ON THE FHARTASMS OF NICOLAI. 231 



before him. The notion of hearing the phantoms fpeak. I Audible delu- 

 fliould refer to an affedion of the organ of hearing, fimilar to ^^"^' 

 what took place in the eye. It is evident they were both re- 

 moved by a flight diminution of the quantity of circulating 

 blood. 



Many Hories of apparitions may, in ray -opinion, be ac- phantafms of 

 counted for on fimilar principles. A perfon fixes his eyes in- tleparted fuends. 

 tently on the face of an expiring friend illuminated by the light 

 of a candle, perhaps with the intention of taking a lafl: fare- 

 well; foon after, going into thed'iirk, the fpedtrum of this lu- 

 minous appearance occurs to the fatigued eye, and he thinks 

 he perceives t'e dj,ing man he had juft left, ilandlng before 

 him. 



On tliefe principles we may venture to corre6l an error in Correftion of 

 the general reprefentation of our iuftly popular play of Hamlet. ^^^ reprefenta- 



-ri, 1 a n ij i \^i- r ^ t'^'" °^ Hamlet* 



inegholt Ihould only appear once. Tins fingle appearance 



makes fo flrong an impredion on the mind of Hamlet, which, 

 together wl^h an habitual melancholy, was debilitated by care 

 and vexation, that wiienever afterwards he thinks ferioufly on 

 his father, ih^ fpecirum of the ghoft recurred to his eye, as he 

 himfeif informs us, when he tells Horatio he fees liis father, 

 and is afked where, he fays, " in my mind's eye." 



Thefe curfory remaks. Sir, are in fome meafure written to Concluding 

 evince how much better it is to attempt at leafr, to account for ^'^'^^'^^' 

 phenomena on principles already known, than to hunt for a 

 new caufe for every uncommon appearance. But what kind 

 of philofophifing can we expe6t from a man, who quotes fuch 

 canons as the following, for rules of philofophy ? " That know* 

 ledge derived from experience is merely empirick, and there- 

 fore not to be depended on." " That obfervation fliould not 

 be admitted in theoretical philofophy."' What is theoretical 

 philofophy ? After the exiftence of Bacon, of Newton, and 

 of Locke, who could have expeded to live to fee the whole 

 thinking part of a nation puzzling themfelves about opinions, 

 which, if they admit of any defcription, may be characterized 

 as a jumble of the abftradlions of Ariftotle, with the ideal {■^{~ 

 tera of Berkley ? 



A STUDENT. 



in. £x. 



