(e-content developed by Dr N A Jarandikar)
‘The Touchstone Method’
Introduction:
The famous ‘touchstone method’ is proposed by Matthew Arnold. Matthew Arnold
was a Victorian poet-critic. He is known as “the father of modern criticism”
and “a critic of critics”. “Dover Beach” and “Scholar Gypsy” are his
well-known poems.
Victorian Age:
The period from 1832 to 1900 is known as the Victorian age. The Victorian age
is considered as the golden age. During
this age, England flourished on all the fronts. This age is also known as “the
age of faith and doubt”. Till now, the English society believed in the
Church and the Bible. It believed that Man is the child of God. But this faith
was shattered by Darwin’s theory of evolution. Darwin argued that man is
evolved from a monkey. So the Victorian society was trapped in faith and doubt
about the role of religion and philosophy in human life.
Religion, Philosophy and Poetry: Matthew Arnold proposes his touchstone method
against this background. Matthew Arnold discussed the touchstone method in his
essay “Study of Poetry” (1880). Matthew Arnold’s touchstone method is a
comparative method. The touchstone method gives importance to comparison
and analysis. Hence it is a scientific method. At first, Matthew
Arnold argues that religion and philosophy are losing their appeal. People turn
to religion and philosophy for enlightenment and delight. So where now will people go for enlightenment
and delight? And Matthew Arnold hopes that religion and philosophy will be replaced
by poetry. According to him, if poetry will achieve such kind of high position,
it has to be equally of high standard. Matthew Arnold’s idea of high standard
poetry includes high truth, high seriousness and superior diction. But
how to decide that the poetry is of high standard? For this question, Matthew
Arnold’s answer is “the touchstone method”. According to Matthew Arnold, the
touchstone method will help us to judge the quality of poetry.
Three estimations: However, before talking about the touchstone
method, Matthew Arnold warns to avoid the methods to judge poetry. Here he
talks about (a) personal estimation, (b) historical estimation and (c) real
estimation. According to Matthew Arnold, while judging poetry one must avoid
personal estimation and historical estimation. By personal estimation he means
one should not judge poetry on the basis of the personal opinions. By
historical estimation, he means that one should not carry the burden of the
history. By real estimation, he means that one should judge poetry very objectively.
One must point out merits and demerits of poetry with open eyes.
‘The Touchstone Method’: For the real estimation of poetry, Matthew Arnold
proposes the tool of ‘the touchstone method’. According to Matthew Arnold,
while judging poetry, one must compare the lines, stanzas or passages from one
piece of literature to the literature which has the qualities of ‘high
seriousness’. For the qualities of ‘high seriousness’, Matthew Arnold suggests
the literature of writers namely Homer, Dante, Milton and Shakespeare.
In short, one must compare a poem or a piece of literature with that of Homer,
Dante, Milton or Shakespeare. If the poem that we are reading reflects the
shadow of the great writers like Homer, Dante, Milton and Shakespeare, we can
assume that poem is superior. Matthew Arnold’s touchstone method can be applied
to the writers of all ages.
Arnold’s application of ‘the touchstone method’: On the basis of the real estimation and the touchstone
method, Matthew Arnold compares Chaucer with Dante. And he does not
consider Chaucer as a superior poet. According to him Chaucer lacks ‘high
seriousness’. Matthew Arnold appreciates Pope and Dryden not for their
poetry but for their prose. Matthew Arnold considers Thomas Gray as the
poet having high poetic values.
Limitations of ‘the touchstone method’: (1) Matthew Arnold compares lines or passages. But
by comparing certain lines or passages, how can we talk about the whole poem?
(2) Every writer’s creativity is different. It is difficult to compare
creativity. (3) Matthew Arnold again gives importance to poetic diction, and
ignores the content.
* * * * *