sense be called an apostle. A man of fine and cul-
tivated feeling he undoubtedly was, but his festhetic
perceptions were not what in the strict sense of the
term we may call pure. They had not the note of
perfect agstheticism— they were not extra-moral, but
always with a strong and importunate admixture of
ethics. So far from abiding by his own articulate
standard of criticism — to keep aloof from practice,
and allow a free play of the mind on all subjects —
there probably never was a writer who had practice
more constantly in his view, and his whole work of
criticism is a violation of his own set rule. As
Malebranche saw all tilings in God, so Matthew
Arnold saw all things in Conduct, and at times his
perpetual insistence on morals grows positively irri-
tating. His pulpit manner is a very peculiar one —
not liarsji and imperious like Carlyle's, nor yet
puerile and jsetulant like that of Ruskin — but a
style bland, persuasive, and tautological — some-
thing between the polished suavity of an Anglican
archdeacon and the affectionate maundering of
one's grandmother. The diction, too, lends itself
to the deepening of this impression. It is lucid and
idiomatic enough— yet somehow one cannot call it
classical. Imaginative vigour may be the bane of
our vernacular prose, but if the French are to be
our masters, we must aim not only at their clear-
ness, but at their piquancy as well. But in point
of style, Arnold is a P-enchman manqtie ; his prose
is above all things pointless. It is a neutral prose —
as clear and wholesome as fair water, but also as
colourless and as insipid.
Yet to say of Matthew Arnold that he was a
preacher of right conduct, is still to leave his exact
position imperfectly marked off. Mr. Herbert
Spencer, in his own way, is also a preacher of con-
duct, and so in their ways are all the ministers of
all the churches. The end in all these is very much
the same, but the difference lies in the method
which each employs — in the intellectual guide and
stimulus to conduct which he proposes. And
broadly, it may be said that the distinction between
these others and Matthew Arnold is nothing else
than the distinction between literature and dogma.
The men of science give us their data and inductions
of ethics ; the Cliurchmen offer their articles of
theology — all more or less definite and exact. And
what, then, is Arnold's method ? Simply this —
' to know the best that is known and tliouaht in
the world, and by, in its turn, making tliis known,
to create a current of true and fresh ideas.' Not,
surely, a very definite or rigorous method this ;
above all, not in the least a scientific one. Indeed
it is essentially the very antipodes of science, for it
relies mainly, if not altogether, on authority. It
cares little for necessary sequences, unless these have
been expressed in some beautiful saying, or incar-
nated in some interesting person, or exemplified in
some memorable deed. It asks not for trutli in se,
but for men's ideas about truth ; it finds its mate-
rials in precepts which have a literary form, and in
examples which are capable of literary presentment.
In short, it is out and out a literary method ; and
this is why at the outset it was said that in the death
of Matthew Arnold literature had suffered such a
grievous loss. For the tendency of intellect now-a-
days is altogether the other way. AVe are asking
for exact truth, and getting impatient of the per-
sonal equation. But with Arnold the colouring
medium of personality is everything. Truth tinged
with character is indispensable to him — truth so
fii-ed with emotion that it glows and flames up into
poetry is best of all. This is the true spirit of the
litterae humaniores — this keen and catholic interest
in all the recorded words and deeds of men. For
practically it is an all-embracing interest — not alto-
gether indeed, for there are often notable excep-
tions — yet in contrast to the theological spirit we
may fairly enough call it catholic. Theology also
relies on authority — but then its canon is strictly
limited. It has its sacred books and its sacred
persons rigorously marked off from the multitude
of the profane. But with Matthew Arnold every
book is sacred — every, or nearly every, man is,
potentially at least, a doctor of the Church Uni-
versal. There are grades, of course, in this vast
ecclesia of the race — and Israel, for very plausible
reasons, sits undisturbed on the Episcopal throne ; —
but not far beneath liim there is room for Hellas —
there is room, too, for the great Romans, and,
in short, for everything and everybody, except Mr.
Spurgeon and the ' Readings from Eliza Cook.'
For it is here that we touch the weak point of
the literary method. It is the excellence of that
method that it applies itself to conduct through
the higher a?sthetic emotions — that it clothes the
impalpable laws of right living with flesh and
blood, and invests them with an august historic
garment. On the other liand, its fault is in the
incurable vagueness and irrationality of its test.
' The best that is known and thought in the
world ' — this itself would need a criterion, but in
the hands of Arnold it means — what it would pro-
bably mean in the hands of any one — simply the
most attractive from a literary point of view, the
most thoi-ouglily penetrated and sublimed with
emotion, the richest in all the clustei'ing associa-
tions of story. Perhaps there never was a man for
whom the magic Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ah
ornnibus, had a more overmastering fascination than
Page:Scottishartrevie01unse.djvu/37
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.
MATTHEW ARNOLD AS A CRITIC
23