Arnold
essay On the Modern Elements in Literature was occasioned by
an unusual event, his election to the Chair of Poetry in Oxford. Unusually
still, he did not choose to eulogise any person or institution. According to
George Watson, it was “a lecture against the modern element in literature, in
which Arnold seeks alliance with the classical dons in his audience against the
prevailing tide of middleclass romanticism.” In fact, Arnold was one of the
great spokesmen of the Enlightenment, and that is why, what speaks about in
these lines constitutes a view of history widespread in his day. It was put
forward by Herder, Goethe and Novalis in Germany, by Saint Simonians in France
and by Carlyle in England. In fact, he seeks a synthesis out of the past and
present in the Hegelian mode. Added to this is Arnold’s concern with literature
as a criticism of life.
Arnold
begins the essay with an anecdote—illustrative of moral deliverance of man,
from the vast body of Buddhist literature in order to come to his point of what
he called “intellectual deliverance”. As an enlightened thinker himself
Arnold was very much aware of the deeper significance of Buddhism. It is clear
from way he starts the essay that he attached high significance to the Buddhist
realization of the place and value of moral deliverance of man in the scheme of
Buddhist philosophy. As a preacher and teacher Buddha, who was himself tested
in various ways examined the worth of his disciple Poorna who wanted to preach
the master’s words among people. When Buddha was satisfied, he declared the
result with the following lesson: one seeking to deliver others from desire
must deliver himself first, one seeking to console others in their sorrow must
console himself by realising the philosophy of chatwari arya sattyani (four-fold
eternal truths), and one on his way helping others reach at the truth about the
reality of the world and life, must first arrive at that. For Arnold the lesson
was important since he saw in this a deliverance from all the destructive
attributes—pride, sloth, anger and selfishness, attributes which are
detrimental to collective civilised social life of man.
Arnold wanted to emphasise the point of this
kind of deliverance before the Oxford audience perhaps because he wanted to
bring home his point that a teacher like a teacher must rise above all the
prejudices which are peculiarly human. Just after making a point about moral
deliverance of man through an anecdote, he comes to the central issue of his
lecture, that is, the intellectual deliverance of man which, he feels,
necessary for a modern period like his nineteenth century. He thinks that
intellectual deliverance is a specific demand of all the ages regarded as modern.
Arnold thinks that along with moral
deliverance, intellectual deliverance is necessary for man because, according
to him, man’s true freedom lies in the enjoyment of both the kinds. He says
that moral deliverance is demanded in all ages, but intellectual deliverance is
not. Its necessity in the human civilisation is felt occasionally and rarely.
He finds that it is the search for intellectual deliverance that determines
whether an age can be called modern or not. On the basis of this also Arnold
thinks that a people can be called modern or not. Then he comes to the central
issue. According to him, intellectual deliverance is the demand of the age in
which they live. He finds that people judge the validity of all the
intellectual pursuits in accordance with their contribution the well-being of
mankind. And the well-being depends on the intellectual deliverance of man.
After this Arnold explains why demand for
intellectual deliverance arises in the present age. According to him, the need
for intellectual deliverance arises because the present age faces a burden of
history of a complex past and a complex present. He thinks specifically that it
becomes an individual necessity because he/she has to deal with a vast body of
facts of the present and past. Arnold emphasises that intellectual deliverance
becomes possible only when the comprehension becomes possible. And the
comprehension becomes possible when we can deduce the general truths about the
things and facts all around us. Here Arnold speaks of a specific moment in the
process of understanding, in which a particular higher state of the mind is
achieved and a harmonious understanding of the things becomes possible. It is
this state, Arnold thinks, in which we lose all the prejudices, impatience and
irritation and the confused phenomena of the past and present become lucidly
understandable. According to him, one who achieves that mental state, that is,
one who finds out the true historical point of view of the times becomes
the “intellectual deliverer” of the age.
However, Arnold thinks that comprehension of
these becomes possible only when those are seen in relation to the past. It is
here that the present age has to be compared and contrasted with other ages of
human history. By quoting the some words of the Chancellor of Cambridge, Arnold
tries to establish why this sort of comparing and contrasting becomes
necessary. According to him, this is necessary because it will help us to
rectify our mistakes and consolidate our position as civilised human beings.
Arnold marks out what people should aim at in
achieving “intellectual deliverance” and explains his criteria of modernity of
the present age. According to him, the intellectuals should concern themselves
with two particular areas of study: one is significant culminating epoch and
the other is a literature, which answered successfully all the issues of the
past. He calls these types of an epoch and a literature modern in the sense
that those arose out of the relationship with past. He finds that a great
epoch may be without a representative literature. This happens when an age
attains political and social maturity but does not take intellectual measure of
all the development. In this case, he thinks, the epoch rather the literature
of the age, should be the object of our study. Again, sometimes a great
literature may be found in an intellectually and culturally inferior age. This
happens because sometimes some thinkers may rise above the limited vision of
the age and see more. In this case, the literature rather the epoch should be
the object of our study. Now he stretches his argument little a bit and says
that for the most representative interpretation of an age we must study the
poetical literature of that age. According to him, since poetry demands greatest
exertion of intellectual energy and faculties, it successfully records all the
general facts about an age.
He finds that a great epoch may be without a
representative literature. Again, sometimes a great literature may be found in
an intellectually and culturally inferior age. That is why for our intellectual
deliverance we should look for the co-existence and the simultaneous appearance
of a great epoch and a great literature in an age. Here cites the example
of the Greek culture at the time of Pericles as a great epoch and explains the
outward characteristics that make it a great modern epoch. According to
Arnold, one of the most characteristic outward features of a modern culture is
the absence of violence in civil life. People do not move about in society with
the constant fear of being attacked and with the constant alertness to defend
his own life. Arnold thinks that with the disappearance of the threat to life
society acquires confidence and people engage themselves in free social
activities. This leads to the creation of tolerance in society, which, in turn,
gives birth to the intellectual maturity of man. Once it is achieved man can
observe facts with critical spirit, man can search for their laws and is able
to judge by the rule of reason by rising above all the prejudices and caprices.
In order to make his points effectively
clear, he compares and contrasts the age with the Elizabethan period. In the
historical writings of Thucydides, he finds the evidence that the Athenians
gave up the habit of wearing arms while moving in public life. On the other
hand, during the Elizabethan period, he says, it was universal to move about
with arms. Then Arnold points out another feature of modernity, namely the
cultivation of refinement and rejection of the extravagance in dress. In
Thucydides again, Arnold finds an evidence that the Athenians cultivated
elegance and rejected extravagance. On the other hand, Arnold gathers from the
description given in Sir Walter Scott’s novel, Kenilworth how
much the Elizabethans were obsessed with their taste for fanciful dress. Not
only that, Arnold agrees with Pericles that they discovered sources of
recreation for the spirit to counter in the balance of the labours of the body.
Again, Arnold contrasts this with the Elizabethan taste for popular shows. Once
again Arnold supports his argument by quoting Pericles. The point he wants to
establish is that, with the disappearance of the threat to life the Greek
society acquired confidence and the Greek people engaged themselves in free
social activities. This led to the creation of tolerance in society, which, in
turn, gave birth to their intellectual maturity.
In the historical writing of Thucydides,
Arnold also finds an example of the supreme feature of a modern age, that is,
the cultivation and manifestation of a critical spirit which led Thucydides to
arrange analyse the facts about the Peloponnesian War rationally. Thucydides
chose to write of the War because he thought of the event as the most
instructive for mankind. According to him, the Peloponnesian War was more
significant than the Trojan War. Arnold thinks that Thucydides’ estimate of the
Trojan War is not perfect, but he is highly impressed by his critical spirit.
If you
are preparing for any competitive exams like BANK, RAILWAY, MTS,CGL,CHSL,GROUP
D,SSC,PSC,WBCS then
No comments:
Post a Comment