Chapter M (9)

That these mounts and graves are the works of the nativ Indians, is very evident, for such small mounts are scattered over every part of North America. "It was customary with the Indians of the West Jersey," says Mr. Smith, page 137, "when they buried the dead, to put family utensils, bows and arrows, and sometimes wampum into the grave, as tokens of their affection. When a person of note died far from the place of his own residence, they would carry his bones to be buried there. They washed and perfumed the dead, painted the face, and followed singly; left the dead in a fitting posture, and covered the grave pyramidically. They were very curious in preserving and repairing the graves of their dead, and pensivly visited them."

It is said by the English, who are best acquainted with the manners of the nativs, that they had a custom of collecting, at certain stated periods, all the bones of their deceased friends, and burying them in some common grave. Over these cemetaries or general repositories of the dead, were erected those vast heaps of earth or mounts, similar to those which are called in England _barrows_, and which are discovered in every part of the United States.

The Indians seem to have had two methods of burying the dead; one was, to deposit one body (or at most but a small number of bodies) in a place, and cover it with stones, thrown together in a careless manner. The pile thus formed would naturally be nearly circular, but those piles that are discovered are something oval. In the neighborhood of my father's house, about seven miles from Hartford, on the public road to Farmington, there is one of those _Carrnedds_ or heaps of stone. I often passed by it in the early part of my youth, but never measured its circumference or examined its contents. My present opinion is, that its circumference is about twenty five feet. The inhabitants in the neighborhood report, as a tradition received from the nativs, that an Indian was buried there, and that it is the custom for every Indian that passes by to cast a stone upon the heap. This custom I have never seen practised, but have no doubt of its existence; as it is confirmed by the general testimony of the first American settlers.[51]

[51] The existence of a custom of paying respect to these
_Indian heaps_, as they are called, is proved by a ludicrous
practice, that prevails among the Anglo Americans in the
vicinity, of making strangers pull off their hats as they
pass by this grave. A man passing by with one who is a
stranger to the custom, never fails to practise a jest upon
him, by telling him that a spider, a caterpillar, or some
other insect is upon his hat; the unsuspecting traveller
immediately takes off his hat, to brush away the offending
insect, and finds by a roar of laughter, that a trick is put
upon him. I have often seen this trick played upon strangers,
and upon the neighbors who happen to be off their guard, to
the great amusement of the country people. The jest, however,
is a proof that the aborigines paid a respect to these rude
monuments, and in ridicule of that respect, probably,
originated the vulgar practice of the English, which exists
to this day.

The other mode of burying the dead, was to deposit a vast number of bodies, or the bones which were taken from the single scattered graves, in a common cemetary, and over them raise vast _tumuli_ or barrows, such as the mount at Muskingum, which is 390 feet in circumference, and 50 feet high. The best account of these cemetaries may be found in Mr. Jefferson's Notes on Virginia, which will appear the most satisfactory to the reader in his own words.

"I know of no such thing existing as an Indian monument, for I would not honor with that name, arrow points, stone hatchets, stone pipes, and half shapen images. Of labor on the large scale, I think there are no remains as respectable as would be a common ditch for the draining of lands, unless it be the barrows, of which many are to be found all over this country. These are of different sizes, some of them constructed of earth, and some of loose stones. That they were repositories of the dead has been obvious to all; but on what particular occasion constructed, was matter of doubt. Some have thought they covered the bones of those who have fallen in battles, fought on the spot of interment. Some ascribe them to the custom, said to prevail among the Indians, of collecting at certain periods the bones of all their dead, wherever deposited at the time of death. Others again supposed them the general sepulchre for towns, conjectured to have been on or near these grounds, and this opinion was supported by the quality of the lands in which they are found, (those constructed of earth being generally in the softest and most fertile meadow grounds on river sides) and by a tradition said to be handed down from the aboriginal Indians, that when they settled in a town, the first person who died was placed erect, and earth put about him so as to cover and support him; that when another died, a narrow passage was dug to the first, the second reclined against him, and the cover of earth replaced, and so on. There being one of these in my neighborhood, I wished to satisfy myself whether any, and which of these opinions were just; for this purpose I determined to open and examin it thoroughly. It was situated on the low grounds of the Rivanna, about two miles above its principal fork, and opposit to some hills on which had been an Indian town. It was of a spheroidical form, of about forty feet diameter at the base, and had been of about twelve feet altitude, tho now reduced by the plow to seven and a half; having been under cultivation about a dozen years.

"Before this, it was covered with trees of twelve inches diameter, and round the base was an excavation of five feet depth and width, from whence the earth had been taken, of which the hillock was formed. I first dug superficially in several parts of it, and came to collections of human bones at different depths, from six inches to three feet, below the surface. These were lying in the utmost confusion; some vertical, some oblique, some horizontal, and directed to every point of the compass, entangled and held together in clusters by the earth. Bones of the most distant parts were found together; as for instance, the small bones of the foot in the hollow of a scull; many sculls were sometimes in contact, lying on the face, on the side, on the back, top or bottom, so as on the whole, to giv the idea of bones emptied promiscuously from a bag or basket, and covered over with earth, without any attention to their order. The bones, of which the greatest numbers remained, were sculls, jaw bones, teeth, the bones of the arms, thighs, legs, feet and hands. A few ribs remained, some vertibræ of the neck and spine, without their processes, and one instance only of the bone which serves as the base to the vertebral column (the os sacrum)."

After making some remarks on the state of putrefaction in which the bones appeared, and on the discovery of the bones of infants, Mr. Jefferson goes on, "I proceeded then to make a perpendicular cut thro the body of the barrow, that I might examin its internal structure. This passed about three feet from its center, was opened to the former surface of earth, and was wide enough for a man to walk thro and examin its sides.

"At the bottom, that is on the level of the circumjacent plain, I found bones; above these a few stones brought from a cliff, a quarter of a mile off, and from the river one eighth of a mile off. Then a large interval of earth, then a stratum of bones, and so on. At one end of the section, were four strata of bones plainly distinguishable; at the other, three; the strata in one part not ranging with those in another. The bones nearest the surface were least decayed. No holes were discovered in any of them, as if made with bullets, arrows or other weapons. I conjectured that in this barrow might have been a thousand skeletons. Every one will readily seize the circumstances above related, which militate against the opinion, that it covered the bones only of persons fallen in battle; and against the tradition also which would make it the common sepulchre of a town, in which the bodies were placed upright, and touching each other. Appearances certainly indicate, that it has derived both origin and growth from the accustomary collection of bones and deposition of them together; that the first collection had been deposited on the common surface of the earth, that a few stones were put over it, and then a covering of earth, that the second had been laid on this, had covered more or less of it in proportion to the number of bones, and was then also covered with earth, and so on. The following are the particular circumstances, which giv it this aspect. 1 The number of bones. 2 The strata in one part having no correspondence with those in another. 3 The different states of decay in these strata, which seem to indicate a difference in the time of inhumation. 4 The existence of infant bones among them.

"But on whatever occasion they may have been made, they are of considerable notoriety among the Indians; for a party passing about thirty years ago, thro the part of the country where this barrow is, went thro the woods directly to it, without any instructions or inquiry, and having staid about it some time, with expressions which were construed to be those of sorrow, they returned to the high road which they had left about half a dozen miles, to pay this visit, and pursued their journey. There is another barrow, much resembling this, in the low grounds of the south branch of the Shenandoah, where it is crossed by the road leading from the Rockfish Gap to Staunton. Both of these have within these dozen years, been cleared of their trees and put under cultivation, are much reduced in their height, and spread in width, by the plow, and will probably disappear in time. There is another on a hill in the blue ridge of mountains, a few miles north of Wood's Gap, which is made up of small stones thrown together. This has been opened, and found to contain human bones, as the others do. There are also others in other parts of the country."

From this account of Mr. Jefferson, to whose industry and talents the sciences and his country will ever be indebted, we may fairly conclude that the mounts at Muskingum are the work of the nativ Indians. It is however necessary to notice two or three particulars, in the appearance of those at Muskingum, which are not discovered (or not mentioned by Mr. Jefferson) in the structure of that which he examined. These are the ising glass, the earthen ware, the charcoal, and the calcination of the bones by fire. As to the first it is well known that the ising glass is found only in particular parts of America, and the savages in other parts could not obtain it. Mr. Jefferson mentions no discovery of earthen ware, but it was used by the Indians in every part of America. The piece you once shewed me, sir, is a specimen of what is found wherever there has been an Indian town. Pieces of it are dug up frequently in the meadows on Connecticut river. It appears to be formed of pure clay, or of shells and cement, hardened by fire, and as we might naturally suppose, without glazing. By sections of vessels which remain, it is evident they were wrought with great ingenuity, and into beautiful and convenient forms.

The charcoal and calcination of some bones are a proof that there has existed, among the savages of America, a custom of burning the dead, or their bones, after the dissolution of the flesh. It does not appear that this custom was general, but it is not at all surprising to find that such a practice has existed in this country; since it has been frequent among the uncivilized nations on the eastern continent.

I am sensible, sir, that you have entertained an opinion that the story of Madoc, the Welch Prince, may be true, and that it is possible the fortifications at Muskingum may be the work of his colony. Of the truth of this conclusion there is perhaps no direct evidence, and yet collateral evidence may be obtained, that it is not chimerical. There is such a surprising affinity between the Indian mounts and the barrows or cemetaries which are remaining in England, but particularly in Wales and Anglesey, the last retreat of the original Britons, that we can hardly resolve it into a common principle of analogy that subsists between nations in the same stage of society; but incredulity itself will acknowlege the probability, that the primitiv inhabitants of Britain and America had a common stock from which they were derived, long since the age of the first parent: Not that I believe North America to be peopled so late as the twelfth century, the period of Madoc's migration, but supposing America to have been settled two or three thousand years before that period, a subsequent colony might pass the Atlantic and bring the Roman improvements in fortification.

Waving further conjectures, I beg leave to describe the analogy between the barrows in England and Wales, and in America. This will be striking, and cannot fail to entertain a curious reader, because it is attended with positiv proofs.

In England, Scotland, Wales, and the island Anglesey, there are numbers of monuments erected by the ancients; but the most remarkable are generally found in the two latter, whither the old Britons retreated from their Roman and Saxon conquerors; and _Anglesey_, the ancient _Mona_, is supposed to have been the chief seat of the Druids. The remains of most consequence are the _cromlechs_, the _tumuli_, and the _cumuli_ or _carrnedds_. _Cromlech_, if the word is derived from the British roots _krom laech_, signifies a _bending stone_.[52] This is the common opinion, as Rowland observes.[53] If we trace the origin to the Hebrew, the root of the old British,[54] we shall find it not less significativ; for _cærem luach_ signify _devoted stone_, or _altar_. These _cromlechs_ consist of large stones, pitched on end in the earth, as supporters, upon which is laid a broad stone of a vast size. The supporters stand in a bending posture, and are from three to seven feet high. The top stone is often found to be of twenty or thirty tons weight, and remains to this day on the pillars. Numbers of these are found in Wales and Anglesey; but none is more remarkable than that in Wiltshire, called _stone henge_, for a full description of which I must beg leave to refer you to Camden's Britannia, vol. I, page 119. These cromlechs are doubtless works of great antiquity; but for what purpose they were erected, at such an immense expense of time and labor as would be necessary to convey stones of thirty tons weight a considerable distance, and raise them several feet, is not easily determined. The probability is that they were altars for sacrifice, as pieces of burnt bones and ashes are found near them. They might also be used in other ceremonies, under the druidical system, as the ratification of covenants, &c. As this kind of monuments is not found in America, I will wave a further consideration of it; observing only, that it was an ancient practice among the eastern nations, to raise heaps of stones, as witnesses of agreements, and sacrifice upon them, as a solemn ratification of the act of the parties. Many instances of this ceremony are mentioned in the old testament. The covenant between Jacob and Laban was witnessed by a heap of stones, which served also as a boundary between their respectiv claims. "_And Jacob offered sacrifice upon the mount_, that is, the heap, _and called his brethren to eat bread_." Gen. xxxi, 54. A similar custom seems to have prevailed among the primitiv Britons.

[52] Camden's Britannia, volume II, page 759.

[53] Mona Antiq. Restaur, page 47.

[54] That the primitiv Britons may claim a very direct
descent from the ancient inhabitants of Syria and Phenicia,
whose languages were but branches from the same common stock,
with as Hebrew, may be made to appear probable by a
comparison of their customs; but may be almost demonstrated
by a collation of the old British language with the Hebrew
roots. _See my Dissertations on the English Language,
Appendix._

But the _tumuli_, barrows or mounts of earth, which remain in multitudes in England and Wales, are constructed exactly in the manner of the barrows, described by Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Heart. One of these in Wiltshire, Camden thus describes.[55] "Here Selbury, a round hill, rises to a considerable height, and seems by the fashion of it, and the sliding down of the earth about it, to have been cast up by mens hands. Of this fort there are many in this country, round and copped, which are called _burrows_ or _barrows_; perhaps raised in memory of the soldiers slain there. For _bones are found in them_, and I have read, it was a custom among the northern people, that every soldier who survived a battle, should bring a helmet full of earth towards the raising of monuments for their slain fellows."

[55] Britannia, volume I, page 127.

This is said to be the largest and most uniform barrow in the country, and perhaps in England; and I regret that the height and circumference are not mentioned. I am however informed verbally by a gentleman who has visited England, that some of these tumuli appear to have been nearly one hundred feet high.[56] There are also in the same country several kinds of barrows of different sizes; some surrounded with trenches; others not; some with stones set round them, others without any; the general figure of them is nearly circular, but a little oval.

[56] One as large as that is said to be found at Grave Creek,
about eighty miles above Muskingum.

In Penbrokeshire, in Wales, Camden informs us[57] "there are divers ancient tumuli, or artificial mounts for urn burial, whereof the most notable I have seen, are those four, called _krigeu kemaes_, or the burrows of _kemeas_. One of these a gentlemen of the neighborhood, out of curiosity, and for the satisfaction of some friends, caused lately to be dug; and discovered therein five urns, which contained a considerable quantity of burnt bones and ashes." If there is any difference between these barrows, and those at Muskingum, it is this, that in Wales the bones were lodged in urns; probably this was the fate of the bodies of eminent men only, or it proves a greater degree of improvement in Britain than appears among the American savages.

[57] Volume II, page 763.

In Caermardhinshire, there is a barrow of a singular kind. It is called, _krig y dyrn_ (probably the king's barrow[58].) The circumference at bottom is sixty paces, and its height about six yards. It rises by an easy ascent to the top, which is hollow. This is a heap of earth, raised over a _carrnedd_ or pile of stones. In the center of the cavity on the top, there is a large flat stone, about nine feet by five; beneath this was found a _kist vaen_, a kind of stone chest, four feet and a half by three, and made up of stones, and within and about it were found a few pieces of brick and stones. This might have been the tomb of a druid, or prince.

[58] Camden, volume II, page 751.

The _cumuli_ of stones or _caernedds_, as they are called by the Welsh, from _keren nedh_, a _coped heap_, are scattered over the west of England and Wales, and appear to have been raised in the manner of our Indian heaps, and for the same purpose, viz. to preserve the memory of the dead. Every Indian in this country that passes one of these heaps, throws a stone upon it. Rowland remarks that the same custom exists among the vulgar Welch to this day; and if I mistake not, Camden takes notice of the same practice. Rowland says, "in these _coel ceithic_, (certain festivals) people use, even to this day, to throw and offer each one his stone, tho they know not the reason. The common tradition is, that these heaps cover the graves of men, signal either for eminent virtues, or notorious villanies, on which every person looked on himself obliged as he passed by, to bestow a stone, in veneration of his good life, or in detestation of his vileness." This practice now prevails in Wales and Anglesey, merely as a mark of contempt.

The _carrnedds_ in America answer exactly the description of those in Wales, and the practice of throwing upon the heap each man his stone as he passes by, exists among the Indians, in its purity; that is, as _a mark of respect_.

It is said by authors that mounts and piles of stones, are found likewise in Denmark and Sweden; but in construction they differ from those found in Britain. Yet from the foregoing descriptions, taken from authentic testimony, it appears, that between the barrows in England and America, the manner of constructing them in both, and the purposes to which they were applied, there is an analogy, rarely to be traced in works of such consequence, among nations whose intercourse ceased at Babel; an analogy that we could hardly suppose would exist among nations descended from different stocks. This analogy however, without better evidence, will not demonstrate the direct descent of the Indians from the ancient Celts or Britons. But as all the primitiv inhabitants of the west of Europe were evidently of the same stock, it is natural to suppose they might pass from Norway to Iceland, from Iceland to Greenland, and from thence to Labrador; and thus the North American savages may claim a common origin with the primitiv Britons and Celts. This supposition has some foundation, and is by no means obviated by Cook's late discoveries in the Pacific ocean.[59]

[59] Mons. Mallet, in his Northern Antiquities, has produced
unquestionable testimony, from the Chronicles of Iceland and
others histories of the north, that the American continent
was discovered about the tenth century; and the esquimaux are
clearly of the same race as the Greenlanders.

These are however but conjectures. Future discoveries may throw more light upon these subjects. At present, a few facts only can be collected to amuse a contemplativ mind, and perhaps lead to inquiries which will result in a satisfactory account of the first peopling of America, and of the few remains of antiquity which it affords.

No. XVII.

NEW YORK, FEBRUARY, 1788.

_On the_ REGULARITY _of the_ CITY _of_ PHILADELPHIA.

"Well, how do you like Boston?" said an American to a Londoner, who had just arrived, and walked thro the town. "Extremely," replied the Englishman; "it resembles London in the crookedness and narrowness of the streets; I am always pleased with a careless irregularity and variety."

"How do you like Boston," says a nativ of the town to a Philadelphian. "I am much pleased with the people," replies the gentleman; "but the streets are so crooked, narrow and irregular, that I have good luck to find my way, and keep my stockings clean."

An Englishman and a Bostonian, walking together in Philadelphia, were heard to say, "how fatiguing it is to pass thro this town! such a sameness in the whole! no variety! when you have seen one street, you have seen the whole town!"

These remarks, which are heard every day, illustrate most strikingly the force of habit and tradition. The influence of habit is every where known and felt; any prepossessions therefore in favor of our nativ town, is not a matter of surprise. But that a traditionary remark or opinion should be handed from one generation to another, and lead nations into error, without a detection of its falsity, is a fact as astonishing as it is real. Such is the opinion of the writers on the fine arts; "that variety is pleasing;" an opinion embraced without exception, and applied promiscuously to the works of nature and of art. I have rarely met with a person, not an inhabitant of Philadelphia, who would not say he was disgusted with its regularity; and I am confident that the opinion must proceed from that common place remark, _that variety is pleasing_; otherwise men could not so unanimously condemn what constitutes its _greatest beauty_.

That in the productions of nature, variety constitutes a principal part of beauty, and a fruitful source of pleasure, will not be denied: But the beauty and agreeableness of works of art depend on another principle, viz. _utility or convenience_. The _design_ of the work, or the end proposed by it, must be attentivly considered before we are qualified to judge of its _beauty_.

This kind of beauty is called by Lord Kaim,[60] _relativ beauty_. He observes very justly, that "_intrinsic_ beauty is a perception of sense merely; for to perceive the beauty of a spreading oak, or of a flowing river, no more is required but singly an act of vision. _Relativ beauty_ is accompanied with an act of understanding and reflection; for of a fine instrument or engine, we perceive not the _relativ_ beauty, until we are made acquainted with its use and destination." A plow has not the least _intrinsic_ beauty; but when we attend to its _use_, we are constrained to consider it as a _beautiful instrument_, and such a view of it furnishes us with agreeable sensations.

[60] Elements of Criticism. Vol. I, page 198.

The single question therefore, with respect to a town or city, is this: _Is it planned and constructed for the greatest possible convenience_? If so, it is completely beautiful. If wide and regular streets are more useful and convenient than those that are narrow and crooked, then a city constructed upon a regular plan is the most beautiful, however uniform the streets in their directions and appearance.

I have often heard a comparison made between the level roads of Holland and the uniform streets of Philadelphia. A _dull sameness_ is said to render both disagreeable. Yet if a person will attentivly consider the difference, I am persuaded he will be convinced that his taste is but _half correct_; that is, that a just remark with respect to a level open country, is improperly applied to a commercial city. _Variety_ in the works of nature is pleasing; but never in the productions of art, unless in copies of nature, or when that variety does not interfere with _utility_. A level champaign country is rarely convenient or useful; on the other hand, it is generally more barren than a country diversified with hills and vales. There is not generally any advantage to be derived from a wide extended plain; the principle of _utility_, therefore does not oppose and supersede the taste for variety, and a tedious _sameness_ is left to have its full effect upon the mind of a spectator. This is the fact with respect to the roads in Holland.

But it is otherwise in a city, which is built for the express purpose of accommodating men in business. We do not consider it as we do a landscape, an imitation of a natural scene, and designed to please the eye; but we attend to its uses in artificial society, and if it appears to be calculated for the convenience of all classes of citizens, the plan and construction must certainly be beautiful, and afford us agreeable sensations.

The regularly built towns in America are Philadelphia, Charleston, in South Carolina, and New Haven. All these may be esteemed beautiful, tho not perfectly so. Philadelphia wants a public square or place of resort for men of business, with a spacious building for an exchange. This should be near Market street, in the center of business. The gardens at the State House are too small for a public walk in that large city. The whole line of bank houses[61] is the effect of ill timed parsimony. The houses are inconvenient, and therefore not pleasing to the eye; at the same time they render Water street too narrow.

[61] A line of houses built on the descent of land to the
river, with a street adjacent to the houses on both sides.

But whatever faults may be found in the construction or plan of the city, its general appearance is agreeable, and its _regularity_ is its greatest beauty. Whenever I hear a person exclaim against the uniformity that pervades that city, I suppose him the dupe of a common place remark, or that he believes a city built merely to please the eye of a spectator.

_Charleston_ is situated upon low ground; but just above high water mark. The soil is sand, which, with a scarcity of stone, has prevented the streets from being paved. The plan of the city is regular, but some of the streets are too narrow. As it is almost surrounded with water and low marshy ground, it was necessary to attend to every circumstance that should contribute to preserve a pure air. For this purpose, it was the original design of the citizens, to prevent any buildings from being erected on the wharves, in front of the town; thus leaving a principal street, called the bay, open to the sea breezes. Since the revolution, this design has been partially dispensed with; and some buildings erected on the water side of the bay, and particularly one in front of the Exchange, which stands at the head of Broad street, and commands an extensiv view of the town on one side, and of the harbor on the other. Should stores and warehouses be raised on the wharves, to such a height as to intercept a view of the harbor from the bay, they would diminish the beauty of the town, and in some degree prevent the agreeable effect of the cool breezes from the sea.

_New Haven_ was laid out on a most beautiful plan, which has however suffered in the execution. The streets cross each other at right angles, as in Philadelphia; and divide the city into convenient squares. But in the center is a large public square, the sides of which are more than three hundred yards in length, and adorned with rows of trees. Thro the center of this square runs a line of elegant public buildings, viz. the state house, two churches and a school house. This square is a capital ornament to the town; but is liable to two exceptions. First, it is too large for the populousness of the city, which contains about 500 buildings. In so small a town, it must generally be empty, and consequently givs the town an appearance of solitude or dullness. In the second place, that half of the square which lies west of the public buildings, is occupied mostly by the church yard, which is enclosed with a circular fence. This reduces the public ground on the opposit side to a paralellogram, which is a less beautiful figure than a square; and annihilates the beauty of the western division which it occupies. Notwithstanding these circumstances, the green or public ground in the center of New Haven, renders it perhaps the most beautiful small settlement in America.

No. XVIII.

NEW YORK, MAY, 1788.

_A_ DISSERTATION _concerning the_ INFLUENCE _of_ LANGUAGE _on_ OPINIONS, _and of_ OPINIONS _on_ LANGUAGE.[62]

[62] This title, and many of the following ideas, are
borrowed from a treatise of Mr. Michaelis, director of the
Royal Society of Gottingen.

The design of this dissertation is to show how far truth and accuracy of thinking are concerned in a clear understanding of _words_. I am sensible that in the eye of prejudice and ignorance, grammatical researches are the business of school boys; and hence we may deduce the reason why philosophers have generally been so inattentiv to this subject. But if it can be proved that the _mere use of words_ has led nations into error, and still continues the delusion, we cannot hesitate a moment to conclude, that grammatical enquiries are worthy of the labor of _men_.

The Greek name of the Supreme Being, _Theos_, is derived from _Theo, to run, or move one's self_. Hence we discover the ideas which the Greeks originally entertained of God, viz. that he was the _great principle of motion_. The same word, it is said, was primarily appropriated to the stars, as moving bodies; and it is probable that, in the early ages of Greece, the heavenly bodies might be esteemed Deities, and denominated _Theoi, moving bodies_ or _principles_. The Latin word _Deus_ was used to denote those inferior beings which we call _spirits_ or _angels_, or perhaps _one God_ among several. To giv the true idea of _Deus_ in French and English, the word should be rendered _le Dieu, the God_. This at least may be said of the word, in its true _original_ sense; however it may have been used in the later ages of Rome.

The English word _God_, is merely the old Saxon adjectiv _god_, now spelt and pronounced _good_.

The German _Gott_ is from the same root. The words _God_ and _good_ therefore are synonimous. The derivation of the word leads us to the notions which our ancestors entertained of the Supreme Being; supposing him to be the principle or author of good, they called him, by way of eminence, _Good_, or _the Good_. By long use and the progress of knowlege, the word is become the name of the great Creator, and we have added to it ideas of other attributes, as justice, power, immutability, &c. Had our heathen ancestors entertained different ideas of the Deity; had they, for instance, supposed justice to have been his leading attribute, if I may use the term, they would have called him _the just_; and this appellation, by being uniformly appropriated to a certain invisible being, or supposed cause of certain events, would in time have lost the article _the_, and _just_ would have become the _name_ of the Deity. Such is the influence of opinion in the formation of language.

Let us now compare the names of the Deity in the three languages; the Greek, _Theos_, denoting a _moving being_, or the _principle of action_, evinces to us that the Greeks gave the name to the _cause of events_, without having very clear ideas of the nature or attributes of that cause. They supposed the great operations of nature to have each its cause; and hence the plurality of causes, _theoi_, or moving principles.

The Romans borrowed the same word, _Deus_, and used it to denote the celestial _agents_ or _gods_ which they supposed to exist, and to superintend the affairs of the universe.

Our northern ancestors had an idea that all favorable events must have an efficient cause; and to this cause they gave the name of _God_ or _good_. Hence we observe that the English and German words _God_ and _Got_ do not convey precisely the same idea, as the _Theos_ and _Deus_ of the Greeks and Romans. The former cannot be used in the plural number; as they are the names of a single indivisible being; the latter were used as names common to a number of beings.

The word _Demon_, in Greek, was used to signify subordinate deities, both good and evil. The Jews, who had more perfect ideas of the Supreme Being, supposed there could be but one good Deity, and consequently that all the _demons_ of the Greeks must be _evil_ beings or _devils_. In this sense alone they used the word, and this restricted sense has been communicated thro Christian countries in modern ages. The opinion of the Jews, therefore, has had a material effect upon language, and would lead us into an error respecting the Greek mythology; unless we should trace the word _demon_ to its primitiv signification.

The word _devil_, in English, is merely a corruption of _the evil_, occasioned by a rapid pronunciation. This will not appear improbable to those who know, that in some of the Saxon dialects, the character which we write _th_ is almost invariably written and pronounced _d_. Hence we learn, the notion which our ancestors entertained of the _cause of evil_, or of unfortunate events. They probably ascribed such events to a malignant principle, or being, which they called, by way of eminence, _the evil_; and these words, corrupted by common use, have given name to the being or principle.

I would only observe here that the etymology of these two words, _God_ and _devil_, proves that the Manichean doctrine of a _good_ and _evil_ principle prevailed among our northern ancestors. It has prevailed over most of the eastern countries in all ages, and Christianity admits the doctrine, with this improvement only, that it supposes the _evil_ principle to be subordinate to the _good_. The supreme cause of events, Christians believe to be _good_ or _God_, for the words are radically the same; the _cause of evil_ they believe to be subordinate; yet, strange as it may seem, they suppose the _subordinate evil_ principle to be the most prevalent.

We are informed by Ludolph, that the Ethiopeans, having but one word for _nature_ and _person_, could not understand the controversy about Christ's two natures. This is not surprising; nations, in a savage state, or which have not been accustomed to metaphysical disquisitions, have no terms to communicate abstract ideas, which they never entertained; and hence the absurdity of attempting to christianize savages. Before men can be Christians they must be civilized; nay, they must be philosophers. It is probable that many who are called Christians, are in the state of the Ethiopians, with respect to the same doctrin; and that they pass thro life, without ever having any clear ideas of the different natures of Christ. Yet the distinction is constantly made in words; and that distinction passes for a difference of ideas. Such is the influence of language on opinion.

The words _soul_, _mind_ and _spirit_, are constantly used by people, and probably the difference of words has given rise to an opinion that there is an actual difference of things. Yet I very much question whether the persons who use these words every day, annex any distinct ideas to them; or if they do, whether they could explain the difference.

The Greeks believed in the doctrin of transmigration. They had observed the metamorphosis of the caterpillar, and supposing the same soul to animate the different bodies, and believing the soul to be perpetual or immortal, they made the butterfly the hieroglyphic of the soul: Hence the Greek word for soul, _psuke_, came to signify also a _butterfly_.

For want of attending to the true etymology of the word _glory_, false opinions have gained an establishment in the world, and it may be hazardous to dispute them. It is said that the _glory_ of God does not depend on his creatures, and that the glory of the good man depends not on the opinion of others. But what is glory? The Greek word _doxe_ explains it. It is derived from _dokeo, to think_; and signifies the _good opinion of others_. This is its _true_ original meaning; a man's glory therefore consists in having the good opinion of men, and this cannot generally be obtained, but by meritorious actions. The _glory_ of God consists in the exalted ideas which his creatures entertain of his being and perfections. His _glory_ therefore depends _wholly on his creatures_. The word is indeed often used to signify the greatness, splendor or excellence of the divine character. In this sense the _divine glory_ may be independent of created beings; but it is not the primitiv sense of the word, nor the sense which answers to the original meaning of the Greek _doxe_, and the Latin _gloria_.

No right in England and America is so much celebrated as that of _trial by peers_; by which is commonly understood, _trial by equals_. The right is valuable, but is not derived from the primitiv custom of _trial by equals_; on the contrary, it is very questionable whether such a custom existed prior to Alfred. Yet the _trial by peers_ existed long before, and can be traced back to the date of the Christian era. The truth is, the word _peer_ is not derived from the Latin _par_, equal; but from the German, or Teutonic _bar_ or _par_, which signified a landholder, freeman or judge. The _bars_ were that class of men who held the _fees_ or property in estates; and from whom the word _baron_ and the attendant privileges are derived. We have the same root in _baron_, _baronet_, _parliament_, _parish_, and many other words, all implying some degree of authority, eminence or jurisdiction. From the same word _bar_ or _par_, (for _B_ and _P_ are convertible letters) the word _peer_ is derived, as it is used in the common expressions _house of peers_, _trial by peers_. It signified originally, not _equals_, but _judges_ or barons. The _house of peers_ in England derives its appellation and its jurisdiction from the ancient mode of trial by _bars_ or barons; for it is the final resort in all judicial cases. Yet the ancient English lawyers, supposing the word to be from the Latin _par_, equal, have explained it in that sense, and multiplied encomiums without end upon the excellence of the privilege. The privilege is valuable, but its excellence, if it consists in a _trial by equals_, is modern, compared with the original custom, which was a _trial by barons_, or principal landholders.

It is probable that our modern writers, misunderstanding the term _voluptas_, have passed too severe censures upon epicures. The true primitiv meaning of _voluptas_ was that of _pleasurable sensations_ arising from innocent gratifications. Our modern word _voluptuousness_ carries with it a much stronger idea, and hence we are led into an error reflecting the doctrine of Epicurus, who might confine his ideas of pleasure to innocent gratifications.

We have been accustomed from childhood to hear the expressions, _the dew falls_; _the dews of heaven_; and it is probable that nine people out of ten, have never suspected the inaccuracy of the phrases. But _dew_ is merely the perspiration of the earth; it _rises_ instead of _falling_, and rises during the night.[63]

[63] Any person may prove this by a trifling experiment. Let
him place a glass receiver or bowl over the grass in a
summer's day, and the next morning he will find as much dew
_under_ it as around it.

The truth is this; the particles of water are constantly
exhaled from the earth by the heat of the sun. During the day
time, these particles ascend in an imperceptible manner, and
furnish the atmosphere with the materials of clouds and rain.
But in the night, the atmosphere grows cool, while the earth,
retaining a superior degree of heat, continues to throw off
the particles of water. These particles, meeting the colder
atmosphere, are condensed, and lodge upon the surface of the
earth, grass, trees and other objects. So that the
expression, _the dew falls_, is in a degree true, altho it
_first rises_ from the earth.

It was also supposed that _manna_ in the eastern countries, came from above, and it is called in scripture _bread from heaven_. Yet _manna_ is a gum, exuding from plants, trees and bushes, when pierced by certain insects. The truth of this fact was not discovered, till the middle of the sixteenth century.

Every man knows, when the prices of goods rise, it is said they become _dear_; yet when the prices rise in consequence of an overflowing sum of money in circulation, the fact is that the _value of money falls_, and the value of goods remains the same. This erroneous opinion had an amazing effect in raising popular clamor, at the commencement of the late revolution.

I will name but one other instance, which has a material influence upon our moral and religious opinions. It is said in scripture that _God hardened Pharaoh's heart_. How? Was there a miracle in the case? By no means. The manner of speaking leads us into the mistake. The first cause is mentioned, and not the intermediate cause or causes. So we should say, that _General Washington attacked the British troops at Monmouth_; altho he was at a great distance when the attack was commenced, and only _ordered_ the attack. I suspect that similar modes of speaking in scripture often lead superficial minds into mistakes, and in some instances, giv occasion to infidels to scoff at passages, which, if rightly understood, would silence all objections.

This is a fruitful theme, and would lead an ingenious inquirer into a wide field of investigation. But I have neither time nor talents to do it justice; the few hints here suggested may have some effect in convincing my readers of the importance and utility of all candid researches into the origin and structure of speech; and pave the way for further investigations, which may assist us in correcting our ideas and ascertaining the force and beauty of our own language.

No. XIX.

PHILADELPHIA, 1787.

_On_ VOCAL MUSIC.

The establishment of schools for teaching psalmody in this city is a pleasing institution; but people seem not to understand the design, or rather are not aware of the advantages which may result from it, if properly conducted and encouraged. Most people consider music merely as a source of pleasure; not attending to its influence on the human mind, and its consequent effects on society. But it should be regarded as an article of education, _useful_ as well as ornamental.

The human mind is formed for activity; and will ever be employed in business or diversions. Children are perpetually in motion, and all the ingenuity of their parents and guardians should be exerted to devise methods for restraining this activ principle, and directing it to some _useful_ object, or to _harmless trifles_. If this is not done, their propensity to action, even without a vicious motiv, will hurry them into follies and crimes. Every thing innocent, that attracts the attention of children, and will employ their minds in leisure hours, when idleness might otherwise open the way to vice, must be considered as a valuable employment. Of this kind is vocal music. There were instances of youth, the last winter, who voluntarily attended a singing school in preference to the theatre. It is but reasonable to suppose, that if they would neglect a theatre for singing, they would neglect a thousand amusements, less engaging, and more pernicious.

Instrumental music is generally prefered to vocal, and considered as an elegant accomplishment. It is indeed a pleasing accomplishment; but the preference given to it, is a species of the same false taste, which places a son under the tuition of a _drunken clown_, to make him a gentleman of _strict morals_.

Instrumental music may exceed vocal in some nice touches and distinctions of sound; but when regarded as to its effects upon the mind and upon society, it is as inferior to vocal, as sound is inferior to sense. It is very easy for a spruce beau to display a contempt for vocal music, and to say that human invention has gone beyond the works of God Almighty. But till the system of creation shall be new modelled, the human voice properly cultivated will be capable of making the most perfect music. It is neglected; sol faing is unfashionable, and that is enough to damn it: But people who have not been acquainted with the perfection of psalmody, are incapable of making a suitable comparison between vocal and instrumental music. I have often heard the best vocal concerts in America, and the best instrumental concerts; and can declare, that the music of the latter is as inferior to that of the former, as the merit of a _band box macaroni_ is to that of a Cato.

Instrumental music affords an agreeable amusement; and as an amusement it ought to be cultivated. But the advantage is private and limited; it pleases the ear, but leaves no impression upon the heart.

The design of music is to awaken the passions, to soften the heart for the reception of sentiment. To awaken passion is within the power of instruments, and this may afford a temporary pleasure; but society derives no advantage from it, unless some useful sentiment is left upon the heart.

Instruments are secondary in their use; they were invented originally, not to supercede, but to assist the voice. The first histories of all nations were written in verse, and sung by their bards. In later ages, the _oaten reed_, the _harp_ and the _lyre_, were found to improve the pleasures of music; but the neglect of the voice and of sentiment was reserved for modern corruption. Ignorant indeed is the man, and possessed of a wretched taste, who can seriously despise the humble pleasures of vocal music, and prefer the bare harmony of sounds. Sentiment should ever accompany music; the sounds should ever correspond with the ideas, otherwise music loses all its force. Union of sentiment, with harmony of sounds, is the perfection of music. Every string of the human heart may be touched; every passion roused by the different kinds of sounds; the courage of the warrior; the cruelty of the tyrant; anger; grief; love, with all its sensibilities, are subject to the influence of music. Even brutes acknowlege its effects; but while they in common with man feel the effects of a harmony of mere sounds, man enjoys the superior felicity of receiving sentiment; and while he relishes the pleasures of chords in sound, he imbibes a disposition to communicate happiness to society.

Seldom indeed do men reflect on the connexion between the chords of music and the social affections. Morality is to immorality, what harmony is to discord. Society detests vice, and the ear is offended with discordant sounds. Society is pleased and happified with virtue, and the ear is delighted with harmony. This beautiful analogy points out the utility of cultivating music as a science. Harsh discordant sounds excite the peevish malevolent passions; harmonious sounds correct and soften the rougher passions.

Every person will acknowlege, that love refines the heart, and renders it more susceptible, and more capable of social virtue. It is for this reason that men who have particular attachments to women, or associate much with ladies of delicacy, are more disposed to do acts of kindness, in every sphere of life, than those who seldom frequent ladies company. On the other hand, anger, jealousy, envy, are dissocial passions; and even when they are excited by a single object, they poison the heart, and disqualify it for exciting the social affections towards any of the human race. Every institution, therefore, calculated to prepare the human heart for exerting the social virtues, and to suppress or check the malignant passions, must be highly beneficial to society; and such I consider establishments in favor of vocal music. Happy, indeed, should I feel, could I see youth devoted every where to the refinement of their voices and morals; to see them prefer moral or religious pieces to the indecent songs or low diversions which taint the mind in early life, and diffuse their pernicious influence through society.

If the poison of the tarantula may be counteracted by music; if the Spanish ladies are won by nocturnal serenades; if the soldier is inspired with courage by the martial sounds of the trumpet, and the Christian impressed with devout sentiments by the solemn tones of the organ; what advantage may society derive from the softening harmony of choirs of voices, celebrating the praises of social virtue! Happy days! when _false taste_ and _false opinions_ shall vanish before the progress of _truth_; when princes shall resume their ancient and honorable task of teaching the young to be _good_ and _great_; when an Addison shall be preferred to a Chesterfield; when the wealth of nations shall be no longer lavished upon fiddlers and dancers; when the characters of a _Benezet_ and a WASHINGTON shall obscure the glories of a Cæsar; and when no man shall be ashamed to be _good_, because it is unfashionable.

No. XX.

NEW YORK, JUNE, 1788.

_On_ MORALITY.

"The principles of morality are little understood among savages," says Lord Kaimes, "and if they arrive to maturity among enlightened nations, it is by slow degrees."

With submission to that writer, I would advance another position equally true, "that the principles of eating and drinking are little understood by savages, and if they arrive to maturity among civilized nations, it is by slow degrees."