Tis night: but there the sparkling heavens diffuse At midnight breaks the traveller's fitful dream." This is eloquently written, and would sustain no dishonorable comparison with similar passages in Bowles, Rogers, and Montgomery, to the structure of whose versification, as far as regards the decasyllabic couplet, Mr. Carter's is a near approach. The desolate sublimities of the polar and torrid zones next present themselves to the imagination of the poet; and from a description of "Oronoco's swamps," Mr. Carter proceeds, at some hazard, to recount the destructive effects of "Yellow Fever." He has however succeeded, we think, in giving a poetical interest to this unpromising subject; and this he has effected, with great knowledge of human nature, by availing himself of the popular superstition of its contagiousness. Any acknowledgment of the real nature of the disease, it is manifest would have rendered it unfit for the purposes of poetry; whereas by giving in to the popular belief, it becomes immediately invested with the attribute of a sublime unintelligibleness. In alluding to the 'moral sources' of the Pains of the Imagination, we do not think that Mr. Carter is as successful as when he enumerates the terrific sublimities of the physical world. The political disquisitions, we consider as particularly unfortunate, and the apostrophe to Byron is indifferently written and awkwardly introduced. The portrait of the maniac is out of place and painfully overwrought. Why a mad woman should be called par excellence "Nature's artless child," we confess we are unable to understand; nor can we comprehend how Mr. Carter could expect that we should sympathize with the lunacy of any woman who goes mad because her guardian, "measuring worth by stocks and rent," refuses to give his sanction to her marriage with the man she loves. Mr. Carter's anathemas against the cruel guardian we consider altogether too indignant; but this may be a matter of opinion. For ourselves we are inclined to believe, however unsentimental the doctrine may be, that no great harm, on the whole, results from the prudence and vigilance of those disagreeable individuals, who are known by the name of "the old folks." Finally, (for we wish to get through, as soon as possible, with the odious business of fault-finding,)* we think that the misery with which Mr. Carter caps the climax of "ima gination's pains,"-the painful reflection that he must leave, in a few days, his friends of the Phi Beta Kappa at Dartmouth, and come back to New-York,-is the most extraordinary sacrifice of poetry to politeness which we recollect ever to have The conclusion is, however, very feelingly and forcibly expressed. seen. "Ye rural walks, ye hills, sequestered glades, And wisdom's lessons, shall return no more! We do not tell Mr. Carter that his essay is equal to any thing of Campbell's, and superior to any thing of Goldsmith's; because we know that his good sense would immediately reject such extravagant and unmeaning panegyric. But we do not hesitate to say that this Poem is highly creditable to his taste, and does great honor to his feelings as well as to his talents. He has shown himself master of a vigorous and polished versification, a qualification which requires the combination of an ear, naturally attuned to the melody of verse, with habits of * We put our hypercriticism in a note. Mr. Carter would do well to correct the accentuation of the 19th line of the 8th page, and the 27th of the 28th. The last line of the 22d page, has a trochee (or rather daetyl) in the second place, which, although an ornament in Spanish and Italian poetry, is a flagrant violation of the laws of the English decasyllabic We are aware that in Milton's Paradise Lost, two instances of the sort may be found; but one of these, "With impetuous recoil and jarring sound," is made purposely discordant, in order to be an echo to the sense; and the other was probably an attempt to introduce into English verse a license very common in Italian, a language with which Milton very fre quently betrays his intimate acquaintance. 49 Vol. II. No. XI. assiduous exercise and study. The occasional prosaisms seem to arise, more from the haste with which we are told the Poem was written, than from any other cause. The defects which we have pointed out, (and we have been rigidly exact,) are, most of them, merely relative, and will vanish with an amendment of the advertisement. The merits of the Poem are numerous and positive, and give us strong assurance that if Mr. Carter has only time and opportunity to cultivate his powers, he will make one of that bright catalogue of names, which we foresee, we shall have it very soon in our power to present in silent but triumphant refutation of the slander which regards us as a people utterly and irremediably given over to the execration of the Muses. [Although we do not hold ourselves bound to give insertion, as a matter of course, to Articles of the nature of the one which follows, yet, as the writer considers himself exceedingly aggrieved by what he is pleased to term our "6 vituperative language," we have agreed to waive, in this instance, a right which, by common consent, has been conceded to all journals inculcating and defending determinate opinions ;-we mean the right of insisting that their opponents shall look to other journals for the means and opportunities of replication or retort. In the mean time the remarks which we have made by way of rejoinder to Mr. Carey's letter will assuredly satisfy every unprejudiced reader, that the charges we made (with the exception of a very insignificant one, which we are perfectly willing to retract) are abundantly established, and therefore fully justify the tenor, if not the severity of the language we employed.] To the Editors of the Atlantic Magazine. GENTLEMEN, I have read with attention in your Magazine of January, a review of "Hamilton's Report on Manufactures," on which I wish to offer a few observations, for the insertion of which, in your next number, I rely on your impartiality. The reviewer has used vituperative language, wholly unwarranted, being grounded on mistakes of his own; and, at all events, a manifest departure from the courtesy with which gentlemen should conduct literary and political discussions, from which personality and invective ought to be excluded. He says "some impudent pretender has palmed the work on the public," and styles it a ""spurious edition." This is an unjust and unfounded accusation. The edition is, in the fullest sense of the word, a genuine one. I defy the reviewer to establish the contrary. "Spurious," according to the most approved dictionaries, the standards of the language, means "not genuine-counterfeit-adulterine-not legitimate-bastard." Let the reviewer prove, to the satisfaction of any candid individual, even the warmest advocate of his doctrines, that there is any passage "counterfeit, or adulterine," altered or omitted, and then his uncourteous epithet may appear justifiable. But if he cannot-as undoubtedly he cannot he owes the public, and the respectable society under whose auspices the work was re-published, a sincere apology for a very erroneous accusation. I trust it follows, that the work being a genuine one, there was neither "impudence" nor "pretence" in its re-publication. But he rests his charge of spuriousness, on the use of italics, capitals, and indexes. "Some hundred sentences and parts of sentences are printed in italics, and capitals, and occasionally interspersed with pointers, and notes of exclamation, none of which are to be found in the original." It would be waste of words to prove that it does not render a work "spurious" to mark cogent passages in italic characters, or to direct the reader's attention to such passages by indexes. Were every second sentence in italic, provided the text were preserved inviolate, the edition could not, without a most manifest departure from propriety, be stigmatized as "spurious," nor the publisher be styled "an impudent pretender.” But, gentlemen, what must be your astonishment to learn that there is not a single note of exclamation in the whole work? Not a single one! It will not by any means diminish your astonishment, to learn that there are in it but six pointers, as they are styled, and not one word in capitals. There are, it is true, eight or ten words in small capitals, exactly as they stand in the edition from which this one was copied, which is now before me. Surely, gentlemen, if I were disposed to recriminate, I might, on this occasion, make use of some of the harsh language which the reviewer has employed. But I scorn it. A good cause does not require such aid. A bad one cannot be supported by it. The reviewer goes on to say, "It purports to be printed by order of the House of Representatives, leaving the reader falsely to suppose that this order issued from the Congress of 1823-24." This is a very coarse, I might have said a "false" accusation, and equally unfounded with the others. The title is printed verbatim et literatim from the original. But this is a very frivolous point, wholly unimportant. The work is are perennius, and will remain a standard one, the best of its kind in the world, when we and our children are laid in the peaceful grave. I regret to have wasted so much space on matters which are merely personal; and now proceed to points of real magnitude those are the doctrines of Alexander Hamilton, which the reviewer has wholly mistaken. He asserts that these doctrines are in exact accordance with those of Adam Smith. I quote his own words. "It appears to have escaped general observation, that the main scope of General Hamilton's argument, while it deserves all the credit of originality, is in fact identically the same that Smith, Say, Ricardo, and others of that school, have demonstrated to be correct." This is as erroneous a position as ever was advanced; and I hope to prove that the theory of Adam Smith (I pass over Say and Ricardo, because, if I prove my assertion as regards Smith, the proof will apply equally to those two writers,) and that of Alexander Hamilton areas diametrically opposite to each other, as the doctrines of Calvin to those of the Council of Trent -the maxims of Sydney, Locke, and Russel, to those of Fulmer and Sacheverel; or finally, an American declaration of rights to fulminations of Ferdinand of Spain. Mr. Webster, in his celebrated anti-tariff speech, made an assertion similar to that of the reviewer; and such an opinion prevails among many of our citizens. A thorough investigation of a subject so very important, and so much misunderstood, cannot fail to be extensively useful. I shall assume, as too well known to require proof, that the basis of Adam Smith's theory, is 1. That we ought to purchase abroad whatever can be had cheaper there than at home. 2. That bounties and premiums are pernicious and unjust. 3. That no manufacture ought to be protected by prohibitory duties or prohibitions. All the residue of Dr. Smith's theory, as regards the points so ardently discussed of late, in the United States, are wholly unimportant. These alone belong to the question at issue. I now proceed to prove that A. Hamilton advocated, in the most explicit manner, 1. Submitting to purchase domestic articles higher, temporarily, than foreign ones; 2. Bounties and premiums; and 3. Prohibitory duties. I. Purchasing domestic articles, temporarily, dearer than foreign ones. "As often as a duty upon a foreign article makes an addition to its price, it causes an extra expense to the consumer. But it is the interest of the society to submit to a temporary expense, which is more than compensated by an increase of industry and wealth; by an augmentation of resources and independence; and by the circumstance of eventual cheapness." Page 84. |