1. Methods of Criticism
1.1. Personal
1.2. The Historical
1.3. The Right Method-Comparative
2. Arnold and Eliot: A Comparative Study Or The Influence of Arnold on Eliot: "Eliot as the Child of arnold"
2.1. Close Similarity
2.1.1. Critical creeds
2.1.2. Critical method
2.2. Eliot's Debt to Arnold
2.2.1. That a current of living ideas is necessary for creative activity to take place.
2.2.2. That it is, at least partly, the task of the critic to ensure the flow of this current of fresh and living ideas.
2.2.3. That writers must look outside as well as inside their own countries to secure the best ideas.
2.2.4. That there is a high objective standard in literary and intellectual matters, and the critic must ensure the standard.
2.2.5. That knowledge and recognition of this standard is necessary for that enduring excellence in literature which we call classicism.
2.2.6. That the great writings of Greece and Rome provide us with invaluable and essential model of excellence. For comparison and contrast, a work of art must be viewed in historical perspective.
2.3. Eliot a Modifier of Arnold'a Criticism
2.3.1. For Eliot culture is more a mattes of religion than it is for Arnold. For Arnold criticism was an instrument of culture, a means to social and cultural end.
2.3.2. Both believe in objective standards of excellence for poetry
2.3.3. Both are against impressionistic criticisms, and reject the concept of the "inner voice"
2.3.4. Both are enemies of the Romantic School of poetry and do not believe in the spontaneous over flow of powerful feelings.
2.3.5. There is so much similarity between the critical attitudes of the two that a critic has gone so far as to say that Eliot is only the modifier of Arnold's criticism
2.4. The Differences
2.4.1. For Arnold, his themes are merely the scattered conviction of a cultured man. For Eliot, the are an integral part of a logical system.
2.4.2. For Eliot the writing of Greece and Rome are important because they are the roots from which European literature have grown. For Arnold, they are models for his grand manner.
3. Function of Criticism
3.1. It makes creation possible
3.2. the educative role of criticism
4. Important Critical Work
4.1. ThreePhases of His Literary Criticism
4.1.1. Phase 1
4.1.1.1. 1 The Preface to thePoem, 1853
4.1.1.2. On translating Homer
4.1.1.3. Essays in Criticism, First Series, 1866
4.1.1.3.1. which regards Europe as being, for intellectual and spiritual purposes, one great confederation, bound to a joint action and working to a common result.
4.1.1.3.2. the essays (first series) are a skilful and harmonious mixture of jests, eloquence, typical allusion, comments, and lofty idealism.
4.1.1.4. On the Study of Celtic Literature, 1866
4.1.2. Phase 2
4.1.2.1. Culture and Anarchy, 1869
4.1.2.2. St. Paul and Protestantism, 1870
4.1.2.3. Literature and Dogma, 1873
4.1.2.4. God and Bible, 1875
4.1.3. Phase 3
4.1.3.1. Socio-ethical Criticism
4.1.3.2. Literary Criticism
4.1.3.2.1. theoretical criticism
4.1.3.2.2. practical criticism