In the course of history, literature as well as literary theory and critique experienced various changes due to social circumstances. Their function in certain periods and epochs differed vastly. Without any doubt, the Victorian critic and poet, Matthew Arnold, represents a significant predecessor of Thomas Stearns Eliot and is fundamentally important for the understanding of his literary theory and criticism. The modern literary critic of the 20th century, T. S. Eliot, is therefore more closely associated with the theories of the Victorian artist than any other literary critic or poet. However, their relation is not easy to define and bares not only immense analogies but also many divergences and contradictions.
The present work represents an analysis of T. S. Eliot’s reaction towards Matthew Arnold in his early essays. Therefore, it also traces the transition of literary theory and criticism from the 19th to the 20th century. Their attitudes towards literary the-ory and poetry will be exposed as well as their concept of literary criticism and its functions. Besides, their notion of historical circumstances and their perception of morality in literature are crucial aspects worth a detailed observation.
For this purpose, Eliot’s comments on Matthew Arnold in his early essays serve as a basis for the illustration and form the central source. Therefore, “Tradition and the Individual Talent” (1919), “Hamlet” (1919), “The Perfect Critic” (1920), “The Function of Criticism” (1923), “Matthew Arnold” (1933), and “Arnold and Pater” (1930) constitute the main works of reference. Further works by various authors provide supplementary opinions on the subject and subsequently offer more postures when it comes to forming a judgement on the complex relation between the two artists.
One has to bear in mind, however, that this exposition focuses on Eliot’s early years, which differ to some degree from the position he holds towards several subjects in his later achievements.
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Eliot’s response to Arnold’s literary theory
1. Different views on poetry
2. Two positions towards the function of literature
2.1 Eliot’s critique on Arnold’s function of literature as criticism of life
3. The comprehension of morals
4. Different perceptions of history
III. Eliot’s response to Arnold’s literary criticism
1. Arnold’s critical programme
1.1 The literary critic
2. Different concepts of literary criticism
IV. An outlook on Eliot’s response to Arnold’s cultural criticism
V. Evaluation of Eliot’s criticism on Arnold
VI. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Key Topics
This thesis examines the complex and often contentious intellectual relationship between T. S. Eliot and Matthew Arnold, specifically focusing on how Eliot’s early essays analyze and critique Arnold’s literary theory, criticism, and cultural perspectives. The primary research objective is to trace the transition of literary thought from the 19th to the 20th century, highlighting how Eliot, despite his disparaging remarks, remained deeply influenced by his Victorian predecessor.
- Comparison of poetic theories and the role of tradition
- Differing perceptions of the function of literature and criticism
- The intersection of literature, morality, and religion
- Eliot’s "impersonal theory" versus Arnold’s "criticism of life"
- The evolution of historical consciousness in literary criticism
Excerpt from the Book
1. Different views on poetry
One recurrent critical observation by T. S. Eliot regarding Matthew Arnold deals with his concept of poetry and its function. With respect to his comments on Arnold, Eliot never reacts in a reserved way. In his essay “Matthew Arnold”, he states that “Arnold was not a man of vast or exact scholarship, and he had neither walked in hell nor been rapt to heaven; but what he did know, of books and men, was in its way well-balanced and well-marshalled.” This comment reflects the ironic and sarcastic attitude towards Arnold, which is a recurring characteristic of Eliot. To understand his harsh critique on Arnold, it is as a first step indispensable to analyse their basic notions towards a concept of literary theory, especially of their poetry.
Fundamental for Arnold’s poetic theory and literary theory in general, is the orientation towards different European artists and works from different periods in history. His poetic concept includes assumptions and notions from artists such as Wordsworth, Keats, Goethe, Heine, Homer, Dante, Aristotle and many more. This variety and interest in different nations illustrates his intention to create a modern literary concept as universal as possible. This is, however, what makes an analysis of his literary theory a complex undertaking. Throughout this, his poetical concept always requires the permanent consideration of his historical and social background as well as his understanding of historical contexts, to which this exposition will refer later on.
Arnold employs various points of reference, which are necessary for valuable poetry. One essential aspect in his understanding of authentic poetry is the necessity of the articulation of those “feelings which subsist permanently in the race, and which are independent of time.” Arnold holds the view that each time possesses a certain quantity of valuable ideas, which have to be discovered. He considers these basic human sentiments as a guarantee for successful, everlasting literature.
Summary of Chapters
I. Introduction: Outlines the scope of the thesis, focusing on T. S. Eliot’s early critiques of Matthew Arnold as a means to understand the shift between Victorian and 20th-century literary theory.
II. Eliot’s response to Arnold’s literary theory: Analyzes the fundamental differences in their poetic concepts, including the functions of literature, morality, and the perception of history.
III. Eliot’s response to Arnold’s literary criticism: Examines Arnold’s critical programme and the role of the critic, contrasting it with Eliot’s views on objective, impersonal criticism.
IV. An outlook on Eliot’s response to Arnold’s cultural criticism: Offers a brief exploration of how their conflicting views on culture and societal utility influence their definitions of criticism.
V. Evaluation of Eliot’s criticism on Arnold: Evaluates the nature of Eliot’s critique, suggesting it acts as a mechanism to assert his own intellectual independence while acknowledging Arnold’s legacy.
VI. Conclusion: Summarizes the key findings, emphasizing that despite Eliot's harsh rhetoric, the two artists share an indisputable connection through their mutual preoccupation with objectivity and literary tradition.
Keywords
T. S. Eliot, Matthew Arnold, Literary Criticism, Poetic Theory, Tradition, Criticism of Life, Objective Correlative, Victorian Age, Modernism, Morality, Disinterestedness, Cultural Criticism, Impersonal Theory, Literary History, Aesthetics
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental focus of this research?
The work explores T. S. Eliot’s reaction to the literary theory and cultural criticism of Matthew Arnold as presented in Eliot's early essays.
What are the central themes discussed?
The main themes include the definition of poetry, the function of literary criticism, the role of morality and religion in literature, and the perception of historical tradition.
What is the primary goal of the author?
The goal is to analyze how Eliot navigated his intellectual debt to Arnold while simultaneously attempting to distinguish his own modern theoretical position.
Which scientific method is applied?
The paper utilizes a comparative analysis, examining specific essays by both authors alongside secondary academic commentary to contrast their theoretical frameworks.
What does the main body of the text cover?
It covers deep dives into poetic theory, the "criticism of life" concept, the comprehension of moral values, and the shifting concepts of literary criticism in the 19th and 20th centuries.
Which key terms characterize this study?
Key terms include "impersonal theory," "disinterestedness," "touchstone-method," "grand style," and "historical sense."
How does Eliot's view of "tradition" differ from Arnold's?
Eliot perceives tradition as a simultaneous, connected whole, whereas he criticizes Arnold for isolating specific historical eras and using an "anachronistic" approach.
Does Eliot completely reject Arnold’s influence?
No, the paper argues that Eliot protests against Arnold’s beliefs and techniques while essentially inheriting and building upon them.
Why does Eliot use sarcastic language toward Arnold?
The research suggests this is a form of dissimulation, allowing Eliot to assert his superiority as a modern critic and avoid being trapped in the shadow of his predecessor.
- Quote paper
- Magistra Artium Marion Meerpohl (Author), 2004, T.S. Eliot's response to Matthew Arnold in his early essays, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/137723
