and popular authors, I am a small thinker and a decidedly unpopular
author, who has nevertheless done some work, I answer, that I have
been a teetotaler since the summer of 1841, when I was 16, and I have
never smoked except as a lark at school. I was a Vegetarian for about
25 years. I believe alcohol to be highly detrimental to head work.
Tobacco has, I think, done good in only one case that has come under
my notice during 40 years; it quieted an excitable man. My father, who
was a medical man of wide practice, was very strong against much use
of tobacco. He knew two cases of speedy death from the oil in the bowl
of a tobacco-pipe being applied to aching teeth. He had several cases
of much impaired digestion from smoking.
F. J FURNIVALL.
March 8, 1882.
MR. SAMUEL R. GARDINER, HON. LL. D.
PROFESSOR OF MODERN HISTORY IN KING'S COLLEGE.
In reply to your letter, I beg to say that I never smoked in my life,
and don't intend to begin. I take beer at luncheon and dinner, and
occasionally a glass or two of wine, but very often I am four or five
days without doing that.
SAMUEL R. GARDINER.
March 9, 1882.
RT. HON. W. E. GLADSTONE, M. P.
In answer to your questions, I beg to say that Mr. Gladstone drinks
one glass or two of claret at luncheon, the same at dinner, with the
addition of a glass of light port. The use of wine to this extent is
especially necessary to him at the time of greatest intellectual
exertion. Smoking he detests, and he has always abstained from the use
of very strong and fiery stimulants.
HERBERT J. GLADSTONE.
November 29, 1882.
MDLLE. H. GREVILLE.
Being a lady, though my _nom de plume_ be a man's, I have little
experience of either alcohol or tobacco. I must fairly say that though
claret agrees with my constitution when properly mixed with water,
wine without water, and every kind of liqueurs, makes me very ill,
especially when taken between my meals, which are only two in number--
breakfast at twelve, and dinner at seven. I never use any stimulant.
My sleep being scanty, I want sedatives rather than stimulants. I must
add, nevertheless, that once or twice in a year, when I felt very
tired, and had some work to conclude, especially at night, I happened
to smoke one cigarette or Russian papyrus, which revived me promptly,
and enabled me to finish my work. If you may be interested in my
fashion of working, I may inform you that I work very fast, two hours
at once, and then take a rest, or dinner. After resting two hours, I
can write two hours again. I write without scratching, or blotting,
about 100 lines of any French newspaper feuilleton, not the
_Temps_, which is larger, but the _Figuro_, or any similar
paper, in half-an-hour's time. I don't think that any-body could write
more quickly; I seldom make any corrections, and never copy my work,
which is sent to the printer as I write it. I use no stimulants of any
kind, but sometimes eat an orange or two. After working towards
midnight, I sometimes feel hungry, but I never eat for fear of
spoiling my night's rest. I lived many years in Russia, and my
experience is, that people who smoke too much suffer from their
throat. Emile Augrer has been very ill with his stomach, from smoking
too many strong cigars. He ceased, and has been completely healed.
H. GREVILLE.
April 28, 1882.
COUNT GUBERNATIS.
In reply to your favour of the 28th ult., I have the honour to inform
you that I do not smoke, because nicotine acts upon my system as a
most powerful poison. At the age of ten I had a Havana cigar given me
to smoke; after smoking it I fainted and did not come to myself till
after a _deep sleep, which lasted twenty-four hours._ When I was
twenty, the third part of a cigar was given me to smoke as a remedy
for the toothache. I could not finish it. A cold perspiration attended
with vomiting and fainting ensued. I therefore judge from the effects
of tobacco upon myself that it cannot be such a benefactor of mankind
as people have tried to make it out. I am convinced that in any case,
smoking lulls the mind to sleep, and when carried to excess tends to
produce stupefaction or idiotcy.
Perhaps you are aware that in Little Russia, the people call tobacco
the _Devil's herb_; and it is related that the devil planted it
under the form of an idolater. For my part I am quite prepared to
adopt the opinion of the Russian people. Before the time of Peter the
Great, smoking was strictly prohibited in Russia.
The Poet Prati sang one day:
Fuma, passagia e medita
E diverrai poeta.
(Smoke, ramble alone and think, and thou will soon become a poet.)
That is what he himself does, but my belief is that owing to the abuse
of cigars, he so frequently raves (dotes) and his poetry is often
cloudy.
As for alcohol, I take it to be proved beyond all doubt, that when
taken in very small quantities it may, in certain cases, do good, but
that taken in large quantities it kills. After having burnt the
stomach, it deprives it of its power of digestion. I have seen a great
many persons begin to use alcoholic beverages in the hope of acquiring
tone, and afterwards get so accustomed to their use, that the best
Chianti wine passed into their stomach like water. In this case, as in
so many other cases, it is a question of measure. Alcohol has a like
injurious effect upon the brain as upon the stomach.
I am by no means an authority on the question which you have been good
enough to address to me, and can therefore only give you briefly a
statement of my own personal experience. Speaking of stimulants, I
would mention, for instance, the strange effect produced upon my
rather sensitive organism by a single cup of coffee. If I take a cup
of coffee at six o'clock in the evening I cannot get to sleep before
six in the morning. If I take it at noon I can get to sleep at
midnight I know that many people take coffee to keep awake when
working through the night. My own opinion is that you cannot work any
better with these stimulants. There is a sort of irritation produced
by drinking coffee which I do not consider helpful to serious and
sustained work. It is possible, however, that works of genius may be
produced sometimes in a state of nervous excitement, I suppose when
the shattered nerves begin to relax. Manzoni wrote his master pieces
when in a state of painful nervous distraction, but alcohol had
nothing to do with it; perhaps he had recourse to other stimulants.
(1) When we read that literary producers of any power have gone on
working up to the last, even in the near approach of death, we usually
find the work done has been of a not unwelcome kind, and often that it
has formed part of a long-cherished design. But when the disease of
which the sufferer is dying is consumption, or some disease which
between paroxysms of pain leaves spaces of ease and rest, it is
nothing wonderful that work should be done. Some of the best of
Paley's works were produced under such conditions, and some of the
best of Shelley's. Nor, indeed, is there anything in mere pain which
necessarily prevents literary work. The late Mr. T. T. Lynch produced
some of his most beautiful writings amid spasms of _angina
pectoris_. This required high moral courage in the writer.... It is
a curious, though well-known fact, however, that times of illness,
when the eyes swim and the hand shakes, are oftentimes rich in
suggestion. If the mind is naturally fertile--if there is stuff in
it--the hours of illness are by no means wasted. It is then that the
"_dreaming_ power" which counts for so much in literary work
often asserts itself most usefully.--_The Contemporary Review_,
vol. 29, p. 946.
(2) When the poet Wordsworth was engaged in composing the "White Doe
of Rylstone," he received a wound in his foot, and he observed that
the continuation of his literary labours increased the irritation of
the wound; whereas by suspending his work he could diminish it, and
absolute mental rest produced perfect cure. In connection with this
incident he remarked that poetic excitement, accompanied by protracted
labour in composition, always brought on more or less of bodily
derangement He preserved himself from permanently injurious
consequences by his excellent habit of life.--Hamerton. _The
Intellectual Life_.
I know that certain authors think they can write better when taking
artificial stimulants. I do not, however, believe that an artificial
irritation of the nerves can have any good effect upon our faculty of
apprehension. I am even inclined to think that when we write best,
_it is not owing_ to nervous _excitement_, but rather because our nerves,
after a period of extreme irritation, _leave us a few moments respite_,
and it is during these moments the divine spark shines brightly. When
creative genius has accomplished its task, the nerves once more relapse
into their former irritability and cause us to suffer; but at the time of
creation there is a truce of suffering.
I never use any stimulant to help me in my labours; yet when I have
been writing works of fiction, for instance my Indian and Roman Plays,
I have nearly always been subject to great nervous agitation. When I
suffered most from spasms, I had short intervals of freedom from pain,
during which I could write, and those around me asked in astonishment
how I could, in the midst of such suffering, write scenes that were
cheerful, glowing and impassioned.
I have occasionally in my time enjoyed these luminous intervals. I do
not know whether those who use alcohol as a stimulant have experienced
the same. No doubt they have succeeded in exciting their nervous
sensibilities; but I assert that the real work of creative genius is
accomplished in the intervals of this purturbation of the nerves which
by some is deemed so essential to intellectual labour. When the nerves
are excited to the highest pitch, they occasionally suffer, the
transitory cessation from which is the divine moment of human
creation. It seems to me, however, that this ought to be left to
nature, and that every attempt to produce artificial excitement, for
the purpose of producing creations of a higher class, is futile and
beset with danger.
ANGELO DE GUBERNATIS.
March 4, 1882.
M. L. P. GUENIN,
REVISING STENOGRAPHER TO THE FRENCH SENATE.
I thank you for having asked my opinion upon the effects of tobacco
and alcohol on the mind and the health of men who give themselves up
to intellectual work; and hasten to comply with your request. I am not
a very resolute adversary of tobacco, because I must admit that I
smoke, and at home use wine also: but if their use appears useful or
agreeable, I ought to add that whenever I have to undertake any long
arduous work, and above all, the reproduction of stenographic law or
parliamentary reports, of which the copy is required without delay, I
then make use of nothing but pure water. I limit myself as to
stimulant to the use of coffee, which enables me to pass whole days
and nights without feeling any want of sleep and, so to say, without
fatigue, notwithstanding the labour of the stenographic translations.
As you see, I consider that tobacco and alcohol do not act as
stimulants, but rather as narcotics. With me they induce after the
first moment of excitement a sort of calm and somnolence altogether
incompatible with severe work; and I prefer coffee, always on the
condition that as soon as the effort to be accomplished is finished
the use of it must cease. I will not invoke the precedents of the
celebrated men who have been led to make great use of coffee without
impairing their health. It is after many years' experience that I have
acted as I have indicated.
L. P. GUENIN.
March 11, 1582.
DR. WILLIAM GUY.
In answer to your enquiry, I may state the result of my personal
experience and observation thus :-1. Alcoholic liquors, when taken in
such quantity as to excite the circulation, are unfavourable to all
inquiries requiring care and accuracy, but not unfavourable to efforts
of the imagination. 2. Tobacco taken in small quantities is not
unwholesome in its action on mind or body. When taken in excess it is
not easy to define or describe its action, the chief fact relating to
it being that it increases the number of the pulse, but lessens the
force of the heart. 3. My personal experience of such quantities of
wine as two or more glasses of port a day at my age (72) is that it
produces no perceptible or measurable effect when taken for, say,
three weeks or a month at a time, when compared with the like period
of total abstinence. 4. It may be said in favour of temperance or even
of extreme abstinence, that some of those men who have done most work
in their day--John Howard, Wesley, and Cobbett, for example--have been
either very moderate, or decidedly abstemious. But on the other hand,
such men as Samuel Johnson, who was a free liver and glutton, and
Thackeray, who drank to excess, have also got through a great amount
of work.
WILLIAM A. GUY.
Feb. 25, 1882.
PROFESSOR ERNST HAECKEL,
JENA.
I find strong coffee very useful in mental work. Of alcohol, I take
very little, because I find it of no value as a stimulant. I have
never smoked.
E. HAECKEL.
November 4, 1882.
MR. PHILIP GILBERT HAMERTON.
I am quite willing to answer your question about tobacco. I used to
smoke in moderation, but six years ago, some young friends were
staying at my house, and they led me into smoking more in the evenings
than I was accustomed to. This brought on disturbed nights and dull
mornings; so I gave up smoking altogether--as an experiment--for six
months. At the end of that time, I found my general health so much
improved, that I determined to make abstinence a permanent rule, and
have stuck to my determination ever since, with decided benefit. I
shall certainly never resume smoking. I never use any stimulants
whatever when writing, and believe the use of them to be most
pernicious; indeed, I have seen terrible results from them. When a
writer feels dull, the best stimulant is fresh air. Victor Hugo makes
a good fire before writing, and then opens the window. I have often
found temporary dulness removed by taking a turn out of doors, or
simply by adopting Victor Hugo's plan. I am not a teetotaler, though
at various times I have abstained altogether from alcoholic stimulants
for considerable periods, feeling better without them. I drink ale to
lunch, and wine (Burgundy) to dinner; but never use either between
meals, when at home and at work. At one time I did myself harm by
drinking tea, but have quite given up both tea and coffee. My
breakfast in the morning is a basin of soup, invariably, and nothing
else. This is very unusual in England, but not uncommon in France. I
find it excellent, as it supports me well through the morning, without
any excitement. My notion of the perfect physical condition for
intellectual work is that in which the body is well supported without
any kind of stimulus to the nervous system. Thanks to the observance
of a few simple rules, I enjoy very regular health, with great
equality and regularity of working power, so that I get through a
great deal without feeling it to be any burden upon me, which is the
right state. I never do any brain work after dinner; I dine at seven,
and read after, but only in languages that I can read without any
trouble, and about subjects that I can read without any trouble, and
about subjects that are familiar to me.
P.G. HAMERTON.
February 13, 1882.
MR. THOMAS HARDY.
I fear that the information I can give on the effect of tobacco will
be less than little: for I have never smoked a pipeful in my life, nor
a cigar. My impression is that its use would be very injurious in my
case; and so far as I have observed, it is far from-beneficial to any
literary man. There are, unquestionably, writers who smoke with
impunity, but this seems to be owing to the counterbalancing effect of
some accident in their lives or constitutions, on which few others
could calculate. I have never found alcohol helpful to novel-writing
in any degree. My experience goes to prove that the effect of wine,
taken as a preliminary to imaginative work, is to blind the writer to
the quality of what he produces rather than to raise its quality. When
walking much out of doors, and particularly when on Continental
rambles, I occasionally drink a glass or two of claret or mild ale.
The German beers seem really beneficial at these times of exertion,
which (as wine seems otherwise) may be owing to some alimentary
qualities they possess, apart from their stimulating property. With
these rare exceptions, I have taken no alcoholic liquor for the last
two years.
T. HARDY.
Dec. 5, 1882.
MR. FREDERIC HARRISON.
Frederick Harrison never has touched tobacco in any form, though much
in the society of habitual smokers, but finds many hours in a close
smoking room rather depressing. Has always taken a moderate amount of
alcohol (pint of claret) _once_ in the day, and finds himself
rather stronger with than without it. Age fifty, health perfect;
accustomed to much open-air exercise, long sleep, and little food.
Reads and writes from eight to ten hours per diem, and never remembers
to have been a day unfit for work.
March, 1882.
MR. G. A. HENTY.
In answer to your question, certainly in my own case I should find
stimulants destructive to good work. I get through an immense deal of
literary work in the course of the day. I rise at eight, and seldom
put out my light until three in the morning. With lunch and dinner I
drink claret and water, and never touch stimulants of any kind except
at meals. On the other hand, I smoke from the time I have finished
breakfast until I go to bed, and should find it very difficult to
write unless smoking. I have a great circle of literary friends, and
scarce but one smokes while he works. Some take stimulants--such as
brandy and soda water-while at work; some do not, but certainly
nineteen out of twenty smoke. I believe that smoking, if not begun
until after the age of twenty-one, to be in the vast majority of cases
advantageous alike to health, temper, and intellect; for I do not
think that it is in any way deleterious to the health, while it
certainly aids in keeping away infectious diseases, malaria, fever,
&c.
While I consider a moderate use of wine and beer advantageous-except,
of course, where beer, as is often the case, affects the liver, I
regard the use of spirits as wholly deleterious, except when medically
required, and should like to see the tax upon spirits raised tenfold.
A glass of spirits and water may do no harm, but there is such a
tendency upon the part of those who use them to increase the dose, and
the end is, in that case, destruction to mind and body.
G. A. HENTY.
February 22, 1882.
MR. OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES
Prefers an entirely undisturbed and unclouded brain for mental work,
unstimulated by anything stronger than tea or coffee, unaffected by
tobacco or other drags. His faculties are best under his control in
the forenoon, between breakfast and lunch. The only intellectual use
he could find in stimulants is the quickened mental action they induce
when taken in company. He thinks ideas may reach the brain when
slightly stimulated, which remain after the stimulus has ceased to
disturb its rhythms. He does not habitually use any drink stronger
than water. He has no peremptory rule, having no temptation to
indulgence, but approaching near to abstinence as he grows older. He
does not believe that any stimulus is of advantage to a healthy
student, unless now and then socially, in the intervals of mental
labour.
MR. GEORGE JACOB HOLYOAKE.
I never took enough of stimulants to tell whether it is good or ill
for "thinking and working." Tobacco is only good when you have a habit
of working too much, as it makes you lazy-minded.
G. J. HOLYOAKE.
April 3, 1882.
SIR J. D. HOOKER, F. R. S.
I have had no experience on the subject of the use of tobacco and
alcohol that is of any value, or you should be welcome to it.
Jos. D. HOOKER.
Feb. 13, 1882.
MR. W. D. HOWELLS.
If you will allow me to count myself out of the list of "great
thinkers "and _very_ "popular authors," I will gladly contribute
my experience in the points you publish. I never use tobacco, except
in a very rare, self-defensive cigarette, where a great many other
people are smoking; and I commonly drink water at dinner. When I take
wine, I think it weakens my work, and my working force the next
morning.
W. D. HOWELLS.
March 2, 1882.
DR. J. P. JOULE.
I am afraid that my experience can be of little use to you, because I
have lived a very uniform life; and am therefore unable to compare the
consequences from following various _regimes_.. I use alcoholic
beverages moderately. I do not think they ever assisted or retarded my
mental work. As for tobacco, it is the object of my aversion, as it
must be to all non-smokers to whom the habits of the consumers of the
weed must always appear more or less as an impertinence. Besides, it
is difficult to imagine how the use of narcotics can be indulged in
with impunity to the health.
J. P. JOULE.
February 11, 1882.
THE REV. HENRY LANSDELL.
In reply to your note, I beg to say--1st, that I have never been a
smoker. 2nd, that I became a total abstainer from alcoholic liquors
before I had attained the age of twenty. 3rd, that I have never kept
my bed, I am thankful to say, for a day, in my life. 4th, that up to
the age of twenty-four I rose at seven; and up to the age of
twenty-seven, at six; since twenty-seven, at five a.m. 5th, that it is
a common occurrence for me to have been (for some years past) at
mental employment from six a.m., to seven p.m. 6th, that I do not find
the least necessity for stimulants in the form either of tobacco or of
alcohol.
HENRY LANSDELL.
March 13, 1882.
REV. STANLEY LEATHES, D. D.
I am not an habitual smoker, and therefore cannot speak about its
effects; I find it an irritant rather than a sedative. But I am quite
sensible of the virtue of an occasional glass of good wine, and am
certain I can work better with than without it.
STANLEY LEATHES.
April 15, 1882.
W. E. H. LECKY.
I am not a smoker, and am therefore unable to give you any evidence
on the subject.
W. E. H. LECKY.
February 7, 1882.
DR. F. R. LEES.
I have travelled in various parts of the world, from Greece to the
Pacific, and from the Coasts of Labrador to the Southern States of
North America, perhaps as much as any man living, and have never, in
heat or cold, felt any inconvenience from my forty-eight years of
abstinence. I have lectured for many nights consecutively on various
topics during the intervals of that time, and have written thousands
of articles on philosophy, temperance, physiology, politics and
criticisms in papers and magazines, and published pamphlets and
volumes equal to 25 octavos of small print; but have never required
anything stronger than tea or coffee as a stimulant. The Alliance
_Prize Essay_ (100 guineas) of 320 pages was composed and written
in 21 days. I never smoke, snuff, or chew. I have known _many_
literary men ruined by smoking, and in all cases the continued use of
tobacco is most injurious to the mind, as well as to the body. It
_slays_ the nervous recuperative energy.
F. R. LEES.
November 17, 1882.
MR. LEONE LEVI, F. S. A.,
BARRISTER-AT-LAW, Professor of the Principles and Practice of Commerce
and Commercial Law, King's College, London.
I have no hesitation in saying that I have never found the need of
either tobacco or alcohol, or any other stimulants, for my
intellectual efforts. I have never used tobacco in any form, and
though occasionally, when my physical forces are much exhausted, I
have derived benefit from a single glass of wine or ale, as a rule,
and in my ordinary diet, I use nothing whatever but fresh water. This
is my personal experience, and though I have worked very hard-often
sixteen hours a day of continuous labour--I have always enjoyed,
thanks to Providence, the best of health.
LEONE LEVI.
SIR JOHN LUBBOCK, BART. M. P.
I beg to say that in my opinion the use of tobacco is, in the great
majority of cases, prejudicial. As to alcohol, I would rather not
express any opinion.
JOHN LUBBOCK.
February 17, 1882.
PROFESSOR MAGNUS.
In reply to your enquiry respecting the use of tobacco and alcohol, I
shall be glad to give you all the information I possess on this
subject; though, of course, I am not in a position to judge whether my
few remarks will be of any service to you.