Professor Jayakanta Mishra: A Literary Critic That I Saw

Susheel Kumar SharmaProfessor of English

University of AllahabadAllahabad 

Jayakanta Mishra has contributed six books to English criticism

but his fame rests on History of Maithili Literature (1976). One can

really wonder if this work falls within the purview of English

Studies. Technically speaking the work does not fall in the ambit

of English Studies though a great deal of it was presented as a

DPhil thesis, in early December 1947, completed under an eminent

Professor and Head of the English Dept, S C Deb, Faculty of Arts,

Allahabad University. At Allahabad University the DPhil degree was

(and is still) awarded in a Faculty and not in a Dept unlike the

practice in many other universities. Thus, Jayakanta Mishra was

awarded the DPhil Degree in Arts and not in English as many of new

generation scholars (not familiar with the tradition and rules of

Allahabad University) might presume, looking at the academic

positions held by him as Professor and Head, Dept of English & MEL

(University of Allahabad, Allahabad), Visiting Professor in

English (Dr H S Gour University, Sagar) and Dean, Faculty of

1

Languages (Chitrakoot University, Chitrakoot). It was a common

charge against Jayakanta Mishra that he continued to be move

around as an expert of English despite his attachment,

involvement, contribution to and propagation of Maithili. This

charge emanated from his detractors who perhaps felt that there

should not be any chasm between vocation and avocation of a

person. Some of them also felt that as he earned his livelihood

from English he was entitled to do nothing except English

Literature. Jayakanta Mishra was conscious of the criticism that

was being made against him as is evident from the following lines

in the Preface to his DPhil dissertation: “… I met the contempt

with which a worker on ‘Vernacular Literature’ is still looked

upon by the high-browed scholars.” (p.5) However, the training

that he received in English went a long way in shaping his studies

of Maithili and in a way he modernised Maithili studies by opening

new vistas of learning. This and his “faith in the dignity and in

the utility of [his] study” (“Preface” to DPhil thesis, 5), in

turn, built his reputation in the discipline of Maithili studies.

      The title of Jayakanta Mishra’s DPhil dissertation is: ‘A

Short History of Maithili Literature (From the Beginnings to the

2

Presentday [sic]) and the Influence of English on It’. This

dissertation consists of two volumes in legal size. Volume I

consists of 529 pages and vol. II runs into 105 pages (pp. 530-

634). While the first volume deals with the main discussion and

description of the thesis the second one comprises of mainly the

footnotes (pp. 532- 619) and the bibliography (pp. 620-634). The

first volume of the dissertation has been divided into five parts.

Part I consists of three chapters, Part II to IV of four chapters

each and Part V of the five chapters. Each chapter has further

been divided into sections (and at times into subsections). The

detailed synopsis of the entire work finds a mention in the

‘Contents’ running into 18 typed pages. Only the titles of the

parts and chapters are being mentioned below to make a comparison

with the printed version of the thesis. The page numbers as appear

in the dissertation are also being mentioned soon after the

chapter.

CONTENTS

Preface (1-5)Contents (6-23)Abbreviations (531)Bibliography (620-634)Maps (facing p. 24)Footnotes (532- 619)

3

Part I: Background of Maithili Literature (24-92)Chapter I: Mithila and Her People (25-46)Chapter II: Maithili Language and Its Script (47-76)Chapter III: Introducing Maithili Literature (77-92)

Part II: Early Maithili Literature (93-195)Chapter I: Antiquity of Maithili Literature (94-116)Chapter II: Age of Vidyapati Thakura (1350- 1450) (117-158)Chapter III: Contemporaries and Successors of Vidyapati Thakura(1400- 1700) (159-195)Chapter IV: Conclusion- Their Contribution

Part III: Medieval Maithili Literature (1700-1808) (196- 352)Chapter I: Introductory (197-201)Chapter II: Medieval Maithili Drama (202-291) Chapter III: Medieval Maithili Prose (292-310) Chapter IV: Medieval Maithili Poetry (311-352)

Part IV: Maithili Folk Literature (353- 436)Chapter I: Introduction - Prose (354-390)Chapter II: Songs and Ballads (391-427) Chapter III: Nursery Rhymes, Riddles, Aphorisms and Proverbs (428-432) Chapter IV: Folk Dramatic Songs and General Conclusion (433-436)

Part V: Influence of English on Maithili (437-529)Chapter I: Main Channels of English Influence (438-446)Chapter II: Modern Maithili Prose (447-493) Chapter III: Modern Maithili Poetry (494-515) Chapter IV: Modern Maithili Drama (516-523)Chapter V: Assessments and Anticipations (524-529)

4

Jayakanta Mishra has made the following claims in his Preface to

the thesis (p.3):

(i) “ I have … made every possible effort to study all

relevant works and all facts for myself before I ventured to

write about them.”

(ii) He uses the words (a verse in Sanskrit) of Mallinath to

claim that he has written only original and relevant things.

(iii) “My primary aim in writing this work has been to survey

the exact lines along which Maithili Literature has developed

to this day, and to assess the importance of English in

shaping her fortunes in the present century.”

(iv) “I claim every thing in these pages as original, as the

work contains both a new interpretation of old facts and

finding of new facts. I may be permitted to add, that an

attempt to write on Maithili Literature on such a scale as

the present, has never been made before. The previous

attempts were either lists of Maithili works and authors or

small introductions to it.”

These are very bold statements. Not many research scholars,

supervisors and examiners can make such statements about a PhD

5

thesis these days despite all the tall claims of originality made

by them in accepting a thesis.

There are two versions of the book in print. The first one

runs into two volumes. The first volume entitled A History of Maithili

Literature (1949) runs into xxviii+463 pages and has the following

contents:

Foreword by Prof. Amaranatha Jha, M.A., D.Litt., LL.D.Introduction by Prof Suniti Kumar Chatterji, M.A., D.Litt.PrefaceList of abbreviationsChapter

Part I

The Background

I. Mithila and Her People

II. The Maithili Language and Its Script

III. Introducing Maithili Literature

Part II

Early Maithili Literature

I. Antiquity of Maithili Literature

II. Age of Vidyapati Thakura (1350- 1450)

III. Contemporaries and Successors of Vidyapati (c. 1400-

c.1700)

6

Part III

Middle Maithili Literature

I. Maithili Drama in Nepal

II. The Kirtaniya Drama of Mithila

III. Maithili Drama in Assam

IV. Middle Maithili Prose

V. Middle Maithili Poetry

AppendixErrataList of IllustrationsMap of Maithili AreaMaithili Script (Tiruhuta) and Some Other ScriptsLast Page of VarnaratnakaraVidyapati’s HandwritingLocana’s HandwritingVidyapati’s Goraksavijaya NatakaLast Page of Rapati’s Gita Govinda

There are details mentioned against Chapter I - XI in the

‘Contents’ as has been done in the thesis. The second volume

entitled A History of Maithili Literature, (1950) runs into xii+187 pages

and has the following ‘Contents’:

PrefaceChapter

I. Channels of English Influence

II. Modern Maithili Prose

7

III. Modern Maithili Poetry

IV. Modern Maithili Drama

V. Assessments and Anticipations

AppendixBiographical Notes

1. Foundations of the New Period (1860- 1880) p. 1332. Age of Canda Jha (1880- 1907) p. 133.3. Age of Moda Jha (1907- 1921)) p. 136.4. Formation of New Standards (1921-1937) p. 1425. Flowering of the Renaissance (1937- 1950) p.1486. First Generation p. 1497. Second Generation p.154.

Index to Volume IIndex to Volume II

The details of the work done in each Chapter find a mention in the

‘Contents’ against Chapter I- V as was the case in the thesis and

also in the first volume. A comparison of the contents in the

thesis and in the above book makes it evident that the thesis with

minor corrections/ improvements has been presented as the book.

Part IV of the thesis that dealt with Maithili Folk Literature has

not been included in either of the volumes of his History. However,

it was printed in the English Section of University of Allahabad Studies

(1950) under the title ‘Introduction to the Folk Literature of

Mithila’.

8

An abridged version of these two volumes has been published by

Sahitya Akademi, New Delhi (1976) as is apparent from its

contents:

I. Introducing Maithili Literature

II. The Maithili Language

III. The Maithili Script (Tiruhuta)

IV. Periods of Maithili Literature

V. Types of Literature in Maithili

VI. Early Maithili Literature

VII. Jyotirisvara Thakura

VIII. Vidyapati Thakura (c.1360- 1448)

IX. Lyric Poetry from 1400 to 1700

X. Maithili Dramas in Nepal

XI. The Kirtana Drama of Mithila

XII. Maithili Drama in Assam (c. 1550-1750)

XIII. Middle Maithili Prose

XIV. Middle Maithili Poetry

XV. Modern Maithili Literature (1860-1970)

It may be pointed out here that the details as mentioned in the

‘Contents’ of the thesis and the two volumes published by

9

Tirbhukti are not there in this edition. Sahitya Akademi also

brought out a translation of this book in Maithili (1998). It were

these volumes of History that established Prof Mishra as a

litterateur and a critic. The two volume History finds a mention on

page 394 in an entry on ‘Indian Poetry’ in Princeton Encyclopaedia of

Poetry and Poetics. Actually, Prof Mishra was treading a virgin

territory when he undertook a task like this on his shoulders. In

Maithili, like in any other Indian language, a written history was

an alien concept but in English Literature the models were already

available. For example, Émile Legouis and Louis François Cazamian

had written the history of English Literature in French.

One comes across the only the following books in English in

the Bibliography of the thesis:

1. Indo-Anglian Literature, K. Iyenger2. Journal of Royal Asiatic Society, London3.Bulletin of Oriental Studies, London

It may be pointed out that in the Bibliography only the names of

the author and the book find a mention unlike what is largely

practised these days under the influence of the MLA Style Manual, The

Chicago Manual of Style or other such style sheets. None of the books/

journals mentioned above deals with the core of English

10

Literature. Therefore, one may safely conclude that the

thesis/book is not about the influence of English Literary Texts

on Maithili Texts. Rather, how the presence of the British in

India influenced the literature and litterateurs in Maithili is

the subject matter of discussion. Broadly speaking, this sort of

study falls within the purview of cultural studies.

      Jayakanta Mishra narrated to me the story of his taking up

this project several times. It went something like this: Ms Sophia

Wadia nee Camacho (c.1901-1986) of New York City and her husband

B.P. Wadia (1881-1958) were among the first members of the

International P.E.N. Club and started The Indian P.E.N. periodical

from Bombay (now Mumbai). Mrs. Wadia wrote a number of books and

was also a popular speaker among the Theosophists. She undertook

to record history of different literatures in Indian languages

through some of the well known personalities of the language. The

task of writing a monograph on Maithili was assigned to Amarnatha

Jha who was too preoccupied to undertake it. So he passed it on to

Umesh Mishra who was a Lecturer in Sanskrit at the University of

Allahabad. It may not be out of place to mention that both

Amarnatha Jha and Umesh Mishra came from reputed Brahmin families

11

of Mithila and were also related to each other as Sir Ganganantha

Jha, the father of Amarnatha Jha, had been a disciple of the great

grand father of Jayakanta Mishra. However, even Umesh Mishra did

not start the work but his son, Jayakanta, a young scholar, did.

He wrote something on Maithili literature with the permission of

his father and took it to Amarnatha Jha. Jha sahib listened to it

in the summer afternoons. I do not know if the monograph was

brought out by Ms Wadia or if the manuscript was ever sent to her

and if at all it was sent under whose name it was sent and

printed.

      When the issue of young Mishra’s enrolling to DPhil degree

arose, I was told by Jayakanta Mishra, that it was Amarnatha Jha

who suggested that the notes prepared by young Mishra be appended

with proper footnotes etc and be presented as a DPhil thesis to

the University. The Preface to the thesis corroborates his above

statement: “Before I could decide to take up any other subject, I

was advised by Professor Amarnatha Jha to complete my studies in

the History of Maithili Literature and submit the fruits in the

form of a thesis for the degree of D Phil.” (p.1) It is apparent

that the maturity of young Mishra’s mind and work had impressed

12

Amarnatha Jha. However, young Jayakanta was not very happy with

this type of a proposal. He was not inclined to undertake this

type of work as he had a legitimate fear that it would not be a

work of English studies proper. He wanted to work on ‘Some Pre-

Shakespearen English Chronicle Plays’ as the subject of his

research but soon after the World War broke out and the relevant

books could not be available to him. But Amarnatha Jha persuaded

young Mishra to work on Maithili as he thought that literature

could not be divided into narrow boundaries of languages.

Jayakanta Mishra told me that he agreed to work on the topic on

the condition of Amarnatha Jha himself supervising it. There was

also a sort of diffidence in the Dept, about which I’ve talked

elsewhere, that in an English Dept in India nothing original could

be done; and something, therefore, should be done in one’s own

language, making use of the British way of thinking and training.

However, Jayakanta Babu was transferred to S C Deb’s supervision

as a DPhil candidate when Amarnatha Jha rose to the position of

Vice-Chancellor of the University.

How Prof Deb was qualified to supervise a thesis in Maithili

is also a curious tale. Two versions were given to me by Jayakanta

13

Mishra in this connection. According to one, Deb’s grand father

had been posted somewhere in Mithila area as a post-master and

therefore he considered himself qualified. According to another

version Prof Deb’s grandfather (perhaps maternal) had brought out

an edition of Vidyapati, a poet claimed both by Maithili and

Bengali. To me it appears that the reason lies in the proximity of

the languages. Maithili as a language is considered to be a

dialect of Bangla and also that of Hindi. Mithilakshar (or

Tirhuta, the script for Maithili) and the script for Bangla appear

to be the first cousins while Devnagari script adopted for Hindi

appears to be a distant relative. It is altogether a different

story that Devnagri script has been adopted for modern Maithili.

Also, in those days there was no arrangement for the study of

either Bangla or Hindi at the University. So S C Deb being a

Bengali and also the Head of the Dept was a natural option to

supervise the research. During the freedom struggle the national

intellectual agenda also included the rebuilding and rewriting of

the nation through languages. It was, therefore, necessary that

the work in the allied areas too was undertaken by the experts in

the field. Jayakanta Mishra did this work remarkably well as is

14

evident from the sources cited by him. He documented not only the

published sources but the unpublished as well. The unpublished

work forms almost one third of the total number of works consulted

by him in various personal libraries scattered in Bihar, UP and

Nepal. However, the work that was undertaken by the researcher was

worth taking and the amount of money, time and labour that went

into writing it was worth spending. A study in English undertaken

and completed by an Indian is generally ignored in the west

whereas such a study as that of Maithili could not be ignored on

the either side of the globe as is clear from the laudatory

reviews of the History, both in India and abroad. Mishra’s History

volumes were described as a “pioneer work” by Dušan Zbavitel. He

further wrote: “Mishra’s work is certainly an important

contribution to the studies of modern Indian literatures and fills

a gap in this field of investigation... .” (277) Reviewing the

work Schwarzschild wrote, “The chapters on Middle Maithili prose

and poetry give first-hand information on hitherto practically

unexplored subject.” Daniel H.H. Ingalls in the Journal of Asian

Studies, Harvard University wrote, “... Dr. Mishra’s book should

prove of interest to more Indianists than those specially

15

acquainted with the Maithili language. His book contains much

information not elsewhere available in English.” (312) However,

Mishra also had his share of brickbats. For example, Dušan

Zbavitel writes that the work “is not always sufficiently

critical. ... some of the deductions and conclusions are

disputable” (277). Similarly, Schwarzschild writes, “... one feels

overburdened by the number and the volume of quotations, which

give the impression that large parts of the book are a compilation

of extracts rather than original work.” (122) It shall not be out

of place to quote some Indian scholars’ opinion on the book. Prof

Suniti Kumar Chatterji in the ‘Introduction’ to the book writes:

Dr Jayakanta Mishra’s work is one which is to be welcomed

with open arms. It for the first time ‘puts on the map,’ so

to say, by acquiring it for science, the literature of

Maithili. Now we are in a position to take stock of what has

been achieved in Maithili since its emergence as a New Indo-

Aryan language…. The author is well qualified for the work

undertaken by him. He took his MA in English, and Sanskrit

learning in his own family tradition and culture. These are

useful backgrounds for studying the literature of a modern

16

Indian language. His acquaintance with English can only be

expected to give him that balance and sense of values which

only a modern European literature can impart to an Indian

investigator. Then, he has the requisite amount of love and

enthusiasm for his subject. Without this warmth of love and

enthusiasm (which may at times lead us to valuations or

underlinings [sic] which may appear as a trifle exaggerated to

dispassionate outsiders), any study is apt to become dry as

dust and lifeless, unless in the hands of a master who has

other qualities as a set off. I have watched over Dr

Jayakanta’s labours since their inception; and on the whole I

feel very happy to give my cordial imprimatur to them. (ix-x)

… I therefore commend it to the study of persons interested

in the subject, as a piece of pioneer research work

intelligently and sympathetically planned, conscientiously

worked out and successfully terminated, as a book which has a

great future possibility; and I welcome it for its solid

worth and the place it has created for itself in modern

Indian literature and Philology. (xii) 

Amarnatha Jha in the ‘Foreword’ to the book writes:

17

The present work by Dr Jayakanta Mishra is the first attempt

to make a comprehensive survey of Mithila’s language and

literature. It is a work that must have entailed long and

patient investigation. The author has familiarised himself

with everything that has been published on the subject and

has also had the advantage of consulting books still in

manuscript form, whether in Mithila or Nepal. It will be a

valuable addition to the histories of Indian literatures and

will prove of great use to all scholars. (i)

In his ‘Introduction’ to the second volume of the History

Priyaranjan Sen has written:

Dr Mishra’s work should be welcome to scholars and to readers

in general throughout India. The more we know of each other

through literature and other media, the better for us for the

development of good neighbourly feelings, eradication of

provincialism and promotion of our cultural life I am

confident that books like Dr Mishra’s will bring home the

fact of the unity of Indian literature… . (xi)

18

… I welcome this volume carefully prepared by Dr Mishra and

commend it to the notice of all persons interested in our

literature – modern Indian literature. ( xii)

There could have been nothing more satisfying than the literary

recognition coming from the readers from all sides of the globe.

In the later phase of his life Prof Mishra often asked me to fill

up various forms for him. In one of the forms, the information

about the subject of his DPhil was to be given. When I asked him

if I was to write English or Maithili, he answered, “What is the

point in telling a lie now? Write: Maithili.” And I quietly

complied with his wishes.

      However, one should not think that Prof Mishra was not doing

enough for the discipline of English i.e. his vocation. I shall

refer to two articles of his which appeared after his retirement

from the active service of the University. The first one ‘Maithili

Literature in Relation to John Donne and T S Eliot’ (Meerut Journal of

Comparative Literature and Language, II, 2(1989), pp.1-7) seems to be a

further deliberation on the subject of his DPhil thesis as

individual authors are being treated here unlike the treatment of

the subject in the thesis. One can get a fair glimpse of Prof

19

Mishra’s methodology followed in his DPhil thesis by going through

this article as well. One should note that in the title of the

article the word ‘influence’ does not figure but ‘relation’ does.

Actually, establishing a relation is the first step in influence

studies. If proper external and internal evidences are given in a

study in relation, it becomes a study in influence. In this

article Prof Mishra enunciates his thesis that prompted him to

undertake this study:

One of the first ideas that have struck me in reading the

works of Maithili literature is that its course has been

remarkably similar to other literatures of the world: poetry

(particularly in the lyrical form) grew up earliest, folk

forms preceded the standard written forms; and though a prose

work of magnitude made its appearance quite early, modern

prose literature has developed consequent upon the use of

printing and the vogue of literary magazines and journals in

the twentieth century. I have been wondering how all

literatures show a similar pattern of growth and development.

(p.2)

20

The article can roughly be divided into two sections. In the first

one, the theme is the mishandling of Vidyapati and John Donne by

the respective reading audience/ public/ critics and in the second

one the complexity of theme and style in T S Eliot and

contemporary Maithili Literature. Some cautious observations have

been made in the paper e.g.: “They were influenced by modern

trends no doubt, but they did not abandon the true tradition of

Maithili poetry—abandoning the tradition altogether would be like

giving up the literary heritage of Maithili literature.” (p.6)

But, they prove that Prof Mishra was well-read and was able to see

and establish a relationship which a scholar of Maithili alone, in

all probability, would have missed and in this way he was

suggesting further areas of study and research in English,

Maithili and Comparative Literature.

The last article of his which appeared in Points of View (XIV, 2

Winter 2007, pp. 3-15), ‘A Fresh Assessment of the Role of Lady

Macbeth’, bears testimony to his original approach to the subject.

Some of his students of late seventies have told me that Prof

Mishra used to defend Lady Macbeth in his lectures in BA classes

where Macbeth was a prescribed text, not because A C Bradley had

21

defended her role as a devoted wife but because Mishra held that

Indian sensibility was different from the white/ British/

American/ Christian. So this paper of his can be considered to be

a printed version of his lectures. Also, it is a revised version

of his article that he had read out at the All India English

Teachers’ Conference, BHU, Varanasi. Later on, he read it out in a

Refresher Course in English at the University of Allahabad in

2005. I was not present at the Varanasi Conference but attended

his lecture at Allahabad. The theme of the Course was ‘Indian

Response to English Literature’. The paper generated a lot of heat

as one or two persons who were there at Varanasi, too, were at the

course. In the paper Mishra had compared Lady Macbeth to Sita.

Lady Macbeth is generally considered to be the fourth witch by the

English reading public. Because of the colonial mentality the

tendency in India is to ditto a foreign opinion. Therefore, a

large number of Indians also consider Lady Macbeth to be the

fourth witch. On the other hand, for most of the Indians Sita is

an ideal wife. So at the outset the comparison appears to be

preposterous. But while making this comparison too Mishra had a

thesis in his mind. He held that Sita died a secluded wife as she

22

was unable to bear the pangs of separation from her husband, Lord

Ram. In a paper in English literature a detailed discussion about

this thesis could not be made. A full length paper enunciating

this thesis had also not been brought out by him. And, due to the

constraints of space in a paper on Shakespeare it was dealt with

very briefly and aphoristically. Lady Macbeth, Mishra argued, too

died of seclusion caused by her neglect from her husband Macbeth.

But, most of those present in the audience would be guided by

their traditional knowledge nay beliefs and hence would not

appreciate this comparison of the commonality that Jayakanta

Mishra saw; this in turn led to a severe criticism of Mishra. So

when the manuscript of the paper was being prepared for

publication, I as a peer reader, suggested to him to drop the

comparison till he had written and published a full length paper

on Sita enunciating his thesis about her. I also requested him to

confine himself to prove in the proposed paper that Lady Macbeth

was an ideal wife on the basis of the following sloka (a verse in

Sanskrit) which he had discovered from his traditional knowledge

of Sanskrit: “Karyeshu dasi; Karaneshu mantri; rupecha lakshmi; kshamaya

dharitri; bhojyeshu mata; sayaneshu rambha; shat dharmayukta kuladharmapatni.” He

23

agreed with my view and the paper was sent to the journal. But,

the editor of the journal, exercising his editorial right removed

even this section from the article and what one sees is the

expunged version of the original paper. However, both these papers

indicate as to how English Literature is to be studied and viewed

by an Indian scholar from an independent point of view and how

English Studies can be saved from being a mere parroting of the

British/ American/ Christian opinions.

      If one sees the history of English Literature in India one

comes across the fact that most of the people who opted for this

subject came from the educated classes and were already scholars

in either Sanskrit or Persian or Arabic. Most of them had been

lured by the British into English education. Some of them

considered the British to be malechhas and therefore did not come

into their contact and considered themselves pure and undefiled.

Those who came in their contact also came under Christian

influence and many of them started taking pride in ridiculing

Indian customs and traditions loudly while some others watched the

situation silently. Some took solace by claiming that they were

helping the traditional learning become modern but they were too

24

conservative to allow that modernity to penetrate into their homes

and traditional beliefs. However, the fact remains that to side

with those in power has its own rewards. In most of the cases this

was a very typical love – hate relationship. Jayakanta Mishra’s

family was no exception to it as is apparent from the ensuing

discussion. He would dress himself in western attire in the

University but would immediately switch over to traditional

Mithila dress at home; unhesitatingly he would go for a kalpavas on

the banks of the Ganges and sleep on the river bed like a commoner

but would not utter a word of Hindi while in Chair in the Dept of

English. His family had left Mithila in search of green pastures

at Varanasi and later Allahabad but he would not seek greener

pastures in England though in those days, had he wished so, it

would not have been very difficult. There was a large group of

teachers in the Dept and the University who wanted to outdo the

British in British manners and tastes. Mishra faced an unjust

criticism at their hands throughout his life and he was very sore

about it till his end.

In this background one can easily imagine the socio-

psychological pressures on any young student who comes to

25

Allahabad University from a village in the hope of fighting

poverty back home meaningfully and gainfully by becoming a part of

the British empire (or later the Government of India). The

students who joins the English Dept therefore has some privileges

and also some disadvantages. The first difficulty they faced in

those days was that the books in English were largely imported;

they were not only costly but also difficult to acquire and

equally difficult to understand. One could not lay one’s hands on

them easily as they could not be imported for all the students

even though their (students) number was very limited. So the books

by Indian authors were needed in large numbers to cater to the

increasing influx of students from the rural areas or particularly

those coming from vernacular background. These books were required

to be written in a language which could be understood by Indians

and were also affordable in terms of price. Since English studies

started in Bengal first, the notes also came from there first and

they were available in Bengali as well. Most of the teachers in

English were Bengalis as were so many babus associated with them

and in various govt offices. In UP, Bangla was replaced by Hindi –

the other things remained common and same. But these notes were

26

looked down upon and similarly the students who read them were

looked down upon and so were the teachers who recommended them or

who wrote them. How much of this looking down upon was on the

basis of high-browism and how much on academic grounds should be

looked into by some sociologist. But the fact remains that there

was a need for Indian books which were considered respectful.

Out of this need, there were notes available in the market in

which there was nothing original. They contained long passages

under quotation marks from the so-called standard authors/ books.

But such books were a great help to the students in writing their

exams as they could make their answers look pedantic and impress

the examiner(s). This can be termed as the first phase of the

spread of English Studies in India. In the second phase notes were

written by Indian authors who were paraphrasing the British texts

or the critics. They did not have/express any independent opinion

but at the same time their notes did not contain anything written

in the vernacular. Historically speaking Jayakanta Mishra belonged

to this time period. Naturally, one would be doing a yeoman’s

service if a student got all the lecture materials in written form

from a teacher. Therefore, many serious teachers at the University

27

of Allahabad prepared their lectures and published them (sometimes

on their own) particularly for the benefit of their students,

without fixing a price for such monographs. This also fulfilled

the larger interests of the expanding educational institutions in

free India in the sixties. It is in this light that Mishra’s other

works like his pamphlet Introduction to Pages of English Poetry: Byron

(1964), The Metaphysical Style in Seventeenth-Century English Literature (n.d.)

and books like Lectures on Hardy (1955), The Complex Style in English Poetry

(1977), Lectures on Four Poets(First Series) (1987) and Lectures on Four Poets(Second

Series) (1991) are to be seen. The last two books were published

after the superannuation of Jayakanta Mishra from the active

service of the University of Allahabad. These books were very

popular with the students till the time Prof Mishra was in active

service. They were also appreciated by the independent authorities

in the field. For example, S G Dunn, the first Professor and Head

of English Dept at Allahabad University, in a Post-Script to a

personal letter to Jayakanta Mishra had written: “Your lectures on

Hardy are excellent”. Similarly, some British Professor who

visited the Dept is said to have remarked on the pamphlet ‘The

Metaphysical Style’ that the contemporary opinion on Donne in

28

England was the same. Likewise, their Indian counterparts like K R

Srinivasa Iyengar and Amlendu Bose praised Mishra’s Complex Style in

English Poetry. Iyengar wrote: “Your grouping of Donne, Browning and

Hopkins is suggestive, and your approach is judiciously selective.

… Your studies of three varieties of, shall I say, purposeful

ambiguity, obscurity or complexity make stimulating reading. …

yours is a serious and sensitive study, and your findings, I am

sure, befit wider application… .” Similarly, Bose wrote:

I have read your book with care and pleasure; it is

profitable to read a book of this kind which makes the reader

think…. The principal merit of your essays lies in the sharp

analytical method that you have consistently followed. In our

country literary criticism has so frequently degenerated into

sentimental, vague, pseudo-poetical obiter dicta… that is

high time that a scholar of your acumen, teaching in a

university that has long been the citadel of independent

criticism, should come out with analytical criticism of this

kind. You have done excellent work; your analyses of several

individual poems are very impressive and the irresistible

chain of logic in your argument is thoroughly convincing.

29

No doubt the subject matter in these books has been presented in

very lucid style and in a unique way; some interesting issues have

also been raised and answered. One is really amazed to see how

much labour must have gone into preparing those lectures and

printing them for larger good. However, they were meant basically

for students. Since a teacher these days does not teach the same

way as Mishra used to, the subject matter in the books and the

class rooms are different. Therefore, his books do not find a

favour with the students these days. I can assure the reader that

their dwindling popularity has nothing to do with their content.

Despite this if his book The Complex Style in English Poetry has been

reissued in the UK it is quite encouraging and heartening. Mishra

also wanted to prepare and publish the third volume of his

lectures on appreciation of poetry. Unfortunately, his dream

remained unfulfilled. This not only reflects his mental agility

but also his concern for the students and his devotion to the

subject at the age of eighty plus. I personally believe that the

students and teachers have missed an important book in his sad,

early and untimely demise.

30

Jayakanta Mishra was equally interested in Philology. With

the help of his training in English and his background of Sanskrit

(Panini is considered to the greatest philologist ever) he started

preparing a multi-volume dictionary entitled Brihat Maithili Sabdakosa.

The arrangement of an entry in them is: the word in Mithilakshar

followed by the word in Devnagari, grammatical category, meaning

and usage in maithili given in Devnagari, its transliteration in

Roman, its grammatical category and meaning in English. This is a

unique arrangement in many ways as has also been highlighted by

Suniti Kumar Chatterji in his Foreword the book:

The book has been conceived in a most excellent and helpful

way, and it follows the tradition of the great pioneer

dictionaries in the different Indian languages, like, for

example, Molesworth and Candy’s Dictionary of the Marathi

Language (1857), Kittel’s Dictionary of Kannada (1894),

Jnanendra Mohan Das’s and Hari Charan Banerjee’s two great

dictionaries of Bengali (each in second edition; respectively

1938 and 1967), Gopal Chandra Praharaja’s six-volume

Dictionary of Oriya (which is of course a much bigger work,

1931-1940), George Abraham Grierson’s Dictionary of Kashmiri

31

(1932), Platt’s Dictionary of Hindustani (4th edition 1911:

this is of course in a different category because of its

wealth of etymological material), Sitaram Lal’s Rajasthani

Sabada Kos or Comprehensive Dictionary of Rajasthani in for volumes

(1962 onwards), and a few other similar classics in the

domain of modern Indian lexicography.

Only two volumes of it have come out so far. Others were prepared

by him but unfortunately could not be published during his life

time. He often got reminders written to Indian Institute of

Advanced Study, Simla to urge them to fulfil their commitment by

bringing out other volumes as well. But, no satisfactory reply was

received. It is high time to publish the remaining volumes as well

to help not only Maithili language that has been included in the

eighth schedule of languages recently but will also pave way for

many such publication in other languages as well.

References

Bose, Amlendu. Letter dt 16 September 1977. Personal collection of

J K Mishra.

Dunn, S G. Letter dt. 27 June 1956, from Stratford-at-Avon to

Jayakanta Mishra. Personal collection of J K Mishra.

32

Ingalls, Daniel H.H. “Review.” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, 14: 1/2

(June 1951): 312-313. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/2718307>.

Iyengar, K R Srinivasa. Letter dt 16 September 1977. Personal

collection of J K Mishra.

Mishra, Jayakanta. Brihat Maithili Sabdakosa. Fascicule I. Simla: Indian

Institute of Advanced Study, 1973.

---. Brihat Maithili Sabdakosa. Fascicule II. Simla: Indian Institute of

Advanced Study, 1995.

---. Complex Style in English Poetry [The]. Allahabad: Kitab Mahal, 1977.

---. Complex Style in English Poetry [The]. Reissued. Stoke on Trent: Anadi

Anant, 2008.

---. “Fresh Assessment of the Role of Lady Macbeth [A].” Points of

View 14. 2 (Winter 2007): 3-15.

---. History of Maithili Literature. New Delhi: Sahitya Akademi, 1976.

---. History of Maithili Literature [A]. Vol. I. Allahabad: Tirbhukti

Publications, 1949.

---. History of Maithili Literature [A]. Vol. II. Allahabad: Tirbhukti

Publications, 1950.

---. “Introduction to the Folk Literature of Mithila.” University of

Allahabad Studies: English Section (1950): 1-52.

33

---. Introduction to Pages of English Poetry: Byron. Allahabad: Narayan, 1964.

---. Lectures on Four Poets (First Series). Allahabad: Vidya Sagar, 1987.

---. Lectures on Four Poets (Second Series). Allahabad: Vidya Sagar, 1991.

---. Lectures on Hardy, Allahabad: Garga Brothers,1958[1955].

---. “Maithili Literature in Relation to John Donne and T S

Eliot.” Meerut Journal of Comparative Literature and Language.2. 2(1989):1-

7.

---. Maithili Sahityak Itihas [in Maithili]. New Delhi: Sahitya Akademi,

2007 [1998].

---. “Metaphysical Style in Seventeenth-Century English Literature [The].” n.p., n.d.

---. “Modern Style in English Poetry [The].” University of Allahabad Studies

(1957): 1-17.

 ---. Short History of Maithili Literature (From the Beginnings to the Presentday [sic])

and the Influence of English on It [A]. Unpublished DPhil dissertation, U of

Allahabad, 1947

Vol. I: 1- 529. Vol. II: 530- 634.

Princeton Encyclopaedia of Poetry and Poetics. Ed. Alex Preminger. Princeton:

Princeton U P, 1965.

Schwarzschild, L. A. “Reviews of Books.” Journal of Royal Asiatic Society of

Great Britain & Ireland (New Series) 83.1-2(April 1951): 121-122.

34

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?

fromPage=online&aid=5777124

Zbavitel, Dušan. “Book Review.” Archiv Orientalni 23 (1955): 277.

------ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------

35