In Pursuit Of An Ideal Of Harmonious Perfection

Matthew Arnold impresses the world with no small achievements in a variety of fields. As a poet, he holds a prominent place in the history of English literature. As a critic, his influence is found to have extended beyond his time and his country. He broadened the horizon of literary studies and pioneered in the field of cultural criticism. Because of his intellectual distinction he has long been an especially important object of English studies, English literature studies in particular. So much so that it has seemed, in the English academic world,"that Arnold had become the permanent English critic and that to be a professor of English meant being, by definition, an Arnoldian,"as is remarked by John Raleigh.Arnoldian studies can be traced back to the latter half of 19th century, even to Arnold's lifetime. This is because even in his prime life, his original ideas and critical theories had begun to attract critical attention. As was remarked by Benjamin Disraeli, British novelist and twice prime minister of Britain, Arnold was"the only living Englishman who had become a classic in his own lifetime."This remark, similar to Raleigh's remark above, is well reflective of the centrality of Arnold in academic studies in the English speaking world.To say that Arnold has long been an object of critical attention is not to say that he has always been favourably regarded by all critics throughout the last century. In fact, from the very beginning, as was observed by Sister Hoctor,"the response to Arnold as a critic was divided. On one count only there was a kind of unanimity: whether they enjoyed him or despised him, Arnold's public received him with vehemence. Indifference was simply not a characteristic reaction."Many of the disputes around Arnold originated from T. S. Eliot, who had made quite a lot of observations on Matthew Arnold, many of which were highly critical and negative. As T. S. Eliot has been regarded as the"literary dictator"after Arnold and as he has been generally acknowledged as Arnold's intellectual inheritor, many of Eliot's observations have been responsible for sustained disputes. One of these disputes has been centred on Arnold's gift for consistency.In delivering a lecture on Arnold and Pater, T. S. Eliot remarked that"Arnold had little gift for consistency."As Arnold himself expressed a passionate dislike of system, as Arnold's practice of literary criticism sometimes was observed by some as incompatible with the idea of order so cherished by him, and as his idea of letting the State play a leading role in national life seemed to be contradictory to his conception of culture whose elevated goal is to deliver humanity from all external bondages and to pursue sweetness and light, Arnold was thus criticized by some as lacking in consistency, or as having gone back on his ideal of perfection.While some critics agreed with Eliot in his observation of Arnold's gift for consistency, every critic did not endorse Eliot's judgment. Lionel Trilling, Joseph Carroll, and Stefan Collin, among others, are those who can be classified into the latter category. From different perspectives, these critics confirmed in their respective way Arnold's gift for consistency. Trilling confirmed Arnold's gift for consistency chiefly on the ground of Arnold's insistence upon"an ideal of order, of peace and of unity,"while acknowledging Arnold's writings as being characterized by a"complex unity."Having considered various observations on Arnold's inconsistency, Carroll based his argument for Arnold's gift on the latter's"coherent cultural theory."Similar to Trilling and Carroll, Collini also was also inclined to regard Arnold as an essentially consistent writer, characterized by"a certain cast of mind, a certain way of inhabiting one's identity,"and a certain voice distinctively of his own, which Collini called the"Arnoldian voice."How should Arnold be appreciated as a critic? Should he be regarded as a critic with"little gift for consistency,"as was remarked by T. S. Eliot and some other critics or should he be regarded as an essentially consistent critic, as was suggested by Trilling and other more sympathetic critics? In what way should he be regarded as such? How should some specific circumstances be evaluated which were related to the charge of inconsistency in connection with his ideal of perfection? And what is his proper ideal of perfection? These are questions which engage the present writer's attention and these are also questions, the present writer is convinced, whose answers will contribute to a better understanding of Matthew Arnold and his criticism. These questions, however, are not so easy to be answered in view of the underdevelopment of Arnoldian studies in current China, a result of a prolonged neglect of the works of Matthew Arnold, especially of his criticism.Owing to a variety of complex historical reasons, studies of Matthew Arnold and his works have regrettably fallen behind the studies of other similarly prominent intellectual figures of international reputation. The most telling evidence to this unsatisfactory situation is the conspicuous absence, up to the present time, of any dissertation on Arnold or his works from the numerous English studies doctoral programs throughout the country. Inadequacy in Arnoldian studies is also reflected in the scanty treatment given to Matthew Arnold in academic publications, included in which are textbooks of English literature or English literature histories prepared for English majors, as well as research papers published in academic journals. Although progress has been made in the last few years, Arnoldian studies as a whole in China is still in a state of inception. The few articles appearing in the many academic journals inside the country are mostly confined to mere introduction of Arnold's literary or cultural ideas to the Chinese audience. Issues of a more extensive magnitude or of a more in-depth nature, such as the dispute over Arnold's gift for consistency, have not yet captured much scholarly attention. This makes the present writer conscious of the challenge of the task he is confronted in attempting to look into this issue. Yet he is willing to take the challenge, supported by a conviction of the significance of an effort to help narrow a gap in Arnoldian studies between China and some other countries.Based on the literature available to him, with the above-mentioned questions in mind, the present writer has made an extensive study of Matthew Arnold's works of criticism. Through his study, he has come in agreement with critics like Trilling, Carroll, Collini and others in acknowledging Arnold as a writer with no small gift for consistency. But while he agrees with these previous critics in their confirmation of Arnold's gift for consistency, he also differs from them in the specific evidence he has recourse to, which is Arnold's invariable pursuit of an ideal of harmonious perfection. Harmonious perfection is a concept Arnold brought up in Culture and Anarchy. It is a perfection based on harmony. And it is an ideal to which Arnold always committed himself in his criticism, as can be testified by an analysis of his writings on literature, culture, and the State.In writing his literary criticism, Arnold's commitment to the ideal of harmonious perfection, a perfection based on an idea of harmony, expressed itself when Arnold based his decision to choose poetic subjects on considerations of the all-round needs of humanity; when he conceived intellectual deliverance as an essential condition for fully delivering mankind from all constraints adverse to its complete development; when he measured the modernity of an age on the basis of combined material and spiritual conditions and judged the adequacy of a literature by considering not only the talents of individual writers but also the level of the social development; when he evaluated translations of Homer by evaluating both their completeness in respect of artistic effect and their capacity to combine technicality with nobility; when he defined the relations as essentially harmonious between poetry and life, between poetry and the poet, and between the poet and the critic; as well as when he argued for the need of critical disinterestedness with an eye to achieving critical balance.In presenting his theory of culture, Arnold's insistence upon the ideal of harmonious perfection is expressed in his effort to interpret culture as the fruit of the union of intellectual and ethical passions and define culture's aim as pursuit of sweetness and light to be achieved through reconciling knowing with doing; in his criticism of the middle class for its unjustifiably overdeveloped faith in machinery, its unduly strong sense of individualism and its nearly frantic passion for moral perfection; in his recommendation of the Oxford tradition for its sentiment of sweetness and beauty; in his warnings against Jacobinism's danger of preoccupation with undependable systems; as well as in his desire to provide the greatest majority with"the best that has been thought and known,"which he believed to be a necessary condition for a coordinated development of the entire society.Although Arnold's idea of the State has often aroused suspicion of his departure from his idea of perfection and, as a result, has been felt to be capable of giving force to the charge of inconsistency, a critical analysis of Arnold's arguments for the State shows that Arnold's conception of the State is not really incompatible with his ideal of perfection; on the contrary, it gives further evidence to confirm him as a consistent pursuer of the ideal of harmonious perfection. This consistent pursuit of the idea of harmonious perfection is reflected in the desire he cherished to maintain social harmony by preventing the nation from falling into anarchy, in the argument he made for the legitimacy of democracy and its passion for equality, in the role he conceived of the State in improving the conditions of the middle and lower classes in developing their full humanity, in the idealized principle of authority he adopted in judging the qualifications of diverse candidates for the State power, and in the optimistic faith he expressed in the prospect of building up a Platonic Republic organized in the light of culture's ideal of perfection and operating in a rational yet authoritative way to the benefit of the whole society regardless of the specific interest of all individual classes. While Arnold's desire of establishing a Platonic Republic is impractical in human society, this desire itself is well reflective of the ideal of harmonious perfection which he pursued with consistency.To acknowledge Matthew Arnold as a critic with gift for consistency is not to suggest that no contradiction whatever is observed in what he said or did on different occasions. But in spite of such apparent change of opinions on specific occasions, there can be detected an unchanged commitment to the ideal of harmonious perfection. Arnold's invariable pursuit of the ideal of harmonious perfection leads the present writer to the same conviction of Arnold's gift for consistency, as is expressed by Trilling and other previous critics through their respective arguments, although they argued for their points in different ways.While the present writer regards harmonious perfection as the key to understanding the issue concerning Arnold's gift for consistency and even the key to understanding the whole of his criticism, he does not think his interpretation of Arnold's works is the only valid one that can be made of Arnold's criticism. There is possibility as well as benefits of approaching Matthew Arnold and his works in different ways.The current paper is the result of the present writer's initial effort to make an in-depth study of Arnold's criticism. While it can hardly be free from flaws, the present writer hopes, it may contribute in some way to the Arnoldian studies in current China.