little more than their share of drudgery? If so, memory holds
them.

Some such unconscious selection as this has been at work in the
classification of our representative men. The building of the
nation and the literary expression of its purpose and ideals are
tasks which have called forth the strength of a great variety of
individuals. Some of these men have proved to be peculiarly
fitted for a specific service, irrespective of the question of
their general intellectual powers, or their rank as judged by the
standard of European performance in the same field. Thus the
battle of New Orleans, in European eyes a mere bit of frontier
fighting, made Andrew Jackson a "hero" as indubitably as if he
had defeated Napoleon at Waterloo. It gave him the Presidency.

The analogy holds in literature. Certain expressions of American
sentiment or conviction have served to summarize or to clarify
the spirit of the nation. The authors of these productions have
frequently won the recognition and affection of their
contemporaries by means of prose and verse quite unsuited to
sustain the test of severe critical standards. Neither
Longfellow's "Excelsior" nor Poe's "Bells" nor Whittier's "Maud
Muller" is among the best poems of the three writers in question,
yet there was something in each of these productions which caught
the fancy of a whole American generation. It expressed one phase
of the national mind in a given historical period.

The historian of literature is bound to take account of this
question of literary vogue, as it is highly significant of the
temper of successive generations in any country. But it is of