the possessor of them, if he is capable of sometimes reaching the highest heaven of enjoyment, must atone for this by frequently descending into the deepest hell of despair: but it would be absurd enough on the part of those whose feelings are dull, and whose passions are torpid, if they claimed, on those scores, to possess the more perfect temperament. No doubt if Thomson had been ruled by reason alone, he would have quickly forgotten his "only love," and his life would have been happier, or, at least, would have been something altogether different from what it was. But in the lives of most men (and women too) reason plays a very small part compared with the part played by the feelings or affections. If we were ruled by reason alone we should cease to regret a parent, a lover, or a friend, the instant they were cold in death: but one who could do so would scarcely be regarded as human at all. As grief for the departed is natural to us, in what way shall we set bounds to it? Those whom we love or respect but little, we do not long grieve for; but what length of time can assuage our grief for those whom we have loved with the whole strength of our hearts? Thomson, being a poet, was therefore a man of far more than ordinary intensity of feeling. What Mr. Palgrave has said of Shakespeare (in relation to the "Sonnets") applies equally well to Thomson:—
"There is a weakness and folly in all excessive and misplaced affection,' says Mr. Hallam. . . . Such excess, however, as it must appear in the light of common day, is perhaps rarely wanting among the gifts of great genius. The poet's nature differs in degree so much from other men's, that we might almost speak of it as a
