What do you think?
Rate this book
Essays In Criticism By Matthew Arnold
This scarce antiquarian book is included in our special Legacy Reprint Series. In the interest of creating a more extensive selection of rare historical book reprints, we have chosen to reproduce this title even though it may possibly have occasional imperfections such as missing and blurred pages, missing text, poor pictures, markings, dark backgrounds and other reproduction issues beyond our control. Because this work is culturally important, we have made it available as a part of our commitment to protecting, preserving and promoting the world's literature.
Paperback
Published January 17, 2007
2 people are currently reading
49 people want to read
About the author
Matthew Arnold
1,370 books177 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 - 5 of 5 reviews
Want to read
January 5, 2026Annotated book in F. Scott Fitzgerald's College of One
October 27, 2015
. Essay in Criticism It is a generous book, full of theories and academic justifications. Mathew Arnold whom I consider "Father of Comparative Literature" and one of the greatest intellectuals in the 19th century. it is so obvious that Arnold was a great humanist before anything else.this assumption reflects even in his definition for comparative literature. he said "“Everywhere there is connection. Everywhere there is illustration. No single event, no single literature is adequately comprehended except in relation to other events, to other literatures.”. so some words was used for the first time in defining such branch of literature.
July 14, 2024
Arnold was the first English man of letters who tried to define criticism. He was not quite sure how far his views would be accepted and begins by giving to criticism a lower place than creative literature.
At the same time, however is a propensity to overstate the importance of the critic. It is also necessary to read Arnold's views in the context of the background against which they were propounded. His aim was to bring about a cultural regeneration in a country which was being drowned in a cultural anarchy.
Criticism is on a lower level than creative activity, but, says Arnold, it is a critical activity that makes creation possible. It is the critical power that tends to establish an atmosphere suitable for creative activity. Successful creation requires that there is a current of fresh and new ideas, but such a current is not always available.
Creation implies a thorough knowledge of life and the world. This needs a critical effort. The poet may have the entire creative gift he needs but he has to have the critical effort as well to create something worthwhile. Criticism ensures the current of new ideas with the help of which the poet or creative writer can create.
According to Arnold, the power of the moment must concur with the power of the man in order that a great creative work may be produced.
Criticism is defined by Arnold as "the disinterested endeavour to learn and propagate the best that is known and thought in the world, and thus to establish a current of fresh and true ideas. In doing this, it must be inflexibly honest. Criticism should keep away from all practical and political considerations. It must see the object as it really is, and not be affected by considerations of its utility.
Arnold is severely critical of the tendency in England of his time to let practical considerations enter into all critical views. He was strongly in favour of a free and disinterested play of the mind.
An important task of criticism was the cure of self-satisfaction and smugness. Complacency is vulgarising and retarding. It was the function of criticism to lead man away from this self-satisfaction towards an ideal of perfection. It should make man dwell on the ideals of absolute beauty, and perfection. It could do this only if it kept aloof from practical considerations and kept itself to the sphere of the intellect. This may be slow and obscure work, but that had to be accepted if criticism was to accomplish its true function. Criticism had to maintain its independence from practical and political spheres.
The critic has to develop the ability to view an object as it really is. This requires a disinterested or detached approach. He should not allow any caprice or whimsicality to enter into this attitude.
The task of a critic has three aspects: 1) he must learn to know and understand; see things as they really are; 2) he should transmit these ideas which he has learnt of from the society, so that the best ideas may prevail and 3) he is to prepare an atmosphere congenial to the creative faculty; see that there is a current of fresh and true ideas which will animate and nourish the creative power.
The critic should view literature objectively, keeping stand-offish from its utility. He has also to learn the best that is thought and known in the world. Knowledge, ever fresh knowledge, must be the great concern of the critic. The critic must know at least one other literature besides his own to avoid parochialism. Knowledge is necessary both for the poet and the critic. The critic must know the best that has been known and thought in the world. He must be acquainted with the best of antiquity as well as modern ideas. It is only when the critic becomes aware of other literatures that he will be able to make a comparison between the literature of his own country and that of others; it is only thus that he can avoid provincialism.
Judgement is spoken of as the only business of criticism. Arnold, however, is of the opinion that the most valuable judgement is the sort that forms itself almost insensibly, in a fair and clear mind, along with fresh knowledge. It is possible that a critic might sometimes be dealing with a subject so familiar as to preclude the possibility of fresh knowledge.
At such times it is imperative that the critic retain an intimate and lively consciousness of the truth of what he has to say. This advice of Arnold's is astute and sound. A critic has to contribute to the problem of perfection. He has a definite relation to society, the society in which he lives. In this sense he is a propagandist the propagator of the best ideas.
The critic has to be properly equipped for this important task of making the best ideas prevail he has to know enough of the best. He has to know a wide range of the best, i.e., know about the best in the world and not merely in his own country. In this way he can avoid parochialism and lead the way towards perfection and a broad vision of life. We must note that Arnold is the first critic to emphasise on a confederation of nations. This speaks for the catholicity of Arnold's outlook.
Criticism, says Arnold, can give some joy of creative activity. In order that it may be of the best order, it should be simple, sincere flexible and ardent. All the while it should be ever widening in its knowledge. Criticism is on a lower plane than creative activity but it, too, can be creative in trying to articulate the critic's responses to some great works. Criticism of this excellent order is indeed more valuable than creative efforts of an indifferent quality.
However, there exist several limitations in Arnold's view:
1. The disinterestedness advocated by Arnold is suspect. On the face of it, Arnold's insistence on criticism to be disinterested should find no objection. It is indeed the duty of a critic to view an object as it really is. He should not let practical considerations or political aspects colour his judgement. Utility should not pre- dispose the critic in favour of the object if it is found wanting as far as the intellectual sphere is concerned. There should be a free play of the mind. All this is unquestionable as well as acceptable. Arnold himself showed 'disinterestedness' in not speaking in favour of the poetry of his own time. Yet there is a flaw in Arnold's view of disinterestedness.
2) Freeing criticism from practical considerations, Arnold subjects it to certain other interests, though we have to admit that these interests could be called noble. Criticism is given the spiritual task of 'doing good. The "apostle of disinterestedness becomes the prophet of moral perfection", as Scott-James says. True disinterestedness lies in being able to see a work of art as it is, unaffected by any outside interest, be they noble or ignoble. Arnold's disinterestedness might lead to a hindrance of fair criticism it may tie a critic to certain pre-conceived notions of perfection which may disturb his understanding and colour his judgement.
3. Another drawback in Arnold's views is that his idea of a critic is exalted; his concept of the critic's role, too, is exaggerated. There is too much emphasis on the importance of a critic. He demands too much of the critic; a critic must know the best that is known and thought, not merely in his own country, but in the world. He must have knowledge of other subjects besides literature. He must be a man of culture and remarkable amount of learning and knowledge.
It is the critic, who gets ready the intellectual atmosphere for creative activity. The critics would provide the ideas, the very material, for creative artists. The critic would provide the ground- work for the artist to work out his synthesis and exposition.
To conclude, Arnold’s concept of a critic is high, idealistic. But there is nothing really wrong with his setting the ideal high, it is possible for a critic to achieve it. Arnold was not wrong to insist on the necessity of a critical effort behind a good poetry.
Modern poets have also agreed on the inseparability of the critical and creative processes. Eliot has also remarked that some writers are not great because of their imagination, but because of their critical faculties. His definition of criticism is a supreme contribution to the history of English criticism.
At the same time, however is a propensity to overstate the importance of the critic. It is also necessary to read Arnold's views in the context of the background against which they were propounded. His aim was to bring about a cultural regeneration in a country which was being drowned in a cultural anarchy.
Criticism is on a lower level than creative activity, but, says Arnold, it is a critical activity that makes creation possible. It is the critical power that tends to establish an atmosphere suitable for creative activity. Successful creation requires that there is a current of fresh and new ideas, but such a current is not always available.
Creation implies a thorough knowledge of life and the world. This needs a critical effort. The poet may have the entire creative gift he needs but he has to have the critical effort as well to create something worthwhile. Criticism ensures the current of new ideas with the help of which the poet or creative writer can create.
According to Arnold, the power of the moment must concur with the power of the man in order that a great creative work may be produced.
Criticism is defined by Arnold as "the disinterested endeavour to learn and propagate the best that is known and thought in the world, and thus to establish a current of fresh and true ideas. In doing this, it must be inflexibly honest. Criticism should keep away from all practical and political considerations. It must see the object as it really is, and not be affected by considerations of its utility.
Arnold is severely critical of the tendency in England of his time to let practical considerations enter into all critical views. He was strongly in favour of a free and disinterested play of the mind.
An important task of criticism was the cure of self-satisfaction and smugness. Complacency is vulgarising and retarding. It was the function of criticism to lead man away from this self-satisfaction towards an ideal of perfection. It should make man dwell on the ideals of absolute beauty, and perfection. It could do this only if it kept aloof from practical considerations and kept itself to the sphere of the intellect. This may be slow and obscure work, but that had to be accepted if criticism was to accomplish its true function. Criticism had to maintain its independence from practical and political spheres.
The critic has to develop the ability to view an object as it really is. This requires a disinterested or detached approach. He should not allow any caprice or whimsicality to enter into this attitude.
The task of a critic has three aspects: 1) he must learn to know and understand; see things as they really are; 2) he should transmit these ideas which he has learnt of from the society, so that the best ideas may prevail and 3) he is to prepare an atmosphere congenial to the creative faculty; see that there is a current of fresh and true ideas which will animate and nourish the creative power.
The critic should view literature objectively, keeping stand-offish from its utility. He has also to learn the best that is thought and known in the world. Knowledge, ever fresh knowledge, must be the great concern of the critic. The critic must know at least one other literature besides his own to avoid parochialism. Knowledge is necessary both for the poet and the critic. The critic must know the best that has been known and thought in the world. He must be acquainted with the best of antiquity as well as modern ideas. It is only when the critic becomes aware of other literatures that he will be able to make a comparison between the literature of his own country and that of others; it is only thus that he can avoid provincialism.
Judgement is spoken of as the only business of criticism. Arnold, however, is of the opinion that the most valuable judgement is the sort that forms itself almost insensibly, in a fair and clear mind, along with fresh knowledge. It is possible that a critic might sometimes be dealing with a subject so familiar as to preclude the possibility of fresh knowledge.
At such times it is imperative that the critic retain an intimate and lively consciousness of the truth of what he has to say. This advice of Arnold's is astute and sound. A critic has to contribute to the problem of perfection. He has a definite relation to society, the society in which he lives. In this sense he is a propagandist the propagator of the best ideas.
The critic has to be properly equipped for this important task of making the best ideas prevail he has to know enough of the best. He has to know a wide range of the best, i.e., know about the best in the world and not merely in his own country. In this way he can avoid parochialism and lead the way towards perfection and a broad vision of life. We must note that Arnold is the first critic to emphasise on a confederation of nations. This speaks for the catholicity of Arnold's outlook.
Criticism, says Arnold, can give some joy of creative activity. In order that it may be of the best order, it should be simple, sincere flexible and ardent. All the while it should be ever widening in its knowledge. Criticism is on a lower plane than creative activity but it, too, can be creative in trying to articulate the critic's responses to some great works. Criticism of this excellent order is indeed more valuable than creative efforts of an indifferent quality.
However, there exist several limitations in Arnold's view:
1. The disinterestedness advocated by Arnold is suspect. On the face of it, Arnold's insistence on criticism to be disinterested should find no objection. It is indeed the duty of a critic to view an object as it really is. He should not let practical considerations or political aspects colour his judgement. Utility should not pre- dispose the critic in favour of the object if it is found wanting as far as the intellectual sphere is concerned. There should be a free play of the mind. All this is unquestionable as well as acceptable. Arnold himself showed 'disinterestedness' in not speaking in favour of the poetry of his own time. Yet there is a flaw in Arnold's view of disinterestedness.
2) Freeing criticism from practical considerations, Arnold subjects it to certain other interests, though we have to admit that these interests could be called noble. Criticism is given the spiritual task of 'doing good. The "apostle of disinterestedness becomes the prophet of moral perfection", as Scott-James says. True disinterestedness lies in being able to see a work of art as it is, unaffected by any outside interest, be they noble or ignoble. Arnold's disinterestedness might lead to a hindrance of fair criticism it may tie a critic to certain pre-conceived notions of perfection which may disturb his understanding and colour his judgement.
3. Another drawback in Arnold's views is that his idea of a critic is exalted; his concept of the critic's role, too, is exaggerated. There is too much emphasis on the importance of a critic. He demands too much of the critic; a critic must know the best that is known and thought, not merely in his own country, but in the world. He must have knowledge of other subjects besides literature. He must be a man of culture and remarkable amount of learning and knowledge.
It is the critic, who gets ready the intellectual atmosphere for creative activity. The critics would provide the ideas, the very material, for creative artists. The critic would provide the ground- work for the artist to work out his synthesis and exposition.
To conclude, Arnold’s concept of a critic is high, idealistic. But there is nothing really wrong with his setting the ideal high, it is possible for a critic to achieve it. Arnold was not wrong to insist on the necessity of a critical effort behind a good poetry.
Modern poets have also agreed on the inseparability of the critical and creative processes. Eliot has also remarked that some writers are not great because of their imagination, but because of their critical faculties. His definition of criticism is a supreme contribution to the history of English criticism.
January 18, 2023
Those of us "of a certain age" probably know Matthew Arnold chiefly from having had to read "Dover Beach" in school. I don't think it's required reading any more. I inherited quite a number of old books from my maternal grandfather and decided to start actually delving in and reading some of them. Pulled out a 1925 edition of Arnold's ESSAYS in CRITICISM originally published in 1865. Absolutely fascinating! Probably not accessible for most modern readers, but if you are an English-major type nerd, I highly recommend!
Want to read
March 30, 2025USD36.14
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews