Matthew Arnold: Victorian Criticism and Cultural Renewal
Victorian Criticism: Matthew Arnold
The Victorian period took place in the 19th century. We should differentiate between the intellectual period and the reign of Queen Victoria. The intellectual period was shorter, marked by new ways of thinking. Romanticism, an early 19th-century affair, and its sentimentalism served as the epistemological base for Victorianism.
Victorianism can be generally characterized as a period of doubt and hesitation. It was a period of change and an acceleration of history. Many fundamental things changed, leading to contradictions. In this period, religious doubt emerged. People began to question religion, partly due to Darwin’s work, The Origin of Species, which came as a shock to those who believed in God.
During this century, there was also a steady growth in literacy. Previously, in 1807, a bill proposing universal education had been defeated. Parliament refused it, fearing that educated commoners might read ‘unsuitable’ things, posing a danger to the stability of the British monarchy. In 1870, an act was passed to establish universal education.
Arnold’s Educational and Cultural Proposals
In this context, Matthew Arnold made proposals for reconstructing the British educational system based on literary studies. Arnold observed two significant changes: the growing disbelief in religion and the weakening of classical education. Religion had been the cement of society. Arnold believed literature could take its place, founding society on the ‘religion’ of the great masters of English literature.
Matthew Arnold recognized similar beliefs, attitudes, and ideas within English society. He chose literature because it is based on language, allowing people to easily identify with works written in their shared tongue. Literature became a very powerful tool for social intervention. Matthew Arnold theorized about several key ideas:
The Idea of Disinterestedness
Usually, ‘disinterestedness’ can have negative connotations, suggesting a lack of interest. However, Arnold used the term positively. He had a strict idea of what a critic should be, based on disinterestedness:
- A critic should keep aloof from the practical view of things and admit no influence from everyday affairs.
- A critic should not engage in directly polemical or controversial criticism.
- A critic must not lend himself to mere political or practical considerations.
This can be summarized in one phrase: critical objectivity. Therefore, a critic must remain detached from practical questions, avoid controversial criticism, and perform criticism without focusing on political matters. You have to engage the text in an objective way. He particularly opposed political interference in the work of a critic. He argued that the true critic must be disinterested and objective.
Arnold on Poetry’s Role Amidst Cultural Shifts
Arnold wrote when Western culture was often seen as divided into four areas: poetry, science, philosophy, and religion. He consistently emphasized poetry. This emphasis arose partly because the novel in the 19th century was largely considered mere entertainment. Literature at that time primarily meant poetry and theatre. The novel only gained significant literary status after the modernist revolution. Arnold focused on poetry partly because he himself was a poet.
He also observed a fierce conflict between science and religion, each vying for dominance. However, he believed neither would win, predicting a war of exhaustion where both would effectively destroy each other’s cultural authority. Furthermore, he thought philosophy would not prevail as society’s guide, believing it represented abstraction or ‘falsity’—all that was detached from lived reality.