Matthew Arnold The Study of Poetry PDF

Preview

Summary

Arnold is regarded as one of the nineteenth century's finest critics. He analysed and commented extensively on cultural and social concerns, religion, and education in his writings. He was the first critic to raise concerns about modern industrial society. He was a humanist who believed that man was...

Description

Matthew Arnold: “The Study of Poetry”

Introduction Arnold is regarded as one of the nineteenth century's finest critics. He analysed and commented extensively on cultural and social concerns, religion, and education in his writings. He was the first critic to raise concerns about modern industrial society. He was a humanist who believed that man was destined to a mechanistic existence with a broken spiritual and moral sensitivity in industrial society. He chastised the nineteenth-century bourgeoisie's limited business concerns and their fixation with utilitarianism and reason. He was opposed to the era's rising scientific temper and positivism. Arnold's primary interest was the issue of living meaningful lives in an industrial world. He makes an endeavour in his critique to move away from the exteriority of bourgeois existence and toward an interiority of the self. In this vein, criticism, culture, and poetry are transformed into means of interiority in order to negate the exteriority of bourgeois existence. It should be highlighted that this article is not intended for professional men of letters, but rather for the average middle-class reader interested in poetry. Conflict between Science and Religion "The Study of Poetry," published as T. H. Ward's General Introduction to The English Poets, is one of the most prominent works of literary humanism. This article comprises many of his most well-known declarations regarding poetry and poets. It is mostly a judgement and assessment essay. It emphasises literature's social and cultural roles, its capacity to civilise and foster morality, as well as its role in creating a bulwark against modern civilization's mechanical excesses. Arnold asserts in the article that poetry is superior than science, religion, theology, and philosophy. He asserts that Charlatanism pervades the realms of science, religion, philosophy, and politics. These ideologies purposefully obscure facts and create a false dichotomy between what is true and desirable and what is false and destructive. Religion has been unable to address basic issues confronting man since its standing has been threatened by science, which wrongly claims to be the new arbiter of knowledge. Furthermore, as he notes in the article, religion ascribes significance to things that have been demonstrated to be erroneous and untrue. In contrast to this, poetry derives its meaning on flawless ideas. Philosophy is incapable of delivering moral and spiritual nourishment to man since it is itself beset by entrenched and unsolved issues and concerns. In light of this, the critic asserts that only poetry is capable of providing spiritual and emotional consolation to man. Additionally, he believes that poetry is the only legitimate technique of comprehending life. To connect with poetry effectively, it is critical for the reader to examine the poetic object objectively, avoiding historical and personal fallacies. Arnold challenges the reader to embrace his critical taste and judgement by rejecting an abstract system and emphasising his touchstone technique. His premise is that rational individuals, in the absence of ultimate criteria, may agree on the level of a poet's creativity as well as his 'critique of

life.' To his credit, Arnold's surviving notebooks, which are densely packed with brief citations from the classics, indicate that he really used the strategy he advised. Arnold is concerned in this article with classifying English poets and determining which ones should be singled out as genuinely classic. Several of his remarks in this attempt were contentious at the time they were made. These are proving to be particularly contentious in today's age of changing canons. The Importance of Poetry or Poetry as a Spiritual Force The critic informs his readers that if poetry is to play such a significant part in men's lives, it must be of a "higher order of excellence." This means that poetry should not only adhere to a higher standard, but also be evaluated using more rigorous criteria than any other subject of study. Thus, the distinctions between 'good and inferior,"sound and unsound,' and genuine and false' take on greater significance in the case of poetry, given its "higher destiny." According to Arnold, it is vital to hold poetry to such high standards since it will prove to be the sole source of succour and calm for man in an increasingly automated world. Only poetry offers a critique of life; nevertheless, the worth and credibility of such a critique are directly proportional to the poem's commitment to the principles of truth and beauty. Arnold's humanism suggested that he endowed poetry with the ability to sustain and pleasure man in the bleak limitations of contemporary living. This is why he was adamant about creating "the best" poetry. He goes on to explain that because poetry nourishes man through times of adversity, he should be highly cautious and conscientious about what he reads. Reading is not a solitary activity, but rather a collective one. Because reading poetry has an effect on the mind and soul, Arnold advises that the reader be continually aware of what he is reading and make an assessment as to whether it is beneficial to him or not. He is adamant that every act of reading poetry should impart an appreciation for the sublime and a sense of delight. If one experiences these emotions when reading a poem, it is a real indication of the text's quality. He continues by arguing that it is only via a close study of poetry that we can determine the level of poets and categorise them as good or terrible. After this, the reader may decide whether to accept or reject the artist and this work. According to him, studying poetry is an exercise that requires persistent scrutiny: the reader should be able to discern when a poem falls short of the mark in terms of language or meaning and assign it the appropriate rating. Only once the reader has accomplished this will he be able to recognise and appreciate good poetry. Thus, "negative criticism" is critical in the study of poetry in order to recognise and enjoy good writing. Indeed, he emphasises that simple knowledge of the artist's efforts in making the work, or information about its flaws, or knowledge of the poet's personal data are pointless if they do not contribute to the reader's satisfaction while interacting with the poem. Another disadvantage of historical fallacy is that the learner becomes so fixated on historical facts that he loses sight of the text itself. Arnold acknowledges, however, that it is quite simple to become carried away by the historical reputations of poets and works, as well as by personal affinities and preferences, while reading poetry. He refers to these two diversionary strategies as the historical and personal fallacies, respectively. Historical fallacies arise when the reader is carried away by the artist's renown or

the poem's or poet's historical significance in the development of a nation's literature, or a genre or style of poetry. Individuals' artistic progress is marked by poems. Surprisingly, this is more prevalent among classical poets. Thus, it is likely and conceivable that reviewers and readers accord greater weight to works than they truly merit. In the case of historical fallacy, these exaggerations are irrelevant because they have little effect on the broader audience. Furthermore, these exaggerations are made by literary men whose judgements and words may lose their significance and validity if they continue to shower excessive praise on manifestly inferior works and performers. A disadvantage of historical fallacy is that it elevates erroneous models to the status of ideals that must be emulated and followed. Due to the excessive prominence accorded to these poets and their work, it appears as though isolating the artist and his creation from their immediate social context causes no harm to either the text or the artist. Arnold cites Chanson de Roland, a 12th-century romance, as an example of historical error. While he acknowledges the work's vitality and freshness, he believes it is largely a linguistic triumph, charting the romance's growth and evolution. It is deficient in simplicity and magnificence, two characteristics of excellent poetry. As a result, Arnold asserts that reviewer M. Vitet is mistaken in labelling it an epic. Additionally, he cites the French infatuation with seventeenth-century court poetry as an example of historical error. Pellison has previously discredited any claims to brilliance made by this poem by highlighting its lack of poetic vigour. Nonetheless, they are rigorously studied by students of French literary history as models of flawless classical poetry. This meticulous research and philological background should ideally aid in the enjoyment of the poem; instead, the student becomes so engrossed in the minutiae he has accumulated that he becomes sidetracked from truly appreciating the finest works of poetry. Ironically, philological research increases the likelihood of exaggerating the worth of an artistic work. Historica / Personal Fallacy Personal fallacy is founded on an erroneous personal assessment of a poet or his work, which is motivated by personal preference or situation. Personal fallacy is more prevalent among current or modern poets. Arnold proposed the touchstone technique as a way to avoid historical and personal inconsistencies. It is difficult to describe what constitutes great poetry; but, excellent poetry is easy to recognise. Thus, rather of referring to a critic who would then provide abstract concepts about what constitutes 'excellent' poetry, he said that it would be more beneficial if the reader kept in mind specific lines and expressions by the English language's best poets when reading poetry. Then he just had to compare the poetry he was reading to these references and decide for himself how valuable they were. This strategy works because the reader immediately recognises when he is in the presence of excellent writing since it elicits a strong response from him. Arnold maintained that it made no difference whether the lines used as a touchstone and the poetry read were of the same sort or genre. According to him, selected lines from poets such as Shakespeare, Milton, Dante, and Homer would serve as a yardstick for judging not just the kind of literary excellence, but also its degree. Poetic merit is determined by the subject and content of the poem,

as well as the way and style with which this subject is expressed. As a result, a high degree of substance and matter can only be transmitted in a suitably high degree of style and manner. Thus, the two are inextricably linked. Arnold drew on Aristotle's comparison of poetry and history, in which the ancient critic concluded that poetry was superior in terms of both truth and seriousness; Arnold hypothesised that the poem's high degree of matter and substance existed because it possessed a high degree of truth and seriousness. Likewise, a poem's manner and style were determined by its style, diction, and movement. The Touchstone Method Arnold demonstrates this idea by contrasting 12th- and 13th-century French poetry with Chaucer's work. The 12th and 13th centuries saw undeniable French predominance over the European languages and literature. French poetry at this period was written in the language d'oil and langue d'oc dialects. The first is northern French poetry; the latter is current French. The latter is the dialect spoken by southern France's troubadours. This language shaped Italian literature, the continent's first literature. However, the majority of important French poetry from the 12th and 13th centuries was written in langue d'oil. While English love poetry originated in the 12th century, it was profoundly impacted by love poetry written in langue d'oil. Throughout the majority of the Middle Ages, it was the latter that ruled Europe; accordingly, it is not widely read now. Chaucer's entrance in the 14th century reversed the trend. He absolutely eclipsed French poetry with his use of words, rhyme, metre, and stanza structure. His poetry has an undoubtedly superior content than that of the French poets; he has a broad, simple, and compassionate vision of human life and views the world from a really humanistic perspective. Additionally, poetry exposes a vast, uninhibited, and accurate picture of reality. His work also outclasses the French in terms of style and manner; his poem possesses a fluency of diction and a fluidity of flow that is lacking in the French. The works of Shakespeare, Milton, Spenser, and Keats perpetuated this tradition of flexibility. It would thus not be wrong to claim that Chaucer is the 'father of our wonderful English poetry' and that true poetry begins with him. Chaucer is a towering figure in the history of poetry's growth and evolution; he dwarfs the French love poetry up until the Elizabethan age. Arnold, though, does not see Chaucer as a genuine classicist. In contrast to Dante, whom Arnold regards as a classic poet, Chaucer lacks the seriousness that Aristotle attributes to excellent poetry. Thus, while Chaucer is a superb poet, he does not rank among the English language's best classic poets, according to the touchstone approach. According to Arnold, the critique and study of this period's poetry make it impossible to go beyond historical assessments of the quality and value of the poetry written during this period. The 18th century was regarded to have generated more works of excellence and innovations and advancements in poetry than any other period in history. This self-praise had such an effect that, up until Arnold's time, Dryden, Addison, Pope, and Johnson's poetry were considered to be fine verse. Using the touchstone technique, Arnold casts doubt on the assumption that poets from the eighteenth century are classics. He contends that the years immediately after the Restoration saw a rejection of the Puritan morality. This took the shape of a rejection of the period's spiritual life,

which Arnold characterised as "negatively." The new era demanded a writing that was orderly, precise, and consistent. While writers of the time attempted to attain these goals through their writings, the poetic spirit was sorely ignored and stifled. Additionally, their poem ushers in the age of prose and reason. It does not, however, breathe life into poetic critique. Indeed, Arnold is adamant that their writing lacks the gravity, style, and manner associated with 'great poetry.' So, while the writers of the era produced excellent prose, they were just mediocre versifiers; thus, they cannot be classified as classic. Arnold regards Gray as a fragile classic among contemporary poets; he imitated the norms and styles of ancient Greek and Roman classical poets. His ideas never originate in his mind, but are skilfully imitated. Arnold demonstrates the hazards of personal error in assessing artistic merit via the example of Burns, a poet from the late 18th century. Burns exposes his actual character, according to Arnold, in his poetry about many facets of Scottish life. Arnold argues that the poet's intimacy with the Scottish world works against him when the reader is not a fellow Scot. Although Burns' poetry demonstrates the poet's triumph over the harsh Scottish landscape, the critic notes that his poetry does not do well when evaluated using the touchstone technique. According to Arnold, Burns is the greatest illustration of a personal error that results in an erroneous judgement of poetic merit. Burns' poems, he believes, are inadequately bacchanalian because they lack the earnestness associated with this genre of poetry. He detects boldness in Burns' poetry, rendering it false and unsound in his estimation. Arnold admits that while his poetry has "applications of ideas to life," they are not in accordance with the rules of poetic truth and beauty. His writing demonstrates an exceptional grasp of the language, but it lacks the "high seriousness" that is indicative of genuine sincerity. In contrast to Dante, Arnold asserts that Burns preaches through his poetry; his articulations do not arise from the depths of his soul and are hence shallow. Burns' poetry, according to Arnold, is largely sarcastic; while his writing reveals truths about method and substance, he lacks the poetic virtue associated with ancient poets. Arnold ends his article by drawing parallels between Chaucer and Burns. While both poets have an enormous breadth of vision when it comes to human existence and the planet, Chaucer's writings have been converted into a "fiery, reckless energy." Similarly, Chaucer's initially peaceful condition of life morphs into an overpowering sense of melancholy over both human and nonhuman nature. Arnold discovers in Burns a great deal of intensity and vitality that Chaucer's poetry lacks. Despite its assertions about absolute markers of poetic merit, the essay avoids any discussion of 'excellent' poetry's technical characteristics. Arnold appears to be implying that if a poem's substance is sufficiently "serious," the poem will naturally find expression in a serious form. This is his principal criticism of Burns' poetry; it is insufficiently serious. Arnold similarly refuses to contextualise the poet and poetry. This is done purposefully to perpetuate the notion that art is beneficial.

Arnold effectively refutes the French critic's notion that certain works have been canonised as masterpieces, a process that precludes further inquiry into the work's origins, influences, immediate conditions, and probable reasons. His reliance on an ineffable literary sensibility that somehow understands how to assess may be construed as obscurantism, since it is an appeal to experience and the ability to make judgements based on an inarticulate sensibility....