phenomena of life and nature, and hence may find full play amid the homeliest and least romantic things of this work-a-day world. To one so gifted, the barest room is crowded with possible suggestions of the greatest Poetry; a key, the chest it unlocks, a coat, or a closet in which it hangs, all things whatsoever, may by a sweet compulsion be made to serve his will, and become the local habitation of some airy nothing.

"So am I as the rich whose blessed key

Can bring him to his up-locked treasure,
The which he will not every hour

survey,

For blunting the fine point of seldom pleasure."

"So is the time that keeps you as my chest,

Or as the wardrobe which the robe doth hide,
To make some special instant special blest
By new unfolding his imprisoned pride."

52d Sonnet.

Here we are enabled to lay hands on the soul of truth in the cry, that has gone up of late, that American Poetry should be American, for while it is undoubtedly true that men may write great Poetry about scenes and

incidents from the days of chivalry or antiquity, yet is it equally true of these, as of the beautiful, the sublime, etc., that in the highest reaches of his art the Poet ignores them all. Let us close with the following lines from Emerson, whom we cannot quote too often:

"'Tis easy to repaint the mythology of the Greeks, or of the Catholic Church, the feudal castle, the crusade, the martyrdom of Medieval Europe; but to point out where the same creative force is now working in our own houses and public assemblies to convert the vivid energies acting at this hour in New York and Chicago and San Francisco, into universal symbols, requires a subtile and commanding thought."

Healthfulness.

OES it seem a work of supererogation to

seek for a definition of healthfulness?

Note, then, what Mr. Matthew Arnold has written: "As compared with Leopardi, Wordsworth, though at many points less lucid, though far less a master of style, far less an artist, gains so much by his criticism of life being, in certain matters of profound importance, healthful and true, whereas Leopardi's pessimism is not that the value of Wordsworth's poetry, on the whole, stands higher for us than that of Leopardi."

Note, too, that to this Mr. Alfred Austin, a critic of no mean ability, takes exception, declaring that "there is no consensus either among poets or their readers as to what is

true and healthful criticism of life." Grant this, and it is manifest that a definition of healthfulness, is impossible, since all definition must find its ultimate basis in the substantial agreement of men. That there are differences of opinion none will question, but if, as Mr. Austin has written, criticism of life is passing judgment upon life, or, better still, is philosophy of life, does it not appear a strange statement that no consensus should exist in regard to the healthfulness of this philosophy of life?

Take his own definition that "Poetry is a transfiguration of life," and is it not manifest that the transfiguration will be more or less modified by the Poet's estimate, criticism, or philosophy of life; will be healthful or otherwise, according as his views of life are healthful or the reverse? This, mind you, is far from saying that the healthfulness of the philosophy contained in any lines is the measure of their poetic merit, our position on this being already clearly defined; but that there is some substantial agreement as to what is a true and healthful criticism or philosophy of life there can be no question.

Nay, more; for though men may be at odds as to the comparative healthfulness of Byron, Shelley and Wordsworth; yet are they just as certainly agreed that in this regard Shakespeare stands head and shoulders over all.

What then is the basis of this agreement? What sins of omission or commission are chargeable to Byron, Shelley and Wordsworth, of which Shakespeare is innocent?

Answer might be made, that many hold Byron to be unhealthful because pessimistic, immoral, sensational, unrefined, etc. The ills of life, and the failure of established institutions, marriage, religion, etc., are shown, not as they are, but in exaggerated dimensions, while the good of these things is belittled. Again, courage, address, etc., are shown, not merely as admirable in their way, but are blazoned forth in such strong light as to blur your impression of the less sensational virtues, faithfulness to marriage vows, content, etc. Violence is done our instinctive refinement, not by the mention of things usually considered unmentionable, but by the placing of them in abnormal and unseemly juxtaposition with the fairest, sweetest things in life.