1

Introduction

Matthew Arnold was one of the foremost poets and critics of the 19th century. While often regarded as
the father of modern literary criticism, he also wrote extensively on social and cultural issues, religion,
and education. Arnold was born into an influential English family—his father was a famed headmaster at
Rugby—and graduated from Balliol College, Oxford. He began his career as a school inspector, traveling
throughout much of England on the newly built railway system. When he was elected professor of poetry
at Oxford in 1857, he was the first in the post to deliver his lectures in English rather than Latin. Walt
Whitman famously dismissed him as a “literary dude,” and while many have continued to disparage
Arnold for his moralistic tone and literary judgments, his work also laid the foundation for important 20th
century critics like T.S. Eliot, Cleanth Brooks, and Harold Bloom. His poetry has also had an enormous,
though underappreciated, influence; Arnold is frequently acknowledged as being one of the first poets to
display a truly Modern perspective in his work.

Perhaps Arnold’s most famous piece of literary criticism is his essay “The Study of Poetry.” In this work,
Arnold is fundamentally concerned with poetry’s “high destiny;” he believes that “mankind will discover
that we have to turn to poetry to interpret life for us, to console us, to sustain us” as science and
philosophy will eventually prove flimsy and unstable. Arnold’s essay thus concerns itself with
articulating a “high standard” and “strict judgment” in order to avoid the fallacy of valuing certain poems
(and poets) too highly, and lays out a method for discerning only the best and therefore “classic” poets (as
distinct from the description of writers of the ancient world). Arnold’s classic poets include Milton,
Shakespeare, Dante, and Homer; and the passages he presents from each are intended to show how their
poetry is timeless and moving. For Arnold, feeling and sincerity are paramount, as is the seriousness of
subject: “The superior character of truth and seriousness, in the matter and substance of the best poetry, is
inseparable from the superiority of diction and movement marking its style and manner.” An example of
an indispensable poet who falls short of Arnold’s “classic” designation is Geoffrey Chaucer, who, Arnold
states, ultimately lacks the “high seriousness” of classic poets.

At the root of Arnold’s argument is his desire to illuminate and preserve the poets he believes to be the
touchstones of literature, and to ask questions about the moral value of poetry that does not champion
truth, beauty, valor, and clarity. Arnold’s belief that poetry should both uplift and console drives the
essay’s logic and its conclusions.

The essay was originally published as the introduction to T. H. Ward’s anthology, The English
Poets (1880). It appeared later in Essays in Criticism, Second Series.

Introduction
Contrary to the Platonic prediction, Arnold believes that poetry has significant use in the process of
knowledge creation and progression of human beings. As an artistic endeavor, Poetry provides reflection
and commentary on the finer aspects of survival and struggles.

It is elemental to the investigations in Theology and Science. Arnold claims that the need for poetry and
its faculties will help human beings harness purpose and tranquillity in the times and generations to come.

Arnold believes that the central thought of the poem matters more than any other concept in the poem so
much so that it becomes the central fact of the poem. This idea is what links to the emotions of the reader
and provides a vent to them.
2

Reading Poetry
He goes on to highlight different mechanisms by which people analysis and censor various works of
poetry and poets. He enumerates three distinct methods of the same, naming those estimates:

Real estimate: This refers to unbiased and unprejudiced evaluation with a fine balance between historical
context and innovation and flair of the individual poet.

Historical estimate: Here the historical background dominates the value judgment with innovation and
creativity has given less importance than the historical context of the poem.

Personal estimate: This is rife with personal and cognitive biases of the individual reader and dependent
on their preferences and tastes.

Even though historic and personal estimates are less reliable and arbitrary, they are more commonly seen
than the real estimate. Arnold calls this a natural consequence of human choice.

Often the context of the text dominates the reader’s perception and makes them overlook its manifest
flaws. Historical significance can hide these shortcomings in plain sight as it tends to exalt the poem to an
elevated status like classics or iconic.

An iconic poem acts as the barometer for other poems. It is held at the standard against which other works
are compared. This comparison helps in arriving at the true value of a poem.

Arnold exhorts people to devour such classic works of poetry to educate their sense of judgment and
censure but still remain aware of their own flaws and errors.

Inspiration and Imitation

Arnold argues that poets are often so inspired or moved by the classical works of poetry that they often
tend to borrow their content or ideas. It is often an issue for the poets who cannot detach themselves from
their favorite classics and thus are prone to erroneous conclusions.

Historic estimates in the case of poets from earlier times and personal estimates in case of
contemporaneous poets create difficulties in ascertaining the true value and significance of poetry.

Touchstone Method for Evaluating Poetry

Borrowing Longinus’s concept of true sublimity to say that the time-tested classics act as the ‘touchstone’
to judge all other works of poetry. However, this does not warrant a need to have an exact replica of such
content and quality in the works under the scanner.

He named a few touchstones like Homer, Milton, Shakespeare, and Dante, etc. These particular exponents
of poetry were able to enhance the experience of reading poetry through their matter and style.

Arnold believes that the best poems have a kernel of truth in their matter and a sense of singular flair in
their construction or manner. For critics, it is imperative to apply such a method judiciously and
rigorously in order to develop the ability to find real estimates of poetry.

In case a reader is unable to find the high value while evaluating a classic than it is his/her shortcoming
and not the poems.
3

Analysis of the English Classics

Arnold then highlights the impact of French poets (especially from Northern France) on their English
counterparts. However, their poetry was dominated by romance over serious and graver themes of human
life.

Arnold is full of praise for Chaucer who he believes wrote in ‘liquid diction’ and was a great exponent of
both content and style. According to Arnold, Chaucer scores high on the real estimate but does not come
to the level of a classical poet lacking seriousness of someone like Dante, Milton, and Shakespeare who
all are classical poets.

He considers Pope and Dryden as classical prose of the restoration period. He calls Gray a classic but
relegates Burns to the fortune of Chaucer. They both lacked seriousness in their content according to
Arnold even though their works contain both truth and great skill.

Coming to his contemporaries he points to the influence of personal estimates when judging the likes of
Byron, Shelley, and Wordsworth and so demits any judgment of their works.

Continuity of the Classics

Arnold claims since the classics works have been able to stand the test of time and longevity they have an
indwelling ability of self-conservation. This ability is a function of the self-preserving and enduring
nature of human beings.

According to Arnold, human nature remains consistent through various epochs and times and since the
classics deal with the topics and issues highlighting and commenting on human suffering, emotions, and
nature.

As long as they stimulate such emotions and thoughts in the readers that will remain alive in their hearts
and minds.

A Study of Poetry | Matthew Arnold | Summary and Analysis

'A Study of Poetry' is a critical essay by Matthew Arnold. In this essay Arnold criticizes the art of poetry
as well as the art of criticism. Arnold believes that the art of poetry is capable of high destinies. It is the
art in which the idea itself is the fact. He says that we should understand the worth of poetry as it is poetry
that shows us a mirror of life. Science, according to Arnold, is incomplete without poetry, and, religion
and philosophy will give way to poetry. Arnold terms poetry as a criticism of life thereby refuting the
accusation of Plato and says that as time goes on man will continue to find comfort and solace in poetry.

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 historic estimate, and the personal 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 places the historical context above the value of the art itself. 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.

The historic and personal estimate often overshadows the real estimate. But Arnold also says that it is
natural. The study of the historical background of poetry and its development often leads to the critic
4

skipping over the shortcomings because of its historical significance. Historic estimate raises poetry to a
high pedestal and thus hinders one from noticing its weaknesses. It is the historic estimate that leads to the
creation of classics and raises the poet to a nearly God like standard. Arnold says that if a poet is truly a
classic his poetry will give the reader real pleasure and enable him to compare and contrast other poetry
which are not of the same high standard. This according to Arnold is the real estimate of poetry. Thus
Arnold appeals to his readers to read classics with an open eye and not be blind to its faults. This will
enable one to rate poetry with its proper value.

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. He borrows this method from Longinus who said in his idea of the sublime that if a
certain example of sublimity can please anyone regardless of habits, tastes or age and can please at all
times then it can be considered as a true example of the sublime. This method was first suggested in
England by Addison who said that he would have a man read classical works which have stood the test of
time and place and also those modern works which find high praise among contemporaries. If the man
fails to find any delight in them then he would conclude that it is not the author who lacks quality but the
reader who is incapable of discovering them. 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. Once the critic has lodged the touchstones in his mind in order to detect the possession of
high poetic quality he will have the tact of finding it in other poetry that he compares to the touchstones.
Arnold quotes Homer, Dante, Shakespeare and Milton in an attempt to exemplify touchstone poetry. He
says that the examples he has quoted are very dissimilar to one another but they all possess a high poetic
quality. He says that a critic need not labour in vain trying to explain the greatness of poetry. He can do so
by merely pointing at some specimens of the highest poetic quality. Arnold says that the high quality of
poetry lies in its matter and its manner. He then goes by Aristotle’s observation and says that the best
form of poetry possesses high truth and seriousness that makes up its subject matter along with superior
diction that marks its manner. However, Arnold mentions that the true force of this method lies in its
application. He therefore urges critics to apply the touchstone method to analyse and rate poetry.

Arnold then speaks about French poetry which had a tremendous influence on the poetry of England. He
differentiates between the poetry of northern France and the poetry of southern France. The poetry of
southern France influenced Italian literature. But it is the poetry of northern France that was dominant in
Europe in the twelfth and thirteenth century. This poetry came to England with the Anglo- Normans and
had a tremendous impact on English poetry. It was the romance- poems of France that was popular during
that time. But Arnold says that it did not have any special characteristics and lacked the high truth,
seriousness and diction of classic poetry and remain significant only from the historical point of view.

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
5

nature as he sees it. Arnold speaks highly of Chaucer’s diction and calls it ‘liquid diction’ to emphasise
the fluidity in the manner of Chaucer’s writing which he considers to be an irresistible virtue. Arnold
however says that Chaucer is not a classic. He compares Chaucer to Dante and points out that Chaucer
lacks the high seriousness of the classics thereby depriving him of the high honour.

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. He says that
Burns too lacks the high seriousness desired of poetry. He compares Burns to Chaucer and finds that
Burns’ manner of presentation is deeper than that of Chaucer. According to the real estimate Burns lacks
the high seriousness of the classics but his poetry nevertheless has truthful substance and style.

Then Arnold moves on to speak about Byron, Shelley and Wordsworth but does not pass any judgement
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.

Analysis of “The Study of Poetry” by Matthew Arnold

Matthew Arnold, the great poet-critic, was born at Laleham in Middlesex’s country on 24th December
1822. Arnold was the eldest son of his father, Dr. Arnold, the legendary schoolmaster and curator of the
modern type of Public School. His mother, Mary Penrose, his mother, was also an intellectual person and
a remarkable character lady.

Though one cannot say that Arnold as a poet was extraordinary or outstanding, he was a good
representative of the age to which he belonged. His poems were mainly published between 1849 to 1867.
His most anthologized poems are Sohrab and Rustom, Scholar Gipsy, Thyrsis, and Dover Beach.

While studying his works, one cannot miss his fastidiousness as a propagator of culture and missionary,
paving the way for a more orderly society. His Culture and Anarchy and Friendship’s Garland reveal the
tone of high intellectual sowing, the seeds for a new social culture. He was described as ‘Mr. Kid Glove
Cocksure’ by Robert Bridges and Levis called him “Elegant Jeremiah.”
6

Arnold has a place of pride. He has a knack for making even the most controversial statements sound
axiomatic. He chooses apt quotations, and his criticism is marked with flexibility and sanity. Criticism
was a tool for promoting and conserving culture in the Victorian world. He saw that as a critic, he had to
popularize and propagate noble ideas. However, his uniqueness in his critical works like culture and work
was his “Preface to poems”.

Analysis of Arnold’s Essay “The Study of Poetry”

The Study of Poetry is a central critical text of the Post-Victorian era. It was published nearly twenty-five
years after Arnold’s famous Preface to his poems. Perhaps the most acceptable writing method for the
essay is, to begin with, the beginning of his famous essay.

“The future of poetry is immense because in poetry, where it is worthy of its high destinies, our race, as
time goes on, will find and even surer. No creed is not shaken, nor an accredited dogma that is not shown
to be questionable, nor a received tradition that does not threaten to dissolve. Our religion has
materialized itself; in the supposed fact, it has attached its emotions to the fact, and now the fact is as it
is. But for poetry, the idea is everything; the rest is a world of illusion, of divine illusion. Poetry attaches
its emotion to the idea; the idea is a fact.”

The short paragraph’s tone refers to Arnold’s creed of liberalism and his stand-in literary criticism, and
the importance of poetry itself. The “strongest part of our religion is its unconscious poetry.” Many
critics have called this essay Arnold’s manifesto for his poetry and all that he did as a writer and critic.
The first part of the essay deals with the importance of poetry and the significance he wants his readers to
accord to poetry. The second part deals with a sort of a typically Arnoldian survey of British poetry
Chaucer to Burns.

Arnold has immense faith in the feature of poetry. In a world where philosophy has become abstract dry
and religion too materialistic, humankind’s only hope is an according to Arnold’s in poetry. Poetry says
Arnold contains the most vital part of our faith, and our religion’s kernel is in its “unconscious
poetry.” No more elaboration is needed for his definition of poetry to illustrate which; Arnold borrows
Wordsworth’s statements. For Wordsworth, poetry is “The impassioned expression in the countenance of
all science,” and Arnold approvingly recalls Wordsworth, who calls poetry the breath and more delicate
spirit of all knowledge. In an age where faith in creeds was rudely shattered, Arnold had to accept poetry
as the last refuge.

The next significant idea in this essay is his definition of poetry as “criticism of life” Arnold says,

“And the criticism of life will be powerful in proportion as the poetry conveying it is excellent rather than
inferior, sound rather than unsound or half-sound, true than untrue or half-true.”

Some critics disagree with others who call this Arnold’s definition of poetry. They insist on calling it his
indication of the function that poetry can and ought to discharge. The other related idea is his call for high
standards of excellence in judging poetry.

Arnold warns his readers not to be victimized by personal estimates or historical estimates to arrive at
critical conclusions. He warns critics against falling prey to tendencies where the role played by a writer
in the history of the development of language and poetry of a nation weighs a great deal in rating the
quality of his poetry. If one ignores the historical estimate, one can overcome the fallacy of glorifying one
7

work or under-rating it for non-literary and non-critical reasons. Then Arnold says that a “dubious
classic” must be ‘sifted,’ or ‘exploded’ and a genuine classic must be appreciated for its high character
based on what he calls the “real estimate.” Arnold says,“….if he is a real classic, if his work belongs to
the very best class, then the great thing for us is to feel and enjoy his work as deeply as ever. We can, and
to appreciate the wide difference between it and all work which has not the same high character.” To
arrive at the actual estimate, Arnold suggests comparison as a tool of criticism. The best and the most
delicate lines of a classic are used as a touchstone to see whether they work in front of a critical measure
or not. That is, “to take specimens of the poetry of the high, the very highest quality, and to say; the
characters of high-quality poetry are what is expressed there.” and to look them in the work of an author
before passing our judgment.

In the second part, we find Arnold’s survey of English poetry in which he begins with his praise of
Chaucer’s excellence in poetry. “Chaucer’s poetry has the truth of substance, and it is a high criticism of
life because in it we get a sizeable free sound representation of things.” But, says Arnold, his poetry
“lacks high seriousness of the great classics.” Then Arnold gives him credit for style and manner and
states.

“With him was born our real poetry.” Writing about the Elizabethan age and Milton, he says that opinion
is unanimous regarding Shakespeare and Milton’s high quality of poetry. He declares, “The real estimate,
here has universal currency.” Later in the age of Augustans, in an extended discussion of Dryden and
Pope, Arnold concludes that they are admirable for purposes of “inaugurators of our age.” Asserts that
neither Pope’s verse nor Dryden’s has high seriousness, and they are classics of English prose.

Here again, he stumbles with his criteria for evaluation when he elevates Gray and accords him a place of
honor and calls his poetry ‘classic’ though he qualifies his statement. “He is the scantiest and faintest of
classics in our poetry, but he is a classic.” Writing about Burns, he laments that though in Burn’s poetry,
there is an application “of ideas of life.” His poetry still falls short of the high seriousness of classics.
Coming to the poetry of Major romantic poets, he says that contemporaries are bound to come up with
personal estimates “with passion.” After an extraordinary claim for the touchstone method as a decisive
parameter for evaluating poetry and applying it, on some British poets from Chaucer to Burns, he
concludes, hoping that this method will go a long way in evaluating works’ appreciation.

Function of Criticism – Matthew Arnold

Introduction

Matthew Arnold (1882 – 1888) was a poet-critic and one of the most significant writers of the late
Victorian period in England. He occupies a prominent place in the history of Literary Criticism. His essay
“The Function of Criticism at the Present Time” was published in his first collection of critical writings,
“Essays in Criticism” in 1865. In his essay, Arnold states that criticism should be a ‘dissemination of
ideas, an unprejudiced and impartial effort to study and spread the best that is known and thought of in the
world’. Arnold defines the role of a critic as the one to view an object for what it really is, to bring best
ideas to the masses, and to create an atmosphere that fuels the literary genius of the future. He states that
the role of criticism is to make itself inherently valuable, and to rouse men from complacency to a state of
achieving perfection. Arnold also likens criticism to creativity, citing how the writing of criticism gives
rise to creative joy that comes from original writing. He argues that unlike Wordsworth’s opinion on
criticism, it must be considered as a form of art for its vital contributions the literary world and society in
8

general. It is a form of exercising free creativity. He also states that criticism paves the way for creativity.
Arnold believes that criticism is a way to understand life and the world, and can be linked to the
satisfaction derived from creative writing.

Definition of criticism by Arnold

“The Function of Criticism in the Present Time is largely made of ideas that Arnold discusses in his Study
of Poetry. He defines criticism as “A disinterested endeavor to learn and propagate the best that is known
and thought of in the world, and thus to establish a current of fresh and true ideas.” The term ‘disinterest’
in the view of Arnold refers to being an impartial and just reader. A critic needs to be free from two
prejudices: historical and personal. Historical prejudice is when the critic resorts to view through the lens
of past and neglects the present in the work. Personal prejudice refers to a personal liking that can cloud
judgment.

Arnold also believes that for the production of great literary work, the ‘power of man’ and ‘power of the
moment’ (climate of great ideas) must come together. If one of them is absent, the work will not become
great. To illustrate this, he takes the example of Goethe and Byron. Both had great productive power, yet
Goethe’s work was more powerful because he had a rich cultural background. He also mentions how
Shakespeare was not a deep reader, which affected his work. But his fame and glory were a result of his
age and a climate of great ideas.

Three functions for the critic

By the definition of criticism provided by Arnold, the task of a critic is threefold.

The first task is the critic’s duty to learn, and for that he must “see things as they really are”. The second
task is to hand on this idea to others, to convert the world, to make “the best ideas prevail.” The third task
requires the critic to create a favourable atmosphere for the creative genius of the future, by promoting “a
current of ideas in the highest degree animating and nourishing to the creative power.” Without the
prevalence of best ideas, there will be a cultural anarchy.

Arnold also observes that to recognize the greatness of a literary work, one has to look beyond the social
ideas and influences that cast shadows and opinions. Further, he indicates that two powers must converge
to create a great piece of literature: the power of man and the power of moment. In the quest to be a critic,
Arnold believed that one must not confine himself to the literature if his own country, but should draw
substantially on foreign literature and ideas because the propagation of ideas should be an objective
endeavor. Scott-James says that Arnold places the critic “is the position of John the Baptist, preparing the
ways for one whose shoe he is not worthy to unloose”. Thus, Arnold has a high conception of the
vocation of a critic.

Role of Criticism

Arnold suggests that the function of criticism at the present time is to make itself inherently valuable in
itself. Whether the value springs from bringing joy to the writer or from making sure that the best ideas
reach society are irrespective. In this regard, Arnold mirrors Aristotle’s view of poetry while he explains
that the highest function of human kind is exercising its creative power.

Criticism performs another important function as well. It rouses men out of their self-satisfaction and
complacency. By shaking complacency off, criticism makes their mind dwell upon what is excellent in
9

itself, and makes them contemplate the ideally perfect. Therefore, the critic must rise above practical
considerations and have ideal perfection as his aim, in order to make others rise to it as well.

Defense on Significance of Criticism

Arnold argues that a lot of literature from European nations has been used for the purpose of criticism.
But England has failed to produce and encourage significant amount of critical writing due to the attitudes
of writers towards criticism. He takes the example of Wordsworth to illustrate this further. Wordsworth
believed that critical writing was a waste of time for the author as well as the reader. He also states that
great harm can be done through critical writing, but little harm occurs through means of creative writing.
But Arnold defends these views by arguing that if a man has talent in one line of writing, he must not be
forced to create original writing under the pretext that critical writing is of no value. To quote,

“It is almost too much to expect a poor human nature, that a man capable of producing some effect in one
line of literature, should for the greater good of society, voluntarily doom himself to impotence and
obscurity in another.”

Arnold goes on to point out the paradox of Wordsworth’s beliefs on criticism as Wordsworth had
indulged himself in being a critic by writing against literary criticism.

Literary Criticism and Creativity

Arnold believed creative capacity to be more important than critical faculty.

However, his definition of criticism as “the endeavor, in all branches of knowledge, theology, philosophy,
history, art, science, to see the object as in itself it really is” makes it a necessary prerequisite for valuable
creation. He asserts that creation of quality is not possible if people are not provided with a current of
fresh ideas. This is achieved through honest criticism. If the best ideas do not prevail, it gives rise to a
cultural anarchy. Only when the power of man and power of moment come together can a good piece of
literature be created.

Arnold also states that writing criticism may produce in its practitioner a sense of creative joy. He
compares the emotional state of writing criticism with the emotional state of creative writing. In this, he
dispels the typical censure that criticism serves no purpose.

Arnold observes that great writing emerges from great ideas, and they are manifested when these ideas
reach the masses. The critic performs the important task of identifying these ideas with disinterest and
impart these ideas to people. He implies that the period of great creativity and dormant creativity can be
traced to lack of objective criticism and public attention as much as to creators of great work. In this
argument, Arnold establishes literary criticism as an art form as high and significant as any form of
creativity.

Further, Arnold argues that critical writing is an important activity of exercising free creativity. “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 some people were better equipped to write criticism, it
would be frustrating to insist they channel their talent only for creating original writing.

Finally, criticism is necessary because Arnold thinks that creative power works with certain materials, and
for the author these ideas, “the best ideas on every matter which literature touches, current at the time.”
10

However authors do not discover these ideas, rather they synthesize them into their work of art.
Therefore, if authors do not readily know these ideas, they have nothing to write about. Arnold talks about
the power of man and power of the moment, in this context. The author needs to live in a society where
true ideas are discussed and debated, where true thoughts are cherished and passed on, like in ancient
Greece or Renaissance England. Thus he advocates that good criticism propagates good literature.

Conclusion

Matthew Arnold is hailed as the first ‘modern critic’ and is also called a ‘critic’s critic’ for his
contribution to the meaningfulness of criticism in the realm of literature. In his work ‘The Function of
Criticism at the Present Time’ (1865), Arnold makes an effort to demonstrate that criticism in itself has
several functions and should be observed as an art form that is as high and important as any other creative
art form. He offered an objective method in the field of criticism, through comparison and analysis. His
methods were met with disapproval from his peers. However, Arnold’s method for literary criticism was
widely accepted and went on to influence the first sixty years of the 20 thcentury. Arnold has a high
conception of the vocation of a critic and the function of criticism. His ideas are a result of the prevalence
of cultural anarchy, leading him to take up the mission to bring about cultural regeneration in the literary
world through means of objective criticism. His critic is a critic of life, society, religion culture, national
character and all aesthetic activities.

Champion of Objective Approach

Matthew Arnold (1882 – 1888) was a poet-critic and one of the most significant writers of the late
Victorian period in England. He occupies a prominent place in the history of Literary Criticism. His essay
“The Function of Criticism at the Present Time” was published in his first collection of critical writings,
“Essays in Criticism” in 1865. He belongs to the Objective Approach that started in 1860s. He is hailed as
the first ‘modern critic’ and is also called a ‘critic’s critic’ for his contribution to the meaningfulness of
criticism in the realm of literature. He was the founder of the sociological school of criticism. Arnold
defined the role of a criticism as “A disinterested endeavor to learn and propagate the best that is known
and thought of in the world, and thus to establish a current of fresh and true ideas.” His Touchstone
method offered scientific objectivity to literary criticism.

The Objective Approach

In the Objective Approach, the text or the artistic object is the only reality worth studying. Additionally,
the text or poem has an 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 career to become a critic of
romanticism. His shift also changed the interest from feelings to that of the ideas. Arnold’s view came to
be known through his work “The Function of Criticism at the present Time”.

In the Function of Criticism, Arnold states that criticism should be a dissemination of ideas, a
disinterested endeavour to learn and propagate the best that is known and thought in the world. He implies
that while evaluating a work, the objectivity of a critic is more important than psychological, historical
and social background of the work.

Through his Touchstone method published in ‘The Study of Poetry’ (1880), Arnold introduced scientific
objectivity to critical evaluation. He provided comparison and analysis as the two primary tools of
criticism. In this, he employed short quotations from recognized poetic masterpieces as the benchmark to
11

gauge the value of other works. According to this method, Chaucer, Dryden, Pope, Shelly fall short due to
their lack of high seriousness. Shakespeare too falls short due to his emphasis on expression rather than
concept. Arnold put works by Homer, Sophocles, Dante, Milton and Wordsworth in the forefront, and
ranked Wordsworth as first for his “criticism of life”.

He laid great stress on ‘Disinterestedness’, which he considered to be the most important quality of
criticism. He also laid emphasis on knowledge as a tool for objective criticism. Arnold’s criticism method
has faced disapproval by some critics as lacking in logical and methodical aptitude. However, many
critics agreed with Arnold and the first sixty years of the 20thcentury in literary criticism were greatly
influenced by Arnold’s work.

Difficulties Faced by Critics

Matthew Arnold (1882 – 1888) was a poet-critic and one of the most significant writers of the late
Victorian period in England. He occupies a prominent place in the history of Literary Criticism. In his
essay, Matthew Arnold states that British critics face difficulties due to the culture being rooted in
hegemonic values. Critics are unable to transcend these values in order to see the object as it really is. He
also says that society questions the modern critics on their value in the contribution of literature as an art
form. People claim that critics use criticism as a means to protect their own ingrained opinion.

Hegemonic Values in Britain: Cultural Anarchy

Arnold states that people are particularly indisposed even to comprehend that without this free
disinterested treatment of things, truth and the highest culture are out of the questions. With the lack of
these, great literary works are not created. Arnold observes that to recognize the greatness of a literary
work, one has to look beyond the social ideas and influences that cast shadows and opinions. In the quest
to be a critic, Arnold believed that one must not confine himself to the literature if his own country, but
should draw substantially on foreign literature and ideas because the propagation of ideas should be an
objective endeavor. The critic is required to create a favourable atmosphere for the creative genius of the
future, by promoting “a current of ideas in the highest degree animating and nourishing to the creative
power.” Without the prevalence of best ideas, there will be a cultural anarchy.

Power of Man and Power of Moment

Arnold also believes that for the production of great literary work, the ‘power of man’ and ‘power of the
moment’ (climate of great ideas) must come together. If one of them is absent, the work will not become
great. To illustrate this, he takes the example of Goethe and Byron. Both had great productive power, yet
Goethe’s work was more powerful because he had a rich cultural background. He also mentions how
Shakespeare was not a deep reader, which affected his work. But his fame and glory were a result of his
age and a climate of great ideas.

Writers’ attitudes towards Criticism

Arnold argues that a lot of literature from European nations has been used for the purpose of criticism.
But England has failed to produce and encourage significant amount of critical writing due to the attitudes
of writers towards criticism. He takes the example of Wordsworth to illustrate this further. Wordsworth
believed that critical writing was a waste of time for the author as well as the reader. He also states that
great harm can be done through critical writing, but little harm occurs through means of creative writing.
12

But Arnold defends these views by arguing that if a man has talent in one line of writing, he must not be
forced to create original writing under the pretext that critical writing is of no value. To quote,

“It is almost too much to expect a poor human nature, that a man capable of producing some effect in one
line of literature, should for the greater good of society, voluntarily doom himself to impotence and
obscurity in another.”

Arnold goes on to point out the paradox of Wordsworth’s beliefs on criticism as Wordsworth had
indulged himself in being a critic by writing against literary criticism. Scott-James says that Arnold places
the critic “is the position of John the Baptist, preparing the ways for one whose shoe he is not worthy to
unloose”. Thus, Arnold has a high conception of the vocation of a critic.

Link Between Literary Criticism and Creativity

Arnold believed creative capacity to be more important than critical faculty.

However, his definition of criticism as “the endeavor, in all branches of knowledge, theology, philosophy,
history, art, science, to see the object as in itself it really is” makes it a necessary prerequisite for valuable
creation. He asserts that creation of quality is not possible if people are not provided with a current of
fresh ideas. This is achieved through honest criticism. If the best ideas do not prevail, it gives rise to a
cultural anarchy. Only when the power of man and power of moment come together can a good piece of
literature be created.

Arnold also states that writing criticism may produce in its practitioner a sense of creative joy. He
compares the emotional state of writing criticism with the emotional state of creative writing. In this, he
dispels the typical censure that criticism serves no purpose.

Arnold observes that great writing emerges from great ideas, and they are manifested when these ideas
reach the masses. The critic performs the important task of identifying these ideas with disinterest and
impart these ideas to people. He implies that the period of great creativity and dormant creativity can be
traced to lack of objective criticism and public attention as much as to creators of great work. In this
argument, Arnold establishes literary criticism as an art form as high and significant as any form of
creativity.

Further, Arnold argues that critical writing is an important activity of exercising free creativity. “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 some people were better equipped to write criticism, it
would be frustrating to insist they channel their talent only for creating original writing.

Finally, criticism is necessary because Arnold thinks that creative power works with certain materials, and
for the author these ideas, “the best ideas on every matter which literature touches, current at the time.”
However authors do not discover these ideas, rather they synthesize them into their work of art.
Therefore, if authors do not readily know these ideas, they have nothing to write about. Arnold talks about
the power of man and power of the moment, in this context. The author needs to live in a society where
true ideas are discussed and debated, where true thoughts are cherished and passed on, like in ancient
Greece or Renaissance England. Thus he advocates that good criticism propagates good literature.

Introduction
13

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 the 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 the 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:
14

First, a critic must know about life and the world before writing anything and see the things as they are.

Second, he should promote his ideas to others and make the best ideas prevail in society.

Third, he must create an atmosphere for the creation of the genius of the future by promoting these noble.
honest and true ideas.

Arnold criticises 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 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
contemporary society due to the influence of politics and religion on ideas.

Thus he gives voice to commoners views to enhance the glory of the past. He advises the critics to adopt
disinterested behaviour towards criticism. They should take into consideration 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

Analysis of Essay “The Function of Criticism at Present Time” by Matthew Arnold

Matthew Arnold’s other essay, “The Function of Criticism at Present Time,” written thirteen years after
the preface, is an essay in which Arnold dwells on a critic’s responsibility to the reading public. His work
15

goes beyond a narrow interpretation of the judgment of works of art and embraces a more extensive
range.

The first argument he makes is about objectivity,

“The endeavor in all branches of knowledge, theology, philosophy, history art, and science, to see the
object as in itself it is.”

One controversial idea he introduces here is that “the critical power is of a lower rank than the
creative.” Here he agrees with Wordsworth that the critical faculty is lower than the inventive.

Developing this idea, he states that for incredible creation, “the power of the man and the power of the
moment, and the man is not enough the without moment; the creative power has, for its happy exercise,
appointed elements, and those elements are not in its control.” The fountains head of creative activity
will open up only when there is the encouraging, nourishing, and maturing social, cultural milieu.

Arnold seems to argue that when such an ethos is absent, it is the function of criticism to come out with a
particular set of ideas, ideals, and values and make it available to the creative artist. Based on this thesis,
he argues that though Byron is not inferior to Goethe, the absence of the Ethos and the body of ideas in
England made Byron empty of matter, where Goethe became a genius because, in Germany, the man and
the moment co-existed. He also argues that this weakness can be made by criticism,

“It is the business of criticism to know the best that is known and thought in the world, and in its turn by
making this is known and thought in the world, and its turn by making this known to create a current of
new and fresh ideas.”

Highlighting this, he says, “In the Greece of Pindar and Sophocles, in the England of Shakespeare, the
poet lived in the current of ideas in the highest degree animating and nourishing, permeated by fresh
thought, intelligent and alive. He makes a plea for curiosity in its best sense as a quality of good
criticism.”

The essay highlights another key phrase for Arnold’s Disinterestedness. He feels that this virtue helps
critics keep away from the practical view of things, ulterior motives, and too much of practically. He
thinks that without disinterestedness, criticism tends to become controversial and too practical. He
laments the vulgarizing tendency of criticism aimed at self-satisfaction. For him, criticism is a path to
perfection, and it is said that in England, criticism was not fulfilling these demands. He attacks the
English society where practice seems to be everything, and there is no place for the free play of ideas.
This Arnold feels produces Philistinism that cannot allow society to come up with estimates of genuine
worth. In several ways, Arnold tries to exhort British society to realize that criticism should be a careful
exercise of curiosity directed by disinterestedness and a search for “the best that is known and thought in
the world.”

Arnold concludes his essay repeating what he says at the beginning, “to have the sense of creative activity
is the happiness and the great proof of being alive, and it is not denied to criticism to have it: but then
criticism must be sincere, simple, flexible, ardent, ever-widening its knowledge.” In this summing up of
ideas, you might have noticed some repetitions, which again is the kind of impact that a critic like Arnold
makes on his readers. Ideas are perfectly hammered into the reader through a clever repetition (sometimes
irritating) and series of examples as cases in point to justify his claims. However, one cannot miss his zeal
16

and missionary attempts to break new ground in society to create a new social, spiritual and critical
awareness.

Matthew Arnold Function Of Criticism

It was in Arnold’s first collection of critical writings, ‘Essays in Criticism’ in 1865, that his essay, “The
Function of Criticism at the Present Time” was published. Before the publication of three essays, he had
just got done with 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.

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).

Nature and function of criticism

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.