Page images
PDF
EPUB
[graphic]

The Lion.

No. 20. VOL. 2.] LONDON, Friday, Nov. 14, 1828. [PRICE 6d.

LITERATURE AND THE FINE ARTS.

WHAT is literature? Dr. Johnson calls it learning, or a skill in letters. What is learning? The Doctor tells us that it is literature, with a little verbiage about an acquisition of languages and sciences. So literature is learning, and learning is literature. But in that sort of writing, which, in this and other countries, is commonly and pre-eminently called literature, I can perceive nothing of learning that indicates the possession or the communication of knowledge, no, not even the disposition to possess or communicate. So that which is pre-eminently called literature is not so in reality, not learning, not knowledge, not teaching; but a mischievous occupation of the time of both writer and reader with a perversion of letters. Such I count the novels of Sir Walter Scott, and every piece of fiction that has been presented to mankind. Such things have been called light reading; but it is such light reading as makes light heads, and it is no honour to our species, that the majority have been and are of that class. When I hear light reading spoken of and commended, light, airy pieces of writing, I understand them to mean pieces of writing that do not call for the exercise of thought or reflection, that may be read without improvement, and that fill the head, without disturbing it, with trifles and nonsense, disqualifying it for all the useful purposes and improvements of life. That is what I understand by light reading. It is a sort of mental indolence or truancy, and the cerebral school is either neglected or thrown into disorder; because there is no proper master, or the scholar is idle and refractory. Light reading must produce light minds, by which the business of life is not to be well carried on. Every principle of reform or improvement in human affairs mustspring from genius, original thought, perseverance and great in

Printed and Published by R. CARLILE, 62. Fleet Street. No. 20.-Vol. 2. 2 R

dustry in the acquisition and application of knowledge; so that they who furnish mankind with light readings are their enemies, and the qualifiers for all the oppressions, degradations, and deprivations that are found among them. So much for a definition of literature and light reading.

Fiction seems to be a growing passion among our literary men and women, and truth not suiting light minds has no chance of equal reading. I have not examined one of them; but I'll engage, upon a knowledge of current character, that not one of those gaudy little books called annuals, either points a moral or teaches a new truth, perhaps not even an old or long established truth. Such books are not literature, are not learning, are not instructive; may be pastime, but are not food for the mind. I now and then look into a Review; but I never find that I can learn any thing from them beyond historical and geographical points. I find no sound criticism upon the morals, politics, or literature of by-gone people; nor any new developement of physical or moral truths. The writer who does not call upon his reader to think, has not the labour of thought for himself. He plays with other men's thoughts and writings, as a pack of cards is shuffled, or as the twenty-four letters of the alphabet may be used in assimilation to the game of dice-shaken and thrown, leaving the turn-up to chance or fortune. Yet these light-headed and light reading people are the most fortunate in worldly acquisitions; for they sail with the current and offend no one but the philosopher, who is too serious in his purposes of human improvement to enter into petty war with them. He cannot be a philosopher and attend to such triflers.

Fiction may form a novel, but is not a novelty. Now it is almost wholly confined to the representation of probable character and incident. A few centuries ago, it represented wild romance, spiritualities and supernatural incidents, and, in its earliest representations, as they now remain to us, it dealt in cosmogonies, homogonies, and theogonies, such as make up the romance of revealed religion. And as the first evil of fiction has pervaded the whole race of mankind to this day, I deem it a matter of importance, that it should be in every case discountenanced, for the better rooting up of the whole.

Imperfect as is Dr. Johnson's definition of literature, it will sanction the proposition that the highest state of it must exist in the highest state of knowledge, that it is associated with original thought and deep study, rather than with the common scribbler of trifles. It belongs to the severe critic, rather than to the servile eulogist. It depends not so much on the correctness of grammatical expression, which is very desirable, as upon the correct ness in delineating physical, political or moral principles; and, hence, I should say, that our Newspapers and Reviews contain nothing associated with the highest order of literature.

Great fuss is made about literature and the fine arts; but I cannot perceive, that they, who make this fuss, support any high degree of literature. There can be no literature in lying or fiction, none in servile or party politics, none in superstition or religion, and that is all that the pretended patrons of literature encourage. What honest writer have they encouraged? What discovery in physics or morals, leading to change in the condition of mankind, have they applauded? We have a literary fund, of which the king is the patron; but whom does it support, that was ever known to the public as a useful literary man?

Of the fine arts, it may be said, that they are no farther useful, than as there is use in ornament. Though they occupy genius, the occupation is not a first-rate purpose. Though artists may render their arts ornamentive to our buildings; they are not in themselves the ornaments of a nation. The well-conducting of the affairs of a nation is a higher purpose than the embellishment of a dwelling, and he who ornaments the public or the individual mind, or improves the public or the individual body, he who teaches us aught that is new in the science of physics, of politics or of morals, he who adds to the happiness, in adding to the improvement of mankind, is the grand artist, the grand embellisher, the grand ornament of a nation. The mouldering fabrics shall pass away; but moral instruction once deeply implanted goes on increasing and is never lost, never moulders, never decays.

The very acme of that which now passes current under the names of literature, fine arts, belles lettres, &c. is a frivolous something that does not prescribe or require thought, and that leads to no kind of improvement. Hence, it is countenanced by our aristocracy, and suits well the indolence and ennui of our drawing-room dolls. Whatever rouses thought and indicates improvement, they discourage and reject. Well as they are, as far as all the luxuries of life are in question, they shrink from the labour, and dread the progress of thought. And as they can afford to pay best, the ever servile scribbler and artist is drawn to that vortex. They give fashion to that which is nationally useless, rather than useful, and decry the innovation of original thought, or any thought, that thinks there is room for improvement in the present, and to them delightful, constitution of things. This state of literature, &c. leaves our aristocracy very ignorant on all subjects, and to talk of fashions, of the elegance of this and of the exquisiteness of that, to speak of dress, paintings, and the last published novel, or the last-played play, is the sum of their pastime and knowledge. Their women are not fitted to be wives and mothers, nor the men to be politicians. As the former tremble at the idea of domestic duties, the latter are in terror at the thought of any great public question that indicates change. They

cannot comprehend its bearings, they see not its applications, and as they dread disturbance, they dream of it, and decry all change as bad. Stronger minded politicians can perceive, that as all change brings forth experience, aH moral and legislative change is good. The aristocrat cannot comprehend this. His literature is not allowed to teach him any thing of the kind; nor will he encourage that higher order of literature that does teach any thing of the kind. Wrapped up in his privileged distinction, he feels himself a god, or demigod, and thunders forth his vengeance against the introduction of delegated or representative authority. I, for one will not acknowledge myself either the creature or the subject of this god, so I shall proceed to inculcate the highest order of literature. But this boon I will offer to the aristocracy that will give me countenance; that, after purging the country of its political errors and its superstition, an order of literature and arts will arise, exceeding any that has hitherto existed or even been contemplated; that, after the constituted and privileged errors and obstacles to human improvement be removed, the general race will improve, and all that is delightful in character or exquisite in embellishment find unimpeded encouragement.

During a struggle for change and reform, I can only count that as a little and weak mind, which is engrossed in a love of the fine arts. There is an excuse only for those who live by them. The age requires restless thought and thoughtful restlessness, counting as nothing the little luxury of the fine arts, to accomplish the great national desiderata-extinguished superstition and the most fully representative legislature. Leave pictures to such women as have not strength of mind to join us in the pursuit of change; but let not our men be seen to be fascinated with such trifles. Leave music to dogs and other animals; let ours consist of the voice of free and bold discussion; ' fearing nothing to know and knowing nothing to fear,' until we prepare the way for the exhibition of the fine picture of national freedom, and the sweet harmony of national and individual content.

RICHARD CARLILE.

[The following piece of a letter has appeared in the Morning Herald of Thursday. As far as my memory will serve, I will add the rejected part.-R. C.]

To the Editor of the Morning Herald.

SIR,-Identifying yourself with no particular party, your paper is very fairly thrown open to all; and as you have shown yourself willing to

present to the public, through your columns, the sentiments of all respectable public men, you have attained the desideratum of conducting the most useful and most honest daily Journal; I sincerely hope that it may become and be the most widely circulated.

I am a very attentive observer of all the published sentiments of ou public men. I weigh and criticise them, and settle with myself, perhaps for future use, their effects and defects-the balance of their worth, If you will permit me to use a column of your more widely-extended Journal, I think I can be useful now in throwing in a criticism on the two questions that, in my judgment, are very improperly called, two great public questions-CATHOLIC EMANCIPATION, and PARLIAMENTARY REFORM, or RADICAL REFORM OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.

To begin with Catholic Emancipation.-I will acknowledge that the principle of excluding the Roman Catholics, by a rejected oath, from many civil offices, though a political necessity, in its origin, to prevent civil war, has ceased to be necessary, and has become a grievance, and a general political evil. Two centuries ago, and upwards, there must have been real danger of the restoration of the Roman Catholic Church; but since the reign of Charles the First, the Catholics have not had the least prospect or chance, not even when they had a Monarch on their side, in Charles the Second or James the Second. The growth of dissent from the law-established Church, since the reign of James the First, has been the great growing obstacle to Roman Catholic restoration. Had there been no other influence or obstacle than the Established Church of England, it had certainly changed with the will of the Monarch, as it did change repeatedly in the sixteenth century. That principle of dissent and discussion which has been the effectual obstacle to Roman Catholic restoration has gone on, and is still increasing; and as sure as all idea of persecution be removed from the Roman Catholic mind, Roman Catholicism will weaken, until it fall in this country and in Ireland, in having to conflict morally and sentimentally with that dissent and discussion. timid persons be assured that, in the present state of the public mind, there is nothing to be feared from Roman Catholicism. It can only hold together by being persecuted. It has no moral hold. Let the Legislature remove the offensive oaths, and encourage the principle of discussion on religious tenets, and all is safe. It is a political madness in that Legislature to fear the Roman Catholics, or to retain the annoying and perpetually mischievous uproar about Catholic Emancipation. To the Legislature I would recommend, as one great point of purification, that it separate itself from all the religious sects and tenets of the country, and leave them to the moral influence of free discussion. Let it tax and protect them from the violence of each other; but not give them religiously either partial or general support.

Let

The question of Parliamentary Reform is much more abstruse, and is nothing less than a revolutionary question, which involves the breaking up and the remodelling of every political institution in the country. There can be no partial or moderate Reform of Parliament that can be permanent, or that shall not heighten the demand for more, until the Legislature be the pure and simple representation of the whole body of the people, which now is but the representation of the privileged classes. The question, then, of Radical Reform of the House of Commons, is the most revolutionary, and, consequently, the most remote question of Reform that can be advocated. After that be accomplished, no kind of Reform will remain to be advocated. The remote and the revolutionary character of this question of Parliamentary Reform renders it, therefore,

« PreviousContinue »