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. Firstly, a critic must maintain “disinterestedness”; he/she should evaluate a piece of literature objectively without any consideration of his or her personal beliefs or political interest. Secondly, knowledge should be the only concern of a critic and he/she should try to pass down that knowledge to the general public. Thirdly, the function of a critic is threefold i.e. he must understand the text, convey its meaning, and prepare grounds for future creative genius. Fourthly, the function of a critic according to him is to propagate and generate fresh and new ideas. Arnold through this critique presented a new direction to the criticism at that time and paved the way to modern criticism; his works served as a prompting force for many modern writers like T.S.Eliot.
Matthew Arnold in his “The Function of
Criticism at present” deals with the phenomena of criticism; functions of
criticism and its use in contemporary society. Matthew
Arnold was (born December 24, 1822, Laleham, Middlesex,
England—died April 15, 1888, Liverpool), an English Victorian poet and literary and
social critic, noted especially for his classical attacks on contemporary
tastes (Willey, 2020). In this essay, he points out some basic rules for
criticism which according to him separate original criticism from a fake one.
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” (Arnold, 1865, p. 230). These two basic principles
according to him are the foundation of original criticism. Arnold also presents
the function of criticism which is to generate fresh and new ideas and elevate
literary art.
The function of a critic is threefold
according to Arnold. He has to learn and understand the text as itself with
disinterestedness to any other considerations; to provide the best ideas to
spread in the society i.e. propagation of ideas and lastly, to prepare a ground
for future creative genius. Arnold believes that the work of criticism can have
some similarities to the creative work this is because criticism itself is also
a source of allowing creativity to flourish. It is the critic who draws the
true meaning of a literary text. It is the critic who synthesizes and does the
exposition of the text. Though according to him, “critical power is of lower
rank than the creative” (Arnold, 1865, p. 219) but it is also the reason for
conveying the purpose of a particular literary text. A critic is the one who
acts as a messenger in conveying the real essence of a literary text and prompting
guidance to the general public.
Firstly, according to Arnold, the text
is self-sufficient and a critic must therefore perceive any work as it is
without considering or dwelling upon other conditions. A critic must maintain
disinterestedness; he/she should evaluate a piece of literature objectively
without any consideration of his or her personal beliefs or political interest.
The phenomena of “disinterestedness” according to him is “keeping
aloof from the practice; … to be a free play of mind on all subjects which it
touches; … refusing to lend itself to any of those ulterior political,
practical considerations” (Arnold, 1865, p. 230). According to
his definition of criticism, a critic must utilize his/her knowledge to
evaluate a piece of literature with disinterestedness; with its focus mainly on
the merits and demerits of that particular text. The theory of
disinterestedness means to analyze a text objectively without consideration of
any personal, social, political, or religious interest. The critic’s work in
his point of view should be to “see the object as in itself it is” (Arnold,
1865, p. 217) rather than relating it with another text or critic’s personal
beliefs. He points out different literary works that had political
considerations cling to them like the Edinburgh Review which presented the
views of old Whigs whereas the Quarterly Review represented the views of Tories
on the other hand the British Quarterly Review focused on the views of
political Dissenters. He puts before us the view that the idea of
disinterestedness is an endeavor to learn and promote the best that is known
and thought in this world can establish a current of fresh and true ideas.
Similarly, he brought into light different literary works that had religious
considerations like the Dublin Review; it subordinates to the practical
business of English and Irish Catholicism.
According to him if the criticism is not
separated from these political and religious considerations then it will never
gain real authority or will ever be able to create a “current of true and fresh
ideas”; which is the main purpose of criticism.
Secondly, according to his knowledge is
the domain of a critic i.e. knowledge should be the main objective of a critic
and he/she should try to pass down that knowledge to the general public.
Criticism is a result of one’s knowledge. Knowledge must be his great concern
rather than his judgment. He cites the example of Byron and Goethe. According
to him both Byron and Goethe had productive power and creativity but Goethe had
a great critical effort that made his works more endurable. A critic should not
confine himself to the literature of his own country; he must also dwell much
on the foreign thought as he said in his essay that, “the English critic,
therefore, must dwell much on foreign thought, and with particular heed on any
part of it, which, while significant and fruitful in itself,” (Arnold, 1865, p.
240). Similarly, every critic should try to possess one great piece of
literature besides his own for the objective endeavor. According to him the present
and future are built on the foundation of the past, so knowledge about both the
ancients and classical like the Romans and Greek as well as the contemporaries
is necessary. The reason why Victorian England lagged behind Germany and France
in producing fine literature according to him is because of their lack of
knowledge of European trends and failure of criticism. Though poets and critics
of that time had creativity their lack of knowledge regarding the literature of
foreign confined them to the spheres of their own time and society. As he
argued, “But what is law in one place, is not the law in another; what is the
law here to-day, is not law even here tomorrow; and as for conscience, what is
bidding on one man’s conscience is not binding on another’s;” (Arnold, 1865, p.
224).
A piece of literature should draw
substantially on foreign literature and ideas as well, this was because the
propagation of ideas should be an objective and universal endeavor rather than
subjective and restricted.
Thirdly, according to him, curiosity is
the driving force for prompting the desire to
“know the best that is known and thought in the world irrespective of practice,
politics and everything to the kind” (Arnold, 1865, p. 229). He
cites the example of the French Revolution and the English Revolution. Though
the French Revolution was practically more successful with the writers like
Rousseau and Voltaire yet it the English Revolutions “appeals to an order of
ideas which are universal, certain permanent” (Arnold, 1865, p. 224). This was
because the French Revolution dealt with political considerations leaving
behind the intellectual sphere whereas the English Revolution was the prompting
force for creating new and fresh ideas. The French Revolution dealt with the
Epoch of Concentration; a period of single-mindedness that had lost its
universality and could not live long whereas the English Revolution dealt with
the Epoch of Expansion; the period of creative ideas. The words written on the
French Revolution like that of Burke’s are though great but that have political
considerations cling on to them making them particular and restricted in the
sphere of life whereas the works on English Revolution were original work of
criticism so they were the reason of promoting new and fresh ideas. The
function of a critic according to him is to propagate and generate fresh and
new ideas.
All in all, Arnold in his essay “The
Functions of Criticism at present tells us the purpose of criticism; that is to
create a current of true and fresh ideas with disinterestedness to any
political, religious, or social interest. Knowledge according to him must be
the greatest concern of a critic and for transmission of such knowledge, one
must slide away from his/her considerations and judgment. Only in this way the
criticism has done is objective and universal and can help men to elevate
literary art. Arnold through his critique on criticism presented a new
direction to the criticism at that time and paved the way to modern criticism.
Arnold is considered as the first the modern critic his works served as a
prompting force for many modern writers like T.S.Eliot and was known as a
critics’ critic because of his contributions to the field of criticism.
Contributed by: Syeda Areeba Fatima
