y, [Greek: Philomathematikos]. London,
1665, 4to.

Gadbury, though his name descends only in astrology, was a well-informed
astronomer.[222] D'Israeli[223] sets down Gadbury, Lilly, Wharton, Booker,
etc., as rank rogues: I think him quite wrong. The easy belief in roguery
and intentional imposture which prevails in educated society is, to my
mind, a greater presumption against the honesty of mankind than all the
roguery and imposture itself. Putting aside mere swindling for the sake of
gain, and looking at speculation and paradox, I find very little reason to
suspect wilful deceit.[224] My opinion of mankind is founded upon the {116}
mournful fact that, so far as I can see, they find within themselves the
means of believing in a thousand times as much as there is to believe in,
judging by experience. I do not say anything against Isaac D'Israeli for
talking his time. We are all in the team, and we all go the road, but we do
not all draw.

A FORERUNNER OF A WRITTEN ESPERANTO.

An essay towards a real character and a philosophical language. By John
Wilkins [Dean of Ripon, afterwards Bishop of Chester].[225] London,
1668, folio.

This work is celebrated, but little known. Its object gives it a right to a
place among paradoxes. It proposes a language--if that be the proper
name--in which _things_ and their relations shall be denoted by signs, not
_words_: so that any person, whatever may be his mother tongue, may read it
in his own words. This is an obvious possibility, and, I am afraid, an
obvious impracticability. One man may construct such a system--Bishop
Wilkins has done it--but where is the man who will learn it? The second
tongue makes a language, as the second blow makes a fray. There has been
very little curiosity about his performance, the work is scarce; and I do
not know where to refer the reader for any account of its details, except,
to the partial reprint of Wilkins presently mentioned under 1802, in which
there is an unsatisfactory abstract. There is nothing in the _Biographia
Britannica_, except discussion of Anthony Wood's statement that the hint
was derived from Dalgarno's book, {117} _De Signis_, 1661.[226] Hamilton
(_Discussions_, Art. 5, "Dalgarno") does not say a word on this point,
beyond quoting Wood; and Hamilton, though he did now and then write about
his countrymen with a rough-nibbed pen, knew perfectly well how to protect
their priorities.

GREGOIRE DE ST. VINCENT.