A literary man is as much a product of his society as his art is product of his own reaction to life. Even the greatest of artists is sometimes a conscious, sometimes an unconscious exponent of his time-spirit. The time-spirit is the total outcome, the quintessential accretion of all the political, social, religious, and scientific changes of a particular age. The historical aspect of literature, therefore, minor or unimportant though it may be for aesthetic purpose, cannot be totally ignored.
According to Hudson, “A nation’s life has its moods of exultation and depression; its epochs a strong faith and strenuous idealism. Now of doubt, struggle and disillusion, now of unbelief and flippant disregard for the sanctities of existence ; and while the manner of expression will vary greatly with the individuality of each writer, the dominant spirit of the hour, whatever that may be, will directly or indirectly reveal itself in his work.” Thus literature reflects his zeitgeist or the Time-Spirit. Non writer can escape influence of his age. livery titan, according to Gocthe`s statement, is the citizen of his age as well as of his country. Renan remarked: “One belongs to one’s century and race, even when one reacts against one’s century and race.” Thus literature always expresses the thoughts and sentiments of human mind which are closely connected with and conditioned by the age. The influence of the age on the human mind is due to the fact that the latter is constantly influenced by the spirit of the age and reacts to it vividly and vigorously. The reflection of the age depends on the quality of the mind in which it is reflected. if a work of literature is to be judged by the quality of this reflection. It is apparent that it depends on the quality and nature of the reflecting mind. A sensitive mind will be able to render back the slightest shades and nuances, and its creation are characterized by delicacy, subtlety and depth.
Literature studied as a reflection of the spirit of the age creates a new spirit for us. With its help, we travel into the minds of the other races and the minds of the other epochs. Thus it becomes a son of sociological approach, a supplementary and eomtnentary on history. Once we are steeped in the spirit of a by-gone age, we are able to enjoy even archaic books which otherwise would not appeal to us. . ·
Influence of the Writer
We do not find any interest in the novels of Richardson or Fielding if they are studied as the books of social facts. Even we do not find charm in the Spectator, The Faerie Queene and Arcadia, if they are studied for understanding the ages of their respective authors. Thus it is an admitted fact that if the work of a writer merely reflects the spirit of his times. It cannot be great literature. It is a very useful piece of valuable material for the sociologist and the historian. It is entirely devoid of the virtue of permanence and universality. The literature of the Greeks should not appeal to an Indian or a German mind if its historical factor is taken into consideration. Similarly Shakespeare should not be regarded a great dramatist, if he simply and purely reflects the Elizabethan period.
The essence ofliterature lies in the individual approach of the author, his personality which will dominate over other influences. Undoubtedly, the author is shaped by the spirit of his age, but he has also got the capabilities to mould his period. A great man of letters is the creature as well as the creator of his age in which he exists. Thus we talk of the age of Shakespeare, the age of Dryden, the age of Wordsworth, the age of Bernard Shaw and so on. The students and literary historians keep in view a process of social growth; always mistake the real point at issue. They at once ignore the genius of the man of letters who can manage to transcend the bounds of race and country. For example, Milton`s Paradise Lost, was a great challenge to the age of cynicism, low morals and satirical literature. This mighty book does not reveal the time spirit of his age. Milton revolted rather than expressed the spirit of his times. Similarly, in spite of all the atmosphere of heroism and love of song and drama, the Elizabethan age could not produce another Shakespeare. The original, mysterious and incommunicable element of personal genius of Shakespeare made him the dramatist for all ages and climes. lt is this factor which gives an abiding and universal appeal to the work of a great writer.
The function of literature is different from that of history. Literature is the revelation of beauty. Beauty is the expression of emotion and all such expression without any exception is beautiful.
Santayanas defines beauty as ‘value, positive, intrinsic and objectified`. We may explain this in less technical language as pleasure regarded as the quality of a thing. Aesthetic pleasure or beauty differs the same school of thought. H.R. Marshall speaks of the ‘stable pleasure` which is especially provided by art and known to us by the name of beauty. Another psychological aesthetician M. Porena defines the beautiful as that which pleases the mind as an objective value, i. e. without any apparent reference to ourselves as the sources of feeling. There is this element of objectivity in our appreciation of the beautiful. Tolstoy, in his famous book What is Art, defines art and literature as the communication of emotions. When we tell a story, compose a song or paint a picture with the object of communicating to others an emotion, we have ourselves felt, that is Art. Art leaps to the Olympian height of great art when emotion is fresh and springs from a fresh and vivid attitude to the world. The beauty of a work of art to Tolstoy should be assessed entirely by reference to the verdict of the greatest number of men. Thus a democratic principle was applied to the field of art criticism because Tolstoy took beauty not to be objective and inherent in works of art. Beauty is a quality of the effect produced by works of art on those who are brought into contact with them. lt is a mere subjective experience; works of art and literature simply produce a sense of the beautiful in the people who view it. Undoubtedly it is extreme subjectivism. The position of Tolstoy has been further strengthened by Dr. I.A. Richards has ably offered a psychological explanation of the enjoyment of the beautiful. Dr. Richards in his Principles of Literary Criticism and Foundations of Aesthetics defines beauty as emotional satisfaction. By the contemplation of a beautiful object certain impulses in ourselves are brought to emotional equilibrium of harmony. We experience satisfaction because of this condition of equilibrium and postulate the presence of beauty in that which has caused it.
From the above criticism it is apparent that some critics wish to disassociate from the spirit of the age. According to them, literature can be disassociated from the age to which it belongs. But it is not always true. The literature which is solely concerned with emotions and sense of beauty is more or less ephemeral in character. Such literature may be hopelessly romantic. lt may be morbidly called fin de siècle (decadent). “lnstead of being conserved with the grand realities of human existence, it creates a sort of ‘palace of art’ or `ivory tower’, where it isolates itself from the freshening current of life. There can be no doubt, however, that in a measure, this literature also derives its character from the character of the age; instead of canalizing the progressive urge inherent in the age, it picks out the careful jetsams that stream of the time carries into the gulf` of oblivion and makes an interesting no doubt, but meant only for the hour, without any basis on permanence.”
