How Does Shakespeare Become Sekh Pir in Kannada - T.S. Satyanath

HOW DOES SHAICESPEARE BECOMESEKH rt IN I(ANNADA1

T.S.SATYANATH

Abstract: The purpose of the paper is to identify andunderstand the cultural processes that went into theprocess of translating Shakespearian plays intoKannada during the Navodaya (renaissance) andNavya (modern) periods of modern Kannadaliterature. Translation has been viewed here more asa cultural process involving domination,assimilation, and contestation rather than as aliterary act of bringing a text FOIn one language intoanother. Translation as an act of transfer ofknowledge, information and ideas from one languageto another is a colonial enterprise and which impliescertain relationships of power among the languagesand cultures involved. Thus, in order to understandthe postcolonial translations of a linguisticallyconstructed region, we need to interrogate thecolonial links, nature of interrelationship amonglanguages involved in the contact and their linguistichistory. Tracing the process of translatingShakespeare in a chronological order from thecolonial to the postcolonial period, the paper pointsout that the selections and avoidance of texts fortranslation, the popularity of certain texts revealed

Translation Today Vol. 1 No.2 Oct. 2004 CIlL 2004

How Does Shakespeare Become Sekh Pir In Kannada 45

by multiple translations of a text, transformations inthe title of translations, deviations in translation etc.actually reveal the processes of constructingdominations and counter constructions. The paperalso attempts to incorporate the role of the theatreboth professional and amateur, and its audience inbringing about such changes and transformations.

Some Kannada theatre critics have observed thatduring the early phase of Kannada theatre (1880-1920),Shakespeare was known popularly as Sekh PIr. Some haveclaimed that he was also popular by the name, Sesappayyar(Sheshappa Iyer). Considering the fact that such instanceshave been noticed in the history of English theatre (Balurao1966: viii), it would not be surprising if such a speculation isactually true. Such tendencies clearly represent thecomplexity of cultural processes operating in the nativizationof non-native entities and suggest the presence ofambivalences in a culture undergoing transformation.Students of modem Kannada literature are familiar with theterm used to address the white master, bili-dore, 'white king'akin to the term gaurdnga mahiiprabhu in Hindi and othermodem Indo-Aryan languages. Interestingly, the folk balladof Sangolli Riiyanna, collected during the later part of thenineteenth century and published with an English translationby Fleet (1885) in the Indian Antiquary uses a derogatoryterm, kempu-miaiya-kiiti/manga, 'red-faced monkey' to referto British soldiers. In this connection, it is interesting to notethat the word in use to refer to the white-woman was dore-semi, 'king's courtesan' Considering the fact that feminineforms in designator words such as brdhmana (briihmani),raja (rani) etc. usually translate as 'the housewife'; and 'thequeen', the derivative component ofsani to refer to the white

46 T.S. Satyanath

woman is not only startling but also intriguing. If culturalconstructions such as the 'manly Englishman and effeminateIndian', 'bili-dore' and "gauriinga mahiiprabhu" couldbecome constructions with the purpose of dominating theother, then terms such as kempu-mutiya-kiiti/manga anddore-sani could as well be read as counter-constructions.i Inthis sense, inscribing and re-inscribing processes such asShakespeare and Sekh Pir or Sesappayyar have an inherentpotential to be read as constructions and counter-constructions.

The terms that I have chosen in the title of the papersuggest certain inherent ideological positions. As a matter offact, the names Shakespeare and Sekh Pir suggest colonialand colonized entities on the one hand and impact andreception on the other. Even a cursory survey of the writingson Shakespearian translations in Indian languages clearlydemonstrates the existence of a power relationship. of thatsort. Kannada scholars have pointed out that a newlydeveloping modern Kannada intellectual communityincorporated Shakespeare to such an extent that he waspopularly referred to as Sekh Plr.3 Locating such a contact ofliterary and theatrical interaction within the context ofcolonial rule coupled with an influence theory centredapproach for comparison has far reaching consequences notonly in the positioning of Shakespeare but also in locating his'postcolonial' position. Scholars argue that both literally andmetaphorically colonial practices such as census, maps andsurveys are practices of dominating the colony and itspeoples (cf. Anderson 1983). The processes of 'discovering'the 'undiscovered' lands and peoples, through projects likevoyages, enumeration, cartography and surveys, therebytextualizing and inscribing 'others' in terms of numerical and

How Does Shakespeare Become Sekh PI!" In Kannada 47

spatial imaging, have all been a part of the dominatingprocess of colonization. All projects of translation, be ittranslating the Bible into a native language as part of themissionary activity, or compilation and codification of lawtexts like the nyayasastra, or defining linguistically orderedpower relationships through terminological categorizationssuch as donor - recipient, original - translated etc., areactivities in which the land, people and their representationswere constructed through a process of inscribing, literally'writing over', existing concepts, categories and terms, oftenexisting in the oral tradition, by the concepts,categories andterminologies of the colonizers. Even when such a systematicreplacement is not possible through imperialistic domination,the distortion of the concepts, categories and terminologies ofthe colonized land and people could be seen as an inscribingprocess. (Re) naming or the process of identifying, when notdone according to native conventions and practices, signifiesdomination and control, both in symbolic and literal terms.We need to notice here that in all cases of colonized lands,people and their representation, European explorers,enumerators, cartographers and etlmographers, and otherswere also translating either a region or a culture or alanguage, literally re-inscribing them, as the concepts,categories and terminologies of the people were eitherreplaced by new ones, or were distorted to suit Europeanizedforms. The process of replacement also involvedmarginalization and denigration of native concepts,categories and terminologies, and eventually relegation of thecolonized people to the background. Renaming, redefining ortranslating, processes used to suit colonial conventions couldbecome counter constructions.

48 T.S. Satyanath

A noteworthy characteristic of theatre in Indianlanguages is the conspicuous absence of dramatic texts.Despite a long-standing Sanskrit theatre tradition, wellattested through sastra texts, plays and performing traditions,such a claim cannot be made for modem Indian languagesbeyond the IS_16th century A.D. The first Kannada play,Singararayya's mitravindii govinda, written in 1860, is arough translation of Sriharsa's Sanskrit play ratniivali.Although the evidence of yaksagana plays, the folk playsfrom coastal Kamataka region, is available from palm leafmanuscripts right from the 16th century A.D., the contactwith the west and the English education system gave a newdirection to theatre and drama in Kannada. The firsttranslation from Sankrit was of Kalidasa, of his play titled assakuntala niitakavu by Shesha Ramachandra Churamuri in1870. Similarly, the first translation from English was that ofShakespeare, The Comedy of Errors by Chennabasappa, withthe title nagadavarannu nagisuva niitaka, which waspublished in 1871.5

Scholars of Kannada and Indian drama, from MurtyRao (1964, 1966) to Chaudhri (2002), have consistently feltthat Kannada's response to Shakespeare represents twoambivalent and parallel streams of sensibilities, onecorresponding to the literary tradition and the other to thestage tradition. However, it is worth noting that Murthy Raoactually notes that stage versions preceded literary versions.

The earliest translations (they were really a crossbetween translation and adaptation) ofShakespeare came from theatre lovers ratherthan academic men. (Murthy Rao 1964:63)


However, Chaudhri's (2002) generalization reducesthe significance of the precedence of stage versions andbrings the literary version in par with the stage ones.

Renderings of Shakespeare in the south Indianlanguage Kannada might be taken as an allegoryof the reception of Shakespeare in India. Theyoften run concurrently on two planes; one is .areader's translation following literary, largelySanskritic norms of form and diction; the other, aracy stage version with sensational touches,colloquialisms and popular songs. Between them,these two tendencies epitomize much of whathappens to Shakespeare in India.

As one of the aims of the present paper is todemonstrate the significant role played by the sensibilities oftheatre community as revealed in the stage versions ofShakespeare in Kannada, it is important that we notice thatviews such as that of Chaudhri can systematically contributeand stabilize the attempts of constructing a literary taste-centred poetics rather than a stage-centred one. In addition,such attempts might also result in homogenizing the vibrantand pluralistic literary and stage traditions existing side byside. A majority of Kannada scholars who have written aboutdrama come from a literature background. I have pointed outelsewhere (Satyanath 2002) how a new sensibility for tragedydeveloped in the Kannada literary context during the earlypart of the twentieth century and the controversies anddebates that surrounded its emergence. Shamaraya (1962)observes that it was quite natural for Kannada playwrights tolook for a great dramatist like Shakespeare from English in'the same way they looked up to Kalidasa in the case of

50 T.S. Satyanath

Sanskrit. On the other hand, it was equally important toattempt to demonstrate the agenda of the Orientalist projectof a harmonious Ancient East - Modem West encounterthrough translating the two great playwrights, Kalidasa fromthe East and Shakespeare from the.West.

A brief outline of the characteristic Shakespeariantranslation in Kannada has been attempted here. It would beout of place here to attempt a systematic analysis of allShakespearian translations. A rough estimate ofShakespeare's translations in Kannada would be about onehundred and eleven, spanning a period of 120 years (1871-1992): These include free translations, adaptations and proserenderings. In all, only about twenty out of Shakespeare'sthirty-six plays have been translated (55.5%). All thehistorical plays except for the first, second and third parts ofKing Henry the VI have remained untranslated. About twelveplays comprising both comedies and tragedies have beentranslated into Kannada. Appendix-I provide tabulatedinformation of Shakespearian translations in Kannada andprovide information about the translated title, year oftranslation, name of the translator, language on which thetranslation is based and certain interesting remarks. Thefrequency of translations of different plays is given inTable- 1.


Original Title No. Of TranslationsHamlet 18The Merchant of Venice 10Romeo and Juliet 10Macbeth 10Taming of the Shrew 8Julies Caesar 8Othello 8The Tempest 8As You Like It 5King Lear 4A Mid Summer Night's Dream 4The Winter's Tale 4The Comedy of Errors 3Cymbeline 2Twelfth Night 2All's Well that Ends Well 1Antony and Cleopatra 1King Henry VI 1The Two Gentlemen of Verona 1Coriolanus 1Pericles 1Total . 110

Table 1: Table showing the frequency of ShakespearianTranslations in Kannada

In general, translations prior to 1920 could be calledadaptations and that of the post-I920 period may be said tobe literal translations suggesting their closeness to theoriginals. It should be noted that the pre-I920 period is theperiod of the precursors for modem Kannada literature, be it

52 T.S. Satyanath

fiction, drama or poetry. Modem literature in Kannada isconspicuously marked by events such as the establishment ofthe University of Mysore, the p~blication of the translationsof English Romantic poems in Kannada, inglis-gitegalu by BM Srikanthaiah (1921), the first social play tollu-gatti 'thehollow and the strong' by T P Kailasam (1921) and the firstnovel maddidunno -mahariiya 'eat whatever you havecooked', a proverb with the meaning 'suffer theconsequences of your deeds' by M S Puttanna (1916).

Around the same time, Hattiyangadi Narayana Raoand his associates in the Bombay Kamataka region andManjeshwara Govinda Pai and others in the coastalKamataka region were engaged in similar activities. It shouldbe noted that a majority of the translations for which the dateof publication are not available in Appendix-I, happen to betranslations from the pre-1920 period. A conspicuous aspectof these early translations is that the titles, names of thecharacters, locales, settings, sequences, and in certain caseseven the endings (tragedy to comedy) have undergonemodifications. However, Deva (1993) observes that theearliest literal translation of Shakespeare is that of Macbethby D V Gundappa (1936) and all translations prior to that canbe considered as adaptations. If we accept this view, almosthalf of Shakespearean translations in Kannada must becategorized as adaptations. As this cut off point also marksthe beginning of the decay of professional Kannada theatre, italso suggests a periodization divide between translations(adaptations) centred on professional theatre and texts thatare literary translations.

A curious aspect of some of the early translations isthat the original English text has not been used for


translation. Table- 2 'provides information about thetranslations that have been done based on texts available inother Indian languages.

Original Translated Year Translator LanguageTitle Title

All's Well satimani-vijaya 1897 Somanathayya Teluguthat Ends

WellThe bhrantiviliisa 1876 Venkatacharya Bengali

Comedy -of Errors

The gayydliyannu- 1987 Somanathayya TeluguTaming of siidhumiiduvikethe ShrewOthello padmini 1911 Srikantha Telugu

ShastryThe triitikaniitaka 1920 Honnapuramath Marathi

Taming ofthe Shrew

The venisu- 1906 Venkatacharya BengaliMerchant nagarada-of Venice vartaka ,

The miinjuvani 1914 Srikanthashastry Telugu6Winter'sTale

Table 2: Kannada translations of Shakespeare based on thetexts available in other Indian languages.

It is interesting to point out that almost all translationsbelong to the early phase of Shakespearian translations inKannada. Translations based on Telugu are by VireshalingamPantulu, those from Bengali are from Iswara ChandraVidyasagar and those of Marathi are by Kelkar. A majority

54 T.S, Satyanath

of these are based on Charles Lamb's prose renderings ofShakespeare's plays.

Another interesting aspect of Shakespeariantranslations in Kannada is the way the genre of drama hasbeen conceived in terms of indigenous genres. Accordingly,we can see that the titles have been translated as niitaka(drama), caritelcaritre (life-story), and kathe (story). Thecomedies are usually given a title that ends with vijaya(victory), vildsa (romance) and parinaya (marriage). Suchtitles were frequently used both in folk and professionaltheatres during the early modem phase of Kannada theatre.Similarly, dramatic, prosaic, blank verse and classical styleshave been used frequently in these translations. Table-Sprovides information about titles that have been used bytranslators.

Original Translated Title Year TranslatorTitle

Othello rdgh avendrariiv- 1885 Churamurinataka

Othello siirasena-carite 1895 BasavappashastryAs You Like kamalavati-parinaya n,d SharnarayItAll's Well satimani-vijaya 1897 Somanathayyathat EndsWellKing Lear hemacandrariija- 1899 Puttanna

vilasaThe Taming candimardana- 1910 Lakshmanaraoof the natakamShrewdThe Taming traiika-nataka 1920 Honnapuramathaof theShrewd


The piincali-parinayam 1890 AnandaraoMerchant ofVenice ,

A pramilarjuniya c.1890 SrikantheshagowdaMidsummer-night'sDreamA vasantayamini- c.1890 VasudevacharyaMidsummer- swapanacamatkara-night's niitakaDreamRomeo and kamalaksa- 1881 BhadivadaJuliet padmagandhiyara-

katheRomeo and rdmavarma-lilavati - 1889 AnandaraoJuliet caritreRomeo and ramavarma- lilavati - n.d JayarajacharyaJuliet caritreCymbeline jayasirnhariija-caritre 1881 PuttannaCvmbeline [ayasimharaja-caritre 1907 Nanjappa

Table 3: Table giving the'genre specific information in thetranslated titles ofShakespearean translations in Kannada.

In order to understand the dynamics of the deviationsdetailed above, a systematic mapping of information aboutthe translations is necessary. In the absence of suchinformation, our attempt must be of limited scope. However,to point out the significance of such an approach, I haveattempted here to briefly discuss the eight Kannadatranslations of Romeo and Juliet and some of the criticismsthat have been levelled against these translations (See Table4). Out of the eight, three translations, Shanrnukhayya(1952), Shankaranarayana Rao (c.1950) and HuyiJagoJa(1963) are prose translations. The other translations are all

56 T.S. Satyanath

from the pre-1920 period and are stage adaptations of theoriginal play. Apart from the fact that a tragedy has becomekathe (story) and carite (life story), they have been given ahappy ending, thereby transforming a tragedy into a comedy.This is intriguing considering the fact that not all tragedieshave been transformed into comedies in Kannada. First of all,it is important to note that it is only with regard to thetranslations from English that such freedom has been taken.During the early phase of modem Kannada literature, playsfrom English on the one hand and Sanskrit and other Indianlanguages on the other were brought into Kannada. However,it is only in the case of adaptations from English that libertieshave been taken by translators and not with the translationsfrom Sanskrit or other Indian languages. Many earlytranslators [(Puitanna 1881), (Srikantheshagowda 1895)]have sharply defended their changes in theme, locale,characterization etc by citing cultural differences between thetwo cultures involved in the process of translation .. It isnoteworthy that in several early translations of Macbeth(Chennabasappa 1881), Othello (Churamuri 1885) andHamlet (Anandarao 1905), the tragic endings of the originalhave been retained. Only in the case of Romeo and Juliet wenotice that the tragic ending has been changed to a happyone. Deva (Deva 1993) observes that there appears to be aninfluence of the episode of savitri-satyaven in theseadaptations. However, in the subsequent Kannada criticismof Shakespearian translations, translators have been harshlycriticized for such deviations.

How Does Shakespeare Become su Pir In Kannada 57

Translated Title Year Translatorkamalsksa-padmegandhiyara- 1881 Bhandivadakateremavarma-lilavati c.1889 Varadachar

remavarma-lilavati -cariire 1889 Anandarao

remavarma-lilavati -caritre 1889 Jayarajacharya

romiyo-and-jiiliyet n.d. Basavappashastry

romiyo- and -jiiliyet, n.d. Srikantheshagowda

asiiyh-pariniima 1931 Amruthachari

romiyii -mattu- jiiliyet C.1950 Shankaranarayanarao

romiyo -jiiliyet 1952 Shanmukhayya

romiyo -mattu-jiiliyet 1963 Huyilagola

Table 4: Kannada Translations of Romeo and Juliet.

With the exception of Bhandivada's translation(Bhandivada 1881), which was done in North Karnataka, allthe pre-1920 translations done in Mysore were meant fordifferent professional theatre groups. Basavappashastry wascommissioned by the royal' court of Mysore to translatesiikuntalam and Othello for the staging requirements of thePalace Company. During pre-I920 days Romeo and Juliet asrianavarma-liliivati was a very popular play and used to beperformed by three different professional theatre companiesin Mysore alone and all of them appear to have beenpublished during the same year. Ratnavali Nataka Sabha usedthe script of Varadachar, Chamarajendra Nataka Sabha usedthe script of Jayarajacharya and Rajadhani Nataka Mandali

58 T.S. Satyanath

used Ananadarao's script. The performance of the same playby three professional theatre companies and its translationsby five different writers in a single city at a particular pointof time reveals that a new sensibility was emerging withregard to modem Kannada drama. It was a complexrelationship between modernizers, performers, translators. and audiences, well beyond the reach of academic criticismof the intellectuals for some time to come. Deva (Deva 1993)points out that only a few translators like KerurVasudavacharya, Bhandivada and Srikatheshagowda wereable to capture at least a few aspects of Shakespeare'soriginality, and that others failed to capture the culturalsignificance of the originals. However, it needs to be pointedout that such criticism actually marginalizes the instrumentalrole played by these translations in the culturaltransformations of the early phase of Kannada drama.

It is important for us to explore the reasons behindthese adaptations. Antecedent criticisms to Deva's critique ofShakespearian translations reveal a bias of literary criteria onthe one hand and fidelity to the original on the other,completely ignoring the condition that the early adaptationswere done for the theatre. Shamaraya's (1962: 146) harshcriticism of the happy ending in Anandarao's (1889)translation of Romeo and Juliet - one of the earliestsystematic attempts to survey and review modem Kannadadrama - makes this point clear:

The absurdity par excellence is the self-conceived last act of the play, in whichPujyapada Yogishwara (Fraiar Lawrence)prays to Lord Vishnu, who appears on thestage, appreciates Ramavarma's (Romeo) love

How Does Shakespeare Become Selch Pir In Kannada 59

Jar Lilavati (Juliet) and Lilavati's chaste virtuesand brings them back to life. The translator, inan attempt to bring Ramavarma and Lilavatiback into life, has murdered the greatdramatist (sekspiyar mahiikavi). The sayingthat 'translators are traitors/murderers' hasactually become true here. When it is often toldthat this was a very popular-play, we not onlyneed to shake our heads (talediigu; in totalapproval; also rejecting something totally)about the dramatic skills oj its actors abut alsohave to put a big question mark on the taste(rasa-suddhi) oj the audience who use to enjoysuch performances.

This is only one of several instances typical of thecritical approach adopted by the critics of modern Kannadadrama in their attempts to clarify the early theatricaltranslations of Shakespeare. It clearly demonstrates thecreative literary criteria of an elitist approach and theprefixed power relationship between the original andtranslation. The effect of such an approach had far reachingconsequences on the Kannada drama to the extent that it notonly advocated a literary and elitist approach, but alsoencouraged an attitude of looking down on the professionaltheatre, an attitude that eventually led to self-denigration andto the drama's subsequent downfall. Subsequent criticism ofKannada drama shows scant interest in the performanceaspect of early Shakespearian translations. In order tounderstand the inherent biases of this approach, we need toprobe the issue further. Shamaraya was an academic, literaryhistorian and critic. He considers D.V.Gundappa's(Gundappa 1936) translations of Macbeth to be more literary

60 T.S. Satyanath

than (and hence superior to) those of Srikantheshagowda's(Srikantheshagowda 1895) adaptation. A comparison of thetwo Kannada translations of the famous lines spoken by LadyMacbeth during her sleepwalk shows this clearly:

Out, damned spot! Out I say.chi chi, asahya kaleye, tolagu tolagu,tolagendarii tolagadiruve. (Srikantheshagowda1895)hogu, halu cikkiye hogu, niinu heluttene.(Gundappa 1936)

It is unfortunate that non-Kannadigas cannotappreciate the appropriateness and the colloquial styleapparent in Srikantheshagowda's translation. In spite of thealleged 'deviation', Srikantheshagowda's lines are lively,dynamic and poetic whereas Gundappa's translation, despiteclaims that they are 'highly literary' (Shamaraya 1962 andDeva 1993), is dull and static. However, without evenconsidering that the former was a performing text and thatthe latter one was for study as a text, Shamaraya (Shamaraya1962:147) not only uses literary criteria for evaluation butalso concludes as follows:

Srikantheshagowda has the heart of a poet; but hedoes not have the appropriate Kannadascholarship to translate the original feelings thathe 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

How Does Shakespeare Become Sekh PI,. In Kannada \ 61

departure not only with reference to the theatre sensibilitiesof the early adaptations phase, but also from the subsequentprogressive literature phase (1930s and 1940s). Punekar(Punekar 1974) points out that there was a period of a livelyand healthy relationship between theatre movements(professional and amateur) and progressive writers like A.N.Krishnarao (A.Na.Kru), and D.K.Bharadvaj. These writerswrote serious criticism in theatre journals about theperformances of professional companies and about leadingperformances like Varadacharya, Mahammad Peer, BellaryRaghavacharya and their contemporaries.' Punekar furtherpoints out that the stiff-necked attitude of the newlyemerging white collar middle class dealt the deathblow toprofessional theatre companies. They thought it was not onlybelow their dignity to watch plays being performed byprofessional companies but they also developed either a totalarrogance towards theatre or began patronizing amateurgroups. Such changes not only eroded the public patronagethat professional companies had hitherto enjoyed, but alsohad far reaching consequences for the theatre sensibilities ofthe community itself. To appreciate how the communitygradually lost its sensibilities, and eventually developed anentirely new' set of sensibilities - a development that resultedin the death 'of the professional theatre movement - we needto visualize fhe experience of Girish Karnad, as told in hisown words.

Karnad has attempted to map his links with the folk-professional-amateur theatres though the words usedoriginally were 'a search for a new theatre'. The rural theatre'sinput for him consisted of a variety of visiting Parsi theatregroups and the local folk theatre tradition.

62 T.S. Satyanath

In my childhood, in a small town in Karnataka,I was exposed to two theatre forms that seem torepresent irreconcilably different worlds.Father took the entire family to see plays stagedby the troupes of professional actors callednatak companies, which toured the countrysidethrough out the year. The plays were stagedwith semi-permanent structures on prosceniumstages, with wings and drop curtains, and wereilluminated by petromax lamps.

Once the harvest was over, I went with theservants to sit up nights watching the moretraditional yaksagana performances. The stage,a platform with a black. curtain, was erected inthe open air and was lit by torches. (Karnad1989:21)

However, Karnad's attitude to native performingtraditions underwent a change during the course of hiseducation. The onslaught of modernism not only dealt adeathblow to some of the native performing traditions, butalso brought forth a significant change in the artisticsensibilities of the newly educated, to the extent that the needfor native performing traditions was not felt by the newgeneration.

By the time I was in my early teens, the natakcompanies . had ceased to function andyakshagana had begun to seem quaint, evensilly, to me. Soon we moved to a big city. Thiscity had a college, and electricity, but noprofessional theatre. (Karnad 1989:21)


An abrupt discontinuity with the native performingtraditions on the one hand, and a changing conceptual worlddue to education is clearly evident from Karnad's account:

I saw theatre only when I went to Bombay for mypost-graduate studies. One of the first thing that Idid in Bombay was to go see a play, whichhappened to be Strindberg's Miss Julie, directedby the brilliant young Ebrahim Alkazi. I havebeen told since then that it was one of Alkazi'sless successful productions. The papers tore itinto shreds the next day. But when I walked out ofthe theatre that evening, I felt as though I hadbeen put through an emotionally or even aphysically painful rite of passage. I had readsome written playwrights in college, but nothinghad prepared me for the power and violence Iexperienced that day. (Karnad 1999:21-22)

Though a bias towards modernity is clearly visible inhis words, Karnad's links among folk, professional andamateur theatres are not clearly visible, but we can also notethat he has constantly appropriated traditional material fromthe folk and professional theatre alike, both in its form andcontent. Kamad's experience, seen in the light of his wordshere, rightly theorizes the transformation that took place inthe sensibilities among the theatre-going community ofKamataka. Historians of theatre (c.f. Amur 1995) havepointed out that by the 1940s the golden days of theprofessional theatre companies came to an end, withcompanies gradually closing one theatre after another.Around the same time the literary translation of

64 T.S. Satyanath

Shakespearian plays began appearing, thereby serving thepurposes of the amateur groups and the students who studiedthem as texts. In other words, Kannada theatre gradually losthis mass patronage and took the form of leisure courses inschools and colleges. At the same time however a pertinentquestion arises about the popularity that early translationscould achieve.

Considering the fact apart from the folk theatretradition, there is a conspicuous absence of plays in medievalIndian literatures, the factors that initiated the emergence ofinterest in theatre and its sustenance, and in particular itsattempts at modernization and denigration inflicted on themby the label 'adaptations' needs further probing. The answersfor this have to be sought in the emergence of Parsi theatreand the movement of folk theatre performing groups fromone region to. another, thereby leading to their enrichmentthrough mutual absorption of ideas, themes and styles fromwhatever quarter they could. At the same time, theseadaptations could also be viewed as culturally unique waysof dealing with cultural imperialism and domination, therebydistorting and regionalizing universalistic tendencies. Afterall, our cultural uniqueness and identities are crucial tools forconstructing counter-constructions against any sort ofdomination.

My intention is not to draw a comparison between theearly theatre-centred adaptations and the subsequent textualand. literary translations of Shakespearian plays by usingqualitative criteria. But the very presence of a massive bodyof adaptations and the lively dialogue between the audience. and the performers needs to be explained. In addition, wealso need to understand how such a sensibility - understood


as a cultural phenomenon - was able to develop. Thishowever is a difficult task, considering that there are nodocuments available on this subject. Long ago, Kurtukoti(1969) made an appeal for a historiography. of Kannadatheatre, an appeal that has remained unfulfilled to this day.

In order to understand the text-and-performancerelationship of early Shakespearian translations, we first needto understand the nature of text and performance during theperiods of medieval Kannada literature. As mentionedearlier, there was no tradition of written plays in Kannada,despite a longstanding folk theatre existed in oral tradition.The texts ?f kumaravtasa bhdrata (16th century A.D.) ortorave riimiiyana (1i century A.D.) were in use only inrecitation performances called gamaka-vacana. Althoughseveral palm-leaf manuscripts of the two texts wereavailable, their oral transmission has continued even to thepresent day thorough gamaka- vacana and folk plays. Thatthe Kannada folk-plays based on the Riimayana and theMahiibhiirata episodes contain verses from the Yaksaganaperformances of coastal Kamataka region is well known tostudents of Kannada literature. The erasure of the distinctionbetween the written and oral text in literary conventionsl- orto put it the other way, the lack of a distinction between thewritten and the oral text on the one hand and the crucial! role.of performing traditions in shaping and determining the textson the other - has played an important role, both at the'conceptual and performing levels, eventually shaping the lconstruction, 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 modem Kannada drama, whicli

66 T.S. Satyanath

include several Shakespearean translations, should be seen asan interface that continued the sensibilities of an earlierperforming tradition into the newly emerging literary (text-centred) sensibilities. The deviation or lack of 'fidelity' thathave been pointed out in the early Shakespearean translationsin Kannada need to be understood and appreciated as culturalmaneuvers of an interface in transforming culture in whichthe nature of the text and its performance was in a state offlux and change. In the prefaces to their translations, M.S.Puttanna and Srikantheshagowda attempted to justify this bysuggesting cultural appropriateness as a justification for theliberties they take.8

The paucity of plays during the medieval period inthe regional languages of India has already been pointed out.However, nineteenth and early twentieth century theatre inKannada and neighbouring languages is marked by themovement of theatre groups from one region to another andthus constituting a mutual influence on each other'ssensibilities. The annual seasonal migration of theyakshagiina performing groups during the dry season in thecoastal Kamataka region touching places of religious,commercial, aristocratic and public patronage serves as apointer to understand the nature of movements of performinggroups, both traditional and Parsi theatre companies, duringthe nineteenth century. Marathi theatre historians believe thatthe yakshagiina group from Karki (North Kannada district inKamataka) visited Sangli (Maharashtra) in 1842 andperformed a yakshagiina play under the patronage ofSrimanta Appa Saheb Patavardhan. The performanceencouraged Patwardhan to take the initiative to stage the firstMarathi play, sitasvayamvar written by Vishnudas Bhave in1843. In addition, the yakshagiina group from Gokama


(North Kannada district in Karnataka) visited Icalakarnjikarduring 1948-49. Tradition records that the yak$haganagroups went as far as Baroda and performed in the royalcourt there. The Oriya prahliida-niitaka, performed in theGunjam district has been claimed by its performers to comefrom Karnataka about 150-200 year ago. This suggests thenature of interaction that existed across linguistic regionsduring the pre-Parsi theatre days. The impact of Kannadafolk plays was so profound on Marathi theatre that the tunesof the famous Marathi play sangita saubhadra of KirloskarNataka Mandali were based on the tunes of srikrsna-parijata,a folk performing tradition of north Karnataka.9 At the sametime, the Marathi plays staged by this company, in particular,siikuntala, sangita saubhadra, vikramorvasiya andriimariijya were extremely popular among theatre lovers ofNorth Kamataka.

On the other hand, Baliwala Company, a Parsi theatrecompany from Maharashtra visited the royal court of Mysorein 1881, a visit that was responsible for the emergence of thePalace Company with the Maharaja of Mysore as its patron.Basavappashastry's translations of sdkuntalii and siirasena-carite (Macbeth) were rewritten for performance by thepalace Company. The Marathi theatre group became sopopular in the North Kamataka region that Altekar's HinduNataka Mandali, which was founded in 1869, had a five-month 'camp' in Dharwar during its 1873 tour. The famousMarathi Company, Kirloskar Nataka Mandali toured the'NOlih Karnataka region during 1886 and 1889. Similarly, thedrama companies of Sangalikar and Icalakaranjikar used totour the North Kamataka region. The presence of Marathitheatre groups in the North Kamataka region was so .'

68 T.S. Satyanath

prominent that Shanta Kavi wrote a poem strongly reactingto the dominance of Mar athi theatre:

Wherever you see, there is the fame of MarathidramasWherever you see, there are viewers of MarathidramasWherever you see, there move the Marathi stageactorsWherever you see, there is a performance ofMarathi drama

Karnataka itself has become full of Marathi. 10language.

The multilingual situation in the North Kamatakaregion was so vibrant that it is said that the TantupurasthaNataka Mandali of Dharwar had multilingual actors in itsrepertoire who could fluently speak Kannada, Marathi and,Hindi (Dakkhini), an advantage that enabled the company to:perform plays in the Marathi- Kannada- and Telugu-speakingregions. It is also said that triuikii-nataka, the Marathitranslation of The Taming of the Shrew by Kelkar wasperformed in Dharwar in 1908. This interaction amongtheatre groups was not confined to the Kannada and Marathispeaking regions. Tamil and Telugu language theatre groups

. used to visit specific regions and cities in the Kannada-speaking regions to cater to the needs of their respectivespeech communities, and the Kannada theatre groups did thesame in the Telugu and Tamil regions. The visit of GubbiViranna's company to Madras and its popularity are wellknown. Bellary Raghavacharya's performance as a great

How Does Shakespeare Become Sekh Fir In Kannada 69

actor in Telugu, Kannada and English plays has foundabundant mention in the literature on Kannada theatre. IIArtists, actors, musicians and painters alike were invitedfrom their linguistic regions by the companies of the otherregions. Kulkarni (2002) notes that the famous Marathi stageactor Balagandharva, after witnessing Vamanarao Master'sperformance (who was a renowned actor and the owner ofthe Vishwagunadarsha Sangita Nataka Mandali), invited himto join his Company. Vamanarao, it is said, politely declinedthe offer. Similarly, Alagiriswamy, the painter, who used toprepare the scenes for Govindaswamy Nayakar's TamilCompany, was invited by Vamanarao to help him in 'aKannada version of lankadahana, a play that subsequentlymade the Tamil theatre company famous.

Apart from the fact that new plays emerged duringthe period under discussion, we can also witness theemergence of new folk plays; in which the authors havedocumented their names in the play. Two popular folk-playsof north Kamataka region, sangya-balya and kadlematti-stesan-miistar, for which the author's name is available havebeen claimed to be written during the l860s. In addition, ifwe consider the fact that the first Kannada play, Singararya'smitravindii giivindii, was also written in 1860, then thechanges that were taking place in the mid-nineteenth centuryKannada theatre become conspicuous and evident. It is worthpointing out here that sankalpa siddhiyu (As you Like It), theearliest adaptation of Shakespeare, was done in the style ofyak:;agtina, the folk theatre of coastal Kamataka.

i All these events suggest that there was a theatre-centred sensibility during the nineteenth century, which, onthe one hand, had its temporal continuities with medieval

70 T.S. Satyanath

Kannada performing traditions, and on the other, had itsspatial extensions with the theatre traditions of Kannada,Marathi, Telugu, Tamil and Oriya folk performing traditions.Not only were the new plays adopted with innovations instagecraft and script, but also a large and greatly committedaudience backed them. The new theatre that emerged duringthe later part of the Nineteenth century enriched itself notonly from the theatre traditions of Sanskrit, medievalKannada and other regional languages, but also from westerntraditions, primarily through Parsi theatre and subsequentlyfrom exposure to English plays. It is appropriate to identifythis phase as an interface, rather than as a binary oppositionlike traditional-modem, east-west etc. as is currently done. Infact, we can identify similar clearly identifiable interfaces forother genres in Indian languages, especially fiction andpoetry. Early Shakespearian translations need to beunderstood as cultural productions of this interface and as anoutcome of theatre-centred activity rather than as academicliterature-centred translations.

,

It is pertinent to ask here what the impact of theseearly Shakespearian translations, with their so-calledobjectionable deviations, was on the community that flockedto theatres to see them performed. It is quite possible thatthey served as conduits of the new ideas and modernism, notto mention the imperialistic ideology of the British masters.There is no doubt about the need for research in the receptionthese translations enjoyed, however scanty the evidence mayyet be. But it could also be the other way round. We knowthat in the Bakhtinian paradigm, any act of parodying,inverting, tilting and mutilating representations providesfertile grounds for acts of contestation, interrogation andsubversion. If performances of Khandekar's Marathiplay


kichak-vadhd could become an anti-colonial act during thedays of Swadeshi movement, then the contestation andsubversive potential of performing traditions cannot bebelittled. In fact, during the period 1908-18, Shanta Kavi, anactivist of the Swadeshi and Kannada unification movement,used to ride a buffalo from village to village to perform theplay vidyiiranya-vijaya in the kirtana form, Though the plotand dialogue of the play were written against the backdrop ofthe history of the Vijayanagara empire, in its performance itis said to have become a play reflecting the sentiments of thenationalist and Kamataka unification movement. How aculture re-inscribes and reads a text is an important factorthat needs to be considered in understanding translations. Inan article in the volume sekspiarige-namaskara. Sriranga(Sriranga 1966) brings to our notice that his Sanslaitprofessor used to refer to Kalidasa as 'the Shakespeare ofHindustan'. The colonial context and the power relationshipforged between the two authors are obvious. Balurao, thevolume editor, provides a sketch done by R S Naidu, arenowned artist from the Jaganmohana School of Arts,Mysore. A close reading of the following sketch helps us toappreciate its significance.(see p.30)

Kalidasa and Shakespeare are represented as beingfriendly, standing hand in hand and dressed appropriately,their attires suiting the worlds they represent. While Kalidasahas a palm-leaf manuscript in his hand, Shakespeare has ascroll. Everything looks like a perfect demonstration of aharmonious East-West encounter.

72 T.S. Satyanath

But wait a minute!

Did someone feel uncomfortable that Shakespeare isslightly taller than Kalidasa?Or that Shakespeare looks like a 'manlyEnglishman'!And that Kalidasa looks a BIT 'effeminate'!Also there is no doresdni anywhere around (for ourcomfort)!It doesn't matter; Kalidasa is represented on the rightside and Shakespeare to his left.

We all know that in the Indian iconographic tradition,vdma (left) conventionally suggests inferiority andinsignificance with reference to its right counterpart. LikeNaidu's sketch, many of these early Shakespeariantranslations were probably doing something of this sort,wittingly or unwittingly. Only viewers and audience candecide what to read from a representation.


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

74 T.S. Satyanath

Notes

1. An earlier version of this paper was presented at theNational Seminar on Postcolonial Translation held at theIndian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur during March28-30, 2003. However, the initiative to work on this topicbegan with my remarks as the Chairperson of a sessionon Shakespeare in Kannada at the National Seminar onShakespeare in India held at the Department of English,University of Delhi during March 1988. I acknowledgeProfessor Harish Trivedi and Dr. Anjali Gera Roy forproviding me an opportunity to undertake a study on thetheme. I would also like to acknowledge the suggestionsand comments made by an anonymous reviewer of thisjournal, most of which have been incorporated. Specialthanks for Ms. Nazir Lasker for her help in preparing thefinal draft of the paper.

2. For a detailed discussion of counter-constructiondynamics of 'the manly Englishman, effeminate Indianand the infidel mem sahab', see Satyanath 1997.

3. The fact that the name of one of the most popular actorsof early twentieth century was Mahamaad Peer also needsto be kept in mind.

4. It is generally believed that' B. Venkaracharya'sbhriintiviliisa, a translation of The Comedy of Errorsdone in 1876 (based on a Bengali translation by IshwaraChandra Vidyasagar), was the earliest translation ofShakespeare in Kannada. However, Deva (Deva 1994)has recently pointed out that Chennabasappa's translation


is actually the earliest. A translation of As You Like Itwith the title sankalpa siddhiyu in the yaksagana stylealso appeared in 1871.

5. This translation is based on the Telugu title sumitrii -caritram. It is interesting to point out that the Teluguconcept of caritram has not been incorporated in theKannada translation.

6. Criticism of professional theatre came also from anotherquarters, viz.the amateur groups, and some criticismswere in the form of plays. T.P. Kailasam andAdyarangacharya (Sriranga), having their exposure totheatre through the west, wrote plays like namkampni,'our company' and natakavemba-nataka, 'a drama calleddrama', in which they ridiculed what they thought wasabsurd in the professional theatre of those at times.

7. Such justifications could be seen in the case of othergenres as well, like the novel. Padikkal (Padikkal2002:56-57) provides an instance of such a justificationfrom the preface of srngiira cdturyiilldsini, a romancewritten by Gubbi Murigaradhya in 1896. Murigaradhyauses the locution Hindu marydde 'Hindu mannerisms' toexpress the concept of cultural appropriateness.

8. The very fact that Anna Saheb Kirloskar hailed fromGurlahosur in Dharwar district of north Karnataka andthat he was exposed to the folk performing traditions ofthe region makes the point clear for us. Kurtukoti (1993)notes that even the instructions in the Marathi text ofsangita saubhadrd (1882) clearly mentions the populartunes of the Kannada folk play srikrsna-parijdta.

76. T.S. Satyanath

Accordingly, the text mentions that the famous tune ofthe song 'pandu nrpati janaka jaya' is based on theKannada folk play tune 'ksira sagara namma mane'.Kurtukoti further points out that after thirty years thedominance of Marathi plays was so profound that the linkbetween the two was completely forgotten.

9. It is important to note that Shanta Kavi was associatedwith the Sri Vimarayana Prasadita Krutapura NatakaMandali of Gadag, which was in existence during 1877-1895. He also wrote the first play usiiharana that thecompany performed in 1877. It is also worth mentioningthat Betageri Krishnasharma wrote a poem in Kannada tomake the Kannadigas aware of the strong dominance ofMarathi over Kannada, but actually composed that songbasing it on a famous Marathi tune of those days viz.'rajahamsa majha nijala', This is only to suggest thecomplexity of the situation during the early phase oftranslation.

10. Bellary Raghavacharya was one of the most popularactors and was associated with the Amateur DramatistsAssociation, Bangalore. He was a multilingual actor andacted in English, Kannada and Telugu plays. Hischaracterization of Shakespearian characters was sofamous that Srinivasamurthy (Srinivasamurthy 1966)notes that Raghavacharya even went abroad in 1927 toSingapore and London and performed before Englishaudiences.

11. Kirtane is a popular form of religious discourse in whicha story is narrated through songs and dialogues to theaccompaniment of musical instruments. The mass appeal


that the religious discourse had in those days, theexistence of the text only in its oral form, the fluid natureof the text and its potential for spontaneousinterpolations, improvisations and changes, and above all,the insularity that such texts enjoyed from the British law(against seditious writings), all suggest the innovativeways in which apparently conservative performingtraditions could transform the performances intosubversions and contestations.

APPENDIX-I: TABLE SHOWING THE DETAILS OFSHAKESPEARIAN TRANSLATIONS IN KANNADA

ORIGINAL TRANSLATEDTITLE TITLE YEAR tllANSLA TOR LANG. GENRE REMARKS

raghavendraravOthello nataka 1885 Churamuri English

Basavappa OralOthello surasena caritre 1895 shastry English rendering's tr.Othello padmini 1911 Srikantha shastry Telugu Prose tr. V.Pantulu's tr.Othello athelia n.d. Krishnashastry EnglishOthello athelia c.1954 Shanmukhayya EnglishOthello othelo 1963 Huyilagola English Prose tr.

Tr. forOthello othelo 1967 n.a. English Prose tr. ChildrenOthello athelo 1974 Nisar Ahmad EnglishAs You Like sankalpa siddhiyu yak~aganIt 1871 KKR English aAs You LikeIt ays yu laik it n.d. Shastry' EnglishAs You Like kamalavatiIt parinaya n.d. Sharnarava EnglishAs You LikeIt dorernagalu 1959 Bharatisuta - English Prose tr.As You LikeIt nivu bavasidante 1963 Huvilazola Enzlish Prose tr.All's Wellthat Ends satlmani vijayaWell 1897 Sornanathayya Teluzu Prose tr. V.Pantulu's tr.Antony and antoni mattuCleopatra kliyopatra n.d. Mallaraie Arasu English unpublishedThe Comedy nagadavarannuof Errors nagisuva kathe 1871 Chennabasappa English earl ist tr.The Comedy bhrantivilasa

I.Vidyasagar'sof Errors 1876 Venkatacharva Bengali Prose II'. tr.The Comedyof Errors viparyasa 1947 Parvatavani English

.ak ked dombi

King Henry dandhaleya II PartVI prahasana 1959 Gundappa Enzlish only

hernacandraraja Verse +King Lear vilasa 1899 Puttanna English prose 19897King Lear Iiyar maharaja 1959 Srinavasa EnglishKing Lear king liyara 1963 Huyilagola English Prose tr.

How Does Shakespeare Become Sekh Fir In Kannada 79King Lear king-liyar 1988 Shivaprakasha EnglishJulies juliyas sizarCeaser 1931 Sharma, T.T. English Prose tr.Julies III Act, IICeaser savasamskara 1939 Channabasava Enolish SceneJuliesCeaser jiiliyas slzar n.d. Inamdar EnglishJuliesCeaser 'Uliyas sizar n.d. Shanrnukhayya EnglishJuliesCeaser iulivas sljhar 1963 Huyilago)a English Prose II'.JuliesCeaser 'iiliyas slzar 1973 Shankar EnglishJuliesCeaser juliyas slzar 1975 Bhasavan EnglishJuliesCeaser [Iilivas slzar 1977 Niranjana EnglishThe TwoGentlemenof Verona kusumakara 1897 Annajirao Enalish Prose tr. 1905?TheTempest chandarnaruta 1893 Subbarao English Prose tr. C.Lamb's tr.TheTempest birugali 1930 Kuvemnu Enolish Free II'.TheTempest chandarnaruta 1959 Srinivasa EnglishThe mantrikana-Tempest magalu 1963 Mahalinga Bhatta EnglishTheTempest biruga]: 1963 Huvilaaola English Prose II'.The TI'. ForTempest birugali 1967 ViVi English Prose tr. ChildrenTheTempest chandarnaruta 1981 Murthy Rao EnglishThe dhiimdhiimTempest suntaraga]i 1992 Vaidehi EnzlishThe Tamingof the Shrew n.t. 1881 Varadachar EnglishThe Taming gayyaliyannuof the Shrew sadhumaduvike n.d. Narasirnhachar EnglishThe Tamingof the Shrew chandlmardana n.d. Rarnashastrv EnglishThe Taming gayyaliyannuof the Shrew sadhumaduvike 1897 Somanathayya Telugu Prose II'. V.Pantulu's tr.The Taming chandirnadamard. of the Shrew ana natakarn 1910 Lakshmana Rao English

80 T.S. Satyanath

The Taming V.B.Kelkar'sof the Shrew tratika nataka 1929 Honnapura matha Marathi Prose tr. tr.The Tamingof the Shrew bahaddur ganda 1947 Parvatavani EnglishThe Tamingof the Shrew Igayya)i ganda 1964 Murthy EnglishTwelfthNight dvadasa ratri 1960 Srinivasa EnglishTwelfth hanneradaneyaNight ratri 1975 Narayana EnglishTheMerchant of pancalT A For PalaceVenice Iparil)ayam 1890 Anandarao English Mysorian Co.TheMerchant of venisu nagaradaVenice vanika 1906 Venkatacharya Bengali?TheMerchant of venupuriya HanumantaVenice vartaka 1928 Gowda EnglishTheMerchant of suratanagaradaVenice sre~thiYll - 1929 Vasudevacharva EnglishTheMerchant ofVenice venis vyapari 1958 Sukuma EnglishTheMerchant of BlankVenice venissina vvapari 1959 Gundanna English verseTheMerchant ofVenice venisina vartaka 1962 Huyilagola English Prose tr.

TheMerchant ofVenice marcent afvenis n.d. Javaraiacharva EnglishTheMerchant of di marcant afVenice venis n.d. Sitararnavva EnglishTheMerchant of di marcant afVenice venis n.d. Shanmukhayya EnglishAMidsummer-night's SrikantheshaDream pramllarjunlya c. 1890 Gowda English

How Does Shakespeare Become su Pir In Kannada 81A vasantayamini c. 1890 Vasudevacharya E!1glishMidsummer- swapanacarnatkarnight's a natakavuDreamAMidsummer-night's nadubesageya

.)

Dream iruluganasu 1963 Huyilagola English Prose tr.AMidsummer-night's e mid sarnmarDream naits drlrn 1974 Nisar Ahmad EnglishMacbeth myakbet c.1881 Channabasappa English

prdvesa bhandara Dukha-Macbeth natakavu 1926 Anantaraya English ianvaMacbeth raktaksi 1932 Kuvernpu English Free tr.Macbeth myakbet 1936 Gundappa English I 974?

krura-hambalaMacbeth rnvakbeth 1963 Huvilazola .. English Prose tr. (1964)

RamachandraMacbeth mvakbet 1976 deva EnglishMacbeth rnyakbet 1985 Parvatavani English

maranayakanaMacbeth drstanta 1990 Shivaprakash EnglishMacbeth lgombe myakbet 1992 Vaidehi English

karnalaksaRomeo and padmagandhiyaraJuliet kathe 1881 8handivada EnglishRomeo and ramavarmaJuliet lllavati c.1889 Varadachar 'EnglishRomeo and ramavarmaJuliet lTliivati caritre 1889 Anandarao EnglishRomeo and ramavarrnaJuliet lllavati caritre 1889 Javaraiacharva EnglishRomeo and rorniyo and 8asavappa OralJuliet iuliye; n.d. shastry English rendering's tr.Romeo and rorniyo and, SrikantheshaJuliet [filiyet n.d. Gowda EnglishRomeo andJuliet asOya parinarna 1931 Amrutachari EnglishRomeo and romiyo mattu ShankaraJuliet [Iiliyet 1949 narayanaRao English Prose tr.Romeo andJuliet rorniyo jiiliyet 1952 Shanmukhayya English

82 T.S. Satyanath

Romeo and r5miy5 mattuJuliet [Iiliyet 1963 Huyilagola English Prose tr.The Winter'sTale manjughosa n.d. Rangacharya EnglishThe Winter'sTale mahlrnandana 1900 Annajirao English Prose tr.The Winter'sTale manjuvani 1914 Srikantha shastry Telugu Prose tr.? V.Pantulu's (I'.The Winter's ShivararnaTale hemanta 1982 Karantha English

ayasimharajaCvmbeline charitram 1907 Nanjappa English

ayasirnharajaCymbeline caritre 1881 Puttanna English Prose tr.Hamlet hyamlet 1905 Anandarao English

hyamlet, anatakadakarnataka

Hamlet bha~antaraln 1905 Rao EnglishShivarama

Hamlet hyamlet c. 1930 Karantha English Unpublis-hedHamlet santapaka 1937 Arnrutachari English Prose tr.Hamlet hyarnlet n.d. Kulakarni EnglishHamlet hyamlet n.d. Jayarajacharya English tHamlet hyamlet n.d. Jivannaraya English

ShivalingaHamlet hyamlet n.d. swarny EnglishHamlet hyamlet n.d. Hernantakumara EnglishHamlet hyamle] n.d. Jivaji English . Unpublis-hedHamlet hyamle] n.d. Savalizimatha English Unpublis-hedHamlet hyarnlet 1958 Srinivasa EnglishHamlet hyarnlet 1960 Parvati EnglishHamlet hyarnlet 1961 Kulakarni English Prose tr.Hamlet hyamlet 1970 Anandarao EnglishHamlet hyarnlet 1973 Bhagawan English

RarnachandraHamlet hyarnlet 1978 deva EnglishHamlet hyamlet 1985 Parvatavani EnglishCoriolanus korivalenas 1981 Raiazooal English

parikalabhyuPericles daya 1897 Annajirao English Prose tr.

APPENDIX - II

A BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SHAKESPEARIANTRANSLATIONS IN KANNADA

Othello

Krishnashastry, A.R. n.d. athello.i n.p.

Churamuri, G.K. 1885. riighavendrariiv ndtaka. Dharwar:G.K. Churamuri.

Basavappashastry M. and C. Subbarao. 1895. siirasenacaritre. 11 Mysore: G.T.A. Press.

Srikanthashastry, Nam. 1911. padmini" Mysore: G.T.A.Press.

Shanmukhayya, YM. 1954. athello.iv n.p.

Huyilagola, Varadaraja. 1963. othelo" Dharwar: RamashrayaBook Depot.

n.a. 1967. othelo.vi Mysore: Sharada Mandira.

Ahmad, Nisar. 1974. athelo. Mysore: ThalukinaVenkannayyaSmaraka Granthamale.

84 T.S. Satyanath

As You Like It

K. K. R. 1871. sankalpa siddhiu.vii subodhini, Nov. 1st and 15th. ,Issues.

Shastry, A.V. n.d. ays yu laik i(.viii n.p.

Shamaraya, Venkatadri. n.d. kamaldvati parinaya" n.p.

Bharatisuta. 1959. doremagalu? Mangalore: KannadaPrapancha Prakashana.

Huyilagola, Varadaraja .. 1963. nivu bayasidante" Dharwar:Ramashraya Book Depot.

All's Well that Ends Well

The Comedy of Errors

Somanathayya, Bellave Somappa. 1897. satimani vijaya/" n.p

Antony and Cleopatra

Arasu, K. Mallaraje. n.d. dntoni mattu kliyopatra.Unpublished.

Chennabasappa, Basavalingappa. 1871. nagadavarannunagisuva kathe.xiii Dharwar: n.p.

How Does Shakespeare Become Skh Pir In Kannada 85

Venkatacharya, B. 1876. bhrantivilasa.xiv Mysore: G.T.A.Press.

Parvatavani. 1947.Prakatana1aya.

viparyiisa. Banga1ore: Chaya

King Henry VI

Gundappa, D.V. (Di.Vi.G.) 1959. jak ked, dombi diindhaleyaprahasana. XVMysore:Kavya1aya.

King Lear

Puttanna, M.S. 1899. hemacandrariija vilasa.xvi Bangalore:Coxton Press.

Srinivasa. 1959. liyar maharaja. Bangalore: Jivana Karyalaya.

Huyilagola, Varadaraja. 1963. king "liyara.xvii Dharwar:Ramashraya Book Depot.

Shivaprakasha, H.S. 1988. king liyar. Banga1ore: PriyadarshiniPustaka1aya.

Julius Caeser

I d V M d'-I' - xviiinam ar, . . n. . jU lyas stzar: n.p.

Shanmukhayya, Y.M. ti.c.jidiyas sfzar.xix n.p.

Sharma, Tirumale Tatacharya. 1921. jiiliyas sizar."Mangalore: Dashaprabhu and Sons.

86 T.S. Satyanath

Chennabasava. 1939. savasamskara.xxi Bellary: KannadaGeleyara Gumpu.

Huyilagola, Varadaraja. 1963. jiiliyas sijhar.xxii Dharwar:Ramashraya Book Depot.

Shankar, S.N. 1973.juliyas sizar. Mysore: Sharada Mandira.

Bhagavan, K.S. 1975. jiiliyas sizar. Mysore: MahimaPrakashana.

Niranjana, Tejasvini. 1977. jiiliyas sizar. Bangalore: KathaSahitya.

The Two Gentlemen of Verona

The Tempest

Annajirao, M.R. 1897. kusumakara.xxiii Bangalore: TownPress.

Subbarao, B. 1892. candamiiruta- sekspiyar mahdkaviyindaracitavada tempest emba natakada katheya saramsavu.xxiv

Mysore: G.T.A. Press.

Kuvempu. 1930. birugali/?" Mysore: Udayaravi.

Srinivasa. 1959. candamiiruta. Bangalore: Jivana Karyalaya.

Huyilagola, Varadaraja. 1963. birugali":" Dharwar:Ramashraya Book Depot.


Mahalingabhatta, Y. 1963. mantrikana-magalu. Mangalore:U.R. Shenoy and Sons.

Vi.Vi. 1967. biruga{i.xxvii Mysore: Sharada Mandira.

Murthyrao, AN. 1981. candamiiruta. Mysore: ArpanaPrakashana.

Vaidehi. 1992. dhiim dhiim suntaragiili. Heggodu: AksharaPrakashana.

The Taming of the Shrew

Varadachar, A n.d. n.t. n.p.

Ramashastry, Godapalli. n.d. candimardana/Y'" n.p.

Narasimhachar, S.G. n.d. gayyiiliyannu siidhumaduvike/?" n.p.

Somanathayya, Bellave Somappa. 1897. gayyaliyannusiidhumiiduvikei'" n.p.

Lakshmanarao, K. 1910. candimadamardana natakam.Mysore: G.T.A Press.

Honnapuramatha, Ga. Hu. 1929. triuikii niitaka athava mondaganda tunta hendati nataka.xxxi Dharwar: R.A Hirematha.

Parvatavani. 1947. bahaddur ganda. Mysore: BharatiPrakash ana.

88 T.S. Satyanath

Murthy, A.S. 1964. gayyali gamda. Tiptur: SudarshanaPrakashana.

Twelfth Night

Sukuma. 1958. venis vyiipiiri. Bangalore: Panchajanya.

Srinivasa. 1960. dvadasa-ratri. Bangalore: Jivana Karyalaya.

Narayana, P.v. 1975. hanneradaneya riitri. Bangalore: UllasaPrakatanala ya.

The Merchant of Venice

Sit V' d di if' xxxii1 aramayya, . n. . l marcent a vents. n.p.

Shanmukhayya, Y.M. n.d. di marcent afvenis.xxxiii n.p.

J . h N hari d if' xxxivayarajac arya, ara an. n .. marcent a vents. . n.p.

Krishnashastry, A.R. n.d. venisu nagarada vanika"?", n.p.

Ananadarao, A. 1890. panciili parinayam?":" Bangalore:Albion Press.

Venkatacharya, B. 1906. venisu nagarada val1ika.xxxvii n.p.

Hanumantagowda, C. 1928. venupuriya vartaka, ed. by Bhi. Ji.Hulikavi. Dharwar: Sharada mandira.

Vasudevacharya, Kerura. 1929. suratanagarada sresthiyu.Bagilukote: Vasudeva Pustakalaya.


Gundanna, G. 1959. venissina vydpiiri. Citradurga: G.Gundanna.

Huyilagola, Varadaraj a. 1962. venisina vartaka. xxxviii Dharwar:Ramashraya Book Depot.

A Midsummer Night's Dream

Vasudevacharya, Kerura. . n.d. vasantayiiminik- - k: XXXIXswapanacamat ara nata avu.

Bagilukote: Kerura Swamirayacharya.

Srikantheshagowda, M.L. 1890 (7). pramilarjuniya. Mysore:G.T.A. Press.

Huyilagola, Varadaraja. 1963. nadubesageya iruluganasu"Dharwar: Ramashraya Book Depot.

Ahmad, Nisar. 1974. e mid sammar naits drim. Mysore:Pruthvi Prakashana.

Macbeth

Chennabasappa, Basavalingappa. 1881 (7). myakbet?"Dharwar: n.p.

Srikantheshagowda, M.L. 1895. pratdparudradeva. xlii Mysore:G.T.A. Press.

90 T.S. Satyanath

Anantharaya, Haranahalli. 1926. dvesa bhiindiira niitakavu. xliiiKarwar: Haranahalli Anantharaya.

Vaidehi. 1992. gombe myiikbet. Heggodu: AksharaPrakashana.

Kuvempu. 1932. rakta/~i.xliv Mysore: Udayaravi,

Gundappa, D.V. (Di.Vi.G). 1936. myakbet.xlv Bangalore:Kamataka Prakatanalaya.

Huyilagola, Varadaraja. 1963. myakbet.x1vi Dharwar:Ramashraya Book Depot.

Deva, Ramachandra. 1976. myiikbet. Chokkadi: SumanasaVichara Vedike.

Parvatavani. 1985. myakbet. Bangalore: IBH Publishers.

Shivaprakasha, H.S. 1990. mdraniiyakana drstdnta. Shimoga:Parisara Prakashana.

Romeo and Juliet

Basavappashastry, M. n.d. riimiyo and ju!iye(.xlviin.p.

Srikantheshagowda. K.L. n.d. romiyo anc!Jftliye(.xlviii. n.p.

Bhandivada, Venkatesha Bhimarao. 1881. kamaliiksapadmagandhiyara kathe. n.p.


Anandarao, A. 1889. riimavarma liliivati caritre. Mysore:Government Branch Press.

Jayarajacharya, Narahari. 1889. rdmavarma liliivati caritre.Mysore: n.p.

Varadachar, A.V. 1889. riimavarma lilavati. Mysore: GeneralAgency.

Amrutachari, Ti. 1931. asuya partnama. Mysore: WesleyanMission Publishing House.

Shankaranarayanarao, H.M. 1949.jiiliye(.x1ixMysore: Sharada Mandira.

romiyo mattu

Shanmukhayya, YM. 1952. romiyii jidiyet' Bangalore:Eastern Press.

Huyilagola, Varadaraja. 1963. romiyii mattu jidiyet.' Dharwar:Ramashraya Book Depot.

The Winter's Tale

Rangacharya, Mudgal. n.d. manjughiisa." n.p.

Annajirao, M.R. 1900. mahimandana/" Mysore: G.T.A. Press.

Srikanthashastry, Nam. 1914. manjuvani." Mysore: G.T.A.Press.

92 T.S. Satyanath

Karanta, Shivarama. 1982. hemanta. Hubballi: Sahityabandhara.

Cymbeline

Puttana, M.S. and M.B. Srinivasa Iyengar. 1881.jayasimhariija caritre.1v Bangalore: City Press.

Nanjappa, Mallappa. 1907.. IviB I T Pcaritram. anga ore: own ress.

jayasimhariija

Hamlet

Karantha, Shivarama. n.d. hyamlet.1vii Unpublished.

Jayarajacharya, Narahari. n.d. hyamlet.lviiin.p.

Shanmukhayya, YM. 1954. hyamlet.1xiv n.p.

Jevannaraya, Gode. n.d. hyamlet.1ixn.p.

Savaligimatha, Shivalingaswamy. n.d. hydmlet" n.p.

Hemantakumara. n.d. hyiimlet'" n.p.

Ananadarao, A. (Mysuru Deshiyya). 1905. hyiimlet a niitakadakamiitaka bhasantaram.t" Bangaiore: Mysore Book DepotPress.

Amrutachari, T. 1937. santapaka.r" Bangalore: M.Nanjundayya and Brothers.


Srinivasa. 1958. hyiimlet. Bangalore: Jivana Karyalaya.

Narasimhamurthy, Parvathi Krishnappa. 1960. hydmlet,Mysore: Pumima Sahitya Mandira.

Kulakami, K.S. 1961. hyamlet.1xv Belagam: Sarasvati PustakaBhandara.

Bhagavan, K.S. 1973. hyamlet, Mysore: ThalukinaVenkannayya Smaraka Granthamale.

Deva, Ramachandra. 1978. hyamlet. Sagara: AksharaPrakashana.

Parvatavani. 1985. hyiimlet. Bangalore: IBH Publishers.

Coriolanus

Rajagopal. K.V. 1981. koriyolenas. Bangalore: Jagat SahityaMale.

PericlesAnnajirao, M.R. 1897. parikalabhyudayal'" Mysore: G.T.A.Press.

Anthologies

Narasimhashastry, V.L. 1909. sekspiyar mahiikaviya niuakakathiinuvdda. IxViiMysore: Christian Literature Society.

Shastry, V. Lakshminrusimha. 1934. sekspiyar niitakakathega{u.lxviii Bangalore: Kamataka Prakatanalaya.

94 T.S. Satyanath

ik N 9 kavi d 1 J I IxixSn anthashastry, am. 1- 53. avtnan ana katnegatu.Bangalore: M.S. and Sons.

Shastry, Bellave Narahari. 1955. angla niuaka kaihiivoli":Bangalore: Bellave Pustakalaya.

Girvani. 1957. othello mattu itara niitakaBangalore: Ashoka Sahitya.

lxxikathegalu.

Iyengar, Masti venkatesha. 1958. sekspiyar bhasiintara -samputa I: liyar maharaja mattu hyiimlet, Bangalore: JivanaKaryalaya.

Iyengar, Masti venkatesha. 1959. sekspiyar bhiisiintara -samputa II: dvadasa rdtri mattu candamiiruta. Bangalore:Jivana Karyalaya.

Venkataramappa, K. 1959. inglis niitakada kathegalu - bhiigaI ..J. XXII Mysore: K. Venkataramappa.

Kulakami, A.S. 1961. venis nagarada vartaka mattu itarakathegalu.lxxiii Bangalore: S.S.N. Depot.

Srinivasa. 1962. sekspiyar-drsyagalu. IXXiVBangalore:JivanaKaryalaya.

Ramananda. 1963. sekspiyarina kathegalu.t" Dharwar:Samaja Pustakalaya.


FOOT-NOTES FOR APPEND/XIl

1. The-year of publication and the place and publisher's name arenot available.

11. Basvappashastry did not know English. The translation has beendone based on the Kannada rendering of the play by Subbarao.The translation was commissioned for the Palace Company.

111. Prose translation based on the Telugu version by KandukuriVireshalingam Pantulu.

IV. The year of publication is only tentative and the place andpublisher's name is not available.

V. Prose translation.VI. The translator's name is not available; however, this translation

was meant for the children are evident from the fact that this isthe twenty-fifth publication in the children books series(makka]a pustakamale).

V11. This appears to be the earliest translation though, Deva (1994)claims that Chennabasappa's translation of The Comedy ofErrors is the earliest one. The exact date of publication forsankalpa siddhiyu is available' to us:' the November I" and 15th

issues of subodhini, a journal that use to get published fromMangalore. What is interesting with this translation of As YouLike It is that it has been adapted into yaksagana style, theregional folk theatre of coastal Karnataka (for more details seePadikkaI2001).

Vlll. The year of publication and the place and publisher's name arenot available.'

. IX. The year of publication and the place and publisher's name arenot available.

x. Prose rendering; like a long story (nllgate),Xl. Prose translation.XlI. The place and publisher's name is not available. The translation

is based on the Telugu translation by Vireshalingam Pantulu andprobably, a prose translation.

Xlll. This is the earliest translation of Shakespeare in Kannada'according to deva (1993).

96 T.S. Satyanath

XIV. A prose translation based on Ishvara Chandra Vidyasagar'sBengali translation. The second edition appeared by 1899. Thefirst edition appeared in 1876 simultaneously from G.T.A. Pressin Mysore and Kamataka Press in Bangalore.

XV. Contains translation of the second part of Henry VI.XVI. Havanura (1974) observes that compared to the then prevailing

trend in translation of using prose and verse (based on the modelof Sanskrit plays), Puttanna's prose translation of the play is anew step in the emergence of Kannada drama.Prose translation.The year of publication and the place and publisher's name arenot available.The year of publication and the place and publisher's name arenot available. .Prose translation. Balurao's bibliography gives the year ofpublication as 1931 and publisher as Kamataka SahityaPrakatana Mandira, Bangalore.Translation of the second scene, third act of the play.Prose translation.Balurao (1966) notes that it is a prose translation,Prose translation; the third edition of the translation hadappeared by 1898. However, Balurao (1966) gives the year ofpublication as 1893 and the publisher's name as KarnatakaGranthamala, Mysore.This is a free translation. A subsequent edition (second?)appeared in 1959. Balurao (1966) gives the publisher's name asKavyalaya.Prose translation.This translation that was meant for the children is evident fromthe fact that this is the ninth publication in the children booksseries (rnakkala pustakarnale).

XXVllI. The date of publication, place and publisher's name are notavailable.

XXIX. The date of publication, place and publisher's name are notavailable.

-xvn.XVlll.

XIX.

XX.

XXI.

XXll.

XX111.

XXIV.

I.

XXV.

XXVI.

XXVll.

How Does Shakespeare Become ,~ekhPir In Kannada 97

xxx. The place and publisher's name is not available. The translationis based on the Telugu translation by Vireshalingam Pantulu andprobably, a prose translation.

XXXI. This translation had seen the third edition by 1952. Thepublisher for the third edition was Chandrodaya Mudranalaya ofDharwar.

XXXII. The date of publication, place and publisher's name are notavailable.

XXXlll. The date of publication, place and publisher's name are notavailable.

XXXIV. The date of publication, place and publisher's name are notavailable.

XXXV. The date of publication, place and publisher's name are notavailable.

XXXVI. The bibliographies mention that the name of the translation is 'aresident of Mysore'. However, it has been pointed out that thetranslator is actually A. Anandarao.

XXXVll. The place and publisher's name are not available. Probably, aprose translation based on Ishvara Chandra Vidyasagar'sBengali translation.

XXXVlll. Prose translation.XXXIX. The date of publication is not available. However, secondary

sources mention that it was published around 1890.xl. Prose translation.xli. The date of publication has been confirmed only from the

secondary sources.xlii. The title of the play, prataparudradeva is not the name given for

Macbeth in the Kannada adaptation. It is the name given toMalcom, the first son of Macbeth, who ascends the throne. Iffact, the name given for Macbeth in the adaptation is virasena.Similarly the witches have become yaksinis in the adaptation.

xliii. Includes an introductory essay on tragedy; it is interesting tonote that the term used for tragedy is 'duhkhajanya nataka'.

xliv. This is a free translation. A subsequent edition (second?)appeared in 1959.

98

xlv.

xlvi.

xlvii.

xlviii.

xlix.l.

li.Iii.

liii.liv.

Iv.

lvi.

lvii.lviii.

lix.

Ix.

lxi.

lxii.

lxiii.lxiv.

T.S. Satyanath

Subsequent edition appeared in 1974 from Mysore and waspublished by Kavyalaya.Prose translation. Another prose translation with the title kriirahambala has been published from the same translator in 1964from Nilakantha Prakashana from Dharwar.The date of publication, place and publisher's name are notavailable.The date of publication, place and publisher's name are notavailable.Prose translation.The second edition appears to have been published in 1970from Bangalore by Triveni Mudranalaya.Prose translation.The date of publication, place ..and publisher's name are notavailable.Prose translation.Prose translation based on Kandukuri Vireshalingam Pantulu'sprose translation, sumitrii caritam in Telugu. /There is a suggestion in Sujata (1981) that this was subsequentlyrewritten as a play by Puttanna. However, the text is no evidenceof its publication.Some references mention that the publisher's name is T.N.Mudrakshara Shale.Probably was translated some time around 1930.The date of publication, place and publisher's name are notavailable.The date of publication, place and publisher's name are notavailable.The date of publication, place and publisher's name are notavailable.The date of publication, place and publisher's name are notavailable.Scholars have pointed out that the translator is probably Pi..Anandarao.Prose translation.The place and publisher's name is not available.

How Does Shakespeare Become Sekh Pir In Kannada

lxv.lxvi.lxvii.

lxviii.

lxix.

lxx.lxxi.

lxxii.

lxxiii.

lxxiv.lxxv.

)

99

Prose translation.Prose translation.Includes prose translation of eight plays: King Lear, As YouLike It, Two Gentlemen of Verona, Cymbeline, Twelfth Night,The Winter's Tale, The Tempest and All's Well That Ends well.Translated from English and contains prose renderings of fourplays: Hamlet, Macbeth, Othello and Julies Cesar.The year of publication given here is for the second edition. Thisis the prose translation of Kandukuri Vireshalingam Pantulu'sprose translation of Shakespeare's plays in Telugu and containsthe following: The Merchant of Venice, Othello, The Winter'sTale, King Lear, and The Taming of the Shrew.Srikanthashastry's prose translations of Othello and TheWinter's Tale have already been published separately in 1911and 1914.Includes prose translations of comedies.Includes prose translations of seven plays: Othello, TheMerchant of Venice, Cymbeline, Pericles, As You Like It, TheWinter's Tale and Macbeth.Includes prose translation of six plays: The Tempest, Pericles,Cymbeline and others.Includes prose translations of four plays: The merchant ofVenice, Othello, As You Like It and Macbeth.This includes translations of scenes from fifteen different plays.Includes prose translations of seven plays: The Merchant ofVenice, As You Like It and others.

References

Amura, G.S. (1995). uttara karniitakadalli iidhunikarangabhiimiya udaya (vrutti nataka mattu vilasinatakagalu) satvlkapatha. Bangalore: PrithviPrakashana.

Anderson, Benedict. (1983). Imagined Communities:Reflections on the Origin and Spread ofNationalism. London: Verso.

Balurao, S. (1966). sekspiyarige namaskara. Delhi: KannadaBharati.

Chaudhuri, Sukanta (2002). Shakespeare in India.http://web.uvic.ca/shakespeare/Library/CriticisrnlShakesperein/India.html

Deva, Ramachandra (1993). sekspiyar:samskrtigalalli. Bangalore: Granthavali.

eradu

Enke (2002). nata natakakara vamanarav mastar.Dharwar: Sankalana Prakashana.

Fleet, J.F. (1885). The Insurrection of Riiyanna of Sangolli ..Indian Antiquary. Vol. XIV:

Havanura, Srinivasa (1974). hosagannadada arunodaya.Mysore: University of Mysore. v


kannada granthasuci: mudrita kannada kritiga]vivaranatmaka granthasuci- anuvada sahitya, Vol.7. Mysore: University of Mysore. 1984.

Kamad, Girish. (1989). In Search of a New Theatre, in Sorden,Clara M. (ed) Contemporary India. Delhi: OxfordUniversity Press.

Kurtukoti, K.D. (1969). niitaka nadedubanda darl, Dharwar:Manohara Grantha Mala.

Kurtukoti, K.D. (1993). teli banda kattigeya tundu. uriya-nalige. Dharwar: Manohara Grantha Mala.

Murthy Rao, A.N. (1962). seksplyar: purvabhaga. Mysore:University of Mysore.

Murthy Rao, A.N. (1966). sekspiyar mattu karnataka in, Balurao S. (ed.) seksplyarlge narnaskara. New

Delhi: Kannada Bharati.

Padikkal, Shivarama (2001). nadu-nudiya rupaka: rastra,adhunikate mattu kannadada modal akadambarigalu. Mangalagangotri: MangaloreUniversity.

Punekar, Shankara Mokashi (1974). preksaka mattukalabhiruci. kannada rangabhumi: andu-indu, aruupanyasaga]u. Dharwar: Kamatak University.

102 T.S. Satyanath

Ramachandramurthy, H.K. (1977). kannada rangabhiimi.kannada nataka prapa~ca. Bangalore: KannadaSahitya Parishattu.

Satyanath, T.S. (2002). Translation and Reception as aCultural Process: Translating Tragedies inKannada. Translation Today: Online Journal, 1.1,Inaugural issue, now available in its print version.www.cilllanukrti/Tt/l.l

Satyanath, T.S. (1997). Manly Sahabs and their InfidelMemsahabs. Paper presented at the NationalSeminar on the Image of the Colonizer in IndianRepresentations. Delhi: Kamataka Sangha, March 1-3.

Shamaraya, Ta. Suo (1962). kannada nataka, Mysore: GitaBook House.

Shamaraya, Ta. Suo (1966). kannada mattu sekspiyar in S.Balurao (ed.) sekspiyarlge namaskara, New Delhi:Kannada Bharati.

Sriranga. (1966). siimanyara sekspiyar in S.Balurao (ed.)seksplyarlge namaskara. New Delhi: KannadaBharati.

Sujata, H.S. (1981). M.S. Puttanua: ondu adhyayana.Bangalore: IBH Prakashana.

Venkataramanayya, T.V. (1973). kannada bhasa-sahltyaIekhana suci, Bangalore: Bangalore University.

Documents

How Does Shakespeare Become Sekh Pir in Kannada - T.S. Satyanath