From “Haworth Churchyard” to “Courage”: Emily Brontë Perceived by Matthew Arnold

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-4
Author(s):  
Jingjing Zhao
Keyword(s):  
Caliban ◽  
1964 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 101-122
Author(s):  
Françoise Lafourcade
Keyword(s):  

1978 ◽  
Vol CCXXIII (jun) ◽  
pp. 244-a-244
Author(s):  
ANTHONY W. SHIPPS
Keyword(s):  

2021 ◽  
Vol 49 (2) ◽  
pp. 361-375
Author(s):  
Sebastian Lecourt

I first took up Matthew Arnold's essays as a dissertation writer circa 2008. Although I had not read much of Arnold's prose beyond the commonly anthologized pieces (“The Function of Criticism at the Present Time,” “The Study of Poetry,” bits of Culture and Anarchy), he was a figure very much out of favor, and I brought to the table a strong preconception of his polemic. Arnold, I had learned, was a kind of cultural nationalist trying to fight class divisions within Britain by prescribing a narrow canon of books that could shore up a common language for his compatriots. His main claim was that there was a singular tradition of great books called “culture” that embodied “the best that is known and thought in the world.” Everyone in Britain needed to keep reading these books if the nation were to retain a shared identity and not fall into chaos. Furthermore, as I understood it, Arnold thought that to experience culture you needed to remain “disinterested” and “aloof from what is called ‘the practical view of things’” (5:252). Arnold was a Victorian Mortimer Adler who sought to defend the authority of traditional literary canons as well as a Victorian Wimsatt-and-Beardsley who upheld disinterested close reading against hyperpolitical Theory.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Francis O’Gorman
Keyword(s):  

1982 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 333-351 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shirley Robin Letwin
Keyword(s):  

PMLA ◽  
1957 ◽  
Vol 72 (5) ◽  
pp. 977-996 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fraser Neiman

At least since Matthew Arnold exploited the term Zeitgeist in Literature and Dogma, the expression has been variously a source of irritation and confusion to a number of his critics. Identifying it with a tendency to disparage the past, an exasperated contemporary reviewer of that work in Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine cried, “Can anything be more unscientific than such a spirit? It is the very apotheosis of self-opinion intoxicated by its own pride, and flaunting its own dogmatisms with a crude audacity in the face of preceding dogmas.” Among other critics of Arnold, R. H. Hutton protested that the Zeitgeist was a will-o'-the-wisp “who misleads us at least as much as he enlightens”; W. H. Dawson concluded that for Arnold it was “a fetish, a talisman, a thaumaturgy”; for W. H. Paul it became a bore; Hugh Kingsmill began his caricature of Don Matthew, “So forth he sallied, mounted on Zeit-Geist, a hobby horse.” Still others, less annoyed than these by the reiteration, have themselves borrowed it as they write of him—sometimes effectively, because with consistency of meaning, as H. F. Lowry in his edition of Arnold's letters to Clough; sometimes bewilderingly, as when one reads such a statement as this: “Expediency, which had become in Burke's hands an anti-revolutionary doctrine, was equated by Arnold with the Zeitgeist, a force which, in his conception of it, was quite as revolutionary as that of natural right.”


1978 ◽  
Vol CCXXIII (jun) ◽  
pp. 230-231
Author(s):  
MARGARET MAISON
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document