The Speech of Monkeys

It is as reasonable to attribute meaning to their sounds as to attribute motives to their actions; and the fact that they ascribe a meaning to the sounds of human speech, would show that they are aware that ideas can be conveyed by sounds. If they can interpret certain sounds of human speech, they can ascribe a meaning to their own. They think, and speech is but the natural exponent of thought; it is the audible expression of thought, and signs are the visible expression of the same; born of the same cause, acts to the same end, and discharges the same functions in the economy of life. To reason is to think methodically; and if it be true that man cannot think without words, the same must be true of monkeys. I do not mean, however, to claim that such is a fact with regard to man thinking; but if such can be shown to be a fact, it will decide the question as to the invention of human speech, as it was necessary for man to think in order to invent; and, by the same rule, he could not think a word which did not exist, and therefore could not have invented it. But I beg to be allowed to stand aside and let Prof. Max Mueller and Prof. Whitney, the great giants of comparative philology, settle this question between themselves; and I shall abide by the verdict which may be finally reached. But theories are useless things when the facts are known; and since I have actually learned from a monkey a certain sound having a certain value and meaning a certain thing, and by repeating that sound to a monkey of the same species have met with uniform results, have understood him, and been understood by him, no argument could be so potent as to cause me to believe that this was accident. I am aware that coincidents occur; but when they become the rule instead of the exception, they are no longer mere coincidents, but are the normal state of things.