Matthew Arnold's Touchstone Theory: Poetic Evaluation

Matthew Arnold's Touchstone Theory in Literary Criticism

The kind of poetry capable of sustaining the responsibility of leading society, according to Matthew Arnold, should possess high seriousness. It ought to be a solemn form of poetry, not comic, and reflective of Victorian ideals. Arnold introduced the concept of touchstones to evaluate such poetry.

Defining the Touchstone Theory

A touchstone is traditionally an instrument used to determine the quality of something. When Matthew Arnold discusses touchstones, he employs a metaphor referring to a set of criteria. With these criteria, one can apply them to poems to assess their function and quality. He identified three types of literary estimates:

• Personal Estimate: Based on individual feelings, which Arnold deemed fallacious as personal biases can interfere with a poem's true evaluation.
• Historical Estimate: Based on the historical context of a poem's production, also considered fallacious because it prioritizes historical relevance over intrinsic literary merit.
• Real Estimate: This is the objective standard, which can be implemented through the use of touchstones.

The Purpose of Excellent Poetry

Arnold believed that poetry is not merely for amusement; its primary purpose is to do us good. Excellent poetry serves as an instrument for moralizing readers. To differentiate between excellent and less significant poetry, Arnold asserted the need for touchstones. These touchstones are defined as lines and expressions from "Great Masters." The system he proposed involves holding these exemplary fragments in mind and comparing them to other poems. This method aimed to identify poetry of "high seriousness" that could moralize people and potentially replace religion as a moral compass.

Challenges and Criticisms of Arnold's Method

Despite its noble aspirations, Arnold's touchstone method presented two significant problems:

• Problem 1: Arnold's Subjective Selection

  In The Study of Poetry, Matthew Arnold proposed eleven specific touchstones drawn from the works of poets he considered "Great Masters." These included three from Homer, two from Dante, three from John Milton, and two from Shakespeare. Arnold claimed these fragments were ideal for comparison because they were "sad, melancholic," and similar in tone to his own poetry. However, in doing so, he committed a fallacy by attempting to be objective while using his personal preferences. He did not establish universal criteria for "good" poetry but rather based his selections on his own inclinations and emotional resonance.

• Problem 2: The Fallacy of Partiality

  Using a small fragment of poetry as the sole criterion to judge an entire work constitutes an attack on the unity of the literary work. Arnold's method, critics argued, disregards the organic unity of a text.

  The Theory of Organicism

  Objects can be classified as either organic or mechanical. A mechanical object is merely the sum of its parts, whereas an organic entity is greater than the sum of its components. Applying the theory of organicism to Arnold's method reveals that a fragment of a literary work, when taken out of its organic unity, loses its inherent value and is therefore not useful as a comparative touchstone. This approach can completely undermine the integrity of the literary work.

Arnold's Noble Aspiration for Objectivity

Considering Matthew Arnold's historical context, his ideas were both noble and original due to his aspiration for objectivity in literary criticism. At the time, criticism was largely immersed in subjectivity, and Arnold sought to introduce a more objective standard. However, his method ultimately proved flawed due to a lack of methodological precision.