Abroad with Mark Twain and Eugene Field/Mark's Glimpse of Schopenhauer
MARK'S GLIMPSE OF SCHOPENHAUER
As Mark's German was getting worse instead of better, and as his French was nowhere, he asked me to accompany him on his contemplated exploration of the Berlin Royal Library. I told the librarian about our great friend, about the interest he took in German affairs, and, in particular, I recalled that he had met the Kaiser at dinner. Of course the librarian turned himself inside out to be agreeable to both of us.
After showing us around a good deal, he gave us an alcove to work in, saying: "In this set of drawers you will find some most private papers of the royal family that are perhaps of public interest, but the public, please remember, must learn nothing of them. They are only to be seen by people of discretion, who value historical knowledge for history's sake."
Most of the books, pamphlets and manuscripts we found dated from the times of Frederick the Great and of course they were in French, since Frederick neither read nor wrote German intelligently. There was in particular a volume of verse by Voltaire addressed to Frederick, with original illustrations by some French artist, but the poetry was too grossly indecent to have interest for persons outside of a psychopathic ward.
I translated some of the verses to Mark, who said: "Too much is enough. I would blush to remember any of these stanzas except to tell Krafft-Ebing about them when I get to Vienna."
I copied one verse for him, and as he put it in his pocket he said:
"Livy is so busy mispronouncing German these days she can't even attempt to get at this."
After some rummaging, Mark pulled out a manuscript that seemed to be of more recent date.
"German or Chinese laundry tickets?" he asked.
"It's German," I said, glancing at it.
There were about ten pages of copy, neatly written and headed "Mein Briefkasten" (My letterbox). On the line below was the title: "Tetragamy by Schopenhauer."
Mark was at once interested.
"Schopenhauer, the arch-misogynist," he mused, "let me see, physically he might have been the grandfather of queer Strindberg of the land where the matches come from. Ever read any of his books or dramas?" he asked, and before I could deny the implication, he was off talking again: "I have studied Strindberg's womankind, hard-faced, sullen, cold-blooded, cheeky, grasping, vindictive, hell-raising, unvirtuous, unkind vixens, all of them—a dead give-away on the author's part, for a writer who sees no good in women confesses that he was found out by the sex he wars on and that the female of the species pronounced him n. g. before he had time to out-Ibsen the Norwegian. If I ever turn over a new leaf and beat Livy, bet your life I will have naught but honeyed words and sweet metaphor for the ladies. This fellow Strindberg's women are all compounds of vile ingredients—hideous hags with or without angel-faces—wife-beater Strindberg whipping dead mares. Well, to return to Schopenhauer (to me as incomprehensible as mutton) what's this?" (pointing to the word Tetragamy), "Hebrew or merely Yiddish?"
"Literally it means marrying a fourth wife." I examined the first page of the manuscript. "Seems to deal with conditions due to monogamy."
"Good," exclaimed Mark, "I have always wanted to reform monogamy, when my wife isn't looking. Now let's have the medicine straight."
"But," I said, "I can't do this long MS. justice here. The librarian will come in presently and you heard what he told us."
"Well," said Mark, "you sit down and copy the German while I cover you with my broad back. Should the librarian intrude, I will knock on the floor."
Accordingly, I copied those several pages, and afterwards made the translation Mark wanted.
But for several days Mark didn't show up at his usual haunts, and even Mr. Phelps, the American Minister in Berlin, didn't know what had become of him. The telephone was but sparingly used then in the legation offices. However, on the third or fourth day, Mr. Phelps learned that Mark was down with bronchitis at his hotel, the Royal, and that when he wasn't sneezing or coughing, ennui plagued him sadly.
"Well," I said, "I have got something to liven him up," and showed Mr. Phelps the manuscript. He advised me to send it at once to the Royal, but when I called on Mark Twain a week later and inquired sotto voce whether he had received the manuscript, he said:
"Of course not. The wife got it and you know she won't let me read anything but tracts. I suppose she burnt our MS."
"Well," I said, "I have got a carbon and I will let you have that by and by."
"Not while I'm at home," he said, "for now she is on the scent, she will watch out. She is dreadfully afraid that some one may corrupt me."
Mark remained indoors for over a month, the thing was forgotten, and later, when he asked for the manuscript, I couldn't find it. Other interests came up and Schopenhauer was shelved, though at the time we made the find, Mark speculated on getting a book out of it by amplifying it with other writings of the philosopher, particularly his "Fragments of Philosophy" and his "Pandectes et Spicilegia"; the latter are still in manuscript or, at least, were in manuscript in the early nineties.
If Mark were alive to-day, how happy he would be at the discovery I made quite recently in an old chest of drawers. I had seen a movie play, showing the extravagant amounts of money one can earn by selling old manuscripts—including the rejection slips—and I started cleaning up an old piece of furniture wanted for less ideal purposes. And there I found the long lost Schopenhauer MS. According to the notes, this manuscript belonged to a parcel of handwritten essays willed by the philosopher to the Royal Library at Berlin and dealing with themes and matters that Schopenhauer hoped to work out and improve upon by and by. But death overtook him before he could exploit the problem in hand. Here follows the MS. Mark was not allowed to see:
Schopenhauer's Tetragamy.
The Philosopher s Attempt to reform social
conditions due to Monogamy.
Neither woman's frailty nor man's egoism should be held responsible for those frequent miscarriages of domestic happiness encountered in married life. Nature itself is to blame. If the state of monogamy, as some of the philosophers will have it, is the natural one, then nature disarranged its own scheme beforehand by making woman's sexual life twenty or thirty or even forty years shorter than man's.
At the present time males and females in the civilized world are about equal in number. This, too, is taken for proof that nature favored monogamy. It is a fact, on the other hand, observable in practical life as well as by medical investigation, that a woman is well able physically to be the wife of two men at the same time.
There are no healthier and more beautiful women, of their kind, than the Tedas of Asia who marry besides their chief-husband all his brothers, no matter how many he has got.
We do not go so far as to advocate polyandry. Polyandry is a condition based on a low state of civilization. But basing our proposition on physical grounds, we venture to assert that tetragamy, reorganized and protected by law, would be a married state doing away with most of the evils of monogamy from the man's standpoint, while contributing to woman's happiness.
We propose the introduction of a new form of marriage on the following lines. Instead of one man marrying one woman for better or worse, we propose that two men, friends of course, marry one woman, always a young and healthy person, with this understanding:
After the woman has reached a certain age, the two friends shall be at liberty to marry another young woman, but without divorcing or abandoning the first.
The second woman shall provide the men, if she lives, with a capable and loving mate for the rest of their lives.
Such a state of things would result in the happiness of two women, both would be taken care of for life and there would be no rivalry either.
As far as the men are concerned, tetragamy would do away with a passion leading to so many fatalities: jealousy.
Now let us look at tetragamy, as defined, from an economic standpoint.
At the present time, the average young couple enters into the marriage state when the man's capacity as a provider is unequal to the demands of the average pleasure-loving woman. His meagre resources do not allow him to supply her with the luxuries she craves, nor has he as much money for himself as before marriage. It would be a waste of words to point out that these conditions are responsible for much unhappiness among married folks.
Take a case of poverty. Many a man who can hardly support himself tries to support a wife, and not only a wife, but children, numbers of them! What is the result? The woman, driven by want, for the love of her children, becomes a breadwinner on her own account. The time she ought to devote to her little ones, born or unborn, she spends in the factory, at the washboard or sewing machine.
Is that natural? If nature favored such a state of affairs, nature would be illogical, and who dare assert so monstrous a thing?
In the state of tetragamy, man has to bear but one-half of the household's expenses. This gives him a chance to save money and to do something for his education, while the children, being supported by two men, have better clothes, better food, more love, and a better home.
Tetragamy would make for morality, because it would make it easier for men to get married. It would make for morality because woman, having two husbands, would not be longing for an affinity. And when old, she would not suffer from the thought, or from the actual knowledge, that her husband betrays her.
Things are different to-day. The man who marries young sees the fire of love extinguished in the woman at his side after a certain number of years.
As to the average woman, in the state of monogamy, she is only too often compelled to marry a man physically inferior to her. If she escapes that fate, then, in the course of time, she must needs come to the conclusion that she is too old for her husband.
But I am not unaware that there are serious objections.
As to the children, their identity would be determined by their looks.
As to possible differences—they will not be greater than in marriage as it is to-day. If people are inclined to fight, they will do so under any conditions, good, bad or indifferent. For my own part I am inclined to think that there will be less fighting, since jealousy will be eliminated beforehand.
What about financial affairs? There should be no communism, of course. Each man could contribute his share and the woman should be allowed free disposal of her savings.
Of course, the state must take the first woman under its protection. She can never be abandoned and can be divorced for cause only.
Under the sway of monogamy duties and nature are forever in conflict. Woman is tempted when young, is abandoned morally or physically or both when old.
If this be natural, then nature should be reformed and tetragamy substituted for monogamy.