LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT
32. ANCIENT AND MODERN LITERATURE
There was no word in the English language to denote what today we call 'literature', before the 14th century.
...... that body of writing containing what we now call 'literature' encompassed without division texts that today we categorise as religious, historical, legal and medical. Poets were certainly popular figures, but their business was often primarily to commemorate historical events.
From: English Literature in Context. Ed: Paul Poplawski.CUP, 2008.
Literature means any piece of writing- in prose, poetry, drama,etc- that is deemed to have some artistic merit, or simply that which people regard as being important. Today it has come to mean mainly work of imagination. Poetry often deals with nature or human situations and relationships; there are prose essays of various types. However, prose is mainly used to write fiction, and it is this which is the major form literature has taken. The word literature is also used in the sense of writing on any subject, so that we may talk of literature on the history of classical music; it is also used to designate promotional writing such as the one we get with a new gadget. However, in academic usage, literature mainly means writing considered to be having some artistic value and commanding public regard.
Ancient literature of all people was mythological, religious or covering legends of historical events or figures. They are studied for their antique value as Classical pieces, but not as serious literature. They are regarded as works of imagination, involving unbelievable miracles. Modern literature too is mainly work of imagination, but modern people regard themselves as superior. This is one example where plain stupidity parades as modern scholarship, because stupidity can be expressed in or covered up by clever language and become the governing fashion.
It is often said that ancient lore is full of vulgar tales.But much of modern fiction is not only vulgar, but repugnant to good sense, food only for the depraved and degenerate minds. Vulgarity has pervaded all fields and forms of entertainment, and serious literature that we have lost all sense of vulgarity. Most movies or TV serials cannot be viewed in the company of children and youngsters at home. Gutter overflows on the streets, but dirty stuff invades our homes (or visits as honoured guests through expensive, latest-tech TV sets ) 24X7.
Even ads are quite vulgar. We are not only tolerating, but celebrating vulgarity in the name of art or freedom. Only dogs used to display their love in public, but the new generation youngsters, supported by English newspapers, want to claim that freedom for themselves. These have all their counterparts or forerunners in serious literature.
How has this situation come about?
Literature and other art forms are a reflection of the state of society, and its basic belief systems-not just its intellectual perception. This belief system in the Western society was largely based on Christian morality and beliefs. By the later half of 19th century, such beliefs were called by the collective name 'Victorian' in England.
In mainstream Victorian society, one could say that there was a broad consensus on Christian morality and on the existing social and political order.........Victorian writers and readers could largely assume a common culture and a shared language of values, attitudes and cultural reference.........The relatively stable Victorian consensus gave its major writers their own relatively stable sense of moral or intellectual authority at the heart of public opinion. (Paul Poplawski)
In the 20th century, these values and attitudes were dubbed hypocritical, puritanical and narrow-minded.(Just as American youth revolted against the older generation in the United States, triggered by,among others, the Vietnam War.) A.C.Ward, literary historian of the period wrote:
From 1901 to 1925 English literature was directed by mental attitudes, moral ideals, and spiritual values at almost the opposite extreme from the attitudes,ideals and values governing Victorian literature. The old certainties were certainties no longer. Everything was held to be open to question, everything from the nature of Deity to the construction of verse forms. (Quoted in Poplawski.)
The modernist trend is supposed to include many separate elements- all isms in the modern world- such as: naturalism, symbolism, imagism, futurism, cubism, vorticism, expressionism, surrealism, etc. Whatever they may mean or be made to mean, ultimately they all involve attitudes to sexuality, gender relations, religion and morality, authority of scriptures or institutions. In short, the writer wants to say whatever he desires in the name of creative and artistic freedom.
Not that these were not dealt with by Victorian writers.They did, but largely within the bounds of Victorian mores and sensibilities. Even when they questioned some of the values, they did it keeping other values! Take for instance Hardy's novel "Tess of the D'urbervilles" which was severely criticised when it first appeared in book form in 1891. Its story involves, in the words of that fine scholar M.H.Abrams:
....the heroine, having lost her virtue because of her innocence, then loses her happiness because of her honesty, finds it again only by murder, and having been briefly happy, is hanged. Hardy concludes:"The President of the Immortals, in Aeschylean phrase, had ended his sport with Tess."-
See: 'A Glossary of Literary Terms' by M.H Abrams, under the heading 'cosmic irony'.
The tragedy is unbearable here to any sensitive heart, but see the way Hardy phrases it.(and Abrams notes it.) The incident of loss of virtue occurs in the last chapter of 'phase the first' of the story titled "The Maiden." And the next phase begins, "Maiden No More". That is all that is said. Just imagine what a modern writer would have done with such a juicy or spicey incident! And how it would have been named!
This is the real point about old literature we consider classics. They do deal with bold themes, but there is no gory detail or vulgarity. And the incident itself is not the main point of the story. The story deals with broad themes and bigger issues and this incident is the trigger. The modern reader, used to plain, graphic details, may not even understand what has happened! The issue Hardy wished to raise is the nature of a society which cannot render justice or show kindness to an innocent girl, who loses her virginity in spite of herself. She is not a bad girl, or a loose one. And about personal misfortune too he raises the basic question: why does something bad happen to good people? Where was her guardian angel? Where was the Providence in which she believed? Was it a case of the sins of the fathers visiting upon the children, as the good old Book had surely claimed? (Exodus,20:5). These questions have been answered neither by philosophy, nor theology.
Good old literature aimed to elevate human thought and behaviour. Literature was the teacher and guardian of morality. Story was for teaching morals, not for entertainment or for its own sake- as modern artists and writers claim. But this is the modern attitude in anything; just do it! So the scientists just go and make the atom bomb because they can do it! They invent deadly chemicals which are not found in nature or which nature cannot deal with , because they can do it! They meddle with genetic engineering and modify the food molecules, because they can do it! And their sins will wait upon the children! Every new scientific invention has brought on unexpected and unsolved problems to the succeeding generations.
The main characteristic of modern literature- whether English or Indian languages- is the depiction of loose morality and its elevation as the modern thing to do. In the process they interpret old literature in absurd ways. Take Shakespeare's sonnets for instance. in some of them, he definitely deals with his love for a male friend. This vexes our modern scholars. Who can that be? What can that mean? They are not satisfied unless they can establish that it shows the 'gay' side of his character, even though he was married and had children. They would at least talk of "putative evidence of at least homosociability". (See:Evans Shakespeare Editions, Hamlet; 'Shakespeare's Life' by J.J.M.Tobin) These so called scholars deliberately overlook the fact that in Shakespeare's times and society, friendship and deep bonding were always with members of the same sex, as people did not mix freely with the opposite sex, except in specific manner and situations. What kind of mucks are these scholars, spinning out such fancy theories and forcing them on young minds!
I have often wondered whether a decent man would write or even imagine something indecent! Whether a decent man or woman would openly discuss something sinister or disagreeable in great detail, in plain language, with his or her own children, not yet grown up? And yet many of them write such stuff for public consumption.
I detect plain greed for the filthy lucre behind such writers. And their own dirty minds. Most publishers would publish such books without scruple because they too are after money! It is like some of our self-styled 'art' movie makers. They can find only dirty subjects for such movies and all their art consists in treating it in as obscene a manner as possible, in the name of art, and creativity and freedom. They portray perversity in the name of art. Cecil B.De Mille was honest enough to admit over half a century ago: When people said he had 'sexualised' the Bible in his famous movie "The Ten Commandments", (1956) he is reported to have said that he had one eye on the Bible and the other on the empty seats in the theatre!
Under the influence of spreading modernism, even the literature in our languages is becoming plain vulgar. The periodicals contribute to the situation in no small measure. On the one hand, the educational system is diluting standards and spreading literacy; on the other, the growing fascination with technical education results in the serious neglect of humanities and arts subjects. Consequently, our youngsters have no exposure to any classical literature -of East or West. That is why I often plead that people read classical literature- be it prose or poetry, East or West. In the ultimate analysis, I believe that the division between ancient and modern is more meaningful than that between East and West. Ancient literature dealt with the same issues of fundamental importance to humans living upon earth, involving its meaning and purpose, though they dealt with different aspects or from different angles. They were concerned with values, East or West. But modern literature has no value other than momentary titillation for the reader, and monetary return for the writer and publisher, in both East and West. Neither the reader nor the writer has any sense of value or standard or direction. It is like boarding a nice ship on a long voyage upon the deep seas- but no one knows or cares where it is headed! How can you wish them Bon Voyage?
