SHOULD A REPUBLIC ENCOURAGE THE ARTS. 



that make that way a road fit for convenient use; and in its most extended sense it is the 

 privilege of architecture to embody what is doing, and that only. 



A man may surejy be justified in saying of a people — give me a list of their build- 

 ings, and I will give you a list of their occupations, and the principles that are at work 

 there; but such a list would never show what such a people would do, or what its 

 principles Avould be at a future time. To form a private opinion on that point, it would 

 be necessary for a man to take up the thread of the argument, where the facts showed 

 that the art of eloquence had left it, and argue the matter out, silently or otherwise, 

 according to the requirements of the latter art. This difference in the analogy which 

 clearly exists, has, however, nothing to do with the machinery or working of either art, 

 and for the purposes of the present case the analog}' seems perfect. To place then a pub- 

 lic speech on the same artistic footing on which our public building was left previous to 

 this digression, it must first be calculated to achieve its end thoroughly, and be clearly 

 enunciated. Now is there any other perfection that ought, beyond cavil, to find its ex- 

 pression in a public speech.' Certainly there is atleast one, and that one is courtesy. A 

 senator, who should defend a rude speech, however forcible, on the ground that he 

 did not consider that the public paid him for occupying his time on such a subject, 

 Avould be considered foolishly ignorant. A speech, to be good, according to universal ac- 

 knowledgment, must be, at any rate, both forcible and elegant or courteous. The presence 

 of one quality will not compensate for the absence of the other, and this elegance must not 

 be protruded; it must be inherent, it must be thought of beforehand in every word, clause 

 and sentence, to give satisfaction. No generally offensive speech, will be mended by tack- 

 ing stereotyped compliments on to it, which would only make it the more insulting; it 

 must achieve its end, and in the process of achieving it, whatever other perfection it may 

 realize, it must at least offend as little as possible; otherwise it is felt to be tyrannical and 

 insupportably selfish, and is justly disliked by all who hear it spoken. Now this deduc- 

 tion may, without the slightest alteration, be applied to every public building; what other 

 perfection it may, beyond convenience and stability, be capable of, it must at least oflPend 

 as little as possible; otherwise it is felt to be tyrannical and insupportably selfish, and 

 is justljr disliked by all who see it built. If the truth of this deduction is granted, the 

 argument may readily be carried forward through all its various stages to this point, that 

 a great public speech on a great public question, affords one of the limited natural op- 

 portunities for the highest efforts of the art of eloquence; and if it is right for government 

 to insist on such opportunities being neglected, it is equivalent to affirming that man has 

 been gifted by his Creator with capacity for realising a certain perfection, but that they 

 feel bound in this political position to say they are instructed by the people to consider 

 this an unnecessary gift, and have accordingly made up their minds to strangle every pal- 

 pable opportunity that occurs for its exercise; and the argument thus carried forward, ap- 

 plies as accurately to architecture as to eloquence, for that the Creator created man with 

 a capacity to develope beaut}^ in buildings, no one will deny; or, according to all rules of 

 consistency, that the buildings for the most valuable and important purposes, are the only 

 proper field for the highest possible developments of that capacity, and therefore the sim- 

 ple case is that the government is placed in the position of asserting that they are instruct- 

 ed by the people to ignore the existence and deny the opportunity for the use of the noblest 

 gifts of the Creator. 



One other objection has been raised, and that is, that the admission of the right of gov- 

 ernment to include, in any way, such subjects as architecture, in its idea of public wants, 

 and to spend public money thereon, has an unavoidable tendency towards corruption in 



