New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1889-01-09
MATTHE I Al JOLD.

This collection Of essays was, according TO
prxfatory note. made by Mr.. Arnold himself. ana
they are therefore, in Il opinion OF crluc AZ
once competent and severe, worthy 70 DC cob
lected and preserved They are nine IN num-
her. aud the subjects are he Study OF Poetry
Milton, Thomas Ora John Meats
Wordsworth" Byron" d" Shelley Count Leo
Tolstoi., and Amiel' Tho first essay originally
appeared MS the introduction TO Wards Enghsh
Poets: that on Milton is little more than fras-
mcnt written for q commentator; ana tnose OH
Wordsworth and Byron appeared as preiaces W
volumes Of selections from the works of those
pocts They are all of high critical value ana
literary interest and taken together they cover
60 wide n field Of study and reflection as TO
furnish trustworthy gauge of the writer's scope
and limitations. These limitations are SHOWN
with unusual dstinctness in the paper on WORDS
worth Matthew Arnold would have been an
admirable critic but for deficiency in the sense
of humor Now man may be profoundly IN
tellectual and may possess ripe Showledge "nu
delicate iuogment yet il the sense OF humor Is ho'
developed in him proportionateN he cannot 's-
cape occasional lapses which come perliously near
10 that unreasonable and exceeding soemnV
which is irlsome. In viewing WORDSWORTH MT
Ar-od sees plainly enough that the bard of
Rylal Mount wrote great deal OF very pau
poetry. and he admits it in the frankest way
but he never is able to appreciate the deep seated
absuriity Il Wordsworth's worst verses. which
really might he parodies, so extravagantly rldlcu-
lous are some of them
In much the same manner his criticism OF Byron
falls short of excellence So far as IT goes 10
is indeed excellent, but it does not go far enough
and here what is missed is just the feeling which
is remotest from humor. at the other en- " Ibe
scale. In the criticism Of Byron the Is
spoiled by the absence of enthusiastic d. where
will be looked for in vain. Mr. Arnold nf
out certain lines of Byron for citation and
proval We should say of these lines, in me.
instances that they are not dstinctively Byronic
that they do not show forth what must always
be the finest and the highest quality in his poetry
New Mr.. Arnold is never in the least enthusiastic
when he woos the Muse himself A gentle melan-
choly speaks along his lines and commends them
20 those who believe themselves deeply filled with
the zeitgeist7 Even his Empedocles on Etna
exhibits no fervor-not that of despair and DIS
illusonment-at the supreme moment when he
is about 10 plunge into the crater OF the vol
cano: he wraps his toga around him. and drops as
decorously and Internationally into his natural
crematory as a portly citizen slips into the pool
at the Turkish bath.
Mr. Arnold thinks Byron turgid or tawdry when
he is moved by enthusiasm. and this is the same
as calling enthusiasm vulgarty. Now, Byron often
is really vulgar, but he is least so when he ID
enthusiastic. and this is when Mr. Arnold mis-
Judges him. He makes 20 such mistakes about
Shelley or Keats When either of those poets scars
into clouSlland ana exchanges mclodious and
intellisbr song for incoherent rhapsody he de-
tects the falseness of the art the futlity of the
experiment. at once, and puts his finger unerrlngly
upon the cause of the failure His Judgment IS
TOO sane to permit him TO mistake sound' Tor
sense, rhythm for meaning, mere clash of words
for the music Of the spheres. But IT is not en-
thusiaSm he here rebulles; il is hysteria Shelley
and Keats were at times altogether hystercal. ana
Mr. Arnold perceived This clearly. Byron, on
the other hand, might be and vulgar, but
be was always coherent and lucid. and when
the greatness Of his thought inspired his verse
it rose to a combined majesty and uminousness
which has seldom been surpassed. Matthew
Arnold did not recognize Byron's highest quafty
because he himself wanting In enthusiasm,
as he was wanting in humor. There is. indeed,
In his prose writings a something which has passed
FOR humor perhaps because it was the only In
dication which at all resembled the real quality.
But it is none the less true that Matthew Arnold
lacked humor at one side of his intelligence,
and enthusiasm at the other SIDE: and it follows
necessarily that he would have been a greater
and deeper critic had his nature not been thus
limited.
As instances O. his best manner we may cite the
paper in this volume TolstO" and Amel"
They are satisfying in almost all ways, though in
the first essay there is certain failure 10 APP
prcciate entirely the nature of the Russian en-
thusiast's inspiration. With the Frenchman, how
ever Arnold was quite at home. There was
nature he could understand for it was the peculiar
product of the nineteenth century. 1t is true that
the sentimental parts Of the Journal 1ntime'
did not interest him. lie saw in them little be.
yond the empty and useless complaints which
strong men, though feeling the hollowness of
things equally, keep TO themselves. Win this
kind of abstract pessimism the Engllshman hat
little sympathy in his prose moments-to coin
phrase. But he saw the critical side of Amiers
character and that moved his admiration And
this seeing in the one place and not seeing IN the
other is curious and also characteristic. IT really
opens a suggestive inquiry as to the genulnenesS
OF the moods reflected or apparently reflected,
in Mr.. Arnold's poetry. For. as limited before, we
do find there what, in Amiel, the poet seems TO
reject impatiently and unsympathizingly. We
find that is to say the uneasy questioning OF
Nature the restless beating of wings against i'm
movable bars, the yearning after deep things,
which have for so many tecn the princ PAL at
traction of Amiel. Yet il Mr.. Arnold could not
recognize in another moods which he had been
through himself sbe fact would be surprising;
more surprising than if we try to explain the
situation by supposing that his own moods were
after all not real questl"nings so much as re-
fections from the environment.
1t is, indeed a note Of high culture always
that it tends TO suggest artfciality; rs II, even
in the study of Nature, was doomed TO
serarate himself from Nature. and with deepen
ing knowledge lin some directiOns), TO take on an
appearance of disingenuousness. The critical line
ness subtlety and judicial camness Of Matthew
Arnold's criticisms will perhaps always find adj
mircrs and deservedly. His reputation is firm
enough to stand examinations and it will not be
the less. though it will be better apprehcnded
for what it really is if we recognize It's hmlta-
tons clearly and consequently cease TO expect
from this admirable writer and clear thinker quail