Evaluate Matthew Arnold as a critic.

Answer

Give an account of Matthew Arnold as a critic. [NU: 2018, 20] ★★★ Or, Evaluate Matthew Arnold as a critic. [NU: 2022]

Matthew Arnold (1822–1888) is one of the leading critics of the Victorian period (1832-1901). His essays explore topics such as poetry, culture, society, and education. He believed that criticism should guide life and refine taste. As a critic, he aimed to set standards for literature. His work combines humanism with strict literary principles. Let us prove him as a critic. 

Arnold as a Cultural Critic: Arnold was not just a literary critic; he was also a cultural critic. In his famous work “Culture and Anarchy” (1869), he defines culture in the following way:

“…the best that has been thought and said.” 

He wrote against narrow utilitarian values and the materialism of the middle class. He attacked the “Philistines” and the “Barbarians” of his age for neglecting refinement and inner growth. According to him, culture should balance the scientific spirit with moral and spiritual insight. Criticism, for Arnold, was therefore not only the evaluation of books but also a tool to civilize society.

Arnold as a Literary Critic: As a literary critic, Arnold gave poetry a supreme place. He believed that religion and philosophy were losing their authority in the modern world. Science, though powerful, could not answer questions of the spirit. Only poetry, if it contained truth and beauty, could give guidance and consolation. In his essay “The Study of Poetry” (1880), he argues that poetry should replace religion as the chief spiritual force. He says,

“Like religion, literature works primarily by emotion and experience, and so was admirably well-fitted to carry through the ideological task which religion left off.”

Thus, for Arnold, literature is not mere art or ornament but a serious expression of moral truth.

Standards of Judgment: Arnold insisted that poetry must be judged by strict standards. He rejected the historical estimate and the personal estimate. Instead, he proposed the real estimate, based on permanent