setting the term before its mind as an ob- considerable way along the conceptual ject of thought. Lastly (d) we have the path, and is fairly within sigbt of our disdenominative sign, which means a connota- tinctions of thing and quality, individual tive sign conscionsly bestowed as such with and class. Why logical reflection on this a full conceptual appreciation of its office name as such should be needed to raise and purpose as a name.

such a performance to the dignity of a In this scheme Dr. Romanes evidently true conceptual act, one is at a loss to unrecognizes the point we are now dealing derstand. . And indeed, the author himwith, viz. the implication of a true self appears to recognize all this in a dim thought-process in the proper use of a way at least, when he adds that the con

He seems to be trying to dispense notative sign may be the acccompaniment with this as long as possible, with the not only of receptual but of truly concepview of securing a number of intermediate tual ideation. At the same time this ad. stepping-stones. Can he be said to have dition may very well complete the reader's succeeded ? Does this hierarchy of signs perplexity, for it appears to render the with its parallel scale of ideation carry 118 next stage of evolution, the derominative ap to logical thought ? Is it even intelli- sign, unnecessary. gible? Let us briefly examine it.

Altogether the author's account of signTo begin with, it staggers one not a accompanied ideation is not quite satislittle to find that long before the “ clas- factory. To begin with, one misses an sificatory attribution of qualities” is possi- adequate psychological treatment of signs ble, the animal somehow manages to in general, their nature and function in mark “particular qualities,” " whatever our mental processes, such as M. Taine these may mean. How, one asks, can a has given us in the beginning of his work sign be appended to a quality without be- “On Intelligence.”

On Intelligence.” Then our author coming a connotative sign,” that is, has left us very much in the dark as to attributing a quality to a thing? But let what it is that the sign does for the intelus pass to the really important point, viz. Jective process, when it begins to be used. the alleged power of the animal, e.g. the On the one hand, since we are told that talking bird, to extend a sign to different the mere addition of a name transforms members of a class, and so to attribute the generic image into a “concept,” we common qualities resemblances to naturally expect the function of the sign these, while it is nnable to form a con- to be a large and important one. On the cept in the full sense. This extension, other hand, we gather that signs can be we are told, takes place in the case of the used at the level of receptual ideation, sign-using bird by receptual ideation, where, consequently, true conceptual And here the critic may as well confess thought is wholly excladed. himself fairly beaten. On the one hand, This confusion seems to have its main Dr. Romanes tells us that such a named source in the curious theory that while an recept is a concept (lower concept), and idea may be general, it cannot become a moreover that the sign employed is a con- true concept till it is introspectively renotative sign ; on the other hand he hast- garded as our idea ; and its counterpart, ens to assure us that it is not a name, and that while a sign may be a true sign and therefore presumably not a concept, in even subserve the attribution of qualities the rigorous or perfect sense, since the to objects, it cannot grow into the full sign is not consciously employed as a sign. stature of a name till it is reflected on as Here we seem to have a stepping-stone a name. By this doctrine, Dr. Romanes which it is impossible to define, a sort of seems unwittingly to have substituted the tertium quid between the image and the logical for the psychological definition of concept which is at once neither and both the concept, and so to have put the latter Surely if a sound is used for the purpose higher up in the evolutional scale than it of marking resemblances and attributing ought to be. To this, it must be added qualities, it is a genuine name, and the that the author appears to have been overmental process underlying it is a germ of anxious, with the view of making the true conceptual thought. To say that the transit smooth, to multiply distinctions, parrot attributes qualities, and attributes Such intermediate forms as Dr. Romanes them in a" classificatory'' way too, seems here attempts to interpolate in the process indeed to mean that the bird has got a of intellectual development cannot in


truth do away with the broad distinctions sensation effects a qualitative addition to which psychologists are in the habit of the infant's mental life, there is the more drawing. Thus the recept only appears important fact that the first image of the to connect the image and the concept just absent mother or nurse introduces a new because it tries to be both at the same sphere of mental activity. The child that time. So the lower stadium of the sign dreams and imagines is already a different only gives an appearance of bridging over being from the infant that merely touches the interval between sigoless ideation and and sees. Similarly it may be said that sign-aided thought, just because it aims the first conscious process of breaking up at once at being soluething less than a its sense-presentations, the first distinct true sign, and this true sign itself. apprehension of relations, is epoch-making

If our criticisms are just, Dr. Romanes just because it marks the on-coming of a cannot be said to have succeeded in his new mode of mental activity, a qualitative main object, viz. the obliteration of all extension of its conscious life. qualitative difference between human and To say this, however, is not to say that animal intellection by the interposition of the process of development is wanting in psychological links which can be seen to continuity. For, first of all, these higher have the essential characters of both. forms of activity introduce themselves in And here one is naturally led to ask the most gradual way, and only slowly whether the author is after all on the right disentangle themselves from the lower track. For he is a master of his facts forms which constitute their matrix. and shows considerable power in the niar Thus the image little by little lifts itself shalling of his arguments, and, as even a butterfly-like out of its chrysalis, the per. hasty perusal of the volume can show any- cept. Similarly, what we call thinking, body, he has bere concentrated his force with its conscious comparing and relating in a severe and sustained effort. Where of the products of sense perception, he has failed it is conjecturable that others einerges in the most gradual way out of may fail also.

And so it behooves us to lower forms of psychosis. see whether he has approached the prob But this is not all, or the main thing. lem in the right way, or, at least, in the While the higher and lower forms of intelonly possible way.

lection undoubtedly exhibit qualitative The introduction of all this technical differences, it may be possible to transcend mechanism of receptual ideation, lower these differences by going deeper, and deconcepts, and the rest, has for its avowed tecting the veritable elements of the intelobject the avoidance of all introduction of lective process. This deeper analysis is qualitative change in the process of intel- emphatically the work of modern psylectual evolution. Dr. Romanes tells us chology, and, as every reader of Mr. Herplainly at the outset that he is going to bert Spencer knows, is of vast assistance establish identity of kind between the ani- to the evolutionist in following the psymal and the human type of intellection. chical process from its rudest conceivable And, no doubt, if it were possible to do form in the lower grades of animal life up this in the way here attempted, that is to to the highest achievements of human say by interposing transitional founs which thought. The luminous idea that all invirtually efface all qualitative unlikeness, telligence is at bottom a combination of it would be a great advantage to the evo two elementary processes, differentiation lutionist. But it may be said that it is and integration, seems to lift one at once not the only way of satisfying the require- high above the perplexities with which ments of the evolution hypothesis.Dr. our author so laboriously deals. It enRomanes pertinently reinarks, in meeting ables us to say that animal intelligence, a priori objections to the derivation of just because it is intelligence, must be human from animal intellection, that in identical in substance with our own. The the life of the human individual we ac- qualitative differences between perception tually have a series of transitions from and conception, or, to take Dr. Romanes' animal to human psychosis. Now, a example, " the logic of recepts” and the glance at the intellectual development of logic of concepts, which obstinately perthe individual shows us that distinct quali- sist so long as we look at the process ab tative differences are introduced. Not to extra, now appear as mere results of differspeak of the obvious fact that every new ent degrees of complexity, of unlike modes

of combination of the ultimate elements; the disturbing noise, viz. the shooting just as to the physiologist the manifold bags of apples on to a floor (pp. 59, 60). variety of color resolves itself into differ- No doubt there is a danger in straightway ent modes of combination of two or three endowing animals with mental qualities elementary sentient processes.

identical with our own, when their actions When once this fundamental identity resemble ours. There may, of course, be of all intellective processes is clearly ap- two psychological explanations of the prehended, the question where exactly in same action. We cannot, however, esthe evolutionist's tree the twig of thought cape our limitations, and, if we are to deal proper, or better, perhaps, of conscious with animal ways at all, we are bound to generalization, branches off, sinks to its interpret them in terms of our own mental proper place as a question of quite second- processes. ary importance. At the same time we The hesitation of the evolutionist to at. may agree with Dr. Romanes that the tribute rudimentary thought to animals, point has its real historical or genealogical in which Dr. Romanes evidently shares, interest, and that he has not done amiss is no doubt due to the firinly established to devote a volume to its discussion. assumption that we generalize by help of

The question turns mainly on the point language. To the nominalist more espehow much the animal can do by means of cially it savors of rank heresy to hint that pure imagining and the aid of associa- animals apparently destitute of signs may tion. Our author clearly recognizes that be capable of generalizing their percepthis will carry animals some way, and may tions and reaching a dim consciousness of give to their mental operations the ap- the distinction between the universal and pearance of a true generalizing process. the particular. But he has not fixed the limits of this pic But is the nominalist's assumption that torial or suggestive inference with the pre- language is the indispensable instrument cision one looks for, partly, no doubt, be- of thought above challenge? A considercause his whole view of the generic image able part of Dr. Romanes' volume deals as somehow involving a generalizing proc. with the relations of thought to language. ess tended to obscure from him the real He gives us a fairly good summary of the point. One might safely, perhaps, hazard results of research into the origin of lanThe assertion that the diving bird can get guage. It cannot be said that these throw on very well without anything like a gen- much light on the question. Perhaps it eral idea of water, a pure (generic) image is unreasonable to expect that they should. being all that seems vecessary.

'On the Our author contends with some skill as other hand, one is dispused, on the evi- against Professor Max Müller that the dence of the facts adduced by our author, earliest traces of human language suggest to put the beginnings of the true general- a highly pictorial and non-conceptual izing process pretty low down. It cer inode of ideation. And in his ingenious tainly seems to be involved in the mental hypothetical account of the genealogy of life of the ants, as elicited by Sir John man as the articulate reasoner our author Lubbock's experiments, and described by inclines to the idea that, so far from lanDr. Romanes (p. 94 and following). guage making the thinker, the endowment And since these particular actions plainly of language bas to be engrafted on a bigh imply the use of signs, and apparently quality of intelligence, and even then to rigns capable of indicating such abstract undergo considerable development before ideas as those of quantity, there seems no it becomes a mechanism for conceptual reason why we should hesitate to call ants thought. thinkers in the sense of being able to form The whole subject is still a dark and general notions. The same applies to the perplexing one, and we must refrain from mechanical inventions of the spider, de- dogmatizing. It inay, however, be conscribed by Mr. Larkin (p. 62). Similarly, tended that the evidence on the whole it is difficult to deny the rudiment of supports the view that the generalizing “conceptual thought to a fox who can process is up to a certain and not very reason on the matter of traps in the way high point independent of language. described by Leroy (p. 56), or to a dog That is to say, an aniinal unassisted by that was cured of his dread of imagined any system of general signs may make a thunder by being shown the true cause of start along the path of comparing its ob

servations, resolving them into their con- of common features or qualities seems to stituents, and separating out some of these be indispensable to any high degree of as common qualities. Whether in these generalization, and to any elaborate procnascent operations of thought there is ess of reasoning. It is the want of such some substitute for our mechanism of signs, and not the lack of the power of signs, we do not know and perhaps never abstraction,” that keeps certain animals, shall know. However this be, they re- for example the dog, from being rational main nascent processes never rising above animals in as complete a sense as a large a certain level. The addition of some number of our own species.—Nineteenth kind of sign which can be used as a mark Century.



I FIRST became acquainted with Mr. followers made brilliant speeches. In Parnell shortly after his entering the fact, they had the argument and the eloHouse of Commons in 1875. I knew quence all to themselves. Very few Engnothing of him up to that time except his lish or Scottish members took any part in historic name. I knew that he belonged the debate. Two nights were resignedly to the family of the Sir John Parnell who given up to the parade of the Irish memstood by Grattan's side in the long strug- bers, and that was all. At the close of gle against the passing of the fatal Act of the debate the Minister in charge got up Union. The mere name was naturally a and made a speech in which he complirecommendation to me. I used to watch mented Mr. Butt on his ability and his the House of Commons very closely in eloquence-praised the general tone of the those days, although I was not yet a mem- Irish speakers--gently deprecated the exber. At that time I did not intend to be treme utterances of some few of them, and a member. I had been asked more than then blandly put the whole question away. once to stand for an Irish constituency, He merely declared that it would not be and I had always refused. I did not see possible for any English Government even anything in particular to go into Parlia- to argue the Honie Rule question seriment for. I could not be an English ously : but considerately added that he member-I mean, I could not stand for an and his colleagues did not object to the English constituency-with my strong Irish members having their annual say on Irish national sentiments ; and there did the subject. Then the division was taken, not seem much that an Irish representa. thirty or forty one way-some hundreds tive could do. The national cause had the other way. Next morning the Lonindeed revived under the name of Home don daily papers all said that no English Rule, and there were many earnest men statesman could possibly promise even to in the House of Commons, even in those grant an inquiry into the reason of the days, to speak up for that cause. Mr. demand for Home Rule in Ireland. At Isaac Butt was the Home Rule leader, and tbat time all that members from Ireland among his followers were my late friend asked for was a Committec or Commission Alexander M. Sullivan, one of the most to inquire into the reasonableness of the brilliant speakers who ever addressed the demand for Home Rule. House of Comnions as an Irish represent I did not see much promise in all this. ative since the days of O'Connell ; and Yet I had nothing better to suggest. The there were many other eloquent and capa- people of Ireland then took but little inble men. But there did not seem to me terest in Parliamentary agitation. There to be much life in the whole affair. The was no popular suffrage. Men who went policy of Mr. Butt was to have what is into Parliament as avowed Irish Nationalcalled a “full dress debate” on Home ists usually ended by taking some sort of Rule once in every Session. Mr. Butt office or place of emolument under the made a capital speech himself, full of argu- Government. The memory of the treason ment and eloquence, and several of his of Keogh and Sadleir was still keen and


bitter. Of the thoroughly honest Irish- from Mr. Parnell. I felt sure I had got men who had stood up for the cause in at the purpose of his policy of obstruction. the most desolate and desperate moments It was no mere wanton longing to disturb there were few left. Sir Charles Gavan the business and the order of a ParliamentDuffy was settled in Australia. My old ary assembly. It was a settled statesmanfriend, John Francis Maguire, was dead. like policy, at once bold and subtle. I Frederick Lucas, that noble Englishman read it thus. Mr. Parnell was a man who who loved Ireland as though she had been had no faith in the possibility of success his own land, was dead. George Henry for the Irish national cause by an armed Moore was dead. John Pope Hennessy insurrection. I have often heard him say had taken to tbe Colonial service, and was that an armed insurrection is a bopeless fighting everywhere a stout avd gallant business in a country which has no mounfight for the same rights of native popula- tains inland. Mountains round the coast. tions which he had made while he was in line only, and a flat country all between, the House of Commons. The moment make guerilla warfare hopeless, he used to seemed dark. Suddenly Mr. Parnell caine point out, and give the struggle into the into the House of Commons as successor hands of the Imperial enemy with his to Jobn Martin—"honest John Martin," ironclads and his long-range guns. But as friends and opponents alike called him neither had Mr. Parnell any faith in the -one of the rebels of Forty-eight and a sort of Parliamentary action which was brother-in-law of John Mitchel. Mr. being carried on just then, the annual deParnell took up and systematized the plan bate on Home Rule and the academic arof obstruction which Mr. Biggar had guments drawn from the United States started and was carrying on in a more or and Canada and Australia and Austria. less baphazard sort of way. I was im- Hungary. He saw that the vast majority pressed with Mr. Parnell's force of char- of the people of Great Britain did not acter from the very first. His peculiar know or care anything about Home Rule quietness of manner, combined with his --hardly knew that there was such a thing indomitable perseverance and his dauntless a Home Rule party in Parliament. courage, filled me with respect and admi- The great object, then, was to compel the ration. It seemed nothing to him, a raw English public to listen ; and Mr. Parnell young man just come from Cambridge, to became more and more convinced that the stand up night after night and every night, great platform to use for that purpose was and face the whole hostile House of Com- the House of Commons. If we could mons. He was a bad speaker at first-he only compel the English public to listen, was not anything of an orator even at the there would be some chance of our conlast ; he had a poor vocabulary-words vincing them and carrying them with us. came to him with difficulty—his range of Without them, we could do nothing. ideas seemed curiously narrow ; in short, But they would have to pay some attenaccording to all recognized rules and tradi- tion to us, when we systematically said to tions of Parliamentary criticism he ought the House of Commons : “If you will to bave been a dead failure in the House not listen to our claims you shall do no of Cominons. Yet there was the hard other business whatever. If you will not fact staring any impartial observer in the read our petition, we can at least, like the face—he was not a dead failure. The woman in the Roman story, throw ourHouse for the most part—almost alto- selves down before the feet of your horses gether-hated him ; but it could not de- and compel you either to stop on your spise him or ignore him : it had to listen way or to trample over our bodies." to him—it had to take account of him. That was the meaning of Mr. Parnell's The strength of genuine conviction and of obstruction. Of course, he was not the thorough manhood was in him. If the inventor of Parliamentary obstruction, House of Coinmons cannot conquer one Parliamentary obstruction has been a man, then the one

man conquers the weapon applied at all times since ever House of Commons. In ninety-nine cases there was a constitutional Parliament in out of a bundred the House conqners the England. But it was always before emman. In Mr. Parnell's case the man con- ployed for the purpose of resisting some quered the House.

particular measure or delaying some parI soon began to look for great things ticular policy. Mr. Parnell employed it

« VorigeDoorgaan »