Yet one remark cannot be suppressed. Hungary, we are convinced, has not yet arrived at the stage of literary development when critics and the public look backwards for the best efforts of the nation’s intellect. There are still immense possibilities for Hungarian Literature; and all the constellations of literary greatness have not yet risen above the horizon. It will thus not be surprising when we here venture to urge the necessity of viewing even a genius such as Jókai’s historically. His merits are as boundless as his charm. The judgment of all Europe has confirmed that. For Hungarians, however, it will be wise to remember, that Jókai in literature, as Liszt in music, are the highest types indeed, but of one phase only of the many-souled national genius of the Hungarian people. Their work is great and inimitable; we hasten to add: nor should it be imitated. It is the work, not of the last, but of one of the early stages in Hungarian Literature. It has, when over-estimated, a tendency to do harm to the nation. People, who in music are taught to expect the maddening accents of rhapsodies, will rarely calm down to the enjoyment of less spiced, if more perfect music. It is even so with novels. Who now reads the novels of Kemény (see page 157); and who ought not to read them? Readers intoxicated with Jókai, we readily admit, cannot fairly rally to enjoy Kemény. Yet Hungary is badly in need of a more modern Kemény, as she is of a Brahms. Or has it not been noticed yet, that while Hungarians are proverbially musical, and known to be so in all countries, they have so far—if we for the moment disregard Liszt—not produced a single creative musician of European fame or considerable magnitude? There can be little doubt that Liszt himself is one of the chief causes of the sterilization of musical talent in Hungary. Vainly endeavouring to imitate him, the composers failed to proceed on different lines. Desiring to hear Hungarian music in no other form than in that of Lisztian rhapsodies, the public failed to encourage the production of new musical works. And so the vast treasure of Hungarian music has not yet been done full justice. The Bohemians, also a very musical nation, have had no Liszt; but they have, at least, their Smetanas and their Dvořáks. As a reader and patriot, no less than as a student of poetry and art, we joyfully recognize the surpassing talent of both Jókai and Liszt. As historian of the literature of our nation, we cannot but make the remark that it will no longer do for Hungarians to leave the historical position of these two great authors entirely out of consideration. It is different with countries outside Hungary. They may and shall read Jókai unmolested by any such reflections. For them he is delight pure and unequalled; and we beg their pardon for not having suppressed the above remark. But as to the interests of Hungary we dare to assume that Jókai himself, great in modesty as he is in so many other