not merely of projecting schemes of this sort, but of working them out with all minuteness of detail'.

But our main justification for this discussion is an intrinsic one. It seems to me that a very instructive parallel may be drawn between the state of things in the intellectual world out of which the demand for a new and universal language has arisen, and the state of things in the social world out of which the demand for a new social order has arisen. In each case the existent arrangement is the almost chaotic result of a long and complicated process of causation; it produces a mischievous and deplorable waste of resources: it has been for centuries attacked on the ground of its essential folly and injustice: and one elaborate scheme after another has been proposed by way of remedy. Of course it would be absurd to compare the actual aggregate of human suffering entailed by the present diversity of speech with that which results from great inequality of wealth, but it would be equally absurd to deny that the former is an evil.

The analogy however to which I wish to direct attention here consists rather in the means towards which we may look for a remedy. The systematisers have completely failed to convince any but themselves, and possibly a minute body of immediate followers, that the particular scheme they have advocated would answer the purpose. All experience shows that a change of such a magnitude cannot possibly be carried through; and that, if it could, the loss,—what may be called the 'capitalized loss',—of the process of change would probably far outweigh the resultant gain. But it seems none the less true that the natural evolution of events is drifting us on in the same general direction as that in which the proposers of sudden and violent change would have transported us at a bound. As we are not dealing with Political Economy here it

1 I had no conception, before coming to look into the matter historically, how numerous these attempts have been. Since the time of Leibnitz there has seldom been a decade without some new publication of the kind. Passing over all mere criticisms and notices in journals and other works, I soon compiled a list of between thirty and forty of what appear to be substantive works. If one may judge of the remainder, by the samples I have had an opportunity of consulting, the majority of these proposals must be the production of men who have devoted much labour to their task, and who are imbued with much hopefulness as to the ultimate success of their schemes.

would be out of place to enumerate the many innovations. which are being almost imperceptibly introduced in the direction of Socialism. But I may conclude this chapter by pointing out some of the ways in which we are gradually realizing the various advantages which the framers of Universal Languages have striven to secure. Some of these were indicated at the commencement of this chapter, and will therefore need but very slight notice.

For one thing, what we now treat under the head of Classification, and what we aim at under the name of a Natural as opposed to an Artificial system, covers in reality a very large part of what the more scientific inventors of New Languages were striving after. The mere reference, above made, to Ray will remind the reader of this. In fact if we remove from Wilkins's work what we should now describe simply as Classification, nearly half of it would be abolished. The innovators were perfectly right in the ideal they had before their minds here. From Leibnitz onwards they seem, to my thinking, to have been largely influenced by the feeling that a protest should be made against the artificial and narrow scheme of the recognized Categories of the Scholastic Logic. They contemplated Classification as a means towards improved intercourse and communication: we now see that it subserves many ✓ other ends than this, but we thoroughly agree with them in the desirability of securing it.

This concerns the basis of such a proposed language. As regards the actual medium of communication there seems little to add to what has been said already. The irresistible course of events is steadily increasing the relative importance, as a means of communication, of one language out of the multitude. still existent. The matter, in fact, is being simply put to the vote by the population of the world; and the resolution is,-I will not say that English shall be the Universal Language,but, that it shall indefinitely tend towards becoming such. This concerns the language of life in general. Meanwhile, as concerns subordinate departments of life, one class of communications after another is tending to the adoption of abbreviated symbols or conventional and artificially framed words for conveying widely recognized conceptions. Thus the notation of chemistry is a language,-a chemist's language,

universally employed all the world over; as was long ago noticed by Leibnitz in the parallel case of mathematical notation. So in Electricity, the units which are now being introduced for universal scientific use are most certainly the elements of such a language, for the same word is employed by all to signify the same thing or notion. So too there is a growing tendency to reduce the redundancy of distinct proper names in use, by employing the same name for a place or person in all languages, instead of modifying it into harmony with the pronunciation or the whim of each distinct nationality. We should now hardly find four such different words as,-Venice, Venise, Venedig, and Venezia,-for a town or village that had only recently come to be known outside its own country. This, of course, is but a trifling matter, but it marks a drift towards economy in respect of language. It is one little addition to the stock of really common speech. Again, in the Oceanic Telegraph Code, mentioned above, we have an abbreviated language of the description, within its own very restricted sphere, contemplated by Leibnitz, Wilkins, and others. I do not know to what extent it is used by merchants of various nationalities; but there is nothing more than such general acceptance required in order to render it, over the range of topics which it covers, a Specieuse générale, or Real Character. It is in such humble commencements, and in such isolated departments, that I should look for the only realization we are ever likely to see of the efforts of so many sanguine and laborious inventors of past times. It is a case of "bit by bit reform ", but pending the indefinitely remote period at which the now leading language shall have acquired universal acceptance, there is plenty of time for reform of this description to effect very great results.

This chapter was written before the recent revival of interest in schemes of Universal Language which has been owing to the publication of Volapük. It will be interesting to see whether this last invention, or any of its competitors (for it is only one of several such recent productions) will enjoy a better fate than those which have gone before. It appears to me to be an attempt at a real language. That is, on the one hand, it aims at something much

more than a system of shorthand or international telegraphy, such as those noticed above. But, on the other hand, it claims to be nothing more than a language, and one merely for purposes of common social and commercial intercourse. That is, it does not make the slightest attempt to enter into any of those interesting philosophical and logical topics which, for our purposes, give most of their value to the schemes of Leibnitz and of Wilkins.

CHAPTER XXIII.

EXTENSIONS OF OUR GENERAL POWERS OF OBSERVATION.

IN a former chapter some indication was given of the nature of mere Observation, as distinguished from Inference. Apart from the particular difficulty there discussed, viz. that of determining the point at which one of these processes may be considered to end and the other to commence, there is not much to be said upon the subject; regard being had to the limits within which this treatise is confined. The Psychological and Metaphysical difficulties, which underlie any theory of Observation, have to be passed by on the one side, as taking up the enquiry at too early a stage for us here. And similarly the mechanical devices, by which our powers of observation are improved and extended, have to be passed by on another side, as carrying the enquiry too far into the region of the practical. The one class of considerations is, so to say, too central and the other too peripheral to fall properly within the scope of a treatise on Logic.

There is, however, one general enquiry connected with the subject of Observation which deserves some discussion here, if only for the reason that it does not seem to have been hitherto claimed by writers either on Philosophy, Psychology, or Applied Mechanics and Instrument making. The questions I have in view are these: What, in general terms, is meant by the expression "improving our powers of Observation"? Over what range, as regards varieties of observation, can such improvement be actually or conceivably effected? To what point, as regards refinement, can this improvement be carried out? The enquiry in question might be briefly expressed in language which, taken by itself, would certainly require some explanation, by asking, What is the nature and what the limits of our control over space and time?