Matthew Arnold

Here I’m posting my answer of thinking activity on Matthew Arnold which is given to us by our professor. Here is the link of given task…
 http://dilipbarad.blogspot.in/2014/11/mathew-arnold-study-of-poetry.html

Do you agree with Matthew Arnold's views on detachment, disinterestedness, fallacies like historical and personal, touchstone method and his definition of poetry? If you agree, why and on what grounds do you agree? If you disagree, why and what are the points of disagreement?


Matthew Arnold, English poet and cultural critic of Victorian age and also inspector of schools. Here I am going to give my view on his three views or methods, first is his views on detachment and disinterestedness, fallacies like historical and personal, second is his ‘touchstone method’, and third is his definition of poetry.

The first great principle of criticism enunciated by Arnold is that of disinterestedness or detachment. Disinterestedness on the part of the critic implies freedom from all prejudices, personal or historical. On this view of Arnold I agree with him that for apt or honest criticism one has to leave all their prejudices about author also and work also. Though it is very tough to remain detach or disinterested from personal or historical views or prejudices, it take time to be like, but this method of criticize any work as per my thinking is right.

Arnold also says that, The business of criticism is neither to find fault nor to display the critic’s own learning or influence; it is to know “The best which has been thought and said in the world.” And to do this detachment and disinterestedness is necessary element which the critic need so on this point I am agree with Arnold.

Second in his “Touchstone method” he basically wants to say that , this method introduced scientific objectivity to critical evaluation by providing comparison and analysis as the two primary tools for judging individual poets. In a simple language he wants to say that for judging any new poet’s work we have to use one of best old poet’s best work and by taking best work of old poet we have to compare it with new poet’s work and analyze the new work and if its have the same quality which old work has then we can consider that new work as good or best work. Now on this view of Arnold I am not agree with him. There is no need of comparison. Everyone has their own qualities we can not expect to all to have same qualities and we can not consider one quality as best and other inferior. If we do this to all new works then we can not find novelty. If we take example of singing, nowadays there are many remake of old songs we can find, which sang by some new singers but the voice of old singer and new singer does not have same quality. Here I want to give example of the Hindi song ‘yeh rate yeh mausam’ which originally sang by Kishor Kumar and Asha Bhosle but the remake of this song which sang by Sanam Puri and Simran Sehgal does not have same quality which old one has. In old song we can find peace and the music is also calm but in new song we can find the spices of new music and the voice of both singer is also different but we can not say that old one is good and new one is bad. Both have their own quality, both songs are like by audience. So I am not agree with Arnold’s touchstone method, new things has to differ from old otherwise it will not call the new.

Third is his definition of poetry, “poetry is criticism of life, must conform to the laws of poetic truth and poetic beauty.” Poetic truth here means the truth and seriousness of matter and poetic beauty is felicity and perfection of diction and manner. On this definition I am agree with Arnold that poetry is criticism of life because we can find it in any work that the life or thoughts of poet is always reflect in their work. Second poet should serious about his subject, it doesn’t matter which subject poet has the poetry should reflect the subject that is called the seriousness of matter. The beauty of manner, appropriate use of diction give poetic beauty to the work. After all poetry or literature is for pleasure and for that these all elements are necessary. On this point I am agree with Arnold.  

Thank you.