sonal, extraordinarily impartial. Sometimes
even his coldness has been remarked -- a cold-
ness certainly sublime, "that of a sovran spirit,
which has described the complete curve of hu-
man existence and has survived all sentiment"
( Schlegel).

Nor is he a poet of ideals, as they are called,
whether they be religious, ethical, political, or
social. This explains the antipathy frequently
manifested towards him by apostles of various
sorts, of whom the last was Tolstoi, and the
unsatisfied desires that take fire in the minds
of the right thinking, urging them always to
ask of any very great man for something more,
for a supplement. They conclude their ad-
miration with a sigh that there should really
be something missing in him -- he is not to be
numbered along those who strive for more
liberal political forms and for a more equable
social balance, nor has he had bowels of com-
passion for the humble and the plebeian. A
certain school of German critics (Ulrici, Gerv-
inus, Kreyssig, Vischer, etc.), perhaps as an act
of opposition to such apparent accusations (I
would not recommend the reading of these
authors, whom I have felt obliged to peruse
owing to the nature of my task) began to rep-

-139-