There is, at the present time, a widespread belief that we had better keep poetry and religion beyond the reach of critical investigation, if we set any store by them.  Faith and reason are thought to be finally divorced.  It is an article of the common creed that every attempt which the world has made to bring them together has resulted in denial, or at the best in doubt, regarding all supersensuous facts.  The one condition of leading a full life, of maintaining a living relation between ourselves and both the spiritual and material elements of our existence, is to make our lives an alternating rhythm of the head and heart, to distinguish with absolute clearness between the realm of reason and that of faith.

Now, such an assumption would be fatal to any attempt like the present, to find truth in poetry; and I must, therefore, try to meet it before entering upon a statement and criticism of Browning’s view of life.  I cannot admit that the difficulties of placing the facts of man’s spiritual life on a rational basis are so great as to justify the assertion that there is no such basis, or that it is not discoverable by man.  Surely, it is unreasonable to make intellectual death the condition of spiritual life.  If such a condition were imposed on man, it must inevitably defeat its own purpose; for man cannot possibly continue to live a divided life, and persist in believing that for which his reason knows no defence.  We must, in the long run, either rationalize our faith in morality and religion, or abandon them as illusions.  And we should at least hesitate to deny that reason—­in spite of its apparent failure in the past to justify our faith in the principles of spiritual life—­may yet, as it becomes aware of its own nature and the might which dwells in it, find beauty and goodness, nay, God himself, in the world.  We should at least hesitate to condemn man to choose between irreflective ignorance and irreligion, or to lock the intellect and the highest emotions of our nature and principles of our life, in a mortal struggle.  Poetry and religion may, after all, be truer then prose, and have something to tell the world that science, which is often ignorant of its own limits, cannot teach.

The failure of philosophy in the past, even if it were as complete as is believed by persons ignorant of its history, is no argument against its success in the future.  Such persons have never known that the world of thought like that of action makes a stepping stone of its dead self.  He who presumes to decide what passes the power of man’s thought, or to prescribe absolute limits to human knowledge, is rash, to say the least; and he has neither caught the most important of the lessons of modern science, nor been lifted to the level of its inspiration.  For science has done one thing greater than to unlock the secrets of nature.  It has revealed something of the might of reason, and given new grounds for the faith, which in all ages has inspired the effort to know,—­the