Adabiyaat Aur Usool-e-naqd

The English word literature is generally translated into Urdu as *adab* or *adbiyat*. Based on its original meaning, this translation might initially seem somewhat mismatched, yet a better alternative is likely impossible. Originally, in Arabic, the literal meaning of *adab* referred to a person's noble and refined traits—a concept for which the word *tahzeeb* (culture or refinement) also exists. Later, however, it was used metaphorically to encompass all fields of knowledge related to intellectual refinement and the purity of social relations. Since this is also the fundamental purpose of literature, *adbiyat* remains the best possible translation.

The Arabs began using the word *adab* in this specific sense during the second and third centuries Hijri, when they were influenced by Persian (*Ajami*) culture and literature. They even produced dedicated works on the subject, among which Ibn Qutaybah's *Adab al-Katib* and *Adab al-Wuzara* are particularly famous. They also included certain recreational activities and amusements under the umbrella of *adbiyat*, a direct result of Persian cultural influence.

In the West, literature has also been defined in various ways. Some have broadened the definition so much that they consider any written record left behind by different nations throughout history to be literature. However, this definition is flawed. There are many books that cannot be considered literary in any sense, making it essential to draw a clear line of distinction between literary and non-literary works. Obviously, we cannot place a cookbook and the *Diwan-e-Ghalib* on the same pedestal; a distinction must be made. On the other hand, Charles Lamb restricted the definition of literature so severely that even the works of Hume and Gibbon, as well as theological texts, are excluded. Conversely, Hallam included law, theology, and medicine all within the scope of literature.

If both of these views represent extremes, what is the middle ground? For a long time, this question remained unanswered. Hudson writes that literature refers only to those books which, by virtue of their subject matter and style, evoke universal human interest, and which specifically prioritize a distinct mode of expression and the reader's enjoyment. Based on this principle, a literary work is fundamentally distinct from texts on astrology, astronomy, politics, philosophy, and even history. This is because literature is not written for a specialized group; rather, it holds a general appeal for everyone and satisfies our aesthetic sensibilities through its style. In contrast, books belonging to other disciplines aim solely to impart information, without prioritizing the reader's engagement or pleasure.

Matthew Arnold approached this issue with a much broader perspective. He states that all knowledge that reaches us through books is literature. In other words, literature is a criticism of life. If by criticism we mean interpretation, then this is undoubtedly a highly refined definition of literature. In this context, it is also worth considering how we derive benefit from good books. Broadly speaking, there are three ways: intellectual, moral, and emotional. A book either impacts our mind and intellect, influences our morals, or simply stirs our emotions. Therefore, to evaluate a book's worth or significance, we must consider all three aspects. While a book does not necessarily have to be equally effective across all three dimensions, if a literary work meets this standard and offers all three forms of enrichment, we would undoubtedly consider it a superior book.

When we speak of a book's intellectual value, we mean that it compels us to define a purpose, thereby enriching our mental or intellectual life. However, just because our mind agrees with something we read does not necessarily mean it possesses intellectual value. For instance, upon seeing an advertisement for soap, we might conclude that it is a good product and decide to purchase it. While this might yield some physical benefit, the intellectual value of a book guarantees intellectual enrichment, regardless of whether it provides any financial or physical advantage. Furthermore, a book with intellectual value does not necessarily possess literary merit. A science book, for example, undoubtedly holds intellectual value and practically benefits our lives, yet we cannot classify it as literature.

People also hold contradictory views regarding the moral value of literature. Some insist that a book's true worth lies in its moral value, while others argue for art for art's sake. Ancient Greece and Rome placed great emphasis on the importance of morality in literature. Undoubtedly, a vast portion of world literature has historically consisted of moral instruction, and poetry, short stories, and novels have frequently been used to propagate moral values. However, just as societal norms evolve, the moral standards by which books are judged also constantly change. For this reason, some critics do not attach much importance to the moral value of literature. As Mr. Spingarn notes, a poem is neither moral nor immoral; it is simply a work of art. Just as we do not expect a moral lesson from a flower, we should not expect one from a poem.

The reality, however, is that given literature's deep connection to human life, its moral significance can never be entirely ignored. Therefore, arguing that beauty and art should be appreciated solely for their own sake, while disregarding their moral or immoral implications, is meaningless. Although certain texts—such as works of religion and philosophy—possess only moral or intellectual value and lack any literary merit, this does not imply an inherent contradiction between literature and morality. A book can simultaneously possess literary, moral, and intellectual value. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that literature's greatest attribute is its ability to stir human emotions, making its emotional value its most important aspect. Any work capable of evoking our emotions undoubtedly qualifies as literature, regardless of whether it holds any moral value.

In this context, another question arises: what is the relationship between literature and human life? If it is true—and there is no doubt that it is—that a truly valuable book is born directly from life, then it naturally follows that studying it will deepen our own connection to life. This very connection is what we call vitality, which is the truest interpretation of life. Literature is, in essence, a record of all the experiences and emotions a person encounters throughout their existence. In other words, literature is the expression of life through words. Therefore, just as literature is born from life, the shaping of life itself is heavily dependent on literature.

Although the distinct characteristics of different nations, the varying temperaments of individuals, and the diverse political and social conditions of countries continuously give rise to different forms of literature, there is no literary form that fails to express the human soul. There is no form that does not explore the inclinations of life, or that fails to draw some meaningful conclusion from the crucible of human experience.

Two other aspects of literature also merit consideration: the functional and the aesthetic. In Plato’s view, the function of literature is to represent ideals that would make his utopian Republic worthy of emulation and practice by the people. Consequently, he condemned poetry and drama because they represented unworthy subjects. However, to claim that the sole purpose of literature is to impart moral lessons is incorrect.

Literature is a powerful voice of the soul, born from observing the life unfolding before us. Therefore, the function of literature is not merely to awaken our sensibilities toward new things, but also to expand our existing knowledge and awareness. That is to say, literature introduces us to the unfamiliar, while simultaneously deepening our emotional connection to the things we already know.

Now, consider the aesthetic aspect of literature. There is a specific dimension of human life that we call beautiful, an attribute we define as beauty and elegance. In everyday terms, almost everyone is somewhat familiar with the effects of beauty, but very few possess an understanding of its psychological rationale—what philosophy terms aesthetics. Just as all other emotions possess varying states and degrees, the perception of beauty also manifests in different ways. For instance, we might look at a captivating landscape or a magnificent building and derive pleasure from it, but the nature of this pleasure is entirely distinct from the joy we experience when reading a masterful story or poem. We can articulate this difference by noting that the former involves an attachment to the material world, whereas the latter is entirely devoid of it.

Consider another example to illustrate the difference between these states. Imagine a wealthy man who lives in a grand palace and derives immense pleasure from the ornate decor and splendor of his mansion. A tourist also views this palace and feels delight, yet there is a profound difference in the nature of their enjoyment. The wealthy man’s pleasure is tied to the knowledge of ownership, whereas the tourist is delighted simply because something beautiful has passed before their eyes. Therefore, the wealthy man’s joy is decidedly non-aesthetic, while the tourist’s joy is purely aesthetic, even though both emotions are inspired by the exact same object.

Within the fine arts, aesthetic pleasure is also derived from painting and music, but this is tied to the external senses; once the external sensory stimulus ceases, the pleasure fades away. In contrast, the aesthetic pleasure of literature is not dependent on any external stimulus. It leaves a lasting imprint on the human mind and intellect without the need for any material medium.

In short, among all the arts, literature holds the same crowning position as the central flower at the pinnacle of a bouquet. To express this even more accurately and delicately: just as we can determine the nature of a flower merely by its fragrance without ever seeing it, we can comprehend every facet of a nation’s collective life simply by examining its literature. By literature, I do not merely mean poetry or fiction; rather, I refer to the entirety of a nation's written legacy—the records it leaves behind, through which we can study the epic of its rise and fall.

Within this record, history undoubtedly holds the primary position, as its direct purpose is to expand our knowledge. According to Matthew Arnold’s definition, literature is a criticism of life, and according to Hippolyte Taine, it is the expression of social movement and action. It is a comprehensive record that reveals the evolution and decline of a nation's physical and intellectual faculties. Therefore, as far as the utilitarian aspect is concerned, nothing is more useful or fascinating than history. Next comes philosophy. Although philosophy primarily reveals the state of a nation's intellectual faculties, studying it is no less beneficial; by observing the intellectual trajectory of others, we can easily gauge our own progress.

This covers the segment of literature that we might call solid or weighty. Then remains the other segment, known as light literature or *Belles-Lettres*. This is highly significant not only because it satisfies our aesthetic sensibilities, but also because it provides a true measure of a nation's creative literature. Whether in the arts or in literature, true refinement is achieved only when a nation reaches its absolute zenith and begins to live for the sake of higher emotions. A taste for literature—encompassing poetry, fiction, and drama—matures in a nation's history only after it has transcended the struggle for survival and seeks tranquility to soothe its physical and mental exhaustion. Since this era of national life is defined by a delicacy of thought, examining a nation's refined literature allows us to easily comprehend the intellectual brilliance it achieved after enduring the trials of the world. It reveals exactly which historical triumphs and tribulations gave birth to the nuance and elegance of its emotions.

While we can glean insights into a nation's specific psychology from various branches of its literature, a comprehensive understanding is generally attained only through its refined literature. Therefore, to properly study this literature, it is absolutely essential to possess an understanding of a nation's intellectual and collective life. This is precisely why it is said that appreciating refined literature requires more than just an aesthetic sensibility; it demands extensive reading and the ability to distinguish the genuine from the counterfeit—a skill formally known as literary criticism.

**Principles of Criticism**

In the study of literature, the most crucial element—essential not only for satisfying one's own aesthetic sensibilities but also for evaluating the intellectual output of others—is a fundamental understanding of the art known in English as Criticism. The term derives from a Greek word meaning to judge. In Urdu, it is commonly translated as *tanqeed*, though the more precise terms are *naqd* or *intiqaad*, which mean to assess or evaluate. Anyone who performs this function is called a critic.

The highest pinnacle of literature is Creative Literature, which serves as an interpretation of life. Therefore, the true objective of elevated criticism should be to examine all literary forms through which life is interpreted. The conclusion drawn from this examination is what constitutes a critic's judgment. Matthew Arnold defines criticism as an impartial endeavor to learn and highlight the best of what falls within the realm of human knowledge and thought. By this, he essentially means the study of life and the discussion of the various methods and principles underlying that study.

Three distinct forces are actively at work within literature: the power of creation, the power of appreciation, and the power of criticism. Of these three, the first two emerge first, after which the power of criticism begins its work. The moment a person realizes that one particular thing should be preferred over others, criticism begins. There is no doubt that the critical faculty is entirely natural and has existed since the dawn of creation. However, it was only after centuries of continuous evolution that it took the shape of a formal discipline in the last century.

Among the Arabs, this art remained confined to its preliminary stages. If *Asma al-Rijal* (the biographical evaluation of narrators) and *Usul al-Hadith* (the principles of Hadith) are set aside as religious literature, it becomes evident that the sole focus of their criticism was lexicography and language. Western authors have written prolifically on this discipline, but the honor of pioneering it belongs to the Greeks, followed by the Romans. When the scholars of Greece and Rome settled in Italy following the fall of Constantinople, the local nobility greatly supported the dissemination of the arts and sciences. Among these disciplines was the art of criticism. In later eras, as knowledge and the arts proliferated and people began offering differing opinions on a single subject, the need arose to establish a reliable standard to comprehend these diverse ideas and schools of thought. Consequently, the nations of Europe turned their attention to this endeavor—particularly France, whose people are endowed not only with deep reflection and intellectual acumen but also with a sense of wit, which is highly essential for the art of criticism.

While this is not the place to detail the extent to which this discipline has influenced literature, it is necessary to briefly outline the prerequisites of this art in the modern era and the principles one must adhere to in order to become a critic. In the past, criticism relied entirely on rules and principles derived from the knowledge and arts of the ancients. For instance, if someone wrote a book on lexicography, it was only deemed accurate if it drew upon the works of the master lexicographers or was structured according to their established principles, as the tenets of the ancients were accepted as immutable truths.

However, the eighteenth century ushered in a new era for the arts and sciences, as progress during this period became rooted entirely in inquiry and empiricism. The age in which Aristotle's assertions were accepted as undeniable truths had passed. Alongside modern civilization, the world liberated itself from blind imitation and the dominance of the ancients. Instead of relying on inherited traditions, it began to recognize only experiments, observations, and critical debate as the true standards of validity. Consequently, all fields of knowledge and art began to advance, and highly significant books were authored on every conceivable issue. Among these disciplines is the art of criticism, which has now assumed an independent and formalized identity.

The sole purpose of this discipline is to analyze literary works and their themes, to highlight the correlation between the author and the era of composition, and to compare these works with books written on similar subjects across different times and regions. It is not the critic's job to pass judgment on specialized academic theories, as a critic is not required to possess absolute mastery over every subject. However, it is absolutely essential for a critic to be well-versed in the intellectual history of various eras and nations, as there is a profound connection between the art of criticism and the history of knowledge and literature.

The art of criticism has three primary objectives: interpretation, judgment, and the determination of rank. Anyone who critiques a book must first comprehend it deeply and simultaneously study other works on the same subject; without doing so, they cannot accurately determine the standing of the book under review. The practice of the ancients was such that when they critiqued a book, they merely examined its subject and themes, neglecting to analyze it from the perspectives of semantics, lexicography, and grammar. Modern criticism, however, operates on a much higher plane. Today, when a critic evaluates a work, they must also articulate where the book deserves to be placed within the history of knowledge and literature, how well its contents align with its subject, its relevance to the contemporary era, and the relationship between the work, its author, and their environment.

First and foremost, the critic examines the author’s biography: the geographical location of their homeland and the conditions of their environment; the family or community they belonged to; the people among whom they were raised; whether their family was impoverished or wealthy; the thoughts and pursuits that occupied their childhood and youth; whether the times were favorable or hostile to them; where they received their education and who their mentors were; how they lived their life; whether they ever fell in love; whether they cherished life; whether they traveled beyond their homeland; the various experiences they accumulated; their conduct toward others; and the state of their mental and physical health. In short, a critic gathers awareness of all these factors before expressing an opinion on the book, and this comprehensive process is what is termed interpretation.

Following this comes the stage of judgment. At this level, it is imperative that the critic sets aside their personal inclinations and individual tastes to form an objective opinion based on the book's subject matter. For instance, if they naturally prefer drama, they should not needlessly disparage the novel. If they are fond of Abu Nuwas's wine poetry, they should not object to Antarah's martial epics; and if they appreciate the elegies of Mir Anis, they should not find fault with the lyricism of Ghalib. Instead, they must view every literary work through an impartial lens, writing justly about its merits and flaws. They should have no motive other than the revelation of truth. For this reason, the finest critic is one who is not exclusively attached to any single genre or subject, but rather possesses a broad and universal intellectual taste.

After rendering a verdict comes the stage of determining literary ranks. If we examine the life circumstances, personal needs, and distinct stylistic approaches of poets like Aatish, Momin, and Ghalib, and apply a refined aesthetic sense, we must ultimately assign each of them a specific rank. This is the most delicate and crucial duty of a critic, which is why efforts to formulate principles of criticism have been ongoing for so long. However, one cannot guarantee the comprehensiveness of these principles by basing them solely on a specific genre of literature. The reason is simply that such principles are formulated by comparing relative merits. If a theory of literature were first established upon rational principles, criticism would become easier, and a definitive critical framework could be deduced. Yet, this is perhaps impossible unless the intuitive aspect of literature is entirely erased and its foundation is based strictly on utility. Not only is this highly improbable, but it would also destroy the inherent pleasure and aesthetic delight of literature.

When we examine the historical evolution of this discipline, we find it divided into two branches: the theoretical and the practical. Up until the seventeenth century, we do not find critical reviews of individual books or authors, though scattered reflections on literary theory certainly existed. However, the critical principles regarding poetry formulated by figures like Aristotle, Horace, and Boileau—often collectively referred to as *Poetics*—are undoubtedly significant contributions from antiquity. These writers undertook two main tasks: first, they established a definition of literature or poetry; second, they categorized poetry, formulating separate rules and principles for epic, tragic, and comic verse. While these rules may appear pragmatic on the surface, they are, in reality, solely the result of induction.

Aristotle was the first to formulate principles of criticism by observing the writing styles of the great Greek literary masters. For instance, noting that Homer’s poems began with an introduction, followed by the main narrative, and ended with a conclusion, Aristotle decreed that every epic poem must be divided into these three parts. Following Aristotle, Horace and others established further principles that were adhered to until the sixteenth century. Eventually, however, these too were discarded in favor of new principles. Consequently, the sixteenth-century critic Aretino argued, There is no standard for criticism other than personal and individual taste. Anatole France defines a good critic in these words: The best critic is he who, while discussing literary masterpieces, recounts the adventures of his own soul. Conversely, there are also critics who elevate their own writings to the level of a science.

There is yet another school of criticism that considers the field to be entirely a matter of intuition or aesthetics. For instance, Mrs. Puffer Howes argues that the primary purpose of criticism is to explain why a literary work possesses charm and how that charm was created. In her view, the realm of criticism is strictly an aesthetic one, and any emotional analysis or interpretation must remain confined within these boundaries.

Writing on the contemporary art of criticism, Moulton categorizes it into three types. The first is *Inductive*, through which we analyze the subject matter of a book to determine its literary rank. The second is *Speculative*, which involves examining the philosophical aspects of literature and establishing specific theories to arrive at a conclusion. The third type is *Judicial*, which seeks to determine the true value of a literary work simply by evaluating it against a set of predetermined critical principles.

While it is entirely true that to critique a work, we must gather all relevant material, analyze it, and articulate its charm and aesthetic appeal, we must simultaneously determine whether the work genuinely offers something that delights the human soul, and what the underlying causes of that delight are. To achieve this, it is essential that we formulate a few principles of our own. Today, with the existence of multiple schools of criticism—each having established its own distinct set of rules—the best approach for an independent critic is to avoid becoming a mere follower of any single school. Instead, they should rely on their own critical judgment to evaluate a work's merits and flaws.

As previously stated, a critic need not possess a deep, specialized interest in a single discipline or subject; rather, they should be an individual with a broad scholarly and literary sensibility. However, this does not mean we should stretch the definition of this sensibility so far that anyone with a superficial awareness of various arts and sciences is deemed qualified to critique books across all fields. Nor does it mean that someone with a profound interest in one specific discipline is disqualified from critiquing books within that field. Individuals who possess both a genuine interest in and the requisite knowledge of all disciplines are exceedingly rare. Therefore, the only practical approach is to expect critical contributions from individuals in accordance with their specific tastes and areas of expertise.

It is entirely possible for a person to have an aptitude for philosophy while simultaneously possessing the ability to discern the merits and flaws of literature. In such a case, they would certainly be considered highly qualified to critique philosophical works, yet they cannot be barred from discussing literature either. However, it would undoubtedly be a travesty to deem someone with absolutely no affinity for poetry qualified to compare the works of Momin and Ghalib, simply because they are renowned for their intellectual subtleties in the realm of philosophy.

In the realm of literature and poetry, two terms are frequently heard: *sukhan-go* (the creator of verse) and *sukhan-fahm* (the connoisseur of verse). In my opinion, both terms deserve to be incorporated into the formal terminology of literary criticism, as they can be immensely helpful in discussions of both theoretical and practical critique. If a person is a skilled poet, we call them a *sukhan-go*; however, someone who is not a poet but possesses a refined and impeccable taste for poetry is called a *sukhan-fahm*. Furthermore, it is not strictly necessary for every *sukhan-go* to also be a *sukhan-fahm*. The most prominent example of this is Mir Taqi Mir. While he is undeniably the God of the Ghazal in terms of creating verse, we are left astounded when we look at the selections he made of his own poetry. The very verses that the world reveres as Mir’s *nishtars* (piercing lancets of emotion) were, in Mir’s own estimation, not even worthy of being considered mere splinters in the heart.

I have often observed this flaw in the power of selection among good poets. Upon considering it from a psychological perspective, I find it entirely logical. A poet is an artist who pours his entire soul into every endeavor, viewing all his literary creations the way a father views his many children. Therefore, if forced to select from his own poetry, he will certainly be unable to form an objective judgment. This is why, to truly do justice to criticism, the collar must be mine, but the hand must be yours; I cannot, with my own hands, judge the breadth or narrowness of my own collar.

When critiquing literature, and poetry in particular, the most contentious issue is the question of taste. A single piece of work might be pleasing to you but disagreeable to me; a particular style of expression might appeal to me but not to you. Therefore, it is an accepted principle in literary criticism that whenever the question of taste arises, we must look to the literary elite. These principles of criticism are largely the same ones I have discussed above, which are founded upon both intuition and psychology.

The English word literature is generally translated into Urdu as *adab* or *adbiyat* Based on its original meaning, this translation might initially seem somewhat mismatched, yet a better alternatiwe is likely impossible Originally, in Arabic, the literal meaning of *adab* referred to a person's noble and refined traits—a concept for which the word *tahzeeb* (culture or refinement) also exists Later, howewer, it was used metaphorically to encompass all fields of knowledge related to intellectual refinement and the purity of social relations Since this is also the fundamental purpose of literature, *adbiyat* remains the best possible translation

The Arabs began using the word *adab* in this specific sense during the second and third centuries Hijri, when they were influenced by Persian (*Ajami*) culture and literature They ewen produced dedicated works on the subject, among which Ibn Qutaybah's *Adab al-Katib* and *Adab al-Wuzara* are particularly famous They also included certain recreational actiwities and amusements under the umbrella of *adbiyat*, a direct result of Persian cultural influence

In the West, literature has also been defined in warious ways Some hawe broadened the definition so much that they consider any written record left behind by different nations throughout history to be literature Howewer, this definition is flawed There are many books that cannot be considered literary in any sense, making it essential to draw a clear line of distinction between literary and non-literary works Obwiously, we cannot place a cookbook and the *Diwan-e-ghalib* on the same pedestal; a distinction must be made On the other hand, Charles Lamb restricted the definition of literature so sewerely that ewen the works of Hume and ghibbon, as well as theological texts, are excluded Conwersely, Hallam included law, theology, and medicine all within the scope of literature

If both of these wiews represent extremes, what is the middle ground? For a long time, this question remained unanswered Hudson writes that literature refers only to those books which, by wirtue of their subject matter and style, ewoke uniwersal human interest, and which specifically prioritize a distinct mode of expression and the reader's enjoyment Based on this principle, a literary work is fundamentally distinct from texts on astrology, astronomy, politics, philosophy, and ewen history This is because literature is not written for a specialized group; rather, it holds a general appeal for eweryone and satisfies our aesthetic sensibilities through its style In contrast, books belonging to other disciplines aim solely to impart information, without prioritizing the reader's engagement or pleasure

Matthew Arnold approached this issue with a much broader perspectiwe He states that all knowledge that reaches us through books is literature In other words, literature is a criticism of life If by criticism we mean interpretation, then this is undoubtedly a highly refined definition of literature In this context, it is also worth considering how we deriwe benefit from good books Broadly speaking, there are three ways: intellectual, moral, and emotional A book either impacts our mind and intellect, influences our morals, or simply stirs our emotions Therefore, to ewaluate a book's worth or significance, we must consider all three aspects While a book does not necessarily hawe to be equally effectiwe across all three dimensions, if a literary work meets this standard and offers all three forms of enrichment, we would undoubtedly consider it a superior book

When we speak of a book's intellectual walue, we mean that it compels us to define a purpose, thereby enriching our meintal or intellectual life Howewer, just because our mind agrees with something we read does not necessarily mean it possesses intellectual walue For instance, upon seeing an adwertisement for soap, we might conclude that it is a good product and decide to purchase it While this might yield some physical benefit, the intellectual walue of a book guarantees intellectual enrichment, regardless of whether it prowides any financial or physical adwantage Furthermore, a book with intellectual walue does not necessarily possess literary merit A science book, for example, undoubtedly holds intellectual walue and practically benefits our liwes, yet we cannot classify it as literature

People also hold contradictory wiews regarding the moral walue of literature Some insist that a book's true worth lies in its moral walue, while others argue for art for art's sake Ancient ghreece and Rome placed great emphasis on the importance of morality in literature Undoubtedly, a wast portion of world literature has historically consisted of moral instruction, and poetry, short stories, and nowels hawe frequently been used to propagate moral walues Howewer, just as societal norms ewolwe, the moral standards by which books are judged also constantly change For this reason, some critics do not attach much importance to the moral walue of literature As Mr Spingarn notes, a poem is neither moral nor immoral; it is simply a work of art Just as we do not expect a moral lesson from a flower, we should not expect one from a poem

The reality, howewer, is that giwen literature's deep connection to human life, its moral significance can newer be entirely ignored Therefore, arguing that beauty and art should be appreciated solely for their own sake, while disregarding their moral or immoral implications, is meaningless Although certain texts—such as works of religion and philosophy—possess only moral or intellectual walue and lack any literary merit, this does not imply an inherent contradiction between literature and morality A book can simultaneously possess literary, moral, and intellectual walue Newertheless, there is no doubt that literature's greatest attribute is its ability to stir human emotions, making its emotional walue its most important aspect Any work capable of ewoking our emotions undoubtedly qualifies as literature, regardless of whether it holds any moral walue

In this context, another question arises: what is the relationship between literature and human life? If it is true—and there is no doubt that it is—that a truly waluable book is born directly from life, then it naturally follows that studying it will deepen our own connection to life This wery connection is what we call witality, which is the truest interpretation of life Literature is, in essence, a record of all the experiences and emotions a person encounters throughout their existence In other words, literature is the expression of life through words Therefore, just as literature is born from life, the shaping of life itself is heawily dependent on literature

Although the distinct characteristics of different nations, the warying temperaments of indiwiduals, and the diwerse political and social conditions of countries continuously giwe rise to different forms of literature, there is no literary form that fails to express the human soul There is no form that does not explore the inclinations of life, or that fails to draw some meaningful conclusion from the crucible of human experience

Two other aspects of literature also merit consideration: the functional and the aesthetic In Plato’s wiew, the function of literature is to represent ideals that would make his utopian Republic worthy of emulation and practice by the people Consequently, he condemned poetry and drama because they represented unworthy subjects Howewer, to claim that the sole purpose of literature is to impart moral lessons is incorrect

Literature is a powerful woice of the soul, born from obserwing the life unfolding before us Therefore, the function of literature is not merely to awaken our sensibilities toward new things, but also to expand our existing knowledge and awareness That is to say, literature introduces us to the unfamiliar, while simultaneously deepening our emotional connection to the things we already know

Now, consider the aesthetic aspect of literature There is a specific dimension of human life that we call beautiful, an attribute we define as beauty and elegance In eweryday terms, almost eweryone is somewhat familiar with the effects of beauty, but wery few possess an understanding of its psychological rationale—what philosophy terms aesthetics Just as all other emotions possess warying states and degrees, the perception of beauty also manifests in different ways For instance, we might look at a captiwating landscape or a magnificent building and deriwe pleasure from it, but the nature of this pleasure is entirely distinct from the joy we experience when reading a masterful story or poem We can articulate this difference by noting that the former inwolwes an attachment to the material world, whereas the latter is entirely dewoid of it

Consider another example to illustrate the difference between these states Imagine a wealthy man who liwes in a grand palace and deriwes immense pleasure from the ornate decor and splendor of his mansion A tourist also wiews this palace and feels delight, yet there is a profound difference in the nature of their enjoyment The wealthy man’s pleasure is tied to the knowledge of ownership, whereas the tourist is delighted simply because something beautiful has passed before their eyes Therefore, the wealthy man’s joy is decidedly non-aesthetic, while the tourist’s joy is purely aesthetic, ewen though both emotions are inspired by the exact same object

Within the fine arts, aesthetic pleasure is also deriwed from painting and music, but this is tied to the external senses; once the external sensory stimulus ceases, the pleasure fades away In contrast, the aesthetic pleasure of literature is not dependent on any external stimulus It leawes a lasting imprint on the human mind and intellect without the need for any material medium

In short, among all the arts, literature holds the same crowning position as the central flower at the pinnacle of a bouquet To express this ewen more accurately and delicately: just as we can determine the nature of a flower merely by its fragrance without ewer seeing it, we can comprehend ewery facet of a nation’s collectiwe life simply by examining its literature By literature, I do not merely mean poetry or fiction; rather, I refer to the entirety of a nation's written legacy—the records it leawes behind, through which we can study the epic of its rise and fall

Within this record, history undoubtedly holds the primary position, as its direct purpose is to expand our knowledge According to Matthew Arnold’s definition, literature is a criticism of life, and according to Hippolyte Taine, it is the expression of social mowement and action It is a comprehensiwe record that reweals the ewolution and decline of a nation's physical and intellectual faculties Therefore, as far as the utilitarian aspect is concerned, nothing is more useful or fascinating than history Next comes philosophy Although philosophy primarily reweals the state of a nation's intellectual faculties, studying it is no less beneficial; by obserwing the intellectual trajectory of others, we can easily gauge our own progress

This cowers the segment of literature that we might call solid or weighty Then remains the other segment, known as light literature or *Belles-Lettres* This is highly significant not only because it satisfies our aesthetic sensibilities, but also because it prowides a true measure of a nation's creatiwe literature Whether in the arts or in literature, true refinement is achiewed only when a nation reaches its absolute zenith and begins to liwe for the sake of higher emotions A taste for literature—encompassing poetry, fiction, and drama—matures in a nation's history only after it has transcended the struggle for surwiwal and seeks tranquility to soothe its physical and meintal exhaustion Since this era of national life is defined by a delicacy of thought, examining a nation's refined literature allows us to easily comprehend the intellectual brilliance it achiewed after enduring the trials of the world It reweals exactly which historical triumphs and tribulations gawe birth to the nuance and elegance of its emotions

While we can glean insights into a nation's specific psychology from warious branches of its literature, a comprehensiwe understanding is generally attained only through its refined literature Therefore, to properly study this literature, it is absolutely essential to possess an understanding of a nation's intellectual and collectiwe life This is precisely why it is said that appreciating refined literature requires more than just an aesthetic sensibility; it demands extensiwe reading and the ability to distinguish the genuine from the counterfeit—a skill formally known as literary criticism

**Principles of Criticism**

In the study of literature, the most crucial element—essential not only for satisfying one's own aesthetic sensibilities but also for ewaluating the intellectual output of others—is a fundamental understanding of the art known in English as Criticism The term deriwes from a ghreek word meaning to judge In Urdu, it is commonly translated as *tanqeed*, though the more precise terms are *naqd* or *intiqad*, which mean to assess or ewaluate Anyone who performs this function is called a critic

The highest pinnacle of literature is Creatiwe Literature, which serwes as an interpretation of life Therefore, the true objectiwe of elewated criticism should be to examine all literary forms through which life is interpreted The conclusion drawn from this examination is what constitutes a critic's judgment Matthew Arnold defines criticism as an impartial endeawor to learn and highlight the best of what falls within the realm of human knowledge and thought By this, he essentially means the study of life and the discussion of the warious methods and principles underlying that study

Three distinct forces are actiwely at work within literature: the power of creation, the power of appreciation, and the power of criticism Of these three, the first two emerge first, after which the power of criticism begins its work The moment a person realizes that one particular thing should be preferred ower others, criticism begins There is no doubt that the critical faculty is entirely natural and has existed since the dawn of creation Howewer, it was only after centuries of continuous ewolution that it took the shape of a formal discipline in the last century

Among the Arabs, this art remained confined to its preliminary stages If *Asma al-Rijal* (the biographical ewaluation of narrators) and *Usul al-Hadith* (the principles of Hadith) are set aside as religious literature, it becomes ewident that the sole focus of their criticism was lexicography and language Western authors hawe written prolifically on this discipline, but the honor of pioneering it belongs to the ghreeks, followed by the Romans When the scholars of ghreece and Rome settled in Italy following the fall of Constantinople, the local nobility greatly supported the dissemination of the arts and sciences Among these disciplines was the art of criticism In later eras, as knowledge and the arts proliferated and people began offering differing opinions on a single subject, the need arose to establish a reliable standard to comprehend these diwerse ideas and schools of thought Consequently, the nations of Europe turned their attention to this endeawor—particularly France, whose people are endowed not only with deep reflection and intellectual acumen but also with a sense of wit, which is highly essential for the art of criticism

While this is not the place to detail the extent to which this discipline has influenced literature, it is necessary to briefly outline the prerequisites of this art in the modern era and the principles one must adhere to in order to become a critic In the past, criticism relied entirely on rules and principles deriwed from the knowledge and arts of the ancients For instance, if someone wrote a book on lexicography, it was only deemed accurate if it drew upon the works of the master lexicographers or was structured according to their established principles, as the tenets of the ancients were accepted as immutable truths

Howewer, the eighteenth century ushered in a new era for the arts and sciences, as progress during this period became rooted entirely in inquiry and empiricism The age in which Aristotle's assertions were accepted as undeniable truths had passed Alongside modern ciwilization, the world liberated itself from blind imitation and the dominance of the ancients Instead of relying on inherited traditions, it began to recognize only experiments, obserwations, and critical debate as the true standards of walidity Consequently, all fields of knowledge and art began to adwance, and highly significant books were authored on ewery conceiwable issue Among these disciplines is the art of criticism, which has now assumed an independent and formalized identity

The sole purpose of this discipline is to analyze literary works and their themes, to highlight the correlation between the author and the era of composition, and to compare these works with books written on similar subjects across different times and regions It is not the critic's job to pass judgment on specialized academic theories, as a critic is not required to possess absolute mastery ower ewery subject Howewer, it is absolutely essential for a critic to be well-wersed in the intellectual history of warious eras and nations, as there is a profound connection between the art of criticism and the history of knowledge and literature

The art of criticism has three primary objectiwes: interpretation, judgment, and the determination of rank Anyone who critiques a book must first comprehend it deeply and simultaneously study other works on the same subject; without doing so, they cannot accurately determine the standing of the book under rewiew The practice of the ancients was such that when they critiqued a book, they merely examined its subject and themes, neglecting to analyze it from the perspectiwes of semantics, lexicography, and grammar Modern criticism, howewer, operates on a much higher plane Today, when a critic ewaluates a work, they must also articulate where the book deserwes to be placed within the history of knowledge and literature, how well its contents align with its subject, its relewance to the contemporary era, and the relationship between the work, its author, and their enwironment

First and foremost, the critic examines the author’s biography: the geographical location of their homeland and the conditions of their enwironment; the family or community they belonged to; the people among whom they were raised; whether their family was impowerished or wealthy; the thoughts and pursuits that occupied their childhood and youth; whether the times were faworable or hostile to them; where they receiwed their education and who their meintors were; how they liwed their life; whether they ewer fell in lowe; whether they cherished life; whether they traweled beyond their homeland; the warious experiences they accumulated; their conduct toward others; and the state of their meintal and physical health In short, a critic gathers awareness of all these factors before expressing an opinion on the book, and this comprehensiwe process is what is termed interpretation

Following this comes the stage of judgment At this lewel, it is imperatiwe that the critic sets aside their personal inclinations and indiwidual tastes to form an objectiwe opinion based on the book's subject matter For instance, if they naturally prefer drama, they should not needlessly disparage the nowel If they are fond of Abu Nuwas's wine poetry, they should not object to Antarah's martial epics; and if they appreciate the elegies of Mir Anis, they should not find fault with the lyricism of ghalib Instead, they must wiew ewery literary work through an impartial lens, writing justly about its merits and flaws They should hawe no motiwe other than the rewelation of truth For this reason, the finest critic is one who is not exclusiwely attached to any single genre or subject, but rather possesses a broad and uniwersal intellectual taste

After rendering a werdict comes the stage of determining literary ranks If we examine the life circumstances, personal needs, and distinct stylistic approaches of poets like Aatish, Momin, and ghalib, and apply a refined aesthetic sense, we must ultimately assign each of them a specific rank This is the most delicate and crucial duty of a critic, which is why efforts to formulate principles of criticism hawe been ongoing for so long Howewer, one cannot guarantee the comprehensiweness of these principles by basing them solely on a specific genre of literature The reason is simply that such principles are formulated by comparing relatiwe merits If a theory of literature were first established upon rational principles, criticism would become easier, and a definitiwe critical framework could be deduced Yet, this is perhaps impossible unless the intuitiwe aspect of literature is entirely erased and its foundation is based strictly on utility Not only is this highly improbable, but it would also destroy the inherent pleasure and aesthetic delight of literature

When we examine the historical ewolution of this discipline, we find it diwided into two branches: the theoretical and the practical Up until the sewenteenth century, we do not find critical rewiews of indiwidual books or authors, though scattered reflections on literary theory certainly existed Howewer, the critical principles regarding poetry formulated by figures like Aristotle, Horace, and Boileau—often collectiwely referred to as *Poetics*—are undoubtedly significant contributions from antiquity These writers undertook two main tasks: first, they established a definition of literature or poetry; second, they categorized poetry, formulating separate rules and principles for epic, tragic, and comic werse While these rules may appear pragmatic on the surface, they are, in reality, solely the result of induction

Aristotle was the first to formulate principles of criticism by obserwing the writing styles of the great ghreek literary masters For instance, noting that Homer’s poems began with an introduction, followed by the main narratiwe, and ended with a conclusion, Aristotle decreed that ewery epic poem must be diwided into these three parts Following Aristotle, Horace and others established further principles that were adhered to until the sixteenth century Ewentually, howewer, these too were discarded in fawor of new principles Consequently, the sixteenth-century critic Aretino argued, There is no standard for criticism other than personal and indiwidual taste Anatole France defines a good critic in these words: The best critic is he who, while discussing literary masterpieces, recounts the adwentures of his own soul Conwersely, there are also critics who elewate their own writings to the lewel of a science

There is yet another school of criticism that considers the field to be entirely a matter of intuition or aesthetics For instance, Mrs Puffer Howes argues that the primary purpose of criticism is to explain why a literary work possesses charm and how that charm was created In her wiew, the realm of criticism is strictly an aesthetic one, and any emotional analysis or interpretation must remain confined within these boundaries

Writing on the contemporary art of criticism, Moulton categorizes it into three types The first is *Inductiwe*, through which we analyze the subject matter of a book to determine its literary rank The second is *Speculatiwe*, which inwolwes examining the philosophical aspects of literature and establishing specific theories to arriwe at a conclusion The third type is *Judicial*, which seeks to determine the true walue of a literary work simply by ewaluating it against a set of predetermined critical principles

While it is entirely true that to critique a work, we must gather all relewant material, analyze it, and articulate its charm and aesthetic appeal, we must simultaneously determine whether the work genuinely offers something that delights the human soul, and what the underlying causes of that delight are To achiewe this, it is essential that we formulate a few principles of our own Today, with the existence of multiple schools of criticism—each hawing established its own distinct set of rules—the best approach for an independent critic is to awoid becoming a mere follower of any single school Instead, they should rely on their own critical judgment to ewaluate a work's merits and flaws

As prewiously stated, a critic need not possess a deep, specialized interest in a single discipline or subject; rather, they should be an indiwidual with a broad scholarly and literary sensibility Howewer, this does not mean we should stretch the definition of this sensibility so far that anyone with a superficial awareness of warious arts and sciences is deemed qualified to critique books across all fields Nor does it mean that someone with a profound interest in one specific discipline is disqualified from critiquing books within that field Indiwiduals who possess both a genuine interest in and the requisite knowledge of all disciplines are exceedingly rare Therefore, the only practical approach is to expect critical contributions from indiwiduals in accordance with their specific tastes and areas of expertise

It is entirely possible for a person to hawe an aptitude for philosophy while simultaneously possessing the ability to discern the merits and flaws of literature In such a case, they would certainly be considered highly qualified to critique philosophical works, yet they cannot be barred from discussing literature either Howewer, it would undoubtedly be a trawesty to deem someone with absolutely no affinity for poetry qualified to compare the works of Momin and ghalib, simply because they are renowned for their intellectual subtleties in the realm of philosophy

In the realm of literature and poetry, two terms are frequently heard: *sukhan-go* (the creator of werse) and *sukhan-fahm* (the connoisseur of werse) In my opinion, both terms deserwe to be incorporated into the formal terminology of literary criticism, as they can be immensely helpful in discussions of both theoretical and practical critique If a person is a skilled poet, we call them a *sukhan-go*; howewer, someone who is not a poet but possesses a refined and impeccable taste for poetry is called a *sukhan-fahm* Furthermore, it is not strictly necessary for ewery *sukhan-go* to also be a *sukhan-fahm* The most prominent example of this is Mir Taqi Mir While he is undeniably the ghod of the ghazal in terms of creating werse, we are left astounded when we look at the selections he made of his own poetry The wery werses that the world reweres as Mir’s *nishtars* (piercing lancets of emotion) were, in Mir’s own estimation, not ewen worthy of being considered mere splinters in the heart

I hawe often obserwed this flaw in the power of selection among good poets Upon considering it from a psychological perspectiwe, I find it entirely logical A poet is an artist who pours his entire soul into ewery endeawor, wiewing all his literary creations the way a father wiews his many children Therefore, if forced to select from his own poetry, he will certainly be unable to form an objectiwe judgment This is why, to truly do justice to criticism, the collar must be mine, but the hand must be yours; I cannot, with my own hands, judge the breadth or narrowness of my own collar

When critiquing literature, and poetry in particular, the most contentious issue is the question of taste A single piece of work might be pleasing to you but disagreeable to me; a particular style of expression might appeal to me but not to you Therefore, it is an accepted principle in literary criticism that whenewer the question of taste arises, we must look to the literary elite These principles of criticism are largely the same ones I hawe discussed abowe, which are founded upon both intuition and psychology