136 
PHILOSOPH Y. 
the prejudice which defines every man exclufively to 
Arch or fuch a branch of dudy. This philofopliy gives a 
lingular attradion to all kinds of Rudy. The difcoveries 
which we make within ourfelves are always intereding; 
but, if it be true that they enlighten us with regard to the 
very myderies of a world created in our own image, what 
curiofity Ihould they not excite ! The converfation of a 
German philofopher fuch as thofe I have named, calls to 
mind the Dialogues of Plato; and, when you queftion 
one of thefe men upon any fubjed whatever, he throws 
fo much light on it, that in liftening, you feem to think 
for the firft time ! 
“ So many new ideas on literary and philofophic fub- 
jeds have, for lome years pad, been in circulation in Ger¬ 
many, that a dranger might very well take a man, who 
Ihould only repeat thefe ideas, for a fuperior genius. The 
Germans of the new fchool look upon ignorance and fri¬ 
volity as difeafes of a prolonged infancy ; they penetrate 
into the interior of the foul with the torch of genius; they 
feek for truth confcientioufly. But, notwithdanding the 
diverfity of opinions which in Germany forms fchools in 
oppofition to one another, they tend equally, for the 
mod part, to difplay adivity of mind ; fo that there is no 
country where every man makes more advantage of him- 
felf, at lead in regard to intelledual labours. 
“ In feparating the beautiful from the ufeful, Kant 
clearly proves that it is not in the nature of the fine arts 
to givelefibns. Undoubtedly every tiling that is beautiful 
ought to give birth to generous fentiments, and thofe 
fentiments excite to virtue ; but, when the objed is given 
in proof of a precept of morality, the free impreflions pro¬ 
duced by the mader-pieces of art is neceflarily dedroyed; 
for the objed aimed at, be it what it will, when known, 
limits and confines the imagination. It certainly is not 
from a want of underdanding the moral value of what is 
ufeful, that Kant has feparated it from the beautiful; it 
is to ground admiration of every kind on abfolute difin- 
teredednefs ; it is in order to give fentiments which ren¬ 
der vice impofiible, the preference over thofe leflons 
which only tend to correct it. 
“The philofophical fydem, adopted in any country, 
exerts a great influence over the direction of mind ; it is 
the univerfal model after which all thought is cad; thofe 
perfons even, who have not dudied the fyllern, (conform 
unknowingly to the general difpofition which it infpires. 
We mud believe certain truths as we believe our own 
exidence ; it is the foul which reveals them to us: in the 
region of intelledual and religious truths, we mud ufe 
confcioufnefs in the room of demondration. Experi¬ 
mental philofopliy is complete in itfelf; it is a whole fuf- 
ficiently vulgar, but compact, circumfcribed, argumenta¬ 
tive; and, while we adhere to the fort of reafoning which 
is received in the commerce of the world, we ought to be 
contented with it; the immortal and the infinite are felt 
only through the medium of the foul ; the foul alone can 
did'ufe an intered over the higher fort of metaphyfics. 
“ If man confines himfelf to the knowledge which he 
gains by his lenfes, all will be melancholy for his foul. 
Will he have any idea of immortality, when the fore¬ 
runners of dedrudion are engraven fo deeply on the 
countenance of mortals, and living nature falls inceflant- 
ly into dud ? When ail the fenfes talk of death, what 
feeble hope can we entertain of a refurredion ? If man 
confulted only his fenfations, what idea would he form 
of the fupreme goodnefs ? So many afflictions difpute 
the madery over our life, fo many hideous objeCls dif- 
figure nature, that the unfortunate created being curfes 
his exidence a thoufand times before the lad convulfion 
fnatches it away. Let man, on the contrary, rejeCl the 
tedimony of his fenfes; how will he guide himfelf on the 
earth ? And yet, if he truds to them alone, what enthu- 
fiafm, what morals, what religion, will be able to refid 
the repeated adaults to which pain and pleafure alter¬ 
nately expofe him ? 
“.Reflection wandered over this vaft region of. uncer¬ 
tainty, when Kant endeavoured to trace the limits of the 
two empires, that of the fenfes and that of the foul; of 
external and of internal nature. The drength of think¬ 
ing, and the wifdom with which he marked thefe limits, 
were perhaps never exhibited before: he did not lofe 
himfelf among the new fydems concerning the creation 
of the univerfe; he recognized the bounds which the eternal 
myfteries Jet to the human underftanding, and (what will be 
new perhaps to thofe who have only heard Kant fpoken 
of) there is no philofopher more adverfe, in numerous.. 
refpeCls, to Metaphyfics; he made himfelf fo deeply 
learned in this fcience, only to employ againd it the 
means it afforded him to demondrate its own infuffi- 
ciency. We might fay of him, that, like a new Curtins, 
he threw himfelf into the gulpli of abllraftion, in order 
to fill it up. 
“ Far from rejecting experience, Kant confidered the 
bufinefs of life as nothing but the aftion of our innate 
faculties upon the feveral forts of knowledge which come 
to us from without. He believed that experience would 
be nothing but a chaos, without the laics of Underftanding , 
(the twelve Categories ;) but that the laws of under¬ 
ftanding have no other objeCl than the elements of thought 
furnifhed by experience. It follows that Metaphyfics 
themfelves can teach us nothing beyond thefe limits. 
Defpots and fanatics have endeavoured to prevent human 
reafon from examining certain fubjeCts, and reafon has 
ever burd thefe unjud fetters. But the limits which Jhe 
impofcs on licrfelf, far from eijlaving her, give her new 
Jlrength, fuch drength as always refults from the autho¬ 
rity of laws which are freely agreed to by thofe who are 
fubjeded to them. Kant makes confidence the innate 
principle of our moral exidence ; for, as man is free, he 
ought to create to himfelf motives powerful enough to 
combat againd the operation of exterior objeCls, and to 
let his will free from the narrow trammels of felfiflinefs. 
Duty is at once the proof and the fecurity of the metaphy- 
Jical independence of man. Kant makes the fublime, in 
moral liberty, to confid in the druggies of man with his 
dediny or with his nature. Unlimited power excites our 
fear, greatnefs overwhelms us; yet by the vigour of the will 
we efcape from the fenfation of our [phyfical weaknefs. 
The power of dediny, and the immenfity of nature, are 
placed in endlefs oppofition to the miferable dependence 
of the creature upon earth ; but one fpark of the facred 
fire in our bofoms triumphs over the univerfe; fince with 
one fpark we are enabled to redd the impreflions which 
all the powers in the world could make upon us. 
“ The adverfaries ot Kant have accufed him of having 
merely repeated the arguments of the ancient Idealifls ; 
they have pretended that the doCtrine of the German phi¬ 
lofopher was only an old fyftem in a new language. This 
reproach has no foundation. 
“ The polemical part of the works of Kant, that in 
which he attacks the philofopliy of the Materialifts, is of 
itfelf a mader-piece. That philofopliy hasdruck its roots 
fo deeply into the mind, fo much irreligion and felfiflinefs 
have been the refult of it, that thofe men ought to be 
regarded as benefaClors to their country, who have even 
combated a fydem fo pernicious. Writers of the fecond 
and third rank in Germany are fufficiently deep to be of 
the fird rank in other countries.” 
The well-known fad that Madame de Stael in her work 
on Germany, confulted A. W. von Schlegel,' whofe 
literary charader and fuperior talents judified the confi¬ 
dence with which this lady appealed to his judgment, 
Mr. Stewart fays, “ will at once account to my readers 
for the confidence with which I appeal to her hidorical 
datements on the lubjed of German philofopliy. Her 
own knowledge of the language was probably not fo 
critically exad as to enable her to enter into the more 
refined details of the difl'erent fydems which flie has de- 
fcribed ; but her extraordinary penetration, joined to the op¬ 
portunities Jhe enjoyed of convcrfuig with all that was then 
moft illuftrious in Germany, qualified her in an eminent de¬ 
gree 
