ce that plays over the surface of his mind, without
injuring it, the harmless vanity of one who having escaped from the
schoolhouse of convention congratulates himself on his good luck.

Swagger of this order you will find in the writings even of that quiet,
unassuming little man De Quincey. Hazlitt had no small measure of it,
and certainly it meets us in the company of Borrow. It is very
noticeable in Whitman--far more so than in Thoreau. Why then does this
quality tend to exasperate more when we find it in _Walden_? Why has
Thoreau's sincerity been impugned and Whitman escaped? Why are Thoreau's
mannerisms greeted with angry frowns, and the mannerisms, say of Borrow,
regarded with good-humoured intolerance? Chiefly, I think, because of
Thoreau's desperate efforts to justify his healthy Vagabondage by
Emersonian formulas.

I am not speaking of his sane and comprehensive philosophy of life. The
Vagabond has his philosophy of life no less than the moralist, though as
a rule he is content to let it lie implicit in his writings, and is not
anxious to turn it into a gospel. But he did not always realize the
difference between moral characteristics and temperamental peculiarities,
and many of his admirers have done him ill service by trying to make of
his very Vagabondage (admirable enough in its way) a rule of faith for
all and sundry. Indeed, I think that much of the resentment expressed
against Thoreau by level-headed critics is due to the unwise eulogy of
friends.

Thoreau has become an object of worship to the crank, and in our
annoyance with the crank--who is often a genuine reformer destitute of
humour--we are apt to jumble up devotee and idol together. Idol-worship
never does any good to the idol.

IV

As a thinker Thoreau is suggestive and stimulating, except when he tries
to systematize. Naturally I think he had a discursive and inquisitive,
rather than a profound and analytical mind. He was in sympathy with
Eastern modes of regarding life; and the pantheistic tendency of his
religious thought, especially his care and reverence for all forms of
life, suggest the devout Buddhist. The varied references scattered
throughout his writings to the Sacred Books of the East show how
Orientalism affected him.

Herein we touch upon the most attractive side of the man; for it is this
Orientalism, I think, in his nature that explains his regard for, and his
sympathy with, the birds and animals.

The