of life, to portray faithfully the outside of men and things.  It was still held that in order to interest the reader the characters must be moved by the old romantic ideals; we were to be taught that “heroes” and “heroines” existed all around us, and that these abnormal beings needed only to be discovered in their several humble disguises, and then we should see every-day people actuated by the fine frenzy of the creatures of the poets.  How false that notion was, few but the critics, who are apt to be rather belated, need now be told.  Some of these poor fellows, however, still contend that it ought to be done, and that human feelings and motives, as God made them and as men know them, are not good enough for novel-readers.

This is more explicable than would appear at first glance.  The critics —­and in speaking of them one always modestly leaves one’s self out of the count, for some reason—­when they are not elders ossified in tradition, are apt to be young people, and young people are necessarily conservative in their tastes and theories.  They have the tastes and theories of their instructors, who perhaps caught the truth of their day, but whose routine life has been alien to any other truth.  There is probably no chair of literature in this country from which the principles now shaping the literary expression of every civilized people are not denounced and confounded with certain objectionable French novels, or which teaches young men anything of the universal impulse which has given us the work, not only of Zola, but of Tourguenief and Tolstoy in Russia, of Bjornson and Ibsen in Norway, of Valdes and Galdos in Spain, of Verga in Italy.  Till these younger critics have learned to think as well as to write for themselves they will persist in heaving a sigh, more and more perfunctory, for the truth as it was in Sir Walter, and as it was in Dickens and in Hawthorne.  Presently all will have been changed; they will have seen the new truth in larger and larger degree; and when it shall have become the old truth, they will perhaps see it all.

VI.

In the mean time the average of criticism is not wholly bad with us.  To be sure, the critic sometimes appears in the panoply of the savages whom we have supplanted on this continent; and it is hard to believe that his use of the tomahawk and the scalping-knife is a form of conservative surgery.  It is still his conception of his office that he should assail those who differ with him in matters of taste or opinion; that he must be rude with those he does not like.  It is too largely his superstition that because he likes a thing it is good, and because he dislikes a thing it is bad; the reverse is quite possibly the case, but he is yet indefinitely far from knowing that in affairs of taste his personal preference enters very little.  Commonly he has no principles, but only an assortment of prepossessions for and against; and this otherwise very perfect character is sometimes