The peculiar interest attaching to _Christmas Eve and Easter Day_ is wholly absent from _La Saisiaz_; for here is no uncertainty as to the identity of the speaker, no soliloquist interposed between the author and his public. The dramatic interest absent, the personal interest is, however, proportionately stronger. As in _Prospice_ the closing lines are unmistakably the outcome of an overwhelming torrent of feeling, so in the later poem the problems demanding consideration have been forced into prominence by the events of the hour; and the mourner, who was "ever a fighter," will not rest until he has confronted them, and has done all that may be fairly and honestly done towards the settlement of tormenting doubts and fears. Thus, in _La Saisiaz_, we get, perhaps, the sole example in Browning's work of a direct attempt on his part to give to the world a rational and sustained argument, resulting in his personal decision as to the questions immediately involved; the immortality of the soul and the relation of its future to its present phase of existence. It is to this deliberate design that the striking difference in character of these two similarly inspired poems may be mainly attributable: that the joyful assurance of _Prospice_ is succeeded by the reasoned hope of _La Saisiaz_. The mourner hesitates to launch himself upon the waves of faith until he has argued the questions before him in so far as they are capable of argument. For the confidence of _Prospice_ that The fiend-voices that rave _Shall_ dwindle, _shall_ blend, _Shall_ change, _shall_ become ... a peace out of pain: we have the hope of _La Saisiaz_, No more than hope, but hope--no less than hope. (l. 535.) In place of the triumphant certainty of future reunion, O thou soul of my soul! I _shall_ clasp thee again, is the answering query--sole response to the question as to mutual recognition in another world Can it be, and must, and will it? (l. 390.) But the problems of _La Saisiaz_ are not capable of solution by argument; there comes a stage at which it is inevitable that faith must supplement and succeed the reasoning powers of the intellect. "Man's truest answer" is, after all, but human: the finite may not grasp the Infinite; and, looking upon the Infinite as revealed through Nature, man can but reflect How were it did God respond?