The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1898-06-22

| is put into the mouth of the soliloquist ~
Maud is within the lines of poetlcai
| versimilitude; whether this poem has the
full moral equilibrium, which is SO
| marked a characteristic OF the slster
works are questions open. prrhaps' 10 uis-
cussion. But l have neither done justice
| in the text to its rich and copious beau
| ties of detail nor to its great lyrical and
metrical power; and, what is worse,
have failed to comprehend rightly the re-
lation between particular passages In inc
| poem and it's general scope. Ih1s Is,
conceive, not to set forth any conerenU
strain, but to use for poetioal enas all tne
moods and phases allowapie u',uel I'M ono
laws of the art in special form OF chaf-
aoter, which is impassioned, nuctuatihg
and ill-grounded. The design, whlon
seems to resemble that of the Eccleslastes
| In another sphere, is arduous; put MI
Iennyson's power of execution is propa-
bly, nowhere greater"
| Mr.. Gladstone was, or thought he was,
more sure in his Judgment in regard TO
| Lord Iennyson's Queen Mary, which ne
eulogized in the following extravagant
| terms, writing from II Carlton House
Terrace, Juness30, 1875: "Mysdear Tenny-
| son, it was most kind in you to send me
| the book, and I wish had or could have
anything to cap it with that would not
seem like q hooking echo. However, |
4 gill SOlHS W T6pIiAU a fVluiuG vi nay
recent tracts, and l shall perhaps make
bold TO send them to you. Perhaps we
may appear in the Index together. l
cannot but be glad that, in turning to
historic times, you have struck note for
the nation. For my own personal share,
nave found my interest in your work on
| THIS occasion enhanced and cumulated by
| the novelty of form and by having to en-
| JOY CAREFUL historic study. 1t must have
cost you great pains to qualify for such
an assemblage of portraits, of whom five
or SIX at least, are of perSonages whose
names never can be etfaced from our an-
nails, nor do | know that Mary, Philip
Tin England). Gardiner or CIR inner ha, e
ever yet been fully drawn. The two La t
are SILL in considerable degree mysi i.
ries to me! Was Cranmer a great we; X
manY DO great and weak contradict M Il
include one another He was certain v
weak, think, in the everlasting f1uctu :
ton Of his opinions, for surely fiuotuati, n
of opinion had much to do with the SIX
recantations. Elizabeth, on the other
hand, was to my mind one of the great
theologians of the per iod (who were ex-
csedingly few as well as the greatest
among women rulers. l think you may
not dislike the following sentence from
Jeremy Collier upon Cranmer ct the
stake: He seemed to repel the force of
| flames, and to overlook the torture by
Slr6DgGn OF UnOuSHb. MY Juu& menu Is
worthless, but / congratulate you on the
poem, ON the study and on the grace and
ease with which you move in new habili-
ments"
| A collection of these letters of Mr.. Glad
stone would make an entertaining chap
ter in the Curioslties of Criticism, they
are addressed to so many persons, mostly
of no great note, and in relation to
themes SO widely different from one an
other, that no one man, no matter how
old and grand he may have believed him
self to be, could possibly have been COM
petent to discuss them all intelligently.
Fiction. biography theology, history.
Carlyle, Marie Bashkirtseff, Dante, Ho-
mer-all was grist that came to Mr.. Glad
stones mill. especially in the shape of
presentation copies. the value of which is
generally in adverse ratio to thsir abund-
ance. Passionately fond Of reading, he
was passionately fond of writing, but,
with all his practice and all his scholar
ship, he never succeeded in convincing
his best readers that he was man of let
ters in the strict sense Of the word, in the
sense that Ruskin and Carlyle were,
with all their vagaries and manner isms.