ELIT 302

History of Literary Criticism II

Compare Matthew Arnold’s and Walter Pater’s views on the purpose of literature to each
other.

“Sweetness and Light”; “Preface” and “Conclusion” to The Renaissance.

Matthew Arnold and Walter Pater were influential literary figures in the Victorian era.
Arnold was a poet and a social critic that called himself a believer in culture. His ideas were
centralized on education and morality. He was an illustration of an enlightened Victorian
scholar. Pater, on the other hand, was a controversial critic and a fiction writer of his time.
Unlike Arnold, he emphasized aesthetic values over moral and social themes. This difference
may root from the distinction of their professions as Pater was a literary and art critic, and
Arnold was a social critic. They had different views on the subject of the purpose of art and
literature.

Matthew Arnold was a well-educated Christian. He studied classic literature and admired the
classics. His ideas about criticism and literature predominated the era of his time and the
further. In an epoch of doubt with Darwin’s evolution theory, he tried to integrate art with
culture and religion. A moralistic and objective approach to literature could replace the
negative idea of religion that formed in his time. This kind of perspective of literature could
take religion further positively with the betterment of society as well. These statements do not
mean that he tried to religionize the literature but better it to improve humanity which
subserves religion and the wishes of God as well. In his essay, Sweetness and Light, he uses
the words of Bishop Wilson: ‘‘To make reason and the will of God prevail!’’ that he believes
and summarizes his perspective of moralistic literature. He emphasizes beauty to achieve a
perfect and harmonious human nature yet claims that beauty without the moral side would be
in vain and only had value in and for itself hence would not pave the way for a better
humanity. Arnold exemplifies his thoughts through classical Greek art and poetry to illustrate
what literature in his perspective must intend:

The best art and poetry of the Greeks, in which religion and poetry are one, in which
the idea of beauty and of a human nature perfect on all sides adds to itself a religious
and devout energy, and works in the strength of that, is on this account of such
surpassing interest and instructiveness for us, though it was, - as, having regard to the
 human race in general, and, indeed, having regard to the Greeks themselves, we must
own, - a premature attempt, an attempt which for success needed the moral and
religious fibre in humanity to be more braced and developed than it had yet been. But
Greece did not err in having the idea of beauty, harmony, and complete human
perfection, so present and paramount. It is impossible to have this idea too present and
paramount; only, the moral fibre must be braced too.

And he lastly appends that even if the moral fiber is braced, if the idea of beauty, harmony,
and perfect human nature is misinterpreted or absent then it would again be in vain. Thus
Arnold suggests that the literature must preserve beauty and try to ascend humanity through
the addition of morality.

Walter Pater studied Greek philosophy and, like Arnold, was a critic and a scholar. His first
trip to Italy ignited his love of art, paintings specifically, that he described his experience as
‘‘a richer, more daring sense of life than any to be seen in Oxford.’’ His ideas further enhance
the experience, sensation, and sensuality in art and literature as they did in his life. After the
trip, he was drawn into the renaissance and published his controversial Studies in the History
of the Renaissance in which he shared what he thought or considered art should be and aim.
In the Preface, he starts by saying that beauty is relative as every quality presented to human
experience is. So, the study of aesthetics must find the formula of beauty that is adequate to
the unique manifestation of it rather than a universal one. Then he quotes Arnold, "To see the
object as in itself it really is,'' and claims that to achieve what Arnold stated one must know
one’s own impression as it really is. He proposes questions: ‘‘What is this song or picture, this
engaging personality presented in life or in a book; to me? What effect does it really produce
on me? Does it give me pleasure?’’ and claims that the answers to these questions are the fact
of the study of aesthetics and just as the study of light, of morals, one must realize the answers
for one’s self, or not at all and refutes Arnold's moralistic and objective perspectives. In his
Conclusion, he exalts the idea of passion, experience, sensation, subjectivity on the subject of
life and art/literature and claims that maintaining these values overcomes death and mortality
of our lives. And lastly, he states what is art’s or literature’s purpose must be according to
him:

Great passions may give us this quickened sense of life, ecstasy, and sorrow of love,
the various forms of enthusiastic activity, disinterested or otherwise, which come
naturally to many of us. Only to be sure it is passion - that it does yield you this fruit
of a quickened, multiplied consciousness. Of such wisdom, the poetic passion, the
 desire of beauty, the love of art for its own sake, has most. For art comes to you
proposing frankly to give nothing but the highest quality to your moments as they
pass, and simply for those moments' sake.

Taking everything into account, Pater defends the idea of art for art’s sake which means art is
not something moral or useful but is only beautiful.

The views of Pater and Arnold on the subject of the purpose of literature are contrary to each
other. While Arnold puts moral and social themes forward, Pater strongly opposes him and
highlights the beauty of art just as it is. Matthew Arnold believed in education and culture and
believed that these would provide humanity a never-ending growth and improvement, so he
conjoined them with literature, attributing moralistic, educational aims to it. On the other
hand, Walter Pater believed in the sensation, the beauty of art that fans the gem-like flames of
our passions, so he disapproved of the moralist Victorian views that restricted, limited the
pulsations of humans in their already limited moments. He insulated art to protect and
preserve its beauty from decay and dullness.

Bibliography

Cain, William E., et al., editors. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. 2nd ed., WW Norton, 2010.