He has read these proofs to Mr.Fox (of Oldham), who gives an opinion that the poems are at the top of art in their kind.

I don't know whether you care for Mr.Fox's opinion, but it's worth more than mine, of course, on the ground of _impartiality_, to say no otherwise, and it will disappoint me much if you don't confirm both of us presently.

The poems, for variety, vitality, and intensity, are quite worthy of the writer, it seems to me, and a clear advance in certain respects on his previous productions.
Has 'Maud' penetrated to you?
The winding up is magnificent, full of power, and there are beautiful thrilling bits before you get so far.
Still, there is an appearance of labour in the early part; the language is rather encrusted by skill than spontaneously blossoming, and the rhythm is not always happy.

The poet seems to aim at more breadth and freedom, which he attains, but at the expense of his characteristic delicious music.

People in general appear very unfavourably impressed by this poem, _very unjustly_, Robert and I think.