Talk:Matthew Arnold/Archive 1

Amazing...There is not enough interest in this titan of Western culture for even one comment on his article to be posted? I wish I had more knowledge of his life to help give him a more respectable article. Is Stephen Colbert more important than Matthew Arnold? What is happening to our world? 75.68.6.81 21:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

"Titan of Western culture," Arnold would have found that absurdly funny; he had a wonderful sense of humor and even accused himself of laughing too much. Admittedly, he longed to write a great epic poem, but he understood that his efforts in that respect had fallen short. And even if he was sure that his poetry had something of the "main movement of mind" in his time (and he was, to my mind, not entirely wrong in thinking so), he believed he lived in an un-poetic age and so, for that reason, could not climb to the heights of those titans who had, indeed, passed before him. But himself a "titan"? I think he would have had fun with that, but ultimately he'd have laughed it off. It's too much, much too much, and he would have known that.Mddietz 20:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I, for one, would appreciate more of his philosophy versus the emphasis on poetry. For example, the article says nothing about his view of the state as the "organ of our collective best self... our national right reason." (Culture and Anarchy, 1882; Chapter II, Doing as One Likes) 137.22.25.151 07:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "our collective best self" comes originally from Edmund Burke -- Arnold appropriated it, as he did so many of his slogan-ish sayings. It is an interesting and important phrase for understanding Arnold; that its source is Tory and not Liberal has helped to create a problem of perception for Arnold,-- was he politically a liberal or a conservative? Other phrases that could probably do with a better explication here are "the best that has been thought and said," or "the thing as in itself it really is," or poetry as "a criticism of life." All of these deserve some comment. I hope eventually to find some time to add something on each with appropriate sources to back them up; I just do not have the time at present.Mddietz 20:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)(UTC)

On Arnold's appointment as inspector of schools in 1851 see Honan page 223. As the paragraph previously read it suggested that Arnold was a private secretary to Lord Lansdowne the majority of his life. Arnold's role as a school inspector is a significant part of Arnold's biography and really needs to be included here. Mddietz

One thing I badly want to correct here,-- there is not one single mention anywhere in this whole article of Arthur Hugh Clough for whom Arnold wrote "Thyrsis," and who was like a brother to Arnold. Clough and Arnold are intimately connected, so that it is almost impossible to talk intelligently about the one without some mention of the other. Mddietz 20:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the following which has no citation.
 * His poetry endures because of its directness, and the literal fidelity of his beautifully circumstantial description of nature, of scenes, and places, imbued with a kind of majestic sadness which takes the place of music. Alike in his poetry and in his prose, which supplies in charm of manner, breadth of subject-matter, and acuteness of individual judgment, what it lacks in system, a stimulating personality makes itself felt. He was chiefly valuable to his own age as its severest critic; to ours he represents its humanest aspirations.

If anyone can find a citation for it, then surely it can go back in. The assessment is not a bad one; the term "humanest" is eccentric, but not inappropriate. I had thought I might find it in Chambers essay but it is not there that I can see. (You know I keep writing here as if there are others looking in, but other than Guinevere50, the vandals, the bots and the bot-like admins, I have a suspicion I am simply talking to myself...) Mddietz 18:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)20:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mddietz - I am still away from home and won't be back until after August 16th, hence the silence from me. I don't know who wrote that particular paragraph (not me) but as you say it's not unreasonable. 'Humanest' is an odd word and could perhaps be replaced by 'most human' or even 'humanist'. I am writing this in five minutes on my nephew's computer in Stockholm!--Guinevere50 07:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the dates for the Victorian period as the sentence could be read to mean that Arnold wrote from 1837 - 1901. As he died in 1888, we might find some difficulty in explaining how he accomplished this final baker's dozen of years of writing. Mddietz 18:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC) I have since removed the whole reference to Victorian period as it is redundant to the reference to Victorian later in the sentence and seems a little bit too much fluff. Mddietz 15:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I have added coments on Arnold's poetry from Collini, Bloom and Chambers. These stake out the poles of Arnold's reputation. Chambers is unrepentatnly postive; Bloom is hostile (perhaps he holds a grudge because he knows how much his own criticism depends upon an awkward echo of Arnold's); while Collini is thoughtfully in the center.


 * You were wise not to go to the Dover Beach page. Shortly after I made most of the comments here with my recommendations for changes to this article and for the new pages for some of the poems, a rather eccentric individual posted a snippet here disparaging the content of this page, and then posted again on the Dover Beach page.  He made his "beachhead" at Dover Beach  where he bravely attempted to save the world from the army of "scoliasts and right wing Nazis" who run wikipedia and will not allow him to post freely whatever he pleases to post.  Quite an interesting experience,-- in the course of which I ended up rewriting the Dover Beach page myself as a sort of bottomline defense in the name of sanity, motherhood and apple pie... Stockholm, huh?  I envy you.  I've never had a chance toget to scandanavia.  One of these days, perhaps. Mddietz 14:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the reference to Arnold desiring poetry that is disintereted in politics. Arnold had the term "disinterest" from Sainte-Beuve and used it in reference to criticism, not to poetry. Also, I have removed the refence to Arnold being a proponent of close reading. To the best of my knowledge Arnold never used the term "close reading" which is better associated with the New Criticism in the following century. Arnold certainly was willing to cite and often to cite at length in his criticism, but he did so with the intent of demonstrating mood or subtleties of style, not with the intent of a close textual reading. In his own poetry he was not as terribly fastidious about his language as one would expect in a major poet. His criticism and his approach to criticism suggest something of an awkward way-station moving, perhaps, toward a foregrounding of text, but he is certainly not so strongly of that school as to warrant the statements here made. Mddietz

Arnold and religion
I reverted an edit as follows: ''Arnold never entirely rejected Christianity; rather, under the Influence of Baruch Spinoza and his father, Dr. Thomas Arnold, he rejected religious superstition, which he called "auberglabe," after-thoughts. He had a curious fascination for church rituals. Throughout his life, he seems to have most desired, for England, a state church that was open to a wide variety of Chiristian beliefs.'' This was because it was a radical change from the previous version, but unsupported by any citation. Can anybody support or expand on this, or on Arnold's religious beliefs?--Guinevere50 21:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I did not provide a citation for the change, but might I ask, where is the citation for the original version. I have never seen Arnold called an agnostic. Mddietz

What is necessary for a citation? I can cite for you Honan's biography, pages 363-72. Ruth apRobert's Arnold and God deals with his extensive religious writings. This was a man (Arnold) who spent much time writing, talking and thinking about religion. He was personal friends with T. H. Huxley who invented the term agnostic (again as sources, Honan's book speaks to this). Had he truly been an agnostic he would have understood the term as Huxley defined it, not as we very loosely define the term today. To call him an agnostic is a significant error. Please tell me what needs to be done to correct this. If it cannot be corrected, then I suppose I have made my little effort, it has failed and that is that. Mddietz

Is it possible, at least, to remove the statement that Arnold was an agnostic? This is very misleading. I can tell you that the Honan book and apRobert's book do not support such a contention. And if needed, I could find a number of other negative citations in which Arnold is not, at any point, characterized as an agnostic. What I cannot find you is a citation that supports the characterization that Arnold was an agnostic. It may exist, but in my studies I have yet to come across it, and I have been reading heavily in Arnold as he is the subject of my doctoral dissertation. Arnold's discussion of Spinoza occurs in his essay on Spinoza and elsewhere. Mddietz

Here is a citation from Laurence W. Mazzeno's Matthew Arnold: The Critical Legacy New York: Camden House, 1999, pg. 129; Mazzeno is referring to James Livingston's "Matthew Arnold and Christianity" Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1986. "An unabashed apologist for Arnold, Livingston places him at the center of modern Protestant thought. He argues persuasively that, despite what others may have said of him, Arnold believed in a personal, transcendent God who nevertheless played an active role in human history.  Arnold's resoluteness in insisting that religious language was essentially metaphorical and not really representative of the essence of the deity placed him at odds with both contemporaries and successors who do not believe scientific language can be appropriated for describing a transcendent experience." Surely this makes it clear that to call Arnold an agnostic is extremely inaccurate. Huxley intended the term agnostic to allow a separation of scientific inquiry from religious. Arnold moves in exactly the opposite direction according to Livingston. At no point in anything I have read of Arnold does he doubt the existence of God, even when he calls the resurrection mere superstition (see "A Psychological Parallel") Mddietz

Guinevere50, I'm learning a little more about this editing process. It appears that you are the one who made the statement that Arnold was an agnostic. Would it be okay for me to ask you to provide citations? Is it best, for now, simply to void the current paragraph until we come to agreement on how best to express Arnold's religious beliefs? It may be that making any statement on Arnold's religious beliefs is simply beyond the capacity of good history or biography. David DeLaura (as reported in the Mazzeno book I have cited above) says that Arnold so often re-examined his social and religious beliefs that straying from any direct exegesis of his own writings is likely to lead one into mis-statement. Mddietz

Mddietz - I'm sorry it's taken me so long to get back to this, but I was away on holiday. Hats off to you for your citations and it may be that we should revise the original version that said Arnold was agnostic, though I would say that it is possible for agnostics (and even atheists!) to spend a lot of time thinking and writing about God. Your quote from Livingston, via Mazzeno, is interesting. I take your point about Huxley's intention in coining the word agnostic to allow for the necessary scientific observation that makes no a priori assumptions. As your knowledge of Arnold's religious writings is evidently greater than mine, could you perhaps find a couple of quotations from Arnold himself, rather than what other people have written about him, that indicate to you that he believed in a personal, transcendent God?

In support of the existing version I would point to his words in 1873 in Literature and Dogma: "The word 'God' is used in most cases as by no means a term of science or exact knowledge, but a term of poetry and eloquence, a term thrown out, so to speak, as a not fully grasped object of the speaker's consciousness — a literary term, in short; and mankind mean different things by it as their consciousness differs." It seems to me that this view of God is as a concept in the human mind rather than as an actual being. This resonates well with the feelings in "Dover Beach" I think. I believe it was in Last Essays on Church and Religion (1877) that he defined religion as "morality touched with emotion". He wrote in preface of God and the Bible in 1875 “The personages of the Christian heaven and their conversations are no more matter of fact than the personages of the Greek Olympus and their conversations.”--Guinevere50 20:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Truth is I'm not as convinced as Livingston is that Arnold so easily believed in a transcendent God. Nonetheless, this statement from a notable scholar (not to mention those of Ruth apRoberts) should make us stop short of a strong pronouncement one way or the other. The eminent scholars are in a quandary on this one (and I am quite reticent to place myself in any category of eminence on this matter),-- surely their quandary is reason enough for us to look at least for some more qualified statement,-- and I mean to include by that my own substitute which no doubt also lacked sufficient qualification.

I cannot lay my hands on it just now, but Arnold does say at one point, somewhat defensively, that he believes in God. He makes it clear that Spinoza's thoughts appeal to him. He also clearly states that he believes Spinoza was mis-judged in his time in being declared a heretic. Part of our problem here might be that today we are so divorced from these older discussions of religion that we only see two alternatives: the belief in a transcendent, historical God, a God with physical attrributes; or no belief in God or anything that even remotely smacks of the metaphysical. Our only possibility for a middle ground today may well be agnosticism (although, on a personal note, my own beliefs fall into the middle ground,-- and I would be insulted if anyone ever called me an agnostic, that however is not an argument that should have any relevance for the case with Arnold). Nonetheless, I suspect, Arnold was quite comfortable dismissing superstition and setting aside metaphysical concerns, while still believeing in God. The physicality or metaphysicality of God were not relevant, I believe Arnold is saying, to the virtue that God and Chistianity brought to Arnold and to his society. In his own time he was accused of wanting to eat his cake and take it, too. But he held out, and to my knowledge mever admitted the doubts that are implicit in agnosticism, at least not in a literal reading of agnosticism. Frankly, agnostic can be used to cover, if you will excuse the expression, a multitude of sins,-- or more appropriately to designate anyone who possesses religious doubts of any color.

One more item of note: Arnold the poet and Arnold the prose writer were often notoriously at odds. Reasoning his beliefs from his essays and from poems like Dover Beach may reveal differences that cannot be reconciled.

Ultimately, I think the problem is that Arnold's beliefs are not really so easily categorizable. In other words, I think with Arnold, Livingston overstates the case for him, he is not at the center of Protestant thought; Arnold probably belongs to a pragmatic middle ground that is more concerned with the poetry of relgion and its virtues and values for society, than with the existence of God. But to call him an agnostic probably places him in an aspect of the middle ground that he would never have felt comfortable inhabiting. Sorry to offer no quotations. Let me see what I can find and get back with you. Mddietz

Arnold's preface to the 1883 Popular edition of "Literature and Dogma" should, at least, clarify Arnold's aims in writing that particular book, the most popular of his books during his life time (Culture and Anarchy, which preceded it, is easily today the most popular of Arnold's titles and about the only one still in print). Arnold says, "to pass from a Christianity relying on its miracles to a Christianity relying on its natural truth is a great change. It can only be brought about by those whose attachment to Christianity is such, that they cannot part with it, and yet cannot but deal with it sincerely." We must accept by the context of this statement that he means himself to be counted amongst those who cannot part with Christianity even as they deal with it sincerely, i.e. attempt to expunge from it what Arnold (and his father) regarded as superstitions.

Alternatively, I have come across a refence to a book (in R. H. Super's notes to "Literature and Dogma" in the Complete Prose Works) by A. O. J. Cockshut entitled "The Unbelievers: English Agnostic Thought 1840-1890 (London: Collins, 1964) which inclues a chapter on Arnold that Super regards as "remarkably perceptive." I'd like to get hold of that book; it should prove interesting.  Yet, assuming that Cockshut's argument finds Arnold to be an agnostic, I would still hold that where the depth of scholarship is in disagreement on such a matter, it seems inappropriate to use wikipedia to make a declaration one way or the other.

I have to admit, as I should have done up front, that I have not read as deeply in Arnold's religious writings as I have in his literary, social and educational writings. I have read "Culture and Anarchy;" religious issues are scatterd throughout that work; his distinction between Hebraism and Hellenism is certainly caught up in religious concerns. I have also read "A Psychological Parallel" his final statement on relgious matters. I am just now starting "Literature and Dogma." Mddietz

Mddietz - thank you for this very interesting discussion. I really liked a couple of sentences of yours above and I think we could probably use those to make a more nuanced statement about Arnold's religious beliefs. How about this version below?

"Scholars of Arnold's works disagree on his exact position on the spectrum between agnostic and Christian believer. Under the influence of Baruch Spinoza and his father, Dr. Thomas Arnold, he rejected religious superstition but retained a fascination for church rituals. Arnold probably belongs to a pragmatic middle ground that is more concerned with the poetry of religion and its virtues and values for society than with the existence of God. He wrote in the preface of God and the Bible in 1875 “The personages of the Christian heaven and their conversations are no more matter of fact than the personages of the Greek Olympus and their conversations.” He also wrote in Literature and Dogma: 'The word 'God' is used in most cases as by no means a term of science or exact knowledge, but a term of poetry and eloquence, a term thrown out, so to speak, as a not fully grasped object of the speaker's consciousness — a literary term, in short; and mankind mean different things by it as their consciousness differs,' and defined religion as 'morality touched with emotion'. However, he also wrote in the same book, 'to pass from a Christianity relying on its miracles to a Christianity relying on its natural truth is a great change. It can only be brought about by those whose attachment to Christianity is such, that they cannot part with it, and yet cannot but deal with it sincerely.' It seems likely by the context of this statement that he means himself to be counted amongst those who cannot part with Christianity even as they deal with it sincerely."

This version seems to have the right nuances, and cites Arnold's own words in support of it. What do you think? --Guinevere50 16:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we are certainly getting closer here. I would like to suggest a couple of changes, however. It seems to me that it is possible, and, frankly, probably fairly common, for one to be an agnostic AND a Christian believer, provided that one understands by agnostic notihing more than Huxley originally meant by the term, that knowledge of God cannot be produced by recourse to empirical knowledge. One might say in such a case that belief is founded not upon knowledge but upon faith,-- to such a person science and belief are not opposite ends of a spectrum, but independent fields of thought. This was not, I think, Arnold's position, but it would suggest that the idea of a specturm, which I think I may have originally suggested, is not adequate. So instead I would suggest,

"Scholars of Arnold's works disagree on the nature of Arnold's personal religious beliefs. Under the influence of Baruch Spinoza and his father, Dr. Thomas Arnold, he rejected religious superstition, even while retaining a fascination for church rituals. Arnold seems to belong to a pragmatic middle ground that is more concerned with the poetry of religion and its virtues and values for society than with the existence of God. ..."

I made two other small edits changing your "but" to "even while," and "probably" to "seems to."

I like having a few more of Arnold's words in the article. I think the way you have written this, with three rich and interesting quotations in it, provides room for the reader to draw his/her own conclusions, while staying true to the unbiased nature of the encyclopedia's purpose. However, I noticed that someone had gone through at one point and pared the article down taking out some passages that seemed to me fairly reasonable. The statement that Arnold had become a school inspector so that he could marry was sliced out at that point resulting in the erroneous statement that he had been sectretary to Lord Landsdowne most of his life. We shall have to see if someone comes back in and cuts this back as too wordy. I hope not. Mddietz

The pared-down version is fine by me, but of course as it stands would be unsourced in the article, even though in our discussion we have clearly linked it to three passages from Arnold's own writing. I suppose we could just link it to the books from which those quotations were taken, but that seems very loose, and I don't have the page references to hand now (and even those are not good without the actual quotations). I suppose we could just put it in with reference to the works and refer anybody to the discussion page for the sources! It is a fine balance between being scholarly and accurate and too lengthy. I think the previous editor was in error in taking out Arnold's career as a school inspector, as it is clearly such a major part of his life, and I'm glad you put that back in. --Guinevere50 11:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not have my copy of Super's edition of "Literature and Dogma" with me. I will bring it in tomorrow and come up with the exact page references. Mddietz

Speaking of which a handful of items need to be added to the reference list. Super's 11-volume Complete Prose Works which is the standard source today. Lang's 6-volume "Letters of Matthew Arnold" which was completed in 2001 and came close to not being published because Arnold is so much on the outs with post-modernists. Kenneth Allott's annotated edition of the poems. Lowry's edition of Arnold's Notebooks. These are the standard sources. Arnold's school reports were also published shortly after his death, but to my knowledge have not been reprinted in the last century,-- a shame. In any event when I get time I may see about updating the reference list. Mddietz

Ah, just noticed your comment on pared-down. No I meant the elipsis to include all you had written before. I only made changes in the first few sentences. The rest was fine by me. Mddietz

I am away from home until mid-August, so as you have the references I'll leave it to you to make the necessary edits to the article. This has been an interesting exchange of ideas, and I thank you for that. I don't get much chance to have this kind of discussion nowadays!--Guinevere50 12:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Little acts of vandalism
I would guess that the very nature of this site makes vandalism a recurrent, perhaps even necessary part of the process. What intrigues me is the various tonalities that vandalism takes on. At one point, reading back through the history of this page, someone added the phrase "Matthew is gay." Not that interesting as vandalism goes, nothing more than a small adolescent plea for attention. We just had another little burst of vandlaism,-- this much more interesting in its way, although, I would imagine, equally a call for attention. It was appended to the discussion of "Dover Beach." Here it is, parenthesis and all--
 * (Which, of course, isn't really what the poem is about at all, so it might be wise to read it first before either commenting ridiculously upon it or relying on someone else's unschooled commentary anent it. You takes your chances, you gets your results.)

Now why would someone, who apparently has some knowledge of the poem and some capacity to think critically, believe that this was the best way to recommend a correction to the article? Is it the age we live in that leads even the brightest amongst us to these little acts of vandalism and incivility? Arnold famously said that "conduct is three-fourths of life." John Dewey responded that it was no mere three-fourths, but the whole of life. Can anyone imagine that he or she has tapped the depths of "Dover Beach" and not know this? Mddietz 18:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)