Language, the way in which men communicate their thoughts through a succession of words, gestures and expressions adapted to their character, customs and climate.

Ever since man felt the urge, the need and the pleasure to associate with those similar to him, it became necessary for him to reveal his soul and to communicate situations to others. After trying several forms of expression, he settled on the most natural, useful and extensive of these: the voice. He was delighted to make use of it at each and every moment and opportunity, and with little effort other than respiratory movements, which are so natural to our existence.

To judge things by their nature, stated Warburthon, one should not hesitate to adopt the opinion of Diodorus Siculus and other ancient philosophers, who thought that the first humans lived for a time like animals in woods and caves and, just like these animals, uttered only muddled and indeterminate sounds, until when gathered for mutual needs, and through a long process, they managed to form more distinct and varied sounds using signs and arbitrary marks, which they agreed upon in order that anyone who spoke could express the ideas he wished to communicate to others.

This theory of the origin of language is so natural that a Father of the Church, Gregory of Nyssa, and Richard Simon, priest of the Oratory, worked together to confirm it; but revelation should have taught them that God himself taught man language , and it was not in the capacity of philosopher that the author of Connaissances humaines [Condillac] showed ingeniously how language could be formed by natural means.

Furthermore, although God taught us language , it would apparently not be reasonable to posit that this language should extend beyond the contemporary needs of man, and that man should not have his own capacity to hear, enrich and improve language . Daily experience suggests the contrary. In this way, the first human language, as is proven by ancient monuments, was inevitably highly sterile and limited: so much so that men perpetually found themselves at a loss at each new idea and at each slightly unexpected situation, to make each other understood.

Nature therefore led man to anticipate such disadvantages by adding meaning to words. Consequently, conversations in the first centuries were supported by speech interspersed with gestures, pictures and actions. Usage and custom, as has happened in most other areas of life, then transformed what was born out of necessity into something ornate; but the practice lasted for a long time after necessity ceased to be an issue.

This is what occurred curiously with the Orientals, whose character naturally accommodated a form of conversation that clearly demonstrated their vivacity through movement, and fulfilled this vivacity through a permanent representation of perceptible images.

Holy scripture provides us with countless examples of this type of conversation. When the false prophet raises his iron horns to mark the total defeat of the Syrians, ch. iii , Kings, 22.11 ; when Jeremiah hides his linen sash in the hole of a rock near the Euphrates, ch. xiii ; when he breaks a clay jar in view of the people, ch. xix ; and when he puts straps and rushes on his neck, ch. xxviii ; when Ezekiel etches the siege of Jerusalem onto a brick, ch. iv ; when he weighs the hair from his head and his beard on some scales, ch. v ; when he takes his belongings from his home, ch. xij ; and when he joins two sticks together for Judah and Israel, ch. xxxvii . In all of the actions the prophets conversed with the people using symbols, which the people understood marvellously.

One should not treat as absurd and fanatical this language of action that the prophets used, for they were speaking to an unrefined people who knew no other language. In each and every nation of the world, the language of articulated sounds has prevailed only where it has become more intelligible to such nations.

The beginnings of this language of articulated sounds have always been ill-defined; and when they were refined with time and achieved their perfection, one could no longer hear the stuttering of their initial stages. Under the reign of Numa and for 500 years after him, neither Greek nor Roman was spoken in Rome. Instead, it was a vernacular formed out of Greek and barbarian words: for example, they would say pa for parte , and pro for populo . Polybus thus stated somewhere that in his time researching history, he had great difficulty finding one or two citizens in Rome who, though very learned in the history of their country, were in a position to explain to him some of the treaties the Romans had made with the Carthaginians; and that they had therefore written in the language spoken at the time. It was the sciences and the fine arts that were to enrich and perfect the Roman language. Due to the expanse of their empire it was to become the dominant language, albeit greatly inferior to the language of the Greeks.

But if men who were born to live among others discovered in the end the art of communicating their thoughts with precision, finesse and energy, they were no less able to hide and disguise them through false expressions, and they would abuse language .

Vocal expression can also be considered in the variety and succession of its movements: hence we find the art of music. This expression can find new force in the general convention of ideas: hence we find speech, poetry and the art of oratory.

The voice, being but a sensitive and drawn out expression, must have as its essential principle the imitation of the movements, restlessness and emotions of what it aims to express. Thus, when certain vocal inflections are placed on certain objects, one should [p. 243] be attentive to the sounds with the best relationship to what one wishes to describe. If there were a language in which this relationship was rigorously followed, it would be a universal language.

But differences in climate, custom and temperament are such that the inhabitants of the earth are neither equally perceptive nor equally affected. The shrewd and active spirit of the Orientals, and their hot-headed disposition, which would find its form in deep emotions, must have led them to invent idioms whose loud and harmonious sounds were vivid images of the objects they expressed. Hence the widely used metaphors and bold figures, the images inspired by nature, the strong inversions, the frequent display of similes and the sublime nature of the great writers of Antiquity.

The people of the north, living in very cold conditions, must have placed a lesser degree of fiery passion in their language . They had to express the few emotions present in their sensibility. From their affections and their sentiments, this must have necessarily found its way into their expressions. The language of an inhabitant of the north must have been permeated with all the iciness of his climate.

The Frenchman, who found himself between these two extremities, must have prevented himself using expressions that were too figurative, movements that were too fast and images that were too vivid. Since it was not for him to follow the vehemence and the sublime nature of the oriental languages, he must have settled on a form of elegant clarity, a studied politesse , using cold and delicate movements, which are all expressions of his temperament. It is not that the French language is not capable of harmony and vivid imagery, but these qualities have never been widely established.

It is not only the language of each nation, but also that of each region, that draws influence from climate and custom. In the southern regions of France one speaks a vernacular compared to which French is without movement and without action. In climates warmed by a blazing sun, the same word will often express an object and an action. Nowhere can we find the dispassionate climaxes whereby things are slowly examined, judged and condemned: the mind quickly examines successive nuances and, at a one glance, spots the principle and the end that is expressed with necessary determination.

Men who are only capable of cold accuracy in their reasoning and actions would appear to be numb beings, whilst these very men would find that the blazing sun had affected the minds of their compatriots. Where displaced men could not follow the speed of something, they would perceive inconsistencies and gaps. Between these two extremes, there are nuances of force, clarity and exactitude in language , just as in every climate there are successions of warm and cold.

Custom also introduces great variety in this domain. Those who live in the country know about rural work and pleasures: their speech is thus influenced by images of nature, hence the pastoral genre. The politesse of the court and the town inspire similes and metaphors drawn from the delicate and voluptuous metaphysics of the sentiments: hence the language of polite society.

The varieties found during a single century can also be found by comparing different eras. The Romans, with the same arm that strengthened the leadership of the kings, laboriously cultivated the wealthy field of their forefathers. In this fierce, or better still, warrior nation, agriculture was an honour. Their language was marked by their customs, and Virgil completed a project that would have been very difficult for a Frenchman. This wise poet expressed in noble and heroic verses the tools used in ploughing, planting vines and harvesting grapes. He could not have imagined that in Augustus's era people, with their politesse , would not applaud the image of a village woman who, with a branch in hand, would skim the must she was boiling in order to vary nature's produce.

Since different vernaculars are born out of the different characters of peoples, one can decide straight away that there will never be a universal language. Would it be possible to give every nation the same customs, the same sentiments, the same ideas of vice and virtue, and the same pleasure in the same images, whilst this difference is the result of the climates in which the peoples of nations live, of the education they receive and of their form of government?

However, knowledge of various languages, at least those of cultured peoples, is a vehicle for the sciences, because it serves to unravel the great multitude of different concepts that men have developed for themselves: if we do not know languages, we resemble blind horses whose fate it is to follow the path of only a small circle, constantly turning the wheel of the same mill.