recall no disparaging opinion ever expressed of any writer with whom he had been compared either for praise or blame.  He had unquestionably definite and decided opinions.  He would point out that such or such a work was above or below its author’s ordinary level; but there was never any ill-nature in his comment, no depreciation for depreciation’s sake.  Never in truth was any one more loyal to his friends.  If his literary conscience would not permit him to say anything in favor of something which they had done, he usually contented himself with saying nothing.  Whatever failing there was on his critical side was due to this somewhat uncritical attitude; for it is from his particular friends that the writer is apt to get the most dispassionate consideration and sometimes the coldest commendation.  It was a part of Warner’s generous recognition of others that he was in all sincerity disposed to attribute to those he admired and to whom he was attached an ability of which some of them at least were much inclined to doubt their own possession.

Were I indeed compelled to select any one word which would best give the impression, both social and literary, of Warner’s personality, I should be disposed to designate it as urbanity.  That seems to indicate best the one trait which most distinguished him either in conversation or writing.  Whatever it was, it was innate, not assumed.  It was the genuine outcome of the kindliness and broad-mindedness of his nature and led him to sympathize with men of all positions in life and of all kinds of ability.  It manifested itself in his attitude towards every one with whom he came in contact.  It led him to treat with fullest consideration all who were in the least degree under his direction, and converted in consequence the toil of subordinates into a pleasure.  It impelled him to do unsought everything which lay in his power for the success of those in whom he felt interest.  Many a young writer will recall his words of encouragement at some period in his own career when the quiet appreciation of one meant more to him than did later the loud applause of many.  As it was in public, so it was in private life.  The generosity of his spirit, the geniality and high-bred courtesy of his manner, rendered a visit to his home as much a social delight as his wide knowledge of literature and his appreciation of what was best in it made it an intellectual entertainment.

THOMAS R. LOUNSBURY.

THE RELATION OF LITERATURE TO LIFE PRELIMINARY

This paper was prepared and delivered at several of our universities as introductory to a course of five lectures which insisted on the value of literature in common life—­some hearers thought with an exaggerated emphasis—­and attempted to maintain the thesis that all genuine, enduring literature is the outcome of the time that produces it, is responsive to the general sentiment of its time; that this close