Culture and Anarchy Summary - eNotes.com.
The complete text of Culture and Anarchy. Culture and Anarchy By Matthew Arnold. Presented by Auth o rama Public Domain Books. Preface (Culture and Anarchy: An Essay in Political and Social Criticism (1869)) (iii) My foremost design in writing this Preface is to address a word of exhortation to the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. In the essay which follows, the reader will often.
The essay was later entitled “The Study of Poetry.” No other attempt to get at the secret of poetry and to demonstrate the relative values of poets has ever seemed to me so captivating. It is captivating, because Arnold employs neither the mechanism nor the method of science, but the living organ of taste. It was his literary criticism that most thoroughly took hold of us in those years of.
The fact that the very air Arnold breathed during the whole of the impressionable period of his life was academic is a very important fact to bear in mind. After a year at Winchester, Matthew Arnold entered Rugby school in 1837. He early began to write and print verses. His first publication was a Rugby prize poem, Alaric at Rome, in 1840.
One of Arnold's contemporaries, John Burroughs, writing two months after Arnold's death, claimed that Matthew Arnold deserved to be read extensively, for only then could he be fully appreciated. In Arnold's prose, Burroughs wrote, “his effect is cumulative; he hits a good many times in the same place, and his work as a whole makes a deeper impression than any single essay of his would seem.
MATTHEW ARNOLD (1822-88) Arnold is the most important critic of the Victorian Age Victorian criticism in general may be classified in to two categories Critics who followed the school of Plato. This included critics like Carlyle and Ruskin. They used art and literature for the service of society. They set standards in morality religion and arts. They used literature for didactic purposes.
This applies to such phrases as “sweetness and light”—a phrase that originated. Yet Trilling is dead, Leavis is dead, and any serious revival of Matthew Arnold’s reputation appears highly improbable. Certainly, refreshed interest in Arnold seems unlikely to come by way of biography, even though a new biography, one with pretensions to being definitive, has recently been published. 1.
The personal matters which usually, and more or less gracefully, fill the beginning of the end of a biography, are perhaps superfluous in the case of a man who died so recently, and who was so well known as Mr Matthew Arnold. Moreover, if given at all, they should be given by some one who knew him more intimately than did the present writer. He was of a singularly agreeable presence, without.