attached to more important ones of such centres there may be factories for canning fruits and drying vegetables. Small irrigation schemes, for catching and utilising rain water that runs waste, and for digging wells and tanks for selling water to ryots, may be promoted. Creation of farms for rearing sheep for producing wool and weaving country blankets, in spinning wheels and handlooms too, will be profitable. Then the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and Local Government Industries Department may devise and improve the means of advertising the local products. Small engineering workshops in each district with a few machines and a blacksmith department may be developed gradually, beginning being made with important centres from where work goes out at present to distant places.

SCOPE OF ZAMINDARS.

Zamindars (landlords ) can become very useful if they co-operate with their ryots in enabling them to obtain a better price for their produce, and if for this purpose they build their own arhats and godowns and, where there funds allow, put up small plants (oil-driven ) for crushing and pressing oil-seeds and for milling flour they will not only benefit themselves but save their ryots from the clutches of money-lenders. And the profits thus earned by the Zamindars, by acting as middlemen, may be utilised by lending money to the ryots at more reasonable and lower rate of interests than that now exacted by the money-lenders.

CURRENCY.

We generally have a favourable balance of trade in connection with our foreign trade, but as we export raw materials we (especially our ryots) do not make much out of our raw products per unit and per individual. But if we increased our manufactures and exported them we would substantially increase this balance of trade, and the gain per individual and per unit in India would be much greater. If we milled our wheat into flour only to the extent of half our exports of raw wheat, India would be gainer by three

crores

of rupees a year. If, therefore, we increase our production of manufactured goods, for which protective tariff would be most useful, there will be a tise in the value of our exports and so the manufac

ture of our own cloth will reduce the value of our imports. We should then be very greatly benefited by gold currency, although it would benefit us even now. We could demand direct and separate payment for balance of our trade from each country and in gold, and do our best to reduce our imports and increase our exports of manufactured goods. It is said when gold is not in use as currency in a country. the chief demand for it in that country being thus removed, gold then goes to that country in limited quantities only. We also know that gold goes to that country (in fact the gold of the world moves to that country) which has gold currency. If we look to America we will find this. That country has gold currency and holds the great bulk of the gold of the world not only because of its vast resources but also on account of its gold currency. It is the presence of this gold in America that enables her to lend money to other nations, and because this gold is in America in the shape of money it creates exchange and increases the wealth as a contrast to our gold ornaments. We are told that a portion of the gold sovereigns that were brought to this country were melted and turned into ornaments and thus became stagnant. If this be so, what are we to do to prevent this and also to draw out the gold that lies in the shape of ornaments, and above all to see that we do not send away all the gold we thus bring out. Perhaps sovereigns are too much for a country like India, but gold money of say Rs. 5 ought to do. If we have five rupee gold coins in circulation, and currency notes of Rs. 10 and of lesser values gradually disappear and 20 rupee currency notes are more in circulation than the smaller ones, the danger of gold coins getting absorbed would be greatly minimised, if not entirely removed, as there will be then need for 5 rupee gold coins to be in constant circulation.

The small paper notes of values of less than the value of gold coins must decrease, and silver, copper, even nickel, should be used, only as fractions of the gold coin but gold must be the standard. The presence of gold coins in the country will remove the fear of Indian people of losing all their gold, and the necessity for Standard Gold Reserve Fund in England would be removed and a great deal of money should be released for expenditure in India. At

present all the inconveniences of the silver currency is ours, and at the same time we bear the burden of the gold currency. The presence of gold coins will will create confidence and will remove the "craze", if there is any such thing here, for possessing gold. To retain gold in this country it is esssential that we should demand payment for our balance of trade in gold and increase this balance of trade by reducing imports of manufactured goods and by increasing exports of our manufactures instead of exporting raw materials only.

It is said that reduction of paper money automatically helps towards reducing extravagance of running a government, because when a government can create extra artificial money by stroke of pen, the process assists towards extravagance of a gevernment as the tendency to economise becomes less. The multiplication of paper currency has been one of the causes of the rise in prices.

Then again the borrowings of the Government should be limited to productive expenditure, such as railway, irrigation, etc., and non-productive expenditure should as far as possible be not met of revenue. Experience has taught us that the holding of paper bonds, securities and promissory notes are greater losses than even the stagnant gold ornaments. The issue of each successive bond, especially for non-productive expenditure, on more attractive terms has considerably reduced the values of former securities and made them non-exchangeable except at very low prices. This is a great economic loss and these losses and the high expenses of running the Government will go on increasing so long as we have multiplication of paper currencies and extensive borrowing, through paper bonds and promissory notes.

EEFFECT OF INCREASED TAXATION
ON CAPITAL AVAILABLE FOR

On

retards the development of indusrties. the other hand increased taxation is a facility to meet increasing Government expenditure. But as late Mr. Gladstone observed, "all excess in the public expenditure is not only a pecuniary waste but a great national and, above all, a moral evil." And with every increase in public expenditure the tendency is to increase it further. We have seen large sums of increases in those directions during the past 3 or 4 years in heavy salaries paid to officials, and all this has to come out of taxation, which increases the nonproductive expenditure and retards the power of the people to spend on industries. Although theoretically taxes fall heavily on the rich people, especially direct taxation, such as Income Tax and taxes on luxuries, yet the raising of railway fares, salt taxes, rates of freight on goods carried by rail fall on the poor. And also the Super Tax and other taxes on industries, and the decreased savings of the richer people who have to pay higher taxes, tell directly on industries, as the money that could be spared for productive works is reduced, and the retarding of the development of industries must mean less work for the poor and the labourers. We propose to deal with later on only one item of public expenditure, viz., on Railways and to show how through company agencies increasing high salaries are paid to officials. First the high salaries came on company managed State lines and then on State managed State lines. And the increased railway rates and fares, instead of encouraging the railways to economise will give them the facility to spend more and inducement to ask for futher enhancements in railway rates and fares. The late Mr. Gladstone also said that the facility of reverting to and increasing the tax, whenever fresh expenditure was incurred, was the main cause for extravagance in a Government.

S. C. GHOSH.

RAGING CRITICISM-MOLIERE THE POLEMIST.

UT the conventional critics and jealous rivals

B growled furiously. Some discovered in

the play a travesty upon pulpit sermons. others an attack upon the ethics of marriage! Even a confirmed libertine like Prince de Conti condemned it as "a licentious work offending good manners!"

This was too much for Moliere and in two successive pieces-the criticism of the School for Wives (June 1664 ) and the Versailles Impromptu (Oct. 1663 )-Moliere vindicated his position and caricatured his critics. Aggressively propagandist as they are, these two plays yet surprise us by their remarkable vivacity. Here we find the orthodox poet Lysidas quoting his Aristotle to silence the artist, who, however, retorts effectively through one character: "You poets are amusing fellows with those rules of yours...... To hear you hold forth, one would think the rules of art were the greatest mysteries in the world, while, in reality they are merely a few simple observations which good sense has made upon elements that might destroy the pleasure one finds in such poems. The same good sense which once made those observations now continues to make them quite as readily without the aid of Horace or Aristotle."

Not stopping there Moliere goes forward to hold a brief for Comedy as superior even t› Tragedy-a line of speculation that irritated many of his friends and specially the great Corneille :

"Indeed I think it far easier to soar aloft upon fine sentiments, beard fortune in verse, impeach destiny and arraign the gods-than to depict the ridiculous side of human nature or make the common faults of mankind appear diverting on the stage. When you paint heroes you make them what you choose; no likeness is sought in such fancy por raits. But when you paint men you must paint from nature; and if you do not make us recognise the men and women of our time, you have accomplished nothing."

The above extracts are sufficient to show how capable an advocate or a polemist Moliere was. But it provoked many scurrilous criticisms from professional rivals. In his "Versailles Impromptu" Moliere shows more impatience :

"They criticise my plays; so much the better; and Heaven forefend I should ever write any they would like That would certainly be a piece of bad business for me."

These polemics through dialogues may not be

high art but they testify to the intensely human sensibilities of Moliere. He felt the insincerity of his critics. "All the world found the School for Wives wicked and all the world ran to see it!" It became the greatest stage success of Moliere's career-being played 32 times between the Christmas and the Easter. The receipts were also phenomenal, for "the ladies condemned and went to see!"

MOLIERE, THE MILITANT DRAMATIST:
"THE HYPOCRITE."

This insincerity roused Moliere soon to pen one of the most relentless analysis of Social fraud, in his Hypocrite Le Tartuffe ) ( May, 1664). As a picture of human duplicity and an analysis of sanctimonious humbug, the Hypocrite is probably unrivalled in literature. Yet the polemist or moralist in Moliere is so marvellously balanced by the supreme artist that the arch fraud neither degenerates into an inverted ethics (as it frequently happens in so many "problem plays" j plays") nor into an unredeemed unqualified inhuman devil like Shakespeares' lago. The Hypocrite of Moliere with all his sublime cants and solemn self-deceptions remains to the last a human hypocrite. So he cries :

"Though devotee, I am none the less a man." Racine records how the Jansenists thought that the Jesuists had been satirised in the comedy and the Jesuits flattered themselves that it was aimed at the Jansenists. In fact every one seemed to discover his neighbour caricatured-so intensely realistic, so relentlessly universal was the delineation of Moliere.

But appearing at a time when religious controversy was dangerously ripe, this masterpiece of dramatic portrature was suppressed several times and mutilated in presentation and not permitted to be staged complete till Feb. 1669. Even then the title had to be changed and the Archbishop of Paris interdicted the piece! So Moliere had to pay for this grand crusade against Cant by being refused a Christian burial after his death! But crucifixion is the indispensable preliminary to apotheosis and Moliere's case cannot be an exception. Two passages in his preface are of great psychological interest :

"All the hypocrites have armed themselves against my comedy with appalling fury; yet they have taken care, not to attack it on the side which wounds them;

following their praiseworthy habit, they have cloaked their interests with the cause of Heaven; so the Hypocrite on their lips becomes a play which offend piety."

Moliere's petition to Louis XIV, whom he cleverly extolled in the play as a "prince the mortal enemy of Fraud "-is full of noblest sentiments :

"I believe that I can do nothing better than attack the vices of my time with ridiculous likenesses; and as hypocrisy is, without doubt, one of the most common, the most disagreeable and the most dangerous of these, I thought, Sire, that I was rendering a not unimportant service to the honest people of your kingdom."

It was really a passionate pleading. Louis was moved no doubt, but he had to suppress the play temporarily for State reasons and Napoleon is reported to have justified Louis on the same grounds.

Moliere, the MILITANT ALLEGORIST: DON
JUAN.

But to Moliere, as to all really great souls, reason is only reason. It is pure, unadulterated, human-almost synonymous with Nature. Anything that deviates from reason, from Bon sens, is unnatural. From this point of view Moliere appears, at the same time, as the precurser and the corrective of the eighteenth century Age of Reason. His reason was neither tinged with the doctrinairism of the Encyclopædists nor was it diluted with our modern civilised sophistications giving rise to State reason and church reason and so forth. With him there was no compromise with Reality. Hence the Philosopher-comedian proceeded almost immediately to examine the basis of the so-called "Pillars of Society." To do it openly would be dangerous. So he searched and found a splendid archetype in the traditional figure of Don Juan and based his play on a Spanish play by Tirso de Molina.

This semi-human, semi-legendary character has attracted the attention of a great composer like Mozart, a poet like Byron, and modern dramatists like Edmond Rostand (La derniere unit de Don Juan) and Bernard Shaw (Man and Superman). Moliere used it in his own original way, making it (consciously or unconsciously who would say?) a veritable symbol of the crumbling "Pillars of Society"the grand fearless monstrous "Patricians" parading the stage! The Don Juan of Moliere is a sort of incarnation of cynicism audacity and infidelity. He gathers in his person all the vices and some of the virtues of the old dying nobility. He is perfect in fashion, witty in speech and captivating in conduct. Though a decadent, he conserves his ancestral courage: Confronted with the ghost of the general he had murdered, he cries out with a courage equalling to that of ten Macbeths

"No, no! It shall never be said of me, no matter what happens, that I am capable of repenting."

Thus Don Juan meets his fate unflinchingly. He believes in nothing, neither man, nor god,

nor love, nor retribution-a portentous solitary figure, apparently transcending the weaknesses of humanity and the consolation of divinity-discovering in his sublime Egoism a locus standi, as it were, outside the Cosmos !

MOLIERE, MILTON AND SHAKESPEARE

PARALLELISM IN PARENTHESIS.

Though far removed from the burning lake, the thunder of heaven and the inferno (except in the last scene ), the Don Juan of Moliere seems to work out the destiny of the Rebel Angel with more aesthetic consistency than that we notice in the epic of his English contemporary poet, Milton. The puritanic basis of Milton led him unconsciously to subordinate art to theology and to spoil thereby his splendid outline drawing of Satan in the opening cantos of Paradise Lost. Moliere stands closer to reality and works out the damnation of Don Juan in a manner at once more consistent and convincing. Hence while Milton's Satan gradually pales into insignficance, degenerating into a coward and a cheat; Moliere's Don Juan gathers round him an atmosphere of epic horror as the awful comet of social disintegration, crying out with his last breath as it were: "After me, the Deluge!" And the Deluge did come only a century after, in the form of the great French Revolution!

Moliere's Don Juan is supposed by some critics to be the nearest approach to a Shakespeare play. Yet it is difficult to discover the ghost of a reason thereto ! That reminds us of the fact that the Ghost, as one of the dramatis personae, is a common factor. But which ghost-that of Macbeth or that of Hamlet? Preferably of Macbeth, for the Ghost of the murdered man joins the murderer in a banquet! But where are the other steps in the parallelism-the incoherent ravings of the unhinged Macbeth, the shriek of Lady Macbeth, the last consultation with the fateful witches and the ultimate surrender to Fate with apparent stoicism, through awful introspections?

Comparison may not always be odious but it is often precarious. Shakespeare is Shakespeare and Moliere Moliere. Their mentality is so different and their technique so dissimilar! In the supreme pieces of Shakespeare we find dominating the whole, covering the entire piece generally one or two characters, regulating and with their shadow; action is secondary, introspection everything. Hence it is possible to represent his plays through the extracts from his marvellous soliloquies. Hence his plays are, in practice, pruned and redressed by modern stage managers not always without dramatic justification. But any one who has witnessed the performance of a classical piece of Moliere, has felt that it is impossible to drop a single detail! The texture is organic, the development inevitably interdependant. Don Juan is no doubt the hero of the piece but one must see the part of Sganarella played by a

*

consummate actor like George Berr in the Comedie Francaise and he would be convinced that the servant is as important as the master. In the language of Mon. Moland, we may say that the comedy of Moliere is "a world fully set in motion by the impetus of the main idea creating it and giving it life. All classes of Society pass in turn before our eyes.

"Yes, from the baffled creditor Mon. Dimanche to the country wenches with whom Don Juan is flirtinga veritable tableau of Rembrandt, perfect in drawing and Chioroscuro (light and shade, secure in its apparent secularism yet divine in suggestion and implication, lacking perhaps in the gorgeous gold tint of Raphael or in the grandeur of Michael Angelo, yet none the less unique on its own intrinsic merit-such is a Moliere piece to which may very aptly apply Moliere's own lines in appreciation of the frescoe of his friend Mignard:

"La fresque, dont la grace, a l'autre preferee,
Se conserve un eclat d'eternelle duree"

Differences between the works of Moliere and Shakespeare become more apparent in their respective treatment of the background and their management of the minor characters. Space, would not permit a discussion of this very important but rather complicated problem. Suffice it to point out in this general paper that though accidentally one of the most prolific writers of dramas, Shakespeare stands. by unanimous vote as the greatest Poet of the Renaissance. His heroes and heroinee may appear (as they do appear to ultra-modern critics like Maeterlinck and Shaw) as a little too theatrical, if not actually melodramatic-yet none would dispute the magnificent quality of poetry that gushes out of their souls. Hence in a Shakespeare classic the monologues are more organic and interesting than dialogues, and the introspection more important than action. And above all-crowning all, remains the supreme glory of Nature, charming and playful, sinister and sublime-Nature balancing the characters and transforming them with a grandeur that is only Shakespearean !

the

In Moliere's works, on the contrary, this aspect of Nature is conspicuous by its absence. Here Nature is the whole human society with its Homeric procession of beggars and vagabonds, valets and servant girls, quacks and charlatans, pedants and prigs, upstarts and dandies-all crowding the canvas, inducing cross-currents, helping or hampering movement, developing the main characters which are never allowed to dominate the stage but only to play their allotted role in the drama as a whole. Hence there is less colour and more characterisation: less pathos, more dramatic detachment. We miss here no doubt that bucolic atmosphere and that lyric rapture of Shakespecrean comedies. But what do we gain in return!

An ease that is unique-a balancing that is unrivalled-a realism and a naturalism that is the despair of even the ism-mongers of our days-a differentiation of types that become universal through their sheer concreteness-a veritable encyclopædia of common life and above all an apotheosis of the Commonplace : noblest truths, profoundest judgments coming from the ordinary children of the soil: Mascarilles and Sganarelles, spiritual cousins of Touchstones and Falstaffs-immortal creations of human comedy!

MOLIERE, THE MILITANT PHILOSOPHER
POET: "THE MISANTHROPE".

If any piece of Moliere resembles Shakespeare's in spirit if not in form it is his Misanthrope which along with Don Juan and the Hypocrite form a grand triology of seventeenth century French theatre. Like Shakespeare, Moliere was a sublime plagiarist and a master transformer, so far as the plot of the plays were concerned: the plot of Hypocrite he borrowed from Scarrou's novel of that name, Don Juan from Tirso de Molina, Forced Marriage from Rabelais and George Dandin from Boccaccio, to mention among others. Only in the case of Misanthrope we find Moliere original. But the originality

and

in plot is the least part of it. In felicity of expression, in the faithful creation of atmosphere, in the dramatic use of background, in the balancing and perspective of composition, in vigour of characterisation and profoundness of philosophy, Misanthrope stands not only as the greatest work of Moliere but one of the very humanity. To leave such a record in dramatic few masterpieces of the dramatic creation of literature, already enriched by masters like Cervantes (1547-1616) Shakespeare (1564-1616), Lope de Vega (1562-1635) and Calderon (1600-1681) is an achievement for for the first time a character Alceste which has Moliere indeed. In Misanthrope, Moliere creates ever remained the subject of wonder for dramatic critics and of despair for actors. Of course it was never a theatrical success so far as the selling of tickets is concerned. But from Boileau and Racine to Sainte Beuve and Alfred de Musset all great writers of France adored this work as the magnum opus of Moliere. To Boileau Moliere was above all the author of Misanthrope. And when Racine was informed that it had failed as a stage-piece, the poet is said to have exclaimed: "I don't believe it!" And Racine was not only a professional rival but had already quarrelled with Moliere.

Alceste, the misanthrope, appears as an impossible idealist let loose in a fashionable salon! He comes successively in touch with Oroute, a hopeless literary egoist, Philante, a champion of compromise and moderation, Arsinoe, a sanctimonious prude, and Celimene, an incorrigi ble flirt. The party is not very large, the plot is remarkably thin, and the denouement rather weak. Yet the whole action thrills with the