ment on an area of study unfamiliar to most physicians. Dr Martin implies that "early language" was simpler than our own, containing fewer words and capable of less precise speech, and that people used metaphors and poetic allusions to overcome this deficiency. Alas, the evolutionary principle on which this view of language change is based, efficient though it is in understanding the world of biology and despite its initial stimulating effect on anthropology, has proved an enormous stumbling block to the study of society in general and linguistics in particular. The fact is that no evidence of "early language," simple in form and rudimentary in structure, has ever been found. On the contrary, it is becoming grudgingly accepted that the further back in history, the more complex the language, the more precise the diction, and the more .«labórate the grammar.' The earliest actual texts of humanity (the Shabako Stone and others) are not crude pickings, but rich and detailed ac¬ counts of ritual life, history, and reli¬ gious belief. These are, of course, to be distinguished from labels, seals, boundary markers, and other early writings that fulfilled purely utilitar¬ ian functions and required no artistic merit. The alphabet itself, contrary to the neat little 19th-century scheme taught us in grade school, did not appear gradually (from an earlier, hypothetical picture writing, evidence of which we have none), but rather appears fully formed and thoroughly effective in the fourth millenium before Christ, either a brilliant one¬ time invention or, as the ancients universally and emphatically insisted, a revelation from heaven. Even today, analyzing the lan¬ guages of primitive peoples, one does not find simple, crude attempts at communication, but well-developed linguistic systems fully capable of meeting the needs of the people with¬ in their respective cultural contexts.Whence then the decline of the meta¬ phor in our own tongue as contrasted with those of earlier times? It is not ' necessary to invent a hierarchy of language or to steal evolution from its place in biology; Dr Martin himself touches the answer when he says ".. . the meaning of life is continually dried up and left for dead in our minds."Language reflects the culture and concerns of its users, so of course people who live close to nature will use natural metaphors, people whose principal entertainment is poetry and drama will have poetic expression, and people who are surrounded by steel, chrome, and plastic and who are preoccupied with numbers and chemi¬ cals will have drab, mechanistic language to match.2 As we enrich our speech, therefore, it is necessary (and perhaps an inevitable result) that we enrich our hearts and souls and renew the "meaning of life." Such a revivifi¬ cation involves much more than em¬ ploying picturesque speech: it in¬ cludes a renewal of the stuff and fiber of life, a greater appreciation for the patient, and a more humanitarian approach to medicine.