Rabindranath Tagore's Theatre
eBook - ePub

Rabindranath Tagore's Theatre

from Page to Stage

Abhijit Sen

Share book
  1. 264 pages
  2. English
  3. ePUB (mobile friendly)
  4. Available on iOS & Android
eBook - ePub

Rabindranath Tagore's Theatre

from Page to Stage

Abhijit Sen

Book details
Book preview
Table of contents
Citations

About This Book

This book analyses Rabindranath Tagore's contribution to Bengali drama and theatre. Throughout this book, Abhijit Sen locates and studies Rabindranath's experiments with drama/theatre in the context of the theatre available in nineteenth-century Bengal, and explores the innovative strategies he adopted to promote his 'brand' of theatre. This approach finds validation in the fact that Rabindranath combined in himself the roles of author-actor-producer, who always felt that, without performance, his dramatic compositions fell short of the desired completeness. Various facets of his plays as theatre and his own role as a theatre-practitioner are the prime focus of this book. This book will be of great interest to students and scholars in Theatre and Performance Studies and most notably, those focusing on Indian Theatre and Postcolonial Theatre.

Frequently asked questions

How do I cancel my subscription?
Simply head over to the account section in settings and click on “Cancel Subscription” - it’s as simple as that. After you cancel, your membership will stay active for the remainder of the time you’ve paid for. Learn more here.
Can/how do I download books?
At the moment all of our mobile-responsive ePub books are available to download via the app. Most of our PDFs are also available to download and we're working on making the final remaining ones downloadable now. Learn more here.
What is the difference between the pricing plans?
Both plans give you full access to the library and all of Perlego’s features. The only differences are the price and subscription period: With the annual plan you’ll save around 30% compared to 12 months on the monthly plan.
What is Perlego?
We are an online textbook subscription service, where you can get access to an entire online library for less than the price of a single book per month. With over 1 million books across 1000+ topics, we’ve got you covered! Learn more here.
Do you support text-to-speech?
Look out for the read-aloud symbol on your next book to see if you can listen to it. The read-aloud tool reads text aloud for you, highlighting the text as it is being read. You can pause it, speed it up and slow it down. Learn more here.
Is Rabindranath Tagore's Theatre an online PDF/ePUB?
Yes, you can access Rabindranath Tagore's Theatre by Abhijit Sen in PDF and/or ePUB format, as well as other popular books in Media & Performing Arts & Performing Arts. We have over one million books available in our catalogue for you to explore.

Information

Publisher
Routledge
Year
2021
ISBN
9781000433319

Section 1

The historical context

DOI: 10.4324/9781003110279-2

1 The Bengal Renaissance theatre and Rabindranath

DOI: 10.4324/9781003110279-3

I

The Bengali theatre, emerging in the nineteenth century largely as a by-product of the Bengal Renaissance, remained first, a colonial importation, and second, an urban phenomenon. The theatres of the British, constructed in Calcutta from the mid-eighteenth century primarily for the entertainment of the local British residents, provided the model for the Indian/Bengali theatres. In the words of Sudipto Chatterjee: “The Bengal Renaissance was the outgrowth of the grafting of a foreign culture onto a more-than-willing native culture 
 It is in the wake of this endeavour to assume/regain a respectful self-identity, that in the 1840s, several theatres were spawned in the native quarters of Calcutta.”1
The English theatres in Calcutta, built by the British theatre enthusiasts, were emulating the contemporary European realistic theatre, with its proscenium stage heavily adorned with Victorian ‘pictorial realism’. The Russian Herasim Lebedeff is credited with having staged the first Bengali plays (Bengali translations of The Disguise and Love is the Best Doctor); his Bengally Theatre, built at No. 25 “Dom-Tollah” (Ezra Street), would have been very much a replica of the available European model. He writes in his memoir:
I set about building a commodious Theatre on a plan of my own, in Dom-Tollah, (Dome-Lane) in the centre of Calcutta; and in the mean while I employed my Linguist to procure native actors of both sexes, 
2
The staging took place on 27 November 1795, and was repeated on 21 March 1796. Interestingly, Lebedeff claims to have used male as well as female players also for his production. However, it is difficult to say how far he could cater to the average Bengali playgoers, as the rather exorbitant admission rates may have been near-prohibitive for them.3 Also, the stilted Bengali translation may not have found favour with the Bengali populace, used to more colloquial language used in indigenous forms of entertainment like jatra, akhrai, half-akhrai, tarja. 4 Moreover, despite its historical importance, Lebedeff’s attempt, ultimately, was one initiated by a foreigner (he was a Russian) and remained an abortive one, as he had to put an end to his ventures when his theatre was closed after a fire and he ran into financial insolvency.
When the Bengali nouveaux riches, in turn, decided to have their own theatres, they, too, followed the European model. Prasannakumar Tagore, the first Bengali bhadralok to erect a theatre in imitation of the Western model, flamboyantly called it the ‘Hindoo Theatre’, yet went on to stage plays in English – the first night saw productions of scenes from Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar and an English version of Bhavabhuti’s Uttar-Ramcharit (translated by an Englishman, Wilson).5 Scholars mention that among the actors who later appeared in this theatre – usually playing Shakespearean roles in English-language productions – were Ramtanu Lahiri (in 1833) and Madhusudan Dutt (in 1834, then aged ten), playing the Duke of Gloucester in Henry IV. 6
Against this Anglicist or Reformist trend, with its overt dependence on the Western cultural models, emerged an Orientalist/Revivalist backlash. Sanskrit plays (in Bengali translations) were revived and quasi-Sanskrit plays were also composed and staged. So, while there were productions of Sanskrit masters (in translation) like Kalidas and Vasa, there were also quasi-Sanskrit plays like Kaliprasanna Singha’s Sabitri-Satyaban Natak (published 1858) or Monomohan Basu’s Ramabhishek Natak (performed 1868), for which there were no Sanskrit antecedents but which followed the classical sources using the Bengali language.7 When Kalidas’s Sakuntala was given at Ashutosh Dev’s (Satu babu) theatre on 30 January 1857, Hindoo Patriot, on 15 February 1857, noted that “(t)he announcement [on the invitation card] had the further attraction that the play announced was a genuine Bengallee one 
”8. Not only was Kalidas appropriated for the Bengali theatre, but he was also stridently promoted as the champion of the Indian/Bengali legacy against Shakespeare, the supreme cultural icon of the Western colonizer. So, when the Bengali poet Hemchandra Bandyopadhyay, in his eulogy of Shakespeare, had gushed: “Bharater Kalidas, jagater tumi” [“Kalidas is of India, you are of the world”], no less than Vidyasagar retorted with: “Hembabur e katha bolibar adhikar nai. Se to Sanskrito jane na” [“Hembabu has no right to say this. He has no Sanskrit learning”].9
When, in the post-Lebedeff era, Bengali theatre stirred back to life on 6 October 1835 with the staging of Vidyasundar, at Nabinchandra Basu’s house at Shyambazar, it took recourse to the Indian love story of Vidya and Sundar, but also borrowed from Western theatrical codes. The Hindoo Pioneer reviewer noted, with approval, the intermixing of the “English style” and the “native language” in the performance. Interestingly, this performance also deployed women in the female roles, and the actress Radhamoni was particularly applauded for her impersonation of the character of Vidya, the heroine.10 For that matter, when Taracharan Sikdar wrote his Bhadrarjun (1852), he used a tale from Indian mythology but worked into it a Western dramaturgical style; in his introduction, having declared how he eschewed the details given in Sanskrit dramaturgical prescriptions, he wrote: “Done according to the principles of European drama, I offer this play.”11 The very next year, Harachandra Ghosh published his translation of Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice as Bhanumati Chittabilas (1853) and announced in the English preface12 of the play how he
undertook to write it [the play] in the shape of a Bengali Natuck or Drama, taking only the plots and underplots of the Merchant of Venice, with considerable additions and alterations to suit the native taste, but at the same time losing no opportunity to convey to my countrymen, who have no means of getting themselves acquainted with Shakespeare, save through the medium of their own language, the beauty of the author’s sentiments
 the work being of a novel character, professing, as it does, to be a Bengali Natuck though written much after the manner of an English play. 13
Though Bhadrarjun or Bhanumati Chittabilas were early indications, it was finally through the efforts of Michael Madhusudan Dutt that a happy conciliation was achieved between the Reformist and Revivalist positions in the Bengali theatre. Aware of Western traditions, he was able to use these for his dramaturgical structure, while for the dramatic narrative resorting to Indian epics/myths/legends. In fact, Madhusudan’s role as a playwright of the period encapsulates the dilemmas involved vis-à-vis the realization that the British presence in India had a two-fold Janus-like influence, “one destructive, the other regenerating.”14 On the one hand, Madhusudan had an undisguised disgust for the mindless borrowings from Sanskrit drama, which impelled his conscious efforts to import Western models for Bengali dramaturgy, and which he justified thus:
I am aware, my dear fellow, that there will, in all likelihood, be something of a foreign air about my drama: but if the language be not ungrammatical, if the thoughts be just and glowing, the plot interesting, the characters well maintained, what care you if there be a foreign air about the thing?15
On the other hand, he was acutely aware of his sociocultural position as an Indian and hence the need to relocate his Western borrowings within that context. This may have been the reason why he did not dabble in Shakespearean translation/adaptation – though that was one of the foremost preoccupations in the contemporary theatre. In a letter to his friend Rajnarain Basu he wrote:
Some of my friends – and I fancy, you are among them – as soon as you see a drama of mine begin to apply the canons of criticism that have been given forth by the masterpieces of William Shakespeare. They perhaps forget that I write under different circumstances. Our social and moral developments are of a different character.16
In his earliest play, Sarmishtha (1859), while importing the model of tragic drama from European sources, Madhusudan used it to retell a well-known story that had its roots in the Indian tradition17; in doing so, he not only provided the model for his other plays but also for the kind of “transculturation” later adopted in the Bengali theatre. We need to contextualize Madhusudan’s efforts within that dialectical relationship, which informed the cross-cultural exchanges between the European/English culture (of the colonizing master) and the new urban educated Bengali elite (the colonized subject) in nineteenth-century Bengal: “English literature was not merely a literature of the masters but it was literature, a source of non-denominational spirituality, a harbinger of a secular outlet.”18 But the fact remains that though Madhusudan’s Sarmishtha or Ramnarayan Tarkaratna’s Ratnabali or the many Indianized Shakespearean adaptations (Hamlet as Hariraj, Macbeth as Rudrapal, Othello as Bhimsingha) all emerged as Bengali playtexts, their performances were conditioned by the Western staging principles. The theatre semiology on the Bengali stage, therefore, remained – and has remained – a Western importation.
The other important characteristic of this Bengali theatre was its urban nature: it evolved primarily in the city, for the entertainment of the Calcutta residents, under the patronage of the rich bhadralok (elite) classes. In its early phases, it was kept confined to the premises of these social elites, though usually at their ‘garden-houses’ and not quite their official residential quarters. The invited guests who went to the theatres also came from the upper echelons of the society; these performances were meant primarily for select audiences and not for the common people.19 In fact, even for these invited bhadralok classes, a hierarchical system of seating arrangements was, perhaps, practised. There is at least one reference to the ushers showing seats to the spectators in keeping with their social ranking (the dress they wore being the marker); the incident left quite a few feathers ruffled and, in turn, elicited hasty explanations that the organizers were not aware of this development.20 The performances of the theatrical troupes of that period were chiefly bolstered by the generosity of the city-based wealthy patrons. Even when later amateur theatrical companies tried to carve out identities f...

Table of contents