Chapter M (10)

The truth is, morality consists in discharging the social duties of life; and so far as the state of savages requires an intercourse of duties, the moral principles seem to be as perfect in them as in more enlightened nations. Savages in a perfectly rude state have little or no commerce; the transactions between man and man are confined to very few objects, and consequently the laws which regulate their intercourse and distribute justice, must be few and simple.[64] But the crime of murder is as severely punished by savages, as by civilized nations. Nay, I question whether it is possible to name the barbarous tribe, which suffers an individual to take the life of another, upon as easy terms as the modern feudal Barons in Europe may do that of a vassal; or with the same impunity that a planter in the West Indies takes the life of a slave. I speak of a time of peace, and of the conduct of savages towards their own tribes. As to war, every nation of savages has its arbitrary customs, and so has every civilized nation. Savages are generally partial and capricious in the treatment of their prisoners; some they treat with a singular humanity; and others they put to death with the severest cruelty. Well, do not civilized people the same? Did a savage ever endure greater torments, than thousands of prisoners during the late war? But not to mention the practice of a single nation, at a single period; let us advert to a general rule among civilized nations; that it is lawful to put to death prisoners taken in a garrison by storm. The practice grounded on this rule, is as direct and as enormous a violation of the laws of morality, as the slow deliberate tortures exercised by the most barbarous savages on earth.

[64] It is a fact, supported by unquestionable testimony,
that the savage nations on the frontiers of these States,
have fewer vices in proportion to their virtues, than are to
be found in the best regulated civilized societies with which
we are acquainted.

Well, what are the ideas of savages respecting _theft_? How do they differ from those of an enlightened people? Many things are possessed in common, as provisions taken in hunting, corn, &c. Ferdinand de Soto relates, that the tribes (and he visited hundreds in Florida) had public granaries of corn laid up for winter, which was distributed by authority to each family, according to its number. But for an individual to take from this common stock without license, was considered as a criminal defrauding of the public. And with regard to the few articles, in which individuals acquire private property, the savages have as correct ideas of _meum_ and _tuum_, of theft, trespass, &c. and are as careful to guard private property from invasion, by laws and penalties, as any civilized people. The laws of the Creeks, the Cherokees, the Six Nations, &c. with regard to these and many other crimes, in point of reason and equity, stand on a footing with those of the most civilized nations; and in point of execution and observance, their administration would do honor to any government. Among most savage nations there is a kind of monarchy which is efficient in administration; and among those tribes which have had no intercourse with civilized nations, and which have not been deceived by the tricks of traders; the common arts of cheating, by which millions of enlightened people get a living or a fortune, are wholly unknown. This is an incontrovertible fact. I lately became acquainted with a lad of about twelve years old, who was taken captiv by the Indians in 1778, while a child, and had continued with them till about ten years old. He had no recollection of the time when he was taken, and consequently his mind could not have been corrupted among the English. When he was restored, agreeable to the treaty, he was a perfect savage; but what I relate the circumstance for, is this; the lad was not addicted to a single vice. He was instant and cheerful in obeying commands; having not even a disposition to refuse or evade a compliance. He had no inclination to lie or steal; on the other hand, he was always surprised to find a person saying one thing and meaning another. In short, he knew not any thing but honesty and undisguised frankness and integrity. A single instance does not indeed establish a general rule; but those who are acquainted with the nativs of America can testify that this is the general character of savages who are not corrupted by the vices of civilized nations.

But it is said savages are revengeful; their hatred is hereditary and perpetual. How does this differ from the hatred of civilized nations? I question much whether the principle of revenge is not as perfect in enlightened nations, as in savages. The difference is this; a savage hunts the man who has offended him, like a wild beast, and assassinates him wherever he finds him; the _gentleman_ pursues his enemy or his rival with as much rancor as a savage, and even stoops to notice little affronts, that a savage would overlook; but he does not stab him privately; he hazards his own life with that of his enemy, and one or both are very _honorably_ murdered. The principle of revenge is equally activ in both cases; but its operation is regulated by certain arbitrary customs. A savage is open and avows his revenge, and kills privately; the polite and well bred take revenge in a more _honorable_ way, when _life_ is to be the price of satisfaction; but in cases of small affronts, they are content with privately stabbing the reputation or ruining the fortunes of their enemies. In short, the passions of a savage are under no restraint; the passions of enlightened people are restrained and regulated by a thousand civil laws and accidental circumstances of society.

But it will be objected, if savages understood principles of morality, they would lay such passions under restraint. Not at all: Civil and political regulations are not made, because the things prohibited are in their own nature wrong; but because they produce inconveniencies to society. The most enlightened nations do not found their laws and penalties on an abstract regard to _wrong_; nor has government any concern with that which has no influence on the peace and safety of society. If savages, therefore, leave every man to take his own revenge, it is a proof that they judge it the best mode of preventing the necessity of it; that is, they think their society and government safer under such a license, than under regulations which should control the passions of individuals. They may have their ideas of the nature of revenge independent of society; but it will be extremely difficult to prove, that, abstracted from a regard to a Deity and to society, there is such a thing as _right_ and _wrong_. I consider _morality_ merely as it respects _society_; for if we superadd the obligations of a divine command, we blend it with _religion_; an article in which Christians have an infinit advantage over savages.

Considering moral duties as founded solely on the constitution of society, and as having for their sole end the happiness of social beings, many of them will vary in their nature and extent, according to the particular state and circumstances of any society.

Among the ancient Britons, a singular custom prevailed; which was, a community of wives by common consent. Every man married one woman; but a number, perhaps ten or twelve, relations or neighbors, agreed to possess their wives in common. Every woman's children were accounted the children of her husband; but every man had a share in the common defence and care of this little community.[65] Was this any breach of morality? Not in the least. A British woman, in the time of Severus, having become intimate with Julia Augusta, and other ladies, at the court of Rome, had observed what passed behind the curtain; and being one day reproached for this custom of the Britons, as infamous in the women, and barbarous in the men; she replied, "We do that _openly_ with the _best_ of our men, which you do _privately_ with the _worst_ of yours." This custom, so far from being infamous or barbarous, originated in public and private convenience. It prevented jealousy and the injuries of adultery, in a state where private wrongs could not easily be prevented or redressed. It might be an excellent substitute for penal laws and a regular administration of justice. But there is a better reason for the custom, which writers seem to have overlooked; and this is, that a community multiplied the chances of subsistence and security. In a savage life, subsistence is precarious, for it depends on contingent supplies by hunting and fishing. If every individual, therefore, should depend solely on his own good luck, and fail of success, his family must starve. But in a community of twelve, the probability that some one would procure provisions is increased as twelve to one. Hence the community of provisions among most savage nations.[66]

[65] Uxores habent deni, duodenique inter se communes; et
maxime fratres cum fratribus, et parentes cum liberis. Sed si
qui sunt ex his nati; eorum habenter liberi a quibus primum
virgines quæque ductæ sunt.---- _Cæsar de bell. Gall. Lib.
5._

[66] Let an individual depend solely on his own exertions for
food, and a single failure of crops subjects him to a famin.
Let a populous country depend solely on its own produce, and
the probability of a famine is diminished; yet is still
possible. But a commercial intercourse between all nations,
multiplies the chances of subsistence, and reduces the matter
to a certainty. China, a well peopled country, is subject to
a famin merely for want of a free commerce.

The Britons, when the Romans first visited their island, did not attend much to the cultivation of the earth. "Interiores plerique," says Cæsar, "frumenta non serunt, sed lacte et carne vivunt." By establishing a community of goods, they secured themselves against the hazard of want; and by a community of wives and offspring, they confirmed the obligations of each to superintend the whole; or rather, changed into a natural obligation what might otherwise depend on the feebler force of positiv compact. Besides, it is very possible that personal safety from the invasion of tribes or individuals, might be another motiv for establishing these singular communities. At any rate, we must suppose that the Britons had good civil or political reasons for this custom; for even savages do not act without reason. And if they found society more safe and happy, with such a custom than without it, it was most undoubtedly right.

Should it be said, that a community is prohibited by divine command; I would answer that it is not presumable that the old Britons had any positiv revelation; and I do not know that the law of nature will decide against their practice. The commands given to the Jews were positiv injunctions; but they by no means extend to all nations, farther than as they are founded on _immutable principles_ of right and wrong in all societies. Many of the Mosaic precepts are of this kind; they are unlimited in their extent, because they stand on principles which are unlimited in their operation.

Adultery is forbidden in the Jewish laws; and so it is in the codes of other nations. But adultery may be defined differently by different nations; and the criminality of it depends on the particular positiv institutions, or accidental circumstances of a nation. The same reasons that would render a similar custom in civilized modern nations highly criminal, might render it innocent and even necessary among the old Britons. A prohibition to gather sticks on the Sabbath, under a penalty of death for disobedience, might be founded on good reasons among the ancient Jews; but it would be hard to prove that a modern law of the same kind, would be warrantable in any nation.

No. XXI.

NEW YORK, JUNE, 1788.

_A_ LETTER _from a_ LADY, _with_ REMARKS.

SIR,

As you have, in your writings, discovered that you take a particular interest in the happiness of ladies, I hope you will not deem it a deviation from delicacy, if one of them offers you her grateful acknowlegements, and requests you to giv your sentiments upon what will be here related.

About four years ago, I was visited by a gentleman who professed an unalterable attachment for me. He being a genteel, sensible and handsome man, I thought myself justifiable in treating him with complacency. After I was convinced by his constant attention and frequent professions, that I was a favorite, he used frequently to upbraid me, for being so silent and reserved: It shewed, he said, a want of confidence in him; for I must be sensible he derived the greatest pleasure imaginable in my conversation, and why would I then deprive him of the greatest happiness by absenting myself, when he paid a visit, refusing to chat with my usual freedom. Tho he professed himself to be an admirer of candor, and a strict adherer to the rules of honor, still I could not but doubt his sincerity from the extravagance of his expressions. This he considered as an affront, saying that no man of _honor_ would express sentiments that were not genuine. I found myself unwilling to say any thing that should be disagreeable, and disposed to make him understand by an attention that I supposed him entitled to, that he was prefered to any other person. He continued his visits in this manner for about eighteen months, conducting himself with the greatest delicacy, affection and respect. During this time, he never expressed a wish to be united, which made me uneasy, as I knew that all my friends thought us engaged. At last I told him his attention was too particular; I knew not what construction to put upon it. He replied that I was too particular in my ideas; it was a convincing proof to him, with my resenting _trifling liberties_, that I had not an affection for him, and that he was not the man I wished to be connected with; therefore he would not trouble me any longer with his company, and wished me a good night.

This, Sir, you must suppose, distressed me greatly; I viewed myself injured and trifled with, but knew not how to obtain redress. My attachment and pride were so great that I would not allow my friends to call him to an account for his behavior; tho I now despise his conduct, and would refuse him the hand of which he has proved himself unworthy, still I feel hurt at the treatment I have received. You, Sir, as a friend to our sex, and one who wishes to preserve the peace of mind of unsuspecting girls, will do them an essential service, by your animadversions on these facts, and guarding our sex from similar impositions.

These circumstances would not have been related, were I not rendered discontented and wretched at home, in consequence of refusing the offers of three other gentlemen; either of whom would doubtless have been acceptable, had not my affections been preengaged to one who has proved himself worthless. Their characters and situations in life are equal to my wishes; but I cannot do them so much injustice and myself so much injury, as to giv my hand unaccompanied with my heart. In consulting my own inclinations I have incurred the displeasure of all my family; they treat me with great inattention, and are continually reflecting on my want of spirit and resolution. I am confident, Sir, that every generous mind will pity your unhappy and distressed friend,

CONSTANTIA.

_To_ CONSTANTIA.

While I acknowlege myself honored by your correspondence, and happy in an opportunity of rendering you or your sex the least service, permit me, in compliance with your request, which shall be to me a sacred law, to offer my sentiments with a frankness, corresponding with that which marks the relation of your misfortunes. For altho I feel the warmest indignation at every species of deception, and particularly at that long continued inexplicitness which is _deliberate deception_, and which is the cause of your wretchedness, candor and truth require that censure should fall where it is due.

If the slightest blame can fall on you, it is that you indulged the visits of a gentleman for _eighteen months without an explicit and honorable declaration of his intention_. A _delicate_, _affectionate_ and _respectful_ attention to a lady, for one quarter of that period, is sufficient to make an impression on her mind, and decide her choice: At the same time, it might not render an attachment on her part, so strong as to make a separation very painful; it might not giv the world an opinion that an engagement exists, or subject the lady to the necessity of dismissing other suitors. It is therefore prudent at least for a lady to conduct herself in such a manner as to bring her admirer to an explicit declaration of his designs. A man of _real honor_ and principle would not wait for a stratagem on the part of the lady, or for a frank demand of an explanation of his conduct. A tolerable acquaintance with the human heart would enable him to discover when a declaration would be _agreeable_ to the lady, and after this discovery, he would not keep her a moment in suspense. A man of generous feelings, who has a lively attachment, looks with anxiety for some proof that his addresses are agreeable, and that a declaration of his intentions will be well received. No sooner does he find this proof, than he hastens to unbosom himself to the dear object of his wishes, and communicate the happiness he so ardently desires to receive. When therefore a man neglects such a declaration, after he has had convincing proofs that his offers would be well received, it may and should be taken for granted that his intentions are not honorable, and the lady should treat him accordingly. If therefore, my unhappy friend, you deserve the least degree of censure, it is because you delayed too long to take measures for undeceiving yourself. Yet this delay is a proof of your unsuspecting confidence and sincere attachment; and faults, proceeding from such amiable causes, are almost changed to virtues; in your sex, they entitle the sufferer to forgivness and to love.

You inform me, Constantia, that the man who has injured you, professed to _adhere to the rules of honor_. Never, Constantia, trust a man who deals largely in that hackneyed virtue, _honor_. _Honor_, in the fashionable sense of the word, is but another name for _villany_. The _man of honor_ would not be guilty of the least impropriety in public company; he would not for the world neglect the least punctilio of the customary etiquette, but he would, without hesitation or remorse, blow out the brains of a friend, for treading on his toe, or rob an amiable woman of her reputation and happiness to gratify his vanity.

If a man talks too much of his _honor_, he is to be avoided, like the midnight ruffian. He that really possesses a virtue never boasts of it, for he does not suspect the world think him destitute of it. Numerous professions are commonly mere substitutes for what is professed.

The man, who has given you so much uneasiness, never deserved the confidence he won; he must be destitute of principle, of virtue, and of attachment to you. His deliberate ill usage proves him to be callous to every tender emotion, and to deserve your contempt. Will not a generous pride and detestation expel the least sentiment of respect for him from your breast? Can you not forget that you have been misled, and will not your innocence buoy you above misfortunes? That you have refused good offers, is to be regretted; but your friends, if they know the reason, as they ought, will not pain you by disingenuous reflections. On the other hand, they will assist you in finding objects to amuse you and dissipate your own melancholy reflections. Smile away the anxiety that shuts your heart against other impressions. Base as men are, there may be some found who despise the character of him who has given even an hour's pain; there may be one who knows _your_ worth, and may be disposed to reward your _constancy_.

It is a mortifying reflection to an honest mind, that _bad_ hearts are so often suffered to giv pain to the _good_; that the _trifling_ and the _base_ of our sex are not constrained, by necessity, to associate only with the _trifling_ and the _base_ of yours, and that the good, the generous and the constant should be exposed to the abuses of the fickle and designing. But such is the constitution of society, and for the evils of it, we have no remedy, but cautious circumspection to prevent, or patient fortitude to support the adverse events of our conditions.

No man can entertain a more cordial detestation of the smallest disposition to annoy the peace of mind and disturb the tranquillity of mankind, than myself; the design of existence here is to sooth the evils, and multiply the felicities of each other, and he must be a villain indeed, who can deliberately attempt to poison the sources of pleasure, by crossing and disappointing the social passions.

To your sex, Constantia, permit me to giv a word of caution; never to make any inquiries about a man's family, fortune or accomplishments, till you know whether he is a man of _principle_. By _principle_, I mean, a disposition of heart to conduct with strict propriety, both as a moral being and as a member of civil society; that is, a disposition to increase the happiness of all around him. If he appears to wish for his own gratification, at the expense even of a servant's happiness, he is an unsocial being, he is not a fit associate for men, much less for amiable women. If he is a man of _principle_, then proceed to inquire into his standing in life. _With_ principle he may make a woman happy in almost any circumstances; _without_ it, _birth_, _fortune_ and _education_ serve but to render his worthlessness the more conspicuous. With sentiments of esteem, I am your obliged friend, and humble servant,

E.

No. XXII.

NEW YORK, JULY, 1788.

_A_ LETTER _to the_ AUTHOR, _with_ REMARKS.

SIR,

I beg leave to relate to you a few circumstances respecting the conduct of a young friend of mine in this city, and to request your own remarks and advice on the occasion. Should any other person similarly situated, be disposed to receive benefit from the advice, I shall be much gratified, and my design more than answered.

This young friend to whom I allude, has been till within a few years, under the watchful eyes of very attentiv parents; from whom he received much better advice and much more of it, than the generality of parents in this city are wont to bestow on their children; they taught him to regard truth with a steady attachment; in short his education, till their deaths, was such as might with propriety have been called rigidly virtuous. Since that instructiv period, he has been under the guidance of no one but himself; his former associates with whom he grew up, and for whom he still feels a degree of schoolmate attachment, are almost universally debauched characters. The force of example is great, and let it be mentioned to his honor, that in general he has had sufficient virtue to resist their importunities, and to follow a line of conduct directly contrary to the one they would gladly have marked out for his pursuance. He possesses many of the social virtues, and is warmly attached to the amiable part of the female world. This attachment has preserved him from the fashionable vices of the age, and given him a relish for domestic happiness, which I think he will never lose. A young gentleman so capable of making himself agreeable to good and virtuous characters, ought not, in my opinion, to indulge himself in any practices, that shall tend in the least to depreciate his general merit. The practices I would mention, are few and not very considerable; still I think he should dismiss them entirely, or at least not indulge them to his disadvantage. He sings a _good song_, and he knows it tolerably well; he is often urged into company on that account; he can make himself agreeable withal, and is really a _musical companion_; he pays so much attention to _learning_ and _singing songs_, that he has but little leisure time on his hands; he reads part of the day, but he reads principally _novels_ or _song books_. I would not be understood to consider _singing songs_ as criminal; far from it; I am often delighted with a song from him; but the query with me is, whether he ought not to devote part of the time which he now employs about what may be called genteel trifling, to the improvement of his mind in a manner that may be of lasting benefit to him; I wish you to giv him your advice, and direct him what books to read. He has another _fault_, which, altho it originates in the benevolence of his disposition, may still be called a fault. He has a very susceptible heart, and opens it with a generous freedom, so much so that he sometimes forgets himself, and opens it where he ought not to do. A stranger with a specious outside might easily impose on him. I just throw out these hints, that he may be on his guard against those whose business it is to deceive. There are several smaller faults dependant upon, or rather consequent to, those I have mentioned, which I at first intended to have enumerated, but if the first are amended, the others will forsake him of course.

_The_ ANSWER.

SIR,

By the description you have given of your young friend, it appears that he is rather _trifling_ and _inconsiderate_ than _profligate_. His faults are, _his spending too much time in learning and singing songs_; and too _much frankness of heart_, which exposes him to impositions. But you have not, Sir, informed me whether he was _bred to business_; and by his character, I judge that he was not. He has had good precepts indeed; but of how little weight are precepts to young people! Advice to the young sometimes does good; but perhaps never, except good habits have been previously formed by correct discipline in manners, or by a mechanical attention to honest employments. The truth is, advice or serious council is commonly lavished where it does no good, upon the young, the gay, the thoughtless; whose passions are strong, before reason begins to have the smallest influence. I am young myself, but from the observations I have hitherto made, I venture to affirm, that grave advice never yet conquered a passion, and rarely has restrained one so as to render a sprightly youth, in any degree serious. How should it? Instructions are transient; they seldom touch the heart, and they generally oppose passions that are vigorous, and which are incessantly urging for indulgence.

I have ever thought that advice to the young, unaccompanied by the routine of honest employments, is like an attempt to make a shrub grow in a certain direction, by blowing it with a bellows. The way to regulate the growth of a vegetable is to _confine_ it to the proposed direction. The only effectual method perhaps is to keep young persons from childhood busy in some employment of use and reputation. It is very immaterial what that employment is; the mind will grow in the direction given it at first; it will bend and attach itself to the business, and will not easily lose that bent or attachment afterwards: The mind _will_ attach itself to something; its natural disposition is to pleasure and amusement. This disposition may be changed or overcome by keeping the mind, from early life, busy in some useful occupation, and perhaps by _nothing else_. Advice will not produce the effect.

I suspect, Sir, that your young friend has been bred a trifler; that he has had money to support him without the labor of acquiring it; that he has never been anxious about his future subsistence. If so, his education must be pronounced erroneous. Whether worth twenty pounds or twenty thousand, it should make no difference in his attention to business while young. We are the creatures of habit; a habit of _acquiring_ property should always precede the _use_ of it, otherwise it will not be used with credit and advantage. Besides, business is almost the only security we have for moral rectitude and for consequence in society. It keeps a young person out of vicious company; it operates as a constant check upon the passions, and while it does not destroy them, it restrains their intemperance; it strengthens the mind by exercise, and puts a young person upon exerting his reasoning faculties. In short, a man bred to business loves society, and feels the importance of the principles that support it. On the other hand, mankind respect him; and whatever your young friend may think of the assertion, it is true that the ladies uniformly despise a man who is always dangling at their apron strings, and whose principal excellence consists in singing a good song.

If, Sir, your friend is still so young, as to undergo the discipline of a professional or other employment, his habits of trifling may be changed by this means; but if he is so far the gentleman as to disdain business, his friends have only to whistle advice in his ears, and wait till old age, experience, and the death of his passions, shall change the man.

Accept of my thanks, Sir, for this communication, and be assured that my opinion on any subject of this kind will always be at your service.

E.

No. XXIII.

BOSTON, MARCH, 1789.

_An_ ENQUIRY _into the_ ORIGIN _of the_ WORDS DOMESDAY, PARISH, PARLIAMENT, PEER, BARON; _with_ REMARKS, NEW _and_ INTERESTING.

In the course of my etymological investigations, I hav been led to suspect that all the writers on the laws and constitution of England, hav mistaken the origin and primitiv signification of several words of high antiquity, and in consequence of the mistake, hav adopted some erroneous opinions, respecting the history of parliaments and trial by peers. Whether my own opinions are wel supported by history and etymology, must be hereafter decided by able and impartial judges of this subject.

_Dome book_, or _domesday book_, iz a word wel understood by English lawyers. _Dome book_, or _dom bec_, az it waz formerly spelt, waz the name given to the Saxon code of laws compiled by Alfred. Some other codes of local customs or laws were also denominated _dom becs_, but theze are all lost. After the conquest, a general survey of all the lands in England, except a few counties, waz made by order of William, and recorded in a volum which iz stil extant, and called _domesday_. This survey waz begun by five justices assigned for the purpose in each county, in the year 1081 and completed 1086.

Our pious ancestors were not a little frightened at the name of this book, which iz usually pronounced _doomsday_; supposing it to hav some reference to the final doom, or day of judgement. In order to quiet such apprehensions, lawyers of less credulity undertook to refute the common opinion. Jacob, after Cowel, very gravely asserts, that the termination _day_ in this word does not allude to the general judgement. "The addition of _day_ to this dome book, waz not ment with any allusion to the final day of judgement, az _most persons hav conceeved_, but waz to strengthen and confirm it, and signifieth the judicial decisiv record, or book of _dooming_ judgement and justice."[67] The same author defines _domesmen_ to be _judges_, or men appointed to _doom_.

[67] _Jacob Dict._ word, _domesday_.

Cowel, a compiler of considerable authority, says, "day or dey," (for _dey_ iz the true spelling) "does not augment the sense, but only doubles and confirms the same meening. It does not, in this composition, really signify the mesure of time, but the administration of justice; so that _domesday_ iz more emphatically the judicial decisiv record, the book of _dooming_ judgement."[68] According to this author, then, _domesday_ iz _a judgement of judgements_, for he quotes Dr. Hammond to proov that _day_, _dies_, ημερα, in all idioms, signifies judgement. However tru this may be, I beleev our Saxon forefathers could find a better name for a code of laws, than _a judgement of judgements_.

[68] Cowel Dict. _Daysman_.

"_Domesday_," says Coke, "dies judicii," day of judgement.[69] Such is the influence of sounds upon credulous, superstitious minds.

[69] Coke Litt. 3. 248.

The truth seems to be this; _domesday_ is a compound of _dom_, judgement, decree or authority; and _dey_, a law or rule.[70] Or _domes_, in the plural, may signify _judges_. The name of the book then will signify, ether _the rules of judging_, or _deciding_, in questions relating to the real property of England; or what is more probable, _the rules and determinations of the judges_ who surveyed the lands in the kingdom.

[70] It iz singular that the last syllable of this word
_domesday_, should hav been mistaken for _day_, a portion of
time; for the latter in Saxon waz written _daeg_ and
_daegum_, az in the Saxon version of the Gospels; whereaz the
termination of _domesday_ waz formerly, and ought now to be,
spelt _dey_.

That _dom_ had the signification here explained iz capable of proof. The homager's oath, in the black book of Hereford, fol. 46, ends thus, "So helpe me God at his holy _dome_ (judgement) and by my trowthe," (troth, that is truth.)[71] This explanation coincides with the meening of the same syllable in other languages, and confirms the hypothesis of the common origin of the languages of Europe, laid down in the Notes to my Dissertations on the English Tung. We see the syllable in the Greek δαμαω, the Latin _dominus_, (domo) and in the English word _tame_; az also in _doom_, _deem_, king _dom_.[72] In all theze words we observe one primitiv and several derivativ significations. Its primitiv sense is that of power or authority, az in Greek and Latin. In English, it stands for jurisdiction, a judge, or a sentence. In _deem_, it denotes the act of the mind in judging, or forming its determinations.

[71] Cowel, Law Dict. _dome_.

[72] In some words _dom_ is substituted for the ancient
termination _rick_; and in one sense, it iz equivalent to
_rick_, which implies jurisdiction or power. _King rick_ waz
used az late az Queen Elizabeth: _Bishop-rick_ iz stil used,
denoting the territory or jurisdiction of a bishop.

The other syllable _dey_ iz probably the same word az _ley_, law, with a different prepositiv article; for etymologists tel us, that the radical syllable waz often found in the muther tung _ey_. Cowel informs us it waz not _day_, but _dey_; and another author writes it _d'ey_. The word _daysman_, or az it ought to be spelt _deysman_, stil used both in England and America, is composed of _dey_ and _man_, and signifies an arbitrator or judge, appointed to reconcile differences. In this country I hav often heerd it applied to our Savior, az mediator between God and man.

The ancient lawyers translate the Saxon _dom bec_ and _domesdey_ by _liber judicialis_; words which seem not to convey the ful meening of the original. I should translate them, _liber judicum_, the Judges book; or _lex judicum_, the Judges law or rule.

The old Saxon word _ley_, before mentioned, waz, in different dialects, or at different periods, written _ley_, _lah_, _lage_, _laga_. It iz doubtless from the same root az the Latin _lex_, _lege_; and it is remarkable, that the same word anciently signified _peeple_; and from this are derived _lay_ and _laity_, the peeple as opposed to the _clergy_.[73] It iz probable that the primitiv sense of the word, in remote antiquity, waz _people_; and az the peeple made the laws in general assembly, so their orders or decrees came to be called by the same name. This conjecture iz not groundless, and is no trifling proof of the ancient freedom of our Gothic ancestors. Tacitus says expressly of the Germans, "De minoribus rebus principes consultant; de majoribus _omnes_." De Mor Germ. 11. The princes deliberate upon small matters, or perhaps decide private controverses of small moment; but laws of general concern are enacted in an assembly of all the peeple.

[73] Johnson derives _lay_ from the Greek λαος; as he does
all other words which hav some resemblance to Greek words in
sound or signification. I beleev the Saxon or Gothic original
and the Greek may be the same, and of equal antiquity.

The origin of _Parishes_ haz puzzled all the lawyers and antiquaries of the English nation. Johnson, after his usual manner, recurs to the Greek, and derives the word from παροικια, accolarum conventus, an assemblage or collection of peeple in a naborhood. Others content themselves with deriving it from the Latin _parochia_ or French _paroisse_. These etymologies do not satisfy me. It is improbable that our ancestors went to the Greek for names of places or divisions of territory, that existed in England az erly az the Heptarchy; especially az the Greek word before mentioned waz never used in the sense of _parish_. _Parochia_ cannot be the origin of parish; for it waz not a Roman word; on the other hand, it is merely a Gothic or Saxon word latinized by the erly writers on law; and to derive _parish_ from the French _paroisse_ is trifling; for we might as well derive _paroisse_ from _parish_, which iz at leest az ancient.

"It iz uncertain at what time England waz divided into parishes," say most of the law writers. Camden, in hiz Britannia, page 104, says, the kingdom waz first divided into parishes by Honorius, archbishop of Canterbury, in 636. This opinion iz controverted. Sir Henry Hobart thinks parishes were erected by the council of Lateran, in 1179. Selden, followed by Blackstone, supposes both to be rong, and shows that the clergy lived in common, without any distinction of parishes, long after the time mentioned by Camden; and it appeers by the Saxon laws, that parishes were known long before the council of Lateran.[74]

[74] Blackstone Com. vol. I. 112.

The truth probably iz, the kingdom was not divided into parishes at any one time, but the original ecclesiastical division grew, in a great measure, out of a prior civil division. _Parish_ iz the most ancient division of the ecclesiastical state, and originally denoted the _jurisdiction of a bishop_, or what iz now called a _diocese_. For this opinion, we hav the authority of the Saxon laws and charters. "Ego Cealwulfus, dei gratia rex Merciorum, rogatus a Werfritho, Episcopo Hwicciorum, istam libertatem donavi, ut _tota parochia Hwicciorum_ a pastu equorum, regis et eorum qui eos ducunt, libera sit, &c." Charta Cealwulfi regis, Anno 872. "Episcopus, congregatis omnibus clericis totius _parochiæ_, &c." in a passage quoted by Cowel tit. _parish_. Here the _bishoprick_ iz explicitly called a _parish_, parochia; and Blackstone remarks, "it is agreed on all hands, that in the erly ages of christianity in this island, parishes were unknown, or at leest signified the same az a _diocese_ does now." Com. Vol. I. 112.

This, being a settled point, wil perhaps furnish a clue by which we may find the true origin of the word and of the division.

It iz certain that there waz an ancient word among the Gothic nations, and probably among the Celtic, which signified originally _a man_, afterwards a freeman, or landholder, in opposition to that class of men who had no real property. This word waz spelt by the Romans _vir_, and signified _a man_, by way of eminence, az distinguished from _homo_; az also a husband or householder. It answered to the ανηρ of the Greeks, az distinguished from ανθροπος, a word denoting the human race in general. The same word in the Gothic or ancient German waz spelt _bar_;[75] and probably in some dialects _par_, for the convertibility of _b_ with _p_ iz obvious to every etymologist.[76] In the Erse language, az Mc Pherson testifies, _bar_ signifies a man. The word iz also pronounced _fer_ or _fear_, which approaches nearer to the Latin _vir_: _Fergus_ or _Ferguth_ signifies a _man of word_ or command. In modern Welsh, which iz the purest relict of the old Celtic, _bar_ is a son, and _barn_ a judge. In the ancient Irish, _brehon_ or _barhon_, which iz merely _baron_ with an aspirate, signified a judge. See Lhuyd, Mc Pherson, Ossian, p. 4. and Blackstone's Commentaries, Vol. I.

[75] Camden's Britannia. _Baron._

[76] Let no one question the probability of such changes of
consonants which are formed by the same organs; for to this
day _b_ and _v_ are often used promiscuously. In the Spanish
language, we are at liberty to pronounce, _b_ az _v_, or _v_
az _b_; and with us, _marble_ is often pronounced _marvle_.
It is also certain that the Roman _vir_ is found in the word
mentioned by Cesar. Com. 11. 19. _Vergo bretus_, an annual
magistrate among the Ædui, a nation of Germany. This word is
derived from _vir_, and _guberno_, altho Cesar and Tacitus
never suspected it. The same word iz mentioned by Mc Pherson,
az stil existing in the Erst language, _Fergubreth_; and its
meaning iz the same az in Cesar's time: A decisiv argument
that _vir_, _fer_, and _bar_, are radically the same; and
that the ancient Celtic language had a common origin with the
Latin. A similar change of consonants iz observable in the
words _volo_ and _bull_ (the Pope's decree) which are
radically the same; az also the German _woll_ and the English
_will_. So the ancient _Pergamus_ iz called by the modern
Turks, _Bergamo_. See Masheim's Eccle. Hist. Vol. I. and my
Dissertations on the Eng. Language, Appendix.

This word iz the root of the modern word _baron_; for in ancient manuscripts, it iz sometimes spelt _viron_, denoting its _derivation_ from _vir_. For this we hav the authority of Camden and Du Cange under the word _baron_.

So far we tred on sure ground. That theze words hav existed or do stil exist in the sense above explained, wil not be denied; and it iz almost certain that they all had a common origin.

The word _Baron_ iz evidently derived from the German _bar_ or _par_, and under the feudal system, came to signify the proprietors of large tracts of land, or thoze vassals of the Lord Paramount, who held lands by honorable service.[77]

[77] The feudal system iz commonly supposed to hav originated
in the conquest of the Roman empire by the northern nations.
The rudiments of it however may be discovered az erly az the
Cimbric invasion of Italy, a century before the Christian
era. Se Florus. lib. 3. c. 3. The Cimbri and Teutones were
tribes of the same northern race, az the Germans and Saxons.

I shall hereafter attempt to proov that several modern words are derived from the same root; at present I confine my remarks to the word _parish_, which, I conjecture, iz a compound of _par_, a landholder, and _rick_ or _rich_, which haz been explained, az denoting territory or jurisdiction: _Parick_ or _parich_, the jurisdiction of a par or baron. It iz true the words _baron_ and _parliament_ seem not to hav been used among the Saxons before the conquest; but they were used by most of the nations of the same original, on the continent; az in Germany, Burgundy, Sweden and Normandy: And the use of the word _parochia_ in England, before the conquest, or at leest by the first lawyers and translators of the Saxon laws, iz to me the strongest proof that some such word az _parick_ existed among the erly Saxons, or which waz latinized by thoze writers. Even if we suppose the word borrowed from nations on the continent, my supposition of the existence of such a word iz equally wel founded, for they all spoke dialects of the same tung.

The first knowlege we hav of the word _parish_ or rather _parochia_, iz in the Saxon laws, copied and translated into Latin by thoze erly writers, Bracton, Britlon, Fleta, or others of an erlier date. In that erly period, _parochia_ waz a _diocese_ or _bishoprick_.

I suspect the jurisdiction of the bishop waz originally limited by an erldom, county shire, or territory of a great lord. This waz probably the general division; for sometimes a clergyman or bishop, in the zerude ages, had cure of souls in two or more adjoining lordships; and it often happened that a lord had much waste land on hiz demesne, which waz not comprehended in the original _parish_, and thus came, in later times, to be called _extraparochial_. But whatever particular exceptions there might be, the remark az a general one, will hold true, with respect to the original jurisdiction of a bishop.

The number of counties in England iz at present forty, and that of the dioceses, twenty four; but the number of counties haz been different at different times; and some changes, both in the civil and ecclesiastical state, hav doubtless, in a course of a thousand years, destroyed the primitiv division. It iz however some proof of my hypothesis, that most of the bishops in England are stil called by the names of counties, or of cities which are shires of themselves; az the bishop of Durham, of Worcester, of London, of Norwich, &c. or by the names of the cheef towns in counties; az bishop of Winchester, of Chichester, &c.

Selden's account of the ancient divisions of the kingdom, confirms this opinion. See Bacon's Selden, ch. 11. The province or jurisdiction of an archbishop, waz prior to the origin of diocesses or parishes. Selden haz given an account of a division of diocesses by archbishop Theodore in the seventh century; by which it appears, that in some instances, a diocese or parish waz one shire or county; and in others, a parochia covered two, three, or more shires: But in almost every instance, the limits of a parish were the limits of a shire or shires. And however strange the reader may think it, the word _church_ and _shire_ are radically the same. The Saxon word waz _cyrick_ or _cyrk_;[78] and the Scotch pronounce and write it _kirk_. It iz, like _shire_, derived from the Saxon _Sciran_, cir, or _seyre_, to divide. The church or kirk waz the ecclesiastical division, answering to shire, and come to signify the jurisdiction of the cathedral church; the primaria ecclesia or mother church; and hence the Saxon term _cyrick sceate_, church scot or fees, paid by the whole diocese.

[78] So it iz spelt in the Saxon laws; but its root waz
probably _circe_, from _sciran_, to divide. _C_ before _i_
and _e_ was in Saxon pronounced _ch_ or neerly; hence _circe_
is _chirche_.

In later times, the original _parochia_ or diocese was divided or extended by the _Mickle-mote_, _Witenagemote_ or national assembly, by advice of the bishops, nobles, and cheef men.

From all I can collect respecting this subject, it appeers probable, that on the first conversion of the Saxons to christianity, each _earle_, _earlederman_, or erl, whoze manor or jurisdiction waz the origin of a county, had hiz clergyman or chaplain to perform divine service. Hiz residence waz probably in the vicinity of the erl; and this waz the origin of the _cathedral_, or mother church, _primaria ecclesia_, to which the tenants of the whole district or erldom afterwards paid tithes. On the first establishment of theze churches, the tenants paid tithes where they choze; but fraud or delay on the part of the tenant, and the encreasing power of the clergy, occasioned a law of king Edgar, about the year 970, commanding all the tithes to be paid to the mother church, to which the parish belonged.[79] This must hav augmented the welth of the cathedral churches, and given them a superior rank in the ecclesiastical state.

[79] Blackstone Com. vol. I, 112. That each shire had its
bishop, seems to be obvious from a law of Edgar, c. 5, where,
respecting the county court, it iz ordered, "celeberrimo huic
conventui episcopus et aldermannus intersunto;" not _unus
episcoporum_, but _the bishop_ and _erl_.

Previous, however, to this period, the _thanes_ or inferior lords, had their chaplains and private chapels; and it waz a rule, that if such chapel had a consecrated cemetery or burying ground belonging to it, the lord might appropriate one third of the tithes to the support of hiz private chaplain. The clerks or bishops who belonged to the cathedral churches, and were the officiating ministers of the erls or princes, at that time the first ranks of noblemen, acquired an influence in proportion to their property and the extent of their jurisdictions. Hence the powers of modern bishops in superintending the clergy of their dioceses. In later times, they acquired large tracts of land, ether by purchase, gift or devise, and in right of their _baronies_ gained a seet among the lords of the kingdom in parliament.

The inferior clergy were multiplied in proportion az the peeple wanted or could support them, and the jurisdiction of an earl's chaplain, being limited originally by his cure of souls, and being founded on a _parrick_ or territory of a lord, afterwards gave name to all the jurisdictions of the inferior clergy. Hence the name of _parish_, as denoting the extent of a parson's[80] ecclesiastical authority.

[80] _Parson_ iz said, by Coke and others, to be derived from
_persona_, because this officer represents the corporation or
church, _vicem seu personam ecclesiæ gerere_. This reezon
seems to be obscure and unsatisfactory. It iz possible the
word may proceed from the same root az _parish_, viz. _par_.

The jurisdiction of a bishop lost the name of parish, parochia, at a very erly period; but stil the subordinate divisions of the ecclesiastical state continued to be regulated by prior civil divisions. For this assertion, we hav an indisputable authority, which confirms my opinion respecting the origin of parishes. "It seems pretty clear and certain," says the learned and elegant Blackstone, Com. vol. I, 114, "that the boundaries of _parishes_ were originally ascertained by thoze of a _manor_ or _manors_; since it very seldom happens that a manor extends itself over more parishes than one, tho there are often many manors in one parish." This iz the present state of facts, for originally the parish, like the modern diocese, covered many manors, or estates of the inferior feudatories.

_Parliament_ iz said to be derived from the French, _parlement_, which iz composed of _parler_, to speak, and _ment_ or _mens_, mind. Cowel tit. _Parliament_.

"Parliament," says Johnson, "parliamentuns, law Latin; parlement, French." Dict. fol. Edit.

"It is called parliament," says Coke Litt. p. 110. Ed. Lond. 1778, "because every member of that court should sincerely and discretely _parler le ment_," (speek hiz mind) "for the general good of the commonwelth; which name it also hath in Scotland; and this name before the conquest waz uzed in the time of Edward the Confessor, William the Conqueror, &c. It waz anciently, before the conquest, called _michel-sinath_,[81] _michel-gemote_; _ealla_, _witena-gemote_; that is to say, the great court or meeting of the king and all the wisemen; sometimes of the king, with the counsel of hiz bishops, nobles and wisest of hiz peeple. This court, the French men call _les estates_; or _l'assemble des estates_. In Germany it is called a diet. For thoze other courts in France that are called _parliaments_, they are but ordinary courts of justice, and az Paulus Jovius affirmeth, were first established with us."

[81] Great synod--great meeting.

The late editor of Cokes Institutes, remarks, in a note on this passage, that the latter part of this etymology iz justly exploded, and apologizes for hiz author by saying, "it iz to be found in preceding authors of eminence." He discards the _ment_, and considers it, not az an essential, but an adventitious part of the word; deeming it sufficient to derive the word from _parler_, to speak. This opinion he receives from Lambard.

Such a definition, with great deference to theze venerable authorities, iz a disgrace to etymology. Coke waz a great lawyer, and Johnson a good Latin and Greek scholar; but neether of them waz versed in the Teutonic language and institutions, where alone we should look for the origin of our laws and the English constitution. Johnson indeed waz a mere compiler of other mens etymologies, and Cowel, Selden, Junius and others from whom he copied, tho deeply lerned, sometimes fell into very whimsical mistakes. I am bold to assert that the English derivation of _parliament_, or _parlement_ from the French _parler_, haz no better authority than a mere whim or notion of theze writers. We might az well derive _parler_ from _parliament_, and both from a _parcel_ of gossips, because they are loquacious.