CHAPTER XX.

SUMMARY OF RESULTS.

Of all the facts that have been established by me through the observation of the child in the first years of his life, the _formation of concepts without language_ is most opposed to the traditional doctrines, and it is just this on which I lay the greatest stress.

It has been demonstrated that the human being, at the very beginning of his life, not only distinguishes pleasure and discomfort, but may also have single, distinct sensations. He behaves on the first day differently, when the appropriate sense-impressions exist, from what he does when they are lacking. The first effect of these feelings, these few sensations, is the association of their traces, left behind in the central nervous system, with inborn movements. Those traces or central impressions develop gradually the personal _memory_. These movements are the point of departure for the primitive activity of the intellect, which separates the sensations both in time and in space. When the number of the memory-images, of distinct sensations, on the one hand, on the other, of the movements that have been associated with them--e. g., "sweet" and "sucking"--has become larger, then a firmer association of sensation-and-movement-memories, i. e., of excitations of sensory and motor ganglionic cells takes place, so that excitement of the one brings with it co-excitement of the other. Sucking awakens the recollection of the sweet taste; the sweet taste of itself causes sucking. This succession is already a separation _in time_ of two sensations (the sweet and the motor sensation in sucking). The separation in space requires the recollection of two sensations, each with one movement; the distinction between sucking at the left breast and sucking at the right is made after one trial. With this, the first act of the intellect is performed, the first perception made, i. e., a sensation first localized in time and space. The motor sensation of sucking has come, like the sweet taste, _after_ a similar one, and it has come between two unlike relations in space that were distinguished. By means of multiplied perceptions (e. g., luminous fields not well defined, but yet defined) and multiplied movements with sensations of touch, the perception, after considerable time, acquires an object; i. e., the intellect, which already allowed nothing bright to appear without boundary-lines, and thus allowed nothing bright to appear except in space (whereas at the beginning brightness, as was the case even later with sound, had no limitation, no demarcation), begins to assign a cause for that which is perceived. Hereby perception is raised to _representation_. The often-felt, localized, sweet, warm, white wetness, which is associated with sucking, now forms an idea, and one of the earliest ideas. When, now, this idea has often arisen, the separate perceptions that have been necessary to its formation are united more and more firmly. Then, when one of these latter appears for itself, the memory-images of the others will also appear, through co-excitement of the ganglionic cells concerned; but this means simply that the _concept_ is now in existence. For the concept has its origin in the union of attributes. Attributes are perceived, and the memory-images of them, that is, accordingly, memory-images of separate perceptions, are so firmly associated that, where only one appears in the midst of entirely new impressions, the concept yet emerges, because all the other images appear along with it. Language is not required for this. Up to this point, those born deaf behave exactly like infants that have all the senses, and like some animals that form concepts.

These few first ideas, namely, the individual ideas, or sense-intuitions that are generated by the first perceptions, and the simple general ideas (of a lower order), or concepts, arising out of these--the concepts of the child as yet without language, of microcephali also, of deaf-mutes, and of the higher animals--have now this peculiarity, that they have all been formed exactly in this way by the parents and the grandparents and the representatives of the successive generations (such notions as those of "food," "breast"). These concepts are not innate; because no idea can be innate, for the reason that several peripheral impressions are necessary for the formation of even a single perception. They are, however, inherited. Just as the teeth and the beard are not usually innate in man, but come and grow like those of the parents and are already implanted, piece for piece, in the new-born child, and are thus hereditary, so the first ideas of the infant, his first concepts, which arise unconsciously, without volition and without the possibility of inhibition, in every individual in the same way, must be called hereditary. Different as are the teeth from the germs of teeth in the newly-born, so different are the man's concepts, clear, sharply defined by words, from the child's ill-defined, obscure concepts, which arise quite independently of all language (of word, look, or gesture).

In this wise the old doctrine of "innate ideas" becomes clear. Ideas or thoughts are themselves either representations or combinations of representations. They thus presuppose perceptions, and can not accordingly be innate, but may some of them be inherited, those, viz., which at first, by virtue of the likeness between the brain of the child and that of the parent, and of the similarity between the external circumstances of the beginnings of life in child and parent, always arise in the same manner.

The principal thing is the innate aptitude to perceive things and to form ideas, i. e., the innate intellect. By aptitude (Anlage), however, can be understood nothing else at present than a manner of reacting, a sort of capability or excitability, impressed upon the central organs of the nervous system after repeated association of nervous excitations (through a great many generations in the same way).

The brain comes into the world provided with a great number of impressions upon it. Some of these are quite obscure, some few are distinct. Each ancestor has added his own to those previously existing. Among these impressions, finally, the useless ones must soon be obliterated by those that are useful. On the other hand, deep impressions will, like wounds, leave behind scars, which abide longer; and very frequently used paths of connection between different portions of the brain and spinal marrow and the organs of sense are easier to travel even at birth (instinctive and reflexive processes).

Now, of all the higher functions of the brain, the ordering one, which compares the simple, pure sensations, the original experiences, and first sets them in an order of succession, viz., arranges them in time, then puts them side by side and one above another, and, not till later, one behind another, viz., arranges them in space--this function is one of the oldest. This ordering of the sense-impressions is _an activity of the intellect that has nothing to do with speech_, and the _capacity_ for it is, as Immanuel Kant discovered, present in man "as he now is" (Kant) _before_ the activity of the senses begins; but without this activity it can not assert itself.

Now, I maintain, and in doing so I take my stand upon the facts published in this book, that just as little as the intellect of the child not yet able to speak has need of words or looks or gestures, or any symbol whatever, in order to arrange in time and space the sense-impressions, so little does that intellect require those means in order to form concepts and to perform logical operations; and in this fundamental fact I see the material for bridging over the only great gulf that separates the child from the brute animal.

That even physiologists deny that there is any passage from one to the other is shown by Vierordt in his "Physiology of Infancy" (1877).

The fundamental fact that a genuinely logical activity of the brain goes on without language of any sort, in the adult man who has the faculty of speech, was discovered by Helmholtz. The logical functions called by him "unconscious inferences" begin, as I think I have shown by many observations in the newly-born, immediately with the activity of the senses. Perception in the third dimension of space is a particularly clear example of this sort of logical activity without words, because it is developed slowly.

In place of the expression "unconscious," which, because it has caused much mischief, still prevents the term "unconscious inferences" from being naturalized in the physiology of the senses and the theory of perception, it would be advisable, since "instinctive" and "intuitive" are still more easily misunderstood, to say "wordless." Wordless ideas, wordless concepts, wordless judgments, wordless inferences, may be inherited. To these belong such as our progenitors often experienced at the beginning of life, such as not only come into existence without the participation of any medium of language whatever, but also are never even willed (intended, deliberate, voluntary), and can not under any circumstances be set aside or altered, whether to be corrected or falsified. An inherited defect can not be put aside, and neither can the inherited intellect. When the outer angle at the right of the eye is pressed upon, a light appears in the closed eye at the left, not at the right; not at the place touched. This optical illusion, which was known even in Newton's day, this wordless inductive inference, is hereditary and incorrigible; and, on the other hand, the hereditary wordless _concept_ of food can neither be prevented from arising nor be set aside nor be formed otherwise than it was formed by our ancestors.

Innate, to make it once more prominent, is the faculty (the capacity, the aptitude, the potential function) of forming concepts, and some of the first concepts are hereditary. New (not hereditary) concepts arise only after new perceptions, i. e., after experiences that associate themselves with the primitive ones by means of new connecting paths in the brain, and they begin in fact before the learning of speech.

A chick just out of the shell possesses the capacity to lay eggs--the organs necessary--in fact the future eggs are inborn in the creature; but only after some time does it lay eggs, and these are in every respect similar to the first eggs of its mother. Indeed, the chicks that come from these eggs resemble those of the mother herself; thus the eggs have hereditary properties. New eggs originate only by crossing, by external influences of all sorts, influences, therefore, of experience.

So, too, the new-born child possesses the capacity of forming concepts. The organs necessary for that are inborn in him, but not till after some time does he form concepts, and these are in all nations and at all times quite similar to the first concepts formed by the child's mother. Indeed, the inferences that attach themselves to the first concepts will resemble those which were developed in the mother or will be identical with them; these concepts have, then, hereditary properties. New concepts originate only through experience. They originate in great numbers in every child that learns to speak.

If the fact that children utterly ignorant of speech, even those born deaf, already perform logical operations with perfect correctness, proves the intellect to be independent of language, yet searching observation of the child that is learning to speak shows that only by means of verbal language can the intellect give precision to its primitive indistinct concepts and thereby develop itself further, connecting ideas appropriately with the circumstances in which the child lives.

It is a settled fact, however, that many ideas must already be formed in order to make possible the acquirement of speech. The existence of ideas is a necessary condition of learning to speak.

The greatest intellectual advance in this field consists in this, that the specific method of the human race is discovered by the speechless child--the method of expressing ideas aloud and articulately, i. e., by means of expirations of breath along with various positions of the larynx and the mouth and various movements of the tongue. No child _invents_ this method, it is _transmitted_; but each individual child _discovers_ that by means of sounds thus originating one can make known his ideas and thereby induce feelings of pleasure and do away with discomfort. Therefore he applies himself to this process of himself, without instruction, provided only that he grows up among speaking people; and even where hearing, which serves as a means of intercourse with them, is wanting from birth, a life rich in ideas and an intelligence of a high order may be developed, provided that written signs of sound supply the place of sounds heard. These signs, however, can be learned only by means of instruction. The way in which writing is learned is the same as the way in which the alalic child learns to speak. Both rest upon imitation.

I have shown that the first firm association of an idea with a syllable or with a word-like combination of syllables, takes place exclusively through imitation; but a union of this sort being once established, the child then freely invents new combinations, although to a much more limited extent than is commonly assumed. No one brings with him into the world a genius of such quality that it would be capable of inventing articulate speech. It is difficult enough to comprehend that imitation suffices for the child to learn a language.

What organic conditions are required for the imitation of sounds and for learning to speak I have endeavored to ascertain by means of a systematic collection, resting on the best pathological investigations, of all the disturbances of speech thus far observed in adults; and the daily observation of a sound child, who was kept away from all training as far as possible, as well as the frequent observation of other children, has brought me to the following important result:

That every known form of disturbance of speech in adults finds its perfect counterpart in the child that is learning to speak.

The child can not _yet_ speak correctly, because his impressive, central, and expressive organs of speech are not yet completely developed. The adult patient can _no longer_ speak correctly, because those parts are no longer complete or capable of performing their functions. The parallelism is perfect even to individual cases, if children of various ages are carefully observed in regard to their acquirement of speech. As to facts of a more general nature, we arrive, then, at the three following:

1. The normal infant understands spoken language much earlier than he can himself produce through imitation the sounds, syllables, and words he hears.

2. The normal child, however, before he begins to speak or to imitate correctly the sounds of language, forms of his own accord all or nearly all the sounds that occur in his future speech and very many others besides, and delights in doing it.

3. The order of succession in which the sounds of speech are produced by the infant is different with different individuals, and consequently is not determined by the principle of the least effort. It is dependent upon several factors--brain, teeth, size of the tongue, acuteness of hearing, motility, and others. Only in the later, intentional, sound-formations and attempts at speaking does that principle come under consideration.

In the acquirement of every complicated muscular movement, dancing, e. g., the difficult combinations which make a greater strain on the activity of the will are in like manner acquired last.

Heredity plays no part in this, for every child can learn to master perfectly any language, provided he hears from birth only the one to be learned. The plasticity of the inborn organs of speech is thus in the earliest childhood very great.

To follow farther the influence that the use of speech as a means of understanding has upon the intellectual development of the child lies outside the problem dealt with in this book. Let me, in conclusion, simply give a brief estimate of the questioning-activity that makes its appearance very early after the first attempts at speech, and also add a few remarks on the development of the _"I"-feeling_.

The child's questioning as a means of his culture is almost universally underrated. The interest in causality that unfolds itself more and more vigorously with the learning of speech, the asking why, which is often almost unendurable to parents and educators, is fully justified, and ought not, as unfortunately is too often the case, to be unheeded, purposely left unanswered, purposely answered falsely. I have from the beginning given to my boy, to the best of my knowledge invariably, an answer to his questions intelligible to him and not contrary to truth, and have noticed that in consequence at a later period, in the fifth and the sixth and especially in the seventh year, the questions prove to be more and more intelligent, because the previous answers are retained. If, on the contrary, we do not answer at all, or if we answer with jests and false tales, it is not to be wondered at that a child even of superior endowments puts foolish and absurd questions and thinks illogically--a thing that rarely occurs where questions are rightly answered and fitting instruction is given, to say nothing of rearing the child to superstition. The only legend in which I allow my boy to have firm faith is that of the stork that brings new babes, and what goes along with that.

With regard to the development of the "I"--feeling the following holds good:

This feeling does not awake on the day when the child uses for the first time the word "I" instead of his own name--the date of such use varies according as those about it name themselves and the child by the proper name and not by the pronoun for a longer or a shorter period; but the "I" is separated from the "not-I" after a long series of experiences, chiefly of a painful sort, as these observations have made clear, through the _becoming accustomed to the parts of one's own body_. These, which at first are foreign objects, affect the child's organs of sense always in the same manner, and thereby become uninteresting after they have lost the charm of novelty. Now, his own body is that to which the attractive objective impressions (i. e., the world) are referred, and with the production by him of new impressions, with the changes wrought by him (in the experimenting which is called "playing"), with the experience of being-a-cause, is developed more and more in the child the feeling of self. With this he raises himself higher and higher above the dependent condition of the animal, so that at last the difference, not recognizable at all before birth and hardly recognizable at the beginning after birth, between animal and human being attains a magnitude dangerous for the latter, attains it, above all, by means of language.

But if it is necessary for the child to appropriate to himself as completely as possible this highest privilege of the human race and through this to overcome the animal nature of his first period; if his development requires the stripping off of the remains of the animal and the unfolding of the responsible "I"--then it will conduce to the highest satisfaction of the thinking man, at the summit of his experience of life, to go back in thought to his earliest childhood, for that period teaches him plainly that he himself has his origin in nature, is intimately related to all other living creatures. However far he gets in his development, he is ever groping vainly in the dark for a door into another world; but the very fact of his reflecting upon the possibility of such a door shows how high the developed human being towers above all his fellow-beings.

The key to the understanding of the great enigma, how these extremes are connected, is furnished in the history of the development of the mind of the child.

APPENDIXES.

A.

COMPARATIVE OBSERVATIONS CONCERNING THE ACQUIREMENT OF SPEECH BY GERMAN AND FOREIGN CHILDREN.

Among the earlier as among the later statements concerning the acquirement of speech, there are several that have been put forth by writers on the subject without a sufficient basis of observed facts. Not only Buffon, but also Taine and his successors, have, from a few individual cases, deduced general propositions which are not of general application.

Good observations were first supplied in Germany by Berthold Sigismund in his pamphlet, "Kind und Welt" ("The Child and the World") (1856); but his observations were scanty.

He noted, as the first articulate sounds made by a child from Thueringen (Rudolstadt), _ma_, _ba_, _bu_, _appa_, _ange_, _anne_, _brrr_, _arrr_: these were made about the middle of the first three months.

Sigismund is of the opinion that this first lisping, or babbling, consists in the production of syllables with only two sounds, of which the consonant is most often the first; that the first consonants distinctly pronounced are labials; that the lips, brought into activity by sucking, are the first organs of articulation; but this conjecture lacks general confirmation.

In the second three months (in the case of one child in the twenty-third week, with other healthy children considerably earlier) were heard, for the first time, the loud and high _crowing_-sounds, uttered by the child spontaneously, jubilantly, with lively movements of the limbs that showed the waxing power of the muscles: the child seemed to take pleasure in making the sounds. The utterance of syllables, on the other hand, is at this period often discontinued for weeks at a time.

In the third quarter of the first year, the lisping or stammering was more frequent. New sounds were added: _bae_, _fbu_, _fu_; and the following were among those that were repeated without cessation, _baebaebae_, _daedaedae_; also _adad_, _eded_.

In the next three months the child manifested his satisfaction in any object by the independent sound _ei_, _ei_. The first imitations of sounds, proved to be such, were made after the age of eleven months. But it is more significant, for our comprehension of the process of learning to speak, that long before the boy tried to imitate words or gestures, viz., at the age of nine months, he distinguished accurately the words "father, mother, light, window, moon, lane"; for he looked, or pointed, at the object designated, as soon as one of these words was spoken.

And when, finally, imitation began, musical tones, e. g., F, C, were imitated sooner than the spoken sounds, although the former were an octave higher. And the _ei_, _ei_ was repeated in pretty nearly the same tone or accent in which it had been pronounced for the child. Sneezing was not imitated till after fourteen months. The first word imitated by the child of his own accord (after fourteen months) was the cry "Neuback" (fresh-bake), as it resounded from the street; it was given back by the child, unsolicited, as _ei-a_. As late as the sixteenth month he replied to the word _papa_, just as he did to the word _Ida_, only with _atta_; yet he had in the mean time learned to understand "lantern, piano, stove, bird, nine-pin, pot"--in all, more than twenty words--and to indicate by a look the objects named; he had also learned to make the new imperfect sounds _pujeh_, _pujeh_, _tupe tupe teh_, _aemmaem_, _atta_, _ho_.

In the seventeenth month came in place of these sounds the babbled syllables _maem_, _mam_, _mad-am_, _a-dam_, _das_; in the case of other children, syllables different from these. Children often say several syllables in quick succession, "then suddenly stop as if they were thinking of something new--actually strain, as if they must exert themselves to bring their organs to utterance, until at last a new sound issues, and then this is repeated like the clack of a mill." Along with this appears the frequent doubling of syllables, as in _papa_, _mama_.

The boy, at twenty months, told his father the following, with pretty long pauses and animated gestures: _atten--beene--titten--bach--eine--puff--anna_, i. e., "Wir waren im Garten, haben Beeren und Kirschen gegessen, und in den Bach Steine geworfen; dann kam Anna" (we were in the garden, ate berries and cherries, and threw stones into the brook; then Anna came).

The observations of Sigismund are remarkable for their objectivity, their clearness of exposition, and their accuracy, and they agree with mine, as may easily be seen, in many respects perfectly. Unfortunately, this excellent observer (long since deceased) did not finish his work. The first part only has appeared. Moreover, the statements as to the date of the first imitations (see pp. 83, 108, 109, 118, 121) are not wholly in accord with one another.

I. E. Loebisch, likewise a physician, in his "Entwickelungsgeschichte der Seele des Kindes" ("History of the Development of the Mind of the Child," Vienna, 1851, p. 68), says: "Naturally the first sound formed in the mouth, which is more or less open, while the other organs of speech are inactive, is the sound resembling _a_, which approximates sometimes more, sometimes less, nearly to the _e_ and the _o_.[D]

"Of the consonants the first are those formed by closing and opening the lips: _m_, _b_, _p_; these are at first indistinct and not decidedly differentiated till later; then the _m_ naturally goes not only before the _a_ but also after it; _b_ and _p_ for a long time merely commence a syllable, and rarely close one until other consonants also have been formed. A child soon says _pa_, but certainly does not say _ab_ until he can already pronounce other consonants also (p. 79).

"The order in which the sounds are produced by the child is the following: Of the vowels, first _a_, _e_, _o_, _u_, of course not well distinguished from _a_ at the beginning; the last vowel is _i_. Of the consonants, _m_ is the first, and it passes by way of the _w_ into _b_ and _p_. But here we may express our astonishment that so many writers on the subject of the order of succession of the consonants in the development of speech have assigned so late a date to the formation of the _w_; Schwarz puts it even after _t_, and before _r_ and _s_. Then come _d_, _t_; then _l_ and _n_; _n_ is easily combined with _d_ when it precedes _d_; next _f_ and the gutturals _h_, _ch_, _g_, _k_, the _g_ and _k_ often confounded with _d_ and _t_. _S_ and _r_ are regarded as nearly simultaneous in their appearance; the gutturals as coming later, the latest of them being _ch_. Still, there is a difference in this respect in different children. For many produce a sound resembling _r_ among the first consonant sounds; so too _ae_, _oe_, _ue_; the diphthongs proper do not come till the last."

These statements of Loebisch, going, as they do, far beyond pure observation, can not all be regarded as having general validity. For most German children, at least, even those first adduced can scarcely claim to be well founded.

H. Taine (in the supplement to his book on "Intelligence," which appeared in a German translation in 1880) noted, as expressions used by a French child in the fifteenth month, _papa_, _maman_, _tete_ (nurse, evidently a word taken from the word _teter_, "to nurse or suck at the breast"), _oua-oua_ (dog, in all probability a word said for the child to repeat), _koko_ (cock, no doubt from _coq-coq_, which had been said for the child), _dada_ (horse, carriage, indicating other objects also, no doubt; a demonstrative word, as it is with many German children). _Tem_ was uttered without meaning for two weeks; then it signified "give, take, look, pay attention." I suspect that we have here a mutilation of the strongly accentuated _tiens_, which had probably been often heard. As early as the fourteenth month, _ham_ signified "I want to eat" (_hamm_, then _am_, might have had its origin in the echo of _faim, as-tu faim?_ (are you hungry?)). At the age of three and a half months this child formed only vowels, according to the account; at twelve months she twittered and uttered first _m-m_, then _kraaau_, _papa_, with varying intonation, but spoke no word with a recognizable meaning. In the tenth month there was an understanding of some questions. For the child, when asked "Where is grandpapa?" smiled at the portrait of the grandfather, but not at the one of the grandmother, which was not so good a likeness. In the eleventh month, at the question "Where is mamma?" the child would turn toward her mother, and in like manner toward the father at the question, "papa"?

A second child observed by Taine made utterances that had intellectual significance in the seventh week, for the first time. Up to the age of five months _ah_, _gue_, _gre_ (French) were heard; in the seventh month, also _ata_, _ada_.

In his reflections, attached to these and a few other observations of his own, Taine rightly emphasizes the great power of generalization and the peculiarity the very young child had of associating with words it had heard other notions than those common with us; but he ascribes too much to the child's inventive genius. The child guesses more than it discovers, and the very cases adduced (_hamm_, _tem_), on which he lays great weight, may be traced, as I remarked above parenthetically, to something heard by the child; this fact he seems to have himself quite overlooked. It is true, that in the acquirement of speech _one_ word may have several different meanings in succession, as is especially the case with the word _bebe_ (corresponding to the English word _baby_), almost universal with French children; it is not true that a child without imitation of sounds invents a word with a fixed meaning, and that, with no help or suggestion from members of the family, it employs its imperfectly uttered syllables (Lallsylben) consistently for designating its ideas.

Among the notes of Wyma concerning an English child ("The Mental Development of the Infant of To-day," in the "Journal of Psychological Medicine and Mental Pathology," vii, Part I, pp. 62-69, London, April, 1881), the following, relating to the acquisition of speech, are to be mentioned:

At five months the child began to use a kind of language, consisting of six words, to indicate a desire or intention. _Ning_ signified desire for milk, and was employed for that up to the age of two years. (The word may possibly have been derived from the word _milk_,[E] frequently heard.) At nine months the child made use of the words _pretty things_ for animals; at ten months it formed many small sentences.

The child practiced itself in speaking, even without direct imitation of words just spoken, for at the age of two years it began to say over a number of nursery rhymes that nobody in the house knew, and that could not have been learned from other children, because the child had no intercourse with such. At a later period the child declared that the rhymes had been learned from a former nurse, whom it had not seen for nearly three months. Thus the articulation was perfecting itself for weeks before it was understood. The exercises of the child sounded like careless reading aloud.

The book of Prof. Ludwig Struempell, of Leipsic, "Psychologische Paedagogik" (Leipsic, 1880, 368 pages), contains an appendix, "Notizen ueber die geistige Entwickelung eines weiblichen Kindes waehrend der ersten zwei Lebensjahre" ("Notes on the Mental Development of a Female Child during the First Two Years of Life"); in this are many observations that relate to the learning of speech. These are from the years 1846 and 1847.

In the tenth week, _ah! ah!_ was an utterance of joy; in the thirteenth, the child sings, all alone; in the nineteenth comes the guttural utterance, _grrr_, but no consonant is assigned to this period. In the first half-year are heard distinctly, in the order given, _ei_, _aga_, _eigei_, _ja_, _ede_, _dede_, _eds_, _edss_, _emme_, _meme_, _nene_, _nein_. In the eighth month, there is unmistakable understanding of what is said; e. g., "Where is the tick-tack?" In the ninth, _am_, _amme_, _ap_, _pap_, are said; she sings vowels that are sung for her. In the eleventh month, imitation of sounds is frequent, _kiss_, _kiss_; at sight of the tea-kettle, _ssi_, _ssi_; she knows all the people in the house; calls the birds by the strange name _tibu_. Echolalia. In the fourteenth month, needles are called _tick_ (_stich_ = prick or stitch). To the question, "Where is Emmy?" the child points, correctly, to herself; says distinctly, _Kopf_ (head), _Buch_ (book), _roth_ (red), _Tante_ (aunt), _gut_ (good), _Mann_ (man), _Baum_ (tree); calls the eye (Auge) _ok_, Pruscinsky _prrti_, the dog _uf, uf_. In the seventeenth month, simple sentences are spoken; she speaks to herself. In the nineteenth month, she calls herself by her name, and counts _twei_, _drei_, _uempf_, _exe_, _ibene_, _atte_, _neune_ (zwei, drei, fuenf, sechs, sieben, acht, neun--2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9); in the twenty-second month, she talks a good deal to herself, and makes very rapid progress in the correct use of words and the formation of sentences.

From the diary kept by Frau von Struempell concerning this daughter and a sister of this one, and kindly placed at my disposal in the original, I take the following notes: In the eighth month, _mamma_, in the tenth, _papa_, without meaning. In the eleventh month, the child's understanding of what is said to her is surprising, and so is her imitation. To "Guten Tag" (good-day) she responds, _tata_; to "Adieu," _adaa_. A book, which the child likes to turn the leaves of, she calls _ade_ (for a b c). The first certain association of a sound learned with a concept seems to be that of the _ee_, which has often been said to her, with wet, or with what is forbidden. _Amme am_ _om_, "Amme komm" (nurse come) (both imitative), is most frequently repeated, _papa_ seldom. The _r_ guttural, or rattled, is imperfectly imitated. In the thirteenth month, the little girl says, _tippa tappa_, when she wants to be carried, and responds _te te_ to "steh! steh" (stop)! She now calls the book _a-be-te_ (for a b c). Pigeons she calls _kurru_; men, in the picture-book, _mann mann_. When some one asked, "Where is the brush?" the child made the motion of brushing. To the questions, "Where is your ear, your tooth, nose, hand, your fingers, mamma's ear, papa's nose?" etc., she points correctly to the object. On her mother's coming into the room, _mamam_; her father's, _papap_. When the nurse is gone, _amme om, amme am_. The mother asked some one, "Do you hear?" and the child looked at her and took hold of her own ears. To the question, "How do we eat?" she makes the motion of eating. She says _nein_ when she means to refuse. "Dank" (thank) is pronounced _dakkn_. "Bitte" (I beg, or please) is correctly pronounced. She understands the meaning of spoon, dress, mirror, mouth, plate, drink, and many other words, and likes to hear stories, especially when they contain the words already known to her. In the fifteenth month "Mathilde" is given by her as _tilda_ and _tida_. At sight of a faded bouquet she said _blom_ (for Blume, flower). She says everything that is said to her, though imperfectly; produces the most varied articulate sounds; says _ta, papa, ta_ when she hands anything to a person; calls the foot (Fuss) _pss_, lisping and thrusting out the tongue. She often says _omama_ and _opapa_. In the seventeenth month, Ring is called _ning_, Wagen (carriage), _uagen_, Sophie, _dsofi_, Olga, _olla_ krank (ill), _kank_, Pflaume (plum), _pluma_, satt (satisfied, as to hunger), _datt_, Haende-waschen (washing the hands), _ander-uaschen_, Schuh and Tuch (shoe and cloth), _tu_, Strumpf (stocking), _tumpf_, Hut (hat), _ut_, Suppe (soup), _duppe_. _Mama kum bild dat bank_, is for "Mama komm, ich habe das Bilderbuch, erzaehle mir dazu etwas, dort setz' Dich zu mir" (M., come, I have the picture-book; tell me something in it; sit there by me). In the eighteenth month, "Where is Omama?" is answered with _im garten_; "How are Omama and Opapa?" with _sund_ (for gesund, well); "What is Omama doing?" with _naeht_ (she is sewing). The black Apollo is called _pollo wurz_ (schwarz, black).

The sister of this child, in the tenth month, applied the word _mama_ to her mother, _pap pap_ and _papap_ to her father, but was less sure in this; _tj[=e]-t[=e]_ were favorite syllables. When asked, "Where is Tick-tack?" she looks at the clock on the wall. A piercing scream is an utterance of joy. In the fifteenth month, _Apapa_ is her word for grandfather, and is roguishly used for grandmother. She says _aben_ for "haben" (have), _tatta_ for "Tante" (aunt), _apa_ (for _uppa_) means "I want to go up." Her imitation of what is said is very imperfect, but her understanding of it is surprising. In the nineteenth month she makes much use of her hands in gesture instead of speaking. _Kuker_ is her word for "Zucker" (sugar), _bildebu_ for "Bilderbuch" (picture-book). But she habitually calls a book _omama_ or _opapa_ (from the letters of her grandparents). Clara is pronounced _clala_, Christine, _titine_. In the twentieth month, her mother, after telling her a story, asked, "Who, pray, is this, I?" and the child replied, "_Mamma"_ "And who is that, you?" "_Bertha, Bertha_" (the child's name) was the answer. At this period she said, _Bertha will_; also _paren_ (for fahren, drive), _pallen_ (fallen, fall), _bot_, (Brot, bread), _atig_ (artig, good, well-behaved), _mal_ (noch einmal, once more), _muna_ (Mund, mouth), _aujen_ (Augen, eyes), _ol_ (Ohr, ear), _tirn_ (Stirn, forehead), _wanne_ (Wange, cheek, and Wanne, bath-tub), _aua_ (August), _dute_ (gute) _mama_, _paesche_ (Equipage), _wasar tinken_ (Wasser trinken, drink water) _dabel_ (Gabel, fork), _luessel_ (Schluessel, key), _is nits_ (ist nichts, is nothing), _mula_ (Milch, milk), _ass_ (heiss, hot).

Another remarkable observation is the following from the fifteenth month. It reminds one of the behavior of hypnotized adults. On her grandmother's birthday the child said some rhymes that she did not easily remember (there were six short verses, thirty-four words). One night soon after the birthday festival the little girl said off the verses, "almost for the first time without any stumbling, in her sleep."

From this we see how much more quickly in regard to articulation and independent use of words both these girls (the first of whom weighed only six pounds at birth) learned to speak than did Sigismund's boy, my own boy, and others.

Darwin observed (_A Biographical Sketch of an Infant_ in "Mind, a Quarterly Review of Psychology and Philosophy," July, 1877, pp. 285-294) in a son of his, on the forty-seventh day of his life, a formation of sounds without meaning. The child took pleasure in it. The sounds soon became manifold. In the sixth month he uttered the sound _da_ without any meaning; but in the fifth he probably began to try to imitate sounds. In the tenth month the imitation of sounds was unmistakable. In the twelfth he could readily imitate all sorts of actions, such as shaking his head and saying "Ah." He also understood intonations, gestures, several words, and short sentences. When exactly seven months old, the child associated his nurse with her name, so that when it was called out he would look round for her. In the thirteenth month the boy used gestures to explain his wishes; for instance, he picked up a bit of paper and gave it to his father, pointing to the fire, as he had often seen and liked to see paper burned. At exactly the age of a year he called food _mum_, which also signified "Give me food," and he used this word instead of beginning to cry as formerly. This word with affixes signified particular things to eat; thus _shu-mum_ signified sugar, and a little later licorice was called _black-shu-mum_. When asking for food by the word _mum_ he gave to it a very strongly marked tone of longing (Darwin says an "interrogatory sound," which should mean the same thing). It is remarkable that my child also, and in the tenth week for the first time, said _moemm_ when he was hungry, and that a child observed by Fritz Schultze (Dresden) said _maem-maem_. Probably the syllable has its origin from the primitive syllable _ma_ and from hearing the word "mamma" when placed at the breast of the mother.

Of the facts communicated by the physiologist Vierordt concerning the language of the child ("Deutsche Revue" of January, 1879, Berlin, pp. 29-46) should be mentioned this, that a babe in its second month expressed pleasure by the vowel _a_, the opposite feeling by _ae_. This is true of many other children also. In the third and fourth months the following syllables were recognizable: _mam_, _aemma_, _fu_, _pfu_, _ess_, _aeng_, _angka_, _acha_, _erra_, _hab_. A lisping babe said, countless times, _hab_, _hob_, _ha_. These syllables coincide in part with those given by other observers. The _pf_ and _ss_ only have not been heard by me at this age, and I doubt whether _f_, for which teeth are needed, was produced with purity so early. In the second and third years a child pronounced the following words: _beb_ (for boes, naughty); _bebe_ (Besen, _beesann_, broom); _webbe_ (Wasser, _watja_, water); _wewe_ (Loewe, _loewee_, lion); _ewebau_ (Elephant, _elafant_); _webenau_ (Fledermaus, _lebamaunz_, bat); _babaube_ (Blasebalg, _ba-abats_, bellows); _ade_ (Hase, hare); _emele_ (Schemel, footstool); _gigod_ (Schildkroete, tortoise).

These examples illustrate very well the mogilalia and paralalia that exist in every child, but with differences in each individual. Sigmatism and parasigmatism and paralambdacism are strongly marked. At the same time the influence of dialect is perceptible (Tuebingen). The pronunciations given in parentheses in the above instances were regularly used by my boy in his twenty-sixth month when he saw the pictures of the objects named in his picture-book. (In Jena.) One would not suppose beforehand that _watja_ and _webbe_ have the same meaning. From the ten examples may be seen, further, that _f_, _l_, _r_, _s_, _t_ present more difficulties of articulation than _b_, _w_, _m_, _g_, and _d_; but neither must this be made a general conclusion. The _w_ (on account of the teeth) regularly comes later than the _b_, _m_, and _r_.

In the third year Vierordt noted down the following narration. I put in brackets the words omitted by the child:

_id. mama ... papa gaege_ [Es] ist [eine] mama [und ein] papa gewesen _unn die habe wai didi gabt_ und diese haben zwei Kinder gehabt, _unn, didi ... waud._ und [die] Kinder [sind in den] Wald [gegangen] _unn habe ohd duh_ und haben Holz geholt; _na ... an e gugeeide guju_ dann [sind sie] an ein Zuckerhaeuschen gegangen _unn habe gaeg_ und haben gegessen; _no ad die egg gag_ dann hat die Hexe gesagt: _naeg naeg neidi_ "Nucker, Nucker Neisle _wie. immi. eidi_ wer [krabbelt] mir am Hauesle?" _no habe die didi gag_ dann haben die Kinder gesagt: _die wid, de immi immi wid_ ["Der Wind, der Wind, das himmlische Kind"] Der Wind, der himmlische, himmlische Wind.

(There were once a mama and a papa, and they had two children. And the children went into the woods and fetched wood. Then they came to a little sugar house and ate. Then the witch said: "Nucker, Nucker Neisle, who is crawling in my little house?" Then the children said: "The wind, the wind, the heavenly child"--The wind, the heavenly, heavenly wind.)

I told the same story to my boy for the first time when he was two years and eighteen days old. He repeated, with an effort:

_Ess ets aine mama unn ain papa edam (wesen)._ _unn (unt) diesa abn wais (twai) kinna (tinder) ghatf (dehappt)._ _unn die kinna sint (dsint) in den walt tegang (gangen)._ _unn-daben (habn) holz (olz) geh[=o]l (ohlt)._ _dann sint (dsint) sie an ain utsom-haendom (zuke-haeussn) zezan (gangn)._ _unn (unt) habn (abn) ge ... (dessen)._ _dann hatt die hetse (hekksee) dsa (tsakt)._ _nanuck (nuke nuke) nana nainle (naisle)._ _wer ... (drabbelt) mir am haeultje (aeusle)._ _dann baben (habn) die ... (tinder) ze-a (dsagt)._ _der wi[)e]ds (wind) ... (der fint)._ _ds[=e]r wenn daz (das) himmelae (immlis) khint (tint)._

Where the periods are, his attempts were all vain. At any rate, he would say _pta-pta_ as he usually did in fruitless efforts at imitating sounds. Just two months after these first attempts, the same child recited for me the narrative, using the expressions in the parentheses; this indicated a distinct progress in articulation. A year after the first attempt, he easily repeated the whole, with only a single error. He still said _himmelae_, and then _himmliss_, for "himmlische."

A third boy (Duesseldorf) repeated the narrative much better, as early as his twenty-fifth month. He made only the following errors, which were noted by his mother, and kindly communicated by her to me:

_gewesa_ for gewesen _gehat_ " gehabt _gehat_ } _gehakt_ } " gesagt _gegannen_ " gegangen _hamen_ " haben _hind hie_ " sind sie _kabbell_ " krabbelt _himmli-he_ " himmlische _fai_ " zwei _kinner_ " kinder _wlad_ " Wald _hol-l-l-t_ " Holz _uckerhaeussen_ " Zuckerhaeuschen _hekes_ " Hexe _neissel_ " neisle _haeussel_ " Haeusle

The _ss_ between two vowels was imperfect, reminding one of the English "th" and the German "sch" and "s." The child could not at this time be brought to learn by heart.

We see, from these three versions, how unequal the capacity for articulation is in its development, and how varied it is in regard to the omission of difficult consonants and the substitution of others in place of them, as well as in regard to transposition, e. g., in _wand_, _walt_, _wlad_ (Wald), _wenn_, _wid_, _wi[)e]ds_, _fint_ (Wind)--and this even in the same individual.

As no one thus far has instituted comparisons of this sort, one more example may be given. The verses taught by Sigismund to his child (for whom I use the sign S) of twenty-one months, were often repeated by my boy (A), of twenty-five months, to me, and by the boy from Duesseldorf (D), in his twenty-fifth month, to his mother:

S. A D. [_______________________] 21st month. 25th month. 27th month. 25th month. Guter tute tuten tuter guter Mond bohnd monn mond Mund Du gehst du tehz du gehts du dehst du gehs so stille so tinne so tilte so tille ho tille durch die duch die durch die durch die durch die Abendwolken aten-bonten aben-woltn abendwolkn abehtwolken him in in in hin gehst so tehz so gehts so dehst so gehs so traurig tautech (atich) treuja trauig terauhig und ich und ich unn ich und ich und ich fuehle buene felam fuehle fuehle dass ich dass ich dess ich dass ich dass ich ohne Ruhe one ule ohno ruhge ohne ruhe ohni ruhe bin bin bin bin bin Guter tute hotten tuter guter Mond bohnd mohn mond mond du darfst du atz du dafp du darfst du darf es wissen es bitten es witsen es wissen es wissen weil du so bein du so leil du so weil du so weil du ho verschwiegen bieten wereidsam verwiegen werwiegen bist bitz bits bist bits warum amum wa-um warum wahum meine meine meine meinhe meine Thraenen taenen taenen thraenen taenen fliessen bieten flietjam fliessen fliessen und mein und mein und mein und mein und mein Herz so aetz so hetz so erst so hetz ho traurig ist atich iz treutjam its trauig ist taudig ist Errors 24 26 13 18

The errors are very unlike, and are characteristic for each child. The fact that in the case of A the errors diminished by half within two months is to be explained by frequency of recitation. I may add that the inclination to recite was so often lacking that a good deal of pains was required to bring the child to it.

From the vocabulary of the second year of the child's life, according to the observations of Sigismund and myself, the following words of frequent use are also worthy of notice:

[ Vater Mutter Anna Milch Kuh Pferd | (father) (mother) (milk) (cow) (horse) S. | _atte_ _amme_ _anne_ _minne_ _muh_ _hotto_ | _aette_ _aemme_ _dodo_ | _tate_ _aemmaem_ _paed_ | _fatte_ _maemme_ [ _matte_

{_va-ata_ _mama_ _anna_ _mimi_ _mumuh_ _otto_ P. {_papa_ _mukuh_ _pfowed_ { _fowid_

Vogel Mund Nase Ohr Haare Finger Da (bird) (mouth) (nose) (ear) (hair) (there) S. _piep-piep_ _mund_ _ase_ _ohn_ _ale_ _finne_ _da_ P. _piep_, _pipiep_ _mum_ _nane_ _o-a_ _ha-i_ {finge _da_ {wi-er

Adieu Guten Tag Fort Ja Nein (good-day) (away) (yes) (no) S. _ade_ _tag_ _fot_ _ja_ _nein_ P. _adjee_ _tatach_ _wott_ _ja_; _jaja_ _neinein_

Grossmutter Kuk Zucker Karl Grete (grandmother) (sugar) {_tosutte_ _o-tute_ _zucke_ _all_ _ete_ S. {_abutte_ {_osmutte_

P. {_a-mama_ _kuk_ _ucka_ _kara_ _dete_ {_e-mama_

Sigismund noticed the following names of animals (in imitation of words given to the children): _bae_, _put_, _gikgak_, _waekwaek_, _huhu_, _ihz_ (Hinz). I did not find these with my child. Sigismund likewise observed _baie-baie_ for Wiege (cradle), which my child was not acquainted with; _paepae_ for verborgen (hidden); _eichoenten_ for Eichhoernchen (squirrel); _aepften_ for Aepfelchen (little apple); _maedsen_ and _maedis_ for Maedchen (girl); _atatt_ for Bernhard; _hundis_ for Hundchen, the Thueringian form of Huendchen (little dog); _pot_ for Topf (pot); _dot_ for dort (yonder). On the other hand, both children used _wehweh_ for Schmerz (pain); _caput_ for zerbrochen (broken to pieces); _schoos_, _sooss_ for "auf den Schooss moecht ich" (I want to get up in the lap); _auf_ for "hinauf moechte ich gehoben werden" (I want to be taken up); _toich_ for Storch (stork); _tul_ for Stuhl (chair). A third child in my presence called his grandmother _mama-mama_, i. e., twice-mamma, in distinction from the mother. This, however, does not necessarily imply a gift for invention, as the expression "Mamma's Mamma" may have been used of the grandmother in speaking to the child.

Other children of the same age do very much the same. The boy D, though he repeated cleverly what was said, was not good at naming objects when he was expected to do this of himself. He would say, e. g., _pilla_ for Spiegel (mirror). At this same period (twenty-five months) he could not yet give the softened or liquid sound of consonants (mouilliren). He said _n_ and _i_ and _a_ very plainly, and also _i-a_, but not _nja_, and not once "ja"; but, on the contrary, always turned away angrily when his father or I, or others, required it of him. But as late as the twenty-eighth month echolalia was present in the highest degree in this very vigorous and intelligent child, for he would at times repeat mechanically the last word of every sentence spoken in his hearing, and even a single word, e. g., when some one asked "Warum?" (why) he likewise said _warum_ without answering the question, and he continued to do it for days again and again in a vacant way, with and without the tone of interrogation (which he did not understand). From this we see again plainly that the imitation of sounds is independent of the understanding of them, but is dependent on the functions of articulation.

These functions are discussed by themselves in the work of Prof. Fritz Schultze, of Dresden, "Die Sprache des Kindes" ("The Language of the Child," Leipsic, 1880, 44 pp.). The author defends in this the "principle of the least effort." He thinks the child begins with the sounds that are made with the least physiological effort, and proceeds gradually to the more difficult sounds, i. e., those which require more "labor of nerve and muscle." This "law" is nothing else than the "loi du moindre effort" which is to be traced back to Maupertuis, and which was long ago applied to the beginnings of articulation in children: e. g., by Buffon in 1749 ("Oeuvres completes," Paris, 1844, iv, pp. 68, 69), and, in spite of Littre, again quite recently by B. Perez[F] ("Les trois premieres Annees de l'Enfant," Paris, 1878, pp. 228-230, _seq._) But this supposed "law" is opposed by many facts which have been presented in this chapter and the preceding one. The impossibility of determining the degree of "physiological effort" required for each separate sound in the child, moreover, is well known. Besides, every sound may be produced with very unequal expenditure of force; but the facts referred to are enough for refutation of the theory. According to Schultze, e. g., the vowels ought, in the process of development of the child's speech, to appear in the following order, separated in time by long intervals: 1. Ae; 2. A; 3. U; 4. O; 5. E; 6. I; 7. Oe; 8. Ue. It is correct that _ae_ is one of the vowels that may be first plainly distinguished; but neither is it the first vowel audible--on the contrary, the first audible vowel is indistinct, and imperfectly articulated vowels are the first--nor can we admit that _ae_ is produced with less of effort than is _a_. The reverse is the case. Further, _oe_ is said to present "enormous difficulties," and hence has the place next to the last; but I have often heard the _oe_, short and long, perfectly pure in the second month, long before the _i_, and that not in my child alone. From the observations upon the latter, the order of succession appears to be the following: Indeterminate vowels, _u_, _ae_, _a_, _oe_, _o_, _ai_, _ao_, _i_, _e_, _ue_, _oeu_ (French sound in coeur), _au_, _oi_. Thus, for the above eight vowels, instead of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, the order 3, 1, 2, 7, 4, 6, 5, 8, so that only _i_ and _ue_ keep their place. But other children give a varying order, and these differences in the order of succession of vowels as well as of consonants will certainly not be referred to the "influence of heredity." Two factors of quite another sort are, on the contrary, to be taken into account here in the case of every normal child without exception, apart from the unavoidable errors in every assigned order growing out of incomplete observation. In the earliest period and when the babbling monologues begin, the cavity of the mouth takes on an infinitely manifold variety of forms--the lips, tongue, lower jaw, larynx, are moved, and in a greater variety of ways than ever afterward. At the same time there is expiration, often loud expiration, and thus originates entirely at random sometimes one sound, sometimes another. The child _hears_ sounds and tones new to him, hears his own voice, takes pleasure in it, and delights in making sounds, as he does in moving his limbs in the bath. It is natural that he should find more pleasure in some sounds, in others less. The first are more frequently made by him on account of the motor memories that are associated with the acoustic memories, and an observer does not hear the others at all if he observes the child only from time to time. In fact, however, almost all simple sounds, even the most difficult, are formed in purity before they are used in speaking in the first eight months--most frequently those that give the child pleasure, that satisfy his desires, or lessen his discomfort. It is not to be forgotten that even the _ae_, which requires effort on account of the drawing back and spreading out of the tongue, diminishes discomfort. The fretful babe feels better when he cries _u-ae_ than when he keeps silent. The second factor is determined by the surroundings of the child. Those sounds which the child distinctly hears he will be able to imitate correctly sooner than he will other sounds: but he will be in condition to hear most correctly, first of all, the sounds that are most frequent, just because these most frequently excite the auditory nerve and its tract in the brain; secondly, among these sounds that are acoustically most sharply defined, viz., first the vowels, then the resonants (m, n, ng); last, the compound "friction-sounds" (fl, schl). But it is only in part that the surroundings determine this order of succession for the sounds. Another thing that partly determines and modifies this order is the child's own unwearied practice in forming consonant-sounds. He hears his own voice now better than he did at an earlier period when he was forming vowels only. He most easily retains and repeats, among the infinitely manifold consonants that are produced by loud expiration, those which have been distinctly heard by him. This is owing to the association of the motor and the acoustic memory-image in the brain. These are the most frequent in his speech. Not until later does the mechanical difficulty of articulation exert an influence, and this comes in at the learning of the compound sounds. Hence there can not be any chronological order of succession of sounds that holds good universally in the language of the child, because each language has a different order in regard to the frequency of appearance of the sounds; but heredity can have no influence here, because every child of average gifts, though it may hear from its birth a language unknown to its ancestors, if it hears no other, yet learns to speak this language perfectly. What is hereditary is the great plasticity of the entire apparatus of speech, the voice, and with it a number of sounds that are not acquired, as _m_. An essential reason for the defective formation of sounds in children born deaf is the fact that they do not hear their own voice. This defect may also be hereditary.

The treatise of F. Schultze contains, besides, many good remarks upon the _technique_ of the language of the child, but, as they are of inferior psychogenetic interest, they need not be particularly mentioned here. Others of them are only partially confirmed by the observations, as is shown by a comparison with what follows.

Gustav Lindner ("Twelfth Annual Report of the Lehrer-seminars at Zschopau," 1882, p. 13) heard from his daughter, in her ninth week, _arra_ or _aerrae_, which was uttered for months. Also _aeckn_ appeared early. The principle of the least effort Lindner finds to be almost absolutely refuted by his observations. He rightly remarks that the frequent repetitions of the same groups of sounds, in the babbling monologues, are due in part to a kind of pleasure in success, such as urges adults also to repeat their successful efforts. Thus his child used to imitate the reading of the newspaper (in the second half-year) by _degattegattegatte_. In the eleventh and twelfth months the following were utterances of hers in repeating words heard: _omama_, _oia_ (Rosa), _batta_ (Bertha), _aechard_ (Richard), _wiwi_ (Friedchen), _agga_ (Martha), _olla olla_ (Olga, her own name). Milch (milk) she called _mimi_, Stuhl (chair) _tuhl_, Laterne (lantern), _katonne_, the whistle of an engine in a neighboring factory, _wuh_ (prolonged, onomatopoetic), Paul, _gouch_, danke (thank you), _dagn_ or _dagni_, Baum (tree), _maum_. Another child substituted _u_ for _i_ and _e_, saying _hund_ for "Kind," and _uluwant_ for "Elephant"; thus, _ein fomme hund lass waede much_ for "ein frommes Kind lass werden mich" (let me become a pious child). Lindner's child, however, called "werden" not _waede_ but _wegen_; and "turnen" she called _tung_, "blau" _balau_. At the end of the second year no sound in the German language presented difficulties to the child. Her pronunciation was, however, still incorrect, for the correct pronunciation of the separate sounds does not by any means carry with it the pronunciation of them in their combinations. This remark of Lindner's is directly to the point, and is also confirmed, as I find, by the first attempts of the child of four years to read a word after having learned the separate letters. The learning of the correct pronunciation is also delayed by the child's preference of his original incorrect pronunciation, to which he is accustomed, and which is encouraged by imitations of it on the part of his relatives. Lindner illustrates this by good examples. His child continued to say _mimela_ after "Kamilla" was easy for him. Not till the family stopped saying it did "Kamilla" take its place. At the age of three and a half years the child still said _gebhalten_ for "behalten" and _vervloren_ for "verloren," as well as _gebhuete_ for "behuete." "Grosspapa" was called successively _opapa_, _gropapa_, _grosspapa_. Grossmama had a corresponding development. "Fleisch" (meat) was first called _jeich_, then _leisch_; "Kartoffeln" (potatoes) _kaffom_, then _kaftoffeln_; "Zschopau" _sopau_, _schodau_, _tschopau_; "Sparbuechse" (savings-box) _babichse_, _spabichse_, _spassbuechse_, _sparzbuechse_; "Haering" (herring, also gold-fish) _haenging_. A sound out of the second syllable goes into the first. The first question, _isn das?_ from "Was ist denn das?" (what is that, pray?) was noticed in the twentieth month; the interrogative word _was?_ (what) in the twenty-second month. Wo? (where) and Wohin? (whither) had the same meaning (that of the French _ou?_), and this as late as in the fourth year. The word "Ich" (I) made its appearance in the thirtieth month. As to verbs, it is to be mentioned that, with the child at two years of age, before the use of the tenses there came the special word denoting activity in general: thus he said, when looking at a head of Christ by Guido Reni, _thut beten_, instead of "betet" ("does pray," instead of "prays"). The verb "sein" (be) was very much distorted: _Warum warst du nicht fleissig gebist?_ (gebist for gewesen) (why have you not been industrious?). (Cf., pp. 172, 177.) He inflected _bin_, _binst_ (for bist), _bint_ (ist), _binn_ (sind), _bint_ (sind and seid), _binn_ (sind). Further, _wir isn_ (wir sind, we are), and _nun sei ich ruhig_ (sei for bin) (now I am quiet), and _ich habe nicht ruhig geseit_ (_habe_ for "bin" and _geseit_ for "gewesen") (I have not been quiet), are worthy of note, because they show how strong an influence in the formation of words during the transition period is exerted by the forms most frequently heard--here the imperative. The child used first of all the imperative; last the subjunctive. The superlative and comparative were not used by this child until the fourth year.

The observations of Lindner (edited anew in the periodical "Kosmos" for 1882) are among the best we have.

In the case of four brothers and sisters, whose mother, Frau Dr. Friedemann, of Berlin, has most kindly placed at my disposal trustworthy observations concerning them, the first articulate sounds heard were _aerae_, _haegae_, _aeche_, and a deep guttural, rattling or snarling sound (Schnarren); but the last was heard from only one of the children.

The above syllables contain three consonants (_r_, _h_, _ch_) that are declared by many, wrongly, to be very late in their appearance. These children in their first attempts at speaking often left out the first consonant of a word pronounced for them, or else substituted for it the one last heard, as if their memory were not equal to the retaining of the sounds heard first: e. g., in the fifteenth month they would say _t[)e]_, _t_ for _Hut_ (hat), _Lale_ for _Rosalie_; in the twenty-fourth, _kanke_ for _danke_ (thank you), _kecke_ for _Decke_ (covering), _kucker_ for _Zucker_ (sugar), _huch_, _huche_ for _Schuh_, _Schuhe_ (shoe, shoes), fifteenth month. In the last two cases comes in, to explain the omission, also the mechanical difficulty of the _Z_ and _Sch_. The oldest of these children, a girl, when a year old, used to say, when she refused anything, _ateta_, with a shake of the head. She knew her own image in the glass, and pointed at it, saying _taete_ (for _Kaete_). In the following table the Roman figures stand for the month; F_{1}, F_{2}, F_{3}, F_{4}, for the four children in the order of their ages. No further explanation will be needed:

VIII. _papa_ distinctly (F_{1}); _dada_, _da_, _deda_, first syllables (F_{4}); _derta_ for _Bertha_ (F_{1}).

X. _dada_, name for all possible objects (F_{2}); _papa_ (F_{3}); _ada_, _mama_, _detta_ (F_{4}).

XII. _puppe_ (doll) correctly; _taete_ for _Kaete_ (F_{1}); _ida_, _papa_, _tata_ for _Tante_ (aunt); _taete_ (F_{4}).

XIII. _mama_, _detta_ for _Bertha_; _wauwau_ (F_{2}); _lala_ (F_{4}).

XIV. _ba_ for _baden_ (bathe) (F_{2}).

XV. _hia_ for _Ida_; _ate_ for _artig_ (well-behaved); _da_ for _danke_; _bappen_ for _essen_ (eat); _piep_; _ja_, _nein_ (yes, no) correctly (F_{1}).

XVI. _ei_ (egg) correctly; _feisch_ for _Fleisch_ (meat); _waffer_ for _Wasser_ (water); _wuffe_ for _Suppe_ (F_{1}); _tatte_ for _Tante_; _tittak_; _Hut_ (F_{3}).

XIX. _at_ for _Katze_ (cat); _duh_ for _Kuh_ (cow); _w[=a]n_ for _Schwan_ (swan); _nine_ for _Kaninchen_ (rabbit); _betta_ for _Blaetter_ (leaves); _butta_ for _Butterblume_ (buttercup); _fiedemann_ for _Friedemann_; _taeti_ for _Kaeti_ (F_{1}); _gad_ for _gerade_ (straight); _kumm_ for _krumm_ (crooked) (F_{3}).

XX. _fidat_ for _Zwieback_ (biscuit); _tierdatten_ for _Thiergarten_ (zooelogical garden); _waden_ for _wagen_ (carriage); _naehnaden_ for _Naehnadel_ (needle); _wewette_ for _serviette_ (napkin); _teid_ for Kleid (dress); _weife_ for Seife (soap); _famm_ for _Schwamm_ (sponge); _tonnat_ for _Konrad_; _potne_ for _Portemonnaie_; _hauf_ for _herauf_ (up here); _hunta_ for _herunter_ (down here); _hiba papa_ for _lieber_ (dear) _papa_ (F_{1}); _tue_ for _Thuer_ (door); _bau_ for _bauen_ (build); _teta_ for _Kaete_; _manna_ for _Amanda; ta_ for _guten Tag_ (good-day); _ku_ for _Kugel_ (ball) (F_{2}); _appudich_ for _Apfelmuss_ (apple-sauce); _mich_ for _Milch_ (milk); _ule pomm_ for _Ulrich komm_ (Ulrich come); _ku_ for _Kuchen_ (cake); _lilte_ for _Mathilde_ (F_{3}).

XXI. _teine_ for _Steine_ (stones); _bimelein_ for _Bluemelein_ (little flowers); _mamase_ for _Mamachen_ (little mama); _tettern_ for _klettern_ (climb); _Papa weint nis_ (Papa doesn't cry), first sentence (F_{1}); _Mamase, Taete artig--Tuss_ (means _Mamachen, Kaete ist wieder artig, gib ihr einen Kuss_) (Mamma, darling, Katy is good again, give her a kiss) (F_{1}); _Amanda's Hut_, _Mamases Hirm_ (for Schirm) (Amanda's hat, mamma's umbrella), first use of the genitive case (F_{1}); _Mein Buch_ (my book); _dein Ball_ (thy ball) (F_{1}); _das?_ for _was ist das?_ (what is that?) in the tone of interrogation (F_{1}) _dida_ for _Ida_; _lala_ for _Rosalie_; _fadi_ for _Fahne_ (flag); _bueda_ for _Bruederchen_ (little brother); _hu-e_ for _Schuhe_ (shoes); _mai maich_, for _meine Milch_ (my milk) (F_{2}).

XXII. _kusch_ for _Kuss_ (kiss); _sch_ generally used instead of _s_ for months (F_{3}).

XXIII. _koka_ for _Cacao_; _batt_ for _Bett_ (bed); _emmu_ for _Hellmuth_ (light-heartedness); _nanna mommom_ (Bon-bon); _papa_, _appel_ for _Papa_, _bitte einen Apfel_ (Papa, please, an apple) (F_{2}); _petscher_ for _Schwester_ (sister); _till_ for _still_; _bils_ for _Milch_; _hiba vata_ for _lieber Vater_ (dear father) (F_{3}).

XXIV. _pija eine_ for _eine Fliege_ (a fly); _pipik_ for _Musik_. Sentences begin to be formed (F_{3}).

XXV. _pater_ for _Vater_ (father); _appelsine_ for _Apfelsine_ (orange) (F_{2}).

All these observations confirm my results in regard to articulation, viz., that in very many cases the more difficult sounds, i. e., those that require a more complicated muscular action, are either omitted or have their places supplied by others; but this rule does not by any means hold good universally: e. g., the sound preferred by F_{3}, _sch_, is more difficult than _s_, and my child very often failed to produce it as late as the first half of the fourth year.

In the twenty-second month, in the case of the intelligent little girl F_{1}, numbering began suddenly. She took small stones from a table in the garden, one after another, and counted them distinctly up to the ninth. The persons present could not explain this surprising performance (for the child had not learned to count) until it was discovered that on the previous day some one had counted the stairs for the child in going up. My child did not begin to count till the twenty-ninth month, and, indeed, although he knew the numbers (their names, not their meaning), he counted only by adding one to one (cf. above, p. 172). Sigismund's boy, long before he formed sentences, on seeing two horsemen, one following the other at a short interval, said, _eite_ (for Reiter)! _noch eins!_ This proves the activity of the faculty of numbering.

The boy F_{3}, at the age of two and two thirds years, still said _schank_ for _Schrank_ and _nopf_ for _Knopf_, and, on being told to say _Sch-r-ank_ plainly, he said _rrr-schank_. This child from the thirty-first month on made much use of the interrogative words. _Warum?_ _weshalb?_ he asked at every opportunity; very often, too, _was?_ _wer?_ _wo?_ (Why? wherefore? what? who? where?); sometimes _was?_ four or five times when he had been spoken to. When the meaning of what had been said was made plain, then the child stopped asking questions.

The little girl F_{4}, in her thirteenth month, always says, when she sees a clock, _didda_ (for "tick-tack," which has been said to her), and imitates with her finger the movement of the pendulum. It was noticed of this child that, when not yet five months old, she would accompany a song, sung for her by her mother, with a continuous, drawling _aeh-aeh-aeh_; but, as soon as the mother stopped, the child became silent also. The experiment was one day (the one hundred and forty-fifth of the child's life) repeated nine times, with the same result.

I have myself repeatedly observed that babes in the fourth month respond to words spoken in a forcible, pleasant manner with sounds indeterminate often, with _oe-[)e]_ and other vowels. There is no imitation in this, but a reaction that is possible only through participation of the cerebrum, as in the case of the joyous sounds at music at an earlier period.

The date at which the words heard from members of the family are for the first time clearly imitated, and the time when the words of the mother-tongue are first used independently, depends, undoubtedly, with children in sound condition, chiefly upon the extent to which people occupy themselves with the children. According to Heinr. Feldmann (_De statu normali functionum corporis humani_. Inaugural dissertation, Bonn, 1833, p. 3), thirty-three children spoke for the first time (_prima verba fecerunt_) as follows:

14 15 16 17 18 19 Month. 1 8 19 3 1 1 Children.

Of these there could walk alone

8 9 10 11 12 Month. --^-- ---^--- 3 24 6 Children.

According to this, it is generally the case (the author presumably observed Rhenish children) that the first independent step is taken in walking several months earlier than the first word is spoken. But the statement of Heyfelder is not correct, that the average time at which sound children learn to walk ("laufen lernen") comes almost exactly at the completion of the twelfth month. The greater part of them are said by him to begin to walk a few days before or after the 365th day. R. Demme observed that the greater part began to walk between the twelfth and eighteenth months, and my inquiries yield a similar result. Sigismund's boy could run before he imitated words and gestures, and he did not yet form a sentence when he had more than sixty words at his command. Of two sisters, the elder could not creep in her thirteenth month, could walk alone for the first time in the fifteenth month, step over a threshold alone in the eighteenth, jump down alone from a threshold in the nineteenth, run nimbly in the twentieth; the younger, on the other hand, could creep alone cleverly at the beginning of the tenth month, even over thresholds, could take the first unsteady steps alone in the thirteenth, and stride securely over the threshold alone in the fifteenth. In spite of this considerable start the younger child was not, by a great deal, so far advanced in articulation, in repeating words after others, and in the use of words, in her fifteenth month, as the elder was in her fifteenth. The latter spoke before she walked, the former ran before she spoke (Frau von Struempell). My child could imitate gestures (beckoning, clinching the fist, nodding the head) and single syllables (_heiss_), before he could walk, and did not learn to speak till after that; whereas the child observed by Wyma could stand firmly at nine months, and walk soon after, and he spoke at the same age. Inasmuch as in such statistical materials the important thing is to know what is meant by "speaking for the first time," whether it be saying _mama_, or imitating, or using correctly a word of the language that is to be spoken later, or forming a sentence of more than one word--and yet on these points data are lacking--we can not regard the laborious inquiries and collections as of much value. Children in sound condition walk for the most part before they speak, and understand what is said long before they walk. A healthy boy, born on the 13th of July, 1873, ran alone for the first time on the 1st of November, 1874, and formed his first sentence, _hia muta ji_ ("Marie! die Mutter ist ausgegangen," _ji_ = adieu) (Mary, mother has gone out), on the 21st of November, 1875, thus a full year later (Schulte).

More important, psychogenetically, are observations concerning the forming of new words with a definite meaning before learning to speak--words not to be considered as mutilations, imperfectly imitated or onomatopoetic forms (these, too, would be imitations), or as original primitive interjections. In spite of observations and inquiries directed especially to this point, I have not been able to make sure that any inventions of that sort are made before there has taken place, through the medium of the child's relatives, the first association of ideas with articulate sounds and syllables. There is no reason for supposing them to be made by children. According to the foregoing data, they are not thus made. All the instances of word-inventions of a little boy, communicated by Prof. S. S. Haldemann, of the University at Philadelphia, in his "Note on the Invention of Words" ("Proceedings of the American Philological Association," July 14, 1880) are, like those noted by Taine, by Holden (see below), by myself, and others, onomatopoetic (imitative, pp. 160, 91). He called a cow _m_, a bell _tin-tin_ (Holden's boy called a church-bell _ling-dong-mang_ [communicated in correspondence]), a locomotive _tshu, tshu,_ the noise made by throwing objects into the water _boom_, and he extended this word to mean throw, strike, fall, spill, without reference to the sound. But the point of departure here, also, was the sound. In consideration of the fact that a sound formed in imitation of it, that is, a repetition of the tympanic vibrations by means of the vibrations of the vocal cords, is employed as a _word_ for a phenomenon associated with the sound--that this is done by means of the faculty of generalization belonging to children that are intelligent but as yet without speech--it is perfectly allowable, notwithstanding the scruples and objections of even a Max Mueller, to look for the origin of language in the imitation of sounds and the repetition of our own inborn vocal sounds, and so in an imitation. For the power of forming concepts must have manifested itself in the primitive man, as is actually the case in the infant, by movements of many sorts before articulate language existed. The question is, not whether the roots of language originated onomatopoetically or interjectionally, but simply whether they originated through imitation or not. For interjections, all of them, could in no way come to be joined together so as to be means of mutual understanding, i. e., words, unless one person imitated those of another. Now if the alalic child be tested as to whether he forms new words in any other way than by imitation and transformation of what he imitates, i. e., whether he forms them solely of his own ability, be it by the combination of impulsive sounds of his own or of sounds accidentally arising in loud expiration, we find no sure case of it. Sound combinations, syllables--and those not in the least imitated--there are in abundance, but that even a single one is, without the intervention of the persons about the child, constantly associated with one and the same idea (before other ideas have received their verbal designation--likewise by means of the members of the family--and have been made intelligible to the child), can not be shown to be probable. My observations concerning the word _atta_ (p. 122 _et al._) would tend in that direction, were it not that the _atta_, uttered in the beginning without meaning, had first got the meaning of "away," through the fact that _atta_ was once said by somebody at going away.

So long as proof is wanting, we can not believe that each individual child discovers anew the fundamental fact of the expression of ideas by movements of the tongue; but we have to admit that he has inherited the faculty for such expression, and simply manifests it when he finds occasion for imitations.

The first person that has attempted to fix the _number_ of all the words used by the child, independently, before the beginning of the third year of life (and these only), is an astronomer, E. S. Holden, director of the Observatory of the University at Madison, Wisconsin. His results in the case of three children have been recently published (in the "Transactions of the American Philological Association," 1887, pp. 58-68).

Holden found, by help of Webster's "Unabridged Dictionary," his own vocabulary to consist of 33,456 words, with a probable error of one per cent. Allowing a probable error of two per cent, his vocabulary would be comprised between the limits of 34,125 words and 32,787 words. A vocabulary of 25,000 words and over is, according to the researches of himself and his friends, by no means an unusual one for grown persons of average intelligence and education.

Holden now determined in the most careful manner the words actually used by two children during the twenty-fourth month of their lives. A friend in England ascertained the same for a third child. All doubtful words were rigidly excluded. For example, words from nursery rhymes were excluded, unless they were independently and separately used in the same way with words of daily and common use. In the first two cases the words so excluded are above 500 in number. Again, the names of objects represented in pictures were not included unless they were often spontaneously used by the children. The lists of words are presented in the order of their initial letters, because the ease or difficulty of pronouncing a word, the author is convinced, largely determines its early or late adoption. In this I can not fully agree with him, on the ground of my own experience (particularly since I have myself been teaching my child English, in his fourth year; he learns the language easily). It is not correct that the pronunciation rather than the meaning makes the learning of a word difficult. Thus, in all three of Holden's cases, the words that have the least easy initial (s) predominate; the child, however, avoided them and substituted easy ones. Holden makes no mention of this; and in his list of all the words used he puts together, strangely, under one and the same letter, without regard to their sound-(phonic) value, vocables that begin with entirely different sounds. Thus, e. g., under _c_ are found _corner_ (_k_), _chair_ (tsch), _cellar_ (_s_); under _k_, actually _knee_ (_n_) and _keep_ (_k_), and, under _s_, words that begin with the same _s_-sound as in _cellar_, e. g., _soap_, and also words beginning with the _sch_-sound, _sugar_, and with _st_, _sw_, _sm_, and many others. As the words of the three children are grouped, not according to the _sounds_ with which they begin, but according to their initial _letters_, into twenty-six classes, the author's conclusions can not be admitted. The words must first all be arranged according to their initial _sounds_. When this task is accomplished, which brings _no_ and _know_, e. g., into one class, _wrap_ and _rag_ into a second--whereas they were put in four different classes--then we find by no means the same order of succession that Holden gives. The author wrote to me, however, in 1882, that his oldest child _understood_ at least 1,000 words more than those enumerated here, i. e., than those published by him, and that with both children facility of pronunciation had more influence in regard to the use of words than did the ease with which the words could be understood; this, however, does not plainly follow from the printed statements before me, as he admits. When the first-born child was captivated by a new word, she was accustomed to practice it by herself, alone, and then to come and employ it with a certain pride. The second child did so, too, only in a less striking manner. The boy, on the contrary, who was four years old in December, 1881, and who had no ear for music and less pride than his sisters, did not do as they did.

Further, the statements of the number of all the nouns, adjectives, verbs, and adverbs used by a child of two years are of interest, although they present several errors: e. g., _supper_ makes its appearance twice in the case of the same child under _s_, and _enough_ figures as an adjective. For the three girls, in their twenty-fourth month, the results were:

|----------------|-----------------|------------- Parts of Speech. | First child. | Second child. | Third child. -----------------------|----------------|-----------------|------------- Nouns | 285 | 230 | 113 Verbs | 107 | 90 | 30 Adjectives | 34 | 37 | 13 Adverbs | 29 | 17 | 6 Other parts of speech | 28 | 25 | 11 |----------------|-----------------|------------- Total | 483 | 399 | 173 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

A fourth child, brother of the first and second, made use (according to the lists kindly communicated to me by the author), in his twenty-fourth month, of 227 nouns--some proper names among them--105 verbs, 22 adjectives, 10 adverbs, and 33 words of the remaining classes (all these figures being taken from the notes of the child's mother).

From these four vocabularies of the twenty-fourth month it plainly results that the stock of words and the kinds of words depend primarily on the words most used in the neighborhood of the child, and the objects most frequently perceived; they can not, therefore, be alike in different children. The daughters of the astronomer, before their third year, name correctly a portrait of Galileo, and one of Struve. A local "tone," or peculiarity of this sort, attaches to every individual child, a general one to the children of a race. I may add that the third child (in England) seems to have been less accurately observed than the others (in Madison, Wisconsin). Great patience and attention are required to observe and note down every word used by a child in a month.

Without mentioning the name of Holden, but referring to his investigations, which, in spite of the defects mentioned, are of the very highest merit, M. W. Humphreys, Professor of Greek in Vanderbilt University, Nashville, has published a similar treatise, based on observations of his own ("A Contribution to Infantile Linguistic," in the "Transactions of the American Philological Association," 1880, xi, pp. 6-17). He collected, with the help of a dictionary, all the words that a little girl of just two years "had full command of," whether correctly pronounced or not, and whether they appeared exactly in the twenty-fourth month or earlier. He simply required to be convinced that every one of the words was understood and had been spontaneously used, and could still be used. He did not include proper names, or words (amounting to hundreds) from nursery-rhymes, or numerals, or names of the days of the week, because he was not sure that the child had a definite idea associated with them. The vocabulary thus numbered 1,121 words: 592 nouns, 283 verbs, 114 adjectives, 56 adverbs, 35 pronouns, 28 prepositions, 5 conjunctions, and 8 interjections. In this table irregular verb-and noun-forms are not counted as separate words, except in the case of defective verbs, as _am_, _was_, _been_. The author presents the 1,121 words according to their classification as parts of speech, and according to initial _letters_, not according to initial _sounds_, although he himself declares this an erroneous proceeding, as I did in discussing Holden's paper. The only reason for it was convenience.

In the adoption of a word by the child, difficulty of utterance had some influence in the _first_ year; when the little girl was two years old, this had ceased to have any effect whatever. She had by that time adopted certain substitutes for letters that she could not pronounce, and words containing these letters were employed by her as freely as if the substitutes had been the correct sounds. In regard to the meaning, and the frequency of use dependent upon it, it is to be observed that the simplest ideas are most frequently expressed. When two words are synonymous, one of them will be used exclusively by a child, because of the rarer employment of the other by persons speaking in the child's presence. Here, too, the local "tone" that has been mentioned made itself felt; thus, the little girl used the word "crinoid" every day, to designate sections of fossil crinoid stems which abounded in neighboring gravel walks.

As to parts of speech, nouns were most readily seized; then, in order, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, pronouns. Prepositions and conjunctions the child began to employ early, but acquired them slowly. Natural interjections--_wah_, for instance--she used to some extent from the beginning; conventional ones came rather late.

The following observations by Humphreys are very remarkable, and are, in part, up to this time unique:

When about four months old the child began a curious and amusing mimicry of conversation, in which she so closely imitated the ordinary cadences that persons in an adjacent room would mistake it for actual conversation. The articulation, however, was indistinct, and the vowel-sounds obscure, and no attempt at separate words, whether real or imaginary, was made until she was six months old, _when she articulated most syllables distinctly_, without any apparent effort.

When she was eight months old it was discovered that she knew by name every person in the house, as well as most of the objects in her room, and the parts of the body, especially of the face. She also understood simple sentences, such as, "Where is the fire?" "Where is the baby in the glass?" to which she would reply by pointing. In the following months she named many things correctly, thus using words as words in the proper sense. The pronunciation of some final consonants was indistinct, but all initial consonants were distinctly pronounced, except _th_, _t_, _d_, _n_, _l_. These the child learned in the eleventh month. At this period she could imitate with accuracy any sound given her, and had a special preference for _ng_ (_ngang_, _ngeng_), beginning a mimicry of language again, this time using real or imaginary words, without reference to signification. But an obscurity of vowel-sounds had begun again. After the first year her facility of utterance seemed to have been lost, so that she watched the mouths of others closely when they were talking, and labored painfully after the sounds. Finally, she dropped her mimicry of language, and, at first very slowly, acquired words with the ordinary infant pronunciation, showing a preference for labials (_p_, _b_, _m_) and linguals (_t_, _d_, _n_, not _l_). Presently she substituted easy sounds for difficult ones. In the period from eighteen months to two years of age, the following defects of articulation appeared regularly: _v_ was pronounced like _b_, _th_ (_this_) like _d_, _th_ (_thin_) like _t_, _z_ like _d_, _s_ like _t_, _r_ like _w_, _j_ like _d_, _ch_ like _t_, _sh_ like _t_; further:

Initial. Final. _f_ like _w_, _f_ like _p_, _l_ not at all, _l_ correctly, _g_ like _d_, _g_ correctly, _k_ like _t_, _k_ correctly,

and in general correctly, _m_, _b_, _p_, _n_, _d_, _t_, _h_, _ng_, _w_. On the other hand, the initial sounds _bl_, _br_, _li_, _pr_, _fl_, _fr_, _dr_, _tr_, _thr_, _sp_, _st_, became _b_, _b_, _p_, _p_, _w_, _w_, _d_, _t_, _t_, _p_, _t_; and the initial sounds _sk_, _sw_, _sm_, _sn_, _sl_, _gl_, _gr_, _kw_, _kl_, _kr_, _hw_, became _t_, _w_, _m_, _n_, _t_ (for _s_), _d_, _w_, _w_, _t_, _w_, _hw_ (_h_ weak). The letter _y_ was not pronounced at all, at first.

From this table, as Humphreys rightly observes, may be drawn the following conclusions in regard to the initial sounds of words:

When a letter which could be pronounced correctly preceded another, the first was retained, but, if both were represented by substitutes, the second was retained. If, however, the second was one which the child made silent, then she pronounced the first. Thus, _tr_ = _t_, _kr_ = _w_ (for _r_), _kl_ = _t_ (for _k_, _l_ being one of her silent letters). With these results should be compared those presented in regard to German children, in the paper of Fritz Schultze (p. 239 above) (which likewise are not of universal application).

The accent was for the most part placed on the last syllable. Only one case of the invention of a new word could be established. When the child was about eighteen months old, a fly flew all about her plate when she was eating, and she exclaimed, "The old fly went wiggely-waggely." But at this time the child had already learned to speak; she knew, therefore, that perceptions are expressed by words. Notwithstanding, the original invention remains remarkable, unless there may be found in it a reminiscence of some expression out of nursery-talk (cf., p. 238). Until the eighteenth month, "no" signified both "yes" and "no."

At the end of two years subordinate propositions were correctly employed. This was the case also with a German girl in Jena, who, for instance, said, "The ball which Puck has" (P. Fuerbringer). In the case of my boy such sentences did not make their appearance till much later.

I had hoped to find trustworthy observations in several other works besides those mentioned. Their titles led one to expect statements concerning the acquirement of speech by little children; thus, "Das Kind, Tagebuch eines Vaters" ("The Child, A Father's Diary"), by H. Semmig (second edition, Leipsic, 1876), and the book of B. Perez, already named (p. 239). But inasmuch as for the former of these writers the first cry of the newly-born is a "triumphal song of everlasting life," and for the second author "the glance" is associated with "the magnetic effluvia of the will," I must leave both of these works out of consideration. The second contains many statements concerning the doings and sayings of little children in France; but these can not easily be turned to account.

The same author has issued a new edition, in abridged form, of the "Memoirs," written, according to him, by Dietrich Tiedemann, of a son of Tiedemann two years of age (the biologist, Friedrich Tiedemann, born in 1781). (_Thierri Tiedemann et la science de l'enfant. Mes deux chats. Fragment de psychologie comparee par Bernard Perez._ Paris, 1881, pp. 7-38; Tiedemann, 39-78. "The First Six Weeks of Two Cats.") But it is merely on account of its historical interest that the book is mentioned here, as the scanty (and by no means objective) notes of the diary were made a hundred years ago. The treatises of Pollock and Egger, mentioned in the periodical "Mind" (London, July, 1881, No. 23), I am not acquainted with, and the same is true of the work of Schwarz (mentioned above, p. 224).

Very good general statements concerning the child's acquisition of speech are to be found in Degerando ("L'education des sourds-muets de naissance," 1 vol., Paris, 1827, pp. 32-57). He rightly maintains that the child learns to speak through his own observation, without attention from other persons, far more than through systematic instruction; the looks and gestures of the members of the family when talking with one another are especially observed by the child, who avails himself of them in divining the meaning of the words he hears. This divining, or guessing, plays in fact a chief part in the learning of speech, as I have several times remarked.

New comprehensive diaries concerning the actions of children in the first years of life are urgently to be desired. They should contain nothing but well-established _facts_, no hypotheses, and no repetitions of the statements of others.

Among the very friendly notes that have been sent to me, the following particularly conform to the above requirements. They were most kindly placed at my disposal by the Baroness von Taube, of Esthonia, daughter of the very widely and honorably known Count Keyserling. They relate to her first-born child, and come all of them from the mother herself:

In the first five months I heard from my son, when he cried, all the vowels. The sound _ae_ was the first and most frequent. Of the consonants, on the other hand, I heard only _g_, which appeared after seven weeks. When the child was fretful he often cried _gege_; when in good humor he often repeated the syllables _agu_, _agoe_, _aeou_, _ogoe_, _eia_; then _l_ came in, _uel_.

The same sounds in the case of my daughter; but from her I heard, up to her tenth month, in spite of all my observation, no other consonants than _g_, _b_, _w_, rarely _l_, and finally _m_-sounds. With my son at the beginning of the seventh month an R-sound appeared--_grr_, _grrr_, plainly associated with _d_ in _dirr dirr_. These sounds were decidedly sounds of discomfort, which expressed dissatisfaction, violent excitement, sleepiness; and they are made even now by the boy at four years of age when, e. g., he is in pain. In the ninth month _dada_ and _b_, _bab-a_, _baeb-ae_ are added. _Agoe_ also is often said, and _oe_ still more often. This _oe_ is already a kind of conscious attempt at speaking, for he uses it when he sees anything new, e. g., the dog Caro, which he observes with eager attention, as he does the cat, uttering aloud meanwhile _oe, oe_.

If any one is called, the child calls in a very loud voice, _Oe, oe!_ First imitation. (Gestures have been imitated since the eighth month, and the making of grimaces in the child's presence had to be strictly forbidden.) Understanding for what is said is also present, for when one calls "Caro, Caro," in his hearing, he looks about him as if he were looking for the dog. In the tenth month he often repeats _Pap-ba_, but it has no significance.

If "Backe backe kuchen" ("bake cakes," corresponding to our

"pat-a-cake") is said to him, he immediately pats his hands as if preparing bread for baking. In the eleventh month _Pap-ba_ is dropped. He now says often _daedaedaedae_, and, when he is dull or excited (_erregt_) or sleepy, _drin, drin_. These _r_-sounds do not occur with my daughter; but since her tenth month she uses _m_-sounds, _maemmae_ when she is sleepy or dull. The boy now stretches out his hand and beckons when he sees any one at a distance. At sight of anything new, he no longer says _oe_, but _aeda_ (twelfth month). He likes to imitate gestures with his arms and mouth; he observes attentively the _movements of the lips of one who is speaking_, sometimes _touching_ at the same time the _mouth of the speaker with his finger_.

At ten months the first teeth came. In the eleventh month the child was for the first time taken out into the open air. Now the _g_-sounds again become prominent--_aga_, _ga_, _gugag_. The child begins to creep, but often falls, and while making his toilsome efforts keeps crying out in a very comical manner, _aech, aech, aech!_

At eleven and a half months a great advance. The child is now much out of doors, and enjoys seeing horses, cows, hens, and ducks. When he sees the hens he says _gog, gog_, and even utters some croaking sounds. He can also imitate at once the sound _prrr_ when it is pronounced to him. If _papa_ is pronounced for him (he has lost this word), he responds regularly _wawa_ or _wawawa_. I have only once heard _wauwau_ from him. If he hears anybody cough, he immediately gives a little imitative cough in fun (vol. i, p. 288), and this sounds very comical.

He makes much use of _od_, _aedo_, and _aed_, and this also when he sees pictures. When the boy had reached the age of a year, he was weaned; from that time his mental development was very rapid. If any one sings to him gi ga gack, he responds invariably _gack_.

He begins to adapt sounds to objects: imitation of sound is the chief basis of this adaptation. He calls the ducks with _gaek, gaek_, and imitates the cock, after a fashion, names the dog _aua_ (this he got from his nurse), not only when he sees the animal, but also when he hears him bark. E. g., the child is playing busily with pasteboard boxes; the dog begins to bark outside of the house; the child listens and says _aua_. I roll his little carriage back and forth; he immediately says _brrr_, pointing to it with his hand; he wants to ride, and I have to put him in (he had heard _burra_, as a name for riding, from his nurse). When he sees a horse, he says _prr_ (this has likewise been said for him).

I remark here that the notion that the child thinks out its own language--a notion I have often met with, held by people not well informed in regard to this matter--rests on defective observation. The child has part of his language given to him by others; part is the result of his own sound-imitations--of animals, e. g.--and part rests on mutilations of our language. At the beginning of the thirteenth month he suddenly names all objects and pictures, for some days, _dodo_, _toto_, which takes the place of his former _oe_; then he calls them _niana_, which he heard frequently, as it means "nurse" in Russian. Everything now is called _niana_: _dirr_ continues to be the sign of extreme discomfort.

_Papba_ is no more said, ever; on the other hand, _mamma_ appears for the first time, but without any significance, still less with any application to the mother.

The word _niana_ becomes now the expression of desire, whether of his food or of going to somebody or somewhere. Sometimes, also, under the same circumstances, he cries _maemmae_ and _mamma_; the dog is now decidedly called _aua_, the horse _prr_.

_14th Month._--He now names also single objects in his picture-book: the dog, _aua_, the cats, _tith_ (pronounced as in English), _kiss kiss_ having been said for him; horses, _prr_, all birds, _gock_ or _gack_. In the house of a neighbor he observes at once the picture, although it hangs high up on the wall, of the emperor driving in a sleigh, and cries _prrr_. Animals that he does not know he calls, whether in the book or the real animals, _aua_ or _ua_, e. g. cows.

His nurse, to whom he is much attached, he now calls decidedly _niania_, although he continues to use this word in another sense also. If she is absent for some time, he calls, longingly, _niania_, _niania_. He sometimes calls me _mamma_; but not quite surely yet. He babbles a good deal to himself; says over all his words, and makes variations in his repertory, e. g., _niana_, _kanna_, _danna_; repeats syllables and words, producing also quite strange and unusual sounds, and accumulations of consonants, like _mba_, _mpta_. As soon as he wakes in the morning he takes up these meaningless language-exercises, and I hear him then going on in an endless babble.

When he does not want a thing, he shakes his head as a sign of refusal; this no one has taught him. Nodding the head as a sign of assent or affirmation he is not yet acquainted with, and learns it much later.

The nurse speaks with me of Caro; the child attends and says _aua_; he knows what we were talking about. If his grandmother says, "Give the little hand," he at once stretches it out toward her. He understands what is said, and begins consciously to repeat it. His efforts to pronounce the word Grossmama (grandmamma) are comical; in spite of all his pains, he can not get beyond the _gr_; says _Gr-mama_, and finally _Goo-mama_, and makes this utterance every time he sees his grandmother. At this time he learns also from his nurse the word _koppa_ as a name for horse, instead of _prr_, _burra_, which, from this time forth, denotes only going in a carriage. _Koppa_ is probably a formation from "hoppa koppati," an imitation of the sound of the hoofs.

At the end of the fourteenth month, his stock of words is much enlarged. The child plays much in the open air, sees much, and advances in his development; words and sounds are more and more suited to conceptions. He wakes in the night and says _appa_, which means "Give me some drink." The ball he calls _Ball_; flower, _Bume_ (for Blume); cat, _katz_ and _kotz_ (Katze)--what _kalla_, _kanna_, _kotta_ signify we do not know. He imitates the barking of the dog with _auauauau_. He says _teine_ for Steine (stones); calls Braten (roast meat) _paati_ and _paa_, and Brod (bread) the same. If he hits against anything in creeping, he immediately says _ba_ (it hurts). If he comes near a dangerous object, and some one says to him, _ba_, he is on his guard at once.

A decided step in advance, at the end of the fourteenth month, is his calling me _Mama_. At sight of me he often cries out, in a loud voice and in a coaxing tone, _ei-mamma!_ just as he calls the nurse _ei-niana_. His father he now calls _Papa_, too, but not until now, although this sound, _papba_, made its appearance in the tenth month, after which time it was completely forgotten. His grandmother, as he can not get beyond the _gr_, is now called simply _grrru_; not until later, _Go-mamma_.

_15th Month._--He now says _Guten Tag_ (good-day), but not always at the right time; also _Guttag_. He likes to see pictures, and calls picture-books _ga_ or _gock_, probably because a good many birds are represented in them. He likes to have stories told to him, and to have pictures explained or rather named.

"Hinauf" (up) he calls _ueppa_, e. g., when he is to be lifted into his chair. For "unten, hinab" (below, down), he says _patz_. Not long ago he repeated unweariedly _pka, pta_ (pp. 139, 144), _mba, mbwa_.

At this period he begins to raise himself erect, holding on by chairs and such things.

Of horses he is passionately fond; but he begins to use the word _koppa_, as the Chinese do their words, in various meanings. He calls my large gold hair-pins _koppa_. Perhaps in his imagination they represent horses, as do many other objects also with which he plays. Berries he now calls _mamma_. He has a sharp eye for insects, and calls them all _putika_, from the Esthonian _puttukas_ (beetle), which he has got from the maid.

All large birds in the picture-book he now calls _papa_, the word being probably derived from _Papagei_ (parrot), which he also pronounces _papagoi_. The smaller birds are called _gog_ and _gack_.

His image in the glass he calls _titta_ (Esthonian designation for child, doll). Does he recognize himself in it (p. 196, _et seq._)?

Once he heard me in the garden calling some one in a loud voice. He immediately imitated me, and afterward when he was asked "What does mamma do?" he understood the question at once, put out his lips, and made the same sound. He is very uneasy in strange surroundings, in strange places, or among strangers.

My bracelet, too, he now calls _kopita_. _Mann_ is a new word. _O-patz_ means "playing on the piano," as well as "below, down there." When the piano is played he sings in a hoarse voice, with lips protruded, as well as he can, but does not get the tune. He likes to dance, and always dances in time.

_Nocho_ (noch, yet) is a new word, which he uses much in place of _mehr_ (more), e. g., when he wants more food.

He often plays with apples, which for this reason, and very likely because they are round, he calls _Ball_, as he does his rubber ball. Yesterday he had baked apples, mashed, with milk. He recognized the apple at once in this altered form, and said as he ate, _Ball!_ At this time he was not yet sixteen months old.

_16th Month._--He is often heard to beg, or rather order, _Mamma opatz_ (play the piano). If I do not at once obey, he moves his little hands like a piano-player and begs _tatata_, _tatata_, imitating the music. He likes also to hear songs sung, and can already tell some of them, as _Gigagack_, _kucka_ _tralla_. He joins in singing the last of these.

_17th Month._--He speaks his own name correctly, and when asked "Where is Adolph?" he points to his breast. As he is always addressed in the third person, i. e., by his name, he does not know any personal pronouns.

The syllable _ei_ he often changes to _al_; e. g., he says _Papagal_ instead of "Papagei."

He had some grapes given to him for the first time, and he at once called them _mammut_ (berries). Being asked, "How do you like them?" he pressed his hand on his heart in an ecstasy of delight that was comical, crying _ach! ach!_

_18th Month._--He comprehends and answers questions; e. g., "Where are you going?" _Zu Tuhl_ (to the chair). "What is that?" _Bett tuddu_, i. e., a bed for sleeping. "Who gave you this?" _Mamma_, _Pappa_.

He can now say almost any word that is said to him, often mutilating it; but, if pains be taken to repeat it for him, he pronounces it correctly. He often tacks on the syllable _ga_, as if in endearment, _mammaga_, _pappaga_, _nianiaga_. The _forming of sentences is also beginning_, for he joins two words together, e. g., _Mamma kommt_ (comes), _Papa gut_ (good), _Ferd_ (for _Pferd_) _halt_ (horse stop). He says _wiebacka_ for Zwieback (biscuit), _Brati_ for Braten (roast meat), Goossmama for Grossmama (grandmamma). He pronounces correctly "Onkel Kuno, Suppe, Fuchs, Rabe, Kameel."

When others are conversing in his presence, he often says to himself the words he hears, especially the last words in the sentence. The word "Nein" (no) he uses as a sign of refusal; e. g., "Will you have some roast meat?" _Nein_. _Ja_ (yes), on the other hand, he does not use, but he answers in the affirmative by repeating frequently with vehemence what he wants, e. g., "Do you want some roast?" _Brati, Brati_ (i. e., I do want roast).

He gives names to his puppets. He calls them Grandmamma, Grandpapa, Uncle Kuno, Uncle Gruenberg, gardener, cook, etc. The puppets are from his Noah's ark.

Now appear his first attempts at drawing. He draws, as he imagines, all kinds of animals: ducks, camels, tigers. He lately made marks, calling out _Torch und noch ein Torch_ (a stork and another stork). (cf. pp. 172, 247.)

The book of birds is his greatest delight. I have to imitate the notes of birds, and he does it after me, showing memory in it. He knows at once stork, woodpecker, pigeon, duck, pelican, siskin, and swallow. The little verses I sing at the same time amuse him, e. g., "Zeislein, Zeislein, wo ist dein Haeuslein?" (Little siskin, where is your little house?); and he retains them when he hears them often. Russian words also are repeated by him.

For the first time I observe the attempt to communicate to others some experience of his own. He had been looking at the picture-book with me, and when he went to the nurse he told her, _Mamma, Bilder, Papagei_ (Mamma, pictures, parrot).

_19th Month._--From the time he was a year and a half old he has walked alone.

He speaks whole sentences, but without connectives, e. g., _Niana Braten holen_ (nurse bring roast); _Caro draussen wauwau_ (Caro outside, bow-wow); _Mamma tuddut_ (sleeps, inflected correctly); _Decke um_ (cover over); _Papa koppa Stadt_ (Papa driven to city); _Mamma sitzt tuhl_ (Mamma sits chair); _Adolph bei Mama bleiben_ (Adolph stay with mamma); _Noch tanzen_ (more dance); _Pappa Fuchs machen_ (Papa make fox).

Certain words make him nervous. He does not like the refrain of the children's song of the goat. If I say "Darum, darum, meck, meck, meck," he looks at me indignantly and runs off. Sometimes he lays his hand on my mouth or screams loudly for the nurse. He gives up any play he is engaged in as soon as I say "darum, darum." _Pax vobiscum_ has the same effect.

The songs amuse him chiefly on account of the words, particularly through the imitations of the sounds of animals.

He knows the songs and asks of his own accord for _Kucku Esaal_, _Kater putz_, _Kucku tralla_, but commonly hears only the first stanza, and then wants a different song. Lately, however, he listened very earnestly to the three stanzas of "Moepschen," and when I asked "What now?" he answered _Noch Mops_ (more Mops). Playing with his puppets, he hummed to himself, _tu, tu, errsen, tu tu errsen_. I guessed that it was "Du, du liegst mir im Herzen," which he had on the previous day wanted to hear often and had tried to repeat.

_20th Month._--Now for the first time _ja_ is used for affirmation, chiefly in the form _ja wohl_ (yes, indeed, certainly), which he retains. "Do you want this?" _Ja wohl._

Being asked "Whose feet are these?" he answers correctly, _Mine_; but no personal pronouns appear yet. He often retains a new and difficult word that he has heard only once, e. g., "Chocolade."

To my question, after his grandfather had gone away, "Where is Grandpapa now?" he answers sorrowfully, _verloren_ (lost). (Cf. p. 145.)

In his plays he imitates the doings and sayings of adults, puts a kerchief about his head and says, _Adolph go stable, give oats_.

Not long ago, as he said good-night to us, he went also to his image in the glass and kissed it repeatedly, saying, _Adolph, good-night!_

_24th Month._--He knows a good many flowers, their names and colors; calls pansies "the dark flowers."

He also caught the air and rhythm of certain songs, e. g., _Kommt a Vogel angeflogen, Du, du, liegst mir im Herzen, machst mir viel Serzen_, and used to sing to himself continually when he was on a walk. Now that he is four years old, on the contrary, he hardly ever sings.

_25th Month._--Beetles have a great interest for him. He brings a dead beetle into the parlor, and cries, "Run now!" His astonishment is great that the creature does not run.

If he sees something disagreeable (e. g., he saw the other day an organ-grinder with a monkey), he covers his face with his hands weeping aloud and crying, _Monkey go away_. So, too, when he sees strangers.

The Latin names of flowers and insects are easily retained by him. They are not taught him, he simply hears them daily.

_26th and 27th Months._--Of his childish language he has retained only the term _mammut_, for berries. Milk, which he used to call _mima_, is now called _milch_ (cf., pp. 140, 157).

The child's use of the personal pronoun is strange. During my absence an aunt of his took my place, and she addressed him for the _first time_ with the word "Du" (thou), and spoke of herself as "I," whereas I always called myself "Mama." The consequence was that the boy for a long time used "thou" as the first person, "I" as the second person, with logical consistency. He hands me bread, saying, _I am hungry_, or, when I am to go with him, _I come too_. Referring to himself, he says, _You want flowers_; _you will play with Niania_. All other persons are addressed with "I" instead of "you."

He tells his uncle, _There's an awfully pretty gentian in the yard_. He gets the nurse occasionally to repeat the Latin names, because they are difficult for her, and his correction of her is very comical.

_28th Month._--He speaks long sentences. _Papa, come drink coffee,_ _please do_. _Papa, I drive_ (for "you drive") _to town, to Reval, and bring some parrots (Bellensittiche)_.

He often changes the form of words for fun, e. g., _guten Porgen_ (for guten Morgen). On going out, he says, with a knowing air, "Splendid weather, the sun shines so warm." He alters songs also, putting in different expressions: e. g., instead of _Lieber Vogel fliege weiter, nimm a Kuss und a Gruss_, Adolph sings, _Lieber Vogel fliege weiter in die Wolken hinein_ (dear bird, fly farther, _into the clouds_, instead of _take a kiss and a greeting_). It is a proof of logical thinking that he asks, at sight of the moon, _The moon is in the sky, has it wings?_

I had been sick; when I was better and was caressing him again, he said, _Mama is well, the dear Jesus has made mama well with sealing-wax_. "With sealing-wax?" I asked, in astonishment. _Yes, from the writing-desk._ He had often seen his toys, when they had been broken, "made well", as he called it, by being stuck together with sealing-wax.

He now asks, _Where is the dear Jesus?_ "In heaven." _Can he fly then; has he wings?_

Religious conceptions are difficult to impart to him, even at a much later period: e. g., heaven is too cold for him, his nose would freeze up there, etc.

He now asks questions a good deal in general, especially _What is that called?_ e. g., _What are chestnuts called?_ "Horse-chestnuts." _What are these pears called?_ "Bergamots." He jests: _Nein, Bergapots_, or, _What kind of mots are those?_ He will not eat an apple until he has learned what the name of it is.

He would often keep asking, in wanton sport, _What are books called?_ or _ducks?_ or _soup?_

He uses the words "to-day, to-morrow," and the names of the days of the week, but without understanding their meaning.

Instead of saying "_zu Mittag gehen_" (go to noon-meal), he says, logically, "zu Nachmittag gehen" (go to afternoon-meal).

The child does not know what is true, what is actual. I never can depend on his statements, except, as it appears, when he tells what he has had to eat. If riding is spoken of, e. g., he has a vivid picture of riding in his mind. To-day, when I asked him "Did you see papa ride?" he answered, _Yes, indeed, papa rode away off into the woods_. Yet his father had not gone to ride at all.

In the same way he often denies what he has seen and done. He comes out of his father's room and I ask, "Well, have you said good-night to papa?" _No._ His father told me afterward that the child had done it.

In the park we see some crested titmice, and I tell the nurse that, in the previous autumn, I saw for the first time Finnish parrots or cross-bills here, but that I have not seen any since. When the child's father asked later, "Well, Adolph, what did you see in the park?" _Crested titmice, with golden crests_ (he adds out of his own invention) _and Finnish parrots_. He mixes up what he has heard and seen with what he imagines.

Truth has to be taught to a child. The less this is done, the easier it is to inoculate him with religious notions, i. e., of miraculous revelation; otherwise one must be prepared for many questions that are hard to answer.

_29th month._--Sad stories affect him to tears, and he runs away.

Names of animals and plants he remembers often more easily than I do, and informs me. He reasons logically. Lately, when he asked for some foolish thing, I said to him, "Sha'n't I bring the moon for you, too?" _No_, said he, _you can't do that, it is too high up in the clouds_.

_30th to 33d months._--He now often calls himself "Adolph," and then speaks of himself in the third person. He frequently confounds "I" and "you," and does not so consistently use the first person for the second, and the reverse. The transition is very gradually taking place to the correct use of the personal pronoun. Instead of _my mamma_, he repeats often, when he is in an affectionate mood, _your mamma_, _your mamma_.

Some new books are given to him. In the book of beetles there are shown to him the party-colored and the gray, so-called "sad," grave-digger (_necrophorus_). The latter now becomes prominent in his plays. "Why is he called the sad?" I asked the child yesterday. _Ah! because he has no children_, he answered, sorrowfully. Probably he has at some time overheard this sentence, which has no meaning for him, from a grown person. Adult persons' ways of speaking are thus employed without an understanding of them; pure verbal memory.

In the same way, he retains the names, in his new book, of butterflies (few of them German) better than I do, however crabbed and difficult they may be.

This (pure) memory for mere sounds or tones has become less strong in the now four-year-old boy, who has more to do with ideas and concepts, although his memory in other respects is good.

In the thirty-seventh month he sang, quite correctly, airs he had heard, and he could sing some songs to the piano, if they were frequently repeated with him. His fancy for this soon passed away, and these exercises ceased. On the other hand, he tells stories a great deal and with pleasure. His pronunciation is distinct, the construction of the sentences is mostly correct, apart from errors acquired from his nurse. The confounding of the first and second persons, the "I" and "you," or rather his use of the one for the other, has ceased, and the child designates himself by _I_, others by _thou_ and _you_. Men are ordinarily addressed by him with _thou_, as his father and uncle are; women with _you_, as are even his mother and nurse. This continues for a long time. The boy of four years counts objects, with effort, up to six; numbers remain for a long time merely empty words (pp. 165, 172). In the same way, he has, as yet, but small notion of the order of the days of the week, and mixes up the names of them. To-day, to-morrow, yesterday, have gradually become more intelligible to him.

Notwithstanding the aphoristic character of these extracts from a full and detailed diary of observations, I have thought they ought to be given, because they form a valuable supplement to my observations in the nineteenth chapter, and show particularly how far independent thought may be developed, even in the second and third years, while there is, as yet, small knowledge of language. The differences in mental development between this child and mine are no less worthy of notice than are the agreements. Among the latter is the fact, extremely important in a pedagogical point of view, that, the less we teach the child the simple truth from the beginning, so much the easier it is to inoculate him permanently with religious notions, i. e., of "miraculous revelation." Fairy tales, ghost-stories, and the like easily make the childish imagination, of itself very active, hypertrophic, and cloud the judgment concerning actual events. Morals and nature offer such an abundance of facts with which we may connect the teaching of language, that it is better to dispense with legends. AEsop's fables combine the moral and the natural in a manner unsurpassable. My child tells me one of these fables every morning.

FOOTNOTES:

[D] The vowels have the Continental, not the English, sounds.

[E] Or possibly for the word _drink_, which a child of my acquaintance called _ghing_.--EDITOR.

[F] "The First Three Years of Childhood," edited and translated by Alice M. Christie; published in Chicago, 1885.

B.

NOTES CONCERNING LACKING, DEFECTIVE, AND ARRESTED MENTAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE FIRST YEARS OF LIFE.

The data we have concerning the behavior of children born, living, without head or without brain, and of microcephalous children, as well as of idiots and cretins more advanced in age, are of great interest, as helping us to a knowledge of the dependence of the first psychical processes upon the development of the brain, especially of the cerebral cortex. Unfortunately, these data are scanty and scattered.

Very important, too, for psychogenesis, are reports concerning the physiological condition and activity of children whose mental development has seemed to be stopped for months, or to be made considerably slower, or to be unusually hastened.

Scanty as are the notes I have met with on this matter, after much search, yet I collect and present some of them, in the hope that they will incite to more abundant and more careful observation in the future than has been made up to this time.

A good many data concerning the behavior of cretin children are to be found in the very painstaking book, "Neue Untersuchungen ueber den Kretinismus oder die Entartung des Menschen in ihren verschiedenen Graden und Formen" ("New Investigations concerning Cretinism, or Human Deterioration, in its Various Forms and Degrees"), by Maffei and Roesch (two vols, Erlangen, 1844). But, in order that these data should be of value, the observed anomalies and defects of the cerebral functions ought to be capable of being referred to careful morphological investigations of the cretin brain. As the authors give no results of _post-mortem_ examinations, I simply refer to their work here.

I once had the opportunity myself of seeing a hemicephalus, living, who was brought to the clinic of my respected colleague, Prof. B. Schultze, in Jena. The child was of the male sex, and was born on the 1st of July, 1883, at noon, along with a perfectly normal twin sister. The parents are of sound condition. I saw the child for the first time on the 3d of July, at two o'clock. I found all the parts of the body, except the head, like those of ordinary children born at the right time. The head had on it a great red lump like a tumor, and came to an end directly over the eyes, going down abruptly behind; but, even if the tumor were supposed to be covered with skin, there would by no means be the natural arched formation of the cranium of a newly-born child. The face, too, absolutely without forehead, was smaller in comparison than the rest of the body. I found now, in the case of this child, already two days old, a remarkably regular breathing, a very cool skin--in the forenoon a specific warmth of 32 deg. C. had been found--and slight mobility. The eyes remained closed. When I opened them, without violence, the pupil was seen to be immobile. It did not react in the least upon the direct light of the sun on either side. The left eye did not move at all, the right made rare, convulsive, lateral movements. The conjunctiva was very much reddened. The child did not react in the least to pricks of a dull needle tried on all parts of the body, and reacted only very feebly to pinches; not at all to sound-stimuli, but regularly to stronger, prolonged cutaneous stimuli; in particular, the child moved its arms after a slap on the back, just like normal new-born children, and uttered very harsh, feeble tones when its back was rubbed. When I put my finger in its mouth vigorous sucking movements began, which induced me to offer the bottle--this had not yet been done. Some cubic centimetres of milk were vigorously swallowed, and soon afterward the breast of a nurse was taken. While this was going on I could feel quite distinctly with my finger, under the chin, the movements of swallowing. It was easy to establish the further fact that my finger, which I laid in the hollow of the child's hand, was frequently clasped firmly by the little fingers, which had well-developed nails. Not unfrequently, sometimes without previous contact, sometimes after it, the tip of the tongue, and even a larger part of the tongue, was thrust out between the lips, and once, when I held the child erect, he plainly gave a prolonged yawn. Finally, the fact seemed to me very noteworthy that, after being taken and held erect, sometimes also without any assignable outward occasion, the child inclined its head forward and turned it vigorously both to the right and to the left. When the child had sucked lustily a few times, it opened both eyes about two millimetres wide, and went on with its nursing. An assistant physician saw the child sneeze.

These observations upon a human child, two days old, unquestionably acephalous, i. e., absolutely without cerebrum, but as to the rest of its body not in the least abnormal, prove what I have already advanced (vol. i, p. 203), that the cerebrum takes no part at all in the first movements of the newly-born. In this respect the extremely rare case of an acephalous child, living for some days, supplies the place of an experiment of vivisection. Unfortunately, the child died so early that I could not carry on further observations and experiments. The report of the _post-mortem_ examination will be published by itself.

Every observer of young children knows the great variety in the rapidity of their development, and will agree with me in general that a slow and steady development of the cerebral functions in the first four years, but especially in the first two years, justifies a more favorable prognosis than does a very hasty and unsteady development; but when during that period of time there occurs a complete and prolonged interruption of the mental development, then the danger is always great that the normal course will not be resumed. So much the more instructive, therefore, are the cases in which the children after such a standstill have come back to the normal condition. Four observations of this kind have been published by R. Demme ("19. Bericht ueber das Jenner'sche Kinderspital in Bern, 1882," S. 31 bis 52). These are of so great interest in their bearing on psychogenesis, and they confirm in so striking a manner some of the propositions laid down by me in this book, that I should like to print them here word for word, especially as the original does not appear to have found a wide circulation; but that would make my book altogether too large. I confine myself, therefore, to this reference, with the request that further cases of partial or total interruption of mental development during the first year of life, with a later progress in it, may be collected and made public.

It is only in rare cases that microcephalous children can be observed, while living, for any considerable length of time continuously. In this respect a case described by Aeby is particularly instructive.

A microcephalous boy was born of healthy parents--he was their first child--about four weeks too soon. His whole body had something of stiffness and awkwardness. The legs were worse off in this respect than the arms; they showed, as they continued to show up to the time of his death, a tendency to become crossed. The boy was never able to stand or walk. He made attempts to seize striking objects, white or party-colored, but never learned actually to hold anything. The play of feature was animated. The dark eyes, shining and rapidly moving, never lingered long upon one and the same object. The child was much inclined to bite, and always bit very sharply. Mentally there was pronounced imbecility. In spite of his four years the boy never got so far as to produce any articulate sounds whatever. Even simple words like "papa" and "mamma" were beyond his ability. His desire for anything was expressed in inarticulate and not specially expressive tones. His sleep was short and light; he often lay whole nights through with open eyes. He seldom shed tears; his discomfort was manifested chiefly by shrill screaming. He died of pulmonary paralysis at the end of the fourth year.

The autopsy showed that the frontal lobes were surprisingly small, and that there was a partial deficiency of the median longitudinal fissure. The fissure did not begin till beyond the crown of the head, in the region of the occiput. The anterior half of the cerebrum consequently lacked the division into lateral hemispheres. It had few convolutions also, and the smoothness of its surface was at once obvious. The _corpus callosum_ and the _fornix_ were undeveloped. "The gray cortical layer attained in general only about a third of the normal thickness, and was especially weakly represented in the frontal region." The cerebellum not being stunted, seemed, by the side of the greatly shrunken cerebrum, surprisingly large.

In this case the microcephalous of four years behaves, as far as the development of will is concerned, like the normal boy of four months. The latter is, in fact, superior to him in _seizing_, while the former in no way manifests any advantage in a psychical point of view.

Two cases of microcephaly have been described by Fletcher Beach (in the "Transactions of the International Medical Congress," London, 1881, iii, 615-626).

E. R. was, in May, 1875, received into his institution at the age of eleven years. She had at the time of her birth a small head, and had at no time manifested much intelligence. She could not stand or walk, but was able to move her arms and legs. Her sight and hearing were normal. She was quiet and obedient, and sat most of the time in her chair. She paid no attention to her bodily needs. She could not speak and had to be fed with a spoon. After six months she became a little more intelligent, made an attempt to speak, and muttered something indistinctly. She would stretch out her hand when told to give it, and she recognized with a smile her nurse and the physician. Some four months later she would grind her teeth when in a pleasant mood, and would act as if she were shy when spoken to, holding her hand before her eyes. She was fond of her nurse. Thus there was capacity of observation, there were attention, memory, affection, and some power of voluntary movement. She died in January, 1876. Her brain weighed, two days after her death, seven ounces. It is minutely described by the author--but after it had been preserved in alcohol for six years, and it then weighed only two ounces. The author found a number of convolutions not so far developed as in the foetus of six months, according to Gratiolet, and he is of opinion that the cerebellum was further developed after the cerebrum had ceased to grow, so that there was not an arrest of the development but an irregularity. The cerebral hemispheres were asymmetrical, the frontal lobes, corresponding to the psychical performances in the case, being relatively pretty large, while the posterior portion of the third convolution on the left side, the island of Reil, and the operculum were very small, corresponding to the inability to learn to speak. The author connects the slight mobility with the smallness of the parietal and frontal ascending convolutions.

The other case is that of a girl of six years (E. H.), who came to the institution in January, 1879, and died in July of the same year. She could walk about, and she had complete control of her limbs. She was cheerful, easy to be amused, and greatly attached to her nurse. She associated with other children, but could not speak a word. Her hearing was good, her habits bad. Although she could pick up objects and play with them, it did not occur to her to feed herself. She could take notice and observe, and could remember certain persons. Her brain weighed, two days after death, 20-1/2 ounces, and was, in many respects, as simple as that of an infant; but, in regard to the convolutions, it was far superior to the brain of a monkey--was superior also to that of E. R. The ascending frontal and parietal convolutions were larger, corresponding to the greater mobility. The third frontal convolution and the island of Reil were small on both sides, corresponding to the alalia. The author is of opinion that the ganglionic cells in this brain lacked processes, so that the intercentral connections did not attain development.

A more accurate description of two brains of microcephali is given by Julius Sander in the "Archiv fuer Psychiatrie und Nerven-Krankheiten" (i, 299-307; Berlin, 1868), accompanied by good plates. One of these cases is that of which an account is given by Johannes Mueller (in the "Medicinische Zeitung des Vereins fuer Heilkunde in Preussen," 1836, Nr. 2 und 3).

In the full and detailed treatises concerning microcephali by Karl Vogt ("Archiv fuer Anthropologie," ii, 2, 228) and Von Flesch ("Wuerzburger Festschrift," ii, 95, 1882) may be found further data in regard to more recent cases.

Many questions of physiological and psychological importance in respect to the capacity of development in cases of imperfectly developed brain are discussed in the "Zeitschrift fuer das Idioten-Wesen" by W. Schroeter (Dresden) and E. Reichelt (Hubertusburg).

But thus far the methods of microscopical investigation of the brain are still so little developed that we can not yet with certainty establish a causal connection, in individual cases, between the deviations of microcephalic brains from the normal brain and the defects of the psychical functions. The number of brains of microcephali that have been examined with reference to this point is very small, although their scientific value, after thorough-going observation of the possessors of them during life, is immense. For microcephalous children of some years of age are a substitute for imaginary, because never practicable, vivisectory experiments, concerning the connection of body and mind.

To conclude these fragments, let me add here some observations concerning a case of rare interest, that of the microcephalous child, Margarethe Becker (born 1869), very well known in Germany. These observations I recorded on the 9th of July, 1877, in Jena, while the child was left free to do what she pleased.

The girl, eight years of age, born, according to the testimony of her father, with the frontal fontanelle (fonticulus anterior) closed and solid, had a smaller head than a child of one year. The notes follow the same order as that of the observations.

_Time, 8.15 A. M._--The child yawns. She grasps with animation at some human skulls that she sees on a table near her, and directs her look to charts on the walls. She puts her fingers into her nostrils, brushes her apron with both hands, polishes my watch, which I have offered her and she has seized, holds it to one ear, then to one of her father's ears, draws her mouth into a smile, seems to be pleased by the ticking, holds the watch to her father's other ear, then to her own other ear, laughs, and repeats the experiment several times. Her head is very mobile.

The child now folds a bit of paper that I have given her, rolls it up awkwardly, wrinkling her forehead the while, chews up the paper and laughs aloud. Saliva flows from her mouth almost incessantly. Then the child begins to eat a biscuit, giving some of it, however, to her father and the attendant, putting her biscuit to their lips, and this with accuracy at once, whereas in the former case the watch was held at first near the ear, to the temple, and not till afterward to the ear itself.

The girl is very lively; she strikes about her in a lively manner with her hands, sees charts hanging high on the walls, points to them with her finger, throws her head back upon her neck to see them better, and _moves her fingers in the direction of the lines_ of the diagrams. At last weariness seems to come on. The child puts an arm around the neck of her father, sits on his lap, but is more and more restless.

_8.50._--Quiet. To appearance, the child has fallen asleep.

_8.55._--Awake again. The child _sees_ well, _hears_ well, _smells_ well; obeys some few commands, e. g., she gives her hand. But with this her intellectual accomplishments are exhausted. She does not utter a word.

Kollmann, who saw this microcephalous subject in September, 1877, writes, among other things, of her ("Correspondenzblatt der Deutschengesellschaft fuer Anthropologie," Nr. 11, S. 132):

"Her gait is tottering, the movements of the head and extremities jerky, not always co-ordinated, hence unsteady, inappropriate and spasmodic; her look is restless, objects are not definitely fixated. The normal functions of her mind are far inferior to those of a child of four years. The eight-year-old Margaret speaks only the word _Mama_; no other articulate sound has been learned by her. She makes known her need of food by plaints, by sounds of weeping, and by distortion of countenance; she laughs when presented with something to eat or with toys. It is only within the last two years that she has become cleanly; since then her appetite has improved. Her nutrition has gained, in comparison with the first years of life, and with it her comprehension also; she helps her mother set the table, and brings plates and knives, when requested to do so, from the place where they are kept. Further, she shows a tender sympathy with her microcephalous brother; she takes bread from the table, goes to her brother's bedside and feeds him, as he is not of himself capable of putting food into his mouth. She shows a very manifest liking for her relatives and a fear of strangers. When taken into the parlor she gave the most decided evidences of fear; being placed upon the table she hid her head in her father's coat, and did not become quiet until her mother took her in her arms. This awakening of mental activity shows that, notwithstanding the extremely small quantity of brain-substance, there exists a certain degree of intellectual development with advancing years. With the fourth year, in the case of M., independent movements began; up to that time she lay, as her five-year-old brother still lies, immovable in body and limbs, with the exception of slight bendings and stretchings."

Richard Pott, who (1879) likewise observed this microcephalous subject, found that she wandered about aimlessly, restlessly, and nimbly, from corner to corner [as if], groping and seeking; yet objects held before her were only momentarily fixated, scarcely holding her attention; often she did not once grasp at them. "The girl goes alone, without tottering or staggering, but her locomotive movements are absolutely without motive, having no end or aim, frequently changing their direction. Notwithstanding her size, the child gives the impression of the most extreme helplessness." She was fed, but was not indifferent as to food, seeming to prefer sour to sweet. She would come, indeed, when she was called, but seemed not to understand the words spoken to her; she spoke no word herself, but uttered shrill, inarticulate sounds; she felt shame when she was undressed, hiding her face in her sister's lap. The expression of her countenance was harmless, changeable, manifesting no definite psychical processes.

The statements contradictory to those of Kollmann are probably to be explained by the brevity of the observations.

Virchow ("Correspondenzblatt," S. 135), in his remarks upon this case, says: "I am convinced that every one who observes the microcephalic child will find that psychologically it has nothing whatever of the ape. All the positive faculties and qualities of the ape are wanting here; there is nothing of the psychology of the ape, but only the psychology of an imperfectly developed and deficient little child. Every characteristic is human; every single trait. I had the girl in my room a few months since, for hours together, and occupied myself with her; I never observed anything in her that reminds me even remotely of the psychological conditions of apes. She is a human being, in a low stage of development, but in no way deviating from the nature of humanity."

From these reports it is plain to be seen that for all mental development an hereditary physical growth of the cerebrum is indispensable. If the sensuous impressions experienced anew in each case by each human being, and the original movements, were sufficient without the development of the cerebral convolutions and of the gray cortex, then these microcephalous beings, upon whom the same impressions operated as upon other new-born children, must have had better brains and must have learned more. But the brain, notwithstanding the peripheral impressions received in seeing, hearing, and feeling, could not grow, and so the rudimentary human child could not learn anything, and could not even form the ideas requisite for articulate voluntary movement, or combine these ideas. Only the motor centers of lower rank could be developed.

In peculiar contrast with these cases of genuine microcephaly stands the exceedingly remarkable case, observed by Dr. Rudolf Krause (Hamburg), of a boy whose brain is not at all morbidly affected or abnormally small, but exhibits decidedly the type of the brain of the ape. The discoverer reported upon it to the Anthropological Society ("Correspondenzblatt a.a. O., S. 132-135) the following facts among others:

"The skull and brain belonged to a boy who was born on the 4th of October, 1869, the last of four children. Paul was scrofulous from his youth. He did not get his teeth until the end of his second year, and they were quite brown in color and were soon lost. According to the statement of Paul's mother, he had several successive sets of teeth. It was not until the fifth year that he learned to walk. He was cleanly from the third year, but not when he felt ill. His appetite was always good up to his last sickness of four weeks. His sleep was habitually undisturbed. He was of a cheerful temperament, and inclined to play; as soon as he heard music he would dance, and sing to the music in rather unmelodious tones. When teased he could be very violent; he would throw anything he could lay his hands on at the head of the offender. He liked the company of others, especially of men. By the time he was four years old he had learned to eat without help. Paul was very supple, was fond of climbing, and had great strength in his arms and hands especially; these had actually a horny appearance, and thus reminded one of the hands of the chimpanzee. He could sit on the ground with his legs wide apart. His gait was uncertain, and he was apt to tumble; he ran with knees bent forward and legs crooked; he was fond of hopping, and seemed particularly ape-like when doing so. The great-toe of each foot stood off at an angle from the foot, and thus gave the impression of a prehensile toe. I thought at first that this deviation had its origin in the fact that the child, on account of his uncertainty in walking, wanted to get a broader basis of support; but I afterward gave up that opinion, because I have never found an instance of a similar habit in other children with diseased heads, e. g., hydrocephalous children. Paul could speak but little, could say hardly any words except _Papa_ and _Mama_, and even these he did not until late learn to pronounce in two syllables; he uttered for the most part only sounds that resembled a grunt. He imitated the barking of a dog by the sound _rrrrrr_. He frequently stamped with feet and hands, clapped his hands together, and ejaculated a sort of grunting sound, just as I have observed in the case of gorillas and chimpanzees.

"Paul was smaller than children of his age; on his right eye he had from his youth a large leucoma; the eyelids had generally a catarrhal affection, and were in a state of suppuration. The head looked sore; the forehead was small. Paul had a strongly marked tendency to imitation. His whole being, his movements, were strikingly ape-like. He was decidedly neglected by his parents, was generally dirty in appearance, and I really think the early death of the child was induced by the slight care taken of him. Paul was taken sick at the beginning of December, 1876, with an acute bronchial catarrh, and died on the 5th of January, 1877, at the age of seven and a quarter years.

"If you look at the cranium and the brain here, which belonged to the child just described, there are lacking in the first place all the characteristics of microcephaly. The cranium possesses a capacity of 1,022 cubic centimetres, and the brain weighs 950 grammes; they do not deviate, therefore, from the normal condition. But let the cranium, where it is laid open by the saw, be observed from within, and we notice an _asymmetry of the two hemispheres of the brain_; the cranium is pushed somewhat forward and to the right. The _partes orbitales_ of the frontal bone are higher and more arched than is usual, in consequence of which the _lamina cribrosa_ of the ethmoid bone lies deeper, and room is given for the well-known conformation of the ethmoidal process in the brain. The cerebral convolutions are plainly marked upon the inner surface of the cranium. The facial cranium shows no deviations. There is no prognathism. The formation of the teeth alone is irregular; one pre-molar tooth is lacking above and below in the jaw, and, in fact, there is no place for it. The incisors and the pre-molar teeth are undergoing change.

"The two cerebral hemispheres are asymmetrical; in the region where the parieto-occipital fissure is situated on the left hemisphere, the two hemispheres diverge from each other and form an edge which curves outward and backward, so that the cerebellum remains uncovered. On the lower surface of the frontal lobes there exists a strongly marked ethmoidal prominence. Neither of the fissures of Sylvius is quite closed, the left less so than the right; the operculum is but slightly developed, and the island of Reil lies with its fissures almost entirely uncovered. This conformation reminds us throughout of the brain of the anthropoid apes. The two _sulci centrales sive fissurae Rolandi_ run straight to the border of the hemisphere, less deeply impressed than is normally the case, without forming an angle with each other. Very strongly and deeply impressed _sulci praecentrales_ seem to serve as substitutes for them. The _sulcus interparietalis,_ which begins farther outward than in the ordinary human being, receives the _sulcus parieto-occipitalis_--a structure in conformity with the typical brain of the ape. The _sulcus occipitalis transversus_, which is generally lightly stamped in man, extends here as a deep fissure across over the occipital lobe, thus producing a so-called simian fissure, and the posterior part of the occipital lobe has the appearance of an operculum. The _fissura calcarina_ has its origin directly on the surface of the occipital lobe, does not receive until late the _fissura parieto-occipitalis_, and goes directly, on the right side, into the _fissura hippocampi_. This abnormal structure also is typical for the brain of the ape.

"The _gyrus occipitalis primus_ is separated from the upper parietal lobe by the _sulcus parieto-occipitalis_, a formation that, according to Gratiolet, exists in many apes. The _gyrus temporalis superior_ is greatly reduced on both sides, and has an average breadth of only five millimetres; it is the one peculiarity that recalls emphatically the brain of the chimpanzee, which always has this reduced upper temporal convolution.

"We have here, then, a brain that scarcely deviates from the normal brain in volume, that possesses all the convolutions and fissures, seeming, perhaps, richer than the average brain in convolutions, and that is in every respect differentiated; and notwithstanding all this it approximates, in its whole structure, to the simian rather than to the human type. Had the brain been placed before me without my knowing its origin, I should have been perfectly justified in assigning this brain to an anthropoid ape standing somewhat nearer to man than does the chimpanzee."

No second case of this sort has thus far been observed.

C.

REPORTS CONCERNING THE PROCESS OF LEARNING TO SEE, ON THE PART OF PERSONS BORN BLIND, BUT ACQUIRING SIGHT THROUGH SURGICAL TREATMENT. ALSO SOME CRITICAL REMARKS.

I. THE CHESSELDEN CASE.

The following extracts are taken from the report published by Will. Chesselden in the "Philosophical Transactions for the Months of April, May, and June, 1728" (No. 402, London, pp. 447-450), or the "Philosophical Transactions from 1719 to 1733, abridged by J. Eames and J. Martyn" (vii, 3, pp. 491-493, London, 1734):

"Though we say of the gentleman that he was blind, as we do of all people who have ripe cataracts, yet they are never so blind from that cause but that they can discern day from night, and, for the most part, in a strong light distinguish black, white, and scarlet; but they can not perceive the shape of anything.... And thus it was with this young gentleman, who, though he knew these colors asunder in a good light, yet when he saw them after he was couched, the faint ideas he had of them before were not sufficient for him to know them by afterward, and therefore he did not think them the same which he had known before by those names....

"When he first saw, he was so far from making any judgment about distances, that he thought all objects whatever touched his eyes (as he expressed it) as what he felt did his skin, and thought no objects so agreeable as those which were smooth and regular. He knew not the shape of anything nor any one thing from another, however different in shape or magnitude; but upon being told what things were, whose form he before knew from feeling, he would carefully observe, that he might know them again. But, having too many objects to learn at once, he forgot many of them, and (as he said) at first he learned to know and again forgot a thousand things in a day. Having often forgot which was the cat and which the dog, he was ashamed to ask; but catching the cat (which he knew by feeling), he was observed to look at her steadfastly, and then, setting her down, said, 'So, puss, I shall know you another time.' He was very much surprised that those things which he had liked best did not appear most agreeable to his eyes, expecting those persons would appear most beautiful that he loved most, and such things to be most agreeable to his sight that were so to his taste. We thought he soon knew what pictures represented which were showed to him, but we found afterward we were mistaken, for about two months after he was couched he discovered at once they represented solid bodies, when to that time he considered them only as party-colored planes or surfaces diversified with variety of paint; but even then he was no less surprised, expecting the pictures would feel like the things they represented, and was amazed when he found those parts, which by their light and shadow appeared now round and uneven, felt only flat like the rest, and asked which was the lying sense, feeling or seeing?

"Being shown his father's picture in a locket at his mother's watch and told what it was, he acknowledged a likeness, but was vastly surprised, asking how it could be that a large face could be expressed in so little room.

"At first he could bear but very little sight, and the things he saw he thought extremely large; but, upon seeing things larger, those first seen he conceived less, never being able to imagine any lines beyond the bounds he saw. The room he was in he said he knew to be but part of the house, yet he could not conceive that the whole house could look bigger. Before he was couched he expected little advantage from seeing, except reading and writing. Blindness, he observed, had this advantage, that he could go anywhere in the dark much better than those who could see, and after he had seen he did not soon lose this quality nor desire a light to go about the house in the night.

"A year after first seeing, being carried upon Epsom Downs and observing a large prospect, he was exceedingly delighted with it and called it a new kind of seeing; and now being lately couched of his other eye, he says that objects at first appeared large to this eye but not so large as they did at first to the other, and, looking upon the same object with both eyes, he thought it looked about twice as large as with the first couched eye only, but not double, that we can anywise discover."

Remark on the First Case.

Although this Chesselden case is the most famous of all, and the most frequently cited, it belongs, nevertheless, to those most inaccurately described. It is, however, not only the first in the order of time, but especially important for the reason that it demonstrates in a striking manner the slow acquirement of space-perception by the eye, and also the acquirement of the first and second dimensions of space (cf. vol. i, p. 57).

II., III. THE WARE CASES.

One of these cases is that of a boy, who at the age of seven years recovered his sight which he had lost in the first half-year of his life. The surgeon who performed the operation, James Ware, writes ("Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society for 1801," ii, London, 1801, pp. 382-396):

"The young W. appeared to be a healthy, perfect child; his eyes in particular were large and rather prominent. About the end of his first year, a number of persons passing in procession near his father's house, accompanied with music and flags, the child was taken to see them; but, instead of looking at the procession, it was observed that, though he was evidently much pleased with the music, his eyes were never directed to the place from whence the sound came. His mother, alarmed by this discovery, held silver spoons and other glaring objects before him at different distances, and she was soon convinced that he was unable to perceive any of them. A surgeon was consulted, who, on examining the eyes, pronounced that there was a complete cataract in each. All thoughts of assisting his sight were (for the present) relinquished. As soon as he could speak it was observed that when an object was held close to his eyes he was able to distinguish its color if strongly marked, but on no occasion did he ever notice its outline or figure. I performed the operation on the left eye on the 29th of December, 1800. The eye was immediately bound up, and no inquiries made on that day with regard to his sight. On the 30th I found that he had experienced a slight sickness on the preceding evening. On the 31st, as soon as I entered his chamber, the mother with much joy informed me that her child could see. About an hour before my visit he was standing near the fire, with a handkerchief tied loosely over his eyes, when he told her that under the handkerchief, which had slipped upward, he could distinguish the table by the side of which she was sitting. It was about a yard and a half from him, and he observed that it was covered with a green cloth (which was really the case), and that it was a little farther off than he was able to reach.... Desirous to ascertain whether he was able to distinguish objects, I held a letter before him at the distance of about twelve inches, when he told me, after a short hesitation, that it was a piece of paper; that it was square, which he knew by its corners; and that it was longer in one direction than it was in the other. On being desired to point to the corners, he did it with great precision and readily carried his finger in the line of its longest diameter. I then showed him a small oblong bandbox covered with red leather, which he said was red and square, and pointed at once to its four corners. After this I placed before him an oval silver box, which he said had a shining appearance, and presently afterward that it was round, because it had not corners. A white stone mug he first called a white basin, but soon after, recollecting himself, said it was a mug because it had a handle. I held the objects at different distances from his eye and inquired very particularly if he was sensible of any difference in their situation, which he always said he was, informing me on every change whether they were brought nearer to or carried farther from him. I again inquired, both of his mother and himself, whether he had ever before this time distinguished by sight any sort of object, and I was assured by both that he never had on any occasion, and that when he wished to discover colors, which he could only do when they were very strong, he had always been obliged to hold the colored object close to his eye and a little on one side to avoid the projection of the nose. No further experiments were made on that day. On the 1st of January I found that he felt no uneasiness on the approach of light. I showed him a table-knife, which at first he called a spoon, but soon rectified the mistake, giving it the right name and distinguishing the blade from the handle by pointing to each as he was desired. He called a yellow pocket-book by its name, taking notice of the silver lock in the cover. I held my hand before him, which he knew, but could not at first tell the number of my fingers nor distinguish one of them from another. I then held up his own hand and desired him to remark the difference between his thumb and his fingers, after which he readily pointed out the distinctions in mine also. Dark-colored and smooth objects were more agreeable to him than those which were bright and rough. On the 3d of January he saw from the drawing-room window a dancing bear in the street and distinguished a number of boys that were standing round him, noticing particularly a bundle of clothes which one of them had on his head. On the same evening I placed him before a looking-glass and held up his hand. After a little time he smiled and said he saw the shadow of his hand as well as that of his head. He could not then distinguish his features; but on the following day, his mother having again placed him before the glass, he pointed to his eyes, nose, and mouth. The young W., a remarkably intelligent boy (of seven years), gave the most direct and satisfactory answers to every question that was put to him, and, though not born blind, certainly had not any recollection of having ever seen. The right eye was operated upon a month after the left, but without the least success."

In regard to the other case, Ware writes: "In the instance of a young gentleman from Ireland, fourteen years old, from each of whose eyes I extracted a cataract in the year 1794, and who, before the operation, assured me, as did his friends, that he had never seen the figure of any object, I was astonished by the facility with which, on the first experiment, he took hold of my hand at different distances, mentioning whether it was brought nearer to or carried farther from him, and conveying his hand to mine in a circular direction, that we [Ware and another physician] might be the better satisfied of the accuracy with which he did it." In this case, as in others of like nature, Ware could not, "although the patients had certainly been blind from early infancy," satisfy himself "that they had not, before this period, enjoyed a sufficient degree of sight to impress the image of visible objects on their minds, and to give them ideas which could not afterward be entirely obliterated."

Ware found, moreover, that, in the case of two children between seven and eight years of age, both blind from birth, and on whom no operation had been performed, the knowledge of colors, limited as it was, was sufficient to enable them to tell whether colored objects were brought nearer to or carried farther from them; for instance, whether they were at the distance of two inches or four inches from their eyes; and he himself observes that they were not, in strictness of speech, blind, though they were deprived of all useful sight.

Remarks on the Second and Third Cases.

It is a surprising thing, in the account of the former case, that nothing whatever is said of the behavior of the patient on the first and on the fourth day after the operation. We must assume that he passed the first day wholly with his eyes bandaged. Further, the boy pointed out four corners of a box, while the box had eight; yet no inference can be drawn from this, for possibly only one side of the box was shown to him. The most remarkable thing is the statement of the patient that he saw the _shadow_ of his hand in the glass. This circumstance, and the astonishing certainty, at the very first attempts to estimate space-relations, in the discrimination of round and angular, and in the observation that the table was somewhat farther from him than he could reach, show what influence the mere ability to perceive colors has upon vision in space. Before the operation, W. distinguished only striking colors from one another; but he could perceive nearness and distance of colored objects, within narrow limits, by the great differences in the luminous intensity of the colors. He distinguished with certainty dimness from brightness. Accordingly, when he noticed a decrease in the brightness of a color, he inferred the distance of the colored object from the eye, regulating his judgment also by touch. Thus the boy had, before the operation, some perception of space with the eye, and it is not much to be wondered at, considering his uncommon intelligence, that he, soon after the operation (probably attempts at seeing were secretly made by the patient on the first day) learned to judge pretty surely of space-relations--much more surely than a person born blind learns to judge in so short a time. Besides, it is not to be forgotten that, while it is true that the cataract had become completely developed at the end of the first year of life, there is no proof that the child was unable to see during the first months. At that time images, as in the second case, may have unconsciously impressed themselves, with which, at a later period, more accurate space-ideas may have been associated, through the sense of touch, than is the case with persons born completely blind. Ware concludes, from his observations--

1. "When children are born blind, in consequence of having cataracts in their eyes, they are never so totally deprived of sight as not to be able to distinguish colors; and, though they can not see the figure of an object, nor even its color, unless it be placed within a very short distance, they nevertheless can tell whether, when within this distance, it be brought nearer to or carried farther from them.

2. "In consequence of this power, whilst in a state of comparative blindness, children who have their cataracts removed are enabled immediately on the acquisition of sight to form some judgment of the distance, and even of the outline, of those strongly defined objects with the color of which they were previously acquainted."

Both these conclusions are simply matter of fact. It only needs explanation how the distance and outlines of objects can be known after the operation _in consequence of_ the ability described in the first proposition. That distance is actually estimated at once in consequence of this power, is clear; not so with the outlines. How can round and angular be distinguished, when only colors and gross differences of intensity and saturation are perceived? Ware gives no solution of the difficulty, but thinks that, because the colors appeared more intense, the previously imperfect ideas concerning distances might be improved and extended, so that they would even give a knowledge of the boundary-lines and of the form of those things with the color of which the patients were previously acquainted. But this improvement of the ideas concerning distance can not lead directly to discrimination of the limits of objects, and is itself hypothetical, inasmuch as we might expect, _immediately_ after the operation, on account of the enormous difference in the luminous intensity, an uncertainty in the judgment. But such uncertainty appeared only in a slight degree in both the cases, a thing possible only because there had already been sufficient experiences with the eye. But these experiences, as is frequently stated, were absolutely lacking in regard to the limits and the form of objects. Here another thing comes in to help. Evidently, an eye that distinguishes only colors sees these colors always only as limited; even if it saw only a single color that occupied the whole field of vision, the field would still be a limited one. But the colored field may be small or large, and this difference may be noticed before the operation. If the object--one of vivid coloring--is long and narrow, the patient, even before the operation, will see it otherwise than if it is, with the same coloring, short and broad. And suppose he merely observes that not the whole field of vision is colored. If the whole field is colored, there is, of course, an entire lack of angles; on the other hand, if the whole field of vision is not filled by the colored object, then it is--however faintly--divided, and the lines of division, i. e., the indistinct boundary-lines of the objects whose color is perceived, may be either like the natural limits of the entire field of vision, i. e., "round," or unlike them, i. e., "angular." If, now, the obstacle is suddenly removed, the patient (even if he did not before the operation distinguish angular and round by the eye) must yet perceive which of the objects before him resemble in contour the previous field of vision, i. e., are round, and which do not; for the round contour of his field of vision is familiar to him. But W. had learned, through the sense of touch, that what is not round is angular. He would, therefore, even if he could perceive colors when the whole field of vision was filled--a matter on which we have no information--be able to guess the outlines of some objects soon after the operation, merely on the ground of his experiences before it. It was guess-work every time, as appears from the confounding of knife and spoon, mug and basin. The boy must have thought, "How would it be if I felt of it?" and, as he had before the operation frequently observed that whatever had the same contour as his field of vision, or a contour similar to that, was round, he could, after the operation, distinguish round and not round--a thing which a person born blind, on the other hand, and knowing nothing of his field of vision, because he has never had any, can never do.

On the whole, the two Ware cases are by no means so important as the Franz (see below) and Chesselden cases, because the boy, W., had ample opportunity up to his seventh year for learning to distinguish different colors according to their quality and luminous intensity; because he must have known the limits of his field of vision, and could in any case, by means of touch, correct and relatively confirm his very frequent attempts to guess at forms and distances by the eye. Finally, it is not known whether he became blind before or immediately after his birth, or, as is most probable, not till some months after birth. The same is true of the second case.

IV, V. THE HOME CASES.

Everard Home makes the following statement in the "Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society," London, 1807, i, pp. 83-87, 91:

"1. William Stiff, twelve years of age, had cataracts in his eyes, which, according to the account of his mother, existed at the time of birth. From earliest infancy he never stretched out his hand to catch at anything, nor were his eyes directed to objects placed before him, but rolled about in a very unusual manner. The eyes were not examined till he was six months old, and at that time the cataracts were as distinct as when he was received into the hospital. He could at that time (July 17, 1806) distinguish light from darkness, and the light of the sun from that of a fire or candle; he said it was redder and more pleasant to look at, but lightning made a still stronger impression on his eyes. All these different lights he called red. The sun appeared to him the size of his hat. The candle-flame was larger than his finger and smaller than his arm. When he looked at the sun, he said it appeared to touch his eye. When a lighted candle was placed before him, both his eyes were directed toward it, and moved together. When it was at any nearer distance than twelve inches, he said it touched his eyes. When moved farther off he said it did not touch them, and at twenty-two inches it became invisible.

"On the 21st of July the operation of extracting the crystalline lens was performed on the left eye. Light became very distressing to his eye. After allowing the eyelids to remain closed for a few minutes, and then opening them, the pupil appeared clear, but he could not bear exposure to light. On my asking him what he had seen, he said, 'Your head, which seemed to touch my eye,' but he could not tell its shape. On the 22d the light was less offensive. He said he saw my head, which touched his eye. On the 23d the eye was less inflamed, and he could bear a weak light. He said he could see several gentlemen round him, but could not describe their figure. My face, while I was looking at his eye, he said was round and red. From the 25th of July to the 1st of August there was inflammation. On the 4th of August an attempt was made to ascertain the powers of vision; it became necessary to shade the glare of light by hanging a white cloth before the window. The least exertion fatigued the eye, and the cicatrix on the cornea, to which the iris had become attached, drew it down so as considerably to diminish the pupil. The attempt had therefore to be postponed.

"On the 16th of September the right eye was couched. The light was so distressing to his eye that the lids were closed as soon as it was over. The eyes were not examined with respect to their vision till the 13th of October; the boy remained quiet in the hospital. On this day he could discern a white, red, or yellow color, particularly when bright and shining. The sun and other objects did not now seem to touch his eyes as before, they appeared to be at a short distance from him. The right eye had the most distinct vision, but in both it was imperfect. The distance at which he saw best was five inches. When the object was of a bright color, and illuminated by a strong light, he could make out that it was flat and broad; and when one corner of a square substance was pointed out to him, he saw it, and could find out the other, which was at the end of the same side, but could not do this under less favorable circumstances. When the four corners of a white card were pointed out, and he had examined them, he seemed to know them; but when the opposite surface of the same card, which was yellow, was placed before him, he could not tell whether it had corners or not, so that he had not acquired any correct knowledge of them, since he could not apply it to the next colored surface, whose form was exactly the same with that, the outline of which the eye had just been taught to trace....

"2. John Salter, seven years of age, was admitted into St. George's Hospital on the 1st of October, 1806, with cataracts in both eyes, which, according to the accounts of his relations, had existed from his birth. The pupils contracted considerably when a lighted candle was placed before him, and dilated as soon as it was withdrawn. He was capable of distinguishing colors with tolerable accuracy, particularly the more bright and vivid ones. On the 6th of October the left eye was couched. The eye was allowed ten minutes to recover itself; a round piece of card, of a yellow color, one inch in diameter, was then placed about six inches from it. He said immediately that it was yellow, and, on being asked its shape, said, 'Let me touch it, and I will tell you.' Being told that he must not touch it, after looking for some time, he said it was round. A square, blue card, nearly the same size, being put before him, he said it was blue and round. A triangular piece he also called round. The different colors of the objects placed before him he instantly decided on with great correctness, but had no idea of their form. He saw best at a distance of six or seven inches. He was asked whether the object seemed to touch his eye; he said, 'No,' but when desired to say at what distance it was, he could not tell. The eye was covered, and he was put to bed and told to keep himself quiet; but upon the house-surgeon going to him half an hour afterward, his eye was found uncovered, and he was looking at his bed-curtains, which were close drawn. The bandage was replaced, but so delighted was the boy with seeing, that he again immediately removed it. The house-surgeon could not enforce his instructions, and repeated the experiment about two hours after the operation. Upon being shown a square, and asked if he could find any corners to it, the boy was very desirous of touching it. This being refused, he examined it for some time, and said at last that he had found a corner, and then readily counted the four corners of the square; and afterward, when a triangle was shown him, he counted the corners in the same way; but in doing so his eye went along the edge from corner to corner, naming them as he went along. Next day he told me he had seen 'the soldiers with their fifes and pretty things.' The guards in the morning had marched past the hospital with their band; on hearing the music, he had got out of bed and gone to the window to look at them. Seeing the bright barrels of muskets, he must in his mind have connected them with the sounds which he heard, and mistaken them for musical instruments. Twenty-four hours after the operation the pupil of the eye was clear. A pair of scissors was shown him, and he said it was a knife. On being told he was wrong, he could not make them out; but the moment he touched them he said they were scissors, and seemed delighted with the discovery.

"From this time he was constantly improving himself by looking at, and examining with his hands, everything within his reach, but he frequently forgot what he had learned. On the 10th I saw him again. He went to the window and called out, 'What is that moving?' I asked him what he thought it was. He said: 'A dog drawing a wheelbarrow. There is one, two, three dogs drawing another. How very pretty!' These proved to be carts and horses on the road, which he saw from a two-pair-of-stairs window.

"On the 19th the different colored pieces of card were separately placed before his eye, and so little had he gained in thirteen days that he could not, without counting their corners one by one, tell their shape. This he did with great facility, running his eye quickly along the outline, so that it was evident he was still learning, just as a child learns to read. He had got so far as to know the angles, when they were placed before him, and to count the number belonging to any one object. The reason of his making so slow a progress was, that these figures had never been subjected to examination by touch, and were unlike anything he had been accustomed to see. He had got so much the habit of assisting his eyes with his hands, that nothing but holding them could keep them from the object.

"On the 26th the experiments were again repeated on the couched eye. It was now found that the boy, on looking at any one of the cards in a good light, could tell the form nearly as readily as the color."

From these two instructive cases Home concludes:

"That, where the eye, before the cataract is removed, has only been capable of discerning light, without being able to distinguish colors, objects after its removal will seem to touch the eye, and there will be no knowledge of their outline, which confirms the observations made by Chesselden.

"That where the eye has previously distinguished colors, there must also be an imperfect knowledge of distances, but not of outline, which, however, will be very soon acquired, as happened in Ware's cases. This is proved by the history of the first boy, who, before the operation had no knowledge of colors or distances, but after it, when his eye had only arrived at the same state that the second boy's was in before the operation, he had learned that the objects were at a distance and of different colors.

"That when a child has acquired a new sense, nothing but great pain or absolute coercion will prevent him from making use of it."

VI. THE WARDROP CASE.

James Wardrop reports ("Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society for 1826," iii, 529-540, London, 1826):

"A girl who was observed, during the first months of her infancy, to have something peculiar in the appearance of her eyes and an unusual groping manner which made her parents suspect that she had defective vision, had an operation performed on both eyes at the age of about six months. The right eye was entirely destroyed in consequence. The left eye was preserved, but the child could only distinguish a very light from a very dark room without having the power to perceive even the situation of the window through which the light entered, though in sunshine or in bright moonlight she knew the direction from which the light emanated. In this case no light could reach the retina except such rays as could pass through the substance of the iris. Until her forty-sixth year the patient could not perceive objects and had no notion of colors. On the 26th of January I introduced a very small needle through the cornea and the center of the iris; but I could not destroy any of the adhesions which had shut up the pupillar opening. After this operation she said she could distinguish more light, but she could perceive neither forms nor colors. On the 8th of February the iris (a portion of it) was divided. The light became offensive to her. She complained of its brightness, and was frequently observed trying to see her hands; but it was evident that her vision was very imperfect, for, although there was an incision made in the iris, some opaque matter lay behind the opening, which must have greatly obstructed the entrance of light.

"On the 17th of February a third operation. The opening was enlarged and the opaque matter removed. The operation being performed at my house, she returned home in a carriage, with her eye covered only with a loose piece of silk, and the first thing she noticed was a hackney-coach passing, when she exclaimed, 'What is that large thing that has passed by us?' In the course of the evening she requested her brother to show her his watch, concerning which she expressed much curiosity, and she looked at it a considerable time, holding it close to her eye. She was asked what she saw, and she said there was a dark and a bright side; she pointed to the hour of twelve, and smiled. Her brother asked her if she saw anything more. She replied, 'Yes,' and pointed to the hour of six and to the hands of the watch. She then looked at the chain and seals, and observed that one of the seals was bright, which was the case. The following day I asked her to look again at the watch, which she refused to do, saying that the light was offensive to her eye and that she felt very stupid, meaning that she was much confused by the visible world thus for the first time opened to her.

"On the third day she observed the doors on the opposite side of the street and asked if they were red, but they were, in fact, of an oak-color. In the evening she looked at her brother's face and said that she saw his nose. He asked her to touch it, which she did. He then slipped a handkerchief over his face and asked her to look again, when she playfully pulled it off and asked, 'What is that?'

"On the sixth day she told us that she saw better than she had done on any preceding day; 'but I can not tell what I do see. I am quite stupid.' She felt disappointed in not having the power of distinguishing at once by her eye objects which she could so readily distinguish from one another by feeling them.

"On the seventh day she observed that the mistress of the house was tall. She asked what the color of her gown was, to which she was answered that it was blue. 'So is that thing on your head,' she then observed, which was the case; 'and your handkerchief, that is a different color,' which was also correct. She added, 'I see you pretty well, I think.' The teacups and saucers underwent an examination. 'What are they like?' her brother asked her. 'I don't know,' she replied, 'they look very queer to me, but I can tell what they are in a minute when I touch them.' She distinguished an orange, but could form no notion of what it was till she touched it. She seemed now to have become more cheerful, and she was very sanguine that she would find her newly acquired faculty of more use to her when she returned home, where everything was familiar to her.

"On the eighth day she asked her brother 'what he was helping himself to?' and when she was told it was a glass of port wine, she replied, 'Port wine is dark, and looks to me very ugly.' She observed, when candles were brought into the room, her brother's face in the mirror as well as that of a lady who was present; she also walked for the first time without assistance from her chair to a sofa which was on the opposite side of the room and back again to the chair. When at tea she took notice of the tray, observed the shining of the japan-work, and asked 'what the color was round the edge?' she was told that it was yellow, upon which she remarked, 'I will know that again.'

"On the ninth day she came down-stairs to breakfast in great spirits. She said to her brother, 'I see you very well to-day,' and came up to him and shook hands. She also observed a ticket on a window of a house on the opposite side of the street ('a lodging to let'), and her brother, to convince himself of her seeing it, took her to the window three separate times, and to his surprise and gratification she pointed it out to him distinctly on each trial.

"She spent a great part of the eleventh day looking out of the window, and spoke very little.

"On the twelfth day she went to walk with her brother. The clear blue sky first attracted her notice, and she said, 'It is the prettiest thing I have ever seen yet, and equally pretty every time I turn round and look at it.' She distinguished the street from the foot-pavement distinctly, and stepped from one to the other like a person accustomed to the use of her eyes. Her great curiosity, and the manner in which she stared at the variety of objects and pointed to them, exciting the observation of many by-standers, her brother soon conducted her home, much against her will.

"On the evening of the thirteenth day she observed that there was a different tea-tray, and that it was not a pretty one, but had a dark border, which was a correct description. Her brother asked her to look in the mirror and tell him if she saw his face in it, to which she answered, evidently disconcerted: 'I see my own; let me go away.'

"On the fourteenth day she drove in a carriage four miles, and noticed the trees, and likewise the river Thames as she crossed Vauxhall Bridge. At this time it was bright sunshine, and she said something dazzled her when she looked on the water.

"On the fifteenth day she walked to a chapel. The people passing on the pavement startled her, and once when a gentleman was going past her who had a white waistcoat and a blue coat with yellow buttons, which the sunshine brought full in her view, she started so as to draw her brother, who was walking with her, off the pavement. She distinguished the clergyman moving his hands in the pulpit, and observed that he held something in them. This was a white handkerchief.

"On the sixteenth day she went in a coach through the town, and appeared much entertained with the bustle in the streets. On asking her how she saw on that day, she answered: 'I see a great deal, if I could only tell what I do see; but surely I am very stupid.'

"On the seventeenth day, when her brother asked her how she was, she replied: 'I am well, and see better; but don't tease me with too many questions till I have learned a little better how to make use of my eye. All that I can say is, that I am sure, from what I do see, a great change has taken place, but I can not describe what I feel.'

"On the eighteenth day, when pieces of paper one inch and a half square, differently colored, were presented to her, she not only distinguished them at once from one another, but gave a decided preference to some colors, liking yellow most, and then pale pink. When desirous of examining an object, she had considerable difficulty in directing her eye to it and finding out its position, moving her hand as well as her eye in various directions, as a person when blindfolded or in the dark gropes with his hands for what he wishes to touch. She also distinguished a large from a small object when they were both held up before her for comparison. She said she saw different forms in various objects which were shown to her. On asking what she meant by different forms, such as long, round, and square, and desiring her to draw with her finger these forms on her other hand, and then presenting to her eye the respective forms, she pointed to them exactly; she not only distinguished small from large objects, but knew what was meant by above and below. A figure, drawn with ink, was placed before her eye, having one end broad and the other narrow, and she saw the positions as they really were, and not inverted.

"She could also perceive motions, for, when a glass of water was placed on the table before her, on approaching her hand near it, it was moved quickly to a greater distance, upon which she immediately said: 'You move it; you take it away.'

"She seemed to have the greatest difficulty in finding out the distance of any object; for, when an object was held close to her eye, she would search for it by stretching her hand far beyond its position, while on other occasions she groped close to her own face for a thing far removed from her.

"She learned with facility the names of the different colors, and two days after the colored papers had been shown to her, on coming into a room the color of which was crimson, she observed that it was red. She also observed some pictures hanging on the red wall of the room in which she was sitting, distinguishing several small figures in them, but not knowing what they represented, and admiring the gilt frames. On the same day she walked round a pond, and was pleased with the glistening of the sun's rays on the water, as well as with the blue sky and green shrubs, the colors of which she named correctly.

"She had as yet acquired, by the use of her sight, but very little knowledge of any forms, and was unable to apply the information gained by this new sense, and to compare it with what she had been accustomed to acquire by her sense of touch. When, therefore, a silver pencil-case and a large key were given her to examine with her hands, she discriminated and knew each distinctly; but when they were placed on the table, side by side, though she distinguished each with her eye, yet she could not tell which was the pencil-case and which was the key.

"On the twenty-fifth day after the operation she drove in a carriage for an hour in the Regent's Park, and asked more questions, on her way there, than usual, about the objects surrounding her, such as, 'What is that?' 'It is a soldier,' she was answered. 'And that? See, see!' These were candles of various colors in a tallow-chandler's window. 'Who is that that has passed us just now?' It was a person on horseback. 'But what is that on the pavement, red?' It was some ladies who wore red shawls. On going into the park she was asked if she could guess what any of the objects were. 'Oh, yes,' she replied, 'there is the sky; that is the grass; yonder is water, and two white things,' which were two swans.

"When she left London, forty-two days after the operation, she had acquired a pretty accurate notion of colors and their different shades and names. She had not yet acquired anything like an accurate knowledge of distance or of forms, and, up to this period, she continued to be very much confused with every new object at which she looked. Neither was she yet able, without considerable difficulty and numerous fruitless trials, to direct her eye to an object; so that, when she attempted to look at anything, she turned her head in various directions, until her eye caught the object of which it was in search."

Remarks on the Sixth Case.

This case has been adduced as a proof that the sense of sight is sufficient, without aid from the sense of touch, to perceive whether an object is brought nearer the eye or carried farther from it. But John Stuart Mill rightly observes, in opposition to this ("Dissertations and Discussions," ii, 113; London, 1859), that the observation we are concerned with was not made "till the eighteenth day after the operation, by which time a middle-aged woman might well have acquired the experience necessary for distinguishing so simple a phenomenon." Besides, she was very uncertain in her judgment of distances, and, in her attempts to seize with the hand new and distant objects, she frequently acted exactly like an infant.

VII. THE FRANZ CASE.

J. C. A. Franz, of Leipsic, communicates the following to the "Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society" (by Sir Benjamin C. Brodie), (London, 1841; i, pp. 59-69):

"F. J. is the son of a physician. He is endowed with an excellent understanding, quick power of conception, and retentive memory. At his birth, both eyes were found to be turned inward to such an extent that a portion of the cornea was hidden by the inner canthus, and in both pupils there was a yellowish-white discoloration. That the strabismus and cataract of both eyes in this case were congenital is evident from the testimony both of the parents and of the nurse. The latter held a light before the eyes of the child when he was a few months old, of which he took no notice. I ascertained also from her that the eyeballs did not move hither and thither, but were always turned inward, and that but rarely either the one or the other was moved from the internal canthus.

"Toward the end of the second year, as was stated to me, the operation of keratonyxis was performed on the right eye, upon which a severe iritis ensued, terminating in atrophy of the eyeball. Within the next four years two similar operations were performed on the left eye without success. The color of the opacity became, however, of a clearer white, and the patient acquired a certain sensation of light, which he did not seem to have had before the operation.

"At the end of June, 1840, the patient, being then seventeen years of age, was brought to me. I found the condition of things as follows: Both eyes were so much inverted that nearly one half the cornea was hidden. The left eye he could move voluntarily outward, but not without exertion; it returned immediately inward when the influence of the will had ceased. The left eyeball was of the natural size and elasticity. The patient had not the slightest perception of light with the right eye; the stimulus of light had no effect on the pupil. The pupil of the left eye, which was not round, but drawn angularly downward and inward, did not alter in dimension with the movements of the eye nor from the stimulus of light. On examining the eye by looking straight into it through the pupil, the anterior wall of the capsule appeared opaque in its whole extent, and of a color and luster like mother-of-pearl. On looking from the temporal side in an oblique direction into the pupil, there was visible in the anterior wall of the capsule a very small perpendicular cleft of about one line and a quarter in length.

"This cleft was situated so far from the center of the pupil that it was entirely covered by the iris. With this eye the patient had a perception of light, and was even capable of perceiving colors of an intense and decided tone. He believed himself, moreover, able to perceive about one third of a square inch of any bright object, if held at the distance of half an inch or an inch from the eye, and obliquely in such a direction as to reflect the light strongly toward the pupil. But this, I am convinced, was a mere delusion, for all rays of light falling in the direction of the optic axis must have been intercepted and reflected by the opaque capsule. By these rays, therefore, a perception of light, indeed, might be conveyed, but certainly no perception of objects. On the other hand, it seems probable that the lateral cleft in the capsule permitted rays of light to pass into the interior of the eye. But as this small aperture was situated entirely behind the iris, those rays only would have permeated which came in a very oblique direction from the temporal side. Admitting, then, these rays of light to pass through the cleft, still on account of their obliquity they could produce but a very imperfect image, because they impinged upon an unfavorable portion of the retina. Moreover, I satisfied myself by experiments, that the patient could not in the least discern objects by sight. My experiments led me to the conclusion that his belief that he really saw objects resulted solely from his imagination combined with his power of reasoning. In feeling an object and bringing it in contact with the eyelids and the cheek, an idea of the object was produced, which was judged of and corrected according to the experience he had gained by constant practice.

"The patient's sense of touch had attained an extraordinary degree of perfection. In order to examine an object minutely he conveyed it to his lips.

"On the 10th of July, 1840, I performed an operation on the left eye. The light was so painful to him that I could not try any experiments immediately after the operation. Both eyes were closed with narrow strips of court-plaster, and treated with iced water for forty-eight hours. The patient suffered from _muscae volitantes_, and could not bear even a mild degree of light falling on the closed lids. After the lapse of a few weeks, the _muscae volitantes_ were greatly mitigated, and the intolerance of light ceased.

"On opening the eye for the first time on the third day after the operation, I asked the patient what he could see; he answered that he saw an extensive field of light, in which everything appeared dull, confused, and in motion. He could not distinguish objects. The pain produced by the light forced him to close the eye immediately.

"Two days afterward the eye, which had been kept closed by means of court-plaster, was again opened. He now described what he saw as a number of opaque watery spheres, which moved with the movements of the eye, but when the eye was at rest remained stationary, and then partly covered each other. Two days after this the eye was again opened. The same phenomena were again observed, but the spheres were less opaque and somewhat transparent; their movements more steady; they appeared to cover each other more than before. He was now for the first time able, as he said, to look through the spheres, and to perceive a difference, but merely a difference, in the surrounding objects. When he directed his eye steadily toward an object, the visual impression produced by the object was painful and very imperfect, because the eye, on account of its intolerance of light, could not be kept open long enough for the formation of the idea as derived from visual sensation. The appearance of spheres diminished daily; they became smaller, clearer, and more pellucid, allowed objects to be seen more distinctly, and disappeared entirely after two weeks. The _muscae volitantes_, which had the form of black, immovable, and horizontal stripes, appeared, every time the eye was opened, in a direction upward and inward. When the eye was closed he observed, especially in the evening, in an outward and upward direction, an appearance of dark blue, violet, and red colors; these colors became gradually less intense, were shaded into bright orange, yellow, and green, which latter colors alone eventually remained, and in the course of five weeks disappeared entirely. As soon as the intolerance of light had so far abated that the patient could observe an object without pain, and for a sufficient time to gain an idea of it, the following experiments were made on different days.

"_First Experiment._--Silk ribbons of different colors, fastened on a black ground, were employed to show the complementary colors. The patient recognized the different colors, with the exception of yellow and green, which he frequently confounded, but could distinguish when both were exhibited at the same time. He could point out each color correctly when a variety was shown him at the same time. Gray pleased him best; the effect of red, orange, and yellow was painful; that of violet and brown not painful, but disagreeable. Black produced subjective colors, and white occasioned the recurrence of _muscae volitantes_ in a most vehement degree.

"_Second Experiment._--The patient sat with his back to the light, and kept his eye closed. A sheet of paper on which two strong black lines had been drawn, the one horizontal, the other vertical, was placed before him, at the distance of about three feet. He was now allowed to open the eye, and after attentive examination he called the lines by their right denominations. When I asked him to point out with his finger the horizontal line, he moved his hand slowly, as if feeling, and pointed to the vertical; but after a short time, observing his error, he corrected himself. The outline in black of a square [six inches in diameter], within which a circle had been drawn, and within the latter a triangle, was, after careful examination, recognized and correctly described by him. When he was asked to point out either of the figures, he never moved his hand directly and decidedly, but always as if feeling, and with the greatest caution; he pointed them out, however, correctly. A zigzag and a spiral line, both drawn on a sheet of paper, he observed to be different, but could not describe them otherwise than by imitating their forms with his finger in the air. He said he had no idea of those figures.

"_Third Experiment._--The windows of the room were darkened, with the exception of one, toward which the patient, closing his eye, turned his back. At the distance of three feet, and on a level with the eye, a solid _cube_ and a _sphere_, each of four inches diameter, were placed before him. I now let him open his eye. After attentively examining these bodies, he said he saw a _quadrangular_ and a _circular_ figure, and after some consideration he pronounced the one a _square_ and the other a _disk_. His eye being then closed, the cube was taken away, and a disk of equal size substituted and placed next to the sphere. On again opening his eye he observed no difference in these objects, but regarded them both as disks. The solid cube was now placed in a somewhat oblique position before the eye, and close beside it a figure cut out of pasteboard, representing a plane outline prospect of the cube when in this position. Both objects he took to be something like flat quadrates. A pyramid, placed before him with one of its sides toward his eye, he saw as a plane triangle. This object was now turned a little, so as to present two of its sides to view, but rather more of one side than of the other; after considering and examining it for a long time, he said that this was a very extraordinary figure; it was neither a triangle, nor a quadrangle, nor a circle; he had no idea of it, and could not describe it. 'In fact,' said he, 'I must give it up.' On the conclusion of these experiments I asked him to describe the sensations the objects had produced, whereupon he said that immediately on opening his eye he had discovered a difference in the two objects, the cube and the sphere, placed before him, and perceived that they were not drawings; but that he had not been able to form from them the idea of a square and a disk, _until he perceived a sensation of what he saw in the points of his fingers_, as if he really touched the objects. When I gave the three bodies, the sphere, cube, and pyramid, into his hand, he was much surprised that he had not recognized them as such by sight, as he was well acquainted with them by touch. These experiments prove the correctness of the hypothesis I have advanced elsewhere on the well-known question put by Mr. Molyneux to Locke, which was answered by both these gentlemen in the negative.

"_Fourth Experiment._--In a vessel containing water to about the depth of one foot was placed a musket-ball, and on the surface of the water a piece of pasteboard of the same form, size, and color as the ball. The patient could perceive no difference in the position of these bodies; he believed both to be upon the surface of the water. Pointing to the ball, I desired him to take up this object. He made an attempt to take it from the plane of the water; but, when he found he could not grasp it there, he said he had deceived himself, the objects were lying in the water, upon which I informed him of their real position. I now desired him to touch the ball which lay in the water with a small rod. He attempted this several times, but always missed his aim. He could never touch the object at the first movement of his hand toward it, but only by feeling about with the rod. On being questioned with respect to reflected light, he said that he was always obliged to bear in mind that the looking-glass was fastened to the wall in order to correct his idea of the apparent situation of objects behind the glass.

"When the patient first acquired the faculty of sight, all objects appeared to him so near that he was sometimes afraid of coming in contact with them, though they were in reality at a great distance from him. He saw everything much larger than he had supposed from the idea obtained by his sense of touch. Moving and especially living objects, such as men, horses, etc., appeared to him very large. If he wished to form an estimate of the distance of objects from his own person or of two objects from each other without moving from his place, he examined the objects from different points of view by turning his head to the right and to the left. Of perspective in pictures he had, of course, no idea; it appeared to him unnatural that the figure of a man represented in the front of a picture should be larger than a house or mountain in the background. All objects appeared to him perfectly flat. Thus, although he very well knew by his touch that the nose was prominent and the eyes sunk deeper in the head, he saw the human face only as a plane. Though he possessed an excellent memory, this faculty was at first quite deficient as regarded visible objects: he was not able, for example, to recognize visitors, unless he heard them speak, till he had seen them very frequently. Even when he had seen an object repeatedly he could form no idea of its visible qualities without having the real object before him. Heretofore when he dreamed of any persons, of his parents, for instance, he felt them and heard their voices, but never saw them; but now, after having seen them frequently, he saw them also in his dreams. The human face pleased him more than any other object. Although the newly-acquired sense afforded him many pleasures, the great number of strange and extraordinary sights was often disagreeable and wearisome to him. He said that he saw too much novelty which he could not comprehend; and, even though he could see both near and remote objects very well, he would nevertheless continually have recourse to the use of the sense of touch."

Final Remarks.

To the seven reports upon cases of persons born blind and afterward surgically treated, which are here presented in abridged form from the English originals, may be added some more recent and more accessible ones, one by Hirschberg ("Archiv fuer Opthalmologie," xxi, 1. Abth., S. 29 bis 42, 1875), one by A. von Hippel (ibid., xxi, 2. Abth., S. 101), and one by Dufour ("Archives des Sciences physiques et naturelles," lviii, No. 242, April, 1877, p. 420). The cases reported here are those most discussed. I have given them considerably in detail in order that the reader may form an independent judgment concerning the behavior of persons born blind and then operated upon, as that behavior is described _before_ the modern physiological controversy over empiricism and nativism. Helmholtz ("Physiologische Optik," Sec. 28) mentions, besides those of Chesselden and Wardrop and Ware, which he gives in abridged form, some other cases also. Others still may be found in Froriep's "Notizen" (xi, p. 177, 1825, and iv, p. 243, 1837, also xxi, p. 41, 1842), partly reported, partly cited (the latter according to Franz).

In addition to the cases here given of persons born blind and then surgically treated--persons not able to see things in space-relations before becoming blind--one more case is to be mentioned; it is that of a girl who in her seventh year (probably in consequence of the effect of dazzling sunlight) lost her sight completely, but recovered it again at the age of seventeen years after being treated with electricity. She had to begin absolutely anew to learn to name colors like a child; all measure of distance, perspective, size, had been lost for her _by lack of practice_ (as O. Heyfelder relates in his work "Die Kindheit des Menschen," second edition, Erlangen, 1858, pp. 12-15). He says, p. 12, that the patient had been eight years blind; p. 13, that she had been ten years so. Such cases prove the great influence of experience upon vision in space, and show how little of this vision is inborn in mankind.

When we compare the acquirement of sight by the normal newly-born child and the infant with that of those born blind, we should, above all, bear in mind that the latter in general could make use of only _one_ eye, and also that on account of the long inactivity of the retina and the absence of the crystalline lens, as well as in consequence of the numerous experiences of touch, essential differences exist. Notwithstanding this, there appears an agreement in the manner in which in both cases vision is learned, the eye is practiced, and the association of sight and touch is acquired. The seventh case in particular shows plainly how strong the analogies are.

These cases are sufficient to refute some singular assertions, e. g., that all the newly-born must see objects reversed, as even a Buffon ("Oeuvres completes," iv, 136; Paris, 1844) thought to be the fact. My boy, when I had him write, in his fifth year, the ordinary figures after a copy that I set for him, imitated the most of them, to my surprise, always in a reversed hand (Spiegelschrift, "mirror-hand"); the 1 and the 4 he continued longest to write thus, though he often made the 4 the other way, too, whereas he always wrote the 5 correctly. This, however, was, of course, not owing to imperfect sight, but to incomplete transformation of the visual idea into the motor idea required for writing. Other boys, as I am given to understand, do the same thing. For myself, I found the distinction between "right" and "left" so difficult in my childhood, that I remember vividly the trouble I had with it.

Singularly enough, Buffon assumed, in 1749, that the neglect of the double images does not yet take place at the beginning of life. Johannes Mueller, in 1826, expresses the same view. But, inasmuch as in the first two or three weeks after the birth of a human being, in contrast with many animals, nothing at all can as yet be distinctly seen, it is not allowable to maintain that everything must be seen double. Rather is it true that everything is seen neither single nor double, since the very young child perceives, as yet, no forms (boundary-lines) and no distances, but merely receives impressions of light, precisely as is the case with the person born blind, in the period directly after an operation has been performed upon his eyes.

Schopenhauer (in his treatise on "Sight and Colors," first edition, Leipsic, 1816, p. 14) divined this truth. He says, "If a person who was looking out upon a wide and beautiful prospect could be in an instant wholly deprived of his intellect, then nothing of all the view would remain for him except the sensation of a very manifold reaction of his retina, which is, as it were, the raw material out of which his intellect created that view."

The new-born child has, as yet, no intellect, and therefore can not, as yet, at the beginning, see; he can merely have the sensation of light.

This opinion of mine, derived from observation of the behavior of newly-born and of very young infants (cf. the first chapter of this book), seems to me to be practically confirmed in an account given by Anselm von Feuerbach in his work on Kaspar Hauser (Anspach, 1832, p. 77).

"In the year 1828, soon after his arrival in Nuremberg, Kaspar Hauser was to look out at the window in the Vestner Tower, from which there was a view of a broad and many-colored summer landscape. Kaspar Hauser turned away; the sight was repugnant to him. At a later period, long after he had learned to speak, he gave, when questioned, the following explanation:

"'When I looked toward the window it always seemed to me as if a shutter had been put up close before my eyes, and that upon this shutter a colorer had wiped off his brushes of different colors, white, blue, green, yellow, and red, all in motley confusion. Individual things, as I now see them, I could not, at that time, perceive and distinguish upon it; it was absolutely hideous to look upon.'"

By this, as well as by the experiences with persons born blind and afterward surgically treated, it is clearly demonstrated that colors and degrees of brightness are severally apprehended before forms and distances can be perceived. The case must be the same with the normal human child in the first weeks after birth.

After discrimination of the luminous sensations, the boundary-lines of bright plane surfaces are next clearly discerned; then come forms, and, last of all, the distances of these.

With reference to this progress of the normal infant in learning to see, the accounts of persons born blind and afterward surgically treated are again of great value. After the famous question put by Molyneux to Locke, whether an intelligent person, blind from birth, would be able immediately after an operation to distinguish a sphere from a cube by means of the eye alone, had been answered in the negative, the opinion was accepted as satisfactory that such a person learns the distinction only by means of the sense of touch. Thus, the perception of difference would come later, after the sight of different forms, only by means of the tactual memory.

In truth, however, very many forms are discerned as different purely by means of the eye, without the possibility of aid from any other sense. Phenomena exclusively optical, which, like the rainbow, can not be apprehended by touch or by hearing, are distinctly perceived by the child at a very early period. Without touching, the different forms of objects would be perceived by means of sight alone, and that even by a child unable to touch, through movements of the eyes and head, changes of bodily position, of attitude and posture, and through practice in accommodation and in the observation of differences of brightness.

The fact correctly predicted by Molyneux, that those born blind but afterward surgically treated can not, by means of the eye alone, distinguish the form of a sphere from that of a cube, must accordingly be supplemented to this extent, viz., that such persons are capable, just as are normal children who can see, of learning this difference of form by means of the eye alone without the direct intervention of the sense of touch; for the co-ordination of the retinal excitations in space and time by means of the intellect, quite independently of all impressions from other departments of sense, is possible, and is in countless cases actual, just as is the learning of differences of form solely by means of the sense of touch in children who are born blind and never learn to see.

THE END.

D. APPLETON & CO.'S PUBLICATIONS.

NEW VOLUMES IN THE INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION SERIES.

_EDUCATION FROM A NATIONAL STANDPOINT_. By ALFRED FOUILLEE. Translated and edited, with a Preface, by W. J. GREENSTREET, M. A., St. John's College, Cambridge; Head Master of the Marling School, Stroud. 12mo. Cloth, $1.50.

Fouillee's work is a timely and valuable contribution to the discussions of some of the important educational questions that are at present claiming attention in both this country and Europe.

_SYSTEMATIC SCIENCE TEACHING. A Manual of Inductive Elementary Work for all Instructors in Graded and Ungraded Schools, the Kindergarten, and the Home_. By EDWARD GARDNIER HOWE. 12mo. Cloth, $1.50.

A thoroughly practical and reliable guide to elementary instruction in science has long been a desideratum, and this work, embodying the results of fourteen years of actual classroom tests, will satisfactorily meet such a demand. The volume gives a general outline of work for the first three years.

_THE EDUCATION OF THE GREEK PEOPLE, and its Influence on Civilization_. By THOMAS DAVIDSON. 12mo. Cloth, $1.50.

"This work is not intended for scholars or specialists, but for that large body of teachers throughout the country who are trying to do their duty, but are suffering from that want of enthusiasm which necessarily comes from being unable clearly to see the end and purpose of their labors, or to invest any end with sublime import. I have sought to show them that the end of their work is the redemption of humanity, an essential part of that process by which it is being gradually elevated to moral freedom, and to suggest to them the direction in which they ought to turn their chief efforts. If I can make even a few of them feel the consecration that comes from single-minded devotion to a great end, I shall hold that this book has accomplished its purpose."--_Author's Preface_.

_THE EVOLUTION OF THE MASSACHUSETTS PUBLIC-SCHOOL SYSTEM. A Historical Sketch in Six Lectures_. By GEORGE H. MARTIN, A. M., Supervisor of Public Schools, Boston, Massachusetts. 12mo. Cloth, $1.50.

The public discussion that arose from Professor Martin's papers upon the topic treated in this work will make the complete collection of the essays of much interest to a large circle of readers. In the present volume the author aims to show the evolutionary character of the public-school history of the State, and to point out the lines along which the development has run and the relation throughout to the social environment, and incidentally to illustrate the slow and irregular way by which the people under popular governments work out their own social and intellectual progress.

_THE PYGMIES_. By A. DE QUATREFAGES, late Professor of Anthropology at the Museum of Natural History, Paris. With numerous Illustrations. 12mo. Cloth, $1.75.

In this interesting volume the author has gathered the results of careful studies of the small black races of Africa, and he shows what the pygmies of antiquity really were. The peculiar intellectual, moral, and religious characteristics of these races are also described.

_WOMAN'S SHARE IN PRIMITIVE CULTURE_. By OTIS TUFTON MASON, A. M., Curator of the Department of Ethnology in the United States National Museum. With numerous Illustrations. 12mo. Cloth, $1.75.

"A most interesting _resume_ of the revelations which science has made concerning the habits of human beings in primitive times, and especially as to the place, the duties, and the customs of women."--_Philadelphia Inquirer_.

"Mr. Mason's volume secures for woman her glory as a civilizer in the past, and by no means denies her a glorious future."--_New York Tribune_.

_SCHOOLS AND MASTERS OF SCULPTURE_. By A. G. RADCLIFFE, author of "Schools and Masters of Painting." With 35 full-page Illustrations. 12mo. Cloth, $3.00.

"The art lover will find in Miss Radcliffe's work a book of fascinating interest, and a thoroughly painstaking and valuable addition to the stock of knowledge which he may possess on the history of the noble art of sculpture."--_Philadelphia Item_.

"It would be difficult to name another work that would be so valuable to the general reader on the same subject as this book."--_San Francisco Bulletin_.

"The work is free of all needless technicalities, and will be of intense interest to every intelligent reader, while of inestimable value to the student of art."--_Boston Home Journal_.

_BY THE SAME AUTHOR_.

_SCHOOLS AND MASTERS OF PAINTING_. With numerous Illustrations and an Appendix on the Principal Galleries of Europe. New edition, fully revised, and in part rewritten. 12mo. Cloth, $3.00; half calf, $5.00.

"The volume is one of great practical utility, and may be used to advantage as an artistic guide-book by persons visiting the collections of Italy, France, and Germany for the first time."--_New York Tribune_.

_THE DAWN OF CIVILIZATION_. (EGYPT AND CHALDAEA.) By Prof. MASPERO. Edited by the Rev. Prof. SAYCE. Translated by M. L. McCLURE. With Maps and over 470 Illustrations. Quarto. Cloth, $7.50.

"The most complete account of ancient Egypt ever published."--_Chicago Herald_.

"Professor Maspero's intimate acquaintance with Egypt and its literature, and the opportunities offered him by his position for several years as director of the Bulak Museum give him a unique claim to speak with authority on the history of the Nile Valley."--_New York Sun_.

_POPULAR ASTRONOMY: A General Description of the Heavens_. By CAMILLE FLAMMARION. Translated from the French by J. ELLARD GORE, F. R. A. S. With 3 Plates and 288 Illustrations. 8vo. Cloth, $4.50.

"M. Flammarion has produced a work that charms while it interests. He has classified astronomy so perfectly that any person of ordinary intelligence may learn from this book practically all that the men in the observatories know."--_New York Times_.

"The fullest and most elaborate compendium of popular astronomy.... The book might reasonably be pronounced the most desirable of its kind."--_New York Sun_.

_LIFE OF SIR RICHARD OWEN_. By Rev. RICHARD OWEN. With an Introduction by T. H. HUXLEY. 2 vols. 12mo. Cloth, $7.50.

"The value of these memoirs is that they disclose with great minuteness the daily labors and occupations of one of the foremost men of science of England."--_Boston Herald_.

"A noteworthy contribution to biographical literature."--_Philadelphia Press_.

_DEAN BUCKLAND_. The Life and Correspondence of WILLIAM BUCKLAND, D. D., F. R. S., sometime Dean of Westminster, twice President of the Theological Society, and first President of the British Association. By his Daughter, Mrs. GORDON. With Portraits and Illustrations. 8vo. Buckram, $3.50.

"Next to Charles Darwin, Dean Buckland is certainly the most interesting personality in the field of natural science that the present century has produced."--_London Daily News_.

"A very readable book, for it gives an excellent account, without any padding or unnecessary detail, of a most original man."--_Westminster Gazette._

_THE ICE AGE IN NORTH AMERICA, and its Bearings upon the Antiquity of Man_. By G. FREDERICK WRIGHT, D. D., LL. D., F. G. S. A., Professor in Oberlin Theological Seminary; Assistant on the United States Geological Survey. With an appendix on "The Probable Cause of Glaciation," by WARREN UPHAM, F. G. S. A., Assistant on the Geological Surveys of New Hampshire, Minnesota, and the United States. New and enlarged edition. With 150 Maps and Illustrations. 8vo, 625 pages, and Index. Cloth, $5.00.

"Not a novel in all the list of this year's publications has in it any pages of more thrilling interest than can be found in this book by Professor Wright. There is nothing pedantic in the narrative, and the most serious themes and startling discoveries are treated with such charming naturalness and simplicity that boys and girls, as well as their seniors, will be attracted to the story, and find it difficult to lay it aside."--_New York Journal of Commerce_.

"One of the most absorbing and interesting of all the recent issues in the department of popular science."--_Chicago Herald_.

"Though his subject is a very deep one, his style is so very unaffected and perspicuous that even the unscientific reader can peruse it with intelligence and profit. In reading such a book we are led almost to wonder that so much that is scientific can be put in language so comparatively simple."--_New York Observer_.

"The author has seen with his own eyes the most important phenomena of the Ice age on this continent from Maine to Alaska. In the work itself, elementary description is combined with a broad, scientific, and philosophic method, without abandoning for a moment the purely scientific character. Professor Wright has contrived to give the whole a philosophical direction which lends interest and inspiration to it, and which in the chapters on Man and the Glacial Period rises to something like dramatic intensity."--_The Independent_.

"... To the great advance that has been made in late years in the accuracy and cheapness of processes of photographic reproduction is due a further signal advantage that Dr. Wright's work possesses over his predecessors'. He has thus been able to illustrate most of the natural phenomena to which he refers by views taken in the field, many of which have been generously loaned by the United States Geological Survey, in some cases from unpublished material; and he has admirably supplemented them by numerous maps and diagrams."--_The Nation_.

_MAN AND THE GLACIAL PERIOD_. By G. FREDERICK WRIGHT, D. D., LL. D., author of "The Ice Age in North America," "Logic of Christian Evidences," etc. International Scientific Series. With numerous Illustrations. 12mo. Cloth, $1.75.

"It may be described in a word as the best summary of scientific conclusions concerning the question of man's antiquity as affected by his known relations to geological time."--_Philadelphia Press_.

"The earlier chapters describing glacial action, and the traces of it in North America--especially the defining of its limits, such as the terminal moraine of the great movement itself--are of great interest and value. The maps and diagrams are of much assistance in enabling the reader to grasp the vast extent of the movement."--_London Spectator_.

RICHARD A. PROCTOR'S WORKS.

_OTHER WORLDS THAN OURS: The Plurality of Worlds, Studied under the Light of Recent Scientific Researches_. By RICHARD ANTHONY PROCTOR. With Illustrations, some colored. 12mo. Cloth, $1.75.

CONTENTS.--Introduction.--What the Earth teaches us.--What we learn from the Sun.--The Inferior Planets.--Mars, the Miniature of our Earth.--Jupiter, the Giant of the Solar System.--Saturn, the Ringed World.--Uranus and Neptune, the Arctic Planets.--The Moon and other Satellites.--Meteors and Comets: their Office in the Solar System.--Other Suns than Ours.--Of Minor stars, and of the Distribution of Stars in Space.--The Nebulae: are they External Galaxies?--Supervision and Control.

_OUR PLACE AMONG INFINITIES_. A Series of Essays contrasting our Little Abode in Space and Time with the Infinities around us. To which are added Essays on the Jewish Sabbath and Astrology. 12mo. Cloth, $1.75.

CONTENTS.--Past and Future of the Earth.--Seeming Wastes in Nature.--New Theory of Life in other Worlds.--A Missing Comet.--The Lost Comet and its Meteor Train.--Jupiter.--Saturn and its System.--A Giant Sun.--The Star Depths.--Star Gauging.--Saturn and the Sabbath of the Jews.--Thoughts on Astrology.

_THE EXPANSE OF HEAVEN_. A Series of Essays on the Wonders of the Firmament. 12mo. Cloth, $2.00.

CONTENTS.--A Dream that was not all a Dream.--The Sun.--The Queen of Night.--The Evening Star.--The Ruddy Planet.--Life in the Ruddy Planet.--The Prince of Planets.--Jupiter's Family of Moons.--The Ring-Girdled Planet.--Newton and the Law of the Universe.--The Discovery of Two Giant Planets.--The Lost Comet.--Visitants from the Star Depths.--Whence come the Comets?--The Comet Families of the Giant Planets.--The Earth's Journey through Showers.--How the Planets Grew.--Our Daily Light.--The Flight of Light.--A Cluster of Suns.--Worlds ruled by Colored Suns.--The King of Suns.--Four Orders of Suns.--The Depths of Space.--Charting the Star Depths.--The Star Depths Astir with Life.--The Drifting Stars.--The Milky Way.

_THE MOON: Her Motions, Aspect, Scenery, and Physical Conditions_. With Three Lunar Photographs, Map, and many Plates, Charts, etc. 12mo. Cloth, $2.00.

CONTENTS.--The Moon's Distance, Size, and Mass.--The Moon's Motions.--The Moon's Changes of Aspect, Rotation, Libration, etc.--Study of the Moon's Surface.--Lunar Celestial Phenomena.--Condition of the Moon's Surface.--Index to the Map of the Moon.

_LIGHT SCIENCE FOR LEISURE HOURS_. A Series of Familiar Essays on Scientific Subjects, Natural Phenomena, etc. 12mo. Cloth, $1.75.

_HISTORY OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES_, from the Revolution to the Civil War. By JOHN BACH McMASTER. To be completed in six volumes. Vols. I, II, III, and IV now ready. 8vo, cloth, gilt top, $2.50 each.

In the course of this narrative much is written of wars, conspiracies, and rebellions; of Presidents, of Congresses, of embassies, of treaties, of the ambition of political leaders, and of the rise of great parties in the nation. Yet the history of the people is the chief theme. At every stage of the splendid progress which separates the America of Washington and Adams from the America in which we live, it has been the author's purpose to describe the dress, the occupations, the amusements, the literary canons of the times; to note the changes of manners and morals; to trace the growth of that humane spirit which abolished punishment for debt, and reformed the discipline of prisons and of jails; to recount the manifold improvements which, in a thousand ways, have multiplied the conveniences of life and ministered to the happiness of our race; to describe the rise and progress of that long series of mechanical inventions and discoveries which is now the admiration of the world, and our just pride and boast; to tell how, under the benign influence of liberty and peace, there sprang up, in the course of a single century, a prosperity unparalleled in the annals of human affairs.

"The pledge given by Mr. McMaster, that 'the history of the people shall be the chief theme,' is punctiliously and satisfactorily fulfilled. He carries out his promise in a complete, vivid, and delightful way. We should add that the literary execution of the work is worthy of the indefatigable industry and unceasing vigilance with which the stores of historical material have been accumulated, weighed, and sifted. The cardinal qualities of style, lucidity, animation, and energy, are everywhere present. Seldom indeed has a book in which matter of substantial value has been so happily united to attractiveness of form been offered by an American author to his fellow-citizens."--_New York Sun_.

"To recount the marvelous progress of the American people, to describe their life, their literature, their occupations, their amusements, is Mr. McMaster's object. His theme is an important one, and we congratulate him on his success. It has rarely been our province to notice a book with so many excellences and so few defects."--_New York Herald_.

"Mr. McMaster at once shows his grasp of the various themes and his special capacity as a historian of the people. His aim is high, but he hits the mark."--_New York Journal of Commerce_.

"... The author's pages abound, too, with illustrations of the best kind of historical work, that of unearthing hidden sources of information and employing them, not after the modern style of historical writing, in a mere report, but with the true artistic method, in a well-digested narrative.... If Mr. McMaster finishes his work in the spirit and with the thoroughness and skill with which it has begun, it will take its place among the classics of American literature."--_Christian Union_.

* * * * *

New York: D. APPLETON & CO., 72 Fifth Avenue.

* * * * *

Transcriber's notes:

Non-ascii diacritical marks represented as follows:

[=a] a with macron [=aa] aa with macron [=e] e with macron [=ee] ee with macron [=o] o with macron [=oo] oo with macron [=u] u with macron

[)a] a with breve [)e] e with breve [)o] o with breve [)u] u with breve

[(aa] aa with inverted breve [(au] au with inverted breve [(aeu] aeu with inverted breve [(ee] ee with inverted breve [(ei] ei with inverted breve [(eu] eu with inverted breve [(oi] oi with inverted breve

['=e] e with macron and acute accent

Changes to original text:

Page xxvii ... too high or too low (56), changed "comma" to "fullstop"

Page xxix _Organic Sensations and Emotions._ changed to "ORGANIC SENSATIONS AND EMOTIONS."

Page 50 a. _Central Dysarthria and Anarthria._ changed to [alpha]. _Central Dysarthria and Anarthria._

Page 55 e. g changed to e. g.

Page 67 inarticulto changed to inarticulate

Page 91 _hotto_ (horse, from the expression of the carter, "hott-ho (_tt," instead ... changed to _hotto_ (horse), from the expression of the carter, "hott-ho" ("_tt_," instead ...

Page 103 unsually changed to unusually

Page 251 reference to the sound). changed to reference to the sound.

Page 276 microcephalus changed to microcephalous

Page 302 three several times changed to three separate times

1st Page Publications List "SYSEMTATIC" changed to "SYSTEMATIC"

3rd Page Publications List "A noteworthy ... literature.' changed to "A noteworthy ... literature."

* * * * *

End of Project Gutenberg's The Mind of the Child, Part II, by W. Preyer