r. Hardy's rustics differ from Borrow's rustics, however, in the method
of presentment. Mr. Hardy is always the sympathetic, amused observer.
The reader of that delicious pastoral "Under the Greenwood Tree" feels
that he is listening to a man who is recounting something he has
overheard. The account is finely sympathetic, but there is an
unmistakable note of philosophic detachment. The story-teller has
enjoyed his company, but is obviously not of them. That is why he will
gossip to you with such relish of humour. Borrow, on the other hand,
speaks as one of them. He is far less amused by his garrulous ostlers
and whimsical landlords than profoundly interested in them. Then again,
though the Vagabond type appeals to Mr. Hardy, it appeals to him not
because of any temperamental affinity, but because he happens to be a
curious, wistful spectator of human life. He sees in the restless
Vagabond an extreme example of the capricious sport of fate, but while
his heart goes out to him his mind stands aloof.

Looking at their characterization from the literary point of view, it is
evident that Mr. Hardy is the greater realist. He would give you _an_
ostler, whereas Borrow gives you _the_ ostler. Borrow knows his man
thoroughly, but he will not trouble about little touches of
individualization. We see the ostler vividly--we do not see the
man--save on the ostler side. With Hardy we should see other aspects
beside the ostler aspect of the man.

A novelist with whom Borrow has greater affinity is Charles Reade. There
is the same quick, observant, unphilosophical spirit; the same preference
for plain, simple folk, the same love of health and virility. And in
_The Cloister and the Hearth_, one of the great romances of the world,
one feels touches of the same Vagabond spirit as animates _Lavengro_ and
_The Romany Rye_. The incomparable Denys, with his favourite cry, "Le
diable est mort," is a splendid study in genial vagrancy.

Literary comparisons, though they discover affinities, but serve to
emphasize in the long run the distinctive originality of Borrow's
writings.

He has himself admitted to the influence of Defoe and Lesage. But though
his manner recalls at times the manner of Defoe, and though the form of
his narrative reminds the reader of the Spanish rogue story, the
psychological atmosphere is vastly different. He may have taken Defoe as
his model just as Thackeray took Fielding; but _Vanity Fair_ is not mo