Ignorance is degrading only when found in company with riches.  The poor man is restrained by poverty and need:  labor occupies his thoughts, and takes the place of knowledge.  But rich men who are ignorant live for their lusts only, and are like the beasts of the field; as may be seen every day:  and they can also be reproached for not having used wealth and leisure for that which gives them their greatest value.

When we read, another person thinks for us:  we merely repeat his mental process.  In learning to write, the pupil goes over with his pen what the teacher has outlined in pencil:  so in reading; the greater part of the work of thought is already done for us.  This is why it relieves us to take up a book after being occupied with our own thoughts.  And in reading, the mind is, in fact, only the playground of another’s thoughts.  So it comes about that if anyone spends almost the whole day in reading, and by way of relaxation devotes the intervals to some thoughtless pastime, he gradually loses the capacity for thinking; just as the man who always rides, at last forgets how to walk.  This is the case with many learned persons:  they have read themselves stupid.  For to occupy every spare moment in reading, and to do nothing but read, is even more paralyzing to the mind than constant manual labor, which at least allows those engaged in it to follow their own thoughts.  A spring never free from the pressure of some foreign body at last loses its elasticity; and so does the mind if other people’s thoughts are constantly forced upon it.  Just as you can ruin the stomach and impair the whole body by taking too much nourishment, so you can overfill and choke the mind by feeding it too much.  The more you read, the fewer are the traces left by what you have read:  the mind becomes like a tablet crossed over and over with writing.  There is no time for ruminating, and in no other way can you assimilate what you have read.  If you read on and on without setting your own thoughts to work, what you have read can not strike root, and is generally lost.  It is, in fact, just the same with mental as with bodily food:  hardly the fifth part of what one takes is assimilated.  The rest passes off in evaporation, respiration and the like.

The result of all this is that thoughts put on paper are nothing more than footsteps in the sand:  you see the way the man has gone, but to know what he saw on his walk, you want his eyes.

There is no quality of style that can be gained by reading writers who possess it; whether it be persuasiveness, imagination, the gift of drawing comparisons, boldness, bitterness, brevity, grace, ease of expression or wit, unexpected contrasts, a laconic or naïve manner, and the like.  But if these qualities are already in us, exist, that is to say, potentially, we can call them forth and bring them to consciousness; we can learn the purposes to which they can be put; we can be strengthened in our inclination to use them, or get courage to do so; we can judge by examples the effect of applying them, and so acquire the correct use of them; and of course it is only when we have arrived at that point that we actually possess these qualities.  The only way in which reading can form style is by teaching us the use to which we can put our own natural gifts.  We must have these gifts before we begin to learn the use of them.  Without them, reading teaches us nothing but cold, dead mannerisms and makes us shallow imitators.

The strata of the earth preserve in rows the creatures which lived in former ages; and the array of books on the shelves of a library stores up in like manner the errors of the past and the way in which they have been exposed.  Like those creatures, they too were full of life in their time, and made a great deal of noise; but now they are stiff and fossilized, and an object of curiosity to the literary palaeontologist alone.

Herodotus relates that Xerxes wept at the sight of his army, which stretched further than the eye could reach, in the thought that of all these, after a hundred years, not one would be alive.  And in looking over a huge catalogue of new books, one might weep at thinking that, when ten years have passed, not one of them will be heard of.

It is in literature as in life:  wherever you turn, you stumble at once upon the incorrigible mob of humanity, swarming in all directions, crowding and soiling everything, like flies in summer.  Hence the number, which no man can count, of bad books, those rank weeds of literature, which draw nourishment from the corn and choke it.  The time, money and attention of the public, which rightfully belong to good books and their noble aims, they take for themselves:  they are written for the mere purpose of making money or procuring places.  So they are not only useless; they do positive mischief.  Nine-tenths of the whole of our present literature has no other aim than to get a few shillings out of the pockets of the public; and to this end author, publisher and reviewer are in league.

Let me mention a crafty and wicked trick, albeit a profitable and successful one, practised by litterateurs, hack writers, and voluminous authors.  In complete disregard of good taste and the true culture of the period, they have succeeded in getting the whole of the world of fashion into leading strings, so that they are all trained to read in time, and all the same thing, viz., the newest books; and that for the purpose of getting food for conversation in the circles in which they move.  This is the aim served by bad novels, produced by writers who were once celebrated, as Spindler, Bulwer Lytton, Eugene Sue.  What can be more miserable than the lot of a reading public like this, always bound to peruse the latest works of extremely commonplace persons who write for money only, and who are therefore never few in number? and for this advantage they are content to know by name only the works of the few superior minds of all ages and all countries.  Literary newspapers, too, are a singularly cunning device for robbing the reading public of the time which, if culture is to be attained, should be devoted to the genuine productions of literature, instead of being occupied by the daily bungling commonplace persons.

Hence, in regard to reading, it is a very important thing to be able to refrain.  Skill in doing so consists in not taking into one’s hands any book merely because at the time it happens to be extensively read; such as political or religious pamphlets, novels, poetry, and the like, which make a noise, and may even attain to several editions in the first and last year of their existence.  Consider, rather, that the man who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience; be careful to limit your time for reading, and devote it exclusively to the works of those great minds of all times and countries, who o’ertop the rest of humanity, those whom the voice of fame points to as such.  These alone really educate and instruct.  You can never read bad literature too little, nor good literature too much.  Bad books are intellectual poison; they destroy the mind.  Because people always read what is new instead of the best of all ages, writers remain in the narrow circle of the ideas which happen to prevail in their time; and so the period sinks deeper and deeper into its own mire.

There are at all times two literatures in progress, running side by side, but little known to each other; the one real, the other only apparent.  The former grows into permanent literature; it is pursued by those who live for science or poetry; its course is sober and quiet, but extremely slow; and it produces in Europe scarcely a dozen works in a century; these, however, are permanent.  The other kind is pursued by persons who live on science or poetry; it goes at a gallop with much noise and shouting of partisans; and every twelve-month puts a thousand works on the market.  But after a few years one asks, Where are they? where is the glory which came so soon and made so much clamor?  This kind may be called fleeting, and the other, permanent literature.

In the history of politics, half a century is always a considerable time; the matter which goes to form them is ever on the move; there is always something going on.  But in the history of literature there is often a complete standstill for the same period; nothing has happened, for clumsy attempts don’t count.  You are just where you were fifty years previously.

To explain what I mean, let me compare the advance of knowledge among mankind to the course taken by a planet.  The false paths on which humanity usually enters after every important advance are like the epicycles in the Ptolemaic system, and after passing through one of them, the world is just where it was before it entered it.  But the great minds, who really bring the race further on its course do not accompany it on the epicycles it makes from time to time.  This explains why posthumous fame is often bought at the expense of contemporary praise, and vice versa.  An instance of such an epicycle is the philosophy started by Fichte and Schelling, and crowned by Hegel’s caricature of it.  This epicycle was a deviation from the limit to which philosophy had been ultimately brought by Kant; and at that point I took it up again afterwards, to carry it further.  In the intervening period the sham philosophers I have mentioned and some others went through their epicycle, which had just come to an end; so that those who went with them on their course are conscious of the fact that they are exactly at the point from which they started.

This circumstance explains why it is that, every thirty years or so, science, literature, and art, as expressed in the spirit of the time, are declared bankrupt.  The errors which appear from time to time amount to such a height in that period that the mere weight of their absurdity makes the fabric fall; whilst the opposition to them has been gathering force at the same time.  So an upset takes place, often followed by an error in the opposite direction.  To exhibit these movements in their periodical return would be the true practical aim of the history of literature:  little attention, however, is paid to it.  And besides, the comparatively short duration of these periods makes it difficult to collect the data of epochs long gone by, so that it is most convenient to observe how the matter stands in one’s own generation.  An instance of this tendency, drawn from physical science, is supplied in the Neptunian geology of Werter.

But let me keep strictly to the example cited above, the nearest we can take.  In German philosophy, the brilliant epoch of Kant was immediately followed by a period which aimed rather at being imposing than at convincing.  Instead of being thorough and clear, it tried to be dazzling, hyperbolical, and, in a special degree, unintelligible:  instead of seeking truth, it intrigued.  Philosophy could make no progress in this fashion; and at last the whole school and its method became bankrupt.  For the effrontery of Hegel and his fellows came to such a pass, ­whether because they talked such sophisticated nonsense, or were so unscrupulously puffed, or because the entire aim of this pretty piece of work was quite obvious, ­that in the end there was nothing to prevent charlatanry of the whole business from becoming manifest to everybody:  and when, in consequence of certain disclosures, the favor it had enjoyed in high quarters was withdrawn, the system was openly ridiculed.  This most miserable of all the meagre philosophies that have ever existed came to grief, and dragged down with it into the abysm of discredit, the systems of Fichte and Schelling which had preceded it.  And so, as far as Germany is concerned, the total philosophical incompetence of the first half of the century following upon Kant is quite plain:  and still the Germans boast of their talent for philosophy in comparison with foreigners, especially since an English writer has been so maliciously ironical as to call them “a nation of thinkers.”

For an example of the general system of epicycles drawn from the history of art, look at the school of sculpture which flourished in the last century and took its name from Bernini, more especially at the development of it which prevailed in France.  The ideal of this school was not antique beauty, but commonplace nature:  instead of the simplicity and grace of ancient art, it represented the manners of a French minuet.

This tendency became bankrupt when, under Winkelman’s direction, a return was made to the antique school.  The history of painting furnishes an illustration in the first quarter of the century, when art was looked upon merely as a means and instrument of mediaeval religious sentiment, and its themes consequently drawn from ecclesiastical subjects alone:  these, however, were treated by painters who had none of the true earnestness of faith, and in their delusion they followed Francesco Francia, Pietro Perugino, Angelico da Fiesole and others like them, rating them higher even than the really great masters who followed.  It was in view of this terror, and because in poetry an analogous aim had at the same time found favor, that Goethe wrote his parable Pfaffenspiel.  This school, too, got the reputation of being whimsical, became bankrupt, and was followed by a return to nature, which proclaimed itself in genre pictures and scenes of life of every kind, even though it now and then strayed into what was vulgar.

The progress of the human mind in literature is similar.  The history of literature is for the most part like the catalogue of a museum of deformities; the spirit in which they keep best is pigskin.  The few creatures that have been born in goodly shape need not be looked for there.  They are still alive, and are everywhere to be met with in the world, immortal, and with their years ever green.  They alone form what I have called real literature; the history of which, poor as it is in persons, we learn from our youth up out of the mouths of all educated people, before compilations recount it for us.

As an antidote to the prevailing monomania for reading literary histories‚ in order to be able to chatter about everything‚ without having any real knowledge at all‚ let me refer to a passage in Lichtenberg’s works‚ which is well worth perusal.

I believe that the over-minute acquaintance with the history of science and learning, which is such a prevalent feature of our day, is very prejudicial to the advance of knowledge itself.  There is pleasure in following up this history; but as a matter of fact, it leaves the mind, not empty indeed, but without any power of its own, just because it makes it so full.  Whoever has felt the desire, not to fill up his mind, but to strengthen it, to develop his faculties and aptitudes, and generally, to enlarge his powers, will have found that there is nothing so weakening as intercourse with a so-called litterateur, on a matter of knowledge on which he has not thought at all, though he knows a thousand little facts appertaining to its history and literature.  It is like reading a cookery-book when you are hungry.  I believe that so-called literary history will never thrive amongst thoughtful people, who are conscious of their own worth and the worth of real knowledge.  These people are more given to employing their own reason than to troubling themselves to know how others have employed theirs.  The worst of it is that, as you will find, the more knowledge takes the direction of literary research, the less the power of promoting knowledge becomes; the only thing that increases is pride in the possession of it.  Such persons believe that they possess knowledge in a greater degree than those who really possess it.  It is surely a well-founded remark, that knowledge never makes its possessor proud.  Those alone let themselves be blown out with pride, who incapable of extending knowledge in their own persons, occupy themselves with clearing up dark points in its history, or are able to recount what others have done.  They are proud, because they consider this occupation, which is mostly of a mechanical nature, the practice of knowledge.  I could illustrate what I mean by examples, but it would be an odious task.

Still, I wish some one would attempt a tragical history of literature, giving the way in which the writers and artists, who form the proudest possession of the various nations which have given them birth, have been treated by them during their lives.  Such a history would exhibit the ceaseless warfare, which what was good and genuine in all times and countries has had to wage with what was bad and perverse.  It would tell of the martyrdom of almost all those who truly enlightened humanity, of almost all the great masters of every kind of art:  it would show us how, with few exceptions, they were tormented to death, without recognition, without sympathy, without followers; how they lived in poverty and misery, whilst fame, honor, and riches, were the lot of the unworthy; how their fate was that of Esau, who while he was hunting and getting venison for his father, was robbed of the blessing by Jacob, disguised in his brother’s clothes, how, in spite of all, they were kept up by the love of their work, until at last the bitter fight of the teacher of humanity is over, until the immortal laurel is held out to him, and the hour strikes when it can be said: 

  Der sehwere Panzer wird zum Fluegelkleide
  Kurz ist der Schmerz, unendlich ist die Freude.