Indisches Theater: Text, Theorie, Praxis.

• Author: Gerow, Edwin
• Position: Book review

Indisches Theater: Text, Theorie, Praxis. Edited by KARIN STEINER and HEIDRUN BRUCKNER. Drama und Theater in Sudasien, vol. 8. Wiesbaden: HARRASSOWITZ VERLAG, 2010. Pp. 201. [euro]42.

This is not a volume one should approach with the idea that its title has something to do with its contents. It is made up of a disparate collection of essays (using the term broadly) on narrow topics, nine in number, having little or no connection with each other, let alone with the grand subject announced. Some are of intrinsic interest, carefully documented and researched; some seem little more than transcripts of papers prepared in haste for the conference said to be at the origin of the collection. (But not all: three of the papers, including the longest, were added later, though no reason is given.) The book will be of interest to those who have a specific reason to consult one or another contribution--those interested in "Indian Theater: Text, Theory, and Practice" should look elsewhere.

A brief survey follows. Angelika Malinar discusses the sattvikabhavas, disputing the usual view that they represent "involuntary" manifestations of emotion, preferring instead the view that they should be understood "als psycho-physische Reaktionen ... die aus der real-itatsnahen, d.h. gefuhlten Vorstellung einer dramatischen Situation entstehen" (p. 24). Just how this differs from the usual view is not clear to me.

Basile Leclere devotes thirty-six pages (in valiant English) to the (to me) more or less self-evident thesis that Sanskrit plays continued to be performed in early medieval princely (Hindu and Jain) courts until the Moslem incursions put an end to such patronage--thinking that this will also put an end to the received view that Sanskrit drama became a largely "literary" phenomenon in the post-classical period. Of course, it could also be taken as another demonstration of that thesis.

Herman Tieken (also in English) discusses verses accompanied by the poet's signature (bhanita) found in certain mostly medieval dramas, Sanskrit and Prakrit, where they would appear to be ad hoc. As a survey of the problem, the essay does well, but as far as I can see, the only thesis offered consists of various hypotheses that support one another but nothing else. It seems dubious also that the one "early" instance noted (Malavika's song [M&A 2.4], attributed to one Sarmistha, variously identified) is of the same genre as, say, Vidyapati's many bhanitas (some also found in...