صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

instances, this, it humbly appears to us, would neither be a good ground for questioning our good faith, nor a reasonable occasion for denouncing a general hostility against the country to which we belong. Men may differ conscientiously in their taste in literature and manners, and in their opinions as to the injustice or sinfulness of domestic slavery; and may express their opinions in public, without being actuated by spite or malignity. But a very slight examination of each of the articles of charge, will show still more clearly upon what slight grounds they have been hazarded, and how much more of spleen than of reason there is in the accusation.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

1. Upon the first head, Mr W. neither does, nor can deny, that our statements are perfectly correct. The Americans have scarcely any literature of their own growth-and scarcely any authors of celebrity. The fact is too remarkable, not to have been noticed by all who have had occasion to speak of them ;and we have only to add, that, so far from bringing it forward in an insulting or invidious manner, we have never, we believe, alluded to it without adding such explanations as in candour we thought due, and as were calculated to take from it all shadow of offence. So early as in our third Number, we observed that Literature was one of those finer Manufactures which a new country will always find it easier to import than to raise; --and, after showing that the want of leisure and hereditary wealth naturally led to this arrangement, we added, that the Americans had shown abundance of talent, wherever induce⚫ments had been held out for its exertion; that their partypamphlets were written with great keenness and spirit; and that their orators frequently displayed a vehemence, correct< ness, and animation, that would command the admiration of 6 any European audience.' Mr W. has himself quoted the warm testimony we bore, in our 12th Volume, to the merits of the papers published under the title of The Federalist: And in our 16th, we observe, that when America once turned her attention to letters, " we had no doubt that her authors would im⚫ prove and multiply, to a degree that would make all our exertions necessary to keep the start we have of them.' In a subsequent Number, we add the important remark, that among them, the men who write bear no proportion to those who read; and that,. though they have but few native authors, the individuals are innumerable who make use of liter⚫ature to improve their understandings, and add to their happiness.' The very same ideas are expressed in a late article, which seems to have given Mr W. very great offence-though we can discover nothing in the passage in question, except the

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

liveliness of the style, that can afford room for misconstruction. Native literature,' says the Reviewer, the Americans have none: It is all imported. And why should they write books? when a six weeks' passage brings them, in their own tongue, our sense, science and genius, in bales and hogsheads?'Now, what is the true meaning of this, but the following- The Americans do not write books; but it must not be inferred, from this, that they are ignorant or indifferent about literature.-The true reason is, that they get books enough from us in their own language; and are, in this respect, just in the condition of any of our great trading or manufacturing districts at home, where there is no encouragement for authors to settle, though there is as much reading and thinking as in other places. This has all along been our meaning-and we think it has been clearly enough expressed. The Americans, in fact, are at least as great readers as the English, and take off immense editions of all our popular works; and while we have repeatedly stated the causes that have probably withheld them from becoming authors in great numbers themselves, we confidently deny that we have ever represented them as illiterate, or negligent of learning.

gen

2. As to our particular criticisms on American works, we cannot help feeling that our justification will be altogether as easy as in the case of our general remarks on their rarity. Ncthing, indeed, can more strikingly illustrate the unfortunate prejudice or irritation under which Mr W. has composed this part of his work, than the morose and angry remarks he has made on our very innocent and good-natured critique of Barlow's Columbiad. It is very true that we have laughed at its strange neologisms, and pointed out some of its other manifold faults. But is it possible for any one seriously to believe, that this tle castigation was dictated by national animosity?--or does Mr W. really believe, that, if the same work had been published in England, it would have met with a milder treatment? If the book was so bad, however, he insinuates, why take any notice of it, if not to indulge your malignity? To this we answer, first, That a handsome quarto of verse, from a country which produces so few, necessarily attracted our attention more strongly than if it had appeared among ourselves; secondly, That its faults were of so peculiar and amusing a kind, as to call for animadversion rather than neglect; and, thirdly, what no reader of Mr W.'s remarks would indeed anticipate, That in spite of these faults, the book actually had merits that entitled it to notice, and that a considerable part of our article is accordingly employed in bringing these merits into view. In common candour, we must say, Mr W. should have acknowledged this fact,

when complaining of the illiberal severity with which Mr Barlow's work had been treated. For, the truth is, that we have given it fully as much praise as he, or any other intelligent American, can say it deserves; and have been at some pains in vindicating the author's sentiments from misconstruction, as well as rescuing his beauties from neglect. Yet Mr W. is pleased to inform his reader, that the work seems to have been committed to the • Momus of the fraternity for especial diversion; and is very surly and austere at the exquisite jokes' of which he says it consists. We certainly do not mean to dispute with him about the quality of our jokes: though we take leave to appeal to a gayer critic-or to himself in better humour-from his present sentence of reprobation. But he should have recollected, that, besides stating, in distinct terms, that his versification was generally both soft and sonorous, and that there were many 6 passages of rich and vigorous description, and some that might lay claim even to the praise of magnificence,' the critics had summed up their observations by saying, that the author's talents were evidently respectable; and that, severely as they had been obliged to speak of his taste and his diction, in a ❝ great part of the volume, they considered him as a giant in comparison with many of the paltry and puling rhymsters who disgraced our English literature by their occasional suc6 cess; and that, if he would pay some attention to purity of style and simplicity of composition, they had no doubt that he might produce something which English poets would envy, • and English critics applaud.'

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Are there any traces here, we would ask, of national spite and hostility?--or is it not true, that our account of the poem is, on the whole, not only fair but favourable, and the tone of our remarks as good-humoured and friendly as if the author had been a whiggish Scotchman? As to Marshall's Life of Washington,' we do not think that Mr W. differs very much from the Reviewers. He says, he does not mean to affirm that the story of their Revolution has been told absolutely well by this author;' and we, after complaining of its being cold, heavy and tedious, have distinctly testified, that it displayed industry, good sense, and, in so far as we could judge, laudable impartiality; and that the style, though neither elegant nor impressive, was yet, upon the whole, clear and manly. Mr W. however thinks, that nothing but national spite and illiberality can account for our saying, that Mr M. must not promise himself a reputation commensurate with the dimensions of his work;' and that what passes with him for dignity, will, by his readers, be pronounced dulness and fri

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

6

gidity: And then he endeavours to show, that a passage in which we say that Mr Marshall's narrative is deficient in almost everything that constitutes historical excellence,' is glaringly inconsistent with the favourable sentence we have transcribed in the beginning; not seeing, or not choosing to see, that in the one place we are speaking of the literary merits of the work as an historical composition, and in the other of the information it affords. But the question is not, whether our criticism is just and able, or otherwise; but whether it indicates any little spirit of detraction and national rancour -and this, it would seem not very difficult to answer. If we had taken the occasion of this publication to gather together all the foolish and awkward and disreputable things that occurred in the conduct of the revolutionary councils and campaigns, and to make the history of this memorable struggle a vehicle for insinuations against the courage or integrity of many who took part in it, we might, with reason, have been subjected to the censure we now confidently repel. But there is not a word in the article that looks that way; and the only ground for the imputation is, that we have called Mr Marshall's book dull and honest, accurate and heavy, valuable and tedious, while neither Mr W., nor anybody else, ever thought or said anything else of it. It is his style only that we object to.-Of his general sentiments-of the conduct and character of his hero-and of the prospects of his country, we speak as the warmest friends of America, and the warmest admirers of Amcrican virtue could wish us to speak. We shall add but one short passage as a specimen of the tone of this insolent and illiberal production.

6

History has no other example of so happy an issue to a revolution, consummated by a long civil war. Indeed it seems to be very near a maxim in political philosophy, that a free government cannot be obtained where a long employment of military force has been necessary to establish it. In the case of America, however, the military power was, by a rare felicity, disarmed by that very influence which makes a revolutionary army so formidable to liberty: For the images of Grandeur and Power-those meteor lights that are exhaled in the stormy atmosphere of a revolution, to allure the ambitious and dazzle the weak-made no impression on the firm and virtuous soul of the American commander.'

As to Adams's Letters on Silesia, the case is nearly the same. We certainly do not run into extravagant compliments to the. author because he happens to be the son of the American President: But he is treated with sufficient courtesy and respect; and Mr W. cannot well deny, that the book is very fairly rated, according to its intrinsic merits. There is no ridicule, nor any

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

attempt at sneering, throughout the article. The work is described as easy and pleasant, and entertaining, '--as containing some excellent remarks on Education, and indicating, throughout, that settled attachment to freedom which is worked into the constitution of every man of virtue who has the 'fortune to belong to a free and prosperous community.' As to the style, we remark, certainly in a very good-natured and inoffensive manner, that though it is remarkably free from 'those affectations and corruptions of phrase, that overrun the compositions of his country, a few national, perhaps we might still venture to call them provincial, peculiarities, might be ' detected;' and then we add, in a style which we do not think can appear impolite even to a minister plenipotentiary, that if men of birth and education in that other England which they are building up in the West, will not diligently study the great authors who fixed and purified the language of our common forefathers, we must soon lose the only badge that is still worn of our consanguinity.' Unless the Americans are really to set up a new standard of speech, we conceive that these remarks are perfectly just and unanswerable; and we are sure, at all events, that nothing can be farther from a spirit of insult or malevolence.

6

[ocr errors]

Our critique on the volume of American Transactions is perhaps more liable to objection; and, on looking back to it, we at once admit that it contains some petulant and rash expressions which had better have been omitted-and that its general tone is less liberal and courteous than might have been desired. It is remarkable, however, that this, which is by far the most offensive of our discussions on American literature, is one of the earliest, and that the sarcasms with which it is seasoned, have never been repeated-a fact which, with many others, may serve to expose the singular inaccuracy with which Mr W. has been led, throughout his work, to assert that we began our labours with civility and kindness towards his country, and have only lately changed our tone, and joined its inveterate enemies in all the extravagance of abuse. The substance of our criticism, it does not seem to be disputed, was just-the volume containing very little that was at all interesting, and a good part of it being composed in a style very ill suited for such a publi

cation.

Such are the perversions of our critical office, which Mr W. can only explain on the supposition of national jealousy and malice. As proofs of an opposite disposition, we beg leave just to refer to our lavish and reiterated praise of the writings of Franklin-to our high and distinguished testimony to the merits of The Federalist-to the terms of commendation in which

« السابقةمتابعة »