This library is built in the open.
If you spot an error, have a suggestion, or just want to say hello — we’d love to hear from you.

region) original: "gau" has decreased in quantity or quality, or not? and
Regarding these inquiries—which seem, in part, to be based on erroneous assumptions—a local farmer original: "hierländischer Landwirth" wishes to hear the opinion of other farmers besides those from the Breisgau, especially those from Thuringia and Saxony. He therefore requests an answer, particularly based on personal experience and observation, in the Imperial Gazette original: "R. Anz.".
Is it absolutely necessary that unmalted or even malted grain, such as rye, wheat, and barley, must be crushed schroten; the process of coarsely milling grain for distilling at the mill in order to manufacture brandy original: "Branntwein" from it? Or would this be dispensable through some other preparation? It is understood, of course, that no less yield original: "gezogen" should be obtained, as that would make the method inadmissible. Should anyone know of a more practical instruction on this matter, and be willing to give such instruction only in exchange for an honorarium original: "Honneur", they are requested to explain themselves to the Editor of the Imperial Gazette.
It is a sad phenomenon for the observer of humanity that in the same proportion as superstition decreases through Enlightenment original: "Aufklärung"—especially in the cultivated classes (e.g., at universities)—the respect for the oath also diminishes. It would be a premature conclusion if one were to blame the Enlightenment for corrupting character and making people more indifferent toward their duties. The Enlightenment cannot cause this, by its very nature, any more than superstition, by its nature, can make people morally better. Per-
haps this phenomenon could be made intelligible through the following remarks. 1) Hitherto, the oath has probably been honored by a large portion of people not for moral reasons, but for sensory ones dependent on superstition; it was not so much honored as something holy for humanity, but rather shunned and feared as something harmful. People did not formerly love the duty of truthfulness more than they do now, nor do they love it less now than before. But as superstitious fears fall away, those impure intentions—whose external effect was previously hidden—simply show themselves more visibly and freely. 2) Superstition has itself corrupted humanity. By relying on its effect in public affairs, people forgot to present the duty of truthfulness in its own pure holiness and inviolability; the common lie was judged too lightly in comparison with perjury, thereby causing the mindset that a lie mattered little as long as no oath was attached to it. 3) The Enlightenment itself has not yet progressed very far for many people. Many are merely "negatively" enlightened, meaning they have discarded superstition; but they still lack "positive" enlightenment—the development of their own, true, rational conviction. Therefore, they fall into the other extreme: unbelief, free-thinking, and atheism. This is a phenomenon which in our days, even among the alleged admirers of critical philosophy a reference to the school of Immanuel Kant, which was debating the nature of faith and reason at this time, is not among the rare occurrences, and which the teachers of this science should not overlook. However, 4) some teachers of philosophy express themselves so vaguely and incautiously in their oral lectures and in their writings on religious subjects—on the duty of truthfulness, on the keeping of contracts, on the oath and the like—that they give rise to much harmful misunderstanding, worsen morals, and make the good cause of Enlightenment and philosophy itself suspicious. 5) The excessive number of oaths and the triviality of the occasions for taking them is a fact already frequently observed-