Another hindrance to his title as a great poet, is that he is not, and never could be, a poet of the multitude. His verse lacks all popular fibre. It is the delight of scholars, of philosophers, of men who live by silent introspection or quiet communing with nature. But it is altogether remote from the stir and stress of popular life and struggle. Then, again, his tone is profoundly, though not morbidly, melancholy, and this is fatal to popularity. As he himself said, “The life of the people is such that in literature they require joy.” But not only his thought, his very style, is anti-popular. Much of his most elaborate work is in blank verse, and that in itself is a heavy draw-back. Much also is in exotic and unaccustomed metres, which to the great bulk of English readers must always be more of a discipline than of a delight. And, even when he wrote in our indigenous metres, his ear often played him false. His rhymes are sometimes only true to the eye, and his lines are over-crowded with jerking monosyllables. Let one glaring instance suffice —
Calm not life’s crown, though calm is well.
The sentiment is true and even profound; but the expression is surely rugged and jolting to the last degree; and there are many lines nearly as ineuphonious. Here are some samples, collected by that fastidious critic, Mr. Frederic Harrison —
“The sandy spits, the shore-lock’d lakes.”
“Could’st thou no better keep, O Abbey old?”
“The strange-scrawl’d rocks, the lonely sky.”
These Mr. Harrison cites as proof that, “where Nature has withheld the ear for music, no labour and no art can supply the want.” And I think that even a lover may add to the collection —
As the punt’s rope chops round.
But, after all these deductions and qualifications have been made, it remains true that Arnold was a poet, and that his poetic quality was pure and rare. His musings “on Man, on Nature, and on Human Life,” are essentially and profoundly poetical. They have indeed a tragic inspiration. He is deeply imbued by the sense that human existence, at its best, is inadequate and disappointing. He feels, and submits to, its incompleteness and its limitations. With stately resignation he accepts the common fate, and turns a glance of calm disdain on all endeavours after a spurious consolation. All round him he sees
Uno’erleap’d Mountains of Necessity, Sparing us narrower margin than we deem.
He dismissed with a rather excessive contempt the idea that the dreams of childhood may be intimations of immortality; and the inspiration which poets of all ages have agreed to seek in the hope of endless renovation, he found in the immediate contemplation of present good. What his brother-poet called “self-reverence, self-knowledge, self-control,” are the keynotes of that portion of his poetry which deals with the problems of human existence. When he handles these themes, he speaks to the innermost consciousness of his hearers, telling us what we know about ourselves, and have believed hidden from all others, or else putting into words of perfect suitableness what we have dimly felt, and have striven in vain to utter. It is then that, to use his own word, he is most “interpretative.” It is this quality which makes such poems as Youth’s Agitations, Youth and Calm, Self-dependence, and The Grande Chartreuse so precious a part of our intellectual heritage.
In 1873 he wrote to his sister: “I have a curious letter from the State of Maine in America, from a young man who wished to tell me that a friend of his, lately dead, had been especially fond of my poem, A Wish, and often had it read to him in his last illness. They were both of a class too poor to buy books, and had met with the poem in a newspaper.”
It will be remembered that in A Wish, the poet, contemptuously discarding the conventional consolations of a death-bed, entreats his friends to place him at the open window, that he may see yet once again —
Bathed in the sacred dews of morn The wide aerial landscape spread — The world which was ere I was born, The world which lasts when I am dead;
Which never was the friend of one, Nor promised love it could not give. But lit for all its generous sun, And lived itself, and made us live.
There let me gaze, till I become In soul, with what I gaze on, wed! To feel the universe my home; To have before my mind — instead
Of the sick room, the mortal strife, The turmoil for a little breath — The pure eternal course of life, Not human combatings with death!
Thus feeling, gazing, might I grow Composed, refresh’d, ennobled, clear; Then willing let my spirit go To work or wait elsewhere or here!
This solemn love and reverence for the continuous life of the physical universe may remind us that Arnold’s teaching about humanity, subtle and searching as it is, has done less to endear him to many of his disciples, than his feeling for Nature. His is the kind of Nature-worship which takes nothing at second-hand. He paid “the Mighty Mother” the only homage which is worthy of her acceptance, a minute and dutiful study of her moods and methods. He placed himself as a reverent learner at her feet before he presumed to go forth to the world as an exponent of her teaching. It is this exactness of observation which makes his touches of local colouring so vivid and so true. This gives its winning charm to his landscape-painting, whether the scene is laid in Kensington Gardens, or the Alps, or the valley of the Thames. This fills The Scholar-Gipsy, and Thyrsis, and Obermann, and The Forsaken Merman with flawless gems of natural description, and felicities of phrase which haunt the grateful memory.
In brief, it seems to me that he was not a great poet, for he lacked the gifts which sway the multitude, and compel the attention of mankind. But he was a true poet, rich in those qualities which make the loved and trusted teacher of a chosen few — as he himself would have said, of “the Remnant.” Often in point of beauty and effectiveness, always in his purity and elevation, he is worthy to be associated with the noblest names of all. Alone among his contemporaries, we can venture to say of him that he was not only of the school, but of the lineage, of Wordsworth. His own judgment on his place among the modern poets was thus given in a letter of 1869: “My poems represent, on the whole, the main movement of mind of the last quarter of a century, and thus they will probably have their day as people become conscious to themselves of what that movement of mind is, and interested in the literary productions which reflect it. It might be fairly urged that I have less poetic sentiment than Tennyson, and less intellectual vigour and abundance than Browning. Yet because I have more perhaps of a fusion of the two than either of them, and have more regularly applied that fusion to the main line of modern development, I am likely enough to have my turn, as they have had theirs.”
When we come to consider him as a prose-writer, cautions and qualifications are much less necessary. Whatever may be thought of the substance of his writings, it surely must be admitted that he was a great master of style. And his style was altogether his own. In the last year of his life he said to the present writer: “People think I can teach them style. What stuff it all is! Have something to say, and say it as clearly as you can. That is the only secret of style.”
Clearness is indeed his own most conspicuous note, and to clearness he added singular grace, great skill in phrase-making, great aptitude for beautiful description, perfect naturalness, absolute ease. The very faults which the lovers of a more pompous rhetoric profess to detect in his writing are the easy-going fashions of a man who wrote as he talked. The members of a college which produced Cardinal Newman, Dean Church, and Matthew Arnold are not without some justification when they boast of “the Oriel style.”
But style, though a great delight and a great power, is not everything, and we must not found our claim for him as a prose-writer on style alone. His style was the worthy and the suitable vehicle of much of the very best criticism which English literature contains. We take the whole mass of his critical writing, from the Lectures on Homer and the Essays in Criticism down to the Preface to Wordsworth and the Discourse on Milton; and we ask, Is there anything better?
When he wrote as a critic of books, his taste, his temper, his judgment were pretty
nearly infallible. He combined a loyal and reasonable submission to literary authority with a free and even daring use of private judgment. His admiration for the acknowledged masters of human utterance — Homer, Sophocles, Shakespeare, Milton, Goethe — was genuine and enthusiastic, and incomparably better informed than that of some more conventional critics. Yet this cordial submission to recognized authority, this honest loyalty to established reputation, did not blind him to defects, did not seduce him into indiscriminate praise, did not deter him from exposing the tendency to verbiage in Burke and Jeremy Taylor, the excessive blankness of much of Wordsworth’s blank verse, the undercurrent of mediocrity in Macaulay, the absurdities of Ruskin’s etymology. And, as in great matters, so in small. Whatever literary production was brought under his notice, his judgment was clear, sympathetic, and independent. He had the readiest appreciation of true excellence, a quick eye for minor merits of facility and method, a severe intolerance of turgidity and inflation — of what he called “desperate endeavours to render a platitude endurable by making it pompous,” and a lively horror of affectation and unreality. These, in literature as in life, were in his eyes the unpardonable sins.
On the whole it may be said that, as a critic of books, he had in his lifetime the reputation, the vogue, which he deserved. But his criticism in other fields has hardly been appreciated at its proper value. Certainly his politics were rather fantastic. They were influenced by his father’s fiery but limited Liberalism, by the abstract speculation which flourishes perennially at Oxford, and by the cultivated Whiggery which he imbibed as Lord Lansdowne’s Private Secretary; and the result often seemed wayward and whimsical. Of this he was himself in some degree aware. At any rate he knew perfectly that his politics were lightly esteemed by politicians, and, half jokingly, half seriously, he used to account for the fact by that jealousy of an outsider’s interference, which is natural to all professional men. Yet he had the keenest interest, not only in the deeper problems of politics, but also in the routine and mechanism of the business. He enjoyed a good debate, liked political society, and was interested in the personalities, the trivialities, the individual and domestic ins-and-outs, which make so large a part of political conversation.
But, after all, Politics, in the technical sense, did not afford a suitable field for his peculiar gifts. It was when he came to the criticism of national life that the hand of the master was felt. In all questions affecting national character and tendency, the development of civilization, public manners, morals, habits, idiosyncrasies, the influence of institutions, of education, of literature, his insight was penetrating, his point of view perfectly original, and his judgment, if not always sound, invariably suggestive. These qualities, among others, gave to such books as Essays in Criticism, Friendship’s Garland, and Culture and Anarchy, an interest and a value quite independent of their literary merit. And they are displayed in their most serious and deliberate form, dissociated from all mere fun and vivacity, in his Discourses in America. This, he told the present writer, was the book by which, of all his prose-writings, he most desired to be remembered. It was a curious and memorable choice.
Another point of great importance in his prosewriting is this; if he had never written prose the world would never have known him as a humorist. And that would have been an intellectual loss not easily estimated. How pure, how delicate, yet how natural and spontaneous his humour was, his friends and associates knew well; and — what is by no means always the case — the humour of his writing was of exactly the same tone and quality as the humour of his conversation. It lost nothing in the process of transplantation. As he himself was fond of saying, he was not a popular writer, and he was never less popular than in his humorous vein. In his fun there is no grinning through a horse-collar, no standing on one’s head, none of the guffaws, and antics, and “full-bodied gaiety of our English Cider-Cellar.” But there is a keen eye for subtle absurdity, a glance which unveils affectation and penetrates bombast, the most delicate sense of incongruity, the liveliest disrelish for all the moral and intellectual qualities which constitute the Bore, and a vein of personal raillery as refined as it is pungent. Sydney Smith spoke of Sir James Mackintosh as “abating and dissolving pompous gentlemen with the most successful ridicule.” The words not inaptly describe Arnold’s method of handling personal and literary pretentiousness.
His praise as a phrase-maker is in all the Churches of literature. It was his skill in this respect which elicited the liveliest compliments from a transcendent performer in the same field. In 1881 he wrote to his sister: “On Friday night I had a long talk with Lord Beaconsfield. He ended by declaring that I was the only living Englishman who had become a classic in his own lifetime. The fact is that what I have done in establishing a number of current phrases, such as Philistinism, Sweetness and Light, and all that is just the thing to strike him.” In 1884 he wrote from America about his phrase, The Remnant— “That term is going the round of the United States, and I understand what Dizzy meant when he said that I had performed ‘a great achievement in launching phrases.’” But his wise epigrams and compendious sentences about books and life, admirable in themselves, will hardly recall the true man to the recollection of his friends so effectually as his sketch of the English Academy, disturbed by a “flight of Corinthian leading articles, and an irruption of Mr. G.A. Sala;” his comparison of Miss Cobbe’s new religion to the British College of Health; his parallel between Phidias’ statue of the Olympian Zeus and Coles’ truss-manufactory; Sir William Harcourt’s attempt to “develop a system of unsectarian religion from the Life of Mr. Pickwick;” the “portly jeweller from Cheapside,” with his “passionate, absorbing, almost blood-thirsty clinging to life;” the grandiose war-correspondence of the Times, and “old Russell’s guns getting a little honey-combed;” Lord Lumpington’s subjection to “the grand, old, fortifying, classical curriculum,” and the “feat of mental gymnastics” by which he obtained his degree; the Rev. Esau Hittall’s “longs and shorts about the Calydonian Boar, which were not bad;” the agitation of the Paris Correspondent of the Daily Telegraph on hearing the word “delicacy”; the “bold, bad men, the haunters of Social Science Congresses,” who declaim “a sweet union of philosophy and poetry” from Wordsworth on the duty of the State towards education; the impecunious author “commercing with the stars” in Grub Street, reading “the Star for wisdom and charity, the Telegraph for taste and style,” and looking for the letter from the Literary Fund, “enclosing half-a-crown, the promise of my dinner at Christmas, and the kind wishes of Lord Stanhope for my better success in authorship.”
One is tempted to prolong this analysis of literary arts and graces; but enough has been said to recall some leading characteristics of Arnold’s genius in verse and prose. We turn now to our investigation of what he accomplished. The field which he included in his purview was wide — almost as wide as our national life. We will consider, one by one, the various departments of it in which his influence was most distinctly felt; but first of all a word must be said about his Method.
Laleham Ferry, Matthew Arnold was born on Christmas Eve, 1822, at Laleham, near Staines.
CHAPTER II. METHOD
The Matthew Arnold whom we know begins in 1848; and, when we first make his acquaintance, in his earliest letters to his mother and his eldest sister, he is already a Critic. He is only twenty-five years old, and he is writing in the year of Revolution. Thrones are going down with a crash all over Europe; the voices of triumphant freedom are in the air; the long-deferred millennium of peace and brotherhood seems to be just on the eve of realization. But, amid all this glorious hurly-burly, this “joy of eventful living,” the young philosopher stands calm and unshaken; interested indeed, and to some extent sympathetic, but wholly detached and impartially critical. He thinks that the fall of the French Monarchy is likely to produce social changes here, for “no one looks on, seeing his neighbour mending, without asking himself if he cannot mend in the same way.” He is convinced that “the
hour of the hereditary peerage and eldest sonship and immense properties has struck”; he thinks that a five years’ continuance of these institutions is “long enough, certainly, for patience, already at death’s door, to have to die in.” He pities (in a sonnet) “the armies of the homeless and unfed.” But all the time he resents the “hot, dizzy trash which people are talking” about the Revolution. He sees a torrent of American vulgarity and “laideur” threatening to overflow Europe. He thinks England, as it is, “not liveable-in,” but is convinced that a Government of Chartists would not mend matters; and, after telling a Republican friend that “God knows it, I am with you,” he thus qualifies his sympathy —
Yet, when I muse on what life is, I seem Rather to patience prompted, than that proud Prospect of hope which France proclaims so loud — France, famed in all great arts, in none supreme.
In fine, he is critical of his own country, critical of all foreign nations, critical of existing institutions, critical of well-meant but uninstructed attempts to set them right. And, as he was in the beginning, so he continued throughout his life and to its close. It is impossible to conceive of him as an enthusiastic and unqualified partisan of any cause, creed, party, society, or system. Admiration he had, for worthy objects, in abundant store; high appreciation for what was excellent; sympathy with all sincere and upward-tending endeavour. But few indeed were the objects which he found wholly admirable, and keen was his eye for the flaws and foibles which war against absolute perfection. On the last day of his life he said in a note to the present writer: “S —— has written a letter full of shriekings and cursings about my innocent article; the Americans will get their notion of it from that, and I shall never be able to enter America again.” That “innocent article” was an estimate, based on his experience in two recent visits to the United States, of American civilization. “Innocent” perhaps it was, but it was essentially critical. He began by saying that in America the “political and social problem” had been well solved; that there the constitution and government were to the people as well-fitting clothes to a man; that there was a closer union between classes there than elsewhere, and a more “homogeneous” nation. But then he went on to say that, besides the political and social problem, there was a “human problem,” and that in trying to solve this America had been less successful — indeed, very unsuccessful. The “human problem” was the problem of civilization, and civilization meant “humanization in society” — the development of the best in man, in and by a social system. And here he pronounced America defective. America generally — life, people, possessions — was not “interesting.” Americans lived willingly in places called by such names as Briggsville, Jacksonville and Marcellus. The general tendency of public opinion was against distinction. America offered no satisfaction to the sense for beauty, the sense for elevation. Tall talk and self-glorification were rampant, and no criticism was tolerated. In fine, there were many countries, less free and less prosperous, which were more civilized.
Delphi Complete Poetical Works of Matthew Arnold Page 92