departure from the beaten track and to blaze out a path for himself in literature. He was therefore a pioneer who discarded the old literary landmarks and pointed out a better way to Americans of his generation aspiring to be men of letters. The example of his success soon infected others, and at length American literary independence was established, not long after the establishment of our political independence. The time-honored literary traditions of the mother country shattered, American writers were thrown upon their own resources and were compelled to seek for themes and inspiration in our own American life and on our own American continent. So our literary independence followed in the wake of our political independence, and America has to-day a distinct national literature as a logical result of our distinct national existence. The rapid and rich flowering of American literature is a fit subject for felicitation, altogether creditable to our people. Nor has this matter failed to challenge the admiration of the foremost men of letters of the Old World, who view with amazement our phenomenal literary development quite as much as the statesmen of European nations view our marvelous political development.

In writing a brief history of American literature, it is necessary that a great many names be omitted which would clamor for mention in a more comprehensive treatise. A complete treatise would have to include all those writers who have contributed, in any manner, by their productions to swell the literary output of America. But such a volume would probably be more exhaustive than critical. For it would necessarily include contemporary as well as past writers, the living as well as the deceased; and no critic, however unbiased, can see

and represent a living author in his true and proper perspective. Furthermore, some of our contemporary writers may have contributed far more generously to the making of American literature than any of our authors whose activity ceased in the nineteenth century. Yet the plan of this volume precludes special mention of any such writer, however important his work and influence may be in the history of American literature, simply because he is still living. In a treatise like the present which from the nature of the case cannot include all of our American writers, the principle of selection must be adopted and applied as wisely as may be. Representative authors must be chosen who are universally recognized as the literary leaders of America, the most prominent figures in the history of American literature.

It is not to be supposed that the critics are agreed as to the relative rank and merits of each of our prominent American writers. Nor is it to be expected that there should be unanimity of opinion as to what authors should be included in a compendium like the present. For, after all, it may be a debatable question just who are the makers of American literature, in the restricted sense of the term, and hence this seems a legitimate field for dif ference of opinion. However, there can hardly be any room for doubt as to the propriety of including all the authors here discussed. Some critics may be disposed to inquire what was our guiding principle in the matter of selection. The reply is, that, in the first place, we have aimed to include those authors whose productions are clearly of a high order of merit and have contributed in an appreciable and material manner to the enrichment of our literature; and in the second place, we have rigidly

excluded all living writers. Of course it is an indisputable fact that some of our contemporary men of letters have greatly enriched American literature by their generous and enduring contributions. Yet, for obvious reasons, no living author may properly be here discussed since the lapse of time is, above all things, essential to furnish the true perspective, in order critically and accurately to weigh and determine any writer's accomplishment. It is true that additional authors who are not excluded by the latter principle might have been selected for discussion. But a line had to be drawn somewhere, and it seemed the part of wisdom to err on the score of exclusion rather than that of inclusion.

CHAPTER I

THE COLONIAL PERIOD

The first products of American literature, such as those of the Colonial period, were not literature in the strict meaning of that term. In the strenuous times of our early history the settlers were so busily occupied with the stupendous undertaking of developing their new country-clearing the primeval forests, cultivating the virgin soil and incidentally decimating the aborigines-that they found no leisure for the pursuit of letters. Whatever time the pioneer colonists had left over from these absorbing activities, the Puritans among them devoted to the study of the Bible and the cavaliers among them devoted to outdoor sports and social pleasures. Small wonder therefore that the few specimens of literature produced in the Colonial period of American history furnish but meager claim to be admitted to the dignity and rank of literature. Even the most enthusiastic and admiring student of American letters is embarrassed, not to say bored, by our Colonial literary productions; they are so insufferably tedious, insipid and inane-utterly destitute of life and interest.

The works of such writers as Captain John Smith and William Bradford make a dismal exhibit by the side of the brilliant productions of that galaxy of contemporary British authors who constitute the golden age of English literature. No American writer of our Colonial period deserves to be mentioned in the same breath with such English au

thors as Dryden, Congreve, Milton, Addison, Steele, Swift, Pope, Johnson and Goldsmith, to name only a few of those whose classic productions adorn the annals of English letters during that same period. Over against these English luminaries we can set only such feeble and sickly Colonial lights as Captain John Smith, William Bradford, Jonathan Edwards and the Mathers, who are in total eclipse by comparison. It ought to be said, however, that this comparison is intended not as a reproach (that would be as stupid as it is unpatriotic), but only as an indication how ill-adapted and utterly unsuited to the development of literature was the American environ in those early days of our history. Indeed, it is all the more creditable to American letters and a source of justifiable pride that our literature, within the brief space of a century, has grown and developed from this insignificant and unpromising beginning to its present established place of distinction and prestige among the literatures of the world.

In our early Colonial period there were two wellmarked and distinct foci of literary activity, viz: Virginia and Massachusetts. As early as 1624, Captain John Smith published his "History of Virginia." A rover and adventurer, who relied more upon his sword than upon his pen to win him fame, Smith, after a two years' residence on American soil, quit Virginia, in 1609, and returned to the Old World, where his eventful and checkered career was terminated by his death, in London, in 1631. The romantic legend of his rescue by Pocahontas and other thrilling adventures connected with his name are so widely current that every schoolboy knows of this daring explorer, although few have ever read a line that he wrote. Critics have not