During the third year C. seemed determined to prove to his parents and sister that he had attained the age of reason. He began to ply these well-disposed persons with all manner of questionings. Sometimes, indeed, as when in the case already referred to he would ask for the names of things just after calling them by their names, the long-suffering mother was half inclined to regret the acquisition of speech, so much did it present itself at this stage in the light of an instrument of torture. But the child’s questionings were rarely attributable to a spirit of persecution or to sheer “cussedness”. He began in the usual manner of children to ask: ‘Who made this and that?’ (early in the fourth month). That there is a simple process of reasoning behind this question is seen in his sometimes suggesting an answer thus: “Who made papa poorly? Blackberries;” where there was obviously a reference to an unpleasant personal experience. His mind about this time seemed greatly exercised in the matter of sickness and health. One day (middle of sixth month) walking out with his mother he met a man, whereupon ensued this dialogue: C. ‘Is that a poorly gentleman?’ M. ‘No.’ C. ‘Is that a well gentleman?’ M. ‘Yes.’ C. ‘Then who made him well?’ From which (writes the father) it would look as if, just as Plato could only conceive of pleasure as a transition from pain, Master C. could only conceive of health as a process of convalescence.[[318]]
Another way of prying into the origin of things seems worth mentioning. Having found out that certain pretty things in the house had been “bought,” he proceeded with the characteristic recklessness of the childish mind to assume that all nice things come to us this way. One day (middle of third month) he asked his father, “Who bought lady?” lady being an alabaster figure of Sappho. The father then asked him, and he answered: “Mamma”. Asked further where, he replied: “In town”. This looked like romancing, but it is hard to draw the line between childish romancing and serious thought. He may have really inferred that the alabaster lady had come to the house that way. A still funnier example of the application of his purchasing idea occurred at the date, three months and one week. Stroking his mother’s face he said: “Nice dear mother, who bought you?” What, asks the father, did he understand by "bought"? Perhaps only some mysterious way of obtaining possession of nice pretty things.
The other form of reason-hunting question, ‘What for?’ or ‘Why?’ came to be used about the same time as “Who made?” etc. In putting these questions he would sometimes suggest answers of a deliciously childish sort (as the writer has it). Thus one day (beginning of fourth month) he saw his father putting small numbered labels on a set of drawers, and after his customary “What dat for?” added half inquiringly, “To deep drawers nice and warm?” C. would pester his parents by asking not only why things were as they were, but why they were not different from what they were. Thus (end of third month) on seeing in a nursery book a picture of Reynard the fox waving his hat he asked in his slow emphatic way: ‘Why not dat fox put on his hat?’ In a similar way he would ask his mother why she did not go to school, and so forth.[[319]]
With this questioning there went a certain amount of confident assertion respecting the reasons of things. At first C. proceeded modestly, reproducing reasons given by an adequate authority. Thus when told during his stay at D—— that he would not go into the sea to-day, he would supplement the announcement by adding the reason as given before by his mother, e.g., “’Cause it’s too cold,” or, “’Cause big waves to-day”. Very soon, however, he took a step forward and discovered reasons for himself. One day (end of fifth month) his father was seating him at table, and was about to add a second cushion to the chair when he remarked in his gravest of manners, “I can’t put my leg in, you know (i.e., under the table), if me be higher”. Here is another of these specimens of reasoning, dating two weeks later, and based like the first on direct observation. His father was walking out with him on the famous Heath of their suburb. The former, probably more than half lost in one of his trains of philosophic speculation, observed absent-mindedly, “Why are these babas (sheep) running away?” C. promptly took up the question and answered with vigour, “’Cause the bow-wow dare with man”. As a matter of fact a man was approaching with a small dog, which the father in his reverie had failed to see.
Of course, the reasoning was not always so consonant with our standard as in these two examples. C. appears to have had his own ideas about the way in which things come about. For example, he seems to have argued, like certain scholastic logicians, that the effect must resemble the cause. At least, after finding out that his milk came from the cow, he referred the coldness of his milk one morning (towards end of fourth month) to the coldness of the cow,—which property of that serviceable quadruped was, of course, a pure invention of his own. Just three months later he came out one morning with the momentous announcement, "Milk comes from the white cow down at D——"; and on being asked by his ever-attentive father what sort of milk the brown cow gave, instantly replied, ‘Brown milk’; where, again, it must be admitted, he came suspiciously near romancing.
He seems, further, to have shown slight respect for the logical maxim that the same effect may be brought about in more than one way. For C. nature was delightfully simple, and everything happened in one way, and in one way only. So that, for example, when during a walk (end of sixth month) his glove happened to slip off, he proceeded in a most hasty and unfair manner to set down the catastrophe to the malignity of the wind, exclaiming, “Naughty wind to blow off glove”.
A like want of maturity of judgment in dealing with the subtle connexions of nature’s processes showed itself in other ways. Thus he argued as if the same agency would always bring about like results, whatever the material dealt with. An amusing illustration of this occurred in the latter half of the tenth month. He was observed towards the end of a meal pouring water on sundry bits of bread on his plate, and on being asked why he was doing this, said: ‘To melt them, of course’.
One of his thoroughly original ideas was that other things besides living ones grow bigger with time. One day (middle of sixth month) he began to use a short stick as a walking-stick. His mother objected that it was not big enough, on which he observed: “Me use it for walking-stick when stick be bigger”. In like manner just a month later he remarked, apropos of a watch-key which was too small for the father’s watch, that it would be able to wind up the watch ‘when it grow bigger’. So far as the father could observe it was only little things which he thought would increase in size. It thus looked, adds the father, like a kind of extension of the supreme law of his own small person to the whole realm of wee and despised objects.[[320]]
C. followed other children and the race which he so well represented in supposing that sensation is not confined to the animal world. Thus towards the end of the eleventh month when warned in the garden not to touch a bee as it might sting, he at once observed: “It might sting the flower”. “It is odd,” interpolates the father here, “that C.’s sister, when, towards the end of her fourth year, she was bidden not to touch a wasp on the window-pane, had gone further than C. by suggesting that it might sting the glass. Everything seems to live and to feel in the child’s first fancy-created world.”[[321]]
Towards the end of the year, it appears, C. developed considerable smartness in logical fencings with his mother and others, warding off unpleasant prohibitions by a specious display of argument. For example, when told that something he wanted would make him poorly, he rejoined: ‘I am poorly,’ evidently thinking that he had convicted his estimable parent of what logicians call irrelevant conclusion.