|
Criticism
First of all, Arnold was classical in literary
criticism, emphasizing on the didactic function of poetry. The purpose of
literary criticism, in his view, was “to know the best that is known and
thought in the world, and by in its turn making this known, to create a
current of true and fresh ideas”. The two series of Essays in Criticism
were his most important literary critical works. According to him, it is the
“unity and profoundness of moral impression…which constitutes the grandeur
of their (the ancients’) works, and which make them immortal”. He urged
modern poets to look to the ancients and their great characters and themes
for guidance and inspiration. Classical literature, in his view, possess
pathos, moral profundity and noble simplicity, while modern themes, arising
from an age of spiritual weakness, are suitable for only comic and lighter
kinds of poetry, and do not possess the loftiness to support epic or heroic
poetry. In “The Study of Poetry” (1888), which opens his Essays in
Criticism, he defines that
“Poetry is at bottom a
criticism of life.…The greatness of a poet lies in his powerful and
beautiful application of ideas to life— to the question: how to live.…The
best poetry will be found to have a power of forming, sustaining, and
delighting us, as nothing else can.”
In Essays in Criticism, Arnold also gave evaluations
on Shakespeare, Milton, Chaucer, Wordsworth, Gray, Byron, Shelley and Keats,
which have been seen as landmarks in descriptive criticism. According to his
theory of “high seriousness” of great classics and his fondness of “grand
style”, the poems of Homer, Dante and Shakespeare were of highest
seriousness and thus represented great classics. Chaucer and Wordsworth’s
works were only inferior to the three. Dryden and Pope “are not classics of
our poetry”.
Second, Arnold was also a critic of social life. His
chief work on social criticism is Culture and Anarchy. “Anarchy” in
the title refers to the “public” disorders before the issue of the Reform
Bill of 1867. In this book, he declared that Victorian society was composed
of three kinds of people: “Barbarians”, which meant the aristocratic class
who were ruthless in soul but elegant in appearance and manner;
“Philistines”, the vulgar and selfish middle classes and Puritans; and
“Populace”, the “raw and uncultured” laboring classes. He suggested curing
social ills of English society by “Hebraism” (moral education) and
“Hellenism” (an open mind). Arnold’s criticism on the middle-class was less
forceful than Carlyle and Ruskin, because he had put the hope for the future
on those of this class, who could be educated.
Arnold’s literary criticism laid great influence on the
ninetieth century criticism, inspiring many critics, such as T. S. Eliot.
Eliot has said, “Arnold was one of those critics who arrive from time to
time to set the literary house in order.” He united active independent
insight with the authority of the humanistic tradition. He carried on, in
his more sophisticated way, the Renaissance humanistic faith in good letters
as the teachers of wisdom, and in the virtue of great literature, and above
all, great poetry. In the present day with the literary tradition
over-burdened with imagery, myth, symbol and abstract jargon, it is
refreshing to come back to Arnold and his like to encounter central
questions about literature and life, as they were perceived by a mature and
civilized mind.
|
