Plato's Objection to poetry

Assignment paper: 3

Topic: Plato’s objection to poetry

Name: kalani jalpa h

Roll no: 23

Semester: 1

Batch: 2010-11

Plato’s Objection to poetry

Ø Plato’s theory of Mimesis: The arts deal with illusion or they are imitation of an imitation. Twice removed from reality.

Ø As a moralist Plato disapproves of poetry because it is immoral, as a philosopher he disapproves of it because it is based in falsehood.

Ø Philosophy is better than poetry because philosopher deals with idea/truth, whereas poet deals with what appears to him/illusion.

Ø He believed that truth of Philosophy was more important than pleasure of poetry.

Ø Plato was the most distinguished disciple of Socrates. The 4^th century of BC to which he belonged was can age of inquiry and as such Plato’s chief interest was Philosophical investigations which form the subject of his great works in form of Dialogues. He was not a professed critic of literature and his critical observations are not found in any single book. They lie scattered in seven of his dialogues more particularly in The Ion, The Republic and The Laws.

                   He was the first systemic critic who inquired into the nature of imaginative literature and put forward theories which are both illuminating and provocative. He was himself a great poet and his dialogues are full of his gifted dramatic quality. His dialogues are the classic works of the world literature having dramatic, lyrical and fictional elements.

                   According to him all arts are imitative or mimetic in nature. He wrote in The Republic that ‘ideas are the ultimate reality.’ Things are conceived as ideas before they take practical shapes. So, idea is original and the thing is copy of that idea. Carpenter’s chair is the result of the idea of chair in his mind. Thus chair is once removed from reality. But painter’s chair is imitation of carpenter’s chair. So, it is twice removed from reality. Thus, artist/ poet take man away from reality rather than towards it. Thus, artist deals in illusion.

                   Plato’s three main objections to poetry are that poetry is not ethical, Philosophical and pragmatic, in other words, he objected to poetry from the point of view of Education, from Philosophical point of view and moral point of view.

                   It is not ethical because it promotes undesirable passions, it is not philosophical because it does not provide true knowledge, and it is inferior to the practical arts and therefore has no educational value.

                   Plato then makes a challenge to poets to defend themselves against his criticisms. Ironically it was Plato’s most famous student, Aristotle, who was the first theorist to defend literature and poetry in his writing. Poetics: Throughout the Republic Plato condemns art in all forms including literature or poetry. Despite the fact that he wrote, Plato advocates the spoken word over. The written word, he ranks imitation on a lower plan than narrative, even though his own works read like dramatic scripts. (The Republic is written in dialogues form with characters doing all the talking).It appears as though his reasoning is that imitation of reality is not in itself bad, but imitation without understanding and reason is.

                   Plato felt that poetry, like all forms of art, appeals to the inferior part of the soul, the irrational, and emotional cowardly part. The reader of poetry is seduced into feeling undesirable emotions. To Plato, an appreciation of poetry is incompatible with an appreciation of reason. Justice and the search for Truth. In the Ion, he suggests that poetry causes needless lamentation and ecstasies at the imaginary events of sorrow and happiness. It numbs the faculty of reason for the time being. Paralyses the balanced thought and encourages the weaker part of soul constituted of the baser impulses. Hence poetry has no healthy functions and it cannot be called good.

                   To him drama is the most dangerous form of literature because the author is imitating things that he/she does not understand. Plato seemingly feels that no condemn drama from one source: a faculty understanding of reality. Miscommunication, confusion and ignorance were facets of a corrupted comprehension of what Plato always strived for- Truth.

                   Plato is, above all, a moralist. His primary objective in The Republic is come up with the most righteous, intelligent way to live one’s life and to convince others to live this way. Everything else should conform in order to achieve this perfect state. Plato considers poetry useful only as a means of achieving this state that is only useful if it helps one to become a better person and if it does not, it should be expelled from the community. Plato’s question in Book 10 is the intellectual status of literature. He states that the good poet cannot compose well unless he knows his subject and he who do not have this knowledge can never be a poet, Plato says of imitative poetry and Homer, a man is not to be reverenced more than the truth. Plato says this because he believes that Homer speaks of many things of which he has no knowledge, just as the painter who paints a picture of a chair does not necessarily know how to make a chair. His point is that in order to copy or imitate correctly, one must have knowledge of the original. Plato says that imitation is twice removed from the truth. Stories that are untrue have no value as no untrue story should be told in the city. He states that nothing can be learned from imitative poetry.

                   Plato’s commentary on poetry in The Republic is overwhelmingly negative. In Books 2 and 3 Plato’s main concern about poetry is that children’s minds are too impressionable to be reading false tales and misrepresentations of the truth. As stated in Book 2, for a young person cannot judge what is allegorical and what is literal; anything that he receives into his mind at that age is likely to become indelible and unalterable, and therefore it is most important that the tales which the young first hear should be models of virtuous thought. He is essentially saying that children cannot tell the difference between fiction and reality and this compromises their ability to discern right from wrong. Thus, children should not be exposed to poetry so that later in life they will be able to seek the Truth without having a preconceived or misrepresented view of reality. Plato reasons that literature that portrays the gods as behaving in immoral ways should be kept away from children, so that they will not be influenced to act the scene way.

                   Another objection is that it is often viewed as portraying either male: dominance or female exploitation people argue that this should not be the way the world works; therefore, it is not the Truth. These claims sound much like the claims that Plato is trying to make when he asserts that certain poetry should be kept out of the hands of children. While the power of censorship can be abused, Plato seemed to believe that his stance is justified because he is trying to make children grow to be good, moral individuals. While Plato has some very negative views on the value of literature, he also states the procedures that he feels are necessary in order to change poetry and literature from something negative to something positive. He does feel that some literature can have redeeming values. Good, truthful literature can educate instead of corrupting children. In the city Plato would allow only hymns to the gods and praises to famous men. Plato does not want literature to corrupt the mind; he wants it do display images of beauty and grace. Plato’s view may be deemed narrow minded by today’s society, but one must remember that Plato lived over 2000 years ago. He probably wrote The Republic with the best intentions for the people of his time. While his views on censorship and poetry may even seem outland today, Plato’s goal was to state what he judged to be the guidelines for a better human existence.

1)   Plato’s Objection to poetry from the point of view of Education:

a)   In the Republic Book 2- He condemns poetry as festering evil habits were in children. Homer’s epics were part of studies. Heroes of epics were not examples of sound or ideal morality. They were lusty, cunning, and cruel war mongers. Even Gods were no better (Troy- Achilles beheading Apollo’s statue, oracles molested… insults of Gods, Gods fight among themselves, they punish instead of forgiveness…Ahalya- Indra, Kunti’s children, narad’s obsession to marry, Hercules son of Zeus and Almene, Hera’s jealousy- shakes-Frenzy to kill children…)

b)   Plato writes:” if we mean our future guardians to regard the habit of quarreling among themselves as of all things the bests, no word should be  said to them of the wars in the heaven or of the plots and fighting of the gods against one another, for they are not true …If they would only believe as we would tell them that quarreling is unholy, and that never up to this time has there been any quarreling between citizen….These tales (of epics) must not be admitted into our state, whether they are supposed to have allegorical meaning or not.”

c)    Thus, he objected on the ground that poetry does not cultivate good habits among children.

2)   Objection from Philosophical point of view:

a)   In “The Republic” Book 10: poetry does not lead to, but derives us away from the realization of the ultimate reality- the Truth.

b)   Philosophy is better than poetry because Philosophy deals with idea and poetry is twice removed from original.

c)    Plato says:” The imitator or maker of the images knows nothing of true existence; he knows appearance only… The imitative art is an inferior who marries an inferior has inferior offspring.”[Dorothea’s ideal in Middle march shattered, Kshtriya drama-not to hit enemy without weapon, Tess’s providence, evil wins and God is silent, unrewarded virtue…]

3)   Objection from the Moral point of view:

a)   In the same book in “The Republic”: soul of man has higher principles of reason. (Which is the essence of its being) as well as lower constituted of baser impulses and strengthens the rational principle is good and emotional is bad.

b)   Poetry waters and nourishes the baser impulses of men emotional sentimental and sorrowful.

c)    Plato says: “Then the imitative poet who aims at being popular is not by nature made, nor is his art intended, to please or to affect the rational principle in the soul; but he will prefer the passionate and fitful temper, which is easily limited. And therefore we shall be right in refusing to admit him into a well-ordered state, because he awakens and nourishes and strengthen the feelings and impairs the reason…poetry feeds and waters the passion instead of drying them us; she lets them rule, although, if mankind are ever to increase in happiness and virtue. There are Plato’s principle charges on poetry and objection to it. Before we pass on any judgment, we should not forget to keep in view the time in which he lived. During his time:

1)      Plato says that art being the imitation of the actual is removed from truth. It only gives the likeness of a thing in concrete and the likeness is always less than real. But Plato fails to understand that art also give something more which is absent in the actual. The artist does not simply reflect the real in the manner of a mirror. Art is not slavish imitation of reality. Literature is not the photographic reproduction of life in all its totality. It is the representation of selected events and characters necessary in a coherent action for the realization of artist’s purpose (Namesake: Jhumpa Lahiri and Mira Nair). He even exalts idealizes and imaginatively recreates a world which has its own meaning and beauty. These elements, present in art are absent in the raw and rough real.

R.A Scott-James rightly observes:”but though he creates something less than that reality. He also creates something more. He puts an idea into it. He gives his intuition of certain distinctive and essential qualities.

This ‘more’ this intuition and perception is the aim of the artist. Artistic creation cannot be fairly criticized on the ground that it is not the creation in concrete terms of things and beings. Thus, considered it does not take us away from the Truth but leads us to the essential reality of life.

2)      Plato again says that art is bad because it does not inspire virtue, does not teach morality. But it teaching the function of the art? Is it the aim of the artist? The function of art is to provide aesthetic, express emotions and life. It should never be confused with the function of ethics which is simply. If he fails in doing so, he is a bad artist. There is no other criterion to judge his worth. R.A Scott-James observes: “Morality teaches art does not attempt to teach. It merely asserts it is thus or thus that life is perceived to be. That is my bit of reality, says the artist. Take it or leave it- drew any lessons you like from it- that is my account of things as they are- if it has any value to you as evidence or teaching, use it, but that is not my business: I have given you my rendering, my account, my vision, my dream, my illusion- call it what you will. If yours is any lesson in it, it is yours to draw, not mine to preach.”

Similarly Plato’s charge that needless lamentations and ecstasies at the imaginary events of sorrow and happiness encourage weaker part of soul and numbs faculty of reason. This charge is defended by Aristotle in his Theory of Catharsis. David Daiches summarizes Aristotle’s views in reply to Plato’s charges in brief: “Tragedy gives new knowledge, yields aesthetic satisfaction and produces a better state of mind.

3)      Plato judges poetry now from the educational standpoint, now from the philosophical one and then from the ethical one. But he does not care to consider it from its own unique standpoint. He does not define its aims. He forgets that everything should be judged in terms of its own aims and objective its own criteria of merit and demerits. We cannot fairly maintain that music is bad because it does not paint, or that painting is bad because it does not sing. Similarly, we can not say that poetry is bad because it does not teach philosophy of ethics. If poetry, philosophy and ethics had identical function, how could they be different subject? To denounce poetry because it is not philosophy or ideal is clearly absurd.

1)   Plato’s Valuable Contribution to Literary Criticism:

In spite of Plato’s prejudices against poetry and art in general he remains the first great philosopher of arts. His findings about the nature of imaginative literature and representational fine arts remain valid even today. He has laid the first foundation brick of systematic literary criticism. His valuable contributions are following:

1)      According to Wimsalt and Brooks: In Ion, Plato has drawn our attention to two principles (1) being able to compose poetry is not the same as to give rational of it; (2) Poetry is not concerned with making scenic statements.

2)      He is the first critic to point that literature represents in a refined version the raw material supplied by life itself. Poetry may be called imitation of recreation. But the basic fact is that it derives its subject from life itself and from the world. It cannot invent anything that is never observed. R.A Scott-James is quite right when he says: “To him we owe the first statement of the mimetic or imitation character of art.”

3)      Plato also right in saying that the only aim of the poet is to please the people, though his disapproved and denounce of the poet on this account is not fair.

4)      It was Plato’s insight that discovered for the first time that all the fine arts have common aims although they employ different media. Scott-James observes: “Having got thus far, we observe that he has discovered a real community between all the fine arts. A poet who makes a poem and a painter who points a picture are engaged in the same sort of activity. They do not use4 the same medium, but otherwise they are engaged on the same task.”

Thus, as a moralist, he made some errors but he gave some important starting points to judge literary art.

                  

                

The Character Sketch of Mother Courage

The character sketch of Mother Courage

A Complex Personality; and Our Mixed Reaction to Her

               Mother courage is one of the best-know characters in modern European drama. Whatever Brecht’s own intentions in portraying this character might have been, the play itself creates in our minds the image of a formidable woman possessing several admirable qualities though also suffering from certain faults and weaknesses. She is not the kind of heroing whom we adore or whom tend to glorify while talking about her. She produces a mingled impression upon us; and there is certain contradictoriness in her which, however does not present any enigma or riddle to us. The contradictions render her all the more convincing. Our own reaction to Brecht’s portrayal of this woman is not only one of sympathy with her but also one of a certain dislike of her. In other words, while on certain occasions we almost identify ourselves with her, on certain other occasions we feel repelled by her. Thus the effect upon us is one of alienation as well as one of empathy. In order fully to understand the character of this woman, it is necessary for us to form a comprehensive view of her various characteristics. This woman has a complex character. In other words, she is a many-sided personality. she is not a simple kind of woman whose character can be summed up in one word or one phrase. Her children can certainly be summed up in single phrases on the basis of what she herself tells us about them. But her own character is a compound of several traits.

Her Bold, Almost Defiant, Manner of Speaking

                  Mother Courage is a bold woman who can speak in a defiant manner whenever necessary. In the very opening scene she speaks to the recruiting officer and the sergeant in a defiant, almost challenging, manner to prevent them from recruiting her sons in the army. She goes to the extent of pulling out her knife and threatening to attack them if they go ahead with their plan to recruit her sons. Subsequently she often speaks in a curt and even haughty manner to Catholic as wall as Protestant army officers, regardless of the side to which they belong. For instance, she snubs and scolds the Protestant officer who wishes to sell stolen bullets to her even though she does buy those bullets. Then she authoritatively forbids a Protestant soldier to enter her tent, saying that she allows only officers to enter, and that an ordinary soldier must stand at the counter to drink. When a Catholic sergeant is making inquiries about Swiss Cheese, she speaks to him also in a bold manner. And yet she capable of surrendering to others when she thinks it more prudent to do so, For instance, she needs to surrender to those who are mighty and powerful. Thus she has an elastic nature and can adept herself to the changes in her circumstances.

A Shrewd But Not an Expert Businesswoman

                 Mother Courage is a shrewd businesswoman and also a hard bargainer. She shows this trait of her character in the manner in which she haggles over the price of the capon which she wishes to sell to the Swedish commander’s cook; and later she shows the same trait when she snatches away a fur-coat from a soldier who has no cash to pay to her for the brandy which he has drunk at her counter. In managing her canteen-business, she is all the time worrying about the rise and fall in prices. And yet we cannot say that she is an expert businesswoman because she is always seeking advice from others whether to dispose of her merchandise or add to it. Which she should adopt in this matter.

A Practice Woman with a Strong Common Sense

                 Mother Courage has a strong and sturdy common sense. She is a practical woman who harbors no illusions or false hopes. She knows that people get killed in the course of a war; and that is why in the opening scene she tries her utmost to prevent her sons being enlisted in the army. She needs her sons for running her own business because this business is her only source of her livelihood. Later in the play, she rejects the chaplain’s proposal to marry her because the chaplain does not attract her as would be husband. Still later, she agrees to accompany the cook to his native town of Utrecht because now it suits her to settle down to a comfortable kind of existence and to bid good-bye to her traveling canteen-business. She is now willing to ignore the cook’s past misdeeds because she thinks that she can handle him. Even on a previous occasion her towards her decently and that she could handle them both if they misbehaved.

The Basic Contradiction in Her Character

                 According to Brecht himself, the key to the character of Mother Courage lies in her self-contradictoriness. This view is certainly borne out by the play itself. The chief contradiction in the character of Mother Courage is her advocacy of war and, at the same time, her opposition to war, very often she expresses a strong desire for the continuance of this war, but sometimes she also expresses a hatred of this war. When, for instance, the war has stopped because of the sudden death of king, she deplores the fact and tells the cook that the return of pence has “broken her neck”. She laments the end of the war because she may even lose her means of livelihood because it is only during the war that her canteen-business, which caters only to the soldiers, can be carried on. It is because she disapproves of the return of peace and expresses a strong preference for the war that the chaplain calls her “a hyena of the battlefield”. And yet it is at this very point that, replying to the chaplain, she says: “There isn’t much love lost between me and the war,” meaning that she hates the war: and she then goes on to tell him that she can no longer keep company with him because he has called her a hyena of the battlefield. The chaplain, who is at this moment in a quarrelsome mood, say that she is grumbling about the return of peace only because her wagon carries a lot of junk which she wants to sell. To this, she replies that her goods are not and that she has been maintaining him too with the money which she has been earning from this business. All this clearly shows that she supports the war and its continuance only because she can make a living by the sale of her goods to the soldiers, and because the end of the war would mean the end of her canteen-business. Her desire for the continuance of the war only shows a desire for her own and her dumb daughter’s survival. Apart from being the means of livelihood for her and her dumb daughter, the war is something which she detests and hates. There is one speech which clearly and unambiguously shows her hatred of the war; and she makes that speech just after her daughter Kattrin has been attacked and wounded by a drunken soldier. In that speech she says that the moment of her daughter having been wounded upon her eye is a historic moment to her because her daughter would now never get a husband. Even Kattrin’s dumbness, she says, was the result of the war because a soldier had thrust something into her mouth when she was a little child. And then she adds the following words which almost break our hearts: “I’ll not see Swiss Cheese again, and where my Eilif is the Good Lord knows. Curse the war!”  Thus we must understand that Mother Courage is by no means a militarists or a war-monger, and that she does not enjoy the spectacle of bloodshed or of soldier falling down to their deaths in the course of a battle. She never takes part in the plunder of a town or village. She does not rob the wounded or the helpless persons in the course of the war. She is certainly not a hyena of the battlefield. She wants the war to continue only because she earns her living from it. There is nothing criminal in her nature. It is the politicians and the high army officers who are the hyena of the battlefield. Poor Mother Courage only wants the means of survival for herself and her children. Even when she sings songs praising the continuance of the war, she shows through those songs a keen awareness of the dark side of the war also. In this connection, we might refer to the songs in which she says that the war is a “business proposition” and in which she also says that the soldier who digs a hole to creep into it finds that he has dug only a grave for himself.

A Self-Sacrificing Kind of Mother

                 Even if there were nothing more to be said about Mother Courage, she would not be an odious figure in our eyes. Even in the light of what has already been said, Mother Courage would not cut a sorry figure. But the finest trait of her character is yet to be mentioned. More than anything else, Mother Courage is a mother. Her love for her children is boundless. It will be utterly wrong to say that she loves money above her children, or that she is a merchant first and a mother afterwards. When Swiss Cheese is about to lose his life, she decides to sell her canteen-wagon to raise enough money to bribe the Catholic sergeant in order to obtain the release of Swiss Cheese. She decides to sacrifice the very means of her own survival in this decision that Swiss Cheese is executed before her decision can be carried into effect; but that is just her bad luck and not any unwillingness to make the sacrifice. After all, she was thinking of Kattrin too while coming to a decision. And, indeed, we cannot ignore her received a bad would over the eye! But the supreme moment of Mother Courage’s spirit of self-sacrifice comes when she decides not to go with the cook to Utrecht but to stay with her daughter Kattrin. She “sacks” the cook who has become the owner of a lousy inn, and she clings to her daughter even though it means continuing hard toil for both of them. Can such a woman be regarded as a mean or despicable person or a hyena?

Her Callousness on One Occasion, Certainly a Fault

                 Of course we cannot ignore Mother Courage’s callousness and hard-heartedness on certain occasions. In the scene in which she refuses to give some linen away to be used for bandages when a number of Protestants have been wounded in a Catholic attack, she certainly appears something of a hyena. Here she certainly alienates us. But we should not expect angelic goodness from any human being in this world. We are not reading a fairy tale. Nor does Mother Courage a traditional heroine possess all the noble qualities and virtues. The callousness in her is definitely a flaw in her character; and we are not prepared to make light of it. But this flaw shows that she is a human being after all. At the same time we should guard against calling her a monster on the basis of this fault in her.

Her Sense of Humour; Her Wit and Capacity for Sarcasm

                 There yet remains one more quality of Mother Courage to be taken into consideration. She has a strong sense of humour, and she has also the capacity to make witty and sarcastic remarks. She can hold her own in a conversation, no matter to which she is talking. She shows this quality in the opening scene when she has to deal with a recruiting officer and a sergeant who are, of course, close allies against her. Later, she shows this quality when dealing with the chaplain and with the cook, separately or jointly. When, for instance, the cook tells her he is a sound man if nothing else, she replies that her previous experience of a sound man has been very bitter. That sound man, she says, used to sell the blankets off the children’s beds in the spring, and used to find fault with her mouth-organ, describing it as unchristian. She goes to say that, by calling himself a sound man, he has in no way recommended himself to her. When the cook feeling irritated, says that she is opposing him tooth and nail, she replies: “Don’t tell me you’ve been dreaming of my teeth and nails.” When the cook says that his regiment had been disbanded and that he has, therefore, come to her on a friendly visit, she makes the following retort: “In other words, you’re broke.” Perhaps the best example of her wit is to found in the manner in which she describes the misbehaviour of the soldiers when, after days and days of starvation, they get the opportunity to plunder a town. Here is a part of that speech: “For weeks on end, no grub. Then, when they get some by way of plunder, they jump on top of the women-folk.” What Mother Courage here means to say is that soldiers, who have been starving; not only plunder a town for food but also rape the women-folk of the town.

A Tragic Figure Because of Her Spirit of Endurance

                 Mother Courage deserves our admiration for the manner in which she endures all her misfortunes. She does not collapse, and she does not give way to despair. In the final scene of the play, after she has lost her dumb daughter, she yet has enough spirit left in her to be able to start her business afresh. She harnesses herself to the wagon and gets ready for the coming ordeals of her life. Mother Courage is indeed a woman of courage; and this courage and the spirit of endurance, which goes with it, raise her far above average womanhood. It would be a complete distortion of the battlefield or as a woman of no worth. At the end, she strikes us a tragic figure because of her heroic endurance of her misfortunes; and now her support of the war or her advocacy of the war can also be seen by us in the proper perspective. It is sheer necessity which has always compelled her to desire the continuance of the war; and at the end we find her once more hoping to earn her livelihood from the continuance of the war. Yet, she has learnt nothing from her experiences. But how many of us do learn anything from their own experiences or even from the experiences of others? Has history taught any lessons to mankind collectively or to the various nations of the world individually? Brecht has been regarded as a sort of prophet for having written a play which anticipated the outbreak of World War 2. Well and good. But he was also a confirmed socialist or communist. What is the fate of communism or socialism today? Where today is the super-power known as the U.S.S.R? why did Brecht’s spirit of prophecy fail him in that matter?

                       

             

          

  

Story of my Experiment with truth- Gandhi

The story of my experiment with truth- Gandhi

Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948)
Indian political and spiritual leader, called Mahatma ("Great Soul"). Gandhi helped India's struggle for independence from Britain through a campaign based on nonviolence and civil disobedience. His doctrine of nonviolent action had a profound influence on Martin Luther King Jr., the leader of the civil rights movement in the U.S, and Nelson Mandela, the most prominent figure of the black opposition to apartheid in South Africa. However, Gandhi never received the Nobel Peace Prize.

"Nonviolence and truth (Satya) are inseparable and presupposes one another. There is no god higher than truth." (From True Patriotism: Some Sayings of Mahatma Gandhi, 1939, ed. by S. Hob house)

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was born in Poorbandar, Kathiawar, on the western coast of India. For several generations, the Gandhi’s had been Prime Ministers in several Kathiawald States. Karamchand Gandhi, his father was the chief minister of Porbandar and a member of the

Rajasthanik Court

. He married four times. Putlibai, his last wife and Gandhi's mother, was a deeply religious Hindu. When Gandhi was sixteen, his father died - four years later he lost his mother. "The outstanding impression my mother has left on my memory is that of saintliness," Gandhi later wrote in his book of memoir, An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth (1927-29).

Gandhi was married at the age of 13, as was not unusual by the custom. His bride, Kasturba, also was 13. She was the only daughter of rich merchants. Kastur Kapadian and Gandhi had four sons; their first child was born in 1885, but died after a few days. Kasturbai could not read or write and Gandhi's attempts to teach her were fruitless. Although she often had to submit to her husband's decisions, she also had a will of her own. The marriage endured until her death in 1944.

In 1888 Gandhi went to London to study law, leaving his wife for three years. In the new surrounding he began experiments with diet that continued throughout his lifetime. After he was called to the bar at Inner Temple, he returned home to practice as a barrister in Bombay. Unable to find a suitable post, Gandhi moved to South Africa in 1893. During his journey to Pretoria he had a firsthand experience with racist degradation, a most crucial experience in his formative years. Gandhi worked for Dada Abdullah & Co and the Indian community. Kasturba had again waited with the children in India, but in 1897 she joined her husband in Durban. Gandhi gained fame as a tenacious political campaigner, who courageously opposed the Transvaal government's discriminatory legislation against Indian settlers. His ideological basis was much derived from the liberal-humanist values he had absorbed in England, exemplified in the works of Ruskin, Thoreau, and Emerson.

Gandhi remained in South Africa for 20 years and developed a system of non-violent defiance. For his services during the Boer War (1899-1902) Gandhi was awarded the War Medal. After the birth of their fourth son, Gandhi suggested to his wife that they sleep in separate beds. Gandhi's one-sided decision and sexual abstinence caused Kasturba for a long time much stress. In search for spiritual development Gandhi studied the Bible, the Koran, and memorized the Bhagavad-Gita. Also Leo Tolstoy influenced him deeply. Gandhi saw that his methods were in harmony with Hindu doctrines of ahimsa and that "the strongest physical force bends before moral force when it is used in the defense of truth." In his middle thirties, Gandhi took the vow of bramahcharya, which means not only complete chastity but the elimination of sexual desire. To test his self-control Gandhi slept naked with young women.

In 1914 Gandhi returned permanently to India. His most prominent adversary, Gen. Jan Smuts, wrote to a friend reliefed: "The saint has left our shores, I hope, forever." Gandhi became a highly influential figure in the National Congress, transforming it into an instrument of change. Following the massacre at Amritsar in 1919, in which British soldiers killed hundreds of Indians, Gandhi launched a policy of non-violent non-co-operation to secure swaraj (independence) from Britain. This process made Gandhi a guru like figure. Resistance methods included strikes, refusal to pay taxes, abandonment of western for Indian dress, and refusal to respect colonial law. "One step enough for me," Gandhi often said without planning his actions far ahead.

Gandhi himself adopted a simple, ascetic way of life, dressing only in a loincloth of hand woven cloth and sandals. He was jailed several times and went on hunger strikes to focus attention on his cause. When communal riots started on India's northwest frontier in 1924, Gandhi undertook a 21-day purificatory fast. After he had walked some 200 miles on foot to the sea to collect salt illegally, the Viceroy started to relieve the punitive salt taxes and the government monopoly.

Gandhi also strove to raise the” Even Gandhi, with all his charisma, did not melt the hearts of his oppressors, as he had hoped. After softening, hearts harden again. Asoka too was wrong to think that he was changing the course of history, and that his righteousness woul last 'as long as the sun and the moon'." (Theodore Zeldin in An Intimate History of Humanity, 1994)

Gandhi has been criticized for his nostalgia for ancient rural bliss and delaying the modernization and industrialization of his country. On the other hand, he has been regarded as the "true soul" of India. With other Hindu sages Gandhi shared a mistrust of worshipping followers, and he tried to avoid the title mahatma. In spite of this, his disciplines regarded him as a saint. Gandhi's denial of the pleasures of food, sex, family, and friendship, has made his way of life extremely demanding for ordinary people, who otherwise have found inspiration from his courage and teachings. This question troubled George Orwell in his essay 'Reflections on Gandhi' (1949). While admitting that Gandhi never made claims of sainthood, he did not hesitate to reject sainthood as an ideal : "The essence of being human is that one does not seek perfection, that one is sometimes willing to commit sins for the sake of loyalty, that one does not push asceticism to the point where it makes friendly intercourse impossible, and that one is prepared in the end to be defeated and broken up by life, which is the inevitable price of fastening one's love upon other human individuals."

"Become the change you want to see in the world." (Vice President Al Gore's quotation from Gandhi)

Gulliver's Travels as an allegory

Gulliver’s Travels as an allegory

The book featured this month is Jonathan Swift's Travels into several remote nations of the world by Lemuel Gulliver. More commonly known as Gulliver's Travels, this book is regarded as one of the most important satirical works in the English language.  Described as 'Hans Christian Andersen for children, Boccaccio for adults', Gulliver's Travels appeals on at least two obvious levels. It is both a fantastical narrative of giants, flying islands and talking horses and a trenchant allegorical critique of politics and projects in early Eighteenth Century Europe.

First published in October of 1726, Gulliver's Travels probably took at least five years to write. From the day of publication it was popular with both adults and children; indeed, Swift's friend, John Gay, remarked in correspondence between the two that it was, 'universally read, from the cabinet council to the nursery'.  Many different editions of the work have since been published including (even in the Eighteenth Century) many significantly abridged children's imprints. Some modern critics view the existence of these bowdlerized editions (often Book I alone) as a demeaning betrayal of Swift's true intentions; however an equally valid counter claim can be articulated in support of maintaining the book's wide ranging appeal.

Owing to its immediate popularity, booksellers quickly sold out of the work necessitating several re-prints in the first few months. On each occasion minor variations to the text and page layouts have given later bibliographers the difficult task of identifying each edition by tracing the textual and bibliographic minutiae. The copy featured this month can be described as a variation of the 'A' edition. It is a first edition printed as an octavo on royal paper and according to some bibliographers (Teerink et al. ) could represent the first printing of the first edition. Published by Benjamin Motte in London, our four books are bound in two volumes with mint-condition 18th Century bindings.

According to a manuscript note on the title page, the work has been in Glasgow University since 1728. It probably arrived in accordance with the 1709 Copyright Act, which permitted the University to lay claim to a copy of any work entered at Stationer's Hall. We are fortunate enough to hold copies of several early editions of Gulliver's Travels in the Special Collections Department to complement the fine edition featured here.

Gulliver's Travels comprises four different books, each detailing accounts from a different voyage undertaken by the putative author, Lemuel Gulliver. Published anonymously by Swift, it was ostensibly just another travelogue, describing the new territories emerging as a result of progress made in technology and commerce. Swift helps establish this ruse by describing the author as 'Lemuel Gulliver, first a Surgeon, and then a Captain of many ships'. He provides a fictional biography of Gulliver in the prefatory dedication and provides maps of the territories discussed.

It is only when Gulliver is ship-wrecked and awakens on a beach with 'arms and legs strongly fastened on each side to the ground', captured by creatures 'not six inches high' (p.8) that the reader begins to question the veracity of the account. This is, of course, a description of Gulliver's encounter with the Lilliputians, a race of people no larger than his middle finger. Following assurances to the little people of his good intentions, Gulliver soon becomes a favorite. At their request, he helps the Lilliputians vanquish their nearby rivals, the Blefescudans, by wading across the sea to steal the enemy fleet. Despite this helpful act, his subsequent refusal to force the Blefescudans into Lilliputian subservience enrages his hosts who sentence him to be blinded as punishment. Fortunately, Gulliver makes good his escape when a correctly proportioned rowing boat washes up on the Lilliputian shoreline.

In contrast to this experience, Gulliver's second voyage sees him arrive in Brobdingnag, populated by a race of giants 'As tall as an ordinary spire-steeple' who take 'ten yards for every stride' (p.8 part2). Between fighting off a giant wasp and being abducted by an eagle, he passes the time attempting, unsuccessfully, to impress the king by describing the workings of the English political system.
 

Gulliver's subsequent adventures are far too numerous to describe in detail but highlights include his being rescued by the flying island of Laputa following a pirate attack, meeting the immortal and ancient Struldbruggs and being abandoned in a land where horses (Houyhnhnms) rule over un-civilized human-like creatures (Yahoos).

Literary critics and book lovers have debated the various metaphors and allusions found in Gulliver's Travels from the very outset. Opinion has diverged over many aspects, most connected with the true intentions of the author. The personal politics of Swift seem inseparably tied up as allegory in Gulliver's experiences. Quite to what extent Swift intended individual characters and events in the narrative to directly satirize real people and contemporary events is still hotly debated. Most modern critics agree that Swift's satire takes various forms and targets different institutions and people.

It has been argued that to truly appreciate Gulliver's Travels it is first necessary to understand the political and social landscape in which the book was first conceived and written. Born in Dublin in 1667, the son of an English immigrant, Swift was educated in Trinity College. He spent a period of time working as a secretary for Sir William Temple in England before returning to Ireland to be ordained as an Anglican minister. During Queen Anne's reign, (1702-1714) he frequently traveled back and forth between Dublin and London. Despite initially becoming active in Whig politics, the party's perceived opposition to the Anglican Church led Swift to change allegiance to the Tory cause. With the accession of George I, the political landscape changed; the Whig party gained power and Swift lost his political influence. This personal blow to his career, exacerbated by Whig policy towards Ireland, fuelled Swift's anger at the government in London. In addition to this setback other aspects of society began to anger Swift. Substantial changes in attitudes, outlooks, fashions and social trends were taking place during this period; the nascent Enlightenment movement, building on the empirical foundations laid by Newton, Locke and Bacon, affected all areas of society. Modish theories of individualism and commercialism championed by the Whig press were anathema to classically minded conservatives like Swift. Indeed, these theories may well have seemed a direct attack on the morals and values underpinning Swift's notion of civilization. Arguably Gulliver's Travels was conceived as a challenge to this new wave thinking.

It would though, be far too simple to describe this as Swift's sole agenda, for his critique was far more wide ranging. Bloom (Greenberg et al) describes the Travels as 'a discussion of human nature, particularly of political man' while Samuel Holt Monk describes them as 'a satire on four aspects of man: the physical, the political, the intellectual and the moral'. Swift seems to use different methods of realizing his satire from direct allegory of people and places to intentionally structuring the narrative to best highlight contrast. For example Bloom argues that both Books I and III of the Travels can be read as roman à clef: 'Lilliput is full of characters clearly identifiable as personages in British politics, and Laputa is peopled largely by modern philosophers and members of the Royal Academy'. Bloom further argues that both Lilliput and Laputa are direct allegories of contemporary England: 'When he is in Lilliput and Laputa, he tells nothing of his world or native country. He need not for the reader should recognize it; Gulliver is alien and the interesting thing is the world seen through his eyes'. The analysis concludes that in contrast to this situation, Gulliver's voyage to Brobdingnag and the land of the Houyhnhnms see him take up the role of weak Englishman, a foil to the idealized world of classical values he inhabits. By structuring the Travels in this contrasting fashion and using specific narrative devices such as the projection of moral and intellectual differences as physical dimensions, Swift creates a nuanced satire of contemporary life. Not all critics agree with such a precise reading however: F. P. Lock argues that Swift's primary agenda in Gulliver's Travels was to 'record in an imaginative creation for posterity a vision of political wisdom he had been denied the opportunity of using in the service of his own time and country'.

Book four of Gulliver's Travels, it is now commonly agreed, is one of the most important. In this voyage Gulliver meets the 'wise and virtuous' Houyhnhnms who rule over the depraved human-like Yahoos. This encounter in conjunction with experiences from his other voyages leads Gulliver, on his return to England, to reject human society and sleep in a horse's stable. The voyage builds on the contrasting experiences of previous books and raises a number of important metaphysical questions. Although often cited as evidence of a strong misanthropic streak in the author, many modern critics argue that Gulliver's rejection of humanity is a strategic device to underline an important point. What that point might be is up for debate. Bloom suggests that Swift is attempting to illustrate the tension between conflicting aspects of human nature. The Yahoos and Houyhnhnms represent the two extremes of the natural state separated - 'part god, part beast': humanity as depicted by Plato v. humanity as depicted by Hobbes. This interpretation has been questioned by other critics arguing that the Houyhnhnms are not, in fact a representation of a Platonic ideal but an allegorical critique of Deism: Houyhnhnm behavior illustrating the 'inadequacy and negativity of a life of pure rationality' (Williams as discussed by Tippett).

Perhaps some of the divisions over Swift's true intentions might be cleared up if it were not for the confusion and mystery surrounding the initial publication of Gulliver's Travels. The original manuscript was delivered to the publisher anonymously thereby denying Swift access to the final proof. In subsequent correspondence he complains of the 'mangled and murdered pages' found in Motte's edition: seemingly an accusation that the publisher had amended or altered the text. Modern opinion once again diverges on the truth of Swift's assertion. The publication in 1735 of a new edition apparently approved by Swift includes some very conspicuous allegory not found in the 1726 editions. Since the original manuscript is no longer extant, it is debatable whether this allegory represents Swift's original intention or a later addition to the original text. Orthodox academic opinion holds that the 1735 edition is the more authoritative version of Swift's text; therefore all modern publications are transcribed from this later proof.

The fact that academics are still arguing over what Jonathan Swift was really trying to say in this significant book is testament to the important place it holds in the literary canon. Undoubtedly a classic, this work certainly debunks Mark Twain's droll assertion that "'A classic' is books that people praise but don’t read"! Gulliver's Travels has thrilled and frustrated its readers in equal measure for the last 280 years and will most likely continue to do so for the next!

Character sketch of Satan

Character sketch of Satan in Paradise Lost

'O, speak again, bright angel!'
~William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet,

Romeo and Juliet may be the last place you would look for a literary inspiration for Satan, and I don't think it was one for Milton (we can't completely rule out the possibility, but I think we can safely agree it is considerably less likely than England winning the World Cup). But looking at this famous quote gives us a number of interesting ways of thinking about Satan's character in Paradise Lost.

Satan used to be one of the most important of God's angels, but rebelled when God declared the Son to be above all the angels in glory. Satan persuaded a third of the angels to rebel with him, and declared war on God. Satan was defeated by the Son and cast into Hell with all the other rebel angels.

Light-bringer

'Lucifer' means 'light-bringer' in Latin, which is not far away from Shakespeare's 'bright Angel', but 'Satan' means 'the adversary' in Hebrew. In fact, he is first described to us in Paradise Lost as 'the arch-enemy, | and thence in heaven called Satan' (I.81). He is defined only by his opposition and relation to God and is often presented with reference to his former beauty: 'the excess | of glory obscured' (I.593). We are never allowed to forget that he was once a glorious angel of God, good rather than evil. We are constantly reminded by the 'bright angel' motif that Satan was created by God, but then opposed him; a failed creation, if you like. We are led to St. Augustine's idea that evil is not an essential attribute, something existing in itself, independent and exclusive from that which is good. Evil is rather something chosen, acting through free will in conscious opposition to God's will.

Free will

The allure of free will is where the attractiveness and power of Satan's character lies. Satan may be quite useless when it comes to fighting the ten thousand thunders of Christ's fury, but in his will he is free and in his mind he is supreme: 'What though the field be lost? | All is not lost; the unconquerable will' (I.105). Satan was defeated but not defeated, or to draw a slightly blasphemous parallel to Saint Paul, he was 'perplexed, but not in despair; [...] cast down, but not destroyed' (II Corinthians, 4.8-9). We may indeed argue that he (Satan, not Paul) is deluding himself when he preaches 'the mind is its own place, and in itself | Can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven' (I.254) - this is a clear case of sour grapes; Satan is exiled from heaven and pines for lost joys. But in hell, Satan is sovereign and free from having to worship the Son. When Satan comes into Eden, he is tormented by 'the hot hell that always in him burns' (IX.467). One may choose to read this as the narrator's sardonic comment on Satan creating 'a hell of heaven', but this mental extension of the physical torment of hell as well as trapping him, also in a way represents Satan's freedom: this is a hell of Satan's own choosing and creation, caused 'in him' by his hate and envy of everything good. Satan's mind is not only unconquerable and unconditionally opposed to God; it also influences other minds to use their free will to oppose the will of God. And this is where the 'speak again' of the opening quotation needs to be considered. Speaking is what Satan does extremely well; his speeches in the first two books of Paradise Lost are a rich store of quotes for any motivational speaker. We must never forget that the two major events of the poem are created through the persuasive speech of Satan - he convinces the angels to take up arms, and convinces Eve to eat the fruit. In the former achievement he takes a third of the heavenly host with him, in the latter he takes the whole of the human race (or so he thinks until Christ spoils his party). Satan is charismatic, eloquent, and unanswerable; the bright angel speaks again and again, tempting with knowledge, tempting the reader, as he tempted Eve, to think, question, explore, reinterpret, and to eat of 'this intellectual food' (IX.768) and 'make wise' (IX.778), to be won over by the power of the free-willed mind and make it 'its own place'.

Satan's speeches

I suspect that the pious Milton was uncomfortable with how attractive a character Satan was becoming, and so gradually reduced the role of Satan's speeches as the poem progressed (although of course, this is just my opinion). In Books I and II, Satan reigns supreme as he addresses the fallen angels in direct speech. In contrast, when Raphael tells Adam about Satan's revolt in heaven, Satan's oratory comes to Adam (and the reader) as reported speech. The narrative conventions of the poem demand this, and we would scarcely expect Raphael to misrepresent Satan's words, but still the oratorical power of Satan is mediated through the medium of the tale-teller. There is nobody to question Raphael, nobody to protest at errors or omissions, and no chance for Satan to defend himself or tell his side of the story. In the next instance of Satan's speech, he speaks to Eve in 'human voice' (IX.561). It is a plea, rather than a speech; rather than commanding and rousing his troops to action, he is now convincing a woman to eat fruit. In one sense this is a step down, but it does also demonstrate another kind of power; one of persuasion and subtlety. The final humiliation comes in Book X, when Satan and his troops are turned into serpents, and deprived entirely of the power of speech:

                               he would have spoke,
But hiss for hiss returned with forked tongue
To forked tongue.      

In Books I and II, Satan's speech dominated the narrative, and the action of the poem stopped while he had his say. Now the words of the narrative swallow him up - 'to serpents all as accessories' (X.520). The sibilant’s’ sounds of this description mockingly imitate his speechless hissing. Satan has been silenced completely and humiliatingly for the rest of the poem. It seems to me that the only way to give God's life-giving word prominence is in a monologue. Satan's speech must be silenced, as its immense power over the poem and the reader is too attractive and too great a competitor. There is only room for one king at the end of this poem, one majesty, and one talk.

The major figure for many readers is Satan, partially because he is strong willed, partially because he is introduced early in the poem, partially because his speeches are so rhetorical and dramatic and partially because some of the ideas he is arguing are on the surface receptive. What the writings of those who advance Satan to heroic stature indicate, however, is that they are not reading Books 1 and 2 carefully to discern the picture of Satan being presented. He does not deteriorate as the poem progresses: he is a liar and self-deceiver from the beginning; he wraps ideas and colors opinion by pejorative (but not honest) language; he shows intemperance, illogicality, wrath, and deceit. Milton does present his material with the focus appropriate for the substance and context, so that Satan and his cohorts looked at in Hell; appear giant figures engaged in colossal action and ideas. But once Hell and its occupants are seen against other worlds and other inhabitants, it is refocused as smaller and certainly petty of action and idea. (For analogy-without infernal implications- we might compare the importance to us of say a school election when we are in school and the refocus which will come as we move out into the larger world.) However, Milton has not been deceitful in creating this impression, for the two similes (of the bees and the fairies) which end Book 1 should make clear the discrepancy between Satan’s point of view and the relative view encompassing all elements in all worlds.

Satan has been called “hero” apparently for two reasons: he enunciates ideas          in Book 1 which on the surface appeal to oppressed against unjust authority (such as the revolutionary world of Shelly would hold dear), and he engages in a questing voyage and a struggle with an opposing force. These had been usual earmarks for heroes of classical and Renaissance epics. The first reason disappears as reason when we reread Book 1 with full knowledge of the whole poem, and the assumed “unjust authority” is an ultimately benevolent God. (Of course, if God is unacceptable to a critic, Satan will probably remain “hero.”) The second reason really presents a heroic figure rather than a hero, and the seeming opposing force of God is not opposing in the sense that the outcome is never in question. This is part of Satan’s self-delusion. If we must have a hero, perhaps we need a different definition from the classical type, one rather placing Man as “hero” in terms of a morality play. Implied is Man’s quest as Adam and Eve leave Eden and start to follow the course of history laid out in Books 11 and 12, and the struggle with the opposing force of evil which Man’s sense of good will constantly encounter.

Satan as rhetorical underdog will probably continue to elicit adherents, but more analytic reading of the full poem will nullify his appeal. Beyond this we must remember that we are reading a work of literature, regardless of the momentous ideas which it incorporates, and that we should therefore not confuse it with nonfictional philosophy, as important as Milton’s beliefs are to the poem.