COME hither, Charles; what is that you see grazing in the meadow be|fore you?

It is a horse.

Whose horse is it?

I do not know; I never saw it before.

How do you know it is a horse, if you never saw it before?

Because it is like other horses.

Are all horses alike, then?

Yes.

If they are all alike, how do you know one horse from another?

They are not quite alike.

But they are so much alike, that you can easily distinguish a horse from a cow?

Yes, indeed.

Or from a cabbage?

A horse from a cabbage! yes, surely I can.

Very well; then let us see if you can tell how a horse differs from a cab|bage?

Very easily; a horse is alive.

True; and how is every thing called, which is alive?

I believe all things that are alive are called animals.

Right; but can you tell me what a horse and a cabbage are alike in?

Nothing, I believe.

Yes, there is one thing in which the slenderest moss that grows upon the wall is like the greatest man or the high|est angel.

Because God made them.

Yes; and how do you call every thing that is made?

A creature.

A horse then is a creature, but a living creature; that is to say, an animal.

And a cabbage is a dead creature; that is the difference.

Not so, neither; nothing is dead that has never been alive.

What must I call it then, if it is neither dead nor alive?

An inanimate creature; there is the animate and the inanimate creation. Plants, stones, metals, are of the latter class, horses belong to the former.

But the gardener told me some of my cabbages were dead, and some were alive.

Very true. Plants have a vegeta|tive life, a principle of growth and de|cay; this is common to them with all organized bodies; but they have not sensation, at least we do not know they have—they have not life, therefore, in the sense in which animals enjoy it.

A horse is called an animal, then.

Yes; but a salmon is an animal, and so is a sparrow; how will you dis|tinguish a horse from these?

A salmon lives in the water and swims; a sparrow flies, and lives in the air.

I think a salmon could not walk upon the ground, even if it could live out of the water.

No, indeed; it has no legs.

And a bird would not gallop like a horse.

No; it would hop away upon its two slender legs.

How many legs has a horse?

Four.

And an ox?

Four likewise.

And a camel?

Four still.

Do you know any animals which live upon the earth that have not four legs?

I think not; they have all four legs; except worms, and insects, and such things.

You remember, I suppose, what Page  125 an animal is called that has four legs; you have it in your little books.

A quadruped.

A horse then is a quadruped: by this we distinguish him from birds, fishes, and insects.

And from men.

True; but if you had been talk|ing about birds, you would not have found it so easy to distinguish them.

How so! a man is not at all like a bird.

Yet an ancient philosopher could find no way to distinguish them, but by calling man a two-legged animal without feathers.

I think he was very silly; they are not at all alike, though they have both two legs.

Another ancient philosopher, call|ed Diogenes, was of your opinion. He stript a cock of his feathers, and turned him into the school where Plato, that Page  126 was his name, was teaching, and said, Here is Plato's man for you.

I wish I had been there, I should have laughed very much.

Probably. Before we laugh at others, however, let us see what we can do ourselves. We have not yet found any thing which will distinguish a horse from an elephant, or from a Norway rat.

O, that is easy enough. An ele|phant is very large, and a rat is very small; a horse is neither large nor small.

Before we go any further, look what is settled on the skirt of your coat.

It is a butterfly; what a prodi|gious large one! I never saw such a one before.

Is it larger than a rat, think you?

No, that it is not.

Yet you called the butterfly large, and you called the rat small.

It is very large for a butterfly.

It is so. You see, therefore, that large and small are relative terms.

I do not well understand that phrase.

It means that they have no pre|cise and determinate signification in themselves, but are applied differently according to the other ideas which you join with them, and the different posi|tions in which you view them. This butterfly, therefore, is large, compared with those of its own species, and small compared with many other species of animals. Besides, there is no circum|stance which varies more than the size of individuals. If you were to give an idea of a horse from its size, you would certainly say it was much bigger than a dog; yet if you take the smallest Shetland horse, and the largest Irish greyhound, you will find them very much upon a par: size, therefore, is not a circum|stance by which you can accurately dis|tinguish Page  128 one animal from another; nor yet is colour.

No; there are black horses, and bay, and white, and pied.

But you have not seen that va|riety of colours, in a hare, for instance.

No, a hare is always brown.

Yet if you were to depend upon that circumstance, you would not con|vey the idea of a hare to a mountaineer, or an inhabitant of Siberia; for he sees them white as snow. We must, there|fore, find out some circumstances that do not change like size and colour, and I may add shape, though they are not so obvious, nor perhaps so striking. Look at the feet of quadrupeds; are they all alike?

No; some have long taper claws, and some have thick clumsy feet with|out claws.

The thick seet are horny; are they not?

Yes, I recollect they are called hoofs.

And the feet that are not covered with horn, and are divided into claws, are called digitated, from digitus, a fin|ger; because they are parted like fin|gers. Here, then, we have one grand division of quadrupeds into hoofed and digitated. Of which division is the horse?

He is hoofed.

There are a great many different kinds of horses; did you ever know one that was not hoofed?

No, never.

Do you think we run any hazard of a stranger telling us, Sir, horses are hoofed indeed in your country, but in mine, which is in a different climate, and where we feed them differently, they have claws?

No, I dare say not.

Then we have got something to our purpose; a circumstance easily marked, which always belongs to the Page  130 animal, under every variation of situa|tion or treatment. But an ox is hoofed, and so is a sheep; we must distinguish still farther. You have often stood by, I suppose, while the smith was shoeing a horse. What kind of a hoof has he?

It is round, and all in one piece.

And is that of an ox so?

No, it is divided.

A horse, then, is not only hoof|ed, but whole-hoofed. Now how many quadrupeds do you think there are in the world that are whole-hoofed?

Indeed I do not know.

There are, among all animals that we are acquainted with, either in this country or in any other, only the horse, the ass, and the zebra, which is a spe|cies of wild ass. Now, therefore, you see we have nearly accomplished our purpose; we have only to distinguish him from the ass.

That is easily done, I believe; I Page  131 should be sorry if any body could mis|take my little horse for an ass.

It is not so easy, however, as you ima|gine; the eye readily distinguishes them by the air and general appearance, but naturalists have been rather puzzled to fix upon any specific difference, which may serve the purpose of a definition. Some have, therefore, fixed upon the ears, others on the mane and tail. What kind of ears has an ass?

O, very long clumsy ears. Asses' ears are always laughed at.

And the horse?

The horse has small ears, nicely turned, and upright.

And the mane, is there no differ|ence there?

The horse has a fine long flowing mane; the ass has hardly any.

And the tail; is it not fuller of hair in the horse than in the ass?

Yes; the ass has only a few long hairs at the end of his tail; but the horse Page  132 has a long bushy tail, when it is not cut.

Which, by the way, it is pity it ever should. Now, then, observe what particulars we have got. A horse is an animal of the quadruped kind, whole|hoofed, with short erect ears, a flowing mane, and a tail covered in every part with long ears. Now is there any other animal, think you, in the world that answers these particulars?

I do not know; this does not tell us a great deal about him.

And yet it tells us enough to dis|tinguish him from all the different tribes of the creation which we are acquainted with in any part of the earth. Do you know now what we have been making?

What?

A DEFINITION. It is the busi|ness of a definition to distinguish pre|cisely the thing defined from every other thing, and to do it in as few terms as possible. Its object is to separate the Page  133 subject of definition, first, from those with which it has only a general resem|blance; then, from those which agree with it in a greater variety of particu|lars; and so on, till by constantly throw|ing out all which have not the qualities we have taken notice of, we come at length to the individual or the species we wish to ascertain. It is a kind of chase, and resembles the manner of hunting in some countries, where they first enclose a very large circle with their dogs, nets, and horses; and then, by degrees, draw their toils closer and closer, driving their game before them till it is at length brought into so narrow a compass, that the sportsmen have nothing to do but to knock down their prey.

Just as we have been hunting this horse, till at last we held him fast by his ears and his tail.

I should observe to you, that in the definition naturalists give of a horse, it is generally mentioned that he has Page  134 six cutting teeth in each jaw; because this circumstance of the teeth has been found a very convenient one for cha|racterising large classes: but as it is not absolutely necessary here, I have omitted it; a definition being the more perfect the fewer particulars you make use of, provided you can say with certainty from those particulars, The object so characterised must be this, and no other whatever.

But, papa, if I had never seen a horse, I should not know what kind of animal it was by this definition.

Let us hear, then, how you would give me an idea of a horse.

I would say it was a fine large prancing creature, with slender legs and an arched neck, and a sleek smooth skin, and a tail that sweeps the ground, and that he snorts and neighs very loud, and tosses his head, and runs as swift as the wind.

I think you learned some verses Page  135 upon the horse in your last lesson: re|peat them.

You have said very well; but this is not a Definition, it is a Description.

What is the difference?

A description is intended to give you a lively picture of an object, as if you saw it; it ought to be very full. A definition gives no picture to those who have not seen it; it rather tells you what its subject is not, than what it is, by giving you such clear specific marks, that it shall not be possible to confound Page  136 it with any thing else; and hence it is of the greatest use in throwing things into classes. We have a great many beautiful descriptions from antient au|thors so loosely worded that we cannot certainly tell what animals are meant by them, whereas if they had given us de|finitions, three lines would have ascer|tained their meaning.

I like a description best, papa.

Perhaps so; I believe I should have done the same at your age. Re|member, however, that nothing is more useful than to learn to form ideas with precision, and to express them with ac|curacy: I have not given you a defini|tion to teach you what a horse is, but to teach you to think.