When Mr. Forster brought out the collected edition of Landor’s works, the critics were generally embarrassed.  They evaded for the most part any committal of themselves to an estimate of their author’s merits, and were generally content to say that we might now look forward to a definitive judgment in the ultimate court of literary appeal.  Such an attitude of suspense was natural enough.  Landor is perhaps the most striking instance in modern literature of a radical divergence of opinion between the connoisseurs and the mass of readers.  The general public have never been induced to read him, in spite of the lavish applauses of some self-constituted authorities.  One may go further.  It is doubtful whether those who aspire to a finer literary palate than is possessed by the vulgar herd are really so keenly appreciative as the innocent reader of published remarks might suppose.  Hypocrisy in matters of taste whether of the literal or metaphorical kind is the commonest of vices.  There are vintages, both material and intellectual, which are more frequently praised than heartily enjoyed.  I have heard very good judges whisper in private that they have found Landor dull; and the rare citations made from his works often betray a very perfunctory study of them.  Not long ago, for example, an able critic quoted a passage from one of the ‘Imaginary Conversations’ to prove that Landor admired Milton’s prose, adding the remark that it might probably be taken as an expression of his real sentiments, although put in the mouth of a dramatic person.  To anyone who has read Landor with ordinary attention, it seems as absurd to speak in this hypothetical manner as it would be to infer from some incidental allusion that Mr. Ruskin admires Turner.  Landor’s adoration for Milton is one of the most conspicuous of his critical propensities.  There are, of course, many eulogies upon Landor of undeniable weight.  They are hearty, genuine, and from competent judges.  Yet the enthusiasm of such admirable critics as Mr. Emerson and Mr. Lowell may be carped at by some who fancy that every American enjoys a peculiar sense of complacency when rescuing an English genius from the neglect of his own countrymen.  If Mr. Browning and Mr. Swinburne have been conspicuous in their admiration, it might be urged that neither of them has too strong a desire to keep to that beaten highroad of the commonplace, beyond which even the best guides meet with pitfalls.  Southey’s praises of Landor were sincere and emphatic; but it must be added that they provoke a recollection of one of Johnson’s shrewd remarks.  ‘The reciprocal civility of authors,’ says the Doctor, ’is one of the most risible scenes in the farce of life.’  One forgives poor Southey indeed for the vanity which enabled him to bear up so bravely against anxiety and repeated disappointment; and if both he and Landor found that ‘reciprocal civility’ helped them to bear the disregard of contemporaries, one would not judge them harshly.  It was simply a tacit agreement to throw their harmless vanity into a common stock.  Of Mr. Forster, Landor’s faithful friend and admirer, one can only say that in his writing about Landor, as upon other topics, we are distracted between the respect due to his strong feeling for the excellent in literature, and the undeniable facts that his criticisms have a very blunt edge, and that his eulogies are apt to be indiscriminate.

Southey and Wordsworth had a simple method of explaining the neglect of a great author.  According to them, contemporary neglect affords a negative presumption in favour of permanent reputation.  No lofty poet has honour in his own generation.  Southey’s conviction that his ponderous epics would make the fortune of his children is a pleasant instance of self-delusion.  But the theory is generally admitted in regard to Wordsworth; and Landor accepted and defended it with characteristic vigour.  ‘I have published,’ he says in the conversation with Hare, ’five volumes of “Imaginary Conversations:”  cut the worst of them through the middle, and there will remain in the decimal fraction enough to satisfy my appetite for fame.  I shall dine late; but the dining-room will be well lighted, the guests few and select.’  He recurs frequently to the doctrine.  ‘Be patient!’ he says, in another character.  ’From the higher heavens of poetry it is long before the radiance of the brightest star can reach the world below.  We hear that one man finds out one beauty, another man finds out another, placing his observatory and instruments on the poet’s grave.  The worms must have eaten us before we rightly know what we are.  It is only when we are skeletons that we are boxed and ticketed and prized and shown.  Be it so!  I shall not be tired of waiting.’  Conscious, as he says in his own person, that in 2,000 years there have not been five volumes of prose (the work of one author) equal to his ‘Conversations,’ he could indeed afford to wait:  if conscious of earthly things, he must be waiting still.

This superlative self-esteem strikes one, to say the truth, as part of Landor’s abiding boyishness.  It is only in schoolboy themes that we are still inclined to talk about the devouring love of fame.  Grown-up men look rightly with some contempt upon such aspirations.  What work a man does is really done in, or at least through, his own generation; and the posthumous fame which poets affect to value means, for the most part, being known by name to a few antiquarians, schoolmasters, or secluded students.  When the poet, to adopt Landor’s metaphor, has become a luminous star, his superiority to those which have grown dim by distance is indeed for the first time clearly demonstrated.  We can still see him, though other bodies of his system have vanished into the infinite depths of oblivion.  But he has also ceased to give appreciable warmth or light to ordinary human beings.  He is a splendid name, but not a living influence.  There are, of course, exceptions and qualifications to any such statements, but I have a suspicion that even Shakespeare’s chief work may have been done in the Globe Theatre, to living audiences, who felt what they never thought of criticising, and were quite unable to measure; and that, spite of all aesthetic philosophers and minute antiquarians and judicious revivals, his real influence upon men’s minds has been for the most part declining as his fame has been spreading.  To defend or fully expound this heretical dogma would take too much space.  The ‘late-dinner’ theory, however, as held by Wordsworth and Landor, is subject to one less questionable qualification.  It is an utterly untenable proposition that great men have been generally overlooked in their own day.

If we run over the chief names of our literature, it would be hard to point to one which was not honoured, and sometimes honoured to excess, during its proprietor’s lifetime.  It is, indeed, true that much ephemeral underwood has often hidden in part the majestic forms which now stand out as sole relics of the forest.  It is true also that the petty spite and jealousy of contemporaries, especially of their ablest contemporaries, has often prevented the full recognition of great men.  And there have been some whose fame, like that of Bunyan and De Foe, has extended amongst the lower sphere of readers before receiving the ratification of constituted judges.  But such irregularities in the distribution of fame do not quite meet the point.  I doubt whether one could mention a single case in which an author, overlooked at the time both by the critics and the mass, has afterwards become famous; and the cases are very rare in which a reputation once decayed has again taken root and shown real vitality.  The experiment of resuscitation has been tried of late years with great pertinacity.  The forgotten images of our seventeenth-century ancestors have been brought out of the lumber-room amidst immense flourishes of trumpets, but they are terribly worm-eaten; and all efforts to make their statues once more stand firmly on their pedestals have generally failed.  Landor himself refused to see the merits of the mere ‘mushrooms,’ as he somewhere called them, which grew beneath the Shakespearian oak; and though such men as Chapman, Webster, and Ford have received the warmest eulogies of Lamb and other able successors, their vitality is spasmodic and uncertain.  We generally read them, if we read them, at the point of the critic’s bayonet.

The case of Wordsworth is no precedent for Landor.  Wordsworth’s fame was for a long time confined to a narrow sect, and he did all in his power to hinder its spread by wilful disregard of the established canons even when founded in reason.  A reformer who will not court the prejudices even of his friends is likely to be slow in making converts.  But it is one thing to be slow in getting a hearing, and another in attracting men who are quite prepared to hear.  Wordsworth resembled a man coming into a drawing-room with muddy boots and a smock-frock.  He courted disgust, and such courtship is pretty sure of success.  But Landor made his bow in full court-dress.  In spite of the difficulty of his poetry, he had all the natural graces which are apt to propitiate cultivated readers.  His prose has merits so conspicuous and so dear to the critical mind, that one might have expected his welcome from the connoisseurs to be warm even beyond the limit of sincerity.  To praise him was to announce one’s own possession of a fine classical taste, and there can be no greater stimulus to critical enthusiasm.  One might have guessed that he would be a favourite with all who set up for a discernment superior to that of the vulgar; though the causes which must obstruct a wide recognition of his merits are sufficiently obvious.  It may be interesting to consider the cause of his ill-success with some fulness; and it is a comfort to the critic to reflect that in such a case even obtuseness is in some sort a qualification; for it will enable one to sympathise with the vulgar insensibility to the offered delicacy, if only to substitute articulate rejection for simple stolid silence.

I do not wish, indeed, to put forward such a claim too unreservedly.  I will merely take courage to confess that Landor very frequently bores me.  So do a good many writers whom I thoroughly admire.  If any courage be wanted for such a confession, it is certainly not when writing upon Landor that one should be reticent for want of example.  Nobody ever spoke his mind more freely about great reputations.  He is, for example, almost the only poet who ever admitted that he could not read Spenser continuously.  Even Milton in Landor’s hands, in defiance of his known opinions, is made to speak contemptuously of ‘The Faery Queen.’  ’There is scarcely a poet of the same eminence,’ says Porson, obviously representing Landor in this case, ’whom I have found it so delightful to read in, and so hard to read through.’  What Landor here says of Spenser, I should venture to say of Landor.  There are few books of the kind into which one may dip with so great a certainty of finding much to admire as the ‘Imaginary Conversations,’ and few of any high reputation which are so certain to become wearisome after a time.  And yet, upon thinking of the whole five volumes so emphatically extolled by their author, one feels the necessity of some apology for this admission of inadequate sympathy.  There is a vigour of feeling, an originality of character, a fineness of style which makes one understand, if not quite agree to, the audacious self-commendation.  Part of the effect is due simply to the sheer quantity of good writing.  Take any essay separately, and one must admit that to speak only of his contemporaries there is a greater charm in passages of equal length by Lamb, De Quincey, or even Hazlitt.  None of them gets upon such stilts, or seems so anxious to keep the reader at arm’s length.  But, on the other hand, there is something imposing in so continuous a flow of stately and generally faultless English, with so many weighty aphorisms rising spontaneously, without splashing or disturbance, to the surface of talk, and such an easy felicity of theme unmarred by the flash and glitter of the modern epigrammatic style.  Lamb is both sweeter and more profound, to say nothing of his incomparable humour; but then Lamb’s flight is short and uncertain.  De Quincey’s passages of splendid rhetoric are too often succeeded by dead levels of verbosity and laboured puerilities which make annoyance alternate with enthusiasm.  Hazlitt is often spasmodic, and his intrusive egotism is pettish and undignified.  But so far at least as his style is concerned, Landor’s unruffled abundant stream of continuous harmony excites one’s admiration the more the longer one reads.  Hardly anyone who has written so much has kept so uniformly to a high level, and so seldom descended to empty verbosity or to downright slipshod.  It is true that the substance does not always correspond to the perfection of the form.  There are frequent discontinuities of thought where the style is smoothest.  He reminds one at times of those Alpine glaciers where an exquisitely rounded surface of snow conceals yawning crevasses beneath; and if one stops for a moment to think, one is apt to break through the crust with an abrupt and annoying jerk.

The excellence of Landor’s style has, of course, been universally acknowledged, and it is natural that it should be more appreciated by his fellow-craftsmen than by general readers less interested in technical questions.  The defects are the natural complements of its merits.  When accused of being too figurative, he had a ready reply.  ‘Wordsworth,’ he says in one of his ‘Conversations,’ ’slithers on the soft mud, and cannot stop himself until he comes down.  In his poetry there is as much of prose as there is of poetry in the prose of Milton.  But prose on certain occasions can bear a great deal of poetry; on the other hand, poetry sinks and swoons under a moderate weight of prose, and neither fan nor burnt feather can bring her to herself again.’  The remark about the relations of prose and poetry was originally made in a real conversation with Wordsworth in defence of Landor’s own luxuriance.  Wordsworth, it is said, took it to himself, and not without reason, as appears by its insertion in this ‘Conversation.’  The retort, however happy, is no more conclusive than other cases of the tu quoque.  We are too often inclined to say to Landor as Southey says to Porson in another place:  ‘Pray leave these tropes and metaphors.’  His sense suffers from a superfetation of figures, or from the undue pursuit of a figure, till the ‘wind of the poor phrase is cracked.’  In the phrase just quoted, for example, we could dispense with the ‘fan and burnt feather,’ which have very little relation to the thought.  So, to take an instance of the excessively florid, I may quote the phrase in which Marvell defends his want of respect for the aristocracy of his day.  ’Ever too hard upon great men, Mr. Marvell!’ says Bishop Parker; and Marvell replies:

Little men in lofty places, who throw long shadows because our sun is setting; the men so little and the places so lofty that, casting my pebble, I only show where they stand.  They would be less contented with themselves, if they had obtained their preferment honestly.  Luck and dexterity always give more pleasure than intellect and knowledge; because they fill up what they fall on to the brim at once; and people run to them with acclamations at the splash.  Wisdom is reserved and noiseless, contented with hard earnings, and daily letting go some early acquisition to make room for better specimens.  But great is the exultation of a worthless man when he receives for the chips and raspings of his Bridewell logwood a richer reward than the best and wisest for extensive tracts of well-cleared truths!  Even he who has sold his country

‘Forbear, good Mr. Marvell,’ says Bishop Parker; and one is inclined to sympathise with the poor man drowned under this cascade of tropes.  It is certainly imposing, but I should be glad to know the meaning of the metaphor about ‘luck and dexterity.’  Passages occur, again, in which we are tempted to think that Landor is falling into an imitation of an obsolete model.  Take, for example, the following:

A narrow mind cannot be enlarged, nor can a capacious one be contracted.  Are we angry with a phial for not being a flask; or do we wonder that the skin of an elephant sits uneasily on a squirrel?

Or this, in reference to Wordsworth:

Pastiness and flatness are the qualities of a pancake, and thus far he attained his aim:  but if he means it for me, let him place the accessories on the table, lest what is insipid and clammy ... grow into duller accretion and moister viscidity the more I masticate it.

Or a remark given to Newton:

Wherever there is vacuity of mind, there must either be flaccidity or craving; and this vacuity must necessarily be found in the greater part of princes, from the defects of their education, from the fear of offending them in its progress by interrogations and admonitions, from the habit of rendering all things valueless by the facility with which they are obtained, and transitory by the negligence with which they are received and holden.

Should we not remove the names of Porson and Newton from these sentences, and substitute Sam Johnson?  The last passage reads very like a quotation from the ‘Rambler.’  Johnson was, in my opinion and in Landor’s, a great writer in spite of his mannerism; but the mannerism is always rather awkward, and in such places we seem to see certainly not a squirrel but, say, a thoroughbred horse invested with the skin of an elephant.

These lapses into the inflated are of course exceptional with Landor.  There can be no question of the fineness of his perception in all matters of literary form.  To say that his standard of style is classical is to repeat a commonplace too obvious for repetition, except to add a doubt whether he is not often too ostentatious and self-conscious in his classicism.  He loves and often exhibits a masculine simplicity, and speaks with enthusiasm of Locke and Swift in their own departments.  Locke is to be ‘revered;’ he is ‘too simply grand for admiration;’ and no one, he thinks, ever had such a power as Swift of saying forcibly and completely whatever he meant to say.  But for his own purposes he generally prefers a different model.  The qualities which he specially claims seem to be summed up in the conversation upon Bacon’s Essays between Newton and Barrow.  Cicero and Bacon, says Barrow, have more wisdom between them than all the philosophers of antiquity.  Newton’s review of the Essays, he adds, ’hath brought back to my recollection so much of shrewd judgment, so much of rich imagery, such a profusion of truths so plain as (without his manner of exhibiting them) to appear almost unimportant, that in various high qualities of the human mind I must acknowledge not only Cicero, but every prose writer among the Greeks, to stand far below him.  Cicero is least valued for his highest merits, his fulness, and his perspicuity.  Bad judges (and how few are not so!) desire in composition the concise and obscure; not knowing that the one most frequently arises from paucity of materials, and the other from inability to manage and dispose them.’  Landor aims, like Bacon, at rich imagery, at giving to thoughts which appear plain more value by fineness of expression, and at compressing shrewd judgments into weighty aphorisms.  He would equally rival Cicero in fulness and perspicuity; whilst a severe rejection of everything slovenly or superfluous would save him from ever deviating into the merely florid.  So far as style can be really separated from thought, we may admit unreservedly that he has succeeded in his aim, and has attained a rare harmony of tone and colouring.

There may, indeed, be some doubt as to his perspicuity.  Southey said that Landor was obscure, whilst adding that he could not explain the cause of the obscurity.  Causes enough may be suggested.  Besides his incoherency, his love of figures which sometimes become half detached from the underlying thought, and an over-anxiety to avoid mere smartness which sometimes leads to real vagueness, he expects too much from his readers, or perhaps despises them too much.  He will not condescend to explanation if you do not catch his drift at half a word.  He is so desirous to round off his transitions gracefully, that he obliterates the necessary indications of the main divisions of the subject.  When criticising Milton or Dante, he can hardly keep his hand off the finest passages in his desire to pare away superfluities.  Treating himself in the same fashion, he leaves none of those little signs which, like the typographical hand prefixed to a notice, are extremely convenient, though strictly superfluous.  It is doubtless unpleasant to have the hard framework of logical divisions showing too distinctly in an argument, or to have a too elaborate statement of dates and places and external relations in a romance.  But such aids to the memory may be removed too freely.  The building may be injured in taking away the scaffolding.  Faults of this kind, however, will not explain Landor’s failure to get a real hold upon a large body of readers.  Writers of far greater obscurity and much more repellent blemishes of style to set against much lower merits, have gained a far wider popularity.  The want of sympathy between so eminent a literary artist and his time must rest upon some deeper divergence of sentiment.  Landor’s writings present the same kind of problem as his life.  We are told, and we can see for ourselves, that he was a man of many very high and many very amiable qualities.  He was full of chivalrous feeling; capable of the most flowing and delicate courtesy; easily stirred to righteous indignation against every kind of tyranny and bigotry; capable, too, of a tenderness pleasantly contrasted with his outbursts of passing wrath; passionately fond of children, and a true lover of dogs.  But with all this, he could never live long at peace with anybody.  He was the most impracticable of men, and every turning-point in his career was decided by some vehement quarrel.  He had to leave school in consequence of a quarrel, trifling in itself, but aggravated by ’a fierce defiance of all authority and a refusal to ask forgiveness.’  He got into a preposterous scrape at Oxford, and forced the authorities to rusticate him.  This branched out into a quarrel with his father.  When he set up as a country gentleman at Llanthony Abbey, he managed to quarrel with his neighbours and his tenants, until the accumulating consequences to his purse forced him to go to Italy.  On the road thither he began the first of many quarrels with his wife, which ultimately developed into a chronic quarrel and drove him back to England.  From England he was finally dislodged by another quarrel which drove him back to Italy.  Intermediate quarrels of minor importance are intercalated between those which provoked decisive crises.  The lightheartedness which provoked all these difficulties is not more remarkable than the ease with which he threw them off his mind.  Blown hither and thither by his own gusts of passion, he always seems to fall on his feet, and forgets his trouble as a schoolboy forgets yesterday’s flogging.  On the first transitory separation from his wife, he made himself quite happy by writing Latin verses; and he always seems to have found sufficient consolation in such literary occupation for vexations which would have driven some people out of their mind.  He would not, he writes, encounter the rudeness of a certain lawyer to save all his property; but he adds, ’I have chastised him in my Latin poetry now in the press.’  Such a mode of chastisement seems to have been as completely satisfactory to Landor as it doubtless was to the lawyer.

His quarrels do not alienate us, for it is evident that they did not proceed from any malignant passion.  If his temper was ungovernable, his passions were not odious, or, in any low sense, selfish.  In many, if not all, of his quarrels he seems to have had at least a very strong show of right on his side, and to have put himself in the wrong by an excessive insistence upon his own dignity.  He was one of those ingenious people who always contrive to be punctilious in the wrong place.  It is amusing to observe how Scott generally bestows upon his heroes so keen a sense of honour that he can hardly save them from running their heads against stone walls; whilst to their followers he gives an abundance of shrewd sense which fully appreciates Falstaff’s theory of honour.  Scott himself managed to combine the two qualities; but poor Landor seems to have had Hotspur’s readiness to quarrel on the tenth part of a hair without the redeeming touch of common-sense.  In a slightly different social sphere, he must, one would fancy, have been the mark of a dozen bullets before he had grown up to manhood; it is not quite clear how, even as it was, he avoided duels, unless because he regarded the practice as a Christian barbarism to which the ancients had never condescended.

His position and surroundings tended to aggravate his incoherencies of statement.  Like his own Peterborough, he was a man of aristocratic feeling, with a hearty contempt for aristocrats.  The expectation that he would one day join the ranks of the country gentlemen unsettled him as a scholar; and when he became a landed proprietor he despised his fellow ‘barbarians’ with a true scholar’s contempt.  He was not forced into the ordinary professional groove, and yet did not fully imbibe the prejudices of the class who can afford to be idle, and the natural result is an odd mixture of conflicting prejudices.  He is classical in taste and cosmopolitan in life, and yet he always retains a certain John-Bull element.  His preference of Shakespeare to Racine is associated with, if not partly prompted by, a mere English antipathy to foreigners.  He never becomes Italianised so far as to lose his contempt for men whose ideas of sport rank larks with the orthodox partridge.  He abuses Castlereagh and poor George III. to his heart’s content, and so far flies in the face of British prejudice; but it is by no means as a sympathiser with foreign innovations.  His republicanism is strongly dashed with old-fashioned conservatism, and he is proud of a doubtful descent from old worthies of the true English type.  Through all his would-be paganism we feel that at bottom he is after all a true-born and wrong-headed Englishman.  He never, like Shelley, pushed his quarrel with the old order to the extreme, but remained in a solitary cave of Adullam.  ‘There can be no great genius,’ says Penn to Peterborough, ‘where there is not profound and continued reasoning.’  The remark is too good for Penn; and yet it would be dangerous in Landor’s own mouth; for certainly the defect which most strikes us, both in his life and his writings, is just the inconsistency which leaves most people as the reasoning powers develop.  His work was marred by the unreasonableness of a nature so impetuous and so absorbed by any momentary gust of passion that he could never bring his thoughts or his plans to a focus, or conform them to a general scheme.  His prejudices master him both in speculation and practice.  He cannot fairly rise above them, or govern them by reference to general principles or the permanent interests of his life.  In the vulgar phrase, he is always ready to cut off his nose to spite his face.  He quarrels with his schoolmaster or his wife.  In an instant he is all fire and fury, runs amuck at his best friends, and does irreparable mischief.  Some men might try to atone for such offences by remorse.  Landor, unluckily for himself, could forget the past as easily as he could ignore the future.  He lives only in the present, and can throw himself into a favourite author or compose Latin verses or an imaginary conversation as though schoolmasters or wives, or duns or critics, had no existence.  With such a temperament, reasoning, which implies patient contemplation and painful liberation from prejudice, has no fair chance; his principles are not the growth of thought, but the translation into dogmas of intense likes and dislikes, which have grown up in his mind he scarcely knows how, and gathered strength by sheer force of repetition instead of deliberate examination.

His writings reflect and in some ways only too faithfully these idiosyncrasies.  Southey said that his temper was the only explanation of his faults.  ’Never did man represent himself in his writings so much less generous, less just, less compassionate, less noble in all respects than he really is.  I certainly,’ he adds, ’never knew anyone of brighter genius or of kinder heart.’  Southey, no doubt, was in this case resenting certain attacks of Landor’s upon his most cherished opinions; and, truly, nothing but continuous separation could have preserved the friendship between two men so peremptorily opposed upon so many essential points.  Southey’s criticism, though sharpened by such latent antagonisms, has really much force.  The ‘Conversations’ give much that Landor’s friends would have been glad to ignore; and yet they present such a full-length portrait of the man, that it is better to dwell upon them than upon his poetry, which, moreover, with all its fine qualities, is (I cannot help thinking) of less intrinsic value.  The ordinary reader, however, is repelled from the ‘Conversations’ not only by mere inherent difficulties, but by comments which raise a false expectation.  An easy-going critic is apt to assume of any book that it exactly fulfils the ostensible aim of the author.  So we are told of ‘Shakespeare’s Examination’ (and on the high authority of Charles Lamb), that no one could have written it except Landor or Shakespeare himself.  When Bacon is introduced, we are assured that the aphorisms introduced are worthy of Bacon himself.  What Cicero is made to say is exactly what he would have said, ‘if he could;’ and the dialogue between Walton, Cotton, and Oldways is, of course, as good as a passage from the ‘Complete Angler.’  In the same spirit we are told that the dialogues were to be ‘one-act dramas;’ and we are informed how the great philosophers, statesmen, poets, and artists of all ages did in fact pass across the stage, each represented to the life, and each discoursing in his most admirable style.

All this is easy to say, but unluckily represents what the ‘Conversations’ would have been had they been perfect.  To say that they are very far from perfect is only to say that they were the compositions of a man; but Landor was also a man to whom his best friends would hardly attribute a remarkable immunity from fault.  The dialogue, it need hardly be remarked, is one of the most difficult of all forms of composition.  One rule, however, would be generally admitted.  Landor defends his digressions on the ground that they always occur in real conversations.  If we ‘adhere to one point,’ he says (in Southey’s person), ‘it is a disquisition, not a conversation.’  And he adds, with one of his wilful back-handed blows at Plato, that most writers of dialogue plunge into abstruse questions, and ’collect a heap of arguments to be blown away by the bloated whiff of some rhetorical charlatan tricked out in a multiplicity of ribbons for the occasion.’  Possibly! but for all that, the perfect dialogue ought not, we should say, to be really incoherent.  It should include digressions, but the digressions ought to return upon the main subject.  The art consists in preserving real unity in the midst of the superficial deviations rendered easy by this form of composition.  The facility of digression is really a temptation, not a privilege.  Anybody can write blank verse of a kind, because it so easily slips into prose; and that is why good blank verse is so rare.  And so anybody can write a decent dialogue if you allow him to ramble as we all do in actual talk.  The finest philosophical dialogues are those in which a complete logical framework underlies the dramatic structure.  They are a perfect fusion of logic and imagination.  Instead of harsh divisions and cross-divisions of the subject, and a balance of abstract arguments, we have vivid portraits of human beings, each embodying a different line of thought.  But the logic is still seen, though the more carefully hidden the more exquisite the skill of the artist.  And the purely artistic dialogue which describes passion or the emotions arising from a given situation should in the same way set forth a single idea, and preserve a dramatic unity of conception at least as rigidly as a full-grown play.  So far as Landor used his facilities as an excuse for rambling, instead of so skilfully subordinating them to the main purpose as to reproduce new variations on the central theme, he is clearly in error, or is at least aiming at a lower kind of excellence.  And this, it may be said at once, seems to be the most radical defect in point of composition of Landor’s ‘Conversations.’  They have the fault which his real talk is said to have exemplified.  We are told that his temperament ’disqualified him for anything like sustained reasoning, and he instinctively backed away from discussion or argument.’  Many of the written dialogues are a prolonged series of explosions; when one expects a continuous development of a theme, they are monotonous thunder-growls.  Landor undoubtedly had a sufficient share of dramatic power to write short dialogues expressing a single situation with most admirable power, delicacy, and firmness of touch.  Nor, again, does the criticism just made refer to those longer dialogues which are in reality a mere string of notes upon poems or proposals for reforms in spelling.  The slight dramatic form binds together his pencillings from the margins of ‘Paradise Lost’ or Wordsworth’s poems very pleasantly, and enables him to give additional effect to vivacious outbursts of praise or censure.  But the more elaborate dialogues suffer grievously from this absence of a true unity.  There is not that skilful evolution of a central idea without the rigid formality of scientific discussion which we admire in the real masterpieces of the art.  We have a conglomerate, not an organic growth; a series of observations set forth with never-failing elegance of style, and often with singular keenness of perception; but they do not take us beyond the starting-point.  When Robinson Crusoe crossed the Pyrénées, his guide led him by such dexterous windings and gradual ascents that he found himself across the mountains before he knew where he was.  With Landor it is just the opposite.  After many digressions and ramblings we find ourselves back on the same side of the original question.  We are marking time with admirable gracefulness, but somehow we are not advancing.  Naturally flesh and blood grow weary when there is no apparent end to a discussion, except that the author must in time be wearied of performing variations upon a single theme.

We are more easily reconciled to some other faults which are rather due to expectations raised by his critics than to positive errors.  No one, for example, would care to notice an anachronism, if Landor did not occasionally put in a claim for accuracy.  I have no objection whatever to allow Hooker to console Bacon for his loss of the chancellorship, in calm disregard of the fact that Hooker died some twenty years before Bacon rose to that high office.  The fault can be amended by substituting any other name for Hooker’s.  Nor do I at all wish to find in Landor that kind of archaeological accuracy which is sought by some composers of historical romances.  Were it not that critics have asserted the opposite, it would be hardly worth while to say that Landor’s style seldom condescends to adapt itself to the mouth of the speaker, and that from Demosthenes to Porson every interlocutor has palpably the true Landorian trick of speech.  Here and there, it is true, the effect is rather unpleasant.  Pericles and Aspasia are apt to indulge in criticism of English customs, and no weak regard for time and place prevents Eubulides from denouncing Canning to Demosthenes.  The classical dress becomes so thin on such occasions, that even the small degree of illusion which one may fairly desiderate is too rudely interrupted.  The actor does not disguise his voice enough for theatrical purposes.  It is perhaps a more serious fault that the dialogue constantly lapses into monologue.  We might often remove the names of the talkers as useless interruptions.  Some conversations might as well be headed, in legal phraseology, Landor v. Landor, or at most Landor v. Landor and another the other being some wretched man of straw or Guy Faux effigy dragged in to be belaboured with weighty aphorisms and talk obtrusive nonsense.  Hence sometimes we resent a little the taking in vain of the name of some old friend.  It is rather too hard upon Sam Johnson to be made a mere ‘passive bucket’ into which Horne Tooke may pump his philological notions, with scarcely a feeble sputter or two to represent his smashing retorts.

There is yet another criticism or two to be added.  The extreme scrupulosity with which Landor polishes his style and removes superfluities from poetical narrative, smoothing them at times till we can hardly grasp them, might have been applied to some of the wanton digressions in which the dialogues abound.  We should have been glad if he had ruthlessly cut out two-thirds of the conversation between Richelieu and others, in which some charming English pastorals are mixed up with a quantity of unmistakable rubbish.  But, for the most part, we can console ourselves by a smile.  When Landor lowers his head and charges bull-like at the phantom of some king or priest, we are prepared for, and amused by, his impetuosity.  Malesherbes discourses with great point and vigour upon French literature, and may fairly diverge into a little politics; but it is certainly comic when he suddenly remembers one of Landor’s pet grievances, and the unlucky Rousseau has to discuss a question for which few people could be more ludicrously unfit the details of a plan for reforming the institution of English justices of the peace.  The grave dignity with which the subject is introduced gives additional piquancy to the absurdity.  An occasional laugh at Landor is the more valuable because, to say the truth, one is not very likely to laugh with him.  Nothing is more difficult for an author as Landor himself observes in reference to Milton than to decide upon his own merits as a wit or humorist.  I am not quite sure that this is true; for I have certainly found authors distinctly fallible in judging of their own merits as poets and philosophers.  But it is undeniable that many a man laughs at his own wit who has to laugh alone.  I will not take upon myself to say that Landor was without humour; he has certainly a delicate gracefulness which may be classed with the finer kinds of humour; but if anybody (to take one instance) will read the story which Chaucer tells to Boccaccio and Petrarch and pronounce it to be amusing, I can only say that his notions of humour differ materially from mine.  Some of his wrathful satire against kings and priests has a vigour which is amusing; but the tact which enables him to avoid errors of taste of a different kind often fails him when he tries the facetious.

Blemishes such as these go some way, perhaps, to account for Landor’s unpopularity.  But they are such as might be amply redeemed by his vigour, his fulness, and unflagging energy of style.  There is no equally voluminous author of great power who does not fall short of his own highest achievements in a large part of his work, and who is not open to the remark that his achievements are not all that we could have wished.  It is doubtless best to take what we can get, and not to repine if we do not get something better, the possibility of which is suggested by the actual accomplishment.  If Landor had united to his own powers those of Scott or Shakespeare, he would have been improved.  Landor, repenting a little for some censures of Milton, says to Southey, ’Are we not somewhat like two little beggar-boys who, forgetting that they are in tatters, sit noticing a few stains and rents in their father’s raiment?’ ‘But they love him,’ replies Southey, and we feel the apology to be sufficient.

Can we make it in the case of Landor?  Is he a man whom we can take to our hearts, treating his vagaries and ill-humours as we do the testiness of a valued friend?  Or do we feel that he is one whom it is better to have for an acquaintance than for an intimate?  The problem seems to have exercised those who knew him best in life.  Many, like Southey or Napier, thought him a man of true nobility and tenderness of character, and looked upon his defects as mere superficial blemishes.  If some who came closer seem to have had a rather different opinion, we must allow that a man’s personal defects are often unimportant in his literary capacity.  It has been laid down as a general rule that poets cannot get on with their wives; and yet they are poets in virtue of being lovable at the core.  Landor’s domestic troubles need not indicate an incapacity for meeting our sympathies any more than the domestic troubles of Shakespeare, Milton, Swift, Burns, Byron, Shelley, or many others.  In his poetry a man should show his best self; and defects, important in the daily life which is made up of trifles, may cease to trouble us when admitted to the inmost recesses of his nature.

Landor, undoubtedly, may be loved; but I fancy that he can be loved unreservedly only by a very narrow circle.  For when we pass from the form to the substance from the manner in which his message is delivered to the message itself we find that the superficial defects rise from very deep roots.  Whenever we penetrate to the underlying character, we find something harsh and uncongenial mixed with very high qualities.  He has pronounced himself upon a wide range of subjects; there is much criticism, some of it of a very rare and admirable order; much theological and political disquisition; and much exposition, in various forms, of the practical philosophy which every man imbibes according to his faculties in his passage through the world.  It would be undesirable to discuss seriously his political or religious notions.  To say the truth, they are not really worth discussing, for they are little more than vehement explosions of unreasoning prejudice.  I do not know whether Landor would have approved the famous aspiration about strangling the last of kings with the entrails of the last priest, but some such sentiment seems to sum up all that he really has to say.  His doctrine so far coincides with that of Diderot and other revolutionists, though he has no sympathy with their social aspirations.  His utterances, however, remind us too much in substance, though not in form of the rhetoric of debating societies.  They are as factitious as the old-fashioned appeals to the memory of Brutus.  They would doubtless make a sensation at the Union.  Diogenes tells us that ’all nations, all cities, all communities, should combine in one great hunt, like that of the Scythians at the approach of winter, and follow it’ (the kingly power, to wit) ’up, unrelentingly to its perdition.  The diadem should designate the victim; all who wear it, all who offer it, all who bow to it, should perish.’  Demosthenes, in less direct language, announces the same plan to Eubulides as the one truth, far more important than any other, and ’more conducive to whatever is desirable to the well-educated and free.’  We laugh, not because the phrase is overstrained, or intended to have a merely dramatic truth, for Landor puts similar sentiments into the mouths of all his favourite speakers, but simply because we feel it to be a mere form of swearing.  The language would have been less elegant, but the meaning just the same, if he had rapped out a good mouth-filling oath whenever he heard the name of king.  When, in reference to some such utterances, Carlyle said that ’Landor’s principle is mere rebellion,’ Landor was much nettled, and declared himself to be in favour of authority.  He despised American republicanism and regarded Venice as the pattern State.  He sympathised in this, as in much else, with the theorists of Milton’s time, and would have been approved by Harrington or Algernon Sidney; but, for all that, Carlyle seems pretty well to have hit the mark.  Such republicanism is in reality nothing more than the political expression of intense pride, or, if you prefer the word, self-respect.  It is the sentiment of personal dignity, which could not bear the thought that he, Landor, should have to bow the knee to a fool like George III.; or that Milton should have been regarded as the inferior of such a sneak as Charles I. But the same feeling would have been just as much shocked by the claim of a demagogue to override high-spirited gentlemen.  Mobs were every whit as vile as kings.  He might have stood for Shakespeare’s Coriolanus, if Coriolanus had not an unfortunate want of taste in his language.  Landor, indeed, being never much troubled as to consistency, is fond of dilating on the absurdity of any kind of hereditary rank; but he sympathises, to his last fibre, with the spirit fostered by the existence of an aristocratic caste, and producible, so far as our experience has gone, in no other way.  He is generous enough to hate all oppression in every form, and therefore to hate the oppression exercised by a noble as heartily as oppression exercised by a king.  He is a big boy ready to fight anyone who bullies his fag; but with no doubts as to the merits of fagging.  But then he never chooses to look at the awkward consequences of his opinion.  When talking of politics, an aristocracy full of virtue and talent, ruling on generous principles a people sufficiently educated to obey its natural leaders, is the ideal which is vaguely before his mind.  To ask how it is to be produced without hereditary rank, or to be prevented from degenerating into a tyrannical oligarchy, or to be reconciled at all with modern principles, is simply to be impertinent.  He answers all such questions by putting himself in imagination into the attitude of a Pericles or Demosthenes or Milton, fulminating against tyrants and keeping the mob in its place by the ascendency of genius.  To recommend Venice as a model is simply to say that you have nothing but contempt for all politics.  It is as if a lad should be asked whether he preferred to join a cavalry or an infantry regiment, and should reply that he would only serve under Leonidas.

His religious principles are in the same way little more than the assertion that he will not be fettered in mind or body by any priest on earth.  The priest is to him what he was to the deists and materialists of the eighteenth century a juggling impostor who uses superstition as an instrument for creeping into the confidence of women and cowards, and burning brave men; but he has no dreams of the advent of a religion of reason.  He ridicules the notion that truth will prevail:  it never has and it never will.  At bottom he prefers paganism to Christianity because it was tolerant and encouraged art, and allowed philosophers to enjoy as much privilege as they can ever really enjoy that of living in peace and knowing that their neighbours are harmless fools.  After a fashion he likes his own version of Christianity, which is superficially that of many popular preachers:  Be tolerant, kindly, and happy, and don’t worry your head about dogmas, or become a slave to priests.  But then one also feels that humility is generally regarded as an essential part of Christianity, and that in Landor’s version it is replaced by something like its antithesis.  You should do good, too, as you respect yourself and would be respected by men; but the chief good is the philosophic mind, which can wrap itself in its own consciousness of worth, and enjoy the finest pleasures of life without superstitious asceticism.  Let the vulgar amuse themselves with the playthings of their creed, so long as they do not take to playing with faggots.  Stand apart and enjoy your own superiority with good-natured contempt.

One of his longest and, in this sense, most characteristic dialogues, is that between Penn and Peterborough.  Peterborough is the ideal aristocrat with a contempt for the actual aristocracy; and Penn represents the religion of common-sense.  ’Teach men to calculate rightly and thou wilt have taught them to live religiously,’ is Penn’s sentiment, and perhaps not too unfaithful to the original.  No one could have a more thorough contempt for the mystical element in Quakerism than Landor; but he loves Quakers as sober, industrious, easy-going people, who regard good-humour and comfort as the ultimate aim of religious life, and who manage to do without lawyers or priests.  Peterborough, meanwhile, represents his other side the haughty, energetic, cultivated aristocrat, who, on the ground of their common aversions, can hold out a friendly hand to the quiet Quaker.  Landor, of course, is both at once.  He is the noble who rather enjoys giving a little scandal at times to his drab-suited companion; but, on the whole, thinks that it would be an excellent world if the common people would adopt this harmless form of religion, which tolerates other opinions and does not give any leverage to kings, insolvent aristocrats, or intriguing bishops.

Landor’s critical utterances reveal the same tendencies.  Much of the criticism has of course an interest of its own.  It is the judgment of a real master of language upon many technical points of style, and the judgment, moreover, of a poet who can look even upon classical poets as one who breathes the same atmosphere at an equal elevation, and who speaks out like a cultivated gentleman, not as a schoolmaster or a specialist.  But putting aside this and the crotchets about spelling, which have been dignified with the name of philological theories, the general direction of his sympathies is eminently characteristic.  Landor of course pays the inevitable homage to the great names of Plato, Dante, and Shakespeare, and yet it would be scarcely unfair to say that he hates Plato, that Dante gives him far more annoyance than pleasure, and that he really cares little for Shakespeare.  The last might be denied on the ground of isolated expressions.  ‘A rib of Shakespeare,’ he says, ’would have made a Milton:  the same portion of Milton all poets born ever since.’  But he speaks of Shakespeare in conventional terms, and seldom quotes or alludes to him.  When he touches Milton his eyes brighten and his voice takes a tone of reverent enthusiasm.  His ear is dissatisfied with everything for days and weeks after the harmony of ‘Paradise Lost.’  ’Leaving this magnificent temple, I am hardly to be pacified by the fairly-built chambers, the rich cupboards of embossed plate, and the omnigenous images of Shakespeare.’  That is his genuine impression.  Some readers may appeal to that ‘Examination of Shakespeare’ which (as we have seen) was held by Lamb to be beyond the powers of any other writer except its hero.  I confess that, in my opinion, Lamb could have himself drawn a far more sympathetic portrait of Shakespeare, and that Scott would have brought out the whole scene with incomparably greater vividness.  Call it a morning in an English country-house in the sixteenth century, and it will be full of charming passages along with some laborious failures.  But when we are forced to think of Slender and Shallow, and Sir Hugh Evans, and the Shakespearian method of portraiture, the personages in Landor’s talk seem half asleep and terribly given to twaddle.  His view of Dante is less equivocal.  In the whole ‘Inferno,’ Petrarca (evidently representing Landor) finds nothing admirable but the famous descriptions of Francesca and Ugolino.  They are the ‘greater and lesser oases’ in a vast desert.  And he would pare one of these fine passages to the quick, whilst the other provokes the remark (’we must whisper it’) that Dante is ’the great master of the disgusting.’  He seems really to prefer Boccaccio and Ovid, to say nothing of Homer and Virgil.  Plato is denounced still more unsparingly.  From Aristotle and Diogenes down to Lord Chatham, assailants are set on to worry him, and tear to pieces his gorgeous robes with just an occasional perfunctory apology.  Even Lady Jane Grey is deprived of her favourite.  She consents on Ascham’s petition to lay aside books, but she excepts Cicero, Epictetus, Plutarch, and Polybius:  the ’others I do resign;’ they are good for the arbour and garden walk, but not for the fireside or pillow.  This is surely to wrong the poor soul; but Landor is intolerant in his enthusiasm for his philosophical favourites.  Epicurus is the teacher whom he really delights to honour, and Cicero is forced to confess in his last hours that he has nearly come over to the camp of his old adversary.

It is easy to interpret the meaning of these prejudices.  Landor hates and despises the romantic and the mystic.  He has not the least feeling for the art which owes its powers to suggestions of the infinite, or to symbols forced into grotesqueness by the effort to express that for which no thought can be adequate.  He refuses to bother himself with allegory or dreamy speculation, and, unlike Sir T. Browne, hates to lose himself in an ‘O Altitudo!’ He cares nothing for Dante’s inner thoughts, and sees only a hideous chamber of horrors in the ‘Inferno.’  Plato is a mere compiler of idle sophistries, and contemptible to the common-sense and worldly wisdom of Locke and Bacon.  In the same spirit he despised Wordsworth’s philosophising as heartily as Jeffrey, and, though he tried to be just, could really see nothing in him except the writer of good rustic idylls, and of one good piece of paganism, the ’Laodamia.’ From such a point of view he ranks him below Burns, Scott, and Cowper, and makes poor Southey consent Southey who ranked Wordsworth with Milton!

These tendencies are generally summed up by speaking of Landor’s objectivity and Hellenism.  I have no particular objection to those words except that they seem rather vague and to leave our problem untouched.  A man may be as ‘objective’ as you please in a sense, and as thoroughly imbued with the spirit of Greek art, and yet may manage to fall in with the spirit of our own times.  The truth is, I fancy, that a simpler name may be given to Landor’s tastes, and that we may find them exemplified nearer home.  There is many a good country gentleman who rides well to hounds, and is most heartily ‘objective’ in the sense of hating metaphysics and elaborate allegory and unintelligible art, and preferring a glass of wine and a talk with a charming young lady to mystic communings with the world-spirit; and as for Landor’s Hellenism, that surely ought not to be an uncommon phenomenon in the region of English public schools.  It is an odd circumstance that we should be so much puzzled by the very man who seems to realise precisely that ideal of culture upon which our most popular system of education is apparently moulded.  Here at last is a man who is really simple-minded enough to take the habit of writing Latin verses seriously; making it a consolation in trouble as well as an elegant amusement.  He hopes to rest his fame upon it, and even by a marvellous tour de force writes a great deal of English poetry which for all the world reads exactly like a first-rate copy of modern Greek Iambics.  For once we have produced just what the system ought constantly to produce, and yet we cannot make him out.

The reason for our not producing more Landors is indeed pretty simple.  Men of real poetic genius are exceedingly rare at all times, and it is still rarer to find such a man who remains a schoolboy all his life.  Landor is precisely a glorified and sublime edition of the model sixth-form lad, only with an unusually strong infusion of schoolboy perversion.  Perverse lads, indeed, generally kick over the traces at an earlier point:  and refuse to learn anything.  Boys who take kindly to the classical system are generally good that is to say, docile.  They develop into prosaic tutors and professors; or, when the cares of life begin to press, they start their cargo of classical lumber and fill the void with law or politics.  Landor’s peculiar temperament led him to kick against authority, whilst he yet imbibed the spirit of the teaching fully, and in some respects rather too fully.  He was a rebel against the outward form, and yet more faithful in spirit than most of the obedient subjects.

The impatient and indomitable temper which made quiet or continuous meditation impossible, and the accidental circumstances of his life, left him in possession of qualities which are in most men subdued or expelled by the hard discipline of life.  Brought into impulsive collision with all kinds of authorities, he set up a kind of schoolboy republicanism, and used all his poetic eloquence to give it an air of reality.  But he never cared to bring it into harmony with any definite system of thought, or let his outbursts of temper transport him into settled antagonism with accepted principles.  He troubled himself just as little about theological as about political theories; he was as utterly impervious as the dullest of squires to the mystic philosophy imported by Coleridge, and found the world quite rich enough in sources of enjoyment without tormenting himself about the unseen, and the ugly superstitions which thrive in mental twilight.  But he had quarrelled with parsons as much as with lawyers, and could not stand the thought of a priest interfering with his affairs or limiting his amusements.  And so he set up as a tolerant and hearty disciple of Epicurus.  Chivalrous sentiment and an exquisite perception of the beautiful saved him from any gross interpretation of his master’s principles; although, to say the truth, he shows an occasional laxity on some points which savours of the easy-going pagan, or perhaps of the noble of the old school.  As he grew up he drank deep of English literature, and sympathised with the grand republican pride of Milton as sturdy a rebel as himself, and a still nobler because more serious rhetorician.  He went to Italy, and, as he imbibed Italian literature, sympathised with the joyous spirit of Boccaccio and the eternal boyishness of classical art.  Mediaevalism and all mystic philosophies remained unintelligible to this true-born Englishman.  Irritated rather than humbled by his incapacity, he cast them aside, pretty much as a schoolboy might throw a Plato at the head of a pedantic master.

The best and most attractive dialogues are those in which he can give free play to this Epicurean sentiment; forget his political mouthing, and inoculate us for the moment with the spirit of youthful enjoyment.  Nothing can be more perfectly charming in its way than Epicurus in his exquisite garden, discoursing on his pleasant knoll, where, with violets, cyclamens, and convolvuluses clustering round, he talks to his lovely girl-disciples upon the true theory of life temperate enjoyment of all refined pleasures, forgetfulness of all cares, and converse with true chosen spirits far from the noise of the profane vulgar:  of the art, in short, by which a man of fine cultivation may make the most of this life, and learn to take death as a calm and happy subsidence into oblivion.  Nor far behind is the dialogue in which Lucullus entertains Cæsar in his delightful villa, and illustrates by example, as well as precept, Landor’s favourite doctrine of the vast superiority of the literary to the active life.  Politics, as he makes even Demosthenes admit, are the ’sad refuge of restless minds, averse from business and from study.’  And certainly there are moods in which we could ask nothing better than to live in a remote villa, in which wealth and art have done everything in their power to give all the pleasures compatible with perfect refinement and contempt of the grosser tastes.  Only it must be admitted that this is not quite a gospel for the million.  And probably the highest triumph is in the Pentameron, where the whole scene is so vividly coloured by so many delicate touches, and such charming little episodes of Italian life, that we seem almost to have seen the fat, wheezy poet hoisting himself on to his pampered steed, to have listened to the village gossip, and followed the little flirtations in which the true poets take so kindly an interest; and are quite ready to pardon certain useless digressions and critical vagaries, and to overlook complacently any little laxity of morals.

These, and many of the shorter and more dramatic dialogues, have a rare charm, and the critic will return to analyse, if he can, their technical qualities.  But little explanation can be needed, after reading them, of Landor’s want of popularity.  If he had applied one-tenth part of his literary skill to expand commonplace sentiment; if he had talked that kind of gentle twaddle by which some recent essayists edify their readers, he might have succeeded in gaining a wide popularity.  Or if he had been really, as some writers seem to fancy, a deep and systematic thinker as well as a most admirable artist, he might have extorted a hearing even while provoking dissent.  But his boyish waywardness has disqualified him from reaching the deeper sympathies of either class.  We feel that the most superhuman of schoolboys has really a rather shallow view of life.  His various outbursts of wrath amuse us at best when they do not bore, even though they take the outward form of philosophy or statesmanship.  He has really no answer or vestige of answer for any problems of his, nor indeed of any other time, for he has no basis of serious thought.  All he can say is, ultimately, that he feels himself in a very uncongenial atmosphere, from which it is delightful to retire, in imagination, to the society of Epicurus, or the study of a few literary masterpieces.  That may be very true, but it can be interesting only to a few men of similar taste; and men of profound insight, whether of the poetic or the philosophic temperament, are apt to be vexed by his hasty dogmatism and irritable rejection of much which deserved his sympathy.  His wanton quarrel with the world has been avenged by the world’s indifference.  We may regret the result when we see what rare qualities have been cruelly wasted, but we cannot fairly shut our eyes to the fact that the world has a very strong case.