”My poems represent, on the whole, the main movement of mind of the last quarter of a century, and thus they will probably have their day as people become conscious to themselves of what that movement of mind is, and interested in the literary productions which reflect it. It might be fairly urged that I have less poetical sentiment than Tennyson and less intellectual vigour and abundance than Browning; yet because I have perhaps more of a fusion of the two than either of them, and have more regularly applied that fusion to the main line of modern development, I am likely enough to have my turn as they have had theirs.”
- Matthew Arnold, in a letter to his MOTHER!
Reputation – 3/5
As a poet, Matthew Arnold has never had his day. By middle age he was devoting almost all his writing to literary criticism and it is literary criticism for which he is remembered today. Arnold was naturally more of a critic than a poet, but he lived during a time when it was not unusual for a man to decide he wanted to write poems and to publish them himself. We no longer live in that time, and a man who spends his time writing poetry, we view with at least a bit of a sidelong glance. But in the Victorian Era, amateurs still wrote poetry.
Point – 3/5
The critic John Cowper Powys once called Matthew Arnold “the great amateur” of English poetry. And indeed, there is something very amateurish about Arnold’s poetry. That is not to say that it is bad.
By critical overuse the word “amateur” has come to carry a negative connotation. It has come to mean something like “inept,” when the word itself literally means “one who loves” in the original French. As G.K. Chesterton wrote
“A man must love a thing very much if he not only practises it without any hope of fame or money, but even practises it without any hope of doing it well.”
Matthew Arnold is exactly this kind of amateur. He nearly admits so much himself in the above-quoted letter to his mother. The letter is an almost unbelievably frank self-assessment, and it is precisely correct, excepting its last clause. Arnold’s poetry never had its day.
But that is not entirely his fault. It is true that he had a profounder understanding of the “main line of modern development” than any other poet of his time. Arnold knows that deep down, under the veneer of Victorian civilization, something is rotten. He doesn’t quite know what it is, but his pessimism is palpable.
”O born in days when wits were fresh and clear,
And life ran gaily as the sparkling Thames;
Before this strange disease of modern life,
With its sick hurry, its divided aims,
Its heads o’ertax’d, its palsied hearts, was rife —“
He is the first English poet to call his age diseased. The metaphor seems trite to us now, but Arnold wrote those lines in 1853. It comes from a poem called The Scholar Gipsy, which the critic in Arnold didn’t like. He wrote:
“Homer animates – Shakespeare animates, in its poor way I think Sohrab and Rustum (another of Arnold’s poems) animates – the ‘Gipsy Scholar’ at best awakens a pleasing melancholy. But this is not what we want.
The complaining millions of men
Darken in labour and pain–
what they want is something to animate and ennoble them – not merely to add zest to their melancholy or grace to their dreams.”
Other critics disagreed and called it one of his best poems.
And here we come to the fundamental discord in Matthew Arnold: as a critic, he does not believe in his own poetry.
When the critic in Arnold tries to write poetry, he writes long-winded attempts at philosophical poetry with far too many classical allusions. He tries too hard to show off his learning to the poetry-reading class, or perhaps he thinks that his immortality will be ensured by his communication with the canon. But all this is very tiresome, especially when we see what Matthew Arnold the natural poet is capable of.
The poet in Arnold has a great natural intuition for personal depth and profound meditation. In his best moments, he is very much like his hero, Wordsworth, only more pessimistic.
And I, I know not if to pray
Still to be what I am, or yield, and be
Like all the other men I see.
For most men in a brazen prison live,
Where in the sun’s hot eye,
With heads bent o’er their toil, they languidly
Their lives to some unmeaning taskwork give,
Dreaming of naught beyond their prison wall.
And as, year after year,
Fresh products of their barren labour fall
From their tired hands, and rest
Never yet comes more near,
Gloom settles slowly down over their breast.
And while they try to stem
The waves of mournful thought by which they are prest,
Death in their prison reaches them
Unfreed, having seen nothing, still unblest.
And the rest, a few, Escape their prison, and depart
On the wide Ocean of Life anew.
There the freed prisoner, where’er his heart
Listeth, will sail;
Nor does he know how there prevail,
Despotic on life’s sea,
Trade-winds that cross it from eternity.
A while he holds some false way, undebarr’d
By thwarting signs, and braves
The freshening wind and blackening waves.
And then the tempest strikes him, and between
The lightning bursts is seen
Only a driving wreck,
And the pale Master on his spar-strewn deck
With anguish’d face and flying hair
Grasping the rudder hard,
Still bent to make some port he knows not where,
Still standing for some false impossible shore.
And sterner comes the roar
Of sea and wind, and through the deepening gloom
Fainter and fainter wreck and helmsman loom,
And he too disappears, and comes no more.
Is there no life, but these alone?
Madman or slave, must man be one?”
This is really good stuff. It gets right to the heart of “modern life” as Arnold identified it and as we end up living it. So why didn’t Arnold the poet have his day?
The first reason, it seems to me, is that while Arnold is indeed pessimistic, he never could have predicted how completely hopeless and nihilistic the world would become. He was, after all, born in 1822, grew up with an Eminently Victorian schoolmaster father, and died in 1888. He could not have imagined a Europe that would recklessly launch itself into the cultural suicide of the First World War. That was a turning point in the line of modern life that Arnold simply couldn’t have predicted. And the consequences of it tossed his age, with all its morals and poetic stylizing, forever into the dustbin of history. This is not Matthew Arnold’s fault.
The second reason actually is Arnold’s fault. And that is that Matthew Arnold the critic killed Matthew Arnold the poet. The man who began as an amateur in the French sense of the word ("a lover”) ended up condemning himself as an amateur in its modern sense (“a tepid dabbler”).
To return to the letter that he wrote his mother, it seems he came to believe that his poems would never have their day, and that he would be better off just not writing them.
Recommendation – 4/5
It may seem strange to try to revive Matthew Arnold as poet, but I think, he does deserve his day after all. He will never have his day in the same sense that Tennyson or Browning had theirs, but he was absolutely correct in saying that his poetry addressed something that those two greater poets never noticed: existentialism.
I may be philosophically out of line to call Matthew Arnold an existentialist, because he certainly is not that in his criticism. But in his poetry, he is. Works like The Scholar Gipsy, The Last Word, and Dover Beach are modern and chaotic in the same sense that much of the early 20th Century’s poetry is, just much more understandable.
Finally, there is something endearing about Arnold’s amateurishness. It makes us feel that our own feelings about modern life are worth attempting to express in poetry.
Personal – 4/5
Christopher Hitchens once made a strong argument in favor of George Orwell by calling him “so obviously not a genius.”
What Hitchens meant was that Orwell ought to be an inspiration to average non-geniuses because he proved that, by living and thinking with integrity, he was still able to come to the right conclusions and write very well. I would make that same argument in favor of Matthew Arnold generally, and especially with regard to his poetry. There is nothing genius about it, but it’s honest, reflective, and dignified in a way that exceeds many writers of real genius.
Despite disagreeing with much of Arnold’s criticism, I’ve always liked the man for who he was. This was my first encounter with his poetry, and it was much better than I expected. It has its faults, but they were curiously not the same faults you find in his criticism. For one, Matthew Arnold the poet is much more endearing. Arnold once wrote to John Henry Newman, telling him that he and Wordsworth were two of the people that Arnold had consciously “learned from.” There is much of both Wordsworth's and Cardinal Newman’s truth to conscience in Matthew Arnold. He was a very sincere man, and that sincerity is expressed in his better poetry.
The Buried Life is one of those poems in which Arnold covers the whole spectrum of our attempts to hide our feelings. We can feel his strain:
”A longing to inquire
Into the mystery of this heart that beats
So wild, so deep in us, to know
Whence our thoughts come and where they go.
And many a man in his own breast then delves,
But deep enough, alas, none ever mines:
And we have been on many thousand lines,
And we have shown on each talent and power,
But hardly have we, for one little hour,
Been on our own line, have we been ourselves;
Hardly had skill to utter one of all
The nameless feelings that course through our breast,
But they course on for ever unexpress’d.
And long we try in vain to speak and act
Our hidden self, and what we say and do
Is eloquent, is well — but ‘tis not true:”
But it ends with a quiet resolution. A touching expression of those moments when we allow love to reveal the buried life within each of us:
”Only — but this is rare —
When a beloved hand is laid in ours,
When, jaded with the rush and glare
Of the interminable hours,
Our eyes can in another’s eyes read clear,
When our world-deafen’d ear
Is by the tones of a lov’d voice caress’d, —
A bolt is shot back somewhere in our breast
And a lost pulse of feeling stirs again:
The eye sinks inward, and the heart lies plain,
And what we mean, we say, and what we would, we know.”