they do not properly belong, and species from genera. Logical writers give a different account of the origin of genera and species. We first separate (say they) the qualities, combined in the objects, which come under our observation, and where we are able to trace the same quality or a number of them in different objects, we rank those objects together as a species or genus, and give a common name. Thus, John is a man six feet high, and of a light complexion, but Peter is both short and swarthy, while the stranger, who is walking with them, is as tall as John, and his countenance not less dark than Peter's. Although there are some things, in which these three persons differ, we readily perceive, that there are other things, in which they agree, such as erect figure, speech, and reason; and to this general perception, notion,or feeling of resemblance, we give the name, MAN. And man thenceforth becomes

the name of a species.

On this account of the origin of genera and species, given in books of logick, we briefly remark, that all scientifick classifications must be formed in this manner, by an examination and comparison of individuals. But then it is to be observed, that men generalize and form classes, before they are able to do it in an exact and scientifick manner. There is an imperfect generalization, which is prompted by nature, and which looks chiefly at resemblances, without minutely inquiring into the differences of objects. This comes first. Those corrections, which are made by resorting to the logical or scientifick method, come afterwards.

May further be consulted on this part of this chapter, Stewart's Elements, Vol. II. chap. II. sect. 4. with note K., Adam Smith's Considerations on the first formation of languages,-Brown's Philosophy of the mind, Lect. XLVI.

XLVII.

§. 120. Illustration of our first classifications from the savages of Wateeoo.

The English navigator, Cook, in going from New Zea

land to the Friendly Islands, lighted on an island, called Wateeoo.

"The inhabitants (he says) were afraid to come near our cows and horses, nor did they form the least conception of their nature. But the sheep and goats did not surpass the limits of their ideas, for they gave us to understand, they knew them to be birds."

Captain Cook informs us, that these people were açquainted with only three sorts of animals, viz. dogs, hogs, and birds.

Having never before seen any such animals as a cow or a horse, they beheld their great size and formidable aspect with admiration; filled with fear, they could not be induced to approach, and knew not what to call or to think of them. They noticed the goats and the sheep, and clearly saw, that they were different from the dogs and hogs, with which they had been acquainted. But how did it happen, that they called them birds?

There is no nation so rude and uncivilized, as not to have some few general terms, and how those general terms are formed, we have above explained. Having noticed a variety of birds in their waters and forests, the people of Wateeoo had undoubtedly found it necessary before this period to assign some general name or appellative to the flying animal, expressive of those resemblances, which evidently pervaded the whole class. They called them, we will suppose, BIRDS. Knowing there was a great variety of them, and that they were of different sizes, they not unnaturally applied the same term to the sheep and goats of the English. They knew not but there might be some new class of birds, which they had not hitherto noticed; they saw no insuperable objection in the size of the sheep and goats; and their agility and power of climbing over rocks and steep ascents readily reminded them of the power of flying, which they might imagine those animals had not yet thought proper fully to exhibit.

But they could clearly have no thoughts of this kind cows and horses; and as to hogs and dogs they had no erick term for them, having never known more than

one variety or class, and having never been led to suspect, that there were any

others.

If any should be disposed to make strange of this classification of these untutored savages, a little reflection may perhaps diminish their admiration. There are classifications to be found in the present improved state of the natural sciences not more accurate than this;-that arrangement, for example, which assigns to the same "class and ranks under one name the man, that walks upright and the whale that swims, the ant, that creeps, and the gnat, that flies."

§. 121. Whether reasoning be possible without general

terms.

It has been maintained by the Nominalists, who hold to the opinion of no general ideas, separate from their names, that no process of reasoning, however concise, can be carried on without the aid of general terms; and of course, the statement, made in §. 118, that there must be a feeling or notion of resemblance, that is, a general idea, distinct both from the individual objects and from the common name, cannot be true. An attention to what takes place in the minds of infants, shows the contrary; that they can reason, draw conclusions, from one thing to another, and that, consequently, they have general ideas such, as have been explained, that is, certain general but real feelings of resemblance, altogether and essentially independent of the names, which are subsequently made to stand for them.

It cannot, indeed be said, that the infant carries on its arguments to any great extent, but it does to some extent, and accurately. Were it not able to follow out some concise trains of argunfent, its existence could hardly be preserved. When the infant has once put his finger in the flame, he avoids a repetition of the experiment, reasoning in this way, that there is a resemblance between one flame and another, and that what has caused him pain, will be likely under the same circumstances to cause the same sensation. Whe the infant sees before him some glittering toy, he reaches his hand towards it, and is evidently

induced to do so by a thought of this kind, that the acquisition of the object will now follow the effort of the hand, as it has a similar effort previously made.

Words, then, whether general or particular, are not absolutely necessary to reasoning, and of course there may be ideas both general and particular, and those ideas may be compared together without words. The illustrations, which have been given, are sufficient, although brought from what we perceive to take place in infants. It is hazardous to refer on this point to those, who are grown up and have for years employed language. The words and the thoughts are, in this instance, so' strongly associated, that it is difficult to separate them.

"The use of general terms," says Brown, "is not to enable man to reason, but to enable him to reason well. They fix the steps of our progress. They give us the power of availing ourselves with confidence of our own past reasonings and of the reasonings of others. They do not absolutely prevent us from wandering, but they prevent us from wandering very far, and are marks of direction, to which we can return. Without them we should be like travellers, journeying on an immense plain without a track, and without any points on the sky to determine, whether we were continuing to move east or west, north or south."

§. 122. Of the formation of verbs.

In the remarks, which have gone before, we have given an account of the origin of appellatives, or nouns substantive; there are other ideas, expressed by another class of words, viz. verbs. And these words are of great consequence both in the construction and the application of language. As the ideas, expressed by verbs, concern actions rather than objects, and the attributes and affections of things rather than the things themselves, and cannot, therefore, be so easily defined to the understanding, and fixed upon by it, words of this kind were not, we may suppose, so rapidly formed as others, although some of them must have been of very early origin.

Their origin may be illustrated in this way. Let it be admitted, that the primitive inhabitants have given names to certain wild animals; Condillac supposes, that such names were given first, before those of trees, fountains, &c. No matter on what principle, those names were selected, for after all the investigations in regard to it, it is still a subject of doubt. It soon happens, as is very natural and reasonable to be imagined, that they see one of these animals, advancing towards them with great speed and apparent ferocity. Certainly they would have an idea of the motion of the animal, as something different from the animal itself; and if they could give a name to the animal, why not to the fact of his coming towards them or running from them, as the fact might be?

In the formation of the noun substantive or general term, they exclaimed, The tyger! The lion! and this exclamation became in time the common name. But now they discover a new attribute or action of the wild beast, which affects them strongly and deserves a distinct appellation, and, hence, they utter some new exclamation; it may be conjectured, the word, cOMES, or RUSHES; and the cry now is, tyger-rushes! lion-comes! The articulate sounds, which under such circumstances are adopted, whatever they may be, are eventually fixed upon, as the conventional and permanent representatives of certain actions, attributes, and affections of things, and in the maturity of society and of knowledge, when man finds all that he has learnt subjected to a more exact and scientifick classification, they are accordingly classed as VERBS.

§. 123. Of the formation of conjunctions and other particles.

It has been conjectured, that nouns and verbs were, in time of origin, the earliest of all the parts of speech; and, in truth, the hypothesis does not rest solely upon conjecIt was the object of men at first to express their ideas, as they could; and they reckoned it of but little consequence, whether they did it neatly or elegantly.

ture.