What do you think?
Rate this book
The Function of Criticism at the Present Time
This scarce antiquarian book is a facsimile reprint of the original. Due to its age, it may contain imperfections such as marks, notations, marginalia and flawed pages. Because we believe this work is culturally important, we have made it available as part of our commitment for protecting, preserving, and promoting the world's literature in affordable, high quality, modern editions that are true to the original work.
48 pages, Paperback
First published June 1, 2004
About the author
Matthew Arnold
1,481 books187 followersPoems, such as "Dover Beach" (1867), of British critic Matthew Arnold express moral and religious doubts alongside his
Culture and Anarchy
, a polemic of 1869 against Victorian materialism.
Matthew Arnold, an English sage writer, worked as an inspector of schools. Thomas Arnold, the famed headmaster of rugby school, fathered him and and Tom Arnold, his brother and literary professor, alongside William Delafield Arnold, novelist and colonial administrator.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew...
Matthew Arnold, an English sage writer, worked as an inspector of schools. Thomas Arnold, the famed headmaster of rugby school, fathered him and and Tom Arnold, his brother and literary professor, alongside William Delafield Arnold, novelist and colonial administrator.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
January 22, 2026
they must’ve been paying this mf by the word
July 26, 2020
"It is of the last importance that English criticism should clearly discern what rule for its course, in order to avail itself of the field now opening to it, and to pro− duce fruit for the future, it ought to take. The rule may be
summed up in one word,−−disinterestedness. And how is criticism to show disinterestedness? By keeping aloof
from practice; by resolutely following the law of its own nature, which is to be a free play of the mind on all subjects which it touches; by steadily refusing to lend itself to any of those ulterior, political, practical con−siderations about ideas which plenty of people will be sure to attach to them."I really enjoyed this essay. At times was difficult to follow but will give you more than a mere crumb of understanding on the function of criticism.
summed up in one word,−−disinterestedness. And how is criticism to show disinterestedness? By keeping aloof
from practice; by resolutely following the law of its own nature, which is to be a free play of the mind on all subjects which it touches; by steadily refusing to lend itself to any of those ulterior, political, practical con−siderations about ideas which plenty of people will be sure to attach to them."I really enjoyed this essay. At times was difficult to follow but will give you more than a mere crumb of understanding on the function of criticism.
September 1, 2015
A decent idea in theory; disinterestedness in the way we view literature, but the theory is so outdated. We know now in the current social climate that absolute non-bias, and complete moral objectivity are not obtainable goals. All we can do is hope to understand where we bring in our cultural, socio-economic, or religious backgrounds and attempt to work them into the understanding of the text. All in all Arnold has a decent idea in this theoretical argument, but lacks the ability to assimilate it into practicality and practice.
January 13, 2019
This is a classic-a 19th-century essay on the role of literary criticism. While Arnold refers to authors and controversies which are unknown to us today he does expound the role of the critic to stand above the practical issues of the day and to look at the literary work on more objective standards. This, to say the least, is not what critics today do. I do think though that this essay is well worth reading closely.
May 10, 2026
*This essay is 2.5/5 in my opinion, but annoying Goodreads doesn't allow for half stars...*
This is claimed to be one of the key 19th century essays on the functions of literary criticism (aswell as others) but for me it misses the mark.
First of all, I feel Arnold is horrendously conceited, immediately his prose has a sense of self-superiority that I just cannot get behind. He disrespects renowned artists (Wordsworth) as a form of what I can only believe is self-preservation for his completely egotistical views and as a point of insecurity.
Art and politics can NEVER be separated. It is impossible. Either the work of art contributes something to change and make the politics of our world better, or it stunts it, there is no apolitical piece - everything is interconnected, and asking to be "disinterested" or detached from any politics I think is insulting - Arnold truly is a privileged white man.
Moreover, the classes he appeals to are once again reductionist. He asks for people to read more criticism, and to change the ways they view it, but he is appealing only here to a very specific class who have the time to engage in this criticism (which on a side note is FAR too dense, filled with unnecessarily complicated language, and difficult for me to read even at degree level - let alone for what Arnold wanted to be inquisitive, leisured reading).
He does raise very interesting points on why criticism is important - it is - and offers a new light and inspiration in why I should read literary criticism, as I do believe it offers new and exciting lenses on much of what I read (and often explains those books and works which I cannot understand!)
If Arnold did not preface the beginning of his essay in such an insecure way, and got off of his high-horse for merely a moment, I would have enjoyed this essay much more! If someone were to rewrite this with more class-consciousness then I would be extremely excited to take some of the ideas on board.
This is claimed to be one of the key 19th century essays on the functions of literary criticism (aswell as others) but for me it misses the mark.
First of all, I feel Arnold is horrendously conceited, immediately his prose has a sense of self-superiority that I just cannot get behind. He disrespects renowned artists (Wordsworth) as a form of what I can only believe is self-preservation for his completely egotistical views and as a point of insecurity.
Art and politics can NEVER be separated. It is impossible. Either the work of art contributes something to change and make the politics of our world better, or it stunts it, there is no apolitical piece - everything is interconnected, and asking to be "disinterested" or detached from any politics I think is insulting - Arnold truly is a privileged white man.
Moreover, the classes he appeals to are once again reductionist. He asks for people to read more criticism, and to change the ways they view it, but he is appealing only here to a very specific class who have the time to engage in this criticism (which on a side note is FAR too dense, filled with unnecessarily complicated language, and difficult for me to read even at degree level - let alone for what Arnold wanted to be inquisitive, leisured reading).
He does raise very interesting points on why criticism is important - it is - and offers a new light and inspiration in why I should read literary criticism, as I do believe it offers new and exciting lenses on much of what I read (and often explains those books and works which I cannot understand!)
If Arnold did not preface the beginning of his essay in such an insecure way, and got off of his high-horse for merely a moment, I would have enjoyed this essay much more! If someone were to rewrite this with more class-consciousness then I would be extremely excited to take some of the ideas on board.
August 21, 2026
Woefully dated, but inside all of the incessant self-indulgence that Matthew Arnold has lathered onto this essay, there is a rather small hint of insightful views on criticism.
The Function of Criticism at the Present Time is an essay that coaxes the reader to see things from Arnold's perception on criticism, and what good poetry looks like. Yet, the more you read, the more you begin to lose your sanity. Arnold writes in an incoherent way, including unnecessary blocks of information that could easily be shortened or broken down, and is often hard to read. Near the end, for instance, there was a paragraph on his definition of criticism and how he understands he has let the reader down for thinking of, what really is, the true definition of criticism.
But stop, some one will say; all this talk is of no practical use to us whatever; this criticism of yours is not what we have in our minds when we speak of criticism; when we speak of critics and criticism, we mean critics and criticism of the current English literature of the day; when you offer to tell criticism its function, it is to this criticism that we expect you to address yourself. I am sorry for it, for I am afraid I must disappoint these expectations. I am bound by my own definition of criticism: a disinterested endeavour to learn and propagate the best that is known and thought in the world.
This idea of being 'disinterested' is explored by Arnold himself earlier in the essay: 'And how is criticism to show disinterestedness? By keeping aloof from what is called "the practiced view of things;" by resolutely following the free play of the mind on all subjects which it touches'. This is more commonly seen in Immanuel Kant's aesthetics. Disinterestedness talks about taking pleasure in something (art, literature, etc.) for its natural state, stripping any kind of emotional connection or desire that is derived from it. Regarding Arnold, he is referring to the act of being neutral and reading works with no personal bias, nor from a political standpoint. However, this is where I have to disagree with Arnold. While it is important to read from both sides of the same standpoint, it is impossible to separate art and politics from one another. The importance lies within being informed, and understanding the point of view from one side and another. To be 'disinterested' in a piece of political discourse is to reinforce privilege. To me, this tells me that Arnold's ability to 'switch off' is a testament to his privilege, as he would not have had to worry about his safety, his rights, and his means of survival, as these were at no risk to him. Ergo, due to art and politics being impossible to separate (all art is political), being disinterested in either is adhering to the privilege of being politically disinterested and ignorant. Politics affects everyone everywhere, so to be 'disinterested' is to be privileged.
Arnold writes about the romantic poets (including Shelley, Byron, and Wordsworth), and claims that they 'did not know enough'. Byron is described as 'so empty of matter, Shelley so incoherent, Wordsworth even, profound as he is, yet so wanting in completeness and variety'. He later goes on to write, 'Nay, and the true key to how much in our Byron, even in our Wordsworth, is this!— that they had their source in a great movement of feeling, not in the movement of mind'. Arnold criticises the English poets for using their hearts more than their intellect, which was a key identity of the Romanticism era. Romanticism was an artistic movement which began in Europe in the late 18th century, and focussed on deep feelings, a strong appreciation for nature, alienation to society, and being against order (specifically industrialism). The movement was based on feelings, rather than intellect; after all, it was a response to the Industrial Revolution.
Later on, Arnold criticises two people, Sir Charles Adderly and Mr. Roebuck for their views on a superior, Anglo-Saxon English race. He later recalls reading in a newspaper immediately after reading Mr. Roebuck about the murder of a child, and the child's parent, Wragg, was in custody. He criticises the idea of the 'Anglo-Saxon breed, the best in the whole word!', and introducing a list of what he refers to as 'hideous' names, which include Higginbottom, Stiggins, and Bugg. Arnold compares their idea of being the best with the 'grossness' of some names of Englishmen. While I agree with Arnold's understandable criticism towards the ideas of a 'superior' race, I have to draw the line at the classist remarks regarding these English surnames, which have strong roots to working-class backgrounds. Names of a Germanic origin (those that have hard consonant sounds such as Higg-, Stigg-, Bugg-) tend to be associated with the working-class (the prefix '-bottom' refers to a low-lying valley, which connects to the working class via the agricultural roots). Compare 'Arnold' to 'Higginbottom', and tell me which you think comes from a more privileged background!
To conclude, I finished reading this with a feeling of relief and also somewhat awe-inspired (hence the ever-so-generous 2 star review). Somehow, this essay, written by a very privileged man, made me want to read more critical essays and the functions of criticism itself. Not right now, though. I have a banging headache trying to understand what Matthew Arnold wrote and deciphering its meaning.
The Function of Criticism at the Present Time is an essay that coaxes the reader to see things from Arnold's perception on criticism, and what good poetry looks like. Yet, the more you read, the more you begin to lose your sanity. Arnold writes in an incoherent way, including unnecessary blocks of information that could easily be shortened or broken down, and is often hard to read. Near the end, for instance, there was a paragraph on his definition of criticism and how he understands he has let the reader down for thinking of, what really is, the true definition of criticism.
But stop, some one will say; all this talk is of no practical use to us whatever; this criticism of yours is not what we have in our minds when we speak of criticism; when we speak of critics and criticism, we mean critics and criticism of the current English literature of the day; when you offer to tell criticism its function, it is to this criticism that we expect you to address yourself. I am sorry for it, for I am afraid I must disappoint these expectations. I am bound by my own definition of criticism: a disinterested endeavour to learn and propagate the best that is known and thought in the world.
This idea of being 'disinterested' is explored by Arnold himself earlier in the essay: 'And how is criticism to show disinterestedness? By keeping aloof from what is called "the practiced view of things;" by resolutely following the free play of the mind on all subjects which it touches'. This is more commonly seen in Immanuel Kant's aesthetics. Disinterestedness talks about taking pleasure in something (art, literature, etc.) for its natural state, stripping any kind of emotional connection or desire that is derived from it. Regarding Arnold, he is referring to the act of being neutral and reading works with no personal bias, nor from a political standpoint. However, this is where I have to disagree with Arnold. While it is important to read from both sides of the same standpoint, it is impossible to separate art and politics from one another. The importance lies within being informed, and understanding the point of view from one side and another. To be 'disinterested' in a piece of political discourse is to reinforce privilege. To me, this tells me that Arnold's ability to 'switch off' is a testament to his privilege, as he would not have had to worry about his safety, his rights, and his means of survival, as these were at no risk to him. Ergo, due to art and politics being impossible to separate (all art is political), being disinterested in either is adhering to the privilege of being politically disinterested and ignorant. Politics affects everyone everywhere, so to be 'disinterested' is to be privileged.
Arnold writes about the romantic poets (including Shelley, Byron, and Wordsworth), and claims that they 'did not know enough'. Byron is described as 'so empty of matter, Shelley so incoherent, Wordsworth even, profound as he is, yet so wanting in completeness and variety'. He later goes on to write, 'Nay, and the true key to how much in our Byron, even in our Wordsworth, is this!— that they had their source in a great movement of feeling, not in the movement of mind'. Arnold criticises the English poets for using their hearts more than their intellect, which was a key identity of the Romanticism era. Romanticism was an artistic movement which began in Europe in the late 18th century, and focussed on deep feelings, a strong appreciation for nature, alienation to society, and being against order (specifically industrialism). The movement was based on feelings, rather than intellect; after all, it was a response to the Industrial Revolution.
Later on, Arnold criticises two people, Sir Charles Adderly and Mr. Roebuck for their views on a superior, Anglo-Saxon English race. He later recalls reading in a newspaper immediately after reading Mr. Roebuck about the murder of a child, and the child's parent, Wragg, was in custody. He criticises the idea of the 'Anglo-Saxon breed, the best in the whole word!', and introducing a list of what he refers to as 'hideous' names, which include Higginbottom, Stiggins, and Bugg. Arnold compares their idea of being the best with the 'grossness' of some names of Englishmen. While I agree with Arnold's understandable criticism towards the ideas of a 'superior' race, I have to draw the line at the classist remarks regarding these English surnames, which have strong roots to working-class backgrounds. Names of a Germanic origin (those that have hard consonant sounds such as Higg-, Stigg-, Bugg-) tend to be associated with the working-class (the prefix '-bottom' refers to a low-lying valley, which connects to the working class via the agricultural roots). Compare 'Arnold' to 'Higginbottom', and tell me which you think comes from a more privileged background!
To conclude, I finished reading this with a feeling of relief and also somewhat awe-inspired (hence the ever-so-generous 2 star review). Somehow, this essay, written by a very privileged man, made me want to read more critical essays and the functions of criticism itself. Not right now, though. I have a banging headache trying to understand what Matthew Arnold wrote and deciphering its meaning.
Read
September 13, 2024In shaping culture and societal progress, Arnold explores the role of literary criticism by examining in a didactic tone the very purpose of criticism as an intellectual pursuit only achievable through disinterestedness and broad-mindedness.
________Arnold vs Wilde__________
In response to Arnold's essay, Wilde wrote that "it is criticism that makes us cosmopolitan" ("The Critic as Artist", p. 240). In other words, using one's critical eye outwardly will help the critic achieve a more refined and accurate approach towards the search for that ultimate creative power.
Nevertheless, whilst Arnold's focus was on "the true critic" (moral and intellectual responsibility), Wilde's opted for "the aesthetic critic" (art for art's sake).
Although the nature of their paths may differ in methodology, it is agreed that it's all about freeing one's mind by "not doing, but being, and not being merely, but becoming" (idem, p. 220)– either through a pragmatic approach (Arnold's) or a paradoxical stance (Wilde's). They also share an appreciation for the inevitable interdependence between art and criticism as explored in both essays.
In the aims of guiding society, Arnold praised the idea of sharing knowledge with one another to strengthen that pursuit of elevate collective thinking ("it is by communicating fresh knowledge (...) that the critic will generally do most good"). Wilde – whose ideas focused on the critic as an individual and an artist in their own right – criticised that someone who devotes their life to preaching others is unable to ever find that intellectual growth (of which Arnold refers to as cultural refinement and improvement). Nevertheless, "modern journalism" is explored through Gilbert – a fictional character in his essay – and defines it as that which serves as a bridge between the literate and the uneducated (idem, p. 229).
__________
On a last and more personal note, "Arnold was essentially a great teacher (...) [he had] the ability to skillfully convey to us the conviction on which all his arguemnts are based." My soul is curious to read documented evidence of this. Guidance??
________Arnold vs Wilde__________
In response to Arnold's essay, Wilde wrote that "it is criticism that makes us cosmopolitan" ("The Critic as Artist", p. 240). In other words, using one's critical eye outwardly will help the critic achieve a more refined and accurate approach towards the search for that ultimate creative power.
Nevertheless, whilst Arnold's focus was on "the true critic" (moral and intellectual responsibility), Wilde's opted for "the aesthetic critic" (art for art's sake).
Although the nature of their paths may differ in methodology, it is agreed that it's all about freeing one's mind by "not doing, but being, and not being merely, but becoming" (idem, p. 220)– either through a pragmatic approach (Arnold's) or a paradoxical stance (Wilde's). They also share an appreciation for the inevitable interdependence between art and criticism as explored in both essays.
In the aims of guiding society, Arnold praised the idea of sharing knowledge with one another to strengthen that pursuit of elevate collective thinking ("it is by communicating fresh knowledge (...) that the critic will generally do most good"). Wilde – whose ideas focused on the critic as an individual and an artist in their own right – criticised that someone who devotes their life to preaching others is unable to ever find that intellectual growth (of which Arnold refers to as cultural refinement and improvement). Nevertheless, "modern journalism" is explored through Gilbert – a fictional character in his essay – and defines it as that which serves as a bridge between the literate and the uneducated (idem, p. 229).
__________
On a last and more personal note, "Arnold was essentially a great teacher (...) [he had] the ability to skillfully convey to us the conviction on which all his arguemnts are based." My soul is curious to read documented evidence of this. Guidance??
January 25, 2024
É, em geral, uma boa introdução à defesa do papel do crítico. Contudo, sinto que a ênfase ultrapassa a questão da objetividade (deveras pertinente), para chegar a uma noção de imparcialidade que creio ser inalcançável. Demonstra uma verdadeira crença no papel do intelectual afastado do resto da sociedade, baixa cultura, e puramente desinteressado. Tirando estes pontos, dos quais me afasto pessoalmente, é um texto importantíssimo no que toca ao papel do crítico e à sua relação com o autor.
September 21, 2017
Love Arnold's concept of criticism as a 'current of ideas' for its own sake, autonomous from but ideally facilitating the practical and the artistically creative.
January 15, 2019
Another favourite!
October 7, 2019
Arnold is dated for sure but I think his commentary on the importance of criticism is invaluable...
December 12, 2022
“...the man is not enough without the moment”
June 4, 2024
Interesante y bien escrito, pero no amé sus ideas.
Read
January 25, 2026Wragg is in custody.
Read
June 8, 2026academic text
March 18, 2017
Nice enough essay. It was on my to-read for ages, I can't think why.
January 18, 2016
arnold exists within a particularly privileged space; a space in which criticism can be separated from its practical, social and political implications and a space in which the elite, those who can choose to step away from mundanities of everyday life, can engage in disinterested and aloof exercises of thought regarding culture.
there's something exhausting about his attempts to moralise intellect and denigrate passion, posit natural or providential change as a replacement for instrumented revolution, present an argument for criticism without constructive action. he desires and is afraid of change, he supports the provision of education to all but suggests that it is fruitless, he looks towards the promised lands before telling us that we are doomed to die in the wilderness. i have no time for him.
there's something exhausting about his attempts to moralise intellect and denigrate passion, posit natural or providential change as a replacement for instrumented revolution, present an argument for criticism without constructive action. he desires and is afraid of change, he supports the provision of education to all but suggests that it is fruitless, he looks towards the promised lands before telling us that we are doomed to die in the wilderness. i have no time for him.
February 29, 2016
useful. But I didn't quite enjoy it I daresay
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews