Ralph Waldo Emerson's The Mountain and the Squirrel

-          

Introduction

Ralph Waldo Emerson is a famous American poet.  He is known for writing poems that goes across the border of his nation and thoughts.  He is the pioneer of transcendentalism.  The mountain and the Squirrel is a poem in the form of dialogue between a mountain and squirrel.  Emerson imagines a quarrel between these two inanimate objects to convey a novel idea.

 

The Quarrel

            The poem starts with a quarrel between the mountain and the squirrel.  The mountain calls the squirrel as “little prig”.  It calls so because the squirrel is proud of itself.  The mountain considers itself to be bigger in size and there by much better than the squirrel.

 

The Squirrel’s Reply

            The squirrel replies to the mountain’s complaint.  The squirrel is named as bun.  The squirrel agrees that the mountain is very big.  To count a year we must take into consideration many things like weather and time.  Similarly to consider a mountain we need to have many things together.  Comparatively the squirrel does not bother about its small place in the world.

 

The Equality

            The squirrel continues to say that it is not as big as the mountain and the mountain is not as small as the squirrel.  It acknowledges the fact that the mountain lays a track for the squirrel to run through, but the squirrel is very active than the mountain.  The squirrel concludes saying that everyone has their own talents.  The mountain is talented in carrying a forest on its back and the squirrel is talented in cracking nuts. 

 

Conclusion

            Emerson, through this poem, proves the ways of God.  God blesses every life in this earth with a special talent, which makes us all equal to one another.

 

 

Nizim Ezekiel's Goodbye Party to Miss Pushpa T.S.

 

Introduction

Nizim Ezekiel, a famous Indian poet, makes fun at Indians and their way of using English.  Indians have their own use of English, which is different.  This poem ridicules the Indian functions and the funny behaviour of Indian speakers.

 

The poem is about a send-off party to Miss Pushpa, who goes to abroad.  Her colleagues have gathered at one place to wish her bon voyage.  One speaker, through whom the poet ridicules the Indian culture and language, speaks the whole poem.

 

The character of Miss Pushpa

            The speaker, throughout the poem, talks about Miss Pushpa and slowly reveals her character.   The opening lines reveal two different characters of Miss Pushpa.  First is that she is intelligent, because she goes to some foreign country.  The second is that the speaker calls her as his sister.  This sows that Miss Pushpa is a woman of some respect.

 

            Miss Pushpa has a smiling face.  The speaker says that Miss Pushpa is always found smiling.  She takes life in a happy way.  The speaker also says that Miss Pushpa is kind.  She is kind at heart too.  She is popularly known for her kindness among many men and women.

 

The speaker also talks about her family background.  He says that she comes from a rich family.  Miss Pushpa is also known for her helping tendency and good spirit.  The speaker says that whenever someone approaches Pushpa, asking for help, she would never say no.  She helps everyone at all times.

 

The Use of Language in the Poem

            The poem right from its first stanza makes fun at the way we speak English.  In the first stanza the speaker says that Miss Pushpa will depart in “two three days” instead of “two or three days.”

 

            Instead of saying that Miss Pushpa is kindhearted and gentle woman the speaker says that she is sweet both ‘internal’ and ‘external’.  In the same stanza the speaker instead of saying that Miss Pushpa is a pleasant looking woman he says that she is “smiling and smiling even for no reason.”

 

            While giving her family background the speaker says that she come from a ‘high family’ for saying ‘rich family’.  The speaker’s deviation while talking about Surat shows the Indianism.  He remembers his past, when he went to Surat to stay with one of his uncle’s friend.

 

            “Just now only I will do”, is again a mistake committed by the speaker, when he attempts to say that Miss Pushpa would do things within minutes.

 

Conclusion

            The speaker of this poem is not given a definite identity.  We do not know whether it is male of female speaker.  Nizim Ezekiel by hiding the identity of the speaker renders the mistakes to every Indian in general.

History of Translation

 

 

            George Steiner in his work “After Babel”, divides the history of translation into four periods.  The first starts from the statements of Cicero and Horace on translation up to the publication of Alexander Tytler’s “Essay on the Principles of Translation” in 1791.  The chief features of this period is that it gave importance to empirical focus.  The statements and theories about translation were directly from practical work of translating.  The second period runs up to the publication of Larbaud’s “Sous I’invocation de Saint Jerome” in 1946.  This period is characterized by the development of vocabulary and methodology of approaching translation.  The third period begins with machine translation in the 1940s.  The theories in this period were characterized by structural linguistics and communication theory.  The fourth period starts sometime from 1960s and is based on the metaphysical inquiries into translation and interpretation.

            This division of translation is highly personal, because the first period covers a span of 1700 years while the last two cover a mere thirty years.

            Susan Bassnett divides the history of translation in the following order, which is more extensive and conducive.

 

The Romans

            Eric Jacobson claims that translation is a Roman invention.  Cicero and Horace discuss more about translation.  They say that the two main functions of the translation are much similar to the functions of a poet:  the universal human duty of acquiring and disseminating wisdom and the special art of making and shaping a poem.  The Romans were popular translators because they were less creative.  They were forced to translate so that they could create their own literature.  They believed that with translation the SL is to be imitated and not to be crushed by the too rigid application of reason.  They advocated sense for sense translation and not word for word.  The Romans translated as a part of enriching their literature than more of translation.  It is therefore believed that they had the habit of borrowing and even coining words.

 

Bible Translation

            With the spread of Christianity, translation came to acquire another role, that of disseminating the word of god.  Christianity, which is a text based religion presented the translator with a mission that encompassed both aesthetic and evangelistic criteria.

            Translation of the New Testament by St. Jerome was commissioned by Pope Damasmus in 384 A.D.  following Cicero, St. Jerome declared that he had translated sense for sense rather than word for word.  But the fine line between the stylistic license and heretical interpretation was a stumbling block in the field of translation.

            In the 17^th century, Latin began to decline from the state of universal language.  Problems intensified with the growth of concepts of national cultures and reformations.  Transaltion came to be used as a weapon in religious and political conflicts.

            The first translation of the complete Bible in English was the Wycliffe Bible produced between 1380 and 1384.  This marked the start of great flowering of the English Bible translations linked to the chaging attitudes to the role of the written text in the church.

            John Wycliff was a famous theologian from Oxford.  He put forward the theory of dominion by grace, that is man is responsible to god and his law.  This theory also meant that the Bible was applicable to all human life and each man should be granted access to that crucial text in a language that he could understand.  Though Wycliff had some followers, they were denounced as ‘lollards’.  But the idea was maintained by Purvey.  Purvey revised the first edition before 1408.

            The second Wycliff Bible contains a prologue, which describes the following four stages of translation process:

1.      A collaborative effort of collecting old Bibles and glosses and establishing an authentic latin source text.

2.      A comparison of the versions

3.      Counseling with the old grammarians about hard words and complex meanings

4.      Translating as clearly as possible the sentence, that is the meaning

            Purvey too states clearly that the translator should translate after the sentence and the meaning should be plain.  He said that text must be used by laymen.  But it was said that ‘the pearl was cast before swine.’

            In the 16^th century with the advent of printing the history of Bible, translation acquired new dimensions.  William Tyndale translated New Testament in 1525 and printed.  His intention was also to offer a clear version as possible to the layman.  But he was burnt alive, because he had translated the new testament from Greek and Hebrew.

            In 16^th century, Bible was translated into large number of European languages.  Hebrew Bible appeared in 1488, Erasmus published first Greek New Testament in 1516 and Martin Luther published the German version in 1522.

 

Early Theorists

            With the invention of printing press in the fifteenth century serious attempts were made to formulate theory of translation.  One of the first writers to come out with translation theory is a French humanist, Etienne Dolet.  He published a short outline of translation principles in “How to translate well from one language to another”.  He established five principles for the translator:

1.      The translator must fully understand the sense and meaning the original author.

2.      The translator must have a perfect knowledge of both SL and TL.

3.      The translator should avoid word-for-word renderings.

4.      The translator should use forms of speech in common use.

5.      The translator should choose and order words appropriately.

            George Chapman while translating Homer stresses and emphasizes Dolet’s views.  Chapman states that a translator must:

·         Avoid word for word renderings

·         Attempt to reach the spirit of the original

·         Avoid over loose translations

 

The Renaissance

            Reformation was a major reason for translation during the renaissance.  During these period the translators concentrated on the affirmation of the present through the use of contemporary idiom and style.  They also frequently replace the indirect speech with that of the direct speech.  In poetry, the translations of Wyatt and Surrey led critics to describe their translations as adaptations but his is misleading.  Their translations were not faithful the roginal words but to the notion of meaning of the poem.

 

 

 

The Seventeenth Century

            In 17^th century the French people were busy translating the classics.  Sir John Denham whose theory of translation was expressed in his preface to his translation of “The Destruction of Troy” covers both the formal aspect and the spirit of the work.  Denham considers the original author and the translator as equals but operating in a clearly different social and temporal contexts.  Abraham Cowley in his preface to his “Pindaique Odes” says boldly that he added and deleted words as he wished.

            John Dryden in his preface to “Ovid’s Epistles” formulates three types of translation:

§  Metaphrase – word for word translation

§  Paraphrase – sense for sense translation

§  Imitation – translator can abandon the original text as he sees it fit

            Of the three Dryden chooses the second as the best.

 

18^th Century

            Dr. Johnson in his work “Life of Pope” has advocated that a translator can add something to the original work of art while translating.  This addition is possible and allowed only when it leads to the elegance of the work.  During 18^th century a translator is called as a painter or imitator.  The translator has a moral duty both to the SLT and the receiver.  Goethe, an eminent scholar of the 18^th century, said that every literature must pass through three phases of translation:

·         Epoch – acquaints us with foreign countries on our own terms

·         Appropriation through substitution and reproduction, where the translator absorbs the sense of a foreign work but reproduces it in his own terms

·         The highest part of translation is one which aims for perfect identity between the SL text and the TL text, and the achieving of this mode must be through the creation of a new manner which fuses the uniqueness of the original with a new form and structure.

            Alexander Fraser Tytler in his work “Principles of Translation” comes out with three principles of translation:

1.      The translation should give complete transcript of the idea of the original work.

2.      The style and manner of writing should be of the same character with that of the original.

3.      The translation should have all the ease of the original composition.

            Tytler is against Dryden’s concept of paraphrase, because it leads to loose translation.  Tytler says that a translator is a painter but he should not use the same colours of the original painter.

 

Romantic Age

            Coleridge in his “Biographia Literaria” talks about the concepts of imagination and fancy.  Though these two concepts belong to the understanding of literature it was also applied in the field of translation.  It gave rise to the problem whether translation is a creative or a mechanical process.  Friedrich Schlegal said that translation is a category of thought than something associated with language and literature.

 

Post Romanticism

            Friedrich Schleiermacher insisted in creating a new sub-language for the use in translating literature only.  D.G. Rossetti insisted in the translator’s subservience to the forms and the language of the original.  Oscar Wilde commented on William Morris’ translation of “Odyssey” and “Aeneid” as a “true work of art, a rendering not merely of language into language but of poetry into poetry.”

 

The Victorians

            The Victorians were keen on the fact that a translation need to convey the remoteness of the orginal in time and place.  Translation was considered as an activity that enriches the intellectual and cultivated reader on moral and aesthetic grounds.  Matthew Arnold in his lecture “On Translating Homer” said that a translator is a scholar and he must be evaluated by a lay reader.  Henry Wadsworth Longfellow compared a translator with a technician rather than a poet or a commentator.  Edward Fitzgerald is known for his “The Rubayat of Omar Khayyam”.  He considers the SL as a clay and a translator moulds it into the TL.  Translator is considered as a live sparrow than a stuffed eagle.  Eugene Nida advocated the spirit of exlusivism in translation.  Translator is a skillful merchant offering exotic wares to the discerning few.

 

Conclusion

            To sum up the history of translation from the age of colonial expansion to the first world war, it could be done as follows:

1)      Translation as a scholar’s activity, where the pre-eminence of the SL text is assumed de facto over any TL

2)      Translation as a means of encouraging the intelligent reader to return to the SL original

3)      Translation as a means of helping the TL reader become the equal of the original, through deliberately contrived foreignness in the TL text

4)      Translation as a means whereby the individual translator who sees himself enchanted offers his own pragmatic choice the TL reader

5)      Translation as a means through which the translator who seeks to upgrade the status fo the SL text because it is perceived as being on a lower cultural level

Translation Shift

 

 

Translation shift are some changes occurring in the translation process.  Munday, a translation theorist, considers translation as a process that involves product and process.  The product is the translated text and the process is the process of conversion from one language to another.  Shift is unavoidable in translation.  There are three kinds of shift:

Structural shift – change in the structure of a sentence when translated from one language to another.

·         Class shift – change in the word class, while translating

·         Unit shift – changing in the units of words

Popovic identifies the following shifts in translation:

1.      Constitutive shift – described as an inevitable shift that takes place as a result of differences between two languages, two poetics and two styles.

2.      Generic Shift, where the constitutive features of the text as a genre may change

3.      Individual shift, where the translator’s own style and idiolect may introduce a system of individual deviations

4.      Negative shift, where information is incorrectly translated, due to unfamiliarity with the language or structure of the original

5.      Topical shift, where topical facts of the original are altered in the translation.

Translation - Equivalence

 

            Levy, a Czech translator, considers contracting and omitting in translation as an immoral activity.  Translation is problematic and translation should find a solution not only in meaning but also in style and form.  Albrecht Newbert gives the example of Shakespeare’s sonnet “Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?”.  Translating this line is tough for a person if his country experiences a different climatic condition.  Similarly translating the phrase “God, the father” is also equally difficult because most cultures may have a woman as their deity or God.  The problems raised while translating idioms and metaphors are called as equivalence.

            When we take an idiom like “beating the bush”, translation is not possible based on the function of the idiom.  Idioms are unique and they do not have counterparts.  Popovic identifies four types of equivalences.  They are as follows:

1.      Linguistic equivalence, where there is homogeneity on the linguistic level of both SL and TL texts, that is word for word translation.

2.      Paradigmatic equivalence, where there is equivalence of the elements of paradigmatic expressive axis, that is elements of grammar.

3.      Stylistic equivalence, where there is functional equivalence of elements in both original and translation aiming at an expressive identity with an invariant of identical meaning.

4.      Textual equivalence, where there is equivalence of the syntagmatic structuring of a text.

            Eugene Nida focuses on two types of equivalence – formal or gloss translation and dynamic equivalence.  In formal translation the focus is on the message in form and content.  Poetry is translated into poetry, sentence to sentence and concept to concept.  This allows the reader to understand the SL context.  Dynamic translation is based on the principal of ‘equivalent effect’, that is the relation between the receiver and the message should be same on the original receiver and the SL message.

            When a poem is given a set of translators to translate you will have ‘invariant core’.  They are stable, basic and constant semantic elements in the text.  Variants or transformations on the other hand changes that do not modify the core meaning but influence the expressive form.

            Neubert considers translation equivalence as a semiotic category, comprising syntactic, semantic and pragmatic component.  These components are arranged in an order that semantic is given more importance.

COMPARATIVE LITERATURE AND TRANSLATION STUDIES

 

 

            Some critics consider comparative literature as a subject and some do not consider it as a subject.  However, comparative literature depends very much on translation. Translation studies promote comparative literature.

 

            Comparative literature is a reaction against the narrow 19^th century nationalism.  It is originated in France in the year 1816.  Matthew Arnold popularized the term in England in 1848, through his lectures.

 

            Comparative literature is a study of intertextuality, for example, if we have to compare an English novel with that of an Oriya novel, we have to use English or Oriya as out medium.  Certain conditions determine high translation activities.  According to Evan Zohr, translation activity takes place when the literature is in its initial stage or when it is marginal.  For example, in 12^th century Europe the translation activity was significant because of a shift from epic to romance.

 

            In India there is craze for translation in recent times for two reasons:

 

1)      The writers or the critics want their literature to be translated into English or any other language because they want others to notice their literature and language.

2)      When their literature is translated there is so much scope of comparing their literature with other literary texts and its own text in source language.

 

Derrida’s theory of translation is very important.  He does not consider the source text as original because it is an elaboration of an idea, of a meaning and it in itself is a translation.   This idea about the original translation makes us conclude that translation is no more a secondary work.

 

To conclude, we could quote Susan Bassnett, who says “We should look upon translation studies as the principle discipline from now on, with comparative literature as a valued but subsidiary subject area.”

TRANSLATION AS CREATIVE WRITING

 

 

            In olden days, translation was considered as a mere rendering of SLT in TLT.  Many scholars and translators considered translation as creative process and as new writing.  Best translations are that does not read like translation at all.  Translation theories have undergone sea change with the modern critical theories.  Modern critical theories give new meaning to literature.  Based on their argument, we could easily say that translation is creative for it recreates SLT into TLT.

            A translator is a reader, an interpreter and a creator.  Sir Aurobindo says “a translator is not necessarily bound to the original he chooses; he can make his own poem out of it, if he likes…”

            Old classics, in our country, like Upanishads, Gita, Ramayana and Mahabharata have been rendered into many languages of India and the world.  Every such rendering is called as a new writing.

            K. Ayyapa Panikar says that the evolution of translation in our country began in the middle ages with the translation of Sanskrit classics like epics and puranas.  They were translated without exactness and accuracy.  These works are translated based on the features of the target language and the taste of the target readers.  The Aryan texts were translated to the Dravidian or south Indian languages, they were localized.  These localized versions are well received by the public and there is nothing alien about them.  These stand an example for the fact that translation is more of creation and not mere imitation.

            The concept of translation as a creative writing can be better understood if we examine the works of self-translators.  Self-translators are people who write the same work in two languages.  For example, Tagore’s Gitanjali in English is vastly different from his original Bengali version.  Manoj Das, a bilingual writer in Oriya and English, writes a short story in Oriya and gives sometime to translate it into English.  He keeps the plot of the story but changes many details while translating it in English.  He creates a new version in English.  Both their writings, language 1 and language 2, should be considered as new writings and creations.

Introduction to Translation Studies

 

Translation Defined

            Translation is like poetry; both are hard to be defined.  They have many definitions.  Translation is both substitution and a transference of meaning from Source Language (SL) to Target Language (TL). 

 

Oxford advanced learners dictionary defines translation as “the act of going into the meaning of a said or written word in a language.”

 

Dr. Johnson defines translation as the process of “change into another language, retaining the sense.”  A.H. Smith acknowledges and repeats Dr. Johnson’s views.  Catford defines translation from the linguistic point of view: “the replacement of textual material in SL by equivalent material in TL.”  Peter Newmark defines translation as “basic loss of meaning…between over translation and under translation.”

 

Theodore Savory defines translation as an ‘art’.  Eric Jacobson considers it as a ‘craft’ and Eugene Nida calls it as a ‘science’.  Horst Frenz goes a step further and defines translation as “neither a creative art not an imitative art, but stands somewhere between the two.”  Art is creative, craft is considered as a lower occupation and science is purely mechanical.  Translation is more than all these.  It is a process of analysis, interpretation and creation, which leads to a replacement of one set of linguistic resources and values for another.  In the process part of the original meaning is lost but an easily identifiable core is kept.”  J.C. Catford defines, “translation is an operation performed in languages: a process of substituting a text in one language for a text in another.”

 

A.K. Srivastava says, “in a translation process it is the metaphoric métier that provokes the problem of ambiguity even when assuming that the core meaning arrived at by the translation represents the temper and tone of the original faithfully.”

 

Translation theorists divide translation into two types: literary and non-literary.  In literary translation is translation of literature, wherein the rhetoric of SL should be faithfully carried over to the TL.  In literary translation, the translator decodes the motive of the text in the SL and re-encodes it in the translation.

 

A translator should be thorough with both the SL and TL.  He should ‘feel’ the languages.  He should keep in mind the socio-cultural matrix of the languages.  Meenakshi Mukerjee says, “the act of translation if voluntary, that is the material has been chosen by the translation himself and the prime mover is a compelling desire to recreate.  The translator is a writer in the language in which he is translating, that is, his handling of the language is not merely competent but creative.”

Sri Aurobindo states that “a translator is not necessarily bound to the original he chooses; he can make his own poem out of it…”

 

There is another view which looks down upon translation.  Some scholars quote the Italian proverb by Benedetto Croce – “Traddutore-traditore”, which means “A translator is a traitor” and say that translation is an untrustworthy source as it is not always genuine.  Translation has been perceived as a secondary activity, as a mechanical rather than a creative process and it does not require any extraordinary skill or talent.  It is considered more to be a grab than to be an art.

 

We cannot ignore translation for these reasons.  Translation is indeed a pipeline that connects one part of the world with another.

 

The importance of translation lies in the fact that it brings the readers, writers and critics of one nation in contact with others not only in the field of literature but in science, medicine,  philosophy, religion, politics and law.

 

Translation is as old as language and more certainly an ancient craft.  It seems to be an art as it defined by its very existence in poetics.  Translation bridges the gap between stylistics, literatures, history, linguistics, semiotics and aesthetics.

 

Translation can also be considered as a fusion of two different spheres of language which have moved closer together through the medium of the translator.  Translation studies is indeed a discipline in its own way.  It has not been fixed in a single framework to offer what the field could perform in language teaching process.  It is not merely a branch of comparative literature study and a specific area of linguistics but a vastly complex field with many far reaching ramification.

Summary of Dr. Radhakrishnan's On Earth One Family

 

Introduction

Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan is the second president of India.  Indians celebrate Teachers Day to mark the birth date of Dr. Radhakrishnan.  He is a philosopher, statesman and a teacher.  He has written many books on religion and philosophy.  On Earth One Family is a prose about equality among every human being around the world.

 

Role of Science and Technology in Bringing Unity

            Dr. Radhakrishnan begins the essay by saying that the dream of prophets and the seers have true.  The modern world is emerging into a world society.  Every one of us belongs to one family because the earth has become one.  Buddhism, Christianity and Islam have talked about brother-hood, one family and one God on earth.  Science and technology has made this come true.  We are all brought together easily through science and technology.  Inspite of different races and cultures we all have become one.  The development of nuclear weapon has created the fear and hatred of war.  This has made all countries to be friendly with each other.  Total disarmament will bring peace among us.  If we want to be peaceful we should achieve it through love and brother-hood and not through hate, violence and force.

 

The Example of Nepal

            Dr. Radhakrishnan takes Nepal as an example on how to achieve peace.  Nepal had three separate entities – Bhaktapur, Patan and Kathmandu.  These three places had their own armies and existence.  After a lot of struggle, they merged together and became one state-Nepal.  To become one social injustice must be removed.

 

Qualities to Achieve Unified World

            Dr. Radhakrishnan lists the following three qualities to achieve peaceful life:

1.      We should feel that we belong to one whole and we all have common purposes, apart from all sorts of differences we have.  We all should be unified by one central authority, which will encourage love and peace among people.  This centre will link with other parts of world and we all can be united.

2.      The second quality is to remove injustice among people and to have a sense of contentment.  People should not be frustrated about their living.  They should be content with what they have and do not cry over what they do not have.  This could be achieved by removing the injustice done to them.  People must be hopeful that their life would change.

3.      The third quality is to develop a sense of belonging.  Every citizen should have a sense of belonging with the whole world.  Everyone must have the right idea, which will move the world in the right direction.  We should get rid of bad ideas.  We should have a sense of tolerance and not hostility.

 

Conclusion

Dr. Radhakrishnan is happy that the world today is united.  Earlier people did not know what was happening outside their country and religion.  But today with the help of radio, transport and communication.  This idea of oneness should be instilled in the young minds before it is corrupted by other factors.  Dr. Radhakrishnan could see the change with his own experience and with his own eyes.  To achieve unity, we should not think of the past but think of the future.  Today is an age of interdependence.  Every country depends on each others.  We must teach young students  about one nation.

Summary of Bertrand Russell's Knowledge and Wisdom

Introduction

Bertrand Russell is a modern philosopher, educationist and an essayist.  He was awarded Nobel Prize for literature.  He is also a famous mathematician.  In the essay, Knowledge and Wisdom, he defines and differentiates knowledge and wisdom.  He talks in detail about the need of wisdom compared with growing knowledge. 

 

Knowledge without Wisdom

Bertrand Russell begins the essay by saying that everyone should agree that human beings progressing with knowledge but there is only little growth in wisdom.  To define wisdom, we should take several factors into consideration.  The first factor is the sense of proportion.  By this Russell means that we have take into consideration all the possible factors attached to a problem.  To explain this Russell gives two examples.  The first one is during a medical research to reduce infant death rate, if we are successful in finding a medicine, it would be a trouble in over populated countries.  It would lead to starvation and low standards of living.  The second example is when we are busy with atomic research, which could also be used to destroy people.  Knowledge when used without wisdom is harmful.

 

The Need of Wisdom

Comprehensiveness with a broad mind would result in wisdom.  Knowledge is very narrow and it should be combined with wisdom, which is broad and knows about the end of human life.  This could be learnt from history.  For example Hegel gained much knowledge and came with a great philosophy.  The Germans used it to lead a war.  Hegel’s knowledge has become very narrow because it did not think about the end of human life.  It is for this reason we need wisdom.

 

Wisdom in Personal Life

Wisdom is also essential for our personal life.  It is essential for us get rid of our personal prejudices.  Though it is hard to be free from personal prejudice, one must try to achieve it.  Russell gives an ordinary example of two persons, who hate each other.  Both persons abuse each other in the same way.  They may be prejudiced.  If we have enough patience and explain them of their personal prejudices, they may become friends and lead a happy life.  This is possible because of wisdom.

 

Wisdom is Emancipation

We look at world through our senses and we are all selfish.  Russell wants us to come out of our ego.  When we are infants we give importance to our senses of hunger and cry, but as we grow we get more wisdom.  Similarly, we should grow out our ego.  This might happen when we stop thinking of here and now.

 

Russell about Wisdom

Russell says that wisdom should be one of the aims of education.  He uses the story of the Good Samaritan, who loves good and bad people.  We listen to this story in this church but we never behave like a Good Samaritan because we hate our neighbours and the people who are bad in the society.  This hatred makes us harmful.  He gives the example of Queen Elizabeth I, King Henry IV and Abraham Lincoln, who were not harmful to the people because of their wisdom.

 

Conclusion

Russell concludes the essay by saying that wisdom can be taught.  While improving our knowledge we learn about hatred and narrow-mindedness.  Knowledge must be taught along with morals, which would make us citizens of the world.  Such knowledge should be taught along with wisdom.

Summary of D.H. Lawrence's "Why the Novel Matters"

 

D.H. Lawrence is a famous novelist, poet and an essayist.  He introduced modernism in English literature.  His novels, though created much vibration then, are current in their thoughts and manners.  Why the Novel Matters is a critical essay, wherein Lawrence tries to establish the superiority of novel and the novelist over other professions. 

To prove his point D.H. Lawrence talks about life and the way we understand human beings.  He introduces a term called man alive for everyone of us being busy and alive.  He calls the fingers that are busy writing as man alive.  The fingers are equally man alive as our brain.  Fingers and brain are equal and there is no superiority between them.  Things that are not alive are considered as dead. 

According to Lawrence, a novelist is better than a parson, the philosopher or the scientist.  The parson speaks about souls in heaven and the afterlife. But for the novelist heaven is in his palms and at the tip of his nose.  The novelist is not concerned about life after death. He is wholly concerned about life at present and with the man alive.  For philosophers nothing but thoughts is important. These thoughts Lawrence says are nothing but ‘tremulations on the ether’. They are not alive. They are like radio news and messages.

According to Lawrence nothing is more important than life. Living things are more valuable than dead objects. A living dog is better than a dead lion but a living lion is better than a living dog. Lawrence says that scientists and philosophers find it difficult to accept the value of the living.

For the scientist a living man is of no use.  For a scientist a man is a heart, a liver, a kidney, a gland or a tissue. But for the novelist the only thing that matters is a whole living man. Lawrence refuses to believe that he is a body or a soul or a brain or a nervous system. He considers himself to be a complete whole made up of all these parts, a whole that is greater and more significant than the individual parts. And for this reason he is a novelist and he considers himself superior to the saint, the scientist or the philosopher.   

Lawrence calls the novel a book of life.  The novel has the capacity to influence a man more effectively than any other book.  The ideals of Plato and the Ten Commandments affect only a part of a man alive. But a novel is capable of shaking the whole of a man alive. This is because a novel deals in nothing else but man alive. In this regard Lawrence calls the Bible a ‘great confused novel’.  For Lawrence, the Bible, Homer and Shakespeare are all great novels because they communicate to the reader. Their wholeness affects the whole of man alive. They do not stimulate growth in a particular direction but shake the whole man alive into new life.

According to Lawrence the strength and appeal of a novel lies in the dynamic nature of its characters which reflects the importance of constant change in the life of a man alive. Nothing is constant and there are no absolutes. There is only a constant flow and change.  A man today is different from what he was yesterday and tomorrow he will be different from what he is today. A man loves a woman because of the constant change in her. It is the change that startles and keeps a man and woman in love with each other. Loving an unchanging person is like loving an inanimate object like a pepper pot.

Lawrence says that one can learn about the importance of change from a novel. In a novel the characters do nothing but live. But if they begin to act according to a fixed pattern – always remaining good or bad – the novel loses its life force. Similarly a man in his life must live and not try to follow a pattern or else he becomes a dead man in life. 

Finally Lawrence says that a novel helps a man to see when a man is alive and when he is dead in life. The novel helps to develop an instinct for life. This is because the novel does not advocate a right path or a wrong path. The concept of right and wrong vary according to circumstances.  The end result of the novel is the whole man alive.  Thus Lawrence asserts that the novel is a book that can touch the life of a whole man alive and that is why the novel matters. 

 

 

 

Summary of A.K. Ramanujam's "A River"

  

Introduction

A.K. Ramanujam was born in Karnataka and brought up in Madras.  He is considered as one of the major modern poets of Indian poetry in English.  He has published many poems.  In almost all his poems he uses images of traditional India and places them in the modern context.  A River is one of A.K. Ramanujam’s finest poems.  It is about river Vaigai, which flows through Madurai.  Through this poem the poet talks about the old and modern Tamil poets, who have not given importance to human sufferings and emotions.

 

River during Summer Season

He begins the poem by introducing river Vaigai, which runs through Madurai, a city of temples and poets.  During summer, the river gets dry and trickles in the sand.  When all the water vanishes, the river poses straws and women’s hair clogging in the iron bars under the bridges.  The bridges are also worn out and needs mending. The river has only sand, which is like bare ribs.  There are a few wet stones, which are like sleepy crocodiles.  Apart from the stones one could see buffaloes resting in the sun.

 

Old Poets’ Observations

Ramanujam talks about the old poets, who had been in Madurai during rainy season.  They had seen river Vaigai flooded with water.  They praise the flooded water.  Their praise is all about the way the river raises by inches and how it covers the steps in the bathing place.  The poets also give a live relay, as the common people do, on how it carried away three village houses, a couple of cows named Gopi and Brinda and a pregnant woman.

 

New Poets’ Observations

            The new poets are also like the old poets.  They quote the old poets with minor changes to achieve sensation.  They say how the water level raises in the river and how it carries away a village house, a couple of cows named Gopi and Brinda and a pregnant woman probably carrying identical twins within her. 

 

A.K. Ramanujam’s Satire

            Through this poem A.K. Ramanujam satirizes on how the olden day poets and modern day poets does not view the human pain when the river dries or when the river carries their properties and people.  He comes down heavily upon the poets who are more like normal human beings and forsake to represent human emotions and troubles, which is a duty of a poet.  The poet subtly affirms the work of a poet and at the same time highlights the wrong done by the old and modern poets.