The Function of Criticism at the Present Time

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 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 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:

First, a critic must know about the life and 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 the society.

Third, he must create an atmosphere for the creation of the genius of 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 the 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
the contemporary society due to the influence of politics and religion on ideas. Thus he gives voice to
commoners views to enhance the glory of past. He advises the critics to adopt disinterested behaviour
towards criticism. They should take into consideration the 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

Arnold's essay, "The Function of Criticism at the Present Time" was published in his first collection of
critical writings, Essays in Criticism, in 1865. Prior to the publication of these essays, Arnold had just
completed 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.

"The Function of Criticism at the Present Time" thus seems a bit of a turning point in Arnold's career; by
the time Arnold began writing Culture and Anarchy, he had turned away from his career as a poet to
focus on social and theological writings. The project which Arnold began with this essay--to make the
reading, middle-class public of England understand the need for a critical spirit in order to provide
society with fresh, intelligent ideas--would occupy him fully and it is for this new direction which Arnold
takes that would make Arnold interesting to generations after him.

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. Arnold's expanded
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"--renders criticism a necessary prerequisite
for truly valuable creation. Specifically, criticism is what generates "fresh" and "intelligent" ideas during
a specific time and place in history, and Arnold claim 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 pegs the work of the romantic poets after the French Revolution and in the earlier part of the
century as creative, but without the quality of ideas necessary for truly great work. This is because,
Arnold explains, the French Revolution devolved into an obsession with the political and practical,
"quitting the intellectual sphere and rushing furiously into the political sphere." While Arnold praises the
intellectual quality of the initial ideas, particularly Burke's, coming out of this "epoch of concentration,"
Arnold disparages the devolution of these ideas too manically into the political and practical.

In the present time, Arnold argues, criticism must maintain a position of "disinterestedness," 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." Its logic runs
counter to that of self-satisfaction (what Arnold felt to be the problematic attitude of middle-class
reformers) and thus leads men to desire greater perfection.
Arnold concedes, finally, that the work of the critic is "slow and obscure" and doesn't quite give an
answer as to how the critic can make his work known to the so-called "practical" men. Arnold holds that
the critic will be misunderstood, and English society is likely to be on the side of the likes of Bishop
Colenso and Miss Cobbe, who offer "constructive" suggestions for living. Nevertheless, Arnold seems
deeply hopeful that the recent commentary on the youth of today having less "zeal" means that they
are in fact thinking more, and cultivating a more disinterested, critical life and in doing so, coming up
with fresh, intelligent ideas.

One of the most interesting aspects of Arnold's ideas on criticism for me is his direct association
between the need for criticism and what he perceived to be an increasingly complex, modern, world. As
abstract as many of Arnold's phrases seem, and given the absence of any sense of specific historicity in
terms like "epoch of concentration" or "epoch of expansion," somehow, Arnold yet maintains that he
means criticism for the present time, which, as it turns out, means "modernity." In his own words, "the
life and world being in modern times very complex things," it becomes necessary that an intellectual
elite (transcending above all "practical" things--later, in Culture and Anarchy, "ordinary selves"--
including class status, but problematically so as Hadley points out in her critique of Victorian liberalism)
maintain clarity through determining what is true and what is socially constructed.

The emphasis in this essay on "modernity" in all its hefty, complex associations with industrialization,
capitalism, secularization, institutional organization, and relatedly, the destruction of the so-called
"individual" makes it a particularly interesting one to look at if one is to offer students of Victorian
literature a framework for understanding the major clash between humanity and "modernity" perceived
by so many. Arnold's sweeping generalizations of the French Revolution and romanticism in this essay
also offers an easy way into pointing out two rather different waves of historical anxiety: the first
related to the violence of establishing new political orders, the second related to the mechanical
complacency of the middle-class individual in the face of improved living conditions and general
acceptance of "liberal" ideas.

While criticism may be considered lower in rank to creation, the creation of great works of art is not
always equally possible. The elements with which the creative power works are ideas, but the best and
noble ideas may not be always current. That is why creative epochs in literature are so rare. For great
creation, the power of the man and the power of the moment must concur, but the power of the
moment may not be always available. Even the tremendous natural power of the romantics was
partially crippled by the lack of intellectual life in the English society of the nineteenth century. It makes
Byron empty of matter, Shelley incoherent and even Wordsworth wanting in completeness and variety.
This is where criticism comes to play. 1) Criticism has the power to make the best ideas prevail. It is the
business of criticism 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. It creates stir and growth which makes creation
possible. That is why great creative epochs are preceded by great epochs of criticism. 2) In order to be
successful, criticism must exercise curiosity, which is a desire to know the best, and which should not be
taken as a term of disparagement.3) Criticism must also be disinterested. It must keep aloof from the
‘practical view of things’. The critic must try to view an object with detachment to see it ‘as it really is’,
without being stifled by practical/political considerations. Arnold is of the view that a critic’s judgment
should never be swayed by the prejudices of the Barbarian, the Populace and the Philistines. A critic
must shun provincialism, which may take the forms of excess, ignorance or bathos, and must endeavour
to be ‘in contact with the main stream of human life’. In short, the critic must be disinterested in the
sense that he should pursue only the ends of cultural perfection and should remain uninfluenced by the
coarser appeals of the Philistine. A critic who is disinterested and who tries to see the thing as it really is
in itself, is likely to be misunderstood, because in England ‘practice is everything, a free play of the mind
is nothing’.

4) Next, it is the function of criticism to keep men away from self satisfaction which is retarding and
vulgarizing. By shaking men out of their complacency, he makes their minds dwell on upon what is
excellent in itself, the absolute beauty and fitness of things. But in England, criticism is not fulfilling this
spiritual function because it has grown too controversial.

5) Judging is often spoken as the critic’s main business, but such judging has to be in a clear and fair
mind, along with knowledge. Knowledge therefore should be the critic’s concern. So, in his search for
the best that is known and thought in the world, the critic has to study literatures other than his own.
He should have knowledge of Greek, Roman and eastern antiquity.

6) False standards of judgment-personal and historical must be avoided. The question that now arises is
how is the critic to discover what is best and noble. Arnold says that the critic must possess tact which is
the unfailing guide to the excellent. And next, he should free himself from false standards of judgment,
namely the personal and historical standards. By personal standard, Arnold means the critic’s own likes
and dislikes intruding in his judgment of literature. A real estimate of poetry rises above personal
predilections and prejudices. Personal estimates result in the hysterical, eruptive and the aggressive
manner in literature. The historic estimate is equally fallacious and misleading. By regarding a poet’s
work as a stage in the course of the development of a nation’s language, thought and poetry, we may
end up overrating a poet, and fail to see the value of his poetry ‘as it is in itself’.

7) The Right Method or the Touchstone Method: In order to guide the critic in his performance of his
task, Arnold prescribes his well known ‘Touchstone method’. He says that a real estimate can be
attained by learning to feel and enjoy the best work of a real classic and appreciate the wide difference
between it and other lesser works. He further adds that high qualities lie both in the matter and
substance, and in the manner and style of poetry. The Matter and substance will possess ‘truth and
seriousness’, and this character is ‘inseparable from the superiority of diction and movement’ in style
and manner. Arnold then suggest that it would do critics good if they always have in their minds lines
and expressions of the great masters and apply them as touchstone to other poetry. This will help critics
detect the presence or absence of high poetic quality, and also the degree of this quality. He then takes
a few passages from Homer, Dante, Shakespeare and Milton, and points out that they belong to the
class of the truly excellent.

Arnold’s views on Poetry in his the Study of Poetry

Stress on Action: He begins his ‘Preface to Poems’ 1853, by saying that he dropped his poem
Empedocles on Etna from the new collection, because it had very little action. The hero suffered and
brooded over his suffering and committed suicide. Mere subjectivity, the inner gloom or melancholy of
the poet to the neglect of action, can never result in true poetry. Poetry of the highest order requires
suitable action an action sufficiently serious and weighty. Poetry is dedicated to joy and this joy results
from the magnificence of its action (reminds of Aristotle’s stress on action as the soul of tragedy)

Subject of Poetry: Only those should be taken as subjects of poetry which can impart the highest
pleasure. Arnold points out that it is not necessary for modern poets to choose modern subjects as in
the modern age there is too much of philistinism and vulgarization of values. The poets should choose
ancient subjects, those which were chosen by Homer and the other Greek Masters .In short, poets
should choose actions that please always and please all. Actions that are of this nature ‘most powerfully
appeal to those elementary feelings which are independent of time’ and hence are the fittest subjects
for poetry. It is immaterial whether such subjects are ancient or modern so long as they fulfill this
principle. But an age wanting in moral grandeur, says Arnold with reference to his age, can hardly supply
such subjects, and so the poets must turn to ancient themes.

Manner and Style: Highest poetry and highest poetic pleasure result from the whole and not from
separate parts, from the harmony of matter and manner and not from manner alone. No unworthy
subject can be made delightful by an excellent treatment. Arnold says that with the Greeks the action
was the first consideration, with us, attention is fixed mainly on the value of individual thoughts and
images. They regarded the whole, we regard the parts. Greeks were also the highest model of
expression, the masters of the grand style. That was because they kept the expression simple and
subordinated to the action, and because they expression drew its force directly from the action.

The Ancients as safe models: Acc to Arnold, the ancients are the perfect guides or models to be followed
by the poets. Shakespeare is not a safe guide, for although he has excellence of subject, he is unable to
say a thing plainly even when the action demands direct expression. From the ancients, the poet will
learn how superior is the effect of one moral impression left by a great action treated as a whole to the
effect produced by the most striking single thought.

The Grand style: Arnold says that the ancients were the masters of the ‘grand style’. The grand style
arises in poetry when ‘a noble nature, poetically gifted treats with simplicity or severity, a serious
subject’. So, for the grand style, there must be 1) nobility of soul 2) subject or action chosen must be
serious enough 3) the treatment should be severe or simple. Homer, Dante and Milton were masters of
it, but most English poets lacked it. Modern poets like Keats do not have the shaping power, they have
short passages of excellence but not the beauty of the whole. In Arnold’s view, only poetry modeled on
the Ancients can serve as an antidote to philistinism .Arnold’s theory of poetry is to be understood as a
counterblast to romantic individualism, subjectivity, and contempt of authority.

Function/definition of poetry: Arnold is confident that poetry has a great future. It is in poetry that our
race will find an ever surer stay. Poetry acc to Arnold, is capable of higher uses, interpreting life for us,
consoling us, and sustaining us, that is, poetry will replace religion and philosophy.

Arnold further declares that ‘poetry is a criticism of life under conditions fixed for such a criticism by
laws of poetic truth and poetic beauty, the spirit of our age will find…as time goes on, and other helps
fail, its consolation and stay.’Poetry as a criticism of life: Arnold explains criticism of life as the
application of noble and profound ideas to life, and ‘laws of poetic truth and beauty’ as ‘truth and
seriousness of matter’ and ‘felicity and perfection of diction and manner’ Arnold believes that poetry
does not represent life as it is, rather the poet adds something to it from his own noble nature and this
contributes to his criticism of life. Poetry makes men moral, better and nobler, not by direct teaching
but by appealing to the soul, to the whole of man.