1.

Matthew Arnold’s Views about Critic

Introduction:

The critics have been around for as long as literature has. They are the figures with a vivid role

in culture. They are the ones who sharpen up philosophies against the stones of art. Although

criticism can just simply be summed up in the equation of ‘knowledge plus taste equals to

meaningful judgment’ but describing the qualities of the person who actually forms that

judgment can be far more complex.

Matthew Arnold, a Victorian poet and critic, penned down certain qualities of a literary critic

himself. Arnold himself, being both a poet and a critic, was one of the most influential critics of

the Victorian era. His criticism can be found in ‘On Translation Homer’, ‘Last Words on

Translating Homer’, ‘On the Study of Celtic Literature’, and the two volumes entitled ‘Essays in

Criticism’.

In the essay “The Function of Criticism at the Present Time” which was prefixed to the first

volume of ‘Essays in Criticism’ Arnold defines criticism, and elaborates the essential of a critic.

Matthew Arnold’s Conception of Criticism:

Matthew Arnold’s conception of criticism and a critic is an exalted one. In ‘the Function of

Criticism at the Present Time’ (1864), Matthew Arnold says that criticism should be a

“dissemination of ideas, a disinterested endeavor to learn and propagate the best that is known

and thought in the world”.

It is described that criticism is not merely an act of judgment; it is a disinterested, judgment-

free effort. Further, the threefold function of the critic is described which is to learn the things,

spread the noble ideas and then to create an atmosphere favorable for creative genius.
 Disinterestedness:

Matthew Arnold's ideal critic is disinterested. The critic must be from the “interests” which in

any way tend to obstruct the attainment of the intellectual and moral perfection. The word

‘disinterestedness does not imply a mere lack of interest. It implies objective, independent

thinking and avoidance of personal involvement in the arguments of a work. In other words, a

piece of literature should be examined on its own merits, without interference from the critic's

own beliefs or values.

Arnold further says that when evaluating a work, the aim is to see “the object as in itself it really

is”. Psychological, historical and sociological background is irrelevant. The critic should remain

uninfluenced by any social class or any party whether religious, intellectual or political, and to

dwell on such aspects is mere an amateur quality. This stance of disinterestedness was very

influential with later critics.

Knowledge:

Generally, knowledge is known as a collection of information that a person possesses. It has the

second prime importance in Matthew Arnold’s views on a critic as it is an important tool in

shaping a critic.

According to Arnold, a critic should have the knowledge of the best that is thought and known

in the world. As the present is built on the foundations of the past, both knowledge of the past

and present is necessary for that purpose. The past encompasses the knowledge of classical

literature; the critic should have knowledge of Greek, Roman and eastern antiquity, while the

present holds the knowledge of all the contemporary literature; for that purpose, a critic should

not confine himself to the literature of his own country, but should draw substantially on

foreign literature and ideas as well. The proliferation of ideas from the antiquity and

contemporary literature would result in better knowledge and better works of criticism.
In short, a critic must know the best that has been thought and said in ancient and in modern

times, not only in his own language but in the languages from which his native literature is

derived from.

Relation to Public:

Before Arnold, a literary critic cared only for the beauties and defects of works of art,

but Arnold chose to be the educator and guardian of public opinion and propagator of the best

ideas. According to Arnold, the critic is a propagandist tilling the soil so that the best ideas may

prevail. The critic has a duty to spread the best that is known and thought in the world, and to

establish a current of fresh and true ideas. Those ideas should be stressed repeatedly.

Comparing him to Aristotle, Scott James says that where Aristotle analyzes the work of art,

Arnold analyzes the role of the critic. The one gives us the principles which govern the making

of a poem, the other the principles by which the best poems should be selected and made

known. Aristotle's critic owes allegiance to the artist, but Arnold's critic has a duty to society.

Three-Fold Taste:

According to Matthew Arnold, the function of a critic is threefold in character. Firstly, the critic’s

duty is to learn and understand. It requires critical effort and analysis on the critic’s part. The

critic must see things as they really are.

His second task is to spread and make the best and noble ideas prevail in the society. In this

respect, the critic acts as a messenger. He provides guidance to the general public concerning

what to read and how to read it. This spreading of knowledge creates a flow of new ideas.

Thirdly, the critic is to prepare an atmosphere favorable for the creative geniuses of the future

to flourish. When the critic will prepare a social atmosphere which will stimulate the artist, the

creation will be made possible.

In short, Matthew Arnold’s conception of a critic makes criticism an expression of unbiased

ideas by a critic, which influence the society and prepare the ground for the future. Any critic

who would fit the requirements of Arnold, who would be able to keep his own opinion separate

from his work, who would possess the best kind of knowledge, and who would try to make the

best ideas prevail in the society and would be successful in doing so, would no doubt earn the

right to be called a great critic.