compensated by the credit we may claim for having advanced ourselves
to such a high pitch of civilisation； this bids us expect still
further progress； and glorifies our descendants more than it abases
our ancestors。 But to whichever view we may incline on sentimental
grounds the fact remains that； while Charles Darwin declared
language to form no impassable barrier between man and the lower
animals； Professor Max Muller calls it the Rubicon which no brute
dare cross； and deduces hence the conclusion that man cannot have
descended from an unknown but certainly speechless ape。
It may perhaps be expected that I should begin a lecture on the
relations between thought and language with some definition of both
these things； but thought； as Sir William Grove said of motion； is a
phenomenon 〃so obvious to simple apprehension； that to define it
would make it more obscure。〃 ｛17｝ Definitions are useful where
things are new to us； but they are superfluous about those that are
already familiar； and mischievous； so far as they are possible at
all； in respect of all those things that enter so profoundly and
intimately into our being that in them we must either live or bear
no life。 To vivisect the more vital processes of thought is to
suspend； if not to destroy them； for thought can think about
everything more healthily and easily than about itself。 It is like
its instrument the brain； which knows nothing of any injuries
inflicted upon itself。 As regards what is new to us； a definition
will sometimes dilute a difficulty； and help us to swallow that
which might choke us undiluted； but to define when we have once well
swallowed is to unsettle； rather than settle； our digestion。
Definitions； again； are like steps cut in a steep slope of ice； or
shells thrown on to a greasy pavement； they give us foothold； and
enable us to advance； but when we are at our journey's end we want
them no longer。 Again； they are useful as mental fluxes； and as
helping us to fuse new ideas with our older ones。 They present us
with some tags and ends of ideas that we have already mastered； on
to which we can hitch our new ones； but to multiply them in respect
of such a matter as thought； is like scratching the bite of a gnat；
the more we scratch the more we want to scratch； the more we define
the more we shall have to go on defining the words we have used in
our definitions； and shall end by setting up a serious mental raw in
the place of a small uneasiness that was after all quite endurable。
We know too well what thought is； to be able to know that we know
it； and I am persuaded there is no one in this room but understands
what is meant by thought and thinking well enough for all the
purposes of this discussion。 Whoever does not know this without
words will not learn it for all the words and definitions that are
laid before him。 The more； indeed； he hears； the more confused he
will become。 I shall； therefore； merely premise that I use the word
〃thought〃 in the same sense as that in which it is generally used by
people who say that they think this or that。 At any rate； it will
be enough if I take Professor Max Muller's own definition； and say
that its essence consists in a bringing together of mental images
and ideas with deductions therefrom； and with a corresponding power
of detaching them from one another。 Hobbes； the Professor tells us；
maintained this long ago； when he said that all our thinking
consists of addition and subtractionthat is to say； in bringing
ideas together； and in detaching them from one another。
Turning from thought to language； we observe that the word is
derived from the French langue； or tongue。 Strictly； therefore； it
means tonguage。 This； however； takes account of but a very small
part of the ideas that underlie the word。 It does； indeed； seize a
familiar and important detail of everyday speech； though it may be
doubted whether the tongue has more to do with speaking than lips；
teeth and throat have； but it makes no attempt at grasping and
expressing the essential characteristic of speech。 Anything done
with the tongue； even though it involve no speaking at all； is
tonguage； eating oranges is as much tonguage as speech is。 The
word； therefore； though it tells us in part how speech is effected；
reveals nothing of that ulterior meaning which is nevertheless
inseparable from any right use of the words either 〃speech〃 or
〃language。〃 It presents us with what is indeed a very frequent
adjunct of conversation； but the use of written characters； or the
finger…speech of deaf mutes； is enough to show that the word
〃language〃 omits all reference to the most essential characteristics
of the idea； which in practice it nevertheless very sufficiently
presents to us。 I hope presently to make it clear to you how and
why it should do so。 The word is incomplete in the first place；
because it omits all reference to the ideas which words； speech or
language are intended to convey； and there can be no true word
without its actually or potentially conveying an idea。 Secondly； it
makes no allusion to the person or persons to whom the ideas are to
be conveyed。 Language is not language unless it not only expresses
fairly definite and coherent ideas； but unless it also conveys these
ideas to some other living intelligent being； either man or brute；
that can understand them。 We may speak to a dog or horse； but not
to a stone。 If we make pretence of doing so we are in reality only
talking to ourselves。 The person or animal spoken to is half the
battlea half； moreover； which is essential to there being any
battle at all。 It takes two people to say a thinga sayee as well
as a sayer。 The one is as essential to any true saying as the
other。 A。 may have spoken； but if B。 has not heard； there has been
nothing said； and he must speak again。 True； the belief on A。's
part that he had a bona fide sayee in B。； saves his speech qua him；
but it has been barren and left no fertile issue。 It has failed to
fulfil the conditions of true speech； which involve not only that A。
should speak； but also that B。 should hear。 True； again； we often
speak of loose； incoherent； indefinite language； but by doing so we
imply； and rightly； that we are calling that language which is not
true language at all。 People； again； sometimes talk to themselves
without intending that any other person should hear them； but this
is not well done； and does harm to those who practise it。 It is
abnormal； whereas our concern is with normal and essential
characteristics； we may； therefore； neglect both delirious
babblings； and the cases in which a person is regarding him or
herself； as it were； from outside； and treating himself as though he
were some one else。
Inquiring； then； what are the essentials； the presence of which
constitutes language； while their absence negatives it altogether；
we find that Professor Max Muller restricts them to the use of
grammatical articulate words that we can write or speak； and denies
that anything can be called language unless it can be written or
spoken in articulate words and sentences。 He also denies that we
can think at all unless we do so in words； that is to say； in
sentences with verbs and nouns。 Indeed he goes so far as to say
upon his title…page that there can be no reasonwhich I imagine
comes to much the same thing as thoughtwithout language； and no
language without reason。
Against the assertion that there can be no true language without
reason I have nothing to say。 But when the Professor says that
there can be no reason； or thought； without language； his opponents
contend； as it seems to me； with greater force； that thought； though
infinitely aided； extended and rendered definite through the
invention of words； nevertheless existed so fully as to deserve no
other name thousands； if not millions of years before words had
entered into it at all。 Words； they say； are a comparatively recent
invention； for the fuller expression of something that was already
in existence。
Children； they urge； are often evidently thinking and reasoning；
though they can neither think nor speak in words。 If you ask me to
define reason； I answer as before that this can no more be done than
thought； truth or motion can be defined。 Who has answered the
question； 〃What is truth？〃 Man cannot see God and live。 We cannot
go so far back upon ourselves as to undermine our own foundations；
if we try to do we topple over； and lose that very reason about
which we vainly try to reason。 If we let the foundations be； we
know well enough that they are there； and we can build upon them in
all security。 We cannot； then； define reason nor crib； cabin and
confine it within a thus…far…shalt…thou…go…and…no…further。 Who can
define heat or cold； or night or day？ Yet； so long as we hold fast
by current consent； our chances of error for want of better
definition are so small that no sensible person will consider them。
In like manner； if we hold by current consent or common sense； which
is the same thing； about reason； we shall not find the want of an
academic definition hinder us from a reasonable conclusion。 What
nurse or mother will doubt