Henry Crabb Robinson, 30 Russell Square, to Henry Taylor, 1 February 1849.

My dear Sir

       I am much obliged by your present & embarrassed by your note. I know not what to say without exposing myself to the imputation of either affectation or insensibility to the compliment paid me.

       I own that such a note had it been anonymous would have annoyed me Coming from you it gratifies me, but with an uncomfortable adjunct. It is the a laudato that alone renders it a matter of satisfaction to be the laudatus. I cannot but be proud of any mark of your respect even if founded on a mistake. I was not the friend of Schiller whom I saw only two or three times. Of Göthe I saw much more And he was as superior to Schiller as Shakespeare to Milton. I have often said of myself – that it has been my enviable [f. 265v.] lot to be known & to a certain extent respected in several countries of Europe by distinguished men, whom I had no right to associate with from the possession of any kindred talent. This ought to be said hereafter, if I were one to be ever mentioned hereafter. But more than enough of myself.

       Yesterday morning I read with close attention the Essay on Money. It is full of practical wisdom, free alike from commonplace & paradox – the Scilla & Charybdis of the Essayist. I felt on several points instructed & on one especially ever conscious of a change of opinion and that in favour of collateral heirs – on the plea of expectation so well put by you.

       I have been in the habit of thinking that the childless testator might properly give to strangers the property he had earned, while he gave to his kinsmen that which he inherited. But these are cases of imperfect obligation

      The greatest objection to making an heir among collaterals is, that great inequality [f. 266r.] of wealth is sure to separate families. The poor & the rich brothers children will hardly know each other. The grandchildren certainly not.

       You write an admirably luminous style. I have met with but one obscure passage – The middle of page 8 – ‘he must not make it more insufficient in his lifetime.’ There is darkness somewhere either in the passage or in my head.

       I was going to hint that you have used p 10 dowries where you ought to have said portions – luckily I looked into Johnson. And there I find that the authorities are in favour of your use of the word. But in spite of the poets I think it is better to use dowry like dower for that which the husband gives And the marriage portion for that share wch the father distributes among his daughters. There are usually several daughters. There can be but one wife.

       I hope Mrs Fenwick is well. I sent her an account of the friends in the north on my arrival. I am yr obliged humble s.t

                        H. C. Robinson

Henry Taylor Esqr

Text: Mss. Eng. Lett., d. 10., fols. 265-66, Bodleian Library, Oxford. The above letter is a copy and is not in Robinson’s hand.