On the History of Authors by Profession. No. II. I HAVE attempted to establish in my last paper*, that authors by profession, or a class of men who derive their chief fublistence from literary exertion, have ever exifted in society, among the rudest, as well as the most refined nations, under the most venerable, as well as the most contemned fortas. Homer chaunting his ballads, or Socrates delivering his moral instructions, correspond in this particular with the unskilful bard of the most savage tribe, or the venal fophift of the most corrupted age. But it is to be remarked, that there are two distinct modes in which the profession of letters has existed, either by becoming objects of the munificence of individuals, or by miniftering to the pleasure of the public. The first is the state of patronage: The second that to which has been annexed the vulgar obloquy of authorship. Under no other form can the literary profeffion appear; and the alternation of these constitutes its history. It is not a little remarkable, that this alternation affords a new example of that circle in human affairs, that return to the point from which their progress began; which, in other provinces, has attracted the attention of enlightened observers. Authorship is the form which appears in the earliest period of fociety; it is succeeded by patronage, which again, in a fucceffion equally uniform and inevitable, gives place to authorship, the state which occupies the rudest and the most refined portions of the social progress. This may be obviously illustrated in detail. The bard must owe his subsistence to the grateful hospitality of his whole tribe. He is therefore completely in a state of authorship. He ministers pleasure to that pub* Vol. I. p. 62. Lic, from which he derives his reward. He passes from cabin to cabin, purchasing a share in their joys by the recital of his tale and his fong. In that simple and equal state, no individual possesses opulence to become a patron; and perhaps no savage amateur could afford the luxury of sustaining, for a confiderable length of time, his bard. Hence the neceffity of successively exhibiting his talents to his whole tribe, of courting his little public, and becoming, in the modern sense, an author by profeffion. But the inequality of property, which fo early arifes in society, produces speedy and important effects on the condition of the profeffors of a rude and scanty literature. The chief, who first outstrips his neighbours in opulence, courts with avidity the man whose traditional knowledge can give splendor to his lineage, or whose poetical powers can add renown to his exploits. The genealogist and the poet find a ready access to his board. They gladly abandon a precarious and defultory life, for an ease and a luxury, which it requires only flattery to purchase, and obsequiousness to enfure. In this state, literature is not only invited to dependence, by the munificence of her patrons, but she is driven into it by the callous ignorance of a public no longer fufceptible of her charms: For the fame progress of inequality, which makes the few opulent enough to be patrons, degrades the many too much to be admirers. The ardent paffion, and the frequent inaction of savage life exist no longer in the indigent drudgery of a civilized peasant. The care of subsistence absorbs feeling, and the sense of dependence extinguishes pride. They have no longer leifure or enthusiasm to listen with rapture to the fong, or attend with anxious curiofity to the issue of the tale. It is in this state, that bards and fennachies are the Household officers of the great; an usage of which a remnant still remains to libel the English intellect, in the royal establishment of a Poet Laureat. The progress of fociety, however, changes this domestic into a more distant dependence. The diffolution of those great households which are the channel of the expenditure of the opulent in a certain state of manners, gives patronage a new form. The patron still rewards the poet; but it is not by hospitality, it is by presents. He pays him in money, not in kind. This intercourse continues in a greater or less degree from the first appearance of moderate refinement to the meridian splendour of literature. Examine the first dawnings of polite letters in a country. There will always be found some one patron, of whose household all the professors of literature are but a fort of extra officers. A Leo X, a Francis I, a Cofmo de Medicis, will be found, though with less splendid reputation, in every country. But the diffusion of literature raises rival patrons, and the condition of the author still farther recedes from domeftic dependence. The habits of reading, at length, reach that portion of mankind, who form the public; and their collective patronage divides with individual munificence, the hopes and the homage of the author. Meantime, the fuffrage of the public becomes daily more important, from the increase of its literary ardour; while the same cause increases the number of pretenders to a degree so formidable, as to deter patrons from the labour of felection, and to reduce them to a dilemma in which they must either launch into an expenditure too immense for their revenue, or attempt a discrimination too laborious for their indolence, and too arduous for their skill. They take refuge in indiscriminate rejection; patronage ceases, and the profession of letters is once more thrown on the public. Authorship thus clofes as it had opened the progress. - Authors had exifted in the favage ftate, because there were too few patrons ; and they revived in the most civilized, because there were too many authors. The same principle operated in both cafes. Whether there are too few fources, or too many objects of patronage, is in effect of the fame amount. Gleanings of Biography. Marshal General Keith. THE Ruffians and Turks, in their war before the last, having diverted themselves long enough in murdering one another, for the sake of variety, thought proper to treat of a peace. The commiffioners for this purpose were, Marshal General Keith and the Turkish Grand Vifier. These two personages met, and the interpreters of the Russ and Turkish betwixt them. When all was concluded, they arose to separate; the Marshal made his bow with hat in hand, and the Vifier his falam, with turban on his head: But when these ceremonies of taking leave were over, the Vifier turned fuddenly, and coming up to Keith, took him freely by the hand, and in the broadest Scotch dialect, spoken by the lowest and most illiterate of our countrymen, declared warmly, that it made him unco happy, now he was fae far frae hame, to meet a countryman in his exalted station. Keith stared with all his eyes; but at last the exclamation came, and the Vifier told him, My father, faid he, was bell-man of Kirkaldy in Fife, and I remember to have seen you, fir, and your brother often occasionally paffing. This strange anecdote, I received some years ago from a respectable and learned Baronet of Scotland, who told me that he had it affirmed to him for truth, but did not remember his authority; -perhaps some of your readers may be able to folve this difficulty, or contradict the story upon good authority. I am, Sir, * Your humble servant, distant dependence. The diffolution of those great households which are the channel of the expenditure of the opulent in a certain ftate of manners, gives patronage a new form. The patron still rewards the poet; but it is not by hospitality, it is by presents. He pays him in money, not in kind. This intercourse continues in a greater or less degree from the first appearance of moderate refinement to the meridian splendour of literature. Examine the first dawnings of polite letters in a country. There will always be found some one patron, of whose household all the professors of literature are but a fort of extra officers. A Leo X, a Francis I, a Cofmo de Medicis, will be found, though with less splendid reputation, in every country. But the diffufion of literature raises rival patrons, and the condition of the author still farther recedes from domestic dependence. The habits of reading, at length, reach that portion of mankind, who form the public; and their collective patronage divides with individual munificence, the hopes and the homage of the author. Meantime, the fuffrage of the public becomes daily more important, from the increase of its literary ardour; while the same cause increases the number of pretenders to a degree so formidable, as to deter patrons from the labour of felection, and to reduce them to a dilemma in which, they must either launch into an expenditure too immense for their revenue, or attempt a discrimination too laborious for their indolence, and too arduous for their skill. They take refuge in indiscriminate rejection; patronage ceases, and the profession of letters is once more thrown on the public. Authorship thus clofes as it had opened the progress.--Authors had exifted in the favage ftate, because there were too few patrons; and they revived in the most civilized, because there were too many authors. The same principle operated in both cafes. Whether there are too few fources, or too many objects of patronage, is in effect of the fame amount. A. D. |