The Function of Criticism at the Present Time by Matthew Arnold

PUBLICATION HISTORY: Arnold's essay, "The Function of Criticism at the Present Time" was
published in his first collection of critical writings, Essays in Criticism, in 1865. Prior to the
publication of these essays, Arnold had just completed some lectures on the translation of
Homer--works which bear, in a less developed form, some of Arnold's ideas on the need for new,
intelligent criticism in England.

"The Function of Criticism at the Present Time" thus seems a bit of a turning point in Arnold's
career; by the time Arnold began writing Culture and Anarchy, he had turned away from his
career as a poet to focus on social and theological writings. The project which Arnold began with
this essay--to make the reading, middle-class public of England understand the need for a critical
spirit in order to provide society with fresh, intelligent ideas--would occupy him fully and it is for
this new direction which Arnold takes that would make Arnold interesting to generations after
him.

SUMMARY: The central argument of the essay responds to what Arnold felt to be the prevailing
attitude that the constructive, creative capacity was much more important than the critical
faculty. Arnold's expanded definition of criticism, however--"the endeavour, in all branches of
knowledge, theology, philosophy, history, art, science, to see the object as in itself it really is"--
renders criticism a necessary prerequisite for truly valuable creation. Specifically, criticism is
what generates "fresh" and "intelligent" ideas during a specific time and place in history, and
Arnold claim that since literature works with current ideas (literature is "synthesis and
exposition"), great works can only be generated in a climate of great ideas. Thus, Arnold argues
that criticism prepares the way for creation.

Arnold pegs the work of the romantic poets after the French Revolution and in the earlier part of
the century as creative, but without the quality of ideas necessary for truly great work. This is
because, Arnold explains, the French Revolution devolved into an obsession with the political
and practical, "quitting the intellectual sphere and rushing furiously into the political sphere."
While Arnold praises the intellectual quality of the initial ideas, particularly Burke's, coming out
of this "epoch of concentration," Arnold disparages the devolution of these ideas too manically
into the political and practical.

In the present time, Arnold argues, criticism must maintain a position of "disinterestedness,"
keeping aloof from "the practical view of things" in order to "know the best that is known and
thought in the world, and in its turn making this known, to create a current of true and fresh
ideas." Its logic runs counter to that of self-satisfaction (what Arnold felt to be the problematic
attitude of middle-class reformers) and thus leads men to desire greater perfection.
Arnold concedes, finally, that the work of the critic is "slow and obscure" and doesn't quite give
an answer as to how the critic can make his work known to the so-called "practical" men. Arnold
holds that the critic will be misunderstood, and English society is likely to be on the side of the
likes of Bishop Colenso and Miss Cobbe, who offer "constructive" suggestions for living.
Nevertheless, Arnold seems deeply hopeful that the recent commentary on the youth of today
having less "zeal" means that they are in fact thinking more, and cultivating a more disinterested,
critical life and in doing so, coming up with fresh, intelligent ideas.

CRITICAL APPROACH: One of the most interesting aspects of Arnold's ideas on criticism for me is
his direct association between the need for criticism and what he perceived to be an increasingly
complex, modern, world. As abstract as many of Arnold's phrases seem, and given the absence
of any sense of specific historicity in terms like "epoch of concentration" or "epoch of
expansion," somehow, Arnold yet maintains that he means criticism for the present time, which,
as it turns out, means "modernity." In his own words, "the life and world being in modern times
very complex things," it becomes necessary that an intellectual elite (transcending above all
"practical" things--later, in Culture and Anarchy, "ordinary selves"--including class status, but
problematically so as Hadley points out in her critique of Victorian liberalism) maintain clarity
through determining what is true and what is socially constructed.

The emphasis in this essay on "modernity" in all its hefty, complex associations with
industrialization, capitalism, secularization, institutional organization, and relatedly, the
destruction of the so-called "individual" makes it a particularly interesting one to look at if one is
to offer students of Victorian literature a framework for understanding the major clash between
humanity and "modernity" perceived by so many. Arnold's sweeping generalizations of the
French Revolution and romanticism in this essay also offers an easy way into pointing out two
rather different waves of historical anxiety: the first related to the violence of establishing new
political orders, the second related to the mechanical complacency of the middle-class
individual in the face of improved living conditions and general acceptance of "liberal" ideas.

Synopsis: Criticism ought to be a ‘dissemination of ideas, an unprejudiced and impartial effort

to study and spread the best that is known and thought in the world’, is what Matthew Arnold
says in his essay- The Function of Criticism at the Present Time (1864).

(Function of criticism: Judgment: In its strict sense, criticism means judgment. The literary critic,
therefore, is primarily an expert who uses his special faculty and training to examine the merits
and defects of a piece of literary art or the work of a given author and pronounce a verdict upon
it.)
He writes that when assessing a particular work, the goal is ‘to see the object as in itself it really
is’. Psychological, historical and sociological backgrounds are immaterial. This attitude was very
influential and particularly noteworthy with later critics.

Fundamental argument in function of criticism: The fundamental argument of the essay

describes what Matthew Arnold felt to be the existing attitude that the constructive, creative
capacity was much more important than the critical faculty. His extensive definition of criticism,
however-” the endeavour, in all branches of knowledge, theology, philosophy, history, art,
science, to see the object as in itself it really is”-causes to be criticism a necessary pre-
requirement for a valuable creation.

In his pursuit for the best, a critic Arnold believed that it should not only restrict or limit himself
to the literature works of his own country but should draw significantly on foreign literature and
ideas to a large extent, because the spreading of ideas should be an objective venture.

At a particular point in his career, Matthew Arnold was well-liked and a much-accepted poet. But
later in his life, his interest turned with vigor to criticism of both literary works and forms and the
social fabric of society. According to Matthew Arnold, Criticism, in his essay, The Function of
Criticism at the Present Time, functions as an attempt or an effort that is not necessarily
dependent upon any creative art form; rather criticism is intrinsically valuable in itself, whether
its value sprouts from bringing joy to the writer of it or whether that value roots from making
sure that the paramount ideas reach society.

He connects criticism with creative power right through the essay and terminates with an idea
that links to the earlier one above when he emphasize that that writing criticism may actually
produce in its practitioner a sense of ecstatic creative joy just like someone engaging in what we
normally think of creative writing feels.

Arnold makes an effort to demonstrate that criticism in and of itself has several significant
functions and should be observed as an art form that is as high and important as any creative art
form.

Detailed Summary: The essay The Function of Criticism at the Present Time was published by
Matthew Arnold in his first collection of critical writing ‘Essays in Criticism’ in 1865. The essay
deals with Arnold’s interpretation of criticism and his critique of writers who write politically or
religiously biased literature thus narrowing its scope.

Idea vs. Reality: Arnold starts his essay by saying, “Of the literature of France and Germany, as
of the intellect of Europe in general, the main effort, for now, many years, has been a critical
effort; the endeavour, in all branches of knowledge, theology, philosophy, history, art, science,
to see the object as in itself it really is.” and adds, “false and malicious criticism had better
never been made.”

Here Arnold explains the basic task of any critic. According to him, a critic must perceive any
object (work) as it is, without thinking about the other conditions. Thus for him, the text should
be the whole and a critic should never take the help of any other text for its explanation.

In the next line, he condemns the false criticism (which is not original and is biased). Arnold
believes that the creator of a text is greater than its critic because “creative activity is the true
function of man”, however, it is the critic who draws the true meaning of that particular work of
literature.

According to Arnold, for a production of a great literary work, “the power of man” and “the
power of moment” i.e. climate of great ideas must concur. If anyone of them is absent then a
great work of literature will never be produced.

To explain this, Arnold takes the example of two poets- Goethe and Byron. Both Goethe and
Byron had great productive power yet the work of Goethe is more productive than that of Byron
because the former had a rich cultural background which the latter
lacked. Similarly, Shakespeare was not a deep reader. His fame and glory were only because his
age had a climate of great ideas.

Next, he says that French Revolution, with its writers like Rousseau and Voltaire, was more
powerful than the English Revolution of Charles (of great ideas of Renaissance). However the
English Revolution is though practically less successful than the French Revolution yet it is better
than the letter as it “appeals to an order of ideas which are universal, certain permanent”.

French Revolution quitted intellectual sphere and rushed into the political sphere, thus losing its
universal application. French Revolution was followed by “Epoch of Concentration” (period of
single-mindedness) which could not live long and was followed by “Epoch of Expansion”(period
of creative ideas). The works written on the French Revolution (like that of Burke) are though
great and well appreciated yet they are biased as they combine politics with thought.

Use of Disinterestedness: Having explained this Arnold moves towards the nature of critic, his
thinking, and his work. According to him, a critic must maintain a position
of “disinterestedness,” i.e. keeping aloof from “the practical view of things” in order to “know
the best that is known and thought in the world, and in its turn making this known, to create a
current of true and fresh ideas.” Here in these lines, he explains the task of a critic in a 3-fold
way:
 1. First, a critic must know about the life and world before writing anything and see the
things as they are.
2. Second, he should promote his ideas to others and make the best ideas prevail in the
society.
3. Third, he must create an atmosphere for the creation of the genius of future by promoting
these noble, honest and true ideas.
Arnold criticizes the literature produced during the Victorian age. According to him, there is a
failure of criticism due to the division of society and intellectuals into small political and religious
groups that makes them incapable of seeing things in their true states.

He cites the example of various works of literature which were written to promote the writers’
own political agendas. E.g. the Edinburgh Review represents views of the Whigs; the Quarterly
Review represents views of Tories; the British Quarterly Review represents the views of political
Dissenters, and the Times represents the views of the “rich Englishman.”

On the other hand, he also criticises the “constructive” suggestions for living presented by
Bishop Colenso and Miss Cobbe. For him, they have religious influence in their writings which is
again against the spirit of true criticism. He also tells that the common man lacks the creativity.

Duty of Criticism: Arnold says that criticism must maintain its independence from the practical
spirit and its aims. It must express dissatisfaction even with well-meant efforts of the practical
spirit if in the sphere of the ideal they seem lacking. It must be patient and not hurry on to the
goal because of its practical importance, know how to wait, and know how to attach itself as well
as withdraw from things.

Conclusion: Arnold talks about a person who regrets the loss of zeal which once existed but is no
longer present in the contemporary society due to the influence of politics and religion on ideas.
Thus he gives voice to commoners views to enhance the glory of past. He advises the critics to
adopt disinterested behaviour towards criticism. They should take into consideration the foreign
thought as well.

Their judgments should be from their own mind without any biases and should communicate
fresh knowledge to their readers. The criticism is capable of making progress in Europe taking it
towards perfection. In the end, he defends his views on criticism and says that he won’t change
his opinion for any person who deviates from his theory of criticism.

1. In what ways does "The Function of Criticism at the Present Time" by Matthew Arnold
represent Victorian literary criticism and the Victorian era? And what does the article deal
with in detail?
In "The Function of Criticism at the Present Time," Matthew Arnold argues it is criticism that has
most significantly influenced French and German literature, and that criticism is applied using all
"branches of knowledge, theology, philosophy, history, art, [and] science," in order to see things
as they truly are. He further argues that those who write and study English literature fail to apply
any criticism, and English literature is suffering in quality due to the lack of criticism.

By criticism, Arnold means more than just critiquing though critiquing is certainly a part of
literary criticism. Literary criticism is an "evaluation, analysis, description, [and] interpretation of
literary works" ("Literary Criticism"). And, Arnold is arguing it is through such criticism that new
ideas are gained and literature is improved in order for literature to deal in deeper subject
matters.

He particularly notes that Victorian society is failing to improve literature through criticism,
and one of the reasons why is because the society is so divided by its members' own political
and religious ideals that the society is unable to see things as they truly are. He goes on to list
many various works of English literature that are written solely to promote the writers' own
political agendas; for example, the Edinburgh Review represents the agenda of the Whigs;
the Quarterly Review represents the agenda of the Tories; the British Quarterly
Review represents the vies of "political Dissenters; and the Times represents the views of the
"common, satisfied, well-to-do Englishman." In short, each faction of Victorian English society
has found a way to voice its own criticism, but the biased criticisms of factions alone are
meaningless and will not lead to truth. As Arnold argued, British Victorian society had no
interest in combining all of the criticisms from all factions into one common, "disinterested"
criticism, which is what would be needed for criticism to draw any true conclusions.

He further argues that true criticism can only be reached when one analyzes things from
a detached standpoint. But unfortunately, "The mass of mankind will never have any ardent zeal
for seeing things as they are; very inadequate ideas will always satisfy them."

His Essays in Criticism (1865, 1888), remains a significant influence on critics to this day,
and his prefatory essay to that collection, "The Function of Criticism at the Present Time",
is one of the most influential essays written on the role of the critic in identifying and
elevating literature — even while admitting, "The critical power is of lower rank than the
creative." Comparing himself to the French liberal essayist Ernest Renan, who sought to
inculcate morality in France, Arnold saw his role as inculcating intelligence in England.

Arnold As Critic: It is said that when the poet in Arnold died, the critic was born; and it is true
that from this time onward he turned almost entirely to prose. Some of the leading ideas and
phrases were early put into currency in Essays in Criticism (First Series, 1865; Second Series,
1888) and Culture and Anarchy. The first essay in the 1865 volume, “The Function of Criticism at
the Present Time,” is an overture announcing briefly most of the themes he developed more
fully in later work. It is at once evident that he ascribes to “criticism” a scope and importance
hitherto undreamed of. The function of criticism, in his sense, is “a disinterested endeavour to
learn and propagate the best that is known and thought in the world, and thus to establish a
current of fresh and true ideas.” It is in fact a spirit that he is trying to foster, the spirit of an
awakened and informed intelligence playing upon not “literature” merely but theology, history,
art, science, sociology, and politics, and in every sphere seeking “to see the object as in itself it
really is.”

In this critical effort, thought Arnold, England lagged behind France and Germany, and the
English accordingly remained in a backwater of provinciality and complacency. Even the great
Romantic poets, with all their creative energy, suffered from the want of it. The English literary
critic must know literatures other than his own and be in touch with European standards. This
last line of thought Arnold develops in the second essay, “The Literary Influence of Academies,”
in which he dwells upon “the note of provinciality” in English literature, caused by remoteness
from a “centre” of correct knowledge and correct taste. To realize how much Arnold widened
the horizons of criticism requires only a glance at the titles of some of the other essays in Essays
in Criticism (1865): “Maurice de Guérin,” “Eugénie de Guérin,” “Heinrich Heine,” “Joubert,”
“Spinoza,” “Marcus Aurelius”; in all these, as increasingly in his later books, he is “applying
modern ideas to life” as well as to letters and “bringing all things under the point of view of the
19th century.”

The first essay in the 1888 volume, “The Study of Poetry,” was originally published as the general
introduction to T.H. Ward’s anthology, The English Poets (1880). It contains many of the ideas for
which Arnold is best remembered. In an age of crumbling creeds, poetry will have to
replace religion. More and more, we will “turn to poetry to interpret life for us, to console us, to
sustain us.” Therefore we must know how to distinguish the best poetry from the inferior, the
genuine from the counterfeit; and to do this we must steep ourselves in the work of the
acknowledged masters, using as “touchstones” passages exemplifying their “high seriousness,”
and their superiority of diction and movement.

The remaining essays, with the exception of the last two (on Tolstoy and Amiel), all deal with
English poets: Milton, Gray, Keats, Wordsworth, Byron, and Shelley. All contain memorable
things, and all attempt a serious and responsible assessment of each poet’s “criticism of life” and
his value as food for the modern spirit. Arnold has been taken to task for some of his judgments
and omissions: for his judgment that Dryden and Pope were not “genuine” poets because they
composed in their wits instead of “in the soul”; for calling Gray a “minor classic” in an age of
prose and spiritual bleakness; for paying too much attention to the man behind the poetry (Gray,
Keats, Shelley); for making no mention of Donne; and above all for saying that poetry is “at
bottom a criticism of life.” On this last point it should be remembered that he added “under the
conditions fixed…by the laws of poetic truth and poetic beauty,” and that if by “criticism” is
understood (as Arnold meant) “evaluation,” Arnold’s dictum is seen to have wider significance
than has been sometimes supposed.

Culture and Anarchy is in some ways Arnold’s most central work. It is an expansion of his earlier
attacks, in “The Function of Criticism” and “Heinrich Heine,” upon the smugness, philistinism,
and mammon worship of Victorian England. Culture, as “the study of perfection,” is opposed to
the prevalent “anarchy” of a new democracy without standards and without a sense of direction.
By “turning a stream of fresh thought upon our stock notions and habits,” culture seeks to make
“reason and the will of God prevail.”

Arnold’s classification of English society into Barbarians (with their high spirit, serenity, and
distinguished manners and their inaccessibility to ideas), Philistines (the stronghold of religious
nonconformity, with plenty of energy and morality but insufficient “sweetness and light”), and
Populace (still raw and blind) is well known. Arnold saw in the Philistines the key to the whole
position; they were now the most influential section of society; their strength was the nation’s
strength, their crudeness its crudeness: Educate and humanize the Philistines, therefore. Arnold
saw in the idea of “the State,” and not in any one class of society, the true organ and repository
of the nation’s collective “best self.” No summary can do justice to this extraordinary book; it can
still be read with pure enjoyment, for it is written with an inward poise, a serene detachment,
and an infusion of mental laughter, which make it a masterpiece of ridicule as well as a searching
analysis of Victorian society. The same is true of its unduly neglected sequel, Friendship’s
Garland (1871).

The Function of Criticism at the Present time

It is, in his essay on The Function of Criticism at the Present time prefixed to the first series of
his Essays in Criticism that Arnold defines criticism, elaborates his functions, and also lays down
the essentials of a competent critic. His view of criticism must b assessed in the context of the
degenerate and chaotic state of contemporary criticism. He found “cultural anarchy”,
everywhere, and his avowed mission was to bring about cultural regeneration.

The importance of the critic and criticism—Definition:

In the very beginning of the essay, Arnold admits that the critical faculty is lower than the
creative one, but it is critical activity which makes creation possible. Successful creation requires
a current of best and noble ideas, but such a current is not always available, and in such
uncongenial times creative activities suffer. Thus Gray, who had a soul of a poet, happened to be
born in congenial times, and so his poetic production is meager and scant. Arnold agrees with
Tiane that, for successful creation both ‘the power of the man’ and the ‘power of the moment’,
must concur, and the power of the moment, i.e., stir and growth of noble ideas is made possible
by criticism. Criticism is not merely, “judgment in literature”; its function is much more noble,
exalted and catholic.

Arnold defines criticism as, “A disintegrated endeavour to learn and propagate the best
that is known and thought in the world, and thus to establish a current of fresh and true ideas.”
Thus the task of the critic is threefold in character. First, there is the critic’s duty to learn and
understand__ he must, “see things as they really are”. Thus equipped, his second task is to hand
on his idea to others, to convert the world, to “make the best ideas prevail”. His work in this
respect is that of a missionary. But, thirdly, he is also preparing an atmosphere favourable for the
creative genius of the future by promoting

“a current of ideas in the highest degree animating and nourishing to the creative power.” Says
R.A. Scott James, “the function of Arnold’s critic in the broadest sense of the term is to promote
culture; his function as literary critic is to promote that part of culture which depends upon
knowledge of letters.” The critic is as much concerned with making the truth prevail as in seeing
and learning it. He aims at “getting acceptance for his ideas”, in “carrying others along with him
in his march towards perfection.”

Thus there is an element of the propagandist in Arnold’s conception of the role of the
critic and criticism. That is why he has been criticized as a salesman. The critic must propagate
noble ideas, he must repeatedly stress them, for only then he can make them prevail. It is only in
this way that culture can be promoted; it is only in this way that a current of noble ideas can be
established and successful creation made possible.

The Critic: His disinterestedness:

Further, Arnold’s use of the word, ‘disinterested’, has been the subject of much hot
controversy. What does he exactly mean by saying that the critic must be ‘disinterested’? says
R.A. Scott James, “The interests from which he would have us be free are those which militate
against intellectual and prejudices of the “Barbarian”, the aristocrat who has “spirit and
politeness”, but it is a “little inaccessible to ideas and light”. Still less must it be swayed by the
blind impulses of the “Populace” which Arnold chooses to speak of in terms of, “bowling,
hustling, smashing and beer”. Most of all shall it shun that falsification of ideas which marks the
Philistines, the complacent middle classes who like fanaticism, business, money-making,
deputations, comfort, tea meetings. Culture will always work to disentangle itself from untruths
and half-truths, from values which are attached to the machinery of life rather than the spiritual
life which machinery should sub serve; it will distinguish means from end; and the end it will set
before itself is that of perfection, spiritual growth governed by ‘sweetness and light’. It must
shun provincialism, which may take the forms of excess, ignorance, or bathos, and endeavour to
be “in contact with the main stream of human life”. The critic must be disinterested in the sense
that he should pursue only the ends of cultural perfection, and should remain uninfluenced by
the coarser appeals of the Philistine.

In analyzing the pernicious influences which beset the critic Arnold has made a great
advance, and has rendered a service to criticism. He has put before hi for his guidance a majestic
ideal of intellectual and spiritual excellence, in accord with the best that has been known and
thought in the world. “But let us frankly face his position. He has urged that the critic should to
certain other interests; but in doing so he has asked for his subjection to certain other interests
which may be the more subtly beguiling because they are noble. He has emancipated him from
certain intellectually unworthy determined, however sweetly and reasonably, by the moral and
social passion for doing good.” Disinterestedness implies that the critic or the artist must be
concerned with nothing else but his subject matter. But Arnold ties the critic to pre conceived
notions of moral perfection which are likely to colour his judgment and make him over praise
some and be unfair to others. “in this way does the apostle of moral perfection become the
prophet of moral perfection” (Scott James). He frees the critic from certain interests, ulterior
political, practical considerations, but he ties him up to other interests.

Function of Criticism: Arnold’s exalted conception:

Arnold has a high conception of the vocation of a critic and the function of criticism. The
critic is himself cultured—he knows the bent that has been thought and known—he helps others
to become cultured, and he also makes literary activity possible by establishing a current of
noble ideas when such a current in wanting. R.A Scott-James criticizes Arnold, for over-
emphasizing ideas, he who propagates them, and nothing remains for the literary genius but to
walk in and undertake the grand work of, “synthesis and exposition”. No doubt the powerful
critic plays his part in fertilizing the soil and in watering the young plant. “And if it be true, as I
have suggested, that the critic himself is an artist whose chosen subject matter lies in the life of
literature, then he, too, must play his part in the tossing to and fro of ideas between artist than
one of the many voices which fill the air and set the echoes ringing, stirring the creative impulse
of the potential poets in our midst.” This art impulse does not necessarily spring from formally
correct ideas—it is started by notions of any and every kind hurtling from side to side. It is not
released only by the force of culture, though culture will keep it in the strait and narrow path.

The critic performs another important function as well. He rouses men out of their self-
satisfaction and complacency, for such complacency is vulgarizing and retarding. By shaking
complacency of men, he makes their mind dwell upon what is excellent in itself, and the absolute
beauty and fitness of things. He raises them above practical consideration by making them
contemplate the ideally perfect. Practical considerations are vulgarizing, they make men
incapable of perceiving fine distinctions. Arnold refers to such incapacity as philistinism, and it is
criticism, in the true sense of the world, that can save us from it. The critic must rise above
practical considerations, for such considerations impoverise the soul; he must always have ideal
perfection as his aim, for it is only then that he can make others rise to it.

Indeed, Arnold makes too exacting a demand on the critic. He must know the best that is
know and thought in the world: “in the world” and not merely in his own country or in one or
two countries. And he must know the best not in literature alone, but in other subjects as well.
He must be a man of stupendous knowledge and understanding, one who rises above the
personal considerations and with missionary zeal, tries to make the best ideas prevail. It is only
through such catholicity of reading that the critic can combat the sins of parochialism and
provincialism. Then again he must have tact enough to see things as they are in themselves, and
to apply to life the noble ideas he has discovered.

False Standards of Judgment—personal and historical:

But then how is the critic to find out, how is he to discover, what is the best and the noblest, and
how is he to perform his mission? First, as already pointed out above, he must have ‘tact’ which
is unfailing to guide to the excellent. Secondly, he must free himself from certain false standards
of judgments, which come in the way of a real estimate. Such false standards are the personal
and the historical. By the former he means an intrusion of the critic’s own likes and dislikes in his
judgment of literature. “Our personal affinities, liking, and circumstances”, he says, “have great
power to sway out estimate of this or that poet’s work, and to make us attach more importance
to it as poetry rises above personal

predilections and prejudices”. Personal estimates result in the hysterical, eruptive, and the
aggressive manner in literature.

The historic estimate is equally fallacious and misleading. A poem may be valuable
historically, but it may not of much value, “as it is in itself”. He writes, “The course of the
development we may easily bring ourselves to make it of more importance as poetry than in
itself Is really is, we may come to use a language of quite exaggerated praise in criticizing it; in
short, to overrate it. So arises in our poetic judgments the fallacy caused by the estimates which
we may call historic.” However, Arnold agrees with Taine that knowledge of the life of poet, a
knowledge of his character and circumstances, as well as of his social milieu, is essential for
correct misunderstanding.

The Right Method— the Touchstone:

In order to guide the critic in the performance of his task, he prescribes his well-known
Touchstone method. Arnold points out that it is useless to lay down for the purpose abstract
characteristics of the high quality of a poem. “It is much better simply to have recourse, to
concrete example; -- to take specimens of poetry of the high, the very highest quality and to say:
The characters of a high quality, of poetry are what is expressed there.” He bids us to shun the
false valuations of “historic estimate” and the “personal estimate” and attain to a “real estimate”
by learning to feel and enjoy the best work of the real classic, and appreciate the wide difference
between it and all lesser works. “if we ask how we are to know this best when we see it, he
answers that it is enough, in general, to acclaim it—it is there, and there”. But if that is not
enough, he adds that the high qualities lie both in the matter and an accent, of high beauty,
worth and power”; the substance and matter will possess, in an eminent degree, “truth and
seriousness”, and this character is “inseparable from the superiority of diction and movement”
which marks the style and manner. He says, “there can be no more useful help for discovering
what poetry belongs to the class of the truly excellent, and can, therefore, do us most good, than
to have always in one’s mind lines and expressions of the great masters and to apply them as a
touchstone to other poetry. Of course we are not to require this other poetry to resemble them;
it may be very dissimilar. But if we have any fact we shall find them, when we have lodged
absence of high poetic quality, and also degree of this quality, in all other passages from Homer,
Dante, Shakespeare, and Milton, he points out how they all impress by their poetical quality. So
they all, ‘belong to the class of the truly excellent.’

The Touchstone method has obvious limitations. Lines, even passages, when taken out of
context are often misleading. Moreover, the true worth of a work can be judged by its ‘total
expression’ and not by single lines or brief passages. Earlier, Arnold himself had stressed the
value of, “the total impression”, here he contradicts his own earlier pronouncements. But there
is no reason why we should not extend his comparative method, not resting content with
detached judgments from isolated passages, but comparing the whole impression we have in our
mind of one work with the whole impression that has been stamped upon our minds by a
masterpiece. The comparative method is an invaluable aid to appreciation in approaching any
kind of art. This is just as true of function as of poetry, of painting, as of literature. “And it is
helpful not merely thus to compare the masterpiece and the lesser work, but the good with the
not so good, the sincere with the not quite sincere, the clever with the too clever by half.”

Arnold has provided us with an excellent example of how to use the comparative method,
and he has enabled us to see that if it may b fruitful in the highest degree when employed by a
critic of exceptional “tact”.

Matthew Arnold: The Function of Criticism at the Present Time

Matthew Arnold was born on Christmas eve in 1822 in England. He is an eminent Victorian who
holds a high place in the long line of poet-critics of England. As a critic Arnold was the most
influential force among the Victorians. He believed that literature is a criticism of life. The
function of Arnold’s critic is to promote literary culture. The Function of Criticism at the Present
Time is the finest of Arnold’s essays. It is a classic statement of the liberal principles, which
ideally should guide the performance of criticism. When Matthew Arnold uses the term
‘criticism’ it has a wider application. It is directed upon society, religion, politics and life in
general. It is the free play of the mind on all subjects and its function is to promote culture by
helping the lively circulation of the best ideas yet available to humanity. Arnold sees the critic as
doing the spadework for a new creative age. At one and the same time the critic is a kind of
midwife to artistic genius and the mediator between the artist and the general public.

Arnold has stated his opinions about poetry in his “Study of Poetry”. Poetry, according to
Arnold, is capable of higher uses than it appears to be. It can interpret life for us, it can console
us and sustain us. Without poetry science will be incomplete. Matthew Arnold says that religion
and philosophy are but shadows and dreams. They are actually false shows of knowledge. Soon
we will come to know of their emptiness and we will turn again to poetry. Arnold says that
poetry is the criticism of life. The consolation and power that we seek in poetry will depend on
its power of the criticism of life. By criticism of life, Arnold means the profound application of
ideas of life.

Poetic truth means the truth and seriousness of the substance and matter. Poetic beauty means
felicity and perfection of the diction and manner. The poet does not present life as it is, but he
adds something to it from his own noble nature and this is his criticism of life. Poetry makes men
better and nobler by appealing to the soul of men. Science, on the other hand, appeals to
reason. When the poet speaks from the depth of his soul, he creates a “thing of beauty, which is
for ever”. It is this kind of poetry that lives for-ever delighting us and ennobling our soul.

Matthew Arnold defines criticism as a disinterested hard work to learn and propagate the best
that is known and thought in the world. A critic should avoid narrow-minded provincialism and
falsification of ideas so that he can discover the best and the noblest. Arnold suggests his well-
known touchstone method to guide the critic. According to this method, poetry of very high
quality are compared to the work under consideration. Arnold suggested this method to
overcome the drawbacks of the personal and historical estimates of a poem. In Arnold’s view
the most useful method to discover the real excellence is to have in mind lines and expression of
the great masters such as Dante, Shakespeare Milton etc. which may be applied as touchstone to
other works.

Matthew Arnold (1822-1888) Biography

  Arnold was a poet, and educator, and an advocate for civility and moderation who
followed in the footsteps of his father –Thomas Arnold (1795-1842). He is called 'the
critic's critic'

 *He educated at Rugby and Oxford University.

 *Arnold's first two books were: The Strayed Reveller, and Other Poems (1849) and
Empedocles on Etna and Other Poems (1852).

 *In 1851 Arnold received an appointment as an inspector of schools.

 *Arnold was named Professor of Poetry at Oxford University in 1857, a position he held
until 1867.

 *His major prose works are ; Essay in Criticism, First Series (1865), Essay in Criticism and
Culture and Anarchy(1869), which examines the condition of England as represented by
three groups Arnold nicknames (Barbarians, Philistines and the Populace).

The Objective Approach

 Arnold belongs to the Objective Approach. This approach started at 1860's until now.

 In this approach the shift took place from the poet (Romantic- Expressive) to the poem.

 In Objective Approach the text/ artistic object is the only reality worthy of study. Not extra
textual-information is needed.

 The poem is a self-contained object that has a value of its own. Also, the text/ poem have
its internal structure of references that has nothing to do with the author, audience or
universe.

 Arnold began as a romantic poet but changed in the middle of his carrier to become a
critic of romanticism, his shift also changed the interest from the feelings to that of the
ideas.

 Arnold's view came to be known through his work "The Function of Criticism at the
present Time".

The Function of Criticism at the Present Time

 In this work, Matthew ARNOLD spoke about “Epochs of Concentration” and “Epochs of
Expansion”.
  His view was that the critic has a role in fostering great literature, and has positive and
noble task.

 *In this essay, Arnold discusses the weak relationship between criticism and creation
(poetry).

 Arnold describes this difference as a work of, "synthesis and exposition" for a creative
person (poet) and, "analysis and discovery" for the critic. The creative person has the
power of the man and the moment. In contrast the critic creates "an intellectual
situation" which allows the creative power to develop. The creative power is then able to
grow into a, "creative epoch of literature". This is then a creative critical power if the
criticism is used to help create new ideas.

 The elements which the creative works with are ideas. The best ideas on every matter
which literature touches should be current at the time.

 Arnold defines criticism as "disinterested endeavor to learn and propagate the bet that
knows a thought in the world.

 The critic has higher curiosity with free play of mind that follows the flow of ideas where
ever they are, therefore, a good critic must not be partisan.

 A critic takes ideas from different cultures; he/she takes the best that known and thought.

 His definition of a Poet : is that a poet ought to know life and the world before dealing
with theme in poetry, and life and the world being in modern times very complex things,
the creation of a modern poet to be worth much implies a great critical effort behind it. It
also must be comparatively poor, barren and short lived affairs.

 Notes in his essay:

He says that the POET is needed when the epoch is an Epoch of Expansion ;( a period in human
cultural history where the intellectual energy is at its highest), to convert/synthesize this
intellectual cultural moment into great works of art.

He also says that The CRITIC, on the other hand, is needed during Epochs of Concentration; (the
era where ideas are stagnant and the free exchange of ideas is stifled), to analyze the present
ideas facilitates them to prepare the way for a new epoch of expansion.

So the presence of both the poet and critic are essential for epochs of expansion. They are
interdependent on each other.
 pg 67The critical power is of lower rank than the creative. True; but in assenting to this
proposition, one or two things are to be kept in mind. It is undeniable that the exercise of a
creative power, that a free creative activity, is the highest function of man; it is proved to be so
by man’s finding in it his true happiness. But it is undeniable, also, that men may have the sense
of exercising this free creative activity in other ways than in producing great works of literature
or art; if it were not so, all but a very few men would be shut out from the true happiness of all
men. They may have it in well doing, they may have it in learning, they may have it even in
criticizing. This is one thing to be kept in mind. Another is, that the exercise of the creative power
in the production of great works of literature or art, however high this exercise of it may rank, is
not at all epochs and under all conditions possible; and that therefore labor may be vainly spent
in attempting it, which might with more fruit be used in preparing for it, in rendering it possible.
This creative power works with elements, with materials; what if it has not those materials,
those elements, ready for its use? In that case it must surely wait till they are ready. Now, in
literature,–I will limit myself to literature, for it is about literature that the question arises,–the
elements with which the creative power works are ideas; the best ideas on every matter which
literature touches, current at the time. At any rate we may lay it down as certain that in modern
literature no manifestation of the creative power not working with these can be very important
or fruitful. And I say current at the time, not merely accessible at the time; for creative literary
genius does not principally show itself in discovering new ideas: that is rather the business of the
philosopher. The grand work of literary genius is a work of synthesis and exposition, not of
analysis and discovery; its gift lies in the faculty of being happily inspired by a certain intellectual
and spiritual atmosphere, by a certain order of ideas, when it finds itself in them; of dealing
divinely with these ideas, presenting them in the most effective and attractive combinations,–
making beautiful works with them, in short. But it must have the atmosphere, it must find itself
amidst the order of ideas, in order to work freely; and these it is not so easy to command. This is
why great creative epochs in literature are so rare, this is why there is so much that is
unsatisfactory in the productions of many men of real genius; because, for the creation of a
master-work of literature two powers must concur, the power of the man and the power of the
moment, and the man is not enough without the moment; the creative power has, for its happy
exercise, appointed elements, and those elements are not in its own control.