“Vai nu atmiņas par vakardienas laimi liek mums ciest šodien, vai arī šīsdienas ciešanu sakne meklējama pāri plūstošā priekā, kas varētu būt bijis.”

“Nelaimei ir daudz seju. Ļaužu izmisumam ir daudzi veidi. Līdzīgi varavīksnei, tas liecas pāri plašajam apvārsnim, un tā veidi ir tikpat dažādi kā šī loka krāsas- tikpat izšķirīgas un tomēr saplūdušas vienotā mirdzumā. Liecas pāri plašajam apvārsnim kā varavīksne! Kā gan varēja gadīties, ka es minēju skaisto, lai izskaidrotu pretīgo, izvēlējos miera vēstnesi par salīdzinājumu postam.? Bet, tāpat kā ētiskos secinājumos ļaunums ir labā sekas, tā arī no prieka dzimst bēdas.”

“Es baidos no nākotnes, pareizāk sakot, - no tā, ko tā nesīs. Nodrebu, domādams, ka ikviens, pat visnenozīmīgākais notikums var manas dvēseles satraukumu vērst neizturamu. Īstenībā es nebaidos no briesmām, bet no šausmām, ko tās izraisa. Savā nožēlojamā, drosmi paralizējošā stāvoklī jūtu, ka agrāk vai vēlāk pienāks diena, kad cīņā ar nepielūdzamo rēgu- BAILĒM, būs jāatsakās ne vien no dzīves, bet arī no saprāta.”

“Un esprit tourné à la folie pouvait bien se laisser entraîner par de pareilles suggestions, surtout quand elles s'accordaient avec ses idées favorites préconçues”

“Īstenība man likās kā maldu tēls, vienīgi maldu tēls, bet sapņu valstības rēgainie priekšstati savukārt kļuva par manas esības pamatu- tikai šinī valstībā nedalāmi ritēja mana dzīve.”

“Jetez sur une étoile un rapide coup d'œil, regardez-la obliquement, en tournant vers elle la partie latérale de la rétine (beaucoup plus sensible à une lumière faible que la partie centrale), et vous verrez l'étoile plus distinctement; vous aurez l'appréciation la plus juste de son éclat, éclat qui s'obscurcit à proportion que vous dirigez votre vue en plein sur elle. Dans le dernier cas, il tombe sur l'œil un plus grand nombre de rayons; mais dans le premier, il y a une réceptibilité plus complète, une susceptibilité beaucoup plus vive. Une profondeur outrée affaiblit la pensée et la rend perplexe; et il est possible de faire disparaître Vénus elle-même du firmament par une attention trop soutenue, trop concentrée, trop directe.”

“The faculty of re-solution is possibly much invigorated by mathematical study, and especially by that highest branch of it which, unjustly, and merely on account of its retrograde operations, has been called, as if par excellence, analysis. Yet to calculate is not in itself to analyse. A chess-player, for example, does the one without effort at the other. It follows that the game of chess, in its effects upon mental character, is greatly misunderstood. I am not now writing a treatise, but simply prefacing a somewhat peculiar narrative by observations very much at random; I will, therefore, take occasion to assert that the higher powers of the reflective intellect are more decidedly and more usefully tasked by the unostentatious game of draughts than by a the elaborate frivolity of chess. In this latter, where the pieces have different and bizarre motions, with various and variable values, what is only complex is mistaken (a not unusual error) for what is profound. The attention is here called powerfully into play. If it flag for an instant, an oversight is committed resulting in injury or defeat. The possible moves being not only manifold but involute, the chances of such oversights are multiplied; and in nine cases out of ten it is the more concentrative rather than the more acute player who conquers. In draughts, on the contrary, where the moves are unique and have but little variation, the probabilities of inadvertence are diminished, and the mere attention being left comparatively unemployed, what advantages are obtained by either party are obtained by superior acumen. To be less abstract, let us suppose a game of draughts where the pieces are reduced to four kings, and where, of course, no oversight is to be expected. It is obvious that here the victory can be decided (the players being at all equal) only by some recherché movement, the result of some strong exertion of the intellect. Deprived of ordinary resources, the analyst throws himself into the spirit of his opponent, identifies himself therewith, and not unfrequently sees thus, at a glance, the sole methods (sometime indeed absurdly simple ones) by which he may seduce into error or hurry into miscalculation.”