THE GREATEST VICTORIAN L
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
- [Correspondents are requested to keep their letters as brief as is reasonably possible. The most suitable length is that of one of our "News of the Week" paragraph's, Signed letters are given a preference over those bearing a pseudonym, and the latter must, be accompanied by the name and address of the author, which will be treated as confidentiaL—Ed. THE SPECTATOR.) [To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR.] SIR,—He who would challenge Mr. G. M. Young on his chosen ground must be pretty sure of his own footing. The Portrait of an Age revealed its author as master of them all : that is, as the best commentator of our day upon the Victorians, their creeds and contribution. Hence, upon the question raised in his centennial article Mr. Young should be formidable. I take courage to say that he is not. His conclusion will not do at all. I do not see how anyone can accept it.
There is no greatest Victorian : how could there be ? Undoubtedly a country may at a given epoch produce a man surpassing all contemporaries in native power. We take this for granted in the case of Shakespeare. Cromwell was admittedly the greatest of his time in England ; Lenin probably the greatest of his in Russia. But nineteenth-century England affords no similar example. The Victorians comprised an extraordinary range of power, originality, vitality. They make a wonderful impression of eminence with, I suggest, an unusual appearance of equality in distinction, and so without any one transcendent peak.
We have no common measure to apply. "The greatest Victorian" simply does not make sense. Darwin in the presence of Glaastone was all humility ; and that famous meeting at Downe may be cited as an illustration of a hopeless quest. In attempting a comparative estimate we must, I.. think, make an important distinction—between original endowment and influence ; or in other words, between native cower and genius in its representative character. In this connexion such contrasted names as Newman and Faraday, Rossetti and John Stuart Mill suggest themselves. Mr. Young himself has clearly kept the distinction in mind, for his vote goes to a man, not so much of genius as of high and varied capacity, who is recognised today, far more than he was in his own lifetime, as an eminent Victorian.
We cannot name the One ; but it should not be impossible for us to agree roughly upon the first half-dozen; and in that choice company how many of your readers would insist upon a place for Walter Bagehot ? Here is my selection— though mainly, I confess, for debate : Darwin, Dickens, Carlyle, Ruskin, Gladstone, Tennyson or Browning.
This is, of course, an anomalous list. Not a man of action among them, and the greatness of Victorian England was equally in deeds and words. But the defence is not so difficult. Four of the seven at least had the abundance and energy of great genius. Darwin compelled a reconstruction of the entire fabric of thought. Dickens has gained the suffrages of mankind. Carlyle mistook his own mission, gave a wrong lead to his age, and will not in the future be largely read ; but in original endowment he cannot have been far from the highest. Gladstone dominated the public life as no other modem has done ; his plenitude and vitality were superb ; Victorian England is unimaginable without him. The genius of John Ruskin was a marvel ; and so, despite Matthew Arnold's well-known caveat, was his mind Indeed, as we can see, Mr. Young came rather near to awarding him the palm. I hesitate over the two poets. BrF•witing's power and scope were vastly greater than his iivari ; but Tennyson was English and most fully representative; the small body of his poetry which- now seem' almost imperishable may outlast the best of his time by other hands. Where, then, should Bagehot be placed ? I answer, well in the middle of the second rank, as the author of three books we could not spare, and of the best critical studies in his province.—Yours,
S. K. RATCLIFFE.
Wkiteleaf, Princes Risborough.
[It should be said in justice to Mr. G. M. Young that while he was invited to write on "The Greatest Victorian," and that heading was placed above the article, the title he himself suggested was "The biat Victorian."—En. The Spectator.]
Previous page
