But as for me, this humiliating conclusion is not to be agreed to, for I decline to be shackled by so narrow limitations. Literature has a wider meaning than is given to it in this esthetic definition, a definition which must exclude everything written by Mississippi authors. There ought to be general agreement to the commonplace that literature is life embodied in the pages of books. "Good literature is" therefore "an open door into the life and mode of thought of the time and place where it originated." On this side of our work the departments of literature and of history are one and inseparable. There can be no genuine history of a people which fails to take into account the distinctly intellectual life of that people. The student of policies and of institutions must needs seek the help of him whose care is to trace literary currents and together they must labor by painstaking study of the writings of Mississippians to conjure up by some verbal necromancy, the literary genius and spirit of the people of the State. We are not going too far, then, in asserting that all written monuments that in any way reflect and set forth the intellectual life of the people are rightly to be enumerated in the lists of Mississippi literature. But even after we have insisted on this wider definition of literature, Mississippi has few grounds for boasting. The list of Mississippi books is not long; the average quality is not high. Of pure literature, of the real literature of power, we have contributed scarcely fifty pages to the world's store. We may deceive ourselves and gratify our state pride by wild claims, but after the joy of self-glorification is over we shall be forced to the conclusion that our place in literary history is an humble one. Some part of this result is doubtless due to sham admiration of our literature. We have delighted to praise our books without stint; we have preferred to buy the books of others. To praise is easy; to read is weariness to the flesh. We have, therefore, praised extravagantly; we have read vicariously. It does not come within the range of this paper to suggest why Mississippi has contributed so much more to politics than to literature. Preference for the hustlings and the madding crowds rather than for the desk and its quiet enthusiasms must be accepted as a fact, let him who will account for it. Nor is this the place to argue that a local literature is a contradiction in terms. Our desire is to see the day when Mississippi shall have writers whom succeeding generations will delight to number among those who have contributed to the world's best thoughts, adequately expressed.