Function of criticism by Arnold
introduction
Matthew Arnold, English Victorian poet and literary. and social critic, noted especially for his classical attacks on the contemporary tastes and manners of the “Barbarians”, the “Philistines”, and the “Populace.” He became the apostle of “culture” in such works as Culture and Anarchy (1869).
Arnold's View Towards Criticism
Matthew Arnold shifted from writing poetry to prose, focusing on criticism. His key ideas appeared in "Essays in Criticism" and "Culture and Anarchy." In "The Function of Criticism at the Present Time," Arnold emphasized the importance of criticism as a way to spread the best knowledge and ideas across various fields, not just literature. He believed England lagged behind France and Germany in this regard and that English critics needed to engage with European standards.
Arnold's "The Literary Influence of Academies" discussed the provincial nature of English literature due to its isolation from broader European culture. The essays in his 1865 collection cover diverse figures, demonstrating his aim to apply modern ideas to life and literature.
"The Study of Poetry" in the 1888 volume argued that in an era of declining religious faith, poetry should replace religion as a source of consolation and guidance. Arnold stressed the need to distinguish high-quality poetry through the works of recognized masters. His essays on poets like Milton and Wordsworth evaluated their "criticism of life" and their relevance to modern readers.
About T. S. Eliot
Thomas Stearns Eliot was born in St. Louis, Missouri, into an old New England family. He studied at Harvard and pursued graduate work in philosophy at the Sorbonne, Harvard, and Merton College, Oxford. Eliot eventually settled in England, where he worked as a schoolmaster and a bank clerk before becoming the literary editor and later a director at the publishing house Faber & Faber. He founded and edited the influential literary journal Criterion from 1922 to 1939. In 1927, Eliot became a British citizen and joined the Anglican Church.
T. S. Elliot's view on Criticism
Thomas Stearns Eliot, a prominent poet and critic, wrote several key essays on literary criticism. His essays, including "The Function of Criticism" (1923), "The Frontiers of Criticism" (1956), and "To Criticize the Critic" (1961), outline his views on the purpose of criticism. Eliot argues that criticism should focus on understanding and spreading the best ideas in literature, theology, history, art, science, sociology, and politics. He believes criticism helps readers appreciate literary values and should be based on principles, not personal feelings or the "Inner Voice" of romanticism.
In "The Function of Criticism," Eliot criticizes the romantic critics, represented by J. Middleton Murry, for their lack of structured principles. He contrasts romanticism, which he sees as chaotic and reliant on intuition, with classicism, which he believes values tradition and structured thought. Eliot asserts that good criticism requires a "highly developed sense of fact" and should clarify and evaluate works of art objectively.
Eliot builds on Matthew Arnold’s ideas from "The Function of Criticism at the Present Time" (1851), but he modifies Arnold’s separation of creative and critical faculties. Eliot argues that creative writing involves critical processes and vice versa. Effective criticism, in his view, engages deeply with the creative work, relying on factual analysis rather than subjective responses. He acknowledges that this method might seem dry but insists it is the only way to achieve true criticism that elucidates texts and refines taste.
Different View of T. S Eliot and Matthew Arnold On Criticism
Eliot finds judgment based on ideas distasteful due to his commitment to Church of England dogma and his less successful attempts at synthesis, compared to Arnold. They hold opposing views on the critic's role: Arnold advocates for a disinterested critic, while Eliot leans towards social advocacy.
Matthew Arnold and T. S. Eliot are notable for their significant influence on literary taste and their strong self-awareness about their roles, evident in both their poetry and criticism. Arnold, excited about influencing the English public, contrasts with Eliot, who highlights the importance of critics reassessing literature periodically. Eliot places himself alongside Dryden, Johnson, and Arnold as key critics. Both poet-critics capture the literary consciousness of their eras, making their comparison a study of the differing sensibilities of their times and their individual perspectives.
Different view on poetry
T.S. Eliot frequently critiques Matthew Arnold's concept of poetry, often with irony and sarcasm. In his essay “Matthew Arnold,” Eliot acknowledges Arnold's balanced knowledge but criticizes his lack of deep scholarship. To understand this critique, one must compare their literary theories.
Arnold's theory is rooted in various European artists and historical contexts, emphasizing universal, timeless human feelings. He admired ancient Greek literature and saw it as a model for modern society, believing it could guide intellectual and cultural progress. Arnold’s "high seriousness" and "grand style" reflect this admiration, with qualities exemplified by poets like Homer and Goethe.
In contrast, Eliot's theory, outlined in "Tradition and the Individual Talent," focuses on the impersonal nature of poetry. He argues that poetry should not reflect the poet's personal feelings but should result from an artistic process that integrates tradition and past literature. Eliot criticizes Arnold for emphasizing the poet's feelings and for isolating historical periods instead of viewing literary tradition as a continuous whole.
Despite some similarities, Eliot often portrays a rivalry with Arnold, mixing sarcastic remarks with reluctant praise. He downplays Arnold's poetic achievements, yet acknowledges that some of his own theories build on Arnold's concepts. For instance, Eliot's "objective correlative" idea, which requires a balance between external circumstances and emotions, echoes Arnold’s emphasis on disinterestedness and separation of ideas from practice.
Arnold's "touchstone-method" uses selected passages from great poets to judge literary quality. Eliot critiques this method but also recognizes its influence. Despite their differences, both poets shaped literary criticism significantly, reflecting their respective eras' sensibilities.
Conclusion
T. S. Eliot and Matthew Arnold are both prominent figures in the history of literary criticism and were well-regarded in their time. Although their ideas on criticism differ, both contributed significantly to the field. They worked to create new perspectives in criticism, often influenced by their religious and political views. Arnold emphasized universal human feelings and admired ancient Greek literature, while Eliot focused on the impersonal nature of poetry and the importance of tradition. Despite their differences, both shaped the critical landscape and left a lasting impact on literary theory.
Thank you.
.jpg)
