Language as the barrier between brute and man: Friedrich Max Müller and the Darwinian debate on language

Saeculum

Volumn 51, Issue 1, 2000, Pages 57-89

  Van Den Bosch, Lourens P ^a  

^a NONE   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84992332140     PISSN: 00805319     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.7788/saeculum.2000.51.1.57     Document Type: Article

References (262)

1. O. Chadwick, The Victorian Church II (1860–1901) (London, 1970) 1–112.
2. For Monier-Williams's statement see Chaudhuri, Scholar Extraordinary, The Life of Professor, the Rt. Hon. Friedrich Max Müller (London, 1974) 221 ff., at 223. Monier-Williams's inaugural lecture in 1861 was in line with Boden's purpose; see.
3. M. Monier-Williams, The Study of Sanskrit in Relation to Missionary Work in India (London, 1861).
4. G. Max Müller, Life and Letters of the Right Honourable Friedrich Max Müller (LL), 2 vis, I (London, 1902), 253–256.
5. Chadwick, Victorian Church II, 75 ff.
6. LL I, 255: letter from canon Arthur P. Stanley, d.d. 8–12-1860.
7. 1; repr. London, 1994) and vol. II (London, 1864; repr. London, 1994).
8. Notes by Max Müller for his first course of lectures on comparative philology at Oxford 1851, Bodleian Library (Oxford), MS. Eng. d. 2353.
9. The lectures received the prestigious Prix Volnay from the Academie Française in 1862 for the best work on comparative philology; LL I, 276 with the letter of M. P. Flourens, head of the committee, d.d. 28–7-1862. They passed through fourteen editions until 1884 and were translated into French, German, Italian, Russian, Swedish and even Dutch.
10. Müller, ‘Essay on the Turanian Languages’, in: C. K. J von Bunsen (ed.), Christianity and Mankind III (London, 1854) 263–487 with the quote on p. 487.
11. The concluding chapter is called: ‘On the possibility of a common origin of language’, p. 486.
12. See also LL I, 148.
13. Letter to his wife, Georgina Grenfell, d.d. 19–4-1861, BL, MS. d. 2341. In the LL I, 275 the letter is dated by mistake to April 1862.
14. F. Max Müller, Natural Religion. The Gifford Lectures delivered before the University of Glasgow (NR) (London, 1889);
15. Physical Religion (PhR) (second series) (London, 1891);
16. Anthropological Religion (AR) (third series) (London, 1892);
17. Theosophy or Psychological Religion (TPR) (fourth series) (London, 1893).
18. For the answer, see A. Desmond and J. Moore, Darwin (London, 1991), 497 with a reference to the Thomas Huxley papers: letter from Huxley to Dyster, d.d. 9–9-1860: ‘If then’, Huxley answered, ‘the question is put to me would I rather have a miserable ape for a grandfather or a man highly endowed by nature and possessed of great means and influence and yet who employs these faculties and that influence for the mere purpose of introducing ridicule in a grave scientific discussion I unhesitatingly affirm my preference for the ape’.
19. LL I, 249: letter to his mother, medio June 1860 in which he mentions the meeting of the British Association.
20. LL I, 250: letter to his wife, medio July 1860.
21. See also F. Max Müller, Auld Lang Syne (ALS), I (London 1897), 169–78: ‘Without selector there is no selection, and unless we speak mythologically, we can not think of Nature as a selector. I should have preferred, therefore, Rational Elimination, looking upon Reason, or the good of Plato, as the power that works for good or for fitness in all that survives and is not crowded out’.
22. 1; repr. London, 1994), p. 340.
23. 1). For a critical evaluation of these ideas see.
24. G.J. Romanes, Mental Evolution in Man: Origin of Human Faculty (London, 1888) 20–39.
25. SL I, 313–28; 329–60. For a general survey of some important philologists, see also.
26. M. Olender, The Language of Paradise: Race, Religion and Philology in the Nineteenth Century (Cambridge (Mass.) and London, 1992) with a short survey of the theories of Herder, von Humboldt, Renan and Müller.
27. F. Max Müller, ‘Last Results of the Turanian Researches’, in: C. K.J von Bunsen (ed.), Christianity and Mankind III (London, 1854) 473 ff.
28. SL I, 314: ‘Classification of languages and races should be quite independent of each other’. With this Müller argued against the famous German linguist.
29. A. F. Pott, ‘M. Müller und die Kennzeichen der Sprachenverwandtschaft’, Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft IX (1855) 405–64; Die Ungleichheit menschlicher Rassen: Hauptsächlich vom sprachwissenschaftlichen Standpunkt, unter besonderer Berüchsichtigung von des Grafen von Gobineau gleichnamigen Werke (Lemgo und Detmold, 1856; repr. with a new introduction by
30. C. Hutton, History of Linguistics: 18th and 19th century German Linguistics, vol. 6, (London, 1995); Etymologische Forschungen auf dem Gebiete der Indogermanischen Sprachen (Lemgo und Detmold, revised ed. 1859–73).
31. SL I, 262–328.
32. SL I, 327 f.
33. The reference to Ch. Darwin, On The Origin of Species (London, 1859) 422. Müller regarded Darwin as the most acknowledged authority, but also referred, among others, to the philologist
34. W. von Humboldt, Ueber die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues und ihrem Einfluss auf die geistige Entwicklung des Menschengeschlechts (Berlin, 1836),
35. 3) and the comparative anatomist Richard Owen. For the German theories on language Müller often appealed to
36. 2), though he regarded Steinthal as a rather nebulous scholar:
37. LL I, 268 f.:
38. letter to E. Renan, d.d. 16–12-1861; LL I, 322:
39. to E. B. Tylor, d.d. 23–6-1865.
40. SL I, 320.
41. 6 (London, 1882: revised and expanded edition) 373 with references to
42. T. H. Huxley, who clearly argued for a careful distinction between the science of ethnology and the science of language.
43. SL I, 330.
44. SL I, 335 ff. Müller referred in this context to
45. M. P. Flourens, De la Raison, du Génie, et de la Folie (Paris 1861).
46. SL I, 340.
47. SL I, 331 note with the reference to von Humboldt that the distinctive feature of mankind was its faculty of speech: ‘Der Mensch ist nur Mensch durch Sprache, um aber die Sprache zu erfinden musste er schon Mensch sein’
48. W. von Humboldt, Gesammelte Werke III (Berlin, 1841–1852) 252.
49. See also NR 264 with a reference to Herder (Ideen zur Geschichte der Menschheit, Fünftes Buch): ‘And yet Herder sees as clearly as anybody the specific difference of man and animal (…) he points to language as a divine gift by which alone our slumbering reason is awakened (p. 101). “Animals”, he says (p. 104),” are truly called in the East the silent ones of the Earth; for only with the organisation of language did man receive the breath of the deity, the seed of reason and perfection, an echo of that creative call to the lordship of the earth, in fact the divine art of ideas, the mother of all arts”.’ For a short survey of the linguistic ideas of Wilhelm von Humboldt see
50. 4); see further
51. L. Noiré, Der Ursprung der Sprache (Mainz, 1877) 63–84.
52. SL II, 62ff.; F. Max Müller, ‘My Predecessors’ (1888), repr. in Last Essays (LE) (London, 1901) 2762;
53. NR 25
54. TPR, particularly the chapters 12–15.
55. SL I, 344–51 with references to Herder's ideas, as represented by H. Steinthal.
56. SL I, 353–5 with the quote on p. 355.
57. SL I, 376.
58. SL I, 239 (quote)
59. SL II, 81 and 296 ff.
60. SL I, 370.
61. 1, 119f.
62. Müller, ‘My predecessors’, 28.
63. See also F. Max Müller, Science of Thought (ST), (London, 1887) 29f.
64. 1), Last Essays, 63–84.
65. See R. Harris, Introduction to reprinted first edition of F. Max Müller, Lectures on the Science of Language I (London, 1994), p. IX.
66. SL I, 369.
67. Müller, ‘My predecessors’, 28.
68. SL I, 369 (first quote); 364 f. In this context Müller also referred to
69. M. P. Flourens, De la raison, du génie, et de la folie.
70. K. W. L. Heyse, System der Sprachwissenschaft (Berlin, 1856);
71. Cf. SL I, 370 note.
72. 1, repr. Frankfurt am M. 1976) 34. For a short discussion see also ST, 211 f.
73. SL I, 370 f.
74. See e.g. LL I, 263 f. with the letter from Dean Liddell, d.d. 16–11-1861;
75. Geiger, Der Ursprung der Sprache, 35 ff.
76. Sayce, Introduction to the Science of Language, vol. I p. 66 f.
77. 6 (London, 1882), 440 where Müller presented the theory no longer as one with which he agreed.
78. See also ST, 211 f.
79. LL I, 261: letter to William Longman, d.d. 21–10-1861. For a retrospective view see
80. A. A. Macdonell, ‘Obituary: Friedrich Max Müller’, Man, vol. 16 (1901) 18ff. The second series of lectures was positively reviewed by
81. E. B. Tylor in the Quarterly Review of 1866;
82. see LL I, 332:
83. letter to E. B. Tylor, d.d. 16–4-1866. For the Prix Volney
84. see e.g. LL I, 276 with the letter from the head of the committee, M. Flourens, d.d. 28–7-1862.
85. SL I, 368–374.
86. SL I, 364: all naming is classification, bringing the individual under the general.
87. See also F. Max Müller, Three Introductory Lectures to the Science of Thought (LST) (London, 1888) 41: ‘I shall try to show that nothing is (…) so perfectly reasonable as our reason, and that whole of our intellect, consists in nothing but — addition and subtraction’.
88. A. Schleicher, Die Darwinsche Theorie und die Sprachwissenschaft (Weimar, 1863); engl, transl. by
89. V. H. W. Bikkers, Darwinism tested by the Science of Language (London, 1870) and reviewed by Müller in Nature 10, January 6, 1870.
90. See also Schleicher, Über die Bedeutung der Sprache für die Naturgeschichte der Menschheit (Weimar, 1865).
91. Schleicher, Darwinism, 41.
92. A. Schleicher, Die deutsche Sprache (Stuttgart, 1860) 44.
93. See also Geiger, Ursprung der Sprache, 44 f.
94. G. J. Romanes, Mental Evolution in Man (London, 1888) 241 f.
95. For a short discussion see also Müller, ‘In Self-Defense’, Chips from a German Workshop (Chips) IV (London, 1875), 494–501.
96. Geiger, Ursprung der Sprache, 101: ‘Unsere Wurzeln sind die Urwurzeln nicht’. For a detailed elaboration of his ideas see
97. Geiger, Ursprung der Sprache, 101: ‘Unsere Wurzeln sind die Urwurzeln nicht’, Ursprung und Entwicklung der menschlichen Sprache und Vernunft, 2 vis (Stuttgart, 1868–1872).
98. Geiger, Ursprung der Sprache, 122 and 130 f.: ‘Niemals kann die Absicht obgewaltet haben, durch ein Wort mehr zu bezeichnen, als es vorher bezeichnet hatte, um so ein Bezeichnungsmittel für etwas zu gewinnen, das vorher nicht benannt worden war: denn die Erweiterung der Bedeutungssphäre geht ganz unmerklich und unbewusst vor sich’.
99. Schleicher, Ursprung der Sprache, Vorrede I-XXX, particularly on XIII f.: ‘es ist kein Fortschritt in der Etymologie, es ist überhaupt keine Sicherheit in ihr möglich, wenn es nicht gelingt, jene als ungewisses letztes Ziel erhofften Bedeutungsgesetze zu ermitteln’.
100. See also Steinthal, Ursprung der Sprache, 156 ff.
101. Geiger, Ursprung der Sprache, 141–5.
102. See also Geiger, Ursprung und Entwicklung der menschlichen Sprachen und Vernunft, 35 in which he suggests that the development of the brain might have contributed to speech.
103. Geiger, Ursprung der Sprache, p. 199–204. For a critical review of his theories see
104. 3: totally revised and elaborated edition), 146–300.
105. See also ST, 87 where Müller refers to Geiger and compares his ideas with those of Immanuel Kant who in his Pragmatische Antropologie also made a distinction between rationalis and rationabilis: man was not always an animal rationale, but only an animal rationabile. In Müller's opinion the non-rational could not become rational, unless it had the potential to become rational.
106. 3, 280.
107. 3, 300–19, at p. 309: ‘Dem Kind ist allerdings der Keim zur Sprache angeboren, dem Urmenschen nicht. Mit dem Urmenschen hat sich auch der Keim erst zu bilden’.
108. 3, 300–19, at, 317f.
109. 3, 300–19, at, 274: ‘Und so würde sich als Hauptfrage der Sprachschöpfung herausstellen die Geschichte der Vorstellungen, gegründet auf speciellere Gesetze der Apperceptionen, oder eine Geschichte der Wörter, gegründet auf eine Bedeutungslehre’.
110. 1; repr. London, 1930, Thinkers Library) 70–106.
111. 1; repr. London, 1930, Thinkers Library), 94 f.
112. 1; repr. London, 1930, Thinkers Library), 98.
113. 2).
114. See also ALS I, 176 f. with a short description of Müller's visit to Darwin's house in 1875. Darwin confided to Müller that he had based himself on Wedgwood's opinions.
115. LL I, 467:
116. letter to W. E. Gladstone, d.d. 23–12-1872.
117. Cf. also SL I, 342: ‘if we are right in pointing to language as the one palpable distinction between the two (viz. man and brute), it would follow that language is the outward sign and realisation of the inward faculty which is called the faculty of abstraction, but which is better known to us by the homely name of Reason’.
118. 1). Müller invited Taine to give a lecture on his views in spring 1871;
119. LL I, 440 f.
120. Cf. also D. Ottavi, ‘Au commencement était l'oeuf d'or. L'enfant et l'origine du langage entre Taine et Max Müller’, Revue de synthèse 4 (1995) 553–77.
121. F. Max Müller, ‘Mr Darwin's Philosophy of Language’, Fraser's Magazine, May, June and July 1873.
122. See also ST, 89–95, particularly on p. 92 f. with a summary of the main argument of his ‘Lectures on Mr. Darwin's philosophy of language’.
123. LL I, 477: letter to Darwin, d.d. 29–6-1873.
124. LL I, 478: letter from Darwin to Müller, d. d. 3–7-1873.
125. G. Darwin, ‘Professor Whitney on the Origin of Language’, Contemporary Review, November 1873.
126. See also ALS I, 176. The anonymous article was written by a George Mivart.
127. 1; repr. London, 1997).
128. W. D. Whitney, The Life and Growth of Language (London, 1875), 295–305. Whitney is very restrictive in the reference to the sources he uses.
129. F. Max Müller, ‘My Reply to Mr. Darwin’, Contemporary Review, January 1875;
130. 1), 433–72 particularly on p. 437.
131. 1, 487–9. The affair would lead to a lifelong vendetta between Müller and Whitney.
132. See also LL I, 501: letter to professor Tiele, d. d. 3–1-1875: ‘It was an opportunity of bringing to light the affair of Whitney and Co., though I detest this sort of thing. I had never seen before the Whitney lectures, and I must confess to my astonishment that such a work has been pushed into the foreground by personal efforts. The man takes my lectures, lectures on them and out of them, and to prove his own originality kicks me. Voilà tout! I do not find one single thought in the whole book which is original’.
133. Müller, ‘My Reply to Mr. Darwin’, 451.
134. See Müller, ‘In Self-Defence’, 473–549 with the quote at 477.
135. Müller, ‘My Reply to Mr. Darwin’, 453.
136. Müller, ‘My Reply to Mr. Darwin’, 463–471.
137. Müller, ‘My Reply to Mr. Darwin’, 467.
138. Müller, ‘My Reply to Mr. Darwin’, 471.
139. Müller, ‘My Reply to Mr. Darwin’, 471.
140. See also SL II, 63.
141. LL I, 503: letter to Darwin, d.d. 7–1-1875.
142. Müller, ‘My Reply to Mr. Darwin’, 434.
143. See also LL I, 528: letter to William Longmans, d. d. 9–12-1875.
144. Argyll published a book on similar questions; Duke George Douglas Campbell of Argyll, The Unity of Nature (London, 1884).
145. LL I, 507–9: letter to the Duke of Argyll, d.d. 4–2-1875 with the quote at p. 509.
146. ST, 114: ‘Even if it could be proved that man was a mere animal, it is clear that, though he began where animal begins, he did not end where the animal ends; and after all it is the telos, it is what a being can become, not what is at any given time, that constitutes its real character.’
147. W. D. Whitney objected on various occasions to Max Müller; e.g. in the North American Review, vol. CXIX (July, 1874) pp. 61 ff., which I could not consult. See also
148. W. D. Whitney, The Life and the Growth of Language (London, 1875; repr. London, 1994). For a summary of all his objections see
149. W. D. Whitney, Max Müller and the Science of Language. A Criticism (New York, 1892).
150. See also LL II, 21–3.
151. Müller, ‘In Self-defence’, 495 (quote); 538–40. See also note 48 with a reference to Müller's review of Schleicher's book On Darwinism as tested by the Science of Language.
152. See also LL II, 21–3: with the letter from Mr. Moncure Conway d.d. 7–5-1901 who had tried to mediate between the two.
153. LL I, 523: letter to Charles Darwin, d.d. 13–10-1875.
154. For a review of the main arguments in the discussion see also G. J. Romanes, Essays (London, 1897), 59–75:
155. ‘Man and Brute’ (or. publ. in North American Review, 1884), and also 86–112:
156. ‘Origin of the Human Faculty’ (or. publ. in Brain, October, 1889) with a summary of the main ideas of his Mental Evolution in Man: Origin of Human Faculty (London, 1888).
157. ALS I, 178: letter from Charles Darwin, d.d. 15–10-1875.
158. C. Darwin, The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals (London, 1873) 93.
159. For a general survey see G. W. Stocking, Victorian Anthropology (New York, 1987).
160. T. H. Huxley, Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature (London, 1863).
161. W. Wundt, Vorlesungen über die Menschen und Thierseele I (Leipzig, 1863), 458.
162. See also H. Plotkin, Evolution in Mind. An Introduction to Evolutionary Psychology (London, 1997) 33 f.
163. See e.g. H. Spencer, Principles of Psychology, (rev. ed., 2 vls, London, 1870–2) with an attack against Müller at I, p. 831–3, 837, 841, 849.
164. Principles of Psychology, (rev. ed., 2 vls, London, –2) with an attack against Müller at I, p. 831–3, 837, 841, 849, The Study of Sociology (1873).
165. 4) chapter 5, particularly at pp. 122 ff.
166. E. B. Tylor, Primitive Culture: Researches into the development of mythology, philosophy, religion, language, art, and custom, 2 vls (London, 1871).
167. See also Stocking, Victorian Anthropology, chapter 5.
168. For the different positions beween Müller and Tylor see, G. Schrempp, ‘The re-education of Friedrich Max Müller: Intellectual appropriation and epistomological antinomy in mid-Victorian evolutionary thought’, Man 18 (1983) 190–210, at p. 197 f. For Müller's objections against comparisons between savage and primeval man see,
169. F. Max Müller, ‘The Savage’ (Nineteenth Century, January, 1885), republished in LE, 139–82.
170. G. J. Romanes, Animal Intelligence (London, 1883)
171. G. J. Romanes and Ch. R. Darwin, Mental Evolution in Animals with a Posthumous Essay on Instinct by Charles Darwin (London, 1883).
172. See also Romanes, The Life and Letters of George John Romanes. Written and edited by his wife (London, 1896) 200–2.
173. G. J. Romanes, The Mental Evolution in Man. Origin of Human Faculty (London, 1888).
174. His other two other articles on the subject, namely ‘My Reply to Mr. Darwin’ and ‘In Self-Defence’, on the contrary, were incorporated into vol. IV of the first edition of the Chips from a German Workshop of 1875. See also E. Knoll, ‘The Science of Language and the Evolution of Mind: Max Müller's Quarrel with Darwinism’, Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, vol. 22, pp. 3–22.
175. L. Noiré, Der Ursprung der Sprache (Mainz, 1877), which was reviewed by Müller in the Contemporary Review of February, 1878.
176. See also his Die Welt als Entwicklung des Geistes: Bausteine zu einer monistischen Weltanschauung (Leipzig, 1874);
177. Max Müller und die Sprachphilosophie (Mainz, 1879)
178. Die Lehre Kants und der Ursprung der Vernunft (Mainz, 1882)
179. Logos: Ursprung und Wesen der Begriffe (Leipzig, 1885).
180. ST, preface X.
181. See also LL II, 215f.: letter to W. S. Lilly, d.d. 24–1-1887.
182. LST, 49: ‘Nomen was originally gnomen, from gnosco, to know, and was almost the same word as notio, a notion’.
183. IST, 50.
184. ST, 1.
185. Letter to a friend incorporated in the preface to LST, IIf (quote); 43 f.
186. See also the appendix to these lectures with the correspondence from Nature, p. 6–10: letter to Sir Francis Galton, d. d. 15–5-1887.
187. In this connection Müller also pointed in his LST, 51 to Abelard (1079–1142): ‘Language is generated by the intellect and generates intellect’.
188. ST, 127–78 with the quote on p. 132.
189. ST, 143: with Kant's famous saying: ‘Begriffe ohne Anschauungen sind leer, Anschauungen ohne Begriffe sind blind’.
190. ST, 126.
191. ST, 137 ff. where Müller argues against Herbert Spencer's opinion that time and space should be regarded as forms of thought.
192. Cf. also LST, 52–7.
193. ST, 86.
194. ST, 301 (quote);
195. LST, preface IVf.
196. ST, 580.
197. ST, 553.
198. ST, 100.
199. Cf. Knoll, ‘The Science of Language and the Evolution of Mind’ (note 107), 3–22.
200. ST, 574.
201. ST, 95, 102 f., 574 f. Evolution would have taken place within the ‘species’, while the frontiers between the different species remained fixed. For the reception of ideas of Plato and Aristotle in the discussion on evolution during the nineteenth century, see also
202. M. Wolpoff and R. Caspari, Race and Human Evolution (New York, 1997) 71 f.
203. Letter to the Duke of Argyll, d.d. 4–2-1872; BL, Ms. Eng. d. 2347. A part of this letter is published by N. C. Chaudhuri, Scholar Extraordinary. The Life of Professor, the Rt. Hon. Friedrich Max Müller (London, 1974), 193.
204. LL II, 84: letter to the Duke of Argyll, d.d. 22–2-1880.
205. See also SL II, 62 f.
206. ST 93, 103 ff.
207. Richard Owen adhered to a creationist view, while Lyell was more hesitating with respect to Darwin's ideas. For Owen see also N. A. Rupke, Richard Owen, Victorian Naturalist (Yale University Press, 1994).
208. ST, 112f. with the quotes; 574–80 on species.
209. ST, 515 (first quote) and 524 (second quote).
210. ST, 618.
211. LST, appendix ‘thought without words’, 1–27.
212. See also LL II, 218.
213. LST, appendix 1–4: letter from
214. F. Galton, d.d. 12–5-1887; and 17: letter from A. Ebbels, d.d. 6–6-1887 (quote).
215. LST, appendix 4–5: letter from the Duke of Argyll, d.d. 12–5-1887.
216. LST, appendix, 9: letter from Max Müller, d. d. 15–5-1887.
217. LST, appendix 13: letter from George Romanes, d.d. 4–6-1887. See also
218. LL II, 224: letter to professor Noiré, d.d. 23–7-1887: ‘Yes, indeed the papers attack my book thoroughly, but I come across very little of true understanding, with the exception of Romanes, and he is Darwinian. He writes to tell me that he is convinced by me’.
219. LL II, 230, november 1887: to Professor Romanes: ‘Of course we differ toto coelo as to the nature of language, which you treat as mere expression of an impression, i.e. cries, while I hold language, or logos, in the true sense, to be a toally different act, beginning with the consciousness of repeated acts; the first generalization possible for man; and then a constant classifying of the individual under the general’. Romanes and his wife lunched with the Müllers on Sunday, 13 May 1888 and discussed the matters;
220. G. J. Romanes, The Life and Letters of George John Romanes, written and edited by his wife (London, 1896) 193.
221. LST, appendix 20–8: letter from Max Müller, d.d. 4–7-1887, with the quote on p. 27.
222. The Duke of Argyll, ‘Identity of Thought and Language’, Contemporary Review, December 1888.
223. Müller, ‘Can we think without words?’ (Nineteenth Century, March 1889), republished in LE, 62–84.
224. LL II, 254: letter to the Duke of Campbell, d.d. 9–8-1889.
225. LL II, 242–4: letter to Romanes, d.d. 1–7-1888.
226. G. J. Romanes, Mental Evolution in Animals (London, 1883), particularly pp. 318–340 (chapter on reason).
227. See also Mental Evolution in Man. The Origin of Human Faculty (London, 1888) 3: ‘and it is the question of whether the mind of man is essentially the same as the mind of the lower animal, or, having had, either wholly or in part some other mode of origin, is essentially distinct — differing not only in degree, but in kind from all other types of psychical being’.
228. Romanes, Mental Evolution in Man, 19.
229. 1)
230. 1), republished in Essays (London, 1897) 75–85 and 86–113.
231. 1), republished in Essays (London, 1897), 20–39 with the quote at p. 39.
232. Romanes, ‘Origin of the Human Faculty’, 108;
233. Romanes, ‘Origin of the Human Faculty’, Mental Evolution in Man, 276.
234. Romanes, Mental Evolution in Man, 281.
235. Romanes, Mental Evolution in Man, 288 with the reference to
236. F. W. Farrar, Essay on the Origin of Language (London, 1860).
237. See also his reference to Wilhelm Wundt that language cannot record the conditions of its own birth and therefore belongs more to the domain of psychology than philology; Romanes, Mental Evolution of Man, 291.
238. Romanes, Mental Evolution in Man, 353–9, particularly at p. 357: ‘I have demonstrated that prior to the stage of denomination there are stages of indication, denotation and receptual connotation. These are the psychological stepping stones across that “Rubicon of Mind”, which owing to their neglect, has seemed to be impassible’.
239. Romanes, Mental Evolution in Man, 276.
240. Romanes, Mental Evolution in Man, 238–360 (chapters 12–15).
241. Romanes, Mental Evolution in Man, 433 note.
242. Romanes, Mental Evolution in Man, 439.
243. F. Max Müller, ‘On Thought and Language’ (1891), LE, 85–109.
244. Müller, ‘On Thought and Language’, 93–9.
245. See Müller's last series of Gifford Lectures titled: Theosophy or Psychological Religion (London, 1893).
246. Müller, ‘On Thought and Language’, 102 f.
247. Romanes, ‘Origin of Human Faculty’, 112.
248. Müller, ‘On Thought and Language’, 103 f.
249. Romanes, Mental Evolution in Man, 291.
250. Müller, ‘On Thought and Language’, 108 f.
251. LL II, 282: letter to Romanes, d.d. 2–7-1891 and the reaction from Romanes, d.d. 3–7-1891.
252. LL I, 283 f.: letter to Romanes, d.d. 6–7-1891.
253. Cf. S. Jones, ‘Mutation and Evolution’, The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution (Cambridge, 1992) 269–73.
254. N. Chomsky, Language and Mind (New York, 1972).
255. Cf. Also T. Deacon, The Symbolic Species (London, 1998) 102–110.
256. S. Pinker, The Language Instinct (London, 1994) 18f., 325f.
257. S. Pinker, The Language Instinct (London, 1994), 81 f.
258. Cf. also Deacon, Symbolic Species, 327 f.
259. Deacon, Symbolic Species, 35, 43 f, 70, 73, 451 ff.
260. A computer search in the various fields leads to hundreds of publications, but see e.g., W. Noble and I. Davidson, Human Evolution, Language and Mind (Cambridge, 1996)
261. R. Dunbar, Grooming, Gossip and the Evolution of Language (London/Boston, 1996)
262. H. Plotkin, Evolution in Mind. An Introduction to Evolutionary Psychology (London, 1997).