_Didactics--Social, Literary, and Political. By Robert Walsh.
Philadelphia: Carey, Lea, and Blanchard._
Having read these volumes with much attention and pleasure, we are
prepared to admit that their author is one of the finest writers, one
of the most accomplished scholars, and when not in too great a hurry,
one of the most accurate thinkers in the country. Yet had we never
seen this collection of _Didactics_, we should never have entertained
these opinions. Mr. Walsh has been peculiarly an anonymous writer, and
has thus been instrumental in cheating himself of a great portion of
that literary renown which is most unequivocally his due. We have been
not unfrequently astonished in the perusal of the book now before us,
at meeting with a variety of well known and highly esteemed
acquaintances, for whose paternity we had been accustomed to give
credit where we now find it should not have been given. Among these we
may mention in especial the very excellent Essay on the acting of
Kean, entitled "_Notices of Kean's principal performances during his
first season in Philadelphia_," to be found at page 146, volume i. We
have often thought of the unknown author of this Essay, as of one to
whom we might speak, if occasion should at any time be granted us,
with a perfect certainty of being understood. We have looked to the
article itself as to a fair oasis in the general blankness and
futility of our customary theatrical notices. We read it with that
thrill of pleasure with which we always welcome our own long-cherished
opinions, when we meet them unexpectedly in the language of another.
How absolute is the necessity now daily growing, of rescuing our stage
criticism from the control of illiterate mountebanks, and placing it
in the hands of gentlemen and scholars!
The paper on _Collegiate Education_, beginning at page 165, volume ii,
is much more than a sufficient reply to that Essay in the _Old
Bachelor_ of Mr. Wirt, in which the attempt is made to argue down
colleges as seminaries for the young. Mr. Walsh's article does not
uphold Mr. Barlow's plan of a National University--a plan which is
assailed by the Attorney General--but comments upon some errors in
point of fact, and enters into a brief but comprehensive examination
of the general subject. He maintains with undeniable truth, that it is
illogical to deduce arguments against universities which are to exist
at the present day, from the inconveniences found to be connected with
institutions formed in the dark ages--institutions similar to our own
in but few respects, modelled upon the principles and prejudices of
the times, organized with a view to particular ecclesiastical
purposes, and confined in their operations by an infinity of Gothic
and perplexing regulations. He thinks, (and we believe he thinks with
a great majority of our well educated fellow citizens) that in the
case either of a great national institute or of State universities,
nearly all the difficulties so much insisted upon will prove a series
of mere chimeras--that the evils apprehended might be readily
obviated, and the acknowledged benefits uninterruptedly secured. He
denies, very justly, the assertion of the _Old Bachelor_--that, in the
progress of society, funds for collegiate establishments will no doubt
be accumulated, independently of government, when their benefits are
evident, and a necessity for them felt--and that the rich who have
funds will, whenever strongly impressed with the necessity of so
doing, provide, either by associations or otherwise, proper seminaries
for the education of their children. He shows that these assertions
are contradictory to experience, and more particularly to the
experience of the State of Virginia, where, notwithstanding the extent
of private opulence, and the disadvantages under which the community
so long labored from a want of regular and systematic instruction, it
was the government which was finally compelled, and not private
societies which were induced, to provide establishments for effecting
the great end. He says (and therein we must all fully agree with him)
that Virginia may consider herself fortunate in following the example
of all the enlightened nations of modern times rather than in
hearkening to the counsels of the Old Bachelor. He dissents (and who
would not?) from the allegation, that "the most eminent men in Europe,
particularly in England, have received their education neither at
public schools or universities," and shows that the very reverse may
be affirmed--that on the continent of Europe by far the greater number
of its great names have been attached to the rolls of its
universities--and that in England a vast majority of those minds which
we have reverenced so long--the Bacons, the Newtons, the Barrows, the
Clarkes, the Spencers, the Miltons, the Drydens, the Addisons, the
Temples, the Hales, the Clarendons, the Mansfields, Chatham, Pitt,
Fox, Wyndham, &c. were educated among the venerable cloisters of
Oxford or of Cambridge. He cites the Oxford Prize Essays, so well
known even in America, as direct evidence of the energetic ardor in
acquiring knowledge brought about through the means of British
Universities, and maintains that "when attention is given to the
subsequent public stations and labors of most of the writers of these
Essays, it will be found that they prove also the ultimate practical
utility of the literary discipline of the {400} colleges for the
students and the nation." He argues, that were it even true that the
greatest men have not been educated in public schools, the fact would
have little to do with the question of their efficacy in the
instruction of the mass of mankind. Great men cannot be _created_--and
are usually independent of all particular schemes of education. Public
seminaries are best adapted to the generality of cases. He concludes
with observing that the course of study pursued at English
Universities, is more liberal by far than we are willing to suppose
it--that it is, demonstrably, the best, inasmuch as regards the
preference given to classical and mathematical knowledge--and that
upon the whole it would be an easy matter, in transferring to America
the general principles of those institutions, to leave them their
obvious errors, while we avail ourselves as we best may, of their
still more obvious virtues and advantages.
We must take the liberty of copying an interesting paper on the
subject of Oxford.
The impression made on my mind by the first aspect of Paris was
scarcely more lively or profound, than that which I experienced on
entering Oxford. Great towns were already familiar to my eye, but a
whole city sacred to the cultivation of science, composed of edifices
no less venerable for their antiquity than magnificent in their
structure, was a novelty which at once delighted and overpowered my
imagination. The entire population is in some degree appended and
ministerial to the colleges. They comprise nearly the whole town, and
are so noble and imposing, although entirely Gothic, that I was
inclined to apply to the architecture of Oxford what has been said of
the schools of Athens;
"The Muse alone unequal dealt her rage,
And graced with noblest pomp her earliest stage."
Spacious gardens laid out with taste and skill are annexed to each
college, and appropriated to the exercises and meditations of the
students. The adjacent country is in the highest state of cultivation,
and watered by a beautiful stream, which bears the name of Isis, the
divinity of the Nile and the Ceres of the Egyptians. To you who know
my attachment to letters, and my veneration for the great men whom
this university has produced, it will not appear affectation, when I
say that I was most powerfully affected by this scene, that my eyes
filled with tears, that all the enthusiasm of a student burst forth.
After resting, I delivered next morning, my letter of introduction to
one of the professors, Mr. V----, and who undertook to serve as my
_cicerone_ through the university. The whole day was consumed in
wandering over the various colleges and their libraries, in
discoursing on their organization, and in admiring the Gothic chapels,
the splendid prospects from their domes, the collection of books, of
paintings, and of statuary, and the portraits of the great men who
were nursed in this seat of learning. Both here and at Cambridge,
accurate likenesses of such as have by their political or literary
elevation, ennobled their _alma mater_, are hung up in the great
halls, in order to excite the emulation of their successors, and
perpetuate the fame of the institution. I do not wish to fatigue you
by making you the associate of all my wanderings and reflections, but
only beg you to follow me rapidly through the picture-gallery attached
to the celebrated Bodleian library. It is long indeed, and covered
with a multitude of original portraits, but from them I shall merely
select a few, in which your knowledge of history will lead you to take
a lively interest.
I was struck with the face of Martin Luther the reformer. It was not
necessary to have studied Lavater to collect from it, the character of
his mind. His features were excessively harsh though regular, his eye
intelligent but sullen and scowling, and the whole expression of his
countenance, that of a sour, intemperate, overbearing
controversialist. Near him were placed likenesses of Locke, Butler,
and Charles II., painted by Sir Peter Lely; with the countenance of
Locke you are well acquainted, that of Butler has nothing sportive in
it--does not betray a particle of humor, but is, on the contrary,
grave, solemn, and didactic in the extreme, and must have been taken
in one of his splenetic moods, when brooding over the neglect of
Charles, rather than in one of those moments of inspiration, as they
may be styled, in which he narrated the achievements of Hudibras. The
physiognomy of Charles is, I presume, familiar to you, lively but not
"spiritual." Lord North is among the number of heads, and I was caught
by his strong resemblance to the present king; so strong as to remind
one of the scandalous chronicles of times past.
The face of Mary queen of Scots next attracted my notice. It was taken
in her own time, and amply justifies what historians have written, or
poets have sung, concerning her incomparable beauty. If ever there was
a countenance meriting the epithet of lovely in its most comprehensive
signification, it was this, which truly "vindicated the veracity of
Fame," and in which I needed not the aid of imagination to trace the
virtues of her heart. In reading Hume and Whitaker I have often wept
over her misfortunes, and now turned with increased disgust from an
original portrait of Elizabeth, her rival and assassin, which was
placed immediately above, and contributed to heighten the captivations
of the other by the effect of contrast. The features of Elizabeth are
harsh and irregular, her eye severe, her complexion bad, her whole
face, in short, just such as you would naturally attach to such a
mind.
Among the curiosities of the gallery may be ranked a likeness of Sir
Phillip Sydney, done with _a red hot poker_, on wood, by a person of
the name of Griffith, belonging to one of the colleges. It is really a
monument of human patience and ingenuity, and has the appearance of a
good painting. I cannot describe to you without admiration another
most extraordinary _freak_ of genius exhibited here, and altogether
_unique_ in its kind. It is a portrait of Isaac Tuller, a celebrated
painter in the reign of Charles II., executed by _himself when drunk_.
Tradition represents it as an admirable likeness, and of inebriety in
the abstract, there never was a more faithful or perfect delineation.
This anecdote is authentic, and must amuse the fancy, if we picture to
ourselves the artist completely intoxicated, inspecting his own
features in a mirror, and hitting off, with complete success, not only
the general character, but the peculiar stamp, which such a state must
have impressed upon them. His conception was as full of humor as of
originality, and well adapted to the system of manners which the
reigning monarch introduced and patronized. As I am on the subject of
portraits, permit me to mention three to which my attention was
particularly called on my visit to the University of Dublin. They were
those of Burke, Swift, and Bishop Berkeley, done by the ablest
masters. The latter must have had one of the most impressive
physiognomies ever given to man, "_the human face divine_." That of
Burke is far inferior, but strongly marked by an indignant smile; a
proper expression for the feelings by which his mind was constantly
agitated towards the close of his life. The face of Swift from which
you would expect every thing, is dull, heavy and unmeaning.
Portrait painting is the _forte_, as it has always been the passion of
this country. Happily for the inquisitive stranger, every rich man has
all his progenitors and relatives on canvass. The walls of every
public institution are crowded with benefactors and pupils, and no
town hall is left without the heads of the corporation, or the
representatives of the borough. The same impulse that prompts us to
gaze with avidity on the persons of our cotemporaries, if there be any
thing prominent in their character, or peculiar in their history,
leads us to turn a curious and attentive eye on the likenesses of the
{401} "mighty dead," whose souls as well as faces are thus in some
degree transmitted to posterity. Next to my association with the
living men of genius who render illustrious the names of Englishmen,
no more sensible gratification has accrued to me from my residence in
this country, than that of studying the countenances of their
predecessors; no employment has tended more efficaciously to improve
my acquaintance with the history of the nation, to animate research,
and to quicken the spirit of competition.
I quitted Oxford with a fervent wish that such an establishment might
one day grace our own country. I have uttered an ejaculation to the
same effect whenever the great monuments of industry and refinement
which Europe displays exclusively, have fallen under my observation.
We have indeed just grounds to hope that we shall one day eclipse the
old world.
"Each rising art by just gradation moves,
Toil builds on toil, and age on age improves."
The only paper in the _Didactics_, to which we have any decided
objection, is a tolerably long article on the subject of _Phrenology_,
entitled "Memorial of the Phrenological Society of ---- to the
Honorable the Congress of ---- sitting at ----." Considered as a
specimen of mere burlesque the _Memorial_ is well enough--but we are
sorry to see the energies of a scholar and an editor (who should be,
if he be not, a man of metaphysical science) so wickedly employed as
in any attempt to throw ridicule upon a question, (however much
maligned, or however apparently ridiculous) whose merits he has never
examined, and of whose very nature, history, and assumptions, he is
most evidently ignorant. Mr. Walsh is either ashamed of this article
now, or he will have plentiful reason to be ashamed of it hereafter.