Secondly, When the terms most frequently occurring, denote things which are of a complicated nature, and to which the mind is not sufficiently familiarized. Such are the words, Government, Church, State, Constitution, Polity, Power, Commerce, Legislature, Jurisdiction, Proportion, Symmetry, Elegance.

Thirdly, When the terms employed are very abstract, and consequently, of very extensive signification.* For an illustration of these remarks, I must refer the reader to the ingenious work which I just now quoted.

To the observations of these eminent writers, I shall take the liberty of adding, that we are doubly liable to the mistakes they mention, when we make use of a language which is not perfectly familiar to us. Nothing, indeed, I apprehend, can shew more clearly the use we make of words in reasoning than this, that an observation which, when expressed in our own language, seems trite or frivolous, often acquires the appearance of depth and originality by being translated into another. For my own part, at least, I am conscious of having been frequently led, in this way, to form an exaggerated idea of the merits of ancient and of foreign authors; and it has happened to me more than once, that a sentence, which seemed at first to contain something highly ingenious and profound, when translated into words familiar to me, appeared obviously to be a trite or a nugatory proposition.

The effect produced by an artificial and inverted style in our own language, is similar to what we experience when we read a composition in a foreign one. The eye is too much dazzled to see distinctly. "Aliud styli genus," (says Bacon)" totum in eo est, ut ver"ba sint aculeata, sententiæ concise, oratio denique potius versa "quam fusa, quo fit, ut omnia per hujusmodi artificium, magis inge"niosa videantur quam re vera sint. Tale invenitur in Seneca ef"fusius, in Tacito et Plinio secundo moderatius."

The deranged collocation of the words in Latin composition, aids powerfully the imposition we have now been considering, and renders that language an inconvenient medium of philosophical communication, as well as an inconvenient instrument of accurate thought. Indeed, in all languages in which this latitude in the arrangement of words is admitted, the associations among words must be looser, than where one invariable order is followed; and of consequence, on the principles of Hume and Campbell, the mistakes which are committed in reasonings, expressed in such languages, will not be so readily detected.

"The more general any word is in its signification, it is the more liable to be abused by an improper or unmeaning application. A very general term is applicable alike to a multitude of different individuals, a particular term is applicable but to a few. When the rightful applications of a word are extremely numerous, they cannot all be so strongly fixed by habit, but that, for greater security, we must perpetually recur in our minds from the sign to the notion we have of the things signified; and for the reason aforementioned, it is in such instances difficult precisely to ascertain this notion. Thus the latitude of a word, though different from its ambiguity, hath often a similar effect.-Phi losophy of Rhetoric, vol. ii. p. 122.

The errours in reasoning, to which we are exposed in consequence of the use of words as an instrument of thought, will appear the less surprising, when we consider, that all the languages which have hitherto existed in the world, have derived their origin from popular use, and that their application to philosophical purposes, was altogether out of the view of those men who first employed them, Whether it might not be possible to invent a language, which would at once facilitate philosophical communication, and form a more convenient instrument of reasoning and of invention, than those we possess at present, is a question of very difficult discussion, and upon which I shall not presume to offer an opinion. The failure of Wilkins's very ingenious attempt towards a real character, and a philosophical language, is not perhaps decisive against such a project; for, not to mention some radical defects in his plan, the views of that very eminent philosopher do not seem to have extended much farther than to promote and extend the literary intercourse among different nations. Leibnitz, so far as I know, is the only author who has hitherto conceived the possibility of aiding the powers of invention and of reasoning, by the use of a more convenient instrument of thought; but he has no where explained his ideas on this very interesting subject. It is only from a conversation of his with Mr. Boyle and Mr. Oldenburgh, when he was in England in 1673, and from some imperfect hints in different parts of his works,* that we find it had engaged his attention. In the course of this conversation he observed, that Wilkins had mistaken the true end of a real character, which was not merely to enable different nations to correspond easily together, but to assist the reason, the invention, and the memory. In his writings, too, he somewhere speaks of an alphabet of human thoughts, which he had been employed in forming, and which, probably, (as Fontenelle has remarked) had some relation to his universal language.t

The new nomenclature which has been introduced into chemistry, seems to me to furnish a striking illustration of the effect of appropriated and well-defined expressions, in aiding the intellectual powers; and the period is probably not far distant, when similar innovations will be attempted in some of the other sciences.

* See note (L.)

+"M. Leibnitz avoit conçu le projet d'une langue philosophique et universelle. Wilkins Evêque de Chester, et Dalgarno y avoient travaillé; mais dès le teins qu'il étoit en Angleterre, il avoit dit à Méssieurs Boyle et d'Oldenbourg qu'il ne croyoit pas que ces grands hommes eussent encore frappé au but. Ils pouvoient bien faire que des nations qui ne s'entendoient pas eussent aisément commerce, mais ils n'avoient pas attrappé les véritables caractères réels, qui étoient l'instrument le plus fin dont l'esprit humain se pût servir, et qui devoient extrêmement faciliter et le raisonnement, et la memoire, et l'invention des choses. Ils devoient ressembler, autant qu'il étoit possible, aux car actères d'algèbre, qui en effet sont très simples et très expressifs, qui n'ont jamais ni superfluité, ni équivoque, et dont toutes les variétés sont raisonnées. Il a parlé en quelque endroit, d'un alphabet des pensées humaines, qu'il méditoit. Selon toutes les apparences, cet alphabet avoit rapport à sa langue universelle."

Eloge de M. LEIBNITZ par M. de FONTENELLE.

SECTION V.

Of the Purposes to which the Powers of Abstraction and Generalization are subservient.

IT has been already shewn, that, without the use of signs, all our knowledge must necessarily have been limited to individuals, and that we should have been perfectly incapable both of classification and general reasoning. Some authors have maintained, that without the power of generalization, (which I have endeavoured to shew, means nothing more than the capacity of employing general terms,) it would have been impossible for us to have carried on any species of reasoning whatever. But I cannot help thinking that this opinion is erroneous, or, at least, that it is very imperfectly stated. The truth is, it appears to me to be just in one sense of the word reasoning, but false in another; and I even suspect it is false in that sense of the word in which it is most commonly employed. Before, therefore, it is laid down as a general proposition, the meaning we are to annex to this very vague and ambiguous term, should be ascertained with precision.

It has been remarked by several writers, that the expectation which we feel of the continuance of the laws of nature, is not founded upon reasoning; and different theories have of late been proposed to account for its origin. Mr. Hume resolves it into the association of ideas. Dr. Reid, on the other hand, maintains, that it is an original principle of our constitution, which does not admit of any explanation, and which, therefore, is to be ranked among those general and ultimate facts, beyond which philosophy is unable to proceed.* Without this principle of expectation, it would be impossible for us to accommodate our conduct to the established course of nature; and, accordingly, we find that it is a principle coeval with our very existence; and, in some measure, common to man with the lower animals.

In inquiries of this nature, so far removed from the common course of literary pur suits, it always gives me pleasure to remark a coincidence of opinion among different philosophers; particularly among men of original genius, and who have been educated in different philosophical systems. The following passage, in which M. de Condorcet gives an account of some of the mataphysical opinions of the late Mr. Turgot, approaches very nearly to Dr. Reid's doctrines.

"La mémoire de nos sensations, et la faculté que nous avons de réfléchir sur ces sensatious passées et de les combiner, sont le seul principe de nos connoissances. La suppo sition qu'il existe des loix constantes auxquelles tous les phénomènes observés sont assu jettis de maniere à reparoître dans tous les temps, dans toutes les circonstances, tels qu'ils sont déterminés par ces loix, est le seul fondement de la certitude de ces connoissances. "Nous avons la conscience d'avoir observé cette constance, et un sentiment involontaire nous force de croire qu'elle continuera de subsister. La probabilité qui en resulté, quelque grande qu'elle soit, n'est pas une certitude. Aucune relation nécessaire ne lie pour nous le passé à l'avenir, ni la constance de ce que j'ai vu à celle de ce que j'aurois continué d'observer si j'etois resté dans des circonstances semblables; mais l'impression qui me porte à regarder comme existant, comme réel ce qui m'a présenté ce caractere de constance est irrésistible."-Vie de TunGor, partie ii. p. 56.

"Quand un François et un Anglois pensent de même, (says Voltaire,) il faut bien qu'ils aient raison."

It is an obvious consequence of this doctrine, that, although philosophers be accustomed to state what are commonly called the laws of nature, in the form of general propositions, it is by no means necessary for the practical purposes of life, that we should express them in this manner; or even that we should express them in words at all. The philosopher, for example, may state it as a law of nature, that "fire scorches;" or that "heavy bodies when unsupported fall downwards:" but, long before the use of artificial signs and even before the dawn of reason, a child learns to act upon both of these suppositions. In doing so, it is influenced merely by the instinctive principle which has now been mentioned, directed in its operation (as is the case with many other instincts) by the experience of the individual. If man, therefore, had been destined for no other purposes, than to acquire such an acquaintance with the course of nature as is necessary for the preservation of his animal existence, he might have fulfilled all the ends of his being without the use of language.

As we are enabled, by our instinctive anticipation of physical events, to accommodate our conduct to what we foresee is to happen, so we are enabled in many cases, to increase our power, by employing physical causes as instruments for the accomplishment of our purposes; nay, we can employ a series of such causes, so as to accomplish very remote effects. We can employ the agency of air, to increase the heat of a furnace; the furnace, to render iron malleable; and the iron to all the various purposes of the mechanical arts. Now, it appears to me, that all this may be conceived and done without the aid of language and yet, assuredly, to discover a series of means subservient to a particular end, or, in other words, an effort of mechanical invention, implies, according to the common doctrines of philosophers, the exercise of our reasoning powers. In this sense, therefore, of the word reasoning, I am inclined to think, that it is not essentially connected with the faculty of generalization, or with the use of signs.

It is some confirmation of this conclusion, that savages, whose minds are almost wholly occupied with particulars, and who have neither inclination nor capacity for general speculations, are yet occasionally observed to employ a long train of means for accomplishing a particular purpose. Even something of this kind, but in a very inferiour degree, may, I think, be remarked in the other animals; and that they do not carry it farther, is probably not the effect of their want of generalization, but of the imperfection of some of those faculties which are common to them with our species, particularly of their powers of attention and recollection. The instances which are commonly produced to prove that they are not destitute of the power of reasoning, are all examples of that species of contrivance which has been mentioned; and are perfectly distinct from those intellectual processes to which the use of signs is essentially subservient.*

One of the best attested instances which I have met with, of sagacity in the lower

· Whether that particular species of mechanical contrivance which bas now been mentioned, and which consists merely in employing a series of physical causes to accomplish an effect which we cannot produce immediately, should or should not be dignified with the name of reasoning, I shall not now inquire. It is sufficient for my present purpose to remark, that it is essentially different from those intellectual processes to which the use of signs is indispensably necessary. At the same time, I am ready to acknowledge, that what I have now said, is not strictly applicable to those more complicated mechanical inventions, in which a variety of powers are made to conspire at once to produce a particular effect. Such contrivances, perhaps, may be found to involve processes of the mind which cannot be carried on without signs. But these questions will fall more properly under our consideration when we enter on the subject of reasoning.

In general, it may be remarked, that, in so far as our thoughts relate merely to individual objects, or to individual events, which we have actually perceived, and of which we retain a distinct remembrance, we are not under the necessity of employing words. It

animals, is mentioned by M. Bailly, in his Lettre sur les Animaux, addressed to M. Le Roy.

"Un de mes amis, homme d'esprit et digne de confiance, m'a raconté deux faits dont il a été témoin. Il avoit un singe très intelligent; il s'amusoit à lui donner des noix dont l'animal étoit très friand; mais il les plaçoit assez loin, pour que retenu par sa chaîne, le singe ne pût pas les atteindre: après bien des efforts inutiles qui ne servent qu'à préparer l'invention, le singe, voyant, passer un domestique portant une serviette sous le bras, se saisit de cette serviette, et s'en servit pour atteindre à la noix et l'amener jusqu'à lui. La manèire de casser la noix exigea une nouvelle invention ; il en vint àbout, en plaçant la noix à terre, en y faisant tomber de haut une pierre ou un caillou pour la briser. Vous voyez, Monsieur, que sans avoir connu, comme Gallilée, les loix de la chûte des corps, le singe avoit bien remarque la force que ces corps acquierent par la chûte. Ce moyen ce pendant se trouva en défaut. Un jour qu'il avoit plu, la terre étoit molle, la noix enfon çoit, et la pierre n'avoit plus d'action pour la briser. Que fit le singe? Il alla chercher un tuileau, plaça la noix dessus, et en laissant tomber la pierre il brisa la noix qui n'enfonçoit plus."-Discours et memoires par l'Auteur de l' Histoire de l'Astronomie. A Paris, 1790, tome ii. p. 126.

Admitting these facts to be accurately stated, they still leave an essential distinction between man and brute; for in none of the contrivances here mentioned, is there any thing analogous to those intellectual processes which lead the mind to general conclusions, and which (according to the foregoing doctrine) imply the use of general terms. Those powers, therefore, which enable us to classify objects, and to employ signs as an instrument of thought, are, as far as we can judge, peculiar to the human species.

+ I have thought it proper to add this limitation of the general proposition; because individual objects, and individual events, which have not fallen under the examination of our senses, cannot possibly be made the subjects of our consideration, but by means of language. The manner in which we think of such objects and events, is accurately described in the following passage of Wollaston; however unphilosophical the conclusion may be which he deduces from his reasoning.

"A man is not known ever the more to posterity, because his name is transmitted to them; he doth not live, because his name does. When it is said, Julius Cæsar subdued Gaul, beat Pompey, changed the Roman commonwealth into a monarchy, &c. it is the same thing as to say, the conqueror of Pompey was Cæsar; that is, Cæsar, and the conqueror of Pompey are the same thing; and Cæsar is as much known by the one distinction as the other.-The amount then is only this: that the conqueror of Pompey conquered Pompey; or somebody conquered Pompey; or rather, since Pompey is as little known now as Cæsar, somebody conquered somebody. Such a poor business is this boasted immortality; and such, as has been here described, is the thing called glory among us !" Religion of NAT. DEL. p. 117.