scripture-historical) examination, was asked by the Tutor, who wished to let him off easily, ’who was the first King of Israel?’—­’Saul’ answered the trembling youth.  ‘Good!’ nodded approvingly the Tutor.  ‘Otherwise called Paul,’ subjoined the youth in his elation!  Now I have begged pardon, and blushingly assured you that was only a slip of the tongue, and that I did really mean all the while, (Paul or no Paul), the veritable son of Kish, he that owned the asses, and found listening to the harp the best of all things for an evil spirit!  Pray write me a line to say, ‘Oh ... if that’s all!’ and remember me for good (which is very compatible with a moment’s stupidity) and let me not for one fault, (and that the only one that shall be), lose any pleasure ... for your friendship I am sure I have not lost—­God bless you, my dear friend!

R. BROWNING.

And by the way, will it not be better, as co-operating with you more effectually in your kind promise to forget the ‘printer’s error’ in my blotted proof, to send me back that same ‘proof,’ if you have not inflicted proper and summary justice on it?  When Mephistopheles last came to see us in this world outside here, he counselled sundry of us ’never to write a letter,—­and never to burn one’—­do you know that?  But I never mind what I am told!  Seriously, I am ashamed....  I shall next ask a servant for my paste in the ‘high fantastical’ style of my own ‘Luria.’

E.B.B. to R.B.

                                             Sunday
                                             [May 25, 1845].

I owe you the most humble of apologies dear Mr. Browning, for having spent so much solemnity on so simple a matter, and I hasten to pay it; confessing at the same time (as why should I not?) that I am quite as much ashamed of myself as I ought to be, which is not a little.  You will find it difficult to believe me perhaps when I assure you that I never made such a mistake (I mean of over-seriousness to indefinite compliments), no, never in my life before—­indeed my sisters have often jested with me (in matters of which they were cognizant) on my supernatural indifference to the superlative degree in general, as if it meant nothing in grammar.  I usually know well that ‘boots’ may be called for in this world of ours, just as you called for yours; and that to bring ‘Bootes,’ were the vilest of mal-a-pro-pos-ities.  Also, I should have understood ‘boots’ where you wrote it, in the letter in question; if it had not been for the relation of two things in it—­and now I perfectly seem to see how I mistook that relation; (’seem to see’; because I have not looked into the letter again since your last night’s commentary, and will not—­) inasmuch as I have observed before in my own mind, that a good deal of what is called obscurity in you, arises from a habit of very subtle association; so subtle, that you are probably unconscious of it, ...