Immagini della pagina
PDF
ePub

more annually. If this point of nomenclature were one of the least importance to be settled, we might call on Mr. T. to shew why wealth rather than numbers should form the criterion, and the number of nominal instructors rather than the amount of instruction given. It is easy to perceive that two seminaries may differ,

She has a college, which has thriven in spite of an almost total neglect for thirty years; which is already the chief boast of the state in distant parts of the Union; and which needs only such a measure of liberality in proportion to her means as Massachusetts, New-York, and the Carolinas have recently extended to theirs, to leave it without a rival. But un--but may differ much less, in one til a more extensive patronage is mode of comparison than in the othafforded by the legislature, and the examples of private munificence which are so frequent in some of the neighbouring states begin to be followed in this, the people of Connecticut must be contented to hear such comparisons as the following:

Our Colleges were established without reference to any general system. Each state has at least one ;-in some, there are two or three. The Theological College at Andover, in Massachusetts, is sole ly devoted to students in divinity, who are preparing for the Christian ministry;-in the others, all the chief branches of learn

ing are taught, but only one of them, that at Cambridge, is strictly entitled to the name of University, and though it has long borne the appellation, it is but recently that it could be really so considered. Yale College, at New-Haven, bas derived a high reputation, from the distinguished abilities of some of its late and present instructors; but neither its "personnel" nor "materiel" are sufficiently complete to make it a university. It is, however, a very flourishing institution, and counts, among its students, youths from all parts of the United States.-pp. 334, 335.

We will just remark on this statement, that however ready the friends of Yale College may be to join in Mr. T's representations of the deficiency of its personnel" and "materiel," they will never be solicitous about its title to a name which it has never assumed, and which is shared alike by the greatest and the least of the NewEngland seminaries. In the English sense of the term University, we have none in the country, and nothing approaching one: in the American sense we have a multitude, from the institution of two centuries standing, which enrols hundreds on its catalogue, down to the grammar school, which confers a first degree on some half a dozen, and honorary titles on twice as many

er.

The transition from the state of our Colleges to the state of literature is so natural, that we shall introduce in this connexion a brief synopsis of the author's views on the latter subject. After glancing at the origin and influence of our higher seminaries of learning, and the kinds of literary productions for which we have been most distinguished, he proceeds to examine the discouragements to which our literature is exposed. Among these he notices the constant supply of the ablest new productions from Great Britain,-the want of wealth and leisure, the 'scattered position' of our population and the want of large towns,-the opposition of interest between publishing booksellers and our own authors, and a state of patronage not commensurate with our means. Each of these topics forms the subject of a series of judicious observations: we recommend to the particular consideration of our wealthier readers the following, made under the last head, which will probably strike them as new:

Patronage formerly meant an arrogant gratuity, bestowed by rank and wealth of the labours of genius, to gratify ostenta tion or secure fame, by having their names held up in a dedication. But the condi tion of authors is ameliorated; a dedication is now a mark of friendship, not of subserviency; the individual largess is changed into public contribution. The number of readers, from the wide diffosion of education, now contributes the most effective patronage. It is this kind of support which is wanting, not from de ficiency of means, but from want of consideration. There is many a person among us whose cellar is worth a thousand dol lars, but whose library would not bring a hundred-We have the ability to encour

aged literature, by buying books to the full extent, which is necessary to cherish our growing literature. A very few dollars a year would purchase a copy of every American work, and the money so employed is not thrown away; even if the purchaser does not read them, they will commonly sell for what they cost. It is a want of reflection on its advantages, that prevents many persons, who have a patriotic feeling for every thing that concerns the honour of their country, from this slight contribution; which paid by many, amounts to an ample aggregate. Persons who can easily afford the purchase, should feel something like shame at borrowing a book which they may obtain of any bookseller, and thus reward the talents of their countrymen. If the importance of this were fully understood, there are many more individuals than now practice it, who would give directions to their bookseller to send them a copy of every American work of merit, as soon as it appeared. Many scientific and learned men would then be encouraged to pursue labours, which are now too often unrewarded. pp. 163, 164.

After taking a survey of our present humble rank among the cultivators of learning, it affords some consolation to be able to anticipate, from the wide diffusion of the language we speak, the want of titular distinctions which obliges every man to achieve all that he possesses,'-the unfettered state of opinion among us, and the actual advances we have made within a few years, (on each of which topics the author dwells at some length,) a literary reputation which will graddually rise, and at length attain an equality with that of the proudest nations of the old world.

When Mr. T. looks forward with complacency to the period when "we shall have a national theatre," and "a race of actors who can personate our own manners and customs," he must excuse us, living as we do in a State where the laws enacted against theatres by the "narrow and bigoted spirit of the puritans" are still in full force, and where even the deliverers of a "Moral Lecture" would probably receive a message from the State's attorney before they would be able to deliver a second, if we hesitate to adopt his views, and express our fears Vol. 3.-No. VII.

47

that the increased influence of theatric exhibitions which he anticipates, would be attended with more injury to our morals than advantage to our literature or taste. Especially would a race of actors be the last class of persons whom we should wish to see employed, as Mr. T. recommends, in forming the elocution of those among our youth who are destined for the pulpit or the bar. We shall also be so puritanical as to claim a little more merciful treatment for our older divines, than he has been pleased to bestow upon them in the following paragraph, near the beginning of the same letter.

Next come sermons, religious controversy, and metaphysical religion, spread into bewildered subtleties, or abstruse, incomprehensible doctrines,-sad trash, of which hardly a single volume has now any value. This class of books has always, and does still, form the largest in our productions; but its relative magnitude is daily lessening, and its merit increasing. Polemical religion is not much to the taste gain but few readers and still fewer admiof the day; and a religious disputant can

rers. If a man is affected with this mania, the best cure for him, without taking the thousands of folios that crowd some of the theological libraries of Europe, would be to show him the collection of what has been done here; how little the cause of truth has been served by this kind of strife and how worthless are all these dingy vol. umes. pp. 148, 149.

If Mr. T. had spoken with more modesty and with a little discrimination on this subject, his readers would have been less apt to suspect that he has seen nothing but the names of the authors whose works he thus huddles into a single sentence of undistinguishing reprobation. We do not blame Mr. T. for knowing nothing on the subject of our controversial divinity; it is not to be expected that any one man should be familiar with every subject on which a Letter can be written. All we ask is, that he should let it alone.

The letter on "Agriculture," although it contains many sensible remarks, furnishes additional reason to suspect that the author's practical ac

quaintance with his subject does not always keep pace with the confidence of his decisions.-It is not a little amusing to observe the paternal solicitude with which many of the professional and mercantile characters in our large towns watch over the interests of agriculture, and their disinterested readiness to point out the errors of our yeomanry and furnish them with hints of improvement. The trader whom success has enabled to retire from business, and who begins to feel within him at length some stirrings of a spirit which seeketh not her own, or the lawyer who knows that he who lives by cultivating his forty acres of land has as much influeuce on a congressional election as the independent gentleman who occupies a part of the same block of buildings with himself, during his excursions through the country, observes through the windows of his coach many rods of fence which offend his taste, large tracts of pasture sadly overgrown with bushes, numerous fields which he is confident might have borne larger crops, cattle that he is sure might have been fatter, and houses that bear no comparison with his own in any one particular of neatness or good order. Perhaps he has been in foreign countries, and seen extensive regions which form one continued garden, or travelled whole days on productive tracts reclaimed from the dominion of the ocean. Or if not thus favoured, he has at least dipped into the works of Young and Sinclair, has read the reports of the Board of Agriculture, and has mastered the whole theory of draining bogs and drill ploughing. Agriculture now becomes with him a standing topic of conversation-in all companies except those humble ones with whom it is a bona fide occupation. He is made the orator of some neighbouring agricultural anniversary; and has the opportunity of descanting in a good humoured way on the points in which farmers and farmers' wives might do better than they do, and pointing out the various ways and means in which

they are to grow rich five times faster than they ever did before. They express their gratitude for his advice and instruction; but the better part of them probably never think of it again,-while the more credulous lose one or two crops in attempting to follow his directions, and then relapse into their former practices.

It is a standing topic of complaint with the theoretical patrons of agriculture, that our farmers overrun the soil, instead of cultivating it. We are far from being able to say whether Mr. T. ought to be ranked with this class; yet on the point just mentioned he indulges in a style of complaint worthy of the most philosophical theorist. After mentioning as one of the two great evils attending our agriculture, "the occupation of too much land, so that the labour applied to it can only produce a very imperfect tillage," he goes on to remark,

If two farmers were selected, who should possess about the same degree of industry, skill, and means for labour, and who should proceed in their cultivation on lands of the same quality, one of them stirring more surface than the other, I have no hesitation in believing that he who cultivated one-fifth or one-quarter less in quantity, would, besides having an equal harvest annually, find at the end of ten years that bis farm was worth double that of his competitor. The evil in question is so radical and extensive, that its bad consequences cannot be too often pointed out: though it is the most obvious, and has been most frequently remarked upon, it is still almost universal.—p. 236.

It seems to have escaped the writer's notice, that if this statement is worth any thing in regard to two farmers A and B, it is equally applicable to C who cultivates "a fifth or a quarter less" than B; and so on, ad infinitum. When we compare the merits of our system of tillage with that of Holland and some parts of England, the question is not whether a given surface might not be made to produce more than it does at present; but whether the increased product would be proportioned to the increas

ed labour and expence of cultivation. There is undoubtedly a certain proportion between the amount of labour and the extent of surface over which it is diffused, which will render the net profit a maximum. Whether our practical cultivators have or have not attained this proportion, is a question which can never be decided by such arguments as those employed by Mr. T. We are inclined to think that it is substantially attained. The farmer who improves a given number of acres, has it in his power to give them a higher or lower tillage, by employing a greater or less number of labourers. Some years he hires more than he finds on trial to " pay the way: " at others he hires fewer. Now it is impossible for any reasonings à priori to convince us that after the oscillations of a few years experience, he will not at last settle down at about the point where the profit is greatest. If hiring more men and raising his style of cultivation will increase his net returns, he will never need the suggestions of one who has acquired all his agricultural skill in his study, to prompt him to the change. Or if, with a given amount of labour, he finds that he has been tilling too many acres, he will spontaneously allow a part of his farm to become bush pasture or grow up to forest. The truth is, the style of cultivation which produces a maximum profit varies, in different countries, with the price of land and labour, and the density of the population. The peculiar condition of this country renders an imperfect tillage desirable, to all except the mere traveller and man of taste. The Chinese and the Dutch do not "overrun" land, because they cannot afford it. We can afford it; and have grown rich as a nation many times faster than we should have done, if the labours of our population had been employed in rendering any one corner of the country a garden. As our territory fills up with inhabitants, the agricultural habits of foreign nations

will be gradually and spontaneously. assumed; but nothing can be more preposterous than the attempt to force them prematurely upon us.*

While our author is confident that the farmers of New England cultivate too much land, he speaks in strong terms of the importance of draining our bogs and dyking our salt marshes. We are perfectly willing that the philosophical agriculturalist, whose property in the soil has been hitherto confined to the contents of a dozen flower pots, should take possession of our sunken grounds, and expend his superfluous capital on draining and dyking. He may employ his money in this way with as much advantage to the public, as on splendid equipages, and expensive country seats. But to recommend this course, (unless in a few cases which unite every favourable circumstance,) to those who have just been told that they have much more land already drained to their hands by nature than they ought to till, is offering advice, the consistency of which we fear they will be too dull to comprehend.

The other great obstacle to the improvement of our agriculture Mr. T. finds in "the irregularities of our climates." The want of more uniformity in our successive seasons is doubtless one of the natural disadvantages under which we labour; but it scarcely deserved to be introduced in this connexion, more than the want of a richer soil, or a lower latitude. We had never before heard that the great danger which the cultivator of Indian corn has to encounter is from "a frost in June"; and we suspect that his scheme for remedying it, that of rearing the plants in hotbeds, and then transplanting them,―will be re

* It will be obvious that in these remarks there is no intention to undervalue those improvements in agriculture (of which there are doubtless many yet to be introduced) which render a given amount of labour more productive. It is only maintained, that in the present state of our country, the attempt to confine a given amount of labour to a smaller number

of acres is not one of these improvements.

ceived with a smile by most of his country readers. Such advice as this, and the hint given a few pages afterwards, that our farmers have all been under a mistake in driving their oxen with whips, while "the goad is the true instrument," should have been spared, unless our author was willing to draw from those to whom they are addressed, the hint in reply-ne sutor ultra crepidam.

These remarks were not beguu with any intention of following Mr. T. over the whole, or more than a very small part of the ground which his Letters embrace. We shall omit several topics which it was our original intention to notice, and reserve the remainder of our limits for the one in which, as Christian spectators, we must necessarily feel the deepest interest. The longest letter in the series, with the exception of one, is devoted to the past and present state of religion in New England. It begins It begins with the religious character of the first settlers, as those from whom all the succeeding generations have taken their form and colouring. The following delineation of their character is commenced with the same breath in which the author assures his readers that he is unbiassed by any sectarian prejudice.

The consideration of the state of religion here is attended with peculiar interest, since the first colonists, driven by persecution to seek a shelter for their principles, crossed the ocean to maintain them, and laid the foundations of this state, as a religious commonwealth. They acted in the spirit, and considered themselves as living under the sway, of a theocracy; and this was accompanied with the highest degree of zeal and intolerance in conduct, purity of manners, austerity in discipline, and the severest tenets of faith. They were rigid Calvinists in belief; puritans in regard to all the amusements of the world; obstinate dissenters from all

ceremonies in worship; jealous independents of all eclesiastical government, and most devout abhorrers of every other sect. The cruel character and appalling ferocity of this religious creed, never were better justified and strengthened by circumstanees. Men night naturally believe in a system, which transformed that Deity, who is the fountain of mercy and God of

all grace, into a being of mysterious vengeance and cruelty; when they found morality and devoted to religion, called themselves, though living in the strictest upon to endure the greatest sufferings, exposed to an untried climate and bowling wilderness, the coil of the rattlesnake at

their heels, and the tomahawk of the sav age at their heads.

It was not a sudden impulse, but a long course of preparation, that drove them to cross the Atlantic; the process was gradual that hardened their feelings to every thing but their religious attachments, and made them prefer those to every other consideration. They were as ready to suffer martyrdom as to inflict it; the time indeed had gone by when the refractory were condemned to the flames in this world. But martyrdom, according to the fashion of the day-proscription, impris< onment and exile--they first suffered themselves, and then inflicted on others; they were the victims of intolerance and ecclesiastical tyranny; and the moment it was in their power exercised both. Stimula ted as they believed by the love of God in both cases, they endured, and they made others endure from the closest convictions of conscience; having sacrificed for tune, friends tune, friends and country, in support of their principles, any permission to differ would bave been considered a criminal levity and inconsistency. Persecution was to them a lesson, not of charity, but of perseverance, and the system they adop ted was as rigid and exclusive, as that from which they had fled.—pp. 76, 78.

It will be sufficiently evident by this time, that however unbiassed our author may be by sectarian prejudice theory it is difficult to feel any prejuagainst Unitarians, "against whose dice" while "their practice embraces every virtue," or against "the mild and benevolent Friends of our times," -or against the Roman Catholic religion, which, if it could get rid of some of its incumbrances, "many protestants would approach without disgust," there is one sect which even his expansive charity cannot encircle. Of Calvinism, he is clearly a "most devout abhorrer": 'tis "ob

ject of his implacable disgust." Not only is the system one" of cruel character and appalling ferocity," "which transforms the Deity into a being of mysterious vengeance and cruelty," but it is asserted of those who "practically" embrace it, that "their rancorous ambition makes them the tyrants

« IndietroContinua »