Chapter VII: Part 7

We say instinctively the _Art_ of Speech; the _Science_ of Music, and the Art of Singing. In the first instance, Art is used for Natural Performance or Nature; but the whole of speech falling within the domain of art or performance, its lowest or natural division still has some claim to the distinction of an art. The first step of this series, Nature, and the third step, Art, repeat each other by overstepping the second, which is Science, as _Do_ is accordant with _Mi_, but disharmonic with _Re_. It is, therefore, from the instinctual perception of this harmony, that Oral Speech, the basis of Language, the true Nature-department of Language, is still denominated the _Art_ of Speech.

Adhering, however, to the Concrete Domain, and seeking our analogies there, oral speech, a Concrete Thing, does not directly correspond with Nature, an Abstract Conception, but with The World, a concrete thing; nor does Music, a Concrete Thing, correspond with Science, an Abstract Conception, but with Man (the Mind-being, Knowledge-being, the Science-being), a concrete thing; nor, again, does Song, a Concrete Thing, correspond with Art, an Abstract Conception, but with Human Product or Doing, a concrete thing. Song is again but the lowest and simple expression for that combination of Music and Oral Expression, aided by Action, to which the Italians, full of instinct for Art, have given the name OPERA, THE WORK _par excellence_, the culmination of Art in Movement and Sound. This word, from the Latin, _opus, operari_, work, to work, connects in idea with the Greek [Greek: poiheô], and the whole with Action and Art. This last relationship accounts beautifully for the fact that the words _poetry_, _poesy_, and _poet_ should be derived from the Greek word [Greek: poiheô], which signifies simply TO DO.

The first threefold division of Language and of The Universe, both brought into a parallelism in the Concrete--the three ascending Stories of each Edifice, so to speak, when compared with each other--appear then as shown in the table below:

_Language._ _The Universe._
3. SONG. 3. HUMAN ACHIEVEMENT.
2. MUSIC. 2. MAN.
1. ORAL SPEECH. 1. THE WORLD.

Oral Speech is the agglomerism of Sound, conceived of as roundish or _in the lump_, as an undifferentiated Oneness or mass; and, when wholly unarticulated, it is the _Bawl_, a mere orthographical variation of _Ball_; that is to say, it is, to the imagination, Globe-shaped, or _World_-shaped. It is the concrete or massive world of Language or Speech.

Music is the _Strain_ or the Abstractism of Sound. _To strain_ means TO DRAW. _Ab-stract_ is from the Latin _ab_, FROM, and _strahere_, TO DRAW. The idea is not here _roundish_, as in the other case, but _elongate_; sound made into a _strain_, a _cord_, or a _string_, equivalent to a _line_, which is the subject of _measure_-ment, by _notes_ (or points) and _intervals_. The line, with its _twoness_ of determination and extremity, has a relation to the number TWO, like that which the _ball_ or _globe_ has to the number ONE. The _line_ is at the same time the type of The Abstract, the Domain of Science, and hence of Science, and of _Knowledge_, and again, in the concrete, of _Man_, the _Knowledge-being_. The _ball_ (bawl) is at the same time the type of The Concrete (_con_, WITH, _crescere_, TO GROW; THE GROWN TOGETHER, or AGGLOMERATE-world), and hence of Nature, and again _in_ The Concrete, of The World, as contrasted with Man.

Song is the _measure of the strain_ and the _mingle of the bawl_ again commingled with each other, in a composite blending of _The Measured_ and _The Free_. As the Composity of that which has for its numerical type Two, with that which has for its numerical type One, the proper numerical type of Song is Three; or thus:

_Language._ _Number._
3. Song, THREE.
2. Music, TWO.
1. Oral Speech, ONE.

These numerical analogues can only be adverted to here, and their meaning may not be very distinctly perceived. Their full exposition and that of their immense importance as principles and guides in the domain of analogy must be treated of elsewhere.

Rhythm is the _measure_ of the _strain_. Music is the _mingled measure_ of _many strains_. Song is the higher mingling of _music_ with the _bawl_ (the phonos, or the material of Oral Speech).

_Measure_ is the analogue of _Science_, and hence Music is another such analogue. _Men_-s, MIND, and _men_-sura, MEASURE, are etymologically cognate words; so the English words MEAN-ing, THE MIND _that is in a thing_, and MEAN, the average or measure, or the dia-_meter_, or through-_measure_ of a thing. Again, the concrete analogue of Science (_Knowledge_, _Mind_, _The Abstract,_ etc.) is, as we have seen, Man. MEN-s, MAN, _hu_-MAN-us, are again, probably, etymologically cognate to _homo_, _hominis_, _hoc men_-s, as _hodie_ is to _hoc_ or _hæc dies_.

The Line or Cord is the instrument of _measuring_, and as such is again the type of Science, as the Ball or Globe is the type of Nature; the Line, the type of _strictness_, _straightness_, _stretchedness_, _exactness_; and the lump or aggregative form, that of Freedom from Constraint, Solution, as of the water-drop, and of Absolute-ness (_ab_, FROM, and _solvere_, TO FREE). THE RELATIVE repeats THE ABSTRACT; and THE ABSOLUTE, in Philosophy, repeats THE CONCRETE. The Relative has for its type _Two_, or _di-termination_ (_dis_ or _di_, _Two_, and _termini_, ENDS); and the Absolute has for its type _One_, [Greek: to hen] of the Greeks. EXISTENCE, embodying The Absolute _and_ The Relative; the _one_ and the _two_; has for its type Three; and the all-sided aspect of Universal Being which distinguishes and yet combines these _three_ aspects of Being, is TRI-UNITY, OR THE THREE IN ONE.

The Trinism, or third story of ascension in the constitution of things, again divides into Two Branches, the first of which accords with Duism (_music_, _line_, _science_, _mind_, _man_), and the second with Unism (_oral speech_, _globe_, _nature_, _world_).

In respect to Language, the division here made distributes Song (as the higher type, including all music) into two great departments; as, 1. COMPOSITION, and 2. PERFORMANCE, or _the Song_as a _Thing_, and _Singing_ as an _Act_. Song as a whole is the analogue in language of the totality of _Human Achievement_, in the distribution of the total Universe, as shown above. The same division applied here distinguishes the _permanent product_ of human activity, the book or the statue, from the performance of man--the action of the author or sculptor. It is the distinction of the Latins between 1. _Res_, and 2. _Res gestæ_.

Dismissing for the present the higher domain of Language, which is Song, we reduce the scope of investigation to the lower and middle divisions, namely: 1. To Oral Speech, and 2. To Music; and, in the distribution of the Universe at large, to the corresponding lower and middle divisions, namely: 1. The World (Nature), and 2. Man (Mind).

Oral Speech, the Nature-department of language, separates, grammatically, into two grand Subdivisions, as follows: 1. Analysis, The Elements of Language, namely, The Alphabetic and Syllabic distribution of Language, culminating in Word-Building;--The Word in Language being THE INDIVIDUAL in that Domain; and, 2. Synthesis, Construction, the Grammatical Domain proper, including the Parts of Speech and their Syntax, or their _putting together_ in a Structure or Lingual Construction.

The first of these is the Domain of the Elementality of Language, and corresponds with and illustrates what Kant denominates QUALITY; as the name of one of the groups of three in his table of the twelve Categories of the Understanding. This group of Quality includes 1. AFFIRMATION; 2. NEGATION; and 3. LIMITATION. By Affirmation is meant the Positive Element or Factor of Being; by Negation, the Negative Element; and by Limitation is meant the Articulation, that is to say, the _jointing_ or _joining_ of the Positive and Negative Elements, in a _seam_ or _ridge_, which is the _existential_ reality, arising from the positive (quasi-negative) and the negative grounds of Being.

The Positive Element or Factor of Oral Speech, the Absolute Reality or 'Affirmation' of Language, is Vocal Utterance, or, specifically, the kind of Sound called VOWEL.

The Negative Element or Factor of Oral Speech, the 'Negation' of Kant, as illustrated in the Speech Domain, is SILENCE; the Silences or Intervals of Rest which intervene between Sounds (and, by repetition, between Syllables, Words, Sentences, and the still larger divisions of Speech).

The Limitational Element of Oral Speech is CONSONANTISM, or, specifically, the Consonant Sounds, which for that reason are otherwise denominated Articulations, or _jointings_; as they are the breaks of the otherwise continuous vocal utterance of Vowel Sound, and, at the same time, the joinings between the fragments of Vowel Sound, namely, the Vowels, and the surrounding and intervening medium of Silence. The Consonants thus become, in a sense, the Bony Structure, or Skeleton of Speech, the most prominent part, that which furnishes the fossil remains of Language, which are investigated by the Comparative Philologists.

Sound, the Positive Element or Factor, the Affirmation, the Eternal Yea, the Absolute _Reality_, is the SOMETHING of Speech.

Silence, the Negative Element or Factor, the Negation, the Eternal Nay, the Absolute Unreality, is the NOTHING of Speech.

Articulate Sound, the Resultant Element, the _Limitation_ or Articulation, the Eternal Transition, the Arriving and Departing, is the EXISTENTIAL REALITY, which comes up between and out of the Absolute Vocality (quasi-negative), and the Absolute Silence.

But the Vowel Absolute, the continuous, unbroken, unarticulated, undifferentiated, monotonous Vowel-Sound, would be precisely equivalent to Silence. This, then, illustrates the famous fundamental aphorism of the Philosophy of Hegel: SOMETHING = (equal to) NOTHING; and the seemingly absurd Hegelian affirmation that the _real Something_ is the resultant of the conjunction of two Nothings.

What Kant denominates Quality, would be, for some uses, better denominated Elementism or Elementality, and the Domain in which this principle dominates might then be called the Elementismus of such larger Domain as may be under consideration. Thus the Elementismus (or Elementary Domain) of Language would include _Sounds_, or _the Alphabet_, _Syllables_, and _Root-Words_. These are three _powers_ or gradations of the Roots of Language. This same domain might therefore be called the Radicismus or Root-Domain of Language. Typically, one-letter, two-letter, and three-letter roots, again, represent these three powers.

The Elementismus or Radicismus of the Universe, correspondential with that of Language, consists of the Metaphysical, the Scientific, and the Descriptive Principles of Being. The parallelism is exhibited throughout in the following table:

_Language_. _Universe_.

_3d Power_. ROOT-WORDS 3. DESCRIPTIVE GENERALIZATIONS.
(Three-letter Syllables). (Averages).
_2d Power_. SYLLABLES 2. SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES.
(Two-letter Syllables). (Force, Attraction, etc.)
{3. ARTICULATIONS. {3. CATEGORIES.
_1st Power_. THE ALPHABET {2. SILENCE. 1. METAPHYSICAL PRINCIPLES. {2. NOTHING.
(One-letter Syllables). {1. SOUND. {1. SOMETHING.

It results from this table that the deep Metaphysical Domain, wherein Aristotle and Kant were laboring to categorize the Universe, is the Alphabetic Domain of Universal Being; and that their profound effort was, so to speak, to discover The Alphabet of the Universe. It also appears that the Syllabarium of the Universe, and typically the open two-letter syllables of Language, as _bi, be, ba_, correspond as analogues with the Physical Principles which lie at the basis of the Sciences; and finally, that the completed Root-Words, typically the closed three-letter syllables, or usual monosyllabic root-words, as _min, men, man_, correspond with the descriptive generalizations or general averages of Natural Science, as _Universe itself, Matter, Mind, Movement_, etc.

These analogies need further elaboration and confirmation to render them perfectly clear and to establish them beyond cavil--such as space here does not admit of. Let us hurry on, therefore, to the _Relational_ or Constructive Domains of Language and the Universe, where the analogies are more obvious.

The second of Kant's groups of Categories, in the order in which it is most appropriate now to consider them, he denominates RELATION. Relation is _that which intervenes between the_ PARTS _of a_ WHOLE.

_Prepositions_ are especially defined in Grammar as words denoting _relations_. Our attention is thus turned in the Domain of Language to the _Parts_ of Speech; and to the Syntax (putting together), or Construction of these Parts into the wholeness of Discourse. This is more specifically the Department of Grammar. Conjointly these are what may be denominated the Relationismus of Language. This is the Domain immediately above the Elementismus. In the same way the division of the human body or any other object into Parts, Limbs, Members, etc., and the recombination of these into a structural whole, arises in the scale of creation above the Domain of Elements (Ultimate, Proximate, Chemical, etc.), this last embracing only the _qualitative_ nature of the _substances_ entering into the structure. In the Universe at large, therefore, this Relational Domain is that in which we shall find Things, Properties, Actions, and, specifically, the Relations between such, and their Combinations into Structures and Departments, Branches, or Limbs of Being, and finally into the total Universe itself, which is the analogue of the totality of Language.

Relation has a threefold aspect: first, in respect to Space; second, in respect to Time; and third, in respect to _Instance_ or Present Being, the conjunction of the _Here_ and the _Now_.

The first of these aspects subdivides into what Kant denominates, 1. SUBSTANCE, and 2. INHERENCE.

The second of these aspects subdivides into what Kant denominates, 1. CAUSE, and 2. DEPENDENCE.

The third of these aspects of Relation Kant sums up in the term RECIPROCAL ACTION.

Commencing with the first of these three subdivisions of Relation, and making our application within the Domain of Language, it is obvious that it refers to the Substantive and Adjective region of Grammar; Substance relating to Substantives, and Inherence (or Attributes) to Adjectives; or otherwise stated, thus:

SUBSTANTIVES = THINGS (= Substance.--_Kant_).

ADJECTIVES = PROPERTIES (= Inherence.--_Kant_).

The one Thing inclusive of all minor Things is the Universe. The Universe as Thing, or the concrete domain of Being, subdivides into the world of Things proper as distinguished from the Personal world, or the Human world or Man. This first division of the _substantive_ Universe corresponds with the first grand grammatical division of Nouns Substantive into 1. Common Nouns Substantive, and 2. Proper Nouns Substantive.

Common Nouns Substantive correspond with Things proper, not aspiring to the rank of Personality; Things put in contrast with Persons; Things in that sense in which we speak of a person derogatorily as _a mere thing_; hence, _common_ or _ordinary_, and as a common, undistinguished herd of objects, only named and discriminated by the class-name of the class of objects to which they belong.

Proper Nouns Substantive are the individual and distinctive names of Men, Women, and Children. Hence they belong to and correspond with the domain of Personality, or to that of Man as against the world of mere Things. Some objects, lower in the scale of Being than man, are treated with that respect and consideration which ordinarily attach to Human Beings, and are then dignified by applying to them Proper Names. These are especially the Domestic Animals immediately associated with man; Mountains, Rivers, Lakes, etc. Restated, this discrimination is as follows:

1. COMMON NOUNS SUBSTANTIVE = THINGS, THE WORLD.

2. PROPER NOUNS SUBSTANTIVE = PERSONALITY, MAN.

It is to be borne in mind that, as a minor proportion of mere Things are raised to the dignity of wearing Proper Names, so, on the other hand, Men, though appropriately distinguished by prenomens and cognomens, may also sink to the character of Things, and be mentioned by class-names. Thus it is that throughout Nature one domain overlaps another domain, and all of our discriminations, though made in terms as if absolute, signify, in fact, merely the _preponderance_; thus, when we say, that Proper Names apply to the Human Domain, that is true _in preponderance_, but not absolutely or exclusively; and when we say that Common Names apply to Things below Persons, the statement is true _in preponderance_, but not absolutely or exclusively.

Proper Names--The Human World in Language--are, in the next place, distinguished by Gender, as that word itself is distinguished by Sex. By the principle of Overlapping, above explained, this distinction of Gender or Sex descends in a minor degree into the Thing World; in a large degree to the Animal World below man: in less degree to the Vegetable World; and in the least degree to the Mineral and Abstract World. But characteristically and predominatingly, Sex is predicated of Humanity, where it is developed in its highest perfection; and in the same degree Gender in Grammar is, in predominance, confined to the Proper Nouns Substantive. Masculine and Feminine are the only Proper Genders. Neuter Gender means of _neither_ Gender, and includes the great mass of Common Nouns, or the Thing World, as distinguished from Personality.

Reversing the order, and resuming the above discriminations in the two domains, Language and the Universe, they are as follows:

_Language. Universe._

{MASCULINE. {MALE.
PROPER-NOUN-DOM{ PERSON-DOM{
{Feminine. {Female.

COMMON-NOUN-DOM. THING-DOM.

Again, in this Concrete World, the world of Persons and Things, Number reappears, and guides the next great Grammatical division of Nouns Substantive; and the ruling numbers are, again, One, Two, Three.

The Number One corresponds with the Singular Number in Grammar, and with the Individual or Single Person (or Thing) in the Universe at large. The Number Two corresponds with the Dual Number in Grammar, and with the Couple or Pair in the World of Persons (and Things); and finally the Number Three corresponds with the Plural Number in Grammar and with Society or the many among Persons (and Things); or in tabular form, thus:

1. SINGULAR NUMBER, THE NUMBER ONE (1).

2. DUAL NUMBER, THE NUMBER TWO (2).

3. PLURAL NUMBER, THE NUMBER THREE (3).

The Number Three, as the first Plural Number above the Dual, is the Head and Type of Plurality in the grammatical discrimination, and stands representatively for all Plurality.

_One_, _Two,_ and _Three_, are the Representative Numbers and Heads of the whole Cardinal Series of Number.

_First_, _Second_, and _Third_ are the corresponding Representatives and Heads of the Corresponding Ordinal Series of Number. These latter numerals find _their_ representation, grammatically, in the next Grand Grammatical Distribution of the Proper Nouns Substantive, namely, PERSON, so called, or, specifically, the

1st PERSON,
2d PERSON, and
3d PERSON (of Proper Nouns).

This distribution represents properly the Rank or Degree of Persons in the Hierarchy of Personality; the Ego ranking _naturally_ as 'Number One.' Deference or Grace teaches us afterward to defer to the personality of others, and _converts_ our primitive notions of rank into opposites, in a way which is indicated by the _honorific_ use of _Thou_ in addressing the Supreme, etc.

This idea of Personal Rank, the Hierarchical Ascension of Individuality or Personality in Society, abstracted from the particular Individuals, and rendered purely official, becomes nominally a new Part of Speech, and is the whole, substantially, of what we denominate the _Pronouns_.

The Pronoun, as a Part of Speech, is, therefore, the Analogue, within the Lingual Domain, of The State or the Constitution, governmentally, of Human Society, the ascending and descending rank of individuals in the social organization, the Heraldic Schedule of Man.

Finally we arrive at the consideration of the _Casus_ or _Case_ of Nouns Substantive.

The _Accidents_ of Life or Being, the occasional _states_ of Men or Things, as acting or being acted upon, or simply as _related_ to each other in Space, or otherwise, are here represented. It is this which is meant by CASE, from the Latin _casus_, itself from the Latin _cadere_, TO FALL, or to FALL OUT or HAPPEN. In the old Grammars, the Cases of the Nouns are denominated _Accidents_. Ac-_cid_-ent, is from _ad_, TO, and _cadere_ (cid), TO FALL; and the same root with _ob_ (_oc_), gives us OC-CAS-ion, OC-CAS-_ionally_, etc.

The Accidents of Being are a special kind of _Inherence_ to the _Substance_ of Being; the _Relational_ kind _par excellence_, as distinguished from the _Qualitative_ kind; which last is denoted by the proper Adjectives. The Oblique Case of a Noun Substantive, whether formed by an Inflexion or by a Preposition, is therefore nothing else than a special kind of Adjective, destitute of the property of Comparison, because it denotes the Accident instead of the Quality of Being, and because Accidents or Relations between Things do not vary by degrees of Intensity as Qualities do.

The above description of the Cases of Nouns applies especially to the Oblique Cases; that is to say, to all except the Nominative Case.

The Nominative Case is itself susceptible of being regarded as an Accident; but its more important office is that of the SUBJECT of the Proposition, which takes it out of the minor category of an accident, or at least subordinates this latter view of its character.

The Accidents of Being in the Universe at large are therefore the analogues of the oblique cases of Nouns Substantive in the Domain of Language; the Nominative Case representing, on the contrary, the central figure in the particular member of discourse, and that which the accidents or _falls_ (_casus_) are perceived to relate to or affect.

Substantives and Adjectives were both formerly included under the term Nouns or Names; and we have still to distinguish, when they are under special consideration, as they are here, Nouns Substantive, and Nouns Adjective.

By regarding all the Oblique Cases of Nouns Substantive as a species or variety of Nouns Adjective, and so classifying them along with the Adjectives proper, _the Nominative Case_ alone remains to represent _the Substantive_, in the higher and exclusive sense of the term. This is then, at the same time, _The Subject_. The terms employed to designate them sufficiently indicate this identity: _Substantive_, from _sub_, UNDER, and _stans_, STANDING; and _Subject_, from _SUB_, UNDER, and _jectus_, THROWN or CAST. These are, therefore, nearly etymological equivalents.

Before passing to the consideration of the Subject and the Proposition, let us finish with the Nouns Adjective, to which we have only given an incidental attention.

These are the representatives of Incidence or Attribution; and correspond to the entire adjectivity pertaining to the substantiality of the real or concrete Universe; both Substance and Incidence falling as parts of one domain within the larger domain of RELATION, which in Language is the domain of Grammar proper, including Etymology and Syntax.

It may now be shown that this Adjective World is so much a world by itself that Kant's _namings_ for the _four_ groups of the Categories of the Understanding, which we are here enlarging to be the Categories of All Being, are precisely the most appropriate namings for the subdivisions of the Adjective World. These are:

1. Adjectives of QUALITY.
2. Adjectives of RELATION.
3. Adjectives of QUANTITY.
4. Adjectives of MODE.

1. Adjectives of Quality are those which designate the qualities of things as _good_ or _bad_, etc. They are susceptible of three Degrees of Comparison; and are, without due consideration, usually regarded by Grammarians as if they constituted the whole of the Adjective World.

2. Adjectives of Relation are, as we have seen, (chiefly) the Oblique Cases of the Noun Substantive. They admit of no Degrees of Comparison. These have not heretofore been regarded as Adjectives; but broadly and philosophically considered, they are so.

3. Adjectives of Quantity are the Numerals, which always instinctively find their way among the Adjectives in the Grammar Books, without their presence there being duly accounted for, that part of speech having been usually defined as relating exclusively to the _Quality_ of Things. These numeral Adjectives subdivide into Ordinal Numerals and Cardinal Numerals; and, like Adjectives of Relation, they are not susceptible of being varied by the Degrees of Comparison.

4. Adjectives of Mode relate to the Conditions of Existence, as _necessary_ and _unnecessary_, _important_ and _unimportant_, etc. They are somewhat ambiguous as to their susceptibility to comparison. It is over this class of Adjectives that the Grammarians dispute. If a thing is _necessary_, then, it is said, it cannot be _more necessary_, or _most necessary_, the Positive Case being itself Absolute or Superlative. In some cases this rule is not so clear, and there is doubt whether it is proper to apply the signs of Comparison or not. We may correctly say _more important_ and _most important_; and on the whole the Adjectives of Mode, or Modal Adjectives, are to be classed as capable of Comparison.

These four classes of Adjectives again classify in respect to their usual susceptibility to comparison, as follows:

Adjectives of Quality, }
Adjectives of Mode } Capable of Comparison.
Adjectives of Quantity, } Incapable of Comparison.
Adjectives of Relation, }

The _Principle_ of Comparison is itself _hierarchical_, or pertaining to gradation or rank divinely ordained; or as the mere scientist might prefer to say, naturally existent. It repeats, therefore, in an echo, or correspondentially, THE PERSON (First, Second, Third) of Nouns Substantive and Pronouns; and has relation to the Three Heads of the Ordinal Series of Number, 1st, 2d, 3d; as THE NUMBER of Nouns Substantive (Singular, Dual, and Plural) has relation to the Three Heads of the Cardinal Series of Number, 1, 2, 3.

The Qualities, the Relations, the Numerical Character, and the Modal Condition of Things, are conjointly an Adjunct World to the Real World of Persons and Things, in the Universe at Large; and taken collectively, it is that domain or aspect of the total Universe which is the scientific echo to or analogue of the Part of Speech called Adjective in the Grammar of Language. The Substantivity and the Adjectivity, taken again collectively with each other, are the totality of the _Concrete_ Universe considered in a state of Rest. The _Movement_ of the Universe is expressed by the verbal department of Language, and will receive our subsequent attention. It is, therefore, from within this department that our concrete analogues of the larger Abstractions of the Universe, Nature, Science, and Art, namely, The World, Man, and the Product of Man's labor, were taken. They belong to the Substantivity (Kant's Substance) of the Universe, and their qualities, relations, number, and mode of being belong to the Adjectivity of the Universe (Kant's Inherence); and these two departments of Universal Being or of the possible aspects of Universal Being are the Scientific Analogues, in the Universe at large, of Nouns Substantive and Nouns Adjective, in the Grammar Department of the total distribution of the little Universe of Language; which is the point to be here specially illustrated and insisted upon.

We pass now to the consideration of the Verb and Participle, related to Movement. The Great Noun Class of Words, including the Nominative Noun Substantive, not yet brought into action and made to functionate as Subject or Agent, together with the whole Adjective Family of Words as above defined, is _without Action_. These words, and correspondentially, the Things and their Attributes which they represent in the Universe at large, are _static_ or _immovable_. The Universe, viewed in the light of them solely, is a Universe _at rest_, or, as it were, _arrested_ in its progression through Time, and existing only in Space; _for_ TIME _has relation to_ MOTION, _as_ SPACE _has relation to_ POSITION _or_ REST. This aspect of the Universe or of Language may therefore be appropriately denominated _Statoid_ (or Spaceoid). The relations between the Parts of this Aspect, denoted by the Prepositions and Conjunctions, are inert or _static_ relations, concerning predominantly Position in Space, as _above_, _below_, etc.

When the Substantive proper (the Nominative Case) passes over and becomes functionally a SUBJECT (we will consider, first, the case where the Verb is Active Transitive, and the Subject therefore an Agent), we pass from _Statism_ to _Motism_; or from Rest to Movement. This is, at the same time, to pass from the Domain or Kingdom of _Space_ to the Kingdom or Domain of _Time_ (or Tense).

Noun-dom (in its largest extension, including Nouns Substantive and Nouns Adjective, together with their Words of Relation, Prepositions and Conjunctions) constitutes, therefore, the STATISMUS (or Domain of the Principle of Rest) within the RELATIONISMUS (or Domain of Parts and their Construction, or _Syntaxis_ into a whole) of the larger Domain of Language, which might then be properly denominated the Linguismus of the Universe. (Every new Science has to have its new nomenclature. Let the reader not be repelled, therefore, by these innovations upon the speech usages of our Language; their great convenience, and their actual necessity even for the right discussion of the subject, furnishing their sufficient apology.)

To determine what the limits of the corresponding Domain are in the Universe at large, and its proper technical designation, it is only necessary to go back upon the analogues already indicated. We have, then, the Statismus of the Relationismus of the Universe; which is the Structural Universe, viewed in respect to the relationship between the parts and the whole, and as if arrested in Space, or, what is the same thing, abstracted from Movement in Time.

In going over to the new Domain in Language,--the Grammar of the Verb and Participle,--we pass then, technically speaking, to the MOTISMUS of the RELATIONISMUS of Language; and in going over to the corresponding Domain of the Universe at large, we pass to the MOTISMUS of the RELATIONISMUS of the _Universe_, in which action and the relations between actions are concerned.

Since Motion and Action involve the idea of Force or Power, for which the Greek word is _dynamis_, furnishing the English words _Dynamic_ and _Dynamics_, our Philosophers have chosen the distinction _Static_ and _Dynamic_, instead of _Static_ and _Motic_, the true distinction, and have in that way obscured and disguised from themselves even the fundamental and all-important relationship of these two great Aspects of Being, with the two great negative Grounds or Containers of all Being; _namely, with_ SPACE _and with_ TIME _respectively_.

It is here, in the Domain of Movement and Time, the Motismus of Language, and especially of Grammar,--the Relationismus of Language,--that the Grand Lingual Illustration or Type of the Second Subdivision of Kant's Group of Relation occurs;--the subdivision which he _should_ have denominated _Tempic_, as distinguished from the former Subdivision (of Substance and Inherence), which _should_ then have been called _Spacic_.

This Tempic Sub-Group of Relation again subdivides, as already stated, into 1. CAUSE, and 2. DEPENDENCE.

The Subject of a Proposition, in the Active Voice, which is the Typical or Direct Expression of Action, is the AGENT or _Actor_ in the performance of the given Action. To be an agent is _to act_; and _to act_ is to exhibit an effect, the _Cause_ of which resides in the Agent. _Agent_ and _Cause_ are thus identified. In other words, the Nominative Case, in the Active Transitive Locution, is the type and illustration of the Sub-Category, _Cause_, in the Group of Relation, as conceived by the great German metaphysician. His Correlative Sub-Category, _Dependence_, is the Action itself, resulting from the Activity of the Agent, and expressed by the Verb and _its_ dependencies.

_The Cause_ and _Dependence_ of Kant, as a Sub-Group of Relation, are therefore, when translated into their typical expression in Language, simply _The Nominative_ and _The Verb_; and belong to the Domain of Movement, and hence to that of Time.

It is only, however, when the Verb is Active that the Nominative is Agent or Cause. In the Passive Locution or Voice, a Conversion into Opposites occurs;--the Direct is exchanged for the Inverse Order of the Action. The Nominative then names the Object which receives, suffers, or endures the _force of the Action_, and the Agent is then thrown into the Category of an Accident, and expressed in an Oblique Case; thus, _Charles is struck by John_.

The term _Subject_, applied to the Nominative Case, is made, by a happy _équivoque_, to cover both these aspects; that in which the Nominative is Agent or Cause, and that in which it is not so. It is only in the latter instance that it is really or literally a _subject_, that is to say, subjected to, or made to suffer the force of the action of the Verb; but _action_ is a _reaction_ from such invasion or infliction of suffering or impression upon the person (or thing); and the term _Subject_, changing its meaning, accompanies the person _nominated_ or named by the Nominative Case over into this new positive relation to the action. It is interesting to observe that precisely the same doubleness of meaning arises, in the same way, in respect to the word _Passion_, from Latin _patior_, to suffer. When we speak of the _passion_ of Christ, we retain the primitive and etymological meaning of the word; but, ordinarily, _passion_ means just the opposite; that violent _reaction_ of the feeling side of the mind from _Impression_ (or passion in the first sense), which is nearly allied to _Rage_.

Intermediate between the Active and the Passive Locutions is a compound Active and Reactive state--the action put forth by the agent, and yet terminating upon himself--which is expressed lingually by what is appropriately called in Greek the Middle Voice (Sanscrit, _At mane pada_), and in our modern Grammars, as the French, The Reflective Verb.

This last, the Reflective or Reciprocal Locution, is the grammatical type and illustration of Kant's third subdivision of the Group of Relation, that, namely, which he denominates RECIPROCAL ACTION.

The correspondences between Language and the Universe at large are here too obvious to require to be enlarged or insisted upon. The Active Voice in Grammar repeats the World of Direct Actions; the Passive Voice, the World of Inverse Actions; and the Middle Voice the World of Reciprocal Actions, in the Universe at large. The Nominative Case (in the first and leading of these Locutions) is the Analogue of Cause, and the Verb, of Dependence, or the Chain of Effects resulting from the Cause.

The I, the Me, the EGO, as Subject, in the domain of Philosophy, is first Subject (-ed) under Impression from the world without, and afterward becomes Cause (in Expression); and the term Subject has here, therefore, precisely the same ambiguity as in Grammar, and stands contrasted in the same way with the word Object; the Accusative Case of the old Grammarians being now called the _Objective_ Case, and denoting that upon which the force of the (direct) action is expended.

The Middle Voice becomes, by an elision, the Neuter Verb. I walk, means, I walk _myself_. Neuter Verbs fall, then, into the Category of Reciprocal Action.

The Typical Neuter Verb, the Typical Verb, in fine, of all verbs, is the Substantive or Copula Verb TO BE, the Verb of Existence or Being. _I am_, means, I am _myself_, or, I keep or hold myself in being.

In strictness, the verb _to be_ is the ONLY VERB. Every other Verb is capable of Solution into this one, accompanied by a Participle; thus, _I walk_, becomes, _I am_ WALKING, etc.

By this analysis, the Verb, as such, falls back among words of Relation, or mere Connectives. It may then be classed with Prepositions and Conjunctions; its office of Connection being still peculiar, however, namely, to intervene between the Subject and the Predicate. Participles, into which all other verbs than this _Copula_, are so resolved, then fall back in like manner into the Class of Adjectives. The Tempic and Motic Word-Kingdom is thus carried back to its dependence upon the Spacic and Static Word-Kingdom, as basis; in the same manner as, in Nature, Time and Motion have Space and Rest for their perpetual background.

Reduced to this degree of simplicity, there are but three Parts of Speech: 1. Substantives; 2. Attributes; and 3. Words of Relation; which correspond with 1. Things; 2. Properties of Things; and 3. The Interrelationship of Things, of Properties, and of Things and their Properties, in the Universe at large.

The Adverb has not been mentioned. Analysis reduces it in every instance to an Oblique Case of the Substantive, or, what is the same thing, to a Substantive governed by a Preposition; and hence, by a second transfer, as shown above, to the class of Adjectives of Relation: thus, _happily_ means _in a happy manner_; _now_ means _in the present time_, etc.

In the Grammatical Motismus the Three Tenses,--for there are but three strictly, or in the first great natural Division of Time,--namely, the Past, the Present, and the Future, correspond with the Grand Three-fold Division of The Tempismus, the Universal Ongoing or Procession of Events, the _Grandis Ordo Naturæ;_ namely, the Past, the Present, and the Future, as the Three-fold Aspect of Time and of the Universe of _Res Gestæ_, or Things Done, and Contained in Time, as distinguished from the other equal Aspect of the total Universe, namely, the Static Expansion of the Universe in Space.

Mode, which is subsequently developed in Music as a Distinct Grouping of Categories, finds here, in the domain of Relation, a subordinate development, in connection with the Verb.

Kant's Subdivision of Mode, as a group of Categories is, 1. POSSIBILITY and IMPOSSIBILITY; 2. BEING and NOT-BEING; and 3. NECESSITY and ACCIDENCE.

It is obvious that POSSIBILITY is that Category which is expressed grammatically by the _Potential_ Mode (from _potentia_, POWER, POSSIBILITY); otherwise called the Conditional Mode. _I should do so and so if_--The Negative Form of this Mode expresses IMPOSSIBILITY: _I should or could not do so and so unless_, etc.

BEING and NOT-BEING, direct Assertion and Denial, find their grammatical representation in the Indicative Mode: _I do_ or _I do not_; and in an _Un-fin-it-ed_ or _In-defi-nite_ way, as a mere naming of the idea, in The Infinitive Mode, _to do_, etc.

NECESSITY and ACCIDENCE are expressed in the Imperative Mode for the former and in the Subjunctive Mode for the latter. _Necessary_ and _Imperative_ are synonymes. To command absolutely, is _to require_, and _The Required_ or _The Requisite_ is again _The Necessary_.

_Accidence_ is that which is _under a condition, sub-joined, Sub-junctive_; which may or may not happen, hence introduced by an _if_, equal to _gif_, _give_, _grant_, _provided it so happen_.

ELEMENTALITY (Kant's QUALITY of Being) reappears in this domain of Relation in Connection with the Verb: AFFIRMATION, in the Affirmative Propositions, as, _I love_; NEGATION, in Negative Propositions, as, _I do not Love_; and Limitation, _wavering as between two_, in the Dubitative or Questioning Forms of the Proposition, as, _Do I love? Do I not love?_ The Celtic tongues have special modal forms to express these modifications of the Verb.

NUMBER, the remaining one of Kant's Groups of the Categories, finds also its minor representative in this domain in the Numbers, Singular, Dual, and Plural, incorporated into the Conjugation of the Verb. This leads us to the consideration of Grammatical Agreement and Government; carries us over into Syntax, Prosody, Logic, and Rhetoric; back to Lexicology, the domain of the Dictionary or mere Vocabulary in Language; and thence upward to Music, and finally again to Song, the culmination of Speech.

The subject grows upon us, and it is impossible to complete it in a single paper.

The Portions of Language which we have been considering belong to the two Departments: 1. ELEMENTISMUS (Kant's QUALITY), and 2. RELATION (Grammar more properly). The treatment of these is not fully exhausted, and must be recurred to hereafter.

The two remaining ones of Kant's Groups of the Categories of the Understanding (here extended to be the Categories of all Being) are, 3. QUANTITY, and 4. MODE. The proper domain of these two is Music. The mere mention of the musical terms Unison, Discord (duism, diversity), the Spirit of One and the Spirit of Two; and of the Major and the Minor Mode, suggest QUANTITY and MODALITY as the reigning principles in that domain. The appearance of Number and Mode in the domain of Relation (Grammar), is, as already stated, a subordinate one, and has respect to the principle of OVERLAPPING, already adverted to, by which all the domains of Nature are _intricated_ or _con-creted_ with each other.

QUANTITY and MODE, in their own independent and separate development, will, therefore, be the special subjects of a subsequent treatment.

APHORISMS.--NO. VI.

Mind is a thing that we partly have by nature, and partly have to create by mental discipline and exercise. Or, as Horace says:

'Ego nec studium sine divite vena,
Nec rude quid prosit video ingenium.'

_De Arte Poetica_, 409, 410.

In English:

'What can our studies yield, where mind is weak;
Or what a genius do, that's not with discipline prepared?'

Nor is it yet clear, on which, supposing a well-organized and healthy body, most will depend--upon the native endowment, or upon the labor of developing and applying the inborn power.

Distinguishing, however, between genius and talent, we may safely admit that no discipline, without 'the gift and faculty divine,' will produce the one; and hold that well-directed industry, in almost any case of a naturally sound mind, will surely develop the other. The half-made and often ill-tutored efforts of the usual processes of learning, are not to be allowed a decisive voice against the supposition that vigorous mental life might be the common portion of educated men.

AN ARMY: ITS ORGANIZATION AND MOVEMENTS.

The immense military operations of our civil war have familiarized, to a considerable extent, not only those connected with the armies, but the people generally with the systems on which military forces are organized and the methods of conducting war. Much has been learned in the past three years, and much accomplished in the improvement of tactics, internal organization, and the construction of all kinds of material. Civilians, who were well read in the history of former wars, and even professional military officers, were comparatively ignorant of all the numerous details necessarily incident to the formation and movement of armies. On account of the deficiency of practical information on these matters, the difficulties which arose at the commencement of the war, were, as it is well known, immense; but they were overcome with a celerity and energy absolutely unparalleled in the history of the world, and to-day we are able to assure ourselves with justifiable pride that in all essential particulars our armies are fully and properly organized, equipped, and provided for. We propose to exhibit in a few articles the methods by which these results have been accomplished--to present to readers generally the system of organization and the principles of operation existing in our armies--giving them such information as can be obtained only from actual thorough acquaintance with military life, or extended perusal of works on military art, as now understood among the leading civilized nations.

That such information would be desirable, we were led to believe from the surprise expressed by an intelligent friend at the definition given him of the phrase 'line of battle.' He was greatly astonished on learning that battles are fought, mostly, by lines of only two ranks in depth. The history of the 'line of battle' is of great interest, and indeed contains an exposition of the principles on which a great portion of modern warfare is founded. While the chief principles of strategy, of the movement of armies, of attack and defence, and to some extent of tactics, are the same now as in the earliest ages, the mode of arraying men for battle has undergone an entire change, attributable to the improvement in the weapons of warfare. We are not superior to the ancients so much in the science of war, as in the character of our arms. They undoubtedly fought in the manner most appropriate to the means which they possessed. The great change which has taken place in the method of battle, consists chiefly in this--that formerly men were arrayed in masses, now in lines. The Grecian phalanx was composed of 32,000 men arranged as follows: 16,000 spearmen placed in sixteen ranks of a thousand men each, forming the centre; on each wing, 4,000 light spearmen in eight ranks; 4,000 men armed with bows and slings, who performed the part of skirmishers; 4,000 cavalry. The Roman legion contained 4,500 men, of which 1,200 were light infantry or skirmishers armed with bows and slings. The main body consisted of 1,200 spearmen, who were formed into ten rectangular bodies of twelve men front by ten deep; behind them were ten other rectangles of the second line; and behind these a third line of 600 in rectangles of six men front by ten deep. To the legion was attached 300 cavalry.

In the middle ages, infantry was considered of little importance, the combat being principally among the knights and cavaliers. The introduction of gunpowder caused a change in the method of fighting, but it was effected gradually. For a long time only clumsy cannon were used, which, however, made great havoc among the formations in mass still retained. Rude arquebuses were then introduced, and improvements made from time to time; but even so late as the 17th century the ancient arms were retained in a large proportion. They did not disappear entirely until the invention of the bayonet in the 18th century. This contributed as much as the use of firearms to change the formations of battle. In the 16th century the number of ranks had been reduced from ten to six; at the end of the reign of Louis XIV. the number was four; Frederick the Great reduced it to three. With this number the wars of the French Republic and Empire were conducted, until at Leipsic, in 1813, Napoleon's army being greatly diminished, he directed the formation in two ranks, saying that the enemy being accustomed to see it in three, and not aware of the change, would be deceived in regard to its numbers. He stated also that the fire of the rear rank was dangerous to those in front, and that there was no reason for the triple formation. In this judgment military authorities have since concurred, and the two-rank formation is almost universally adopted. Russia is the only civilized power which places men in masses on the battle field. Formations in column are used when necessary to carry a particular local position, even at a great expenditure of life. But the usual mode of combat is that adopted by Napoleon. Our battles have been almost universally fought in this manner. The rebels have probably used the formation in column more frequently than the Northern troops. The non-military reader can easily perceive that formations in mass are more subject to loss from the fire of artillery and from that of small arms even at considerable distances, and are less able to deliver their own fire.

Our old regular army consisted of ten regiments of infantry, two of cavalry, two of dragoons, and one of mounted rifles, of ten companies each, and four artillery regiments of twelve companies each. Two companies each of the latter served as light artillery--the companies alternating in this service. There was also a battalion of engineers.

At the commencement of the war our force of light artillery was very inadequate, and rifled ordnance had scarcely been introduced. Our present immense force of the former has been almost entirely created since the commencement of the war; the splendid achievements in rifled artillery have been entirely accomplished within the last three years. Although it had been applied some years previously in Europe, it was not formally introduced into our service until needed to assist in suppressing the gigantic rebellion. The Ordnance Department had, however, given attention to the matter, and boards of officers were engaged in making experiments. A report had been made that 'the era of smooth-bore field artillery has passed away, and the period of the adoption of rifled cannon, for siege and garrison service, is not remote. The superiority of elongated projectiles, whether solid or hollow, with the rifle rotation, as regards economy of ammunition, extent of range, and uniformity and accuracy of effect, over the present system, is decided and unquestionable.'[A] We shall see, in discussing artillery, how far these expectations have been realized.

The regular army was increased in 1861 by the addition of nine regiments of infantry, one of cavalry, and one of artillery. The Mounted Rifles were changed into the 3d Cavalry, and the two dragoon regiments into the 1st and 2d Cavalry. The old 1st and 2d Cavalry became the 4th and 5th. All cavalry regiments have now twelve companies, and the new infantry regiments are formed on the latest French system of three battalions, of eight companies each, with a colonel, lieutenant-colonel, and three majors. Each of the 24 companies has 82 privates.

[Footnote A: Scott's _Military Dictionary_.]

The old regular army comprised, when full, about 18,000 officers and men. As increased, the total complement is over 43,600, including five major-generals, nine brigadier-generals, thirty-three aides-de-camp, besides the field officers of the various regiments and the company officers. In addition to these officers (but included in the aggregate above given) are the various staff departments, as follows:

_Adjutant-Generals._--1 brigadier-general, 2 colonels, 4
lieutenant-colonels, 13 majors.

_Judge-Advocates._--1 colonel.

_Inspector Generals._--14 colonels, 5 majors.

_Signal Corps._--1 colonel, 1 lieutenant-colonel, 2 majors.

_Quartermaster's Department._--1 brigadier-general, 3 colonels, 4
lieutenant-colonels, 11 majors, 48 captains, 12 military
storekeepers.

_Subsistence Department._--1 brigadier-general, 2 colonels, 2
lieutenant-colonels, 8 majors, 16 captains.

_Medical Department._--1 brigadier-general, 2 colonels, 16
lieutenant-colonels, 50 majors, 5 captains, 109 first lieutenants,
6 storekeepers, 119 hospital chaplains, 70 medical cadets.

_Pay Department._--1 colonel, 2 lieutenant-colonels, 25 majors.

_Corps of Engineers._--1 brigadier-general, 4 colonels, 10
lieutenant-colonels, 20 majors, 30 captains, 30 first lieutenants,
10 second lieutenants. The battalion of engineers comprises a total
of 805.

_Ordnance Department._--1 brigadier-general, 2 colonels, 3
lieutenant-colonels, 6 majors, 20 captains, 20 first lieutenants,
12 second lieutenants, 15 storekeepers, and a battalion of 905 men.

These figures all pertain to the _regular army_. A considerable number of the officers in the regiments have been appointed from civil life; but in the staff departments the officers are almost exclusively graduates from the Military Academy at West Point.

The raising of the immense volunteer force necessitated a great increase in the staff departments, and large numbers of persons from civil life have been appointed into the volunteer staff in the Adjutant-General's, Judge-Advocate's, Quartermaster's, Commissary, Medical, and Pay Departments. The ordnance duties are performed by officers detailed from the line, and engineer duties by regiments assigned for that purpose. A large number of additional aides-de-camp were also authorized, forming that branch of duty into a department. Aides-de-camp are also detailed from the line. The highest rank yet created for volunteer staff officers is that of colonel in the aides-de-camp. The heads of staff departments at corps headquarters are lieutenant-colonels, including an assistant adjutant-general, assistant inspector-general, a chief quartermaster, and chief commissary. Many regular officers hold these volunteer staff appointments, gaining in this manner additional rank during the war--still retaining their positions in the regular service; in the same manner as many regular officers are field officers in volunteer regiments.

The aggregate _militia_ force of the United States (including seceded portions), according to the last returns, was 3,214,769. The reports of the last census increase this to about 5,600,000, which exceeds to some extent the number actually _fit_ to bear arms. The computed proportion in Europe of the number of men who can be called into the field is about one-fifth or one-sixth of the population. If the population of the entire United States be assumed to be 23,000,000, the number of men liable, according to this computation, would be about 4,000,000, which is sufficiently approximate. The European computation of the force to be kept as a _standing army_ is a hundredth part of the population--varied somewhat by circumstances. This would give the United States a force of 230,000. It will be seen how greatly inferior our regular force has been and still is to the computations adopted in Europe. But the United States will probably never require such a large force to be permanently organized; for we have not, like the European powers, frontiers to protect against nations with whom we may at any time be at war, nor oppressed nationalities to retain in subjugation by force. Our frontiers on Canada and Mexico have good natural defences--the first by the St. Lawrence river and lakes, and the second by the great distance to be traversed by an invading army before it could reach any important commercial position. Our vulnerability is in our extensive seacoast. The principal requirement for an army is a large framework, which can be rapidly filled by volunteers in expectation of war. With such a military constitution and a system of military education and drill in the different States, large and effective armies could be rapidly organized.

Our staff corps and regular army are insignificant, compared with those of European nations, in which the average strength of the standing armies is from 250,000 to 300,000 men on the peace footing, and 400,000 to 600,000 on the war footing, with immense magazines of equipage and material, numerous military schools, and extensive organizations in all the departments incident to an army. Our own army has hitherto been modelled to a great extent on the English system--the most aristocratic of all in Europe, and consequently the least adapted to a republic. To this is attributable much of the jealousy hitherto felt in regard to the army and all pertaining to it. We are now, however, conforming more to the French system, and from it will probably be adopted any changes that may be introduced.