It is interesting to point out that almost all translations belong to the early phase of Shakespearian translations in Kannada. Translations based on Telugu are by Vireshalingam Pantulu, those from Bengali are from Iswara Chandra Vidyasagar and those of Marathi are by Kelkar. A majority of these are based on Charles Lamb's prose renderings of Shakespeare's plays.

          Another interesting aspect of Shakespearian translations in Kannada is the way the genre drama has been conceived in terms of indigenous genres. Accordingly, we can see that the titles have been translated as nataka (drama), charite /charitre (life-story), and kathe (story). The comedies are usually given a title that ends with vijaya (victory), vilasa (romance) and parin?aya (marriage). Such titles were frequently used both in folk and professional theatres during the early modern phase of Kannada theatre. Similarly, dramatic, prosaic, blank verse and classical styles have been used frequently in these translations. Table-3 provides information about titles that have been used by translators.

Table 3: Table giving the genre specific information in the translated titles of Shakespearian translations in Kannada.

        In order to understand the dynamics of the deviations detailed above, a systematic mapping of information regarding the translations is necessary. In the absence of such information, our attempt must be of limited scope. However, to point out the significance of such an approach, I have attempted here to briefly discuss the eight Kannada translations of Romeo and Juliet and some of the criticisms that have been made of these translations (See Table 4). Out of the eight, three translations, Shanmukhayya (1952), Shankaranarayana Rao (c.1950) and Huyil,agola (1963), which are prose translations but for Shanukhayya's translation, have been not considered here. The other translations are all from the pre-1920 period and are stage adaptations of the original play. Apart from the fact that a tragedy has become kathe (story) and carite (life story), they have been given a happy ending, thereby transforming a tragedy into comedy. This is intriguing considering the fact that not all tragedies have been transformed into comedies in Kannada. First of all, it is important to note that it is only with regard to the translations from English that such freedom has been taken. During the early phase of modern Kannada literature, plays from English on the one hand and Sanskrit and other Indian languages on the other were brought into Kannada. However, it is only in the case of adaptations from English that liberties have been taken by translators and not with the translations from Sanskrit or other Indian languages. Many early translators [c.f. Putaanna (1881), Srikantheshagowda (1895)] have sharply defended their changes in theme, locale, characterization etc by citing cultural differences between the two cultures involved in the process of translation. It is noteworthy that in several early translations of Macbeth (Chennabasappa 1881), Othello (Churamuri 1885) and Hamlet (Anandarao 1905), the tragic endings of the original have been retained. It is only in the case of Romeo and Juliet that we notice that the tragic ending has been changed to a happy one. Deva (1993) observes that there appears to be an influence of the episode of savitri-satyavan in these adaptations. However, in the subsequent Kannada criticism of Shakespearian translations, translators have been harshly criticized for such deviations.

Table 4: Kannada Translations of Romeo and Juliet.

          Among the pre-1920 translations, with the exception of Bhandivada's (1881) translation, done in North Karnataka, the rest was done in Mysore and was meant for different professional theatre groups. Basavappashastry was commissioned by the royal court of Mysore to translate sakum,talam and Othello for the staging requirements of the Palace Company. During the pre-1920 days Romeo and Juliet as ramavarma-l?lavat,i was a very popular play and used to be performed by three different professional theatre companies in Mysore alone and all of them appear to have been published during the same year. Ratnaval,i Nataka Sabha used the script of Varadachar, Chamarajendra Nataka Sabha used the script of Jayarajacharya and Rajadhani Nataka Mandal,i used the script of Ananadarao. The performance of the same play by three professional theatre companies and its translations by five different writers in a single city at a particular point of time reveals that a new sensibility was emerging with regard to modern Kannada drama. It was a complex relationship between modernizers, performers, translators and audiences, well beyond the reach of academic criticism of the intellectuals for some time to come. Dave (1993) points out that only a few translators like Kerur Vasudavacharya, Bhandivada and Srikatheshagowda were able to capture at least a few aspects of Shakespeare's originality, and that others failed to capture the cultural significance of the originals. However, it needs to be pointed out that such criticism actually marginalizes the instrumental role played by these translations in the cultural transformations of the early pha­se of Kannada drama.

          It is important for us to explore the reasons behind these adaptations. Antecedent criticisms to Deva's critique of Shakespearian translations reveal a bias of literary criteria (sahityakate) on the one hand and fidelity to the original on the other, completely ignoring the condition that the early adaptations were done for the theatre. Shamaraya's (1962:146) harsh criticism of the happy ending in Anandarao's (1889) translation of Romeo and Juliet - one of the earliest systematic attempts to survey and review modern Kannada drama - makes this point clear:

          The absurdity par excellence is the self-conceived last act of the play, in which Pujyapada Yogishwara (Fraiar Lawrence) prays to Lord Vishnu, who appears on the stage, appreciates Ramavarma's (Romeo) love for L?lavat?i (Juliet) and Lilavati's chaste virtues and brings them back to life. The translator, in an attempt to bring Ramavarma and Lilavati back into life, has murdered the great dramatist (sekspiyar mahakavi). The saying that 'translators are traitors/murderers' has actually become true here. When it is often told that this was a very popular play, we not only need to shake our heads (taleduugu; in total approval; also rejecting something totally) about the dramatic skills of its actors abut also have to put a big question mark on the taste (rasa-s?uddhi) of the audience who use to enjoy such performances.

          This is only one of several instances typical of the critical approach adopted by the critics of modern Kannada drama in their attempts to clarify the early theatrical translations of Shakespeare. It clearly demonstrates the creative literary criteria of an elitist approach and the prefixed power relationship between the original and translation. The effect of such an approach had far reaching consequences on the Kannada drama to the extent that it not only advocated a literary and elitist approach, but also encouraged an attitude of looking down on the professional theatre, an attitude that eventually led to self-denigration and to the drama's subsequent downfall. Subsequent criticism of Kannada drama shows scant interest in the performance aspect of early Shakespearian translations. In order to understand the inherent biases of this approach, we need to probe further the issue. Shamaraya was an academic, literary historian and critic. He considers D.V. Gundappa's (1036) translations of Macbeth to be more literary (and hence superior) to that of Srikantheshagowda's (1895) adaptation. Comparison of the two Kannada translations of the famous lines spoken by lady Macbeth during her sleepwalk show this clearly:

          Out, damned spot! Out I say.

       chi chi, asayya kal?eye, tolagu tolagu, tolagem?daru tolagadiruve.                  (Srikantheshagowda 1895)

          hogu, hal?u cikkiye hogu, nanu hel?ut?tene. (Gundappa 1936)

       It is unfortunate that non-Kannadigas cannot appreciate the appropriateness and the colloquial style apparent in Srikantheshagowda's translation. In spite of the alleged 'deviation', Srikantheshagowda's lines are lively, dynamic and poetic, whereas Gundappa's translation, though claimed as highly literary by Shamaraya (1962) and Deva (1993), is dull and static. However, without even considering that the former was a performing text and that the latter one was for study as a text, Shamaraya (1962:147) not only uses literary criteria for evaluation but also concludes as follows:

          Srikantheshagowda has the heart of a poet; but he does not have the appropriate Kannada scholarship to translate the original feelings that he is experiencing into Kannada.

         Subsequent criticism thus obscures and marginalizes the achievements of early translations and brings text-centred translations to the focus of analysis. This is a significant departure not only with reference to the theatre sensibilities of the early adaptations phase, but also from the subsequent progressive literature phase (1930s and 1940s). Punekar (1974) points out that there was a period of lively and healthy relationship between theatre movements (professional and amateur) and progressive writers like A.N. Krishnarao (A.Na.Kru), and D.K.Bharadvaj. These writers wrote serious criticism in theatre journals about the performances of professional companies and about leading performances like Varadacharya, Mahammad Peer, Bellary Raghavacharya and their contemporaries.7 Punekar further points out that it is the stiff-necked attitude of the newly emerging white collar middle class, which dealt the deathblow to professional theatre companies. They thought it was not only below their dignity to watch plays being performed by professional companies but also developed either a total arrogance towards theatre itself or began patronizing amateur groups. Such changes not only eroded the public patronage that professional companies had hitherto enjoyed, but also had far reaching consequences for the theatre sensibilities of the community itself. To appreciate how the community gradually lost its sensibilities, and eventually developed an entirely new set of sensibilities - a development that resulted in the death of the professional theatre movement - we need to visualize the experience of Girish Karnad, as told in his won words.

         Karnad has attempted to map his links with the folk-professional-amateur theatres though the words were originally written as 'a search for a new theatre'. The rural theatre's input for him consisted of a variety of visiting Parsi theatre groups and the local folk theatre tradition.

         In my childhood, in a small town in Karnataka, I was exposed to two theatre forms that seem to represent irreconcilably different worlds. Father took the entire family to see plays staged by the troupes of the professional actors called natak companies, which toured the countryside through out the year. The plays were stages semi-permanent structures on proscenium stages, with wings and drop curtains, and were illuminated by petromax lamps. Once the harvest was over, I went with the servants to sit up nights watching the more traditional yaks?agana performances. The stage, a platform with a black curtain, was erected in the open air and was lit by torches. (Karnad 1989:21)

          However, Karnad's attitudes about the traditional performing traditions underwent changes during the course of his education. The onslaught of modernism not only dealt a deathblow to some of the traditional performing traditions, but also brought forth in a significant change in the artistic sensibilities of the newly educated, to the extent that the need for the traditional performing traditions was not felt by the new generation.

         By the time I was in my early teens, the natak companies had ceased to function and yakshagana had begun to seem quaint, even silly, to me. Soon we moved to a big city. This city had a college, and electricity, but no professional theatre. (Karnad 1989:21)

          An abrupt discontinuity with the traditional performing traditions on the one hand, and a changing conceptual world due to education is clearly evident from Karnad's account:

         I saw theatre only when I went to Bombay for my post-graduate studies. One of the first thing that I did in Bombay was to go see a play, which happened to be Strindberg's Miss Julie, directed by the brilliant young Ebrahim Alkazi. I have been told since then that it was one of Alkazi's less successful productions. The papers tore it into shreds the next day. But when I walked out of the theatre that evening, I felt as though I had been put through an emotionally or even a physically painful rite of passage. I had read some written playwrights in college, but nothing had prepared me for the power and violence I experienced that day. (Karnad 1999:21-22)

          Though a bias towards modernity is clearly visible in his words, Karnad's links among folk, professional and amateur theatres are not clearly visible, but we can also note that he has constantly appropriated traditional material fro the folk and professional theatre alike, both in its form and content, Karnad's experience, seen in the light of his words here, rightly theorizes the transformation that took place in the sensibilities among the theatre - going community of Karnataka. Historians of theatre (c.f. Amur 1995) have pointed out that by the 1940s the golden days of the professional theatre companies came to an end, with companies gradually closing theatre after another. It is around the same time that the literary translation of Shakespearian plays begun appearing, thereby serving the purposes of the amateur groups and the students who studied them as texts. In other words, Kannada theatre gradually lost his mass patronage and became the leisure courses in schools and colleges. However, at the same time a pertinent question arises regarding the popularity that the early translations could achieve.

          Considering the fact apart from the folk theatre tradition, there is a conspicuous absence of plays in medieval Indian literatures, the factors that initiated the emergence of interest in theatre and its sustenance, and in particular its attempts at modernization and denigration inflicted on them by the label 'adaptations' needs further probing. The answers for this have to be sought in the emergence of Parsi theatre and the movement of folk theatre performing groups from one region to another, thereby leading to their enrichment through mutual absorption of ideas, themes and styles from whatever quarter they could. At the same time, these adaptations could also be viewed as culturally unique ways of dealing with cultural imperialism and domination, thereby distorting and regionalizing universalistic tendencies. After all, our cultural uniqueness and identities are crucial tools for constructing counter-constructions against any sort of domination.

         I would like to make it clear that my intention is not to draw a comparison between the early theatre-centred adaptations and the subsequent textual and literary translations of Shakespearian plays by using qualitative criteria. But the very presence of a massive body of adaptations and the lively dialogue between audience and performers needs to be explained. In addition, we also need to understand how such a sensibility - understood as a cultural phenomenon - was able to develop. However, considering that there are no documents available on this subject, this is a difficult task. Long ago, Kurt?akoti (1969) made an appeal for a historiography of Kannada theatre performances, an appeal that has remained unfulfilled to this day.

         In order to understand the text and performance relationship of early Shakespearian translations, we first need to understand the nature of text and performance during the periods of medieval Kannada literature. As mentioned earlier, there was no tradition of written plays in Kannada, despite a longstanding folk theatre existed in oral tradition. The texts of kumaravyasa bharata (16th century A.D.) or torave ramayana (17th century A.D.) were in use only in recitation performances called gamaka-vac?ana. Although several palm-leaf manuscripts of the two texts were available, their oral transmission has continued even to the present day thorough gamaka- vac?ana and folk plays. The Kannada folk-plays based on the Ramayana and the Mahabharat?a episodes contain verses from in the Yaks?agana performances of coastal Karnataka region is well known to students of Kannada literature. The merging of distinction between the written and oral text in literary conventions - or to put it the other way, the lack of distinctions between written and oral text on the one hand and the crucial role of performing traditions in shaping and determining the texts on the other - have played an important role, both at conceptual and performing levels, eventually shaping the construction, composition, maintenance and transmission of textual/performing traditions. These salient features of medieval Kannada literature continued in folk plays and the newly emerging Parsi theatre during the nineteenth century. The early precursors of modern Kannada drama, which include several Shakespearean translations. Should be seen as an interface that continued the sensibilities of an earlier performing tradition into the newly emerging literary (text-centred) sensibilities. The deviations or lack of fidelity that have been pointed out in the early Shakespearian translations in Kannada need to be understood and appreciated as cultural maneuvers of an interface in transforming culture in which the nature of the text and its performance was in a state of flux and change. In the prefaces to their translations, M.S. Puttanna and Srikantheshagowda attempted to justify this by suggesting cultural appropriateness as justification for the liberties they take.8

          The paucity of plays during the medieval period in the regional languages of India has already been pointed out. However, nineteenth and early twentieth century theatre in Kannada and neighbouring languages is conspicuously marked by the movement of theatre groups from one region to another and thus a mutual influence on each other's sensibilities. The annual seasonal migration of the Yakshagana performing groups during the dry season in the coastal Karnataka region touching places of religious, commercial, aristocratic and public patronage serves as a pointer to understand the nature of movements of performing groups, both traditional and Parsi theatre companies, during the nineteenth century. The Marathi theatre historians believe that the yakshagana group from Karki (North Kannada district in Karnataka) visited Sangali (Maharashtra) in 1842 and performed a yakshagana play under the patronage of Srimanta Appa Saheb Patavardhan. The performance induced Patawardhan to take the initiative to get performed the first Marathi play, sitasvayamvar written by Vishnudas Bhave in 1843. In addition, the Yaks?agana group from Gokarna (North Kannada district in Karnataka) visited Icalakarnjikar during 1948-49. Tradition records that the Yaksagana groups went as far as Baroda and performed in its royal court. The Oriya prahlada-nataka, performed in the Gunjam district has been claimed by its performers to come from Karnataka about 150-200 year ago. This suggests the nature of interaction that existed across linguistic regions during the pre-Parsi theatre days. The impact of Kannada folk plays was so profound on the Marathi theatre that the tunes of the famous Marathi play sam?gita saubhadra of Kirloskar Nataka Mandali were based on the tunes of srikrisna-parijat?a, a folk performing tradition of north Karnataka.9 At the same time, the Marathi plays of this company, in particular, sakum?tala, sam?gita saubhadra, vikramorvasiya and ramarajya were extremely popular among the theatre lovers of north Karnataka.

         On the other hand, Baliwala Company, a Parsi theatre company from Maharashtra visited the royal court of Mysore in 1881, a visit that was responsible for the emergence of the Palace Company with the Maharaja of Mysore as its patron. Basavappashastry's translations of sakum?talam and surasena-carite (Macbeth) were done for performance by the palace Company. The Marathi theatre group became so popular in north Karnataka region that Altekar's Hindu Natak Mandali, which was founded in 1869, had a five-month 'camp' in Dharwar during its 1873 tour. The famous Marathi Company, Kirloskar Nataka Mandali toured the north Karnataka region during 1886 and 1889. Similarly, the drama companies of Sangalikar and Icalakaranjikar used to tour the north Karnataka region. The presence of Marathi theatre groups in the north Karnataka region was so prominent that Shanta Kavi, wrote a poem strongly reacting to the dominance of Marathi theatre:

          Wherever you see, there is the fame of Marathi dramas

          Wherever you see, there are viewers of Marathi dramas

          Wherever you see, there move the Marathi stage actors

          Wherever you see, there is a performance of Marathi drama

         Karnataka itself has become full of Marathi language.10

          The multilingual situation in the north Karnataka region was so vibrant that it is said that the Tantupurastha Nataka Mandali of Dharwar had multilingual actors in its repertoire who could fluently speak Kannada, Marathi and Hindi (Dakkhini), an advantage that enabled the company to perform plays in the appropriate languages in Marathi-, Kannada-and Telugu-speaking regions. It is also said that t?rat?ikanataka, the Marathi translation of The Taming of the Shrew by Kelkar was performed in Dharwar in 1908. This interaction among theatre groups was not confined to the Kannada and Marathi speaking regions. The Tamil and Telugu language theatre groups used to visit specific regions and cities in the Kannada specking regions to cater the needs of their respective linguistic communities, and the Kannada theatre groups did the same in the Telugu and Tamil regions. Gubbi Viranna's company's visit to Madras and its popularity are well known. Ballary Raghavacharya's performance as a great actor in Telugu, Kannada and English plays has been amply mentioned in the literature on Kannada theatre.11 Artists, actors, musicians and painters alike were invited from their linguistic regions by the companies of the other regions. Kulakarni (2002) notes that the famous Marathi stage actor Balagandharva, after witnessing Vamanarao Master's performance (who was a renowned actor and the owner of the Vishwagunadarsha Sangita Nataka Mandali), invited him to join his Company. Vamanarao, it is said, politely rejected the offer. Similarly, the painter Alagiriswamy, who used to prepare the scenes for Govindaswamy Nayakar's Tamil Company, was invited by Vamanarao to help him in a Kannada version of lamkadahana, a play that subsequently made the Tamil theatre company famous.

          Apart from the fact that new plays emerged during the period under discussion, we can also witness the emergence of new folk plays, in which the authors have documented their names in the play. Two popular folk-plays of north Karnataka region, sam?gya-balya and kadlematti-stesan-mastar, for which the author’s name is available have been claimed to be written during the 1860s. In addition, if we consider the fact that the first Kannada play, Singararya's mirtavinda govinda, was also written in 1860, then the changes that were taking place in the mid-nineteenth century Kannada theatre become conspicuous and evident. It is worth pointing out here that sam?kalpa siddhiyu (As you Like It), the earliest adaptation of Shakespeare, was done in the style of Yaksagana, the folk theatre of coastal Karnataka.

         All the events suggest that there was a theatre-centred sensibility during the nineteenth century, which on the one hand had its temporal continuities with medieval Kannada performing traditions, and on the other, had its spatial extensions with the theatre traditions of Kannada, Marathi, Telugu, Tamil and Oriya folk performing traditions. Not only were the new plays adopted with innovations in stagecraft and script, but also they were backed by a large and greatly committed audience. The new theatre that emerged during the later part of the nineteenth century enriched itself not only from the theatre traditions of Sanskrit, medieval Kannada and other regional languages but also from western traditions, primarily through the Parsi theatre and subsequently from the exposure to English plays. It is appropriate to identify this phase as an interface, rather than as currently accepted binary oppositions like traditional - modern, east-west etc. In fact, we can identify similarly clearly identifiable interfaces for other genres in Indian languages, especially novels and poetry. Early Shakespearian translations need to be understood as cultural productions of this interface and as an outcome of theatre-centred activity rather than as academic and literature-centred translations.

          It is pertinent to ask what the impact of these early Shakespearian translations, with their so-called objectionable deviations, was on the community that packed theatres to see them performed. It is quite possible that they served as conduits of the new ideas and modernism, not to mention the imperialistic ideology of the British masters. There is no doubt about the need for research in the reception these translations enjoyed, however scanty the evidence may yet be. But it could also be the other way. We know that in the Bhaktian paradigm, any act of parodying, inverting, titling and mutilating representations provides fertile grounds for acts of contestation, interrogation and subversion. If performances of Khandekar's Marathi play kichak-vadha could become an anti-colonial act during the days of Swadeshi movement, then the contestation and Subversive potentials of performing traditions cannot be belittled. In fact, during the period 1908-18, Shanta Kavi, an activist of the Swadeshi and Kannada unification movement, used to ride a buffalo from village to village to perform the play vidyaranya-vijaya in the k?rtana form. Though the play's plot and dialogue were written in the backdrop of Vijayanagara history, in its performance it is said to have become a play reflecting the sentiments of the nationalist and Karnataka unification movement. How a culture re-inscribes and reads a text is an important factor that needs to be considered in understanding translations. In an article in the volume sekspiarige-namaskara, Sriranga (1966) brings to our notice that his Sanskrit professor used to refer Kalidasa as 'the Shakespeare of Hindustan'. The colonial context and the power relationship forged between the two authors are obvious. The volume editor, Balurao provides a sketch done by R S Naidu, a renowned artist from the Jaganmohana School of Arts, Mysore. A close reading of the following sketch helps us to appreciate its significance.

          Kalidasa and Shakespeare are represented as being hand in hand and dressed in appropriate attires, suitable to the worlds that they represent. While Kalidasa has a palm-leaf manuscript in his hand, Shakespeare has a scroll. Everything looks like a perfect demonstration of a harmonious East-West encounter.

        But wait a minute;

        Did someone feel uncomfortable that Shakespeare is slightly taller than Kalidasa?

        Or that Shakespeare looks like a 'manly Englishman'!

        And that Kalidasa looks a BIT 'effeminate'!

        Also there is no doresani anywhere around (for our comfort)!

       It doesn't matter; Kalidasa is represented on the right side and Shakespeare to his         left.

       We all know that in the Indian iconographic tradition, vama (left) conventionally suggests inferiority and insignificance with reference to its right counterpart. Like Naidu's sketch, many of these early Shakespearian translations were probably doing something of this sort, whether it was intentional or otherwise. Only viewers and audience can decide what to read from a representation.

Kalidasa and Shakespeare

(Sketch by R.S. Naidu, reproduced from Balurao 1966).

Notes

• a.An earlier version of this paper was presented at the National Seminar on Postcolonial Translation held at the Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur during March 28-30, 2003. However, the initiative to work on this topic began with my remarks as the Chairperson of a session on Shakespeare in Kannada at the National Seminar on Shakespeare in India held at the Department of English, University of Delhi during March 1988. I acknowledge Professor Harish Trivedi and Dr. Anjali Gera Roy for providing me an opportunity to undertake a study on the theme. I also like to acknowledge the suggestions and comments made by an anonymous reviewer, most of which have been incorporated. Special thanks for Ms. Nazir Lasker for her help in preparing the final draft of the paper. b. Kannada is a Dravidian language spoken in South India.
• For a detailed discussion of counter-construction dynamics of 'the manly Englishman, effeminate Indian and the infidel mem sahab', see Satyanath 1997.
• The fact that the name of one of the most popular actors of early twentieth century was Mahamaad Peer also needs to be kept in mind.
• It is generally believed that B. Venkaracharya's bhrantivilasa, a translation of The Comedy of Errors done in 1876 (based on a Bengali translation by Ishwara Chandra Vidyasagar), was the earliest translation of Shakespeare in Kannada. However, Deva (1994) has recently pointed out that Chennabasappa's translation is actually the earliest. A translation of As You Like It with the title samkalpa siddhiyu in the yakshagana style also appeared in 1871.
• This translation is based on the Telugu title sumitra -caritram. It is interesting to point out that the Telugu concept of caritram has not been incorporated in the Kannada translation.
• Criticism of professional theatre came also from another quarters, namely the amateur groups, and some criticisms were in the form of plays. T.P. Kailasam and Adyarangacharya (Sriranga), having their exposure to theatre through the west, wrote plays like namkampni, 'our company' and natakavemba-najka, 'a drama called drama', in which they ridiculed what they thought was absurd in the professional theatre of that time.
•  Such justifications could be seen in the case of other genres, like the novel. Padikkal (2002:56-57) provides an instance of such a justification from the preface of srmgara caturyollasini, a romance written by Gubbi Murigaradhya in 1896. Murigaradhya uses the term Hindu maryade 'Hindu mannerisms' to express the concept of cultural appropriateness.
• The very fact that Anna Saheb Kirloskar hailed from Gurlahosur in Dharwar district of north Karnataka and that he was significally exposed to the folk performing traditions of the region makes the point clear for us. Kurtukoti (1993) notes that even the instructions in the Marathi text of samgita saubhadra (1882) clearly mentions the popular tunes of the Kannada folk play srikrsna-parijata. Accordingly, the text mentions that the famous tune of the song 'pamdu nrpari janaka jaya' is based on the Kannada folk plays' tune 'ksira sagara namma mani'. Kurtukoti further points out that after thirty years the dominance of Marathi plays was so profound that the link between the two was completely forgotten.
• It is important to note that Shanta Kavi was associated with the Sri Virnarayana Prasadita Krutapura Nataka Mandali of Gadag, which was in existence during 1877 -1895. He also wrote the first play usaharana that the company performed in 1877. It is also worth mentioning that Betageri Krishnasharma wrote a poem in Kannada to make the Kannadigas aware of the strong dominance of Marathi over Kannada, but actually composed that song on a famous Marathi tune of those days 'rajahamsa majha nijala'. This is only to suggest the complexity of the situation during the early phase of translation.
• Bellary Raghavacharya was one of the most popular actors and was associated with the Amateur Dramatists Association, Bangalore. He was a multilingual actor and acted in English, Kannada and Telugu plays. His characterization of Shakespearian characters was so famous that Srinivasamurthy (1966) notes that Raghavacharya even went abroad in 1927 to Singapore and London and performed before English audiences.
• Kirtane is a popular form of religious discourse in which a story is narrated through songs and dialogues with the help of musical instruments. The mass appeal that the religious discourse had in those days, the existence of text only in its oral form, the fluid nature of the text and its potentiality for spontaneous interpolations, improvisations and changes, and above all, the insularity that such texts enjoyed from the British law (of becoming seditious writings), all suggest the innovative ways in which apparently conservative performing traditions could transform the performances into subversions and contestations.

                                                                                                            ...read more