Literature is probably more influential in England than in France, because the English read so much more. A great proportion of the reading done in both countries is, however, only rest, or an escape from surrounding reality, so that it does little for the true success of authors, which is the dissemination of ideas. I do not know the name of any English author who has exercised so much direct power as either Rousseau or Voltaire. That of Carlyle is thought to have been considerable, because his personal energy was of the imperative order; but the English world does not follow his teaching. He was hostile to the fine arts, and they are more appreciated than ever; he condemned fiction, and novels were never more diligently read; he preferred despotism to popular government, and we see the rise of the English democracy; he was without scientific ideas, and science is penetrating all the departments of thought and action. The influence of John Mill is said to be great amongst thinking men in the English lower classes; but it is purely rational, and can awaken no enthusiasm beyond the disinterested love of truth. Mr. Ruskin’s influence on art has been powerful in praise, but feeble in condemnation. He did much for the fame of Turner, but little or nothing against Constable and Claude; and notwithstanding his open hostility to etching, that art is now better appreciated than ever. Contemporary artists go on their own paths without deference to critical advice. A more interesting and important subject is Mr. Ruskin’s influence on working men. He appeals more to the feelings than Spencer or Mill, and is welcome to many wanderers in search of a moral authority and master. They like the strength of faith in the master himself, which is ready to carry theory into practice, even when the theory is ruinous. Matthew Arnold, though a poet, was more rational, cooler, less fitted for popular leadership. His influence was directly felt by cultivated readers only; but it will have consequences not always traceable to the source. I think he erred in taking certain things to be specially English which are only English forms of something to be found elsewhere. The best criticism of this mistake in Arnold was made by Herbert Spencer with reference to nonconformity.[88] And Arnold’s celebrated division of the English into Barbarians, Philistines, and Populace, though it throws a light upon the nation, has the defect of making it seem an English peculiarity to be so divided, whereas you find the same characteristics in the three great and very distinct French classes. The French aristocracy is more ignorant than the English, the French _bourgeoisie_ more narrow in its concentration of thought upon money matters, and the populace less easily led and influenced by the possessors of wealth and culture. [Sidenote: J. Morley.]