{"id":1304,"date":"2013-07-13T01:33:59","date_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:33:59","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/?p=1304"},"modified":"2013-07-13T01:33:59","modified_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:33:59","slug":"41-indo-english-poetry-vol-09-the-future-poetry-volume-09","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/01-works-of-sri-aurobindo\/01-sabcl\/09-the-future-poetry-volume-09\/41-indo-english-poetry-vol-09-the-future-poetry-volume-09","title":{"rendered":"-41_Indo-English Poetry.htm"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n
\n
\n

S<\/font><\/span>ECTION<\/font> <\/font> <\/span>S<\/font><\/span>IX<\/font><\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

Indo-English Poetry \u2013
\nCurrent Use of English Language<\/b><\/font>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n


\nACHIEVEMENT OF
\nINDO-ENGLISH POETRY\u2014LITERARY DECADENCE IN <\/font> EUROPE<\/font><\/b><\/p>\n

\n1<\/b><\/p>\n

            T<\/font>he idea that Indians cannot
\nsucceed in English poetry is very much in the air just now but it cannot be
\ntaken as absolutely valid. Toru Dutt and Romesh of the same ilk prove nothing; Toru
\nDutt was an accomplished verse-builder with a delicate talent and some
\noutbreaks of genius and she wrote things that were attractive and sometimes
\nsomething that had a strong energy of language and a rhythmic force. Romesh was
\na smart imitator of English poetry of the second or third rank. What he wrote,
\nif written by an Englishman, might not have had even a temporary success. Sarojini
\nis different. Her work has a real beauty, but it has for the most part only one
\nhighly lyrical note and a vein of riches that has been soon exhausted. Some of
\nher lyrical work is likely, I think, to survive among the lasting things in
\nEnglish literature and by these, even if they are fine rather than great, she
\nmay take her rank among the immortals. I know no other Indian poets who have
\npublished in English any\u00adthing that is really alive and strong and original.1<\/span><\/sup> The test will be when
\nsomething is done that is of real power and scope and gets its due chance.
\nTagore’s Gitanjali<\/i> is not in verse, but the place it has taken has some
\nsignificance. For the obstacles from the other side are that the English mind
\nis apt to look on poetry by an Indian as a curiosity, something exotic (whether
\nit really is or not, the suggestion will be there), and to stress the distance
\nat which the English temperament stands from the Indian tempera\u00adment. But
\nTagore’s Gitanjali<\/i> is most un-English, yet it overcame this obstacle.
\nFor the poetry of spiritual experience, even if it has true poetic value, the
\ndifficulty might lie in the remoteness of the subject. But nowadays this
\ndifficulty is lessening with the in\u00adcreasing interest in the spiritual and the
\nmystic. It is an age in which Donne, once condemned as a talented but fantastic
\nweaver<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

‘<\/span> This was written some years
\nago (in 1935) and does not apply to more recent work in English by Indian
\npoets.<\/span><\/font> <\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage – 453<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

of extraordinary conceits, is
\nbeing hailed as a great poet, and Blake lifted to a high eminence; even small
\npoets with the mystic turn are being pulled out of their obscurity and held up
\nto the light. At present many are turning to India
\nfor its sources of spi\u00adrituality, but the eye has been directed only towards
\nYoga and philosophy, not to the poetical expression of it. When the full day
\ncomes, however, it may well be that this too will be dis\u00adcovered, and then an
\nIndian who is at once a mystic and a true poet and able to write in English as
\nif in his mother-tongue (that is essential) would have his full chance. Many
\nbarriers are break\u00ading; moreover, both in French and English there are
\ninstances of foreigners who have taken their place as prose-writers or poets.<\/p>\n

24.1.1935<\/p>\n

P.S. About decadence: a language becomes decadent when
\nthe race decays, when life and soul go out and only the dry intellect and the
\ntired senses remain. Europe is in imminent peril of deca\u00addence
\nand all its literatures are attacked by this malady, though it is only
\nbeginning and energy is still there which may bring renewal. But the English
\nlanguage has still several strings to its bow and is not confined to an aged
\nworn-out England.
\nMore\u00adover, there are two tendencies active in the modern mind, the
\nover-intellectualised, over-sensualised decadent that makes for death, and the
\nspiritual which may bring rebirth. At present the decadent tendency may be
\nstronger, but the other is also there.<\/p>\n

2<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

It is not true in all cases that one can’t write first-class things in a
\nlearned language. Both in French and English people to whom the language was
\nnot native have done remarkable work, al\u00adthough that is rare. What about
\nJawaharlal\u2019s autobiography? Many English critics think it first-class in its
\nown kind; of course he was educated at an English public school, but I suppose
\nhe was not born to the language. Some of Toru Dutt’s poems Sarojini’s, Harm’s
\nhave been highly placed by good English critics, <\/p>\n

Page
\n– 454<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/i><\/b><\/div>\n

and I don’t think we need be
\nmore queasy than Englishmen themselves. Of course there were special
\ncircumstances, but in your case also there are special circumstances; I don’t
\nfind that you handle the English language like a foreigner. If first-class
\nexcludes everything inferior to Shakespeare and Milton, that is another matter.
\nI think, as time goes on, people will become more and more polyglot and these
\nmental barriers will begin to disappear.<\/p>\n

1.10.1943<\/p>\n

3<\/b><\/p>\n

Many Indians write better English than many educated English\u00admen<\/p>\n

27.2.1936<\/p>\n


\nFUTURE OF
\nINDO-ENGLISH POETRY<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

1<\/b><\/p>\n

What you say may be correct (that our
\noriental luxury in poetry makes it unappealing to Westerners), but on the other
\nhand it is possible that the mind of the future will be more international than
\nit is now. In that case the expression of various tempera\u00adments in English
\npoetry will have a chance.<\/span><\/p>\n

If our aim is not success and personal fame but to arrive at the
\nexpression of spiritual truth and experience of all kinds in poetry, the
\nEnglish tongue is the most widespread and is capable of profound turns of
\nmystic expression which make it admirably fitted for the purpose; if it could
\nbe used for the highest spiritual expression, that is worth trying.<\/p>\n

    2<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

As for the question itself, I put forward four reasons why the experiment
\ncould be made. (1) The expression of spirituality in the English tongue is
\nneeded and no one can give the real stuff<\/p>\n

            Page
\n– 455<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/i><\/b><\/div>\n

like Easterners
\nand especially Indians. (2) We are entering an age when the stiff barriers of
\ninsular and national mentality are breaking down (Hitler notwithstanding), the
\nnations are being drawn into a common universality with whatever differences,
\nand in the new age there is no reason why the English should not admit the
\nexpression of other minds than the English in their tongue. (3) For ordinary
\nminds it may be difficult to get over the barrier of a foreign tongue but
\nextraordinary minds, Conrad etc., can do it. (4) In this case the experiment is
\nto see whether what extraordinary minds can do cannot be done by Yoga.<\/p>\n

27.2.1936<\/p>\n

PITFALLS OF INDO-ENGLISH BLANK VERSE<\/font><\/b><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

I have often
\nseen that Indians who write in English, immediately they try blank verse, begin
\nto follow the Victorian model and especially a sort of pseudo-Tennysonian
\nmovement or structure which makes their work in this kind weak, flat and
\nineffective. The language inevitably suffers by the same fault, for with a weak
\nverse-cadence it is impossible to find a strong or effective turn of language.
\nBut Victorian blank verse at its best is not strong or great, and at a more
\ncommon level it is languid or crude or characterless. Except for a few poems,
\nlike Tennyson\u2019s early Morte d’Arthur, Ulysses<\/i> and one or two others or
\nArnold’s
\nSohrab and Rustam,<\/i> there is nothing of a very high order. Tennyson is a perilous
\nmodel and can have a weakening and corrupting influence and the Princess <\/i>and Idylls of the King <\/i><\/span>which
\nseem to have set the tone for Indo-English blank verse are perhaps the worst
\nchoice possible for such a role. There is plenty of clever craftsmanship but it
\nis mostly false and artificial and without true strength or inspired movement
\nor poetic force \u2014 the right kind of blank verse for a Victorian drawing-room
\npoetry, that is all that can be said for it. As for language and substance his
\ninfluence tends to bring a thin artificial decorative prettiness or picturesqueness
\nvaried by an elaborate false simpli\u00adcity and an attempt at a kind of brilliant,
\nsometimes lusciously brilliant sentimental or sententious commonplace. The
\nhigher <\/p>\n

\nPage – 456<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/i><\/b><\/div>\n

quality in his best work is not
\neasily assimilable; the worst is catching but undesirable as a model.<\/p>\n

Blank verse is the most difficult of all English metres; it has to be
\nvery skilfully and strongly done to make up for the absence of rhyme, and if
\nnot very well done, it is better not done at all. In the ancient languages
\nrhyme was not needed, for they were written in quantitative metres which gave
\nthem the necessary support, but modern languages in their metrical forms need
\nthe help of rhyme. It is only a very masterly hand that can make blank verse an
\nequally or even a more effective poetic movement. You have to vary your metre
\nby a skilful play of pauses or by an always changing distribution of caesura
\nand of stresses and supple combinations of long and short vowels and by much
\nweaving of vowel and consonant variation and assonance; or else, if you use a
\nmore regular form you have to give a great power and relief to the verse as did
\nMarlowe at his best. If you do none of these things, if you write with effaced
\nstresses, without relief and force or, if you do not succeed in producing harmo\u00adnious
\nvariation in your rhythm, your blank verse becomes a monotonous vapid wash and
\nno amount of mere thought-colour or image-colour can save it.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nPRACTICAL SUGGESTIONS FOR WRITING ENGLISH
\nPOETRY<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

 1<\/b><\/p>\n

 <\/b><\/p>\n

If you want to
\nwrite English poetry which can stand, I would suggest three rules for you:<\/p>\n

1. Avoid rhetorical turns and artifices and the
\nrhetorical tone generally. An English poet can use these things at will be\u00adcause
\nhe has the intrinsic sense of his language and can keep the right proportion
\nand measure. An Indian using them kills his poetry and produces a scholastic
\nexercise.<\/p>\n

2. Write modern English. Avoid frequent inversions or
\nturns of language that belong to the past poetic styles. Modern English poetry
\nuses a straightforward order and a natural style, not different in vocabulary,
\nsyntax, etc., from that of prose. An <\/p>\n

\nPage – 457<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/i><\/b><\/div>\n

inversion can be used sometimes,
\nbut it must be done deliberately and for a distinct and particular effect.<\/p>\n

3. For poetic effect rely wholly on the power of your sub\u00adstance, the
\nmagic of rhythm and the sincerity of your expression \u2014 if you can add subtlety
\nso much the better, but not at the cost of sincerity and straightforwardness.
\nDo not construct your poetry with the brain-mind, the mere intellect \u2014 that is
\nnot the source of true inspiration: write always from the inner heart of
\nemotion and vision.<\/p>\n

2<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The poetry of your friend is rather irritating, because it is always just
\nmissing what it ought to achieve; one feels a consi\u00adderable poetic possibility
\nwhich does not produce work of some permanence because it is not scrupulous
\nenough or has not a true technique. The reasons for the failure can be felt,
\nbut are not easy to analyse. Among them there is evidently the misfortune of
\nhaving passed strongly under the influence of poets who smell of the schoolroom
\nand the bookworm’s closet. Such awful things as "unsoughten",
\n"a-journeying," "a-knocking," "strayed gift" and
\nthe constant abuse of the auxiliary verb "to do" would be enough to
\ndamn even the best poem. If he would rigorously modernise his language, one
\nobstacle to real poetic success would perhaps disappear, \u2014 provided he does
\nnot, on the contrary, colloquialise it too much \u2014 e.g. "my dear",
\netc. But the other grave defect is that he is constantly composing out of his
\nbrain, while one feels that a pressure from a deeper source is there and might
\nbreak through, if only he would let it. Of course, it is a foreign language he
\nis writing and very few can do their poetic best in a learned medium; but still
\nthe defect is there.<\/p>\n

22.6.1931<\/p>\n


\nMENTAL THEORIES AND
\nPOETIC FREEDOM<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Why erect mental theories and suit your poetry to them ? I would suggest
\nto you not to be bound by any but to write as best suits<\/p>\n

Page
\n– 458<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/i><\/b><\/div>\n

your own
\ninspiration and poetic genius. Each poet should write in the way suited to his
\nown inspiration and substance; it is a habit of the human mind fond of erecting
\nrules and rigidities to put one way forward as a general law for all. If you
\ninsist on being rigidly simple and direct as a mental rule, you might spoil
\nsomething of the subtlety of the expression you now have, even if the delicacy
\nof the substance remained with you. Obscurity, artifice, rhetoric have to be
\navoided, but for the rest follow the inner movement.<\/p>\n

I do not remember the precise words I used in laying down the rule to
\nwhich you refer; I think I advised sincerity and straightforwardness as opposed
\nto rhetoric and artifice. In any case it was far from my intention to impose
\nany strict rule of bare simplicity and directness as a general law of poetic
\nstyle. I was speaking of "Twentieth century English poetry" and of
\nwhat was necessary for A, an Indian writing in the English tongue. English
\npoetry in former times used inversions freely and had a law of its own \u2014 at
\nthat time natural and right, but the same thing nowadays sounds artificial and
\nfalse. English has now acquired a richness and flexibility and power of
\nmany-sided suggestion which makes it unnecessary for poetry to depart from
\n\u2022f   the ordinary style and form of the language. But there are other
\nlanguages in which this is not yet true. Bengali is in its youth, in full
\nprocess of growth and has many things not yet done, many powers and values it
\nhas still to acquire. It is necessary that its poets should keep a full and
\nentire freedom to turn in whatever way the genius leads, to find new forms and
\nmovements; if they like to adhere to the ordinary form of the language to which
\nprose has to keep, they should be free to do so; but also they should be free
\nto depart from it, if it is by doing so that they can best liberate their souls
\nin speech. At present it is this that most matters.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

REQUIREMENTS FOR WRITING GOOD ENGLISH<\/font><\/b><\/p>\n

1<\/b><\/p>\n

This
\nbook, returned herewith, is not in my opinion suitable for<\/p>\n

Page
\n– 459<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/i><\/b><\/div>\n

the purpose. The author wanted
\nto make it look like a transla\u00adtion of a romance in Sanskrit and he has
\ntherefore made the spirit and even partly the form of the language more Indian
\nthan English. It is not therefore useful for getting into the spirit of the
\nEnglish language. Indians have naturally in writing English a tendency to be
\ntoo coloured, sometimes flowery, sometimes rhe\u00adtorical and a book like this
\nwould increase the tendency. One ought to have in writing English a style which
\nis at its base capable of going to the point, saying with a simple and energetic
\nstraightforwardness what one means to say, so that one can add grace of
\nlanguage without disturbing this basis. Arnold
\nis a very good model for this purpose, Emerson less. Out his book will also do.<\/p>\n

It<\/span> is surely better to
\nwrite your own thoughts. The exercise of writing in your own words what another
\nhas said or written is a good exercise or test for accuracy, clear
\nunderstanding of ideas, an observant intelligence but your object is, I
\nsuppose, to be able to understand English and express yourself in good English.<\/p>\n

16.5.1932<\/p>\n

2<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

Avoid over-writing; let all your sentences be the vehicle of some\u00adthing
\nworth saying and say it with a vivid precision neither defec\u00adtive nor
\nexcessive. Don’t let either thought or speech trail or drag or circumvolute.
\nDon’t let the language be more abundant than the sense. Don’t indulge in mere
\nclever ingenuities without a living truth behind them.<\/p>\n

14.6.1935<\/p>\n

LICENCES IN THE USE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE<\/font><\/b><\/p>\n

 1<\/b><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

This Latinisation
\nand the inversion of syntactical connections are familiar licences in English
\npoetry \u2014 of course, it is incorrect, <\/p>\n

\nPage – 460<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/i><\/b><\/div>\n

but a deliberate incorrectness,
\na violence purposely done to the language in order to produce a poetic effect.
\nThe English language, unlike the French and some others, likes, as Stephen Phillips
\nused to say, to have liberties taken with it. But, of course, before one can
\ntake these liberties, one must be a master of the language \u2014 and, in this case,
\nof the Latin also.<\/p>\n

1931<\/p>\n

2<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

But neither feeling nor logic can stand against usage. A language is like
\nan absolute queen; you have to obey her laws, reasonable or unreasonable, and
\nnot only her laws, but her caprices \u2014 so long as they last \u2014 unless you are one
\nof her acknowledged favourites and then you can make hay of her laws and (some\u00adtimes)
\ndefy even her caprices provided you are quite sure of the favour. In this case,
\nTagore perhaps feels the absoluteness of some usage with regard to these
\nparticular words? But one can always break through law and usage and even pass
\nover the judgment of an "arbiter of elegances" \u2014 at one’s own risk.<\/p>\n

26.1.1932<\/p>\n

CURRENT USE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE<\/font><\/b><\/p>\n

 1<\/b><\/p>\n

 <\/b><\/p>\n

I
\nam in general agreement with your answer to M’s strictures on certain points in
\nyour style and your use of the English language. His objections have usually
\nsome ground, but are not unques\u00adtionably valid; they would be so only if the
\nEnglish language were a fixed and unprogressive and invariable medium deman\u00adding
\na scrupulous correctness and purity and chaste exactness like the French; but
\nthis language is constantly changing and esca\u00adping from boundaries and
\npreviously fixed rules and its character and style, you might almost say, is
\nwhatever the writer likes to make it. Stephen Phillips once said of it in a
\nlibertine image that the English language is like a woman who will not love you
\nunless
\n <\/p>\n

Page
\n– 461<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/i><\/b><\/div>\n

you
\ntake liberties with her. As for the changeableness, it is obvious in recent
\nviolences of alteration, now fixed and recog\u00adnised, such as the pronunciation
\nof words like "nation" and "ration" which now sound as "gnashun"
\nand "rashun"; one’s soul and one’s ear revolt, at least mine do,
\nagainst degrading the noble word "nation" into the clipped indignity
\nof the plebian and ignoble "gnashun", but there is no help for it. As
\nfor "aspire for", it may be less correct than "aspire to"
\nor "aspire after", but it is psychologically called for and it seems
\nto me to be much more appropriate than "aspire at" which I would
\nnever think of using. The use of prepositions is one of the most debat\u00adable
\nthings, or at least one of the most frequently debated in the language. The
\nMother told me of her listening in Japan,
\nto inter\u00adminable quarrels between Cousins and the American Hirsch debatable
\npoints in the language but especially on this battlefield and never once, could
\nthey agree. It is true that one was an Irish poet from Belfast
\nand the other an American scholar and scien\u00adtist, so perhaps neither could be
\ntaken as an unquestionable authority on the English tongue; but among
\nEnglishmen themselves I have known of such constant disputes. Cousins had re\u00admarkably
\nindependent ideas in these matters; he always insisted that
\n"infinite" must be pronounced "infighnight" on the ground
\nthat "finite" was so pronounced and the negative could not presume to
\ndiffer so unconscionably from the positive. That was after all as good a reason
\nas that alleged for changing the pro\u00adnunciation of "nation" and
\n"ration" on the ground that as the "a" in
\n"national" and "rational" is short, it is illogical to use
\na different quantity in the substantive. "To contact" is a phrase that
\nhas established itself and it is futile to try to keep America
\nat arm’s length any longer; "global" also has established itself and
\nit is too useful and indeed indispensable to reject; there is no other word
\nthat can express exactly the same shade of mean\u00ading. I heard it first from Arjava
\nwho described the language of Arya<\/i> as expressing a global thinking and I
\nat once caught it up as the right and only word for certain things, for
\ninstance, the thinking in masses which is a frequent characteristic of the
\nOvermind. As for the use of current French and Latin phrases, it may be
\ncondemned as objectionable on the same ground as the
\n <\/p>\n

Page
\n– 462<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/i><\/b><\/div>\n

use of clich\u00e9s<\/i><\/span> and stock phrases in literary style, but they
\noften hit the target more forcibly than any English equivalent and have a more
\nlively effect on the mind of the reader. That may not justify a too frequent
\nuse of them, but in moderation it is at least a good excuse for it. I think the
\nexpression "bears around it a halo" has been or can be used and it is
\nat least not worn out like the ordinary "wears a halo". One would
\nmore usually apply the expression "devoid of method" to an action or
\nprocedure than to a person, but the latter turn seems to me admissible. I do
\nnot think I need say anything in particular about other objec\u00adtions, they are
\nquestions of style and on that there can be diffe\u00adrent opinions; but you are
\nright in altering the obviously mixed metaphor "in full cry", though
\nI do not think any of your four substitutes have anything of its liveliness and
\nforce. Colloquial expressions have, if rightly used, the advantage of giving
\npoint, flavour, alertness and I think in your use of them they do that; they
\ncan also lower and damage the style, but that danger is mostly when there is a
\nset character of uniform dignity or eleva\u00adtion. The chief character of your
\nstyle is rather a constant life and vividness and supple and ample abounding
\nenergy of thought and language which can soar or run or sweep along at will but
\ndoes not simply walk or creep or saunter and in such a style forcible
\ncolloquialisms can do good service.<\/p>\n

2.4.1947<\/p>\n

2<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

1 <\/sup>I have gone carefully through the proof of the first
\nchapters of The Deliverance.<\/i> but find most of these unexplained red
\nmarks totally unintelligible; sometimes I can make a guess, but most often not
\neven that. What, for instance, is the objection to the use of "its"
\nand "it" for a river?<\/p>\n

There
\nseems to be an objection to any metaphors or figures such as "the scales
\nof public opinion" or a river rejecting some-<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n


\n
\n1<\/font><\/span><\/sup> <\/font> <\/span>
\nThese are Sri Aurobmdo’s notes on the objections raised by an Indian
\nprofessor of English to certain words, phrases and metaphors used in the
\nEnglish translation of Sarat Chandra Chattopadhyaya’s Bengali novel <\/font> <\/span>
\nNishkriti<\/font><\/span>, done by a Sadhak. The Sadhak had shown the proofs of the translation
\nto the professor who had marked on them his objections in red ink.<\/span><\/font> <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage – 463<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

one from its borders. This seems
\nto me astonishing; at any rate the figures are there in the original and one
\ncannot suppress them in a translation or alter arbitrarily the author’s
\nsubstance.<\/p>\n

Objections
\nare made also against quite good and appropriate English words such as
\n"beggared" and "quadrupled" or against perfectly correct
\nphrases like "All that was now a history of the past" or
\n"reaching" a figure or "dropping" some money or "he
\nsat at home in his room" in the sense of remaining inactive. One can say,
\nfor instance, "He sat in his palace listening to the foot\u00adsteps of
\napproaching Doom". So too there appears to be some objection to the phrase
\n"neither X nor another", a common English turn; to "started (in
\nthe sense of beginning an action or movement) a relentless insistence and
\nimportunity". (One can say for instance, "He started an obstinate
\nresistance which never flagged nor ceased".) Vivid epithets, e.g.,
\n"rapid visits" or familiar and lively phrases such as "she was
\nback again", are found to be improper and objectionable. "Cares of
\nher household" gets a red mark, though one speaks of "household cares",
\n"cares of state", cares of all kinds. A fever (one must not refer to
\nit as "it") is allowed to throw a person down, but not to let him
\nrise from his bed. Incomprehensible?<\/p>\n

All
\nthese startling red ink surprises are packed together in the short space of the
\nfirst chapter. But in the second we meet with still bigger surprises. One is
\nnot allowed to "make time" for anything, a most common phrase, or to
\n"leave" a responsi\u00adbility to someone. A meal must not be
\n"vegetarian" though a diet can be, and though one speaks in English
\nof "a frugal vege\u00adtarian dinner". One is not allowed to have a school
\ntask to do or to "prepare" a task; but unhappily that is done in England
\nat least and in English.<\/p>\n

"Today" is objected to because it is applied to
\npast time; but it is put here as part of the tone of vivid remembered
\nactuality, the past described as if still present before the mind, which is
\nconstant in the original. Similarly, a little later on, "the early dusk
\nhad fallen a couple of hours ago"; in strict narrative time it should be
\n"before" and not "ago", but though the author writes in the
\npast tense, he is always suggesting a past which is passing immediately before
\nour eyes. I do not see how else the <\/p>\n

\nPage – 464<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/i><\/b><\/div>\n

translator is to keep this
\nsuggestion. One could use more cor\u00adrectly the historic present: "It is
\nwinter and the dusk has fallen a couple of hours ago"; but that would be
\nto falsify the original.<\/p>\n

All right of passage is refused to a humorous use of the phrase
\n"give voice", nor can one "retort" instead of merely
\nreplying. There is perhaps a syntactical objection to the use of
\n"desperate" at the beginning of the sentence, but the objection is
\nitself incorrect. One says "Pale and haggard, he rose from his bed".
\nOne is not allowed to speak humorously of a "portion" instead of a
\n"part" of a big bed so as to emphasise its bigness and the dividing
\nof it into occupied regions by the "gang". A heart is not allowed to
\n"pound away", still less to pound "dis\u00admally". The objector
\nseems to damn everything vividly descrip\u00adtive, everything new in turn, phrase
\nor image, everything in fact not said before by everyone else. A man lying down
\nis not allowed to "start up", though the dictionary meaning of the
\nword is there, "to rise up quickly or suddenly", e.g. "he
\nstarted up from his bed" or "from his chair". What again is
\nmeant by the objec\u00adtion to such recognised locutions as "to take away the
\n(bad) taste" or "much she cares", and why should there not be an
\n"implacable pressure" or why is one forbidden to "get out
\nmoney" from a box? These red marks are terribly mysterious.<\/p>\n

The
\ncriticism of the sentence "How could you etc." and the use of
\n"today" is intelligible and to a certain extent tenable. I have tried
\nto explain in the proof itself why the ordinary tense-sequence can be
\ndisregarded here. In the latter case it is not so much a question of grammar as
\nof the use of the word "today" for a past time. If it can be so used
\nin order to express more vividly the actual thought in the mind of a person at
\nthe time the unusual tense-sequence follows as a matter of course. I have, however,
\nyielded the point for the sake of Sarat Chatterji’s repu\u00adtation which, we are
\ntold, is imperilled by our audacities of language.<\/p>\n

Chapter
\nIII. The objector begins with a queer missing of the obvious sense in the use
\nof "my" and "us". He goes on to challenge the possibility
\nof "entering into" explanations, discus\u00adsions etc. though it is
\ncommonly done, e.g. "He entered into a long discussion" or "You
\nneedn’t enter into tedious explanations;
\n <\/p>\n

\nPage – 465<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/i><\/b><\/div>\n

a few words will
\nbe enough."<\/p>\n

Chapter
\nIV continues the inexplicable chain and "impla\u00adcable" series of red
\nobjections. I have written "a discussion was in process", which is a
\nquite permissible phrase, but alter it to "progress" just to soften
\nthe redness of the red mark. But why cannot Atul "hold forth" as an
\norator does and what is the matter with the "cut" of a coat, a phrase
\nsacred to every tailor? People in England
\ndo, after all, "blurt out" things every day and they "laugh in
\nthe face" of others, though of course it may be considered rude; but
\n"to laugh in the face" is not considered bad grammar or bad English.
\nTo give "the<\/i> order" is wrong in the opinion of the objector;
\nbut since the purchase of particular things like coats or suits has just been
\ntalked about, it is quite correct to say "the<\/i> order" instead
\nof "an order".<\/p>\n

One
\ncan’t "speak out", apparently, (or perhaps "speak up"
\neither); one can only just speak: nor can one "see to the making of coats
\nfor a family". Also it is wrong to ask "what is wrong". It is
\nwrong, it seems, to say "All in the room"; so an Englishman is
\nmistaken when he says "Tell all at home that I am not coming"! So too
\nyou can’t speak "once more" or "seek for"1<\/span><\/sup> anything! The use of
\nthe plural of "devotion", common in English2<\/span><\/sup>, is red marked as an
\nerror!<\/p>\n

Chapter V. One can’t "labour" to get a result, or "cover
\nup" anything in the sense of "hiding" or even try to do it; one
\ncan’t put somebody up3<\/span><\/sup>
\nto do something, though in English it is constantly done. There is an objection
\nto such perfectly natural figures as "could not summon up any reply"
\nor "the sharp edge of your tongue" or "smouldering secretly
\nwithin herself". The objector seems indeed to cherish a deadly grudge
\nagainst figures and images; he is opposed also to colloquial expressions (e.g.
\n"get" out money, "give it here") even in dialogue. He
\nobjects to<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n


\n
\n1<\/font><\/span><\/sup> <\/font> <\/span>
\n
\n"For"
\nand "after" can be used with "seek". One can say "He
\nsought for an excuse but found none"; one would not usually say "He
\nsought ac excuse". So too you can say "He has long been seeking for
\nspiritual light but in vain."<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n


\n\u00b2<\/sup><\/span><\/font>  E.g.
\n"She was still at her devotions".<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n


\n
\n3<\/font><\/span><\/sup> Cf.,
\nin kindred but slightly different senses, "He has not acted on his own
\ninstance, I know by whom he has been put up to do this"; "A straw
\ncandidate put up for the occasion by a small secret clique"; "This is
\na put up job; there is nothing sincere or spontaneous in the whole
\naffair".<\/span><\/font> <\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage – 466<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

my putting straight into English
\nthe Bengali figure of "falling from the sky". There is an almost
\nidentical phrase in French with exactly the same sense, "to fall from on
\nhigh" or "to fall from the clouds"1<\/span><\/sup>: so I do not see why it should not be
\ndone, since it ought to be at once intelligible to an English reader. I note
\nalso that words cannot "jump" to the tongue, but why not? they manage
\nto do it every day. Poor Shaila cannot "need" a cup.2<\/span><\/sup> Then what is wrong
\nwith the sentence "Do you think every\u00adbody is your sister" i.e. the
\nspeaker herself? It is simply a vivid way of saying "Do you think
\neverybody will be as patient with you as myself", or "Do you think
\nyou can speak to everybody as you do to me".<\/p>\n

I
\nhave written at length because the publisher and perhaps others seem to have
\nbeen upset by the vicious red jabs of this high authority. In most cases they
\nseem to me to have no meaning whatever. If they have, we should be informed to
\nsome extent at least of their why and wherefore.<\/p>\n

There
\nare…a few doubtful points in half a dozen sentences, points on which
\nEnglishmen themselves differ or might differ. I am ready to go through the
\nwhole book if the proofs are sent here. But I cannot revise or alter phrases,
\nlocutions or figures which, so far as I know English, are either current or
\nnatural or permissible, \u2014 unless I am told why these are thought to be
\nincorrect or improper.<\/p>\n

I cannot altogether understand Professor M\u2019s criticism.
\nWhat does he mean by irregular language? If he refers to the style and means
\nthat it is bad, unchaste, too full of familiar or colloquial terms, not
\nsufficiently dignified, bookish, conventional in phrase, not according to
\nprecedent, he is entitled to his view, of course. If he and the objector
\nrepresent the Indian English-reading public, then D must consider the matter.
\nFor in that case, it is clear the book will not be understood by that public,
\nmay be banged and bashed by the reviewers, or may for kindred reasons be a
\nfailure. The suggestion that Sarat Chandra’s high reputation<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n


\n
\n1<\/font><\/span><\/sup> <\/font> <\/span>
\n
\n"tomber
\nd’en haut", "tomber des nuages".<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n


\n
\n2<\/font><\/span><\/sup> One
\ncan say, "she needs help and sympathy in her trouble", or "you
\nneed rest and a change of air", or "for this I need scissors and
\npaste, get them". Then why not "I need the cup"?<\/span><\/font> <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage – 467<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

will be tarnished and lowered by
\nD\u2019s deplorable style and my bad English and horrible grammar, not from any
\nfault of his own, is very alarming. In that case D ought to have the book
\ncorrected by some University professor who knows what to write and what not to
\nwrite and its style chastened, made cor\u00adrect, common and unnoticeable. I don’t
\nthink A will do. He is too brilliant and might make the hair of the correct and
\ntimid reader rise on his head in horror; besides A does not know Bengali.<\/p>\n

The
\nquestion also arises whether an English reader (an English Englishman, not made
\nin India) would equally fail to appreciate the book; he might find it too
\nBengali in character and substance and \u2014 who knows? \u2014 agree that the style of
\nthe translation is unorthodox and "irregular". But here we are
\nhelpless \u2014 we cannot make the experiment, for the war is on and England
\nis far away and paper scarce there as here.<\/p>\n

5.8.1944<\/p>\n

Page – 468<\/font><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

SECTION SIX Indo-English Poetry \u2013 Current Use of English Language ACHIEVEMENT OF INDO-ENGLISH POETRY\u2014LITERARY DECADENCE IN EUROPE 1             The idea that Indians cannot succeed…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[29],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1304","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-09-the-future-poetry-volume-09","wpcat-29-id"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1304","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1304"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1304\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1304"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1304"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1304"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}