Triveni Journal

1927 | 11,233,916 words

Triveni is a journal dedicated to ancient Indian culture, history, philosophy, art, spirituality, music and all sorts of literature. Triveni was founded at Madras in 1927 and since that time various authors have donated their creativity in the form of articles, covering many aspects of public life....

Tagore’s Conception of Literature

Prof. Jogesh Chandra Bhattacharya

Prof. JOGESH CHANDRA BHATTACHARYA
Director, Institute of English, Calcutta

The infinite variety and richness of Rabindranath Tagore’s literary creations make us exclaim, as the poet himself does in relation to his Maker. “I know not how thou singest, my master! I ever listen in silent amazement.” But our concern here is not so much with his literary output, great as it really is, hut with his pronouncements on the nature of poetry, or, for that matter, of all literature.

Rabindranath has said so much on the main principles of literary creation that it is not possible for us in course of one single lecture or within the brief space of an article to deal with them minutely. But we can discover an underlying unity in his scattered remarks on literature throughout his works and in his systematic discussions in books like Sahitya (Literature), Sahityer Pathe (On the Way to Literature) and Sahityer Svarup (The Nature of Literature). Great artists may not always be great critics. It must be said in regard to Rabindranath; however that, with the unerring instinct of a master-artist, he has always been able in his literary criticism to catch the very heartbeat of aesthetic creations.

Tagore in his essay entitled ‘Bamla Jatiya Sahitya’(National Literature in Bengali) read at an annual function of the Vangiya Sahitya Parishat goes to the very root of the word Sahitya (literature) which has been derived from the word sahita which means ‘along with others’. (Sahitya, Visva-Bharati, 1958. p. 112) Creation of literature is not merely for personal enjoyment, but for the enjoyment of humanity at large. It is this desire of sharing our feelings and emotions with others which, according to Tagore, is the basic conception behind literary creations. To quote from his ‘Sahityer Samari’ (Materials of Literature): “Human feelings endeavour to impress myriads of minds through years and years. It has been due to this earnest desire that from time immemorial we have so many gestures, so many languages and alphabets, innumerable carvings on stones, moulding on metals and binding in leather – how many marks and signs on the barks and leaves of trees as well as on paper, with the brush, the pointed stick, the pen, how many attempts at writing, from left to right, from right to left, from the top to the bottom, from one row to another! Why? Only because what I have thought, what I have felt must not perish, it must flow on from mind to mind, from time to time, being thought out and felt.” (Op. cit.p. 14)

The poet has been taken by Rabindranath as a representa­tive of the entire humanity. In his poem ‘Ami’ (1) in the book Syamali he says that his expression in poetry no more remains Personal. He says everything as a representative of the human face. In the Upanishad the word kavi (‘poet’ in common talk) has been applied to the Creator of the universe Himself. There it means one whose vision transcends space and time. The human poet, too, is a creator in a limited sense and therefore he, too, has something of this quality of universalization – the universalization of human emotions in his case. In his poem Sadhana(in the book Citra) Tagore addresses the Muse of Poetry and says: “O Goddess, I have sung many songs in this life, and reaped their harvest. But I have given them to all, to the universe of men; I have filled the world with my songs.”

In his poem ‘Paricay’ (in the book Senjuti) Rabindranath wants to be known as one of us: “Let my name be known as one of you. I want nothing else. Let this be my last testament to you.”

In his essay ‘Sahitye Adhunikata’ (Modernity in Literature), Rabindranath tells us that a piece of literature which has no generosity (dakshinya), which is not calculated to appeal to all hearts, is indeed very narrow and is not fit to be called great. (Sahityer Svarup, Visvavidyasamgraha Series, p. 16) That is why he found fault with some of the twentieth century English poems, because by virtue of their exclusiveness they can only be enjoyed by a limited circle of readers.

In the Dedication of his book Sahityer Pathe (On the Way to Literature) addressed to Amiya Chakraborty, Tagore accepts the definition of poetry (and for that matter, all literature) as given in Sanskrit Poetics: Vakyam rasatmakam kavyam. Poetry is the creation of rasa through language. This was the definition offered by Visvanatha, an authority on Sanskrit Poetics, in his Sahitya­darpana, Chapter 1. Rabindranath believes in the creation of rasa as the essential aim of the artist. The reader’s endeavour, again, will be to enjoy the rasa that has been so created. To take a few lines from Tagore’s ‘What is Art’:

“Our emotions are the gastric juices which transform this world of appearances into the more intimate world of sentiments. On the other hand, this outer world has its own juices, having their various qualities which excite ouremotional activities. This is called in ourSanskrit Rhetoric Rasa, which signifies outer juices having their response in the inner juices of ouremotions. And a poem, according to it, is a sentence or sentences con­taining juices, which stimulate the juices of emotion. It brings to us ideas, vitalized by feelings, ready to be made into the life­stuff of ournature.”

Let us briefly explain the theory of rasa in Sanskrit Poetics. Abhinavagupta, a great scholar who flourished towards the end of the tenth century A. D., defines rasa as the relishing of the delightful consciousness of one’s own: Sabda samarpyamana hrdayasamvada sundara vibhavamtbhava samuditaprannivista ratyadi vasana­nuraga sukumarasvasamvidananda carvana vyapara rasaniyarupo rasah. The causes and effects of our emotions in real life take a new shape altogether when they are expressed in words by the poet. In this new form they are called vibhava and anubhava respectively, and they develop a power to appeal to all hearts. These vibhavas and anubhavas again rouse the emotions (e. g., the erotic emotion) which are already there at the heart of the reader, and the consciousness becomes enjoyable as it is tinged by these emotions.

Viswanatha explains rasa in the following mariner in his Sahitya-darpana (III. 1): Vibhavenanubhavena vyaktah sancarina tatha; / Rasatameti ratyadih sthayi bhavah sacetasam (The perma­nent emotions like the erotic sentiment, in the heart of a fit appreciator, are transformed into the rasa state through the agency of the vibhavas, anubhavas and sancari bhavas). Vibhava is defined as Ratyadyudbodhaka loke vihhavah kavyanatyayoh. (The objects in the world of reality which arouse emotions are called vibhavas when they are placed in poetry and drama). (Ibid. III. 32) Anubhava is explained in the following manner: Udbuddham karanaih svaih svairbahirbhavam prakasayan; /Lake yah karyarupah so’ nubhavah kavyanatyayoh (The external mani­festations [gestures, etc.] through which any emotion aroused in the mind expresses itself are called anubhavas when they are introduced in literature). (Ibid. III. 141) The sancari bhavas are minor emotions which cannot exist without the existence of the nine permanent emotions. That is why they are called sancari or fluctuating (e.g., shame and jealousy). The permanent emotions of the human heart are: Ratirhasasca sokasca krodhotsahau bhayam tatha; /Jugupsa vismayascetthamastau proktah samo’pi ca (The emotions of love, laughter, pathos, anger, endeavour, fear, repulsion, wonder and calm – these are the big nine). (Ibid. III. 185) These emotions, transmuted by the vibhavas, anubhavas, and sancari bhavas, attain to the state of rasa or pure aesthetic enjoyment, capable of being relished. The origin of the word rasa, too, means anything which can be tasted or relished (rasayate asvadyate iti rasah).

That Tagore has accepted the creation and enjoyment of rasa as the essential factor in literature is clear from his numerous statements scattered throughout his critical writings. Thus, in his essay ‘Sahityer Matra(The Extent of Literature) in the book Sahityer Svarup he tells us that the fundamentals of literature are eternal, i.e., the rules guiding the enjoyment of rasa are integral to human nature itself. In the same essay Rabindranath says: “Expres­sion of human emotions is a source of eternal joy.” (Op. cit. p. 12) In his article ‘Kavya O Chanda(Poetry and Metre) in the same book (p. 25) Tagore says: “Language having rasa as its soul has an easy access to the heart.” Again, to quote from the same article (p. 25): “The essence of poetry is rasa; the metre only incidentally points towards that rasa.” In his article on gadya­kavya (prose-poems) in the same book (p. 29), Rabindranath clearly states that his striving for a long time has been to create rasa.

In his article ‘Sahitya’ in the book Sahityer Pathe, Rabindranath recognises three different manifestations of the human soul, follow­ing the characterization of the Absolute in the Taittiriya Upanishad as Satyam jnanamanantam brahma, Brahman is truth, knowledge and infinite (II. 1. 1). The entire human soul consists of ‘I am’, ‘I know’ and ‘I express.’ Literature, which is an expression of the human soul, is included within the Illimitable aspect of the Absolute. When man remains alone, circumscribed within his own limited self, he has no expression. It is only when he is inspired with a desire for union with other selves that he comes to artistic creation. It is this impersonal character of the creation as well as enjoyment of rasa which has been recognized in Sanskrit Poetics:

Sattvodrekadakhanda svaprakasananda cinmayah:
Vedyantara sparisasunya brahmanandasahodarah
(Sahitya-darpana, III. 1)

The enjoyment of literature is akin to that of the Absolute where the distinction between the knower and the knowable vanishes altogether. It is a state of rapture where we are lifted up for the time being from our ‘sole self’, our trammelled existence of day-to-day life. This is why Keats has said that the poetical character has no self. While engaged in the act of creation, “It is everything and nothing, living at all levels – high and low, mean and elevated. But all kinds come equally and easily to him. It has as much delight in conceiving an Iago as an Imogen.” (Letter toGeorge and Thomas Keats. 22 December, 1817). Arnold recognizes the same principle when he says in his ‘Song of the Strayed Reveller” that the aim of the poet is “to become what we sing.” At the time of creation the poot’s personal self is oblite­rated for the time being and he becomes one with his creation. The Greek word “ecstasy” also refers to this identification. The word literally means “standing out”, i.e., standing out of one’s own self and becoming another. The joys and sorrows of the entire human race must be within the heart of the poet if he is to be a successful artist. Since Shakespeare possessed this quality to the utmost degree, he was as much successful in creating the angelic innocence of a Desdemona as the consummate villainy of an lago.

Literature, through the creation of rasa, offers us a “fellow­ship divine”, “ a fellowship with essence” to quote the words of Keats in his “Endymion.” This state of pure unearthly rapture has been recognized by Benedetto Croce when he describes the process of creation as the passage “from troublous emotion to the serenity of contemplation.” This is actually nothing but the transformation of our emotions in real life into rasa.

Tagore recognizes a three-fold connection between man and the universe. The one is that of intellect, another of utility, and the third is that of enjoyment. We have to do with the first two in our daily life. It is only when we step out of these relations, and establish the connection of joy with the world, that we express our personality–we have art or literature. Lite­rature, therefore, is always beyond the practical utilitarian life of the real world. Let us take a few lines from Rabindranath’s article on “Creative unity”; “To detach the individual idea from its confinement of everyday facts and to give its soaring wings the freedom of the universal; this is the function of poetry.”

Croce, too, includes the aesthetic activity within the theo­retic forms of the spirit, thus distinguishing it from the practical. Throughout his literary creations as well as art-criticisms Tagore laid stress on the search of unity in diversity, on the illimitable within the limited. This sense of unity, including the enjoyment following its perception, is the soul of artistic truth and artistic beauty. And it is in this sense, according to Tagore, that Beauty is Truth, Truth is Beauty.

Such a conception of literature, however, gives it an idealized character to which the realists might object. But, after all, the real can only be the subject of literature. The ultimate product can never be real in the sense of an exact reproduc­tion or real life. In that case there would be no necessity of artistic creation, for do we not have enough of so-called real life around us? The realist’s contention is a corrective for escapists in art, for after all art grows out of life and draws from life. Cut off from life it becomes a hothouse plant having only a thin and pale existence. The whole of life is the subject-matter of art, and in that sense it is always vitally connected with life. But is not real life everywhere transmuted by the genius of the poet before it comes home to us as a thing of beauty which is a joy for ever? It is always ‘homo additus Naturae’–man added to Nature – real life tinged by the artist’s emotion. This is the reason why Tagore in his poem ‘Manasi’(in the book Caitali)describes the woman as half the real woman and half the fancy of the poet. It is this idea that finds expression in his poem ‘Ami’(1) in the book Syamali: “It was through the colour of my consciousness that the emerald was green and the ruby red. I cast my eyes in the sky, and lo! the light was there from east to west. I looked at the rose, and exclaimed “beautiful”, the rose grew beautiful. You may say, “This is philosophy, not the words of a poet.” I will answer, “This is truth and therefore it is poetry.” This naturally leads us to the distinction between factual truth and poetic truth. In his poem Bhasha O Chanda’ (Language and Metre), Rabindranath introduces Valmiki, the author of the Ramayana, who is asked by the divine sage Narada to compose the great epic about Sriramachandra. Valmiki hesitates, for he does not know all the facts of the life of the hero. Narada exhorts him saying: “Whatever you create will be truth: all that happens is not true.”

Tagore has no objection against taking up even the filthy objects of life in literature. But, then, these objects must not remain filthy in the ultimate analysis. A wineshop, says Tagore, has every right to be a subject-matter of literature, but the production must be literature and nothing but literature. To quote from his Sahityer Svarup (p. 5): “A realistic poem is a poem not by virtue or its realism but by virtue of its being a poem. “His pronouncements on poems written in free verse are of the same kind. A poem in free verse will be a poem, not because of its free verse, but, only when it is a poem. In his essay ‘Sahityer Svarup’ he tells us that it is perfectly possible to write a poem with the list of dirty clothes sent to the washerman as its subject. In the so-called language of realism, one can introduce in this poem bagfuls of the erotic, the pathetic and the horrible sentiments. The clothes of a husband and wife between whom there is no love lost, are getting cleaned together under the beatings of the washerman at the same tank, and then are carried along on the of the same donkey – this may be very suitable for the new verse of fours. But the realism does not consist in the choice of the subject-matter; it is in the magic of composition. In that, too, there must be much of selection.

Summing up, we might say that Rabindranath had a very high conception of literature which, while never losing its contact with the frailty that flesh is heir to, yet aspires after bringing out the infinite in man, thus contributing to the enrichment of human life through the creation of joy. And his own literary creations, where we come across ‘God’s plenty’, testify to this. They will be a permanent source of aesthetic enjoyment for mankind. Thus we may say, as Ben Jonson said about Shakespeare, Rabindranath ‘was not of an age, but for all time.’

(Abridged version of a lecture delivered in June, 1985 at the Ramakrishna Mission Institute of Culture, Calcutta)

- Courtesy Bulletin of the R. K. M. Institute of Culture.

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: