The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-12-02

mlTTlSQ Ills StCOIO Wis WIS I1eIDNTb DuCh-
worth. James Russell Lowell was god
father 70 one Of the children OF this mar
rage, and when both wife and friend were
zone Stephen sent to Charles Eliot Norton
a copy OF verses printed among Lowell's
LAST Poems, " in which occurs the following
allusion TO the second Mrs. Stephen:
I wish her next, and IT'S the soul
OF all I dropped into the bowl.
Her mothers beauty; nay, but two
so fair at once would never do.
Then let her but the half possess.
Troy was besieGed ten years for less.
From 1915 TO 1882 Stephen was working
"A. intervals, of course-on his Science Of
Ethics He liked il better than any OF his
other books, and held that in no other did
he put so much straightforward, energetic
thinking. The public has not agreed
with him about the relative merit OF his
various works. Touching the comparative
failure of the Science OF Ethics" the
biographer points out that Stephen did not
conciliate any class Of NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.,
and vet wa not on the side Of the vulgar
still less on the side Of the angels. Nor
could he present his doctrine az part Of a
vast system, az did Herbert Spencer, Even
Mr.. Maitland recognizes that there is some
lOuIddllOh " n AAuN III uAS
Science OF Ethics" Stephen went as near
as he could 10 being dull After being
captivated by a charming preface, some
readers resented the gravity and severity
Of what followed. Nevertheless. Mr.. Matt
land ~pronounCes it "A brave, veracious and
wholesome book
More essays of the sgnostic group, an
essay on Thackeray, hard to write, but good
70 read, an introduction to Fielding's novels,
and a third volume OF Hours, were some
OF the by-works OF the period 1s7s-s2. At
this time also, Stephen wrote the volumes
on Pope" and Swift for the Men Of
Letters" series.
Under date of February 5, 1850, we find
Stephen writing to Charles Eliot Norton
that the p~leasantest thing Of which he has
heard for a long time is Lowel's appoint
ment TO the post OF American Minister at
the Court Of Sc. ,lsmes's. Writing TO the
same American friend in August Of the
same year, he lanents that there is now
no Englishman who is to the rising genera
ton what Mil and Carlyle were TO the pre-
ceding. nor rave we a really rood novelist
or any poet OF high rank to replace the old
idols. The thing 70 be said per contrs is.
l think, that though first rate names arc
conspicuously wanting, there is, or seems
to be, a great stirring and moving OF
thought in various directions. and one
hopes that something may come OF IL
in a new generation Carlyle had still
some months to live when that letter was
penned, but on February II, 1881, Stephen
writes TO Norton that he had just come back
from q short winter trip to the Alps ito
hear of Carlyle's death, who, poor man,
must have felt that the evils which he
prophesied were gathering pretty thickly.
He and George Eliot-he much more than
G. E.-seem to leave a terrible gap behind
them. l am glad to have known, and sorry
that I saw no more OF him lately. I can't
tell whether it was my shyness or my pene-
tration that persuaded me that he was
rather bored than otherwise by seeing me;
and SO l had pretty much dropped of from
going there He adds: Il am glad that
Stanley did not get him flor Westminster
Abbey and that he was buried quietly
and silently at Hpclefechan. 1t was the
only appropriate end"
Some five months later he tells Norton:
We have lost poor Dean Stanley. My wife
went to the funeral yesterday. I did not,
because ! find funerals so painful that I only
20 when II is a question OF not hurting some
bodyis feelings. But l am sorry for STAN
ley, for he was really a man of fine and
generous nature, though he was not much
Of philosopher. There Is nobody left among
the parsons whose death would cause a
hitieth part of the regret to outsiders
Stephen guessed that Stanley would be Sue
ceeded by Farrar. who, he thought, was
lust the man ITO impose upon q rhetoriciAn