Part 15 (1/2)

In 1848 the son of the Shah, who had, through the a.s.sistance of Britain and Russia, obtained the throne, came into office, and he resolved to put forward claims to Afghanistan and Beluchistan. When the ruler of Herat agreed that the Shah had claims, the English Government made the Shah sign an agreement in 1853 that he would give up pressing his claims as regarded Herat. But in 1856 the Persians retook this city, because they declared that the Ameer of Kabul was planning an advance on Herat. Thereupon a British army, commanded by General Outram and Havelock, was sent to Persia, and defeat after defeat for the Persians followed their arrival, and in July, 1857, they were compelled to give up Herat. Since then Persia has not ventured to lay her hand on the ”key to India.”

”7 P.V.E., London, ”_19th Dec._, 1856.

”Dr. Barth, the African traveller, has been re-seducing (me) into the Lingua Amazighana, which I had forsworn. I am not sure that something will not come of it--to me at least. I have already built a castle in the air, that sometime hereafter I shall become 'Professor of Libyan' to U.C.

”How dreadful is it that we should be able to get into a war with Persia, proclaimed _at Bombay_ on November 1st, and n.o.body here knows why it is or what it seeks after; and the country's honour is committed while Parliament is not even sitting. And for this we throw up Italy and ...

Switzerland? Have you seen Cobden's recent letters on Maritime War? I rejoice much in them, and think adversity has improved his tone. With hearty regards to Mrs. N. and all,

”I am, ever yours,

”F. W. N.”

The letters at which we have now arrived are those written during 1857.

The first is dated March, and I quote some pa.s.sages from it to show the Professor's own views as regards evening home preparation for boys who are working at school during the day, because it seems to me that his opinion in this matter should carry weight:--

”I much dislike a boy having _both_ his work at school and _then_ evening work at home, when he is getting sleepy and ought to have relaxation. It is the nuisance of day schools, and quite hurtful to study, if there is n.o.body at home to answer questions. Besides, Harry” (this is Harry Nicholson, mentioned two or three times in these letters as attending University College School) ”is so studious of himself that it is very much to be desired that he should have time for _voluntary_ work. I regard this as having been very beneficial to _me_ at school, where I never had work enough set me to fill up half my time.”

The letter which follows is dated April, and in it we find that ”Harry”

had just returned home, and that his report had testified to his diligence and progress. At the end of the letter comes this little touch as to some of the schoolboy belongings which had been left behind in Professor Newman's house. ”Harry has left divers snail-sh.e.l.ls fastened on pasteboard. Perhaps he did not know how to carry them safely.”

On 6th May mention of the owner of the snail-sh.e.l.ls recurs again:--

”Mrs. Newman was rather disappointed at the unceremoniousness of my parting with Harry. It seems like a dream his vanis.h.i.+ng. I suppose she is like Hecuba, grieved that she could not make the funeral of Hector. (I did not even kiss Harry _by proxy_ for her!) Most gladly does she give him up to Mrs. Nicholson; and yet, I fancy, she wanted a funeral ceremony on losing him.”

Throughout these letters belonging to the year 1857, there is no special mention of the Indian Mutiny. Yet it is impossible to doubt that it occupied a great place in Newman's thoughts. No one who has written on India and our relations with her as he has done, could have failed to have written his own strong views on the lamentable mismanagement which led to the Mutiny. But most probably the letters concerning it were either not kept by Dr. Nicholson, or else Newman asked for them back, as in so many cases he was accustomed to do with regard to his own letters towards the close of his life. He had a theory that letters should not be kept, and many people have told me that he asked for his letters back in order to destroy them. Happily, however, this is _not_ the theory which everyone holds. Indeed, to many of us, the Past lies so near the written word, that _almost_ it re-awakens between the folds of a letter; indeed, in many instances, the Past and Present only meet across it. In this sense it is the only thing that holds up the picture of the past before our tired eyes. _Litera scripta manet_ is a living truth. The next letter from Newman to Nicholson was written on 20th June, 1857. On 8th June of this year died Douglas Jerrold, dramatist, satirist, and author. Mr. Walter Jerrold tells us that, in 1852, he had accepted the editors.h.i.+p of _Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper_. It was said of this that he ”found it in the street and annexed it to literature.”

His fortune as a writer began when he was only sixteen. His capacity for work and his perseverance in working were enormous. In 1825 he wrote great numbers of plays and farces; but beside all these, he contributed, as is well known, to _Punch_ (at its first commencement in 1841), as well as to hosts of magazines and political tracts, etc. Newman alludes to Jerrold being in receipt of 2000 a year from _Lloyd's Weekly News_.

I pa.s.s over the discussion as regards the Newmans' proposed visit to the Lakes, and also his expressed delight in a book, many copies of which he had just given away--_Intuitive Morals and Religious Duty_.

”In truth, dear friend, I get happier and happier, and only am pent up and mourn to feel how I live for self alone. I sometimes think with a sort of envy how your knowledge of medicine and tender heart for young children puts you into near and kind contact with the poor. However, we have each his own talent, if only one can find the mode of wisely disposing it.

”I am sorry to see that Douglas Jerrold has not left sixpence to his family, though he was in receipt of 2000 a year (they say!) from _Lloyd's Weekly News_.”

In November another letter alludes to his Latin translations. He says he has been gradually inclining to the belief that Terence, Virgil, and Horace had ”damaged” the Latin language in very much the same way as Pope did the English, as regards arbitrary style and method of writing cadences.

It is universally conceded that Horace was not a great thinker. As one of our modern English critics has said: ”His philosophy is that of the market-place rather than of the schools; he does not move among high ideals or subtle emotions.... He carried on and perfected the native Roman growth, satire, so as to make Roman life from day to day, in city and country, live anew under his pen.... Before Horace, Latin lyric poetry is represented almost wholly by the brilliant but technically immature poems of Catullus; after him it ceases to exist.”

As regards Pope, the critics of the end of the eighteenth century considered his style eminently artificial and forced. But to-day, according to Father Gasquet, we cannot but recognize his services to English poetry as invaluable. ”He was virtually the inventor and artificer who added a new instrument of music to its majestic orchestra, a new weapon of expression to its n.o.ble armoury.... But one must admit that to the taste of the present age there occurs a certain coldness and artificiality in his portrayals alike of the face of nature and of the pa.s.sions of man. He appeals rather to the brain than to the heart. Ideas and not emotions are his province.... To the metric presentment of ideas he imparts a charm of musical utterance unachieved before his time.”

”_30th Nov._, 1857.

”My dear Nicholson,