The present text is based upon a heavily revised manuscript, DV32, the only phase under Mark Twain's control. According to the Autobiographical Dictation of 24 January 1906, he wrote “The Character of Man” early in 1885, three or four months after Grover Cleveland's first election. Hand and paper are consistent with this date. The latter is Mark Twain's familiar buff laid paper with the “Keystone Linen” watermark, measuring 5½″ × 8⅞″. He discovered the manuscript among his papers around 11 January 1906, when he added the footnotes and a few revisions. It probably influenced “Taxes and Morals,” a speech he delivered at Carnegie Hall on 22 January, wherein also he attacked party loyalty. On 23 January he inserted the piece in his Autobiographical Dictation, and Paine later published it in Mark Twain's Autobiography. No typescript survives, and Paine may have had only the instruction of the manuscript, which the state of some cancellations made confusing. Most of them were precisely indicated, however, and their reasons clear. The work was a compound of two fragments, and Mark Twain deleted passages in one that were substantially repeated in the other. He also canceled references to himself and a few anti-clerical and anti-Christian passages, probably because he thought of reading the manuscript before the Hartford Monday Evening Club, where he read a derivative but more politically oriented paper (“Consistency”) in 1887. The work was first printed in 2MTA: 7–13 and was reprinted in 37Z: 7–13.
Three erroneous possessive forms have been corrected, “years'” year's (63.2), “conscience” conscience' (64.20), and “mens'” men's (64.25). Mark Twain inserted “Also—” (60.21) in 1906 but left “In” in upper case; the word is now in lower case. The compound “branch lies” at 61.19 has been emended to “branch-lies”; compare the text at 61.23 and 61.28.
[1885]
Concerning Man—he is too large a subject to be treated as a whole; so I will merely discuss a detail or two of him at this time. I desire to contemplate him from this point of view —this premiss: that he was not made for any useful purpose, for the reason that he hasn't served any; that he was most likely not even made intentionally; and that his working himself up out of the oyster bed to his present position was probably matter of surprise and regret to the Creator. . . .Ⓐtextual note For his history, in all climes, all ages and all circumstances, furnishes oceans and continents of proof that of all the creatures that were made he is the most detestable. Of the entire brood he is the only one—the solitary one—that possesses malice. That is the basest of all instincts, passions, vices—the most hateful. That one thing puts him below the rats, the grubs, the trichinæ. He is the only creature that inflicts pain for sport, knowing it to be pain. But if the cat knows she is inflicting pain when she plays with the frightened mouse, then we must make an exception here; we must grant that in one detail man is the moral peer of the cat. All creatures kill—there seems to be no exception; but of the whole list, man is the only one that kills for fun; he is the only one that kills in malice, the only one that kills for revenge. Also—in all the list he is the only creature that has a nasty mind.
Shall he be extolled for his noble qualities, for his gentleness, [begin page 61] his sweetness, his amiability, his lovingness, his courage, his devotion, his patience, his fortitude, his prudence, the various charms and graces of his spirit? The other animals share all these with him, yet are free from the blacknesses and rottennesses of his character.Ⓐtextual note
. . . . There areⒶtextual note certain sweet-smelling sugar-coated lies current in the world which all politic men have apparently tacitly conspired together to support and perpetuate. One of these is, that there is such a thing in the world as independence: independence of thought, independence of opinion, independence of action. Another is, that the world loves to see independence—admires it, applauds it. Another is, that there is such a thing in the world as toleration—in religion, in politics, and such matters; and with it trains that already mentioned auxiliary lie that toleration is admired, and applauded. Out of these trunk-lies spring many branch ones: to-wit, the lie that not all men are slaves; the lie that men are glad when other men succeed; glad when they prosper; glad to see them reach lofty heights; sorry to see them fall again. And yet other branch-lies: to-wit, that there is heroism in man; that he is not mainly made up of malice and treachery; that he is sometimes not a coward; that there is something about him that ought to be perpetuated—in heaven, or hell, or somewhere. And these other branch-lies, to-wit: that conscience, man's moral medicine chest, is not only created by the Creator, but is put into man ready-charged with the right and only true and authentic correctives of conduct—and the duplicate chest, with the self-same correctives, unchanged, unmodified, distributed to all nations and all epochs. And yet one other branch-lie, to-wit, that I am I, and you are you; that we are units, individuals, and have natures of our own, instead of being the tail-end of a tape-worm eternity of ancestors extending in linked procession back—and back—and back—to our source in the monkeys, with this so-called individuality of ours a decayed and rancid mush of inherited instincts and teachings derived, atom by atom, stench by stench, from the entire line of that sorry column, and not so much new and original matter in it as you [begin page 62] could balance on a needle point and examine under a microscope. This makes well nigh fantastic the suggestion that there can be such a thing as a personal, original and responsible nature in a man, separable from that in him which is not original, and findable in such quantity as to enable the observer to say, This is a man, not a procession.
. . . . ConsiderⒶtextual note that first mentioned lie: that there is such a thing in the world as independence; that it exists in individuals, that it exists in bodies of men. Surely if anything is proven, by whole oceans and continents of evidence, it is that the quality of independence was almost wholly left out of the human race. The scattering exceptions to the rule only emphasize it, light it up, make it glare. The whole population of New England meekly took their turns, for years, in standing up in the railway trains, without so much as a complaint above their breath, till at last these uncounted millions were able to produce exactly one single independent manⒺexplanatory note, who stood to his rights and made the railroad give him a seat. Statistics and the law of probabilities warrant the assumption that it will take New England forty years to breed his fellow. There is a law, with a penalty attached, forbidding trains to occupy the Asylum street crossingⒺexplanatory note more than five minutes at a time. For years people and carriages used to wait there nightly as much as twenty minutes on a stretch while New England trains monopolized that crossing. I used to hear men use vigorous language about that insolent wrong—but they waited, just the same.
We are discreet sheep; we wait to see how the drove is going, and then go with the drove. We have two opinions: one private, which we are afraid to express; and another one—the one we use—which we force ourselves to wear to please Mrs. Grundy, until habit makes us comfortable in it, and the custom of defending it presently makes us love it, adore it, and forget how pitifully we came by it. Look at it in politics. Look at the candidates whom we loathe, one year, and are afraid to vote against the next; whom we cover with unimaginable filth, one year, and fall down on the public platform and worship, the next—and keep on doing it until [begin page 63] the habitual shutting of our eyes to last year's evidences brings us presently to a sincere and stupid belief in this year'sⒺexplanatory note.* Look at the tyranny of party—at what is called party allegiance, party loyalty —a snare invented by designing men for selfish purposes—and which turns voters into chattels, slaves, rabbits; and all the while, their masters, and they themselves are shouting rubbish about liberty, independence, freedom of opinion, freedom of speech, honestly unconscious of the fantastic contradiction; and forgetting or ignoring that their fathers and the churches shouted the same blasphemies a generation earlier when they were closing their doors against the hunted slave, beating his handful of humane defenders with Bible-texts and billies, and pocketing the insults and licking the shoes of his Southern master.
If we would learn what the human race really is, at bottom,Ⓐtextual note we need only observe it in election times. A Hartford clergymanⒶtextual noteⒺexplanatory note met me in the street, and spoke of a new nominee—denounced the nomination, in strong,
earnest words—words that were refreshing for their independence, their manliness.**
He said, “I ought to be proud, perhaps, for this nominee is a relative of mine; on
the contrary I am humiliated and disgusted; for I know him intimately—familiarly—and
I know that he is an unscrupulous scoundrel, and always has been.” You should have
seen this clergyman preside at a political meeting forty days later; and urge, and
plead, and gush—and you should have heard him paint the character of this same nominee.
You would have supposed he was describing the Cid, and Great-heart, and Sir Galahad,
and Bayard the Spotless all rolled into one. Was he sincere? Yes—by that time; and
therein lies the pathos of it all, the hopelessness of it all. It shows at what trivial
cost of effort a man can teach himself a lie, and learn to believe it, when he perceives,
by the general drift, that that is the popular thing to do. Does he believe his lie
yet? Oh, probably not;
*Jan. 11/06. It is long ago, but it plainly means Blaine. M.T.
**Jan. 11, '06. I can't remember his name. It began with K, I think. He was one of the American revisers of the New Testament, and was nearly as great a scholar as Hammond Trumbull. [begin page 64] he has no further use for it. It was but a passing incident; he spared to it the moment that was its due, then hastened back to the serious business of his life.Ⓐtextual note
And what a paltry poor lie is that one which teaches that independence of action and opinion is prized in men, admired, honored, rewarded. When a man leaves a political party, he is treated as if the party owned him—as if he were its bond slave, as most party men plainly are—and had stolen himself, gone off with what was not his own. And he is traduced, derided, despised, held up to public obloquy and loathing. His character is remorselessly assassinated; no means, however vile, are spared to injure his property and his business.Ⓐtextual note
The preacher who casts a voteⒺexplanatory note for conscience' sake, runs the risk of starving. And is rightly served; for he has been teaching a falsity—that men respect and honor independence of thought and action.
Mr. Beecher may be charged with a crimeⒺexplanatory note, and his whole following will rise as one man, and stand by him to the bitter end; but who so poor to be his friend when he is charged with casting a vote for conscience' sake? Take the editor so chargedⒺexplanatory note—take—take anybody.
All the talk about tolerance, in anything or anywhere, is plainly a gentle lie. It does not exist. It is in no man's heart; but it unconsciously and by moss-grown inherited habit, drivels and slabbers from all men's lips. Intolerance is everything for one's self, and nothing for the other person. The main-spring of man's nature is just that—selfishness.Ⓐtextual note
Let us skip the other lies, for brevity's sake. To consider themⒶtextual note would prove nothing, except that man is what he is—loving, toward his own, lovable, to his own,—his family, his friends—and otherwise the buzzing, busy, trivial, enemy of his race—who tarries his little day, does his little dirt, commends himself to God, and then goes out into the darkness, to return no more, and send no messages back—selfish even in death.Ⓐtextual note
. . . Creator; that if he was made intentionally, it was not that he might be saved or damned, since he is conspicuously not worth that trouble, but was more probably merely intended as an annoyance—a thing to do for the Creator the office which other vermin do for us. If that is really what he was made for his creation does at last seem rational, explicable, even excusable, in a measure—for the office fits his bulk and his merit.
Mark Twain wrote the manuscript in ink. In pencil, probably when trying to convert the essay into a speech in 1885–1887, he softened the beginning:
. . . Creator; that if he was made intentionally, he was probably merely intended. . . .
The proper state of the passage as a whole is somewhat unclear. At one time, in pencil, Mark Twain wrote “stet” near the matter deleted by the pencil revision, but the instruction is so large as to apply to the entire passage. At another time he canceled it in ink, and since the ink resembles that of the footnotes, which are dated 1906, the cancellation has been regarded as his final judgment.
Upon what quality, what pretext, then, shall he arrogate to himself the position of the Deity's chosen creature?—His intellect? Will that enable him to adorn heaven? It is like the strained wisdom of discarding gas and electricity to pile decayed corpses in the family circle for the sake of the phosphorescent light that issues from them.
Is it free will? He hasn't any more free will than the other creatures.
He has the disposition to do mean and vicious things—and he restrains himself from doing them. Does that make him choicer company for the blest than the lamb, the calf, the horse, the bug that hasn't any such disposition? Look at him as you may, there is no rational argument in his favor. Yet he blandly shoves himself forward as the pet of the Deity—the Deity's chosen animal. We should not forget that the Deity has been accused of picking out the Jews for his favorite people. Those who know that race, know how wanton was that charge. This should make us modester; it should guard us from too readily jumping to gushy and grotesque conclusions from fantastic and irrational premises.
Take one detail. Sham? or “Nature.”
In 1885–1887 Mark Twain deleted the passage in pencil (except for the last line), wrote “stet” at the beginning, then in 1906 deleted the passage in ink, again excepting the last line. Then he struck out the last line also and added this transition to follow the cue word (“character”) above:
So much by way of generalization, as regards man and his character.
Let us strip him and examine him a little by detail:
He then canceled the transition.
. . . business. If I may speak personally, take my own case. A year ago I had a friend in every newspaper in the land, and a reputation which was worth almost any commonplace man's having. I cast a vote for conscience' sake, and now if anybody values my reputation it is not I.
What a fine irony it was to devise the Christian religion for such as he with its golden array of impossibilities: Give all thou hast to the poor; if a man smite thee on thy right cheek; if a man borrow thy coat of thee; if a man require thee to go with him a mile; do unto others as you would that others should do unto you; love thy neighbor as thyself. It has supplanted the old religion which went before it—upon men's lips it has. But not in their hearts. That old religion knew men better than this one, and must outlive it: for it says, “Smite those people hip and thigh; burn all they possess with fire; kill the cattle; kill the old men, and the women, and the young children, and the sucklings; spare nothing that has life; for their opinions are not like ours.”
Let us skip some of the lies, for brevity's sake. Truth is mighty, and will prevail. I may be partial, but I think that that remark is in itself the compactest and the most symmetrical lie that has been constructed by man. It is pemmican. Why, we are so accustomed to feeding on lies, that we can't
What a poor little creature he is, with his airs and his importance, and his wise cogitations about his Maker and the hereafter. Whereas if one would
The second fragment breaks off here.