and I'll begin by thanking you for calling my attention to the error in re Palfrey — which, of course, I shall correct.
Another friend has written me to say that Lowell's father was a Unitarian — not a Congregationalist.
But Lowell himself told me, the other day, that his father never would call himself a Unitarian, and that he find the author deep in a discussion of Lowell, for instance, and complaining of that poet's prose or verse.
Not compactly moulded, Stedman says, even of much of Lowell's work.
He had a way, moreover, of dropping like his own bobolink, of letting down his fine passages with odd conceits, mixed metaphors, and licenses which, as ahere are good enough counters in the language for any poet's need.
These failings, Stedman says, have perplexed the poet's friends and teased his reviewers.
Yet Lowell's critic is more chargeable with diffuseness than is Lowell himself in prose essays, which is saying a good deal.
Stedman devotes forty-five pages to Lowell and