Matthew Arnold

Limitations Matthew Arnold was a man of letters,who became a literary critic by accident, he was mainly interested in educational, political and theological subjects The few works of pure literary criticism that he has to his credit are the by products of his genius

Oxford professorship gave him incentive for writing literary criticism though he was selected for this post not for his literary criticism but of his poetry This is evident from the tone in which he speaks of literary criticism he claims to write criticism literature for him was a criticism of life and a critic had to be a critic both of life and literature

Pure literary criticism was not his forte, whenever he speaks of literary criticism or the critic he prefixed a derogative and speaks of mere literary criticism

Arnold was not a scientific critic he was much of a moralist He thinks too much of the uses of literature and too little of its pleasures This moralistic tendency in Arnold made T. S. Eliot compare him with F. H. Bradley

Matthew Arnold was not a great scholar and much less a linguist.He built his political house on the bricks of ignorance. Professor Saintsbury deplores his lamentable ignorance. He embarks upon criticizing authors and languages which he does not understand. His essay the study of caltic literature remains overall a useless and stupid performance.

He had his own prejudices. His cult of classicism marred much of his critical writings. His dislike of the romantic in literature was as much unjustified as the romantic’s dislike of the classic principles. His method of criticism - the touchstone method-itself is not flawless. This method consists of selling poetry by the pound.

He manifests a dislike of the historical method in criticism for which it is difficult to find an excuse. It is true the that too much emphasis on the historical element tends to make criticism dull and pedantic. But it is also true that all values literary and moral are relative and the fact of time cannot be ignored.

Matthew Arnold was egoist and egoism is something that hardly makes for good criticism. There is a strong presence of his own self in his essays. His way of writing compels attention. Arnold’s egotism accounts for the high pitched conversational tone, the ripple of inspired extamporization. It all makes away from criticism because you cannot show off and be disinterested at the same time.

There is much disparity between his practice and theory he pleads disinterestedness but is himself a highly interested critic. But all these defects are over shadowed by a very real quality in him he did believe in the best.

Function of Poetry For Arnold poetry must be primarily beautiful It must give pleasure and that too of a very particular kind As he surveyed his own poetry and that too his contemporaries he marked a fatal omission a quality of pleasure which he detected in the Greek genius.

What had disappeared was the calm,the cheerfulness, the disinterested objectivity of Greek poetry The real pleasure of poetry must be from a poetry which will appeal most powerfully to the great primary affections, to those elementary feelings which subsists permanently in the race and which are independent of time.

The real beauty of poetry consists in its appeal to the permanent passions. The poets business is with inward man. The unity and profoundness of moral impression which the Greek’s aimed is what constitute the grandeur of their works

Arnold is forced to turn from his own age because it lacked coherence and unity. It was without moral grandeur, it was an age marked by spiritual discomfort

The discipline of poetry which Arnold recommends is Aristotelian in psychology and principle. In essence Arnold places poetry directly under the control of the will and conscious powers.

From the ancients we learn clearness of arrangement rigor of development and simplicity of style. The materials of poetry must be calculated powerfully and delightfully to affect what is permanent in the human soul

The enemy of poetry is a willful ignorance of “severe discipline required for creation” Arnold singles out “intellectual maturity” as the supreme mark of a great culture. It is the tendency to observe facts with a critical spirit to search for their law not to wander among them at random to judge by the rule of reason and not by impulse

Arnold clearly wants to establish a basis of intellectual discipline for the poet without this conscious disposition of order upon his materials the poet is kept from the highest success of his art.

For Arnold the poet must possess a rare combination of knowledge,penetration and seriousness along with a sensitive soul. The power of quick and strong perception and emotion is perhaps the positive constituent of poetic genius. Sensibility gives genius its materials.

He tried very carefully to balance the claims of all of man’s faculties in the poetic process Poetry must be brought to serve certain ends and it can only do so by being a combination of conscious will and vital soul.Poetry must be beautiful, it must give pleasure Arnold’s concept of useful in inherent in this total effect

Arnold’s concept of useful is inherent in this total effect