only original in its conception, form and structure, but it has in its materials, also, to a greater extent than is usual in such works, the character of originality." If it be not an original idea to rank as "literary men" hundreds of illiterate scribblers-nay, to devote two-thirds of a thick volume in the smallest type used in books to the merest rubbish, and style the tout ensemble a "Manual of Literature," we should like to know what idea is original, in the modern acceptation of the term. This may seem harsh, but let us proceed.

Those privileged to use the work as "a Text-book for Schools and Colleges" receive full and particular directions in an article "To Teachers." The following will serve as a specimen of the instructions given in this department by the "teacher of teachers:"

"2. Study carefully, in full, one leading author in each Chapter or Section, either taking the author who is named in the book as standing at the head of that Section, or selecting some other, at the discretion of the teacher."

It will presently be seen what sort of "authors" are to be studied thus carefully, and how easy it must be to make a selection in so large a crowd. Thus, for example, no other country in the world can boast such a number of living poets, male and female. Our living novelists are still more numerous. Then, in the departments of history, biography, theology, etc., etc., the most patriotic of our readers, and those having most faith in the "march of intellect," will find ample reason to boast—at least, so far as numbers and eulogies may be taken as a criterion of intellectual worth and wealth. For our own part, although we have hitherto flattered ourselves that we were tolerably familiar with American literature, we must confess though perhaps not without blushing-that there are quite a formidable number of our poets, novelists, historians, biographers, scientists, etc., etc., of whose very existence we had been ignorant, before their "works" and other res gestœ were brought to our attention in the matchless volume under consideration. We cannot pretend to wonder, then, that, even while immortalizing so many of the correspondents of western newspapers, stock actresses, fourth of July village orators, etc.,

VOL. XXVI.-NO. LI.

4

etc., the "teacher of teachers" frequently reminds us triumphantly of the ancient, impudent query, "Who reads an American book?" Would it not be much more reasonable to ask now, in view of the grand and imposing array of genius and learning furnished us by Mr. Hart, "Who reads an English book?" But, perhaps, a more appropriate query than either would be, "Who will not read our new 'Text-book for Schools and Colleges?"" for Mr. Hart says in his instructions "To Teachers," "Scholars while passing through the book should be advised and encouraged to read all the matter in its connection." One would think that no "scholar" would need any such advice or encouragement!

But we are yet only in the vestibule of the great structure. Chapter I. commences thus: "American literature, strictly speaking, is that part of English literature which has been produced upon American soil." This is a capital piece of information to commence with! Is it not just as sensible to say, "The American people, strictly speaking, are that portion of the English people who have been produced on American soil?" or "American geese are, strictly speaking, that portion of the English genus anseres produced on American soil?" Is the literature of the Brazilians, or of the Mexicans, " English literature"? since it must be admitted that Brazil and Mexico are as truly "American soil" as the Canadas, or even the United States. But our author settles the point in a "Note," telling us that "A literature is denominated from the language in which it is written." Then there is no such thing as American literature, except we call our dialect the American language. The Brazilians boast that they have a literature, but they are mistaken. They may learn from the "teacher of teachers," that what they call their literature is that part of Portuguese literature "produced on American soil,” since their language is the Portuguese. The Mexicans labor under a similar mistake when they boast that they have any such thing as a Mexican literature.

The truth is that Mr. Hart has not learned in all his boasted enormous experience in teaching teachers the simple obvious fact that a literature is "denominated not from

the language in which it is written," but from the people or nationality that have chiefly produced it. It is true that our author has an example for his style of derivation in the common habit of designating all potatoes that are not "sweet," "Irish potatoes." We do not know that Irishmen make any particular objection to this, although they may think that the tuber "produced" in this country is not quite so succulent, mealy, and palatable as that produced in "ould Ireland;" but we suspect that our English cousins will urge some strong objections before recognizing nine-tenths of the sort of literature lauded to the skies by Mr. Hart, as forming any other part of "English literature" than its dross or

scum.

It is needless for us to assure our readers that none have higher respect for our real literary men and literary women than we; none set a higher value on all that is worthy of the name of American literature. We yield to none in our appreciation of those of our poets, novelists, historians, orators, scientists, and educators, who have any just claim to be ranked as such. There are those belonging to each department whom we regard as worthy of comparison with the greatest authors of modern times in their own respective fields. But it is these who, in general, receive least attention from Mr. Hart. Thus, for example, he has far more to say of himself than of William H. Prescott, John Lothrop Motley,and George Ticknor, each of whom is everywhere recognized as occupying the first rank among modern historians. Nay, he tells us more about himself in his American "Manual" than he tells us about some of the most renowned intellects of England in his English "Manual;" more than he does, for instance, about Hume, Horne Tooke, Sir William Jones, Bolingbroke, Richard Brinsley Sheridan, Lord Chesterfield, or Charles James Fox, etc. In his American "Manual" the living receive tenfold the attention which is bestowed on the dead. This may be easily understood from the fact that half the whole book is devoted to the period from 1850 to the present time." Byron speaks of "the mob of gentlemen who write;" but we have here what may well be called "the swell mob," for it includes all who

have bestowed a certain amount of bombastic praise on the "teacher of teachers."

We are very unwilling to give samples of the sort of writers set down as men of letters and women of letters. We would abstain from doing so if we deemed it possible consistently with the due performance of our duty as a critic. But it is not possible. In such circumstances general remarks have little effect. The most illiterate and most vulgar "authors" would be the last to believe that it was they who were alluded to in the language of scorn or ridicule. It is unavoidable, then, to mention a few of those immortalized by Mr. Hart. Nor is there any good reason why they should object to our doing so, but the contrary, since, be it remembered, a part of our author's plan has been to receive into his pantheon all who have done the handsome thing for him with their own estimate of their merits! To a large number, however, it will be disagreeable to say that it is those who are most ambitious to figure as "authors" that have least claim to any such title; and that they bear about the same relation to authors worthy of the name which those who send their names and dollars to the "society" papers in order to have their "movements" duly proclaimed, bear to true gentlemen and ladies. The spurious authors, like the spurious ladies and gentlemen, long to be "noticed" in their assumed character even by Jenkins; and each are quite as willing to purchase eulogies of the sort which suits their taste as they are to purchase butter or molasses. Real ladies and gentlemen feel that they have no need of the ser vices of Jenkins in order to secure recognition, as such, among the classes whose recognition they value. Accordingly, it is well known that instead of courting his attention they do their best to avoid him, and are much more mortified than pleased when he bespatters them with his praise in common with the most vulgar pretenders. And need we say that it is the highest class of men of letters, poets, philosophers, and historians, who in all ages have evinced a similar feeling?

Now, before we attempt to indicate the sort of materials with which Mr. Hart has stuffed more than half his "Manual," whether through motives of pure patriotism or a desire to sell

as many copies as possible, we will take a brief glance at the class of authors who have evinced least ambition for biographies. It is only the few who devote themselves to the obscure records of the past that are aware of how many great authors, artists, discoverers and inventors have passed away without leaving behind them as much as their name. We are not even told that they were born one day and died another. Of the several great epics which are the glory of Sanscrit literature the author of one is not known, although each has been attributed to several. Have not scores of volumes been written to prove that no such individual as Homer ever lived? That Shakespeare has lived is, indeed, beyond dispute. The great dramatist wrote at too recent a period to render it possible to doubt this fact.

But what else do we know about Shakespeare, further than we learn from his works? And how much do we know, by any other means, of Virgil? How much of Juvenal, the greatest of Roman satirists? The greatest of the Greek satirists was undoubtedly Lucian; but, precisely because he was the greatest, most resolute, most courageous, and most honest, not a word should we have known about him had his admirable and invaluable works perished. In short, of all ancient biographers, the only one who mentions him. is Suidas, and the chief piece of information he gives in regard to him is, that he was "torn by dogs as a fit punishment for his impiety," etc. Philostratus was the chief puffer in Lucian's time, Greek culture having sadly degenerated in the second century of our era. Philostratus was a person without learning or taste, but of an ambitions and thrifty disposition. He compiled a book, remarkably similar to Mr. Hart's "Manual of American Literature," entitled, "Lives of the Sophists." With the exception of three or four, those who receive attention in this work were mere nonentities; although it must be confessed that the most ignorant and most stupid of them had juster claims to the character of "men of letters," than three-fourths of Mr. Hart's "living authors." At all events, the name of Lucian-by far the greatest thinker and author of the period-is not as much as mentioned by