SPEECH NATURAL TO MAN.

In your paper some time past I saw an account of "a wild woman found in the interior of Java." History furnishes many instances of these "unfortunate commoners of nature," who have been exposed by design or accident. Comparatively few, we fear, have been brought to the domestic hearth; fewer still have been completely civilized. A book of travels, now almost obsolete, states instances of this kind. A race of marauding Tartars, subjects of Russia, frequently attacked Polish villages, and carried off whole families: in conveying their captives home they had to pass the wild and intricate forest of Minsk, in Russian Lithuania, and there these unfortunate mothers lost, and were separated from, their children. In after days, when this stupendous region was traversed for other purposes than the nefarious one above mentioned, several human males were found, in almost as barbarous a state as the native burghers of the forest, to whose ferocious instinct many of these innocents had doubtless fallen a prey.

Peter, the Wild Boy, excited much interest in his day. George the 2d, of England, found him whilst hunting in the woods near Hamelin, in the electorate of Hanover. Peter, when found, ran on all fours, like the quadrupeds amongst whom he had been raised. We might ask, why did the brutes of prey in this as well as other instances, deviate from the voracious instinct planted in their nature? To accident we cannot refer it; and, after wearying our minds with conjecture, we can only end the difficulty by attributing it to that providential care which preserved Daniel in the lion's den. Peter never could be taught to articulate more than two words—his own name and George; but he learned, with facility and correctness, the notes of several tunes.

Lord Monboddo, of eccentric memory, mentions in his narrative respecting Peter, that two children had been found in the same wild state—one in the island of Diego Garcia, and one in the Pyrenees. He also states that two wild children were found in the Dismal Swamp of Virginia.[2] This immense morass is yet, in its inmost recesses, the refuge of wild animals of prey, particularly bears, panthers, and wild cats. During a fire in these swamps, 10 or 12 years ago, numbers were hunted down, who had fled before the rapid flames. A resident in that neighbourhood informed me that he had seen 17 of these animals, some half-burned, hung upon a single tree. In respect to the children noticed by Lord Monboddo, I cannot, in any history of either Virginia or North Carolina, find the least hint of such a circumstance having occurred; nor does the writer specify the period when they were found. Is it not probable that these outcasts from society (admitting the noble author to be rightly informed) were the offspring of aboriginal females, compelled to seek shelter in these swamps from the invading colonist, or from some hostile tribe?—Amongst the innumerable tribes of Indians in Virginia and North Carolina, the Tuskaroras were perhaps most powerful, and most immediately in the vicinity of this large tract. These aborigines were not all dispersed or destroyed until 1803, some of them living peaceably on the reserved lands. The main body of this tribe of Indians had migrated to New York state, and joined the Senecas, (one of the Six Nations,) many years preceding. Is it not probable, I again ask, that the young savages of lord Monboddo did, in fact, inherit the name from their birth? I would ask, as a matter of curiosity, of yourselves, Messrs. Editors, or any of your correspondents, answers to the following questions: When were these children found? Of what age when discovered? By whom found? What became of them? Could they be taught the use of speech?

Lord Monboddo maintains that speech is not natural to man, and that the want of it is no proof that the Ourang-Outang is not of the same species, as that animal only wants the artificial use of it. King John, of England,[3] held the same hypothesis upwards of five centuries before. Tradition (for such records are beneath the dignity of history) asserts, that this monarch imprisoned two children (a male and female) in separate cells.[4] When, at a certain age, they were brought before him, each of these little victims repeated a sarcasm on his folly in thus confining them. He considered his hypothesis as confirmed, but punished the keepers. The legend is here torn, and we do not learn (supposing it true) what became of the children, or what further progress they made in language. That man has the power, as well as the organs of speech, it appears an absurdity to deny; for, what country has ever been discovered where the natives had not the means of communicating verbally with each other? In the earliest records of the world we find no sanction for such an opinion; for the Antediluvians were certainly not defective in the power or use of speech to convey their ideas. If we deny this we virtually acknowledge our belief that the Mosaic account of the creation is "a cunningly devised fable." After the Flood we cannot doubt that Noah and his descendants still spoke the language of Adam. "All the nations spoke one language." Lord Kames contends that, after the building of Babel, "men again degenerated into a savage state," which he attributes to the confusion of tongues, and the dispersion of the tribes. We are no where told that they lost or forgot the use of speech, which lord Monboddo considers incidental to the savage state.

Lord Kames appears to take it for granted that all the men then in existence were engaged in this stupendous and impious attempt to scale Heaven, and "make themselves a name."—This idea is not conveyed by the sacred historian; it therefore appears probable that the tribes which continued together still spoke the original language, and remained in one place, and as one people. I fear I have trespassed on your limits, but the subject arose from the preceding remarks. I conclude with reiterating my request respecting the children found in the Dismal Swamp.

[Nat. Int.