Ex Libris 
 C. K. OGDEN 
 
 '*\ 
 
 i !■: . •,,':;^ 
 
 V.:»':?t 
 

 
 #v: 
 
 
 f'tk^m 
 
 ^bTC 
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 LOS ANGELES 
 
 
 ■*>)jr»,
 
 / L 
 
 f^^'-"
 
 A 
 
 DISSERTATIO 
 
 O N T H E 
 
 INFLUENCE OF OPINIONS ON LANGUAGE 
 
 AND OF 
 
 LANGUAGE ON OPINIONS, 
 
 WHICH GAINED THE 
 
 Prus SI AN Royal Academy's Prize on that Subject. 
 
 CONTAINING 
 
 Many Curious Particulars in Philology, Natural Hiftory, and 
 the Scriptural Phrafeology. 
 
 TOGETHER WITH 
 
 AN ENQ^UIRY 
 
 INTO THE 
 
 Advantages and Pradicability of an Universal Learned Language. 
 
 By Mr. M I C H A E L I S, 
 
 Court-Counfellor to His Britannic Majefty, and Diredlor of the Royal 
 
 Society at Gottingen. 
 
 THE SECOND EDITION, 
 
 LONDON, 
 
 Printed for W. Owen, in Fleet-Street; J. Johnson, in St. Paul's Church- 
 Yard; and W. Bin G LEY, in Newgate-Street, 
 MDCCLXXI. 
 [Price Five Shillings.]
 
 .. p 
 
 -^- 
 
 T O THE 1^^ J 
 
 Heads of Colleges, Mailers of Academies, 
 and other Seminaries of Learning : 
 
 GENTLEMEN, 
 
 ^ I ^ H E propriety of dedicating this piece to you, as the 
 
 -*- beft judges of its contents, and whofe more immedi- 
 ate province it is to remove fuch miftakes and abufes intimated 
 therein as fublifl: among us, will excufe the liberty of this 
 dedication. 
 
 Wifliing the mofl: defirable fuccefs to your endeavours, as 
 very nearly connefted with the improvement of the human 
 mind, and the public good, I remain with great refpe6l, 
 
 Gentlemen, 
 
 Vour moft humble Servant, 
 THE TRANSLATOR. 
 
 1G6215?
 
 T H E 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 'T^ H E difcourfc, of which the following fheets are a tran- 
 slation, was crowned by the Royal Academy of Berlin 
 in 1759, and we flatter ourfelves that it will be the more 
 acceptable to the public, as in the colledion of the pieces 
 which concurred for the prize, this, contrary to cuftom, 
 has appeared only in the German tongue. But what chiefly 
 determined us is, on one hand, the importance of the fubjed:, 
 as concerning philofophers of all times and all nations ; and 
 on the other, that mafterly flrength with which this fubjed 
 is here handled byone of the mofl: celebrated fcholars in Ger- 
 many ; fo that, with all the inferiority of a tranflation, and 
 from fo great an original, we hope the good office herein 
 intended to foreigners, will meet with a kind acceptance. 
 
 Judicious readers, in a work of this kind, feek fruits 
 more than blofibms ; accordingly the tranflator endeavoured 
 
 A 2 only
 
 [ i- ] 
 
 only to be clear and exadl. M. Mkhaelh himfelt has conde- 
 fcended to revife a manufcript of the tranflation ; and what 
 gives this edition a great advantage over the German 
 is, his having enriched it with very confiderable fupple- 
 ments ; among which the Literati will with pleafure fee an 
 excellent differtation on the projeft of an univerfal lan- 
 guage *. 
 
 * The authors of the Bibliotheque des Beaux Jrts, in their account of Mr. 
 Mtchaelis's Differtation, give the following Ihort hiftory of this fcheme, which 
 has fo exercifed fome philofophic geniufes. 
 
 We firft find that Defcartes^ being confulted by father Merfenne concerning 
 the plan of an univerfal language, of which an anonymous Frenchman had 
 given a fketch, that great philofopher indeed difapproved its extent : it appeared 
 to him in fome refpefts chimerical -, bui, on the other hand, he allowed of the 
 poffibility of the thing itfelf; and, what is more, took the trouble of com- 
 mitting to. paper what he thought of it, and the befl- method for executing it. 
 Cartes epift. part i. epift. iii. That method Kircher afcefv/ards endeavoured 
 to carry into execution, in a book publifhed by him at Rome, 1 6Cs-> under the 
 title of Ars Polygraphjca, fol. See Morhof. Pclyhift. lib. iv. cap. ii. torn. i. 
 p. 729. but with that little fuccefs, which Dcfccries had prognofticated to the 
 French author : Exijlimo pojftbilcm ejfe banc linguam, tJ" reperiri pojfe fctentiam 
 ep.m ex qua ilh pendet, cujus c'erte benefido ruftkits quifpiam de rentm veritate pojfet 
 melius judicare quam jam philcfophus aliqiiis. Scd .ne fperes te unajtam-VTJ't.rum 
 illam in ufiim, U tarn magnas in orhe mutationes fupponit, ejjetque necejje totum 
 orhem in terrejlrem paradifum- converli , 'quod fane in fahulis t ant urn locum habeat,. 
 Cartes, ibid. 
 
 Before
 
 [ V ] 
 
 Before Kircher, and perhaps before any others we fnall fpcak of, Beccherus 
 had undertaken to form a charadieriftic, and publifhed his plan at Francfort in 
 1 66 1, with this title, CharaBer pro Notiiia Linguarum Univerfalis, &c. and ot 
 which a new edition appears to have come out at the fame place in 1668. 
 
 A native of Scotland, who kept a private grammar-fchool at Oxford, had 
 alfo written on the fame fubjcft in the year 1661 : his name was Cecrge Dal- 
 garno, or Dalgarne : he printed at London, in oflavo, Jrs fignonim^ vulgo cha- 
 ra£ier tniiverfalis (3' lingua philofophica, qua foterunt homines diverfijfmorum idia- 
 matum fpatio duarum feptimanarum omnia animi fui finfa, ncn minus intelligibiliter, 
 five fcribendo, five loquendo, mutuo communicare quam Unguis propriis vernaculis, 
 &c. This work was, by the learned^ judged to abound with erudition and 
 pedantry. 
 
 JVood imagined that Dalgerno had communicated the manufcript of it to Dr. 
 JFilkins, afterwards bifliop of Chefter, and that from it, the bifhop conceived 
 his firft idea of that arduous fubjeft, on which in 1668 he publiilicd his famous 
 book, entitled An ejfay toisjards a real charaEier, and a philofophical language {a) : 
 an extraft of which book is to be found in the philofophical tranfaftions. No. 35. 
 But as the learned authors of the new Di^iionaire hifloriqne iS critique, have 
 very well obferved on Art. Wilkins. It is evident from another bock of the bi- 
 Ibops, which he publiflied at London 1641, with the title of Mercury, cr the fecret 
 and fpeedy mejfenger : Jhewing a fafe and fpeedy manner of communicating one^s 
 thoughts to a diflant friend. It is, we fay, inconteftable, that this learned perfon 
 had meditated and drawn the plan of an univerfal character, at leaft twenty years 
 before Delgarnd's book faw the light. Dr. JVUkins's book was received with 
 great app],aufe by feme of the learned : Mr. Hock, among others, recommended 
 it as the beft plan that could be conceived. 
 
 (a) Wood, Alien- Oxon. vol. ii. col. 5, 7.. 
 
 But
 
 [ vi ] 
 
 But w€ learn from M. Fontenelle\ fine eulogium 'on Leibnitz. Hift. de 
 I' Acad, des Set. iyi6. pag. 148. edit. Amft. that this great man was of 
 another opinion. According to him, neither Wilkins nor Delgarno had hit on 
 the true real chara^ers, which he efteemed the nobleft inftrument ever offered to 
 the human mind, and which, faid he, muft exceedingly facilitate both reafon* 
 ing, memory, and invention. 
 
 Leibnitz was unalterably perfuadcd, that thefe charafters muft be like thofe 
 made ufe of in algebra. He faid, that he was bufied about an alphabet of human 
 thoughts, as introduftory to a philofophic language ; but death prevented his 
 carrying that projeft into full execution. However, among the papers of that 
 oreat man, were found a Latin treatife on that fubjeft, and feveral pieces rela- 
 ting to it •, which a learned Hanoverian gives us to hope will be publifhed. 
 
 M. Fontenelle did not hold this fcheme to be in any^wife chimerical : " The 
 " difficulty, faid he, is not to invent the moft fimple, the moft eafy, and the 
 " moft convenient charaflers ; but to prevail with the feveral nations to make 
 " ufe of them. Unfortunately, they agree in nothing but in not being fenfible 
 " of their common interefts." 
 
 We muft wait for what M. de Premontval will offer to the public on this head. 
 The repetition of fchemes, may perhaps bring to light a charafleriftic of eafier 
 execution, than any which have hitherto been propofed : till then, M. MchaeUs'& 
 arQ;uments muft hold good. 
 
 THE
 
 THE 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 T Take the liberty to divide the academy's problem ; as to me 
 feems mojl proper for unfoldi7tg and folvi7tg it. 
 
 I pall jlrfi /peak to the influence of the opinions of a people 
 on the language ; and the academy itfelf having judged this 
 fart of the queftion to he the rrixsr e, nufy.y I fhall only fupport aii 
 inconteflable propofltion^ with fome inflames which ferve for its 
 farther illuflration. This propofltion will likewife receive an 
 additional light from obfervations \ which, to avoid repetitiojts, 
 I refer to the following fe8fio72s. In the fecond part, I fljall 
 treat of the beneficial ififluences ; and in the third, of the noxious 
 influences of fome languages on opinions and fciences, Laflly, 
 I fhall canvafs the means of preventing one, and promoting 
 the other*
 
 ERRATA, 
 
 PAge I. 1. 4. for from origin wW from its origin, p. 4. 1. 27 for and r. him. p. iz. 1. i. dele to. 
 p. 13. note/, for febrigue r. febrifuge, p. 15. 1. 3. for habits r. habit, p. 19. 1. 11. for 
 loaded r. load. p. 21. 1. 4. for fo r. to. p. 22. 1. 23. for imports r. imparts, p. 25. 1. 31. dele fo. 
 p. 32. I. 13. dele for. p. 37. 1. 17. for younger r. early, p. 41. 1. 11. r. omnifcience too. p. 44. 1.' 
 7. for naturalifts r. naturalis. p. 46. note t.\. I. for having r. has. p. 47 1. 14. for lefler r. lefs. p. 
 49.1. 1 1, for homon; my r. homonimy. p. 49. 1. 14. tor uucAtcpicd ?. unexpefted. p. 51. 1.2. for 
 certain, r. certainly, p. 51. 1. 3. for it is ;-. is it. p. 52. 1. 2. for comatentiona, r. colleftion. p. 56. 
 note /f. for celo, r. cielo. p. 68. 1. 7. for bear r. bears, p. 73. 1. 11. r. language, p. 75. 1. 
 4. for influence r. influences.
 
 DISSERTATION 
 
 O N T H E 
 
 Influence of Opinions, &c. 
 
 SECTION I. 
 
 The influence of a people s opinions on the languages. 
 
 AL L objedls prefent themfelves to our mind under a certain ap- 
 pearance, and by this appearance it is, that the names we give 
 them and our defcriptions of them are ever regulated. Nothing 
 is more evident j fuppofe that every people had from origin been accuf- 
 tomed to a particular fyflem of botany ; undoubtedly, the vegetables 
 comprehended, among thefe different people, under the fame generical ap- 
 pellation would not be the lame. Though, there be not, between langua- 
 ges, a diftindion fo learned and fo fyflematical ; ftill this iidion reprefents 
 to us at large and more manifeftly, what muft happen in various parti- 
 culars, among nations of a different way of thinking. There is no lan- 
 guage, the origin of which is not, by many centuries, prior to that of the 
 fyftems of botany which we are now acquainted with ; likev^'ife there 
 are none in which may not be obferved traces of the infancy of botany, 
 of that rude and uncultivated knowledge of vegetables, which was the 
 utmoft attainment of the early ages : befides thofe of a vifible refemblance, 
 
 B they
 
 r 2 ] 
 
 they often comprehended under the fame denommation thofe which were 
 employed for the like ufes, whatever might be their other differences. 
 This method was likewife that of the moll antient profeiTed botanifts ; 
 they divided, the clafTes of plants according to the refpedtive benefits 
 reaped from them. All this was no more than natural. The firft motive 
 for human attention fixing itfelf on the produ(5ts of nature is their ufe, 
 this is the charadler which, as it moft concerns us, ftrikes us previoufly 
 and beyond all others. 
 
 All opinions are not received into the language ; in that, neither the 
 (cholars authority nor his demonflrations are regard d, however intimately 
 he himfelf may be convinced of the truth of his do£lrines. He may make 
 a clamour about the juflnefs of exprefTions, he may proteft agahift vulgar 
 errors; no body minds him. In fliort, language is a democracy where ufe 
 or cuftom is decided by the majority ; and Horace has pronounced that in 
 languages cuftom is the fupreme law. For inftance, fhould a ftickler for 
 Copernicus and the true fyftem of the world, carry his zeal fo far as to fay 
 the city of Berlin fets at fuch andfuch an hour, inftciid of making ufe of the 
 common exprelTion, the Jim Jets at Berlin atjiicb an hour, he fpeaks the truth 
 to be fure ; but his manner of fpeaking it is pedantry. There is only one 
 particular wherein the empire of language feems to differ from democracy ; 
 that often the commonalty take their rule of fpeech from perlbns of educa- 
 tion, but is not the like feen in all democratical flates ? Is it not a frequent 
 cafe for a citizen confcious of liis ignorance gladly to defer to the opinion 
 of one whom he conceives to have more knowledge and underftanding ? 
 We need not therefore depart from a comparifon which fo well reprefents, 
 what it is intended to reprefent. 
 
 It is from the opinions of the people and the point of view, in which 
 objcfts appear to them, that language receives its form. As literature and 
 politenefs gain ground in a nation, and according to the duration of their 
 reign, they extend their influences in the language, the commonality in 
 fuch times, acquiring the knowledge of feveral exprefTion? invented by the 
 learned, as on the other hand, the latter not feldom adopt popular ex- 
 prefTions. If it be confidered that Greece, and efpecially the city of x^thens, 
 were eminently poflefTed of this advantage, the greatprerogatives of theGreek 
 
 language
 
 [ 3 ] 
 
 language will no longer be wondered at. To this influence philofophy and 
 the feveral branches of literature principally contribute, efpecially whe!\ 
 from the duft of the fludy, they pafs into the mouths both of the profane and 
 facred orator, or thofe pretty mouths, which the graces feem to animate, 
 and whofe every word meets v.'ith ecchos, delighting to repeat it. How 
 many new words has not the Wolfian philofophy introduced into our 
 language, and how many words has it not Ib-ipped of their former import ? 
 But all this is nothing in comparifon of the confequences, when poets of 
 celebrity carry philofophy to the fummit of ParnalTus, and embelliih it 
 with the charms of the mufes. Being efteemed claffical authors, every 
 body is eager to read t^em, all their innovations are acquiefced to, their 
 very fliults, in company with fo many beauties, are admired, and 
 have their imitators. Now, only let a knot of perfons of wit make 
 ufe of thefe new expreflions as approving them, this alone brings them 
 into repute j the very commonality affed; them ; they fpread into unlverfal 
 
 vogue. 
 
 Not that I pretend to deny, but that one fingle man, and who, far from 
 a claflical author, is, as I may fay, only a private individual in the empire of 
 language, may happen to ^rikeoutan exprelTion which, with the ideas re- 
 lative to it, fhall be admitted into a language. For inftance, a witty fay- 
 ing comes from one, it plcafes the hearers, it is thought juft and pretty, or 
 fine, or flrong, many repeat it, it even meets with plagiaries who father 
 it, thus it runs from mouth to mouth, till it grows into a kind of pro- 
 verb. Thus it is that thoufands of men become contributors to that immenfe 
 heap of truths and errors, of which the languages of nations are the re- 
 pofitories ; but what every particular individual furniilies is little or no- 
 thing : moft hazarded expreffions do not take ; they are like bloflbms of 
 which the greater part drop from the trees and come to nothing : and 
 even if a new term does take, it does not neceflarily follow that it annihi- 
 lates the former: the language, poffibly, retains both. The right of 
 creating as we have faid before, properly belongs only to clafiic authors, 
 the fair fex, and the people, who are indeed the fupreme legiflators. 
 Thefe are the propofitions, which I am now to prove by inftances. 
 
 B 2 The
 
 The Greek name of the deity {a) is derived from a verb, which fignifies, 
 to run, to wove one's felf, and many hold that this name was originally ap- 
 propriated to the ftars, as the deities which were worfliipped at the time 
 of the formation of the language, and from thence their name came to 
 be that of the deity. 
 
 Reafon, in expL^ining the origin of the world, requires only one God, 
 but fuperftition has ftrangely multiphed the number, and this has afteded 
 the languages, particularly in the Latin, it has left very ftrongly marked 
 traces. The Latin word for God may be faid to be only plural ; as for 
 Deus in the fingular number, its meaning does not correfpond with the 
 word Dieu in French, or Gott in German. Whenever we hear thefe 
 words, we immediately think on the only one God, and we make ufe of 
 them as a proper name, without any article ; whereas ihtDeiis of the Latins 
 denotes one God amongfl fevcral, and fliould be rendered in French le 
 Dieu, the God, when this God is charaderized by what goes before; and 
 when not, undes Dieux, one of the Gods, or fimply, im Dieu, a God. This 
 admits of fome exceptions, but I fpeak of what is mofi: ufual. 
 
 It may even be faid that the Greeks, no lefs than the Latins, are with- 
 out a term to exprefs the idea which we form to ourfelves of God, I mean 
 that of a fupreme, independant, infinitely perfed Being, who has created 
 the world. The Gods of the Romans, and the Demons of the Greeks, 
 were only fpirits fuperior to man by their power and the excellence of their 
 nature ; they were nothing more than thofe whom the church has ftiled 
 angels {b), their origin was quite as contingent, and their effence not lefs 
 limitted ; like them they were only minifters and vicars of the true God. 
 Of this God fome philofophers feemed to have had a remote viev/, and to 
 have difcerned and as it were through a veil ; their moft laboured de- 
 finitions of him were extremely vague, inadequate and imperfed. What 
 if they fometimes give him the epithets of fovereign, of mafter of the Gods, 
 oi fupreme God, what if they call him the thujider hurling God, the God 
 tvho drives his thundering car along the clouds, 6cc. Thele defcriptions 
 
 (rt) 0£6?. 
 
 [b) Of what the Englifli call Superior beings. 
 
 were
 
 C 5 ] 
 
 were verv far from being in their language fo determinnte, as the word 
 denoting the Deity is in ours ; they might indeed imply the notion of an 
 intelHgence of the firft order, but finite and dependent. So that thele 
 languages had, in reality, the fault attributed to the Chinefe, and it is 
 v/ith lefs reafon that the latter is faid to have no name for the Deity, 
 as having no other than that of Sky. It is to the Chriftian religion that we 
 are beholden for a word which exprefles, v.'ithout any confufion or ambi- 
 guity, the philofophical idea of an infinite fubftance, Creator of the uni- 
 verfe, and which diftinguifhes that fubftance from all intermediate fpirits 
 and angels, even in churches, where thofe fpirits have a worfliip of adoration 
 paid to them. 
 
 The opiiiions of the Jews produced in the Greek language, which was 
 fpoken at Alexandria, and elfewhere among that nation, a quite contrary 
 eff'ed. The Greeks often gave to their Gods the names of Demon and 
 Detnonion, and thefe Gods the Jews took to be angels ; but imagining the 
 pagan deities to be fenfitive and taking delight in the worfliip paid to 
 them, they necefiarily could take them only for rebel angels and fuch as 
 were fallen from their exalted origin. And that this was the real idea they 
 entertained of fuch fpirits is well known, and farther that they had 
 tranfmitted it not only to the Chriftians but even the Arabs : in a word, 
 the moft manifeft imprefs of it appears in their language : in the Greek 
 of the Jews, I mean the Greek bible, the word demonion fignifies a 
 devil. 
 
 Every language, before it has gone through philofophic hands, muft of 
 necefilty be wanting in proper terms for denoting fuch objefts which do 
 not come within the verge of the fenfes, and efpecially metaphifical ideas. 
 Thus Ludolph informs us, that the Ethiopians, having but one word for 
 nature and perjon, could notdiftinguifli thofe two things in the controverfy 
 concerning Chrift's two natures. 
 
 On the other hand, when a language has followed philofophy through 
 its feveral revolutions, there will be fome change in the meaning and im- 
 port of its philofophic terms. To moft Germans the word ejjence or be- 
 ing (c^, carries with it an idea agreeable to the Wolfian definition, an idea 
 
 ('<■) Wefcn. 
 
 however.
 
 [ 6 ] 
 
 however, very different from that which divines annexed to it, long before 
 Leibnitz was fo much as born, when they faid that the ejjhiceof God is one. 
 I make no doubt that many ftill give a modern fenfe to that propofition, 
 as couched in our old language ; and then they certainly will find nothing 
 myfterious in the dodtrine of the trinity. They will conceive the divine 
 elTence common to three perfons jufl as eafily as they conceive the human 
 elTence common to millions of perfons. Formerly ejfence lignified what 
 at prefent is meant by exijlence or reality, and Luther, without the leaft 
 ambiguity might render the i ith verfe of the 4th chapterof the Revelations, 
 Durch deiiien Willen habenfie das Wefen, i. e. of thy will they hold their 
 effence ; but philofophy having introduced fome change into the language, 
 this paffage became obfcure, that a commentary was wanting to it, and 
 one of our divines, Mr. Reinbeek, who had the courage to explain Luther 
 in a rational manner, met with an adverfary, who denied the eternity of 
 philofophic elfences, maintaining that thofe very eflences were produced 
 by God and depended on his will. 
 
 The name by which the Germans call the leprofy is taken from the ex- 
 ternal figure as it appears to our eyes (d). All over the Eaft, where this 
 diftemper is almoft incurable it was looked on as a puniihment of God's 
 own immediate inflidling. From holy fcripture we know that this was 
 the opinion of the Jews, and according to Herodotus, it was the belief of 
 the Perfians, that the leprofy came no other way than as a punifliment for 
 having offended the fun. From hence it is that the moft ufual word for 
 the leprofy, among the Hebrews, properly fignifies a 7?rc/^^ 0/- /^t/Z) with a 
 whip (e). 
 
 (d) The German name for the leprofy is auffatzor excrefcence, which may fignify the for- 
 mation of fcales on the fkin. 
 
 (e) In Arabic, ^r** (Tfari) is a ivhip or /courge, and gf*^ (Tfaraa) to whip or fcourge. 
 The pafTage of Herodotus is as follows. If any of the citizens have a leprofy or fcrofulous 
 difeafe he is not permitted to (lay within the city, nor to converfe with other perfons ; hav- 
 ing as they believed drawn this puniihment upon himfelf by committing fome ofTcncc 
 again ft the fun, and if ftrangers are infefled with thofe diflempcrs they are immediately ex- 
 pelled the country, and, from motives of the fame kind, white pigeons are not fufFered to be 
 kept. 
 
 The
 
 [ 7 ] 
 
 The Greek word for s./oul Wktw'ik fignifics a butterfly {/). The Greeks 
 had obferved the metamorphofis which the catterpiller goes through, and 
 feveral among them, who beUeved the immortality of fouls, imagined that, 
 at death, they only quitted their nympha to be inverted with a divine nature. 
 For this reafon it was that they made the butterfly the hieroglyphic for 
 reprefenting the foul, and at length conferred on that infesS the very name 
 of the foul. 
 
 The Babylonians had a notion, that a grub fg) or kind of wafp went 
 from the fruit of the male palm-tree into the date of the female palm-tree, 
 and impregnated it f/jj. Whatever may have been in this opinion, it had 
 an influence on the Arabian language, between which and the Chaldean 
 fpoken at Babylon, there \vas only a dialeftical diflFerence. The Arabians 
 denoted the bloflbm of the male palm-tree fi'J by a name which, lite- 
 rally tranflated, lignifles the palm-tree Jiies (k) ; and the Perfians, to de- 
 fcribe the fecundation of the female palm-tree by the male palm-tree, 
 make ufe of the expreflion to apply the files (I). 
 
 Here is another very rpmatkablc j^a/Tagc, but the placing it in its full 
 light indifpenfibly leads me into a grammatical fubtilty. The Orientals, 
 by whom I mean thofe feveral people whofe languages were derived from 
 one common fource, as the Arabs, the Syrians, the Chaldeans, and the 
 Hebrews : the Orientals, I fay, feem, from time immemorial, to have 
 been acquainted with the fexes of plants, which, in our northern coun- 
 
 (f) ^-^x-i 
 
 (g) ^w- Vermiculus in caprificis nafcens. 
 
 (h) The palm-tree grows naturally all over the plain of Babylon, and the greater part 
 bear fruit, of which they make bread, wine, and honey. This tree is cultivated as the fig- 
 tree, tying the fruit of that which the Grecians call the male palm about thefe trees which 
 bear dates, to the end that a gnat may enter and ripen the fruit ; for the fruit of the male 
 palm, like that of the wild fig-tree, produces a gnat. Herodotus, 1. i. 
 
 {/) Spatha mafculina. 
 
 (/^) Anbaar Elnachi. v. Kaempferi Amcenitates exot 8. p. 696. 
 
 (/) Ambaar dadan. ib. p. 70S, it muft be noticed that Kaempfer, being unacquainted with 
 that opinion, tranflates this otherwifej but though his meaning of the word Ambder be ufed 
 in the Perfian language, it is not in the Arabic. 
 
 ^ tries.
 
 [ s ] 
 
 tries, is a difcovery of no later date than the prefent age; and this is not 
 to be wondered at, they had every where before them the pahn-tree, in 
 which the two fexes are manifeft beyond difpute : and it was juft as na- 
 tural to conclude from that tree to other vegetables, as to conclude from 
 animals in Vv-hom the difference of fex is vifible, to thofe in whom it is, 
 as it were latent. The more the male palm-tree refembles the female 
 palm-tree before the fruit ripens, the flronger mud the prefumption have 
 been of a difference of fexes in thofe vegetables where the organs of ge- 
 neration are not obvious to the fight; but the mind of man which delights 
 in analogies, and is- for carting all nature in the fame mould, refines on 
 every thing, and fpoils truths by overtraining them. The Orientals thought 
 every thing had its duplicate. God, fays Mahomet, has created ?iothing 
 which is 7iot male and female : this ■ holds good in all the produBions of the 
 earth, it holds good of fouls, and even of things where you little apprehend 
 any fiich thing (m). With fuch a turn of mind, may not they have ima- . 
 gined thofe parts of our bodies, of which we have two, to be male and 
 female, and this opinion actually otcm a lia tke Arabic, Syriac, and He- 
 brew languages ; and thefe languages may be faid equally to favour both 
 fexes. To the double members they give a mafculine termination and a 
 feminine conftrudlion (n) ; and in a paffage of the fecond book of Chro- 
 nicles, where mention is made of the cherubs two wings, the conflruc- 
 tion even alternates, being mafculine for the right wing and feminine for 
 the left (o). 
 
 On confidering that the Hebrews ufe a fimilar licence relatively to the 
 names of animals, and that often, without the leaft regard to the ani- 
 
 (;/;) Chap. XXXVI. 
 
 {n} For this 1 refer the reader to Efpenius's Arabic grammar, p. 135, to the Syriac grammar 
 of M. Michaelis, profenbr at Hull, p. 30 ; and the Hebrew grammar, by M. Michaelis, pro- 
 feflbr at Gottingen, p. 226, is a farther proof of this peculiarity. 
 
 {0) 2 Chronicles iii. 11. The following tranflation in barbarous Latin may clear up this 
 to thofe who are unacquainted with the Hebrew. 
 
 Et ala cherubi alterius exporredus erat ad parietcm tcmpli ct ala altera conjunda ala chc- 
 rub'i priori s 
 
 mal's
 
 [ 9 ] 
 
 mal's fex, they conftrue as feminine words of a mafculine tern^ination ; 
 and that this mode of conftruftion is particular to this clafs of nolins and 
 relative to the double fex of animals, their afFedlin^ for the double mem- 
 bers a fingularity fo very remote from the genius of other languages, will 
 be the lefs queftioned. 
 
 There is a kind of calcareous earth, refembling meal, of which in- 
 ventive hunger has often made ufe in times of dearth ; and by feveral 
 it has even been accounted real meal, and a donation of heavenly 
 bounty for the relief of the indigent : and this miftake has pro- 
 cured it in the German language a name which may be rendered moun- 
 tain-meal (p). This name is univerfally ufed, and the learned themfelves, 
 to be underftood, are obliged to conform to it ; thus it will in its turn 
 be a means of perpetuating the miftake from whence it took its rife, a 
 miftake by which thoufands perhaps have fuffered, and will fuffer. But 
 this laft confideration belongs to my third fedlion. 
 
 (p) Bergtnehl. M. Gefner who did me the honour of reading over this piece after the firft 
 edition of it at Berlin, informs me of an objedtion which feems well grounded. Inftead of 
 the miftake giving rife to the name, he rather thinks that the name occafions the fatal mif- 
 take. Whatever is like meal, whatever feems to have been pulverifed may in the German lan- 
 guacre be called w^W meal, as in fome parts of Germany wood reduced to duft by worms is 
 called worm-mehl. This opinion of Mr. Gefner's is farther countenanced by etymology : 
 tnehl meal being derived from inahlen to grind, confequently this inftance belongs to the 
 third feftion. 
 
 Concerning this produflion, Mr. Da Cofta in his hiftory of foffils has the following par- 
 ticulars : in England we are not deftitute of this earth, the quarries of Oxfordfhire ai^ford it. 
 and Dr. Woodward received it from the late quarries at Colly Wefton in Northamptonfhire, 
 It is very frequently found in the fiflures of ftone in the quarries about Sherbourne, in Glou- 
 cefterfhire, loofe along with the fpare. I have likewife found it greatly mixed with fpar in 
 the coal pits of Leicefterftiire and Derbyfhire. Its medical ufes are many. 
 
 In Malta it abounds and the inhabitants make it into fmall cakes, which they ftamp with 
 the figures, of faints, Specially of St. Paul, indeed they generally call it gratia di Si. Paulo, 
 
 C2 SECTION.
 
 [ lo ] 
 
 SECTION II. 
 
 Of the advmitageous i7ijluence of languages 07i opijmns. 
 
 TH E proofs of the advantageous influence of language on opinioriS 
 I reduce to a few clafles, the number of which unqueftionably 
 might be greatly augmented, but I fliall not fo much as go about an enu- 
 meration of them; the fubjed: I well know is inexhauftible. 
 
 I. There are happy etymologies, they comprehend accurate defcriptions, 
 real definitions, which clear the meanings and difperfe that kind of mift 
 in which they are fo often involved. Thefe etymologies, befides prevent- 
 ing many errors and altercations about words, make known to him whofe 
 happinefs it is to meet wltk fuok ir. u;c language, 1 fay they immediately 
 make known to him truths of v/hich, philofophers, lefs favoured by their 
 language, purchafe the attainment by laborious ftudy. 
 
 When we either pronounce or hear the word glory, we all think fome- 
 thing, and in fome meafure the fame thing. We underftand the word, 
 but as to its etymology we are totally in the dark, it conveys no more 
 inftrudion to us than if we had made ufe of an Algebraic charadler, 
 for inftance exprelTmg glory by Z. This word docs not make known 
 to us in what glory confifts, it redtifies no error, it does not undeceive 
 either the hare-brained hero, infatuated with the phantom of glory, nor 
 the faturnine moraliR; who affects a contempt of it. The very philolopher, 
 mifled by an arbitrary found which cuftom has annexed to fo inany confu- 
 fed ideas, and often to very falfe ideas, will give us fiilfe definitions. This has 
 been the cafe more than once. Glory has been confounded with thecaufe 
 produdlive of it, I mean with internal perfedlion ; it has been defined the 
 jum of all our p:rfe5liom, and, in conformity to that notion, we have been 
 taught that the glory of God does not depend on his creatures, nor the 
 glory of the wife man on what others think of him. Thefe dodrines 
 which, in the main, turn only on an ambiguity, are with many become 
 
 fc
 
 r " ] 
 
 fo facred and refpedable that their zeal would be extremely offended 
 agai "ft any who liiould take it into their heads to conteft them. If this 
 definition, however, be juft, either the philofopher from whom we 
 received it ^r our language muft be without a word for exprefling the 
 favourable opinion the world entertains of our good adions. 
 
 The GrcLk language has a great advantage in this point. The word 
 Ao^a,, which figuifies glory, is, at the fame time, a real definition of it, 
 and a definition pregnant -vith confequences. This word properly means 
 opinion, and is made ufe of to denote glory ^ as confilling in the good opi- 
 nion the vrork' his of us [q). Vj^o^niTyxi is to be in the good opinion of 
 others (r), and SlKiy.o^, is cue of whom the |ul lie has a good opinion. 
 
 Thus, the Greeks could not bat know in what glury confifts ; this 
 etymology was continually putting them in mind of it; and to imagine 
 that there could be any fcch thing as glory independantly of the high 
 opinion entertained of our talents and virtues, they muft have forgotten 
 their very mother-tongue. As for the metaphyfician, it was fcarce 
 poffible for him (r^ H^vlato fioi->-k tht cuiinuun mode of thinking, fo far as to 
 pretend, that God enjoys glory amidft the folitude of eternity; and if 
 an aftedtation of paradox, or a want of attending to the language, had 
 carried him to that abfurdity, there was no Greek fo void of fenfe as 
 not to fee that God's perfedlions could not be acknowledged or celebrated 
 whilft God alone exifted. 
 
 This idea of glory which the Greek expreffion conveyed, farther fhew- 
 cd, that it was not to be attained by guilt, violence, and devaftation, but 
 by virtues, by generofity and benevolence ; this, in confequence, made 
 glory to be a real good ; for, if we confider how much our profperity or 
 adverfity, our happinefs or unhappinefs, depend on others, their good or 
 bad opinion certainly will not be a matter of indifference to us ; and that 
 mifanthropical dodlor, who reprefents glory to us as an airy vapour, as a 
 
 [q) See a work of M. Gefner's, intituled Arlftotelea de Gloria. 
 
 (r) STTafTiiiTEcov Sbxi|«05, one regarded among the Spartans or o( whom zW the Spartans had a 
 good opinion, as Lycurgusis called in Herodotus, 1. i. Ao'ai|UO;- Tprj- wflfwTrwf. Romans xiv. i8. 
 who has ii good charadttr, and is efteevned aingng men. 
 
 chime M,
 
 [ 12 ] 
 
 chymera, teaches a dodrinenot lefs dilTonant from human nature, and to 
 the fituation we are placed in here below, than as if he was to exhort us 
 to be independant like the Deity, and, like him, to ftand in no need of 
 the affiilance and good offices of anotlier. In this view the defire of glory, 
 that defire fo vilified, becomes a commendable difpofition, tending to 
 make of all mankind a fociety of brethren, prompting every one to feek 
 the approbation of his fellow creatures, and to acquire it by a decent and 
 virtuous behaviour. 
 
 To give a clear notion of glory to the four bigot, who profeHes the mofl 
 fupercilious contempt of it is, I own, no eafy matter; and were it poffible 
 to bring him to better thoughts, it would be effedted in Greek fooner than 
 in any other language. You are are obliged, would I fay to him, to feek 
 that glory which confifls in a, good reputation: the moil: natural punilh- 
 ment annexed to bad adtions is the lofsof honour : to make light of this, 
 is fliaking off the only curb which, humanly fpeaking, can keep you to 
 your duty: you will gradually become a profligate, hardened in guilt, and 
 
 then to be dealt with only- by budily punifl^mont. 
 
 It cannot be imagined how much good is contained in etymology. It is 
 a treafure of fenfe, knowledge, and wifdom : it includes truths which 
 moft philofophers do not fee into, and will one day immortalize the phi- 
 lofopher who fhall difcover them, without fo much as having himfelf ap- 
 prehended, that, from time immemorial, they have been in every body's 
 mouth. This is not at all ftrange. Languages are an accumulation of the 
 wifdom and genius of nations, and to which every one has contributed 
 fomething : let not this be underftood of the learned only, who, on the 
 contrary, have often but a narrow genius, who are flill more often blind- 
 ed by prepoffeffion, and who, after all, fcarce make the hundredth part 
 of mankind. The bare man of wit perhaps is a larger contributor, and 
 the illiterate has often a greater fhare in it, his thoughts being, as I may 
 fay, more nearly allied to nature. The heretic fliall fometim.es contribute 
 to it what the orthodox preacher will carefully avoid, the former think- 
 ing more freely,- and his point of view being lefs confined. It is likewife 
 notfeldom (een that even the orthodox, the mofl exafperated againfl here- 
 fies, fliall yet adopt their language, if they are but flrangers to the mint 
 
 where
 
 [ '3 ] 
 
 where It was coined. The genius even of children, when in their fiifl 
 vigour, and void of all prejudices, fhall produce happy ftrokes, bold 
 affociations of ideas, yet evidently true, all increafing and enriching this 
 national treafure. Cheerfulnefs, which utters truths unknowingly, fpright- 
 ly company, v/ine which expands the genius, poetry which, in its enthu- 
 fiafin, brings forth fo many novelties, medlies of tru:h and fiflion, are all 
 fo many fources conveying into the languages their peculiar expreinons. Sup- 
 pofe this to have gone on twenty or forty centuries j during this fpace of 
 time many truths, at firfl: admitted and afterwards rejeded, as likewlfe 
 many truths never taken notice of as fuch, and looked -only as mere 
 witticifms, have, however, met with an expreluon or phrafe in which they 
 have been retained, and thus perpetually incorporated with the language. 
 Should the virtue of Quinquina, (the Jefuits bark) through the negligence 
 of the phyficians, or the return of univerfal barbarifm, come to be mif- 
 taken or forgotten in Germany, with only the bare name remaining, the 
 bare name would fufficiently inform our pofterity of the ufe of Quinquina 
 among us(s): Co tKat language is a kind of archives, where the difcoveries of 
 men are fafe from any accidents, archives which are proof againft fire, 
 and which tannot be deftroyed but with the total ruin of the people. 
 
 Grammarians often beftow very great encomiums on etymology. That 
 it never proves the truth of a propofition I allow ; but it preferves truths ; 
 it is a kind of library, containing a great number of ufeful difcoveries. It 
 includes in one word as much good philofophy as any fyftem whatever. 
 I farther allow, that this fountain of truths may become a fountain of 
 errors, when the grammarian or philofopher are for drawing from it 
 proof of .their affertions or real definitions, its ftream is notperfedlly pure, 
 truths and errors float in it confufedly intermixed. 
 
 Etymological propofitlons I think may be compared to thofe loofe de- 
 tached propofitions, of which colledlions are publhlied under the title of 
 Thoughts, without adducing any kind of proof. What I perceive in every 
 etymology is, that, in fuch or fuch a nation, feme body has thought 
 
 (i) Quinquina is in German called Fiebftrinde, i. e. fever-bark, or the febrigue-barlc 
 or rind. 
 
 thus
 
 [ '4 ] 
 
 tlius or thus ; but to know whether his thoughts be right or wrong 
 requires a particular inquiry, which has nothing to do with etymology. 
 Here again it will bear a comparifon with libraries, the good and the bad 
 being intermixed in them. A fenfible man will never fubfcribe to a phy- 
 lofophical thelis only from having feen it in black and white in Tome corner 
 of a library ; neither will he explode the ufe of libraries purely becaufe old 
 books contain a great many falfities, or becaufe the truths to be met with 
 in them are not accompanied with their proofs : fome, on tlie contrary, 
 will be the better pleafed with this omiffion of the proofs, as leaving to 
 the refledtive reader the honour and fatisfadtion of finding them out. 
 
 The learned, the reformers of fciences, the difcoverers of new truths 
 etymology furnilhes with the means of fpreading and perpetuating their 
 difcoveries. They will be preferved much more fecurely in a name adapted 
 to the genius of the language than in perifliable books, the fafliion of 
 which pafleth away, that after a certain time, they are no longer read. 
 But the grand fecret is to bring this name into vogue; the coining of it is 
 eafy, but not fo the making it current; in this oui^ cUffic authors can fuc- 
 ceed, and efpecially poets, to whom this honour feems peculiarly referved. 
 That extreme care and delicacy with which the antients applied themfelves 
 to purify and embelidi their language, was fo very far from being a ridi- 
 culous pedantry, that our literati fhould imitate their application. How 
 is the mer'!; of poetry inhanced in the mouth of a great genius .'' a merit 
 abundantly rewarding thofe hours which his commerce with the 
 mufes has deprived him of. Suppofe the illuftrious Mr. Haller, who, to 
 the moft extenfive knowledge of botany, joins the mofl; elevated fpirit of 
 poetry, and who, both in profe and verfe, is one of the fineft writers in 
 all Germany. Suppofe, I fay, he were, both in his poems and other 
 writings, to diftinguiOi by particular names thofe parts of the vegetables 
 v.'hich charadterife their fex, calling them, for Inftance, the male and the 
 female, thefe appellations once received, would not only immortalize in 
 Germany one of the fineft modern difcoveries, but would render this dif- 
 covery intelligible to every one. Now what a fervice would this be to the 
 nation and to truth ? 
 
 There
 
 r '5 ] 
 
 There is another caufe of this great fecundity of etymologies: feveral 
 objedls have undergone fo many changes, that it is extremely dilTicult to 
 know them again diftinftly ; and habits familiarizing us with them from our 
 early infancy, hinders our fixing them, and pointing out their charadte- 
 riftical marks. This inconveniency does not take place in things not be- 
 ginning to exift, or at lead not known till after the formation of the 
 language. That language which fees them come into being can charaile- 
 rife them by the moft fuitable names. Had God permitted a man to have 
 been a fpe>flator of his procefs in the creation, and to have feen the bodies 
 compofe themfelves before his face by the coalition of their refpedlive 
 elements, would he not of all men be the bed qualiiied to give us exadt 
 defcriptions of all natural things, and would not thefe defcriptions greatly 
 furpafs all the elaborate publications of chymifls, naturalifts, and acade- 
 mies, after fo many years of affiduous inveftigation ? Now 1 fay, that lan- 
 guages are inverted with the like advantages with refpect to certain mora^ 
 relations or combinations, introduced into focieties already formed. This 
 I ihall prove from marriage. 
 
 The common people, it is fufficiently known, have but vague and de- 
 fedtive notions concerning it -, the ecclefiaftical ceremony is all the diffe- 
 rence they know of, between marriage and a criminal co-habitation, and this 
 is owing to their being without fuch a definition as will fettle their ideas : 
 but even thofe of the learned themfelves are, on this point, often very faulty: 
 marriage, with them, is a contradt for life, with bodily commerc ->nd the 
 breeding of children as its olDJedl. If this be a complete definition, I con- 
 ceive that the magiftrate may, under feveral penalties or a pecuniary fine, 
 prohibit the contradting of marriage without previoufly folemnizing it, 
 either by the office of the church or fome other public ceremony: but he 
 has no right to annul marriages contradled without any of thefe forms; and 
 in fo doing he countervenes the maxims of the Chriftian religion, by which 
 the conjugal tie is indifoluble, with exception of one cafe only. As little 
 would he be authorifed to invalidate clandeftine marriages, contradted 
 againft the known inclination of the parents. Our laws in making them 
 void, become contrary to religion; and thofe Englifli divines who have 
 
 D charged
 
 [ i6 ] 
 
 charged the adl of parliament againfl: fuch marriages as a breach of the law 
 of God, will be in the right (t). 
 
 It may perhaps he thought that this definition will be rendered complete 
 and unexceptionable by adding the word lawful(u). If this word be taken 
 in a {e.nk oppohte to fraudulent, real marriage will often be confounded 
 with fornication. Suppofe, for inftance, one of the contradling parties, 
 with a. view of defrauding the other, fets up for a fortune beyond what he 
 in reality is poflefled of, this contract unqueftionably is fraudulent ; yet 
 does it conftitute a marriage ; and to go about annulling fuch contracts, 
 would occafion difficulties without end. 
 
 This definition therefore being manifeftly deficient, let us fee wherein 
 its defeil lies, and how it may be amended. A man and a woman enter 
 into an agreement to live together, and to bring up the children which 
 fliall be born by fuch cohabitation; fome gallants, in the mean time, are 
 for feducing the wom.an, or even attempt to carry her off: the man has 
 no right to oppofe them, nor can he, without going beyond an allowable 
 defence, either make ufc of vlolenre againfl: the feducers, detain the 
 woman againfl: her will, or in any wife compel her to make good her 
 engagement. That flie is in the wrong to break her promifes I allow; but 
 it is not for him to do himfelf juftice; as a member of fociety, he is to fet 
 down quietly under tliis difturbance of his amour, and not break the 
 public peace. On the other hand, the magiftracy owes him no proteftion, 
 as having never taken on themfelves the guaranty of fuch contract. I afk, 
 whether this can be called a marriage ? No, it is evidently no more than 
 concubinage, to which nothing of what laws, either divine or human, 
 have prefcribed, concerning the indiflblubility of matrimonial engagements 
 is applicable. Hence I perceive what mull: be added to the definition to 
 make it complete : marriage is not barely a contrad, but a contraB entered 
 into under the proteSlion and the guaranty of the la-iVS. In the ftate of nature, 
 
 (/) S e An Enquhy into the force and operation of the annulling claufes in a late aEi for the better 
 preventing of clandejline marriages, London,i-] ^^. Dr. Stehcing'sDiJ/ertation onthepozuers afjiatcs 
 tt deny civil proteiiion to the mvrin_^es of minors, made tvithout the ionfent of the parents, 
 
 («) The German word is rechtma?flig, /'. t. legal, juft. 
 
 as
 
 [ '7 ] 
 
 as being without liws, marriage is a contra^il, in the fupport and mainte- 
 nance of which /o'-f 6' may be jujlly ufed. 
 
 The Greeks had a word which comprifed the whole of this definition: 
 this word(;c) equally fignified both marriage and the law; to be married to one^ 
 and to be joined to him by law, were fynonimous expreflions. This arofe 
 from the Greek tongue being of a more antient date than the cuftom of 
 marriage, a cuftom with which the Athenians were utterly unacquainted 
 till the time of Cecrops, and before him it was only the mothers of children 
 who were known. Cecrops was the firil who introduced marriage among 
 that rude people; and then it was manifeft to every one that marriage is an 
 intercourfe of the two fexes, approved of and fecured by the laws. 
 
 The like happy idiom is found in our language, and not improbably 
 from the like caufe. In old German, /<^to was called E(? or £/;, that very 
 word which now fignifies marriage. The Englifti,though they have the word 
 marriage, yet to exprefs the French word gendre, ufe an expreflion which 
 befpeaksthe like origin, and may be literally rendered fon according to laiv, 
 that is, Jon by w/^rW.?^.? CyJ. But this very example leads me to a difagree- 
 able remark. To the generality, the treafure of truths hidden in etymology 
 is loft, either from the primitive meaning of the words becoming obfolete, 
 or that fince annexed to them, fo common, that the etymology is not 
 longer difcernible, and they are looked on as no more than arbitrary figns. 
 Without having particularly fludied philology and Germanic antiquities, 
 or having turned over old books and records drawn up in the German 
 language, the word eh will never be known to have antiently fignified a 
 law. In England every body knows the meaning of law, but at hearing 
 the words fon in law, that meaning does not recur to the mind, and the 
 word to a native of England conveys only the import of the French word 
 gendre, or a fon by marriage : thus the etymology does not lay open the 
 
 [x) TSio/ji.os. See M. Elfner and M. Carpzow's Commentaries on Romans c. vii. v. i. 
 Not that I approve of their expofition : I only refer to it on account of their proofs for 
 this fignification of the word vo/j-Oi, which is none of the moft ufual ra (avTt civh\ Se fsrai V3,uu} 
 in thefollowingverfes is indifputably a pcriphraftical definition of marriage. 
 
 (>') Son-in-law. 
 
 D 2 truth
 
 [ ,8 ] 
 
 truth which it includes. We do not find that either the apologifts or an- 
 tagonifts of the 7narriage-a6l ever in the leafl thought that the marriage 
 ipoken of by Jefus Chrill;, in the 5th chapter of St. Mathew, requires the 
 guaranty of the laws, and that confequently, what he fays of it is not to be 
 applied to concubinage. The words Nojixs; and ya'ao? vo^uiwof, might give 
 the Greeks a clearer infight into this article: they were not become of fuch 
 common ufe as to hide their etymologies, ^a'/*'? alone being the word or- 
 dinarily ufed. 
 
 Many of the terms of our living languages are become fo familiar to us, 
 that their derivation efcapes us j but with dead languages it is otherwife, 
 as we make ufe of. them more rarely, the etymological truths latent in 
 them are not fo eafily loft ; befides we are better acquainted with their ety- 
 mologies, as being a branch of literature. This it is that makes us fo apt to 
 think their etymologies more fignificant, and their nomenclature more 
 proper ; in fliort, to give them the preference above living languages, 
 which perhaps is more than they can ablolutely claim. In thefe judgments 
 there is always fome partiality ; we cflccui ihc fdeiices according to the 
 time and trouble the acquifition of them coft us ; but the more this foible, 
 fo common throughout the learned world, fwells the encomiums laviflied 
 on the dead languages, the greater fufpicion it brings on thofe eloglums. 
 I thought it my duty to declare againft this injuftice to our mother 
 tongues. 
 
 SECTION,
 
 [ 19 ] 
 
 SECTION 111. 
 
 ithz ?iames given to things often tend to create love or hatred of 
 them^ as reprefenti?ig them either good or evil, and this again 
 is aj}riki?ig influence of the la?iguage o?t opinions. 
 
 ''J^HE inoculation of the fmall pox is an expreflion quite indifferent, only 
 defcriptive of the operation, without raifing any prejudice for or 
 againftit. Had this infertion been called \kit Tiirkijh or Tartarian fmall 
 pox, from the countries where it had its origin, it would certainly have 
 met with much greater oppofition, fo as, perhaps, not to have got foot- 
 ing; and, on the other hand, had it been named a Jlratagem againft the 
 fmall pox, or fome futh alluring appellation, it would not be fo ex:- 
 claimed againft, at leaft not be looked on as a crime. In a word, were 
 inoculation ftiled the preferver of beauty, as, if I miftake not, the Cir- 
 caflians call the fmall pox the enemy of beauty, opinions would be divided, 
 the fair fex would cry up inoculation, and gloomy moralifts loaded it 
 with inveftives. 
 
 Whilft fcholars and legiflators overlook fuch artifices, the bulk of a 
 people and parental fondnefs, which nothing efcapes, take advantage of 
 fuch deficiency. The German peafant mentions thunder with an epithet 
 which tends to abate terror, reprefenting it as a benefit (_y), which likewife 
 is not improper, as in reality fertilizing the country. Some provinces ufe 
 fimilar exprefilon : The good old man is pajjing along the air [z] ; the good 
 old man is God, and his pafling along the air is the thunder. 
 
 To this propriety may be referred even the cufiom of thofe languages, 
 in which the name of the Supreme Being is taken from the attribute- 
 of goodnefs. That this is the cafe of the German word Gott is well 
 
 {y) Das liebe Gewitterj i. e. the dear thunder; if I maybe allowed this Germanirm. 
 (z) Der gute Jlte^fahret, 
 
 known 3
 
 [ 20 J 
 
 known; but, in the Hebrew, it is flill more remarkable. In feveral 
 eaftern languages God was reprefented asanobjeiSot terror (^), and it 
 might be to prevent the pernicious influences of iuch a reprefentation, that 
 the Hebrew tongue has adopted the word £/, which is pecuHar to it, and 
 quite foreign from the other oriental languages. This name is derived 
 from a word fignifying beneficence [^), and conveys the idea of a benefi- 
 cent God. I am very well aware, that commonly a different etymology is 
 given to it; but, in my opinion, erroneoufly (c). 
 
 All this does not, however, hinder but that it may often be right for a 
 language to have indifferent names, in which no judgment is implied, no 
 acceflbry idea conveyed to the mind. The opinion of the firft nomen- 
 clator may have been an error or prejudice, and by means of the lan- 
 guage, this prejudice fpreads, which is not the cafe when there is a neu- 
 tral or indifferent word for exprefTing the fame thing. 
 
 Acceffory ideas often operate in a manner ftill more latent. A word 
 likewile has often feveral lignifications, and vve, chufing that which is 
 not applicable to the fubjedl in queftion, are unawares drawn into errors : 
 therefore, to have neutral, or, if I may be allowed the phrafe, perfectly im- 
 partial terms, implying no fecondary idea of either blame or praife is an 
 advantage. Here is a proof of it, which, at the fame time, gives me an 
 
 (/j) nns Gen. xxxi. 53. Knia Pf. Ixxvi. 12. q'd'K Jer. 1. 38. mhsa i Reg. xv. 13. 
 Pf. xl. 5. and in the Syriac text Ertbo. A modern learned writer has even derived from 
 terror the moft ufual appellation of God among the Hebrews, that of nb:^. 
 
 Concerning' this fee Mr. Michaelis's work, On the Methods nfcd for undcrjlondhig the antient 
 Hebrew, which together with Mr. Hume's natural h'ljhry of Religion., will afFord a confi- 
 dcrable fupplement to the remarks contained in this firft fedion. 
 
 (t) Aquila tranflates b^ the mighty God, and though his authority be not of the greateft 
 weight, he has been followed by the generality of French, Engliih, Danifli, and Swedifli 
 cxpofitors. Even the German catechifm has fallen into this miftake, though Luther had 
 guarded againft it, in his verfion of the Bible. They who render it the mighty God, deduce 
 this word from the root "j'N, whereas the rules of grammar will fcarce admit of fuch a 
 derivation, i. Becaufe in the word my^X no vowel appears under the letter x. 2. Becaufe 
 whenever that word denotes the Deity, it is not written ^'N but ^K, without 'Jod. 
 
 opportunity
 
 [ 2. ] 
 
 opportunity of congratulating my mother tongue on ibmc pre-eminences 
 which it has above the Latin. 
 
 The fupreme, or, as fome chufe to term it, the ultimate good, that 
 good to which all others are fubfervient, as the means are (o the ends; and 
 no farther good, than in their relation to it. This good, I fay, Epicurus 
 placed in pleafurable fenfations; but, as the Latin word for fuch fenfatioa 
 equally denoted voluptuoufnefs, it conveyed an acceifary idea of a foftnefs 
 or luxury fcarce compatible with virtue or courage. Can it be doubted 
 but that, in this view, Epicurus's doctrine muft have appeared to many 
 Romans, not only ill grounded, but even contemptible and execrable j 
 and yet this was no more than a mifunderftanding, owing to a deficiency 
 in the Latin tongue : this Cicero's declamations, which are full of ambi- 
 guities, lufficiently prove. The Latin word ever conveyed the idea of 
 voluptuoufnefs ; and what fuccefs could a philofophy, which eftemeed vo- 
 luptuoufnefs as the fupreme good, and as the ultimate end of all our aftions, 
 promife itfelf among a people who was fcarce acquainted with any other 
 virtues than the military, or any other pleafures than carnage and vidlory. 
 
 What epicures termed vo/uptas, our language would have called p/ea- 
 fureable Jenfation, leaving no ambiguity, and this denomination would have 
 given no offence either to the auftere moralifl, or the brave warrior. Sup- 
 pofel put thisqueftion to a man; " how is it that certain things appear to 
 " us goods, and other evils ? that we eagerly purfue fome, and as eagerly 
 " fhun others? you defire glory, health, and cheerfulnefs, is it not fo ? 
 " you avoid contempt, pain, (icknefs, and melancholy, and will never 
 " willingly expofeyourfelf to thefe fituations, unlefs occafionally and con- 
 *♦ fidered as means for averting a greater evil, or obtaining a good which is 
 " more than an equivalent to thefe evils. What is the caufe of your de- 
 " fires ? This caufe or that by reafon of which objects wearing the 
 " afpedt of good 5 pleafe us is called the fupreme good, the ultimate 
 " good, or the end of goods. Now, I fay, that this good is reducible to 
 " a pleafurable fenfation, a fenfation which admits of no farther analyfis, 
 ." which has no connetlion with any end beyond it, and with which the 
 
 " foul
 
 [ 22 ] 
 
 *' foul Is pleafurably affected, without knowing wherefore. But we know 
 " that the greater the funi of thefe fenfations, the more we have of them 
 " in a ffiven time, and the more intenfe and lading they are, the greater 
 " oui^ happinefs : that it is only multiplying thefe three quantities, the fum, 
 *' the intenfenefs, and the duration one by the other, and the refult gives you 
 " the true greatnefs of the good." He to whom I (hall have explained 
 myfelf in fuch a manner, will be eafily convinced, and I fliall not meet 
 with that chicanery and abufe which the Roman orator threw out fo very 
 illiberally againft the Grecian philofopher, not that I, by any means, pre- 
 tend to fland forth as an apologifl: of Epicurus, or maintain that his difci- 
 ples, and perhaps himfelf, deceived by the ambiguity, may not fome- 
 times have confounded the pleafurable fenfation with voluptuoufnefs. 
 
 A copioufnefs of fit words for denoting all the works of nature, 
 and of art, and whatever relates to morals ; in a word, whatever may 
 come into the mind of the fcholar and the plebeian, and thofe words, not 
 borrowed from a foreign language : fuch a copioufnefs muft neceffarily be 
 of great fervice for the improvement of fciences. Objects without a name 
 feldom fix our attention, whereas thofe which arc dlftlngalflied by appel- 
 lations, leave lading impreflions on us: many are the differences which the 
 deaf overlook: their attention to thofe of trees and plants, which have fome 
 refemblance, will not be fo exadl as in him who is converfant with the 
 language. The want of expreflions produces a like effedt, and the copi- 
 oufnefs of them ails contrarily. Where a language is rich it imports 
 a tinfture of knowledge even to the common man : things become known 
 to him, which without the afliftance of his language he would ever have 
 remained ignorant of; he obferves the courfe of nature better, and finds 
 himfelf capable of communicating experiments to the more learned, 
 which otherwife would have been loft ; yet, fuch as are not always be- 
 neath their notice. On the other hand, they who have devoted them- 
 felves to the fciences will naturally, and without any premeditated ftudy, 
 familiarize themfelves in their early youth with many notions, which, 
 any where elfe, would have coft them much clofe application, even in a 
 more advanced age. 
 
 What
 
 [ 23 ] 
 
 What an advantage would it be to us had all vegetables German names, 
 equally known to the people and the naturalifts ? What an eafe would 
 this be to the ftudy of Botany ? the memory would then be relieved from 
 the load of a crabbed Nomenclature; which at lead makes one half of the 
 elements of that fcience ; the names of the vegetables being already known 
 to us, the whole bufinefs would be to remember their figure. What a dif- 
 ficulty is the lover of Botany put to in learning that multitude of foreign 
 appellations, which with their Greek or Latin terminations difguft his ear ? 
 cfpecially if, which is frequently the cafe, he is not fuch a mafler of thofc 
 languages, as to be able to help himfelf by means of the etymology. 
 
 The Greeks and Latins, it muft be owned, had conveniences which are 
 wanting to us ; but as they out-do us in this refpeft, they are no lefs out- 
 done by the Orientals. The richnefs of the Arabic and Hebrew comes 
 little fliort of that of nature itfelf. Every individual produdl of nature, 
 in thofe countries, has a name taken from the particular flock of thofe 
 languages, and thefe names are fo frequently made ufe of by the very 
 poets, and in books of mere entertainment, that the literati and the wits 
 could not well be ignorant of them; even they who did not make natural 
 hiflory their ftudy, met with them in their reading, and they, as it were, 
 obtruded themfelves on them in their clofets. 
 
 Such a happy conftitution of the national language, not only faves the 
 profeffed Botanift much time and trouble, but the people in general fliall 
 be better acquainted with the works of nature than we are. There will 
 fcarce be any one without fome fuperficial knowledge of the vegetable kino-- 
 dom : curiofity animated by leifure, and the facility of gratifying itfelf, 
 will endeavour after improvements, and the number of intelligent Bota- 
 nifts will increafe. The gardener and the ruftic, underflanding thofe 
 Adepts, will beftow more attention on natural produftions, and thus come 
 to be a kind of connoilTeurs. Omitting the increafe of wifdom and hap- 
 pinefs in a nation, as it improves in knowledge, it is fufficient for my pur- 
 pofe that Botany is improved there. In Germany, for one real Botanifl, 
 we may, at any time, reckon a thoufand perfons who have not the leaft 
 idea of that fcience : they walk about in the fields, amidft a rich difplay 
 of nature's various productions, but they are blind, and are fo only for 
 
 E want
 
 [ 24 ] 
 
 want of fit words to diftinguilTi the produdions. Yet, can it be denied 
 that, were this impediment removed, more difcoveries might not be ex- 
 peded from thefe thoufand men than can be hoped for from the apphca- 
 tion of a fingle Botanift ? It is a qaeftion, whether the difcovery of effedls 
 of plants, both falutary and noxious, and the human and animal fpecies 
 arelefs owing to accident than to inveftigation ; and he to whofe eyes the 
 operations of nature continually piefent themfelves fliall fooner hit on this 
 chance, than he who only now and then beftows an excurfion of a few, 
 hours in prying into them. But of what ufe will that important acci- 
 dent be to the former, if ignorant of what he fliould attend to, if un- 
 acquainted with the dillindlion of plants, if he looks on them only as an 
 infignificant part of that variegated carpet with which the furface of 
 the earth is covered ? 
 
 Though I cannot fay that the before-mentioned nations have availed 
 themfelves of that fuperiority of their languages fo far as they might ; yet 
 to me it appears out of all queftion, that the vegetable kingdom was bet- 
 ter known to the antient eaftern literati, than it is to the modern. For this 
 I only appeal to the books of the Old Teftament, the fubje£t of which is 
 either hiilorical or theological, and which were written with quite another 
 view than teaching Botany, and yet they furnifh us with above two hun- 
 dred and fifty names of vegetables : now the writers who have made ufe 
 of thofe names both in profe and metre, were not Botanifts by profeflion, 
 that in all probability, fuch kind of knowledge mull in thoie times have 
 been very common. 
 
 In order to fet the advantages of fuch languages in a ftill clearer light, 
 and point out the methods by which others may obtain the like advantages, 
 J fhall examine the caufes of the want of them in the German. It is not 
 its poverty, being intrinfically very rich, that any Impoverifhrnent of it 
 mufl be partly im.puted even to its very richnefs, and partly to an extreme 
 degeneracy in thofe who fpeak it. 
 
 1 a{k a pcafant the name of a plant; he tells me it has no name ; now even 
 this is no proof of the poverty of the language ; it may only fliew the pea- 
 fant's ignorance, or that of his whole village, or of his diftrift. How can it be 
 thought that the treafure of botanical terms Ihould be preferved among the 
 
 1 owe ft
 
 [ =s ] 
 
 loweft clafs of mankind, among the poor cottagers, who liarrafled witlx 
 labour and diftrefs, cannot be fuppolcd to advert much to things from which 
 they neither expe6l good or harm. I then apply to a Botnnift, and he fends 
 me away with a Latin word ; he knows no other ; nay, he knows not fo 
 much as the German names of feveral plants, which any peafant could 
 tell me. From all this it does not, however, follow that the plant in hand 
 has abfolutely no name ; it may perhaps be met with in fome province of 
 Germany ; but lying dormant there, and being flill lefs known to the 
 learned, it is of no ufe to the fciences, and might as well not exift. Things 
 grow continually worfe and worfe j the country people fucceflively forget 
 fome of thefe names, which are fo many lofles, the continuance of which 
 impoverifli a language. Thefe words beingun known to the learned, cannot 
 be preferved in their works. Several vegetables are profcribed by poetry, 
 and cannot gain admittance, neither under their popular names, nor under 
 the technical denominations. The former are too mean, the latter have 
 an uncouth found, or would diforder the cadence of the line. 
 
 Vifit the different countries of Germany, and inftead of complaining of 
 the want of names, you will rather complain of a fuper-abundance, and 
 its great inconveniencies. You will find that the plant which you imagine 
 to have no name has feveral, but they are only provincial names. The 
 language of the inhabitants of Miznia is Hebrew to the Swiffer, and as 
 little does the Leipziger underftand that of Lower Saxony : nay, what is 
 much more, I have myfelf feeix Botanifts of great reputation, rejeiTt the 
 German names sf certain plants as barbarous, finding fault with thofe that 
 ufe them, and advifing them to fubftitute Latin terms, yet thofe German 
 names go current at Leipzig and its environs, both among the commo- 
 nalty and the gentry : and if this city be in reality the feat of the German 
 language, they could not be reckoned provincial or country words, that if 
 not underftood, the fault was in the readers, and not in the writers. 
 
 And whence comes it that they are fo little underftood ? The whole blame 
 lies on our Botanilb, who are fo infatuated with the Latin nomenclature, 
 fo far as to exclude that of their own country, and even blame the ufe of 
 it. Other literati do the like, the leis affinity an expreffion has with the 
 
 E 2 German,
 
 [ .6 ] 
 
 German, in their eftimate, the more elegant, the more it captivates them 
 under the parade of erudition ; our vernacular expreflions they banilh to 
 the villages, pronouncing them coarfe and mean, and vilifying them till 
 they have quite exploded them out of the language. What are we the 
 better in having, for inftance, three or four names for the fame plants 
 when neither of them can come to be clafTical ; now this is an honour no 
 name can attain till fome famous Botanift fhall make ufe of it both in 
 his writings and ledlures, leaving to the Latin word the inferior office of 
 explaining it, whereas it is diredlly the contrary : the explanatory part is 
 fcmetimes affigned to the German name, and even this is reckoned as no 
 fmall favour done to it. 
 
 It will perhaps be faid that the import of the Latin names is more fixed 
 and definitive ; but that is manifeAly falfe, without diftorting the fenfe 
 from that which they bear in pure Latin; and if that be all, I do not 
 fee why the import of the German terms may not be changed for an arti- 
 ficial one adapted to the fyftem. 
 
 This therefore is not the real caufc why our Botanifts fpcak Latin; it lies 
 in a fantaftical mode, which has crept into the German univerfities. The 
 uling Latin, which the other faculties have almofl: every where departed 
 from in their ledlures, is ftill retained in phyfic, and without any apparent 
 reafon, the fludents in phyfic being generally, of any other clafs, the 
 leaft acquainted with Latin. Botany, however, accounted a branch of 
 phyfic, is taught in Latin, and the auditors know of no other terms than, 
 thofe they have learned from their mafters. 
 
 Thou'^h I am very far from the lead thought of contributing to exclude 
 the Latin tongue from the univerfities, I own, I could wilh, and I think 
 the love of my country warrants fuch a wifh, that it would relinquifli 
 Botany and natural hiftory to our own language. Let all the other fciences 
 be taut^ht in Latin ; yet be thofe excepted of which we are partly to collect 
 the materials among the country people : what {hall we be the better for 
 their difcoveries, if we do not underfland their fpeech ? Befides, the 
 Latin tongue is very unfit for natural hiflory : the beft judges will tell yoa 
 that with regard to a great number both of vegetables and animals, it is 
 
 ftill
 
 [ 27 ] 
 
 flill very uncertain whether they formerly hare thofe names which the 
 moderns have given them. In fhort, we have every motive for difmiHing 
 the Latin language out of botanical auditories, where it is fo manifeftly 
 improper. The many faults committed there againft profody, not to fay 
 againft grammar, are infupportable to every Latin ear, and it is fcarce pof- 
 fible but that youth muft contracSl a vicious pronunciation. I fliould there- 
 fore think that neither the lovers of Latin or of Botany, would objeil 
 againft the fuppreflion of {o fantaftical and pernicious a cuftom. I could 
 heartily in treat our Botanical profeffors, to ihew their love to their coun- 
 try, fo far as to deliver their ledtures in its language. I remember to have 
 heard one of the moft eailneat among them fay : that were all Baroii 
 Wolfe's otlier merits difputed, there was one which muft inconteftibly 
 be allowed him, his having added a new degree of perfedlion to the Ger- 
 man tongue, by applyl:;g it to phUofophy. Much more necefTary would 
 it be to apply it to Botany, and much eafier would be the tafk ; it would be 
 only colledling the names of which the language is already poffefled, and 
 this very coUeAion is partly made by the care and diligence of former 
 Botanifts. It only requires to be made ufe of, and certainly it would not 
 long remain neglected, did we confider that to improve our language is 
 really augmenting our national ftock of knowledge and wifdom. The 
 riches of nature are loft to thofe who know not how to name them j 
 whereas give them names derived from the language of the country, and 
 they will be taken notice of by multitudes, who otherwii'e fcarce caft an 
 eye on them or very fuperficially. Many other wiihes could I mention, 
 would bare wiflies do. I could widi, for inftance, that we had German 
 names for whole clafles, as for Monandria, Diandria, Sec. thefe names 
 when once in vogue, would greatly facilitate the Botanical fyftems, and 
 bring them within the capacity of the moft illiterate ; the fenfe of them 
 would be got amidft diverfions, and in our walks. I could likewife wifh 
 that each conftituent part of vegetables had its particular term. The 
 Orientals have a diftinft word for expreffing the virgiii-herb, and another for 
 the fecundated- herb [e), which certainly is to the praife of their language. 
 
 (f) Herbavirgo l^ maritata, the former is called iW\ the latter 3!i'y. 
 
 Gur
 
 [ 28 ] 
 
 Our language has a great pre-eminence relatively to the mineral king- 
 dom, and whatever concerns metallurgy and mineralogy, moft European 
 languages borrowing from it ; but infinitely more advantageous would this 
 copiouinefs be to us could we transfer it to Botany. Mines being but thinly ' 
 fown, the terms relating to thofe fciences, are, in the greater part of the 
 empire, as little known as if they were Chinefe words : 1 proceed to other 
 examples. 
 
 Our commonalty fill the whole extent from the earth to the firmament 
 with air, and imagine it to be every where the fame matter. The 
 Greeks could eafily guard againft this error ; their language diftlnguiilies 
 the atmofphere from the ether, or celeftial matter by two diflindt words, 
 exprefling thofe two bodies feparately. 
 
 Some virtues are more feduloufly inculcated by moralifts and philofo- 
 phers when the language has fit names for indicating them ; whereas they 
 are but fuperficially treated of, or rather negledted in nations where fuch 
 virtues have not fo much as a name. The antients cried up, and perhaps 
 too highly, that independency of the wife man, which renders him felf-fuf- 
 ficlent, that his happinefs is not connected v/ith external things. Among 
 the moderns, little or no mention is made of fuch a quality. 
 
 A language abounding in terms which at once denote great numbers, 
 without particularizing the multiplication from which they arife, forms 
 the mathematical genius, helping it to reprefent to itfelf very confiderable 
 qualities without any meditation : this is daily feen. Every homefpun 
 ruftic knows the difterence between thoufand zxi^ hundred : and no very 
 cultivated mind, at leaft no profoundity in geometry is required to compre- 
 hend the import of a hundred thoufand, two hundred thoufand ; but on 
 coming to numbers of which the names are exotic, then it is that we 
 enter on darknefs. Women, the illiterate, not a few trades people, other- 
 wife pretty well acquainted with figures; nay, even fome literati confound 
 million with a. hundred thou/afid : and though you explain the difference 
 of them over and over, it foon gives their memory the flip. As to billi- 
 ons, trillions, &c. thefe they account inconceivable numbers, that to them 
 
 thefe
 
 [ 29 ] 
 
 thefe words convey only a vague idea of fome immenfe quantity. Now, a 
 mind which, beyond a certain quantity, fees only a confufed immenfity, 
 the meafurement of which overwhehns it, will never make a figure in 
 Geometry. 
 
 I fliall ihew, by five comparifons, how the richnefs of a language may 
 influence arithmetical ideas, and to this purpofe fucceffively compare with 
 our language the condition of a people without a language, a poorer lan- 
 guage, a richer language j and laftly, two poffible languages. 
 
 To form diftindl ideas of numbers, beyond what imagination can take 
 in at once, would be extremely difficult, without a language and without 
 emblems to fupply the want of it. Some have judged this could not be 
 beyond three ; I am inclined to think, that the number of our fingers 
 being continually before our eyes, might raife our conception to five ; but 
 it would be hard to fix the idea of any thing above five, and of all 
 multiples of five. He who could conceive five heaps, each of five unities, 
 or the fquare of five, would be a tranfcendent genius indeed. 
 
 In America there are people who cannot reckon beyond twenty ; what- 
 ver exceeds that number they compare with that of their hair; a very pro- 
 per exprefiion for denoting a confufed, and, to them, indeterminable 
 quantity : to fuch, great numbers mud appear fomething, of which no 
 precife idea is to be formed. How far muft their mathematical notions be 
 from thofe of our peafants ? the moft intelligent, unlefs endowed with 
 an almoft divine genius, or his ideas have been enlarged by inftruftion, 
 will not come near their conceptions. But other influences mud necefla- 
 rily be the confequences of fuch incapacity : without fome knowledge of 
 figures we continually commit miftakes. 
 
 As twenty is to thofe people a thoufand is to us ; and we have the ad- 
 ditional advantage of multiplication. Our language can fay a thoufand 
 times a thoufand, and likewife reckon the multiples ; whereas thofe Ame- 
 ricans know nothing of twenty times twenty, and can indicate their mean- 
 ing only by the very indefinite token of fliewing their hair. This puts me 
 in mind of the king of the Nine Nations, to whom the account given him 
 
 of
 
 I 3° ] 
 
 of the inhabitants of London appearing beyond all belief, he ordered his 
 envoy to count them by means of a thread, making a knot for each inhabitant. 
 The envoy finding his commiflion imprafticable, only affured his fove- 
 reign that the number of them was equal to that of the hairs of his head, 
 and this he might fay without the leaft hyperbole. Were the ftory no 
 raore than a fidlion; ftill does it very naturally reprefent the confequences 
 of a poor language, and holds up to us our advantages. 
 
 I have faid that a thoujand, which is our laft numerical term, may in 
 our language be increafed by multiplication ; yet this has its limits, and I 
 know not whether many people are capable of forming to themfelves a 
 diftinft idea beyond a triple repetition of a thoufand times, that is be- 
 yond a thoufand times a thoufand times a thoufand : for my part, were 
 it carried farther, I fliould be obliged to have recourfe to the foreign 
 technical terms of billion, trillion, &c. or to thofe of fourth, fifth 
 power, &c. But even thefe are artificial ideas, entirely owing to inftruc- 
 tion, beyond the verge of our language, confequently fuch as are not 
 to be expedled among the bulk of mankind : let any one try to form to 
 himfelf a clear conception of a thoujand tinier a thoufand times a thoufand 
 times a thoufand times a thoufand times a thoufand times a thoufand; I am 
 perfuaded that this number will not reprefent to us a greater quantity 
 than if one of the thoufand times was omittedj and confequently the total 
 was but a thoufandth part of what it is. Let us, on the other hand, 
 fuppofe that our language could, in fimple uncompounded terms ex- 
 prefs a million, a thoufand and thoufand times a thoufand millions ; this 
 it is certain would enable us to form a clear conception of numbers infi- 
 nitelv "greater. 
 
 In this point the Greeks and Hebrews have the advantage of us, their 
 language expreffing ten thoufand by one word, the former by ?nyrtad the 
 latter by ribbo (f). From thence is compofed myriads of tnyriads, ten 
 
 thoufand 
 
 (f) Here may be obfcrved the fucceflive gradations of tlic improvement of languages in nu- 
 merical words. Names, at firft, given to indeterminate numbers, or even to fuch as were 
 accounted immenfe, became, as men grew able to compute fuch numbers, the names of de- 
 terminate
 
 [ 3« ] 
 
 thoufand times ten thoufand, a number ftrangely perplexing even to men 
 of great learning, that fometimes, by a falfe calculation, they make ten 
 millions when in reality it is a hundred millions, and fometimes it ap- 
 pears to them a number immenfe beyond cxpreHion. An inftance of this 
 is Luther hlmfelf, who has fallen into both thefe overfights. In a paf- 
 fage of the prophet Daniel he mifreckons, and tranflates ten hundred times 
 a thoufand (g) ; in a paflage of the Revelations, he renders the fame ex- 
 preffion by the indeterminate quantity of many thoufand times a thoufand 
 {h\ : thus thofe people were no more at a lofs to conceive a hundred 
 milUons than we to conceive one. The Hebrews could even exprefs that 
 immenfe number, by giving the dual termination to the word which a- 
 mong them indicated a myriad (?'). 
 
 How great would be the advantages of a language having, for exprcfs- 
 ing numbers, {even fimple words more than we have ? We have the 
 names of nine unities, thofe of nine tens reckoned from lo to 90 ; 
 and laftly, thofe of the fquare and cube of the number ten, which are a 
 hundred and a thoufand. Now does not analogy feem to require, that we 
 fhould farther have terms for expreffing the ten firft powers of this num- 
 
 terminate quantities. Of (xu^la, originally fignifying innumerable, has been made (ni^ia, ten 
 thoufand. It is the fame with the Hebrew ^\< which means a thoufand. It was originally 
 the appellation of apart of a tribe, confifting of a number of families n33"i ; or m ten 
 thoufand, originally denotes the multitude in general. Had we brigades of ten thoufand men, 
 the name of fuch a brigade might poffihly have raifed our numerical terms from the third 
 power of number lO to its fourth power. Incidents of this kind contribute to the im- 
 provement of a language more than all the application and genius of the learned. 
 
 (^g) Zehen hundertmal taufend. Dan. VII. lo. 
 
 (h) Viel taufendmal taufend. Apoc, IX. i6. 
 
 (?) n3a"i, the dual of which is DTim, or the fquare of ten thoufand. Pf. LXVIII. 18. 
 which to tranflate twice ten thoufand, would be an incongruity ; the combining, fo inferior 
 a number with that of a thoufand times a thoufand, would be fomething beyond a poetical 
 licence. The expreflion implying the thoufands of the re- duplication, and which in the fame 
 verfe fignifies a thoufand times a thoufand, fufHciently ftiews the true meaning of io,000 in 
 the dual to be the fquare, or fecond power of 10,000. 
 
 F ber?
 
 [ 32 ] 
 
 ber ? Were it thus, every one, with the flightefl tindlure of arithmetic, 
 would as eafily conceive ten thoufand miUions as he at prefent conceives 
 the number thoufand^ and the fquare of thofe ten thoufand millions, or 
 1 00,000, ooOj00o,ooo>ooo, GOO, would then be to us what the fqu a re of 
 a thoufand is at prefent. With the affiftance of fuch a language, there 
 is no body who would not be able to form to himfelf notions of thofe mag- 
 nitudes, which are the objeds of aftronomical calculations and meafure- 
 ments ; notions in which the learned themfelves are loft, unlefs converfant 
 with geometry. 
 
 Some eminent mathematicians have propofed binary arithmetic, which 
 confifts in making of the number two the very fame ufe now made of the 
 number ten. However plaufible this project may appear in one light, yet 
 it certainly tends for to clog and confine geometrical genius, unlefs its in- 
 convenience be remedied by coining particular names for the number two 
 when carried to very high powers. Its tenth power makes but 1024, 
 which is very litde beyond the third power of ten, and to exceed a mil- 
 lion, it muft be carried to the twentieth power (-('). 
 
 ik) The academy could have wifhed that I had here mentioned Algebra, and mathematical 
 analyfis which may be looked on as new languages, the difcovery of which has fo prodigi- 
 oufly extended the limits of our knowledge. I conceived it became me to keep to the words 
 of the problem, and confequently to fpe.ik only of national languages. I, however, allow 
 th:it this new point of view might lead to many very important truths and difcoveries : and 
 this fubjecl well defervcs to be thoroughly handled by a geometrical philofopher, to whom 
 Al'cbra is, as it were, become his fecund language. For my parti could have fpoken but 
 very deficiently on a fcience which has grown into difufe with me for fevcral years paft. 
 
 SECTION
 
 [ 33 ] 
 
 SECTION IV. 
 
 The advantageous nifluences of a language on opinions may be 
 reduced to two heads ; copioufnefs of terms, and fecundity of 
 etymologies and expreffions. 
 
 I. ' I ^ O confider the former in all its amplitude and perfedion, the 
 X idea of it mi?ht be carried ad infinitum. Whatever could be 
 thought of mull: have a name peculiar to itfelf, and a name both national 
 and clear, and fully expreffive of its objedl without any periphrafis, 
 it ftiould likewife enable the fpeakers to reprefent the fame objeft under 
 different points of view, at leaft, under the two principal, as indifferent, 
 and as beneficial or hurtful, according to its real nature ; nay, it would 
 not feldom be neceflary that one could even give to objedls thefe three 
 fenfes equally : that is, when they have an advantageous lide, and a fide 
 which fhews them to difadvantage ; fuch, for inftance, is a too uniform 
 and permanent happinefs, by which we contradt an infenfibility to en- 
 joyments with which we are furrounded. 
 
 Such a perfedion of language I grant is a mere chimera, never to be 
 realized. The (hortnefs of life, and the limits of our intelleds will ever 
 be an infurmountable impediment. The words of fuch a copious lan- 
 guage cannot be repeated often enough to take root, and grow into 
 cuflom, and it is the words generally known by which opinions can be 
 influenced; thofe words for which the learned are obliged to confult dicti- 
 onaries, and which the ignorant do not in the leafl underffand, have no 
 more effed, though taken from the national language, than if they were 
 Latin words. 
 
 F 2 II. Fecund
 
 [ 34 ] 
 
 II. Fecund etymologies and expreflions are fuch as include many inte- 
 refling truths : but thefe expreffions muft not be over common : amidfl: 
 a too frequent ufe of them, their ufeful part would efcape our at- 
 tention. 
 
 It is needlefs to declare tliat there is no language of any fuch per- 
 fedion } they are all the work of imperfeft men ; and the Fables of the 
 Jews, who are for making the Hebrew a language all divine, have been 
 fufRcientlv confuted by unexceptionable judges. 
 
 All the treafures of knowledge yet to be met with, in any language have 
 been brought into it by individuals ; they are all owing either to feiious 
 invention, or the fudden fruits of feflivity and chance. 
 
 SUPPLEMENT I. - 
 
 The academy, as I fee by the extradl which has been made of my dif- 
 fertation, could have wifhed that I had begun my fecond part by a gene- 
 ral differtation, eftablifhing the preference of language to all other ima- 
 ginable ways of communicating one's ideas, and examining the propor- 
 tion between the degrees of genius, underflanding, and knowledge of na ■ 
 tions, on one hand, and on the other between the greater or lelTer rich- 
 nefs of their different languages. 
 
 I would v/illingly repair this omiirion did time permit, and did I not 
 believe that I fhould fpare it for more important additions. 
 
 I do not, however, apprehend, that the reader will be any great lofer 
 by the omifiion : all that relates to general reafonings, he will find in the 
 books of thofe philofophers who treat of the fymbolic part of our know- 
 ledge; and as to proofs of facfl, this piece is not wanting in them. 
 
 They who were deaf at their birth, are deplorably flupid ; whereas they 
 who were born blind, often fhew a capacity and penetration much above 
 the common. This difference can proceed only from the ufe of fpeech, which 
 is wanting to the former, and which the latter enjoys. A flranger, on com- 
 ing- into a very populous city, is at lirfl hard put to it to imprint on his ima- 
 gination
 
 [ 35 ] 
 
 ginatlon and memory, the feveral countenances of the inhabitants ; but 
 whenever he comes to know their names, he eafily j-emembers and diftin- 
 guidies them ; an evident proof how very much our thoughts are influ- 
 enced by thefe fymbols, whereas it is but very flowly that we come to dif- 
 tinguifli fimilar things, for which we know no nam-. The impreflions of the 
 fenfes foon pals away ; it is only by means of the names annexed to them 
 that the- human mind recalls their fleeting images; and the mind feems 
 naturally difpofed to aflociate ideas to founds. He who can conceive ab- 
 ftradt ideas, without the help of figns, mufl: be an extraordinary genius 
 indeed, and it is beyond even his abilities, when thefe ideas are very com-> 
 phcated : of this tranfcendant geometry affords numberlefs proofs. I may 
 one day enlarge on this fubje(!l, in treating of the origin of languages. 
 
 The comparifon of nations concerning the proportion of their know- 
 ledge to their language, befides furpafling my abilities, would expofe me to 
 give great offence in the execution. I (hall, however, take the liberty of 
 mentioning the following obfervations. 
 
 A capacity of making fuch comparifons requires that one be perfedlly 
 acquainted with the languages of thofe nations, the intellefts of which 
 have hitherto made no great progrefs ; but here it is that the difficulty lies. 
 This cannot be referred to thofe very nations, every one ufaally liding 
 with his mother tongue, and would make up its deficiency by extrava- 
 gant praifes. A foreigner, from whom more impartiality may be expect- 
 ed, is little difpofed to apply himfelf to a language which he does not 
 forefee will furnifh him with much ufeful knowledge ; and a philofopher 
 learns only thofe which have produced many excellent works. It being 
 my intention thoroughly to digefl the fubjeft, recommended to me by the 
 academy, it would give me infinite pleafure to meet with accurate and im- 
 partial accounts of the degree of perfeftion, or imperfeAion of the lan- 
 guages of certain nations, whofe genius and knowledge are flill very nar- 
 row : to name thofe would be a breach in manners ; but that there are 
 fuch languages in Europe, is unquef\ionable, efpecially if we take into 
 the account idioms, known only in the country, and ^among the com- 
 monality. 
 
 The
 
 [ 36 ] 
 
 The lured method for determining the richnefs of languages is by 
 tranflations. Thofe v/hich are poor, will foon betray their indigence j if 
 fome work with variety of matter, and written in a rich language, be at- 
 tempted to be rendered into them : the tranflator will be reduced to have 
 recourfe fometimes to Latin terms, fometimes to long paraphrafes, and 
 will often mutilate a thought. This rule may, however, fail in the hands 
 of a bad tranflator, who either is not acquainted with the fubjedl, or not 
 verfed in his own language, or laftly, has not that quicknefs and verfatility 
 required for hitting and tranflating all the ideas and terms of the original : in 
 a word, if the tranflators be fuch as our German bookfellers generally 
 employ. 
 
 The richnefs or poverty of a language can fcarce be abfolutely de- 
 termined. Languages are generally rich or poor, only with regard to 
 certain objedls ; that which abounds with philofophic expreflions, may be 
 very barren in all the appurtenances of fhip-building and navigation : this 
 would necefl"arily be the cafe of the Swiffers, had they a peculiar national 
 language. Several analogous inftances will be met with in this treatife. 
 
 The moft enlightened nations of Europe, the Germans, the French, 
 the Englilh, and the Italians, differ fo little, either in the richnefs of their 
 languages, or the flock of national knowledge, that the more and the 
 lefs cannot be determined without great rifk of being miftaken. Dimen- 
 fions which do not come within geometrical menfuration, cannot be com- 
 pared, unlefs their difference be palpable. We will, therefore, allow the 
 Englilh, and that is the fartheft we can go, that their language is the 
 richeft, and they themfelves, without breach of modefly, aiTert that ad- 
 vantage ; for befides its being a mixture of three different languages, it not 
 only is continually enriching itfelf with fpoils from the Latin and French, 
 but it farther allows of coining new words, and yet I am not without 
 fome doubts on the reality of their advantage. I never found it impoffi- 
 ble, or even very difficult to tranflate Englifh pieces into German, or to 
 concentrate the fubftance of them in extrafts, abridging the thoughts, yet 
 preferving all their perfpicuity, and this without borrowing a fingle foreign 
 word. Neither do French tranflators feem more at a lofs ; but of this I 
 
 am
 
 [ 37 ] 
 
 am lefs qualified tojudge, than of the language into vviiich I inyfclf have 
 tranll.itcd EnglKh. 
 
 Lallly, When literate nations are to be compared, we muft carefully 
 diftinguidi thole which produce a great number of feholars, or at kail 
 nominal Icholars, from thofe where knowledge is more difFufed among 
 the bulk of the nation j 1 mean where the officers, country gentlemen, 
 and farmers, &:c. have a greater fhare of tafte, and more knowledge than 
 in other parts. This laft circumftance ever bears a greater proportion to 
 the richnefs of a language than the former. A fcholar by profeflion, far 
 from confining himfelf to his natural language, converfes with the Greek 
 and the Latin, and the living languages : that, how bad and poor foever 
 his own language may be, he attains the fame degree of knowledge 
 as the learned, whofe mother tongues are of an univerfal richnefs, provi- 
 ded he makes up this difadvantage by affiduous application. There may be 
 great Botanifls among a people, though they have but few terms belong- 
 ing to the vegetable kingdom. This indeed is not impoffible, but 
 where the Botanic language is rich, our younger years receive a tindlure 
 of it, that in youth we the more eafily acquire a regular knowledge of the 
 fcience. 
 
 SUPPLEMENT IL 
 
 Since my committing the above reflections to paper, I have been in 
 company with a perfon, of all the world the molT: capable of furnilliing 
 us with the neceflary helps for eftimating the proportion between the 
 knowledge of the feveral nations and their refpedive languages, I mean 
 Mr. Buttner, a profellor in the univerfity of Gottingen (I). This learned 
 
 (I) There being at prefent two profeffors of that name at Gottingen, both Botanifts, and 
 who have both vifited France, it may not be amifs to inform the reader, that the perfon here 
 intended is Mr. William Buttner, profeffor extraordinary, a native of Wolfenbuttle, very 
 well known to moil of the Frensh officers of diftinftion who were in garrifon here, or who 
 paffed through this city, being frequently vifited by them on account of his fine col- 
 les^ion of natural curiofities. 
 
 gentleinan
 
 [ 38 ] 
 
 gentlema-n, whofe knowledge is as profound as general, is about a Poly- 
 glot work, far furpaffing that of Chamberlayne. In one column he 
 couches the Latin terms, according to the order of the fciences and arts ; 
 in the others, he places the words anfwerable to them, in the other lan- 
 o-ua^es. Thus, at one view exhibiting the comparative copioufnefs and 
 indigence of all thofe languages, and farther diftinguiHiing what is the 
 original property of each, from its borrowed flores. 
 
 Two men of letters were likewife in company with us, one a native of 
 Strafburg, who as fuch may in fome meafure be looked on as both French 
 and German ; the other, a Frenchman, but very converfant with our 
 lano-uage. Before this kind of tribunal of our own fetting up, we brought 
 the languages of the fcveral nations, in order to an examination of their 
 merits and defeats. 
 
 We all unanimoufly agreed that the German is a very rich language, 
 infinitely richer than the French. 
 
 On interrogating Mr. Buttner, our common friend, concerning fome 
 languages which we did not underftand, the fubftance of his anfwers, 
 and thofe of his didionary, which we confulted at the fame time was as 
 
 follows : 
 
 The Hungarian language is very poor, and its terms of art it borrows 
 from the Sclavonian. 
 
 The Ruffian, the Polifla, the Bohemian, the Vandalian, the Sclavo- 
 nian, being but one and the fame language, the Sclavonian dialed: 
 as fpoken in Lufatia, is the very poorefl: of all thofe idioms, and indeed 
 it cannot be otherwife, being only the dialed of mean ruftics, without 
 fo much as one fingle book written in it. The Ruffian language, on the 
 contrary, is the richeft, it abounds efpecially in philofophic terms, which 
 I conjeftured might have been introduced from the Greek languages, by 
 the channel of theological controverfies, and Mr. Buttner found my con- 
 jedure verified by experience. One would at firft be inclined to think 
 that the Polifli language rtiould be richer than the Ruflian, yet it is other- 
 wife ; and if lam not miftaken, one thing that keeps it thus poor, h the 
 very frequent ufe of Latin in Poland. 
 
 I afkeoi
 
 [ 39 ] 
 
 I afked whether the Ruflians had any mincralogic terms ? the anfwer 
 was, that they had none properly their own, and that they adopted the 
 German terms. This I was not furprized at, as from us they learned 
 to work mines. But my wonder is that our language fliould be fo very 
 copious in all the concerns of mineralogy, as in Tacitus's time we had 
 not looked into the bowels of the earth, The age of the Otho's ftands 
 happily fignalized for having both difcovered metals, and enriched the 
 language: befides it is not common that a people of itfelf invents names 
 for new objedls ; they naturally borrow them from the nations which 
 brought them acquainted with fuch objedls. I fliould be very defirous of 
 knowing whether the Vandals and Sclavonians, fettled in Germany and 
 in Hungary, along both fides of the Danube, a country full of mines, 
 whether I fay they have mineralogic terms of their own, or whether 
 they borrowed thofe of the Germans. 
 
 The Cohemi i language, faid Mr. Buttner, is abfolutely void of fea- 
 terms, and the Ruflians make ufe of ours. The reafon of this is 
 obvious. 
 
 But what was quite new and very unexpeded, we found the Danifli to 
 be one of the pooreft languages of any fpoken in Europe, and particu- 
 larly much poorer than the Swedifb, with which it has fuch an affinity. 
 If this be the real cafe, it feems an indifputable proof that the richnefs 
 of national knowledge is not always proportioned to the richnefs 
 of the language, for that literature and fcience have long fince flourished 
 in Denmark, is what cannot be denied. The want of knowledge is not 
 the only caufe of the poverty of languages ; there are others, and I think 
 I have hit on them. The national language is impoveriflied by the 
 learned languages coming too much into vogue, efpecially if the writers 
 of that nation prefer them to their own. In Denmark there are, as it 
 were, two learned languages ; the Latin and the German j the latter is 
 become fo general there, that many Danes look on it as a fecond mother 
 tongue, that it is not at all furprifing, the language of that country 
 fliould be fo defed:ive: under fuch a contemptuous negledt, it niuft ne- 
 ceflarily want many terms and exprefhons, and gradually lofe no fmali 
 part of its prefent ftock, fcanty as it is. 
 
 G SECTION
 
 [ 40 ] 
 
 SECTION V. 
 
 Bad injlumces of a, language on opinions. 
 
 LANGUAGES may do hurt feveral ways, which I reduce to fix,, 
 'ift. By their poverty. 2d. By copioufnels. 3d. By equivocations. 
 4th. By acceffory ideas and falfe judgments, infeparable from the princi- 
 pal idea. 5th. By etymologies and expreflions, pregnant with errors, or 
 produdive of miilakes. 6th. By an overweening fondnefs for certaia ar- 
 bitrary beauties. 
 
 P O V E R T Y. 
 
 We have feen above the inflance of the Ethiopians, who having but 
 ©ne word for both perfon and for nature, could not comprehend the 
 doftrine of the union of ChrilVs two natures in one fmgle perfon. 
 
 We have likewife feen that among the Greeks and Romans, the Deity 
 had no peculiar identical name, and to this may probably be imputed the; 
 badnefs of their philofophy, and their defeduous notions in every thing, 
 relating to theology. And this it was which made their moll: eminent 
 geniufes fo fluduating and uncertain concerning the quellion, Whether 
 there are Gods. Whereas among us it will not be eafy to find a fenfible 
 man, even though an infidel in point of religion, who queftions the 
 exiftence of the Deity. But the wretched reafoning of the ancients on that 
 important head, proceeded from this : they never formed the queftion. Is 
 there a God? by itfelf. They always added the following ; Are there angels? 
 Are there Genii, ivhofe power and issijdom fiirpafs the psiver and wijdom of 
 men ? This laft quefiion was what philofophy could not refolve : wanting 
 
 the
 
 l 4^ i 
 
 llie light of revelation, it had nothing to adduce on this head beyond very 
 weak proofs a priori, aud fome accounts of pretended apparitions, which 
 would not bear examining. It is therefore not at all ftrange that they 
 fliould have fluftuated amidfl doubts, whilft no body exhorted them, ac- 
 cording to the form ufed in the Roman fenate, to divide their opi- 
 nion {m), and that Unitarians, or they who worfhipped only one God, 
 were looked on as no Atheifts. The very plural of the Latin word for 
 God {Dii) which was fo frequently in their mouth, hindered them from 
 feparating two queftions fo very different : finite and contraded as their 
 Deities were, a frefh confufion led them to attribute indifcriminately to 
 the whole tribe of Deities, infinitude, fupreme felicity, and omnifcience. 
 Looking on thefe properties as infeparable, from the notion of a God, 
 whatever he might be (n) ; though a dired; contradidion to the plurality 
 of them, which took its rife only from their not thinking one fingle God 
 fufficient for the creation and government of the univerfe. 
 
 Here I recoiled that fome divines have cenfured all languages as 
 deficient, not one being able to exprels all the divine things without thi-ow- 
 ing us into confufion. This I allow in things of which we have no ideasj 
 or at leafl only negative ideas ; for inftance, of infinitude, or concerning 
 the manner in which omnipotence adls, without contadt or pulfation, 
 but by bare volition ; and this both on mundane objeds, and non-en- 
 tity itfelf ; or laftl)^, of the precife caufe of the necefiity of his ex- 
 iftence. The having in one's felf the foundation of one's efi"ence, is to 
 be fure an incomprehenfible expreffion ; but inftead of charging it on the 
 poverty of languages, it is that of our mind, which is to be lamented. Is 
 it not quite unreafonable to exped that human languages fhall exprefs 
 what the human mind cannot conceive ? One might indeed, in imita- 
 tion of the Algebraifts, who denote the unknown qualities of which they 
 are feeking the worth, by X T Z, one might, I fay, to denote divine 
 things, make ufe of every found which hitherto has no fenfe annexed to it, 
 
 G 2 but 
 
 (w) DiviJe fententiam. 
 
 (») Cicero de natura Deorum. lib. i, fe£t. 27, 28.
 
 r 42 ] 
 
 but where would be the advantage of this ? Should we be better acquaint- 
 ed with the objedls indicated by thefe founds. luit th's, hov/evci', is not 
 properly wh-at is complained of: it were to be widicd, fiy they, that lan- 
 guages had exprelhons lefs hardi, and more exad: for exprelhng certain 
 -truths, for inftance thefe: God has not a right to break bis promif'i He 
 has not a right to predcjUnate us, abfolutely and unconditionally to an 'rnal 
 mifery, as this 'would efface the kindncfs of creation, and render v^\' pre- 
 ferable to exijlence. God cannot Jin nor lie, nor realize con . It 
 is, thefe modes of expreilions that offend; for God, fa^ ■ - n do 
 every thing, and it would be abfurd to deny him any right ( prero- 
 gative. I have lately, a fecond time, met with thefe complaint:, in the 
 work of a very judicious writer, where I fliould not haveexpe<^edthem(«), 
 but it is only from a zeal wanting knowledge that they proceed : thefe 
 expreifions are not at all harlh, and what they give to inderiland is the 
 very truth. 
 
 The inftance of Botany has in the preceding fedion f lewn us what a 
 detriment the poverty of language is to natural hiftory. This is a defeft 
 not to be remedied either by fcientific names, taken from the language of 
 the learned, nor by definitions, i. Thefe definitions and thefe names 
 differ ftill more from one another than the country names. Every litera- 
 tor has a right of changing them at his pleafure, and to fecure this pre- 
 cious right, never fails making ufe of it as often as he can. 2. Thefe 
 names are known only to thofe who make natural hiftory their bufmefs, 
 and thus like the hieroglyphical figures of the Egyptians, they ferve only 
 to conceal the moil ufeful difcoveries from the knowledge of all the reft 
 of mankind. How fliould the peafant, the iliepherd, the miner, the 
 traveller dirtinguiih, and much lefs make obfervations on objedts, of 
 which they know not the names? 3. What few obfervations nature 
 will, as I may fay, oblige them to make, are loft to the academic natu- 
 ralift, they not being able to explain them to him in his idiom. 4. Fo- 
 reign 
 
 (n) Cb/erv. Mifccli in LILrum, Job, page 317, 318. Ed. d' Amft. 1758. The journal- J 
 fts have juftly praifed the philofuphic caft which diftinguilhes this compofition.
 
 [ 43 ] 
 
 reiffn words and technical terms not beine: current In common life, are the 
 more ditlicult to retain, au'l tlic fliidy of thcni the more irkfome. 5. 
 They are excluded from poetry, which is no final! difadvantage. It is 
 through poetry that natural hiftory gains admittance into the clofets of 
 thofe who do not trouble themfelves about going after it in the fields, or 
 in the abyiles of the earth. When a picture has charmed us in poetry, 
 we are curious to fee the original, and on feeing it, memory faithfully re- 
 tains the impreilion. 
 
 COPIOUSNESS. 
 
 Copioufnefs feldom proves hurtful, but when for want of being propor- 
 tionally diftributed, it happens to be joined with a fcarcity in the fame kind 
 of expreffions. Suppofe, for inftance, that two different names are 
 given to two vegetables, which, from their very near refemblance fhould, 
 according to the analogy of tKc language, have but one ; or that two are 
 given to two fpecies of the fame kind, which every where elfe arediflin- 
 guilhed only by the addition of an adjective to the generical name, or by 
 compofition (^). What is the confequence ? The people will imagine 
 thefe two vegetables to be abfolutely different, and will never apprehend 
 that they can produce the fame effeds, and anfwer the fame ends. Per- 
 haps, and then the miftake will be ftill the more grofs, they will make 
 two kinds of them > but this would be an error, owing to etymology. 
 
 The affluence of fynonimes fwells vocabularies ; but provided that 
 thefe fynonimes be every where underftood, it is fo far from being a de- 
 triment to languages, that it rather embellirhes them by variety of ex- 
 preffions. Synonimes do no hurt but when fcattered in different provin- 
 ces; as then by this unhappy copioufnefs the fame people do not under- 
 
 {p) As in Germany, adding an adjedive, we fay, fFeiJ/e Tanne, and otherwife by com- 
 pofition j Edel-Tame, which is a kind of pine. Tanne alone, properly, fignifying a 
 fir-tree. 
 
 ftand
 
 [ 44 1 
 
 ftand one another, any more than if they fpoke two different la-nguagcs ; 
 natural hiftory efpecially fuffers by it. But it is much worfe when two 
 fynonimes go current at once in two provinces, under different fignifications. 
 Such, I am told, is the cafe of the German words which denote the fir 
 and pine-tree {q). The only remedy is to make one of thefe two names 
 claffical, and this honour fhould be conferred on the province producln g 
 fome great Naturalifts who, at the fame time, muft be a writer of fuch 
 weight, as to give currency to a word. To oppofe this would be a very 
 miftaken zeal for one's province ; the love of one's common country, and 
 that of the fciences is to preponderate. Befides, all oppofitions mud foon 
 fall before his authority. Claffical authors are the conquerors of the em- 
 pire of languages be their caufe right or wrong, they always carry the 
 day. 
 
 When the other provincial names can be applied to lower fpecles, 
 which till then had gone without a name, a coploufnefs, fo hurtful in 
 itfelf, becomes turned to a ufe ftill more happy and beneficial. 
 
 EQUIVOCATION. 
 
 All homonymies are not equivocations, and confequently not to be con- 
 demned inaricriminately. Homonomy often does good fervice to lan- 
 guages. It helps the memory, it pleafes the imagination, which delights 
 in refemblances, and it relieves the underftanding, whereas jejune writers, 
 and others, fervilely adhering to the propriety of the meaning, difguft the 
 reader. Profcribing it would fignify nothing ; our fondnefs for the figu- 
 rative ftile would be continually bringing It into vogue. When between 
 objedls of the fame name, there is no inconfiderable difference, and tliis 
 diftercnce is fufficiently pointed out in the connection of the difcourfe, fo 
 as not to be confounded, no equivocation need be apprehended. When 
 the Latins met with the word Lupus in a paffage relating to carrying off 
 Iheep ; it Is not to be thought that they could imagine the flieep had 
 
 • ■ ' fO?) ^K^'^f and Tanne. 
 
 beeft
 
 [ 45 J 
 
 been carried off by a pike, and in as little danger are we of confounding 
 the celeftial bear with the terreflrial animal, from which the former de- 
 rives its name. When the name of God is given to fuperior intelligences, 
 their invifibility, their grandeur, and the awe they infpire, make them 
 appear not a little different from any thing we are acquainted with, and 
 give them fuch a refemblance with the Deity as may lead us into mon- 
 ftrous errors; whereas we never fliall be fo far mlfled by the poets be- 
 llowing this title on worldly monarchs, knowing them to be of the fame 
 nature with ourfelves. All are agreed in the effential difference to be made 
 between the proper fenfe of a word, and its figurative, fublime, and poe- 
 tical import. 
 
 It is therefore a capital rule that hommymy is dangerous only when differ- 
 ent objetls denoted by the fame name have Jo near a refemblance, or are 
 fo intimately comieSied, as to be eafily mifakenfor one another. 
 
 But nature has taken care that this fhall not be the cafe too frequently, 
 by giving us a prediledbion for thofe bold figures in which tlie expreffions 
 are fo remote from their common meaning, that it is impoflible we fhould 
 be miftaken. The metonymy oi fpecies for the genus, by which we 
 might be niofl: eafily mifled, is accordingly the moft rare. This wife fcope 
 of nature would be utterly defeated, if, according to the notions of feme 
 lexicographers, and efpecially of the Hebrew ; languages were fo conlli- 
 tuted, that the principal fignification fliould point to the genus alone, and 
 the others indicate only the fpecies (r) ; for is there any thing which we 
 are more apt to confound than the genus and fpecies ? This article of 
 ambiguity I fliall illuflrate both by fidions and real fadls. 
 
 Suppofe that to two diftempers effentially different, tlic fame name has 
 been given, on account of fome external fymptoms, common to both • the 
 empyrics, and fome phyficians, no better than they, will treat them in the 
 fame manner, and thus inflead of a remedy, we fliall take poifon {s). 
 
 (r) Tliis miftake I have confuted in the work already quoted, Ref.eiilons onthe A'lethodi 
 now ufedfor undcrjfandi ng the ancient Hebretv language. 
 
 {s) This misfortune, far from being imaginary, has really happened more than once 
 when, whetiier accidentally or fraudulently, the fame name has been given to remedies and 
 *^ifoH». Of this feveral inftances occur in HiWe Ufefulntfsof a Knowledge of Pkuts, 
 
 Spat
 
 [ 46 ] 
 
 Spat and Quartz are very eafily diftinguifhable, but the miners in many 
 places have only the firft name for both ; and to this it is owing that they 
 take thefe two minerals, which every day prefent themfelves to their eyes, 
 for one and the fame, (though they abfolutely have nothing at all com- 
 mon, unlefs the transparency of a certain kind of fpat be reckoned fuch) 
 and they themfelves are no farther acquainted with the inferior fpecies, 
 than as facilitating or hindering the fufion of minerals. 
 
 Baron Wolf pretended to demonftrate the principle of fiifficlent reafo7t, 
 by faying, that did any thing exifl: wiihout fufficient reafon, it would fol- 
 low that nihility muft be its fufficient reafon. M. de Premontval, mem- 
 ber of that clafs of the academy, for which I particularly intend m.y 
 ■work, has in laying open the infufficiency of this demonftration, clearly 
 fliewn that it was founded only on the ambiguity of the word tiothitjg, or 
 nonentity {t). 
 
 The ancients have very much difputed on the fupreme or ultimate good. 
 It was indeed the mofl important queftion of their morality. We have 
 feen what they meant by this enJ of gooAt, that is, a fcope, to which all 
 other goods are only conducive means, being goods no farther than as 
 leading to that end. Thus wealth is of itfelf no good. It only becomes 
 fo, as enabling us to procure agreeable fenfations to ourfelves, and fecur- 
 ing us from the fufferings of indigence, and an anxious folicitude for fu- 
 turity, ^y fupreme good, is therefore to be underilood that identical good, 
 the attainment of which is the capital objedt of my endeavours, making 
 
 French Tranflator's Remark. 
 
 (;) It is proper even to take notice that M. de Premontval having fliewn that the falfity 
 of the demonftration becomes manifeft, on thinking, or on tranflating into French, whereas 
 in the Latin and German expreflion, it remains ftrangely enveloped and intricate; and this 
 it was which gave rife to the important queftion, on the influence of language on opinions, 
 and of opinions on language. Never had the bulk of the German nation been mifled by 
 the Wolfian philofophy, had not the two languages, which are moft familiar to them, the 
 German and Latin, been more accomodated than the French, to the fophifm, on which the 
 whole is founded. This, perhaps, is one of the moft remarkable pafTagcs in the hiftory 
 of the human mind.
 
 [ 47 ] 
 
 ufe of the other goods, only as Co many fleps towards the attainment of 
 it, and which without fuch intentions might be clafTcd among things 
 indifferent. It is not neceffary that this be the greateft of all goods ; whe- 
 ther great or fmall, it fuflices that it is the objedl of my deiires. But the 
 Latin expreflnn was ambiguous. Swinnum bonum may equally fignify 
 the greateft poilible good ; and the expreffion fupreme good, in our mo- 
 dern languages, fcarce admits of any other fenfe. 
 
 This ambguity milled fcveral philofophers, who not to fland neater i:i 
 difcuffions which had Co much perplexed their predeceflbrs, ftart^cd that 
 frivolous queftion, in what confifts the Supreme Good? That is, in their 
 opinion, the greateft of all goods. I call this queftion frivolous. Is it 
 not pofhble, may not two or feveral goods be equal, and in this cafe who 
 can warrant that there is- one greater than all the other ? Farther, may 
 not a leffer good in a higher degree be equal to a greater good in a kO'er 
 degree, that we may be at a lofs which to pi cfer ? Is there then a geo- 
 metry for goods and evils, and how are we to meafure things, of which 
 we know no common meafure ? But we will fuppofe that by the princi- 
 ple of indifcernibks, it was either impoffible, or very improbable, that 
 two beings fhall reach the fame point of felicity. The confequence will 
 be, that there is but one only being which can enjoy the fupreme good, 
 and then all other goods are out of the queftion. This good was thought 
 to be within every body's reach and conception, but can it ever be de- 
 monftrated that it is fo ? The fupreme good, in reality, confifts in being 
 God ; and to this, we neither can, nor are to pretend : feveral chriftian 
 moralifts, enamoured with the theological air of Plato's fentiments, 
 haftily adopted them, but on a change of the queftion, they warped thofe 
 doftrines from the meaning which that philofopher had annexed to them. 
 They placed the fupreme good in union with God : ftrange mjftake ! 
 this moral union is not an individual good, it is a mean for acquiring a 
 great quantity of goods to be eternally enjoyed, for attaining a felicity of 
 interminable permanency, compofed of numberlefs and infinitely diver- 
 fified pleafures. It is not therefore what the queftion turns on, and much 
 lefs is it what the ancient philofophers wrangled about. The fubjedl of 
 
 H their
 
 [ 48 ] 
 
 their altercations was, in efFeft, no more than to decide why, for in- 
 ftance, a palatable difli, a fine profpeft, riches, &c. are things which 
 pleafe us. Would it not be abfurd to fay, that thofe things pleafe us, 
 becaufe they procure us union with God? Should we like wine, becaufe 
 it unites us with the Deity ? Were this union the ultiniate fcope to which 
 all goods tend, the gratifications before mentioned, mufl be ftricken out 
 of the V.{\. of goods, and be fet afide among things indifferent. 
 
 An expreffion of a later date, the ambiguity of which has not caufed 
 lefs debate and confufion, is that of the Law of Nature (u). The learned 
 and efpecially fuch as were not Civilians, framing to themfelves a law of 
 nature, which, in the main, was nothing but morality, have thereby de- 
 prived themfelves of a whole fcience. Befides, morality, which by the 
 divine fanction is changed into the Laiv of Nature, we clearly conceive a 
 diflintt icience, determining the rights which we reciprocally have over 
 one another. Rights, which are valid, abftradtedly from acknowledg- 
 ing the exiftence of a God, or without confidering him as legiflator. 
 This fcience, on any difference ariling between nation and nation, be- 
 comes indifpenfible ; as thefe differences cannot be brought to an iffue 
 neither by morality nor the civil law ; for what right have I to compel 
 another to bec(Mne virtuous, or to make war on a criminal people ? Is it 
 for me to chaftile them for their nrotlig .:e difregard of duties ? Grotius 
 is the efteemable perfon to whom we owe the firfl difcovery of this fci- 
 ence ; but it foon was in dan^^er of bein? a^ain confounded with mora- 
 lity. The Latin word for right is ambiguous, lignifving likewife law. 
 Thus, for inftance, we fay the Roman right ; and in this fenfe it is that 
 mofl divines confound right of nature with law of nature, that is, with 
 morality, which is become a law by itscomection with natural divinity, 
 and they fly into a tlame at hearing it faid of forne fins, that they are not 
 contrary to the right of nature. This is what has partly given rife to the 
 difputes in Germany, concerning M. Schmau 's Right of Nature. 
 Though 1 by no means adopt all that learned pcrlon's principles, nor even 
 
 (u) Jufnaturse. 
 
 would
 
 [ 49 ] 
 
 would fo much as vindicate the purity of his intentions, in certain Thefcs 
 which apparently fap the very fundamentals of all morality ; yet I am 
 inclined to think that the outcry againfi; that in which he denies the an- 
 tiphyfical iin to be repugnant to natural right, would not have been fo 
 loud had this riaht been better underflood, for who will maintain that 
 this fin warrants making war on a nation where it (hould prevail ? 
 
 All thefe vehement difputes might have been prevented by a lefs equi- 
 vocal term ; but where is it to be found? That of ;w/'/(;r/3//!///cy} might 
 be propofed {xj, but v/hether the German expreilion anfwering to it 
 would be approved, is a queftion. 
 
 I have faid that the kind of homon ; my including the genus and fpe- 
 cies under the fame denomination had its dangers. This is the very cafe 
 of a German word, equally fignifying wonders and miracles. We give 
 the name of -wonder to all great events, all Angular and unexcepted events 
 which excite furprize and admiration fyj ; and herein cuftom happens to 
 agree with etymology, but this appellation is more particularly appro- 
 priated to the immediate operations of divine omnipotence ; it d<inotes mi- 
 racles xar' t^o^fiV. This twofold meaning has led many divines to multi- 
 ply miracles for God's greater glory, as they imagine, and to affirm that 
 miracles are ftill performed in the kingdom of grace, though not per- 
 ceived or taken notice of. 
 
 Inflead of troubling the academy with the particulars of a contro- 
 verfy now aflually on foot, I (liall only fay, that many of our old di- 
 vines, who are quoted as authorities for the continuance of miracles, 
 might in their ufe of that word underlland it only in the fenfe annexed 
 to it by Luther, when fpeaking of the works of nature, and efpecially 
 of the rainbow, which in Latin anfwers to Admirabilia Dei Opera, the 
 wonderful works of God. 
 
 {x) It is tiius we render the German word Befugnijfe (jus ad Rem faciendam velexigendam) 
 i\io\i^ fitnefs be not precifely anfwerable to it, but the reader will by the context perceive how 
 it is to be underflood. 
 
 (y) Which in Latin may be termed ?nirabilia. 
 
 H 2 The
 
 [ 50 ] 
 
 The vehement difputes among the Jews about the love of our neigh- 
 bour are known to every body, and this difpute appeared to Jefus Chrifl 
 of fuch concern, that he himfelf was plealed to ilhiftrate and decide it : 
 yet, in the main, it turned only on the ambiguity or double meaning of a 
 Hebrew word (z), and this word primarily fignifies any man with 
 whom I have fomething to tranfadt, my neighbour, nay, my adverfary, 
 either in a law-fuit or a duel; next it likewife fignifies a friend. Thefe 
 divifions would never have been heard of had Mofes written in German, 
 and made ufe of that language in faying ; tbou Jloalt love thy neighbQur as 
 thyfclj\a). 
 
 Accejfary Ideas and 'Judgments. 
 
 Many are the objedls for which fome languages have no neutral terms, 
 and which cannot be named without either praifing or blaming them. 
 Now if thefe acceffary ideas are improper or erroneous, the judgment of 
 the nations fpeaking thofe languages, will hardly efcape being infefted by 
 thofe improprieties. 
 
 The meaning of the word luxury in French is very well known to all 
 who underfland that language. It is a word which neither prepoffcfTes 
 in favour of, or prejudices againfl: the objedl denoted by it. Luxury, 
 Under certain limitations, is what found policy will both approve and coun- 
 nance, as without it no flate can profper and flaurlfii. I would venture 
 to undertake ajuftification of it, and bring many of my proofs from 
 the holy fcripture itfclf. But tlie German name for it is the queftion : 
 that made ufe oi by M. Jufti [b);, is. already charged with an acceffary 
 idea, which will neceffarily expofe it to the contempt and deteftation of 
 profefTors of morality, and efpeciallv ecckilaftics, or at Icaft will with- 
 hold them from giving the due commeudatioub to that dlfcrete and al- 
 
 (z; n. 
 
 {a) Neighbour may be rendered in German hy nel-eii-minfche, as it \Herey fdlew-fnan., 
 {J)) Uepp'gtcit, which may be rendered voluptuoufucls, or libertinifm. 
 
 lowable
 
 [ 5' ] 
 
 lowable luxury which I am fpeaking of. Wc have another word, wliicli 
 literally fignifies fuperfluity (cj ; and it is certain, the better only wants 
 to be liilficiently received in this new fignification. It is then ftra nge that a 
 thing for which we areyet without any neutral term, ftiould be fo exclaim- 
 ed againft, not only by preachers, but likewife by thofe mIio fct up for 
 oeconomifls ? And is not the language partly the caufe of the ignorance 
 of thofe people, who think they are wonderfully promoting the public 
 good, in preaching up or recommending the moft fordid pariimony. 
 
 Acceflary ideas come efpecially under the notice of tranllitors, by the 
 difficulty of finding equivalent expreflions in their language, whether they 
 are to be accompanied with the fame acceffary ideas, or whether perfedly 
 indifferent. Good tranflators often venture to amend this deficiency of 
 the language by annexing to words new fignifications, with which the 
 reader gradually becomes familiarized. The tranflation indeed may at firfl 
 appear dark and loofe. This is an inconveniency unavoidable, through 
 the deficiency of the language, but it is compenfated by a greater ad- 
 vantage. 
 
 I fhould fcarce be excufeable, were I to omit the words, time and /pace, 
 though I find nothing exceptionable in them. Whole fchools of philofo- 
 phers are known to look on time and fpace, only as Jeries of monades mu- 
 tations or phasnomena, and admit no void either in one or the other ; and 
 thefe philofophers charge the language with mifleading the imaginition in 
 this refpeft, by reprefenting to it time and fpace, abftra(Sledly from every 
 other thing, and as effenees fubfifting of themfelves. 1 do not well know 
 what languages fall under this charge, and having not yet obferved that 
 any one is excepted, the cenfure perhaps may include them all. Let us 
 take afhortviewof the German, the French, and the Latin. 
 
 I own that I do not fee wherein either of thofe languages influences our 
 judgments, or miileads our imagination. They do not fo much as border 
 on the queftion. They do not introduce the leail: acceflary idea in the 
 notions of time a.nd Jpace. Would fuch critics have thefe words, to draw 
 
 (0 Ueberflsifs, 
 
 aft?5^
 
 [ 52 ] 
 
 after them by way of regimen, a genitive fpecifylng the things of which 
 time and fpace are the comatentionaor feries? But that would be very fuper- 
 fluous, allowing even the truth of the thefis maintained by thofe philo- 
 fophers. Every one knows there can be no order without things, and yet 
 the word order may, in all languages, be ufed alone, and without rcgi- 
 m.'tn. Do they think that the very etymology of the terms fhould 
 indicate time and fpace to be nothing more than fucceflions or feries ? 
 But this is the very thing in queflion ; and did the language decide in their 
 favour, the philofopliers of a contrary opinion, might juftly accufe it of 
 partiality. Is it not fomething out of the way to blame it for not favour- 
 ing either one or the other party ? And is it not ftill more out of the way 
 to require from it, or rather to require from the people which forms it, 
 and thefe are the multitude, generally illiterate, the decifion of one of 
 the moft: abflracl queftions in all philofophy ? If the geometrician be 
 allowed to denote the line of which he is feeking the length by an arbi- 
 trary charadler, not in the leaft expreflive of any of the properties of that 
 line ; may not we likewife make ule of the expreffions of a language, 
 the etymology of which does not intimate to us any thing of the nature 
 of the objeds reprefented by thofe expreffions, or through time is become 
 totally loll:. The roots of the firft language mull certainly have 
 been arbitrary figns ; for from whence could they have been derived ? 
 And with what reafon can it be required that all the words of the modern 
 languages fliould be real definitions and piflures of the objedls ? 
 
 Language, to be fure, acculloms us to abftrad: time and fpace from the 
 things which fill them, and that it fliould be otherwifc is impofible : with- 
 out abftradl ideas, what would become of metaphyfics ? But if, farther, 
 we can fo readily reprefent to ourfelves as void, time and Ipace ; this does 
 not proceed from the language, but from the thing itfelf. Where is the 
 impoffibility of a hollow fphere exifting, abfolutely filled with nothing ; 
 by fuppofing that there is no other univerfe, nor any thing without this 
 fphere to comprefs it ? What contradidiion is there in this idea, that om- 
 niporence could have created only this fphere, inftcad of the world 
 which it has made ? But if the exigence of fuch a fphere be poffible, 
 that of a void fpace is likewife fo ; the internal capacity of this fphere 
 
 being
 
 [ 53 ] 
 
 being in reality an abfoliite void. This cannot be denied without denying 
 this capacity any magnitude and extenfxon, and thus the diameter and cir- 
 cumference would no longer have that reciprocal proportion, v/hich the 
 eternal laws of geometry require. Who will affirm that omnipotence 
 cannot create a portion of infulated matter, feparated from all other mat- 
 ter, and give it the form of a carpenter's fquare ? And is it not evident by 
 the determinate length of the hypothenufe, that there muft be a void 
 fpace between the two extremities of that fquare? 
 
 If our ready conception of a void fpace be owing to an error, this is 
 not to be fought for in the language, but in our fenfes, to which, before we 
 become acquainted with and have combined certain experiments, the whole 
 expanfe of the atmofphere appears a void fpace. 
 
 On the other hand, they who place eternity in a fucceffion of inftants, 
 who conceive of it not as a mathematical point, but as an infinite line j 
 thefe, I fay, might with greater reafon complain of the partiality of our 
 language. According to them, eternity is only an infinite time, which 
 we conceive by taking away from the time in which we exift, its begin- 
 ning and end, and in this refpedl I am very much of their mind. Now 
 the oppofition in our language between time and eternity, in fome meafure 
 contradidls this opinion, and favours fchool divinity, which excludes from 
 eternity all fucceffion, looking on it as an immenfe point, as a perpetual 
 inftant, and thewlioleof it prefent at once. I muft, however, alledge in 
 favour of the language, that in diftinguifiiing time from eternity, nothing 
 farther is meant by time than the continuance of life, or the duration of 
 the world ; and the expreffions of infinite time [d), or eternal time, fo far 
 from being foreign to the idiom of our language, are perfedly fuitable to 
 it. The Latin word anfwering to eternity is ceterjiitas, which is a con- 
 tra(flion of ceviternitas, of which cevum time, makes a part. Lallly, 
 does not the church call ^iQxniiy fecula Jeculomm, ages of ages? 
 
 {d) Oevum infinitum. 
 
 Ety:nology
 
 [ 5+ ] 
 
 Etymology and ExpreJJions. 
 
 The inventors of new expreflions being no more infallible than the peo- 
 ple who adopt them, the etymology of words, and compofed phraf^s may 
 as well perpetuate an error as a truth, and this error faftening on our mind 
 in our tender years, will be the more contagious. 
 
 We all fee the dew lodged on the plants, but as we do not fee how it 
 comes there, it would be quite as natural to compare it to perfpiration as 
 to rain, and opinions would at leafl: be divided were not the latter opinion 
 fupported by long prejudice. The generality of people, and even the 
 learned, who are not verfed in natural hiftory, both alike look on dew as 
 vapours formed into drops falling from the iTcy. This however is a miftake 
 which may eafily be cleared up, only by putting a receiver over the grafs 
 in a dewy night ('r^. 
 
 What furprifed me here is not that men have been miftaken ; error is 
 the lot of human nature ; but it is the univerfality of this miftake, and the 
 obftinate adherence to it, even after the truth of the matter has been fo 
 manifeftly difcovered, that every one may convince himfelf of it with his 
 own eyes. How comes it that there is but one opinion on this fubjeft, 
 among all thofe who make no experiment and are unacquainted with 
 phyfics, and this happens to be the wrong opinion ? It is not our fenfes 
 which deceive us, we fee drops, but there are drops of fweat as well as 
 drops of rain. They who are abroad in the country all night, which is 
 more often the cafe of the inferior clafs than men of letters, never per- 
 
 (<) An objefllon of a friend of mine makes it necefiary to explain myfelf more fully ; I 
 am far from denying that fogs iiluing from the earth do not leave drops on the trees throui^h 
 which they pafs ; all I affirm is, that thefe drops do not defcend but rife from the earth and 
 the plants ; that the outfide of the receiver being a little wcttej, is owing to thofe fogs. That 
 dew afcends inftead of defcending is fufficiently evinced by the plants which had been covered 
 being as wet, and even more io, than thofe which remained in the open air : a rtill Wronger 
 confirmation of it is, that they are no fooncr uncovered than part of their dew .lies off as a 
 mift. 
 
 ceive
 
 [ 55 3 
 
 ceive any thing of this fuppofed rain. Was there any thing more na- 
 tural than to attribute to the drops on vegetables the fame origin as to 
 thofe which proceed from our body ? This humidity, when on glaffes and 
 on ftones, was erroneoufly attributed to tranfpiration, and when the fta- 
 tues of the gods happened to be thus humedlated, fuperftition cried out 
 a portent! a prodigy! How came this moiilure to be accounted an exudation 
 where there was none, and no fuch thing to be thought of where it really 
 is ? I mean in the vegetables, the nature of which is much nearer a kin 
 to us than that of glaffes and ftones. About day-break, when the dew, 
 after having been very copious, is evaporating, countrymen and (liepherds 
 fee fogs rifing and not falling. The German name for thefe mifts fliews 
 their relation to dcwffj, and thus dew fhould rather be looked on as a gift 
 from the earth than from the fky. 
 
 That this error has fpread fo very much is the fault of the languages in 
 which it was at firft introduced. We have heard from our childhood the 
 dew of heaveuy the dew falls, as we have heard fay, the Jlone, the ivall, the 
 window gives : Now it will be no cafy niatter to reprefent to ourfelves 
 as afcending what we have all our life been ufed to confider as falling, 
 efpecially if we have made no enquiries on this head. I have ever 
 found divines pertinacious in defending this miflake, and only be- 
 caufe they meet with thefe expreffions in fcripture ; that is enough for 
 them, juft as if the Hebrew people had never fpoke a word but what was 
 infpired, or as if the prophets writing in that language, had not been obliged 
 to make ufe of popular expreffions, theyfeem not aware that our naturalilfs, 
 though they know better, retain thofe expreffions to avoid the imputation 
 of pedantry. 
 
 Here follows an inflance, precifely of the fame clafs. Manna bears a 
 very near refemblance to dew j its origin is the very fame ; the only dif- 
 ference being that it remains, whereas dew evaporates. From this reafon 
 it is that in the countries, where manna is found, they have imagined that 
 like dew, it fell from above, and this conceit has got footing in the lan- 
 guages. Both the Arabs and Hebrews fay with us, that it comes Jrom 
 above, or that it falls (g) . There is another kind which the Arabs, by way of 
 
 (f) Thauwolken, dew-clouds. 
 
 dif-
 
 [ 56 ] 
 
 diftin6lion,term cekftial manna(h'). In theholy fcripture we read that the man na 
 fell along with the deW; and by the fame figure which the profane poets make 
 ufe of in calling the latter a gift of heaven, the truly inlpired poet has called 
 the manna bread from heaven [t). Thefe expreffions, to which the orientals 
 were accuftomed from their early years, have confirmed them in the opinion 
 that manna defcended. It was not till the middle of the fixteenth century 
 that the falfity of that opinion began to be feen into, and that in Italy 
 manna was found to be no more than a gum exuding from plants, trees 
 and bufhes, on being pierced by certain infedls. The expreffion, how- 
 ever, has been retained in the language, like thofe relating to dew and to 
 the rifing and fetting of the fun, which I have before fpoken of; it like- 
 wife occurs in Italian books, written long fince the miftake was difco- 
 vered (k), and this {hews that Mofes might make ufe of the expreffion 
 to the Ifraelites without countenancing the error to which the rife of it 
 was o"vlng. From the currency of the expreffion it is that this error 
 ftill fabfifts among thofe who are not acquainted with the materia medica^ 
 that is among the generality ; and ae \n the manna fent to the Ifraelites, 
 though Mofes's defcription exadlly agrees with our modern manna, there 
 are few divines who will fuffer themfelves to be undeceived. 
 
 The Jews in Jefus's time went flill farther, making this error a handle 
 to difparage the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves. They faid 
 unto him, what fign JJjewe/i thou that we may fee and believe thee ? What 
 doeji thou produce ? Our fathers did eat manna in the defert, as it is writteri 
 he gave them bread from heaven to eat (I). Nothing is more true in phy- 
 fics-than the Saviour's anfwer, Verily ^ verily ^ I fay unto you that the bread 
 which Mofes gave you came not from heaven. Now could, or would Chrift 
 have denied it, v/ere the Hebrew phrafe to he underfloodin its literal fenfe ? 
 
 Thefe wrong ufes of the viOKA falling put me in mind of thofe which 
 rifmg occafions in occurrences of univerfal concern, and into which con- 
 
 (h) sUvJ^ ^M . 
 
 {\) Pi/LXVlII. 24. 
 
 [k) Guida di f'jrcjiieri dell Abatte Pompeo Sarrelii. Napoli. 1761.P. 594, dalle frondi fi 
 raccogU manna, che di notte dal cclo fi diftilla cotne la rugiada (i. e.) from the leaves is ga- 
 thered manna, which like dew, falls in the night from the (ky. 
 
 (/) Johnvi. 30. 31. 
 
 fcquenlly
 
 [ 57 ] 
 
 fequently more enquiry and refledion might be expeded. On the coin- 
 ing of bad money, for which, by a figure the Greeks themfelves were 
 unacquainted with, the names of crowns, groflchcns, &;c. are retained, 
 it is evident that good money fliould be worth more of thofe kinds of 
 crowns and groflchens, that is, it Ihouid be worth an agio or the difference 
 of the ftandard. 
 
 It fhould then be faid, fuch a coin, that of Bernburg for inftance, 
 lowers in value ^ the crown falls, it is worth lefs than before, and in the 
 common courfe of things, it would ufually be true to fay that good mo- 
 ney lowers with the bad, for if, by an allowance of lo per cent, I receive 
 for twenty pilfoles, which make a hundred crowns, if I fay I receive a 
 hundred and ten crowns in bad money, the non value or deficiency of 
 which is 50 per cent, it is very clear that the value of a piftole is ex- 
 tremely lowered to my detriment, as for a hundred crowns in gold I re- 
 ceive of fine filver, only the value of fifty-five crowns, and this from the 
 ftupidity of the people in looking no farther than the piece and in- 
 fcription. 
 
 Whereas the piftole, the louis d'or, the good florin, &c. are faid to rife, and 
 except thofe who have philofophically inveftigated the fubftances of coins, 
 or who have read what has been written about them within thefe ten vears, 
 and great traders, every body is milled by thofe expreffions. They 
 imagine a real augmentation or value when that is far from being the 
 cafe. After laying out their capital in good coin, they fancy that the more 
 monies lower, the better for them"; and yet when bad money is again re- 
 duced to its real value, and the good is worth a difference of cent per 
 cent, &c. which is the moft favourable cafe, they are at moft but where 
 they were, they have preferved their capital, and that's all. 
 
 Nay, there are fome who, after being fo inconfiderate as to exchange 
 a hundred in gold for fifty-five in filver, think they have been mighty 
 cunning, and hug themfelves for their addrefs in the improvement of 
 money. I have difcuffed this matter with perfons of learning, and the 
 difficulty in convincing them of fo manifeft a truth, fliewed me how far 
 this detrimental influence may go. When they were on yielding to the 
 iirength of my arguments, they were always withheld by a fufpicion that 
 
 I 2 per-
 
 [ 58 ] 
 
 perhaps it was only a mere verbal controverfy, and whether, after all, to 
 fay, that the bad money lowers, or to fay, that the good rifes in value, 
 was not tantamount. The objedion, indeed, was fpecious, if the word 
 rifing is taken only relatively to bad coins, the upfliot is the fame, 
 with only this difference, that for the juftnefs of the relation, and to pre- 
 clude any miftake, good coin Ihould then be worth an agio of 50 per 
 100, and above. But it was underflood in an abfolute fenfe, and the 
 good coins were looked on as an augmentation of wealth, and as an equi- 
 valent for a greater quantity of goods ! A very great miftake ! 
 
 If in an affair which may be ftridlly calculated, and which even, with- 
 out calculation, feems as clear as the meridian fun ; an affair, befides, of 
 fuch public concern, I fay, if in an affair of fuch a nature, the bulk of 
 mankind are dazzled by an expreffion, which yet is not abfolutely faulty; 
 what will it be in abftradl and metaphyseal controverfies, and what pre- 
 cautions are not required againft the errors into which the impropriety of 
 language may draw us ? We are not, however, without prefervatives 
 againft its fnares ; we may keep clear of them, both by doubt, which is 
 the firll precept of philofophy, and by frequently varying our modes of 
 fpeaking. Away with that dry method, that fuperftitious adherence to 
 the fame expreffions ; it is infinitely more illufory and deceitful than that 
 amiable philofophy, of which Plato has left us fo charming a model, and 
 which enlivens the moft abftrufe matters w^ith the amenities of ftyle, and 
 the graces of poetry. 
 
 Etymology becomes a fource of errors, not only when it is itfelf the 
 offspring cf error, but likewife when it caufes figurative exprefiions to be 
 taken for real definitions ; or when, by length of time, expreffions be- 
 come fo far changed as to convey a falfe etymology to the ear. This cafe 
 indeed happens but fcldom, and concerns only foreign words and phrafes, 
 V/hen in fair weather a hovering cloud gradually extends itfelf over a cer- 
 tain hlil in Switzerland, and this it feems is far from being uncommon^ 
 the hill looks as if it had a hat on ; now this appearance gave rife to the 
 name of Mons. Pileatus, which afterwards was corruptively changed into 
 Mont de Pilate, or Pilate's Hill; and that this falfe appellation might not 
 
 want
 
 [ 59 ] 
 
 want an origin, the fable was invented of Pontius Pilate's throwing hini- 
 felf into a lake on fuch a mountain {m). 
 
 The other cafe is more frequent j it is incredible what a pronenefs 
 there is in us to account whatever propofitions we imagine to have dif- 
 covered in etymology, infallible truths, as if the people, for it is they who 
 make languages, could never be miftaken. It is very wrongfully, that 
 only grammarians are accufed of this fondnefs for etymology ; there are 
 many others not lefs infeded with it, and full as ready to take for a proof 
 a word of which they do not fo much as know the inventor, and often 
 will beat their brains to forge a fpecious proof, purely for upholding the 
 authority of the word. 
 
 No two things are more alike than ice and chryftal, efpecially when 
 fplit, and on this account it is, that in many countries the name of ice 
 has been given to the latter. This, for inftance was the primary meaning 
 of the Greek word HfWaAAo? ; and from this community of appellation, 
 fome have been for explaining the origin of chryflal : the mofl: current 
 opinion among the antients, was that chryftal is an ice which time has in- 
 durated, giving to its parts a fixednefs and cohefion, by which they 
 have totally loft their fluidity. I do not fee how the fight could occalion 
 this miftake, as, were it fo, the like judgment muft have been formed of 
 quartz, of the tranfparent kind of /path, of the feknites, in a word, of 
 all the diaphanous produdions of nature. Etymology, therefore, may- 
 be reafonably apprehended to have caufed the miftake, and indeed it is 
 moft frequently met with among the ancients, who laid a wonderful 
 ftrefs on Greek etymologies ; and if fome moderns are dazzled by them, 
 I have obferved that it is principally among the admirers of the Greek. 
 Accordingly, it is only fuch, and not naturalifts, that I fliall briefly en- 
 deavour to convince of their miftake. 
 
 I. Chryftal is manifeftly nothing but a kind of quart::,, were it an in- 
 durated ice, the like muft be faid of all the other fpecies of quartz, but 
 fuch an abfurdity, I believe, will fcarce be maintained by any one, who 
 
 {m) For a full Defcription of Pilate's Hill, fee the Hanover Economkal Chronicle, 1758. 
 
 k no WIS
 
 [ 6o ] 
 
 knows that great quantities of quartz are found in places where fcarce 
 any ice is to be expedted, as in branches of mines, the air of which is 
 always temperate, and muft have been more inclinable to warmth, be- 
 fore the external air could make its way thither. 
 
 11. Chryftal is diftinguiflied by a determinate form, that of an hexa- 
 gonal obelifk } a figure never found in pendant ificles j thefe arc ra- 
 ther roundifh, without either point or angles, and too irregular to be any 
 thing but accidental, and in which the coalefcence of drops of water 
 coming thither in divers directions is obvious to the fight. 
 
 The German name of the Oolithos(^«j equally tends to miflead us. I very 
 much queftion whether the firfl inventor of that name took the ftone for 
 petrified roes of fiili, and gave into an error fo contrary to the nature of 
 petrifadlions, anddifproved bychymical experiments. It was unqueflionably 
 the outward refemblance, which induced him, as it has induced many 
 others to call (liells from certain works of art, or of nature. It mufl 
 then be the name, and only the names, heard all our life time but never 
 rightly comprehended, which led thofe who know there are petrifications, 
 yet are not very well acquainted with their conftituent parts, to confound 
 with real roes of fifties, a lime ftone mixed v/ith coarfe fand ; and if it 
 be fufpedled that I am talking of an error merely chimerical, 1 can quote 
 a memoir publiflied at Rouiberg, the author of which carefully fets down 
 his predecefibrs in that error (o). It is thus the man of learning is de- 
 ceived, and in the fame manner are the illiterate : Etymology mifieads 
 them both. From this fource, very probably, is derived the vulgar opi- 
 nion, that the cancer may be caufed by handling of putrified crabs. 
 
 Mr. Adamfon, in his Natural Hiftory of Senegal, inveighs with no 
 frnall heat againft thefe errors, and the etymological infatuation. He 
 would have all the feveral produdlions of nature called by neutral names, 
 and without any derivation ; they Ihould be mere arbitrary figns, of no 
 
 («) Rogi-n-Stc'!/!. Stone confifting of fiflies rows. 
 
 (o) Qua;l',io naturalis Pruflica de Oolitho Regiomontano, 1733, by Charles Henry 
 Rappott. 
 
 farther
 
 [ 6i ] 
 
 farther Import, and quite Irrelative to other things (^.^. This remedy 
 feems to me v/orle than the difcafe ; if etymologies have their falfities, 
 they on the other hand, intimate to us many truths, which otherwife we 
 Ihould never difcover, or at leafl not till very late, and are truths to be 
 rejedled, becaufe they are intermixed with error ? Nearly the like mixture 
 is met with in all libraries, arc they therefore to be deftroyed. Farther, 
 etymologies are a great help to memory, which certainly flands in need 
 cf help amidft the abftrufe inveftigations of natural hiftory, on the other 
 hand, new words, without derivation, would convey founds too uncouth 
 for our ears readily to take in, which would be laying memory on the 
 rack. It is, therefore, my opinion, that we fliould be fufficiently guarded 
 againfi: miftakes, would the votaries of phyfical fciences carefully bear in 
 mind thefe two things {p) : iji. That mod etymologies, being figurative 
 expreffions, are not intended to exprefs the nature of objedts. zd, That 
 even when this is the intention of them, they are no more than the 
 thoughts of an anonymous individual, and which, of courfe, require the 
 fame examination as all the thoughta wc meet with in the courfe of our 
 reading. 
 
 But I will fuppofe thefe two rules not to be a fufficient fecurity to the 
 naturalifl againil every poffible error, what expedieat remains then for the 
 
 (^) His words are ; " Experience teaches us that mof? of the fignificatlve names, which 
 have been given to objects of natural hiftory, are become improper and falfe, as new pro- 
 perties, or propertiss contrary to thofe which gave rife to thefe names, are difcovered, there- 
 fore to guard againft contradictions, figurative terms are to be exploded, and fuch only ufed as 
 cannot be referred to any etymology whatever, that they who are infatuated with etymologies, 
 may not be led to annex falfe ideas to words." In this the author requires an impoflibility : 
 what fignifies inventing new founds? the people will foon alter them to an affinity with fomc 
 national founds and common words, as among innumerable other inftances, the Germans 
 of Mujlimin, have made Mufebnan. The execution of Mr. Adamfon's fcheme would be- 
 come a very copious fource of errors, like that of Pilate's Mountain above mentioned. 
 He goes on in this manner. 
 
 [q) " Names fhould be like blows, or Games of Chance, between which there is generally 
 no connexion : the lefs fignificative, the Icfs relation they have to other names or known 
 things, the better, becaufe the idea being fixed to one fingle objeft, would comprehend it 
 much more diftinftly, than when blended with other objedts in affinity to it.'' 
 
 meta-
 
 [ 62 ] 
 
 metaphyfician, and the learned in other branches ? Mufl they alfo Invent 
 barbarous languages, the words of which are to have no manner of con- 
 nexion or analogy between them ? A fad ftroke to the fciences ! The 
 moft that a perfon could learn would be one, and that but very deficiently ; 
 like the Chinefe we fhould wafte our life in retaining thoufands of cha- 
 racfters, and what is worfe, be farther like them in this, that, after all our 
 toil, we fhould have learned no more than what others knew ; and to 
 carry any one fcience to its perfeftion, would be utterly impoflible. 
 Mr. Adamfon feems to have had a thorough knov/ledge of every circum- 
 ftance relating to Senegal ; but he is not acquainted with the nature of 
 language. 
 
 In my lad feftion I fliall make fome remarks, by which a true eftimate 
 may be formed of his projedl. It is with phrafes as with the etymologies 
 of words : they were true in their origin, where their fenfe was only figu- 
 rative, but being afterwards explained in their proper fenfe, they are be- 
 come fources of errors to whole nations, and of errors to which thoufands 
 of years may not put a period. 
 
 They, who hold every thing to depend on providence, without any 
 allowance to a chance, which it could not forefee, or to a neceflity which 
 it could not withftand ; in a word, the fticklers for the doftrine of 
 the befl world, may attribute to God all the good and evil that falls out, 
 as the reafon of its exiftence lies in thofe fcenes of the world which preceded 
 it, and the primordial reafon of the whole from the firll: univerfal arrange- 
 ment, of which God has forefeen all the confcquences. This good and this 
 evil are only a mediate, and not an im.mediate efieiX of omnipotence, 
 which executed, a plan from whence, by a long chain of confcquences, 
 they were to refult : Moral good and moral evil, are here in the like 
 cafe, though it is the former which has been the fcope of the difpolition; 
 and the fecond has been admitted only becaule the exclufion of it would 
 have difconcerted the plan, and rendered it lefs good than it is. 
 
 The Orientals, to indicate this arrangement, made ufe of bold figures, 
 much lefs common among us, though not totally unknown. 
 
 The
 
 r 63 ] 
 
 The people of Berlin fay that all marflial Daun did in his lafl: invafion 
 of Saxony in 175H, was the burning the fuburbs of Drcfden. Herein 
 they fpeak of the mediate caufe, without faying that it is only mediate, and 
 ufe the very exprefllon which denotes the immediate caufe. In the eaft 
 they go ftill far greater lengths. There God has done and commanded all 
 that men do, however, contrary to his commandments. Shimei 
 breaks forth into imprecations againfl; David ; from that time God 
 has ordered Shimei to curfe David. The people after all Ifaiah's dif- 
 courfes and exhortations are little affedlcd by them, as being what they 
 had long been ufed to ; then it is, God has faid to the prophet, harden 
 thou the hearts of this people ; and no mention is made of the innocent 
 means which happened to be productive of this obduracy. Miracles, by 
 being multiplied, do not convince Pharoah ; they make no impreflion on his 
 mind ■, and it was God by whom thefe miracles were wrought ; this the 
 Hebrew phrafeology terms God has hardened Pharaoh\ heart. The If- 
 raelites fuffer themfelves to be deceived by lying prophets, feeding them 
 with illufive hopes of happier times. Here again It is ; God has deceived 
 them. If we coUedl together all the like pafTages in the fame point of 
 view, it will be palpably manifeft that an immediate operation of God on 
 the will and undcrftanding is not, cannot be, the import of them -, 
 but that they relate only to the natural and common operations of pro- 
 vidence (r). 
 
 When evil adlions are the queftion, thefe ways of fpeaking aftonifli us, 
 and this very aftonlfhment fhould give us to know that thefe expreffions 
 are figurative. This is lefs manifeft, when morally good aftions, as con- 
 verfion, faith, holinefs, and fandtification are attributed to the deity. 
 
 By the too frequent ufes of this figure, it comes gradually to be no 
 longer taken for a figure ; and a literal fenfe is annexed to it. God is 
 imagined to be the immediate caufe of all the adlions attributed to him. 
 He miraculoufly produces what moral good and evil is in man, or, at 
 
 (r) Exod. iv. 28. ix. 12, 16. Deut. iv. 19. xviii, 14. xxix. 25. 2 Sam. xvi. 10. 
 xxiv. I, Jerem. iv. 10. Eccl. xiv. 9. xx, 25. 
 
 K Iea{^,
 
 [ 6+ ] 
 
 leafl-, the latter, by with-holding a miniculous grace, without which we 
 cannot abftain from the commiffion of fin. According to this opinion, 
 God difcompofes the courfe of events j he never choofes a thing as natu- 
 rally refulting from what precedes it becaufe the order in which it comes 
 is the beft of all. No, on the contrary, it is by an abfolute decree that 
 he makes choice of it ; then confiders and finds out means for bringing 
 it to effedl ; and when thefe means are not in the common courfe of 
 nature, he by his immediate influence alters that courfe. 
 
 This is what happened to Mahomet, wliofe ignorance could not enter 
 into a philofophic examination of his language, and diftinguidi letter 
 from figure. The Arabic, which has a very near affinity with the He- 
 brew, and which fpeaks of the works of providence with the like em- 
 phafis, induced the prophet, who was of a ftrong and faturnine 
 fancy, and he himfelf an odd medley of the impoflor and enthufiaft, to 
 teach the abfolutenefs of the divine decrees in the mofl rigorous fenfe, 
 and make man a mere machine. It will appear, that there is all the 
 reafon in the world to charge his cnoi- on hb language, when we con- 
 fider the many miftakes it has led him into. For inftance, on what ac- 
 count could he forbid killing locufts, had he not looked on them to be 
 God's army ; and his looking on them as fuch, was becaufe fuch is the 
 meaning of the Arab word for locufts (j-). The fame language often 
 defcribes fin under the figure of a load or burden {t) of which a man 
 cannot rid himfelf. This Mahomet underftood of a material burden ;. 
 and, accordingly, maintained, that the damned carried their crimes on 
 their back, and efpecially all the goods they had ftolen ; and this error 
 he introduced into the Alcoran, on account of a cloak having been fiiolen 
 out of the booty ; and fome fons of Belial had the effrontery to fufpedt 
 that the thief was no other than the prophet himfelf. 
 
 A like doftrine, relating to an abfolute decree, and its immediate effedls 
 in the converfion or hardening of men has fpread itfelf in Chriflianity j. 
 
 (s) ^U\ iyii. Giimitf ylllahi, 
 (0 //J • 
 
 a dodrine
 
 [ 6s ] 
 
 a do£liine which has met with champions and antagonifts In the three feve- 
 ral Chriftian religions ; and it may be queftioned, whether it does not pro- 
 ceed from the fame fource as above. Thus much is certain, that the 
 continuance of it is owing to a fxlfe and perverted explanation of fome 
 bibliacal phrafes ; taking eaftcrn figures in the niofl: ftridl literal meaning : 
 ftill this is not the whole of what 1 mean. St. Auftin is inconteflibly the 
 patriarch of this dodlrine among the Chriflians. With a flender portion 
 of learning he had a very warm imagination j he was an African, and by 
 language a Carthaginian. Latin indeed was fpoken in the cities of 
 Africa, but it was not the Roman Latin, being adulterated with a ftrong 
 African tinge. If Latin was the body of that language, its foul was 
 formed of the Punic, St. Auguftine's mother-tongue, and he was fo well 
 verfed in it, as fometimes to make ufe of it for better illuflrating Hebrew 
 phrafes («). Thus the good biOiop fpoke Hebrew without knowing it. 
 Had he been acquainted with the Hebrew alphabet, and taken fome little 
 pains in fludying the difference between that language and the Punic lan- 
 guage of that time, inflcad uf being reproadicd as fcandaloufly ignorant of 
 both the original languages of the holy fcripture, he would have been ho- 
 noured as the father of oriental philology. 
 
 Let us, but without injuring St. Auftin's reputation, by flretching 
 the comparifon too far, compare the two dodlors of abfolute de- 
 crees. The imagination of both was ftrong, and bordering on enthu- 
 fiafm. They both had a natural bent to poetry ; though, in St. Auguf- 
 tine, grace afterwards converted this bent into declared averfion. Nei- 
 ther of the two had fo much learning as to guard themfelves from the 
 elufions of figurative ftile ; one was an Arab, and the other a Hebrew. 
 Would it be any egregious miftake to charge part of the origin of an 
 error of fo long a (landing, and which has fpread itfelf among the three 
 branches of Chriftianifm, on thofe languages ? 1 fay in part ; it being 
 known that St. Auguftine was farther milled by a kind of fpiritual 
 experience ; on which he relied without any fufficient examination of it. 
 
 (m) Gen, XXX. 30. 
 
 K 2 SECT.
 
 [ 66 ] 
 
 SECT. VI. 
 
 Arbitrary Beauties, 
 
 OF all the antient languages which have reached our times, the 
 Greek is perhaps the fitteft for furnifhing us with inftances of er- 
 rors ; the origin of which was folely owing to arbitrary beauties ; but 
 under the fandlion of time and cuftom, they became laws ; from which 
 they who fpoke or wrote in that language could not fafely deviate. The 
 voice of the people determined propriety and beauty without taking into 
 confideration the advantage or detriment which might refult from the 
 diftion. Thefe beauties were pretty much like thofe of the Gothic archi- 
 tedlure j but he who writes for a nation muft conform to its caprices. 
 
 Extreme fondnefs for harmony, and an extreme averfion againft rude 
 founds, may introduce errors into hiftory. Now this nicety the Greek 
 language particularly afFe(fled. Herodotus excufes himfelf more than 
 once, when under a- neceflity of inferting proper names with a foreign 
 found J and fome he choofes rather to omit. My Teutonic ear, indeed, 
 is proof againft thefe kinds of cacophonies ; but very certain it is, that 
 Grecian ears were extremely offended at them. The confequences of 
 this delicacy were two-fold. 
 
 Either foreign proper names were changed till they became more mu-- 
 fical, that is, till they became Grecian, and feemed derived from a Greek 
 root : the baneful fource of innumerable errors ! 
 
 Would not children and the commonality naturally imagine that the 
 nations, the names of whofe towns and rivers were Greek, had originally 
 fpoken the Greek tongue. This falfe opinion carrying with it an air of 
 patriotifin, was too pleafing not to be obftinately defended by the multi'- 
 tude of the learned, it is the weaknefs of us all that we are for making 
 every other aation a colony of ours. I am not here fpeaking of the fables. 
 
 to-
 
 [ 67 ] 
 
 to which thefe kinds of etymologies give birth, like that of Pilate's 
 Mountain before-mentioned. 
 
 Or thefe proper names were tran dated ; and this was the way of the 
 Greeks with the Egyptian towns ; but a way which throws hiftory into 
 great confufion and uncertainty ; or, at leaft, makes the ftudy of it ex- 
 tremely difficult : and hiftorical, geographical, and other fuch di<flionaries, 
 which, without an univerfal knowledge, are indifpenfibly neceffary to a 
 fcholar, become quite ufelefs. 
 
 The Hebrew language has in this laft refpe£l either a great advantage, 
 or a great fault, writing all foreign names fo as to appear Hebrew, or, at 
 leaft, reducible to four radical letters. Let us only call to mind the 
 Egyptian names which are in the bible ; at the fame time not rorg,et- 
 ting that their origihal the Egyptian and the Hebrew Languages., have 
 abfolutely nothing in common; but thefe names beingHebrewized, nothing 
 is eafier than to find out Hebrew etymologies for them ; and it is this 
 eafmefs which has indicated fuch etymologies in all for ign proper names. 
 Among other great men, Bochart himfelf has not efcaped the delufion j 
 it is, as It were, the reigning influenza in all who make Hebrew their 
 principal ftudy. The Arabic does not allow itfelf in fuch extravagant 
 alterations : all foreign names in it remain within knowledge ; and this 
 contempt of falfe delicacy gives its geographers and hiftorians a great 
 preference. It was certainly in its vi<florious marches through fo many- 
 nations varying in fpeech, that this language contradted its niafculine 
 roughnefs. 
 
 Such was the paflion or infatuation of the Greeks for eloquence, that, 
 in conformity to it, their hiftorians were obliged to put formal fpeeches 
 in the mouths of all their principal characters ; and in contempt of the 
 plaineft laws of probability, to give an oratorial turn to their whole con- 
 verfation. Jofephus the hiftorian owns that he knew no more of the hiftory 
 of the ancient Jews, than what he had read in the old teftament,but fetting 
 up for atticifm, and defirous of being read in Greece, it behoved him of 
 courfe to make the prevailing tafte his rule of compofition ; and very 
 clpfely does he keep to it. Where the original text fcarce exceeds ai 
 
 finSp,
 
 [ 68 ] 
 
 line, he embroiders it with long declamations -, and where the text, 
 though more ample, contains only plain and natural expreffions, he 
 fubftitutes the flowers of rhetoric, and fidtltious embelliihments. Com- 
 pare tlie fpeech which lie puts in the mouth of Judah, when fpeaking 
 to Jofeph (x), with that which, according to Mofes's narrative, Judah 
 in reaUty made on that occafion (y) : the latter is full of alTedtionate 
 fentiments, and natural firmnefs ; die other is languid, and bear culpable 
 marks of art. In a word, there being no pofiibility diat Judah had leifure 
 to form fuch a ftudied fpeech before-hand, it is one of the moft imperti- 
 nent fictions with which a writer can impofe on his reader, and try bis 
 patience or flupidity. This I fay, not as blaming Jofephus, he could 
 not do otherwife : his reputation as a writer depended on fuch decora- 
 tions : had he kept to truth and nature, his book would have been def- 
 pifed by the literati and polite. 
 
 Into what miftakes is he led by forming his idea of an hiftorical fadl 
 from thefe fiftions ? and ftill more frequently do they disfigure, under 
 a falfe parade, thofe clofe, natural, and pidurelque expreffions, which 
 fo flrongly fet forth the fentiments of heroes, and are, as it were, ani- 
 mated efiigies of them. How uncertain muft hiftory be, when the 
 hiftorian is, by the genius of his language, forced to difguife truth with 
 fictitious additions. It would be rather better for thefe often tatious deco- 
 rations to be put in verfe j as do the Arabs fometimes : for who, but 
 one utterly void of reafon, can imagine, that a hero, amidft the thunder 
 of war, and the diftradtions of a battle, could have compofed and repeated 
 a long ftring of verfes ; and that thefe were exadlly retained in memory 
 verbatim by all about him. Such madmen are feldom met with, and only 
 among fcholars. 
 
 Our modern languages have fliaken off this kind of pedantifm, but 
 retaining other defects and whims not a whit better. The French lan- 
 guage appears to me more fond of thefe falfe ornaments than any other ; 
 
 (a) Aiitiq. II. 6. 
 ()■) Gen. xliv. 
 
 and
 
 [ 69 ] ^ 
 
 and efpeclally afFedIng a mighty prcdiledion for words, and what is 
 called wit. Their very claffical authors flip into this fault; which is 
 never more ftriking than on comparing them v/ith the beautiful fim- 
 plicity of Englifli writers, who feem to mind only things. This remark 
 on the French, cannot reafonably incur their difpleafure : Do not they 
 themfelves boafl: of being like the Greeks ? And indeed the fpeeches 
 among the Greeks, and the French charadlers or portraits wear a very 
 irrational parade of eloquence. Truth often fuffers by thcfe embel- 
 lifliments. If they fet off dramatic pieces, in hiftory they are faulty to 
 the laft degree j efpecially as little care is taken to draw fiom nature, the 
 whole llady being to charge thefe portraits with flriking features. 
 
 Another beauty of the French ftile confifts in bold thoughts, propo- 
 fitions without either proof or reftiid:ion, and advanced with an air of 
 over- bearing fuperiority, as if unqueilionable ; and which pleafe by be- 
 ing fingular and unexpedled ; and that aftedled brevity which is digni- 
 fied with the appellation of an energetic precifenefs. That this ftilc is 
 extremely detrimental to hiftorical and philolbphlcal truths, is felf- evi- 
 dent ; this, however, may be only the fau't of fafliionable writers, 
 without having yet eaten into the fubllance of the French language. 
 Some of the befl writers are intirely clear of this defedt ; and did I not 
 apprehend being fufpedted of adulation towards the academy, 1 could 
 name them. But lliould this fafhion go on half a century more,, 
 every one who writes in French will be obliged to conform to it. 
 
 SECT,
 
 [ 7° ] 
 
 SECT. VII. 
 
 RefleB'wits 07t the precedmg Articles. 
 
 I Conclude with three remarks. 
 I. The greater part of the errors do not proceed immediately from 
 the language ; but they are retained and perpetuated by expreffions origi- 
 nally pregnant with them. 
 
 2. All known languages may have certain common errors ; and to 
 fome of which nature does not lead us. Of this we have feen inftances 
 in the fall of dew and manna j and other expreffions not indeed erro- 
 neous, but abfolutely arbitrary, ftill more manifeilly evince the affinity 
 of different languages. For inflance, it is very arbitrarily that we Ger- 
 mans give the name of {%) wifdoms teeth to thofe which come after the 
 twentieth year. Now the Arabs are found to ufe the fame term {a) ; 
 and they call a wife man one who has thefe teeth (^b). Among the 
 Greeks, Hippocrates makes ufe of the like expreffion {c) j and yet thofe 
 three languages are totally different. There is, as to manner of ex- 
 preffion, an affinity between all the feveral languages of Europe, which 
 does not proceed from any connedtion or intercourfe between the feveral 
 nations ; but from the Latin tongue, as the idiom of the learned, and of 
 the church. It is that which we have taken for our model j and it being 
 the firfl; which we learned by rules, the grammars of the other languages 
 have all, more or lefs, availed themfelves of it. The learned partly 
 think in Latin, and what they compofe in their mother-tongue, is often 
 no more than tranflations of Latin thoughts. The primitive preachers 
 from whom our forefathers received the truths of Chriftianity, had them 
 engraven on their minds in Latin. The Latin is not only the daughter 
 of the Greek, but when grown up, it affedted all its mother's ways, and 
 particularly to exprefs herfelf with elegance. 
 
 (z) Weljheits-Ztehne. 
 [a) )t^\ ^/^\ . 
 
 (^c) cutp^onifi^i^ Hipp, ?rffi acc^Kiiiy. c, 14. 3. 
 
 In
 
 [ 7' ] 
 
 In the moil antient Greek authors we meet with manifed traces of a 
 connexion with the Hebrew (d) ; a connexion which indeed does not 
 relate to etymology, but it relates to the way of thinking, it may poffi- 
 bly come from the Phoenicians, to whom the genius of the Greeks owes 
 its firft cultivation ; or from the Egyptian hieroglyphics, a fource with 
 which both the Greek and Hebrew poets have been equally bufy. The 
 former make no difficulty of owning the theft, and as to the latter, a pro- 
 bable conjedlure of it may be founded on their long continuance in Egypt i 
 and this probability is fo far ftrengthened by the great number of hiero- 
 glyphical pailages, with which their writings are interfperfed (e). 
 
 Laftly. The Saracens, over-running Europe, were the inftruments of 
 infinuating into the palpable darknefs of thofe ages a glimmering of fci- 
 ence which, faint as it was, produced a new alloy of the European lan- 
 guages with the oriental. 
 
 From thence it is, that all thefe languages are fo much alike in the 
 turn of thought, as to give caufe of fufpiclon that they have certain er- 
 rors in common ; and to avoid thefe errors will be a matter of great dif- 
 ficulty, unlefs, as in the cafe of manna and dew, they are difcovered to 
 us by the fenfes or experience. I am not indeed acquainted with any 
 fuch error : were I, it would no longer be an error to me, and I fhould. 
 have made a difcovery which has efcaped all thofe nations j but that is 
 far beyond both my abilities and expedtations ; and fuch difcoveries, pof- 
 fibly, are neither very necelTary, nor of any great importance. I could 
 however wilh that fome philofophical genius, who, befides being con- 
 fummately verfed in our languages, was equally mafter of fome remote 
 language, as the Chinefe, or one of the American languages, would fet 
 down to an examination of this point. 
 
 (d) See M. Ernefti's work de ve/Ilgiis lingua Hebrdica in lingua Grasca. 
 
 {e) See the differtation on the mythology of the Hebrews, which the author has added to 
 a work of M. Lowth (now bifhop of Oxford) intitled, Praleiilones de facra foeft Hehraorum^ 
 cum notis (t ep'unetris. Jav. Dav, Mlchaelis, p. i8i— 204. of the Gottingen edition. 
 
 L It
 
 [ 72 ] 
 
 (j.) The republic of letters, as confifling of fo many different nations, 
 flands in need of a literary language ; and the faults of this language may 
 be very detrimental to literature. 
 
 It is not from choice, but merely from cafualty, that the Latin has 
 attained to this dignity ; and it partly owes it to religion. I look on it as a 
 happy circumftance that it is a dead language ; the living are fo liable to 
 variations, that books at the end of two centuries, if not, become, in a 
 great meafure, unintelligible, at leafi:, are never read with the original 
 guft. Not that the Latin is without many inconveniencies ; and one 
 very interefting is the want of terms in natural hiftory, that Linnaeus, 
 and others, have found themfelves under a neceffity of forgeing a barba- 
 rous Latin, of which Cicero would not have underftood a fmgle word j 
 and which even thofe among ourfelves, who in the current Latin are not 
 to feek, are obliged to ftudy as attentively as idioms totally unknown are 
 ftudied. 
 
 I do not fee that this way can remedy the inconveniencies of which I 
 have been fpeaking ; or I rather fear, that the evil does not admit of a 
 remedy; every nation by intermixing its language will make a barbarous- 
 Latin for itfelf, and thus unintelligible to others. This fhould be a lead- 
 ing motive with the learned to apply themfelves to the purity of the an- 
 tient Latin. 
 
 I could much rather have wiflied that chance had conferred this pre- 
 eminence on the Greek ; efpecially when I confider that the Latin itfelf 
 cannot do without it ; and that it is obliged to borrow from it moft of its 
 medical and phyfiologlcal terms, which thus are quite obfcure to all who 
 are not converfant with the Greek. The verfatillty of this language, and 
 the infinite divcrfity of compounds which it admits of, would have been 
 advantages not to be met with in any other. This feveral perfons of the 
 higheft eminence in learning have perceived, but too late the die was caft 
 before any choice could be made, and we are carried away by its declfion. 
 
 The Eaft, which owes the univcrfality of the Arabic language to its 
 falfe religion, may have the advantage of us from the infinite richnefs of 
 
 that
 
 [ 73 ] 
 
 that language. It is a foiirce to which we ourfelves have frequent recourfe, 
 for exprelTing the produdions of nature. Befides, it is nearly as invari- 
 able as if it were a dead language. But thefe advantages are totally loft in 
 it. The Mahometan is in no need of a learned language, as little con- 
 cerning himfclf about learning. 
 
 SECT. IV. 
 
 Remedies againjl the ?toxious Influence of a Language. 
 
 All I have to fay in this fedlion is reducible to four articles. To 
 avoid the errors arifing from the language ; to retain what ufeful things 
 are in it ; to corred: its faults ; and laftly to examine the fcheme of 
 a new learned Iguage, properly fo called. Having in the preceding fec- 
 tions tranfitorily touched on mo/l of the fubjecfts relative to thefe arti- 
 cles, the formal difcuflion of them here may be abridged. 
 
 ARTICLE I. 
 
 Precautions for avoidi?tg Errors, i?ito which the Language leads. 
 
 Here I need only repeat the rules intimated in the foregoing fed:ion. 
 
 1 . Credit no proportion purely becaufe the etymology implies it, or 
 feems to imply it. Etymology is the voice of the people j which the 
 philofopher always fufpeds, yet always attends to it. 
 
 2. Vary your expreflions ; abftain from the jejune method; and en- 
 deavour to blend a variegated ftile with folidity of thought. 
 
 L 2 When
 
 [ 74 ] 
 
 When there are feveral ways of exprefling the fame thing, It is fcarcc 
 pnffible that the error which has infinuated itfelf into one; fliould have 
 crept into all the other. Thefe kinds of euors are not fyftematical. We 
 have feen how the common magazine of a language has come to be 
 filled. One has introduced fuch an opinion, another the contrary opi- 
 nion. Wit, at firft, taken only for wit, jocularity, love of novelty and 
 fingularity, are found to have concurred in the accumulation ; and often, 
 when error is become the univerfal opinion, a new expreffion, at firft 
 looked upon only as a beautiful figure, has reftored truth. 
 
 Languages, in a great meafure, confift of poetical exprefilons ; which, 
 by a long and frequent imitation of them in profe, are become profaic. 
 Poets being obliged to flrike out of the common road, and ftudy figures, 
 their enthufiafm often fuggefts to them the moft Angular comparifons, 
 fuch as do not lie on the furface of the mind. Thus it is very probable,, 
 that for all the erroneous expreffions the poetic ftile furniflies an anti- 
 dote. Not that the poets have difcovered truth ; but, in the queft of new 
 fimilitudes, they have hit on it without knowing it. Though the error 
 of dew and manna falling from the fky be general, yet is there a kind; 
 of manna, or, to fpeak more properly, a wild honey, generated in trees,, 
 with only a degree of fluidity more, of which Virgil has faid, 
 
 Et dura quercus fudabunt rofcida mella. 
 
 Therefore, if I have above intimated that certain errors had got fuch 
 deep root in all known languages, that it was to be feared it would be- 
 impoflible to difcover and extirpate them ; I rtrall here offer fome prefer- 
 vatives, which may, in a good meafure, encourage us againft fuch def- 
 pondency. 
 
 The noxious influences of a language, but little afFedl the man of true 
 learning. Generally fpeaking, they are fuch only to the ignorant ; to. 
 perfons of a fuperficial knowledge ; to the learned of a contradled ge- 
 nius : in a word, to thofe who are obftinately tenacious of the fame ex- 
 prefllons ; or to thofe whofe whole erudition lies in languages. And the 
 
 beft
 
 , [ 75 ] 
 
 beft of it is, that on the fourccs of thefe errors being known to us, we 
 are able to guard againft them, as againft all other prejudices. The aca- 
 demy therefore could not make ufe of a more proper way for obviating 
 the pernicious influence of language, than by propofing an enumeration 
 of them for a prize problem. 
 
 1 cannot, I own, conceive that any of the concurring pieces will 
 throw a fufficient light on this fubjedl, not excepting even that which 
 the academy fliall crown ; accounting it the leaft imperfeft. Eflays are 
 all that can be expefted ; and let me here be permitted to excufe the 
 imperfedlion of that which I have the honour of offering to the academy. 
 
 The fubjedt is both new, and little canvafled ; the few ftridlures on it 
 (found fcattered in the writings of fome great men) amount to no more 
 than faint glimmerings. 
 
 To fatisfy the academy, will require a philosophical genius, and a faga- 
 city capable of penetrating into all the mazes of human errors ; and with 
 thefe muft be joined a vafl knowledge of languages. Such a writer muft 
 be able to compare the languages of the moft diftant nations, and be- 
 tween which and ours there is nothing of that relation which, as I have 
 faid, fubfifts between all the European, and thofe which go by the name 
 of Oriental languages. The Chinefe language, for inftance, together 
 with all its etymological erudition, muft be as familiar to him as his own- 
 language -y befides an equal acquaintance with the Oriental languao-es, 
 properly fo called, and thofe of Europe ; and this will not be all ; he 
 muft farther be deeply verfed in the hiftory of the opinions of all thofe 
 nations. The academy is certainly too equitable to require a compleat 
 dedudlion, to which nothing under fuch a various accumulation of know- 
 ledge, is adequate ; its indulgence will be fatisfied with a good e/Tay • 
 and fuch an effay will infinitely contribute to enlarge and concentrate the 
 empire of truth, now divided among different philofophers, confum- 
 mately acquainted with different foreign languages ; it may ferve them as 
 a plan for digefting their colleftions, and a clew to guide them in their 
 inveftigations. What a happinefs would it be, were the academy itfelf, 
 either by new prizes, or by its authority, to continue encouraging 
 
 the
 
 [ 76 ] 
 
 the labours of philofophers, and digefting the difcoverles made on this 
 head in all the parts of the univerfe, thus making itfelf the repofitory of 
 fo valuable a treafure. 
 
 Languages, generally fpeaking, would deferve that philofophy fliould 
 devote a particular fcience to them ; but let not this fcience, by any 
 means, be reduced into a fyftem, till experience had colleded and 
 arranged every particular of it. The academy appears to have had the 
 foundation of it in its eye ; and probably the glory of enriching the re- 
 public of letters with fuch a fcience, will be another jewel in its crown, 
 already fo refplendent. I could very much willi that it may one day think 
 fit to beftow its attention and encouragement on the following queftion : 
 How can language be introduced amofig men, who as yet have }io language, 
 and by what means may it attain among them to the perfedlion in which we 
 fee it ? 
 
 This queftion has a great influence on that which I am now difcuffing, 
 but I have foreborne touching on it, to avoid bewildering myfelf in the 
 vaftnefs of its extent. 
 
 3. Such of the learned who are fundamentally verfed in the foreign 
 languages, are, on that account, more guarded againft the delufions of 
 their mother tongues, having, as it were, feveral mother tongues, which 
 they can compare and corredt one by the other. 
 
 ARTICLE II. 
 
 Prefervalion of what is ufeful in La?iguage. 
 
 Languages retain the riches they have acquired, when the fciences 
 flourifli in thofe nations where they are fpoken ; when they are ufed in 
 matters of fcience, and when good writers, ftudious of preferving the 
 purity of their language, never make ufe of foreign terms but on a very 
 great exigency, as where their own language does not afford any fo 
 
 expreflive.
 
 [ 77 ] 
 
 ex'preffive. Wherever this is not the cafe, the national hinguage falls to 
 decay, and with it the fciences. This fliews that the fcrupulous attention 
 which many learned men are plcafed to call frivolous, and almoft ac- 
 count a grammatical pedantry, fo far from deferving that treatment, is 
 a point of very great importance to human knowledge. 
 
 I am not acquainted with any prefervative againfl the danger which, 
 as we have feen, threatens etymology. The lot of mortality is what all 
 mortal things muft undergo. However, if there be words, the etymology 
 of which, with length of time, wears out of knowledge, it is to be 
 hoped, that language will replace them with others equally ufeful for the 
 like purpofe. 
 
 ARTICLE III. 
 
 Improvement of the La?7giiage. 
 
 What I have faid in the fecond fed:ion on the method for aug- 
 menting the richnefs of a language, is the bed advice I can offer 
 here, and its ufefulnefs may be further extended to other branches of 
 our knowledge. The beft remedy againfl equivocations and ambigu- 
 ities, and prepoffeflions arifing from acceffory ideas, is to enrich the lan- 
 guage with expreflions, which admit of no equivocations, and clear of 
 all acceffory meaning. 
 
 There is no need of extirpating erroneous etymologies, for reality is 
 never to be inferred from etymology. In making ufe of a word or a 
 phrafe, fprung from a falfe opinion, I do not therefore adopt that opi- 
 nion, and if I know the real truth of the matter, 1 am not under an 
 error. I may make ufe of an exprefhon, though it be a wrong defcriptioi}, 
 or definition, I fay I may ufe it as a figure or an image. If a poet fpeak- 
 ing of a pilot who is lofing fight of Italy, may fay, Italy Jets, or Italy
 
 [ 78 ] 
 
 finks into the fea.. The Copernician, may without 'any trefpafs againft 
 aftronomy, fay the fun Jets, or the fun finks into the ocean. 
 
 I rather believe the fcholar to be in feme meafure obliged to regulate 
 himlelf herein, as every individual in the empire of language. It is not 
 for him to give laws nor profcribe eftabliflied expreffions : if he takes fo 
 much on him he is ridiculed, and defervedly j it is no more than a jufl; 
 mortification to his ambition, and the penalty of his ufurping on the rights 
 of the people. Language is a democratical ftate, where all the learning 
 in the world does not warrant a citizen to fuperfede a received cuftom, 
 till he has convinced the whole nation that this cuflom is a miftake j and 
 if he fubftitutes a new term in lieu of that which has always been ufed 
 to indicate a certain objeft, how can he expedt to be underftood ? The 
 German word for a crayon is a compound of two weds, one of which 
 fignifies lead (f) ; you infift that it fliould be altered to iron (g), the 
 fubftance of the crayon being feruginous : but do you think that for your 
 fay-fo the current name muft be altered, or that your corredlions will 
 be minded ? The crayon is like lead in its colour and foftnefs, and 
 that juflifies the appellation. Befides the whole nation is not informed 
 of the miftake, and the commonalty have other things to mind than to fift 
 philological miftakes; v/hich farther cannot be done without a knowledge 
 of all the fciences in their whole compafs. On the other hand, fcholars 
 are not fo infallible that every thing is to be referred to them. Were they 
 allowed a decifory power, the errors of language, I am fure, inflead of 
 diminiQiing, would be continually increafing. Learned heads teem 
 with them no lefs than the vulgar ; and the former are much more im- 
 perious, that we fliould be compelled to defer to their innovations, and 
 implicitly to receive every falfe opinion of theirs. 
 
 This confideration, doubtlefs, has been overlooked by fome divines; 
 who, from a notion that no expreffion arifing from an error, can have 
 found place in the facred fcripture, imagine that all the words in the 
 
 (/") Bley-ftift , 1 The French fay Mine eh plomb, i. e. black lead. It would be ridicu- 
 [g) Eljen-Jtift-, J lous to go about changeing it to Mine dc fcr, black iron. 
 
 bible,
 
 [ 79 •] 
 
 bible, and taken in the moft literal fenfe, is always phyfically true. I have 
 vindicated the bible which they injure ; and this I fliould not have taken 
 on me, as a needlefs work, had we not recently ^ttw fome new Herme- 
 neutics brand, as deiftical, this polltion : that the fcripture conforms its 
 phrafeology to popular cuftom. 
 
 Erroneous etymologies may, however, be in fome meafure recflified, by 
 affociating with them more precife and exadl expreffions to be invented 
 for the fame objedls. This is a right inverted in every one who is mafter 
 of the language he fpeaks : he may form new words, and form new 
 phrafes, provided they coincide with the genius of the language, and be 
 not over multiplied. If thefe expreflions come to obtain the fame vogue 
 as the erroneous expreffions, we are in them provided with a counter- 
 poifon ; at leafl, language does no longer draw us into error neceffarily : 
 they fometimes, in the hands of fkilful writers, fliall rife on the ruins of 
 the falfe expreffions, which, ever after, lliall no more be heard, or only 
 from the mouths of the populace. 
 
 As for Gothic ornaments, I know but two ways of exterminating them : 
 more perfe(ft models and fatyr. In a democracy where the law is not fuf- 
 ficient to bring men to reafon, ridicule mail be called in to its affiftance. 
 
 I have intimated fome amendments which fliould be made in lan- 
 guage ; but who fliall undertake them, and in what method are they to 
 be conducted ? Not by any acfl of private authority ; that would be a 
 flagrant infringement on the rights of language, which are democratical ; 
 befides the general derifion of fuch arrogance. It is not for thofefcholars, 
 whofe whole merit confifts in erudition, to take thefe amendments in 
 hand ; fuch an enterprize requires perfons capable of taking the lead 
 and gaining imitation. In Ihort, it is a taik for claffical authors alone ; 
 and all thefe are not qualified for it : they mufl be original geniufes, emi- 
 nent in their clafs, refpedled even by thofe learned men who value thin o-s only, 
 and fuch mafters of their language, as to be the acknowledged ilandards of 
 its purity and elegance. Thefe are the writers who may give new mean- 
 ings to old expreffions, whilft they do not abufe the public indulgence, 
 by loading the language with too great a multiplicity of innovations ; 
 
 M and
 
 [ 76 ] 
 
 and thefe their privileges are of very antient da(e : thus Cicero familia- 
 rized the Latin to expreffions the import of which, before his time, 
 could fcarce be fo much as thought but in Greek only (h). Thefe wri- 
 ters often rife to fuch vogue, that to deviate from the ftile which they 
 have introduced, is enough for an expreffion to be accounted faulty. 
 
 No perfon can affume to himfelf the authority of a claffical author : 
 and to give any room for being fufpedled of entertaining fuch a claim, 
 would itfelf be an unpardonable prefumption ; yet is every reformer of 
 fciences to cultivate his language with as much application as if he really 
 aimed at that diftindion. Here it is that divine poetry triumphs moft 
 fignally : blending itfelf with the ferious fciences, it imparts to them a 
 new degree of perfedion. The time which an intercourfe with the 
 mufes fleals from thofe extraordinary perfons who are both great poets 
 and great fcholars, is fo far from being loft, that an infinite advantage 
 accrues from it to the national knowledge ; and the rewards beftowed 
 on thofe favourites of Apollo meet with ample returns. It is evident, at 
 firft fight, that I do not here mean thofe verfifiers whofe talent reaches 
 no farther than the art of making verfes ; nor even thofe fcholars, how- 
 ever eminent, who force their genius, and will rhyme in fpite of the 
 nymphs of Phidus. They never rife above mediocrity, and the language 
 is not affedled by their influence. 
 
 Laftly, good tranflations as requiring labour, deferve a fuitable rank 
 among the means of improving a language. They bring to light the 
 faults and deficiencies of the language, and remedy them by new ex- 
 preffions ; but the tranflator muft, in fome degree, be poflefi"ed of the 
 genius and talents of a claffic author ; he muft be at leaft faithful, muft 
 thoroughly comprehend the meaning of the original, and his very tran- 
 flation ftiould have an original appearance. It was tranflating and imita- 
 ting the Greek, that brought the Latin to be what it is. Even in Ci- 
 cero's time, it was ftill a queftion whether philofophy could be treated of 
 in Latin. Nothing would more contribute to the perfecting of our laii- 
 
 {h) De Nat. Deorum. u §. 8. 8. 
 
 guage&
 
 [ 77 ] 
 
 guages than beautiful tranflations of the immortal produdions of ancient 
 Greece and Rome. But 1 could wifli them to be both iefs fcholaftic 
 than thofe which come out in Germany, and more clofe than thofe of 
 France. The German is unqueflionably a great gainer by tranflations. 
 It is tranflations which have fitted it for being ufed in the fciences, and 
 which have enriched it with the turns of mod of the other living lan- 
 guages. ■ But bad tranflations have done us litde Iefs harm. Our Mece- 
 nafes are the bookfellers ; and it were to be wiflied, that infl:ead of taking 
 into their pay, for cheapnefs fake, fuperficial, if not paltry hands, they 
 would exert their abUity and interefl:, for the joint good both of the lan- 
 guage and the fciences. They who do, certainly defer ve both great praife 
 and encouragement. 
 
 What a fair field is here for the real patrons of fciences, to fignalize their 
 patronage ! 
 
 ARTICLE. IV. 
 
 Whether it be pojftble to i?ive77t a learned language, properly 
 
 fo called. 
 
 Some eminent geniufes confidering the faults and defeds in all 
 known languages have wifhed that the fciences had a peculiar lan- 
 guage, not borrowed from any nation, but the pure invention of philo- 
 fophers, in a word, truly learned; a language, in which each idea 
 fiiould have its difl:in6t type and characfler, incommunicable to any other 
 ideas, which would, at once, put an end to any impropriety, figure and 
 ambiguity. Such a language might confift folely of written charadlers ; 
 or thefe charadlers might farther be utterable by articulate founds. In 
 the firfl: cafe it would be like the written language of the Chinefe, which 
 is rather a charadleriftic, than a language , and this is an advantage 
 which mofl: of thofe, who are for the execution of this fcheme, would be 
 contented with. What principally feeds their hopes, is the improvement 
 
 M 2 which
 
 , , [ 8^ ] 
 
 which mnthematics have received from the language of algebra : let us, 
 fay they, invent an algebra for the other branches of human knowledge, 
 and they will foon come to be equally improved. This projed: farther 
 offers to them a moft delightful profpe6t : that by means of an univerfal 
 language, the learned of all nations may eafily, and confequendy will 
 carry on a literary commerce, and reciprocally communicate their dif- 
 coveries. 
 
 To me, I ov/n, all thefe hopes appear to ftand but on a (lender foun- 
 dation : I have objedlions and doubts to offer, both againft the pofTibi- 
 lity of fuch a language, and its fuppofed utility. Thefe objedions I fub- 
 mit to the academy's decifion. And firft, The inftance of algebra weighs 
 little with me. The difference between the other fciences and mathe- 
 matics, is too wide to expert fimilar effedts. In refolving a geometrical 
 problem, I, in fome meafure, compofe the language which I am to ufe 
 in the folution ; and this fmall number of charadlers is the more eafily 
 retained, as being of my own choice -, for however refradory and flub- 
 born the memory be againft admitting the difcoveries of another, it is 
 very impreffible and retentive, in whatever is of our own invention (i). 
 
 But in every other fcientifical operation, the reafonings are complicated 
 with many foreign ideas, often taken from very different fciences ; and 
 this is the cafe even of mixed geometry itfelf. To which I add, that a 
 perfon would not always have the making of his own charadleriflic ; he 
 would be obliged to ufe that which had been once received into the lan- 
 guage of the learned ; that is, he would be obliged to learn by heart aa 
 infinite number of charadlers. The reafon is felf-evident : in elucidating 
 a mathematical fubjed:, I draw before me and my reader what lines are 
 to be denoted by certain charailers ; or I have other means of knowing 
 
 (/■) A friend of mine has contrived an alphabet, by means of which he can perfedlly rcpre- 
 fent on paper all the imaginable founds of all languages. So accuftomed is he to it, that he 
 cannot be brought to think this alphabet would be very difficult for another to learn. Yet 
 this would certainly be the cafe with me ; at leaft, in all the languages which I have ftudicd,. 
 the alphabet was what always put me to the moft trouble, and I am apt to think, that, ex- 
 cept thofe whofe memory may be accounted a prodigy, it has been fo to others, 
 
 them,.
 
 [ 83 ] 
 
 them, without any poiTibility of miftake. On this account it is, that 
 the chnrafters always depend on my choice ; whereas, in the fciences, 
 where the meaning of charad:ers cannot be indicated on paper by fen- 
 fable images, I muft neceflarily make ufe of figns, already known in 
 fome of the eftabliflied languages ; and of which the import is univer- 
 fally agreed on, as marriage-, concubifiage, polygamy, adultery, fornica^ 
 tion, glory, ambition, humility, bafenefs, &c. All thefe figns might other- 
 wife convey to the reader, ideas quite different from thofe which I intend. 
 The fame reflexion exhibits to us a flill greater diftance between the 
 algebra of the mathematicians, and the charadleriflics jof the other fci- 
 ences. No geometrician can be miftaken in the algebraic charadler : the 
 lines, however charadlerifed, are before his eyes, that it is eafy for 
 him to define, and his definitions are infallible. 
 
 In other branches of fcience, writers cannot always delineate the 
 images of the objects to which they have annexed certain names; 
 though neither of us be ignorant pcrfons, both may be miftaken ; they 
 in their definitions and I in my application of them : fo that a charac- 
 teriflic of this kind, will be ever obfcure and uncertain. What I faid 
 above, concerning the definition of marriage (k), may here ferve for an 
 illuftration ; and if we fuppofe that the inventor of the characfteriflic 
 defines marriage, as fome divines have, A junction of two perfons, of 
 different fexes, with, a view to the generation, and bringing up of chil- 
 dren, it is very clear, that this word has given him an idea very diffe- 
 rent from that which it conveys to thofe nations where polygamy obtains. 
 In a word, a fcience, which is the very empire of evidence and certainty, 
 and the demonftrations of which fcarce admit of any foreign obiecfls, 
 by no means warrants a conclufion to more complicated branches of 
 knowledge, and thefe ufua'ly reft ng only on probabilities. 
 
 The inftance of the Chinefe appears to me the ftrongefi: argument againft 
 the fcheme of the learned language, or the univerfal charaderiftic. I can- 
 not exadly fay of how many thoufands of characters the Chinefe language 
 
 [k) Pag^ 15, 16. 
 
 i&
 
 [ 72 ] 
 
 is at prefent compofed ; but prodigious as the number is, it would be flill 
 more prodigious, as the fciences improved. How many new charafters 
 would botany alone require ? All accounts agree, that the literati of China 
 fpend life in learning their language, and, after all, die before they have gone 
 through the tedious tafk. This is laying out life in making an inftru- 
 ment, and then, where is the time for making ufe of it ? The length of 
 time taken up in learning Latin feems to us an age ; and the people held 
 out to us for model, beftows the whole courfe of life in its charadleriftic. 
 Is it to be wondered at that this nation, otherwlfe fo capable of mental 
 improvements, has, for thefe two thoufand years, fince literature ob- 
 tained among them, made no greater progrefs ; but its 7ie plm ultra feems 
 to be the keeping or prefervation of what it indeed acquired very early, but 
 which it cannot encreafe ? Three hundred years ago, when the Chinefe 
 were already a lettered nation, we were barbarians ; but how have we 
 outrtripped them within that fliort fpace ? One century has carried us to 
 heights, which they have not been able to reach in twenty. Of this, 
 natural philofophy, aflronomy and gunnery, are inconteftible proofs ; 
 and as to the latter, it is obfervable, that the Chinefe were ac- 
 quainted with the ufe of gunpowder long before us. Were we in- 
 cumbered with fo laborious, and fo endlefs a charaderiftic, our modern 
 Promethei, now bufied in the invefligation of the creator's mofl abftrufe 
 fecrets, would ftill be conning over their alphabet. 
 
 But fo much for algebra and China : and let us proceed to more dired: 
 objedions againfl the learned language. 
 
 1. This language, to anfwer all wants, would require a prodigious 
 quantity of characters, as foon to tire the efforts of the greatell genius ; 
 invention would be cruflied and ftupified by this load on the memory. 
 
 Our languages happily keep clear of this enormous fault by giving to 
 one identical word feveral meanings, which are eafily diilinguilliable by 
 the connexion of the difcourfe, that for an equal number of ideas, we 
 want fcarce a tenth part of the charaders with which the hypothefis 
 of the learned language is unavoidably clogged. 
 
 2. Were
 
 [ 73 ] 
 
 2. Were this language to be fat down in writing, this would flill be 
 a much heavier burden on the memory. We have a kind of propen- 
 fjty to affociate ideas to founds, but not at all to figures. The former 
 is natural to man j and if, at our birth, we had not found a lansuase 
 ready prepared for us, we fhould foon have fet about inventing one ; 
 whereas writing is a work of art, the invention of which, probably, is 
 by feme thoufands of years, pofterior to the hrft lanp-uap-e. 
 
 3. But granting that this language may be fpoken, as well as written ; 
 its founds will appear to all nations equally foreign, or, to fpeak like a 
 Greek, equally barbarous ; and foreign founds are much more difficult 
 to be retained than the national, our ear being ufed to thofc, and we 
 are acquainted with their derivations and analogies. Let the difficultv 
 our memory finds in an American proper name, be compared with 
 its readinefs in retaining thofe of our own nation (I). 
 
 1 fhould farther apprehend, that the pronunciation of this learned lan- 
 guage would not only be extremely 'difficult, but offenfive to the ear. 
 The alterations and contractions to which our common languages are 
 fubjedl have cleared them of that ruggednefs, leaving in them fuch 
 words only as are eafily pronounced, and agreeable to the ear. As na- 
 ture has been filing and polifhing them for above thefe thoufand years, 
 they may be looked on as its work ; whereas the learned language would 
 be only the produdlion of art, an imitation of nature : and as, if 1 mif- 
 take not, it fhould be invariable, it would admit of no contradlions, and 
 be totally unimprelTible by either file or plane. 
 
 4. It is not by ufe, but by an artificial inftrucflion, that we are to learn 
 all thefe founds or charadters : a fre(h torture to memory ! We eafily 
 become acquainted with a language we are daily fpeaking, and which is 
 current in common life, efpecially if we take in fome grammatical af- 
 fiflance, yet will this ftudy put us to very tirefome difficulties, when all 
 our help and inftrudlion is to come from art only. What a time is taken. 
 
 (/) See my treatife on Memory, 
 
 up
 
 [ 86 ] 
 
 up in learning a little Latin, and how foon do we make a progrefs in the 
 living lanffuaKS ! 
 
 It is certain, that the want of being fufficiently acquainted with the 
 Latin tongue, keeps the mind in a kind of childhood, and depriving it of 
 feveral difcoveries, ever leaves great voids in its knowledge. Yet few of 
 the learned can be faid to have any thing of a perfedt -acquaintance with 
 the Latin : and would not their cafe be much worfe, if, inftead of the 
 Latin, they were to ftudy a language much more difficult, and with no- 
 thing of its agreeablenefs ? Farther, together with this natural language, 
 there will ftill be a neceffity for learning the Latin, and the other lear- 
 ned languages. The new charadteriftic would not let us into the difco- 
 veries of paft times : the fources of ancient hiftory would not be found 
 in it : and laftly, thofe refpe<flable books from which religion is taken 
 are written in Greek and Hebrew, and not in this charafteriftic. 
 
 5. But granting that all thefe obftacles may be fur mounted, and that 
 men of letters will come into this new language fo extremely difficult, 
 nothing but pernicious confequences can refult from this ufe. The body 
 of the people, and all who are not learned by profeflion, will be daily 
 linking deeper into ignorance : the charadleriftic throws up a partition 
 between them and the fciences, as the hieroglyphics among the Egyptians. 
 No middle clafs is left between the fcholar and the rude plebeian. 
 
 How very detrimental this would prove to the fciences, has been 
 fliewn in all the paffages of this differtation, relating to the benefit accru- 
 ing to them from the richnefs of the natural language. But the people 
 would be ftill much more wretched, were knowledge fo far confined 
 to fchools, as to be totally out of their reach. Civil life cannot difpenfe 
 with the want of it. Vv^hen fcience takes its flight, a thoufand conve- 
 niencies and gratifications vanifh with it ; and efpecially there is no rank 
 of life but would be deprive.! of an inexhauflible fource of delights, va- 
 rying as the mind is difpofed, and which affords fuch great relief inthofe va- 
 cant hours which cannot always be filled up by fenfual indulgencies. How 
 tirefomely, or rather how fcandaloufly uniform would be the hfe of an 
 
 officer,
 
 [ 8? ] 
 
 officer, in times of peace, without this refource ? What has a greater 
 tendency to plunge him into idlenefs, or which is worfe, into licentiouf- 
 nefs ? When I compare the multitude of military gentlemen, void of 
 any tafte for literature, with the officers of the Orleans regiment, garri- 
 foned here in the month of November, 1757, who behaved as if they 
 came only to make ufe of our library, I cannot forbear moft heartily 
 pitying the one, and congratulating the other. Laftly, as the worft 
 confequence of a charadleriftic peculiar to the learned, the people would 
 be left to their profound impoftures. This is no more than what hap- 
 pened to the Egyptians in thofe times when all difcoveries were concealed 
 under enigmatical hieroglyphics. Had all the eledlrical experiments 
 made in our time, been enveloped in the veil of the character iflic, and 
 known only to the learned, how eafily might they have formed a com- 
 bination for impoiing on credulous minds ? and the fecret junto, by falfe 
 miracles, and ingenious prefliges, have fet up a kind of facred tyranny ? 
 Opportunity tempts, and the ealinefs of impofing increafes the number 
 of impoftors. The example of ancient nations, I think, might ferve us 
 for a document. 
 
 But Ihould my fears be thought groundlefs, at leaft, it is indifputably 
 certain, that the charafteriftic would extremely impoverilh our mother- 
 tongues, and thus our lolles would over-balance any gains it might 
 bring to us. 
 
 Is the wifh of feeing the fciences refcued from their fervitude to the 
 Latin tongue, and to hear them fpeak the living language, well ground- 
 ed ? Whatever can be faid in fupport of this wilh, makes equally ftrong 
 for me. 
 
 I have intimated, that the learned language mull be unalterable ; and, 
 I imagine, that they who flatter themfelves to find that advantage in it, 
 will be for afking me what equivalent I can contrail with it ? But is not 
 this really felf-delufion ? I fliould be very apprehenfive, that this lan- 
 guage, as to its effential part, I mean the fignification of the charafters, 
 would be more variable than any of the living languages. Nothino- is 
 more changeable than the technical language of philofophers j or indeed, 
 
 N than
 
 [ 88 ] 
 
 than technical [terms in general. Every reformer of phili)rophy, every 
 head of a fed:, ftrikes out a new language, and prefcribes new defini- 
 nitions, which is no lefs than changeing the meaning of the eftabhfhed 
 terms. It is natural, that he who imagines he has created ideas un- 
 perceived by any before himfelf, lliould, in exprefling them, make ufe 
 of words, which before had appeared to him ufelefs and fuperfluous. 
 Now 1 fay, that in a language, conduded by the learned only, thefe 
 variations mufi: be both more frequent and more abrupt, than in any 
 other living national language. 
 
 Thefe are entirely and abfolutely democratical ; words cannot be de- 
 prived of their received meaning, but by the confent of the people, and 
 the gradual introdudion of a contrary cuftom ; whereas an author treats 
 the technical language he makes ufe of, with all the arbitrarinefs of defpo- 
 tifm. He fays, this is the meaning I fix to this term, this is the defini- 
 tion I give of it : we then are all obliged to underftand him, as he has 
 declared he will be underftood, and as little can we conteft that right 
 with him, as prefcribe to the algebraift v.'hat lines he fhall call A. and 
 what B. This writer's language, on fuch an increafe of his readers and 
 difciples as to form a numerous party for him, will become the idiom 
 of a fed ; and we may take it for granted that this is the cafe j at leaft, 
 once in twenty-five years : — in tiventy-five years ! Has not Germany, 
 fuice the beginning of this century, already feen three heads of feds ? I 
 mean Thomafius, Wolff, and Crufius ; and thefe geniufles of a very dif- 
 ferent caft ? One happy circumftance, however, in all this is, that thefe 
 uew idioms do not change the national language, and that thofe men of 
 learning, who do not affed: fingularity, and will not be led like fcholars, 
 perfevere in a faithful attachment to the ancient language. 
 
 What can fecure a charad:eriftic, or a language known only to the 
 learned, from fuch changes ? Unlefs all nations will come into the fame 
 fed, and adopt the like variations of the learned language, which is not to be 
 expeded. This language will foon fplit into as many dialeds as nations : 
 and the misfortune is, that the meaning of learned languages, when once 
 loftj is much more difficult to recover than to revive the dead language 
 
 of
 
 [ 89 ] 
 
 of a whole nation. This is not the place for expatiating on the caufes 
 of this phenomenon ; experience indeed fufficieiitly proves it. In ex- 
 plaining antient monuments, is it not in the technical terms of philofo- 
 phers that the greatefl difficulty lies ? And books full of thefe terms, are 
 not they the firlt in growing obfcure ? Definitions are but a weak remedy 
 againft this obfcurity ; either being themfelves obfcure and defedive, or 
 the import of the terms of which they are compofed, have been like- 
 wife loft. 
 
 This new language will be no more fecure againft errors, than our 
 common language : every man of profefled learning muft be allowed 
 to introduce his notions into this fcientific idiom, or he will complain that 
 every thing cannot be exprefled in it. Should he entertain chimerical ideas 
 of things not exifting, or which being up of contradictions, cannot ex- 
 ift, he will be for realizing thofe non-entities, by a charadler of the 
 learned language. The divine^ for inftance, who believes that God is 
 fubftantially prefent every where, and yet holds the fame divine fub- 
 ftance to be more immediately prefent to believers, will require a par- 
 ticular chara<5ter for this impoflible omniprefence, his ideas of which 
 are only negative. 
 
 Will the learned language be fo far indulged, as to charadlerize the 
 nature of objefts, by means of fome analogous combination of the figns ; 
 as fome American languages, for inftance, call the lion, the great and 
 mifchievous cat ? Then, as large a field will be thrown open to the man 
 of letters for introducing his falfe notions into the language, as the peo- 
 ple has at prefent by means of etymologies. Then, may every one, ac- 
 cording to his particular way of thinking, coin a new word ; and this 
 puts me in mind of the tower of Babel. I fee all that confufion break- 
 ing in upon us, againft which the democratic form of our languages is 
 ufually a preventive, by admitting no term till approved of by the peo- 
 ple. Or, on the contrary, if every objed: is to retain its firft denomination, 
 who will warrant that denomination to be right? And if, any errors had 
 crept into it, ftill fliould we be deprived of the refource which our lan- 
 
 N 2 guages
 
 [ 90 ] 
 
 guages afrord us in fynonlmes, thefe, if I rightly underftand the 
 icheme, being excluded from the learned language as fuj^erfluities. 
 
 The want of fynonimes would lubjedl us to another lofs. It often 
 happens, that when deceived by the acceffory ideas of a word, the fy- 
 nonime undeceives us, or, at leaf!:, fliews us the object in its true point 
 of light. 
 
 Synonimes farther ferve to relieve both the ear, which monotony tires, 
 and the mind, the attention of which it blunts. They therefore who 
 imagine that the exclufion of fynonimes would embellifh a language, 
 feem not over-well acquainted witli the organ of hearing, nor the na- 
 ture of the human heart. 
 
 This learned charadleriftic would be abfolutely void of all pathetic 
 terms, and glowing expreffions, and likewlfe of thofe improper, but 
 moft energetic terms, which often, by a bare comparifon, throw both 
 light and beauty on the whole of a fubject. 
 
 This language therefore would be extremely jejune, uniform, and 
 difagreeable ; as void of graces or ornaments as the figns of algebra j 
 whereas the beauty of language is of more importance to the fciences 
 than would at firft be imagined. Without it, attention foon drops into a 
 languor, againft which the love of fciences alone is not able to bear it up, 
 whereas the beauties of language keep it awake. The agreeable ideas, 
 which, as I may fay, play before our mind, ferve to entertain it amidfl; 
 the profound meditations with which it is taken up. Farther, the 
 learned language would bring a double labour and trouble on us j the 
 words requiring very nearly as much as things : and, for the reafons al- 
 ledged in the preceding articles, could never become fo eafy and fami- 
 liar to us, as our mother - tongues, nor even as the Latin ; that v/e 
 Ihould find ourfelves in the difficult cafe of one who is to ftudy or teach 
 philofophy in a language with which he has but a very middling 
 acquaintance. 
 
 The graces of language elevate genius, whereas it is cramped by 
 jejunenefs ; and moft difcoveries are rather the fruits of genius, than the 
 refuU of forced meditations, or fyftematical demonflrations. A happy 
 
 alTociation. 
 
 1
 
 [ 91 ] 
 
 afTociation of ideas lays open inlarged views ; and it is net till we have 
 been ftricken with them, that we employ ourfelves in fearch of argu- 
 ments for fupporting and realizing them. Thus Archimedes, amidft all 
 his unwearied endeavours, could not folve his own problem ; not even 
 when the whole ftrength of his mind was bent on it. He goes to 
 refrefli himfelf in the bath, and at the very inflant of his plunging into 
 the water, the folution rofe into his mind of itfelf. Had he been think- 
 ing of it at that jun(flure, it certainly would have efcaped him. It was 
 to his thinking on fomething elfe, that he owed the tranfporting difco- 
 very. Genius, what feems a ray from heaven, and which, amidft a thou- 
 fand paths, all leading to different truths, hits precifely on that, leading 
 to the truth in queftion. Genius, I fay, is rendered more lively and 
 adtive by pleafure and beauty ; whereas it is benumbed by anftracflions 
 and profundity. From no other fource can be deduced thofe new 
 thoughts, which the philofophic poet brings forth, as it were fortuitoufly, 
 in the fits of his enthufiafm, and which, however, ftand the moft rigid 
 text, and may be accounted oracles. 
 
 I can here fcarce forbear, vindicating the amenities of ftile, 
 from the unjuft contempt of that faturnine philofophy, which calls 
 them tra(h, fit only for the futile tribes of poets and wits ; and evincing 
 how much that univerfal inftindl, which forms the language of nations 
 adapts itfelf to the wants of human nature, and, in a word, Ihews how 
 much the variations of founds, harmony, imagery, and figures, inter- 
 weaving in the difcourfe, pleafurable ideas, favour meditation, and ele- 
 vate the genius. But I am within fight of my conclufion ; and this 
 would be launching out into frefh matter, which would carry me little 
 {hort of that which was the formal fubjedl of the difcourfe. 
 
 A fcience laid down to us in the language of common life, will be 
 always better learned than when delivered in a technical languao-c, and 
 the beft teachers of philofophy, are they who bring all notions to the level 
 of common fenfe. But it is manifell that this is ah advantage quite in- 
 compatible with the learned language. 
 
 Laftly,
 
 [ 92 ] 
 
 Laflly, I aqti perfuaded that a charaderiflic of a new Invention would, 
 in point of utility, be inferior to the common languages of nations, in a 
 thoufand refpedts, which I cannot previoufly determine. The difcovery 
 muft however be undertaken only by one fingle fcholar, and, confe- 
 quently, his decifion muft be abfolute : but whoever this inventive fcho- 
 lar be, I fliall not lay fuch a ftrefs on him as on the democracy of a 
 whole nation. The metaphyfics of language is hot yet fufficiently culti- 
 vated ; and were that as far as poffible, very few would underftand it, 
 fo as to be able to make ufe of it. Befides an accurate knowledge of man, 
 it fuppofes a very extenfive acquaintance both with philofophy and philo- 
 logy ; and thefe are qualities not eafily found in one perfon -, as the aca- 
 demy itfelf has obferved in the fummary of the difcourfe, on which it was 
 pleafed to confer the prize. 
 
 INDEX.
 
 I N 
 
 E X, 
 
 A. 
 
 ACceflbry ideas and judgments 
 Adamfon, his hillory of Senegal 
 American, name for the lion — 
 
 Arabic language — 
 
 Archimedes — — 
 
 Auftin, St. — — 
 
 B. 
 Bibliaical phrafeology 
 Blindnefs, its advantage above deafnefs 
 Butterfly, hieroglyphic of the foul 
 Buttner Mr. his admirable Polyglot work 37, 38 
 
 C. 
 Chinefe, their name for the deity — 5 
 
 Chryftal — — 59 
 
 D. 
 Demon, its meaning among the Greeks and Jews 5 
 Dew — — 54 
 
 Divines, miftake of fome ^ 7 
 
 Doftrine of the bell world — 62 
 
 E. 
 Englilh language, the richeft — 36 
 
 Englifh writers, their beautiful fimplicity 69 
 
 Eflence — — 6 
 
 Eternity — — 53 
 
 Expreffions — — 54 
 
 F. 
 Fog — — _ 54 
 
 French language poorer than the German 36 
 
 — — fond of falfe ornaments 69 
 
 G. 
 German univerfities, faults in them — 26 
 
 - bookfellers — 77 
 
 language, its richnefs — 38 
 
 Glory — — 10 
 
 Greek language — 7, 11, 66, 67 
 
 Page 
 
 Linnxus — 
 
 50 
 
 Locufts, Mahomet's notion of them 
 
 60, 61 
 
 Love of our neigbour — 
 
 9> 
 
 Luther, overfights of h's 
 
 23. 67 
 
 Luxury — 
 
 93 
 
 M. 
 
 65 
 
 Mahomet, fayings of his — 
 
 
 Manna — — 
 
 
 Marriage — — 
 
 84 
 
 Mineralogy — 
 
 7 
 
 Mons Pileatus — 
 
 ^7, ^8 
 
 Mountain-meal — 
 
 Hebrew language 
 Hieroglyphics 
 
 Inoculation — 
 
 Jofephus the hiftorian 
 
 H. 
 
 K. 
 
 23, 67 
 71 
 
 '9 
 
 67 
 
 King of the nine nations, his contrivance for know- 
 ing the number of the inhabitants of London ^o 
 L. 
 Language, firft roots of — 52 
 Languages, account of the feveral European 38 
 Leprofy, its original meaning — • 6 
 ' notion of the orientah concerning it ib. 
 
 Nature, law of 
 
 N. 
 
 O. 
 
 OldTeftament abounds in names of vegetables 
 Orientals, their notion of the leprofy 
 
 72 
 6+ 
 SO 
 31 
 50 
 
 64 
 56 
 '5 
 
 39 
 
 58 
 
 9 
 
 48 
 
 24 
 6 
 
 8 Orleans-regiment 
 
 bold phrafeology of theirs 
 
 P. 
 
 Palm-tree — — 
 
 People who cannot rekon above twenty 
 Perfians, their notion of the leprofy 
 Phrafeology eaftern — 
 
 Pilate'i-hill — _ 
 
 Plants, their fexes — 
 
 Polifh language — 
 
 Quartz — — 
 
 62, 63 
 «9 
 
 7 
 29 
 
 6 
 63 
 59 
 
 7 
 . 38 
 
 5>. 
 
 Uinqutna 
 
 R. 
 
 Roots of the firft language ^ 
 
 Ruffian language — 
 
 S. 
 Saracens — -_ 
 
 Sexes of plants — 
 
 Son-in-law, origin and real import of the word 
 
 Space — . _. 
 
 St. Auguftin — 
 
 Supreme good — — . -, , 
 
 T. 
 Thunder — _ 
 
 Time — — 
 
 Tribunal on languages — 
 
 V. 
 Vohptas — — . 
 
 W. 
 Wifdom's teeth, curious remark on that 
 
 lation — — 
 
 Wonder 
 
 59 
 
 H 
 
 52 
 38 
 
 7' 
 7 
 '7 
 5' 
 6y 
 47 
 
 19 
 51 
 38 
 
 21 
 
 appel- 
 70 
 49
 
 %t
 
 r^ 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES 
 THE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 
 
 A fee of 3c per day is charged for chis book which was v." 
 the last date stamped below. 
 
 
 m.^0ECl2 1981;^UG 161985 
 
 FFCD LD-URC 
 
 JUN27 iS85 
 
 m » >?* 
 
 AUG 16 16^ 
 
 OCT 27 ms 
 
 AUG 2 1972 
 
 Three weeks from d«e of 
 receipt — NonRenBiA;3bto 
 
 ■J#l J 1583 
 
 QLAPR I 
 
 2m.8,'57(C8179) 
 
 
 819 
 
 University of Caiifornia 
 
 SOUTHERN REGiONAL LiBRARY FACILITY 
 
 405 Hiigard Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90024-1388 
 
 Return this material to the library 
 
 from which it was borrowed. 
 
 QL APR 4 201)0
 
 •1^ 
 
 .7)/m. 
 
 000, 
 
 )7 533 
 
 I 
 
 PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE 
 THIS BOOK CARDS 
 
 a 
 X 
 
 a 
 
 ■ 
 
 s 
 e 
 
 X^^UIBR.ARYQ^ 
 
 ^. 
 
 ^ 
 
 a3 
 4r^ 
 
 %0JI]V3 J0>^ 
 
 University Research Librar\ 
 
 
 ^^^^ 
 
 ...Wa^
 
 -.'Mk 
 
 :?-^^«« 
 
 ^^M^^. 
 
 ^^ 
 
 r^* 
 
 J^ 
 
 :^. 
 
 ^ 
 
 0^ 
 
 ♦^