Henry Crabb Robinson, at the Athenaeum, London, to the Rev. John Miller, [Bockleton], 1 April 1853.

London

Athenaeum – 1st April 1853 –

My dear Sir,

     Were there any thing really wrong in returning to the obsolete Quarto form in this age of diminutive if not degenerate 8 vos, this my answer would be a moral lesson you are better qualified as such to teach than to profit by; for it would illustrate by an example, the infectious nature of wrong; in as much as I am following you in so doing – I should heartily rejoice were all letters like your’s written in the old original form – tho’ I cannot deny that for the other far more numerous class the 8vo: is the more suitable shape – This by the bye is no justification of the [sic] having copied you – Nor should I have dared to have put a letter of mine in the nobler class, had you used a less remarkable term than “monomaniacal” as the expression of your antipathy So that however harshly you may judge of the substance, I am sure of the form being received as a circumstance attenuante as efficient as disappointed love in the mind of a sentimental French judge jury in a case of wilful murder –

      But your letter was of a kind to delight me in any shape whatever – I never read a letter of yours with which in all respects I more heartily sympathised than this last – And in your estimate of the “Bridge of Sighs” – (a disappointing title by the bye And therefore to be regretted) I fully concur – Even in censures which I would not have brought forward, but being utterd by you – or indeed anyone – could not remove, or contradict – Tho’, as I am afraid, I have already said oftener than necessary that I am infinitely more obliged to the Critic who points out to me a beauty I might have detected than to him who makes me aware of a blemish I might have overlooked Yet do not suppose me so excessively unwilling to see faults that I do not willingly receive & confess to be just all the faults you find in Hoods marvellous poem. Far from it – I go further And think you have omitted just matter of reproach – I wonder you did not notice a fault in my copy – For I omitted the epithet inclosed in the line – “in the black (flowing) river” – Perhaps you supplied it by imagining the flowing must have been in the Original – I agree with you that the liberties taken with the grammatical construction are excessive – The 4 lines commencing with “Still for all slips of her’s,” want what is worse I fear than a grammatical construction A logical connection – Why the lips are to be wiped “for all slips” I do not see – And I have occasionally omitted those lines when reading – You have justly shewn the abuse of the triple rhyme And demanded for Wordsworth the preference to which he is entitled

     I was quite gratified by finding you had not sent the poem to Walkeringham I had intended to send it there – But paused – And said to myself “J. M knows better than I possibly can what suits J. K. M.  Let him do so if he thinks proper” I trust this might be inferred from my letter – I can appretiate the delicacy of sentiment which occasioned you to decline saying what might <–> look like “a sort of quasi censure” – And I venture to think that I know the reason – Seeing it subtly thro’ your Silence – And yet allow me to hazard a remark which is on the other tack in the alternations of feeling – I allow myself occasionally a strange paradox You will see what is of truth thro’ and inspite of the paradox – I hope at least you will be warned by the maxim before you thunder your reproof – “Qui haeret in lettera haeret in cortee” – I speak humanly of course when I say – He who has great virtues alone may claim to be pardoned great faults – I cannot endure that he who has no set off [sic] of good should have the assurance to obtrude his bad – And therefore the more I honour & love the person the less afraid I am of expressing strongly what I dislike in him – I hope I am have never and who before related the anecdote that follows, if I have you will oblige me by putting at the bottom of a page this note – “You have told the anecdote of G & S: twice already” – now if you dont – You must not scold if I repeat it for the 4th time – I once remarked to Göthe – How sad the blunder Schiller committed when in his Macbeth he makes his Witches talk abot free will and necessity – G: burst out –  “It is utterly detestible – I abhor it” – Then in an alterd tone – “But he was a great man – take him all in all – You must allow every one to be himself” – This was one of the vital points of his philosophy – The soul of his Criticism – I could expatiate on this theme till I wearied you – And you would probably throw this letter from you in disgust – So – Good afternoon to you –!

2d April – 30 Russell Square

     Desirous of finding some other topic to expatiate upon, in your letter I have reperused it with attention and interest – And can only repeat that I concur in your remarks on the Quart: Rev: as far as they are present to my memory – But alas! – Of what I now read – very little remains beyond a recollection of the impression it made on me – I thought it a paper written with more discernment that love; by one who for the sake of his own character and not because he was anxious to say what ought to be said – would not venture to confess the envy he felt towards as a superior – I had heard Milman as well as Lockhardt named as the author – It might suit either. After the scandalous paper on Southey – a monument of editorial ingratitude there is nothing of which we could declare the Quarterly incapable on the ground of meanness, under the same government – Wordsworth himself in terms said that he thought he had more cause of complaint against the Quarterly than the Edinb: – We can more easily forgive the open rather ostentatious enemy, than the would-be thought friend – Envy I think to be often the source of dishonest judgements which are ascribed to selfish-interest

     It is an element in our moral constitution generally overlooked I always maintained that Cobbetts signal perversities were to be so explained. I [sic] had an unconscious & ludicrously morbid [   ] which led him to hate not only every person but every thing that became an object of general admiration And so deprived him of his right – I ascribe to this, his hatred of Musick – to content myself with One – Have I to you, or was it to your brother that I requested an intimation when there appears anything peculiarly able in any of the Theological Revs Or without supposing that you would venture to read the paper, declare that you take an interest in it – The number of periodicals is legion I can read only what is pointed out to me in the other side by its partizans –

     I turned to the 1. Cor: XI – as you referred to it – not that I wanted evidence to satisfy me of the genuineness of your .... I wont limit the application I believe all you express is genuine – tho’ now & then I do not know how I am to understand what you say – This leads me to a comprehensive remark – or rather request Tell me who of your favorite writers has laid down a rule or afforded a clue for distinguishing in the Scriptures what is axiomatic that is, or universal application – independent of time & place – Or what is purely local & temporary – “I am certain there must be both – But how am I to discriminate? All that is said abot long & short hair for instance ^in this Chap: to the Corinthians^ I have seen an English woman with cropped hair and did not think her infamous or contemptible – And I never heard that the Jacobean crop in males proceeded from Bibliolatrious tendencies in that political party – This is an extreme case – But who has written well on the subject?

     And now my dear Sir bear the expression of my good will toward all the members of the Miller race – Strange as [most] of them would appear to me were any one to present him, or herself ^to me^ An honour I dare not hope for – yet desire

                     I am with sincere esteem

                                     &c &c &c

                                                H. C. Robinson

Revd John Miller. –

Text: WLL/2000.24.2.5, Wordsworth Trust and Museum, Grasmere.  Robinson does not mention this letter in his diary on 1 April 1853, but he does remember it on the 3rd:  ‘I forgot to put down that on Saturday I sent off a long letter to John Miller replying to his criticisms on the Bridge of Sighs.’