Introduction:

Introduction: Matthew Arnold (1822-1888), the Victorian poet and critic, was 'the first modern
critic', and could be called 'the critic's critic', being a champion not only of great poetry, but of
literary criticism itself.

The purpose of literary criticism, in his view, was 'to know the best that is known and thought in
the world, and by in its turn making this known, to create a current of true and fresh ideas', and
he has influenced a whole school of critics including new critics such as T. S. Eliot, F. R. Leavis,
and Allen Tate.

He was the founder of the sociological school of criticism (Sociological criticism focuses on the
relationship between literature and society, the social function of literature) , and through his
touchstone method introduced scientific objectivity to critical evaluation by providing
comparison and analysis as the two primary tools of criticism.

Arnold's evaluations of the Romantic poets such as Wordsworth, Byron, Shelley, and Keats are
landmarks in descriptive criticism, and as a poet-critic he occupies an eminent position in the
rich galaxy of poet-critics of English literature.

T. S. Eliot praised Arnold's objective approach to critical evaluation, particularly his tools of
comparison and analysis, and Allen Tate in his essay Tension in Poetry imitates Arnold's
touchstone method to discover 'tension', or the proper balance between connotation and
denotation, in poetry.

In this presentation, we’d be presenting summaries of three of his essays and also his concept
of poetry. These three essay will be presented in this presentation:

● “The Function of Criticism at the Present Time”

● “A Study of Poetry”
● Preface to poems

Sidra Dar :
Arnold’s 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.

Matthew Arnold in his essay "The Functions of Criticism at present" deals with the phenomena
of criticism.

According to him, criticism is a disinterested endeavor to learn and propagate the best
known in this world (Arnold, 1865).
Arnold in his essay points out some basic rules for criticism which, according to him, separate
original criticism from a fake one.

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”.

● Thirdly, he is also preparing an atmosphere favorable for the creative genius of

the future by promoting “a current of ideas in the highest degree animating and
nourishing the creative power.”

According to Arnold, criticism is " a disinterested endeavor to learn and propagate the
best that is known and thought in the world” (Arnold, 1865, p. 241).

In his essay he argues that there are two principles of criticism that are curiosity;

● an attempt "to know the best that is known and thought in the world," and

● disinterestedness, the negation "to lend itself to any of those ulterior, political,
practical considerations about ideas... which criticism has nothing to do with"

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.

Criticism is what generates "fresh" and "intelligent" ideas during a specific time and place in
history, and Arnold claims 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 has shown the importance of literary criticism and creativity in our contemporary world
and life that are full of complexity and commonality.

In his essay,Arnold shows himself a humanist as well as a critic of the society in which he lives.

Arnold was concerned that Victorian England had fallen behind other countries in producing
literature because of their failure of criticism.

He attributed this failure to the division of society into political and religious groups, of
which intellectuals and critics belonged, making them incapable of seeing art in its true
state.

Arnold believes that the work of criticism can have some similarities to creative work. First, the
critic may feel creative joy or excitement while writing a piece of criticism. Additionally, it
provides a public good in that the successful critic will help to elevate worthwhile literary art.
Kainat :
Summary of essay “A Study of Poetry”:

“A Study of Poetry” is a critical essay by Matthew Arnold.

In this essay Arnold critiques and criticizes the art of poetry as well as the art of criticism.

Arnold says that when one reads poetry he tends to estimate whether it is of the best form or not.

It happens in three ways:

● the real estimate, (The real estimate is an unbiased viewpoint that takes into account both the
historical context and the creative faculty to judge the worth of poetry. But the real estimate is
often surpassed by the historic and personal estimate. )
● the historic estimate, (The historic estimate places the historical context above the value of the
art itself. )
● the personal estimate. (The personal estimate on the other hand depends on the personal taste,
the likes and dislikes of the reader which affects his judgment of poetry. )

Arnold says that both these estimates tend to be fallacious. Arnold here speaks about the idea of imitation.
He says that whatever one reads or knows keeps on coming back to him. Thus if a poet wants to reach the
high standards of the classics he might consciously or unconsciously imitate them. This is also true for
critics who tend to revert to the historic and personal estimate instead of an unbiased real estimate. The
historic estimate affects the study of ancient poets while the personal estimate affects the study of modern
or contemporary poets.

Arnold proposes the “touchstone” method of analyzing poetry in order to determine whether it
is of a high standard or not. Arnold applies the touchstone method by taking examples from the
time tested classics and comparing them with other poetry to determine whether they possess the
high poetic standard of the classics. He says that the poems need not resemble or possess any
similarity to the touchstones.

Bad-e-Sehar
Next Arnold speaks about Chaucer who was much influenced by French and Italian poetry.
Arnold says that Chaucer’s poetic importance is a result of the real estimate and not the historic
estimate. The superiority of Chaucer’s verse lies both in his subject matter and his style. He
writes about human life and nature as he sees it. Arnold speaks highly of Chaucer’s diction and
calls it “liquid diction”.

Next Arnold mentions Milton and Shakespeare and credits them as classics and moves on to
speak about Dryden and Pope. According to the historic estimate Dryden and Pope are no doubt
great poets of the eighteenth century. Arnold observes that Dryden and Pope were better prose
writers than poets. The restoration period faced the necessity of a fit prose with proper
imaginative quality and this is what Dryden and Pope provided. Arnold therefore concludes that
they are classics not of poetry but of prose. After Dryden and Pope Arnold speaks about Gray.
Gray did not write much but what he wrote has high poetic value. Arnold therefore considers
Gray to be a classic.

Arnold now speaks about Robert Burns in the late eighteenth century and says that this is the
period from which the personal estimate begins to affect the real estimate. Burns, according to
Arnold, is a better poet in Scottish than in English. Like Chaucer, Arnold does not consider
Burns to be a classic.

Then Arnold moves on to speak about Byron, Shelley and Wordsworth but does not pass any
judgment on their poetry. Arnold believes that his estimate of these poets will be influenced by
his personal passion as they are closer to his age than the classics and also because their writings
are of a more personal nature.

Finally Arnold speaks about the self-preservation of the classics. Any amount of good literature
will not be able to surpass the supremacy of the classics as they have already stood the test of
time and people will continue to enjoy them for the ages to come. Arnold says that this is the
result of the self-preserving nature of humanity. Human nature will remain the same throughout
the ages and those parts of the classics dealing with the subject will remain relevant at all times
thus preserving themselves from being lost in time.

Wajeeha and sehar

Matthew Arnold Summary of essay Preface to poems

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,

He also, continuing his anti-Romantic theme, urges modern poets to shun allusiveness and not
fall into the temptation of subjectivity.

He claims that even imitating Shakespeare is dangerous for a young writer, who should imitate
only his excellences and avoid his enticing accessories, such as quibble, conceit, circumlocution,
and allusion, which will lead him astray.
Arnold defends Shakespeare's use of great plots from the past. He possessed what Goethe
referred to as the architectonic quality. which meant that his expression was matched to the
action (or the subject).

However, Arnold quotes Hallam to demonstrate that Shakespeare's style was complex even when
the pressures of action demanded simplicity and directness, and thus his style could not be used
as a model by young writers. Shakespeare's "expression tends to become a little sensuous and
simple, too much intellectualized,"

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 employs felicitous phrases and single happy turns of phrase, but the action is
handled ambiguously, resulting in a lack of unity in the poem.

In contrast, he claims that the Italian writer Boccaccio successfully handled the same
theme in his Decameron because he correctly subordinated expression to action. As a
result, Boccaccio's poem is a poetic success, whereas Keats' poem is a failure

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'.

A modern writer may complain that ancient subjects present difficulties due to ancient culture,
customs, manners, dress,and so on that are unfamiliar to modern readers.

However, Arnold believes that a writer should focus on the 'inward man' rather than the
externals. The inward man remains constant regardless of climate or time.

Rehana
●
Matthew Arnold has a high conception of poetry. He points out the characteristics of best
poetry where man will stay in future.

● Arnold sets high standards for poetry. According to him, it attains the place of religion. It
is an application of ideas to life.

● According to Arnold, poetry should be a real classic in nature.

● Excellence of poetry lies both in its matter or substance and in its manner of style. But
matter and style must have the accent of high beauty, worth and power.
 ● If the matter of a poet has truth and high seriousness, the manner and diction would also
acquire the accent of superiority.

● Arnold thinks that poetic subject is the first consideration with a great Poet.

● According to him, human actions are the best subject matter of poetry.

● Arnold believes that poetry is the breath and finer spirit of all knowledge. It is the
impassioned expression of what is in the countenance of all science.

● Arnold also thinks that the greatness of a poet lies in his powerful and beautiful
application of ideas of life.

● Truth and seriousness of substance and matter, Felicity and perfection of diction and
manner are exhibited in the best poets.

● The movement of the outer would is what poetry interprets by expressing with magical
Felicity. The inward world of man's moral and spiritual nature is what it interprets.
Natural music and moral profundity are what makes poetry interpretative.

● According to Arnold, there is no difference between art and morality. He says that poetry
of revolt against moral idea is poetry of revolt against life. Poetry of indifference towards
moral ideas is poetry of indifference towards life.

● Poetry is an application of ideas to life". Arnold believes that the ideas and sentiments to
have any permanent value must be based on actual life.

● Arnold was actually against romantic poetry. He saw that the life of the people were
dominated by material things. The development of science destroyed religious values.
Arnold was very well aware of the problem of his age. The ethical values of life were
renewed by him. He wanted to reconstruct art on the basis of reality.

● He believed art could help men achieve ethical values. He insisted on the union of the
best subjects and the highest expression in poetry. This type of poetry can achieve its
ultimate goal.

● His views on poetry are quite mature. They are close to modern ideas. The high destiny
of poetry is something Arnold believes in. He doesn't hesitate to express his opinion of
poetry. He has looked at the nature and function of poetry.

Conclusion:
In spite of his faults, Arnold's position as an eminent critic is secure. Douglas Bush says that the
breadth and depth of Arnold's influence cannot be measured or even guessed at because, from his
own time onward, so much of his thought and outlook became part of the general educated
consciousness. He was one of those critics who, as Eliot said, arrived from time to time to set the
literary house in order. Eliot named Dryden, Johnson and Arnold as some of the greatest critics
of the English language.

Arnold united active independent insight with the authority of the humanistic tradition. He
carried on, in his more sophisticated way, the Renaissance humanistic faith in good letters as the
teachers of wisdom, and in the virtue of great literature, and above all, great poetry. He saw
poetry as a supremely illuminating, animating, and fortifying aid in the difficult endeavor to
become or remain fully human.

Arnold's method of criticism is comparative. Steeped in classical poetry, and thoroughly

acquainted with continental literature, he compares English literature to French and German
literature, adopting the disinterested approach he had learned from Sainte-Beuve.

Arnold's objective approach to criticism and his view that historical and biographical study are
unnecessary was very influential on the new criticism. His emphasis on the importance of
tradition also influenced F. R. Leavis, and T. S. Eliot.

In an age when cheap literature caters to the taste of the common man, one might fear that the
classics will fade into insignificance. But Arnold is sure that the currency and the supremacy of
the classics will be preserved in the modern age, not because of conscious effort on the part of
the readers, but because of the human instinct of self-preservation.