RECOLLECTIONS OF INTERESTING LECTURERS.

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 10763, 17 September 1900, Page 3

RECOLLECTIONS OF INTERESTING LECTURERS.

(By PaoFESSos Dttnbdin.) INTRODUCTION.

Pt&lic lecturing is, in my opinion, a most valuable part of popular education. No one, I suppose, would dispute the value of academic lecturing, in which an able teacher ! conducts a body of students for a whole session over the field of investigation that he has made his life-study. But, sometimes, highly educated men of the fastidious type are found making depreciatory remarks on the value of public lectures. A lecture on a great subject is, of course, no substitute for patient l and long-continued private study of it; but it may have its uses all the same. Culture has been defined as "knowing everything of Something, and something of everything." To know everything of something is an impossible ideal, except in a very limited subject; but the only way of approaching the ideal is by diligent study. To know something of everything is also impossible; but listening to interesting lecturers is an assistance io this direction. It is good for us all to be taken occasionally in this way out of our usual routine. The besetting sin of specialists is narrowness; and this, is counteracted by occasional excursions, under competent guides, into fields different from our own. In Great Britain there are many institutions in connection "with which public lectures are given during the winter months. Two of these enjoy a specially high reputation— the Royal Institution in Albemarle street, London, and the Edinburgh Philosophical Institution. Of the first of these I have no personal knowledge; but in my younger days I was a member of the Philosophical Institution, and heard many admirable lectures in the well-known hall in

Queen street. A few years ago, this institution celebrated ita jubilee. One noteworthy fact connecting the foundation of the Philosophical Institution with its jubilee is that Professor Masson, who in his youth had been present at the meeting at which, the Philosophical Institution was inaugurated, also attended the jubilee proceedings, full of years and honours, the Nestor of Scottish men of letters, and gave a stirring speech on the history of the Institution. The in--1 auguration meeting was one of exceptional interest. Adam Black, the publisher, a wellknown Edinburgh citizen, and, for many years, one of the M.P.'s for the city, was dn the chair; and the meeting was addresssed by Mr Macaulay, not then Lord Ma*«aulay, Archbishop Whately of Dublin, Professor Wilson, more familiarly -known as Christopher North, Dr. Thomas Qutorie, and others. During the fifty years \ of its existence, many famous men have given lectures to the Philosophical Institution, '-among whom I may mention Dickens, f Thackeray, Trollop*, Emerson, Lowell, Dean Stanley, Canon Kdngsley, Macaulay, Principal Tulloch, Buskin, Matthew Arnold, Freeman, Froude, Huxley, Tyndall, Sir John Lubbock, the Earl of Rosebery, Lord Reay, Mr Goschen, John Uorley, Sir Henry Irving, Justin McCarthy, George Macdonald,' Seeley, Jowett, Westeott, Lightfoot, Walter Smith, Professor Masson, Principal Donaldson, the Marquis of Bute, and Lord Wolseley. The present president is Lord Rosebery, who made his first public appearance of any importance when he the opening lecture of the Institution many years ago. All the deceased presidents were famous men in their day. Their names in order are:—Adam Black, Professor Wilson, Lord Macaulay, Lord Brougham, Thomas Oarlyle, I and W. E. Gladstone, That the Philosophical Institution, has done mucSc for the intellectual enrichment of the life of EdinI burgh 23 a fact that cannot be doubted by anyone brought up in what Macaulay calls "the most beautiful of British cities." In the Philosophical Institution two lectures were (and, I suppose, stall are) given each week. Sometimes a lecturer gave one lecture, sometimes two, and sometimes as many as four, as Dean Stanley did when he lectured on the History of the Church of Scotland. A pleasant variety in the programme was the annual concert, at which Joachim, the greatest of living violinists, generally appeared. I now give my impressions of some of the lecturers I have heard at the Philosophical Institution or elsewhere. GEORGE MACDONALD. I have heard George Macdonald lecture several times. He is -very tal, and altogether a most striking-looking man, with long, flowing white locks. His face has a thoughtful expression—an expression that combines the characteristics of the poet and the mystic. The theme of one of Ids lectures was "King Lear." The tectum , completely lost himself in bis. subject. His cWivery was so impassioned that one forgot the lecturer, and fancied that Shakespeare's Lear himself was on the platform, telling the story of his wrongs. The last time I saw George Macdonald was on an interesting day in my own life—the day on which I got the cablegram announcing my election to tbe Chair I now hold. On tie «vening of that day, JDr. Macdonald gave a. lecture in Dundee on Tennyson's 'In Memoriam"—a subject he treated with sympathetic insight, and with a poet's warm appreciation of the, masterpiece of one of the greatest of literary artists. I had the honour of proposing a vote of thanks to the lecturer; and, in a talk 'We had afterwards, he told mc that he could only occasionally visit Britain, the state of his health compelling him to live abroad. He generally resides in Italy. Dr. Macdonald did not then look a delicate man; and he has now reached a good old age, the date of his birth being 1824. His novels were great favourites in my younger days; but I question if his books are read so much now as they deserve to be. JAMES ANTHONY FROUDE. Probably the most satisfactory of all Froude's works is the one known as "Short Studies on Great Subjecte." One of these "Studies" ia entitled "On the Uses of a Landed Gentry." This was first given as a lecture to the Philosophical Institution; and I remember the evening well. Froude had a fine presence, a remarkably keen eye, and a rich and powerful voice. He was a most interesting lecturer, and had the audience with him from the first. In his "Life of Carlyle," he says:—"The excitement of lecturing, so elevating and agreeable to most men, seemed only to depress and irritate Carlyle." My impression is that Froude, unlike Carlyle, thoroughly enjoyed lecturing ; and I "am certain that his hearers were cUughiMd wisk hi* JMter*. Freud* wu a

great favourite at the Philosophical Institution, and lectured to the members several times. On one of his visits, the directors entertained him to dinner. I remember hearing Freeman, Frouds's great critic and rival, give a lecture in the Kinnaird Hail, Dundee. The lecture was a purely academic one, dealing with some abstruse queston about the Norman Conquest; and it completely failed to interest the audience. Having to* propose a vote of thanks, I found myself in a difficulty, and had to take refuge in some general statementsabout Freeman's valuable contributions to historical literature. Whatever opinions may be held as to the relative merits of Fraide and Freeman as historians, no one that ever heard them address a popular audience could have any doubt as to which of the two was the better lecturer. DEAN STANLEY. Few men in the Victorian era have served the public better than Dean Stanley. He was a great preacher, a fascinating writer, and a charming personality in many ways. He was a trusted friend of the Queen, whom he resembled in his wide charity, and in his anxiety to promote friendly relations among men of very different views and social grades. The Westminster Deanery, in tSe time of Stanley and his accomplished wife, Lady Augusta Stanley, was a social centre of the utmost value, where Churchmen, Dissenters, literary men, scientists, artists, and philanthropists met for pleasant social intercourse. It was in the Deanery that Carlyle had an interview with the Queen at her own request, early in 1869. I have "heard Stanley lecture several times, and always with profit and delighi. I remember particularly four lectures on the "History of the Church of Scotland" he gave to the Philosophical Institution. They were interesting and instructive ; but, as Stanley did not come to Scotland to flatter, but to state what he believed to be the truth, the lectures gave offence in certain quarters. A man of letters himself, Stanley bad a great admiration ior literary ability, and this led him to praise the Moderates, some of whom, such as Dr. Blair and Principals Robertson and Campbell, were eminently gifted writers. To praise the Moderates in Scotland is to offend the Evangelicals. Principal Rainy, a man of great ability, with, perhaps, too ! strong diplomatic leanings, which made him unwilling to endanger his position as leader of the Free Church by supporting Robertson Smith in his desire for a disinterested investigation of theological questions, was asked to answer Stanley's lectures. Rainy's reply to the lectures so thoroughly satisfied his admirers that they presented him with ! a clieque for £500. i How delightful a man Stanley was is ! abundantly proved by published letters, reported recollections, and recent biographies. The incarnation of charity, he doubtless sympathised with Burns's wish for the salvation of the devil; but we need not quarrel with him for this, or for any other, reason. After a busy life, full of beautiful and beneficent activity, he now sleeps beside his wife in the historical Abbey he loved and served so well. PRINCIPAL TULLOCH. Principal TulloCh was, for many years, one of the most familiar figures in Scottish public life. He was a man of exceptionally fine presence, and was one of the handsomest men % l have ever seen. This is an advantage'to anyone, but more especially to a public man, for, as Gibbon baa remarked witsh characteristic cynicism, "beauty of person is an outward gift which, is seldom despised, except by those to whom it Mas been refused." I have often heard Tulloch lecture. He was always interesting, and frequently eloquent and impassioned He was a ■ most accomplished elocutionist; and I never heard any other Scotchman speak English with such a pure English accent. Tulloch had evidently made this a matter of special study. Like Stanley, he was an intimate friend of the Queen; and he often paid visits to Balmoral. After his death, one of his friends in the General Assembly correctly described him in Biblical phrase as "a man to stand before kings." The memory of Principal Tulloch's life and work is chiefly connected with the ancient University of St. Andrews, where he was Principal of St. Mary's College for many years. I have a vivid recollection of attending his funeral late in February, 1886. He was buried at St. Andrews; and the service at the grave was conducted by his friend, Dr. Boyd, who has now also joined the majority. It was a bitterly cold day; and, as the coffin was lowered into the grave, the snow was falling fast, and almost the only sound audible to the mourners was the sullen roar of the German' Ocean. MRS FAWCETT. Mrs Fawcett is the widow of a man whose memory is very dear to the British people, the late Henry Fawcett, who, although he lost his sight by a gun accident in 1858, in virtue of his pluck and indomitable courage had a very successful career. He became one of our chief writers on Political Economy. Professor of Political Economy in the University of Cambridge, an able and independent member of Parliament, an aut-horitv on all Indian auestions. and, probably, the most enterprising and successful Postmaster-General that Britain has ever produced. His widow is by far the most effective woman speaker I have ever listened to. I heard her in the Kinnaird Hall, Dundee, where she appeared as a lecturer under the Armitstead Trust, founded by Mr Armitstead, for many years M.P. foi Dundee, and an intimate friend of 'lie lat* Mr Gladstone. . .The Kinnaird Hall is a large' building: but, although Mrs Fawcett made no special effort to make herself .heard, she spoke with such clear and distinct articulation that she was heard easily all over the hall. Her subject was the position and prospects of women. Her views were eminently sensible, although, possibly, not advanced enough to satisfy the New Zealand National Council of Women. Justin McCarthy. I heard Justin McOrth'v at the Philosophical Institution. He appeared in faultless evening dress: even the white kid gloves were not forgotten. He had no notes, and spoke with perfect ease and fluency— in short, with the fluency that has been granted in so large a measure to his countrymen, and -}»?«? mad« Ireland a preat school of oratory. His subject was "Fielding;" and he discoursed in a very pleasant, gossipy way on -the characteristics of this master of English fiction, telling us incidentally that he had boupht Thackeray's copy of | Fieiddne at the sal* of Thackeray's library in London, and had found, to his delight, that it was richly annotated by Thacfcerav. This reminded mc of Charles I-amb's warmly appreciative remarks on Colerids as vn of borrowed' books, in his essay on "The Two Races of Men." CHARLES DICKE-NS. Although Dickers was not exactly a lecturer, no man of his time appeared oftener on -platforms. He had a wonderfully SUCcessfol career as a public reader; and. in my school days, I had the pleasure of hearing him the last time he visited Edinburgh. Probafolv no eift> is so rare, <»yen a-"KHi.«r cultivated people, as good reading. Be this w it may, Dickens was incomparably the best reader I have ever listened to. When T heard him. he read "Sikes and Nancy" and "A Christmas Carol." During the whole evening, one might have heard a pin fall, the audience was so comoletelv under the j spell of the enchanter. The interest was so absorbing that, at the conclusion, the people quite fereot- to awplaud till after the i reader had vanished from the platform. Then there was loud and long-continued applause ; and Dickens came in. and bowed to the andience. In. writing to Forster and others. Dickens used to criticise his various audiences. He was vm- partial to hi? Edinburgh audiences. Once, in writing to a friend in Boston,-he told hhn that, next to an Edinburgh audience, he preferred a Boston audience, and-that he should consider this a creat compliment, for an Edinburgh audience was perfect. These readings, so successful in every way. have a pathetic interest, for his biographer, Forster, makes it very plain that the great strain involved in their delivery shortened Dickens's life. MATTHEW ARNOLD Few Englishmen can have had a happier boyhood and youth than Matthew Arnold, for he had the'inestimable privilesre of being the son of one of the best men of the century, Dr. Arnold, of Rugby. And hie Letters disclose that lie was also exceptionally fortunate in his mother, and in all the other memb*rs of the home circle. So far as I know, Matfcbaw Arnold did cot lecture until com*,

paratively late in life. I heard him first in Edinburgh, when he gave the lectures on Bishop Butler, now published in the volume entitled "Last Essays on Church and Religion." Matthew Arnold's excursions into j the theological region offended many people, and even cost him some friendships; and it may be conceded at once that, in dealing with purely theological questions, he is not seen at ihis best. I have a more vivid recollection of tlio next lecture I heard him deliver, a good many years later. In the interval, he had visited America, where he delivered the three lectures now published under the .title of "Discourses in America." The second of these lectures, headed "Literature and Science," is the one I heard him deliver in Kinnaird Hall, Dundee. I was introduced to him, before the lecture, as the Professor of English Literature in University College, Dundee ; and in tbe course of conhe said:—"l am going to say a word for you to-night." I said: —"I. wish to thank you for the great pleasure and profit I have derived from your works;" and he replied:—"lt is a great delight to mc to find friends wherever I go." Some people think of Matthew Arnold! as "a superior person;" but I never met aayone that seemed to mc more perfectly natural. We now know also, from his published "Letters," what a self-denying and lovable man Arnold was in domestic life and in the social circle. Mr Russell, the editor of his "Letters," says:—"He was pre-eminently a good man ; gentle, generous, enduring, laborious; a devoted ihai^aand , , a most tender father, an unfailing friend." With regard to Arnold's lecturing, one could see, from several peculiarities, that he was practised lecturer. For one thing, unlike Mrs Fawcett, he was veiy imperfectly heard in some parts of the hall. Th« thesis'he tried to prove was that, for the majority of men, although not for born naturalists, the predominant factor in education should be literature ra-ther than science; but he gave a large meaning to the term "literature," and made it include knowledge of the chief results of science. What he denied was that knowledge of the processes by which the results are reached should form tbe staple of education for the bulk of mankind. The lecture was full of characteristic Arnoldian phrases and utterances, such as "the sense that is in us for conduct," and "the sense that is in us for beauty,' "poetry iB a criticism of life," the aim of culture is "to know the best which has been thought and said in the world," etc. He played, in his usual pleasant bantering fashion, with Darwin's famous proposition that -"our ancestor was a hairy quadruped, furnished with a tail and pointed ears, probably arboreal in his habite." Matthew Arnold is mainly identified in the public mind with his unceasing war against the Philisfcines, a word which, if he did not introduce, it in'a certain eignification from the German, he naturalised as an English word. It ie, therefore, interesting to know what precise meaning he attached to it. In the introduction to his book, "On the Study of Cejtic Literature," he gives the following definition:—"On the side of beauty and taste, vulgarity; on the side of morals and f eeimg, coarseness ; on the side of mind and spirit,, unintelligenee—this is Philistinism." Although Matthew Arnold spent the greater part of his life in what must have been; in the case of such a brilliantly gifted man, the dreary drudgery of. inspecting schools, he.found time to distinguish himself highly in various ways. He was the greatest authority of his time in Britain on education, more especially on English as compared with Continental education; as a poet, he was surpassed among his contemporaries by Tennyson andißrowning alone; in mastery of English prose, he was in the first rank; and, as a literary critic, he was easily .first in an era fertile in literary criticism. Arnold had a wonderful faculty for writing interesting prefaces and introductions to his books. No Victorian writer known to mc has this faculty in anything like the same degree. Ido not know what the experience of other readers is; but I find that, after reading one of Arnold's books, it takes mc several days to get reconciled to the'style of any other writer. Arnold's composition is so easy, sparkling, and brilliant, and so Ml of sallies of wit, that it resembles the best writing of the greatest classics of France. After Arnold, the majority of even our standard prose authors seem to write a somewhat" dull and colourless style. To master Arnold's works is an education in itaself; and no more valuable aid to self-culture can be recommended to the young than a careful study of his chief books, although they need not trouble themselves with.the poetic pantheism to be found in his theological treatises. To see Arnold at his best, as a thinker and prose writer, read "Essays in Criticism" (burst and Second Series), "Mixed Essays," and "Discourses in America." To know and love Arnold as a man, all that it is necessary to do is to read his "Letters."