell was such as to enable them
to detect my presence as a dog would, it is reasonable also that the
monkey which possessed the most sensitive organs would have been the
first to detect it in each case; whereas, sometimes one monkey, and
sometimes another, made the discovery. It is my belief, however, that
their sense of smell is much more acute than that of man, but far less
so than that of most other animals, especially the dog. [Sidenote:
HEARING VERY DELICATE] The sense of hearing in these animals is very
delicate, as may be seen from the account of Nellie discovering my
footsteps on the lower stairway, and as I have witnessed in scores of
other cases. The same is true also of their sight; their eyes are like a
photo-camera, nothing ever escapes them. I think their organs of taste
are also quite sensitive, as I have made some tests from time to time,
and find them very hard to deceive. The sense of touch, which is rather
obtuse in most animals, is much more acute in these. I have frequently
interlaced my fingers with those of some person whom they dislike, and
extending the hand towards them, they rarely make a mistake by getting
hold of the wrong finger, and yet it has frequently occurred that they
could not see the hands at all, and had to depend alone upon the sense
of touch. In cases where the hands were very nearly the same size they
were not able to select the fingers so readily, but where a lady's hand
was used, or that of a boy, the selection was made without hesitancy and
without error. I have tried this experiment a great many times with a
view to ascertaining to some extent the delicacy of their sense of
touch. Another fact that I may mention is, that they do not habitually
smell articles of food or other things given to them; but they depend
chiefly upon their sight for finding and their taste for choosing their
food. My opinion is, that the sense of smell does not play an important
part in these affairs. I may add, too, that, in the Cebus, his tail is
perhaps the most sensitive organ of touch, although it is not used in
this capacity to any great extent. He is generally very watchful over
this useful member, because it serves him in so many ways, and I think
perhaps it is safe to say that the tail is the last part of the monkey
that ever becomes tame.
CHAPTER XIII.
The Extent of my Experiments--Apes and Baboons--Miscellaneous
Records of Sound--The Vocal Index.
In quest of the great secret of speech, I have pursued my investigations
chiefly in the direction of learning one tongue, but incidentally I have
made many detours, and I have recorded the sounds of many other forms of
the animal kingdom, besides primates. I have examined the phonation of
lions, tigers, leopards, cats, dogs, birds of many kinds, and the human
voice in speech, music, and laughter. Besides these, I have examined
various musical sounds, especially of the pipe and whistle kinds.
More than a year ago I made some splendid records of the sounds of the
two chimpanzees in the Cincinnati collection. I have not had the
opportunity to study these apes themselves, as I desired to do, since
they are kept so closely confined in a glass house, and for ever under
the eye of their keeper, which conditions are not favourable to the best
results. I am not prepared therefore to give much detail concerning
their speech; but from a careful study of one cylinder containing a
record of their sounds, I was able to discern as many as seven different
phones, all of which come within the scope of the human vocal organs. I
learned one of these sounds, and on a subsequent visit to Cincinnati I
succeeded in attracting the attention of the female, and eliciting from
her a response. She would come to the lattice door of the inner cage by
which I was standing, and when I would utter the sound she would press
her face against the door of the cage and answer it with a like sound.
The male, however, did not appear to notice it with any degree of
concern. I have no idea what the sound meant, and my opportunities have
not been such that I could translate it with the remotest degree of
certainty. [Sidenote: STUDIES IN TROPICAL AFRICA] These apes will be one
of the chief objects of my studies in tropical Africa, as I believe them
to possess a higher type of speech even than the gorilla. In this
opinion, which I reached from the study of other sounds and the types of
skull to which they belonged, I am not alone: Mr. Paul Du Chaillu, Mr.
E. J. Glave, and others who have seen both of these apes in their native
habitat, agree with me on this point. I am aware that this view is not
in strict accord with that of Professor Huxley, who assigns the gorilla
the highest place next to man in the order of Nature, and the chimpanzee
next below him. I shall not here attempt to discuss the question with so
high an authority, and I must confess that the vocal index is not yet so
well defined that it may be relied upon in classifying apes. One aim I
have in view is to study the gorilla and chimpanzee side by side in
their native wilds, and to record, if possible, the sounds of their
voices in a wild state. From the study of the sounds I have made, I feel
confident that all the vocal sounds made by these apes may be uttered by
the human vocal organs.
Some months ago I made a record of the voice of the great Anubis baboon,
in Philadelphia. I did not expect to find in him an elevated type of
speech; but my purpose was to compare it with other Simian sounds, to
see if I could not establish a series of steps in the quality of vocal
sounds which would coincide with certain other characters. I had found
by the study of certain cranial forms that certain vocal types conformed
to certain skulls, and were as much a conformation thereof as are the
cerebral hemispheres. I then believed, and have had no cause since to
recede from it, that the vocal powers were correctly measured by the
gnathic index; that the mind and voice were commensurate; and that as
the cranio-facial angle widens the voice degrades in quality and scope.
In man, I find the highest vocal type, and just as we descend in the
cranial scale, the vocal type descends into sounds less flexible, less
capable, and less musical. These deductions apply only to mammals; among
birds, insects, &c., a different order may prevail.
[Sidenote: RECORDS OF LIONS]
The records of the lions show some strange features in the construction
of sound; and when analysed on the phonograph present some novel
effects. The sound as a whole appears to be broken into broad waves or
pulsations; but on analysing it the fundamental tones somewhat resemble
the sounds produced by drawing a mallet rapidly across the keyboard of a
xylophone, and are characterised by a peculiar resonance something like
the tremulous vibrations of a thin glass containing a small quantity of
water. Each of these separate fundamental sounds, or sound units as they
appear to be, can be further reduced to still smaller vibrations; and
the result suggests that the fundamental sounds themselves are an
aggregation of smaller vibrations. I have not as yet been able to
compare the notes one by one with the scale of the xylophone in order to
ascertain whether or not they obey the laws of sound upon which is
founded the chromatic scale of music. The lion makes only a small number
of different sounds, nearly of the same pitch. I have not analysed the
vocal sounds of the other felines to ascertain to what extent they
coincide with those of the lion; but his appear to be somewhat unlike
any other sounds which I have examined.
Among the few sounds of birds which I have analysed, I may mention the
Trumpeter Crane. I have made one record of this bird which was
sufficiently loud to enable me to obtain some idea of the character of
the sound. I am in doubt as to what the real mode of producing this
sound is. The volume of sound evidently comes from the mouth of the
bird; but while in the act of making it, he appears to bring the whole
body into use, even the feathers appear to take some part in its
production, and the whole frame of the bird vibrates in the act. The
record which I have shows some resemblance, on analysis, to the sound
made by the lion; but it is not sufficiently strong to admit of
analysing the sound units or fundamental sounds.
[Sidenote: DIFFERENCE IN PHONES OF GENERA]
From the many sounds that I have analysed, it appears to me that there
is a difference in the phones of all different genera, and that the
phonetic basis of human speech more closely resembles that of the Simian
than any other sounds; but I wish to be understood distinctly not to
offer this in evidence to establish any physical, mental, or phonetic
affinity between mankind and Simians. I merely state the facts from
which all theorists may deduce their own conclusions.
CHAPTER XIV.
Monkeys and the Mirror--Some of their Antics--Baby Macaque and
her Papa--Some other Monkeys.
I have incidentally mentioned elsewhere the use of the mirror in some of
my experiments, but I have not described in detail how it affected
various monkeys. Of course, it does not always affect the same monkey in
the same way at different times, nor does it affect all monkeys of the
same species in exactly the same way, and therefore I cannot deduce a
rule from my experiments by which the species can be determined by its
conduct before the glass.
[Sidenote: PUCK AND NELLIE WITH MIRROR]
When Puck saw himself in the mirror he undoubtedly mistook the image for
another monkey, to which he would talk more freely than he would to the
sounds made by the phonograph. He would frequently caress the image,
and show signs of friendship; at the same time he was very timid and
retiring.
Nellie would chatter to herself in the mirror, and seemed never to tire
of looking at that beautiful monkey she saw there, and I do not think
the propensity could be accounted for merely by her sex. I do not think
she ever quite understood where that monkey was concealed, and the
scores of times in a day that she would turn the glass around was
evidence that she never fully despaired of finding it.
I accidentally dropped a small mirror one day by the cage in which there
was a green monkey. The glass was broken into many small pieces. Quick
as thought, the green monkey thrust her arm through the bars, grabbed
the largest piece, and got it into her cage before I was fully aware of
what she was trying to do. The fragment was about an inch wide by an
inch and a half long. She caught a glimpse of herself in the glass, and
her conduct was more like that of a crazy monkey than anything I can
compare it to. She peeped into the fragment of the mirror, which she
seemed to regard as a hole in something which separated her from another
monkey. She held it up over her head at arm's-length, laid it down on
the floor, held it against the wall, and twisted herself into every pose
to get a better peep at that mysterious monkey on the other side of
something, she could not tell what. When the glass was reversed, she
seemed much perplexed, and would sometimes jump high off the floor, and
turn herself entirely around, as if to untangle the mystery. Then again
she would discover the right side of the glass, and would go through
these antics again. Several times while holding it against the wall she
would put her eyes close up against the glass, just as she would to a
knot-hole in the wall. I tried in vain for some time to get the glass
away from her lest she might injure herself with it, but only succeeded
after considerable labour and through the help of her keeper.
[Sidenote: McGINTY'S DELIGHT WITH MIRROR]
McGinty always tries to find the image behind the glass. He reaches his
little black hand as far as he can around behind it, peeps over and
under it, pecks on the glass with his fingers, kisses and caresses it,
and grins at it with infinite delight. He often tries to turn the glass
around to look on the back of it, and when he finds no monkey there he
works his eyebrows as if perplexed, and utters a sound which reminds me
of a child under similar circumstances saying "gone" when in play
something is concealed from it to make the child believe it is lost.
Then he will suddenly turn the glass around again, as if the thought had
just occurred to him, and when he again discovers the image, he will
laugh, chatter, peep and peck at the glass, as if to say "There it is,
there it is!" But, like all other monkeys, he does not quite understand
where that monkey conceals itself when he peeps over the glass.
Mickie does not appear to enjoy the sight of himself in the glass. He
always looks at it earnestly but doubtfully, and utters a low sound in a
kind of undertone, frowns and scowls as though he regarded the new
monkey as an intruder. He rarely talks to the image only with this low,
muttering sound, and never tries to find it by reaching his hand behind
the glass or making any other investigation. Mickie, however, has been
very much petted, in consequence of which he is very selfish, just as
children become under like treatment.
Little Nemo always looked at himself in the glass in the most
inquisitive and respectful manner, without ever winking an eye or
betraying any sign of emotion, except that he would caress the image in
the glass over and over again by pressing his lips to it in perfect
silence. Indeed, his conduct would suggest to you that he regarded the
image as a portrait of some dear departed one, which awoke the tender
memories of the past and filled the heart too full for utterance. His
sedate manners were very becoming.
Dodo always appeared to be afraid of the image. She would merely take a
peep and turn away. She would sometimes utter a single sound, but rarely
touched her mouth to the glass, and never felt behind it for the other
monkey. This, perhaps, was due to the fact that she was afraid of some
of the other inmates of the cage, and I do not think that she desired
the colony increased.
Nigger always showed great interest in the mirror when left alone, but
when the other monkeys would crowd around to peep into the glass he
would always leave to avoid trouble with them.
[Sidenote: "UNCLE REMUS," THE WHITE-FACE]
"Uncle Remus," the white-face, always goes through a series of facial
contortions with the gravity of a rural judge. He will look into the
glass, and then at me, as if to say "Where did you get that monkey?"
The little baby Macaque, who was born in Central Park, tries to engage
the image in a romp, reaches for it in the glass, clucks, jumps
playfully to her perch, and looks back to see if the image follows; then
she will return to the glass, and try again to induce the little ghost
to join her in her play. Again, she will spring to her perch, looking
back, but does not understand why it will not join her. During all this,
the baby's father, a sedate old Macaque, looks on with suspicion and a
scowl, and on a few occasions has pulled the baby away from the glass,
as if he knew that there was something wrong, and expressed his opinion
in a low, ominous growl. He reminds me at times of some people whom I
have seen that look very wise, and intimate by their conduct that they
know something.
Another little Macaque makes the most indescribable faces, and works her
lips in that peculiar fashion which I have elsewhere described, but she
does not utter one sound. She merely looks in silence, and never tries
to find the monkey concealed behind the glass.
[Sidenote: THE SPIDER MONKEY]
The spider monkey is a study worthy of great minds. When shown her image
in the glass, she takes her seat on the floor, crosses her legs, and
fixes herself as if she expected to spend the day there. She will then
look into the glass and utter a low sound, and begin to reach out her
long arms in search of the other monkey. It is surprising to see how she
will adjust her reach as you change positions with the glass. Of course,
as you remove the mirror from her the image is removed accordingly, and
she extends or contracts her reach to suit that distance. This is not,
however, an evidence of her mathematical skill, since to her mind the
image is doubtless a real thing, and she is governed by the same
instinct or judgment in reaching for it as she would be if it were real.
More than any other, the spider monkey seems to admire herself in the
glass; notwithstanding she is about the homeliest of all the Simian
tribes, yet she will sit for hours in almost perfect silence, and gaze
upon her image.
CHAPTER XV.
Man and Ape--Their Physical Relations--Their Mental
Relations--Evolution was the Means--Who was the Progenitor of
the Ape?--The Scale of Life.
If we could free our hands from the manacles of tradition and stand
aloof from our prejudices, and look the stern facts in the face, we
should be compelled to admit that between man and ape there is such a
unity of design, structure and function, that we dare not in the light
of reason deny to the ape that rank in Nature to which he is assigned by
virtue of these facts. Physiologically, there is no hiatus between man
and ape which may not be spanned by such evidence as would be admitted
under the strictest rules of interpretation. We may briefly compare
these two creatures in a broad and general way, so that the
unscientific and casual reader may comprehend.
[Sidenote: MAN AND APE]
The skeleton of man is only the polished structure of which that of the
ape is the rough model. The identity of the two, part by part, is as
much the same as the light sulky is the outgrowth of the massive
framework of the old-time cart. Whether man and ape are related by any
ties of blood or not, it is evident that they were modelled on the same
plan, provided with the same means, and designed for like purposes,
whatever they may be. The organs of sensation and the functions which
they discharge are the same in both, and the same external forces
addressing themselves thereto produce the same results. I do not mean to
say that the same organ in each is developed in the same degree as that
in the other, for this is not the case even in different individuals of
the same kind. In the muscular system of the one is found an exact
duplicate of the other, except in such slight changes of model as will
better adapt the parts to those conditions of life under which the
animal having them may be placed, and through the whole physical
structure of both we find that unity of part and purpose in structure
and function, in bone, muscle, nerve, and brain. It has been shown
beyond a reasonable doubt that the brain in the higher races of mankind
has reached its present form through a series of changes which are
constant and definite; and this organ in the lower types of man
resembles more that of the ape than does the same organ in the higher
types of man; and by a method of deduction, such as we use to determine
the height of a tree or the width of a stream by the length of a shadow,
we find that the fiducial lines which bound the planes in the
perspective of man's cerebral growth, likewise embrace those of the ape.
While it is a fact that the mind of man so far transcends that of the
ape, it is also a fact that in reaching this condition it has passed
through such planes as those now occupied by the ape. The physical
changes of man's brain do not appear to keep pace with the growth of his
mind. This may be a paradox, but the evidence upon which it rests is
ample to sustain it.
[Sidenote: MAN AND APE]
I do not pretend to know whether man was evolved from ape, or ape from
man; whether they are congenetic products of a common authorship, or the
masterpieces of two rival authors; but I cannot see in what respect
man's identity would be affected, whatever may be the case. If it be
shown that man descended from the ape, it does not change the facts
which have existed from the beginning, nor does it change the destiny to
which he is assigned. If it can be shown that apes descended from man,
it does not leave upon man the censure for this degeneracy. If man has
risen from the low plane of brutehood which the ape now occupies, has
scaled the barriers which now separate him from apes, and has climbed to
the divine heights of mental and moral manhood, the ape deserves no
praise for this. On the other hand, if apes have fallen from the state
of man, have wandered so far from the gates of light, and are now
wandering in the twilight of intellect and degradation, it is no
reproach to man; and while I shall not sit in judgment in the cause, nor
testify on either side, I am willing to accept whatever verdict may be
founded on the real facts, and I shall not appeal therefrom. But I shall
not allow my prejudice to conceal the truth, whenever it is shown to me.
It is always acceptable to my mind, and, stripped of all sophistry and
oblique conditions, it would appear the same to every mind.
That evolution is the mode by which the world was peopled, there is
little doubt, but there are many details yet unsettled as to the manner
in which this was effected. I cannot regard the matter as proven beyond
appeal that man has come from any antecedent type that was not man, nor
yet do I deny that such may be the case; but I do deny that the broad
chasm which separates man from other primates cannot be crossed on the
bridge of speech; and while this does not prove their identity or common
origin, it does show that Nature did not intend that either one should
monopolise any gift which she had to bestow. It is as reasonable to
believe that man has always occupied a sphere of life apart from that of
apes, as to believe that apes have occupied a sphere of life apart from
birds, except that the distance from centre to centre is greater between
birds and apes than that distance between apes and man. So far as any
fossil proofs contribute to our knowledge, we find no point at which the
line is crossed in either case; and the earliest traces of man's
physiological history find him distinctly man, and this history reaches
back on meagre evidence many, many centuries before historic time. Among
these earlier remains of man, we find no fossils of the Simian type to
show that he existed at that time; but at a somewhat later period we
find some remnants of the Simian type in deposits of Southern Europe;
but they are of the smaller tribes, and have been assigned to the
_Macacus_. We cannot trace the history of this genus from that to the
present time to ascertain whether they were the progenitors of apes or
not; but between this type and that of apes the hiatus is as broad as
that which intervenes between the ape and man.
That somewhere in the lapse of time all genera began, admits of no
debate; and by inversion it is plain that all generic outlines must
focus at the point from which they first diverged, and such an operation
does not indicate that man and Simian have ever been more closely allied
than they are at the present time; but the evidence is clear that man
has been evolved from a lower plane than he now occupies. The inference
may be safely applied to apes, as progress is the universal law of life.
The question has been asked, "Who is the progenitor of man?" The
solution of this problem has engaged the most profound minds of modern
time. If it be said in reply that apes were the progenitors of man, the
question then arises, "Who was the progenitor of the ape?" If it be said
that man and ape had a common progenitor, a like question arises, and it
becomes necessary to connect all types allied to each other as these two
types are physically allied. If man is the climax of a great scheme in
Nature by which one type is gradually transformed into another, we must
descend the scale of life by crossing the chasm which lies between
mankind and apes, another lying between the apes and monkeys, another
between the monkeys and baboons, another between the baboons and lemurs,
and yet another between the lemurs and the lemuroids, and thus from form
to form like islands in the great sea of life. From man to infinity the
question constantly recurs, and over each hiatus must be built a
separate bridge.
[Sidenote: DARWIN'S PROFOUND WORK]
Darwin has given to the world the most profound and conscientious work,
and from the chaos and confusion of human ignorance and bigotry has
erected the most sublime monuments of thought and truth. It does not
detract from his character and honesty, nor lessen the value of his
labours, to admit that he may have been mistaken in some conclusions
which he deduced from the great store of facts at his command.
It is not the purpose of this work, however, to enter into a discussion
of any theory aside from speech and its possible origin and growth, but
all subjects pertaining to life, thought, and the modes of living and
thinking, must contribute in some degree to a clear understanding of the
subject in hand.
[Sidenote: DARWIN'S SIN OF OMISSION]
It has been a matter of surprise to me that so careful and observant a
man as Mr. Darwin should have so nearly omitted the question of speech
from a work of such ample scope, such minute detail, and such infinite
care as characterises the "Descent of Man," and such like works. But
science will cheerfully forgive an error, and pardon the sin of omission
in one who has given to the world so much good.
CHAPTER XVI.
The Faculty of Thought--Emotion and Thought--Instinct and
Reason--Monkeys Reason--Some Examples.
The study of biology has revealed many facts which conspire to show that
the incipient forms of animal and vegetable life are the same in those
two great kingdoms; and parallel with this fact, I think it can be shown
that the faculty of expression goes hand in hand with life. And why
should not this be the case? From the standpoint of religion, I cannot
see why the bounty of God should not be equal to such a gift, nor can I
conceive of a more sublime act of universal justice than that all things
endowed with thought, however feeble, should be endowed with the power
of expressing it. From the standpoint of evolution, I cannot understand
by what rule Nature would have worked to develop the emotions,
sensations, and faculties alike in all these various forms, and make
this one exception in the case of speech. It does not seem in keeping
with her laws. From the standpoint of chance, I cannot see why such an
accident might not have occurred at some other point in the scale of
life, or why such anomalies are not more frequent. Man appears to be the
only one. From any point of view we take, it does not seem consistent
with other facts. All other primates think and feel, and live and die
under like conditions and on like terms with man; then why should he
alone possess the gift of speech?
[Sidenote: FACULTY OF THOUGHT]
I confess that such an inference is not evidence, however logical; but I
have many facts to offer in proof that speech is not possessed by man
alone. It is quite difficult to draw the line at any given point between
the process of thought and those phenomena we call emotions. They merge
into and blend with each other like the colours in light, and in like
manner the faculty of speech, receding through the various modes of
expression, is for ever lost in the haze and distance of desire. The
faculty of reason blends into thought like the water of a bay blends
into the open sea; there is nowhere a positive line dividing them. When
we are in the midst of one we point to the other, and say, "There it
is;" but we cannot say at what exact point we pass out of one into the
other.
[Sidenote: THE POWER OF REASONING]
To reason is to think methodically and to judge from attending facts.
When a monkey examines the situation and acts in accordance with the
facts, doing a certain thing with the evident purpose of accomplishing a
certain end, in what respect is this not reason? When a monkey remembers
a thing which has passed and anticipates a thing which is to come; when
he has learned a thing by experience which he avoids through memory and
the apprehension of its recurrence, is it instinct that guides his
conduct? When a monkey shows clearly by his actions that he is aware of
the relation between cause and effect, and acts in accordance therewith,
is it instinct or reason that guides him? If there be a point in the
order of Nature where reason became an acquired faculty, it is somewhere
far below the plane occupied by monkeys. Their power of reasoning is far
inferior to that of man, but not more so than their power of thinking
and expression; but a faculty does not lose its identity by reason of
its feebleness. When the same causes under the same conditions prompt
man and ape alike to do the same act in the same way, looking forward to
the same results, I cannot understand why the motive of the one should
be called reason, and that of the other called instinct. Scholars have
tried so hard to keep the peace between theology and themselves, that
they have explained things in accordance with accepted belief in order
that they might not incur the charge of heresy. To this end they have
reconciled the two extremes by ignoring the means, and making a
distinction without a difference on which to found it.
Whatever may be the intrinsic difference between reason and instinct, it
is evident to my mind that the same motives actuate both man and ape in
the same way, but not to the same extent. I am aware that many acts
performed by Simians are meaningless to them and done without a
well-defined motive. The strong physical resemblance between man and ape
often causes one to attach more importance to the act than it really
justifies. In many cases the same act performed by some other animal
less like man would scarcely be noticed. To teach an ape or monkey to
eat with knife, fork, cup and spoon, to use a napkin and chair, or such
like feats, does not indicate to my mind a high order of reason; nor it
is safe to judge the mental status of these creatures from such data.
When he is placed under new conditions and committed to his own
resources, we are then better able to judge by his conduct whether he
is actuated by reason or not.
[Sidenote: CONNECTING CAUSES AND EFFECTS]
In any simple act where a monkey can see the cause connected with, and
closely followed by, the effect, he is actuated by reason, and while he
may not be able to explain to his own mind a remote or complex cause but
simply accepts the fact, it does not make the act any less rational in a
monkey than the same act would be in man where he fails to grasp the
ultimate cause. The difference is that man is able to trace the
connecting causes and effects through a longer series than a monkey can.
Man assigns a more definite reason for his acts than a monkey can; but
it is also true that one man may assign a more definite reason for his
acts than another man can for his when prompted by the same motives to
the same act.
The processes, motives, acts and results are the same with man and ape;
the degree to which they reason differs, but the kind of reason in both
cases is the same.
I shall here relate some instances in my experience and leave the reader
to judge whether reason or instinct guided the acts of the monkeys as I
shall detail them in the next few paragraphs. It will be remembered that
these were new conditions under which the monkeys acted.
I taught Nellie to drink milk from a bottle with a rubber nipple. While
I would hold the bottle, it was easy for her to secure the milk; but
when she undertook it alone, she utterly failed. The thing which puzzled
her was how to get the milk to come up to her end of the bottle. She
turned it in every way, and held it in every position that she could
think of, but the milk always kept at the other end of the bottle. She
would throw the bottle down in despair, and when she saw the milk flow
to the end having the nipple, she would go back and pick it up, and try
it again. Poor Nellie worried her little head over this, and again
abandoned it in despair. While trying to solve the mystery, she
discovered a new trick. While the bottle was partly inverted she caught
hold of the nipple, and squeezed it. By this means she accidentally
spurted the milk into the faces of some ladies who were watching her.
This afforded her so much fun that she could scarcely be restrained, and
while she remained with me she remembered this funny trick, and never
failed to perform it when she was allowed to do so. It was no trouble
for her to connect the immediate effect to the immediate cause. But she
could not for a long time understand that the position of the bottle or
the location of the milk in it had anything to do with the trick. In the
course of time, however, she learned to hold the bottle so that she
could drink the milk, and she also discovered that it had to be held in
a certain position in order to play her amusing trick.
Another instance was in the case of a little monkey, heretofore
described by the name of Jennie. When you would throw a nut, just out
of her reach, she would take a stick which had a nail in the end, and
rake the nut to her. She never took the wrong end of the stick, and
never placed the nail on the wrong side of the nut. Her master assured
me that she had not been taught this, but had found the stick and
applied it to this use. When she did not want any one to play with her
or handle her, she would coil her chain up and sit down on it to keep
any one from taking hold of it.
It is not an uncommon thing for monkeys to discover the means by which
their cage is kept fastened, and they have frequently been known to
untie a knot in a rope or chain, and thus release themselves. I have
known a monkey that learned to reach its hand through the meshes of the
cage, and withdraw the pin which fastened the hasp and thus open the
door and get out. The keeper substituted a small wire, which he twisted
three or four times in order that it could not be released. The monkey
realised that the wire performed the duties of the pin and prevented
the door from opening. He also knew that the wire was twisted and that
this was the reason he could not remove it. I have seen him put his hand
through the meshes of the cage, catch the loose end of the wire and turn
it as though he was turning a crank. He evidently knew that the twist in
the wire was made by such a motion and his purpose was to untwist it,
but so far as I know he never succeeded in doing so. I have frequently
seen a monkey gather up his chain and measure his distance from where he
stood to the point at which he expected to alight, with the skill and
accuracy of an engineer.
A gentleman of my acquaintance assured me recently that during his
sojourn of two years in the Island of Sumatra, he had in his service a
large orang. This ape did many chores about the place, and performed
many simple duties as well as the other domestics did.
On one occasion, this ape was induced to go aboard a steamer which lay
in the harbour. The purpose was to kidnap him and carry him to Europe.
Either through fear, instinct, reason, or some other cause, this ape
jumped overboard and swam ashore, although he was naturally afraid of
water. From that time on to the end of the gentleman's residence there,
he assures me that whenever a steamer made its appearance in the
harbour, the ape would take flight to the forest, where he would stay as
long as the vessel remained in sight. He was seen from time to time, but
could not be induced to return to the house until the vessel had
departed.
A few years ago, I saw on board the United States receiving ship
_Franklin_, a bright little monkey which was kept chained in a temporary
workshop built on the gun-deck. Her chain was just long enough to allow
her to reach the stove. The day was pleasant outside, but in the shade a
trifle chilly. The little monk descended from the sill on which she
usually sat and carefully felt the top of the stove with her hands.
Finding it slightly warm, although the fire had died out, she mounted
the stove and laid the side of her head on the warm surface. She would
turn first one cheek and then the other, and continued rubbing the stove
with her hands. Not finding it warm enough, she jumped down on the
floor, opened the stove door with her hand, and slammed it two or three
times. She then picked up a stick of wood lying within reach, and tried
to lift it to the stove. The stick was too heavy for her to handle, so
she would lift up one end of it and drop it heavily on the floor with
the evident purpose of attracting the attention of her master. Again she
would open and slam the door, lift up the end of the stick and drop it,
and utter a peculiar sound, showing in every possible way that she
wanted a fire. She finally picked up a small stick and stuck the end of
it into the ashes in the front of the stove. She knew that it was
necessary to put the wood into the stove; she knew where to put it in,
and, while she could not do it herself, she knew who could put it in.
Her master told me that she would gather up the shavings from the floor
when they came within her reach and pile them up by the stove. He also
told me that he frequently gave her a lighted match when he had prepared
the fuel for building a fire, and that she would touch the match to the
shavings and start the fire. She never ventured to get on the stove
without first examining it to ascertain how hot it was.
Another feat which she performed was to try to remove some tar from the
cup in which he gave her water and milk. The cup had been lined with tar
as a sanitary measure to prevent consumption, and she was aware that the
tar imparted an unpleasant taste and odour, hence she tried very hard to
remove it from the cup. Was this instinct?
CHAPTER XVII.
Speech Defined--The True Nature of Speech--The Use of
Speech--The Limitations of Speech.
[Sidenote: SPEECH DEFINED]
What is speech? I shall endeavour to define it in such terms as will
relieve it of ambiguity, and deal with it as a known quantity in the
problems of mental commerce. Speech is that form of materialised thought
which is confined to oral sounds, when they are designed to convey a
definite idea from mind to mind. It is, therefore, only one mode of
expressing thought, and to come within the limits of speech, the sounds
must be voluntary, have fixed values, and be intended to suggest to
another mind a certain idea, or group of ideas, more or less complex.
The idea is one factor, and sound the other, and the two conjointly
constitute speech. The empty sounds alone, however modulated, having no
integral value, cannot be speech, nor can the concept unexpressed be
speech. Separately, the one would be noise, and the other would be
thought; and they only become speech when the thought is expressed in
oral sounds. Sounds which only express emotion are not speech, as
emotion is not thought, although it is frequently attended by thought,
and is a cause of which thought is the effect. Music expresses emotion
by means of sounds, but they are not speech; and even though the sounds
which express them may impart a like emotion to the hearer, they are not
speech. The sounds which express crying, sighing, or laughter, may
indeed be a faint suggestion of speech, since we infer from them the
state of the mind attending the emotions which produce them, yet they
are not truly speech. To be regarded as speech, the expression must be
preceded by consciousness, and the desire to make known to another the
sensation by which the expression is actuated. As the impulse can only
come from within, it appears that emotion is one source from which
thought is evolved, and speech is the natural issue of thought. Desire
gives rise to a class of thoughts having reference to the sensations
which produce them, and such thoughts find expression in such sounds as
may suggest supplying the want. As the wants of man have increased with
his changing modes of life and thought, his speech has drawn upon the
resources of sound to meet those increased demands for expression. It
appears only reasonable to me that thought must precede in point of time
and order any expression of thought, for thought is the motive of
expression, and the expression of thought in oral sounds is speech.
[Sidenote: NATURE OF SPEECH] Speech is not an invention, and therefore
is not symbolic in its radical nature. True, that much that is symbolic
has been added to it, and its bounds have been widened as men have risen
in the scale of civil life, until our higher types of modern speech have
departed so far from the natural modes of speech and first forms of
expression, that we can rarely trace a single word to its ultimate
source. And viewing it as we do from our present standpoint, it appears
to be purely symbolic; but if that be so, then we must deny the first
law of progress, and assign the origin of this faculty to that class of
phenomena known as miracles, which once explained by increasing the
mystery what we could not understand, and served at the same time to
conceal the exact magnitude of our ignorance; but as we added little by
little to our stock of knowledge, such phenomena were brought within the
realm of our understanding, and to-day our children are familiar with
the causes of many simple effects which our forefathers dared not
attempt to solve, but reverently ascribed to the immediate influence of
Divinity. If speech in its ultimate nature is symbolic, what must have
been the condition of man before its invention, and how did he arrive at
the first term or sound of speech? He did not invent sound nor the
means of making it. He did not invent thought, the thing which speech
expresses, and it is no more reasonable to believe that he invented
speech than to believe that he invented the faculties of sight and
hearing, which are certainly the natural products of his organic nature
and environments. So far as I can find through the whole range of animal
life, all forms of land mammals possess vocal organs which are developed
in a degree corresponding to the condition of the brain, and seem to be
in every instance as capable of producing and controlling sounds as the
brain is of thinking: in other words, the power of expression is in
perfect keeping with the power of thinking. From my acquaintance with
the animal kingdom, it is my firm belief that all mammals possess the
faculty of speech in a degree commensurate with their experience and
needs, and that domestic animals have a somewhat higher type of speech
than their wild progenitors. Why are all forms of mammals endowed with
vocal organs? Why should Nature bestow on them these organs if not
designed for use? One or the other of two conclusions seems inevitable.
As a law of evolution and progress, all organs are imparted to animals
for use and not for ornament. It seems consistent with what we know of
Nature, to suppose that the vocal organs of these lower forms are being
developed to meet a new requirement in the animal economy, or having
once discharged some function necessary to the being and comfort of the
animal, they are now lapsing into disuse and becoming atrophied. If they
are in the course of development, it argues that the creature which
possesses them must possess a rudimentary speech which is developing at
a like rate into a higher type of speech. If they are in a state of
decay or atrophy, it argues that the animal must have been able to speak
at some former period, and that now, in losing the power of speech it is
gradually losing the organ. In either case, the organs themselves would
be in a state of development in harmony with the condition of the speech
of the animal. [Sidenote: LIMITATIONS OF SPEECH] The function which
speech discharges is the communication of ideas, and its growth must
depend upon the extent of those ideas; and in all conditions of life,
and in all forms of the animal kingdom, the uses of speech are confined
to, and limited by the desires, thoughts, and concepts of those using
it. Its extent is commensurate with requirement. To believe that there
was a time in the history of the human race when man could not speak, is
to destroy his identity as man, and the romance of the _alalus_ could be
justified from a scientific standpoint only as a compromise between the
giants of science and superstition. Among the tribes of men whose modes
of life are simple, whose wants are few, and whose knowledge is confined
to their primitive condition, the number of words necessary to convey
their thoughts is very limited. Among some savage races there are
languages consisting of only a few hundred words at most, while as we
rise in the scale of civil and domestic culture, languages become more
copious and expressive as the wants become more numerous and the
conditions of life more complex. As we descend from man to the lower
animals, we find the types of speech degenerate just in proportion as we
descend in the mental and moral plane, but it does not lose its identity
as speech. Through the whole animal kingdom from man to protozoa, types
of speech differ as do the physical types to which they belong. But as
the same vital processes are found throughout the whole circle of life,
so the same phonetic basis is found through the whole range of speech.
CHAPTER XVIII.
The Motives of Speech--Expression--The Beginning of Human
Speech--The Present Condition of Speech.
In vital economy, the search-light of science has found the protoplasm
which from our present state of knowledge seems to be the first point of
contact between elemental matter and the vital force. What secrets of
biology remain unknown within the realm of life, only those who live in
the future may ever know. In the first condition of vitalised matter we
find the evidence of autonomy. Whatever may be the ultimate force which
actuates this monad, the manifestations of its presence and the result
of its energy are seen externally. Whatever may be the nature of that
force which imparts motion to matter, the first impulse of the biod is
to secure food or to associate itself with a unit of its own kind. This
is perhaps the first act of volition within the sphere of life, the
first expression of some internal want, and is the first faint
suggestion of a consciousness, however feeble; and I may add with
propriety, that it is my opinion that the vital and psychic forces
operate in a manner not unlike the electric and chemical forces. They
appear to polarise, and in this condition act on matter in harmony with
that great law of Nature under which positive repels positive and
attracts negative, and _vice versâ_. We shall not attempt to follow the
tedious steps of progress from inanimate matter to man, but begin with
those intermediate forms which are so far developed as to utter sounds
and understand the sounds of others. We will deal only with tangible
facts as we find them. From whatever source expression may arise, or at
whatever point it may appear, it is prompted by desire or some kindred
emotion, either positive or negative.
[Sidenote: MODES OF EXPRESSION]
At the point where we begin to discuss this question there are two
distinct modes of expression, either one of which can be used without
the other. But I may mention here a cogent fact, that in the lower forms
of life the normal mode of expression is by signs with supplemental
sounds. In the higher forms, expression is by sounds, and signs are
supplemental. And from the lower to the higher forms this transition is
in harmony with the development of physical types. It occurs to me that
signs were the first form of expression, and that sounds were first used
to call attention to the sign made; and by an association of ideas the
sounds became a factor of expression, and were used to emphasise signs.
As we ascend the scale of life, sounds become more abundant, and signs
less significant, and in the middle types they appear to be of nearly
equal value, while in the higher tribes of man sounds are the normal
mode of expression, and signs or gestures are used to emphasise them;
and thus we see that signs and sounds in the development of the faculty
of expression have quite changed places. This is consistent with the
observed facts within the limits of human speech. There are tribes of
mankind whose language is scarcely intelligible among themselves unless
accompanied by signs; and it is said of some of the African tribes that
their gestures are more eloquent than their speech. It appears to me
consistent to believe that speech appears in the animal organism
simultaneously with the vocal organs, and that the desire of expression
must have preceded this. [Sidenote: PRESENT CONDITION OF SPEECH] The
condition of the vocal organs depends upon the type of speech which they
are used to utter, and the speech depends upon the quality of thought it
is intended to express. That type of speech used by the Caucasian race
within the space of a few centuries has developed from a vocabulary
limited to a few thousand words into the polished languages of modern
Europe, comprising new types and tens of thousands of new words, until
to-day our own language contains more than two hundred and twenty
thousand words, very few of which, however, if any, are entirely new.
The phonetic elements on which is built up this huge vocabulary do not
very greatly exceed in number those found in the lowest types of human
speech in the world. The total number of these sounds does not much
exceed two score in the highest forms of human speech; and about half
this number can be shown as the vocal products of some species of the
lower animals. Some philologists claim that the blending of consonant
and vowel sounds is the mark which distinguishes human speech from the
sounds uttered by the lower animals. To show how poorly this gigantic
superstructure of fossilised science is supported by the facts, I have
developed such effects in the phonograph from a basis of sounds purely
mechanical, and without the aid of any part of the vocal apparatus of
man or animal. The sounds from which I have developed such results were
neither vowel nor consonant as those sounds are defined, but simply
prolonged musical notes. In another chapter will be found some of the
experiments which I have performed with the phonograph in the
investigation of sounds of various kinds. If I am allowed to think for
myself at all, I am not ready to accept as final some of the dogmas on
the theory of sound which have long been held and taught, and many of
which remain orthodox for no other reason than that no one has denied
them. I am not ready at this point to spring upon the world any new
theory of sound, but I am quite ready to refuse to believe some of the
tenets set forth in the creeds of philology.
Heresy is the author of progress, and I confess myself a heretic on many
of the current doctrines of the science of sounds.
CHAPTER XIX.
Language embraces Speech--Speech, Words, Grammar, and Rhetoric.
A definition of the word speech as used in this particular work is given
elsewhere, and by this definition the word is used only in that sense
which limits it to the sphere of oral sounds. It is that form of
language which addresses itself only to the ear. The sounds which
constitute it may be supplemented by signs or gestures, but such signs
are only adjuncts, and are not to be regarded as an integral part of
speech in its true sense. Speech cannot be acquired by those forms of
life which occupy the lowest horizons of the animal kingdom, and have no
organs with which to produce sound. In the light of modern use and
acceptation language, broadly interpreted, includes all modes and means
of communication between mind and mind. It therefore includes speech as
one form, while signs or gestures constitute another form. Writing in
all its various modes is another form of language. It may be substituted
for either speech or gestures, but it does not thereby become speech in
a literal sense, but within itself it constitutes another form of
language. There seems to be some vague and subtle method of
communication found in certain spheres of life which is called
telepathy. While it is a mere ghost of language, so to speak, it has an
identity which cannot be denied. This may perhaps be called another form
of language.
[Sidenote: LANGUAGE EMBRACES SPEECH]
By some eminent men of letters it is claimed that speech was invented,
and therefore cannot be universally the same; and this is proven by the
fact that different tribes of men have different tongues. They do not
appear to realise, that to the first cardinal sounds of speech so much
has been added age by age, by slow accretions, that the radex of speech
is but a mere drop in the great ocean of sounds. The mobility of speech
is such as to make it more susceptible to change than matter is; and yet
we find that, by the laws of change, man has been evolved from a less
complex state of matter, and that in these latter years he can only be
identified as the descendant of his prototype by the most scrutinising
care, and by picking up the dropped stitches in the great fabric of
Nature. To illustrate the slow and imperceptible, yet never ceasing,
never failing process of evolution, we may imagine a man picking up a
single grain of sand at a certain point and carrying it a distance of a
thousand feet, where he deposits it at another certain point; returning,
takes a second grain of sand from the same place as he secured the
first, and carries it to the point at which he deposited the first, and
thus continues through his life. At his death his son succeeds him in
the task, and continues through his life, and at the death of this man
his son succeeds; and thus in turn each one succeeds the other through
a million generations. Supposing the wind and rain left these grains of
sand unmolested during this long lapse of time, it is evident that at
the place from which the sand was taken there would be a hole, and where
it was deposited there would be a hill. It is by such slight changes
that Nature does her work; and thus it is that speech, as well as
matter, has been transformed from what it was to what it is. The
physical basis of life retains its identity through all those varied
forms, from protozoa to the highest type; and so the phonetic basis of
speech adheres through all the changing modes of thought and expression.
Speech is the highest type of language and the most accurate mode of
expression, and belongs only to the higher forms of the animal kingdom.
It has passed through all inferior horizons coinciding with the mental,
moral, and social planes through which man has passed in the course of
his evolution.
[Sidenote: SPEECH AND WORDS]
Words are the factors of speech and the highest development of that
faculty. A word may be composed of one or more sounds so articulated as
to preclude any interval of time between the utterance of any two of
them, as "tune," in which the sounds appear to overlap and blend into
each other. A single word may signify more than a single thing, and
sometimes will suggest to the mind a category or group of connected
thoughts, as "eat" or "telegraph," and such is the value of many of our
words. This is especially true of words which combine two roots; but
such a combination is usually found only in the higher types of human
speech. But in these higher types words bear such relations to each
other that we cannot well convey a complete idea with a single word; and
hence it is that in the modes of expression used by man, each separate
statement consists of two or more words bearing certain relations to
each other, and these are often qualified by other words of less
importance. This redundancy is due to the higher and more complex modes
of thought used by man; and it is on such a state of facts that we have
founded that branch of science called grammar, which would be of little
use among those forms which occupy the planes of life inferior to man,
and it is found of little use among the lower tribes of man, where it
does not exist in any written form. Grammar does not make language, but
serves as a kind of anchor by which the dialects of human speech are
somewhat unified and made more stable; and to this is due in some
measure the fact that savage tongues and dialects are more susceptible
to change in their structure, while the phonetic basis upon which they
rest remains the same.
[Sidenote: GRAMMAR AND RHETORIC]
In the more refined tongues of human speech, we go beyond that code of
laws called grammar and amplify them into rhetoric. This branch of the
science of speech could find no place among the lower types, as the
words are few from which they may select; and so exact and arbitrary is
the meaning of each one, and so uniform the relations, that no great
variety of expression can be made with such a limited vocabulary. Their
eloquence is in their brevity of speech. But while the types of speech
used by the lower primates occupy a plane so low in the scale, they are
as truly speech as the vocal organs that produce the sounds are truly
vocal organs. Life is life, in what form soever it is found. It is not
less real in the mollusc than in the man. The same is true of emotion,
of thought, of expression, and of speech. Life, emotion, thought,
expression, and speech began in embryo, and have developed co-ordinately
with all the faculties possessed by man. They are as dependent upon each
other as matter is on force, and as inseparable as light from energy.
Speech is the physical manifestation of which thought is the ultimate
force; it is a spoke in the chariot-wheels of consciousness; it is the
body of which thought is the soul.
CHAPTER XX.
Life and Consciousness--Consciousness and Emotion--Emotion and
Thought--Thought and Expression--Expression and Speech--The
Vocal Organs and Sound--Speech in City and Country--Music,
Passions, and Taste--Life and Reason.
At the beginning of life there is a consciousness which is not more
feeble than is the life with which it is associated; and as that spark
of life kindles into a flame, so that spark of consciousness kindles
into the "ego," and nowhere can a line be drawn at which it may be said
"here consciousness first intercepted life." But as the living form
develops organs and members, through the agency of the vital force,
whatever that may be, so consciousness develops into desires, emotion
and thought. Where shall the line be drawn which separates these
attributes? Standing in the centre, we look around and see the horizon
touching the plain on every side, and this appears to us as a great
circle, the centre of which is always occupied by the observer, and from
our standpoint we imagine that everything between us and that horizon
must be that distance from the centre; but as we move our point of view
from place to place, we move the circle with us, and yet we cannot find
the boundary line which marks this circle at any time. In a manner not
unlike this we pass from centre to centre of the circles of life, and
carry with us the circle, so that at no one point do we ever appear to
be much closer to the horizon than we were at any other point.
[Sidenote: LIFE AND CONSCIOUSNESS]
The classification of genera and species is in a great degree arbitrary;
but much less so than are these abstract characters of life and mind.
There is nowhere a line at which emotion stops and thought begins; there
is nowhere a line at which thought stops and expression begins; there is
nowhere a line at which expression stops and speech begins. These blend
into each other so that only by comparing the extremes can we discern a
difference.
The tenets of metaphysics have heretofore been made to harmonise with
the tenets of theology, and hence it is that we have learned to follow
the laws laid down by others and not to think for ourselves. It has been
as much a heresy to gainsay the dogmas of science as those of religion
until recently; and even now the tender-footed doctors guard their
theories with a vigilance and jealousy worthy of the angel that guarded
the gates of Eden.
[Sidenote: CONSCIOUSNESS AND EMOTION]
Why should it be thought strange that monkeys talk? They see, hear,
love, hate, think, and act by the same means and to the same end as man
does. They experience pain and pleasure, to express which they cry and
laugh just as man does. If the voluntary sounds they make do not mean
something, why may those creatures not as well be dumb? If they do mean
something, why may we not determine what that meaning is? It is true
that their language is quite meagre and suited only to a low plane of
life, but it may be the cytula from which all human speech proceeds, or
it may be the inferior fruit borne upon the same great tree of speech.
The organs of sensation in these creatures are modelled by the same
design as those of man, are adapted to the same uses, and discharge the
same functions. Then why should the vocal powers alone be abnormal,
except in a degree measured by the difference of place which they occupy
in the scale of Nature?
Social intercourse among men has been the chief means of developing
human speech, and we find a true index to its condition in the social
status of the different races of mankind; and by coming closer home, we
find that even in different communities of the same race and within the
limits of the same nation, a difference in the accuracy and volume of
speech, which is measured by the difference of social culture. We find
in rural districts, sparsely peopled and remote from the great centres
of population, that speech is less polished and the number of words used
greatly reduced in comparison to the same language used in the great
cities and more populous communities, where, by reason of contact with
each other and the constant use of speech, the vocal powers are much
more developed and the command of language very much improved. This same
law of development, inversely applied, would lead us in a direct line
down through Nature, rank by rank, and we would find it a reliable unit
of measure throughout the whole perspective of development. The
faculties of music, taste, and reason are measured by a like unit. It is
difficult to trace the musical powers of animals, since music does not
contribute to the comfort or development of types and only affords
pleasure to the intellectual being, and hence is only an accomplishment
obeying no rule of normal growth.
[Sidenote: THE FACULTY OF REASON]
As the use of the natural sense of taste makes possible the choice of
nourishment, and all forms of life are thus sustained, the natural taste
becomes an important factor of their comfort, and upon this physical
basis rests, perhaps, the whole superstructure of ethics. The first idea
of ownership is doubtless found in the possession of food; and this
right of property is protected by the unwritten laws of incipient life.
The faculty of reason, which man has arrogated to himself, is only
limited by that dim line which bounds the vital sphere and sheds its
rays through all the kingdom of life, from that point where the vital
spark first lights the monad, through all the labyrinths of change, to
man in the full pride of his divinity, standing upon the threshold of
the angelic state. It is not by the exercise of reason that water flows
down hill, or that matter obeys the law of gravity; but in the exercise
of autonomy, however feeble may be the motive, reason guides the act.
The power of this faculty is measured by the development of others, and
there is no point between the two extremes at which reason intercepts
life. The degree in which all the powers of sense and faculty are
developed determines the horizon of the thing which possesses them. The
aggregation of powers to act constitutes life; and the aggregation of
powers to guide the action constitutes reason.
[Sidenote: ALL MAMMALS REASON]
Leaving the realm of metaphysics and returning to the order of primates,
to which we shall confine our present work, I shall resume by repeating
that not only do primates have the faculty of speech, but the whole
family of mammals have some form of speech which is in keeping with
their conditions of life. In addition to this declaration, I assert that
all mammals reason by the same means and to the same ends, but not to
the same degree. The reason which controls the conduct of a man is just
the same in kind as that which prompts the ape. The latter cannot carry
the process to such a great extent, but _microsophic_ pedants have not
shown in what respect the methods differ only in degree. That same
faculty which guided man to tame the winds of commerce, taught the
nautilus to lift its tentacles and embrace the passing breeze. Yet we
are told that reason guides the man and instinct guides the nautilus.
These are but two names for light; the one is dawn, the other noon, but
both are light. I cannot see in what respect the light of a lamp differs
from that of a bonfire except in volume; they are the products of the
same forces in Nature, acting through the same media, and, becoming
causes, produce the same effects. That psychic spark which dimly glows
in the animal bursts into a blaze of effulgence in man. The one differs
from the other just as a single ray of sunlight differs from the glaring
light of noon. [Sidenote: EFFECTS OF ONE GREAT CAUSE] If man could
disabuse his mind of that contempt for things below his plane of life,
and hush the siren voice of self-conceit, his better senses might be
touched by the eloquence of truth. But while the vassals of his empty
pride control his mind, the plainest facts appeal to him in vain, and
all the cogency of proof is lost. He is unwilling to forego that vain
belief that he is Nature's idol, and that he is a duplicate of Deity.
Held in check by the strong reins of theology and tradition, he has not
dared to controvert those dogmas which bear the stamp of error on their
face; he dares not turn away from the idols of his own conceit and read
the rubrics written in the fossil rocks; he dares not take those proofs
which none can counterfeit, and whose authority is not gainsaid; he
dares not lay aside the yoke which galls the neck of patience, or
breathe the air unblest by some mysterious rite performed in fear. By
such restraints his ears are closed against those voices which appeal to
him from without the temple gates of his belief. In what respect would
man be less god-like if it be shown that monkeys talk? To elevate the
humbler ranks could not degrade mankind. Whether man is the work of
Deity or was evolved by laws of change from primal matter; whether he
was made in one specific act or is the last amendment to a million prior
types; whether he is the creature of design or accident, the authorship
of his being and that of all the forms which roam the broad empire of
life must be the same. We are all the effects of one Great Cause,
whatever that may be, and that which gave to man the power of speech
imparted it to apes; and I can see no reason why Nature should have
drawn a line about this faculty, and made the rest a common heritage.
CHAPTER XXI.
Certain Marks which Characterise the Sounds of Monkeys as
Speech--Sounds accompanied by Gestures--Certain Acts follow
certain Sounds--They acquire new Sounds--Their Speech addressed
to certain Individuals--Deliberation and Premeditation--They
remember and anticipate Results--Thought and Reason.
As a result of my experience with monkeys, I shall here sum up the chief
points in which their speech is found to coincide with that of man, and
note those features which distinctly characterise the sounds as a form
of speech.
[Sidenote: SOUNDS OF MONKEYS AS SPEECH]
The sounds which monkeys make are voluntary, deliberate, and articulate.
They are always addressed to some certain individual with the evident
purpose of having them understood. The monkey indicates by his own acts
and the manner of delivery that he is conscious of the meaning which he
desires to convey through the medium of the sounds. They wait for and
expect an answer, and if they do not receive one they frequently repeat
the sounds. They usually look at the person addressed, and do not utter
these sounds when alone or as a mere pastime, but only at such times as
some one is present to hear them, either some person or another monkey.
They understand the sounds made by other monkeys of their own kind, and
usually respond to them with a like sound. They understand these sounds
when imitated by a human being, by a whistle, a phonograph, or other
mechanical devices, and this indicates that they are guided by the
sounds alone, and not by any signs, gestures, or psychic influence. The
same sound is interpreted to mean the same thing, and obeyed in the same
manner by different monkeys of the same species. Different sounds are
accompanied by different gestures, and produce different results under
the same conditions. They make their sounds with the vocal organs, and
modulate them with the teeth, tongue and lips, in the same manner that
man controls his vocal sounds. The fundamental sounds appear to be pure
vowels, but faint traces of consonants are found in many words,
especially those of low pitch; and since I have been able to develop
certain consonant sounds from a vowel basis, the conclusion forces
itself upon me that the consonant elements of human speech are developed
from a vowel basis. This opinion is further confirmed by the fact that
the sounds produced by the types of the animal kingdom lower than the
monkey, appear to be more like the sounds of pipe instruments; and as we
rise in the scale, the vocal organs appear to become somewhat more
complex, and capable of varying these sounds so as to give the effect of
consonants, which very much extends the vocal scope. The present state
of the speech of monkeys appears to have been reached by development
from a lower form. [Sidenote: EACH RACE HAS ITS PECULIAR TONGUE] Each
race or kind of monkey has its own peculiar tongue, slightly shaded
into dialects, and the radical sounds do not appear to have the same
meaning in different tongues. The phonetic character of their speech is
equally as high as that of children in a like state of mental
development; and seems to obey the same laws of phonetic growth, change,
and decay as human speech. It appears to me that their speech is capable
of communicating the ideas that they are capable of conceiving, and,
measured by their mental, moral, and social status, is as well developed
as the speech of man, measured by the same units. Strange monkeys of the
same species seem to understand each other at sight, whereas two monkeys
of different species do not understand each other until they have been
together for some time. Each one learns to understand the speech of the
other; but, as a rule, he does not try to speak it. When he deigns an
answer, it is usually in his own tongue. The more fixed and pronounced
the social and gregarious instincts are in any species, the higher the
type of its speech. They often utter certain sounds under certain
conditions in a whisper, which indicates they are conscious of the
effect which will result from the use of speech. Monkeys reason from
cause to effect, communicate to others the conclusion deduced therefrom,
and act in accordance therewith. If their sounds convey a fixed idea on
a given subject from one mind to another, what more does human speech
accomplish? If one sound communicates that idea clearly, what more could
volumes do? If their sounds discharge all the functions of speech, in
what respect are they not speech?
[Sidenote: CANNOT THINK WITHOUT WORDS]
It is as reasonable to attribute meaning to their sounds as to attribute
motives to their actions; and the fact that they ascribe a meaning to
the sounds of human speech, would show that they are aware that ideas
can be conveyed by sounds. If they can interpret certain sounds of human
speech, they can ascribe a meaning to their own. They think, and speech
is but the natural exponent of thought; it is the audible expression of
thought, and signs are the visible expression of the same; born of the
same cause, acts to the same end, and discharges the same functions in
the economy of life. To reason is to think methodically; and if it be
true that man cannot think without words, the same must be true of
monkeys. I do not mean, however, to claim that such is a fact with
regard to man thinking; but if such can be shown to be a fact, it will
decide the question as to the invention of human speech, as it was
necessary for man to think in order to invent; and, by the same rule, he
could not think a word which did not exist, and therefore could not have
invented it. But I beg to be allowed to stand aside and let Prof. Max
Müller and Prof. Whitney, the great giants of comparative philology,
settle this question between themselves; and I shall abide by the
verdict which may be finally reached.
But theories are useless things when the facts are known; and since I
have actually learned from a monkey a certain sound having a certain
value and meaning a certain thing, and by repeating that sound to a
monkey of the same species have met with uniform results, have
understood him, and been understood by him, no argument could be so
potent as to cause me to believe that this was accident. I am aware that
coincidents occur; but when they become the rule instead of the
exception, they are no longer mere coincidents, but are the normal state
of things.
[Sidenote: THOUGHT AND REASON]
In conclusion, I would say that since the sounds uttered by monkeys
perform all that speech performs, is made of the same material, produced
by the same means, acts to the same ends, and through the same media, it
is as near an approach to speech as the mental operations by which it is
produced are an approach to thought. If it can be shown that these
mental feats are not thought, the same process of reasoning could show
that these sounds are not speech. If man derived his other faculties
from such an ancestry, may not his speech have been acquired from such
a source? If the prototype of man has survived through all the
vicissitudes of time, may not his speech likewise have survived? If the
races of mankind are the progeny of the Simian stock, may not their
languages be the progeny of the Simian tongue?
CHAPTER XXII.
The Phonograph as an aid to Science--Vowels the basis of
Phonation--Consonants developed from a Vowel basis--Vowels are
Compound--The Analysis of Vowels by the Phonograph--Current
Theories of Sound--Augmentation of Sounds--Sound Waves and Sound
Units--Consonants among the Lower Races.
The application of the phonograph to my special work is really the
discovery of a new field of usefulness for that wonderful instrument,
which, up to this time, has held the place of a toy more than that of a
scientific apparatus of the very highest importance in the study of
acoustics and philology. In many ways the use of this machine is so
hampered by the avarice of men as to lessen its value as an aid to
scientific research, and the Letters Patent under which it is protected
preclude all competition and prevent improvements. However, I have been
able, even with the poor machines in general use, to discover some of
the most important facts upon which are based the laws of phonation. I
shall here attempt to give in detail but a few of these experiments, as
they are yet crude, and in some cases the deductions therefrom not
positively certain. [Sidenote: VOICES OF MEN AND MONKEYS] From the
various records that I have made of the voices of men and monkeys, I am
prepared to say that the difference is not so great as is commonly
supposed, and that I have converted each one into the other. I would not
be understood to say that I have done this with all their sounds, nor
that the monkey's sounds were converted into human speech, but the
fundamental sounds of each were changed into those of the other. I find
that human laughter coincides in nearly every point with that of
monkeys. They differ in volume and pitch. By the aid of the phonograph I
have been able to analyse the vowel sounds of human speech, which I find
to be compound, and some of them contain as many as three distinct
syllables of unlike sounds. From the vowel basis I have succeeded in
developing certain consonant elements, both initial and final, from
which I have deduced the belief that the most complex sounds of
consonants are developed from the simple vowel basis, somewhat like
chemical compounds result from the union of simple elements. Without
describing in detail the results, I shall mention some simple
experiments which have given me some very strange phenomena. I dictate
to the phonograph a vowel in different keys while the cylinder rotates
at a given rate of speed. I then adjust the speed to a certain higher or
lower rate and follow the results. By reversing the motion of the
cylinder the sounds are reduced to their fundamental state. By this
means we eliminate all familiar intonation, and disassociate it from any
meaning which will sway the mind, and in this way it can be studied to
advantage. [Sidenote: THE SOUND WAVES] At a given rate of speed I have
taken the record of certain sounds made by a monkey, and by reducing the
rate of speed from two hundred revolutions per minute to forty, it can
be seen that I increased the intervals between what is called the sound
waves and magnified the wave itself fivefold, at the same time reducing
the pitch in like degree, and by this means I could detect the slightest
shades of modulation. I may remind you here that in this process all
parts of the sound are magnified alike in all directions, so that
instead of obtaining five times the length, as it were, of the sound
unit or interval, we obtain the cube of five times the normal length of
every unit of the sound. The slightest variation of tension in the vocal
chords may be detected, and every part of the sound compared to every
other part.
Having thus augmented the quantity of sound, by increasing alike the
sound unit and interval, it can be recorded on another cylinder and
multiplied again as long as the vibrations can produce sound. From the
constant relation of parts and their uniform augmentations under this
treatment, it has suggested to my mind the idea that all sounds have
definite geometrical outlines, and as we change the magnitude without
changing the form of the sound, I shall describe this constancy of form
by the term contour.
In a few instances I have been able, by reducing the record of certain
sounds from a high pitch to a lower one, to imitate the sound thus
reduced with my own vocal organs, then by restoring this record of my
voice to its normal speed have obtained almost a perfect imitation of
the sound. This effect, however, does not always follow, and in many
instances my best imitations have not developed the original at all. But
this presents a new problem in acoustics. I must here take occasion to
say that the difference of pitch, quality, &c., in sounds does not
appear to me to depend alone upon the length of the sound unit, but
there seems to be a difference of ultimate form and mode of propagation
which have much to do with the contour of the developed sound.
[Sidenote: THE SOUND FORCE]
By _mode of propagation_ I mean the organs brought into use for the
purpose of producing the sound, the apertures through which the sound
force passes, and the auxiliaries by which it is moulded into certain
shapes. By _ultimate form_ I mean the geometrical shape of the sound
force when first converted into sound. That there is such a thing as
form has been clearly demonstrated by the phoneidoscope. Prof. John B.
De Mott has very kindly aided me in reducing certain sounds to a visible
condition. I had conceived an idea before this that if the path
described by the energy which produced sound could be made visible, that
it would be found to have the form of a convolute spiral, that these
spirals recede from the centre or point of propagation in every
direction like the radii of a sphere, and that that aspect of sound
which we call waves, is simply the point at which these spirals
intercept each other, which of necessity would be of uniform distance
from the centre, increasing at each successive point throughout the
entire sound-sphere or space through which the sound passes in all
directions from the centre to infinity. I shall refrain from discussing
this point till such a time as I can show at greater length my reasons
for this belief. I may add here that I have made records of the human
voice with which I have deceived the monkeys, and I have made records of
the monkey's voice with which I have deceived the very elect of
linguists and musicians. Some critic once remarked to me that the sound
made by a monkey was not really laughter, but only a kind of
good-natured growling. This may be correct, but the same is true of
human laughter, as the one may be converted into the other, and a
good-natured growl expresses the emotion which is felt by man as well as
monkey.
The phonograph shows that they are identical in sound and form, besides
the fact that they are the outburst of the same passion, actuated by the
same cause and executed by the same muscles, so that their identity,
mentally, physically, and mechanically, is the same.
[Sidenote: VOWEL SOUNDS]
Among the sounds of the Simian voice I have not found the English vowels
"a," "i," or "o," except, perhaps, "i" short as sounded in the word
"it." The vowel "u," as sounded like "oo" in "shoot," seems to be the
chief sound of their speech. One important point which I discovered from
the phonograph is, that sounds or tones which are purely musical are
reproduced alike with the cylinder turning either way, while all speech
sounds are slightly changed when the cylinder is reversed, which shows
the sounds to be compound. I find that "w" may be developed from any
consonant by manipulating the cylinder of the phonograph, and it is a
fact also that the initial consonant imparted to any vowel does not
continue through the vowel. This I have shown by making a vowel sound
which I prolong for some seconds with the cylinder revolving at a given
rate of speed. While reproducing this at a normal speed I intercepted at
any point, and developed the sound "w" as heard in "woe." The instant I
have blended this into the vowel, I lift the diaphragm until the normal
speed is restored, when I replace the reproducing tooth showing the
sound without the consonant. In like manner I dictate to the phonograph
any vowel sound preceded by a consonant. The consonant I utter in a
natural way, the vowel I prolong for some seconds, and in the act of
reproducing this I cut the sound in two and find the vowel element is
not modified by the consonant which preceded it, hence, I observe that
the consonant merely suggests to the mind a certain form of sound which
does not change the fundamental vowel. In fact, it aids the voice
somewhat in uttering the vowel.
If human speech were composed of none but vowel sounds the human voice
could scarcely utter them in a continued conversation; their monotony
would not so much offend the ear as it would try the vocal powers, and
man would soon acquire consonants to aid the voice if for no other use.
[Sidenote: DOUBLE AND TREBLE CONSONANTS]
Among the Simians the better types of speech show this tendency, and in
the lower types of human speech we find all the vowel elements, while
consonants are not by any means so numerous. Another fact is this, among
the lower races of mankind double consonants are rare, and treble more
so. Of course their tongues consist of fewer words, as has been shown
before, which paucity arises from their few wants and simple modes of
life, and hence the scope of vocal growth is much contracted. Beginning
with the lowest tribes of men, we find the consonants increase in number
and complexity as we ascend the scale of speech. To this, perhaps, is
due the fact that the Negroes now found in the United States after a
sojourn of two hundred years with the white race on this continent are
unable to utter the sounds of "th" "thr," and other double consonants.
The former of these they pronounce "d" if breathing, and "t" if
aspirate. The latter they pronounce like "trw" or "tww." The sound of
"v" they usually pronounce "b," while "r" resembles "w" or "rw" when
initial, but as a final sound is usually suppressed. They have a marked
tendency to omit auxiliary and final sounds, and in all departures from
the higher types of speech tend back to ancestral forms.
I believe if we could apply the rule of perspectives and throw our
vanishing point far back beyond the chasm that separates man from his
Simian prototype, that we would find one unbroken outline tangent to
every circle of life from man to protozoa in language, mind, and
matter.
CHAPTER XXIII.
The Human Voice--Human Bagpipe--Human Piccolo, Flute, and
Fife--The Voice as a Whistle--Music and Noise--Dr. Bell and his
"Visible Speech."
One of the very curious feats which I have performed with the phonograph
is the conversion of the human voice into the sounds of various
instruments. I had my wife sing the familiar Scotch ballad, "Comin'
through the Rye," to the phonograph while the cylinder was rotating at
the rate of about forty revolutions per minute. Each word in the song
was distinctly pronounced and the music rendered in a plain, smooth
tone. I then increased the speed of the machine to about one hundred and
twenty per minute, at which rate I reproduced the song. It was a very
perfect imitation of the bagpipe with no sign whatever of articulation.
The melody was preserved with only a change of time. The speech
character was so completely destroyed that I repeated this record to a
large audience in which were several eminent musicians, not one of whom
suspected that it was not a real bagpipe solo. In like manner I have
converted the sounds of the voice into a very perfect piccolo, flute,
fife, and into a fairly good imitation of a whistle sound. To produce
the whistling effect and the fife sound the rate of speed must be
necessarily very high, and some notes will not be perfectly converted
for some reason which I have not yet fully understood. Some voices are
much more easily converted into the flute effect than others. To get the
best flute sounds, a full, smooth, mezzo-soprano gives the best effect.
In reversing the operation, the sounds of these instruments can be made
to imitate the human voice somewhat, but not exactly, not only in the
fact that the modulation is wanting and there is no semblance to
consonant sounds, but the tone itself differs in quality from that of
the voice.
[Sidenote: CONTOUR OF SOUNDS]
Among other respects in which the vocal sounds of man and Simian
resemble is in the contour of the sounds, which I have defined
elsewhere. I have called attention to the fact that by reversing the
cylinder of the phonograph and repeating the sound recorded thereon that
a musical note or sound would repeat alike each way. Most of the sounds
made by other animals do this, but those made by man and Simian alike
show modulation, not, however, equally distinct. The notes of birds
repeat alike both ways except their order is reversed. Again, to magnify
the sounds as I have shown it can be done, allows you to inspect them,
as it were, under the microscope, and this examination shows the contour
of the sounds of these two genera to resemble.
Dr. Alexander Melville Bell has shown, in his work on "Visible Speech,"
that the organs brought into use in the production and modification of
sounds must work in harmony with each other; hence it is that by a study
of the external forms of the mouth the movements of all the organs used
in making any sound can be determined with such certainty that
deaf-mutes can be, and have been, successfully taught to distinguish
these sounds by the eye alone. And it was by such a method that I set
out to read the temple inscriptions from the ruins of Palenque, some
years ago, at which time I had not heard of Dr. Bell's learned and
excellent work. The main feature of those glyphs, by which I was guided,
was the outline of the mouth, which the artist had sought to preserve
and emphasise at the cost of every other feature, and by this process I
found to my satisfaction some ten or twelve sounds or phonetic elements
of the speech used by these people; but not knowing the meaning of the
sounds in that lost tongue, I did not attempt to verify them, but when I
find the time to devote to them I believe I can accomplish that.
[Sidenote: TRIP TO AFRICA]
It is a part of my purpose, in my trip to Africa, to try to secure
photographs of the mouths of the great apes while they are in the act of
talking, and to this end I am having constructed an electric trigger,
with which to operate my photo-camera at long range, and I shall try to
furnish to the eminent author of "Visible Speech" some new and novel
subjects for study.
CHAPTER XXIV.
Some Curious Facts in Vocal Growth--Children and
Consonants--Single, Double, and Treble Consonants--Sounds of
Birds--Fishes and their Language--Insects and their Language.
[Sidenote: SOUNDS UTTERED BY CHILDREN]
I shall take occasion here to mention some curious experiments, which
have suggested themselves to me in my work with the phonograph. For lack
of time and opportunity, I have not carried them far enough to give
exact and final results; but it has occurred to me that philology may be
aided by taking a record of the sounds made by a number of children
daily through a period of two or three years from birth. The few
experiments which I have tried in this particular line are sufficient to
show that the growth of speech obeys certain laws in the development of
vocal power. It is apparent to me that the first sounds uttered by
children have no consonants, and that certain consonants always appear
in a regular succession and always single. The double consonants develop
later, and the triple consonants appear to be the last acquirement. I
have not the space to go to great length on this subject, and my
experiments have not been sufficient to enable me to formulate with
certainty any set of rules by which the development of this faculty is
uniformly governed.
It is my purpose, on my return from Africa, to set on foot a series of
such experiments, with the hope of ascertaining the facts connected
therewith. And while in Africa I shall aim to make such records of the
natives as to ascertain whether their speech conforms to the same laws
of development or not. It is my earnest hope to be able to do the same
thing with the great apes which I am going chiefly to study. I think if
I can record on a phonograph cylinder the sounds uttered by a young
chimpanzee under certain conditions once each day for a year or so, I
can determine whether there is a like growth in their speech, and to
what extent the same laws control it. I have already observed that the
quality of voice in a given species of monkey changes with his age very
much in the same manner as the human voice; but I have not been able to
follow the changes through one individual specimen by which to ascertain
the exact manner of such change.
[Sidenote: SOUNDS OF BIRDS]
The sounds of birds have been studied perhaps more than any others
except those of man, but they have not been studied as speech, nor to
ascertain their meanings. Their musical character has attracted
attention and been the subject of some discussion. My opinion is that
much that has been said on that subject belongs more properly to the
realm of poetry than of science. I think the sounds of birds are chiefly
intended for speech, but it may supply the place of music in their
æsthetic being; but, so far as I have observed, I confess that I cannot
find that they obey the laws of harmony, melody, or time, and it is my
opinion that most of the efforts to write the sounds of birds on a
musical staff are not to be relied upon as accurate records of the
sounds. There is no doubt that each sound uttered by a bird is in unison
with some note in the chromatic scale of music, but the intervals
between the tones of the same bird do not coincide with those of the
human voice. It is quite evident that birds possess an acute sense and
ready faculty for music, and many of them show great aptitude in
imitating the sounds of musical instruments; some varieties of birds,
such as the southern mocking-bird, the thrush, and others, imitate with
great success the sounds of other birds. They often do this so perfectly
as to deceive the species to which the sounds belong. The songs of
birds, as they are called, appear to afford them great pleasure, and
they often indulge in them, I think, as a pastime; the effect is
pleasing to the ear because of its cheerfulness, and it is not
discordant or wanting in richness of tone in most birds. From the little
study I have given them I think it safe to say that the range of sounds
possessed by any one bird is quite limited and their notes are strictly
monophones. This last remark does not apply to the sounds made by
parrots and birds of that kind.
The parrot is perhaps possessed of the greatest vocal power of any other
bird. He imitates almost the entire range of sounds that are uttered by
all other birds combined, and can also imitate the sounds of human
speech from the highest to the lowest pitch of the human voice. In
addition to all this, he imitates many noises, such as the sounds of
sawing wood, the slam of a door, and the whistling of the wind. The
vocal range of the parrot is perhaps the most marvellous of all the
vocal products of the animal kingdom. One strange thing, however, that I
observe among them is, that the range of sounds that they use among
themselves is very small. I have made some records of parrots, macaws,
cockatoos, &c., and I find their natural vocal sounds usually wanting in
quality: most of their sounds are hoarse and guttural.
Among the gallinaceous birds there does not appear to be much music.
There is a great sameness of sounds in the different species, and they
seem to be confined to the economic use of speech.
In my early life I devoted much time to gunning, and I observed then,
and called attention to the fact, that when a covey of birds became
scattered I could tell at what point they would huddle. I could tell
this by the call of one bird and the reply of the others. The call-bird,
which was always the leader of the covey, would sound his call from a
certain point near which the other birds would usually assemble, and
during this time they would answer him from various other points. The
sound used by the call-bird is unlike that used by the rest of the
flock, but the sounds with which they reply to him are all alike, and
by observing this I could always find the covey again by allowing them
time to come together, especially if it was late in the afternoon.
Mr. Wood, of Washington, D.C., has given such attention to the sounds of
birds that he can interpret and imitate nearly all the sounds made by
domestic birds, and many of those made by wild birds. He has twice
confused and arrested the flight of an army of crows by imitating the
calls of their leader. His feats have been witnessed with astonishment
by many men of science.
[Sidenote: SOUNDS OF FISHES]
Among fishes I have found but few sounds, and most of these I have never
heard except when the fish was taken out of the water. The carp and
high-fin, however, I have frequently heard while in the water. It has
occurred to me that the sound is not the medium of communication, but it
is the result of an action by which they do communicate even when the
sound is not audible. I have observed while holding the fish in my hand
when he makes this sound that it produces a jarring sensation which is
very perceptible. It is quite possible that in his natural element these
powerful vibrations are imparted to the surrounding water, and through
it communicated to another fish, who feels it in his sensitive body
instead of hearing it as sound. It may be accompanied by the sound
merely resulting from the force applied, but not in itself constituting
any part of the means of communication. It is not unlike what we call
sound, in the fact that it is generated in the same way, transmitted in
the same way, and received in the same way as sound. When I have time
and opportunity I shall carry my studies of the language of fishes much
farther. Their means of communication are very contracted, but it is
superfluous for me to say that they have such means.
Many observations have already been made on the language of insects, and
much diversity of opinion prevails. Very little has been said about the
details of their intercourse, but the consensus of opinion is that they
must in some way communicate among themselves. To me they seem to live
within a world of their own, as other classes of the animal kingdom do.
The means of communication used by mammals could not be available among
aquatic forms, any more than could their modes of locomotion. Each
different class of the animal kingdom is endowed with such characters
and faculties as best adapt them to the sphere in which they live; and
the mode of communication best fitted to the conditions of insect life
would be as little suited to mammals, perhaps, as the feathers of a bird
would be for locomotion in the realm of fishes.
[Sidenote: LANGUAGE OF INSECTS]
I am aware that some high authorities have claimed that insects
communicate by sounds. My own opinion is that they employ a system of
grating or scratching by means of their stigmata, but that the sound
created thus performs no function in the act of communicating, but is
only a bi-product, so to speak, and that the jarring sensation
transmitted through the air is the real means by which they understand
each other, possibly somewhat like telegraphy, in which the sounds are
not modulated, but are distinguished by their duration and the interval
between them. I do not announce this as conclusive, but merely suggest
it as a possible key to their mode of intercourse.
[Sidenote: A COLONY OF ANTS]
I have observed that signs prevail to a great extent among ants. Some
years ago I had an opportunity of studying a colony of ants, and I
watched them almost daily for several weeks. I had seen it stated that
they found their way by the sense of smell, but these observations
confirmed my doubts on that point, and I feel justified in saying that
they are guided almost, if not entirely, by landmarks. On the bark of a
tree from which they were gathering in their winter stores, I observed
that there were certain little knots or protuberances by which they
directed their course and which they always passed in a certain order.
Between these landmarks they did not confine themselves to any exact
path, but the concourse would sometimes widen out over the space of more
than an inch, but as they approached a landmark every ant fell into line
and went in the exact path of the others, which rarely exceeded in any
case more than an eighth of an inch in width. Whenever an ant would lose
its way it would lift its head high into the air, look around, and then
turn almost at right angles from the course it was pursuing towards the
path of the others. In scores of cases I observed that the outward-bound
ant, when it had been lost and returned to the path, always came on the
homeward side of the landmark and passed out. On the other hand, if a
homeward-bound ant was lost it would approach from the outward side of
the landmark and pass in. About five feet from the ground were two
small, round knots, about one-eighth of an inch in height, and a space
between them of about the same width. This appeared to be one of their
most conspicuous and reliable landmarks, and every ant that I saw pass
in or out during the lapse of weeks passed between these two points. The
burdened ant always appeared to have the right of way, and when meeting
another without a burden there was no question of this right. In such a
case the burden was usually held aloft, and the right of way conceded
without debate. A little later in the season I had the opportunity of
seeing the same colony emigrate to a point about eighty feet distant
from their original abode, at which time they carried large burdens and
were many days in completing their work, but the same system and methods
prevailed.
As far as desire can be found in life the means of expression go hand in
hand with it, but I do not contend that desire alone is the origin of
this faculty. So far as human ears can ascertain, the lowest forms of
life appeared to dwell in perpetual silence, but there may be voices yet
unheard, more eloquent than we have ever dreamed of.
CHAPTER XXV.
Facts and Fancies of Speech--Language in the Vegetable
Kingdom--Language in the Mineral Kingdom.
In the early part of this work I have recorded the material and tangible
facts with which I have dealt, and have not departed from such facts to
formulate a theory beyond a working hypothesis. I have not allowed
myself to be transported into the realm of fancy, nor have I claimed for
my work anything which lies beyond the bounds of proof. But in the wide
range through which I have sought for the first hint of speech, it is
only natural that many theories have suggested themselves to me from
time to time, some of which would appear almost like the dreams of
hasheesh. But while they are like the fairyland of speculation, they are
not more wild and incoherent than are many of the dogmas of
metaphysics. And at this point I shall digress from my text so far as to
say that I have followed the motives of language through the higher
planes of life and thence downward to the very sunrise to the vegetable
kingdom, and on through the dim twilight across the mineral world to
that point where elemental matter is first delivered from the hands of
force. Standing upon the elevated plane of human development, it is
difficult for man to stoop to the level of those inferior forms from
which he is so far removed in all his faculties; but if his senses could
be made so delicate as to discern the facts, he would find perhaps that
in the polity of life all horizons are equidistant from each other. But
looking back from where he stands, his powers fail to reach the real
point of vital force at which all life began, and his contracted senses
bring the vanishing point of this perspective far into the foreground of
the facts.
From the highest type of human speech to the feeblest hint of
expression there is a gradual descent, and at no point between these two
extremes can there be drawn a line at which it may be said "here one
begins, and here another ends." The same is true of other faculties; and
from the vital centre at which matter first receives the touch of life
to the circumference of the vital sphere, all powers radiate alike, and
there is no point that I can find between that centre and infinity at
which some new endowment intercepts the line.
Descending the scale of life by long strides, from man to the lowest
form of zooids, we cannot designate the point at which a faculty is
first imparted to the form which has it, and this truth extends
throughout the vital cosmos.
[Sidenote: LANGUAGE IN THE VEGETABLE KINGDOM]
The line of demarcation which separates the animal and vegetable is but
a wavering, blended mezzotint, and the highest forms of vegetable life
seem to overlap the lowest forms of animal, so far that no dividing line
is positively fixed. The highest types of vegetable seem to have the
faculty of expression in a degree corresponding to, and in harmony with,
the rest of their organism. I do not mean to say that the impulse under
which a plant acts is synonymously with that which prompts the animal,
but both appear to be the effect of the same cause.
In some forms of vegetation the selection of food of certain kinds and
the aversion to other certain kinds, would indicate that the organism is
capable of design and purpose in a degree perhaps much higher than some
of the lowest forms of the animal kingdom. The reaching out of roots in
search of food in the earth, the opening and closing of leaf and bloom,
seeking the moisture and carbon from the atmosphere, suggest a feeble
expression of desire. The choice of food is so well defined in some
plants as to indicate a power of selection far greater than some
protozoans exercise. It is a known fact that a change of food and
conditions often modify a plant in such degree as to make it difficult
to recognise except by the technical laws of classification, and yet its
identity is not lost. Such changes do not effect all plants in the same
degree, as some of them will undergo a change of diet or conditions
without material effect. In many instances a marked dislike to certain
kinds of food has been observed, and the sensitiveness of some plants is
shown in the foliage, bloom, and even in the roots.
[Sidenote: LANGUAGE OF THE MINERAL KINGDOM]
In passing from the vegetable to the mineral kingdom, we find a like
diffusion of types overlapping and blending into each other. Some forms
of vegetation are so low in the scale of organism as to make it
difficult to say whether they are vegetable or mineral compounds. Of
course we find no trace of speech, but there is that hint of expression
or suggestion of desire as found in the vegetable kingdom. In the
chemical world one element will select another with which it will
combine, while to other elements it shows a great aversion. When one
chemical element selects another and combines with it we call this
chemical affinity. The ultimate force which causes this affinity is one
of the unknown facts concerning matter; but it is possible that such
affinities and aversions constitute the basis upon which rests the
selections and aversions of plants and animals. But as we rise in the
scale the combinations of matter become more complex and the functions
of each part more specific. It is possible, when we become more familiar
with the forces of Nature, that we shall find that affinity and
repulsion are but the positive and negative poles of the forces which
act on matter; that chemical, vegetable and animal activity are based
upon the same fundamental causes, and that speech, which is only one
form of expression, is the highest product of such an ultimate force,
but in all conditions of matter, such forces, either positive or
negative, are the ultimate motives of expression.
[Sidenote: VITALISATION OF MATTER]
As chemical formulas differ from each other without losing the identity
of their elements which constitute them, so animal organisms and plant
forms differ as the spheres of life to which they are assigned differ.
It is possible that chemical affinity may be the germ from which all
language springs, as the chemical elements are the materials from which
all compounds are built up. The vitalisation of matter itself, and the
arrangement of the ultimate particles which constitute a living body,
are the work of the vital force in a polarised condition. This will
account, in a measure, for all the individuals of one type selecting one
mode of expression, as they select or conform to one physical outline.
In every rank of life there seems to be some intuitive mode of
expression which suggest itself to all the individuals of that kind when
they desire, under the same conditions, to express the same thing. The
exceptions to this law of expression increase in number as we rise in
the scale of life, and the means of expression increase and widen and
the faculty of thought enlarges. The laws of chemical affinity are
rigid and uncompromising, and there are but few exceptions in them, and
only marked changes of condition can modify the results. As we ascend
even in the mineral kingdom to the higher compounds we find a wider
range of variation; and as we continue our ascent through the vegetable
world, we find the same, and on through animals to the highest type. In
the lower planes types are more strictly adhered to, habits and food
more rigidly observed, while among the highest types of cultivated
plants we find a great diversity of fruit and bloom, the capability of
transplanting and the creation of new species, without losing the
generic identity of the plant or even making it questionable. In the
animal kingdom the same law is complied with; and step by step as we
ascend the same types show greater and greater diversity, until we reach
man--the climax of all life, and within his genus, variation knows no
bound.
[Sidenote: CONCLUSION]
In conclusion, I may say that man as he now is has the faculty of
speech. It is reasonable to believe that he has always had this faculty
since he was man. If there has ever been a time in the history of his
organism when he acquired his being from some progenitor which was not
man, he acquired at the same time the faculty of speech, and that
progenitor did not impart a thing which he did not have. While it is
true that speech, as I have used it, is confined to vocal sounds, other
modes of expression have preceded it, and such has been a common faculty
inherent through all forms and planes of life. I am aware that two
ingredients combined may make a compound unlike either one, and such may
be the case with speech, but the elements which constitute the compound
must have been for ever present.
CHAPTER XXVI.
THE SPEECH AND REASON OF DOMESTIC ANIMALS.
Dash and the Baby--Two Collies talk--Eunice understands her
Mistress--Two Dogs and the Phonograph--A Canine Family--Cats and
Dogs--Insects--Signs and Sounds.
[Sidenote: THE SPEECH OF DOMESTIC ANIMALS]
To those who are familiar with rural life, there can be nothing strange
in hearing it said that all animals can talk among their kind. Among the
daily incidents of farm life, there occur so many proofs of this as to
place the question beyond debate. The cattle have means of conveying
ideas to other cattle, and sheep and hogs understand other sheep and
hogs, and the means employed are sounds. These sounds are used in the
same way that man uses them to convey his thoughts, and since they
discharge all the functions of speech, in what respect are they not
speech? The types of speech differ in different genera, as their
physical types do, but they are not any the less speech on that account.
Among the domestic animals, I think the dog has, perhaps, the highest
type of speech; and this is doubtless, in some measure, due to his
intimate relations with man, from whom he has learned and added a little
to his mental store, and this must find an outlet through speech. That
dogs think and reason is not to be doubted by the most stupid observer,
and they often make known their thoughts so that even man can interpret
them with certainty; but the speech by which they express those thoughts
is of course rudimentary. Dogs often discharge certain duties with such
promptness that bigots declare that it is mechanical and done without
motive, but there are many thousands of cases where the dog has assumed
and performed duties of others, entirely outside of his own sphere,
which nothing but reason could have prompted.
When I was only a few weeks old, my father had given to him a little
white poodle, which he called Dash. He was about my own age, and we grew
up together. In those days, children were rocked in the old-time cradle,
and I, like other babies, had a cradle. When I was a few months old, on
one occasion I was left asleep in my cradle, and no one was in the room
but Dash and myself. Having been disturbed in my sleep, I woke up and
cried, and Dash, seeing the condition of things, came to the cradle,
and, rearing on his hind feet, rocked it with his paws, and whined and
barked until I had gone to sleep again. My mother has often told me of
this, and assured me that he had never been taught to do this, but
always after practised it, not only with myself, but with my younger
brothers and sisters, until, at the age of thirteen, he came to an
untimely death at the hands of a bull-dog, whose name and tribe I have
never ceased to hate. I gave Dash the burial that he deserved, and had
a long procession of mourning children follow his remains to the grave,
where I delivered the funeral sermon, and we all sung a hymn. About
three years ago, in company with an older sister, I visited the spot for
the first time in nearly thirty years, but no sign of the little grave
remained.
What else but reason could have prompted this act? The dog had seen it
done by human beings, and had noted the result. Whether his whining was
intended as singing or not, I am unable to say, but from my recollection
of seeing him do this with the younger children, I believe that it was
intended to soothe or entertain, and his barking to call some one into
the room.
A farmer by the name of Taylor, living in East Tennessee, some years ago
owned two very fine collies, and they had been trained to drive the
cattle and sheep about the farm, to drive strange cattle away from the
premises, to guard the gates or gaps opened temporarily for hauling
about the farm, and many similar duties. On one occasion, in haymaking
time, as night was approaching, the waggon made its last homeward trip
for the day, and the men working in the meadow prepared to go home. The
driver of the waggon, supposing the men from the meadow were following
and would close the gates, left them open, and one of these was between
the corn-field and a pasture containing a number of cattle. The men,
however, did not follow the waggon, but took a near way across the
field, and the gate was left open. While the family was at supper, one
of the collies was restless and barked continually, and gave such signs
of uneasiness as to assure all that something was wrong. His master went
to the door, and the dog ran to the gate in the front of the house, and
continued barking and lashing his tail with great energy. The master
followed to the front gate, and the dog immediately ran barking down the
road, but looking back from time to time to see that his master
followed, which he did, and was thus led to the open gate, where he
found the other collie on guard and keeping the cattle from passing,
which they were trying to do. What less than reason could have prompted
these dogs to such an act? And what less than speech could have enabled
them to execute this feat? They observed the neglect or error of the
driver, and foresaw the evil consequences, and it could only have been
by agreement reached through an interchange of thoughts that one of them
watched while the other gave the alarm. I have known some of these dogs
that knew certain cattle by name, and would go into the herd and drive
out the one whose name was designated, while it is true in other cases
that the dog would only drive out such as were pointed out to him. But
many instances proved that they are able to learn the names of the
cattle. It is certain that in many instances dogs know the names of the
children belonging to the family, and often distinguish them by name. I
presume no one doubts that they learn their own names, so that each dog
may know when he is called. I know a dog, now living near Leominster,
Mass., that extinguished an accidental fire which had been caused by the
hired man carelessly dropping a burning match in some straw in the
barn-yard after lighting his lantern. The dog had to fight the fire with
his paws, and by the time he had extinguished it they were much singed.
His loud barking was sufficient to warn the family that something
unusual was taking place. They soon responded to his call, and found
that he had the fire quite under control. He had thus saved his master's
barn and house from the flames, and since that time, as I have witnessed
myself, will not allow any one to light a cigar with a match in his
presence. The peculiar sound which he makes under such circumstances
appeals to the sense of fear or apprehension, and I have observed that
the significance of all speech depends much upon intonation. It is less
so with man, perhaps, than with other animals, because of the great
number of words which amplify and shade his meanings. But by a single
word of human speech we can express many shades of meaning simply by
modulation; but having at our command so many words to qualify our
meaning, we lose sight of the value and power of intonation. The
difficulty of discerning the delicate shades of meaning imparted by
intonation, depends upon the mode of thought, and the simpler this is
the keener the power to interpret inflections. One very important fact
is that a dog only learns to interpret one sound on one subject at any
one time. He cannot put together in his mind a great number of sounds,
nor interpret complex ideas in detail. I know a dog in Charleston, South
Carolina, that would fly into a rage and bark fiercely if you say,
"Chad, where is that big black dog that whipped you so badly?" But
repeated experiments proved to my mind that the dog did not interpret
any part of the sentence except the words "black dog," and even this
seemed to depend chiefly upon the sound "black," and by saying this
sound you would get the same results as to use the entire sentence. He
had been whipped by a dog of this description, and had been so often
reminded of it that he had associated the sound with the incident.
I know a little dog in New York that understands the same sound in a
similar way and for similar reasons. She also recognises the name of the
lady who owns the black dog. A family, with whom I am on close terms of
friendship, owns an ugly little mongrel, to which two of the daughters
are very devoted. They have reared her with great care, and lavished
upon her many luxuries, far better than most human beings enjoy. The
young ladies declared to me that Eunice (which is the dog's name) could
understand every word they said on any subject that she had been
accustomed to hear.
Mattie would say to her, "Eunice, go tell Miss Kate to get on her hat
and let us go take a walk." The little dog would run to Miss Kate's room
and bark and jump until the young lady would comply. I found that the
dog associated the sounds "hat" and "walk" with the act of taking a
stroll in the company of the young ladies; but she would act just the
same when either one of these words were said to her as she would if one
were to repeat a whole canto of Milton; and I think the young ladies
have never quite forgiven me for trying to prove to them that Eunice was
not a fine English scholar.
I find, by means of many experiments, that much depends upon the manner
of delivering these sounds; but that the animal is largely guided by the
sound alone is proven by the fact that some dogs understand English,
others French, German, or some other language, and they do not really
understand unless addressed in the speech with which they are familiar.
A short time since I tried a novel experiment with the phonograph and
two black-and-tan terriers, mother and son. The son was a notorious
talker in the way of barking almost continuously at everything, and on
all occasions and at all times, while the mother was naturally taciturn,
good-natured, and fairly intelligent. I first took the son to a room
where I had the phonograph, and I made a record of a number of sounds of
his voice. The children aided me in the experiment by getting him to
talk for food, bark at his image in the mirror, and by various other
ways they induced him to other sounds in the presence of the phonograph.
A few days later I had them bring the mother to the same place, where I
discharged the contents of my phonograph cylinder in her presence. She
gave every evidence of recognising the sounds of the young dog, and in a
few instances responded to them. She was naturally perplexed at not
being able to find him, and searched the horn and various parts of the
room in quest of the young dog. I delivered to her at the same time the
record of another dog, to which she paid little attention except by an
occasional growl and a look into the horn to see what it meant. She
evidently recognised the sounds of the young dog with which she was
familiar and seemed to interpret their meanings, whereas the sounds from
the other cylinder did little more than attract her attention.
Last summer I stopped at a small town in Northern Virginia. A young man
at the same hotel had two setters and a black-and-tan terrier. I
experimented extensively with these three dogs during my stay, and
deduced therefrom some conclusions which were inevitable. The hotel
verandah opened on the street, and was a place of resort for gentlemen
of leisure about town. There was also a side entrance through a large
yard. I have frequently observed the dogs lying asleep on the verandah,
when the owner would enter the side yard on a flagstone walk, often in
the midst of conversation of a dozen men. The terrier would recognise
the footsteps of his master, would utter a low sound and spring to his
feet, and rush at once in the direction whence he heard the steps. The
setters invariably seemed to know what it meant, would raise their
heads, lash their tails upon the floor, showing evident signs of
understanding the situation. I have seen this terrier recognise the
steps of his master when the latter was accompanied by two or three
other persons. The delicate precision of his hearing was marvellous, and
in no instance, so far as I observed, was he deceived in the approaching
footsteps. I cannot believe that he was guided by the sense of smell, as
it is evident that the setters, whose habits of hunting have developed
in them a much more sensitive olfactory power, would naturally have been
the first to have detected their master's approach, and yet it was
equally evident that the terrier's ears were the first to catch the
sounds.
I have observed among dogs associated with each other that where one
should bark in the distance, as though he had something at bay, his
companion, hearing him from the house, would prick up his ears, listen
for a moment, and then dash off in the direction from whence the sounds
came; whereas the bark of a strange dog, even having something at bay,
would only cause him to listen, utter a low sound or grunt, and lie down
again and take a nap, as much as to say "That's nothing to me!" I have
known many instances where dogs would follow the farm waggon to town,
and faithfully guard the waggon and its contents all day long, with a
fidelity that we seldom see in the most devoted servants. The attachment
of a dog to his master has been a subject of remark from time
immemorial, until the saying has crystallised into a maxim--"As faithful
as a watch-dog." A friend of mine had a little terrier, whose name was
Nicodemus, that had a habit of sitting in the kitchen window to watch
people pass the street. She assures me that on washdays, when the steam
condensed on the window-panes, Nicodemus would lick the moisture from
the glass in order to see through it more clearly. Could instinct be the
guide in such an act?
If man would only pause and calmly view the facts, he would find that he
is but a joint heir of Nature; and why not so? From a religious point of
view I cannot doubt that the wisdom and mercy of God would bestow alike
on all the faculties of speech and reason as their conditions of life
require them, and from a scientific point of view I cannot charge the
laws of evolution with such disorder. In either case it were a harsh and
jarring discord in the great harp of Nature, whether played by the hand
of Chance or swept by the fingers of Omniscience.
* * * * *
_Printed by_ BALLATYNE HANSON & CO.
_London and Edinburgh_
_MR. WILLIAM HEINEMANN'S LIST._
* * * * *
THE WORKS OF HEINRICH HEINE.
TRANSLATED BY
CHARLES GODFREY LELAND, M.A., F.R.L.S.
(HANS BREITMANN).
Crown 8vo, Cloth, 5s. per volume.
Volume I. FLORENTINE NIGHTS, SCHNABELEWOPSKI, THE RABBI OF BACHARACH,
and SHAKESPEARE'S MAIDENS AND WOMEN.
_Times._--"We can recommend no better medium for making
acquaintance at first hand with 'the German Aristophanes' than
the works of Heinrich Heine, translated by Charles Godfrey
Leland. Mr. Leland manages pretty successfully to preserve the
easy grace of the original."
Volumes II. and III. PICTURES OF TRAVEL, 1823-1828. In Two Volumes.
_Daily Chronicle._--"Mr. Leland's translation of 'The Pictures
of Travel' is one of the acknowledged literary feats of the age.
As a traveller Heine is delicious beyond description, and a
volume which includes the magnificent Lucca series, the North
Sea, the memorable Hartz wanderings, must needs possess an
everlasting charm."
Volumes V. and VI. GERMANY. In Two Volumes.
_Daily Telegraph._--"Mr. Leland has done his translation in able
and scholarly fashion."
Volume IV. THE BOOK OF SONGS.
[_In the Press._
*.* _Large Paper Edition, limited to 100 Numbered Copies. Particulars on
application._
* * * * *
THE POSTHUMOUS WORKS OF THOMAS DE QUINCEY.
Edited, with Introduction and Notes from the Author's Original MSS., by
ALEXANDER H. JAPP, LL.D., F.R.S.E., &c.
Crown 8vo, Cloth, 6s.
VOLUME I.
SUSPIRIA DE PROFUNDIS.
_WITH OTHER ESSAYS._
_Times._--"Here we have De Quincey at his best. Will be welcome
to lovers of De Quincey and good literature."
VOLUME II.
CONVERSATION AND COLERIDGE.
_WITH OTHER ESSAYS._
[_In preparation._
* * * * *
The Great Educators.
A new series, by writers of wide educational experience, on the leading
movers in educational thought from the earliest time to the present day,
will be issued under the general title of "The Great Educators."
Much has been written of the great philosophical systems, and of the
lives of great thinkers and founders of schools of philosophical
speculation, yet nothing has so far been done to give a picture of what
is at least of equal importance, the educational effects of these
systems in the special periodical ethics of the world. It is not
surprising that these ethics, as applied to education, should change
with religions, with philosophical systems, even with periodical
revolutions, and historical development. But it is surprising that no
one has thought the subject sufficiently important to fix from time to
time the point of view obtaining as to these educational ethics.
It is now proposed, in a limited number of volumes, devoted more to the
systems and to the teachings of the greatest educators of the world than
to their lives, to show the different points of view, from which races
and times and climatic influences have determined the education of
mankind. The volumes will therefore range from Aristotle to Dr. Arnold
of Rugby.
Each subject will form a complete volume of about 300 pages, crown 8vo,
_5s._
_Now ready._
=ARISTOTLE, and the Ancient Educational Ideals.= By THOMAS DAVIDSON,
M.A., LL.D.
=LOYOLA, and the Educational System of the Jesuits.= By Rev. THOMAS
HUGHES, S.J.
_In preparation._
=ALCUIN, and the Rise of the Christian Schools.= By Professor ANDREW F.
WEST, Ph.D.
=ABELARD, and the Origin and Early History of Universities.= By JULES
GABRIEL COMPAYRE, Professor in the Faculty of Toulouse.
=ROUSSEAU; or, Education according to Nature.=
=HERBART; or, Modern German Education.=
=PESTALOZZI; or, the Friend and Student of Children.=
=FROEBEL.= By H. COURTHOPE BOWEN, M.A.
=HORACE MANN, and Public Education in the United States.= By NICHOLAS
MURRAY BUTLER, Ph.D.
=BELL, LANCASTER, and ARNOLD; or, the English Education of To-Day.= By
J. G. FITCH, LL.D., Her Majesty's Inspector of Schools.
_Others in preparation._
* * * * *
In One Volume, 4to, Illustrated.
THE GREAT WAR OF 1892.
_A FORECAST._
BY REAR-ADMIRAL COLOMB,
COL. MAURICE, R.A.,
MAJOR HENDERSON, STAFF COLLEGE,
CAPTAIN MAUDE,
ARCHIBALD FORBES,
CHARLES LOWE,
D. CHRISTIE
MURRAY, F. SCUDAMORE,
AND SIR CHARLES DILKE.
In this narrative, which is reprinted from the pages of _Black and
White_, an attempt is made to forecast the course of events preliminary
and incidental to the Great War which, in the opinion of military and
political experts, will probably occur in the immediate future.
The writers, who are well-known authorities on international politics
and strategy, have striven to derive the conflict from its most likely
source, to conceive the most probable campaigns and acts of policy, and
generally to give to their work the verisimilitude and actuality of real
warfare. The work has been profusely illustrated from sketches by Mr.
Frederic Villiers, the well-known war artist.
[_Nearly ready._
=THE OLD MAIDS' CLUB.= By I. ZANGWILL, Author of "The Bachelors' Club."
Illustrated by F. H. TOWNSEND. Crown 8vo, cloth, 3_s._ 6_d._
=WOMAN--THROUGH A MAN'S EYEGLASS.= By MALCOLM C. SALAMAN. With
Illustrations by DUDLEY HARDY. Crown 8vo, cloth, 3_s._ 6_d._
_Daily Graphic._--"A most amusing book."
_Daily Telegraph._--"Written with brightness and elegance, and
with touches of both caustic satire and kindly humour."
_Daily Chronicle._--"It is the very thing for a punt cushion or
a garden hammock."
=ADDRESSES.= By HENRY IRVING. Small crown 8vo. With Portrait.
[_In the Press._
=STRAY MEMORIES.= By ELLEN TERRY. 4to, Illustrated.
[_In preparation._
=GIRLS AND WOMEN.= By E. CHESTER. Pott 8vo, cloth, 2_s._ 6_d._, or gilt
extra, 3_s._ 6_d._
_Literary World._--"We gladly commend this delightful little
work to the thoughtful girls of our own country. We hope that
many parents and daughters will read and ponder over the little
volume."
=THE JEW AT HOME.= Impressions of a Summer and Autumn Spent with Him. By
JOSEPH PENNELL. With Illustrations by the Author.
[_In the Press._
=GOSSIP IN A LIBRARY.= By EDMUND GOSSE, Author of "Northern Studies,"
&c. Second Edition. Crown 8vo, buckram, gilt top, 7_s._ 6_d._
_Athenæum._--"There is a touch of Leigh Hunt in this picture of
the book-lover among his books, and the volume is one that Leigh
Hunt would have delighted in."
*.* _Large Paper Edition, limited to 100 Numbered Copies, 25s. net._
=THE NEW EXODUS.= The Story of the Jew in Russia. By HAROLD FREDERIC.
Demy 8vo, Illustrated.
[_In the Press._
=THE WORD OF THE LORD UPON THE WATERS.= Sermons read by His Imperial
Majesty the Emperor of Germany, while at Sea on his Voyages to the Land
of the Midnight Sun. Composed by Dr. RICHTER, Army Chaplain, and
Translated from the German by JOHN R. McILRAITH. 4to, cloth, 2_s._ 6_d._
_Times._--"The Sermons are vigorous, simple, and vivid in
themselves, and well adapted to the circumstances in which they
were delivered."
=THE HOURS OF RAPHAEL, IN OUTLINE.= Together with the Ceiling of the
Hall where they were originally painted. By MARY E. WILLIAMS. Folio,
cloth, _£_2 2_s._ net.
=THE PASSION PLAY AT OBERAMMERGAU, 1890.= By F. W. FARRAR, D.D., F.R.S.,
Archdeacon and Canon of Westminster, &c. &c. 4to, cloth, 2_s._ 6_d._
_Spectator._--"This little book will be read with delight by
those who have, and by those who have not, visited
Oberammergau."
=DE QUINCEY MEMORIALS.= Being Letters and other Records here first
Published, with Communications from COLERIDGE, The WORDSWORTHS,
HANNAH MORE, PROFESSOR WILSON and others. Edited, with Introduction,
Notes, and Narrative, by ALEXANDER H. JAPP, LL.D., F.R.S.E. In two
volumes, demy 8vo, cloth, with portraits, 30_s._ net.
_Daily Telegraph._--"Few works of greater literary interest have
of late years issued from the press than the two volumes of 'De
Quincey Memorials.' They comprise most valuable materials for
the historian of literary and social England at the beginning of
the century; but they are not on that account less calculated to
amuse, enlighten, and absorb the general reader of biographical
memoirs."
=THE SOCIAL LIFE OF MARIE BASHKIRTSEFF.= Letters and Journals. With
Drawings and Studies by the youthful Artist.
[_In preparation._
=PRINCE BISMARCK.= An Historical Biography. By CHARLES LOWE, M.A. With
Portraits. In One Volume.
[_In the Press._
=LIFE OF HEINRICH HEINE.= By RICHARD GARNETT, LL.D. With Portrait. Crown
8vo (uniform with the translation of Heine's Works).
[_In preparation._
=THE LIFE OF HENRIK IBSEN.= By HENRIK JÆGER. Translated by CLARA BELL.
With the Verse done into English from the Norwegian Original by EDMUND
GOSSE. Crown 8vo, cloth, 6_s._
_Academy._--"We welcome it heartily. An unqualified boon to the
many English students of Ibsen."
=THE GENTLE ART OF MAKING ENEMIES.= As pleasingly exemplified in many
instances, wherein the serious ones of this earth, carefully
exasperated, have been prettily spurred on to indiscretions and
unseemliness, while overcome by an undue sense of right. By J. MCNEIL
WHISTLER. A New Edition. Pott 4to, half cloth, 10_s._ 6_d._
_Punch._--"The book in itself, in its binding, print and
arrangement, is a work of art.... A work of rare humour, a thing
of beauty and a joy for now and ever."
=THE COMING TERROR.= And other Essays and Letters. By ROBERT BUCHANAN.
Second Edition. Demy 8vo, cloth, 12_s._ 6_d._
_Daily Chronicle._--"This amusing, wrong-headed, audacious,
'cranky' book should be widely read, for there is not a dull
line in it."
=ARABIC AUTHORS=: A Manual of Arabian History and Literature. By F. F.
ARBUTHNOT, M.R.A.S., Author of "Early Ideas," "Persian Portraits," &c.
8vo, cloth, 10_s._
_Manchester Examiner._--"The whole work has been carefully
indexed, and will prove a handbook of the highest value to the
student who wishes to gain a better acquaintance with Arabian
letters."
=THE GARDEN'S STORY=; or, Pleasures and Trials of an Amateur Gardener.
By G. H. ELLWANGER. With an Introduction by the Rev. C. WOLLEY DOD.
12mo, cloth, with Illustrations, 5_s._
_Scotsman._--"It deals with a charming subject in a charming
manner."
=IDLE MUSINGS=: Essays in Social Mosaic. By E. CONDER GRAY, Author
of "Wise Words and Loving Deeds," &c. &c. Crown 8vo, cloth, 6_s._
_Saturday Review._--"Light, brief, and bright."
=THE LABOUR MOVEMENT IN AMERICA.= By RICHARD T. ELY, Ph.D., Associate in
Political Economy, Johns Hopkins University. Crown 8vo, cloth, 5_s_.
_Saturday Review._--"Both interesting and valuable."
=THE LITTLE MANX NATION.= (Lectures delivered at the Royal Institution,
1891.) By HALL CAINE, Author of "The Bondman," "The Scapegoat," &c.
Crown 8vo, cloth, 3_s._ 6_d._; paper, 2_s._ 6_d._
_World._--"Mr. Hall Caine takes us back to the days of old
romance, and, treating tradition and history in the pictorial
style of which he is a master, he gives us a monograph of Man
especially acceptable."
=NOTES FOR THE NILE.= Together with a Metrical Rendering of the Hymns of
Ancient Egypt and of the Precepts of Ptahhotep (the oldest book in the
world). By HARDWICKE D. RAWNSLEY, M.A. 16mo, cloth, 5_s._
=DENMARK=: Its History, Topography, Language, Literature, Fine Arts,
Social Life, and Finance. Edited by H. WEITEMEYER. Demy 8vo, cloth, with
Map, 12_s._ 6_d._
*.* _Dedicated, by permission, to H.R.H. the Princess of Wales._
_Morning Post._--"An excellent account of everything relating to
this Northern country."
=IMPERIAL GERMANY.= A Critical Study of Fact and Character. By
SIDNEY WHITMAN. New Edition, Revised and Enlarged. Crown 8vo, cloth
2_s._ 6_d._; paper, 2_s._
_Prince Bismarck._--"I consider the different chapters of this
book masterly."
=THE CANADIAN GUIDE-BOOK.= The Tourist's and Sportsman's Guide to
Eastern Canada and Newfoundland, including full descriptions of Routes,
Cities, Points of Interest, Summer Resorts, Fishing Places, &c., in
Eastern Ontario, The Muskoka District, The St. Lawrence Region, The Lake
St. John Country, The Maritime Provinces, Prince Edward Island, and
Newfoundland. With an Appendix giving Fish and Game Laws, and Official
Lists of Trout and Salmon Rivers and their Lessees. By CHARLES G. D.
ROBERTS, Professor of English Literature in King's College, Windsor,
N.S. With Maps and many Illustrations. Crown 8vo, limp cloth, 6_s._
=THE GENESIS OF THE UNITED STATES.= A Narrative of the Movement in
England, 1605-1616, which resulted in the Plantation of North America by
Englishmen, disclosing the Contest between England and Spain for the
Possession of the Soil now occupied by the United States of America; set
forth through a series of Historical Manuscripts now first printed,
together with a Re-issue of Rare Contemporaneous Tracts, accompanied by
Bibliographical Memoranda, Notes, and Brief Biographies. Collected,
Arranged, and Edited by ALEXANDER BROWN, F.R.H.S. With 100 Portraits,
Maps, and Plans. In two volumes. Roy. 8vo, buckram, _£_3 13_s._ 6_d._
_Times._--"Should prove invaluable to all serious students of
the early history of the United States."
Fiction.
=THE NAULAHKA.= A Tale of West and East. By RUDYARD KIPLING and WOLCOTT
BALESTIER. Crown 8vo, cloth, 6_s._
=THE AVERAGE WOMAN.= By WOLCOTT BALESTIER. With Portrait of the Author,
and Biographical Introduction by HENRY JAMES. Small crown 8vo, 3_s._
6_d._
=NOR WIFE, NOR MAID.= By Mrs. HUNGERFORD, Author of "Molly Bawn," &c. In
three volumes. 31_s._ 6_d._
=ORIOLE'S DAUGHTER.= A Novel. By JESSIE FOTHERGILL, Author of "The First
Violin," &c. In two volumes.
[_In the Press._
=THE HEAD OF THE FIRM.= By Mrs. RIDDELL, Author of "George Geith,"
"Maxwell Drewett," &c.
[_In the Press._
=THE TOWER OF TADDEO.= A Novel. By OUIDA, Author of "Two Little Wooden
Shoes," &c. In volumes.
[_In the Press._
=WOMAN AND THE MAN.= A Love Story. By ROBERT BUCHANAN, Author of "Come
Live with Me and be My Love," "The Moment After," "The Coming Terror,"
&c. In two volumes.
[_In preparation._
=LITTLE JOHANNES.= By FREDERICK VAN EEDEN. Translated from the Dutch by
CLARA BELL. With an Introduction by ANDREW LANG. Illustrated.
[_In preparation._
*.* _Also a Large Paper Edition._
=THE DOMINANT SEVENTH.= A Musical Story. By KATE ELIZABETH CLARKE. Crown
8vo, cloth, 5_s._
_Speaker._--"A very romantic story."
=PASSION THE PLAYTHING.= A Novel. By R. MURRAY GILCHRIST. Crown 8vo,
cloth, 6_s._
_Athenæum._--"This well-written story must be read to be
appreciated."
The Crown Copyright Series.
Mr. HEINEMANN has made arrangements with a number of the FIRST AND MOST
POPULAR ENGLISH, AMERICAN, and COLONIAL AUTHORS which will enable him to
issue a series of NEW AND ORIGINAL WORKS, to be known as THE CROWN
COPYRIGHT SERIES, complete in One Volume, at a uniform price of FIVE
SHILLINGS EACH. These Novels will not pass through an Expensive Two or
Three Volume Edition, but they will be obtainable at the CIRCULATING
LIBRARIES, as well as at all Booksellers' and Bookstalls.
=ACCORDING TO ST. JOHN.= By AMÉLIE RIVES, Author of "The Quick or the
Dead."
_Scotsman._--"The literary work is highly artistic.... It has
beauty and brightness, and a kind of fascination which carries
the reader on till he has read to the last page."
=THE PENANCE OF PORTIA JAMES.= By TASMA, Author of "Uncle Piper of
Piper's Hill," &c.
_Athenæum._--"A powerful novel."
_Daily Chronicle._--"Captivating and yet tantalising, this story
is far above the average."
_Vanity Fair._--"A very interesting story, morally sound, and
flavoured throughout with ease of diction and lack of strain."
=INCONSEQUENT LIVES.= A Village Chronicle, shewing how certain folk set
out for El Dorado; what they attempted; and what they attained. By J. H.
PEARCE, Author of "Esther Pentreath," &c.
_Saturday Review._--"A vivid picture of the life of Cornish
fisher-folk. It is unquestionably interesting."
_Literary World._--"Powerful and pathetic ... from first to last
it is profoundly interesting. It is long since we read a story
revealing power of so high an order, marked by such evident
carefulness of workmanship, such skill in the powerful and yet
temperate presentation of passion, and in the sternly realistic
yet delicate treatment of difficult situations."
=A QUESTION OF TASTE.= By MAARTEN MAARTENS, Author of "An Old Maid's
Love," &c.
_National Observer._--"There is more than cleverness; there is
original talent, and a good deal of humanity besides."
=COME LIVE WITH ME AND BE MY LOVE.= By ROBERT BUCHANAN, Author of "The
Moment After," "The Coming Terror," &c.
[_In the Press._
=THE O'CONNORS OF BALLINAHINCH.= By Mrs. HUNGERFORD, Author of "Molly
Bawn," &c.
[_In the Press._
=A BATTLE AND A BOY.= By BLANCHE WILLIS HOWARD, Author of "Guenn," &c.
[_In preparation._
=VANITAS.= By VERNON LEE, Author of "Hauntings," &c.
[_In preparation._
Heinemann's International Library.
EDITED BY EDMUND GOSSE.
_New Review._--"If you have any pernicious remnants of literary
chauvinism I hope it will not survive the series of foreign
classics of which Mr. William Heinemann, aided by Mr. Edmund
Gosse, is publishing translations to the great contentment of
all lovers of literature."
_Times._--"A venture which deserves encouragement."
_Each Volume has an Introduction specially written by the Editor._
Price, in paper covers, 2_s._ 6_d._ each, or cloth, 3_s._ 6_d._
=IN GOD'S WAY.= From the Norwegian of BJÖRNSTJERNE BJÖRNSON.
_Athenæum._--"Without doubt the most important and the most
interesting work published during the twelve months.... There
are descriptions which certainly belong to the best and
cleverest things our literature has ever produced. Amongst the
many characters, the doctor's wife is unquestionably the first.
It would be difficult to find anything more tender, soft, and
refined than this charming personage."
=PIERRE AND JEAN.= From the French of GUY DE MAUPASSANT.
_Pall Mall Gazette._--"So fine and faultless, so perfectly
balanced, so steadily progressive, so clear and simple and
satisfying. It is admirable from beginning to end."
_Athenæum._--"Ranks amongst the best gems of modern French
fiction."
=THE CHIEF JUSTICE.= From the German of KARL EMIL FRANZOS, Author of
"For the Right," &c.
_New Review._--"Few novels of recent times have a more sustained
and vivid human interest."
_Christian World._--"A story of wonderful power ... as free from
any thing objectionable as 'The Heart of Midlothian.'"
=WORK WHILE YE HAVE THE LIGHT.= From the Russian of Count LYOF TOLSTOY.
_Liverpool Mercury._--"Marked by all the old power of the great
Russian novelist."
_Manchester Guardian._--"Readable and well translated; full of
high and noble feeling."
=FANTASY.= From the Italian of MATILDE SERAO.
_National Observer._--"The strongest work from the hand of a
woman that has been published for many a day."
_Scottish Leader._--"The book is full of a glowing and living
realism.... There is nothing like 'Fantasy' in modern
literature.... It is a work of elfish art, a mosaic of light and
love, of right and wrong, of human weakness and strength, and
purity and wantonness, pieced together in deft and witching
precision."
=FROTH.= From the Spanish of Don ARMANDO PALACIO-VALDÉS.
_Daily Telegraph._--"Vigorous and powerful in the highest
degree. It abounds in forcible delineation of character, and
describes scenes with rare and graphic strength."
=FOOTSTEPS OF FATE.= From the Dutch of LOUIS COUPERUS.
_Daily Chronicle._--"A powerfully realistic story which has been
excellently translated."
_Gentlewoman._--"The consummate art of the writer prevents this
tragedy from sinking to melodrama. Not a single situation is
forced or a circumstance exaggerated."
=PEPITA JIMÉNEZ.= From the Spanish of JUAN VALERA.
_W. D. Howells._--"An exquisite masterpiece."
_New Review_ (Mr. George Saintsbury):--"There is no doubt at all
that it is one of the best stories that have appeared in any
country in Europe for the last twenty years."
=THE COMMODORE'S DAUGHTERS.= From the Norwegian of JONAS LIE.
_Athenæum._--"Everything that Jonas Lie writes is attractive and
pleasant; the plot of deeply human interest, and the art noble."
=THE HERITAGE OF THE KURTS.= From the Norwegian of BJÖRNSTJERNE
BJÖRNSON.
Popular 3s. 6d. Novels.
=THE SCAPEGOAT.= By HALL CAINE, Author of "The Bondman," &c.
_Mr. Gladstone writes:_--"I congratulate you upon 'The
Scapegoat' as a work of art, and especially upon the noble and
skilfully drawn character of Israel."
_Times._--"In our judgment it excels in dramatic force all his
previous efforts. For grace and touching pathos Naomi is a
character which any romancist in the world might be proud to
have created."
=DAUGHTERS OF MEN.= By HANNAH LYNCH, Author of "The Prince of the
Glades," &c.
=THE BONDMAN.= A New Saga. By HALL CAINE. Twentieth Thousand.
_Mr. Gladstone._--"'The Bondman' is a work of which I recognise
the freshness, vigour, and sustained interest no less than its
integrity of aim."
_Standard._--"Its argument is grand, and it is sustained with a
power that is almost marvellous."
=A MARKED MAN=: Some Episodes in his Life. By ADA CAMBRIDGE, Author of
"Two Years' Time," "A Mere Chance," &c.
_Morning Post._--"A depth of feeling, a knowledge of the human
heart, and an amount of tact that one rarely finds. Should take
a prominent place among the novels of the season."
_Pall Mall Gazette._--"Contains one of the best written stories
of a mésalliance that is to be found in modern fiction."
=THE THREE MISS KINGS.= By ADA CAMBRIDGE, Author of "A Marked Man."
_Athenæum._--"A charming study of character. The love stories
are excellent, and the author is happy in tender situations."
_British Weekly._--"A novel to be bought and kept for
re-reading. From beginning to end pure as the breath of a flower
garden in June."
_National Observer._--"A pleasanter tale has not been told these
many days. The picture of the three maidens is one of the most
delightful in recent fiction."
=A ROMANCE OF THE CAPE FRONTIER.= By BERTRAM MITFORD, Author of "Through
the Zulu Country," &c.
_Academy._--"The love story is a particularly pleasing one."
_Pall Mall Gazette._--"A very lively and a very picturesque
story."
_Observer._--"This is a rattling tale, genial, healthy, and
spirited."
=UNCLE PIPER OF PIPER'S HILL.= By TASMA. New Popular Edition.
_Guardian._--"Every page of it contains good wholesome food,
which demands and repays digestion. The tale itself is
thoroughly charming, and all the characters are delightfully
drawn. We strongly recommend all lovers of wholesome novels to
make acquaintance with it themselves, and are much mistaken if
they do not heartily thank us for the introduction."
=IN THE VALLEY.= By HAROLD FREDERIC, Author of "The Lawton Girl,"
"Seth's Brother's Wife," &c. With Illustrations.
_Times._--"The literary value of the book is high; the author's
studies of bygone life presenting a life-like picture."
=PRETTY MISS SMITH.= By FLORENCE WARDEN, Author of "The House on the
Marsh," "A Witch of the Hills," &c.
_Punch._--"Since Miss Florence Warden's 'House on the Marsh,' I
have not read a more exciting tale."
=LOS CERRITOS.= A Romance of the Modern Time. By GERTRUDE FRANKLIN
ATHERTON, Author of "Hermia Suydam," and "What Dreams may Come."
_Athenæum._--"Full of fresh fancies and suggestions. Told with
strength and delicacy. A decidedly charming romance."
=A MODERN MARRIAGE.= By the Marquise CLARA LANZA.
_Queen._--"A powerful story, dramatically and consistently
carried out."
_Black and White._--"A decidedly clever book."
_In preparation._
='TWEEN SNOW AND FIRE.= A Tale of the Kafir War of 1877. By BERTRAM
MITFORD.
[_In June._
=NOT ALL IN VAIN.= By ADA CAMBRIDGE, Author of "A Marked Man," "The
Three Miss Kings," &c.
=MAMMON.= A Novel. By Mrs. ALEXANDER, Author of "The Wooing O't," &c.
_Scotsman._--"The present work is not behind any of its
predecessors. 'Mammon' is a healthy story, and as it has been
thoughtfully written it has the merit of creating thought in its
readers."
=HAUNTINGS=: Fantastic Stories. By VERNON LEE, Author of "Baldwin,"
"Miss Brown," &c. &c.
_Pall Mall Gazette._--"Well imagined, cleverly constructed,
powerfully executed. 'Dionea' is a fine and impressive idea, and
'Oke of Okehurst' a masterly story."
=MEA CULPA=: A Woman's Last Word. By HENRY HARLAND.
_Times._--"There is no denying its cleverness; it is the very
reverse of conventional. The author in his social touches
reminds us of About, and it would be difficult to say anything
more flattering."
Popular Shilling Books.
=MADAME VALERIE.= By F. C. PHILIPS, Author of "As in a Looking-Glass,"
&c.
=THE MOMENT AFTER=: A Tale of the Unseen. By ROBERT BUCHANAN.
_Athenæum._--"Should be read--in daylight."
_Observer._--"A clever _tour de force_."
_Guardian._--"Particularly impressive, graphic, and powerful."
=CLUES=; or, Leaves from a Chief Constable's Note-Book. By WILLIAM
HENDERSON, Chief Constable of Edinburgh.
_Mr. Gladstone._--"I found the book full of interest."
_THE SHILLING LIBRARY._
A New Series of handy Pocket Volumes.
=A VERY STRANGE FAMILY.= By F. W. ROBINSON, Author of "Grandmother's
Money," "Lazarus in London," &c.
_Glasgow Herald._--"An ingeniously devised plot, of which the
interest is kept up to the very last page. A judicious blending
of humour and pathos further helps to make the book delightful
reading from start to finish."
_*.* Others in preparation._
Dramatic Literature.
THE PLAYS OF ARTHUR W. PINERO.
With Introductory Notes by MALCOLM C. SALAMAN. 16mo, Paper Covers, 1_s._
6_d._; or Cloth, 2_s._ 6_d._ each.
=THE TIMES=: A Comedy in Four Acts. With a Preface by the Author. (Vol.
I.)
_Daily Telegraph._--"'The Times' is the best example yet given
of Mr. Pinero's power as a satirist. So clever is his work that
it beats down opposition. So fascinating is his style that we
cannot help listening to him."
_Morning Post._--"Mr. Pinero's latest belongs to a high order of
dramatic literature, and the piece will be witnessed again with
all the greater zest after the perusal of such admirable
dialogue."
=THE PROFLIGATE=: A Play in Four Acts. With Portrait of the Author,
after J. MORDECAI. (Vol. II.)
_Pall Mall Gazette._--"Will be welcomed by all who have the true
interests of the stage at heart."
=THE CABINET MINISTER=: A Farce in Four Acts. (Vol. III.)
_Observer._--"It is as amusing to read as it was when played."
=THE HOBBY HORSE=: A Comedy in Three Acts. (Vol. IV.)
=LADY BOUNTIFUL.= A Play in Four Acts. (Vol. V.)
To be followed by The Magistrate, Dandy Dick, The Schoolmistress, The
Weaker Sex, Lords and Commons, The Squire, and Sweet Lavender.
=THE PRINCESSE MALEINE=: A Drama in Five Acts (Translated by Gerard
Harry), and
=THE INTRUDER=: A Drama in One Act. By MAURICE MAETERLINCK. With an
Introduction by HALL CAINE, and a Portrait of the Author. Small 4to,
cloth, 5_s._
_Athenæum._--"In the creation of the 'atmosphere' of the play M.
Maeterlinck shows his skill. It is here that he communicates to
us the _nouveau frisson_, here that he does what no one else has
done. In 'The Intruder' the art consists of the subtle
gradations of terror, the slow, creeping progress of the
nightmare of apprehension. Nothing quite like it has been done
before--not even by Poe--not even by Villiers."
=THE FRUITS OF ENLIGHTENMENT=: A Comedy in Four Acts. By Count LYOF
TOLSTOY. Translated from the Russian by E. J. DILLON. With Introduction
by A. W. PINERO. Small 4to, with Portrait, 5_s._
_Pall Mall Gazette._--"The whole effect of the play is
distinctly Molièresque; it has something of the large humanity
of the master. Its satire is genial, almost gay."
=HEDDA GABLER=: A Drama in Four Acts. By HENRIK IBSEN. Translated from
the Norwegian by EDMUND GOSSE. Small 4to, cloth, with Portrait, 5_s._
Vaudeville Edition, paper, 1_s._ Also a Limited Large Paper Edition,
21_s._ _net_.
_Times._--"The language in which this play is couched is a model
of brevity, decision, and pointedness.... Every line tells, and
there is not an incident that does not bear on the action
immediate or remote. As a corrective to the vapid and foolish
writing with which the stage is deluged 'Hedda Gabler' is
perhaps entitled to the place of honour."
=NERO AND ACTÉA=: A Tragedy. By ERIC MACKAY, Author of "A Lover's
Litanies," and "Love Letters of a Violinist." Crown 8vo, cloth, 5_s._
_Morning Post._--"Well written, picturesque, and thoroughly
dramatic."
=A NEW PLAY.= By HALL CAINE. Small 4to.
[_In preparation._
=STRAY MEMORIES.= By ELLEN TERRY. In one volume. Illustrated.
[_In preparation._
=SOME INTERESTING FALLACIES OF THE= Modern Stage. An Address delivered
to the Playgoers' Club at St. James's Hall, on Sunday, 6th December,
1891. By HERBERT BEERBOHM TREE. Crown 8vo, sewed, 6_d._
=THE LIFE OF HENRIK IBSEN.= By HENRIK JÆGER. Translated by CLARA BELL.
With the Verse done into English from the Norwegian Original by EDMUND
GOSSE. Crown 8vo, cloth, 6_s._
_St. James's Gazette._--"Admirably translated. Deserves a
cordial and emphatic welcome."
_Guardian._--"Ibsen's dramas at present enjoy a considerable
vogue, and their admirers will rejoice to find full descriptions
and criticisms in Mr. Jæger's book."
* * * * *
TRANSCRIBER'S NOTES
Side notes have been taken from the page headers and moved to the
beginnings of paragraphs or where more appropriate to the beginnings of
sentences in the text.
page xi Litle replaced with Little in "Little Darwin learns a new
word".
page 5 space added between The and familiar "The familiar voice of
his mate".
page 124 freindship replaced with friendship in "which seems to
indicate friendship."
page 216 full stop added after "does not continue through the vowel".
page 231 every replaced with very in "Their means of communication are
very contracted,".
page 232 sigmata replaced with stigmata in "scratching by means of
their stigmata,".
Endpapers:
A full stop was added after Daily Telegraph in the ad for Volumes V and
VI GERMANY.
A " was added after "Both interesting and valuable" in the ad for THE
LABOUR MOVEMENT IN AMERICA.
ex replaced by Sex in "The Weaker Sex," in the ad for LADY BOUNTIFUL.
In the ad for THE FRUITS OF ENLIGHTENMENT full stop added after 5s.
In the ad for HEDDA GABLER anguage replaced with language in "The
language in which this play".
*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Speech of Monkeys" ***
Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.