Matthew Arnold stands as one of the most significant literary critics of the Victorian era, often credited with having elevated the status of literary criticism itself to a serious intellectual pursuit. Far from being a mere commentator on books, Matthew Arnold viewed literary criticism as an essential component of national culture, a vital force in an age grappling with the dislocations of industrialization, the challenges to traditional faith, and the rise of a new, often uncultured, middle class. His work, deeply rooted in a desire for social and moral betterment, sought to establish clear criteria for literary excellence, emphasizing the profound ethical and intellectual responsibilities of both the artist and the critic.
Arnold’s critical output was not isolated from his broader concerns as a poet, social commentator, and educational reformer. Indeed, his literary theories are inextricably linked to his vision of “culture” as a panacea for societal ills. For Arnold, literature was not simply a source of entertainment or aesthetic pleasure; it was a powerful instrument for national well-being, capable of providing moral guidance, intellectual clarity, and spiritual nourishment in a rapidly secularizing and materialistic world. His critiques were driven by a conviction that an engagement with the “best that has been thought and said” was crucial for individual and collective flourishing, and that the critic’s role was to identify, propagate, and illuminate these timeless truths.
The Context and Foundations of Arnold's Criticism
Matthew Arnold’s critical perspective was shaped profoundly by the intellectual and social landscape of Victorian England. The era was marked by rapid industrialization, scientific advancements (particularly Darwin’s theory of evolution), and a growing crisis of faith, which collectively challenged traditional certainties and values. Arnold, witnessing what he perceived as a decline in intellectual standards and a pervasive “philistinism” among the burgeoning middle class, felt a deep urgency to address these societal issues through the cultivation of “culture.” His work as an Inspector of Schools for over three decades also provided him with an acute awareness of the deficiencies in public education and the need for a more robust intellectual foundation for the nation.
Arnold was deeply influenced by classical Greek and Roman literature, which he saw as embodying timeless principles of clarity, proportion, and moral seriousness. He also drew inspiration from European thinkers like Goethe and Sainte-Beuve, appreciating their broad intellectual scope and their commitment to disinterested inquiry. From these various influences, Arnold synthesized a critical approach that was simultaneously historical, comparative, and profoundly ethical. He believed that the critic’s primary duty was to cultivate an “intellectual atmosphere” conducive to the creation of great literature, and to guide the public towards an appreciation of works that possessed true “high seriousness” and universal appeal, rather than merely transient popularity or superficial charm.
Core Concepts and Theories
Central to Arnold’s literary criticism are several interlocking concepts that collectively define his approach and enduring legacy. These concepts underscore his belief in the moral and social utility of literature and the rigorous standards by which it should be judged.
Culture and Anarchy: The Overarching Framework
While primarily a work of social criticism, Arnold’s Culture and Anarchy (1869) provides the essential philosophical underpinnings for his literary theories. Here, Arnold defines “culture” as “the study of perfection,” an internal, intellectual, and moral pursuit aimed at “seeing things as they are.” He contrasts culture with “anarchy,” which manifests in various forms: “Barbarians” (the aristocracy, characterized by their lack of intellectual curiosity), “Philistines” (the materialistic and uncultured middle class), and the “Populace” (the crude, unenlightened working class). For Arnold, culture, nurtured by a deep engagement with the “best that has been thought and said,” was the only effective antidote to the fragmentation and spiritual poverty he observed in society. Literature, therefore, becomes a crucial vehicle for this cultural refinement, instilling a sense of “sweetness and light” (beauty and intelligence) and guiding individuals towards moral and intellectual perfection.
Poetry as a Criticism of Life
Perhaps Arnold’s most famous pronouncement, reiterated in “The Study of Poetry” (1880), is that “poetry is a criticism of life.” This statement is often misunderstood as implying a narrow, didactic function for poetry. However, Arnold meant something far more profound. For him, poetry, at its best, “interprets” life, but it does so “under the conditions fixed for it by the laws of poetic truth and poetic beauty.” It’s not just about moralizing, but about presenting a truthful and aesthetically compelling vision of human experience that helps us to understand and navigate the complexities of existence. Poetry offers consolation, moral guidance, and insight that he believed was increasingly necessary in a world where traditional sources of meaning, like religion, were losing their authority. He famously predicted that poetry would eventually replace religion as humanity’s primary source of spiritual sustenance.
High Seriousness (Soberness and Sincerity)
“High seriousness” is a core criterion by which Arnold judged literary works, particularly poetry. It is not merely solemnity or gravity but rather a profound moral and intellectual weight, a depth of insight into the fundamental truths of human life. Works possessing “high seriousness” deal with the “real” and “important” aspects of human existence, imbued with an ethical concern and a genuine engagement with universal human dilemmas. Arnold believed that great poetry should have “truth and high seriousness” as its most distinguishing characteristics. He contrasted this with works that might be aesthetically pleasing but lacked a profound moral vision or dealt only with superficialities, or those that were merely sentimental or rhetorical. This concept reflects his classical bias, valuing substance and moral weight over mere prettiness or cleverness.
Disinterestedness: The Critic's Imperative
In “The Function of Criticism at the Present Time” (1865), Arnold argues for the paramount importance of “disinterestedness” in critical practice. He defines disinterestedness as the ability of the critic to approach a work of art without personal, political, historical, or sectarian biases. The critic’s aim should be to “see the object as in itself it really is,” free from the “provincial” limitations of one’s own time and place. This detachment allows for a more objective and universal judgment of literary merit. The critic, therefore, must rise above the “stock notions and habits” of their immediate environment and engage with a wider, more universal “current of ideas.” This ideal of disinterestedness was revolutionary for its time and remains a foundational principle for ethical critical inquiry.
The Touchstone Method
To apply his criteria of “high seriousness” and “disinterestedness” in practice, Arnold proposed the “touchstone method” in “The Study of Poetry.” This method involves taking lines or passages of undeniable excellence from universally acknowledged great masters (such as Homer, Dante, Shakespeare, or Milton) and using them as points of comparison to assess the merit of other works. The idea is that these “touchstone” passages possess an intrinsic quality of “high seriousness” and “the grand style” that can serve as an objective standard. By placing a new work alongside these established masterpieces, its relative quality, particularly in terms of moral weight and stylistic grandeur, could be more accurately discerned. While intended to promote objectivity, the touchstone method has been criticized for its inherent subjectivity and potential for dogmatism, as the selection of touchstones themselves can be a personal choice.
The Grand Style
Closely related to “high seriousness” and the “touchstone method” is Arnold’s concept of “the grand style.” This refers to a style characterized by nobility, simplicity, and an elevated tone, where language is employed with precision and power to convey profound thought and emotion. It is the language of works that possess “high seriousness,” embodying a clarity and dignity that elevate the subject matter. Arnold saw this style exemplified in the epic poetry of Homer and Milton, and he contrasted it with what he considered the more diffuse or provincial styles of some English Romantic poets.
Arnold's Practical Criticism and Specific Judgments
Arnold applied these theoretical frameworks to a range of English and European literary figures, offering often insightful, though sometimes controversial, judgments.
In “The Function of Criticism at the Present Time,” Arnold laments the lack of a robust “current of ideas” in England, which he believed hindered the emergence of truly great creative works. He argues that English Romantic poets like Wordsworth and Byron, despite their genius, suffered from this intellectual environment, leading to a certain “provincialism” or lack of “architectonic quality” (overall structural coherence and classical balance) in their work. He admired Wordsworth’s profound engagement with nature and his “moral interpretation of emotion” but found his poetic output uneven. Similarly, he recognized Byron’s power but criticized his lack of “truth and seriousness.”
Arnold held Goethe in high esteem, considering him a model of European breadth and intellectual clarity. He saw Goethe as a master who truly “knew life” and provided the kind of disinterested wisdom that he advocated. He also deeply admired the classical poets, particularly Homer, for their “the grand style,” “truthfulness,” and the “plainness and directness” of their narrative. He believed that the English lacked a true Homeric spirit in their translation attempts, highlighting his commitment to preserving the integrity of classical models.
His most famous and controversial essay on English literature, “The Study of Poetry,” not only introduced the “touchstone method” but also provided a critical survey of English poetic history. While praising Chaucer for his “fluidity of movement” and “large, free, and sound treatment of his subject,” he found him lacking “high seriousness” compared to the great ancients. He lauded Shakespeare and Milton as examples of English poets who achieved the “grand style” and “high seriousness,” making them ideal touchstones. However, he often expressed reservations about other English literary figures, judging them against his exacting classical standards.
Strengths of Arnold's Literary Criticism
Arnold’s contributions to literary criticism are manifold and profoundly shaped subsequent critical discourse.
Firstly, he elevated the status of literary criticism itself. Before Arnold, criticism was often seen as secondary to creative writing, or as mere reviewing. Arnold asserted its independent and vital role in national culture, portraying the critic as an intellectual guide, a purveyor of truth, and a shaper of public taste.
Secondly, he emphasized the moral and intellectual rigor required of literature. In an age increasingly defined by material pursuits, Arnold insisted that great literature must engage with profound ethical questions and contribute to human flourishing, challenging purely aesthetic or escapist views of art. He reminded critics and readers alike that literature had a serious purpose beyond mere pleasure.
Thirdly, he advocated for a broad, comparative, and European perspective on literature. By consistently referencing classical and continental European writers, Arnold encouraged English critics to look beyond their national literary traditions and to embrace a more universal standard of excellence. This helped to combat what he saw as “provincialism” in English thought.
Fourthly, Arnold stressed the social function of art. For him, literature was not just an individual pursuit but a collective endeavor with profound implications for societal health. This focus on literature’s role in shaping national character and combating social ills was a powerful and enduring legacy.
Finally, his concepts, despite their criticisms, provided a framework for discussing enduring literary values. Concepts like “high seriousness,” “disinterestedness,” and “the best that has been thought and said” continue to resonate in discussions about literary merit, the purpose of art, and the role of the critic.
Weaknesses and Criticisms of Arnold's Criticism
Despite his immense influence, Arnold’s critical theories were not without their detractors, and some of his fundamental assumptions have been challenged over time.
One primary criticism is his didacticism and moralism. Opponents argue that Arnold imposes an overly prescriptive moral agenda on art, sometimes sacrificing aesthetic considerations for ethical ones. The idea of “poetry as a criticism of life” can be interpreted as reducing art to a mere vehicle for moral instruction, overlooking its intrinsic beauty or capacity for pure aesthetic pleasure (“art for art’s sake”). This moralistic bent often led him to dismiss works that did not fit his criteria of “high seriousness,” potentially stifling artistic experimentation or diverse forms of expression.
Another significant criticism centers on the elitism and exclusivity inherent in his concept of “culture.” Critics argue that by defining culture as the preserve of “the best that has been thought and said,” primarily within a classical and European tradition, Arnold creates an exclusive domain accessible only to the educated elite. This perspective can be seen as dismissive of popular culture, working-class experiences, or non-Western literary traditions, thereby limiting the scope of what is considered valuable literature.
The subjectivity of “touchstones” and “high seriousness” also poses a problem. While Arnold aimed for disinterestedness, the selection of his “touchstone” passages and the definition of “high seriousness” ultimately rested on his own critical judgment and taste. This opens the door to dogmatism, where his personal preferences are presented as universal truths, making his method less objective than he claimed. What one critic deems “high seriousness,” another might find merely solemn or didactic.
Furthermore, Arnold is sometimes accused of underestimating the importance of “form” and “aesthetics” in literature. His heavy emphasis on content, moral message, and universal truth can lead to a devaluation of artistic technique, structural innovation, linguistic play, and the sheer beauty of language. Critics suggest he privileged the “what” over the “how,” failing to fully appreciate the unique ways in which literary form contributes to meaning and experience.
His prophetic or dogmatic tone is also a point of contention. Arnold often wrote with the authority of a cultural evangelist, more concerned with proclaiming truths than engaging in open critical inquiry. This can make his essays feel less like nuanced analysis and more like pronouncements from on high, alienating readers who seek a more collaborative or exploratory critical voice.
Finally, his somewhat limited appreciation for “modern” or experimental forms of literature, particularly those that deviated from classical norms, meant he sometimes failed to fully grasp or value the innovative spirit of his own time or subsequent literary movements. His classical bias made him less receptive to the subjective explorations of Romanticism or the emerging complexities of modernism.
Conclusion
Matthew Arnold’s contribution to literary criticism remains indelible, marking a pivotal moment in its development. He transformed criticism from a peripheral activity into a central intellectual discipline, arguing passionately for its vital role in fostering national culture and individual spiritual well-being. His insistence on “disinterestedness,” “high seriousness,” and the cultivation of an “atmosphere of ideas” laid foundational principles that continue to inform critical practice today. He saw literature not as an isolated art form but as a profound “criticism of life,” capable of offering solace, guidance, and intellectual clarity in a world grappling with modernity.
Despite valid criticisms regarding his moralistic leanings, perceived elitism, and occasional dogmatism, Arnold’s influence cannot be overstated. He compels us to consider the ethical dimensions of art, its societal responsibilities, and the profound questions it addresses about human existence. His enduring legacy lies in his unwavering belief in the power of literature to ennoble, to educate, and to guide humanity towards a more perfect and cultured state, ensuring that the “best that has been thought and said” continues to illuminate and inspire.