“. . . . Your objections to the exordial lines are not valid. I say there of what the subject is to treat, not affirming that it is historically true. Just as I might have said, in an introduction to Thalaba, that he destroyed the Dom Daniel, and so put an end to all sorcery. The want of numerals is a fault I confess, not so the namelessness of the divisions; nor, indeed, are they nameless, for in the notes they are regarded as sections; and that each has not its specific name from its subject-matter affixed to it, is, you know, the effect of your own advice. However, call them sections, cantos, canticles, chapters, what you will, and then consider in what way is this mode of division objectionable.
“I am not surprised at your little liking the poem; on
the contrary, I am more surprised at those who like it, because what merit it
has is almost wholly of execution, which is infinitely better than the subject.
Now every body can feel if a story be interesting or flat, whereas there are
very few who can judge of the worth of the language and versification. I have
said to somebody, perhaps it was to you, that had this been written since Thalaba (for, as you know, the plan was formed, and the key
pitched, before Thalaba was begun or dreamt of), I
should have thought it ominous of declining powers, it is in so sober a tone,
its colouring so autumnal, its light every where that of an evening gun; but as
only the last finish of language, the
| 340 | LIFE AND CORRESPONDENCE | Ætat. 30. |
