Criticism and Theory I Past Papers Solved Long

Questions

Past Paper 2017

Q: 1 Answer the following questions?

Q: 1 Write a detailed note on plot as soul of tragedy in Aristotle?

A: 1 According to Aristotle: Plot is the soul of a tragedy. It is the first

principle and the most important feature of a tragedy because action is the
most significant aspect of a tragedy. There can be tragedy without character
or music or dance; but there cannot be a tragedy without action. Plot is the
arrangement of incidents. Story gets its impact or power only when the
incidents are arranged in the correct sequence with effective links. It must
have a universal significance, definite structure, unity of theme and purpose.
In his Poetics, Aristotle discusses the specifications of a successful plot of a
tragedy which includes: completeness, magnitude, unity, determinate
structure and universality.

Completeness of the plot means the plot must be “a whole”, with a beginning,
middle and end. The beginning or the incentive moment, must instill the
cause-and-effect chain based on something which is within the play. The
middle, or climax, must be caused by earlier incidents and itself causes the
incidents that follow it. The end, or resolution, must be caused by the
preceding events but not lead to other incidents outside the compass of the
play. The end should therefore solve or resolve the problem created during
the incentive moment. The cause-and-effect chain of actions ‘trying up’ from
the incentive to the climax or complication; and the cause-and-effect chain of
actions ‘unravelling’ from the climax to the resolution is called denouement.
There should be appropriate sequencing of incidents resulting in the feel of
completeness.

Magnitude of the plot refers to the length. Usually the length of the play
should be what the audience can wind up in their memory. At the same time
the lengthy plot with many incidents make it a complex one. Aristotle
recommends complexity of the plot by the inclusion of as many incidents
revolving around one theme. The more the number of incidents included in
the plot, that makes the play richer and improves its artistic value. A brief
plot will reduce the scope for artistic value. At the same time too many
incidents without any coherence and sequence will indeed mar the quality of
tragedy. Hence the magnitude of the play is very important. It should be
complex, compact and comprehensive.

Unity in the plot refers to the unity of action. Irrespective of the number of
incidents or situations discussed in the plot, it must have an organic unity. The
whole action and incident must be revolving around the central action. The
plot may be either simple or complex, although complex is better. Simple plots
have only a ‘change of fortune’ (catastrophe). Complex plots have both
“reversal of intention” (peripeteia) and “recognition” (anagnorisis) connected
with the catastrophe. Both peripeteia nd anagnorisis turn upon surprise.
Aristotle explains that a peripeteia occurs when a character produces an effect
opposite to that which he intended to produce, while an anagnorisis “is a
change from ignorance to knowledge, producing love or hate between the
destined for good or bad fortune”. He argues that the best plots combine these
two as part of their cause-and-effect chain (i.e., the peripeteia leads directly to
the anagnorisis); this in turns creates the catstrophe leading to the final “scene
of suffering”.

A well-determined structure of the plot means the effective linking of the

various events and incidents in the plot with a remarkable coherence. It is the
expertise of poet to prune or avoid all the irrational and irrelevant details
from the plot. Action is the paramount of a tragedy.
Q: 2 What according to Johnson is the purpose of criticism?

A: 2 Johnson believed that the task of criticism is to establish principles and

improve opinion into knowledge.

As a practitioner of most forms of literary criticism, Johnson was particularly

qualified to pass judgment on the "faults and beauties" of. literary
compositions. His own distinguished career as poet, biographer, essayist and
journalist gave him direct and invaluable knowledge of the creative process so
that his pronouncements represent a lifelong interest in and association with
literature.

Johnson was an empirical critic. His point of departure was always the
literary text. Although he acknowledged that rules could be formulated from
an analysis of poetry, he stressed the danger of rigid standards of
measurement. While Johnson exemplified the classical tradition in criticism,
he was no slavish conformist to rules even when they had evolved from the
ancients in such matters as the unities.

Truth, nature and reason were basic to Johnson's criticism. He insisted that
conventions should harmonize with the dictates of reason and common sense.
Moreover, he took an independent stand when occasion demanded it. Such
was his opposition to the pastoral and his censure of the use of excessive
mythology in poetry.
Johnson was a strong advocate of general principles. He believed that only
general effects were indicative of true worth, and so he repudiated both
microscopic and telescopic methods of criticism. Particularity, he maintained
in Rasselas, was to be avoided because the minute analysis of poetry
fragmented the general spirit of the composition.

Johnson was a moral critic. He never judged literature solely on aesthetic

grounds, nor did he value literature for its own sake. Life and literature were
inseparable for him. He supported the established custom in letters that held
that poetry should provide utility and pleasure. Moreover, Johnson insisted
that poets should teach man the correct view of manners, morals and social
relations, for he strongly believed that literature should inculcate goodness,
teach society principles of reason and justice and demonstrate the repression
of evil.

This study was divided into five chapters. Chapter I, "The Critic and
Criticism," is devoted to Johnson's pronouncements on the role of the critic
and the nature of criticism. Johnson forcefully provides a rationale for the
dual function of poet and critic which he so admirably exemplifies. Chapter
II, "Little Prefaces, Little Lives," reviews the circumstances that resulted in
his last great work and includes a representative sampling of Johnson's
critical declarations as it appears in a number of major and minor lives.
Chapters III and, IV present an analysis of six major life studies: Dryden,
Milton, Addison, Cowley, Swift and Pope. The accounts of these particular
poets were selected for detailed comment because they represent Johnson's
critical writing at its best. In each spirited rendition, Johnson weaves a rich
tapestry of critical and biographical composition that is unrivalled in English
letters.

Finally, in Chapter V, "Critical Matrices," significant clusters of ideas are

identified around which Johnson's critical attitudes adhere in all of his works.
Thus it is with admirable consistency of statement, abundant illustration and
clarity of example, that Johnson skillfully presents his view on mythology,
imagination, decorum and imitation, as well as on the pastoral and the general
and particular in literary criticism. Each of these topics, therefore, is
discussed at some length in the last chapter, illustrated by examples from the
Lives of the English Poets.
Q: 3 Discuss the main argument in Preface to Lyrical Ballads?

A: 3 Followings are the main arguments in Preface to Lyrical Ballads:

 Poetry as the Language of Common People: The Preface to

Lyrical Ballads presents Wordsworth's explanation for the new type of
poetry he published in 1798. He continued to revise the Preface in the
hope of gaining a larger reading audience and further recognition by
other writers. He rejects previous conventional approaches to literature
as emotionally barren, overlooking the connection he values between the
thoughts and language of common people and the poet's ability to
transmit the experience at the same accessible level. He speaks of poetry
as existing from the poet as one person to other persons, with minimal
or no intermediary needed. He recognizes some refinement of anything
considered vulgar or offensive would need revising, but otherwise no
real barriers need exist. As a Romantic, Wordsworth values the humble,
rustic ways of countryfolk, people who he believes have directly
experienced the truths of nature. Their experiences can be transmitted
in poetry that includes the same honesty and directness that he finds in
homogenous rural settings. Poems he creates spring from the overflow
of genuine feelings. These lead to reflection and simple wisdom and then
are restated in ordinary language to recreate the original emotion.

The Preface rejects reliance on standards from the Classical or

Enlightenment eras—Pope and Johnson among the British poets he
 names—because they overlook the lives of common people who speak
humble and unadorned language.

 Poetry and Prose: Devoting much attention to emphasizing the close

connection of poetry with prose, Wordsworth shows little patience for
efforts in past eras to perfect standards for either poetry or prose at the
expense of the other. For him, both share the same purpose: to speak
plainly and honestly in language reflecting the lives of living people and
not close themselves off to the other form. He does not believe in a
separation of poetry and prose as two opposed approaches but instead
states repeatedly they come from the same origins and spirit and should
be accessible at equal levels.

Wordsworth places little value on the factual or scientific in literature.

He is far more interested in the emotions arising from an immediate
experience that is later reflected upon, assimilated, and understood. He
can see the significance of scientific inquiry and knowledge, but for
speaking the truths of the lives of his contemporaries, he keeps a
distance between instinctive literature and applied scientific literature.
For Wordsworth, this type of literature does not unite the scientist with
ordinary people on a daily basis, but instead keeps him isolated in a
world of facts. Writing as he was in the first years of the 1800s, he could
not anticipate the enormous role scientific research and
experimentation has assumed since then. The Preface ushers in a new
world of literary sensibility, and is focused ahead of that changing
world. However, scientifically, it seems naïve.
 Role of the Poet: At the heart of the Preface, Wordsworth gives
extended treatment to the role of a poet, according to the views he has
expressed on language and content. The poet is a person of the common
people, attuned to them and sensitive to their experiences, and at the
same time the poet is someone in a special position. Wordsworth
explains, "The poet, singing a song in which all human beings join with
him, rejoices in the presence of truth as our visible friend and hourly
companion." The poet is the "rock of defense for human nature; an
upholder and a preserver, carrying everywhere with him relations and
love." Wordsworth adds, "The poet binds together by passion and
knowledge the vast empire of human society ... and over all time."

As the new scientists of Wordsworth's time forged ahead in chemistry

and botany, so the poet represents "the first and last of all knowledge ...
as immortal as the heart of man ... The poet will lend his divine spirit to
aid the transfiguration" into knowledge. But for Wordsworth and
others he hoped to inspire, the role of art stands far apart from applied
science of any kind. The poet remains a special person, an individual
who can take the ordinary experiences of common people and articulate
those experiences coherently into felt passions and controlled emotions
that touch on moral truth and rightness.
 Past Paper 2018

Q: 1 Answer the following questions?

Q: 1 Plot is the soul of tragedy in Aristotle. Discuss?

A: 1 According to Aristotle: Plot is the soul of a tragedy. It is the first

principle and the most important feature of a tragedy because action is the
most significant aspect of a tragedy. There can be tragedy without character
or music or dance; but there cannot be a tragedy without action. Plot is the
arrangement of incidents. Story gets its impact or power only when the
incidents are arranged in the correct sequence with effective links. It must
have a universal significance, definite structure, unity of theme and purpose.
In his Poetics, Aristotle discusses the specifications of a successful plot of a
tragedy which includes: completeness, magnitude, unity, determinate
structure and universality.

Completeness of the plot means the plot must be “a whole”, with a beginning,
middle and end. The beginning or the incentive moment, must instill the
cause-and-effect chain based on something which is within the play. The
middle, or climax, must be caused by earlier incidents and itself causes the
incidents that follow it. The end, or resolution, must be caused by the
preceding events but not lead to other incidents outside the compass of the
play. The end should therefore solve or resolve the problem created during
the incentive moment. The cause-and-effect chain of actions ‘trying up’ from
the incentive to the climax or complication; and the cause-and-effect chain of
actions ‘unravelling’ from the climax to the resolution is called denouement.
There should be appropriate sequencing of incidents resulting in the feel of
completeness.

Magnitude of the plot refers to the length. Usually the length of the play
should be what the audience can wind up in their memory. At the same time
the lengthy plot with many incidents make it a complex one. Aristotle
recommends complexity of the plot by the inclusion of as many incidents
revolving around one theme. The more the number of incidents included in
the plot, that makes the play richer and improves its artistic value. A brief
plot will reduce the scope for artistic value. At the same time too many
incidents without any coherence and sequence will indeed mar the quality of
tragedy. Hence the magnitude of the play is very important. It should be
complex, compact and comprehensive.

Unity in the plot refers to the unity of action. Irrespective of the number of
incidents or situations discussed in the plot, it must have an organic unity. The
whole action and incident must be revolving around the central action. The
plot may be either simple or complex, although complex is better. Simple plots
have only a ‘change of fortune’ (catastrophe). Complex plots have both
“reversal of intention” (peripeteia) and “recognition” (anagnorisis) connected
with the catastrophe. Both peripeteia nd anagnorisis turn upon surprise.
Aristotle explains that a peripeteia occurs when a character produces an effect
opposite to that which he intended to produce, while an anagnorisis “is a
change from ignorance to knowledge, producing love or hate between the
destined for good or bad fortune”. He argues that the best plots combine these
two as part of their cause-and-effect chain (i.e., the peripeteia leads directly to
the anagnorisis); this in turns creates the catstrophe leading to the final “scene
of suffering”.

A well-determined structure of the plot means the effective linking of the

various events and incidents in the plot with a remarkable coherence. It is the
expertise of poet to prune or avoid all the irrational and irrelevant details
from the plot. Action is the paramount of a tragedy.
Q: 2 What are the main arguments of Wordsworth in Preface to Lyrical
Ballads?

A: 2 Followings are the main arguments in Preface to Lyrical Ballads:

 Poetry as the Language of Common People: The Preface to

Lyrical Ballads presents Wordsworth's explanation for the new type of
poetry he published in 1798. He continued to revise the Preface in the
hope of gaining a larger reading audience and further recognition by
other writers. He rejects previous conventional approaches to literature
as emotionally barren, overlooking the connection he values between the
thoughts and language of common people and the poet's ability to
transmit the experience at the same accessible level. He speaks of poetry
as existing from the poet as one person to other persons, with minimal
or no intermediary needed. He recognizes some refinement of anything
considered vulgar or offensive would need revising, but otherwise no
real barriers need exist. As a Romantic, Wordsworth values the humble,
rustic ways of countryfolk, people who he believes have directly
experienced the truths of nature. Their experiences can be transmitted
in poetry that includes the same honesty and directness that he finds in
homogenous rural settings. Poems he creates spring from the overflow
of genuine feelings. These lead to reflection and simple wisdom and then
are restated in ordinary language to recreate the original emotion.

The Preface rejects reliance on standards from the Classical or

Enlightenment eras—Pope and Johnson among the British poets he
 names—because they overlook the lives of common people who speak
humble and unadorned language.

 Poetry and Prose: Devoting much attention to emphasizing the close

connection of poetry with prose, Wordsworth shows little patience for
efforts in past eras to perfect standards for either poetry or prose at the
expense of the other. For him, both share the same purpose: to speak
plainly and honestly in language reflecting the lives of living people and
not close themselves off to the other form. He does not believe in a
separation of poetry and prose as two opposed approaches but instead
states repeatedly they come from the same origins and spirit and should
be accessible at equal levels.

Wordsworth places little value on the factual or scientific in literature.

He is far more interested in the emotions arising from an immediate
experience that is later reflected upon, assimilated, and understood. He
can see the significance of scientific inquiry and knowledge, but for
speaking the truths of the lives of his contemporaries, he keeps a
distance between instinctive literature and applied scientific literature.
For Wordsworth, this type of literature does not unite the scientist with
ordinary people on a daily basis, but instead keeps him isolated in a
world of facts. Writing as he was in the first years of the 1800s, he could
not anticipate the enormous role scientific research and
experimentation has assumed since then. The Preface ushers in a new
world of literary sensibility, and is focused ahead of that changing
world. However, scientifically, it seems naïve.
 Role of the Poet: At the heart of the Preface, Wordsworth gives
extended treatment to the role of a poet, according to the views he has
expressed on language and content. The poet is a person of the common
people, attuned to them and sensitive to their experiences, and at the
same time the poet is someone in a special position. Wordsworth
explains, "The poet, singing a song in which all human beings join with
him, rejoices in the presence of truth as our visible friend and hourly
companion." The poet is the "rock of defense for human nature; an
upholder and a preserver, carrying everywhere with him relations and
love." Wordsworth adds, "The poet binds together by passion and
knowledge the vast empire of human society ... and over all time."

As the new scientists of Wordsworth's time forged ahead in chemistry

and botany, so the poet represents "the first and last of all knowledge ...
as immortal as the heart of man ... The poet will lend his divine spirit to
aid the transfiguration" into knowledge. But for Wordsworth and
others he hoped to inspire, the role of art stands far apart from applied
science of any kind. The poet remains a special person, an individual
who can take the ordinary experiences of common people and articulate
those experiences coherently into felt passions and controlled emotions
that touch on moral truth and rightness.
Q: 3 Discuss the main theme of Religion and Literature in Eliot’s essay?

A: 3 Followings are the main themes of Religion and Literature in Eliot’s

essay:

 Common Origen of Religion and Literature: Religion and

literature spring from the same fundamental sources. Religion is the
relation which man bears to ultimate Being. It is concerned with the
substance which lies behind phenomena, and also with the duty which
man owes to this Being, universal and eternal. It is concerned, too, with
the questions what, whence, whither. Literature, in and its final
analysis, represents the same fundamental relationship: it seeks to
explain, to justify, to reconcile, to interpret, and even to comfort and to
console. The Homeric poems are pervaded with the religious
atmosphere of wonder, of obedience to the eternal, and of the
recognition of the interest of the gods in human affairs. A significant
place is held by religion in Greek tragedy. A Divine Providence, the
eternity, universality, and immutability of law, the inevitableness of
penalty, and the assurance of reward represent great forces in the three
chief Greek tragedians. Less impressively, yet with significance, the
poems of Vergil are bathed in the air of religious mystery and
submission. The great work of Lucretius, De rerum natura, is, of course,
an expression of the human mind in its attempt to penetrate the
mysteries of being. The mythology, too, of the non-Christian nations of
the north, as well as the literature of the medieval peoples, is concerned
 with the existence and the work of the gods. In Scandinavian mythology,
literature and religion are in no small degree united.

 Their Common Appeal to Life: Not only do religion and literature

spring from the same fundamental sources, they also are formed by the
same forces. They both make a constant appeal to life. They assume the
presence and orderly use of the reason; they accept the strength of the
human emotions of love, fear, curiosity, reverence, and they both
presume and accept the categorical imperative of the conscience and the
freedom and force of the will of man. Both gain in dominance, prestige,
and usefulness as they are the more intimately related to life. The great
themes of religion and literature are similar and are vital: sin, its origin,
penalties, and deliver ance therefrom; love-the passion, and the will-its
place and its limitations; righteousness, and the relation of men to each
other. In illustration of the identities of the themes of religion and
literature, one may refer to Dante's " Divine Comedy," which is
concerned with the passing from and through Hell, where live those who
knew not Christ in the earthly life, or, if they knew him, refused to obey,
through Purgatory, where dwell those whose sins are not mortal, and
into the Paradise where dwell the righteous in an eternity of light and of
love. The great poem of the Middle Ages is at once great literature and a
certain type of religion. French literature is also pervaded by the
religious atmosphere. The religious element in the system of Descartes-
both philosophy in literature and literature in philosophy-and of his
followers is marked, and from them later French literature drew
religion and inspiration. This inspiration, be it said, was both emotional
 and intellectual. The whole field of modern fiction abounds in examples
of the connection between literature and religion; Hawthorne
significantly represents the more modern unity in America of the two
forces, and among all his works The Scarlet Letter and The Marble
Faun are in this respect most notable. In English fiction George Eliot
exemplifies this unity, and of her works Adam Bede is an impressive
illustration.

 Similarity in Methods: Religion and literature, moreover, adopt

methods not dissimilar. They stand for the value of the imagination;
they represent the artistic, rather than the scientific, methods of
interpreting life and phenomena. If theology, which is the science of
religion, lends itself to definition and to rational processes largely,
religion be longs to the realm of the sentiments and sensibilities-the
heart, the conscience, and the will. Literature, too, likewise declines to
enter the realm of the formal definition; it is the product of the
imagination, and to the imagination it makes its primary appeal,
especially in poetry and, to some extent, in noble prose composition.
Neither argues or dogmatizes; both intimate, suggest, and seek to
interpret; neither holds definite and precise intellectual judgments
regarding things eternal, universal, or divine, but each possesses general
beliefs and assurances respecting the divine and the eternal. Neither has
a system, a scheme, but each has an intellectual interpretativeness and
emotional sympathy with the personal in life and in being.
 Literature's Indebtedness to Religion: Religion gives to literature,
moreover, vast and rich materials. Its sacred books themselves
constitute great literatures and also furnish materials for great
literature. The translation of the Bible into Gothic by Ulphilas not only
preserved the Bible, but also helped to create and to perpetuate
literature. Luther's translation of the Bible and the King James'
Version are not only themselves great literatures, but also have helped
to form great literatures in modern life. German and English speech, as
well as letters, have been made purer, more intellectual, and more
inspiring by these great translations. It may be also added that the
sermons of Robert South and of Isaac Barrow (qq.v.) are themselves
worthy pieces of literature and might be compared with Burke's
Orations. It is also to be remembered that the institutions of religion, as
the monasteries and cathedral chapterhouses, were, for a thousand
years, the custodians of the most precious treasures of literature. The
medieval period was dark and damaging to humanity's highest
interests. In times of war not only are laws silent, but also literature. It
was the monks who preserved the manuscripts of ancient Greece and of
Rome, copying and re-copying and commenting from the year 500 till
the invention of printing. As the priests were astronomers, not only in
Europe, but also in India, in order to fix and to preserve the feast and
other holy days, so the monks of the Middle Ages in Europe, if not
literary men themselves, were the guardians of the holy lamp of letters.
 Past Paper 2019

Q: 1 Answer the following questions?

Q: 1 Write a detailed note on the concept of ideal tragic hero as theorized by

Aristotle?

A: 1 Aristotle in “Poetics” defines a perfect and ideal tragic hero for this
purpose. Greek tragedies are still being read and even dramatized in the
world and it is because of the portrayal of perfect tragic heroes.
Characteristics of an ideal tragic hero, given by Aristotle, are widely accepted
in the world. If a tragedy is written on the basis of the Aristotelian concept, it
will indeed cause a catharsis of pity and fear.

Aristotle’s Views on Ideal Tragic Hero:

Chapter XIII of Aristotle’s “Poetics” demonstrates his views on the ideal

tragic hero that are:

 The hero should neither be entirely bad nor completely good but a
combination of both.
 He should be noble by birth.
 Hero Should Suffer.
 Women are not good for tragedy.
 Mixture of Good and Bad in Hero: One of the important
characteristics of an ideal tragic hero is that he should be a person, who
has both good and bad qualities. Aristotle says that neither a good
character can be an ideal tragic hero nor can a bad character fulfil the
purpose of a true tragedy. The reason behind it is that a good character
will not create fear, which is an important ingredient of tragedy. God-
like person’s sufferings are not justified at all. It will only create
sympathy. In this way, a totally bad person is also not good for a
tragedy. If a villain suffers then his sufferings are entirely justified
because he deserves it. He will neither evoke pity nor fear which is
totally alien to the spirit of tragedy. Hence, an ideal tragic hero in
Aristotle’s view is one who is a possessor of both good and bad qualities.

 A tragic Hero Should be a Noble Person: Aristotle expresses his

views further and says that a tragic character should be noble by birth
and he must fall from prosperity to adversity. Noble characters are best
for a tragedy. The suffering of a person from the noble class is more
effective than the suffering of a person from a lower class. There is more
interest and fear in seeing a nobleman falling from a position of a lofty
eminence.

 Sufferings: Suffering is an integral part of the tragedy. No tragedy is

called complete until the hero suffers. In fact, suffering is the base of a
tragedy. A tragic hero, who is a combination of both good and bad
qualities, should suffer because of an error or frailty, called hamartia. It
can be an error of judgement or a bad decision of the character or any
 other thing which leads him to destruction. Aristotle gives much
importance to hamartia but he also adds that the suffering of the tragic
hero can also be the reason for unavoidable circumstances.

 Women and Aristotle’s Views on Ideal Tragic Hero: Aristotle

has something more to say in the definition of a tragic hero. He does not
consider a woman suitable for tragedy. Women, in his eyes, are inferior
and are not perfect tragic heroines.

By and large, Aristotle defined tragedy and with it the tragic hero. He
prefers a tragic hero to be a man like us, who is in possession of both
good and bad qualities. He should be a noble person; someone like a
king (in modern terms someone from the upper/elite class). He should
suffer because of unavoidable circumstances and due to hamartia in
order to excite pity and fear. However, death is not necessary, means
Aristotle. A heavy assertion is on the sufferings of the tragic hero.
Aristotle’s rules on the ideal tragic hero may not be accepted in modern
times but still, some characteristics are being followed. Some of the rules
have been renewed but there is no denying the fact that Aristotle gave a
complete concept of a true tragic hero in “Poetics”.
Q: 2 Discuss Wordsworth’s theorization of poetic diction?

A: 2 To begin, poetic diction must be defined. Poetic diction refers to the style
of writing used in poetry (the linguistic style, vocabulary, and use of figurative
language--normally metaphors). Up until Wordsworth's writing of the 1802
preface to Lyrical Ballads, the adherence to the poetic diction had yet to be
seriously challenged.

Wordsworth's issue, essentially, with the use and adherence to poetic diction
was the fact that it tended to alienate the common man. Given that the
common man did not speak using elevated vocabulary and figurative
language, Wordsworth believed, given he wanted poetry to speak to all, that
complete adherence to poetic diction needed to be dropped.

Perhaps the best way to illustrate Wordsworth's point on the elimination of

poetic diction is to examine the 1802 preface of Lyrical Ballads:

There will also be found in these volumes little of what is usually called poetic
diction; I have taken as much pains to avoid it as others ordinarily take to
produce it; this I have done for the reason already alleged, to bring my
language near to the language of men, and further, because the pleasure
which I have proposed to myself to impart is of a kind very different from that
which is supposed by many persons to be the proper object of poetry.
The term diction refers to the kinds of words, phrases and sentence
structures, and sometimes figurative language that constitute any work of
literature. In the theory of poetry, the issue of diction tends to become
primary because the feelings of the poet are most readily conceived to
overflow into words, unlike into plot or characters. The poets in all ages have
used a distinctive language, a “poetic diction” which is not correct in ordinary
discourse.

The neo-classical poetic diction was mainly derived from the classical poets
such as Virgil, Spenser, Milton and was based on the principal of decorum.
Moreover, prominent features of the eighteenth century poetic diction where
archaism, preference for resounding words derived from Latin, a
personification of inanimate objects and to avoid what were regarded as low,
technical or common place terms by means of substitute phrase that was
dignity and decorum.

In William Wordsworth’s famed attack on the neo-classical doctrine of a

special language for poetry, in his preface to 1800 Lyrical Ballads, he claimed:
“There is no difference between language of poetry and language of prose.”
He states that the poetic diction of eighteenth century writers as artificial and
unnatural.

Wordsworth’s prime concern is not only with the single word or the
grammatical order of discourse, but with figurative departures from literary
discourse. Wordsworth’s chief aim is to show that such deviations are
reasonable in poetry only when they match with the imagery and idea which
the poet wishes to universalize and that they have in the speech of everyday
life. It is obvious that Wordsworth is contradicting Pope’s theory, who claims,
“True wit is nature to advantage dressed and true expression consists in
giving thoughts their just and appropriate ‘dress’ and ornament. To
Wordsworth all such wit is fake, forced adjustment of words and phrase and
rhetorical ornament to them stop ‘genuine’ poetry. Wordsworth rejects the
idea of language as artificial and metres and figures of speech as
embellishments of the language. He justifies its use only when they are
naturally suggested by passion unlike ‘supposed ornaments. ’In a nutshell, so
the natural expression of feeling cannot be communicated with the help of a
version of the upper class speech, but with the actual speech of “humble and
rustic life.”

The Neo-classical poets insisted on the perfection of language rather than

subject matter. They adopted the method of revising their writing till it is said
in the fewest possible as well as the best possible words. The poets avoided
writing the words which were coarse, vulgar and unsuitable in their work.
Their aim was not only to make language lofty and grandeur but also its style.
In result, they introduced artificial poetic diction and style that made the
language different from every day and rustic life. William Wordsworth
followed very simple language or the language of country side. He used simple
and attractive diction coming out spontaneously. His language looked to be
natural. He used conceits, images, symbols, metaphors similes, alliterations
etc. All added great beauty to the work, and his style became very lofty to all
the common people as Longinus has depicted in his work "On the Sublime".
His using such language and style is wonderful.
Q: 3 Discuss the main feature of religion and literature in T.S. Eliot’s essay?

A: 3 Followings are the main features of religion and literature in T.S Eliot’s
essay:

Create connectivity between religion and literature: In his essay,

religion and literature he tells that religion and literature are interrelated.
Just like, religious literature which people write. Like Paradise Lost by John
Milton, and religious poems of John Donne are some of the examples of
connectivity between religion and literature.

Demoting the Secularization: Secularization is the decline of religion and

the belief in the supernatural. It occurs when religious values or beliefs are
replaced with non-religious values or beliefs. In this essay, T.S Eliot demoting
and ignoring the concept and belief of secularization. Because, secularization
is contrasting with religious beliefs and ideas. And it is opposite to the rules,
regulations and laws of religion.

Promoting ethical, moral and theological values: The essay of T.S Eliot
promoting the values of ethics, morality and theology. Values of ethics and
morality are both related with both religion and literature, and values of
theology are related to religion.
Criticism on faults of human: This essay of T.S Eliot criticizes on the
faults of human beings. And T.S Eliot argues that criticism on humans is very
necessary to make them good persons. Because, when we talk to any person
about his bad habits and criticize on him. Then, he will feel ashamed. And he
will try to become a good person.

Gaining true knowledge of life: In his essay, he talks about the true
knowledge of life which is getting only with the true life of human beings. He
tells that we think getting knowledge from fiction is also a true knowledge, but
it’s not a true knowledge. It is the knowledge of other’s people knowledge of
life and their experiences.

Applying Religion in Literature for criticism: In his essay, he talks

about the applications of religion on literary criticism. It will be good to
impose people from doing bad things and criticize them for it.
 Past Paper 2020

Q: 1 Answer the following questions?

Q: 1 Explain the idea of “rustic language” in William Wordsworth’s Preface

to Lyrical Ballads. How can the rusticity of language be helpful in creating
romantic poetry?

A: 1 As for the choice of rustic language, Wordsworth says that he has used it
after having purified it of its coarseness and other defects. The rustic people
can hourly communicate with the best object of nature from which the best
part of language is derived.

In writing poetry, Wordsworth has chosen the incidents and situations from
their humble and rustic life. He also asserts to adopt the language of the
people in rural life. The common people hourly communicate with the best
objects from which the best part of language is originally derived.
Wordsworth thinks that people in rural life convey their feelings and notions
through simple and unelaborated expressions. These people are less under the
influence of social vanity than the people who live in cities. Such a simple and
common language is permanent and philosophical. It is greater than the
language generally employed by poets.
Wordsworth uses common language because it’s realistic, and, thus, relatable.
He finds abstract ideas to be distancing—it gives readers the sense that what
they are reading about is intangible and does not apply to real life.
Wordsworth also expresses frustration that many poetic phrases have become
hackneyed from overuse and have lost their original meaning.

Wordsworth use rustic language in his work Preface to Lyrical Ballads,

because he thought the people of countryside are not such educated like
others. So, I should use vernacular or common language of people that they
could understand easily.

For creating Romantic poetry, Wordsworth use rustic language and make
sure that it can be helpful in creating romantic. He was also a romantic poet
of the era of Romanticism. During his era, he wrote almost all of his works in
rustic, ordinary and common language of people. His work Preface to the
Lyrical Ballads which is an essay of criticism on his first work Lyrical Ballads.
He also wrote it in common and rustic language.

Rustic language is also helpful in creating romantic poetry, because all the
poets of Romanticism era used rustic language for their romantic poetry.
Because, many romantic poems and poetry like; in English Romeo and Juliet
and in other languages like; Laila Manju, Sassy Puno, Heer Ranjha and
Mirza Sahiba etc… All of these romantic love stories and poetries were
written in vernacular and rustic language. The people who read all these
romantic stories are capable to understand them. Because, all of them are
written in common language of man. So, as written such kind of stuff in
common and rustic language, there is a possibility to create romantic nature
and behavior in the people of countryside.
Q: 2 What is the difference between culture and anarchy? How do you find
Arnold’s ideas helpful in understanding of your own culture in the 21st
century?

A: 2 Culture and Anarchy, major work of criticism by Matthew Arnold,

published in 1869. In it Arnold contrasts culture, which he defines as “the
study of perfection,” with anarchy, the prevalent mood of England’s then new
democracy, which lacks standards and a sense of direction.

The whole scope of [this book] is to recommend culture as the great help
out of our present difficulties; culture being a pursuit of our total
perfection by means of getting to know, on all the matters which most
concern us, the best which has been thought and said in the world, and,
through this knowledge, turning a stream of fresh and free thought upon
our stock notions and habits, which we now follow staunchly but
mechanically …

There is a view of culture in which all the love of our neighbor, the impulses
towards action, help, and beneficence, the desire for stopping human error,
clearing human confusion, and diminishing the sum of human misery, the
noble aspiration to leave the world better and happier than we found it—
motives eminently such as are called social—come in as part of the grounds
of culture, and the main and pre-eminent part. Culture is then properly
described … as having its origin in the love of perfection; it is a study of
perfection …
The idea of perfection as an inward condition of the mind and spirit is at
variance with the mechanical and material civilization in esteem with us …
The idea of perfection as a general expansion of the human family is at
variance with our strong individualism, our hatred of all limits to the
unrestrained swing of the individual’s personality, our maxim of ‘every
man for himself.’ The idea of perfection as a harmonious expansion of
human nature is at variance with our want of flexibility, with our
inaptitude for seeing more than one side of a thing, with our intense
energetic absorption in the particular pursuit we happen to be following …

The idea which culture sets before us of perfection—an increased spiritual

activity, having for its characters increased sweetness, increased light,
increased life, increased sympathy—is an idea which the new democracy
needs far more than the idea of the blessedness of the franchise, or the
wonderfulness of their own industrial performances …

We have got three distinct terms, Barbarians, Philistines, Populace, to

denote roughly the three great classes into which our society is divided [the
aristocrats, the middle class and the working class, respectively] … All of
us, so far as we are Barbarians, Philistines, or Populace, imagine happiness
to consist in doing what one’s ordinary self likes. What one’s ordinary self
likes differs according to the class to which one belongs, and has its severer
and its lighter side … The graver self of the Barbarian likes honors and
consideration; his more relaxed self, field-sports and pleasure. The graver
self of one kind of Philistine likes business and money-making; his more
relaxed self, comfort and tea-meetings … The sterner self of the Populace
likes bawling, hustling, and smashing; the lighter self, beer. But in each
class there are born a certain number of natures with a curiosity about
their best self, with a bent for seeing things as they are, for disentangling
themselves from machinery … for the pursuit, in a word, of perfection. To
certain manifestations of this love for perfection mankind have accustomed
themselves to give the name of genius; implying, by this name, something
original and heaven-bestowed in the passion. But the passion is to be found
far beyond those manifestations of it to which the world usually gives the
name of genius, and in which there is, for the most part, a talent of some
kind or other, a special and striking faculty of execution, informed by the
heaven-bestowed ardor, or genius. It is to be found in many manifestations
besides these, and may best be called, as we have called it, the love and
pursuit of perfection; culture being the true nurse of the pursuing love, and
sweetness and light the true character of the pursued perfection. Natures
with this bent emerge in all classes—among the Barbarians, among the
Philistines, among the Populace. And this bent always tends, as I have said,
to take them out of their class, and to make their distinguishing
characteristic not their Barbarianism or their Philistinism, but their
humanity …

For a long time, as I have said, the strong feudal habits of subordination
and deference continued to tell upon the working-class. The modern spirit
has now almost entirely dissolved those habits, and the anarchical tendency
of our worship of freedom in and for itself, of our superstitious faith, as I
say, in machinery, is becoming very manifest. More and more, because of
this our blind faith in machinery, because of our want of light to enable us
to look beyond machinery to the end for which machinery is valuable, this
and that man, and this and that body of men, all over the country, are
beginning to assert and put in practice an Englishman’s right to do what he
likes; his right to march where he likes, meet where he likes, enter where he
likes, hoot as he likes, threaten as he likes, smash as he likes. All this, I say,
tends to anarchy …

Now, if culture, which simply means trying to perfect oneself, and one’s
mind as part of oneself, brings us light, and if light shows us that there is
nothing so very blessed in merely doing as one likes, that the worship of the
mere freedom to do as one likes is worship of machinery, that the really
blessed thing is to like what right reason ordains, and to follow her
authority, then we have got a practical benefit out of culture. We have got a
much wanted principle, a principle of authority, to counteract the tendency
to anarchy which seems to be threatening us.
Q: 3 In the light of reading to T.S Eliot’s Religion and Literature, share your
own views on the idea of relationship between religion and literature?

A: 3 Relationship between religion and literature: One of the most

important and conspicuous features of literature's relation to religion is thus
that of affirmation, in the sense that literature—both oral and written—
functions to preserve and transmit religious ideas and actions.

T.S. Eliot believes that there is and should be a relationship between religion
and literature. In his essay ‘Religion and Literature’ he has discussed the
application of religion to literary criticism. According to Eliot the essay is not
about religious literature, but he as an essayist, mentions three types of
religious literature. First, is the religious literature, which has literary
qualities in it. For instance, the authorized version of the Bible or the works of
Jeremy Taylor. Those persons, who describe Bible only as a literary work and
talk of its influence on English literature, have been referred to as ‘parasites’.
According to Eliot, Bible is to be considered as ‘word of God’. Secondly, he
mentions devotional poetry. A devotional poet he says is not the one who
treats the subject matter in the religious spirit, but the one who treats a part
of the subject matter. Eliot considers poets like Spencer, Hopkins, Vaughan
and Southwell as minor poets while Dante, Corneille and Racine as major
poets. Thirdly, he states, are the works of authors who want to forward the
cause of religion. These types of works come under propaganda, for instance,
Chesterton’s ‘Man who was Thursday’ and ‘Father Brown’.
My own views on the idea of relationship between religion and
literature: Religion and Literature and interrelated with each other in many
ways.

There are so many similarities between religion and literature. One of them is
that; both religion and literature talk about the morality. So, if we look at the
religious point of view, we will see different religious approaches of different
religion. Like; Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism. In all of
these religions, morality is an essential part. And, if we look at the lateritious
point of view, we will see different kinds of literature stuff like; poetry, drama
and prose which are based on morality.

The other similar thing and relation between them is that; both are talk about
humanity. So, if we look at the religious point of view, we will see different
religious approaches of different religion. Like; Islam, Christianity,
Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism. In all of these religions, humanity is also an
essential part. Every religion talks about the human development and
empowerment. And, if we look at the lateritious point of view, we will see
different kinds of literature stuff like; poetry, drama and prose which are
based on humanity.

The other similar thing and relation between them is that; both are talk about
peace and love. So, if we look at the religious point of view, we will see
different religious approaches of different religion. Like; Islam, Christianity,
Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism. In all of these religions, humanity is also an
essential part. Every religion talks about the peace and love and people should
live their lives with peace and love. And every religion promotes peace and
love. And, if we look at the lateritious point of view, we will see different kinds
of literature stuff like; poetry, drama and prose which are based on peace and
love.
 Past Paper 2021

Q: 1 Answer the following questions?

Q: 1 What is Sidney apologetic about poetry?

A: 1 Sir Philip Sidney’s An Apology for Poetry, also known as The Defense of
Poesy, was written in 1579-80). It has at least one great claim to fame: it’s the
first work of ‘literary criticism’ in English. Sidney’s essay is an ‘apology’ for,
or defense of, the art of poetry, but Sidney was inspired to write it for a very
specific reason. Let’s take a closer look at this landmark defense of poetry
from a true Renaissance man.

Summary:

Sidney’s A Defense of Poetry is, in part, a response to Stephen Gosson’s

School of Abuse. Gosson was a Puritan, and his School of Abuse was a
polemical pamphlet claiming that poets lead people astray and preach
immorality. Given Sidney’s own fondness for poetry – he would go on to write
one of the first (though not quite the first) substantial sonnet sequence in the
English language – it’s unsurprising that the author of Astrophil and Stella
would leap to the defense of poetry.
Gosson even dedicated his pamphlet to Sidney without Sidney’s permission,
which is one sure-fire way to provoke a strong response from someone.

An Apology for Poetry is about the role of the poet in society. Sidney takes
pains to demonstrate that all the great civilizations of the world have valued
poetry and the work of the poet. For Sidney, poetry is not merely part of
civilization: it is civilization. Poetry is a civilized, and civilizing, art form.

Sidney goes on to explain why this is. Poetry can bring you closer to God. It
can ‘give right honor to the heavenly Maker of that maker, who having made
man to His own likeness, set him beyond and over all the works of that second
nature; which in nothing he showeth so much as in poetry’. If God is our
‘Maker’, the poet is a kind of maker, too (and, indeed, the word ‘poet’ has its
roots in the ancient Greek meaning ‘to make’).

For Sidney, poetry ‘is an art of imitation’: as he points out, Aristotle (in his
Poetics, the very first work of literary criticism in all of Western literature)
said as much. Poetry involves metaphor, and metaphor is a form of imitation,
comparing one thing to another. Poetry is, then, ‘a speaking picture’ whose
aim is ‘to teach and delight’.

And ‘teach’ is an important word for Sidney, for he acknowledges – indeed,

insists – that poetry should have a didactic element. It should inspire noble
and moral behavior in the reader. In a famous quotation, Sidney asserts:
Nature never set forth the earth in so rich tapestry as divers poets have done;
neither with so pleasant rivers, fruitful trees, sweet-smelling flowers, nor
whatsoever else may make the too-much-loved earth more lovely; her world is
brazen, the poets only deliver a golden.

In other words, poetry is superior to nature or reality in that poets always

overlay the world with gold, depicting it in an idealistic way, and so present it
in a ‘better’ light.

But Sidney is also aware that a reader is more likely to listen to a moral lesson
if the poetry delivering that lesson is actually entertaining. And here the poet
has the advantage over the philosopher: ‘I say the philosopher teacheth, but
he teacheth obscurely, so as the learned only can understand him; that is to
say, he teacheth them that are already taught.’ But poets, by contrast, can
reach people who aren’t schooled in philosophy, and impart valuable lessons
to them.

For this reason, poetry is a democratic art, accessible to those who are
untutored in philosophy. And poetic drama is perhaps the most democratic of
all. Poetry requires a reader, and a reader needs to have been taught to read,
so those who are illiterate are still shut out from it. But drama bypasses the
need for the audience to be literate. All that drama requires is a spectator,
rather than a reader.
Analysis:

Sidney is writing before the great golden age of the Elizabethan theatre
(Thomas Kyd, Christopher Marlowe, Shakespeare, Ben Jonson), but theatre
was a growing art form in London at this time. And before that, communities
up and down England had been entertained during religious festivals by the
Miracle and Mystery Plays, which dramatized – usually in verse – events from
the Bible, such as the Nativity and the Crucifixion.

As well as arguing that poetry is superior to philosophy, Sidney also shows

that it is a superior didactic tool to history. The problem with history is that
has to stick to what actually happened. And moral lessons aren’t always easy
to derive from history, especially when evil triumphs over good. What kind of
moral message does that send out? But in poetry, Sidney argues, evil doesn’t
triumph: good always overcomes it.

But there’s more to it than this. Indeed, Sidney uncovers a startling paradox
about the difference between poetry and history. Whereas poets and
playwrights never lie – yes, you read that right – historians, conversely, do lie
all the time. How can that be?

Sidney explains this by saying that for writers of fictions – such as poets and
playwrights – it’s actually impossible to lie, because they never affirm that
anything they say is true. They are presenting their writing as fiction, so
they’re not pretending to deal in facts. If you offer a story to readers and
imply, ‘I made this all up’, although what follows is a fiction – essentially, one
long lie – you as a poet are not lying, because by couching your narrative as a
work of fiction, you are admitting that what you offer up is untrue.

But the historian, by contrast, purports to present the reader with facts, so as
soon as they play fast and loose with those facts, or smooth over certain
details, or cast things in a favorable or unfavorable light depending upon their
own biases, they run the risk of lying. Because historians – unlike poets –
affirm things, they lie as soon as they offer something which is packaged as
‘fact’ but is not factually true.

This rhetorical masterstroke is one of the most famous and influential parts of
Sidney’s An Apology for Poetry. It’s a counterblast to not only Gosson’s
assertion that the poet is the ‘mother of lies’, but to Plato’s older objection to
the poet (in his The Republic, arguably the first work of utopian literature
ever written) on the grounds that poets are untrustworthy, because they make
things up.

On the contrary, as we’ve seen, Sidney believes the poet is valuable precisely
because he makes things up and only makes things up. And poetry, through
its world of fancy and idealism, can impart valuable lessons to people. Even
comedy, often considered a lower art form than tragedy, imitates the common
errors of life, so fits with Aristotle’s idea of poetry as mimesis or imitation.
Comedy, Sidney maintains, leads people towards virtue by representing
human error and folly as absurd and worthy of scorn.
Sidney also addresses the role of the English language, arguing that it is a
worthy vehicle for poetry. As the language of the people (it had even been the
official language of the English court since the early fifteenth century),
English is perfect for such a democratic art as poetry – a form that, after all,
Sidney believes should both delight and instruct its readers and spectators.
Q: 2 What is the difference between culture and anarchy? How do you find
Arnold’s ideas helpful in understanding of your own culture in the 21st
century?

A: 2 Culture and Anarchy, major work of criticism by Matthew Arnold,

published in 1869. In it Arnold contrasts culture, which he defines as “the
study of perfection,” with anarchy, the prevalent mood of England’s then new
democracy, which lacks standards and a sense of direction.

The whole scope of [this book] is to recommend culture as the great help
out of our present difficulties; culture being a pursuit of our total
perfection by means of getting to know, on all the matters which most
concern us, the best which has been thought and said in the world, and,
through this knowledge, turning a stream of fresh and free thought upon
our stock notions and habits, which we now follow staunchly but
mechanically …

There is a view of culture in which all the love of our neighbor, the impulses
towards action, help, and beneficence, the desire for stopping human error,
clearing human confusion, and diminishing the sum of human misery, the
noble aspiration to leave the world better and happier than we found it—
motives eminently such as are called social—come in as part of the grounds
of culture, and the main and pre-eminent part. Culture is then properly
described … as having its origin in the love of perfection; it is a study of
perfection …
The idea of perfection as an inward condition of the mind and spirit is at
variance with the mechanical and material civilization in esteem with us …
The idea of perfection as a general expansion of the human family is at
variance with our strong individualism, our hatred of all limits to the
unrestrained swing of the individual’s personality, our maxim of ‘every
man for himself.’ The idea of perfection as a harmonious expansion of
human nature is at variance with our want of flexibility, with our
inaptitude for seeing more than one side of a thing, with our intense
energetic absorption in the particular pursuit we happen to be following …

The idea which culture sets before us of perfection—an increased spiritual

activity, having for its characters increased sweetness, increased light,
increased life, increased sympathy—is an idea which the new democracy
needs far more than the idea of the blessedness of the franchise, or the
wonderfulness of their own industrial performances …

We have got three distinct terms, Barbarians, Philistines, Populace, to

denote roughly the three great classes into which our society is divided [the
aristocrats, the middle class and the working class, respectively] … All of
us, so far as we are Barbarians, Philistines, or Populace, imagine happiness
to consist in doing what one’s ordinary self likes. What one’s ordinary self
likes differs according to the class to which one belongs, and has its severer
and its lighter side … The graver self of the Barbarian likes honors and
consideration; his more relaxed self, field-sports and pleasure. The graver
self of one kind of Philistine likes business and money-making; his more
relaxed self, comfort and tea-meetings … The sterner self of the Populace
likes bawling, hustling, and smashing; the lighter self, beer. But in each
class there are born a certain number of natures with a curiosity about
their best self, with a bent for seeing things as they are, for disentangling
themselves from machinery … for the pursuit, in a word, of perfection. To
certain manifestations of this love for perfection mankind have accustomed
themselves to give the name of genius; implying, by this name, something
original and heaven-bestowed in the passion. But the passion is to be found
far beyond those manifestations of it to which the world usually gives the
name of genius, and in which there is, for the most part, a talent of some
kind or other, a special and striking faculty of execution, informed by the
heaven-bestowed ardor, or genius. It is to be found in many manifestations
besides these, and may best be called, as we have called it, the love and
pursuit of perfection; culture being the true nurse of the pursuing love, and
sweetness and light the true character of the pursued perfection. Natures
with this bent emerge in all classes—among the Barbarians, among the
Philistines, among the Populace. And this bent always tends, as I have said,
to take them out of their class, and to make their distinguishing
characteristic not their Barbarianism or their Philistinism, but their
humanity …

For a long time, as I have said, the strong feudal habits of subordination
and deference continued to tell upon the working-class. The modern spirit
has now almost entirely dissolved those habits, and the anarchical tendency
of our worship of freedom in and for itself, of our superstitious faith, as I
say, in machinery, is becoming very manifest. More and more, because of
this our blind faith in machinery, because of our want of light to enable us
to look beyond machinery to the end for which machinery is valuable, this
and that man, and this and that body of men, all over the country, are
beginning to assert and put in practice an Englishman’s right to do what he
likes; his right to march where he likes, meet where he likes, enter where he
likes, hoot as he likes, threaten as he likes, smash as he likes. All this, I say,
tends to anarchy …

Now, if culture, which simply means trying to perfect oneself, and one’s
mind as part of oneself, brings us light, and if light shows us that there is
nothing so very blessed in merely doing as one likes, that the worship of the
mere freedom to do as one likes is worship of machinery, that the really
blessed thing is to like what right reason ordains, and to follow her
authority, then we have got a practical benefit out of culture. We have got a
much wanted principle, a principle of authority, to counteract the tendency
to anarchy which seems to be threatening us.
Q: 3 Give a brief summary of the arguments of Dr. Johnson regarding
Shakespeare?

A: 3 Samuel Johnson’s Preface to The Plays of Shakespeare has long been

considered a classic document in English literary criticism. In it Johnson sets
forth his editorial principles and provides an appreciative analysis of the
“excellence” and “defects” of the work of the good Elizabethan dramatist.
Many of his points became fundamental tenets of recent criticism; others give
greater insight into Johnson’s prejudices than into Shakespeare’s genius. The
resonant prose of the preface adds authority to the views of its author.

Perhaps no other document exhibits the character of eighteenth-century

literary criticism better than what’s commonly referred to as Johnson’s
Preface to Shakespeare. Written after Johnson had spent nine years laboring
to supply an edition of Shakespeare’s plays; the Preface to Shakespeare is
characterized by sweeping generalizations about the dramatist’s work and by
stunning pronouncements about its merits, judgments that elevated
Shakespeare to the highest spot among European writers of any century. At
times, Johnson displays the tendency of his contemporaries to fault
Shakespeare for his prosperity for wordplay and for ignoring the stress for
just deserts in his plays; readers of subsequent generations have found these
criticisms to reflect the inadequacies of the critic quite they are doing those of
the dramatist.
What sets Johnson’s work aside from that of his contemporaries, however, is
that the immense learning that lies beneath numerous of his judgments; he
consistently displays his familiarity with the texts, and his generalizations are
rooted in specific passages from the dramas. Further, Johnsons is that the
first among the good Shakespeare critics to worry the playwright’s sound
understanding of attribute. Johnson’s specialize in character analysis initiated
a critical trend that might be dominant in Shakespeare’s criticism (in fact, all
of dramatic criticism) for quite a century and would cause the good work of
critics like Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Lamb, and A. C. Bradley.

The significance of the Preface to Shakespeare, however, goes beyond its

contributions to Shakespeare scholarship. First, it’s the foremost significant
application of a critical principle that Johnson espoused consistently which
has become a staple of the practice since a comparison. His systematic plan to
measure Shakespeare against others, both classical and contemporary,
became the model. Second, the Preface to Shakespeare exemplifies Johnson’s
belief that good criticism is often produced only after a good scholarship has
been practiced. The critic who wishes to gauge an author’s originality or an
author’s contributions to the tradition must first practice sound literary
reading and research to know what has been borrowed and what has been
invented.

Characteristically, Johnson makes his Shakespeare criticism the inspiration

for general statements about people, nature and literature. He’s a real
classicist in his concern with the universal instead of with the particular; the
very best praise he can bestow upon Shakespeare is to mention that his plays
are “just representations of general nature”. The dramatist has relied upon
his knowledge of attributes, instead of on bizarre effects, for his success. “The
pleasures of sudden wonder are soon exhausted, and therefore the mind can
only rest on the steadiness of truth”, Johnson concludes. It’s for this reason
that Shakespeare has outlived his century and reached the purpose at which
his works are often judged solely on their own merits, without the interference
of private interests and prejudices that make criticism of one’s
contemporaries difficult.

Johnson feels that the readers of his time can often understand the
universality of Shakespeare’s vision better than the audiences of Elizabethan
England could, for the intervening centuries have freed the plays of their
topicality.
 Past Paper 2022

Q: 1 Answer the following questions?

Q: 1 Why, according to Sidney, is poetry superior to history?

A: 1 Sidney has devoted plenty of space in his essay to discussing the

comparative merits of poetry on one hand and philosophy and history on the
other. Nevertheless, he gives poetry a place above both philosophy and
history; and offers several reasons.

The first point he made, that poetry was the earliest form of composition.
Poetry is venerated for its antiquity. Philosophers and historians came later
than the poets. The second point was that the philosophers of an earlier time,
for instance in Greece, appeared before the people in the form of poets. Third,
he points to two philosophers, Empedocles and Parmenides, who wrote their
natural philosophy in verse. It was historians who borrowed their style of
writing from poets. Thirdly, and most importantly, all learning aims at the
moral improvement of human beings.

The philosopher is likely to say that it is he who teaches human beings what
virtue is. In other words, the philosopher claims to be a better teacher of
virtue than anybody else. The historian will say that the philosopher teaches
theoretical virtue while the historian teaches practical virtue. The philosopher
teaches virtue by specific abstract considerations, while the historian teaches
virtue by depicting humankind’s experiences through the ages.

Sidney points out that the philosopher and the historian have the same goal,
the philosopher uses precept, and the historian uses an example. A poet
performs the functions of the philosopher and historian. The poet employs
both precepts and examples. The abstract statements of the philosophers are
not easily understood, while the historian is tied to the particular truth of
things.

Sidney begins his defense by pointing out that poetry was the earliest form of
composition everywhere and that for a long time, the philosophers of ancient
Greece appeared to the world in the guise of poets. At the same time, even
historians readily borrowed the poetic style of writing.

The poet, says Sidney, imitates the “works of nature, as do other artists and
men of learning. But the poet, while imitating nature, transcends it and builds
a new Nature. Poetry is superior to philosophy and history so far as teaching
virtue and urging human beings to live virtuously. The poet employs both the
method of precept and the method of example. The philosopher abstractly
conveys virtue. But the poet gives virtue by a concrete portrayal of virtuous
characters. The poet is therefore superior to the philosopher. As for the
historian, he does describe virtue and vice through actual historical examples;
but he has to remain tied to what has happened.

Quoting Aristotle, Sidney says that poetry is more philosophical and more
profound than history. Poetry is superior to philosophy because it has the
power to stir or move the reader’s mind in a way philosophy cannot do. Thus,
the poet wins the mind of the reader.

Then Sidney moves to elaborate on the view that poetry is an imitation. The
poet, like other men learning, imitates the objects of nature. However, the
poet goes beyond nature. The poet is carried forward and upward by the
vigor of his invention and imagination to build up another Nature. The poet
creates such new forms as the demigods, Cyclops, and Furies. The poet depicts
more beautification of the world than the real one. The poet portrays human
beings of the kind who never existed in nature. Nature has never created such
a constant friend as Pylades, such a brave man as Orlando, such a true prince
as Cyrus, so excellent a man in every way as Aeneas.

The Greeks, says Sidney, were fully justified in giving the poet the title of a
“maker.” To Sidney, therefore, a maker is a creator. Indeed, the creative
faculty is the highest gift with which man has been blessed; and this creative
faculty is found in the poet. Thus Sidney does not regard poetic imitation as
something slavish. On the contrary, the poet’s imitation of nature is not a
tame copy of what is seen and found in the real world.
According to Sidney, Poetry teaches and delights; but that is not all. Sidney
also points out the power of poetry to move the mind and stir the heart. It is
by its ability to move the minds it influences the behavior and conduct. After
reading Homer’s Odyssey, and after going through the incident of Aeneas
carrying old Anchises on his back, everyone would like to perform a deed of
similar virtue.

This example shows that the poet using delight as his instrument influences
the readers’ minds more effectively than any other art does. As virtue is the
most excellent end of all worldly learning, poetry is the most familiar way to
teach virtue. Therefore, it is wrong to condemn or criticize poetry in any of its
forms, says Sidney. He then defended the various forms of poetry and stated
the benefits of pastoral poetry, elegiac poetry, comic and satiric poetry, tragic
poetry, heroic poetry, etc. Finally, Sidney speaks of lyrical poetry:

“I never heard the old song of Percy and Douglas that I found not my heart
moved more than with a trumpet.”

Sidney comes very close to Longinus’s view about the power of poetry to
“transport.” In this respect, Sidney takes up a position that links him with
romantic poets, though, on the whole, he is a neoclassical critic. Nevertheless,
poetry was criticized by the Puritans, and Sidney needed to meet the challenge
which men like Stephen Gosson were flinging at it.
Sidney regards poetry as the most fruitful form of knowledge and, therefore,
as the monarch of all branches of learning. In this way, Sidney glorifies poetry
and ranks it above philosophy and history and above the sciences like
astronomy and geometry. He goes to the extreme when he says:

“I still and utterly deny that there is, sprung out of the earth, a more fruitful
knowledge (than poetry). Therefore, it is off the mark to assert that poetry is
the most profound or fertile learning cause.

Poetry has its rightful place as art that offers delight, pleasure, and moral
instruction, revealing the mysteries of the human mind and human nature,
which consoles in distresses and sorrows, which uplifts souls and transports
into another world, and makes lives worth living. Similarly, Sidney goes off
the mark when he says that an astronomer, a geometrician, or a physician
may tell lies but that a poet does not tell lies. We agree that a poet does not tell
lies, but we do not admit that a scientist tells lies.
Q: 2 What does Arnold mean by culture and how is it important for the
modern age?

A: 2 To him, culture is a study in perfection, in making things better than they

are, moved by the moral and social passion for doing good. He notes that
religion suggests that the kingdom of God is within you, so culture places
perfection in an internal condition.

Significance and importance of Culture for the modern age:

The talk on the present scenario shows the hopeless and helpless nature of the
age. The wayward, valueless, and faithless living of the age is leading
humanity towards its ruin. In the process of getting, the humanity is losing the
very ground of its existence. Everything is going out of track and control.
Human values are disappearing from our action. The materialistic attitude to
life is compelling man to gather wealth at any rate. The fear of religion and
God is left no more. Moral standards are crushed into pieces. Valueless and
hopeless educational system is no more an issue of hope. The civilization is
wounded and bloody everywhere in the process of commercialization. The
cherished principles are discarded in favor of modernism. From east to west,
the pattern of life is undergoing with drastic changes. The life is lived without
set destination. The assigned roles have been discarded in favor of wayward
will. The present man is living a life without confidence, faith and
sustainability and serenity. It is life without the remembrance of the past and
anticipates of the future. The life is lived without hopes, certainty and affinity.
The world is engrossed in an illusion having no sense for reality. In such a
situation, the world can expect high hope from Arnold’s concept of culture as
way of living. By applying Arnold various ideas, we can sustain our lives. The
wayward life can be brought on the right track by diverting it from external
to internal. His concept can be used as a standard of living and believing. The
humanity can get the lost hope through his ideas. His moral standards can
bring the age old atmosphere of harmony and love. The strange disease of the
society can be cured by applying his concept of culture. His ideas of
perfection, sweetness, light, the best self can restore the lost empire of the
ancient civilization. By treading the path of perfection shown by Arnold, we
can bring serenity, peace and stability in our life. By using his canons and
various ideas, we can bring perfection in our life by developing all faculties
harmoniously and perfectly.
Q: 3 Discuss the role of the poet in society as theorized by William
Wordsworth in Preface to Lyrical Ballads?

A: 3 The Role of a Poet: At the heart of the Preface, Wordsworth gives

extended treatment to the role of a poet, according to the views he has
expressed on language and content. The poet is a person of the common
people, attuned to them and sensitive to their experiences, and at the same
time the poet is someone in a special position. Wordsworth explains, "The
poet, singing a song in which all human beings join with him, rejoices in the
presence of truth as our visible friend and hourly companion." The poet is the
"rock of defense for human nature; an upholder and a preserver, carrying
everywhere with him relations and love." Wordsworth adds, "The poet binds
together by passion and knowledge the vast empire of human society ... and
over all time."

As the new scientists of Wordsworth's time forged ahead in chemistry and

botany, so the poet represents "the first and last of all knowledge ... as
immortal as the heart of man ... The poet will lend his divine spirit to aid the
transfiguration" into knowledge. But for Wordsworth and others he hoped to
inspire, the role of art stands far apart from applied science of any kind. The
poet remains a special person, an individual who can take the ordinary
experiences of common people and articulate those experiences coherently
into felt passions and controlled emotions that touch on moral truth and
rightness.
A poet must feel the pulse of the common man. He is the poet of common
humanity but not for the poets only. In this respect, we can mention Edmund
Spenser. He is called the poet's poet of the Elizabethan Age. When we go
through his poetry, we feel that he does not write it for ordinary men but
writes only for the poets and the elites. In the Neo-classical Period, we see that
the poets composed poems describing the decorated drawing room, coffee
houses, etc. Personifications of abstract ideas are salient features of the
eighteenth century. There is no room for common people in their poetry.

Wordsworth wants to say that there is no difference between a poet and a

common man. A poet differs from an ordinary man not in kind but in degree.
Because he has a comprehensive soul which rustic people do not have. He is
endowed with more lively sensibility, enthusiasm, and tenderness. He has a
greater knowledge of human nature and a more comprehensive soul. He has
greater imaginative power. So he can feel and react emotionally to the events
and incidents which he has not directly experienced. He is affected more than
other men by absent things as if they were present. He can share the
emotional experiences of others and identify himself with the emotions of
others. He can express the emotions of others easily. Moreover, a poet has a
great power of communication. He can communicate even those thoughts and
feelings which arise in him without any immediate external excitement.

The man who has all these qualities cannot be similar to the rest of mankind.
The totality of these differences is so significant as to constitute a difference of
kind. A man is habitually impelled to create. This impelling is enough to
institute a difference of kinds. The difference between a poet and an ordinary
man is similar to that between imagination and sensation. This difference is
realized by realizing emancipation from the accidents of space, time, and
causality. A poet is pleased with his own passions and volitions. Here he is not
acting like the rest of mankind. He is self-satisfied and yet is more alive to life.
He observes human activities. So he takes an unusual delight in
communicating with them in a mood of tranquility.

A poet has a greater readiness and power in expressing what he thinks and
feels. This alone makes him a poet in the strict technical sense of the term.
Thus he is capable of entering into the feelings of others. He identifies his own
feelings with their feelings. In this sense, he has a more than usual-organic
sensibility. At the same time, he must have thought long and deeply. This deep
thinking is no other than the process of recollections and contemplation.

The Poet who has such qualities looks at the world in the spirit of love. He is
always guided by particular feelings. He develops sympathy and understands
that man is organic to the universe.

A poet is not a particular passion or particular society. His feeling and

knowledge are of a universal category. He binds the whole human society with
them. His world is vast and does not live in a desolate world. His feelings and
his thoughts must not be mystical to the readers. He must think and feel as a
man thinks and feels.
In considering the nature and functions of a poet as Wordsworth has revealed
in his famous critical essay, "Preface to the Lyrical Ballads", we may criticize
him in some respects. He does not produce any well-knit definition of a poet
here. He only ventures to identify some qualities or ideas of a man who
intends to get himself included in the class of poets. Moreover, his concept of
the language of a poet is worth criticizing. T. S. Eliot says that " emotion
recollected in tranquility " is an inexact formula. Besides, Wordsworth
himself often fails to maintain all these qualities of a poet in his own poetry.
Yet his initiation to explain the functions and qualifications of a poet is
praiseworthy.
 Past Paper 2023

Q: 1 Answer the following questions?

Q: 1 Comment on Philip Sidney’s use of the term “Imitation” in connection

with poetry?

A: 1 Philip Sidney's "An Apology for Poetry" is a classic. In his essay, Sidney
explores the concept of "Imitation" in connection with poetry. He argues that
poetry should not be seen as mere imitation of reality, but rather as a creative
and transformative art form. According to Sidney, poetry has the power to
surpass reality and create something even more beautiful and meaningful. He
believes that poets have the ability to capture the essence of life and express it
in a way that moves and inspires others. Sidney's use of the term "Imitation"
highlights the idea that poetry is not simply a reflection of reality, but a form
of artistic creation that goes beyond mere imitation.

In "An Apology for Poetry," Philip Sidney provides an example of imitation

in poetry through the concept of mimesis. Mimesis refers to the act of
imitating or representing reality in art. Sidney argues that poets, through
their mastery of language and imagery, can imitate the beauty, emotions, and
experiences of the real world.
For example, in his own sonnet sequence, "Astrophil and Stella," Sidney
imitates the experience of love and desire. He uses vivid imagery and poetic
techniques to capture the essence of these emotions, creating a powerful and
relatable portrayal of human longing and passion. Through his skillful
imitation, Sidney brings the reader into the world of love and allows them to
experience its joys and sorrows.

Sidney's use of imitation in poetry demonstrates his belief in the

transformative power of art, where poets can create something that resonates
deeply with readers and evokes a sense of truth and beauty.

Another example of Sidney's imitation in poetry:

In his sonnet sequence "Astrophil and Stella," Sidney beautifully imitates the
experience of unrequited love. One of the sonnets, Sonnet 31, portrays the
speaker's intense longing for Stella, who remains unattainable. Here's a
snippet from that sonnet:

"With how sad steps, O Moon, thou climb'st the skies!

How silently, and with how wan a face!

What, may it be that even in heavenly place

That busy archer his sharp arrows tries?"

In these lines, Sidney imitates the speaker's emotions of sadness, longing, and
admiration for Stella through vivid imagery and personification. The moon's
ascent in the sky is likened to the speaker's melancholic journey, reflecting the
unattainable nature of his love. Through this imitation, Sidney captures the
essence of unrequited love, allowing readers to empathize with the speaker's
emotions.

Sidney's skillful use of imitation in "Astrophil and Stella" showcases his

ability to create a poetic world that mirrors human experiences and emotions,
making his poetry relatable and timeless.
Q: 2 Critically evaluate Wordsworth’s poetic theory?

A: 2 Wordsworth's poetic theory is quite fascinating. In his Preface to

"Lyrical Ballads," Wordsworth presents his ideas on poetry and its role in
society. He believed that poetry should be accessible to all people, not just the
elite, and that it should focus on ordinary, everyday subjects and experiences.

Wordsworth emphasized the importance of the "real language of men" in

poetry, rejecting the artificial and lofty diction of the time. He advocated for a
language that was simple, natural, and reflective of the common people. By
using this language, Wordsworth aimed to capture the essence of human
emotions and experiences in a way that resonated with readers.

Another key aspect of Wordsworth's theory is his emphasis on the power of

nature. He believed that nature was a source of spiritual and moral
inspiration, and that it had the ability to restore and elevate the human mind.
Wordsworth saw nature as a teacher and a guide, and he sought to convey its
beauty and significance through his poetry.

Critics of Wordsworth's theory argue that his emphasis on simplicity and the
ordinary can lead to a lack of complexity and depth in his poetry. They claim
that his focus on nature and the everyday can limit the range of subjects and
themes explored in his work.
However, supporters of Wordsworth's theory appreciate his ability to find
beauty and meaning in the simple and mundane. They value his celebration of
the human spirit and his belief in the transformative power of nature.
Wordsworth's emphasis on the individual's connection to nature and the
importance of personal experience in poetry had a profound impact on the
Romantic movement and continues to influence poets today.

In evaluating Wordsworth's poetic theory, it's important to consider the

historical context in which he wrote and the impact his ideas had on the
development of poetry. While his theories may not align with everyone's
preferences, they undeniably contributed to a significant shift in poetic
sensibilities and continue to inspire readers and writers alike.
Q: 3 Discuss the merits and defects of Shakespeare’s as given in Jonathan’s
“Preface to Shakespeare”?

A: 3 Introduction: Dr. Samuel Johnson was an English writer of Augustan

age, poet, playwright, essayist, moralist, critic, biographer, editor and
lexicographer. He wrote his work Preface to Shakespeare after he studied and
analyzed the works of Shakespeare. He studied Shakespeare more than 9
years. And then wrote his work on Shakespeare Preface to Shakespeare. In
this work, he talks about the merits, demerits and three dramatic unities of
Shakespeare's Works.

Merits of Shakespeare

Use of Blank Verse in his works: Dr. Samuel Johnson says that William
Shakespeare perfected the blank verse in his works. He says that
Shakespeare's plays are the treasure of practical knowledge. We find
philosophy of life in his plays. His plays were mirror of life.

Use of Tragicomedy: In classical writings the rules are regulations for

writing a tragedy or comedy are that, writer should not mingle the tragedy
and comedy. He should follow the rules and write the works according to
rules and laws. But, William Shakespeare use tragicomedy element in his
plays. And his contemporary writers of his age didn't like it. But Dr. Samuel
Johnson defends him and says that William Shakespeare did very well and he
mingled the both tragedy and comedy. He argues that in a real life of a man,
we don't see that we will suffer always with misfortune, sadness and grief.
Sometime our fortune is good and we also enjoy the happiness of life. So, we
can say that life is the mixture of both joy and sorrow. Life is not fully tragic
nor fully comic.

Shakespeare a comic genius: Dr. Samuel Johnson also says that

Shakespeare was also a comic genius. He says that Shakespeare was genius in
comedy. When people saw his comedies they started laughing naturally. He
didn't do extra hard work for writing the comedies and comic scenes. He also
uses common language in his comedies that everyone understands easily.

Demerits and Faults of Shakespeare

Lack of Morality: William Shakespeare didn't write for moral purposes.

He only wrote for pleasure and fun of audience. His purpose is just pleasure
and fun instead of teaching something to audience. It is not a poetic justice
with his plays.

Don't correct the mistakes in plot: He didn't correct the mistakes in his
plot. If a mistake made in a plot he didn't improve and correct it. In his plays,
he presented the different characters like, Italian, German and French. But
the fault is that these characters didn't look like that. And they used English
language and their nature was also English nature. So, it's a great fault in his
plots.

Sometimes used cold and weak speech in plays: He often use weak
speech in his plays. Sometimes he didn't follow the rules of reason and truth.
In his plays, two different characters have different languages but when speak
with one another they could not understand their languages. He also
compresses the plot. And sometimes made it too long.

Shakespeare's use of dramatic Unities: Dr. Samuel Johnson defends

Shakespeare's use of unities. According to classical rules of Aristotle there will
be unity of time, place and action in a play. But, the history of Shakespeare
was not a tragedy or nor a comedy. So, he didn't use the dramatic unity. In
some of his plays, he didn't maintain the Unites of time and place. But, he
maintained the unity of action in his plays. He focused on the events of action.
So, Unity of time and place just beautify your plays. They are not much
important like unity of action. Unity of Action alone is sufficient and enough.