Notes on Arnold’s “Modern Literature”

Notes on Arnold’s “Modern Literature”

04. Oct, 2009 Comments Off

‘Arnold attempts in this speech, “On the Modern Element in Literature,” a “general survey of classical literature” in an effort to deliver his age from its current imperfection, i.e., to comprehend man’s present and past. He suggests that for an epoch to be great, it must have a significant spectacle to contemplate and one who discovers a true point from which to view and present this spectacle. This artist, says Arnold, “is one of his age’s intellectual deliverers” (20).
The spectacle, Arnold continues, constitutes the collective life of humanity: events, institutions, art, literature, etc. So, by studying the spectacles of others ages, “to know how others stand, . . . we may know how we ourselves stand,” and we can then try to correct our mistakes in order to achieve our deliverance (21). The study of literature, therefore, will enlighten us and contribute to our intellectual deliverance if we study the great letters from great epochs (23).
Arnold illustrates his great epoch/lit with a look at the intellectual maturity of the ancient Athenian culture. They stopped wearing arms, signifying a comfort and security in the citizens; they maintained an elegant simplicity–a general refinement and elegance in life; they practiced a recreation for the spirit, individual diversity, and pleasures of the body. Arnold concludes that “the fifth century in Greece before our era is a significant and modern epoch, the poetry of that epoch–the poetry of Pindar, Æschylus, and Sophocles–is an adequate representation and interpretation of it” (29). Aristophanes also falls into this classical group, but Homer does not; Homer’s times do not share the interesting qualities of his literature (31). The Roman Lucretius, though his portrayal of ennui is both modern and accurate, is not a classic because he represents only a limited view of the grandeur of Rome. What about Virgil? Is he “adequate”? Nope. While he possessed a great learning and delicate genius which make him “the most attractive figure in literary history,” he does not interpret Roman life adequately. Horace? He, like Chaucer, is not serious enough to encompass the broad rage of human characteristics (36). In fact, Roman culture was a deep and significant period, but it did not have a commensurate literature (37).
Finally, Arnold sums up by suggesting that one cannot understand our own intellectual history without looking at others, especially those of classical antiquity.

Arnold attempts in this speech, “On the Modern Element in Literature,” a “general survey of classical literature” in an effort to deliver his age from its current imperfection, i.e., to comprehend man’s present and past. He suggests that for an epoch to be great, it must have a significant spectacle to contemplate and one who discovers a true point from which to view and present this spectacle. This artist, says Arnold, “is one of his age’s intellectual deliverers” (20).

The spectacle, Arnold continues, constitutes the collective life of humanity: events, institutions, art, literature, etc. So, by studying the spectacles of others ages, “to know how others stand, . . . we may know how we ourselves stand,” and we can then try to correct our mistakes in order to achieve our deliverance (21). The study of literature, therefore, will enlighten us and contribute to our intellectual deliverance if we study the great letters from great epochs (23).

Arnold illustrates his great epoch/lit with a look at the intellectual maturity of the ancient Athenian culture. They stopped wearing arms, signifying a comfort and security in the citizens; they maintained an elegant simplicity–a general refinement and elegance in life; they practiced a recreation for the spirit, individual diversity, and pleasures of the body. Arnold concludes that “the fifth century in Greece before our era is a significant and modern epoch, the poetry of that epoch–the poetry of Pindar, Æschylus, and Sophocles–is an adequate representation and interpretation of it” (29). Aristophanes also falls into this classical group, but Homer does not; Homer’s times do not share the interesting qualities of his literature (31). The Roman Lucretius, though his portrayal of ennui is both modern and accurate, is not a classic because he represents only a limited view of the grandeur of Rome. What about Virgil? Is he “adequate”? Nope. While he possessed a great learning and delicate genius which make him “the most attractive figure in literary history,” he does not interpret Roman life adequately. Horace? He, like Chaucer, is not serious enough to encompass the broad rage of human characteristics (36). In fact, Roman culture was a deep and significant period, but it did not have a commensurate literature (37).

Finally, Arnold sums up by suggesting that one cannot understand our own intellectual history without looking at others, especially those of classical antiquity.

Related Posts
  1. Arnold’s Disinterested Critic Matthew Arnold, in his “The Function of Criticism at the...
  2. Romantic Literature No simple label can describe the Romantic Age, for if...
  3. Shelley’s Defense of Poetry Reason is the enumeration of quantities already known; imagination is...
  4. Shelley’s Satanic Poet Shelley, in his A Defense of Poetry, begins by making a...
Twitter Digg Delicious Stumbleupon Technorati Facebook Email
19th c, Aesthetics, British, Essay, Victorian

Comments are closed.