at Ambleside, if you like. I had read the review of Wordsworth several times over: and thought the criticism (except. excipiend.) good, and the moral philosophy superb. The passage about the moon looking round her, etc., I of course felt to be a blunder, though I was less surprised than sorry to see it. It seems to me to chime in too well with what I marked as the defect of his preface to _P. v. A._,[105] so that I fear it is not a negligent criticism, as one might have hoped: but an opinion well weighed and carefully adopted. I wonder what he would say to Ebenezer Elliott, with his flowers and mountains, for a taste? Welcome then again Love-listening Primrose! tho' not parted long We meet like lovers after years of pain. Oh thou bringst blissful childhood back to me, Thou still art loveliest in the lowest place, Still as of old Day glows with love for thee, And reads our heavenly Father in thy face. Surely thy thoughts are humble and devout, Flower of the pensive gold! for why should heaven Deny to thee his noblest boon of thought, If to Earth's demigods 'tis vainly given? Answer me, Sunless Sister, Thou hast speech Though silent Fragrance is thy eloquence, Beauty thy language, and thy smile might teach Ungrateful man to pardon providence. He would call it a very bold figure of speech: figure of _speech_, quotha! However, Philip is a noble fellow, and the apology for this piece of criticism is so wise and so good that one can hardly regret that an apology was needed. I have sent for the citation of Will. Shakespeare, though rather with the desire than the expectation of great delight. I read a few extracts in the _Atlas_, with which I was not at all struck, or, if at all, not favourably; but that does not go for much, as I did not know who it was by, or anything about it, and the extracts were most probably ill-chosen. But to tell you the truth I never took much to Landor. To be sure I never read much of him, but I have often had the book in my hand. Perhaps I might have liked him better if the speakers had been named Philander and Strephon, and Philalethes and the like, instead of Bacon, and Hooker, and Raleigh, and so following. I shall have every chance this time: for besides the prejudice derived from your praise, I am by no means easy in feeling no great respect for a writer of whom _P. v. A._ speaks so very highly. There is something in Philip's intellect which commands more than my usual reverence. More _genial_ minds I have met with, but for strength, and integrity, and _discretion_ of understanding, I do not know his equal. He puts me in mind of F. Malkin. We must have him change his mind, though, about the moon and the streams. I read the