situation that is fully known;as you watch the afflicted person,you are not likely to weep.But give him time to tell you what he feels and soon you will burst into tears.It is solely in this way that the scenes of a tragedy produce their effect (I have said elsewhere why feigned misfortunes touch us more than real ones.There is a type that weeps at a tragedy,yet has never had any pity for the suffering.The invention of theater is remarkable for inflating our pride with all the virtues in which we are entirely lacking.). 11 Pantomime without discourse will leave you nearly tranquil;discourse without gestures will wring tears from you.The passions have their gestures,but they also have their accents;and these accents,which thrill us,these tones of voice that cannot fail to be heard,penetrate to the very depths of the heart,carrying there the emotions they wring from us,forcing us in spite of ourselves to feel what we hear.We conclude that while visible signs can render a more exact imitation,sounds more effectively arouse interest. 12 This leads me to think that if the only needs we ever experienced were physical, we should most likely never have been able to speak;we would fully express our meanings by the language of gesture alone.We would have been able to establish societies little different from those we have,or such as would have been better able to achieve their goals.We would have been able to institute laws,to choose leaders,to invent arts,to establish commerce,and so on,in a word,almost as many things as we do with the help of speech.Without fear of jealousy,the secrets of oriental gallantry are passed across the more strictly guarded harems in the epistolary language of salaams.The mutes of great nobles understand each other and understand everything that is said to them by means of signs,just as well as one can understand anything said in discourse.M.Pereyra and those like him who not only consider that mutes speak,but claim to understand what they are saying,had to learn another language,as complicated as our own,in order to understand them. 13 Chardin says that in India,traders would take each other by the hand,varying their grip in a way that on one could see,thus transacting all their business publicly yet secretly,without a single word being uttered.If these traders had been blind,deaf, and mute,this would not hinder their understanding of each other;which shows that of the two senses by which we act,one alone will suffice to form a language. 14 It appears again,by the same observations,that the invention of the art of communicating our ideas depends less upon the organs we use in such communication than it does upon a power proper to man,according to which he uses his organs in this way,and which,if he lacked these,would lead him to use others to the same end. Give man a structure [organically]as crude as you please:doubtless he will acquire fewer ideas,but if only he has some means of contact with his fellow men,by means of which one can act and another can sense,he will finally succeed in communicating whatever ideas he might have. 15 Animals have a more than adequate structure for such communication,but none of them has ever made use of it.This seems to me a quite characteristic difference.That those animals which live and work in common,such as beavers,ants,bees,have some natural language for communicating among themselves,I would not question.Still,situation that is fully known; as you watch the afflicted person, you are not likely to weep. But give him time to tell you what he feels and soon you will burst into tears. It is solely in this way that the scenes of a tragedy produce their effect (I have said elsewhere why feigned misfortunes touch us more than real ones. There is a type that weeps at a tragedy, yet has never had any pity for the suffering. The invention of theater is remarkable for inflating our pride with all the virtues in which we are entirely lacking.). 11 Pantomime without discourse will leave you nearly tranquil; discourse without gestures will wring tears from you. The passions have their gestures, but they also have their accents; and these accents, which thrill us, these tones of voice that cannot fail to be heard, penetrate to the very depths of the heart, carrying there the emotions they wring from us, forcing us in spite of ourselves to feel what we hear. We conclude that while visible signs can render a more exact imitation, sounds more effectively arouse interest. 12 This leads me to think that if the only needs we ever experienced were physical, we should most likely never have been able to speak; we would fully express our meanings by the language of gesture alone. We would have been able to establish societies little different from those we have, or such as would have been better able to achieve their goals. We would have been able to institute laws, to choose leaders, to invent arts, to establish commerce, and so on, in a word, almost as many things as we do with the help of speech. Without fear of jealousy, the secrets of oriental gallantry are passed across the more strictly guarded harems in the epistolary language of salaams. The mutes of great nobles understand each other and understand everything that is said to them by means of signs, just as well as one can understand anything said in discourse. M. Pereyra and those like him who not only consider that mutes speak, but claim to understand what they are saying, had to learn another language, as complicated as our own, in order to understand them. 13 Chardin says that in India, traders would take each other by the hand, varying their grip in a way that on one could see, thus transacting all their business publicly yet secretly, without a single word being uttered. If these traders had been blind, deaf, and mute, this would not hinder their understanding of each other; which shows that of the two senses by which we act, one alone will suffice to form a language. 14 It appears again, by the same observations, that the invention of the art of communicating our ideas depends less upon the organs we use in such communication than it does upon a power proper to man, according to which he uses his organs in this way, and which, if he lacked these, would lead him to use others to the same end. Give man a structure [organically] as crude as you please: doubtless he will acquire fewer ideas, but if only he has some means of contact with his fellow men, by means of which one can act and another can sense, he will finally succeed in communicating whatever ideas he might have. 15 Animals have a more than adequate structure for such communication, but none of them has ever made use of it. This seems to me a quite characteristic difference. That those animals which live and work in common, such as beavers, ants, bees, have some natural language for communicating among themselves, I would not question. Still