Victorian criticism: Matthew Arnold (1822-1888)

NET JUNE-2007: What is the diff between historical estimate and the personal estimate? Which way out does Arnold suggest?

Dec-2008: Arnold’s touchstone method of criticism

Important works in Criticism: Preface to poems, 1853, Essays in Criticism (2 very imp essays are The Function of criticism at the Present Time in the first series and The Study of Poetry in the second series), Culture and Anarchy

Main ideas/synopsis of The Function of criticism at the Present Time

Arnold’s idea of Criticism and its function

While criticism may be considered lower in rank to creation, the creation of great works of art is not always equally possible. The elements with which the creative power works are ideas, but the best and noble ideas may not be always current. That is why creative epochs in literature are so rare. For great creation, the power of the man and the power of the moment  must concur, but the power of the moment may not be always available. Even the tremendous natural power of the romantics was partially crippled by the lack of intellectual life in the English society of the nineteenth century. It makes Byron empty of matter, Shelley incoherent and even Wordsworth wanting in completeness and variety. This is where criticism comes to play. 1) Criticism has the power to make the best ideas prevail. It is the business of criticism to know the best that is known and thought in the world and in its turn making this known to create a current of true and fresh ideas. It creates stir and growth which makes creation possible. That is why great creative epochs are preceded by great epochs of criticism. 2) In order to be successful, criticism must exercise curiosity, which is a desire to know the best, and which should not be taken as a term of disparagement.3) Criticism must also be disinterested. It must keep aloof from the ‘practical view of things’. The critic must try to view an object with detachment to see it ‘as it really is’, without being stifled by practical/political considerations. Arnold is of the view that a critic’s judgment should never be swayed by the prejudices of the Barbarian, the Populace and the Philistines. A critic must shun provincialism, which may take the forms of excess, ignorance or bathos, and must endeavour to be ‘in contact with the main stream of human life’. In short, the critic must be disinterested in the sense that he should pursue only the ends of cultural perfection and should remain uninfluenced by the coarser appeals of the Philistine. A critic who is disinterested and who tries to see the thing as it really is in itself, is likely to be misunderstood, because in England ‘practice is everything, a free play of the mind is nothing’.

4) Next, it is the function of criticism to keep men away from self satisfaction which is retarding and vulgarizing. By shaking men out of their complacency, he makes their minds dwell on upon what is excellent in itself, the absolute beauty and fitness of things. But in England, criticism is not fulfilling this spiritual function because it has grown too controversial.

5) Judging is often spoken as the critic’s main business, but such judging has to be in a clear and fair mind, along with knowledge. Knowledge therefore should be the critic’s concern. So, in his search for the best that is known and thought in the world, the critic has to study literatures other than his own. He should have knowledge of Greek, Roman and eastern antiquity.

6) False standards of judgment-personal and historical must be avoided. The question that now arises is how is the critic to discover what is best and noble. Arnold says that the critic must possess tact which is the unfailing guide to the excellent. And next, he should free himself from false standards of judgment, namely the personal and historical standards. By personal standard, Arnold means the critic’s own likes and dislikes intruding in his judgment of literature. A real estimate of poetry rises above personal predilections and prejudices. Personal estimates result in the hysterical, eruptive and the aggressive manner in literature. The historic estimate is equally fallacious and misleading. By regarding a poet’s work as a stage in the course of the development of a nation’s language, thought and poetry, we may end up overrating a poet, and fail to see the value of his poetry ‘as it is in itself’.

7) The Right Method or the Touchstone Method: In order to guide the critic in his performance of his task, Arnold prescribes his well known ‘Touchstone method’. He says that a real estimate can be attained by learning to feel and enjoy the best work of a real classic and appreciate the wide difference between it and other lesser works. He further adds that high qualities lie both in the matter and substance, and in the manner and style of poetry. The Matter and substance will possess ‘truth and seriousness’, and this character is ‘inseparable from the superiority of diction and movement’ in style and manner. Arnold then suggest that it would do critics good if they always have in their minds lines and expressions of the great masters and apply them as touchstone to other poetry. This will help critics detect the presence or absence of high poetic quality, and also the degree of this quality. He then takes a few passages from Homer, Dante, Shakespeare and Milton, and points out that they belong to the class of the truly excellent.

Arnold’s views on Poetry in his the Study of Poetry

Stress on Action: He begins his ‘Preface to Poems’ 1853, by saying that he dropped his poem Empedocles on Etna from the new collection, because it had very little action. The hero suffered and brooded over his suffering and committed suicide. Mere subjectivity, the inner gloom or melancholy of the poet to the neglect of action, can never result in true poetry. Poetry of the highest order requires suitable action an action sufficiently serious and weighty. Poetry is dedicated to joy and this joy results from the magnificence of its action (reminds of Aristotle’s stress on action as the soul of tragedy)

Subject of Poetry: Only those should be taken as subjects of poetry which can impart the highest pleasure. Arnold points out that it is not necessary for modern poets to choose modern subjects as in the modern age there is too much of philistinism and vulgarization of values. The poets should choose ancient subjects, those which were chosen by Homer and the other Greek Masters .In short, poets should choose actions that please always and please all. Actions that are of this nature ‘most powerfully appeal to those elementary feelings which are independent of time’ and hence are the fittest subjects for poetry. It is immaterial whether such subjects are ancient or modern so long as they fulfill this principle. But an age wanting in moral grandeur, says Arnold with reference to his age, can hardly supply such subjects, and so the poets must turn to ancient themes.

Manner and Style: Highest poetry and highest poetic pleasure result from the whole and not from separate parts, from the harmony of matter and manner and not from manner alone. No unworthy subject can be made delightful by an excellent treatment. Arnold says that with the Greeks the action was the first consideration, with us, attention is fixed mainly on the value of individual thoughts and images. They regarded the whole, we regard the parts. Greeks were also the highest model of expression, the masters of the grand style. That was because they kept the expression simple and subordinated to the action, and because they expression drew its force directly from the action.

The Ancients as safe models: Acc to Arnold, the ancients are the perfect guides or models to be followed by the poets. Shakespeare is not a safe guide, for although he has excellence of subject, he is unable to say a thing plainly even when the action demands direct expression. From the ancients, the poet will learn how superior is the effect of one moral impression left by a great action treated as a whole to the effect produced by the most striking single thought.

The Grand style: Arnold says that the ancients were the masters of the ‘grand style’. The grand style arises in poetry when ‘a noble nature, poetically gifted treats with simplicity or severity, a serious subject’. So, for the grand style, there must be 1) nobility of soul 2) subject or action chosen must be serious enough 3) the treatment should be severe or simple. Homer, Dante and Milton were masters of it, but most English poets lacked it. Modern poets like Keats do not have the shaping power, they have short passages of excellence but not the beauty of the whole. In Arnold’s view, only poetry modeled on the Ancients can serve as an antidote to philistinism .Arnold’s theory of poetry is to be understood as a counterblast to romantic individualism, subjectivity, and contempt of authority.

Function/definition of poetry: Arnold is confident that poetry has a great future. It is in poetry that our race will find an ever surer stay. Poetry acc to Arnold, is capable of higher uses, interpreting life for us, consoling us, and sustaining us, that is, poetry will replace religion and philosophy.

Arnold further declares that ‘poetry is a criticism of life under conditions fixed for such a criticism by laws of poetic truth and poetic beauty, the spirit of our age will find…as time goes on, and other helps fail, its consolation and stay.’Poetry as a criticism of life: Arnold explains criticism of life as the application of noble and profound ideas to life, and ‘laws of poetic truth and beauty’ as ‘truth and seriousness of matter’ and ‘felicity and perfection of diction and manner’ Arnold believes that poetry does not represent life as it is, rather the poet adds something to it from his own noble nature and this contributes to his criticism of life. Poetry makes men moral, better and nobler, not by direct teaching but by appealing to the soul, to the whole of man.