Only two paragraphs into his excerpt from Culture and Anarchy, Arnold begins to discuss the motives behind culture, or literature: the scientific passion and social motivations (Norton Anthology 826). Arnold even goes so far to say that because of the social motivations behind literature, “[c]ulture is then properly described…as having its origin in the love of perfection; it is a study of perfection” (NA 826). This “a study of perfection” phrase really threw me; never before have I thought of reading literature as a pursuit of what is perfect, because nothing is truly perfect apart from the divinity of God.
So how is studying and reading literature the study of perfection? Arnold thinks that Bishop Wilson says it best: “ ‘To make reason and the will of God prevail!’ ” (NA 827). The will of God is certainly perfect, and I think that Christians should strive to acquire the reasoning necessary in order to determine the will of God for their lives, so in this sense, I think I am beginning to understand Arnold’s argument of literature…
But how exactly will reading literature lead someone to understanding the will of God? This seems much too easy. Arnold addresses this by saying that oftentimes we are “overhasty” because the reason behind searching for the will of God is “the passion for doing good” (NA 827). As Christians, we naturally want to please God and want to honor him, and so we act on these desires, without thinking of “all the imperfections and immaturities of this…basis of actions” (NA 827). So then what are we supposed to do if we are not supposed to act on the “passion for doing good,” and how does literature even play into this?
Arnold states that literature “…can remember that acting and instituting are of little use, unless we know how and what we ought to act and institute” (NA 827). Literature will not mislead the reader to acting frivolously and instituting what they should not, rather, it will serve as a guide to aid the reader in understanding what they should act on, and what they should employ in their life. Arnold believes that literature acts as a catalyst to help the reader grasp God’s will because it presents new ideas (NA 827). It does not allow the reader to just let “their old routine pass for reason and the will of God” (NA 827), but pushes them to learn these new ideas and to know that they must put these actions into practice; they must “make it prevail” (NA 828).
Hopefully more on this later…
2 comments:
Good reflections, Leanne. I think you can see by the end of the essay that for Arnold, there's a way in which literature is a form of religion or serves the same purposes of religion. The Victorians had experienced a deep crisis of faith in the efficacy of the Christian religion. Did it speak to the contemporary world and give it guidance and sustenance. And if not, what could replace it. Arnold felt that the arts in general, and literature in particular could serve the same purposes, inspiring us to our highest capacities as human beings.
Yea, I'm not so keen on Arnold's idea of literature replacing religion. I think that is a far cry from reality and truth. Furthermore, to suggest that though the reading of poetry we can partake in a quasireligious experience seems quite absurd. Even more absurd his thinking that through such an experience we can reach perfection. I don't think we, fallible human beings, can ever hope to reach perfection, regardless of any experience we might have we can only strive toward a lifelong pursuit of perfection.
Post a Comment