aenold's view of emeeson and caelyle 131 



anism, which was from within. Carlyle had no tran- 

 quillity ; the waters of his soul were lashed into fury 

 the whole time. The Greek was at ease in Zion, 

 as Mr. Arnold somewhere says, hut think of Carlyle 

 being at ease in Zion ! Indeed, one must put his 

 classic standards behind ■ him when he gives an un- 

 qualified admiration to either Emerson or Carlyle as 

 men of letters. 



The force of Arnold's criticism came from the fact 

 that it was by a man who had a real and tangible 

 point of view of his own, and who, therefore, gave 

 a real and consistent account of the subject he dis- 

 cussed. His view of Emerson was not the view of 

 Emerson generally held in this country, but it was 

 such a view of him as puts any man who holds a 

 contrary one upon his mettle, and challenges him to 

 give as good an account of his own faith. Much of 

 the writing upon Emerson had been indiscriminat- 

 ing, and by men who had no definite point of view 

 of their own. Even Mr. Morley's essay recently 

 published is not so satisfying a piece of work as 

 Arnold's, though he arrives at nearly the same con- 

 clusions; but he wanders more in reaching them; 

 his course is not so direct and steady; in fact, the 

 point of view is not so clear and definite. He may 

 conduct us to as commanding a height, but there is 

 often a tangle of words and fine phrases in the way. 



But it is the great merit of Matthew Arnold as a 

 critic that he always has a clear and unmistakable 

 point of view, that he always knows his point of 

 view and never wanders far from it. The opening 



