An Address on the Influence of the Federative Republican System of Government Upon Literature and the Development of Character [pp. 261-282]

SOUTHERN LITERARY MESSENGER.
cal form of government is better calculated to foster and
encourage every species of literature than the republican, and consequently that the institutions of the United
States would prove unfavorable to the growth and progress of literature. This opinion seems to be based
upon the supposition that a king and aristocracy are
necessary for the support and patronage of a literary
class. I will briefly explain my views on this point,
and then proceed to the consideration of that peculiar
influence which our state or federative system of governmnciit will, in all probability, exert over the character
and literature of our inhabitants. It is this latter view
w-hich I wish mainly to present this evening-it is this
view which has been neglected or misunderstood in
almost all the speculations which I have seen upon the
character and influence of our institutions.
In the first place, it has been affirmed that republics
are too economical-too niggardly in their expenditures,
to afford that salutary and efficient patronage necessary
to the growth of literature. To this I would answer,
first, that this argument takes for granted that the literature of a nation advances or recedes in proportion to
the pecuniary wages which it earns. Now, although
I do not say with Dr. Goldcsmith, that the man who
draws his pen to take a purse, no more deserves to
have it, than the man who draws his pistol for the same
purpose, yet I may safely assert, that of the motives
which operate on the literary man-the love of fame,
the desire to be useful, and the love of money-the
former, in the great majority of cases, exerts an infinitely
more powerflil influence than tihe latter. And if I sl-hall
be able to show, as I hope to do in the sequel, tlihat the
republican form of government is the one which is best
calculated to stimulate these great passions of our nature
and throw into action all the energies of man, then must
we acknowledge its superiority, even in a literary point
of view.
But even supposing that the progress of literature
depends directly upon the amount of pecuniary patron age which it can coimmand, it by no means follows that
it will flourish most under a monarchical government.
For granting that this kind of government may have
the ability to patronise, it is by no means certain that it
will always possess the will to do so. Augustus and his
Mecwenas may lavish to day the imperial treasures upon
literature, but Tiberius and Sejanus may starve and
proscribe it to-morrow. That which depends upon the
will of one man must ever be unsteady and uncertain.
It is much easier to predict the conduct of a multitude of a whole nation-than of one individual. The support
then which monarchs can be expected to yield to learn ing, must necessarily be extremely capricious and fluc tuating. It is not however by sudden starts and violent
impulses, that a sound, solid, wholesome literature can
be created. Ages must conspire to the formation of
such a literature. Constantine the Great, seated on the
throne of the Eastern Empire, with all the resources of
the Roman world at his command, could not awaken
the slumbering genius of a degenerate race, nor revive
the decaying arts of the ancient empire. The literature
of his reign, with all the patronage he could bestow
upon it, did but too nearly resemble those gorgeous
piles, which his pride and vanity caused to be erected
in his olict imperial city, composed of the ruins of so
many of the splendid monuments of anltiquity.
Not only, however, is the support a capricious and
uncertain one which a monarchy is calculated to yield
to literature, but there are only certain departments of
learning, and thos by no means the most important,
which such a government can ever be expected cordially
to foster. Monarchs may patronise the fine arts and
light literature-they may encourage the mathematical
and physical sciences, but they cani rarely feel a deep
interest in thle promotion of correct and orthodox moral,
political and theological knowledge, which is, at the
same time, nmuch the most important and most difficult
department of literature. The great law of self-p)reservation prompts us to war on every thing which threatens our interest and happiness. Moral and political
philosophy has too often aimed its logic at the throne,
and questioned the title of the monarch, ever to be a
favorite with rulers. Hence, while even the absolute
despot may encourage the arts, light literature and the
physical and matheniatical sciences, he dares not unbind
the fetters of the mind in the region of politics, morals and religion. He can but tremble at that bold
spirit of inquiry which may be aroused on those subjects-which dares to advance to the throne itself and
loosen even the foundations on which it is erected.
Napoleon Bonaparte, in the plenitude of his power,
could give the utmost encouragement to all those departments of learning, whose principles could not be
arrayed against despotism. In these departments he
delighted to behold the genius and talent of the country.
In the provinces and in the capital he called to the
physical and mathematical chairs of his colleges, his
universities and his polytechnic schools, some of the
most splendid lecturers of the age; but selfishness for bade him to tolerate a free and manly spirit of inquiry
in morals and politics, and he whose armies had deluged
Europe with blood, whose name was a terror and whose
word was a law unto nations, could not feel secure upon
his throne while such men as Cousin were illustrating
the nineteenth century by the splendor of their profes sorial eloquence, before the youth of France, or such
writers as De Stael were making their animated appeals
to the nation, in behalf of liberty of thought, and flee dom of action. It is impossible, without full freedom of
thought, and a single eye to truth and usefulness, that
the scientific investigator, no matter how great his ge nius may be, can unravel the difficulties of moral and
political philosophy. The very patronage of the throne
enthrals his intellect, and his fears or his avarice tempt
him to desert the cause of truth and humanity.
"Thus traminmell'd, thus condemned to flattery's trebles,
He toils through all, still trembling to be wrong:
For fear some noble thoughts like heavenly rebels
Should rise up in high treason to his brain,
He sings as the Atlienean spoke, with pebbles
In's mouth, lest truth should stammer through his strain."
If we look even to those epochs under monarchical
governments, which have been designated by the high
sounding title of the golden ages of literature, we shall
observe a full exemplification of the remarks which I
have made on this subject. Let us take the Augustan
age itself. Under the patronage of the first of the Roman Emperors we find, it is true, the arts and light literatuie rising to a pitch which perhaps they had not
reached under the republic. After the death of Brutus
the world of letters experienced a revolution almost as
262