The present text is based upon a manuscript, DV274, the only phase under Mark Twain's control. At the top of the first page Paine inscribed “written about 1898” (see 1MTA: 143). The phrase “about 1898” suggests he picked that year because he thought the work belonged with the brief autobiographical sketches Mark Twain wrote in 1897 and 1898, but the paper is not like that of the sketches. It is a white laid stationery torn into half-sheets normally measuring 4½″ × 7″, with an elaborate watermark: “Regina | Note | company emblem” and “Victoria | portrait of Victoria | Regina.” Paper with this water-mark has been found only in correspondence and manuscripts (for example, Joan of Arc) of 1894–1895. At the top of the first leaf, after writing at least that page of “Macfarlane,” Mark Twain wrote a reminder: “Coit? was that the name at Angel's Camp? No, Coon.” Possibly he inscribed this note while preparing “The Private History of the ‘Jumping Frog’ Story,” which mentions Ben Coon (though not by name) and which appeared in the North American Review for April 1894. The manuscript stops so abruptly as to seem incomplete, but it ends at mid-page with a completed sentence.
The title appears to be in Paine's hand. He also inscribed two emendations, the first disregarded and the other adopted in the present text: “made” (76.3) to “made up” and “placid” to “placidly” (77.4). Paine's other emendations first appeared in his edition of the autobiography; compare 1MTA: 143–147. The present text emends the solid compound “boardinghouse” boarding house (77.9) in accordance with Mark Twain's style elsewhere in “Macfarlane”: compare 76.2 and 78.7.
First printed in 1MTA: 143–147; reprinted in 36Z: 143–147; in part: The Autobiography of Mark Twain, ed. Charles Neider (New York: Harper, 1959), pp. 95–97.
[1894?]
When i was just turned twenty I wandered to Cincinnati, and was there several months. Our boarding house crew was made of commonplace people of various ages and both sexes. They were full of bustle, frivolity, chatter, and the joy of life, and were good-natured, clean-minded, and well meaning; but they were oppressively uninteresting, for all that—with one exception. This was MacfarlaneⒺexplanatory note, a Scotchman. He was forty years old—just double my age—but we were opposites in most ways, and comrades from the start. I always spent my evenings by the wood fire in his room, listening in comfort to his tireless talk and to the dulled complainings of the winter storms, until the clock struck ten. At that hour he grilled a smoked herring, after the fashion of my earlier friend in Philadelphia, the Englishman SumnerⒺexplanatory note. His herring was his nightcap and my signal to go.
He was six feet high and rather lank, a serious and sincere man. He had no humor, nor any comprehension of it. He had a sort of smile, whose office was to express his good nature, but if I ever heard him laugh the memory of it is gone from me. He was intimate with no one in the house but me, though he was courteous and pleasant with all. He had two or three dozen weighty books—philosophies, histories and scientific works—and at the head of this procession was his Bible and his dictionary. After his herring he always read two or three hours in bed.
[begin page 77]Diligent talker as he was, he seldom said anything about himself. To ask him a personal question gave him no offence—nor the asker any information; he merely turned the matter aside and flowed placidly on about other things. He told me once that he had had hardly any schooling, and that such learning as he had, he had picked up for himself. That was his sole biographical revelation, I believe. Whether he was bachelor, widower, or grass-widower, remained his own secret. His clothes were cheap, but neat and care-takingly preserved; ours was a cheap boarding house; he left the house at six, mornings, and returned to it toward six, evenings; his hands were not soft: so I reasoned that he worked at some mechanical calling ten hours a day, for humble wages—but I never knew. As a rule, technicalities of a man's vocation, and figures and metaphors drawn from it, slip out in his talk and reveal his trade; but if this ever happened in Macfarlane's case I was none the wiser, although I was constantly on the watch during half a year for those very betrayals. It was mere curiosity, for I didn't care what his trade was, but I wanted to detect it in true detective fashion and was annoyed because I couldn't do it. I think he was a remarkable man, to be able to keep the shop out of his talk all that time.
There was another noteworthy feature about him: he seemed to know his dictionary from beginning to end. He claimed that he did. He was frankly proud of this accomplishment and said I would not find it possible to challenge him with an English word which he could not promptly spell and define. I lost much time trying to hunt up a word which would beat him, but those weeks were spent in vain and I finally gave it up; which made him so proud and happy that I wished I had surrendered earlier.
He seemed to be as familiar with his Bible as he was with his dictionary. It was easy to see that he considered himself a philosopher and a thinker. His talk always ran upon grave and large questions; and I must do him the justice to say that his heart and conscience were in his talk and that there was no appearance of reasoning and arguing for the vain pleasure of hearing himself do it.
[begin page 78]Of course his thinkings and reasonings and philosophizings were those of a but partly taught and wholly untrained mind, yet he hit by accident upon some curious and striking things. For instance. The time was the early part of 1856—fourteen or fifteen years before Mr. Darwin's “Descent of Man” startled the world—yet here was Macfarlane talking the same idea to me, there in the boarding house in Cincinnati.
The same general idea, but with a difference. Macfarlane considered that the animal life in the world was developed in the course of æons of time from a few microscopic seed-germs, or perhaps one microscopic seed-germ deposited upon the globe by the Creator in the dawn of time; and that this development was progressive upon an ascending scale toward ultimate perfection until man was reached; and that then the progressive scheme broke pitifully down and went to wreck and ruin!
He said that man's heart was the only bad heart in the animal kingdom; that man was the only animal capable of feeling malice, envy, vindictiveness, vengefulness, hatred, selfishness, the only animal that loved drunkenness, almost the only animal that could endure personal uncleanliness and a filthy habitation, the sole animal in whom was fully developed the base instinct called patriotism, the sole animal that robs, persecutes, oppresses, and kills members of his own immediate tribe, the sole animal that steals and enslaves the members of any tribe.
He claimed that man's intellect was a brutal addition to him and degraded him to a rank far below the plane of the other animals, and that there was never a man who did not use his intellect daily all his life to advantage himself at other people's expense. The divinest divine reduced his domestics to humble servitude under him by advantage of his superior intellect, and those servants in turn were above a still lower grade of people by force of brains that were still a little better than theirs.