its rise. This is a fact which is commonly overlooked by the opponents
of a particular section of social and intellectual history. In the
initial stages of a "period" we look for audacity, fire, freshness,
passion. We look for men of strong character who will hew a channel
along which the torrent of new ideals and subversive sentiments can
rush. But this violence cannot be expected to last, and it would lead to
anarchy if it did. Slowly the impetus of the stream diminishes, the
river widens, and its waters reach a point where there seems to be no
further movement in their expanse. No age contains in itself the
elements of endless progress; it starts in fury, and little by little
the force of it declines. Its decline is patent--but not until long
afterwards--in a deadening of effort, in a hardening of style. Dryden
leads on to Pope, Pope points down to Erasmus Darwin, after whom the
world can but reject the whole classical system. The hungry sheep of a
new generation look up and are not fed, and this is the vision which
seems to face us in the last adventures of the schools of yesterday.
But what is, or was, the Victorian Age? The world speaks glibly of it as
though it were a province of history no less exactly defined than the
career of a human being from birth to death; but in practice no one
seems in a hurry to mark out its frontiers. Indeed, to do so is an
intrepid act. If the attempt is to be made at all, then 1840, the year
of Queen Victoria's marriage with Prince Albert, may be suggested as the
starting-point, and 1890 (between the death-dates of Browning, Newman,
and Tennyson) as the year in which the Victorian Age is seen sinking
into the sands. Nothing could be vaguer, or more open to contention in
detail, than this delineation, but at all events it gives our
deliberations a frame. It excludes _Pickwick_, which is the typical
picture of English life under William IV., and _Sartor Resartus_, which
was the tossing of the bound giant in his sleep; but it includes the
two-volume Tennyson, "chiefly lyrical," the stir of the Corn Law
agitation, the Tractarian Crisis of 1841, and the _History of the French
Revolution and Past and Present_, when the giant opened his eyes and
fought with his chains. Darwin was slowly putting together the notes he
had made on the Beagle, and Hugh Miller was disturbing convention by his
explorations of the Old Red Sandstone. Most of all, the discussion of
permanent and transient elements in Christianity was taking a foremost
place in all strata of society, not merely in the form of the contest
around _Tract 90_, but in the divergent directions of Colenso, the
Simeon Evangelicals, and Maurice.
The Victorian Age began in rancour and turmoil. This is an element which
we must not overlook, although it was in a measure superficial. A series
of storms, rattling and recurrent tempests of thunder and lightning,
swept over public opinion, which had been so calm under George IV. and
so dull under William IV. Nothing could exceed the discord of
vituperation, the Hebraism of Carlyle denouncing the Vaticanism of
Wiseman, "Free Kirk and other rubbish" pitted against "Comtism,
ghastliest of algebraic spectralities." This theological tension marks
the first twenty years and then slowly dies down, after the passion
expended over _Essays and Reviews_. It was in 1840 that we find
Macaulay, anxious to start a scheme of Whig reform and to cut a
respectable figure as Secretary of State for War, unable to get to
business because of the stumbling-block of religious controversy.
Everything in heaven and earth was turned into "a theological treatise,"
and all that people cared about was "the nature of the sacraments, the
operation of holy orders, the visibility of the Church and baptismal
regeneration." The sitting member goes down to Edinburgh to talk to his
constituents about Corn Laws and Sugar Duties and the Eastern Question;
he is met by "a din" of such objections as "Yes, Mr. Macaulay, that is
all very well for a statesman, but what becomes of the headship of our
Lord Jesus Christ?"
If the Victorian Age opened in a tempest of theology, it was only
natural that it should cultivate a withering disdain for those who had
attempted to reform society on a non-theological basis. In sharp
contradistinction to the indulgence of the Georgian period for
philosophic speculation, England's interest in which not even her long
continental wars had been able to quench, we find with the accession of
Victoria the credit of the French thinkers almost abruptly falling.
Voltaire, never very popular in England, becomes "as mischievous a
monkey as any of them"; the enthusiasm for Rousseau, which had reached
extravagant proportions, completely disappears, and he is merely the
slanderous sceptic, who, after soaking other people's waistcoats with
his tears, sent his own babies to the Foundling Hospital. The influence
of the French eighteenth-century literature on the mind of England was
first combated and then baldly denied. The premier journalist of the age
declared, with the satisfaction of a turkey-cock strutting round his
yard, that no trace of the lowest level of what could be called
popularity remained in England to the writers of France, and he felt
himself "entitled to treat as an imbecile conceit the pretence" that a
French school of thought survived in Great Britain. Such was the
Podsnappery of the hour in its vigilance against moral and religious
taint.
Notwithstanding, or perhaps we ought to say inevitably conducted by
these elements of passion and disdain, the infant Victorian Age passed
rapidly into the great political whirlpool of 1846, with its violent
concentration of enthusiasm on the social questions which affected the
welfare of the masses, with, in short, its tremendous upheaval of a
practical radicalism. From that time forth its development baffles
analysis. Whatever its present enemies may allege to its discredit, they
cannot pretend that it was languid or monotonous. No Age hitherto lived
out upon the world's surface has been so multiform or so busy; none
defies the art of the historian to such a bewildering degree. Its latest
critic does not exaggerate when he says that our fathers and our
grandfathers have poured forth and accumulated so vast a quantity of
information concerning it "that the industry of a Ranke would be
submerged by it and the perspicacity of a Gibbon would quail before it."
This is manifestly true, and it is evident that an encyclopaedia would be
required to discuss all the divisions of so tremendous a subject. If we
look over too wide a horizon we lose our bearings altogether. We get a
hopelessly confused notion of the course of progress; we see
experiments, criticisms, failures, but who is to assure us what was the
tendency of evolution?
Mr. Lytton Strachey's "Eminent Victorians" has arrived at the very
moment when all readers are prepared to discuss the age he deals with,
and when public opinion is aware of the impatience which has been
"rising in the bosom of a man like smoke" under the pressure of the
insistent praise of famous men. The book has attracted a very remarkable
degree of notice; it has been talked about wherever people have met
together; and has received the compliment of being seriously displayed
before the University of Oxford by one of the most eminent of the
Victorian statesmen whom Oxford has produced. If we look into the causes
of this success, enjoyed by the earliest extended book of a writer
almost unknown, a book, too, which pretends to no novelty of matter or
mystery of investigation, we find them partly in the preparedness of the
public mind for something in the way of this exposure, but partly also
in the skill of the writer. Whatever else may be said of Mr. Lytton
Strachey, no one can deny that he is very adroit, or that he possesses
the art of arresting attention.
It is part of this adroitness that he contrives to modify, and for a
long time even to conceal the fact that his purpose is to damage and
discredit the Victorian Age. He is so ceremonious in his approach, so
careful to avoid all brusqueness and coarseness, that his real aim may
be for awhile unobserved. He even professes to speak "dispassionately,
impartially, and without ulterior intentions." We may admit the want of
passion and perhaps the want of partiality, but we cannot avoid seeing
the ulterior intention, which is to undermine and belittle the
reputation of the great figures of the Victorian Age. When the
prodigious Signor Marinetti proposes to hurl the "leprous palaces" of
his native city into her "fetid canals," and to build in their place
warehouses and railway stations, he does not differ in essential
attitude from Mr. Lytton Strachey, delicately "laying bare the facts of
some cases." The only real difference consists in the finer tact, the
greater knowledge of history--in short, the superior equipment of the
English iconoclast. Each of them--and all the troop of opponents who
grumble and mutter between their extremes--each of them is roused by an
intense desire to throw off the shackles of a dying age, in which they
have taught themselves chiefly to see affectation, pomposity, a
virtuosity more technical than emotional, and an exasperating monotony
of effect.
Mr. Strachey has conducted his attack from the point of view of
biography. He realises the hopelessness of writing a history of the
Victorian Age; it can only be dealt with in detail; it must be nibbled
into here and there; discredited piecemeal; subjected to the ravages of
the white ant. He has seen that the lives of the great Victorians lend
themselves to this insidious kind of examination, because what was worst
in the pretentiousness of their age is to be found enshrined in the
Standard Biographies (in two volumes, post octavo) under which most of
them are buried. Mr. Strachey has some criticism of these monsters which
could hardly be bettered:
"Those two fat volumes, with which it is our custom to commemorate
the dead--who does not know them, with their ill-digested masses of
material, their slipshod style, their tone of tedious panegyric,
their lamentable lack of selection, of detachment, of design? They
are as familiar as the cortege of the undertaker, and bear the same
air of slow, funereal barbarism."
It is impossible not to agree with this pungent criticism. Every candid
reader could point to a dozen Victorian biographies which deserve Mr.
Strachey's condemnation. For instance, instead of taking up any of the
specimens which he has chosen for illustration, we need only refer the
reader's memory to the appendix of "Impressions," by a series of elderly
friends, which closes the official _Life of Tennyson_, published in
1897. He will find there an expression of the purest Victorian optimism.
The great object being to foist on the public a false and superhuman
picture of the deceased, a set of illustrious contemporaries--who
themselves expected to be, when they died, transfigured in like
manner--form a bodyguard around the corpse of the poet and emit their
"tedious panegyric." In this case, more even than in any of the
instances which Mr. Strachey has taken, the contrast between the real
man and the funereal image is positively grotesque.
Without question this contrast is not a little responsible for the
discredit into which the name of Tennyson has fallen. Lord Selborne
found nothing in Tennyson "inconsistent with the finest courtesy and the
gentlest heart." Dr. Jowett had preserved through forty years "an
ever-increasing wonder at the depth of his thought," and emphatically
stated that he "was above such feelings as a desire of praise, or fear
of blame." (Tennyson, who was thirsty for ceaseless laudation, and to
whom a hint of censure was like the bite of a mosquito!) Frederick Myers
ejaculated, "How august, how limitless a thing was Tennyson's own
spirit's upward flight!" The Duke of Argyll, again, during the space of
forty years, had found him "always reverent, hating all levity or
flippancy," and was struck by his possessing "the noblest humility I
have ever known." Lord Macaulay, who "had stood absolutely aloof," once
having been permitted to glance at the proof-sheets of _Guenevere_, was
"absolutely subdued" to "unfeigned and reverent admiration." The duke
was the glad emissary who was "the medium of introduction," and he
recognised in Macaulay's subjugation "a premonition" of Tennyson's
complete "conquest over the living world and over the generations that
are to come."
Thus the priesthood circled round their idol, waving their censers and
shouting their hymns of praise, while their ample draperies effectively
hid from the public eye the object which was really in the centre of
their throng, namely, a gaunt, black, touzled man, rough in speech,
brooding like an old gipsy over his inch of clay pipe stuffed with shag,
and sucking in port wine with gusto--"so long as it is black and sweet
and strong, I care not!" Their fault lay, not in their praise, which was
much of it deserved, but in their deliberate attempt in the interests of
what was Nice and Proper--gods of the Victorian Age--to conceal what any
conventional person might think not quite becoming. There were to be no
shadows in the picture, no stains or rugosities on the smooth bust of
rosy wax.
On the pretext, therefore, of supplying a brief and above all a
complimentary set of portraits, Mr. Strachey takes the biography of an
ecclesiastic, an educational authority, a woman of action, and a man of
adventure, and tells them over again in his own way. The four figures he
chooses are all contemporary, and yet, so implacably does time hurry us
along, all would be very old if they still survived. Three of them could
hardly survive, for Cardinal Manning and Dr. Arnold would be far over a
hundred, and Florence Nightingale in her ninety-ninth year; the fourth,
General Gordon, would be eighty-five. The motto of Mr. Strachey is "Put
not your trust in the intellectual princes of the Victorian Age," or, at
least, in what their biographers have reported of them; they were not
demi-gods in any sense, but eccentric and forceful figures working dimly
towards aims which they only understood in measure, and which very
often were not worth the energy which they expended on them. This
attitude alone would be enough to distinguish Mr. Strachey from the
purveyors of indiscriminate praise, and in adopting it he emphasises his
deliberate break with the age of which they were the envy and the
ornament. Given his 1918 frame of mind, no blame can attach to him for
adopting this gesture. At moments when the tradition of a people has
been violently challenged there have always ensued these abrupt acts of
what to the old school seems injustice. If Mr. Lytton Strachey is
reproached with lack of respect, he might reply: In the midst of a
revolution, who is called on to be respectful to the fallen monarch?
Extreme admiration for this or that particular leader, the principle of
Victorian hero-worship, is the very heresy, he might say, which I have
set out to refute.
When St. John the Divine addressed his Apocalypse to the Angels of the
Seven Churches, he invented a system of criticism which is worthy of all
acceptation. He dwelt first upon the merits of each individual church;
not till he had exhausted them did he present the reverse of the coin.
In the same spirit, critics who, in the apostle's phrase, have
"something against" Mr. Lytton Strachey, will do well to begin by
acknowledging what is in his favour. In the first place, he writes
sensibly, rapidly, and lucidly--without false ornament of any kind. Some
of his pages might, with advantage, be pinned up opposite the
writing-tables of our current authors of detestable pseudo-Meredithian
and decayed Paterese. His narrative style is concise and brisk. His book
may undoubtedly best be compared among English classics with _Whiggism
in its Relations to Literature_, although it is less discursive and does
not possess the personal element of that vivacious piece of polemic. In
this recurrence of Mr. Strachey to a pellucid stream of prose we see an
argument against his own theory of revolt. The procedure of the arts,
the mechanical tricks of the trade, do they really improve or decline
from age to age? Are they not, in fact, much more the result of
individual taste than of fashion? There seems to be no radical change in
the methods of style. The extravagant romanticism of rebellion against
the leaders of the Victorian Age finds at length an exponent, and behold
he writes as soberly as Lord Morley, or as Newman himself!
The longest of these biographies is that of Cardinal Manning, and it is
the one with which Mr. Lytton Strachey has taken most pains. Briefer
than the briefest of the _English Men of Letters_ series of biographies,
it is yet conducted with so artful an economy as to give the impression,
to an uninstructed reader, that nothing essential about the career of
Manning has been omitted. To produce this impression gifts of a very
unusual order were required, since the writer, pressed on all sides by a
plethora of information, instead of being incommoded by it, had to seem
to be moving smoothly in an atmosphere of his own choosing, and to be
completely unembarrassed by his material. He must have the air of
saying, in Froude's famous impertinence, "This is all we know, and more
than all, yet nothing to what the angels know." In the face of a whole
literature of controversy and correspondence, after a storm of Purcell
and Hutton, Ward and Mozley and Liddon tearing at one another's throats,
Mr. Lytton Strachey steps delicately on to the stage and says, in a low
voice, "Come here and I will tell you all about a funny ecclesiastic who
had a Hat, and whose name was Henry Edward Manning. It will not take us
long, and ever afterwards, if you hear that name mentioned, you will
know everything about him which you need to remember." It is audacious,
and to many people will seem shocking, but it is very cleverly done.
The study of Florence Nightingale is an even better example of Mr.
Strachey's method, since she is the one of his four subjects for whom he
betrays some partiality. "The Miss Nightingale of fact was not as facile
fancy painted her," and it has greatly entertained Mr. Strachey to chip
the Victorian varnish off and reveal the iron will beneath. His first
chapter puts it in one of his effective endings:--
"Her mother was still not quite resigned; surely Florence might at
least spend the summer in the country. At this, indeed, among her
intimates, Mrs. Nightingale almost wept. 'We are ducks,' she said
with tears in her eyes, 'who have hatched a wild swan.' But the
poor lady was wrong; it was not a swan that they had hatched, it
was an eagle."
It is therefore as an eagle, black, rapacious, with hooked bill and
crooked talons, that he paints Miss Nightingale; and the Swan of
Scutari, the delicate Lady with the Lamp, fades into a fable. Mr.
Strachey glorifies the demon that possessed this pitiless, rushing
spirit of philanthropy. He gloats over its ravages; its irresistible
violence of purpose. It is an evident pleasure to him to be able to
detach so wild a figure from the tameness of the circumambient scene,
and all his enmity to the period comes out in the closing pages, in
which he describes how the fierce philanthropist lived so long that the
Victorian Age had its revenge upon her, and reduced her, a smiling, fat
old woman, to "compliance and complacency." It is a picture which will
give much offence, but it is certainly extremely striking, and Mr.
Strachey can hardly be accused of having done more than deepen the
shadows which previous biographers had almost entirely omitted.
In this study, if the author is unusually indulgent to his subject, he
is relatively severer than usual to the surrounding figures. To some of
them, notably to Arthur Hugh Clough, he seems to be intolerably unjust.
On the other hand, to most of those public men who resisted the work of
Florence Nightingale it is difficult to show mercy. Mr. Strachey is so
contemptuous, almost so vindictive, in his attitude to Lord Panmure,
that the reader is tempted to take up the cudgels in defence of an
official so rudely flouted. But, on reflection, what is there that can
be said in palliation of Lord Panmure? He was the son of a man of whom
his own biographer has admitted that "he preserved late into the
[nineteenth] century the habits and passions--scandalous and
unconcealed--which had, except in his case, passed away. He was devoted
to his friends so long as they remained complaisant, and violent and
implacable to all who thwarted him.--His uncontrollable temper alienated
him from nearly all his family in his latter years. In private life he
was an immovable despot."
This was the father of Fox Maule, second Baron Panmure, of whom Mr.
Strachey has so much to say. Evidently he was a Regency type, as the son
was a Victorian. Determined not to resemble his father, Fox Maule early
became a settled and industrious M.P., and in 1846 Lord John Russell
made him Secretary of War. He held the same post under Lord Palmerston
from 1855 to 1858. Nothing could dislodge him from office; not even the
famous despatch "Take care of Dawb" could stir him. In 1860 he became
eleventh Earl of Dalhousie. He died two years later, having enjoyed
every distinction, even that of President of the Royal Military Asylum.
He was "unco guid," as pious as his father had been profane, but he had
no social or political or intellectual merit of any kind which can at
this distance of time be discerned. Florence Nightingale called him the
Bison, and his life's energy seems to have been expended in trying,
often with success, to frustrate every single practical reform which
she suggested. To the objection that Mr. Strachey has depicted the
heroine as "an ill-tempered, importunate spinster, who drove a statesman
to his death," he might conceivably reply that if history, grown calm
with the passage of years, does so reveal her, it is rather absurd to go
on idealising her. Why not study the real Eagle in place of the fabulous
Swan? It is difficult to condemn Mr. Strachey along this line of
argument.
The early Victorians liked what was definable and tangible; they were
"ponderous mechanists of style." Even in their suggestions of change
they preserved an impenetrable decorum of demeanour, a studied progress,
a deep consciousness of the guiding restraint of tradition upon
character. Their preoccupation with moral ideas tinged the whole of
their surroundings, their literature, their art, their outlook upon
life. That the works of Mr. Charles Dickens, so excruciatingly funny,
should have been produced and appreciated in the midst of this intense
epoch of exhortation seems a paradox, till we recollect how careful
Dickens is, when his laughter is loudest, never to tamper with "the deep
sense of moral evil." This apprehension of the rising immorality of the
world, against which the only rampart was the education of "a thorough
English gentleman, Christian, manly and enlightened" was dominant in no
spirit more than in that of Mr. Thomas Arnold, of whom Mr. Strachey
gives a somewhat deterrent portrait. It is deterrent, because we have
passed, in three-quarters of a century, completely out of the atmosphere
in which Dr. Arnold moved and breathed. We are not sure that Mr.
Strachey acted very wisely in selecting Dr. Arnold for one of his four
subjects, since the great schoolmaster was hardly a Victorian at all.
When he entered the Church George III. was on the throne; his
accomplishment at Rugby was started under George IV.; he died when the
Victorian Age was just beginning. He was a forerunner, but hardly a
contemporary.