Ashok R. Kelkar



The Transformation of Marathi Literary sensibility 1820-1920


  Obviously the transformation of Maharashtra culture over the period 1820 to 1920 is part of a larger process that I prefer to call the Indian Awakening (Bharatiya Prabodhan) rather than the Indian Renaissance.  I propose, first to characterize the Indian awakening (Section I), then to look at Maharashtra and its literary life in that perspective (Section II), and finally to go into specifics to lend some body to my argument (Section III).


I: A Perspective on the Indian Awakening


            The European Renaissance was brought by the breakdown of the feudal order and the rise of city states and national monarchies, the revival of Graeco-Latin learning, the exploratory sea voyages to the East and to the Western hemisphere, and the rise of mercantilism, and it was followed by the Protestant Reformation and the scientific Revolution.  Europe moved to the Modern Age.  The Indian Awakening, on the other hand, is the externally originating process of the Modern Age moving to the shores of south Asia.  It is true that a certain analogy of limited validity could be drawn between the absolute monarchies and the Protestant Reformation of Europe on the one hand and the Mughal Empire (and some of the regional monarchies) and the Bhakti and Sufi movements of India on the other hand.  But when one considers the much later social, cultural, and ideological upheaval of 19th century India one has to concede that this upheaval was almost wholly a result of the coming of the British rule.  The ten-century-old isolationism of Indian culture from the rest of human civilization came to an abrupt end in the 18th and 19th centuries.  The agency of change was not European culture as such but European capitalist imperialism in the practical-minded, gradualist, Benthamite-liberal English version.  The British rule brought along not only its Pax Brittanica but also its liberal reforms, its Christian evangelists, and of course its economic exploitation.


            With Europe the shift from the Medieval ethos to the Modern ethos was a shift from a feudal to a mercantile social order and from an Other-directed personality (where the expression ‘the Other’ is to be taken in its broadest application) to a personality directed by a search for a new order.  The European Renaissance introduced secularism, individualism, and nationalism.  The European Enlightenment of the 18th century strengthened the values of egalitarianism, utilitarianism,and rationalism, and was followed by the French Revolution and the Industrial Revolution.  The Indian awakening partook a little of both the European Renaissance and the European Enlightenment, but equaled neither in depth or scope.  It was essentially an attempt to catch up with four centuries of European history (the 15th to the 18th).  The values that European modernity espoused touched upon –


(i)                  the relation between man and universe (rationality in understanding it and utilitarianism in reshaping it);

(ii)                the relation between man and man (egalitarianism at home and nationalism to the rest of the world; and

(iii)               the relation between man and the self (individualism and secularism in relation to the Other).


The best way to capture the resurgence of a prostrate Indian in the 19th century is through two vivid and celebrated images – one image from Tilak’s famous tribute to Ranade, whom he credited with infusing life into cold, nearly lifeless flesh of the body social, and the other image from Tagore’s ode evoking the heaven into which he would some day see his country awake.


            While the values of European modernity were adopted, and adapted in the process, by the leaders of the Indian Awakening at some stage or other and at some point or other, it did not equal European modernity, as we have just said, either in depth or scope.


            To begin with, the Awakening was not segmented but fragmented – by religion (for example, the Muslims were only partially drawn into it, social reform and women’s emancipation were indeed far removed from their thoughts), by classes aligned by caste and community (for example, the scholars and professional of Maharashtra were only imperfectly in touch with the new merchants like Jagannath Sankarsett and the new merchant-industrialists like Jamshetji Tata and the peasant discontent associated with names like Vasudeo Balwant Phadke and Jyotiba Phule), and by region (for example, in spite of being one of the three presidency towns of the East India Company’s rule and being the seat of one of the three oldest universities set up in 1857, Madras for some reason never figured as a ‘renaissance’ center along with Bombay and Calcutta).  An interesting consequence of this fragmentation is that Indian life even today appears to be split down the middle between a deshi segment innocent of the English language and western models and a videshi segment suflused with these – the split affects dress and living style, sports, the arts, medicine, trade and commerce (commodity market and handicraft versus manufactured goods), scholarship and educational effort, and so on.


            Naturally the awakening is not all-pervasive in the way the European Renaissance was—thus, it is significant that Marx didn’t reach the Indian intellectuals till the beginning of the 20th century; that the critique of religion among the Hindus was not followed by the emergence of new philosophical thought; that Europe continued to mean for Indians Europe through Anglo-Saxon eyes; and that one comes across personalities uneasily hovering between orthodoxy and reform all through this period.


            Finally, the Renaissance man was largely conspicuous by his absence.  The nearest we come to personalities alive to many sides of life are Raja Rammohan Roy (religious and social reformer, educationist, scholar), Justice M.G. Ranade (statesman, economist, historian, religious and social reformer), Rabindranath Tagore (poet, painter, thinker, and founder of Visvabharati as well as Sriniketan), and Mahatma Gandhi (political and social activist, religious and economic critic).  One has only to consider these personalities and their impact in comparison with their European counterparts and also with their Indian contemporaries.


            If the Indian Awakening was of an external origination, its content was not wholly of European inspiration.  Not only were European values filtered and adapted to suit the native cultural idiom, but there were often, especially on the part of the Hindus, a certain attempt to seek out affinities between the values of European modernity and Indian ways of life.  For Hindus rationalism was not entirely alien – the d¡rsanika (philosopher) was willing to follow tarka (logic) pratyakÀa (sense perception and mental perception) even in opposition to scriptures; even utilitarianism could find a bedfellow in the doctrine of vyavadh¡ra and apaddharma; nationalism was not to be seen as too different from svadharma; egalitarianism was seen to have affinities with the suspension of inequalities in bhakti; individualism has affinities with the doctrine of atmastuti (satisfying one’s inner self) in morals and the acceptance of loneliness in spiritual matters; and secularism was ‘restarted’ as the acceptance of plurality of paths in spiritual quest (lately christened as sarvadharmasamabhava – read dharma here as mata, which may be any denomination within or outside the Hindu fold).


            Of course such affinities are far from being identities.  The Hindu mind has certainly not fully come to terms with the rationalist search for reasoned faith in areas where logic and sense perception are inconclusive; with utilitarianism as against the centrality of the sacred; with nationalism as against family and caste loyalty; with egalitarianism as against the social inequalities of ritual status; with individualism as against deference to the elders, to custom, and to scriptures; and with secularism as against the recognition of the pervasive character of the sacred.  Indeed an important fall-out of the Western Indological effort and the partial victory of the ‘Orientalists’ in the policy debate preceding the 1885 decision on ‘public instruction’ in Mecaulay’s time was hat the new educated élite could be counted upon to learn a classical language like Sanskrit as a part of regular schooling and to take a fresh and selective look at their heritage.


            One must not confuse the mere survival of the past among the naively orthodox with the self-conscious revival of the past as with the Arya Samajist, who is as much at Joggerheads with the naïve ‘Sanatanist’ as with the Reformist.  Indeed the very reality of the past is in question.  Is it the surviving past (as with the observance of untouchability) or the carefully reconstructed past (as with Vedic Aryans or Buddhist India) or the not-so-carefully ‘refurbished’ past (as with the Golden Age)?


            To sum up, the cultural transformation of the Indian society of the period 1820-1920 (of which the cultural transformation of Maharashtra is but a part) is defined by the Indian awakening, which stood for regeneration of a prostrate society through a partial assimilation of the values of European modernity and through the rediscovery of Indian values – especially those from the distant past rather than from the immediate Medieval past.  Educating the public and educating the young were the most widely shared programmes of the leaders of the Indian Awakening.


II: Maharashtra and Marathi Literary Sensibility


            Given the regional fragmentation of the Indian Awakening, it is only to be expected that its manifestation in Maharashtra should be distinct in some respects.  Given the earlier exposure of Bengal to the British rule and its concomitants, one can see how Bengal was one generation ‘ahead’ of Maharashtra – a phase difference of about thirty years.  The visit of Keshub Chunder sen to Bombay where he met Ranade marks the beginning of the period (circa 1870-1920) of the direct influence of Bengal on Maharashtra (extending even to the choice of innovative personal names among Hindus!).  Bengal’s gift to Maharashtra was the founding of Pr¡rthan¡ Sam¡j in Bombay which was a less radical break-off than Brahmo Sam¡j from the Hindu fold; thenovels of Bankim Chandra Chatterjee, Sharad Chatterjee and Rabindranath tagore in Marathi translations; the writings of Vivekanand; the habilitation of mysticism and bhakti in the modern ambience; the idealization of womanhood; an inducement to think in universalist and cosmopolitan terms; and the recognition of the visual arts as culturally serious pursuits.


            In Western India, the administrative boundaries between Bombay Presidency, the Central Provinces and Berar, and the Nizam’s Dominion counted as much as the linguistic boundaries between Maharashtra, Gujarat, Karnataka, and the so-called Hindi belt.  Thus, the Awakening came to Bombay and Pune before it came to other cities in Maharashtra, to the so-called west Maharashtra before it came to Vidarbha and Marathwada – to name the three administrative fragments of Maharashtra.  (The natural segments of Maharashtra are Konkan and the four riverine valleys of the Tapi, the pranhita, the Godavari, and the Bhima and Krishna).  At the same time Bombay and, to a lesser extent, Pune served as radiating centers for the whole of the Presidency – Sindh, Gujarat, and northwest Karnataka no less than west Maharashtra.


            Again, while some casts and religious communities tended to retire into a shell of added glory, others were quick to adapt themselves to the new set-up and the life-style that went with it.  Three economically definable groups in Maharashtra became exposed to the newer influences in relative isolation from each other, namely, the professionals and office-goers (the so-called p¡¸·harpeš¡, or madhyam varga – containing as it were counterparts of both the bhadralok and the babus of Bengal), and the urban and urbanized  working classes (such as the Bombay mill hand and the army private).  The cultural leadership passed from the Sanskrit Pandits and the landholders of the new ‘middle class’.  The educational, literary, and intellectual activity, which was both an instrument and outgrowth of change, was largely the handiwork of the first group.  The extension and reworking of commerce and industry on the lines initiated by the British was the work of the second group.  (It is awkward to apply the term Indian bourgeoisie to both the first group and the second group indifferently, as some Indian Marxists are apt to do.)


            The picture of the socio-cultural landscape of Maharashtra in this phase will not be complete without a close look at what we have earlier called the surviving past, the constructed past, and the refurbished past.  The relevant elements in each for the Indian Awakening in Maharashtra can be set out as follows.


            The elements of the surviving past that made a difference were the prevalence of the raiyatw¡r¢ system of landholding and land revenue over the zam¢nd¡r¢ system especially in west Maharashtra), the stronger emphasis on the worth of the bhakta greater egalitarianism between the bhaktas, for whom God is anything but a lord or thakur), the devaluation of ritualism (karmak¡nda) and sectarianism (the Shaiva __neshvar being the patron saint of the vaishnava v¡rkar¢s), a strong emphasis on additional scholarship (especially in Vy¡karana, Ved¡nta, and Ny¡ya), and a tradition of  social criticism (as seen in the satire of Tukaram and Ramdas).


            Maharashtra scholarship actively joined hands with western scholars in reconstructing the Indian and the regional past.  The panorama of history – whether it is man’s prehistory or Classical and Medieval Europe or Ancient, Classical, and Medieval India, or Medieval Maharashtra – became a vital fixture of consciousness.  Thus the rediscovery of Buddhism by Dharmanand Kosambi or of Ajanta and Ellora by archaeologists or of Kautilya’s Arthaš¡stra created a stir beyond scholarly circles.


            Some of the exercises in refurbishing history that made a deep impression on the middle class and even others are – the Vedic Aryans were seen to be at once pastoral nomads with a simple life and civilizing agents for pre-Aryan India; the Varkaris were seen as our very own Protestants making Hinduism more democratic, less impersonal, and so more worthy of being saved by the brave Maratha soldiery from the onslaught of Islam picking up where the Rajputs had left off and being joined later by the Sikhs.  A history of Old and Middle Marathi literature was written highlighting the tradition of bhakti, of Sanskrit-based poetry, and the bards of the camp singing of war and love (the trio of santa, panta and tanta poets).


            This refurbishing of the past correlates with a certain projection of the future of India (in which Maharashtra was to play a proud rôle).  India was not only a nation struggling for freedom after centuries of Islamic and British subjugation but also a society internally striving for a just order within itself and externally playing a vital role in a world order.  The vision of the past and the future was a part of a novel non-cyclic time perspective that was informed by the idea of history not merely as a storehouse of moral exempla but rather as a major dimension of human life (enshrined in expressions like badalta jamana and yugadharma).


            Such then is the landscape against which to see the transformation of Marathi literary sensibility over this period.  But isn’t literary sensibility but a part of artistic sensibility?


            When one uses expressions like Baroque Art (Continental Europe, the late 16th and the 17th centuries) or Romantic Art (Western Europe, the late 18th and 19th centuries), one thinks of the visual arts, music, as well as literature all together. When one thinks of the cultivation of the arts in ancient India, one thinks of Markandeya’s account (Visnudharmottara Pura¸¡, 6th century A.D., part 3, the dialogue with Vajra) as to how worship involves all the arts and how each art involves the rest.  Even in Medieval India where a certain fragmentation sets in, one could still find it useful to interrelate the 17th century rise respectively of khayal singing of Hindustani classical music, of the courtly version of Kathak dancing, of certain modes of courtly poetry, and of certain styles of miniature painting.  With the arts of Modern India the fragmentation is complete.  The literary arts comprising poetry, fiction, essay, and literature-dominated theatre and cinema stand together as one group by itself. (The remaining groups are: (a) music, dance, and theatre dominated by these; (b) painting, sculpture, and architecture; and (c) decorative and design arts and recreative arts such as the commercial cinema and lately the commercial theatre.  The habilitation of Hindustani classical music as a worthy modern pursuit was, it may be noted in passing, the gift of Maharashtra.)


            In Maharashtra of this period the practice of the literary arts and the thinking connected with them was associated with an awareness, if not actual knowledge, of English language and literature as well as Sanskrit language and literature. As the anthropologists would say, the literary arts and ideology were open to modernization as well as ‘Brahmanization’.  The new literary models from English were provided by the Golden Treasury view of English poetry from the pre-Romantics like Gray to the post-Romantics like Tennyson, by the essay from Addison to Carlyle, by the historical novel of Scott, by the novel of social portrayal (svatantra s¡m¡jik k¡dambar¢), and, last but not least, by the tragedies of Shakespeare and the comedies of Moliere. Some of the other values that Maharashtra assimilated from the English were – the place of humour in life and in art; the recognition of the literary theatre as art and as a social force (thee was hardly any Indian literary theatre to speak of after the demise of the Classical Sanskrit theatre) and consequently greater attention to the study of Sanskrit plays (earlier study of Sanskrit literature put greater stress on narrative poetry and didactic mukatas); the Enlightenment notion of the ‘great man’; and the Romantic idealization of love between the sexes and of the creative genius. (Sanskrit ¿¤¸g¡ra gave way to prema or pr¢ti and k¡vyaracan¡ to k¡vyanirmiti).


            A distinctive feature of the modern Marathi literary scene is that, unlike the case, say, of modern, Telugu, the surviving past has no further literary history beyond 1870 except as assimilated and transformed in the modern context – there are no significant successors to the santa,panta, and tanta poets (the only  exceptions that come to mind are, respectively, Dasganu, Sadhudas, Patthe Bapurao, all of the early part of the 20th century).


            The values of European modernity – rationalism, utilitarianism, nationalism, egalitarianism, individualism, secularism – naturally turned up in the subject mater and content of literature which was seen as an educative medium.  What is more to the point is that some of these values turned up in literary criticism and literary theorizing as well.  Indeed Marathi speakers were not content, for example, with attempts to translate, write, and stage tragedies but had to discuss this activity, to mount a critique of the Sanskrit ban on the unhappy ending, and to account for the strange enjoyment of the tragic form.  Literary criticism and literary theorizing (more recently, aesthetics too) has been a preoccupation of the Marathi men of letters.  A brief consideration of what this kind of activity could lead to in modern India is called for.


            The contemporary literary theorist in India enjoys a double heritage, Classical and Medieval Indian literary thought and Classical and Modern Western literary thought.  It is not as if he has a native and borrowed literary consciousness – which would be a most unpromising predicament.  Rather he has to come to terms with his own composite literary experience in terms of his own composite stock of ideas.


            Western poetics up to and including the Enlightenment had moved in a certain direction.  Idealist philosophy and Romantic criticism acutely sensed (as with Kant, Schlegel, Coleridge) certain inadequacies in its excessive emphasis on the imitation of and continuity with ordinary life in the realm of art.  Classical Sanskrit poetics is strong precisely in this respect.  (The Western Indologists’ failure to perceive this strength and transmit the insights to western literary thinkers is a sad cause of an opportunity missed).


            Correspondingly, Indian poetics up to the Indian Awakening had moved in a certain direction.  The Indian literary thinkers of this period acutely sensed certain inadequacies in its excessive emphasis on shared harmony and on the transcendence of conflict and of personal need (no sharp departures, no tragedies, and no cris de Coeur please!) and in its almost total neglect of the other harmony of prose and of practical criticism evaluating and interpreting specific texts and considering the problems arising thereform.  They were fascinated and impressed, therefore, by Western theories of style as personal expression, of tragedy, of lyric, of prose and by Western practical criticism.


            Naturally modern consciousness, whether western or Indian, is not wholly content with the tradition inherited; for one thing it defines its own problems.  One of the first things it newly became aware of was the dimension of the timely and the historical to literary creation and appreciation, and the r²le of the innovative creativity in forcing us from time to time to review our ideas of art and literature.


III: A Case Study: The Marathi Response to Shakespeare


            It will be interesting and instructive to see some of these transformations in the Marathi literary sensibility in statu nascendi in the Marathi response to Shakespeare’s plays.  The present sketch is not a full-length study and not even based on one – rather it is an agenda for one that might be undertaken by someone in future.


            The response to Shakespeare is essentially literary in that there was hardly any opportunity to watch the plays in the original.  The original texts were a fixture of the ‘Compulsory English’ course for undergraduates since the inception of university education. The character of this response can be gathered from writings of the following sort (including passing remarks):


(1)       Writings about Shakespeare’s plays as such (as in Apte 1912-8, Agarkar 1881a, 1881b);

(2)       Adaptations of Shakespeare’s plays of which there are probably more than any other Indian language (there is a tantalizing reference in Karandikar 1956 to Hamlet being adapted by the last Peshwa, Nanasaheb, who was one of the leaders of the 1857 rebellion; after the 1881 stage success of M.Kolhatkar’s Othello adaptations became plentiful but, alas, mostly undertaken without insight or even sense of responsibility);

(3)       Critiques of these adaptations (the poor quality of adaptations alarmed many and Chiplunkar 1876, Apte 1883, 1883-4, Wagle 1884 for example expressed their concern);

(4)       Accounts and critiques of the staging of these adaptations (Agarkar 1881a, for example, felt impelled to welcome the 1881 staging of Othello editorially; the more popular stage plays in the long run were Agarkar’s own Hamlet, so severely mauled by Apte; Deval’s Othello; Kelar’s Taming of the Shew);

(5)       Original plays influenced by Shakespeare’s plays (significantly the first serious play, V.J. Kirtane’s Thorle M¡dhavr¡v Pešve, 1861, was a tragedy modeled on Shakespeare’s ‘histories’; Khadilkar’s Bh¡£bandki and others; Gadkari’s  R¡jasamny¡sa Ekac Py¡l¡ and others – sometimes it is this or that story motif or character detail, sometimes it is the overall structure and mood of the play, sometimes it is style and diction);

(6)       Relatively more theoretical discussions on the writing and staging of plays (such as Marathe 1872 or passing remarks in N.J. Kirtane 1862,Apte, Agarkar).


            In the absence of a thorough and systematic study of the primary sources and of any study of the secondary sources (including about half a dozen unpublished doctoral dissertations in recent years), I can no more than attempt some tentative observations on the Marathi response to Shakespeare so as to relate it to the transformation of Marathi literary sensibility.


(1)      The educated middle class was sufficiently impressed by Shakespeare as to induce them to take theatre more seriously than was customary at the time and undertake to remedy the absence of a literary theatre by adapting and staging plays from Classical Sanskrit and from Shakespeare and other Western playwrights.  Thus, the group Aryodharak Mandali formed in 1880 by fresh college graduates like Tilak and N.V. Chhatre and blessed by veteran scholars like the renowned mathematician of Deccan College Keru Luxmon Chhatre proceeded to stage an adaptation of Visakhadatta’s Ve¸¢saÆh¡ra from Sanskrit and V.M. Mahajani’s Cymbeline and Mahadeoshastri Kolhatkar’s Othello from Shakespeare. It is noteworthy that hardly any translations as distinct from adaptations exist in Marathi (a notable exception is the very recent R¡j¡ liyar by G.V. Karandikar).

(2)      Shakespeare’s notable success in conveying the very form and pressure of life in all its depth and detail induced the readers to identify this power of a play as its most decisive and prized feature.  Citing K¡lid¡sa with approval (traigu¸yodhhava atra lokacaritaÆ n¡n¡rasaÆ d¤šyate)  Apte (1883-4) takes Agarkar (1883) to task for taking a baldly ‘rational’ view of faithfulness to life. (Agarkar looks askance at the use of verse and heightening and intensification (atišayokti) in a play.)


(3)      Agarkar (1883a,b) boldly questions the validity of the commonplace ‘K¡lid¡sa’ is the Shakespeare of India’ by arguing that not only was K¡lid¡sa  no match for Shakespeare but even Bhavabh£ti excelled  K¡lid¡sa in certain respects.  This naturally drew a lot of fire from Apte and others; it is noteworthy, however, that it was the placement of K¡lid¡sa below Bhavbh£ti that was questioned rather than the placement of K¡lid¡sa below Shakespeare.


While K¡lid¡sa and Bhavbh£ti’s forte, argues Agarkar, was the erotic and the pathetic, Shakespeare’s brims over with all nine of the rasas and reflects the world of man both outer and inner in all its richness and variety.  Bhavabh£ti shows some of this variety, his erotic develops into love, and his language is moulded by the dramatic occasion. Neither K¡lid¡sa nor Bhavabh£ti are any match for Shakespeare in the variety of incident and character and the range of imagination.  Possibly, Agarkar speculates, Indian poets were hampered by the lack of contact with other nations (a cultural isolationism) and lack of acquaintance through history with other ages.


One suspects that there were other tacit arguments too.  K¡lid¡sa wastoo tame, too little of a rebel against the Establishment in contrast to Bhavabhuti for the iconoclastic Agarkar’s liking.  One also suspects that the Marathi reader was impressed by the combination of refined subtlety and raw vigour in Shakespeare – a combination that was rarely prized or attested in the Indian literary tradition.


Be that as it may, Shakespeare’s achievement clearly compelled the Marathi reader to re-examine his notions of literary and artistic greatness.


(4)      For the Marathi reader tragedy always means shakespearean tragedy. Bharata’s injunction against theunhappy, especially fatal, ending is seen (Agarkar 1881a, 1881b, Apte 1883) to impose an excessive constraint on the playwright.  Sanskrit plays like Shudraka’s M¤cchakatikam and Bhavbhuti’s Malatimadhavam would have ended more naturally as tragedies.  Apte (1883) castigates Kanitkar’s Romeo and Juliet for its happy ending and ridicules Kanitkar’s justification that the original fatal ending wouldn’t be agreeable to the tender-hearted noble Indians (kovly¡ man¡cy¡ hindusthanvasi aryajanans ruc¸ar nahin).  It is understandable that major playwrights like Khadilkar and Gadkari felt that attempting a tragedy was a challenge worth accepting.


(5)      Other aspects of Shakespeare’s art that were felt to be worth emulating included the light comedy of the very early examples like Twelfth Night and the more farcial Taming of the Shrew and also his diction.  Gadkari’s style in particular emulates the fine excess and Euphuistic exuberance of Shakespeare’s diction and imagery; and in turn was emulated by others.


(6)      In those times the term bhasantar covered both straight translations and adaptations (latterly called rupantar).  For the latter the term adharit was occasionally used. The disservice that bad adaptations did to Shakespeare forced his self-confessed admirer Apte (1883, 1883-4) to attempt formulating canons of good adaptation and prevented him from sparing even the adaptation of Hamlet by his teacher Agarkar.  Unfortunately the general standard of these adaptations continued to be low – even the best of them capture the dramatic element but miss the poetic element.


Such was the spell of Shakespeare on the Marathi reader and writer.  One has only to look at the specifics of some of the polemics and to relate these to the larger socio-cultural debates to appreciate the flavour of the literary awakening in Maharashtra and to see how the later was so much a part of the Indian Awakening.


References :


A.  For a fuller development of some of the points made in the course of the present essay the following may be consulted:

Bedekar, D.K. Kelkar, Ashok R. 1977, Marathi Literature (1870-1970).  In : Bhagwat, Achyut Keshav, ed. Maharashtra – A Profile : Vishnu Sakharam Khandekar felicitation volume.  Kolhapur Visnu Sakharam Khandekar Amrit Mahotsav Satkar Samiti, pp.228-50.

Kelkar,ashok R. 1982. “What English can (and cannot) do for our young “The Literary Criterion (Mysore) 17:1.46-55. Reprinted in: Narsimhaiah, C.D.; Srinath, C.N., ed. English: Its Complementary role in India. Mysore: Dhvanyaloka, 1982.  Also in: New Quest (Pune) no.40. 221-7, July-August 1983.

--1984. “Classical Sanskrit poetics then and now”.  The Literary Criterion (Mysore) 19:1.18-29. Reprinted in : Narsimhaiah C.D.; Srinath, C.N. ed. A Common Poetic for Indian Literature (Mysore: Dhvanyaloka, 1984. Revised and enlarged version to appear in the proceedings of an international colloquium, “Poetics east and west”, held at Victoria College, Toronto, 5-7 June 1987.

--1987, “The Arts in India Come of the Modern Age”.  New Quest (Pune) no.56.95-101, March-April.

--; Bhave, Sadashiv s. 1988. “Bhakti in the Modern Mode: Poems and Essays”. In Zelliot, Eleanor; Bernsten, Maxine, ed. The Experience of Hinduism: Essays on Religion in Maharashtra Albany, NY: State University of New York Press Pp. 297-320 Reprinted in: South Asian Digest of Regional Writing (Heidelberg) vol. 6. 3-28, 1977.


B. The following are primary sources for the case study that have been referred to.  This is by no means even a checklist.

Agarkar, G.G. 1881a. (Editorial) “Aryoddh¡rak ma¸·al¢ ¡ni ¡thelo n¡tak¡c¡ mar¡ ¶h¢ prayog”.  Kesari (Pune 1.9: 1-2, March 1. Drew letters to the editor in subsequent issues.

--1881b. (Editorial) “šeksapiyar, bhavabh£ti, k¡lid¡s”. Kesari (Pune) 1:10:1-3, March 8. Extended reply to criticism of Agarkar 1881a.

--1883. (Introduction to his Marathi adaptation of Hamlet). Vik¡ravilasit.  Pune:Aryabhushan.

Apte, H.N. 1883. (Critique of N.B. Kanitkar’s Marathi adaptation of Romeo and Juliet) Nibandha-candrik¡ (pune) nos. 7-9 June-Sept. 90 pp. Reprinted in Malshe 1976.

--1883-4. (Critique of G.G. Agarkar;s Marathi adaptation of Hamlet and G.G. Kanitkar’s Marathi adaptation of Hamlet). Nibandha-candrik¡ (Pune) nos. 10-13 Oct-Jan. 249 pp. Reprinted in Malshe 1976.

--1912-8 (Study of Shakespeare’s plays and poems) Citramayajagat (Pune)

Chiplunkar, V.S. 1876 (Critique of V.M. Mahajani’s Marathi adaptation of Cymbeline) Nibandham¡l¡ (Pune) Vol.3; no.60 (T¡r¡ n¡tak).

Kirtane, N.J. 1876 (Critique of V.J. Kirtane’s play, Thorle M¡dhavr¡v Pešve, 1861) Š¡l¡patrak5:1, May

Marathe, K.B. 1872 N¡val va n¡¶ak by¡n viÀayin nibandha. Pune. Reprinted Pune, 1962.

Wagle, S.S. 1884 (Critique of G.G. Agarkar’s Marathi adaptation of Hamlet and G.V. Kanitkar’s adaptation of Hamlet.) Vividhajnn ¡navist¡r (Pune) Feb-Oct. Also as a booklet: Bombay: A.A. Moramkar, no date.


C. The following are the secondary sources for the case study that have been referred to:

Karandikar, M.A. 1956 šeksapiyarcin marah¢ bh¡À¡ntaren. In: Watwe, G.M. ed. R£pakam: šeksapiyar khanda.

Malshe, S.G. 1976,  Kai. Ba. n¡ ¡pek¤t šeksapiyarcy¡ r£p¡ntar¡nci don pariksanen  Iye mar¡¶h¢ciye (Bombay) Feb-Nov. Being a reprint of Apte 1883, 1883-4 with an introduction. Also as a booklet: Bombay: Mumbai Marathi Granthasangrahalay, 1979.






            This was delivered in absentia at the 3rd International Conference on Maharashtra Culture and Society, Heidelberg, June 1988 and published in The Bombay (Literary) Review 1:1:56-65, June 1989.