44.
does not seem necessarily conclusive either as to personality or influence. Matthew Arnold had a true appreciation of what is involved in personality , and while he may have been wrong in his interpre tation of the personality of The Times, yet no clearer indication of its personality, as he understood it, can be found than his iden
tification of it as a character in literature. " What is The Times,” he asks, “ but a gigantic Sancho Panza, to borrow a phrase of your friend Heine; - a gigantic Sancho Panza, following by an attrac
tion he cannot resist that poor, mad , scorned , suffering, sublime enthusiast, themodern spirit; following it, indeed , with constant grumbling, expostulation , and opposition , with airs of protection , of compassionate superiority , with an incessant byplay of nods,
shrugs, and winks addressed to the spectators; following it, in short, with all the incurable recalcitrancy of a lower nature, but still following it? " 76 The historian can not evade the responsibility of at least attempting to understand the personality of the newspaper if he is to make use of it as historical material, for upon the personality of the newspaper as a whole largely depends its power for good or for evil. 76 Friendship's Garland , p. 159.
