Touchstone Method_Matthew Arnold

 (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.       

*     *     *     *     *