is able to express himself with greater clearness, brevity, and force, in some other than his vernacular tongue, affords a reason perhaps for composing in that other language, but does not excuse him for contaminating his own by admix. ture of words of foreign derivation. He has no right to fashion out of his mother tongue a dialect appropriate to the uses of his peculiar science. Let the Transcendentalists write in German at once, and there will be 'no farther dispute about the matter. The innovations, so far as executed, are conceived in the worst possible taste. The license assumed by Horace is assumed without any regard to the limitations of the rule; " si forte necesse est Continget, dabiturque licentia sumpta pudenter." The analogy of the English language is entirely forgotten both in the mode of compounding words, and in the use of idiomatic phrases. Now, whatever apology may exist for bringing in new words, we humbly conceive, that there is none for the introduction of foreign idioms. The old Eng. lish prose writers are censured for their latinized phrases ; have modern authors a better right to indulge their predi. lection for German ? The quaintness in this way imparted to style is a quality of doubtful merit. It is poor wit, to put a bad joke in the mouth of a Frenchman, that its effect may be heightened by the broken English. And the la. bored attempt to be grotesque in style, by a mixture of foreign gibberish, is little better. “It is affectations, that's the humor of it.” But to hear such writings praised as mirrors of deep thought, and containing a world of philosophical meaning, is too great an infliction for any common stock of patience. un But the passion for German metaphysics is likely to produce greater evils than the mere depravation of English style. The habit of poring over them must induce an healthy state of mind, either from the general characteristics of such a philosophical manner, or from the positive tendency of the doctrines advanced. We have no taste for the sublimated atheism of Fichte, or the downright pantheism of Schelling. Yet there are men familiar with the works of such authors, and loud in their praise, who are not ashamed to charge the philosophy of Locke with a sensualizing and degrading influence. We have a right to speak out upon this point. Among these men, and their number is rapidly increasing, the name of Locke has become a by-word of reproach. Yet, in the whole circle of English philosophers and literary men, not one can be found, whose writings breathe more uniformly the spirit of Christian purity, love, and truth. The champion of religious toleration in an intolerant age, the mild but firm defender of his philosophical creed when rudely assailed, imþued with a love of originality, which yet never betrayed him into paradox, and willing to accept the hurtful character of any just inference from his opinions, as demon. strating the unsoundness of the doctrine itself, — the study of his works cannot but impart a portion of the healthy spirit, in which they were written. How far he is answerable for the skepticism and sensualizing dogmas, which the French philosophers of the last century founded on a partial view of his system, we leave to others to determine. Two things are certain ; that the view thus taken was incomplete, and his philosophy considered as a whole affords no ground for such conclusions ; and that no one would have regarded the opinions of Condillac and his coadjutors and followers with greater detestation than Locke himself. As an authority for this favorable judgment, we may be al. a lowed to quote a passage written without reference to any sect, the members of which might find themselves censured by implication in the praises of another. Alluding to the Essay on the Human Understanding, Mackintosh observes, that "few books have contributed more to rectify prejudice, to undermine established errors, to diffuse a just mode of thinking, to excite a fearless spirit of inquiry, and yet to contain it within the boundaries which nature has prescribed to the human understanding. In the mental and moral world, which scarcely admits of any thing which can be called discovery, the correction of the mental habits is probably the greatest service which can be rendered to science. In this respect, the merit of Locke is unrivalled. His writings have diffused throughout the civilized world the love of civil liberty, the spirit of toleration and charity in religious differences, the disposition to reject whatever is obscure, fantastic, or hypothetical in speculation, to reduce verbal disputes to their proper value, to abandon problems which admit of no solution, to distrust whatever cannot be clearly expressed, to render theory the simple expression of facts, and to prefer those studies which most directly contribute to human happiness."* Hinc illce lacryme. The Transcendentalists have good reason to decry the tendency of Locke's philosophical writings. That the spirit of German metaphysics is, in almost every particular, the opposite of that which is here portrayed, is an assertion which could be safely made only by one, who possessed a thorough acquaintance with all the writings of the German philosophers. Without making any pretensions to such extensive knowledge, we may still judge the tree by its fruits, and assert, that the study of such writings tends to heat the imagination, and blind the Edinburgh Reviero. Vol. xxxvi. Art. Stewart's Dissertation. a | ;, a judgment;— that it gives a dictatorial tone to the expression of opinion, and a harsh, imperious, and sometimes flippant manner to argumentative discussion ;- that it injures the generous and catholic spirit of speculative philosophy, by raising up a sect of such a marked and distinctive character, that it can hold no fellowship either with former laborers in the cause, or with those, who, at the present time, in a different line of inquiry, are aiming at the same general objects. The difference in the mode of philosophizing between the old and new schools is radical. Either one party or the other is entirely in the wrong. To come over to the new system, we must read our former lessons back. wards, give up the old tests of correctness and sincerity, and rely no longer on meek and gentle features without, as indications of truth and goodness dwelling within. We are fully aware, that it is dangerous in speculation to appeal to the practical tendency of any doctrine, as evidence for or against its soundness. Men are inconsistent beings. Their actions are controlled by innumerable causes distinct from the direct influence of their speculative notions. But the assailants of Locke's philosophy have rested their objections to it mainly on this ground, and have invited a comparison, in this respect, of the dogmas and modes of reasoning adopted by the two schools. And there are reasons at the present day for paying especial regard to the immediate influence of speculation upon conduct. The defence of metaphysical pursuits consists chiefly in the advantages to be expected from them in disciplining and developing the mental and moral faculties. We may not reasonably look for great discoveries in mental science. Philosophers do much, if they succeed in dispersing the clouds, which their own efforts have collected. Such, at least, is the common opinion. And if metaphysicians are to come from their studies with feelings worn, and their general sympathies with humanity diminished, better let them at once burn their books and renounce their vocation. There is an old reproach, that“ no stone is harder than the heart of a thorough-bred metaphysician,” which must be wiped off entirely, before one can account satisfactorily to his conscience, for engaging in the science of abstruse learning. Whatever course, therefore, tends to rive the philosophical world into parties, to inflame discussion between them beyond all discreet bounds, to remove the objects of thought still farther from the common pursuits and interests of mankind, is so far positively pernicious and wrong. Let the Transcendentalists look to this point. Their efforts hitherto have tended to undermine the only foundation, on which they could safely rest. They have deepened the gulf between speculative and practical men, and, by their innovations in language, they are breaking down the only bridge that spans the chasm. Let them succeed in this end, and they perish by isolation. The insufferable arrogance of the new school, and their anxiety to place themselves apart from the mass of mankind, are shown in the very plea, by which all objections to their philosophy are commonly met; that men do not understand the system, which they presume to criticise. True, men do not usually understand what is intentionally made unintelligible. It is of the perverseness shown by this wilful and designed obscurity, that we complain. Si non vis intelligi, debes negligi. There is more point than truth in the saying of Coleridge, that we cannot understand Plato's ignorance, but must be ignorant of his understanding. How far is such a remark applicable? Is the intellect of every author so much superior to that of his reader, that every want of understanding between the two must necessarily be ascribed to the latter? Do not cloudy minds sometimes a |