essays on life, art and science-第29章

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


more　than　the　germs？　　It　seems　to　me　that　not　knowing　what　else　to
say　that　animals　communicated　if　it　was　not　ideas；　and　not　knowing
what　mess　he　might　not　get　into　if　he　admitted　that　they　had　ideas
at　all；　he　thought　it　safer　to　omit　his　accusative　case　altogether。

That　growling　and　barking　cannot　be　called　a　very　highly　specialised
language　goes　without　saying；　they　are；　however；　so　much　diversified
in　character；　according　to　circumstances；　that　they　place　a
considerable　number　of　symbols　at　an　animal's　command；　and　he
invariably　attaches　the　same　symbol　to　the　same　idea。　　A　cat　never
purrs　when　she　is　angry；　nor　spits　when　she　is　pleased。　　When　she
rubs　her　head　against　any　one　affectionately　it　is　her　symbol　for
saying　that　she　is　very　fond　of　him；　and　she　expects；　and　usually
finds　that　it　will　be　understood。　　If　she　sees　her　mistress　raise
her　hand　as　though　to　pretend　to　strike　her；　she　knows　that　it　is
the　symbol　her　mistress　invariably　attaches　to　the　idea　of　sending
her　away；　and　as　such　she　accepts　it。　　Granted　that　the　symbols　in
use　among　the　lower　animals　are　fewer　and　less　highly　differentiated
than　in　the　case　of　any　known　human　language；　and　therefore　that
animal　language　is　incomparably　less　subtle　and　less　capable　of
expressing　delicate　shades　of　meaning　than　our　own；　these
differences　are　nevertheless　only　those　that　exist　between　highly
developed　and　inchoate　language；　they　do　not　involve　those　that
distinguish　language　from　no　language。　　They　are　the　differences
between　the　undifferentiated　protoplasm　of　the　amoeba　and　our　own
complex　organisation；　they　are　not　the　differences　between　life　and
no　life。　　In　animal　language　as　much　as　in　human　there　is　a　mind
intentionally　making　use　of　a　symbol　accepted　by　another　mind　as
invariably　attached　to　a　certain　idea；　in　order　to　produce　that　idea
in　the　mind　which　it　is　desired　to　affectmore　briefly；　there　is　a
sayer；　a　sayee；　and　a　covenanted　symbol　designedly　applied。　　Our　own
speech　is　vertebrated　and　articulated　by　means　of　nouns；　verbs；　and
the　rules　of　grammar。　　A　dog's　speech　is　invertebrate；　but　I　do　not
see　how　it　is　possible　to　deny　that　it　possesses　all　the　essential
elements　of　language。

I　have　said　nothing　about　Professor　R。　L。　Garner's　researches　into
the　language　of　apes；　because　they　have　not　yet　been　so　far　verified
and　accepted　as　to　make　it　safe　to　rely　upon　them；　but　when　he　lays
it　down　that　all　voluntary　sounds　are　the　products　of　thought；　and
that；　if　they　convey　a　meaning　to　another；　they　perform　the
functions　of　human　speech；　he　says　what　I　believe　will　commend
itself　to　any　unsophisticated　mind。　　I　could　have　wished；　however；
that　he　had　not　limited　himself　to　sounds；　and　should　have　preferred
his　saying　what　I　doubt　not　he　would　readily　acceptI　mean；　that
all　symbols　or　tokens　of　whatever　kind；　if　voluntarily　adopted　as
such；　are　the　products　of　thought；　and　perform　the　functions　of
human　speech；　but　I　cannot　too　often　remind　you　that　nothing　can　be
considered　as　fulfilling　the　conditions　of　language；　except　a
voluntary　application　of　a　recognised　token　in　order　to　convey　a
more　or　less　definite　meaning；　with　the　intention　doubtless　of　thus
purchasing　as　it　were　some　other　desired　meaning　and　consequent
sensation。　　It　is　astonishing　how　closely　in　this　respect　money　and
words　resemble　one　another。　　Money　indeed　may　be　considered　as　the
most　universal　and　expressive　of　all　languages。　　For　gold　and　silver
coins　are　no　more　money　when　not　in　the　actual　process　of　being
voluntarily　used　in　purchase；　than　words　not　so　in　use　are　language。
Pounds；　shillings　and　pence　are　recognised　covenanted　tokens；　the
outward　and　visible　signs　of　an　inward　and　spiritual　purchasing
power；　but　till　in　actual　use　they　are　only　potential　money；　as　the
symbols　of　language；　whatever　they　may　be；　are　only　potential
language　till　they　are　passing　between　two　minds。　　It　is　the　power
and　will　to　apply　the　symbols　that　alone　gives　life　to　money；　and　as
long　as　these　are　in　abeyance　the　money　is　in　abeyance　also；　the
coins　may　be　safe　in　one's　pocket；　but　they　are　as　dead　as　a　log
till　they　begin　to　burn　in　it；　and　so　are　our　words　till　they　begin
to　burn　within　us。

The　real　question；　however；　as　to　the　substantial　underlying
identity　between　the　language　of　the　lower　animals　and　our　own；
turns　upon　that　other　question　whether　or　no；　in　spite　of　an
immeasurable　difference　of　degree；　the　thought　and　reason　of　man　and
of　the　lower　animals　is　essentially　the　same。　　No　one　will　expect　a
dog　to　master　and　express　the　varied　ideas　that　are　incessantly
arising　in　connection　with　human　affairs。　　He　is　a　pauper　as　against
a　millionaire。　　To　ask　him　to　do　so　would　be　like　giving　a　street…
boy　sixpence　and　telling　him　to　go　and　buy　himself　a　founder's　share
in　the　New　River　Company。　　He　would　not　even　know　what　was　meant；
and　even　if　he　did　it　would　take　several　millions　of　sixpences　to
buy　one。　　It　is　astonishing　what　a　clever　workman　will　do　with　very
modest　tools；　or　again　how　far　a　thrifty　housewife　will　make　a　very
small　sum　of　money　go；　or　again　in　like　manner　how　many　ideas　an
intelligent　brute　can　receive　and　convey　with　its　very　limited
vocabulary；　but　no　one　will　pretend　that　a　dog's　intelligence　can
ever　reach　the　level　of　a　man's。　　What　we　do　maintain　is　that；
within　its　own　limited　range；　it　is　of　the　same　essential　character
as　our　own；　and　that　though　a　dog's　ideas　in　respect　of　human
affairs　are　both　vague　and　narrow；　yet　in　respect　of　canine　affairs
they　are　precise　enough　and　extensive　enough　to　deserve　no　other
name　than　thought　or　reason。　　We　hold　moreover　that　they　communicate
their　ideas　in　essentially　the　same　manner　as　we　dothat　is　to　say；
by　the　instrumentality　of　a　code　of　symbols　attached　to　certain
states　of　mind　and　material　objects；　in　the　first　instance
arbitrarily；　but　so　persistently；　that　the　presentation　of　the
symbol　immediately　carries　with　it　the　idea　which　it　is　intended　to
convey。　　Animals　can　thus　receive　and　impart　ideas　on　all　that　most
concerns　them。　　As　my　great　namesake　said　some　two　hundred　years
ago；　they　know　〃what's　what；　and　that's　as　high　as　metaphysic　wit
can　fly。〃　　And　they　not　only　know　what's　what　themselves；　but　can
impart　to　one　another　any　new　what's…whatness　that　they　may　have
acquired；　for　they　are　notoriously　able　to　instruct　and　correct　one
another。

Against　this　Professor　Max　Muller　contends　that　we　can　know　nothing
of　what　goes　on　in　the　mind　of　any　lower　animal；　inasmuch　as　we　are
not　lower　animals　ourselves。　　〃We　can　imagine　anything　we　like　about
what　passes　in　the　mind　of　an　animal；〃　he　writes；　〃we　can　know
absolutely　nothing。〃　｛19｝　　It　is　something　to　have　it　in　evidence
that　he　conceives　animals　as　having　a　mind　at　all；　but　it　is　not
easy　to　see　how　they　can　be　supposed　to　have　a　mind；　without　being
able　to　acquire　ideas；　and　having　acquired；　to　read；　mark；　learn；
and　inwardly　digest　them。　　Surely　the　mistake　of　requiring　too　much
evidence　is　hardly　less　great　than　that　of　being　contented　with　too
little。　　We；　too；　are　animals；　and　can　no　more　refuse　to　infer
reason　from　certain　visible　actions　in　their　case　than　we　can　in　our
own。　　If　Professor　Max　Muller's　plea　were　allowed；　we　should　have　to
deny　our　right　to　infer　confidently　what　passes　in　the　mind　of　any
one　not　ourselves；　inasmuch　as　we　are　not　that　person。　　We　never；
indeed；　can　obtain　irrefragable　certainty　about　this　or　any　other
matter；　but　we　can　be　sure　enough　in　many　cases　to　warrant　our
staking　all　that　is　most　precious　to　us　on　the　soundness　of　our
opinion。　　Moreover；　if　the　Professor　denies　our　right　to　infer　that
animals　reason；　on　the　ground　that　we　are　not　animals　enough
ourselves　to　be　able　to　form　an　opinion；　with　what　right　does　he
infer　so　confidently　himself　that　they　do　not　reason？　　And　how；　if
they　present　every　one　of　those　appearances　which　we　are　accustomed
to　connect　with　the　communication　of　an　idea　from　one　mind　to
another；　can　we　deny　that　they　have　a　language　of　their　own；　though
it　is　one　which　in　most　cases　we　can　neither　speak　nor　understand？
How　can　we　say　that　a　sentinel　rook；　when　it　sees　a　man