Who shall be sure that he's in this minority, So that he's truly among the elect. Let him dissent from all men in authority, Scoffing at everything others respect: MATTHEW'S minority's just Number One! *Mr. MATTHEW ARNOLD'S first lecture was listened to, in consequence of the Poet's ineffective delivery (according to the report), with the greatest attention; and he was occasionally asked to "Speak up!" He began by lecturing on "Numbers;" but, if he goes on like this, will he end by lecturing to Numbers? Some are asking if he is going through the entire Pentateuch. While Judge's author implies that he is part of the saving remnant by allowing a free play of his critical faculty over the American scene, Punch is bound by no such personal chauvinism; in an even freer play of mind--or humor--it ridicules the "merry minority" itself as feeble, inferior, and militant and elevates the multitude into the guardian of taste (11. 15-16); its attack on elitism is the selfsame democratic stand one might expect from an American periodical. Other humorous, direct attacks appeared. One of the most successful is Francis Attwood's "Souvenir for Mr. Arnold" (Life, 31 Jan. 1884, p. 61; Fig. 3), which depicts the progress of an unmistakably large-headed and supercilious Arnold on his lecture circuit. As a "Missionary," the Apostle arrives on the shores of America with a large roll of lectures prominent among his bundles and a palm frond in his hand; the trees in the background bear coconuts embellished with dollar signs. Attwood's amusing drawing of the worshipful delegation of American barbarians dressed in frock coats and adorned with feathers makes use of the same cultural pun--this time visually--that occurred to the observor of Arnold and the Indian at Dartmouth. Again, Arnold figures as the sun, cheerlessly shedding sweetness and light, and as "The Mountain in Labor" (which proverbially brings forth a mouse), exhibiting the same nearsighted attention to his notes that newspaper reporters generally complained of. When Attwood records Arnold's Boston experience, however, he relies for humor on the contrast between the exaggeratedly disdainful expression on Arnold's face and the benevolent smile on Emerson's. Arnold significantly has his back to Emerson and Hawthorne, both securely ensconced on their pedestals; he operates a "patent" telescope which offers a reduced rather than a magnified image because the lens is serving as an eyepiece. While the Hub is subtly chided for idolizing its sages, Washington is taken to task for its ill manners; Attwood's drawing refers in part to the aftermath of Arnold's 17 Dec. presentation of "Literature and Science," when William Chandler, then Secretary of the Navy, turned the gathering into a political brouhaha by inviting his friends in the audience to respond to Arnold's remarks. The historian George Bancroft, with whom Arnold dined, is fifth from the right; and while the enthusiastic handshaker (third from the right) might logically represent Frederick Douglass, who astonished Arnold by moving a vote of thanks for the lecture, he bears a passing resemblance to Edward Everett Hale, who spoke at Chandler's request. The rotund, disapproving figure standing third from the left has the side-whiskers affected by Chester Arthur, who entertained the Arnolds on 25 Dec. 10 Later, Life speculates about Arnold's own evaluation, comparing his published and unpublished “impressions” (17 Apr. 1884, p. 214): While Life suggests that the Apostle's fine phrases mask a commercial spirit, the satire is nonetheless good-humored; the New York Tribune, however, presents Arnold as an irreclaimable pessimist. Making use of the public expectation that Arnold would publish his disapproval of American customs with undue haste, the Tribune printed parodies which purported to represent Arnold's coldly disdainful evaluation of American philistinism. "Matthew Arnold: His Marked Disapproval of the Solar System and Things (An Unverified Interview)" features a highly respectful reporter interviewing an Arnold whose unbounded cynicism is impossible to reconcile with any view of the philosopher as a touchstone in the "pursuit of perfection" (8 Apr. 1884, p. 12)": The fact that Mr. Matthew Arnold lately furnished "The Nineteenth Century" with his candid--but by no means candid--opinion of America might well have prompted some enterprizing reporter to find out how the rest of creation appeared as seen through the same double convex pessimistic lenses. But although this is so we feel in duty bound to add that the interview that follows, conceding that it is stamped with truth, had not been verified when we went to press. Reporter - Mr. Arnold, would you mind telling me how the sun strikes you? Arnold -- I distinctly disapprove of the sun. Its admirers are constantly obtruding the fact that it is the centre of the solar system. The trouble with such people is that they glorify the average sort of centre. I never do, I keep my enthusiasm for the really superior. . . . - Reporter -- And the Stars, Mr. Arnold? Arnold I distinctly disapprove of the Stars. They arrogate to themselves the title of "the heavenly bodies." Why heavenly, forsooth? A true conception of heaven is that of a state of sublimated being rather than a high material place. Heavenly is what heavenly does. An able apostle of sweetness and light--I will not mention names--is my idea of a heavenly body. Some of these so-called heavenly bodies are fixed, some of them shoot, some of them affect long tails. But to be eternally fixed like an ultra-conservative, or to wildly shoot, or aimlessly to swing a long tail is not to perform a celestial function. - And the New Jerusalem, Mr. Arnold? Reporter Arnold I distinctly disapprove of the New Jerusalem. It is given out that its streets are of gold and its gates of pearl. Such things are repugnant to my ideas of true urban simplicity. I will not countenance the ornate in building material. A welllaid pavement of granite blocks and gates of iron--rendered secure against rust by the patent McComber process--are more to my taste. Furthermore I dislike the name "New" Jerusalem. I have a prejudice against the new. One reason why I decline to condone the United States is because its civilization is so new. Leave me old Greece and old Rome and let who will be satisfied with your New-Jerusalem and your NewYork. . . . Reporter Arnold I distinctly disapprove of both Time and Eternity. Time, as an American poet, Longshanks or some such name, has remarked (I distinctly disapprove of Lonshanks) Time is fleeting. And, obviously that which in its nature is fleeting is not to be taken seriously by a man of exacting stamp. Eternity, on the other hand, has the glaring defect of the average epic poem--it is too long. Do you indorse either Time or Eternity, Mr. Arnold? Reporter Mr. Arnold, in a word, what is your candid opinion of the Heavens above, the Earth beneath, the Waters under the Earth, inclusive of their varied contents? - Arnold The question is rather an ample one. And while not attempting to answer it in detail I may say that I have not distinctly disapproved of the proposition that whatever is is wrong.. A second, more widely-publicized parody appeared in the New York Tribune on 6 Apr. 1884 (p. 4) and was immediately pirated by the Chicago Tribune as a factual report. "Mr. Arnold in Chicago: His Observations of Society, A Solid Basis of Philistinism--A Varnish of Culture" represented Arnold not as he was but as the American press had stereotyped him: tactless, chauvinistically British, and above all, eager to belittle American achievements. The parodic Arnold excoriates Chicagoans for pretending to be cultured: This affectation of concern for the things of the spirit, which may very easily be seen to be nothing more than an affectation, is chiefly observed in its aesthetic aspect. Of ethical culture there is hardly any pretence. . . . it would--be safe to say that the condition of trade in tinned meats, or in port or in grain, has the largest share of their thoughts even during the hour of ostensible devotion. Moreover, he laughs at them for confusing Herbert Spencer and Hibbard Spencer, a merchant in the "iron business," and for attributing to him Thomas Hughes' Tom Brown at Rugby (a composite title adapted from Tom Brown's Schooldays and Tom Brown at Oxford) and Edwin Arnold's Light of Asia. He takes their unfamiliarity with "Obermann” as a gauge of their lack of culture: I gave myself the pains to ask a large number of the apparently cultivated people with whom I came in contact whether they had read "Obermann." As the result of these inquiries I must state the melancholy fact that to all but one of those questioned, the name was wholly unfamiliar, and this one understood me as referring to a gentleman of that name who is the proprietor of a chemist's shop in Chicago. I do not know of any other little thing connected with my stay in America which gave me such a sense of the crudeness of American culture. What another alchemy was that of the author of "Obermann," than the art practised by the Chicago chemist in his daily dispensations! Finally, he concludes that "A society that has lived in the flesh, so to speak, for so long, cannot at once and naturally come to live in the spirit. . . . Nor, I fear, will the sweetness and the light of cultured life come to Chicago at the beck of the rich man." |