out England; that, having found in Rugby a low type of an English public school, he not only made it a pattern of education, but, through its influence, raised the tone of all public schools in England; that he gave a moral quality to the education of the young, which disseminated itself throughout the nation, and, at this moment has the best effects; and that he proved, in many distinguished instances, how it was possible to combine the freedom and manliness of public school life, with the obedience and gentleness of a Christian character. And, although his success as an author was not equally great, and his work at Rugby is the real monument of his fame, it must, we think, be admitted that the tendency of his writingssetting aside the merit they actually possess is peculiarly calculated to raise the tone of thought with regard to history and political science.

It is impossible to estimate the influence of Arnold at Rugby by any detail of his method of school education. The system was nothing without the man, whose singular skill in training up the youthful mind, remarkable aptitude for imparting useful knowledge, and open, manly, and energetic character, were the reason of its peculiar success. Something, however, may be said of it, as the manœuvres of a great general may be recorded, though we possess his pervading genius no longer. At Rugby Arnold insisted upon the principle then very unpopular with the Reforming party-that the study of the classical languages is the best discipline for the young mind; and it is chiefly owing to his consistency in this opinion, and to the success of his application of it, that we now hear no more of the bad effects of teaching so much Greek and Latin. But he made the study of the dead languages more useful than it had been, by laying less stress upon mere scholarship than hitherto had been customary, by teaching his boys to consider language philosophically rather than verbally, by directing their attention to the mines of fruitful knowledge which are contained in the great writers of Greece and Rome, and by treating the philosophy and history of the ancients, with a constant reference to their modern successors. He also introduced mathematics, and French and

German, into the general course of study, although he assigned a subordinate place to them; and thus he succeeded to an extent hitherto thought impracticable, in reconciling the claims of classical study with the requirements of those who advocate mere learning in education. Perhaps his boys, when compared with the best specimens of Eton and Winchester, were somewhat deficient in verbal scholarship, but they usually showed a superiority in power of thought, in originality, and comprehensiveness of culture; and by degrees it became admitted, that of English public schools, Rugby was the first in giving a useful education.

It was, however, in the moral training of his school that Arnold's genius was so conspicuous. It was not only that he inspired the subordinate masters with much of his own eagerness to check vice, disobedience, and bullying; that he succeeded in identifying the youth of the sixth form with his own notions of what a school should be, and made them the conductors of a good influence through their associates; and that he managed to make all his pupils aware that they were under a just yet encouraging government which, without oppressing them, had the best effects on their natures. Arnold had a singular and most happy faculty of enlisting to his side the sympathies of the young; they felt that if they conducted themselves well he would be their sincere and real friend; he drew out that generous temper, so common in boys, which rewards trust by confidence and respect; and while he punished severely any instances of meanness and falsehood he was always ready to reward acts of an opposite kind, and always anxious to prove that his school was worthy of his esteem. Add to this a keen insight into youthful character-a manner at once commanding and affectionate a method of teaching equally familiar and authoritative a nature singularly manly, truthful, and earnest and we obtain some notions of the influence he exercised in making Rugby conform to his ideal of a Christian school. That there were many instances of irregular conduct within it-that it had its cases of profligacy, of wickedness and of insubordination, we need scarcely inform our readers; but as

can

a whole it was a remarkable specimen of good government, administered to a great extent by the boys themselves, and yet everywhere influenced by the head master. Perhaps the best eulogium on it is to be found in these words of Dr. Moberly-himself a rival but not the less a just critic :

"I am sure that to Dr. Arnold's personal earnest simplicity of purpose, strength of character, power of influence and piety, which none who ever came near him could mistake or question, the carrying out of this improvement in our schools is mainly attributable. He was the first. It soon began to be matter of observation to us in the University that his pupils brought quite a different character with them to Ox

.

ford than that which we knew elsewhere. I do not speak of opinions; but his pupils were thoughtful, manly-minded, conscious of duty and obligation when they first came to college. We cordially acknowledged the immense improvement in their character in respect of morality and personal piety, and looked on Dr. Arnold as exercising an influence for good which, for how many years I know not, had been absolutely unknown to our public schools."

It was also during his tenure of Rugby that Arnold wrote the different works which form the real measure of his intellect. In 1827 he published a pamphlet on the Catholic question, which shadows forth his theory of Church and State; and this was subsequently followed by a tract upon Church Reform. His peculiar method of dealing with these subjects-the wide generalizations he brought to bear upon politics-the novel principles he introduced into his argumentshis bold departure from the beaten paths of opinion-his somewhat intoferant mode of regarding the views of others his utter disregard for cherished or respectable prejudices-his active and uncompromising spirit of reform and his sanguine trust in the possibility of changing institutions for the better-exposed him in these works to much adverse criticism and condemnation. About this time, also, he wrote a good deal on the social condition of England-then exulting in the fruition of the Reform Bill; and as he looked on that measure with much less complacency than was usually the case with the Liberal party, and as he thought that the real wants of the nation were moral

and social, rather than political, it is not strange that he found himself isolated from all parties, and under a kind of ostracism in opinion. He now underwent the fate of thinkers and writers on public questions, who are too profound and original for their age; he began to be denounced by trusted by the Evangelicals, to be the High Church party, to be disscoffed at by the Tories, and to be considered by the Whigs as visionary and impracticable. Many persons, also, not unfriendly to him, were of opinion that the master of a public school should never meddle with political questions; and thus about the years, 1828-1833, Arnold, on the whole, was in little account in general estimation.

Gradually, however, his authority increased, if not yet his popularity, as Rugby began to show the fruits of his teaching, and as the mind of England was influenced by that movement of thought, which, commencing almost every sphere of knowledge and about thirty years ago, and entering opinion, has wrought such changes in religious and political beliefs, and has made the intellect of this generation so much deeper and more earnest than it had been for a long antecedent period. That movement was a vigorous and happy reaction against the Toryism, the Utilitarianism, and the shallow ignorance of the age which inherited the philosophy of the last century, and yet was reduced into inaction by the terrors of the French Revolution; and although it has thwarted old opinions on almost every national question, has substituted new watchwords for antiquated shibboleths, and has introduced ideas into Church and State which rebel against our forefathers' notions, it has had an influence, upon the whole, valuable and purifying. The symptoms of that movement, as is well known, began in the rise of the Broad Church and Newmanite parties, as distinguished from the Erastian High Church-men; in the growth of more liberal modes of thought among the Evangelicals and Dissenters; in the decline of the narrow creed of Eldon and Percival in politics; in the spread of enlarged notions as regards the mission and functions of government; and, above all, in the diffusion of a better feeling between the richer and poorer classes of

England. It was natural, as this spirit of change grew more active and productive, that Arnold's reputation should increase, and that he himself should sympathize with several of its tendencies; and, accordingly, about the year 1836, he was less isolated from all parties than hitherto he had been; he had approximated on many points to Broad Church opinions, though still by no means identified with them; and he had commenced a fierce and uncompromising opposition to the new school of Newmanite theology. To this school he always showed an invincible repugnance; he considered its teaching false and superstitious, and inconsistent with the Church of England; he perceived that, in elevating the status of the priesthood, and investing them with a supernatural dignity, it made a severance between them and their flocks which was incompatible with his ideal of Church and State, and he thought that, practically, it was an act of treachery for its professors to continue in our communion. These views, which happened to be popular, of course gained for him a better hearing than hitherto he had attained; but, on the other hand, they increased his enemies at Oxford, which had become the focus of Newmanite opinions; and this feeling was embittered by an angry article which he wrote in the Edinburgh Review, upon the occasion of the crusade against Dr. Hampden. On the whole, though in 1836-7-8, his reputation had risen, and the success of his work at Rugby was generally admitted, he was still unpopular among the majority of the clergy, was not much liked by any section of them, and was considered somewhat of a meddler and theorist in politics.

In the meantime, his edition of Thucydides had been published, and, in 1838, it had already become out of print. Other editions, even by Englishmen, show deeper scholarship; but the great historian has never had a commentator, in any language, who has so thoroughly entered into his spirit, so perfectly explained and illustrated his geography, so well developed his peculiar characteristics, and those of the age about which he wrote, or so admirably shown the applicability of his solemn wisdom to the events and politics of other periods. This work raised Arnold a

great deal in the estimation of scholars; it was felt that he had a real genius for elucidating the scenes of the classic age, and that he had considerable powers of historical description. His Thucydides was soon afterwards followed by his Roman History, a fragment of one of three important works which, in the phrase of Tacitus, "he had set apart for old age," namely, a Commentary on the New Testament, a Treatise upon Church and State, and a History of Rome from Romulus to Charlemagne. This history, as is well known, only reached three volumes, of which the last was published after his death, and did not receive his final corrections; and, as it does not conclude even the second Punic war, it cannot be considered more than a detached specimen of his genius. It attracted a great deal of attention on its appearance, and for some years was the text-book on the early centuries of Rome; and, even now, although its authority has suffered from the discovery of the errors of Niebuhr, whose theories it implicitly follows, its remarkable merits are fully appreciated. It is probably the best history in our language for the period between the death of Gibbon and the appearance of Lord Macaulay's volumes. It shows a profound and thoroughly mastered knowledge of classical times; a perfect apprehension of the tone of ancient opinion, as regards religious, political, and social problems; a clear understanding of the factions of early Rome; an extraordinary skill in reproducing the topography of its era; and great vividness of external description as regards scenery and military events. And the third volume, which restores the career of Hannibal to us, is an admirable specimen of clear and even brilliant narrative, in some points altogether equal to the subject, and only wanting, perhaps, in that creative power which is the proof of the highest historical genius. We would classify the descriptions of the passage of the Alps, and of the crowning victory of Cannæ, as among the finest military pieces in our language.

During the years between 1838 and 1842, there was a marked and sudden reaction in favour of Arnold, among many men of all opinions, and by some he was, perhaps, unduly appreciated: The boys he had educated at

Rugby were now in early manhood, and, as a body, were testifying brilliantly to his success as an instructor. The strong feeling of the mass of the nation against the Newmanite theologian, made them sympathize with one of the ablest antagonists of the party; even the majority of the High Church and Evangelical clergy, who, a few years before, had looked upon him with aversion, began now to admit they had been somewhat in error; he was claimed by the Broad Church school as one of their most powerful supporters; and, generally, the public opinion of England recognised his moral and intellectual greatness. Besides, as the strong party feeling, as respects politics, which had run so high some time before, began to collapse, or turn towards other objects, his own views on political questions became less prominent, while their general and cardinal principles were more fairly examined; and his attention was more fully directed than ever to the social condition of the poorer classes in England,-then threatened with Chartism, and undergoing much general suffering. In this pursuit he had men of all parties as his fellow-labourers; and, although his notions as regards Chartism were, perhaps, still considered visionary, his zeal, his energy, and his lofty humanity, were appreciated by persons of the most opposite opinions. This sudden popularity, however, was very remarkable; it is not easy to account entirely for it; and we may recognise in it one of those generous impulses so honourable to the free judgment of England, to make amends for past injustice by a strong reaction in favour of its object.

In 1841, Arnold was appointed Professor of Modern History at Oxford, and in Lent Term, 1842, he delivered his first course of lectures before the University. The success he obtained was at once unexpected and significant. It was a tribute to his merit, a generous welcome to a noble thinker and writer, and the expression of a deep want on the part of Oxford. A large and distinguished audience went regularly to hear him and they who witnessed the attention and almost the reverence he commanded, can alone measure the influence he had on the University. It was not only that his ability was recognised; that

his luminous exposition of difficult principles; his clear and exhaustive analysis of periods of history; his picturesque touches of description; and his manly, chaste, and unaffected style, were generally appreciated and admired. It was not only that several of Arnold's antagonists at Oxford took pride in doing honour to his genius, and acknowledged, in attending upon him as a Professor, that a debt was due to him from past injustice. The success of Arnold proved that, although the professorial system was then almost extinct at Oxford, it could obtain general sympathy, and be of real value, if well administered by proper instruments; and it became the signal for that great academic reaction which has, by this time, restored that system at the University with noble promise of results in Church and State. It is not, therefore, too much to say--and this is not the least of his triumphs in the cause of educationthat this valuable and most unexpected reform may ultimately be ascribed to the influence of Arnold.

In 1842 he was at the height of his reputation. He was meditating a second series of lectures, and a continuation of his "Roman History," and was hopefully looking forward to the time when he could devote his life to the other great subjects he had selected; when death suddenly interposed, and he was taken away. It is needless to dwell upon the regret which was felt for his loss-upon the many tributes which were paid to his memory, by men of every shade of opinion-and upon the honour in which his pupils still hold his name. In the language of his favourite Thucydides, "His country is his monument," in so far as England ever recognises worth and ability. Besides, we have no space for panegyric, and can only say a few words upon his attainments in the different spheres of theology, speculation, and history.

I.-As a theologian, Arnold may be called a Christian Rationalist. He was not deeply read in Patristic learning, and held the works of divines in somewhat too low account, considering them generally as over dogmatic, or wanting in real and discerning judgment, or unsuited to the wants of the present generation. He had a rooted aversion to the doctrines of Rome, which he thought grossly su

perstitious, and to her polity, which he characterized as tainted with Judaism, and altogether inconsistent with a truly Christian Church; and, as we have seen, he considered any attempt to introduce them into England as foolish, wicked, and even treacherous. And yet he had little real sympathy with the Low Church party, especially as regards their ideal of Christian duty, and their notion of the office of Christianity in the world; and although he leaned towards the school of Copleston, Whately, and Hampden, he differed in many respects from their opinions. It would obviously not become us here to enter the sacred precincts of Theology, even to trace Arnold's position within them, and so we pass them by with decent reverence. Generally speaking, however, we may say that his reputation as a divine consists in a peculiar skill in interpreting the Scriptures-in separating their elements of history and doctrine, and distinguishing between what is of special application and what is for universal obedience; and further, in a most successful art of reconciling the law of Conscience with that of the Gospel, and showing how Ethics and Religion run into each other, and form an harmonious system of faith for the Christian. Perhaps the best analysis of his views as a theologian is to be found in a letter from Mr. Price to Mr. Stanley on this subject, in the first volume of Arnold's life, by the latter gentleman. II.-Asa thinker, Arnold is most conspicuous for his theory of the Relation of Church and State. This theory is essentially that of Burke and Coleridge; but as no English writer has presented it as fully as Arnold, he may be considered to have fixed it in our philosophy. He thought that as the duty of every individual is to make the moral law the rule of life, so that of a nation, or aggregate of individuals, must necessarily be exactly identical. But as the life of a nation is represented in that of its Government, he thought further that it became the duty of a Government as such to inculcate obedience to the moral law, and to try and make the nation's action conform to it. Hence he considered that the true relation of a State to its subjects is that of an educator or moral overseer; and that, berefore, it is under an obligation to

adjust laws, institutions, opinions, and general habits to the rules laid down by the code of Ethics. But the teaching of the Gospel, when properly understood, when divested of all that is merely accidental, and laid out in moral precepts is, he declared, an exact republication of the code of Ethics, though of course supported by a Divine sanction; and from this he inferred that the duty of a Government, as such, is to disseminate the lessons of the Gospel, and to seek to lead the nation to a Christian life. From this it followed that the business of a Church is comprised in that of a State; that the administration of a Church is one of the functions of Government, and that all that may be termed ecclesiastical action is merely a manifestation of that which, essentially, is political, although directed to a religious purpose. Hence he laid it down that the State included the Church within itself, and furthermore was identical with it in extent; for, as the subjects of a State should all be bound by the law of Christianity, and therefore should visibly conform to a Christian standard of doctrine, Dissenters from that standard could not be comprised within the State, could not enjoy the rights of full citizenship, and were only to be regarded as sojourners and aliens. But as prima facie it is unjust, and certainly it conduces to national weakness, to exclude from full citizenship any of the members of a state, Arnold lowered extremely the standard of Christian conformity which he thought the condition of complete political rights, and reduced it to little more than a general assent to the truth and obligation of the Gospel morality. Thus, in the instance of the British Empire, he would have admitted to all the privileges of the Constitution, not only all denominations of Christians, but even Unitarians and Socinians, provided they acknowledged the Gospel Ethics, while he would have excluded Jews, Infidels, Idolaters, and Mussulmen.

Such, in a few words, is Arnold's theory of Church and State; and we shall only observe upon it, that it cannot stand the test of experience. It does not follow, because it is the duty of the individual to conform to the moral or Christian law, that therefore a Government should seek to impress