The Essays of Arthur Schopenhauer | Page 2

the page, or in unmasking sham wherever he finds it. This
is nowhere so true as when he deals with literature; and just as in his
treatment of life, he is no flatterer to men in general, so here he is free
and outspoken on the peculiar failings of authors. At the same time he
gives them good advice. He is particularly happy in recommending
restraint in regard to reading the works of others, and the cultivation of
independent thought; and herein he recalls a saying attributed to
Hobbes, who was not less distinguished as a writer than as a
philosopher, to the effect that "_if he had read as much as other men, he
should have been as ignorant as they_."
Schopenhauer also utters a warning, which we shall do well to take to
heart in these days, against mingling the pursuit of literature with
vulgar aims. If we follow him here, we shall carefully distinguish
between literature as an object of life and literature as a means of living,

between the real love of truth and beauty, and that detestable false love
which looks to the price it will fetch in the market. I am not referring to
those who, while they follow a useful and honorable calling in bringing
literature before the public, are content to be known as men of business.
If, by the help of some second witch of Endor, we could raise the ghost
of Schopenhauer, it would be interesting to hear his opinion of a certain
kind of literary enterprise which has come into vogue since his day, and
now receives an amount of attention very much beyond its due. We
may hazard a guess at the direction his opinion would take. He would
doubtless show us how this enterprise, which is carried on by
self-styled _literary men_, ends by making literature into a form of
merchandise, and treating it as though it were so much goods to be
bought and sold at a profit, and most likely to produce quick returns if
the maker's name is well known. Nor would it be the ghost of the real
Schopenhauer unless we heard a vigorous denunciation of men who
claim a connection with literature by a servile flattery of successful
living authors--the dead cannot be made to pay--in the hope of
appearing to advantage in their reflected light and turning that
advantage into money.
In order to present the contents of this book in a convenient form, I
have not scrupled to make an arrangement with the chapters somewhat
different from that which exists in the original; so that two or more
subjects which are there dealt with successively in one and the same
chapter, here stand by themselves. In consequence of this, some of the
titles of the sections are not to be found in the original. I may state,
however, that the essays on Authorship and Style and the latter part of
that on Criticism are taken direct from the chapter headed _Ueber
Schriftstellerei und Stil_; and that the remainder of the essay on
_Criticism_, with that of _Reputation_, is supplied by the remarks
_Ueber Urtheil, Kritik, Beifall und Ruhm_. The essays on _The Study
of Latin_, on _Men of Learning_, and on _Some Forms of Literature_,
are taken chiefly from the four sections _Ueber Gelehrsamkeit und
Gelehrte, Ueber Sprache und Worte, Ueber Lesen und Bücher:
Anhang_, and _Zur Metaphysik des Schönen_. The essay on Thinking
for Oneself is a rendering of certain remarks under the heading
_Selbstdenken. Genius_ was a favorite subject of speculation with
Schopenhauer, and he often touches upon it in the course of his works;

always, however, to put forth the same theory in regard to it as may be
found in the concluding section of this volume. Though the essay has
little or nothing to do with literary method, the subject of which it treats
is the most needful element of success in literature; and I have
introduced it on that ground. It forms part of a chapter in the Parerga
entitled _Den Intellekt überhaupt und in jeder Beziehung betreffende
Gedanken: Anhang verwandter Stellen._
It has also been part of my duty to invent a title for this volume; and I
am well aware that objection may be made to the one I have chosen, on
the ground that in common language it is unusual to speak of literature
as an art, and that to do so is unduly to narrow its meaning and to leave
out of sight its main function as the record of thought. But there is no
reason why the word Literature should not be employed in that double
sense which is allowed to attach to _Painting, Music, Sculpture_, as
signifying either the objective outcome of a certain mental activity,
seeking to express itself in