Introductory
The function of arts and literature have been argued upon their aesthetic as well as moralistic approach to life. As discussed in the previous essay, Moralists are of the view that art and literature serve its purpose for either a food or a poison. If an art is useful for the members of a society, it is a relishing and delicious food. Or on the flip side, if an art is harmful to the standard set of rules of a society and its members, it will be constituted as a poison, as described by the Moralists. They also suggest that a writer should influence his readers if he has the power to do so. Aesthetes, on the other hand, argue that art should only provide pleasure and if a writer has the ability to influence his readers, he should refrain himself from doing so. But the slogan of Art for Art's Sake was limited in its approach to life and was mocked by many critics who were successful to trace down the hidden moral lessons of the so called Aesthetes and their work.
Moralists are large in number as compared to their aesthetic counterparts. In fact, they even date back in the era of the Ancient Greece.
Grecian Moralists
As stated above, Moralists existed even during the era of Ancient Greece. They were Plato, Aristotle, Aeschylus and Euripides. Chief among the ancient Moralists were Plato and Aristotle. Plato was of the view that the real purpose of the art was to inculcate moral values. He condemned poetry in his famous book, Republic in which he said that Poetry is the imitation of an invitation, twice removed from reality. Plato was a practical-minded politician so he detested the element of beauty and sensation because it may result in violence. Although Plato's idea is unacceptable in our time but he stood for the moral cause of art and literature.
Later, Plato's student, Aristotle came in the scene and corrected his teacher's biased view of poetry and literature. He stated that the main function of a tragedy was to catharsize the aroused feelings of pity and fear. Aristotle even went to explain that poetry was an imitation of the ideal world in the mind of a poet and the inspiration for his ideal world would come straight from the actual world he was living into. Thus Aristotle was also a moral advocate of art and literature who corrected the stinging approach of Plato to Arts.
Sir Philip Sydney
Sir Philip Sydney, also an Elizabethan, published a book called An Apology for Poetry in which he focused on the moral aspect of poetry. He discussed about philosophy, history and ethics and how they helped in establishing morality in a society. But he led a strong emphasis on poetry. According to Sydney, it was poetry that was a perfect medium to impress morality in human beings.
Epic Poets of Renaissance
Edmund Spenser and John Milton were both inclined towards proclaiming moral ideas through their epics. Spenser through his Faerie Queene tried to versify in detail about twelve moral virtues but he could only accomplish writing about six. For example, the first book of The Faerie Queene symbolizes the virtue of Holiness through the character of Red Cross Knight while Una represents truth.
On other hand, Milton, through his Paradise Lost, attempted to justify the ways of God to men through presenting the Biblical account of the Fall of Adam and Eve and how Satan duped the "Confident" Eve and they were expelled from Paradise as a result. Through the tragic fall of Both Adam and Eve, Milton tried to convey stern and Puritan view on morality.
Dr. Johnson suggested that poetry must be didactic (it should teach something). He criticized Shakespeare for not including the moral purpose in his poetry.
Shakespeare seems to write without any moral purpose.
Shakespeare only wrote Sonnets so it was unsuitable for him to include moral values directly.
Matthew Arnold
Arnold is also one of the strong advocates of Art for Morality. He famously states,
A poetry of revolt against moral ideas is a poetry of revolt against life; a poetry of indifference towards moral ideas is a poetry of indifference towards life.
Arnold constitutes morality mandatory for life and to function it properly. His approach to morality is rather stern which is obvious from his saying.
Wordsworth and Shelley
Among Romantics, Wordsworth and Shelley are considered as great Moralists. Although Wordsworth's poetry was wrongly attributed to aestheticism. But the moral and spiritual purpose are vividly available in his poems. In fact, his poetry is didactic as he himself states,
I am nothing but a teacher.
Shelley also emphasizes on the importance of morality in poetry. He is of the view that poetry has a specific kind of moral belt of mind. He denied Johnson's remarks regarding Shakespeare and said,
Shakespeare, Dante and Milton are the philosophers of the loftiest power.
Keats' poetry outwardly may look aesthetically pleasing but it has hidden moral secrets into it. In his poem Sleep and Poetry, he notes,
That it should be a friend
To soothe the cares and lift the thoughts of men.
Keats indirectly wants to say that poetry should provide enough material to take a person away from the worries of the world which helps to retain moral values in him.
Ruskin and Plato
John Ruskin had acquired a great name in the nineteenth century when he unveiled his book, Art and Morality. He is remembered for his empathetic behaviour towards Arts and Literature. He is often compared with Plato. For instance, Plato proclaimed that Arts and Morality conflicted from each other. While Ruskin is of the view that Arts and Morality coincided with each other. Plato would banish poets from his Republic while Ruskin states that their work is superbly moral. Plato announced that poetry was a pack of lies while Ruskin explains that poetry comes as a result of the divine intelligence. Plato asserted that poetry was a major cause of immorality while Ruskin demonstrates that it is the good deed of a person, (not poetry) that makes him moral. Resultantly, Ruskin was also an ardent supporter of morality in Arts just like Plato but he was less biased than Plato.
G B Shaw
George Bernard Shaw is the second one to come after Shakespeare in writing plays. Shaw also glorifies morality and he believes that writers make us, the readers, aware of the spitefulness of life instead of being enamoured of its beautiful charm. Shaw was a socialist at heart so he gave a reasonable importance to the moral and didactic function of literature. His pleasant and unpleasant plays explicitly exhibit both the moral and anti-moral side of life. Shaw alludes to the relationship of Art with Morality as thus,
I cannot write a play for the mere glorification of Art.
Conclusion
After looking at a close distance, it is obvious that both the Moralists and the Aesthetes have been exaggerating the role of Arts and Literature. Aesthetic beauty and entertaining value in Literature is as important as its moral purpose. The main function of literature is to entertain and educate its readers or audience. A writer can give a moral lesson but he should not impose it upon the readers. His main duty is to convey his message. The readers are capable enough to derive moral purposes from their desired readings. Therefore, Art should neither be written solely for the sake of Art nor for morality but Art should be produced and valued for Life.
Sources and Suggested Readings
- Lectures of Sir Fazal Ur Rehman
- A Critical History of English Literature by B. R. Mullick - Chapter 5
- https://www.ipl.org/essay/Ethics-And-Moralism-In-George-Bernard-Shaws-FCSSNE22SG
