of Rural Art and Taste. 



347 



Curiosities of Itiirnl Journalistn. 



Almost every new coiner in the field of 

 rural literature echoes the stereotyped expres- 

 sion of one idea, — that their mission is "to 

 give sound and practical instruction — to avoid 

 sharp personalities — to correct the articles of 

 empirics, whose suggestions would surely lead 

 to grievo2iS disappointment — and to make the 

 history, theory and practice of rural pursuits 

 more scientifically correct. '''' 



One other expression, we notice, is quite 

 frequent, somewhat like this: "The articles 

 of a majority of our writers are, generally, 

 the work of persons ivhose reading and prac- 

 tice have been too limited to afford the quali- 

 fications needful for giving instruction.''' 



And straightway some first-class, well-estab- 

 lished journal is selected for a first-class criti- 

 cism. The editor finds, much to his regret, 

 after a free tilt, that the selection of such for 

 unnecessary criticism is bad policy, and brings 

 down the enmity of others from general sym- 

 pathy with the attacked party. We have a 

 good laugh, occasionally, when these new 

 fledglings get caught themselves. So the fol- 

 lowing instance is worth relating. A new 

 Brooklyn journal, in its first number, criti- 

 cises The Country Gentleman for publishing 

 a pretty story, which it says, unfortunately, is 

 not true. In the same number it publishes a 

 nice disquisition on the Jerusalem Artichoke, 

 saying that it came originally from Canada. 

 Whereupon, the New York Nation retorts, that 

 the Jerusalem Artichoke did not come from 

 Canada, but Louisiana; and the Brooklyn 

 editor, upon investigation, really cannot tell, 

 to a certainty, where it did come from. Now 

 we do not speak of this, except to mention it 

 as a curiosity of " sharp eyes loatching to trip 

 new critics. '^ 



After a year or two spent in time, talent 

 and money, to get a new journal well started, 

 the editor gets lonesome, and finds, after all, 

 it is not best to pitch into the older journals, 

 and it is decidedly more advantageous to be 

 on good terms with them. Tilton's Joxtrnal 



of Hortvmlture was doomed from the first to 

 unpopularity and failure, because of its ungal- 

 lant attack upon others of same profession. 



With regard to writers of experience, we 

 think it worth mention that the most success- 

 ful agricultural editor of the present day, one 

 highly esteemed by men thrice his age, is a 

 young man, never brought up on a farm, did 

 not live in the country for but few years, 

 resided entirely in the city while engaged in 

 literary work, and never made a speech in his 

 life. It is a complete disproof of the old idea, 

 that " ^7 takes a successful farmer to make a 

 successful agricidtural editor.'''' He had great 

 power of observation, easily learned what farm- 

 ers liked, sought for information which would 

 suit them ; got ideas from every source, cor- 

 respondence and selections, condensed them, 

 and made a model paper ; and yet not once 

 living or visiting a farm. He is still agricul- 

 tural editor of one of the " leading journals 

 of the United States.''^ 



We maintain that a successful far ?ner never 

 can be a successful editor. He knows too 

 much, and is not ready to believe or credit 

 what others know ; hence, he never will make 

 a good news distributor ; he judges everything 

 by his own opinions, and usually wants to tell 

 only what he knows himself. Almost all suc- 

 cessful farmers have hobbies and prejudices, 

 and these are gratified ; hence, he looks upon 

 experiments of other people as not likely to 

 bring out any more good than his own. A 

 successful editor's idea of a model journal is 

 to tell what others know. A successful 

 farmer's idea of a model journal is to tdl 

 what he knows. And yet, the editor, bred 

 to his position, and the farmer who has gained 

 his knowledge by years of hard work, experi- 

 ment and application, cannot change places 

 with each other and do as well. Each has 

 his place. Therefore it is unwise, we say, 

 for any one to keep ringing a tone of scorn, 

 prejudice or criticism about editors of inexpe- 

 ' rience. Each has his peculiar ability, and 

 the world has its proper room for him. The 

 measure of a man is not so nmch ivhat he 

 knoios (but keeps to himself), as what he does, 

 I arid how ivell he benefits others. 



