Melody
Bay
087267C08
Introduction
In
both
the
texts
Sweetness
and
Light
and
the
Newbolt
Report,
literature,
as
a
part
of
culture,
is
seen
as
a
tool
for
the
unification
of
society.
Literature
also
plays
an
important
part
in
education,
mainly
as
a
medium
through
which
moral
values
and
national
education
are
taught.
To
determine
why
the
two
writers
view
literature
in
such
a
light,
one
has
to
examine
the
context
in
which
these
texts
were
published,
and
their
intended
effect.
Both
texts
were
published
in
times
where
society
was
in
a
fragile
state.
The
Newbolt
Report,
for
example,
was
published
in
1921,
a
time
where
the
nation
was
only
just
recovering
from
the
First
World
War.
The
overall
tone
of
this
report,
as
such,
is
nationalistic
and
it
seeks
to
convince
its
audience
that
English
Literature
plays
a
crucial
role
in
providing
much‐needed
national
pride
and
education.
Sweetness
and
Light
was
also
written
in
a
vein
not
dissimilar
to
the
Newbolt
Report,
where
it
was
feared
in
1869
that
the
passing
of
the
Reform
Bill,
which
meant
that
a
third
of
the
male
population
could
vote,
would
lead
to
an
uprising
of
the
working
class.
Culture,
Arnold
believed,
would
be
able
to
avert
social
disaster
by
being
the
adhesive
that
held
a
disjointed
society
together.
As
English
Literature
makes
up
part
of
culture,
it
has
an
important
role
as
well.
English
Literature
as
a
Tool
for
the
Unification
of
Society
In
both
texts,
English
Literature,
or
culture,
is
seen
as
having
the
ability
to
unite,
or
eliminate
classes
altogether.
Culture,
as
Arnold
believes,
‘seeks
to
do
away
with
classes;
to
make
all
live
in
an
atmosphere
of
sweetness
and
light,
and
Melody
Bay
087267C08
use
ideas,
as
it
uses
them
itself,
freely,
—
to
be
nourished
and
not
bound
by
them.’
Arnold
also
emphasizes
on
the
notion
that
culture
should
not
be
cultivated
in
isolation,
but
as
a
whole—in
order
for
culture
to
‘prevail’,
the
masses
must
embrace
it.
Newbolt
also
believes
that
literature
in
education
can
serve
to
unite
a
society
‘fragmented
along
class
lines’.
However,
there
is
an
inherent
irony
that
culture
may
also
divide
instead
of
unite.
In
the
case
of
literature,
for
instance,
only
a
select
few
may
truly
understand
or
appreciate
literature,
and
such
‘high
culture’
may
not
appeal
to
the
lower
classes.
Hence
the
appreciation
of
literary
works
may
become
a
hallmark
of
the
rich
and
elite,
and
instead
of
bridging
the
gap
between
classes,
it
may
instead
only
serve
to
widen
this
gap.
Arnold
acknowledges
this
possibility
by
noting
that
people
can
be
misled
into
a
false
sense
of
culture.
Culture
that
is
merely
worn
as
a
‘badge
or
title’,
‘valued…
out
of
sheer
vanity
and
ignorance’,
is
not
culture
in
its
truest
sense.
In
other
words,
if
people
merely
value
literature
as
the
mark
of
the
elite,
and
quoting
Dante
or
Shakespeare
to
appear
intellectual,
are
not
appreciating
the
true
value
of
literature.
In
this
sense,
then,
culture
has
failed
in
its
purpose
to
unite
society,
and
ended
up
distinguishing
the
‘educated
elite’
from
the
masses
instead.
However,
Newbolt
proposes
to
resolve
this
by
educating
all
classes
of
society
in
English
literature.
As
he
rightly
points
out,
in
the
segregated
era
of
1921,
it
is
‘difficult
to
pass
up
the
intellectual
ladder’.
However,
by
providing
‘equal
intellectual
opportunities’
for
all,
it
would
be
possible
for
all
classes
to
appreciate
English
literature,
and
hence
prevent
the
further
division
of
classes.
Melody
Bay
087267C08
English
Literature
as
a
Means
of
Inculcating
National
Pride
and
Morality
Both
writers,
especially
Newbolt,
believe
that
culture
can
unite
society
by
instilling
moral
values
and
national
pride.
In
the
postwar
context
of
1921,
Newbolt
seeks
to
impress
upon
his
audience
that
English
literature
was
an
inheritance,
an
indelible
part
of
English
history.
More
specifically,
he
believes
that
literature
was
a
‘channel
of
formative
culture
for
all
English
people’,
and
that
all
the
diversity
of
human
experience
that
comes
with
the
study
of
literature
has
become
a
‘native
experience
of
men
of
[the
English]
race
and
culture.’
How
does
this
tie
in
with
unity?
Newbolt
believes
that
the
unity
of
classes
would
stem
from
their
shared
right
to
literature,
as
it
is
part
of
their
nation’s
history.
With
regard
to
both
the
English
language
and
literature,
he
also
argues
that
if
all
classes
could
have
‘equal
intellectual
opportunities’,
they
would
eventually
come
to
regard
their
language
and
nation
with
a
‘genuine
feeling
of
pride
and
affection’.
This
common
interest
in
literature
is
vital
because
it
provides
a
link
between
classes.
Literature
also
has
the
role
of
instilling
morality.
This
is
perhaps
particularly
important
in
Arnold’s
context
because
of
the
threat
of
the
middle‐
class
uprising.
What
Arnold
focuses
on
is
not
moral
values
per
se;
rather,
he
believes
in
the
holistic
moral
development
of
the
human
character,
resulting
in
‘increased
sweetness,
increased
light’,
and
generally
a
finely
tempered
nature.
He
also
believes
that
culture
would
enable
one
to
look
beyond
capitalism
and
materialism,
which
was
just
beginning
to
spread
at
that
time.
Melody
Bay
087267C08
Newbolt
also
supports
this
notion
that
literature
instilled
morality,
albeit
in
a
more
explicit
manner.
He
argues
that
not
studying
English
literature
equates
to
a
lack
in
morals
in
the
younger
generation,
and
‘the
mischief
may
not
be
undone
afterwards’.
The
study
of
literature,
therefore,
provides
a
moral
grounding
of
sorts
for
its
students
and
should
be
encouraged.
Literature
as
a
Cornerstone
of
Education
Literature
also
has
the
crucial
role
of
redefining
English
education.
It
would,
as
Newbolt
argues,
teach
lessons
that
were
more
applicable
to
real
life,
as
opposed
to
the
classics,
which
are
also
essential
but
too
detached
from
contemporary
society
to
be
of
much
use
in
real
life
application.
Also,
as
Newbolt
quotes
from
Wordsworth,
literature
in
education
‘presents
the
student
with
experience
of
time
and
circumstance
more
nearly
related
to
his
own’.
In
essence,
the
study
of
English
literature
is
relevant
to
life,
and
students
will
derive
greater
benefit
from
it.
Literature
is
also
different
from
the
old
methods
of
education
in
the
sense
that
it
was
not
the
storing
of
human
knowledge
like
the
sciences,
but
a
guidance
to
life
and
a
shaping
of
one’s
moral
character,
as
mentioned
above.
In
fact,
Newbolt
saw
literature
as
a
subject
of
such
importance
that
he
proposed
to
revamp
the
entire
English
education
system
so
that
literature
could
be
incorporated
as
one
of
its
cornerstones.
Literature,
he
argued,
was
essential
because
it
taught
morality,
and
according
to
the
Arnoldian
school
of
thought,
also
taught
transcendental
‘timeless
values’.
Literature
as
a
Lasting
Tribute
to
the
Human
Experience
Melody
Bay
087267C08
As
a
lasting
tribute
to
the
human
experience,
literature’s
role
is
not
context‐
specific
but
is
important
nonetheless.
As
Newbolt
says,
literature
is
‘the
most
direct
and
lasting
communication
of
experience
by
man
to
men’.
It
is
also
‘the
self‐expression
of
great
natures,
the
record
and
rekindling
of
spiritual
experiences’,
an
immortalization
of
human
experience
that
transcends
societies
and
ages.
Literature,
as
culture,
also
appeals
to
the
human
spirit
through
‘the
love
of
truth,
the
love
of
beauty,
and
the
love
of
righteousness’.
In
essence,
Newbolt
is
asserting
that
a
love
of
literature
is
intrinsic
in
human
nature.
Similarly,
Arnold
sees
the
cultivation
of
culture,
or
the
pursuit
of
‘sweetness
and
light’,
as
a
goal
to
achieve
for
humanity
as
a
whole.
Conclusion
Overall,
both
writers
see
literature
as
crucial
in
the
development
of
not
only
the
individual’s
moral
character,
but
also
in
society,
as
well
as
humankind
in
general.
As
a
national
inheritance
and
subject
of
study,
it
can
instill
national
pride
and
morality.
As
a
record
of
human
experience,
however,
it
can
transcend
time
and
space
to
teach
timeless
values
that
few
other
disciplines
can
ever
teach.
In
sum,
literature
not
only
has
the
ability
to
unite
classes,
but
also
all
of
humanity
through
shared
experience.
1297
words