As regards differences of opinion inside the Church, he saw no harm in them. He held that the Church must maintain Episcopacy as a matter of historical development, and as "its link with the past--its share in the beauty and the poetry and the charm for the imagination," which belong to Catholicism. This being so, the "lat.i.tudinarianism of the Broad Churchmen" who wished to entice the Dissenters into the Church was "quite illusory" so long as opposition to Episcopacy was one of the main tenets of Nonconformity. But he thought that the Church was likely before long to get rid of the Athanasian Creed and the Thirty-nine Articles; and he urged that, as no one could enforce belief in such doctrines as the Real Presence, Apostolic Succession, and Priestly Absolution, Churchmen who rejected these could quite comfortably remain in the Church, side by side with others who accepted them.
The Church, then, as historically descended and legally established, ought to be maintained, honoured, and frequented; and, so far, his practice accorded with his belief. He had indeed no more sympathy with hysterical devotions than with fanatical faiths. He saw with amused eye the gestures and behaviour of the "Energumens" during the celebration of Holy Communion in a Ritualistic church--"the floor of the church strewn with what seem to be the dying and the dead, progress to the altar almost barred by forms suddenly dropping as if they were shot in battle, the delighted adoption of vehement rites, till yesterday unknown, adopted and practised now with all that absence of tact, measure, and correct perception in things of form and manner, all that slowness to see when they are making themselves ridiculous, which belongs to the people of our English race."
This was a perfectly just criticism on the nascent ritualism of thirty years ago. Time and study have pruned this devotional exuberance, but he rightly described what he saw. With such performances he had no sympathy; but he loved what he had been accustomed to--the grave and reverend method of worship which was traditional in our cathedrals and college chapels. He communicated by preference at an early service. He revelled in the architecture of our great churches, and enjoyed, though he did not understand, their fine music. And he added one or two little mannerisms of his own, which were clearly intended to mark his love of ecclesiastical proprieties. Thus the present writer remembers that he used, with great solemnity and deliberation, to turn to the east at the Creed in Harrow School Chapel, where the clergy neglected to do so. It was the traditional mode of the Church of England, and that was enough for him. Again, we all know that he described the Athanasian Creed as "Learned science with a strong dash of temper"; yet I remember him saying, with an air of stately admiration, after Service on Ascension Day, "I always like to hear the Athanasian Creed sung. BUT ONE G.o.d sounds so magnificently, with that full swell of the organ. It seems to come with the whole authority of the Church."
Then again the list of his favourite writers on religious subjects shows exactly the same taste and temper as was shown by his devotional practices--St. Augustine, that "glorious father of the Catholic Church"; "the nameless author of the _Imitatio_"; Bishop Thomas Wilson, whose _Maxims_ and _Sacra_ he so constantly quoted; Isaac Barrow, whose sermons he used to read to his family on Sunday evenings; Cardinal Newman, to whom he had listened so delightedly in undergraduate days.[58]
To pa.s.s from an account of a man"s religious sentiment to that of his daily life would in too many cases be an abrupt and even a painful transition; but in the case of Arnold, it is the easiest and most natural in the world. That which he professed he practised, and, as he taught, so he lived. From first to last he was true to his own doctrine that we must cultivate our best self in every department of our being, and be content with nothing less than our predestined perfection. In his character and life, "whatsoever things are lovely" were harmoniously blent.
Before all else he was a worshipper of nature, watching all her changing aspects with a lover-like a.s.siduity, and never happy in a long-continued separation from her. Then his manifold culture and fine taste enabled him to appreciate at its proper value all that is good in high civilization, and yet the unspoilt naturalness of his character found a zest in the most commonplace pleasures of daily existence.
Probably Art, whether in music or painting, affected him less than most men of equal cultivation; but there never lived a human being to whom Literature and Society--books and people--taking each word in its most comprehensive sense, yielded a livelier or more constant joy. "Never,"
as Mr. John Morley said, "shall we know again so blithe and friendly a spirit." As we think of him, the endearing traits come crowding on the memory--his gracious presence, his joy in fresh air and bodily exercise, his merry interest in his friends" concerns, his love of children, his kindness to animals, his absolute freedom from bitterness, rancour, or envy; his unstinted admiration of beauty, or cleverness, his frank enjoyment of light and colour, of a happy phrase, an apt quotation, a pretty room, a well-arranged dinner, a fine vintage; his childlike pleasure in his own performances--"Did I say that? How good that was!"
But all these trifling touches of character-painting, perhaps, tend to overlay and obscure the true portraiture of Matthew Arnold. He was pre-eminently a good man, gentle, generous, enduring, laborious, a devoted husband, a most tender father, an unfailing friend. Qualified by nature and training for the highest honours and successes which the world can give, he spent his life in a long round of unremunerative drudgery, working even beyond the limits of his strength for those whom he loved, and never by word or gesture betraying even a consciousness of that harsh indifference to his gifts and services which stirred the fruitless indignation of his friends. His theology, once the subject of such animated criticism, seems now a matter of little moment; for, indeed, his nature was essentially religious. He was loyal to truth as he knew it, loved the light and sought it earnestly, and by his daily and hourly practice gave sweet and winning ill.u.s.tration of his own doctrine that conduct is three-fourths of human life.
We who were happy enough to fall under his personal influence can never overstate what we owe to his genius and his sympathy. He showed us the highest ideal of character and conduct. He taught us the science of good citizenship. He so interpreted nature that we knew her as we had never known her before. He was our fascinating and unfailing guide in the tangled paradise of literature. And, while for all this we bless his memory, we claim for him the praise of having enlarged the boundaries of the Christian Kingdom by making the lives of men sweeter, brighter, and more humane.
[Footnote 46: A saying attributed to Bishop Wilberforce.]
[Footnote 47: See the Introduction to his _Romans_, 3rd edition, 1870.]
[Footnote 48: See the Introduction to his _Romans_, 3rd edition, 1870.]
[Footnote 49: University and other Sermons, p. 175.]
[Footnote 50: W.E. Gladstone: _Later Gleanings_.]
[Footnote 51: _Essays in Criticism_. "Pagan and Mediaeval Religious Sentiment."]
[Footnote 52: J. Armitage Robinson, D.D., Easter Day, 1903.]
[Footnote 53: Edward, 12th Duke of Somerset (1804-1885). Author of _Christian Theology and Modern Scepticism_.]
[Footnote 54: _Literature and Dogma_.]
[Footnote 55: _Studies Subsidiary to the Works of Bishop Butler_, pt. i.
ch. iii.]
[Footnote 56: _Rome and Romanizing_. By Arthur Galton.]
[Footnote 57: "Spade! with which Wilkinson hath tilled his lands," etc.]
[Footnote 58: See p. 61.]
LITERARY LIVES
Edited by Robertson Nicoll, LL.D.
MATTHEW ARNOLD. By G.W.E. Russell.
CARDINAL NEWMAN. By William Barry, D.D.
MRS. GASKELL. By Flora Ma.s.son.
JOHN BUNYAN. By W. Hale White.
CHARLOTTE BRONTe. By Clement K. Shorter.
R.M. HUTTON. By W. Robertson Nicoll.
GOETHE. By Edward Dowden.
HAZLITT. By Louise Imogen Guiney.
_LITERARY LIVES_
Edited by W. ROBERTSON NICOLL
Matthew Arnold
By G.W.E. RUSSELL
_Extract from Preface:_
"It was Arnold"s express wish that he should not be made the subject of a Biography. This rendered it impossible to produce the sort of book by which an eminent man is usually commemorated--at once a history of his life, an estimate of his work, and an a.n.a.lysis of his character and opinions. But, though a biography was forbidden, Arnold"s family felt sure he would not have objected to the publication of a selection from his correspondence; and it became my happy task to collect, and in some sense to edit, the two volumes of his letters which were published in 1895. The letters, with all their editorial shortcomings (of which I willingly take my full share), const.i.tute the nearest approach to a narrative of Arnold"s life which can, consistently with his wishes, be given to the world; and the ground so covered will not be retraversed here. All that literary criticism can do for the honor of his prose and verse has been done already, conscientiously by Mr. Saintsbury, affectionately and sympathetically by Mr. Paul, and with varying competence and skill by a host of minor critics. But in preparing this book I have been careful not to re-read what more accomplished pens than mine have written, for I wished my judgment to be unbiased by previous verdicts.
"I do not aim at 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."