Literature in a wide comprehensive sense may be
said to include all that comes under the realm of letters; but in so far as we
view it as a branch of art, literature may be defined as an artistic expression,
through the medium of language, the purpose, effect or object of which is to
ennoble the emotional as well as the intellectual faculties and satisfy the
aesthetic sense in us. Even this definition may not be sufficiently
comprehensive; for there seems to be something in us which transcends the
intellectual, emotional and the aesthetic realms, and which is described as the
spiritual, the mystic or the intuitive attribute of what we refer to as the
human soul.
Now, all great literature, as, indeed, all great
art has an undefinable spiritual quality. Whether it is Valmiki or Vyasa,
Kalidasa or Jayadeva, Homer or Dante, Milton or Shakespeare, Victor Hugo or
Romain Rolland, Goethe or Tolstoy, Maeterlinck or Tagore, they all have this
unmistakable quality. However, for our present purpose we may not discuss
whether art has a spiritual significance, and restrict the definition and scope
of literature to the realms of the intellectual, emotional and the aesthetic.
If we briefly review the trends and development of
literature through the course of ages, we find that not only the literary form
but the theme is being continuously enlarged. No doubt some forms and themes
become obsolete and come to be replaced by others, but there is no denying the
fact that the variety both in literary form and theme has been ever on the
increase. Thus, while in the earliest literature literary expression is
confined to the verse form, and themes centre round the lives of great kings
and queens and narrate their heroic deeds, in the later periods we notice the
emergence of new literary forms such as drama, song, varieties of prose
narration and then short story, short poem, novel, essay, sketch, prose-poem
and so on. The same may be said of the theme, too, which also shows a similar
widening scope. Not only the interplay of emotions and occurrences common to
most of us but also economic, political, social and biological problems,
different urges and moods of the age, sex manifestations, all come to find a
place in the literary theme as we steer through the course of time, until
today, indeed, no aspect or experience of life seems to be too frivolous or
taboo to be included in the literary theme. Whether this is necessarily a
progressive tendency or not depends on our interpretation of the word
‘progressive’,
Even if this be viewed as progressive, it is but a
general tendency and does not help us to classify literature of any particular
age into the progressive and the non-progressive unless, of course, we view the
writer who makes a wider use of literary theme and form as more progressive
than one who is content to make a less prolific use. No doubt the progressive
writer would like to do away with all set conventions and would like to make an
unrestricted use of literary form and theme; but evidently a mere diverse and
prolific use of literary form and theme is not what is meant by progressive
literature, for a writer may make a wide use of literary theme and yet leave
untouched the progressive (i.e., from the view-point of the advocate of
progressive writing) aspects of life; or again, a writer may adopt an
unconventional style or form and yet deal in quite stale and conventional
stuff, as is evident from the works of several of the present-day writers.
If we understand aright we may say, perhaps, that
by the term ‘progressive writer’ is meant one who is responsive to the
‘progressive’ ideas and aspirations of his age or, in short, one in whose
writings are reflected the ‘progressive’ tendencies of his age. Viewed from
this stand-point a writer like H. G. Wells may appear to many to be more
progressive than, say, Thomas Hardy, Arnold Bennett, John Galsworthy or
Priestley. But it does not follow that Wells is necessarily a greater literary
artist than either Hardy, Bennett, Galsworthy or Priestley. We find, then, that
the term ‘progressive’ has no significance in so far as literary or artistic
values are concerned, for a progressive writer may be quite mediocre as a
literary artist while another may be a great poet and yet remain completely
immune from the ‘progressive’ ideas of the age. And, in this connection, the
plays of writers like Maeterlinck and O’Casey or Tagore’s Gitanjali may
be cited as instances. It is evident, therefore, that the term ‘progressive’
has little to do with art as such. It becomes clear if we attempt to apply the
term to the other branches of art such as dance, music, sculpture or painting
(except cartoon and caricature drawing, in which the role of the critic as well
as the artist are combined). Does anyone talk of a progressive musician,
progressive dancer or progressive painter? or, suppose we ask the question: Is
Thyagaraja’s music progressive? Or, is Ajanta painting progressive? Or, again,
are the sculpture and architecture of the South Indian temples and those of
Bhuvaneswar and Konarak progressive? We realise how absurd it is. Yet, it is
strange to hear such a term as ‘progressive art’! Art can be judged only by
artistic standards. Aesthetic values may vary, but surely there is an enduring
quality and even an eternal appeal in all great Art which, like Truth, can
neither be progressive nor retrogressive. This is the reason why the
master-pieces of art, whether in the field of literature or other branches of
art, and in whatever age they might have been produced continue to enchant us
with an ever fresh appeal. The artist, indeed, belongs to all time and his
message is eternal.
It is interesting to note that while the term
‘progressive artist’ applied in the field of music, dance, sculpture or
painting falls flat, yet the term ‘progressive writer’ has gained some
currency. This is because literature is fundamentally different from all other
branches of art in one respect. Language happens to be the common medium both
for literary art and thought. This is also the reason why in literature, even
when practised as an art, the scope for intellectual appeal is greater than in
any other branch of art. While there are poets, on the one hand, the appeal of
whose works is primarily aesthetic, there are writers, on the other, whose
appeal is fundamentally intellectual and in between the pure literary artist
and the profound philosopher, there are a hundred mixed blends of both literary
art and thought. Whether it is the poet, the philosopher, the critic, the
reformer, the scholar, the historian, the scientist, the publicist or the
journalist, all must express themselves through the medium of language. And,
quite often, all or some get mixed up and a good deal of literature reflects
varied blends of all these.
Writers like Voltaire, Rousseau, Carlyle, Ruskin,
Thoreau, Emerson, Bertrand Russell, Aldous Huxley and Joad are essentially
thinkers. They are no doubt reckoned as outstanding writers and many among them
have earned an enduring place in literature and have fine literary qualities
too, but we realise the difficulty if we attempt to determine as to what extent
the purely literary or aesthetic appeal the work of each of these writers
carries. It is well-nigh impossible to draw the line between the poet and the
philosopher in a good deal of literary work, as they get inextricably mixed up.
It seems, however, that while certain literary forms such as the essay and
novel offer almost equal scope for the expression of both literary art and
thought, certain other literary forms such as, for instance, poetry and drama
seem to offer larger scope for artistic expression. But even here the emergence
of the modern problematic play introduces certain complications. It is
difficult to say in the case of plays such as those of Ibsen, and more so of
Bernard Shaw, whether it is the aesthetic or the intellectual appeal that is
more pronounced. Indeed, such is the prosaic influence of our age that even the
realm of poetry is no longer an exception to the inroads of intellectualism!
The inter-relationship between the intellectual,
the emotional and the aesthetic, and the exact part intellect and emotion play
in conducing to esthetic joy may not be attempted here. Suffice it to say that
the lack of a proper balance of the intellectual and the emotional lessen the
aesthetic effect. It may also be noted that while the communication of a sense
of beauty in addition to a chastening effect on our emotions, is characteristic
all art, the ennobling effect on the intellect is more marked in literature
where alone an intense and varied blending of art and thought is possible and
often unavoidable.
When we talk of a great writer we may mean either a
great poet or a philosopher, and quite often both. While such works as
Kalidasa’s Sakuntala, the dramas of Shakespeare and Maeterlinck, and
Tagore’s Gitanjali may be mentioned as masterpieces of art, in the works
of Victor Hugo, Goethe, Romain Rolland, Tolstoy and Tagore, we find the poet
and the philosopher reflected in almost equal measure.
It is partly the failure to recognise this
distinguishing quality of literature from all other branches of art that has
led to the enunciation of the utilitarian value of art. One may as well ask
what ‘utilitarian value’ beauty has! If beauty and aesthetic joy have an intrinsic
value, art too has a similar value. If beauty can have a captivating and
ennobling effect on the human heart, art too has the same effect. Whether the
chastening on the human emotions and the ennobling effect on the human mind
have a utilitarian value or not need not be considered now. The artist is
primarily concerned with the creation and expression of beauty.
We often hear such talk as that “the artist should not isolate himself” and that “art should serve some useful purpose”. Suppose we ask, what useful purpose does Thygaraja’s or Beethoven’s music serve? Whether the elevating and the sublimating effect on the human mind, which all great art produces, may be considered to be serving a useful purpose or not, as has already been said, may not be considered now. This confusion is due to mistaking the artist for either the thinker or the reformer. It seems, then, that the “art for art’s sake” view is not after all so absurd as the utilitarian view of art. The utilitarian view with regard to writers has significance in so far as they are moralists or reformers and nothing more. The term ‘progressive’ when applied to literature indicates but one other mode of viewing literature through the utilitarian spectacles. It is clear, then, that the significance of the progressive school is largely exaggerated and that it has practically nothing to do with art except, perhaps, the art theme. Thus, for instance, a Kathakali dance-artist may adapt a theme from ancient mythology or a ‘progressive’ theme. Whatever theme the dancer may adopt, the artistic value of Kathakali remains the same. It would be misleading if the Kathakali artist who adopts a “progressive” theme were to be called a progressive artist. It conveys nearly as much sense as the term ‘fat artist’. The term ‘progressive writer’, however, is less objectionable because, as has already been pointed out, an artist who expresses himself through the medium of language quite often unavoidably combines in himself the role of a reformer and moralist too. All that is meant by ‘progressive writer’ then, is a writer with progressive views, i.e., considered progressive by the advocate of progressive writing.
It may be noted that ‘progressive’ is a relative
term, and as there can be no progress without change, ‘progressive’ impliedly
assumes changing values whereas art has more enduring values and even an
eternal appeal. Artistic genius is the result of idealistic inspiration rather
than the influence of (ever changing) ideas. We had better leave the artist
free to derive his inspiration from whatever sources he chooses–whether in the
serene contemplation of individualist isolation or the din and dust of the
market-place. It is often asked: “What right has an artist to keep aloof when a
house is on fire? Has he not also a duty to help in extinguishing the flames?”
Yes, he has a duty just as much as a doctor or a scientist or, for the matter
of that, any person has. The doctor and the scientist have no more special
duties beyond what they owe as social beings. The same is true of the artist.
He has no more special duty as an artist beyond what he owes as a member
of society. We do not talk so much of the special duties of a singer or dancer
as we do so often in the case of a writer because, it may be repeated, a writer
may be an artist, thinker, reformer, or moralist or a combination of some or
all in varied degrees. ‘Progressive’ writing does not indicate, strictly
speaking, a literary school of thought, and it would be less confusing,
perhaps, if the terms ‘reformist writer’ and ‘reformist writing’ were to be
used, in the same sense as the terms French literature and sex literature are
used–to indicate a particular branch of literature rather than a particular
literary school.
The well-known Andhra authors, Veeresalingam
Pantulu, Gurazada Apparao and Ch. Lakshminarasimha Kavi, for instance, have
been described as ‘progressive’ writers. It may be noted that all of them
possess not only outstanding literary gifts but have also been the foremost
social reformers of their times. In most of their works the literary artist and
the ardent social reformer are equally reflected, and if they have earned an
enduring place in Andhra literature it is primarily due to their literary merit
and not so much to their reformist views. The same is true of Shaw’s plays,
generally, for their place in literature will be ultimately determined by their
literary quality and not so much by the author’s views on the problems he deals
with, as they might have but little interest for the generations a hundred
years hence.
Whatever significance the ‘progressive school’ may
have, it is hardly desirable to stretch it too far. The attempt to divide
writers into the ‘progressive’ and the ‘non-progressive’ is sometimes carried
to absurd lengths. The recent attempt by some to give a Marxian interpretation
of Shakespeare is an instance. Shakespearean genius is so comprehensive and
versatile that almost any one can quote passages from Shakespeare in support of
his views. It is, indeed, difficult to understand what useful purpose will be
served by attempting to divide authors into the ‘progressive’ and the
‘non-progressive’.
The deterioration in Andhra literature in the
present decade seems to be partly the result of a faulty understanding of the
role of a poet, who is primarily an artist and not a propagator of
‘progressive’ views or ideas. With few exceptions, scarcely anything written in
the present decade can stand comparison with the works of earlier writers such
as, for instance, the Sahiti Samiti group. Significantly enough, D. Krishna
Sastri’s former poetic works such as ‘Urvasi’ ‘Pravasamu’ and ‘Krishna
Pakshamu’ far excel in poetic quality his subsequent ‘progressive’
writings.
To take an instance from Modern Oriya
literature,–Kalindi Charan Panigrahi’s short story ‘Pilgrim to Rangoon’ (an
English rendering of which by V. V. Prasad appeared in ‘Triveni’, June
1945) discloses the fine literary qualities of the writer. Kalindi Charan may
be a ‘progressive’ writer, but it is difficult to see from the view-point of a
literary critic how his story is different from any other story of similar
literary merit. His story, we may be sure, will carry an equal appeal to all,
irrespective of the views they might hold. The same may be said of Sochi Rout
Roy, another brilliant writer from Orissa. His ‘Boatman Boy and other Poems’
translated into English by Harindranath Chattopadhyaya (an interesting
review of which by D. Visweswara Rao appeared in ‘Triveni’, March 1944)
is a remarkable work. Sochi Rout Roy’s poems remind one of the famous retort of
Gandhiji to Tagore, during their historic discussion that took place some years
ago, and which Romain Rolland records in his admirable book on Mahatma Gandhi:
‘To a hungry man God dare not appear except in the shape of bread!’
To us, the sad spectators of a world full of chaos,
famine, pestilence and a hundred other calamities, the poems of Sochi Rout Roy
may find a more immediate echo in our hearts than the poems of Radhanath Roy
who may be compared to Wordsworth, and who in ecstasy over the Chilka Lake
sings:
“Wanderer have I been through many a wonderful
land,
Before the mighty Himalayas stood I in utter awe,
Like a disciple before his Guru bowed I before thy
snowy heights,
But Chilka! Thou hast ever been a companion bringing
delight to my heart.”
But, a hundred years hence, when the present
conflicts and turmoil are set at rest, when a new era of peace, enlightenment
and prosperity is ushered in, when a new humanity with its new aspirations and
problems springs up would the works of Kalindi Charan and Sochi Roy carry the
same fresh appeal as those of Phakir Mohan and Radhanath? 1 Surely
that will depend on the literary quality rather than the theme.
The progressive writer will no doubt say that he
does not write for the future generations and that he is primarily concerned
with the needs of the immediate present. He is certainly welcome to pursue his
object and choose his own way. But let us not forget that the poet and the
artist belong to all time and that their message is eternal. And let not the
artist be subjected to the tyranny of any doctrinairianism, however
‘progressive’ it might appear. And let no one intrude on the delicate precincts
between the artist and his creation, as their relationship is as intimate and
sacred as that between the mother and the child.
Let us not forget, too, that the artist is more
akin to a bird that soars in the skies and sings with delight not because it is
a pedlar of ideas but because of its spontaneous joy.
1 Phakir Mohan Senapati
and Radhnath Roy are considered to be the most outstanding literary writers of
Orissa in recent times.