READ ALONGSIDE THE SOURCE
Eureka: A Prose Poem — Edgar A. Poe, 1848 — reading text
Part 3 of 27. These parts divide the reading text for browsing; they are not the source document's page numbers.
Repository OCR — unreviewed
Machine-extracted OCR text · Review label: Machine produced / unreviewed
Compare this copy with the preserved source. Review labels describe the recorded status of this file; they do not guarantee that the text is error-free. Spacing and line breaks are retained, with long lines wrapped to fit the screen.
their Hogs and Rams, that in spite of the eternal prating
of their savans about roads to Truth, none of them fell,
even by accident, into what we now so distinctly perceive
to be the broadest, the straightest and most available of all
mere roads — the great thoroughfare — the majestic highway
of the Consistent ? Is it not wonderful that they should
have failed to deduce from the works of God the vitally
momentous consideration that a perfect consistency can be
nothing but an absolute truth ? How plain — how rapid
our progress since the late announcement of this proposi
tion ! By its means, investigation has been taken out of
THE UNIVERSE. 19
the hands of the ground-moles, and given as a duty, rather
than as a task, to the true — to the only true thinkers — to
the generally-educated men of ardent imagination. These
latter — our Keplers — our Laplaces — ' speculate' — ' theorize'
— these are the terms — can you not fancy the shout of scorn
with which they would be received by our progenitors,
were it possible for them to be looking over my shoulders
as I write ? The Keplers, I repeat, speculate — theorize —
and their theories are merely corrected — reduced — sifted —
cleared, little by little, of their chaff of inconsistency — until
at length there stands apparent an unencumbered Consist
ency — a consistency which the most stolid admit — because
it is a consistency — to be an absolute and an unquestion
able Truth.
" I have often thought, my friend, that it must have puz
zled these dogmaticians of a thousand years ago, to deter
mine, even, by which of their two boasted roads it is that
the cryptographist attains the solution of the more compli
cate cyphers — or by which of them Champollion guided
mankind to those important and innumerable truths which,
for so many centuries, have lain entombed amid the phone-
tical hieroglyphics of Egypt. In especial, would it not have
given these bigots some trouble to determine by which of
their two roads was reached the most momentous and sub
lime of all their truths — the truth — the fact of gravitation ?
Newton deduced it from the laws of Kepler. Kepler ad
mitted that these laws he guessed — these laws whose inves
tigation disclosed to the greatest of British astronomers that
principle, the basis of all (existing) physical principle, in
going behind which we enter at once the nebulous kingdom
20 EUREKA.
of Metaphysics. Yes ! — these vital laws Kepler guessed —
that is to say, he imagined them. Had he been asked to
point out either the Reductive or inductive route by which
he attained them, his reply might have been — ' I know
nothing about routes — but I do know the machinery of the
Universe. Here it is. I grasped it with my soul — I reached
it through mere dint of intuition. Alas, poor ignorant old
man ! Could not any metaphysician have told him that what
he called ' intuition ' was but the conviction resulting from
deductions or inductions of which the processes were so
shadowy as to have escaped his consciousness, eluded his
reason, or bidden defiance to his capacity of expression ?
How great a pity it is that some ' moral philosopher ' had
not enlightened him about all this ! How it would have
comforted him on his death-bed to know that, instead of
having gone intuitively and thus unbecomingly, he had, in
fact, proceeded decorously and legitimately — that is to say
Hog-ishly, or at least Ram-ishly — into the vast halls where
lay gleaming, untended, and hitherto untouched by mortal
hand — unseen by mortal eye — the imperishable and price
less secrets of the Universe !
" Yes, Kepler was essentially a theorist ; but this title,
now of so much sanctity, was, in those ancient days, a de
signation of supreme contempt. It is only now that men
begin to appreciate that divine old man — to sympathize
with the prophetical and poetical rhapsody of his ever-
memorable words. For my part," continues the unknown
correspondent, " I glow with a sacred fire when I even
think of them, and feel that I shall never grow weary of
their repetition : — in concluding this letter, let me have the
THE UNIVERSE. 21
real pleasure of transcribing them once again : — ' / care not
whether my work be read now or by posterity. I can afford
to wait a century for readers when God himself has waited
six thousand years for an observer. I triumph. I have
stolen the golden secret of the Egyptians. I will indulge
my sacred fury.' '
Here end my quotations from this very unaccountable
and, perhaps, somewhat impertinent epistle ; and perhaps
it would be folly to comment, in any respect, upon the
chimerical, not to say revolutionary, fancies of the writer —
whoever he is — fancies so radically at war with the well-
considered and well-settled opinions of this age. Let us
proceed, then, to our legitimate thesis, The Universe.
This thesis admits a choice between two modes of dis
cussion : — We may ascend or descend. Beginning at our
own point of view — at the Earth on which we stand — we
may pass to the other planets of our system — thence to the
Sun — thence to our system considered collectively — and
thence, through other systems, indefinitely outwards ; or,
commencing on high at some point as definite as we can
make it or conceive it, we may come down to the habita
tion of Man. Usually — that is to say, in ordinary essays
on Astronomy — the first of these two modes is, with cer
tain reservation, adopted : — this for the obvious reason that
astronomic &\ facts, merely, and principles, being the object,
that object is best fulfilled in stepping from the known
because proximate, gradually onward to the point where all
certitude becomes lost in the remote. For my present pur
pose, however, — that of enabling the mind to take in, as if
from afar and at one glance, a distinct conception of the
EUREKA.
individual Universe — it is clear that a descent to small
from great — to the outskirts from the centre (if we could
establish a centre) — to the end from the beginning (if we
could fancy a beginning) would be the preferable course,
but for the difficulty, if not impossibility, of presenting, in
this course, to the unastronomical, a picture at all compre
hensible in regard to such considerations as are involved in
quantity — that is to say, in number, magnitude and dis
tance.
Now, distinctness — intelligibility, at all points, is a pri
mary feature in my general design. On important topics
it is better to be a good deal prolix than even a very little
obscure. But abstruseness is a quality appertaining to no
subject per se. All are alike, in facility of comprehension,
to him who approaches them by properly graduated steps.
It is merely because a stepping-stone, here and there, is
heedlessly left unsupplied in our road to the Differential
Calculus, that this latter is not altogether as simple a thing
as a sonnet by Mr. Solomon Seesaw.
By way of admitting, then, no chance for misapprehen
sion, 1 think it advisable to proceed as if even the more
obvious facts of Astronomy were unknown to the reader.
In combining the two modes of discussion to which I have
referred, I propose to avail myself of the advantages pecu
liar to each — and very especially of the iteration in detail
which will be unavoidable as a consequence of the plan.
Commencing with a descent, I shall reserve for the return
upwards those indispensable considerations of quantity to
which allusion has already been made.
Let us begin, then, at once, with that merest of words,
THE UNIVERSE. 23
"Infinity." This, like "God," "spirit," and some other
expressions of which the equivalents exist in all languages,
is by no means the expression of an idea — but of an effort
at one. It stands for the possible attempt at an impossible
conception. Man needed a term by which to point out
the direction of this effort — the cloud behind which lay,
forever invisible, the object of this attempt. A word, in
fine, was demanded, by means of which one human being
might put himself in relation at once with another human
being and with a certain tendency of the human intellect.
Out of this demand arose the word, " Infinity ; " which is
thus the representative but of the thought of a thought.
As regards that infinity now considered — the infinity of
space — we often hear it said that " its idea is admitted by
the mind — is acquiesced in — is entertained — on account of
the greater difficulty which attends the conception of a
limit." But this is merely one of those phrases by which
even profound thinkers, time out of mind, have occasion
ally taken pleasure in deceiving themselves. The quibble
lies concealed in the word " difficulty." " The mind," we
are told, " entertains the idea of limitless, through the
greater difficulty which it finds in entertaining that of lim
ited, space." Now, were the proposition but fairly put, its
absurdity would become transparent at once. Clearly,
there is no mere difficulty in the case. The assertion in
tended, if presented according to its intention and without
sophistry, would run thus : — " The mind admits the idea of
limitless, through the greater impossibility of entertaining
that of limited, space."
It must be immediately seen that this is not a question
24 EUREKA.
of two statements between whose respective credibilities —
or of two arguments between whose respective validities —
the reason is called upon to decide : — it is a matter of two
conceptions, directly conflicting, and each avowedly im
possible, one of which the intellect is supposed to be capa
ble of entertaining, on account of the greater impossibility
of entertaining the other. The choice is not made between
two difficulties ; — it is merely fancied to be made between
two impossibilities. Now of the former, there are degrees
— but of the latter, none : — just as our impertinent letter-
writer has already suggested. A task may be more or less
difficult ; but it is either possible or not possible : — there
are no gradations. It might be more difficult to overthrow
the Andes than an ant-hill ; but it can be no more impossi
ble to annihilate the matter of the one than the matter of
the other. A man may jump ten feet with less difficulty
than he can jump twenty, but the impossibility of his leap
ing to the moon is not a whit less than
