Special Suggestion wise Notes: Literary Criticism Exam 2020 National University

PRC Foundation

Website: www.literaturexpres.com

The best way of learning and gaining

suggestion

Literary Criticism

Exam 2020 held in 2021

Part: C

  1. Discuss touchstone method with reference to ‘The Study of Poetry’.
  2. Discuss Eagleton’s views on Romanticism.
  3. Discuss the two-fold implications of culture.
  4. How does Eliot refute Johnson’s remark about Metaphysical Poetry?
  5. Discuss Matthew Arnold as a critic.
  6. Discuss the term Dissociation of Sensibility.
  7. How does Said appreciate English Novel in his critical essay.
  8. Discuss the crisis of modern civilization with reference to The Rise of English.

Part: B

  1. Discuss the term poetry is the criticism of life.
  2. What are the characteristics of good poetry?
  3. Write a short note on Eagleton’s prose style.
  4. Why does Said write his book Culture and Imperialism?
  5. What are the similarities between modern poets and Metaphysical poets?
  6. What do you mean by consolidation of Imperialism?
  7. What do you mean by post colonialism?
  8. How does Eliot praise Donne’s ability to unify the intellectual thoughts and sensation of feeling?
  9. What do You know about Abraham Cowley?
  10. How is culture an instrument of imperialism?
  11. Differentiate between intellectual poet and reflective poet.
  12. Write a short note on Chaucer.
  13. Write a short on Neo-classicism.

Part-A

1. What is meant by “illusion”?

Ans: It means something which does not exist but creates a momentary impression.

2. How is poetry ‘the criticism of life’?

Ans: Poetry deals with the ideas of life that a reader finds when he reads a poem.

3. What does the term ‘poetic truth’ mean?

Ans: It means that the subject matter of poetry should correspond to truth.

4. Who is Homer?

Ans: First greatest epic poet of ancient Greece who wrote Iliad and Odyssey.

5. Who is ‘touchstone’?

Ans: It is a stone that is used to judge the purity of gold.

6. How does Chaucer present human life?

Ans: From the truly human point of view.

7. How is the structure of Herbert’s sentences?

Ans: Far from simple. It is fidelity to thought and feeling.

8. How was Marlowe as an Elizabethan dramatist?

Ans: He was of prodigious intelligence.

9. What does Eliot want to conclude about the ‘metaphysical poets?

Ans: The metaphysical poets are in the direct current of English poetry, and that their faults should be reprimanded by this standard.

10. In what sense is Conrad a precursor of the Western views of the Third World?

Ans: Because he tends to deliver the non-European world either for analysis and judgment or for satisfying the exotic tastes of the Western readers.

11. What is Said’s expectation about the American nation?

Ans: He expects that the United States will remain a coherent nation despite having cultural diversity.

12. What kind of writing is “The Study of Poetry”?

Ans: Critical Writing.

13. Define Charlatanism?

Ans: It is a show of knowledge where there is no true knowledge.

14. What is Chivalry?

Ans: Chivalry refers to the qualities of the knights in middle age like courage, honor, loyalty etc.

15. Who was Cowley?

Ans: the 17th-century metaphysical poets were highly appreciated by Dr. Johnson.

16. Who was T.S Eliot?

Ans: T.S Eliot was one of the greatest poets and critics of the 20th century.

17. How does Eliot brand Grierson’s metaphysical poetry?

Ans: Eliot brands it as a so-called school of poetry or a movement.

18. What does Orientalism mainly deal with?

Ans: Deals with the affairs of the Middle East.

19. What is diction?

Ans: It refers to the vocabulary used by a writer.

20. What is one of the main subjects of Said’s book “Culture and Imperialism”?

Ans: The historical experience in relation to culture and aesthetic forms.

21. What is high seriousness?

Ans: It means the serious treatment or grand style of the subject matter.

22. Who does Arnold regard as the ideal poets?

Ans: Homer, Virgil, Dante, Shakespeare, and Milton.

23. What is the dissociation of sensibility?

Ans: It is a literary term first used by T.S Eliot in his essay “Metaphysical Poets”. It indicates the way in which intellectual thought was separated from the experience of feeling in 17th-century poetry?

24. Who, according to Said, are the children of decolonization?

Ans: A new generation of scholars and critics.

25. Why does T.S Eliot praise the metaphysical poets?

Ans: Because the metaphysical poets have the tendency to be engaged in the task of trying to find the verbal equivalent for states of mind and feeling.

26. What is “Orientalism”?

Ans: It is a famous critical work of Edward Said, showing the attitude of the West towards the East.

27. What is the theme of “The Rise of English”?

Ans: It deals with the development of English literature from the 18th century onwards under British imperial rule.

28. What is the meaning of the word ‘neoclassical’?

Ans: It refers to the style of art and literature of 18th century England, based on the classical models of ancient Greece and Rome.

29. What are organic societies?

Ans: In Eagleton’s view, organic societies are just convenient myths for belaboring the mechanized life of modern industrial capitalism.

30. How does Arnold define poetry?

Ans: Poetry is the criticism of life under the conditions fixed for such a criticism by the laws of poetic truth and poetic beauty.

31. How do the colonizers deserve the right of ruling the colonized?

Ans: Because the colonized people are inferior to the colonizers.

32. What is ‘creative imagination’?

Ans: It is an image of non-alienated labor, the intuitive and spiritual essence of a poetic mind, according to Eagleton.

33. When did Said’s family leave Cairo?

Ans: In 1963

34. What is Matthew Arnold’s concept of culture?

Ans: The concept is that culture is refining and elevating elements, each society’s reservoir of the best.

35. Where is Conrad’s Nostromo set in?

Ans: In an independent Central American republic, rich in a silver mine.

36. What sort of view does Nastromo offer?

Ans: A profoundly unforgiving view.

37. When did America come out as an empire?

Ans: During the 19th and the second half of the 20th century.

38. Who is Matthew Arnold?

Ans: Most powerful English poet-critic.

39. Why does Arnold say, ‘for poetry the idea is everything’?

Ans: He means that poetry is based on ideas that are fundamental to humanity.

40. Which age does Arnold belong to?

Ans: Victorian age.

41. Who says, ‘poetry attaches its emotion to the idea that the idea is the fact’?

Ans: Matthew Arnold.

42. What is Arnold’s definition of a classic?

Ans: Classic means the works of literature or art of the first rank or authority of acknowledged excellence.

43. What is the touchstone method?

Ans: It is a method of comparison between the truly great poets of the past with the new poets in the qualities of their creations.

44. When does a poet achieve ‘high seriousness’ in his poetry?

Ans: When he treats a serious subject in a simple and intense manner.

45. What is Eliot’s brief comment on Grierson’s anthology?

Ans: He comments that it is a ‘piece of criticism and a provocation of criticism’.

46. In what sense is a poet better when he is more intelligent?

Ans: In the sense that when he is more intelligent, he will have more interests.

47. What is the connection between “Culture and Imperialism” and “Orientalism”?

Ans: A general worldwide pattern of imperial culture and a historical experience of resistance against empire form Culture and Imperialism and this makes it different from Orientalism.

48. Why is Donne more successful than Cowley?

Ans: For using brief words and sudden contrasts.

49. How does Edward Said associate ‘culture’ with ‘art’?

Ans: Said associates ‘culture’ with ‘art’ in the sense that it exists in aesthetic forms aiming at giving pleasure and it includes all the practices in the art of description, communication, and representation which are autonomous from economic social, and political fields.

50. When does culture become a source of identity?

Ans: When there is a difference between ‘us’ (the colonizers) and ‘them’ (the colonized), culture becomes a source of identity.

51. What was ‘Scrutiny’?

Ans: It was a quarterly periodical of literary criticism, founded in 1932 by L.C. Knights and F.R. Leavis.

52. What kind of writing is “The Study of Poetry”?

Ans: Critical Writing.

53. What is the role of poetry in human life?

Ans: It sustains and consoles human beings by interpreting life.

54. How does Eliot characterize Donne’s line ‘A bracelet of bright hair about the bone”?

Ans: He characterizes it as the telescoping of images and multiplied associations.

55. How is the language of the metaphysical poets?

Ans: Simple and pure.

56. How does Said admire Dante and Shakespeare?

Ans: They gave mankind ‘the best that was thought and known’, the realistic picture of life.

57. What kind of writing is “The Rise of English?

Ans: It is an essay which is the first chapter after introduction in Terry Eagleton’s famous book Literary Theory: An Introduction.

58. What is An Apology for Poetry?

Ans: It is a long essay of Sir Philip Sidney to defend the superiority of poetry.

59. What according to Eagleton should be the motive of literature?

Ans: Literature should convey timeless truths, thus distracting the masses from their immediate commitments.

60. What is the difference between idea and illusion?

Ans: Idea is a thought in the mind and exists, but illusion is something that does not exist.

61. What element of poetry is common for Donne and Cowley?

Ans: Both employ metaphysical devices.

62. What is A Defense of Poetry?

Ans: An essay of P.B. Shelley.

63. Name some of Arnold’s best poems.

Ans: The Scholar Gipsy, Dover Beach, Thyrsis, Rugby Chapel.

64. What has Arnold said about religion in “The Study of Poetry”?

Ans: The religious faith has crumbled and become subject to question and change.

65. How is the language of Herbert?

Ans: Simple and elegant.

66. How is poetry greater than history?

Ans: Poetry deals with universal and deeper human truths, is undoubtedly greater than history which deals with what happens in reality or dry facts of life.

67. What was worrying for the Victorian ruling class?

Ans: Loss of faith or failure of religion.

68. How does Eliot characterize the work of the 17th century?

Ans: As “more often named than reading, and more often read than profitably studied”.

69. Who, according to Eliot, is more profound and less sectarian than the other metaphysical poets?

Ans: Crashaw.

70. Who is Montaigne?

Ans: Famous French writer is known as the first essayist in world literature.

Part – B

  1. Question: Discuss the term “poetry is the criticism of life”.

Or, evaluate Arnold’s theory or definition of poetry.

Introduction: One of the most prestigious forms of writing is poetry. It is an art that is embedded in the soul and spirit of the people. The ‘first modern critic’ Matthew Arnold (1822-1888) shows high conception on poetry in his literary criticism “The Study of Poetry” which is his attempt to establish the standard of what poetry should be. He asserts that the best poetry is the “criticism of life by the laws of poetic truth and poetic beauty”.

āĻ­ā§‚āĻŽāĻŋāĻ•āĻž: āϞ⧇āĻ–āĻžāϰ āĻ…āĻ¨ā§āϝāϤāĻŽ āĻŽāĻ°ā§āϝāĻžāĻĻāĻžāĻĒā§‚āĻ°ā§āĻŖ āϰ⧂āĻĒ āĻš’āϞ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻžāĨ¤ āĻāϟāĻŋ āĻāĻŽāύ āĻāĻ•āϟāĻŋ āĻļāĻŋāĻ˛ā§āĻĒ āϝāĻž āĻŽāĻžāύ⧁āώ⧇āϰ āφāĻ¤ā§āĻŽāĻž āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻšā§‡āϤāύāĻžāϝāĻŧ āĻ…āĻ¨ā§āϤāĻ°ā§āϭ⧁āĻ•ā§āϤāĨ¤ ‘āĻĒā§āϰāĻĨāĻŽ āφāϧ⧁āύāĻŋāĻ• āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāĻ•â€™ āĻŽā§āϝāĻžāĻĨ⧁ āφāĻ°ā§āύāĻ˛ā§āĻĄ (1822-1888) āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻžāϰ āωāĻĒāϰ āωāĻšā§āϚ āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖāĻž āĻĻ⧇āĻ–āĻžāϝāĻŧ āϤāĻžāρāϰ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āϝ⧇āϰ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāύāĻž “āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āĻ…āĻ§ā§āϝāϝāĻŧāύ”āĻ āϝāĻž āϤāĻžāϰ āĻĒā§āϰāϝāĻŧāĻžāϏ āĻ¸ā§āĻŸā§āϝāĻžāĻ¨ā§āĻĄāĻžāĻ°ā§āĻĄ āĻĒā§āϰāϤāĻŋāĻˇā§āĻ āĻžāϰ āϜāĻ¨ā§āϝ āϝ⧇ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āϕ⧇āĻŽāύ āĻšāĻ“āϝāĻŧāĻž āωāϚāĻŋāϤ āĨ¤ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻŦāϞ⧇ āϝ⧇ āϏ⧇āϰāĻž āĻ•āĻžāĻŦā§āϝāĻ—ā§āϰāĻ¨ā§āĻĨ āĻš’āϞ “āĻ•āĻžāĻŦā§āϝāĻŋāĻ• āϏāĻ¤ā§āϝ āĻ“ āĻ•āĻžāĻŦā§āϝāĻŋāĻ• āϏ⧌āĻ¨ā§āĻĻāĻ°ā§āϝ⧇āϰ āĻŦāĻŋāϧāĻŋ āĻĻā§āĻŦāĻžāϰāĻž āĻœā§€āĻŦāύ⧇āϰ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāύāĻž”āĨ¤

The “Criticism of Life”: The phrase “Criticism of life” means proper interpretation of life. Poetry accurately explains life. Here we discover and analyze how poetry is the criticism of life.

“āĻœā§€āĻŦāύ⧇āϰ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāύāĻžâ€

“āĻœā§€āĻŦāύ⧇āϰ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāύāĻž” āĻļāĻŦā§āĻĻāϟāĻŋāϰ āĻ…āĻ°ā§āĻĨ āĻœā§€āĻŦāύ⧇āϰ āϝāĻĨāĻžāϝāĻĨ āĻŦā§āϝāĻžāĻ–ā§āϝāĻžāĨ¤ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āĻœā§€āĻŦāύāϕ⧇ āϏāĻ āĻŋāĻ•āĻ­āĻžāĻŦ⧇ āĻŦā§āϝāĻžāĻ–ā§āϝāĻž āĻ•āϰ⧇āĨ¤ āĻāĻ–āĻžāύ⧇ āφāĻŽāϰāĻž āφāĻŦāĻŋāĻˇā§āĻ•āĻžāϰ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļā§āϞ⧇āώāĻŖ āĻ•āϰāĻŦ āϝ⧇ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āϕ⧀āĻ­āĻžāĻŦ⧇ āĻœā§€āĻŦāύ⧇āϰ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāύāĻžāĨ¤

Integrity between poetry and human life: Arnold defines poetry as a critique of life. To put it differently, poetry must concern itself with life and the problems of life. It should not be remote in a way that does not directly connect to our lives.

āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻŽāĻžāύāĻŦ āĻœā§€āĻŦāύ⧇āϰ āĻŽāĻ§ā§āϝ⧇ āĻ…āĻ–āĻŖā§āĻĄāϤāĻž

āφāĻ°ā§āύāĻ˛ā§āĻĄ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻžāϕ⧇ āĻœā§€āĻŦāύ⧇āϰ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāύāĻž āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦ⧇ āϏāĻ‚āĻœā§āĻžāĻž āĻĻāĻŋāϝāĻŧ⧇āϛ⧇āύāĨ¤ āĻāϟāĻŋāϕ⧇ āĻ…āĻ¨ā§āϝāĻ­āĻžāĻŦ⧇ āĻŦāϞāϤ⧇ āϗ⧇āϞ⧇ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āĻ…āĻŦāĻļā§āϝāχ āĻœā§€āĻŦāύ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻœā§€āĻŦāύ⧇āϰ āϏāĻŽāĻ¸ā§āϝāĻžāϗ⧁āϞāĻŋāϰ āϏāĻžāĻĨ⧇ āύāĻŋāĻœā§‡āϕ⧇ āωāĻĻā§āĻŦ⧇āĻ—āĻŋāϤ āĻ•āϰ⧇āĨ¤ āĻāϟāĻŋ āĻāĻŽāύāĻ­āĻžāĻŦ⧇ āĻĻā§‚āϰāĻŦāĻ°ā§āϤ⧀ āĻšāĻ“āϝāĻŧāĻž āωāϚāĻŋāϤ āύāϝāĻŧ āϝāĻž āφāĻŽāĻžāĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻœā§€āĻŦāύ⧇āϰ āϏāĻžāĻĨ⧇ āϏāϰāĻžāϏāϰāĻŋ āϏāĻ‚āϝ⧋āĻ— āύāĻž āĻ•āϰ⧇āĨ¤

Source of ingredients of life: By the phrase “Criticism of Life” Arnold means to say that the readers can identify their faults and mistakes for the purpose of rectification by going through poems. They must apply the powerful ideas which they pick up through reading poetry.

āĻœā§€āĻŦāύ⧇āϰ āωāĻĒāĻžāĻĻāĻžāύāϗ⧁āϞāĻŋāϰ āωāĻ¤ā§āϏ

“āĻœā§€āĻŦāύ⧇āϰ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāύāĻž” āĻāχ āĻŦāĻžāĻ•ā§āϝāϟāĻŋāϰ āĻĻā§āĻŦāĻžāϰāĻž āφāĻ°ā§āύāĻ˛ā§āĻĄ āĻŦāϞāϤ⧇ āĻšā§‡āϝāĻŧ⧇āϛ⧇āύ āϝ⧇ āĻĒāĻžāĻ āĻ•āϰāĻž āϤāĻžāĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻ¤ā§āϰ⧁āϟāĻŋ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϭ⧁āϞāϗ⧁āϞāĻŋ āϏāύāĻžāĻ•ā§āϤ āĻ•āϰāϤ⧇ āĻĒāĻžāϰ⧇āύ āϏāĻ‚āĻļā§‹āϧāύ āĻ•āϰāĻžāϰ āωāĻĻā§āĻĻ⧇āĻļā§āϝ⧇ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āĻĒāĻĄāĻŧ⧇ āĨ¤ āϤāĻžāĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻ…āĻŦāĻļā§āϝāχ āĻļāĻ•ā§āϤāĻŋāĻļāĻžāϞ⧀ āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖāĻžāϗ⧁āϞāĻŋ āĻĒā§āϰāϝāĻŧā§‹āĻ— āĻ•āϰāϤ⧇ āĻšāĻŦ⧇ āϝāĻž āϤāĻžāϰāĻž āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āĻĒāĻĄāĻŧāĻžāϰ āĻŽāĻžāĻ§ā§āϝāĻŽā§‡ āĻ—ā§āϰāĻšāĻŖ āĻ•āϰ⧇āĨ¤

The ways of leading life: Arnold claims that poetry teaches us how to lead life since it is filled with moral ideas. By emphasizing the moral system, Arnold does not mean the composing of moral or didactic poems. Rather, according to Arnold, it is the question of how to live and whatever comes under it, that is moral. Arnold quotes Milton:

“Nor love thy life nor hate; but what thou liv’st

Live well; how long or short, permit to heaven”

Besides poetry gives shelter and consolation in crisis.

āĻœā§€āĻŦāύ āϝāĻžāĻĒāύ⧇āϰ āωāĻĒāĻžāϝāĻŧ

āφāĻ°ā§āύāĻ˛ā§āĻĄ āĻĻāĻžāĻŦāĻŋ āĻ•āϰ⧇āϛ⧇āύ āϝ⧇ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āφāĻŽāĻžāĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻļ⧇āĻ–āĻžāϝāĻŧ āϝ⧇ āϕ⧀āĻ­āĻžāĻŦ⧇ āĻœā§€āĻŦāύāϕ⧇ āĻĒāϰāĻŋāϚāĻžāϞāύāĻž āĻ•āϰāϤ⧇ āĻšāϝāĻŧ āϝ⧇āĻšā§‡āϤ⧁ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āύ⧈āϤāĻŋāĻ• āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖāĻž āĻĻāĻŋāϝāĻŧ⧇ āĻĒā§‚āĻ°ā§āĻŖāĨ¤ āύ⧈āϤāĻŋāĻ• āĻŦā§āϝāĻŦāĻ¸ā§āĻĨāĻžāϤ⧇ āĻœā§‹āϰ āĻĻāĻŋāϝāĻŧ⧇, āφāĻ°ā§āύāĻ˛ā§āĻĄ āĻļ⧁āϧ⧁ āύ⧈āϤāĻŋāĻ• āĻŦāĻž āĻ…āύ⧁āĻŽāĻžāύāĻŽā§‚āϞāĻ• āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āϰāϚāύāĻžāϕ⧇ āĻŦā§‹āĻāĻžāχāύāĻŋāĨ¤ āĻŦāϰāĻ‚ āφāĻ°ā§āύāĻ˛ā§āĻĄā§‡āϰ āĻŽāϤ⧇, āϕ⧀āĻ­āĻžāĻŦ⧇ āĻŦāĻžāρāϚāϤ⧇ āĻšāĻŦ⧇ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϝāĻž āĻ•āĻŋāϛ⧁ āĻāϰ āύ⧈āϤāĻŋāĻ• āφāĻ“āϤāĻžāϝāĻŧ āφāϏ⧇, āĻāϟāĻžāχ āĻĒā§āϰāĻļā§āύāĨ¤ āφāĻ°ā§āύāĻ˛ā§āĻĄ āĻŽāĻŋāĻ˛ā§āϟāύ⧇āϰ āωāĻĻā§āϧ⧃āϤāĻŋ āĻĻāĻŋāϝāĻŧ⧇āϛ⧇āύ:

“āϤ⧋āĻŽāĻžāĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻœā§€āĻŦāύāϕ⧇ āϖ⧁āĻŦ āĻ­āĻžāϞ⧋āĻŦ⧇āϏ⧋āύāĻž āύāĻž āĻŦāĻž āϘ⧃āĻŖāĻž āĻ•āϰ⧋ āύāĻž; āϤāĻŦ⧇ āĻĒāĻ›āĻ¨ā§āĻĻ āĻŽāϤ⧋ āĻ­āĻžāϞ⧋āĻ­āĻžāĻŦ⧇ āĻŦāĻžāρāĻšā§‹

āĻ­āĻžāϞ āĻĨāĻžāĻ•; āĻ¸ā§āĻŦāĻ°ā§āĻ—ā§€āϝāĻŧ āϏ⧁āϖ⧇āϰ āĻŽāϤ⧋ āĻ•āĻžāϰāĻŖ āĻœā§€āĻŦāύ āϏāĻ‚āĻ•ā§āώāĻŋāĻĒā§āϤ

Conclusion: To sum up, we can say that poetry is the criticism of life. It is the responsibility of the reviewer to examine both poetry and life at the same time. Arnold performs his duty as a father of modern criticism, although his theory of poetry has extended the hornet’s nest or numerous reactions.

  • Question: Discuss the characteristic features of good poetry.

Introduction: Matthew Arnold (1822-1888) is a prominent English poet and critic of the twentieth century. He has brought a revolution to the world of English literature with his critical essays, prose, and poetry. As poetry is a high-quality literary work that shows deep feelings with beauty and elegance, it should be written following a number of organized requirements.

āĻ­ā§‚āĻŽāĻŋāĻ•āĻž: āĻŽā§āϝāĻžāĻĨ⧁ āφāĻ°ā§āύāĻ˛ā§āĻĄ (1822-1888) āĻŦāĻŋāĻļ āĻļāϤāϕ⧇āϰ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļāĻŋāĻˇā§āϟ āχāĻ‚āϰ⧇āĻœā§€ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāĻ•āĨ¤ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āϤāĻžāρāϰ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāύāĻžāĻŽā§‚āϞāĻ• āĻĒā§āϰāĻŦāĻ¨ā§āϧ, āĻ—āĻĻā§āϝ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āĻĻāĻŋāϝāĻŧ⧇ āχāĻ‚āϰ⧇āϜāĻŋ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āϝ⧇āϰ āϜāĻ—āϤ⧇ āĻāĻ•āϟāĻŋ āĻŦāĻŋāĻĒā§āϞāĻŦ āύāĻŋāϝāĻŧ⧇ āĻāϏ⧇āϛ⧇āύāĨ¤ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āϝ⧇āĻšā§‡āϤ⧁ āĻāĻ•āϟāĻŋ āωāĻšā§āϚāĻŽāĻžāύ⧇āϰ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āϝāĻ•āĻ°ā§āĻŽ āϝāĻž āϏ⧌āĻ¨ā§āĻĻāĻ°ā§āϝ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻ•āĻŽāύ⧀āϝāĻŧāϤāĻžāϰ āϏāĻžāĻĨ⧇ āĻ—āĻ­ā§€āϰ āĻ…āύ⧁āĻ­ā§‚āϤāĻŋ āĻĒā§āϰāĻĻāĻ°ā§āĻļāύ āĻ•āϰ⧇, āĻāϟāĻŋ āĻŦ⧇āĻļ āĻ•āϝāĻŧ⧇āĻ•āϟāĻŋ āϏāĻ‚āĻ—āĻ āĻŋāϤ āĻĒā§āϰāϝāĻŧā§‹āϜāύ⧀āϝāĻŧāϤāĻžāϰ āĻ…āύ⧁āϏāϰāĻŖ āĻ•āϰ⧇ āϰāϚāύāĻž āĻ•āϰāĻž āωāϚāĻŋāϤāĨ¤

Features of good poetry: According to Arnold, high-quality poetry contains the following features.

The criticism of life: A poetry cannot be good without having the criticism of life since Matthew Arnold has declared the high position of poetry. The term “criticism of life” means the proper interpretation of life. Poetry accurately explains life. Arnold defines poetry as a critique of life. To put it differently, poetry must concern itself with life and the problems of life.

Poetic truth and poetic beauty: Poetic truth and poetic beauty are the souls of poetry. They are so vital that a poet cannot imagine his poetical success without them.

“But for supreme poetical success more is required than the powerful application of ideas to life;

it must be an application under the conditions fixed, by the laws of poetic beauty and poetic truth.”

By poetic truth, Arnold indicates the representation of life in a true way, and by poetic beauty, he refers to the manner and style of poetry. The subject matter of the best poem is characterized by truth, and seriously to a certain degree.

āĻ•āĻžāĻŦā§āϝāĻŋāĻ• āϏāĻ¤ā§āϝ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϏ⧌āĻ¨ā§āĻĻāĻ°ā§āϝ

āĻ•āĻžāĻŦā§āϝāĻŋāĻ• āϏāĻ¤ā§āϝ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻ•āĻžāĻŦā§āϝāĻŋāĻ• āϏ⧌āĻ¨ā§āĻĻāĻ°ā§āϝ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻžāϰ āĻĒā§āϰāĻžāĻŖāĨ¤ āĻāϗ⧁āϞāĻŋ āĻāϤāϟāĻžāχ āĻĒā§āϰāĻžāĻŖāĻŦāĻ¨ā§āϤ āϝ⧇ āĻāĻ•āϜāύ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋ āĻāϗ⧁āϞāĻŋ āĻ›āĻžāĻĄāĻŧāĻž āϤāĻžāρāϰ āĻ•āĻžāĻŦā§āϝāĻŋāĻ• āϏāĻžāĻĢāĻ˛ā§āϝ āĻ•āĻ˛ā§āĻĒāύāĻž āĻ•āϰāϤ⧇ āĻĒāĻžāϰ⧇ āύāĻžāĨ¤

“āϤāĻŦ⧇ āϏāĻ°ā§āĻŦā§‹āĻšā§āϚ āĻ•āĻžāĻŦā§āϝāĻŋāĻ• āϏāĻžāĻĢāĻ˛ā§āϝ⧇āϰ āϜāĻ¨ā§āϝ āĻœā§€āĻŦāύ⧇ āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖāĻžāϰ āĻļāĻ•ā§āϤāĻŋāĻļāĻžāϞ⧀ āĻĒā§āϰāϝāĻŧā§‹āϗ⧇āϰ āĻšā§‡āϝāĻŧ⧇ āφāϰāĻ“ āĻŦ⧇āĻļāĻŋ āĻĒā§āϰāϝāĻŧā§‹āϜāύ; āĻ•āĻžāĻŦā§āϝāĻŋāĻ• āϏ⧌āĻ¨ā§āĻĻāĻ°ā§āϝ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻ•āĻžāĻŦā§āϝāĻŋāĻ• āϏāĻ¤ā§āϝ⧇āϰ āφāχāύ āĻ…āύ⧁āϏāĻžāϰ⧇ āĻāϟāĻŋ āĻ…āĻŦāĻļā§āϝāχ āύāĻŋāĻ°ā§āϧāĻžāϰāĻŋāϤ āĻļāĻ°ā§āϤ⧇āϰ āĻ…āϧ⧀āύ⧇ āĻāĻ•āϟāĻŋ āĻ…ā§āϝāĻžāĻĒā§āϞāĻŋāϕ⧇āĻļāύ āĻšāϤ⧇ āĻšāĻŦā§‡â€

āĻ•āĻžāĻŦā§āϝāĻŋāĻ• āϏāĻ¤ā§āϝ āĻĻā§āĻŦāĻžāϰāĻž, āφāĻ°ā§āύāĻ˛ā§āĻĄ āϏāĻ¤ā§āϝ āωāĻĒāĻžāϝāĻŧ⧇ āĻœā§€āĻŦāύ⧇āϰ āωāĻĒāĻ¸ā§āĻĨāĻžāĻĒāύāĻž āύāĻŋāĻ°ā§āĻĻ⧇āĻļ āĻ•āϰ⧇, āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻ•āĻžāĻŦā§āϝāĻŋāĻ• āϏ⧌āĻ¨ā§āĻĻāĻ°ā§āϝ⧇ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻžāϰ āĻ¸ā§āϟāĻžāχāϞāϕ⧇ āĻŦā§‹āĻāĻžāύāĨ¤ āϏ⧇āϰāĻž āĻ•āĻžāĻŦā§āϝāĻ—ā§āϰāĻ¨ā§āĻĨ⧇āϰ āĻŦāĻŋāώāϝāĻŧ āϏāĻ¤ā§āϝ āĻĻā§āĻŦāĻžāϰāĻž āϚāĻŋāĻšā§āύāĻŋāϤ āĻ•āϰāĻž āĻšāϝāĻŧ⧇āϛ⧇, āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϗ⧁āϰ⧁āĻ¤ā§āĻŦ āϏāĻšāĻ•āĻžāϰ⧇ āĻāĻ•āϟāĻŋ āύāĻŋāĻ°ā§āĻĻāĻŋāĻˇā§āϟ āĻĄāĻŋāĻ—ā§āϰāĻŋ āĻĒāĻ°ā§āϝāĻ¨ā§āϤāĨ¤

High seriousness: The laws of the poetic truth and poetic beauty insist on the condition of “high seriousness” in poetry. This is the quality that gives poetry its power and strength. It comes from absolute sincerity that the poet feels for his subject. A poet’s sincerity consists in his speaking because when the readers can feel the sincerity of the poet about his subject matter, it is sure that he speaks from his very inmost soul. The quality of high seriousness is found in the poetry of Dante, Homer, and Milton. It is the power of sincerity that gives poets the power to interpret life properly.

āωāĻšā§āϚ āĻ—āĻŽā§āĻ­ā§€āϰāϤāĻž

āĻ•āĻžāĻŦā§āϝāĻŋāĻ• āϏāĻ¤ā§āϝ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻ•āĻžāĻŦā§āϝāĻŋāĻ• āϏ⧌āĻ¨ā§āĻĻāĻ°ā§āϝ⧇āϰ āφāχāύāϗ⧁āϞāĻŋ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻžāϝāĻŧ “āωāĻšā§āϚ āĻ—āĻŽā§āĻ­ā§€āϰāϤāĻžāϰ” āĻ…āĻŦāĻ¸ā§āĻĨāĻžāϰ āωāĻĒāϰ āĻœā§‹āϰ āĻĻ⧇āϝāĻŧāĨ¤ āĻāϟāĻŋ āϏ⧇āχ āϗ⧁āĻŖ āϝāĻž āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻžāϕ⧇ āϤāĻžāϰ āĻļāĻ•ā§āϤāĻŋ āĻĻ⧇āϝāĻŧāĨ¤ āĻāϟāĻŋ āĻĒāϰāĻŽ āφāĻ¨ā§āϤāϰāĻŋāĻ•āϤāĻž āĻĨ⧇āϕ⧇ āφāϏ⧇ āϝāĻž āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋ āϤāĻžāϰ āĻŦāĻŋāώāϝāĻŧāϟāĻŋāϰ āϜāĻ¨ā§āϝ āĻ…āύ⧁āĻ­āĻŦ āĻ•āϰ⧇āύāĨ¤ āĻāĻ•āϜāύ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϰ āφāĻ¨ā§āϤāϰāĻŋāĻ•āϤāĻž āϤāĻžāϰ āĻŦāĻ•ā§āϤ⧃āϤāĻžāϝāĻŧ āĻ…āĻ¨ā§āϤāĻ°ā§āϭ⧁āĻ•ā§āϤ āĻ•āĻžāϰāĻŖ āĻĒāĻžāĻ āĻ•āϰāĻž āϝāĻ–āύ āϤāĻžāρāϰ āĻŦāĻŋāώāϝāĻŧ āϏāĻŽā§āĻĒāĻ°ā§āϕ⧇ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϰ āφāĻ¨ā§āϤāϰāĻŋāĻ•āϤāĻž āĻ…āύ⧁āĻ­āĻŦ āĻ•āϰāϤ⧇ āĻĒāĻžāϰ⧇āύ, āĻāϟāĻž āύāĻŋāĻļā§āϚāĻŋāϤ āϝ⧇ āϏ⧇ āϤāĻžāϰ āĻ…āĻ¨ā§āϤāϰ āĻĨ⧇āϕ⧇ āĻ•āĻĨāĻž āĻŦāϞ⧇āĨ¤ āĻĻāĻžāĻ¨ā§āϤ⧇, āĻšā§‹āĻŽāĻžāϰ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻŽāĻŋāĻ˛ā§āϟāύ⧇āϰ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻžāϝāĻŧ āωāĻšā§āϚ āĻ—āĻŽā§āĻ­ā§€āϰāϤāĻžāϰ āϗ⧁āĻŖāϟāĻŋ āĻĒāĻžāĻ“āϝāĻŧāĻž āϝāĻžāϝāĻŧāĨ¤ āĻāϟāĻŋ āφāĻ¨ā§āϤāϰāĻŋāĻ•āϤāĻžāϰ āĻļāĻ•ā§āϤāĻŋ āϝāĻž āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻœā§€āĻŦāύāϕ⧇ āϏāĻ āĻŋāĻ•āĻ­āĻžāĻŦ⧇ āĻŦā§āϝāĻžāĻ–ā§āϝāĻž āĻ•āϰāĻžāϰ āĻļāĻ•ā§āϤāĻŋ āĻĻ⧇āϝāĻŧāĨ¤

Conclusion: To sum up, we can say that truth, high seriousness, a powerful application of ideas to life, absolute sincerity, excellence of diction, and movement in the matter of style are the essential requirements of great poetry. And we also understand that Matthew Arnold had a broad idea about criticism and poetry.

Introduction: The style is not mere decoration. It is rather a way of searching and explaining the truth. Its purpose is not to impress, but to express. Since Terry Eagleton is the most renowned critic of modern English literature, his critical writing has a number of prominent features.

āĻ­ā§‚āĻŽāĻŋāĻ•āĻž: āĻļ⧈āϞ⧀ āύāĻŋāĻ›āĻ• āϏāĻžāϜāϏāĻœā§āϜāĻž āύāϝāĻŧāĨ¤ āĻāϟāĻŋ āĻŦāϰāĻ‚ āϏāĻ¤ā§āϝ āĻ…āύ⧁āϏāĻ¨ā§āϧāĻžāύ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻŦā§āϝāĻžāĻ–ā§āϝāĻž āĻ•āϰāĻžāϰ āĻāĻ•āϟāĻŋ āωāĻĒāĻžāϝāĻŧāĨ¤ āĻāϰ āωāĻĻā§āĻĻ⧇āĻļā§āϝ āĻĒā§āϰāĻ­āĻžāĻŦāĻŋāϤ āĻ•āϰāĻž āύāϝāĻŧ, āĻŦāϰāĻ‚ āĻĒā§āϰāĻ•āĻžāĻļ āĻ•āϰāĻžāĨ¤ āĻŸā§‡āϰāĻŋ āχāĻ—āĻ˛ā§āϟāύ āϝ⧇āĻšā§‡āϤ⧁ āφāϧ⧁āύāĻŋāĻ• āχāĻ‚āϰ⧇āϜāĻŋ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āϝ⧇āϰ āϏāĻ°ā§āĻŦāĻžāϧāĻŋāĻ• āĻ–ā§āϝāĻžāϤāĻŋāĻŽāĻžāύ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāĻ•, āϤāĻžāχ āϤāĻžāρāϰ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāύāĻž āϞ⧇āĻ–āĻžāϰ āĻŦ⧇āĻļ āĻ•āϝāĻŧ⧇āĻ•āϟāĻŋ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļāĻŋāĻˇā§āϟ āĻŦ⧈āĻļāĻŋāĻˇā§āĻŸā§āϝ āϰāϝāĻŧ⧇āϛ⧇āĨ¤

Dialectical style: One of the key features of Eagleton’s critical prose is the brilliant inverse logical style. He intelligently considers social and cultural conflicts and raises the opposing arguments so strongly in the conflict that they burst and suddenly some unexpected insight or vision is revealed.

āĻĻā§āĻŦāĻžāĻ¨ā§āĻĻā§āĻŦāĻŋāĻ• āĻ¸ā§āϟāĻžāχāϞ: āχāĻ—āĻ˛ā§āϟāύ⧇āϰ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāύāĻžāĻŽā§‚āϞāĻ• āĻ—āĻĻā§āϝ⧇āϰ āĻ…āĻ¨ā§āϝāϤāĻŽ āĻŦ⧈āĻļāĻŋāĻˇā§āĻŸā§āϝ āĻš’āϞ āωāĻœā§āĻœā§āĻŦāϞ āĻŦāĻŋāĻĒāϰ⧀āϤ āϞāϜāĻŋāĻ•ā§āϝāĻžāϞ āĻ¸ā§āϟāĻžāχāϞāĨ¤ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻŦ⧁āĻĻā§āϧāĻŋāĻŽāĻžāύāĻ­āĻžāĻŦ⧇ āϏāĻžāĻŽāĻžāϜāĻŋāĻ• āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϏāĻžāĻ‚āĻ¸ā§āĻ•ā§ƒāϤāĻŋāĻ• āĻĻā§āĻŦāĻ¨ā§āĻĻā§āĻŦāϕ⧇ āĻŦāĻŋāĻŦ⧇āϚāύāĻž āĻ•āϰ⧇āύ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻŦāĻŋāϰ⧋āϧ⧇āϰ āĻĒāĻ•ā§āώ⧇ āϝ⧁āĻ•ā§āϤāĻŋ āĻāϤāϟāĻž āĻĻ⧃āĻĄāĻŧ āϤāĻžāϰ āϏāĻžāĻĨ⧇ āωāĻ¤ā§āĻĨāĻžāĻĒāύ āĻ•āϰ⧇āύ āϝ⧇ āϤāĻžāϰāĻž āφāĻŦāĻŋāĻ°ā§āĻ­āĻžāĻŦ āĻšāϝāĻŧ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻšāĻ āĻžā§Ž āĻ•āϰ⧇ āĻ•āĻŋāϛ⧁ āĻ…āĻĒā§āϰāĻ¤ā§āϝāĻžāĻļāĻŋāϤ āĻ…āĻ¨ā§āϤāĻ°ā§āĻĻ⧃āĻˇā§āϟāĻŋ āĻŦāĻž āĻĻ⧃āĻˇā§āϟāĻŋāĻ­āĻ™ā§āĻ—āĻŋ āĻĒā§āϰāĻ•āĻžāĻļ āĻĒāĻžāϝāĻŧāĨ¤

Lightening opacity: Absolute ambiguity is one of the most permanent and attractive qualities in Terry Eagleton’s writings. It has helped him to be one of the most colorful and controversial figures in cultural politics today. So, Eagleton’s style is unclear due to the riddle of the question. But whenever questions are solved, his idea shines. His “The Rise of English” is the paradigm of sheer audacity.

āφāϞ⧋āĻ•āĻŋāϤ āĻ…āĻ¸ā§āĻŦāĻšā§āĻ›āϤāĻž

āϏāĻŽā§āĻĒā§‚āĻ°ā§āĻŖ āĻ…āĻ¸ā§āĻĒāĻˇā§āϟāϤāĻž āĻŸā§‡āϰāĻŋ āχāĻ—āĻ˛ā§āϟāύ⧇āϰ āϞ⧇āĻ–āĻžāϗ⧁āϞāĻŋāϰ āĻŽāĻ§ā§āϝ⧇ āĻ…āĻ¨ā§āϝāϤāĻŽ āĻ¸ā§āĻĨāĻžāϝāĻŧā§€ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āφāĻ•āĻ°ā§āώāĻŖā§€āϝāĻŧ āϗ⧁āĻŖāĨ¤ āĻāϟāĻŋ āϤāĻžāϕ⧇ āϏāĻžāĻ‚āĻ¸ā§āĻ•ā§ƒāϤāĻŋāĻ• āϰāĻžāϜāύ⧀āϤāĻŋāϰ āĻ…āĻ¨ā§āϝāϤāĻŽ āĻŦāĻ°ā§āĻŖāĻŽāϝāĻŧ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻ°ā§āĻ•āĻŋāϤ āĻŦā§āϝāĻ•ā§āϤāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āĻŦ āĻšāϤ⧇ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻžāĻ¯ā§āϝ āĻ•āϰ⧇āϛ⧇āĨ¤ āϏ⧁āϤāϰāĻžāĻ‚, āĻĒā§āϰāĻļā§āύ⧇āϰ āϧāĻžāρāϧāĻžāϰ āĻ•āĻžāϰāϪ⧇ āχāĻ—āĻ˛ā§āϟāύ⧇āϰ āĻ¸ā§āϟāĻžāχāϞ āĻ…āĻ¸ā§āĻĒāĻˇā§āϟāĨ¤ āĻ•āĻŋāĻ¨ā§āϤ⧁ āϝāĻ–āύāχ āĻĒā§āϰāĻļā§āύāϗ⧁āϞāĻŋāϰ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϧāĻžāύ āĻšāϝāĻŧ⧇ āϝāĻžāϝāĻŧ , āϤāĻžāϰ āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖāĻžāϟāĻŋ āĻœā§āĻŦāϞāĻœā§āĻŦāϞ āĻ•āϰ⧇āĨ¤ āϤāĻžāρāϰ “āϰāĻžāχāϏ āĻ…āĻĢ āχāĻ‚āϞāĻŋāĻļ” āύāĻŋāĻ›āĻ• āϚāϰāĻŽ āĻ…āĻ¸ā§āĻĒāĻˇā§āϟāϤāĻžāϰ āĻĻ⧃āĻˇā§āϟāĻžāĻ¨ā§āϤāĨ¤

Historical references: Eagleton is an outspoken critic his generation. His best-selling publication “Literary Theory: An Introduction” published in 1983 reflects the breadth of his theory of knowledge. In this book the second chapter entitled “The Rise of English” contains many historical references of literature.

āϐāϤāĻŋāĻšāĻžāϏāĻŋāĻ• āϤāĻĨā§āϝāϏ⧂āĻ¤ā§āϰ: āχāĻ—āϞāϟāύ āϤāĻžāρāϰ āĻĒā§āϰāϜāĻ¨ā§āĻŽā§‡āϰ āĻāĻ•āϟāĻŋ āĻ¸ā§āĻĒāĻˇā§āϟāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§€ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāĻ•āĨ¤ 1983 āϏāĻžāϞ⧇ āĻĒā§āϰāĻ•āĻžāĻļāĻŋāϤ āϤāĻžāρāϰ āϏāĻ°ā§āĻŦāĻžāϧāĻŋāĻ• āĻŦāĻŋāĻ•ā§āϰāĻŋāϤ āĻŦāχ “āϞāĻŋāϟāĻžāϰāĻžāϰāĻŋ  āĻĨāĻŋāĻ“āϰāĻŋ : āĻāύ  āχāĻ¨ā§āĻŸā§āϰ⧋āĻĄāĻžāĻ•āĻļāύ ” āϤāĻžāρāϰ āĻœā§āĻžāĻžāύ⧇āϰ āϤāĻ¤ā§āĻ¤ā§āĻŦ⧇āϰ āĻĒā§āϰāĻļāĻ¸ā§āϤāϤāĻž āĻĒā§āϰāϤāĻŋāĻĢāϞāĻŋāϤ āĻ•āϰ⧇āĨ¤ āĻāχ āĻŦāχāϤ⧇ “āϰāĻžāχāϏ āĻ…āĻĢ āχāĻ‚āϞāĻŋāĻļ”  āĻĻā§āĻŦāĻŋāϤ⧀āϝāĻŧ āĻ…āĻ§ā§āϝāĻžāϝāĻŧ⧇āϰ āĻ…āĻ¨ā§āϤāĻ°ā§āϭ⧁āĻ•ā§āϤ  āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āϝ⧇āϰ āĻ…āύ⧇āĻ• āϐāϤāĻŋāĻšāĻžāϏāĻŋāĻ• āϰ⧇āĻĢāĻžāϰ⧇āĻ¨ā§āϏ āϰāϝāĻŧ⧇āϛ⧇āĨ¤

Humor: Most of the reversal comments in “The Rise of English” are humorous. In this work, Eagleton offers scathing assessments of various currents of criticism. While discussing the concept of value-judgement, he notes:

 â€œNobody would bother to say that a bus ticket was an example of inferior literature, but someone might well say that the poetry of Ernest Dowson was”.

āĻ•ā§ŒāϤ⧁āĻ•āϰāϏāĻŦā§‹āϧ: “āĻĻā§āϝ āϰāĻžāχāϜ āĻ…āĻŦ āχāĻ‚āϞāĻŋāĻļ” -āϰ āĻŦ⧇āĻļāĻŋāϰāĻ­āĻžāĻ— āĻŦāĻŋāĻĒāϰ⧀āϤ āĻŽāĻ¨ā§āϤāĻŦā§āϝ āĻšāĻžāĻ¸ā§āϝāĻ•āϰāĨ¤ āĻāχ āϰāϚāύāĻžāϝāĻŧ, āχāĻ—āϞāϟāύ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāύāĻžāϰ āĻŦāĻŋāĻ­āĻŋāĻ¨ā§āύ āĻ¸ā§āϰ⧋āϤ⧇āϰ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļāĻĻ āĻŽā§‚āĻ˛ā§āϝāĻžāϝāĻŧāύ āĻĒā§āϰāĻĻāĻžāύ āĻ•āϰ⧇, āĻŽā§‚āĻ˛ā§āϝ-āϰāĻžāϝāĻŧ āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖāĻžāϟāĻŋ āύāĻŋāϝāĻŧ⧇ āφāϞ⧋āϚāύāĻžāϰ āϏāĻŽāϝāĻŧ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻŽāĻ¨ā§āϤāĻŦā§āϝ āĻ•āϰ⧇:

“āϕ⧇āωāχ āĻāϟāĻž āĻŦāϞāĻžāϰ āĻŽāĻžāĻĨāĻž āϘāĻžāĻŽāĻžāϝāĻŧ āύāĻž āϝ⧇ āĻŦāĻžāϏ⧇āϰ āϟāĻŋāĻ•āĻŋāϟ āύāĻŋāĻ•ā§ƒāĻˇā§āϟ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āϝ⧇āϰ āωāĻĻāĻžāĻšāϰāĻŖ, āϤāĻŦ⧇ āϕ⧇āω āĻšāϝāĻŧāϤ⧋ āĻŦāϞāϤ⧇ āĻĒāĻžāϰ⧇āύ āϝ⧇ āφāĻ°ā§āύ⧇āĻ¸ā§āϟ āĻĄāĻ“āϏāύ⧇āϰ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āύāĻŋāĻ•ā§ƒāĻˇā§āϟ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āϝ⧇ āĻ›āĻŋāϞ”āĨ¤

The satirical reversal in argument: Another technique often employed by Eagleton is the Swift-like satirical reversal in the argument.

āϝ⧁āĻ•ā§āϤāĻŋāϤ⧇ āĻŦā§āϝāĻ™ā§āĻ—āĻžāĻ¤ā§āĻŽāĻ• āĻŦāĻŋāĻĒāϰ⧀āϤ: āχāĻ—āĻ˛ā§āϟāύ⧇āϰ āĻŽāĻžāĻā§‡āĻŽāĻ§ā§āϝ⧇ āύāĻŋāϝ⧁āĻ•ā§āϤ āφāϰ⧇āĻ•āϟāĻŋ āĻ•ā§ŒāĻļāϞ āĻš’āϞ āϝ⧁āĻ•ā§āϤāĻŋ  āϏ⧁āχāĻĢāĻŸā§‡āϰ āĻŽāϤ⧋ āϝ⧁āĻ•ā§āϤāĻŋāϤ⧇ āĻŦā§āϝāĻ™ā§āĻ—āĻžāĻ¤ā§āĻŽāĻ• āĻŦāĻŋāĻĒāϰ⧀āϤ āĻŦāĻž āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āϏ⧁āχāĻĢāĻŸā§‡āϰ āĻŽāϤ⧋ āĻŦāĻŋāĻĻā§āϰ⧂āĻĒāĻ•āĻžāϰ⧀ āĨ¤

Tiresome extent: Pointless is not the staple of Eagleton’s prose. In fact, his style is clearer than most of the formal methods. But long stretches of text can be tiring. In spite of the tedious limitations, there is something different in his prose that can regenerate the text and the readers separately independent, it means that his criticism works like a catalyst.

āĻ•ā§āϞāĻžāĻ¨ā§āϤāĻŋāĻ•āϰ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļāĻĻ

āĻ…āĻ°ā§āĻĨāĻšā§€āύ āĻš’āϞ āχāĻ—āĻ˛ā§āϟāύ⧇āϰ āĻ—āĻĻā§āϝ⧇āϰ āĻŽā§‚āϞ āύāϝāĻŧāĨ¤ āφāϏāϞ⧇, āϤāĻžāρāϰ āϰ⧀āϤāĻŋāϟāĻŋ āĻŦ⧇āĻļāĻŋāϰāĻ­āĻžāĻ— āφāύ⧁āĻˇā§āĻ āĻžāύāĻŋāĻ• āĻĒāĻĻā§āϧāϤāĻŋāϰ āĻšā§‡āϝāĻŧ⧇ āĻĒāϰāĻŋāĻˇā§āĻ•āĻžāϰāĨ¤ āϤāĻŦ⧇ āĻĒāĻžāĻ ā§āϝ⧇āϰ āĻĻā§€āĻ°ā§āϘ āĻĒā§āϰāϏāĻžāϰ āĻ•ā§āϞāĻžāĻ¨ā§āϤāĻŋāĻ•āϰ āĻšāϤ⧇ āĻĒāĻžāϰ⧇āĨ¤ āĻ•ā§āϞāĻžāĻ¨ā§āϤāĻŋāĻ•āϰ āϏ⧀āĻŽāĻžāĻŦāĻĻā§āϧāϤāĻž āĻĨāĻžāĻ•āĻž āϏāĻ¤ā§āĻ¤ā§āĻŦ⧇āĻ“, āϤāĻžāρāϰ āĻ—āĻĻā§āϝ⧇āϰ āĻŽāĻ§ā§āϝ⧇ āφāϞāĻžāĻĻāĻž āĻ•āĻŋāϛ⧁ āϰāϝāĻŧ⧇āϛ⧇ āϝāĻž āĻĒāĻžāĻ ā§āϝ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻĒāĻžāĻ āĻ•āĻĻ⧇āϰ āφāϞāĻžāĻĻāĻžāĻ­āĻžāĻŦ⧇ āĻ¸ā§āĻŦāĻžāϧ⧀āύ āĻ•āϰāϤ⧇ āĻĒāĻžāϰ⧇ āĻ…āĻ°ā§āĻĨāĻžā§Ž āϤāĻžāϰ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāύāĻž āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āϝ āĻ•ā§āϝāĻžāϟāĻžāϞāĻŋāĻ¸ā§āϟ āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦ⧇ āĻ•āĻžāϜ āĻ•āϰ⧇ āĨ¤

Conclusion: Thus, writing in a style is accessible. Eagleton has specifically argued in the field of literary theory. His rhetorical skills are perhaps unequalled by contemporary critics. These are something that many critical theorists could benefit from studying.

āωāĻĒāϏāĻ‚āĻšāĻžāϰ: āĻāχāĻ­āĻžāĻŦ⧇, āĻāĻ•āϟāĻŋ āĻ¸ā§āϟāĻžāχāϞ⧇ āϞ⧇āĻ–āĻž āĻĒā§āϰāĻŦ⧇āĻļāϝ⧋āĻ—ā§āϝāĨ¤ āχāĻ—āϞāϟāύ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āϝ āϤāĻ¤ā§āĻ¤ā§āĻŦ⧇āϰ āĻ•ā§āώ⧇āĻ¤ā§āϰ⧇ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļ⧇āώāĻ­āĻžāĻŦ⧇ āϝ⧁āĻ•ā§āϤāĻŋ āĻĻ⧇āĻ–āĻŋāϝāĻŧ⧇āϛ⧇āύāĨ¤ āϤāĻžāρāϰ āĻ…āϞāĻ™ā§āĻ•ā§ƒāϤ āĻĻāĻ•ā§āώāϤāĻž āϏāĻŽā§āĻ­āĻŦāϤ āϏāĻŽāĻ•āĻžāϞ⧀āύ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāĻ•āĻĻ⧇āϰ āϚāĻžāχāϤ⧇ āĻ…āύ⧇āĻ• āĻŦ⧇āĻļāĻŋ āĻ‰ā§ŽāĻ•ā§ƒāĻˇā§āϟāĨ¤ āĻāϗ⧁āϞāĻŋ āĻāĻŽāύ āĻ•āĻŋāϛ⧁ āϝāĻž āĻ…āύ⧇āĻ• āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāĻ• āϤāĻžāĻ¤ā§āĻ¤ā§āĻŦāĻŋāĻ•āϰāĻž āĻ…āĻ§ā§āϝāϝāĻŧāύ āĻ•āϰ⧇ āωāĻĒāĻ•ā§ƒāϤ āĻšāϤ⧇ āĻĒāĻžāϰ⧇āĨ¤

Or, what are the reasons for which Said has written “Culture and Imperialism”?

Introduction: “Culture and Imperialism” published in 1993 is a collection of essays by Edward Said (1935-2003). This was followed by his highly influential “Orientalism”, published in 1978. In his series of essays, the author attempts to identify the connection between imperialism and culture in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries. In the “Introduction”, Mr. Said himself describes the reasons and resources for which he is going to write his internationally acclaimed book.

āĻ­ā§‚āĻŽāĻŋāĻ•āĻž: ā§§ā§¯ā§¯ā§Š āϏāĻžāϞ⧇ āĻĒā§āϰāĻ•āĻžāĻļāĻŋāϤ “āϏāĻ‚āĻ¸ā§āĻ•ā§ƒāϤāĻŋ āĻ“ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻœā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻ” āĻ…ā§āϝāĻžāĻĄāĻ“āϝāĻŧāĻžāĻ°ā§āĻĄ āϏāĻžāχāĻĻ (ā§§ā§¯ā§Šā§Ģ-⧍ā§Ļā§Ļā§Š) āϰāϚāύāĻž āϏāĻ‚āĻ•āϞāύāĨ¤ āĻāϟāĻŋ āϤāĻžāϰ āĻ…āĻ¤ā§āϝāĻ¨ā§āϤ āĻĒā§āϰāĻ­āĻžāĻŦāĻļāĻžāϞ⧀ “āĻĒā§āϰāĻžāĻšā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻ” āĻĻā§āĻŦāĻžāϰāĻž āĻ…āύ⧁āϏāϰāĻŖ āĻ•āϰāĻž āĻšāϝāĻŧ⧇āĻ›āĻŋāϞ, 1978 āϏāĻžāϞ⧇ āĻĒā§āϰāĻ•āĻžāĻļāĻŋāϤāĨ¤ āϤāĻžāρāϰ āϰāϚāύāĻžāĻŽā§‚āϞāĻ• āϏāĻŋāϰāĻŋāĻœā§‡ āϞ⧇āĻ–āĻ• 18 āϤāĻŽ, 19 āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ 20 āĻļāϤāϕ⧇ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻœā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϏāĻ‚āĻ¸ā§āĻ•ā§ƒāϤāĻŋāϰ āĻŽāĻ§ā§āϝ⧇ āϏāĻ‚āϝ⧋āĻ— āϏāύāĻžāĻ•ā§āϤ āĻ•āϰāĻžāϰ āĻšā§‡āĻˇā§āϟāĻž āĻ•āϰ⧇āϛ⧇āύāĨ¤ “āĻ­ā§‚āĻŽāĻŋāĻ•āĻž” āϤ⧇, āĻŽāĻŋāσ āϏāĻžāχāĻĻ āύāĻŋāĻœā§‡āχ āϝ⧇ āĻ•āĻžāϰāĻŖāϗ⧁āϞāĻŋ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϏāĻ‚āĻ¸ā§āĻĨāĻžāύāϗ⧁āϞāĻŋāϰ āϜāĻ¨ā§āϝ āϤāĻžāρāϰ āφāĻ¨ā§āϤāĻ°ā§āϜāĻžāϤāĻŋāĻ•āĻ­āĻžāĻŦ⧇ āĻĒā§āϰāĻļāĻ‚āϏāĻŋāϤ āĻŦāχāϟāĻŋ āϞāĻŋāĻ–āϤ⧇ āϚāϞ⧇āϛ⧇āύ āϤāĻž āĻŦāĻ°ā§āĻŖāύāĻž āĻ•āϰ⧇āϛ⧇āύāĨ¤

Limitation of “Orientalism”: In his internationally acclaimed book Orientalism, Edward Said suggests that a general essay on the relationship between culture and empire has not yet been written. He composes “Culture and Imperialism” as an attempt to expand the “logics” of orientalism in order to describe a more general pattern of relationship between the western imperialists and their overseas territories.

āĻĒā§āϰāĻžāĻšā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻāĻāϰ āϏ⧀āĻŽāĻžāĻŦāĻĻā§āϧāϤāĻž: āϤāĻžāρāϰ āφāĻ¨ā§āϤāĻ°ā§āϜāĻžāϤāĻŋāĻ•āĻ­āĻžāĻŦ⧇ āĻĒā§āϰāĻļāĻ‚āϏāĻŋāϤ āĻŦāχ āĻ“āϰāĻŋāϝāĻŧ⧇āĻ¨ā§āϟāĻžāϞāĻŋāϜāĻŽā§‡, āĻāĻĄāĻ“āϝāĻŧāĻžāĻ°ā§āĻĄ āϏāĻžāχāĻĻ āχāĻ™ā§āĻ—āĻŋāϤ āĻĻ⧇āϝāĻŧ āϝ⧇ āϏāĻ‚āĻ¸ā§āĻ•ā§ƒāϤāĻŋ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻœā§āϝ⧇āϰ āĻŽāĻ§ā§āϝ⧇ āϏāĻŽā§āĻĒāĻ°ā§āϕ⧇āϰ āωāĻĒāϰ āĻāĻ•āϟāĻŋ āϏāĻžāϧāĻžāϰāĻŖ āϰāϚāύāĻž āĻāĻ–āύāĻ“ āϰāϚāύāĻž āĻ•āϰāĻž āĻšāϝāĻŧāύāĻŋāĨ¤ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ “āϏāĻ‚āĻ¸ā§āĻ•ā§ƒāϤāĻŋ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻœā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻ” āϰāϚāύāĻž āĻ•āϰ⧇āϛ⧇āύ āĻĒā§āϰāĻžāĻšā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻ⧇āϰ “āϞāϜāĻŋāĻ•āϏ” āĻĒā§āϰāϏāĻžāϰāĻŋāϤ āĻ•āϰāĻžāϰ āĻĒā§āϰāϝāĻŧāĻžāϏ āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦ⧇ āϏāĻŽā§āĻĒāĻ°ā§āϕ⧇āϰ āφāϰāĻ“ āϏāĻžāϧāĻžāϰāĻŖ āĻĒā§āϝāĻžāϟāĻžāĻ°ā§āύ āĻŦāĻ°ā§āĻŖāύāĻž āĻ•āϰāĻžāϰ āϜāĻ¨ā§āϝ āĻĒāĻļā§āϚāĻŋāĻŽāĻž āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻœā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§€āĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϤāĻžāĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻŦāĻŋāĻĻ⧇āĻļ⧇āϰ āĻ…āĻžā§āϚāϞāϗ⧁āϞāĻŋāϰ āĻŽāĻ§ā§āϝ⧇āĨ¤

To expose the hidden meaning of culture: In order to point out the furtive two-fold facets of culture, Said writes “Culture and Imperialism”. According to him, culture means two things from the surface and inner perspectives.

āϏāĻ‚āĻ¸ā§āĻ•ā§ƒāϤāĻŋāϰ āĻ—ā§‹āĻĒāύ āĻ…āĻ°ā§āĻĨ āĻĒā§āϰāĻ•āĻžāĻļ āĻ•āϰāϤ⧇: āϏāĻ‚āĻ¸ā§āĻ•ā§ƒāϤāĻŋāϰ āĻĻ⧁āϗ⧁āĻŖāϝ⧁āĻ•ā§āϤ āĻĻāĻŋāĻ•āϗ⧁āϞāĻŋ āϚāĻŋāĻšā§āύāĻŋāϤ āĻ•āϰāĻžāϰ āϜāĻ¨ā§āϝ, āϏāĻžāχāĻĻ āϞāĻŋāϖ⧇āϛ⧇āύ “āϏāĻ‚āĻ¸ā§āĻ•ā§ƒāϤāĻŋ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻœā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻ”āĨ¤ āϤāĻžāρāϰ āĻŽāϤ⧇ āϏāĻ‚āĻ¸ā§āĻ•ā§ƒāϤāĻŋ āĻŽāĻžāύ⧇ āĻĻ⧁āϟāĻŋ āϜāĻŋāύāĻŋāϏ āĻĒ⧃āĻˇā§āĻ  āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻ…āĻ­ā§āϝāĻ¨ā§āϤāϰ⧀āĻŖ āĻĻ⧃āĻˇā§āϟāĻŋāϕ⧋āĻŖ āĻĨ⧇āϕ⧇āĨ¤

The secret strength of the imperialists: It is surprising and praiseworthy that Edward Said is the first mammoth critic who discovers the power of literature to sustain imperialism. Since literature is the mirror of society, he critically focuses on the French and English literature of the 19th and 20th which displayed the imperialistic experiences throughout the world but especially in Africa, India, Australia, the Caribbean, Ireland, Latin America.

āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻœā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§€āĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻ—ā§‹āĻĒāύ āĻļāĻ•ā§āϤāĻŋ: āĻāϟāĻž āĻ…āĻŦāĻžāĻ• āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻĒā§āϰāĻļāĻ‚āϏāύ⧀āϝāĻŧ āϝ⧇ āĻāĻĄāĻ“āϝāĻŧāĻžāĻ°ā§āĻĄ āϏāĻžāχāĻĻ āĻšāϞ⧇āύ āĻĒā§āϰāĻĨāĻŽ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļāĻžāϞ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāĻ• āϝāĻŋāύāĻŋ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻœā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻāϕ⧇ āϟāĻŋāĻ•āĻŋāϝāĻŧ⧇ āϰāĻžāĻ–āϤ⧇ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āϝ⧇āϰ āĻļāĻ•ā§āϤāĻŋ āφāĻŦāĻŋāĻˇā§āĻ•āĻžāϰ āĻ•āϰ⧇āĻ›āĻŋāϞ⧇āύāĨ¤ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āϝ āϝ⧇āĻšā§‡āϤ⧁ āϏāĻŽāĻžāĻœā§‡āϰ āφāϝāĻŧāύāĻž, āϤāĻžāχ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāĻ•āĻ­āĻžāĻŦ⧇ 19 āĻ“ 20 āϤāĻŽ āĻĢāϰāĻžāϏāĻŋ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āχāĻ‚āϰ⧇āϜāĻŋ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āϝ⧇āϰ āĻĻāĻŋāϕ⧇ āĻŽāύ⧋āύāĻŋāĻŦ⧇āĻļ āĻ•āϰ⧇āύ āϝāĻž āĻŦāĻŋāĻļā§āĻŦāϜ⧁āĻĄāĻŧ⧇ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻœā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§€ āĻ…āĻ­āĻŋāĻœā§āĻžāϤāĻž āĻĒā§āϰāĻĻāĻ°ā§āĻļāύ āĻ•āϰ⧇āĻ›āĻŋāϞ āϤāĻŦ⧇ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļ⧇āώāϤ āφāĻĢā§āϰāĻŋāĻ•āĻž, āĻ­āĻžāϰāϤ, āĻ…āĻ¸ā§āĻŸā§āϰ⧇āϞāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻž, āĻ•ā§āϝāĻžāϰāĻŋāĻŦāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻžāύ, āφāϝāĻŧāĻžāϰāĻ˛ā§āϝāĻžāĻ¨ā§āĻĄ, āϞāĻžāϤāĻŋāύ āφāĻŽā§‡āϰāĻŋāĻ•āĻžāĨ¤

Ethical point of view: Being a humanitarian, Mr. Said was forced to formulate “Culture and Imperialism”. He focuses on the challenges of imperialism and confidently declares that imperialism must always encounter resistance which creates conflict and destruction. So, he preaches that it is better to refrain than reign. And the people of the third world have to be well-conceived and united to establish peace and progress.

āύ⧈āϤāĻŋāĻ• āĻĻ⧃āĻˇā§āϟāĻŋāĻ­āĻ™ā§āĻ—āĻŋ

āĻŽāĻžāύāĻŦāĻŋāĻ• āĻšāĻ“āϝāĻŧāĻž, āϜāύāĻžāĻŦ āϏāĻžāψāĻĻ “āϏāĻ‚āĻ¸ā§āĻ•ā§ƒāϤāĻŋ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻœā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻ” āϞāĻŋāĻ–āϤ⧇ āĻŦāĻžāĻ§ā§āϝ āĻšāϝāĻŧ⧇āĻ›āĻŋāϞ⧇āύāĨ¤ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻœā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻšā§āϝāĻžāϞ⧇āĻžā§āϜāϗ⧁āϞāĻŋāϤ⧇ āĻŽāύ⧋āύāĻŋāĻŦ⧇āĻļ āĻ•āϰ⧇āύ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āφāĻ¤ā§āĻŽāĻŦāĻŋāĻļā§āĻŦāĻžāϏ⧇āϰ āϏāĻžāĻĨ⧇ āĻāϟāĻŋ āĻ˜ā§‹āώāĻŖāĻž āĻ•āϰ⧇āύ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻœā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻāϕ⧇ āϏāĻ°ā§āĻŦāĻĻāĻž āĻĒā§āϰāϤāĻŋāϰ⧋āϧ⧇āϰ āĻŽā§āĻ–ā§‹āĻŽā§āĻ–āĻŋ āĻšāϤ⧇ āĻšāĻŦ⧇ āϝāĻž āĻĻā§āĻŦāĻ¨ā§āĻĻā§āĻŦ āĻ“ āĻ§ā§āĻŦāĻ‚āϏ āϏ⧃āĻˇā§āϟāĻŋ āĻ•āϰ⧇āĨ¤ āϏ⧁āϤāϰāĻžāĻ‚, āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻĒā§āϰāϚāĻžāϰ āĻ•āϰ⧇āϛ⧇āύ āϝ⧇ āϰāĻžāϜāĻ¤ā§āĻŦ⧇āϰ āĻšā§‡āϝāĻŧ⧇ āĻŦāĻŋāϰāϤ āĻĨāĻžāĻ•āĻž āĻ­āĻžāϞāĨ¤ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϤ⧃āϤ⧀āϝāĻŧ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļā§āĻŦ⧇āϰ āϜāύāĻ—āĻŖāϕ⧇ āĻļāĻžāĻ¨ā§āϤāĻŋ āĻ“ āĻ…āĻ—ā§āϰāĻ—āϤāĻŋ āĻĒā§āϰāϤāĻŋāĻˇā§āĻ āĻžāϝāĻŧ āϏ⧁-āĻ•āĻ˛ā§āĻĒāύāĻž āĻ“ āϏāĻ‚āĻšāϤ āĻšāϤ⧇ āĻšāĻŦ⧇āĨ¤

Conclusion: In termination, it can be asserted though it is difficult to accept Edward Said starkly, it is undoubted that his critical power has brought about a revolution in the field of criticism. And one can get a vast vista of the secret sources of imperialism by reading his “Culture and Imperialism”.

Introduction: Edward W. Said (1935-2003) is considered to be one of the illustrious critics and philosophers of late 20th century who has expounded the most critical concept in his collection of essays “Introduction to Culture and Imperialism” published in 1993 that there is a very subtle relationship between culture and imperialism. He looks into the relationship between culture and imperialism from a different angle as he has got different instruments of culture for imperialism.

āĻ­ā§‚āĻŽāĻŋāĻ•āĻž: āĻāĻĄāĻ“āϝāĻŧāĻžāĻ°ā§āĻĄ āĻĄāĻžāĻŦā§āϞ⧁ āϏāĻžāχāĻĻ (ā§§ā§¯ā§Šā§Ģ-⧍ā§Ļā§Ļā§Š) āĻŦāĻŋāĻļ āĻļāϤāϕ⧇āϰ āĻļ⧇āώ⧇āϰ āĻ…āĻ¨ā§āϝāϤāĻŽ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļāĻŋāĻˇā§āϟ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāĻ• āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻĻāĻžāĻ°ā§āĻļāύāĻŋāĻ• āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦ⧇ āĻŦāĻŋāĻŦ⧇āϚāĻŋāϤ āϝāĻž āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ ā§§ā§¯ā§¯ā§Š āϏāĻžāϞ⧇ āĻĒā§āϰāĻ•āĻžāĻļāĻŋāϤ “āϏāĻ‚āĻ¸ā§āĻ•ā§ƒāϤāĻŋ āĻ“ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻœā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻĒāϰāĻŋāϚāϝāĻŧ” āϰāϚāύāĻžāĻŽā§‚āϞāĻ• āϏāĻ‚āĻ•āϞāύ⧇ āϏāĻŦāĻšā§‡āϝāĻŧ⧇ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāύāĻžāĻŽā§‚āϞāĻ• āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖāĻžāϟāĻŋ āĻŦā§āϝāĻžāĻ–ā§āϝāĻž āĻ•āϰ⧇āϛ⧇āύāĨ¤ āϏāĻ‚āĻ¸ā§āĻ•ā§ƒāϤāĻŋ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻœā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻŽāĻ§ā§āϝ⧇ āĻāĻ•āϟāĻŋ āϖ⧁āĻŦ āϏ⧂āĻ•ā§āĻˇā§āĻŽ āϏāĻŽā§āĻĒāĻ°ā§āĻ•āĨ¤ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻœā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻ⧇āϰ āϜāĻ¨ā§āϝ āϏāĻ‚āĻ¸ā§āĻ•ā§ƒāϤāĻŋāϰ āĻŦāĻŋāĻ­āĻŋāĻ¨ā§āύ āωāĻĒāĻ•āϰāĻŖ āĻĒ⧇āϝāĻŧ⧇āϛ⧇āύ āĻŦāϞ⧇ āϏāĻ‚āĻ¸ā§āĻ•ā§ƒāϤāĻŋ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻœā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻŽāĻ§ā§āϝ⧇ āϏāĻŽā§āĻĒāĻ°ā§āϕ⧇āϰ āĻŦāĻŋāώāϝāĻŧāϟāĻŋ āĻ…āĻ¨ā§āϝ āĻāĻ•āϟāĻŋ āϕ⧋āĻŖ āĻĨ⧇āϕ⧇ āĻĻ⧇āϖ⧇āύāĨ¤

Fragile culture of the natives: At the very outset of the essay Said says that the culture of the third world is very fragile which was the strength of the imperialists. The imperialists always left contest among the natives. Said considers that supine or inert natives were the main strength of the imperialists.

āĻ¸ā§āĻĨāĻžāύ⧀āϝāĻŧāĻĻ⧇āϰ āύāĻžāϜ⧁āĻ• āϏāĻ‚āĻ¸ā§āĻ•ā§ƒāϤāĻŋ: āϰāϚāύāĻžāϟāĻŋāϰ āĻāϕ⧇āĻŦāĻžāϰ⧇ āĻļ⧁āϰ⧁āϤ⧇ āϏāĻžāχāĻĻ āĻŦāϞ⧇ āϝ⧇ āϤ⧃āϤ⧀āϝāĻŧ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļā§āĻŦ⧇āϰ āϏāĻ‚āĻ¸ā§āĻ•ā§ƒāϤāĻŋ āĻ…āĻ¤ā§āϝāĻ¨ā§āϤ āύāĻžāϜ⧁āĻ• āϝāĻž āĻ›āĻŋāϞ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻœā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§€āĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻļāĻ•ā§āϤāĻŋāĨ¤ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻœā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§€āϰāĻž āϏāĻ°ā§āĻŦāĻĻāĻž āĻ¸ā§āĻĨāĻžāύ⧀āϝāĻŧāĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻŽāĻ§ā§āϝ⧇ āĻĒā§āϰāϤāĻŋāϝ⧋āĻ—āĻŋāϤāĻž āϛ⧇āĻĄāĻŧ⧇ āĻĻ⧇āϝāĻŧāĨ¤ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻŦāĻŋāĻŦ⧇āϚāύāĻž āĻ•āϰ⧇āύ āϝ⧇ āϜāĻĄāĻŧ āĻĻ⧇āĻļā§€āϝāĻŧāϰāĻž āĻ›āĻŋāϞ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻœā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§€āĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻĒā§āϰāϧāĻžāύ āĻļāĻ•ā§āϤāĻŋāĨ¤

Ethical power of culture: The imperialists of Britain and France were the so-called light-bearers and makers of civilization. They went to spread the light of education and religion that was not only so-called but also namely to make the people of overseas colonies fool. In Said’s analysis, the search of trade and commerce and civilizing missions in India and Africa provided an ethical power to the colonialists but they went to the countries for looting and dominating.

“Culture conceived in this way can become a protective enclosure:

check your politics at the door before you enter it.”

āϏāĻ‚āĻ¸ā§āĻ•ā§ƒāϤāĻŋāϰ āύ⧈āϤāĻŋāĻ• āĻļāĻ•ā§āϤāĻŋ

āĻŦā§āϰāĻŋāĻŸā§‡āύ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻĢā§āϰāĻžāĻ¨ā§āϏ⧇āϰ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻœā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§€āϰāĻž āϤāĻĨāĻžāĻ•āĻĨāĻŋāϤ āφāϞ⧋āĻ• āĻŦāĻšāύāĻ•āĻžāϰ⧀ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϏāĻ­ā§āϝāϤāĻžāϰ āύāĻŋāĻ°ā§āĻŽāĻžāϤāĻž āĻŦāϞāĻž āĻšāϤāĨ¤ āϤāĻžāϰāĻž āĻļāĻŋāĻ•ā§āώāĻž āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϧāĻ°ā§āĻŽā§‡āϰ āφāϞ⧋ āĻ›āĻĄāĻŧāĻŋāϝāĻŧ⧇ āĻĻāĻŋāϤ⧇ āĻ—āĻŋāϝāĻŧ⧇āĻ›āĻŋāϞ āϝāĻž āϕ⧇āĻŦāϞ āϤāĻĨāĻžāĻ•āĻĨāĻŋāϤ āύāϝāĻŧ āĻŦāϰāĻ‚ āĻŦāĻŋāĻĻ⧇āĻļā§€ āωāĻĒāύāĻŋāĻŦ⧇āĻļ⧇āϰ āϞ⧋āĻ•āĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻŦā§‹āĻ•āĻž āĻŦāĻžāύāĻžāύ⧋āϰ āωāĻĻā§āĻĻ⧇āĻļā§āϝ⧇ āϤ⧈āϰāĻŋ āĻ•āϰ⧇āĻ›āĻŋāϞāĨ¤ āϏāĻžāχāĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļā§āϞ⧇āώāϪ⧇, āĻ­āĻžāϰāϤ āĻ“ āφāĻĢā§āϰāĻŋāĻ•āĻžāϰ āĻŦāĻžāĻŖāĻŋāĻœā§āϝ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϏāĻ­ā§āϝ āĻŽāĻŋāĻļāύ⧇āϰ āĻ…āύ⧁āϏāĻ¨ā§āϧāĻžāύāϗ⧁āϞāĻŋ āωāĻĒāύāĻŋāĻŦ⧇āĻļāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§€āĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻāĻ•āϟāĻŋ āύ⧈āϤāĻŋāĻ• āĻļāĻ•ā§āϤāĻŋ āĻĒā§āϰāĻĻāĻžāύ āĻ•āϰ⧇āĻ›āĻŋāϞ āĻ•āĻŋāĻ¨ā§āϤ⧁ āϤāĻžāϰāĻž āϞ⧁āϟāĻĒāĻžāϟ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āφāϧāĻŋāĻĒāĻ¤ā§āϝ⧇āϰ āϜāĻ¨ā§āϝ āĻĻ⧇āĻļāϗ⧁āϞāĻŋāϤ⧇ āĻ—āĻŋāϝāĻŧ⧇āĻ›āĻŋāϞāĨ¤

“āĻāχāĻ­āĻžāĻŦ⧇ āĻ•āĻ˛ā§āĻĒāύāĻž āĻ•āϰāĻž āϏāĻ‚āĻ¸ā§āĻ•ā§ƒāϤāĻŋ āĻāĻ•āϟāĻŋ āĻĒā§āϰāϤāĻŋāϰāĻ•ā§āώāĻžāĻŽā§‚āϞāĻ• āĻ˜ā§‡āϰ⧇ āĻĒāϰāĻŋāĻŖāϤ āĻšāϤ⧇ āĻĒāĻžāϰ⧇: āφāĻĒāύāĻžāϰ āϰāĻžāϜāύ⧀āϤāĻŋ āĻĻā§āĻŦāĻžāϰ⧇ āĻĻā§āĻŦāĻžāϰ⧇ āĻĒāϰ⧀āĻ•ā§āώāĻž āĻ•āϰ⧁āύ āĻĒā§āϰāĻŦ⧇āĻļ āĻ•āϰāĻžāϰ āφāϗ⧇āĨ¤ “

Literature as an institution of culture: It is universally accepted that literature is the mirror of society. Said opines through poetry, fiction, and philosophy teach how to practice and venerate culture, they discourse colonialism in an indirectly deep way. As a result, most professional humanists have been unable to connect between the prolonged practice of imperialism and the culture of literature. Here in this essay, Said especially talks about narrative fiction, novels, which play a vital role in the expansion of imperialism in the camouflage of culture.

āϏāĻ‚āĻ¸ā§āĻ•ā§ƒāϤāĻŋāϰ āĻāĻ•āϟāĻŋ āĻĒā§āϰāϤāĻŋāĻˇā§āĻ āĻžāύ āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦ⧇ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āϝ

āĻāϟāĻž āϏāĻ°ā§āĻŦāϜāύāĻ¸ā§āĻŦā§€āĻ•ā§ƒāϤ āϝ⧇ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āϝāχ āϏāĻŽāĻžāĻœā§‡āϰ āφāϝāĻŧāύāĻžāĨ¤ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻĒā§āϰāĻ•āĻžāĻļ āĻ•āϰ⧇āϛ⧇āύ āϝāĻĻāĻŋāĻ“ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž, āĻ•āĻ˛ā§āĻĒāĻ•āĻžāĻšāĻŋāύ⧀ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻĻāĻ°ā§āĻļāύ āϏāĻ‚āĻ¸ā§āĻ•ā§ƒāϤāĻŋ āϚāĻ°ā§āϚāĻž āĻ“ āĻļā§āϰāĻĻā§āϧāĻž āĻ•āϰāϤ⧇ āĻļ⧇āĻ–āĻžāϝāĻŧ, āϤāĻžāϰāĻž āωāĻĒāύāĻŋāĻŦ⧇āĻļāĻŦāĻžāĻĻāϕ⧇ āĻĒāϰ⧋āĻ•ā§āώāĻ­āĻžāĻŦ⧇ āĻ—āĻ­ā§€āϰ āωāĻĒāĻžāϝāĻŧ⧇ āφāϞ⧋āϚāύāĻž āĻ•āϰ⧇āĨ¤ āĻĢāϞāĻ¸ā§āĻŦāϰ⧂āĻĒ, āĻŦ⧇āĻļāĻŋāϰāĻ­āĻžāĻ— āĻĒ⧇āĻļāĻžāĻĻāĻžāϰ āĻŽāĻžāύāĻŦāϤāĻžāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§€āϰāĻž āĻĻā§€āĻ°ā§āϘāĻ•āĻžāϞ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻœā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻ⧇āϰ āϚāĻ°ā§āϚāĻž āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āϝ⧇āϰ āϏāĻ‚āĻ¸ā§āĻ•ā§ƒāϤāĻŋāϰ āĻŽāĻ§ā§āϝ⧇ āϏāĻ‚āϝ⧋āĻ— āϰāĻžāĻ–āϤ⧇ āĻ…āĻ•ā§āώāĻŽ āĻšāϝāĻŧ⧇āϛ⧇āύāĨ¤ āĻāĻ–āĻžāύ⧇ āĻāχ āĻĒā§āϰāĻŦāĻ¨ā§āϧ⧇ āϏ⧈āϝāĻŧāĻĻ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļ⧇āώāϤ āĻŦāĻ°ā§āĻŖāύāĻžāĻŽā§‚āϞāĻ• āĻ•āĻ˛ā§āĻĒāĻ•āĻžāĻšāĻŋāύ⧀, āωāĻĒāĻ¨ā§āϝāĻžāϏ āϏāĻŽā§āĻĒāĻ°ā§āϕ⧇ āĻ•āĻĨāĻž āĻŦāϞ⧇āϛ⧇āύ āϝāĻž āϏāĻ‚āĻ¸ā§āĻ•ā§ƒāϤāĻŋāϰ āĻ›āĻĻā§āĻŽāĻŦ⧇āĻļ⧇ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻœā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻĒā§āϰāϏāĻžāϰ⧇āϰ āϜāĻ¨ā§āϝ āϗ⧁āϰ⧁āĻ¤ā§āĻŦāĻĒā§‚āĻ°ā§āĻŖ āĻ­ā§‚āĻŽāĻŋāĻ•āĻž āĻĒāĻžāϞāύ āĻ•āϰ⧇āĨ¤

Immigrating culture: Immigrating culture is an instrument of post-colonial capitalism. Edward Said relates that imperialism exists even in the 20th century but not in the shape of the 18th and 19th centuries because in fine of the essay he asserts:

“This is a book about past and present, about us and them.”

āϏāĻ‚āĻ¸ā§āĻ•ā§ƒāϤāĻŋ āĻ…āĻ­āĻŋāĻŦāĻžāϏāύ

āωāĻĒāύāĻŋāĻŦ⧇āĻļāĻŋāĻ• āĻĒ⧁āρāϜāĻŋāĻŦāĻžāĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻāĻ•āϟāĻŋ āωāĻĒāĻ•āϰāĻŖ āĻšāĻŋāϜāϰāϤ āϏāĻ‚āĻ¸ā§āĻ•ā§ƒāϤāĻŋāĨ¤ āĻāĻĄāĻ“āϝāĻŧāĻžāĻ°ā§āĻĄ āϏāĻžāχāĻĻ āĻŦāĻ°ā§āĻŖāύāĻž āĻ•āϰ⧇āϛ⧇āύ āϝ⧇ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻœā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻ āĻŦāĻŋāĻ‚āĻļ āĻļāϤāĻžāĻŦā§āĻĻā§€āϤ⧇āĻ“ āĻŦāĻŋāĻĻā§āϝāĻŽāĻžāύ āϤāĻŦ⧇ 18 āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ 19 āĻļāϤāϕ⧇āϰ āφāĻ•āĻžāϰ⧇ āύāϝāĻŧ āĻ•āĻžāϰāĻŖ āĻĒā§āϰāĻŦāĻ¨ā§āϧ⧇āϰ  āĻļ⧇āώ⧇ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻĻ⧃āĻĄāĻŧāĻ­āĻžāĻŦ⧇ āĻŦāϞ⧇āϛ⧇āύ:

“āĻāϟāĻŋ āφāĻŽāĻžāĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϤāĻžāĻĻ⧇āϰ āϏāĻŽā§āĻĒāĻ°ā§āϕ⧇ āĻ…āϤ⧀āϤ āĻ“ āĻŦāĻ°ā§āϤāĻŽāĻžāύ āϏāĻŽā§āĻĒāĻ°ā§āϕ⧇ āĻāĻ•āϟāĻŋ āĻŦāĻ‡â€

Conclusion: To sum up, Edward Said is such a genius who reveals the secret of improved culture as the instrument of imperialism and capitalism in a convincing and fabulous way so that the countries of this universe can enjoy freedom and sovereignty being aware of the culture.

Introduction: As Eliot fixes the goal that he will abolish all the overdone misconceptions about the metaphysical school of poetry, he introduces a new term in his essay that is known as ‘reflective and intellectual poet’. He distinguishes between the intellectual poet and the reflective poet in his famous critical essay “The Metaphysical Poets” to declare the superiority of the metaphysical poets.

āĻ­ā§‚āĻŽāĻŋāĻ•āĻž: āĻāϞāĻŋāϝāĻŧāϟ āϝ⧇āĻšā§‡āϤ⧁ āĻāχ āϞāĻ•ā§āĻˇā§āϝ āĻ¸ā§āĻĨāĻŋāϰ āĻ•āϰ⧇āϛ⧇āύ āϝ⧇ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻžāϰ āĻ…āϧāĻŋāĻŦāĻŋāĻĻā§āϝāĻžāĻŽā§‚āϞāĻ• āĻŦāĻŋāĻĻā§āϝāĻžāϞāϝāĻŧ āϏāĻŽā§āĻĒāĻ°ā§āϕ⧇ āϏāĻŽāĻ¸ā§āϤ āĻ…āϤāĻŋāĻ­ā§āϰāĻˇā§āϟ āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖāĻž āĻŦāĻžāϤāĻŋāϞ āĻ•āϰāĻŦ⧇āύ, āϤāĻžāχ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āϤāĻžāρāϰ āϰāϚāύāĻžāϝāĻŧ āĻāĻ•āϟāĻŋ āύāϤ⧁āύ āĻļāĻŦā§āĻĻ āĻĒā§āϰāĻŦāĻ°ā§āϤāύ āĻ•āϰ⧇āϛ⧇āύ āϝāĻž ‘āĻĒā§āϰāϤāĻŋāĻŦāĻŋāĻŽā§āĻŦāĻŋāϤ āĻ“ āĻŦ⧌āĻĻā§āϧāĻŋāĻ• āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋ’ āύāĻžāĻŽā§‡ āĻĒāϰāĻŋāϚāĻŋāϤāĨ¤ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āφāĻ§ā§āϝāĻžāĻ¤ā§āĻŽāĻŋāĻ• āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻļā§āϰ⧇āĻˇā§āĻ āĻ¤ā§āĻŦ āĻ˜ā§‹āώāĻŖāĻž āĻ•āϰāĻžāϰ āϜāĻ¨ā§āϝ āϤāĻžāρāϰ āĻŦāĻŋāĻ–ā§āϝāĻžāϤ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāĻ• āĻĒā§āϰāĻŦāĻ¨ā§āϧ “āĻĻā§āϝ āĻŽā§‡āϟāĻŋāĻĢāĻŋāϜāĻŋāĻ•āĻžāϞ āĻĒā§‹āϝāĻŧ⧇āĻŸâ€ -āĻ āĻŦ⧁āĻĻā§āϧāĻŋāĻœā§€āĻŦā§€ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻĒā§āϰāϤāĻŋāĻŦāĻŋāĻŽā§āĻŦāĻŋāϤ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϰ āĻŽāĻ§ā§āϝ⧇ āĻĒāĻžāĻ°ā§āĻĨāĻ•ā§āϝ āĻ•āϰ⧇āϛ⧇āύāĨ¤

Definition: Eliot clearly defines that the poets who are passionate thinkers are called intellectual poets. To put it differently, the metaphysical poets are intellectual poets. But the poets who are deeply thoughtful but separated from passion and emotion are called reflective poets.

āϏāĻ‚āĻœā§āĻžāĻž: āĻāϞāĻŋāϝāĻŧāϟ āĻ¸ā§āĻĒāĻˇā§āϟāĻ­āĻžāĻŦ⧇ āϏāĻ‚āĻœā§āĻžāĻžāϝāĻŧāĻŋāϤ āĻ•āϰ⧇āϛ⧇āύ āϝ⧇ āĻ…āύ⧁āϰāĻžāĻ—ā§€ āϚāĻŋāĻ¨ā§āϤāĻžāĻŦāĻŋāĻĻ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāĻĻ⧇āϰāϕ⧇ āĻŦ⧁āĻĻā§āϧāĻŋāĻœā§€āĻŦā§€ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋ āĻŦāϞāĻž āĻšāϝāĻŧāĨ¤ āĻāϕ⧇ āĻ…āĻ¨ā§āϝāĻ­āĻžāĻŦ⧇ āĻŦāϞāϤ⧇ āϗ⧇āϞ⧇ āϰ⧂āĻĒāĻ• āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϰāĻž āĻšāϞ⧇āύ āĻŦ⧁āĻĻā§āϧāĻŋāĻœā§€āĻŦā§€ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāĨ¤ āϤāĻŦ⧇ āĻ—āĻ­ā§€āϰāĻ­āĻžāĻŦ⧇ āϚāĻŋāĻ¨ā§āϤāĻžāĻļā§€āϞ āĻ•āĻŋāĻ¨ā§āϤ⧁ āφāĻŦ⧇āĻ— āĻĨ⧇āϕ⧇ āĻŦāĻŋāĻšā§āĻ›āĻŋāĻ¨ā§āύ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻĒā§āϰāϤāĻŋāĻŦāĻŋāĻŽā§āĻŦāĻŋāϤ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋ āĻŦāϞāĻž āĻšāϝāĻŧāĨ¤

Versification technique: Eliot deeply suggests that the metaphysical poets have achieved their versification technique from their predecessors of sixteenth-century dramatists who were the master of ‘mechanism of sensibility’. On the other hand, the reflective poets especially Tennyson and Browning as a writer of dramatic monologue are the followers of the intellectual poets.

āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āϰāϚāύāĻžāϰ āĻ•ā§ŒāĻļāϞ: āĻāϞāĻŋāϝāĻŧāϟ āĻ—āĻ­ā§€āϰāĻ­āĻžāĻŦ⧇ āχāĻ™ā§āĻ—āĻŋāϤ āĻĻ⧇āϝāĻŧ āϝ⧇ āϰ⧂āĻĒāĻ• āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϰāĻž āϤāĻžāĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āϰāϚāύāĻžāϰ āĻ•ā§ŒāĻļāϞ āϤāĻžāĻĻ⧇āϰ āώ⧋āĻĄāĻŧāĻļ āĻļāϤāĻžāĻŦā§āĻĻā§€āϰ āĻĒā§‚āĻ°ā§āĻŦāϏ⧂āϰ⧀ āύāĻžāĻŸā§āϝāĻ•āĻžāϰāĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻ•āĻžāĻ› āĻĨ⧇āϕ⧇ āĻ…āĻ°ā§āϜāύ āĻ•āϰ⧇āϛ⧇āύ āϝāĻžāϰāĻž ‘āϏāĻ‚āĻŦ⧇āĻĻāύāĻļā§€āϞāϤāĻžāϰ  āĻ•āĻ°ā§āϤāĻž āĻ›āĻŋāϞ⧇āύāĨ¤ āĻ…āĻ¨ā§āϝāĻĻāĻŋāϕ⧇ āĻĒā§āϰāϤāĻŋāĻŦāĻŋāĻŽā§āĻŦāĻŋāϤ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϰāĻž āĻŦāĻŋāĻļ⧇āώāϤ āĻŸā§‡āύāĻŋāϏāύ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻŦā§āϰāĻžāωāύāĻŋāĻ‚ āĻĄā§āϰāĻžāĻŽāĻžāϟāĻŋāĻ• āĻŽāύ⧋āϞ⧋āĻ— āϞ⧇āĻ–āĻ• āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦ⧇ āĻŦ⧁āĻĻā§āϧāĻŋāĻœā§€āĻŦā§€ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻ…āύ⧁āϏāĻžāϰ⧀āĨ¤

Dissociation of sensibility: The term ‘dissociation of sensibility’ has been coined out by Eliot in his essay. Dr. Johnson blames the intellectual poets in the following manner:

‘the most heterogeneous ideas are yoked by violence together’

Such blame recommends that the metaphysical poets were the first to separate thought and passion. But it is crystal clear that the reflective poets are engulfed with dissociation of sensibility, but the intellectual poets are the lord of unification of sensibility.

āϏāĻ‚āĻŦ⧇āĻĻāύāĻļā§€āϞāϤāĻž āĻŦāĻŋāϝ⧁āĻ•ā§āϤāĻŋ

āĻāϞāĻŋāϝāĻŧāϟ āϤāĻžāρāϰ āĻĒā§āϰāĻŦāĻ¨ā§āϧ⧇ ‘āϏāĻ‚āĻŦ⧇āĻĻāύāĻļā§€āϞāϤāĻžāϰ āĻŦāĻŋāĻšā§āĻ›āĻŋāĻ¨ā§āύāϤāĻžâ€™ āĻļāĻŦā§āĻĻāϟāĻŋ āφāĻŦāĻŋāĻˇā§āĻ•āĻžāϰ āĻ•āϰ⧇āϛ⧇āύāĨ¤ āĻĄāĻžāσ āϜāύāϏāύ āύāĻŋāĻŽā§āύāϞāĻŋāĻ–āĻŋāϤ āĻĒāĻĻā§āϧāϤāĻŋāϤ⧇ āĻŦ⧁āĻĻā§āϧāĻŋāĻœā§€āĻŦā§€ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻĻā§‹āώ āĻĻāĻŋāϝāĻŧ⧇āϛ⧇āύ:

‘āϏāĻ°ā§āĻŦāĻžāϧāĻŋāĻ• āĻ­āĻŋāĻ¨ā§āύāϧāĻ°ā§āĻŽā§€ āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖāĻž āĻāĻ•āϏāĻžāĻĨ⧇ āϏāĻšāĻŋāĻ‚āϏāϤāĻž āĻĻā§āĻŦāĻžāϰāĻž āϝ⧋āĻ— āĻ•āϰāĻž āĻšāϝāĻŧ’

āĻāχ āϧāϰāύ⧇āϰ āĻĻā§‹āώ āϏ⧁āĻĒāĻžāϰāĻŋāĻļ āĻ•āϰ⧇ āϝ⧇ āϰ⧂āĻĒāĻ• āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϰāĻž āϏāĻ°ā§āĻŦ āĻĒā§āϰāĻĨāĻŽ āϚāĻŋāĻ¨ā§āϤāĻž āĻ“ āφāĻŦ⧇āĻ—āϕ⧇ āĻĒ⧃āĻĨāĻ• āĻ•āϰ⧇āĻ›āĻŋāϞ⧇āύāĨ¤ āϏ⧁āϤāϰāĻžāĻ‚, āĻāϟāĻŋ āĻ¸ā§āĻĢāϟāĻŋāĻ• āĻ¸ā§āĻĒāĻˇā§āϟ āϝ⧇ āĻĒā§āϰāϤāĻŋāĻŦāĻŋāĻŽā§āĻŦāĻŋāϤ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϰāĻž āϏāĻ‚āĻŦ⧇āĻĻāύāĻļā§€āϞāϤāĻž āĻŦāĻŋāĻšā§āĻ›āĻŋāĻ¨ā§āύāϤāĻžāϝāĻŧ āφāĻŦāĻĻā§āϧ, āϤāĻŦ⧇ āĻŦ⧁āĻĻā§āϧāĻŋāĻœā§€āĻŦā§€ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāĻ—āĻŖ āϏāĻ‚āĻŦ⧇āĻĻāύāĻļā§€āϞāϤāĻžāϰ āĻāϕ⧀āĻ•āϰāϪ⧇āϰ āĻ•āĻ°ā§āϤāĻžāĨ¤

Diction vs feeling: Eliot presents a unique discovery between the intellectual poets and the reflective poets in the case of the use of language.

āϰāϚāύāĻžāĻļ⧈āϞ⧀ āĻŦāύāĻžāĻŽ āĻ…āύ⧁āĻ­ā§‚āϤāĻŋ: āĻāϞāĻŋāϝāĻŧāϟ āĻ­āĻžāώāĻž āĻŦā§āϝāĻŦāĻšāĻžāϰ⧇āϰ āĻ•ā§āώ⧇āĻ¤ā§āϰ⧇ āĻŦ⧁āĻĻā§āϧāĻŋāĻœā§€āĻŦā§€ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻĒā§āϰāϤāĻŋāĻŦāĻŋāĻŽā§āĻŦāĻŋāϤ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻŽāĻ§ā§āϝ⧇ āĻāĻ•āϟāĻŋ āĻ…āύāĻ¨ā§āϝ āφāĻŦāĻŋāĻˇā§āĻ•āĻžāϰ āωāĻĒāĻ¸ā§āĻĨāĻžāĻĒāύ āĻ•āϰ⧇āϛ⧇āύāĨ¤

Conclusion: In a nutshell, it can be said that though Eliot is not starkly accurate in differentiating between the intellectual poets and the reflective poets, his intention is perfect because he has just wanted to show that the metaphysical poets are the inevitable part of the galaxy of English literature.

  • Question: How does T.S. Eliot praise Donne’s ability to unify the intellectual thoughts and sensation of feeling?

Introduction: T.S. Eliot (1888-1965) is the first critic who in his essay “The Metaphysical Poets” has praised the ability of John Donne. Sensuous apprehension of thought is called the unification of sensibility. To put it differently, unified sensibility means the combination of emotion and thought. Donne’s power of fusing intellectual thoughts and sensation of feeling is the key issue of Eliot’s essay.

āĻ­ā§‚āĻŽāĻŋāĻ•āĻž: āϟāĻŋ.āĻāϏ. āĻāϞāĻŋāϝāĻŧāϟ (1888-1965) āĻšāϞ⧇āύ āĻĒā§āϰāĻĨāĻŽ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāĻ• āϝāĻŋāύāĻŋ āϤāĻžāρāϰ āϰāϚāύāĻž “āĻĻā§āϝ āĻŽā§‡āϟāĻŋāĻĢāĻŋāϜāĻŋāĻ•āĻžāϞ āĻĒā§‹āϝāĻŧ⧇āϟ” āĻ āϜāύ āĻĄā§‹āύ-āĻāϰ āĻĻāĻ•ā§āώāϤāĻžāϰ āĻĒā§āϰāĻļāĻ‚āϏāĻž āĻ•āϰ⧇āϛ⧇āύāĨ¤ āϚāĻŋāĻ¨ā§āϤāĻžāϰ āϏāĻ‚āĻŦ⧇āĻĻāύāĻļā§€āϞ āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖāĻž āϝāĻžāϕ⧇ āĻŦāϞāĻž āĻšāϝāĻŧ āϏāĻ‚āĻŦ⧇āĻĻāύāĻļā§€āϞāϤāĻž āĻāϕ⧀āĻ•āϰāĻŖāĨ¤ āĻāϟāĻŋāϕ⧇ āĻ…āĻ¨ā§āϝāĻ­āĻžāĻŦ⧇ āĻŦāϞāϤ⧇ āϗ⧇āϞ⧇ āϏāĻ‚āĻšāϤ āϏāĻ‚āĻŦ⧇āĻĻāύāĻļā§€āϞāϤāĻž āĻŽāĻžāύ⧇ āφāĻŦ⧇āĻ— āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϚāĻŋāĻ¨ā§āϤāĻžāϰ āϏāĻ‚āĻŽāĻŋāĻļā§āϰāĻŖāĨ¤ āĻĄāĻžāύ⧇āϰ āĻŦ⧁āĻĻā§āϧāĻŋāĻœā§€āĻŦā§€ āϚāĻŋāĻ¨ā§āϤāĻžāĻ­āĻžāĻŦāύāĻž āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻ…āύ⧁āĻ­ā§‚āϤāĻŋāϰ āϏāĻ‚āĻŦ⧇āĻĻāύāϕ⧇ āĻŽāĻŋāĻļā§āϰāĻŋāϤ āĻ•āϰāĻžāϰ  āĻļāĻ•ā§āϤāĻŋ āχāϞāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻŸā§‡āϰ āϰāϚāύāĻžāϰ āĻŽā§‚āϞ āĻŦāĻŋāώāϝāĻŧāĨ¤

The Variety of mood and experience: Eliot argues that Donne’s poetry is chiefly remarkable for the range and variety of mood and attitude. By dint of the variety of moods, Donne has been able to blend thought and emotion in a bizarre way that has been designated as ‘a mechanism of sensibility’ which can devour any kind of experience. 

āĻŽā§‡āϜāĻžāϜ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻ…āĻ­āĻŋāĻœā§āĻžāϤāĻžāϰ āĻŦ⧈āϚāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āĻ°ā§āϝ: āĻāϞāĻŋāϝāĻŧāϟ āϝ⧁āĻ•ā§āϤāĻŋ āĻĻ⧇āĻ–āĻžāύ āϝ⧇ āĻĄā§‹āύ⧇āϰ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āĻĒā§āϰāϧāĻžāύāϤ āωāĻ˛ā§āϞ⧇āĻ–āϝ⧋āĻ—ā§āϝ āĻŽā§‡āϜāĻžāϜ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻŽāύ⧋āĻ­āĻžāĻŦ⧇āϰ āĻĒāϰāĻŋāϏ⧀āĻŽāĻž āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻŦāĻŋāĻ­āĻŋāĻ¨ā§āύāϤāĻžāϰ āϜāĻ¨ā§āϝāĨ¤ Donne āϚāĻŋāĻ¨ā§āϤāĻž āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āφāĻŦ⧇āĻ— āĻŽāĻŋāĻļā§āϰāĻŋāϤ āĻ•āϰāϤ⧇ āϏāĻ•ā§āώāĻŽ āĻšāϝāĻŧ⧇āϛ⧇ āωāĻĻā§āĻ­āϟ āωāĻĒāĻžāϝāĻŧ⧇ āϝāĻž āĻŽāύ⧋āύ⧀āϤ āĻ•āϰāĻž āĻšāϝāĻŧ⧇āϛ⧇ ‘āϏāĻ‚āĻŦ⧇āĻĻāύāĻļā§€āϞāϤāĻžāϰ āĻŦā§āϝāĻŦāĻ¸ā§āĻĨāĻžâ€™ āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦ⧇ āϝāĻž āϕ⧋āύāĻ“ āϧāϰāϪ⧇āϰ āĻ…āĻ­āĻŋāĻœā§āĻžāϤāĻž āĻ—ā§āϰāĻžāϏ āĻ•āϰāϤ⧇ āĻĒāĻžāϰ⧇āĨ¤

Intellectualism and logical quality: According to Eliot, the metaphysical poets are called intellectual poets, but their intellectuality is not devoid of passionate thinking. But rather they are logically associated. The critic refers one of the love poems of Donne entitled “A valediction: Forbidding Mourning” in which Donne moves from thought to thought with measured and weighty music.

āĻŦ⧌āĻĻā§āϧāĻŋāĻ•āϤāĻž āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϝ⧌āĻ•ā§āϤāĻŋāĻ• āϗ⧁āĻŖ: āĻāϞāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻŸā§‡āϰ āĻŽāϤ⧇, āϰ⧂āĻĒāĻ• āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻŦ⧁āĻĻā§āϧāĻŋāĻœā§€āĻŦā§€ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋ āĻŦāϞāĻž āĻšāϝāĻŧ, āϤāĻŦ⧇ āϤāĻžāĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻŦ⧌āĻĻā§āϧāĻŋāĻ•āϤāĻž āϏāĻ‚āĻŦ⧇āĻĻāύāĻļā§€āϞ āϚāĻŋāĻ¨ā§āϤāĻžāĻ­āĻžāĻŦāύāĻž āĻĨ⧇āϕ⧇ āĻŦāĻžā§āϚāĻŋāϤ āύāϝāĻŧāĨ¤ āĻŦāϰāĻ‚ āϤāĻžāϰāĻž āϝ⧁āĻ•ā§āϤāĻŋāϝ⧁āĻ•ā§āϤāĻ­āĻžāĻŦ⧇ āϝ⧁āĻ•ā§āϤ āĻšāϝāĻŧāĨ¤ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāĻ•  “āĻāĻ•āϟāĻŋ āĻļāĻĒāĻĨ: āĻļā§‹āĻ•āϕ⧇ āĻšāĻžāϰāĻžāĻŽ” āĻļāĻŋāϰ⧋āύāĻžāĻŽā§‡ āĻĄāĻžāύ⧇āϰ āĻāĻ•āϟāĻŋ āĻĒā§āϰ⧇āĻŽā§‡āϰ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āωāĻ˛ā§āϞ⧇āĻ– āĻ•āϰ⧇āϛ⧇āύ āϝāĻžāϰ āĻŽāĻ§ā§āϝ⧇ āĻĄā§‹āύ āĻāĻ•āϟāĻŋ āĻĒāϰāĻŋāĻŽāĻžāĻĒāϝ⧋āĻ—ā§āϝ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻ“āϜāύāϝ⧁āĻ•ā§āϤ āϏāĻ‚āĻ—ā§€āϤ āύāĻŋāϝāĻŧ⧇ āϚāĻŋāĻ¨ā§āϤāĻžāĻ­āĻžāĻŦāύāĻž āĻĨ⧇āϕ⧇ āϚāĻŋāĻ¨ā§āϤāĻžāϝāĻŧ āϚāϞ⧇ āφāϏ⧇āĨ¤

Using imagery and conceits: Eliot remarks that Donne’s poems arise from an emotional situation. Then the poet argues to make his attitude acceptable and, in this process, the conceits are used as instruments. His originality is reflected when he uses images and conceits from various sources and fields. Eliot specially mentions “The Relic” that is one of the famous poems of John Donne.

“A bracelet of bright hair about the bone,”

Using Imagery and conceits: āĻāϞāĻŋāϝāĻŧāϟ āĻŽāĻ¨ā§āϤāĻŦā§āϝ āĻ•āϰ⧇āϛ⧇āύ āϝ⧇ āĻĄā§‹āύ⧇āϰ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻžāϗ⧁āϞāĻŋ āĻāĻ•āϟāĻŋ āϏāĻ‚āĻŦ⧇āĻĻāύāĻļā§€āϞ āĻĒāϰāĻŋāĻ¸ā§āĻĨāĻŋāϤāĻŋ āĻĨ⧇āϕ⧇ āωāĻĻā§āĻ­ā§‚āϤ āĻšāϝāĻŧāĨ¤ āϤāĻžāϰāĻĒāϰ⧇ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋ āϤāĻžāϰ āĻŽāύ⧋āĻ­āĻžāĻŦāϕ⧇ āĻ—ā§āϰāĻšāĻŖāϝ⧋āĻ—ā§āϝ āĻ•āϰāĻžāϰ āĻĒāĻ•ā§āώ⧇ āϝ⧁āĻ•ā§āϤāĻŋ āĻĻ⧇āĻ–āĻžāύ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚, āĻāχ āĻĒā§āϰāĻ•ā§āϰāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻžāϤ⧇, āĻ…āĻšāĻ™ā§āĻ•āĻžāϰ āϝāĻ¨ā§āĻ¤ā§āϰ āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦ⧇ āĻŦā§āϝāĻŦāĻšā§ƒāϤ āĻšāϝāĻŧ āϝāĻ–āύ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻŦāĻŋāĻ­āĻŋāĻ¨ā§āύ āωāĻ¤ā§āϏ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻ•ā§āώ⧇āĻ¤ā§āϰ⧇āϰ āϚāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āϰ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻ…āĻšāĻ™ā§āĻ•āĻžāϰ āĻŦā§āϝāĻŦāĻšāĻžāϰ āĻ•āϰ⧇āύ āϤāĻ–āύ āϤāĻžāρāϰ āĻŽā§ŒāϞāĻŋāĻ•āϤāĻž āĻĒā§āϰāϤāĻŋāĻĢāϞāĻŋāϤ āĻšāϝāĻŧāĨ¤ āĻāϞāĻŋāϝāĻŧāϟ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļ⧇āώāĻ­āĻžāĻŦ⧇ “āĻĻā§āϝ āϰāĻŋāϞāĻŋāĻ•” āωāĻ˛ā§āϞ⧇āĻ– āĻ•āϰ⧇āϛ⧇āύ āĻāϞāĻŋāϝāĻŧāϟ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļ⧇āώāĻ­āĻžāĻŦ⧇  āϜāύ āĻĄā§‹āύāĻŋāϰ āĻ…āĻ¨ā§āϝāϤāĻŽ āĻŦāĻŋāĻ–ā§āϝāĻžāϤ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž”āĻĻā§āϝ āϰāĻŋāϞāĻŋāĻ•” āϕ⧇ āωāĻ˛ā§āϞ⧇āĻ– āĻ•āϰ⧇āϛ⧇āύāĨ¤

āĻšāĻžāĻĄāĻŧ āϏāĻŽā§āĻĒāĻ°ā§āϕ⧇ āωāĻœā§āĻœā§āĻŦāϞ āϚ⧁āϞ⧇āϰ āĻāĻ•āϟāĻŋ āĻŦā§āϰ⧇āϏāϞ⧇āϟ,”

Conclusion: Thus, Donne achieves the power of unification of sensibility very successfully and artificially. His poetry gives the impression that the thought and arguments are arising immediately out of passionate feelings. It is part of the dramatic realism of his style. He could combine disparate experiences and build something new by a variety of subjects.

  • Write a short note on Chaucer.

Introduction: Geoffrey Chaucer (1343-1400) was a poet, scientific thinker, author, philosopher, and diplomat. He made a huge contribution to the development of English literature and language. The three stages of his literary career make him not only famous but also recognizable. According to John Dryden, Chaucer is the father of English poetry. He is given this title for a number of reasons.

Arnold’s evaluation of Chaucer: In “The Study of Poetry” Matthew Arnold refers to Chaucer and seeks to establish a real estimate of his poetry. He says that the poetical importance of Chaucer does not need the assistance of the historic estimate. He is a genuine source of joy. He admits that the language of Chaucer is a cause of difficulty for us but he believes that it is a difficulty to be unhesitatingly accepted and overcome. In the recognition of Chaucer as a classic, the famous Arnoldian touchstone method stands in the way and spoils the whole game. Arnold is prepared to acknowledge the fact that the poetry of Chaucer is far better than the poetry before him. He is prepared to accept that he enjoys Chaucer’s writing. He says in most emphatic terms that it was dependent upon his talent. It is by the own words of Arnold:

“Chaucer is not one of the great classics. His poetry transcends and effaces,

easily and without effort,â€Ļâ€Ļâ€Ļ”

Conclusion: Arnold’s evaluation of Chaucer has been generally accepted by subsequent critics. G. K. Chesterton says that Chaucer was a humorist in the grand style. Some critics are also shocked to see Arnold’s notion of seriousness.

  • What do you mean by consolidation of imperialism?

Introduction: Imperialism is the process of expanding European overseas territories. To put it differently, it is the process of domination over weaker nations by powerful hypocrite nations. The whole process of imperialism is based on the consolidation of imperialism which is transparently coined out by Edward Said in literature.

Consolidation of imperialism: The consolidation of imperialism was the procedure of building of armies based on conscription, compulsory schooling, and the use of imperialism as a means of deflecting internal discontent and strengthening loyalties to the nation. To make easy the term ‘consolidation of imperialism’, Said discovers the two-fold meanings of culture that help the imperialists by focusing on the following aspects of culture:

  1. Fragile culture of the natives
  2. Ethical power of culture
  3. Literature as an institution of culture

Conclusion: Thus, the term consolidation of imperialism is a venture of permanent domination in the legalized process.

  1. What do you mean by post-colonialism or post-colonial theory?

Introduction: The history of colonialism is deeply rooted in the ups and downs of human history. The post-colonial theory was invented with the concept of post-modernism, but it spread around the world in the 1980s when the United Kingdom and the United States incorporated this theory into their academics.

Defined concept: Postcolonialism or postcolonial theory is the academic study of the cultural legacy of colonialism and imperialism. This theory focuses on the human consequences of the control and exploitation of colonized people and their lands. It is a critical analysis of the history, culture, literature, and discourse of European imperial power.

Expansion of the theory: The field of postcolonial studies was influenced by Edward Said’s path-breaking book Orientalism. Said uses the term Orientalism in several different ways. Orientalism is a specific field of academic study about the Middle East and Asia. This term described a structured set of concepts, assumptions, and discursive practices that were used to produce, interpret, and evaluate knowledge about non-European people. Said’s analysis made it possible for scholars to deconstruct literary and historical texts in order to understand how they reflected and reinforced the imperialist project. In “Introduction to Culture and Imperialism”, Said clearly states the theory of post-colonialism by referring to immigrating culture.

Conclusion: Thus, post-colonialism is a new term to enhance imperialistic power. This theory is a golden key for the imperialists to dominate the weaker nations sitting in a fixed place.

What similarity do you find between the metaphysical poets and modern poets?

Introduction: T. S. Eliot (1888-1965) in his critical essay “The Metaphysical Poets” has shown the affinity between the metaphysical poets and the modern poets. He asserts that modern poetry is the result of metaphysical poetry. To put it differently, he is in the opinion that without the shadow of the metaphysical poets, modern poetry cannot get its way of improvement.

Variety and complexity: Variety and complexity have been the key fact against the metaphysical poets raised by Dr. Samuel Johnson (1709-1784). It is in Johnson’s tongue:

“The most heterogeneous ideas are yoked by violence together”

But Eliot finds a great link between metaphysical poets and modern poets on a great variety of moods and complexity. Because juxtaposition is one of the significant features of modern poetry.

The use of language: Eliot says that the poet must become more and more comprehensive, allusive, and indirect in order to force language into his meaning. Comprehensive, allusive, and indirect qualities of the metaphysical poets are produced by the use of conceits. And today, the name of conceits is changed into obscure words mingled with simple phrasing.

Other similarities: Besides these, we also find some other similarities which are as follow:

  1. The quality of transforming ideas into sensations
  2. Dramatic beginning
  3. Intellectual quality

Conclusion: To sum up, it can be said that Eliot has wanted to say that the modern poets are the perfect imitators of the metaphysical poets because modern poetry descends in a direct line to the metaphysical poets.

Part: C

  1. Discuss “Touchstone Method”.

Or, discuss the merits and demerits of the “Touchstone Method”.

Introduction: Matthew Arnold (1822-1888) was the critic poet of the Victorian Period. He is considered to be the father of Modern Criticism. The method which is advocated by Arnold is known as the touch-stone method. According to Arnold, the term touchstone must be applicable for the purpose of judging and evaluating the standard of poets’ literary works whether they are classic or not. This method is recognized as the masterpiece of the critical essay “The Study of Poetry” (1880).

āĻ­ā§‚āĻŽāĻŋāĻ•āĻž: Matthew Arnold (1822-1888) āĻ­āĻŋāĻ•ā§āĻŸā§‹āϰāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻžāύ āĻĒāĻŋāϰāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻĄā§‡āϰ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāĻ• āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋ āĻ›āĻŋāϞ⧇āύ āĨ¤ āϤāĻžāϕ⧇ āφāϧ⧁āύāĻŋāĻ• āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāύāĻžāϰ āϜāύāĻ• āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦ⧇ āĻŦāĻŋāĻŦ⧇āϚāύāĻž āĻ•āϰāĻž āĻšāϝāĻŧ āĨ¤ Arnold āϝ⧇ āĻĒāĻĻā§āϧāϤāĻŋāϕ⧇ āϏāĻŽāĻ°ā§āĻĨāύ āĻ•āϰ⧇āϛ⧇āύ āϤāĻž touch-stone āĻĒāĻĻā§āϧāϤāĻŋ āύāĻžāĻŽā§‡ āĻĒāϰāĻŋāϚāĻŋāϤāĨ¤ Arnold-āĻāϰ āĻŽāϤ⧇, touch-stone āĻĒāĻĻā§āϧāϤāĻŋāϟāĻŋ āĻ…āĻŦāĻļā§āϝāχ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāĻĻ⧇āϰ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āϝ⧇āϰ āϰāϚāύāĻžāϗ⧁āϞ⧋āϰ āĻŽāĻžāύ āĻŦāĻŋāϚāĻžāϰ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻŽā§‚āĻ˛ā§āϝāĻžāϝāĻŧāύ⧇āϰ āωāĻĻā§āĻĻ⧇āĻļā§āϝ⧇ āĻĒā§āϰāϝ⧋āĻœā§āϝ, āϏ⧇āϗ⧁āϞ⧋ āĻ•ā§āϞāĻžāϏāĻŋāĻ• āĻšā§‹āĻ• āĻŦāĻž āύāĻž āĻšā§‹āĻ• āĨ¤ āĻāχ āĻĒāĻĻā§āϧāϤāĻŋāϟāĻŋ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāύāĻžāĻŽā§‚āϞāĻ• āĻĒā§āϰāĻŦāĻ¨ā§āϧ “The Study of Poetry” (1880) āĻāϰ āϏ⧇āϰāĻž āĻļāĻŋāĻ˛ā§āĻĒāĻ•āĻ°ā§āĻŽ āĻšāĻŋāϏ⧇āĻŦ⧇ āĻ¸ā§āĻŦā§€āĻ•ā§ƒāϤ āĨ¤

The scientific process of evaluation

Aristotle assigns excellent and high seriousness as one of the grand virtues of poetry. Here in the essay “The Study of Poetry”, Arnold has cited some lines of Homer, Dante, Shakespeare, and Milton as touchstones for testing the high poetic quality. As the “Touchstone Method” introduces the scientific process for critical evaluation and judgment of individual poets, Chaucer, Dryden, Pope and Shelley fail to be the best poet or classics because they have lack ‘high seriousness’. Even Shakespeare thinks too much for expression and little conception that is the slight flaw of Shakespeare but he is classic in accordance with Arnold. Actually, Arnold means to say that Chaucer, Dryden, Pope, and Shelley are genius but not classic.

āĻŦ⧈āĻœā§āĻžāĻžāύāĻŋāĻ• āĻĒā§āϰāĻ•ā§āϰāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻžāϰ āĻŽā§‚āĻ˛ā§āϝāĻžāϝāĻŧāύ

Aristotle āϝ⧇āĻŽāύ āϚāĻŽā§ŽāĻ•āĻžāϰ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āωāĻšā§āϚ āĻ—āĻŽā§āĻ­ā§€āϰāϤāĻžāϕ⧇  āύāĻŋāĻ°ā§āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖ āĻ•āϰ⧇āϛ⧇āύ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻžāϰ āĻ…āĻ¨ā§āϝāϤāĻŽ āϗ⧁āĻŖ āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦ⧇  āĨ¤ āĻāĻ–āĻžāύ⧇ “The Study of Poetry” āĻĒā§āϰāĻŦāĻ¨ā§āϧ⧇, Arnold āĻ•āĻžāĻŦā§āϝ⧇āϰ āωāĻšā§āϚ  āĻŽāĻžāύ⧇āϰ āϗ⧁āĻŖ āĻĒāϰ⧀āĻ•ā§āώāĻž āĻ•āϰāĻžāϰ āϜāĻ¨ā§āϝ Homer, Dante, Shakespeare āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ Milton-āĻāϰ āĻ•āϝāĻŧ⧇āĻ•āϟāĻŋ āϞāĻžāχāύāϕ⧇ touchstone āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦ⧇ āωāĻ˛ā§āĻ˛ā§āϝ⧇āĻ– āĻ•āϰ⧇āϛ⧇āύ āĨ¤ “Touchstone Method” āϝ⧇āĻŽāύ āĻĒ⧃āĻĨāĻ• āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāĻĻ⧇āϰ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāύāĻžāĻŽā§‚āϞāĻ• āĻŽā§‚āĻ˛ā§āϝāĻžāϝāĻŧāύ āĻ“ āĻŦāĻŋāϚāĻžāϰ⧇āϰ āϜāĻ¨ā§āϝ āĻŦ⧈āĻœā§āĻžāĻžāύāĻŋāĻ• āĻĒā§āϰāĻ•ā§āϰāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻžāϰ āϏāĻžāĻĨ⧇ āĻĒāϰāĻŋāϚāϝāĻŧ āĻ•āϰāĻŋāϝāĻŧ⧇ āĻĻ⧇āϝāĻŧ, Chaucer, Dryden, Pope āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ Shelleyāϰ āϏ⧇āϰāĻž āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋ āĻŦāĻž āĻ•ā§āϞāĻžāϏāĻŋāĻ• āĻšāϤ⧇ āĻŦā§āϝāĻ°ā§āĻĨ āĻšāύ āĻ•āĻžāϰāĻŖ āϤāĻžāĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻŽāĻ§ā§āϝ⧇ ‘high seriousness’-āĻāϰ āĻ…āĻ­āĻžāĻŦ āϰāϝāĻŧ⧇āϛ⧇ āĨ¤ āĻāĻŽāύāĻ•āĻŋ āĻļ⧇āĻ•ā§āϏāĻĒāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻžāϰ āĻ­āĻžāĻŦ āĻĒā§āϰāĻ•āĻžāĻļ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϏāĻžāĻŽāĻžāĻ¨ā§āϝ āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖāĻžāϰ āϜāĻ¨ā§āϝ āϖ⧁āĻŦ āĻŦ⧇āĻļāĻŋ āϚāĻŋāĻ¨ā§āϤāĻž āĻ•āϰ⧇āύ āϝāĻž āĻļ⧇āĻ•ā§āϏāĻĒāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻžāϰ⧇āϰ āϏāĻžāĻŽāĻžāĻ¨ā§āϝ āĻ¤ā§āϰ⧁āϟāĻŋ, āϤāĻŦ⧁āĻ“ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āφāĻ°ā§āύāĻ˛ā§āĻĄā§‡āϰ āĻŽāϤ⧇ āĻ•ā§āϞāĻžāϏāĻŋāĻ• āĨ¤ āφāϏāϞ⧇, āφāĻ°ā§āύāĻ˛ā§āĻĄ āĻŦāϞāϤ⧇ āĻšā§‡āϝāĻŧ⧇āϛ⧇āύ āϝ⧇ Chaucer, Dryden, Pope āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ Shelley āĻĒā§āϰāϤāĻŋāĻ­āĻžāĻŦāĻžāύ āĻ•āĻŋāĻ¨ā§āϤ⧁ āĻ•ā§āϞāĻžāϏāĻŋāĻ• āύāύ āĨ¤

The yardstick of finding ideal poets

As a result of the application of this method in his essay, the critic finds his ideal poets too. Homer and Sophocles are his ideal poets of ancient times. Dante and Milton have also been classic and he finds Goethe and Wordsworth as an ideal among the modernists. Arnold gives Wordsworth high rank not for his poetry but for his “Criticism of Life”.

āφāĻĻāĻ°ā§āĻļ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāĻĻ⧇āϰ āϏāĻ¨ā§āϧāĻžāύ⧇āϰ āφāĻ™ā§āĻ—āĻŋāύāĻž

āϤāĻžāρāϰ āϰāϚāύāĻžāϝāĻŧ āĻāχ āĻĒāĻĻā§āϧāϤāĻŋ āĻĒā§āϰāϝāĻŧā§‹āϗ⧇āϰ āĻĢāϞāĻ¸ā§āĻŦāϰ⧂āĻĒ, āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāĻ• āϤāĻžāρāϰ āφāĻĻāĻ°ā§āĻļ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāĻĻ⧇āϰāĻ“ āϖ⧁āρāĻœā§‡ āĻĒāĻžāύ āĨ¤ āϤāĻžāρāϰ āĻĒā§āϰāĻžāĻšā§€āύ āϏāĻŽāϝāĻŧ⧇āϰ āφāĻĻāĻ°ā§āĻļ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋ āĻšāϞ⧇āύ Homer āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ SophoclesāĨ¤ Dante āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ MiltonāĻ“ āĻ•ā§āϞāĻžāϏāĻŋāĻ• āĻ›āĻŋāϞ⧇āύ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āφāϧ⧁āύāĻŋāĻ•āϤāĻžāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§€āĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻŽāĻ§ā§āϝ⧇ Goethe āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ Wordsworthāϕ⧇ āφāĻĻāĻ°ā§āĻļ āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦ⧇ āϖ⧁āρāĻœā§‡ āĻĒāĻžāύ āĨ¤ Arnold Wordsworthāϕ⧇ āϤāĻžāρāϰ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻžāϰ āϜāĻ¨ā§āϝ āύāϝāĻŧ āĻŦāϰāĻ‚ āϤāĻžāρāϰ “Criticism of Life”- āĻāϰ āϜāĻ¨ā§āϝ āωāĻšā§āϚ āĻĒāĻĻāĻŽāĻ°ā§āϝāĻžāĻĻāĻž āĻĻāĻŋāϝāĻŧ⧇āϛ⧇āύ āĨ¤

The method of evaluation, not rejection

Arnold asserts that in order to judge a poet’s work properly a critic should compare it, poet’s literary work, to the passages of the classics. If the work has high seriousness or criticism of life, it will be recognized as a classical piece of writing and the poet must be included in the line of the classics. But it is also remembered that the literary work will not be rejected completely as we cannot reject Dryden, pope, and Shelley. To prove Arnold’s touchstone method, a few lines can be cited:

“And courage never to submit or yield

And what is else not to be overcomeâ€Ļâ€Ļâ€Ļ…”

According to Arnold if we tact these few lines, they are enough even to save us from the fallacious estimate of poetry and to conduct us to real estimate.

āĻŽā§‚āĻ˛ā§āϝāĻžāϝāĻŧāύ⧇āϰ āĻĒāĻĻā§āϧāϤāĻŋ, āĻĒā§āϰāĻ¤ā§āϝāĻžāĻ–ā§āϝāĻžāύ⧇āϰ āύāϝāĻŧ

Arnold āĻœā§‹āϰ āĻĻāĻŋāϝāĻŧ⧇ āĻŦāϞ⧇āϛ⧇āύ āϝ⧇, āϕ⧋āύāĻ“ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϰ āĻ•āĻžāĻœā§‡āϰ āϝāĻĨāĻžāϝāĻĨ āĻŦāĻŋāϚāĻžāϰ āĻ•āϰāĻžāϰ āϜāĻ¨ā§āϝ āĻāĻ•āϜāύ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāĻ•āϕ⧇ āĻ…āĻŦāĻļā§āϝāχ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϰ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āϝāĻ•āĻ°ā§āĻŽāϕ⧇ āĻ•ā§āϞāĻžāϏāĻŋāĻ• āĻ…āύ⧁āĻšā§āϛ⧇āĻĻ⧇āϰ āϏāĻžāĻĨ⧇ āϤ⧁āϞāύāĻž āĻ•āϰāĻž āωāϚāĻŋāϤ āĨ¤ āϝāĻĻāĻŋ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āϝāĻ•āĻ°ā§āĻŽāϟāĻŋāϤ⧇ āωāĻšā§āϚ āĻ—āĻŽā§āĻ­ā§€āϰāϤāĻž āĻŦāĻž āĻœā§€āĻŦāύ⧇āϰ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāύāĻž āĻĨāĻžāϕ⧇, āϤāĻŦ⧇ āĻāϟāĻŋ āϞ⧇āĻ–āĻžāϰ āĻ•ā§āϞāĻžāϏāĻŋāĻ•ā§āϝāĻžāϞ āĻ…āĻ‚āĻļ āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦ⧇ āĻ¸ā§āĻŦā§€āĻ•ā§ƒāϤ āĻšāĻŦ⧇ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϏ⧇āχ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϕ⧇ āĻ…āĻŦāĻļā§āϝāχ āĻ•ā§āϞāĻžāϏāĻŋāĻ•āĻĻ⧇āϰ āϏāĻžāϰāĻŋāϤ⧇ āĻ…āĻ¨ā§āϤāĻ°ā§āϭ⧁āĻ•ā§āϤ āĻ•āϰāĻž āĻšāĻŦ⧇ āĨ¤ āϤāĻŦ⧇ āĻāϟāĻžāĻ“ āĻŽāύ⧇ āϰāĻžāĻ–āϤ⧇ āĻšāĻŦ⧇ āϝ⧇ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āϝāĻ•āĻ°ā§āĻŽāϟāĻŋ āĻ…āĻŦāĻļā§āϝāχ āϏāĻŽā§āĻĒā§‚āĻ°ā§āĻŖāϰ⧁āĻĒ⧇ āĻĒā§āϰāĻ¤ā§āϝāĻžāĻ–ā§āϝāĻžāϤ āĻšāĻŦ⧇ āύāĻž āϝ⧇āĻšā§‡āϤ⧁ āφāĻŽāϰāĻž Dryden, pope āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ Shelleyāϕ⧇ āĻ…āĻ¸ā§āĻŦā§€āĻ•āĻžāϰ āĻ•āϰāϤ⧇ āĻĒāĻžāϰāĻŋ āύāĻž āĨ¤ Arnold-āĻāϰ touchstone āĻĒāĻĻā§āϧāϤāĻŋāϟāĻŋ āĻĒā§āϰāĻŽāĻžāĻŖ āĻ•āϰāĻžāϰ āϜāĻ¨ā§āϝ āĻ•āϝāĻŧ⧇āĻ•āϟāĻŋ āϞāĻžāχāύ āωāĻĻā§āϧ⧃āϤ āĻ•āϰāĻž āϝ⧇āϤ⧇ āĻĒāĻžāϰ⧇:

“āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϏāĻžāĻšāϏ āĻ•āĻ–āύāĻ“ āϜāĻŽāĻž āĻŦāĻž āωāĻ¤ā§āĻĒāĻžāĻĻāύ āĻšāϝāĻŧ āύāĻž

āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻ•āĻžāϟāĻŋāϝāĻŧ⧇ āĻ“āĻ āĻžāϰ āφāϰ āϕ⧀ āύ⧇āχ â€Ļâ€Ļâ€Ļ …”

Arnold-āĻāϰ āĻŽāϤ⧇ āφāĻŽāϰāĻž āϝāĻĻāĻŋ āĻāχ āĻ•āϝāĻŧ⧇āĻ•āϟāĻŋ āϞāĻžāχāύāϟāĻŋ āϰāĻĒā§āϤ āĻ•āϰāĻŋ āϤāĻŦ⧇ āĻāϗ⧁āϞāĻŋ āφāĻŽāĻžāĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻžāϰ āĻŽāĻŋāĻĨā§āϝāĻž āĻ…āύ⧁āĻŽāĻžāύ āĻĨ⧇āϕ⧇ āĻŦāĻžāρāϚāϤ⧇ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āφāĻŽāĻžāĻĻ⧇āϰāϕ⧇ āϏāĻ¤ā§āϝāĻŋāĻ•āĻžāϰ⧇āϰ āĻ…āύ⧁āĻŽāĻžāύ⧇āϰ āĻĻāĻŋāϕ⧇ āĻĒāϰāĻŋāϚāĻžāϞāĻŋāϤ āĻ•āϰāϤ⧇ āϝāĻĨ⧇āĻˇā§āϟāĨ¤

Categorization of the poets

Arnold surveys the entire track of English poetry by comparing the passages of Homer and Shakespeare and divides the poets into sundry categories of the good and great and not so good and so great. We can summarize Arnold’s view that is recommended for the critic by him in the following sentences:

“It is important therefore, to hold fast to this: that is at bottom a criticism of life: that a greatness of a poet lies in his powerful and beautiful application of ideas to life, and to the question, how to live”.

āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻļā§āϰ⧇āĻŖā§€āĻŦāĻĻā§āϧāĻ•āϰāĻŖ

Arnold Homer āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ Shakespeare-āĻāϰ āĻ…āύ⧁āĻšā§āϛ⧇āĻĻ⧇āϰ āϏāĻžāĻĨ⧇ āϤ⧁āϞāύāĻž āĻ•āϰ⧇ āχāĻ‚āϰ⧇āϜāĻŋ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻžāϰ āĻĒ⧁āϰ⧋ āϧāĻžāϰāĻžāϟāĻŋ āϏāĻŽā§€āĻ•ā§āώāĻž āĻ•āϰ⧇āϛ⧇āύ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāĻĻ⧇āϰāϕ⧇ good āĻ“ great āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ not so good āĻ“ not so great āχāĻ¤ā§āϝāĻžāĻĻāĻŋ āĻŦāĻŋāĻ­āĻŋāĻ¨ā§āύ āĻŦāĻŋāĻ­āĻžāϗ⧇ āĻ­āĻžāĻ— āĻ•āϰ⧇āϛ⧇āύ āĨ¤ āφāĻŽāϰāĻž āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāĻ•āĻĻ⧇āϰ āωāĻĻā§āĻĻ⧇āĻļā§āϝ⧇ Arnold-āĻāϰ āĻĻ⧃āĻˇā§āϟāĻŋāĻ­āĻ™ā§āĻ—āĻŋāϰ āϏāĻ‚āĻ•ā§āώāĻŋāĻĒā§āϤāϏāĻžāϰ āϜāĻžāύāϤ⧇ āĻĒāĻžāϰāĻŋ āϝāĻž āύāĻŋāĻŽā§āύāϞāĻŋāĻ–āĻŋāϤ āĻŦāĻžāĻ•ā§āϝāϗ⧁āϞāĻŋāϤ⧇ āĻĻ⧇āϝāĻŧāĻž āĻšāϞ⧋:

“āĻ…āϤāĻāĻŦ, āĻāχ āĻŦāĻŋāώāϝāĻŧāϟāĻŋāϕ⧇ āĻĻ⧃āĻĸāĻŧāĻ­āĻžāĻŦ⧇ āϧāϰ⧇ āϰāĻžāĻ–āĻž āϗ⧁āϰ⧁āĻ¤ā§āĻŦāĻĒā§‚āĻ°ā§āĻŖ: āϝ⧇āϟāĻŋ āĻœā§€āĻŦāύ⧇āϰ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāύāĻžāϝāĻŧ āĻ…āĻ¨ā§āϤāĻ°ā§āϭ⧁āĻ•ā§āϤ āϰāϝāĻŧ⧇āϛ⧇: āϝ⧇ āĻāĻ•āϜāύ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϰ āĻŽāĻšāĻŋāĻŽāĻž āύāĻŋāĻšāĻŋāϤ āϰāϝāĻŧ⧇āϛ⧇ āϤāĻžāρāϰ āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖāĻžāϗ⧁āϞāĻŋāϰ āĻĻ⧃āĻĸāĻŧ āĻ“ āϏ⧁āĻ¨ā§āĻĻāϰ āĻĒā§āϰāϝāĻŧā§‹āϗ⧇āϰ āĻŽāĻ§ā§āϝ⧇, āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻāχ āĻĒā§āϰāĻļā§āύāϟāĻŋāϰ āĻŽāĻ§ā§āϝ⧇- āĻ•āĻŋāĻ­āĻžāĻŦ⧇ āĻŦāĻžāρāϚāϤ⧇ āĻšāϝāĻŧ āĨ¤â€

Criticism or demerits

The touch-stone method introduced and proved by Matthew Arnold is neither very safe nor very sane. There are a number of disagreements as to the method. According to the critics, this comparative method is not perfect to determine the proper estimate of poetry because the personal and historical estimates are neglected in the method. Besides the contemporary presentation of poetic writing is also neglected by the touch-stone method. According to Van Doren, most of the touch-stone of Arnold deals in pain and sad memories.

āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāύāĻž āĻŦāĻž āĻ¤ā§āϰ⧁āϟāĻŋ

Matthew Arnold āĻĻā§āĻŦāĻžāϰāĻž āĻĒā§āϰāĻŦāĻ°ā§āϤāĻŋāϤ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻĒā§āϰāĻŽāĻžāĻŖāĻŋāϤ touch-stone āĻĒāĻĻā§āϧāϤāĻŋāϟāĻŋ āϖ⧁āĻŦ āύāĻŋāϰāĻžāĻĒāĻĻ āύāϝāĻŧ āφāĻŦāĻžāϰ āϖ⧁āĻŦ āφāĻĻāĻ°ā§āĻļāĻ“ āύāϝāĻŧ āĨ¤ āĻĒāĻĻā§āϧāϤāĻŋāϟāĻŋ āϏāĻŽā§āĻĒāĻ°ā§āϕ⧇ āĻ…āύ⧇āĻ• āĻŽāϤāϭ⧇āĻĻ āϰāϝāĻŧ⧇āϛ⧇ āĨ¤ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāĻ•āĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻŽāϤ⧇, āĻāχ āϤ⧁āϞāύāĻžāĻŽā§‚āϞāĻ• āĻĒāĻĻā§āϧāϤāĻŋāϟāĻŋ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻžāϰ āϝāĻĨāĻžāϝāĻĨ āĻ…āύ⧁āĻŽāĻžāύ āύāĻŋāĻ°ā§āϧāĻžāϰāϪ⧇āϰ āϜāĻ¨ā§āϝ āωāĻĒāϝ⧁āĻ•ā§āϤ āύāϝāĻŧ āĻ•āĻžāϰāĻŖ āĻĒāĻĻā§āϧāϤāĻŋāϟāĻŋāϤ⧇ āĻŦā§āϝāĻ•ā§āϤāĻŋāĻ—āϤ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϐāϤāĻŋāĻšāĻžāϏāĻŋāĻ• āĻ…āύ⧁āĻŽāĻžāύ āĻĒā§āϰāĻ¤ā§āϝāĻžāĻ–ā§āϝāĻžāϤ āϰāϝāĻŧ⧇āϛ⧇ āĨ¤ āϏāĻŽāϏāĻžāĻŽāϝāĻŧāĻŋāĻ• āωāĻĒāĻ¸ā§āĻĨāĻžāĻĒāύāĻžāϰ āĻĒāĻžāĻļāĻžāĻĒāĻžāĻļāĻŋ āĻ•āĻžāĻŦā§āϝāĻŋāĻ• āϞ⧇āĻ–āĻž touch-stone āĻĒāĻĻā§āϧāϤāĻŋ āĻĻā§āĻŦāĻžāϰāĻžāĻ“ āĻĒā§āϰāĻ¤ā§āϝāĻžāĻ–ā§āϝāĻžāϤ āĨ¤ Van Doren-āĻāϰ āĻŽāϤ⧇, Arnold-āĻāϰ āĻŦ⧇āĻļāĻŋāϰāĻ­āĻžāĻ— touch-stone āĻĒāĻĻā§āϧāϤāĻŋ āĻŦā§āϝāĻĨāĻž āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻĻ⧁āσāϖ⧇āϰ āĻ¸ā§āĻŽā§ƒāϤāĻŋāϰ āϏāĻžāĻĨ⧇ āϏāĻŽā§āĻĒāĻ°ā§āĻ•āĻŋāϤ āĨ¤

Conclusion: To sum up, it is asserted that the “Touchstone Method” is a landmark in the history of English Literature as it makes the poet thoughtful about the far-reaching effects of poetry, and as a result of this method the acceptance of poetry has been enhanced to the readers.

āωāĻĒāϏāĻ‚āĻšāĻžāϰ: āϏāĻžāϰāϏāĻ‚āĻ•ā§āώ⧇āĻĒ⧇, āĻāϟāĻŋ āĻĻ⧃āĻĸāĻŧāĻ­āĻžāĻŦ⧇ āĻŦāϞāĻž āϝāĻžāϝāĻŧ āϝ⧇ “Touchstone Method” āχāĻ‚āϰ⧇āϜāĻŋ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āϝ⧇āϰ āχāϤāĻŋāĻšāĻžāϏ⧇āϰ āĻāĻ•āϟāĻŋ āĻŽāĻžāχāϞ āĻĢāϞāĻ• āĻ•āĻžāϰāĻŖ āĻāϟāĻŋ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϕ⧇ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻžāϰ āϏ⧁āĻĻā§‚āϰāĻĒā§āϰāϏāĻžāϰ⧀ āĻĒā§āϰāĻ­āĻžāĻŦ āϏāĻŽā§āĻĒāĻ°ā§āϕ⧇ āĻŦāĻŋāĻŦ⧇āϚāύāĻžāĻĒā§‚āĻ°ā§āĻŖ āĻ•āϰ⧇ āϤ⧋āϞ⧇ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻāχ āĻĒāĻĻā§āϧāϤāĻŋāϰ āĻĢāϞ⧇ āĻĒāĻžāĻ āĻ•āĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻ•āĻžāϛ⧇ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻžāϰ āĻ—ā§āϰāĻšāĻŖāϝ⧋āĻ—ā§āϝāϤāĻž āĻŦ⧃āĻĻā§āϧāĻŋ āĻĒ⧇āϝāĻŧ⧇āϛ⧇ āĨ¤

2. Discuss Matthew Arnold as a critic with reference to “The Study of Poetry.

Introduction: Matthew Arnold was a Victorian poet and critic. He is considered to be the first modern critic and could be called the critic of critics because he became not only the champion of great poetry but also of literary criticism. As a critic, he talks about social issues, science, religion, and education. He was the first to pose questions in industrial Victorian society.

āĻ­ā§‚āĻŽāĻŋāĻ•āĻž: āĻŽā§āϝāĻžāĻĨāĻŋāω āφāĻ°ā§āύāĻ˛ā§āĻĄ āĻ›āĻŋāϞ⧇āύ āĻāĻ•āϜāύ āĻ­āĻŋāĻ•ā§āĻŸā§‹āϰāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻžāύ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāĻ•āĨ¤ āϤāĻžāρāϕ⧇ āĻĒā§āϰāĻĨāĻŽ āφāϧ⧁āύāĻŋāĻ• āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāĻ• āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦ⧇ āĻŦāĻŋāĻŦ⧇āϚāύāĻž āĻ•āϰāĻž āĻšāϝāĻŧ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāĻ•āĻĻ⧇āϰ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāĻ• āĻŦāϞāĻž āϝ⧇āϤ⧇ āĻĒāĻžāϰ⧇ āĻ•āĻžāϰāĻŖ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āϕ⧇āĻŦāϞ āĻĻ⧁āĻ°ā§āĻĻāĻžāĻ¨ā§āϤ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻžāϰ āĻšā§āϝāĻžāĻŽā§āĻĒāĻŋāϝāĻŧāύāχ āĻšāύāύāĻŋ, āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āϝāĻŋāĻ• āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāύāĻžāϰ āĻšā§āϝāĻžāĻŽā§āĻĒāĻŋāϝāĻŧāύāĻ“ āĻšāϝāĻŧ⧇āĻ›āĻŋāϞ⧇āύāĨ¤ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāĻ• āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦ⧇ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āϏāĻžāĻŽāĻžāϜāĻŋāĻ• āĻŦāĻŋāώāϝāĻŧ, āĻŦāĻŋāĻœā§āĻžāĻžāύ, āϧāĻ°ā§āĻŽ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻļāĻŋāĻ•ā§āώāĻž āύāĻŋāϝāĻŧ⧇ āĻ•āĻĨāĻž āĻŦāϞ⧇āύāĨ¤ āĻļāĻŋāĻ˛ā§āĻĒ āĻ­āĻŋāĻ•ā§āĻŸā§‹āϰāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻžāύ āϏāĻŽāĻžāĻœā§‡ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋāχ āĻĒā§āϰāĻĨāĻŽ āĻĒā§āϰāĻļā§āύāϟāĻŋ āĻ•āϰ⧇āĻ›āĻŋāϞ⧇āύāĨ¤

Influential critic

According to Matthew Arnold, the purpose of literary criticism is to know the best that is known and thought in the world and to generate a flow of genuine and fresh ideas that is why he has been able to influence the whole school of critics including T. S. Eliot and Allen Tate.

āĻĒā§āϰāĻ­āĻžāĻŦāĻļāĻžāϞ⧀ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāĻ•

āĻŽā§āϝāĻžāĻĨ⧁ āφāĻ°ā§āύāĻ˛ā§āĻĄā§‡āϰ āĻŽāϤ⧇, āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āϝ⧇āϰ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāύāĻžāϰ āωāĻĻā§āĻĻ⧇āĻļā§āϝ āĻš’āϞ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļā§āĻŦ⧇āϰ āϏāĻ°ā§āĻŦāĻžāϧāĻŋāĻ• āĻĒāϰāĻŋāϚāĻŋāϤ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϚāĻŋāĻ¨ā§āϤāĻžāϧāĻžāϰāĻž āϜāĻžāύāĻž āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϏāĻ¤ā§āϝāĻŋāĻ•āĻžāϰ⧇āϰ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϏāϤ⧇āϜ āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖāĻžāϗ⧁āϞāĻŋāϰ āĻāĻ•āϟāĻŋ āĻĒā§āϰāĻŦāĻžāĻš āϤ⧈āϰāĻŋ āĻ•āϰāĻž āĻāχ āĻ•āĻžāϰāϪ⧇āχ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āϟāĻŋāĻāϏ āĻāϞāĻŋāϝāĻŧāϟ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚   āĻ…ā§āϝāĻžāϞ⧇āύ āĻŸā§‡āϟ āϏāĻš āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāĻ•āĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻĒ⧁āϰ⧋ āĻ¸ā§āϕ⧁āϞāϕ⧇ āĻĒā§āϰāĻ­āĻžāĻŦāĻŋāϤ āĻ•āϰāϤ⧇ āϏāĻ•ā§āώāĻŽ āĻšāϝāĻŧ⧇āϛ⧇āύ

Founder of sociological school of criticism

The sociological school of criticism was founded by Matthew Arnold. His touchstone method introduced scientific objectivity to critical evaluation by providing comparison and analysis as the two primary tools of criticism. His touchstone method and objective approach to critical evaluation have been praised by Allen Tate and T. S. Eliot.

āϏāĻŽāĻžāϜāϤāĻžāĻ¤ā§āĻ¤ā§āĻŦāĻŋāĻ• āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāύāĻž āĻ¸ā§āϕ⧁āϞ⧇āϰ āĻĒā§āϰāϤāĻŋāĻˇā§āĻ āĻžāϤāĻž

āϏāĻŽāĻžāϜāϤāĻžāĻ¤ā§āĻ¤ā§āĻŦāĻŋāĻ• āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāύāĻžāϰ āĻ¸ā§āϕ⧁āϞāϟāĻŋ āĻŽā§āϝāĻžāĻĨ⧁ āφāĻ°ā§āύāĻ˛ā§āĻĄ āĻĒā§āϰāϤāĻŋāĻˇā§āĻ āĻž āĻ•āϰ⧇āĻ›āĻŋāϞ⧇āύāĨ¤ āϤāĻžāρāϰ āϟāĻžāϚāĻ¸ā§āĻŸā§‹āύ āĻĒāĻĻā§āϧāϤāĻŋ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāύāĻžāϰ āĻĻ⧁āϟāĻŋ āĻĒā§āϰāĻžāĻĨāĻŽāĻŋāĻ• āϏāϰāĻžā§āϜāĻžāĻŽ āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦ⧇ āϤ⧁āϞāύāĻž āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļā§āϞ⧇āώāĻŖ āĻĒā§āϰāĻĻāĻžāύ āĻ•āϰ⧇ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāύāĻžāĻŽā§‚āϞāĻ• āĻŽā§‚āĻ˛ā§āϝāĻžāϝāĻŧāύ⧇āϰ āĻŦ⧈āĻœā§āĻžāĻžāύāĻŋāĻ• āĻ…āĻŦāĻžāĻ¸ā§āϤāĻŦāϤāĻžāϰ āĻĒāϰāĻŋāϚāϝāĻŧ āĻĻ⧇āϝāĻŧāĨ¤ āĻ…ā§āϝāĻžāϞ⧇āύ āĻŸā§‡āϟ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϟāĻŋ. āĻāϏ. āĻāϞāĻŋāϝāĻŧāϟ āĻĒā§āϰāĻļāĻ‚āϏāĻŋāϤ āĻšāϝāĻŧ⧇āϛ⧇āύ āϤāĻžāρāϰ āϟāĻžāϚāĻ¸ā§āĻŸā§‹āύ āĻĒāĻĻā§āϧāϤāĻŋ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāύāĻžāĻŽā§‚āϞāĻ• āĻŽā§‚āĻ˛ā§āϝāĻžāϝāĻŧāύ⧇āϰ  āωāĻĻā§āĻĻ⧇āĻļā§āϝāĻĒā§āϰāĻŖāĻžāϞ⧀ āĻāϰ  āϜāĻ¨ā§āϝ

Critical view on social role of poetry

As a critic, Arnold has presented the social role of poetry. He thinks a critic is a social benefactor. He asserts that a creative artist would cut the sorry figure and should only care for the beauties and defects of literary works. As cultural and social values are synonymous to Arnold, he suggests that a poet should be very careful while he writes poetry because cultural values give us principles and the best poems should be selected and made known by the principles. Besides, poetry is the criticism of life. In the seminal essay “The Study of Poetry”, 1888, he claims the elevated status of poetry that is that poetry is superior to philosophy, religion, science, and politics. He also claims that poetry can alone be our sustenance and succor. Thus, he calls poetry the breath and finer spirit of knowledge.

āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻžāϰ āϏāĻžāĻŽāĻžāϜāĻŋāĻ• āĻ­ā§‚āĻŽāĻŋāĻ•āĻž āύāĻŋāϝāĻŧ⧇ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāĻ• āĻĻ⧃āĻˇā§āϟāĻŋāĻ­āĻ™ā§āĻ—āĻŋ

āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāĻ• āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦ⧇ āφāĻ°ā§āύāĻ˛ā§āĻĄ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻžāϰ āϏāĻžāĻŽāĻžāϜāĻŋāĻ• āĻ­ā§‚āĻŽāĻŋāĻ•āĻž āωāĻĒāĻ¸ā§āĻĨāĻžāĻĒāύ āĻ•āϰ⧇āϛ⧇āύāĨ¤ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻŽāύ⧇ āĻ•āϰ⧇āύ āĻāĻ•āϜāύ  āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāĻ•  āϏāĻžāĻŽāĻžāϜāĻŋāĻ•āĻ­āĻžāĻŦ⧇  āωāĻĒāĻ•āĻžāϰ⧀āĨ¤ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻĻ⧃āĻĸāĻŧāĻ­āĻžāĻŦ⧇  āĻĻāĻžāĻŦāĻŋ āĻ•āϰ⧇āύ āϝ⧇ āĻāĻ•āϜāύ āϏ⧃āϜāύāĻļā§€āϞ āĻļāĻŋāĻ˛ā§āĻĒā§€ āĻšāĻŦ⧇ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļāĻŋāĻˇā§āϟ āĻŦā§āϝāĻžāĻ•ā§āϤāĻŋ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϕ⧇āĻŦāϞ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āϝāĻ•āĻ°ā§āĻŽā§‡āϰ āϏ⧌āĻ¨ā§āĻĻāĻ°ā§āϝ⧇āϰ  āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻ¤ā§āϰ⧂āϟāĻŋāϗ⧁āϞ⧋āϰ  āĻĻ⧇āĻ–āĻžāĻļā§‹āύāĻž āĻ•āϰāĻž āωāϚāĻŋāϤāĨ¤ āϝ⧇āĻšā§‡āϤ⧁ āϏāĻžāĻ‚āĻ¸ā§āĻ•ā§ƒāϤāĻŋāĻ• āĻ“ āϏāĻžāĻŽāĻžāϜāĻŋāĻ• āĻŽā§‚āĻ˛ā§āϝāĻŦā§‹āϧ āφāĻ°ā§āύāĻ˛ā§āĻĄā§‡āϰ āϏāĻŽāĻžāĻ°ā§āĻĨāĻ•, āϤāĻžāχ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻĒāϰāĻžāĻŽāĻ°ā§āĻļ āĻĻāĻŋāϝāĻŧ⧇āĻ›āĻŋāϞ⧇āύ āϝ⧇ āϕ⧋āύāĻ“ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϰ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āϞ⧇āĻ–āĻžāϰ āϏāĻŽāϝāĻŧ āϖ⧁āĻŦ āϝāĻ¤ā§āύāĻļā§€āϞ āĻšāĻ“āϝāĻŧāĻž āωāϚāĻŋāϤ āĻ•āĻžāϰāĻŖ āϏāĻžāĻ‚āĻ¸ā§āĻ•ā§ƒāϤāĻŋāĻ• āĻŽā§‚āĻ˛ā§āϝāĻŦā§‹āϧ āφāĻŽāĻžāĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻŽā§‚āϞ āύ⧀āϤāĻŋ āĻĻ⧇āϝāĻŧ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϏ⧇āϰāĻž āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āύāĻŋāĻ°ā§āĻŦāĻžāϚāύ āĻ•āϰāĻž āωāϚāĻŋāϤ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āύ⧀āϤāĻŋāϗ⧁āϞāĻŋ āĻĻā§āĻŦāĻžāϰāĻž āĻĒāϰāĻŋāϚāĻŋāϤ āĻšāĻ“āϝāĻŧāĻž āωāϚāĻŋāϤāĨ¤ āĻāĻ›āĻžāĻĄāĻŧāĻž āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āĻœā§€āĻŦāύ⧇āϰ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāύāĻžāĨ¤ ā§§ā§Žā§Žā§Ž āĻ–ā§āϰāĻŋāĻ¸ā§āϟāĻžāĻŦā§āĻĻ⧇ “The Study of Poerty” āĻļā§€āĻ°ā§āώāĻ• āĻĒā§āϰāĻŦāĻ¨ā§āϧ⧇ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻžāϰ āωāĻšā§āϚāϤāϰ āĻŽāĻ°ā§āϝāĻžāĻĻāĻžāϕ⧇ āĻĻāĻžāĻŦā§€ āĻ•āϰ⧇āύ āϝ⧇ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āĻĻāĻ°ā§āĻļāύ, āϧāĻ°ā§āĻŽ, āĻŦāĻŋāĻœā§āĻžāĻžāύ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϰāĻžāϜāύ⧀āϤāĻŋāϰ āĻšā§‡āϝāĻŧ⧇ āωāĻšā§āϚāϤāϰāĨ¤ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āφāϰāĻ“ āĻĻāĻžāĻŦāĻŋ āĻ•āϰ⧇āϛ⧇āύ āϝ⧇ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āĻāĻ•āĻžāχ āφāĻŽāĻžāĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻ­āϰāĻŖāĻĒā§‹āώāĻŖ āĻ“ āϏāĻšāĻžāϝāĻŧāĻ• āĻšāϤ⧇ āĻĒāĻžāϰ⧇āĨ¤ āϏ⧁āϤāϰāĻžāĻ‚, āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻžāϕ⧇ āĻœā§āĻžāĻžāύ⧇āϰ āĻļā§āĻŦāĻžāϏ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϏ⧂āĻ•ā§āĻˇā§āĻŽ āĻšā§‡āϤāύāĻž āĻŦāϞ⧇āϛ⧇āύāĨ¤

Moral critic

Arnold as a critic is essentially a moralist and he has very definite ideas about what poetry should and should not be. He says that poetry of revolt against moral ideas is a poetry of revolt against life and poetry of indifference to moral ideas is a poetry of indifference to life. He believes ‘high seriousness is impossible if poetry is devoid of moral ideas and replete with charlatanism. He mentions Aristotle’s reference “poetry is superior to history” as poetry bears high seriousness and truth. So, the field of poetry should be free from charlatanism and packed up with moral ideas.

āύ⧈āϤāĻŋāĻ• āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāĻ•

āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāĻ• āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦ⧇ āφāĻ°ā§āύāĻ˛ā§āĻĄ āĻŽā§‚āϞāϤ āĻāĻ•āϜāύ āύ⧈āϤāĻŋāĻ•āϤāĻžāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§€ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻžāϟāĻŋ āϕ⧀ āĻšāĻ“āϝāĻŧāĻž āωāϚāĻŋāϤ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϕ⧀ āĻšāĻ“āϝāĻŧāĻž āωāϚāĻŋāϤ āύāϝāĻŧ  āϤāĻž āϏāĻŽā§āĻĒāĻ°ā§āϕ⧇ āϤāĻžāϰ āϖ⧁āĻŦ āϏ⧁āύāĻŋāĻ°ā§āĻĻāĻŋāĻˇā§āϟ āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖāĻž āϰāϝāĻŧ⧇āϛ⧇āĨ¤ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻŦāϞ⧇āϛ⧇āύ āϝ⧇ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž  āύ⧈āϤāĻŋāĻ• āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖāĻžāϰ āĻŦāĻŋāϰ⧁āĻĻā§āϧ⧇ āĻŦāĻŋāĻĻā§āϰ⧋āĻšā§‡āϰ , āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž  āĻœā§€āĻŦāύ⧇āϰ āĻŦāĻŋāϰ⧁āĻĻā§āϧ⧇ āĻŦāĻŋāĻĻā§āϰ⧋āĻšā§‡āϰ,  āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž  āύ⧈āϤāĻŋāĻ• āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖāĻžāϰ āĻĒā§āϰāϤāĻŋ āωāĻĻāĻžāϏ⧀āύāϤāĻžāϰ,āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āĻœā§€āĻŦāύ⧇āϰ āĻĒā§āϰāϤāĻŋ  āωāĻĻāĻžāϏ⧀āύāϤāĻžāϰ āĨ¤ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļā§āĻŦāĻžāϏ āĻ•āϰ⧇āύ āϝ⧇ ‘āωāĻšā§āϚ āĻ—āĻŽā§āĻ­ā§€āϰāϤāĻž āĻ…āϏāĻŽā§āĻ­āĻŦ āϝāĻĻāĻŋ āϕ⧋āύāĻ“ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āύ⧈āϤāĻŋāĻ• āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖāĻžāϗ⧁āϞāĻŋ āĻĨ⧇āϕ⧇ āĻŦāĻžā§āϚāĻŋāϤ āĻšāϝāĻŧ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϚāĻžāĻ°ā§āĻ˛ā§āϝāĻžāϟāĻžāύāĻŋāϜāĻŽ āĻĒā§‚āĻ°ā§āĻŖ āĻšāϝāĻŧāĨ¤ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻ…ā§āϝāĻžāϰāĻŋāĻ¸ā§āϟāϟāϞ⧇ āωāĻ˛ā§āϞ⧇āĻ– āĻ•āϰ⧇āϛ⧇āύ “āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āχāϤāĻŋāĻšāĻžāϏ⧇āϰ āĻšā§‡āϝāĻŧ⧇ āωāĻšā§āϚāϤāϰ” āĻ•āĻžāϰāĻŖ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āωāĻšā§āϚ āĻ—āĻŽā§āĻ­ā§€āϰāϤāĻž āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϏāĻ¤ā§āϝ āĻŦāĻšāύ āĻ•āϰ⧇āĨ¤ āϏ⧁āϤāϰāĻžāĻ‚, āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻžāϰ āĻ•ā§āώ⧇āĻ¤ā§āϰāϟāĻŋ āϚāĻžāĻ°ā§āĻ˛ā§āϝāĻžāϟāĻžāύāĻŋāϜāĻŽāĻŽā§āĻ•ā§āϤ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āύ⧈āϤāĻŋāĻ• āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖāĻžāϗ⧁āϞāĻŋ āĻĻā§āĻŦāĻžāϰāĻž āϏāĻœā§āϜāĻŋāϤ āĻšāĻ“āϝāĻŧāĻž āωāϚāĻŋāϤāĨ¤

Evaluator of classical values

In his essay “The Study of Poetry”, Arnold returns to the classical values. He believes that a modern writer should be aware that contemporary literature is built on the foundation of the past. He evaluates and judges the English poets from Chaucer to onwards, ancient Greek poet Homer, Latin poet Dante, southern and northern French poets, and Scottish poet Burns so that he can ensure the classical values of poetry because poetry has antiquity and universality that has been proved by Sir Philip Sidney in the essay “An Apology for Poetry”. He censors, by applying the scientific touchstone method, the poets like Chaucer, Dryden, Pope, Burns, and Shelley because of lacking of high seriousness but on the other hand, he praises Dante, Milton, Gray, and Wordsworth because of their proper interpretation of life.

āĻ•ā§āϞāĻžāϏāĻŋāĻ•āĻžāϞ  āĻŽā§‚āĻ˛ā§āϝāĻŦā§‹āϧ⧇āϰ āĻŽā§‚āĻ˛ā§āϝāĻžāϝāĻŧāύāĻ•āĻžāϰ⧀

āφāĻ°ā§āύāĻ˛ā§āĻĄ āϤāĻžāρāϰ ”The Study of Poerty” āĻĒā§āϰāĻŦāĻ¨ā§āϧ⧇, āĻ•ā§āϞāĻžāϏāĻŋāĻ•āĻžāϞ  āĻŽā§‚āĻ˛ā§āϝāĻŦā§‹āϧ⧇  āĻĢāĻŋāϰ⧇ āφāϏ⧇āύāĨ¤ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļā§āĻŦāĻžāϏ āĻ•āϰ⧇āύ āϝ⧇ āφāϧ⧁āύāĻŋāĻ• āϞ⧇āĻ–āϕ⧇āϰ āϏāĻšā§‡āϤāύ āĻšāĻ“āϝāĻŧāĻž āωāϚāĻŋāϤ āϝ⧇ āϏāĻŽāϏāĻžāĻŽāϝāĻŧāĻŋāĻ• āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āϝ āĻ…āϤ⧀āϤ⧇āϰ āĻ­āĻŋāĻ¤ā§āϤāĻŋāϤ⧇ āύāĻŋāĻ°ā§āĻŽāĻŋāϤāĨ¤ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āϚ⧈āϏāĻžāϰ āĻĨ⧇āϕ⧇ āĻļ⧁āϰ⧁ āĻ•āϰ⧇ āĻĒā§āϰāĻžāĻšā§€āύ āĻ—ā§āϰ⧀āĻ• āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋ āĻšā§‹āĻŽāĻžāϰ, āϞāĻžāϤāĻŋāύ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋ āĻĻāĻžāĻ¨ā§āϤ⧇, āĻĻāĻ•ā§āώāĻŋāĻŖ āĻ“ āωāĻ¤ā§āϤāϰ āĻĢāϰāĻžāϏāĻŋ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻ¸ā§āĻ•āϟāĻŋāĻļ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋ āĻŦāĻžāĻ°ā§āύāϏāϕ⧇ āχāĻ‚āϰ⧇āϜ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻŽā§‚āĻ˛ā§āϝāĻžāϝāĻŧāύ āĻ“ āĻŦāĻŋāϚāĻžāϰ āĻ•āϰ⧇āϛ⧇āύ āϝāĻžāϤ⧇ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻžāϰ āĻ•ā§āϞāĻžāϏāĻŋāĻ•āĻžāϞ  āĻŽā§‚āĻ˛ā§āϝāĻŦā§‹āϧ āύāĻŋāĻļā§āϚāĻŋāϤ āĻ•āϰāϤ⧇ āĻĒāĻžāϰ⧇āύ āĻ•āĻžāϰāĻŖ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻžāϝāĻŧ āĻĒā§āϰāĻžāĻšā§€āύāĻ¤ā§āĻŦ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϏāĻ°ā§āĻŦāϜāύ⧀āύāϤāĻž āĻĒā§āϰāĻŽāĻžāĻŖāĻŋāϤ āĻšāϝāĻŧ⧇āϛ⧇ āĻ¸ā§āϝāĻžāϰ āĻĢāĻŋāϞāĻŋāĻĒ āϏāĻŋāĻĄāύāĻŋ āϰāϚāύāĻž ” āĻāύ āφāĻĒāϞ⧋āϜāĻŋ āĻĢāϰ āĻĒā§‹āϝāĻŧ⧇āĻ°ā§āϟāĻŋ ” āĻĒā§āϰāĻŦāĻ¨ā§āϧ⧇āĨ¤ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāϞāĻž  āĻ•āϰ⧇āĻ›āĻŋāϞ⧇āύ , āĻŦ⧈āĻœā§āĻžāĻžāύāĻŋāĻ• āϟāĻžāϚāĻ¸ā§āĻŸā§‹āύ āĻĒāĻĻā§āϧāϤāĻŋ āĻĒā§āϰāϝāĻŧā§‹āĻ— āĻ•āϰ⧇ āϚ⧌āϏāĻžāϰ, āĻĄā§āϰāĻžāχāĻĄā§‡āύ, āĻĒā§‹āĻĒ, āĻŦāĻžāĻ°ā§āύāϏ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻļ⧇āϞāĻŋāϰ āĻŽāϤ⧋ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋ āωāĻšā§āϚ āĻ—āĻŽā§āĻ­ā§€āϰāϤāĻžāϰ āĻ…āĻ­āĻžāĻŦ⧇āϰ āĻ•āĻžāϰāϪ⧇ āϤāĻŦ⧇ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻĄā§āϝāĻžāĻ¨ā§āϟ, āĻŽāĻŋāĻ˛ā§āϟāύ, āĻ—ā§āϰ⧇ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻ“āϝāĻŧāĻžāĻ°ā§āĻĄāϏāĻ“āϝāĻŧāĻžāĻ°ā§āĻĨ⧇āϰ āĻĒā§āϰāĻļāĻ‚āϏāĻž āĻ•āϰ⧇āϛ⧇āύ āĻ•āĻžāϰāĻŖ āϤāĻžāĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻœā§€āĻŦāύ⧇āϰ āϏāĻ āĻŋāĻ• āĻŦā§āϝāĻžāĻ–ā§āϝāĻž āϰāϝāĻŧ⧇āϛ⧇āĨ¤

Arnold’s limitation as a critic

Though Arnold is given the title of the father of modern literary criticism, he has a number of limitations too. His first and foremost limitation is that he has even shown the significance of Keats’ sentimental letters to Fenny Browne. He is not a critic but a satirical critic and he has provided decisions too quickly. He cannot see and even realize the beauty and significance of lyricism or lyrical poems due to his blindness and adoration of classicism. His lack of historical sense is another failing and his touchstone method is not out and out perfect.

āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāĻ• āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦ⧇ āφāĻ°ā§āύāĻ˛ā§āĻĄā§‡āϰ āϏ⧀āĻŽāĻžāĻŦāĻĻā§āϧāϤāĻž

āϝāĻĻāĻŋāĻ“ āφāĻ°ā§āύāĻ˛ā§āĻĄāϕ⧇ āφāϧ⧁āύāĻŋāĻ• āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āϝ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāύāĻžāϰ āϜāύāĻ• āωāĻĒāĻžāϧāĻŋ āĻĻ⧇āĻ“āϝāĻŧāĻž āĻšāϞ⧇āĻ“ āϤāĻžāρāϰāĻ“ āĻ…āύ⧇āĻ•āϗ⧁āϞāĻŋ āϏ⧀āĻŽāĻžāĻŦāĻĻā§āϧāϤāĻž āϰāϝāĻŧ⧇āϛ⧇āĨ¤ āϤāĻžāϰ āĻĒā§āϰāĻĨāĻŽ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϏāĻ°ā§āĻŦāĻžāϧāĻŋāĻ• āϏ⧀āĻŽāĻžāĻŦāĻĻā§āϧāϤāĻž āĻš’āϞ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻĢ⧇āύāĻŋ āĻŦā§āϰāĻžāωāύāϕ⧇ āϕ⧀āϟāϏ⧇āϰ āϏāĻ‚āĻŦ⧇āĻĻāύāĻļā§€āϞ āϚāĻŋāĻ āĻŋāϰ āϤāĻžāĻ¤ā§āĻĒāĻ°ā§āϝāĻ“ āĻĻ⧇āĻ–āĻŋāϝāĻŧ⧇āϛ⧇āύāĨ¤ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āϕ⧋āύāĻ“ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāĻ• āύāϝāĻŧ āĻŦāϰāĻ‚ āĻāĻ•āϟāĻŋ āĻŦā§āϝāĻ™ā§āĻ—āĻžāĻ¤ā§āĻŽāĻ• āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāĻ• āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āϖ⧁āĻŦ āĻĻā§āϰ⧁āϤ āϏāĻŋāĻĻā§āϧāĻžāĻ¨ā§āϤāĻ“ āĻĻāĻŋāϝāĻŧ⧇āϛ⧇āύāĨ¤ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻ…āĻ¨ā§āϧāĻ¤ā§āĻŦ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻ•ā§āĻ˛ā§āϝāĻžāϏāĻŋāĻ•āĻŋāϜāĻŽā§‡āϰ āωāĻĒāĻžāϏāύāĻžāϰ āĻ•āĻžāϰāϪ⧇ āĻ—ā§€āϤāĻŋāĻ•āĻžāĻŦā§āϝ āĻŦāĻž āĻ—ā§€āϤāĻŋāĻ•āĻžāϰ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻžāϰ āϏ⧌āĻ¨ā§āĻĻāĻ°ā§āϝ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϤāĻžā§ŽāĻĒāĻ°ā§āϝ  āĻĻ⧇āĻ–āϤ⧇ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻŦ⧁āĻāϤ⧇āĻ“ āĻĒāĻžāϰ⧇āύ āύāĻžāĨ¤ āϤāĻžāρāϰ āϐāϤāĻŋāĻšāĻžāϏāĻŋāĻ•  āĻŦā§‹āϧ⧇āϰ āĻ…āĻ­āĻžāĻŦ āφāϰ⧇āĻ•āϟāĻŋ āĻŦā§āϝāĻ°ā§āĻĨāϤāĻž āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϤāĻžāϰ āϟāĻžāϚāĻ¸ā§āĻŸā§‹āύ āĻĒāĻĻā§āϧāϤāĻŋāϟāĻŋ āĻĒ⧁āϰ⧋āĻĒ⧁āϰāĻŋ  āϏāĻ āĻŋāĻ• āύāϝāĻŧāĨ¤

Conclusion: From the light of the above discussion, it can be said that Arnold has fixed his position in the rich galaxy of English critic-poet particularly for his “The Study of Poetry”. The critics like T. S. Eliot have been influenced by him too and Scott James has compared him to Aristotle in spite of having criticism.

3. Discuss the two-fold meaning of culture.

Or, how does Edward W. Said show culture as an instrument of imperialism?

Introduction: Edward W. Said (1935-2003) is considered to be one of the illustrious critics and philosophers of the late 20th century who has expounded the most critical concept in his collection of essays “Introduction to Culture and Imperialism” published in 1993 that there is a very subtle relationship between culture and imperialism. He looks into the relationship between culture and imperialism from a different angle as he has got different instruments of culture for imperialism.

āĻ­ā§‚āĻŽāĻŋāĻ•āĻž: Edward W. Said (1935-2003) āĻŦāĻŋāĻļ āĻļāϤāϕ⧇āϰ āĻļ⧇āώ⧇āϰ āĻĻāĻŋāϕ⧇āϰ āĻ…āĻ¨ā§āϝāϤāĻŽ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļāĻŋāĻˇā§āϟ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāĻ• āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻĻāĻžāĻ°ā§āĻļāύāĻŋāĻ• āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦ⧇ āĻĒāϰāĻŋāϚāĻŋāϤ āϝāĻŋāύāĻŋ ā§§ā§¯ā§¯ā§Š āϏāĻžāϞ⧇ āĻĒā§āϰāĻ•āĻžāĻļāĻŋāϤ āϤāĻžāρāϰ āϰāϚāύāĻžāĻŽā§‚āϞāĻ• āϏāĻ‚āĻ•āϞāύ “Introduction to Culture and Imperialism”-āĻ āϏāĻŦāĻšā§‡āϝāĻŧ⧇ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāύāĻžāĻŽā§‚āϞāĻ• āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖāĻžāϟāĻŋ āĻŦā§āϝāĻžāĻ–ā§āϝāĻž āĻ•āϰ⧇āϛ⧇āύ āϝ⧇āϟāĻŋ āĻšāϞ⧋ āϏāĻ‚āĻ¸ā§āĻ•ā§ƒāϤāĻŋ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻœā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻŽāĻ§ā§āϝ⧇ āĻāĻ•āϟāĻŋ āϖ⧁āĻŦ āϏ⧂āĻ•ā§āĻˇā§āĻŽ āϏāĻŽā§āĻĒāĻ°ā§āĻ• āϰāϝāĻŧ⧇āϛ⧇ āĨ¤ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻœā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻ⧇āϰ āϜāĻ¨ā§āϝ āϏāĻ‚āĻ¸ā§āĻ•ā§ƒāϤāĻŋāϰ āĻŦāĻŋāĻ­āĻŋāĻ¨ā§āύ āχāύāĻ¸ā§āĻŸā§āϰ⧁āĻŽā§‡āĻ¨ā§āϟ āĻĒ⧇āϝāĻŧ⧇āϛ⧇āύ āĻŦāϞ⧇ āϏāĻ‚āĻ¸ā§āĻ•ā§ƒāϤāĻŋ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻœā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻŽāĻ§ā§āϝāĻ•āĻžāϰ āϏāĻŽā§āĻĒāĻ°ā§āĻ•āϕ⧇ āĻāĻ•āϟāĻŋ āĻ­āĻŋāĻ¨ā§āύ āĻĻ⧃āĻˇā§āϟāĻŋāϕ⧋āĻŖ āĻĨ⧇āϕ⧇ āĻĻ⧇āϖ⧇āύ āĨ¤

Fundamental concept on culture

For well understand “culture as an instrument of imperialism”, it is needed to go into deeply. First of all, the aspects of culture should be clarified. According to Edward Said, culture means two things in particular. It primarily means practices of arts and aesthetic forms. Secondly, culture is a concept of refining and elevating elements and reservoirs of the best in accordance with what Matthew Arnold said in the 1860s. This fundamental concept of culture provides information that the natives of India, Africa, America, and so on could not preserve their arts and aesthetic forms that this why the imperialists could be able to be aggressive and search for so-called civilization.

āϏāĻ‚āĻ¸ā§āĻ•ā§ƒāϤāĻŋ āϏāĻŽā§āĻĒāĻ°ā§āϕ⧇ āĻŽā§ŒāϞāĻŋāĻ• āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖāĻž

āϏāĻ‚āĻ¸ā§āĻ•ā§ƒāϤāĻŋāϕ⧇ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻœā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻāĻ•āϟāĻŋ āχāύāĻ¸ā§āĻŸā§āϰ⧁āĻŽā§‡āĻ¨ā§āϟ āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦ⧇ āĻ­āĻžāϞ⧋ āĻ•āϰ⧇ āĻŦā§‹āĻāĻžāϰ āϜāĻ¨ā§āϝ, āĻāϰ āĻ—āĻ­ā§€āϰ⧇ āϝāĻžāĻ“āϝāĻŧāĻž āĻĒā§āϰāϝāĻŧā§‹āϜāύ āĨ¤ āĻĒā§āϰāĻĨāĻŽāϤ, āϏāĻ‚āĻ¸ā§āĻ•ā§ƒāϤāĻŋāϰ āĻĻāĻŋāĻ•āϗ⧁āϞ⧋ āϜāĻžāύāĻž āωāϚāĻŋāϤāĨ¤ Edward Said-āĻāϰ āĻŽāϤ⧇, āϏāĻ‚āĻ¸ā§āĻ•ā§ƒāϤāĻŋāϰ āĻ…āĻ°ā§āĻĨ āĻŦāϞāϤ⧇ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļ⧇āώāϤ āĻĻ⧁āχāϟāĻŋ āϜāĻŋāύāĻŋāϏ āĻŦā§‹āĻāĻžāϝāĻŧ āĨ¤ āĻĒā§āϰāϧāĻžāύāϤ āĻāϰ āĻ…āĻ°ā§āĻĨ āĻšāϞ⧋ āϚāĻžāϰ⧁āĻ•āϞāĻž āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āύāĻžāĻ¨ā§āĻĻāύāĻŋāĻ• āĻŦāĻŋāĻ¨ā§āϝāĻžāϏ⧇āϰ āĻ…āύ⧁āĻļā§€āϞāύ āĨ¤ āĻĻā§āĻŦāĻŋāϤ⧀āϝāĻŧāϤ, ā§§ā§Žā§Ŧā§Ļ-āĻāϰ āĻĻāĻļāϕ⧇ Matthew Arnold āϝ⧇āĻŽāύ āĻŦāϞ⧇āĻ›āĻŋāϞ⧇āύ āϝ⧇ āϏāĻ‚āĻ¸ā§āĻ•ā§ƒāϤāĻŋ āĻšāϞ⧋ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļā§‹āϧāύ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āωāĻ¨ā§āύāϤ āωāĻĒāĻžāĻĻāĻžāύ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϏāĻ°ā§āĻŦā§‹āĻ¤ā§āϤāĻŽ āφāϧāĻžāϰ⧇āϰ āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖāĻž āĨ¤ āϏāĻ‚āĻ¸ā§āĻ•ā§ƒāϤāĻŋāϰ āĻāχ āĻŽā§ŒāϞāĻŋāĻ• āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖāĻžāϟāĻŋ āĻāĻŽāύ āϤāĻĨā§āϝ āϏāϰāĻŦāϰāĻžāĻš āĻ•āϰ⧇ āϝ⧇ āĻ­āĻžāϰāϤ, āφāĻĢā§āϰāĻŋāĻ•āĻž, āφāĻŽā§‡āϰāĻŋāĻ•āĻž āχāĻ¤ā§āϝāĻžāĻĻāĻŋ āĻ¸ā§āĻĨāĻžāύ⧀āϝāĻŧ āύāĻžāĻ—āϰāĻŋāĻ•āϰāĻž āϤāĻžāĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻļāĻŋāĻ˛ā§āĻĒāĻ•āϞāĻž āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āύāĻžāĻ¨ā§āĻĻāύāĻŋāĻ• āĻŦāĻŋāĻ¨ā§āϝāĻžāϏāϗ⧁āϞ⧋āϰ āϏāĻ‚āϰāĻ•ā§āώāĻŖ āĻ•āϰāϤ⧇ āĻĒāĻžāϰ⧇āύāĻŋ āϝāĻžāϰ āĻ•āĻžāϰāϪ⧇ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻœā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§€āϰāĻž āϤāĻĨāĻžāĻ•āĻĨāĻŋāϤ āϏāĻ­ā§āϝāϤāĻžāϰ āϜāĻ¨ā§āϝ āφāĻ•ā§āϰāĻŽāĻŖāĻžāĻ¤ā§āĻŽāĻ• āĻšāϤ⧇ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻ…āύ⧁āϏāĻ¨ā§āϧāĻžāύ āĻ•āϰāϤ⧇ āϏāĻ•ā§āώāĻŽ āĻšāϝāĻŧ⧇āĻ›āĻŋāϞ āĨ¤

Fragile culture of the natives

 At the very outset of the essay, Said says that the culture of the third world is very fragile which was the strength of the imperialists. The imperialists always left contest among the natives. Said considers that supine or inert natives were the main strength of the imperialists.

“These two factors-a general worldwide pattern of the imperial culture

and a historical experience of resistance against empire”

Besides, the critic mentions that the people of the third world are mean-minded and conservative. On the other hand, the imperialists are so conceived and concerned. Thus, the culture of the overseas colonies became the instrument for the imperialists.

āĻ¸ā§āĻĨāĻžāύ⧀āϝāĻŧāĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻĻ⧁āĻ°ā§āĻŦāϞ āϏāĻ‚āĻ¸ā§āĻ•ā§ƒāϤāĻŋ

āĻĒā§āϰāĻŦāĻ¨ā§āϧ⧇āϰ āĻāϕ⧇āĻŦāĻžāϰ⧇ āĻļ⧁āϰ⧁āϤ⧇ Said āĻŦāϞ⧇āϛ⧇āύ āϝ⧇ āϤ⧃āϤ⧀āϝāĻŧ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļā§āĻŦ⧇āϰ āϏāĻ‚āĻ¸ā§āĻ•ā§ƒāϤāĻŋ āĻ…āĻ¤ā§āϝāĻ¨ā§āϤ āύāĻžāϜ⧁āĻ• āϝāĻž āĻ›āĻŋāϞ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻœā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§€āĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻļāĻ•ā§āϤāĻŋ āĨ¤ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻœā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§€āϰāĻž āϏāĻ°ā§āĻŦāĻĻāĻž āĻ¸ā§āĻĨāĻžāύ⧀āϝāĻŧāĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻŽāĻ§ā§āϝ⧇ āĻĒā§āϰāϤāĻŋāϝ⧋āĻ—āĻŋāϤāĻž āϏ⧃āĻˇā§āϟāĻŋ āĻ•āϰāϤ⧋ āĨ¤ Said āĻŦāϞ⧇āϛ⧇āύ āϝ⧇ āϏ⧁āĻĒāĻžāχāύ āĻŦāĻž āϜāĻĄāĻŧ āĻĻ⧇āĻļā§€āϝāĻŧāϰāĻž āĻ›āĻŋāϞ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻœā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§€āĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻĒā§āϰāϧāĻžāύ āĻļāĻ•ā§āϤāĻŋ.

āĻāχ āĻĻ⧁āϟāĻŋ āĻ•āĻžāϰāĻŖ- āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻœā§āϝ āϏāĻ‚āĻ¸ā§āĻ•ā§ƒāϤāĻŋāϰ āĻāĻ• āĻŦāĻŋāĻļā§āĻŦāĻŦā§āϝāĻžāĻĒā§€ āĻĒā§āϝāĻžāϟāĻžāĻ°ā§āύ

āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻœā§āϝ⧇āϰ āĻŦāĻŋāϰ⧁āĻĻā§āϧ⧇ āĻĒā§āϰāϤāĻŋāϰ⧋āϧ⧇āϰ āĻāĻ•āϟāĻŋ āϐāϤāĻŋāĻšāĻžāϏāĻŋāĻ• āĻ…āĻ­āĻŋāĻœā§āĻžāϤāĻžâ€

āĻĒāĻžāĻļāĻžāĻĒāĻžāĻļāĻŋ, āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāĻ•āϰāĻž āωāĻ˛ā§āϞ⧇āĻ– āĻ•āϰ⧇āϛ⧇āύ āϝ⧇ āϤ⧃āϤ⧀āϝāĻŧ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļā§āĻŦ⧇āϰ āĻŽāĻžāύ⧁āώāϰāĻž āύ⧀āϚāĻŽāύāĻž āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϰāĻ•ā§āώāĻŖāĻļā§€āϞ āĻ›āĻŋāϞ āĨ¤ āĻ…āĻ¨ā§āϝāĻĻāĻŋāϕ⧇, āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻœā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§€āϰāĻž āϖ⧁āĻŦāχ āϏ⧁āĻĻā§‚āϰāĻĒā§āϰāϏāĻžāϰ⧀ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āωāĻĻā§āĻŦāĻŋāĻ—ā§āύ āĻ›āĻŋāϞ āĨ¤ āĻāχāĻ­āĻžāĻŦ⧇, āĻŦāĻŋāĻĻ⧇āĻļā§€ āωāĻĒāύāĻŋāĻŦ⧇āĻļāϗ⧁āϞāĻŋāϰ āϏāĻ‚āĻ¸ā§āĻ•ā§ƒāϤāĻŋ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻœā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§€āĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻšāĻžāϤāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻžāϰ⧇ āĻĒāϰāĻŋāĻŖāϤ āĻšāϝāĻŧ⧇āĻ›āĻŋāϞ āĨ¤

Ethical power of culture

The imperialists of Britain and France were the so-called light bearers and makers of civilization. They went to spread the light of education and religion that was not only so-called but also namely to make the people of overseas colonies fool. In Said’s analysis, the search of trade and commerce and civilizing missions in India and Africa provided an ethical power to the colonialists but they went to the countries for looting and dominating. Despite this, they were unquestionable to the international community for almost two centuries due to their surface motives of civilizing and trade and commerce. Hence Said suggests checking culture before the entrance.

“Culture conceived in this way can become a protective enclosure:

check your politics at the door before you enter it.”

āϏāĻ‚āĻ¸ā§āĻ•ā§ƒāϤāĻŋāϰ āύ⧈āϤāĻŋāĻ• āĻļāĻ•ā§āϤāĻŋ

āĻŦā§āϰāĻŋāĻŸā§‡āύ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻĢā§āϰāĻžāĻ¨ā§āϏ⧇āϰ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻœā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§€āĻĻ⧇āϰ āϤāĻĨāĻžāĻ•āĻĨāĻŋāϤ āφāϞ⧋āĻ• āĻŦāĻšāύāĻ•āĻžāϰ⧀ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϏāĻ­ā§āϝāϤāĻžāϰ āύāĻŋāĻ°ā§āĻŽāĻžāϤāĻž āĻŦāϞāĻž āĻšāϤ⧋ āĨ¤ āϤāĻžāϰāĻž āĻļāĻŋāĻ•ā§āώāĻž āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϧāĻ°ā§āĻŽā§‡āϰ āφāϞ⧋ āĻ›āĻĄāĻŧāĻŋāϝāĻŧ⧇ āĻĻāĻŋāϤ⧇ āĻ—āĻŋāϝāĻŧ⧇āĻ›āĻŋāϞ āϝāĻž āϕ⧇āĻŦāϞ āϤāĻĨāĻžāĻ•āĻĨāĻŋāϤāχ āĻ›āĻŋāϞ āύāĻž āĻŦāϰāĻ‚ āĻŦāĻŋāĻĻ⧇āĻļā§€ āωāĻĒāύāĻŋāĻŦ⧇āĻļ⧇āϰ āϜāύāĻ—āĻŖāϕ⧇ āĻŦā§‹āĻ•āĻž āĻŦāĻžāύāĻžāύ⧋āϰ āωāĻĻā§āĻĻ⧇āĻļā§āϝ āϏ⧃āĻˇā§āϟāĻŋ āĻ•āϰ⧇āĻ›āĻŋāϞ āĨ¤ Said-āĻāϰ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļā§āϞ⧇āώāϪ⧇, āĻ­āĻžāϰāϤ āĻ“ āφāĻĢā§āϰāĻŋāĻ•āĻžāϰ āĻŸā§āϰ⧇āĻĄ, āĻ•āĻŽāĻžāĻ°ā§āϏ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϏāĻ­ā§āϝāϤāĻžāϰ āĻ…āύ⧁āϏāĻ¨ā§āϧāĻžāύāϗ⧁āϞ⧋ āωāĻĒāύāĻŋāĻŦ⧇āĻļāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§€āĻĻ⧇āϰ āύ⧈āϤāĻŋāĻ• āĻļāĻ•ā§āϤāĻŋ āĻĒā§āϰāĻĻāĻžāύ āĻ•āϰ⧇āĻ›āĻŋāϞ āĻ•āĻŋāĻ¨ā§āϤ⧁ āϤāĻžāϰāĻž āϞ⧁āϟāĻĒāĻžāϟ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āφāϧāĻŋāĻĒāĻ¤ā§āϝ⧇āϰ āϜāĻ¨ā§āϝ āĻĻ⧇āĻļāϗ⧁āϞ⧋āϤ⧇ āĻ—āĻŋāϝāĻŧ⧇āĻ›āĻŋāϞ āĨ¤ āϤāĻž āϏāĻ¤ā§āĻ¤ā§āĻŦ⧇āĻ“, āϏāĻ­ā§āϝāϤāĻž, āĻŸā§āϰ⧇āĻĄ āĻ“ āĻ•āĻŽāĻžāĻ°ā§āϏ⧇āϰ āωāĻĻā§āĻĻ⧇āĻļā§āϝāϗ⧁āϞ⧋āϰ āĻ•āĻžāϰāϪ⧇ āϤāĻžāϰāĻž āĻĒā§āϰāĻžāϝāĻŧ āĻĻ⧁āχ āĻļāϤāĻžāĻŦā§āĻĻā§€ āϧāϰ⧇ āφāĻ¨ā§āϤāĻ°ā§āϜāĻžāϤāĻŋāĻ• āϏāĻŽā§āĻĒā§āϰāĻĻāĻžāϝāĻŧ⧇āϰ āĻ•āĻžāϛ⧇ āϏāĻ¨ā§āĻĻ⧇āĻšāĻžāϤ⧀āϤ āĻ›āĻŋāϞ āĨ¤ āϤāĻžāχ Said āϏāĻ‚āĻ¸ā§āĻ•ā§ƒāϤāĻŋāϤ⧇ āĻĒā§āϰāĻŦ⧇āĻļ⧇āϰ āφāϗ⧇ āϤāĻž āϝāĻžāϚāĻžāχ āĻ•āϰāĻžāϰ āĻĒāϰāĻžāĻŽāĻ°ā§āĻļ āĻĻ⧇āύāĨ¤

“āĻāχāĻ­āĻžāĻŦ⧇ āĻ•āĻ˛ā§āĻĒāύāĻž āĻ•āϰāĻž āϏāĻ‚āĻ¸ā§āĻ•ā§ƒāϤāĻŋ āĻāĻ•āϟāĻŋ āĻĒā§āϰāϤāĻŋāϰāĻ•ā§āώāĻžāĻŽā§‚āϞāĻ• āĻ˜ā§‡āϰ⧇ āĻĒāϰāĻŋāĻŖāϤ āĻšāϤ⧇ āĻĒāĻžāϰ⧇:

āφāĻĒāύāĻžāϰ āϰāĻžāϜāύ⧀āϤāĻŋāϤ⧇ āĻĒā§āϰāĻŦ⧇āĻļ⧇āϰ āφāϗ⧇ āϤāĻž āϝāĻžāϚāĻžāχ āĻ•āϰ⧇ āĻĻ⧇āϖ⧁āύ āĨ¤â€

Literature as an institution of culture

It is universally accepted that literature is the mirror of society. Said opines through poetry, fiction, and philosophy teach how to practice and venerate culture, they discourse colonialism in an indirectly deep way. As a result, most professional humanists have been unable to connect between the prolonged practice of imperialism and the culture of literature. Here in this essay, Said especially talks about narrative fiction, novels, which play a vital role in the expansion of imperialism in the camouflage of culture.

“In thinking of Carlyle or Ruskin, or even Dickens and Thackeray, critics have often,

I believe, relegated these writers’ ideas about colonial expansion,”

He gives evidence by mentioning and illustrating sundry novels such as “Great Expectations” (1861) by Charles Dickens (1812-1870) which is primarily a novel of self-delusion or misconception about oneself but deeply it is a rogue one of practicing penal colony in Australia. “Nostromo” published in 1904 by Joseph Conrad (1857-1924) regarding the proliferation and malformation of imperialism in the South American Republic allows the readers to see that imperialism is a system. Therefore, literary culture is an instrument of imperialism.

āϏāĻ‚āĻ¸ā§āĻ•ā§ƒāϤāĻŋāϰ āĻāĻ•āϟāĻŋ āĻĒā§āϰāϤāĻŋāĻˇā§āĻ āĻžāύ āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦ⧇ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āϝ

āĻāϟāĻž āϏāĻ°ā§āĻŦāϜāύāĻ¸ā§āĻŦā§€āĻ•ā§ƒāϤ āϝ⧇ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āϝāχ āϏāĻŽāĻžāĻœā§‡āϰ āφāϝāĻŧāύāĻž āĨ¤ Said āĻŦāϞ⧇āϛ⧇āύ, āϝāĻĻāĻŋāĻ“ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž, āĻ•āĻ˛ā§āĻĒāĻ•āĻžāĻšāĻŋāύ⧀ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻĻāĻ°ā§āĻļāύ āϏāĻ‚āĻ¸ā§āĻ•ā§ƒāϤāĻŋ-āϚāĻ°ā§āϚāĻž āĻ“ āϏāĻ‚āĻ¸ā§āĻ•ā§ƒāϤāĻŋāϕ⧇ āĻļā§āϰāĻĻā§āϧāĻž āĻ•āϰāϤ⧇ āĻļ⧇āĻ–āĻžāϝāĻŧ, āϤāĻžāϰāĻž āωāĻĒāύāĻŋāĻŦ⧇āĻļāĻŦāĻžāĻĻāϕ⧇ āĻĒāϰ⧋āĻ•ā§āώāĻ­āĻžāĻŦ⧇ āĻ—āĻ­ā§€āϰ āωāĻĒāĻžāϝāĻŧ⧇ āφāϞ⧋āϚāύāĻž āĻ•āϰ⧇ āĨ¤ āĻĢāϞāĻ¸ā§āĻŦāϰ⧂āĻĒ, āĻŦ⧇āĻļāĻŋāϰāĻ­āĻžāĻ— āĻĒ⧇āĻļāĻžāĻĻāĻžāϰ āĻŽāĻžāύāĻŦāϤāĻžāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§€āϰāĻž āĻĻā§€āĻ°ā§āϘāĻ•āĻžāϞ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻœā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻ⧇āϰ āϚāĻ°ā§āϚāĻž āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āϝ⧇āϰ āϏāĻ‚āĻ¸ā§āĻ•ā§ƒāϤāĻŋāϰ āĻŽāĻ§ā§āϝ⧇ āϏāĻ‚āϝ⧋āĻ— āĻ¸ā§āĻĨāĻžāĻĒāύ āĻ•āϰāϤ⧇ āĻ…āĻ•ā§āώāĻŽ āĻšāϝāĻŧ⧇āϛ⧇ āĨ¤ āĻāĻ–āĻžāύ⧇ āĻāχ āĻĒā§āϰāĻŦāĻ¨ā§āϧ⧇, Said āĻŦāĻŋāĻļ⧇āώāϤ āĻŦāĻ°ā§āĻŖāύāĻžāĻŽā§‚āϞāĻ• āĻ•āĻ˛ā§āĻĒāĻ•āĻžāĻšāĻŋāύ⧀, āωāĻĒāĻ¨ā§āϝāĻžāϏ āϏāĻŽā§āĻĒāĻ°ā§āϕ⧇ āĻ•āĻĨāĻž āĻŦāϞ⧇āϛ⧇āύ āϝ⧇āϗ⧁āϞ⧋ āϏāĻ‚āĻ¸ā§āĻ•ā§ƒāϤāĻŋāϰ āĻ›āĻĻā§āĻŽāĻŦ⧇āĻļ⧇ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻœā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻĒā§āϰāϏāĻžāϰ⧇āϰ āϜāĻ¨ā§āϝ āϗ⧁āϰ⧁āĻ¤ā§āĻŦāĻĒā§‚āĻ°ā§āĻŖ āĻ­ā§‚āĻŽāĻŋāĻ•āĻž āĻĒāĻžāϞāύ āĻ•āϰ⧇ āĨ¤

“Carlyle āĻŦāĻž Ruskin, āĻāĻŽāύāĻ•āĻŋ Dickens āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ Thackerayāϰ āĻ•āĻĨāĻž āϭ⧇āĻŦ⧇ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāĻ•āϰāĻž āĻĒā§āϰāĻžāϝāĻŧāĻļāχ,

āφāĻŽāĻŋ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļā§āĻŦāĻžāϏ āĻ•āϰāĻŋ, āĻāχ āϞ⧇āĻ–āĻ•āĻĻ⧇āϰ āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖāĻžāϕ⧇ āωāĻĒāύāĻŋāĻŦ⧇āĻļāĻŋāĻ• āĻĒā§āϰāϏāĻžāϰ⧇āϰ āωāĻĒāϰ āĻ¨ā§āϝāĻ¸ā§āϤ āĻ•āϰ⧇āϛ⧇āύ,”

āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ Charles Dickens (1812-1870) āϰāϚāĻŋāϤ “Great Expectations” (1861) -āĻāϰ āĻŽāϤ⧋ āĻ¸ā§āĻŦāϤāĻ¨ā§āĻ¤ā§āϰ āωāĻĒāĻ¨ā§āϝāĻžāϏāϗ⧁āϞ⧋ āωāĻ˛ā§āϞ⧇āĻ– āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļā§āϞ⧇āώāĻŖ āĻ•āϰ⧇ āĻĒā§āϰāĻŽāĻžāĻŖ āĻĻāĻŋāϝāĻŧ⧇āϛ⧇āύ āϝāĻž āĻŽā§‚āϞāϤ āύāĻŋāĻœā§‡āϰ āϏāĻŽā§āĻĒāĻ°ā§āϕ⧇ āĻŦāĻŋāĻ­ā§āϰāĻžāĻ¨ā§āϤāĻŋ āĻŦāĻž āϭ⧁āϞ āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖāĻž āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖāĻžāϰ āĻāĻ•āϟāĻŋ āωāĻĒāĻ¨ā§āϝāĻžāϏ āϤāĻŦ⧇ āĻ—āĻ­ā§€āϰāĻ­āĻžāĻŦ⧇ āĻāϟāĻŋ āĻ…āĻ¸ā§āĻŸā§āϰ⧇āϞāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻžāϝāĻŧ āĻĒ⧇āύāĻžāϞ āĻ•āϞ⧋āύ⧀ āĻ…āύ⧁āĻļā§€āϞāύāĻ•āĻžāϰ⧀āĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻŽāĻ§ā§āϝ⧇ āĻ…āĻ¨ā§āϝāϤāĻŽ āĻĒā§āϰāϤāĻžāϰāĻ• āĨ¤ ⧧⧝ā§Ļā§Ē āϏāĻžāϞ⧇ āĻĒā§āϰāĻ•āĻžāĻļāĻŋāϤ Joseph Conrad (1857-1924)-āĻāϰ  “Nostromo” āĻĻāĻ•ā§āώāĻŋāĻŖ āφāĻŽā§‡āϰāĻŋāĻ•āĻž āĻĒā§āϰāϜāĻžāϤāĻ¨ā§āĻ¤ā§āϰ⧇āϰ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻœā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻŦāĻŋāĻ¸ā§āϤāĻžāϰ āĻ“ āĻŦāĻŋāĻ•ā§ƒāϤāĻŋ āϏāĻŽā§āĻĒāĻ°ā§āϕ⧇ āĻĒāĻžāĻ āĻ•āĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻ•āĻžāϛ⧇ āϤ⧁āϞ⧇ āϧāϰ⧇ āϝ⧇ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻœā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻ āĻāĻ•āϟāĻŋ āĻŦā§āϝāĻŦāĻ¸ā§āĻĨāĻžāĨ¤ āĻāχāϜāĻ¨ā§āϝ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āϝ āϏāĻ‚āĻ¸ā§āĻ•ā§ƒāϤāĻŋ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻœā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻāĻ•āϟāĻŋ āωāĻĒāĻ•āϰāĻŖ āĨ¤

Immigrating culture

Immigrating culture is an instrument of post-colonial capitalism. Edward Said relates that imperialism exists even in 20th century but not in shape of 18th and 19th centuries because in fine of the essay he asserts:

“This is a book about past and present, about us and them.”

It has changed its fervidity and character through capitalism and globalization process. The people of third world are immigrating to the capitalists’ countries in search of better fortunes that is also a strong token of subservience and separation.

āϏāĻ‚āĻ¸ā§āĻ•ā§ƒāϤāĻŋāϰ āĻ…āĻ­āĻŋāĻŦāĻžāϏāύ

āωāĻĒāύāĻŋāĻŦ⧇āĻļāĻŋāĻ• āĻĒ⧁āρāϜāĻŋāĻŦāĻžāĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻāĻ•āϟāĻŋ āωāĻĒāĻ•āϰāĻŖ āĻšāϞ⧋ āχāĻŽāĻŋāĻ—ā§āĻ°ā§āϝāĻžāϟāĻŋāĻ‚ āϏāĻ‚āĻ¸ā§āĻ•ā§ƒāϤāĻŋāĨ¤ Edward Said āĻŦāĻ°ā§āĻŖāύāĻž āĻ•āϰ⧇āϛ⧇āύ āϝ⧇ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻœā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻ āĻŦāĻŋāĻ‚āĻļ āĻļāϤāĻžāĻŦā§āĻĻā§€āϤ⧇āĻ“ āĻŦāĻŋāĻĻā§āϝāĻŽāĻžāύ āϤāĻŦ⧇ ā§§ā§Ž āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ ⧧⧝ āĻļāϤāϕ⧇āϰ āĻŽāϤ⧋ āύāϝāĻŧ āĻ•āĻžāϰāĻŖ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āϰāϚāύāĻžāϟāĻŋāϤ⧇ āĻŦāϞ⧇āϛ⧇āύ:

“āĻāϟāĻŋ āφāĻŽāĻžāĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϤāĻžāĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻ…āϤ⧀āϤ āĻ“ āĻŦāĻ°ā§āϤāĻŽāĻžāύ āϏāĻŽā§āĻĒāĻ°ā§āϕ⧇ āĻāĻ•āϟāĻŋ āĻŦāχ āĨ¤â€

āĻāϟāĻŋ āĻĒ⧁āρāϜāĻŋāĻŦāĻžāĻĻ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļā§āĻŦāĻžāϝāĻŧāύ āĻĒā§āϰāĻ•ā§āϰāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻžāϟāĻŋāϰ āĻŽāĻžāĻ§ā§āϝāĻŽā§‡ āϤāĻžāϰ āĻŦ⧇āĻšāĻžāϝāĻŧāĻžāĻĒāύāĻž āĻ“ āϚāϰāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āϰāϕ⧇ āĻĒāϰāĻŋāĻŦāĻ°ā§āϤāύ āĻ•āϰ⧇āϛ⧇ āĨ¤ āϤ⧃āϤ⧀āϝāĻŧ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļā§āĻŦ⧇āϰ āϞ⧋āϕ⧇āϰāĻž āφāϰāĻ“ āĻŦ⧇āĻļāĻŋ āĻ­āĻžāĻ—ā§āϝ⧇āϰ āϏāĻ¨ā§āϧāĻžāύ⧇ āĻĒ⧁āρāϜāĻŋāĻĒāϤāĻŋāĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻĻ⧇āĻļāϗ⧁āϞāĻŋāϤ⧇ āĻ…āĻ­āĻŋāĻŦāĻžāϏāĻŋāϤ āĻšāĻšā§āϛ⧇ āϝāĻž āφāĻœā§āĻžāĻžāĻŦāĻšāϤāĻž āĻ“ āĻŦāĻŋāĻšā§āĻ›āĻŋāĻ¨ā§āύāϤāĻžāϰ āĻĻ⧃āĻĸāĻŧāϤāĻŽ āĻĒā§āϰāϤ⧀āĻ• āĨ¤

Conclusion: To sum up, Edward Said is such a genius who reveals the secret of improved culture as the instrument of imperialism and capitalism in a convincing and fabulous way so that the countries of this universe can enjoy freedom and sovereignty being aware of culture.

4.  How does Eagleton evaluate the Romantics? Discuss.

Introduction: Terry Eagleton (1943- ) in his “The Rise of English” represents that the modern sense of the word “Literature” started in the nineteenth century. The Romantic period (1798-1832) was the mark of transition or change that is why the true definition of literature began to develop in this period.

āĻ­ā§‚āĻŽāĻŋāĻ•āĻž: āĻŸā§‡āϰāĻŋ āχāĻ—āϞāϟāύ (1943-) āϤāĻžāρāϰ “āĻĻāĻž āϰāĻžāχāϏ āĻ…āĻĢ āχāĻ‚āϞāĻŋāĻļ” -āĻ āωāĻĒāĻ¸ā§āĻĨāĻžāĻĒāύ āĻ•āϰ⧇āϛ⧇āύ āϝ⧇ “āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āϝ” āĻļāĻŦā§āĻĻ⧇āϰ āφāϧ⧁āύāĻŋāĻ• āωāĻĒāϞāĻŦā§āϧāĻŋ āωāύāĻŋāĻļ āĻļāϤāϕ⧇ āĻļ⧁āϰ⧁ āĻšāϝāĻŧ⧇āĻ›āĻŋāϞ āĨ¤ āϰ⧋āĻŽāĻžāĻ¨ā§āϟāĻŋāĻ• āϏāĻŽāϝāĻŧāĻ•āĻžāϞ (1798-1832) āĻ›āĻŋāϞ āϰ⧂āĻĒāĻžāĻ¨ā§āϤāϰ āĻŦāĻž āĻĒāϰāĻŋāĻŦāĻ°ā§āϤāύ⧇āϰ āύāĻŋāĻĻāĻ°ā§āĻļāύ āĻāχ āϜāĻ¨ā§āϝāχ āĻāχ āϏāĻŽāϝāĻŧ⧇āϰ āĻŽāĻ§ā§āϝ⧇ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āϝ⧇āϰ āφāϏāϞ āϏāĻ‚āĻœā§āĻžāĻžāϰ āĻŦāĻŋāĻ•āĻžāĻļ āĻļ⧁āϰ⧁ āĻšāϝāĻŧ⧇āĻ›āĻŋāϞ āĨ¤

The implementor of modern English literature

In the third para of the essay, the essayist has upheld the modern sense of literature. According to him, “literature is a historically recent phenomenon: it was invented sometime around the turn of the eighteen century and would have thought extremely strange by Chaucer (1343-1400) and even Pope (1688-1744)”. By this Eagleton means to say that the modernity of English literature started in the middle English period by the hand of Geoffrey Chaucer who is considered to be the father of English poetry but it was really incomplete and Chaucer was only the seeder of modernity. By the second part of the modern sense of literature, Eagleton implies that the true modern sense of English literature started positively in the eighteenth Century but this time was also incomplete, but better than that of Chaucer, as creative or imaginative literary work was so-called. So, till the final decades of eighteenth century true modern sense of literature was not completed.

āφāϧ⧁āύāĻŋāĻ• āχāĻ‚āϰ⧇āϜāĻŋ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āϝ⧇āϰ āĻĒā§āϰāϝāĻŧā§‹āĻ—āĻ•āĻžāϰ⧀

āĻĒā§āϰāĻŦāĻ¨ā§āϧ⧇āϰ āϤ⧃āϤ⧀āϝāĻŧ āĻ…āύ⧁āĻšā§āϛ⧇āĻĻ⧇ āĻĒā§āϰāĻŦāĻ¨ā§āϧāĻ•āĻžāϰ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āϝ⧇āϰ āφāϧ⧁āύāĻŋāĻ• āĻŦā§‹āϧāϕ⧇ āϏāĻŽāĻ°ā§āĻĨāύ āĻ•āϰ⧇āϛ⧇āύ āĨ¤ āϤāĻžāρāϰ āĻŽāϤ⧇, “āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āϝ āϐāϤāĻŋāĻšāĻžāϏāĻŋāĻ•āĻ­āĻžāĻŦ⧇ āĻāĻ•āϟāĻŋ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āĻĒā§āϰāϤāĻŋāĻ• āϘāϟāύāĻž: āĻāϟāĻŋ āφāĻ āĻžāϰ⧋ āĻļāϤāϕ⧇āϰ āĻļ⧇āώ⧇āϰ āĻĻāĻŋāϕ⧇ āφāĻŦāĻŋāĻˇā§āĻ•āĻžāϰ āĻ•āϰāĻž āĻšāϝāĻŧ⧇āĻ›āĻŋāϞ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϚāϏāĻžāϰ  (ā§§ā§Šā§Šā§Ē-ā§§ā§Ēā§Ļā§Ļ) āĻāĻŽāύāĻ•āĻŋ āĻĒā§‹āĻĒ (ā§§88ā§Žā§Ž-ā§§4ā§Ēā§Ē) āĻĻā§āĻŦāĻžāϰāĻž āĻāϟāĻŋ āĻ…āĻ¤ā§āϝāĻ¨ā§āϤ āĻŦāĻŋāĻ¸ā§āĻŽāϝāĻŧāĻ•āϰ āĻŦāϞ⧇ āĻŽāύ⧇ āĻšāϤ” āĨ¤ āĻāϟāĻŋ āĻĻā§āĻŦāĻžāϰāĻž  āχāĻ—āϞāϟāύ āĻŦāϞāϤ⧇ āϚāĻžāϝāĻŧ āϝ⧇ āχāĻ‚āϰ⧇āϜāĻŋ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āϝ⧇āϰ āφāϧ⧁āύāĻŋāĻ•āϤāĻž āĻŽāĻ§ā§āϝ āχāĻ‚āϰ⧇āϜāĻŋ āϏāĻŽāϝāĻŧ āĻĨ⧇āϕ⧇āχ āĻļ⧁āϰ⧁ āĻšāϝāĻŧ⧇āĻ›āĻŋāϞ āϜāĻŋāĻ“āĻĢā§āϰ⧇ āϚāϏāĻžāϰ⧇āϰ āĻšāĻžāϤ āϧāϰ⧇ āϝāĻžāϕ⧇ āχāĻ‚āϰ⧇āϜāĻŋ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻžāϰ āϜāύāĻ• āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦ⧇ āĻŦāĻŋāĻŦ⧇āϚāύāĻž āĻ•āϰāĻž āĻšāϝāĻŧ āϤāĻŦ⧇ āĻāϟāĻŋ āϏāĻ¤ā§āϝāĻŋāχ āĻ…āϏāĻŽā§āĻĒ⧁āĻ°ā§āĻŖ āĻ›āĻŋāϞ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϚāϏāĻžāϰāχ āϕ⧇āĻŦāϞ āφāϧ⧁āύāĻŋāĻ•āϤāĻžāϰ āĻŦā§€āϜāĻŦāĻĒāĻ• āĻ›āĻŋāϞ⧇āύ āĨ¤ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āϝ⧇āϰ āφāϧ⧁āύāĻŋāĻ• āĻŦā§‹āϧ⧇āϰ āĻĻā§āĻŦāĻŋāϤ⧀āϝāĻŧ āĻ…āĻ‚āĻļ⧇āϰ āĻŽāĻžāĻ§ā§āϝāĻŽā§‡, āχāĻ—āϞāϟāύ  āχāĻ™ā§āĻ—āĻŋāϤ āĻĻ⧇āϝāĻŧ āϝ⧇ āχāĻ‚āϰ⧇āĻœā§€ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āϝ⧇āϰ āϏāĻ¤ā§āϝāĻŋāĻ•āĻžāϰ⧇āϰ āφāϧ⧁āύāĻŋāĻ• āĻœā§āĻžāĻžāύāϟāĻŋ āφāĻ āĻžāϰ⧋ āĻļāϤāϕ⧇ āχāϤāĻŋāĻŦāĻžāϚāĻ•āĻ­āĻžāĻŦ⧇ āĻļ⧁āϰ⧁ āĻšāϝāĻŧ⧇āĻ›āĻŋāϞ āϤāĻŦ⧇ āĻāχ āϏāĻŽāϝāĻŧāϟāĻŋāĻ“ āĻ…āϏāĻŽā§āĻĒā§‚āĻ°ā§āĻŖ āĻ›āĻŋāϞ, āϤāĻŦ⧇ āϚāϏāĻžāϰ⧇āϰ āĻšā§‡āϝāĻŧ⧇āĻ“ āĻ­āĻžāϞ, āĻ•āĻžāϰāĻŖ āϏ⧃āϜāύāĻļā§€āϞ āĻŦāĻž āĻ•āĻ˛ā§āĻĒāύāĻžāĻĒā§āϰāϏ⧂āϤ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āϝāĻ•āĻ°ā§āĻŽ āĻ›āĻŋāϞ āϤāĻĨāĻžāĻ•āĻĨāĻŋāϤ āĨ¤ āϏ⧁āϤāϰāĻžāĻ‚, āφāĻ āĻžāϰ⧋ āĻļāϤāϕ⧇āϰ āĻšā§‚āĻĄāĻŧāĻžāĻ¨ā§āϤ āĻĻāĻļāĻ• āĻĒāĻ°ā§āϝāĻ¨ā§āϤ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āϝ⧇āϰ āϏāĻ¤ā§āϝāĻŋāĻ•āĻžāϰ⧇āϰ āφāϧ⧁āύāĻŋāĻ• āĻœā§āĻžāĻžāύ āϏāĻŽā§āĻĒāĻ¨ā§āύ āĻšāϝāĻŧāύāĻŋ āĨ¤

Violator of the tradition with creativity

He points out that the final decades of the eighteen Century witnessed a new division and demarcation or indication of limitation of discourses. He mentions that English society got reorganized from the discursive or chaotic formation. Poetry comes to mean a good deal more than a verse when “Defence of Poetry”, composed by P. B. Shelley (1792-1821), was published in 1821. “Defence of Poetry” signifies a concept of human creativity that is radically opposite to the utilitarian ideology of early industrial capitalist England. This means that literature began to be synonymous with the imaginative that means to violate the tradition of poetry writing.

āϏ⧃āϜāύāĻļā§€āϞāϤāĻžāϰ āϏāĻžāĻĨ⧇ āϐāϤāĻŋāĻšā§āϝ⧇āϰ āϞāĻ™ā§āϘāύāĻ•āĻžāϰ⧀

āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āωāĻ˛ā§āϞ⧇āĻ– āĻ•āϰ⧇āϛ⧇āύ āϝ⧇ āφāĻ āĻžāϰ⧋ āĻļāϤāϕ⧇āϰ āĻļ⧇āώ āĻĻāĻļāĻ•āϗ⧁āϞāĻŋ āϏāĻžāĻ•ā§āĻˇā§āϝ āĻĻ⧇āϝāĻŧ  āĻāĻ•āϟāĻŋ āύāϤ⧁āύ āĻŦāĻŋāĻ­āĻžāϗ⧇āϰ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϏ⧀āĻŽāĻžāύāĻž āĻŦāĻž āĻŦāĻ•ā§āϤ⧃āϤāĻžāϰ āϏ⧀āĻŽāĻžāĻŦāĻĻā§āϧāϤāĻžāϰ āχāĻ™ā§āĻ—āĻŋāϤ āĻĻ⧇āϝāĻŧ āĨ¤ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āωāĻ˛ā§āϞ⧇āĻ– āĻ•āϰ⧇āϛ⧇āύ āϝ⧇ āχāĻ‚āϰ⧇āĻœā§€ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϜ āĻ—āĻ āĻŋāϤ āĻšāϝāĻŧ⧇āĻ›āĻŋāϞ  āĻŦāĻŋāĻšā§āĻ›āĻŋāĻ¨ā§āύ āĻŦāĻž āĻŦāĻŋāĻļ⧃āĻ™ā§āĻ–āϞāĻžāĻŦāĻĻā§āϧ āĻ—āĻ āύ āĻĨ⧇āϕ⧇ āĨ¤ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āĻŦāϞāϤ⧇ āĻĒāĻĻā§āϝ⧇āϰ āĻšā§‡āϝāĻŧ⧇ āĻāĻ•āϟāĻŋ āĻ­āĻžāϞ āϚ⧁āĻ•ā§āϤāĻŋāϕ⧇ āĻŦā§‹āĻāĻžāϝāĻŧ āϝāĻ–āύ āĻĒāĻŋ āĻŦāĻŋ āĻļ⧇āϞāĻŋ (1792-1821) āĻĻā§āĻŦāĻžāϰāĻž āϰāϚāĻŋāϤ “āĻĄāĻŋāĻĢ⧇āĻ¨ā§āϏ āĻ…āĻĢ āĻĒā§‹āϝāĻŧ⧇āĻŸā§āϰāĻŋ” āĻĒā§āϰāĻ•āĻžāĻļāĻŋāϤ āĻšāϝāĻŧ⧇āĻ›āĻŋāϞ 1821 āϏāĻžāϞ⧇ āĨ¤ “āĻĄāĻŋāĻĢ⧇āĻ¨ā§āϏ āĻ…āĻĢ āĻĒā§‹āϝāĻŧ⧇āĻŸā§āϰāĻŋ” āĻŽāĻžāύāĻŦ āϏ⧃āϜāύāĻļā§€āϞāϤāĻžāϰ āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖāĻžāϕ⧇ āϗ⧁āϰ⧁āĻ¤ā§āĻŦ āĻĻ⧇āϝāĻŧ āϝāĻž āϏāĻŽā§āĻĒā§‚āĻ°ā§āĻŖāϰ⧂āĻĒ⧇ āĻŦāĻŋāĻĒāϰ⧀āϤ āĻĒā§āϰāĻžāĻĨāĻŽāĻŋāĻ• āĻļāĻŋāĻ˛ā§āĻĒ āĻĒ⧁āρāϜāĻŋāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§€ āχāĻ‚āĻ˛ā§āϝāĻžāĻ¨ā§āĻĄā§‡āϰ āωāĻĒāϝ⧋āĻ—āĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§€ āφāĻĻāĻ°ā§āĻļ⧇āϰ āĻŦāĻŋāĻĒāϰ⧀āϤ āĨ¤ āĻāϰ āĻ…āĻ°ā§āĻĨ āĻš’āϞ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āϝāϟāĻŋ āĻ•āĻ˛ā§āĻĒāύāĻžāϰ āϏāĻŽāĻžāĻ°ā§āĻĨāĻ• āĻšāϤ⧇ āĻļ⧁āϰ⧁ āĻ•āϰ⧇āĻ›āĻŋāϞ āϝāĻžāϰ āĻ…āĻ°ā§āĻĨ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āϞ⧇āĻ–āĻžāϰ āϐāϤāĻŋāĻšā§āϝ āϞāĻ™ā§āϘāύ āĻ•āϰāĻž āĨ¤

Visionary and inventive thinker

Eagleton then illustrates that the term imaginative does not mean literary untrue. It actually means visionary and inventive thinking and creative power that is really scientific. He asserts that the imaginative vision of the Romantics is above the merely prosaic discourses. He also reminds us that only factual dramatic events cannot be the subject – matter for poetry or the creative one. Therefore, poetry which meant imagination in the Romantic Period was obviously over prose or ‘hard fact’.

āĻĻāĻ°ā§āĻļāύ⧀āϝāĻŧ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āωāĻĻā§āĻ­āĻžāĻŦāĻ• āϚāĻŋāĻ¨ā§āϤāĻžāĻŦāĻŋāĻĻ

āχāĻ—āϞāϟāύ āϤāĻ–āύ āĻŦā§āϝāĻžāĻ–ā§āϝāĻž āĻ•āϰ⧇āϛ⧇āύ āϝ⧇ āĻ•āĻ˛ā§āĻĒāĻŋāϤ āĻļāĻŦā§āĻĻāϟāĻŋāϰ āĻ…āĻ°ā§āĻĨ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āϝāĻŋāĻ• āĻ…āϏāĻ¤ā§āϝ āύāϝāĻŧāĨ¤āφāϏāϞ⧇ āĻāϟāĻŋāϰ āĻ…āĻ°ā§āĻĨ āĻ¸ā§āĻŦāĻĒā§āύāĻĻāĻ°ā§āĻļāύ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āωāĻĻā§āĻ­āĻžāĻŦāĻ• āϚāĻŋāĻ¨ā§āϤāĻžāĻ­āĻžāĻŦāύāĻž āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϏ⧃āϜāύāĻļā§€āϞ āĻļāĻ•ā§āϤāĻŋ āϝāĻž āϏāĻ¤ā§āϝāχ āĻŦ⧈āĻœā§āĻžāĻžāύāĻŋāĻ• āĨ¤ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻĻ⧃āĻĸāĻŧāĻ­āĻžāĻŦ⧇ āĻĻāĻžāĻŦāĻŋ āĻ•āϰ⧇āϛ⧇āύ āϝ⧇ āϰ⧋āĻŽāĻžāĻ¨ā§āϟāĻŋāĻ•āϏ⧇āϰ āĻ•āĻ˛ā§āĻĒāĻŋāϤ āĻĻ⧃āĻˇā§āϟāĻŋ āϕ⧇āĻŦāϞ āĻ—āϤāĻžāύ⧁āĻ—āϤāĻŋāĻ• āĻŦāĻ•ā§āϤ⧃āϤāĻž āĻ›āĻžāĻĄāĻŧāĻžāχ āĨ¤ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āφāϰāĻ“ āĻŽāύ⧇ āĻ•āϰāĻŋāϝāĻŧ⧇ āĻĻ⧇āύ āϝ⧇ āϕ⧇āĻŦāϞ āĻŦāĻžāĻ¸ā§āϤāĻŦāĻŋāĻ• āύāĻžāϟāϕ⧀āϝāĻŧ āϘāϟāύāĻžāϗ⧁āϞāĻŋāχ āĻŦāĻŋāώāϝāĻŧ āĻšāϤ⧇ āĻĒāĻžāϰ⧇ āύāĻž – āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āĻŦāĻž āϏ⧃āϜāύāĻļā§€āϞāϤāĻžāϰ āϜāĻ¨ā§āϝ āĻŦāĻŋāώāϝāĻŧ āĨ¤ āϏ⧁āϤāϰāĻžāĻ‚, āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āϝāĻžāϰ āĻ…āĻ°ā§āĻĨ āϰ⧋āĻŽā§āϝāĻžāĻ¨ā§āϟāĻŋāĻ• āϏāĻŽāϝāĻŧāĻ•āĻžāϞ⧇āϰ āĻ•āĻ˛ā§āĻĒāύāĻž āĻ¸ā§āĻĒāĻˇā§āϟāϤāχ āĻ—āĻĻā§āϝ āĻŦāĻž ‘āĻ•āĻ āĻŋāύ āϏāĻ¤ā§āϝ’ āĻāϰ āĻ“āĻĒāϰ⧇ āĻ›āĻŋāϞ āĨ¤

The introducer of aesthetic experience

He considers the Romantics to be the introducer of the ideas of the symbol and aesthetic experience in the modern English literature. He mentions the name of Coleridge side by side Kant Hegel, Schiller and others. Eagleton also mentions that the over-emphasis on aesthetic form and imaginative vision runs the risk of making literature a little isolated from social life. Thus, though literature gained its modern look for the first time in Romantic Period, it also got alienated from the realistic traits of the social events.

āύāĻžāĻ¨ā§āĻĻāύāĻŋāĻ• āĻ…āĻ­āĻŋāĻœā§āĻžāϤāĻžāϰ āĻĒāϰāĻŋāϚāϝāĻŧāĻĻāĻžāϤāĻž

āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āφāϧ⧁āύāĻŋāĻ• āχāĻ‚āϰ⧇āϜāĻŋ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āϝ⧇āϰ  āĻĒā§āϰāϤ⧀āĻ• āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āύāĻžāĻ¨ā§āĻĻāύāĻŋāĻ• āĻ…āĻ­āĻŋāĻœā§āĻžāϤāĻžāϰ āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖāĻžāϰ āĻĒā§āϰāĻŦāĻ°ā§āϤāĻ• āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦ⧇ āϰ⧋āĻŽāĻžāĻ¨ā§āϟāĻŋāĻ•āĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻŦāĻŋāĻŦ⧇āϚāύāĻž āĻ•āϰ⧇āύ āĨ¤ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āϕ⧋āϞāϰāĻŋāϜ āĻāϰ  āĻĒāĻžāĻļāĻžāĻĒāĻžāĻļāĻŋ āĻ•ā§āϝāĻžāĻ¨ā§āϟ āĻšā§‡āϗ⧇āϞ, āĻļāĻŋāϞāĻžāϰ āĻĒā§āϰāĻŽā§āϖ⧇āϰ āύāĻžāĻŽ āωāĻ˛ā§āϞ⧇āĻ– āĻ•āϰ⧇āϛ⧇āύ āĨ¤ āχāĻ—āϞāϟāύ āφāϰāĻ“ āωāĻ˛ā§āϞ⧇āĻ– āĻ•āϰ⧇āϛ⧇āύ āϝ⧇ āύāĻžāĻ¨ā§āĻĻāύāĻŋāĻ• āϰ⧂āĻĒ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻ•āĻžāĻ˛ā§āĻĒāύāĻŋāĻ• āĻĻ⧃āĻˇā§āϟāĻŋāĻ­āĻ™ā§āĻ—āĻŋāϰ āĻ…āĻ¤ā§āϝāϧāĻŋāĻ• āĻœā§‹āϰ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āϝāϕ⧇ āϏāĻžāĻŽāĻžāϜāĻŋāĻ• āĻœā§€āĻŦāύ āĻĨ⧇āϕ⧇ āĻ•āĻŋāϛ⧁āϟāĻž āĻŦāĻŋāĻšā§āĻ›āĻŋāĻ¨ā§āύ āĻ•āϰāĻžāϰ āĻā§āρāĻ•āĻŋāϤ⧇ āĨ¤ āϏ⧁āϤāϰāĻžāĻ‚, āϝāĻĻāĻŋāĻ“ āϰ⧋āĻŽā§āϝāĻžāĻ¨ā§āϟāĻŋāĻ• āĻĒāĻŋāϰāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻĄā§‡ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āϝ āĻĒā§āϰāĻĨāĻŽāĻŦāĻžāϰ⧇āϰ āĻŽāϤ⧋ āφāϧ⧁āύāĻŋāĻ• āĻšā§‡āĻšāĻžāϰāĻž āĻ…āĻ°ā§āϜāύ āĻ•āϰ⧇āĻ›āĻŋāϞ, āϤāĻŦ⧇ āĻāϟāĻŋ āϏāĻžāĻŽāĻžāϜāĻŋāĻ• āϘāϟāύāĻžāϗ⧁āϞāĻŋāϰ āĻŦāĻžāĻ¸ā§āϤāĻŦ āĻŦ⧈āĻļāĻŋāĻˇā§āĻŸā§āϝ āĻĨ⧇āϕ⧇ āĻŦāĻŋāĻšā§āĻ›āĻŋāĻ¨ā§āύ āĻšāϝāĻŧ⧇ āĻĒāĻĄāĻŧ⧇āϛ⧇ āĨ¤

Conclusion: From the light of the above discussion, it is out and out neat and clean that Terry Eagleton evaluates the Romantics as the first complete modernists in the history of English literature.

5. How does Eliot refute Johnson’s remark on the poet whom he classified as metaphysical?

Introduction: T. S. Eliot (1888-1965) is a celebrated poet critic and philosopher of the 20th century who has never been criticized as a critic in his lifetime and after his death even till now. He is a discoverer and defender in English literary criticism as he has defended and classified the so-called metaphysical poets.

āĻ­ā§‚āĻŽāĻŋāĻ•āĻž: āϟāĻŋ āĻāϏ āĻāϞāĻŋāϝāĻŧāϟ (1888-1965) ⧍ā§Ļ āĻļāϤāϕ⧇āϰ āĻāĻ•āϜāύ āĻ–ā§āϝāĻžāϤāĻŋāĻŽāĻžāύ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋ, āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāĻ• āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻĻāĻžāĻ°ā§āĻļāύāĻŋāĻ• āϝāĻŋāύāĻŋ āϤāĻžāρāϰ āĻœā§€āĻŦāĻĻā§āĻĻāĻļāĻžāϝāĻŧ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϤāĻžāρāϰ āĻŽā§ƒāĻ¤ā§āϝ⧁āϰ āĻĒāϰ⧇āĻ“ āĻāĻ–āύāĻ“ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāĻ• āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦ⧇ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāĻŋāϤ āĻšāύ āύāĻŋāĨ¤ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āϤāĻĨāĻžāĻ•āĻĨāĻŋāϤ āĻŽā§‡āϟāĻžāĻĢāĻŋāϜāĻŋāĻ•ā§āϝāĻžāϞ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻĒā§āϰāϤāĻŋāϰāĻ•ā§āώāĻž āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻļā§āϰ⧇āĻŖāĻŋāĻŦāĻĻā§āϧ āĻ•āϰ⧇āϛ⧇āύ āĻŦāϞ⧇ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āχāĻ‚āϰ⧇āĻœā§€ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āϝ⧇āϰ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāύāĻžāϝāĻŧ āĻāĻ•āϜāύ āφāĻŦāĻŋāĻˇā§āĻ•āĻžāϰāĻ• āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϰāĻ•ā§āώāĻžāĻ•āĻ°ā§āϤāĻžāĨ¤

Origin of crude criticism against metaphysical poets

The term “metaphysical poets” has been criticized by critics from time to time in the history of English literature. This term was first rebuked by Dryden in 1692 and later by Samuel Johnson. The remark or observation of Dryden and Johnson on Donne is:

“Metaphysics as a pretense Donne boasted his erudition or wisdom.

Even with syllables and rime, not poet but mere technician.”

In the modern period, Professor Grierson’s book “Metaphysical Lyrics and Poems of the Seventeenth Century: Donne to Butler (1921) is a piece of criticism and provocation of criticism for metaphysical poets. But for the first time, T. S. Eliot comes forward to defend and recognize the so-called metaphysical poets.

āĻŽā§‡āϟāĻžāĻĢāĻŋāϜāĻŋāĻ•ā§āϝāĻžāϞ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻŦāĻŋāϰ⧁āĻĻā§āϧ⧇ āĻ…āĻĒāϰāĻŋāĻļā§‹āϧāĻŋāϤ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāύāĻžāϰ āωāĻ¤ā§āĻĒāĻ¤ā§āϤāĻŋ

āχāĻ‚āϰ⧇āĻœā§€ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āϝ⧇āϰ āχāϤāĻŋāĻšāĻžāϏ⧇ “āĻŽā§‡āϟāĻžāĻĢāĻŋāϜāĻŋāĻ•ā§āϝāĻžāϞ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋ ” āĻļāĻŦā§āĻĻāϟāĻŋ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāĻ•āĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻĻā§āĻŦāĻžāϰāĻž āϏāĻŽāϝāĻŧ⧇ āϏāĻŽāϝāĻŧ⧇ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāĻŋāϤ āĻšāϝāĻŧ⧇āĻ›āĻŋāϞāĨ¤ āĻāχ āĻļāĻŦā§āĻĻāϟāĻŋ āĻĒā§āϰāĻĨāĻŽā§‡ 1692 āϏāĻžāϞ⧇ āĻĄā§āϰāĻžāχāĻĄā§‡āύ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻĒāϰ⧇ āĻ¸ā§āϝāĻžāĻŽā§āϝāĻŧ⧇āϞ āϜāύāϏāύ āĻĻā§āĻŦāĻžāϰāĻž āϏ⧋āĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāύāĻž āĻ•āϰāĻž āĻšāϝāĻŧ⧇āĻ›āĻŋāϞāĨ¤ āϜāύ āĻĄāĻžāύ⧇āϰ āĻ“āĻĒāϰ⧇  āĻĄā§āϰāĻžāχāĻĄā§‡āύ āĻ“ āϜāύāϏāύ⧇āϰ āĻŽāĻ¨ā§āϤāĻŦā§āϝ āĻŦāĻž āĻĒāĻ°ā§āϝāĻŦ⧇āĻ•ā§āώāĻŖāϟāĻŋ āĻš’āϞ:

āĻŽā§‡āϟāĻžāĻĢāĻŋāϜāĻŋāĻ•ā§āϏ āĻāϰ āĻĒā§āϰāϤāĻžāϰāĻ• āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦ⧇ Donne āϤāĻžāϰ āĻŦ⧁āĻĻā§āϧāĻŋ āĻŦāĻž āĻĒā§āϰāĻœā§āĻžāĻž āύāĻŋāϝāĻŧ⧇ āĻ…āĻšāĻ‚āĻ•āĻžāϰ āĻ•āϰ⧇āĻ›āĻŋāϞ⧇āύāĨ¤ āĻāĻŽāύāĻ•āĻŋ āϏāĻŋāϞ⧇āĻŦāϞ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϰāĻžāχāĻŽ āĻĻāĻŋāϝāĻŧ⧇ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋ āύāϝāĻŧ āĻŦāϰāĻ‚ āύāĻŋāĻ›āĻ• āĻĒā§āϰāϝ⧁āĻ•ā§āϤāĻŋāĻŦāĻŋāĻĻāĨ¤”

āφāϧ⧁āύāĻŋāĻ• āϝ⧁āϗ⧇, āĻ…āĻ§ā§āϝāĻžāĻĒāĻ• āĻ—āĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻžāϰāϏāύ⧇āϰ āĻŦāχ “Metaphysical Lyrics and Poems of the Seventeenth Century: Donne to Butler” (⧧⧝⧍⧧) āĻŽā§‡āϟāĻžāĻĢāĻŋāϜāĻŋāĻ•ā§āϝāĻžāϞ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāĻĻ⧇āϰ āϜāĻ¨ā§āϝ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāύāĻž āĻ“ āωāĻ¸ā§āĻ•āĻžāύāĻŋ āĻĻ⧇āĻ“āϝāĻŧāĻžāϰ āĻāĻ•āϟāĻŋ  āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāύāĻžāϰ āĻ…āĻ‚āĻļāĨ¤ āĻ•āĻŋāĻ¨ā§āϤ⧁ āĻĒā§āϰāĻĨāĻŽāĻŦāĻžāϰ⧇āϰ āĻŽāϤ⧋ āϟāĻŋ āĻāϏ āĻāϞāĻŋāϝāĻŧāϟ āĻŽā§‡āϟāĻžāĻĢāĻŋāϜāĻŋāĻ•ā§āϝāĻžāϞ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāĻĻ⧇āϰ āϰāĻ•ā§āώāĻž āĻ•āϰāĻžāϰ āϜāĻ¨ā§āϝ āĻāĻ—āĻŋāϝāĻŧ⧇ āĻāϏ⧇āĻ›āĻŋāϞ⧇āύ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϤāĻĨāĻžāĻ•āĻĨāĻŋāϤ āĻŽā§‡āϟāĻžāĻĢāĻŋāϜāĻŋāĻ•ā§āϝāĻžāϞ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻ¸ā§āĻŦā§€āĻ•ā§ƒāϤāĻŋ āĻĻāĻžāύ āĻ•āϰ⧇āĻ›āĻŋāϞ⧇āύāĨ¤

Objections of Samuel Johnson (1709-1784)

Before going to present Eliot’s defending arguments, the objections of Johnson against metaphysical poets should be learned. The objections are:

  1. Metaphysical poetry has long done duty as a term of abuse, or as the label of quaint and pleasant taste.
  2. The most heterogeneous ideas are yoked by violence together, or divers in character or content.
  3. Inventive use of conceit.
  4. Loose structure of poetry.

āĻ¸ā§āϝāĻžāĻŽā§āϝāĻŧ⧇āϞ āϜāύāϏāύ⧇āϰ āφāĻĒāĻ¤ā§āϤāĻŋ

āĻāϞāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻŸā§‡āϰ āĻĒā§āϰāϤāĻŋāϰāĻ•ā§āώāĻž āϝ⧁āĻ•ā§āϤāĻŋ āωāĻĒāĻ¸ā§āĻĨāĻžāĻĒāύ āĻ•āϰāĻžāϰ āφāϗ⧇ āĻŽā§‡āϟāĻžāĻĢāĻŋāϜāĻŋāĻ•ā§āϝāĻžāϞ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻŦāĻŋāϰ⧁āĻĻā§āϧ⧇ āϜāύāϏāύ⧇āϰ āφāĻĒāĻ¤ā§āϤāĻŋāϗ⧁āϞāĻŋ āϜāĻžāύāϤ⧇ āĻšāĻŦ⧇āĨ¤ āφāĻĒāĻ¤ā§āϤāĻŋāϗ⧁āϞāĻŋ āĻšāϞ:

  1. āϰ⧂āĻĒāĻ• āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āĻĻā§€āĻ°ā§āϘāĻ•āĻžāϞ āϧāϰ⧇ āĻ…āĻĒāĻŦā§āϝāĻŦāĻšāĻžāϰ⧇āϰ āĻļāĻŦā§āĻĻ āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦ⧇ āĻĻāĻžāϝāĻŧāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āĻŦ āĻĒāĻžāϞāύ āĻ•āϰ⧇āϛ⧇, āĻŦāĻž āωāĻĻāĻžāϏ⧀āύ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻŽāύ⧋āϰāĻŽ āĻ¸ā§āĻŦāĻžāĻĻ āϞ⧇āĻŦ⧇āϞ āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦ⧇āĨ¤
  2. āĻŦāĻŋāĻ­āĻŋāĻ¨ā§āύ āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖāĻžāϗ⧁āϞāĻŋāϕ⧇ āĻœā§‹āϰ āĻ•āϰ⧇ āĻāĻ•āϏāĻžāĻĨ⧇ āϜ⧁āĻĄāĻŧ⧇ āĻĻ⧇āϝāĻŧāĻž āĻšāϝāĻŧ⧇āϛ⧇ āϝāĻž āϚāϰāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āϰ āĻŦāĻž āĻŦāĻŋāώāϝāĻŧāĻŦāĻ¸ā§āϤ⧁āϤ⧇ āφāϞāĻžāĻĻāĻžāĨ¤
  3. āĻ•āĻ¨ā§āϏāĻŋāϤ āĻāϰ āĻŦā§āϝāĻŦāĻšāĻžāϰ āĻ•āϰ⧇āϛ⧇āĨ¤
  4. āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻžāϤ⧇ āϞ⧁āϏ āĻ¸ā§āĻŸā§āϰāĻžāĻ•āϚāĻžāϰ āĻŦā§āϝāĻŦāĻšāĻžāϰ āĻ•āϰ⧇āϛ⧇āĨ¤

Protecting logics of T.S. Eliot

It is true that Eliot has pointed out some arguments against Johnson and also refuted him not to censure but only to defend metaphysical poets or nothing else. Eliot’s logics are here.

āϟāĻŋ āĻāϏ āĻāϞāĻŋāϝāĻŧāϟ āĻāϰ āϰāĻ•ā§āώāĻŖā§€āϝāĻŧ āϝ⧁āĻ•ā§āϤāĻŋāϗ⧁āϞ⧋

āĻāϟāĻž āϏāĻ¤ā§āϝ āϝ⧇ āĻāϞāĻŋāϝāĻŧāϟ āϜāύāϏāύ⧇āϰ āĻŦāĻŋāϰ⧁āĻĻā§āϧ⧇ āĻ•āĻŋāϛ⧁ āϝ⧁āĻ•ā§āϤāĻŋ āĻĻ⧇āĻ–āĻŋāϝāĻŧ⧇āϛ⧇āύ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϤāĻžāϕ⧇ āϤāĻŋāϰāĻ¸ā§āĻ•āĻžāϰ āĻ•āϰāĻžāϰ āϜāĻ¨ā§āϝ āĻāχ āĻŦā§āϝāĻžāĻ–ā§āϝāĻž āĻ•āϰ⧇āύ āύāĻŋ, āϕ⧇āĻŦāϞāĻŽāĻžāĻ¤ā§āϰ āĻŽā§‡āϟāĻžāĻĢāĻŋāϜāĻŋāĻ•ā§āϝāĻžāϞ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāĻĻ⧇āϰ āϰāĻ•ā§āώāĻž āĻ•āϰāĻžāϰ āϜāĻ¨ā§āϝāχāĨ¤ āĻāĻ–āĻžāύ⧇, āĻāϞāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻŸā§‡āϰ āϝ⧁āĻ•ā§āϤāĻŋāϗ⧁āϞ⧋ āϤ⧁āϞ⧇ āϧāϰāĻž āĻšāϞ⧋:

Extremely difficult to define metaphysical poetry

Eliot’s first and foremost defending argument is that it is extremely crux to define metaphysical poetry and decide what poets practice it. The poetry of Donne and Marvell is very close to late Elizabethan poet and translator Chapman in respect of feeling. Romantic and devotional verses of Cristiana Rossetti and mystic verses Francis Thompson, both belonged to the Victorian period, are really similar to the devotional verse of Vaughan, Herbert, and Crashaw. Thus, Eliot opines that metaphysical concept in writing poetry is the fundamental.

āĻŽā§‡āϟāĻžāĻĢāĻŋāϜāĻŋāĻ•ā§āϝāĻžāϞ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āϏāĻ‚āĻœā§āĻžāĻžāϝāĻŧāĻŋāϤ āĻ•āϰāĻž āĻ…āĻ¤ā§āϝāĻ¨ā§āϤ āĻ•āĻ āĻŋāύ

āĻāϞāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻŸā§‡āϰ āĻĒā§āϰāĻĨāĻŽ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϏāĻ°ā§āĻŦāĻžāϧāĻŋāĻ• āϏ⧁āϰāĻ•ā§āώāĻŋāϤ āϝ⧁āĻ•ā§āϤāĻŋ āĻš’āϞ āĻŽā§‡āϟāĻžāĻĢāĻŋāϜāĻŋāĻ•ā§āϝāĻžāϞ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āϏāĻ‚āĻœā§āĻžāĻžāϝāĻŧāĻŋāϤ āĻ•āϰāĻž āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϰāĻž āϕ⧀ āĻ…āύ⧁āĻļā§€āϞāύ āĻ•āϰ⧇ āϤāĻž āĻ¸ā§āĻĨāĻŋāϰ āĻ•āϰ⧇ āύ⧇āĻ“āϝāĻŧāĻž āĻ…āĻ¤ā§āϝāĻ¨ā§āϤ āĻ•āĻ āĻŋāύāĨ¤ āĻĄāĻžāύ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻŽāĻžāϰāϭ⧇āϞ⧇āϰ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻžāϰ āĻ…āύ⧁āĻ­ā§‚āϤāĻŋāϰ āĻ•ā§āώ⧇āĻ¤ā§āϰ⧇ āĻĒā§āϰāĻžāϝāĻŧ āĻāϞāĻŋāϜāĻžāĻŦ⧇āĻĻāĻžāύ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋ āĻ“ āĻ…āύ⧁āĻŦāĻžāĻĻāĻ• āĻšā§āϝāĻžāĻĒāĻŽā§āϝāĻžāύ⧇āϰ āϏāĻžāĻĨ⧇ āĻŽāĻŋāϞ⧇ āϝāĻžāϝāĻŧāĨ¤ āĻ•ā§āϰāĻŋāĻļā§āϚāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻžāύāĻž āϰ⧋āϏ⧇āĻŸā§āϤāĻŋāϰ āϰ⧋āĻŽāĻžāĻ¨ā§āϟāĻŋāĻ• āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻ­āĻ•ā§āϤāĻŋāĻŽā§‚āϞāĻ• āĻļā§āϞ⧋āĻ• āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻŽāϰāĻŽā§€ āĻļā§āϞ⧋āĻ• āĻĢā§āϰāĻžāĻ¨ā§āϏāĻŋāϏ āĻĨāĻŽā§āĻĒāϏāύ, āωāĻ­āϝāĻŧāχ āĻ­āĻŋāĻ•ā§āĻŸā§‹āϰāĻŋāϝāĻŧ āϝ⧁āϗ⧇āϰ āĻ…āĻ¨ā§āϤāĻ°ā§āϭ⧁āĻ•ā§āϤ, āĻ­āĻžāύ, āĻšāĻžāϰāĻŦāĻžāĻ°ā§āϟ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻ•ā§āĻ°ā§āϝāĻžāĻļ-āĻāϰ āĻ­āĻ•ā§āϤāĻŋāĻŽā§‚āϞāĻ• āĻļā§āϞ⧋āϕ⧇āϰ āϏāĻžāĻĨ⧇ āϏāĻ¤ā§āϝāχ āĻŽāĻŋāϞ⧇ āϝāĻžāϝāĻŧāĨ¤ āϏ⧁āϤāϰāĻžāĻ‚, āĻāϞāĻŋāϝāĻŧāϟ āĻŽāĻ¨ā§āϤāĻŦā§āϝ āĻ•āϰ⧇āϛ⧇āύ āϝ⧇, āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āϞ⧇āĻ–āĻžāϰ āĻ•ā§āώ⧇āĻ¤ā§āϰ⧇ āĻŽā§‡āϟāĻžāĻĢāĻŋāϜāĻŋāĻ•ā§āϝāĻžāϞ āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖāĻžāϟāĻŋ āĻāĻ•āϟāĻŋ āĻŽā§ŒāϞāĻŋāĻ• āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖāĻžāĨ¤

Use of figure of speech

Johnson criticizes metaphysical poets for their use of so-called inventive conceit. Eliot opines that it is difficult to find any precise or particular use of simile, metaphor, or other conceit because the use of the figure of speech is common to all poets and at the same time important enough as an element of style. Therefore, it is exactly futile to isolate metaphysical poets as a loose group based on only the use of conceit.

āĻĢāĻŋāĻ—āĻžāϰ āĻ…āĻĢ āĻ¸ā§āĻĒā§€āϚ āĻāϰ āĻŦāĻžāĻŦāĻšāĻžāϰ

āϜāύāϏāύ āϤāĻĨāĻžāĻ•āĻĨāĻŋāϤ āωāĻĻā§āĻ­āĻžāĻŦāύ⧀ āĻ•āĻ¨ā§āϏāĻŋāϤ āĻŦā§āϝāĻŦāĻšāĻžāϰ⧇āϰ āϜāĻ¨ā§āϝ āĻŽā§‡āϟāĻžāĻĢāĻŋāϜāĻŋāĻ•ā§āϝāĻžāϞ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāĻĻ⧇āϰ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāύāĻž āĻ•āϰ⧇āϛ⧇āύāĨ¤ āĻāϞāĻŋāϝāĻŧāϟ āĻŦā§āϝāĻžāĻ–ā§āϝāĻž āĻ•āϰ⧇āϛ⧇āύ āϝ⧇ āωāĻĒāĻŽāĻž, āϰ⧂āĻĒāĻ• āĻŦāĻž āĻ…āĻ¨ā§āϝāĻžāĻ¨ā§āϝ āĻ…āύ⧁āĻŽāĻžāύ⧇āϰ āύāĻŋāĻ°ā§āĻĻāĻŋāĻˇā§āϟ āĻŦāĻž āύāĻŋāĻ°ā§āĻĻāĻŋāĻˇā§āϟ āĻŦā§āϝāĻŦāĻšāĻžāϰ āϏāĻ¨ā§āϧāĻžāύ āĻ•āϰāĻž āĻ•āĻ āĻŋāύ āĻ•āĻžāϰāĻŖ āĻŦāĻ•ā§āϤ⧃āϤāĻžāϰ āϚāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āϰ⧇āϰ āĻŦā§āϝāĻŦāĻšāĻžāϰ āϏāĻŽāĻ¸ā§āϤ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻ•āĻžāϛ⧇ āϏāĻžāϧāĻžāϰāĻŖ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻāĻ•āχ āϏāĻžāĻĨ⧇ āϝāĻĨ⧇āĻˇā§āϟ āϗ⧁āϰ⧁āĻ¤ā§āĻŦāĻĒā§‚āĻ°ā§āĻŖ āωāĻĒāĻžāĻĻāĻžāύ⧇āϰ āϧāϰāĻŖ āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦ⧇āĨ¤ āϏ⧁āϤāϰāĻžāĻ‚, āϕ⧇āĻŦāϞ āĻļ⧁āϧ⧁āĻŽāĻžāĻ¤ā§āϰ āĻ•āĻ¨ā§āϏāĻŋāϤ āĻŦā§āϝāĻŦāĻšāĻžāϰ⧇āϰ āĻ­āĻŋāĻ¤ā§āϤāĻŋāϤ⧇ āĻŽā§‡āϟāĻžāĻĢāĻŋāϜāĻŋāĻ•ā§āϝāĻžāϞ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻāĻ•āϟāĻŋ āφāϞāĻ—āĻž āĻĻāϞ āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦ⧇ āĻŦāĻŋāĻšā§āĻ›āĻŋāĻ¨ā§āύ āĻ•āϰāĻž āĻāϕ⧇āĻŦāĻžāϰ⧇ āύāĻŋāϰāĻ°ā§āĻĨāĻ•āĨ¤

The most heterogeneous ideas yoked by violence together

Eliot confesses that it is a fact that often the ideas are yoked and not united in metaphysical poetry. But he asserts that it is a matter of omnipresence in poetry. He cites the example of a French poet to justify this and also relates that Johnson himself is not free from this fault. “The Vanity of Human Wishes” is a poem by Johnson is the best example of heterogeneous ideas yoked violently together. Eliot presents four lines of the poem of Johnson as evidence:

“His fate was destined to barren strand,

A petty fortress, and dubious hand;

He left a name at which the world grew pale,

To point a moral, or adorn a tale,”

āĻŦāĻŋāĻ­āĻŋāĻ¨ā§āύ āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖāĻžāϗ⧁āϞāĻŋāϕ⧇ āĻœā§‹āϰ āĻ•āϰ⧇ āĻāĻ•āϏāĻžāĻĨ⧇ āϜ⧁āĻĄāĻŧ⧇ āĻĻ⧇āϝāĻŧāĻž

āĻāϞāĻŋāϝāĻŧāϟ āĻ¸ā§āĻŦā§€āĻ•āĻžāϰ āĻ•āϰ⧇āϛ⧇āύ āϝ⧇ āĻāϟāĻŋ āĻāĻŽāύ āĻāĻ•āϟāĻŋ āϏāĻ¤ā§āϝ āϝ⧇ āĻĒā§āϰāĻžāϝāĻŧ āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖāĻžāϗ⧁āϞāĻŋ āĻāĻ•āĻ¤ā§āϰ āĻ•āϰāĻž āĻšāϝāĻŧ āĻļ⧁āϧ⧁āĻŽāĻžāĻ¤ā§āϰ āĻŽā§‡āϟāĻžāĻĢāĻŋāϜāĻŋāĻ•ā§āϝāĻžāϞ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻžāϤ⧇āχ āĻāĻ•āĻ¤ā§āϰāĻŋāϤ āĻšāϝāĻŧ āύāĻžāĨ¤ āϤāĻŦ⧇ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻĻ⧃āĻš āĻ­āĻžāĻŦ⧇ āĻŦāϞ⧇āϛ⧇āύ āϝ⧇ āĻāϟāĻŋ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻžāϝāĻŧ āϏāĻ°ā§āĻŦāĻŦā§āϝāĻžāĻĒā§€ āĻāĻ•āϟāĻŋ āĻŦāĻŋāώāϝāĻŧāĨ¤ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻāϟāĻŋāϕ⧇ āĻ¨ā§āϝāĻžāϝāĻŧāϏāĻ™ā§āĻ—āϤ āĻ•āϰāĻžāϰ āϜāĻ¨ā§āϝ āĻĢāϰāĻžāϏāĻŋ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϰ āωāĻĻāĻžāĻšāϰāĻŖ āωāĻ˛ā§āϞ⧇āĻ– āĻ•āϰ⧇āϛ⧇āύ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϜāύāϏāύ āύāĻŋāĻœā§‡āĻ“ āĻāχ āĻĻā§‹āώ āĻĨ⧇āϕ⧇ āĻŽā§āĻ•ā§āϤ āύāϝāĻŧ āĻŦāϞ⧇ āωāĻ˛ā§āϞ⧇āĻ– āĻ•āϰ⧇āϛ⧇āύāĨ¤ āϜāύāϏāύ⧇āϰ āĻāĻ•āϟāĻŋ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž “āĻšāĻŋāωāĻŽā§āϝāĻžāύ āχāĻšā§āĻ›āĻžāϰ āĻ­ā§āϝāĻžāύāĻŋāϟāĻŋ” āĻšāϞ āĻāĻ•āϏāĻžāĻĨ⧇ āĻšāĻŋāĻ‚āϏāĻžāĻ¤ā§āĻŽāĻ•āĻ­āĻžāĻŦ⧇ āĻœā§‹āĻĄāĻŧāĻžāϞ⧋ āĻ­āĻŋāĻ¨ā§āύ āĻ­āĻŋāĻ¨ā§āύ āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖāĻžāϰ āϏāĻ°ā§āĻŦā§‹āĻ¤ā§āϤāĻŽ āωāĻĻāĻžāĻšāϰāĻŖāĨ¤  āĻāϞāĻŋāϝāĻŧāϟ āĻĒā§āϰāĻŽāĻžāĻŖ āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦ⧇ āϜāύāϏāύ⧇āϰ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻžāϰ āϚāĻžāϰāϟāĻŋ āϞāĻžāχāύ āωāĻĒāĻ¸ā§āĻĨāĻžāĻĒāύ āĻ•āϰ⧇āϛ⧇āύ:

“āϤāĻžāρāϰ āĻ­āĻžāĻ—ā§āϝ āύāĻŋāĻ°ā§āϧāĻžāϰāĻŋāϤ āĻ›āĻŋāϞ āĻŦāĻ¨ā§āĻ§ā§āϝāĻž āĻ•āĻžāĻ¨ā§āĻĄā§‡āϰ,

āĻāĻ•āϟāĻŋ āĻ•ā§āώ⧁āĻĻā§āϰ āĻĻ⧁āĻ°ā§āĻ—, āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϏāĻ¨ā§āĻĻ⧇āĻšāϜāύāĻ• āĻšāĻžāϤ;

āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻāĻ•āϟāĻŋ āύāĻžāĻŽ āϰ⧇āϖ⧇āĻ›āĻŋāϞ⧇āύ āϝ⧇āĻ–āĻžāύ⧇ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļā§āĻŦ āĻŽā§āϞāĻžāύ āĻšāϝāĻŧ⧇ āϗ⧇āϛ⧇,

āĻāĻ•āϟāĻŋ āύ⧈āϤāĻŋāĻ• āύāĻŋāĻ°ā§āĻĻ⧇āĻļ, āĻŦāĻž āĻāĻ•āϟāĻŋ āĻ—āĻ˛ā§āĻĒ āĻļā§‹āĻ­āĻžāĻ•āϰ, “

Defense of miscellaneous objections

Beside these objections, Eliot has refuted other objections of Johnson as to metaphysical poets. He strongly says that Johnson’s general observation on the metaphysical poets in his essay “The Life of Cowley” is often fit but the language of the prescribed poets is simple, clear and elegant and their thought and feeling are unified very close to the modern poets.

Johnson objects that metaphysical poets’ attempts were always analytic but Eliot would not agree with Johnson because the dramatist of late Elizabethan period was extremely analytical. Here Eliot especially mentions Cristopher Marlowe who was man of superb erudition like metaphysical poets from analytic perspective. Thus, Eliot shows that metaphysical poets were the successor of Elizabethan dramatists.

āĻŦāĻŋāĻŦāĻŋāϧ āφāĻĒāĻ¤ā§āϤāĻŋ āĻĒā§āϰāϤāĻŋāϰāĻ•ā§āώāĻž

āĻāχ āφāĻĒāĻ¤ā§āϤāĻŋāϗ⧁āϞāĻŋāϰ āĻĒāĻžāĻļāĻžāĻĒāĻžāĻļāĻŋ, āĻāϞāĻŋāϝāĻŧāϟ āϜāύāϏāύ⧇āϰ āĻ…āĻ¨ā§āϝāĻžāĻ¨ā§āϝ āφāĻĒāĻ¤ā§āϤāĻŋāϗ⧁āϞāĻŋāϕ⧇ āĻŽā§‡āϟāĻžāĻĢāĻŋāϜāĻŋāĻ•ā§āϝāĻžāϞ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋ āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦ⧇ āĻ…āĻ¸ā§āĻŦā§€āĻ•āĻžāϰ āĻ•āϰ⧇āϛ⧇āύāĨ¤ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻĻ⧃āĻšāϤāĻžāϰ āϏāĻžāĻĨ⧇ āĻŦāϞ⧇āϛ⧇āύ āϝ⧇ āϜāύāϏāύ⧇āϰ āϤāĻžāρāϰ āϰāϚāύāĻž “The Life of Cowley”  āĻŽā§‡āϟāĻžāĻĢāĻŋāϜāĻŋāĻ•ā§āϝāĻžāϞ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāĻĻ⧇āϰ āϏāĻŽā§āĻĒāĻ°ā§āϕ⧇ āϏāĻžāϧāĻžāϰāĻŖ āĻĒāĻ°ā§āϝāĻŦ⧇āĻ•ā§āώāĻŖ āĻĒā§āϰāĻžāϝāĻŧ āĻŽāĻŋāϞ⧇ āϝāĻžāϝāĻŧ  āϤāĻŦ⧇ āύāĻŋāĻ°ā§āϧāĻžāϰāĻŋāϤ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻ­āĻžāώāĻž āϏāĻšāϜ, āĻ¸ā§āĻĒāĻˇā§āϟ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻŽāĻžāĻ°ā§āϜāĻŋāϤ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϤāĻžāĻĻ⧇āϰ āϚāĻŋāĻ¨ā§āϤāĻžāĻ­āĻžāĻŦāύāĻž āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻ…āύ⧁āĻ­ā§‚āϤāĻŋ āφāϧ⧁āύāĻŋāĻ• āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāĻĻ⧇āϰ āϏāĻžāĻĨ⧇ āĻāĻ•āĻ¤ā§āϰāĻŋāϤ āĻšāϝāĻŧ⧇āϛ⧇āĨ¤

āϜāύāϏāύ āĻ…āĻ­āĻŋāϝ⧋āĻ— āĻ•āϰ⧇ āϝ⧇ āĻŽā§‡āϟāĻžāĻĢāĻŋāϜāĻŋāĻ•ā§āϝāĻžāϞ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻĒā§āϰāĻšā§‡āĻˇā§āϟāĻž āϏāĻ°ā§āĻŦāĻĻāĻž āĻŦāĻŋāĻļā§āϞ⧇āώāĻŖāĻžāĻ¤ā§āĻŽāĻ• āĻ›āĻŋāϞ āϤāĻŦ⧇ āĻāϞāĻŋāϝāĻŧāϟ āϜāύāϏāύ⧇āϰ āϏāĻžāĻĨ⧇ āĻāĻ•āĻŽāϤ āĻšāĻŦ⧇āύ āύāĻž āĻ•āĻžāϰāĻŖ āĻāϞāĻŋāϜāĻžāĻŦ⧇āĻĻāĻžāύ āϝ⧁āϗ⧇āϰ āĻļ⧇āώ⧇āϰ āύāĻžāĻŸā§āϝāĻ•āĻžāϰ āĻ…āĻ¤ā§āϝāĻ¨ā§āϤ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļā§āϞ⧇āώāĻŖāĻžāĻ¤ā§āĻŽāĻ• āĻ›āĻŋāϞ⧇āύāĨ¤ āĻāĻ–āĻžāύ⧇ āĻāϞāĻŋāϝāĻŧāϟ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļ⧇āώ āĻ•āϰ⧇ āĻ•ā§āϰāĻŋāĻ¸ā§āĻŸā§‹āĻĢāĻžāϰ āĻŽāĻžāϰāϞ⧋āϕ⧇ āωāĻ˛ā§āϞ⧇āĻ– āĻ•āϰ⧇āϛ⧇āύ āϝāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļā§āϞ⧇āώāĻŖāĻžāĻ¤ā§āĻŽāĻ• āĻĻ⧃āĻˇā§āϟāĻŋāϕ⧋āĻŖ āĻĨ⧇āϕ⧇ āĻŽā§‡āϟāĻžāĻĢāĻŋāϜāĻŋāĻ•ā§āϝāĻžāϞ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻŽāϤ⧋ āĻĻ⧁āĻ°ā§āĻĻāĻžāĻ¨ā§āϤ āĻœā§āĻžāĻžāύāĻŋ  āĻ›āĻŋāϞ⧇āύāĨ¤ āϏ⧁āϤāϰāĻžāĻ‚, āĻāϞāĻŋāϝāĻŧāϟ āĻĻ⧇āĻ–āĻžāϝāĻŧ āϝ⧇ āĻŽā§‡āϟāĻžāĻĢāĻŋāϜāĻŋāĻ•ā§āϝāĻžāϞ āĻ•āĻŦāĻŋāϰāĻž āĻ›āĻŋāϞ⧇āύ āĻāϞāĻŋāϜāĻžāĻŦ⧇āĻĨāύ āύāĻžāĻŸā§āϝāĻ•āĻžāϰāĻĻ⧇āϰ āωāĻ¤ā§āϤāϰāϏ⧂āϰāĻŋāĨ¤

Conclusion: Now, it may be said that Johnson failed to define metaphysical poetry by its faults but Eliot also asserts that we must not reject the criticism of Johnson who is a dangerous person to disagree with.

6. Discuss the role of the English novels in perpetuating imperial rule.

Introduction: The English novels which have been scrutinized by Edward Wadie Said (1935-2003) for the first time in the history of English literature have duality. He blazons that the primary purpose of novels is to learn the cultural forms pleasurably and lucratively. Second, they have played a gigantic role in the formation of sustainable imperial attitudes, references, and experiences.

āĻ­ā§‚āĻŽāĻŋāĻ•āĻž: āχāĻ‚āϰ⧇āϜāĻŋ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āϝ⧇āϰ āχāϤāĻŋāĻšāĻžāϏ⧇ āĻĒā§āϰāĻĨāĻŽāĻŦāĻžāϰ⧇āϰ āĻŽāϤ⧋ āĻāĻĄāĻ“āϝāĻŧāĻžāĻ°ā§āĻĄ āĻ“āϝāĻŧ⧇āĻĄāĻŋ āϏāĻžāχāĻĻ (ā§§ā§¯ā§Šā§Ģ-⧍ā§Ļā§Ļā§Š) āϝ⧇ āχāĻ‚āϰ⧇āϜāĻŋ āωāĻĒāĻ¨ā§āϝāĻžāϏāϗ⧁āϞāĻŋ āϝāĻžāϚāĻžāχ-āĻŦāĻžāĻ›āĻžāχ āĻ•āϰ⧇āϛ⧇ āϤāĻžāĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻĻā§āĻŦ⧈āϤāϤāĻž āϰāϝāĻŧ⧇āϛ⧇āĨ¤ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻ˜ā§‹āώāĻŖāĻž āĻ•āϰ⧇āύ āϝ⧇ āωāĻĒāĻ¨ā§āϝāĻžāϏ⧇āϰ āĻĒā§āϰāĻžāĻĨāĻŽāĻŋāĻ• āωāĻĻā§āĻĻ⧇āĻļā§āϝ āĻš’āϞ āϏāĻžāĻ‚āĻ¸ā§āĻ•ā§ƒāϤāĻŋāĻ• āϰ⧂āĻĒāϗ⧁āϞāĻŋ āφāύāĻ¨ā§āĻĻāĻĻāĻžāϝāĻŧāĻ• āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϞāĻžāĻ­āϜāύāĻ•āĻ­āĻžāĻŦ⧇ āĻļ⧇āĻ–āĻžāĨ¤ āĻĻā§āĻŦāĻŋāϤ⧀āϝāĻŧāϤ, āĻāϗ⧁āϞ⧋ āĻ¸ā§āĻĨāĻžāϝāĻŧā§€āĻ­āĻžāĻŦ⧇ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻœā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§€ āĻŽāύ⧋āĻ­āĻžāĻŦ, āĻĒā§āϰāϏāĻ™ā§āĻ— āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻ…āĻ­āĻŋāĻœā§āĻžāϤāĻž āĻ—āĻ āύ⧇ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļāĻžāϞ āĻ­ā§‚āĻŽāĻŋāĻ•āĻž āĻĒāĻžāϞāύ āĻ•āϰ⧇āĨ¤

Divers role of English novels:

Mr. Said alludes sundry role of English novels in his international essay “Introduction to Culture and Imperialism”, 1993, which is illustrated here by pointing out with sufficient references from the essay.

āχāĻ‚āϰ⧇āϜāĻŋ āωāĻĒāĻ¨ā§āϝāĻžāϏāϗ⧁āϞāĻŋāϰ āĻāĻ•āĻžāϧāĻŋāĻ• āĻ­ā§‚āĻŽāĻŋāĻ•āĻž:

āĻŽāĻŋāσ āϏāĻžāχāĻĻ āϤāĻžāρāϰ āφāĻ¨ā§āϤāĻ°ā§āϜāĻžāϤāĻŋāĻ• āĻĒā§āϰāĻŦāĻ¨ā§āϧ “Introduction to Culture and Imperialism”, āĻ āχāĻ‚āϰ⧇āĻœā§€ āωāĻĒāĻ¨ā§āϝāĻžāϏāϗ⧁āϞāĻŋāϰ āĻ¸ā§āĻŦāϤāĻ¨ā§āĻ¤ā§āϰ āĻ­ā§‚āĻŽāĻŋāĻ•āĻžāϰ āχāĻ™ā§āĻ—āĻŋāϤ āĻĻāĻŋāϝāĻŧ⧇āϛ⧇āύ, āϝāĻž āĻāĻ–āĻžāύ⧇ āφāϞ⧋āϚāύāĻž āĻ•āϰāĻž āĻšāϞ⧋ āĻāχ āĻĒā§āϰāĻŦāĻ¨ā§āϧ āĻĨ⧇āϕ⧇ āĻĒāĻ°ā§āϝāĻžāĻĒā§āϤ  āĻĻ⧃āĻˇā§āϟāĻžāĻ¨ā§āϤ āϏāĻšāĻ•āĻžāϰ⧇āĨ¤

Exploration of strange regions:

 As it is known that the main battle of imperialism is over land and overlapping the land. The English novelists, side by side explorers, say about strange regions of the world and also represent the cultural habit of people of that very land so that imperialism functions well after trespassing. For this, Said has referred to the prototypical modern novel “Robinson Crusoe.” Thus, English novels are inevitable for colonial expansion and perpetuation in accordance with Edward Said.

āĻ…āĻĻā§āϭ⧁āϤ āĻ…āĻžā§āϚāϞāϗ⧁āϞāĻŋāϰ āĻ…āύ⧁āϏāĻ¨ā§āϧāĻžāύ:

āϝ⧇āĻŽāύāϟāĻŋ āϜāĻžāύāĻž āϝāĻžāϝāĻŧ āϝ⧇ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻœā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻŽā§‚āϞ āϝ⧁āĻĻā§āϧāϟāĻŋ āĻĻ⧇āĻļ āύāĻŋāϝāĻŧ⧇ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻĻ⧇āĻļāϟāĻŋāϕ⧇ āĻĻāĻ–āϞ āĻ•āϰāĻžāϰ āϜāĻ¨ā§āϝāĨ¤ āĻ…āύ⧁āϏāĻ¨ā§āϧāĻžāύ āĻāϰ āĻĒāĻžāĻļāĻžāĻĒāĻžāĻļāĻŋ, āχāĻ‚āϰ⧇āϜ āωāĻĒāĻ¨ā§āϝāĻžāϏāĻŋāĻ•āϰāĻž āĻŦāĻŋāĻļā§āĻŦ⧇āϰ āĻ…āĻĻā§āϭ⧁āϤ āĻĻ⧇āĻļāϗ⧁āϞāĻŋ āϏāĻŽā§āĻĒāĻ°ā§āϕ⧇ āĻŦāϞ⧇āϛ⧇āύ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϏ⧇āχ āĻĻ⧇āĻļ⧇āϰ āϞ⧋āĻ•āĻĻ⧇āϰ āϏāĻžāĻ‚āĻ¸ā§āĻ•ā§ƒāϤāĻŋāĻ• āĻ…āĻ­ā§āϝāĻžāϏ⧇āϰāĻ“ āĻĒā§āϰāϤāĻŋāύāĻŋāϧāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āĻŦ āĻ•āϰ⧇āϛ⧇āύ āϝāĻžāϤ⧇ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻœā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻ āĻĻā§‹āώāĻžāϰ⧋āĻĒ āĻ•āϰāĻžāϰ āĻĒāϰ⧇ āĻ­āĻžāϞāĻ­āĻžāĻŦ⧇ āĻ•āĻžāϜ āĻ•āϰ⧇āĨ¤ āĻāϰ āϜāĻ¨ā§āϝ, āϏāĻžāχāĻĄ āĻĒā§āϰ⧋āĻŸā§‹āϟāĻžāχāĻĒāĻŋāĻ•āĻžāϞ āφāϧ⧁āύāĻŋāĻ• āωāĻĒāĻ¨ā§āϝāĻžāϏ “āϰāĻŦāĻŋāύāϏāύ āĻ•ā§āϰ⧁āϏ⧋” āωāĻ˛ā§āϞ⧇āĻ– āĻ•āϰ⧇āϛ⧇āύāĨ¤āϏ⧁āϤāϰāĻžāĻ‚, āĻāĻĄāĻ“āϝāĻŧāĻžāĻ°ā§āĻĄ āϏāĻžāχāĻĻ āĻŽāϤ⧇, āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻœā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻ āĻŦāĻŋāĻ¸ā§āϤāĻžāϰ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻ¸ā§āĻĨāĻžāϝāĻŧā§€āĻ¤ā§āĻŦ⧇āϰ āϜāĻ¨ā§āϝ āχāĻ‚āϰ⧇āϜāĻŋ āωāĻĒāĻ¨ā§āϝāĻžāϏāϗ⧁āϞāĻŋ āĻ…āύāĻŋāĻŦāĻžāĻ°ā§āϝāĨ¤

Psychological study:

 No other branches of knowledge do well as narrative fiction does in discovering xenophobia. The word xenophobia refers to dislike of foreigners or racial intolerance. By discussing this term, English novels inform imperialists to be conscious. Such discovery is helpful for the newly appointed inexperienced imperialists to understand natives amply. Such divers’ psychological studies are found in English novels that assist imperialism to hold down. In David Copperfield (1840s) by Charles Dickens (1812-1870), that it has been shown is quoted by Said in the following way:

“A sort of free system where the lobourers could do well

on their own if allowed to do so.”

āĻŽāύāĻ¸ā§āϤāĻžāĻ¤ā§āĻ¤ā§āĻŦāĻŋāĻ• āĻ…āĻ§ā§āϝāϝāĻŧāύ:

āĻœā§‡āύ⧋āĻĢā§‹āĻŦāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻž āφāĻŦāĻŋāĻˇā§āĻ•āĻžāϰ āĻ•āϰāϤ⧇ āφāĻ§ā§āϝāĻžāĻ¤ā§āĻŽāĻŋāĻ• āĻ•āĻ˛ā§āĻĒāĻ•āĻžāĻšāĻŋāύ⧀ āĻœā§āĻžāĻžāύ⧇āϰ āĻ…āĻ¨ā§āϝ āϕ⧋āύ āĻļāĻžāĻ–āĻžāϝāĻŧ āϤ⧇āĻŽāύ āĻ­āĻžāϞ⧋ āĻ•āĻžāϜ āĻ•āϰ⧇ āύāĻžāĨ¤ āĻœā§‡āύ⧋āĻĢā§‹āĻŦāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻž āĻļāĻŦā§āĻĻāϟāĻŋ āĻŦāĻŋāĻĻ⧇āĻļā§€ āĻŦāĻž āϜāĻžāϤāĻŋāĻ—āϤ āĻ…āϏāĻšāĻŋāĻˇā§āϪ⧁āϤāĻž āĻ…āĻĒāĻ›āĻ¨ā§āĻĻāϕ⧇ āĻŦā§‹āĻāĻžāϝāĻŧāĨ¤ āĻāχ āĻĒāĻĻāϟāĻŋ āύāĻŋāϝāĻŧ⧇ āφāϞ⧋āϚāύāĻž āĻ•āϰ⧇ āχāĻ‚āϰ⧇āĻœā§€ āωāĻĒāĻ¨ā§āϝāĻžāϏāϗ⧁āϞāĻŋ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻœā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§€āĻĻ⧇āϰ āϏāĻšā§‡āϤāύ āĻšāϤ⧇ āύāĻŋāĻ°ā§āĻĻ⧇āĻļ āĻĻ⧇āϝāĻŧāĨ¤ āϏāĻĻā§āϝ āύāĻŋāϝāĻŧā§‹āĻ—āĻĒā§āϰāĻžāĻĒā§āϤ āĻ…āύāĻ­āĻŋāĻœā§āĻž āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻœā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§€āĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻĒāĻ•ā§āώ⧇ āĻ¸ā§āĻĨāĻžāύ⧀āϝāĻŧāĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻŦā§‹āĻāϤ⧇ āĻ āϜāĻžāϤ⧀āϝāĻŧ āφāĻŦāĻŋāĻˇā§āĻ•āĻžāϰ āϏāĻšāĻžāϝāĻŧāĻ•āĨ¤ āĻāχ āϜāĻžāϤ⧀āϝāĻŧ āĻŦāĻŋāĻ­āĻŋāĻ¨ā§āύ āĻŽāύāĻ¸ā§āϤāĻ¤ā§āĻ¤ā§āĻŦāĻŋāĻ• āĻŦāĻŋāώāϝāĻŧāϗ⧁āϞāĻŋ āχāĻ‚āϞāĻŋāĻļ āωāĻĒāĻ¨ā§āϝāĻžāϏāϗ⧁āϞāĻŋāϤ⧇ āĻĒāĻžāĻ“āϝāĻŧāĻž āϝāĻžāϝāĻŧ āϝāĻž āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻœā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻāϕ⧇  āϧāϰ⧇ āϰāĻžāĻ–āϤ⧇ āϏāĻšāĻžāϝāĻŧāϤāĻž āĻ•āϰ⧇āĨ¤ āϚāĻžāĻ°ā§āϞāϏ āĻĄāĻŋāϕ⧇āĻ¨ā§āϏ (1812-1870) āĻāϰ  āĻĄā§‡āĻ­āĻŋāĻĄ āĻ•āĻĒāĻžāϰāĻĢāĻŋāĻ˛ā§āĻĄā§‡ (1840), āĻāϟāĻŋ āĻĻ⧇āĻ–āĻžāύ⧋ āĻšāϝāĻŧ⧇āϛ⧇ āϝ⧇ āύāĻŋāĻŽā§āύāϞāĻŋāĻ–āĻŋāϤāĻ­āĻžāĻŦ⧇ āϏāĻžāχāĻĄā§‡āϰ āĻĻā§āĻŦāĻžāϰāĻž āωāĻĻā§āϧ⧃āϤ āĻšāϝāĻŧ⧇āϛ⧇:

“āĻāĻ• āϧāϰāϪ⧇āϰ āĻŽā§āĻ•ā§āϤ āĻŦā§āϝāĻŦāĻ¸ā§āĻĨāĻž āϝ⧇āĻ–āĻžāύ⧇ āĻļā§āϰāĻŽāĻŋāĻ•āϰāĻž āĻ­āĻžāϞ āĻ•āϰāϤ⧇ āĻĒāĻžāϰāϤ

āϤāĻžāĻĻ⧇āϰ āύāĻŋāϜāĻ¸ā§āĻŦāĻ­āĻžāĻŦ⧇, āϝāĻĻāĻŋ āĻāϟāĻŋ āĻ•āϰāĻžāϰ āĻ…āύ⧁āĻŽāϤāĻŋ āĻĻ⧇āĻ“āϝāĻŧāĻž āĻšāϤ⧋āĨ¤ “

Britain’s imperial intercourse through trade and travel:

 The British novelists are so cunning that by writing novels they prove that presently imperialism is free from criticism and will remain free from flaw and criticism because the purpose of imperialism was not to dominate but trade and travel. For short space of time, Said only examines two novels, “Great Expectations” by Dickens and “Nostromo” by Joseph Conrad, which are the token of colonial purification and packed with the procedures of establishing penal colony in Australia and powerful and corrupted one in South American Republic. Hence English novels are the advocate for eternality of imperialism.

āĻŦāĻžāĻŖāĻŋāĻœā§āϝ āĻ“ āĻ­ā§āϰāĻŽāϪ⧇āϰ āĻŽāĻžāĻ§ā§āϝāĻŽā§‡ āĻŦā§āϰāĻŋāĻŸā§‡āύ⧇āϰ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻœā§āϝ āĻŦāĻŋāĻ¸ā§āϤāĻžāϰ:

āĻŦā§āϰāĻŋāϟāĻŋāĻļ āωāĻĒāĻ¨ā§āϝāĻžāϏāĻŋāĻ•āϰāĻž āĻāϤāϟāĻžāχ āϧ⧂āĻ°ā§āϤ āϝ⧇ āωāĻĒāĻ¨ā§āϝāĻžāϏ āϞāĻŋāϖ⧇ āϤāĻžāϰāĻž āĻĒā§āϰāĻŽāĻžāĻŖ āĻ•āϰ⧇āϛ⧇āύ āϝ⧇ āĻŦāĻ°ā§āϤāĻŽāĻžāύ⧇ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻœā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāύāĻž āĻĨ⧇āϕ⧇ āĻŽā§āĻ•ā§āϤ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻ¤ā§āϰ⧁āϟāĻŋ-āĻŦāĻŋāĻšā§āϝ⧁āϤāĻŋ āĻĨ⧇āϕ⧇ āĻŽā§āĻ•ā§āϤ āĻĨāĻžāĻ•āĻŦ⧇ āĻ•āĻžāϰāĻŖ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻœā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻ⧇āϰ āωāĻĻā§āĻĻ⧇āĻļā§āϝ āĻĻāĻžāĻĒāϟ āύāϝāĻŧ, āĻŦāĻžāĻŖāĻŋāĻœā§āϝ āĻ“ āĻ­ā§āϰāĻŽāĻŖ āĻ›āĻŋāϞāĨ¤ āĻ…āĻ˛ā§āĻĒ āϏāĻŽāϝāĻŧ⧇āϰ āϜāĻ¨ā§āϝ, āϏāĻžāχāĻĻ āϕ⧇āĻŦāϞ āĻĻ⧁āϟāĻŋ āωāĻĒāĻ¨ā§āϝāĻžāϏ āĻĒāϰ⧀āĻ•ā§āώāĻž āĻ•āϰ⧇āϛ⧇āύ, āĻĄāĻŋāϕ⧇āĻ¨ā§āϏ⧇āϰ “Great Expectations” āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻœā§‹āϏ⧇āĻĢ āĻ•āύāϰāĻžāĻĄā§‡āϰ “Nostromo”, āϝ⧇āϗ⧁āϞāĻŋ āωāĻĒāύāĻŋāĻŦ⧇āĻļāĻŋāĻ• āĻļ⧁āĻĻā§āϧāĻŋāϰ āϚāĻŋāĻšā§āύ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻ…āĻ¸ā§āĻŸā§āϰ⧇āϞāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻžāϝāĻŧ āĻļāĻžāĻ¸ā§āϤāĻŋāĻŽā§‚āϞāĻ• āωāĻĒāύāĻŋāĻŦ⧇āĻļ āĻ¸ā§āĻĨāĻžāĻĒāύ⧇āϰ āĻĒāĻĻā§āϧāϤāĻŋāϤ⧇ āĻĒā§āϰāĻ¸ā§āϤ⧁āϤ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻļāĻ•ā§āϤāĻŋāĻļāĻžāϞ⧀ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻĻ⧁āĻ°ā§āύ⧀āϤāĻŋāĻ—ā§āϰāĻ¸ā§āĻĨ āĻāĻ•āϟāĻŋ āĻĻāĻ•ā§āώāĻŋāĻŖ āφāĻŽā§‡āϰāĻŋāĻ•āĻž āĻĒā§āϰāϜāĻžāϤāĻ¨ā§āĻ¤ā§āϰāĨ¤ āϏ⧁āϤāϰāĻžāĻ‚ āχāĻ‚āϰ⧇āĻœā§€ āωāĻĒāĻ¨ā§āϝāĻžāϏāϗ⧁āϞāĻŋ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻœā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻ⧇āϰ āϚāĻŋāϰāĻ¨ā§āϤāύāϤāĻžāϰ āĻĒā§āϰāĻŦāĻ•ā§āϤāĻžāĨ¤

La mission civilisatrice or civilizing mission:

Civilizing mission was inaugurated by Portugal and France in 15th century and flourished by Great Britain. According to Edward said, Joseph Conrad is the precursor of the western views of the third world. Conrad’s novel “Nostromo” published in 1904 embodies paternalistic arrogance of imperialism. The term paternalistic arrogance concerns the imperialists that dominate the natives as an intruder providing all kinds of necessities without giving rights and it is noticed that such kind of bloody political thinking is pertinent in the third world even nowadays. He, Joseph Conrad, seems to be saying in the subtle going into of Said.

“We westerners will decide who is a good native or bad,

because all natives have sufficient existence by virtue of our recognition.”

So, the English novels have been able to understand and realize the imperialists that the other name of “la mission civilisatrice” is eternal domination and looting in a non-violent way.

āϞāĻž āĻŽāĻŋāĻļāύ āϏāĻŋāĻ­āĻŋāϞāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻžāϏāĻŸā§āϰāĻžāχāϏ āĻŦāĻž āϏāĻ­ā§āϝ āĻŽāĻŋāĻļāύ:

āϏāĻ­ā§āϝ āĻŽāĻŋāĻļāύāϟāĻŋ 15 āĻļāϤāĻžāĻŦā§āĻĻā§€āϤ⧇ āĻĒāĻ°ā§āϤ⧁āĻ—āĻžāϞ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻĢā§āϰāĻžāĻ¨ā§āϏ āĻĻā§āĻŦāĻžāϰāĻž āωāĻĻā§āĻŦā§‹āϧāύ āĻ•āϰāĻž āĻšāϝāĻŧ⧇āĻ›āĻŋāϞ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻāϟāĻŋ āĻ—ā§āϰ⧇āϟ āĻŦā§āϰāĻŋāĻŸā§‡āύ⧇āϰ āĻĻā§āĻŦāĻžāϰāĻž āĻŦāĻŋāĻ•āĻžāĻļ āϞāĻžāĻ­ āĻ•āϰ⧇āĻ›āĻŋāϞāĨ¤ āĻāĻĄāĻ“āϝāĻŧāĻžāĻ°ā§āĻĄā§‡āϰ āĻŽāϤ⧇, āĻœā§‹āϏ⧇āĻĢ āĻ•āύāϰāĻžāĻĄ āϤ⧃āϤ⧀āϝāĻŧ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļā§āĻŦ⧇āϰ āĻĒāĻļā§āϚāĻŋāĻŽā§€ āĻĻ⧃āĻˇā§āϟāĻŋāĻ­āĻ™ā§āĻ—āĻŋāϰ āĻ…āĻ—ā§āϰāĻĻā§‚āϤ āĻ›āĻŋāϞ⧇āύāĨ¤ 1904 āϏāĻžāϞ⧇ āĻĒā§āϰāĻ•āĻžāĻļāĻŋāϤ āĻ•āύāϰāĻžāĻĄā§‡āϰ āωāĻĒāĻ¨ā§āϝāĻžāϏ “āύāĻ¸ā§āĻŸā§āϰ⧋āĻŽā§‹” āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻœā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻĒ⧈āϤ⧃āĻ• āĻ…āĻ­āĻŋāĻŽāĻžāύāϕ⧇ āĻŽā§‚āĻ°ā§āϤ āĻ•āϰ⧇āϛ⧇āĨ¤ āĻĒā§āϝāĻžāϟāĻžāĻ°ā§āύāĻžāϞāĻŋāĻ¸ā§āϟāĻŋāĻ• āĻāχ āĻļāĻŦā§āĻĻāϟāĻŋ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻœā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§€āĻĻ⧇āϰ āϏāĻŽā§āĻĒāĻ°ā§āϕ⧇ āωāĻĻā§āĻŦ⧇āĻ— āĻĒā§āϰāĻ•āĻžāĻļ āĻ•āϰ⧇ āϝ⧇ āϕ⧋āύāĻ“ āĻ…āύ⧁āĻĒā§āϰāĻŦ⧇āĻļāĻ•āĻžāϰ⧀ āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦ⧇ āĻ…āϧāĻŋāĻ•āĻžāϰ āύāĻž āĻĻāĻŋāϝāĻŧ⧇ āϤāĻžāĻĻ⧇āϰāϕ⧇ āϏāĻŽāĻ¸ā§āϤ āĻĒā§āϰāĻ•āĻžāϰ⧇āϰ āϏāϰāĻŦāϰāĻžāĻšāĻ•āĻžāϰ⧀ āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦ⧇ āφāϧāĻŋāĻĒāĻ¤ā§āϝ āĻŦāĻŋāĻ¸ā§āϤāĻžāϰ āĻ•āϰ⧇ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻāϟāĻŋ āϞāĻ•ā§āώ āĻ•āϰāĻž āϝāĻžāϝāĻŧ āϝ⧇ āφāϜāĻ•āĻžāϞ āϤ⧃āϤ⧀āϝāĻŧ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļā§āĻŦ⧇ āĻāχ āϜāĻžāϤ⧀āϝāĻŧ āϰāĻ•ā§āϤāĻžāĻ•ā§āϤ āϰāĻžāϜāύ⧈āϤāĻŋāĻ• āϚāĻŋāĻ¨ā§āϤāĻžāĻ­āĻžāĻŦāύāĻž āĻĒā§āϰāĻžāϏāĻ™ā§āĻ—āĻŋāĻ•āĨ¤

“āφāĻŽāϰāĻž āĻĒāĻļā§āϚāĻŋāĻŽāĻžāϰāĻž āϏāĻŋāĻĻā§āϧāĻžāĻ¨ā§āϤ āύ⧇āĻŦ āϕ⧋āύ āύ⧇āϟāĻŋāĻ­ āĻ­āĻžāϞ āĻŦāĻž āĻ–āĻžāϰāĻžāĻĒ,

āĻ•āĻžāϰāĻŖ āφāĻŽāĻžāĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻ¸ā§āĻŦā§€āĻ•ā§ƒāϤāĻŋ āĻ…āύ⧁āϏāĻžāϰ⧇ āϏāĻŽāĻ¸ā§āϤ āύ⧇āϟāĻŋāϭ⧇āϰ āĻĒāĻ°ā§āϝāĻžāĻĒā§āϤ āĻ…āĻ¸ā§āϤāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āĻŦ āφāϛ⧇āĨ¤ “

āϏ⧁āϤāϰāĻžāĻ‚, āχāĻ‚āϰ⧇āĻœā§€ āωāĻĒāĻ¨ā§āϝāĻžāϏāϗ⧁āϞāĻŋ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻœā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§€āĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻŦ⧁āĻāϤ⧇ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻŦ⧁āĻāϤ⧇ āϏāĻ•ā§āώāĻŽ āĻšāϝāĻŧ⧇āϛ⧇ āϝ⧇ “āϞāĻž āĻŽāĻŋāĻļāύ āϏāĻŋāĻ­āĻŋāϞāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻžāϏāĻŸā§āϰāĻžāχāϏ” āĻāϰ āĻ…āĻĒāϰ āύāĻžāĻŽ āĻ…āĻšāĻŋāĻ‚āϏ āωāĻĒāĻžāϝāĻŧ⧇ āϚāĻŋāϰāĻ¸ā§āĻĨāĻžāϝāĻŧā§€ āφāϧāĻŋāĻĒāĻ¤ā§āϝ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϞ⧁āϟāĻĒāĻžāϟāĨ¤

Anti-imperialistic view:

Now it must be a question of how the anti-imperialistic view can be an issue of expanding and eternalizing imperialism. It is very interesting to note that Mr. Said has blazoned his mastery to figure out this. In conformity with Said, Conrad’s vilification against imperialism has better concerned the imperialists as to the following facts.

  1. Comprehension of foreign cultures.
  2. Political willingness as alternative to imperialism etc.

That is why Said tells the world:

“To the extent that we see Conrad both criticizing

and reproducing the imperial ideology of his time”

āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻœā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻāĻŦāĻŋāϰ⧋āϧ⧀ āĻĻ⧃āĻˇā§āϟāĻŋāĻ­āĻ™ā§āĻ—āĻŋ:

āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻœā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻāĻŦāĻŋāϰ⧋āϧ⧀ āĻĻ⧃āĻˇā§āϟāĻŋāĻ­āĻ™ā§āĻ—āĻŋ āϕ⧀āĻ­āĻžāĻŦ⧇ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻœā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻŦāĻŋāĻ¸ā§āϤ⧃āϤāĻŋ āĻ“ āϚāĻŋāϰāĻ¸ā§āĻĨāĻžāϝāĻŧā§€āĻ•āϰāϪ⧇āϰ āĻŦāĻŋāώāϝāĻŧ āĻšāϤ⧇ āĻĒāĻžāϰ⧇ āϤāĻž āĻāĻ–āύāχ āĻĒā§āϰāĻļā§āύ āĻšāĻ“āϝāĻŧāĻž āωāϚāĻŋāϤāĨ¤ āĻāϟāĻž āϞāĻ•ā§āώāĻŖā§€āϝāĻŧ āĻŦāĻŋāώāϝāĻŧ āϝ⧇ āϜāύāĻžāĻŦ āϏāĻžāχāĻĻ āĻāχ āĻŦāĻŋāώāϝāĻŧāϟāĻŋ āϏāύāĻžāĻ•ā§āϤ āĻ•āϰāĻžāϰ āϜāĻ¨ā§āϝ āϤāĻžāρāϰ āĻĒā§āϰāϭ⧁āĻ¤ā§āĻŦāϕ⧇ āĻ˜ā§‹āώāĻŖāĻž āĻ•āϰ⧇āϛ⧇āύāĨ¤ āϏ⧈āϝāĻŧāĻĻ⧇āϰ āϏāĻžāĻĨ⧇ āϏāĻ™ā§āĻ—āϤāĻŋāĻĒā§‚āĻ°ā§āĻŖāĻ­āĻžāĻŦ⧇, āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻœā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻŦāĻŋāϰ⧁āĻĻā§āϧ⧇ āĻ•āύāϰāĻžāĻĄā§‡āϰ āĻšā§‚āĻĄāĻŧāĻžāĻ¨ā§āϤ āϘāϟāύāĻž āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻœā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§€āĻĻ⧇āϰ āύāĻŋāĻŽā§āύāϞāĻŋāĻ–āĻŋāϤ āĻŦāĻŋāώāϝāĻŧāϗ⧁āϞāĻŋāϰ āϏāĻŽā§āĻĒāĻ°ā§āϕ⧇ āφāϰāĻ“ āĻ­āĻžāϞāĻ­āĻžāĻŦ⧇ āĻĒā§āϰāĻ•āĻžāĻļ āĻ•āϰ⧇āĨ¤

  • āĻŦāĻŋāĻĻ⧇āĻļā§€ āϏāĻ‚āĻ¸ā§āĻ•ā§ƒāϤāĻŋāϰ āωāĻĒāϞāĻŦā§āϧāĻŋāĨ¤
  • āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻœā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻŦāĻŋāĻ•āĻ˛ā§āĻĒ āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦ⧇ āϰāĻžāϜāύ⧈āϤāĻŋāĻ• āϏāĻĻāĻŋāĻšā§āĻ›āĻž āχāĻ¤ā§āϝāĻžāĻĻāĻŋāĨ¤

āĻāχ āĻ•āĻžāϰāϪ⧇āχ āϏāĻžāχāĻĻ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļā§āĻŦāϕ⧇ āĻŦāϞ⧇:

“āĻ•āύāϰāĻžāĻĄ āωāĻ­āϝāĻŧāϕ⧇āχ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāύāĻž āĻ•āϰāϤ⧇ āĻĻ⧇āĻ–āĻ›āĻŋ

āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϤāĻžāρāϰ āϏāĻŽāϝāĻŧ⧇āϰ āϰāĻžāϜāϕ⧀āϝāĻŧ āφāĻĻāĻ°ā§āĻļ⧇āϰ āĻĒ⧁āύāϰ⧁āĻ¤ā§āĻĒāĻžāĻĻāύ ”

Conclusion: In termination, it can be simultaneously related that if there is no English novel, there is no perpetuation of imperialism and there is no imperialism, there is no progress of English novel as Dickens is the prolific master of narrative fiction.

7. Discuss how Eagleton links the rise of English to the crisis in modern civilization.

Introduction: Terry Eagleton is a British literary theorist, critic, and public intellectual. “The Rise of English” is one of his critical essays in which he has depicted the significance of literature because of the crisis of modern civilization. From the very outset of the modern sense of literature, modern civilization started to suffer from different types of crises.

āĻ­ā§‚āĻŽāĻŋāĻ•āĻž: āĻŸā§‡āϰāĻŋ āχāĻ—āϞāϟāύ āĻšāϞ⧇āύ āĻāĻ•āϜāύ āĻŦā§āϰāĻŋāϟāĻŋāĻļ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āϝāĻŋāĻ• āϤāĻžāĻ¤ā§āĻ¤ā§āĻŦāĻŋāĻ•, āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāĻ• āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻŦ⧁āĻĻā§āϧāĻŋāĻœā§€āĻŦā§€āĨ¤ “The Rise of English” āϤāĻžāρāϰ āĻ…āĻ¨ā§āϝāϤāĻŽ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞ⧋āϚāύāĻžāĻŽā§‚āϞāĻ• āĻĒā§āϰāĻŦāĻ¨ā§āϧ āϝāĻž āφāϧ⧁āύāĻŋāĻ• āϏāĻ­ā§āϝāϤāĻžāϰ āϏāĻ‚āĻ•āĻŸā§‡āϰ āĻ•āĻžāϰāϪ⧇ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āϝ⧇āϰ āϤāĻžāĻ¤ā§āĻĒāĻ°ā§āϝ āϚāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āϰāĻŋāϤ āĻ•āϰ⧇āϛ⧇āύāĨ¤ āφāϧ⧁āύāĻŋāĻ• āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āϝ⧇ āĻŦā§‹āϧ⧇āϰ āϏ⧂āϚāύāĻž āĻĨ⧇āϕ⧇āχ āφāϧ⧁āύāĻŋāĻ• āϏāĻ­ā§āϝāϤāĻž āĻŦāĻŋāĻ­āĻŋāĻ¨ā§āύ āϧāϰāϪ⧇āϰ āϏāĻ‚āĻ•āĻŸā§‡ āϭ⧁āĻ—āϤ⧇ āĻļ⧁āϰ⧁ āĻ•āϰ⧇āĨ¤

The failure of religion

The first and foremost crisis of modern civilization we get in the essay “The Rise of English” is the failure of religion in the mid-Victorian period. Religion and science became rivals for each other and the twin impacts of science and social change made religion unreliable at the bottom. The Victorian ruling class was worried because it is universally accepted that religion is an effective form of ideological control. Like all successful ideologies, it works much less by explicit concepts than by image, symbol, habit, ritual, and mythology. To save the nation from this crisis English literature came forward and showed its success too.

āϧāĻ°ā§āĻŽā§‡āϰ āĻŦā§āϝāĻ°ā§āĻĨāϤāĻž

āφāϧ⧁āύāĻŋāĻ• āϏāĻ­ā§āϝāϤāĻžāϰ āĻĒā§āϰāĻĨāĻŽ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϏāĻ°ā§āĻŦāĻžāϧāĻŋāĻ• āϏāĻ‚āĻ•āϟ āϝāĻž āφāĻŽāϰāĻž “The Rise of English” āĻĒā§āϰāĻŦāĻ¨ā§āϧ⧇ āĻĒāĻžāχ, āĻāϟāĻŋ āĻš’āϞ āĻŽāĻ§ā§āϝ-āĻ­āĻŋāĻ•ā§āĻŸā§‹āϰāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻžāύ āϏāĻŽāϝāĻŧāĻ•āĻžāϞ⧇ āϧāĻ°ā§āĻŽā§‡āϰ āĻŦā§āϝāĻ°ā§āĻĨāϤāĻžāĨ¤ āϧāĻ°ā§āĻŽ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻŦāĻŋāĻœā§āĻžāĻžāύ āĻāϕ⧇ āĻ…āĻĒāϰ⧇āϰ āĻĒā§āϰāϤāĻŋāĻĻā§āĻŦāĻ¨ā§āĻĻā§āĻŦā§€ āĻšāϝāĻŧ⧇ āĻ“āϠ⧇ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻŦāĻŋāĻœā§āĻžāĻžāύ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϏāĻžāĻŽāĻžāϜāĻŋāĻ• āĻĒāϰāĻŋāĻŦāĻ°ā§āϤāύ⧇āϰ āĻĻā§āĻŦāĻŋāϗ⧁āĻŖ āĻĒā§āϰāĻ­āĻžāĻŦ āϧāĻ°ā§āĻŽāϕ⧇ āĻ…āĻŦāĻŋāĻļā§āĻŦāĻžāĻ¸ā§āϝ āĻ•āϰ⧇ āϤ⧋āϞ⧇āĨ¤ āĻ­āĻŋāĻ•ā§āĻŸā§‹āϰāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻžāύ āĻļāĻžāϏāĻ• āĻļā§āϰ⧇āĻŖāĻŋ āϚāĻŋāĻ¨ā§āϤāĻŋāϤ āĻ›āĻŋāϞ āĻ•āĻžāϰāĻŖ āϏāĻ°ā§āĻŦāϜāύāĻ¸ā§āĻŦā§€āĻ•ā§ƒāϤ āϝ⧇ āϧāĻ°ā§āĻŽ āφāĻĻāĻ°ā§āĻļāĻŋāĻ• āύāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻ¨ā§āĻ¤ā§āϰāϪ⧇āϰ āϜāĻ¨ā§āϝ āĻ•āĻžāĻ°ā§āϝāĻ•āϰ āϰ⧂āĻĒāĨ¤ āϏāĻŽāĻ¸ā§āϤ āϏāĻĢāϞ āĻŽāϤāĻžāĻĻāĻ°ā§āĻļ⧇āϰ āĻŽāϤ⧋, āĻāϟāĻŋ āϚāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āϰ, āĻĒā§āϰāϤ⧀āĻ•, āĻ…āĻ­ā§āϝāĻžāϏ, āφāϚāĻžāϰ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻĒ⧌āϰāĻžāĻŖāĻŋāĻ• āĻ•āĻžāĻšāĻŋāύ⧀āϗ⧁āϞāĻŋāϰ āϤ⧁āϞāύāĻžāϝāĻŧ āϏ⧁āĻ¸ā§āĻĒāĻˇā§āϟ āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖāĻž āĻĻā§āĻŦāĻžāϰāĻž āĻ…āύ⧇āĻ• āĻ•āĻŽ āĻ•āĻžāϜ āĻ•āϰ⧇āĨ¤ āĻāχ āϏāĻ‚āĻ•āϟ āĻĨ⧇āϕ⧇ āϜāĻžāϤāĻŋāϕ⧇ āĻŦāĻžāρāϚāĻžāϤ⧇ āχāĻ‚āϰ⧇āĻœā§€ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āϝ āĻāĻ—āĻŋāϝāĻŧ⧇ āĻāϏ⧇āĻ›āĻŋāϞ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻāϰ āϏāĻžāĻĢāĻ˛ā§āϝāĻ“ āĻĻ⧇āĻ–āĻŋāϝāĻŧ⧇āĻ›āĻŋāϞāĨ¤

The wasteland

Terry Eagleton has cited that modern “England is sick” that was commented by George Gordon, who was an early professor of English Literature at Oxford, in his inaugural lecture. The churches were failed and social remedies were slow. English literature has now a triple function to delight, instruct and save us. Thus, English is constructed as a subject to carry away the burden from the Victorian period onwards. According to Eagleton, Matthew Arnold is here the key figure because he recognizes the urgent social need.

“It is of itself a serious calamity for a nation that its tone of feeling and grandeur of spirit should be lowered or dulled”

āĻĒāϰāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āϝāĻžāĻ•ā§āϤ āĻ¸ā§āĻĨāĻžāύ

āĻŸā§‡āϰāĻŋ āχāĻ—āϞāϟāύ āĻĒā§āϰāĻ•āĻžāĻļ āĻ•āϰ⧇āϛ⧇āύ āϝ⧇ āφāϧ⧁āύāĻŋāĻ• “āχāĻ‚āĻ˛ā§āϝāĻžāĻ¨ā§āĻĄ āĻ…āϏ⧁āĻ¸ā§āĻĨ” āϤāĻžāϰ āωāĻĻā§āĻŦā§‹āϧāύ⧀ āĻŦāĻ•ā§āϤ⧃āϤāĻžāϝāĻŧ āĻŽāĻ¨ā§āϤāĻŦā§āϝ āĻ•āϰ⧇āĻ›āĻŋāϞ⧇āύ āĻ…āĻ•ā§āϏāĻĢā§‹āĻ°ā§āĻĄā§‡āϰ āχāĻ‚āϰ⧇āϜāĻŋ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āϝ⧇āϰ āĻĒā§āϰāĻžāϰāĻŽā§āĻ­āĻŋāĻ• āĻ…āĻ§ā§āϝāĻžāĻĒāĻ• āϜāĻ°ā§āϜ āĻ—āĻ°ā§āĻĄāύ āĨ¤ āĻ—ā§€āĻ°ā§āϜāĻžāϗ⧁āϞāĻŋ āĻŦā§āϝāĻ°ā§āĻĨ āĻšāϝāĻŧ⧇āĻ›āĻŋāϞ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āϏāĻžāĻŽāĻžāϜāĻŋāĻ• āĻĒā§āϰāϤāĻŋāĻ•āĻžāϰāϗ⧁āϞāĻŋ āύāĻŋāĻŽā§āύ āĻ—āϤāĻŋāϏāĻŽā§āĻĒā§‚āĻ°ā§āĻŖ āĻšāϝāĻŧ⧇ āĻ—āĻŋāϝāĻŧ⧇āĻ›āĻŋāϞ⧋āĨ¤āχāĻ‚āϰāĻžāĻœā§€ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āϝ⧇ āĻāĻ–āύ āφāĻŽāĻžāĻĻ⧇āϰ āφāύāĻ¨ā§āĻĻ, āĻĒā§āϰāĻļāĻŋāĻ•ā§āώāĻŖ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻŦāĻžāρāϚāĻžāϤ⧇ āĻ•āĻžāϜ āĻ•āϰ⧇āϛ⧇āĨ¤ āϏ⧁āϤāϰāĻžāĻ‚, āĻ­āĻŋāĻ•ā§āĻŸā§‹āϰāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻžāύ āϏāĻŽāϝāĻŧ āĻĨ⧇āϕ⧇ āĻĻāĻžāϝāĻŧāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āĻŦ āĻŦāĻšāύ āĻ•āϰāĻžāϰ āϜāĻ¨ā§āϝ āχāĻ‚āϰ⧇āĻœā§€ āĻāĻ•āϟāĻŋ āĻŦāĻŋāώāϝāĻŧ⧇ āĻĒāϰāĻŋāĻŖāϤ āĻšāϝāĻŧāĨ¤ āχāĻ—āĻ˛ā§āϟāύ⧇āϰ āĻŽāϤ⧇, āĻŽā§āϝāĻžāĻĨāĻŋāω āφāĻ°ā§āύāĻ˛ā§āĻĄ āĻāĻ–āĻžāύ⧇ āĻŽā§‚āϞ āĻŦā§āϝāĻ•ā§āϤāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āĻŦ āĻ•āĻžāϰāĻŖ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āϜāϰ⧁āϰāĻŋ āϏāĻžāĻŽāĻžāϜāĻŋāĻ• āĻĒā§āϰāϝāĻŧā§‹āϜāύāϕ⧇ āĻ¸ā§āĻŦā§€āĻ•ā§ƒāϤāĻŋ āĻĻāĻŋāϝāĻŧ⧇āϛ⧇āύāĨ¤

āĻāϟāĻŋ āύāĻŋāĻœā§‡āχ āĻāĻ•āϟāĻŋ āĻŽāĻžāϰāĻžāĻ¤ā§āĻŽāĻ• āĻŦāĻŋāĻĒāĻ°ā§āϝāϝāĻŧ āϝ⧇ āĻāϰ āĻ…āύ⧁āĻ­ā§‚āϤāĻŋ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻšā§‡āϤāύāĻžāϰ āĻŽāĻšāĻŋāĻŽāĻž āĻ¸ā§āĻŦāϰāϕ⧇ āĻšā§āϰāĻžāϏ āĻ•āϰāĻž āĻŦāĻž āφāϟāĻ•āĻžāύ⧋ āωāϚāĻŋāϤ”

Political bigotry and ideological extremism

Another traceable crisis of modern civilization is political bigotry and ideological extremism. Getting rid of the crisis, literature is the potent antidote as we know that it deals with universal human values rather than the historical civil wars, oppression of women or the dispossession of the English peasantry. And, certainly, literature helps to promote sympathy and fellow feeling among all classes.

āϰāĻžāϜāύ⧈āϤāĻŋāĻ• āĻ—ā§‹āρāĻĄāĻŧāĻžāĻŽāĻŋ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āφāĻĻāĻ°ā§āĻļāĻŋāĻ• āϚāϰāĻŽāĻĒāĻ¨ā§āĻĨāĻž

āφāϧ⧁āύāĻŋāĻ• āϏāĻ­ā§āϝāϤāĻžāϰ āφāϰ⧇āĻ•āϟāĻŋ āĻ…āύ⧁āϏāϰāĻŖāϝ⧋āĻ—ā§āϝ āϏāĻ™ā§āĻ•āϟ āĻš’āϞ āϰāĻžāϜāύ⧈āϤāĻŋāĻ• āĻ—ā§‹āρāĻĄāĻŧāĻžāĻŽāĻŋ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āφāĻĻāĻ°ā§āĻļāĻŋāĻ• āϚāϰāĻŽāĻĒāĻ¨ā§āĻĨāĻžāĨ¤ āϏāĻ‚āĻ•āϟ āĻĨ⧇āϕ⧇ āĻŽā§āĻ•ā§āϤāĻŋ āĻĒāĻžāĻ“āϝāĻŧāĻž, āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āϝāϰ  āĻāĻ•āϟāĻŋ āĻļāĻ•ā§āϤāĻŋāĻļāĻžāϞ⧀ āĻĒā§āϰāϤāĻŋāώ⧇āϧāĻ• āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦ⧇ āφāĻŽāϰāĻž āϜāĻžāύāĻŋ āϝ⧇ āĻāϟāĻŋ āϐāϤāĻŋāĻšāĻžāϏāĻŋāĻ• āĻ—ā§ƒāĻšāϝ⧁āĻĻā§āϧ, āĻŽāĻšāĻŋāϞāĻžāĻĻ⧇āϰ āωāĻĒāϰ āύāĻŋāĻĒā§€āĻĄāĻŧāύ āĻŦāĻž āχāĻ‚āϰ⧇āϜ āĻ•ā§ƒāώāĻ•āϕ⧇ āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻžāĻĄāĻŧāύ⧇āϰ āĻĒāϰāĻŋāĻŦāĻ°ā§āϤ⧇ āϏāĻ°ā§āĻŦāϜāύ⧀āύ āĻŽāĻžāύāĻŦāĻŋāĻ• āĻŽā§‚āĻ˛ā§āϝāĻŦā§‹āϧ⧇āϰ āϏāĻžāĻĨ⧇ āϏāĻŽā§āĻĒāĻ°ā§āĻ•āĻŋāϤāĨ¤ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚, āĻ…āĻŦāĻļā§āϝāχ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āϝ āϏāĻŽāĻ¸ā§āϤ āĻļā§āϰ⧇āĻŖā§€āϰ āĻŽāĻ§ā§āϝ⧇ āϏāĻšāĻžāύ⧁āĻ­ā§‚āϤāĻŋ āĻĒā§āϰāϚāĻžāϰ āĻ•āϰāϤ⧇ āϏāĻšāĻžāϝāĻŧāϤāĻž āĻ•āϰ⧇āĨ¤

Bourgeois or conservative civilization

Bourgeois or conservative civilization is acute in the habits of thought and feeling of modern civilization. People are very much self-centered and not at all cooperative with each other. They pursue knowledge for their moral riches but their educational pursuit must be called a scanty education. According to a study of English Literature written in 1891, people need political culture and instruction so that they can perform their duties as citizens.

āĻŦ⧁āĻ°ā§āĻœā§‹āϝāĻŧāĻž āĻŦāĻž āϰāĻ•ā§āώāĻŖāĻļā§€āϞ āϏāĻ­ā§āϝāϤāĻž

āĻŦ⧁āĻ°ā§āĻœā§‹āϝāĻŧāĻž āĻŦāĻž āϰāĻ•ā§āώāĻŖāĻļā§€āϞ āϏāĻ­ā§āϝāϤāĻž āφāϧ⧁āύāĻŋāĻ• āϏāĻ­ā§āϝāϤāĻžāϰ āϚāĻŋāĻ¨ā§āϤāĻžāĻ­āĻžāĻŦāύāĻž āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻ…āύ⧁āĻ­ā§‚āϤāĻŋāϗ⧁āϞāĻŋāϰ āϤ⧀āĻŦā§āϰ āĻ¸ā§āĻŦāĻ­āĻžāĻŦāĨ¤ āϞ⧋āϕ⧇āϰāĻž āϖ⧁āĻŦ āĻ¸ā§āĻŦ-āϕ⧇āĻ¨ā§āĻĻā§āϰāĻŋāĻ• āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻāϕ⧇ āĻ…āĻĒāϰāϕ⧇ āĻŽā§‹āĻŸā§‡āĻ“ āϏāĻšāϝ⧋āĻ—āĻŋāϤāĻž āĻ•āϰ⧇ āύāĻžāĨ¤ āϤāĻžāϰāĻž āϤāĻžāĻĻ⧇āϰ āύ⧈āϤāĻŋāĻ• āϧāύ-āϏāĻŽā§āĻĒāĻĻ⧇āϰ āϜāĻ¨ā§āϝ āĻœā§āĻžāĻžāύ āĻ…āĻ°ā§āϜāύ āĻ•āϰ⧇ āϤāĻŦ⧇ āϤāĻžāĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻļāĻŋāĻ•ā§āώāĻžāĻ—ā§āϰāĻšāĻŖāϕ⧇ āĻ…āĻŦāĻļā§āϝāχ āĻāĻ•āϟāĻŋ āĻ¸ā§āĻŦāĻ˛ā§āĻĒ āĻļāĻŋāĻ•ā§āώāĻžāĻĻāĻžāύ āĻŦāϞāĻž āϝ⧇āϤ⧇ āĻĒāĻžāϰ⧇āĨ¤ 1891 āϏāĻžāϞ⧇ āϰāϚāĻŋāϤ āχāĻ‚āϰ⧇āϜāĻŋ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āϝ⧇āϰ āĻāĻ•āϟāĻŋ āĻ…āĻ§ā§āϝāϝāĻŧāύ āĻ…āύ⧁āϏāĻžāϰ⧇, āϞ⧋āϕ⧇āϰāĻž āϰāĻžāϜāύ⧈āϤāĻŋāĻ• āϏāĻ‚āĻ¸ā§āĻ•ā§ƒāϤāĻŋ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āύāĻŋāĻ°ā§āĻĻ⧇āĻļāύāĻž āĻĒā§āϰāϝāĻŧā§‹āϜāύ āϝāĻžāϤ⧇ āϤāĻžāϰāĻž āύāĻžāĻ—āϰāĻŋāĻ• āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦ⧇ āϤāĻžāĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻĻāĻžāϝāĻŧāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āĻŦ āĻĒāĻžāϞāύ āĻ•āϰāϤ⧇ āĻĒāĻžāϰ⧇āĨ¤

Lack of light, knowledge, and morality

According to Eagleton, literature from Arnold onwards is an enemy of ideological dogma that seems irrelevant when we read the writing of Dante, Milton and Pope, and of course Shakespeare. He also suggests that if anyone wants to get ideas about the evil of imperialism, he needs to travel to Africa but his demand can be fulfilled without going to Africa if he reads Conrad or Kipling. Thus, literature is the preacher of light, knowledge, and morality.

āφāϞ⧋, āĻœā§āĻžāĻžāύ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āύ⧈āϤāĻŋāĻ•āϤāĻžāϰ āĻ…āĻ­āĻžāĻŦ

āχāĻ—āϞāϟāύ⧇āϰ āĻŽāϤ⧇ ,āφāĻ°ā§āύāĻ˛ā§āĻĄā§‡āϰ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āϝ⧇āϰ āφāĻĻāĻ°ā§āĻļāĻŋāĻ• āĻŽāϤāĻŦāĻžāĻĻ⧇āϰ āĻļāĻ¤ā§āϰ⧂  āϝāĻž āĻĻāĻžāĻ¨ā§āϤ, āĻŽāĻŋāĻ˛ā§āϟāύ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻĒā§‹āĻĒ⧇āϰ āϞ⧇āĻ–āĻž āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āĻ…āĻŦāĻļā§āϝāχ āĻļ⧇āĻ•ā§āϏāĻĒāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻžāϰ⧇āϰ āϞ⧇āĻ–āĻž āĻĒāĻĄāĻŧāϞ⧇ āĻ…āĻĒā§āϰāĻžāϏāĻ™ā§āĻ—āĻŋāĻ• āĻŦāϞ⧇ āĻŽāύ⧇ āĻšāϝāĻŧāĨ¤ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āφāϰāĻ“ āĻĒāϰāĻžāĻŽāĻ°ā§āĻļ āĻĻāĻŋāϝāĻŧ⧇āĻ›āĻŋāϞ⧇āύ āϝ⧇ āϝāĻĻāĻŋ āϕ⧇āω āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻœā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻ⧇āϰ āϕ⧁āĻĢāϞ āϏāĻŽā§āĻĒāĻ°ā§āϕ⧇ āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖāĻž āĻĒ⧇āϤ⧇ āϚāĻžāϝāĻŧ āϤāĻŦ⧇ āϤāĻžāϕ⧇ āφāĻĢā§āϰāĻŋāĻ•āĻž āĻ­ā§āϰāĻŽāĻŖ āĻ•āϰāϤ⧇ āĻšāĻŦ⧇ āϤāĻŦ⧇ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ  āĻ•āύāϰāĻžāĻĄ āĻŦāĻž āĻ•āĻŋāĻĒāϞāĻŋāĻ‚ āĻĒāĻĄāĻŧāϞ⧇ āφāĻĢā§āϰāĻŋāĻ•āĻž āύāĻž āĻ—āĻŋāϝāĻŧ⧇āχ āϤāĻžāϰ āϚāĻžāĻšāĻŋāĻĻāĻž āĻĒā§‚āϰāĻŖ āĻšāϤ⧇ āĻĒāĻžāϰ⧇āĨ¤ āϏ⧁āϤāϰāĻžāĻ‚, āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāĻ¤ā§āϝ āφāϞ⧋, āĻœā§āĻžāĻžāύ āĻāĻŦāĻ‚ āύ⧈āϤāĻŋāĻ•āϤāĻžāϰ āĻĒā§āϰāϚāĻžāϰāĻ•āĨ¤

Conclusion: In termination, it is transparent that The Rise of English means the development of English literature has been smooth because of the acute problem of modern civilization as it meets the demand of the time in the time of crisis.

8. Question: Discuss the term dissociation of Sensibility.

Introduction: The term dissociation of sensibility was first used by Thomas Stearns Eliot (1888-1865) in his famous essay “The Metaphysical Poets”. It refers to the way in which intellectual thought was separated from the experience of feeling in the seventeenth century.

Basic concept on the dissociation of sensibility: The term dissociation of sensibility comprises two words which are dissociation and sensibility. The meaning of the word dissociation is separation or detachment and sensibility is sensation or feeling. So, this term stands for detachment of thought from sensation in the case of poetry writing.

Clear concept on the unification of sensibility: Before elaborating the dissociation of sensibility, the unification of sensibility should be clarified so that we can appreciate the intellectual or metaphysical poets very well and conspicuously. The term “unification of sensibility” means fusion of thought and feeling by the early Jacobean poets, especially by John Donne first. By this term, Eliot links between the modern poets and metaphysical poets.

Difference between intellectual and reflective poets: Eliot points out that the term dissociation of sensibility has made the difference between the intellectual poets, which means the metaphysical poets and the reflective poets. The intellectual poets unified thought and feeling together but the reflective poets separated the feeling or sensibility from thought. According to Eliot, Tennyson and Browning are great poets but they are devoid of fidelity of thought and feeling simultaneously like Donne or Lord Herbert of Cherbury.

“Tennyson and Browning are poets, and they think; but they do not feel their thought as immediately as the odour of a rose.”

Thus, Eliot argues that dissociation of sensibility is not better than the unification of sensibility to produce good poetry. “A Valediction Forbidding Morning” is a superb example of unification of sensibility in which the poet compares two lovers to a pair of compasses.

The natural development of poetry: According to Eliot, the dissociation of sensibility was the result of the natural development of poetry after the metaphysical. Eliot asserts that dissociation of sensibility was established by the influence of two powerful poets of the late seventeenth century – Milton and Dryden and we have never recovered. In fact, Eliot means to say that the poetic functions of Milton and Dryden were so magnificently well that the magnitude of expansion of their poetic effects concealed or covered the other poets’ merits. The critic says that their use of language was so refined but there was a huge lack of feeling in their writings that is why Eliot has preferred the unification of sensibility which means simply fusion of feeling and thought together to the dissociation of sensibility.

Distinguishing between language and feelings: Eliot goes on telling that the other poets such as Collins, Gray, Johnson, and Goldsmith who followed this term perfectly satisfy our fastidious demands better than that of Donne, Marvell, or King. Their language also becomes more refined but the feeling is cruder. He cites an example from Gray’s poem “Country Churchyard” because the feeling or sensibility expressed in the poem is cruder than that in “Coy Mistress” by Andrew Marvell who is one of the excellent metaphysical poets in accordance with Eliot. Thus, he evaluates the intellectual or metaphysical poets from a very different angle which is really praiseworthy.

Criticism: Though Eliot is unanimously accepted for his term “dissociation of sensibility”, he has to face a very critical question that the very term was originated because of the English civil war. He does not agree or disagree with this question and he also tells us that it is very perilous to reject Johnson’s arguments as to metaphysical poets and poetry.

Conclusion: From the light of the above discussion it can be said that Eliot is not only a genius critic but also a founder of intellectual poets in the mind of the readers forever by the dint of his two terms which are the dissociation of sensibility and unification of sensibility.

SR Sarker
SR Sarker
Articles: 380

Leave a Reply

x
error: Sorry !!