Henry David Thoreau → his writings → Life Without Principle

At a ly­ce­um, not long since, I felt that the lec­tur­er had cho­sen a theme too for­eign to him­self, and so failed to in­ter­est me as much as he might have done. He de­scribed things not in or near to his heart, but toward his ex­trem­i­ties and su­per­fi­cies. There was, in this sense, no tru­ly cen­tral or cen­tral­iz­ing thought in the lec­ture. I would have had him deal with his pri­vat­est ex­pe­ri­ence, as the po­et does. The great­est com­pli­ment that was ever paid me was when one asked me what I thought, and at­tend­ed to my an­swer. I am sur­prised, as well as de­light­ed, when this hap­pens, it is such a rare use he would make of me, as if he were ac­quaint­ed with the tool. Com­mon­ly, if men want any­thing of me, it is on­ly to know how many acres I make of their land — since I am a sur­vey­or — or, at most, what triv­i­al news I have bur­dened my­self with. They nev­er will go to law for my meat; they pre­fer the shell. A man once came a con­sid­er­a­ble dis­tance to ask me to lec­ture on Slav­ery; but on con­vers­ing with him, I found that he and his clique ex­pect­ed sev­en eighths of the lec­ture to be theirs, and on­ly one eighth mine; so I de­clined. I take it for grant­ed, when I am in­vit­ed to lec­ture any­where — for I have had a lit­tle ex­pe­ri­ence in that busi­ness — that there is a de­sire to hear what I think on some sub­ject, though I may be the great­est fool in the coun­try — and not that I should say pleas­ant things mere­ly, or such as the au­di­ence will as­sent to; and I re­solve, ac­cord­ing­ly, that I will give them a strong dose of my­self. They have sent for me, and en­gaged to pay for me, and I am de­ter­mined that they shall have me, though I bore them be­yond all prec­e­dent. [1]

So now I would say some­thing sim­i­lar to you, my read­ers. Since you are my read­ers, and I have not been much of a trav­el­ler, I will not talk about peo­ple a thou­sand miles off, but come as near home as I can. As the time is short, I will leave out all the flat­tery, and re­tain all the crit­i­cism. [2]

Let us con­sid­er the way in which we spend our lives. [3]

This world is a place of busi­ness. What an in­fi­nite bus­tle! I am awaked al­most eve­ry night by the pant­ing of the lo­co­mo­tive. It in­ter­rupts my dreams. There is no sab­bath. It would be glo­ri­ous to see man­kind at lei­sure for once. It is noth­ing but work, work, work. I can­not eas­i­ly buy a blank-book to write thoughts in; they are com­mon­ly ruled for dol­lars and cents. An Irish­man, see­ing me mak­ing a min­ute in the fields, took it for grant­ed that I was cal­cu­lat­ing my wag­es. If a man was tossed out of a win­dow when an in­fant, and so made a crip­ple for life, or scared out of his wits by the In­di­ans, it is re­gret­ted chief­ly be­cause he was thus in­ca­pac­i­tat­ed for busi­ness! I think that there is noth­ing, not even crime, more op­posed to po­et­ry, to phi­los­o­phy, ay, to life it­self, than this in­ces­sant busi­ness. [4]

There is a coarse and bois­ter­ous mon­ey-mak­ing fel­low in the out­skirts of our town, who is go­ing to build a bank-wall un­der the hill along the edge of his mead­ow. The pow­ers have put this in­to his head to keep him out of mis­chief, and he wish­es me to spend three weeks dig­ging there with him. The re­sult will be that he will per­haps get some more mon­ey to board, and leave for his heirs to spend fool­ish­ly. If I do this, most will com­mend me as an in­dus­tri­ous and hard-work­ing man; but if I choose to de­vote my­self to cer­tain la­bors which yield more real prof­it, though but lit­tle mon­ey, they may be in­clined to look on me as an idler. Nev­er­the­less, as I do not need the po­lice of mean­ing­less la­bor to reg­u­late me, and do not see an­y­thing ab­so­lute­ly praise­wor­thy in this fel­low’s un­der­tak­ing any more than in many an en­ter­prise of our own or for­eign gov­ern­ments, how­ev­er amus­ing it may be to him or them, I pre­fer to finish my ed­u­ca­tion at a dif­fer­ent school. [5]

If a man walk in the woods for love of them half of each day, he is in dan­ger of be­ing re­gard­ed as a loaf­er; but if he spends his whole day as a spec­u­la­tor, shear­ing off those woods and mak­ing earth bald be­fore her time, he is es­teemed an in­dus­tri­ous and en­ter­pris­ing cit­i­zen. As if a town had no in­ter­est in its for­ests but to cut them down! [6]

Most men would feel in­sult­ed if it were pro­posed to em­ploy them in throw­ing stones over a wall, and then in throw­ing them back, mere­ly that they might earn their wag­es. But many are no more wor­thi­ly em­ployed now. For in­stance: just af­ter sun­rise, one sum­mer morn­ing, I no­ticed one of my neigh­bors walk­ing be­side his team, which was slow­ly draw­ing a heavy hewn stone swung un­der the ax­le, sur­round­ed by an at­mos­phere of in­dus­try — his day’s work be­gun — his brow com­menced to sweat — a re­proach to all slug­gards and idlers — paus­ing abreast the shoul­ders of his ox­en, and half turn­ing round with a flour­ish of his mer­ci­ful whip, while they gained their length on him. And I thought, Such is the la­bor which the Amer­i­can Con­gress ex­ists to pro­tect — hon­est, man­ly toil — hon­est as the day is long — that makes his bread taste sweet, and keeps so­ci­e­ty sweet — which all men re­spect and have con­se­crat­ed; one of the sa­cred band, doing the need­ful but irk­some drudg­ery. In­deed, I felt a slight re­proach, be­cause I ob­served this from a win­dow, and was not abroad and stir­ring about a sim­i­lar busi­ness. The day went by, and at eve­ning I passed the yard of an­oth­er neigh­bor, who keeps many ser­vants, and spends much mon­ey fool­ish­ly, while he adds noth­ing to the com­mon stock, and there I saw the stone of the morn­ing ly­ing be­side a whim­si­cal struc­ture in­tend­ed to adorn this Lord Tim­o­thy Dex­ter’s prem­is­es, and the dig­ni­ty forth­with de­part­ed from the team­ster’s la­bor, in my eyes. In my opin­ion, the sun was made to light wor­thi­er toil than this. I may add that his em­ploy­er has since run off, in debt to a good part of the town, and, af­ter pas­sing through Chan­cery, has set­tled some­where else, there to be­come once more a pa­tron of the arts. [7]

The ways by which you may get mon­ey al­most with­out ex­cep­tion lead down­ward. To have done an­y­thing by which you earned mon­ey mere­ly is to have been tru­ly idle or worse. If the la­bor­er gets no more than the wag­es which his em­ploy­er pays him, he is cheat­ed, he cheats him­self. If you would get mon­ey as a writ­er or lec­tur­er, you must be pop­u­lar, which is to go down per­pen­dic­u­lar­ly. Those ser­vic­es which the com­mu­ni­ty will most read­i­ly pay for, it is most dis­a­gree­a­ble to ren­der. You are paid for be­ing some­thing less than a man. The State does not com­mon­ly re­ward a gen­ius any more wise­ly. Even the po­et lau­re­ate would rath­er not have to cel­e­brate the ac­ci­dents of roy­al­ty. He must be bribed with a pipe of wine; and per­haps an­oth­er po­et is called away from his muse to gauge that very pipe. As for my own busi­ness, even that kind of sur­vey­ing which I could do with most sat­is­fac­tion my em­ploy­ers do not want. They would pre­fer that I should do my work coarse­ly and not too well, ay, not well enough. When I ob­serve that there are dif­fer­ent ways of sur­vey­ing, my em­ploy­er com­mon­ly asks which will give him the most land, not which is most cor­rect. I once in­vent­ed a rule for meas­ur­ing cord-wood, and tried to in­tro­duce it in Bos­ton; but the meas­ur­er there told me that the sel­lers did not wish to have their wood meas­ured cor­rect­ly — that he was al­ready too ac­cu­rate for them, and there­fore they com­mon­ly got their wood meas­ured in Charles­town be­fore cros­sing the bridge. [8]

The aim of the la­bor­er should be, not to get his liv­ing, to get “a good job,” but to per­form well a cer­tain work; and, even in a pe­cu­ni­ary sense, it would be econ­o­my for a town to pay its la­bor­ers so well that they would not feel that they were work­ing for low ends, as for a live­li­hood mere­ly, but for sci­en­tif­ic, or even mor­al ends. Do not hire a man who does your work for mon­ey, but him who does it for love of it. [9]

It is re­mark­a­ble that there are few men so well em­ployed, so much to their minds, but that a lit­tle mon­ey or fame would com­mon­ly buy them off from their pres­ent pur­suit. I see ad­ver­tise­ments for ac­tive young men, as if ac­tiv­i­ty were the whole of a young man’s cap­i­tal. Yet I have been sur­prised when one has with con­fi­dence pro­posed to me, a grown man, to em­bark in some en­ter­prise of his, as if I had ab­so­lute­ly noth­ing to do, my life hav­ing been a com­plete fail­ure hith­er­to. What a doubt­ful com­pli­ment this to pay me! As if he had met me half-way across the ocean beat­ing up against the wind, but bound no­where, and pro­posed to me to go along with him! If I did, what do you think the un­der­writ­ers would say? No, no! I am not with­out em­ploy­ment at this stage of the voy­age. To tell the truth, I saw an ad­ver­tise­ment for able-bod­ied sea­men, when I was a boy, saun­ter­ing in my na­tive port, and as soon as I came of age I em­barked. [10]

The com­mu­ni­ty has no bribe that will tempt a wise man. You may raise mon­ey enough to tun­nel a moun­tain, but you can­not raise mon­ey enough to hire a man who is mind­ing his own busi­ness. An ef­fi­cient and val­u­a­ble man does what he can, wheth­er the com­mu­ni­ty pay him for it or not. The in­ef­fi­cient of­fer their in­ef­fi­cien­cy to the high­est bid­der, and are for­ev­er ex­pect­ing to be put in­to of­fice. One would sup­pose that they were rare­ly dis­ap­point­ed. [11]

Per­haps I am more than usu­al­ly jeal­ous with re­spect to my free­dom. I feel that my con­nec­tion with and ob­li­ga­tion to so­ci­e­ty are still very slight and tran­si­ent. Those slight la­bors which af­ford me a live­li­hood, and by which it is al­lowed that I am to some ex­tent ser­vice­a­ble to my con­tem­po­rar­ies, are as yet com­mon­ly a pleas­ure to me, and I am not of­ten re­mind­ed that they are a ne­ces­si­ty. So far I am suc­cess­ful. But I fore­see that if my wants should be much in­creased, the la­bor re­quired to sup­ply them would be­come a drudg­ery. If I should sell both my fore­noons and af­ter­noons to so­ci­e­ty, as most ap­pear to do, I am sure that for me there would be noth­ing left worth liv­ing for. I trust that I shall nev­er thus sell my birth­right for a mess of pot­tage. I wish to sug­gest that a man may be very in­dus­tri­ous, and yet not spend his time well. There is no more fa­tal blun­der­er than he who con­sumes the great­er part of his life get­ting his liv­ing. All great en­ter­prises are self-sup­port­ing. The po­et, for in­stance, must sus­tain his body by his po­et­ry, as a steam plan­ing-mill feeds its boil­ers with the shav­ings it makes. You must get your liv­ing by lov­ing. But as it is said of the mer­chants that nine­ty-sev­en in a hun­dred fail, so the life of men gen­er­al­ly, tried by this stan­dard, is a fail­ure, and bank­rupt­cy may be sure­ly proph­e­sied. [12]

Mere­ly to come in­to the world the heir of a for­tune is not to be born, but to be still-born, rath­er. To be sup­port­ed by the char­i­ty of friends, or a gov­ern­ment pen­sion — pro­vid­ed you con­tin­ue to breathe — by what­ev­er fine syn­o­nyms you de­scribe these re­la­tions, is to go in­to the alms­house. On Sun­days the poor debt­or goes to church to take an ac­count of stock, and finds, of course, that his out­goes have been great­er than his in­come. In the Cath­o­lic Church, es­pe­cial­ly, they go in­to chan­cery, make a clean con­fes­sion, give up all, and think to start again. Thus men will lie on their backs, talk­ing about the fall of man, and nev­er make an ef­fort to get up. [13]

As for the com­par­a­tive de­mand which men make on life, it is an im­por­tant dif­fer­ence be­tween two, that the one is sat­is­fied with a lev­el suc­cess, that his marks can all be hit by point-blank shots, but the oth­er, how­ev­er low and un­suc­cess­ful his life may be, con­stant­ly el­e­vates his aim, though at a very slight angle to the ho­ri­zon. I should much rath­er be the last man — though, as the Ori­en­tals say, “Great­ness doth not ap­proach him who is for­ev­er look­ing down; and all those who are look­ing high are grow­ing poor.” [14]

It is re­mark­a­ble that there is lit­tle or noth­ing to be re­mem­bered writ­ten on the sub­ject of get­ting a liv­ing; how to make get­ting a liv­ing not mere­ly hol­i­est and hon­or­a­ble, but al­to­geth­er in­vit­ing and glo­ri­ous; for if get­ting a liv­ing is not so, then liv­ing is not. One would think, from look­ing at lit­er­a­ture, that this ques­tion had nev­er dis­turbed a sol­i­tary in­di­vid­u­al’s mus­ings. Is it that men are too much dis­gust­ed with their ex­pe­ri­ence to speak of it? The les­son of val­ue which mon­ey teach­es, which the Au­thor of the Uni­verse has tak­en so much pains to teach us, we are in­clined to skip al­to­geth­er. As for the means of liv­ing, it is won­der­ful how in­dif­fer­ent men of all clas­ses are about it, even re­form­ers, so called — wheth­er they in­her­it, or earn, or steal it. I think that So­ci­e­ty has done noth­ing for us in this re­spect, or at least has un­done what she has done. Cold and hun­ger seem more friend­ly to my na­ture than those meth­ods which men have adopt­ed and ad­vise to ward them off. [15]

The ti­tle wise is, for the most part, false­ly ap­plied. How can one be a wise man, if he does not know any bet­ter how to live than oth­er men? — if he is on­ly more cun­ning and in­tel­lec­tu­al­ly sub­tle? Does Wis­dom work in a tread-mill? or does she teach how to suc­ceed by her ex­am­ple? Is there any such thing as wis­dom not ap­plied to life? Is she mere­ly the mil­ler who grinds the fin­est logic? It is per­ti­nent to ask if Pla­to got his liv­ing in a bet­ter way or more suc­cess­ful­ly than his con­tem­po­rar­ies — or did he suc­cumb to the dif­fi­cul­ties of life like oth­er men? Did he seem to pre­vail over some of them mere­ly by in­dif­fer­ence, or by as­sum­ing grand airs? or find it eas­i­er to live, be­cause his aunt re­mem­bered him in her will? The ways in which most men get their liv­ing, that is, live, are mere make­shifts, and a shirk­ing of the real busi­ness of life — chief­ly be­cause they do not know, but part­ly be­cause they do not mean, any bet­ter. [16]

The rush to Cal­i­for­nia, for in­stance, and the at­ti­tude, not mere­ly of mer­chants, but of phi­los­o­phers and proph­ets, so called, in re­la­tion to it, re­flect the great­est dis­grace on man­kind. That so many are ready to live by luck, and so get the means of com­mand­ing the la­bor of oth­ers less lucky, with­out con­trib­ut­ing any val­ue to so­ci­e­ty! And that is called en­ter­prise! I know of no more star­tling de­vel­op­ment of the im­mor­al­i­ty of trade, and all the com­mon modes of get­ting a liv­ing. The phi­los­o­phy and po­et­ry and re­li­gion of such a man­kind are not worth the dust of a puff­ball. The hog that gets his liv­ing by root­ing, stir­ring up the soil so, would be ashamed of such com­pa­ny. If I could com­mand the wealth of all the worlds by lift­ing my fin­ger, I would not pay such a price for it. Even Ma­homet knew that God did not make this world in jest. It makes God to be a mon­eyed gen­tle­man who scat­ters a hand­ful of pen­nies in or­der to see man­kind scram­ble for them. The world’s raf­fle! A sub­sis­tence in the do­mains of Na­ture a thing to be raf­fled for! What a com­ment, what a sat­ire, on our in­sti­tu­tions! The con­clu­sion will be, that man­kind will hang it­self up­on a tree. And have all the pre­cepts in all the Bi­bles taught men on­ly this? and is the last and most ad­mi­ra­ble in­ven­tion of the hu­man race on­ly an im­proved muck-rake? Is this the ground on which Ori­en­tals and Oc­ci­den­tals meet? Did God di­rect us so to get our liv­ing, dig­ging where we nev­er plant­ed — and He would, per­chance, re­ward us with lumps of gold? [17]

God gave the right­eous man a cer­tif­i­cate en­ti­tling him to food and rai­ment, but the un­right­eous man found a fac­sim­i­le of the same in God’s cof­fers, and ap­pro­pri­at­ed it, and ob­tained food and rai­ment like the form­er. It is one of the most ex­ten­sive sys­tems of coun­ter­feit­ing that the world has seen. I did not know that man­kind was suf­fer­ing for want of gold. I have seen a lit­tle of it. I know that it is very mal­le­a­ble, but not so mal­le­a­ble as wit. A grain of gold will gild a great sur­face, but not so much as a grain of wis­dom. [18]

The gold-dig­ger in the ra­vines of the moun­tains is as much a gam­bler as his fel­low in the sa­loons of San Fran­cis­co. What dif­fer­ence does it make wheth­er you shake dirt or shake dice? If you win, so­ci­e­ty is the los­er. The gold-dig­ger is the en­e­my of the hon­est la­bor­er, what­ev­er checks and com­pen­sa­tions there may be. It is not enough to tell me that you worked hard to get your gold. So does the Dev­il work hard. The way of trans­gres­sors may be hard in many re­spects. The hum­blest ob­serv­er who goes to the mines sees and says that gold-dig­ging is of the char­ac­ter of a lot­tery; the gold thus ob­tained is not the same thing with the wag­es of hon­est toil. But, prac­ti­cal­ly, he for­gets what he has seen, for he has seen on­ly the fact, not the prin­ci­ple, and goes in­to trade there, that is, buys a tick­et in what com­mon­ly proves an­oth­er lot­tery, where the fact is not so ob­vi­ous. [19]

Af­ter read­ing Howitt’s ac­count of the Aus­tra­lian gold-dig­gings one eve­ning, I had in my mind’s eye, all night, the nu­mer­ous val­leys, with their streams, all cut up with foul pits, from ten to one hun­dred feet deep, and half a doz­en feet across, as close as they can be dug, and part­ly filled with water — the lo­cal­i­ty to which men fu­ri­ous­ly rush to probe for their for­tunes — un­cer­tain where they shall break ground — not know­ing but the gold is un­der their camp it­self — some­times dig­ging one hun­dred and six­ty feet be­fore they strike the vein, or then mis­sing it by a foot — turned in­to de­mons, and re­gard­less of each oth­ers’ rights, in their thirst for riches — whole val­leys, for thir­ty miles, sud­den­ly hon­ey­combed by the pits of the min­ers, so that even hun­dreds are drowned in them — stand­ing in water, and cov­ered with mud and clay, they work night and day, dy­ing of ex­po­sure and dis­ease. Hav­ing read this, and part­ly for­got­ten it, I was think­ing, ac­ci­den­tal­ly, of my own un­sat­is­fac­to­ry life, doing as oth­ers do; and with that vi­sion of the dig­gings still be­fore me, I asked my­self why I might not be wash­ing some gold dai­ly, though it were on­ly the fin­est par­ti­cles — why I might not sink a shaft down to the gold with­in me, and work that mine. There is a Bal­la­rat, a Ben­di­go for you — what though it were a sulky-gul­ly? At any rate, I might pur­sue some path, how­ev­er sol­i­tary and nar­row and crook­ed, in which I could walk with love and rev­er­ence. Wher­ev­er a man sep­a­rates from the mul­ti­tude, and goes his own way in this mood, there in­deed is a fork in the road, though or­di­nary trav­el­lers may see on­ly a gap in the pal­ing. His sol­i­tary path across lots will turn out the high­er way of the two. [20]

Men rush to Cal­i­for­nia and Aus­tra­lia as if the true gold were to be found in that di­rec­tion; but that is to go to the very op­po­site ex­treme to where it lies. They go pros­pect­ing far­ther and far­ther away from the true lead, and are most un­for­tu­nate when they think them­selves most suc­cess­ful. Is not our na­tive soil au­rif­er­ous? Does not a stream from the gold­en moun­tains flow through our na­tive val­ley? and has not this for more than ge­o­log­ic ages been bring­ing down the shin­ing par­ti­cles and form­ing the nug­gets for us? Yet, strange to tell, if a dig­ger steal away, pros­pect­ing for this true gold, in­to the un­ex­plored sol­i­tudes around us, there is no dan­ger that any will dog his steps, and en­deav­or to sup­plant him. He may claim and un­der­mine the whole val­ley even, both the cul­ti­vat­ed and the un­cul­ti­vat­ed por­tions, his whole life long in peace, for no one will ever dis­pute his claim. They will not mind his cra­dles or his toms. He is not con­fined to a claim twelve feet square, as at Bal­la­rat, but may mine any­where, and wash the whole wide world in his tom. [21]

Howitt says of the man who found the great nug­get which weighed twen­ty-eight pounds, at the Ben­di­go dig­gings in Aus­tra­lia: “He soon be­gan to drink; got a horse, and rode all about, gen­er­al­ly at full gal­lop, and, when he met peo­ple, called out to in­quire if they knew who he was, and then kind­ly in­formed them that he was ‘the bloody wretch that had found the nug­get.’ At last he rode full speed against a tree, and near­ly knocked his brains out.” I think, how­ev­er, there was no dan­ger of that, for he had al­ready knocked his brains out against the nug­get. Howitt adds, “He is a hope­less­ly ru­ined man.” But he is a type of the class. They are all fast men. Hear some of the names of the plac­es where they dig: “Jack­ass Flat” — “Sheep’s-Head Gul­ly” — “Mur­der­er’s Bar,” etc. Is there no sat­ire in these names? Let them car­ry their ill-got­ten wealth where they will, I am think­ing it will still be “Jack­ass Flat,” if not “Mur­der­er’s Bar,” where they live. [22]

The last re­source of our en­er­gy has been the rob­bing of grave­yards on the Isth­mus of Dar­i­en, an en­ter­prise which ap­pears to be but in its in­fan­cy; for, ac­cord­ing to late ac­counts, an act has passed its sec­ond read­ing in the leg­is­la­ture of New Gra­na­da, reg­u­lat­ing this kind of min­ing; and a cor­re­spon­dent of the “Trib­une” writes: “In the dry sea­son, when the weath­er will per­mit of the coun­try be­ing prop­er­ly pros­pect­ed, no doubt oth­er rich guacas [that is, grave­yards] will be found.” To em­i­grants he says: “do not come be­fore De­cem­ber; take the Isth­mus route in pref­er­ence to the Bo­ca del Toro one; bring no use­less bag­gage, and do not cum­ber your­self with a tent; but a good pair of blan­kets will be nec­es­sary; a pick, shovel, and axe of good ma­te­ri­al will be al­most all that is re­quired”: ad­vice which might have been tak­en from the “Burker’s Guide.” And he con­cludes with this line in Ital­ics and small cap­i­tals: “If you are do­ing well at home, stay there,” which may fair­ly be in­ter­pret­ed to mean, “If you are get­ting a good liv­ing by rob­bing grave­yards at home, stay there.” [23]

But why go to Cal­i­for­nia for a text? She is the child of New Eng­land, bred at her own school and church. [24]

It is re­mark­a­ble that among all the preach­ers there are so few mor­al teach­ers. The proph­ets are em­ployed in ex­cus­ing the ways of men. Most rev­er­end sen­iors, the il­lu­mi­na­ti of the age, tell me, with a gra­cious, rem­i­nis­cent smile, be­twixt an as­pi­ra­tion and a shud­der, not to be too ten­der about these things — to lump all that, that is, make a lump of gold of it. The high­est ad­vice I have heard on these sub­jects was grov­el­ling. The bur­den of it was — It is not worth your while to un­der­take to re­form the world in this par­tic­u­lar. Do not ask how your bread is but­tered; it will make you sick, if you do — and the like. A man had bet­ter starve at once than lose his in­no­cence in the proc­ess of get­ting his bread. If with­in the so­phis­ti­cat­ed man there is not an un­so­phis­ti­cat­ed one, then he is but one of the dev­il’s an­gels. As we grow old, we live more coarse­ly, we re­lax a lit­tle in our dis­ci­plines, and, to some ex­tent, cease to obey our fin­est in­stincts. But we should be fas­tid­i­ous to the ex­treme of sanity, dis­re­gard­ing the gibes of those who are more un­for­tu­nate than our­selves. [25]

In our sci­ence and phi­los­o­phy, even, there is com­mon­ly no true and ab­so­lute ac­count of things. The spir­it of sect and big­ot­ry has plant­ed its hoof amid the stars. You have on­ly to dis­cuss the prob­lem, wheth­er the stars are in­hab­it­ed or not, in or­der to dis­cov­er it. Why must we daub the heav­ens as well as the earth? It was an un­for­tu­nate dis­cov­ery that Dr. Kane was a Ma­son, and that Sir John Frank­lin was an­oth­er. But it was a more cru­el sug­ges­tion that pos­si­bly that was the rea­son why the form­er went in search of the lat­ter. There is not a pop­u­lar mag­a­zine in this coun­try that would dare to print a child’s thought on im­por­tant sub­jects with­out com­ment. It must be sub­mit­ted to the D.D.’s. I would it were the chick­a­dee-dees. [26]

You come from at­tend­ing the fu­ner­al of man­kind to at­tend to a nat­u­ral phe­nom­e­non. A lit­tle thought is sex­ton to all the world. [27]

I hard­ly know an in­tel­lec­tu­al man, even, who is so broad and tru­ly lib­er­al that you can think aloud in his so­ci­e­ty. Most with whom you en­deav­or to talk soon come to a stand against some in­sti­tu­tion in which they ap­pear to hold stock — that is, some par­tic­u­lar, not uni­ver­sal, way of view­ing things. They will con­tin­u­al­ly thrust their own low roof, with its nar­row sky­light, be­tween you and the sky, when it is the un­ob­struct­ed heav­ens you would view. Get out of the way with your cob­webs; wash your win­dows, I say! In some ly­ce­ums they tell me that they have vot­ed to ex­clude the sub­ject of re­li­gion. But how do I know what their re­li­gion is, and when I am near to or far from it? I have walked in­to such an are­na and done my best to make a clean breast of what re­li­gion I have ex­pe­ri­enced, and the au­di­ence nev­er sus­pect­ed what I was about. The lec­ture was as harm­less as moon­shine to them. Where­as, if I had read to them the bi­og­ra­phy of the great­est scamps in his­to­ry, they might have thought that I had writ­ten the lives of the dea­cons of their church. Or­di­nar­i­ly, the in­quiry is, Where did you come from? or, Where are you go­ing? That was a more per­ti­nent ques­tion which I over­heard one of my au­di­tors put to an­oth­er one — “What does he lec­ture for?” It made me quake in my shoes. [28]

To speak im­par­tial­ly, the best men that I know are not se­rene, a world in them­selves. For the most part, they dwell in forms, and flat­ter and study ef­fect on­ly more fine­ly than the rest. We se­lect gran­ite for the un­der­pin­ning of our hous­es and barns; we build fenc­es of stone; but we do not our­selves rest on an un­der­pin­ning of gra­nit­ic truth, the low­est prim­i­tive rock. Our sills are rot­ten. What stuff is the man made of who is not co­ex­ist­ent in our thought with the pur­est and sub­til­est truth? I of­ten ac­cuse my fin­est ac­quaint­anc­es of an im­mense friv­o­li­ty; for, while there are man­ners and com­pli­ments we do not meet, we do not teach one an­oth­er the les­sons of hon­es­ty and sin­cer­i­ty that the brutes do, or of stead­i­ness and so­lid­i­ty that the rocks do. The fault is com­mon­ly mu­tu­al, how­ev­er; for we do not ha­bit­u­al­ly de­mand any more of each oth­er. [29]

That ex­cite­ment about Kos­suth, con­sid­er how char­ac­ter­is­tic, but su­per­fi­cial, it was! — on­ly an­oth­er kind of pol­i­tics or danc­ing. Men were mak­ing speech­es to him all over the coun­try, but each ex­pressed on­ly the thought, or the want of thought, of the mul­ti­tude. No man stood on truth. They were mere­ly band­ed to­geth­er, as usu­al one lean­ing on an­oth­er, and all to­geth­er on noth­ing; as the Hin­doos made the world rest on an el­e­phant, the el­e­phant on a tor­toise, and the tor­toise on a ser­pent, and had noth­ing to put un­der the ser­pent. For all fruit of that stir we have the Kos­suth hat. [30]

Just so hol­low and in­ef­fec­tu­al, for the most part, is our or­di­nary con­ver­sa­tion. Sur­face meets sur­face. When our life ceas­es to be in­ward and pri­vate, con­ver­sa­tion de­gen­er­ates in­to mere gos­sip. We rare­ly meet a man who can tell us any news which he has not read in a news­pa­per, or been told by his neigh­bor; and, for the most part, the on­ly dif­fer­ence be­tween us and our fel­low is that he has seen the news­pa­per, or been out to tea, and we have not. In pro­por­tion as our in­ward life fails, we go more con­stant­ly and des­per­ate­ly to the post-of­fice. You may de­pend on it, that the poor fel­low who walks away with the great­est num­ber of let­ters, proud of his ex­ten­sive cor­re­spon­dence, has not heard from him­self this long while. [31]

I do not know but it is too much to read one news­pa­per a week. I have tried it re­cent­ly, and for so long it seems to me that I have not dwelt in my na­tive re­gion. The sun, the clouds, the snow, the trees say not so much to me. You can­not serve two mas­ters. It re­quires more than a day’s de­vo­tion to know and to pos­sess the wealth of a day. [32]

We may well be ashamed to tell what things we have read or heard in our day. I did not know why my news should be so triv­i­al — con­sid­er­ing what one’s dreams and ex­pec­ta­tions are, why the de­vel­op­ments should be so pal­try. The news we hear, for the most part, is not news to our gen­ius. It is the stal­est rep­e­ti­tion. You are of­ten tempt­ed to ask why such stress is laid on a par­tic­u­lar ex­pe­ri­ence which you have had — that, af­ter twen­ty-five years, you should meet Hob­bins, Reg­is­trar of Deeds, again on the side­walk. Have you not budged an inch, then? Such is the dai­ly news. Its facts ap­pear to float in the at­mos­phere, in­sig­nif­i­cant as the spor­ules of fun­gi, and im­pinge on some ne­glect­ed thal­lus, or sur­face of our minds, which af­fords a ba­sis for them, and hence a par­a­sit­ic growth. We should wash our­selves clean of such news. Of what con­s­equence, though our plan­et ex­plode, if there is no char­ac­ter in­volved in the ex­plo­sion? In health we have not the least cu­ri­os­i­ty about such events. We do not live for idle amuse­ment. I would not run round a cor­ner to see the world blow up. [33]

All sum­mer, and far in­to the au­tumn, per­chance, you un­con­scious­ly went by the news­pa­pers and the news, and now you find it was be­cause the morn­ing and the eve­ning were full of news to you. Your walks were full of in­ci­dents. You at­tend­ed, not to the af­fairs of Eu­rope, but to your own af­fairs in Mas­sa­chu­setts fields. If you chance to live and move and have your be­ing in that thin stra­tum in which the events that make the news tran­spire — thin­ner than the pa­per on which it is print­ed — then these things will fill the world for you; but if you soar above or dive be­low that plane, you can­not re­mem­ber nor be re­mind­ed of them. Real­ly to see the sun rise or go down eve­ry day, so to re­late our­selves to a uni­ver­sal fact, would pre­serve us sane for­ev­er. Na­tions! What are na­tions? Tar­tars, and Huns, and Chi­na­men! Like in­sects, they swarm. The his­to­ri­an strives in vain to make them mem­o­ra­ble. It is for want of a man that there are so many men. It is in­di­vid­u­als that pop­u­late the world. Any man think­ing may say with the Spir­it of Lodin — 

“I look down from my height on na­tions,
 And they be­come ashes be­fore me; —
 Calm is my dwel­ling in the clouds;
 Pleas­ant are the great fields of my rest.”
[34]

Pray, let us live with­out be­ing drawn by dogs, Es­qui­maux-fash­ion, tear­ing over hill and dale, and bit­ing each oth­er’s ears. [35]

Not with­out a slight shud­der at the dan­ger, I of­ten per­ceive how near I had come to ad­mit­ting in­to my mind the de­tails of some triv­i­al af­fair — the news of the street; and I am aston­ished to ob­serve how wil­ling men are to lum­ber their minds with such rub­bish — to per­mit idle ru­mors and in­ci­dents of the most in­sig­nif­i­cant kind to in­trude on ground which should be sa­cred to thought. Shall the mind be a pub­lic are­na, where the af­fairs of the street and the gos­sip of the tea-ta­ble chief­ly are dis­cussed? Or shall it be a quar­ter of heav­en it­self — an hy­pæ­thral tem­ple, con­se­crat­ed to the ser­vice of the gods? I find it so dif­fi­cult to dis­pose of the few facts which to me are sig­nif­i­cant, that I hes­i­tate to bur­den my at­ten­tion with those which are in­sig­nif­i­cant, which on­ly a di­vine mind could il­lus­trate. Such is, for the most part, the news in news­pa­pers and con­ver­sa­tion. It is im­por­tant to pre­serve the mind’s chas­ti­ty in this re­spect. Think of ad­mit­ting the de­tails of a sin­gle case of the crim­i­nal court in­to our thoughts, to stalk pro­fane­ly through their very sanc­tum sanc­to­rum for an hour, ay, for many hours! to make a very bar-room of the mind’s in­most apart­ment, as if for so long the dust of the street had oc­cu­pied us — the very street it­self, with all its trav­el, its bus­tle, and filth, had passed through our thoughts’ shrine! Would it not be an in­tel­lec­tu­al and mor­al su­i­cide? When I have been com­pelled to sit spec­ta­tor and au­di­tor in a court-room for some hours, and have seen my neigh­bors, who were not com­pelled, steal­ing in from time to time, and tip­toe­ing about with washed hands and faces, it has ap­peared to my mind’s eye, that, when they took off their hats, their ears sud­den­ly ex­pand­ed in­to vast hop­pers for sound, be­tween which even their nar­row heads were crowd­ed. Like the vanes of wind­mills, they caught the broad but shal­low stream of sound, which, af­ter a few tit­il­lat­ing gy­ra­tions in their cog­gy brains, passed out the oth­er side. I won­dered if, when they got home, they were as care­ful to wash their ears as be­fore their hands and faces. It has seemed to me, at such a time, that the au­di­tors and the wit­ness­es, the jury and the coun­sel, the judge and the crim­i­nal at the bar — if I may pre­sume him guilty be­fore he is con­vict­ed — were all equal­ly crim­i­nal, and a thun­der­bolt might be ex­pect­ed to de­scend and con­sume them all to­geth­er. [36]

By all kinds of traps and sign­boards, threat­en­ing the ex­treme pen­al­ty of the di­vine law, ex­clude such tres­pass­ers from the on­ly ground which can be sa­cred to you. It is so hard to for­get what it is worse than use­less to re­mem­ber! If I am to be a thor­ough­fare, I pre­fer that it be of the moun­tain brooks, the Par­nas­si­an streams, and not the town sew­ers. There is in­spi­ra­tion, that gos­sip which comes to the ear of the at­ten­tive mind from the courts of heav­en. There is the pro­fane and stale rev­e­la­tion of the bar-room and the po­lice court. The same ear is fit­ted to re­ceive both com­mu­ni­ca­tions. Only the char­ac­ter of the hear­er de­ter­mines to which it shall be open, and to which closed. I be­lieve that the mind can be per­ma­nent­ly pro­faned by the habit of at­tend­ing to triv­i­al things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triv­i­al­i­ty. Our very in­tel­lect shall be mac­ad­am­ized, as it were — its foun­da­tion bro­ken in­to frag­ments for the wheels of trav­el to roll over; and if you would know what will make the most du­ra­ble pave­ment, sur­pas­sing rolled stones, spruce blocks, and as­phal­tum, you have on­ly to look in­to some of our minds which have been sub­ject­ed to this treat­ment so long. [37]

If we have thus des­e­crat­ed our­selves — as who has not? — the rem­e­dy will be by war­i­ness and de­vo­tion to re­con­se­crate our­selves, and make once more a fane of the mind. We should treat our minds, that is, our­selves, as in­no­cent and in­gen­u­ous chil­dren, whose guard­i­ans we are, and be care­ful what ob­jects and what sub­jects we thrust on their at­ten­tion. Read not the Times. Read the Eter­ni­ties. Con­ven­tion­al­i­ties are at length as bad as im­pu­ri­ties. Even the facts of sci­ence may dust the mind by their dry­ness, un­less they are in a sense ef­faced each morn­ing, or rath­er ren­dered fer­tile by the dews of fresh and liv­ing truth. Knowl­edge does not come to us by de­tails, but in flash­es of light from heav­en. Yes, eve­ry thought that pass­es through the mind helps to wear and tear it, and to deep­en the ruts, which, as in the streets of Pom­pe­ii, evince how much it has been used. How many things there are con­cern­ing which we might well de­lib­e­rate wheth­er we had bet­ter know them — had bet­ter let their ped­dling-carts be driv­en, even at the slow­est trot or walk, over that bride of glo­ri­ous span by which we trust to pass at last from the far­thest brink of time to the near­est shore of eter­ni­ty! Have we no cul­ture, no re­fine­ment — but skill on­ly to live coarse­ly and serve the Dev­il? — to ac­quire a lit­tle world­ly wealth, or fame, or lib­er­ty, and make a false show with it, as if we were all husk and shell, with no ten­der and liv­ing ker­nel to us? Shall our in­sti­tu­tions be like those chest­nut burs which con­tain abor­tive nuts, per­fect on­ly to prick the fin­gers? [38]

Amer­i­ca is said to be the are­na on which the bat­tle of free­dom is to be fought; but sure­ly it can­not be free­dom in a mere­ly po­lit­i­cal sense that is meant. Even if we grant that the Amer­i­can has freed him­self from a po­lit­i­cal ty­rant, he is still the slave of an ec­o­nom­i­cal and mor­al ty­rant. Now that the re­pub­lic — the res-pub­li­ca — has been set­tled, it is time to look af­ter the res-pri­va­ta — the pri­vate state — to see, as the Ro­man sen­ate charged its con­suls, “ne quid res-pri­va­ta det­ri­men­ti ca­per­et,” that the pri­vate state re­ceive no det­ri­ment. [39]

Do we call this the land of the free? What is it to be free from King George and con­tin­ue the slaves of King Prej­u­dice? What is it to be born free and not to live free? What is the val­ue of any po­lit­i­cal free­dom, but as a means to mor­al free­dom? Is it a free­dom to be slaves, or a free­dom to be free, of which we boast? We are a na­tion of pol­i­ti­cians, con­cerned about the out­most de­fenc­es on­ly of free­dom. It is our chil­dren’s chil­dren who may per­chance be real­ly free. We tax our­selves un­just­ly. There is a part of us which is not rep­re­sent­ed. It is tax­a­tion with­out rep­re­sen­ta­tion. We quar­ter troops, we quar­ter fools and cat­tle of all sorts up­on our­selves. We quar­ter our gross bod­ies on our poor souls, till the form­er eat up all the lat­ter’s sub­stance. [40]

With re­spect to a true cul­ture and man­hood, we are es­sen­tial­ly pro­vin­cial still, not met­ro­pol­i­tan — mere Jon­a­thans. We are pro­vin­cial, be­cause we do not find at home our stan­dards; be­cause we do not wor­ship truth, but the re­flec­tion of truth; be­cause we are warped and nar­rowed by an ex­clu­sive de­vo­tion to trade and com­merce and man­u­fac­tures and ag­ri­cul­ture and the like, which are but means, and not the end. [41]

So is the Eng­lish Par­lia­ment pro­vin­cial. Mere coun­try bump­kins, they be­tray them­selves, when any more im­por­tant ques­tion aris­es for them to set­tle, the Irish ques­tion, for in­stance — the Eng­lish ques­tion why did I not say? Their na­tures are sub­dued to what they work in. Their “good breed­ing” re­spects on­ly sec­ond­ary ob­jects. The fin­est man­ners in the world are awk­ward­ness and fa­tu­i­ty when con­trast­ed with a fin­er in­tel­li­gence. They ap­pear but as the fash­ions of past days — mere court­li­ness, knee-buck­les and small-clothes, out of date. It is the vice, but not the ex­cel­lence of man­ners, that they are con­tin­u­al­ly be­ing de­sert­ed by the char­ac­ter; they are cast-off-clothes or shells, claim­ing the re­spect which be­longed to the liv­ing crea­ture. You are pres­ent­ed with the shells in­stead of the meat, and it is no ex­cuse gen­er­al­ly, that, in the case of some fish­es, the shells are of more worth than the meat. The man who thrusts his man­ners up­on me does as if he were to in­sist on in­tro­duc­ing me to his cab­i­net of cu­ri­os­i­ties, when I wished to see him­self. It was not in this sense that the po­et Deck­er called Christ “the first true gen­tle­man that ever breathed.” I repeat that in this sense the most splen­did court in Chris­ten­dom is pro­vin­cial, hav­ing au­thor­i­ty to con­sult about Trans­al­pine in­ter­ests on­ly, and not the af­fairs of Rome. A præ­tor or pro­con­sul would suf­fice to set­tle the ques­tions which ab­sorb the at­ten­tion of the Eng­lish Par­lia­ment and the Amer­i­can Con­gress. [42]

Gov­ern­ment and leg­is­la­tion! these I thought were re­spect­a­ble pro­fes­sions. We have heard of heav­en-born Numas, Lycur­gus­es, and Solons, in the his­to­ry of the world, whose names at least may stand for ideal leg­is­la­tors; but think of leg­is­lat­ing to reg­u­late the breed­ing of slaves, or the ex­por­ta­tion of to­bac­co! What have di­vine leg­is­la­tors to do with the ex­por­ta­tion or the im­por­ta­tion of to­bac­co? what hu­mane ones with the breed­ing of slaves? Sup­pose you were to sub­mit the ques­tion to any son of God — and has He no chil­dren in the Nine­teenth Cen­tu­ry? is it a fam­i­ly which is ex­tinct? — in what con­di­tion would you get it again? What shall a State like Vir­gin­ia say for it­self at the last day, in which these have been the prin­ci­pal, the sta­ple pro­duc­tions? What ground is there for pa­tri­ot­ism in such a State? I de­rive my facts from sta­tis­ti­cal ta­bles which the States them­selves have pub­lished. [43]

A com­merce that whit­ens eve­ry sea in quest of nuts and rai­sins, and makes slaves of its sail­ors for this pur­pose! I saw, the oth­er day, a ves­sel which had been wrecked, and many lives lost, and her car­go of rags, ju­ni­per ber­ries, and bit­ter al­monds were strewn along the shore. It seemed hard­ly worth the while to tempt the dan­gers of the sea be­tween Leg­horn and New York for the sake of a car­go of ju­ni­per ber­ries and bit­ter al­monds. Amer­i­ca send­ing to the Old World for her bit­ters! Is not the sea-brine, is not ship­wreck, bit­ter enough to make the cup of life go down here? Yet such, to a great ex­tent, is our boast­ed com­merce; and there are those who style them­selves states­men and phi­los­o­phers who are so blind as to think that prog­ress and civ­i­li­za­tion de­pend on pre­cise­ly this kind of in­ter­change and ac­tiv­i­ty — the ac­tiv­i­ty of flies about a mo­las­ses-hogs­head. Very well, ob­serves one, if men were oys­ters. And very well, an­swer I, if men were mos­qui­toes. [44]

Lieu­ten­ant Hern­don, whom our gov­ern­ment sent to ex­plore the Am­a­zon, and, it is said, to ex­tend the area of slav­ery, ob­served that there was want­ing there “an in­dus­tri­ous and ac­tive pop­u­la­tion, who know what the com­forts of life are, and who have ar­ti­fi­cial wants to draw out the great re­sourc­es of the coun­try.” But what are the “ar­ti­fi­cial wants” to be en­cour­aged? Not the love of lux­u­ries, like the to­bac­co and slaves of, I be­lieve, his na­tive Vir­gin­ia, nor the ice and gran­ite and oth­er ma­te­ri­al wealth of our na­tive New Eng­land; nor are “the great re­sourc­es of a coun­try” that fer­til­i­ty or bar­ren­ness of soil which pro­duc­es these. The chief want, in eve­ry State that I have been in­to, was a high and ear­nest pur­pose in its in­hab­it­ants. This alone draws out “the great re­sourc­es” of Na­ture, and at last tax­es her be­yond her re­sourc­es; for man nat­u­ral­ly dies out of her. When we want cul­ture more than po­ta­toes, and il­lu­mi­na­tion more than sug­ar-plums, then the great re­sourc­es of a world are taxed and drawn out, and the re­sult, or sta­ple pro­duc­tion, is, not slaves, nor op­er­a­tives, but men — those rare fruits called he­roes, saints, po­ets, phi­los­o­phers, and re­deem­ers. [45]

In short, as a snow-drift is formed where there is a lull in the wind, so, one would say, where there is a lull of truth, an in­sti­tu­tion springs up. But the truth blows right on over it, nev­er­the­less, and at length blows it down. [46]

What is called pol­i­tics is com­par­a­tive­ly some­thing so su­per­fi­cial and in­hu­man, that prac­ti­cal­ly I have nev­er fair­ly rec­og­nized that it con­cerns me at all. The news­pa­pers, I per­ceive, de­vote some of their columns specially to pol­i­tics or gov­ern­ment with­out charge; and this, one would say, is all that saves it; but as I love lit­er­a­ture and to some ex­tent the truth also, I nev­er read those col­umns at any rate. I do not wish to blunt my sense of right so much. I have not got to an­swer for hav­ing read a sin­gle Pres­i­dent’s Mes­sage. A strange age of the world this, when em­pires, king­doms, and re­pub­lics come a-beg­ging to a pri­vate man’s door, and ut­ter their com­plaints at his el­bow! I can­not take up a news­pa­per but I find that some wretch­ed gov­ern­ment or oth­er, hard pushed and on its last legs, is in­ter­ced­ing with me, the read­er, to vote for it — more im­por­tu­nate than an Ital­ian beg­gar; and if I have a mind to look at its cer­tif­i­cate, made, per­chance, by some be­nev­o­lent mer­chant’s clerk, or the skip­per that brought it over, for it can­not speak a word of Eng­lish it­self, I shall prob­a­bly read of the erup­tion of some Ve­su­vi­us, or the over­flow­ing of some Po, true or forged, which brought it in­to this con­di­tion. I do not hes­i­tate, in such a case, to sug­gest work, or the alms­house; or why not keep its cas­tle in si­lence, as I do com­mon­ly? The poor Pres­i­dent, what with pre­serv­ing his pop­u­lar­i­ty and do­ing his du­ty, is com­plete­ly be­wil­dered. The news­pa­pers are the rul­ing pow­er. Any oth­er gov­ern­ment is re­duced to a few ma­rines at Fort In­de­pen­dence. If a man ne­glects to read the Dai­ly Times, gov­ern­ment will go down on its knees to him, for this is the on­ly trea­son in these days. [47]

Those things which now most en­gage the at­ten­tion of men, as pol­i­tics and the dai­ly rou­tine, are, it is true, vi­tal func­tions of hu­man so­ci­e­ty, but should be un­con­scious­ly per­formed, like the cor­re­spon­ding func­tions of the phys­i­cal body. They are infra-hu­man, a kind of veg­e­ta­tion. I some­times awake to a half-con­scious­ness of them go­ing on about me, as a man may be­come con­scious of some of the proc­ess­es of di­ges­tion in a mor­bid state, and so have the dys­pep­sia, as it is called. It is as if a think­er sub­mit­ted him­self to be rasped by the great giz­zard of cre­a­tion. Pol­i­tics is, as it were, the giz­zard of so­ci­e­ty, full of grit and grav­el, and the two po­lit­i­cal par­ties are its two op­po­site halves — some­times split in­to quar­ters, it may be, which grind on each oth­er. Not on­ly in­di­vid­u­als, but states, have thus a con­firmed dys­pep­sia, which ex­press­es it­self, you can imag­ine by what sort of el­o­quence. Thus our life is not al­to­geth­er a for­get­ting, but also, alas! to a great ex­tent, a re­mem­ber­ing, of that which we should nev­er have been con­scious of, cer­tain­ly not in our wak­ing hours. Why should we not meet, not al­ways as dys­pep­tics, to tell our bad dreams, but some­times as eu­pep­tics, to con­grat­u­late each oth­er on the ever-glo­ri­ous morn­ing? I do not make an ex­or­bi­tant de­mand, sure­ly. [48]


Didn’t I say I was going to lay off the Thoreau for a while? Well, I couldn’t resist adding Life Without Principle to the mix.

This essay is Thoreau’s guide to Right Livelihood. I’d sum it up as:

  1. Don’t cheat people by conspiring with them to protect their comfort zones.
  2. And don’t make religions and other such institutions the sort of intellectual comfort zone that prevents you from entertaining ideas that aren’t to be found there.
  3. Don’t cheat yourself by working primarily for a paycheck. If what you do with your life free-of-charge is so worthless to you that you’d be convinced to do something else in exchange for a little money or fame, you need better hobbies.
  4. Furthermore, don’t hire someone who’s only in it for the money.
  5. Sustain yourself by the life you live, not by exchanging your life for money and living off of that.
  6. It is a shame to be living off of an inheritance, charity, a government pension, or to gamble your way to prosperity — either through a lottery or by such means as prospecting for gold.
  7. Remember that what is valuable about a thing is not the same as how much money it will fetch on the market.
  8. Don’t waste conversation and attention on the superficial trivialities and gossip of the daily news, but attend to things of more import: “Read not the Times. Read the Eternities.”
  9. Similarly, politics is something that ought to be a minor and discreet part of life, not the grotesque public sport it has become.
  10. Don’t mistake the march of commerce for progress and civilization — especially when that commerce amounts to driving slaves to produce the articles of vice like alcohol and tobacco. There’s no shortage of gold, of tobacco, of alcohol, but there is a short supply of “a high and earnest purpose”.