That the american ladies would not be inferior in kindnessto any italian lady, I have no doubt, could they believe that we, of the fighting tribe, are not dogs respecting them. Nevertheless, I have a high respect towards the american ladies, as far as a good heart is concerned, though a bad custom injures too much their sensible left side: and as it is the best side of woman, I would not like to see the american ladies so badly treated by their very bad teachers, who, like heedless fathers, complain of their children, who would be good, had they not spoiled them. Yes: the american ladies are naturally good children. And, were only one single lady, who would thank me by having said such a truth in their defence, I would call myself fully rewarded for my trouble in defending them. But, were they all bad, and at the same time, were they all thanking me for having said a falsehood, I would be very sorry for it. The american lady to whom I gave up my place with the dignity of a man, and not with the dejection of a commanded dog, showed me one of her most thankful, and charming smiles, not for the place I ceded to her; but, for having given her a good lesson. And the woman who acknowledges her fault with such a smile, were she properly and tenderly managed, she would be an angel. If my kindest offices to ladies did hurt my feeling, when I was not acquainted with the american custom, I felt ashamed when I offered them to gentlemen, who received it as if they thought me their inferior: and then, I repented of having been polite to them. Still, we must mind thene quid nimisin politeness also: and, indeed, there are some who are so excessively polite among other nations, with whom politeness becomes excessively uncomfortable.
However, I always see something good, among the faults of man. Indeed, I feel more pleased in seeing rather an excess of politeness towards ladies, even to those who do not deserve it, than not enough of it to them. And to thelady, whose education taught her how to place a distinction between selfesteem, and selfishness, kindness to her creates kindness. Besides, the politeness which american gentlemen have for women, it is of that kind, which must please the ladies. It is a generous service as a gentleman, before careless parents, would give to their naughty, spoiled child. The most uncouth man fails not in tact of gentility, when he gives any service to ladies. It is a national, generous, and natural politeness, for which females must always feel themselves at home. Blackguards here, would not stare in the face of a lady, passing by; and I am so much pleased of it that, were I seeing in the streets such a blackguard, I would join with all my heart the american gentlemen to reprove the scamp.
Every human being who is not deprived of its senses is created for good purposes: and the difference of characters among different nations is what it forms the beauty of this earth. Human faults are not originated from nature; they are but the evil of false education. I do not think that one nation is naturally better than another: on the contrary; that which seems a fault to us, it might be a virtue, were it placed in its proper light. Though now, we feel ourselves, generally, in a better condition than those passed times of darker ages, perfection seems only granted to our posterity. We are spoiled boys yet, taught by worse teachers, offending, and insulting each other for no other reason, but because we do not understand ourselves. We may boast of never speaking of our personal virtues; but, in speaking badly of other nations, we do not see that we praise ourselves hypocritically.
And here, since american ladies have been introduced, I feel it my duty to defend them from an unjust blame. I have heard american and foreign gentlemen saying, they dislike learned ladies. Such gentlemen, I suppose, mustnot have sufficient learning themselves, to discriminate between a learned lady, and a lady who pretends to learning. A learned lady is always modest; and adapts herself to the capacity of those with whom she converses, unless her insufficient learning had not told her, that, nothing is more disagreeable in a lady than pretensions; and nothing more becoming than modesty. The learning which does not teach us how to know ourselves, is not learning. That a gentleman does not find himself at home with ladies more instructed than he is, in such a case, it is not the fault of the learned ladies: it is his own, by not having cultivated his mind as well as the ladies did.
Exceptions aside, such is the fact: in America the ladies are generally more cultivated in real instruction, than the gentlemen: and he who did study a little greek, and latin (which is but lost time, unless he be thoroughlyacquaintedwith these two dead languages) thinking himself above the education of ladies, looks to his charming country women with such an air of superiority of mind, as if they were fit only to chat but of balls, ribbons, dresses, and all the nonsense of empty heads, rather too much introduced in conversation by the gentlemen who, when they find it useless to speak of Mr. Henry Clay, or Mr. Polk, they leave poetry, history, painting, music, languages, and philosophy to their fair partners to enjoy it, if they like, in their own private closet.
And here, I hope, no fellow of my sex will marvel, if I do not think philosophy incompetent with the fair sex. There have been hypocrites, who made of philosophy a bugbear. Philosophy is nothing else but good sense, reason, or wisdom. Philosophy, in our age, it is that sense of justice to which all men, and women, who have integrity, when they think, judge, and compare by themselves, they do agree withoutpretensionof being more learned than others. The philosopher speaks for better information, andnot for the price of being considered more learned than his neighbor. The philosopher is modest: if he speaks of divinity, he does not say to his contender: You have not yet studied the bible enough: and so of mathematics, geology, or astronomy. The philosopher may point out the deficient knowledge which his contender might have of the science; but, he will never ask the impolite question, if he knows the science on which they are discussing. Philosophy, now a days, is no more under the banner of stoicism, peripateticism, cynism, or platonism, which were, at those times, nothing better, than religious sects. In our days, every one, who is able to demonstrate a truth, is a philosopher. And since the reasoning faculties were given to woman as well as to man, I do not see why man would not permit woman to reason as well as himself?
Once, being invited to an evening party in Virginia, I was so much pleased in the conversation of a young lady, that, had I not seen many gentlemen smiling and looking askance at us, I think the interesting subject we had on hand, would have taken all our evening time, before we could arrive to the conclusion of it: and nothing is more agreeable at an evening party, when we have matter on hand to keep off the chilling silent look. But, as the smiles at us, were too many, we postponed our subject for another time. So, the young lady, turning to the next gentleman, who was very fond of riding, spoke with him of his beautiful horse, and I went into the adjoining room to drink with several gentlemen a glass of madeira. After having drunk to our health, the gentlemen asked me if I had enough of the learned young lady. I had not yet answered the question, when another gentleman said, that he would not give three straws for all the learned ladies of the world. I answered the gentlemen, that I was very much pleased of her conversation; and could I spend every evening with ladieslike her, I would give up the practice of pouring out my sight on books, because such conversations would give me more information, than what I could get in my own closet.
It is a fact: while out of ten ladies you find nine, who know two modern languages, besides their english; out of ten gentlemen, you can scarcely find two. It is not because I teach the italian language that I praise the study of languages; I praise my profession, because I think it the most useful, and the most able to develop the faculties of human understanding. I cannot deny that few american ladies, as gentlemen, study also imperfectly the greek, and latin languages, and for which I do not see why their parents do not wish rather, that their young ladies would study the sanscrit, the ancient persic, or the hebrew. But, the plurality of the american ladies, studying modern languages from foreigners, who know well the very languages of their own country, the young ladies, I say, do not lose their time, like the plurality of gentlemen in learning greek, and latin from native americans, who get the professorship in colleges, because they have friends in this country. Hence the study of greek, and latin becomes a necessary thing in the american colleges: nay, it is a faculty, without which, a student cannot receive his diploma. And the foreigners, who would be the most useful as professors of modern languages in colleges, have but a blank name of professors. So, the student, who can get his diploma without any of the modern languages, study only what he is compelled to do; and the foreign professors, having neither fee, nor pupils, stand there to fill up the required number of professors, without which those colleges could not be called universities.
Out of one hundred american ladies, who learned modern languages from me, I cannot reckon five gentlemen. I have no doubt that in America there must be good professors of greek, and latin, as well as among any other nationin the world; but, a dead language will always be a dead language, even from the mouth of the best professor; and a Buscheron, the deceased professor of the latin language in Turin, Italy, was one of those rare birds which does not appear on this earth, but during one thousand years, if it does: and when it does, such a bird, I mean such a professor, might be unable to impart his latin to others. But, no person is perfect here, below the moon, and the want of literature in the american gentlemen is counterbalanced by many virtues, for which I have as much sympathy towards them, as I have towards my countrymen. The mercantile business in which they are thrown, gives them such an extensive knowledge of the world, which does supply, in great measure, their deficiency of languages, or of books. They know what is passing in Europe, Africa, Asia, New Holland, and South America. They are patient, industrious, brave, and active. I have seen american gentlemen going to bed wealthy, and on the next morning, when they found themselves reduced to beggary, sustaining their misfortune with manly fortitude, noble composure, and getting anew into business with such cheerfulness, as if nothing had happened to them. Such an eulogy is the greatest which can be given to any civilized nation. As it is the truth, I feel happy to say so. From a nation who does possess such virtues, we must expect great things: and the republic of America has my best wishes.
Had a foreigner said of America, what Mr. Headley said of Italy, and the Italians, I do not know with what words many americans would have called such a foreigner. And, although that which Mr. Dickens said of America in his Notes, is nothing to compare to what Mr. Headley said of Italy. Mr. Headley himself introducing an english lady in his fifteenth letter, he wrote: “She tells me that Dickens is getting out a work reflecting on us in a manner that willthrow his Notes on America, entirely in the shade. She says she supposed our rapturous reception of him, was occasioned by the fear we had of his pen. Shade of Hector defend us! this is too much. However, we deserve it, or rather those of my countrymen deserve it, who out-did Lilliput, in their admiration of the modern Gulliver; for I plead not guilty to the charge of fool in that sublimest of all follies ever perpetrated by an intelligent people. I will cry ‘bravo’ to every pasquinade Dickens lets off on that demented class, which cried out every time they saw that buffalo-skin over-coat appear: ‘The Gods have come down to us.’”
We feel the blows of others, but, we are not conscious of those we give to our christian neighbors. I, on the contrary, wish not to be blinded by my patriotic feeling, as italian, in judging Mr. Headley; as he judged Mr. Dickens with his patriotic feeling. I look to his ‘Italy and the Italians,’ as being a production of a gentleman who wrote for the only impulse of writing, without thinking that, while he wished to exhibit his wit on the shoulders of those who had kind feeling for him, his expressions did unjustly cut quick flesh, as quick as his own; without thinking, I say, that the feeling of the italians is not inferior to the feeling of the americans. Travelers may come here, or go to Italy, and spend their wit as much as they please. Man is man in every part of the world: and to dishonor a nation with the purpose of praising ours, shows either a poor heart—a bad, or hasty judgment. As I think Mr. Headley a gentleman with a good heart, had he not already published his letters by the newspapers, he would have altered the expressions of his pamphlet; I have no doubt of it.
In his twelfth letter, Mr. Headley, writing of Byron, says, that Byron had always on his table the bible, Machiavelli, Shakspeare, and Alfieri. “Byron,” says Mr. Headley,“loved Machiavelli for his contempt of mankind, making them all a flock of sheep to be led, or slaughtered at the will of one haughty man.” Had Mr. Headley read all the works of Machiavelli, the master of statesmen, and so little known, or disregarded by the american senators; he would not have repeated with the english, such an unjust slander against Machiavelli.Il principeis but a long irony. And here, let me be permitted to say, that the word Machiavelism should be taken off from the english, and american dictionaries, unless such a virtuous italian, who took off the mask from the face of tyrants, and showed to nations how ugly they are, be still thought by the english, and american literati, as a writer, who intended to favor arbitrary power. Machiavelli was as noble, and sincere in his sentiments of republicanism as Brutus, or Cato themselves. The english, and american lexicographers had been very much mistaken in saying that the word Machiavelism is synonymous of political cunning, and artifice.
Had I demonstrated in this chapter nothing else but, that writers should not go into other countries with a spirit of wishing to show themselves superior to other nations, it will always do something good to the future American Literature. A man of letters is indebted to all nations for his discrimination, and wisdom; and unless he writes with the feeling of a citizen of the world, his writings will never attain the purpose to profit mankind in general, and himself, without which a National Literature will always be in the clutches of national selfishness. We cannot write of heaven without looking to heaven. We are all children of one single destination: and we cannot expect civilization, until all nations will give to each other the hand of brotherly love. That God intended to improve the race of man with the time to come, the different characters of different nations show God’s infinite wisdom. Consult the best physicians,and they will demonstrate to you, that children from parents of different nations, having the qualities of their father and mother, are cleverer than those children whose parents are both of the same nation. The intermarriages of different nations with so many different propensities, must, of course, bring the race of man to a great improvement, and for which the mind of the posterity must excel ours with the times to come.
Ten years ago the theatres in America were thought immoral places: and if Niblo’s theatre was frequented by the best class, it was for no other reason, but because it did pass under Niblo’s garden. Though every year the american theatre is gaining ground, and, as it seems, time will bring it to the consideration which it deserves, it is still in a state of infancy to what it should be: and it is just because it is in a bad repute, that talented american writers did not yet display their genius in such a rich branch of literature.
The ancient Greece, the mother of all nations in literature, was the first to bring on the scene, the actions of man with which to instruct the people, and inculcate morals, without preaching precepts: and as the good example is the best instructor, such a moral is felt, and followed by the people in earnest, and success: and while they laugh, or weep, the agreeable pastime leaves in their mind strong impression of virtue. The aim to inculcate morality, was so strict in those ancient times of Greece, that a law was passed with which they would not admit any play by any author, who was not twenty-five years of age.
Good theatres are so necessary to a civilized country, and such an indisputable branch of literature, that, when I metin America persons, who did object to them, it seemed as if I had come into a barbarous country, and not into this very country, which can glory to possess the best government of our present century throughout the world. We have only to mention names of different nations to shame those, who call the theatre an immoral place. Œschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Plautus, Terence, Goldoni, Alfieri, Corneille, Racine, Lope de Vega, Calderon, Moratin, Shakspeare, Otway, Shiller, Goethe; and here I will say nothing of chinese or hindoo writers of comedy and tragedy, whose works stand, and will stand as the best school of morality.
That many of the american theatres are rather on the immoral, than on the moral side, I cannot deny it. But, if so, it is the fault of the people, permitting such plays. The best thing may be turned into an evil. The theatre is the school of all the fine arts; and were it sustained by the people as a necessary thing, soon authors would write classical plays. Classical authors, would form classical performers; and classical performers, giving a good taste to the people; criticism would improve authors, performers, and auditors: and the nation becoming refined in the fine arts, the audience would not permit an actor striking another on the stage. A moral people should not laugh in seeing an actor degrading another in action, or words: and when such bad actions are introduced by the author as a historical event, they should always be represented with an aside, reproving the clownish act. The laughter worthy of a civilized nation it is when wit, and decent actions would be exhibited with feeling, and refinement.
Travesties, or parodies should be entirely banished from the stage, not only because they injure the heroic actions; but, such actors exhibit nothing else but a company of insanes; and as it is not moral to laugh at insanes, we should banish from a moral place an immoral laughter. As the tearsshed over the misfortunes of others, enhance the nobility of our heart, and the angry tears degrade us, so the laughter should not be excited in a delicate mind, were it even aimed at the last of men: a generous heart should always give to the most degraded, a chance to esteem himself. Such a bad laughter has so bad an influence in society, that ladies would laugh at every reasonable thing, uttered by the gentleman they dislike, for no other purpose than to make of the honest individual a stock of their pastime—when they have exhausted all their kind feeling with their lover. There were fools among the ancient courts to keep merry the ignorant kings and lords: and, before the middle ages, human beings were killed, with long torments, for sport!
Perhaps no author did benefit more, and injured more at the same time a national theatre, than Shakspeare. Such an extraordinary genius wrote plays, which have not the common sense. Andronichus for instance, is such an ugly monster, which must astonish every body who judge by themselves, how Shakspeare could write such an unnatural play. Andronichus is neither a tragedy, nor a parody. As Shakspeare had never been crazy, I am inclined to believe he was drunk, when he wrote Andronichus. That it was written by Shakspeare and by no body else, I have no doubt, since we find the style, the wit, and the might of his genius in it; a language which no body, but Shakspeare had ever been able to coin. The Andronichus of Shakspeare proves, that men judge like parrots in literature. Down to our days, all the learned say, that all the works of Shakspeare are the nature itself. They cannot say even, which is the best of them!
He who would deny a mighty genius in Shakspeare, might say, that the sun is a dark body. But, he who would approve a Lavinia, acting more than three acts, after Chiron and Demetrius had chopped off her arms, and tongue, withoutgoing to bed, it shows how ridiculous must be those, who find beauties in every thing Shakspeare did write.
My purpose here, is not to write a criticism on Shakspeare: but, no lady in the world could fall in love with Richard the third, themurdererof her husband, king Edward the fourth; and at the very moment in which she is going to bury him. Were Elizabeth not a lady, the love of ambition, might change a woman into a monster, at least, a month after the crime was committed. But, to love a cruel monkey, in the street, before the very victim, and this victim her beloved husband, over whom five minutes ago she shed bitter tears; to love the very Richard still reeking with her husband’s blood, at the very time in which he uses violence in stopping the sacred burial, to love him, I say, because he flatters her, it is the very parody, and the ridiculous caricature with which he wanted demonstrate the power of flattery in woman’s breast. Were woman such a selfish, vain, degraded being, the honest man would shudder at, and feel aversion rather than love the beauty. And if one of the best ladies has so low a mind, what shall we think of those less perfect than Elizabeth? But, the hyperbole is such a big one, for which nature wishes to have nothing to do with it. And such a satire to woman, instead of striking at the purpose, it becomes but a ridiculous exaggeration.
I brought here only these two instances to demonstrate, that, if the english theatre has not yet reached the italian, or french perfection, it is owing to a national, religious veneration for every thing written by Shakspeare; and when the english critic will not be awed by the great Shakspeare, and, really, Shakspeare is great, I do not see why the english theatre will not be as good as any.
There is, perhaps, no present nation in the world more fitted to improve the english theatre than America. And why? Sparta, Athens, and Borne had been great republics,because the theatre instructed the people in thatalto sentire, in that patriotic feeling of virtue, and noble actions, without which all the republics of the world had been turned into monarchies, despotism, and tyranny. The best historical facts are sorrowfully abandoned by a patriotic author, who he is prevented from instructing his country fellows, under a monarchy: and many, who did write tragedies, or comedies under despotism with their free genius, suffered the vigilance of the iron rule. Shakspeare himself, was under the vigilance of the despotic Elizabeth: and although the present government of England is now the best of Europe, the english subject does not, and had never understood the republican feeling of Sparta, Athens, or Rome. England had never had a republic: and the writer for a theatre must be a republican in his soul, and in the centre of a happy republic. He who is afraid of being chained in a dungeon, cannot tell to an unfortunate people all the evils of a monarchy with which a king sucks the people’s blood; and the theatre must needs be the palladium of truth, and people’s rights.
It is a fact; America is a republic, and I hope, she will sustain herself as a republic with the improvements of the age. But, the greater number of the americans are from english blood, which, though brave, firm, and constant, has not yet felt that glowing, thrilling existence which inflamed those hearts of Sparta, Athens, and Rome with that heavenly flame of Prometheus. And the son cannot feel in his blood, that which the father did never feel himself. The republics of those times were nobility, and grandeur of thought; the republics of ours are but calculation, money, and selfishness.
By degrees, education purifies our blood, and brings the human heart to feel what our ancestors did not feel themselves. But, before a nation will be able to reach the true, virtuousenthusiasm of a republic in which man feels himself as being a part of heaven, it seems, we are still doomed to pass in obscurity ages, and ages! The republican, worthy of our race, I mean, of all men throughout the world, must not think for himself. His country should think for him. His God, body, and soul is his country: and to die for her, is his greatest reward. A republic is a beneficient mother, who does not leave in want her best generous children: and virtue with these is wealth, and prosperity.
A writer of comedies, or tragedies under a monarchial government, writes only to please his princes; and the people, present in that theatre, swallow from the mouth of subject actors, nothing but their shame. It should be better that such a people would not go to such a theatre. The individuals, there present, lose the dignity of man, while in the theatres of Sparta, Athens, and Rome, every individual, there present, felt his own dignity, as a virtuous member of society; and from that theatre, everyone learned how to be a good,virtuous, and useful citizen. Could we have in America, theatres like those of Sparta, Athens, and Rome, this nation would be the glory of our age, and posterity, as Sparta, Athens, and Rome were, and are the glory of those, and these ages.
Were politics, and laws looked as they ought to be, nothing would be more honorable than a statesman, or a lawyer: and these two noble sciences, though distinctly separated, would be reduced to one. A statesman would be a good lawyer, and a lawyer a good statesman. The science of a statesman is to render happy the nation in which he lives; and be just, respecting the other nations. The science of thelawyer it is to explain the justice, which should exist between the citizens of his happy country. That part of ethics which consists in the regulation, and government of a nation, or state for the preservation of its safety, peace and prosperity, and the defence of its rights against foreign control, or conquest, with the preservation, and improvement of their morals, gives to the lawyer the very sense of justice on which all his eloquence should be grounded, in defending his client from the injustice of bad citizens. It is the man of integrity only, who can regulate the citizens’ actions, and their social intercourse. Politics, and laws are the best part of a National Literature. But, we cannot attain with success this essential branch of National Literature, when the spirit of party prevails to such an extent, for which gentlemen hesitate to explain their mind, lest they might offend their friends. We cannot instruct ourselves, when party spirit takes the place of reason, and individual independence.
Could the americans of the United States understand, what,political partydoes mean; they would immediately cease from introducing such expression in their political speeches. The whigs call themselves republicans, and the locofocos republicans: and were you asking them: why they did divide themselves under such a banner, they will answer: Because the whigs are republicans, and the locofocos are democrats, while others would say: Because the whigs are for a tariff, and the locofocos for free trade. The first for a bank, and the second for no bank, and so forth.
The most enlightened politicians, finding that the wish of sustaining their own private interest, under the banner of a party, was an erroneous standing, they attempted to place a distinction between democracy and republic. So, in Noah Webster, the best american dictionary, we find the word Republic defined as a commonwealth, a state in which theexercise of thesovereignpower is lodged in representatives, elected by the people as it is in the United States; thinking it differing from Democracy, with which the people of Greece exercised the powers of sovereignty in person, without submitting to any delegate.
As we have no other words, to express the difference of the modern modification, for these two popular governments, I would have no objection to admit the definition of the american Johnson. And as in America the sovereign power is lodged in representatives, the government of the United States should be called now a republic, and not a democracy. Besides, since those who call themselves democrats, had never dreamed of changing the present government, the nice distinction, ought to be admitted by the locofocos, and call themselves republicans as well as the whigs do. The greek word, had always meant the people’s government, as well as the latin; Republic is the literal translation of the very word Democracy: and as the representatives, in doing their duty, will always represent the will of the people, the word Republic, as it was among the romans, must of course sound to an american ear, as well as Democracy among the athenians, or spartans. If we think that for the people, to enjoy their own rights, it is better to have representatives, who spare them time, and for which they can go to their daily business, in order to support with their labor their wives, and children; the republic, and not the democracy should be the government of our choice: and as this, is a republic; the two parties should join hands. The republic of the ancients, was Minerva; and this Divinity sounded to their ears as Wisdom, which is the very Divinity we do now understand under the word Republic. Sophia, Minerva, or Wisdom are one single Divinity; Wisdom is Reason, and Reason cannot be divided. If the republican citizen cannot agree with the errors of his own government,he has the right to dispute, or combat them: it is his very sacred duty. But, to place himself under the banner of the tariff, or under the banner of free trade, it is a mischievous act. The patriotic party should place itself under the banner of the constitution of this republic, when a mischievous interested party takes a rebellious standing; and not change their banner’s name.
If under the word party, they mean their own private interest; then, they should be more sincere, and say, that they wish, here, a parliament of lords, and a house of commons. If they pride themselves in the beautiful political work of their fathers, they should forsake any dispute of party spirit. Tariff, Slavery, Annexation, Banking, Naturalization, Free trade, Direct taxation, and all the branches of political economy, must have nothing to do with party. Laborers, landlords, orcapitalistsshould give way to their private little interest for the benefit of the plurality: and in all different branches of political economy, the country should never suffer for our private interest. If the citizen’s duty is to die for the country, how can a man call himself a citizen, if he does not feel the generosity of losing a little property for his country’s sake? An upright citizen of this Union should debate all like things without personal interest, nor party spirit. His independence depends not, by subduing the country to his own will; but by yielding to the plural will of his country: and the will of the plurality had never been a tyrannical will. If he is rich, he has only to leave people live, and he will become still richer. If he is poor, with his honest industry, soon he will find means to live honorably. Every thing benefitting the plurality, benefits still more the rich, by many indirect ways. Where justice is given to the poor, the poor will give justice to the rich.
The geographical position of North America, and agovernment going with the improvements of the age, are so much favoring this country, that the grandeur of America would cost no pain to her citizens, were these, leaving this country to grow by herself. But, too many politicians are introducing too many cramped ideas in their speeches! As the fear of bad influence by strangers; that of catholicism; and many other fears, too tedious to enumerate. All like fears, sprung from ignorance, religious party, narrow minded, illiberal, or rebellious demagogues. This country wants only liberal politicians, who can understand the present position of America, and age. It is generosity, hospitality, and friendship towards all strangers, that this country will attain her grandeur. And then, America will be the Sun and the central political happiness, throughout the world. Those who, in America, wish to imitate the selfishness of other nations, are not fit to live on this soil. If the people’s aim, and of all the nations of the world, is now for having republics, and not monarchies; America has only to give them her friendly hand, and the whole world will be the friend of America. And the whole world will have soon the blessed millenium. The sons of God, should be liberal. No stingy cramped head, stepping after the old, and selfish governments, will ever do any thing good to himself, nor to the race of man, and of this country. But, the Sun will shine cheerfully for all the world in spite of puerility. He who preaches liberty only for himself, is a little tyrant: and a little tyrant is more despicable, than a big one. He is the venomous viper biting its own tail.
The imprisonment given to Mr. Dorr for having fought against the very despotical law of ancient England; Rhode Island reproaches, with it, the very noble acts of the fathers of her country! It is the same as to say, that all the acts of the revolution of this Union, against the mother country, deserve to be punished. Had Mr. Dorr taken the armsagainst the present government of Rhode Island, without having previously applied for a modification of the despotical law; Mr. Dorr would be liable to few months imprisonment. But, such was not the case. When he found that no redress could be obtained, Mr. Dorr acted like a free citizen. That little state of Rhode Island, in acting as it did against Mr. Dorr, is now in contradiction with the whole Union. I would prefer to live in a country under a despotical prince, than in a country where a despotical law can condemn the high minded, who could not submit to it. A despotical prince must, with time, die, or might be killed by a modern Brutus: a despotical law, acts despotically, without such a fear; while it prevents the free citizen to think with the free mind of republicans. And to be vigilant against the bad laws of a country like this, it is the duty of every citizen! A tyrannical law is worse than a living tyrant: and from the moment in which a nation finds an unjust law, and does not use immediately the required modifications, such a nation cannot be a republic. The brother states of Rhode Island are nearly as guilty with their neutrality. He who attempts to overthrow a popular, good law, must suffer the penalty he deserves: but, how can we expect to be civilized, if the honest cannot dare to kill the hydra, I mean a bad law, after having applied in vain for redress? Such a bad republic would take from my mind all the lofty sentiments, and feeling I always hail for republicanism. A republic acting despotism, it is the worst of all governments. The despot acting devilish acts, calls himself a devil: and in doing, and saying so he is, at least, no hypocrite. A nation who calls herself the kind mother the poor, and of the plurality’s rights, and oppresses, at the same time the poor, and the plurality; such a nation, ranks with the present government of Russia, the most tyrannical of the present Europe. Can we call ourselves republicansin the United States of America, while a martyr of freedom rots in prison like the Spielberg prisoners of my dear, and unfortunate country? And my friends, and fellow-laborers of my profession in New York, Mr. Foresti, and Mr. Maroncelli can tell youdi che lagrime grondi, e di che sanguethe republican patriot.
The love of ourselves is so firmly implanted in our heart, for which every honest being turns its eyes from death with disgust: and were it not mitigated with the idea of immortality, the man who coolly meditates on the loss of life, were it united with the utter annihilation of his soul, death would be too painful. Hence, we have not yet found any nation, which did not hope for a life to come; where the good, will receive the reward he cannot receive upon this land so badly governed.
Nothing is more sublime than the poetry of divine religion. When false love, false friends have wounded the heart, born for company, and love, it is satisfactory, it is pleasing to think that the Being of purity, love, and wisdom, is there in heaven to accept the rich, refreshing perfumes of our virtuous life. Could it be understood as it should be, religion is a branch of literature, which nobilitates man. The intolerant, the narrow-minded, the superstitious, the hypocrite, the interested, and the ignorant, have done such a mischief to religion, that many an honest man, who were the most sanguine champions of religion, they turned from her with disgust. Still, such is the human propensity towards religion, and the immortality of the soul, that the very philosopher, who could not believe that such cruelties, as we read in history, had been commanded byGod, in leaving the bloody intolerance, he believed, and still believes in a life to come.
Religion is lovely, pure, innocent, sympathetic, and disinterested. From religion we derive the nobility of our mind, and heart. Religion, as I understand it myself, is a branch of literature, and imagination which links us to heaven. But, as my religion differs from the religion of the many; besides, religion, being a spontaneous sentiment of the heart, it is our duty to leave any one freely in the hand of God, who will lead them to truth. As far as my neighbor does not interfere with my temporal existence, and acts honestly with me on this traveling land, he may differ from my religion as well as I do differ from his own. It is a matter which does regard his future happiness, it is a matter of his own conscience, and of his God: and no law can force, or control the free mind of man in this world for what it belongs to heaven.
Learned americans, and the british writers applied in vain to congress for a lawful protection of their honest labor. A subject of such an importance as the International Copy-right, the truly, and best pride of nations, had been neglected, in order to give place to long speeches on dollars and cents, and on the presidential election. Had rich booksellers prevented the senators from doing their duty; be it ignorance, or neglect, it is what I cannot tell. But, a nation like this, bound to protect the smallest invention of any mechanic (and I feel happy to say that the most insignificant mechanic is protected) that honorable senate has done nothing for the protection of an american Milton, or an american Hume. How can America keep up with themind’s improvements of the other nations, the aurora of civil society, the moral national power, when the creators of new thoughts, and the historians of man’s deeds, are not protected?
Though the printer, or bookseller, cannot have any work, nor business, without the writer, there is, perhaps, no other profession on earth so much dependent to another, as the writer to the printer, and bookseller. Each must live with his own labor; but, as the writer cannot live with his own productions, unless protected by law, legislators are bound to protect the writers of two nations, speaking the same language. Such writers are the children of both nations. It is not a tariff protection; it is a law which must needs prevent the printer, or the bookseller, from pocketing the money, lawfully due to the poor, honest writer.
There have been some writers who said, that genius will always carve its way, though its country be a bad step-dame!—Indeed, we have biographies of many geniuses, by which we see that they lived with bread, and water all their life, and sometimes, by want of bread, they did pass shivering days, and nights in garrets, with unfinished poems, superior to that of Milton. True, a small part of those poor geniuses, at the end of their painful life, they did find a protector. But, many of them, who would have been the glory of their nation, did they not die on the straw? Many, who with their arts would have lifted up to heaven the mind of their contemporaries, finding themselves neglected, they turned their geniuses to the fashion of a coat, or a bonnet, the only means of getting a better living among citizens who think more of fashion, than of the culture of their mind. Do we not see, even literary periodicals inculcating the most extravagant fashions with which many a father of large families had been ruined? However, there are still many ladies, whose educated mind, permitting them to discriminatetheir faces in the mirror of truth, with them, intelligence is found to be the best ornament, than useless gaudy dresses; and we are happy to say that, their neat, simple, modest fashion cheers our heart.
I do agree with the above mentioned writers, that sometimes, though too seldom, the genius carves its way, despite of its bad step-dame. Still, we are forced to acknowledge, that many american children, born to nobilitate this soil of their affection, are driven to unworthy occupations, because a few misguided citizens, with a misunderstood interest for themselves, wish to have no International Copy-right. And for what reason?—Because they want cheap books! It was with a painful feeling, I had been obliged to listen to erroneous, immoral speeches contrary to an International Copy-right. They said that this republic must not care of the ruin of few publishers, or authors, when the plurality is benefitted by it; which is to say, the benefit of buying books cheaper than their real value! Fine christians, indeed! Such a doctrine, though not exactly the same, it sounds to my ears, as nearly as inducing the poor people to steal from the rich, and get with it, all that which they want. It should be better you would print no moral books, and leave these citizens to follow the simple, and just dictates of Nature, never failing to teach us good morals, than to place them in the situation of buying moral books, with like immoral principles. To go to church, or to read a moral book, it is not enough; we must act accordingly. If a father finds in the library of his son one single book, the edition of which was the ruin of its publisher, or its author, his son could not have the feeling of a gentlemen at the time he bought it, for the less of its value. Are they not all the books in his son’s library, printed with the purpose of making him a gentleman? And what kind of stuff are the tears dropping on the book of a sensible writer, if the readerleaves the writer, or the publisher of it, dying in want? Were they not, all the sciences, and arts, aiming to form us better, I would never place my sight on one single page. We should not imitate certain booksellers who, by dint of selling so much morals, they have even sold the little one they had, before they entered into like business. The moral man does not permit one single citizen to suffer, if he can prevent it, nor would he take the advantage to the least detriment of another, be he rich or poor. ‘The law of my country sustains me, who am wrong,’ should say the honest man; ‘but, I find that my opponent is right. So, in spite of this bad law, I will never take such a cowardly advantage.’ What is it to me, my neighbor’s belief in Christ, if with a bad law, such a christian takes from me the means of my living, or he does not permit me to live with my mind’s labor?
The errata of present hurried editions, issued now a days, not being revised by the british authors, are so many, that the proprietors of their own works feel more displeased of losing thus, their reputation as writers, than that of finding themselves deprived of the due contribution, we ought justly pay them. Nay, were it to our shame, let us tell the truth. Many american citizens were ruined by not having been able to sell their own editions, when another publisher, after having printed the same work, sold it at a loss, by which the edition of the formers could not find any market.
Where writers, publishers, and booksellers do not sustain each other, one of the three may have a direct, immediate interest in doing so, during a little time; but, at the end of the business, as it is generally with every speculator, who attempts to enrich himself with the tears of his neighbor, he will, at last, find himself grasping at the wind. It is a rule of nature: where one does not sustain the other, the whole must give way. Murray in making a fortune to Byron madestill a greater fortune for himself. When Voltaire saw that the blind direct interest of publishers, and booksellers created discord, and misunderstanding, he kept printers in his own house for his own books; and these were sold under his own direction. Would it not be more agreeable, and more profitable to a publisher who, after having paid the just remuneration for the manuscript to its author, who lucubrated with a moral work, in order to sustain his family, would it not be more profitable, I say, to the publisher, were he printing such a work with leisure, which would do honor to his profession? Would it not be more satisfactory to him in thinking that he may go to sleep quietly, without fearing any republication of his own work? Besides, we have rather too many new works: and the printing goes so fast now, that we cannot read all, which comes out daily. It is better to read a few pages with discrimination, and attention, than a whole library in a steamboat. And the less we will read, if we judge by ourselves, the more profitable it will be to us.
There is another kind of soft reasoners, who, finding that the british living writers are, by far, superior in number to the americans, they wish to appropriate the mind’s property of that nation on the other side of the Atlantic. Thus, like pirates, as far as we can steal through like sea, we must spare neither force, nor cunning, in order to appropriate what does not belong to us!—Not only with like sentiments we will never prosper; I am afraid we are bringing down the glorious work of this country’s fathers, unless we give to Peter, what does belong to Peter: and the morals I am here preaching, it is not a matter of tariff. You may pay the duty of imported printed books as much as you please. The morals which I am speaking of, it is to prevent the printer, or the bookseller, from stealing the manuscript’s right of the author, be this british, or american. I am here preachingfrom preventing the mischief of placing the american writers in the some jeopardy as the british writers are, respecting the american publishers. Do you not know that the manuscript of an author is an exclusive property? Do you not know that the comparison you made of a manuscript with a bushel of corn, is the most absurd comparison? You may buy as many bushels as you please of corn, and sow it in your own ground, and every one who has land can do it: and after a year of hard labor, nobody will grudge your profit. And in so doing, the farmer, from whom you bought the corn, had done before you exactly the same, and for which he should have no better preference than you. The production of nature is a providence, and a blessing to us all: but, the production of man, if not protected by law, it is a curse to man. The work of a writer is a seed (since you call it a seed) entirely different from all nature’s seeds. And had that genius never written such a production, the printer could never put his machine at work with which he should have no other right but to receive a lawful reward for his labor, at the time it should not be permitted him to pocket the writer’s reward also. Because in a few days he can overflow the whole country with as many copies as he pleases of a writer’s work, who spent ten years in writing it, shall we permit the printer to do it with impunity? And because I have learned how to take your money out of your pocket, and you cannot perceive when I do it, will you permit me to steal your money? The corn comparison against the International Copy-right, which I read in some newspapers, is a laming comparison. We have all the same right on a seed of nature. A manuscript is as good property to the writer, as anoriginalmachine to its inventor. A book is a work of new ideas, originated from man’s mind, and not a seed. A poor writer (and men of genius are generally poor) would never attempt to write, if the rich printer only, isthere to receive the whole benefit of his own invention. Corn is corn; and a manuscript is a manuscript. An ignorant is but an ignorant; but, a sophist is an immoral man. That any one differing from me is an ignorant, a sophist, or a more enlightened individual than I; it is not for me to decide. My object, is to find out, here, the truth of this important argument, and not to offend those who do not, wish not, or cannot agree with me. Nothing, it seems to me, is more preposterous, than that, which we have read by persons contrary to the interest of american writers, though, I suppose, many of them may be honest, with all their singular views on the subject.
This country is now inundated with trashes mixed of few good works: and the people are so much enticed to buy the yet moist works from the press, for which the standards of the libraries are neglected. On entering a store, the first question, which a customer asks now of a bookseller, it is for pamphlets just come out of the press. ‘We heard,’ they say, ‘that Johnson, Addison, Pope, and thousand others we have not read, are fine and clever writers: but our days are going ahead; and were we reading the old books, we would be left behind this rolling railroad.’ Thus, the reading time, which should be spent with classical works, and of taste, it is generally given to trifling books. I saw persons reading poor descriptions of sceneries from France or Italy, while they were running by steam, through the most beautiful sceneries of America—american sceneries which they had never seen before! Such kind of readers, I am inclined to believe, read more for fashion, than for the purpose of instruction. Have we no standard works to peruse, even such trifling things would be better than nothing, since I have not read the most trifling book, without deriving some instruction from it. But, if we can improve our taste by looking at, and studying the pictures of Guido, Leonardo daVinci, Albert Durer, Hans Holbein, or Hogarth; why will we spend our precious time in looking at poor pictures, or reading through very little sense?
The law of the International Copy-right, is a law of this century. Before the colonization of America, every nation having her language, quite different from the others, writers wanted no other protection but the Copy-right of their own country. It is not so now between England, and the United States. The two nations have the same language; and the worthy writers, now benefiting the two nations with their productions, must be protected by unanimous consent of the two nations. It is with a sorrowful mind we are now forced to witness the american government, a government from which we expect to derive more justice than from any other government in the world, sustaining, and countenancing such a piratical transaction. England, without boasting any republican law, is more republican than we, upon this point of justice. Had the people of America granted the just request of the british authors, trusted long ago into the hands of Mr. Henry Clay, at this very time, as men of genius are not wanted in America, despite of cavilers, writing exaggerations against America, from the other side of the Atlantic, we could now reckon american Byrons, and writers of all arts, and sciences as good as any of the most civilized part of Europe.
The sooner we will stop the mischief to the detriment of american, and british writers, the sooner we will see the aurora, and the glory of American Literature. If great writers had been neglected in their own country, at the time they had no nation of the same language contending with them; how can we expect that a new american Milton, will be appreciated, or known, without an international law with which to protect the writer? Modest writers have many other difficulties to get popularity, without this great one:and even learned persons are meanly jealous of the fame of a new writer! Such examples which we have in the republic of letters, are the shame of belles letters! Walter Scott himself was unjust in writing against the first productions of Byron. Had Addison never written a criticism on the Paradise Lost, perhaps Milton himself might be yet unknown, such is the ignorance in judging of great writers. The plurality, apes the great critics. Where publishers can reprint the new works of another nation, without paying for the manuscript, though they may give a little remuneration to their country’s writers of an acquired reputation, they almost always decline from giving any thing to an unknown genius. And can all the booksellers judge of a writer’s merit? The International Copy-right between two nations is as necessary as the Copy-right between the writer, and the publisher of the same nation. The man of genius being a mere child in business, he will always be the victim of the wily book merchant, though there are gentlemen among all professions. Besides, when we will be a little more civilized, it will not be, even, permitted to re-print french, or italian works here, printed in France or Italy, without the consent of the respective foreign writers.
The americans so susceptible (and better so, since susceptibility is a sign of nice feeling) when travelers write, or speak of them, will they neglect the glory of their National Literature, the best and greatest glory of nations?
My readers, I hope, will pardon a new word I introduce in this chapter. It is Unitedstatians. When this Union will spread herself, until the continent of this new world will be under a single popular government, then the word americans,or columbians, will be the general, and particular name. But, as there are indians, canadians, and mexicans also, it seems to me, that the citizens of this Union are wanting a particular name.
During the foregoing chapters, I wrote against fashionable literature; unreligious religion; bad newspapers; tourists, whose blind love for their country rendered them pert, or saucy towards other nations; american theatres; political parties; and selfish merchants of books. Odd, or bad men are found in every part of the world; and bad creatures, though they have more, or less influence in every part of this too much ruled earth, the plurality has now sufficient understanding to discriminate good from bad, when the frightful hobgoblin of the so called Religion does not put its long tail. Demagogues,scribblers, bad politicians, or bad merchants cannot injure my character, as a member of society in America: but unreligious religionists, can do a great mischief. And why so? Because in America the hypocrite is not easily known. The hypocrite who must, of course, be offended of what I have said against unreligious religion, has a great power on this new soil of America, against all those who, despising as I do any kind of cant, take off the mask from the long face. To such hypocrites, I have only to say now, that their Belief does not give them any right to brand my Belief. If they think their Belief better than my Belief, they have only to keep their good conscience for themselves, without branding my Belief with their inquisitorial hot iron, and frightful words. He who thinks himself a religious man, and thinks it man’s duty to be religious as he is, should keep his beautiful face with modesty, and never say that those, who have not his very face, are ugly; and as the inquisition of the mind, or that of the body have never done any good to the true religion, it is now time to learn, that in condemning those, who cannot thinkas he does, he shows to be no better than an inquisitor. Fanatics have wronged too much the morals of Jesus. The hypocrite may, hereafter, speak behind my back against me, with impunity, as far as his infernal voice does not reach my ears.
There are unfortunately individuals, who think that virtue, integrity, and all the good qualities of mind, and heart are not indispensable requisites to a man of belles letters. They are very much mistaken. It is the purity of the heart alone, which gives immortality to the labor of a genius. As I think it to be an indispensable requisite, I feel it my duty now, to demonstrate it in this conclusion, and last chapter. It is thesine qua non, on which a National Literature should be grounded.
It is a fact: Pope’s, or Addison’s heart had not been free from envy, and other petty moral faults which, but obscured their fine qualities of character, and sentiment. As many philosophers have not yet been entirely free of selfish feelings, so pernicious to the very philosophy they professed, it seems to me, that a perfect civilization as Plato, Rousseau, Bentham, or Fourier are aiming at, must needs be farther off, than philanthropy expects. But, that such a fortunate philosophical millennium will come, I do so honestly believe it, that, had it been my choice to come into this world, I would have postponed it, until that happy future time.
That many elevated sentiments of morality are originated from the impure source of selfishness, we must shamefully admit it. Still, had not Pope, or Addison had, a good share of noble sentiments, they could never have written so forcibly of morals, without having felt it in their own breast. Such authors are like the physicians, who though acquainted with the means of alleviating the endemial sickness of their country, fell themselves the victims of human frailty. Besides, we learn how to become just, and moral from thereflections of our own faults, as well as of others: and he, who acknowledges his own imperfections, is, to my mind, a good man still. Happy those, who receive from nature, or education, a mild temperament, free of any selfish consideration.
Men, whose thoughts cannot go beyond the age in which they live, sustain the impossibility of human perfection; and think, that selfishness is our human duty. Hence this immoral precept: “Charity begins at home.” As I am obliged to exert my physical strength among cannibals; so obliged am I also, to be selfish among the selfish, and cunning among the cunning, as far as the propriety, and the honor of the age, in which I live, will permit. But, when we speak of a future civilization, we must bring our mind to a civilized, and educated population: a people, who can easily distinguish the cunning, roguish, or selfish from the open, sincere, or generous. And when the cunning, roguish, or selfish will find, that he can not get the esteem of his contemporaries, he will, of necessity, become open, sincere, or generous. We are the children of our education, and of the century in which we live. The virtuous, alone, can impart virtue: and refinement will force men to be refined.
Nothing is more disgusting than those individuals, whose sight being not longer than a span, pretend to judge of distances which they cannot see: and because they have never been better, thinking mankind a race incapable of moral perfection, or improvement, they call Plato, Rousseau, Bentham, and Fourier the dreamers of the ages, in which they lived, and of those to come, while they do not perceive that, had men never attempted to ameliorate human frailties, we would be still nothing better, than our ancient fathers—the cannibals. Because we have not arrived at perfection, shall we stop on our half civilization?—This is my firm belief: Unless we practice that, which we profess in theory, we willnever be able to describe in writing, nor speaking, the honest delineaments of morals, or integrity. The man, who does not feel nobility under his skin, cannot speak, or write with propriety of the attributes of a Divinity. It is an axiom: that which is not felt, can not be expressed.
Si vis me flere dolendum estPrimum ipsi tibi; tunc tua me infortunia lædent,Telephe, vel Peleu: male si mandata loqueris,Aut dormitabo, aut ridebo.
Could Horace rise from the dead, he would not wonder a little in finding out, some men still doubting the above uncontrovertible quotation. Our boasting nineteenth century, may be properly called the raging time of scribblers, in which confusion of papers, true men of letters are neglected. When demagogues become the fashionable leading party of a community, the worst scribblers, whose money renders editors good enough to praise what they did not read, or could not understand, are generally read by a plurality of apes, who buy the new works, in order to be able, at the first evening party, to echo in the ears of a belle, the praising criticism of their newspapers. And these individuals sustain before their admirers, that a man may be either philosopher, orator, or poet, and at the same time, be quite a stranger to virtue! And while we call ourselves a civilized people, such empty minds, nursed with empty words, endeavor to confound literary men with demagogues, wisdom with ignorance, piety with hypocrisy, virtue with vice; and place into the asylums of lunatics every one, who would dare to contradict them. Such scribblers who live by writing theinterestingmurders of the day, and all the awful—excuse the epithet! theinterestingcalamities, I wanted to say, of this unpitying globe, are the only individuals who can make money out of their pen.
To deprive of virtue an orator, poet, or philosopher, itwould be as to entitle a man painter, when he has no perception of colors.Honos alit artes.A boy who drew a pig, while he intended to make a horse, might, likewise, be considered a painter by a still poorer connoisseur, than the boy himself. An artist cannot reach perfection, or eminence, without that which is requisite. Were two men of equal understanding, and ability; but one virtuous, and the other not, the second might appear eloquent, were he not compared with the former; but he cannot be but a pigmy before the noble virtue. The inspiration of heaven cannot emanate but from heaven. A clown cannot be a genius; and a genius, with the feeling of an unprincipled man—stranger to virtue, cannot speak the language of inspiration. Such an axiom wants no other demonstration. We may find knaves proficient in some manual arts; but, not eminent in the fine arts. When we look at the three Graces of Canova, we must acknowledge that, without the inspiration of a divine mind, which he fostered in his breast, through a life spent with integrity, and labor, those three females, delicately sculpted, could not inspire bystanders with purity, innocence, and love, which, like a perennial spring, emanate from that immortal marble. As in seeing a beautiful woman, whose proportions, though perfect in themselves, the almost imperceptible lines of cunning across her thought, and cheeks, repulse from man’s heart any sympathy of love, thus, if the fire of virtue is wanting in the breast of the orator, poet, or philosopher, he will never be able to inspire men of understanding, perspicacity, and sensibility. A spoiled woman may ensnare a weak man, and asoit disantorator ensnare also an ignorant people. Still, the first cannot be a lady, and the second is but a demagogue.
Could Talma impart on the stage those heroic sentiments, had he not been gifted with lofty sentiments, and integrity? A virtuous man is able to delineate the vice he doesdespise; but a vicious man cannot imitate the heavenly virtue he has not in his breast. Virtue can understand vice; but vice cannot understand virtue.Ardeat qui vult incendere, says the virtuous Roman, whose eminent qualities of character, entitled him the father of eloquence. Where is the enlightened nation, who would suffer, or support the orator, poet, or philosopher, were each of these literary men practically, and hypocritically polluting the temple of Virtue, the only Divinity, dictating order to our society? And here, by enlightened nation, I do not mean nations led by the furies of superstition, false religion, or fanaticism, the shame of mankind. Though virtue is not the only requisite faculty to form an eminent artist; still, like the sun in the planetary system, unless it reflects upon every idea, and sentiments of the man of letters, his ideas, and sentiments would remain without animation.
Because not all the immortal writers had passed an unblemished life, shall we say that virtue is not the essential mover in a man of letters? Yes: Bacon, in some instances of his life, had been a mean wretch; but, because Bacon was bribed in an evil hour, can we sustain that he had been a bad man all his life? Though Bacon had not been always wise, his retirement, repentence, accusation of himself, and studies, evidently prove he was not a stranger to virtue. Still, had Bacon praised virtue at the very moment he was unworthy of the Divinity to whom he burned incense before, or after; such a speech, or writing, could impart neither colors, nor animation to his abortive thoughts. “Virtue is like precious odors, most fragrant, when they are incensed.” And Bacon himself says: “For, he may rely upon it, that he can no more transmit conviction, and sensation, which he himself has not, at the time, sincerely felt, than he can convey a clear title to property in which he himself has no right.”
And why does the unbeliever respect the piety of a Fenelon, and a Fenelon, the morals of an unbeliever? To those, who would be bribed in order to imitate a Bacon, I have only to say, that baboons will never reach immortality, when, instead of imitating Bacon’s fine qualities, they willingly embrace, rather, that wrong side of the writer, which suit best their own rapacious propensities.
Every gentleman, who experienced the scourge of tyranny, will maintain, that it is better to be poor in a free country, than to have a princely state without a country. I say a gentleman: and those, who enjoy in their selfish wealth, without feeling any sympathy towards numerous human beings, struggling in want, are no gentlemen. Freedom is a Divinity, who does not leave in want her dutiful worshippers: and the Fathers’ ashes of this Union are still warm with the truth of this sacred sentiment. It is with sorrow of mind I hear unitedstatians asserting with sophisms, and without shame, that, as the best liberty is wealth, they do not adhere, but to those members of congress, whose speeches benefit right, or wrong, their only direct interest. Hence the contestations of party men, whose advocates are shamefully called orators, because they feel with them the babbling of their private interest.—Liberty for me, and slavery for my neighbor!
Virtue, integrity, justice, and so on, are all ridiculous, and empty words, when pronounced by that merchant, inveighing against the so called Nullifier, who demonstrated the advantages of free havens. And why does the physician hate that philosopher, who demonstrated, that a great quantity of physic impairs our constitution? And why, that printer declines from publishing that article of a true literary man? Had we not heard that divine, speaking badly of that dancing master, and of his art; and while this, should look with respect at another true pious moralist, hadnot the dancing master called a worthy divine a hypocrite? Is it not, the moderate, and healthy exercise of dancing beneficient to morals? And morals and modesty do they not give a fine, and lovely countenance, to the graceful art of Vestris?Mens sana in corpore sano.That we are not civilized yet, it is sufficient to see how many imperfect professional men flourish in this country, not for their proficiency; but, because they slander their professional superiors. And why those interested contrary parties became to personalities, unless they have forgotten the academical language of freedom, and virtue? That pretended man of letters, is he not displeased to find another man of letters more enlightened than himself; while, instead of wishing to be indicated by an ignorant community, as the first man of his age, he should love arts, and sciences, for the sake, only, of social benefit, and the improvement of his own mind? Thus, every one in turning the stream of water towards his own mill, stops its beneficient course, while they should build their mills one under the other. In our european, and american semi-barbarian societies, almost every one wishes to imitate a Cesar, or a Napoleon, while they call themselves republicans.
With what courage shall we call that public speaker a worthy citizen, while cunningly avoiding every thing, which naturally happen contradictory to his own argument, he magnifies with eternal amplifications, the mites he wishes to represent large as mammoths? Without thene quid nimis, we cannot expect to reach perfection. Men of letters look to petty envies, and slanderous speeches, as a great obstacle to refinement. Liberty, virtue, integrity, justice, are very pretty words, indeed!—and in the time of Danton, and the Devil; innocent blood ran in the streets of Paris, while those mean tyrants had nothing in their mouths but liberty, and justice. From whence does it come that wefeel an inclination to kick an Antonius just, when he pronounces the word Liberty, and when it comes from the mouth of a Cato, we feel a heavenly inspiration, which nobilitates our nature? And why do our tears fall on the pages of greek history, when it simply describes the exiled Aristides, passing through the innumerable, dangerous army of Xerses, in order to rescue his beloved, though ungrateful country? Could Demosthenes, could Cicero be the admiration of their country, and posterity, had their orations been pronounced without the conviction of defending the lawful cause of the worthy citizen?
A want of education causes some people to believe that serious deportment, stiff manners, and thundering voice, are the requisites of a gentleman. Hence derives that custom of answering, sir! with three exclamations, even when the questioned understood, at once, his addresser. In some courts, I saw lawyers speaking with animosity, for no other purpose, but to intimidate their opponents. On the contrary, when a virtuous speaker defends the innocent oppressed, or charges against the criminal; mild, charitable, and plain troth, does it not always touch the heart of an instructed people? The inspiration of heaven is without passion, without anger, without malice. The deceitful will always badly say what he does not feel in himself. “It will come out that which I feel here,” touching his breast, said Patrick Henry, when, after many struggles to conquor his modesty, and bashfulness, astonished, for the first time, an audience, burning with patriotism.Prius afficiamur ipsi ut alios afficiamus.
Unitedstatians, if the Fathers’ wisdom of this prospering country is yet felt in your breast, you cannot be but the friends of those, who have liberal sentiments. It is now time for us to understand, that we are all sons, and daughters of one single wise nation, the World’s nation! We arethe children of the progress of the human mind! And why all nations will not unite in such a blessing, prosperous fraternity, without which, peace, and commerce cannot attain the highest destination worthy of man? When, we will have learned, without preventions, from the lore of Egypt, Greece, Rome, China—from all earth’s nations; then, national pride, turning into wisdom, we will shake hands with all the literary men of every country: and the rivalities, envies of governments, religious parties, secret or public societies, shall be unbecoming, among human beings, whom nature, or God, if you please, had called to help each other, without distinction. The individuals, who think that nothing can be taught to them by strangers, are already deprived of wisdom. A child may give a good advise to a great man; and a foreigner, who would take the trouble to point out any of our faults, should be welcomed among us, when he, or she do it with the spirit to improve man’s institutions, and morals. Shame be to him who, with the bible in hand, excites the reformers against the catholics! To perfection should be man’s duty to aim at; and the nearest is man to perfection, the better for him, and his neighbors. Those, who have, or will misrepresent us, time will do us justice. If they speak the truth, we should be thankful, and try to correct our faults, which are more injurious to ourselves, than what is said by our most mortal, or cunning foes. If they speak, or write falsehoods, they do nothing but injure their own reputation. The slander does, unfortunately, prevail some times: but, like the night, it always disappears at the coming of the day. Slander did often act mischief to a particular innocent man; never, when applied to a whole nation. Our principal object be, therefore, that of aiming at perfection, and practical virtue, without which no man has a right to be ranked among men of letters.