Department of Ancient Classics | Conference programme

First Post-Graduate Conference in Ancient Classics,
University College Cork, 13 March 1999

(1)

Aristotle wrote his Poetics thousands of years before Matthew Arnold's birth. His reasons for composing it were different from Arnold's reasons for using it as an element of his own poetic criticism. We can safely say that Arnold was inclined to use the Poetics as an inspiration for his own poetry, and as a cultural weapon in the fight for artistic and social renewal. Aristotle, by contrast, was more concerned with discovering general truths, and with formalising truths already known intuitively within his own society.

I wish, in this article, to make some observations about the way in which some of the seminal ideas in the Poetics affected one key writer within the English literary tradition. Curiously enough the first thing to be said about Arnold's view of Aristotle is that it is more a Platonic than an Aristotelian view. In short Arnold was primarily, though not merely, an idealist. If, for the sake of clarity we could for the purpose of this analysis call Aristotle a realist, we might be better able to see the proper scope of this account. What we have then is the case of a man who was primarily a scientist and philosopher -- a realist in the best sense of the word, influencing a poet and visionary -- an idealist in the best sense of the word.

I have decided, despite many references in Arnold's work to Aristotelian ideas generally, to concentrate on one piece of work by Arnold; a piece of work where he more specifically refers to Aristotelian ideas of imitation. This is the 1853 Preface to The Poems of Matthew Arnold 1840-1866. I will therefore, where appropriate, compare and contrast this Preface to the Poetics. Such an approach gives us a chance to look at Aristotle in his own right, and also to gauge his influence, or otherwise, on Arnold.

I have also chosen the Arnold Preface because it is manageable in length, and because, as Stefan Collini says in his book Arnold "The 1853 Preface has a particular biographical interest ... as Arnold's first public engagement in those critical controversies that were to be the stimulus to his best work" (p. 48). Two points follow from this statement. Firstly it suggests that Arnold saw literature, philosophy and criticism, as of vital public importance, and secondly it says that the his engagement in public debate tended to have a positive effect on his creative work. This makes his approach similar to that of Aristotle who also saw theory as intimately linked to public practice. Aristotle's Poetics, and his writing in general, have a profoundly social and moral dimension. I would argue then that Arnold attempts to import a moral ideal into England from Greece, and argue even further that his greatest ambition was not just the restoration of national literature to England, but finally a great society. In the realm of ideas Arnold does manage to show the desireability, for England, of Aristotelian ideas and Greek ideas in general. Arnold's famous phrase, from Culture and Anarchy, about the need in the English mind for "sweetness and light" sound very un-Aristotelian. It also sounds hopelessly idealistic in a bad sense. If we read the rest of the book however and see the various examples which he gives of English intransigence, and "heavy inaccessibility to ideas", we can see what Arnold is driving at. It is the lack of an open mind, the lack of a properly informed intellectual and moral conscience that he deplores in his own country. The roots of such a culture are what he sees in Aristotle, and primarily in Aristotle's mimetic theory.

(2)

Now that I have shown some of the motives behind Arnold's Preface and suggested some lines of inquiry that we might pursue in terms of his view of the Poetics, it is essential to offer some explanation of Aristotle's attitude as we find it in the Poetics. The Poetics, from the start has a practical tone, and embodies a practical approach. So, obviously the attitude which Arnold has towards the Poetics involves a change of emphasis, and a process by which Arnold selects those parts of the Poetics that suit his own aims. I am far from saying that Arnold misrepresents Aristotle. It would be more accurate to say that he discusses Aristotle in a different tone of voice. What I mean is this. Aristotle is very technical in his analysis. He tells us, for example, about the debate among neighbouring peoples concerning the invention of comedy and tragedy. He goes into some detail about the parts of a drama. He talks of the differing genres, and differing metres. He dissects the various part of speech I am here just skipping through the Poetics to show how obvious it is that Aristotle is very scientific in his analysis. By contrast Arnold, in his Preface discusses only a few key passages from the Poetics, namely those connected with the notion of mimesis, and gives what we can truly only call his vision of the Poetics.

I mentioned earlier that Arnold is a Platonist, and now I am going to say something which is perhaps an exaggeration, but nevertheless contains some truth. It seems to me that Plato is in a sense almost unique in Greek philosophy and literature. I would also say that Aristotle in his life and writing is more like the typical Greek (if there ever can be a summary description of any people which is of course doubtful). Alcibiades, in the Symposium, said in praise of Socrates, that there was never anyone like him, and it was after I read this that I began to think that perhaps there were few in Greece like Plato either, and now I will tell you why I think this is the case.

(3)

Aristotle, like most major Greek writers, is concerned with action: his entire Poetics concerns itself with how to do things, and do them well, and with an analysis of those poets and dramatists who have done things best. By contrast Plato and Socrates are more concerned with contemplation, as Arnold also is: concerned that is with the benefit which a society, and its leaders (people of higher culture) can gain from embracing an immutable ideal. In connection with this point the idea of imitation is, of course, mentioned and examined by Plato in many places, the Republic and the Symposium to name but two, and there is no doubt that Aristotle is developing ideas already well established by Plato. So, would it have been possible for Arnold to ignore Aristotle and simply follow the Platonic ideal of imitating the "... best and noblest type of life?" This idea, as T. S. Dorsch says, was spoken of in the Laws and "... later developed by Aristotle, and taken up by Renaissance critics" (p. 14). I don't believe this was solely Arnold's intention, and for the following reason. Arnold is always seeking to prove to his countrymen that he is no mere dreamer; he hopes, in short to demonstrate to them that what he is asking them to do will benefit their society, and make it more sane and manly in the true sense of these words. It is for this reason that he goes to Aristotle, the man concerned with action and the causes of action. I suppose even the fact that Aristotle had been Alexander's tutor makes him more to the taste of the imperialistic British society of Arnold's time than Plato the man who refused to directly involve himself in politics. Like a wise general then Arnold appeals to those things which are closest to his enemies' heart. To undo bad materialism one must use Aristotle the good materialist and from the ground rise to greater things, rise that is to the Platonism inherent in Aristotle's thought.

(4)

With these preliminary remarks in place we can now proceed to the texts themselves. Arnold is in a difficult position. He wants to praise Greece, and the Aristotelian theory of mimesis, and yet he can not be seen to be dismissive of English culture, and particularly Shakespeare. He gets around this difficulty by saying that Greek drama and poetry are "less suggestive" than Shakepeare yet they have other advantages from the teaching point of view over Shakespeare:

"But clearness of arrangement, rigour of development, simplicity of style--these may to a certain extent be learned ... best from the ancients, who though infinitely less suggestive than Shakespeare are thus ... to the artist more instructive." (p. 14)

However, Arnold, though he does not dare to demote Shakespeare from his position, is much more scathing of those writers in his society who have a faulty notion of what constitutes an artistic imitation. In the Preface he quotes someone who is referred to simply as "the modern critic." This critic says this "A true allegory of the state of one's mind in a representative history... is perhaps the highest thing that one can attempt in the way of poetry." Arnold replies thus:

"An allegory of the state of one's mind, the highest problem of an art which imitates actions! No assuredly, it is not, it can never be so: no great poetical work has ever been produced with such an aim." (p. 10)

"The confusion of the present times is great, the multitude of voices counselling different things bewildering ... what he [the young artist] wants is a hand to guide him through the confusion, a voice to ... explain to him that the value of the literary works which offer themselves to his attention is relative to their power of helping him on his road towards [his aim]." (p. 10)

Thus Arnold sought to turn young writers towards works which would have the power to help them reach their aim. In writers like Homer and Sophocles for example; and in England, to a degree, in writers like Shakespeare, they would find "excellence" (p. 10), the "choice of subject", "accurate construction", and "the subordinate expression of character" (p. 14). These are also the basic elements which Aristotle introduces and examines in the Poetics. There is a sense though in which we feel, while reading Arnold's list of prerequisites for poetry and drama, that he has missed an important element of what Aristotle is trying to say. It is strange that he does not tell us what "accurate construction" really is. It is as if he is assuming a knowledge of the Aristotelian arguments about plot, and merely glancing at them in passing. I am not saying that he does not discuss these arguments, only that he does not consider them in much depth. It is when we feel this way that it is worth asking whether Arnold is simply rehashing what was long discussed in the Renaissance and English classical tradition, or whether he is really trying to spread Aristotle's theory itself? I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. It might be said, in Arnold's defence, that no one who had a classical education, or access to a good translation in Arnold's time, was debarred from reading Aristotle for themselves, and so delving more deeply into the reasons for the recommendations which Aristotle gives, and which Arnold echoes in the Preface. In short perhaps Arnold saw his main task, not as the literal re-telling of Aristotle, but as the exhortation of his fellow writers to read the ancient writers, including Aristotle, and so write more truly and powerfully, and in the process bring about a renewal of society. So, Arnold is placing an ideal Aristotle before them, and asking them to rediscover Aristotle first hand so that they might grow as artists and men.

(5)

But something else makes us wonder about how serious Arnold is about a sincere return to Aristotle himself. Aristotle says that "... even the familiar stories are familiar only to a few, and yet they please everybody" (p. 44). By contrast Arnold writes a brilliant passage in his Preface that may suggest that the stories of Oedipus and so on were known to the vast majority of the audience. Now it is natural to think that this represents a distortion of Aristotle's text: and on a purely factual level it does. Arnold then in my view is not necessarily claiming that the audience have to know the stories; he is rather using the idea of them knowing the stories to make a particular point, to bring about a vision of the good in fact. He is emphasising the part of Aristotle's sentence which says "... yet they please everybody." By suggesting that they knew the stories he is promoting the ideal of a shared culture, which the stories represent, that is to say, a culture in which the same stories please everybody. Dryden's Essay On Dramatic Poesy is only one of many books known to Arnold where the notion that the Greek audience knew the stories of the plays is put forward, but whether Arnold simply believed what he was told (which with such a sceptical nature is highly unlikely) or whether he used the idea of the audience knowing the stories for philosophical reasons (which is much more likely), the fact is that he does make such statements. Let us now look at the passage and see how it is used by Arnold to elucidate the theory of imitation.

He takes some of the most powerful and attractive elements in the Poetics and synthesises them before our eyes by means of a quasi-realistic description of the effect which such elements have when they become incarnate during the performance of any of the tragic Greek plays. These are also the plays which contain a brilliantly wrought and organic, beginning, middle, end structure. The movement through this structure in the mind of the audience is well captured by Arnold's description which is as follows. He tells of how the Greek audience knew "the terrible old mythic story" even before they entered the theatre, and of how, as the drama unfolded "stroke upon stroke" the spectator was "riveted" to the action, which concluded "when the final words were spoken." Arnold says that the story thus transformed by the clear and gradual progress of the play "stood before him in broad daylight, a monument of immortal beauty" (p. 8). What we have here is a Platonic mood; the phrase "broad daylight" is a telling one, reminding us as it does of the myth of the cave. It must follow from this that, for Arnold, the experience of the audience, their experience of catharsis in fact, is very like the experience of the wise man who has escaped from the shadows of false knowledge, and into the light of the truth. The materialism of Aristotle seems strangely absent here, and yet much of Aristotle still remains. For Aristotle does say that the "peripety" of the play, and also the "discovery", and indeed all the incidents in a play must happen "... in the way we are saying, in the probable or necessary sequence of events" (Bywater p. 31). This suggests a concern for harmony and security, and for the proper "end" of things. It is certain that what Plato and Aristotle have most in common is their concern for harmony, and for the end, and this is what Arnold, being primarily a Platonist, emphasises in his treatment of Aristotle. This harmony was sought within the drama, but also was assumed by both writers as a cultural gift within the religious-mythical tradition in which they found themselves. Plato develops, to give just one example, the idea of the harmonious tripartite soul: Aristotle in the Poetics says the following:

"Furthermore, whatever is beautiful, whether it be a living creature or an object made up of various parts, must necessarily not only have its parts properly ordered, but also be of an appropriate size, for beauty is bound up with size and order." (Dorsch p. 42)

Conclusion

The Greek myths and legends then provide the material for the poetry and drama, and the criticism; and seem uniquely suitable for such purposes. Why were they thus suitable, and why does Arnold want his scholarly contemporaries to read work based on stories so alien to their own culture? The myths were suitable first of all because they were part of the history of the Greeks, but even more importantly because they were the vehicles for the philosophy and religion of the day. They were alien to a degree, in terms of the particulars contained within them, to the English mind; but for two reasons they were also not alien to the English mind. First they were familiar to those who were classically educated, and second they contained motives and principles which were essential for any sane understanding of the world. In short, these myths and legends, and their representation in the drama and poetry, deal with the furthest reaches of human and divine complexity. They can be understood on the physical level by the simplest person, and yet they can imitate the most significant facts of human and divine life. In fact such myths in the drama can show us why life is significant. They are larger than life because life is larger than we usually think it is. They also can ennoble us. Aristotle says: "... comedy aims at representing men as worse than they are nowadays, tragedy as better" (Dorsch p. 35). So, we can see how we can be better than we are now, and how worse: rejoice or suffer with the former, laugh and be glad we are not like them with the latter. To put it simply then we can say that these myths and stories are endorsed by Aristotle and Arnold not just because they have a physical beginning, middle and end, but also because they represent a spiritual beginning, middle and end. The fact is that we cannot imitate anything without also imitating its beginning, middle and end. This reminds us of our mortality, of our past, present and future. It also reminds us of the past present and future of all things. Therefore we have the "guide" earlier spoken of by Arnold. We see that the "one action" proposed for drama by Aristotle is much more than a particular historical event: rather it is a micrcosmic sign given to us within the drama and in poetry that continually reminds us of the fact that everything moves towards one end which, for both Plato and Aristotle, is the knowledge of the truth about man and all things which are within the power of man to investigate. This is why Arnold's description of the Greek spectators' reaction to the play which, as we will recall, leaves them basking in "broad daylight", is not so very far away from Aristotle as it first appears.

Works Cited

Aristotle, Aristotle on the Art of Poetry, Introduction, Translation and Commentary by Ingram Bywater (Oxford 1909).
Aristotle, Aristotle on the Art of Poetry, Introduction and Translation by T. S. Dorsch, in Betty Radice (ed.), Aristotle, Horace, Longinus: Classical Literary Criticism, (London 1978).
M. Arnold, Preface to The Poems of Matthew Arnold 1840-1866, (London 1908) 3-17
M. Arnold, "The Function of Criticism at the Present Time", National Review (November 1864), Rpt. in Matthew Arnold's Essays in Criticism, (London 1964) 9-34
S. Collini, Arnold, Past Masters series, (Oxford 1988).
L. Johnson, "Review of the 1891 Edition of The Poetical Works of Matthew Arnold", Academy (1891) in Carl Dawson (ed.), Matthew Arnold: The Poetry: The Critical Heritage, (London 1973) 386-91.
Plato, The Symposium Translation by Benjamin Jowett as part of The Works of Plato (New York n. d.) in Candace Ward (ed.), Plato: Symposium and Phaedrus (New York 1993).

Department of Ancient Classics | Conference programme

© 1999 Tony O'Brien

Pages created by Margaret Lantry