New-York tribune., 1902-08-09
MATTHEW ARNOLD.
THE BIOGRAPHY IN THE "ENGLlsH MEN
OF LETTERS SERIES

;..1 b,oeranby OF a man within a few years OF
his death is well Illustrated in the case OF MAI
thew Arnold He died in 1883. Two DOORS nave
been written about him since that date LI4oii0
eraph by Mr. Saintsbury, published IN 1852 anu
the brief study which Mr.. Paul now puts ioi IL
Neither Of these compositions does full Jusllce ~
the subject Mr.. Saintsbury's book SHOWS an al
most complete lack Of sympathy. and IL Is VIII
te, in a style calculated to make Matthew Ar
mid turn in his grave Mr.. Paul, both IN MS
matter and his manner, is a considerable I'M
movement upon his predecessor; but he, too,
disc1oses limitations and defects sadly dlscon-
cer+ing to the reader who has hoped Tor a
worthy treatment of Arnold in Mr. Morley
series If nowhere else. Evidently the prepara-
tion Of the ideal biography must be IeIl 10 Sums
writer in the next generation; to some one Hee
from personal prejudice and undlstracleu' 0s
matter of course by the issues whlch no" seeiii
to cloud the minds Of SO many OF Arnolo coiii-
mentators-
Apparently he is too complex prooIeh Ioi
these gentlemen though why he should be is
not exactly obvious. The real business loi
which he came into the world was TO "Ilte
,oetrv and criticism The real business OF mis-
b,ographer therefore, is to wreak himself upon
the poetry and the criticism. But Matthew Ar
mold happened to earn his living as an lnspec-
tor of schools; he dabbled in politics. ana even
more In theology. and instead OF frankly fecos-
rizing the subsidiary relation Of these nnatIerS
to the essential character Of the man. one III
erary historian after the other allows hhnsell
to be confused by them. and 10 paint an III pal
anced portrait We do not plead for complete
neglect of Arnold's more pedestrian actFllles
That would be impossible and grossly uncrlt-
scal into the bargain They form part OF the
mans history and should receive due atten-
,ton But they should be placed in the rlght
irrespective and the main thing shouid always
be the analysis of him as poet ana crluc' HIS
peculiar distinction in both cailngs shouIo III
fuence his biographer from beginning 10 emu
If is because Mr.. Paul is not thus lnnuehceo
that his study is without breadth ana unity ol
effect On the other hand, his book Is Ire
ouently excellent in passages He SHOWS III
scattered fragments an appreciation "here Inc
criticism is concerned, that is very welcome 10
day We have heard French poet OF the uI-
tra-nodern school remark that Salnte-DeuNe
Was out of date It is the fashion in some
quarters here and in England, 10 patronize
Matthew Arnold as a critic no doubt meritorl-
GUS but not really much needed by superior IN
tellects It is refreshing, therefore, 10 hnd MI
Paul testifying to the original and intrinsic
value Of his criticism. saying OF ii that IL Is
penetrating as well brilliant, CONSCIENTIOUS
as well as imaginative" and emphasizing Ills
point in passages like these:
His great and DISTINGUISHING merit critic
was that he had a theory, that he regarded ms
subject as a whole. that he could not InereI!
give reasons for his opinions; but show that
they were something more than opinions, thaI
they were the deliberate judgments OF trained
intelligence working upon a systematic order
of ideas.
..Essavs in Criticism appeared in 1865. It is
Mr. Arnold's most important work in prose, the
central boon. so 10 speak, Of his HE Altnousn
it was not at first widely read, it made an I'M
mediate and a profound impression upon com
petent judges OF literature 1here nau @ @pee..
nothing like it since Hazhtt dhere i5soents mas
nothing like it since Mr. ArnoIGs Juusn 10 -
are sometimes eccentric, and the place Wllch ne ne
assigns TO the two De Guerins is altogether out @
of proportion. But the value OF Essays III
Criticism does not depend upon this or that
isolated opinion expressed by It's authoT- 1nt'
Arnold did not merely criticise books himself
He taurbt others how to criticise them. He
laid down principles. if he did not always keep
the principles he laid down NOBODY, aIter reau- ecu
ing Essays in Criticism, has any excuse IoI
not being critic. Mr. Ruskin once lamented
that he had made a great number OF eHIIeiE
foolish people take an interest," Se IN art anu anu e
too many now. But Mr. Arnold Is not aiIo-
gether responsible for the quantity; He mas
more TO do with the quality, and the qualllg
has beyond question been improved
This Is all well said, though there is one addi-
+ional mint which we would have liked to see
stated Arnold has improved modern cr1tclsrn
in so far as he has communicated TO his dis-
ciples something of the not altogether oehnaDle
habit of his mind, something Of his atmosphere
The principles he laid down, and, as MI Fdul
iustly remarks did not always keep, may not
invaria bly be conclusive in their application ny
other hands than his But he would have been
The first to protest against their belng regaioeo
as talismanic. He is the sworn enemy of mar
rowness and pedantry. Of dogma and self-as-
sertion II wish'' he says, to decide nothing
ss of NV own authority; the great art of criti-
cisro is 10 get ones self out Of the way and to
let humanity decide" 1t is, perhaps. the dlspo-
sition Of so many modern critics 10 state their
opinions as facts which explains the dlfilculty
they experience in apprehending the virtue OF
Matthew Arnold's criticism. He is not of their
cocksure school, so they are uneasy in his COM
pany Mr.. Paul himself We fear, for all that
he sits more or less appreciative at the feet OF
Arnold, has not profited as much by the lat
ter's example as one might wish. We ought not.
perhaps. to blame him unduly for his occasional
Indulgence IN smart sayings That sort Of
thing is the defect Of the quality Of many a
clever critic and if Mr.. Paul never said any
thing worse than that ito crfticise Merope is
to dissect a corpse A" would not complain,
But he says worse things.
He remarks apropos of Professor Conington s
admiration for ''Merope," that "he must have
taken ii with him TO the grave, for it died long
before its author, which is needless ano oull
repetition Of the idea already cited; and when,
demurring to Arnolds laudation of Burke's
prose he adds that the greatest writer Of Eng
lish prose is Shakespeare simply feel that
he is talking nonsense, besides trying to be
esoteric after the fashion of very youthful writ
ers He thinks il strange that Arnold should
have considered Byron greater poet than Ten
nyson but stranger still is ii that Mr.. Paul
should make such an observation. He is well
come TO his own opinion, but when he attempts
ia