part17-第2章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！



Justice　Fortescue　Aland；　who　possessed　more　Saxon　learning　than　all

the　judges　and　writers　before　mentioned　put　together；　places　this

subject　on　more　limited　ground。　　Speaking　of　the　laws　of　the　Saxon

kings；　he　says；　〃the　ten　commandments　were　made　part　of　their　laws；

and　consequently　were　_once_　part　of　the　law　of　England；　so　that　to

break　any　of　the　ten　commandments　was　then　esteemed　a　breach　of　the

common　law；　of　England；　and　why　it　is　not　so　now；　perhaps　it　may　be

difficult　to　give　a　good　reason。〃　Preface　to　Fortescue　Aland's

reports；　xvii。　　Had　he　proposed　to　state　with　more　minuteness　how

much　of　the　scriptures　had　been　made　a　part　of　the　common　law；　he

might　have　added　that　in　the　laws　of　Alfred；　where　he　found　the　ten

commandments；　two　or　three　other　chapters　of　Exodus　are　copied　almost

verbatim。　　But　the　adoption　of　a　part　proves　rather　a　rejection　of

the　rest；　as　municipal　law。　　We　might　as　well　say　that　the　Newtonian

system　of　philosophy　is　a　part　of　the　common　law；　as　that　the

Christian　religion　is。　　The　truth　is　that　Christianity　and

Newtonianism　being　reason　and　verity　itself；　in　the　opinion　of　all

but　infidels　and　Cartesians；　they　are　protected　under　the　wings　of

the　common　law　from　the　dominion　of　other　sects；　but　not　erected　into

dominion　over　them。　　An　eminent　Spanish　physician　affirmed　that　the

lancet　had　slain　more　men　than　the　sword。　　Doctor　Sangrado；　on　the

contrary；　affirmed　that　with　plentiful　bleedings；　and　draughts　of

warm　water；　every　disease　was　to　be　cured。　　The　common　law　protects

both　opinions；　but　enacts　neither　into　law。　　See　post。　879。




　　　　　　　　879。　Howard；　in　his　Contumes　Anglo…Normandes；　1。87；　notices　the

falsification　of　the　laws　of　Alfred；　by　prefixing　to　them　four

chapters　of　the　Jewish　law；　to　wit：　the　20th；　21st；　22d　and　23d

chapters　of　Exodus；　to　which　he　might　have　added　the　15th　chapter　of

the　Acts　of　the　Apostles；　v。　23；　and　precepts　from　other　parts　of　the

scripture。　　These　he　calls　a　_hors　d'oeuvre_　of　some　pious　copyist。

This　awkward　monkish　fabrication　makes　the　preface　to　Alfred's

genuine　laws　stand　in　the　body　of　the　work；　and　the　very　words　of

Alfred　himself　prove　the　fraud；　for　he　declares；　in　that　preface；

that　he　has　collected　these　laws　from　those　of　Ina；　of　Offa；

Aethelbert　and　his　ancestors；　saying　nothing　of　any　of　them　being

taken　from　the　Scriptures。　　It　is　still　more　certainly　proved　by　the

inconsistencies　it　occasions。　　For　example；　the　Jewish　legislator

Exodus　xxi。　12；　13；　14；　（copied　by　the　Pseudo　Alfred　＇symbol　omitted＇

13；）　makes　murder；　with　the　Jews；　death。　　But　Alfred　himself；　Le。

xxvi。；　punishes　it　by　a　fine　only；　called　a　Weregild；　proportioned　to

the　condition　of　the　person　killed。　　It　is　remarkable　that　Hume

（append。　1　to　his　History）　examining　this　article　of　the　laws　of

Alfred；　without　perceiving　the　fraud；　puzzles　himself　with　accounting

for　the　inconsistency　it　had　introduced。　　To　strike　a　pregnant　woman

so　that　she　die　is　death　by　Exodus；　xxi。　22；　23；　and　Pseud。　Alfr。　18；

but　by　the　laws　of　Alfred　ix。；　pays　a　Weregild　for　both　woman　and

child。　　To　smite　out　an　eye；　or　a　tooth；　Exod。　xxi。　24…27。　Pseud。

Alfr。　19；　20；　if　of　a　servant　by　his　master；　is　freedom　to　the

servant；　in　every　other　case　retaliation。　　But　by　Alfr。　Le。　xl。　a

fixed　indemnification　is　paid。　　Theft　of　an　ox；　or　a　sheep；　by　the

Jewish　law；　Exod。　xxii。　1；　was　repaid　five…fold　for　the　ox　and

four…fold　for　the　sheep；　by　the　Pseudograph　24；　the　ox　double；　the

sheep　four…fold；　but　by　Alfred　Le。　xvi。；　he　who　stole　a　cow　and　a

calf　was　to　repay　the　worth　of　the　cow　and　401　for　the　calf。　　Goring

by　an　ox　was　the　death　of　the　ox；　and　the　flesh　not　to　be　eaten。

Exod。　xxi。　28。　Pseud。　Alfr。　21　by　Alfred　Le。　xxiv。；　the　wounded

person　had　the　ox。　　The　Pseudograph　makes　municipal　laws　of　the　ten

commandments；　1…10；　regulates　concubinage；　12；　makes　it　death　to

strike　or　to　curse　father　or　mother；　14；　15；　gives　an　eye　for　an　eye；

tooth　for　a　tooth；　hand　for　hand；　foot　for　foot；　burning　for　burning；

wound　for　wound；　strife　for　strife；　19；　sells　the　thief　to　repay　his

theft；　24；　obliges　the　fornicator　to　marry　the　woman　he　has　lain

with；　29；　forbids　interest　on　money；　35；　makes　the　laws　of　bailment；

28；　very　different　from　what　Lord　Holt　delivers　in　Coggs　_v_。

Bernard；　ante　92；　and　what　Sir　William　Jones　tells　us　they　were；　and

punishes　witchcraft　with　death；　30；　which　Sir　Matthew　Hale；　1　H。　P。

C。　B。　1；　ch。　33；　declares　was　not　a　felony　before　the　Stat。　1；　Jac。

12。　　It　was　under　that　statute；　and　not　this　forgery；　that　he　hung

Rose　Cullendar　and　Amy　Duny；　16　Car。　　2；　（1662；）　on　whose　trial　he

declared　〃that　there　were　such　creatures　as　witches　he　made　no　doubt

at　all；　for　first　the　Scripture　had　affirmed　so　much；　secondly　the

wisdom　of　all　nations　had　provided　laws　against　such　persons；　and

such　hath　been　the　judgment　of　this　kingdom；　as　appears　by　that　act

of　Parliament　which　hath　provided　punishment　proportionable　to　the

quality　of　the　offence。〃　And　we　must　certainly　allow　greater　weight

to　this　position　that　〃it　was　no　felony　till　James'　Statute；〃　laid

down　deliberately　in　his　H。　P。　C。；　a　work　which　he　wrote　to　be

printed；　finished；　and　transcribed　for　the　press　in　his　life　time；

than　to　the　hasty　scripture　that　〃at　_common　law_　witchcraft　was

punished　with　death　as　heresy；　by　writ　de　Heretico　Comburendo〃　in　his

Methodical　Summary　of　the　P。　C。　p。　6；　a　work　〃not　intended　for　the

press；　not　fitted　for　it；　and　which　he　declared　himself　he　had　never

read　over　since　it　was　written；〃　Pref。　　Unless　we　understand　his

meaning　in　that　to　be　that　witchcraft　could　not　be　punished　at　common

law　as　witchcraft；　but　as　heresy。　　In　either　sense；　however；　it　is　a

denial　of　this　pretended　law　of　Alfred。　　Now；　all　men　of　reading　know

that　these　pretended　laws　of　homicide；　concubinage；　theft；

retaliation；　compulsory　marriage；　usury；　bailment；　and　others　which

might　have　been　cited；　from　the　Pseudograph；　were　never　the　laws　of

England；　not　even　in　Alfred's　time；　and　of　course　that　it　is　a

forgery。　　Yet　palpable　as　it　must　be　to　every　lawyer；　the　English

judges　have　piously　avoided　lifting　the　veil　under　which　it　was

shrouded。　　In　truth；　the　alliance　between　Church　and　State　in　England

has　ever　made　their　judges　accomplices　in　the　frauds　of　the　clergy；

and　even　bolder　than　they　are。　　For　instead　of　being　contented　with

these　four　surreptitious　chapters　of　Exodus；　they　have　taken　the

whole　leap；　and　declared　at　once　that　the　whole　Bible　and　Testament

in　a　lump；　make　a　part　of　the　common　law；　ante　873：　the　first

judicial　declaration　of　which　was　by　this　same　Sir　Matthew　Hale。　　And

thus　they　incorporate　into　the　English　code　laws　made　for　the　Jews

alone；　and　the　precepts　of　the　gospel；　intended　by　their　benevolent

author　as　obligatory　only　in　_foro　concientiae_；　and　they　arm　the

whole　with　the　coercions　of　municipal　law。　　In　doing　this；　too；　they

have　not　even　used　the　Connecticut　caution　of　declaring；　as　is　done

in　their　blue　laws；　that　the　laws　of　God　shall　be　the　laws　of　their

land；　except　where　their　own　contradict　them；　but　they　swallow　the

yea　and　nay　together。　　Finally；　in　answer　to　Fortescue　Aland's

question　why　the　ten　commandments　should　not　now　be　a　part　of　the

common　law　of　England？　we　may　say　they　are　not　because　they　never

were　made　so　by　legislative　authority；　the　document　which　has　imposed

that　doubt　on　him　being　a　manifest　forgery。







　　　　　　　　CLASSIFICATION　IN　NATURAL　HISTORY




　　　　　　　　_To　Dr。　John　Manners_

　　　　　　　　_Monticello；　February　22；　1814_




　　　　　　　　SIR；　　The　opinion　which；　in　your　letter　of　January　24；　you

are　pleased　to　ask　of　me；　on　the　comparative　merits　of　the　different

methods　of　classification　adopted　by　different　writers　on　Natural

History；　is　one　which　I　could　not　have　given　satisfactorily；　even　at

the　earlier　period　at　which　the　subject　was　more　familiar；　still

less；　after　a　life　of　continued　occupation　in　civil　concerns　has　so

much　withdrawn　me　from　studies　of　that　kind。　　I　can；　therefore；

answer　but　in　a　very　general　way。　　And　the　text　of　this　answer　will

be　found　in　an　observation　in　your　letter；　where；　speaking　of

nosological　systems；　you　say　that　disease　has　been　found　to　be　an

unit。　　Nature　has；　in　truth；　produced　units　only　through　all　her

works。　　Classes；　orders；　genera；　species；　are　not　of　her　work。　　Her

creation　is　of　individuals。　　No　two　animals　are　exactly　alike；　no　two

plants；　nor　even　two　leaves　or　blades　of　grass；　no　two

crystallizations。　　And　if　we　may　venture　from　what　is　within　the

cognizance　of　such　organs　as　ours；　to　conclude　on　that　beyond　their

powers；　we　must　believe　that　no　two　particles　of　matter　are　of　exact

resemblance。　　This　infinitude　of　units　or　individuals　being　far

beyond　the　capacity　of　our　memory；　we　are　obliged；　in　aid　of　that；　to

distribute　them　into　masses；　throwing　into　each　of　these　all　the

individuals　which　have　a　certain　degree　of　resemblance；　to　subdivide

these　again　into　smaller　groups；　according　to　certain　points　of

dissimilitude　observable　in　them；　and　so　on　until　we　have　formed　what

we　call　a　system　of　classes；　orders；　genera　and　species。　　In　doing

this；　we　fix　arbitrarily　on　such　characteristic　resemblances　and

differences　as　seem　to　us　most　prominent　and　invariable　in　the

several　subjects；　and　most　likely　to　take　a　strong　hold　in　our

memories。　　Thus　Ray　formed　one　classification　on　such　lines　of

division　as　struck　him　most　favorably；　Klein　adopted　another；　Brisson

a　third；　and　other　naturalists　other　designations；　till　Linnaeus

appeared。　　Fortunately　for　science；　he　conceived　in　the　three

kingdoms　of　nature；　modes　of　classification　which　obtained　the

approbation　of　the　learned　of　all　nations。　　His　system　was

accordingly　adopted　by　all；　and　united　all　in　a　general　language。　　It

offered　the　three　great　desiderata：　First；　of　aiding　the　memory　to

retain　a　knowledge　of　the　productions　of　nature。　　Secondly；　of

rallying　all　to　the　same　names　for　the　same　objects；　so　that　they

could　communicate　understandingly　on　them。　　And　Thirdly；　of　enabling

them；　when　a　subject　was　first　presented；　to　trace　it　by　its

character　up　to　the　conventional　name　by　which　it　was　agreed　to　be

called。　　This　classification　was　indeed　liable　to　the　imperfection　of

bringing　into　the　same　group　individuals　which；　though　resembling　in

the　characteristics　adopted　by　the　author　for　his　classification；　yet

have　strong　marks　of　dissimilitude　in　other　respects。　　But　to　this

objection　every　mode　of　classification　must　be　liable；　because　the

plan　of　creation　is　inscrutable　to　our　limited　faculties。　　Nature　has

not　arranged　her　productions　on　a　single　and　direct　line。　　They

branch　at　every　step；　and　in　every　direction；　and　he　who　attempts　to

reduce　them　into　departments；　is　left　to　do　it　by　the　lines　of　his

own　fancy。　　The　objection　of　bringing　together　what　are　disparata　in

nature；　lies　against　the　cl