Prof. Adams

To the Editor ol the Nation : SlR : To the communication of " M; ö." respecting "certain coincidences' in my receut work on " Democracy and Monarchy in France,", " which need explanation," I reply as follows : Firt The coincident passages froin Buckle and from inyself relating to Helvetius are an account of the argument of the philosopher, given, as far as possible, in the language of the philosopher him8elf. The fiist chapter of " De l'Esprit" is entitled " Expositiou des Principes," aud is a kind of abridgment of the whole work. This was used by both Buckle and myself (as our references show); and that our language hould corre8pond is no more strange han that two reporters should use the same expressions in reporting or abstracting the same speech. In very nany instances, and in all the passages hat are strikingly alike, we have simpy translated the original. A single example will be enough to show that neither Buckle nor myself wandered very faf from the author we were giving an account of. Helvetius, after stating :hat we have but two faculties, that we have these in common with animáis, and that we are superior to animáis solely by reason of " une certaine organisation exterieure," uses these words : " Si la nature, au lieu de maiua et de doigta flexibles, eut termine nos poiguets par un pied de cheval, qui doute que lea hommes sana arts, suns habitations, saus defense contre les aniinaux, tout oeoupes du soin de pourvoir a leur nourriture et d'eviter les betes feroces, ne fussent encoré errants dans les forets comme des troupedux fugitifs '(" (p. 2). This is the basis of my sentence : " That if Nature, instead of giving us hands and flexible joints-, had terminated our hinbs with hoofs Hke those of a horse, we should have remained wanderers on the earth, cluefly anxious to ñnd our ueedful supply of food and to protect ourselves against the attacks of wild hfiasts." Cü. 41. And of Buckle's : "That if, for example, our wrists, instead of sndiug with hands, and flexible tingers, had merely euded like a horse's foot, we should have always remained as wanderers on the iaoe of the earth, ignorant of every art, eutirely defenceless, and having no other concern but to avoid the attacks of wild beasts, aud Bnd the needful supply of our daily food." (p. S21.) The other coincident passages cited by " M. G." inight be showu to have had a similar origin, but space will uot allo w it; and therefore loan only refer, for proof of the statement, to the volume itself aud its foot-notes. It is evident that tny assailant desires to oon vey the improssion that I have used Buckle und the quotations given by hiin as authority. To this the answer is that an inspection of our works will show that we used different editions of Helvetius, Buckle using "De l'Esprit" (Amsterdam, 1759, 2 vols.), I using " Euvres Completes de Helvetius" (London, 1781, 2 vols.) By comparison I find that Buckle, in his notes, has made nine quotations from his author, and that I have made eight, alao that of the eight passages quoted by myself, three only are quoted by Buckle. In other words, in giving an account of a philo8ophical theory as chiefly embodied in a siugle chapter of eight pages, both of us together have given fourteen dif ferent quotations, six of whioh are given by Buckle alone, five of which are givun by ïnyself alone, aud three of which are given by us both in common. Second - As to the correspondenoe of quotations froni other authors, this is to be said : In preparing the chapter ou the " Philosophers of the Revolution," I not only examined the works of the four philosophers reviewed, but I also examined (iuiporting a large number o volumes for that especial purpose) the works of all such contení porary and subsequent authors as I thought woulc throw light on their influence. When Buckle was flrst published in America ! read him with care, taking copiou notes on the authorities to which he re fers. These citations with others I have freely used in collecting my library and in my subsequent researches. From the great mass of notes thus accumulated I used in the composition of the chapte referred to, such sayings and anecdote as in my opinión would best illustrate the influence I was trying to show That the same and a host of others ar to be foundin Buckle is doubtless owinj to the fact that he was trying to sho the influence of the same wiiters, thougl for quite another purpose. Whethe these facts show any iinproper indebted ness to Buckle, 1 leave to others t j udge. Third - The next article in the indict ment is that, " after disposing of He) vetius, Mr. Adams makes up his notie of Condorcet in precisely the same man ner." Presuming that this is a typo graphical error for Condiüac (as Con dorcet is not mentioned in the volume I reply that I have made just four quo tations from Condillac, and that not a single one of them is to be found in Buckle. Moreover, my references ar all to the volume edition of Con dillac's complete works, while Buckle1 are all to a two-volume edition. Pourth - "From his examinatiou o philosophical theories," says " M. G., " Buckle proceeds to consider the inrlu ence these exercised on the spread o physical science. Mr. Adams does th same, but he mentions not a name nor fact that is not contained in Buckle." This statement shows either grea carelessness or great disingeuuousness Buckle devotes thirty solid pages (627 657) to his exposition ; I, a siugle para graph (p. 49) to mine. Buckle's was in tended as a most exhaustive summary of all that was done for science by th writers referred to ; uiine was merely qualifying paragraph thrown in to pre pare the way for the political discussion that follows. That every "fact anc name," therefore, contained in mm should be found in Buckle is certainl; no marvel. They are also all found in Whewell, aud I doubt uot in every writer on the history of science. Fifth - "Kemarks about him (Rousseau) by Bonaparte, Hume, Lord Holland, Pathay, etc, are quoted. They are all given in Buckle, p. 767." This statement will appear in its true light when the following facts are considered. On turniug to Buckle, I see that he has referred to niueteen different authors ; on referring to " Demooracy and Monarchy" (pp. 76-70, I find that I have referred to thirteeu. Now, of these thirteen five ouly are quoted by Buckle. I have given " remarks about him" (i. e., Rousseau) by Lessing, Herder, Kant, Schiller, Goethe, Carlyle, and Maiue, to none of whom (save to Goethe, and that for a remark different from mine) does Buckle refer. Yet " M. G." declares " they are all given in Buckle ! !" Sixth - In respect to the passage cited from De Tocqueville, I have only a word to say. That I used the book very freely is shown by my numerous quotations and references. Concerning the intellectual genesis of the figure and the comparison contained in the two quotations I have no reoollection. My presumption is that having read the passage in De Tocqueville, I afterwards reproduced the comparisoa and the figure without thinking of the source from which they had come into my mind. I believe it is admitted that there is such a thing as " uiiconscious memory ;" at any rate, this explanation must go for what )f. is worth. Seventh - In speaking of the chapter on " The Rise of Napoleonism, " and its original appearance in the North American Review, my assailant remarks : " There are various kinds of reviews, all equally legitímate, providing only that n writing one kind the reviewer does ot pretend to give another" - whioh is o say, the article professed to be what t was not. This conclusión was reached fter the declaration that it " wa8 first )rinted aa a review of Lanfrey and ther works." To which I respond as ollows : The article was not printed as a review of Lanfrey aud other works," ut simply as an essay on the subject mbodied in its title. If it could be aid to "pretend" to be anything, it was n acconut of " The Rise of Napoleonsm," as revealed by the most reeent and most trustworthy aathorities ; certainly t never pretended to be anything else. At the head of the article stood, in acordance with a well known habit of uarterlies, what I beliaved tb be the aost important of such authorities. Of ;hese, Lanfrey was placed first, situply ïecause his is the great - indeed, the nly - history of the periud writtea since he publication of the " Letters and ïespatches of the First Napoleon." fhe book was used, therefore, not to be eviewed, but as a grbat source of inbrmation - irrdeed, just as Macaulay used Nugent's " Memorials" and Thackeray's " Life of Pitt" in preparing his ainous essays on Hampden and Chatïam. As the essay was largely narraive, not to have made free use of Lau:rey would have been utterly inexcusa)le ; to have made dishonest use of him, and then to have invited attention to my dishonesty by constantly quoting and referring to him as I do, would have been simply to advertise myself gratuitously not only as a literary trickster, but as a literary fooi. The book was constantlv followed.but origi nal authorities were just as constantly consulted. Eighth- " Not even Mr. Adams's title is original, for about three years ago Mr. H. Eeeve published ' Royal and Republican France,' a work of precisely the same character." To the moraentous charge embodied in this paragraph, I plead not guilty, thone-h unfortunatelT i bave onlv my word to place in opposition to that of my assailant. I cannot, however, allow the diatinguished friend and translator of De Tocqueville, " Mr. H. Reeve," to He under the imputation of having produced a work of "precisely the same character" as the one to whioh " M. G." has given his attention. I have not had the pleasure of reading the handsonie volumes of Mr. Reeve, but on turning thein over in. a book store I see that they are made up of the essays on French subjeots with whioh for the last thirty years he has enriched the English quarterlies. I seriously fear, therefore, that the only similarity between my book and his is in their titles - and in the imagination of " M. 'G. ' Very tiuly yours,