The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1872-01-04
Brute Language.

Brutes are not the dull, plodding creatures
that many credit them with being. 1t seems
clear that they have language by which they
hold intercourse: with each other, and there is
no doubt but that they reason to a greater or
less degree 1t is not all blind instinct with
them Almost any one of us can recall more
than one incident in proof of this. In his ar
ticle on "The Language of Brutes," in Old and
Neu, Mr.. Leonard A. Jones records q number
of amusing and striking incidents, showing
that a high order of intelligence guides the
animal world. Towards the close of the arti-
Gle, his philosophy, or, rather, speculation,
runs in this vein: whether brutes succeed
any better in understanding what we say to
them than they do in communicating their de-
sires and sentiments to US, it would be difficult
to determine For the most part they address
us, and reply to what we may say to them, by
out something of their meaning when they ad-
dress US with their voices; and 80 also some of
the higher animals quite readily understand
what we say to them when wespeak of matters
which they feel particularly interested in. 1t
is not worth while for US to talk of political
questions to our dog, or to say anything to him
of transcendental nature; for, although he is
a very clever fellow, he would pay very little
attention to what we might say, and, in fact
would not understand q word of it all. But
we speak to him about his dinner, or about go
ing to the woods with us to hunt squirrels, and
he very emphatically signifies to US that he
understands quite we'll what we are saying.
He has practical turn of rind, and will have
nothing to do with any of the sciences [; and
of all the arts, he cares only for that of living
well and enjoying himself" DIR. Jones might
have pointed to stronger illustration. The
we'll trained setter or pointer plainly demon
strates that he understands the language of his
master. He obeys his voice, doing things that
he could not possibly do were he ignorant of
range set of signals by which to control him,
and the language of signals we regard full as
difficult as the language of sounds. Again we
quote. "It is quite likely that the dog catches
the meaning of what is said to him somewhat
from the expression of the speakers face, or
from the tone in which the words are spoken.
When we speak to our dog we often see him
watch our countenance with the utmost ear
nestness, apparently for the purpose of discov-
ering our meaning and, without speaking to
him at all, we see that he comprehends very
often the meaning of the very slightest and
simplest notifications of the human face.
There is every reason to apprehend that the
dog, as well as most animals of the higher Or
deTs, instinctiyely understands something of
ploy-our motions, gestures and looks-just as
they understand them when they are employed
by their own species. Still it is evident enough
that they come to attach some definite meaning
to particular words. The horse and the OK un-
derstand what the driver says to them; the
shepherd makes himself understood BY his
sheep; and Bougeant declares that the COWS
understand all the milkmaid says when she
talks to them" Bougeant speaks extravagant-
ly, but it must be admitted that the horse, the
COW and the dog each understands the talk of
one who is with them much. They may not
be able to distinguish between pure English
and bad English, but certainly the words strike
a sympathetic chord and call up flash of in
teliigence. The brute language is largely a
language of signs, therefore they learn quickly
to read the expressions of the human face.
But we also reach their understanding through
the ear. The blind horse owned by Dan Rice,
and who did many difficult things at the sim
pie bidding of his masters voice, was a re-
markabIe living example of the truth of this
principle. Field and Farm.