Literature is great because of its universality. It is powerful enough to supersede the narrow interests of a class in favor of humanity as a whole. lt does not deal with the specific society of a specific community, but with the society of man as a whole. For this reason literature that appealed to the people through the spoken word has a greater appeal than which appeals through the written word—which may not reach all men. “The recited epics of
Homer, the acted plays of Shakespeare, the chanted songs of Chandidas have a more universal appeal than our modern poets and novelists who express only segments of social life and direct their appeal to particular social classes. Poetry that expresses intensely individual standpoints, novels that depict manners of a class or community, and deal with highly specialized problems cannot surely be of the same level as are Tulsidas’s or Krittidas‘s Ramayana which had and still have a mass appeal.”
Universality in literature connotes the appeal to the widest human interests and the simplest emotions. Though we speak of national and race literatures, like the Greek or Teutonic, and each has certain superficial marks arising out of the peculiarities of its own people. It is nevertheless true that good literature knows no nationality, nor any bounds save those of humanity. It is occupied chiefly with elementary passions and emotions,——love and hate, joy and sorrow, fear and Faith which are an essential part of our human nature; and the more it reflects these emotions, the surely does it awaken response in men of every race. Every father must respond to the parable the prodigal son; wherever men are heroic, they will acknowledge the mastery of Homer: wherever man thinks on the strange phenomenon of evil in the world, he will find his own thoughts in the Book of Job whatever place men love their children; their hearts must be stirred by the tragic sorrow of Oedipus and King Lear. All these are but shining examples of the law that only as a book or little song appeals to universal human interest does it become permanent. The restricted appeal of modern literature resulted from the dependence of writers on the patronage of great men. Necessarily such writers had to produce work that would appeal to their patrons primarily. As a result became limited.
rubens
But compensation was offered by the delicacy and refinement of their work. The contrast between these writers and the popular writers may be seen in the contrast between Chaucer and balladists. Chaucer is the perfect artist; his insight into life is also profound; but he lacks spontaneity, the range, the popular appeal of the ballad-writers. “Such also is the difference between Bharatchandra of Bengal and the anonymous poets of the Mymensingh ballads. Modern writers depending on the patronage of an educated and well-to-do public, have developed a flair for expressing feelings and situations that are subtle and complex in language that verges on the idiosyncratic. Wordsworth realized this when he made the revolutionary statement that poetry, should use language of common speech. The more literature is freed from its class limitations and becomes the expression of the thoughts and feelings of the common man, the community of working people, the more it will tend to conform to the Wordsworthian doctrine.
lt must be noted that literature contains the universal and the particular which are combined together. According to Aristotle, literature indicates the universal element, i.e., what is true for all times and ages and the particular, i.e. what is true of the men, events, customs, culture, and manners of an age. To quote John Bailey: “lt must be at once individual life and universal. If Homer contained nothing but what was abstractedly or universally true, he would be dull. He must have, as he has many things which surprise, amuse, even perhaps, disgust us who live in so different an age and country. He must have things which are peculiar to the Greeks of his day, and even things peculiar to himself alone among the Greeks.
2318809196_f9f91859cf
Without that, he would not have individuality or even nationality; and without individuality and nationality there is no life in literature …. But if he were only Homer or only Greek, he would be something worse than dull he would be dead for us, because there would be link between us; dead, because the life of poetry needs an immortal and universal element without which its lease of life is a very short one. A poet cannot carry himself and his own age and their idiosyncrasies and peculiarities unless he provides them with the elixir of immortality which is universal truth.” In other words, literature is manifestation of life as handled by the writer’s personality. His distinctive imagination, his slant of outlook, his feelings, and the character of his experience constitute the medium through which his reading of life is communicated to the reader.
But his feelings and thoughts and fusion of elements extracted from the chaos of life have deeper and paramount significance for all. According to Middleton Murry, “the highest style is . . . a combination of the maximum of personality with the minimum of impersonality 1 on the one hand, it is a concentration of peculiar and personal emotion, on the other, it is a complete projection of this personal emotion into the created thing …. ‘There is no antithesis between personal and impersonal art.” That is why Aristotle said; “Poetry is more philosophical than history.” What he meant was that literature is the mixture of the personal and universal. The whole effort of a sincere man is to build his personal impression into universal pattern.
