118 
THE CULTIVATOR. 
shall be meat for you, even as the green herb have I given you all 
things.” 
It is not improbable that mankind, for several ages after the flood, re¬ 
mained united, and that agriculture and the arts had made considerable 
progress among them. The fact of their being together in such numbers 
as to commence the building of a city—to make brick, anu to use slime 
or pitch for mortar—and to attempt to build a tower whose top should 
reach “ unto the heaven ”—shows that the necessaries of life must have 
been raised in abundance around them, and that many were enabled to 
withdraw from the cultivation of the soil, to the arts necessary for the arti¬ 
ficial society of a city. But upon the dispersion of mankind, by the mira¬ 
culous confusion of tongues, whether we interpret the language literally 
or figuratively, much of the knowledge existing in a dense population 
must have been lost, as mankind became scattered and ceased to commu¬ 
nicate with each other. As few, in all probability, were capable of re¬ 
maining together, on account of the scantiness of the means of support, a 
relapse into barbarism was scarcely avoidable. Many, of a roving dispo¬ 
sition, would support themselves by hunting, while the more prudent 
would trust to the rearing of flocks, and a more or less careful cultivation 
of the soil. 
But as they had the whole world before them, it is not probable that 
there was much industry, or much attention to the arts, for a long period. 
The pastoral life being the easiest, and less precarious than that of the 
mere hunter, we find that it was followed by the patriarchs; and recent 
travellers assure us, that the customs of the nomadic tribes of Asia are 
not essentially different, at this day, from what they were in the days of 
Abraham. 
In process of time, however, mankind had become so numerous that 
more attention to the cultivation of the soil became necessary for their 
support. They began to acquire fixed residences, and to accumulate in¬ 
dividual property. Arts and civilization necessarily sprung up among 
them; and in proportion as agriculture made progress, nations became 
civilized, prosperous and powerful. It has always been so, and there is 
reason to believe it will continue so as long as the world lasts. Sully ex¬ 
pressed his conviction of this truth, by saying, that agriculture might be 
regarded as the breasts from which the state derived its nourishment and 
support. 
The Jews were an agricultural and pastoral nation, having few manu¬ 
factures, and but a very limited commerce. Egypt seems to have been 
the granary of the world during the most flourishing periods of the Jewish 
monarchy. The natural fertility of the soil of Lower Egypt, caused by 
the periodical overflowings of the Nile, was probably the cause of this, 
rather than the skill or industry of her agricultural population. The 
Greeks are supposed to have derived their knowledge of agriculture, as 
well as of other arts, from the Egyptians; but they do not seem to have 
excelled in the cultivation of the soil. Their country wa3 in many re¬ 
spects unfavorable, being more remarkable for picturesque scenery and 
natural beauty, than fertility. To render the soil fertile and productive, 
required more labor than the Greeks felt disposed to bestow upon it. 
Most of the field labor was performed by slaves; and I believe there never 
has been a country highly improved by such labor. 
The Romans, as they were in all respects a more industrious, a more 
honest, a more respectable people than the fickle Greeks, carried the arts 
of husbandry to a higher degree of perfection. From the Georgies of Vir¬ 
gil, and more particularly from the writings of Columella, we gather, that 
during the Augustan and subsequent ages, agriculture was practised on 
correct and regular principles Columella has left us twelve books on 
agriculture and gardening. The style is elegant, and the work is said to 
display the genius of a naturalist, and to evince an observing mind. Un¬ 
like most conquering nations, particularly those of antiquity, the Romans 
carried with their arms civilization and arts They did not, m general, 
burn the towns and lay waste the countries they subdued. Whenever 
they formed a permanent conquest, they opened roads, buill bridges and 
aqueducts, and promoted agriculture. All this they might have done, less 
for the good of the subdued, than for their own security and advantage. 
But still, if we deny them credit for motive, we cannot in justice refuse 
to concede to them the merit of having diffused improvement and civili¬ 
zation over extensive regions of the earth, which had hitherto remained 
in a state of barbarism, and which, but for them, might have remained so 
until this day. Our ancestors were found by them little better than the 
sarages that roam through our own forests; They went to war, naked 
and painted, like the Indians of modem days, and do not appear to have 
made much, if any, greater progress in the scale of society. The people 
of the northern parts of the continent of Europe were very much in the 
same condition. But the parts that submitted to the Roman sway, felt the 
influence of the energetic government of that remarkable people. Towns 
and cities sprung up in great numbers—the soil became better cultivated 
—the people (being protected in their lives and property) became nume¬ 
rous and improved—good roads were made almost every where—the ci¬ 
ties had baths, and aqueducts, and splendid buildings, not much inferior 
to those of Italy herself. 
This state of comparative happiness, prosperity and improvement con¬ 
tinued until the Roman empire, the most splendid, the most magnificent, 
and the most useful to human advancement the sun ever shone upon, be¬ 
gan to totter under her own unwieldy weight, and the fierce assaults of 
the Goths, Vandals, and other barbarians of the “ Northern Hive.” 
In the confusion which followed the dismemberment of the Roman em¬ 
pire, agriculture, in common with other occupations, suffered great injury. 
The elegant and useful arts not only ceased to advance, but actually re¬ 
trograded. The security of a steady and energetic government was want¬ 
ing. No man felt the assurance, when he sowed in the spring, that he 
would be allowed to reap in the autumn. He consequently lost the most 
influential incentive to exertion. The arts of wav were in higher estima¬ 
tion than those of peace. The cultivators of the soil were looked upon as 
an inferior race, and in general were so in point of fact. 
For more than a thousand years, agriculture ceased to make advances, 
even in the most favored spots of Europe; while, in the greatest part of 
what was once the Roman empire, it became greatly neglected and dete¬ 
riorated. The estates of the church were the best cultivated, both be¬ 
cause the priests were the best informed in agriculture, as well as in other 
branches of knowledge, and because, during the destructive wars which 
were of almost constant occurrence, the contending parties generally rr - 
spected the property of the church. 
Agriculture, like the arts and sciences in general, soon felt the influ¬ 
ence of the discovery of the art of printing and the revival of letters. Af¬ 
ter the restoration of letters, Lombardy and Tuscany were foremost in im¬ 
provements. The mildness of the climate, the richness of the s.od, and 
the facility of irrigating their fields, all contributed to this result. From 
improved agriculture, commerce and manufactures received an impulse. 
The worthy example of these states was, in process of time, followed by 
France, Holland and the Netherlands, by the German States, and by the 
British Islands. 
Until the middle of the eighteenth century, however, it is perhaps safe 
to say, that agriculture and rural arts, even in the most improved coun¬ 
tries of Europe, scarcely equalled their condition during the flourishing 
state of the Roman empire. 
In the British Islands, the successive conquests of the Saxons and Nor¬ 
mans, the constant foreign wars, or the several dissentions at home, all 
tended more or less to retard improvement of every kind. When we com¬ 
pare the population of the several nations of Europe now, with what they 
possessed at the date of the discovery of America—when we consider the 
very limited commerce carried on by them with other countries—the fre¬ 
quent famines and pestilences which prevailed—and the very small num¬ 
bers engaged in manufactures—we can ea-ily judge how imperfect must 
have been the husbandry of the period. 
In England, during the reign of Henry VIII. considerable advances 
were made in agriculture. The first book on English husbandry was pub¬ 
lished by Sir A. Fitzherbert. The book of husbandry was followed by 
the book of surveying and improvements. The art continued to make 
steady progress during the reign of Elizabeth. 
The agriculture of Scotland and Ireland was in a worse state than that 
of England. The accession of the house of Stuart to the throne of Eng¬ 
land, instead of benefiting rather retarded agriculture in Scotland; while 
the civil wars and internal disquietudes of Ireland, then, as now, operated 
as powerful checks to cultivation. From the union of Scotland with Eng¬ 
land, down to the conclusion of the American war, no very decided im¬ 
provements in husbandry, or in the management of live stock, took place, 
except the introduction into more general use of the drill s/stem, by Je¬ 
thro Tull, and the practice of Bakewell, in the raising of stock. But 
since the middle of the last century, to the present time, the advancement 
of the rural arts in general, has been steady and rapid. The whole of 
Great Britain almost, may be said to have acquired a new aspect The 
people have become numerous and prosperous, the value of lands has trip¬ 
led, while whole districts of country, before deemed barren and unfit for 
cultivation, are now seen yielding luxuriant crops. This change is no 
doubt attributable to several causes; but I believe none have been more 
operative than the various associations and societies for the promotion of 
agriculture and rural economy. Among these may be named, as the most 
distinguished, the Highland societies of London and Edinburgh, and the 
British Board of Agriculture. 
As our society is instituted for similar purposes, it may be useful to take 
a rapid glance at the leading improvements in husbandry and rural econo¬ 
my which these associations have been instrumental in introducing into 
more general use. We can then inquire how far such improvements as 
are applicable to this country, are known and practised by aur farmers— 
how such as are not in use, can best be introduced—and what further the 
society can suggest for the considerable and adoption of the farming com¬ 
munity. 
Until the middle of the last century, a considerable portion of the arable 
land of Great Britain was held in common among the inhabitants of the 
numerous villages, as well as among the class of small farmers. The te¬ 
nure was also for short terms, as one or two years in many instances, or 
the occupants were tenants at will. Both these causes tended greatly to 
retard improvement; for it could not be expected that individuals would 
expend much labor or money upon what they had no assurance they should 
possess for more than a season. One of the firet and most important ob- 
