'A Study of Poetry' is a critical essay by Matthew Arnold. In this essay
Arnold criticizes the art of poetry as well as the art of criticism. Arnold
believes that the art of poetry is capable of high destinies. It is the art in
which the idea itself is the fact. He says that we should understand the worth
of poetry as it is poetry that shows us a mirror of life. Science, according to
Arnold, is incomplete without poetry, and, religion and philosophy will give
way to poetry. Arnold terms poetry as a criticism of life thereby refuting the
accusation of Plato and says that as time goes on man will continue to find
comfort and solace in poetry.
Arnold says that
when one reads poetry he tends to estimate whether it is of the best form or
not. It happens in three ways- the real estimate, the historic estimate, and
the personal estimate. The real estimate is an unbiased viewpoint that takes
into account both the historical context and the creative faculty to judge the
worth of poetry. But the real estimate is often surpassed by the historic and
personal estimate. The historic estimate places the historical context above
the value of the art itself. The personal estimate on the other hand depends on
the personal taste, the likes and dislikes of the reader which affects his
judgment of poetry. Arnold says that both these estimates tend to be
fallacious.
The historic and
personal estimate often overshadows the real estimate. But Arnold also says
that it is natural. The study of the historical background of poetry and its
development often leads to the critic skipping over the shortcomings because of
its historical significance. Historic estimate raises poetry to a high pedestal
and thus hinders one from noticing its weaknesses. It is the historic estimate
that leads to the creation of classics and raises the poet to a nearly God like
standard. Arnold says that if a poet is truly a classic his poetry will give
the reader real pleasure and enable him to compare and contrast other poetry
which are not of the same high standard. This according to Arnold is the real
estimate of poetry. Thus Arnold appeals to his readers to read classics with an
open eye and not be blind to its faults. This will enable one to rate poetry
with its proper value.
Arnold here
speaks about the idea of imitation. He says that whatever one reads or knows
keeps on coming back to him. Thus if a poet wants to reach the high standards
of the classics he might consciously or unconsciously imitate them. This is
also true for critics who tend to revert to the historic and personal estimate
instead of an unbiased real estimate. The historic estimate affects the study
of ancient poets while the personal estimate affects the study of modern or
contemporary poets.
Arnold proposes
the ‘touchstone’ method of analyzing poetry in order to determine whether it is
of a high standard or not. He borrows this method from Longinus who said in his
idea of the sublime that if a certain example of sublimity can please anyone
regardless of habits, tastes or age and can please at all times then it can be
considered as a true example of the sublime. This method was first suggested in
England by Addison who said that he would have a man read classical works which
have stood the test of time and place and also those modern works which find
high praise among contemporaries. If the man fails to find any delight in them
then he would conclude that it is not the author who lacks quality but the
reader who is incapable of discovering them. Arnold applies the touchstone
method by taking examples from the time tested classics and comparing them with
other poetry to determine whether they possess the high poetic standard of the
classics. He says that the poems need not resemble or possess any similarity to
the touchstones. Once the critic has lodged the touchstones in his mind in
order to detect the possession of high poetic quality he will have the tact of
finding it in other poetry that he compares to the touchstones. Arnold quotes
Homer, Dante, Shakespeare and Milton in an attempt to exemplify touchstone
poetry. He says that the examples he has quoted are very dissimilar to one
another but they all possess a high poetic quality. He says that a critic need
not labour in vain trying to explain the greatness of poetry. He can do so by
merely pointing at some specimens of the highest poetic quality. Arnold says
that the high quality of poetry lies in its matter and its manner. He then goes
by Aristotle’s observation and says that the best form of poetry possesses high
truth and seriousness that makes up its subject matter along with superior
diction that marks its manner. However, Arnold mentions that the true force of
this method lies in its application. He therefore urges critics to apply the
touchstone method to analyse and rate poetry.
Arnold then
speaks about French poetry which had a tremendous influence on the poetry of
England. He differentiates between the poetry of northern France and the poetry
of southern France. The poetry of southern France influenced Italian
literature. But it is the poetry of northern France that was dominant in Europe
in the twelfth and thirteenth century. This poetry came to England with the
Anglo- Normans and had a tremendous impact on English poetry. It was the
romance- poems of France that was popular during that time. But Arnold says
that it did not have any special characteristics and lacked the high truth,
seriousness and diction of classic poetry and remain significant only from the
historical point of view.
Next Arnold
speaks about Chaucer who was much influenced by French and Italian poetry.
Arnold says that Chaucer’s poetic importance is a result of the real estimate
and not the historic estimate. The superiority of Chaucer’s verse lies both in
his subject matter and his style. He writes about human life and nature as he
sees it. Arnold speaks highly of Chaucer’s diction and calls it ‘liquid
diction’ to emphasise the fluidity in the manner of Chaucer’s writing which he
considers to be an irresistible virtue. Arnold however says that Chaucer is not
a classic. He compares Chaucer to Dante and points out that Chaucer lacks the
high seriousness of the classics thereby depriving him of the high honour.
Next Arnold
mentions Milton and Shakespeare and credits them as classics and moves on to
speak about Dryden and Pope. According to the historic estimate Dryden and Pope
are no doubt great poets of the eighteenth century. Arnold observes that Dryden
and Pope were better prose writers than poets. The restoration period faced the
necessity of a fit prose with proper imaginative quality and this is what
Dryden and Pope provided. Arnold therefore concludes that they are classics not
of poetry but of prose.
After Dryden and
Pope Arnold speaks about Gray. Gray did not write much but what he wrote has
high poetic value. Arnold therefore considers Gray to be a classic.
Arnold now
speaks about Robert Burns in the late eighteenth century and says that this is
the period from which the personal estimate begins to affect the real estimate.
Burns, according to Arnold, is a better poet in Scottish than in English. Like
Chaucer Arnold does not consider Burns to be a classic. He says that Burns too
lacks the high seriousness desired of poetry. He compares Burns to Chaucer and
finds that Burns’ manner of presentation is deeper than that of Chaucer.
According to the real estimate Burns lacks the high seriousness of the classics
but his poetry nevertheless has truthful substance and style.
Then Arnold
moves on to speak about Byron, Shelley and Wordsworth but does not pass any
judgement on their poetry. Arnold believes that his estimate of these poets
will be influenced by his personal passion as they are closer to his age than
the classics and also because their writings are of a more personal nature.
Finally Arnold speaks about the self-preservation of the classics. Any amount
of good literature will not be able to surpass the supremacy of the classics as
they have already stood the test of time and people will continue to enjoy them
for the ages to come. Arnold says that this is the result of the self
preserving nature of humanity. Human nature will remain the same throughout the
ages and those parts of the classics dealing with the subject will remain
relevant at all times thus preserving themselves from being lost in time.
