for those who should propose to attain a critical knowledge of it.  In a letter which I had occasion to write to Mr. Crofts who sent you, I believe, as well as myself, a copy of his treatise on the English and German languages, as preliminary to an etymological dictionary he meditated, I went into explanations with him of an easy process for simplifying the study of the Anglo-Saxon, and lessening the terrors and difficulties presented by it’s rude alphabet, and unformed orthography.  But this is a subject beyond the bounds of a letter, as it was beyond the bounds of a report to the legislature.  Mr. Crofts died, I believe, before any progress was made in the work he had projected.

The reviewer expresses doubt, rather than decision, on our placing military and naval architecture in the department of pure mathematics.  Military architecture embraces fortification and field works, which, with their bastions, curtains, hornworks, redoubts, &c. are based on a technical combination of lines and angles.  These are adapted to offence and defence, with and against the effects of bombs, balls, escalades, he.  But lines and angles make the sum of elementary geometry, a branch of pure mathematics:  and the direction of the bombs, balls, and other projectiles, the necessary appendages of military works, although no part of their architecture, belong to the conic sections, a branch of transcendental geometry.  Diderot and D’Alembert, therefore, in their Arbor scienciae, have placed military architecture in the department of elementary geometry.  Naval architecture teaches the best form and construction of vessels; for which best form it has recourse to the question of the solid of least resistance; a problem of transcendental geometry.  And its appurtenant projectiles belong to the same branch as in the preceding case.  It is true, that so far as respects the action of the water on the rudder and oars, and of the wind on the sails, it may be placed in the department of mechanics, as Diderot and D’Alembert have done; but belonging quite as much to geometry, and allied in its military character to military architecture, it simplified our plan to place both under the same head.  These views are so obvious, that I am sure they would have required but a second thought to reconcile the reviewer to their location under the head of pure mathematics.  For this word location, see Bailey, Johnson, Sheridan, Walker, &c.  But if dictionaries are to be the arbiters of language, in which of them shall we find neologism?  No matter.  It is a good word, well sounding, obvious, and expresses an idea, which would otherwise require circumlocution.  The reviewer was justifiable, therefore, in using it; although he noted at the same time, as unauthoritative, centrality, grade, sparse; all which have been long used in common speech and writing.  I am a friend to neology.  It is the only way to give to a language copiousness and euphony.  Without it we should still be held to the vocabulary of Alfred