GREAT LITERATURE

A WIDE CANVAS

GREAT LITERATURE

Literary activity takes place in a context. Literature reflects and/or responds to what is happening around us. Great literature transcends the limitations of time and place, and even while not being religious, gives us some 'intimations of immortality'- seeks to make the world better, but by essentially making each one  of us better, by making us adopt 

" an unsuperstitious reverence for 'the power not ourselves which makes for righteousness' ".

(Miriam Allott in her introduction to The collected Poems and Prose of Matthew Arnold, Everyman, Hachette India, 2009).

 When we recognise a power which moves the world, which is higher than us, we learn to restrain our ego and thus begin our quest for righteousness. This is the aim of all religions-  put the world or others above us, or to engage the ego in the service of others- to forget the small self in the sight of the whole- as when we "see life steadily and see it whole". But great literature accomplishes this much more effortlessly, at least less strenuously, and may we say, more pleasantly, than religions, with their dry  dogma and strange theology. 

I talk of 'great' literature- not popular literature, not even of so called 'classics'. These days, anything is called a classic if it becomes a 'best seller' or catches the fancy of some university don or opinion maker. It used to be said that literature must survive for at least a hundred years before it can be considered good. By this criterion, most of what passes now in the name of literature is just trash. And the old, real classics still sway us! The old poets, novelists like Hardy, Dickens and literary critics like Dr.Johnson, Carlyle, Ruskin and Matthew Arnold still set the standard for what is great. In the last century, I could only think of G.K.Chesterton! There have indeed been many good writers, but the truly great have been few.

Dr, Johnson by Joshua Reynolds.

Thomas Carlyle. Social commentator of the Victorian era. He extolled the role of great men in history, and said, "History is nothing but the biography of  the Great Man."

Perhaps, the only valid test for true greatness is whether the work makes a difference to our life and thought- whether it has influenced our thinking, and induced us to be good, or at least better than we were before reading it. What was considered great in the tradition,before the new 'best seller' culture infected us, meets this criterion fully. You cannot read any of them, and remain unmoved and unmotivated. What happens to a character like Tess affects you and haunts you for the rest of your life. In spite of all the reforms that have taken place, all the 'progress' that has been made, all the noise that women themselves have been making about their liberation or equality, they are not safe or free anywhere on earth! The stigma that pursued Tess is not there now, but in other respects women are treated worse: made objects of petty commercial ads unrelated to women or their causes, or interests! In his novels, Hardy raised some basic, uncomfortable questions about the Victorian society. The Victorian age is long gone, but those afflictions have taken newer shapes! Thomas Hardy is great, whatever critics may say, because he pointed out aspects of life which trouble our conscience. We cannot rest unless a solution is found. 

Great literature does not, and need not, give solutions. It is enough they show us what is wrong with us. 

Take Plato's Republic. Or our Mahabharata.

Republic has been the most important intellectual document of the Western civilisation, the most influential book, the single most important resource for their entire heritage. Philosophers and political theorists break their heads over the contents and their real meaning and significance. We are humble people and can easily discern its main concerns. It is concerned with the nature and meaning of justice- just society, and just man. More important, it raises the question whether the just man is happier than an unjust one- ie the connections between justice and happiness. It discusses the theory of forms- the idea that the world of senses is but a shadow of more substantial Form or reality, existing higher up. It discusses the question of immortality of souls. It deals with the question of the role of philosophy and even of poets! It deals with the question of the good life.

After the initial euphoria, Westerners are questioning every aspect of it, in the name of scholarship. They are not even agreed on the text or the translation. Benjamin Jowett whose translation was celebrated for many decades, was described by one scholar, A.E.Housman, as one who understood neither philosophy nor Greek! The most ironical part is that while some say that Plato was  dogmatic and 'other worldly', others say that in spite of all the great conversations and dialogues, there is no firm conclusion or guideline!

Plato is contrasted with his pupil and colleague, Aristotle. Aristotle was considered very practical, while Plato is portrayed as dreamy, or wishy-washy!.There is a celebrated painting of the Greek philosophers called the 'School of Athens' by Raphael.

The School of Athens, by Raphael. 

Take a closer look at the central figures:Plato and Aristotle.

The figure at left, Plato is pointing his finger upward, while Aristotle on the right is pointing down, outward. This is taken to mean that Aristotle is concerned with practical things, while Plato is more preoccupied with the 'higher' things! It is true that Plato is concerned with the ultimate causes, in his search for justice and happiness. Aristotle wrote on Politics, Poetics, Physics, Logic and many other subjects. But he was also concerned with ethics: he wrote two manuals on it- the Nicomachean Ethics  and the Eudemian Ethics which are concerned with moral philosophy and examine the relationship between virtue and happiness. And in the Nicomachean ethics, Aristotle assigns a supreme place to philosophical contemplation as the main cause of happiness. 

This is the point that we note. There is a basic unity in their aim- though the details of treatment vary, as is bound to happen among thinking individuals, as it happens now! It is true that after so much discussion and dialogue, we are not given any strict dos and dont's, as religious manuals would do. This is the chief merit of the Socratic method. He does teach, but does not dictate. He questions us, submits to our questions, allows all points of view to be expressed; in the end, there is no doubt in a virtuous mind with good intentions what to do! To know the right thing is to do it! Socrates's role is to lead us to that point where we know what is right, what is virtue!  As he himself claimed in some dialogue, he is the 'midwife'! In the view of Socrates, philosophy is not arm-chair mastery of some theory, but to be up and doing! This is a form of very subtle, but powerful initiation! A true philosopher lives philosophy- he does not just lecture. This is exactly what Socrates proved in his death, as in his life- he knew the soul was immortal; so, he did not escape, as his friends urged, but willingly drank the poison and remained at peace! If, in spite of this, scholars say that Republic does not teach us anything definite, then we wonder at the nature of such scholarship! It is like what we say in our language- listening to the Ramayana the whole night, and then asking how Rama and Sita are related! Some scholarship, this, indeed!

The death of Socrates.

Painting by Jacques-Louis David, 1787.

One of the paintings that really move and shake us.

In regard to the practical issues of life, people are either philosophical in their approach, or pro-action in their attitude. Our ethical masters approve of or advocate both approaches, since it is not wise to run counter to one's innate nature. The poet Coleridge said that one is born either an Aristotelian or a Platonist, and it is impossible for the one to change into the other! In a more serious vein, Lord Krishna says in the Gita that people are endowed with either Daiva or Asura sampat- divine or devilish qualities. This we see fully portrayed by Duryodhana and the Pandavas. The company of one does not change the other!

But it does not mean that Plato neglected practical life, or Aristotle did not look up at all! The question of the good ruler was examined only because of its importance for practical life- virtue was impossible to practise unless we have a just or good government! Nor is Aristotle a practical moron, concerned only with the worldly things or concerns. He concludes his Eudemian ethics with these words:

God is not a superior who issues commands, but is the purpose of the commands that wisdom issues....To conclude: whatever choice or possession of natural goods- bodily goods, wealth, friends, and the like- will most conduce to the contemplation of God is the best; this is the finest criterion. But any choice of living that either through excess or through defect hinders the service and contemplation of God is bad. ....

That, then,  is our statement of what is the standard of nobility, and what is the point of the things that are good in the abstract.

(From: The Eudemian Ethics.Translated by Sir Anthony Kenny. Oxford World's Classics.2011)

Friends, just read over this passage again, and reflect a little. What Aristotle is saying is that wisdom naturally leads to the contemplation and service of God, that our choice of things or friends should not hinder this, and this is noble conduct! Are these the prescriptions of a person concerned only with earthly things?  The beauty of all these Greek philosophers is their ethical concern, even if they are not 'religious' in some doctrinaire or fundamentalist sense, even if they are not unanimous in what they say. Westerners have their own pet theories and prejudices in dealing with the subject, and give all sorts of grotesque explanations. We, who are the students of Rishis and Acharyas, can see better, and sense in these Greek masters, a kindred spirit. How can one who studies the Republic in all seriousness,  fail to have the feeling that we are dealing with the noblest of men, and mightiest of intellects- Rishis, no less!

Great literature is made of such stuff! They transcend time and place. Such literature and their authors are Universal- not confined to one age or country. As Ralph Waldo Emerson said of Plato:

This citizen of a town in Greece is no villager nor patriot....His broad humanity transcends all sectional lines.

Ralph Waldo Emerson, c.1857.

We salute all masters of  all times and climes!

NOTE:

In spite of the passing of the centuries, the procession of scholars, and the profusion of literature, there is still the common view that the Republic is mainly some kind of political treatise. Some writers have even gone to the extent of considering Plato as advocating or supporting some form of authoritarianism or totalitarianism. Karl Popper is one such leading figure, who advanced this theory in his book "The Open Society And Its Enemies" which was widely read. This is highly inaccurate and unfortunate.

Plato portrays Socrates in the Republic as primarily concerned with individual happiness. Politics is clearly not his prime or even major concern. Happiness comes from virtue. Virtue is based on morality, goodness and rational orderliness. We have to follow the rational order because the whole Cosmos is so ordered. This is the meaning of morality. This understanding is the fruit or meaning of knowledge. Virtue is its own reward. We have to be virtuous because it is good in and by itself. This is the meaning of 'the good life'. This is attained by leading a life of simplicity, wedded to virtue. 

One important implication of this stand is that the universe is basically good- everything has its place and purpose. We have to learn to understand it and live in harmony with it!.

National Portraits Gallery, London.

 Alexander Pope expressed this idea in his poem "An Essay on Man":

All nature is but art, unknown to thee;

All chance, direction which thou canst not see;

All discard, harmony not understood;

All partial evil, universal good;

And, spite of pride, in erring reason's spite,

One truth is clear: 'Whatever Is, is RIGHT'.

(An Essay on Man 1,lines 289-294.)

So, the whole emphasis in the Republic is on cultivation of morality and virtue, proper understanding and education, right knowledge, leading life based on knowledge and virtue, which involves overcoming our baser instincts. Plato is a formidable  teacher of ethics, and this is based on psychology, not fear of or appeal to  external authorities. Right knowledge leads to virtue. Plato does not say this is easy, but this is what man has to do to fulfil his nature!

Why then does he deal with politics at all? For Plato, this world, based on the senses, is not the whole or real truth. It is like a shadow. Nevertheless, external life too has to be well ordered. The inner life of the individual is the basic concern, and the political order discussed there is offered as a sort of metaphor, not serious proposals for actual implementation. A community is imagined as a paradigm. As Trevor Saunders remarked:

 "To suppose that Plato ever thought that the Republic was attainable would be to suppose him capable not merely of optimism or idealism, but of sheer political naivete."

Republic is a tremendous book and wonderful literature. It is neither dry philosophical speculation nor dull political theorising. It is so closely allied to our own (Hindu) psychology and ethics. It is so unfortunate that not many Indians read it seriously. We don't have to agree with everything said there- even as we do not agree with everything said in all our philosophies. But its study does open our mind and heart to deeper visions of life- even if from a different perspective.

There are many books and translations, but the best translation that I have found is by Robin Waterfield (Published as an Oxford World's Classic.) If ever there was a real classic from the West, this is it. The introductory essay is the best I have read on the subject. This note is inspired by that, and all quotations here are taken from it. It is an invaluable resource.I acknowledge my indebtedness. We do indeed stand on better shoulders.