DIDASCALOCOPHUS Or The Deaf and Dumb man's Tutor, To which is added A Discourse of the Nature and number of Double Consonants. Both which Tracts being the first (for what the Author knows) that have been published upon either of the Subjects. By GEO. DALGARNO.   printer's device of the University of Oxford, featuring the Sheldonian Theatre 
Printed at the THEATER in OXFORD, Anno Dom. 1680.   

Imprimatur,  
TIMO. HALTON Vice-Cancel Oxon.   

Errata.  
Read Didascalocophus for Cheiralogy, p. 96. l. 7. and p. 104. l. 22. Read use for use, p. 27. l. 1. Read most for least. p. 128. l. 8.   

THE INTRODUCTION, With a KEY to the following discourse.  
ABOUT 20 years ago, I published, Latiali but rudi Minerva, a Synopsis of a Philosophical Grammar and Lexicon; thereby showing a way to remedy the difficulties and absurdities which all languages are clogged with ever since the confusion, or rather since the fall; by cutting off all Redundancy, rectifying all Anomoly, taking away all Ambiguity and Aequivocation, contracting the Primitives to a few number, and even those not to be of a mere arbitrary, but a rational Institution; enlarging the bounds of derivation and Composition, for the cause both of Copia and Emphasis. In a word, designing not only to remedy the confusion of Languages, by giving a much more easy medium of communication than any yet known; but also to cure even Philosophy itself of the disease of Sophisms, and Logomachies; as also to provide her with more wieldy and mannageable. Instruments of operation, for defining, dividing, demonstrating, etc.  
What entertainment this design may meet with in following ages, I am not solicitous to know; but that it has met with so little in this present age, I could give several good reasons, which at present I forbear; intending, if God bless one with life, health, and leisure to do this in a more proper place. To me 'tis enough to have the Testimony of some of the learned men of this present age 
* Dr. Seth Wind now Lord Bishop of Sarum, Dr. John Wilkins late Lord Bishop of Chester, Dr. John Wallis, Dr. William Dittingham.  who are best able to judge in things of this nature, that I have there discovered a secret of Art, which by the learned men of former ages, has been reckoned among the Desiderate of Learning: To which I may add, that this discovery is made from more rational, easy, and practicable principles, than ever they imagined to be possible.  
To this treatise I gave the title of Ars Signorum, which in compliance with the Dialect of the present Scene, I may properly enough change to Sematology. This soon after became a fruitful Mother of two Sister-Germans, Didascalocophus, and a Discourse of double Consonants; which having lain as twins in the womb for many years, at last two severe fits of sickness did midwive them into the world, the latter here in order being Senior to the other by the space of full 7 years.  
That the argument I have in hand is worthy to be treated of, will readily be confessed by all; but how worthily I have handled it must be judged by a few, to whose candour (passing by all apologies) I freely submit. The former treatise of Sematology had the Universality of all mankind for its object, but had nothing to recommend it but conveniency; This of Didascalocophus, is restrained (at least in its most proper ends and principal effects) to a small number of mankind; but comes recommended with the strongest arguments of Charity and Necessity. But at present I will dismiss the Mother, and betake myself to put the Daughter in a proper dress for the following Scene of action.  
The Soul of Man in this state of union depending in its operations upon the bodily Organs; when these are vitiated it must needs follow, that the Soul itself is so far affected, as at least to be hindered in her external functions. Being therefore to treat of a way to cure a weakness that follows humane nature, equally affecting both: I will leave it to the skilful Physician, to discourse of the causes and cure of the Disease, as it concerns the Body, and will apply myself to consider of the means, to cure the better part of the Man, which is the proper work of a Grammarian.  
And because the subject I have in hand is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and more particularly one branch of it, which for what I know, has been hitherto ex professo treated of by no Author: I will first mention all the several ways of Interpretation, whereby the Soul either doth, or may exert her powers: In doing of which I will be obliged to take the liberty of coining some new words of Art, which hereafter I will explain.  
It is true that all the Senses are Intelligencers to the Soul less or more; for though they have their distinct limits, and proper Objects assigned them by nature; yet she is able to use their service even in the most abstracted Notions, and Arbitrary institution: But with this difference, that Nature seems to have fitted two, Hearing and Seeing, more particularly for her service; And other two Tasting and Smelling, more gross and material, for her dull and heavy consort the Body: whereas the fifth of Touching is of a middle nature, and in a manner equally fitted for the service of both, as will appear in the progress of the following discourse. Wherefore being here to speak of the Interpretation of arbitrary Signs, impressed by the Rational Soul (and by it alone) upon the Objects of the Senses, most fitted for that use: I will take notice of the most usual, or at least of the most easy and practicable ways of Interpretation which either are, or may be.  
Here reflecting upon Aristotle's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I expected both his help and Authority, in Analysing the several kinds of Interpretation: But finding little or nothing to this purpose in him, neither indeed in any other Author of old or new Philosophy (as we now distinguish) that I have happened to look in, I was forced to adventure upon the following Analysis, for clearing my way, and enabling me to discourse the more distinctly on the Subject Argument.  
Interpretation then in its largest sense, is an act of cognitive power, expressing the inward motions, by outward and sensible Signs: Of this there are three kinds, 1. Supernatural, 2. Natural, 3. Artificial or Institutional; to which I give the names of Chrematology, Physiology, and Sematology. Chrematology, is when Almighty God reveals his will by extraordinary means, as dreams, visions, apparitions etc. and this in the division of Arts falls under Divinity. Physiology is when the internal passions, are expressed by such external Signs, as have a natural connexion by way of cause and effect with the passion they discover; as laughing, weeping, frowning, etc. And this way of Interpretation being common to the Brute with Man, belongs to Natural Philosophy: And because this goes not far enough, to serve the Rational Soul, therefore Man has invented Sematology; that is, an Art of impressing the conceits of the mind upon sensible and material Objects, which have not the least shadow of affinity to the images of the things they carry impressed upon them. And this is Interpretation, in the strictest and most proper sense; and to reduce this wonderful effect of Reason to such Rules of Art as the nature of it requires, is the proper Subject of Ars Signorunt; which according to the commonly received distribution of Arts, is nothing else but a Rational Grammar.  
Sematology then being a General name for all Interpretation by Arbitrary Signs, or (to follow the most usual aims of Art) voces ex instituto; to any of the Senses; It may from the three Senses of Hearing, Seeing, and Touching, whose service the Soul doth chief make use of in Interpretation, be divided into Pneumatology; Schematology, and Haptology.  
Pneumatology, (or if any think Ethology more proper) is Interpretation by Sounds conveied thro' the Ear; Schematology by Figures to the Eye; and Haptology by a mutual contact, skin to skin. Pneumatology again is divided into Glossology and Aulology: Glossology is a term proper enough for Interpretation by the Tongue, which is the first, and most common Organ of Interpretation at least in Society, and face to face; for Man in these circumstances  — effert animi motus interprete Lingua. 
Aulology so styled by an easy Trope, interprets by a Musical Instrument; which is fully capable of as much, and manifest distinction as the Tongue, but not so natural and ready an Organ.  
Schematology is divided into Typology or Grammatology, and Cheirology or Dactylology. By Typology or Grammatology, I understand the impressing of permanent Figures upon solid and consisting matter, which may be done two ways; either by the Pen and Hand, or by the impression of Stamps prepared for that use; which makes only an accidental difference between Grammatology and Typology. Cheirology or Dactylology, as the words import, is Interpretation by the transient motions of the Fingers; which of all other ways of Interpretation comes nearest to that of the Tongue. Haptology admitting of no Medium, nor distinction of Act and Object, but being body to body, doth therefore admit of no subdivision. Tho I will not warrant all these Terms from Acyrology; yet I am sure that they will both save me the labour of Periphrasis, and also from using words less proper.   

CHAP. I. A Deaf man as capable of understanding and expressing a Language, as a Blind.  
THOUGH the Soul of man come into the world, Tabula Rasa; yet is it withal, Tabula Cerata; capable thro' study and discipline, of having many fair, and goodly images, stamped upon it. This capacity is actuated, by the ministry of bodily Organs. The Organs of the Body, serving the Soul in exerting her powers, in this state of union are four; the Eye and the Ear; the Hand and the Tongue: the first pair fitted for taking in, the other for giving out; Both the one and the other, equally necessary for communication, and society.  
That the Ear and the Tongue alone, secluding the other two, can perfect a man in knowledge (excepting of some few things which are the proper Objects of seeing) and enable him to express what he knows in Vocal Signs, or a Language spoken, is known by daily experience in blind people. That an equal degree of knowledge is attainable by the Eye, and expressible by the Hand in Characters, or a Language written, is no less evident in the Theory, for the reasons following.  
All signs, both vocal, and written, are equally arbitrary and ex instituto. Neither is there any reason in Nature, why the mind should more easily apprehend, the images of things impressed upon Sounds, than upon Characters; when there is nothing either natural, or Symbolical, in the one or the other.  
Therefore that blind people should come sooner to speak, and understand, than Dumb persons to write, and understand, is not, because there is any more discerning faculty in the Ear, than in the Eye; nor from the Nature of Sounds and Characters, that the one should have a greater fitness than the other to convey those Notions impressed upon them, thro' the respective doors of the Senses into the Soul; neither that pronounciation of articulate words is sooner, or, more easily learned, then written Characters; neither yet, that the Ear is quicker in perceiving its object then the Eye: But it is from other accidental causes, and circumstances, which give the Ear many considerable advantages, in the matter of Communication, above the Eye. And yet, even in this particular, the Eye wants not its own privileges; which if rightly used, may perhaps outweigh the advantages on the other side. For illustrating this, I will compare a Deaf man with a Blind. 1. The blind man goes to School in his cradle; this so early care is not taken of the Deaf. 2. The blind man is still learning from all that are about him; For every body he converses with, is a Tutor, and every word he hears, is a lecture to him; by which he either learns what he knew not, or confirms what he had. The Deaf man not being capable of this way of discipline, has no teacher at all: and though necessity may put him upon contriving, & using a few signs; yet those have no affinity to the Language by which they that are about him do converse amongst themselves, and therefore are of little use to him. 3. The Blind man goes thro' the discipline of Language in the best of his time, Childhood, and under the best of Teachers, women and children: The Deaf man is deprived of both these opportunities. 4. The blind man learns his Language by the by, and aliud agens; the Deaf cannot attain a language without instruction, and the expense of much time and pains. 5. The deaf man is confined to the circumstances of light, distance, posture of body, both in himself, and him he communicates with: the blind man is free from these straightening circumstances.  
Lastly, all the advantages the Ear has above the eye, may be summed up in these two. First, more opportunities of time; secondly, quicker dispatch, or doing more work in less time: Both which may be in a great measure remedied by skill and care; by which if there were a timely application made to Deaf persons, I conceive they might be more improved in knowledge; and so their condition be much more happy than that of the blind: which will appear by the following advantages that the Deaf man has above the Blind.  
First, the Deaf man has greater advantages of acquiring Real knowledge, than the blind; because the Eye has greater variety of objects than the Ear. 2. The Deaf man has a greater certainty of that knowledge he attains by the Eye, than the Blind can have of that he receives by the Ear; for Pluris est oculatus testis unus, quam auriti decem. 3. As he has the better of the other in the knowledge of Nature; so also he exceeds him much, in Speaking and Reading the Language of Nature. For besides reading the Glory, and wisdom of God, in the book of the Creation; he is able also to read much of the minds of men, in the Book of their Countenance; which, seconded with the postures, gestures, actions of the whole body; more particularly, the indications of the hands, feet, fingers, and other circumstances; lays open much of their inside to him: And he, by the same Dumb eloquence is able to notify his desires to others. Of which way of communication, the blind man's condition renders him wholly uncapable. So that the one is able to prove himself a man, in any society of Mankind, all the world over: The other, take him from the company of his countrymen, has little else left him wherewith to difference himself from a brute, but the childish Rhetoric of Democritus, and Heraclitus. But fourthly, to come closer to our purpose with the comparison. The Deaf man learns a Language by Art, and exercising his rational faculties; the Blind man learns by Rote; so that he gets a language and he himself knows not how. There is therefore as great difference in the point of language between a Deaf and a Blind man (supposing both to have made an equal progress,) as between one bred in the University, and a Clown that knows not a letter. Fifthly, though the Blind man have the start of the Deaf, yet the deaf man will be too hard for him at the long run: For he, after he has once got a competency of language, will be able to help himself, and direct his own course in the further pursuit of all Real knowledge. On the contrary, the blind man who in learning a language needed no particular Guide, because every body was his Guide; now he is at a stand, and cannot so much as advance one step, without one to lead him. Sixthly, the Deaf man has this great advantage above the Blind, which weighs heavier than all that can be laid in the Scales against it: That he is able to write down his notions, and reflect upon them as often as he will. And now the advantage of having much time for study, and doing much work in little time is as much the Deaf man's, as at first setting out it was the Blind man's. Seventhly, in the superfetation of language the Deaf man will sooner be impregnate with a 2d, or 3d, language then the Blind; insomuch as one language learned by study and Art, is a greater step to facilitate the learning of another, than the mother Tongue which comes by mere use and Rote.   

CHAP. II. A Deaf man capable of as Early Instruction in a language as a Blind.  
TAking it for granted, That Deaf people are equal, in the faculties of apprehension, and memory, not only to the Blind; but even to those that have all their senses: and having formerly shown; that these faculties can as easily receive, and retain, the Images of things, by the conveyance of Figures, thro' the Eye, as of Sounds thro' the Ear: It will follow, That the Deaf man is, not only, as capable; but also, as soon capable of Instruction in Letters, as the blind man. And if we compare them, as to their intrinsic powers, has the advantage of him too; insomuch as he has a more distinct and perfect perception, of external Objects, than the other. For the Blind man has no certain knowledge of things without him; but what he receives, from the information of the gross sense of Feeling; which, though it be a sure intelligencer; yet is its intelligence very scanty: For what he receives by the Ear, is but a second-hand knowledge, depending upon testimony, and the credit of others. So that the advantages I gave the blind man, at first setting out, are not in his own faculties, but from extrinsic and adventitious helps.  
Therefore I conceive, there might be successful addresses made to a Dumb child, even in his cradle; when he gins— risu cognoscere matrem: if the Mother, or, Nurse had but as nimble a hand, as commonly they have a Tongue. For instance, I doubt not but the words, hand, foot, dog, cat, hat, etc. written fair, and as often presented to the Deaf child's Eye, pointing from the words to the Things and vice versa; as the blind child hears them spoken, would be known, and remembered assoon by the one, as the other. And as I think the Eye to be as docile, as the Ear; so neither see I any reason, but the Hand might be made as tractable an Organ, as the Tongue; and assoon brought to form, if not fair, at least legible Characters, as the tongue to imitate, and Echo back, articulate Sounds.  
Here it may be doubted; whether it were more advisable, to train up the deaf child in Typology, or Dactylology. For the first, it may be said, That though the institution is equally arbitrary in both, and therefore equally easy to the learner: yet, writing is permanent, and therefore gives the young Scholar time to contemplate, and so makes the deeper impression: whereas, pointing to the fingers is transient, and gone before it can be apprehended. This made me at first incline more to writing: But upon further consideration, I judge the other way much more expedient. For though it cannot be denied, but the permanency of the Characters is in itself an advantage, if well improved; yet, transient motions, if often repeated, make as great an impression upon the memory, as fixed and immovable objects. A clear proof of this we have from young ones learning to understand a Language, from the Transient motions of the tongue: and which is yet more difficult; to imitate the same transient motions; where, neither can the distinctions be so manifest, nor the formation so easy, as in the Hand-language. Which, as it confirms me; That pointing to the Hand, would be the better way of teaching, so it makes me think: That if closely followed, it might be easier attained, by young ones, then speaking; insomuch as the motions of the Hand, are much more easy than those of the tongue.  
If here it should be objected; That words written are more distinct, and easy to be apprehended; for though consisting of several distinct letters; yet being joined, they pass in this rude discipline, for one individual Sign, for our Scholar is supposed as yet, to understand nothing of the distinction of letters: whereas in pointing to the Fingers; The distinct motions to make up a word, will be more manifest; and so will be a hindrance to the Scholars weak intention, to apprehend that, which is represented by many touches so distinctly, under the Notion of one word.  
To this I answer. If we compare the action of writing, with pointing to the Fingers, this is much more simple than that; and therefore less amusing. But secondly, if we compare words written with pointing; this is still not only more simple, and therefore more easily apprehended; But also it is as easy to represent a word as one Compositum with a continued action of the Hand, though there be many distinct pointings, as to make One Word by an aggregate of many distinct letters. Add to this, that pointing to the Hand is capable of more Emphasis; for frequent repetition accompanied with significant gestures, will come near to the way of teaching viva voce, which inculcates more than the beholding of a standing object. But here there is need of caution; That we follow the conduct of Nature; That is, to begin with Words most simple and easy. For we see that young children when they begin to speak are not able to pronounce long words, nor yet all letters. But here the only care to be taken is, to choose short words; for all letters are equally easy. Now before I proceed I think it will be very proper to add some thing of the easiness of the whole Task; both to remove prejudices in others, and more particularly to encourage the careful Mother the more cheerfully to undertake it.  
There are many mothers who (to their great praise) do teach their children to Read, even almost before they can speak. And yet (I hope) it will appear from the following considerations; That to read and write upon the Fingers, is much easier to the learner, than to read and write in Books; there being many difficulties in the one, which are avoided in the other. For, 1. in reading, single letters must be learned; which are very remote, and abstracted from sense, as being but parts of a Signs Sign, e. g. H. is the 4th part of the word Hand, which word written is a sign of the vocal sound, the vocal sound is the immediate sign of the thing itself. 2. Next to this difficulty is the learning to name the same letters in the precise abstracted notion of them a, b, c, d, etc. without borrowing names to them from other things; contrary to what the first fathers of letters have taught us, as appears by their naming the simple elements Aleph, Beth, Gimel, Daleth, etc. And here by the by I cannot but observe; That we Europeans have been so dull Sholars, as not to take out the lesson: Yea our wise Masters the Grecians in this particular, are the greatest Dunces of the rest; For others have been truants and taken out no lesson; and they have taken it out false. For they have named them by Barbarous and insignificant words corrupted from the Hebrew; which is worse than to name them by their own powers alone. Which hallucination of theirs has a remarkable providence in it; For thereby they have given a convincing proof, and openly confessed (though they neither designed, nor owned any such thing) that the Doctors of Athens have learned their a b c at the feet of Gamaliel. And here amongst ourselves and neighbouring Nations, it is observable, that in this point of discipline, our Dames are wiser than our Doctors: for they find a necessity of bringing home these abstracted notions to young ones senses, by borrowing names from known and familiar things. But if there were one way of naming the simple Elements agreed upon, and this put in all Primers and Horn-books, it would not only be of good use to children and unskilful Dames; but also the thing being celebrated would give occasion to ingenious allusions and Metaphors, an instance whereof we have in A and Ω in the Greek. But to return to our purpose. A third difficulty in reading is true pronounciation of the simple letters. And 4. joining them in syllables is yet more difficult; the single letters often times either quite losing, or, changing their powers. And 5. the dividing syllables a right, and joining them to make words. All which are such difficulties that one may justly wonder how young ones come to get over them: And how late, and with how great pains they are overcome by some, I appeal to those that know what belongs to the breeding of youth. Now the Deaf child under his Mother's tuition, passes securely by all these Rocks and Quicksands. The distinction of letters, their names, their powers, their order, the giving them true shape or figure (which answers to others pronouncing true,) the dividing words into Syllables, and of them again making words, to which may be added Tone, and Accent. None of these puzzling niceties hinder his progress. All the teacher has to do, is, to go with one continued motion over all the points that make up the word, pointing withal to the things. And at first it will be convenient to initiate the young Scholar with words of few letters. and a near affinity; as, Hat, Cat, Hog, Dog, Hand, Sand. It is true, after he has passed the discipline of the Nursery, and comes to learn Grammatically, than he must begin to learn to know letters written, by their figure, number, and order. But the rest of the difficulties I have but now mentioned, are proper to the Ear, and therefore do not concern him.  
And because the advantages the Blind man hath over the Deaf, are more considerably such, in the time of childhood; It cannot be denied, but the blind child, is in a greater capacity of learning the Mother-Tongue than the Deaf: yet so, as skill and care might advance the Deaf child in a vocabulary of the names of visible Objects, much above what the other can be supposed to get from the common use of the Mother-Tongue. For the one is still running the same round, in a narrow circle, hearing the same words redundantly: the other might be in a constant progressive motion.  
And though I persuade myself, that some time or other, there may be a mother found, who by her own care, and such directions as I am treating of, will lay a good foundation of Language in her Deaf child, even in the first stage of his Minority; yet seeing this is like to be but rara avis, I will advance our blind and deaf Scholars to a higher Form, and place them under a severer discipline then that of the Nursery; which I suppose none will deny them now able to bear: for I will suppose them entered in the 7th year of their age. Together then with this equality of age, let us suppose them every other way equal, in their natural parts, both faculties and inclinations, under Tutors equally both skilful and careful: And to make their capacities every way equal; the Deaf boy to write as fair and quick a hand, as can be expected from that age. In these circumstances, they are both of them to begin to learn a Language: the blind boy Latin, the deaf boy his Mother's Tongue.  
The case being thus stated, It is my own opinion, that the Deaf boy would come to read & write the Mother-Tongue both much better and sooner than the blind boy to understand and speak the Latin. For reasons of my so thinking, beside what may be gathered from chap. 1. I will here carry on the comparison between the blind boy and the deaf in some particulars coming closer to our present case.  
1. The Blind boy has the advantage of knowing a language already, which is a great help to the learning any second language. For though there be no affinity between the words of some languages; yet there is something of a Natural and Universal Grammar runs thro' all Languages, wherein all agree. This contradicts not what I have said to the deaf man's advantage Chap. 1. Num. 6. Because there the blind and deaf are supposed both to understand the Mother-Tongue when they begin to learn a second language. Here the deaf is supposed to have no language, and the blind to have the Mother-Tongue; which though by him learned, not by Rule, but by Rote; yet is it an advantage over him that has none.  
2. Beside this notion of Natural and Universal Grammar, which the blindboy hath got with the Mother-Tongue; he not being to learn Words for Things, but Words for Words; and it falling out so, that oftentimes there is a great affinity between the words to be learned, and the words for which they are to be learned; this makes that he learns with less pains than the deaf boy, who learning words for Things, it can never happen, that a combination of Alphabetical Characters making up a word, should have any affinity to, or resemblance of the thing for which it is substituted.  
3 Onomatopoeia is a great help to the blind Scholar, for Example, grunnitus, hinnitus, rugitus, ululatus, etc. are easier to be learned by the blind man, than the deaf; because as they pass in Sounds thro' the Ear, they are of a mixed Institution, partly Natural, partly Arbitrary; But these same words written in Characters are of a mere arbitrary Institution, whether they be considered with relation to the immediate, or mediate Signatum. So that our dumb Scholar has nothing to trust to, but diligence and strength of memory: Reason can do him no service at all, at least so far as either Primitive words, or words of an irregular inflexion from them extend; which make up the body of all languages. Neither can fancy help him much, which oftentimes is of great use by working a connexion between a strange and a known word, because as yet we suppose most words to be strangers to him.  
The reason of this difference between words spoken and written is. Because speaking being before writing, has more of Nature and less of Art in it. For all languages guided by the instinct of Nature, have more or less of Onomatopoeia in them, and I think our English as much as any: For beside the naming the voices of Animals, and some other Musical Sounds, which for the most part is done by this Figure in other languages, we extend it often to more obscure, and indistinct sounds. Take for example, wash, dash, plash, flash, clash, hash, lash, slash, trash, gash, etc. So grumble, tumble, crumble, jumble, fumble, stumble, humble, mumble, etc. of which kind of words, The Learned and my worthy friend Dr Wallis has given a good account in his English Grammar. In all these and such like words there is something Symbolising, and Analogous to the notions of the things; which makes them both more Emphatic, and easy to the memory. But in words literally written, and of a mere arbitrary Institution, there can be nothing Symbolical. But to draw something out of this digression to our present stated case. Tho Onomatopoeia gives our blind Scholar some advantage over his Deaf Schoolfellow; yet is it short of what it would be if he were learning English. This is all that at present comes into my thoughts to say for maintaining the Paradox of a blind guide. I will now offer my reasons for giving him the precedency, that has two Eyes open in his head, which seems to be the more plausible opinion.  
1. The Deaf man's mind is like clean paper, and therefore takes the impression the more easily, fair and distinct: whereas the scribble and blottings upon the Table of the Blind man's memory, as they leave little room for new impressions, so they breed confusion, and makes him ready to mistake, when he comes to read them.  
2. Words laid up in the deaf Boy's memory, are like Characters engraven in Steel or Marble: The blind boys words are but chalked out, or, nigro carbone Notata, and therefore easily defaced. For the deaf boy having but one word for every thing he knows, is therefore obliged to reflect upon it, as often as he has occasion to think, or speak of the thing itself: And it is this frequency of recognising words, and using them upon all occasions that makes a man master of a Language: Whereas the blind boy having two words for one thing, the one an intimate and old acquaintance, even a teneris unguiculis, the other a stranger to him; upon all occasions he loves to converse with his old crony, and keeps at a distance from the stranger; unless it be at set times, when force or fear commands his attendance. So that this consideration alone (specially if it be seconded with the care and diligence of those that are about him, in forbearing all other Signs with him but letters) may seem to outweigh all that can be said for the blind Boy.  
3. The deaf boy can con a lesson by himself, for litera scripta manet; The Blind boy can do nothing without one prompting him for vox perit.  
Lastly, I think none will deny but that it stands with reason, That a deaf Scholar must be exact in Orthography. But for the blind I know it by experience, that it will be a hard matter to make him spell true.   

CHAP. III. Of a Deaf man's Capacity to speak.  
THAT a Deaf man may be taught to speak, is no more a doubt to me, then that a Blind man may be taught to write: Both which I think not only possible, but also not very difficult; I will carry on the comparison in several particulars. First, both have the respective Organs, the Tongue, and the Hand, equally entire, and in a capacity to act. 2. Both are equally destitute of their proper guides, the Ay, and the Ear, to direct them in acting: and therefore, 3. both must be equally obliged to the sense of of Feeling for direction.  
And yet so Magisterial are the Senses of Hearing, and Seeing; that though the Sense of Feeling alone may guide the Tongue, and Hand, in speaking, and writing, after a habit is acquired yet for introducing this habit, directions from the Eye, and Ear are necessary. And which is observable in this point of discipline: The eye and ear seem to act out of their own Sphere, and to exchange their stations, and powers; for the Blind man learns to write by the Ear, and the Deaf man to speak by the Eye: From which to infer that community of Senses, which some Philosophers, and Physicians speak of, I think would be absurd; the external objects still remaining distinct: But the true inference from this will be. That the soul can exert her powers, by the ministry of any of the Senses. And therefore when she is deprived of her principal Secretaries, the eye, and the ear; then she must be contented with the service of her Lackeys, and Scullions, the other Senses; which are no less true and faithful to their Mistress, than the eye, and the ear; but not so quick for dispatch.  
But to go on with the comparison. 4. It will be hard to teach the deaf man to observe tone, accent, and Emphasis in speaking; so will it be as hard to bring the blind man to write a fair hand, or divers hands, yet the one may speak so as to be understood, and the other writ so as what he writes may be read. 5. As there may be more simple, and therefore more easy Characters to be written, contrived for the use of the blind man; So may there sounds of an easier pronounciation than any in common use, be invented for the use of the Deaf, 6. They are equally uncapable the one of singing, the other of flourishing and painting. 7. As the Deaf man has this advantage above the Blind, that speaking in common commerce, and business is of more frequent and greater use than writing: So the Blind man comes even again with him in this. That there is one way of writing, and that of great use too, to the Deaf man; which the blind can learn both assoon and to as great a degree of perfection, as the deaf; whereas the deaf man cannot learn to speak without much time, and pains; and yet can never come to perfection in speaking. This way of writing is, by an Alphabet upon the fingers. 8. As to any direct tendency of improving either of them with knowledge, or dispatch of business and converse in vita communi, I judge them both equally useless, or at least of no very great use; because I think scarce attainable to that degree of perfection, as to be ready for use upon all occasions. That there may be cases wherein they may be of great use I do not deny.  
And of several that offer themselves, I will single out that of a blind Master, and deaf Servant, for stating of which the more clearly; I will premise. 1. That to read and write is a commendation in a servant. 2. It recommends him the more if he be to serve a blind Master. And 3. if his blind Master be a man of much business or learning, this enhanses his service yet the more. These things premised; let our case be this.  
Blind Homer hearing of an ingenious, but Deaf slave, called Aesop, who was trained up in all the forementioned ways of Sematology, and he himself being expert in Dactylology, he resolved to purchase Aesop at any rate. The first service he puts him upon, was to write out his Ilias' fair, from his own blotted Copy: And because Aesop could scarce read his hand, he was always present himself, correcting the faults of his Pen, upon his fingers. And here I leave them for a while till I have resolved another material doubt:  
That which is my main design in this Treatise (to teach how to come to understand a language by reading and writing) suggests to me here to resolve this question. How a blind person might communicate with a dumb? The cause of doubting being upon the dumb man's part. I answer. The defect of his Tongue must be supplied with a musical Instrument, having the letters equally distinguished upon the Keys, or Strings, both to the Eye of the Dumb, and in the sounds to the Ear of the Blind; which I take for granted might produce the same effects with Oral speech. And here it is observable that that same action would very properly be, both Writing and Speaking; writing from the hand of the dumb touching the Keys, or Strings; speaking to the Ears of the Blind man from the sound of the Instrument.  
After this short interlude, let us bring Homer and Aesop upon the stage again. The old man was mightily pleased with Aesop, till unfortunately on a certain time, the stuttering of his Tongue gave Homer occasion to suspect him of a lie: for which, in a sudden passion, he cuts out his Tongue: But afterwards repenting what he had done, resolved not to put him away; for he considered that he was yet as capable of serving him as ever; and perhaps more, the other ways of interpretation that he was skilled in, being more distinct than Glossology could be in a Deaf man. It happened soon after that Homer had invited some friends to dinner, commanding Aesop to provide the greatest rarities the Market did afford. Aesop made a show of great preparation; but set nothing upon the Table, beside the tip of his own Tongue, in a large dish; upbraiding his Master with his pipe, that he did not tear his blotted papers when he could not read them; but had patience till he himself corrected them upon his fingers. Homer not enduring this affront before strangers throws Aesop's pipe in the fire. Aesop fearing worse to follow, throws himself at his Master's feet taking him by the hand, and by the rules of Haptology begs his pardon, promising if he would have patience, to make amends for his fault. Homer startled at this, to find both a Tongue, and a Pipe, in Aesop's fingers; was transported from wrath to fear, and admiration, concluding for certain, That Aesop was a conjurer, and that he deserved to be thrown in the fire after his pipe. Yet resolving once more to try his wit and honesty: and for making satisfaction to his friends who had lost their dinner, he invites them to return to morrow, charging Aesop to provide the oldest, and leanest carrion, he could find. The night following, Aesop serves his blind Master with lex talionis tongue for tongue, and repeated the same dinner to his friends the next day; excusing the matter, that he had from first to last obeyed his Master's commands, to the best of his judgement. Homer taking it ill, to be so often outwitted by a slave, by Dactylology begs of his provoked friends, to revenge him upon Aesop, by plucking out his Eyes; that his condition might not be more comfortable than his own. After this old age and a fit of sickness deprived Homer of his Hearing. This reconciled him again to Aesop; for he judged him the fittest companion he could find, with whom to bemoan his folly, and misery. After this, they lived good friends, passing the time in telling old stories; some times upon their finger's ends, and sometimes with hand in hand, traversing the Alphabetical Ilias.  
This Drama being acted according to the Rules of Art, if there be any certainty in Art, that the promised effects will follow, is no less true than it seems to be strange. And from this we may learn two things. 1. That tho hearing and seeing be the Principal, yet are they not the only Senses of Knowledge. 2. That the Hand is, (or at least is capable of being made) a more serviceable organ of interpretation to the Soul than the tongue. For it has access to its Mistress' presence, by the door of 3 Senses. 1. Of hearing by Aulology. 2. Of seeing, by both Species of Schematology, to wit, Typology and Dactylology. 3. Of Feeling, by Haptology. Whereas the Tongue can only enter by the door of one Sense, and do its message only by one kind of interpretation, Glossology.   

CHAP. IU. Of a Deaf man's Capacity to understand the speech of others.  
I Come now to the Deaf man's capacity of understanding the speech of others. That words might be gathered, and read from the transient motions, and configurations, of the mouth (if all the several distinctions of letters, were no less manifest and apparent to the Eye, than to the Ear form the speakers face) as readily as from permanent Characters upon paper, is not to be doubted: But that all the distinctions that are perceived by the Ear in speaking, cannot equally be perceived by the Eye; I will prove by an argument, which though it be à Posteriori; yet I hope it will be of evidence and force sufficient, to effect what is thereby intended.  
If the same distinctions of letters and words did appear to the Eye from the motion of the speakers mouth, which are discernible to the Ear from the articulation of his voice; Then it would follow; That the capacity of a Deaf man, would be equal to that of a Dumb (but not Deaf) for learning a Language, so far at least as to understand it.  
But the capacity of a Deaf man is not equal to that of a Dumb, for learning a language from speaking.  
Therefore all the distinctions of letters, are not manifest to the Deaf, man from the speakers mouth.  
The sequel of the Major is, I think, clear from what has been said before; there being nothing in sounds to the Ear either Natural, or Symbolical, more than in motion and figures to the Eye. And if any should say; That it is not so easy to read transient motions of the lips, even supposing them sufficiently distinct (which must always be supposed) as permanent Characters. To this first, I oppose reading from pointing to a finger Alphabet; which is nothing but motion. 2. All reading from whatsoever immovable object, is as properly motion as hearing; for if there be no motion in the object, than it must be in the Organ of the Eye: which altars not our case, more than the Earth's motion, or rest, altars the Phaenomena of Astronomy.  
If here it should be urged; that granting Signs to the Eye to be as fit for teaching, as signs to the Ear; and therefore, that a Deaf person must be supposed to be in as great a capacity of learning to understand a language spoken, as a blind, when the distinctions to the Eye and Ear are the same; yet, that the blind man learns to understand a language from hearing others speak, when the Deaf man learns not to understand from seeing others speak; is from the advantages the Ear hath above the Eye.  
To this I answer, that all the advantages the Ear hath over the Eye, will be consistent enough with the Deaf man's capacity of learning to understand a language from speaking. It is true here, that the Eye is still at the loss of equal opportunities of time with the ear; but the other advantage I gave the ear over the eye, of doing more work in less time, is here quite taken away: and yet the Deaf man will still have as much opportunity of time (if there were no other defect) if his Nurse and all that are about him be not Dumb, as sufficiently to inculcate the common Notions of Language: For though young people learn a Language by hearing others speak; yet the greatest part of what they hear is redundant, and like rain falling into a full conduit, runs over. So that a deaf man though he have not so much opportunity of learning as a blind; yet has he opportunities enough, and to spare, for learning the common notions of language.  
Now for the minor so far as concerns the Deaf man, it is known by sad experience, that he learns no language from his Mother or Nurse. And for the Dumb person, though I can bring no instance; yet the case seems to me so clear, that I think no body doubts of it, and therefore I will not enlarge to prove it.  
But though the Deaf man be not able to perceive all the distinctions of letters, neither indeed is it possible for him, the various motions by which some of them are differenced not appearing outwardly; yet if he be ingenious, I judge that he perceives a great many; and therefore I doubt not but Deaf persons understand many things, even without teaching, further than what they have from their Nurse. Tho here I must add: That they could understand but very little from the motion of the lips, which when most distinct must be full of ambiguity, and aequivocalness to them, without other circumstances concurring. For when dumb people make it appear, that they understand many things that pass in discourse where they are present, Children and fools cannot be persuaded but they Hear: Superstitious and ignorant people think they have a familiar Spirit: others despising the folly of the one, and impiety of the other, do judge, that they are able by the Eye, as distinctly to receive words from the speakers mouth, as others by the Ear. But the truth is, what they understand, is from a concurrence of circumstances, many of which are often as material, as the motion of the speakers lips; such as, his eyes, countenance, time, place, persons, etc.  
To determine what, or how many distinctions of letters, the eye is able to discover in the speakers face; There can be no man so fit to resolve this doubt, as the Deaf man. And if there be no mistake in that well known passage of Sir Kenelm Digby; A Spanish Deaf Lord hath already resolved it so, as to refute and destroy all that I have said. What is there said of him, will amount to this. That the Eye can perceive all the distinctions of letters, in the speakers face, which the Ear can do in his voice. I let pass that which increaseth the wonder: That this Spanish Lord should be able not only to know strange letters, in strange languages, instantly; but also to be able to imitate them, though he had never been taught.  
To neglect the Testimony of a person both of Honour, and Learning, who was an ear and eye-witness of all he relates, and had nothing to bias him from what he judged to be exact truth; and which is more, calling to witness to that relation a person much greater than himself, and beyond all exception for veracity; This would not only be disingenuous, but also arrogant. Therefore I will say what seems most probable to me for reconciling that relation to the truth. I will then first suppose, That Sir Kenelm Digby had not much considered this weakness of human Nature, nor of the way to remedy it; and therefore might be the more credulous (for I find nothing of suspicion or caution, that he might not be imposed upon) and ready (as we are all in strange things) to magnify this rare and wonderful Art, which, 'tis like, he had never seen nor heard of before; and perhaps had even judged such performances impossible. Secondly, I will suppose that the Priest the Lord's Tutor was ambitious to set off his Art, with all the advantages possible, before so great a Personage as the Heir of the Crown of England.  
These things being supposed, I take it for granted that the Priest has used artifices of Leger-de-main, in these passages that seem most strange. What these have been (supposing the matter of fact to be true) though I was not there an eye-witness; yet, without conjuring, I can tell as certainly, as if I had been a spectator, or, an Actor in that Scene. 1. His keeping up discourse with others, has been done in set forms, to acting of which he has been trained up before hand. 2. For returning any words that came from the mouth of another; this he has been prompted to by his Tutor, or any other standing by, with a finger Alphabet. 3. As for his Echoing back Irish and Welsh words, two things may be said. First, that he might have been taught to sound these guttural letters; which occur often in these languages, and were as easy to him as any other letters whatsoever: Or secondly, Because it is there said that the Priest affirmed, that he performed some things which were beyond the Rules of his Art; I know nothing can be said, but that he might perhaps chance upon the true found of these letters, or something near them; which the relator thought good to represent with all his other performances (because indeed wonderful to those that never had seen, or heard of the like, or knew by what art they were performed) to the greatest advantage. As for his returning words whispered at the distance of the breadth of a large room, there is no new wonder in this; for whispering and speaking loud were all one to him: But I suspect that this as well as other things, has been a set lesson, or, the Priest did micare digitis.  
I am not ignorant that many of Sir Kenelms relations, are looked upon, as fabulous and Hyperbolical. Well, be it so, and let this be as fabulous as any of them. It is not the esse, but the posse of the story, that I concern myself to maintain. That several passages related there, are impossible, and other circumstances very hyperbolical; in that sense, in which he understands them, I think, I have sufficiently proved: And yet, that the whole relation might be true, in that sense I have put upon it, I hope I have made no less evident.   

CHAP. V Of the most effectual way to fill a Deaf man's capacity.  
HItherto I have been taking measures of the Deaf man's capacity. I come now to consider of the way to fill it. And here my design is not to give a Methodical Systeme of Grammatical Rules; But only such general directions whereby an industrious Tutor may bring his deaf Pupil to the vulgar use and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a language; That so he may be the more capable of receiving instruction in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the Rules of Grammar, when his judgement is ripe for that study. Or more plainly; I intent to bring the way of teaching a deaf man to Read and Writ, as near as possible, to that of teaching young ones to speak and understand their Mother-tongue.  
I will begin with a Secret, containing the whole Mystery of the Art of instructing deaf persons. That is, I will describe such a powerful Engine, as may be able to fill his head as full of the Imagery of the world of words of man's making, as it is of the things of this visible world created by Almighty God: which Engine shall have one property more, that it shall not fail of success, even supposing both Master and Scholar to be the next degree to Dunces.  
Here methinks, I see the Reader smiling at this Fortunam Priami; and hear him whispering to himself, Parturiunt Montes, etc. But I hope before I have done with my Notion, to reconcile him so far to it, as to bring him to judge that there is something considerable in it: And though at first he meet not with all that this hiatus may seem to have promised; yet at last he may meet with something more than he expected. This powerful and successful Engine, is not the Tongue of the Learned, but the Hand of the DILIGENT. The Hand of a diligent Tutor will not fail to make a Rich Scholar, if Copia verborum may deserve the name of Riches. Diligence will be that same virtue in our Deaf scholars Tutor, that Demosthenes makes Action to be in his Eloquent Orator. Let the deaf child then have for his Nurses, not the 9 Muses, but the 9 Magpyes: Let him be sent to School, not to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Diligence you will say is powerful in all Arts. True it is; yet as a Handmaid: But here I think, that without a Catachresis, I may call it the principal point of Art. This with very few directions from Art, will do the work effectually; all the fine Tricks of Art, which the wit of man can contrive, will be ineffectual without this. The only point of art here is, how to make an application to your deaf Scholar, by the same distinction of letters and words to his Eye, which appear to the Ears of others from words spoken; That is to know his letters, and to write them readily; Diligence will do the rest. For Example: Let the same words be seen, and written as often by the Deaf man, as they have been heard and spoken by the Blind; if their faculties of memory and understanding be equal, the measure of knowledge also will be equal. But here it will be necessary that I explain what I mean by Diligence.  
By Diligence I understand two things. 1. That which is properly so called, both in the Master and Scholar. This Sir Kenelm Digby calls much patience, and constancy in the experiment upon the Spanish Lord. 2. Many other adventitious helps. I summed up the advantages the Ear hath above the Eye into these two. 1. Having more opportunities of time; 2. Doing more work in less time. Here I will show how Diligence, with a few directions from Art, may in a good measure remedy this inequality.  
It is a received Maxim amongst those who have employed their thoughts, in that successless enquiry, about a perpetual motion. Reconcile time and strength, and this will produce a perpetual motion. The application is easy from what I have said before, comparing the Deaf man with the Blind. Let them have equal time, and force of acting, and their proficiency will be equal. That care and diligence both in the general, and the particulars following, may remedy this inequality, in a great measure, I think no body will doubt. Neither ought this to be any discouragement, that the reconciling time and strength, as to a Geometrical equality, is not possible: For it is not here, as in the perpetual motion. There, if you fail of a minute, or a Dram, all your labour is lost: Here nothing is lost, but just so much as you come short of him you compare with. How much this is, we will see by the particulars following.  
1. If the deaf Scholar could be brought to speak readily, this would lessen the inequality of Force, by one half: and if it were possible, that he could read the Speakers words from his face, this would make a Geometrical equality of force, in the Eye and Ear; so that the only inequality would be then, in time; the eye being confined to light, bodily posture, and distance; and out of these circumstances, the deaf and dumb man were perfectly cured. But because I am distrustful of this cure for which I have given my reasons chap. 4. I will confine myself to reading, and writing, most properly so called, as both the more certain and perfect cure.  
Here the first piece of diligence must be, frequens excercitatio Styli, that is, as I understand it in this place, using the pen and fingers much. If this be so necessary for forming an Orator, (as Cicero teaches us in his de Oratore, inculcating it with ut saepe jam dixi) who has the use of the two principal Organs of Eloquence entire; how much more must it here be necessary, where the Pen must be both pen, and tongue. Great care therefore must be taken, to keep your Scholar close to the practice of writing; for until he can not only write, but also have got a quick hand, you must not think to make any considerable progress with him. It is true, that it were possible to teach a deaf man to read, without teaching him to write; as one may learn to understand a language spoken and not to speak it: But this would be but a half cure, and leave your Scholar uncapable of Society.  
And because the conveniency of writing cannot always be in a readiness, another great help will be, to have Tabulae deletiles, of stone or black wood, hanging up for expedition, in several convenient places. A third help will be, to have some common forms written in those Tables, there to continue, and to be filled up as occasion requires, like Virgil's. Sic vos non vobis, &c, such as, where is? I pray give me? who? when? what? etc. These may serve not only for expedition, but by them also, your Scholar may be taught to vary. Pocket Table books may sometimes be more ready than these. 4ly when neither of these is in a readiness, than practice by an Alphabet upon the fingers; which by frequent practice, as it is the readiest, so it may become the quickest way of intercourse and communication with dumb persons. But I shall have occasion to enlarge more on this, chap. 8. 5ly. another piece of useful care will be, to keep him from any other way of Signing, than by Letters. 6ly, Add to this; that his familiars about him be officious in nothing, but by the intercourse of letters, that is, either by Grammatology, or Dactylology.  
If now lastly, I can make it appear that Diligence outweighs wit in our present case; I hope my former Flash will not be thought to have ended in smoke. And this, methinks, is easily understood from obvious and daily instances: Do not we see that young ones, though of very weak parts for understanding Grammar, yet come assoon, and some of them sooner, to understand and speak a language by use, without art, than those of stronger parts. One Boy has gone to School 7 years, and yet understands not the common accidents of Grammar; another in the half of that time, is able to expound an Author, and resolve all the Grammatications that occur to a Title: take the same two at play, or in things where there is no occasion to show their learning, you will often find, that the slow boy, for the nimbleness of his Tongue, and Copia verborum, may seem to exceed the other, as far as he doth him in art.  
Hence it will seem to follow; That the principal point of Art in teaching a slow Scholar, is, to use no other art but that of Diligence: and if so, a second inference will be: That there is none so fit to teach a slow Scholar, as a slow Master; That is, one Dunce to teach another. This I know will seem ridiculous and absurd to many; yet I declare, that I am much of this mind in earnest, in our present case, where Grammar is excluded. For an acute man will be impatient, and not able to stoop so much as the other. And to clear this further; I think it will be easily assented to, that a prattling Nurse, is a better Tutrix to her foster-child, than the most profoundly learned Doctor in the University.  
My last instance therefore shall be. Take Master and Scholar qualified as before, adding Diligence, as I have described it, and let a liberal reward be proposed to the Master; if the work be not effectually done, let me be the Dunce for them both.  
If therefore this cure may so easily be performed; what a reproach is it to mankind, that so little compassion is shown to this infirmity of human nature; these wretched impotents being not only neglected in the point of education, like brutes; but also, as if this were not unkindness enough, the laws of men do most inhumanly deprive them of many privileges wherein the comfort of life consists. As for former ages, I confess they are to be excused: For though (as I have been proving) Diligence be the principal point of Art; yet was this a secret to them: But in this knowing age, in which proofs have been given both at home and abroad, that this weakness is curable in a good measure; and if the reasons contained in these papers have any weight, curable even to perfection; so far at least as concerns the better part of the man. That is, these impotents may not only be instructed in the common Notions of Language, which is the bond of human Society; but also from this foundation may be raised the superstructure of all other arts, which are either for use or ornament to human Nature. I say then; for us to neglect so worthy and noble an experiment, and so great an object of charity and compassion; were at once to degenerate from the charity of our Ancestors, and to make their ignorance preferable to our knowledge.   

CHAP. VI Of a Deaf Man's Dictionary.  
THOUGH a Diligent inculcating of the common Forms of a Language, following no other Rule or Method but that of the Nursery, would undoubtedly bring the Deaf man to understand, and write it, so as the Vulgar understand and speak it. Yet some directions from Art (specially if your Scholar be ingenious) will both facilitate the work, and do it much better. That is, it will make him understand the nature of words better, and so prepare him for the study of Grammar; as also the nature of things, for which he sees words substituted, and so prepare him for the pursuit of other Arts. I will therefore give a few such directions, whereby the Teacher abstaining from Rules and words of Art, may be enabled to produce the proper effects of Art in his Scholar. But first I will resolve two preliminary Queries. 1. What language is easiest to be learned? 2. And what language will be the most useful?  
For the first, a language of a Philosophical Institution, or a real Character, would be by much the most easy; as being free from all anomoly aequivocalness, redundancy and unnecessary Grammatications: and the whole institution being suited to the nature of things; this verbal knowledge, would not only come more easily; but also bring with it, much real knowledge.  
2dly, The language of greatest use to be learned, will be that of the place where he lives, and of the people with whom he is to converse. And here with us, the Deaf man has several advantages above other Nations. First, that our English is freer from anomoly, and aequivocalness (at least in writing, which is enough for him) than many other languages. 2. It is not so much clogged with inflexions, as other languages, and 3. our words are for the most part Monosyllables, and therefore more easy to be remembered. I come now to the promised directions.  
I will make way for particulars, by observing first in General; that the way of teaching here, must be something mixed, and as it were middle between the Grammatical way of the School, and the more rude discipline of the Nursery. The first initiation must be purely grammatical; But when your Scholar is got over this difficulty of knowing and writing his letters readily; Then imitate the way of the Nursery. Let utile and jucundum, variety and necessity, invite and spur him on; specially if he be young or of a lache temper.  
You must not be too Grammatical in teaching, till you find his capacity will bear it: He must not be dealt with as Schoolboys, who are often punished for not learning what is above their capacity. It is enough for him to understand the word, or sentence proposed, without parsing every word and syllable: For this is all the use of language that not only children, but even people of age that are illiterate have: They understand the meaning of what is spoken; but can neither tell how many words, syllables, or letters came from the speakers mouth. So that the having the vulgar use of a language and the understanding it Grammatically, are very different things. And this preposterous way of learning the learned languages, first Grammar, & then the language, is the cause of so slow progress in those that apply themselves to the study of them.  
The first exercise you must put your Scholar upon, is to know his letters written, or printed, and upon his fingers, and to write them himself; and when he comes to join, let his copies be of such words as he may be taught to understand; so that at once, he may be learning both to write and understand the meaning of what he writes. When you have got him to write fair, keep him to constant practice, that you may bring him to write a quick hand; which his condition requires.  
Let him begin to learn the Names of Things best known to him, how Heterogeneous soever; such as the Elements, Minerals, Plants, Animals, Parts, Utensils, Garments, Meats, etc. and generally the names of all such corporeal Substances, Natural or Artificial; not only absolute, but Relative, as Father, Brother, Master, Servant; as also names of offices, and professions, as Cook, Butler, Page, Groom, Taylor, Barber, etc. For all these will be as easily apprehended as the most distinct Species of natural Bodies. Let his Nomenclature be written down fair, and carefully preserved; not only in a book, but on one side of a sheet of Paper, that it may be affixed over against his eye in convenient places. And let this his Dictionary be sorted three ways. 1. Alphabetically, 2. following the order of double Consonants, both in the beginning and the end of a word. 3. Reducing it to several heads, or Classes, with respect not to the words, but the things, as in Junius Nomenclator, for every one of these Methods will be of good use to him.  
After he has got a good stock of these concrete Substantives, then proceed to Adjectives; namely, Sensible Qualities, Quantity, with some Metaphysical Notions; which all of them almost admit of proper contraries; which illustrate one another, and therefore will be of great use to the learner. Let him be made to understand Adjectives by joining them to their proper subjects, taken out of his vocabulary of Substantives already understood; as Hard Iron, Stone, Bone, etc. Soft Silk, Wool, Cloth, etc. And sometimes instance the two contraries, in that same Subject; as Iron hot, cold: And thus he will make a further advance to complex Notions.  
Observe here. That by the help of an Almanac and Watch, it will be easy to make your Scholar understand all the differences and words of that difficult Notion of Time.  
After he has practised sufficiently upon complex notions of Substantives, and Adjectives; let him proceed to words of Action, whether bodily or Spiritual, which Grammarians call Verbs, as, break, cut, hold, take, laugh, affirm, deny, desire, love, hate, etc. And thus much shall be enough to have been said of his Dictionary, in this rude discipline under which we suppose him as yet to be.  
Here I would have it well observed: That though in applying myself to the deaf man's Tutor, I have followed something of Method, docendi Causa; yet I do not advise him, to take this course with his Scholar: But as I said before, That the names of things best known to him, how heterogeneous soever, were to be first learned: So here I say, that there is no regard to be had to the cognation, or Grammatical affinity of words. In a word, occasion will be the best Mistress of Method, till he have made a considerable advance; And then when his Dictionary gins to be numerous, it will be necessary to draw it up in rank and file. Nay further, I am so far from advising to follow any method at first, but what is occasional (excepting only the stated, and fixed order of letters in the Alphabet) that if your Scholar be not very young, you may propose sentences as early to him as single words; especially interrogatives and imperatives, as, where is your hat? whose hat is this? who gave you this apple? Rise up, sit down, give me the cup, shut the door, etc. And these may be easily varied Indicatively, infinitively, affirmatively, negatively, etc.  
And yet for all this, I cannot deny but the Teacher may, and must contrive some method for himself, even of those things which he has taught, following occasion and his Pupils capacity; that he may know the better to take the measures of his progress, and to make the best use of occasions offered.   

CHAP. VII. Of a Grammar for Deaf Persons.  
HAving dispatched the Deaf man's Dictionary, I come in the next place to speak of his Grammar. I should contradict the principles I have formerly laid down, if I should insist much upon Grammar; neither indeed doth our English Tongue require or afford much to be said by him, who would be ambitious to show himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I shall therefore only make some few reflections upon Etymology and Syntax, supposing Orthography to belong to Lexicography, of which already: And for Prosody, our Scholar is no more able to receive its precepts, than a blind man is to judge of colours.  
I shall only take notice of 5 Etymological Grammatications, and do but name them; for I judge that these and all other points of Grammar are to be differred, at least as to an accurate explaining of them, until he be fitted for the study of Grammar, in manner as I have said before.  
The first is the plural number for which the Rule is but one and easy. Add s to the singular, pen, pens, and the exceptions are not many, which here I pass by. 2. The Comparative, and Superlative degree, almost as easy as the other. They are form by adding the terminations er and est, or by the auxiliary words, more, most, as hard harder hardest, or more hard most hard. The exceptions are not many. 3. The Participle Active or Neuter in ing, from which I think there is no exception: And the Participle passive, which is oftentimes the same with the preterimperfect Tense, without an Auxiliary word, as, I loved; or the preterperfect Tense, with an auxiliary word; as I have loved: But from this rule are a multitude of exceptions; which is the greatest irregularity in the English Tongue. 4. The adverb of the manner ends in lie. This also hath its exceptions, but not many. 5. The abstract ending in ness, generally.  
These things you need not teach your Scholar by Rule, for a little practice will enable him to make a Rule for himself, and to bring the exceptions too under his Rule; as, we hear Outlandish men, and children saying often: man's, woman's feet, for men, women, feet.  
As for that ambiguity, that almost every concrete Substantive in English is used verbaly, as pen, hand, foot, etc. This adds much to the Copiousness, Emphasis and Elegancy of the language; and yet gives very little cause of mistake; the construction of the words determining the signification. But the Verbal signification of these words being Metonymical, it will be best to leave them to their own place. So much for Etymology shall serve in this place, now for Syntax.  
The Learned languages make two general parts of Syntax, agreement and gomernment; whereas it seems to me that with them, Syntax requires a distribution antecedent to this. To wit, that the Syntax of words is either per se or per aliud, i. e. The Grammatical coherence and connexion of words, is made by the Terminations of the words themselves, or, by auxiliary words, called Particles. But neither the one nor the other of these distributions does our language require, or admit of, being freed from all encumbrances of inflexions, by genders, and cases (except a few pronouns) and consequently from the Rules of Agreement, and Government: All our Syntax consisting in the cement of auxiliary Particles.  
To treat of Syntax then in English, is to show the use of the Particles, in forming words into Sentences. For, to explain these Notions separately, were to build Castles in the Air; and to form sentences without them, were to make ropes of sand.  
Here I will not insist upon explaining every single particle, as if I were dealing with a Dumb Scholar; But remembering that the present address is more to the Master then the Scholar; I will instance only in some few, which may serve for a Clew to guide any ingenious adventurer thro' the whole Labarynth.  
As I would advise the dumb Scholar to be often put to practice upon verbs of bodily action, varying the circumstances by the Particles; so will I single out the verb Cut, to be the Principal verb in the following Examples, for explaining the Particles.  
I begin with Pronouns, which according to the Notation of the word, are words put for other words. Let therefore these things be present, for whose names the pronouns are the provocabula: and then it will be easy to make your Scholar understand the use of these pronominal words. I will instance, first in the Demonstratives, I, thou, he, we, ye, they. Let there be six persons present, as many more as you will. Writ down. I cut, thou cut, he cut, we cut, ye cut, they cut. Let the Master take his Scholar by him, and place a third person over against him, all of them prepared with a knife, and apple, or stick, etc. Let the Master Cut first, pointing to the words I cut, 2. let the Scholar cut, the Master pointing to the words thou cut; 3. let the third person cut, pointing to he cut. And for the Plural number: let the Master and his Scholar stand first together, placing two more near them, and two over against them. Then let the Master and Scholar cut, pointing to we cut; let the two by them cut, pointing to ye cut; 3. let the two over against them cut, pointing to they cut. The possessives, mine, thine, his, ours, yours, theirs, may be taught after the same manner; my apple, thy apple, his apple, our apple, your apple, their apple, mutatis mutandis. In short, all pronominal words after the same manner, all cut, none, or no body cut, this boy cut, that boy cut, the same boy cut, another boy cut, etc. Let him practice much upon this and other Verbs till you find that he is able to make these distinctions of himself.  
When he can distinguish persons, it will be easy from many examples, cuttest, cutteth, breakest, breaketh, holdest, holdeth, to make him understand, that the 2d and 3d person singular are distinguished by termination from the other persons.  
For the Signs of Tenses, do, dost, doth, have haste hath, was waist were, shall will: writ down, I have cut the pen, I do cut the apple, I will cut the stick: cut accordingly pointing to your Scholar; or, write, I have stood, I do stand, I will stand, do accordingly. I have walked, I do stand, I will sit, do accordingly. Do not trouble your Scholar with too nice distinctions of words, such as shall and will, did and have; it is enough for him, as yet, that he understand the use of words in the common forms of speech, as illiterate persons do.  
Let him practice much upon the Pronouns, and Signs of Tenses, with Verbs of Action, adding other circumstances of time, place, manner, etc. and that with all the variety possible, of familiar, plain, easy, most common, and most frequently occurring circumstances.  
The copula will be easily understood, because of its frequent use, both affirmatively and negatively; fire is hot, water is not hot; water is cold, fire is not cold; So in all its inflexions; as, I am tall, thou art short, he is thick, I am sitting, thou art standing, he is walking.  
The Particles OR and, AND, with the adjectives Same and divers, are to be diligently inculcated, as being words of frequent use, and useful for explication, and declaring the sense of other words. Or in the explicative sense of it coming between words signifying the same thing; And between words signifying divers things. It may be good to write down many examples of Synonymous words, and phrases which your Scholar understands, joining them with, or, as  

The same 

I stand or  
I do stand or  
I am standing     

the same 

to go or  
to walk     

the same 

wide or  
broad     
So for the Copulative, AND, give such examples as these.  

Divers 

Hand and  
Foot     

divers 

Pen and  
Ink     

divers 

Sun and  
Moon.     
But the frequent recurring of these and many such like in common, familiar, and necessary forms of speech, will soon make them to be understood.  
As for Particles signifying Motion, as to, from, thro', by, into, out of, hither, thither, hence, thence, etc. whether prepositions or adverbs: so Distance, as, far off, near, at, hard by, close by, etc. Position, as, before, behind, above, upon, beneath, about, up, down, beyond, on this side, etc. Their use and meaning is so plain and obvious, that there needs no more but choice of fit examples to make them understood. The Table is before your face; The Chair is behind your back; The book is upon the Table; My hand is above the Table; the nose is between the Eyes; the Eyes are above the mouth; the mouth is under the eyes; the tongue is in the mouth; to put out the tongue; to rise up; to sit down; go to the door, from the door, come hither, go thither, etc. These and such like words signifying circumstances perceivable by sense, are as easily apprehended, as words signifying bodily substance or sensible Quality.  
Even the Particles of a Metaphysical extraction, and more remote from sense, may be easily understood, if the Teacher be not too Metaphysical in his application. I will mention here only two Topics of this kind of Particles; The causes and the Comparates, which are the two principal sinews of discourse. The particles from the causes are divers, from, of, with, by, wherefore, therefore, because, why, etc. Use examples such as these. This Pen was made by the Master, of a Goose-quill, for to write after my Copy. Explain why, wherefore, what is the cause, by expostulations, and interrogations, with your Scholar himself or others, and Because in answer to these.  
Observe here, that many of these Particles being very equivocal, it will not be prudence to represent this difficulty all at once, lest it a maze and discourage your Scholar. For example, you have made him understand the causal particle with, in such examples as these, to cut with a knife; to write with a Pen: do not immediately put him upon the Particle of Society with, as, go with me; but explain the various use of such particles, as they offer themselves occasionally in practice, and as you find his capacity is able to receive: For, improving of occasions, and complying with the Scholars capacity, will be the Master's greatest commendation. Not but that he may be put upon learning many set forms for exercise of memory; though he understand them not perfectly. But do not put his understanding to the rack, by an undiscreet pressing upon his apprehensive faculty, Notions either simple or complex, which you find he receives not readily. But make a collection of such words, and watch opportunities of explaining them: I can give no better Rule for explaining words hard to be understood; then that which Horace has given, in a case not much unlike ours.  
Dixeris Egregie notum si callida verbum  
Reddiderit junctura novum.—  
Where the principal Verb of a sentence is clearly apprehended, it brings great light to other circumstantiating words. So that the skilful choosing of verbs of Action, well understood by your Scholar; and the like dexterity in placing a hard word, which you would have him to understand, amongst other words of circumstance already well understood, in construction with the verb; every word of the sentence will reflect some light upon this dark word.  
The second classis of Metaph: (or perhaps more properly Logical) particles, are those that own their Origine to the Topick of the Comparates; such as, than, much, more, most, less, lest, by so much, etc. explain these also by many fit examples, in which the several degrees of comparrison may be demonstrated to the senses. This water is as hot as that; This cheese, apple, egg, is greater or more great than that; This apple is the greatest, or most great of all the apples; by how much this stick, paper is longer than that, by so much that is broader than this; let the proportion be fitted and measured.  
It will be necessary to make a collection of such forms of sentences as he understands, one or two examples of every form, that upon occasion he may have recourse to them as to rules, and precedents in the like cases: and amongst other forms, forget not imperatives and interrogatives, for which he will have early and frequent use. Gather up all the forms of interrogation; when? who? what? where? whose? whence? whether? how long? many? great? etc. Form sentences upon every one of these interrogations, in things familiar; and subjoin proper answers; as, whose book is this? A. mine, thine, his, thy brothers, the Masters, etc. When shall we go to bed? A. by and by, at ten a clock, an hour hence, etc. Imperative forms. I pray give me the book, take up the pen, lay down the paper, sit down, rise up, put on your hat, open the door, shut the door, etc.  
For exercise, you may find great variety for him; such as, to vary the circumstances proposed; to describe things from their causes, from their contraries, by comparing them with other things; To form a narration of things seen, to write Epistles. Let him be put much upon the exercise of memory; and that not only in lose words, and incoherent sentences; But let him bestow much time and pains, in learning by heart, in the first place for his Lectiones sacrae upon the Lord's day, and Holidays, the Lords Prayer, the Creed, and ten Commandments, with the Church-Catechism.  
The solemnity and frequency of Divine Service, would have good effects upon him, being placed conveniently opposite to the Minister, with a book before him, and one to direct him, till custom enable him to direct himself. This would not only excite him to piety and devotion; but in progress of time, he would come both to understand, and have by heart, the greatest part of Divine Service. Some other select passages of Scripture might be recommended to him, as the first Chap. of Genesis, the History of our Saviour's Nativity, and sufferings. The most proper books among profane Authors for him to practice on (I think) of many, were Aesop's Fables, and some plays where there is much of Action.  
In the application of all I have said, respect is to be had to the quality of the person to be taught; whether young or old, dull or docile: How to comply with these circumstances, must depend upon the prudence of the Teacher. When his progress is so considerable that it may be said of him; He understands the English tongue tolerably well: He may then be put upon the study of Grammar; which will be the more easy to him; because the course of study he was in before had a mixture of Grammar in it, as I have said. Afterwards (or before if you please) he may be taught Arithmetic and something of Geometry.   

CHAP. VIII. Of an Alphabet upon the Fingers.  
BEcause the conveniency of writing cannot always be in readiness; neither yet though it could, is it so proper a medium of interpretation between persons present face to face, as a Hand-language: It will therefore be necessary to teach the Dumb Scholar a Finger-Alphabet; and this not only of single letters, but also for the greater expedition, of double and triple Consonants, with which our English doth abound.  
After much search and many changes, I have at last fixed upon a Finger, or Handalphabet according to my mind: For I think it cannot be considerably mended, either by myself, or any other, (without making Tinker's work) for the purposes, for which I have intended it; that is, a distinct placing of, and easy pointing to the single letters; with the like distinct, and easy abbreviation of double and triple Consonants.  
I deny not but there may be many more abbreviations than I have provided for, namely of initial Syllables, and Terminations; but these I have passed by at present, for two reasons. First, I think there will be little need of them; For I doubt not but that with the provision I have made, an habit equal to that in those who writ a quick hand, may very near make the Hand as ready an Interpreter, as the Tongue. 2ly. If they should be judged needful, I have taken care, that with a few Rules they may be added, without altering any thing of the institution of this present Scheme.   diagram of a hand with the letters of the alphabet assigned to each part of it 
I have made provision for abbreviating a threefold combination of them: I shall here only give the Rules of abbreviation of the several combinations I have made choice of, referring the reader for the reasons of my choice, to the following Treatise of double Consonants.  
The first combination of double Consonants I make provision for is, when h, l, r, s, come in one syllable with other Consonants; and that two ways, either before or after another Consonant, as in these Examples.  

1. H. 

light  
the    
2. L. 

salt  
title    
3. R. 

heart  
try    
4. S. 

hast  
hats     
1. When these 4 letters are prefixed to other Consonants, as in light, salt, heart, ●ast; the Rule is; point skin to skin with the four fingers of the other Hand respectively to the Capital letter (which in the present example is T) to which they are prefixed; which by Institution designs the double Consonants ht, lt, rt, st. 2. When the same four letters follow another Consonant as in, the, title, try, hats; then, point (as before) to T with nail to skin, which gives, th', tl, tr, 'tis.  
A second combination of double Consonants worthy of this care of abbreviation, because of their frequent use in English, is when the Liquids m, n, come before the Mutes and Semimutes, b. p, d, t, g, k, or c, That is, m before b, p and n before d, t, g, k, c. The Rule is. Touch the place of these Mutes and Semimutes with the first and second finger joined; and this by institution gives the Liquid and the respective Mute or Semimute following, as in lamb, lamp, hand, hunt, anger, ink, France.  
The third abbreviation is of Trible Consonants in the beginning of a word or syllable, where s is always the first; as in, schism, screw, shrine, spread, strong, scrag, sphinx, sosthenes, splinter, justle, etc. The Rule is, Join the thumb to the finger pointing to the other two Consonants. And so much for abbreviation of double and trible Consonants.  
But observe here, that as Schoolboys are to learn a mavisse, before a mass, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and to write words at length, before they learn shorthand; so let your Dumb Scholar, and others that would practise Dactylology, first know, and practice upon the single letters, before they come to practise upon the Rules of abbreviation.  
Now though this way of shorthand, or abbreviation of words be distinct, easy, quick, and comprehensive; yet is there another way of practising, which comes nothing short of this in other respects, and in one respect seems to be preferable: That it supposes nothing necessary to be known for practising, but the places of the single letters, without making new Rules for distinguishing double and trible Consonants, from the single. The Rule is; Point to all the single letters of the double or trible Consonant, simul & semel: which will be found to be as easy as pointing by the former institution with one single touch, as will appear in these examples; when, which, the, light, blunt, brand, grunt, plaster, spread, strong, etc.  
If here it should be objected, that this will breed confusion, leaving the Reader doubtful what letter to begin with. To this I answer. 1. For double Consonants in the beginning of a syllable, this objection can never be of any force; for there is no English word found wherein their order is inverted, as will appear from the following Treatise of double Consonants. 2. For double Consonants in the end of a word, so far as concerns the second combination formerly mentioned, there can never be any mistake; for scarce (I think) is there any example occurs wherein their order is inverted; or if there did then the rule will be in that case, point to the single letters distinctly. So that the objection is of no force, except only against the first combination of double Consonants, and that only in the end of a Syllable: For there are some, but not many examples, where the order is inverted as, salt title, hast hats. But to this it may be answered: That in a continued sentence, the sense will easily determine the case, and take away all ambiguity: as here lies one hat, there lie two hats. But if you have occasion to distinguish the word hats, from haste, than you must point to all the letters distinctly.  
And this compendious and expeditious way of Cheirology may be extended further, than this abbreviation of double and trible Consonants: For they that are Masters of a Language, and have got a considerable readiness of practising, by distinct touches of single letters, will find it as easy, as it is useful, to express whole syllables, and whole words that are Monosyllables (specially in words of common use) with one multiplied touch, simul and semel. My meaning by this multiplied touch simul and semel is, not to touch distinctly all the letters of a syllable or word, by the Index or any one single finger of the other Hand successively, making so many distinct motions from place to place, as there are letters in the syllable: But so to order the matter, that an equal number of the fingers of the other Hand may be used for a simultaneous touch to make the word or syllable, according to the number of letters it shall happen to consist of. This way of expressing syllables and words Monosyllables, with one multiplied touch, after a little practice, will be as easy and quick, as pointing to one single letter with a single touch; it will be also as distinct as pointing to every letter successively, with one finger.  
But let it be well observed here, that though I would have a whole syllable expressed with one single action, and motion of the whole Hand; yet let not the distinct touches be so simultaneous, but that it may appear where the word gins, and where it ends.  
Here I think will be a proper place to give a Rule, how to know when a word is ended, and it is this. Let there be a continued actual touch of more fingers, or one at least, till the word be ended; or if this happen (as it may in some words) to be uneasy, then make a quick motion from the place of the last letter of the word: But this difficulty after a little practice will vanish away.  
Now because this discourse may fall into the hands of some that have trifling Heads like my own, to whom it will be acceptable to know what other ways of Dactylology I have had under consideration: I will, for satisfying their curiosity, and perhaps saving them the expense of vain labour, mention some other ways which I have considered, and after examination rejected.  
The first way is to make the figures of the letters upon the Hand, which differs only from writing in this; that the one is transient, and the other permanent. It is true, that this is more ready upnn all occasions than writing; but neither distinct nor quick enough to be taken notice of here.  
A second way is the forming of the letters Symbolically; as to make an X by crossing two fingers; a cross touch upon the end of the thumb for a T; three fingers joined for M, two fingers joined for N, etc. This Symbolical way I reject, as being defective in two respects: First, it is defective in the point of symbolising; for it will not be easy with the fingers to represent the shapes of all letters. This way of expressing the letters Symbolically, is somewhat like the conceit of a symbolical Character, and a Language of Nature, which some have talked much of; but without any foundation in Nature, and therefore all attempts of Art must be in vain. But secondly, this way is too laborious, and so defective in answering one of the principal ends for which Cheirology is desirable, and deserves the name of an Art: That is, a quick and ready expression, and interpretation of the conceits of the mind, coming as near as possible to that of the Tongue.  
The third way is to design every single letter by a single touch; which I judge much the better way, than either of the other two; as being more simple, distinct, easy, and of quick dispatch. Having therefore resolved upon this, that the most proper way to express the simple Elements of the Alphabet would be, by a single touch; it remained that they should be distinguished amongst themselves by their places. And here again, after consideration and trial, I have rejected several ways of distinguishing the letters by places. First, I provided places on both Hands, back and fore; but finding this laborious and intricate, and perceiving that there might be distinction enough found in one hand, I placed the whole Alphabet upon one Hand; yet so as to make use of an equal number of places on both sides of the Hand: But at last finding that all the necessary distinctions could be provided for, on one side of the Hand, I fixed upon the institution of the present Scheme; which I think is done with that consideration and care, that as I said before, it cannot be much improved.  
Here I thought to have kept one secret of Art to myself; at least till I should see how other things I had discovered should please: But I must confess my own weakness, that in things of this Nature, I am plenus rimarum. I know not how considerable this secret will seem to others; But I declare (that I may confess another weakness) that I was much affected with it: For after a long and tyresome chase, and having pursued my Notion, as I thought, to a nil ultra; when I was set down, and pleasing myself with my purchase; on a sudden I fancied myself to see an one-handed deaf man coming to me, and as much as I could read in his eyes and countenance, expostulating with me thus? What? Have you done? Is there no help for me? Shall one Eye serve in Schematology? & one Ear in Pneumatology? one tongue in Glossology? yea one hand in Typology? and shall not one Hand serve in Dactylology? With this fixing my Eyes steadfastly on his Hand stretched out, I thought with myself, that I could discern a Mouth and a Tongue in his Hand: the Thumb seemed to represent the Tongue, the Fingers and the hollow of the Hand the lips, teeth, and cavity of the Mouth. Upon this I made Signs to him to try to follow me, as I pointed to the letters on my own Hand; which he did so exactly that the surprise put me in a maze for some time. But when I had overcome my passion, reflecting upon this wonder both of Nature and Art, I observed that of the 24 letters, he pointed to 16 with his Thumb. Thus I dismissed my Deaf and lame patient, bidding him be of good courage, and live in hopes of an effectual and speedy cure.  
But after he was gone, I began to consider with myself. What? shall I magnify this as a mystery and wonder of Nature and Art, to find a way, to Metamorphize a Chimaera into a Man, or, to make a black Swan white? This will be magno conatu magnas nugas agere. As I was thus thinking, it happened that I was smoking a pipe of Tobacco; and having a present occasion to dispatch a speedy message; I was unwilling to let my Pipe go out, and so at that present was deprived both of the use of my Tongue and one Hand: wherefore reflecting upon the lesson which I had lately taught the one-handed Deaf man, or shall I rather say, which he taught me; I call a boy to me, whom I had trained up in Dactylology, and delivered my message to him with one Hand. He staring in my face with a smiling countenance (for I had never spoken to him before that time with one Hand) performed the message very readily, and returned me a speedy answer, using the same Organ of Interpretation (for I surprised him eating an Apple) to me, which I had done to him. This gave me occasion to think, that this point of Art had not only one-handed Deaf men for its Object; but that there might be many other cases wherein it might be useful to speak with one hand: as to speak to a Dumb man riding on Horseback, holding the reins with one hand, and with the other ask him. How do you do? or sitting at Table; holding the Cup with one hand, and with the other saying, Sir my service to you. Or, with one hand holding the knife, and with the other ask; what will you be pleased to have? etc.  
And if any man could be supposed to have that readiness and presence of mind which is said to have been in J. Caesar he might at once keep up discourse with 3 several persons, upon several subjects, talking to two with his two hands, and to a third with his Tongue. And here by the by, it is observable, that without any distraction of mind one may speak both to a Deaf and Blind man at once, expressing the same words by the Tongue to the Blind man, and by the hand to the Deaf.  
Nay further I declare, that as much as I have as yet been able to discover by practice, I judge the way of speaking with one hand preferable to the other of using both, and that in all respects, unless it be in this one; That it is not capable of distinction enough for all the necessary abbrevations of double Consonants, which perhaps (after a readiness and habit acquired) may not be needful; or if it were, yet I know that one hand is capable of many more distinctions than I have as yet made use of: but at present I think it not tanti to make use of them, for I foresee, that the conveniency will scarce balance the inconveniencies.  
Now though the practising of this Hand-language be so plain and easy from the following Scheme, and the preceding explication of it, that any one who can but read (without knowing to write) may become his own Teacher; yet seeing the nature of all skill and cunning deserving the name of an Art is such, that something of instruction viva voce, is, if not necessary, at least useful; So hear something of direction from one well skilled in the practice of this Art, either viva voce, or (which is the same thing, and as Emphatic a way of teaching if it were practised) digito demonstrante, will be of good use to young practitioners.  
I will add one help more, for enabling young beginners to practise more easily and readily: Let a pair of Gloves be made, one for the Master, and another for the Scholar, with the letters written upon them in such order as appears in the following Scheme. To practise with these, will be easy for any that do but know their letters and can spell; and a short time will so fix the places of the letters in the Memory, that the Gloves may be thrown away as useless.  
Having laid open the whole progress of my thoughts in this discovery of Cheirology, it remains that I make good my promise in the Title-page of showing, that it is useful both in cases of necessity and conveniency.  
First then I think none will deny, but that it is necessary for persons Deaf or Dumb; and therefore I shall spare myself the labour of proving it any other way, than by referring the Reader to the Series and scope of this whole discourse. But here it will be very proper to add something how it may be made most useful to the Deaf man, and in order to this let it be considered. That the nature of Cheirology is such, that it is only useful in society and converse with others: So that if the Deaf man be trained up in this Art, and have no body about him skilled in it but himself, it is of no use to him at all: As on the contrary, if all people were as ready in this Hand-language, as he may rationally be supposed to be; then the Hand between him and others, would be of the same use that the Tongue is to other people amongst themselves. But seeing (according to the received way of training up youth hitherto, by which no care is taken of teaching them Cheirology) he can have none, or very few to converse with him in this way: It will be the concern of the Deaf persons friends (beside the influencing all his familiars to acquaint themselves with this Art for his cause) to choose some fit person to be a constant companion to him, and to be his Interpreter upon all occasions amongst strangers. And which is yet a more weighty concern: It would be their wisdom to project a match for the Deaf person, man or woman betimes; that the person they are to match with, may be trained up in Cheirology, which would add very much to the comfort of their life; they being thereby able to express and communicate their sentiments intelligibly, not only by Dactylology in the light, but also by Haptology in the dark.  
In the second place I am obliged to show the general usefulness and conveniniency of this Art to all mankind. The particular cases wherein it may be convenient, are many more than can be expected, that I should instance in: I shall therefore mention only three generals. 1. Silence. 2. Secrecy. 3. Pleasure. In cases of necessary Silence, it may be useful to inferiors in the presence of Great persons; to those that are about sick people, as near relations, Nurses, etc. So for Secrecy, if people be in company, but not so near as to whisper one another in the Ear, it performs the office of whispering; it delivers, and receives secret messages, etc. And lastly for pleasure; it may be an ingenjoyus and useful divertisement and pass-time for young people.  
Here it may be objected, That all the conveniency will not balance the pains that must be taken in learning this Art. This objection puts me in mind of another, and that a very considerable Conveniency; and therefore I answer. The pains that is taken about learning a Hand-language, if it were learned in due time, that is, in Childhood, would be so far from hindering, that it would contribute much to the Child's progress in learning to read, if he were taught both to know his letters, and to spell upon his fingers. This would please the Child's fancy, and imprint the letters the sooner upon his memory, having his Book always open before his Eyes. So that I look upon this as the greatest conveniency of Cheirology, That it would be of so great use, and learned with so little pains.  
And this consideration put me upon thinking of a more adviseable way of training up young ones, than any yet practised, that is: To begin children to know their letters upon an Hand-book instead of an Hornbook; or at least to have a Hand-book upon the backside of their Hornbook: For I make no doubt but before they could come to know the names and Figures of the letters, they would know their places upon the Hand, and be able to point to them with the other, or the same Hand, as readily as to pronounce them with the Tongue.  
And who will not acknowledge that it were a thing desirable, and deservedly to be esteemed as a piece of liberal education; to be able to speak as readily with the Hand as with the Tongue? And therefore who would not think it worth the while, to train up young children from their a bc in Glossology and Cheirology, pari passu? specially seeing the one is no hindrance but a considerable help to the other, for I may truly say in the Poet's words, 
— Alterius nam  
Altera poscit opem res, & conjurat amice.   
I thought for the use of children, to have given some directions for facilitating the Elementary Discipline of knowing the letters, spelling, and reading; whereby not only the old way might be made much smother, but also by one and the same labour, a considerable accession of useful knowledge might be attained by the young Scholar: That is, together with reading in Books, reading on the Hand; and as a necessary appendage of this, writing upon, or speaking with (call it which you will) the Hand: whereas writing with the Hand according to the common use of the word is by itself a distinct and laborious Art. But I fear lest some may think that I have already stuffed this discourse too much with trifles, and pedantry.   

AN APPENDIX TO CHEIROLOGY. Containing Some Critical observations upon the Nature and number of Double and Trible Consonants.  
MUCH hath been said by many learned men to describe the nature and causes of Simple Sounds, which are the first Elements of Speech; as also of Diphthongs and Triphthongs (if any such be) coalescing of 2 or 3 Vowels into one Syllable: But of the coalition of two or more Consonants into one Syllable, little or nothing (for what I know) hath been said by any. And yet this composition of Consonants deserves as much to be explained, or rather more than the other of vowels, because of its greater variety and use; Especially by him who would treat of a Philosophical Language or a Grammar for Deaf persons: So that my first Treatise of Ars Signorum or Sematology with this second of Cheirology which is a legitimate offspring of that, obliged me to this enquiry.  
If the Question should be put: whether in framing of words it were a more rational institution, that a single Consonant, and a single Vowel should always succeed one another alternatly; or that there should be a mixture of Syllables allowed, made partly of Diphthongs, partly of double consonants? My own judgement in the case is. That both Nature and Art would make their first choice of an alternate succession of single Vowels and Consonants, and that their next choice would be, of such compounded vocal sounds, as are commonly called Diphthongs, and described by Grammarians; and such compounded close sounds, as are most natural, and of an easy pronounciation, for describing of which this discourse is intended.  
But that such a Language could derive its origine from blinded Nature, and not from Art, or a Divine institution, is no ways probable: For I conceive that there is now no Language upon the face of the Earth in common use, but admits of a mixed composition of Diphthongs, and Double Consonants. And the more rude and uncivilized the people are, the more frequent this composition is with them, and the sounds the more harsh and unpleasant. That roughness of speech wears out with roughness of Manners, and smoothness of the one is a natural consequence of the smoothness of the other, the English Language and Nation is a sufficient proof. And if this be granted it is argument enough to prove; that Nature without Art or some more powerful assistance, would never bring forth a language in which there should be no Diphthongs or, Double Consonants. Nature, I say, as it is now in its degenerate estate: How she would have decided this Question in her primitive integrity and perfection, or rather how she did actually decide it, as we are assured from God's word she did, cannot be otherways known to us, than by some probable conjectures.  
It is generally thought by the learned, that Adam was the Author both by Invention and Practice of the Hebrew Tongue; not as we have it now in any of its Dialects; yet if it be granted that the Hebrew had for its mother that Language which Adam did invent and speak; we may with good reason conclude, that corrupted as it is, it still retains the substance and Genius of its Mother; There being some indelible Characters upon all Languages which common accidents cannot deface. For though the tract of time from Adam to Moses, was longer than that from Augustus, or Alexander the Great, to this present age; yet the common accidents which are known to change a language could not be so many and effectual, for changing the first language to that which is now called Hebrew, as they have been known to be for changing the pure Greek, into that which now is used by a remnant of the Grecians, and called Modern Greek; or for changing the pure Latin ●●tant in Classic Authors, into that which is now called Italian; which languages notwithstanding keep still so manifest Signatures of their origine, that it is easy to discern what Stem they are branches of.  
Now amongst several other defaced relics of that first and Divine language remaining not only in the Hebrew, but also to be found in many other of the Eastern Languages, this seems to be very considerable. That the Hebrew admits of no composition either of Vowels or Consonants in that same Syllable; But all their Radical words consist generally of a single consonant, and a single vowel, succeeding one another alternatly; which cannot well be supposed to be the effect either of degenerate Reason or Chance.  
There are two things more in that ancient language which seem to me unaccountable without referring them to a supernatural cause. One is, that their radical words consist generally of 3 consonants, and for the most part are Dissyllables; and these Radical words how different soever in their consonants, yet have still the same points, Cametz and Pathach; which in oral prolation make the same vocal sound with א, which, as it is the first letter of their Alphabet, and from them in all other Languages; so is it the first vocal sound in Nature. And that originally all their words were Dissyllables (as some conjecture) is not improbable: whereas in all other Languages their Radicals are generally Monosyllables, and I think originally have all been so; yea so far so, that there are many Monosyllables found to be Composita, and Decomposita, as the Learned Doctor Wallis has ingeniously observed in his English Grammar.  
Another thing is, that the Hebrew does often contract a whole sentence into one word, incorporating not only pronouns both prefixed and suffixt, but also prepositions and conjunctions with the radical word. And this compendium did first excite me to do something for improving the Art of Shorthand; That drove me before I was ware upon a real Character; That again after a little consideration resolved itself into an Effable language. This at last has carried on my thoughts to consider of a way how a language may be attained by Reading and Writing, when it cannot be attained by Speaking and Hearing. So that this Series and chain of thoughts has for its first link an Hebrew Grammatication.  
I take notice of three things more in the Hebrew, which are considerable upon the account of a rational Institution, which is not to be found in the common usage of other Languages; but not so mysterious as the other three which I have already mentioned. The first is their separating the Vowels from the Consonants, both by place and Character; which has something Natural, and Symbolical in it: For there is something in the structure and composition of the words, analagous' to Man the Author of them; the Characters of the consonants being of large dimensions, and divisible into many parts, represent the gross and material part of Man, the Body: The Vowels being expressed by indivisible pricks or points, do answer to that which is more properly indivisible, the Soul. This, together with a more accurate distinction of Vowels into long and short; as also a more accurate division of Consonants from their Physical causes, that is, the Organs of formation, though of late use (according to some later writers) in that most ancient language; yet it shows (at least) how the Genius of the Tongue is fitted not only to comply with such an Institution; but also that from all Antiquity there have been some vestigia of that Primitive and Divine, or purely rational Sematology, taught by Almighty God, or invented by Adam before the fall (unless any should have the confidence to affirm, that this among many other unhappy consequences of the fall, was one; that it did not only in part deface, but totally wipe out all former impressions, leaving our first Parent as the blind Heathens would have him, Mutum & turpe pecus. That is, having his Soul as much Tabula rasa, as ours is when we come into the world) which have given occasion to Grammarians of later times to bring that part of Grammar to the present establishment. But whatever be the decision of that grand controversy about the Antiquity of the Hebrew points, the observation I have made here will still be considerable. Wherefore I pass to a second thing considerable, which without all controversy is more ancient and of longer standing than some would have the points to be. It is agreed upon all hands that there are three principal and cardinal Vowels א י ו of as ancient a date as the first invention of letters; which without giving offence to those that are for, or advantage to those that are against the Antiquity of Points, may sano sensu, be styled Matres Lectionis; Because all other Vowels are but intermediate sounds and as it were the Proles or of spring of these three. Wherefore, without interposing as to the main state of that so momentous question; That which I take notice of here as considerable, is this: That it has been a thing done with great care and judgement, the establishing these three letters for the Cardinal vowels or Matres Lectionis; For they are the three most distinct vocal Sounds that are in nature; even as distinct as the two extremes and the middle of any thing that has dimensions can be; all other Vowels being but intermediate Sounds to, and gradually differing from them. א is a Guttural Sound, and of all other Vowels the most apert; ו is Labial and of Vocal Sounds the most contracted, י is Palatine and equally distant from both. And as it is possible that there might be a Language copious enough, allowing only the use of three Vowels, and secluding double Consonants in that same syllable, provided that the Radical words were Dissyllables; which some think to have been the Institution of the pure and uncorrupted Hebrew: So would such an instituion be much more easy and distinct than any language in being; the intermediate sounds to these three radical vowels being less distinct, and therefore oftentimes giving occasion of mistakes.  
I have had occasion to mention the third thing considerable in the preceding Treatise of Cheirology; to wit, Their naming the simple Elements of letters by significant words; Aleph, Beth, Gimel, etc. which without doubt is as ancient as the use of letters, or at least as Moses; The truth of this the Grecians have confirmed by a very convincing, but withal a very inartificial argument in naming the letters corruptedly after them, Alpha, Beta, Gamma, etc. as I have noted before.  
Tho I have in Ars Signorum given such an Analysis of simple Sounds, both Vowels and Consonants, as seemed to me most natural and proper upon that occasion; yet I must here repeat what has been said there of the nature and number of simple Consonants; otherwise the Rules of composition I am to give, cannot be understood.  
Consonants than are first to be divided into, 

close:  
semiclose.   1. Close, when the appulse of the Organs stops all passage of breath thro' the mouth; and they are in number 9, m, b, p, n, d, t, ng, Γ, K, This closure again is threefold. 1. A perfect shutting of the lips and this produceth m, b, p, 2. the fore part of the Tongue with the Palate, hence n, d, t, 3. the hinder-part of the Tongue with the palate hence, ng, Γ, K. Tese nine Consonants are capable of another threefold division, upon the account of a threefold accident which equally happens to the foresaid closure of the Organs respectively. For, 1. if the breath and voice be simul and semel stopped with the closure of the Organs, like the throwing of a stone against a Rock; this produces the 3 mutes aP, aT, aK, 2. If after the closure of the organs, a conatus of breathing be continued, and the repercussion of the breath from the passage stopped, making an inward murmuring like the breaking of a wave against a Rock, which is quickly spent and hushed into silence; the same closure of organs produces the 3 Semimutes, aB, add, a●. 3. If upon the closure of the organs, there be a free passage of breath and voice thro' the Nose, like the sounding of an Organ-pipe, when the key is touched; this produces a third distinction of Sonorous letters from the same closure, aM, a, a● G, (by ng I mean that sound which is heard in anger, hunger not in danger, hinge.) And these 3 sounds may be continued after the closure of the Organs, as long as one will. I have placed a vowel before these consonants, because their power appears more distinctly, than when the vowel follows.  
Hence I infer, that the number of close consonants is 9, neither more nor less; not more I say, because I find that some add 3 more, him, hn, hng, calling them Mutes, making only this difference between them and, m, n, ng, that the one is uttered vocally, the other whisperingly: But if a whispering and a vocal breath make distinct letters, there will be more distinctions of letters than the Authors of this opinion seem to approve: and if this be reason enough to multiply letters, I know not but soft speaking, and crying about the Streets may have the same power. That certain other distinctions in the forming of these, or any other letters, may be fancied by curious and Musical ears, from the modes and degrees of shutting the organs, the intention and remission of the voice, the Tone being more grave, acute, etc. I readily grant: But how to make more distinctions from these 3 closures, plain and easy to be discerned, and worthy to be so far taken notice of, as to be placed in the Alphabet, is a thing I could never reach.  
Again, I said no less than 9, because common custom has made one of these a double Consonant, writing it with two letters ng the sound of neither of which is to be heard in pronounciation; but a perfectly distinct simple sound from the power of both, as in sing, ring, long, and from all letters whatever. And it is observable that our English is very unconstant in expressing the power of this letter: sometimes by ng in the end of a word, as sing, hang, long; where nothing of the sound either of n, or g is heard; Sometimes by n alone before its brother consonants, k, g, before k every where; as ink, rank, drunk, before g in the middle of a word, as longer, hunger, though not always so, for in danger, stranger, etc. n keeps its own power.  
If any be so far prejudiced with the use of the Latin (which always expresses the power of this letter by n) and other modern Languages; let him look a little higher to the Greek, where he will find three things considerable of this letter. 1. That it is no double consonant, but expressed with one single Character, Υ. 2. That it is expressed not by a letter of a distinct tribe (as in the Latin) but by one of its own fraternity, that is, by a letter form with the same closure of the organs with itself. 3. That it never goes before any other consonant in that same Syllable, but those of its own tribe Υ π Χ ξ; which is according to the true reason and Rules of compounding consonants in the end of a syllable, as I shall make appear by and by. The Romans finding that it was a sonorous letter, reject Υ as being a Semimute, and substitute for it n agreeing with it formally in that same analogy of sound, but differing from it materially, as being form by a distinct closure of Organs.  
Great Vossius may excuse my being so long upon this one letter: For he after spending a whole Chapter upon it, concludes with a professed uncertainty of judgement, whether to make it a single letter, a Sesquilitera, or a double consonant. I thought once I had been singular in my opinion about it; But afterwards meeting with Doctor Wallis' English Grammar, I perceived that he had given the same account of it long before me.  
The Semiclose sounds are of two sorts, some of them are form from the wholeclose sounds and are called Aspirats, because they are form by a partial opening of the Organs, and sending forth the breath thro' the mouth; hence the number of them are six, f, th', Χ from p, t, k, and v, th' (as in that) gh, from the Semimutes b, d, g; for there can be no aspirats from m, n, ng. 2. That nimble instrument of articulate voice, the top of the Tongue brings forth three more semiclose sounds l, r, s, and so doubles the number of letters form by the other organs. 1. L is form by a close appulse of the top of the Tongue to the palate, the sides not touching, but leaving an open passage, which distinguishes it from, n, where the appulse makes a perfect closure. 2. The appulse is from the sides of the Tongue the top not touching, but leaving an open passage to force out the breath; hence is form the letter S. 3. A repeated or multiplied appulse of the tongue to the palate, by a quick motion of trepidation which produces R. S, has affinity to the close mutes p, t, k, and therefore admits of being raised to a semimute, Z, both of which are capable of aspiration, as the close mutes and semimutes Sh, Zh. These seem to me to be all the simple consonants in nature perfectly distinct, and to be made use of in a Philosophical Language for which this was first intended. And I think that this Analysis of them from their Physical causes is plain & easy, for to pursue all the minute differences of sounds, as it were endless, so were it useless.  
I come now to speak of compounding two or more consonants into one syllable, and that two ways, either in the beginning or end of it; a thing well to be considered by him who undertakes to frame a language by Art from the principles of Nature, and of no small use in fitting a Grammar for Deaf persons.  
That I may proceed the more distinctly in this enquiry, I will begin with the definition of a Syllable, and passing by several other descript on's, I will keep to that of Priscian and approved by Vossius; as being most full and apposite to my purpose. Syllaba est vox literalis, que sub uno accentu, & uno spiritu indistanter profertur. Where I suppose by sub uno accentu, and uno spiritu, there can be no more than one Vowel or Diphthong in a Syllable; which as a terminus communis unites the extreme consonants on each side; Even as the copula units the Subject and the Predicate making one Proposition.  
My first Rule shall be: To speak properly and in a strict sense, There can be no composition of Consonants amongst themselves, either in the beginning or end of a Syllable, but what is preternatural and inconsistent with the definition of a Syllable. Who does not perceive, that even in the composition of Mutes and Liquids in the beginning of a syllable as prat, plot, which of all compositions of consonants is most common, and also judged most easy, as not making the preceding Vowel long by position; yet I say even in those it is easy to perceive a distantia terminorum, and that they are united by a rapid spirit, as a terminus communis; and cannot possibly be otherwise, seeing they are form by distinct closures of the organs; and therefore there must be a Transitus from the one to the other; which appears yet much more evident in the end of a Syllable; with which kind of composition our English abounds very much as, Table, riddle, saddle, little, etc.  
It is true in some compositions of consonants the transitus not being from organ to organ, but from one degree of vocality to another, as in lamp, hand, ink, the transitus here is so quick, that it may be said to deceive the Ears; much like the colours of the Rainbow to the Eye, as it is in that ingenious description of Arachne's Web. Ovid. Lib. 6. Met. 
In quo diversi niteant cum mille colores,  
Transitus ipse tamen spectantia lumina fallit:  
Vsque adeo quod tangit idem est; tamen ultima distant.  But passing by the dictates of right reason and Art, which certainly have not been followed in the primary Institution of any language unless it be of the Hebrew alone; let us look to Use which is the Sovereign Lawgiver to all languages. And more particularly to the usage of the Greek, which gives laws of Orthography to all the Occidental Languages: and first for the compounding of Consonants in the beginning of a Syllable.  
Had the Grecians been as careless of Euphony and polishing their words in the terminations, as they have been in the initial Syllables, their language had been as much inferior to some others in Euphony, as now it is esteemed more pleasant and graceful. What more rude sounds, uneasy to be pronounced, and harsh to the Ear, than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. What cause to ascribe this to I am uncertain, whether to the rudeness of their language together with others, in its first origine; or to some modish affectation of times and humours, or more particularly to a Poetical humour of Syncopizing and contracting their words, which seems to me most probable. But this we see is certain, that they have taken to themselves such a liberty of compounding Consonants in the beginning of a Syllable, that their greatest admirers the Romans have forsaken them in this; there scarce being any such double consonants, as any in the forementioned examples in the beginning of a word, in all the Latin Tongue; unless it be in some few words, which are manifestly of a Greek origin. They have gone so far, that almost no Rule can be form for their initial Syllables, but Quidlibet cum Quo●ibet. Howbeit will endeavour to reduce the usage of the Greek in this particular to some General Rules.  
First, There is no double consonant to be found in the beginning of a Greek word, but one of them is a Lingual: these are, n, d, t, l, r, s, z, th', θ, should, zh. Hence I observe that Vossius goes too far, when he bids in imitation of the Greek to divide agmen, te-gmen; unless he could have produced authority for a short vowel before this position, or a word beginning with gm, neither of which I think can be found.  
2. The liquids (commonly so called) l, m, n, r, add, ng, never come before other consonants, or one another in the beginning of a word, except 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
3. None of the close Consonants  

Labials p, b, m,  
Linguals t, d, n,  
Gutturals. ng, r, k,   
Or their aspirats.  

Labials' φ, v,  
Linguals θ, th',  
Gutturals. χ, gh,   
If they be of the same Organ, can be compounded with one another. Except 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In these negatives the Latin, and I think other modern languages do agree with them.  
For affirmative Rules the first shall be. The liquids L, R, come frequently after the Mutes and Semimutes, with their aspirats as, 

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.    
The Rule is universally true de jure, though not de facto; or, it is true de generibus singulorum, though not de singulis generum. Hence though there be no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, yet analogy would bear it as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So in Latin, though there be no words beginning with tl, yet tlarus would be as Analogical, as clarus or planus. So in English tlash were as Euphonick as plash, clash.  
2. S, in the beginning of a word comes before all kinds of Consonants in that same Syllable; i. e. it is compounded with General singulorum, though not with Singula Generum.  
1. For the Mutes p, t, k, and their a pirates φ, θ χ, it is compounded with them all; as, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 2. The Semimutes β, δ, r, it is only found with β, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and by the Doric Dialect with δ, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 3. Of the Sonorous or Nasales μ, r, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it is found only with μ, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. S. is not to be found before any of these three consonants in Latin, unless it be in words taken from the Greek; and yet our English abounds with examples both of sm, and sn, as small, smooth, smite, snatch, snow.  
Except from the former Rule, it's two sister-semiclose linguals, r, l, before which it never comes in Greek or Latin; Tho sl frequently in English, as sleep, slow; and though s itself come not before r yet its aspirate should is found with r as shrine, shrewd.  
3. S in the beginning of a word comes after some both of the Mutes and Semimutes, de facto, and therefore might come after them all eodem jure, ψ, Z, ξ, i. e. ps, ds, ks. Here it comes after two Mutes, k, p, and one Semimute, d. The reason in Nature were the same for bs, gs 'tis, in the beginning of a Syllable; but s after any other Consonant in the beginning of a Syllable sounds harsh, and lays a force upon nature. What could induce the Grecians to single out these three double Consonants ψ, Z, ξ, contracting them into one single Character, and placing them in the Alphabet amongst the simple Elements of letters, is not easy to guests. Had they made a more soft and melting sound than other double consonants, this might have passed for a tolerable Reason: But the case is quite contrary; for they make a stronger position after a short vowel than many other donble consonants do: or if frequency of use had been the inducement this also had been tolerable; but even in this they must give place to many other double consonants: unless perhaps it may be thought, that the frequency of ψ and ξ in the future tenses of Verbs might have occasioned this abbreviation. Vossius guesses at the Origin of ψ, that it has been an imitation of the Hebrew צ. If he had made z and ξ to be of the same origine, his conjecture had been by much the more probable; for there is fully as great reason for these as for that. The affinity of ξ to צ is all one with ψ to צ; for both of them are compounded of S following a Mute. Again the affinity of z to צ is no less, for though the one be mute, the other Semimute; yet they belong both to one organ of formation, which the Hebrews take notice of as the greater affinity: So that if an imitation of the Hebrew may pass for a probable reason of this Grammatication, it is much more likely, that a threefold abbreviation would induce them to this imitation, sooner than a single one; specially considering that s never follows another consonant in composition in the beginning of a word, but in these three. I might add that the Hebrew Grammarians will scarce allow צ to be a double Consonant, though I dare not undertake to defend them in this.  
My next Rule shall be for trible Consonants in the beginning of a word. 1. There can no word begin with three consonants but where s is one. This is not only true in Greek and Latin, but I think also in our vulgar European Languages. 2. S, never makes a triple consonant in the beginning of a word, but with a mute and liquid following; And this but rarely in Greek, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; so in Latin, as scrib 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, spretus, stratus; Tho the composition of s with any either single or double consonant in the beginning of a word, seems to be of no difficult pronounciation. And now I come to double and Triple consonants in the end of a Syllable.  
I think our English Tongue with its Mother Saxon, abounds more with this kind of closure or ending of words, with double and triple Consonants, than any other common Language; which makes us censured by neighbouring Nations, by comparing our pronounciation to the barking of Dogs: For our words being for the most part Monosyllables, and often ending with a harsh collision of double and trible consonants, and admitting no Apostrophe; this makes us take the more time, and use the more force to utter them.  
1. The most natural and easy composition of Consonants, either in the beginning or ending of a Syllable, is that of the Mutes and Semimutes, following the Sonorous letters of their own respective organs of formation; as in these examples.  

mb Lamb, dumb, comb,  
mp lamp, imp, lump,  
and hand, blind, round,  
nt Ant, hint, hunt,  
ngg thing, long, dung,  
ngk think, rank, drunk.   
2. The composition of two consonants next for facility to the former, is when the three semiclose linguals, l, r, s, come before other consonants in the end of a syllable. Examples in English are obvious: It is true, not of these three coming before all other letters; yet the reason is the same for all, though use be not.  
3. S in the end of a word, according to the use of our English, makes a double consonant after any other letter, unless it be after q, z. Other double consonants there are in the end of a word; but being very irregular and of a harsh sound. I pass them by; such, as, soft, length, right, apt, etc.  
4. For trible Consonants in the end of a syllable there is none found in any language but where S makes one. I know the Dutch writ Handt, but I suppose they must pronounce either hand or haunt; for a mute and semimute of that same organ are inconsistent sounds. And as for our strength, and length; 1. Tho they be written with four consonants; yet we sound but two neither of which can be written in English, but with two Characters; But 2ly, I think the most genuine pronounciation of these two words is, as if they were written strength and length according to the Northern Dialect.  
5. And lastly, allowing two ss in two distinct places (which often happens) there may be, and are de facto, in English four consonants after a Vowel in that same syllable, as in firsts, thirsts.  
This doctrine of double and trible consonants, so far as concerns the ending of words, has but little place in the learned languages; yet examples are found both in Greek and Latin, even of Trible consonants; as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, stirps. Where observe that there are no words in Greek ending either in double or trible consonants, but where s either virtually or expressly is the last; and but very few in Latin ending in other double Consonants; Some in nt as amant sunt, some few in nc, as hinc hunc, in st, as est post.  
My last enquiry about double Consonants shall be. How many may come together in one syllable? To which I answer. First, If we follow reason & the Authority of the ancientest language, there can come no more than two, one before and another after the vowel. 2ly If we follow the usage of the other two learned languages Greek and Latin; secluding the letter s, there can be no syllable of above four consonants, two before, and two after the Vowel. 3ly Admitting s, which comes both before and after most letters, there may be a syllable of six consonants, three before and three after the vowel. I grant there is no example found either in Latin or Greek of above five consonants; yet there are many examples in both of three consonants in the beginning, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, cribo; so of three in the end, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, stirps, whatever is above this, is harsh and Barbarous.  
I have heard learned men of the Polish Nation affirm, that there is a Monosyllable of nine letters in that Language, the Orthography of which I took from the hand of a person of Honour of that Nation, thus Chrzaszcz, This word I have often heard pronounced by Natives, and have myself been commended by them for my imitation: But to strangers it seems a barbarous sound, and reaches not the expressing of the power of all the letters with which it is written. Vossius affirms as much of the Dutch. The word he instances in is, t'strengst. But I am sure if this be allowed for a Monosyllable, there may be a monosyllable of eleven letters, according to the Analogy both of the Dutch and English; or rather I may say, that there can be no bounds set to the Tongue in this particular. For first if t'strengst, why not st'strengst; for it is clear even from the same instance, that s may come before t in that same syllable. If it be said that the letter s cannot be repeated thrice, in distinct places of that same syllable. First, I answer by retorting; much less can t be repeated thrice, as here; for laying this one word aside, I think it will be hard either to prove by reason, or to bring another instance out of any language whatever, where a word consisting of three ttt disjoined from one another by the intervention of other letters is esteemed a monosyllable. 2ly The Analogy of the English allows of such a Monosyllable, as Spasms, Schisms.  
Again if ststrengst why not ststrengsts, and so in infinitum. That s after t is consistent in the end of a syllable, our English abounds with Examples, as Tastes, fasts. But here it is observable that this composition we admit of, s coming both before and after another Consonant in the end of a syllable, is very harsh and uneasy, and scarce to be found in any other language. The French make many shifts to avoid the harshness of s either before or after another consonant, and chief in the end of a syllable: if s go before, they leave it out, as in haste, viste; if it come after they leave out the consonant that goes before it; as in loups, animaux. Another thing observable of s with its affinis l; when they come alone without the implication of other consonants: they are of an easy and graceful pronounciation. Homer seems to have loved them, as in these, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉—  
— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉   
That the Press should have stripped these broken ends of Verses of the unnecessary and troublesome luggage of Spirits and Accents, is neither the Compositor nor the Correctors fault: I am obliged to excuse them and take the fault, if there be any, upon myself; or rather lay it over upon the Author; who were he alive, he would excuse both me and himself, by the Use of the times he lived in: And use we know is the supreme Law in all languages. But if all this do not satisfy the Critical Hellenist; Then I must add further, that Use in the present case, will even dare to appeal to right Reason: For what ever may be said for the cumbersome tackling of Spirits and Accents in Prose; yet in a Verse, Accents are downright nonsense, unless it be tollendae ambiguitatis causa in aequivocal words.  
That all other Appendages beside the letters are unnecessary and troublesome, I shall instance only in one word, which is so overgrown with the Rickets, that the Head is much greater than the whole Body; for whereas the letters of the word are but three, the other appurtenances of it are five: And had it all that swelling furniture about it in the Glossology, which it hath in the Typology, it would choke one to pronounce it. But he must have more critical Ears than mine, that can perceive five distinctions in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are not to be heard in our English ERR. That this is not a word either made or sought by me, appears by this passage of a common Epigram.  
— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
And here I shall take the liberty to go one step further out of my road, by taking notice that the Grecians have lashed out a little too far, in that which is thought to be the greatest grace of their language: That is, their words ending much in Vowels and Diphthongs; and these frequently making pure syllables, one, two, or more, without the intervention of a Consonant. One, two, or at least three, one would think were enough for Euphony; but four, five, or sometimes six in the end of a word, I think is too much; specially, if they make so many syllables, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sounds well; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is yet more soft and melting; and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sounds high and lofty from the mouth of a Poet, and Symbolizeth with the more Symbolical Hemistich preceding it.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and by a Dialysis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is too soft and luscious. And for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I know not what other censure to pass on them, but that they are childish and ridiculous Traulisms. It is true that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Typology of the word, has its Syllables distinct enough; but the best can be said of it will leave them too identical in the Glossology. Again for A A A, which is the word of the greatest number of vowels without a Consonant, that I have happened to meet with; though it be manifestly of a Greek origin, yet I know not where to father it upon any Greek Author, totidem literis & syllabis: which makes me strange the more to see the grave and Manly Roman, who in his imitation of the effeminate Greculus, hath with a wonderful judgement, shall I say or happiness, equally avoided the extremes of too much harshness in the beginning of his words, and too much softness and delicacy in the end of them; yet in this one word to have outdone him in number of vowels, though not of syllables. Ovid, is my Author for this. Metamorph. lib. 4.  Nec tenet A A A genetrix pulcherrima Circe's. 
But to return from this digression to another observation upon the letters, L, and S. These two letters seem to me to make a great impression upon the body of the French Tongue (as the particles and chief the pronouns do in all languages) because of their so frequent use in the provocabula of that language. I have often been pleasantly affected to hear two talking French, when the pronominal words recurred often; such as, ce, cett, c'est cettui, cettuici, cettuila, lui, celui, icelui, elle, icelle, celleci, cellece, etc. and many such like descending from the fruitful stock of ca & lafoy: for these words coming from a French mouth, make a pretty soft whispering noise affecting the Ear pleasantly. Our own English pronominal words are none of the most graceful pronounciation, chief because of the so frequent use of th' as thou, thy, that, the, this, those, their, etc. This makes Outlandish men call us blaesi, the sound of th' never being heard amongst them, but by lispers; who pronounce s viciously by the power of this letter. I will conclude with rectifying an Universal mistake of all that have written of Grammar, for want of considering the Nature of double consonants. It has passed for currant amongst all Grammarians, that we are to divide words in all other Languages, following the use of double Consonants among the Grecians; as, magnus', doctus, lectus, aptus, and not magnus', doctus, lectus, aptus, Vossius goes yet further (as I have had occasion to mention before) and bids us divide segmen agmen; though their be no precedent for this in Greek. One Ancient Grammarian goes yet a step further, and bids follow this Rule even in compounded words; as obruo, obligo, which notwithstanding others do except. But Priscian does well refute this Author's opinion by this argument, That Poets never used these syllables short: So that for the very same reason, we must not divide lectus, doctus, because they are used still long by position.  
Tho this reason be convincing enough; yet there is another reason worthy to be mentioned in this place, which also illustrates and confirms what I have said before: that the primitive words of other languages (excepting the Hebrew) are for the most part Monosyllables. In all primitive words I distinguish between radical and servile letters: the radical part of the word generally both in Greek and Latin is effable in one syllable, amo, doceo; am and doc are the radical letters, o in the one and eo in the other being serviles; and so changeable in the obliqne inflexion of the words, therefore I think it were reasonable in dividing the word to distinguish between what is radical, and what is servile.   

Postscript.  
Tho I make no question, but I have said as much as may enable any person of ordinary capacity, with extraordinary diligence, to become if not a Didascalocophus, at least a Hypodidascalus to some more expert Master; yet my main design being not so much to make every Grammaticaster a Didascalocophus, as to satisfy learned men, that Cophology is none, either of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; This has made me the shorter in the practical part. So that any practitioner in this Art, not more Master of it than myself, must be beholding to me for some more particular directions. Wherefore if any Philocophus should challenge myself, to make good the Title of my book: let him bring a Subject ducly qualified, male or female, the younger the better; and he shall find me ready to answer his challenge, either personally or by proxy.  
FINIS.