"steam spoils romance at sea"? Why did Ruskin lament when the little
square at the foot of Giotto's Tower in Florence was made a stand for
hackney coaches? Why did our countryman Halleck at Alnwick Towers resent
the fact that "the Percy deals in salt and hides, the Douglas sells red
herring"? And why does the picturesque tourist, in general, object to
the substitution of naphtha launches for gondolas on the Venetian canals?
Perhaps because the more machinery is interposed between man and the
thing he works on, the more impersonal becomes his relation to nature.

Carlyle, in his somewhat grudging estimate of Scott, declares that "much
of the interest of these novels results from contrasts of costume. The
phraseology, fashion of arms, of dress, of life belonging to one age is
brought suddenly with singular vividness before the eyes of another. A
great effect this; yet by the very nature of it an altogether temporary
one. Consider, brethren, shall not we too one day be antiques and grow
to have as quaint a costume as the rest? . . . Not by slashed breeches,
steeple hats, buff belts, or antiquated speech can romance-heroes
continue to interest us; but simply and solely, in the long run, by being
_men_. Buff belts and all manner of jerkins and costumes are transitory;
man alone is perennial." [38] Carlyle's dissatisfaction with Scott
arises from the fact that he was not a missionary nor a transcendental
philosopher, but simply a teller of stories. Heine was not troubled in
the same way, but he made the identical criticism, "Like the works of
Walter Scott, so also do Fouqué's romances of chivalry[40] remind us of
the fantastic tapestries known as Gobelins, whose rich texture and
brilliant colors are more pleasing to our eyes than edifying to our
souls. We behold knightly pageantry, shepherds engaged in festive
sports, hand-to-hand combats, and ancient customs, charmingly
intermingled. It is all very pretty and picturesque, but shallow;
brilliant superficiality. Among the imitators of Fouqué, as among the