The next year I did better still,for I spaded up all the land which I required,about a third of an acre,and I learned from the experience of both years,not being in the least awed by many celebrated works on husbandry,Arthur Young among the rest,that if one would live simply and eat only the crop which he raised,and raise no more than he ate,and not exchange it for an insufficient quantity of more luxurious and expensive things,he would need to cultivate only a few rods of ground,and that it would be cheaper to spade up that than to use oxen to plow it,and to select a fresh spot from time to time than to manure the old,and he could do all his necessary farm work as it were with his left hand at odd hours in the summer;and thus he would not be tied to an ox,or horse,or cow,or pig,as at present.I desire to speak impartially on this point,and as one not interested in the success or failure of the present economical and social arrangements.I was more independent than any farmer in Concord,for I was not anchored to a house or farm,but could follow the bent of my genius,which is a very crooked one,every moment.Beside being better off than they already,if my house had been burned or my crops had failed,I should have been nearly as well off as before.
I am wont to think that men are not so much the keepers of herds as herds are the keepers of men,the former are so much the freer.Men and oxen exchange work;but if we consider necessary work only,the oxen will be seen to have greatly the advantage,their farm is so much the larger.Man does some of his part of the exchange work in his six weeks of haying,and it is no boy's play.Certainly no nation that lived simply in all respects,that is,no nation of philosophers,would commit so great a blunder as to use the labor of animals.True,there never was and is not likely,soon to be a nation of philosophers,nor am I certain it is desirable that there should be.However,I should never have broken a horse or bull and taken him to board for any work he might do for me,for fear I should become a horseman or a herds-man merely;and if society seems to be the gainer by so doing,are we certain that what is one man's gain is not another's loss,and that the stable-boy has equal cause with his master to be satisfied?Granted that some public works would not have been constructed without this aid,and let man share the glory of such with the ox and horse;does it follow that he could not have accomplished works yet more worthy of himself in that case?When men begin to do,not merely unnecessary or artistic,but luxurious and idle work,with their assistance,it is inevitable that a few do all the exchange work with the oxen,or,in other words,become the slaves of the strongest.Man thus not only works for the animal within him,but,for a symbol of this,he works for the animal without him.Though we have many substantial houses of brick or stone,the prosperity of the farmer is still measured by the degree to which the barn overshadows the house.This town is said to have the largest houses for oxen,cows,and horses hereabouts,and it is not behindhand in its public buildings;but there are very few halls for free worship or free speech in this county.It should not be by their architecture,but why not even by their power of abstract thought,that nations should seek to commemorate themselves?How much more admirable the Bhagvat-Geeta than all the ruins of the East!Towers and temples are the luxury of princes.A simple and independent mind does not toil at the bidding of any prince.Genius is not a retainer to any emperor,nor is its material silver,or gold,or marble,except to a trifling extent.To what end,pray,is so much stone hammered?In Arcadia,when I was there,I did not see any hammering stone.Nations are possessed with an insane ambition to perpetuate the memory of themselves by the amount of hammered stone they leave.What if equal pains were taken to smooth and polish their manners?One piece of good sense would be more memorable than a monument as high as the moon.I love better to see stones in place.The grandeur of Thebes was a vulgar grandeur.More sensible is a rod of stone wall that bounds an honest man's field than a hundred-gated Thebes that has wandered farther from the true end of life.The religion and civilization which are barbaric and heathenish build splendid temples;but what you might call Christianity does not.Most of the stone a nation hammers goes toward its tomb only.It buries itself alive.As for the Pyramids,there is nothing to wonder at in them so much as the fact that so many men could be found degraded enough to spend their lives constructing a tomb for some ambitious booby,whom it would have been wiser and manlier to have drowned in the Nile,and then given his body to the dogs.I might possibly invent some excuse for them and him,but I have no time for it.As for the religion and love of art of the builders,it is much the same all the world over,whether the building be an Egyptian temple or the United States Bank.It costs more than it comes to.The mainspring is vanity,assisted by the love of garlic and bread and butter.Mr.Balcom,a promising young architect,designs it on the back of his Vitruvius,with hard pencil and ruler,and the job is let out to Dobson &Sons,stonecutters.When the thirty centuries begin to look down on it,mankind begin to look up at it.As for your high towers and monuments,there was a crazy fellow once in this town who undertook to dig through to China,and he got so far that,as he said,he heard the Chinese pots and kettles rattle;but I think that I shall not go out of my way to admire the hole which he made.Many are concerned about the monuments of the West and the East,-to know who built them.For my part,I should like to know who in those days did not build them,-who were above such trifling.But to proceed with my statistics.
