reputation as an
author. In the nearly one hundred volumes he wrote, not a single line
can be found which implies that he had an undue opinion of his own
powers. On the contrary, there are many that would lead to the
conclusion that his appreciation of himself and of his achievement was
far lower than even the coldest estimate would form. The prevalent
misconception on this point was in part due to his excessive
sensitiveness to criticism and his resentment of it when hostile. It was
partly due, also, to a certain outspokenness of nature which led him to
talk of himself as freely as he would talk of a stranger. But his whole
conduct showed the falseness of any such impression. From all the petty
tricks to which literary vanity resorts, he was absolutely free. He
utterly disdained anything that savored of manoeuvring for reputation.
He indulged in no devices to revive the decaying attention of the (p. 287)
public. He sought no favors from those who were in a position to confer
the notoriety which so many mistake for fame. He went, in fact, to the
other extreme, and refused an aid that he might with perfect propriety
have received. In the early period of his literary career he wrote a
good deal for the "New York Patriot," a newspaper edited by his intimate
friend, Colonel Gardiner. He objected to the publication in it of a
favorable notice, which had been prepared of "The Pioneers," because by
the fact of being an occasional contributor he was indirectly connected
with the journal. Accordingly the criticism was not inserted. It would
not have been possible for him to offer to review his own works, as
Scott both offered to do and did of the "Tales of My Landlord," in the
"Quarterly." Nor would he have acceded to a request to furnish a review
of any production of his own, as Irving did, in the same periodical, of
his "Conquest of Granada." No publisher who knew him, even slightly,
would have ventured to make him a proposition of the kind. I am
expressing no opinion as to the propriety of these particular acts; only
that Cooper, constituted as he was, could not for a moment have
entertained the thought of doing them.

The fearlessness and the truthfulness of his nature are conspicuous in
almost every incident of his career. He fought for a principle as
desperately as other men fight for life. The storm of detraction through
which he went never once shook the almost haughty independence of his
conduct, or swerved him in the