were given in fulfilment of the pledge contained in the foregoing extracts from letters; and their delivery created a great sensation. To those who never heard Mr. Robertson speak, it may be interesting to learn that he was gifted with a voice of wonderful sweetness and power. So flexible and harmonious was it, that it gave expression to the finest tones of feeling; so thrilling, that it stirred men to the heart. His gesture was simple and quiet:—his whole soul so thoroughly absorbed in his subject that all was intensely real, natural, and earnest.

The following letter from the Earl of Carlisle, on some points referred to in the Lectures on Poetry, is given, partly for the sake of the criticism which it contains, and partly because it leads, naturally, to one from Mr. Robertson, which further illustrates his views on poetry:

"I would not thank you for your most acceptable present till I had enjoyed the pleasure of making acquaintance with its contents. I have recognized in them all the high ability and the generous and delicate feeling which I could have expected.

"Upon one or two points of mere taste we may not wholly agree, but there is no part of what you inculcate with which I agree more fully than that in which you commend universality of taste. I have some doubts, for instance, about this, 'the best poetry demands study as severe as mathematics require.'

"I take, what appear to me to be the highest of human compositions, the Iliad and Macbeth, and I think they both are eminently intelligible without pain or effort. Perhaps I would give up Hamlet to you-not Othello. "I think you rate Dr. Johnson's poetical powers too low.

"Rest undisturbed within thy peaceful shrine,

Till angels wake thee with a note like thine.'

"I must not, however, indulge in mere prattle. Let me repay your kindness in the same coin, of however inferior value. I assure you, with all truth, that I look on some things I have said with more complacency, when I flatter myself that there is some identity of view between us."

His Lordship accompanied his letter by a copy of his lectures on Pope, and Mr. Robertson replied

"I will not allow a post to pass without thanking you very gratefully for your kind present, and kinder note, the approval of which I feel to be very invigorating. I was very glad to find that there was not a syllable of the lecture on Pope, which jarred with my estimate of him, which I a little feared. But the passage quoted from Warton, page 10, and another of your own, page 16, 'Twas not so much the pomp and prodigality of heaven,' etc., express, though with far more precision, exactly the reasons which I briefly alleged for ranking Pope in the second order, but, in that order, first. I congratulated myself much on perceiving so far this agreement, and in all the admiration which the lecture contains, I heartily concur.

"The passage, page 105, 'Heaven was made for those

who had failed in this world,' struck me very forcibly several years ago, when I read it in a newspaper, and became a rich vein of thought in which I often quarried; especially when the sentence was interpreted by the Cross, which was failure, apparently.

"My sentence, 'The best poetry demands study as severe as mathematics require,' is very justly open to criticism; but more, I think, from the unfinished abruptness of the phraseology than from its real meaning. The best poetry has a sense which is level to the apprehension at once; not being obscure in expression, nor metaphysical or scholastic in thought; but then any one who had caught this meaning at the first glance would be greatly mistaken if he supposed that he had got all, or nearly all, it meant.

"The dewdrop that glitters on the end of every leaf after a shower is beautiful even to a child; but I suppose that to a Herschel, who knows that the lightning itself sleeps within it, and understands and feels all its mysterious connections with earth and sky and planets, it is suggestive of feeling of a far deeper beauty: and the very instances you allege, Macbeth and the Iliad, would substantiate what I meant, though not what I awkwardly perhaps seemed to say. Macbeth, all action, swift and hurried in its progress towards dénouement, is intelligible at once. But I spent myself many weeks upon it, and only began at last to feel that it was simple, because deep. Some exquisite and fine remarks of Mrs. Jameson on certain characters in it, and profounder ones of Coleridge on others, have brought out a meaning that we feel at once was in it, and not forced upon it. In the sense I meant, I should say Macbeth could not be understood, especially as a whole, except with hard study.

"I am very much tempted to accept the challenge of page 28, in the lecture on Pope, 'I would beg any of the detractors of Pope to furnish me with another couple of lines from any author whatever, which encloses so much sublimity of meaning within such compressed limits, and such precise terms.'

"If it were not that the cartel is addressed only to Pope's detractors, I think I should allege that wonderful couplet of the Erd Geist in Faust

666
"So schaff' ich am säusenden Webstuhl der Zeit
Und wirke der Gottheit lebendiges Kleid;'

at least if I might interpret them by Psalm cii., 26, 27. "In the graceful courtesy with which your lordship acknowledges that there is some identity of view between us,' I receive the best and most cheering reward that my little pamphlet has obtained."

The lecture on Wordsworth was delivered before the members of the Athenæum, and was to have been followed by a second on the same subject; but Mr. Robertson's health was never afterwards equal to the exertion. This lecture has not had the advantage of his own corrections. He was criticised by the South Church Union Chronicle as teaching in it "Pantheism," and as unfairly attacking High Churchmen. To this he

replied in the following letter:—

"In the columns of the Brighton Guardian, denominated the South Church Union Chronicle,' I see some strictures on certain expressions attributed to me in my lecture upon Wordsworth. With the tone of

the strictures, excepting one sentence which I regret, -not for my own sake, for it is untrue, but for the writer's sake, for it is rude and coarse-I can find no fault. The whole criticism, however, is based on a misconception. It proceeds on the assumption that I complained, with blame, that

"High Churchism regarded with peculiar reverence a sanctity as connected with certain places, times, acts, and persons,' &c.

"I did not use those words. That was not my definition of High Churchism; and to have condemned it as so defined would have contradicted my argument, for I was actually at the moment justifying Wordsworth, who is well known to have entertained such feelings. Had I so spoken, I should have condemned a feeling of the relative sanctity of such things; a feeling which I comprehend too entirely to have any inclination to interfere with.

"What I did say was as follows::-The tendency of Pantheism is to see the godlike everywhere, the personal God nowhere. The tendency of High Churchism is to localise the personal Deity in certain. consecrated places, called churches: certain consecrated times, called Sabbaths, fast days, and so forth: certain consecrated acts, sacramental and quasi-sacramental : certain consecrated persons, called priests.'

"I endeavoured to show that the tendency is not necessarily the error: and that there are High Churchmen, like Wordsworth, who recognise in such places, persons, and acts, a sanctity only relative and not intrinsic,— relative to the worshippers, without localising or limiting Deity in or to the acts, times, or places: Pantheistic and High Church tendencies, each false alone, balancing each other in the particular case of such men.