The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1870-06-25


gambling. It may seem strange that man
should voluntarily put himself in position
of which the only popularity is that 1t
is uncertain whether he viii be utterly
ruined or made twice as rich as be-
fore; and yet experience proves that for
many men there is q strange charm in simple
uncertainty. 1t is an escape, though by the
simplest possible device, from stagnation, and
stagnation is the one thing which is utterly
unbearable. We enjoy any agitation for the
sake of the agitation, and are glad to stir up
pool with q stick if we cannot get an angel
to trouble the waters. But the other side of
the problem is more puzzling. Admitting
that we are need of some kind of excitement,
why cannot we discover some more positively
agreeable means of producing it (? To go on
and see a score of horses gallop for between
two and three minutes seems to be rather
poor form of pleasure, even if
few people, whose names we scarcely
know, and in whose fortunes we take
the smallest possible interest, have good
deal of money depending upon which gallops
fastest. What is il to as if A. B. has or has
not to transfer fifty thousand pounds to @.
D.? There is ell-known problem as to
whether we would walk across the Strand if
we knew that by 80 doing we should save the
life of a mandarin at Pekin; certainly we
should not do it to bring about change in
the Chinese Ministry; and to great ma
jority of the crowd at EPSON the ques-
ton as to which ornament of the
Turf is to receive and which is to
lose the money has little more interest than
the question whether one collection of mono
syllables or another is to be the name of the
favorite of the Chinese Emperor. The only
way of discovering an answer is to think of
the small number of pleasures which are open
to mankind in general. The mass of man.
kind is pretty much in the position of the
proverbial soapmaker who tried to set up as
country gentleman but was compelled to
come back to town on boiling days. We
really do not know how to amuse ourselves,
and are forced to snatch at the first pretext
that offers itself, and to make believe very
hard that we are really enjoying ourselves.
1t is duty not as yet generally recognized
to study the art of pleasure-hunting. Moral
lists have assumed that that is one of the
tasks which may be left to the unprompted
instincts of mankind, and that preachers
should confine themselves chiefly to denounc-
ing an excessive devotion to the pursuit. Yet
it is obvious that this ascetic theory takes no
notice of a most important deficiency in the
characters of most men. We are no more
capable of amusing ourselves than of fencing
or playing the fiddle without careful training
and long practice. If the object of moral
teachers is to increase the sum of human
cultivation of the faculties which are imme-
diately pleasant to the individual as well as of
those which are more indirectly profitable to
his race. 1t is a very good thing to be scru-
pulously honest and industrious; but the
most industrious and honest of men may
lead wretchedly bare and improbable life.
Why should he not study the theory of de-
irving the greatest possible amount of inno-
cent enjoyment from the world which he
ixha on kl,ok Is
other people? Two practical rules would pro-
badly result from such an inquiry. The first
would be the extreme Importance to
every man of providing himself with good
serviceable hobby. Whether he takes to art
or literature or natural science, or even to
athletic pursuits, he will be qualified to amuse
himself; and the numbers of people who col
lect in crowds to see something in which
they take the slightest possible interest is
simply proof of how many hobbyless
wretches are still crawling about the world.
Even cultivated taste for cookery or wines
is better than nothing, so long as it is kept
within certain bounds, and not only provides
man with an interesting pursuit, but GER
talnly promotes the comfort of his friends.
We may admit indeed that this is at about
the lowest limit of. permissible pleasure
! ing; but it is fair question for casuistry,
whether man would spend day better in
yawnipg about q race-course without any
taste for horse-racing, or in pursuing
inquiry into the art of dining.
There is another rule, however, which is
of equal Importance, and may be more unre-
servedly stated. What an enormous advance
would be at once made in the art of happi-
ness if people could only be persuaded to a
tolerable degree of sincerity The principle
would cut both ways There are some things
which everybody really likes, bgt for which,
from some arbitrary fashion, it rs customary
to avow contempt; as there are many things
which everybody hates, and yet which every
one is afraid to denounce. One of the great
est impediments to sound art is that both
artists and their admirers are 30 much in
clined to adopt a style recommended by some
preconceived theory as to overlook the inn
portant question whether they really give and
receive pleasure. 1t is true that, when we
know whether poem or picture pleases,
there is a further question whether it ought
to please; but when the habitual hypocrisy
of mankind leaves us in q complete un-
certainty as to the first point, our subse-
quent theorizing is apt to be very unsatisfac-
tory. There would be in one sense no dis
putting about tastes if we only knew which
tastes were genuine, though we might still
ask whether they were elevated; but as il
is, the first, and often the utterly insoluble
question is, whether We really like q so-called
pleasure or only persuade ourselves that we
like it, If we could thoroughly ross-examine
all persons who have been present at the
Derby, and publish an accurate account OF
their answers, we should guess, Judging
from the settled gloom which was the preva-
lent expression of most countenances on the
homeward road, that the attendance next yea
would be diminished, The simple satisfa ac
ton Of being in crowd would prove Il