I. The language of gestures, first systematized and applied to the conveying of ideas to the deaf by the Abbe de l’Epee during the latter part of the last century, has been, in America, so developed and improved upon by Gallaudet, Peet, and their successors, as to leave but little else to be desired for the purpose for which it was intended.  The rapidity and ease with which ideas can be expressed and understood by this “language” will never cease to be interesting and wonderful, and its value to the deaf can never fail of being appreciated by those familiar with it.  But the genius of the language of signs is such as to be in itself of very little, if any, direct assistance in the acquisition of syntactical language, owing to the diversity in the order of construction existing between the English language and the language of signs.  Sundry attempts have been made to enforce upon the sign-language conformity to the English order, but they have, in all cases known to the writer, been attended with failure.  The sign-language is as immovable as the English order, and in this instance certainly Mahomet and the mountain will never know what it is to be in each other’s embrace.  School exercises in language composition are given with great success upon the basis of the sign-language.  But in all such exercises there must be a translation from one language to the other.  The desideratum still exists of an increased percentage of pupils leaving our schools for the deaf, possessing a facility of expression in English vernacular.  This want has been long felt, and endeavoring to find a reason for the confessedly low percentage, the sign-language has been too often unjustly accused.  It is only when the sign-language is abused that its merit as a means of instruction degenerates.  The most ardent admirers of a proper use of signs are free to admit that any excessive use by the pupils, which takes away all opportunities to express themselves in English, is detrimental to rapid progress in English expression.

II.  To the general public, dactylology or finger spelling is the sign-language, or the basis of that language, but to the profession there is no relation between the two methods of communication.  Dactylology has the advantage of putting language before the eye in conformity with English syntax, and it has always held its place as one of the elements of the American or eclectic method.  This advantage, however, is not of so great importance as to outweigh the disadvantages when, as has honestly been attempted, it asserts its independence of other methods.  Very few persons indeed, even after long practice, become sufficiently skillful in spelling on the fingers to approximate the rapidity of speech.  But were it possible for all to become rapid spellers, another very important requisite is necessary before the system could be a perfect one, that is, the ability to read rapid spelling.  The number of persons capable of reading the fingers beyond a moderate degree of rapidity is still less than the number able to spell rapidly.  While it is physically possible to follow rapid spelling for twenty or thirty minutes, it can scarcely be followed longer than that.  So long as this is true, dactylology can hardly claim to be more than one of the elements of a system of instruction for the deaf.