part19-第8部分

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！



letter　which　I　had　occasion　to　write　to　Mr。　Crofts　（who　sent　you；　I

believe；　as　well　as　myself；　a　copy　of　his　treatise　on　the　English　and

German　languages；　as　preliminary　to　an　Etymological　dictionary　he

meditated）　I　went　into　explanations　with　him　of　an　easy　process　for

simplifying　the　study　of　the　Anglo…Saxon；　and　lessening　the　terrors；

and　difficulties　presented　by　it's　rude　Alphabet；　and　unformed

orthography。　　But　this　is　a　subject　beyond　the　bounds　of　a　letter；　as

it　was　beyond　the　bounds　of　a　Report　to　the　legislature。　　Mr。　Crofts

died；　I　believe；　before　any　progress　was　made　in　the　work　he　had

projected。




　　　　　　　　The　reviewer　expresses　doubt；　rather　than　decision；　on　our

placing　Military　and　Naval　architecture　in　the　department　of　Pure

Mathematics。　　Military　architecture　embraces　fortification　and　field

works；　which　with　their　bastions；　curtains；　hornworks；　redoubts　etc。

are　based　on　a　technical　combination　of　lines　and　angles。　　These　are

adapted　to　offence　and　defence；　with　and　against　the　effects　of

bombs；　balls；　escalades　etc。　　But　lines　and　angles　make　the　sum　of

elementary　geometry；　a　branch　of　Pure　Mathematics：　and　the　direction

of　the　bombs；　balls；　and　other　projectiles；　the　necessary　appendages

of　military　works；　altho'　no　part　of　their　architecture；　belong　to

the　conic　sections；　a　branch　of　transcendental　geometry。　　Diderot　and

Dalembert　therefore；　in　their　Arbor　scientiae；　have　placed　military

architecture　in　the　department　of　elementary　geometry。　　Naval

architecture　teaches　the　best　form　and　construction　of　vessels；　for

which　best　form　it　has　recourse　to　the　question　of　the　Solid　of　least

resistance；　a　problem　of　transcendental　geometry。　　And　it's

appurtenant　projectiles　belong　to　the　same　branch；　as　in　the

preceding　case。　　It　is　true　that　so　far　as　respects　the　action　of　the

water　on　the　rudder　and　oars；　and　of　the　wind　on　the　sails；　it　may　be

placed　in　the　department　of　mechanics；　as　Diderot　and　Dalambert　have

done：　but　belonging　quite　as　much　to　geometry；　and　allied　in　it's

military　character；　to　military　architecture；　it　simplified　our　plan

to　place　both　under　the　same　head。　　These　views　are　so　obvious　that　I

am　sure　they　would　have　required　but　a　second　thought　to　reconcile

the　reviewer　to　their　_location_　under　the　head　of　Pure　Mathematics。

For　this　word　_Location_；　see　Bailey；　Johnson；　Sheridan；　Walker　etc。

But　if　Dictionaries　are　to　be　the　Arbiters　of　language；　in　which　of

them　shall　we　find　_neologism_。　　No　matter。　　It　is　a　good　word；　well

sounding；　obvious；　and　expresses　an　idea　which　would　otherwise

require　circumlocution。　　The　Reviewer　was　justifiable　therefore　in

using　it；　altho'　he　noted　at　the　same　time；　as　unauthoritative；

_centrality_；　_grade_；　_sparse_；　all　which　have　been　long　used　in

common　speech　and　writing。　　I　am　a　friend　to　_neology_。　　It　is　the

only　way　to　give　to　a　language　copiousness　and　euphony。　　Without　it

we　should　still　be　held　to　the　vocabulary　of　Alfred　or　of　Ulphilas；

and　held　to　their　state　of　science　also：　for　I　am　sure　they　had　no

words　which　could　have　conveyed　the　ideas　of　Oxigen；　cotyledons；

zoophytes；　magnetism；　electricity；　hyaline；　and　thousands　of　others

expressing　ideas　not　then　existing；　nor　of　possible　communication　in

the　state　of　their　language。　　What　a　language　has　the　French　become

since　the　date　of　their　revolution；　by　the　free　introduction　of　new

words！　　The　most　copious　and　eloquent　in　the　living　world；　and　equal

to　the　Greek；　had　not　that　been　regularly　modifiable　almost　ad

infinitum。　　Their　rule　was　that　whenever　their　language　furnished　or

adopted　a　root；　all　it's　branches；　in　every　part　of　speech　were

legitimated　by　giving　them　their　appropriate　terminations。

｛adelphos｝　＇〃brother〃＇；　｛adelphe｝　＇〃sister〃＇；　｛adelphidion｝　＇〃little

brother〃＇；　｛adelphotes｝　＇〃brotherly　affection〃＇；　｛adelphixis｝

＇〃brotherhood〃＇；　｛adelphidoys｝　＇〃nephew〃＇；　｛adelphikos｝　＇〃brotherly；〃

adj。＇；　｛adelphizo｝　＇〃to　adopt　as　a　brother〃＇；　｛adelphikos｝

＇〃brotherly；〃　adv。＇。　　And　this　should　be　the　law　of　every　language。

Thus；　having　adopted　the　adjective　_fraternal_；　it　is　a　root；　which

should　legitimate　fraternity；　fraternation；　fraternisation；

fraternism；　to　fraternate；　fraternise；　fraternally。　　And　give　the

word　neologism　to　our　language；　as　a　root；　and　it　should　give　us　it's

fellow　substantives；　neology；　neologist；　neologisation；　it's

adjectives　neologous；　neological；　neologistical；　it's　verb　neologise；

and　adverb　neologically。　　Dictionaries　are　but　the　depositories　of

words　already　legitimated　by　usage。　　Society　is　the　work…shop　in

which　new　ones　are　elaborated。　　When　an　individual　uses　a　new　word；

if　illformed　it　is　rejected　in　society；　if　wellformed；　adopted；　and；

after　due　time；　laid　up　in　the　depository　of　dictionaries。　　And　if；

in　this　process　of　sound　neologisation；　our　transatlantic　brethren

shall　not　choose　to　accompany　us；　we　may　furnish；　after　the　Ionians；

a　second　example　of　a　colonial　dialect　improving　on　it's　primitive。




　　　　　　　　But　enough　of　criticism：　let　me　turn　to　your　puzzling　letter　of

May　12。　on　matter；　spirit；　motion　etc。　　It's　croud　of　scepticisms

kept　me　from　sleep。　　I　read　it；　and　laid　it　down：　read　it；　and　laid

it　down；　again　and　again：　and　to　give　rest　to　my　mind；　I　was　obliged

to　recur　ultimately　to　my　habitual　anodyne；　‘I　feel：　therefore　I

exist。'　I　feel　bodies　which　are　not　myself：　there　are　other

existencies　then。　　I　call　them　_matter_。　　I　feel　them　changing　place。

This　gives　me　_motion_。　　Where　there　is　an　absence　of　matter；　I　call

it　_void_；　or　_nothing_；　or　_immaterial　space_。　　On　the　basis　of

sensation；　of　matter　and　motion；　we　may　erect　the　fabric　of　all　the

certainties　we　can　have　or　need。　　I　can　concieve　_thought_　to　be　an

action　of　a　particular　organisation　of　matter；　formed　for　that

purpose　by　it's　creator；　as　well　as　that　_attraction_　in　an　action　of

matter；　or　_magnetism_　of　loadstone。　　When　he　who　denies　to　the

Creator　the　power　of　endowing　matter　with　the　mode　of　action　called

_thinking_　shall　shew　how　he　could　endow　the　Sun　with　the　mode　of

action　called　_attraction_；　which　reins　the　planets　in　the　tract　of

their　orbits；　or　how　an　absence　of　matter　can　have　a　will；　and；　by

that　will；　put　matter　into　motion；　then　the　materialist　may　be

lawfully　required　to　explain　the　process　by　which　matter　exercises

the　faculty　of　thinking。　　When　once　we　quit　the　basis　of　sensation；

all　is　in　the　wind。　　To　talk　of　_immaterial_　existences　is　to　talk　of

_nothings_。　　To　say　that　the　human　soul；　angels；　god；　are　immaterial；

is　to　say　they　are　_nothings_；　or　that　there　is　no　god；　no　angels；　no

soul。　　I　cannot　reason　otherwise：　but　I　believe　I　am　supported　in　my

creed　of　materialism　by　Locke；　Tracy；　and　Stewart。　　At　what　age　of

the　Christian　church　this　heresy　of　_immaterialism_；　this　masked

atheism；　crept　in；　I　do　not　know。　　But　a　heresy　it　certainly　is。

Jesus　taught　nothing　of　it。　　He　told　us　indeed　that　‘God　is　a

spirit；'　but　he　has　not　defined　what　a　spirit　is；　nor　said　that　it　is

not　_matter_。　　And　the　antient　fathers　generally；　if　not　universally；

held　it　to　be　matter：　light　and　thin　indeed；　an　etherial　gas；　but

still　matter。　　Origen　says　‘Deus　reapse　corporalis　est；　sed　graviorum

tantum　corporum　ratione；　incorporeus。'　Tertullian　‘quid　enim　deus

nisi　corpus？'　and　again　‘quis　negabit　deumesse　corpus？　　Etsi　deus

spiritus；　spiritus　etiam　corpus　est；　sui　generis；　in　sua　effigie。'

St。　Justin　Martyr　‘｛to　Theion　phamen　einai　asomaton　oyk　oti　asomaton

　epeide　de　to　me　krateisthai　ypo　tinos；　toy　krateisthai　timioteron

esti；　dia　toyto　kaloymen　ayton　asomaton。｝'　And　St。　Macarius；　speaking

of　angels　says　‘quamvis　enim　subtilia　sint；　tamen　in　substantia；

forma　et　figura；　secundum　tenuitatem　naturae　eorum；　corpora　sunt

tenuia。'　And　St。　Austin；　St。　Basil；　Lactantius；　Tatian；　Athenagoras

and　others；　with　whose　writings　I　pretend　not　a　familiarity；　are　said

by　those　who　are；　to　deliver　the　same　doctrine。　　Turn　to　your　Ocellus

d'Argens　97。　105。　and　to　his　Timaeus　17。　for　these　quotations。　　In

England　these　Immaterialists　might　have　been　burnt　until　the　29。　Car。

2。　when　the　writ　de　haeretico　comburendo　was　abolished：　and　here

until　the　revolution；　that　statute　not　having　extended　to　us。　　All

heresies　being　now　done　away　with　us；　these　schismatists　are　merely

atheists；　differing　from　the　material　Atheist　only　in　their　belief

that　‘nothing　made　something；'　and　from　the　material　deist　who

believes　that　matter　alone　can　operate　on　matter。




　　　　　　　　Rejecting　all　organs　of　information　therefore　but　my　senses；　I

rid　myself　of　the　Pyrrhonisms　with　which　an　indulgence　in

speculations　hyperphysical　and　antiphysical　so　uselessly　occupy　and

disquiet　the　mind。　　A　single　sense　may　indeed　be　sometimes　decieved；

but　rarely：　and　never　all　our　senses　together；　with　their　faculty　of

reasoning。　　They　evidence　realities；　and　there　are　enough　of　these

for　all　the　purposes　of　life；　without　plunging　into　the　fathomless

abyss　of　dreams　and　phantasms。　　I　am　satisfied；　and　sufficiently

occupied　with　the　things　which　are；　without　tormenting　or　troubling

myself　about　those　which　may　indeed　be；　but　of　which　I　have　no

evidence。　　I　am　sure　that　I　really　know　many；　many；　things；　and　none

more　surely　than　that　I　love　you　with　all　my　heart；　and　pray　for　the

continuance　of　your　life　until　you　shall　be　tired　of　it　yourself。







　　　　　　　　JUDICIAL　SUBVERSION




　　　　　　　　_To　Thomas　Ritchie_

　　　　　　　　_Monticello；　December　25；　1820_




　　　　　　　　DEAR　SIR；　　On　my　return　home　after　a　long　absence；　I　find

here　your　favor　of　November　the　23d；　with　Colonel　Taylor's

〃Construction　Construed；〃　which　you　have　been　so　kind　as　to　send　me；

in　the　name　of　the　author　as　well　as　yourself。　　Permit　me；　if　you

please；　to　use　the　same　channel　for　conveying　to　him　the　thanks　I

render　you　also　for　this　mark　of　attention。　　I　shall　read　it；　I　know；

with　edification；　as　I　did　his　Inquiry；　to　w