"The Great Power of Literary
Men," Speech of
David M. Lees
, [September 1828]
1
Lees, David McMichen, 1807-1872
Page 1
The great power of literary men in determining the opinions of
men with respect to characters and events.
To mankind in general, an exhibition of the power of literary men
in determinig the opinons of men
2 with
respect to characters & events must be interesting & useful. Their
curiosity must be excited, whilst they search out its boundaries, &
contemplate the vast field they inclose; (as the result will be, that its
extent is commensurate with civilization, & its duration coexistent
3 with
time.)
4
Where-soever civilization opens the wilderness & clears away the
(rub
bish) wild
gro growth of the untutored mind,
literary works immediately migrate, &, establishing a fixed abode,
assimilate the inhabitants to their predominant features, diffuse the knowledge
of distant countries, & past events, & establish the characters of the
actors in every great scene; & at the remotest period, when there will be
more & greater marks of power & grandeur of generations which have
vanished from the earth to heighten
5
the curiosity & wonder, a knowledge
of them can be obtained only through the medium of authors. The present would
be all we could call day & the past an
impenetrable night, were it not for History, which, dispelling the intervening
darkness & unveiling past ages, serves as a bright avenue through which we
can view their actions & movements. It renovates the mouldered bodies of
ancient heroes, orators, & princes, & presents them before us, if not
in their true original features, at least in such
6
by which they can be
as enable us easily distinguished
them. Ancient battles, whose thunders have
long since ceased to roar, &
7
lightnings
to glare,
8 are
for brought anew before the eyes of
every reader, & the actors in the temendous
us scene, are distinctly perceived engaged with all their
former energy & activeness, though their mighty spirits have long since
taken their flight into the invisible world, & bodies
been devoured by fish beasts or worms.
9 What
would have been the condition of the present age, without the knowledge which
has been transmitted to us, can be easily determined, by considering the state
of the first inhabitants of our world. Like man, the world is progressive in
improvement; but were
Page 2
there no means of collecting
& preserving the wisdom of past times, it would remain forever in a state
of infancy. The vast flood of knowledge, which we may reasonably suppose will
exist in the later days, will
only be
little more than a collection of the streams
issuing from prior ages. It is then of the utmost importance that the fountains
whence they proceed should be unpolluted by error or prejudice, especially as
streams seldom increase in purity, as they increase in length. A popular writer
is final authority with the many. It is often sufficient for gaining belief to
see a circumstance stated in a masterly manner, decorated with all the flowers
of speech, though the source of the information may not be given. On the other
hand as few take the trouble of referring to authorities, by a mere quotation
of them an author, whose talents & learning prevent suspicion, forces on us
things apparently demonstrable, but which
on after a careful research
would be found mere assertions. In this way an elegant writer has it in his
power to blacken or blanch the characters of men who have taken a lead in past
times, according as
10 he
feels disposed. The immortal & overpowering eloquence of
Demosthenes
has stamped eternal infamy on
Philip of
Macedon, representing him as a crafty tyrant & a dissolute buffoon;
while
he stands forth an unsullied patriot; but the
historian Mitford
11
remarkable for the carefullness of his research, would have us believe that
Philip
was a wise, humane, & virtuous prince, &
Demosthenes a
mere ambitious factionist, governed in his opposition to
Philip
by party spirit; that he boasted of some of his intrigues against
Alexander, saying they would procure him a name in the
memory of his
cou party;—
& that he was a coward, & suffered himself
to be bribed. And for all this the historian produces his authority, yet may
not he have imposed on his readers in the same
manner, (
in which
Mr Brown
12 has
shown) that
Dr Reid
13 has
in his supposed confutation of idealism, which he attacks as the written
Page 3
belief of certain Philosophers, but which they were as
far from believing as he was himself? He has thus, by successfully combatting
an opinion
which he represented to be
universal, but which nobody held, not only received
but claimed the honour of being the "overthrower of a
mighty system of metaphysical illusion."
14
Augustus, celebrated by the Roman poets for every virtue,
& honoured by the following lines—Micat inter
omnes, Julium sidus, velat inter ignes Luna minores,
15
shed the blood
of 300 senators & 200
knights, & rewarded his soldiers with the lands of
those many innocent, unoffending men
who were cruelly proscribed. Who, that has ever read his gentle lines, would
suppose that
Virgil was a fit
object for political rage, & revenge?—Yet
he was one of the unfortunate sufferers. The
great many virtues,
&
many great
qualities, which the pen of adulation & gratitutde has attributed to
Augustus, were no doubt never possessed by him. A poet, in
order to give a name among posterity to one, whose favor it is important to
obtain
& secure, wants only a few bright
spots in his character. These he will so spread by the magic of his art, as to
present to the world a luminary perfectly bright.
So if we descend to modern times, we see
Louis 14th
of
France shining
with no little lustre, & standing on a summit of no smal elevation. But
what gave him this lustre & eminence? Was it the revocation of the
edict of
Nantes?—& the horrid consequences which followed?—or was
it the converting of
the
Palatinate
into a desert, (after the citizens received notice to quit their dwellings in
the midst of winter, as everything was to be destroyed by fire & sword, not
through revenge,
for there was no offence to
revenge but)
merely for the purpose of
cutting off subsistence from the enemy, just (with as little hesitation)
16 as
a retreating army would destroy boats, bridges, & provisions to prevent the
pursuers from being benefitted by them? No. These actions at the time they were
performed chilled the surrounding nations with horror, & at every
recollection of them posterity must be filled with indignation. His great
virtues are only to be found in the well-sung praises of literary men whose
inspiration at the thought of a patron of literation,
17 has
given him a name,
18
which sober reason, & candid justice would have denied.
Page 4
As a mark of gratitude they were bound at least to
support his character, who gave them support to gain theirs. Not only the
literary, but every class of civilized society is ready to admit him to be
virtuous who patronizes literature. Tell the peasant that
Nero was a patron
of literary men, & he will ascribe to him every other virtue,—read to
him a panegyric on the same, &
Nero will be his
example for every excellence.
A single line of a popular poet [is] sufficient with many people to
fix their opinions of men. Thus
Bacon
&
Cromwell are condemned in the gross, merely because
Pope
has said, If parts allure thee, see how
Bacon
shined, The wisest, brightest, meanest of mankind; Or ravished with
a the
whistl
e
ing of a name, See
Cromwell
damned to everlasting fame.
19 These
men no doubt had their faults, & great ones too, but still publick
indolence & credulity are apt to ascribe too much to such sweeping
sentences if couched in striking language, & rest satisfied without
searching any further
20 into
the matter. Were a deeper search to be made, it would be with the view to be
more confirmed in the belief already formed, &, consequently, though
virtuous actions might be presented to the eyes of the inquirer, his heart
would be shut to their reception. Not only do we find characters not very
remarkable for virtue, deprived of what little they possess, but
even the most illustrious on the list of
benefactors of mankind, ranked among the vilest of men. To this fate the
Papists have assigned the character of
Luther.
But what less could befall the character, though as spotless as the newly
fallen snow, which has been handled by the filthy
21 hands
of prejudice & enmity? It is impossible for a young man brought up in a
catholic community to form anything like a correct
opinion of
Luther,
for all the sources to which
he resorts for
information are completely poisoned by prejudice & bigotry. It is of the
utmost importance [therefore]
22 that
in reading history, & other literary works, & in forming our opinions
of persons, we should take into consideration the character, situation &
opportunities of the writer, whether he was under the influence of prejudice,
& what party he would be likely to favour. We should never fail also to
examine his authorities, & compare them with others of oposite sentiments
& & parties. How much depends on these circumstances may be judged from
the state of feeling now present in this country. Whatever account should be
written, respecting the present administration, in the present excited state of
public feeling could not be safely received by posterity
23 It
would be almost certain to [be] eulogistic or defamatory.
Endnotes:
Though the document is undated, it is probably a senior speech,
not a class composition. Marks written over the accented syllables of
boundaries,
contemplate,
assimilate,
renovates,
tremendous,
demonstrable,
buffoon, and
catholic suggest
that
Lees
prepared the text for oral delivery. In twelve
instances a second hand has corrected words and phrases in pencil.
Lees'
corrector probably was
William Hooper
, professor of rhetoric and logic, whose
responsibility it was to help students prepare their senior speeches and
commencement addresses. Faculty meeting minutes for October 3, 1826, stipulate
that seniors "hand in their speeches to the professor of Rhetorick, at
least two weeks before the Commencement of the Senior speaking" (
3:67,
UA).
Students of this period gave two senior speeches, one each
semester. In an October 29, 1828, letter to
Capt.
Stephen Manson,
Lees'
brother-in-law,
Lees
writes, "The senior class delivered their
orations a few weeks since. We had according to report tolerably good speeches,
but not many persons, especially of the female sex to hear them." By March
17, 1829, writing to his brother
Hugh
(see
Letter),
Lees
is preparing for a second speech: "In about a
week my class have to speak again our own compositions publickly." The
speech printed here, then, is probably one of two senior speeches
Lees
gave in the 1828-29 academic year. The argument for
assigning it a Fall 1828 date is based on a passage at the end of the speech,
which I interpret as refering to the administration of
President
John Quincy Adams
.
Adams
was no longer President in March 1829, by which time
Andrew
Jackson
, exceedingly popular with
North
Carolinians, had been elected.
The
David
McMichen Lees Papers, SHC, also contain a draft of what is
unquestionably a senior speech. Titled "Defence of the
Colonization
Society," it bears the endorsement "Oration/in Senior
year" and shows corrections in pencil, presumably by
William Hooper
. Two
Dialectic
Society speeches also survive. One is an inaugural address
Lees
gave on becoming president of the
Dialectic
Society. The other is a debate identified as an "Oration/Delivered
before the/
Dialectic
Society on/night before Commence=/ment/on one side/
Smith
&
Alston/on the other/
Yancy &
Lee
."
Lees
took the negative side in this debate, which
addressed the question, "Is the extent of [our] Country unfavourable to
the interests of the Nation?" The final drafts of both
Society speeches have been preserved in the
Dialectic
Society Papers, UA. Though the drafts are undated, the final versions
reveal that the commencement debate was "Composed for June 25th 1828"
and the inaugural address, in September 1828.
2. A second hand has written "public opinion" in pencil
above "the opinions of men," which has been underlined.
3. A second hand has written coextensive
in pencil above coexistent.
4. Comparing drafts and final versions of
Lees'
other speeches explains his use of parentheses. They
surround material that
Lees
intended to delete in the final version.
5. A second hand has written stimulate in
pencil above heighten.
6. A second hand has written in pencil "with lineaments"
above "in such," which has been underlined; "as enable us to
easily distinguish" is pencilled in underneath "by which they can
be." Both corrections subsequently were crossed out. The corrector appears
to have wanted the phrase to read "at least with lineaments as enable us
to easily distinguish them," whereas
Lees'
intention appears to have been "at least in
such as enable us easily [to] distinguish them."
7. A second hand has written in pencil nor
above &.
8. A second hand has inserted in pencil "have ceased to"
above the line between
lightnings and
glare.
Lees
wrote
to on top of this
correction.
9.
Lees
crossed out the phrase following
bodies, evidently accepting the words "mingled with
their kindred dust" written in pencil in a second hand above the crossed
out phrase.
10.
Lees
wrote
as on top of
to.
11.
William
Mitford,
History of Greece, 5 vols. (London: J.
Murray and J. Robson, 1784-1818).
12. A second hand has crossed out Mr in
pencil. The reference is to
Thomas
Brown,
Lectures on the Philosophy of the Human Mind, 4 vols.
(Edinburgh: W. and C. Tait, 1820).
13.
Thomas
Reid,
An Inquiry into the Human Mind (Dublin: A.
Ewing, 1764).
14. "and, if he [some future philosopher] have the talents of
Dr Reid,
he may even form a series of admirable ratiocinations, in disproof of an
opinion which nobody holds, and may consider himself, and perhaps, too, if he
be as fortunate as the author of the
Inquiry into the Human Mind, may be considered by others, as
the overthrower of a mighty system of metaphysical illusion" (
Brown
1:587).
15.
Caius
Octavius,
Odes
, I.xii.46: "He shines among all others,
the star of Julian, as the Moon among the lesser lights."
16. Given
Lees'
customary revision practices, the parenthetical
material in this sentence would have been omitted in the final version of the
speech.
17. A second hand has underlined ration in
pencil.
18. A second hand has inserted in pencil "and character"
above name.
19.
Alexander
Pope,
Essay on Man IV, vi (1734).
20.
Lees
wrote
u on top of
a.
21. A second hand has written foul in
pencil above filthy.
22.
Lees
wrote the symbol used in logic for
therefore, three dots arranged in a triangle.
23. While "the present administration in the present excited
state of public feeling" helps to date the speech, the reference can be
variously interpreted. I take it to refer to the heated campaigning for
presidential electors that took place in Fall 1828 in
North
Carolina (Andrew
Jackson
did not take office as President until March 4, 1829). The
presidential election of 1828 was especially contentious, as
John
Quincy Adams
and the loose coalition of political groups known as
National Republicans fought for a second term.
National Republicans, led by
Adams
and
Henry
Clay
, emphasized national unity and deplored the growing emphasis on
North-
South
sectionalism that swept
Jackson
into office on November 29, 1828. Supporters of
Jackson
, known as
Democratic Republicans, were a coalition of states' rights
advocates and included most of the eastern planter class in
North
Carolina.
Jackson
had been a close friend of
William Richardson Davie
, for whom
Jackson
served as a courier during the
Revolutionary War. In
North
Carolina, however,
Jackson
also was popular in the western part of the state
because he had grown up in the
Waxhaw
region, supported improvements in transportation necessary for the
state's economic development, and was lauded as a friend of the common people.
North
Carolinians voted overwhelmingly for
Jackson
in 1828; he carried all but nine counties.
Lees'
reference to "the present excited state of
public feeling" probably does not refer to
Jackson's
election, which had considerable support in
North
Carolina, but rather to the efforts to unseat
Adams
, who was highly controversial.