530 DISSERTATION ON 



* uniformly In a ftralght line, iinlefs in fo far as, by fome force im- 



* prefled upon them, they are obliged to change that ftate *.* As to 



the 



* It Is thus exprefled by Sir Ifaac in Latin : * Corpus omne perfeverat in ftatu fuo 



* quiefcendi vel movendi uniformiter in directum, nifi quatenus a viribus impreflis 



* cogitur flatum ilium mutare.' Cicero, I believe, would have faid, in flat ii quietus 

 vel motus ; for qiiiefco, in Latin, does not denote * /*</?,' but the adlion of one that is 

 going to reft ; and it anfwers to the Greek word *i^tftt^eft»t or 'tffrxfcxt, both which do 

 not denote refl, but motion of the kind I mentioned. See Ariftotle's Phyfics, lib. 6. 

 cap. 12. in initio, and his Commentator, Simplicius, page 235. where a man, not ac» 

 quainted with the propriety of the Greek language, will be furprifed to read, to 'io-tx- 

 ^4f»e» KiiHTXi, and TO Y;^iuovy c'jx. tvtfy^ireii 7i^ttit^i(riui. Again, fiatus movendi does not 

 fignify what Sir Ifaac means to denote by it, namely, the flate of a thing that is mo- 

 ved, is in motion, but the ftate of a thing that is moving-, or, to make it plainer 

 to thofe who are accuftomed to that impropriety of language, by which we confound 

 moving, and being moved, it is the action of moving fome other thing; for the Latin 

 gerund \s al<vays ufed in an a6live fenfe, when it is not joined with fome nounfubflan- 

 iive ; fo \.\\zx.J}atv.s movendi is the fame v;\x.\\Jiatus agendi, Jiatus cimnndi, flatus le- 

 gcndiy &c. Such criticifms as this, and fome others that 1 have made upon the lan- 

 guage of this philofophy, will, I know, appear frivolous to many j but accurate fpeak- 

 ing is infeparably conne<5led with accurate thinking; and there is fome reafon to fu« 

 fpe6l that thofe who, both in their Latin and Englifti, confound two things fo diiFerent 

 as moving, and being moved, have not perfedly diftinguifhed them in their thoughts, 

 but have fome confufed notion that what is moved alfo moves, that is, moves itfelf^ 



The Greek fcholar will be pleafed to obferve how accurately the Greek language 

 diftinguiflies every thing concerning moving and being moved. In the active lineage, 

 there is t* x(»»u», to >i;v!j5-«y, to xtKtyr,KCi, to KtinTiKov j that IS, in Englifh, what moves, 01 

 is movinp — what did move •'what has 7noved, and flill continues to move, and -what is 

 capable tomove. Again, in \\\cfajjlve line, there is, to Kmevtuvov — to x«y«tfE> — to xuiHi. 

 fx.(ioi, r.nd to xnr.Tc* ; in Englifti, luhat is in moving, (an aukward circumlocution, by 

 which wc fupply the want of the prejcnt participle pajjlvc ) — vjhat ruas inoved — what 

 been moved, and flill continues to be moved — and what is capable of being moved, or, 

 in one word, moveable. No philofopher, I think, could have diftinguiflied better the 

 different clicumftances of the aclion and paffion cf this verb, than the common ufe of 

 the Greek language has done. But, as 1 have obfcrvcd ell -where, (See Origin and 

 Progrcfs of Language, vol. 2d.) the Greek language was not formed by the vulgar, 

 but was the work of philofophers, as well as grammarians, and is therefore a ftudy, 

 ici its own fake, not unvrorthy of a philofopher. 



