Study of Poetry

Matthew Arnold, much like his predecessor William Wordsworth, believes that poetry must contain 'truth' and 'seriousness'. He says that without these two distinctions the poetical work cannot be deemed classical: " This is what is salutary, this is what is formative; this is the great benefit to be got from the study of poetry. " (7)

Arnold teaches us how to objectively analyze good poetry, but in breaking down what he is saying " If we are thoroughly penetrated by their power, we shall find that we have acquired a sense enabling us, whatever poetry may be laid before us, to feel the degree in which a high poetical quality is present or wanting there " (11) the analysis is very qualitative subjective. He says that the best way to discover the qualities of high poetry is to look at high poetry. What is high poetry? He does not tell us. As mentioned in class this is a circular argument; he is unable to teach us how to evaluate poetry in a quantitative objective sense. Furthermore he argues that many of us fall into the trap of identifying what we think is good poetry but in fact, we are actually mesmeric by a glazed fallacy of poetry; these fallacies are the historical and personal estimates of poetry. Good poetry he says is the ‘real’ estimate of poetry. Well thanks, very definitive of you!

Furthermore, when Arnold dissects the classics such as Chaucer, Burns, Pope, and Dryden he claims that none of them are truly classical poets, for they lack either the 'truth' or 'seriousness' that is essential for becoming a great poet. These two elements: truth, and seriousness, are merely subjective qualities that Arnold admires in his reading of poetry; these qualities are not necessarily what I admire when I read poetry, because I love Chaucer, and Pope for instance, and I admire a lot the of elements in their writing. Truth and seriousness are both generically definitive signifiers; they are merely subjective qualities. Subjective qualities cannot define the true value of what is a classical poet.