When I think over my own expensive education, I can see quite clearly that the years which came between my departure from the school-room at home and the time I got into the top form at school were elaborately wasted. My time was mainly taken up with grammar, endless Latin proses, and verses that were not poetry; none of which exercises did me the slightest good. I forgot the grammar as soon as I conveniently could; I could never do Latin prose till I had read great chunks of Latin authors, or verses till I had studied the poets; and these accomplishments came to me by imitation and not by rules. Mean-while my imagination was simply starved. And yet there is so much in English literature to stimulate the imagination of children!—I know that from my pre-school experience; and I believe nearly all children have some imagination to start with, before it is smothered under the verbs in -μι. Fortunately I was not a conscientious or hard-working boy, and so I escaped the mental paralysis which overtook some of my worthier companions.—From G. F. BRADLY’S _Dick_. II Daudet is naturally an optimist, and that spontaneous optimism is his distinctive mark among all the novelists of the contemporary school. There are characters in his works quite as depraved as those in Flaubert and in Zola. But from the way in which he describes them one feels that he despises their ignominy, and that he is indignant at their baseness. Now the pessimist, in whose eyes baseness and ignominy are the very essence of man, is no longer capable of indignation or contempt. Nearly always Daudet’s books present to us, if only incidentally, some favourite character which does credit to humanity. Out-and-out pessimists accuse him of distorting human nature by attributing to it imaginary graces and virtues: but does not their unbending pessimism distort it in another direction by showing to us, under the pretext of being truthful, only its meannesses and its horrors?—From PELLISSIER, _Le Mouvement littéraire au XIXe siècle_. III