« PreviousContinue »
and that for reasons already given, no abuse of this was apprehended. And lastly, they will be taught that JUSTICE is the great end of all good government--and that the federal scheme was recommended as especially fitted to secure it.
"Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been, and ever will be, pursued, until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society, under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign, as in a state of nature where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger: And as in the latter state even the stronger individuals are prompted by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak, as well as themselves: so in the former state, will the more powerful factions be gradually induced by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful. It can be little doubted, that if the State of KhodeIsland was separated from the confederacy, and left to itself, the insecurity of rights under the popular form of government within such narrow limits, would be displayed by such reiterated oppressions of the factious majorities, that some power altogether independent of the people, would soon be called for by the voice of the very factions whose misrule had proved the necessity of it. In the extended republic of the United States, and among the great variety of interests, parties, and sects, which it embraces, a coalition of a majority of the whole society could seldom take place upon any other principles, than those of justice and the general good: whilst there being thus less danger to a minor from the will of the major party, there must be less pretext also, to provide for the security of the former, by introducing into the government a will not dependent on the latter: or, in other words, a will independent of the society itself."-Federalist, No. 51.
As to that part of the "Protest" which speaks of the fatal consequences which the loss of our markets, through any great derangement of our commercial relations, would occasion-it will scarcely be considered as an exaggerated picture of those consequences. We admit that the case put is an imaginary, and we hope, it is an improbable one-but the bare possibility of such a result, adds greatly to the force of all the other objections which we have urged against this unnatural "system." The marksman who was compelled to shoot at an apple on the head of his child, would have felt secure, perhaps, of hitting it any where else; but the truest bow may err, and all posterity has sympathized with the resentment of an outraged father. Quod deus avertat omen !t
* See Federalist, No. 47--a most important paper which it is difficult to read without embracing the opinions which we have stated in the text cf. No. 11 & 12
Of course the Canada contraband trade would forever preclude the possibility of such consequences.
We have thus submitted with candour, and with some confidence in their justness, our views upon this important question. Those who are now administering the Government have a great work to do. In the calamitous and discouraging reverses of the war, the necessity of increasing its efficiency was universally felt, and the statesmen of the day, with the full approbation of the people, adopted measures of which they did not foresee the distant, and we fear, disastrous consequences. During the period of unexampled prosperity-so far, at least, as the agricultural States were concernedwhich followed the war, the same course of policy was pursued with increasing ardour and hope, until all the guide-posts and landmarks of the Constitution were so completely lost sight of, that those who have, within these few years, laboured to restore its pristine simplicity, have spoken a language almost unintelligible to the majority of the people. But a great change is now visibly taking place in public opinion. Every omen is favourable. The recent exercise of the veto did immense good by merely arresting the profligate and demoralizing expendiof the public money, and honestly appropriating it to the payment of the national debt. But it has produced an effect vastly more important than this. It has arrested the attention of the people-it has awakened the minds of men-it has sanctified the past efforts of this and of other Southern States in defence of those principles, upon which, and upon which alone, the success of our great experiment in society depends. Public opinion-so studiously deluded and abused for some years pastbegins to be enlightened, and every thing encourages us to hope for our country. It is true, that a mighty struggle seems likely to ensue. The advocates of the "System" will undoubtedly exert themselves to the utmost, to overthrow those who have done so much to defeat them, but it is only the more necessary for the friends of moderate counsels, of domestic tranquillity, of true liberty, and of the permanency and perfection of the Constitution, to unite in a vigorous, systematic, determined, but not intemperate prosecution of their holy purposes. For ourselves, we repeat what we said on a former occasion. "We shall never despair of the republic as it stands, so long as a ray of hope is left us. The counsels of a sage patriotism always take it for granted, that the State can be saved without throwing into the sea whatever makes it worth preserving."
TO THE EDITOR OF THE SOUTHERN REVIEW.
A writer in the Review for May, has made remarks on certain passages in the 'Introduction to the American Dictionary,' which the readers of the Review may think deserving notice by the author. I shall, therefore, make a few observations on some of the writer's assertions; confining myself to the more prominent points.
1. In page 340, the writer charges me with mistaking ‘zaviduyu' and two other Russian words, "for the infinitives." But I have made no such mistake. I never wrote, said or thought these words to be infinitives.
2. In the same page he observes, that it will be difficult to find any analogy between the Russian 'ees' and 'so.' But I have said nothing respecting such analogy, as far as orthography is concerned. I have said the Russian 'so,' as a mark of comparison, answers nearly to the English so or as. Why did the writer mutilate the passage? My remark is correct, as in this sentence. "He is as large as I am. est aussi grand que moi." Here the Russian 'so' would stand for 'as' in English, and 'aussi' in French.
3. To discredit the evidence of the identity of national origin, and languages drawn from the affinity or sameness of words, the writer challenges me to show any two languages in which we shall not be able to point out at least forty or fifty words resembling each other, if not entirely the same in both languages. In return, I challenge him to point out any two languages radically distinct, in which there is one word composed of the same sounds or letters, and signifying the same thing, to be found in both languages.
In the writer's long account of the origin and connexion of nations and languages, there may be some truth, and there is, doubtless, much No confidence can be placed in the traditional accounts of migrations of men, anterior to the age of authentic history. The most certain knowledge of the early descent of any tribe or nation from a particular stock, is to be obtained from their language.
The writer (p. 345) observes that the Persian language is original, but has been enriched with Median, Greek, Latin, and even German words. This is all a mistake. The ancient Persian language was one branch or dialect of the original language, and the parent of the Gothic, Teutonic and Celtic. Persia was the seat of the nations or tribes which migrated and brought these languages into Europe. A part of the modern Persian is Arabic; but no person who has examined the Persic from beginning to end, as I have done, can have the slightest hesitation in admitting that the original language of Persia was the source of the Celtic and Teutonic. The Persians have borrowed nothing from Greece, Italy or Germany.
In page 357, the writer speaks of the difference of organs among nations who live in distinct climates and countries. This is the first intimation I have ever had, that men, in different climates, have differ
VOL. V.-NO. 11.
ent organs of speech. If the writer means that men, in different countries, are sometimes accustomed to a different use of their organs in enunciation, I shall not contend with him.
4. In page 378, the writer calls in question my derivation of the Teutonic binnan' or 'binnen,' (within) and remarks that the Germans use 'binnen' (within) only in relation to time. But, in my German dictionary, ‘binnenland' is rendered 'within land,' which has no reference to time. In Dutch, the same word occurs, in my dictionary, in more than thirty words, in every one of which, 'binnen' relates to 'place,' and not once to time.' In Saxon also, the word is used in relation to place, in John xi. 30. Such is the evidence of the writer's accuracy!
The writer then says, that baynan' in Arabic, signifies distinctly, clearly, evidently, and nothing else; and is derived from 'ayin,' the eye. Both these affirmations are incorrect and groundless. Any person looking into Castle's Lexicon, will see that the Arabic word does signify something besides 'clearly' or 'evidently.' That 'baynan' is from 'ayin,' the eye, is not true. The sense of clearly,' 'evidently,' is probably never, certainly not in this case, from the name of 'eye.' It is from opening," "expanding,' a sense often connected with separating, and these are the primary sources of the verb. So in Scripture, Did not our hearts burn within us, while he opened to us the Scriptures." To' open,' in this case, is to explain, to make clear or evident; and this is reason or common sense, that runs through all the languages I have examined.
The formation of 'baynan' from 'ayin,' is wholly arbitrary; there is not the slightest ground for thinking the word compound, and no such mode of formation has occurred to my researches, which have embraced more than twenty languages. It is an hypothesis just as absurd, not to say ridiculous, as to suppose 'cart' formed from 'art,' with c prefixed: a 'charm' from ‘arm,' or 'stable' from ‘able.'
5. The writer, in the same page, writes that 'ge' in German, is no preposition, and has by itself no signification at all. And what is this to the purpose? Have I said any thing to that effect?
But, says the writer, in the German, 'glaube,' faith, belief, the g belongs to the root, for 'laube' alone is a 'bower,' which can have no connexion with belief;' consequently, the g is no preformative particle. How hastily men write before they understand their subject! And how rashly they run into contradictions! The writer admits that the German 'glaube' is the same as the Saxon 'geleaf,' with the change of ƒ into b. This admission contradicts the assertion, that g belongs to the root; for a moment's inspection of a Saxon Lexicon shows, demonstrably, that 'gcleaf' is a compound of the prefix 'ge,' with 'leaf,' from the root of 'leave.'
The word 'laube' in German, is rendered a 'bower' or 'arbour;' but how could the writer overlook the fact, that the word, in this sense, is from ‘laub,' a ‘leaf;' a bower or arbour being thus named from its foliage. This by the way.
But the German glaube' and Saxon 'geleaf' are more directly connected with the English leave,' 'permission; the same verb in Saxon, signifying to believe,' to 'leave,' and 'to permit.' If the writer had embraced the whole subject, he would have known that although the the simple word 'laub,' does not occur in German in the sense of 'be
lief' or of 'leave,' yet it does occur in the compound ‘ur-laub,' 'leave,' a furlow, that is, leave of absence.
To show how carelessly and rashly men make assertions, I will here set down this, word and some of its affinities, in several dialects. Gothic. Ga-laubyan,' to believe; Us-laubyan,' to give leave, [us
Saxon.-Ge-leafan,' to believe, to permit, to leave; 'Ge-leaf,' belief, faith, leave, license: Læfan,' to leave; 'lefan,' to believe, to permit; 'Leaf,' leave, license; a leaf [of a tree.]
Dutch.-Ge-loof,' belief; Ge-looven,' to believe; 'Verlof,' leave, permission. Eng. 'furlow.'
Orlof,' leave. Danish, Orlov.' English, furlow,' [f is lost, as w is in 'ord,' word.]
German.-Ur-laub,' leave, furlow.
It is certain then that the German 'glaube,' belief, is contracted from 'gelaube,' and that g does not belong to the root. The same contraction occurs in 'gleich' and 'gelyth,' even; Eng. like; and in 'gluch' and 'geluch;' Eng. luck.
Let the reader notice that the first syllable of 'furlow,' is our vulgar 'fur,' used for 'far,' 'distant.' This in Dutch is 'ver,' in 'verlof;' 'fur,' 'far' and 'ver' being mere dialectical variations of the same word. Let him notice also, that the last letter of 'furlow,' in the continental languages, is a labial; b, for v. This shows the common spelling 'furlough,' with gh, guttural or palatal letters, to be an egregious blunder.
6. The writer remarks, p. 380, that we should never confound a preposition with a mere particle, however similar they may appear. For example, the German particle 'ver,' which has no meaning at all, except when prefixed to a verb, ought not to be confounded with the preposition 'vor,' which has a distinct meaning of its own, and does not stand in any etymological connexion with the particle 'ver.'
But the only difference between what the writer here calls a particle and a preposition, is that one is always used in composition and the other is not. 'Ver' is used only in composition; 'vor' is used both in composition and by itself. The consequence of this doctrine is, that 'vor' is sometimes a particle and sometimes a preposition. Such are the mischiefs of names ill applied; of distinctions ill understood, and of misapprehending differences, by supposing them radical, when they are merely accidental.
'Ver' is the English 'fur,' as any person may know by looking into a Dutch dictionary, or indeed, into a German dictionary, and seeing its uses in composition. Vor' is the English 'fore,' for. These words are differently applied, but are undoubtedly from one root. The orthography is varied just as it is in other cases. 'Far' is the German and Dutch 'ver,' and our vulgar 'fur;' but the latter in 'furlow,' is not vulgar. Just so we have, and use indifferently, 'farther' and 'further,' dialectical forms of the same word. These words are from one source: in Saxon, 'faran,' 'to go,' 'or pass,' 'to fare;' in Dutch, 'vaaren ;' in German, 'fahren;' in Swedish, 'fara;' in Danish, 'farer.' Now, beyond all question, these are the same words as the Greek 'opsuw.' The first vowel is varied in the different dialects; 'far' corresponds with fare,'