Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

hostility of the court; but his refusal of the place of under-secretary of state for the colonies, by showing that he was incorruptible, made him an object of abnorNo other evidence need be referred to, than the conduct of Wedderburne, on his appearance before the privy council, on the affair of the celebrated letters, see vol. I. p. 87 of this edition.

rence.

The constancy and courage of a man was never more steadfast than that of Dr. Franklin on this occasion. The malignity of Wedderburne sought to fix a stigma by resorting to a classical allusion, and attempting to transfer it to the man whose virtue had excited ministerial hatred. Though the allusion is well understood by men of erudition, it cannot be amiss, on this occasion, to give a concise explanation of it. Pliny, b. xviii. c. 3. reports an Athenian custom of branding slaves convicted of certain offences on the forehead; or if for theft, on the hand with which the theft was committed; those thus marked, as Pliny expresses it,, were inscripti trium literarum-the man of three letters, referring to the three initial letters, I TL, impressed on the culprit. Besides the malignity of Wedderburne's invective, the inapplicability of the wretched pun made the cause of the government ridiculous in the eyes of all liberal men. The triumph of the republic was hot necessary to counteract the malice; and time has testified to the uprightness of the American agent. It was known to the writer of this article in 1798, that those letters had been placed in the hands of the American agent by Dr. Williamson, who died a few years since at New York, and disclosed the fact before his death. The mission of Dr. Franklin to the court of France gave extreme mortification to the British ministers. Whether the attempts made to poison him by a present of wine, or the attempt to seduce him into a meeting at one of the churches; was the act of the ministers, or of some assassins, who sought the assassination under expectations of reward, cannot now be ascertained, nor indeed is it necessary; and the facts are noticed here only as they appear to have been in the same spirit which operated on the court of St. James's to retard negotiations, merely because Dr. Franklin, the trium literarum homo, must have been the negotiator. This difficulty was attempted to be explained away by the ministers, who alleged that there was no person in Europe accredited by full powers to conclude a treaty of peace.

On this occasion it was that a man of some celebrity, but who merited much more than has been rendered him, volunteered to clear away this pretext. Thomas Pownall, who had been some time governor of Massachusetts,-who knew America well and Franklin intimately,-had the courage to apprize the ministry that there was a man in Europe ready and willing, and duly authorized to treat for peace. This was done in a memorial, dated at Richmond, Jan. 1, 1782, and contains this striking paragraph :

"Your memorialist, from his experience in the business, from information of the state of things, being convinced that a preliminary negotiation may be commenced; from his knowledge of the persons with whom such matters must be negotiated, as men with whom it was once his duty to act, with whom he has acted, with whom he has negotiated business of the crown, and whom, however habile and dexterous he found them, he always experienced to be of good faith; as men who have known your memorialist in business, and will have that confidence in him which is necessary to the gestion of affairs."

Governor Pownall was not listened to, though no man was better qualified to

advise by experience in American affairs and upright disposition. In a memorial which he had previously published concerning America, he predicted the progress, and growth, and grandeur of the United States. "He who has observed the progress of the new world," said Governor Pownall," will know that this is true, and will have seen many a real philosopher, a politician, and a warrior emerge out of this wilderness, as the seed riseth out of the ground, where the grain lies buried for a season. I hope no one will so misunderstand this, as to take it for a fancy drawing of what may be; it is a lineal and exact portrait of what actually exists."

66

In the printed preface to this memorial, the governor has taken care to be more explicit. After discussing the evils of a bad administration, and the benefits which flow from good great men in authority, he says, It is for that reason I will set Henry IV. of France at the head of the list; one has heard of a Tully, a Fleury, a Clarendon, a Somers, a De Witt, and a ; and for the good of mankind, one would hope that such men, in all countries where they can act, may never be wanting to continue the list."

On the margin of the printed page in which this passage appears, the space in a ruled line is filled up with the word FRANKLIN, and below in the governor's handwriting, these words :-"I have written in the name which was intended for that space."

Among the moral allegories in this and in former editions, is a parable very much celebrated, and justly, from the force and delicacy of its application: it is that of Abraham and the Stranger. Very soon after the revolution had terminated in a peace, and while yet the resentments of those who had been self-exiled by hostility to the freedom of their country were still fresh and rancorous, several publications of a criminatory and vituperative kind were published in England. Two works of this description, both written by clergymen, appeared; the first, a memoir of the Life of Dr. Franklin, professing to be a continuation of the memoirs by himself; this was published in French, and distributed in France for political purposes, in which odium theologicum was so extravagant as to furnish its own antidote. The second was entitled, "A View of the Causes and Consequences of the American Revolution, by Jonathan Boucher, M. A." &c., in which the parable against persecution was charged upon the venerable Franklin as a palpable plagiarism; copied from the Polemical Discourses of Jeremy Taylor, folio 1674, p. 1078. The editor of a recent English epitome of Franklin's memoirs has renewed the story, with an expression of surprise that his grandson should not have rectified the error.

Perhaps the present occasion may be a suitable one to place this matter on its proper foundation. The general source of misapprehension on this topic, arises out of the assumption that Dr. Franklin premeditatedly published this parable as an original composition of his own. Upon this point it would be enough to say, that Dr. Franklin never published any edition of his own productions; that those editions which appeared at various times were issued by other persons, to whom, when asked, he communicated whatever was sought and within his power; deriving no emolument whatever from any of them.

In the works of Lord Kaimes, in a chapter on education, he published a version of the parable on persecution. Parson Boucher first alleged that “Franklin elaimed it as his own." This allegation is a mere assumption; there is nothing to

verify it, any more than that he who quoted prose or verse from Pope or Dryden, illustrative of some moral principle, must be considered as appropriating the verse as his own. Lord Kaimes simply says, "the following parable against persecution was communicated to me by Dr. Franklin." This doth not substantiate the allegation of a claim to be its author; it was communicated as an illustration of benevolence and toleration, without any other intimation. Lord Kaimes states simply by whom it was communicated, and so descants on it.

It is very certain that there were two different versions of such a parable, one of the Persian poet Sadi, and written so early as A. D. 1256; and a second, of Jeremy Taylor, published in 1674. That the leading ideas and moral inferences were alike in both, and differed only in their idiomatic construction, is indisputable, and that they both merited the regard and approbation of all good men. The version of the parable in the Bostaan of the Persian poet Sadi, is more oriental and circumlocutory; and not required to be presented here. That of Jeremy Taylor is given with a view to afford the reader an opportunity of judging on the merits of the version, said by Dr. Taylor to have been "found in the Jewish books." The version is as follows: "When Abraham sat at his tent door, according to his custom, waiting to entertain strangers, he espied an old man, stooping and leaning on his staff, weary with age and travel, coming towards him, who was a hundred years of age: he received him kindly and washed his feet, provided supper, caused him to sit down; but observing the old man ate and prayed not, nor begged for a blessing to his meat, he asked him why he did not worship the God of heaven? The old man told him that he worshipped the fire only, and acknowledged no other God. At which answer Abraham grew so jealousy angry, that he thrust the old man out of his tent, and exposed him to all the evils of the night, and an unguarded condition. When the old man was gone, God called to Abraham, and asked where the stranger was? He replied, I thrust him away, because he would not worship thee. God answered him, I have suffered him those hundred years, although he dishonoured me; and couldst thou not endure him one night, when he gave thee no trouble? Upon this, saith the story, Abraham fetched him back again, and gave him hospitable entertainment and wise instruction.. Go thou and do likewise, and thy charity will be rewarded by the God of Abraham." We shall here give the version as published by Lord Kaimes, and shall annex, in another column, a different and much improved version, which we copy from the edition corrected by Dr. Franklin, for the use of Mr. Vaughan. A comparison of Dr. Taylor's version with the first, and the improvements in the scriptural style, arrangement into numbered verses, and the still stronger point and effect given to the moral, will at least amount to this, that if it was a copy, it was a very much improved one, and in every respect better adapted to the nature of a moral apologue than that of Sadi or Dr. Taylor.

Lord Kaimes's version.

And it came to pass after these things, that Abraham sat in the door of his tent about the going down of the sun, and behold a man bent with age, coming from the way of the wilderness, leaning on his staff. And Abraham arose and met him, and said unto him, Turn in, I pray thee,

Last version by Dr. Franklin.

1. And it came to pass after these things, that Abraham sat in the door of his tent about the going down of the sun.

2. And behold a man bowed with age, came from the way of the wilderness, leaning on a staff.

and wash thy feet, and tarry all night; and thou shalt rise early in the morning and go on thy way. And the man said, Nay, for I will abide under this tree. But Abraham pressed him greatly; so he turned, and they went into the tent; and Abraham baked unleavened bread, and they did eat. And when Abraham saw that the man blessed not God, he said unto him, Wherefore dost thou not worship the most high God, creator of heaven and earth? And the man answered and said, I do not worship thy God, neither do I call upon his name; for I have made to myself a god, which abideth always in my house, and provideth me with all things. And Abraham's zeal was kindled against the man, and he arose and fell upon him, and drove him forth with blows into the wilderness. And God called upon Abraham, saying, Abraham, where is the stranger? And Abraham answered and said, Lord, he would not worship thee, neither would he call upon thy name; therefore I have driven him out from before my face into the wilderness. And God said, I have borne with him these hundred and ninety and eight years, and nourished him, and clothed him, notwithstanding his rebellion against me; and couldst not thou, who art thyself a sinner, bear with him one night?

3. And Abraham rose and met him, and said, Turn in, I pray thee, and wash thy feet, and tarry all night, and thou shalt arise early in the morning and go on thy way.

4. But the man said, Nay, for I will abide under this tree.

5. And Abraham pressed him greatly; so he turned, and they went into the tent, and Abraham baked unleavened bread, and they did eat.

6. And when Abraham saw that the man blessed not God, he said unto him, Wherefore dost thou not worship the most high God, creator of heaven and earth?

7. And the man answered and said, I do not worship the God thou speakest of, neither do I call upon his name; for I have made to myself a god, which abideth always in my house, and provideth me with all things.

8. And Abraham's zeal was kindled against the man, and he arose and drove him forth with blows into the wilderness.

9. And at midnight God called upon Abraham saying, Abraham, where is the stranger?

10. And Abraham answered and said, Lord, he would not worship thee, neither would he call upon thy name; therefore I have driven him out before my face into the wilderness.

11. And God said, Have I borne with him these hundred ninety and eight years, and clothed him, notwithstanding his rebellion against me; and couldst not thou, that art thyself a sinner, bear with him one night?

12. And Abraham said, Let not the anger of the Lord wax hot against his servant; lo, I have sinned; forgive me, I pray thee.

13. And Abraham arose, and went forth into the wilderness, and sought diligently for the and found him, and returned with him to the tent; and when he had entreated him kindly, he sent him away on the morrow with gifts.

man,

14. And God spake unto Abraham, saying, For this thy sin shall thy seed be afflicted four hundred years in a strange land.

15. But for thy repentance will I deliver them; and they shall come forth with power and gladness of heart, and with much substance.

A comparison of these three several versions will show that the transfusion of the first idea, wherever it arose, with Sadi, Jeremy Taylor, or the Jewish books, that in each change the moral purpose was more perspicuously put forth, and besides the greater appropriateness of the language, the subdivision, and the entire addition of the 12th to the 15th verses, much improved, and enforced the excellence of the principle of toleration. In this view, it becomes of little consequence whence the first

idea was derived; no one can dispute the superiority of the latter version, and no one can claim it in that form as belonging to any other than Franklin. The moral, however, appears to have been thrown away on the Rev. Jonathan Boucher, who, having been a rector of an episcopal church in Maryland before the Revolution, forsook his country, and was rewarded by the royal bounty with an ecclesiastical living. Franklin has not been treated with the same virulence by clergymen generally; among his most enduring and faithful friends through all the vicissitudes of fortune, Dr. Joseph Priestley, the founder of the pneumatic system, and Dr. Richard Price, the apostle of civil liberty, maintained their uniform and constant friendship; and many of less note appear to have coveted to be numbered amongst the adherents of a man who had shed so much lustre on his country and the cause of liberty. It may therefore be fit in this place to bestow a few words on the ethics of Franklin. As Socrates was the first of whom we have knowledge in all antiquity, whose philosophy concentrated all actions, and determined their value by their utility, Franklin appears to have taken the lead in modern times, and was, during many years of his residence in Europe, considered as the founder of modern utilitarianism; and this too was the standard of his religious opinions. It was his practice to avoid disputation or controversy on modes of faith; he censured none, when they did not operate perniciously, and deemed that to be good which produced. good. Like Cicero and Sir William Jones, he acquiesced without accepting the dogmas of the prevailing systems, and even conformed in his exterior deportment, and in his family, to the usages of some one or other sect, unbiassed by any. In his youth he became sceptical, but in maturer years perceived that doubt had its extremes as well as credulity; and that as the human faculties are limited, so man cannot penetrate beyond those bounds; that time, space, and the origin, or causes, or what has been called the eternity of things, are all beyond the measure of those faculties; that we judge of all we know by analogy, and where that fails we know nothing. He felt that there was a morality incident to the nature of man, independent of all that is held to be supernatural or miraculous; nature at large and her phenomena, and greatest of all, man himself, the only miracles; that the source of these phenomena was sublime and impenetrable, indicating beneficence and justice, and leading to utility in all things. All religions he considered as human ; none having superiority, but as they promoted the greatest good; but the proper business of man in the world of which he forms a part, and the perfection of his nature, was the promotion of universal happiness, by the prevention or mitigation of evil.

This mode of thinking arose either out of a happy temperament, or produced it. Modesty and frankness, with a happy gaiety, were his ordinary characteristics; somewhat reserved, but cheerful abroad, playful and communicative at home; cool in deliberation, dispassionate on all subjects, the most inflexible of men under the persuasion of rectitude and justice.

Among his warmest admirers in Europe were three very uncommon men, of three different nations: Bentham, and Turgot, and Beccaria. Condorcet relates an anecdote of Franklin and Turgot.

When Turgot had determined to make some reforms upon the system of Colbert, and rescue France from the tribute to which she was subjected by a commerce which destroyed the internal industry of France, and where there was no recipro

« AnteriorContinuar »