part17-第4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！



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

order　to　accommodate　our　limited　views。　　According　to　these；　as　soon

as　the　structure　of　any　natural　production　is　destroyed　by　art；　it

ceases　to　be　a　subject　of　natural　history；　and　enters　into　the　domain

ascribed　to　chemistry；　to　pharmacy；　to　anatomy；　&c。　　Linnaeus'　method

was　liable　to　this　objection　so　far　as　it　required　the　aid　of

anatomical　dissection；　as　of　the　heart；　for　instance；　to　ascertain

the　place　of　any　animal；　or　of　a　chemical　process　for　that　of　a

mineral　substance。　　It　would　certainly　be　better　to　adopt　as　much　as

possible　such　exterior　and　visible　characteristics　as　every　traveller

is　competent　to　observe；　to　ascertain　and　to　relate。　　But　with　this

objection；　lying　but　in　a　small　degree；　Linnaeus'　method　was

received；　understood；　and　conventionally　settled　among　the　learned；

and　was　even　getting　into　common　use。　　To　disturb　it　then　was

unfortunate。　　The　new　system　attempted　in　botany；　by　Jussieu；　in

mineralogy；　by　Hauiy；　are　subjects　of　the　same　regret；　and　so　also

the　no…system　of　Buffon；　the　great　advocate　of　individualism　in

opposition　to　classification。　　He　would　carry　us　back　to　the　days　and

to　the　confusion　of　Aristotle　and　Pliny；　give　up　the　improvements　of

twenty　centuries；　and　co…operate　with　the　neologists　in　rendering　the

science　of　one　generation　useless　to　the　next　by　perpetual　changes　of

its　language。　　In　botany；　Wildenow　and　Persoon　have　incorporated　into

Linnaeus　the　new　discovered　plants。　　I　do　not　know　whether　any　one

has　rendered　us　the　same　service　as　to　his　natural　history。　　It　would

be　a　very　acceptable　one。　　The　materials　furnished　by　Humboldt；　and

those　from　New　Holland　particularly；　require　to　be　digested　into　the

Catholic　system。　　Among　these；　the　Ornithorhyncus　mentioned　by　you；

is　an　amusing　example　of　the　anomalies　by　which　nature　sports　with

our　schemes　of　classification。　　Although　with　out　mammae；　naturalists

are　obliged　to　place　it　in　the　class　of　mammiferae；　and　Blumenbach；

particularly；　arranges　it　in　his　order　of　Palmipeds　and　toothless

genus；　with　the　walrus　and　manatie。　　In　Linnaeus'　system　it　might　be

inserted　as　a　new　genus　between　the　anteater　and　manis；　in　the　order

of　Bruta。　　It　seems；　in　truth；　to　have　stronger　relations　with　that

class　than　any　other　in　the　construction　of　the　heart；　its　red　and

warm　blood；　hairy　integuments；　in　being　quadruped　and　viviparous；　and

may　we　not　say；　in　its　_tout　ensemble_；　which　Buffon　makes　his　sole

principle　of　arrangement？　　The　mandible；　as　you　observe；　would　draw

it　towards　the　birds；　were　not　this　characteristic　overbalanced　by

the　weightier　ones　before　mentioned。　　That　of　the　Cloaca　is

equivocal；　because　although　a　character　of　birds；　yet　some　mammalia；

as　the　beaver　and　sloth；　have　the　rectum　and　urinary　passage

terminating　at　a　common　opening。　　Its　ribs　also；　by　their　number　and

structure；　are　nearer　those　of　the　bird　than　of　the　mammalia。　　It　is

possible　that　further　opportunities　of　examination　may　discover　the

mammae。　　Those　of　the　Opossum　are　asserted；　by　the　Chevalier

d'Aboville；　from　his　own　observations　on　that　animal；　made　while　here

with　the　French　army；　to　be　not　discoverable　until　pregnancy；　and　to

disappear　as　soon　as　the　young　are　weaned。　　The　Duckbill　has　many

additional　particularities　which　liken　it　to　other　genera；　and　some

entirely　peculiar。　　Its　description　and　history　needs　yet　further

information。




　　　　　　　　In　what　I　have　said　on　the　method　of　classing；　I　have　not　at

all　meant　to　insinuate　that　that　of　Linnaeus　is　intrinsically

preferable　to　those　of　Blumenbach　and　Cuvier。　　I　adhere　to　the

Linnean　because　it　is　sufficient　as　a　ground…work；　admits　of

supplementary　insertions　as　new　productions　are　discovered；　and

mainly　because　it　has　got　into　so　general　use　that　it　will　not　be

easy　to　displace　it；　and　still　less　to　find　another　which　shall　have

the　same　singular　fortune　of　obtaining　the　general　consent。　　During

the　attempt　we　shall　become　unintelligible　to　one　another；　and

science　will　be　really　retarded　by　efforts　to　advance　it　made　by　its

most　favorite　sons。　　I　am　not　myself　apt　to　be　alarmed　at　innovations

recommended　by　reason。　　That　dread　belongs　to　those　whose　interests

or　prejudices　shrink　from　the　advance　of　truth　and　science。　　My

reluctance　is　to　give　up　an　universal　language　of　which　we　are　in

possession；　without　an　assurnace　of　general　consent　to　receive

another。　　And　the　higher　the　character　of　the　authors　recommending

it；　and　the　more　excellent　what　they　offer；　the　greater　the　danger　of

producing　schism。




　　　　　　　　I　should　seem　to　need　apology　for　these　long　remarks　to　you　who

are　so　much　more　recent　in　these　studies；　but　I　find　it　in　your

particular　request　and　my　own　respect　for　it；　and　with　that　be

pleased　to　accept　the　assurance　of　my　esteem　and　consideration。







　　　　　　　　THE　CENSORSHIP　OF　BOOKS




　　　　　　　　_To　N。　G。　Dufief_

　　　　　　　　_Monticello；　April　19；　1814_




　　　　　　　　DEAR　SIR；　　Your　favor　of　the　6th　instant　is　just　received；

and　I　shall　with　equal　willingness　and　truth；　state　the　degree　of

agency　you　had；　respecting　the　copy　of　M。　de　Becourt's　book；　which

came　to　my　hands。　　That　gentleman　informed　me；　by　letter；　that　he　was

about　to　publish　a　volume　in　French；　〃Sur　la　Creation　du　Monde；　un

Systeme　d'Organisation　Primitive；〃　which；　its　title　promised　to　be；

either　a　geological　or　astronomical　work。　　I　subscribed；　and；　when

published；　he　sent　me　a　copy；　and　as　you　were　my　correspondent　in　the

book　line　in　Philadelphia；　I　took　the　liberty　of　desiring　him　to　call

on　you　for　the　price；　which；　he　afterwards　informed　me；　you　were　so

kind　as　to　pay　him　for　me；　being；　I　believe；　two　dollars。　　But　the

sole　copy　which　came　to　me　was　from　himself　directly；　and；　as　far　as

I　know；　was　never　seen　by　you。




　　　　　　　　I　am　really　mortified　to　be　told　that；　_in　the　United　States　of

America_；　a　fact　like　this　can　become　a　subject　of　inquiry；　and　of

criminal　inquiry　too；　as　an　offence　against　religion；　that　a　question

about　the　sale　of　a　book　can　be　carried　before　the　civil　magistrate。

Is　this　then　our　freedom　of　religion？　and　are　we　to　have　a　censor

whose　imprimatur　shall　say　what　books　may　be　sold；　and　what　we　may

buy？　　And　who　is　thus　to　dogmatize　religious　opinions　for　our

citizens？　　Whose　foot　is　to　be　the　measure　to　which　ours　are　all　to

be　cut　or　stretched？　　Is　a　priest　to　be　our　inquisitor；　or　shall　a

layman；　simple　as　ourselves；　set　up　his　reason　as　the　rule　for　what

we　are　to　read；　and　what　we　must　believe？　　It　is　an　insult　to　our

citizens　to　question　whether　they　are　rational　beings　or　not；　and

blasphemy　against　religion　to　suppose　it　cannot　stand　the　test　of

truth　and　reason。　　If　M。　de　Becourt's　book　be　false　in　its　facts；

disprove　them；　if　false　in　its　reasoning；　refute　it。　　But；　for　God's

sake；　let　us　freely　hear　both　sides；　if　we　choose。　　I　know　little　of

its　contents；　having　barely　glanced　over　here　and　there　a　passage；

and　over　the　table　of　contents。　　From　this；　the　Newtonian　philosophy

seemed　the　chief　object　of　attack；　the　issue　of　which　might　be

trusted　to　the　strength　of　the　two　combatants；　Newton　certainly　not

needing　the　auxiliary　arm　of　the　government；　and　still　less　the　holy

author　of　our　religion；　as　to　what　in　it　concerns　him。　　I　thought　the

work　would　be　very　innocent；　and　one　which　might　be　confided　to　the

reason　of　any　man；　not　likely　to　be　much　read　if　let　alone；　but；　if

persecuted；　it　will　be　generally　read。　　Every　man　in　the　United

States　will　think　it　a　duty　to　buy　a　copy；　in　vindication　of　his

right　to　buy；　and　to　read　what　he　pleases。　　I　have　been　just　reading

the　new　constitution　of　Spain。　　One　of　its　fundamental　basis　is

expressed　in　these　words：　〃The　_Roman　Catholic_　religion；　the　only

true　one；　is；　and　always　shall　be；　that　of　the　Spanish　nation。　　The

government　protects　it　by　wise　and　just　laws；　and　prohibits　the

exercise　of