Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T13:20:29.313Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Congestion of the Brain in an Age of Unpoetrylessness: Matthew Arnold's Digestive Tracts for the Times

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2008

Ortwin de Graef
Affiliation:
Katholieke Universiteit LeuvenBelgian National Fund for Scientific Research

Extract

“Kan kunst de wereld redden?” When Antwerp was cultural capital of Europe in 1993, this question — “Can art save the world?” — was adopted as one of the city's official slogans, prompting the mayor at the time, Bob Cools, to offer his contribution to an answer by way of a quotation: “Culture is to know the best that has been said and thought in the world.” As his source Cools mentioned Literature and Dogma, but in order to register accurately the phrase's critical relation to the salvation of and by culture, we must at least retrace it to its origin in Arnold's work, “The Function of Criticism at the Present Time.” In that essay, Arnold famously argues for the logical priority of criticism over poetry, claiming that poetry can only thrive when it has at its disposal the “materials” of literary creation, the high-quality “ideas” which it is the province of criticism to furnish (270).” The business of criticism is “simply 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” (270). Measured by this standard, Arnold finds his own English modernity sadly deficient, representative of “the modern situation in its true blankness and barrenness, and unpoetrylessness” (Letters 126), and bereft of “just that very thing which now Europe most desires, — criticism” (“Function” 258). For in England, more than anywhere else, the critical spirit suffers from the short-sighted pragmatism and innate mindlessness that render the British immune to ideas, a fundamental philistinism that deprives the creative faculty of its materials and stifles the genuine development of criticism according to “the idea which is the law of its being: the idea of a disinterested endeavour to learn and propagate the best that is known and thought in the world, and thus to establish a current of fresh and true ideas” (“Function” 282).

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

WORKS CITED

Armstrong, Isobel. Victorian Poetry: Poetry, poetics and politics. London: Routledge, 1993.Google Scholar
Arnold, Matthew. Complete Prose Works. 11 vols. Ed. Super, R. H.. Ann Arbor: U of Michigan P, 19601977.Google Scholar
Arnold, Matthew. Essays Literary and Critical. London: Dent, 1906.Google Scholar
Arnold, Matthew. “The Function of Criticism at the Present Time.” 1863. Vol. 3 of Complete Prose Works. 258–85.Google Scholar
Arnold, Matthew. “Last Words on Translating Homer.” 1862. Vol. 1 of Complete Prose Works. 168216.Google Scholar
Arnold, Matthew. The Letters of Matthew Arnold to Arthur Hugh Clough. Ed. Lowry, Howard Foster. Oxford: Clarendon. 1968.Google Scholar
Arnold, Matthew. “On Translating Homer.” 18601861. Vol. 1 of Complete Prose Works. 97168.Google Scholar
Arnold, Matthew. The Poems of Matthew Arnold. Ed. Allott, Kenneth, 2nd ed. Allott, Miriam. London: Longman, 1979.Google Scholar
Arnold, Matthew. Preface. Merope. 1858. The Poems of Matthew Arnold 682703.Google Scholar
Arnold, Matthew. Preface. Poems 1st ed. 1853. The Poems of Matthew Arnold 654–71.Google Scholar
Bagehot, Walter. “Letters on the French Coup d'Etat.” 1852. Hartford: The Travellers' Insurance Company, 1891. Vol. 2 of The Works of Walter Bagehot, in Five Volumes. Ed. Forrest Morgan. 371–439.Google Scholar
Bush, Douglas. Matthew Arnold: A Survey of His Poetry and Prose. London: Macmillan, 1971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
“J.C.” [John Conington?]. Rev. of Merope. Fraser's Magazine June 1858. Dawson 1451.Google Scholar
Coleridge, Samuel Taylor. On the Constitution of the Church and State. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1976. Vol. 10 of The Collected Works of Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Bollingen Series LXXV. Ed.John Colmer.Google Scholar
Collini, Stefan. “Arnold.” Le Quesne 193–326.Google Scholar
Coulling, Sidney. Matthew Arnold and His Critics: A Study of Arnold's Controversies. Athens: Ohio UP, 1974.Google Scholar
Davis, Robert Con and Ronald, Schleifer. Criticism and Culture: The Role of Critique in Modern Literary Theory. Burnt Mill: Longman. 1991.Google Scholar
Dawson, Carl. ed. Matthew Arnold: the Poetry — The Critical Heritage. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1973.Google Scholar
De Graef, Ortwin. “Browning Born to Wordsworth: Intimations of Relatability from Recollections of Early Monstrosity.” Constellation Caliban. Ed. D'Haen, Theo and Lie, Nadia. Amsterdam & Atlanta: Rodopi. 1997.Google Scholar
De Graef, Ortwin. “Laus stupiditatis/Radical overkill: Tennyson's politics of poetic licence.” Cahiers victoriennes et edwardiennes 42 (1995): 1539.Google Scholar
De Graef, Ortwin. “Saint Sign: Tennyson in the Post-Prophetic Condition.” Sense and Transcendence: Essays in Honour of Herman Servotte. Ed. de Graef, Ortwin et al. Leuven: Leuven UP, 1995. 7397.Google Scholar
Goodheart, Eugene. “Arnold at the Present Time.” Critical Inquiry 9 (1983): 451–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, Wendell. “The Continuously Creative Function of Arnoldian Criticism.” Victorian Poetry 26 (1988): 117–33.Google Scholar
Hawkes, Terence. “The Heimlich Manoeuvre.” Textual Practice 8 (1994): 302–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Homer, , The Iliad, Volume I. Trans. Murray, A. T.. 1924. Loeb Classical Library. London: Heineman, 1965.Google Scholar
Kirk, G. S. The Iliad: A Commentary — Volume I: books 1–4. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, George. “Matthew Arnold: The Artist in the Wilderness.” Critical Inquiry 9 (1983): 469–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, George. “Matthew Arnold's Science of Religion: The Uses of Imprecision.” Victorian Poetry 26 (1988): 143–62.Google Scholar
Le Quesne, A. L. et al. Victorian Thinkers: Carlyle, Ruskin, Arnold, Morris. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1993.Google Scholar
Newman, Francis W.Homeric Translation in Theory and Practice: A Reply to Matthew Arnold.” Arnold, Essays 276336.Google Scholar
Nichols, John. Excerpt from Undergraduate Papers. 1858. Dawson 156.Google Scholar
Swinburne, Algernon Charles. Rev. of New Poems and Poems. Fortnightly Review, 10 1867. Dawson 162–85.Google Scholar
Trilling, Lionel. Matthew Arnold. London: Unwin University Books. 1963.Google Scholar
Van den Broeck, Raymond and Andre, Lefevere. Uitnodiging tot de vertaalwetenschap. Muiderberg: Coutinho, 1979.Google Scholar
Willcock, M. M. A Commentary on Homer's Iliad, Books I–VI. London: Macmillan, 1970.Google Scholar