It is exceedingly difficult to understand the adjectives of many nouns with which we are familiar, from the fact above stated, that they are derived from other languages, and not our own.  The most thoro scholars have found this task no easy affair.  Most grammarians have let it pass unobserved; but every person has seen the necessity of some explanation upon this point, to afford a means of ascertaining the etymological derivation and meaning of these words.  I would here enter farther into this subject, but I am reminded that I am surpassing the limits set me for this course of lectures.

The attention I have bestowed on this part of the present subject, will not be construed into a mere verbal criticism.  It has been adopted to show you how, in the definition or description of things, the mind clings to one thing to gain some information concerning another.  When we find a thing unlike any thing else we have ever known, in form, in size, in color, in every thing; we should find it a difficult task, if not an impossibility, to describe it to another in a way to give any correct idea of it.  Having never seen its like before, we can say little of its character.  We may give it a name, but that would not be understood.  We could say it was as large as—­no, it had no size; that it was like—­but no, it had no likeness; that it resembled—­no, it had no resemblance.  How could we describe it?  What could we say of it?  Nothing at all.

What idea could the Pacha of Egypt form of ice, having never seen any till the french chemists succeeded in freezing water in his presence?  They told him of ice; that it was cold; that it would freeze; that whole streams were often frozen over, so that men and teams could walk over them.  He believed no such thing—­it was a “christian lie.”  This idea was confirmed on the first trial of the chemists, which failed of success.  But when, on the second attempt, they succeeded, he was all in raptures.  A new field was open before him.  New ideas were produced in his mind.  New qualities were learned; and he could now form some idea of the ice bergs of the north; of frozen regions, which he had never seen; of icy hearts, and storms of frozen rain.

We often hear it said, such a man is very stoical; another is an epicurean; and another is a bacchanal, or bacchanalian.  But what idea should we form of such persons, if we had never read of the Stoics and their philosophy; of Epicurus and his notions of happiness and duty; or of Bacchus, the god of wine and revelry, whose annual feasts, or Dionysia, were celebrated with the most extravagant licentiousness thro out Greece and Rome, till put down by the Senate of the latter.