Tragic sense in Sinhabahu

Courtesy - The Island By Ariyawansa Ranaweera

Prof. Ediriweera Sarathchandra’sSinhabahu, easily the crest gem of the Sinhala theatre, has been understandably subjected to various interpretations, since it was first staged fifty years ago. A good creative work is not a one-way track with a bland ‘message’ at the end of it for all and sundry to imbibe like the gospel truth. It should have many layers, many ramifications and many subtleties and should create ‘endless wonder’ when one discovers such new and unexpected byways and pathways.

For some it is a mother’s dilemma. For some others it is a father’s lament, when the children assert themselves and ultimately leave the benign and protective custody of the paterfamilias to seek their own world. Some see a Freudian, ritualistic element where in his description of totem and taboo, the son kills the father to assert the right over the clan. Yet again some say that whatSinhabahu brings forth is the eternal confrontation between the older and the younger generations, where predictably the latter triumphs. The most recent interpretation is of a Jungian nature. Dr. Siri Galhenage with very convincing arguments, avers that the Sinhabahu legend is steeped in the ‘common consciousness’ of the Sinhala community, which gives its validity.

Each of this interpretation is valid; the proponents of these opinions can adduce any number of arguments to substantiate these points of view. But, as said earlier, these do not exhaust the search for other interpretations. Thus, in the post-modernist sense, one can read too much meaning into the text of Sinhabahu.

Prof. Sarathchandra’s all major dramas are tragedies, in the sense that this genre is used in the western tradition. Maname, Sinhabahu, Bava kadathurawa, Pematho Jayathi Shoko, Loma Hansa fall into this category. Even Vessanthara, which has a happy ending is steeped in pathos. It is interesting that Prof. Sarathchandra, who was unmistakably influenced by the forms and traditions of Sanskrit Drama, has turned that tradition on its head, as far as the thematic treatment is concerned, if not the structural arrangements. Because all the extant Sanskrit Dramas are comedies (Sukantha), closet courtly dramas where the protagonists ultimately come together after facing and overcoming many a vicissitudes, and live happily ever after. Although Bharata mentions Shoka (Sorrow) as a major Bhava in his Natya Shastra, unfortunately we do not have a single Sanskrit drama permeated with sorrow which ends up with evoking ‘pity and fear’ in the Aristotalean sense. Even Kalidasa’s Sakuntala, which contains many situations of emotional stress, ends up with happy reunion of Dusyanta and Sakuntala, of course after many tribulations, and fortuitous circumstances, over a long period of time.

One could safely say that Prof. Sarathchandra has infused a broader dimension and deepened the potential of Sanskrit dramatic mode through his tragedies. For, one should admit that although the extant Sanskrit Dramas are ‘good theatre’, they do not generally deal with the deeper layers of human endeavour and consciousness––the Man in front of the cosmic existence; the being and becoming within time and space; the dance of life and death between the triangular encounter between Man and Man and Man and Cosmos. These are what make tragedies. And we have them in good measure in Prof. Sarathchandra’s tragedies.

I presume, therefore, it is valid to examine his Sinhabahu using the tools of western tragedies, to open another dimension in this subtle drama. There is another justification that one can advance to support this suggestion.

All the extant Greek tragedies, which are the trend-setters of western drama are based on the mythical stories that circulated among the Greeks of the Classical Age. The beauty and depth of those great dramas lie in the fact that the three great Greek tragedians made use of those myths to unravel some basic truths about human nature. In other words they did not merely narrate the ‘myths’ in their extant form but saw some strands of permanent significance of human value,unearthed them and articulated them in their dramas. This process is called ‘exploding the myth’. One has to explode the myth to bring forth the rich potential ingrained in its body.

Prof. Sarathchandra has done so in almost all his tragedies. He has either used our Jataka Stories or the folk stories which are in the common consciousness of the Sri Lankan community. But, like the Greek tragedians, he exploded them and found new interpretations of human nature in them besides new depths in the human mind and new layers of human relationships.

Prof. Sarathchandra, in his introduction to the Sinhabahu text which was published, makes it plain how he wanted to use the Sinhabahu myth and give it a new face away from the traditional interpretations. Let me quote him: "The purpose of all other writers, including Rev. Kirama Dhammananda’s (in his siyabas maldama) seems to be to render this story from the beginning to its end as it appears in Mahawansa either in verse or prose. None of them thought of analyzing the old story and seeking some common vision of humanity in it. The common weakness of these versions is this situation. The characters in these works merely imitate the traditional roles assigned to them in the Mahawansa story. The deep triangular relationship between Suppadevi, the Lion, and Sinhabahu, has slipped the imagination of these writers.’’

It is quite evident then that what Prof. Sarathchandra is striving in his Sinhabahu is to correct this superficial treatment of characters, and seek the deeper layers of these human relationships. His attention in this respect is focused on the Trio-Lion-Suppadevi-The Son Sinhabahu.

The tragedy in Sinhabahu occurs, as a result of the inter-play of these characters. One cannot object, I think, if one tries his hand at applying the western concept of tragedy to examine the intricacies of the play, Sinhabahu, as there are no other yardsticks to do so.

The tragedy concept in the western tradition has evolved over centuries since its ritualistic beginnings and the three Greek tragedians have given it its final mature form. It was Aristotle (384-322 BC) who, ventured to analyze this art form for the first time in his famous treatise, The Poetics, to explain the major characteristics of a tragedy.

Aristotle’s description of tragedy runs thus: "Tragedy then is the imitation of action that is serious and of a certain magnitude in language embellished with each kind of artistic averment, each kind brought in separately in the separate parts of the work, in the form of action, and not in the narrative form. With incidents arousing pity and fear, wherewith to accomplish the Catharsis of such emotions.’’

If one goes by this Aristotelian definition it is perfectly in harmony with the totality ofSinhabahu––imitation, action, magnitude, arousal of pity and fear in the denouement, and the subsequent culmination, the catharsis or the purging of emotions––which ultimately restores in right proportions, the desirable ‘golden mean’ in human relations. All these ingredients are available in Sinhabahu. We can take each one of these segments and bring examples from the text of the play to substantiate them. It is important to examine how Sinhabahu and the Aristotle’s theory differ in the treatment of its material.

This difference of treatment is evident in the concept of tragic hero in the Aristotelian theory of tragedy. According to Aristotle the reversal of fortune of a single individual from prosperity to misfortune causes the tragic feeling. Says Aristotle: "This particular individual ‘should not be pre eminently virtuous and just, whose misfortune however is brought upon him not by vice or depravity, but by some error of judgment. He must be one of those in the enjoyment of great reputation and prosperity eg. Oedipus, Thyestes and the men of note of similar families.’ Aristotle avers that arousal of pity and fear occurs when the audience witnesses the downfall of such a character.

Here in this explanation the primacy of a single individual, in character building, is clear. The entire plot focuses on his actions. The other characters are of secondary importance. Their roles are merely to highlight and bring into focus the actions of the main protagonist.

Thus, the single tragic hero, battling against the uncomprehending world order, was born. In this unequal battle the hero was bound to fail. He either falls utterly from grace or pays with his mortal life. But, this very failure is a moral triumph. Oedipus Tyrannous of Sophocles was the very embodiment of this tragic hero. After all, it is clear that most of the facts of poetics are based on the form and content of the play Oedipus Tyrannous.

Can one apply this concept of single tragic-hero to Sinhabahu? Obviously not! Sinhabahu is not the only hero in the play which revolves round the conflict of emotions among three main characters––that of mother, son, and father. All three characters are given more or less the same weightage in the development of the plot. So, obviously the tragic effect occurs when their interests clash. The action is not concentrated in one character unlike in Oedipus but dispersed among the three main characters.

The Aristotelian theory persisted for centuries in the west,despite its inadequacy to explain even most of the Greek dramas themselves. All critics who came after Aristotle like Horace (4th century A.D) affirmed this theory or only added some cosmetic elements to it.

Hegel (1770-1831) presented a theory on tragedy which is totally different from that of Aristotle. It is pertinent to examine Hegel’s theory of tragedy in some detail as it appears that the tragic elements in Sinhabahu can be better explained by adopting the elements of Hegelian theory of tragedy.

Hegel moves away from the concept of the single hero radically. He also removes the personal elements of the characters from their actions and considers their actions only embodiments of perennial cosmic forces prevalent in the human society. It is the conflicts and clashes among these universal cosmic forces enacted by human beings that ultimately cause tragic situations.

Let me quote A. C. Bradley to explain this concept further: "That tragedy is a story of suffering is probably to many people the most obvious fact about it. Hegel says very little of this; partly, perhaps because it is obvious, but more because the essential point to him is not suffering but its cause, namely the action or conflict. Mere suffering he would say is not tragic, but only the suffering that comes of a special kind of action .... The reason why tragic conflict thus appeals to the spirit is that it is itself a conflict of spirit. It is a conflict that is to say between powers that rule the world of man’s will and action - his ethical substance. The family and the state, the bond of parent and child, or brother and sister, or husband and wife, of citizen and ruler or citizen and citizen; with the obligations and feelings appropriate to these bonds, and again the powers of personal love and honour, or devotion to a great cause or and ideal interest like religion or science or some kind of social welfare - such are the forces exhibited in tragic action.

In many works of art in many a statue, picture, tale, or some such situations are shown in solitary peace or harmonious cooperation. Tragedy shows them in collision.

And this spectacle if sublime is also terrible. The essentially tragic fact is the self-division and internal warfare of the ethical substance, not so much war of good with evil as the war of good with good. Two of these isolated powers face each other making incompatible demands ... the competing forces are both in themselves rightful, and so far the claim of each is justified, but the right of each is pushed into wrong, because it ignores the right of the other, and demands that absolute sway which belongs to neither alone, but to the whole of which each is but a part.’’

This rather lengthy quotation amply exemplifies the notion of tragedy by Hegel. The conflict occurs between two contradictory forces equally rightful. They both are of universal significance. The clash is between the good and the good, not between the good and the evil but what is wrong here is the contending forces adamantly adhere to their positions without giving in thus ensuing clashes or conflicts which cause tragedy.

Does this description apply to Sinhabahu? What are the rightful positions of universal significance that the characters uphold and the conflicts of spirit that Hegel describes in his thesis as ultimately causing tragedy?

I perceive a double tragedy in this sense in Sinhabahu. One that is internalized and the other externalized. Let me explain.

The internalized tragedy is that of the mother, Suppadevi. She is torn between the bond of husband and wife and the bond between parent and the child, both of which according to Hegel, are of universal significance: ‘A self-division and internal warfare of the ethical substance’

After all, Suppadevi has fallen in love with the lion and come to live with him spurning the luxurious life of a royal princes. She has lived with him for sixteen long years with great affection and understanding. The Lion is a endearing and caring husband once inside the den however ferocious he is out there in the forest.

When Sinhabahu, the son, ultimately realizes that he and his mother and sister are humans and his father is a beast and that he has a right to claim the throne of the Vanga State, he decides to leave the forest. This was the second critical moment of her life after her bold decision to live with beast in a forest. She has to either stay with the lion or leave with her son, Sinhabahu, along with her daughter. This decision is agonizing.

These lamentations demonstrate how agonisingly torn she is between her husband and son. There is no via media. Ultimately, she comes to terms with the situation by siding with her children. Once the decision has been taken she is steadfast in her attitude. She does not waver. But, one feels how excruciatingly painful her exerience is. Through this conflict in her mind, we see the internalized tragedy.

But the major conflict in Sinhabahu is between the son and the father––man and the beast or Lion and the royal prince. This conflict is not internal. It takes place out in the open. The two protagonists personify two perspectives which are of universal and eternal significance. The ensuring clash is mush more ‘sublime and terrible’ in the Hegelian sense.

Homestead and the wide world have been the pull and push factors of man in the public domain. Man, determined to do his duty by the fellow human beings has to renounce his homely life at one point of time, in spite of its love care recognition and respect by the family. Ravindranath Tagore by naming his famous novel, ‘Home and the world’, has fictionalized this idea.

But both these aspects are of importance to the existence of human beings. The family is the cornerstone of the fabric of society. One’s allegiance to the family is as ancient as the history of the human beings. That is the very reason why family bond is essential for a normal human beings.

On the other hand there comes a moment man has to venture into the larger world seeking his self ego and also he has his obligations to his fellow human beings. If he is to perform them totally with his entire self devoted to it, there comes a moment, an extreme moment, where he feels that the family bond is a shackle. He has to escape from these strings, if he wants to be the ‘Public Man’ in the true sense of the world; and achieve the fullness of his being.

I think, in Sinhabahu, what we witness is a conflict between these two extreme stances. Taken separately both stances have human validity. Both are necessary for the well being of man. Both are good! So, this clash which is destined to end up in pain and misery, is the result of the protagonists sticking to their extreme positions with no one giving in.

The moment Sinhabahu realizes his true identity, he resolves to leave home. This is beautifully described thus:

The reason for this momentous decision is their living conditions and Sinhabahu’s urge to do his duty by fellow citizens.

The following quotation from the introduction by Prof. Sarathchandra is relevant in this respect: ‘The role of Sinhabahu is straightforward and uncomplicated. What he strives is to achieve what destiny has placed before him. The moment he realizes that he is actually a royal prince, he is of the firm opinion that he has to perform a duty by his fellow citizens.’

On the other hand the lion the typical paterfamilias is thoroughly satisfied with his cosy little family as protector and provider. They lived happily until Sinhabahu’s departure. The lion is utterly puzzled at this eventuality. He cannot believe his eyes when he sees the stone slab covering their cave has been thrown open. He question himself.

Prof. Sarathchandra explains the role of Sinhabahu in the aforesaid introduction: "The lion evokes sympathy from the audience, because of his ardent attachment towards his wife and children.’ This sympathy is enhanced, when the audience realizes that the lion is not conscious of what he is doing. He does not realize why his family members have abandoned him. He simply asks, what offence he has committed.’’

Sinhabahu has firmly established its position as a classic in the annals of Sri Lankan dramatic literature. As in the case of all classical literature, future critics would continue to trace myriads of new meanings in the text of Sinhabahu. This play is truly a multi-faceted gem and mine has been only an attempt to read the theme of Sinhabahu broadly in the light of the Hegelian theory of tragedy.