attempted to save himself. I knew this would be so, but it
was satisfactory for me to have it confirmed by external evidence. Do
not think our grief unreasonable. Of all human beings whom I ever knew,
he was the man of the most rational desires, the most sedate habits, and
the most perfect self-command. He was modest and gentle, and shy even to
disease; but this was wearing off. In every thing his judgments were
sound and original; his taste in all the arts, music and poetry in
particular (for these he, of course, had had the best opportunities of
being familiar with), was exquisite; and his eye for the beauties of
nature was as fine and delicate as ever poet or painter was gifted with,
in some discriminations, owing to his education and way of life, far
superior to any person's I ever knew. But, alas! what avails it? It was
the will of God that he should be taken away.

* * * * *

I trust in God that I shall not want fortitude; but my loss is great and
irreparable.

[52] Due to Wordsworth's father from James, Earl of Lonsdale, at whose
death, in 1802, it was paid by his Lordship's successor, and divided
among the five children.

* * * * *

Many thanks for the offer of your house; but I am not likely to be
called to town. Lady Beaumont gives us hope we may see you next summer:
this would, indeed, be great joy to us all. My sister thanks Lady B. for
her affectionate remembrance of her and her letter, and will write as
soon as ever she feels herself able. Her health, as was to be expected,
has suffered much.

Your most affectionate friend,
W. WORDSWORTH.

Again:

Grasmere, March 12. 1805.

As I have said, your last letter affected me much. A thousand times have
I asked myself, as your tender sympathy led me to do, 'why was he taken
away?' and I have answered the question as you have done. In fact, there
is no other answer which can satisfy and lay the mind at rest. Why have
we a choice, and a will, and a notion of justice and injustice, enabling
us to be moral agents? Why have we sympathies that make the best of us
so afraid of inflicting pain and sorrow, which yet we see dealt about so
lavishly by the Supreme Governor? Why should our notions of right
towards each other, and to all sentient beings within our influence,
differ so widely from what appears to be His notion and rule