Bache.] 5~/ [May 15, 



what I deem the interest of Philadelphia, which I love ; of litera- 

 ture, which I also love, and of art generally, which has been my 

 never-ceasing pleasure throughout life. Mr. Moulton's merits 

 are enthusiasm and elocutional^ ability, his faults extravagance 

 and defective logical perception. The result is seen in unbridled 

 imagination soaring over the fields of literature, where, however 

 entertaining, he is not a safe guide to dwellers on the average 

 plane of life in mind, thought, training, and all that goes to form 

 the individual as he stands. I proceed, after this necessary pre- 

 amble, to the discussion of a few statements made by him on the 

 occasion to which I have referred, not relating at all to the 

 point that I have mentioned, but involving what many others as 

 well as myself deem the greatest heresy against tenets funda- 

 mental in literature, safely leaving to the sober second-thought 

 and calm review of the literarily educated among his audience 

 the justification of the opinion that I have expressed as to the 

 general tenor and defect of his instruction. 



Mr. Moulton opened his lecture with the strange remark that, 

 whereas his own regard is especially reserved for literature in 

 itself, doubtless that of the great majority of his hearers was 

 concentrated upon the author. This was wholly irreconcilable 

 with the fact of the presence of the large audience that greeted 

 him upon that occasion for the ostensible purpose for which it 

 had assembled. Interest in authors, among aivr portion of the 

 reading public, is always subordinate to interest in literature. 

 That public stands in exactly the same category, if not in exactly 

 the same relation, to literature and authors, as does Mr. Moul- 

 ton himself. He himself could not, if he would, divest himself 

 of interest in individual authors compatibly with being inter- 

 ested in their works, the one interest with everybody being ex- 

 actly proportional to the other. He protested too much in his 

 intended exaltation of literature, more than it is human to feel, 

 for there is, upon the assumption of individual love for litera- 

 ture, no other category than one inclusive of the highest teacher 

 and the lowliest scholar, in all that regards the relativeness of 

 literature and the author. If Mr. Moulton's statement were cor- 

 rect, as representing a possible condition of mind, it would be 

 futile to address any mixed audience assembled for literary 

 entertainment and instruction, except by first endeavoring to 

 convert its component individuals from the error of their way of 



