the other. But the circumstances of his life saved him from the bitterness of Heine, while they intensified that tendency to good-humoured tolerance which gave to his work much power in some directions and robbed it of much in others.
It is usual to speak of Matthew Arnold as having revolutionised English criticism, by which is usually meant book-criticism. As a matter of fact he did very little in the way of 'judging' books, and what he did in this way was by no means always instructive or trustworthy. His celebrated slip about Shelley's letters, the selections he made from Byron, may be recalled as instances of uncertain vision or imperfect appreciation. In introducing the methods of Sainte-Beuve into England, he transferred the interest in criticism from the books to the man. What he did in criticism was to introduce the causerie, and with it the personal element. Instead of the 'we' of the older régime, the critic, even if he use the plural pronoun, professes to give no more than the manner in which a new work strikes his individuality. If this method has been the cause or occasion of much affectation in contemporary criticism, it has raised criticism into the sphere of literary art by giving it the personal element. The personality of Matthew Arnold was, with all its affectations and
