This poem, libelled as morbid and melancholy, has about it a glory which of itself would establish the claim of Tennyson to healthiest power; there is first the crushing sense of sorrow, blinding the spirit by its agony to all else; next the stage of terrible doubt, as to what the issue of such sorrow shall be, both to him who feels it, and to him who is removed. In this stage he forces his way through darkest doubt, into fullest and richest sunlight, where he sees the spiritual glory of the universe, and gives forth sentiments at once sublime in their mental, as they are most truthful in their religious aspect. He has found the truth, not in any abstract form, but in its glorified impersonation, as the "Strong Son of God, Immortal Love;" hence he can say,— "If e'er when faith had fall'n asleep, I heard a voice, 'Believe no more,' Compared with Longfellow's "Footsteps of Angels," this work will fully establish the claim of our Laureate to as high, if not a higher place in the literature of the heart. The publication of "In Memoriam" indicated that its author was once more roused to action, and was pluming his wings for further flight; which he soon proved by the issue of that muchmaligned and misunderstood tragedy "Maud," of which we have a most excellent estimate in a recent periodical, the writer observing: * -"The blending of styles in it shows at least one thing, that the poet has reached a stand-point from which he can disregard that mere outward beauty, that smooth and rich melody, which seemed the chief object of his earliest works. He has found there is some-thing higher than beauty, and that is truth." Unsatisfactory as seemed the progress of the poet indicated by Maud," there was demonstrated by it, as by "The Princess," an aim and ideal which he had set before himself to reach and fulfil, and what Bacon intimates by "Poesy feigneth acts and events greater and more heroical than in history." High ideals wrought out into beautiful and glorious forms, and so clothed as to appeal to all the parts of man's nature, being the great need of our race; and the mission of the poet being, in his matured strength, to supply such need; we wonder not finally to behold Tennyson, in all the greatness and goodness of his experience, going again to those old romantic springs where his earlier steps had been directed, and from the rich, national legends of Arthur and his knights and ladies, creating those poems which are only * North American Review, No. 186, art. "Tennyson " now beginning to be understood. In our previous remarks, we have had to regard Tennyson and his teaching as comparatively incomplete, not because there was any inherent want, but that such high promise and aim was in them displayed. that we could not but be left after their study in the attitude of anticipation of other and fuller utterances. So much has been and is being said on the wondrous power manifested in the "Idylls of the King," that we feel that there is little need here to expatiate either on their beauty or tendency; suffice to say, we have in them more than a fulfilment of the great promise their author had previously given; his artistic power is richer and fuller, his social wisdom more matured, his old devotion to the aspects of womanhood further developed, and withal a deep spiritual and religious insight into the power and requirements of our nature, which leave the careful student with but one conclusion, that a true national poet is giving expression to heartviews on the greatest of themes, under the sweetest guise of ancient myth and romance. Superficial as our estimate and criticism is, we yet hope thoughts have been hinted at, which, if fairly carried to a conclusion, will induce all candid students of the question under debate, unhesitatingly to give an affirmative reply to it, and so admit to his true place the Greatheart who teaches his age that it should have unswerving trust in "That God which ever lives and loves, One God, one law, one element, And one far-off Divine event, To which the whole creation moves." ANGLO-SAXON. NEGATIVE ARTICLE.-IV. POETA nascitur, non fit. Such is the ancient dictum, and recent times and experiences tend to establish more firmly its truthfulness. A modern poet has beautifully expressed this idea in a Christian form, telling us that 66 Poetry is itself a thing of God; He made His prophets poets, and the more We feel of poesy do we become Like God in love and power-under makers." We have read the previous portions of this debate with much pleasure, and although the inherent interest of the question itself were sufficient to command the careful attention of all interested in the healthy character of English literature, the admirable essays given by previous writers have gathered around the question additional pleasures, and not the least is our present pleasure of participating in the friendly conflict upon the points at issue. We were much pleased with the pro-Tennyson paper of B. S., p. 241, et seq.; and we regret that we could not find in it any application to the healthiness or contrary tendencies of either poet; indeed, B. S. himself has some conviction of its want of connection with the subject, for he says, p. 249, "We fear that some of our readers may think that we have wandered from our professed theme, and treated them to a very dry discussion." "Tis true he had wandered from his theme. Yet had the question been the poet and his work, or the nature of poetry and the character of the poet in its widest sense, so as to include all poets and all poetry, the paper of B. S. would have been far from dry and uninteresting; but so far as its applicability to the tendencies of Tennyson's or Longfellow's poetry is concerned, it is dry, uninteresting, and completely hors de combat. Our aim is, by the terms of the debate, limited to one point,-the comparative healthiness of the poetry of our two authors. The form in which it is proposed necessarily implies that both are great poets,-accomplished masters of the musical concatenation of our English vocabulary. It is not for us to discuss which is the most happy in his choice of measures with which to beautify his work. The mechanical part of poetry, so to speak, is admitted to be in the hands of two highly accomplished masterly artists. Indeed, it were an absurdity to apply the comparative terms healthy or unhealthy to the mere orderly collocation of melodious sounds. It is alleged that a certain order or arrangement of sounds may produce joy or sadness, love or hatred, and many shades of these principal passions or emotions of the mind; but if we narrowly search into the springs or motive powers in which these emotions have their source, we shall find them rather in some subjectivity of the individual, some ideas existing in the mind of the individual which are in accord or discord with the objective sounds impinging upon his sensorium, through the medium of the sense of hearing, and that the efficient cause does not reside in the objective sounds themselves. Were the cause of these emotions purely objective, no variation could possibly be experienced in their effects, and a purely uniform taste and rule of criticism must prevail throughout the whole family of man. Thus the uncivilized and barbarous savage and the most cultivated poet and musician would be equally moved by the same order of sounds, and equally good judges of purity and beauty in poetry and music, the absurdity of which is at once apparent. We might here dismiss the entire paper of B. S. in the April number of the Controversialist, as fully and fairly refuted, and proved to be unconnected with the question at issue; but ex sui oro we hope to show the fallacy of his advocacy of Tennyson. En passant we may notice one of many contradictions to be found in the papers of B. S. On p. 243 he says, "The poet, though he may convey information, and may argue or persuade, always aims at intellectual pleasure." Then, in the succeeding sentence, he continues, speaking of poetry, the work of the poet, "It is a species of composition which has for its object the creation of intellectual pleasure, by addressing primarily the imagination and feelings rather than the intellect." Here are two assertions of a contrary character, one asserting that poetry is addressed to the intelleet, and the other that it is not addressed to the intellect. What confidence can be placed in conclusions drawn from such a course of reasoning? 66 Throughout the first paper of B. S. he has laboured to show that as a poet, the poet's object is to give us intellectual pleasure, and to do so in metrical or musical language. As a man highly endowed, his object ought to be to make this poetic power tend to the doing good and increasing of wisdom." In these words we have the sum of B. S.'s philosophy; as a poet, excellence consists in power to communicate intellectual pleasure. Now, our present concern is with these two authors as poets. B. S. gives us the dictum, that as such they must be judged by their power to communicate intellectual pleasure. Man being a moral agent, the influence of one man or one mind upon another must be judged as to its healthiness or unhealthiness by moral considerations alone, not by intellectual pleasures; in fact, the terms healthy and unhealthy are perfectly inapplicable to man in any question of this kind, excepting only as to his moral nature; to suppose the contrary is absurd. Let us try to conceive of joy or sorrow, love or hatred, or any secondary emotion, being capable of production as intellectual pleasures, and we find that it is only so far as such passions or emotions are morally right that they are pleasures of an healthy character. It is then a fallacy for B. S. to assume that he is right in judging Tennyson to be more healthy in the tendencies of his poetry, because, as he alleges, it gives more intellectual pleasure. Moreover, B. S. affirms that the poet, that is, Tennyson,-" as a man highly endowed, his object ought to be to make his poetic power tend to the doing of good and increasing of wisdom." Here B. S. makes the healthy tendencies of his poetry to consist not in his work as a poet, but in his nature as a man highly endowed,-another fallacy, evidencing that B. S. has thought and argued quite foreign from the question in debate. B. S. having been at considerable pains, as shown in the passages to which we have referred, to prove that as a poet intellectual pleasure is the true test of healthy tendency and excellency in his poetry, he proceeds, in his second paper, p. 395, to remark," It is our duty now, therefore, to judge between Longfellow and Tennyson as poets or metrical artists, whose first object is to gain our ear with the melody of their words, to fill the imagination with the beauty and grandeur of the creations of their genius, to wield our passions and emotions, and to engage the mind with their subtle thoughts. Having thus guaged their power of influence, we shall have next to ascertain the way in which they have used that power; for all resulting moral influence is a combination of the active power and moral quality of the influence actually exerted. With reference to the first point, the comparative merits of Tennyson and Longfellow as poets, our present share in such a comparison may be dismissed currente calamo. But, in the present case, we have merely to do with the conclusion to be drawn from such a comparison." Surely the sang froid with which B. S. treats his readers is most remarkable. After having laboured through about thirteen pages to make an intellectual comparison of our two authors, he says plainly it has nothing to do with the present question at all, although very interesting per se, and consequently it may be dismissed currente calamo. B. S. says, p. 398,-"We have therefore arrived at the conclusion that, metrically, artistically, and intellectually, Tennyson is the greater. In fact, his poetic faculties and mental endowments place him above Longfellow." This decision we hold to be an affirmative reply to the question in debate, but B. S. has also said, p. 395,-“ We shall have to ascertain the way in which they have used that (poetic) power; for all resulting moral influence is a combination of the active power and moral quality of the influence actually exerted;" and at the same time he dismisses with a flying pen" the metrical, artistical, and intellectual comparison of the two poets; thus in one sentence making an intellectual comparison the subject of debate; in another, dismissing this mode of handling the question; in a third, claiming the moral mode of treating it; and in a fourth, arriving at the conclusion that the debate has been proved affirmatively for Tennyson, on intellectual and artistic grounds. Really such logical versatility entitles B. S. to more than chameleon honours, and we doubt not the readers of this serial will accord them with acclamation. Space forbids our entering at further length into an analysis of the fallacies of B. S. Having indicated a few of them, we place them before the reader as a chart to guide him through the shoals and quicksands of false logic and rhetoric exhibited by that writer. In conclusion, we cannot refrain from referring to the definition of poetry, given by "L'Ouvrier," p. 403, as the correct canon by which to judge of the comparative merits of the two poets, in the form that question is given for our consideration in this debate. Having shown that B. S. has not proved Tennyson to be the most healthy in the tendency of his poetry, we by implication prove that Longfellow's poetry is the most healthy. Verbum sat sapienti. History. WAS JOAN OF ARC AN IMPOSTOR? AFFIRMATIVE ARTICLE.-III. DELTA. THE consideration of a question like this is full of interest to all students of history, as well as to all lovers of the wild and marvellous. In inquiring into the pretensions and in endeavouring to |