aenold's view of emekson and CAELYLE 135 



the atlthors of other countries), and that, therefore, 

 a foreigner's judgments about the intrinsic merits of 

 a nation's authors will generally, when at complete 

 variance with that nation's own, he wrong. Ar- 

 nold's verdict upon Emerson's intrinsic merits was 

 certainly at variance with that of the best judges 

 among Emerson's countrymen, and is likely, there- 

 fore, according to the above dictum, to be wrong. 

 But whether it was or not, it is no doubt true that 

 every people possesses a key to its own great men, 

 or to those who share its tendencies and hopes, that 

 a foreigner cannot possess, whatsoever keys of an- 

 other sort he may bring with him. 



Erom Arnold's point of view, his criticism of 

 Emerson was just and consistent; but he said he 

 spoke not of himself, but assumed to anticipate the 

 verdict of time and fate upon this man. But time 

 and fate have ways of their own in dealing with 

 reputations, and the point of view of the future 

 with reference to this subject is, I imagine, as likely 

 to be different from Mr. Arnold's as it is to be one 

 with it. 



In the view which the speaker took of Emerson 

 and Carlyle, it seems to me that he laid too little 

 stress upon their intrinsic quality of genius and of 

 the real force and stimulus they left embodied in 

 literary forms, — imperfect or inadequate forms if 

 you will, but still literary forms. Did the speaker 

 draw out for us and impart to us what of worth and 

 significance there was in these men 1 Did he convey 

 to us a lively impression of their genius? I think 



