Literary Criticism In Context: Contrasting Matthew Arnold's 'The Function of Criticism At The Present Time' & 'The Study Of Poetry'

 Matthew Arnold, born on 24 December, 1822  at Middlesex, a county in South-East England, has been characterized as a 'sage writer', a kind of writer who both instructs and chastises his readers on contemporary social issues. In that regard, Arnold has also been recognized in the field of socio-ethical criticism: his work Culture and Anarchy being quite prominent in that respect. The Function of Criticism At The Present Time was the first in a series titled Essays In Criticism published in 1865, marking Arnold's return to the field of literary criticism after being mired in controversy characteristic of his time spent in his criticisms of society, the bulk of which was derivative of his stint as a professor at the University of Oxford. An additional pedigree that Matthew Arnold possesses is that he was a poet before becoming a full-fledged critic, having published his Preface to the Poems (1853) as early as being thirty-one years of age.  

It is imperative that in the process of attempting to dissect any form of literature, one must endeavor to place it in the context of how it came to be. Speaking of forms of literature, there are poetry, prose, essay and criticism. Criticism is the last rung of that ladder in that order. However, literary criticism is all the more significant. To illustrate just how intrinsically correlative literary criticism is to works of literature through the means of analogy, we can safely say with a degree of certainty that our reality as we know and experience it, is something of an existential criticism of our ideals; which in turn, vary accordingly with regards to the sheer extent of their creativity. Reality is often disappointing. So is criticism, essentially. Yet, just how reality shapes and hones inspiration, so is criticism to any literary work  Here's how Matthew Arnold describes the term:

"Criticism should be a dissemination of ideas, the disinterested endeavor to learn and propagate the best that is known and thought in the world." 

From the moment, the reader becomes aware of the invocation of the word 'disinterested', the aforesaid analogy begins to make sense. Criticism in its very essence is a distortion, it is profane. A mockery of the immersive nature of any creative work which aside from being pure, is wholesome to be indulged in. Creativity piques the reader's imaginative faculties allowing them to be part of the journey instead of keeping track of it which is the primary domain of criticism. Imagine sitting down with any favorite novel of yours for a bit of light reading any time, and it will once again transport you to a world beyond the limits of your comprehension along with soothing you in the process. Conversely, take up any piece of criticism on that particular novel for the first time, and what do you find? The dull repetitiveness of that grounded comprehension alone,  only submerged beneath layers and layers of conventions, making the cardinal sin of transforming that once familiar territory of home away from home into a confounded prison, where the once free are forced to adhere to a rigid order. Matthew Arnold however, uses the word 'disinterested' in lieu of the critic having an unbiased perspective with regards to whatever literature he should so approach. Reconciling both perspectives in accordance with his unique brand of Victorian realism, the role of a critic is of one who views the world as it is in stark actuality and in choosing to not mince words, actually lays a stronger groundwork for creative inspiration to find its firm footing later on. In other words, this forms the basis of the objective approach.

Contextualizing the piece of prose before us, Matthew Arnold was no fan of 'Philistinism' and decreed that the modern Victorian society was fast approaching its era of decadence. Philistinism is the name of a movement whereby people began engaging in materialistic pursuits rather than in the acquisition of cultural, artistic knowledge and intellectual beauty. Inspiration always takes precedence before critique and a good critic is one that steers clear of being motivated to achieve selfish goals The biggest problem that a critic faces is being subject to the whims of 'cultural anarchy' and in his complacency, fails to think outside the box. Another key context through which to study Arnold's essay is his companion work titled The Study of Poetry, published as part of an anthology in 1880. In that, Arnold introduces us to his pioneer touchstone method , which is contingent upon comparative analysis for criticism. This method details the following distinct prejudices for any critic: (1) the personal prejudice, and (2) the historical prejudice. Personal prejudice is when one prefers to study only those texts as can take their fancy, historical prejudice is when one believes that the works of the ancients are to be more than sufficient to be considered as great. Both of these prejudices are wrongly inculcated, and a good critic must always employ practical criticism. In that regard, the poetry of Homer, Dante, Shakespeare and Milton is a suitable yardstick for comparison and contrast, to judge the measure of what constitutes great poetry even if it is contemporary. Matthew Arnold goes on to say the following regarding the timeless importance of poetry:

"In a word, the poet is the only great teacher, the only great interpreter of life and the universe. Science, in its mechanical and material focus, offers only a partial view of life, while religion and philosophy have failed to offer the comprehensive answers that humanity seeks. But poetry, by addressing the emotional, moral, and intellectual dimensions of life, provides a more complete and universal understanding of our existence. Without poetry, science is incomplete; it is only through the lens of poetry that human life will find its true meaning. Poetry will replace philosophy and religion, for it offers a higher and more lasting form of knowledge."

Such an exalted form is duly susceptible to the ravages of adulteration which can pollute the very essence of its being. Arnold, a realist, also states his concerns:

"The world of poetry is full of pretenders, and charlatanism is a danger that must be faced. The poetry of the future must not be concerned with superficial sentimentality or empty rhetoric, but should aim for intellectual depth, moral seriousness, and a reflection of life in its true essence. Poetry, if it is to be truly great, must be held to a higher standard than mere popularity or passing trends. It should not be written for ephemeral success but should strive to embody the highest truths of human existence, and offer wisdom and guidance in the face of life’s deepest questions."

This underscores the responsibility of a critic to have at their disposal the right kind of tools to truly determine what stands as genuine poetry and differentiate it from the superficial one. A key consideration also, in the ascertaining of the standard of poetry, is gauging from it a poetic truth and high seriousness.  According to Arnold, Shakespeare's poetry has both of these while that of Chaucer does not have the second one, despite being world-renowned as the father of English literature. Similarly, John Dryden and Alexander Pope are not poetically mature to stand in comparison when it comes to Thomas Grey and the depth of his Elegy in a County Churchyard. Although Dryden and Pope are more widely recognized, yet it is Grey's poetry that 'speaks to the heart' and which achieves the kind of intellectual beauty that theirs does not, despite having a larger recognition.

"Dryden and Pope represent the height of the classical and rational tradition in English poetry, with their reliance on wit, intellect, and form. Their poetry is a product of their time—a time when poetry was seen as an art of reason, order, and control. While they were brilliant technicians, their works are ultimately constrained by this intellectualism and formalism. In contrast, Gray, though similarly a product of his era, offers a more emotional and reflective poetry. Gray's Elegy in a Country Churchyard, with its subtle melancholy and deep reflection on mortality, moves beyond the intellectual confines that characterize Dryden and Pope's work. It is a poetry that speaks to the heart, a poetry of emotion and universal experience, not of cleverness or elaborate construction."

This is the practical application of the touchstone method which aptly distinguishes real poetry from that insulated by renown and recognition. Widely accepted ideals are still not proof of their validity.

In 'The Function of Criticism', Matthew Arnold says about William Wordsworth that despite the breadth of his poetry, it is regrettable that he did not leave behind more of his critical work. Conversely, Goethe has left behind a lot of his criticism. Wordsworth was also a great critic but he held that the critical power was much lower in contrast to that of the creative power. That is so, however two things must be kept in mind. Firstly, that although the exercise of creative power is the true function of man which lifts him above his nihilism and enables him to attain happiness, it must also be put into use in other ways rather than just producing great works of literature and art. The other thing is that this creative power is also activated in particular temporal contexts. This forms the basis for two important concepts: the 'power of man' and the 'power of the moment'. Arnold also believes that for the production of great literary work, the ‘power of man’ and ‘power of the moment’ must come together. If one of them is absent, the work will not become great. To illustrate this, he takes the example of Goethe and Byron. Both had great productive power, yet Goethe’s work was more powerful because he had a rich cultural background. He also mentions how Shakespeare was not a deep reader, which affected his work. But his fame and glory were a result of his age and a climate of great ideas. However, his definition of criticism makes it a necessary prerequisite for valuable creation. He asserts that creation of quality is not possible if people are not provided with a current of fresh ideas. This is achieved through honest criticism. Only when the power of man and power of moment come together can a good piece of literature be created.

   According to Arnold's definition of criticism, the critic has three main responsibilities. The first responsibility is for the critic to learn and, in doing so, to “see things as they really are.” The second responsibility is to share this understanding with others, aiming to transform the world and make “the best ideas prevail.” The third responsibility involves the critic fostering a supportive environment for future creative talent by encouraging “a current of ideas in the highest degree animating and nourishing to the creative power.” He suggests that the function of criticism at the present time is to make itself inherently valuable in itself.

Arnold further contends that much of the literature from European countries has served the purpose of criticism. However, England has struggled to produce substantial critical writing due to the attitudes of its writers toward criticism. He uses Wordsworth as an example to explain this. Wordsworth argued that critical writing was a waste of time for both the writer and the reader. He also claimed that critical writing could cause significant harm, whereas creative writing caused little harm. However, Arnold defends these views, asserting that if a person has talent in one type of writing, they should not be compelled to only produce original work, pretending that critical writing holds no value. As Arnold puts it:

“It is almost too much to expect a poor human nature, that a man capable of producing some effect in one line of literature, should for the greater good of society, voluntarily doom himself to impotence and obscurity in another.”

Arnold also highlights the paradox in Wordsworth’s stance on criticism, pointing out that Wordsworth himself engaged in criticism by writing against literary criticism.

Finally, Arnold argues that criticism is essential because creative power relies on certain materials, specifically “the best ideas on every matter which literature touches, current at the time.” However, authors do not directly discover these ideas; instead, they synthesize them into their works. Therefore, if authors are not aware of these ideas, they have nothing to write about. Arnold discusses the importance of both the power of man and the power of the moment in this context. The author must live in a society where true ideas are openly discussed, where authentic thoughts are valued and shared, as seen in ancient Greece or Renaissance England. In this way, Arnold believes that good criticism leads to the creation of great literature.