Literary criticism on Shakespeare by Matthew Arnold

Praising Shakespeare, Arnold says ‘’In England there needs a miracle of genius like
Shakespeare's to produce a balance of mind'’’. This is not bardolatory, but praise tempered
by a critical sense. In a letter he writes. “I keep saying Shakespeare, you are as obscure as
life is”. He says that even the imitation of Shakespeare is risky for a young writer, who
should imitate only his excellences, and avoid his attractive accessories, tricks of style, such
as quibble, conceit, circumlocution and allusiveness, which will lead him astray.
Arnold commends Shakespeare's use of great plots from the past. He had what
Goethe called the architectonic quality, that is his expression was matched to the action (or
the subject). But at the same time Arnold quotes Hallam to show that Shakespeare's style
was complex even where the press of action demanded simplicity and directness, and hence
his style could not be taken as a model by young writers. Elsewhere he says that
Shakespeare's expression tends to become a little sensuous and simple, too much
intellectualised.
In addition, he explains Shakespeare's excellences which can be seen in his literary
skills such as the architectonic quality of his style; the harmony between action and
expression, his reliance on the ancients for his themes, accurate construction of action, his
strong conception of action and accurate portrayal of his subject matter and his intense
feeling for the subjects he dramatises.
As an example of the danger of imitating Shakespeare, he gives Keats's imitation of
Shakespeare in his Isabella or the Pot of Basil. Keats uses felicitous phrases and single happy
turns of phrase, yet the action is handled vaguely and so the poem does not have unity. By
way of contrast, he says the Italian writer Boccaccio handled the same theme successfully in
his Decameron, because he rightly subordinated expression to action.
In the preface to his Poems (1853) Arnold asserts the importance of architectonics;
(that power of execution, which creates, forms, and constitutes) in poetry, the necessity of
achieving unity by subordinating the parts to the whole, and the expression of ideas to the
depiction of human action, and condemns poems which exist for the sake of single lines or
passages, stray metaphors, images, and fancy expressions. Scattered images and happy
turns of phrase, in his view, can only provide partial effects, and not contribute to unity. He
also continuing his anti-Romantic theme, urges, modern poets to shun allusiveness and not
fall into the temptation of subjectivity.
Arnold also wants the modern writer to take models from the past because they
depict human actions which touch on 'the great primary human affections: to those
elementary feelings which subsist permanently in the race, and which are independent of
time'. Characters such as Agamemnon, Dido, Aeneas, Orestes, Merope, Alcmeon, and
lytemnestra, leave a permanent impression on our minds. Compare 'The Iliad' or 'The
Aeneid' with 'The Childe Harold' or 'The Excursion' and you see the difference.
A modern writer might complain that ancient subjects pose problems with regard to
ancient culture, customs, manners, dress and so on which are not familiar to contemporary
readers. But Arnold is of the view that a writer should not concern himself with the
externals, but with the inward man. The inward man is the same irrespective of clime or
time.
 Exegesis includes a wide range of critical disciplines: textual criticism is the investigation
into the history and origins of the text, but exegesis may include the study of the historical
and cultural backgrounds for the author, the text, and the original audience. Other analysis
includes classification of the type of literary genres present in the text, and an analysis of
grammatical and syntactical features in the text itself.

 Hermeneutics is the study of interpretation theory, and can be either the art of
interpretation, or the theory and practice of interpretation. Traditional hermeneutics which
includes Biblical hermeneutics refers to the study of the interpretation of written texts,
especially texts in the areas of literature, religion and law. Contemporary, or modern,
hermeneutics encompasses not only issues involving the written text, but everything in the
interpretative process.

 Mimesis is a critical and philosophical term that carries a wide range of meanings, which
include: imitation, representation, mimicry, the act of resembling, the act of expression, and
the presentation of the self. The word Mimesis means “imitation” (though in the sense of
“re-presentation” rather than of “copying”). Plato and Aristotle spoke of mimesis as the re-
presentation of nature. According to Plato, all artistic creation is a form of imitation: that
which really exists (in the “world of ideas”) is a type created by God; the concrete things
man perceives in his existence are shadowy representations of this ideal type.

 Catharsis is the emotional cleansing of the audience and/or characters in a play. In

relation to drama it is an extreme change in emotion resulting from strong feelings of
sorrow, fear, pity, or laughter; this result has been described as a purification or a purging of
such emotions (whether those of the characters in the play or of the audience). More
recently such terms as restoration, renewal, and revitalization have been used in relation to
the effect on members of the audience.

 Reader-response is a reader critical thinking which promoted and developed by a variety

of literary theorists and critics. Reader-response critics hold that, to understand the literary
experience or the meaning of a text, one must look to the processes readers use to create
that meaning and experience. reader response criticism suggests that a text gains meaning
by the purposeful act of a reader reading and interpreting it. The relationship between
reader and text is highly valued text does not exist without a reader. It is rather like the logic
question of whether a tree falling in a forest makes a sound if no one is around to hear it.
Reader response criticism is often mistakenly believed to be a literary critical theory that
allows for any interpretation of a text. Although interpretation under reader response
criticism is given a wider berth than in formalist or structuralist critiques, not every
interpretation is equally valid. n reader response criticism, the reader and the interpretive
community to which the reader belongs judges the work. This process breathes life into the
text. Reader response criticism might look at the way in which different interpretive
communities value a text, for historical purposes, or such critics might examine the ways in
which some interpretive communities pose the best method for reading a text.
 In literary criticism, close reading describes the careful, sustained interpretation of a
brief passage of text. Such a reading places great emphasis on the particular over the
general, paying close attention to individual words, syntax, and the order in which sentences
and ideas unfold as they are read. What particularly interested the first close readers were:
 The ambiguities within texts
 How many layers of meaning or interpretation there were
 The paradoxes
 The undercurrents of tone
 How sincere or honest the writer's voice was, and at what level
 The imagery used: how central it was to conveying meaning, how subtle its patterns,
how symbolic, how original
 Skills with words, in wordplay, assonance, alliteration, puns
 Innovations with form, rhythm and other structures
 Evaluation in terms of the match or consonance of content, tone and expression
 Evaluating the overall merit of each text, in terms of the above.
In a sense, everyone has to start here. Understanding specific works and understanding the
context in which they were created needs to go hand in hand.  However hard the text might
seem, this sort of formal analysis equips you to read texts of any sort.

 Authorial is the author manifestation in the text and must be placed in a context of
liberation and the materialist dialectic. The text is the only source of meaning, and any
details of the author's desires or life are purely extraneous. The author's intent is
recoverable from the text, but there is always encoded within it several separate positions.
The author might be arguing consciously for empire, but hidden within that argument will
be a response to a counterargument and a presentation of an emerging synthesis. In
general, they have argued that the author's intent itself is immaterial and cannot be fully
recovered. However, the author's intent will shape the text and limit the possible
interpretations of a work. In many cases, the evidence would make it almost impossible to
decide what the authorial intention was at any given point. However, an intentionalist
would attempt to approach authorial intention, even though it might be clear that the real
intention of the author is irrecoverable.

 The unity of form and content. Form and content in literary works can’t be separated
each other. Form can refer to both broad and specific types of literature. For example, form
could refer to whether or not you are writing a novel, poetry, play, etc. It can also refer to
things within these categories. Within poetry, for example, you have the haiku, the sonnet,
free verse, blank verse, etc. Even within sonnets you have Shakespearian and Petrarchan.
Content is simply what is actually written. At times, form can dictate content. The sonnet
form, for example, usually contains idealized romance or a deep non-romantic affection. At
times, however, authors may choose to use unlikely content within a certain form to
achieve an ironic effect.

 Value of the object by means the object of literature need not always be beautiful,
noble, or perfect, but that literature itself could elevate a common subject to the level of
the sublime. This value emphasis on form and precise attention to "the words themselves"
has persisted, after the decline of these critical doctrines themselves.