Literary criticism in Sinhala

by G. A. Muthupema

 A new tradition of literary criticism is a pressing need in Sinhala literature today. Sense, feelings and tone theory of criticism propounded by I. A. Richards, which was the foundation of our literary criticism is out of date today.

Literary criticism in Europe has its beginnings in Greece, where Aristotle wrote his famous treatise on Criticism, Poetica. In India literary criticism might have begun with the appearance of Natyashastra, an erudite exposition on the drama and creative work, composed by the Indian sage, Bharatamuni.

Beginnings of literary criticism in England could be traced to the critical writings of John Dryden, which appeared in the earliest magazines in England, Tatler and Spectator, in the seventeenth century. Then there was Dr. Samuel Johnson, who was making scathing criticisms on contemporary literary works and writing invectives on contemporary poets and literati.

Along with the dawn of the Romantic age in the eighteenth century, there began a revival in both poetry and criticism. The great romantic poet, William Wordsworth brought out the famous collection of poems, The Lyrical Ballads. The long introduction that Wordsworth wrote for the above collection of poems, laid down new concepts of poetry and criticism.

Poetry is the breath and finer spirit of all knowledge.

“All good poetry is the spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings.”

Contemporary critical writings also followed along the same lines. There were critics such as Mathew Arnold, Swinburn and Lucas during the Victorian age, which followed the Romantic age. During the Victorian age, both poetry and criticism were at a low ebb.It was in this atmosphere that T. S. Eliot brought out his new book Sacred Wood surveying and evaluating the existing literary tradition in the light of trends in European literature. This book which appeared in 1920 emphasised the need of new criterions and new outlook on literature. Dr. I. A. Richards and F. R. Leavis collaborated with Eliot and brought about a profound revival in poetry and criticism. They attributed a new definition to the meaning of a literary work.

It entirely depended on the sense, feelings, tone and intention discerned by a thorough study of the words of the text.Similar revival in criticism took place in Sinhala literature in the nineteen fifties. Before talking about that let us look back and briefly survey the development of critical literature in Sinhala. In Sri Lanka, from the time of the arrival of Buddhism, a tradition of writing commentaries began. At first they were on Dhamma works and later commentaries began to be written about literary works.

This tradition was kept alive by great Sinhala scholars such as ven.Weliwita Saranangkara Thera during the seventeenth century and later by such erudite scholars such as Ven. Hikkaduwe Sumangala Thera, W. F. Goonawardane, Ven. Velivitiye Soratha Thera, who later became the Vice Chancellor of the newly instituted Jayawardanapura Campus, then Vidyodaya University and of course, the well reputed literati Munidasa Cumaratunga.

Then there were the controversies over literary issues, poetry and religious matters that were in the form of dialogues both oral and written.

Weekly papers and periodicals which came up during the early decades of the twentieth century became a fostering ground for these literary controversies. In this respect weeklies such as Sarasavi Sandaresa, Suadeshamitraya and Silumina were in the forefront.

In the long Sinhala literary tradition running for about two thousand years, it has to be admitted that although there is an unparalleled rich tradition in poetry, epic and narratives, there is a paucity of formal critical literature. The situation is different in India, our neighbouring continent. Very serious and comprehensive critical concepts such as Rasavada and Dhvanivada were developed there. Great critical works such as Dhvanyaloka were composed by eminent critics such as Anandavardhana. I should say that this work Dhvanyaloka which means the light of the metaphor can hold a candle to the best of critical works produced in the middle of the 20th century, in England such as Principles of Literary Criticism by I. A. Richards and Sacred Wood by T. S. Eliot.

Revival of literary criticism

Now let us resume our talk leading to the revival of literary criticism that took place in the second half of the twentieth century. We have already been talking about the literary controversies and dialogues that appeared during the first three decades of the twentieth century.

Some of the prominent controversies were Savsathdamvada (dispute over a poem), Kukavivada (who is the genuine poet) and Minisa Kuhakaya (man is inherently wicked). Not only did these controversies foster an interest among the common people, in literature, but also they contributed their share to the development of a diction which came handy when the true revival of Sinhala criticism took place in the second half of the twentieth century. During the first half of the twentieth century, the influence of European literature was strongly felt therein, as novel, short story and essay were introduced. Pioneer novelists were Piyadasa Sirisena and W. A. Silva. Piyadasa Sirisena wrote his novels with a moral purpose. W. A. Silva on the other hand wanted to entertain the readers. He wrote thrillers and historical novels.

However poetry dominated the scene and it also has been influenced by the Romantic poets in England such as Wordsworth and Shelley. Poets during this period were known as the Colombo age poets. They conformed to the metrical patten commonly used by the poets of the Kotte age.

This is known as the Samrddhaghosha Vritta and it has four lines with end-rhyme, each line consisting of 16 syllables.

To develop a critical tradition along the lines of criticism that arose in England since 1920, the background has been prepared by the writings of Martin Wickramasinghe.

He was well versed in theories of Sanskrit criticism and had read widely about the new European criticism. Not only did he write articles and books about these new theories but also applied these new concepts in evaluating literary works both ancient and modern.The true revival of criticism, however started with the writings of Ediriweera Sarachchandra. He was quite familiar with the new theories of criticism propounded by I. A. Richards and F. R. Leavis and he had studied well Sanskrit criticism, Rasavada and Dhvanivada. By transmuting the western and oriental traditions in criticism, Sarachchandra wanted to evolve a critical approach suited to Sinhala literature.

He began his practical criticism by applying his new theories to Sinhala fiction.

At the beginning he cast his critical artillery on the novels and short stories of W. A. Silva and this raised a hornet’s nest. Subsequently, Sarachchandra turned his attention on poetry.

He wrote the book Sahitya Vidyava, incorporating his new theories of criticism. Professor Nandasena Ratnapala also followed in the footsteps of Sarachchandra and turned to criticise contemporary literature. Meanwhile, Gunadasa Amarasekara, the poet and novelist was experimenting in his poetry to find out a suitable idiom and diction appropriate to modern Sinhala poetry.

In poetry, vast changes were taking place. These were very much akin to the revival in English poetry that took place in the third decade of the twentieth century when free verse was introduced. Commenting on these changes, the famous American critic, Ezra Pound said that if English poetry were to be capable of conveying the complex experiences of modern life, it must be released from the grip of the iambic pentameter. Likewise, Sinhala poet and critic, Siri Gunasinghe said that if Sinhala poetry were to make headway it must be taken out of the quagmire of Samrddhaghosha Vritta. So a generation of poets who were conveying complex emotional experiences through the medium of free verse arose and their creative works were duly subjected to criticism by the new literati.

Most of these creative and critical resurgence was associated with the Peradeniya University and the host of these literary men were known as the Peradeniya school. Sarachchandra was their maestro, Sarachchandra had the knack for perceiving talent and originality in an amateur creative artiste. Many a reputed writer of fiction in Sri Lanka has been brought to limelight through the criticism of Sarachchandra. The best example is Gunadasa Amarasekara.

Originality

I remember once listening to Sarachchandra discussing the poetry of Monica Ruvan Patirana over a classical program in SLBC. Monica was a nonentity, at that time. Sarachchandra recognised the originality in her poetry.

Along with the revival of literature brought about by the Peradeniya School, a tradition of criticism evolved gradually. Its progress was accelerated by the inauguration of the two new universities - Vidyodaya (Jayawardhanapura) Vidyalankara Kelaniya).Sinhala departments of these new universities became a fertile field for the seeds of criticism to grow.

Several magazines entirely devoted for literary criticism, along the lines of Scrutiny, a magazine in England, solely meant for literary criticism appeared. Many new critics sprang forth from among the undergraduates and some of them reached the stature of mature critics.

In the sixth and seventh decades of the twentieth century, both creative literature and criticism ran parallely. Whenever a new work of fiction or a collection of poems appeared, there were reviews and criticisms of them appearing subsequently in weekly papers, dailies and periodicals.

So the general public became familiar with the literary works and an awareness of the literary trends in contemporary society was cultivated, particularly, among the younger generation.

Now, it seems that things have turned topsy-turvy. Owing to the introduction of free-enterprising capitalism, interest in literature has atrophied to a great extent. Everything, including, literary works, is being reckoned in commercial values. Intrinsic value of a book is overlooked.

Cover design, quality of paper and have become the criteria of judging a book. The minds of the young are incessantly assailed by the blaring advertisements of the Radio and TV. Their heads are full of commercial advertisements and it seems that there is no room in them for literature.Impartial criticisms on literary works hardly appear in the papers today.

I remember as a school boy when Gamperaliya by Martin Wickramasinghe was published in 1940s. There were reviews of it in almost all the papers. Still I remember having read a criticism of the novel, running to one whole page in the weekly paper Sinhala Balaya. After reading that a curiosity arose in me to read the novel somehow or other.

When my first novel was released forty years back, I sent copies of that to almost all the dailies, weeklies and periodicals, as the normal practice was then. In due time reviews of my novel appeared in most papers. I still remember a long critical analysis of it published in the then Lankadipa Sunday issue. It was reviewed by no less a person than Professor Nandasena Ratnapala. The title of the review was A Good Novel from an Amateur Writer. At that time I have never seen or known Professor Ratnapala.

A new tradition of literary criticism is a pressing need in Sinhala literature today. Sense, feelings and tone theory of criticism propounded by I. A. Richards, which was the foundation of our literary criticism is out of date today.

New theories of criticism such as the Post-modernistic criticism have come into being.

There are the reader-response theory and the theory of symbolic action, propounded by the American critic, Kenneth Burke.According to these new theories, the meaning of a literary work does not entirely depend on the words of the text alone as stated by I. A. Richards and F. R. Leavis. According to these new critics, the words that a writer uses do not belong to him alone. Words belong to society.

So through a literary work, apart from the intention of the writer, society also speaks. So in getting at the meaning of a literary work, the critic has not only to find out the intention of the writer, but also he has to take into consideration the society, time of creation, reader’s mentality and the unconscious mind of the writer.

In developing a new approach to Sinhala criticism, all these factors will have to be taken into consideration.

(The writer is a novelist and a critic)