paid it for the sake of the results.
It is impossible to deny that he as a critic has proved himself sometimes narrow, and has rejected with too great vehemence that which lay outside of his especial domain.
It is not necessary, because one prefers apples, to condemn oranges; and he has sometimes needed the caution of the old judge to the young one: ‘Beware how you give reasons for your decisions; for, while your decisions will usually be right, your reasons will very often be wrong.’But as he has become touched more and more with the enthusiasm of humanity, he has grown better than his reasons, far better than his criticisms; and it is with him and with the school he represents that the hope of American literature just now rests.
The reason why he finds no delicate shading or gradation of character unimportant is that he represents the dignity and importance of the individual man.
When the future literary historian of the English-speaking world looks back to this period he will be compelled to say,
While England hailed as great writing and significant additions to literature the brutalities of Haggard