Sweetness and light would never have interfered with the slave trade,
or fiercely fought beside Plimsoll for the load-line on the sides of
ships.
We did not fight the Germans under the doctrine of sweetness and
light.
It was a beautiful and edifying adornment for the drawing-room in
times of Victorian self-satisfied peace, but was a tinsel armour for the
battle of life, and entirely futile as a sword for combating wrong.
I am not sure that Matthew Arnold would not have called those who
wrathfully slash about them at abominable evils, Philistines.
After all, the great men of action and the great writers of the world
have been capable of harbouring great enthusiasms and deep
indignations in their hearts; and these emotions do not emerge from a
"passion for sweetness and light."
A better doctrine, Antony, is, I think, to try to push things along
cheerfully but strenuously in the right direction wherever and whenever
you can.
As a writer I think Matthew Arnold's best passage is to be found in the
Preface to his _Essays in Criticism_:--
"Oxford. Beautiful city! So venerable, so lovely, so unravaged by
the fierce intellectual life of our century, so serene!
"There are our young barbarians, all at play!
"And yet steeped in sentiment as she lies, spreading her gardens
to the moonlight, and whispering from her towers the last
enchantments of the Middle Age, who will deny that Oxford, by her
ineffable charm, keeps ever calling us to the true goal of all of
us, to the ideal, to perfection,--to beauty, in a word, which is
only truth seen from another side?--nearer perhaps than all the
science of Tuebingen.
Pages:
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144