Morning journal and courier., 1883-11-29
Matthew Arnold.

To the Editor of the JOURNAL AND COURIER: It may be little late in the day, but would beg to offer through your columns another testimony to t-e great pleasure af- forded by the lecture of the eminent poet and essayist whose. name heads this article. It was an event of no small innpo4t in uni versity community when man of the high { and established reputation in the world of letters of Matthew Arnold gave us the op. portunity to judge for ourselves of the best ! that Oxford and the old world could pro- ] duee, since assursdly no one who has been among us, not excepting MT. Freeman and Herbert Spencer, could at all compare | with Mr. Arnold as 8 man of finished literary culture.
 The lecture upon Literature and Scisnce'' | was admirably chosen for the times, and for New Haven audience especially, and vas en- tirely satisfactory to any unprsjudiced mind. The lecturer was upon ground where he was quali6ed,to speak as a master, and he urged 1 his theme in 8 calm and reasonable way fitted | to carry conviction with it. There was not a touch of the sensational, but at the same time the discourse gloWsd with soft bril liant light of intellectual vigor and Wit. It was condensed argument, and it ex- hibitsd in a remarkable degree that ''Eymms- try" which the speaker claimed to be charac teristic of the Greek intellect and which could have come only from 8 long and thor ough training in Greek literature and the humanitiss. His plea for teaching Greek in rational way" a literature that com prehOndad the best that had been thought, Il I ', zN- all SEC knowledge worth knowing, it's life, spirit, art and activity, as opposed to the purely Philo logic method of teaching Greek, was in it. self enough to clear up half the mls- understanding and difficulty in the question concerning the study of the classics now agI- tating the educational world and his broad view Of literature Rs distinguished from 6elles lettres, as embracing all knowledge worth knowing and as forming the image and expression of the human soul, not only in conduct but in beauty, not only regulating the moral sense but feeding the emotions and aspirations, was in itself most suggestive and inEpiritirg.
 The fairness with which Mir Arnold treat ed science, giving it it's full place in any scheme of education, showed that he was no partisan, while claiming that science is not an end, and that it's knowledge of facts is of little account unless related to the uses of life and of a higher culture, which the lite r6Ey S6uBS Ouly Ca0 1Pp4y hAO AshIA At5oAA OL
 Nr. Arnold's style, above all, was worth studying as g piece of fine art So pure, simple, plain and strong, it WAS like listening to a strain of exquisite music which, while powerful in movement, was full of sweet and subtle harmonies. There were few learned and no pretentious words. The words fitted the thought and the thought had it's full power. May we not learn from him some- thfng in this |?
 The lecturers voice too was pleasant, with no marked disagreeGble peeuliarities. In deed those who were expecting (and good deal has been said of this) to hear an awk- ward and stammering delivery, like So much of the speaking of ths most cultivated Eng ltshmen, were agreeably surprised. Not very long since, and not far from the center of the ''Hub, :" I listened to the speaking of some distinguished American professors of a neighboring university which, if their speeches had not been SO good in matter, would have been pronounced abominable in delivery, worse than any Englishman's stut- tering and stumbling, and compared with which MT. Arnolds speech was truly ''sweet- ness and light"
 Mir Arnold's manner, though not that of skilled orator, was sufficiently free from faults as not to hurt the delivery or impair the thought, and was not ungainly, as it has been called, but was rather the unstudisd manner of au earnest, Gignifed man, with some little tricks of posture and gesture that belong to his scholarly personality, making it the mora interesting as we saw in it more of the man hiR1eelf.
 Matthew Arnold is probably not per feet, but some nasty criticisms of him which have appeared in the country show that their authors are sadly in want of that cul- ture which he advocates, and of which he is the most iIlustrious example.
 J. M. HoPPIN Yale Art School.