EVEN AS MATTHEW ARNOLD WAS PUBLISHING HIS FIRST TWO VOLUMES of poetry (anonymously, in 1849 and 1852), he appears to have been fighting what we might well perceive, early in twenty-first century, as culture war. Arnold's famous Preface to his 1853 Poems suggests that most powerful enemies of poetic principles he formulates there, and (as I hope to demonstrate) of his foundational philosophical, moral, and spiritual values, are phenomenally popular Spasmodic poets, or, as Arnold terms them in his Preface, the school of Keats. In fact, Arnold's Preface, which has traditionally been read as poetic and aesthetic manifesto, is, in addition, political manifesto. As generally negative reviews of Arnold's work that appeared between 1849 and 1853 make clear, Arnold's literary and aesthetic values, his taste, opposed that of most middle-class readers of poetry and fiction. As has been frequently discussed, most of those reviews damn Arnold's work with faint praise; poetry, although (as Clough himself characterized it) that of a scholar and gentleman, (1) is described as out of tune with modern world, self-absorbed, uselessly erudite. About 1849 volume, Charles Kingsley asked, To what purpose [is] all through which author must have passed, given that poems present only dreamy, transcendental excuses for laziness in their domination by hungry abstractions ... stolen from dregs of German philosophy? (2) And William Edmonstoune Aytoun, who two years after publication of Empedocles was to explode Spasmodic fad through his Blackwood's parody of their work, attacked Arnold's volume as perversion of taste which, with so much should have been capable of better things. (3) One reviewer was distressed that fellow Oxonian, a man of high culture, should be so alienated from his generation and should through his verse propound an indolent, selfish quietism. (4) Clough himself questioned Arnold's ascetic and timid self-culture (Armstrong, Scrutinies, p. 167). Such comments are typical of reviews of Arnold's work from 1849 and 1852 and present remarkable contrast, as we shall see, with tone and content of responses to Alexander Smith's Poems, published on heels of Arnold's volume. The responses to Smith's work were effusive. By March of 1853 Arnold had, it seems, read many of reviews and appears at first to take quietist stance in response to them. In letter to his intimate friend, Arthur Hugh Clough, of March 21, Arnold espouses kind of aesthetic relativism that is powerfully belied by direction and force of his later prose writings on such matters, including Preface to his 1853 volume (the first book he published under his own name). Of Clough, just several months before writing Preface, Arnold queried, What is to be said when thing does not suit you--suiting and not suiting is subjective affair and only time determines, by colour thing takes with years, whether it ought to have suited or no. (5) Such view may have eased Arnold's displeasure, not to say bafflement, at reviews of both The Strayed Reveller (in 1849) and Empedocles on Etna and Other Poems. But he had not yet seen Clough's, which appeared in July issue of North American Review. Reading Clough's review as in itself text for ideological analysis instructs us in highly significant cultural conflict embedded in reception history of Arnold's and Smith's works in 1853 and reified in Arnold's 1853 Preface. While reviews of Arnold's Empedocles were somewhat slow to appear, Smith's Poems was immediately and widely reviewed. A sensation of winter season, it was rushed into second edition soon after first printing. William Michael Rossetti, in fact, insisted that, during spring of 1853, nothing [was] talked of ... but Alexander Smith. (6) Dante Rossetti called A Life-Drama wonderful and compared it to Goethe's Wilhelm Meister. …
Read full abstract