David
Gouverneur Burnet,
Satirist
A BIOLOGIST, working on the history of his science, often
encounters materials of interest to colleagues in the more
formal fields of social and political history. When working in the
Yale Library, for example, I took time to run over the printed
and manuscript materials in the alumni collection of Ashbel
Smith's class (that of 1824) to see what materials on his life
existed that had been unworked. My pleasure was unbounded
to find in that collection an early autograph-album effusion
of Smith, and abundant other materials on the formative period
of Smith's sojourn at Yale. If anyone in the future works on
the life of Ashbel Smith, I recommend this collection as worthy
of the closest attention. Ashbel Smith (besides his notable
work as Texan statesman and patriot) was a well-trained
scientist. He took Phi Beta Kappa at Yale in the Class of
1824 and his M.D. degree at Yale in 1828. This training was
followed by work at the Necker Hospital in Paris; and he
came to Texas with an admirable training in the spirit and
method of science which even the leveling influences of the
frontier could not crush. He was one of the founders of the
Philosophical Society of Texas (1837), of the Texas Literary
Institute (1846), of Galveston College (1852), of the Houston
Scientific Institute (1866), and numerous other educational
organizations. He was, of course, first president of the board
of regents of The University of Texas. He made a number of
important publications on the epidemic diseases of early Texas
(1839, 1850, 1854), and published an important paper on the
geography of Texas, in the bulletin of the Geographical Society
of Paris, in 1844.
Again, when four years ago I was working on the publica-
tions of Constantine Samuel Rafinesque in the library of the
Gray Herbarium in Cambridge, I came upon some exceedingly
rare material on the life of David G. Burnet (1788-1870).
Because of its rarity, because it casts light on an early Texan
statesman, and because it also deals with an early American
naturalist who has been a major interest with me over many
years, I present it to readers of the Quarterly.
Regarding David G. Burnet's early life, a great deal is known;
and I shall here make no attempt to cover the ground of his
life. It will be recalled that Burnet came to Texas from Cin-
cinnati, where his older brother, Jacob Burnet (1770-1853),
was one of the leading men of the city, interested in educational
and cultural movements. David G. Burnet's father, William
Burnet, was a surgeon-general in the Revolutionary Army, and
the boy certainly had the advantages of a cultured home. He
early came to Natchitoches, Louisiana, to engage in trade with
the Indians but, developing tuberculosis, went (in the fall of
1817) to live with the Comanche Indians on the upper reaches of
the Colorado River in Texas. He lived with the Indians for
(?) eighteen months, and recovered his health completely. Out
of his Indian experiences, he wrote a series of letters to Colo-
nel John Jamison, Indian Agent for the United States Govern-
ment at Natchitoches. The first of these is dated from Nacog-
doches, in August, 1818. Four letters only, as far as I know, were
written, for Colonel Jamison appears to have died in October of
the next year.
In 1824 there was established at Cincinnati the short-lived
Cincinnati
Literary
Gazette,
to which Rafinesque, world-
renowned naturalist (then a professor at Transylvania Uni-
versity) made contributions. Rafinesque wrote a great number
and variety of papers, some of them showing the highest and
rarest genius, and some of exceedingly slender merit. "His
extraordinary genius, his encyclopaedic knowledge, and his
mind thinking thoughts forty years ahead of his time, won re-
spect for Rafinesque's scholarship; but his habit of parading
his professional connections brought him into ridicule. On
the title-pages of his many pamphlets he would set forth with
a pompous pedantry, common enough in his day, the list of the
scientific and learned societies of which he was a member, so
that the real name of the author 'bore the proportion to his
scientific title, as a paper kite to the length of its tail.' Thomas
Peirce of Cincinnati pasquinaded him as 'Professor Muscle-
shellorum' in his satirical The
Odes
of
Horace
in
Cincinnati
(1822). Sorry wit, of course, but fortunate for Peirce, who
the'reby gained a certain immortality. He
lampooned
Rafinesque."
Rafinesque, in the Cincinnati
Literary
Gazette
I (1824), 170,
(in an article entitled "Clio, No. IV. Ancient History of North
America.--Biography of the American Solomon"), printed what
was purported to be a biography of Nazahual, tenth king of
Tezcuco, in the region of Anáhuac [Mexico]. (The date of
the Gazette
issue is May 29, 1824.) In the next issue (June 5,
1824) the following card appeared:
A Card To C. S. Rafinesque, D.P., &c. &c. Modern Catesby, P.B.T.U.D.K.,
&c. Sir;--The readers of the Literary Gazette in Cincinnati, have been
highly pleased with the perusal of your late Biographical sketch of the
"American Solomon, King Nazahual," who
governed
the
Acolhuans
in
the
region
of
Anahuac,
vulgarly
called
Mexico,
in
the
early
part
of
the
fifteenth
century.
No doubt is entertained of the correctness of your
statement, in saying that this American
Solomon,
was a greater man
than the Asiatic
Solomon:
indeed, this is fully proved by his having
caused
paintings
to
be
made
of
all
the
stars, animals, and
plants in
Anahuac,
--a devotion to natural history, that did not mark the character
of the old
Bible
Solomon.
I am sorry, however, to inform you that some
persons in this city, affect to doubt whether this Big
Solomon
of yours was
in reality a deist, as you have asserted: others declare that his
temple
which you say was nine
stories in height, was but eight
and
three
quarters
:
and I am still more sorrowful to tell you that I have met with one or
two persons, so incredulous and obstinately perverse, as to declare a
total disbelief
in the existence of any such man as you have described
except in your fertile imagination.
Now to settle this matter will you, my good sir, be so kind as to
furnish for the Literary Gazette, your authorities for the statements
about the "American
Solomon"
If you knew "King Nazahual" personally,
and have made your sketch from actual observation, the question will
of course be satisfactorily settled. Yours respectfully, B.
To which Rafinesque (who utterly lacked a sense of humor, and
was one of the most literal-minded men that ever lived) re-
sponded, June 19, 1824, in "Clio No. V. On Nazuahal, the
Nabijos [Navahoes] and Comanchees" (Cincinnati
Literary
Gazette
I (1824), 202) as follows:
I have been called upon, to give my authorities for the Biographical
sketch of Nazahual the first: although the demand was anonymous
and indecorous, therefore unworthy of notice; since it has been admitted
into your pages, it requires a short answer. . . . [Here he gives Clavigero
and A. von Humboldt as his authorities.] ... I have been much pleased
with the accounts of the Comanchees and Nabijos, lately inserted in the
Literary Gazette, and derived some additional facts from both; but I
have to regret that the writers have totally neglected to notice the
languages of those nations, although this ought to claim the first at-
tention in any account of Indian nations, "being often the only clue to
trace their origin and history. It is also wrong to give anonymous details
of historical facts, while so much depends upon personal authority. . . .
Just before this time, Burnet's series of letters to Colonel
Jamison had appeared in the Literary
Gazette,
in five install-
ments: Vol. I, 145-146; 154-155; 162-163; 177-178; and 186-187.
Stimulated by Rafinesque's inquiry on Comanche vocabularies,
Burnet published in the July 3, 1824, number [Vol. 11, 3-4]
"Indians of Texas," which included a section, "Brief desultory
and imperfect Vocabulary of the Comanchee language; re-
spectfully dedicated to Professor Rafinesque of Transylvania
University." The introductory remarks (which lack a heading)
were devastating;,
but doubtless lost their point against the
impervious armor of the absorbed and unsuspecting professor.
Rafinesque was proof against irony: he could not understand
how anyone could be less interested in naturalia
than himself:
a defect that was to cause him much bitter grief in his later
experiences. Burnet wrote:
The very erudite and worthy Professor Rafinesque, of Transylvania
University, regrets that the language
of the Comanchees should have
been neglected in my account of that tribe of Indians, recently published
in your paper. I must dissent from one part of the learned gentleman's
argument on this point. That the language of any Indian tribe now
extant, can in any case, be considered a safe or even a verisimilar
"clue to trace their origin and history" is highly questionable, provided
the figments of fancy are to be excluded from our historical researches.
In all probability there is not at this day, a single tribe on the continent,
whose original vernacular tongue, has not been altogether corrupted,
and radically changed by innumerable admixtures with other tongues,
together with such other incidental variations as must naturally result
from the defect of some permanent and determinate standard by which
alone the etymology, orthography[,] and legitimate meaning of words can
be preserved. The rude hieroglyphical paintings of the Mexicans, who
partake so much of the Professor[']s veneration, and who were con-
fessedly in the days of Cortez the most polished and cultivated of all
the nations of the new continent, cannot be considered as furnishing
such a standard. If they are so considered, they have certainly failed
of their proper effect; for the language of ancient Mexico, alias Anahuac,
has become entirely extinct. There is not a solitary distinctive, living
vestige of it to be found.
I am sensible, however, that language is always an article of im-
portance in "an account of Indian nations," & if I had possessed a com-
petent acquaintance with the dialect of the Comanchees, I should not
have omitted noticing it in my desultory remarks upon them. If the
subjoined very crude and imperfect vocabulary will afford any satisfaction
or impart any thing "new" to the very learned professor, [sic] I
shall be proud of having added one item more, to his prodigious stock
of knowledge. The words and the interpretation of them, were taken
hastily, without premeditation, and without any thought of publication,
from one of the most intelligent chiefs of the nation, who spoke Spanish
with great fluency, but who notwithstanding, was unable to comprehend
how his
language could be reduced to visible intelligible signs, so as to
enable a stranger to pronounce it with correctness.
Mr. Rafinesque evidently supposes me to be the author of what he
styles "an anonymous and indecorous" demand,
that was made upon
him for his authorities for certain very edifying researches into the
history of the renowned "American Solomon" King Nazahual of Tezcuco
in Anahuac. This error in the learned Professor is venial, and quite
pardonable, although it has subjected me to a very severe and overwhelming
ebullition of his ink horn. It has presented another evidence that exquisite
humor is not incompatible with profound erudition, and that deep re-
search does not always deaden the fancy, nor obtund the edge of the most
delicate wit. The waggish author of the demand
gave an insidious
plausibility to the suspicion, by adopting my anonymous signature. This
he did, probably with a view to trying the Professor[']s skill, or with
a more provoking intent towards myself, of eliciting from the able anti-
quarian, a criticism upon my unpretending letters on the Indians of Texas.
The worthy Professor must allow me to adhere to my original plan of
concealment, and to satisfy him on the score of "personal authority," I
must refer him to yourself [the editor.]--To affix my proper name would
be introducing a stranger, who has no pretentions to the literary celebrity
and deep-drawn lore that render the name of Rafinesque a sufficient
guarantee for any "historical details," without extorting the mortifying
confession that they are borrowed from Clavigero, Humboldt, or the more
recent Bonnycastle. B.
The last paragraph, of course, lets "the knowing ones" into
the secret, but not Rafinesque. He had the simplicity and
naïveté of a child, and probably never understood the nature
of his castigation. To one who sees with half an eye, we have
a spectacle as edifying as the flogging of a suckling child.
One is glad that in later years Burnet, in Sam Houston, found
a foeman worthy of his steel.
FOOTNOTES:
chief at Tuck-a-bach-ee entertained him well, and asked him many ques-
tions in reference to his Great Father, and spoke of a visit he had made
in the company with his interpreter, "Davy Barnett." Is it possible that
this was David G. Burnet?
at Transylvania College, see Transylvania College Bulletin, XV (1942), 7.
A brief documented account of Rafinesque at Transylvania University is
given in Geiser, Southwest Review, XVIII, 67-69. The quotation below
is from that paper.