Stuk 92 - Letter from Henry Hallam

2 folded sheets

Wilton Crescent - HH has received a book which is certainly that which WW led him to anticipate in his last letter of December 28th [WW's anonymous publication, 'Of the Plurality of Worlds: An Essay', 3rd edition, 1854]. The subject is one which occupies all reflecting men: 'The belief, or conjecture, that other planetary bodies are inhabited like, or somewhat like our own, naturally began with the moon and obtained reception, half seriously and half in sport, through many writings long before that of Fontenelle, who expanded the hypothesis'. HH does not altogether agree with the book where it argues 'that there is no transition from human and animals; certainly there is an immense leap, even in the case of the natives of the Alderman islands' or 'New Guinea. But taking in the whole constitution of man. I cannot say that the conformity to type, on which the author so well dwells in another part of the book, has been disregarded'. Neither does HH agree with another part of the book - 'that we can connive to being but man. If this were so, it would still only prove the limitation of our conceptions. But surely it is easy to alter in imagination the bodily structure of man, as to a great degree his mental faculties'. With regard to WW's notion of space: 'if space is no objective reality, the nebulae themselves are but luminous phenomena, part indeed of the non-ego world, but no more really distinct than our own notes, if we could see them. I have not however been able to go along with Kant as yet in this'. HH thinks the geological argument presented in the book is very sensible. 'On the whole, it is an original and very remarkable book, and will probably make an epoch in such speculations'. HH is 'not sure whether this book is yours - some things suggest it, some might make me doubt'. In looking over again WW's edition of James Mackintosh's Dissertation [James Mackintosh, 'Dissertation of the Progress of Ethical Philosophy', with a Preface by WW, 1836], HH 'was surprised at some facts and incorrect assertions of his, what you have not noticed. Is it not strange that he should charge all moral philosophers with confounding the theory of moral restraints with the criteria of virtue'.