56 LITEKAET VALUES 



not perceived it because they had not had -Eousseau's 

 mind to mirror it for them. The sunshine and the 

 freshness were a gift of his spirit. The new world 

 was the old world in a new light. What charmed 

 them was a quality personal to Eousseau. Nature 

 they had always had, but not the Eousseau sensibil- 

 ity to nature. The same may be said of more re- 

 cent writers upon outdoor themes. Eeaders fancy 

 that in the works of Thoreau or of Jefferies some new 

 charm or quality of nature is disclosed, that some- 

 thing hidden in field or wood is brought to light. 

 They do not see that what they are in love with is 

 the mind or spirit of the writer himself. Thoreau 

 does not interpret nature, but nature interprets him. 

 The new thing disclosed in bird and flower is simply 

 a new sensibility to these objects in the beholder. 

 In morals and ethics the same thing is true. Let 

 an essayist like Dr. Johnson or Arthur Helps state a 

 principle or an idea and it has a certain value ; let 

 an essayist like Euskin or Emerson or Carlyle state 

 the same principle and it has an entirely different 

 value, makes an entirely different impression, — the 

 qualities of mind and character of these writers are 

 so different. The reader's relation with them is 

 much more intimate and personal. 



It is quality of mind which makes the writings 

 of Burke rank above those of Gladstone, Euskin's 

 criticism above that of Hamerton, Froude's histories 

 above Freeman's, Eenan's "Life of Jesus" above 

 that of Strauss ; which makes the pages of Goethe, 

 Coleridge, Lamb, literature in a sense that the works 



