as a unit he had little sympathy and much unjust criticism. He was not misanthropic but rather ultra-individualistic. Against newspapers as exponents of trivialities, of the sensational and the superficial, he was denunciatory, often fractious. He queried if it were wise for him to read even one newspaper a week; what anathemas would he have breathed against this era of sensational journalism and its supremacy? For his own self-improvement he deemed further contact with the world, through social clubs or travel, not alone unwise but deleterious. He did not assume, however, that such complete isolation would be a uniyersal benefit. In truth, he compared himself to a man whose temperament could not endure much wine, so his nature found much society a distraction, even an injury. He reiterates, however,—"But I say that I have no scheme about it,—no designs on man at all."
With that inexplicable pleasure in futile speculations, that characterizes some minds, the question has been raised regarding the probable effects of travel and more society upon Thoreau's nature. If he had survived the war, would he have maintained the interest in national affairs which he disclosed as life was ending? Would not contact with broader and more varied minds have changed his eccentricities into strong, yet gracious, influences? Such
