Ignorant Essays — Context and Discussion
Edition facts
This digital edition of Ignorant Essays — Context and Discussion is described by source-level measurements including 40,101 words, 2 hr 55 min estimated reading time, and 5 detected text sections.
The text analysis averages about 21.5 words per sentence, while the detected sections provide another way to judge how the source is divided.
Project Gutenberg metadata also associates the work with “Essays,” connecting these edition facts with the source record’s subject description.
Calculated from edition completeness, EPUB availability, text structure and catalogue metadata. Not a user rating.
How this score is calculated
- Description quality20 pts
- Title & short description10 pts
- Source metadata20 pts
- Text length15 pts
- Chapters / structure15 pts
- EPUB file integrity20 pts
Total of 100 points, scaled to a 2.5-5.0 range. Editions with an empty description or a missing EPUB file are not scored.
Read the Text
12, YORK STREET, COVENT GARDEN, W.C.
[_All Rights Reserved._]
RICHARD CLAY AND SONS,
THE ONLY REAL GHOST IN FICTION 1
THE BEST TWO BOOKS 30
LIES OF FABLE AND ALLEGORY 55
DECAY OF THE SUBLIME 117
THE ENGLISH OPIUM-EATER 160
A GUIDE TO IGNORANCE 175
THE ONLY REAL GHOST IN FICTION.
My most ingenious friend met me one day, and asked me whether I considered I should be richer if I had the ghost of sixpence or if I had not the ghost of sixpence.
“What side do you take?” I inquired, for I knew his disputatious turn.
“I am ready to take either,” he answered; “but I give preference to the ghost.”
“What!” I said. “Give preference to the ghost!”
“Yes. You see, if I haven’t the ghost of sixpence I have nothing at all; but if I have the ghost of a sixpence----”
“Well, I am the richer by having the ghost of a sixpence.”
“And do you think when you add one more delusion to those under which you already labour”--he and I could never agree about the difference between infinity and zero--“that you will be the better off?”
“I have not admitted a ghost is a delusion; and even if I had I am not prepared to grant that a delusion may not be a source of wealth. Look at the South Sea Bubble.”
I was willing, so there and then we fell to and were at the question--or rather, the questions to which it led--for hours, until we finally emerged upon the crystallization of cast-iron, the possibility of a Napoleonic restoration, or some other kindred matter. How we wandered about and writhed in that talk I can no more remember than I can recall the first articulate words that fell into my life. I know we handled ghosts (it was broad day and in a public street) with a freedom and familiarity that must have been painful to spirits of refinement and reserve. I know we said much about dreams, and compared the phantoms of the open lids with the phantoms of the closed eyes, and pitted them one against another like cocks in a main, and I remember that the case of the dreamer in Boswell’s Johnson came up between us. The case in Boswell submitted to Johnson as an argument in favour of a man’s reason being more acute in sleep than in waking, showed the phantom antagonistic able to floor the dreamer in his proper person. Johnson laughed at such a delusion, for, he pointed out, only the dreamer was besotted with sleep he would have perceived that he himself had furnished the confounding arguments to the shadowy disputant. That is very good, and seems quite conclusive as far as it goes; but is there nothing beyond what Johnson saw? Was there no ghostly prompter in the scene? No _suggeritore_ invisible and inaudible to the dreamer, who put words and notes into the mouth of the opponent? No thinner shade than the spectral being visible in the dream? If in our waking hours we are subject to phantoms which sometimes can be seen and sometimes cannot, why not in our sleeping hours also? Are all ghosts of like grossness, or do some exist so fine as to be beyond our carnal apprehension, and within the ken only of the people of our sleep? If we ponderable mortals are haunted, who can say that our insubstantial midnight visitors may not know wraiths finer and subtler than we, may not be haunted as we are? In physical life parasites have parasites. Why in phantom life should not ghosts have ghosts?
The firm, familiar earth--our earth of this time, the earth upon which we each of us stand at this moment--is thickly peopled with living tangible folk who can eat, and drink, and talk, and sing, and walk, and draw cheques, and perform a number of other useful, and hateful, and amusing actions. In the course of a day a man meets, let us say, forty people, with whom he exchanges speech. If a man is a busy dreamer, with how many people in the course of one night does he exchange speech? Ten, a hundred, a thousand? In the dreaming of one minute by the clock a man may converse with half the children of Adam since the Fall! The command of the greatest general alive would not furnish sentries and vedettes for the army of spirits that might visit one man in the interval between one beat of the pendulum of Big Ben and another!
The opening essay of Ignorant Essays stages a debate on whether a ghost of a sixpence enriches its owner, a premise that immediately signals the collection’s method: abstract philosophical questions are pursued through witty, meandering conversation. The narrator and his friend wander from ghosts to dreams to the South Sea Bubble, their talk described as ‘writhed’ and ‘wandering,’ a structure that mirrors the associative logic of the essays themselves. Dowling’s prose is dense with rhetorical play—‘the phantoms of the open lids with the phantoms of the closed eyes’—and the friend’s later outbursts on Keats and Shakespeare reveal a fascination with poetic vision as a kind of haunting. The essays move between literary criticism and personal anecdote, often returning to the idea that art and belief are forms of spectral presence.
Conversational Framing and the Ghost of an Argument
The collection’s first essay establishes a pattern: an intellectual puzzle is introduced through dialogue, then spun into digressions that test the limits of logic. The friend’s claim that a delusion ‘may be a source of wealth’ is defended by invoking the South Sea Bubble, a historical fraud. This slippage between literal and figurative ghosts recurs throughout. In ‘The Only Real Ghost in Fiction,’ the narrator compares dream-phantoms to waking ones, pitting them ‘like cocks in a main.’ The structure of the essays often mimics this combative, unresolved quality—arguments are left hanging as the conversation veers toward ‘the crystallization of cast-iron’ or ‘a Napoleonic restoration.’ Dowling uses the essay form not to conclude but to sustain a state of productive uncertainty, where the reader is left to weigh competing claims without a final verdict.
Keats, Shakespeare, and the Dangers of Poetic Vision
In ‘My Copy of Keats,’ the friend delivers a lengthy, impassioned critique of Shakespeare and Keats, claiming Shakespeare ‘despaired of becoming a poet’ and turned to drama, which saved him. The friend’s language is deliberately provocative: ‘It was a good job Shakespeare gave up writing rhymes.’ He then recites lines from Hyperion and marvels at Keats’s ability to ‘frighten, terrify himself with his own visions.’ The essay dwells on the idea that poetry is a kind of spectral possession—Keats ‘cowered before the gigantic sights and sounds’ of his own imagination. Dowling’s own prose mirrors this intensity, with long, breathless sentences that accumulate clauses like the ‘glowing gold’ and ‘bronzed obelisks’ of Keats’s palace. The friend’s fear of being overheard—‘there was no stranger in view’—adds a layer of social comedy to the discussion of artistic madness.
Recurring Images of Light, Shadow, and Spectrality
Throughout the excerpts, Dowling returns to visual contrasts of light and dark, solid and shadow. The ghost of a sixpence is a ‘delusion’ that nonetheless has value; the dream-phantom is a ‘shade’ within a shade. In the Keats passage, the palace is ‘glared a blood-red’ and ‘touch’d with shade,’ while the speaker’s ‘lucent empire’ is invaded by ‘darkness, death and darkness.’ This imagery extends to the essays’ own structure: they are framed as ‘ignorant’ explorations, deliberately incomplete. The friend’s advice on water-colour sketching—‘not to be too nice about joining the edges of the tints’—becomes a metaphor for Dowling’s method. He leaves gaps in argument, lets ‘silentness in between’ to clear the music. The essays are built from such juxtapositions, where a sudden quotation or exclamation breaks the flow, creating a texture of interruption and echo.
The Essayist as Disputant and the Reader as Witness
Dowling’s narrator is a reluctant participant in these debates, often ‘willing’ to engage but never fully committed. The friend is the true enthusiast, ‘disputatious’ and prone to outbursts. This dynamic positions the reader as an eavesdropper on a private, eccentric conversation. The essays are not lectures but performances of intellectual play. In ‘The Only Real Ghost,’ the narrator admits he cannot remember the course of the talk, only that it ended in absurdity. This self-deprecating tone undercuts any pretension to authority. The collection’s title, Ignorant Essays, is thus a deliberate provocation: the essays parade their own inconclusiveness, inviting the reader to join the game. The recurring motif of ghosts—whether of sixpences, poets, or arguments—serves as a figure for the essay itself: a presence that is neither fully real nor entirely absent.
Readers approaching Ignorant Essays should expect a series of intellectual caprices rather than systematic treatises. Dowling’s method rewards attention to the digressions and asides, where the most striking observations often appear. The essays are best read as conversations overheard, with all the abrupt shifts and unresolved tensions that implies. The friend’s water-colour analogy—keeping syllables apart to let in silence—applies equally to the gaps in argument that Dowling leaves for his audience to fill. This is a book that invites re-reading, not for definitive answers, but for the pleasure of watching a nimble mind at play.
Dowling’s dialogues made me feel like I was eavesdropping on ghosts discussing their own unfinished poems. That quiet unease lingered. Days later, I found myself reaching for Escape, and Other Essays — Themes and Context, not for answers, but for the same hush between words—that space where belief and artistry breathe without needing a conclusion. It felt familiar, like returning to a room I hadn’t remembered leaving.
There are no reviews for this eBook.
What was your reading experience?
Capture what you thought, learned, and would like to remember.