"What you say of Browning's _Ring and the Book_," he says, soon after the publication of that work, "I have no doubt is strictly applicable, however slashing.... I confess, however, that I have never had the courage to read the book. He is a great friend of mine.... But it does not follow that I should put up with obsolete horrors, and unrhythmical composition. What has come upon the world that it should take any metrical (?) arrangement of facts for holy Poesy? It has been my weakness to believe that the Fine Arts and Imaginative Literature should do something more than astonish us by _tours de force_, black and white contrasts, outrageous inhumanities, or anything criminally sensational, or merely intellectually potent. As you say a good heart is better than a clever head, so I say better a page of feeling than a volume of spasms. Spasms, I fear, is the order of the day. The late Lord Robertson, a legal celebrity at Edinburgh, pleading on behalf of some one, said, with his serious face, which was more tickling than the happiest efforts of Pantaloon: 'We are bound to respect his feelings as a man and a butcher.' Here the man and the butcher are bound up in one. Now, in Browning's case, I separate the man from the butcher. I have nothing to say to him in his blue apron and steel by his side, but if I meet him in plain clothes I honour him as a gentleman." And in 1885 he writes: "The Public, it would seem, is beginning to rouse itself to a perception of the unreliability of the Browningian school--I have seen several articles on that subject. How is it that it has never struck his partisans that the probability of one man being so infinitely superior to his contemporaries as to be totally unintelligible to them--is infinitely small? "One thing appears to me certain in Browning, that all his performances are pure _brain-work_--whatever that may be worth--but as for the 'divine heat of temperament,' where is it? I can find nothing but the inextricably hard and the extravagantly fantastical. On such diet I cannot live." Nevertheless, it was always the future of Art, not its past, which stirred his interest, and a letter of his written in 1885, when he was seventy-eight, shows a youth and vitality of mind truly remarkable in one whose life had been so cloistered.