Matthew Arnold as revealed by his letters, poetry, and criticism Item Type text; Thesis-Reproduction (electronic) Authors Yeager, Mabel Lee, 1910- Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 26/09/2021 19:02:56 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/553248 Matthew Arnold as Revealed by His Letters, Poetry, and Criticism by Mabel Lee Yeager Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in the Graduate College University of Arizona 1 9 3 5 Approved Major professor Date *• V* • ■ -:v * ; ~ ■ • > «• " ? ' « \ . < * £ < i m m i s Outline Cofi-A. A. Introduction B. The Three Tatthew Arnolds I. Arnold the Letter-' riter 1. Early life, 2. Work and marriage 3. Lectures in America 4. Salient characteristics and views 5. Depreciating attitude toward his contei poreries 6. Later life II. Arnold the Poet 1. Biographical references in his poetry 2. Dominant feeling of despair 3. Views on Christianity 4. Oxford, his period of youth 5. Nature, compared with ordsworth 6. Poetic criticism III. Arnold the Critic 1. Views on the function of criticism 2. Literary insight and critical perception 3. Observation of life and human nature 4. Repetition and use of stock phrases 5. Intellectuality and "superciliousness'’ 6. Satire C. Conclusion— That each of the three types of Arnold's writing reveals entirely different phases of his personality. 9 9 5 C 9 A. Introduction Since 1849, when Matthew Arnold began his writing career at the age of twenty-seven, he has gained fame as an educator, a poet, a critic, and a letter writer. "No writer, probably, ever passed so quickly from unpopularity through fame to comparative n e g l e c t . B u t this apparent neglect has been due to a lack of understanding on the part of present-day readers, who are interested in only one phase of his writing. Arnold's nature was so complex that critics today do not agree in an estimate of him. As an educator he exerted a lasting influence through his work as Inspector of Schools and later as Foreign Commis­ sioner. Arnold Tihitridge, reviewing in 1924 a new edition of Arnold's works, wrote: Matthew Arnold was only a poet or a critic in his spare moments. By profession he was a painstaking school inspector who, in spite of the dally round and trivial task, maintained an extraordinarily lofty con­ cept ion of the dignity of education.1 2 - ■ His poetry will always be enjoyed by certain readers, though it will never have lasting general popularity. _R. H. Stoddard praises him: When he is at his best, his poetry is so good, so 1 *7. C. Brownell, Victorian Prose Masters (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1902), p.149. 2 Arnold Whitridge, "Critic and Poet," The Saturday Review of Literature, 1:45, 1924. —2— luminous, so lovely, so noble* that one cannot but re­ gret there is not more of it.*3 45 6 Herbert Paul states. No poet of modern times, appeals so directly and so exclusively to the cultivated taste of the educated classes According to George Russell, an intimate friend of the Arnold family, he " ' is not, and could never be, a poet of the multitude. He is the delight of scholars, of philosophers, of men who live by silent introspection or quiet communing with nature,b But Robert Moras Lovett, in an article in Forum, avers: His poetry fell flat on' publication, and only gradually came into notice when its author was recognized as a leading public man of the day. .' It is perhaps fortunate that Arnold’s early poems were so generally ignored. This failure was bettor than half success, for it left to the age which had been impressed by his criticism the flattering experience of discovering him as a poet. G. P-. Woodberry,- however, takes an opposing view: The poetry of Arnold. was less widely welcomed than his prose, and made its way very slowly; but it now seems the more important and permanent part.” 3 R. H. Stoddard, "Matthew Arnold the Poet," North ' American, 146:657. 4 Herbert Paul, Matthew Arnold (New York: Macmillan Go., 1903),p.l. 5. George Russell, Matthew Arnold (New York: Chas; Scrib ner’s Sons, 1904), p.3. 6 Robert Morsa Lovett, "Matthew Arnold Today," Forum, 71:666, May, 1924. 7 G.P. woodberry, Makers of Literature (New York: Mac- millan Co., 1901),pp.11-12. -3- The last thirty years of his life were spent In writing 8 criticism. Vi. J. Dawson praises him as ’’an apostle of ideas"; George Russell claims, "If he had never written prose, the world would never have known him as a humorist."® Stanley T. Williams writes that "Arnold was destined to be widely known first of all for his prose.Yet Gordon Ball Gerould, in reviewing Arnold's works, would have us believe "Arnold was a poet who turned into critic, not a scholarly critic who once in a while experimented with verse. His letters, brought out in two volumes by George Rus­ sell in 1896, were not written with a view to possible pub­ lication and were as natural as his conversation. They do not enhance Arnold’s literary reputation, but they are evi­ dence of a singularly happy life and at times a careless, take-life-as-it-coines attitude not revealed in his poetry or criticism. Here we see a home-loving nature, "great forti­ tude under disappointment and losses, remarkable intellectual activity, a keen enjoyment of social life and of foreign travel, strong interest in public events, and an unaffected 8 *V, J . Dawson, Makers of English Poetry (Hew York: Fleming H. Reveil Company, 1906)7 p.336. 9 Russell, op. elt., p. 13. 10 Studies in Victorian Literature (Hew York: E. P. Dutton and Co., c. 1923),p.79. 11 Gordon Hall Gerould> "Matthew Arnold’s Complete works," Bookman, 7:461^ June, 1924. -4- delight at the reception with which his own writings were welcomed by the reading public,- and at the influence and fame which they brought him."'1-2 Everyone who has written on the works of Arnold has a decided preference,which in,few cases allows a fair estimate of him. Because of these varied-and differing views, he is on§ of the most misunderstood men in literature. It is the purpose of this study to present a true picture of Arnold as revealed in all types of his writings. I plan to do this through four topics: First, I shall give a study of his letters, combined with biographical references that will form a background for the discussion. Second, I shall make a study of his poetry, showing the spirit and mood predominating throughout. Third. I shall discuss his criticism, both of litera­ ture and of life, especially bringing out his Hellenist views. Fourth, I shall contrast these three types of writing, summarizing the distinct traits brought out in each. This will be accomplished through a personal evaluation. 12 Sir Joshua Fitch, Thomas and Matthew Arnold (New York: Chas. Scribner's Sons, 1 8 9 8 ) p.iel. I.' ARNOLD TEE LETTER-WRITER Since there is no adequate biography of Arnold, much of the information must be secured by inference from his letters, 1 collected and compiled in 1895 by George Russell. He says in his introduction: "It was Matthew Arnold’s express wish that he might not be made the subject of a Biography. His family, however, felt that a selection from his Letters was not prohibited."1 2 For the most part, his letters were ad­ dressed to his own family, but he had many friends, with whom he carried on a wide correspondence on diverse subjects. They not only reveal the core of his personality and character but also touch on the many interests treated,in his poetry and his prose. Early Life Although his early life is of little importance in this study, a few facts are necessary to form a background for the characterization. He was born at Laleham, Middlesex, on Christmas Eve, 1822, the oldest of nine children of Dr. Thomas 1 George Russell, Letters of Matthew Arnold (New York and London: Macmillan and Co., 1896). Unless otherwise specified, all references to Arnold’s letters will be made by volume and page without mention of the title. 2 Ibid., p.vii. -6- Arnold, the famous Headmaster of Rugby. In his letters Arnold made many references to his father, most of them affectionate and respectful, but leaving a gen­ eral impression that he was not always in sympathy with his father’s views. To his sister, he wrote: I have often thought, since I published this on the.Italian question, about dear papa’s pamphlets, what­ ever talent I have in.this direction I certainly inherit from him, for his pamphleteering talent was one of his very strongest and most pronounced literary sides, if he had been in the way of developing it.3 In the summer of 1861, he paid loving tribute: At this time of year I am aIways particularly reminded of papa, and of what he accomplished in the few years he had. * 4 5 When, in 1855, his mother found and sent him a letter of his father’s, he acknowledged it with an enthusiasm that brings out the character of both men: I ought before this to have thanked you for sending the letter, which is ennobling and refreshing, as every­ thing which proceeds from hir always is, besides the.