In Matthew Arnold's essay "The Study of Poetry," he argues that poetry should be evaluated objectively, not through subjective or historical biases. Let’s break down the answer to understand why the correct choice is 4 (B and D only).
1. Contextual Estimate (Option A)
Arnold does not explicitly talk about “contextual estimate.” This term would refer to judging poetry based on the socio-political or cultural context in which it was written. While context can be relevant, Arnold is more concerned with how personal and historical factors can mislead a critic.
2. Personal Estimate (Option B) — Fallacious
Personal estimate is a fallacy according to Arnold. It refers to the tendency to overvalue a work of poetry because of the personal feelings, preferences, or attachment one has toward the poet or the subject. For example, someone might praise a poem excessively because they admire the poet or feel emotionally connected to the content.
3. Comparative Estimate (Option C)
Comparative estimation involves judging a poet’s work by comparing it to other poets. Arnold sees this as a useful approach, as it helps readers gain a clearer sense of quality through comparison. This is not a fallacy but part of Arnold’s recommended method for literary criticism.
4. Historic Estimate (Option D) — Fallacious
Historic estimate is another fallacy Arnold warns against. It refers to the tendency to judge a poem’s worth based on its historical significance rather than its intrinsic quality. Just because a poem or poet is historically important doesn’t mean the poetry is of high artistic merit.
Year-wise PYQs
