The springs of character

Front matter

I

Class

Book

Chapter I. Character And The Mind

The word character means the mark a Babylonian What Chan brickmaker stamped upon the bricks he made. Character is the stamp of the individual, and all personality is ultimately based upon it The word is here used throughout in a purely popular way, as the sum of the distinctive differences in our mental and moral qualities.

Character may be defined as the personal shape the mind becomes by use, as a glove or a shoe soon acquires the outlines of its owner's hand or foot.

Character is the psychical, as the body is the physical representation or presentment of the individual, and inasmuch as " I " am a spirit and not a body, character is the true outward personality, the eucwv of the ego; character, moreover, is no mere sum of isolated qualities, it is an organic whole ; just as the body is an unit, and not a mere aggregation of units and organs. It is, as Stout would say, 1 " a noetic synthesis ".

The word character may, of course, be used in two senses — (i) as the general sum of all mental qualities, or (2) as the sum of the moral qualities specially. We shall use the word in both ways.

1 G. F. Stout, Analytical Psychology, I

The Springs We fear that the title of the book perhaps rather

of Character.

conceals than reveals its true scope ; for in the first place the consideration of character involves more than the investigation of its sources ; and secondly, the word " spring " has two or more meanings. It is both a source of being and a source of power, besides being a season of the year. The Thames originates from springs, and all watches go by springs. It will naturally be asked then why a more descriptive title was not selected ; and the answer is that it is because the most interesting questions concerning character are its springs, in both meanings of the word ; this being also the part of the subject about which least is known.

The springs or sources of character are the instincts of heredity in the unconscious mind, supplemented by others acquired during life through habit ; while the spring or force of character lies in the conscious will or purpose. It is the former springs which are a part of character, the latter is also an agent. Deeper again, more powerful, and more inscrutable than even these in the Christian mind, acting as a hidden source of inspiration and energy, is found the Spirit of God.

Books on character are few and far between ; and are particularly rare in this country. The whole matter is so elusive, so difficult of definition, and indeed so impossible of any analysis, unless the unconscious powers of mind be fully recognised, that we are quite sure this is a needed preliminary, and it is probable that when " mind " is granted its full scope we shall have more and better books on character than we have at present.

In considering what character is, what are its sources, and how it is formed, we are at once met with this initial difficulty, due, as we shall see, to the present position of some of our leading psychologists.

Character is an intricate complex of psychic elements, character lies

, t it 1 , r 1 . in the Uncon-

and, though the most valued of our personal possessions, scious. is only known very partially to us by conscious efforts of introspection. It is mainly discerned by observation of its manifestations in action ; and we thus arrive at our knowledge of character largely by inference, mostly from noting the influence it has on conscious life ; just as we discover an invisible planet by the perturbations it produces in other bodies. We arrive at the Unconscious from its well ascertained effects in Consciousness. " The qualities of modesty, shame, mother love, etc., clearly to be seen in their manifestations, spring from the instincts hidden in the unconscious depths of our being." l

And yet the psychic is still dogmatically and impera- The Uncontively limited to consciousness by many high authorities ; denied. and the scorn and contempt aroused by seeking to extend it are remarkably out of place in such a purely intellectual matter. We are told that to talk of unconscious mental states is to talk of the inconceivable ; of " wooden -iron ". " The psychical is the conscious," 2 says one ; another observes : " all and only the phenomena that are conscious are psychical . . . the psychical and the conscious are for us . . . identical" 8 ; while a

1 Ribot, Heredity, pp. 226, 228.

a G. T. Ladd, Philosophy of Mind, pp. 384, 385.

•Prof. Ziehen, Psychology, pp. 4, 5, third declares that "nothing shall induce us to corrupt our speculation with monstrous marriages of contradictory notions" 1 (z>., of unconscious mind).

However, in spite of this fervour of contradiction, we do not think the works of one of such psychologists can be searched without discovering unconscious psychism clearly implied, and indeed in some absolutely stated.

The fact is, truth is generally greater than our definitions, and, as long as we distinguish mind from matter, we must include in the former every form of psychic action, whether conducted in or out of consciousness.

It is now beginning to be seen that the greater part of the mind is in an unconscious state ; but that its middle registers are fitfully illumined in varying degree by consciousness. It is to these middle registers that the word " mind " has been unwisely limited — whereas it pertains rightly to the whole, on the ground of common characters of psychic action.

Kant well says, " Unanswerable are the sensations of perception of which we are not conscious. The clear ideas, indeed, are but an infinitely small fraction of the whole. That only a few spots in the great chart of our minds are illuminated may well fill us with amazement in contemplating this nature of ours." 2 Prof. Whittaker observes, " The facts of physiology have led psychologists to see that the series of states of consciousness . . . only form a portion of the mental life. At first it seems like

1 Prof. Royce, Mind, vol. viii., p. 33. a E. Kant, Anthropologics sec. v.

a contradiction to speak of facts of unconsciousness as belonging to psychology. The study of physiology was necessary to bring out clearly the conception of unconscious feelings as factors in mental phenomena." 1

It must be well understood that we have no wish whatever to speak of two minds — conscious and unconscious ; but simply to have it recognised that when we use the word mind we include any and every psychic process. It is only the arbitrary limitations that still rule many minds that oblige us so frequently to use the term "unconscious".

Schopenhauer, curiously enough, calls this " the better Unconscious

„ is tne best

consciousness ; others, with a view to peace, call it " the name, sub-conscious"; M'Cunn 2 calls the unconscious "the soul," which is confusing, so that on the whole we think the prefix " un " gives the clearest meaning. Dr. Creighton remarks, " Our conscious life is the sum of these entrances and exits. Behind the scenes, as we infer, there lies a vast reserve which we call ' the unconscious,' finding a name for it by the simple device of prefixing the negative particle. . . . The basis of all that lies behind the scenes is the mere negative of consciousness." 8

Now the unconscious is by far the larger side of our mental life, and its value is enormous. It is not only the guiding power of the body personified by physiologists as "Nature" or as "Physiology" with a big P t

1 Prof. Whittaker, Essays on Psychology, p. 48.

2 The Making of Character, M'Cunn, p. 7.

3 C. Creighton, Unconscious Memory, p. 7.

and of the feminine gender (Sir M. Foster) ; but it guides behind the scenes our psychic life. It furthers the conscious process of thought by its inspirations in small as in great matters. That the unconscious can really outdo the conscious is seen in those fortunate individuals who possess naturally all that others acquire by toil, do all with a happy knack and innate tact, endowed in all things with a right instinct.

Most improvement is by effort and purpose; and as the unconscious knows neither one nor the other, the conscious is our nobler part. It is this we can alone guide and control. The unconscious may be influenced and altered indirectly, but never takes direct orders ; while the conscious is an ever-ready servant. Wundt on the The accuracy of the unconscious in its workings is pointed out as follows by Wundt, one of the most weighty and brilliant philosophers of the day. He admits " the necessity of referring the origin of sensuous perceptions, and of consciousness in general, to unconscious logical processes ; since the processes of perception are of an unconscious nature ; and only their results are wont to appear in consciousness. It is proved that there is not merely a conscious, but also an unconscious thinking. We believe that we have hereby completely proved that the assumption of unconscious logical processes correctly declares the real nature of these processes. The unconscious logical processes are carried on with a certainty and regularity which would be impossible where there exists the possibility of error. Our mind (as a whole) is so happily designed that it prepares for us the most important foundations of cognition, whilst we have not the slightest apprehension of the modus operandi. This u. conscious soul, like a benevolent stranger, works and makes provision for our benefit, pouring only the mature fruit into our laps." 1

We make no apology for this long quotation, as it affords a good foundation for, and throws much light upon, a great deal that will follow.

It will be observed that Wundt clearly recognises this unconscious action as being part of, and having all the characters of mind. Those who deny this explain such action as being the result of the mere mechanical interaction of neurons.

To call conscious psychic action a mental process, Unconscious

Action is

and unconscious psychic action a neural (mechanical) Mental, process, is the absurd result of the psychology of which we have spoken.

C. H. Lewes says " we class the changes in the sensorium under three heads, of varying relative intensity, and call them conscious, sub-conscious and unconscious states. The two first are admitted by all writers. The last is proved to have an equal claim,, for the unconscious processes not only take place in the same organs as the others, but are shown to have the cardinal character of sentient states, by their influence in determining ideas to actions. The fact of unconscious intellectual processes carries an important consequence, for it disproves the notion that psychology can be limited to the

1 Wundt, Beitrage zur Theorie, etc., pp. 169, 375, 436, 488.

fact of consciousness, as this would exclude the greater part of our mental life, etc. " 1

We shall recur to the mental character of unconscious action further on, when we speak of habit ; but we may here point out the close analogy between mental and physical operations. We eat our food, but of the steps by which it is digested and assimilated we are as unconscious as we are of the way in which ideas may be incorporated in our characters. One thing we know, that indigestible ideas, like food, cause mental pain and dyspepsia.

Perhaps we have said enough now to show there is a large and important sphere of psychic action lying outside consciousness, which we call the unconscious mind ; and it is this sphere that is the hidden home of character. "When I watch," says Emerson, "that flowing river -which, out of regions I see not, pours for a season its stream into me, I see that I am not ... a cause, but a surprised spectator of this ethereal water." In such absolutely unconscious regions do the foundations of our character lie, that we are often ourselves surprised at the instincts that rise therefrom ; while, as a whole, our character defies the closest introspection. The deepest and most intuitive qualities indeed often assert themselves with such authority as to carry conviction that they speak with a voice other than our own. One perhaps sees this best in early years before custom and education have overlaid these deep instincts of the soul

1 C. H. Lewes, Problems of Life and Mind, part i., pp. 19, 20.

CHARACTER AND THE MIND g

with poorer material, as is often the case. " The chief gain of increased consciousness," says Maeterlink, "is that it unveils an ever loftier unconsciousness on whose heights do the sources lie of the purest wisdom." 1 The "hall mark" of the Divine potter is still imprinted in the human clay.

It is these flashes of truth from the unconscious logical, aesthetic and moral instincts that reveal to us how " the life is the light of men ". 2

The laws of the formation of character can only be Formation of found by the deductive method, setting out from general laws of ethics, and verifying them individually by specific experience.

" Each man's character is the product of particular environmental influences, acting upon a particular set of congenital properties or tendencies." 3 We may say, " I am the product of all I have felt . . . not a thrill passes through the body but our sensorium is altered by it . . . the sum of such traces is the human life". 4 The chief product and expression of human life is the formation of character by a process which is mostly unconscious.

Sir William Jones in his Andromata, assuming life to last till seventy, thus divides it : —

1. Thirty years for acquiring knowledge and for form- I ing character.

2. Twenty years for active occupation.

1 Maeterlink, Wisdom and Destiny, p. 20.

2 St. John, i. 4. 3 J. Sully, Human Mind, ii., p. 283. 4 C. H. Lewes, Problems of Life and Mind, 3rd series, p. 87.

io SPRINGS OF CHARACTER

3. Ten years gradually replacing hard work by intellectual occupation.

4. Ten years' leisure and preparation for the future life.

However seldom this typical programme may be

carried out, it is at all events certain that it is mainly

in the first thirty years that the character is formed.

Life and The life corresponds more or less with the character

Character.

of which it is the outcome. If we know the character first, we can predict effect from cause. It is on account of varieties of character that the same causes affect people differently. One derives great pleasure from study and little from sport, and vice versa. Another will die for his honour, while his neighbour sells it for a song. The reason of the differences is by no means always clearly visible.

The very difficulty of reading character, as well as its interest, lends an absorbing fascination to this study. For this reason biographies are of more interest than histories ; the former being more occupied with characters, the latter with events, importance Consider, too, the universal importance of character

of Character. r it t»«-

as property in the whole of life. Beginning with the word in its lowest meaning. What is a servant without a " character " ; and who can get chosen to any position of trust without such testimonials ? And so throughout life we find that character is property, which may, however, technically be lost. Sometimes it is the only property a person has ; though usually, if one has it he has much besides ; for our very fortunes in a deep sense

CHARACTER AND THE MIND n

are the fruits of our character. People of good character are indeed masters of the art of living, and a character noble in thought and deed has the elements of immortality.

We live in deeds, not years ; in thoughts, not breaths, In feelings, not in figures on a dial. We should count time by heart throbs. He most lives Who thinks most, feels the noblest, acts the best. It matters not how long we live, but how.

Our circumstances are little, our character is all. No change of circumstances can of itself repair a defective character.

Epictetus says, " Happiness is not in strength, or wealth, or power, or all three. It lies in ourselves, in true freedom, in the conquest of every ignoble fear, in perfect self-government, in a power of contentment and peace, and the even flow of life, even in poverty, exile, disease and the very valley of the shadow of death."

Characters respond to very various motives. Many Motives of are bad and unworthy. We will consider a few that are good. Some characters (those of a loyal type) respond most readily to the opinion of other men ; or to their pledges or obligations to others.

Others of a conservative type are more self-reliant, and act from loyalty to themselves.

Others, again, of an aesthetic type are appealed to most by the sense of the fitness and beauty of a good action. Such are described by Aristotle.

Others, again, of an emotional type (e.g., Charles ia SPRINGS OF CHARACTER

James Fox) respond to a consideration of the conse quences of action and pleasure or pain ensuing.

Others of an intellectual type {e.g., William Pitt) act from logical causes, seeing the unreasonableness of sin and its inherent folly.

And yet others of a Christian type respond most to a knowledge of the will and purpose of God in their being.

The perfect type of character may be said to include in differing degrees all these motives in its activities. intellect and Intellect itself has no necessary connection with good-

ness of character. Some of the cleverest men have been the most wicked, and some of the stupidest have the best moral characters. Happiness is no criterion of a good character. Some very low types that are absolutely non-progressive pass through life with a lazy, spontaneous enjoyment that is, after all, rather physical than psychical.

The formation of character gives a value and an interest to life that alone makes it in' eligible. Some of us may remember the man in a recent popular society novel l standing on the steps of the Royal Exchange and surveying the hurrying crowds of human ants, and wondering what it all meant. It is by the light of its moral end alone that life receives any rational meaning, or this question a satisfactory answer.

* R. Whiteing, The Island and No. 5, John Street.

Chapter II. The Personality Of Character

My character is my personality, or, if it be preferred, its My charact.

is Myself.

mental expression, just as the body is its physical expression. Inasmuch, however, as I myself am spiritual rather than material, my character is far more myself than my body.

" My body is my image in the minds of others, my spiritual powers form the natural ME." 1

" Character means Personality, and personality may be felt, but cannot be explained." 2

" The final stage of self-consciousness is the knowledge of a personality, i.e., a character. This is the highest exercise of abstract thought," 3 and the reason why the knowledge of a personality is the final stage is because its sphere and home are so deep in the unconscious mind. Nothing is stronger than the feeling of individuality, and yet any knowledge and scrutiny of the ego, or of its expression in character, require a strong intellectual effort of introspection and self-analysis.

*L. Courtenay, National Review, March, 1890, p. 29.

* j. Sully, Human Mind, i. , p. 480.

Herbert Spencer says that the ego is the " nexus " that holds " states of consciousness " together. But it holds, as we see, more than this. Our spiritual life as a whole is our ego. The ego is the same continuously, and yet continually changes. We look back on what we were, and see we are not the same now, and yet there is no doubt as to the identity of the personality. Some traits, of course, always remain the same, but it is hardly on these that the sense of identity depends, though they confirm it. It is rather in the continuous inherent life of the spirit, though generations of nerve tissue in the brain may perish ; just as in the body, though in its cells it dies and changes daily, yet it is the same body as long as it is indwellt by the same spirit.

In common parlance we speak of our character as ourselves. We talk of being ashamed of ourselves, of expressing ourselves, of educating ourselves, etc. And this is truer than we think. No doubt at present the outward bodily form, and even the dress and mannerisms are all essential to complete the mental picture of our friend ; but there can be no doubt that when all these have passed away it will be the character that will preserve the personality and the identity. We shall be no mere replicas of each other hereafter ; the individuality of character will be still preserved, and one star will differ from another even "in glory".

There can be no doubt, with the increased importance that now attaches to individuality and personality, the study of character has a special interest. It is more and more clearly seen that to begin with the social at the expense of the personal is really to check progress ; whereas, on the other hand, the development of the individual means the development of society and of the nation. We must progress from within outward, and all improvement, like charity, should begin at home.

When we come to look a little more closely into the The various

Selves.

question, we observe that although our true personality is one, there are several fictitious selves. We all know Wendell Holmes' " three Johns " — the real John, the John as seen by himself, and the John as seen by others ; and we remember how on this being explained by the " Autocrat " to the astonished John, he immediately acted on the information, and ate three breakfasts — one for each. We can even go a step farther than this ; for we think besides the real John, there are always at least three more or less fictitious Johns, and sometimes four clearly distinguishable. There is John himself, the supposed John, the artificial John, and the John seen by others.

I. There is first the real self, that is the character and The real Self personality of which there is no duplicate. This ego is known only to God, and He discerns it not so much by any of its projections in deeds, or words, or even thoughts, but in motives and springs of action. He is a discerner " of the thoughts and intents of the heart ". To Him as omniscient all things are " naked and open " ; and all that lies in us in unconsciousness is not only as clear as all that lies in consciousness is to us, but is seen by an eye that is not only all-seeing but all-wise, and that understands the inwardness and true meaning of all it sees.

" Thou, O God, therefore, knowest us altogether, and understandest our thoughts afar off." Such indeed is not only the biblical, but the only possible view of the powers of the Almighty.

The anthropomorphic language in which this truth is stated will be pardoned when it is remembered that all our conceptions of the Infinite must necessarily be presented in language coined to express the finite.

This real true self, however, never stands fully revealed to its possessor. Our character is never in sight as a whole. Indeed we are more easily seen " as a whole " by others. Full self diagnosis as well as prognosis, or seeing what we shall become, is to us alike impossible.

Even with the utmost introspection our consciousness never lights up the whole of our personal temperament, or shows us why we feel or think as we do.

" He who thinks to illuminate the whole range of mental action by the light of his own consciousness is not unlike one who should go about to illuminate the universe with a rushlight." 1 Cannot be To be capable to any extent by introspection of true

self-knowledge is one of the rarest of attainments.

We are more than we know, because, as we have seen, the home of the " we " is in the Unconscious ; and, indeed, it is when we are acting with the minimum of consciousness that our individuality is most strongly expressed.

We have already spoken of the ego or self as

1 Maudsley, Physiology of Mind, p. 44.

fully known.

permanent, though changing day by day. Herbert Spencer, though regarding the ego as "the transitory state of the moment," yet admits the existence of a permanent ego which cannot be known.

" I am," if used absolutely, cannot of course be the language of our ego. Such is only the language and name of the Uncreate, the eternal God. In us all is relative, and all expressions must be understood in relative terms only.

II. There is next the supposed se/f, the self of which The supposed also there is only one, the first of the fictitious series and the self that I believe myself to be, and is perhaps better described as a distorted and false self. The amount of its difference from the real article is the expression of my ignorance, and my self-deception. This self is discerned by me mainly from a consideration of my motives, my thoughts, words and deeds. Its conception, however, is incomplete even to myself without some addition of bodily appearance.

" The self who knows and discerns itself, consists merely of passing states of self- consciousness as far as psychology is concerned, though both metaphysics and theology require a soul besides " (James).

Introspection is a gazing into a mental mirror, and introspection

good and bad.

by continual use may be made to reveal much. Ruskin tells us always to have two mirrors on our toilet tables, and see that with proper care both body and mind are dressed before them daily. A looking-glass and a Bible perhaps best represent the mirrors, but both require the faculty of active inspection and observation to be of use in "dressing"; and both prove injurious if used to excess. Dr. S. Bryant says, " though self-consciousness may by close reflection be made to embrace the intellectual self, it does not do so naturally, except in persons specially marked by the introspective instinct "}

The principal objection to all introspection is that it may induce a morbid habit of thought. Good as self-examination may be when conducted at intervals, with a definite view to improvement, nothing is more unhealthy than, by determined effort, to bring the unconscious into consciousness, and to be always occupied with studying our own characters. The unconscious, like the night, is intended to be in obscurity, and as a rule is better left so. There is an introspection that is most pernicious. It is common in melancholy temperaments and sentimental characters, and is fostered by certain forms of religious training and by introspective fiction. But there is an introspection (as we have seen) that is most helpful. In this the searchlight is turned upon the unconscious that the actual attainment may be compared with the moral ideal, so that the man may be guided to fresh progress.

One thing is certain, it is infinitely more needful for us to be conscious of our vices than of our virtues ; the former should be unmercifully bared, while the latter grow best in the shade.

* Dr. S. Bryant, Mind, 1897, p. 89.

The known self has been thus tabulated : —

The Self know.

Personally.

Socially.

Spiritually.

Self known by

Bodily Appearance and Mental Instincts.

Desire to Please, Love, Hate, etc.

Intellectual, Moral

and Religious

Aspirations.

Self esteemed

according to

our

Pride or Modesty.

Vanity or Social

Pride.

Humility or

Modesty.

Sense of Moral,

Mental or Religious

Superiority or

Inferiority.

As a rule we can only survey ourselves subjectively, though we are aided by considering such external manifestations as words and deeds, and even our faces in a glass. To see ourselves objectively, i.e., without knowing we are looking at ourselves, is rare, and is as startling as when a dog perceives its image for the first time in a mirror.

It was my lot a few years ago to sit talking one An external

View of him.

morning with some ladies in an hotel near a table in a drawing-room with many mirrors. I soon noticed another group of persons at some distance round another table. Being short-sighted, I could not tell what they were doing, but they had some appearance of playing cards. I thought this rather dissipated so early in the day, and with insular ignorance put them down as probably Americans. I did not think much of the man I saw. Certain points in his face and expression did not please me. I hardly thought his personal appearance was up to the mark, and noticed several other things (which for obvious reasons shall be nameless) to his detriment. He appeared to be looking our way, and, as far as I could judge, listening to us, which seemed very rude. My suggestion to my friends, however, not to speak so loud, for " those people over there would be sure to hear us," was met by shouts of laughter ; as they explained, the illusion was caused by a mirror. The shock, however, of thus seeing oneself objectively, has not yet passed away ; and I am sure we should all know more about ourselves could we thus have this "giftie" so ardently desired by Burns. Not that this would show our true selves, but still we should get a better idea at any rate of our outward expression and appearance.