The Multiplication of Books

IT is certainly a truism to say that books have been among the most powerful factors in the furtherance of the mental education of mankind. We can hardly realise, indeed, how much society is indebted to them, and to one great Book in particular, for the measure of intellectual culture it has now acquired. Ever since the art of printing was invented—about the end of the fifteenth century—the world’s library has increased with leaps and bounds, until it has attained overwhelming dimensions. The words of Solomon have special significance in this connection for the present age; “of making many books there is no end.” The increase of literature has been attended by an advance of mental culture among all classes of society. We are not to suppose, however, that this multiplication of books is an unmixed good. Far from it; in respect of some departments of literature it is an almost wholly unmixed evil. It is our purpose, then, in this article, to show that the excessive multiplication of books, be they bad or good, tends to defeat one of the great ends they are designed to fulfil, namely, the sound culture of the human mind. One of our chief objects in taking up this subject, is to combat the popular idea that because the present age abounds in books, it is, of necessity, more profoundly intellectual and thoughtful than preceding ages.

In the first place it may be desirable to say something about bad books. Would, indeed, there were none such! But they exist in vast numbers; and their circulation is as certainly opposed to mental as it is to moral culture. This may not appear on the surface, but we shall endeavour to make it plain before we are done. These books are to be found in large quantities in that department of literature known as the literature of the imagination. The novel, for example, is famous for its immoral plots and episodes, though every book of this designation is not equally bad. Some novels may be quite moral in their teaching, but they belong to a shady sphere in the world’s literature. Poetry, also, is not exempt from the same charge of moral defect. There have been

few truly Christian poets, while some of the greatest masters of the art are not fit to be read in some parts of their works. Strange to say that, notwithstanding all this, there are men of eminence whose personal morality is not questioned, that think themselves justified in recommending books of very doubtful character because they happen to be marked by intellectual power, and to be composed by men of genius—as if, forsooth, cleverness sanctifies carnality. Satan is clever enough, but that does not make his works less evil than they really are; it rather intensifies the evil of them. We further remark that books, or sections of books, that are adapted to stir up corrupt passions, tend to produce, in the long run, mental imbecility. The heart influences the head. Let natural depravity be stimulated and allowed to run riot, and eventually there will be an intellectual collapse. The conclusion, therefore, is that writings which do not possess a sound moral tone, no matter how distinguished they may be for literary power, fail to advance the very end they are intended to fulfil; they do not strengthen, but weaken, the mental calibre of the reader. The fewer, then, of such books the better. Our remarks on this head will also apply to books of unsound, unscriptural tenets. These may sometimes display intellectual ability of a high order, and their evil fruits may not at once appear, but the final result of their influence is the same as that of the kind of books already mentioned. Unsound doctrine will produce unsound morality, and unsound morality will produce unsound mind.

It may be readily inferred that if people in general were to agree with the sentiment that is here expressed, they would begin to part company with many of their books. The Ephesians of old, when they turned from idols to true Christianity, burned their foolish books in the fire; and in like manner, when a spiritual Reformation will again visit the world, there will be piles of unwholesome literature destroyed by its former devotees.

The view may not approve itself so readily to our readers that the multiplication, even of useful books, tends to defeat the desired end of mental culture. There appears to be an inconsistency of ideas here. The more numerous are such books, one is disposed to say, the more extensive will be the intellectual improvement; there cannot be too many of them. Now, this is the ordinary way of reasoning; it is certainly sound in the main; but it has its limits; and to some of these we desire to refer.

For one thing, a multitude of books is apt to divide the attention of the reader, so that he does not sufficiently concentrate his thoughts upon any one book in particular. This divided attention tends to superficiality of knowledge and thought. The individual may become acquainted with a vast variety of facts and ideas, but he has only a slender hold of them. Now, superficiality is not an admirable thing, and yet it is a characteristic of this age of many books. There are, however, exceptional men still who concentrate their energies upon particular lines of thought and reading,

and thus attain to special distinction in one or another department of intellectual research. A multitude of books, as we have seen, is apt to tempt the reader to dip here and there and everywhere, so that he knows nothing well; and thus the making of many books may turn out an evil and not a good. Of course, we are aware that these remarks do not apply to a number of people. There are some who have but little desire for reading—the world of literature is nothing to them—and so they are under no temptation in connection with many books. There are others who are far away from libraries, who have only a few books, and who complain of their special lot in this respect. Our sympathies are with the latter, and we would like to see sound literature widely circulated for their benefit. But to even such we are disposed to say, “Endeavour to extend your knowledge of good books by all proper means, but study deeply those you have already got—your histories of the Church and the State, your works of solid divinity, your Bunyan, Boston, Owen and such like, and above all the Book of books.” There is in this supreme Book what is fitted to enlighten every faculty of the soul; yea, under the divine blessing, to renew us in the spirit of our minds and make us capable of knowing and glorifying the great God our Creator. The Bible is a library of books in itself; there is history, poetry, philosophy, theology in it. The man who is well acquainted with his Bible and has the word of Christ richly dwelling in his heart, is no ignorant, superficial trifler, but a person of the best and noblest culture.

Another point is this: the undue multiplication of books is apt to kill independence of thought. The ordinary reader is led to take all his thoughts at second hand, and not to cultivate the ability to think for himself—the value of the power to think for one’s self cannot be over-estimated. While books usually afford a strong stimulus to thinking, yet they may become so many that they will stifle rather than foster individual thought. We think it a great mistake to conclude that, because the present is an age of books, it is therefore more intellectual or thoughtful than the ages that have gone before. In fact, there are many signs of the times that set at nought this idea. There is not at present alive one man of great commanding genius. In fact, mediocrity is the order of the day, and the scattering of books here and there as thick as the leaves in autumn will not remedy the case. A superficial education may cover the earth, but that does not form real mental culture. Our forefathers are nowadays condemned by empty upstarts as traditionalists, who did not think for themselves, but believed whatever was handed down to them. A more false charge could not be made. And what is it that makes the conceited dwarfs of our day think they themselves are on a higher platform? Just this; that they are more richly provided with books, and are acquainted with more numerous fields of research. The greater number of these persons, however, are

almost wholly indebted to others for the knowledge they possess; they have acquired it by reading; they have never thought it out for themselves. They are as much traditionalists as it was possible for any of their forefathers to be. In fact, the latter had more time and opportunity for thought; and we can testify from what we have heard and seen of men of a past generation that their sons of the present day are not to be compared for a moment with them in intellectual penetration and practical sagacity. Undoubtedly, in those past times, if men subjected their minds to books, it was chiefly to the Bible, a book that has been the intellectual as well as the spiritual quickener of men in all ages. This is the Book of divine learning and of infallible wisdom, and all others are as nothing beside it. Our fathers, then, if they submitted themselves to the teaching of the Bible, were in no cramping bondage; they walked at holiest liberty. But the liberty of thought of the present age, derived from a godless literature, is but the licence of hell, the most despicable, though it may be the most delusive, of all bondages.

We say, then, in conclusion, that the multiplication of books is not necessarily a benefit to society. The chief matter is the wise and understanding use of books. Let us read what will really benefit us, and let us seek to think deeply over what we read. This will produce sound mental culture.