Hello readers ,this is my additional blog in Matthew Arnold's view on good poetry and criticism . This task is given by Dr Dilip Bharat sir HOD of English department, the purpose of this task to develop and increase self reliance as well as to develop analytical power in particular work. Touchstone method is a part of Criticism and it will help to get rid the readers and also give explanation,how to differentiate between good literature and poor literature so here in this particular blog I tried to to analyse and differentiate to Hindi poems, following the two fallacies of Touchstone method.
Arnold says,
"The strongest part of our religion
today is its unconscious poetry".
Generally the Touchstone method is a method where critics or a person should we differentiate between good or poor literature it would helps to get rid the readers from to fallacies.
Historical fallacy: Here poets to reports historical poems would think that they are famous.
Personal fallacy: Here where poet should conduct his or her criticism as per is our feelings and emotional state of mind and heart.
The Right Method or the Touchstone Method: In order to guide the critic in his performance of his task, Arnold prescribes his well known ‘Touchstone method’ generally it means basic study of poetry. He says that a real estimate can be attained by learning to feel and enjoy the best work of a real classic and appreciate the wide difference between it and other lesser works. He further adds that high qualities lie both in the matter and substance, and in the manner and style of poetry. In this particular method the critic should compare the two similar kind of poetry and try to maintain the probability of theme and help to recognize the most supreme and high quality poetry out of both.
The Matter and substance will possess ‘truth and seriousness’, truth and serious is a prime condition of a qualitative poem when we using this method in a particular poem we should aware about the truthfulness insidiousness of poetic elements and this character is
‘inseparable from the superiority of diction and movement’
in style and manner. Arnold then suggest that it would do critics good if they always have in their minds lines and expressions of the great masters and apply them as touchstone to other poetry. This will help critics detect the presence or absence of high poetic quality, and also the degree of this quality.
He says that the poems need not resemble or possess any similarity to the touchstones. Once the critic has judged the touchstones in his mind in order to detect the possession of high poetic quality he will have the tact of finding it in other poetry that he compares to the touchstones.
Here I am going to compare two Hindi poem with the help of Touchstone method.
"बूढा चांद"
बूढा चांद
कला की गोरी बाहों में
क्षण भर सोया है
यह अमृत कला है
शोभा असि,
वह बूढा प्रहरी
प्रेम की ढाल!
हाथी दांत की
स्वप्नों की मीनार
सुलभ नहीं,-
न सही!
ओ बाहरी
खोखली समते,
नाग दंतों
विष दंतों की खेती
मत उगा!
राख की ढेरी से ढंका
अंगार सा
बूढा चांद
कला के विछोह में
म्लान था,
नये अधरों का अमृत पीकर
अमर हो गया!
पतझर की ठूंठी टहनी में
कुहासों के नीड़ में
कला की कृश बांहों में झूलता
पुराना चांद ही
नूतन आशा
समग्र प्रकाश है!
वही कला,
राका शशि,-
वही बूढा चांद,
छाया शशि है!
-सुमित्रानंदन पंत
He is the second one,
'आदमी भी क्या अनोखा जीव होता है!'
चांद और कवि
रात यों कहने लगा मुझसे गगन का चांद,
आदमी भी क्या अनोखा जीव होता है!
उलझनें अपनी बनाकर आप ही फंसता,
और फिर बेचैन हो जगता, न सोता है.
जानता है तू कि मैं कितना पुराना हूं ?
मैं चुका हूं देख मनु को जनमते-मरते;
और लाखों बार तुझ-से पागलों को भी
चांदनी में बैठ स्वप्नों पर सही करते.
आदमी का स्वप्न ? है वह बुलबुला जल का;
आज उठता और कल फिर फूट जाता है ;
किन्तु, फिर भी धन्य; ठहरा आदमी ही तो?
बुलबुलों से खेलता, कविता बनाता है.
मैं न बोला, किन्तु, मेरी रागिनी बोली,
देख फिर से, चांद ! मुझको जानता है तू?
स्वप्न मेरे बुलबुले हैं ? है यही पानी?
आग को भी क्या नहीं पहचानता है तू?
मैं न वह जो स्वप्न पर केवल सही करते,
आग में उसको गला लोहा बनाती हूं,
और उस पर नींव रखती हूं नए घर की,
इस तरह दीवार फौलादी उठाती हूं.
मनु नहीं, मनु-पुत्र है यह सामने, जिसकी
कल्पना की जीभ में भी धार होती है,
बाण ही होते विचारों के नहीं केवल,
स्वप्न के भी हाथ में तलवार होती है.
स्वर्ग के सम्राट को जाकर ख़बर कर दे,
‘रोज़ ही आकाश चढ़ते जा रहे हैं वे,
रोकिए, जैसे बने इन स्वप्नवालों को,
स्वर्ग की ही ओर बढ़ते आ रहे हैं वे.
-रामधारी सिंह ‘दिनकर’
As per my thinking,While using Touchstone method we must aware about the historical estimate as well as the personal estimate with the basis of them we can differentiate both parallel theme. But here we can see that the theme object and situation are same but the contrasting theme is that in a first poem human criticize moon bi where is sufficient words on the other hand second poem formally criticize human being with his very modern style of writing. Let's differentiate this both poem with two fallacy.
Historical fallacy: The first poem written by very eminent poem writer सुमित्रानंदन पंत . In this particular poem writer talks about that moon is in a leap of art , we consider moon as a very old and lustful object in a same manner you also denoting moon as with dark Shadow, ultimately writer proves superior rati of Earth and decrements of nature , art is delightful and poor and old moon cannot able to endowed this kind of delight and beauty.
The second poem which is written by
रामधारी सिंह ‘दिनकर, formally promotes and committed that a moon as a part of nature directly criticize human beings, here moon emphasis that line that how old I am, I am the one who be the part of dreams of humans. We consider that dream also has a great weapon. In this particular poem moon promoting his own self that existence of him is from so many fast decades, he seen everything the beginning of human beings the dreams of human beings as well as you also say that he seen so many successful people who made their dreams success. in addition recognize that human are very reckless and an acceptable animal. swim this particular poem we can see the greatness of moon with a some historical mythical characters name many through this poem we can see that and compare that both the things and the contrast differentiation between two poets and their visions.
Personal fallacy: so we see the both poems we can conclude that the ancient writers are formerly criticize moon as per their own personal emotions and feeling they follow their own emotions but in today's modern times we can see that a very realistic and truthful analysis and vision of poets. In a first poem directly poet criticize moon as a dark and consider it with dark Shadow, darkness etc, but in today's poem we can clearly differentiate the difference that poet write the poem not as per his own belief and own emotion but he can convey universal thought of truth that the moon is old and his existence is from long past years so moon can seen so many things in short the beginning of human beings as well a moon has a very profound statement that dreams has his own weapon and moon and nature is the best part of humans dream.
So I tried to to differentiate both poem with the use of Touchstone method and this is my own perspective about two poems, in a very brief at right to give a short analysis of Touchstone method as well as to brief example of poems with two fallacies.
Thank you 😊
No comments:
Post a Comment