The Pleasures of Opium

It is so long since I first took opium that if it had been a trifling incident in my life I might have forgotten its date; but cardinal events are not to be forgotten, and from circumstances connected with it I remember that it must be referred to the autumn of 1804. During that season I was in London, having come thither for the first time since my entrance at college. And my introduction to opium arose in the following way. From an early age I had been accustomed to wash my head in cold water at least once a day: being suddenly seized with toothache, I attributed it to some relaxation caused by an accidental intermission of that practice, jumped out of bed, plunged my head into a basin of cold water, and with hair thus wetted went to sleep. The next morning, as I need hardly say, I awoke with excruciating rheumatic pains of the head and face, from which I had hardly any respite for about twenty days. On the twenty-first day I think it was, and on a Sunday, that I went out into the streets, rather to run away, if possible, from my torments, than with any distinct purpose. By accident I met a college acquaintance, who recommended opium. Opium! dread agent of unimaginable pleasure and pain! I had heard of it as I had of manna or of ambrosia, but no further. How unmeaning a sound was it at that time: what solemn chords does it now strike upon my heart! what heart-quaking vibrations of sad and happy remembrances! Reverting for a moment to these, I feel a mystic importance attached to the minutest circumstances connected with the place and the time and the man (if man he was) that first laid open to me the Paradise of Opium-eaters. It was a Sunday afternoon, wet and cheerless: and a duller spectacle this earth of ours has not to show than a rainy Sunday in London. My road homewards lay through Oxford Street; and near “the stately Pantheon” (as Mr. Wordsworth has obligingly called it) I saw a druggist’s shop. The druggist—unconscious minister of celestial pleasures!—as if in sympathy with the rainy Sunday, looked dull and stupid, just as any mortal druggist might be expected to look on a Sunday; and when I asked for the tincture of opium, he gave it to me as any other man might do, and furthermore, out of my shilling returned me what seemed to be real copper halfpence, taken out of a real wooden drawer. Nevertheless, in spite of such indications of humanity, he has ever since existed in my mind as the beatific vision of an immortal druggist, sent down to earth on a special mission to myself. And it confirms me in this way of considering him, that when I next came up to London I sought him near the stately Pantheon, and found him not; and thus to me, who knew not his name (if indeed he had one), he seemed rather to have vanished from Oxford Street than to have removed in any bodily fashion. The reader may choose to think of him as possibly no more than a sublunary druggist; it may be so, but my faith is better—I believe him to have evanesced, [^11] or evaporated. So unwillingly would I connect any mortal remembrances with that hour, and place, and creature, that first brought me acquainted with the celestial drug.

It has been so long since I first took opium that, had it been a trivial incident, I might have forgotten the date. But major events are not easily forgotten. From the circumstances surrounding it, I remember that it must have been in the autumn of 1804. That season I was in London, having come there for the first time since entering college. My introduction to opium came about in the following way. From an early age, I had been used to washing my head in cold water at least once a day. When I was suddenly seized with a toothache, I blamed it on having accidentally missed this routine. I thought the interruption had left me vulnerable. So I jumped out of bed, plunged my head into a basin of cold water, and went to sleep with my hair wet. The next morning, as I hardly need say, I woke with excruciating rheumatic pain in my head and face. I had hardly any relief from it for about twenty days. On the twenty-first day, I think, which was a Sunday, I went out into the streets. I had no clear purpose except to escape my torment, if possible. By chance, I met an acquaintance from college who recommended opium. Opium! Dread agent of unimaginable pleasure and pain! I had heard of it, as I had heard of manna or ambrosia, but knew no more than that. How meaningless the word sounded to me then! What solemn chords it now strikes in my heart! What heart-shaking vibrations of sad and happy memories! As I return to those memories for a moment, even the smallest details take on a mysterious importance. I think of the place, the time, and the man (if he was a man) who first opened the Paradise of Opium-eaters to me. It was a wet, cheerless Sunday afternoon. Our earth has no duller sight to offer than a rainy Sunday in London. My way home took me through Oxford Street, and near “the stately Pantheon” (as Mr. Wordsworth has kindly called it), I saw a druggist’s shop. The druggist was an unwitting servant of heavenly pleasures! Yet, as if in sympathy with the rainy Sunday, he looked dull and stupid. He looked just as any mortal druggist might be expected to look on a Sunday. When I asked for the tincture of opium, he gave it to me as any other man might have done. Moreover, he gave me change for my shilling in what seemed to be real copper halfpennies from a real wooden drawer. Despite these signs of his humanity, he has lived in my mind ever since as a blissful vision of an immortal druggist. He was sent down to earth on a special mission to me. What confirms this belief is that, when I next came up to London, I looked for him near the stately Pantheon. I could not find him. I did not know his name, if he indeed had one. So to me he seemed to have vanished from Oxford Street rather than moved away in bodily form. The reader may choose to think he was possibly no more than an earthly druggist. That may be so, but my faith is better. I believe he vanished, [^11] or evaporated. I am so unwilling to connect any mortal memories with the hour, place, and creature that first introduced me to the heavenly drug.

Arrived at my lodgings, it may be supposed that I lost not a moment in taking the quantity prescribed. I was necessarily ignorant of the whole art and mystery of opium-taking, and what I took I took under every disadvantage. But I took it—and in an hour—oh, heavens! what a revulsion! what an upheaving, from its lowest depths, of inner spirit! what an apocalypse of the world within me! That my pains had vanished was now a trifle in my eyes: this negative effect was swallowed up in the immensity of those positive effects which had opened before me—in the abyss of divine enjoyment thus suddenly revealed. Here was a panacea, a φαρμακον for all human woes; here was the secret of happiness, about which philosophers had disputed for so many ages, at once discovered: happiness might now be bought for a penny, and carried in the waistcoat pocket; portable ecstacies might be had corked up in a pint bottle, and peace of mind could be sent down in gallons by the mail-coach. But if I talk in this way the reader will think I am laughing, and I can assure him that nobody will laugh long who deals much with opium: its pleasures even are of a grave and solemn complexion, and in his happiest state the opium-eater cannot present himself in the character of L’Allegro: even then he speaks and thinks as becomes Il Penseroso. Nevertheless, I have a very reprehensible way of jesting at times in the midst of my own misery; and unless when I am checked by some more powerful feelings, I am afraid I shall be guilty of this indecent practice even in these annals of suffering or enjoyment. The reader must allow a little to my infirm nature in this respect; and with a few indulgences of that sort I shall endeavour to be as grave, if not drowsy, as fits a theme like opium, so anti-mercurial as it really is, and so drowsy as it is falsely reputed.

When I reached my lodgings, you may suppose I lost no time in taking the prescribed dose. I knew nothing of the art and mystery of taking opium, and took it under every possible disadvantage. But I took it, and within an hour, oh, heavens! What a reversal! What an upheaval of my inner spirit from its lowest depths! What a revelation of the world within me! The disappearance of my pain now seemed a small thing. That relief was swallowed up by the vast new sensations that opened before me, the abyss of divine pleasure suddenly revealed. Here was a cure-all, a φαρμακον for all human troubles. Here was the secret of happiness, which philosophers had debated for so many ages, discovered at once. Happiness could now be bought for a penny and carried in a waistcoat pocket. Portable ecstasies could be had, corked up in a pint bottle. Peace of mind could be sent by the gallon on the mail coach. But if I talk this way, the reader will think I am joking. I can assure the reader that nobody who uses much opium will laugh for long. Even its pleasures are serious and solemn. At his happiest, the opium-eater cannot play the part of L’Allegro. Even then, he speaks and thinks as befits Il Penseroso. Still, I have a very bad habit of joking at times in the midst of my own misery. Unless stronger feelings restrain me, I fear I shall indulge in this improper practice even in these records of suffering or pleasure. The reader must make some allowance for this weakness of mine. Given a few such indulgences, I shall try to be as serious, if not as drowsy, as the subject of opium demands. For opium truly is hostile to high spirits, though it is falsely thought to make people drowsy.

And first, one word with respect to its bodily effects; for upon all that has been hitherto written on the subject of opium, whether by travellers in Turkey (who may plead their privilege of lying as an old immemorial right), or by professors of medicine, writing ex cathedra, I have but one emphatic criticism to pronounce—Lies! lies! lies! I remember once, in passing a book-stall, to have caught these words from a page of some satiric author: “By this time I became convinced that the London newspapers spoke truth at least twice a week, viz., on Tuesday and Saturday, and might safely be depended upon for—the list of bankrupts.” In like manner, I do by no means deny that some truths have been delivered to the world in regard to opium. Thus it has been repeatedly affirmed by the learned that opium is a dusky brown in colour; and this, take notice, I grant. Secondly, that it is rather dear, which also I grant, for in my time East Indian opium has been three guineas a pound, and Turkey eight. And thirdly, that if you eat a good deal of it, most probably you must do what is particularly disagreeable to any man of regular habits, viz., die. [^12] These weighty propositions are, all and singular, true: I cannot gainsay them, and truth ever was, and will be, commendable. But in these three theorems I believe we have exhausted the stock of knowledge as yet accumulated by men on the subject of opium.

First, a word about opium’s effects on the body. I have one emphatic criticism of everything written on the subject so far: Lies! Lies! Lies! That applies to travelers in Turkey, who may claim lying as a privilege granted by age-old custom. It also applies to medical professors writing ex cathedra, as if speaking with unquestionable authority. I once passed a bookstall and caught these words on a page by some satirical author: “By this time I became convinced that the London newspapers spoke truth at least twice a week, namely, on Tuesday and Saturday. They could be safely relied on for the list of bankrupts.” Likewise, I do not deny that some truths about opium have been shared with the world. Learned people have repeatedly said that opium is a dark brown color. I grant that. Second, they say that it is rather expensive. I grant that too. In my time, East Indian opium has cost three guineas a pound, and Turkey opium eight. Third, they say that if you eat a good deal of it, you will most probably die. That is particularly unpleasant for any man of regular habits. [^12] These weighty propositions are all true, every one of them. I cannot deny them, and truth always has been, and always will be, commendable. But I believe these three propositions exhaust the knowledge people have accumulated about opium so far.

And therefore, worthy doctors, as there seems to be room for further discoveries, stand aside, and allow me to come forward and lecture on this matter.

So, esteemed doctors, since there seems to be room for further discoveries, step aside. Let me come forward and lecture on the matter.

First, then, it is not so much affirmed as taken for granted, by all who ever mention opium, formally or incidentally, that it does or can produce intoxication. Now, reader, assure yourself, meo perieulo, that no quantity of opium ever did or could intoxicate. As to the tincture of opium (commonly called laudanum) that might certainly intoxicate if a man could bear to take enough of it; but why? Because it contains so much proof spirit, and not because it contains so much opium. But crude opium, I affirm peremptorily, is incapable of producing any state of body at all resembling that which is produced by alcohol, and not in degree only incapable, but even in kind: it is not in the quantity of its effects merely, but in the quality, that it differs altogether. The pleasure given by wine is always mounting and tending to a crisis, after which it declines; that from opium, when once generated, is stationary for eight or ten hours: the first, to borrow a technical distinction from medicine, is a case of acute—the second, the chronic pleasure; the one is a flame, the other a steady and equable glow. But the main distinction lies in this, that whereas wine disorders the mental faculties, opium, on the contrary (if taken in a proper manner), introduces amongst them the most exquisite order, legislation, and harmony. Wine robs a man of his self-possession; opium greatly invigorates it. Wine unsettles and clouds the judgement, and gives a preternatural brightness and a vivid exaltation to the contempts and the admirations, the loves and the hatreds of the drinker; opium, on the contrary, communicates serenity and equipoise to all the faculties, active or passive, and with respect to the temper and moral feelings in general it gives simply that sort of vital warmth which is approved by the judgment, and which would probably always accompany a bodily constitution of primeval or antediluvian health. Thus, for instance, opium, like wine, gives an expansion to the heart and the benevolent affections; but then, with this remarkable difference, that in the sudden development of kind-heartedness which accompanies inebriation there is always more or less of a maudlin character, which exposes it to the contempt of the bystander. Men shake hands, swear eternal friendship, and shed tears, no mortal knows why; and the sensual creature is clearly uppermost. But the expansion of the benigner feelings incident to opium is no febrile access, but a healthy restoration to that state which the mind would naturally recover upon the removal of any deep-seated irritation of pain that had disturbed and quarrelled with the impulses of a heart originally just and good. True it is that even wine, up to a certain point and with certain men, rather tends to exalt and to steady the intellect; I myself, who have never been a great wine-drinker, used to find that half-a-dozen glasses of wine advantageously affected the faculties—brightened and intensified the consciousness, and gave to the mind a feeling of being “ponderibus librata suis;” and certainly it is most absurdly said, in popular language, of any man that he is disguised in liquor; for, on the contrary, most men are disguised by sobriety, and it is when they are drinking (as some old gentleman says in Athenæus), that men εαυτους εμφανιζουσιν οιτινες εισιν—display themselves in their true complexion of character, which surely is not disguising themselves. But still, wine constantly leads a man to the brink of absurdity and extravagance, and beyond a certain point it is sure to volatilise and to disperse the intellectual energies: whereas opium always seems to compose what had been agitated, and to concentrate what had been distracted. In short, to sum up all in one word, a man who is inebriated, or tending to inebriation, is, and feels that he is, in a condition which calls up into supremacy the merely human, too often the brutal part of his nature; but the opium-eater (I speak of him who is not suffering from any disease or other remote effects of opium) feels that the diviner part of his nature is paramount; that is, the moral affections are in a state of cloudless serenity, and over all is the great light of the majestic intellect.

First, everyone who mentions opium, whether at length or in passing, assumes rather than states that it can intoxicate. Now, reader, I assure you, at my own risk, that no amount of opium ever has or could intoxicate. Tincture of opium, commonly called laudanum, certainly could intoxicate a person who could bear to take enough of it. But why? Because it contains so much alcohol, not because it contains so much opium. Raw opium, I firmly assert, cannot produce any physical state at all like the one alcohol produces. The difference is not just one of degree, but of kind. The effects differ entirely, not merely in quantity but in quality. The pleasure of wine keeps rising toward a peak, then declines. The pleasure of opium, once it begins, stays constant for eight or ten hours. To borrow a medical distinction, the first is an acute pleasure, the second a chronic one. One is a flame, the other a steady, even glow. But the main difference is that wine throws the mental faculties into disorder. Opium, on the other hand, brings them into the most exquisite order, discipline, and harmony, if taken properly. Wine robs a person of self-control. Opium greatly strengthens it. Wine unsettles and clouds judgment. It gives the drinker's contempt and admiration, loves and hatreds, an unnatural brightness and intensity. Opium, by contrast, brings calm and balance to all the faculties, whether active or passive. As for temper and moral feelings generally, it gives them a vital warmth that judgment approves. Such warmth would probably always accompany a body in the perfect health of the earliest ages, before the Flood. For example, opium, like wine, opens the heart and expands our kind feelings. But there is a remarkable difference. The sudden kindness that comes with drunkenness is always somewhat sentimental, which exposes the drinker to the contempt of onlookers. People shake hands, swear eternal friendship, and shed tears, and nobody knows why. Their sensual nature is clearly in control. But the growth of kinder feelings that comes with opium is no feverish outbreak. It is a healthy return to a natural state. The mind would recover that state if a deep irritation of pain were removed. Such pain had disturbed and fought against the impulses of a heart that was originally just and good. It is true that wine, up to a certain point and in certain people, tends to sharpen and steady the intellect. I have never been a great wine drinker. Yet I used to find that half a dozen glasses improved my faculties. They brightened and intensified my awareness and made my mind feel “balanced by its own weight.” And it is certainly absurd to say, as people commonly do, that someone is disguised by drink. On the contrary, sobriety disguises most people. As an old gentleman says in Athenæus, it is when they drink that people show their true characters. Surely that is not disguising themselves. Even so, wine constantly brings a person to the edge of absurd and extravagant behavior. Beyond a certain point, it is sure to scatter and dissipate intellectual energy. Opium, by contrast, always seems to calm what was agitated and focus what was distracted. In short, a person who is drunk or becoming drunk is in a condition that brings the merely human part of their nature to the top. Too often, it brings out the brutal part, and the person feels it. But the opium-eater feels that the more divine part of their nature is in control. I speak here of someone who is not suffering from illness or other later effects of opium. Their moral feelings are perfectly serene, and above everything shines the great light of the majestic intellect.

This is the doctrine of the true church on the subject of opium: of which church I acknowledge myself to be the only member—the alpha and the omega: but then it is to be recollected that I speak from the ground of a large and profound personal experience: whereas most of the unscientific [^13] authors who have at all treated of opium, and even of those who have written expressly on the materia medica, make it evident, from the horror they express of it, that their experimental knowledge of its action is none at all. I will, however, candidly acknowledge that I have met with one person who bore evidence to its intoxicating power, such as staggered my own incredulity; for he was a surgeon, and had himself taken opium largely. I happened to say to him that his enemies (as I had heard) charged him with talking nonsense on politics, and that his friends apologized for him by suggesting that he was constantly in a state of intoxication from opium. Now the accusation, said I, is not prima facie and of necessity an absurd one; but the defence is. To my surprise, however, he insisted that both his enemies and his friends were in the right. “I will maintain,” said he, “that I do talk nonsense; and secondly, I will maintain that I do not talk nonsense upon principle, or with any view to profit, but solely and simply, said he, solely and simply—solely and simply (repeating it three times over), because I am drunk with opium, and that daily.” I replied that, as to the allegation of his enemies, as it seemed to be established upon such respectable testimony, seeing that the three parties concerned all agree in it, it did not become me to question it; but the defence set up I must demur to. He proceeded to discuss the matter, and to lay down his reasons; but it seemed to me so impolite to pursue an argument which must have presumed a man mistaken in a point belonging to his own profession, that I did not press him even when his course of argument seemed open to objection; not to mention that a man who talks nonsense, even though “with no view to profit,” is not altogether the most agreeable partner in a dispute, whether as opponent or respondent. I confess, however, that the authority of a surgeon, and one who was reputed a good one, may seem a weighty one to my prejudice; but still I must plead my experience, which was greater than his greatest by 7,000 drops a-day; and though it was not possible to suppose a medical man unacquainted with the characteristic symptoms of vinous intoxication, it yet struck me that he might proceed on a logical error of using the word intoxication with too great latitude, and extending it generically to all modes of nervous excitement, instead of restricting it as the expression for a specific sort of excitement connected with certain diagnostics. Some people have maintained in my hearing that they had been drunk upon green tea; and a medical student in London, for whose knowledge in his profession I have reason to feel great respect, assured me the other day that a patient in recovering from an illness had got drunk on a beef-steak.

This is the doctrine of the true church on opium. I admit that I am its only member, the alpha and the omega. But remember that I speak from extensive and profound personal experience. Most of the unscientific [^13] authors who have discussed opium clearly have no firsthand knowledge of its effects. The horror they express makes that evident. The same is true even of most authors who have written specifically about materia medica, the study of medicinal substances. I will, however, honestly admit that I met one person whose evidence of opium’s intoxicating power shook my disbelief. He was a surgeon and had taken large amounts of opium himself. I happened to tell him what I had heard his enemies say. They accused him of talking nonsense about politics. His friends excused him by suggesting that he was constantly intoxicated by opium. The accusation, I said, was not prima facie, or on its face, necessarily absurd. But the defense was. To my surprise, he insisted that both his enemies and his friends were right. “I will maintain,” he said, “that I do talk nonsense. And secondly, I will maintain that I do not talk nonsense on principle or for profit. I do it solely and simply,” he said, “solely and simply, solely and simply, because I am drunk with opium, and that daily.” He repeated “solely and simply” three times. I replied that I could hardly question his enemies’ accusation. It seemed to rest on such respectable testimony, since all three parties concerned agreed. But I had to dispute the defense offered. He went on to discuss the matter and give his reasons. But it seemed impolite to pursue an argument that would mean assuming he was mistaken about his own profession. So I did not press him, even when his reasoning seemed open to objection. Besides, a man who talks nonsense, even “with no view to profit,” is not the most agreeable person to argue with. That is true whether he is challenging or answering an argument. I admit, though, that the authority of a surgeon, especially one reputed to be good, may seem weighty evidence against my view. But I must still appeal to my own experience. My daily dose exceeded his highest by 7,000 drops. I could not suppose that a medical man was unfamiliar with the characteristic symptoms of drunkenness from wine. Yet it struck me that he might be making a logical error by using “intoxication” too broadly. He might be applying it generally to all kinds of nervous excitement. Instead, he should have restricted it to a specific kind of excitement with certain distinguishing symptoms. Some people have told me that they had been drunk on green tea. And a medical student in London recently assured me that a patient recovering from an illness had got drunk on a beefsteak. I have reason to feel great respect for the student’s professional knowledge.

Having dwelt so much on this first and leading error in respect to opium, I shall notice very briefly a second and a third, which are, that the elevation of spirits produced by opium is necessarily followed by a proportionate depression, and that the natural and even immediate consequence of opium is torpor and stagnation, animal and mental. The first of these errors I shall content myself with simply denying; assuring my reader that for ten years, during which I took opium at intervals, the day succeeding to that on which I allowed myself this luxury was always a day of unusually good spirits.

Having spent so much time on the first and most important mistake about opium, I will briefly mention two others. One is that the high spirits produced by opium are necessarily followed by a proportionate depression. The other is that opium naturally and even immediately causes physical and mental sluggishness and inactivity. I will simply deny the first of these mistakes. For ten years, I took opium from time to time. I assure my reader that the day after I allowed myself this luxury was always a day of unusually good spirits.

With respect to the torpor supposed to follow, or rather (if we were to credit the numerous pictures of Turkish opium-eaters) to accompany the practice of opium-eating, I deny that also. Certainly opium is classed under the head of narcotics, and some such effect it may produce in the end; but the primary effects of opium are always, and in the highest degree, to excite and stimulate the system. This first stage of its action always lasted with me, during my noviciate, for upwards of eight hours; so that it must be the fault of the opium-eater himself if he does not so time his exhibition of the dose (to speak medically) as that the whole weight of its narcotic influence may descend upon his sleep. Turkish opium-eaters, it seems, are absurd enough to sit, like so many equestrian statues, on logs of wood as stupid as themselves. But that the reader may judge of the degree in which opium is likely to stupefy the faculties of an Englishman, I shall (by way of treating the question illustratively, rather than argumentatively) describe the way in which I myself often passed an opium evening in London during the period between 1804-1812. It will be seen that at least opium did not move me to seek solitude, and much less to seek inactivity, or the torpid state of self-involution ascribed to the Turks. I give this account at the risk of being pronounced a crazy enthusiast or visionary; but I regard that little. I must desire my reader to bear in mind that I was a hard student, and at severe studies for all the rest of my time; and certainly I had a right occasionally to relaxations as well as other people. These, however, I allowed myself but seldom.

I also deny that opium-eating causes the sluggishness supposedly following it. Or, if we believe the many pictures of Turkish opium-eaters, this sluggishness accompanies the practice. Certainly, opium is classified as a narcotic, and it may eventually have some such effect. But its first effects are always to excite and stimulate the body to the highest degree. When I was a beginner, this first stage always lasted more than eight hours. So an opium-eater has only himself to blame if he fails to time his dose properly. He can arrange for the full force of its narcotic effect to fall during sleep. Turkish opium-eaters, it seems, are absurd enough to sit like equestrian statues on logs as stupid as themselves. But I want the reader to judge how likely opium is to dull an Englishman's faculties. So, rather than argue the question, I will illustrate it. I will describe how I myself often spent an opium evening in London between 1804 and 1812. The reader will see that opium at least did not lead me to seek solitude. Still less did it lead me to seek inactivity or the sluggish self-absorption attributed to the Turks. I give this account at the risk of being called a crazy enthusiast or a visionary. But I care little about that. I ask my reader to remember that I was a hard student, engaged in demanding studies throughout the rest of my time. And surely I had a right to occasional relaxation, just like other people. Even so, I allowed myself such relaxation only rarely.

The late Duke of —— used to say, “Next Friday, by the blessing of heaven, I purpose to be drunk;” and in like manner I used to fix beforehand how often within a given time, and when, I would commit a debauch of opium. This was seldom more than once in three weeks, for at that time I could not have ventured to call every day, as I did afterwards, for “a glass of laudanum negus, warm, and without sugar.” No, as I have said, I seldom drank laudanum, at that time, more than once in three weeks: This was usually on a Tuesday or a Saturday night; my reason for which was this. In those days Grassini sang at the Opera, and her voice was delightful to me beyond all that I had ever heard. I know not what may be the state of the Opera-house now, having never been within its walls for seven or eight years, but at that time it was by much the most pleasant place of public resort in London for passing an evening. Five shillings admitted one to the gallery, which was subject to far less annoyance than the pit of the theatres; the orchestra was distinguished by its sweet and melodious grandeur from all English orchestras, the composition of which, I confess, is not acceptable to my ear, from the predominance of the clamorous instruments and the absolute tyranny of the violin. The choruses were divine to hear, and when Grassini appeared in some interlude, as she often did, and poured forth her passionate soul as Andromache at the tomb of Hector, &c., I question whether any Turk, of all that ever entered the Paradise of Opium-eaters, can have had half the pleasure I had. But, indeed, I honour the barbarians too much by supposing them capable of any pleasures approaching to the intellectual ones of an Englishman. For music is an intellectual or a sensual pleasure according to the temperament of him who hears it. And, by-the-bye, with the exception of the fine extravaganza on that subject in “Twelfth Night,” I do not recollect more than one thing said adequately on the subject of music in all literature; it is a passage in the Religio Medici [^14] of Sir T. Brown, and though chiefly remarkable for its sublimity, has also a philosophic value, inasmuch as it points to the true theory of musical effects. The mistake of most people is to suppose that it is by the ear they communicate with music, and therefore that they are purely passive to its effects. But this is not so; it is by the reaction of the mind upon the notices of the ear (the matter coming by the senses, the form from the mind) that the pleasure is constructed, and therefore it is that people of equally good ear differ so much in this point from one another. Now, opium, by greatly increasing the activity of the mind, generally increases, of necessity, that particular mode of its activity by which we are able to construct out of the raw material of organic sound an elaborate intellectual pleasure. But, says a friend, a succession of musical sounds is to me like a collection of Arabic characters; I can attach no ideas to them. Ideas! my good sir? There is no occasion for them; all that class of ideas which can be available in such a case has a language of representative feelings. But this is a subject foreign to my present purposes; it is sufficient to say that a chorus, &c., of elaborate harmony displayed before me, as in a piece of arras work, the whole of my past life—not as if recalled by an act of memory, but as if present and incarnated in the music; no longer painful to dwell upon; but the detail of its incidents removed or blended in some hazy abstraction, and its passions exalted, spiritualized, and sublimed. All this was to be had for five shillings. And over and above the music of the stage and the orchestra, I had all around me, in the intervals of the performance, the music of the Italian language talked by Italian women—for the gallery was usually crowded with Italians—and I listened with a pleasure such as that with which Weld the traveller lay and listened, in Canada, to the sweet laughter of Indian women; for the less you understand of a language, the more sensible you are to the melody or harshness of its sounds. For such a purpose, therefore, it was an advantage to me that I was a poor Italian scholar, reading it but little, and not speaking it at all, nor understanding a tenth part of what I heard spoken.

The late Duke of —— used to say, “Next Friday, with heaven’s blessing, I intend to get drunk.” In the same way, I used to plan my opium binges in advance. I decided how often I would indulge over a given period, and when. It was seldom more than once every three weeks. At that time, I would not have dared to call every day for “a glass of laudanum negus, warm, and without sugar,” as I did later. No, as I have said, I seldom drank laudanum more than once every three weeks back then. This was usually on a Tuesday or Saturday night, and my reason was this. In those days, Grassini sang at the Opera. Her voice delighted me more than any I had ever heard. I do not know what the Opera-house is like now. I have not been inside its walls for seven or eight years. But at that time it was by far the most pleasant public place in London to spend an evening. Five shillings admitted you to the gallery, which was much less bothersome than the pit at the theatres. The orchestra stood apart from all English orchestras for its sweet, melodious grandeur. I confess that English orchestras do not please my ear, with their noisy instruments and the absolute tyranny of the violin. The choruses were divine to hear. Grassini often appeared in an interlude and poured out her passionate soul as Andromache at Hector’s tomb, and so on. On those occasions, I doubt that any Turk who ever entered the Paradise of Opium-eaters had half my pleasure. But really, I pay those barbarians too much honour by imagining them capable of pleasures approaching an Englishman’s intellectual pleasures. For music is an intellectual or a sensual pleasure, depending on the temperament of the listener. And, by the way, I recall only one other thing in all literature that adequately addresses music. The first is the fine extravaganza on the subject in “Twelfth Night.” The other is a passage in Sir T. Brown’s Religio Medici [^14]. Though chiefly remarkable for its sublimity, the passage also has philosophical value. It points toward the true theory of music’s effects. Most people mistakenly suppose that they connect with music through the ear. They therefore suppose that they are purely passive in receiving its effects. But that is not so. Pleasure is constructed by the mind’s response to what the ear perceives. The senses supply the matter, and the mind supplies the form. That is why people with equally good ears differ so much in their response to music. Now, opium greatly increases the activity of the mind. So it generally must increase that particular activity by which we construct an elaborate intellectual pleasure from raw physical sound. But, a friend says, a succession of musical sounds is to me like a collection of Arabic characters. I can attach no ideas to them. Ideas, my good sir? There is no need for them. The whole class of ideas that could be useful in such a case has a language of corresponding feelings. But this subject is outside my present purpose. It is enough to say that a chorus, and so on, with its elaborate harmony, displayed my whole past life before me. It was like a piece of tapestry. My life appeared not as if recalled by an act of memory, but as if present and embodied in the music. It was no longer painful to dwell on. The details of its events were removed or blended into some hazy abstraction. Its passions were exalted, spiritualized, and made sublime. All this could be had for five shillings. Besides the music from the stage and orchestra, I had another music around me during the intervals. It was the sound of Italian women speaking Italian, for the gallery was usually crowded with Italians. I listened with a pleasure like that of Weld the traveller. He lay in Canada listening to the sweet laughter of Indian women. For the less you understand a language, the more aware you are of the melody or harshness of its sounds. For that purpose, then, it was an advantage that I knew little Italian. I read it very little, spoke it not at all, and understood less than a tenth of what I heard.

These were my opera pleasures; but another pleasure I had which, as it could be had only on a Saturday night, occasionally struggled with my love of the Opera; for at that time Tuesday and Saturday were the regular opera nights. On this subject I am afraid I shall be rather obscure, but I can assure the reader not at all more so than Marinus in his Life of Proclus, or many other biographers and autobiographers of fair reputation. This pleasure, I have said, was to be had only on a Saturday night. What, then, was Saturday night to me more than any other night? I had no labours that I rested from, no wages to receive; what needed I to care for Saturday night, more than as it was a summons to hear Grassini? True, most logical reader; what you say is unanswerable. And yet so it was and is, that whereas different men throw their feelings into different channels, and most are apt to show their interest in the concerns of the poor chiefly by sympathy, expressed in some shape or other, with their distresses and sorrows, I at that time was disposed to express my interest by sympathising with their pleasures. The pains of poverty I had lately seen too much of, more than I wished to remember; but the pleasures of the poor, their consolations of spirit, and their reposes from bodily toil, can never become oppressive to contemplate. Now Saturday night is the season for the chief, regular, and periodic return of rest of the poor; in this point the most hostile sects unite, and acknowledge a common link of brotherhood; almost all Christendom rests from its labours. It is a rest introductory to another rest, and divided by a whole day and two nights from the renewal of toil. On this account I feel always, on a Saturday night, as though I also were released from some yoke of labour, had some wages to receive, and some luxury of repose to enjoy. For the sake, therefore, of witnessing, upon as large a scale as possible, a spectacle with which my sympathy was so entire, I used often on Saturday nights, after I had taken opium, to wander forth, without much regarding the direction or the distance, to all the markets and other parts of London to which the poor resort of a Saturday night, for laying out their wages. Many a family party, consisting of a man, his wife, and sometimes one or two of his children, have I listened to, as they stood consulting on their ways and means, or the strength of their exchequer, or the price of household articles. Gradually I became familiar with their wishes, their difficulties, and their opinions. Sometimes there might be heard murmurs of discontent, but far oftener expressions on the countenance, or uttered in words, of patience, hope, and tranquillity. And taken generally, I must say that, in this point at least, the poor are more philosophic than the rich—that they show a more ready and cheerful submission to what they consider as irremediable evils or irreparable losses. Whenever I saw occasion, or could do it without appearing to be intrusive, I joined their parties, and gave my opinion upon the matter in discussion, which, if not always judicious, was always received indulgently. If wages were a little higher or expected to be so, or the quartern loaf a little lower, or it was reported that onions and butter were expected to fall, I was glad; yet, if the contrary were true, I drew from opium some means of consoling myself. For opium (like the bee, that extracts its materials indiscriminately from roses and from the soot of chimneys) can overrule all feelings into compliance with the master-key. Some of these rambles led me to great distances, for an opium-eater is too happy to observe the motion of time; and sometimes in my attempts to steer homewards, upon nautical principles, by fixing my eye on the pole-star, and seeking ambitiously for a north-west passage, instead of circumnavigating all the capes and head-lands I had doubled in my outward voyage, I came suddenly upon such knotty problems of alleys, such enigmatical entries, and such sphynx’s riddles of streets without thoroughfares, as must, I conceive, baffle the audacity of porters and confound the intellects of hackney-coachmen. I could almost have believed at times that I must be the first discoverer of some of these terræ incognitæ, and doubted whether they had yet been laid down in the modern charts of London. For all this, however, I paid a heavy price in distant years, when the human face tyrannised over my dreams, and the perplexities of my steps in London came back and haunted my sleep, with the feeling of perplexities, moral and intellectual, that brought confusion to the reason, or anguish and remorse to the conscience.

These were my pleasures at the opera. But I had another pleasure that I could enjoy only on Saturday nights. It sometimes competed with my love of the opera, since Tuesday and Saturday were the regular opera nights then. I am afraid I may be rather unclear on this subject. But I assure the reader that I am no less clear than Marinus in his Life of Proclus, or many other reputable biographers and autobiographers. As I have said, I could enjoy this pleasure only on a Saturday night. What, then, made Saturday night different from any other night for me? I had no work to rest from and no wages to collect. Why should I care about Saturday night, except as a call to hear Grassini? Quite right, most logical reader. What you say is unanswerable. And yet it was and still is true that different people express their feelings in different ways. Most people tend to show their concern for the poor by expressing sympathy for their suffering and sorrow. At that time, however, I was inclined to show my concern by sharing in their pleasures. I had recently seen too much of the pain of poverty, more than I wished to remember. But the pleasures of the poor can never become oppressive to contemplate. Nor can the comfort they find for their spirits, or their rest from physical labour. Saturday night is the main, regular time when the poor return to rest. On this point, even the most hostile religious groups unite and acknowledge a common bond of brotherhood. Almost all of Christendom rests from its labours. This rest leads into another rest, with a whole day and two nights before work begins again. For this reason, I always feel on Saturday night as though I too had been freed from the burden of work. I feel as though I had wages to collect and the luxury of rest to enjoy. I wanted to see as much as possible of a scene with which I felt such complete sympathy. So, on Saturday nights, after taking opium, I often wandered out, paying little attention to direction or distance. I visited markets and other parts of London where poor people went on Saturday nights to spend their wages. I listened to many families, a man and his wife, sometimes with one or two children. They stood discussing their means and resources, how much money they had, or the prices of household goods. Gradually, I became familiar with their wishes, difficulties, and opinions. Sometimes I heard murmurs of discontent. But much more often I heard or saw expressions of patience, hope, and calm. Generally speaking, I must say that in this respect at least, the poor are more philosophical than the rich. They accept what they consider unavoidable hardships or irreparable losses more readily and cheerfully. Whenever I saw an opportunity, or could do so without seeming intrusive, I joined their groups. I gave my opinion on whatever they were discussing. My opinion was not always wise, but it was always received indulgently. I was glad if wages were a little higher, or expected to rise, or if the quartern loaf was a little cheaper. I was also glad if onions and butter were reported to be likely to fall in price. Yet if the opposite was true, I found some way to console myself through opium. For opium can bring all feelings into harmony with its master key. In this it is like the bee, which gathers its materials indiscriminately from roses and chimney soot. Some of these walks took me far from home, for an opium-eater is too happy to notice time passing. Sometimes I tried to navigate home by nautical principles, fixing my eye on the pole star. I ambitiously sought a north-west passage, instead of sailing around all the capes and headlands I had rounded on my outward voyage. But then I suddenly came upon such tangled puzzles of alleys, such mysterious entrances, and such Sphinx riddles of dead-end streets. These, I imagine, would defeat the boldest porters and confuse the minds of hackney-coachmen. At times I could almost have believed that I was the first to discover some of these terræ incognitæ. I wondered whether they had even been marked on the modern maps of London. For all this, however, I paid a heavy price in later years. Human faces ruled over my dreams, and my tangled wanderings through London returned to haunt my sleep. With them came a sense of moral and intellectual confusion that bewildered my reason or brought anguish and remorse to my conscience.

Thus I have shown that opium does not of necessity produce inactivity or torpor, but that, on the contrary, it often led me into markets and theatres. Yet, in candour, I will admit that markets and theatres are not the appropriate haunts of the opium-eater when in the divinest state incident to his enjoyment. In that state, crowds become an oppression to him; music even, too sensual and gross. He naturally seeks solitude and silence, as indispensable conditions of those trances, or profoundest reveries, which are the crown and consummation of what opium can do for human nature. I, whose disease it was to meditate too much and to observe too little, and who upon my first entrance at college was nearly falling into a deep melancholy, from brooding too much on the sufferings which I had witnessed in London, was sufficiently aware of the tendencies of my own thoughts to do all I could to counteract them. I was, indeed, like a person who, according to the old legend, had entered the cave of Trophonius; and the remedies I sought were to force myself into society, and to keep my understanding in continual activity upon matters of science. But for these remedies I should certainly have become hypochondriacally melancholy. In after years, however, when my cheerfulness was more fully re-established, I yielded to my natural inclination for a solitary life. And at that time I often fell into these reveries upon taking opium; and more than once it has happened to me, on a summer night, when I have been at an open window, in a room from which I could overlook the sea at a mile below me, and could command a view of the great town of L——, at about the same distance, that I have sate from sunset to sunrise, motionless, and without wishing to move.

I have shown that opium does not necessarily cause inactivity or sluggishness. On the contrary, it often led me to markets and theatres. Yet, in fairness, I must admit that markets and theatres are not the right places for an opium-eater in the most divine state of his enjoyment. In that state, crowds weigh on him, and even music seems too sensual and crude. He naturally seeks solitude and silence. Both are essential to those trances, or deepest reveries, that are the highest and fullest achievement of what opium can do for human nature. My own affliction was to think too much and observe too little. When I first entered college, I nearly fell into a deep melancholy. I had dwelt too much on the suffering I had witnessed in London. I knew my thoughts tended in that direction, and I did all I could to counteract them. Indeed, I was like someone who, according to the old legend, had entered the cave of Trophonius. My remedies were to force myself into company and keep my mind constantly occupied with matters of science. Without these remedies, I would certainly have fallen into a melancholy preoccupation with my health. In later years, however, when my cheerfulness had returned more fully, I gave in to my natural preference for solitude. At that time, I often fell into these reveries after taking opium. More than once, on a summer night, I sat at an open window from sunset to sunrise. I sat motionless, with no wish to move. From the room, I could look out over the sea, a mile below me. I could also see the great town of L----, about the same distance away.

I shall be charged with mysticism, Behmenism, quietism, &c., but that shall not alarm me. Sir H. Vane, the younger, was one of our wisest men; and let my reader see if he, in his philosophical works, be half as unmystical as I am. I say, then, that it has often struck me that the scene itself was somewhat typical of what took place in such a reverie. The town of L—— represented the earth, with its sorrows and its graves left behind, yet not out of sight, nor wholly forgotten. The ocean, in everlasting but gentle agitation, and brooded over by a dove-like calm, might not unfitly typify the mind and the mood which then swayed it. For it seemed to me as if then first I stood at a distance and aloof from the uproar of life; as if the tumult, the fever, and the strife were suspended; a respite granted from the secret burthens of the heart; a sabbath of repose; a resting from human labours. Here were the hopes which blossom in the paths of life reconciled with the peace which is in the grave; motions of the intellect as unwearied as the heavens, yet for all anxieties a halcyon calm; a tranquillity that seemed no product of inertia, but as if resulting from mighty and equal antagonisms; infinite activities, infinite repose.

I will be accused of mysticism, Behmenism, quietism, and so on, but that will not alarm me. Sir H. Vane, the younger, was one of our wisest men. Let my reader see whether his philosophical works are half as free from mysticism as mine. I often thought that the scene itself somehow reflected what happened in such a reverie. The town of L—— represented the earth, with its sorrows and graves left behind, but still in sight and not entirely forgotten. The ocean was always moving gently, with a dove-like calm hovering over it. It could well represent the mind and the mood that then governed it. For it seemed to me that I stood apart from the uproar of life for the first time. It was as if the tumult, fever, and struggle had stopped. There was a break from the secret burdens of the heart, a sabbath of peace, a rest from human labor. Here the hopes that blossom along life’s paths were reconciled with the peace of the grave. The mind moved as tirelessly as the heavens, yet every anxiety was met with perfect calm. This peace seemed to come not from inactivity, but from powerful, equally matched opposing forces. There was infinite activity, infinite rest.

Oh, just, subtle, and mighty opium! that to the hearts of poor and rich alike, for the wounds that will never heal, and for “the pangs that tempt the spirit to rebel,” bringest an assuaging balm; eloquent opium! that with thy potent rhetoric stealest away the purposes of wrath; and to the guilty man for one night givest back the hopes of his youth, and hands washed pure from blood; and to the proud man a brief oblivion for “Wrongs undress’d and insults unavenged;” that summonest to the chancery of dreams, for the triumphs of suffering innocence, false witnesses; and confoundest perjury, and dost reverse the sentences of unrighteous judges;—thou buildest upon the bosom of darkness, out of the fantastic imagery of the brain, cities and temples beyond the art of Phidias and Praxiteles—beyond the splendour of Babylon and Hekatómpylos, and “from the anarchy of dreaming sleep” callest into sunny light the faces of long-buried beauties and the blessed household countenances cleansed from the “dishonours of the grave.” Thou only givest these gifts to man; and thou hast the keys of Paradise, oh, just, subtle, and mighty opium!

Oh, just, subtle, and mighty opium! You bring a soothing balm to the hearts of poor and rich alike. You soothe wounds that will never heal and “the pangs that tempt the spirit to rebel.” Eloquent opium! Your powerful rhetoric steals away angry intentions. For one night, you give the guilty man back the hopes of his youth and hands washed clean of blood. You give the proud man a brief escape from “Wrongs undress’d and insults unavenged.” In the court of dreams, you summon false witnesses so that suffering innocence may triumph. You expose their lies and overturn the sentences of unjust judges. On the breast of darkness, you build cities and temples from the brain’s fantastic images. They are beyond the art of Phidias and Praxiteles and the splendor of Babylon and Hekatómpylos. Out of “the anarchy of dreaming sleep,” you call into sunlight the faces of beauties long buried. You also bring back beloved faces from our homes, cleansed of the “dishonours of the grave.” You alone give these gifts to humanity. You hold the keys to Paradise, oh, just, subtle, and mighty opium!