applied to designate this superiority, must be of material character and
signification:--whether we say superior structure, texture, purity, &c.
In fact, we possess no appropriate expressions, to characterise that
which is not material: but this poverty of language, affords no ground
for the materiality of mind; on the contrary, it is a strong argument
against such doctrine, that we are obliged to clothe the phenomena of
mind in the garb of metaphor; for material objects can be well defined
according to their obvious properties.
[3] Those who are born deaf are taught to imitate articulate sounds
independently of the ear.
[4] The reader may refer to works on comparative anatomy, for
information concerning this sense in animals. They all agree that no
animal possesses a complete hand, and that the thumb is especially
defective in size, and in the strength which enables it to act in
opposition to the combined force of the fingers. The sense of touch in
many animals appears to reside in the large and fleshy nostrils, which
appear highly sensible; and it is also evident, that in these the touch
has an intimate alliance with their sense of smell.
[5] It is equally curious to observe that geographical positions, and
the principal features of sea and land, have derived their origin from
the rude anatomy of the human body. Thus, in a short enumeration we have
cape or _head_-land, ness, noss, or _nose_; the _brow_ of a mountain;
_tongue_ of land; _mouth_ of a river; _chaps_ of the channel; _neck_ of
land; _arm_ of the sea; coast, _costae_, the ribs. We are said to
penetrate into the _heart_ of the country, or to remove to the _back_
settlements. We descend into the _bowels_ of the earth, in order to
discover a _vein_ of ore. We ascend from the _foot_ of the mountain; and
from its _ridge_ (back) survey the prospect surrounding. Numerous
additions might be contributed by further recollection.
[6] On many occasions we observe the hands to be the natural refuge for
the destitute in arithmetic, and therefore are not surprised at finding
many persons counting by their fingers. Some rude nations are said not
to have advanced in their numeration beyond five: this may perhaps be
uncertain and difficult to prove; but it will be shewn that when others
have advanced to ten, that seven has been the compound of five and two,
eight of five and three, &c.
[7] It is not uninteresting to examine the contrivances that have been
resorted to, in order to express the number eleven. The Greeks had
[Greek: _endeka_], one (and subaudit) ten; the Romans _undecem_; and a
similar adoption has been employed by the southern nations of Europe.
The northern people expressed eleven, by _one left_ (after ten,
subaudit.) thus Caxton states his Recuyels of Troy to have been "ended
and fynished in the holy cyte of Colen, the 19th day of Septembre, in
the yere of our sayd Lord God, a thousand four hundred sixty and
_enleven_." _En_, in old English, means one, and _leven_ is the past
participle of, to leave, formerly written leve.
ON THE NATURE AND COMPOSITION OF LANGUAGE, AS APPLIED TO THE
INVESTIGATION OF THE PHENOMENA OF MIND.
Mind, is an abstract term for all the phenomena of intelligence; and in
order to describe them, they have usually been denominated powers, or
faculties of the mind: we therefore commonly speak concerning the mind,
as of an existence endowed with these properties.[8] It has been
already confessed, that we are at present uninformed, and in all
probability shall remain ignorant of the nature and operation of our
intellectual powers: at least, we shall never be able to comprehend the
manner in which we perceive the objects that surround us, nor to explain
how we recollect them when they are absent; yet under this acknowledged
inability we have framed a language expressive of these powers and
operations. This language therefore cannot be the type of such
processes, as their nature and operation are unknown. The different
terms that have been employed, have originated from the numerous
hypotheses, which have prevailed on this subject: but so long as a
perfect agreement subsists, concerning the meaning of these terms, it is
of little importance; for as we have no knowledge of the actual
processes, whereby we perceive, remember, or exert our will, the
expressions we employ cannot be explanatory. The language of mind,
therefore, is not peculiar, not derived as the nomenclature of modern
chemistry, in which names are impregnated with the elements of their
composition; but figurative or metaphorical, the vehicle of conjecture,
and the ornament of hypothesis.
The truth of these remarks, would be best illustrated by an enumeration
and analysis of the terms, which have been applied, to designate the
powers and operations of the human intellect.
Were we now to occupy ourselves, in the construction of a more
appropriate language, to designate and explain the phenomena of mind; we
should, from our ignorance, be equally incompetent with those who have
preceded us. Let the terms therefore remain, but endeavour to afford
them a fixed and definite meaning, and suffer them to be so far
analysed, as to detect their composition, and discover the reasons which
imposed them. In this endeavour there will, however, be found
considerable difficulty; especially as the minds of men are not yet
agreed respecting the process, by which it is to be performed.
There are, however, only two modes, to which we can resort, for the
definite meaning of words; namely, etymology and authority. Considering
the history of our own language, and the nature of its composition, we
are enabled satisfactorily to investigate, not only the primitive sense
of our terms, but likewise their exact signification, in the languages
from whence we imported them: for there still remain, sufficient
authentic materials, in our Saxon and Norman records, to verify their
original meaning. If we enquire into the causes, which have operated to
deflect these terms from their primitive sense, we shall find authority
to be the principal source of such corruption; and this infirmity
appears to have pervaded most of the languages of those nations which
have produced poets, orators, and metaphysicians.[9] When we examine the
nature of authority in language, as it now exists, we find it to be the
arbitrary employment of words, by particular writers of acknowledged
celebrity. Many have become authorities in our language, from having
improved its construction; others, by the perspicuous arrangement of
subject, by the force of their reasoning, or the light of their
philosophy. Although we may allow the highest merit to these eminent
writers, a praise, far beyond the dulness and drudgery of verbal
criticism; yet it is by no means to be inferred, that they consequently
become authorities, for the real and intrinsic meaning of words. It can
never be expected, that the great mass of mankind should be
etymologists: the generality must be regulated by the "jus et norma
loquendi;" but if this jus, be the jus vagum, and the norma capricious,
confusion must ensue, and they will scarcely be speaking the same
language. Those who are dignified with the title of authorities, ought
to agree; for the sound interpreters of the law should never differ.
Language is the circulating medium of our thoughts; and the meaning of
words much resembles the value of money. But great diversity of opinion
prevails. In the minds of some philosophers, money means only metallic
currency, which may be assayed, and its real value ascertained; and this
seems to relate to etymology. Others less solid in their views, and
gifted with a finer fabric of fancy, are disposed to consider the
abstractions of paper to be equivalent to the concrete of bullion, and
have accordingly constituted it the jus and norma by authority. To
insist on the meaning of a word, because its interpretation has been
previously assumed, carries no conviction of its truth. The "jus et
norma loquendi," must ever prevail as the currency between human
beings; but this acknowledgment should not, in the course of
circulation, diminish, the undoubted right we possess, to detect and
refuse such as are base or counterfeit.
It will not be disputed, that some words bear a much higher importance
than others. The names of familiar objects are of little consequence,
because we can examine them by our senses, and thereby obtain just
perceptions of their character and properties: but general or abstract
terms, which are not the objects of sense, but the abbreviations of
subjects of reflection, are of the highest interest to our advancement
in knowledge and moral conduct. To exemplify the views that have been
taken on this subject, three words have been selected:--_to feel_, _to
ransack_, and the adjective, _naked_. Of the first, Dr. Johnson, the
best authority we now possess, has given six different senses or
acceptations as a verb active, and four, as a verb neuter, and has cited
the different authorities. He says it is derived from the Anglo-Saxon,
_felan_, without explaining what _felan_ means; it however means to
feel: but the adduction of a word in another language, of similar sound
and identical signification, does not impart meaning. Yet when we find
that in the Anglo-Saxon _fell_ means _skin_, which is the seat of
feeling, we directly understand the word and all its dependencies; as
_fell_ of hair, _felt_ hat, _fell_-monger, _film_, which is a thin fine
skin or pellicle. Thus we become enabled to understand and reconcile
variety and extension of meaning, from the preservation of integrity of
figure.
The verb _to ransack_, is another example. Of this word Dr. Johnson has
given three senses. According to him, it is derived from _ran_,
Anglo-Saxon, and _saka_, Swedish, to search or seize; but we are not
informed what _ran_ in Anglo-Saxon signifies, and it so happens that
there is no such Swedish word as _saka_, to search. The word _ransack_,
for which the Anglo-Saxons had _ransaka_, is derived to us from the
Gothic, in which _razn_ (pronounced _ran_) signifies a house, and
_sokjan_ to search; so that, _to ransack_, implies to search the house.
To the adjective _naked_ Dr. Johnson has given four different meanings.
Its etymology, he says, is from the Anglo-Saxon, _nacod_, which in that
language was of similar signification: but this imparts no meaning. It
is a compound word: _na_, in Anglo-Saxon, signifies _new_, and _cenned_,
_born_, so that the condition of the _new-born_ child affords an
appropriate interpretation of the term _naked_.
To ordinary minds, that which is said to be authority is decisive[10]; a
particular author of celebrity is cited, and thus the business
concludes. The reasons, which induced him to employ the word in such
particular sense, it is in most cases fruitless to enquire; as during
their lives, authors have seldom been appreciated: so that the silence
of death seems indispensable to procure the consent of authority.
As language is the instrument of thought, the vehicle of intelligible
communication among human beings, it is impossible to attach too high
importance to its precise signification: the difficulties of effecting
this concordance have been pointed out, but the remedy has not yet been
applied. After all the investigation that has been given to this
interesting subject, one leading fact seems indisputable, that all the
terms which designate the faculties and operations of our minds, are of
physical origin, as well as those which characterise the thinking or
immaterial principle itself: and for this, there is sufficient reason;
as all language, in order to be adapted for our use, in this state of
existence, can only be the representative of the objects of our
perceptions and reflections,--an instrument calculated for the meridian
of this transitory life: for, when the holy light of happiness to come
was revealed to the human race, it was found expedient, for their
comprehension, to transmit its rays through a material prism.[11]
FOOTNOTES:
[8] Mr. Locke, as he advances in his essay, expresses considerable
distrust of the existence of these powers and faculties of the mind.
"Yet I suspect, I say, that this way of speaking of faculties has misled
many into a confused notion of so many distinct agents in us, which had
their several provinces and authorities, and did command, obey, and
perform several actions, as so many distinct beings; which has been no
small occasion of wrangling, obscurity, and uncertainty in questions
relating to them."--Vol. i. p. 192. 10th edition.
[9] To afford a single illustration of this fact, let the verb to
_bewray_ be selected, which, although a word of very different meaning,
has been confounded with to _betray_. The meaning of the former is to
discover, expose, and is derived from a Saxon verb bearing that sense;
the latter, Dr. Johnson has derived from the French _trahir_, and has
cited some instances, as authorities for its perverted sense. It is but
justice to observe, that these words preserve their distinct and
separate sense in all the instances where they have been employed, both
in Shakspeare and the Bible. It may therefore be inferred, to have been
a recent corruption.
[10] Of this, Mr. Locke appears to have been fully sensible:--"When men
are established in any kind of dignity, 'tis thought a breach of modesty
for others to derogate any way from it, and question the authority of
men who are in possession of it. This is apt to be censured, as carrying
with it too much of pride, when a man does not readily yield to the
determination of approved authors, which is wont to be received with
respect and submission by others; and 'tis looked upon as insolence for
a man to set up, and adhere to his own opinion, against the current
stream of antiquity, or to put in the balance against that of some
learned doctor, or otherwise approved writer. Whoever backs his tenets
with such authorities, thinks he ought thereby to carry the cause; and
is ready to stile it impudence in any one who shall stand out against
them."--Locke's Works, vol. ii. p. 306.
[11] This material prism is to be understood to apply to language; and
in this view Newton himself surveyed the question. "For all language as
applied to God, is taken from the affairs of men, by some resemblance,
not indeed a perfect one, but yet existing to a certain
degree."--Newton's Works, edit. Horsley, vol. iv. p. 430.
ON WILL OR VOLITION.
In the consideration of the nature and offices of the human mind, there
is no subject of higher importance than the will, or volition. Every
person must have observed, that he is capable of performing certain
motions, which he is able to commence, to continue, and to arrest; and
the same faculty is possessed by many animals. A slight degree of
information will also instruct him, that there are certain motions of
his animal frame, over which he has no immediate control. The motions
which he is able to direct and regulate, have been termed voluntary; and
those over which he possesses no influence or command, have been
denominated involuntary motions. The most perfect instances of the
latter are the pulsations of the heart, and the movements of the
intestines, usually called peristaltic. The curiosity which is natural
to man as an intelligent being, would of course prompt him to enquire
into the cause of these phenomena, although the result of his
investigations might be inadequate to the toil of his research: for, he
would be as much puzzled to account for the influence by which certain
muscles are moved at will, as he would at others which possess a
determinate motion, and are not subject to this direction. While man
continues in a healthy state, he is enabled to move at pleasure those
muscles or instruments of motion which are subject to his will; and the
involuntary muscles continue duly to perform their appropriate office;
but in certain morbid states it sometimes occurs, that the exertion of
the will to move a leg or arm is ineffectually directed, and however
much we desire, wish, or will such motion, these limbs are
disobedient.[12] This condition of the members has been termed
paralytic: the will to move remains perfect; but the organs to be acted
on are insensible to that influence which, in a sound state, excited
them to motion. As in the healthy state the will has the power to
produce motion, so it is also competent to prevent it; therefore to
move or to abstain from motion, are equally the dictates of the will.
But it not unfrequently happens, when we intend to thread a needle, to
write our name, or to perform some surgical operation, that the will
exerts all its influence to keep the hand steady for the due performance
of these necessary acts; yet, notwithstanding these implicit commands,
the hand continues to move in all directions, but those which could
accomplish the object. So, that these muscles, ordinarily voluntary,
become, in a certain degree, converted into involuntary muscles. A
higher degree of this state prevails in the affection called St. Vitus'
Dance, and likewise in some convulsive symptoms attendant on locked
jaw, where the body is drawn with incredible violence. It may be
noticed, that these states are attended with consciousness.
Concerning the nature of this influence, termed the _will_, a great
variety of discordant opinions prevail. To enumerate or refute these
would be unprofitable labour, more especially as the majority are the
mere assumptions of their particular authors. They all, however, seem to
be agreed that the will is an inherent faculty, or component part of the
mind; and some are induced to consider it as holding the highest office
in the department of intellect. The only mode of investigating this
subject satisfactorily, according to my own views, is to trace the
progress of volition from its feeble commencement, to the full exercise
of its important function,--from the dawn to the meridian.
As a general observation, it may be remarked that the same influence of
the will, which directs the movements of the body, is likewise exerted
over the faculties of the mind; although generally in an inferior
degree, both from the greater difficulty and less importance of the
latter, for the ordinary purposes of life. When we observe the
newly-born infant,--that helpless mass of animation,--we perceive no
indications to induce us to conclude, that it possesses a voluntary
power of directing its movements.[13] It is furnished with the organs
of motion, but is unable to exert that influence which manifests
direction; yet its involuntary motions continue perfect, and these, as
will be subsequently explained, may be considered in their nature and
effects as very similar to that, which, in animals, is termed instinct.
In the progress of this enquiry, it will be seen that some degree of
mental advancement must have been made, before the infant can _direct_
any of the motions of its body; because direction implies knowledge to
an extent sufficient for the purposes of command, and also a
consciousness of the effort. In the infant, all the organs of sense by
degrees become awaked by their appropriate stimuli or objects, and
perception is the result. Although we have no memory of our earliest
perceptions, which are solely produced by the excitation of external
objects, without any direction of the will; yet from the mental
indications of the infant, these perceptions would seem to be confused
and indistinct. It is some time before the eye appears to notice, and
longer before the hand can grasp and manipulate the substances within
its reach: in this state, volition would be superfluous if it were
possessed. By slow gradations, we find the child capable of directing
its eye, of listening to sounds, and of examining by the touch; and
these imply the efforts of the will, which appear to be subsequent to
perception. As we advance in knowledge, our perceptions, which are the
sources of intelligence, are principally acquired by the agency of
volition, which directs the organ to the object, but we still continue
to be acted on involuntarily by forcible impressions, or striking
phenomena.
Previously to the acquirement of language, perception, memory, and
volition are in their simplest state, such as we observe in animals, and
as in them, we are only able to estimate the amount of their mental
possessions, from the intellectual phenomena they display. In the
infant, the separate and combined examination of objects by the eye and
touch are the circumstances most deserving of notice.
It may here be proper to explain why these earliest of our perceptions
are never remembered in after-life. The long period of human infancy, is
a powerful argument for the superiority of our species: the mind of man
is built up by his own exertions, and his progress is in the ratio of
his experience to his capacity: his mission is more important, and
consequently requires a longer period to fulfil: he has few instincts;
and the sum of his knowledge is the elaboration of his extended
endowments. To have remembered the confused dawnings of his perceptions,
the imperfect and obscure transmissions of his unpractised organs would
have been superfluous, and the sources of error. In this early state,
there is no medium by which his perceptions can be artificially
connected; nor do they admit of communication or record. When language
is acquired, our perceptions become "doubly armed," and impress the
memory with additional effect: the employment of the term as the
representative of the object, recalls the original perception, and thus
invests the mental phantasm with "a local habitation and a name." Thus
our earliest recollections are never anterior to a certain progress in
the art of speech.
As we possess the instruments of motion in our muscles, they would have
been useless without the performance of their function, and our bodies
would have been stationary. It is also equally evident that this office
must be performed by ourselves, or fulfilled by others. It has been
already pointed out that there are certain motions, essential to the
preservation of our animal system, termed _involuntary_, which do not
originate from ourselves, but are the directions of a superior power,
and are effected independently of our experience and control: the other
motions, that have been termed voluntary, are the result of acquirement
or practice, and have been gradually formed by our exertions. The reader
will now be prepared to understand the wisdom of this arrangement,
which, in a future chapter, will be more copiously treated; and to feel
that the superiority of man, as an intellectual being, and a
responsible agent, consists in the formation of his own mind, and in
the direction of his thoughts and actions.
That we should exert our utmost endeavours to become acquainted with the
nature of this influence, which we term the will, is most natural; but
hitherto our researches have been wholly unavailing; and it should be
recollected that the appearances of life cannot be accounted for by that
which is inanimate, nor can the phenomena of intelligence be solved by
material analogies. As we are possessed of the implements of motion, it
is evident that they were constructed to accomplish their destined
purpose; but of the intimate nature of the stimulus which goads them to
action, we have no conception: it seems, however, certain that there
exists a mutual consent,--a reciprocal subaudition,--a compact, the
result of exercise and experience,--between the implements of motion and
the will or influence which excites them.