Library Collections: Document: Full Text

There remains only definition by synthesis, or, as it is commonly called, direct definition. According to this method, a particular idea is defined by referring to its genus, and pointing out its specific characteristics. Such a method is not adapted to the circumstances of the deaf and dumb, unless at a late period in the course of their instruction.

These being the processes, logically classified, of developing the ideas of deaf-mutes, preparatory to teaching nomenclature, it would be in order to enquire here, what precautions are taken to insure thoroughness in the other branch of instruction, viz: that which embraces the principles of construction or connected discourse. The few remarks we have to make on this topic, will find a place when we come to consider that which peculiarly characterizes the history of the art in modern times.

We are now in a state to understand the wide differences, which have distinguished the systems pursued by different instructors and different institutions. These differences have arisen from the unequal prominence give by different men, to some of the instruments of communication, and the total exclusion of others from their methods. Of simple homogeneous systems, there are four essentially dissimilar, still in practice. In past times, there have not been wanting others, as we shall presently see. From combinations of the homogeneous systems, there arise others, differing according to the nature of their component parts.

The first and simplest system is that which rests upon the truly natural, unexpanded and unmethodized dialect of the deaf-mute, and aims only to teach language under a written form. It rejects all those contractions, denominated signs of reduction, and dispenses with the use of gestures entirely, as soon as possible. This was, for a long time, the method of the distinguished Dr. John Wallis, Professor of Geometry in the University of Oxford, and almost, if not quite, the earliest of English labourers in behalf of the deaf and dumb.

The second system differs only from the first, in employing the language of action under the second form; or that in which it is no longer universally intelligible, but, by reason of conventions and abbreviations, has become a prompt and easy means of communication. This is the system at present existing in the New-York Institution.

The third is that employed in the sixteenth century by Ponce, the earliest of all instructors, and by great numbers since his time. Its principal instrument is articulation.

The fourth is that which originated with De l'Epée in the latter part of the eighteenth century, and was perfected by Sicard in the beginning of the present, at the Royal Institution of Paris. This, as has been already intimated, depends chiefly upon methodical signs. The celebrity of its originators, and the individual success especially of Sicard, contributed to render this method highly popular in France, and in this country, when the art was new among us. Very little, however, was generally known, at the time, of the systems prevalent on the rest of the European continent, and in the British islands. Greater experience has since induced the Royal Institution to abandon wholly the method of Sicard, and to embrace a mixed method, formed by combining the second the third, named above.

The methods we have described, except that of De L'Epée and Sicard, are as will be perceived, as old as the art itself. That which depends on articulation was, nevertheless, almost universally the favourite, during the two hundred years which preceded the invention of methodical signs. We have mentioned that Ponce preferred this; and we may add that his pupils are said to have been accomplished articulators. After him, Bonet in Spain; Wallis and Holder in England; Van Helmont and Amman in Holland; Kerger, Wild, Niederoff, Raphel, Lichwitz, Arnold, and Heinicke in Germany; and Pereiré, Ernaud, Desehamps, and even the Abbé De L'Epée himself in France, are known to have attached themselves to this method. One of these, Professor Wild, engaged a celebrated mechanist of Frankfort, named Henry Louis Muth, to construct a machine, which should imitate all the movements of the vocal organs; in order that the deaf-mute might have an opportunity to see distinctly the positions he was required to copy. Another, viz: Heinicke, pretended to avail himself of the sense of taste in teaching articulation. The truth of this pretense has been doubted; nevertheless, he is known to have endeavoured to regulate the positions of the vocal organs, by introducing instruments into the mouth.

Sicard, too, so late as the year 1819, republished a little treatise of De L'Epée, called "The Art of Speaking," with a preface, in which he says, "The deaf-mute is not wholly restored to society till he has learned to express himself viva voce, and to read speech in the movement of the lips. It is only then that his education can be said to be complete." These facts are worth remembering on the part of those, who devour, with astonishment, the accounts, which find their way occasionally into the public prints, of the wonderful success, attained by some modern experimenter, in instructing the deaf to speak.