part17-第3章

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



of　Parliament　which　hath　provided　punishment　proportionable　to　the

quality　of　the　offence。〃　And　we　must　certainly　allow　greater　weight

to　this　position　that　〃it　was　no　felony　till　James'　Statute；〃　laid

down　deliberately　in　his　H。　P。　C。；　a　work　which　he　wrote　to　be

printed；　finished；　and　transcribed　for　the　press　in　his　life　time；

than　to　the　hasty　scripture　that　〃at　_common　law_　witchcraft　was

punished　with　death　as　heresy；　by　writ　de　Heretico　Comburendo〃　in　his

Methodical　Summary　of　the　P。　C。　p。　6；　a　work　〃not　intended　for　the

press；　not　fitted　for　it；　and　which　he　declared　himself　he　had　never

read　over　since　it　was　written；〃　Pref。　　Unless　we　understand　his

meaning　in　that　to　be　that　witchcraft　could　not　be　punished　at　common

law　as　witchcraft；　but　as　heresy。　　In　either　sense；　however；　it　is　a

denial　of　this　pretended　law　of　Alfred。　　Now；　all　men　of　reading　know

that　these　pretended　laws　of　homicide；　concubinage；　theft；

retaliation；　compulsory　marriage；　usury；　bailment；　and　others　which

might　have　been　cited；　from　the　Pseudograph；　were　never　the　laws　of

England；　not　even　in　Alfred's　time；　and　of　course　that　it　is　a

forgery。　　Yet　palpable　as　it　must　be　to　every　lawyer；　the　English

judges　have　piously　avoided　lifting　the　veil　under　which　it　was

shrouded。　　In　truth；　the　alliance　between　Church　and　State　in　England

has　ever　made　their　judges　accomplices　in　the　frauds　of　the　clergy；

and　even　bolder　than　they　are。　　For　instead　of　being　contented　with

these　four　surreptitious　chapters　of　Exodus；　they　have　taken　the

whole　leap；　and　declared　at　once　that　the　whole　Bible　and　Testament

in　a　lump；　make　a　part　of　the　common　law；　ante　873：　the　first

judicial　declaration　of　which　was　by　this　same　Sir　Matthew　Hale。　　And

thus　they　incorporate　into　the　English　code　laws　made　for　the　Jews

alone；　and　the　precepts　of　the　gospel；　intended　by　their　benevolent

author　as　obligatory　only　in　_foro　concientiae_；　and　they　arm　the

whole　with　the　coercions　of　municipal　law。　　In　doing　this；　too；　they

have　not　even　used　the　Connecticut　caution　of　declaring；　as　is　done

in　their　blue　laws；　that　the　laws　of　God　shall　be　the　laws　of　their

land；　except　where　their　own　contradict　them；　but　they　swallow　the

yea　and　nay　together。　　Finally；　in　answer　to　Fortescue　Aland's

question　why　the　ten　commandments　should　not　now　be　a　part　of　the

common　law　of　England？　we　may　say　they　are　not　because　they　never

were　made　so　by　legislative　authority；　the　document　which　has　imposed

that　doubt　on　him　being　a　manifest　forgery。







　　　　　　　　CLASSIFICATION　IN　NATURAL　HISTORY




　　　　　　　　_To　Dr。　John　Manners_

　　　　　　　　_Monticello；　February　22；　1814_




　　　　　　　　SIR；　　The　opinion　which；　in　your　letter　of　January　24；　you

are　pleased　to　ask　of　me；　on　the　comparative　merits　of　the　different

methods　of　classification　adopted　by　different　writers　on　Natural

History；　is　one　which　I　could　not　have　given　satisfactorily；　even　at

the　earlier　period　at　which　the　subject　was　more　familiar；　still

less；　after　a　life　of　continued　occupation　in　civil　concerns　has　so

much　withdrawn　me　from　studies　of　that　kind。　　I　can；　therefore；

answer　but　in　a　very　general　way。　　And　the　text　of　this　answer　will

be　found　in　an　observation　in　your　letter；　where；　speaking　of

nosological　systems；　you　say　that　disease　has　been　found　to　be　an

unit。　　Nature　has；　in　truth；　produced　units　only　through　all　her

works。　　Classes；　orders；　genera；　species；　are　not　of　her　work。　　Her

creation　is　of　individuals。　　No　two　animals　are　exactly　alike；　no　two

plants；　nor　even　two　leaves　or　blades　of　grass；　no　two

crystallizations。　　And　if　we　may　venture　from　what　is　within　the

cognizance　of　such　organs　as　ours；　to　conclude　on　that　beyond　their

powers；　we　must　believe　that　no　two　particles　of　matter　are　of　exact

resemblance。　　This　infinitude　of　units　or　individuals　being　far

beyond　the　capacity　of　our　memory；　we　are　obliged；　in　aid　of　that；　to

distribute　them　into　masses；　throwing　into　each　of　these　all　the

individuals　which　have　a　certain　degree　of　resemblance；　to　subdivide

these　again　into　smaller　groups；　according　to　certain　points　of

dissimilitude　observable　in　them；　and　so　on　until　we　have　formed　what

we　call　a　system　of　classes；　orders；　genera　and　species。　　In　doing

this；　we　fix　arbitrarily　on　such　characteristic　resemblances　and

differences　as　seem　to　us　most　prominent　and　invariable　in　the

several　subjects；　and　most　likely　to　take　a　strong　hold　in　our

memories。　　Thus　Ray　formed　one　classification　on　such　lines　of

division　as　struck　him　most　favorably；　Klein　adopted　another；　Brisson

a　third；　and　other　naturalists　other　designations；　till　Linnaeus

appeared。　　Fortunately　for　science；　he　conceived　in　the　three

kingdoms　of　nature；　modes　of　classification　which　obtained　the

approbation　of　the　learned　of　all　nations。　　His　system　was

accordingly　adopted　by　all；　and　united　all　in　a　general　language。　　It

offered　the　three　great　desiderata：　First；　of　aiding　the　memory　to

retain　a　knowledge　of　the　productions　of　nature。　　Secondly；　of

rallying　all　to　the　same　names　for　the　same　objects；　so　that　they

could　communicate　understandingly　on　them。　　And　Thirdly；　of　enabling

them；　when　a　subject　was　first　presented；　to　trace　it　by　its

character　up　to　the　conventional　name　by　which　it　was　agreed　to　be

called。　　This　classification　was　indeed　liable　to　the　imperfection　of

bringing　into　the　same　group　individuals　which；　though　resembling　in

the　characteristics　adopted　by　the　author　for　his　classification；　yet

have　strong　marks　of　dissimilitude　in　other　respects。　　But　to　this

objection　every　mode　of　classification　must　be　liable；　because　the

plan　of　creation　is　inscrutable　to　our　limited　faculties。　　Nature　has

not　arranged　her　productions　on　a　single　and　direct　line。　　They

branch　at　every　step；　and　in　every　direction；　and　he　who　attempts　to

reduce　them　into　departments；　is　left　to　do　it　by　the　lines　of　his

own　fancy。　　The　objection　of　bringing　together　what　are　disparata　in

nature；　lies　against　the　classifications　of　Blumenbach　and　of　Cuvier；

as　well　as　that　of　Linnaeus；　and　must　forever　lie　against　all。

Perhaps　not　in　equal　degree；　on　this　I　do　not　pronounce。　　But　neither

is　this　so　important　a　consideration　as　that　of　uniting　all　nations

under　one　language　in　Natural　History。　　This　had　been　happily

effected　by　Linnaeus；　and　can　scarcely　be　hoped　for　a　second　time。

Nothing　indeed　is　so　desperate　as　to　make　all　mankind　agree　in　giving

up　a　language　they　possess；　for　one　which　they　have　to　learn。　　The

attempt　leads　directly　to　the　confusion　of　the　tongues　of　Babel。

Disciples　of　Linnaeus；　of　Blumenbach；　and　of　Cuvier；　exclusively

possessing　their　own　nomenclatures；　can　no　longer　communicate

intelligibly　with　one　another。　　However　much；　therefore；　we　are

indebted　to　both　these　naturalists；　and　to　Cuvier　especially；　for　the

valuable　additions　they　have　made　to　the　sciences　of　nature；　I　cannot

say　they　have　rendered　her　a　service　in　this　attempt　to　innovate　in

the　settled　nomenclature　of　her　productions；　on　the　contrary；　I　think

it　will　be　a　check　on　the　progress　of　science；　greater　or　less；　in

proportion　as　their　schemes　shall　more　or　less　prevail。　　They　would

have　rendered　greater　service　by　holding　fast　to　the　system　on　which

we　had　once　all　agreed；　and　by　inserting　into　that　such　new　genera；

orders；　or　even　classes；　as　new　discoveries　should　call　for。　　Their

systems；　too；　and　especially　that　of　Blumenbach；　are　liable　to　the

objection　of　giving　too　much　into　the　province　of　anatomy。　　It　may　be

said；　indeed；　that　anatomy　is　a　part　of　natural　history。　　In　the

broad　sense　of　the　word；　it　certainly　is。　　In　that　sense；　however；　it

would　comprehend　all　the　natural　sciences；　every　created　thing　being

a　subject　of　natural　history　in　extenso。　　But　in　the　subdivisions　of

general　science；　as　has　been　observed　in　the　particular　one　of

natural　history；　it　has　been　necessary　to　draw　arbitrary　lines；　in

order　to　accom