913
Qese
UC-NRLF
B 3 sm SSh
t¥^
w
LECTURES
PXUTXBKD BSrOUl THB
MERCANTILE LIBRARY
ASSOCIATION,
CLINTON-HALL.
AMERICAN CRITICISM ON AMERICAN LITERATURE
BT
EDWARD S. GOULD, ESQ.,
/''
December 29, 1835.
THE BENEFITS AND INFLUENCES OF COMMERCE:
BY
JOHN H. OOURLIE, ESQ.,
Janiunr 5, 1636.
JJEW.YORK:.
FRnrrsD for thb mercantilb library association.
1836.
lVt.t41Sow.ltN.
Extract from the Minutes of the MercarUile Library Association,
January 9, 1836.
Resolved — That the thanki of the Mercantile Library Association b«
tendered to Edward S. Gocld and Johr H. Gocrlie, for the very able
and instractive Lectures delivered by them before its members and friends;
and that the Secretary be directed to request their permission to publish
those Lectures, as an additional (gratification to that we already experience
at being enabled to claim them as members of our A^Mciation.
New-York, Jan. 21, 1836.
Sir,
I am much gratified with the approbation of my Lecture, expressed
by the Board of Directors of the Mercantile Library Association.
The publication of this Lecture was not originally contemplated or in-
tended. 1 was, and am, aware that its tenor and strictures must neces-
sarily give offence to some, and probably induce personal replies; for I
have lived long enough to know, that nothing in criticism is so offensive to
the parties interested— as truth. I was, however, by the solicitation of my
particular friend, the Editor of the Literary and Theological Review, in-
duced to consent to his publishing the Lecture in his March number; and
since the question of publicity is thus decided, I can of course have no
hesitation in complying with the request of your Directors.
You will oblige me by expressing to them the pleasure and the pride I
feel in acknowledging the compliment they have accorded to me; and I
beg that they will receive assurances of my personal regard, together with
my best wishes for the prosperity of the flourishing institution now under
their charge.
I am, sir, yours truly,
EDWARD S. GOULD.
Tff the Secretary of the M. L. Association.
New- York, Jan. 26, 1836.
OIR,
I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communica-
tion, requesung a copy of my Lecture delivered before the members of the
MercanUle Library Association for publication, and also a copy of the Re-
«)lut.ons passed by the Board of Directors in reference to the same
I feel my^lf flattered by this evidence of their approbation, and .haU
llhe'ir^*!^'"' opportunity of preparing . copy of my Lecture to be at
I beg leave to present, through, you my best wishes for their iodiTida»I
bappineM and the prosperity of their most excellent instiluUon.
Your obedient servuit,
JOHN H. GOURUE.
To tk» SecreUuy iff th4 M. L, JUsodaiUm.
004
LECTURE I.
BY EDWARD 8. GOULD.
AMERICAN CRITICISM
Ol»
AMERICAN LITERATURE.
The title of " American Criticism on American Litera-
ture^ has been chosen for the following remarks, because it
is more concise than any other that suggested itself: but, to
ensure a distinct understanding, at the commencement, of
what is proposed, it may be well to explain, that the term
** American Literature,** in this instance, refers exclusively
to that part of our Polite Literature generally designated as
*• fictitious writings ;** and that the criticisms on the various
works of that character, as they appear in our daily and
weekly papers, monthly magazines, and quarterly reviews,
will be the principal subject of discussion.
The Polite Literature of America has thus far been pro-
lific beyond all precedent in other countries— beyond all ex-
pectation in our own. Within the short period of fifty years,
it has increased, firom a few straggling volumes, to the full
compass of a National Library. It already embraces works
in every department of letters, and has attained an excel-
lence and a celebrity which no other people, of age and ad-
vantages similar to our own, have equalled. Here, as in
every chapter of our country's history, may be read the proof
2
o AMXBiCAN cnmcisM
of our unparalleled national growth ; and perhaps this is the
only instance in which there is reason to fear that our pro-
gress is too rapid, and our growth unsound.
It is true that, in many departments of abstract science,
as well as in Theology, in Law, in Medicine and Surgery,
in Oratory, and in the Mechanical Arts, we have attained a
degree of excellence that, probably, is not surpassed by any
people under the sun. But in Polite Literature, our Ameri-
can writers have much to accomplish ere they can stand side
by side with the gifted authors of older climes, who draw
their first breath in the very groves of the Academy, and
inhale inspiration with every breeze that sweeps over the
tombs of the immortal dead. I would not, however, by such
an allusion, detract one iota from the actual merits of our
own writers •, nor imply, that the distance between our na-
tional literature and that of other countries is impassable.
I would, rather, exult in tlie belief that our writers have al-
ready won laurels of enduring freshness and beauty ; that,
whatever may be our comparative deficiencies, our career
in Polite Literature is, now, no more an experiment than the
principles and power of the Constitution which cements our
Union together ; and, that our literary immortality is now no
more a matter of contingency, than the question whether our
country is rapidly advancing to the highest pitch of national
grandeur.
In fact, our having attained excellence in both Literature
and the Fine Arts, is not, and cannot be a subject of doubt ;
but an inquiry must necessarily arise as to the degree of that
excellence, and the answer involves high interests, and re-
quires great consideration.
To a certain extent, our improvement in those depart-
ments may have kept pace with our national prosperity ;
but there is a point where (for various reasons) mental acqui-
sition ceases to proceed with the same rapidity as mere
physical growth — and at that point we have some time since
ON AMERICAN LITERATURE. '7
arrived. For while our country has advanced far toward
the summit of physical eminence and power, she is yet, as
regards Literature and the Arts, far below the highest at-
tainable elevation of fame. A mere reference to names will
sustain this assertion. We have sculptors, painters, novel-
ists, and poets ; but we have not a Canova, a Raphael, a
Scott, or a Shakspeare. Nay, we not only have them
not, but the incidental repetition of their very names seems
to send a chill of discouragement and despair through the
mind, even when excited by its wildest hopes and boldest
imaginings.
But, although such discouragement is the natural conse-
quence of a first impression, it has no foundation in reason.
The repetition of the names of *' the mighty dead" ought to
inspire ambition, rather than produce despondency. Emu-
lation is the appropriate result of musing over the monu-
ments of by-gone greatness : but if we can call up the recol-
lection of what has been, only to be alarmed and intimidated
at the grandeur of the apparition, we had much better forget
that " such things were." There are, in truth, neither moral
nor physical causes to prevent, though, unhappily, there may
be some to delay, our attaining that degree of eminence in
Literature and the Arts which other and older nations enjoy ;
and a consideration of the causes of such delay, so far as they
are identified with the character of our National Criticism, is
the chief object of the present remarks.
It may be stated, in general terms, that the prominent
obstacles to our more rapid advancement in letters are —
An unfortunate propensity, on the part of the public, to
admire indiscriminately, and with little qualification, every
thing American ; and
The want of an effective, and independent censorship in
the department of our Literary Reviews.
It b possible that, in times past, Americans deferred too
much to the literature of the mother country. It may be
9^ ASnSRICAIf CRITICISM
true, that we once dared not admire a book of d<Hne8tie ori-
gin, until an imported opinion favourably preceded its intro-
duction to its native country. It mat/t even, be true, (and it
may also be doubted,) that the boisterous and arrogant de-
nunciation of all deference to foreign talents and opinions,
which has recently been trumpeted among us by parties per-
sonally interested, was in some measure called for and de-
served. But that day has gone by — American writers are
just now in no danger of neglect, or of wasting their sweet-
ness on the desert air. They have no longer to contend
with the apathy or incredulity of their countrymen, as touch-
ing their fame and their ability : they have only to scribble
over a given number of quires, and their reputation is estab-
lished. The public have fallen into that comfortable posi-
tion assigned to them by Sheridan ; they " do not undergo
the fatigue of judging for themselves." They have an opin-
ion, certainly ; and it is of sufficient potency to decide the
fate of a whole generation of authors : but, under the exist-
ing circumstances, it is most unfortunate that this opinion is
originated and controlled by our Literary Reviews.
If these Reviews could happen to be strictly intelligent, dis-
criminating, and impartial, our present subjection to them were
the most propitious infliction that we could possibly sustain {
for human taste is too incorrigibly lawless, to be governed
on republican principles. If it be true, in political science,
that many communities are either too fickle, or too depraved
to enjoy rational liberty, without abusing it, and they there-
fore must be ruled with a rod of iron ; equally true is it that
the public taste, in all communities, is too erratic to be
trusted in any other guardianship, than the stem despotism
of a literary tribunal. And the moment that such a tribunal
is founded, and directed on the principles of truth and impar-
tiality, the desideratum, in that department, is realized.
Should this be deemed an undeserved reproach on the
public taste, an example from past days is at hand, which
ON AHERICAJf LITSRATURE.
fully justifies it. The ever memorable Della Cruscan
mania, in the time of Wiluam Gifford, is a striking instance
of the extravagance and folly into which the public taste, in
an enlightened community, may degenerate, when tliat taste
comes under the detestable influence of Fashion^ and is un-
checked by the Spartan firmness and valour of sound criti-
cism. We can also learn from that astounding precedent
the danger of hcense to authors, as well as of forbearance on
the part of their legitimate monitors ; and we should do well
to remember, that although the same tolerance on the part of
the public, and the same apathy and neglect on the part of
the Reviewers, will always tend to the same disastrous
results ; there may not always be found a Gippord to correct
them.
Whether we are to have a Della Cruscan age of our own,
it is not easy to say ; but it is certain that we shall not escape
such disgrace through the present exertions of our Critics.
The encroachment of false taste is, apparently, the least of
their concern ; and the success of any innovation, however
monstrous, would seem to be a matter in which they take no
interest At least, it is true that, as a body, they evince no
interest in the welfare of our Literature, by expending time
or talent in its revision. Their criticisms are, for the most
part, superficial in every particular. They very seldom de-
scend to the analysis of merit and demerit, in detail. They
give no reasons why this is pronounced excellent ; or that,
execrable. They deal chiefly in general terms, and hyper-
bole ; seize some one prominent feature, and make that the
criterion for their verdict ; and, by means of extracts, fill up
a large space with the sentiments of the author, which should
be occupied by their own.*
• It may b« added to thia enumeration of the qualitiea of contfimpomy crit-
ics, that some of them display a brilliancy, an acuteneaa, and an ori^nality
worthy <rf' all praiiM, in melapnorical compariaont a atyle of puflBng, .Which la
more oriet yet more comprehsnsive. than any other. After all epitheta fail, th«
•nthonmon rcTiew ia Munmahly oubbed tiu American iUmtms, tiu Ariuriam,
10 . AMERICAN CRITICnM
It ii, at first Bight, inexplicable, that they who, by tacit
oonient, occupy the post of guardians of the public taste, and
the welfare of Literature, should so far neglect their high
trust, and betray the confidence reposed in them ; but some
of the causes of their delinquency may easily be explained.
I. In the first place, whoever writes or publishes a book,
Bends copies, with his compliments, to the several editors.
This, in many cases, puts an end to fault-finding, at least ;
and, as a general rule, the editor must, in common courtesy,
either give a favourable notice, or announce the title of the
book in capitals, state who has it for sale, and add, that " want
of room" excludes any remarks for to-day, or, for this num-
ber. This sort of practical bribery was harmless enough,
when it was confined to some new invention in mechanical
art ; a basket of gooseberries, or a mammoth-turnip. If an
editor received something of this kind, and chose to pay for
it in compliments, it wns '• a fair business transaction," and
no one was essentially injured or deceived by it. But when,
in accordance to the same plan, the works of genius and
imagination are substituted for the products of vegetable
growth, or mechanical ingenuity, and the compliments thet/
elicit go forth to the world as disinterested opinions, and are
suffered to ingraft corruption on the public taste, the merits
of the custom are changed, and its evils are painfully ap-
parent
II. In the second place, it is no uncommon thing for an
author or publisher to employ a literary friend to prepare an
assortment of impartial und discriminating articles on a new
book. These, some editors will always publish, because
they are unwilling to disoblige the applicant ; or because
they are thus saved the trouble of writing themselves ; or
because they take no interest in the matter whatever. Never-
Ooldtmith, the American Addison, &c. When we come to be posseescd of an
AmtaicAN Milton, and an Ameikcan Shakspxare, (events not far distant, if
analogy proves any thing.) we shall probably ceaae to make progress in literary
•xcellence, from sheer lack of eompetUionl
ON AMERICAX LITERATURE. 11
theless, as such articles go abroad with the editor's sanc-
tion, they carry with them his influence in favour of a parti-
cular book ; although they were written under the eye, and
perhaps at the dictation, of the author they applaud I It is
needless to add, that such reviews give to the world a very
correct notion of the merits of a book.
III. A third cause — and one which has influence with
some of the few Critics who really seem to feel interested in
the prosperity of our National Literature — is to be found in a
sincere disposition to encourage the growth of native genius ;
combined with a fear of checking that growth by what they
call premature, but what would be, in fact, deserved, severity.
That is to say, a Critic will praise a book highly, which he well
knows is unworthy of such praise, in order to encourage its
writer. This is an instance of the best of motives, accom-
panied by the worst of judgment. No permanent benefit can
accrue to Literature, nor to any thing else, by means of a
system of deception, and which has no better plea than expe-
diency. That which cannot be supported by truth, cannot
long be sustained by any means whatever. But, apart from
that moral vacillation which suppresses truth, for the purpose
of encouragement to native genius, the plan is absurd on
philosophical principles. The praise bestowed, indiscrimi-
nately, on writers of great merit, and little merit, and no merit,
with a view to encourage whatever of genius exists in the
mass ; fails entirely in its object, and ceases to be encourage-
ment, from the very fact of its being general. If the design
"were to encourage blockheads, the plan is well devised ; but
genius is usually too selfish and too jealous to relish a parti-
tion of its exclusive rights ; and is disgusted, not encouraged,
by being placed on a par with the multitude. The school
master, who flogged all around the class, to ensure the pun-
ishment of one whom he could not individually detect ; dis-
played the same sagacity as the critic who praises all to the
very extent of his power, lest some one deserving of praise
12 AMEIUCAll CRinCtSlf
should happ«i to be omitted. In either case, the moral effect
of the reward is entirely lost
IV. Another cause is an apprehension, on the part of
many Editors, that the public will not sustain them in se-
vere criticism on American productions. This is an erro-
neous view of the case, in every sense. In the first place, it
is the province and the duty of a critic, to direct the public
taste, and not to be governed by it : and if he has talent and
honesty, ho can accomplish this duty ; and if he has not tal-
ent and honesty, he has mistaken his vocation. In the
second place, it is absurd to imagine that what has never yet
occurred m the literary history of any other country, is likely
now to occur in this. And in the third place, it will be early
enough for editors to plead this excuse, when, by experi-
ence, they have proved its validity. Besides, where is our
boasted freedom of discussion and liberty of the press, if,
even on literary questions, the opinions of an editor are to
be overawed by the denunciation of his subscribers ? To
avoid misapprehension, however, it may be well to say, that
severity, as an abstract quality, is of no benefit to Criticism :
if not deserved, or not applied with discrimination, it is just
as false and contemptible as the opposite extreme. In the
practice of unwarranted severity, an Editor may very pro-
perly fear tliat the public will not sustain him.
V. Again, it is not always agreeable to the private
feelings of Editors or Critics, to speak freely of the faults of a
living writer, whom they often meet personally, and per-
haps personally respect : and here the ceaseless strain of
panegyric finds another cause of continuance. The Critic has
not the independence to advocate the welfare of Literature
on its own merits ; but rather sufiers himself to be blind-
ed to the truth that his social and professional duties are
entirely distinct from each other ; and that the author and the
man, in a literary point of view, are by no means identical.
It must be acknowledged, that the duty, in the case sup-
ON AMERICAN LITERATURE. 13
posed, is perplexing and painful — and so it may be painful
to a judge, when he is required to pass sentence on a crimi-
nal, who was his friend ; but, nevertheless, whoever takes
upon himself the office of criticism, takes upon himself, at
the same time, certain duties and obligations which he can-
not honourably or honestly disregard ; and it is too late for
him to be governed by his feelings, after those duties are
once fully assumed. If Critics are to be influenced by per-
sonal considerations, either for or against the authors they
review, then Criticism is all a farce, and had better be abol-
lished by acclamation.
VI. Another cause is, that happy coincidence of interests,
which induces many of our popular novelists and poets to
become contributors to sundry of the papers and magazines.
It certainly is right and proper that these writers should la-
bour to elevate the character of our Periodical Literature ;
and it certainly would be wrong and highly improper for
the editors of such periodicals to speak ill of their best friends.
Besides, there is great advantage to be gained by rearing
a man's monument, as well as in writing his biography,
while he yet breathes. He is thereby enabled to judge of his
own epitaph ; and reward the sculptor for registering qualities,
the existence of which might otherwise never have been
suspected — and which, when recorded^ slumber as coldly in
the soul as on the marble.
YIL The last cause that will now be considered, is to
be found in the fact, that the production of sound and genu-
ine Criticism, like that of genuine poetry, or any other kind
of writing in its purity, requii'es much more labour, much more
study, and much more talent — than that of its spurious sub-
stitute. And assuming (what is clearly proved by results)
that the majority of our Critics regard their labour as drudg-
ery, and its accomplishment as their chief object ; assuming
that they have no higher interest in their professional duties,
than a desire to get through with them, regardless of the ten-
3
:14 AMERICAM CIUTICI8M
dericy wefiect of the perfcrmance ; it is obvious that their in*
ducements to write at all are very slight, and are all on the
side of errour and corruption — and it is not strange that
their Criticisms are tainted with both.
As a general rule, (for there are honourable exceptions,)
tney whose business it is to do Criticism, seem really not to
be aware of the dignity and importance of their vocation,
nor of the capabilities of the style of writmg belonging to it.
And instead of considering what they owe to the public ; or
the value of their services, (when properly rendered,) both to
the public, and to the cause of Literature, they are glad of
an opportunity to shuffle off their task on literary friends,
who may, or not, be qualified to perform it. They seem,
indeed, to entertain the opinion that the greater part of what
is called Criticism, may be as well despatched by apprentices,
as by master workmen; and that a man requires no more
brains to write a suitable Review, than an intelligible adver-
tisement, of a literary work. But, whatever these Critics
may think, or seem to think, it is still incontrovertibly true,
that Criticism is itself a high department of Literature, and
capable of displaying a degree of intellectual power equal
to almost any kind of writing whatever. Johnson's Re-
view of Milton may, perhaps, be cited as a proof of the
perfection to which Criticism may attain, and of the talent
it may embody. It is an illustrious specimen of impartial
analysis both of the defects and the beauties of an author ;
and it transmits to the reader in distant ages the privilege
of studying that great master of verse with the comprehen-
sive intelligence and the discipUned judgment of Johnson's
gigantic mind. On the other hand, Gifford'h Baviad and
McBviad will ever endure as terrible examples of the Criti-
cism which unmasks folly, and consigns its authors to an
immortaUty of shame. And, if our Critics would condescend
to study and meditate on these noble specimens of the art,
they would, by the mere force of example, be compelled to
ON AMERICAN LITERATURE. 15
adopt a tone of sentiments and language worthy of Ameri-
can Reviewers.
The causes to which I have imputed the delinquency of
the majority of American Critics, and the present character
of their Reviews, have now been sufficiently explained to
show, that, at least, those Reviews are written under very
unfavourable influences ; and it is no great extent of pre-
sumption to say, that while they continue to be thus written,
their being utterly euid universally in errour, is almost a
matter of course.
It is now time to turn from causes to effects, and examine
a little more closely into the characteristics of American
Criticism, as it is. And, as an auxiliary to the research, it
will be useful to read the following extract from Paul
Clifford.
** 'Criticism is a great science — a very great science I
It may be divided into three branches, viz. to tickle^ to
slash, and to plaster. In each of these three, I believe, with-
out vanity, I am a profound adept ! I will initiate you into
all. Your labours shall begin this very evening. I have
three works on my table, which must be despatched by to-
morrow night. I will take the most arduous, and aban-
don to you the others. The three cbnsist of a Romance,
an Epic, in twelve books, and an Inquiry into the Human
Mind, in three volumes. I will tickle the Romance ; and
you, Paul, shall, this very evening, plaster the Epic, and slash
the Inquiry !'
** • Heavens, Mr. Mac Crawler P cried Paul, in great
consternation, * what do you mean ? I should not be able to
read an Epic in twelve books ; and I should fall asleep ovef
the first page of the Inquiry. I pray you, sir, leave me the
Romance, and take the others under your own protection.'
•* * No, young gentleman 1* said the critic, solemnly : ^ the
Romance must be tickled ; and it is not given to raw begin*
ners, to conquer that great mystery of our Science.' '
16 AMERICAN CRITICISM '
" * Before we proceed further/ replied Paul, * explain the
three branches of this Science.'
"'Listen, then!* rejoined Mac Grawler. * To sUish^ is,
speaking grammatically, to employ the accusative, or ac-
cusing case ; you must cut up your book right and left, top
and bottom, root and branch. To plaster^ is to employ the
dative, or giving case ; and you must bestow on the work
all the superlatives in the language. You must lay on your
praise thick and thin, and not leave a crevice untroweled.
But to tickle, sir, is a comprehensive business ! It comprises
all the infinite varieties that fill the interval between slashing
and plastering. This is the nicety of the art, and you can
acquire it only by practice. A few examples will suffice to
give you an idea of its delicacy.
* We will begin with the encouraging tickle.
' Although this work is full of faults, though the characters
are unnatural, the plot utterly improbable, the thoughts hack-
nied, and the style ungrammatical, yet we would, by no
means, discourage the author from proceeding ; and in the
meanwhile, we confidently recommend his work to the at'
tention of the reading public,
* Take, now, the advising tickle,
* T%ere is a good deal of merit in these little volumes,
although we must regret the evident haste with which they
were written. The author might do better. We recommend
to him a study of the best writers : — then conclude by a
Latin quotation, which you may take from one of the mottos
in the Spectator.
* There is a great variety of other tickles: the familiar f
the vulgar; the polite; the good-natured ; the bitter; but,
in general, all tickles are meant to mean one or the other
of these things, viz. This book would be exceedingly good,
if it were not exceedingly bad : or, T%is book would be ex-
ceedingly bad, if it were not exceedingly good.
' There is another grand difficulty attendant on this class
ON AMERICAN LITERATURE. 17
of Criticism ; — it is generally requisite to read a few pages of
the work before you begin, because we seldom tickle^ with-
out giving extracts ; and it requires some judgment to make
the extracts and context agree. But when you slash or
plaster, you need neither read, nor extract. When you
slash, it is better, in general, to conclude with this :
* After what we have said, it is unnecessary to add, thai
we cannot offend the taste of our readers, by any quotations
from this execrable trash.
* And when you plaster, wind up with saying,
' We regret that our limits will not allow us to give any
extract, from this wonderful and unHvalled work : we must
refer our readers to the book itself.' "
The satire of this sketch is so broad, tliat it really seems
like caricature ; yet the drawing is much nearer to life
than our critics will be likely to acknowledge. It may be,
indeed, that they do not avow their principles as ingenuously
as Peter Mac Grawler; but they are equally obnoxious to
the charge of giving currency to false doctrine in Literature,
and of misleading those who rely on their published opinions.
If this accusation be deemed unfair, or ill-founded, the
obvious inference from the foUovdng fact will fully sustain it.
Throughout the entire range of the current Re-
views OP American Books, nine out of ten are highly
COMMENDATORY Reviews. They are made up, in general,
of that unqualified and indiscriminate praise which Mac
Grawler denominates plastering ; they are occasionally va-
ried by the various modes of tickling ; they are very seldom
interrupted by the process of slashing ; and never, unless as
exceptions to the general rule, do they contain the elements
of sound and impartial criticism. It does, indeed, sometimes
happen that, in the course of a review, trifling faults are de-
signated ; but it is obvious that this is done, either for a show
of impartiality, or to set the praise in bolder relief ; for the
faults, thus specified, are usually explained away and apo-
logized for before the article is concluded.
IS AMCRIC.^}f ciirncnM
Now is it to be supposed, on any rational principle of
estimation, that among the never-ending scores of American
writers, at the present day, nine out of ten do really deserve
the embalming of periodical and unqualified praise ? Is it to
be believed, that nine out of ten do really merit a niche in
our (future) Pantheon ? or, do really win a literary immor-
tality? If they do deserve such boundless commendation
and reward, then, verily, the age we live in is as far before
the Augustan ages of Great Britain and of Rome, as thei/
were in advance of the barbarism of primitive Rome, and
the darkness of feudal Europe. But, that our Literature is not
thus in advance of the civilized world, and, therefore, that
the Criticism which (practically) assigns such a position to it
is unsound and deceptive, I shall now attempt to prove by
the argument embraced in the following syllogism.
L The most distinguished writers of Great Britain, in the
present age, are essentially superior to the most distinguished
writers of America,
II. The most distinguished writers of Great Britain have
never received from the British Critics a greater amount of
unqualified praise, and high panegyric, than the most distin-
guished writers of America have received from the American
Critics,
III. It follows, then, either that the British Critics praise
their writers far too little ; or, that the American Critics praise
their writers far too much.
Taking these three propositions in their order, it must first
be shown, that the most distinguished writers of Great Bri-
tain are essentially superior to the most distinguished writers
of America.
It will bo obvious to all, that the only way of approach-
ing this point is through the medium of individual compari-
son : and as such comparison is called for by the very nature
of the argument, I trust that the unpopular experiment of
attaching a lower estimate to American authors than our
own Critics are wont to do, will at least escape the imputa-
ON AMERICAN LITERATURE. 19
tion of unworthy motives. I would say, further, that as this
whole discussion is on the subject of American Criticism, and
not (unless incidentally) of American Literature, it would be
equally intrusive and tedious to attempt here an analysis of
the individual merit of foreign and native writers : the ut-
most that the case requires, or of which it admits, is a pass-
ing remark on each of those who will now be designated —
without intentional injustice to any one omitted — as the most
eminent contemporary writers in the two countries respec-
tively* ' V' "•
Great Britain, then, has produced Scott, Bulwer, James,
Marry ATT, D'Israeli: — Byron, Campbell, Montgomery,
Wordsworth, Coleridge : — Hannah More, Mrs. Sher-
wood, Miss Edgeworth, Joanna Bailey, and Mrs. He-
mans.
And, to vie with this brilliant galaxy, we have Irving,
Cooper, Paulding, Brown, Bird, Simms, Kennedy : —
Dana, Draiie, Halleck, Bryant, Percival, Pinkney : —
Miss Sedgwick, and Miss H. F. Gk)ULD.*
Is it possible for a community, entertaining impartial
opinions, to concur in the belief that these American wri-
ters possess ability and talents equal to their distinguished
contemporaries across the Atlantic? An opinion founded
on the principle of considerations and allowances — an opinion
influenced by the comparative age and opportunities of the
two countries, is not the opinion challenged, or that under
discussion. The tone of our Reviews is unqualified by any
proviso ; their tone is absolute, and without any reserve for
a deficiency of advantages on our part : and therefore this
investigation and comparison, having been called forth by
the tone and character of those Reviews, must be pursued,
also, without qualification. In this sense, the question is
• The coincidenc* otname* might lead some to suppose thai the writer i«
here evincing the partialily of relationship, and this note is introduced merely to
disprove such a supposition. Miss Gould's acknowledged talents are the only,
•ud th« ufficieaireMoo for her being placed among our wiuQeot autaon.
80 AMERICAN CRITICISM
proposed and repeated, Do our American writer* possess
ability and talents equal to their distinguished contempora-
ries across the Atlantic ?
The question is asked in a spirit of fairness, and with no
shadow of intention to disparage the brilliancy of that talent,
which we are all proud to call American. The question is
asked argumentatively, and dispassionately; and with no
other object than properly to follow out the investigation,
and ascertain whether we, as a people, do over-estimate
the talents we possess ; and, by such over-estimate, deceive
ourselves, and mislead those gifted ones among us, who have
already won, for themselves, and for their country, imper-
ishable renown. Let us render to them all the homage they
have deserved : but let us, also, make that desert the strict
rule and measure of that homage.
Walter Scott, by universal consent— I say universal^
for in my life I have heard but two dissenting voices — Wal-
ter Scott, by universal consent is the monarch and master
of modern fiction. It is true, the monstrous assumption has
been in two instances circulated among us, that he who is
called the American Walter Scott, is the full-grown rival —
the successful competitor — the equal, at least, of his illus-
trious prototype 1 1 But as that assumption has been patron-
ized by a distressingly minute minority of Americans — and
Americans, certainly, are most interested in according to
Cooper all the honour he really deserves — it is manifest
that the comparison, thus far, is immensely in favour of
Groat Britain.
BuLWER, as a novelist, must be ranked next to Scott, in
the scale of intellectual power ; and although his genius has
been perverted by his immorality, his works must endure
for centuries yet to come. Genius is of itself, and necessa-
rily, immortal. Its fires will irradiate, and its spirit will
embalm the musings and the fame of its possessor : but, in
the words of his own beautiful simile, the fame of Bulwer
ON AMERICAN LITER ATCRE. 21
will fling its brightness down the long vista ot ages, partly
by reason of the errours and imperfections of the character
whence it emanates.*
The second American novelist is Paulding, and he is
extensively and deservedly honoured as such. His fame,
like Cooper's, is widely spread ; and his talents, like Ck)OP-
er's, are universally admired : but the placing of his genius
and ability on a level with Bulwer's, is what was probably
never yet attempted, nor regarded as among possibilities.
The writings of James, Marryat, and D'Israeli, have
gained universal, though various, popularity. Any one of the
three authors has sufficient talent to confer lasting distinction
on the land of his birth ; and, in the absence of still greater
lights, would brilliantly illuminate the literary firmament. .
On the other hand, great praise must, and assuredly will»
be awarded to Brown, Bird, Simms, and Kennedy ; but the
comparison, nevertheless, cannot result to their advantage.
In poetry, we have Dana, Drake, Halleck, Bryant
Percival, Pinkney, and Miss H. F. Gould. Proud names
they are; and some of them, perhaps, immortalized in
Song. Yet, what a contrast must we all acknowledge
when we turn to Byron, Scott, Campbell, Montgomery,
Wordsworth, Coleridge, Joanna Bailey, and Mrs. Hb-
MANS !
Great Britain has produced Hannah More, Mrs. Sher-
wood, and Miss Edgeworth : a combination of female
genius and greatness, such as the world never before saw.
Their writings have done more to elevate the female
character — to ennoble the cause of Letters- — and to give an
• " There ifl one circumstance that should diminish our respect for renown.
Errours of life, as well as foibles of character, are often the real enhancers of c«-
lebrity. Without his errours, I doubt whether Hknhi Qcatrb would have be-
come the idol of & people. How miDf Whartons has the world known, wh<^
dephv»l of their frailues, had been inglorious 1 The light that you so admir*,
reaches you through the distance of time, only on account yf the angles and un-
•reiuieM of ibe body wbenoa it emanates. Were the surfico oi the mooa
■mootb, it would be inruible.'*— Et;aBiia Aiam.
, 4
22 . AMERICAN CRITICISM
undying reputation to the land of their nativity, than the
combined literary works of all the other females lo whom
Great Britain has given birth.
To attempt a comparison between these remarkable
women, and the authoress of Hope Leslie, would be mo*
tual injustice. We take pride in the renown which Hope
Leslie has secured to our countrywoman ; and the more
especially, because its writer is the only daughter which Fame
has vouchsafed to our family compact of novelists. But we
should value the reputation she has acquired too highly to
contrast it with the pre-eminent brilliancy which irradiates the
names of More, Sherwood, and Edoeworth.
One writer we have, wlio is unrivalled on his own pecu-
liar field of enduring renown. The richness of his invention,
the purity of his language, and the singular versatility of his
genius, have conspired to render him emphatically the favour-
ite of his countrymen. And while we have exulted in the
production, England has well prided herself on the tem-
porary adoption, of WAMiiiNCiToiy Iuvino.
Hero, then, let the comparison cease ; and what is its
result ? There is neither presumption nor risk of contra-
diction in asserting, that its result is the establishing of the
first proposition : — that, T%e most distinguished writers of
Great Britain^ are essentially/ superior to the most distin-
guished writers of America.
The second proposition of the argument, and that
next to be considered, is this : The most distinguished writers
of Great Britain have never received from, the British Critics
a greater amount of unqualified praise, and high panegyric^
than the most distinguished writers of America have received
from the American Critics.
The proof of this proposition is the simplest imaginable.
The dictionary, the arithmetic, and the American Reviews,
furnish all the requisite testimony. The dictionary contains
ON AMERICAJT LITfiRATVRB. 23
" all the superlatives in the language ;" the arithmetic shows
the greatest number of combinations of which they are ca-
pable; and the Reviews give the sum total. Now, as
the sum total is exactly the whole of these superlatives, and
as the British Critics cannot well appropriate to British writers
any more than the whole, it follows inevitably, that — The
most distinguished writers of Great Britain have never
received from the British Critics a greater amount of un»
qualified praise, and high panegyric, than the m^st distin-
guished writers of America have received from the Ameri'
can Critics.
Agreeably to the rules of argument, the question of fact
is now reduced to the single contingency embraced in the
third proposition: viz. The American Critics praise too
much, unless the British Critics praise too little. This con-
tingency, however, does not need consideration. The pro-
position was originally stated, merely to comply with the
logical form of argument, and not because it admitted of
question, or required proof. That the British Critics do un-
derrate British talent, in the aggregate, is a position that
could never be seriously assumed by any one, and it would
therefore be idle to argue against it.
I trust that it will not be djemed presumptuous, if I here
take leave of the argument, in the belief that these two posi-
tions are sufficiently established ; viz.
2%e ordinary tone cf American Criticism is very high
panegyric; and,
Very high panegyric, as applied indiscriminately to .
American Literature, is quite beyond the intrinsic merits of
its object.
It will not, however, be forgotten, that all that has been
said of the merits of American writers, is either in the way
of comparison, or in reply to the extravagance of Ameri-
can'Critics. It is, and it ever will be a matter of astonish-
24 AMERICAK OKinCUM
mentt that a people so youiig ; so comparatiyely limited in
opportunities of cultivating polite literature ; bo recent-
ly emerging from the chaos of a Revolution, and so -wholly
absorbed in modelling and adorning the civil institutions
which that Revolution disenthralled — it is, indeed, a matter
of unqualified wonder, that, despite such adverse circumstan-
ces, such a people should have produced a race of men,
willing to contend, and capable of contending for the undy-
ing honours of Literary fame. Their unprecedented success
is their best culogium, and their highest reward. And now,
if they can escape the dangerous influences of flattery on
the one hand, and of vanity on the other ; if, unlike ordi-
nary men, they are not ruined by the various contingencies
of prosperity, we shall have little cause for solicitude about
tlicir future career.
Unfortunately, ** men are but men,** and reason and ex-
perience show, at least with regard to our novelists, the
evils both of the flattery and of the vanity induced by it. For
there are instances in our literary annals of an author's re-
ceiving universal and extravagant praise, and being so far
spoiled by it, as never to have written so well afterward.
And this is one of the legitimate and the necessary results
of what some Critics call encouragement to native genius.
And another result is scarcely less pernicious. The ap-
plause lavished on those who have genius, is attracting the
attention and the envy of those who have it not. The pro-
cess intended to encourage authors is encouraging them too
fast ; and, unless all precedent fails, our Critics will soon find
tliat their hot-beds are producing more weeds than flowers.
In fact, the dog-star of authorsliip is already in the ascend-
ant ; books are multiplying like mushrooms ; and the mon-
strous opinion is gaining currency, that any body can write
a good novel. Yes 1 any body can now accomplish what,
within ten years, the very loftiest intellect, and the most ex-
ON AMERICAN LITERATURE. 25
alted genius, have, in particular instances, failed to perform.
Scott himself has written a poor novel — and so has Bulwer
— and Edgeworth — and Cooper — and nearly every one who
has attained enduring eminence, as a novelist, during the last
forty years. And yet, inasmuch as the Critics will puff, and
the people will sustain them in puffing, any body is compe-
tent to a task, the magnitude of which really requires a mind
of some cultivation even to appreciate in the abstract! —
Where this mania is to lead us, time alone can determine ;
but it is most certain, that unless Criticism soon asserts her
legitimate prerogative, and brands this contagious folly with
the shame it deserves, our literary annals will wear a blot
which neither time nor change can obHterate.
Our situation is analogous to that of a people for a time
enjoying repose under a just and good government ; but at
length aroused from that repose by the encroachments of
tyranny and the imposition of iniquitous laws. What was
originally devotion to the country, becomes now slavery*
to the ruler ; and duty has changed from submission to re-
sistance. Thus we, for a time, have been content to acknow-
ledge the supremacy of the Critics ; and, while they were
capable and honest, we were wise to do so : but now that
their decisions are tainted with errour, and reliance on them
is deception to ourselves, it is incumbent on us to cast off
our allegiance, and compel them either to abandon their of-
fice, or renounce their heresy.
The manner of accompUshing this revolution cannot here
be enlarged upon, but its results may be stated in a moment.
Our National Literature will be relieved from the baneful in-
fluence of flattery and the artificial ripening of false criticism.
Its growth will be checked in rapidity, but advanced in
strength ; and it will progress slowly, but surely, to the very
highest eminence of fame.
86 AMXRICAir CRinaSM on AMBRICAN LnVEATVES.
" So the tam oak, to Nature's mandate true,
Advanced out alow, and strengthen'd aa he grew I
But when, at leHgtn, (full many a searan o'er,)
Hia bead the blossoms of high promise bore {
When etesdfast were his roots, and souod hia hear^
He bade oblivion and decay depart {
Flung his broad arms o'er those who watch'd hii riae^
His lofty top waved proudly in the skies ;
And, storm and time defying, still remaina
The never-dying glory of the rlaiM l"
14 DAY USE
RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED
LOAN DEPT.
RENEWALS ONLY-TEL. NO. W2^*«
This book is due on the last date stamped below, or
This bOOK ISO ^^ ^j^.^ fe^^^- ,^11
Renewed books are subje« toimmediate««lL
LD2lA-60m-6,'69
(J9096sl0)476-A -02
General Library
University of CaUf ornia
Berkeley
\