A Collection of Essays and Fugitiv Writings

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.

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."

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.

In Penbrokeshire, in Wales, Camden informs us57 "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.

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.

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

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.

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 houses61 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.

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

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.