THE BORDERLANDS OF HAPPINESS.
It was with something of the lassitude which succeeds an orgy that
Schopenhauer turned from the riot of the will and undertook to examine
such possibilities of happiness as life may yet afford, and, as
incidental thereto, the manner in which such possibilities may be most
enjoyed.
To this subject he brought a sumptuous variety of reflections, which
are summed up in a multi-colored essay, entitled "Lebensweisheit," or
Conduct of Life, but in which, in spite of the luxury of detail and
brilliancy of description, Schopenhauer almost unconsciously reminds
the reader of a man who takes his constitutional at midnight, and
preferentially when it rains.
The suggestions that occur to him are almost flamboyant in their
intensity, and yet about them all there circles such a series of dull
limitations that one somehow feels a sense of dumbness and suffocation,
a longing to get away and rush out into an atmosphere less charged with
sombre conclusions.
Concerning the baseness and shabbiness of every-day life Schopenhauer
has but little to say. He touches but lightly on its infinite
vulgarity, while its occasional splendor is equally unnoticed. Indeed,
he preaches not to redeem nor convert, but simply that his hearers may
be in some measure enlightened as to the bald unsatisfactoriness of all
things, and so direct their individual steps as to come as little in
contact with avoidable misery as possible. To many it will, of course,
seem quite appalling that a mind so richly receptive as his should have
chosen such shaggy moorlands for habitual contemplation, when, had he
wished, he might have feasted his eyes on resplendent panoramas. The
moorlands, however, were not of his making; he was merely a painter
filling in the landscape with objects which stood within the
perspective, and if he happened upon no resplendent panoramas, the
fault lay simply in the fact that he had been baffled in his attempt to
find them.
Voltaire says, somewhere, "I do not know what the life eternal may be,
but at all events this one is a very poor joke." In this sentiment
Schopenhauer solemnly concurred. That which was a _boutade_ to the one
became a theory to the other, and it is to his treatment of this
subject that the attention of the reader is now invited. The
introduction which he gives to it, if not as light as the overture to a
ballet, will, it is believed, still be found both interesting and
instructive, while its conclusion and supplement form, it may be noted,
an admitted part of that which is best of the modern essayists.
The first chapter opens with an enumeration of those possessions which
differentiate the lot of man, and which in so doing form the basis of
possible happiness. It has been said that the happiest land is the one
which has little, if any, need of importations, and he notes that the
man is most contented whose interior wealth suffices for his own
amusement, and who demands but little, if anything, from the exterior
world. Or, as Oliver Goldsmith has expressed it,--
"Still to ourselves in ev'ry place consigned
Our own felicity we make or find."
"In a world such as ours," Schopenhauer thinks, "he who has much to
draw upon from within is not unlike a room in which stands a Christmas
tree, bright, warm, and joyous, while all about are the snows and
icicles of a December night."
That which a man is in himself, that which accompanies him into
solitude, and which none can give him or take from him, is necessarily
more essential than all that he may possess or all that he may appear
in the eyes of others. The scholar, for instance, even when utterly
alone feeds most agreeably on his own thoughts, and we are most of us
very well aware that he whose intelligence is limited may ceaselessly
vary his festivals and amusements without ever succeeding in freeing
himself from the baleful weariness of boredom.
According to Schopenhauer, then, the supreme and all-important elements
of earthly happiness are subjective possessions, such as a noble
character, a capable mind, an easy disposition, and a well-organized
and healthy body; and it is these gifts, he rightly insists, that
should be cultivated and preserved, even at the expense of wealth and
emolument. An easy disposition, however, is that which above all other
things contributes most directly to contentment. Gayety of heart is,
indeed, its own recompense, and he who is really gay has a reason for
so being from the very fact that he is so. Supposing a man to be young,
handsome, rich, and respected, the one question to be asked about him
is, Is he light-hearted? On the other hand, if he is light-hearted,
little does it matter whether he is young or old, straight-limbed or
deformed, poor or rich; in any case he is contented. It is
light-heartedness alone which is, so to speak, the hard cash of
happiness; all the rest is but the note-of-hand; and in making this
observation, he (Schopenhauer) is careful to point out that there is
nothing that contributes so little to gayety as wealth, and nothing
that contributes so much thereto as health. "It is in the lower
classes, among the laborers, and particularly among the tillers of the
soil, that gayety and contentment are to be found, while on the other
hand, the faces of the great and the rich generally present an
expression of sullen constraint. To thoroughly understand, however, how
greatly happiness depends on gayety of disposition and the state of
health, it is only necessary to compare the impression which the same
circumstances and similar wants bring to us in days of health and
vigor, with that which is paramount when through our condition we are
predisposed to dullness and discontent. In brief, it is not the event
itself, but the way in which we view it, that makes or unmakes our
happiness." Or, as Epictetus said long ago, man is not moved by things,
but by his opinion of them.
As a general rule, nine tenths of happiness may be said to rest on the
state of health; when this is perfect, anything and everything may be a
source of pleasure; in illness, on the other hand, nothing, no matter
what its nature may be, is capable of affording any real enjoyment. It
follows, therefore, that it is wanton stupidity to sacrifice health for
any purpose, even for wealth and fame, and especially to passing and
fugitive pleasures, however alluring they may appear.
The next class of possessions of which Schopenhauer treats is property;
and in considering this division he seems not unlike that contented
individual who, on seeing a quantity of objects exposed for sale,
exclaimed pensively, "How much there is of which I have no need!"
Every man, it will be admitted, has his own horizon, beyond which his
pretensions do not extend. They reach the edge, but they do not cross
it. In other words, the absence of those possessions with which a man
is unacquainted is in no sense a privation to him; and it is probably
for this reason that the day-laborer bothers himself so little about
the flaring wealth of the rich. Wealth, on the other hand, is like
salt water; the more one drinks, the greater the thirst. But, even so,
this grim philosopher was far from despising it. "It is a rampart
against an incalculable number of discomforts; and it is in this manner
that it should be viewed, instead of being considered, as is generally
the case, in the light of a permission to procure a diversity of
pleasure."
As a practical man, Schopenhauer saw nothing that could make his ink
blush in repeatedly recommending the preservation of a fortune, made or
inherited; "for even," he says, "if it simply suffices to permit its
possessor to live without the necessity of labor, it is still an
inappreciable advantage in that it brings with it an exemption from the
general drudgery which is the ordinary lot of man. It is only on this
condition that man is born free, master of his hour and his strength,
and enabled to say each morning, 'The day is mine.' The difference,
therefore, between him who has a thousand crowns a year and the
landlord whose rent-roll runs into millions is infinitely less than the
difference between the first and the man who has nothing."
If the man whose necessities are provided for is inclined to follow
Schopenhauer's advice, he will, first of all, seek in repose and
leisure the avoidance of every form of discomfort; especially will he
seek to lead a tranquil and unpretentious existence which, so far as
possible, will be sheltered from all intruders. After having for a
certain time kept up relations with what is termed the world, he will
prefer a retired life; and if he is of superior intelligence, he will
give himself up to solitude. This he will do, because the more a man
possesses in himself, the less he has need of the exterior world.
Superiority of intelligence will therefore lead him to insociability;
for, as Schopenhauer says, "It is precisely in solitude, where each of
us is dependent on his own resources, that every one is brought face to
face with his own individuality; there the imbecile in his purple
groans beneath the weight of his miserable self, while he who is
mentally gifted peoples and animates with his thoughts the most arid
and desert region."
Now, it may be objected that contentment is not to be found in an idle
folding of the hands behind a hedge set against vexation. Nor is this
Schopenhauer's meaning. Wealth is but the means, not the source of
contentment. It is not the certainty of an income that brings
happiness, for its accompanying affranchisement from want carries the
tenant to the opposite pole of misery, where gapes the hydra, ennui.
And it is there that he whose necessities are provided for surely
lands, unless he fills the hour with some one of the many elevated
pursuits from which those who are obliged to work for their bread are
in a great measure debarred.
The third and last class of possessions that Schopenhauer discusses is
that which a man represents; or, in other words, the manner in which
he appears to his neighbors. "There is," he says, "no superstition more
universally dominant than that which leads us to attach a high value to
the opinion of others; and whether it be that this superstition has its
roots in our very nature, or that it has followed us up from the birth
of society and civilization, it is none the less certain that it
influences our conduct in a manner which is incommensurate, and hostile
to our well-being. This influence may be traced from the point in which
it shows itself beneath the anxious and servile deference to the _qu'en
dira-t-on_, to that in which it drives the dagger of Virginius into his
daughter's heart, or else to where it leads men to sacrifice their
peace, their fortune, their wealth, and their lives, for the sake of
posthumous renown."
The existence, however, which we lead in the minds of others is a
possession, Schopenhauer has carefully explained, which, through a
singular weakness, while highly prized is yet entirely unimportant to
our happiness. Indeed, if the comparison be drawn between that which we
are in reality and that which we are in the eyes of others, it will be
seen that the first term of the comparison comprises our entire
existence, for its sphere of action is in our own perceptions, while,
on the other hand, that which we represent acts on other minds than our
own, and in consequence has no direct existence for us, and an indirect
one only so far as it may influence their conduct toward us. The
wealthy, in their uttermost magnificence, can but say, "Our happiness
is entirely outside of us; it dwells in the minds of others."
Certainly, to a happiness of this description every thinker is
indifferent, or will necessarily become so as he grows aware of the
superficiality and dullness of mind, the narrow sentiments and limited
ideas, the absurdity of opinion and numberless errors, which go to the
making of his neighbor's brain. Indeed, it is generally sufficient to
note with what contempt half-a-dozen imbeciles will speak of some
distinguished man, to be quite ready to agree with Schopenhauer that in
according a high value to the opinion of others we are paying them an
honor which they in no sense deserve.
It is essential to our well-being to thoroughly understand the simple
fact that each one lives but in his own particular skin and not in the
opinion of others, and that, therefore, our actual condition as
determined by health, temperament, intellect, wife, children, and home,
is a hundred times more important than what it may please others to
think about us; fame, of course, is very pleasant; so is glory; but,
after all, what do they amount to? As has been seen, Leopardi snapped
his fingers at them both. To him they were simply illusions.
Schopenhauer goes more deeply into the subject, and explains with great
opulence of detail and fantasy of adjective that glory and fame are
founded on that which a man is in comparison to others; in other words,
that their value is purely relative, and would disappear entirely if
every one became that which a celebrity is already. It is not fame that
is so desirable, but rather the merit which should precede it. "The
predisposing conditions are, so to speak, the substance, while glory
itself is but the accident, which works on its possessor as an exterior
symptom, and confirms his own high opinion of himself. But this symptom
is yet not infallible, for is there not glory without merit and merit
without fame?"
As glory is incontestably but the echo, the image, the shadow, the
simulachre of merit, and as in any case that which is admirable should
be more highly valued than the admiration that it excites, it follows
that that which causes happiness does not consist in glory, but rather
in the attracting force of merit; or, to put it more exactly, in the
possession of such character and faculties as predispose thereto.
To be deserving of fame is, then, its own exceeding great reward. There
all the honor lies, and necessarily this must be true, "for, as a rule,
the reverberation of a glory that is to echo through future ages rarely
reaches the ears of him who is the object; and though certain instances
to the contrary may be objected, yet they have usually been due to
fortuitous circumstances which are otherwise without great importance.
Men lack ordinarily the proper balance of judgment which is necessary
for the appreciation of superior productions; and in these matters they
usually take the opinion of others, and that, too, in such wise that
ninety-nine admirers out of a hundred accord their praise at the nod of
one." It is for this reason that the approbation of one's
contemporaries, however numerous their voices may be, has so slight a
value for the thinker, for at best he can hearken to the voices of the
few, which in themselves may be but the effect of the moment. "Would a
virtuoso be greatly flattered by the applause of his public if he
learned that, with but two or three exceptions, the auditorium was
filled with deaf mutes who, to conceal their infirmity, clapped a loud
approval so soon as they saw a real listener move his hands? And how
would it be if he knew the leaders of the clique were often paid to
procure a great success to the most insignificant scraper of cat-gut?"
It is with reflections of this description that Schopenhauer explains
why it is that sudden celebrity so rarely passes into immortal glory,
and points--
... "how hard it is to climb
The heights where Fame's proud temple shines afar,"
and even, the summit gained, the uselessness of it all.
This same conclusion has been reached by several other writers, notably
by Leopardi, whose views have been already explained, and by Von
Hartmann, whose theories are mentioned in the next chapter; but the
main idea has perhaps been best expressed by D'Alembert, who, in
speaking of the temple of fame, says, "Its interior is inhabited only
by the dead who were not there in their life-time, and by certain
aspirants who are shown the door as soon as they die."
To sum up what Schopenhauer has set forth, and of which the foregoing
detached ideas can give at best but a lame conception, we find that to
his mind, as perhaps to that of every serious thinker, the first and
most essential condition of contentment is the quality of character;
and this would be essential if only because it is always in action, but
it is so, even to a greater extent, because it is the only possession
which cannot in some manner be taken from us. In this sense he
considers its value as absolute when opposed to the relative value of
mere possessions and the opinion of others. In brief, man is not so
susceptible to the influence of the exterior world as it is generally
supposed, for only Time can exercise his sovereign rights upon him.
Beneath this force the physical and intellectual qualities wane and
gradually succumb, the moral character alone remaining invulnerable.
Considered in this connection, actual possessions and the opinions
which others hold concerning us have this advantage over character:
they need not necessarily be affected by time; moreover, being
accessible in their nature they both may be acquired, while, on the
other hand, character once established remains invariable for life.
Schopenhauer evidently does not hold with him who sings--
"That men may rise on stepping-stones
Of their dead selves, to higher things."
All that can be done, he has explained, is to employ the individuality,
such as it is, to the greatest profit; or, in other words, a man should
pursue only those aspirations which correspond to his disposition, and
only choose in consequence that occupation and walk of life which is
best suited to it.
From the preponderance thus given to the first of these three divisions
over the two others, it follows that it is far better to watch over
health and the development of the intellect than it is to attend to the
acquisition of wealth. Schopenhauer, of course, does not mean that the
acquisition of that which is necessary to one's proper maintenance
should be in any wise neglected; far from it. His idea is simply that a
superfluity of riches, instead of contributing to well-being, brings
with it an inevitable vexation in the constant care which the
management of a large fortune demands.
Briefly, then, the essential element of contentment is that which one
is in himself, and it is simply because the dose is ordinarily so small
that the majority of those who have been conquerors in the struggle
with want feel themselves to be as thoroughly unhappy as those who are
still in the thick of the fight. But still, whatever the issue of the
conflict may be, each one among us is enjoined to aspire to a good
repute. Honor is an inappreciable belonging, and glory, the most
exquisite of all that is within the reach of man, is the Golden Fleece
of the elect.
The second and third divisions have upon each other a reciprocal
effect: wealth brings with it the good opinion of others, and the good
opinion of others has aided many a man on the road to fortune; taken
together they represent over again the _habes, haberis_ of Petronius,
yet the factors that reside within us contribute more liberally to
contentment than those which are born of things.
It is somewhat in this manner, but with a conciseness of deduction and
a felicity of diction which the foregoing summary is inadequate even to
suggest, that Schopenhauer, without any noticeable effort, points
quietly and with a certain suavity of self-confidence to the fact that
there is, in spite of all our bluster and hurrying about, very little
in life that is of much consequence. There is, of course, little that
is terrifying in what he has written; there is no incentive and no
stimulus, as the phrase goes, to be up and doing; indeed, to the
reflective mind his logic will have somewhat the effect of a sedative,
and to many he will seem to hold that the best use life can be put to
is to pass it in a sort of dilettante quietism. Such in the main is his
idea, but it is an idea which, to be acted upon, necessitates a
refinement of the senses and a burnish of the intellect such as is
possessed but by the few, and consequently the fear of its general
adoption need cause but small alarm. It may be remembered that, beyond
the surface of things here examined, he pointed, in another essay, to
the influence of morality on general happiness, and recommended the
practice of charity, forbearance, and good will to all men, as one of
the first conditions of mental content.
Against all this, naturally, many objections might be raised, and
several ameliorations could be suggested, but in the main the teaching
has a certain sound value which it would be difficult to talk away.
Champfort has said, "Happiness is no easy matter; it is hard to find it
within us, and impossible to find it elsewhere," and this aphorism,
with which Schopenhauer decked his title-page, served pretty much as
keynote to the whole essay. All the way through he has insisted that
the prime essential is what one _is_ in one's self, that is, in
character and disposition, but not wealth nor yet the esteem of others;
these, it is true, are pleasing additions, but not the _sine qua non_.
Wealth, however, is too greatly prized to suffer from a theoretic
treatment any appreciable diminution in general esteem, and there are
necessarily few who will object to it because they are told it is an
extra burden. Perhaps Schopenhauer would not have turned his back upon
it either had he been put to the test, but as he escaped that, the
conjecture is comparatively useless; still, few men can eat two
dinners, and those who have that capacity are seldom objects of envy,
even to the disciples of Baron Brisse. The dinners may stand, of
course, for figurative repasts, and, according to Schopenhauer, if a
man has enough, a superfluity is not only unnecessary, but may readily
resolve itself into a cause of vexation.
Certainly, as Schiller said, we are all born in Arcadia: that is, we
enter life fully persuaded that happiness exists, and that it is most
easy to make acquaintance with it; but, generally speaking, experience
soon lets us know that happiness is a will o' the wisp, which is only
visible from afar, while on the other hand, suffering and pain have a
reality so insistent that they present themselves not only at once and
unexpectedly, but without any of the flimsiness of illusion. In
Schopenhauer's view, the best the world has to offer is an existence of
painless tranquillity; pleasures are and always will be negative, and
to consider them otherwise is a mistake which brings its own punishment
with it. Pain, on the contrary, is positive, and it is in its absence
that the ladder to possible contentment may be found. If, then, from a
condition of this description, viz.: one which is devoid of pain,
boredom be also subtracted, then the reader may be sure that this is
the pinnacle of earthly happiness, and that anything that lies beyond
belongs to the domain of pure chimera.
In the chapter succeeding the one just considered Schopenhauer added
certain reflections on the proper conduct of life which, though loose
and unsystematic, are yet peculiarly fertile in suggestion, and
entirely free from the more or less accentuated platitudes with which
other writers have dulled the subject.
In this essay he holds that the supreme rule of earthly wisdom is
contained in Aristotle's dictum that the sage will seek to dwell where
pain is not, and not where pleasure is. The truth of this axiom he
establishes by a constant reiteration of his favorite theory that
pleasure as well as happiness is negative, and only pain is real. Now
other writers, particularly Mr. James Sully and Herr von Hartmann, have
rebelled against this statement, but the force of their arguments has
not been strong enough to confute it. Indeed, mere logic can make no
man contented, and in any event, if a philosopher considers pleasure as
a negative condition, and the critic prefers to look upon it in a
different light, the student is no more bound to agree with the one
than with the other; he will, if properly advised, draw his conclusions
from his own sensations. In accordance with the best views, however,
Schopenhauer is right and his critics wrong. A homely example which he
suggests may perhaps serve to set the matter straight: when we are in
perfect health, and there is but one little painful spot somewhere--for
instance, an aching tooth or a swollen finger--our otherwise perfect
health is unnoticed, and our attention is directed entirely to the pain
we are experiencing, while pleasure, determined, as always, by the
totality of the sensations, is entirely effaced. In the same manner,
when everything in which we are interested is going as we wish, save
one thing which is going the wrong way, it is this particular thing
that is constantly in our mind, and not the other and more important
matters, which are giving us no concern.
Schopenhauer's advice, therefore, is that attention should not be
directed to the pleasures of life, but to the means by which its
innumerable evils may best be escaped. If this recommendation is not
sound, then Voltaire's aphorism--happiness is but a dream and only pain
is real--is as false in appearance as it is correct in reality.
Whoever, then, would draw up a balance sheet of pleasure and pain
should not base the sum total on the amount of pleasures which he has
enjoyed, but rather in accordance with the pains which he has avoided.
For as it has been pointed out, life at best is not given to us to be
enjoyed, but to be endured, and the happiest man is, therefore, he who
has wandered through life with the smallest burden of physical and
mental suffering, and not he to whom the most vivid delights and
intensest joys have been accorded.
In any case, the greatest piece of stupidity of which man can be guilty
is to wish to transform his theatre of misery into a pleasure-ground,
and to attempt to seek happiness therein, instead of trying, as he
should, to avert as many pains as possible. There are, of course, many
who are foolish enough not to take this view of life; but, according to
Schopenhauer, those who do not do so are much more at fault than those
who, with excess of precaution, look upon the world as a burning pit,
and occupy themselves to the best of their ability in procuring a
fire-proof dwelling.
The simpleton will always run after pleasure, and the pessimist will do
all he can to give pain a wide berth; if, in spite of his efforts, the
success of the latter is small, the fault is not so much his as that of
fate; and if, in pursuance of this idea, he has taken a very roundabout
way and uselessly sacrificed any amount of possible pleasures without
any appreciable benefit, he can at least take heart again in the
knowledge that he has in reality lost nothing at all, for the possible
pleasures are such pure chimeras that it is simply childish to grieve
about them.
It is, Schopenhauer says, because this mistake is so frequently made in
favor of optimism that such a number of misfortunes occur, for in those
moments that we are free from discomfort "disquieting desires dazzle
our eyes with the illusions of an unreal yet seductive happiness, and
lure us on to a suffering which is neither the one nor the other; then
indeed do we grieve over the lost estate, which was exempt from pain,
as over a paradise on which we have wittingly turned the key. In this
way it seems as though some evil spirit was constantly working a
deceptive mirage to draw us from that freedom from pain, which is the
supreme and only real happiness."
Now, the average young man is usually possessed of some vague
conviction that the world, stretching out before him to unseen limits,
is the seat of a tangible happiness, which only escapes those who are
not clever enough to grasp it. This conviction, moreover, is
strengthened by romance and verse, and by that hypocrisy which leads
the world always by the thread of exterior appearance. Ever after, his
life is a more or less prudently conducted hunt, a chase for a
fictitious game, until at last with a round turn he is pulled up face
to face with disenchantment, and finds that the infinite vistas narrow
down to a dark alley, with a dead wall at the end.
On the other hand, the careful observer of men and things will mark a
protest on his own existence; he will have no great hopes, and but few
regrets; Plato long ago said there is nothing in life worth a struggle,
and to this maxim Schopenhauer's ideal reader will attune his days and,
in any variations he may attempt, keep always to the minor key.
The chief difficulty, however, which the candidate in pessimism will
encounter in his first attempt to practice the foregoing
recommendations is that which is raised by the hypocrisy of the world,
to which allusion has been already made; and yet, in Schopenhauer's
teaching, the most practical lesson that can be given to youth is the
showing up of the whole thing for the sham that it is. "The splendors
are merest tinsel," he says; "the essence of the thing is lacking; the
fêtes, the balls, the illuminations, the music, are but the banners,
the indications, the hieroglyphics of joy; yet, as a rule, joy is
absent, it alone has sent a regret. When it does present itself, it
comes ordinarily without invitation and unannounced; it enters, _sans
façon_, in the simplest manner, often for the most trivial reason, and
under circumstances that are well-nigh insignificant. Like the gold in
Australia, it is spread about here and there according to the whim of
hazard, without law or rule, generally in small particles, and but
seldom in an appreciable quantity."
This certainly cannot be termed an enthusiastic view of life, nor, for
that matter, is it intended to be so considered. There was too much
unreasoning enthusiasm, Schopenhauer thought, and too much unwary
skating over thin surfaces, and it was precisely for this reason that
he set about painting Danger in the biggest and blackest-looking
characters. If his advice, therefore, is not always cheerful, it is at
least practical, and in any event no one can go far astray in following
the monitory finger-posts which he was the first to erect; the wayfarer
who takes them for guidance may perhaps stand still, but at least he
will not stumble into any artificial pitfalls, or happen upon
unexpected quagmires.
In treating of our conduct to ourselves, Schopenhauer lays much stress
on the recommendation that such proportion be preserved between the
attention which we give to the present and that which we grant to the
future, that the one will in nowise interfere with the other. As there
are many who live for the hour and many who live for the future, the
right measure is seldom attained; but, as Schopenhauer points out, the
future, like the past, has a value which is more apparent than real.
It is the present that is actual, it is the present that is certain,
while the future, on the contrary, usually turns out in a manner
totally different from our expectation. The distance which "robes the
mountains" expands them in our thoughts, but the present alone is true
and effective; and as it is therein that our existence exclusively
rests, it should not only be hospitably received, but every hour that
is free from vexation or pain should be enjoyed to the fullest extent,
and not saddened with the memory of irrecoverable hopes, or darkened by
apprehensions of the morrow. In other words, let the dead past bury its
dead, and for the moment take Seneca for model, and agree with him that
each day separately is a separate life. As for the future, it rests in
the lap of the gods.
"The only misfortunes concerning which we should alarm ourselves are
those that are inevitable; but then, after all, how many are there of
this nature? Misfortunes, broadly considered, are either possible and
probable, or else certain, though in the indefinite future; and if we
bother ourselves over all that _might_ come to pass, we would never
enjoy a moment's repose." In order, therefore, that tranquillity may
not be unnecessarily disturbed, Schopenhauer advises that possible
misfortunes be looked upon as though they would never occur, and
inevitable misfortunes as though they were still far distant.
It is a curious fact that the blind, who of all people are usually
pitied as the most unfortunate, possess, as a class, the calmest and
most contented expression. This phenomenon may serve as some
corroboration of a theory, which Schopenhauer expands at great length,
that the narrower the circle of vision the greater the happiness; and
conversely, the wider it is the greater the inquietude and torment. It
is, then, in the simplicity and uniformity of life--so long, of course,
as it does not engender weariness of mind--that the greatest measure of
happiness is to be found. Under conditions of this description, which
every poet from Horace to Joaquin Miller has more or less praised, the
burden from which life is inseparable is borne most lightly, and
existence flows like a rivulet, without tides or waves.
The claims of society, the effort to keep in the swim, _dans le
mouvement_, as the French say, is not, of course, very conducive to the
tranquil contentment which is here so earnestly commended. Schopenhauer
has much to say on the subject. As a self-constituted recluse he
necessarily judged the world, and as necessarily found it wanting.
Indeed, it may fairly be said that he held in utter contempt the entire
machinery of fashion, and looked upon the whole thing as a toy for
imbeciles. To say that he hated it would be unjust, for, like most
sensible people, he held hatred to be an elixir far too precious to be
wasted on trivial matters. He simply took up society and then let it
drop, and he did so not because it soiled his gloves, but because it
did not seem worth the holding.
Such views as he cared to express on this subject are unmarked by any
striking vividness of originality; for the most part they are simple,
every-day observations, as pertinent to Europe half a century ago as to
contemporary London and New York, and imply, briefly, that society is a
mill of the conventional which grinds individualities into a tiresome
sameness of sample. Individuality was like a strong-box into which
Schopenhauer placed all his valuables, and to which, we are led to
believe, he clung with all his might and main. Rather than have it
tampered with he carried it off to a hermitage and kept it there, one
might say, in cotton. It may be, however, that the underlying reason of
the sombre obliqueness with which he viewed the world at large sprang
from a cause which was natural, if commonplace; it did not appreciate
him. Nor is this very surprising; society, as a rule, has an immense
fund of appreciation, which it lavishes liberally on every merit, save
alone that of intellectual ability; on this it looks askant, or, as
Schopenhauer says, "as if it were smuggled." "Furthermore," he goes on
to say, "good society, so called, not only brings one in contact with a
lot of people whom he can neither approve of nor like, but it will not
permit us to be ourselves, to be such as our nature demands; on the
contrary, it compels us, that we may remain on the same diapason with
the rest, to shrivel up completely, and even at times to appear
deformed."
Wit and repartee are admittedly out of place save among one's peers; in
ordinary society such manifestations are either not understood, or
looked upon as dreadfully bad form. For that matter, it is only the
novice who thinks that brilliant conversational powers will serve as
passport; as a rule, it does nothing of the sort; rather does it excite
among the majority a feeling nearly akin to hatred, and which is all
the more bitter because it must be concealed.
"Ordinarily," Schopenhauer says, "when two people are talking together,
so soon as one of them notices a great superiority on the part of the
other he tacitly concludes, and without definite reason for so doing,
that his own inferiority has been noticed by his companion, for whom he
immediately conceives a blind resentment, even a violent dislike; nor
in this is he much to be blamed, for what is a display of wit and
judgment but an accusation to others of their own commonplace stupidity
and dullness? To please in society, therefore, one needs to be
scatter-brained or ignorant; and it is precisely those who are the one
or the other, or even both, who are welcome and well received."
From Schopenhauer's standpoint, then, the society that is worth the
trouble of cultivating is not such as is told of in the morning papers.
The ball-goers, the dinner-givers, the pleasure-seekers of every class
and denomination, were to him mentally insolvent, and unable to offer
any indemnity for the boredom and fatigue which their reunions and
conversation created. To be socially inclined was to him irrefutable
evidence of a vacuous mind; and with some of that grim humor which
characterized much of his work, he compared the modern assembly to that
Russian orchestra which, composed of horns that have but one note
apiece, is harmonious only through the exact coincidence of each
instrument; taken separately, each one is appallingly monotonous, and
it is only in conjunction with others that they amount to anything at
all. So it is, he finds, with the majority of people; individually,
they seem to have but one thought, and are in consequence both tiresome
and sociable.
There is a tolerably familiar anecdote of Louis XIII., which represents
that feeble monarch as hailing one of his officers with the bland
suggestion that they should wile away the hour in common boredom:
"Venez, monsieur," run the historic words, "allons nous ennuyer
ensemble;" and it is perhaps this self-same, but unanalyzed motive
which leads so many to ease their weariness in the companionship of
their fellows, for, after all, it cannot but be admitted that the most
gregarious seek the presence of others, and even of those for whom they
care nothing, not so much for the sake of society as to get away from
themselves and the dull monotone of an empty head.
Such, at any rate, is Schopenhauer's idea; and he is careful, in
pointing to the retired existence of all really distinguished thinkers,
to note that the desire for companionship is not derived from a love
of society, but from a fear of solitude, and that so soon as the latter
is mastered there is no further desire to mingle with the crowd. The
only society, therefore, that is worth the trouble of cultivation is
that of one's own self; in this Schopenhauer apparently makes no
exception; however closely the bonds of love or friendship may be
woven, there is always some clash of temperament; an echoless shock it
may be, but to nerves properly attuned none the less unpleasant. In
regard to the society of the distinguished thinkers, of whose
conspicuous solitude he makes constant parade, nothing is said; but it
is perhaps allowable to suppose that genius, when it does descend from
its lofty seclusion, quickly tires of giving, giving always, without
return, and on its summits fraternizes as seldom with its peers as
kings do with their equals. In brief, then, the sociability of man is
in an inverse ratio to his intellectual value, and to say of some one
"he is not at all sociable," may be generally taken to mean "he is a
man of great ability."
The praises of solitude have been written over and over again; almost
all the essayists, and most of the poets, have expatiated more or less
volubly on its charms, but no one has entered so thoroughly into the
core of the subject as did this spectacled misanthrope. Emerson has
told a quaint little story of a friend who took an exquisite delight in
thinking of the incalculable number of places where he was not, and
whose idea of felicity was to dwell far off somewhere among the back
stars, "there to wear out ages in solitude, and forget memory itself."
Had Schopenhauer known this gentleman he would have loved him, though
perhaps at a distance; as it was, he expressed an approval that was
well-nigh rapturous of La Bruyère's well-known axiom: "All our
misfortunes come from an inability to be alone," and at measured
intervals repeated Voltaire's maxim that "the world is full of people
who are not worth speaking to." His own ideas on the subject savor
highly of the epigrammatic. "Solitude," he says, "offers a double
advantage to the thinker: the first in being with himself, the second
in not being with others."
The love of solitude, however, cannot be considered otherwise than as
an acquired taste; it must come as the result of experience and
reflection, and advance with the development of the intellect as well
as with the progress of age. A child will cry with fright if it be left
alone even for a moment; in boyhood, solitude is a severe penance;
young men are eminently sociable, and it is only the more elevated
among them who from time to time wander off by themselves; but even so,
a day passed in strict seclusion is no easy matter. In middle age, it
is not so difficult, while to the aged, solitude seems the natural
element. But in each individual, separately considered, the growth of
the inclination for solitude is always in proportion to the strength of
the intellect, and, according to Schopenhauer, it is never thoroughly
matured until the individual becomes firmly convinced that society is
the most disagreeable of all the unpleasant things in the world.
To this conclusion both Petrarch and Zimmerman came in their respective
works on solitude. Chamfort says somewhere, very wittily, "It is
sometimes said of a man that he lives alone and does not care for
society; this is very much the same as saying that he does not care for
exercise, because he does not make excursions at night in the forest of
Bondy." In short, all those whom Prometheus has fashioned from his
finer clay have brought testimony of like purport. To Schopenhauer a
desire for solitude was a sure indication of aristocratic tastes.
"Every blackguard," he says, "is pitiably sociable, but true nobility
is detected in the man who finds no pleasure in the companionship of
others, and who, in preferring solitude to society, gradually acquires
the conviction that, save in rare exceptions, there is little choice
between isolation and vulgarity." Angelus Silesius, whose name has
descended to us in a halo of Christian tenderness, bears witness to the
truth of this theory,
"Though solitude is hard, yet the refined
Will still in ev'ry place a desert find."
It is especially in old age, when one has ceased to expect anything in
particular from the generality of mankind, when one has become pretty
well satisfied that in the long run men do not improve on
acquaintance, and when one is usually divested of those illusions which
make the companionship of others seem desirable,--it is at this period
that the taste for solitude, which heretofore has demanded a succession
of struggles, becomes at once natural and matter of fact. One feels,
then, as much at ease therein as the fish does at high water.
But in spite of the advantages of solitude there is a hackneyed proverb
about the rose and the thorn which has here a most direct application.
In the same manner that every breath of frosty air injuriously affects
any one who constantly keeps to his own room, so does a man's
disposition become so sensitive in solitude that he is vexed and
annoyed at the most trivial incident, at a word, or even at an
expression of the countenance. It is hard, however, to catch
Schopenhauer napping, and for this he has a remedy which, if not within
the reach of all, is none the less efficacious. His recipe is simply
that every aspirant should accustom himself to carry a part of his
solitude into society, and learn to be alone even in a crowd; in other
words, not to tell others at once what he thinks, and not to pay much
attention to what others may say; in this way he will in a measure keep
himself unaffected by the stupidities which must necessarily surge
about him, and harden himself to exterior influences.
As has been noted, it was far from Schopenhauer's intention to
recommend an idle folding of the hands. Solitude is all very well, but
to be habitable it must be peopled with thoughts and deeds; the
essence of life is movement, and in inaction it is a most difficult
thing to be tranquil. Indeed, the most thoughtless must do something,
even if that something consist but in a tattoo beaten on the
window-pane. Schopenhauer's words, however, are presumably not
addressed to thoughtless people. To struggle and cope is, he says, as
much of a necessity to man as burrowing is to the mole. To conquer
resistance constitutes the fullness of human delight, and whether the
obstacles are of a material nature, as in action and exercise, or
purely mental, as in study and research, it is the combat and the
victory that bring happiness with them.
In treating of our conduct to others, Schopenhauer seems always to be
peering down and sounding bottom in unfathomed depths of the human
heart, and to be taking measure of those crevices and sinuosities for
which Balzac and La Rochefoucauld, with all their equipment of
bitterness, possessed no adequate compass. The result of his soundings
and measurements is a lesson of circumspection and indulgence, of which
the first stands as guarantee against prejudice, and the second as
shelter from quarrels and disputes. Machiavelli warned every one to as
carefully avoid an injury to the self-esteem of an inferior as one
would the commission of a crime. Schopenhauer goes even further; his
theory is that whoever is obliged to live among his fellows should
never repulse any one, however pitiful, wicked, or ridiculous his
character may be; on the contrary, he should accept him as something
immutable, and consider that there must necessarily be some one of that
class too. If he does otherwise he commits not only an imprudence, but
provokes a life-long enmity, for, after all, no one can modify his own
character, and if a man is condemned unreservedly there is, of
necessity, nothing left for him to do but to declare war to the knife.
It is for this reason that when one wishes, or is obliged to live among
his fellow-creatures, it becomes necessary to let each one work out his
own nature and accept each individual as he stands; the most that can
be done is to attempt to utilize the qualities and dispositions of
each, so far as they may be adaptable, but in no case is a man to be
condemned purely and simply for what he is. This is the true
signification of the dictum, Live and let live.
Meanwhile, in learning how to treat others it will not come amiss,
Schopenhauer goes on to say, to exercise a little patience on any of
the inanimate objects which in virtue of some physical or mechanical
necessity obstinately annoy and thwart us every day; for in so doing we
learn to bestow on our fellows the patience already acquired, and in
this manner become accustomed to the thought that they, too, whenever
they form an obstacle to our wishes, do so because they cannot help it,
in virtue of a natural law which is as rigorous as that which acts on
inanimate things, and because it is as absurd to get angry with them
as to be annoyed at the stone which slips between our feet.
But in all this Schopenhauer is far from recommending any
over-indulgence or excess of amiability, for he readily recognizes that
the majority of people are like children, who become pert as soon as
they are spoiled. Refuse a loan to a friend, he says, and you will not
lose him as readily as you would if you had advanced the money; in the
same manner a trace of haughtiness and indifference on your part will
generally quell any of those preliminary symptoms of arrogance that
follow upon too much kindness. Indeed, it is the idea that one has need
of them that few men can bear,--they become presumptuous at once; and
it is for this reason that there are so few with whom one can be really
intimate.
Most especially should we avoid any familiarity with vulgar natures.
"If by chance an inferior imagines for a moment that I have more need
of him than he has of me, he will suddenly act as though I had stolen
something from him, and hurry to revenge himself and get his property
back." In brief, the only way in which superiority can be maintained is
in letting others see that we have no need of them at all. Moreover,
Schopenhauer notes, it is a good plan to appear a trifle disdainful
from time to time; such an attitude has a strengthening effect on
friendship: "Chi non istima, vien stimato" (he who shows no respect is
respected himself) runs the sagacious Italian proverb. But above all,
if any one does possess a high value in our eyes it should be hidden
from him as a sin. This advice is not particularly exhilarating, but it
is sound. Too much kindness disagrees with dogs, to say nothing of men.
It is a curious fact that the more intellectual a man is the more
easily he is deceived. There seems to be something almost incompatible
between a high degree of culture and an extended knowledge of men and
things, whereas, in the case of people of ordinary calibre, a lack of
experience will not necessarily hinder them from properly conducting
their affairs; they possess, as it were, an _a priori_ knowledge which
is furnished to them by their own nature, and it is precisely the
absence of this knowledge that causes the mistakes of the more refined.
Even when a man has learned from the teaching of others and through his
own experience just what he may expect from men in general, even when
he is thoroughly convinced that five sixths of them are so constituted
that it is better for him to have nothing at all to do with them, even
then, his knowledge is insufficient to preserve him from many false
calculations. A presumable wiseacre, for instance, may accidentally be
drawn into the society of people with whom he is unacquainted, and be
astonished to find that in conversation and manners they are sensible,
loyal, and sincere, and, perhaps, intelligent and witty. In that case,
Schopenhauer warns him to keep well on his guard, for the reason that
Nature is entirely unlike the dramaturge who, when he wishes to create
a scoundrel or a simpleton, sets about it so awkwardly that he seems to
be standing behind each character in turn, and in disavowing their
gestures and words to be warning the audience that one is a ruffian and
the other a fool, and that no one is to believe a word that they say.
It is not at all in this way that Nature acts: her method is that of
Shakespeare and Goethe, in whose plays each person, be he the Devil
himself, speaks as he ought to, and is conceived so realistically that
he attracts and commands attention. To think, then, that the Devil goes
about with horns, and the fool with bells, is to lay one's self open to
a continual deception, for, as a rule, our moralist says, men behave
very much like the moon or like the hunchback; they show only one side,
and even then they have a peculiar talent for making up their faces
into a species of mask, which exactly represents _what they ought to
be_, and this they assume whenever they wish to be well received. Put
not your trust in princes, say some; Schopenhauer's advice is, Put not
your trust in masks; and to substantiate his warning he quotes an old
proverb, which holds that no matter how vicious a dog may be he can
still wag his tail.
To all these rules and suggestions there are, of course, exceptions;
there are even exceptions that are incommensurably great, for the
difference between individuals is gigantic, but taken as a whole,
Schopenhauer condemns the world as irreclaimably bad, and it may be
added that one does not need to be a professional pessimist to arrive
at very nearly the same conclusion. But beyond these broad
recommendations a few others are given on our proper bearing and
attitude to the world at large, and which, summed up in his own words,
amount, in brief, to the teaching that one half of all wisdom consists
in neither loving nor hating, and the other half in saying nothing and
believing nothing.
Lamennais exclaimed one day, "My soul was born with a sore," and to
some it may perhaps seem that on Schopenhauer's heart an ulcer had
battened during each of the seventy years that formed his life.
Certainly he has appeared to force the note many times, but it is
permissible to doubt that he prepared a single paragraph in which he
expressed himself otherwise than as he really thought. In his pessimism
there is no pose and as little affectation; he wrote only what he felt
to be true, and he did so with a cheerful indifference to approval or
dislike; his position was simply that of a notary drawing up provisos
and conditions in strict accord with the statutes of life of which he
stood as witness. His mother, who had little cause to come forward as
an eulogist, paid him--years after their separation--this one sincere
tribute: "With all his vagaries," she said, "I have never known my son
to tell a lie." Other encomiums have, of course, been passed upon him,
but it is impossible to imagine one more glorious than this. Over and
above his disregard of sham and falsehood, beyond his theory of force
and the seductions of his ethics, Schopenhauer is chiefly remarkable in
this: that he was the first to detect and logically explain that
universal nausea which, circulating from one end of Europe to the
other, presents those symptoms of melancholy and disillusion which,
patent to every observer, are indubitably born of the insufficiencies
of modern civilization.
Where, then, it may be asked, for this malady of the refined, are the
borderlands of happiness to be found? From the standpoint of this
teacher the answer is that they are discoverable simply and solely in
an unobtrusive culture of self, in a withdrawal from every aggressive
influence, and above all in a supreme indifference which, culpable
though alluring, permits the neophyte to declaim with Baudelaire,--
"Résigne-toi, mon coeur, dors ton sommeil de brute."
* * * * *
The foregoing attempt to winnow some of the finer fibres of thought
from the six volumes which form the complete edition of Schopenhauer's
works leaves admittedly much to be desired. There has been, as the
phrase goes, an _embarras des richesses_, and in consequence much
attendant indecision as to the choice to be made of different yet
equally interesting topics. The passages that have been selected and
annotated in this and in the preceding chapter have been, it may be
explained, so selected, because they seemed, when arranged with some
attempt at orderly sequence, to present in the fewest possible words
the essence of the main idea which runs through the entire philosophy,
and which in the absence of some such arrangement demands a
concentration more prolonged than is usually at the disposal of the
ordinary reader. Those who are already acquainted with Schopenhauer's
works, and who may do the present writer the honor of reading this
exposition, will perhaps object to it on the ground that it does not
enter sufficiently into the scientific side of the doctrine, and
through this neglect leaves the reader in the dark as to its true
value. To this presumable objection the writer begs leave to make
answer that the scientific aspect of the doctrine has been so
exhaustively treated by others that it has seemed to him a waste of
time to enter into any further consideration of a subject whose true
value, in spite of the numberless controversies and arguments which it
continues to create, still remains undetermined. Moreover, as will have
been readily seen, the foregoing pages have in no sense been addressed
to the scientist, and that for the reason that exact information is
only obtainable from the philosophy itself, or from such a complete
and, therefore, voluminous analysis as would be out of place in a
treatise of this description. The aim of these chapters is but to draw
in outline the principal features of this doctrine, and in so doing to
present in the absence of complete translations a little of that vigor
and color which has raised the original to the prominent position it
holds among the foremost works of modern thought. No attempt at the
polemical has been made, and this for the reason that it is seldom
advisable to attack the truth; the notations and criticisms which have
been offered have been prepared, not with the wish to controvert, but
rather with the hope that they might serve to a clearer understanding
of the whole philosophy.