Library Collections: Document: Full Text

Articulation is an instrument available under all circumstances, and with all classes of persons. It exacts not even an acquaintance with writing in those with whom the deaf and dumb may be associated. It will serve the purposes of communication, on one part, at least, in darkness. This instrument has received the united suffrage of the great body of teachers, in all countries. Even De l'Epée and Sicard, the very authors of that system, which has led, in many instances, to the exclusion of the oral and labial alphabets, have testified in favor of their use, both in precept and practice. The former has given to the world, as a part of his work entitled 'La veritable manière d'instuire les sourds-muets,' a treatise on the means of restoring articulation to deaf and dumb persons, which, so late as the year 1819, was republished at Paris, with a preface by tile latter. In the course of this preface, the Abbé Sicard thus expresses himself. 'The deaf and dumb man is not completely restored to society, until he has been taught to express himself viva voce, and to read speech in the movement of the lips. It is only then that we can say that his education is entirely finished!'

We are now in a situation to consider the distinctive characteristics of different systems, and to determine; if we please, that which appears, to the eye of reason, the most judicious. One essential difference we have already remarked, viz. that which exists between the instructors, who have chosen to separate practical and methodical, or, to use the words of Degerando, ordinary and classical instruction, and those, who prefer to unite these two branches into one. This principle of distinction by no means interferes with another, which we are about to lay down.

We have noticed a classification of the instruments, employed to replace speech. We have seen that it is the province of one of these classes, more directly to represent ideas; of the other, words. The superior prominence which different systems assign, in practice, to one or the other of these classes, constitutes the basis of their widest differences. On the one side, therefore, stand the advocates of methodical signs; on the other, those of articulation.

Two other species of systems remain, of which the one rejects both the above instruments, and presents, in the use of writing alone, the simplest form of the art; the other, adopting both, the most complex.

After what we have said, it is hardly necessary to declare our preference. In adopting the views of those who are in favor of articulation, however, we are admonished, by the extent to which our remarks have been protracted, that it is impossible in this place to discuss the merits, or even unfold all the peculiarities of the different systems. A brief recapitulation will nevertheless show, that the difference of opinion, presumed to exist among instructers, is vastly wider in imagination than in reality. The controversies, in which De l'Epée was engaged, have had their effect in magnifying the distinctions, which really exist. They have created parties among men who should have been united in the inquiry after truth. Had our notions of the art been derived from the writings and the experiments of those who preceded that distinguished philanthropist in the same field, we should have avoided those prejudices, under the influence of which we have acquired the information we possess; and we should have learned to regard all instructers of the deaf and dumb, rather as our coadjutors, than our opponents. In what respect are the opinions of different masters really at variance? In questions merely of secondary importance. Perfect unanimity prevails in the employment of writing. No individual is so absurd as to reject the language of action. No one will deny the utility of design. Hardly a school rejects the manual alphabet. None question the expediency of employing the oral and labial alphabets, if it be practicable; and few deny its practicability, at least in many cases, where deafness is not profound. Methodical signs are continually losing ground. Minor differences of opinion are continually vanishing, before the light of knowledge. Systems are amalgamating; and the time may be anticipated, as not far distant, when this art shall, like other arts, upon which the light of reason has been permitted freely to play, possess the character of unity which belongs to them. Why should the views of instructors differ? Truth is every where the same. Experience is every where multiplying its results. Whether we live to witness the happy consummation, or whether it shall be reserved for another generation, perfect unanimity will, nay, must ultimately prevail.

To this result, the plan of correspondence, established a few years since by the Institution at Paris, will materially contribute. The object of this correspondence is to bring about an interchange of views among instructers, by the publication of their letters, either in full or in substance, in a biennial circular. But three publications of this nature have yet appeared, of which we have affixed the title of the third to this article. It is drawn up, we understand, as was also the second, by the able Professor Morel, and embraces memoirs from various instructers, among which we look in vain for any from an American hand. In a country, which embraces within its limits at least three institutions, in numbers surpassing any three in any other, we cannot view tin's circumstance without mortification. It would seem that a moral obligation should be felt among all those, who have devoted themselves to this enterprise, to contribute, if it be but their mite, to the common stock of improvement.