This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
“ [352] something of a curiosity — not much of a poem.” 1 I remarked that Rev. Mr. Longfellow had a decided partiality for Browning. “Yes,” he said; “Sam likes him, and my friend John Weiss prefers him to Tennyson. My objection is to his diction. I have always found the English language sufficient for my purpose, and have never tried to improve on it. Browning's ‘Saul’ and ‘The Ride from Ghent to Aix’ are noble poems.” “Carlyle also,” I said, “has a peculiar diction.” “That is true,” he replied, “but one can forgive anything to a writer who has so much to tell us as Carlyle. Besides, he writes prose, and not poetry.” He took up a photograph which was lying on the table and showed it to me, saying, “How do you like Miss Stebbins's ‘Satan’ ” I told him I hardly knew how to judge of such a subject. Then we both laughed, and Mr. Longfellow said: “I wonder what our artists want to make Satans for. I doubt if there is one of them that believes in the devil's existence.”
1 I have since observed that poets as a class are not fair critics of poetry; for they are sure to prefer poetry which is like their own. This is true at least of Lowell, Emerson, or Matthew Arnold; but when I came to read “The Ring and the book” I found that Longfellow's objection was a valid one.
1905. E. P. DUtton and Co. Boston,.
Tufts University. provided support for entering this text.
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.