21% Striétures on. the Retrofpeét of American Literature. [April 1, 
to deplore, muft have rather fought an 
opportunity of indulging his fpleen or re- 
fentment, than to fupport bis original po- 
fition, by fuch Jucubrations. It is not 
impoffible that fume of them were pro- 
voked by thofe, who, during his refidence 
on the Wefiern Continent, did not impli- 
citly yield to his fancied fuperiority, and 
benevolent attempts to arreft the rapid vi- 
tiation of its public tafte ; for I cannot be- 
lieve that the ingenious nautical work of 
Hamilton Moore needs fuch a puffer. 
But, although your friend X. feems very 
generoufly to have abandoned the pofition 
aflumed in bis outfet, it:may not be im- 
proper to notice fome epinions and afier- 
tions incidentally introduced to ftrengthen 
his general fentiments. My own rambles 
en that Continent have been rather exten- 
five ; and the refult of my general obfer- 
vations has been, that, on a comparifon 
of the uneducated claffes of its inhabi- 
tants with the fame defcription of people 
inany part of thefe United Kingdomswhich 
I have vifited (and they are not a few), the 
alleged inferiority of natura] talent is net 
apparent; and I retain this opinion with 
the more confidence, as it was entertained 
by all the Britifh travellers with whom I 
have converfed on this fubdjeét, two’ or 
three f{plenetic invalids excepted, who 
could fee nothing comparable to “‘ dear 
Old England.’ It is much eafier to fketch 
a caricature, than to paint a good likenefs. 
For the firft, a lively fancy, animated by 
ryefentment or malice, is fufficient: for the 
latter, although a Jittle latitude may be al- 
lowable in the colouring and drapery, 
fome regard to truth is effentially requi- 
fite. I am not fufficiently acquainted with 
the hittory of American literature to ap- 
preciate its merits ; but I know enough to 
believe, that the animadverter is even yet 
lefs acquainted with it; or he would not 
have told your readers, that Franklin, 
Morfe, ‘Trumball, Dwight, Adams, Ram- 
fay, Belknap, and Minot, are the ‘¢ names 
of the few principal American writers ;"’ or 
infinvate that the four latter have merely 
furnithed hittoric materials for fome per- 
fons of genius (a Briton doubtlefs) to 
work upon; he would not have defignated 
the venerable Franklin, as ‘the plagiary 
retaiicr of the home{pun proverbs of his 
ancefiors, of which he avowed himfelf to 
be only the ccile&or; nor would he fo in- 
fidioufly have placed clofe by-his fide a 
man, who, although meriting efteem for 
his geographical labours, I am {fure, has 
too much gcod fen‘e and modefty to enjoy 
the compliment. I indeed fufpe&t, that 
Mrs, X. never read any other of Dr. 
Franklin’s works than his Almanacks, 
and perhaps fome of his Philofophical 
Traés. . The Doé&or, I well know, at- 
tended but little to the embellifhment of. 
his ftyle ; but that, on any fubjeé&, “ he 
made ufe of the homelieft language, fel- 
dom rifing higher than moral proverbs,”? 
is, Iam fure, as reverfe from the truth, a3 
the affertion that he, in any manner, be- 
came *¢ the founder of bad tafte’?. among 
his country-folks. Whoever remembers 
the long-continued controverfy between 
the late proprietaries of Pennfylvania, and 
its legiflature, and knows the fhare he had 
in it, 1 am confident, will not unite in that 
fentiment. The dedication of his well. . 
written * Hiftorical Account”? of that 
Province to Sir Arthur Onflow, I have 
often heard-commended as excellent in its 
kind: and it has not fallen to my lot to 
converle with any, who, having had the 
opportunity of perufing his moft familiar 
letters to his friends, did not in:them dif- 
cover much originality of genius, united 
with the facility of exprefling his ideas 
clearly and correély, if not elegantly, on 
every fubject ; and often of enlivening it 
with genuine effufions of wit and humour. 
In the writings of the other authors 
enumerated in the principal lift, I have 
difcoyered nothing much above, or at all 
below, mediocrity... I by no means pre- 
tend to that accuracy of judgment which 
authoyifes me to add to, or exclude, any of 
thofe mentioned from the catalogue of 
‘* principal American writers;’? but I 
capnot attribute the exclufion of many 
others not mentioned, and, at leaft, equal- 
ly refpectable as writers as moft of them, | 
to any other caufe than a want of infor- - 
mation, or the yet more evident inclina- 
tion of your friend X. to derogate from 
the merits of our Tranfatlantic brethren 
in the republic of letters. Where, I pray 
you, is the abfurdity of the plea grounded _. 
on ‘* the infancy of their country,” in de- _ 
fence of the literary dearth attributed to 
them? . Is it poffible, that in a country, 
an immenfe . proportion of whofe inhabi- 
tants are engaged in the cultivation of a 
rude and boundlefs wildernefs, the fpirit 
of enquiry, and of literary patronage, can 
be as active in producing their ufual fruits, 
as in_one which has long fince nearly 
reached the xe plus ultra ot improvement, 
and in which the fields of literature offer 
fo.many more inducements to the exertion 
of the intellectual powers? Were a citi- 
zen of Bofton, New York, or Philadel- 
phia, in want of an elegant watch, or 
other curious piece of mechanifm, commen 
fenfe would teach him to leek for it -in 
Londvun 
