WRITERS OF TO-DAY.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1061, 30 June 1892, Page 12

WRITERS OF TO-DAY.

No S. MRS HUMPHREY WARD. (Concluded.) There is a marvollous amount of character depicted in the life of Arnold of Rugby. Stop by step wo eoe the formative influence of age and maturity bringing change by change until we view him and know him as he was known to his biographer, Arthur Penrhyn Stanley. In youth he was undecided, indolent, wanting in force of character and application, but feeling that he possessed latent force and ability which would at last develop, and out of which would be evolved power and ability so conspicuously to appear afterwards, aud which was to place him in the front rank of educators, after Arnold b marriage he seems to have realised the importance of living and moving aud being. A combination of circumstances seems to have brought about a change. In the interval which had elapsed between the end of his undergraduate career at Oxford, and his entrance upon life had taken place the great change from boy to manhood, with a corresponding change of character. The loss of his brother by death deeply impressed him. From this time forward such defects as were peculiar to his boyhood and early youth entirely disappeared; the indolent habits—the morbid, restless, and occasional weariness of duty—the indulgence of vague schemes without definite purpose—the intellectual doubts which beset the first opening of his mind to the realities of religious belief, when'he showed at least in part the state of perplexity, which, in his later sermons, be feelingly describes as the severest of earthly trials. There is much of the character of Arnold of Rugby in Mrs Humphrey Ward. There is likewise much of the “-ave ll of Matthew Arnold to bo seen in her. Matthew Arnold was a most unsatisfactory and delusive preacher of new ideas. He reduced, or desired to reduce, the Christian religion

down to the vague generality winch might be termed a spirit of Arnoldtsm. In Ins preface to ‘God and the Bible ho says: ‘ But “Literature and Dogma” had altogether for its object, and so too has the present work, to show tho truth and necessity of Christianity, and its power and charm for the heart, mind, and imagination of man, even though the preternatural, which is now its popular sanction, should have to be given up. To show this was the end for which both books wero written.’ He certainly devoted a vreat deal of space to generalise about the Neo Christianity, and yet left things much as they wero before. Arnold was certainly ail apostle of ideas, and one wishes that he had philosophised less and given us more of lus poetical soul divested of his own gaunt and somewhat spectral intellectuality. Jo a certain extent the mantle of the author or ‘ Literature and Dogma ’ has fallen upon lus niece, and the sooner she discards it the better it will bo for her future work and mission. It is a significant fact that the father of Mrs Ward was deeply moved by the Oxford movement, and so powerfully was he affected that he made a secessiou to the fold ot Roman Catholicism, and after suffering the troubles, the doubts, tho fears, and indulging in tlio vague generalities of one in trouble about his soul, or rather who becomes strongly moved by tho emotional part of tho human anatomy, he went through the fire and emerged, but not satisfied, and again returned to his old walks and renounced the Church of Rome. . The daughter, it would appear, was strongly moved at an earlv age to enquire into questions of faith, and was on terms of friendship with that remarkable man Mark Pattison, who was to her a friend, guide, and teacher, and warned her against the rocks ahead _ Ot course, it is a difficult matter for a mind like Mrs Humphrey Ward’s to become settled. It is ever on the alert, ever in search of more truth. The eyes of the mind ever seek more light, and yet the light cometh not. It is the finite trying to fathom infinity, the created vainly endeavouring to get into too close communion with tho Creator. In the year 1882 appeared a little story called ‘ Milly and Oily.’ It was a maiden effort, and certainly is not worthy of the authoress, looking at her recent triumphs. In tho year 1883 her next book appeared, and this of a more venturesome and elaborate character. ‘ Miss Bretlierton’ was favourably received, but it caused no sensation with the reading world. The book proves the careful study made by the authoress of the histrionic art, and shows the complete grasp she had of dramatic matters. While completing the story of ‘Mis* Bretherton,’ Mrs Ward experienced a most painful malady. She had overwrought herself, and, the nervous system having become debilitated, she suffered from writer’s cramp, and had to seek assistance to do her manuscript work. There is another remarkable example in the person of Mrs J. R. Green, who had to succumb to tho incessant strain made.upon the right hand. She was the faithful and indefatigablo amanuensis ?vho was at all times at the call of her remarkable husband, assisting him with his work. She was forced to wield the pen with the other hand, and is an expert left-handed writer. Mrs Ward regained the use of the right hand. After the completion of ‘ Miss Bretherton ’ she wrote much for the magazines, and we then find her busily engaged with the translation of the Journal Infime of Amiel, from tho French. The work was finished and the publication of the translation proved highly successful, and tho English readers enjojed a literary treat, and had again proved to them what a earefnl and painstaking worker the translator, is. t’he time had now arrived when she girded her loins for a greater effort. In the year 1885 Mrs Ward docided to write a book which would show tho workings of her mind anl for ever establish her as a great English writer. No doubt she launched her bark with some trepidation. In this year ‘ Robert Elsmore ’ was begun, and occupied her over two and a half years before its publication. In February, 1888, the book appeared, and soon proved to be a magnus opus. It lias run through edition after edition, until betweon twenty-five and thirty editions have been called'for, and the Look is still eagerly sought after. The writing of ‘ Robert Elsinore was done with great care and attention, and the mind and heart of the authoress are decidedly palpable throughout the book. It is a. groping in the dark, a search for more light, a secession from orthodoxy, with a desire to find out a via media, and sea the true Christianity and the great I Am divested of what to her is mummery. To worship with righteousness and truth, in accord with the dictates and breathings of the mind aud heart, was her object. It is the search after truth by one of tho factors of humanity. Having propounded her religion, her touching, her ethics, sho is bound to have scores of silly worshippers, and unfortunately the authoress , of 4 Robert Elsmere ’ has encouraged them. I have somewhere read that a man or woman of genius, of great force of character, should not be responsible for the banalities of a see-,, tarian following. It is a pity that Mrs Ward had not strength of rniud to discourage any movement which woald tend to hero worship. So profound an impression did the book make upon the minds of many readers that the stupidity of an Elsmere Hall was mooted, where tho principles and and belief and spiritual promptings of Mrs Ward could be taught. The new brotherhood of Agnosticism in a reformed and bedecked and bedizened shape, was to bring peace and goodwill to men. The new .Christianity would herald a happy state of things, and the virtues of the hero of ‘ Robert Elsmere would be enunciated, and the God-like form would be set up and the faithful believers would bow their necks in adoration. A truce to carping. The book has. had a phenomenal success. It has been said that the favourable roview written by the Rt. Hon. W. E. Gladstone in the Nineteenth Century made the book. In fact, the popularity of the book in all probability induced the G.O.M. to add his meed of praise, and be in accord with the philosophy of giving where already much had been tendered and received. The work needed no puffing —its intrinsic value was apparent. The authoress had made an effort, had worked, and success

crowned the effort and rowarded the labour. The materialist says God helps those who help themselves. So with the result of good honest work—it invariably receives the reward it deserves. It is recorded that an American publishing house of fame refused ‘ Robert Elsmore on account of its prolixity, being of opinion that it had not sufficient merit to interest readers if published. Poor, silly, literary advisor ! This reminds one of what Mrs Kendal relates in her ‘ Opinions,’ where she says : ‘ I may as well coniesi I am not personally a good judge of a play. ... I will tell you aii instance of my gross stupidity, by reason of which I lost my husband and his partner, a very largo sum of mmoy. I had sent to mo . a play. I thought tho idea was splendid, but did'not like the way in which it worked out. ... I returned it to tho author. . . . That play was produced aud made thousands. Let me here blushingly aud with the deepest contrition say that that play was called “ Jim the Penman.”’ , It does not always fall to the lot even ot a careful and studious writer like the author and creator of * Robert Elsmere ’ to gain a ‘double first-class ’in literature. The fame of ‘ Robert Elsmore ’ was resounded in all corners of the English-reading world, and expectation was ripe for the book to follow, seeing Mrs War d was busy weaving another marvellous piece of fiction The work has been finished, and the world has seen ' David Grieve,' and they are now reading this now creation of the authoress. It is the history of a romarkable character, and any of us who know aught of that charming autobiography of the immortal Benjamin Franklin, will at once see how largely Mrs Ward has drawn upon the characteristics of that groat .Amen can to mould and shape and vivify her * David Grieve,’ Mrs Ward has all her life been an omnivorous reader, and the accumulated knowledge she has stored is vast. There is no doubt she is a true typo of tho Arnold family. In fact, in both her famous books there is much autobiography. We can see tho peculiarities of the authoress as we turn over page after page. A woman may convey much of her own life, feelings, thoughts, being to lier readors by means of thj delineation of the character of a man who is a feature in the story. Lot us hope that she will shake off as much as possible the garb of the religious reformer and play the role of a great writer, that she may give instruction and afford pleasure to her readers and admirers, and find a happy solace in the fact that she is one of the illustrious living possessed of great knowledge and with great opportunities, and using her opportunities to the best advantage. J .X.