« AnteriorContinuar »
« pingel," which expresses more strongly the meaning of the verb, or turns an intransitive to a transitive, still retaining the original or radical meaning, though somewhat modified.
Accurro, ut sciscam, quid velit.- Plautus. (I am running to him that I may learn what he wishes.)
It is rendered by Ainsworth, in this place, inquire. But might we not also understand it, to learn, ascertain, or fully understand. If we take the word “ learn,” we approach nearer to the common force of the termination in sco, learning being a continued or increasing knowledge. Thus disco, in the Latin.
As to the participle in rus. The common apprehension is that it implies futurity, or rather an impending future. But it also means, when applied to the mind, or to man's spiritual operations, disposition, inclination, aptness, readiness. In Tacitus we have “ non pugnaturis militibus.”—Soldiers not disposed or inclined to fight. In Horace, “non missura cutem nisi plena cruoris.”-Not disposed (or determined not) to let go the skin till filled with blood. Ainsworth gives us 6 venturus” ready (that is, disposed) to come. In Virgil we have,
Aut hæc in nostros fabricata est machina muros,
Here this termination has the force of “ with a view to, for the purpose of,” or perhaps, “ ready to,” which last exactly applies to the passage in our author.
But in Cicero we find the very form of expression used by E. S. 6 Si geometricis rationibus non est crediturus, næ ille longe aberit, ut argumentis credat philosophorum."-If he is not disposed to give credit to geometrical reasons, most assuredly he will be far from trusting to the arguments of philosophers; or we may say, if he will not give credit, &c. The meaning is the same in fact; for futurity is not here implied, nor does the word 66 will” imply futurity, but a determination or disposition of the mind. This is exactly in point. Indeed the future from spiritual association frequently is used to signify volition, as volition tends to and produces future actions or events. We have a similar mode of expressing ourselves in English, in familiar language.
А person makes an unreasonable request ;-I answer, I am not going to do any such thing, that is, I am not disposed or inclined to do it.
Mr. H. says “ quod” is a relative pronoun, and in this sense is twice used in the preceding part of the same sentence, and in each case bears the signification of " which," not " that.” But may we not say “quod” is a conjunction, and in this sense is twice used in the latter part of the same sentence, and in each case bears the signification of “ that,” not " which.”
These things premised, the following translation is offered, as appearing to me the most correct.
The original is
6 Homo ne hilum scit de eo quod influit in Interiora mentis ejus, nec de eo quod influit in affectionem voluntatis ejus; sed de eo sciturus est, quod in Exteriora mentis ejus, et quod in cogitationem Intellectus ejus influeret, et hoc foret producere aliquid absque radice, et formare aliquid absque anima : quisque videre potest, quod hoc foret contra Divinum ordinem, consequenter quod foret destruere et non ædificare."
Man knows not a particle (hilum) respecting that which flowsin into the interiors of his mind, nor respecting that which flowsin into the affections of his will ; but respecting it he is disposed (apt, ready, inclined) to conclude (judge, determine, think) that it would flow-in into the exteriors of his mind, and that it would flow-in into the thought of his understanding, although (for et may be so rendered) this would be to produce something without a root, and to form something without a soul : every one may see that (quod) this would be contrary to Divine order, consequently that (quod) it would be to destroy, and not to build.
Or it may be translated “But he will conclude respecting it that it would flow-in, &c."
The meaning is this-Man knows nothing of what flows into the interiors of his mind, but if reflecting on the subject, he would conclude or be of opinion, that what flowed into the interiors would flow into the exteriors of his mind, and come into open manifestation, as he knows and can perceive nothing from his senses or consciousness respecting the interior and exterior degrees of the mind. And it is a fact that we can no otherwise conclude from consciousness or perception, and we should always have so judged, if we had not been otherwise taught by one enabled to instruct us as to the truth.
NOTE, FROM THE REV. DR. COLLIN.
(We insert, with pleasure, the following communication, from the very worthy and respectable pastor of the Swedish Church, in this city.]
To the Editors of the New Jerusalem Church Repository.
Gentlemen, Permit me to explain the following words in my conversation with Swedenborg : “that if any important spiritual or temporal concern of mine had been the case, he would then have solicited permission from those angels who regulate such matters.” New Jerasalem Church Repository, p. 35.
This answer to me is correctly translated from the Swedish. It doth not imply, as you apprehend, any worship of angels, but only a request to them, as agents, by Divine commandment. Christians have generally believed such agency, as appears from the Bible and ecclesiastical history. Many persons, not chargeable with credulity, have ascribed to them influence on the human mind, and aid in dangers, when human means and other causes were incompetent, though this agency was not seen, heard, or felt by the bodily organs. Swedenborg did, indeed, assert a very familiar intercourse with them, but not any sort of adoration.
The following article from a London paper of May 1st, copied into the American Daily Advertiser of the 23d of June, exhibits a degree of extravagance in religious opinion almost inconceivable.
“ In Austria, a sect called Petzelians has started up, to sacrifice men to purify others from sin. In Passion week, several men were thus murdered—and on Good Friday, a virgin, aged thirteen, was also butchered in a similar manner.-Petzel, the founder, and eighty-six of his followers, have been arrested, and will be tried."
OR DUALITY OF PERSON IN THE SAME INDIVIDUAL.
Extract of a letter from the Rev. Joseph Lathrop, of West
Springfield, to the President of Yale College, dated July 18, 1791, published in the American Museum, Vol. X. p. 151.
“ A curiosity of a different kind, relating to the human species, I will take the liberty to mention. A young man in this town, some years since, was, in consequence of bathing in water, visited with a peculiar kind of disorder, which operated by paroxysms. When a fit seized him, he would at first fall down ; but in a moment or two rise, possessed of an agility far superior to what was natural. In two or three hours, and sometimes sooner, the fit would pass off, and leave him in his usual state, and to appearance in health. But what was most remarkable in this case, was the state of his mind. While he was in a fit, he perfectly remembered things which had occurred in all preceding fits, but nothing which had happened in the intervals, or in the time prior to his disorder. In the intervals, all his fits, and every thing which had passed in them, were totally obliterated ; but he could distinctly recollect the occurrences of former intervals. The time of his fits appeared to him in continuity, as did also his healthful periods; when one was present, the other was lost. If, in the time of a fit, he took up any business, he would drop it, when the fit ceased, without any recollection of the matter ; and when the fit returned, he would resume the business without any idea of his having discontinued it. The case was the same if he undertook any thing in the intervals of his disorder.-In short, he seemed to have two distinct minds, which acted by turns, independently of each other. In the space, I think, of about two years, by the use of a particular remedy, his fits left him, and he was reduced to a simple consciousness. The remedy which cured him, or deprived him of one of his souls, I have not been able to learn, the family having lost the receipt.
“ The above account I received from his father, and from others of the family."
A communication made by Dr. Mitchill to the Rev. Dr. Nott,
dated January, 1816, published in the Medical Repository.
Where I was employed early in December, 1815, with several other gentlemen, in doing the duty of a visiter to the United States' Military Academy at West Point, a very extraordinary case of double consciousness, in a woman, was related to me by one of the professors. Major Ellicott, who so worthily occupies the mathematical chair in that seminary, vouched for the correctness of the following narrative, the subject of which is related to him by blood, and an inhabitant of one of the western counties of Pennsylvania :
“Miss R-possessed naturally a very good constitution, and arrived at adult age without having it impaired by disease. She possessed an excellent capacity, and enjoyed fair opportunities to acquire knowledge. Besides the domestic arts and social attainments, she had improved her mind by reading and conversation, and was well versed in penmanship. Her memory was capacious, and stored with a copious stock of ideas. Unexpectedly, and without any forewarning, she fell into her profound sleep, which continued several hours beyond the ordinary term. On waking, she was discovered to have lost every trait of acquired knowledge. Her memory was tabula rasa-all vestiges, both of words and things, were obliterated and gone. It was found necessary for her to learn every thing again.-She even acquired, by new efforts, the arts of spelling, reading, writing and calculating, and gradually became acquainted with the persons and objects around, like a being for the first time brought into the world. In these exercises she made considerable proficiency. But after a few months, another fit of somnolency invaded her. On rousing from it, she found herself restored to the state she was in before the first paroxysm; but was wholly ignorant of every event and occurrence that had befallen her afterwards. The former condition of her existence she now calls the old state, and the latter the new state ; and she is as unconscious of her double character as two distinct persons are of their respective natures. For example, in her old state she possesses all her original knowledge; in her new state only what she acquired since. If a gentleman or lady be introduced to her in the old