Critical analysis of Matthew Arnold's Touchstone Method

 Critical analysis of Matthew Arnold's Touchstone Method

Matthew Arnold’s Touchstone Method, introduced in his essay The Study of Poetry (1880), is a landmark in literary criticism. It represents Arnold’s attempt to establish objective criteria for evaluating poetry by comparing contemporary works to excerpts from the masterpieces of great poets such as Homer, Dante, Shakespeare, and Milton. While the method has been influential in shaping literary criticism, it has also been critiqued for its limitations and subjective nature. This expanded analysis explores the strengths, weaknesses, and legacy of the Touchstone Method in greater detail.

Strengths of the Touchstone Method

1. Objectivity in Literary Evaluation

One of Arnold’s primary goals with the Touchstone Method was to introduce objectivity into literary criticism. He argued that critics often fall into two traps when evaluating poetry:

The Historical Estimate: Judging a poem based on its historical importance rather than its intrinsic literary merit.

The Personal Estimate: Allowing personal tastes and preferences to influence judgment.

By advocating for comparisons with universally acknowledged masterpieces, Arnold sought to provide a neutral standard for evaluating poetry’s quality. This approach was groundbreaking during the Victorian era, when criticism was often subjective or overly influenced by historical context.

2. Focus on High Poetic Quality

Arnold emphasized that great poetry should possess "high seriousness," which he defined as moral profundity and intellectual depth expressed through beautiful language. He believed poetry should serve as a guide for life, offering moral and intellectual enrichment. The Touchstone Method prioritizes these qualities, ensuring that only works with enduring cultural and ethical significance are deemed great.

3. Comparative Simplicity

Arnold suggested that even a single line or short passage from a great poet could serve as a touchstone for evaluating other works. For example, lines from Shakespeare’s Hamlet or Milton’s Paradise Lost could be used as benchmarks to measure the emotional depth and artistic excellence of contemporary poems. This simplicity made the method accessible to critics and readers alike.

4. Promotion of Classical Standards

By advocating comparison with classical masterpieces, Arnold reinforced the importance of preserving high literary standards. He believed that classical poets represented the pinnacle of artistic achievement and that their works could serve as models for future generations of poets and critics.

Criticisms of the Touchstone Method

1. Fragmentary Approach

One of the most significant criticisms of Arnold’s method is its reliance on isolated lines or passages to evaluate entire works. Critics argue that judging a poem by fragments fails to account for its overall structure, thematic coherence, and emotional impact. Poetry is an organic whole, and its merit cannot be fully appreciated through disjointed excerpts.

For instance, while a single line from Milton’s Paradise Lost may exemplify poetic excellence, it does not capture the epic’s thematic complexity or narrative unity. Similarly, modern experimental poetry often relies on unconventional forms that cannot be adequately assessed through fragmentary comparisons.

2. Subjectivity in Selection

The choice of touchstone passages is inherently subjective and reflects Arnold’s personal preferences for classical authors like Homer, Dante, Shakespeare, and Milton. This raises questions about whether these selections truly represent universal standards or merely reflect Arnold’s cultural biases as a Victorian critic.

Moreover, Arnold’s focus on European classics excludes other traditions of literary excellence, such as Asian, African, or Indigenous poetry. This Eurocentric bias limits the method’s applicability to global literature.

3. Limited Scope

The Touchstone Method is criticized for being overly prescriptive and narrow in scope. It favors traditional poetic forms and themes while potentially dismissing modern or experimental works that deviate from classical norms. For example, Modernist poets like T.S. Eliot (The Waste Land) or Ezra Pound (Cantos) employ fragmented structures and unconventional imagery that challenge classical conventions but are still considered masterpieces in their own right. Contemporary poets like Langston Hughes or Pablo Neruda explore themes of identity and social justice that may not align with Arnold’s emphasis on "high seriousness."

4. Inadequacy for Entire Works

Arnold himself acknowledged that judging a poem solely by its fragments is insufficient for assessing its full merit. A poem's greatness lies not only in isolated moments but also in its total impression—its ability to evoke emotion, convey meaning, and achieve aesthetic unity.

Legacy and Contemporary Relevance

Despite its limitations, Matthew Arnold’s Touchstone Method remains influential in literary criticism for several reasons:

1. Foundation for Comparative Criticism

Arnold’s method laid the groundwork for comparative criticism by emphasizing the importance of evaluating new works against established standards of excellence. This approach continues to inform modern critical practices.

2. Emphasis on Timelessness

Arnold’s focus on timeless qualities such as moral seriousness and intellectual depth ensures that poetry remains relevant across generations. His insistence on high standards challenges critics to uphold literary excellence in an era dominated by mass culture.

3. Adaptation by Modern Critics

While modern critics have moved beyond fragmentary comparisons, they continue to use Arnold’s principles as a starting point for broader analyses. For example, Critics now evaluate entire poems rather than isolated lines to assess thematic coherence and emotional resonance. The method has been adapted to include diverse literary traditions beyond European classics.

Conclusion

Matthew Arnold’s Touchstone Method represents an important milestone in literary criticism. It introduces objectivity and promotes high standards for evaluating poetry. Its strengths lie in emphasizing moral seriousness, intellectual depth, and artistic excellence while discouraging historical or personal biases.

However, its reliance on fragmentary comparisons and Eurocentric focus limits its applicability to diverse poetic traditions and modern experimental works. Despite these criticisms, the method remains relevant as a foundational concept in comparative criticism, reminding readers and critics alike of the enduring importance of preserving literary excellence across cultures and eras.

Arnold's contributions continue to inspire debates about how best to evaluate poetry in an ever-changing literary landscape—a testament to his lasting influence on Victorian criticism and beyond.