Why The Novel Matters| D.H. Lawrence | Summary and Analysis

D. H. Lawrence’s critical essay ‘Why the novel matters’ was published in the collection titled Phoenix in the year 1936. In this essay Lawrence speaks about the importance of the novel and tries to establish the superiority of the novelist above other professions.

In an attempt to illustrate the importance of the novel Lawrence explains the importance of life and the living man. He says that the whole living man, the man alive, is more important than his thoughts, ideas, his mind, or his stomach or liver or kidney or any other parts of his body. Lawrence says that this is what scientists and philosophers fail to understand. According to Lawrence a novel shows life and its characters are nothing but man alive. The novelist understands the importance of life and the man alive. Therefore the novelist is better than the scientist or the philosopher.

Lawrence begins the essay by commenting upon the saying ‘a sound mind in a sound body’. He calls it a funny superstition that people think of themselves as a body with a soul in it. He questions why one thinks of one’s hand as something subordinate to the mind that operates it. The hand has a life of its own. It has knowledge and can think and act for itself. The hand is as much a part of the living man as the mind. The pen held by the hand however is not alive. A man alive extends only to his fingertips. Lawrence says that whatever in a man is alive constitutes the man alive. The hand, skin, freckles, blood and bones are very much alive and part of the man alive. The living body therefore must not be compared to inanimate objects like tin cans or clay vessels.

Lawrence in this essay tries to explain why the novelist is better than the philosopher or the scientist and in order to do so he explains the importance of the man alive. According to Lawrence the novelist possesses an intricate understanding of the man alive more fully than a parson, a philosopher, or a scientist. The parson speaks about souls in heaven and the afterlife. But for the novelist heaven is in the palm of his hand and the tip of his nose which are alive. The novelist is not concerned about life after death. He is wholly concerned about life at present and with the man alive. The philosopher speaks about infinite knowledge possessed by the pure spirit.  But for the novelist there is no knowledge beyond what the living body can perceive. For philosophers nothing but thoughts is important. These thoughts Lawrence says are nothing but ‘tremulations on the ether’. They are not alive. They are like radio signals floating in the air which are meaningless until they reach the receiver – a radio device that decodes the signals into a meaningful message. Similarly when thoughts are received by a man alive they become meaningful and can alter the man’s life. But the thoughts nevertheless are not alive. It is only because the man alive receives them that they become alive. Only a man alive can be stimulated by thoughts. Thus the living body is more important than the message conveyed by thoughts.

According to Lawrence nothing is more important than life. Living things are more valuable than dead objects. A living dog is better than a dead lion but a living lion is better than a living dog. Lawrence says that scientists and philosophers find it difficult to accept the value of the living. For the philosopher nothing but thoughts matter. For the scientist a living man is of no use. He only wants a dead man whom he dissects and observes under the microscope. For a scientist a man is a heart, a liver, a kidney, a gland or a tissue. But for the novelist the only thing that matters is a whole living man. Lawrence refuses to believe that he is a body or a soul or a brain or a nervous system. He considers himself to be a complete whole made up of all these parts, a whole that is greater and more significant than the individual parts. And for this reason he is a novelist and he considers himself superior to the saint, the scientist or the philosopher.   

Having established the importance of the man alive and the novelist Lawrence proceeds to explain the significance of the novel. Lawrence calls the novel a book of life. According to him books are like thoughts - nothing but ‘tremulations on the ether’. They are meaningful only when a man alive receives them. But he says that the tremulations of a novel are more powerful than any other book and it can make a whole man alive tremble. This means that the novel has the capacity to influence a man more effectively than any other book.  For example the ideals of Plato makes the ideal being in a man tremble. Similarly the sermons or the Ten Commandments affect only a part of a man alive. But a novel is capable of shaking the whole of a man alive. This is because a novel deals in nothing else but man alive. In this regard Lawrence calls the Bible a ‘great confused novel’.  All its characters – Adam, Eve, Sarai, Abraham, Isaac – including God are nothing but man alive. For Lawrence, the Bible, Homer and Shakespeare are all great novels because they communicate to the reader. Their wholeness affects the whole of man alive. They do not stimulate growth in a particular direction but shake the whole man alive into new life.

According to Lawrence the strength and appeal of a novel lies in the dynamic nature of its characters which reflects the importance of constant change in the life of a man alive. Nothing is constant and if something is forced to remain constant it loses its value and power along with the passing of time. There are no absolutes. There is only a constant flow and change and even change is not absolute. A man today is different from what he was yesterday and tomorrow he will be different from what he is today. A man loves a woman because of the constant change in her. It is the change that startles and defies and keeps a man and woman in love with each other. Loving an unchanging person is like loving an inanimate object like a pepper pot. But even amidst change one needs to maintain one’s integrity. However Lawrence says that putting a finger on one individual trait makes one as fixed as a lamp post. It seems as if a man has made up an idea about himself and is trying to trim himself down to fit into it. Lawrence says that one can learn about the importance of change from a novel. In a novel the characters do nothing but live. But if they begin to act according to a fixed pattern – always remaining good or bad – the novel loses its life force. Similarly a man in his life must live and not try to follow a pattern or else he becomes a dead man in life. Lawrence however says that it is difficult to define what is living. Different men have different ideas about what they mean by living in life. Some go to seek God while others seek money, wine, and women, yet others seek votes and political reforms. In this Lawrence says that the novel is a guide which helps to differentiate between a man alive and a man who is dead in life. A man may eat his dinner like a man alive or merely chew his dinner as a dead man in life. A man alive shoots his enemy but a dead man in life throws bombs at people who are neither his friends nor foes.

Finally Lawrence says that the most important thing is to be a whole man alive and the novel provides guidance in this matter. A novel helps a man to see when a man is alive and when he is dead in life. The novel helps to develop an instinct for life. This is because the novel does not advocate a right path or a wrong path. The concept of right and wrong vary according to circumstances. A novel portrays this unpredictable and varying nature of life making the reader realize that life itself is the reason for living. The end result of the novel is the whole man alive.  Thus Lawrence asserts that the novel is a book that can touch the life of a whole man alive and that is why the novel matters.   

Orientation of Critical Theories | M.H. Abrams | Summary and Analysis

The essay ‘Orientation of Critical Theories’ is the first chapter of the book The Mirror and the Lamp by M.H. Abrams. In the book Abrams speaks about the two ways in which literature or literary theories try to interpret the human mind – first the mind as a mirror that reflects the external objects and second as a lamp that throws light at the objects it sees. The first approach is related to the mimetic theories of criticism and the second approach is related to the romantic ideal of the power of the mind to interpret what it sees. In this essay Abrams speaks about how different critical theories tend to display an orientation towards a particular element of a work of art by dividing these theories based upon their orientations.

This essay is divided by Abrams into five parts. The first part deals with the coordinates of art criticism. Abrams says that any critical theory consists of four elements with the help of which they comprehend art. The first element is the work of art and the second element is the artist. The third element is the source of the work, the objects or situations that the work describes or reflects or has some relation to. This is commonly referred to as ‘nature’ but Abrams uses the more inclusive term ‘universe’. The fourth element is the audience. Abrams arranges these four elements in a triangular diagram with the work of art at the centre and the universe, audience and the artist as the three coordinates. He says that any critical theory while dealing with all the four elements shows a significant orientation towards only one of these elements and judges the value of the work by focusing on one element as its principal criteria. Thus all critical theories can be divided into four broad categories depending upon their orientation towards the elements. The first category deals with the importance of the universe in the work of art. The second category deals with the influence of the work on its audience. The third orients towards the artist’s role in the process of creation of the work of art and the fourth category deals with the work as a singular entity. Abrams however says that the four elements vary according to the theories in which they appear.

The second part of the essay deals with mimetic theories. The critical theories that deal with mimesis are oriented towards the universe and its role in the work of art. This theory first appeared in Plato’s Republic. Plato’s theory of mimesis operates upon three categories – the ideal world, the physical world and the world of art. This theory holds that the physical world is an imitation of the Ideal world and art is an imitation of the physical world. Thus art is twice removed from reality. This idea is famously explained by Socrates in the tenth book of the Republic where he says that there are three beds – one the idea of the bed, second a physical bed made by the carpenter who imitates the ideal bed and the third is the bed painted by the artist. The bed of the artist is twice removed from the idea of the bed. Thus according to this theory all works of judged on the basis of their relation to Ideas. Since ideas are considered true and beautiful the distance of art from ideas emphasizes its distance from beauty and truth.

Aristotle’s Poetics is the next great work of criticism with a mimetic orientation. Aristotle defines poetry as imitation. He also distinguishes between different kinds of imitation based on the objects imitated, the manner of imitation, and the medium of imitation. With the help of these distinctions Aristotle is able to separate poetry from other art forms and then make distinctions between different kinds of poetry - epic, drama, tragedy and comedy. Similarly while focusing on tragedy Aristotle breaks it into distinct individual parts - plot, characters, thought, temperament, diction etc. - which constitute the whole. Aristotle's criticism thus not only concerns about art as art but also poetry as poetry, and each kind of poetry according to its individual characteristics. Thus it is seen that Aristotle's criticism also displays a slight orientation towards the work itself. Another characteristic feature of Poetics is that it evaluates art or specifically tragedy based on its effect upon the audience. Thus Aristotle's criticism is very flexible and cannot be easily classified into one form of orientation. Nevertheless the mimetic orientation remains the most prominent in Aristotle's criticism. It is however important to note that Aristotle's criticism does not pay much attention to the role of the poet's individual feelings or emotions in the creation of a work of art. In Poetics the poet appears only to be advised about how plot is to be constructed and how diction is to be chosen. Plato on the other hand considers the poet from the political point of view.

In the third part of the essay Abrams speaks about the theories that display an orientation towards the relationship of the work of art to its audience. Abrams terms these theories as pragmatic theories. Pragmatic theories view the arts as a means of achieving an end and judges the value of art based upon its success in achieving that end. For pragmatic critics poetry is a means to achieve certain responses from its readers. Sir Philip Sidney's ‘An Apology for Poetry’ is the first text that displays pragmatic criticism. According to Sidney the purpose of poetry is to teach and delight. Sidney judges the value of poetry by analyzing its effect upon its audience. He says that poets are different from historians because they communicate what may be or should be rather than what has been or shall be. Sidney raises the poet above philosophers and historians because it is only the poet who is the most successful in communicating with his audience. This is because he combines the fact of the historian and the morals of the philosopher and disguises it in a form that not only teaches but also delights.

The classical theory of rhetoric can be viewed as the origin of pragmatic theories as rhetoric is universally regarded as a powerful instrument of persuasion among an audience. Horace discusses this theory in his work Ars Poetica. Horace advises poets to write poetry with the aim to blend usefulness with pleasure. To teach, to please and to move are the three aesthetic effects to be achieved upon a reader. Pragmatic criticism is mostly concerned with formulating rules, guidelines and methods for achieving the desired effects upon the audience. The rules are often derived from the qualities present in classical literary works which have stood the test of time or from an understanding of psychology. These rules help the artist in the process of creation and the critic in the process of evaluation. Most eighteenth century critics believed in the strength of these rules. Therefore describing and demonstrating rules and guidelines became a popular trend in the critical texts of that time. Richard Hurd's ' Dissertation of the idea of universal poetry ' is another critical text concerning pragmatic criticism. According to Hurd universal poetry is the art whose purpose is to provide the maximum amount of pleasure possible. In order to achieve this effect Hurd proposes three properties - figurative language, fiction and versification. According to Hurd, since the aim of poetry is to gratify the mind of the reader, knowledge of the mind is important while establishing these rules.

Johnson’s "Preface to Shakespeare" is one of the most important texts dealing with pragmatic criticism. Johnson combines the mimetic criteria of evaluation with the aesthetic effects upon the audience in order to judge works of art. Johnson says that Shakespeare holds before his readers a faithful mirror of manner and life. But Johnson also states that the aim of poetry is to instruct as well as please. Therefore the fact that Shakespeare has survived the test of time as a poet whose works are read for little reason other than pleasure is proof that a work of art that truly imitates nature will continue to please its audience for a long time. Shakespeare's ability to hold up a mirror of life to his audience is the major criteria upon which Johnson judges the effect of his works on the audience. Abrams notes that the pragmatic orientation has been the principal aesthetic attitude of western criticism beginning from Horace up to the eighteenth century. However with the development of science and increased knowledge of psychology particularly after the influence of the works of Hobbes and Locke in the seventeen century, the poet and his mental capacities gradually became the focal point of criticism and the orientation of critical theories turned from the audience to the artist.

The fourth part of the essay deals with the critical theories oriented towards the relation between the work and the artist which Abrams calls the expressive theory of art. The expressive orientation is found in the works of Longinus in his discussions of the sublime which according to Longinus has its sources in the poet's thoughts and emotions. However Abrams considers the year 1800 marked by the publication of Wordsworth's Preface to the Lyrical Ballads as the date when the expressive orientation begins to surface in English literary criticism. The expressive theories are a product of the Romantic Movement which emphasized on the power of the poet's mind. According to the expressive theory a work of art is an external manifestation of internal thoughts and feelings. The creative process is a result of the impulses of feeling combined with the poet's thoughts and perceptions which is the primary source of his works. The poet also converts aspects of the external world into poetry with the help of his mind. The poet’s mind therefore is the central point of attention in an expressive theory. The expressive theories evaluate poetry by trying to figure out whether the diction and figures of speech are a natural outcome of the poet's emotions or a deliberate effort. The expressive theory tries to answer the questions of sincerity and authenticity of poetry along with the poem's correspondence to the actual feeling and state of the poet's mind.  The work of art is no longer viewed as a mirror of the universe but as an insight to the poet's mind.

In the fifth and last part of the essay Abrams discusses the objective theories of criticism which isolate a work of art and evaluate it as an independent entity. The orientation of objective theories is thus towards the work of art alone irrespective of its source, artist or audience. One of the early attempts at objective criticism is seen in Aristotle's Poetics. Aristotle tries to analyze tragedy by considering it as an individual whole consisting of parts such as plot and characters. The objective orientation begins to emerge significantly in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Some critics tried to understand a poem as a 'heterocosm' i.e. a whole, independent world complete in itself. This aim of critics to consider a work or poem as a singular element without any external reference is termed by historians as ' art for art's sake'.

Thus it is seen that Abrams divides critical theories into four categories based upon their orientation - first the mimetic theories which orient towards the universe, secondly the pragmatic theories concerning the audience, thirdly the expressive theories focusing on the artist and finally the objective theories revolving around the work of art itself. However towards the end of the essay Abrams returns to Romanticism and its expressive theories. This is because it is during the Romantic period that the critical theories begin to view the mind of the poet not as a mirror of nature but as a 'lamp' which sheds light on its own creation. Abrams' return to Romanticism justifies the purpose of his book where he tries to explain the two ways in which a poet's mind is interpreted- as a mirror and as a lamp.

Mimetic Tradition in Classical Western Literary Criticism

The word 'mimesis' means to imitate. As a critical and philosophical term mimesis may carry several meanings such as representation, imitation, and mimicry, the act of resembling, the act of expression and the presentation of the self. Mimesis as criteria of literary criticism refers to interpreting a text in relation to a particular literary or cultural model. The tradition of mimetic criticism begins with Plato.

In ancient Greece the idea of mimesis referred to a reflection of the ideal world in the physical. Plato wrote about the concept of mimesis in his famous work The Republic where he said that the physical world is merely a reflection or imitation of an ‘ideal’ world. Plato divides the world into – the world of ideals and the world of sense-perception. Reality exists in the form of ideals and is perceived through the senses in the world of appearances. Plato exemplifies this concept with the help of three beds- one the ideal of a ‘bed’; second, the bed made by a carpenter and third the bed painted by the artist. The artist imitates the carpenter who in turn imitates the ideal world. Thus the painting is an imitation of an imitation. The work of an artist is twice removed from reality. Plato likens poets to painters and thus calls them liars.  Plato calls poetry the art of divine madness. The artists and orators, according to Plato, persuade their audience by rhetoric and not by speaking the truth.

Plato’s idea is further discussed by his disciple Aristotle in his work Poetics which is a defence of poetry against Plato’s accusations. Aristotle mentions in Poetics that epic poetry, tragedy, comedy, pipe-playing and lyre-playing are all different modes of imitation. However they differ from each other in three ways- first, the means of imitation, second the object to be imitated and third, the manner of imitation. A poet imitates actions which are performed by either a good person or a bad person i.e. a poet imitates virtues and vices, the primary distinction of the diversity of human temperaments. The persons that a poet imitates must be either of a higher level than the common people, or of a lower level or of the same level. If the means and object for imitation are the same the manner of imitation may differ in three ways. First, one may switch between narration and assuming character. Secondly, one may remain the same without any change or thirdly, the whole story may be represented dramatically as if the imitator is actually performing those actions.

 Aristotle regards humans as imitative beings. Humans are the most imitative creatures in the world which is an advantage they enjoy over other beings. The process of learning in human life begins with imitation. Moreover imitation is not only a part of human nature but they also find delight in works of imitation. Aristotle says that although some objects are painful to see in real life a realistic representation of those objects in the form of art provides pleasure. The natural tendency of imitation in humans along with the sense of melody and rhythm results in the creation of poetry.

The mimesis theory is reflected in Aristotle’s famous definition of tragedy where he states that tragedy is the ‘imitation of an action’ that is serious, has a magnitude and is complete in it. It is written in a pleasurable language and the action progresses in a dramatic form involving incidents which arouse the emotions of pity and fear in the audience and ultimately leads to a catharsis of those emotions. Aristotle differentiates a comedy from a tragedy by saying that comedy is the imitation of people worse than the average while a tragedy is the imitation of persons above the ordinary. According to Aristotle a poet’s function is to describe what may have happened or should have happened, unlike a historian whose function is to describe what has already happened. In this manner poetry is a form of creation and thus the poet is a creator and not a liar as said by Plato.

Philip Sidney in his essay An Apology for Poetry reiterates the classical definition and says that poetry is the art of imitation, like a representation or a counterfeit. It is a speaking picture whose aim is to teach and delight. Sidney classifies poetry into three types. First is religious poetry that imitates the incredible excellence of God. Secondly poetry that deals with philosophical matters either moral or astronomical. The third type of poetry according to Sidney is that which imitates for the sole purpose of teaching and delighting by telling not what has been or shall be but which may be or should be. Thus he echoes Aristotle’s view on a poet’s function carrying forward the mimetic tradition in classical western literary criticism. Sidney also adds that a poet is one who is capable of feigning images of virtue and vices in a didactic yet entertaining manner.

The mimetic tradition continues in Samuel Johnson’s Preface to Shakespeare, the famous critique of the works of William Shakespeare. Johnson measures Shakespeare’s genius in his ability to imitate nature. Johnson regards Shakespeare as the poet of nature who holds up a faithful mirror of life and its manners to his readers. The plays of Shakespeare portray the true nature of human beings and the actions of his characters can scarcely be called fictional.  Shakespeare’s characters are never extraordinary; they speak and act under the influence of common human passions. Johnson says that Shakespeare does not have any heroes. His characters are merely men who act and speak in the same manner as the reader himself would act or speak if he faced a similar situation. His characters are ordinary and universal. The audience can identify themselves with the characters. According to Johnson, “imitations produce pleasure or pain, not because they are mistaken for realities, but because they bring realities to mind”. Shakespeare’s tragedies are impactful because they imitate situations which may not be real but which are capable of bringing realities to the mind. According to Johnson the greatest praise of Shakespeare is that his drama is a mirror of life.

In conclusion it can be said that the concept of mimesis in western literary criticism evolved through the works of various critics. The tradition began with Plato who regarded the physical world as an imitation of the ‘ideal’ and thus regarded all imitations of the physical world as false. Aristotle defended this stance by justifying that the poet speculates events which is a creative process in itself and hence proved that they are not liars. The tradition continued down the ages up to the eighteenth century as seen in the works of critics such as Sidney and Johnson. Mimesis is considered as an important concept in the world of literary criticism even today. 

A Study of Poetry | Matthew Arnold | Summary and Analysis

'A Study of Poetry' is a critical essay by Matthew Arnold. In this essay Arnold criticizes the art of poetry as well as the art of criticism. Arnold believes that the art of poetry is capable of high destinies. It is the art in which the idea itself is the fact. He says that we should understand the worth of poetry as it is poetry that shows us a mirror of life. Science, according to Arnold, is incomplete without poetry, and, religion and philosophy will give way to poetry. Arnold terms poetry as a criticism of life thereby refuting the accusation of Plato and says that as time goes on man will continue to find comfort and solace in poetry.

Arnold says that when one reads poetry he tends to estimate whether it is of the best form or not. It happens in three ways- the real estimate, the historic estimate, and the personal estimate. The real estimate is an unbiased viewpoint that takes into account both the historical context and the creative faculty to judge the worth of poetry. But the real estimate is often surpassed by the historic and personal estimate. The historic estimate places the historical context above the value of the art itself. The personal estimate on the other hand depends on the personal taste, the likes and dislikes of the reader which affects his judgment of poetry. Arnold says that both these estimates tend to be fallacious.

The historic and personal estimate often overshadows the real estimate. But Arnold also says that it is natural. The study of the historical background of poetry and its development often leads to the critic skipping over the shortcomings because of its historical significance. Historic estimate raises poetry to a high pedestal and thus hinders one from noticing its weaknesses. It is the historic estimate that leads to the creation of classics and raises the poet to a nearly God like standard. Arnold says that if a poet is truly a classic his poetry will give the reader real pleasure and enable him to compare and contrast other poetry which are not of the same high standard. This according to Arnold is the real estimate of poetry. Thus Arnold appeals to his readers to read classics with an open eye and not be blind to its faults. This will enable one to rate poetry with its proper value.

Arnold here speaks about the idea of imitation. He says that whatever one reads or knows keeps on coming back to him. Thus if a poet wants to reach the high standards of the classics he might consciously or unconsciously imitate them. This is also true for critics who tend to revert to the historic and personal estimate instead of an unbiased real estimate. The historic estimate affects the study of ancient poets while the personal estimate affects the study of modern or contemporary poets.

Arnold proposes the ‘touchstone’ method of analyzing poetry in order to determine whether it is of a high standard or not. He borrows this method from Longinus who said in his idea of the sublime that if a certain example of sublimity can please anyone regardless of habits, tastes or age and can please at all times then it can be considered as a true example of the sublime. This method was first suggested in England by Addison who said that he would have a man read classical works which have stood the test of time and place and also those modern works which find high praise among contemporaries. If the man fails to find any delight in them then he would conclude that it is not the author who lacks quality but the reader who is incapable of discovering them. Arnold applies the touchstone method by taking examples from the time tested classics and comparing them with other poetry to determine whether they possess the high poetic standard of the classics. He says that the poems need not resemble or possess any similarity to the touchstones. Once the critic has lodged the touchstones in his mind in order to detect the possession of high poetic quality he will have the tact of finding it in other poetry that he compares to the touchstones. Arnold quotes Homer, Dante, Shakespeare and Milton in an attempt to exemplify touchstone poetry. He says that the examples he has quoted are very dissimilar to one another but they all possess a high poetic quality. He says that a critic need not labour in vain trying to explain the greatness of poetry. He can do so by merely pointing at some specimens of the highest poetic quality. Arnold says that the high quality of poetry lies in its matter and its manner. He then goes by Aristotle’s observation and says that the best form of poetry possesses high truth and seriousness that makes up its subject matter along with superior diction that marks its manner. However, Arnold mentions that the true force of this method lies in its application. He therefore urges critics to apply the touchstone method to analyse and rate poetry.

Arnold then speaks about French poetry which had a tremendous influence on the poetry of England. He differentiates between the poetry of northern France and the poetry of southern France. The poetry of southern France influenced Italian literature. But it is the poetry of northern France that was dominant in Europe in the twelfth and thirteenth century. This poetry came to England with the Anglo- Normans and had a tremendous impact on English poetry. It was the romance- poems of France that was popular during that time. But Arnold says that it did not have any special characteristics and lacked the high truth, seriousness and diction of classic poetry and remain significant only from the historical point of view.

Next Arnold speaks about Chaucer who was much influenced by French and Italian poetry. Arnold says that Chaucer’s poetic importance is a result of the real estimate and not the historic estimate. The superiority of Chaucer’s verse lies both in his subject matter and his style. He writes about human life and nature as he sees it. Arnold speaks highly of Chaucer’s diction and calls it ‘liquid diction’ to emphasise the fluidity in the manner of Chaucer’s writing which he considers to be an irresistible virtue. Arnold however says that Chaucer is not a classic. He compares Chaucer to Dante and points out that Chaucer lacks the high seriousness of the classics thereby depriving him of the high honour.

Next Arnold mentions Milton and Shakespeare and credits them as classics and moves on to speak about Dryden and Pope. According to the historic estimate Dryden and Pope are no doubt great poets of the eighteenth century. Arnold observes that Dryden and Pope were better prose writers than poets. The restoration period faced the necessity of a fit prose with proper imaginative quality and this is what Dryden and Pope provided. Arnold therefore concludes that they are classics not of poetry but of prose.

After Dryden and Pope Arnold speaks about Gray. Gray did not write much but what he wrote has high poetic value. Arnold therefore considers Gray to be a classic.

Arnold now speaks about Robert Burns in the late eighteenth century and says that this is the period from which the personal estimate begins to affect the real estimate. Burns, according to Arnold, is a better poet in Scottish than in English. Like Chaucer Arnold does not consider Burns to be a classic. He says that Burns too lacks the high seriousness desired of poetry. He compares Burns to Chaucer and finds that Burns’ manner of presentation is deeper than that of Chaucer. According to the real estimate Burns lacks the high seriousness of the classics but his poetry nevertheless has truthful substance and style.

Then Arnold moves on to speak about Byron, Shelley and Wordsworth but does not pass any judgement on their poetry. Arnold believes that his estimate of these poets will be influenced by his personal passion as they are closer to his age than the classics and also because their writings are of a more personal nature. Finally Arnold speaks about the self-preservation of the classics. Any amount of good literature will not be able to surpass the supremacy of the classics as they have already stood the test of time and people will continue to enjoy them for the ages to come. Arnold says that this is the result of the self preserving nature of humanity. Human nature will remain the same throughout the ages and those parts of the classics dealing with the subject will remain relevant at all times thus preserving themselves from being lost in time.