Lecture 5

Matthew Arnold’s important critical works

I Introduction to Arnold and his works.
II The Preface to the Poems 1853 and discussion on grand
style.
III On Translating Homer 1861
Drawbacks in translation of Homer’s works
The Great defect of English literature
Grand style according to Arnold
IV On the Study of Celtic Literature
V Essays in Criticism: First Series 1865
VI Essays in Criticism: Second Series 1888
Essays on Wordsworth, Shelley, Keats, Gray, Tolstoy,
Amial
VII Culture and Anarchy 1869
Division of society into 3 classes \ Philistinism
VIII Other works of Arnold

I Arnold was a poet turned critic. As a poet, he was a romantic. But as a critic
he was a classicist. In his critical writings he spoke for classism, but in in his
poetry he found himself hopelessly romantic. The Preface to the Poems (1853),
On Translating Homer (1861), On the Study of Celtic Literature (1867) and The
Essays in Criticism in two series published in 1865 and 1888 were Arnold's
major critical works.

II The Preface to the Poems of 1853 is often regarded as the critical manifesto
of Arnold. His later works are only the elaboration and interpretation of what
he has said in the Preface. He emphasizes the importance of the action or
subject in a poem. He recommends study of the ancient classics for all aspiring
poets. To him, subject is more important than treatment. Suitable subject is an
essential ingredient of the grand style.

III On Translating Homer published in 1861: In this work Arnold attempts a

comparative study of the available translations of Homer and offers advice to
future translators. Arnold identifies four main qualities in Homer's time- fluid
rapidity of movement, simplicity, plainness of thought and nobility. He points
out that the translation by William Cooper lacked the rapidity of movement.
Pope’s poems lacked simplicity that Homer’s works had. Elizabethan
fancifulness was used instead of plainness of thought in Chapman’s work.
None of them could do justice to the original work of Homer. The worst
translation was that of Francis William Newman. The diction of the translation
looked absurd and fantastic. Arnold calls this the great defect of English
literature. It is in this context that Arnold defines the grand style. Arnold
declares grand style as one of the features of Greek classics in Preface and On
Translating Homer. Arnold explains that grand style arises in poetry, when a
noble nature poetically gifted treats with simplicity or severity a serious
subject. Arnold saw grand style as the manner of expression which is adapted
perfectly to the matter it conveys but later makes it a general statement and
characteristic of grand style when comparing Milton’s diction with that of
Homer. He considered examples as the best way to convey what grand style
really is through those of Homer, Virgil, Dante and Milton.

IV On the study of Celtic literature (1867) : Here Arnold observes that

English man is a combination of Norman-Germanic and Celtic strains. It was
essential to fully realise and harmonise the virtues of all the strains. He
believed that the English can free themselves from philistinism by depending
more on the Celtic strain of their character- Celtic order and sensibility. Celtic is
the language and culture of Ireland, Scotland and Wales. He also identifies
Celtic heritage in English poetry. The English poetry owes its natural magic to
the Celtic source. Arnold finds in Celtic literature the dominant characteristics
like melancholy and vagueness that he traces in the works of Shakespeare and
Keats.

V Essays in criticism – 1st series 1865

It contained essays like The Function of Criticism at Present Time, The Literary
Influence of the Academies, Pagan and Medieval Religious sentiments and
Espinosa and The Bible. Essays in Criticism was the most celebrated critical
work of Arnold. Most of his literary concerns are addressed in the essays,
written in a remarkable style. The first two essays were revolutionary and
controversial.

In the second essay Arnold talks about the establishment of French Academy,
which was a recognised authority imposing a high standard in matters of
intellect and style. The French had intellectual sensibility and critical spirit
lacked by the English.

VI Essays in criticism- 2ndseries 1888

It contains essays like The Study of Poetry, essays on Milton, Gray, Keats,
Wordsworth, Byron, Shelley, Tolstoy and Amiel. The Study of Poetry is a
classical writing. He puts forward his theory of poetry as criticism of life under
conditions fixed for such criticism by the laws of poetic beauty and poetic
truth. He talks about various ways of estimating poetry. He rejects personal
and historical estimate and accepts the touchstone method as better way of
evaluating poetry. The later part of the essay contains a brief survey of English
poetry from Gray to Burns. Arnold tries to put the romantic poets in a proper
perspective in his essays on them. He definitely appreciates Keats’ natural
magic though he was doubtful about his capacity to make moral interpretation.
His observations on Wordsworth are precise and focused. He wants to read
Wordsworth through a careful selection as his shorter poems are better than
the longer ones. Arnold’s evaluation of Shelley’s poetry however exposes his
prejudices as a critic .He has followed the biographical critical method in most
of his essays.

Arnold was not only a critic of literature but also a critic of society and culture.

VII In Culture and Anarchy, 1869 he pointed out that England was going
through a great deal of political and social unrest. There was political,
intellectual and spiritual anarchy. Culture, the striving after perfection,
personal and general was necessary to safe England. To Arnold culture
involved doing well. It was connected with the moral regeneration of society.
In this context he divided English society into three classes: aristocrats, middle
class and lower-class or populous. The aristocrats were the barbarians, middle
classes were the philistines and lower class were the populous. The aristocrats
were known for their prejudices, philistines were known for their having
falsified ideas and money mindedness, populous were noted for their blind
impulses. Arnold wants a combination of intellectual and moral impulses to
ensure the cultural revival of England. In Culture and Anarchy he criticises this
Magnus philistinism and materialism of English at his time. He understood that
it was essential to ensure the improvement of the philistines for the general
progress of the country. The philistines have to be humanised and educated to
save the English society as a whole.

VIII He also wrote extensively on religious and theological subjects.

Literature and Dogma 1873, God and The Bible 1875, Essays on Church and
Religion 1877 are in depth studies on religion.
Lecture 6
Arnold as a literary critic
I Arnold as a critic
{Arnold’s definition of criticism}
II Touchstone method
III Objectivity and beliefs in Arnold’s criticism
{Arnold’s definition of poetry}
Ideas on criticism of life
IV Touchstone method again
{Arnold’s explanation of Touchstone method}
V Arnold as a critic again
VI T S Eliot’s views on Arnold and drawbacks of Arnold’s
criticism and practice
{Similarities in T S Eliot’s and Arnold’s ideas}
[Drawbacks of Arnold’s criticism Look at last lecture too]

I He was one of the greatest Victorian critic. Even T S Eliot who is highly
critical of him accepts his academic literary opinions which formed the
foundation of English literary and critical sensibility. Arnold was the spokesman
of Victorian poetic taste. He introduced English critics and writers to
cosmopolitan ideas. He also popularised the classical ideals in literary criticism.
He was the first English critic who emphasised the dignity of critical thinking.
Though he considers criticism as a lower activity than creative writing he
definitely acknowledges its significance. {He was the first to define criticism
properly as “disinterested endeavour to learn and propagate the best that is
known and taught in the world and to create a current of true and fresh
ideas”}. Arnold says, criticism is also a creative activity. It provides ideas to the
creative writer. Arnold tried to broaden the outlook of the English reader
through his works. He revitalised criticism after the exit of Coleridge and
Hazlitt. He declared that the English were not critically minded. He never
tolerated parochialism or narrow-mindedness in criticism. Throughout his
critical works, Arnold stressed the importance of ideals and values which were
totally absent in the English poetry of his time. He attacks the self complacency
of his generations. His ideals might be borrowed from the continent from
France and elsewhere but he introduced them to his countrymen in an
extremely original way.

II Arnold was the first English critic to insist on the comparative method of
evaluating literature. In fact the touchstone method he suggested in the Study
of Poetry is a comparative approach. He observes that it is necessary to view
“Europe as one great confederation bound to a joint action and work into a
common result with its members having for their proper outfit, knowledge of
Greek, Roman and eastern antiquity and one another.” The critic must know
the best not only in his own language but in other languages too.

III Arnold laid a great emphasis on the objectivity of criticism. But it is

debateable whether he followed the theory in his own practise. He believed
that critics should be disinterested and should see the object as it really is.
{Arnold defined poetry as criticism of life under conditions fixed for such
criticism by the laws of poetic beauty and poetic truth.} He gave utmost
importance to subject. The poets should interpret life in a comprehensive way
and should also answer the question on how to live? The criticism of life should
be governed by laws governing subject matter and expression. The choice of
serious subject and its imaginative treatment are equally important. Arnold’s
concept of the grand style may not be original but he tries to redefine and
reinterpret the concept of the grand style to invigorate and revitalise English
poetry.

IV In Study of Poetry, Arnold discusses different ways of estimating poetry.

He dismisses personal and historical estimate as fallacious /wrong approaches

and recommends touchstone method as the real estimate. {He feels that
reader should have always in his mind and he tries to explain touchstone
-“lines and expressions of the great masters of poetry and that these lines
should be applied as touchstones to estimate poetry.” He illustrates the point
by giving short passages from Homer, Dante, Shakespeare and Milton as
touchstones.}

V As a critic Arnold was an exponent of classicism. He loved classical virtues

like lucidity, proportion, order and restraints and thought that romanticism
was overdone. Though by instinct a romantic he lead a conscious revolt against
the over sentimentalism and whimsicality of romanticism. Anti romantic ideals
helped him to put in perspective the romantic poets. In fact he makes an
eloquent plea for classicism.

VI Arnold perfected the biographical critical method in essays in criticism.

But often he has unjustly used a poet's biography to attack the poet's poetry or
denigrate poetry as in the case of P B Shelley. T S Eliot's views on Arnold have
never been flattering. In a tone of ridicule, he attacks Arnold's critical tenants

and even chooses to call him a mere propagandist of literature. {But there are
striking similarities in the theory and practice of the two great critics. T S Eliot's
idea of the living tradition which he calls 'simultaneous order' is based on
Arnold’s similar renouncement. Both critics believed that a current of living
ideas is it necessary to literature. TS Eliot presumed that the whole of the
literature of Europe, from Homer and within it the whole of the literature of
his own country is of importance to the writer. Arnold looked upon the whole
of Europe as a confederation bound to a joint action and working towards a
common result. These are in fact the shared thoughts. T S Eliot's critical
methods based on objectivity and classical ideals have close affinity to Arnold’s
critical approaches. Both of them pay equal attention to critical thinking which
is integral to great poetry. They believed that poet's with critical insights can

make lasting contribution to poetry. LOOK AT LAST LECTURE} [Arnold's

criticism is not without shortcomings. The quality of disinterestedness which
he admires as essential to criticism is often lacking in his own works. In fact
there is no coherent theory of poetry in Arnold's critical writings. He is often
dominated by personal likes and dislikes though he claims to be an impartial
critic. His dislike of historical criticism is unjustified. It is also alleged that there
is not much profundity in his writings. His arguments are not always logical and
systematic. Sometimes his criticism shows intellectual snobbery. His writings

are also characterized by arbitrariness and inexactness.]However his outlook is

honest, frank and penetrating. His observations are acute, sensitive, inspired
and inspiring. He was arguably one of the greatest English critics.
Lecture 7
Critical summary of function of Criticism
I Function of Criticism at Present Time, 1865
Reaction of critics like Eliot, Frye and Eagleton to this
work of Arnold
II Arnold’s ideas and views on literature and function of
criticism
Importance of ideas in literature
Function of criticism in poetry and function of critic in general
Creative writing and comparing it with poems of
Shakespeare, Pindar and Goethe
III Weakness of Romantic poetry and its reasons
{The real business of criticism\ Arnold’s definition of
criticism}
Criticism, curiosity and complacency meaning
[Curiosity]
Why criticism failed in England
Similarity in Eliot’s and Arnold’s ideas
Arnold’s views on criticism
Drawbacks Frye, Eliot, Eagleton found in Arnold’s criticism
Nature of real critic or how he should be
Criticism one should follow
Critic according to Eliot, Frye and Eagleton.

I Arnold’s Function of Criticism at the Present Time is the opening essay in

Essays in Criticism first series published in 1865. The essay had special
significance as it aimed at civilizing the society and putting an end to cultural
anarchy that Arnold found around him. Like T S Eliot and F R Leavis, Arnold was
deeply concerned about the relationship between culture and society. The
main thrust of the essay is however the function of criticism and its role in
shaping the contours of the culture in general and literature in particular. In
this connection we are reminded of the sequence of essays by critics T S Eliot,
Northrop Frye (Canadian critic), Terry Eagleton, a contemporary British literary
theorist on the subject. All of them wrote essays titled function of Criticism – T
S Eliot in 1923, Frye in 1949 and Eagleton in 1984 as their definitions on the
function of Criticism, their critical responses to Arnold’s essay on the subject.
At the very outset Arnold admits that criticism is lower in rank than creative
writing but he assigns a great role and responsibility to criticism and puts it in
the right perspective. He argues that the exercise of creative faculty in the
production of great works of art and literature is not possible in all epochs and
all times. The creative artist needs certain materials, elements or ideas to work
on.

II In the case of literature writer cannot create anything without ideas. He is

inspired by the prevailing intellectual and spiritual atmosphere that provides
him with a current of true and fresh ideas. Arnold believes that it is the
function of criticism to create such an atmosphere. A great work of literature is
the product of two powers: the power of the man and the power of the
moment. The man is not enough without the moment. The critics should see
the object as it really is by acquiring a wide knowledge not merely of literature
but also of other subjects. He can create the intellectual environment in which
creative activity is possible. New ideas generated by criticism lead to a growth
which in turn prepare the ground for creativity. The poet has to know the
world and all about human life before he deals with them in his poetry. It is
possible for poets to acquire this knowledge from books but it is better to
imbibe it from the current of the best ideas. There was such a burst of activity
in the England of Shakespeare and Greece of Pindar. In those ages the society
was saturated with fresh ideas, in the absence of such an invigorating
atmosphere the presence of a body of people cultured and enlightened can
create congenial atmosphere for creative activity. Goethe, the German poet’s
poetry gained a lot from such a stimulating atmosphere that prevailed in
Germany of his time. But creative writing has no option but to depend on
criticism if such ideal conditions are not available.

III The weakness of romanticism, romantic poetry in particular is attributed

to the non availability of solid critical works in the early 19th century. The
poets were forced to work without sound knowledge of life and the world.

Criticism can serve creative writers if it performs its real business. {The real
business of criticism according to Arnold is the 'disinterested endeavour to
learn and propagate the best that is known and thought in the world, and thus

to establish a current of fresh and true ideas'.} In this way criticism can bring in
and intellectual and spiritual atmosphere suitable to creativity. Criticism is the

exercise of curiosity. [Curiosity is the intense desire to know the best in the
world. It should be disinterested and impartial by remaining detached from

practical and political considerations]. In England, practical considerations

prevented criticism from performing its proper function. Criticism can cure
men of complacency or a feeling of smug or uncritical satisfaction with oneself
or one's achievements and self satisfaction. Complacency can be vulgarising
and retarding. In England, criticism failed to fulfil its spiritual responsibility.
Arnold posits that criticism is to be directed not only upon works of art but
upon life in general. It has to promote dispassionate appraisal which alone is
useful to society. A critic may be easily misunderstood. It is particularly so in
England, where practice is everything and free play of the mind nothing. But
the critic is advised to perceive his course with sincerity and without any
vacillation/wavering. He has to be cautious about making false estimates. His
aim should be ideal perfection. He cannot lose sight of ideal perfection and
must be perpetually in dissatisfied with words which fall short of it. Literary
criticism is the exercise of disinterested curiosity. Judging is often spoken of as
the critic’s only business but judgement is valuable only if it is formed almost
insensibly in a fair and clear mind along with fresh knowledge. Even when the
critic is compelled to make deliberate judgement without being inspired by
fresh ideas he has to ensure that his judgement is not abstract. He is expected
to retain an intimate and lively consciousness of truth. The English critic would
need to dwell much on foreign literature in his search for the best that is
known and taught in the world. He must be familiar with at least one literature
besides his own. Arnold recommends a form of criticism which regards Europe
as one great confederation. For intellectual and spiritual purposes the
members of the confederation should be bound by a joint action. They should
endeavour for the same result. It is essential that they are well versed in
Greek, Rome and Eastern antiquity besides they should know each other. This
is the Cosmopolitan view of literature that Arnold borrowed from Goethe. T S
Eliot’s concepts of ‘simultaneous order’ or 'living tradition' can be traced to
Arnold's views. Arnold concludes saying that criticism can be creative. A critic
who is well equipped and goes about performing his duties perfectly will get
the happiness that belongs normally to the creative artist. Criticism should be
sincere, simple, flexible and ardent and ever widening in the knowledge it
offers. In Arnold's view criticism turns out to be a furtive and secondary activity
though he presents the idea in grand language. It is often considered as a kind
of eavesdropping that knows what other people know and think. Eliot
complaints that Arnold overlooks the capital importance of Criticism in the
creative work itself. To Frye, critic is not a fact gatherer but a pioneer of
education and shaper of cultural tradition. Eagleton famously remarked that
Arnold's myth of disinterestedness represents withdrawal of criticism from
public sphere, its voluntary demise as a social force. Total withdrawal of
criticism to universities or its academisation gave it an institutional basis and
professional structure but it signalled it final distancing from public drum.
However the function of Criticism at the Present Time remains a significant
critical document. Arnold has accorded a high position to criticism. He is a
Great critic of his age and he recommends criticism as a panacea or remedy for
some of the strange diseases of his time.