[ Soo ] 
perhaps is the principal caufe of their ohfcurlty. In 
efFedt, the primitive images andfymbols being altered, 
how can one find the fenfeof them ? Jt is no more 
according to the rule of the Lieou-y. The decom- 
pofition of the elementary charafters whereof it is 
compofed, no longer gives its true analyfis. The 
more one feeks the fenfe which ought to rcfult from 
their aflemblage, the farther one is from it : becaufe 
that this aflemblage is not the true one. It is as if 
one fliould read (in French) delires {ox delice s. This 
change of the c into r fubfilfing, all the fignifications 
that one fhall feek to deliresj will never arrive at the 
idea prefentcd by delices. 
If the comparifon is lame, it is becaufe that It re- 
prefents not fufficiently clearly how far a Chinefe 
charadler feparates from its true fignification, by the 
alteration of fome one of the lines that compofe it. 
The deflrudtion of the books by fire has rendered the 
evil without a remedy. When peace was refiored to 
letters, they fpared neither care nor inquiry to recover 
the Khig^ and other antient books. But few copies 
having elcaped the flames, and thofe not in the befl: 
prefervation, they were deprived of the great advan- 
tage to be drawn from collations, to difeover the pri- 
mitive charaders. Writing had changed; tradition 
was almofl: extinguifhed. It was neceflary to be 
learned, even to decypher the manuferipts: how 
fhould they be able to purfue the difculTion fo far as 
the various readings ; and unravel, amongfl: abbre- 
viations almofl: unknown, the truel'ymbols andlikc- 
nels of which a charader was woven. The editors 
were not fparingof their labour herein ; but each had 
his lyflem, and his conjedures. Who would ven- 
ture 
