Mathew Arnold - The Study of Poetry

                      Mathew Arnold 
                      
                                   

          He was a poet, critic or we can say critic of critics. And he also worked as an inspector of schools. He was a professor of poetry. His other works are The Function of Criticism ,Culture and Anarchy ,Dover Beach and etc. 

          In The Study of Poetry he gives the definition of poetry. According to him Poetry is a 'criticism of life'. 

     

                   Thinking Activity 

                 

Do you agree with Mathew Arnold's views on Detachment, Disinterestedness, Fallacies like historical and personal, Touchstone Method and his definition of Poetry ? 

     Yes, I am agree with his principles of detachment and disinterestedness .Because it is still relevant in today's time. In his definition of poetry he says that it is a criticism of life, yes, that's true because we find that most of the literary works are written by writer's own experiences .What he feels about life that he portrays in his /her works. 

        In the principle of detachment, In poetry idea is everything. The fundamental idea of criticism appeals to us strongly is neither to find fault nor to display the critic's own learning or influence. To be disinterested is necessary to judge any work, because that's the nature gives the right justice to the work. If we partially gives the judgement than it will be injustice. If we take example of cricket. In cricket umpire has to be impartial in a way may he like the other team but if batsman hits six or he gets out in both situations he has to play neutral role. Same in literary works critics has to be neutral not see whose work is this, he has to just follow the rules of criticism. 

              I am not agree with the Touchstone method. Historical judgement being fallacious because we regard ancient poets with excessive voneration and Personal judgements being fallacious when we are biased forward a contemporary poet. We see in this method historical works are compared to contemporary works , than gives the judgement but it is irrelevant in today's time because the situation what prevaileded before now it is totally different. So comparing the world we can not get good judgement. If we take example of cricket we find that there are so many batsman who plays unorthodox shots but he becomes success in scoring run, so we can not say that by comparing with old batsman they are bad. So the quality is important. 

     So we can say that by comparing with history we not get right judgement of work. 

                                    

                      Thank you....