- 著者
-
田中 裕介
- 出版者
- 一般財団法人 日本英文学会
- 雑誌
- 英文学研究 支部統合号 (ISSN:18837115)
- 巻号頁・発行日
- vol.1, pp.127-144, 2009-01-10 (Released:2017-06-16)
It seems strange that Matthew Arnold, who could be regarded as a realistic relativist, devoted himself to the belief that 'culture' is an abstract and absolute idea, in his most famous work, Culture and Anarchy. In this paper, I will recount the how (not the why) of his thoughts by examining the transition of his use of critical terms such as 'culture' and 'state.' Through his early prose works, Arnold struggled to abandon the romantic sentiments that overwhelmed him as a young poet and confirm his own view of poetry by idealising the verbal reproduction of the 'actions' described in ancient Greek plays. In On Translating Homer, a creative activity based on 'models' was generalised as a form of recognition 'to see the object as in itself it really is', which he called 'criticism.' In 'Function of Criticism at the Present Time,' he defined 'criticism' as a mediating art to diffuse normative knowledge to a whole society; in his educational reports, he considered 'state' as an 'art' of creating or maintaining national unity. 'State' became a normative idea in Culture and Anarchy, where 'culture' was considered to function as a medium through which the English could attain the ideal. However, in his critical terminology, the word 'culture' has diverse meanings. In his early politico-historical essay, 'Democracy,' there is a strong indication of the general mode of the lives of the English aristocracy. Originally, it was a concrete noun that suggests a particular national life, though it gradually became an abstract concept that referred to general humanity. In 'Function of Criticism at the Present Time,' he stressed the social instrumentality of 'criticism' while restraining himself from pushing 'culture' to the forefront. Prior to Culture and Anarchy, he appeared to hesitate to use the word 'culture' extensively, especially in his literary criticism, since it is a term that implies nationality and is closely associated with romanticism, which he negated in his earlier writings. Thus, how did he manage to employ 'culture' as a normative concept in Culture and Anarchy? Paradoxically, he achieved this by defining it as an art. Based on the parallelism with the concept of the state, it follows the process by which 'state' changes from an instrumental framework to a normative idea. In this work, Arnold not only absolutised but also personalised the term 'culture', which appeared to be a medium or an image of God. Arnold claimed that the English adored 'culture' as it could function as a medium for their intellectual perfection. Absolute diction enabled him to use the word with a kind of transcendent significance. For this reason, we can consider the quasi-religious language of Culture and Anarchy as the discourse of idolatry.