th the prospectus. And I blush (but not for myself or my country) to
say that one of our celebrated authors, whose partiality for
Republicanism has been more than doubted, threatened to kick one of
these young men out of his house (castle) if he did not instantly leave
it; exclaiming, 'Why have you the impudence to hand me that prospectus?
I understand what the GLORY of England means; but as for the SHAME of
England, there is no such thing. The shame is all in that base
Democracy, which makes you presume to enter a gentleman's house to ask
him to subscribe for such a work.'"

This statement was widely copied in the newspapers. But the falsity of
the fabrication soon became too apparent for even the journals most
hostile to Cooper to endure. They made a vain effort to get from the
author a confirmation of his story: but though he did not venture to
repeat the lie manfully, he equivocated about it in a sneaking way. The
newspapers, feeling, perhaps, that it was undesirable to arm the book
agent with new terrors, credited at once the denial the story had
received, and took back all imputations based upon it,--a (p. 236)
proceeding which ought to have shown Cooper that they were not so
utterly given over to the father of all evil as he fancied them. But the
author of this impudent falsehood never withdrew it, nor did the
publishers of the volume, in which it was contained, disavow it. The
extract given above is taken from an edition which bears the date of
1845.

It is plain that these calumnious attacks sprang largely from Cooper's
personal unpopularity. It is equally plain that his personal
unpopularity was mainly due to the censorious tone he had assumed in the
criticism of his country and his countrymen. It may accordingly be said
that, in one sense, he deserved all that he received. He had pursued a
certain line of conduct. He had no reason to complain that it had been
followed by the same results here that would have followed similar
conduct anywhere. In fact, while his censure of England had been far
lighter than that of America, the language used about him in the former
country had been far more vulgar and abusive than that used in the
latter. But there were facts in his career which his countrymen were
bound to bear in mind, but which, on the contrary, they strove hard to
forget, and sometimes to pervert. He had been the uncompromising
defender of his native land in places where it cost reputation and
re