les which it adheres to on all
occasions. There is a well-known legal mind in this country which is
typical. A recent political opponent of the man says:

His is the type of mind which would have sided with King
John against granting the Magna Charta; the type of mind
which would have opposed the ratification of the
Constitution of the United States because he would have
found so many holes in it. His is the type of mind which
would have opposed the Monroe Doctrine on the ground that it
was dangerous. His is the type of mind which would have
opposed the Emancipation Proclamation on the ground of
taking away property without due process of law. His is the
type of mind which would have opposed Cleveland's Venezuela
message to England on the ground that it was unprecedented.
His is the type of mind which did its best in 1912 to oppose
Theodore Roosevelt's effort to make the Republican Party
progressive.

Such a mind would have no use for Roosevelt, for instance, because
Roosevelt was not bound by precedents, but made precedents of his own.
The typical critical mind, such as Arnold's, would deny the title of
philosopher to a man who has no constructive talent, who could not
build up his own philosophy into a system. He would deny another the
title of poet because his verse has not the Miltonic qualities of
simplicity, of sensuousness, of passion. Emerson was not a great man
of letters, Arnold said, because he had not the genius and instinct
for style; his prose had not the requisite wholeness of good tissue.
Emerson's prose is certainly not Arnold's prose, but at its best it is
just as effective.

* * * * *

It is a good idea of Santayana that "the function of poetry is to
emotionalize philosophy."

How absurd, even repulsive, is the argument of "Paradise Lost"! yet
here is great poetry, not in the matter, but in the manner.

"Though fallen on evil days, on evil days though fallen."
"To shun delights and live laborious days."

Common ideas, but what dignity in the expression!

* * * * *

Criticism is easy. When a writer has nothing else to do, he can
criticize some other writer. But to create and originate is not so
easy. One may say that appreciation is easy also. How many persons
appreciate good literature who cannot produce it!

* * * * *