Title: Contextualizing Arnold's critical estimate of Chaucer evidenced in

The Study of Poetry

ABSTRACT

Mathew Arnold is an important critic in English Literature. Before him, English criticism was
in fog and whatever criticism we find, is based on personal notions than any other methods.
In his critical essay ‘The Study of Poetry’ Arnold criticizes the art of poetry as well as the art
of criticism. According to him Idea is supreme and in poetry it is the idea that matters, that is
attached by poetry through emotions. In this paper then I show how Arnold talks about
setting our standard for poetry high. We must accustom ourselves to ‘high standard’ and
‘strict judgement’ and there is no place for Charlatanism in poetry. Then Arnold tells about
three kinds of estimates and how these estimates are related to poetry and its reading. After
that I have focused on Arnold’s famous ‘Touchstone Method.’ It is a method to identify the
real classic as well as how to judge the quality of poetry. But through this study we come to
know what Arnold finds in the assessment of Chaucer. By keeping above qualities in centre,
he applies Touchstone Method on Chaucer first. According to Arnold, Chaucer is genuine
source of joy and strength. There is an excellence of style and subject in his poetry. He has
divine fluidity of movement and diction. But he cannot be called classic because his poetry
lacks high seriousness which according to Aristotle is very important. Through this paper I
will discuss these above mentioned points.

Keywords: Charlatanism, Classic, Estimates, Touchstone Method,

Mathew Arnold was one of the foremost poets and critics of the 19th century. While often
regarded as the father of modern literary criticism, he also wrote extensively on social and
cultural issues, religion, and education. Arnold was born into an influential English family.
He began his career as a school inspector, travelling throughout much of England on the
newly built railway system. When he was elected professor of poetry at Oxford in 1857, he
was the first in the post to deliver his lectures in English rather than Latin. Walt Whitman
famously dismissed him as a “literary dude,” and while many have continued to disparage
Arnold for his moralistic tone and literary judgments, his work also laid the foundation for
important 20th century critics like T.S. Eliot, Cleanth Brooks, and Harold Bloom. He started
his literary career by writing poetry. It was only at the age of thirty-one that he published his
first piece of criticism, Preface to the Poems, and then for the rest of his life, for full thirty-
five years, he hardly wrote anything but criticism. His literary criticism may itself be divided
into two categories:

(a) Theoretical criticism or literary criticism

(b) Practical criticism

His theoretical criticism is contained largely in his ‘Preface to the Poems’ and ‘The Function
of Criticism’ at the Present Time, standing at the head of the first series of his ‘Essays in
Criticism’, and ‘The Study of Poetry’ with which opens the second series of his Essays in
Criticism. His practical criticism largely consists of his estimates of English and continental
poets contained in both the series of ‘Essays in Criticism’.

‘A Study of poetry’ is a critical essay by Mathew Arnold. The essay was originally
published as the introduction to T. H. Ward’s anthology, The English Poets (1880). 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. Arnold claims an elevated status of poetry over science, religion, theology and
philosophy. He postulates that the fields of science, religion, philosophy and politics are
awash of Charlatanism. To Arnold, Charlatanism means a confusion of distinctions between
the excellent and the inferior, sound and unsound, true and untrue or only half true should not
enter into the sphere of judging poetry. It is only poetry of the best kind that can and will
fulfill the important role of forming, sustaining and delighting mankind. Arnold then defines
poetry as: “A criticism of life under the conditions fixed for that criticism by the laws of
poetic truth and poetic beauty.” Only the best poetry is capable of performing this task. Only
that poetry which is the criticism of life can be our support and stay. So, it is important for the
reader that they should learn to choose the best. In choosing the best, the readers are warned
against two types of fallacious judgments: The historic estimate and the personal estimate.

The readers should learn to value poetry as it really is in itself. The historic estimate is likely
to affect our judgment when we are dealing with ancient poets, the personal estimate when
we are dealing with our contemporary poets. Readers should insist on the real estimate, which
means a recognition and discovery of the highest qualities which produce the best poetry. It
should be a real classic and not a false classic. A true classic is one which belongs to the class
of the very best and such poetry we must feel and enjoy as deeply as we can.
It is not necessary to lay down what in the abstract constitute the features of high quality of
poetry. It is much better to study concrete examples, to take specimens of poetry of the high,
the very highest qualities, and to say, the features of highest poetry are what we find here.
Short passages and single lines from Homer, Dante, Shakespeare, Milton and others may be
memorized and applied as touchstones to test the worth of the poems we want to read. This
other poetry must not be required to resemble them; but if the touchstone-quotations are used
with tact, they will enable the reader to detect the presence or absence of the highest poetic
quality.

Touchstone Method is a short quotation from a recognized poetic masterpiece ‘The Study of
Poetry’ (1880), employed as a standard of instant comparison for judging the value of other
works. Here Arnold recommends certain lines of Homer, Dante, Shakespeare, and Milton as
touchstones for testing ‘the presence or absence of high poetic quality’ in samples chosen
from other poets. The "Touchstone Method" - introduced scientific objectivity to critical
evaluation by providing comparison and analysis as the two primary tools for judging
individual poets. Thus, Chaucer, Dryden, Pope, and Shelley fall short of the best, because
they lack "high seriousness". Even Shakespeare thinks too much of expression and too little
of conception. Arnold's ideal poets are Homer and Sophocles in the ancient world, Dante and
Milton, and among moderns, Goethe and Wordsworth. Arnold puts Wordsworth in the front
rank not for his poetry but for his "criticism of life".

Arnold writes, in order to judge a poet's work properly, a critic should compare it to passages
taken from works of great masters of poetry, and that these passages should be applied as
touchstones to other poetry. Even a single line or selected quotation will serve the
purpose. From this we see that he has shifted his position from that expressed in the preface
to his Poems of 1853. In ‘The Study of Poetry’ he no longer uses the acid test of action and
architectonics. He became an advocate of 'touchstones'. 'Short passages even single lines,' he
said, 'will serve our turn quite sufficiently'.

Some of Arnold's touchstone passages are: Helen's words about her wounded brother, Zeus
addressing the horses of Peleus, suppliant Achilles' words to Priam, and from Dante;
Ugolino's brave words, and Beatrice's loving words to Virgil. From non-Classical writers he
selects from Henry IV Part II (III, i), Henry's expostulation with sleep - 'Wilt thou upon the
high and giddy mast . . . '. From Hamlet (V, ii) 'Absent thee from felicity awhile . . . '. From
Milton's Paradise Lost Book 1, 'Care sat on his faded cheek . . .', and 'What is else not to be
overcome . . . '

Like Ruskin, Arnold too wanted the contemporary reader against certain fallacies; the
‘fallacy’ of “historical estimate” and the ‘fallacy’ of “personal estimate” were both, in
Arnold’s view, reflections of inadequate and improper response to literature. According to
him, both the historical significance of a literary work as well as its significance to the critic
in personal terms tend to obliterate the real estimate of that work as in itself reality is. The
best way to know the class, to which a work belongs in terms of the excellence of art, Arnold
recommends, is
“to have always in one’s mind lines and expressions of
the great masters, and to apply them
as a touchstone to other poetry.”

Comparing with the best lines and passages from Homer and Shakespeare, Arnold surveys
the entire track of English poetry, and divides the various poets into the categories of the
good-and-great and the not-so-good and not-so-great. His idea of tradition is select in that
only the great constitute the body of literary history we should care for, and the rest we better
ignore. Arnold’s view of the greatness in poetry and what a literary critic should look for are
summed up as follows:
“it is important, therefore, to hold fast to this: that poetry is at
bottom a criticism of life; that the greatness of a poet lies in his
powerful and beautiful application of ideas to life,
—to the question: how to live.”
here is sort of manifesto for the criticism of the early Victorians as well as an indictment of
the critical creed, ‘art for art’s sake,’ as propounded and advocated by the later Victorians.

Matthew Arnold is an admirer of Chaucer’s poetry. He remarks that Chaucer’s power of

fascination is enduring.

“He will be read far more generally than he read now.”

The only problem that we come across is the difficulty of following his language. Chaucer’s
superiority lies in the fact that “we suddenly feel ourselves to be in another world”. His
superiority is both in the substance of his poetry and in the style of his poetry. “His view of
life is large, free, simple, clear and kindly. He has shown the power to survey the world from
a central, a human point of view.”

The best example is his Prologue to the Canterbury Tales. Matthew Arnold quotes here the
words of Dryden who remarked about it; “Here is God’s plenty”. Arnold continues to remark
that Chaucer is a perpetual fountain of good sense. Chaucer’s poetry has truth of substance;
“Chaucer is the father of our splendid English poetry.” By the lovely charm of his diction, the
lovely charm of his movement, he makes an epoch and founds a tradition. We follow this
tradition in Spenser, Shakespeare, Milton and Keats. “In these poets we feel the virtue.” In
spite of all these merits, Arnold says that Chaucer is not one of greatest classics. He has not
their accent. To strengthen his argument Arnold compares Chaucer with the Italian classic
Dante. Arnold says that Chaucer lacks not only the accent of Dante but also the high
seriousness.
“Homer’s criticism of life has it. Shakespeare’s has it, Dante’s has it. But Chaucer’s has not.”

Thus in his critical essay ‘The Study of Poetry’ Matthew Arnold comments not only on the
merits of Chaucer’s poetry, but also on its short-comings. He glorifies Chaucer with the
remark, “With him is born our real poetry.” According to Matthew Arnold, Chaucer’s
criticism of life has “largeness, freedom, shrewdness and benignity”, but it lacks “high
seriousness”. The term “high seriousness” which Arnold says marks the works of Homer.
Also, Dante and Milton and Wordsworth, apparently employed this “high seriousness” which
entails a sustained magnificence of artistic conception and execution accompanied by deep
morality and spiritual values. It must be remembered that Arnold laid a great deal of
importance on the “human actions” as the proper subjects of poetry. His contention of “high
seriousness” is inevitably bound up with this. His concept of poetry being a “criticism of life”
is quite satisfied by Chaucer. Chaucer’s poetry is steeped with life, and yet there is basic
sanity and order in his vision which Arnold should not have missed.

The fun and comedy in Chaucer’s writing often blinds one to his basic greatness. His vision
is truly Christian in its broad and forgiving tolerance. His vision of the earth ranges from one
of amused delight to one of grave compassion. His fresh goodwill and kindly common sense,
his sense of joy and warmth are communicated through his poetry especially in ‘The
Canterbury Tales.’ But behind the fun and tolerance there is a sane moral view. Chaucer’s
tolerance is not born of moral leniency or from a desire to excuse or mitigate the worldliness
of the characters as he saw them. The Monk’s travesty of the cloister in the name of gracious
living finds no exoneration from Chaucer, nor is Chaucer appreciative of the wickedness of
the Summoner and the Pardoner. His tolerance is based on deep conviction of human frailty,
and his medium of looking at it is irony, not inventive. When we read the pen portraits of the
pilgrims, we can see how clearly Chaucer has suggested the values they live by and what they
look for. In these values—the chivalry of the Knight, the Monk’s love for hunting, the
Doctor’s love of gold, the poor Parson’s holy thought and work, the Clerk’s love for learning
and teaching—lies Chaucer’s subtle moral judgment.

When Arnold quotes a line from Chaucer as truly classic, he chooses a line expressive of
stoic resignation. “O martir seeded to virginitee” from the Prioress’s tale. Indeed, all the lines
quoted by Arnold as “touchstones” have the ring of stoic resignation. Thus, Arnold’s own
view seems biased in favor of the obviously solemn and didactic. In fact, Arnold’s concept of
poetry does not seem to include the genre of comedy. The term “high seriousness” has been
interpreted to mean seriousness in the more obvious sense. The poet’s criticism of life is not
only to be serious, but also seen to be serious. Arnold seems to demand solemn rhetoric. If we
interpret “high seriousness” in this light, we can only say that Chaucer’s poetry lacks it, for
Chaucer was anything but “solemn”. However, if we consider “high seriousness” in a broader
light, Chaucer’s observation of life, his insight into its passions and weaknesses, its virtues
and strength is truly great. If we strictly accept Matthew Arnold’s contention, then we will
have to deny “high seriousness” to all comic writers, even to Moliere and Cervantes.

Through this essay, Arnold wants to convey that we should not be affected by Historical and
Personal Estimate rather we should enjoy the ‘Real Classic’ that belongs to the class of very
best. We can clearly feel and deeply enjoy the best by affecting ourselves only by Real
Estimate. The best way to identify the real classic is to apply Touchstone Method by which
we can clearly identify the wide difference between the real classics and the others as Arnold
identifies the difference between classics (Shakespeare, Milton, Gray) and others (Chaucer,
Dryden, Pope, Burns).
Works Cited
Agarwal S.C. and Mundhra S.C.: Principles of History of Literary Criticism, Bareily: Prakash
Book Depot.

Enright D.J. and Chickera De Ernst: English Critical Texts, New Delhi: Oxford University
Press, 1975. Print.

Habib. M.A.R.: A History of Literary Criticism from Plato to the Present, Australia:
Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005.

Welleck, Rene, A History of Modern Criticism; Yale University Press, 1986. Print.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Study-of-Poetry

http://poetapista.com/the-study-of-poetry

https://www.rewardinglearning.org.uk/common/includes/microsite_doc_link.aspx?docid=191
86-1