Page images
PDF

degree of excellence”—i.e. the present spring fashion, we suppose. Some of its speculations are no less ingenious than just. “ In the melancholy fate which befell that fair-haired youth Absalom, the Scriptures afford a striking instance of the danger of not wearing a covering upon the head. If Absalom had worn a hat, it is very certain that his hair could not have caught in the branches of the oak tree. . It is not likely that he rode out bareheaded; but it is probable that in the skirmish with Joab his hat fell off, and was thus the cause of his death.”

This reminds us of some modern medical treatises, which begin with showing from the Psalms particular diseases with which King David was afflicted. Our author, who generally writes very well, appears to have made a slight slip in the last clause of the above; for how Absalom's hat, because it fell off, could become the cause of his death, it is not easy to discover. ,

We are very far from cottoning, also, to the following opinions:—

“Stubbes belonged to that very virtuous class of writers, not wholly extinct even now, that rail against the fashions of men's apparel, as though there were intrinsic good or evil in the shape and color of a coat; who judge of a man's morals by the pattern of his vest, and regard the texture of his pantaloons as a test of religious principles. It is time that the philosophy of fashion were better understood, but the plan of this little book revents an expression of our opinions on this important subject. The latest fashion is always the best, because it is of necessity an improvement on the one which it supplants; therefore, to rail at an existing sashion is simply to rail at improvement. If a fashion were perfect, it would be permanent; but no fashion ever can be perfect, because man being endowed with the capacity of improvement, he can never arrive at a point beyond which he cannot advance. Progress is the law of our nature, and progress implies infinity. The possibilities of human improvement have not been dreamed of. A conservative, unim. proving people, like the Chinese, never change their fashions, because they make no progress, or at least their progress is so slow, that it is not perceptible. There is no such thing as stability with nations.”

To this it might be replied that the changes in the shape of hats are not always improvements, since old fashions come round again so often. Therefore we may be allowed to rail at existing fashions if we please. But granting that every change in hats is an improvement, these changes are ones of simple form, not based on reason, or taste, but wholly arbitrary, and beyond our control; the hatters make these for us twice every year, for which we are taxed nine dollars per annum. But that progress which is the law of our nature does not, in most other matters, operate in this

manner. In our social and political condition it should be borne in mind that pure innovations are not, though for argument's sake it be admitted they are with hats, necessarily advances towards perfection. They are forms and states based on reason, knowledge, character, experience, and hence those elements must concur in the changes, or else there will be no real progress. Some people at the present day seem to think that governments are like hats; that we may change the block as often as we please, and it will be sure to be for the better. They even go beyond the hatters; for whereas those worthy members of society are content to allow our headgear to remain stationary six months at a time, these would have states live forever in a condition of pure democratical revolutionary bloody flux—progressing infinitely, pell-mell, everywhere. There is great probability that the hats worn by social reformers of this order do not in every instance conceal the largest possible amount of medullary substance:

CoRRECTIONs.—There is an error in Griswold's “Prose Writers of America,” which attributes to R. H. Dana an article on Moore, written by Prof. E. T. Channing of Harvard University. We devote a paragraph to the correction of it, because the mistake was followed in an article on Mr. Dana in this Review for March, 1847. Prof. Channing's article was on “Lalla Rookh,” and appeared in the N. A. Review for Nov., 1817, vol. vi.

Another sentence in the article on Mr. Dana, would seem to make him the author of a review of Brown, which appeared in the N. A. Review, vol. ix., and was also written by Prof. Channing. A review of Brown, by Mr. Dana, appeared in the U. S. Review for Aug., 1827– much later.

If these reviews were of merely ordinary merit, it would be superfluously nice to give even a sentence to settling questions of their parentage; but they are thoughtful and elaborate essays, and by no means destined to a transitory fame. Only a small edition (five hundred copies) of the N. A. Review was issued previous to and during the editorship of Prof. Channing, who was assisted by Mr. Dana, and copies are, now scarce. To our young readers and writers, many of the best essays of those gentlemen are, necessarily, as entirely unknown as if they had never written them. They owe it to us, to the “rising generation,” as well as to their own reputations, to give us collected editions of their works; and we feel very confident that in respectfully urging the request that they would do so, we speak in accordance with the wishes of our whole literary public.

[graphic]
[blocks in formation]

“Stubbes belonged of writers, not wholly t against the fashions of there were intrinsic go color of a coat; who j the pattern of his vest, his pantaloons as a tes It is time that the ph better understood, but prevents an expression important subject. Th the best, because it is ment on the one whic to rail at an existing sa improvement. If a fash be permanent; but no fa because man being end improvement, he can n yond which he cannot a law of our nature, and The possibilities of hu not been dreamed of. proving people, like th their fashions, because or at least their progres: perceptible. There is with nations.”

To this it might be r in the shape of hats a ments, since old fashioi often. Therefore we at existing fashions if ing that every change ment, these changes a not based on reason, arbitrary, and beyond o make these for us twice we are taxed nine do that progress which is does not, in most other ,

- - - -

1 r ******

[graphic]

degree of excellence”—i.e. the present spring fashion, we suppose. Some of its speculations are no less ingenious than just. . . In the melancholy fate which befell that fair-haired youth Absalom, the Scriptures afford a striking instance of the danger of not wearing a covering upon the head. If Absalom had worn a hat, it is very certain that his hair could not have caught in the branches of the oak tree. It is not likely that he rode out bareheaded; but it is probable that in the skirmish with Joab his hat fell off, and was thus the cause of his death.”

This reminds us of some modern medical treatises, which begin with showing from the Psalms particular diseases with which King David was afflicted. Our author, who generally writes very well, appears to have made a slight slip in the last clause of the above; for how Absalom's hat, because it fell off, could become the cause of his death, it is not easy to discover. ,

We are very far from cottoning, also, to the following opinions:—

“Stubbes belonged to that very virtuous class of writers, not wholly extinct even now, that rail against the fashions of men's apparel, as though there were intrinsic good or evil in the shape and color of a coat; who judge of a man's morals by the pattern of his vest, and regard the texture of his pantaloons as a test of religious principles. It is time that the philosophy of fashion were better understood, but the plan of this little book

revents an expression of our opinions on this important subject. The latest fashion is always the best, because it is of necessity an improvement on the one which it supplants; therefore, to rail at an existing fashion is simply to rail at improvement. If a fashion were perfect, it would be permanent; but no fashion ever can be perfect, because man being endowed with the capacity of improvement, he can never arrive at a point beyond which he cannot advance. Progress is the law of our nature, and progress implies infinity. The possibilities of human improvement have not been dreamed of. A conservative, unim. proving people, like the Chinese, never change their fashions, because they make no progress, or at least their progress is so slow, that it is not perceptible. There is no such thing as stability with nations.”

To this it might be replied that the changes in the shape of hats are not always improvements, since old fashions come round again so often. Therefore we may be allowed to rail at existing fashions if we please. But granting that every change in hats is an improvement, these changes are ones of simple form, not based on reason, or taste, but wholly arbitrary, and beyond our control; the hatters make these for us twice every year, for which we are taxed nine dollars per annum. But that progress which is the law of our nature does not, in most other matters, operate in this

manner. In our social and political condition it should be borne in mind that pure innovations are not, though for argument's sake it be admitted they are with hats, necessarily advances towards perfection. They are forms and states based on reason, knowledge, character, experience, and hence those elements must concur in the changes, or else there will be no real progress. Some people at the present day seem to think that governments are like hats; that we may change the block as often as we please, and it will be sure to be for the better. They even go beyond the hatters; for whereas those worthy members of society are content to allow our headgear to remain stationary six months at a time, these would have states live forever in a condition of pure democratical revolutionary bloody flux—progressing infinitely, pell-mell, everywhere. There is great probability that the hats worn by social reformers of this order do not in every instance conceal the largest possible amount of medullary substance:

CoRRECTIONs.—There is an error in Griswold's “Prose Writers of America,” which attributes to R. H. Dana an article on Moore, written by Prof. E. T. Channing of Harvard University. We devote a paragraph to the correction of it, because the mistake was followed in an article on Mr. Dana in this Review for March, 1847. Prof. Channing's article was on “Lalla Rookh,” and appeared in the N. A. Review for Nov., 1817, vos. vi.

Another sentence in the article on Mr. Dana, would seem to make him the author of a review of Brown, which appeared in the N. A. Review, vol. ix., and was also written by Prof. Channing. A review of Brown, by Mr. Dana, appeared in the U. S. Review for Aug., 1827– much later.

If these reviews were of merely ordinary merit, it would be superfluously nice to give even a sentence to settling questions of their parentage; but they are thoughtful and elaborate essays, and by no means destined to a transitory fame. Only a small edition (five hundred copies) of the N. A. Review was issued previous to and during the editorship of Prof. Channing, who was assisted by Mr. Dana, and, copies, are, now scarce. . To our young readers and writers, many of the best essays of those gentlemen are, necessarily, as entirely unknown as if they had never written them. They owe it to us, to the “rising generation,” as well as to their own reputations, to give us collected editions of their works; and we feel very confident that in respectfully urging the request that they would do so, we speak in accordance with the wishes of our whole literary public.

« PreviousContinue »