PRC Foundation
Website: www.literaturexpres.com
The best way of learning and gaining
suggestion
Literary Criticism
Exam 2020 held in 2021
Part: C
- Discuss touchstone method with reference to âThe Study of Poetryâ.
- Discuss Eagletonâs views on Romanticism.
- Discuss the two-fold implications of culture.
- How does Eliot refute Johnsonâs remark about Metaphysical Poetry?
- Discuss Matthew Arnold as a critic.
- Discuss the term Dissociation of Sensibility.
- How does Said appreciate English Novel in his critical essay.
- Discuss the crisis of modern civilization with reference to The Rise of English.
Part: B
- Discuss the term poetry is the criticism of life.
- What are the characteristics of good poetry?
- Write a short note on Eagletonâs prose style.
- Why does Said write his book Culture and Imperialism?
- What are the similarities between modern poets and Metaphysical poets?
- What do you mean by consolidation of Imperialism?
- What do you mean by post colonialism?
- How does Eliot praise Donneâs ability to unify the intellectual thoughts and sensation of feeling?
- What do You know about Abraham Cowley?
- How is culture an instrument of imperialism?
- Differentiate between intellectual poet and reflective poet.
- Write a short note on Chaucer.
- Write a short on Neo-classicism.
Part-A
1. What is meant by âillusionâ?
Ans: It means something which does not exist but creates a momentary impression.
2. How is poetry âthe criticism of lifeâ?
Ans: Poetry deals with the ideas of life that a reader finds when he reads a poem.
3. What does the term âpoetic truthâ 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 âtouchstoneâ?
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 Herbertâs 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 âmetaphysical 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 Saidâs 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 âThe Study of Poetryâ?
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 Griersonâs 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 Saidâs book âCulture and Imperialismâ?
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 âMetaphysical Poetsâ. 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 âOrientalismâ?
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 âThe Rise of Englishâ?
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 âneoclassicalâ?
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 Eagletonâs 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 âcreative imaginationâ?
Ans: It is an image of non-alienated labor, the intuitive and spiritual essence of a poetic mind, according to Eagleton.
33. When did Saidâs family leave Cairo?
Ans: In 1963
34. What is Matthew Arnoldâs concept of culture?
Ans: The concept is that culture is refining and elevating elements, each societyâs reservoir of the best.
35. Where is Conradâs 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, âfor poetry the idea is everythingâ?
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, âpoetry attaches its emotion to the idea that the idea is the factâ?
Ans: Matthew Arnold.
42. What is Arnoldâs 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 âhigh seriousnessâ in his poetry?
Ans: When he treats a serious subject in a simple and intense manner.
45. What is Eliotâs brief comment on Griersonâs anthology?
Ans: He comments that it is a âpiece of criticism and a provocation of criticismâ.
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 âCulture and Imperialismâ and âOrientalismâ?
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 âcultureâ with âartâ?
Ans: Said associates âcultureâ with âartâ 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 âusâ (the colonizers) and âthemâ (the colonized), culture becomes a source of identity.
51. What was âScrutinyâ?
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 âThe Study of Poetryâ?
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 Donneâs line âA bracelet of bright hair about the boneâ?
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 âthe best that was thought and knownâ, the realistic picture of life.
57. What kind of writing is âThe Rise of English?
Ans: It is an essay which is the first chapter after introduction in Terry Eagletonâs 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 Arnoldâs best poems.
Ans: The Scholar Gipsy, Dover Beach, Thyrsis, Rugby Chapel.
64. What has Arnold said about religion in âThe Study of Poetryâ?
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 âmore often named than reading, and more often read than profitably studiedâ.
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.
- Question: Discuss the term âpoetry is the criticism of lifeâ.
Or, evaluate Arnoldâs 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 âfirst modern criticâ Matthew Arnold (1822-1888) shows high conception on poetry in his literary criticism âThe Study of Poetryâ which is his attempt to establish the standard of what poetry should be. He asserts that the best poetry is the âcriticism of life by the laws of poetic truth and poetic beautyâ.
āĻā§āĻŽāĻŋāĻāĻž: āϞā§āĻāĻžāϰ āĻ āύā§āϝāϤāĻŽ āĻŽāϰā§āϝāĻžāĻĻāĻžāĻĒā§āϰā§āĻŖ āϰā§āĻĒ āĻš’āϞ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻžāĨ¤ āĻāĻāĻŋ āĻāĻŽāύ āĻāĻāĻāĻŋ āĻļāĻŋāϞā§āĻĒ āϝāĻž āĻŽāĻžāύā§āώā§āϰ āĻāϤā§āĻŽāĻž āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻā§āϤāύāĻžāϝāĻŧ āĻ āύā§āϤāϰā§āĻā§āĻā§āϤāĨ¤ âāĻĒā§āϰāĻĨāĻŽ āĻāϧā§āύāĻŋāĻ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāĻâ āĻŽā§āϝāĻžāĻĨā§ āĻāϰā§āύāϞā§āĻĄ (1822-1888) āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻžāϰ āĻāĻĒāϰ āĻāĻā§āĻ āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖāĻž āĻĻā§āĻāĻžāϝāĻŧ āϤāĻžāĻāϰ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāϤā§āϝā§āϰ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāύāĻž “āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āĻ āϧā§āϝāϝāĻŧāύ”āĻ āϝāĻž āϤāĻžāϰ āĻĒā§āϰāϝāĻŧāĻžāϏ āϏā§āĻā§āϝāĻžāύā§āĻĄāĻžāϰā§āĻĄ āĻĒā§āϰāϤāĻŋāώā§āĻ āĻžāϰ āĻāύā§āϝ āϝ⧠āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āĻā§āĻŽāύ āĻšāĻāϝāĻŧāĻž āĻāĻāĻŋāϤ āĨ¤ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻŦāϞ⧠āϝ⧠āϏā§āϰāĻž āĻāĻžāĻŦā§āϝāĻā§āϰāύā§āĻĨ āĻš’āϞ “āĻāĻžāĻŦā§āϝāĻŋāĻ āϏāϤā§āϝ āĻ āĻāĻžāĻŦā§āϝāĻŋāĻ āϏā§āύā§āĻĻāϰā§āϝā§āϰ āĻŦāĻŋāϧāĻŋ āĻĻā§āĻŦāĻžāϰāĻž āĻā§āĻŦāύā§āϰ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāύāĻž”āĨ¤
The âCriticism of Lifeâ: The phrase âCriticism of lifeâ means proper interpretation of life. Poetry accurately explains life. Here we discover and analyze how poetry is the criticism of life.
âāĻā§āĻŦāύā§āϰ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāύāĻžâ
“āĻā§āĻŦāύā§āϰ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāύāĻž” āĻļāĻŦā§āĻĻāĻāĻŋāϰ āĻ āϰā§āĻĨ āĻā§āĻŦāύā§āϰ āϝāĻĨāĻžāϝāĻĨ āĻŦā§āϝāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻžāĨ¤ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āĻā§āĻŦāύāĻā§ āϏāĻ āĻŋāĻāĻāĻžāĻŦā§ āĻŦā§āϝāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻž āĻāϰā§āĨ¤ āĻāĻāĻžāύ⧠āĻāĻŽāϰāĻž āĻāĻŦāĻŋāώā§āĻāĻžāϰ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļā§āϞā§āώāĻŖ āĻāϰāĻŦ āϝ⧠āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āĻā§āĻāĻžāĻŦā§ āĻā§āĻŦāύā§āϰ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāύāĻžāĨ¤
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.
āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻŽāĻžāύāĻŦ āĻā§āĻŦāύā§āϰ āĻŽāϧā§āϝ⧠āĻ āĻāĻŖā§āĻĄāϤāĻž
āĻāϰā§āύāϞā§āĻĄ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻžāĻā§ āĻā§āĻŦāύā§āϰ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāύāĻž āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦā§ āϏāĻāĻā§āĻāĻž āĻĻāĻŋāϝāĻŧā§āĻā§āύāĨ¤ āĻāĻāĻŋāĻā§ āĻ āύā§āϝāĻāĻžāĻŦā§ āĻŦāϞāϤ⧠āĻā§āϞ⧠āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āĻ āĻŦāĻļā§āϝāĻ āĻā§āĻŦāύ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻā§āĻŦāύā§āϰ āϏāĻŽāϏā§āϝāĻžāĻā§āϞāĻŋāϰ āϏāĻžāĻĨā§ āύāĻŋāĻā§āĻā§ āĻāĻĻā§āĻŦā§āĻāĻŋāϤ āĻāϰā§āĨ¤ āĻāĻāĻŋ āĻāĻŽāύāĻāĻžāĻŦā§ āĻĻā§āϰāĻŦāϰā§āϤ⧠āĻšāĻāϝāĻŧāĻž āĻāĻāĻŋāϤ āύāϝāĻŧ āϝāĻž āĻāĻŽāĻžāĻĻā§āϰ āĻā§āĻŦāύā§āϰ āϏāĻžāĻĨā§ āϏāϰāĻžāϏāϰāĻŋ āϏāĻāϝā§āĻ āύāĻž āĻāϰā§āĨ¤
Source of ingredients of life: By the phrase âCriticism of Lifeâ 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.
āĻā§āĻŦāύā§āϰ āĻāĻĒāĻžāĻĻāĻžāύāĻā§āϞāĻŋāϰ āĻāϤā§āϏ
“āĻā§āĻŦāύā§āϰ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāύāĻž” āĻāĻ āĻŦāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻāĻŋāϰ āĻĻā§āĻŦāĻžāϰāĻž āĻāϰā§āύāϞā§āĻĄ āĻŦāϞāϤ⧠āĻā§āϝāĻŧā§āĻā§āύ āϝ⧠āĻĒāĻžāĻ āĻāϰāĻž āϤāĻžāĻĻā§āϰ āϤā§āϰā§āĻāĻŋ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻā§āϞāĻā§āϞāĻŋ āϏāύāĻžāĻā§āϤ āĻāϰāϤ⧠āĻĒāĻžāϰā§āύ āϏāĻāĻļā§āϧāύ āĻāϰāĻžāϰ āĻāĻĻā§āĻĻā§āĻļā§āϝ⧠āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āĻĒāĻĄāĻŧā§ āĨ¤ āϤāĻžāĻĻā§āϰ āĻ āĻŦāĻļā§āϝāĻ āĻļāĻā§āϤāĻŋāĻļāĻžāϞ⧠āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖāĻžāĻā§āϞāĻŋ āĻĒā§āϰāϝāĻŧā§āĻ āĻāϰāϤ⧠āĻšāĻŦā§ āϝāĻž āϤāĻžāϰāĻž āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āĻĒāĻĄāĻŧāĻžāϰ āĻŽāĻžāϧā§āϝāĻŽā§ āĻā§āϰāĻšāĻŖ āĻāϰā§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:
âNor love thy life nor hate; but what thou livâst
Live well; how long or short, permit to heavenâ
Besides poetry gives shelter and consolation in crisis.
āĻā§āĻŦāύ āϝāĻžāĻĒāύā§āϰ āĻāĻĒāĻžāϝāĻŧ
āĻāϰā§āύāϞā§āĻĄ āĻĻāĻžāĻŦāĻŋ āĻāϰā§āĻā§āύ āϝ⧠āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āĻāĻŽāĻžāĻĻā§āϰ āĻļā§āĻāĻžāϝāĻŧ āϝ⧠āĻā§āĻāĻžāĻŦā§ āĻā§āĻŦāύāĻā§ āĻĒāϰāĻŋāĻāĻžāϞāύāĻž āĻāϰāϤ⧠āĻšāϝāĻŧ āϝā§āĻšā§āϤ⧠āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āύā§āϤāĻŋāĻ āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖāĻž āĻĻāĻŋāϝāĻŧā§ āĻĒā§āϰā§āĻŖāĨ¤ āύā§āϤāĻŋāĻ āĻŦā§āϝāĻŦāϏā§āĻĨāĻžāϤ⧠āĻā§āϰ āĻĻāĻŋāϝāĻŧā§, āĻāϰā§āύāϞā§āĻĄ āĻļā§āϧ⧠āύā§āϤāĻŋāĻ āĻŦāĻž āĻ āύā§āĻŽāĻžāύāĻŽā§āϞāĻ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āϰāĻāύāĻžāĻā§ āĻŦā§āĻāĻžāĻāύāĻŋāĨ¤ āĻŦāϰāĻ āĻāϰā§āύāϞā§āĻĄā§āϰ āĻŽāϤā§, āĻā§āĻāĻžāĻŦā§ āĻŦāĻžāĻāĻāϤ⧠āĻšāĻŦā§ āĻāĻŦāĻ āϝāĻž āĻāĻŋāĻā§ āĻāϰ āύā§āϤāĻŋāĻ āĻāĻāϤāĻžāϝāĻŧ āĻāϏā§, āĻāĻāĻžāĻ āĻĒā§āϰāĻļā§āύāĨ¤ āĻāϰā§āύāϞā§āĻĄ āĻŽāĻŋāϞā§āĻāύā§āϰ āĻāĻĻā§āϧā§āϤāĻŋ āĻĻāĻŋāϝāĻŧā§āĻā§āύ:
âāϤā§āĻŽāĻžāĻĻā§āϰ āĻā§āĻŦāύāĻā§ āĻā§āĻŦ āĻāĻžāϞā§āĻŦā§āϏā§āύāĻž āύāĻž āĻŦāĻž āĻā§āĻŖāĻž āĻāϰ⧠āύāĻž; āϤāĻŦā§ āĻĒāĻāύā§āĻĻ āĻŽāϤ⧠āĻāĻžāϞā§āĻāĻžāĻŦā§ āĻŦāĻžāĻāĻā§
āĻāĻžāϞ āĻĨāĻžāĻ; āϏā§āĻŦāϰā§āĻā§āϝāĻŧ āϏā§āĻā§āϰ āĻŽāϤ⧠āĻāĻžāϰāĻŖ āĻā§āĻŦāύ āϏāĻāĻā§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§āĻŽāĻŋāĻāĻž: āĻŽā§āϝāĻžāĻĨā§ āĻāϰā§āύāϞā§āĻĄ (1822-1888) āĻŦāĻŋāĻļ āĻļāϤāĻā§āϰ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļāĻŋāώā§āĻ āĻāĻāϰā§āĻā§ āĻāĻŦāĻŋ āĻāĻŦāĻ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāĻāĨ¤ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āϤāĻžāĻāϰ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāύāĻžāĻŽā§āϞāĻ āĻĒā§āϰāĻŦāύā§āϧ, āĻāĻĻā§āϝ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āĻĻāĻŋāϝāĻŧā§ āĻāĻāϰā§āĻāĻŋ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāϤā§āϝā§āϰ āĻāĻāϤ⧠āĻāĻāĻāĻŋ āĻŦāĻŋāĻĒā§āϞāĻŦ āύāĻŋāϝāĻŧā§ āĻāϏā§āĻā§āύāĨ¤ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āϝā§āĻšā§āϤ⧠āĻāĻāĻāĻŋ āĻāĻā§āĻāĻŽāĻžāύā§āϰ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāϤā§āϝāĻāϰā§āĻŽ āϝāĻž āϏā§āύā§āĻĻāϰā§āϝ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻāĻŽāύā§āϝāĻŧāϤāĻžāϰ āϏāĻžāĻĨā§ āĻāĻā§āϰ āĻ āύā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋ āĻĒā§āϰāĻĻāϰā§āĻļāύ āĻāϰā§, āĻāĻāĻŋ āĻŦā§āĻļ āĻāϝāĻŧā§āĻāĻāĻŋ āϏāĻāĻāĻ āĻŋāϤ āĻĒā§āϰāϝāĻŧā§āĻāύā§āϝāĻŧāϤāĻžāϰ āĻ āύā§āϏāϰāĻŖ āĻāϰ⧠āϰāĻāύāĻž āĻāϰāĻž āĻāĻāĻŋāϤāĨ¤
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.
âBut 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.â
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.
āĻāĻžāĻŦā§āϝāĻŋāĻ āϏāϤā§āϝ āĻāĻŦāĻ āϏā§āύā§āĻĻāϰā§āϝ
āĻāĻžāĻŦā§āϝāĻŋāĻ āϏāϤā§āϝ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻāĻžāĻŦā§āϝāĻŋāĻ āϏā§āύā§āĻĻāϰā§āϝ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻžāϰ āĻĒā§āϰāĻžāĻŖāĨ¤ āĻāĻā§āϞāĻŋ āĻāϤāĻāĻžāĻ āĻĒā§āϰāĻžāĻŖāĻŦāύā§āϤ āϝ⧠āĻāĻāĻāύ āĻāĻŦāĻŋ āĻāĻā§āϞāĻŋ āĻāĻžāĻĄāĻŧāĻž āϤāĻžāĻāϰ āĻāĻžāĻŦā§āϝāĻŋāĻ āϏāĻžāĻĢāϞā§āϝ āĻāϞā§āĻĒāύāĻž āĻāϰāϤ⧠āĻĒāĻžāϰ⧠āύāĻžāĨ¤
âāϤāĻŦā§ āϏāϰā§āĻŦā§āĻā§āĻ āĻāĻžāĻŦā§āϝāĻŋāĻ āϏāĻžāĻĢāϞā§āϝā§āϰ āĻāύā§āϝ āĻā§āĻŦāύ⧠āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖāĻžāϰ āĻļāĻā§āϤāĻŋāĻļāĻžāϞ⧠āĻĒā§āϰāϝāĻŧā§āĻā§āϰ āĻā§āϝāĻŧā§ āĻāϰāĻ āĻŦā§āĻļāĻŋ āĻĒā§āϰāϝāĻŧā§āĻāύ; āĻāĻžāĻŦā§āϝāĻŋāĻ āϏā§āύā§āĻĻāϰā§āϝ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻāĻžāĻŦā§āϝāĻŋāĻ āϏāϤā§āϝā§āϰ āĻāĻāύ āĻ āύā§āϏāĻžāϰ⧠āĻāĻāĻŋ āĻ āĻŦāĻļā§āϝāĻ āύāĻŋāϰā§āϧāĻžāϰāĻŋāϤ āĻļāϰā§āϤā§āϰ āĻ āϧā§āύ⧠āĻāĻāĻāĻŋ āĻ ā§āϝāĻžāĻĒā§āϞāĻŋāĻā§āĻļāύ āĻšāϤ⧠āĻšāĻŦā§â
āĻāĻžāĻŦā§āϝāĻŋāĻ āϏāϤā§āϝ āĻĻā§āĻŦāĻžāϰāĻž, āĻāϰā§āύāϞā§āĻĄ āϏāϤā§āϝ āĻāĻĒāĻžāϝāĻŧā§ āĻā§āĻŦāύā§āϰ āĻāĻĒāϏā§āĻĨāĻžāĻĒāύāĻž āύāĻŋāϰā§āĻĻā§āĻļ āĻāϰā§, āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻāĻžāĻŦā§āϝāĻŋāĻ āϏā§āύā§āĻĻāϰā§āϝ⧠āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻžāϰ āϏā§āĻāĻžāĻāϞāĻā§ āĻŦā§āĻāĻžāύāĨ¤ āϏā§āϰāĻž āĻāĻžāĻŦā§āϝāĻā§āϰāύā§āĻĨā§āϰ āĻŦāĻŋāώāϝāĻŧ āϏāϤā§āϝ āĻĻā§āĻŦāĻžāϰāĻž āĻāĻŋāĻšā§āύāĻŋāϤ āĻāϰāĻž āĻšāϝāĻŧā§āĻā§, āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻā§āϰā§āϤā§āĻŦ āϏāĻšāĻāĻžāϰ⧠āĻāĻāĻāĻŋ āύāĻŋāϰā§āĻĻāĻŋāώā§āĻ āĻĄāĻŋāĻā§āϰāĻŋ āĻĒāϰā§āϝāύā§āϤāĨ¤
High seriousness: The laws of the poetic truth and poetic beauty insist on the condition of âhigh seriousnessâ 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 poetâs 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.
āĻāĻā§āĻ āĻāĻŽā§āĻā§āϰāϤāĻž
āĻāĻžāĻŦā§āϝāĻŋāĻ āϏāϤā§āϝ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻāĻžāĻŦā§āϝāĻŋāĻ āϏā§āύā§āĻĻāϰā§āϝā§āϰ āĻāĻāύāĻā§āϞāĻŋ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻžāϝāĻŧ “āĻāĻā§āĻ āĻāĻŽā§āĻā§āϰāϤāĻžāϰ” āĻ āĻŦāϏā§āĻĨāĻžāϰ āĻāĻĒāϰ āĻā§āϰ āĻĻā§āϝāĻŧāĨ¤ āĻāĻāĻŋ āϏā§āĻ āĻā§āĻŖ āϝāĻž āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻžāĻā§ āϤāĻžāϰ āĻļāĻā§āϤāĻŋ āĻĻā§āϝāĻŧāĨ¤ āĻāĻāĻŋ āĻĒāϰāĻŽ āĻāύā§āϤāϰāĻŋāĻāϤāĻž āĻĨā§āĻā§ āĻāϏ⧠āϝāĻž āĻāĻŦāĻŋ āϤāĻžāϰ āĻŦāĻŋāώāϝāĻŧāĻāĻŋāϰ āĻāύā§āϝ āĻ āύā§āĻāĻŦ āĻāϰā§āύāĨ¤ āĻāĻāĻāύ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϰ āĻāύā§āϤāϰāĻŋāĻāϤāĻž āϤāĻžāϰ āĻŦāĻā§āϤā§āϤāĻžāϝāĻŧ āĻ āύā§āϤāϰā§āĻā§āĻā§āϤ āĻāĻžāϰāĻŖ āĻĒāĻžāĻ āĻāϰāĻž āϝāĻāύ āϤāĻžāĻāϰ āĻŦāĻŋāώāϝāĻŧ āϏāĻŽā§āĻĒāϰā§āĻā§ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϰ āĻāύā§āϤāϰāĻŋāĻāϤāĻž āĻ āύā§āĻāĻŦ āĻāϰāϤ⧠āĻĒāĻžāϰā§āύ, āĻāĻāĻž āύāĻŋāĻļā§āĻāĻŋāϤ āϝ⧠āϏ⧠āϤāĻžāϰ āĻ āύā§āϤāϰ āĻĨā§āĻā§ āĻāĻĨāĻž āĻŦāϞā§āĨ¤ āĻĻāĻžāύā§āϤā§, āĻšā§āĻŽāĻžāϰ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻŽāĻŋāϞā§āĻāύā§āϰ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻžāϝāĻŧ āĻāĻā§āĻ āĻāĻŽā§āĻā§āϰāϤāĻžāϰ āĻā§āĻŖāĻāĻŋ āĻĒāĻžāĻāϝāĻŧāĻž āϝāĻžāϝāĻŧāĨ¤ āĻāĻāĻŋ āĻāύā§āϤāϰāĻŋāĻāϤāĻžāϰ āĻļāĻā§āϤāĻŋ āϝāĻž āĻāĻŦāĻŋāĻĻā§āϰ āĻā§āĻŦāύāĻā§ āϏāĻ āĻŋāĻāĻāĻžāĻŦā§ āĻŦā§āϝāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻž āĻāϰāĻžāϰ āĻļāĻā§āϤāĻŋ āĻĻā§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§āĻŽāĻŋāĻāĻž: āĻļā§āϞ⧠āύāĻŋāĻāĻ āϏāĻžāĻāϏāĻā§āĻāĻž āύāϝāĻŧāĨ¤ āĻāĻāĻŋ āĻŦāϰāĻ āϏāϤā§āϝ āĻ āύā§āϏāύā§āϧāĻžāύ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻŦā§āϝāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻž āĻāϰāĻžāϰ āĻāĻāĻāĻŋ āĻāĻĒāĻžāϝāĻŧāĨ¤ āĻāϰ āĻāĻĻā§āĻĻā§āĻļā§āϝ āĻĒā§āϰāĻāĻžāĻŦāĻŋāϤ āĻāϰāĻž āύāϝāĻŧ, āĻŦāϰāĻ āĻĒā§āϰāĻāĻžāĻļ āĻāϰāĻžāĨ¤ āĻā§āϰāĻŋ āĻāĻāϞā§āĻāύ āϝā§āĻšā§āϤ⧠āĻāϧā§āύāĻŋāĻ āĻāĻāϰā§āĻāĻŋ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāϤā§āϝā§āϰ āϏāϰā§āĻŦāĻžāϧāĻŋāĻ āĻā§āϝāĻžāϤāĻŋāĻŽāĻžāύ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāĻ, āϤāĻžāĻ āϤāĻžāĻāϰ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāύāĻž āϞā§āĻāĻžāϰ āĻŦā§āĻļ āĻāϝāĻŧā§āĻāĻāĻŋ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļāĻŋāώā§āĻ āĻŦā§āĻļāĻŋāώā§āĻā§āϝ āϰāϝāĻŧā§āĻā§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§āĻŦāĻžāύā§āĻĻā§āĻŦāĻŋāĻ āϏā§āĻāĻžāĻāϞ: āĻāĻāϞā§āĻāύā§āϰ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāύāĻžāĻŽā§āϞāĻ āĻāĻĻā§āϝā§āϰ āĻ āύā§āϝāϤāĻŽ āĻŦā§āĻļāĻŋāώā§āĻā§āϝ āĻš’āϞ āĻāĻā§āĻā§āĻŦāϞ āĻŦāĻŋāĻĒāϰā§āϤ āϞāĻāĻŋāĻā§āϝāĻžāϞ āϏā§āĻāĻžāĻāϞāĨ¤ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻŦā§āĻĻā§āϧāĻŋāĻŽāĻžāύāĻāĻžāĻŦā§ āϏāĻžāĻŽāĻžāĻāĻŋāĻ āĻāĻŦāĻ āϏāĻžāĻāϏā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋāĻ āĻĻā§āĻŦāύā§āĻĻā§āĻŦāĻā§ āĻŦāĻŋāĻŦā§āĻāύāĻž āĻāϰā§āύ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻŦāĻŋāϰā§āϧā§āϰ āĻĒāĻā§āώ⧠āϝā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋ āĻāϤāĻāĻž āĻĻā§āĻĄāĻŧ āϤāĻžāϰ āϏāĻžāĻĨā§ āĻāϤā§āĻĨāĻžāĻĒāύ āĻāϰā§āύ āϝ⧠āϤāĻžāϰāĻž āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϰā§āĻāĻžāĻŦ āĻšāϝāĻŧ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻšāĻ āĻžā§ āĻāϰ⧠āĻāĻŋāĻā§ āĻ āĻĒā§āϰāϤā§āϝāĻžāĻļāĻŋāϤ āĻ āύā§āϤāϰā§āĻĻā§āώā§āĻāĻŋ āĻŦāĻž āĻĻā§āώā§āĻāĻŋāĻāĻā§āĻāĻŋ āĻĒā§āϰāĻāĻžāĻļ āĻĒāĻžāϝāĻŧāĨ¤
Lightening opacity: Absolute ambiguity is one of the most permanent and attractive qualities in Terry Eagletonâs writings. It has helped him to be one of the most colorful and controversial figures in cultural politics today. So, Eagletonâs style is unclear due to the riddle of the question. But whenever questions are solved, his idea shines. His âThe Rise of Englishâ is the paradigm of sheer audacity.
āĻāϞā§āĻāĻŋāϤ āĻ āϏā§āĻŦāĻā§āĻāϤāĻž
āϏāĻŽā§āĻĒā§āϰā§āĻŖ āĻ āϏā§āĻĒāώā§āĻāϤāĻž āĻā§āϰāĻŋ āĻāĻāϞā§āĻāύā§āϰ āϞā§āĻāĻžāĻā§āϞāĻŋāϰ āĻŽāϧā§āϝ⧠āĻ āύā§āϝāϤāĻŽ āϏā§āĻĨāĻžāϝāĻŧā§ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻāĻāϰā§āώāĻŖā§āϝāĻŧ āĻā§āĻŖāĨ¤ āĻāĻāĻŋ āϤāĻžāĻā§ āϏāĻžāĻāϏā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋāĻ āϰāĻžāĻāύā§āϤāĻŋāϰ āĻ āύā§āϝāϤāĻŽ āĻŦāϰā§āĻŖāĻŽāϝāĻŧ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻŦāĻŋāϤāϰā§āĻāĻŋāϤ āĻŦā§āϝāĻā§āϤāĻŋāϤā§āĻŦ āĻšāϤ⧠āϏāĻžāĻšāĻžāϝā§āϝ āĻāϰā§āĻā§āĨ¤ āϏā§āϤāϰāĻžāĻ, āĻĒā§āϰāĻļā§āύā§āϰ āϧāĻžāĻāϧāĻžāϰ āĻāĻžāϰāĻŖā§ āĻāĻāϞā§āĻāύā§āϰ āϏā§āĻāĻžāĻāϞ āĻ āϏā§āĻĒāώā§āĻāĨ¤ āĻāĻŋāύā§āϤ⧠āϝāĻāύāĻ āĻĒā§āϰāĻļā§āύāĻā§āϞāĻŋāϰ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϧāĻžāύ āĻšāϝāĻŧā§ āϝāĻžāϝāĻŧ , āϤāĻžāϰ āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖāĻžāĻāĻŋ āĻā§āĻŦāϞāĻā§āĻŦāϞ āĻāϰā§āĨ¤ āϤāĻžāĻāϰ âāϰāĻžāĻāϏ āĻ āĻĢ āĻāĻāϞāĻŋāĻļâ āύāĻŋāĻāĻ āĻāϰāĻŽ āĻ āϏā§āĻĒāώā§āĻāϤāĻžāϰ āĻĻā§āώā§āĻāĻžāύā§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 âThe Rise of Englishâ contains many historical references of literature.
āĻāϤāĻŋāĻšāĻžāϏāĻŋāĻ āϤāĻĨā§āϝāϏā§āϤā§āϰ: āĻāĻāϞāĻāύ āϤāĻžāĻāϰ āĻĒā§āϰāĻāύā§āĻŽā§āϰ āĻāĻāĻāĻŋ āϏā§āĻĒāώā§āĻāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāĻāĨ¤ 1983 āϏāĻžāϞ⧠āĻĒā§āϰāĻāĻžāĻļāĻŋāϤ āϤāĻžāĻāϰ āϏāϰā§āĻŦāĻžāϧāĻŋāĻ āĻŦāĻŋāĻā§āϰāĻŋāϤ āĻŦāĻ “āϞāĻŋāĻāĻžāϰāĻžāϰāĻŋ āĻĨāĻŋāĻāϰāĻŋ : āĻāύ āĻāύā§āĻā§āϰā§āĻĄāĻžāĻāĻļāύ ” āϤāĻžāĻāϰ āĻā§āĻāĻžāύā§āϰ āϤāϤā§āϤā§āĻŦā§āϰ āĻĒā§āϰāĻļāϏā§āϤāϤāĻž āĻĒā§āϰāϤāĻŋāĻĢāϞāĻŋāϤ āĻāϰā§āĨ¤ āĻāĻ āĻŦāĻāϤ⧠“āϰāĻžāĻāϏ āĻ āĻĢ āĻāĻāϞāĻŋāĻļ” āĻĻā§āĻŦāĻŋāϤā§āϝāĻŧ āĻ āϧā§āϝāĻžāϝāĻŧā§āϰ āĻ āύā§āϤāϰā§āĻā§āĻā§āϤ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāϤā§āϝā§āϰ āĻ āύā§āĻ āĻāϤāĻŋāĻšāĻžāϏāĻŋāĻ āϰā§āĻĢāĻžāϰā§āύā§āϏ āϰāϝāĻŧā§āĻā§āĨ¤
Humor: Most of the reversal comments in âThe 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:
âNobody 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 wasâ.
āĻā§āϤā§āĻāϰāϏāĻŦā§āϧ: “āĻĻā§āϝ āϰāĻžāĻāĻ āĻ āĻŦ āĻāĻāϞāĻŋāĻļ” -āϰ āĻŦā§āĻļāĻŋāϰāĻāĻžāĻ āĻŦāĻŋāĻĒāϰā§āϤ āĻŽāύā§āϤāĻŦā§āϝ āĻšāĻžāϏā§āϝāĻāϰāĨ¤ āĻāĻ āϰāĻāύāĻžāϝāĻŧ, āĻāĻāϞāĻāύ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāύāĻžāϰ āĻŦāĻŋāĻāĻŋāύā§āύ āϏā§āϰā§āϤā§āϰ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļāĻĻ āĻŽā§āϞā§āϝāĻžāϝāĻŧāύ āĻĒā§āϰāĻĻāĻžāύ āĻāϰā§, āĻŽā§āϞā§āϝ-āϰāĻžāϝāĻŧ āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖāĻžāĻāĻŋ āύāĻŋāϝāĻŧā§ āĻāϞā§āĻāύāĻžāϰ āϏāĻŽāϝāĻŧ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻŽāύā§āϤāĻŦā§āϝ āĻāϰā§:
âāĻā§āĻāĻ āĻāĻāĻž āĻŦāϞāĻžāϰ āĻŽāĻžāĻĨāĻž āĻāĻžāĻŽāĻžāϝāĻŧ āύāĻž āϝ⧠āĻŦāĻžāϏā§āϰ āĻāĻŋāĻāĻŋāĻ āύāĻŋāĻā§āώā§āĻ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāϤā§āϝā§āϰ āĻāĻĻāĻžāĻšāϰāĻŖ, āϤāĻŦā§ āĻā§āĻ āĻšāϝāĻŧāϤ⧠āĻŦāϞāϤ⧠āĻĒāĻžāϰā§āύ āϝ⧠āĻāϰā§āύā§āϏā§āĻ āĻĄāĻāϏāύā§āϰ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āύāĻŋāĻā§āώā§āĻ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāϤā§āϝ⧠āĻāĻŋāϞ”āĨ¤
The satirical reversal in argument: Another technique often employed by Eagleton is the Swift-like satirical reversal in the argument.
āϝā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋāϤ⧠āĻŦā§āϝāĻā§āĻāĻžāϤā§āĻŽāĻ āĻŦāĻŋāĻĒāϰā§āϤ: āĻāĻāϞā§āĻāύā§āϰ āĻŽāĻžāĻā§āĻŽāϧā§āϝ⧠āύāĻŋāϝā§āĻā§āϤ āĻāϰā§āĻāĻāĻŋ āĻā§āĻļāϞ āĻš’āϞ āϝā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋ āϏā§āĻāĻĢāĻā§āϰ āĻŽāϤ⧠āϝā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋāϤ⧠āĻŦā§āϝāĻā§āĻāĻžāϤā§āĻŽāĻ āĻŦāĻŋāĻĒāϰā§āϤ āĻŦāĻž āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āϏā§āĻāĻĢāĻā§āϰ āĻŽāϤ⧠āĻŦāĻŋāĻĻā§āϰā§āĻĒāĻāĻžāϰ⧠āĨ¤
Tiresome extent: Pointless is not the staple of Eagletonâs 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.
āĻā§āϞāĻžāύā§āϤāĻŋāĻāϰ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļāĻĻ
āĻ āϰā§āĻĨāĻšā§āύ āĻš’āϞ āĻāĻāϞā§āĻāύā§āϰ āĻāĻĻā§āϝā§āϰ āĻŽā§āϞ āύāϝāĻŧāĨ¤ āĻāϏāϞā§, āϤāĻžāĻāϰ āϰā§āϤāĻŋāĻāĻŋ āĻŦā§āĻļāĻŋāϰāĻāĻžāĻ āĻāύā§āώā§āĻ āĻžāύāĻŋāĻ āĻĒāĻĻā§āϧāϤāĻŋāϰ āĻā§āϝāĻŧā§ āĻĒāϰāĻŋāώā§āĻāĻžāϰāĨ¤ āϤāĻŦā§ āĻĒāĻžāĻ ā§āϝā§āϰ āĻĻā§āϰā§āĻ āĻĒā§āϰāϏāĻžāϰ āĻā§āϞāĻžāύā§āϤāĻŋāĻāϰ āĻšāϤ⧠āĻĒāĻžāϰā§āĨ¤ āĻā§āϞāĻžāύā§āϤāĻŋāĻāϰ āϏā§āĻŽāĻžāĻŦāĻĻā§āϧāϤāĻž āĻĨāĻžāĻāĻž āϏāϤā§āϤā§āĻŦā§āĻ, āϤāĻžāĻāϰ āĻāĻĻā§āϝā§āϰ āĻŽāϧā§āϝ⧠āĻāϞāĻžāĻĻāĻž āĻāĻŋāĻā§ āϰāϝāĻŧā§āĻā§ āϝāĻž āĻĒāĻžāĻ ā§āϝ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻĒāĻžāĻ āĻāĻĻā§āϰ āĻāϞāĻžāĻĻāĻžāĻāĻžāĻŦā§ āϏā§āĻŦāĻžāϧā§āύ āĻāϰāϤ⧠āĻĒāĻžāϰ⧠āĻ āϰā§āĻĨāĻžā§ āϤāĻžāϰ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāύāĻž āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāϤā§āϝ āĻā§āϝāĻžāĻāĻžāϞāĻŋāϏā§āĻ āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦā§ āĻāĻžāĻ āĻāϰ⧠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.
āĻāĻĒāϏāĻāĻšāĻžāϰ: āĻāĻāĻāĻžāĻŦā§, āĻāĻāĻāĻŋ āϏā§āĻāĻžāĻāϞ⧠āϞā§āĻāĻž āĻĒā§āϰāĻŦā§āĻļāϝā§āĻā§āϝāĨ¤ āĻāĻāϞāĻāύ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāϤā§āϝ āϤāϤā§āϤā§āĻŦā§āϰ āĻā§āώā§āϤā§āϰ⧠āĻŦāĻŋāĻļā§āώāĻāĻžāĻŦā§ āϝā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋ āĻĻā§āĻāĻŋāϝāĻŧā§āĻā§āύāĨ¤ āϤāĻžāĻāϰ āĻ āϞāĻā§āĻā§āϤ āĻĻāĻā§āώāϤāĻž āϏāĻŽā§āĻāĻŦāϤ āϏāĻŽāĻāĻžāϞā§āύ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāĻāĻĻā§āϰ āĻāĻžāĻāϤ⧠āĻ āύā§āĻ āĻŦā§āĻļāĻŋ āĻā§āĻā§āώā§āĻāĨ¤ āĻāĻā§āϞāĻŋ āĻāĻŽāύ āĻāĻŋāĻā§ āϝāĻž āĻ āύā§āĻ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāĻ āϤāĻžāϤā§āϤā§āĻŦāĻŋāĻāϰāĻž āĻ āϧā§āϝāϝāĻŧāύ āĻāϰ⧠āĻāĻĒāĻā§āϤ āĻšāϤ⧠āĻĒāĻžāϰā§āĨ¤
Or, what are the reasons for which Said has written âCulture and Imperialismâ?
Introduction: âCulture and Imperialismâ published in 1993 is a collection of essays by Edward Said (1935-2003). This was followed by his highly influential âOrientalismâ, 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§āĻŽāĻŋāĻāĻž: ā§§ā§¯ā§¯ā§Š āϏāĻžāϞ⧠āĻĒā§āϰāĻāĻžāĻļāĻŋāϤ “āϏāĻāϏā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋ āĻ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻ” āĻ ā§āϝāĻžāĻĄāĻāϝāĻŧāĻžāϰā§āĻĄ āϏāĻžāĻāĻĻ (ā§§ā§¯ā§Šā§Ģ-⧍ā§Ļā§Ļā§Š) āϰāĻāύāĻž āϏāĻāĻāϞāύāĨ¤ āĻāĻāĻŋ āϤāĻžāϰ āĻ āϤā§āϝāύā§āϤ āĻĒā§āϰāĻāĻžāĻŦāĻļāĻžāϞ⧠“āĻĒā§āϰāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻ” āĻĻā§āĻŦāĻžāϰāĻž āĻ āύā§āϏāϰāĻŖ āĻāϰāĻž āĻšāϝāĻŧā§āĻāĻŋāϞ, 1978 āϏāĻžāϞ⧠āĻĒā§āϰāĻāĻžāĻļāĻŋāϤāĨ¤ āϤāĻžāĻāϰ āϰāĻāύāĻžāĻŽā§āϞāĻ āϏāĻŋāϰāĻŋāĻā§ āϞā§āĻāĻ 18 āϤāĻŽ, 19 āĻāĻŦāĻ 20 āĻļāϤāĻā§ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻ āĻāĻŦāĻ āϏāĻāϏā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋāϰ āĻŽāϧā§āϝ⧠āϏāĻāϝā§āĻ āϏāύāĻžāĻā§āϤ āĻāϰāĻžāϰ āĻā§āώā§āĻāĻž āĻāϰā§āĻā§āύāĨ¤ “āĻā§āĻŽāĻŋāĻāĻž” āϤā§, āĻŽāĻŋāĻ āϏāĻžāĻāĻĻ āύāĻŋāĻā§āĻ āϝ⧠āĻāĻžāϰāĻŖāĻā§āϞāĻŋ āĻāĻŦāĻ āϏāĻāϏā§āĻĨāĻžāύāĻā§āϞāĻŋāϰ āĻāύā§āϝ āϤāĻžāĻāϰ āĻāύā§āϤāϰā§āĻāĻžāϤāĻŋāĻāĻāĻžāĻŦā§ āĻĒā§āϰāĻļāĻāϏāĻŋāϤ āĻŦāĻāĻāĻŋ āϞāĻŋāĻāϤ⧠āĻāϞā§āĻā§āύ āϤāĻž āĻŦāϰā§āĻŖāύāĻž āĻāϰā§āĻā§āύāĨ¤
Limitation of âOrientalismâ: 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§āϰāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻ” āĻāϰ āϏā§āĻŽāĻžāĻŦāĻĻā§āϧāϤāĻž: āϤāĻžāĻāϰ āĻāύā§āϤāϰā§āĻāĻžāϤāĻŋāĻāĻāĻžāĻŦā§ āĻĒā§āϰāĻļāĻāϏāĻŋāϤ āĻŦāĻ āĻāϰāĻŋāϝāĻŧā§āύā§āĻāĻžāϞāĻŋāĻāĻŽā§, āĻāĻĄāĻāϝāĻŧāĻžāϰā§āĻĄ āϏāĻžāĻāĻĻ āĻāĻā§āĻāĻŋāϤ āĻĻā§āϝāĻŧ āϝ⧠āϏāĻāϏā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋ āĻāĻŦāĻ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻā§āϝā§āϰ āĻŽāϧā§āϝ⧠āϏāĻŽā§āĻĒāϰā§āĻā§āϰ āĻāĻĒāϰ āĻāĻāĻāĻŋ āϏāĻžāϧāĻžāϰāĻŖ āϰāĻāύāĻž āĻāĻāύāĻ āϰāĻāύāĻž āĻāϰāĻž āĻšāϝāĻŧāύāĻŋāĨ¤ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ “āϏāĻāϏā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋ āĻāĻŦāĻ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻ” āϰāĻāύāĻž āĻāϰā§āĻā§āύ āĻĒā§āϰāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§āϰ “āϞāĻāĻŋāĻāϏ” āĻĒā§āϰāϏāĻžāϰāĻŋāϤ āĻāϰāĻžāϰ āĻĒā§āϰāϝāĻŧāĻžāϏ āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦā§ āϏāĻŽā§āĻĒāϰā§āĻā§āϰ āĻāϰāĻ āϏāĻžāϧāĻžāϰāĻŖ āĻĒā§āϝāĻžāĻāĻžāϰā§āύ āĻŦāϰā§āĻŖāύāĻž āĻāϰāĻžāϰ āĻāύā§āϝ āĻĒāĻļā§āĻāĻŋāĻŽāĻž āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§āĻĻā§āϰ āĻāĻŦāĻ āϤāĻžāĻĻā§āϰ āĻŦāĻŋāĻĻā§āĻļā§āϰ āĻ āĻā§āĻāϞāĻā§āϞāĻŋāϰ āĻŽāϧā§āϝā§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.
āϏāĻāϏā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋāϰ āĻā§āĻĒāύ āĻ āϰā§āĻĨ āĻĒā§āϰāĻāĻžāĻļ āĻāϰāϤā§: āϏāĻāϏā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋāϰ āĻĻā§āĻā§āĻŖāϝā§āĻā§āϤ āĻĻāĻŋāĻāĻā§āϞāĻŋ āĻāĻŋāĻšā§āύāĻŋāϤ āĻāϰāĻžāϰ āĻāύā§āϝ, āϏāĻžāĻāĻĻ āϞāĻŋāĻā§āĻā§āύ “āϏāĻāϏā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋ āĻāĻŦāĻ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻ”āĨ¤ āϤāĻžāĻāϰ āĻŽāϤ⧠āϏāĻāϏā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋ āĻŽāĻžāύ⧠āĻĻā§āĻāĻŋ āĻāĻŋāύāĻŋāϏ āĻĒā§āώā§āĻ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻ āĻā§āϝāύā§āϤāϰā§āĻŖ āĻĻā§āώā§āĻāĻŋāĻā§āĻŖ āĻĨā§āĻā§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§āϰāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§āĻĻā§āϰ āĻā§āĻĒāύ āĻļāĻā§āϤāĻŋ: āĻāĻāĻž āĻ āĻŦāĻžāĻ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻĒā§āϰāĻļāĻāϏāύā§āϝāĻŧ āϝ⧠āĻāĻĄāĻāϝāĻŧāĻžāϰā§āĻĄ āϏāĻžāĻāĻĻ āĻšāϞā§āύ āĻĒā§āϰāĻĨāĻŽ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļāĻžāϞ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāĻ āϝāĻŋāύāĻŋ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻāĻā§ āĻāĻŋāĻāĻŋāϝāĻŧā§ āϰāĻžāĻāϤ⧠āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāϤā§āϝā§āϰ āĻļāĻā§āϤāĻŋ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāώā§āĻāĻžāϰ āĻāϰā§āĻāĻŋāϞā§āύāĨ¤ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāϤā§āϝ āϝā§āĻšā§āϤ⧠āϏāĻŽāĻžāĻā§āϰ āĻāϝāĻŧāύāĻž, āϤāĻžāĻ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāĻāĻāĻžāĻŦā§ 19 āĻ 20 āϤāĻŽ āĻĢāϰāĻžāϏāĻŋ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻāĻāϰā§āĻāĻŋ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāϤā§āϝā§āϰ āĻĻāĻŋāĻā§ āĻŽāύā§āύāĻŋāĻŦā§āĻļ āĻāϰā§āύ āϝāĻž āĻŦāĻŋāĻļā§āĻŦāĻā§āĻĄāĻŧā§ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§ āĻ āĻāĻŋāĻā§āĻāϤāĻž āĻĒā§āϰāĻĻāϰā§āĻļāύ āĻāϰā§āĻāĻŋāϞ āϤāĻŦā§ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļā§āώāϤ āĻāĻĢā§āϰāĻŋāĻāĻž, āĻāĻžāϰāϤ, āĻ āϏā§āĻā§āϰā§āϞāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻž, āĻā§āϝāĻžāϰāĻŋāĻŦāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻžāύ, āĻāϝāĻŧāĻžāϰāϞā§āϝāĻžāύā§āĻĄ, āϞāĻžāϤāĻŋāύ āĻāĻŽā§āϰāĻŋāĻāĻžāĨ¤
Ethical point of view: Being a humanitarian, Mr. Said was forced to formulate âCulture and Imperialismâ. 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.
āύā§āϤāĻŋāĻ āĻĻā§āώā§āĻāĻŋāĻāĻā§āĻāĻŋ
āĻŽāĻžāύāĻŦāĻŋāĻ āĻšāĻāϝāĻŧāĻž, āĻāύāĻžāĻŦ āϏāĻžāĻāĻĻ “āϏāĻāϏā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋ āĻāĻŦāĻ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻ” āϞāĻŋāĻāϤ⧠āĻŦāĻžāϧā§āϝ āĻšāϝāĻŧā§āĻāĻŋāϞā§āύāĨ¤ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§āϰ āĻā§āϝāĻžāϞā§āĻā§āĻāĻā§āϞāĻŋāϤ⧠āĻŽāύā§āύāĻŋāĻŦā§āĻļ āĻāϰā§āύ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻāϤā§āĻŽāĻŦāĻŋāĻļā§āĻŦāĻžāϏā§āϰ āϏāĻžāĻĨā§ āĻāĻāĻŋ āĻā§āώāĻŖāĻž āĻāϰā§āύ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻāĻā§ āϏāϰā§āĻŦāĻĻāĻž āĻĒā§āϰāϤāĻŋāϰā§āϧā§āϰ āĻŽā§āĻā§āĻŽā§āĻāĻŋ āĻšāϤ⧠āĻšāĻŦā§ āϝāĻž āĻĻā§āĻŦāύā§āĻĻā§āĻŦ āĻ āϧā§āĻŦāĻāϏ āϏā§āώā§āĻāĻŋ āĻāϰā§āĨ¤ āϏā§āϤāϰāĻžāĻ, āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻĒā§āϰāĻāĻžāϰ āĻāϰā§āĻā§āύ āϝ⧠āϰāĻžāĻāϤā§āĻŦā§āϰ āĻā§āϝāĻŧā§ āĻŦāĻŋāϰāϤ āĻĨāĻžāĻāĻž āĻāĻžāϞāĨ¤ āĻāĻŦāĻ āϤā§āϤā§āϝāĻŧ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļā§āĻŦā§āϰ āĻāύāĻāĻŖāĻā§ āĻļāĻžāύā§āϤāĻŋ āĻ āĻ āĻā§āϰāĻāϤāĻŋ āĻĒā§āϰāϤāĻŋāώā§āĻ āĻžāϝāĻŧ āϏā§-āĻāϞā§āĻĒāύāĻž āĻ āϏāĻāĻšāϤ āĻšāϤ⧠āĻšāĻŦā§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 âCulture and Imperialismâ.
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 âIntroduction to Culture and Imperialismâ 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§āĻŽāĻŋāĻāĻž: āĻāĻĄāĻāϝāĻŧāĻžāϰā§āĻĄ āĻĄāĻžāĻŦā§āϞ⧠āϏāĻžāĻāĻĻ (ā§§ā§¯ā§Šā§Ģ-⧍ā§Ļā§Ļā§Š) āĻŦāĻŋāĻļ āĻļāϤāĻā§āϰ āĻļā§āώā§āϰ āĻ āύā§āϝāϤāĻŽ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļāĻŋāώā§āĻ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāĻ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻĻāĻžāϰā§āĻļāύāĻŋāĻ āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦā§ āĻŦāĻŋāĻŦā§āĻāĻŋāϤ āϝāĻž āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ ā§§ā§¯ā§¯ā§Š āϏāĻžāϞ⧠āĻĒā§āϰāĻāĻžāĻļāĻŋāϤ âāϏāĻāϏā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋ āĻ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§āϰ āĻĒāϰāĻŋāĻāϝāĻŧâ āϰāĻāύāĻžāĻŽā§āϞāĻ āϏāĻāĻāϞāύ⧠āϏāĻŦāĻā§āϝāĻŧā§ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāύāĻžāĻŽā§āϞāĻ āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖāĻžāĻāĻŋ āĻŦā§āϝāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻž āĻāϰā§āĻā§āύāĨ¤ āϏāĻāϏā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋ āĻāĻŦāĻ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§āϰ āĻŽāϧā§āϝ⧠āĻāĻāĻāĻŋ āĻā§āĻŦ āϏā§āĻā§āώā§āĻŽ āϏāĻŽā§āĻĒāϰā§āĻāĨ¤ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§āϰ āĻāύā§āϝ āϏāĻāϏā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋāϰ āĻŦāĻŋāĻāĻŋāύā§āύ āĻāĻĒāĻāϰāĻŖ āĻĒā§āϝāĻŧā§āĻā§āύ āĻŦāϞ⧠āϏāĻāϏā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋ āĻāĻŦāĻ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§āϰ āĻŽāϧā§āϝ⧠āϏāĻŽā§āĻĒāϰā§āĻā§āϰ āĻŦāĻŋāώāϝāĻŧāĻāĻŋ āĻ āύā§āϝ āĻāĻāĻāĻŋ āĻā§āĻŖ āĻĨā§āĻā§ āĻĻā§āĻā§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.
āϏā§āĻĨāĻžāύā§āϝāĻŧāĻĻā§āϰ āύāĻžāĻā§āĻ āϏāĻāϏā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋ: āϰāĻāύāĻžāĻāĻŋāϰ āĻāĻā§āĻŦāĻžāϰ⧠āĻļā§āϰā§āϤ⧠āϏāĻžāĻāĻĻ āĻŦāϞ⧠āϝ⧠āϤā§āϤā§āϝāĻŧ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļā§āĻŦā§āϰ āϏāĻāϏā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋ āĻ āϤā§āϝāύā§āϤ āύāĻžāĻā§āĻ āϝāĻž āĻāĻŋāϞ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§āĻĻā§āϰ āĻļāĻā§āϤāĻŋāĨ¤ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§āϰāĻž āϏāϰā§āĻŦāĻĻāĻž āϏā§āĻĨāĻžāύā§āϝāĻŧāĻĻā§āϰ āĻŽāϧā§āϝ⧠āĻĒā§āϰāϤāĻŋāϝā§āĻāĻŋāϤāĻž āĻā§āĻĄāĻŧā§ āĻĻā§āϝāĻŧāĨ¤ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻŦāĻŋāĻŦā§āĻāύāĻž āĻāϰā§āύ āϝ⧠āĻāĻĄāĻŧ āĻĻā§āĻļā§āϝāĻŧāϰāĻž āĻāĻŋāϞ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§āĻĻā§āϰ āĻĒā§āϰāϧāĻžāύ āĻļāĻā§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 Saidâs 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.
âCulture conceived in this way can become a protective enclosure:
check your politics at the door before you enter it.â
āϏāĻāϏā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋāϰ āύā§āϤāĻŋāĻ āĻļāĻā§āϤāĻŋ
āĻŦā§āϰāĻŋāĻā§āύ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻĢā§āϰāĻžāύā§āϏā§āϰ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§āϰāĻž āϤāĻĨāĻžāĻāĻĨāĻŋāϤ āĻāϞā§āĻ āĻŦāĻšāύāĻāĻžāϰ⧠āĻāĻŦāĻ āϏāĻā§āϝāϤāĻžāϰ āύāĻŋāϰā§āĻŽāĻžāϤāĻž āĻŦāϞāĻž āĻšāϤāĨ¤ āϤāĻžāϰāĻž āĻļāĻŋāĻā§āώāĻž āĻāĻŦāĻ āϧāϰā§āĻŽā§āϰ āĻāϞ⧠āĻāĻĄāĻŧāĻŋāϝāĻŧā§ āĻĻāĻŋāϤ⧠āĻāĻŋāϝāĻŧā§āĻāĻŋāϞ āϝāĻž āĻā§āĻŦāϞ āϤāĻĨāĻžāĻāĻĨāĻŋāϤ āύāϝāĻŧ āĻŦāϰāĻ āĻŦāĻŋāĻĻā§āĻļā§ āĻāĻĒāύāĻŋāĻŦā§āĻļā§āϰ āϞā§āĻāĻĻā§āϰ āĻŦā§āĻāĻž āĻŦāĻžāύāĻžāύā§āϰ āĻāĻĻā§āĻĻā§āĻļā§āϝ⧠āϤā§āϰāĻŋ āĻāϰā§āĻāĻŋāϞāĨ¤ āϏāĻžāĻāĻĻā§āϰ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļā§āϞā§āώāĻŖā§, āĻāĻžāϰāϤ āĻ āĻāĻĢā§āϰāĻŋāĻāĻžāϰ āĻŦāĻžāĻŖāĻŋāĻā§āϝ āĻāĻŦāĻ āϏāĻā§āϝ āĻŽāĻŋāĻļāύā§āϰ āĻ āύā§āϏāύā§āϧāĻžāύāĻā§āϞāĻŋ āĻāĻĒāύāĻŋāĻŦā§āĻļāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§āĻĻā§āϰ āĻāĻāĻāĻŋ āύā§āϤāĻŋāĻ āĻļāĻā§āϤāĻŋ āĻĒā§āϰāĻĻāĻžāύ āĻāϰā§āĻāĻŋāϞ āĻāĻŋāύā§āϤ⧠āϤāĻžāϰāĻž āϞā§āĻāĻĒāĻžāĻ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻāϧāĻŋāĻĒāϤā§āϝā§āϰ āĻāύā§āϝ āĻĻā§āĻļāĻā§āϞāĻŋāϤ⧠āĻāĻŋāϝāĻŧā§āĻāĻŋāϞāĨ¤
âāĻāĻāĻāĻžāĻŦā§ āĻāϞā§āĻĒāύāĻž āĻāϰāĻž āϏāĻāϏā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋ āĻāĻāĻāĻŋ āĻĒā§āϰāϤāĻŋāϰāĻā§āώāĻžāĻŽā§āϞāĻ āĻā§āϰ⧠āĻĒāϰāĻŋāĻŖāϤ āĻšāϤ⧠āĻĒāĻžāϰā§: āĻāĻĒāύāĻžāϰ āϰāĻžāĻāύā§āϤāĻŋ āĻĻā§āĻŦāĻžāϰ⧠āĻĻā§āĻŦāĻžāϰ⧠āĻĒāϰā§āĻā§āώāĻž āĻāϰā§āύ āĻĒā§āϰāĻŦā§āĻļ āĻāϰāĻžāϰ āĻāĻā§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.
āϏāĻāϏā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋāϰ āĻāĻāĻāĻŋ āĻĒā§āϰāϤāĻŋāώā§āĻ āĻžāύ āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦā§ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāϤā§āϝ
āĻāĻāĻž āϏāϰā§āĻŦāĻāύāϏā§āĻŦā§āĻā§āϤ āϝ⧠āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāϤā§āϝāĻ āϏāĻŽāĻžāĻā§āϰ āĻāϝāĻŧāύāĻžāĨ¤ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻĒā§āϰāĻāĻžāĻļ āĻāϰā§āĻā§āύ āϝāĻĻāĻŋāĻ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž, āĻāϞā§āĻĒāĻāĻžāĻšāĻŋāύ⧠āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻĻāϰā§āĻļāύ āϏāĻāϏā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋ āĻāϰā§āĻāĻž āĻ āĻļā§āϰāĻĻā§āϧāĻž āĻāϰāϤ⧠āĻļā§āĻāĻžāϝāĻŧ, āϤāĻžāϰāĻž āĻāĻĒāύāĻŋāĻŦā§āĻļāĻŦāĻžāĻĻāĻā§ āĻĒāϰā§āĻā§āώāĻāĻžāĻŦā§ āĻāĻā§āϰ āĻāĻĒāĻžāϝāĻŧā§ āĻāϞā§āĻāύāĻž āĻāϰā§āĨ¤ āĻĢāϞāϏā§āĻŦāϰā§āĻĒ, āĻŦā§āĻļāĻŋāϰāĻāĻžāĻ āĻĒā§āĻļāĻžāĻĻāĻžāϰ āĻŽāĻžāύāĻŦāϤāĻžāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§āϰāĻž āĻĻā§āϰā§āĻāĻāĻžāϞ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§āϰ āĻāϰā§āĻāĻž āĻāĻŦāĻ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāϤā§āϝā§āϰ āϏāĻāϏā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋāϰ āĻŽāϧā§āϝ⧠āϏāĻāϝā§āĻ āϰāĻžāĻāϤ⧠āĻ āĻā§āώāĻŽ āĻšāϝāĻŧā§āĻā§āύāĨ¤ āĻāĻāĻžāύ⧠āĻāĻ āĻĒā§āϰāĻŦāύā§āϧ⧠āϏā§āϝāĻŧāĻĻ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļā§āώāϤ āĻŦāϰā§āĻŖāύāĻžāĻŽā§āϞāĻ āĻāϞā§āĻĒāĻāĻžāĻšāĻŋāύā§, āĻāĻĒāύā§āϝāĻžāϏ āϏāĻŽā§āĻĒāϰā§āĻā§ āĻāĻĨāĻž āĻŦāϞā§āĻā§āύ āϝāĻž āϏāĻāϏā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋāϰ āĻāĻĻā§āĻŽāĻŦā§āĻļā§ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§āϰ āĻĒā§āϰāϏāĻžāϰā§āϰ āĻāύā§āϝ āĻā§āϰā§āϤā§āĻŦāĻĒā§āϰā§āĻŖ āĻā§āĻŽāĻŋāĻāĻž āĻĒāĻžāϞāύ āĻāϰā§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:
âThis is a book about past and present, about us and them.â
āϏāĻāϏā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋ āĻ āĻāĻŋāĻŦāĻžāϏāύ
āĻāĻĒāύāĻŋāĻŦā§āĻļāĻŋāĻ āĻĒā§āĻāĻāĻŋāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§āϰ āĻāĻāĻāĻŋ āĻāĻĒāĻāϰāĻŖ āĻšāĻŋāĻāϰāϤ āϏāĻāϏā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋāĨ¤ āĻāĻĄāĻāϝāĻŧāĻžāϰā§āĻĄ āϏāĻžāĻāĻĻ āĻŦāϰā§āĻŖāύāĻž āĻāϰā§āĻā§āύ āϝ⧠āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻ āĻŦāĻŋāĻāĻļ āĻļāϤāĻžāĻŦā§āĻĻā§āϤā§āĻ āĻŦāĻŋāĻĻā§āϝāĻŽāĻžāύ āϤāĻŦā§ 18 āĻāĻŦāĻ 19 āĻļāϤāĻā§āϰ āĻāĻāĻžāϰ⧠āύāϝāĻŧ āĻāĻžāϰāĻŖ āĻĒā§āϰāĻŦāύā§āϧā§āϰ āĻļā§āώ⧠āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻĻā§āĻĄāĻŧāĻāĻžāĻŦā§ āĻŦāϞā§āĻā§āύ:
“āĻāĻāĻŋ āĻāĻŽāĻžāĻĻā§āϰ āĻāĻŦāĻ āϤāĻžāĻĻā§āϰ āϏāĻŽā§āĻĒāϰā§āĻā§ āĻ āϤā§āϤ āĻ āĻŦāϰā§āϤāĻŽāĻžāύ āϏāĻŽā§āĻĒāϰā§āĻā§ āĻāĻāĻāĻŋ āĻŦāĻâ
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 âreflective and intellectual poetâ. He distinguishes between the intellectual poet and the reflective poet in his famous critical essay âThe Metaphysical Poetsâ to declare the superiority of the metaphysical poets.
āĻā§āĻŽāĻŋāĻāĻž: āĻāϞāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻ āϝā§āĻšā§āϤ⧠āĻāĻ āϞāĻā§āώā§āϝ āϏā§āĻĨāĻŋāϰ āĻāϰā§āĻā§āύ āϝ⧠āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻžāϰ āĻ āϧāĻŋāĻŦāĻŋāĻĻā§āϝāĻžāĻŽā§āϞāĻ āĻŦāĻŋāĻĻā§āϝāĻžāϞāϝāĻŧ āϏāĻŽā§āĻĒāϰā§āĻā§ āϏāĻŽāϏā§āϤ āĻ āϤāĻŋāĻā§āϰāώā§āĻ āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖāĻž āĻŦāĻžāϤāĻŋāϞ āĻāϰāĻŦā§āύ, āϤāĻžāĻ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āϤāĻžāĻāϰ āϰāĻāύāĻžāϝāĻŧ āĻāĻāĻāĻŋ āύāϤā§āύ āĻļāĻŦā§āĻĻ āĻĒā§āϰāĻŦāϰā§āϤāύ āĻāϰā§āĻā§āύ āϝāĻž âāĻĒā§āϰāϤāĻŋāĻŦāĻŋāĻŽā§āĻŦāĻŋāϤ āĻ āĻŦā§āĻĻā§āϧāĻŋāĻ āĻāĻŦāĻŋâ āύāĻžāĻŽā§ āĻĒāϰāĻŋāĻāĻŋāϤāĨ¤ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻāϧā§āϝāĻžāϤā§āĻŽāĻŋāĻ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāĻĻā§āϰ āĻļā§āϰā§āώā§āĻ āϤā§āĻŦ āĻā§āώāĻŖāĻž āĻāϰāĻžāϰ āĻāύā§āϝ āϤāĻžāĻāϰ āĻŦāĻŋāĻā§āϝāĻžāϤ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāĻ āĻĒā§āϰāĻŦāύā§āϧ âāĻĻā§āϝ āĻŽā§āĻāĻŋāĻĢāĻŋāĻāĻŋāĻāĻžāϞ āĻĒā§āϝāĻŧā§āĻâ -āĻ āĻŦā§āĻĻā§āϧāĻŋāĻā§āĻŦā§ āĻāĻŦāĻŋ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻĒā§āϰāϤāĻŋāĻŦāĻŋāĻŽā§āĻŦāĻŋāϤ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϰ āĻŽāϧā§āϝ⧠āĻĒāĻžāϰā§āĻĨāĻā§āϝ āĻāϰā§āĻā§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.
āϏāĻāĻā§āĻāĻž: āĻāϞāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻ āϏā§āĻĒāώā§āĻāĻāĻžāĻŦā§ āϏāĻāĻā§āĻāĻžāϝāĻŧāĻŋāϤ āĻāϰā§āĻā§āύ āϝ⧠āĻ āύā§āϰāĻžāĻā§ āĻāĻŋāύā§āϤāĻžāĻŦāĻŋāĻĻ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāĻĻā§āϰāĻā§ āĻŦā§āĻĻā§āϧāĻŋāĻā§āĻŦā§ āĻāĻŦāĻŋ āĻŦāϞāĻž āĻšāϝāĻŧāĨ¤ āĻāĻā§ āĻ āύā§āϝāĻāĻžāĻŦā§ āĻŦāϞāϤ⧠āĻā§āϞ⧠āϰā§āĻĒāĻ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϰāĻž āĻšāϞā§āύ āĻŦā§āĻĻā§āϧāĻŋāĻā§āĻŦā§ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāĨ¤ āϤāĻŦā§ āĻāĻā§āϰāĻāĻžāĻŦā§ āĻāĻŋāύā§āϤāĻžāĻļā§āϞ āĻāĻŋāύā§āϤ⧠āĻāĻŦā§āĻ āĻĨā§āĻā§ āĻŦāĻŋāĻā§āĻāĻŋāύā§āύ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāĻĻā§āϰ āĻĒā§āϰāϤāĻŋāĻŦāĻŋāĻŽā§āĻŦāĻŋāϤ āĻāĻŦāĻŋ 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 âmechanism of sensibilityâ. On the other hand, the reflective poets especially Tennyson and Browning as a writer of dramatic monologue are the followers of the intellectual poets.
āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āϰāĻāύāĻžāϰ āĻā§āĻļāϞ: āĻāϞāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻ āĻāĻā§āϰāĻāĻžāĻŦā§ āĻāĻā§āĻāĻŋāϤ āĻĻā§āϝāĻŧ āϝ⧠āϰā§āĻĒāĻ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϰāĻž āϤāĻžāĻĻā§āϰ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āϰāĻāύāĻžāϰ āĻā§āĻļāϞ āϤāĻžāĻĻā§āϰ āώā§āĻĄāĻŧāĻļ āĻļāϤāĻžāĻŦā§āĻĻā§āϰ āĻĒā§āϰā§āĻŦāϏā§āϰ⧠āύāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻāĻžāϰāĻĻā§āϰ āĻāĻžāĻ āĻĨā§āĻā§ āĻ āϰā§āĻāύ āĻāϰā§āĻā§āύ āϝāĻžāϰāĻž âāϏāĻāĻŦā§āĻĻāύāĻļā§āϞāϤāĻžāϰ āĻāϰā§āϤāĻž āĻāĻŋāϞā§āύāĨ¤ āĻ āύā§āϝāĻĻāĻŋāĻā§ āĻĒā§āϰāϤāĻŋāĻŦāĻŋāĻŽā§āĻŦāĻŋāϤ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϰāĻž āĻŦāĻŋāĻļā§āώāϤ āĻā§āύāĻŋāϏāύ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻŦā§āϰāĻžāĻāύāĻŋāĻ āĻĄā§āϰāĻžāĻŽāĻžāĻāĻŋāĻ āĻŽāύā§āϞā§āĻ āϞā§āĻāĻ āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦā§ āĻŦā§āĻĻā§āϧāĻŋāĻā§āĻŦā§ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāĻĻā§āϰ āĻ āύā§āϏāĻžāϰā§āĨ¤
Dissociation of sensibility: The term âdissociation of sensibilityâ 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.
āϏāĻāĻŦā§āĻĻāύāĻļā§āϞāϤāĻž āĻŦāĻŋāϝā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋ
āĻāϞāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻ āϤāĻžāĻāϰ āĻĒā§āϰāĻŦāύā§āϧ⧠âāϏāĻāĻŦā§āĻĻāύāĻļā§āϞāϤāĻžāϰ āĻŦāĻŋāĻā§āĻāĻŋāύā§āύāϤāĻžâ āĻļāĻŦā§āĻĻāĻāĻŋ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāώā§āĻāĻžāϰ āĻāϰā§āĻā§āύāĨ¤ āĻĄāĻžāĻ āĻāύāϏāύ āύāĻŋāĻŽā§āύāϞāĻŋāĻāĻŋāϤ āĻĒāĻĻā§āϧāϤāĻŋāϤ⧠āĻŦā§āĻĻā§āϧāĻŋāĻā§āĻŦā§ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāĻĻā§āϰ āĻĻā§āώ āĻĻāĻŋāϝāĻŧā§āĻā§āύ:
‘āϏāϰā§āĻŦāĻžāϧāĻŋāĻ āĻāĻŋāύā§āύāϧāϰā§āĻŽā§ āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖāĻž āĻāĻāϏāĻžāĻĨā§ āϏāĻšāĻŋāĻāϏāϤāĻž āĻĻā§āĻŦāĻžāϰāĻž āϝā§āĻ āĻāϰāĻž āĻšāϝāĻŧ’
āĻāĻ āϧāϰāύā§āϰ āĻĻā§āώ āϏā§āĻĒāĻžāϰāĻŋāĻļ āĻāϰ⧠āϝ⧠āϰā§āĻĒāĻ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϰāĻž āϏāϰā§āĻŦ āĻĒā§āϰāĻĨāĻŽ āĻāĻŋāύā§āϤāĻž āĻ āĻāĻŦā§āĻāĻā§ āĻĒā§āĻĨāĻ āĻāϰā§āĻāĻŋāϞā§āύāĨ¤ āϏā§āϤāϰāĻžāĻ, āĻāĻāĻŋ āϏā§āĻĢāĻāĻŋāĻ āϏā§āĻĒāώā§āĻ āϝ⧠āĻĒā§āϰāϤāĻŋāĻŦāĻŋāĻŽā§āĻŦāĻŋāϤ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϰāĻž āϏāĻāĻŦā§āĻĻāύāĻļā§āϞāϤāĻž āĻŦāĻŋāĻā§āĻāĻŋāύā§āύāϤāĻžāϝāĻŧ āĻāĻŦāĻĻā§āϧ, āϤāĻŦā§ āĻŦā§āĻĻā§āϧāĻŋāĻā§āĻŦā§ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāĻāĻŖ āϏāĻāĻŦā§āĻĻāύāĻļā§āϞāϤāĻžāϰ āĻāĻā§āĻāϰāĻŖā§āϰ āĻāϰā§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.
āϰāĻāύāĻžāĻļā§āϞ⧠āĻŦāύāĻžāĻŽ āĻ āύā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋ: āĻāϞāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻ āĻāĻžāώāĻž āĻŦā§āϝāĻŦāĻšāĻžāϰā§āϰ āĻā§āώā§āϤā§āϰ⧠āĻŦā§āĻĻā§āϧāĻŋāĻā§āĻŦā§ āĻāĻŦāĻŋ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻĒā§āϰāϤāĻŋāĻŦāĻŋāĻŽā§āĻŦāĻŋāϤ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāĻĻā§āϰ āĻŽāϧā§āϝ⧠āĻāĻāĻāĻŋ āĻ āύāύā§āϝ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāώā§āĻāĻžāϰ āĻāĻĒāϏā§āĻĨāĻžāĻĒāύ āĻāϰā§āĻā§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 Donneâs ability to unify the intellectual thoughts and sensation of feeling?
Introduction: T.S. Eliot (1888-1965) is the first critic who in his essay âThe Metaphysical Poetsâ 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. Donneâs power of fusing intellectual thoughts and sensation of feeling is the key issue of Eliotâs essay.
āĻā§āĻŽāĻŋāĻāĻž: āĻāĻŋ.āĻāϏ. āĻāϞāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻ (1888-1965) āĻšāϞā§āύ āĻĒā§āϰāĻĨāĻŽ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāĻ āϝāĻŋāύāĻŋ āϤāĻžāĻāϰ āϰāĻāύāĻž “āĻĻā§āϝ āĻŽā§āĻāĻŋāĻĢāĻŋāĻāĻŋāĻāĻžāϞ āĻĒā§āϝāĻŧā§āĻ” āĻ āĻāύ āĻĄā§āύ-āĻāϰ āĻĻāĻā§āώāϤāĻžāϰ āĻĒā§āϰāĻļāĻāϏāĻž āĻāϰā§āĻā§āύāĨ¤ āĻāĻŋāύā§āϤāĻžāϰ āϏāĻāĻŦā§āĻĻāύāĻļā§āϞ āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖāĻž āϝāĻžāĻā§ āĻŦāϞāĻž āĻšāϝāĻŧ āϏāĻāĻŦā§āĻĻāύāĻļā§āϞāϤāĻž āĻāĻā§āĻāϰāĻŖāĨ¤ āĻāĻāĻŋāĻā§ āĻ āύā§āϝāĻāĻžāĻŦā§ āĻŦāϞāϤ⧠āĻā§āϞ⧠āϏāĻāĻšāϤ āϏāĻāĻŦā§āĻĻāύāĻļā§āϞāϤāĻž āĻŽāĻžāύ⧠āĻāĻŦā§āĻ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻāĻŋāύā§āϤāĻžāϰ āϏāĻāĻŽāĻŋāĻļā§āϰāĻŖāĨ¤ āĻĄāĻžāύā§āϰ āĻŦā§āĻĻā§āϧāĻŋāĻā§āĻŦā§ āĻāĻŋāύā§āϤāĻžāĻāĻžāĻŦāύāĻž āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻ āύā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋāϰ āϏāĻāĻŦā§āĻĻāύāĻā§ āĻŽāĻŋāĻļā§āϰāĻŋāϤ āĻāϰāĻžāϰ āĻļāĻā§āϤāĻŋ āĻāϞāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻā§āϰ āϰāĻāύāĻžāϰ āĻŽā§āϞ āĻŦāĻŋāώāϝāĻŧāĨ¤
The Variety of mood and experience: Eliot argues that Donneâs 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 âa mechanism of sensibilityâ which can devour any kind of experience.
āĻŽā§āĻāĻžāĻ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻ āĻāĻŋāĻā§āĻāϤāĻžāϰ āĻŦā§āĻāĻŋāϤā§āϰā§āϝ: āĻāϞāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻ āϝā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋ āĻĻā§āĻāĻžāύ āϝ⧠āĻĄā§āύā§āϰ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āĻĒā§āϰāϧāĻžāύāϤ āĻāϞā§āϞā§āĻāϝā§āĻā§āϝ āĻŽā§āĻāĻžāĻ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻŽāύā§āĻāĻžāĻŦā§āϰ āĻĒāϰāĻŋāϏā§āĻŽāĻž āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻŦāĻŋāĻāĻŋāύā§āύāϤāĻžāϰ āĻāύā§āϝāĨ¤ Donne āĻāĻŋāύā§āϤāĻž āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻāĻŦā§āĻ āĻŽāĻŋāĻļā§āϰāĻŋāϤ āĻāϰāϤ⧠āϏāĻā§āώāĻŽ āĻšāϝāĻŧā§āĻā§ āĻāĻĻā§āĻāĻ āĻāĻĒāĻžāϝāĻŧā§ āϝāĻž āĻŽāύā§āύā§āϤ āĻāϰāĻž āĻšāϝāĻŧā§āĻā§ âāϏāĻāĻŦā§āĻĻāύāĻļā§āϞāϤāĻžāϰ āĻŦā§āϝāĻŦāϏā§āĻĨāĻžâ āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦā§ āϝāĻž āĻā§āύāĻ āϧāϰāĻŖā§āϰ āĻ āĻāĻŋāĻā§āĻāϤāĻž āĻā§āϰāĻžāϏ āĻāϰāϤ⧠āĻĒāĻžāϰā§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 âA valediction: Forbidding Mourningâ in which Donne moves from thought to thought with measured and weighty music.
āĻŦā§āĻĻā§āϧāĻŋāĻāϤāĻž āĻāĻŦāĻ āϝā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋāĻ āĻā§āĻŖ: āĻāϞāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻā§āϰ āĻŽāϤā§, āϰā§āĻĒāĻ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāĻĻā§āϰ āĻŦā§āĻĻā§āϧāĻŋāĻā§āĻŦā§ āĻāĻŦāĻŋ āĻŦāϞāĻž āĻšāϝāĻŧ, āϤāĻŦā§ āϤāĻžāĻĻā§āϰ āĻŦā§āĻĻā§āϧāĻŋāĻāϤāĻž āϏāĻāĻŦā§āĻĻāύāĻļā§āϞ āĻāĻŋāύā§āϤāĻžāĻāĻžāĻŦāύāĻž āĻĨā§āĻā§ āĻŦāĻā§āĻāĻŋāϤ āύāϝāĻŧāĨ¤ āĻŦāϰāĻ āϤāĻžāϰāĻž āϝā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋāϝā§āĻā§āϤāĻāĻžāĻŦā§ āϝā§āĻā§āϤ āĻšāϝāĻŧāĨ¤ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāĻ “āĻāĻāĻāĻŋ āĻļāĻĒāĻĨ: āĻļā§āĻāĻā§ āĻšāĻžāϰāĻžāĻŽ” āĻļāĻŋāϰā§āύāĻžāĻŽā§ āĻĄāĻžāύā§āϰ āĻāĻāĻāĻŋ āĻĒā§āϰā§āĻŽā§āϰ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āĻāϞā§āϞā§āĻ āĻāϰā§āĻā§āύ āϝāĻžāϰ āĻŽāϧā§āϝ⧠āĻĄā§āύ āĻāĻāĻāĻŋ āĻĒāϰāĻŋāĻŽāĻžāĻĒāϝā§āĻā§āϝ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻāĻāύāϝā§āĻā§āϤ āϏāĻāĻā§āϤ āύāĻŋāϝāĻŧā§ āĻāĻŋāύā§āϤāĻžāĻāĻžāĻŦāύāĻž āĻĨā§āĻā§ āĻāĻŋāύā§āϤāĻžāϝāĻŧ āĻāϞ⧠āĻāϏā§āĨ¤
Using imagery and conceits: Eliot remarks that Donneâs 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 âThe Relicâ that is one of the famous poems of John Donne.
âA bracelet of bright hair about the bone,â
Using Imagery and conceits: āĻāϞāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻ āĻŽāύā§āϤāĻŦā§āϝ āĻāϰā§āĻā§āύ āϝ⧠āĻĄā§āύā§āϰ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻžāĻā§āϞāĻŋ āĻāĻāĻāĻŋ āϏāĻāĻŦā§āĻĻāύāĻļā§āϞ āĻĒāϰāĻŋāϏā§āĻĨāĻŋāϤāĻŋ āĻĨā§āĻā§ āĻāĻĻā§āĻā§āϤ āĻšāϝāĻŧāĨ¤ āϤāĻžāϰāĻĒāϰ⧠āĻāĻŦāĻŋ āϤāĻžāϰ āĻŽāύā§āĻāĻžāĻŦāĻā§ āĻā§āϰāĻšāĻŖāϝā§āĻā§āϝ āĻāϰāĻžāϰ āĻĒāĻā§āώ⧠āϝā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋ āĻĻā§āĻāĻžāύ āĻāĻŦāĻ, āĻāĻ āĻĒā§āϰāĻā§āϰāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻžāϤā§, āĻ āĻšāĻā§āĻāĻžāϰ āϝāύā§āϤā§āϰ āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦā§ āĻŦā§āϝāĻŦāĻšā§āϤ āĻšāϝāĻŧ āϝāĻāύ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻŦāĻŋāĻāĻŋāύā§āύ āĻāϤā§āϏ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻā§āώā§āϤā§āϰā§āϰ āĻāĻŋāϤā§āϰ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻ āĻšāĻā§āĻāĻžāϰ āĻŦā§āϝāĻŦāĻšāĻžāϰ āĻāϰā§āύ āϤāĻāύ āϤāĻžāĻāϰ āĻŽā§āϞāĻŋāĻāϤāĻž āĻĒā§āϰāϤāĻŋāĻĢāϞāĻŋāϤ āĻšāϝāĻŧāĨ¤ āĻāϞāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļā§āώāĻāĻžāĻŦā§ “āĻĻā§āϝ āϰāĻŋāϞāĻŋāĻ” āĻāϞā§āϞā§āĻ āĻāϰā§āĻā§āύ āĻāϞāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļā§āώāĻāĻžāĻŦā§ āĻāύ āĻĄā§āύāĻŋāϰ āĻ āύā§āϝāϤāĻŽ āĻŦāĻŋāĻā§āϝāĻžāϤ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž”āĻĻā§āϝ āϰāĻŋāϞāĻŋāĻ” āĻā§ āĻāϞā§āϞā§āĻ āĻāϰā§āĻā§āύāĨ¤
“āĻšāĻžāĻĄāĻŧ āϏāĻŽā§āĻĒāϰā§āĻā§ āĻāĻā§āĻā§āĻŦāϞ āĻā§āϞā§āϰ āĻāĻāĻāĻŋ āĻŦā§āϰā§āϏāϞā§āĻ,”
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.
Arnoldâs evaluation of Chaucer: In âThe Study of Poetryâ 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 Chaucerâs writing. He says in most emphatic terms that it was dependent upon his talent. It is by the own words of Arnold:
âChaucer is not one of the great classics. His poetry transcends and effaces,
easily and without effort,âĻâĻâĻâ
Conclusion: Arnoldâs 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 Arnoldâs 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 âconsolidation of imperialismâ, Said discovers the two-fold meanings of culture that help the imperialists by focusing on the following aspects of culture:
- Fragile culture of the natives
- Ethical power of culture
- Literature as an institution of culture
Conclusion: Thus, the term consolidation of imperialism is a venture of permanent domination in the legalized process.
- 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 Saidâs 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. Saidâs 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 âIntroduction to Culture and Imperialismâ, 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 âThe Metaphysical Poetsâ 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 Johnsonâs tongue:
âThe most heterogeneous ideas are yoked by violence togetherâ
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:
- The quality of transforming ideas into sensations
- Dramatic beginning
- 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
- Discuss âTouchstone Methodâ.
Or, discuss the merits and demerits of the âTouchstone Methodâ.
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 poetsâ literary works whether they are classic or not. This method is recognized as the masterpiece of the critical essay âThe Study of Poetryâ (1880).
āĻā§āĻŽāĻŋāĻāĻž: Matthew Arnold (1822-1888) āĻāĻŋāĻā§āĻā§āϰāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻžāύ āĻĒāĻŋāϰāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻĄā§āϰ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāĻ āĻāĻŦāĻŋ āĻāĻŋāϞā§āύ āĨ¤ āϤāĻžāĻā§ āĻāϧā§āύāĻŋāĻ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāύāĻžāϰ āĻāύāĻ āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦā§ āĻŦāĻŋāĻŦā§āĻāύāĻž āĻāϰāĻž āĻšāϝāĻŧ āĨ¤ Arnold āϝ⧠āĻĒāĻĻā§āϧāϤāĻŋāĻā§ āϏāĻŽāϰā§āĻĨāύ āĻāϰā§āĻā§āύ āϤāĻž touch-stone āĻĒāĻĻā§āϧāϤāĻŋ āύāĻžāĻŽā§ āĻĒāϰāĻŋāĻāĻŋāϤāĨ¤ Arnold-āĻāϰ āĻŽāϤā§, touch-stone āĻĒāĻĻā§āϧāϤāĻŋāĻāĻŋ āĻ āĻŦāĻļā§āϝāĻ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāĻĻā§āϰ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāϤā§āϝā§āϰ āϰāĻāύāĻžāĻā§āϞā§āϰ āĻŽāĻžāύ āĻŦāĻŋāĻāĻžāϰ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻŽā§āϞā§āϝāĻžāϝāĻŧāύā§āϰ āĻāĻĻā§āĻĻā§āĻļā§āϝ⧠āĻĒā§āϰāϝā§āĻā§āϝ, āϏā§āĻā§āϞ⧠āĻā§āϞāĻžāϏāĻŋāĻ āĻšā§āĻ āĻŦāĻž āύāĻž āĻšā§āĻ āĨ¤ āĻāĻ āĻĒāĻĻā§āϧāϤāĻŋāĻāĻŋ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāύāĻžāĻŽā§āϞāĻ āĻĒā§āϰāĻŦāύā§āϧ âThe Study of Poetryâ (1880) āĻāϰ āϏā§āϰāĻž āĻļāĻŋāϞā§āĻĒāĻāϰā§āĻŽ āĻšāĻŋāϏā§āĻŦā§ āϏā§āĻŦā§āĻā§āϤ āĨ¤
The scientific process of evaluation
Aristotle assigns excellent and high seriousness as one of the grand virtues of poetry. Here in the essay âThe Study of Poetryâ, Arnold has cited some lines of Homer, Dante, Shakespeare, and Milton as touchstones for testing the high poetic quality. As the âTouchstone Methodâ 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 âhigh seriousnessâ. 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.
āĻŦā§āĻā§āĻāĻžāύāĻŋāĻ āĻĒā§āϰāĻā§āϰāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻžāϰ āĻŽā§āϞā§āϝāĻžāϝāĻŧāύ
Aristotle āϝā§āĻŽāύ āĻāĻŽā§āĻāĻžāϰ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻāĻā§āĻ āĻāĻŽā§āĻā§āϰāϤāĻžāĻā§ āύāĻŋāϰā§āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖ āĻāϰā§āĻā§āύ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻžāϰ āĻ āύā§āϝāϤāĻŽ āĻā§āĻŖ āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦā§ āĨ¤ āĻāĻāĻžāύ⧠âThe Study of Poetryâ āĻĒā§āϰāĻŦāύā§āϧā§, Arnold āĻāĻžāĻŦā§āϝā§āϰ āĻāĻā§āĻ āĻŽāĻžāύā§āϰ āĻā§āĻŖ āĻĒāϰā§āĻā§āώāĻž āĻāϰāĻžāϰ āĻāύā§āϝ Homer, Dante, Shakespeare āĻāĻŦāĻ Milton-āĻāϰ āĻāϝāĻŧā§āĻāĻāĻŋ āϞāĻžāĻāύāĻā§ touchstone āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦā§ āĻāϞā§āϞā§āϝā§āĻ āĻāϰā§āĻā§āύ āĨ¤ âTouchstone Methodâ āϝā§āĻŽāύ āĻĒā§āĻĨāĻ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāĻĻā§āϰ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāύāĻžāĻŽā§āϞāĻ āĻŽā§āϞā§āϝāĻžāϝāĻŧāύ āĻ āĻŦāĻŋāĻāĻžāϰā§āϰ āĻāύā§āϝ āĻŦā§āĻā§āĻāĻžāύāĻŋāĻ āĻĒā§āϰāĻā§āϰāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻžāϰ āϏāĻžāĻĨā§ āĻĒāϰāĻŋāĻāϝāĻŧ āĻāϰāĻŋāϝāĻŧā§ āĻĻā§āϝāĻŧ, Chaucer, Dryden, Pope āĻāĻŦāĻ Shelleyāϰ āϏā§āϰāĻž āĻāĻŦāĻŋ āĻŦāĻž āĻā§āϞāĻžāϏāĻŋāĻ āĻšāϤ⧠āĻŦā§āϝāϰā§āĻĨ āĻšāύ āĻāĻžāϰāĻŖ āϤāĻžāĻĻā§āϰ āĻŽāϧā§āϝ⧠âhigh seriousnessâ-āĻāϰ āĻ āĻāĻžāĻŦ āϰāϝāĻŧā§āĻā§ āĨ¤ āĻāĻŽāύāĻāĻŋ āĻļā§āĻā§āϏāĻĒāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻžāϰ āĻāĻžāĻŦ āĻĒā§āϰāĻāĻžāĻļ āĻāĻŦāĻ āϏāĻžāĻŽāĻžāύā§āϝ āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖāĻžāϰ āĻāύā§āϝ āĻā§āĻŦ āĻŦā§āĻļāĻŋ āĻāĻŋāύā§āϤāĻž āĻāϰā§āύ āϝāĻž āĻļā§āĻā§āϏāĻĒāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻžāϰā§āϰ āϏāĻžāĻŽāĻžāύā§āϝ āϤā§āϰā§āĻāĻŋ, āϤāĻŦā§āĻ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻāϰā§āύāϞā§āĻĄā§āϰ āĻŽāϤ⧠āĻā§āϞāĻžāϏāĻŋāĻ āĨ¤ āĻāϏāϞā§, āĻāϰā§āύāϞā§āĻĄ āĻŦāϞāϤ⧠āĻā§āϝāĻŧā§āĻā§āύ āϝ⧠Chaucer, Dryden, Pope āĻāĻŦāĻ Shelley āĻĒā§āϰāϤāĻŋāĻāĻžāĻŦāĻžāύ āĻāĻŋāύā§āϤ⧠āĻā§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 âCriticism of Lifeâ.
āĻāĻĻāϰā§āĻļ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāĻĻā§āϰ āϏāύā§āϧāĻžāύā§āϰ āĻāĻā§āĻāĻŋāύāĻž
āϤāĻžāĻāϰ āϰāĻāύāĻžāϝāĻŧ āĻāĻ āĻĒāĻĻā§āϧāϤāĻŋ āĻĒā§āϰāϝāĻŧā§āĻā§āϰ āĻĢāϞāϏā§āĻŦāϰā§āĻĒ, āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāĻ āϤāĻžāĻāϰ āĻāĻĻāϰā§āĻļ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāĻĻā§āϰāĻ āĻā§āĻāĻā§ āĻĒāĻžāύ āĨ¤ āϤāĻžāĻāϰ āĻĒā§āϰāĻžāĻā§āύ āϏāĻŽāϝāĻŧā§āϰ āĻāĻĻāϰā§āĻļ āĻāĻŦāĻŋ āĻšāϞā§āύ Homer āĻāĻŦāĻ SophoclesāĨ¤ Dante āĻāĻŦāĻ MiltonāĻ āĻā§āϞāĻžāϏāĻŋāĻ āĻāĻŋāϞā§āύ āĻāĻŦāĻ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻāϧā§āύāĻŋāĻāϤāĻžāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§āĻĻā§āϰ āĻŽāϧā§āϝ⧠Goethe āĻāĻŦāĻ WordsworthāĻā§ āĻāĻĻāϰā§āĻļ āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦā§ āĻā§āĻāĻā§ āĻĒāĻžāύ āĨ¤ Arnold WordsworthāĻā§ āϤāĻžāĻāϰ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻžāϰ āĻāύā§āϝ āύāϝāĻŧ āĻŦāϰāĻ āϤāĻžāĻāϰ âCriticism of Lifeâ- āĻāϰ āĻāύā§āϝ āĻāĻā§āĻ āĻĒāĻĻāĻŽāϰā§āϝāĻžāĻĻāĻž āĻĻāĻŋāϝāĻŧā§āĻā§āύ āĨ¤
The method of evaluation, not rejection
Arnold asserts that in order to judge a poetâs work properly a critic should compare it, poetâs 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 Arnoldâs touchstone method, a few lines can be cited:
âAnd courage never to submit or yield
And what is else not to be overcomeâĻâĻâĻ…â
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§āϞā§āϝāĻžāϝāĻŧāύā§āϰ āĻĒāĻĻā§āϧāϤāĻŋ, āĻĒā§āϰāϤā§āϝāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻžāύā§āϰ āύāϝāĻŧ
Arnold āĻā§āϰ āĻĻāĻŋāϝāĻŧā§ āĻŦāϞā§āĻā§āύ āϝā§, āĻā§āύāĻ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϰ āĻāĻžāĻā§āϰ āϝāĻĨāĻžāϝāĻĨ āĻŦāĻŋāĻāĻžāϰ āĻāϰāĻžāϰ āĻāύā§āϝ āĻāĻāĻāύ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāĻāĻā§ āĻ āĻŦāĻļā§āϝāĻ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϰ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāϤā§āϝāĻāϰā§āĻŽāĻā§ āĻā§āϞāĻžāϏāĻŋāĻ āĻ āύā§āĻā§āĻā§āĻĻā§āϰ āϏāĻžāĻĨā§ āϤā§āϞāύāĻž āĻāϰāĻž āĻāĻāĻŋāϤ āĨ¤ āϝāĻĻāĻŋ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāϤā§āϝāĻāϰā§āĻŽāĻāĻŋāϤ⧠āĻāĻā§āĻ āĻāĻŽā§āĻā§āϰāϤāĻž āĻŦāĻž āĻā§āĻŦāύā§āϰ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāύāĻž āĻĨāĻžāĻā§, āϤāĻŦā§ āĻāĻāĻŋ āϞā§āĻāĻžāϰ āĻā§āϞāĻžāϏāĻŋāĻā§āϝāĻžāϞ āĻ āĻāĻļ āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦā§ āϏā§āĻŦā§āĻā§āϤ āĻšāĻŦā§ āĻāĻŦāĻ āϏā§āĻ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāĻā§ āĻ āĻŦāĻļā§āϝāĻ āĻā§āϞāĻžāϏāĻŋāĻāĻĻā§āϰ āϏāĻžāϰāĻŋāϤ⧠āĻ āύā§āϤāϰā§āĻā§āĻā§āϤ āĻāϰāĻž āĻšāĻŦā§ āĨ¤ āϤāĻŦā§ āĻāĻāĻžāĻ āĻŽāύ⧠āϰāĻžāĻāϤ⧠āĻšāĻŦā§ āϝ⧠āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāϤā§āϝāĻāϰā§āĻŽāĻāĻŋ āĻ āĻŦāĻļā§āϝāĻ āϏāĻŽā§āĻĒā§āϰā§āĻŖāϰā§āĻĒā§ āĻĒā§āϰāϤā§āϝāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻžāϤ āĻšāĻŦā§ āύāĻž āϝā§āĻšā§āϤ⧠āĻāĻŽāϰāĻž Dryden, pope āĻāĻŦāĻ ShelleyāĻā§ āĻ āϏā§āĻŦā§āĻāĻžāϰ āĻāϰāϤ⧠āĻĒāĻžāϰāĻŋ āύāĻž āĨ¤ Arnold-āĻāϰ touchstone āĻĒāĻĻā§āϧāϤāĻŋāĻāĻŋ āĻĒā§āϰāĻŽāĻžāĻŖ āĻāϰāĻžāϰ āĻāύā§āϝ āĻāϝāĻŧā§āĻāĻāĻŋ āϞāĻžāĻāύ āĻāĻĻā§āϧā§āϤ āĻāϰāĻž āϝā§āϤ⧠āĻĒāĻžāϰā§:
âāĻāĻŦāĻ āϏāĻžāĻšāϏ āĻāĻāύāĻ āĻāĻŽāĻž āĻŦāĻž āĻāϤā§āĻĒāĻžāĻĻāύ āĻšāϝāĻŧ āύāĻž
āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻāĻžāĻāĻŋāϝāĻŧā§ āĻāĻ āĻžāϰ āĻāϰ āĻā§ āύā§āĻ âĻâĻâĻ …â
Arnold-āĻāϰ āĻŽāϤ⧠āĻāĻŽāϰāĻž āϝāĻĻāĻŋ āĻāĻ āĻāϝāĻŧā§āĻāĻāĻŋ āϞāĻžāĻāύāĻāĻŋ āϰāĻĒā§āϤ āĻāϰāĻŋ āϤāĻŦā§ āĻāĻā§āϞāĻŋ āĻāĻŽāĻžāĻĻā§āϰ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻžāϰ āĻŽāĻŋāĻĨā§āϝāĻž āĻ āύā§āĻŽāĻžāύ āĻĨā§āĻā§ āĻŦāĻžāĻāĻāϤ⧠āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻāĻŽāĻžāĻĻā§āϰāĻā§ āϏāϤā§āϝāĻŋāĻāĻžāϰā§āϰ āĻ āύā§āĻŽāĻžāύā§āϰ āĻĻāĻŋāĻā§ āĻĒāϰāĻŋāĻāĻžāϞāĻŋāϤ āĻāϰāϤ⧠āϝāĻĨā§āώā§āĻāĨ¤
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 Arnoldâs view that is recommended for the critic by him in the following sentences:
âIt 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 liveâ.
āĻāĻŦāĻŋāĻĻā§āϰ āĻļā§āϰā§āĻŖā§āĻŦāĻĻā§āϧāĻāϰāĻŖ
Arnold Homer āĻāĻŦāĻ Shakespeare-āĻāϰ āĻ āύā§āĻā§āĻā§āĻĻā§āϰ āϏāĻžāĻĨā§ āϤā§āϞāύāĻž āĻāϰ⧠āĻāĻāϰā§āĻāĻŋ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻžāϰ āĻĒā§āϰ⧠āϧāĻžāϰāĻžāĻāĻŋ āϏāĻŽā§āĻā§āώāĻž āĻāϰā§āĻā§āύ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāĻĻā§āϰāĻā§ good āĻ great āĻāĻŦāĻ not so good āĻ not so great āĻāϤā§āϝāĻžāĻĻāĻŋ āĻŦāĻŋāĻāĻŋāύā§āύ āĻŦāĻŋāĻāĻžāĻā§ āĻāĻžāĻ āĻāϰā§āĻā§āύ āĨ¤ āĻāĻŽāϰāĻž āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāĻāĻĻā§āϰ āĻāĻĻā§āĻĻā§āĻļā§āϝ⧠Arnold-āĻāϰ āĻĻā§āώā§āĻāĻŋāĻāĻā§āĻāĻŋāϰ āϏāĻāĻā§āώāĻŋāĻĒā§āϤāϏāĻžāϰ āĻāĻžāύāϤ⧠āĻĒāĻžāϰāĻŋ āϝāĻž āύāĻŋāĻŽā§āύāϞāĻŋāĻāĻŋāϤ āĻŦāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻā§āϞāĻŋāϤ⧠āĻĻā§āϝāĻŧāĻž āĻšāϞā§:
âāĻ āϤāĻāĻŦ, āĻāĻ āĻŦāĻŋāώāϝāĻŧāĻāĻŋāĻā§ āĻĻā§āĻĸāĻŧāĻāĻžāĻŦā§ āϧāϰ⧠āϰāĻžāĻāĻž āĻā§āϰā§āϤā§āĻŦāĻĒā§āϰā§āĻŖ: āϝā§āĻāĻŋ āĻā§āĻŦāύā§āϰ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāύāĻžāϝāĻŧ āĻ āύā§āϤāϰā§āĻā§āĻā§āϤ āϰāϝāĻŧā§āĻā§: āϝ⧠āĻāĻāĻāύ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϰ āĻŽāĻšāĻŋāĻŽāĻž āύāĻŋāĻšāĻŋāϤ āϰāϝāĻŧā§āĻā§ āϤāĻžāĻāϰ āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖāĻžāĻā§āϞāĻŋāϰ āĻĻā§āĻĸāĻŧ āĻ āϏā§āύā§āĻĻāϰ āĻĒā§āϰāϝāĻŧā§āĻā§āϰ āĻŽāϧā§āϝā§, āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻāĻ āĻĒā§āϰāĻļā§āύāĻāĻŋāϰ āĻŽāϧā§āϝā§- āĻāĻŋāĻāĻžāĻŦā§ āĻŦāĻžāĻāĻāϤ⧠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.
āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāύāĻž āĻŦāĻž āϤā§āϰā§āĻāĻŋ
Matthew Arnold āĻĻā§āĻŦāĻžāϰāĻž āĻĒā§āϰāĻŦāϰā§āϤāĻŋāϤ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻĒā§āϰāĻŽāĻžāĻŖāĻŋāϤ touch-stone āĻĒāĻĻā§āϧāϤāĻŋāĻāĻŋ āĻā§āĻŦ āύāĻŋāϰāĻžāĻĒāĻĻ āύāϝāĻŧ āĻāĻŦāĻžāϰ āĻā§āĻŦ āĻāĻĻāϰā§āĻļāĻ āύāϝāĻŧ āĨ¤ āĻĒāĻĻā§āϧāϤāĻŋāĻāĻŋ āϏāĻŽā§āĻĒāϰā§āĻā§ āĻ āύā§āĻ āĻŽāϤāĻā§āĻĻ āϰāϝāĻŧā§āĻā§ āĨ¤ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāĻāĻĻā§āϰ āĻŽāϤā§, āĻāĻ āϤā§āϞāύāĻžāĻŽā§āϞāĻ āĻĒāĻĻā§āϧāϤāĻŋāĻāĻŋ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻžāϰ āϝāĻĨāĻžāϝāĻĨ āĻ āύā§āĻŽāĻžāύ āύāĻŋāϰā§āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖā§āϰ āĻāύā§āϝ āĻāĻĒāϝā§āĻā§āϤ āύāϝāĻŧ āĻāĻžāϰāĻŖ āĻĒāĻĻā§āϧāϤāĻŋāĻāĻŋāϤ⧠āĻŦā§āϝāĻā§āϤāĻŋāĻāϤ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻāϤāĻŋāĻšāĻžāϏāĻŋāĻ āĻ āύā§āĻŽāĻžāύ āĻĒā§āϰāϤā§āϝāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻžāϤ āϰāϝāĻŧā§āĻā§ āĨ¤ āϏāĻŽāϏāĻžāĻŽāϝāĻŧāĻŋāĻ āĻāĻĒāϏā§āĻĨāĻžāĻĒāύāĻžāϰ āĻĒāĻžāĻļāĻžāĻĒāĻžāĻļāĻŋ āĻāĻžāĻŦā§āϝāĻŋāĻ āϞā§āĻāĻž touch-stone āĻĒāĻĻā§āϧāϤāĻŋ āĻĻā§āĻŦāĻžāϰāĻžāĻ āĻĒā§āϰāϤā§āϝāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻžāϤ āĨ¤ Van Doren-āĻāϰ āĻŽāϤā§, Arnold-āĻāϰ āĻŦā§āĻļāĻŋāϰāĻāĻžāĻ touch-stone āĻĒāĻĻā§āϧāϤāĻŋ āĻŦā§āϝāĻĨāĻž āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻĻā§āĻāĻā§āϰ āϏā§āĻŽā§āϤāĻŋāϰ āϏāĻžāĻĨā§ āϏāĻŽā§āĻĒāϰā§āĻāĻŋāϤ āĨ¤
Conclusion: To sum up, it is asserted that the âTouchstone Methodâ 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.
āĻāĻĒāϏāĻāĻšāĻžāϰ: āϏāĻžāϰāϏāĻāĻā§āώā§āĻĒā§, āĻāĻāĻŋ āĻĻā§āĻĸāĻŧāĻāĻžāĻŦā§ āĻŦāϞāĻž āϝāĻžāϝāĻŧ āϝ⧠âTouchstone Methodâ āĻāĻāϰā§āĻāĻŋ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāϤā§āϝā§āϰ āĻāϤāĻŋāĻšāĻžāϏā§āϰ āĻāĻāĻāĻŋ āĻŽāĻžāĻāϞ āĻĢāϞāĻ āĻāĻžāϰāĻŖ āĻāĻāĻŋ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāĻā§ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻžāϰ āϏā§āĻĻā§āϰāĻĒā§āϰāϏāĻžāϰ⧠āĻĒā§āϰāĻāĻžāĻŦ āϏāĻŽā§āĻĒāϰā§āĻā§ āĻŦāĻŋāĻŦā§āĻāύāĻžāĻĒā§āϰā§āĻŖ āĻāϰ⧠āϤā§āϞ⧠āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻāĻ āĻĒāĻĻā§āϧāϤāĻŋāϰ āĻĢāϞ⧠āĻĒāĻžāĻ āĻāĻĻā§āϰ āĻāĻžāĻā§ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻžāϰ āĻā§āϰāĻšāĻŖāϝā§āĻā§āϝāϤāĻž āĻŦā§āĻĻā§āϧāĻŋ āĻĒā§āϝāĻŧā§āĻā§ āĨ¤
2. Discuss Matthew Arnold as a critic with reference to âThe 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§āĻŽāĻŋāĻāĻž: āĻŽā§āϝāĻžāĻĨāĻŋāĻ āĻāϰā§āύāϞā§āĻĄ āĻāĻŋāϞā§āύ āĻāĻāĻāύ āĻāĻŋāĻā§āĻā§āϰāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻžāύ āĻāĻŦāĻŋ āĻāĻŦāĻ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāĻāĨ¤ āϤāĻžāĻāĻā§ āĻĒā§āϰāĻĨāĻŽ āĻāϧā§āύāĻŋāĻ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāĻ āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦā§ āĻŦāĻŋāĻŦā§āĻāύāĻž āĻāϰāĻž āĻšāϝāĻŧ āĻāĻŦāĻ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāĻāĻĻā§āϰ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāĻ āĻŦāϞāĻž āϝā§āϤ⧠āĻĒāĻžāϰ⧠āĻāĻžāϰāĻŖ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻā§āĻŦāϞ āĻĻā§āϰā§āĻĻāĻžāύā§āϤ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻžāϰ āĻā§āϝāĻžāĻŽā§āĻĒāĻŋāϝāĻŧāύāĻ āĻšāύāύāĻŋ, āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāϤā§āϝāĻŋāĻ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāύāĻžāϰ āĻā§āϝāĻžāĻŽā§āĻĒāĻŋāϝāĻŧāύāĻ āĻšāϝāĻŧā§āĻāĻŋāϞā§āύāĨ¤ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāĻ āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦā§ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āϏāĻžāĻŽāĻžāĻāĻŋāĻ āĻŦāĻŋāώāϝāĻŧ, āĻŦāĻŋāĻā§āĻāĻžāύ, āϧāϰā§āĻŽ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻļāĻŋāĻā§āώāĻž āύāĻŋāϝāĻŧā§ āĻāĻĨāĻž āĻŦāϞā§āύāĨ¤ āĻļāĻŋāϞā§āĻĒ āĻāĻŋāĻā§āĻā§āϰāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻžāύ āϏāĻŽāĻžāĻā§ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋāĻ āĻĒā§āϰāĻĨāĻŽ āĻĒā§āϰāĻļā§āύāĻāĻŋ āĻāϰā§āĻāĻŋāϞā§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⧠āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāĻ
āĻŽā§āϝāĻžāĻĨā§ āĻāϰā§āύāϞā§āĻĄā§āϰ āĻŽāϤā§, āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāϤā§āϝā§āϰ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāύāĻžāϰ āĻāĻĻā§āĻĻā§āĻļā§āϝ āĻš’āϞ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļā§āĻŦā§āϰ āϏāϰā§āĻŦāĻžāϧāĻŋāĻ āĻĒāϰāĻŋāĻāĻŋāϤ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻāĻŋāύā§āϤāĻžāϧāĻžāϰāĻž āĻāĻžāύāĻž āĻāĻŦāĻ āϏāϤā§āϝāĻŋāĻāĻžāϰā§āϰ āĻāĻŦāĻ āϏāϤā§āĻ āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖāĻžāĻā§āϞāĻŋāϰ āĻāĻāĻāĻŋ āĻĒā§āϰāĻŦāĻžāĻš āϤā§āϰāĻŋ āĻāϰāĻž āĻāĻ āĻāĻžāϰāĻŖā§āĻ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻāĻŋāĻāϏ āĻāϞāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻ ā§āϝāĻžāϞā§āύ āĻā§āĻ āϏāĻš āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāĻāĻĻā§āϰ āĻĒā§āϰ⧠āϏā§āĻā§āϞāĻā§ āĻĒā§āϰāĻāĻžāĻŦāĻŋāϤ āĻāϰāϤ⧠āϏāĻā§āώāĻŽ āĻšāϝāĻŧā§āĻā§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.
āϏāĻŽāĻžāĻāϤāĻžāϤā§āϤā§āĻŦāĻŋāĻ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāύāĻž āϏā§āĻā§āϞā§āϰ āĻĒā§āϰāϤāĻŋāώā§āĻ āĻžāϤāĻž
āϏāĻŽāĻžāĻāϤāĻžāϤā§āϤā§āĻŦāĻŋāĻ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāύāĻžāϰ āϏā§āĻā§āϞāĻāĻŋ āĻŽā§āϝāĻžāĻĨā§ āĻāϰā§āύāϞā§āĻĄ āĻĒā§āϰāϤāĻŋāώā§āĻ āĻž āĻāϰā§āĻāĻŋāϞā§āύāĨ¤ āϤāĻžāĻāϰ āĻāĻžāĻāϏā§āĻā§āύ āĻĒāĻĻā§āϧāϤāĻŋ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāύāĻžāϰ āĻĻā§āĻāĻŋ āĻĒā§āϰāĻžāĻĨāĻŽāĻŋāĻ āϏāϰāĻā§āĻāĻžāĻŽ āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦā§ āϤā§āϞāύāĻž āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļā§āϞā§āώāĻŖ āĻĒā§āϰāĻĻāĻžāύ āĻāϰ⧠āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāύāĻžāĻŽā§āϞāĻ āĻŽā§āϞā§āϝāĻžāϝāĻŧāύā§āϰ āĻŦā§āĻā§āĻāĻžāύāĻŋāĻ āĻ āĻŦāĻžāϏā§āϤāĻŦāϤāĻžāϰ āĻĒāϰāĻŋāĻāϝāĻŧ āĻĻā§āϝāĻŧāĨ¤ āĻ ā§āϝāĻžāϞā§āύ āĻā§āĻ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻāĻŋ. āĻāϏ. āĻāϞāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻ āĻĒā§āϰāĻļāĻāϏāĻŋāϤ āĻšāϝāĻŧā§āĻā§āύ āϤāĻžāĻāϰ āĻāĻžāĻāϏā§āĻā§āύ āĻĒāĻĻā§āϧāϤāĻŋ āĻāĻŦāĻ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāύāĻžāĻŽā§āϞāĻ āĻŽā§āϞā§āϝāĻžāϝāĻŧāύā§āϰ āĻāĻĻā§āĻĻā§āĻļā§āϝāĻĒā§āϰāĻŖāĻžāϞ⧠āĻāϰ āĻāύā§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 âThe Study of Poetryâ, 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.
āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻžāϰ āϏāĻžāĻŽāĻžāĻāĻŋāĻ āĻā§āĻŽāĻŋāĻāĻž āύāĻŋāϝāĻŧā§ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāĻ āĻĻā§āώā§āĻāĻŋāĻāĻā§āĻāĻŋ
āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāĻ āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦā§ āĻāϰā§āύāϞā§āĻĄ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻžāϰ āϏāĻžāĻŽāĻžāĻāĻŋāĻ āĻā§āĻŽāĻŋāĻāĻž āĻāĻĒāϏā§āĻĨāĻžāĻĒāύ āĻāϰā§āĻā§āύāĨ¤ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻŽāύ⧠āĻāϰā§āύ āĻāĻāĻāύ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāĻ āϏāĻžāĻŽāĻžāĻāĻŋāĻāĻāĻžāĻŦā§ āĻāĻĒāĻāĻžāϰā§āĨ¤ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻĻā§āĻĸāĻŧāĻāĻžāĻŦā§ āĻĻāĻžāĻŦāĻŋ āĻāϰā§āύ āϝ⧠āĻāĻāĻāύ āϏā§āĻāύāĻļā§āϞ āĻļāĻŋāϞā§āĻĒā§ āĻšāĻŦā§ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļāĻŋāώā§āĻ āĻŦā§āϝāĻžāĻā§āϤāĻŋ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻā§āĻŦāϞ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāϤā§āϝāĻāϰā§āĻŽā§āϰ āϏā§āύā§āĻĻāϰā§āϝā§āϰ āĻāĻŦāĻ āϤā§āϰā§āĻāĻŋāĻā§āϞā§āϰ āĻĻā§āĻāĻžāĻļā§āύāĻž āĻāϰāĻž āĻāĻāĻŋāϤāĨ¤ āϝā§āĻšā§āϤ⧠āϏāĻžāĻāϏā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋāĻ āĻ āϏāĻžāĻŽāĻžāĻāĻŋāĻ āĻŽā§āϞā§āϝāĻŦā§āϧ āĻāϰā§āύāϞā§āĻĄā§āϰ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϰā§āĻĨāĻ, āϤāĻžāĻ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻĒāϰāĻžāĻŽāϰā§āĻļ āĻĻāĻŋāϝāĻŧā§āĻāĻŋāϞā§āύ āϝ⧠āĻā§āύāĻ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϰ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āϞā§āĻāĻžāϰ āϏāĻŽāϝāĻŧ āĻā§āĻŦ āϝāϤā§āύāĻļā§āϞ āĻšāĻāϝāĻŧāĻž āĻāĻāĻŋāϤ āĻāĻžāϰāĻŖ āϏāĻžāĻāϏā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋāĻ āĻŽā§āϞā§āϝāĻŦā§āϧ āĻāĻŽāĻžāĻĻā§āϰ āĻŽā§āϞ āύā§āϤāĻŋ āĻĻā§āϝāĻŧ āĻāĻŦāĻ āϏā§āϰāĻž āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āύāĻŋāϰā§āĻŦāĻžāĻāύ āĻāϰāĻž āĻāĻāĻŋāϤ āĻāĻŦāĻ āύā§āϤāĻŋāĻā§āϞāĻŋ āĻĻā§āĻŦāĻžāϰāĻž āĻĒāϰāĻŋāĻāĻŋāϤ āĻšāĻāϝāĻŧāĻž āĻāĻāĻŋāϤāĨ¤ āĻāĻāĻžāĻĄāĻŧāĻž āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āĻā§āĻŦāύā§āϰ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāύāĻžāĨ¤ ā§§ā§Žā§Žā§Ž āĻā§āϰāĻŋāϏā§āĻāĻžāĻŦā§āĻĻā§ “The Study of Poerty” āĻļā§āϰā§āώāĻ āĻĒā§āϰāĻŦāύā§āϧ⧠āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻžāϰ āĻāĻā§āĻāϤāϰ āĻŽāϰā§āϝāĻžāĻĻāĻžāĻā§ āĻĻāĻžāĻŦā§ āĻāϰā§āύ āϝ⧠āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āĻĻāϰā§āĻļāύ, āϧāϰā§āĻŽ, āĻŦāĻŋāĻā§āĻāĻžāύ āĻāĻŦāĻ āϰāĻžāĻāύā§āϤāĻŋāϰ āĻā§āϝāĻŧā§ āĻāĻā§āĻāϤāϰāĨ¤ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻāϰāĻ āĻĻāĻžāĻŦāĻŋ āĻāϰā§āĻā§āύ āϝ⧠āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āĻāĻāĻžāĻ āĻāĻŽāĻžāĻĻā§āϰ āĻāϰāĻŖāĻĒā§āώāĻŖ āĻ āϏāĻšāĻžāϝāĻŧāĻ āĻšāϤ⧠āĻĒāĻžāϰā§āĨ¤ āϏā§āϤāϰāĻžāĻ, āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻžāĻā§ āĻā§āĻāĻžāύā§āϰ āĻļā§āĻŦāĻžāϏ āĻāĻŦāĻ āϏā§āĻā§āώā§āĻŽ āĻā§āϤāύāĻž āĻŦāϞā§āĻā§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 âhigh seriousness is impossible if poetry is devoid of moral ideas and replete with charlatanism. He mentions Aristotleâs reference âpoetry is superior to historyâ as poetry bears high seriousness and truth. So, the field of poetry should be free from charlatanism and packed up with moral ideas.
āύā§āϤāĻŋāĻ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāĻ
āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāĻ āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦā§ āĻāϰā§āύāϞā§āĻĄ āĻŽā§āϞāϤ āĻāĻāĻāύ āύā§āϤāĻŋāĻāϤāĻžāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻžāĻāĻŋ āĻā§ āĻšāĻāϝāĻŧāĻž āĻāĻāĻŋāϤ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻā§ āĻšāĻāϝāĻŧāĻž āĻāĻāĻŋāϤ āύāϝāĻŧ āϤāĻž āϏāĻŽā§āĻĒāϰā§āĻā§ āϤāĻžāϰ āĻā§āĻŦ āϏā§āύāĻŋāϰā§āĻĻāĻŋāώā§āĻ āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖāĻž āϰāϝāĻŧā§āĻā§āĨ¤ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻŦāϞā§āĻā§āύ āϝ⧠āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āύā§āϤāĻŋāĻ āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖāĻžāϰ āĻŦāĻŋāϰā§āĻĻā§āϧ⧠āĻŦāĻŋāĻĻā§āϰā§āĻšā§āϰ , āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āĻā§āĻŦāύā§āϰ āĻŦāĻŋāϰā§āĻĻā§āϧ⧠āĻŦāĻŋāĻĻā§āϰā§āĻšā§āϰ, āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āύā§āϤāĻŋāĻ āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖāĻžāϰ āĻĒā§āϰāϤāĻŋ āĻāĻĻāĻžāϏā§āύāϤāĻžāϰ,āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āĻā§āĻŦāύā§āϰ āĻĒā§āϰāϤāĻŋ āĻāĻĻāĻžāϏā§āύāϤāĻžāϰ āĨ¤ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļā§āĻŦāĻžāϏ āĻāϰā§āύ āϝ⧠âāĻāĻā§āĻ āĻāĻŽā§āĻā§āϰāϤāĻž āĻ āϏāĻŽā§āĻāĻŦ āϝāĻĻāĻŋ āĻā§āύāĻ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āύā§āϤāĻŋāĻ āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖāĻžāĻā§āϞāĻŋ āĻĨā§āĻā§ āĻŦāĻā§āĻāĻŋāϤ āĻšāϝāĻŧ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻāĻžāϰā§āϞā§āϝāĻžāĻāĻžāύāĻŋāĻāĻŽ āĻĒā§āϰā§āĻŖ āĻšāϝāĻŧāĨ¤ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻ ā§āϝāĻžāϰāĻŋāϏā§āĻāĻāϞ⧠āĻāϞā§āϞā§āĻ āĻāϰā§āĻā§āύ “āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āĻāϤāĻŋāĻšāĻžāϏā§āϰ āĻā§āϝāĻŧā§ āĻāĻā§āĻāϤāϰ” āĻāĻžāϰāĻŖ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āĻāĻā§āĻ āĻāĻŽā§āĻā§āϰāϤāĻž āĻāĻŦāĻ āϏāϤā§āϝ āĻŦāĻšāύ āĻāϰā§āĨ¤ āϏā§āϤāϰāĻžāĻ, āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻžāϰ āĻā§āώā§āϤā§āϰāĻāĻŋ āĻāĻžāϰā§āϞā§āϝāĻžāĻāĻžāύāĻŋāĻāĻŽāĻŽā§āĻā§āϤ āĻāĻŦāĻ āύā§āϤāĻŋāĻ āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖāĻžāĻā§āϞāĻŋ āĻĻā§āĻŦāĻžāϰāĻž āϏāĻā§āĻāĻŋāϤ āĻšāĻāϝāĻŧāĻž āĻāĻāĻŋāϤāĨ¤
Evaluator of classical values
In his essay âThe Study of Poetryâ, 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 âAn Apology for Poetryâ. 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.
āĻā§āϞāĻžāϏāĻŋāĻāĻžāϞ āĻŽā§āϞā§āϝāĻŦā§āϧā§āϰ āĻŽā§āϞā§āϝāĻžāϝāĻŧāύāĻāĻžāϰā§
āĻāϰā§āύāϞā§āĻĄ āϤāĻžāĻāϰ ”The Study of Poerty” āĻĒā§āϰāĻŦāύā§āϧā§, āĻā§āϞāĻžāϏāĻŋāĻāĻžāϞ āĻŽā§āϞā§āϝāĻŦā§āϧ⧠āĻĢāĻŋāϰ⧠āĻāϏā§āύāĨ¤ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļā§āĻŦāĻžāϏ āĻāϰā§āύ āϝ⧠āĻāϧā§āύāĻŋāĻ āϞā§āĻāĻā§āϰ āϏāĻā§āϤāύ āĻšāĻāϝāĻŧāĻž āĻāĻāĻŋāϤ āϝ⧠āϏāĻŽāϏāĻžāĻŽāϝāĻŧāĻŋāĻ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāϤā§āϝ āĻ āϤā§āϤā§āϰ āĻāĻŋāϤā§āϤāĻŋāϤ⧠āύāĻŋāϰā§āĻŽāĻŋāϤāĨ¤ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻā§āϏāĻžāϰ āĻĨā§āĻā§ āĻļā§āϰ⧠āĻāϰ⧠āĻĒā§āϰāĻžāĻā§āύ āĻā§āϰā§āĻ āĻāĻŦāĻŋ āĻšā§āĻŽāĻžāϰ, āϞāĻžāϤāĻŋāύ āĻāĻŦāĻŋ āĻĻāĻžāύā§āϤā§, āĻĻāĻā§āώāĻŋāĻŖ āĻ āĻāϤā§āϤāϰ āĻĢāϰāĻžāϏāĻŋ āĻāĻŦāĻŋ āĻāĻŦāĻ āϏā§āĻāĻāĻŋāĻļ āĻāĻŦāĻŋ āĻŦāĻžāϰā§āύāϏāĻā§ āĻāĻāϰā§āĻ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāĻĻā§āϰ āĻŽā§āϞā§āϝāĻžāϝāĻŧāύ āĻ āĻŦāĻŋāĻāĻžāϰ āĻāϰā§āĻā§āύ āϝāĻžāϤ⧠āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻžāϰ āĻā§āϞāĻžāϏāĻŋāĻāĻžāϞ āĻŽā§āϞā§āϝāĻŦā§āϧ āύāĻŋāĻļā§āĻāĻŋāϤ āĻāϰāϤ⧠āĻĒāĻžāϰā§āύ āĻāĻžāϰāĻŖ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻžāϝāĻŧ āĻĒā§āϰāĻžāĻā§āύāϤā§āĻŦ āĻāĻŦāĻ āϏāϰā§āĻŦāĻāύā§āύāϤāĻž āĻĒā§āϰāĻŽāĻžāĻŖāĻŋāϤ āĻšāϝāĻŧā§āĻā§ āϏā§āϝāĻžāϰ āĻĢāĻŋāϞāĻŋāĻĒ āϏāĻŋāĻĄāύāĻŋ āϰāĻāύāĻž ” āĻāύ āĻāĻĒāϞā§āĻāĻŋ āĻĢāϰ āĻĒā§āϝāĻŧā§āϰā§āĻāĻŋ ” āĻĒā§āϰāĻŦāύā§āϧā§āĨ¤ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāϞāĻž āĻāϰā§āĻāĻŋāϞā§āύ , āĻŦā§āĻā§āĻāĻžāύāĻŋāĻ āĻāĻžāĻāϏā§āĻā§āύ āĻĒāĻĻā§āϧāϤāĻŋ āĻĒā§āϰāϝāĻŧā§āĻ āĻāϰ⧠āĻā§āϏāĻžāϰ, āĻĄā§āϰāĻžāĻāĻĄā§āύ, āĻĒā§āĻĒ, āĻŦāĻžāϰā§āύāϏ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻļā§āϞāĻŋāϰ āĻŽāϤ⧠āĻāĻŦāĻŋ āĻāĻā§āĻ āĻāĻŽā§āĻā§āϰāϤāĻžāϰ āĻ āĻāĻžāĻŦā§āϰ āĻāĻžāϰāĻŖā§ āϤāĻŦā§ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻĄā§āϝāĻžāύā§āĻ, āĻŽāĻŋāϞā§āĻāύ, āĻā§āϰ⧠āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻāϝāĻŧāĻžāϰā§āĻĄāϏāĻāϝāĻŧāĻžāϰā§āĻĨā§āϰ āĻĒā§āϰāĻļāĻāϏāĻž āĻāϰā§āĻā§āύ āĻāĻžāϰāĻŖ āϤāĻžāĻĻā§āϰ āĻā§āĻŦāύā§āϰ āϏāĻ āĻŋāĻ āĻŦā§āϝāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻž āϰāϝāĻŧā§āĻā§āĨ¤
Arnoldâs 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 Keatsâ 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.
āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāĻ āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦā§ āĻāϰā§āύāϞā§āĻĄā§āϰ āϏā§āĻŽāĻžāĻŦāĻĻā§āϧāϤāĻž
āϝāĻĻāĻŋāĻ āĻāϰā§āύāϞā§āĻĄāĻā§ āĻāϧā§āύāĻŋāĻ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāϤā§āϝ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāύāĻžāϰ āĻāύāĻ āĻāĻĒāĻžāϧāĻŋ āĻĻā§āĻāϝāĻŧāĻž āĻšāϞā§āĻ āϤāĻžāĻāϰāĻ āĻ āύā§āĻāĻā§āϞāĻŋ āϏā§āĻŽāĻžāĻŦāĻĻā§āϧāϤāĻž āϰāϝāĻŧā§āĻā§āĨ¤ āϤāĻžāϰ āĻĒā§āϰāĻĨāĻŽ āĻāĻŦāĻ āϏāϰā§āĻŦāĻžāϧāĻŋāĻ āϏā§āĻŽāĻžāĻŦāĻĻā§āϧāϤāĻž āĻš’āϞ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻĢā§āύāĻŋ āĻŦā§āϰāĻžāĻāύāĻā§ āĻā§āĻāϏā§āϰ āϏāĻāĻŦā§āĻĻāύāĻļā§āϞ āĻāĻŋāĻ āĻŋāϰ āϤāĻžāϤā§āĻĒāϰā§āϝāĻ āĻĻā§āĻāĻŋāϝāĻŧā§āĻā§āύāĨ¤ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻā§āύāĻ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāĻ āύāϝāĻŧ āĻŦāϰāĻ āĻāĻāĻāĻŋ āĻŦā§āϝāĻā§āĻāĻžāϤā§āĻŽāĻ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāĻ āĻāĻŦāĻ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻā§āĻŦ āĻĻā§āϰā§āϤ āϏāĻŋāĻĻā§āϧāĻžāύā§āϤāĻ āĻĻāĻŋāϝāĻŧā§āĻā§āύāĨ¤ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻ āύā§āϧāϤā§āĻŦ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻā§āϞā§āϝāĻžāϏāĻŋāĻāĻŋāĻāĻŽā§āϰ āĻāĻĒāĻžāϏāύāĻžāϰ āĻāĻžāϰāĻŖā§ āĻā§āϤāĻŋāĻāĻžāĻŦā§āϝ āĻŦāĻž āĻā§āϤāĻŋāĻāĻžāϰ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻžāϰ āϏā§āύā§āĻĻāϰā§āϝ āĻāĻŦāĻ āϤāĻžā§āĻĒāϰā§āϝ āĻĻā§āĻāϤ⧠āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻŦā§āĻāϤā§āĻ āĻĒāĻžāϰā§āύ āύāĻžāĨ¤ āϤāĻžāĻāϰ āĻāϤāĻŋāĻšāĻžāϏāĻŋāĻ āĻŦā§āϧā§āϰ āĻ āĻāĻžāĻŦ āĻāϰā§āĻāĻāĻŋ āĻŦā§āϝāϰā§āĻĨāϤāĻž āĻāĻŦāĻ āϤāĻžāϰ āĻāĻžāĻāϏā§āĻā§āύ āĻĒāĻĻā§āϧāϤāĻŋāĻāĻŋ āĻĒā§āϰā§āĻĒā§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 âThe Study of Poetryâ. 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 âIntroduction to Culture and Imperialismâ 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§āĻŽāĻŋāĻāĻž: Edward W. Said (1935-2003) āĻŦāĻŋāĻļ āĻļāϤāĻā§āϰ āĻļā§āώā§āϰ āĻĻāĻŋāĻā§āϰ āĻ āύā§āϝāϤāĻŽ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļāĻŋāώā§āĻ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāĻ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻĻāĻžāϰā§āĻļāύāĻŋāĻ āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦā§ āĻĒāϰāĻŋāĻāĻŋāϤ āϝāĻŋāύāĻŋ ā§§ā§¯ā§¯ā§Š āϏāĻžāϞ⧠āĻĒā§āϰāĻāĻžāĻļāĻŋāϤ āϤāĻžāĻāϰ āϰāĻāύāĻžāĻŽā§āϞāĻ āϏāĻāĻāϞāύ âIntroduction to Culture and Imperialismâ-āĻ āϏāĻŦāĻā§āϝāĻŧā§ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāύāĻžāĻŽā§āϞāĻ āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖāĻžāĻāĻŋ āĻŦā§āϝāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻž āĻāϰā§āĻā§āύ āϝā§āĻāĻŋ āĻšāϞ⧠āϏāĻāϏā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋ āĻāĻŦāĻ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§āϰ āĻŽāϧā§āϝ⧠āĻāĻāĻāĻŋ āĻā§āĻŦ āϏā§āĻā§āώā§āĻŽ āϏāĻŽā§āĻĒāϰā§āĻ āϰāϝāĻŧā§āĻā§ āĨ¤ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§āϰ āĻāύā§āϝ āϏāĻāϏā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋāϰ āĻŦāĻŋāĻāĻŋāύā§āύ āĻāύāϏā§āĻā§āϰā§āĻŽā§āύā§āĻ āĻĒā§āϝāĻŧā§āĻā§āύ āĻŦāϞ⧠āϏāĻāϏā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋ āĻāĻŦāĻ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§āϰ āĻŽāϧā§āϝāĻāĻžāϰ āϏāĻŽā§āĻĒāϰā§āĻāĻā§ āĻāĻāĻāĻŋ āĻāĻŋāύā§āύ āĻĻā§āώā§āĻāĻŋāĻā§āĻŖ āĻĨā§āĻā§ āĻĻā§āĻā§āύ āĨ¤
Fundamental concept on culture
For well understand âculture as an instrument of imperialismâ, 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.
āϏāĻāϏā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋ āϏāĻŽā§āĻĒāϰā§āĻā§ āĻŽā§āϞāĻŋāĻ āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖāĻž
āϏāĻāϏā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋāĻā§ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§āϰ āĻāĻāĻāĻŋ āĻāύāϏā§āĻā§āϰā§āĻŽā§āύā§āĻ āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦā§ āĻāĻžāϞ⧠āĻāϰ⧠āĻŦā§āĻāĻžāϰ āĻāύā§āϝ, āĻāϰ āĻāĻā§āϰ⧠āϝāĻžāĻāϝāĻŧāĻž āĻĒā§āϰāϝāĻŧā§āĻāύ āĨ¤ āĻĒā§āϰāĻĨāĻŽāϤ, āϏāĻāϏā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋāϰ āĻĻāĻŋāĻāĻā§āϞ⧠āĻāĻžāύāĻž āĻāĻāĻŋāϤāĨ¤ Edward Said-āĻāϰ āĻŽāϤā§, āϏāĻāϏā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋāϰ āĻ āϰā§āĻĨ āĻŦāϞāϤ⧠āĻŦāĻŋāĻļā§āώāϤ āĻĻā§āĻāĻāĻŋ āĻāĻŋāύāĻŋāϏ āĻŦā§āĻāĻžāϝāĻŧ āĨ¤ āĻĒā§āϰāϧāĻžāύāϤ āĻāϰ āĻ āϰā§āĻĨ āĻšāϞ⧠āĻāĻžāϰā§āĻāϞāĻž āĻāĻŦāĻ āύāĻžāύā§āĻĻāύāĻŋāĻ āĻŦāĻŋāύā§āϝāĻžāϏā§āϰ āĻ āύā§āĻļā§āϞāύ āĨ¤ āĻĻā§āĻŦāĻŋāϤā§āϝāĻŧāϤ, ā§§ā§Žā§Ŧā§Ļ-āĻāϰ āĻĻāĻļāĻā§ Matthew Arnold āϝā§āĻŽāύ āĻŦāϞā§āĻāĻŋāϞā§āύ āϝ⧠āϏāĻāϏā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋ āĻšāϞ⧠āĻŦāĻŋāĻļā§āϧāύ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻāύā§āύāϤ āĻāĻĒāĻžāĻĻāĻžāύ āĻāĻŦāĻ āϏāϰā§āĻŦā§āϤā§āϤāĻŽ āĻāϧāĻžāϰā§āϰ āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖāĻž āĨ¤ āϏāĻāϏā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋāϰ āĻāĻ āĻŽā§āϞāĻŋāĻ āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖāĻžāĻāĻŋ āĻāĻŽāύ āϤāĻĨā§āϝ āϏāϰāĻŦāϰāĻžāĻš āĻāϰ⧠āϝ⧠āĻāĻžāϰāϤ, āĻāĻĢā§āϰāĻŋāĻāĻž, āĻāĻŽā§āϰāĻŋāĻāĻž āĻāϤā§āϝāĻžāĻĻāĻŋ āϏā§āĻĨāĻžāύā§āϝāĻŧ āύāĻžāĻāϰāĻŋāĻāϰāĻž āϤāĻžāĻĻā§āϰ āĻļāĻŋāϞā§āĻĒāĻāϞāĻž āĻāĻŦāĻ āύāĻžāύā§āĻĻāύāĻŋāĻ āĻŦāĻŋāύā§āϝāĻžāϏāĻā§āϞā§āϰ āϏāĻāϰāĻā§āώāĻŖ āĻāϰāϤ⧠āĻĒāĻžāϰā§āύāĻŋ āϝāĻžāϰ āĻāĻžāϰāĻŖā§ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§āϰāĻž āϤāĻĨāĻžāĻāĻĨāĻŋāϤ āϏāĻā§āϝāϤāĻžāϰ āĻāύā§āϝ āĻāĻā§āϰāĻŽāĻŖāĻžāϤā§āĻŽāĻ āĻšāϤ⧠āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻ āύā§āϏāύā§āϧāĻžāύ āĻāϰāϤ⧠āϏāĻā§āώāĻŽ āĻšāϝāĻŧā§āĻāĻŋāϞ 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.
âThese two factors-a general worldwide pattern of the imperial culture
and a historical experience of resistance against empireâ
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.
āϏā§āĻĨāĻžāύā§āϝāĻŧāĻĻā§āϰ āĻĻā§āϰā§āĻŦāϞ āϏāĻāϏā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋ
āĻĒā§āϰāĻŦāύā§āϧā§āϰ āĻāĻā§āĻŦāĻžāϰ⧠āĻļā§āϰā§āϤ⧠Said āĻŦāϞā§āĻā§āύ āϝ⧠āϤā§āϤā§āϝāĻŧ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļā§āĻŦā§āϰ āϏāĻāϏā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋ āĻ āϤā§āϝāύā§āϤ āύāĻžāĻā§āĻ āϝāĻž āĻāĻŋāϞ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§āĻĻā§āϰ āĻļāĻā§āϤāĻŋ āĨ¤ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§āϰāĻž āϏāϰā§āĻŦāĻĻāĻž āϏā§āĻĨāĻžāύā§āϝāĻŧāĻĻā§āϰ āĻŽāϧā§āϝ⧠āĻĒā§āϰāϤāĻŋāϝā§āĻāĻŋāϤāĻž āϏā§āώā§āĻāĻŋ āĻāϰāϤ⧠āĨ¤ Said āĻŦāϞā§āĻā§āύ āϝ⧠āϏā§āĻĒāĻžāĻāύ āĻŦāĻž āĻāĻĄāĻŧ āĻĻā§āĻļā§āϝāĻŧāϰāĻž āĻāĻŋāϞ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§āĻĻā§āϰ āĻĒā§āϰāϧāĻžāύ āĻļāĻā§āϤāĻŋ.
āĻāĻ āĻĻā§āĻāĻŋ āĻāĻžāϰāĻŖ- āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻā§āϝ āϏāĻāϏā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋāϰ āĻāĻ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļā§āĻŦāĻŦā§āϝāĻžāĻĒā§ āĻĒā§āϝāĻžāĻāĻžāϰā§āύ
āĻāĻŦāĻ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻā§āϝā§āϰ āĻŦāĻŋāϰā§āĻĻā§āϧ⧠āĻĒā§āϰāϤāĻŋāϰā§āϧā§āϰ āĻāĻāĻāĻŋ āĻāϤāĻŋāĻšāĻžāϏāĻŋāĻ āĻ āĻāĻŋāĻā§āĻāϤāĻžâ
āĻĒāĻžāĻļāĻžāĻĒāĻžāĻļāĻŋ, āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāĻāϰāĻž āĻāϞā§āϞā§āĻ āĻāϰā§āĻā§āύ āϝ⧠āϤā§āϤā§āϝāĻŧ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļā§āĻŦā§āϰ āĻŽāĻžāύā§āώāϰāĻž āύā§āĻāĻŽāύāĻž āĻāĻŦāĻ āϰāĻā§āώāĻŖāĻļā§āϞ āĻāĻŋāϞ āĨ¤ āĻ āύā§āϝāĻĻāĻŋāĻā§, āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§āϰāĻž āĻā§āĻŦāĻ āϏā§āĻĻā§āϰāĻĒā§āϰāϏāĻžāϰ⧠āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻāĻĻā§āĻŦāĻŋāĻā§āύ āĻāĻŋāϞ āĨ¤ āĻāĻāĻāĻžāĻŦā§, āĻŦāĻŋāĻĻā§āĻļā§ āĻāĻĒāύāĻŋāĻŦā§āĻļāĻā§āϞāĻŋāϰ āϏāĻāϏā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§āĻĻā§āϰ āĻšāĻžāϤāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻžāϰ⧠āĻĒāϰāĻŋāĻŖāϤ āĻšāϝāĻŧā§āĻāĻŋāϞ 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 Saidâs 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.
âCulture conceived in this way can become a protective enclosure:
check your politics at the door before you enter it.â
āϏāĻāϏā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋāϰ āύā§āϤāĻŋāĻ āĻļāĻā§āϤāĻŋ
āĻŦā§āϰāĻŋāĻā§āύ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻĢā§āϰāĻžāύā§āϏā§āϰ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§āĻĻā§āϰ āϤāĻĨāĻžāĻāĻĨāĻŋāϤ āĻāϞā§āĻ āĻŦāĻšāύāĻāĻžāϰ⧠āĻāĻŦāĻ āϏāĻā§āϝāϤāĻžāϰ āύāĻŋāϰā§āĻŽāĻžāϤāĻž āĻŦāϞāĻž āĻšāϤ⧠āĨ¤ āϤāĻžāϰāĻž āĻļāĻŋāĻā§āώāĻž āĻāĻŦāĻ āϧāϰā§āĻŽā§āϰ āĻāϞ⧠āĻāĻĄāĻŧāĻŋāϝāĻŧā§ āĻĻāĻŋāϤ⧠āĻāĻŋāϝāĻŧā§āĻāĻŋāϞ āϝāĻž āĻā§āĻŦāϞ āϤāĻĨāĻžāĻāĻĨāĻŋāϤāĻ āĻāĻŋāϞ āύāĻž āĻŦāϰāĻ āĻŦāĻŋāĻĻā§āĻļā§ āĻāĻĒāύāĻŋāĻŦā§āĻļā§āϰ āĻāύāĻāĻŖāĻā§ āĻŦā§āĻāĻž āĻŦāĻžāύāĻžāύā§āϰ āĻāĻĻā§āĻĻā§āĻļā§āϝ āϏā§āώā§āĻāĻŋ āĻāϰā§āĻāĻŋāϞ āĨ¤ Said-āĻāϰ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļā§āϞā§āώāĻŖā§, āĻāĻžāϰāϤ āĻ āĻāĻĢā§āϰāĻŋāĻāĻžāϰ āĻā§āϰā§āĻĄ, āĻāĻŽāĻžāϰā§āϏ āĻāĻŦāĻ āϏāĻā§āϝāϤāĻžāϰ āĻ āύā§āϏāύā§āϧāĻžāύāĻā§āϞ⧠āĻāĻĒāύāĻŋāĻŦā§āĻļāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§āĻĻā§āϰ āύā§āϤāĻŋāĻ āĻļāĻā§āϤāĻŋ āĻĒā§āϰāĻĻāĻžāύ āĻāϰā§āĻāĻŋāϞ āĻāĻŋāύā§āϤ⧠āϤāĻžāϰāĻž āϞā§āĻāĻĒāĻžāĻ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻāϧāĻŋāĻĒāϤā§āϝā§āϰ āĻāύā§āϝ āĻĻā§āĻļāĻā§āϞā§āϤ⧠āĻāĻŋāϝāĻŧā§āĻāĻŋāϞ āĨ¤ āϤāĻž āϏāϤā§āϤā§āĻŦā§āĻ, āϏāĻā§āϝāϤāĻž, āĻā§āϰā§āĻĄ āĻ āĻāĻŽāĻžāϰā§āϏā§āϰ āĻāĻĻā§āĻĻā§āĻļā§āϝāĻā§āϞā§āϰ āĻāĻžāϰāĻŖā§ āϤāĻžāϰāĻž āĻĒā§āϰāĻžāϝāĻŧ āĻĻā§āĻ āĻļāϤāĻžāĻŦā§āĻĻā§ āϧāϰ⧠āĻāύā§āϤāϰā§āĻāĻžāϤāĻŋāĻ āϏāĻŽā§āĻĒā§āϰāĻĻāĻžāϝāĻŧā§āϰ āĻāĻžāĻā§ āϏāύā§āĻĻā§āĻšāĻžāϤā§āϤ āĻāĻŋāϞ āĨ¤ āϤāĻžāĻ Said āϏāĻāϏā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋāϤ⧠āĻĒā§āϰāĻŦā§āĻļā§āϰ āĻāĻā§ āϤāĻž āϝāĻžāĻāĻžāĻ āĻāϰāĻžāϰ āĻĒāϰāĻžāĻŽāϰā§āĻļ āĻĻā§āύāĨ¤
âāĻāĻāĻāĻžāĻŦā§ āĻāϞā§āĻĒāύāĻž āĻāϰāĻž āϏāĻāϏā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋ āĻāĻāĻāĻŋ āĻĒā§āϰāϤāĻŋāϰāĻā§āώāĻžāĻŽā§āϞāĻ āĻā§āϰ⧠āĻĒāϰāĻŋāĻŖāϤ āĻšāϤ⧠āĻĒāĻžāϰā§:
āĻāĻĒāύāĻžāϰ āϰāĻžāĻāύā§āϤāĻŋāϤ⧠āĻĒā§āϰāĻŦā§āĻļā§āϰ āĻāĻā§ āϤāĻž āϝāĻžāĻāĻžāĻ āĻāϰ⧠āĻĻā§āĻā§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.
âIn thinking of Carlyle or Ruskin, or even Dickens and Thackeray, critics have often,
I believe, relegated these writersâ ideas about colonial expansion,â
He gives evidence by mentioning and illustrating sundry novels such as âGreat Expectationsâ (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. âNostromoâ 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.
āϏāĻāϏā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋāϰ āĻāĻāĻāĻŋ āĻĒā§āϰāϤāĻŋāώā§āĻ āĻžāύ āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦā§ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāϤā§āϝ
āĻāĻāĻž āϏāϰā§āĻŦāĻāύāϏā§āĻŦā§āĻā§āϤ āϝ⧠āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāϤā§āϝāĻ āϏāĻŽāĻžāĻā§āϰ āĻāϝāĻŧāύāĻž āĨ¤ Said āĻŦāϞā§āĻā§āύ, āϝāĻĻāĻŋāĻ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž, āĻāϞā§āĻĒāĻāĻžāĻšāĻŋāύ⧠āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻĻāϰā§āĻļāύ āϏāĻāϏā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋ-āĻāϰā§āĻāĻž āĻ āϏāĻāϏā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋāĻā§ āĻļā§āϰāĻĻā§āϧāĻž āĻāϰāϤ⧠āĻļā§āĻāĻžāϝāĻŧ, āϤāĻžāϰāĻž āĻāĻĒāύāĻŋāĻŦā§āĻļāĻŦāĻžāĻĻāĻā§ āĻĒāϰā§āĻā§āώāĻāĻžāĻŦā§ āĻāĻā§āϰ āĻāĻĒāĻžāϝāĻŧā§ āĻāϞā§āĻāύāĻž āĻāϰ⧠āĨ¤ āĻĢāϞāϏā§āĻŦāϰā§āĻĒ, āĻŦā§āĻļāĻŋāϰāĻāĻžāĻ āĻĒā§āĻļāĻžāĻĻāĻžāϰ āĻŽāĻžāύāĻŦāϤāĻžāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§āϰāĻž āĻĻā§āϰā§āĻāĻāĻžāϞ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§āϰ āĻāϰā§āĻāĻž āĻāĻŦāĻ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāϤā§āϝā§āϰ āϏāĻāϏā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋāϰ āĻŽāϧā§āϝ⧠āϏāĻāϝā§āĻ āϏā§āĻĨāĻžāĻĒāύ āĻāϰāϤ⧠āĻ āĻā§āώāĻŽ āĻšāϝāĻŧā§āĻā§ āĨ¤ āĻāĻāĻžāύ⧠āĻāĻ āĻĒā§āϰāĻŦāύā§āϧā§, Said āĻŦāĻŋāĻļā§āώāϤ āĻŦāϰā§āĻŖāύāĻžāĻŽā§āϞāĻ āĻāϞā§āĻĒāĻāĻžāĻšāĻŋāύā§, āĻāĻĒāύā§āϝāĻžāϏ āϏāĻŽā§āĻĒāϰā§āĻā§ āĻāĻĨāĻž āĻŦāϞā§āĻā§āύ āϝā§āĻā§āϞ⧠āϏāĻāϏā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋāϰ āĻāĻĻā§āĻŽāĻŦā§āĻļā§ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§āϰ āĻĒā§āϰāϏāĻžāϰā§āϰ āĻāύā§āϝ āĻā§āϰā§āϤā§āĻŦāĻĒā§āϰā§āĻŖ āĻā§āĻŽāĻŋāĻāĻž āĻĒāĻžāϞāύ āĻāϰ⧠āĨ¤
âCarlyle āĻŦāĻž Ruskin, āĻāĻŽāύāĻāĻŋ Dickens āĻāĻŦāĻ Thackerayāϰ āĻāĻĨāĻž āĻā§āĻŦā§ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāĻāϰāĻž āĻĒā§āϰāĻžāϝāĻŧāĻļāĻ,
āĻāĻŽāĻŋ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļā§āĻŦāĻžāϏ āĻāϰāĻŋ, āĻāĻ āϞā§āĻāĻāĻĻā§āϰ āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖāĻžāĻā§ āĻāĻĒāύāĻŋāĻŦā§āĻļāĻŋāĻ āĻĒā§āϰāϏāĻžāϰā§āϰ āĻāĻĒāϰ āύā§āϝāϏā§āϤ āĻāϰā§āĻā§āύ,â
āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ Charles Dickens (1812-1870) āϰāĻāĻŋāϤ âGreat Expectationsâ (1861) -āĻāϰ āĻŽāϤ⧠āϏā§āĻŦāϤāύā§āϤā§āϰ āĻāĻĒāύā§āϝāĻžāϏāĻā§āϞ⧠āĻāϞā§āϞā§āĻ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļā§āϞā§āώāĻŖ āĻāϰ⧠āĻĒā§āϰāĻŽāĻžāĻŖ āĻĻāĻŋāϝāĻŧā§āĻā§āύ āϝāĻž āĻŽā§āϞāϤ āύāĻŋāĻā§āϰ āϏāĻŽā§āĻĒāϰā§āĻā§ āĻŦāĻŋāĻā§āϰāĻžāύā§āϤāĻŋ āĻŦāĻž āĻā§āϞ āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖāĻž āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖāĻžāϰ āĻāĻāĻāĻŋ āĻāĻĒāύā§āϝāĻžāϏ āϤāĻŦā§ āĻāĻā§āϰāĻāĻžāĻŦā§ āĻāĻāĻŋ āĻ āϏā§āĻā§āϰā§āϞāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻžāϝāĻŧ āĻĒā§āύāĻžāϞ āĻāϞā§āύ⧠āĻ āύā§āĻļā§āϞāύāĻāĻžāϰā§āĻĻā§āϰ āĻŽāϧā§āϝ⧠āĻ āύā§āϝāϤāĻŽ āĻĒā§āϰāϤāĻžāϰāĻ āĨ¤ ⧧⧝ā§Ļā§Ē āϏāĻžāϞ⧠āĻĒā§āϰāĻāĻžāĻļāĻŋāϤ Joseph Conrad (1857-1924)-āĻāϰ âNostromoâ āĻĻāĻā§āώāĻŋāĻŖ āĻāĻŽā§āϰāĻŋāĻāĻž āĻĒā§āϰāĻāĻžāϤāύā§āϤā§āϰā§āϰ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§āϰ āĻŦāĻŋāϏā§āϤāĻžāϰ āĻ āĻŦāĻŋāĻā§āϤāĻŋ āϏāĻŽā§āĻĒāϰā§āĻā§ āĻĒāĻžāĻ āĻāĻĻā§āϰ āĻāĻžāĻā§ āϤā§āϞ⧠āϧāϰ⧠āϝ⧠āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻ āĻāĻāĻāĻŋ āĻŦā§āϝāĻŦāϏā§āĻĨāĻžāĨ¤ āĻāĻāĻāύā§āϝ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāϤā§āϝ āϏāĻāϏā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§āϰ āĻāĻāĻāĻŋ āĻāĻĒāĻāϰāĻŖ 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:
âThis is a book about past and present, about us and them.â
It has changed its fervidity and character through capitalism and globalization process. The people of third world are immigrating to the capitalistsâ countries in search of better fortunes that is also a strong token of subservience and separation.
āϏāĻāϏā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋāϰ āĻ āĻāĻŋāĻŦāĻžāϏāύ
āĻāĻĒāύāĻŋāĻŦā§āĻļāĻŋāĻ āĻĒā§āĻāĻāĻŋāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§āϰ āĻāĻāĻāĻŋ āĻāĻĒāĻāϰāĻŖ āĻšāϞ⧠āĻāĻŽāĻŋāĻā§āϰā§āϝāĻžāĻāĻŋāĻ āϏāĻāϏā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋāĨ¤ Edward Said āĻŦāϰā§āĻŖāύāĻž āĻāϰā§āĻā§āύ āϝ⧠āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻ āĻŦāĻŋāĻāĻļ āĻļāϤāĻžāĻŦā§āĻĻā§āϤā§āĻ āĻŦāĻŋāĻĻā§āϝāĻŽāĻžāύ āϤāĻŦā§ ā§§ā§Ž āĻāĻŦāĻ ā§§ā§¯ āĻļāϤāĻā§āϰ āĻŽāϤ⧠āύāϝāĻŧ āĻāĻžāϰāĻŖ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āϰāĻāύāĻžāĻāĻŋāϤ⧠āĻŦāϞā§āĻā§āύ:
âāĻāĻāĻŋ āĻāĻŽāĻžāĻĻā§āϰ āĻāĻŦāĻ āϤāĻžāĻĻā§āϰ āĻ āϤā§āϤ āĻ āĻŦāϰā§āϤāĻŽāĻžāύ āϏāĻŽā§āĻĒāϰā§āĻā§ āĻāĻāĻāĻŋ āĻŦāĻ āĨ¤â
āĻāĻāĻŋ āĻĒā§āĻāĻāĻŋāĻŦāĻžāĻĻ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļā§āĻŦāĻžāϝāĻŧāύ āĻĒā§āϰāĻā§āϰāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻžāĻāĻŋāϰ āĻŽāĻžāϧā§āϝāĻŽā§ āϤāĻžāϰ āĻŦā§āĻšāĻžāϝāĻŧāĻžāĻĒāύāĻž āĻ āĻāϰāĻŋāϤā§āϰāĻā§ āĻĒāϰāĻŋāĻŦāϰā§āϤāύ āĻāϰā§āĻā§ āĨ¤ āϤā§āϤā§āϝāĻŧ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļā§āĻŦā§āϰ āϞā§āĻā§āϰāĻž āĻāϰāĻ āĻŦā§āĻļāĻŋ āĻāĻžāĻā§āϝā§āϰ āϏāύā§āϧāĻžāύ⧠āĻĒā§āĻāĻāĻŋāĻĒāϤāĻŋāĻĻā§āϰ āĻĻā§āĻļāĻā§āϞāĻŋāϤ⧠āĻ āĻāĻŋāĻŦāĻžāϏāĻŋāϤ āĻšāĻā§āĻā§ āϝāĻž āĻāĻā§āĻāĻžāĻŦāĻšāϤāĻž āĻ āĻŦāĻŋāĻā§āĻāĻŋāύā§āύāϤāĻžāϰ āĻĻā§āĻĸāĻŧāϤāĻŽ āĻĒā§āϰāϤā§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 âThe Rise of Englishâ represents that the modern sense of the word âLiteratureâ 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§āĻŽāĻŋāĻāĻž: āĻā§āϰāĻŋ āĻāĻāϞāĻāύ (1943-) āϤāĻžāĻāϰ “āĻĻāĻž āϰāĻžāĻāϏ āĻ āĻĢ āĻāĻāϞāĻŋāĻļ” -āĻ āĻāĻĒāϏā§āĻĨāĻžāĻĒāύ āĻāϰā§āĻā§āύ āϝ⧠“āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāϤā§āϝ” āĻļāĻŦā§āĻĻā§āϰ āĻāϧā§āύāĻŋāĻ āĻāĻĒāϞāĻŦā§āϧāĻŋ āĻāύāĻŋāĻļ āĻļāϤāĻā§ āĻļā§āϰ⧠āĻšāϝāĻŧā§āĻāĻŋāϞ āĨ¤ āϰā§āĻŽāĻžāύā§āĻāĻŋāĻ āϏāĻŽāϝāĻŧāĻāĻžāϞ (1798-1832) āĻāĻŋāϞ āϰā§āĻĒāĻžāύā§āϤāϰ āĻŦāĻž āĻĒāϰāĻŋāĻŦāϰā§āϤāύā§āϰ āύāĻŋāĻĻāϰā§āĻļāύ āĻāĻ āĻāύā§āϝāĻ āĻāĻ āϏāĻŽāϝāĻŧā§āϰ āĻŽāϧā§āϝ⧠āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāϤā§āϝā§āϰ āĻāϏāϞ āϏāĻāĻā§āĻāĻžāϰ āĻŦāĻŋāĻāĻžāĻļ āĻļā§āϰ⧠āĻšāϝāĻŧā§āĻāĻŋāϞ 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, âliterature 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)â. 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.
āĻāϧā§āύāĻŋāĻ āĻāĻāϰā§āĻāĻŋ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāϤā§āϝā§āϰ āĻĒā§āϰāϝāĻŧā§āĻāĻāĻžāϰā§
āĻĒā§āϰāĻŦāύā§āϧā§āϰ āϤā§āϤā§āϝāĻŧ āĻ āύā§āĻā§āĻā§āĻĻā§ āĻĒā§āϰāĻŦāύā§āϧāĻāĻžāϰ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāϤā§āϝā§āϰ āĻāϧā§āύāĻŋāĻ āĻŦā§āϧāĻā§ āϏāĻŽāϰā§āĻĨāύ āĻāϰā§āĻā§āύ āĨ¤ āϤāĻžāĻāϰ āĻŽāϤā§, “āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāϤā§āϝ āĻāϤāĻŋāĻšāĻžāϏāĻŋāĻāĻāĻžāĻŦā§ āĻāĻāĻāĻŋ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āĻĒā§āϰāϤāĻŋāĻ āĻāĻāύāĻž: āĻāĻāĻŋ āĻāĻ āĻžāϰ⧠āĻļāϤāĻā§āϰ āĻļā§āώā§āϰ āĻĻāĻŋāĻā§ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāώā§āĻāĻžāϰ āĻāϰāĻž āĻšāϝāĻŧā§āĻāĻŋāϞ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻāϏāĻžāϰ (ā§§ā§Šā§Šā§Ē-ā§§ā§Ēā§Ļā§Ļ) āĻāĻŽāύāĻāĻŋ āĻĒā§āĻĒ (ā§§88ā§Žā§Ž-ā§§4ā§Ēā§Ē) āĻĻā§āĻŦāĻžāϰāĻž āĻāĻāĻŋ āĻ āϤā§āϝāύā§āϤ āĻŦāĻŋāϏā§āĻŽāϝāĻŧāĻāϰ āĻŦāϞ⧠āĻŽāύ⧠āĻšāϤ” āĨ¤ āĻāĻāĻŋ āĻĻā§āĻŦāĻžāϰāĻž āĻāĻāϞāĻāύ āĻŦāϞāϤ⧠āĻāĻžāϝāĻŧ āϝ⧠āĻāĻāϰā§āĻāĻŋ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāϤā§āϝā§āϰ āĻāϧā§āύāĻŋāĻāϤāĻž āĻŽāϧā§āϝ āĻāĻāϰā§āĻāĻŋ āϏāĻŽāϝāĻŧ āĻĨā§āĻā§āĻ āĻļā§āϰ⧠āĻšāϝāĻŧā§āĻāĻŋāϞ āĻāĻŋāĻāĻĢā§āϰ⧠āĻāϏāĻžāϰā§āϰ āĻšāĻžāϤ āϧāϰ⧠āϝāĻžāĻā§ āĻāĻāϰā§āĻāĻŋ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻžāϰ āĻāύāĻ āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦā§ āĻŦāĻŋāĻŦā§āĻāύāĻž āĻāϰāĻž āĻšāϝāĻŧ āϤāĻŦā§ āĻāĻāĻŋ āϏāϤā§āϝāĻŋāĻ āĻ āϏāĻŽā§āĻĒā§āϰā§āĻŖ āĻāĻŋāϞ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻāϏāĻžāϰāĻ āĻā§āĻŦāϞ āĻāϧā§āύāĻŋāĻāϤāĻžāϰ āĻŦā§āĻāĻŦāĻĒāĻ āĻāĻŋāϞā§āύ āĨ¤ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāϤā§āϝā§āϰ āĻāϧā§āύāĻŋāĻ āĻŦā§āϧā§āϰ āĻĻā§āĻŦāĻŋāϤā§āϝāĻŧ āĻ āĻāĻļā§āϰ āĻŽāĻžāϧā§āϝāĻŽā§, āĻāĻāϞāĻāύ āĻāĻā§āĻāĻŋāϤ āĻĻā§āϝāĻŧ āϝ⧠āĻāĻāϰā§āĻā§ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāϤā§āϝā§āϰ āϏāϤā§āϝāĻŋāĻāĻžāϰā§āϰ āĻāϧā§āύāĻŋāĻ āĻā§āĻāĻžāύāĻāĻŋ āĻāĻ āĻžāϰ⧠āĻļāϤāĻā§ āĻāϤāĻŋāĻŦāĻžāĻāĻāĻāĻžāĻŦā§ āĻļā§āϰ⧠āĻšāϝāĻŧā§āĻāĻŋāϞ āϤāĻŦā§ āĻāĻ āϏāĻŽāϝāĻŧāĻāĻŋāĻ āĻ āϏāĻŽā§āĻĒā§āϰā§āĻŖ āĻāĻŋāϞ, āϤāĻŦā§ āĻāϏāĻžāϰā§āϰ āĻā§āϝāĻŧā§āĻ āĻāĻžāϞ, āĻāĻžāϰāĻŖ āϏā§āĻāύāĻļā§āϞ āĻŦāĻž āĻāϞā§āĻĒāύāĻžāĻĒā§āϰāϏā§āϤ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāϤā§āϝāĻāϰā§āĻŽ āĻāĻŋāϞ āϤāĻĨāĻžāĻāĻĨāĻŋāϤ āĨ¤ āϏā§āϤāϰāĻžāĻ, āĻāĻ āĻžāϰ⧠āĻļāϤāĻā§āϰ āĻā§āĻĄāĻŧāĻžāύā§āϤ āĻĻāĻļāĻ āĻĒāϰā§āϝāύā§āϤ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāϤā§āϝā§āϰ āϏāϤā§āϝāĻŋāĻāĻžāϰā§āϰ āĻāϧā§āύāĻŋāĻ āĻā§āĻāĻžāύ āϏāĻŽā§āĻĒāύā§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 âDefence of Poetryâ, composed by P. B. Shelley (1792-1821), was published in 1821. âDefence of Poetryâ 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.
āϏā§āĻāύāĻļā§āϞāϤāĻžāϰ āϏāĻžāĻĨā§ āĻāϤāĻŋāĻšā§āϝā§āϰ āϞāĻā§āĻāύāĻāĻžāϰā§
āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻāϞā§āϞā§āĻ āĻāϰā§āĻā§āύ āϝ⧠āĻāĻ āĻžāϰ⧠āĻļāϤāĻā§āϰ āĻļā§āώ āĻĻāĻļāĻāĻā§āϞāĻŋ āϏāĻžāĻā§āώā§āϝ āĻĻā§āϝāĻŧ āĻāĻāĻāĻŋ āύāϤā§āύ āĻŦāĻŋāĻāĻžāĻā§āϰ āĻāĻŦāĻ āϏā§āĻŽāĻžāύāĻž āĻŦāĻž āĻŦāĻā§āϤā§āϤāĻžāϰ āϏā§āĻŽāĻžāĻŦāĻĻā§āϧāϤāĻžāϰ āĻāĻā§āĻāĻŋāϤ āĻĻā§āϝāĻŧ āĨ¤ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻāϞā§āϞā§āĻ āĻāϰā§āĻā§āύ āϝ⧠āĻāĻāϰā§āĻā§ āϏāĻŽāĻžāĻ āĻāĻ āĻŋāϤ āĻšāϝāĻŧā§āĻāĻŋāϞ āĻŦāĻŋāĻā§āĻāĻŋāύā§āύ āĻŦāĻž āĻŦāĻŋāĻļā§āĻā§āĻāϞāĻžāĻŦāĻĻā§āϧ āĻāĻ āύ āĻĨā§āĻā§ āĨ¤ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āĻŦāϞāϤ⧠āĻĒāĻĻā§āϝā§āϰ āĻā§āϝāĻŧā§ āĻāĻāĻāĻŋ āĻāĻžāϞ āĻā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋāĻā§ āĻŦā§āĻāĻžāϝāĻŧ āϝāĻāύ āĻĒāĻŋ āĻŦāĻŋ āĻļā§āϞāĻŋ (1792-1821) āĻĻā§āĻŦāĻžāϰāĻž āϰāĻāĻŋāϤ “āĻĄāĻŋāĻĢā§āύā§āϏ āĻ āĻĢ āĻĒā§āϝāĻŧā§āĻā§āϰāĻŋ” āĻĒā§āϰāĻāĻžāĻļāĻŋāϤ āĻšāϝāĻŧā§āĻāĻŋāϞ 1821 āϏāĻžāϞ⧠āĨ¤ “āĻĄāĻŋāĻĢā§āύā§āϏ āĻ āĻĢ āĻĒā§āϝāĻŧā§āĻā§āϰāĻŋ” āĻŽāĻžāύāĻŦ āϏā§āĻāύāĻļā§āϞāϤāĻžāϰ āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖāĻžāĻā§ āĻā§āϰā§āϤā§āĻŦ āĻĻā§āϝāĻŧ āϝāĻž āϏāĻŽā§āĻĒā§āϰā§āĻŖāϰā§āĻĒā§ āĻŦāĻŋāĻĒāϰā§āϤ āĻĒā§āϰāĻžāĻĨāĻŽāĻŋāĻ āĻļāĻŋāϞā§āĻĒ āĻĒā§āĻāĻāĻŋāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§ āĻāĻāϞā§āϝāĻžāύā§āĻĄā§āϰ āĻāĻĒāϝā§āĻāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§ āĻāĻĻāϰā§āĻļā§āϰ āĻŦāĻŋāĻĒāϰā§āϤ āĨ¤ āĻāϰ āĻ āϰā§āĻĨ āĻš’āϞ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāϤā§āϝāĻāĻŋ āĻāϞā§āĻĒāύāĻžāϰ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϰā§āĻĨāĻ āĻšāϤ⧠āĻļā§āϰ⧠āĻāϰā§āĻāĻŋāϞ āϝāĻžāϰ āĻ āϰā§āĻĨ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āϞā§āĻāĻžāϰ āĻāϤāĻŋāĻšā§āϝ āϞāĻā§āĻāύ āĻāϰāĻž 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 â matter for poetry or the creative one. Therefore, poetry which meant imagination in the Romantic Period was obviously over prose or âhard factâ.
āĻĻāϰā§āĻļāύā§āϝāĻŧ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻāĻĻā§āĻāĻžāĻŦāĻ āĻāĻŋāύā§āϤāĻžāĻŦāĻŋāĻĻ
āĻāĻāϞāĻāύ āϤāĻāύ āĻŦā§āϝāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻž āĻāϰā§āĻā§āύ āϝ⧠āĻāϞā§āĻĒāĻŋāϤ āĻļāĻŦā§āĻĻāĻāĻŋāϰ āĻ āϰā§āĻĨ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāϤā§āϝāĻŋāĻ āĻ āϏāϤā§āϝ āύāϝāĻŧāĨ¤āĻāϏāϞ⧠āĻāĻāĻŋāϰ āĻ āϰā§āĻĨ āϏā§āĻŦāĻĒā§āύāĻĻāϰā§āĻļāύ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻāĻĻā§āĻāĻžāĻŦāĻ āĻāĻŋāύā§āϤāĻžāĻāĻžāĻŦāύāĻž āĻāĻŦāĻ āϏā§āĻāύāĻļā§āϞ āĻļāĻā§āϤāĻŋ āϝāĻž āϏāϤā§āϝāĻ āĻŦā§āĻā§āĻāĻžāύāĻŋāĻ āĨ¤ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻĻā§āĻĸāĻŧāĻāĻžāĻŦā§ āĻĻāĻžāĻŦāĻŋ āĻāϰā§āĻā§āύ āϝ⧠āϰā§āĻŽāĻžāύā§āĻāĻŋāĻāϏā§āϰ āĻāϞā§āĻĒāĻŋāϤ āĻĻā§āώā§āĻāĻŋ āĻā§āĻŦāϞ āĻāϤāĻžāύā§āĻāϤāĻŋāĻ āĻŦāĻā§āϤā§āϤāĻž āĻāĻžāĻĄāĻŧāĻžāĻ āĨ¤ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻāϰāĻ āĻŽāύ⧠āĻāϰāĻŋāϝāĻŧā§ āĻĻā§āύ āϝ⧠āĻā§āĻŦāϞ āĻŦāĻžāϏā§āϤāĻŦāĻŋāĻ āύāĻžāĻāĻā§āϝāĻŧ āĻāĻāύāĻžāĻā§āϞāĻŋāĻ āĻŦāĻŋāώāϝāĻŧ āĻšāϤ⧠āĻĒāĻžāϰ⧠āύāĻž – āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āĻŦāĻž āϏā§āĻāύāĻļā§āϞāϤāĻžāϰ āĻāύā§āϝ āĻŦāĻŋāώāϝāĻŧ āĨ¤ āϏā§āϤāϰāĻžāĻ, āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āϝāĻžāϰ āĻ āϰā§āĻĨ āϰā§āĻŽā§āϝāĻžāύā§āĻāĻŋāĻ āϏāĻŽāϝāĻŧāĻāĻžāϞā§āϰ āĻāϞā§āĻĒāύāĻž āϏā§āĻĒāώā§āĻāϤāĻ āĻāĻĻā§āϝ āĻŦāĻž ‘āĻāĻ āĻŋāύ āϏāϤā§āϝ’ āĻāϰ āĻāĻĒāϰ⧠āĻāĻŋāϞ 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.
āύāĻžāύā§āĻĻāύāĻŋāĻ āĻ āĻāĻŋāĻā§āĻāϤāĻžāϰ āĻĒāϰāĻŋāĻāϝāĻŧāĻĻāĻžāϤāĻž
āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻāϧā§āύāĻŋāĻ āĻāĻāϰā§āĻāĻŋ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāϤā§āϝā§āϰ āĻĒā§āϰāϤā§āĻ āĻāĻŦāĻ āύāĻžāύā§āĻĻāύāĻŋāĻ āĻ āĻāĻŋāĻā§āĻāϤāĻžāϰ āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖāĻžāϰ āĻĒā§āϰāĻŦāϰā§āϤāĻ āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦā§ āϰā§āĻŽāĻžāύā§āĻāĻŋāĻāĻĻā§āϰ āĻŦāĻŋāĻŦā§āĻāύāĻž āĻāϰā§āύ āĨ¤ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻā§āϞāϰāĻŋāĻ āĻāϰ āĻĒāĻžāĻļāĻžāĻĒāĻžāĻļāĻŋ āĻā§āϝāĻžāύā§āĻ āĻšā§āĻā§āϞ, āĻļāĻŋāϞāĻžāϰ āĻĒā§āϰāĻŽā§āĻā§āϰ āύāĻžāĻŽ āĻāϞā§āϞā§āĻ āĻāϰā§āĻā§āύ āĨ¤ āĻāĻāϞāĻāύ āĻāϰāĻ āĻāϞā§āϞā§āĻ āĻāϰā§āĻā§āύ āϝ⧠āύāĻžāύā§āĻĻāύāĻŋāĻ āϰā§āĻĒ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻāĻžāϞā§āĻĒāύāĻŋāĻ āĻĻā§āώā§āĻāĻŋāĻāĻā§āĻāĻŋāϰ āĻ āϤā§āϝāϧāĻŋāĻ āĻā§āϰ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāϤā§āϝāĻā§ āϏāĻžāĻŽāĻžāĻāĻŋāĻ āĻā§āĻŦāύ āĻĨā§āĻā§ āĻāĻŋāĻā§āĻāĻž āĻŦāĻŋāĻā§āĻāĻŋāύā§āύ āĻāϰāĻžāϰ āĻā§āĻāĻāĻŋāϤ⧠āĨ¤ āϏā§āϤāϰāĻžāĻ, āϝāĻĻāĻŋāĻ āϰā§āĻŽā§āϝāĻžāύā§āĻāĻŋāĻ āĻĒāĻŋāϰāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻĄā§ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāϤā§āϝ āĻĒā§āϰāĻĨāĻŽāĻŦāĻžāϰā§āϰ āĻŽāϤ⧠āĻāϧā§āύāĻŋāĻ āĻā§āĻšāĻžāϰāĻž āĻ āϰā§āĻāύ āĻāϰā§āĻāĻŋāϞ, āϤāĻŦā§ āĻāĻāĻŋ āϏāĻžāĻŽāĻžāĻāĻŋāĻ āĻāĻāύāĻžāĻā§āϞāĻŋāϰ āĻŦāĻžāϏā§āϤāĻŦ āĻŦā§āĻļāĻŋāώā§āĻā§āϝ āĻĨā§āĻā§ āĻŦāĻŋāĻā§āĻāĻŋāύā§āύ āĻšāϝāĻŧā§ āĻĒāĻĄāĻŧā§āĻā§ 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 Johnsonâs 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§āĻŽāĻŋāĻāĻž: āĻāĻŋ āĻāϏ āĻāϞāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻ (1888-1965) ⧍ā§Ļ āĻļāϤāĻā§āϰ āĻāĻāĻāύ āĻā§āϝāĻžāϤāĻŋāĻŽāĻžāύ āĻāĻŦāĻŋ, āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāĻ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻĻāĻžāϰā§āĻļāύāĻŋāĻ āϝāĻŋāύāĻŋ āϤāĻžāĻāϰ āĻā§āĻŦāĻĻā§āĻĻāĻļāĻžāϝāĻŧ āĻāĻŦāĻ āϤāĻžāĻāϰ āĻŽā§āϤā§āϝā§āϰ āĻĒāϰā§āĻ āĻāĻāύāĻ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāĻ āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦā§ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāĻŋāϤ āĻšāύ āύāĻŋāĨ¤ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āϤāĻĨāĻžāĻāĻĨāĻŋāϤ āĻŽā§āĻāĻžāĻĢāĻŋāĻāĻŋāĻā§āϝāĻžāϞ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāĻĻā§āϰ āĻĒā§āϰāϤāĻŋāϰāĻā§āώāĻž āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻļā§āϰā§āĻŖāĻŋāĻŦāĻĻā§āϧ āĻāϰā§āĻā§āύ āĻŦāϞ⧠āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻāĻāϰā§āĻā§ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāϤā§āϝā§āϰ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāύāĻžāϝāĻŧ āĻāĻāĻāύ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāώā§āĻāĻžāϰāĻ āĻāĻŦāĻ āϰāĻā§āώāĻžāĻāϰā§āϤāĻžāĨ¤
Origin of crude criticism against metaphysical poets
The term âmetaphysical poetsâ 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:
âMetaphysics as a pretense Donne boasted his erudition or wisdom.
Even with syllables and rime, not poet but mere technician.â
In the modern period, Professor Griersonâs book âMetaphysical 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§āĻāĻžāĻĢāĻŋāĻāĻŋāĻā§āϝāĻžāϞ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāĻĻā§āϰ āĻŦāĻŋāϰā§āĻĻā§āϧ⧠āĻ āĻĒāϰāĻŋāĻļā§āϧāĻŋāϤ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāύāĻžāϰ āĻāϤā§āĻĒāϤā§āϤāĻŋ
āĻāĻāϰā§āĻā§ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāϤā§āϝā§āϰ āĻāϤāĻŋāĻšāĻžāϏ⧠“āĻŽā§āĻāĻžāĻĢāĻŋāĻāĻŋāĻā§āϝāĻžāϞ āĻāĻŦāĻŋ ” āĻļāĻŦā§āĻĻāĻāĻŋ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāĻāĻĻā§āϰ āĻĻā§āĻŦāĻžāϰāĻž āϏāĻŽāϝāĻŧā§ āϏāĻŽāϝāĻŧā§ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāĻŋāϤ āĻšāϝāĻŧā§āĻāĻŋāϞāĨ¤ āĻāĻ āĻļāĻŦā§āĻĻāĻāĻŋ āĻĒā§āϰāĻĨāĻŽā§ 1692 āϏāĻžāϞ⧠āĻĄā§āϰāĻžāĻāĻĄā§āύ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻĒāϰ⧠āϏā§āϝāĻžāĻŽā§āϝāĻŧā§āϞ āĻāύāϏāύ āĻĻā§āĻŦāĻžāϰāĻž āϏā§āĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāύāĻž āĻāϰāĻž āĻšāϝāĻŧā§āĻāĻŋāϞāĨ¤ āĻāύ āĻĄāĻžāύā§āϰ āĻāĻĒāϰ⧠āĻĄā§āϰāĻžāĻāĻĄā§āύ āĻ āĻāύāϏāύā§āϰ āĻŽāύā§āϤāĻŦā§āϝ āĻŦāĻž āĻĒāϰā§āϝāĻŦā§āĻā§āώāĻŖāĻāĻŋ āĻš’āϞ:
“āĻŽā§āĻāĻžāĻĢāĻŋāĻāĻŋāĻā§āϏ āĻāϰ āĻĒā§āϰāϤāĻžāϰāĻ āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦā§ Donne āϤāĻžāϰ āĻŦā§āĻĻā§āϧāĻŋ āĻŦāĻž āĻĒā§āϰāĻā§āĻāĻž āύāĻŋāϝāĻŧā§ āĻ āĻšāĻāĻāĻžāϰ āĻāϰā§āĻāĻŋāϞā§āύāĨ¤ āĻāĻŽāύāĻāĻŋ āϏāĻŋāϞā§āĻŦāϞ āĻāĻŦāĻ āϰāĻžāĻāĻŽ āĻĻāĻŋāϝāĻŧā§ āĻāĻŦāĻŋ āύāϝāĻŧ āĻŦāϰāĻ āύāĻŋāĻāĻ āĻĒā§āϰāϝā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋāĻŦāĻŋāĻĻāĨ¤”
āĻāϧā§āύāĻŋāĻ āϝā§āĻā§, āĻ āϧā§āϝāĻžāĻĒāĻ āĻāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻžāϰāϏāύā§āϰ āĻŦāĻ âMetaphysical Lyrics and Poems of the Seventeenth Century: Donne to Butler” (⧧⧝⧍⧧) āĻŽā§āĻāĻžāĻĢāĻŋāĻāĻŋāĻā§āϝāĻžāϞ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāĻĻā§āϰ āĻāύā§āϝ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāύāĻž āĻ āĻāϏā§āĻāĻžāύāĻŋ āĻĻā§āĻāϝāĻŧāĻžāϰ āĻāĻāĻāĻŋ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāύāĻžāϰ āĻ āĻāĻļāĨ¤ āĻāĻŋāύā§āϤ⧠āĻĒā§āϰāĻĨāĻŽāĻŦāĻžāϰā§āϰ āĻŽāϤ⧠āĻāĻŋ āĻāϏ āĻāϞāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻ āĻŽā§āĻāĻžāĻĢāĻŋāĻāĻŋāĻā§āϝāĻžāϞ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāĻĻā§āϰ āϰāĻā§āώāĻž āĻāϰāĻžāϰ āĻāύā§āϝ āĻāĻāĻŋāϝāĻŧā§ āĻāϏā§āĻāĻŋāϞā§āύ āĻāĻŦāĻ āϤāĻĨāĻžāĻāĻĨāĻŋāϤ āĻŽā§āĻāĻžāĻĢāĻŋāĻāĻŋāĻā§āϝāĻžāϞ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāĻĻā§āϰ āϏā§āĻŦā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋ āĻĻāĻžāύ āĻāϰā§āĻāĻŋāϞā§āύāĨ¤
Objections of Samuel Johnson (1709-1784)
Before going to present Eliotâs defending arguments, the objections of Johnson against metaphysical poets should be learned. The objections are:
- Metaphysical poetry has long done duty as a term of abuse, or as the label of quaint and pleasant taste.
- The most heterogeneous ideas are yoked by violence together, or divers in character or content.
- Inventive use of conceit.
- Loose structure of poetry.
āϏā§āϝāĻžāĻŽā§āϝāĻŧā§āϞ āĻāύāϏāύā§āϰ āĻāĻĒāϤā§āϤāĻŋ
āĻāϞāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻā§āϰ āĻĒā§āϰāϤāĻŋāϰāĻā§āώāĻž āϝā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋ āĻāĻĒāϏā§āĻĨāĻžāĻĒāύ āĻāϰāĻžāϰ āĻāĻā§ āĻŽā§āĻāĻžāĻĢāĻŋāĻāĻŋāĻā§āϝāĻžāϞ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāĻĻā§āϰ āĻŦāĻŋāϰā§āĻĻā§āϧ⧠āĻāύāϏāύā§āϰ āĻāĻĒāϤā§āϤāĻŋāĻā§āϞāĻŋ āĻāĻžāύāϤ⧠āĻšāĻŦā§āĨ¤ āĻāĻĒāϤā§āϤāĻŋāĻā§āϞāĻŋ āĻš‘āϞ:
- āϰā§āĻĒāĻ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āĻĻā§āϰā§āĻāĻāĻžāϞ āϧāϰ⧠āĻ āĻĒāĻŦā§āϝāĻŦāĻšāĻžāϰā§āϰ āĻļāĻŦā§āĻĻ āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦā§ āĻĻāĻžāϝāĻŧāĻŋāϤā§āĻŦ āĻĒāĻžāϞāύ āĻāϰā§āĻā§, āĻŦāĻž āĻāĻĻāĻžāϏā§āύ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻŽāύā§āϰāĻŽ āϏā§āĻŦāĻžāĻĻ āϞā§āĻŦā§āϞ āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦā§āĨ¤
- āĻŦāĻŋāĻāĻŋāύā§āύ āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖāĻžāĻā§āϞāĻŋāĻā§ āĻā§āϰ āĻāϰ⧠āĻāĻāϏāĻžāĻĨā§ āĻā§āĻĄāĻŧā§ āĻĻā§āϝāĻŧāĻž āĻšāϝāĻŧā§āĻā§ āϝāĻž āĻāϰāĻŋāϤā§āϰ āĻŦāĻž āĻŦāĻŋāώāϝāĻŧāĻŦāϏā§āϤā§āϤ⧠āĻāϞāĻžāĻĻāĻžāĨ¤
- āĻāύā§āϏāĻŋāϤ āĻāϰ āĻŦā§āϝāĻŦāĻšāĻžāϰ āĻāϰā§āĻā§āĨ¤
- āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻžāϤ⧠āϞā§āϏ āϏā§āĻā§āϰāĻžāĻāĻāĻžāϰ āĻŦā§āϝāĻŦāĻšāĻžāϰ āĻāϰā§āĻā§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. Eliotâs logics are here.
āĻāĻŋ āĻāϏ āĻāϞāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻ āĻāϰ āϰāĻā§āώāĻŖā§āϝāĻŧ āϝā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋāĻā§āϞā§
āĻāĻāĻž āϏāϤā§āϝ āϝ⧠āĻāϞāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻ āĻāύāϏāύā§āϰ āĻŦāĻŋāϰā§āĻĻā§āϧ⧠āĻāĻŋāĻā§ āϝā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋ āĻĻā§āĻāĻŋāϝāĻŧā§āĻā§āύ āĻāĻŦāĻ āϤāĻžāĻā§ āϤāĻŋāϰāϏā§āĻāĻžāϰ āĻāϰāĻžāϰ āĻāύā§āϝ āĻāĻ āĻŦā§āϝāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻž āĻāϰā§āύ āύāĻŋ, āĻā§āĻŦāϞāĻŽāĻžāϤā§āϰ āĻŽā§āĻāĻžāĻĢāĻŋāĻāĻŋāĻā§āϝāĻžāϞ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāĻĻā§āϰ āϰāĻā§āώāĻž āĻāϰāĻžāϰ āĻāύā§āϝāĻāĨ¤ āĻāĻāĻžāύā§, āĻāϞāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻā§āϰ āϝā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋāĻā§āϞ⧠āϤā§āϞ⧠āϧāϰāĻž āĻšāϞā§:
Extremely difficult to define metaphysical poetry
Eliotâs 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§āĻāĻžāĻĢāĻŋāĻāĻŋāĻā§āϝāĻžāϞ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āϏāĻāĻā§āĻāĻžāϝāĻŧāĻŋāϤ āĻāϰāĻž āĻ āϤā§āϝāύā§āϤ āĻāĻ āĻŋāύ
āĻāϞāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻā§āϰ āĻĒā§āϰāĻĨāĻŽ āĻāĻŦāĻ āϏāϰā§āĻŦāĻžāϧāĻŋāĻ āϏā§āϰāĻā§āώāĻŋāϤ āϝā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋ āĻš’āϞ āĻŽā§āĻāĻžāĻĢāĻŋāĻāĻŋāĻā§āϝāĻžāϞ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āϏāĻāĻā§āĻāĻžāϝāĻŧāĻŋāϤ āĻāϰāĻž āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϰāĻž āĻā§ āĻ āύā§āĻļā§āϞāύ āĻāϰ⧠āϤāĻž āϏā§āĻĨāĻŋāϰ āĻāϰ⧠āύā§āĻāϝāĻŧāĻž āĻ āϤā§āϝāύā§āϤ āĻāĻ āĻŋāύāĨ¤ āĻĄāĻžāύ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻŽāĻžāϰāĻā§āϞā§āϰ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻžāϰ āĻ āύā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋāϰ āĻā§āώā§āϤā§āϰ⧠āĻĒā§āϰāĻžāϝāĻŧ āĻāϞāĻŋāĻāĻžāĻŦā§āĻĻāĻžāύ āĻāĻŦāĻŋ āĻ āĻ āύā§āĻŦāĻžāĻĻāĻ āĻā§āϝāĻžāĻĒāĻŽā§āϝāĻžāύā§āϰ āϏāĻžāĻĨā§ āĻŽāĻŋāϞ⧠āϝāĻžāϝāĻŧāĨ¤ āĻā§āϰāĻŋāĻļā§āĻāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻžāύāĻž āϰā§āϏā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋāϰ āϰā§āĻŽāĻžāύā§āĻāĻŋāĻ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻāĻā§āϤāĻŋāĻŽā§āϞāĻ āĻļā§āϞā§āĻ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻŽāϰāĻŽā§ āĻļā§āϞā§āĻ āĻĢā§āϰāĻžāύā§āϏāĻŋāϏ āĻĨāĻŽā§āĻĒāϏāύ, āĻāĻāϝāĻŧāĻ āĻāĻŋāĻā§āĻā§āϰāĻŋāϝāĻŧ āϝā§āĻā§āϰ āĻ āύā§āϤāϰā§āĻā§āĻā§āϤ, āĻāĻžāύ, āĻšāĻžāϰāĻŦāĻžāϰā§āĻ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻā§āϰā§āϝāĻžāĻļ-āĻāϰ āĻāĻā§āϤāĻŋāĻŽā§āϞāĻ āĻļā§āϞā§āĻā§āϰ āϏāĻžāĻĨā§ āϏāϤā§āϝāĻ āĻŽāĻŋāϞ⧠āϝāĻžāϝāĻŧāĨ¤ āϏā§āϤāϰāĻžāĻ, āĻāϞāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻ āĻŽāύā§āϤāĻŦā§āϝ āĻāϰā§āĻā§āύ āϝā§, āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž āϞā§āĻāĻžāϰ āĻā§āώā§āϤā§āϰ⧠āĻŽā§āĻāĻžāĻĢāĻŋāĻāĻŋāĻā§āϝāĻžāϞ āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖāĻžāĻāĻŋ āĻāĻāĻāĻŋ āĻŽā§āϞāĻŋāĻ 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.
āĻĢāĻŋāĻāĻžāϰ āĻ āĻĢ āϏā§āĻĒā§āĻ āĻāϰ āĻŦāĻžāĻŦāĻšāĻžāϰ
āĻāύāϏāύ āϤāĻĨāĻžāĻāĻĨāĻŋāϤ āĻāĻĻā§āĻāĻžāĻŦāύ⧠āĻāύā§āϏāĻŋāϤ āĻŦā§āϝāĻŦāĻšāĻžāϰā§āϰ āĻāύā§āϝ āĻŽā§āĻāĻžāĻĢāĻŋāĻāĻŋāĻā§āϝāĻžāϞ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāĻĻā§āϰ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāύāĻž āĻāϰā§āĻā§āύāĨ¤ āĻāϞāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻ āĻŦā§āϝāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻž āĻāϰā§āĻā§āύ āϝ⧠āĻāĻĒāĻŽāĻž, āϰā§āĻĒāĻ āĻŦāĻž āĻ āύā§āϝāĻžāύā§āϝ āĻ āύā§āĻŽāĻžāύā§āϰ āύāĻŋāϰā§āĻĻāĻŋāώā§āĻ āĻŦāĻž āύāĻŋāϰā§āĻĻāĻŋāώā§āĻ āĻŦā§āϝāĻŦāĻšāĻžāϰ āϏāύā§āϧāĻžāύ āĻāϰāĻž āĻāĻ āĻŋāύ āĻāĻžāϰāĻŖ āĻŦāĻā§āϤā§āϤāĻžāϰ āĻāĻŋāϤā§āϰā§āϰ āĻŦā§āϝāĻŦāĻšāĻžāϰ āϏāĻŽāϏā§āϤ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāĻĻā§āϰ āĻāĻžāĻā§ āϏāĻžāϧāĻžāϰāĻŖ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻāĻāĻ āϏāĻžāĻĨā§ āϝāĻĨā§āώā§āĻ āĻā§āϰā§āϤā§āĻŦāĻĒā§āϰā§āĻŖ āĻāĻĒāĻžāĻĻāĻžāύā§āϰ āϧāϰāĻŖ āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦā§āĨ¤ āϏā§āϤāϰāĻžāĻ, āĻā§āĻŦāϞ āĻļā§āϧā§āĻŽāĻžāϤā§āϰ āĻāύā§āϏāĻŋāϤ āĻŦā§āϝāĻŦāĻšāĻžāϰā§āϰ āĻāĻŋāϤā§āϤāĻŋāϤ⧠āĻŽā§āĻāĻžāĻĢāĻŋāĻāĻŋāĻā§āϝāĻžāϞ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāĻĻā§āϰ āĻāĻāĻāĻŋ āĻāϞāĻāĻž āĻĻāϞ āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦā§ āĻŦāĻŋāĻā§āĻāĻŋāύā§āύ āĻāϰāĻž āĻāĻā§āĻŦāĻžāϰ⧠āύāĻŋāϰāϰā§āĻĨāĻāĨ¤
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. âThe Vanity of Human Wishesâ 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:
âHis 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,â
āĻŦāĻŋāĻāĻŋāύā§āύ āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖāĻžāĻā§āϞāĻŋāĻā§ āĻā§āϰ āĻāϰ⧠āĻāĻāϏāĻžāĻĨā§ āĻā§āĻĄāĻŧā§ āĻĻā§āϝāĻŧāĻž
āĻāϞāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻ āϏā§āĻŦā§āĻāĻžāϰ āĻāϰā§āĻā§āύ āϝ⧠āĻāĻāĻŋ āĻāĻŽāύ āĻāĻāĻāĻŋ āϏāϤā§āϝ āϝ⧠āĻĒā§āϰāĻžāϝāĻŧ āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖāĻžāĻā§āϞāĻŋ āĻāĻāϤā§āϰ āĻāϰāĻž āĻšāϝāĻŧ āĻļā§āϧā§āĻŽāĻžāϤā§āϰ āĻŽā§āĻāĻžāĻĢāĻŋāĻāĻŋāĻā§āϝāĻžāϞ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻžāϤā§āĻ āĻāĻāϤā§āϰāĻŋāϤ āĻšāϝāĻŧ āύāĻžāĨ¤ āϤāĻŦā§ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻĻā§āĻš āĻāĻžāĻŦā§ āĻŦāϞā§āĻā§āύ āϝ⧠āĻāĻāĻŋ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻžāϝāĻŧ āϏāϰā§āĻŦāĻŦā§āϝāĻžāĻĒā§ āĻāĻāĻāĻŋ āĻŦāĻŋāώāϝāĻŧāĨ¤ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻāĻāĻŋāĻā§ āύā§āϝāĻžāϝāĻŧāϏāĻā§āĻāϤ āĻāϰāĻžāϰ āĻāύā§āϝ āĻĢāϰāĻžāϏāĻŋ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϰ āĻāĻĻāĻžāĻšāϰāĻŖ āĻāϞā§āϞā§āĻ āĻāϰā§āĻā§āύ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻāύāϏāύ āύāĻŋāĻā§āĻ āĻāĻ āĻĻā§āώ āĻĨā§āĻā§ āĻŽā§āĻā§āϤ āύāϝāĻŧ āĻŦāϞ⧠āĻāϞā§āϞā§āĻ āĻāϰā§āĻā§āύāĨ¤ āĻāύāϏāύā§āϰ āĻāĻāĻāĻŋ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻž “āĻšāĻŋāĻāĻŽā§āϝāĻžāύ āĻāĻā§āĻāĻžāϰ āĻā§āϝāĻžāύāĻŋāĻāĻŋ” āĻš‘āϞ āĻāĻāϏāĻžāĻĨā§ āĻšāĻŋāĻāϏāĻžāϤā§āĻŽāĻāĻāĻžāĻŦā§ āĻā§āĻĄāĻŧāĻžāϞ⧠āĻāĻŋāύā§āύ āĻāĻŋāύā§āύ āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖāĻžāϰ āϏāϰā§āĻŦā§āϤā§āϤāĻŽ āĻāĻĻāĻžāĻšāϰāĻŖāĨ¤ āĻāϞāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻ āĻĒā§āϰāĻŽāĻžāĻŖ āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦā§ āĻāύāϏāύā§āϰ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻžāϰ āĻāĻžāϰāĻāĻŋ āϞāĻžāĻāύ āĻāĻĒāϏā§āĻĨāĻžāĻĒāύ āĻāϰā§āĻā§āύ:
âāϤāĻžāĻāϰ āĻāĻžāĻā§āϝ āύāĻŋāϰā§āϧāĻžāϰāĻŋāϤ āĻāĻŋāϞ āĻŦāύā§āϧā§āϝāĻž āĻāĻžāύā§āĻĄā§āϰ,
āĻāĻāĻāĻŋ āĻā§āώā§āĻĻā§āϰ āĻĻā§āϰā§āĻ, āĻāĻŦāĻ āϏāύā§āĻĻā§āĻšāĻāύāĻ āĻšāĻžāϤ;
āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻāĻāĻāĻŋ āύāĻžāĻŽ āϰā§āĻā§āĻāĻŋāϞā§āύ āϝā§āĻāĻžāύ⧠āĻŦāĻŋāĻļā§āĻŦ āĻŽā§āϞāĻžāύ āĻšāϝāĻŧā§ āĻā§āĻā§,
āĻāĻāĻāĻŋ āύā§āϤāĻŋāĻ āύāĻŋāϰā§āĻĻā§āĻļ, āĻŦāĻž āĻāĻāĻāĻŋ āĻāϞā§āĻĒ āĻļā§āĻāĻžāĻāϰ, “
Defense of miscellaneous objections
Beside these objections, Eliot has refuted other objections of Johnson as to metaphysical poets. He strongly says that Johnsonâs general observation on the metaphysical poets in his essay âThe Life of Cowleyâ 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 poetsâ 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 āĻāĻĒāϤā§āϤāĻŋ āĻĒā§āϰāϤāĻŋāϰāĻā§āώāĻž
āĻāĻ āĻāĻĒāϤā§āϤāĻŋāĻā§āϞāĻŋāϰ āĻĒāĻžāĻļāĻžāĻĒāĻžāĻļāĻŋ, āĻāϞāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻ āĻāύāϏāύā§āϰ āĻ āύā§āϝāĻžāύā§āϝ āĻāĻĒāϤā§āϤāĻŋāĻā§āϞāĻŋāĻā§ āĻŽā§āĻāĻžāĻĢāĻŋāĻāĻŋāĻā§āϝāĻžāϞ āĻāĻŦāĻŋ āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦā§ āĻ āϏā§āĻŦā§āĻāĻžāϰ āĻāϰā§āĻā§āύāĨ¤ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻĻā§āĻšāϤāĻžāϰ āϏāĻžāĻĨā§ āĻŦāϞā§āĻā§āύ āϝ⧠āĻāύāϏāύā§āϰ āϤāĻžāĻāϰ āϰāĻāύāĻž âThe Life of Cowleyâ āĻŽā§āĻāĻžāĻĢāĻŋāĻāĻŋāĻā§āϝāĻžāϞ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāĻĻā§āϰ āϏāĻŽā§āĻĒāϰā§āĻā§ āϏāĻžāϧāĻžāϰāĻŖ āĻĒāϰā§āϝāĻŦā§āĻā§āώāĻŖ āĻĒā§āϰāĻžāϝāĻŧ āĻŽāĻŋāϞ⧠āϝāĻžāϝāĻŧ āϤāĻŦā§ āύāĻŋāϰā§āϧāĻžāϰāĻŋāϤ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāĻĻā§āϰ āĻāĻžāώāĻž āϏāĻšāĻ, āϏā§āĻĒāώā§āĻ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻŽāĻžāϰā§āĻāĻŋāϤ āĻāĻŦāĻ āϤāĻžāĻĻā§āϰ āĻāĻŋāύā§āϤāĻžāĻāĻžāĻŦāύāĻž āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻ āύā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋ āĻāϧā§āύāĻŋāĻ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāĻĻā§āϰ āϏāĻžāĻĨā§ āĻāĻāϤā§āϰāĻŋāϤ āĻšāϝāĻŧā§āĻā§āĨ¤
āĻāύāϏāύ āĻ āĻāĻŋāϝā§āĻ āĻāϰ⧠āϝ⧠āĻŽā§āĻāĻžāĻĢāĻŋāĻāĻŋāĻā§āϝāĻžāϞ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāĻĻā§āϰ āĻĒā§āϰāĻā§āώā§āĻāĻž āϏāϰā§āĻŦāĻĻāĻž āĻŦāĻŋāĻļā§āϞā§āώāĻŖāĻžāϤā§āĻŽāĻ āĻāĻŋāϞ āϤāĻŦā§ āĻāϞāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻ āĻāύāϏāύā§āϰ āϏāĻžāĻĨā§ āĻāĻāĻŽāϤ āĻšāĻŦā§āύ āύāĻž āĻāĻžāϰāĻŖ āĻāϞāĻŋāĻāĻžāĻŦā§āĻĻāĻžāύ āϝā§āĻā§āϰ āĻļā§āώā§āϰ āύāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻāĻžāϰ āĻ āϤā§āϝāύā§āϤ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļā§āϞā§āώāĻŖāĻžāϤā§āĻŽāĻ āĻāĻŋāϞā§āύāĨ¤ āĻāĻāĻžāύ⧠āĻāϞāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļā§āώ āĻāϰ⧠āĻā§āϰāĻŋāϏā§āĻā§āĻĢāĻžāϰ āĻŽāĻžāϰāϞā§āĻā§ āĻāϞā§āϞā§āĻ āĻāϰā§āĻā§āύ āϝāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļā§āϞā§āώāĻŖāĻžāϤā§āĻŽāĻ āĻĻā§āώā§āĻāĻŋāĻā§āĻŖ āĻĨā§āĻā§ āĻŽā§āĻāĻžāĻĢāĻŋāĻāĻŋāĻā§āϝāĻžāϞ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāĻĻā§āϰ āĻŽāϤ⧠āĻĻā§āϰā§āĻĻāĻžāύā§āϤ āĻā§āĻāĻžāύāĻŋ āĻāĻŋāϞā§āύāĨ¤ āϏā§āϤāϰāĻžāĻ, āĻāϞāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻ āĻĻā§āĻāĻžāϝāĻŧ āϝ⧠āĻŽā§āĻāĻžāĻĢāĻŋāĻāĻŋāĻā§āϝāĻžāϞ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāϰāĻž āĻāĻŋāϞā§āύ āĻāϞāĻŋāĻāĻžāĻŦā§āĻĨāύ āύāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻāĻžāϰāĻĻā§āϰ āĻāϤā§āϤāϰāϏā§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§āĻŽāĻŋāĻāĻž: āĻāĻāϰā§āĻāĻŋ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāϤā§āϝā§āϰ āĻāϤāĻŋāĻšāĻžāϏ⧠āĻĒā§āϰāĻĨāĻŽāĻŦāĻžāϰā§āϰ āĻŽāϤ⧠āĻāĻĄāĻāϝāĻŧāĻžāϰā§āĻĄ āĻāϝāĻŧā§āĻĄāĻŋ āϏāĻžāĻāĻĻ (ā§§ā§¯ā§Šā§Ģ-⧍ā§Ļā§Ļā§Š) āϝ⧠āĻāĻāϰā§āĻāĻŋ āĻāĻĒāύā§āϝāĻžāϏāĻā§āϞāĻŋ āϝāĻžāĻāĻžāĻ-āĻŦāĻžāĻāĻžāĻ āĻāϰā§āĻā§ āϤāĻžāĻĻā§āϰ āĻĻā§āĻŦā§āϤāϤāĻž āϰāϝāĻŧā§āĻā§āĨ¤ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻā§āώāĻŖāĻž āĻāϰā§āύ āϝ⧠āĻāĻĒāύā§āϝāĻžāϏā§āϰ āĻĒā§āϰāĻžāĻĨāĻŽāĻŋāĻ āĻāĻĻā§āĻĻā§āĻļā§āϝ āĻš’āϞ āϏāĻžāĻāϏā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋāĻ āϰā§āĻĒāĻā§āϞāĻŋ āĻāύāύā§āĻĻāĻĻāĻžāϝāĻŧāĻ āĻāĻŦāĻ āϞāĻžāĻāĻāύāĻāĻāĻžāĻŦā§ āĻļā§āĻāĻžāĨ¤ āĻĻā§āĻŦāĻŋāϤā§āϝāĻŧāϤ, āĻāĻā§āϞ⧠āϏā§āĻĨāĻžāϝāĻŧā§āĻāĻžāĻŦā§ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§ āĻŽāύā§āĻāĻžāĻŦ, āĻĒā§āϰāϏāĻā§āĻ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻ āĻāĻŋāĻā§āĻāϤāĻž āĻāĻ āύ⧠āĻŦāĻŋāĻļāĻžāϞ āĻā§āĻŽāĻŋāĻāĻž āĻĒāĻžāϞāύ āĻāϰā§āĨ¤
Divers role of English novels:
Mr. Said alludes sundry role of English novels in his international essay âIntroduction to Culture and Imperialismâ, 1993, which is illustrated here by pointing out with sufficient references from the essay.
āĻāĻāϰā§āĻāĻŋ āĻāĻĒāύā§āϝāĻžāϏāĻā§āϞāĻŋāϰ āĻāĻāĻžāϧāĻŋāĻ āĻā§āĻŽāĻŋāĻāĻž:
āĻŽāĻŋāĻ āϏāĻžāĻāĻĻ āϤāĻžāĻāϰ āĻāύā§āϤāϰā§āĻāĻžāϤāĻŋāĻ āĻĒā§āϰāĻŦāύā§āϧ âIntroduction to Culture and Imperialismâ, āĻ āĻāĻāϰā§āĻā§ āĻāĻĒāύā§āϝāĻžāϏāĻā§āϞāĻŋāϰ āϏā§āĻŦāϤāύā§āϤā§āϰ āĻā§āĻŽāĻŋāĻāĻžāϰ āĻāĻā§āĻāĻŋāϤ āĻĻāĻŋāϝāĻŧā§āĻā§āύ, āϝāĻž āĻāĻāĻžāύ⧠āĻāϞā§āĻāύāĻž āĻāϰāĻž āĻšāϞ⧠āĻāĻ āĻĒā§āϰāĻŦāύā§āϧ āĻĨā§āĻā§ āĻĒāϰā§āϝāĻžāĻĒā§āϤ āĻĻā§āώā§āĻāĻžāύā§āϤ āϏāĻšāĻāĻžāϰā§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 âRobinson Crusoe.â Thus, English novels are inevitable for colonial expansion and perpetuation in accordance with Edward Said.
āĻ āĻĻā§āĻā§āϤ āĻ āĻā§āĻāϞāĻā§āϞāĻŋāϰ āĻ āύā§āϏāύā§āϧāĻžāύ:
āϝā§āĻŽāύāĻāĻŋ āĻāĻžāύāĻž āϝāĻžāϝāĻŧ āϝ⧠āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§āϰ āĻŽā§āϞ āϝā§āĻĻā§āϧāĻāĻŋ āĻĻā§āĻļ āύāĻŋāϝāĻŧā§ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻĻā§āĻļāĻāĻŋāĻā§ āĻĻāĻāϞ āĻāϰāĻžāϰ āĻāύā§āϝāĨ¤ āĻ āύā§āϏāύā§āϧāĻžāύ āĻāϰ āĻĒāĻžāĻļāĻžāĻĒāĻžāĻļāĻŋ, āĻāĻāϰā§āĻ āĻāĻĒāύā§āϝāĻžāϏāĻŋāĻāϰāĻž āĻŦāĻŋāĻļā§āĻŦā§āϰ āĻ āĻĻā§āĻā§āϤ āĻĻā§āĻļāĻā§āϞāĻŋ āϏāĻŽā§āĻĒāϰā§āĻā§ āĻŦāϞā§āĻā§āύ āĻāĻŦāĻ āϏā§āĻ āĻĻā§āĻļā§āϰ āϞā§āĻāĻĻā§āϰ āϏāĻžāĻāϏā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋāĻ āĻ āĻā§āϝāĻžāϏā§āϰāĻ āĻĒā§āϰāϤāĻŋāύāĻŋāϧāĻŋāϤā§āĻŦ āĻāϰā§āĻā§āύ āϝāĻžāϤ⧠āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻ āĻĻā§āώāĻžāϰā§āĻĒ āĻāϰāĻžāϰ āĻĒāϰ⧠āĻāĻžāϞāĻāĻžāĻŦā§ āĻāĻžāĻ āĻāϰā§āĨ¤ āĻāϰ āĻāύā§āϝ, āϏāĻžāĻāĻĄ āĻĒā§āϰā§āĻā§āĻāĻžāĻāĻĒāĻŋāĻāĻžāϞ āĻāϧā§āύāĻŋāĻ āĻāĻĒāύā§āϝāĻžāϏ “āϰāĻŦāĻŋāύāϏāύ āĻā§āϰā§āϏ⧔ āĻāϞā§āϞā§āĻ āĻāϰā§āĻā§āύāĨ¤āϏā§āϤāϰāĻžāĻ, āĻāĻĄāĻāϝāĻŧāĻžāϰā§āĻĄ āϏāĻžāĻāĻĻ āĻŽāϤā§, āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻ āĻŦāĻŋāϏā§āϤāĻžāϰ āĻāĻŦāĻ āϏā§āĻĨāĻžāϝāĻŧā§āϤā§āĻŦā§āϰ āĻāύā§āϝ āĻāĻāϰā§āĻāĻŋ āĻāĻĒāύā§āϝāĻžāϏāĻā§āϞāĻŋ āĻ āύāĻŋāĻŦāĻžāϰā§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 diversâ 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:
âA sort of free system where the lobourers could do well
on their own if allowed to do so.â
āĻŽāύāϏā§āϤāĻžāϤā§āϤā§āĻŦāĻŋāĻ āĻ āϧā§āϝāϝāĻŧāύ:
āĻā§āύā§āĻĢā§āĻŦāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻž āĻāĻŦāĻŋāώā§āĻāĻžāϰ āĻāϰāϤ⧠āĻāϧā§āϝāĻžāϤā§āĻŽāĻŋāĻ āĻāϞā§āĻĒāĻāĻžāĻšāĻŋāύ⧠āĻā§āĻāĻžāύā§āϰ āĻ āύā§āϝ āĻā§āύ āĻļāĻžāĻāĻžāϝāĻŧ āϤā§āĻŽāύ āĻāĻžāϞ⧠āĻāĻžāĻ āĻāϰ⧠āύāĻžāĨ¤ āĻā§āύā§āĻĢā§āĻŦāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻž āĻļāĻŦā§āĻĻāĻāĻŋ āĻŦāĻŋāĻĻā§āĻļā§ āĻŦāĻž āĻāĻžāϤāĻŋāĻāϤ āĻ āϏāĻšāĻŋāώā§āĻŖā§āϤāĻž āĻ āĻĒāĻāύā§āĻĻāĻā§ āĻŦā§āĻāĻžāϝāĻŧāĨ¤ āĻāĻ āĻĒāĻĻāĻāĻŋ āύāĻŋāϝāĻŧā§ āĻāϞā§āĻāύāĻž āĻāϰ⧠āĻāĻāϰā§āĻā§ āĻāĻĒāύā§āϝāĻžāϏāĻā§āϞāĻŋ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§āĻĻā§āϰ āϏāĻā§āϤāύ āĻšāϤ⧠āύāĻŋāϰā§āĻĻā§āĻļ āĻĻā§āϝāĻŧāĨ¤ āϏāĻĻā§āϝ āύāĻŋāϝāĻŧā§āĻāĻĒā§āϰāĻžāĻĒā§āϤ āĻ āύāĻāĻŋāĻā§āĻ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§āĻĻā§āϰ āĻĒāĻā§āώ⧠āϏā§āĻĨāĻžāύā§āϝāĻŧāĻĻā§āϰ āĻŦā§āĻāϤ⧠āĻ āĻāĻžāϤā§āϝāĻŧ āĻāĻŦāĻŋāώā§āĻāĻžāϰ āϏāĻšāĻžāϝāĻŧāĻāĨ¤ āĻāĻ āĻāĻžāϤā§āϝāĻŧ āĻŦāĻŋāĻāĻŋāύā§āύ āĻŽāύāϏā§āϤāϤā§āϤā§āĻŦāĻŋāĻ āĻŦāĻŋāώāϝāĻŧāĻā§āϞāĻŋ āĻāĻāϞāĻŋāĻļ āĻāĻĒāύā§āϝāĻžāϏāĻā§āϞāĻŋāϤ⧠āĻĒāĻžāĻāϝāĻŧāĻž āϝāĻžāϝāĻŧ āϝāĻž āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻāĻā§ āϧāϰ⧠āϰāĻžāĻāϤ⧠āϏāĻšāĻžāϝāĻŧāϤāĻž āĻāϰā§āĨ¤ āĻāĻžāϰā§āϞāϏ āĻĄāĻŋāĻā§āύā§āϏ (1812-1870) āĻāϰ āĻĄā§āĻāĻŋāĻĄ āĻāĻĒāĻžāϰāĻĢāĻŋāϞā§āĻĄā§ (1840), āĻāĻāĻŋ āĻĻā§āĻāĻžāύ⧠āĻšāϝāĻŧā§āĻā§ āϝ⧠āύāĻŋāĻŽā§āύāϞāĻŋāĻāĻŋāϤāĻāĻžāĻŦā§ āϏāĻžāĻāĻĄā§āϰ āĻĻā§āĻŦāĻžāϰāĻž āĻāĻĻā§āϧā§āϤ āĻšāϝāĻŧā§āĻā§:
âāĻāĻ āϧāϰāĻŖā§āϰ āĻŽā§āĻā§āϤ āĻŦā§āϝāĻŦāϏā§āĻĨāĻž āϝā§āĻāĻžāύ⧠āĻļā§āϰāĻŽāĻŋāĻāϰāĻž āĻāĻžāϞ āĻāϰāϤ⧠āĻĒāĻžāϰāϤ
āϤāĻžāĻĻā§āϰ āύāĻŋāĻāϏā§āĻŦāĻāĻžāĻŦā§, āϝāĻĻāĻŋ āĻāĻāĻŋ āĻāϰāĻžāϰ āĻ āύā§āĻŽāϤāĻŋ āĻĻā§āĻāϝāĻŧāĻž āĻšāϤā§āĨ¤ “
Britainâs 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, âGreat Expectationsâ by Dickens and âNostromoâ 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.
āĻŦāĻžāĻŖāĻŋāĻā§āϝ āĻ āĻā§āϰāĻŽāĻŖā§āϰ āĻŽāĻžāϧā§āϝāĻŽā§ āĻŦā§āϰāĻŋāĻā§āύā§āϰ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻā§āϝ āĻŦāĻŋāϏā§āϤāĻžāϰ:
āĻŦā§āϰāĻŋāĻāĻŋāĻļ āĻāĻĒāύā§āϝāĻžāϏāĻŋāĻāϰāĻž āĻāϤāĻāĻžāĻ āϧā§āϰā§āϤ āϝ⧠āĻāĻĒāύā§āϝāĻžāϏ āϞāĻŋāĻā§ āϤāĻžāϰāĻž āĻĒā§āϰāĻŽāĻžāĻŖ āĻāϰā§āĻā§āύ āϝ⧠āĻŦāϰā§āϤāĻŽāĻžāύ⧠āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāύāĻž āĻĨā§āĻā§ āĻŽā§āĻā§āϤ āĻāĻŦāĻ āϤā§āϰā§āĻāĻŋ-āĻŦāĻŋāĻā§āϝā§āϤāĻŋ āĻĨā§āĻā§ āĻŽā§āĻā§āϤ āĻĨāĻžāĻāĻŦā§ āĻāĻžāϰāĻŖ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§āϰ āĻāĻĻā§āĻĻā§āĻļā§āϝ āĻĻāĻžāĻĒāĻ āύāϝāĻŧ, āĻŦāĻžāĻŖāĻŋāĻā§āϝ āĻ āĻā§āϰāĻŽāĻŖ āĻāĻŋāϞāĨ¤ āĻ āϞā§āĻĒ āϏāĻŽāϝāĻŧā§āϰ āĻāύā§āϝ, āϏāĻžāĻāĻĻ āĻā§āĻŦāϞ āĻĻā§āĻāĻŋ āĻāĻĒāύā§āϝāĻžāϏ āĻĒāϰā§āĻā§āώāĻž āĻāϰā§āĻā§āύ, āĻĄāĻŋāĻā§āύā§āϏā§āϰ âGreat Expectationsâ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻā§āϏā§āĻĢ āĻāύāϰāĻžāĻĄā§āϰ âNostromoâ, āϝā§āĻā§āϞāĻŋ āĻāĻĒāύāĻŋāĻŦā§āĻļāĻŋāĻ āĻļā§āĻĻā§āϧāĻŋāϰ āĻāĻŋāĻšā§āύ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻ āϏā§āĻā§āϰā§āϞāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻžāϝāĻŧ āĻļāĻžāϏā§āϤāĻŋāĻŽā§āϞāĻ āĻāĻĒāύāĻŋāĻŦā§āĻļ āϏā§āĻĨāĻžāĻĒāύā§āϰ āĻĒāĻĻā§āϧāϤāĻŋāϤ⧠āĻĒā§āϰāϏā§āϤā§āϤ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻļāĻā§āϤāĻŋāĻļāĻžāϞ⧠āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻĻā§āϰā§āύā§āϤāĻŋāĻā§āϰāϏā§āĻĨ āĻāĻāĻāĻŋ āĻĻāĻā§āώāĻŋāĻŖ āĻāĻŽā§āϰāĻŋāĻāĻž āĻĒā§āϰāĻāĻžāϤāύā§āϤā§āϰāĨ¤ āϏā§āϤāϰāĻžāĻ āĻāĻāϰā§āĻā§ āĻāĻĒāύā§āϝāĻžāϏāĻā§āϞāĻŋ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§āϰ āĻāĻŋāϰāύā§āϤāύāϤāĻžāϰ āĻĒā§āϰāĻŦāĻā§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. Conradâs novel âNostromoâ 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.
âWe westerners will decide who is a good native or bad,
because all natives have sufficient existence by virtue of our recognition.â
So, the English novels have been able to understand and realize the imperialists that the other name of âla mission civilisatriceâ is eternal domination and looting in a non-violent way.
āϞāĻž āĻŽāĻŋāĻļāύ āϏāĻŋāĻāĻŋāϞāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻžāϏāĻā§āϰāĻžāĻāϏ āĻŦāĻž āϏāĻā§āϝ āĻŽāĻŋāĻļāύ:
āϏāĻā§āϝ āĻŽāĻŋāĻļāύāĻāĻŋ 15 āĻļāϤāĻžāĻŦā§āĻĻā§āϤ⧠āĻĒāϰā§āϤā§āĻāĻžāϞ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻĢā§āϰāĻžāύā§āϏ āĻĻā§āĻŦāĻžāϰāĻž āĻāĻĻā§āĻŦā§āϧāύ āĻāϰāĻž āĻšāϝāĻŧā§āĻāĻŋāϞ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻāĻāĻŋ āĻā§āϰā§āĻ āĻŦā§āϰāĻŋāĻā§āύā§āϰ āĻĻā§āĻŦāĻžāϰāĻž āĻŦāĻŋāĻāĻžāĻļ āϞāĻžāĻ āĻāϰā§āĻāĻŋāϞāĨ¤ āĻāĻĄāĻāϝāĻŧāĻžāϰā§āĻĄā§āϰ āĻŽāϤā§, āĻā§āϏā§āĻĢ āĻāύāϰāĻžāĻĄ āϤā§āϤā§āϝāĻŧ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļā§āĻŦā§āϰ āĻĒāĻļā§āĻāĻŋāĻŽā§ āĻĻā§āώā§āĻāĻŋāĻāĻā§āĻāĻŋāϰ āĻ āĻā§āϰāĻĻā§āϤ āĻāĻŋāϞā§āύāĨ¤ 1904 āϏāĻžāϞ⧠āĻĒā§āϰāĻāĻžāĻļāĻŋāϤ āĻāύāϰāĻžāĻĄā§āϰ āĻāĻĒāύā§āϝāĻžāϏ “āύāϏā§āĻā§āϰā§āĻŽā§” āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§āϰ āĻĒā§āϤā§āĻ āĻ āĻāĻŋāĻŽāĻžāύāĻā§ āĻŽā§āϰā§āϤ āĻāϰā§āĻā§āĨ¤ āĻĒā§āϝāĻžāĻāĻžāϰā§āύāĻžāϞāĻŋāϏā§āĻāĻŋāĻ āĻāĻ āĻļāĻŦā§āĻĻāĻāĻŋ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§āĻĻā§āϰ āϏāĻŽā§āĻĒāϰā§āĻā§ āĻāĻĻā§āĻŦā§āĻ āĻĒā§āϰāĻāĻžāĻļ āĻāϰ⧠āϝ⧠āĻā§āύāĻ āĻ āύā§āĻĒā§āϰāĻŦā§āĻļāĻāĻžāϰ⧠āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦā§ āĻ āϧāĻŋāĻāĻžāϰ āύāĻž āĻĻāĻŋāϝāĻŧā§ āϤāĻžāĻĻā§āϰāĻā§ āϏāĻŽāϏā§āϤ āĻĒā§āϰāĻāĻžāϰā§āϰ āϏāϰāĻŦāϰāĻžāĻšāĻāĻžāϰ⧠āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦā§ āĻāϧāĻŋāĻĒāϤā§āϝ āĻŦāĻŋāϏā§āϤāĻžāϰ āĻāϰ⧠āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻāĻāĻŋ āϞāĻā§āώ āĻāϰāĻž āϝāĻžāϝāĻŧ āϝ⧠āĻāĻāĻāĻžāϞ āϤā§āϤā§āϝāĻŧ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļā§āĻŦā§ āĻāĻ āĻāĻžāϤā§āϝāĻŧ āϰāĻā§āϤāĻžāĻā§āϤ āϰāĻžāĻāύā§āϤāĻŋāĻ āĻāĻŋāύā§āϤāĻžāĻāĻžāĻŦāύāĻž āĻĒā§āϰāĻžāϏāĻā§āĻāĻŋāĻāĨ¤
âāĻāĻŽāϰāĻž āĻĒāĻļā§āĻāĻŋāĻŽāĻžāϰāĻž āϏāĻŋāĻĻā§āϧāĻžāύā§āϤ āύā§āĻŦ āĻā§āύ āύā§āĻāĻŋāĻ āĻāĻžāϞ āĻŦāĻž āĻāĻžāϰāĻžāĻĒ,
āĻāĻžāϰāĻŖ āĻāĻŽāĻžāĻĻā§āϰ āϏā§āĻŦā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋ āĻ āύā§āϏāĻžāϰ⧠āϏāĻŽāϏā§āϤ āύā§āĻāĻŋāĻā§āϰ āĻĒāϰā§āϝāĻžāĻĒā§āϤ āĻ āϏā§āϤāĻŋāϤā§āĻŦ āĻāĻā§āĨ¤ “
āϏā§āϤāϰāĻžāĻ, āĻāĻāϰā§āĻā§ āĻāĻĒāύā§āϝāĻžāϏāĻā§āϞāĻŋ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§āĻĻā§āϰ āĻŦā§āĻāϤ⧠āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻŦā§āĻāϤ⧠āϏāĻā§āώāĻŽ āĻšāϝāĻŧā§āĻā§ āϝ⧠“āϞāĻž āĻŽāĻŋāĻļāύ āϏāĻŋāĻāĻŋāϞāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻžāϏāĻā§āϰāĻžāĻāϏ” āĻāϰ āĻ āĻĒāϰ āύāĻžāĻŽ āĻ āĻšāĻŋāĻāϏ āĻāĻĒāĻžāϝāĻŧā§ āĻāĻŋāϰāϏā§āĻĨāĻžāϝāĻŧā§ āĻāϧāĻŋāĻĒāϤā§āϝ āĻāĻŦāĻ āϞā§āĻāĻĒāĻžāĻāĨ¤
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, Conradâs vilification against imperialism has better concerned the imperialists as to the following facts.
- Comprehension of foreign cultures.
- Political willingness as alternative to imperialism etc.
That is why Said tells the world:
âTo the extent that we see Conrad both criticizing
and reproducing the imperial ideology of his timeâ
āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻāĻŦāĻŋāϰā§āϧ⧠āĻĻā§āώā§āĻāĻŋāĻāĻā§āĻāĻŋ:
āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻāĻŦāĻŋāϰā§āϧ⧠āĻĻā§āώā§āĻāĻŋāĻāĻā§āĻāĻŋ āĻā§āĻāĻžāĻŦā§ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§āϰ āĻŦāĻŋāϏā§āϤā§āϤāĻŋ āĻ āĻāĻŋāϰāϏā§āĻĨāĻžāϝāĻŧā§āĻāϰāĻŖā§āϰ āĻŦāĻŋāώāϝāĻŧ āĻšāϤ⧠āĻĒāĻžāϰ⧠āϤāĻž āĻāĻāύāĻ āĻĒā§āϰāĻļā§āύ āĻšāĻāϝāĻŧāĻž āĻāĻāĻŋāϤāĨ¤ āĻāĻāĻž āϞāĻā§āώāĻŖā§āϝāĻŧ āĻŦāĻŋāώāϝāĻŧ āϝ⧠āĻāύāĻžāĻŦ āϏāĻžāĻāĻĻ āĻāĻ āĻŦāĻŋāώāϝāĻŧāĻāĻŋ āϏāύāĻžāĻā§āϤ āĻāϰāĻžāϰ āĻāύā§āϝ āϤāĻžāĻāϰ āĻĒā§āϰāĻā§āϤā§āĻŦāĻā§ āĻā§āώāĻŖāĻž āĻāϰā§āĻā§āύāĨ¤ āϏā§āϝāĻŧāĻĻā§āϰ āϏāĻžāĻĨā§ āϏāĻā§āĻāϤāĻŋāĻĒā§āϰā§āĻŖāĻāĻžāĻŦā§, āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§āϰ āĻŦāĻŋāϰā§āĻĻā§āϧ⧠āĻāύāϰāĻžāĻĄā§āϰ āĻā§āĻĄāĻŧāĻžāύā§āϤ āĻāĻāύāĻž āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§āĻĻā§āϰ āύāĻŋāĻŽā§āύāϞāĻŋāĻāĻŋāϤ āĻŦāĻŋāώāϝāĻŧāĻā§āϞāĻŋāϰ āϏāĻŽā§āĻĒāϰā§āĻā§ āĻāϰāĻ āĻāĻžāϞāĻāĻžāĻŦā§ āĻĒā§āϰāĻāĻžāĻļ āĻāϰā§āĨ¤
- āĻŦāĻŋāĻĻā§āĻļā§ āϏāĻāϏā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋāϰ āĻāĻĒāϞāĻŦā§āϧāĻŋāĨ¤
- āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§āϰ āĻŦāĻŋāĻāϞā§āĻĒ āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦā§ āϰāĻžāĻāύā§āϤāĻŋāĻ āϏāĻĻāĻŋāĻā§āĻāĻž āĻāϤā§āϝāĻžāĻĻāĻŋāĨ¤
āĻāĻ āĻāĻžāϰāĻŖā§āĻ āϏāĻžāĻāĻĻ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļā§āĻŦāĻā§ āĻŦāϞā§:
âāĻāύāϰāĻžāĻĄ āĻāĻāϝāĻŧāĻā§āĻ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāύāĻž āĻāϰāϤ⧠āĻĻā§āĻāĻāĻŋ
āĻāĻŦāĻ āϤāĻžāĻāϰ āϏāĻŽāϝāĻŧā§āϰ āϰāĻžāĻāĻā§āϝāĻŧ āĻāĻĻāϰā§āĻļā§āϰ āĻĒā§āύāϰā§āϤā§āĻĒāĻžāĻĻāύ â
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. âThe Rise of Englishâ 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§āĻŽāĻŋāĻāĻž: āĻā§āϰāĻŋ āĻāĻāϞāĻāύ āĻšāϞā§āύ āĻāĻāĻāύ āĻŦā§āϰāĻŋāĻāĻŋāĻļ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāϤā§āϝāĻŋāĻ āϤāĻžāϤā§āϤā§āĻŦāĻŋāĻ, āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāĻ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻŦā§āĻĻā§āϧāĻŋāĻā§āĻŦā§āĨ¤ âThe Rise of Englishâ āϤāĻžāĻāϰ āĻ āύā§āϝāϤāĻŽ āϏāĻŽāĻžāϞā§āĻāύāĻžāĻŽā§āϞāĻ āĻĒā§āϰāĻŦāύā§āϧ āϝāĻž āĻāϧā§āύāĻŋāĻ āϏāĻā§āϝāϤāĻžāϰ āϏāĻāĻāĻā§āϰ āĻāĻžāϰāĻŖā§ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāϤā§āϝā§āϰ āϤāĻžāϤā§āĻĒāϰā§āϝ āĻāĻŋāϤā§āϰāĻŋāϤ āĻāϰā§āĻā§āύāĨ¤ āĻāϧā§āύāĻŋāĻ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāϤā§āϝ⧠āĻŦā§āϧā§āϰ āϏā§āĻāύāĻž āĻĨā§āĻā§āĻ āĻāϧā§āύāĻŋāĻ āϏāĻā§āϝāϤāĻž āĻŦāĻŋāĻāĻŋāύā§āύ āϧāϰāĻŖā§āϰ āϏāĻāĻāĻā§ āĻā§āĻāϤ⧠āĻļā§āϰ⧠āĻāϰā§āĨ¤
The failure of religion
The first and foremost crisis of modern civilization we get in the essay âThe Rise of Englishâ 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.
āϧāϰā§āĻŽā§āϰ āĻŦā§āϝāϰā§āĻĨāϤāĻž
āĻāϧā§āύāĻŋāĻ āϏāĻā§āϝāϤāĻžāϰ āĻĒā§āϰāĻĨāĻŽ āĻāĻŦāĻ āϏāϰā§āĻŦāĻžāϧāĻŋāĻ āϏāĻāĻāĻ āϝāĻž āĻāĻŽāϰāĻž âThe Rise of Englishâ āĻĒā§āϰāĻŦāύā§āϧ⧠āĻĒāĻžāĻ, āĻāĻāĻŋ āĻš’āϞ āĻŽāϧā§āϝ-āĻāĻŋāĻā§āĻā§āϰāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻžāύ āϏāĻŽāϝāĻŧāĻāĻžāϞ⧠āϧāϰā§āĻŽā§āϰ āĻŦā§āϝāϰā§āĻĨāϤāĻžāĨ¤ āϧāϰā§āĻŽ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻŦāĻŋāĻā§āĻāĻžāύ āĻāĻā§ āĻ āĻĒāϰā§āϰ āĻĒā§āϰāϤāĻŋāĻĻā§āĻŦāύā§āĻĻā§āĻŦā§ āĻšāϝāĻŧā§ āĻāĻ ā§ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻŦāĻŋāĻā§āĻāĻžāύ āĻāĻŦāĻ āϏāĻžāĻŽāĻžāĻāĻŋāĻ āĻĒāϰāĻŋāĻŦāϰā§āϤāύā§āϰ āĻĻā§āĻŦāĻŋāĻā§āĻŖ āĻĒā§āϰāĻāĻžāĻŦ āϧāϰā§āĻŽāĻā§ āĻ āĻŦāĻŋāĻļā§āĻŦāĻžāϏā§āϝ āĻāϰ⧠āϤā§āϞā§āĨ¤ āĻāĻŋāĻā§āĻā§āϰāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻžāύ āĻļāĻžāϏāĻ āĻļā§āϰā§āĻŖāĻŋ āĻāĻŋāύā§āϤāĻŋāϤ āĻāĻŋāϞ āĻāĻžāϰāĻŖ āϏāϰā§āĻŦāĻāύāϏā§āĻŦā§āĻā§āϤ āϝ⧠āϧāϰā§āĻŽ āĻāĻĻāϰā§āĻļāĻŋāĻ āύāĻŋāϝāĻŧāύā§āϤā§āϰāĻŖā§āϰ āĻāύā§āϝ āĻāĻžāϰā§āϝāĻāϰ āϰā§āĻĒāĨ¤ āϏāĻŽāϏā§āϤ āϏāĻĢāϞ āĻŽāϤāĻžāĻĻāϰā§āĻļā§āϰ āĻŽāϤā§, āĻāĻāĻŋ āĻāĻŋāϤā§āϰ, āĻĒā§āϰāϤā§āĻ, āĻ āĻā§āϝāĻžāϏ, āĻāĻāĻžāϰ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻĒā§āϰāĻžāĻŖāĻŋāĻ āĻāĻžāĻšāĻŋāύā§āĻā§āϞāĻŋāϰ āϤā§āϞāύāĻžāϝāĻŧ āϏā§āϏā§āĻĒāώā§āĻ āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖāĻž āĻĻā§āĻŦāĻžāϰāĻž āĻ āύā§āĻ āĻāĻŽ āĻāĻžāĻ āĻāϰā§āĨ¤ āĻāĻ āϏāĻāĻāĻ āĻĨā§āĻā§ āĻāĻžāϤāĻŋāĻā§ āĻŦāĻžāĻāĻāĻžāϤ⧠āĻāĻāϰā§āĻā§ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāϤā§āϝ āĻāĻāĻŋāϝāĻŧā§ āĻāϏā§āĻāĻŋāϞ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻāϰ āϏāĻžāĻĢāϞā§āϝāĻ āĻĻā§āĻāĻŋāϝāĻŧā§āĻāĻŋāϞāĨ¤
The wasteland
Terry Eagleton has cited that modern âEngland is sickâ 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.
âIt is of itself a serious calamity for a nation that its tone of feeling and grandeur of spirit should be lowered or dulledâ
āĻĒāϰāĻŋāϤā§āϝāĻžāĻā§āϤ āϏā§āĻĨāĻžāύ
āĻā§āϰāĻŋ āĻāĻāϞāĻāύ āĻĒā§āϰāĻāĻžāĻļ āĻāϰā§āĻā§āύ āϝ⧠āĻāϧā§āύāĻŋāĻ “āĻāĻāϞā§āϝāĻžāύā§āĻĄ āĻ āϏā§āϏā§āĻĨ” āϤāĻžāϰ āĻāĻĻā§āĻŦā§āϧāύ⧠āĻŦāĻā§āϤā§āϤāĻžāϝāĻŧ āĻŽāύā§āϤāĻŦā§āϝ āĻāϰā§āĻāĻŋāϞā§āύ āĻ āĻā§āϏāĻĢā§āϰā§āĻĄā§āϰ āĻāĻāϰā§āĻāĻŋ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāϤā§āϝā§āϰ āĻĒā§āϰāĻžāϰāĻŽā§āĻāĻŋāĻ āĻ āϧā§āϝāĻžāĻĒāĻ āĻāϰā§āĻ āĻāϰā§āĻĄāύ āĨ¤ āĻā§āϰā§āĻāĻžāĻā§āϞāĻŋ āĻŦā§āϝāϰā§āĻĨ āĻšāϝāĻŧā§āĻāĻŋāϞ āĻāĻŦāĻ āϏāĻžāĻŽāĻžāĻāĻŋāĻ āĻĒā§āϰāϤāĻŋāĻāĻžāϰāĻā§āϞāĻŋ āύāĻŋāĻŽā§āύ āĻāϤāĻŋāϏāĻŽā§āĻĒā§āϰā§āĻŖ āĻšāϝāĻŧā§ āĻāĻŋāϝāĻŧā§āĻāĻŋāϞā§āĨ¤āĻāĻāϰāĻžāĻā§ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāϤā§āϝ⧠āĻāĻāύ āĻāĻŽāĻžāĻĻā§āϰ āĻāύāύā§āĻĻ, āĻĒā§āϰāĻļāĻŋāĻā§āώāĻŖ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻŦāĻžāĻāĻāĻžāϤ⧠āĻāĻžāĻ āĻāϰā§āĻā§āĨ¤ āϏā§āϤāϰāĻžāĻ, āĻāĻŋāĻā§āĻā§āϰāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻžāύ āϏāĻŽāϝāĻŧ āĻĨā§āĻā§ āĻĻāĻžāϝāĻŧāĻŋāϤā§āĻŦ āĻŦāĻšāύ āĻāϰāĻžāϰ āĻāύā§āϝ āĻāĻāϰā§āĻā§ āĻāĻāĻāĻŋ āĻŦāĻŋāώāϝāĻŧā§ āĻĒāϰāĻŋāĻŖāϤ āĻšāϝāĻŧāĨ¤ āĻāĻāϞā§āĻāύā§āϰ āĻŽāϤā§, āĻŽā§āϝāĻžāĻĨāĻŋāĻ āĻāϰā§āύāϞā§āĻĄ āĻāĻāĻžāύ⧠āĻŽā§āϞ āĻŦā§āϝāĻā§āϤāĻŋāϤā§āĻŦ āĻāĻžāϰāĻŖ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻāϰā§āϰāĻŋ āϏāĻžāĻŽāĻžāĻāĻŋāĻ āĻĒā§āϰāϝāĻŧā§āĻāύāĻā§ āϏā§āĻŦā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋ āĻĻāĻŋāϝāĻŧā§āĻā§āύāĨ¤
“āĻāĻāĻŋ āύāĻŋāĻā§āĻ āĻāĻāĻāĻŋ āĻŽāĻžāϰāĻžāϤā§āĻŽāĻ āĻŦāĻŋāĻĒāϰā§āϝāϝāĻŧ āϝ⧠āĻāϰ āĻ āύā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻā§āϤāύāĻžāϰ āĻŽāĻšāĻŋāĻŽāĻž āϏā§āĻŦāϰāĻā§ āĻšā§āϰāĻžāϏ āĻāϰāĻž āĻŦāĻž āĻāĻāĻāĻžāύ⧠āĻāĻāĻŋāϤ”
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.
āϰāĻžāĻāύā§āϤāĻŋāĻ āĻā§āĻāĻĄāĻŧāĻžāĻŽāĻŋ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻāĻĻāϰā§āĻļāĻŋāĻ āĻāϰāĻŽāĻĒāύā§āĻĨāĻž
āĻāϧā§āύāĻŋāĻ āϏāĻā§āϝāϤāĻžāϰ āĻāϰā§āĻāĻāĻŋ āĻ āύā§āϏāϰāĻŖāϝā§āĻā§āϝ āϏāĻā§āĻāĻ āĻš’āϞ āϰāĻžāĻāύā§āϤāĻŋāĻ āĻā§āĻāĻĄāĻŧāĻžāĻŽāĻŋ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻāĻĻāϰā§āĻļāĻŋāĻ āĻāϰāĻŽāĻĒāύā§āĻĨāĻžāĨ¤ āϏāĻāĻāĻ āĻĨā§āĻā§ āĻŽā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋ āĻĒāĻžāĻāϝāĻŧāĻž, āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāϤā§āϝāϰ āĻāĻāĻāĻŋ āĻļāĻā§āϤāĻŋāĻļāĻžāϞ⧠āĻĒā§āϰāϤāĻŋāώā§āϧāĻ āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦā§ āĻāĻŽāϰāĻž āĻāĻžāύāĻŋ āϝ⧠āĻāĻāĻŋ āĻāϤāĻŋāĻšāĻžāϏāĻŋāĻ āĻā§āĻšāϝā§āĻĻā§āϧ, āĻŽāĻšāĻŋāϞāĻžāĻĻā§āϰ āĻāĻĒāϰ āύāĻŋāĻĒā§āĻĄāĻŧāύ āĻŦāĻž āĻāĻāϰā§āĻ āĻā§āώāĻāĻā§ āĻŦāĻŋāϤāĻžāĻĄāĻŧāύā§āϰ āĻĒāϰāĻŋāĻŦāϰā§āϤ⧠āϏāϰā§āĻŦāĻāύā§āύ āĻŽāĻžāύāĻŦāĻŋāĻ āĻŽā§āϞā§āϝāĻŦā§āϧā§āϰ āϏāĻžāĻĨā§ āϏāĻŽā§āĻĒāϰā§āĻāĻŋāϤāĨ¤ āĻāĻŦāĻ, āĻ āĻŦāĻļā§āϝāĻ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāϤā§āϝ āϏāĻŽāϏā§āϤ āĻļā§āϰā§āĻŖā§āϰ āĻŽāϧā§āϝ⧠āϏāĻšāĻžāύā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋ āĻĒā§āϰāĻāĻžāϰ āĻāϰāϤ⧠āϏāĻšāĻžāϝāĻŧāϤāĻž āĻāϰā§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.
āĻŦā§āϰā§āĻā§āϝāĻŧāĻž āĻŦāĻž āϰāĻā§āώāĻŖāĻļā§āϞ āϏāĻā§āϝāϤāĻž
āĻŦā§āϰā§āĻā§āϝāĻŧāĻž āĻŦāĻž āϰāĻā§āώāĻŖāĻļā§āϞ āϏāĻā§āϝāϤāĻž āĻāϧā§āύāĻŋāĻ āϏāĻā§āϝāϤāĻžāϰ āĻāĻŋāύā§āϤāĻžāĻāĻžāĻŦāύāĻž āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻ āύā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋāĻā§āϞāĻŋāϰ āϤā§āĻŦā§āϰ āϏā§āĻŦāĻāĻžāĻŦāĨ¤ āϞā§āĻā§āϰāĻž āĻā§āĻŦ āϏā§āĻŦ-āĻā§āύā§āĻĻā§āϰāĻŋāĻ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻāĻā§ āĻ āĻĒāϰāĻā§ āĻŽā§āĻā§āĻ āϏāĻšāϝā§āĻāĻŋāϤāĻž āĻāϰ⧠āύāĻžāĨ¤ āϤāĻžāϰāĻž āϤāĻžāĻĻā§āϰ āύā§āϤāĻŋāĻ āϧāύ-āϏāĻŽā§āĻĒāĻĻā§āϰ āĻāύā§āϝ āĻā§āĻāĻžāύ āĻ āϰā§āĻāύ āĻāϰ⧠āϤāĻŦā§ āϤāĻžāĻĻā§āϰ āĻļāĻŋāĻā§āώāĻžāĻā§āϰāĻšāĻŖāĻā§ āĻ āĻŦāĻļā§āϝāĻ āĻāĻāĻāĻŋ āϏā§āĻŦāϞā§āĻĒ āĻļāĻŋāĻā§āώāĻžāĻĻāĻžāύ āĻŦāϞāĻž āϝā§āϤ⧠āĻĒāĻžāϰā§āĨ¤ 1891 āϏāĻžāϞ⧠āϰāĻāĻŋāϤ āĻāĻāϰā§āĻāĻŋ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāϤā§āϝā§āϰ āĻāĻāĻāĻŋ āĻ āϧā§āϝāϝāĻŧāύ āĻ āύā§āϏāĻžāϰā§, āϞā§āĻā§āϰāĻž āϰāĻžāĻāύā§āϤāĻŋāĻ āϏāĻāϏā§āĻā§āϤāĻŋ āĻāĻŦāĻ āύāĻŋāϰā§āĻĻā§āĻļāύāĻž āĻĒā§āϰāϝāĻŧā§āĻāύ āϝāĻžāϤ⧠āϤāĻžāϰāĻž āύāĻžāĻāϰāĻŋāĻ āĻšāĻŋāϏāĻžāĻŦā§ āϤāĻžāĻĻā§āϰ āĻĻāĻžāϝāĻŧāĻŋāϤā§āĻŦ āĻĒāĻžāϞāύ āĻāϰāϤ⧠āĻĒāĻžāϰā§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.
āĻāϞā§, āĻā§āĻāĻžāύ āĻāĻŦāĻ āύā§āϤāĻŋāĻāϤāĻžāϰ āĻ āĻāĻžāĻŦ
āĻāĻāϞāĻāύā§āϰ āĻŽāϤ⧠,āĻāϰā§āύāϞā§āĻĄā§āϰ āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāϤā§āϝā§āϰ āĻāĻĻāϰā§āĻļāĻŋāĻ āĻŽāϤāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§āϰ āĻļāϤā§āϰ⧠āϝāĻž āĻĻāĻžāύā§āϤ, āĻŽāĻŋāϞā§āĻāύ āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻĒā§āĻĒā§āϰ āϞā§āĻāĻž āĻāĻŦāĻ āĻ āĻŦāĻļā§āϝāĻ āĻļā§āĻā§āϏāĻĒāĻŋāϝāĻŧāĻžāϰā§āϰ āϞā§āĻāĻž āĻĒāĻĄāĻŧāϞ⧠āĻ āĻĒā§āϰāĻžāϏāĻā§āĻāĻŋāĻ āĻŦāϞ⧠āĻŽāύ⧠āĻšāϝāĻŧāĨ¤ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻāϰāĻ āĻĒāϰāĻžāĻŽāϰā§āĻļ āĻĻāĻŋāϝāĻŧā§āĻāĻŋāϞā§āύ āϝ⧠āϝāĻĻāĻŋ āĻā§āĻ āϏāĻžāĻŽā§āϰāĻžāĻā§āϝāĻŦāĻžāĻĻā§āϰ āĻā§āĻĢāϞ āϏāĻŽā§āĻĒāϰā§āĻā§ āϧāĻžāϰāĻŖāĻž āĻĒā§āϤ⧠āĻāĻžāϝāĻŧ āϤāĻŦā§ āϤāĻžāĻā§ āĻāĻĢā§āϰāĻŋāĻāĻž āĻā§āϰāĻŽāĻŖ āĻāϰāϤ⧠āĻšāĻŦā§ āϤāĻŦā§ āϤāĻŋāύāĻŋ āĻāύāϰāĻžāĻĄ āĻŦāĻž āĻāĻŋāĻĒāϞāĻŋāĻ āĻĒāĻĄāĻŧāϞ⧠āĻāĻĢā§āϰāĻŋāĻāĻž āύāĻž āĻāĻŋāϝāĻŧā§āĻ āϤāĻžāϰ āĻāĻžāĻšāĻŋāĻĻāĻž āĻĒā§āϰāĻŖ āĻšāϤ⧠āĻĒāĻžāϰā§āĨ¤ āϏā§āϤāϰāĻžāĻ, āϏāĻžāĻšāĻŋāϤā§āϝ āĻāϞā§, āĻā§āĻāĻžāύ āĻāĻŦāĻ āύā§āϤāĻŋāĻāϤāĻžāϰ āĻĒā§āϰāĻāĻžāϰāĻāĨ¤
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 âThe Metaphysical Poetsâ. 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 âunification of sensibilityâ 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.
âTennyson and Browning are poets, and they think; but they do not feel their thought as immediately as the odour of a rose.â
Thus, Eliot argues that dissociation of sensibility is not better than the unification of sensibility to produce good poetry. âA Valediction Forbidding Morningâ 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 â 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 poetsâ 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 Grayâs poem âCountry Churchyardâ because the feeling or sensibility expressed in the poem is cruder than that in âCoy Mistressâ 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 âdissociation of sensibilityâ, 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 Johnsonâs 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.