able aid.”[1] This capital remark is also made, in one case, upon a rather elaborate contributor: “It was pity to break Mr. Lane’s piece. He needs to fall his whole length to show his weight.”[2] But best of all is this clear statement, in which, even against the authority of Emerson, she pleads for breadth of judgment: —
… “When I had the care of the ‘Dial,’ I put in what those connected with me liked, even when it did not well please myself, on this principle, that I considered a magazine was meant to suit more than one class of minds. As I should like to have writings from you, Mr. Ripley, Mr. Parker, etc., so I should like to have writings recommended by each of you. I thought it less important that everything in it should be excellent, than that it should represent with some fidelity the state of mind among us, as the name of ‘Dial’ said was its intent.
“So I did not regard your contempt for the long prosa on ‘Transcendentalism — Progress,’ etc., any more than Parker’s disgust at Henry Thoreau’s pieces.
“You go on a different principle; you would have everything in it good according to your taste, which is, in my opinion, though admirable as far as it goes, far too narrow in its range. This is your principle; very well! I acquiesce, just as in our intercourse I do not expect you to do what I consider justice to many things I prize. …
“I do not care for your not liking the piece, because,
