advice to supplement this article with similar studies on Emerson, Alcott, and Hawthorne. The refusal was probably due to two causes which are, perhaps, identical in sequel. In the first place, Thoreau was the last man who would coin money out of his friendships. He would not openly reveal the defects which his keen mind perceived. On the other hand, his sure sense of justice and truth would preclude any concealment of flaws in a critical study. Thus, his idealistic sentiment on friendship and his absolute sincerity combined to prevent any published judgment on his friends. In a different and impersonal way Carlyle had been a formative influence in Thoreau's life. To him, unbound by the ties of friendship, he could give careful and frank analysis. He has most happily mingled tribute and censure. In truth, this essay on Carlyle ranks to-day as one of the most just, sympathetic and comprehensive analyses of the great prophet-author. It is interesting to read, by way of comparison, the study by Lowell. Both Thoreau and Lowell, as young men, had been thrilled by this new voice of the age. Lowell, with characteristic apprehension, analyzes Carlyle's literary qualities,—his humor, his vehemence, his imagery,—while Thoreau is stirred by the moral earnestness and deep sincerity of the man and seer.
