How does Arnold Evaluate Dryden, Pope, Gray, and Burns?

Answer

Critically analyze Arnold’s assessment of the poetry written in the 17th and 18th centuries in England.

Or, how does Arnold evaluate Dryden, Pope, Gray, and Burns? Do you agree with him?

Matthew Arnold (1822 – 1888), in his essay “The Study of Poetry”(1880), talks about poems written during the 17th and 18th centuries or the “Neo-classical Age” (1660-1785) in England. He believes that some poets from this time, like Dryden and Pope, are skilled, but their poetry doesn’t reach the greatness of the classics. Arnold thinks their poems lack deep meaning and seriousness. These are important for poetry to be truly great. 

The Influence of Prose and Reason: Arnold begins by highlighting that the 17th and 18th centuries were dominated by prose and reason. People of this age value logic, balance, and clear writing above all. This focus on reason shaped both prose and poetry. Arnold writes, 

“We are to regard Dryden as the puissant and glorious founder, Pope as the splendid high priest, of our age of prose and reason.” 

Arnold thinks their poetry is more like prose—good for logic but not for expressing deep feelings.

Lack of High Seriousness: One of Arnold’s strongest criticisms of 17th and 18th-century poetry is its lack of high seriousness. High seriousness means that the best poems talk about serious and deep topics in a way that makes us think and feel. He states, 

“The accent of high seriousness, born of absolute sincerity, is what gives to such verse its power.”

In his view, poets like Dryden and Pope fail to deliver profound messages about life. It reduces the lasting value of their poetry.

The Poetry of Dryden (1631-1700) and Pope (1688-1744): Arnold respects the technical skills of Dryden and Pope. But he demands that their poetry lacks the emotional depth and universal truths found in classic poets. He gives examples of Dryden’s shiny yet superficial lines: 

“A milk-white Hind, immortal and unchanged,”

While these lines are well-written, they don’t teach important life lessons or touch deep emotions. Arnold believes poetry should do more than just sound good.

The Historic Estimate vs. the Real Estimate: Arnold explains that poets like Dryden and Pope are famous in history. This doesn’t mean their poetry is truly great. He warns, 

“The historic estimate… leads to a dangerous abuse of language.”

Arnold wants readers to focus on the “real estimate,” which means judging poetry based on its true worth, not just its place in history.

Thomas Gray (1716-1771) as a Poetical Classic: Among the poets of the 18th century, Arnold considers Thomas Gray an exception. Although Gray does not fully reach the heights of earlier classics, Arnold appreciates his ability to capture some of the qualities of great poetry. He writes, 

“He is the scantiest and frailest of classics in our poetry, but he is a classic.” 

Gray’s study of Greek poetry allowed him to invest his work with a poetic point of view that others like Pope lacked.

Robert Burns (1759 – 1796) and the Problem of Personal Feelings: Arnold discusses Robert Burns. He wrote in the late 18th century. Arnold warns that personal and national pride often lead people to overestimate his work. Arnold admits that Burns has moments of true poetry, like in the lines,

“Had we never loved sae kindly,”

However, Burns’s focus on Scottish life makes his poetry. This lacks the universal appeal required for classic status.

In conclusion, Matthew Arnold sees the poetry of the 17th and 18th centuries as good but not truly great. He respects the skills of poets like Dryden and Pope but thinks their work lacks the deep meaning and high seriousness needed for classic poetry. Arnold encourages readers to focus on poetry that has high seriousness, deep truths, and universal appeal.