4. touchstone method

4. Touchstone Method
Introduction:
The act of comparison and evaluation holds a unique and important place in literature.
Evaluation of different verses, poems, poets, theories, historical figures, all affects the way
anything is viewed by the people. Just as looking through a pair of glasses changes the way
someone sees an object, using one thing as a framework for understanding the second thing
changes the way the second thing is viewed.
In literature, evaluations are made on the daily basis, readers find all sorts of reasons to admire
a particular piece of writing, a poet, or even a school of poets, but mostly the evaluation is
based on abstract standards. The Victorian poet and critic ‘Matthew Arnold’ created a concrete,
comparative method of criticism to judge the merit of a piece of written work. It was created to
form an estimate of the real excellence and beauty of the poetic work and was introduced into
literary criticism in “the Study of Poetry”, where Arnold gives Hamlet’s dying words to Horatio as
an example of a touchstone.
The Central Idea:
Matthew Arnold was basically a classicist. He admired the ancient Greek, Roman, and French
authors as the models to be followed by the modern English authors. That’s why he introduced
a method to judge a poetic work using classical works as the base. According to Arnold, a real
classic is a work which belongs to the class of the very best. It can be recognized by placing it
beside the known classics of the world. Those known classics can serve as the touchstone by
which the merit of contemporary poetic work can be tested.
So, in order to judge a poet’s work properly, a critic should compare it to passages taken from
works of great masters of poetry, and those passages should be applied as touchstones to
other poetry. Even a single line or selected quotation will serve the purpose. If the other work
moves us in the same way as these lines and expressions do, then it really is a great work,
otherwise not.

The Recipe to Judge Great Poetry:
Arnold suggests a recipe by which great poetry can be judged. He suggests that the lines and
expressions of the great masters of poetry should be kept in mind and they should be used to
detect the presence or absence of high poetic quality and also the degree of that quality. Short
passages, even single lines will serve the purpose.
Arnold gives an illustration by quoting two lines from Homer, another three lines from Homer,
another line from Homer, a few lines from Dante, a few lines from Shakespeare, and another
few from John Milton. Arnold says that the poets quoted by him are enough to enable anyone to
form clear and sound judgments of any other poetry and to conduct a real estimate.
Real Classic and the Dubious Classic:
Matthew Arnold offered his touchstone method to distinguish a real classic from a dubious
classic and to form a real estimate of poetry. He says “a dubious classic, let us shift him; if he is
a false classic, let us explode him . But he is a real classic, if his works belong to the class of
the very best, then the great thing for us to feel and enjoy his work as deeply as ever we can.” A
best classic is recognized by placing it beside the known classics of the world.
Superiority over the Personaland Historical Methods of Poetry:
This method was recommended by Arnold to overcome the shortcomings of the personal and
historical estimates of a poem because both historical and personal estimate goes in vain.
Arnold says than the personal estimate should be avoided because it will lead to wrong
judgments. The historic estimate or judging a poet from the point of view of his importance in
the course of literary history is also not a true judgment of a poet. Its historical importance may
make us rate the work as higher than it really deserves. In order to form a real estimate, one
should have the ability to distinguish a real classic. At this point, Arnold offers his theory of
touchstone method.

Arnold gives a concrete example of the fallacies of the historical approach. Caedmon's position
is important in the historical sense but it would be wrong to hold him in the same level as
Milton poetically because of this historical position. So, in order to find the truly excellent
poetry, one should form a real estimate of poetry as opposed to historical estimate and
personal estimate.
Limitations:
The touchstone method has its own limitations. Those who do not agree with this theory of
comparative criticism say that Arnold is too strict, too exacting in comparing a simple modern
poet with the ancient master poet.
Also, this theory has set limited criteria for work to be great where as great works do not
require any criteria. All great work cannot be of same type and cannot be squeezed or fixed in
the same frame of classical great works.
With too much importance on judging a poetic work based on the classical works, one might
fear that the some of the perfectly well-written works would fade into insignificance.
And, the method of comparing passage with a passage is not a sufficient test for determining
the value of a work as a whole. Arnold himself insisted that we must judge a poem by the 'total
impression' and not by its fragments.
Conclusion:
Despite the limitations, the touchstone method is one of the greatest contributions of Matthew
Arnold. It provides a concrete form of comparing great poets, and has proved to be an
invaluable aid to appreciation of any kind of art. The touchstone method is helpful not merely
to compare the masterpiece and the lesser work, but the good with the not so good, the sincere
with the not quite sincere, it distinguishes them all from each other.

4. touchstone method

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to 4. touchstone method (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

4. touchstone method