purports to aim at, not so much "a criticism of
the verbal medium through which a great Master uttered his heart and mind ; but rather at a survey of the effect which he produced on the thought and action of his age." We must confess that we do not agree that " all that literary criticism can do for the honour of his prose and verse has been done already." Neither Mr. Saintsbury nor Mr. Paul has fully designed Mr. Arnold's niche of immortality. Mr. Russell's introductory estimate of Arnold as a poet, however, will not, we believe, stand the test of time. He regards him as a true, but not a great, poet, " for he lacked the gifts which sway the multitude, and compel the attention of mankind." "His ear often played him false." As we pointed out in our review of Mr. Paul's book, it is truer to say that it is the reader's ear, and not the poet's, which is ill-tuned. Frankly, we prefer Mr. Arnold's judgment of what is true metre to the judgment of any of his critics. " Much of his most elaborate work is in blank verse, and that in itself is a heavy drawback." Shakespeare and Milton have not found that that stood between them and "the attention of mankind." " He is not Simple, Sensuous, or Passionate." In many:ways this criticism is misleading. Any student of Arnold can point to poems of the first rank that meet Milton's canon; but it is a canon that Milton himself in his greatest work rarely complied with. In fine, to many critics Arnold is likely to outlast many of his more popular contemporaries. 4n the question of the poet's prose Mr. Russell rightly declares that he was " a great master of style. And his style was altogether his own." He told the author of this book in 1888, with an irony all his own : " 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." Style is the personality which pervades a statement, and Arnold knew perfectly well that that is incommunicable. But style, as Mr. Russell points out, is not the only thing. Arnold made both verse and prose vehicles for keen and living criticism of literature and life. First and foremost in all things he was a surgeon-critic, and in his definition of poetry as "the criticism of life" he exactly defined his own position. In the admirable chapter on "Method" Mr. Russell shows that from 1848 to 1888 he was essentially a critic—" a calm and im- partial judge, a serene distributor of praise and blame "—in respect to literature, to life, to institutions, and that he was as a critic lucid, courageous, serene, and abounding both in irony and humour. It was these very qualities that made him, despite his occasional impatience with the work, an ideal school inspector ; -while his general Reports on elementary schools and his Reports on Continental education are invaluable both in their practical and their literary aspects. Mr. Russell considerably under- estimates the effect produced by Arnold on middle-class education. We think he did actually pull down " the stronghold of such as Mr. Creakle." The private school for bigger boys has, in fact, practically disappeared. We must quote the lifelike description of Mr. Arnold school-inspecting :—" They see the tall figure, at cnce graceful and stately ; the benign air as of an affable arch- angel ; the critical brow and inquiring eyeglass bent on some very immature performance in penmanship or needlework ; and the frightened children and the anxious teacher, gradually lapsing into smiles and peace, as the great man tested the proficiency in some such humble art as spelling. ` Well, my little man, and how do you spell dog ? ' ` Please Sir, d-o-g." Capital, very good indeed. I couldn't do it better myself.' `And uow let us go a little further, and see if we can spell cat.' (Chorus excitedly) Now this is really excellent. (To the teacher) You have brought them on wonder- fully in spelling since I was here last. You shall have a capital report. Good-bye.'" Arnold, indeed, treated the school children and their teachers much as he treated the world. Those in- terested in his outlook on life should read Mr. Russell's chapter entitled " Conduct." The moral element, it is pointed out, every- where mingles itself with Arnold's literary judgment. Burns " is a beast, with splendid gleams " ; Shelley, the "beautiful and in- effectual angel," was frankly not sane; Coleridge " had no morals," and inspired " disesteem, nay repugnance." Space will not allow further reference to this interesting book. It brings the great poet-critic before the reader vividly and intimately, and makes xis realise more than ever how great a force he was, and is, in literature and life.
Previous page
