sublime dashed to pieces by cutting too close with the fiery four-in-hand round the corner of nonsense. How did the Atheist get his idea of that God whom he denies ? February 22. 1834. PROOF OF EXISTENCE OF GOD. - KANT'S ATTEMPT. — PLURALITY OF WORLDS. ASSUME the existence of God, and then the harmony and fitness of the physical creation may be shown to correspond with and support such an assumption; — but to set about proving the existence of a God by such means is a mere circle, a delusion. can be no proof to a good reasoner, unless he violates all syllogistic logic, and presumes his conclusion. It Kant once set about proving the existence of God, and a masterly effort it was. * But in his later great work, the "Critique of the Pure Reason," he saw its fallacy, and said of it that if the existence could be proved at all, it must be on the grounds indicated by him. I never could feel any force in the arguments for a plurality of worlds, in the common acceptation of that term. A lady once asked me "What then could be the intention in creating so many great bodies, so apparently useless to us?" I said - I did not know, except perhaps to make dirt cheap. The vulgar inference is in alio genere. What in the eye of an intellectual and omnipotent Being is the whole sidereal system to the soul of one man for whom Christ died? * In his essay, "Der einzig mögliche Beweisgrund zu einer Demonstration des Daseyns Gottes." "The only possible argument or ground of proof for a demonstration of the existence of God." It was published in 1763; the "Critique" in 1781.-ED. March 1. 1834. A REASONER. I AM by the law of my nature a reasoner. A person who should suppose I meant by that word, an arguer, would not only not understand me, but would understand the contrary of my meaning. I can take no interest whatever in hearing or saying any thing merely as a fact-merely as having happened. It must refer to something within me before I can regard it with any curiosity or care. My mind is always energic I don't mean, energetic; I require in every thing what, for lack of another word, I may call propriety, that is, a reason why the thing is at all, and why it is there or then rather than elsewhere or at another time. March 5. 1834. SHAKSPEARE'S INTELLECTUAL ACTION. READING IN MACBETH. - CRABBE AND SOUTHEY. PETER SIMPLE AND TOM CRINGLE'S LOG. SHAKSPEARE'S intellectual action is wholly unlike that of Ben Jonson or Beaumont and Fletcher. The latter see the totality of a sentence or passage, and then project it entire. Shakspeare goes on creating, and evolving B. out of A., and C. out of B., and so on, just as a serpent moves, which makes a fulcrum of its own body, and seems for ever twisting and untwisting its own strength. Perhaps the true reading in Macbeth * is That Come, thick night, And pall thee in the dunnest smoke of hell, and not blank height of the dark "blanket." "Height" was most commonly written, and even printed, het. I think Crabbe and Southey are something alike; but Crabbe's poems are founded on observation and real life Southey's on fancy and books. In facility they are equal, though Crabbe's English is of course not upon a level with Southey's, which is next door to faultless. But in Crabbe there is an absolute defect of the high imagination; he gives me little or no pleasure: yet, no doubt, he has much power of a certain kind, and it is good to cultivate, even at some pains, a catholic taste in literature. I read all sorts of books with some pleasure except modern sermons and treatises on political economy. But, after all, may not the ultimate allusion be to so humble an image as that of an actor peeping through the curtain on the stage? — ED. |