CULTURE IN THE UNITED STATES.
[FROM OUR SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT.]
New York, December 1, 1865. CONGRESS meets next Monday, and it would be "as easy as lying" to send two columns of speculation and prediction there- anent. But when we are sure soon to know the event, guessing what it will be is unprofitable business, unless the necessity of immediate action tarns guessing into forecast ; and in the absence of such occasion for the exercise of my little ingenuity, I turn from politics, and, to tell the truth, from a score of other subjects which are waiting opportunity, to say something upon a question brought up by two articles in the Spectator, which arrived yester- day—the criticism of Marian Rooke, and the sub-leader on Grade in America and England, in the number for November 18.
In the first place, I venture to say that the importance assigned by the reviewer to Marian Rooke—to wit, that it is " the work of an American who prefers European life," and that it contains "sharp criticism of everything Yankee by an American," is undeserved. Without knowing anything more of the novel in question than the, three extracts quoted by the reviewer, I hardly hesitate to say that it is not the work of an " American,"* and that the writer is, in his own phrase, "a Britisher," who has lived here long enough to see half-way through our millstone ; which, by the way, has a hole clean through for any man who knows where to look for it, by which he may see, not only what the thing is made of, but what is on the other side. I never heard the word Britisher used by an " American " except as a jocose quotation from British speakers and writers ; nor, although I have watched for it, have I ever seen it otherwise here in print except once—in the columns of the New York Times. There it struck me as so singular that I mounted three flights of stairs to ask the managing editor how it came there. He denied plumply that it could be where I said it was. I put my finger upon the word. The proof-reader who read the article was sent for; the copy produced, and it proved that the compositor had made a mistake which the proof-reader had passed over, "supposing the word was used in fun." Again, twice in the first extract from Marian Rooke " nothink" occurs for. "nothing." . This alone would settle the question. Nothink is a sound unknown in this country, except as coming from lips which were not taught to speak here. It is more than the misplaced or even the displaced h, the unmistakeable sign, to us, of British birth ; and we find it the most unmistakeable evidence of lack of early education and low associations on the part of those who utter it. It is safe to say that no man, clever enough to write Marian Rooke, and who was born and bred in this country, would—I might almost say could—make "a typical Yankee editor of the bad kind,' or any kind of Yankee write " nothink " for "nothing." But there is moral, and therefore higher and more conclusive evidence as to the origin of this novel, in the character of Mr. Parapet, who is set forth as an example of the cultivated " American " who avoids political life. This character is in itself evidence that the author had looked at life in this country from without, and not from within. The reviewer declares himself unable to understand Mr. Parapet and his relations to society. No wonder ; for no such character exists. It is a Lay figure, which the author has dressed up in shreds of costume that he has picked up at second hand, and endowed with traits evolved from the depths of his moral consciousness. Never was there, even on Fuseli's canvass, better evidence of the futility of Fuseli's maxim fare da se. But as in the anatomical lecture-room a mannikin some- times serves the purpose of the professor as well as a real man, so Mr Parapet will serve our turn both to show that he is himself a lifeless sham, and that there is a real and living thing of which he is the inadequate exponent. Assuming that Mr. Parapet is a type, the reviewer says :—" Every American writer has affirmed the existence of this class, rich, cultivated, and gentlemanly, bat apart, and our own correspondent 'AYankee,' never tires of describing them ; but they are not understood yet Men of the Clinton Parapet type cannot in England remain idle ; how is it that they can in New York, and yet remain the intel- lectual and social chiefs of society ? That is the point on which Englishmen are most interested." Can I pass by this challenge unanswered? But let me first say that I have (unavoidably as I now see) been misunderstood. I should soon " tire " myself as well as my readers by describing this sort of men, if indeed there were enough of them here to make a sort. Of all the men whom I have described in these letters—not many, I believe—as types of • Our correspondent is too acute. We happen to know the author, and to know that be is a New England man.—En. Spectator. the Culture and breeding of the best society here, every one was a hard-working public-spirited man, working hard both for him- self, and, in one way or another, for the public ; but not in politics. Any one who has looked into Society heft with even a moderately- understanding eye, will tell you that there are no drones in our hive, or at least too few to merit consideration as an element, even the smallest, in the community, and that in any case it is quite impos- sible for them to be "the intellectual and social chiefs of society." Men must work here, and work hard, not only to attain any kind of eminence, but to maintain that which they have reached, and even to hold their own upon the general level. Let them indulge in but a brief period of relaxation, and they are soon thrust aside and forgotten. A friend of mine, a lady, told me that she once asked her husband, a highly educated man who had inherited a handsome fortune, and who yet laboured day and night either at his profession or in public affairs, why he worked so hard when there was no need of his working at all, and that he answered that he could follow one of two courses, either work hard constantly, or not work at all and "retire." He was right. There is yet no middle course in our society. Of our men of culture a very few are rich by inheritance, but only a minority are rich at all, nor are those few who are rich by inheritance generally distin- guished by superior culture and good breeding. The great majority have very moderate incomes, which are the fruit of their own exertions. What they have generally inherited is, not pro- perty, but the results of culture, breeding, and a consciousness of worth in their parentage which they shrink from disgracing. Of course, to preserve their culture they must possess, or be able to earn, incomes which keep them above sordid cares and debasing pursuits ; but they usually make their own fortunes, or earn their incomes ; and they need not be over particular as to the way in which they get their money, so long as it is honest. The Spectator is right in its judgment that grade here is not much affected by employment, that is, in employment per se ; for it is found here, as well as elsewhere, that a man of culture and high tone cannot content himself with selling tape by the yard, or whiskey by the noggin.
'The reviewer who has ministered occasion to me says that "every American writer has affirmed the existence of this class" of cultivated people—a significant limitation. Let me break it down at once for my readers by quoting similar and recent testimony de- cidedly not " American,"—that of Dr. Vaughan in his Notes on the 4liiited States published in the October number of the British Quarterly Review. Dr. Vaughan, when in this article he expresses a favourable opinion upon anything in this country, writes like a just but prejudiced man yielding candidly but reluctantly to the force of truth. So much the better. His evidence is worth the more He says :—" In the upper classes of American society nearly all that is distinctive of it elsewhere passes away. The houses of these persons are models of convenience and good taste. And as .if to compensate for the absence of such appearances in some other connections, the signs of culture and refinement are made to present themselves everywhere." It may be supposed that Dr. -Vaughan is speaking of a small class ; but he is not, as any one who knows will tell you, and as he himself incidentally testifies in a subsequent pasaage. He is speaking of the filthy habits, and what you call " caddish " behaviour of the men who congregate in the ground-- floor gentlemen's parlours of some of our large hotels. He says:— " Not a few Americans deplore the prevalence of these low and filthy habits ; and it is surprising that the education of the higher sort, diffused as it is in the United States, is not found to do more towards. putting an end to this reproach." I have noticed this subject now specially, and heretofore incidentally only because it seemed to me to be a matter of interest,—as indeed the Spectator asserts that it is,—in reference to the working of republican institutions. And in this last passage from Dr. Vaughan's article you have the question in a nut-shell, testimony that education of the higher sort is diffused throughout the country ; and yet that education (which by implication, from the nature of the case, is social as well as intellectual) able to do little or nothing toward putting an end to what is very commonly admitted to be a reproach. It is worthy of remark, too, that Dr. Vaughan makes a point of the ability of these food-bolting, boot-airing, tobacco-spitters to go to a hotel at which they paid five dollars a day, as if that had any thing to do with the matter. It has nothing whatever. Dr. Vaughan might have found thousands of men here, and I am quite sure did meet with hundreds who were, and whose families for generations have been, neither wealthy nor people of consequence in public affairs, who are, as their fathers were, among the "not a few" who were dis- gusted with that which so disgusted him. But he, and it seems Englishmen generally, wonder why these men do not control this with other social matters, and how it is that they are not at the head of political affairs, or at least involved in them. But we might wonder at your wonder if we did not know that in Europe the mass of the people still follow leaders, and select those leaders from men whom they admit to be their superiors in rank, in culture, and in all advantages that raise men above their fellows. Here it is not so. Socially, outside of private houses, people meet on a footing of absolute equality, and for that reason within doors exclusiveness is the more rigid. In politics political leadership has almost passed away, and in place of a few leaders we have a swarm of political managers. Why should A, who is taking his ease in his inn, concern himself to conform to B's notions of good-breeding? B is not "the fountain of honour," and there is C, who possibly has twice as much money and ten times as much political or business influence as B, and who will drink and spit with A to his heart's content? If A longs to viait at B's house, or to marry his daughter, that's smother matter. But if his own tastes do not lead him to habits and manners like those of B, all that he has to gain by adopting them will be B's society, which in that case will not seem to him of great value. And why should the majority of uncultivated men, each of whom counts one, choose for their delegates to the Legislature or to Con- gress the cultivated men, each of whom also counts one, and no more? They will choose the men who can do their work, and who can mingle with them and talk with them after their own fashion, and whose mere presence among them is not a reproach, almost an offence. Here legislators and men in office are merely public ser- vants, and it is written that "the disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord." This is the reason why men of culture generally shun politics, and why such men as Mr. Sumner, Mr. Adams, and Mr. Seward are the rare representatives of a vanishing class of statesmen, and why there is an absolute severance here between political and social life. As to the ability of uncultured men to serve the country, and to serve it well, look at Mr. Lincoln and General Grant, two as lowly born and uncul- tivated men as could be found native to this soil. But although men of culture and social standing here generally eschew politics, they are not the selfish drones and fastidious recluses that the author of Marian Rooke represents them by setting up Mr. Parapet as their type. It is by volunteers from their ranks that all the public work not political is done. And in estimating how much this work is, it must be rememberel how little Government does here, and that it is our policy to have it do as little as possible. It is by the men of whom we have been speaking that all our religious and benevolent institutions are managed. They are governors of hospitals, trustees of colleges, of schools, of libraries, of associations of all kinds for the encouragement of literature and art ; they are the vestrymen of our churches, the managers of our Bible societies, almshouses, orphan asylums, reformatory institu- tions, aud societies for improving the condition of the poor; commissioners of emigration, of the Central Park, and what not ; all of which spheres of action are entirely removed from politics, and with none of which, except the last two, has Government, State or National, anything to do. The Sanitary Commission, that gigantic benevolent association which spread itself like a net- work over the land, and had associate members and branches in every town of any importance, the Christian Commission, the Freedman's Association, and the Soldiers' Aid Society, were all managed and worked to their minutest details by volunteers from this class of men, not one of whom would have touched politics with a pair of tongs. But these men are not without their due influence in the political affairs of the country, although it is indirectly exercised, and is truly influence, not agency. What is said by the majority of our rioliticians offends them, what is done is generally in accordance with their views. Our laws will bear examination and comparison with those of any country, although the speeches of those who make them will not. But not one in a hundred of the speeches that are made have a feather's weight in the shaping of legislation or of public opinion. If you would rightly judge the value of our political mill, you must look at the quality of its grist, and not listen to the noise of the clapper.
A YANKEE.
Previous page
