Reviewed by:

• A Poetics of Modernity: Indian Theatre Theory, 1850 to the Present ed. by Aparna Bhargava Dharwadker
• Kristen Rudisill

Aparna Dharwadker’s edited volume, A Poetics of Modernity: Indian Theatre Theory, is a game-changing contribution for the field of Indian theatre studies. The volume brings together 76 primary texts covering over 160 years of material from nine different languages. Twenty-two of these are translated into English for the first time ever in this volume, and many others were extrapolated from difficult-to-access sources such as theatre programs, performance reviews, letters, diaries, interviews, conference presentations, and public addresses. Putting them together in this space both highlights the lack of a systematic theatre discourse in India and showcases the range and heterogeneity of approaches, practices, and ideas.

Dharwadker’s introduction does the Herculean work of contextualizing what could easily have been two volumes (one [End Page 597] 1852–1947 and one 1947–2014); hopefully, another is on the way to cover contributions from theatre professionals who became active in the 1980s or later. She has shown a great deal of restraint in her editorial choices and creativity in her organization in order to include the voices of as many practitioners as possible, both those that are very well-known (Rabindranath Tagore, Munshi Premchand, Mulk Raj Anand, Utpal Dutt, Girish Karnad, Rustom Bharucha, Badal Sircar) and some that are relatively obscure (Vishnushastri Chiplunkar, Binodini Dasi, V. K. Narayana Menon, Vijaya Mehta, Datta Bhagat, Amal Allana). She also expands the voices we usually hear by including those from outside the dominant discursive languages of Hindi, Bengali, Kannada, and Marathi. The early material is arranged chronologically by year of the author’s birth, but later material (from a time of more robust theoretical discourse) is organized in thematic clusters, making it easier to follow the exchanges that were happening. The author’s headnotes, glossary, list of abbreviations, endnotes for cross-referencing, and dual index (one for names and one for subjects) help avoid repetition while ensuring readers can find the information they need.

The idea of “modernity” holds the volume together and a good deal of the introduction defines this concept and explains how it is used. The concept is useful in that it is pan-Indian, includes colonial and postcolonial, commercial and amateur theatre while excluding classical Sanskrit theatre as well as religious, folk, or other traditional genres. Dharwadker argues that postmodernism never seriously emerged as an Indian theatre aesthetic but modernism did, taking a number of new trajectories within the theatrical sphere. Some of these include the formation of a secular and commercial urban theatre; the revival of classical Sanskrit theatre; the rise of print culture that enabled translation and adaptation; competition and collaboration with new media such as film, television, and video; and the widening of the canon to include diverse genders, classes, castes, sexualities, and languages.

While there has not been a singular systematic theatre theory in India, playwrights, directors, actors, and critics have long been making theoretical arguments about theatre in their writing and speeches. Prior to this volume, scholars have had limited access to most of these texts and therefore had an incomplete view of both the history of Indian theatre and how it fits into the world theatre scene. Most of the existing scholarship is either a homogenizing summary of a generic “Indian theatre” or focuses on single artists, languages, or regions; this volume celebrates the heterogeneity of theatrical writing and practice in India while offering a cohesive narrative.

Dharwadker’s introduction contextualizes the history, dividing it into four different periods (1790–1870; 1870–1930; 1940–1955; [End Page 598] 1955–present) marked by significant changes in the form and content of both drama and theatre. The distinction between drama (written) and theatre (performed) is important in the Indian discourse on multiple levels, including literary/intellectual (which favors drama and explains the large number of “closet dramas” that were exclusively literary), gender (it is seen as more respectable for women to write or direct than to perform on a...

审核人：

• 现代性诗学：印度戏剧理论，1850 年至今编辑。作者：Aparna Bhargava Dharwadker
• 克里斯汀·鲁迪西尔

Aparna Dharwadker 的编辑卷《现代性诗学：印度戏剧理论》是对印度戏剧研究领域做出的改变游戏规则的贡献。该卷汇集了 76 篇主要文本，涵盖了来自九种不同语言的 160 多年的材料。其中 22 篇在本书中有史以来第一次被翻译成英文，还有许多其他内容是从戏剧节目、表演评论、信件、日记、采访、会议演示和公开演讲等难以获得的来源中推断出来的. 在这个空间中将它们放在一起既突出了印度缺乏系统的戏剧话语，也展示了方法、实践和想法的范围和异质性。

Dharwadker 的介绍做了一项艰巨的工作，将可能很容易成为两卷的内容进行了语境化（一[End Page 597]1852-1947 年和一个 1947-2014 年）；希望另一个是涵盖在 1980 年代或以后活跃的戏剧专业人士的贡献。她在编辑选择和组织中的创造力方面表现出极大的克制，以包括尽可能多的从业者的声音，这些都是非常有名的（Rabindranath Tagore、Munshi Premchand、Mulk Raj Anand、Utpal Dutt、Girish Karnad、Rustom Bharucha、Badal Sircar）和一些相对晦涩的（Vishnushastri Chiplunkar、Binodini Dasi、VK Narayana Menon、Vijaya Mehta、Datta Bhagat、Amal Allana）。她还扩展了我们通常听到的声音，包括来自印地语、孟加拉语、卡纳达语和马拉地语等主流话语语言之外的声音。早期资料按作者出生年份编排，但是后来的材料（来自更强大的理论话语的时代）被组织在主题集群中，从而更容易跟踪正在发生的交流。作者的头注、词汇表、缩写列表、交叉引用的尾注和双重索引（一个用于名称，一个用于主题）有助于避免重复，同时确保读者可以找到他们需要的信息。

“现代性”的概念将这本书结合在一起，大量的介绍定义了这个概念并解释了它是如何使用的。这个概念很有用，因为它是泛印度的，包括殖民和后殖民、商业和业余戏剧，但不包括古典梵文戏剧以及宗教、民间或其他传统流派。Dharwadker 认为，后现代主义从未真正作为一种印度戏剧美学出现，但现代主义确实出现了，在戏剧领域内采取了许多新的轨迹。其中一些包括建立一个世俗的和商业的城市剧院；古典梵文戏剧的复兴；印刷文化的兴起使翻译和改编成为可能；与电影、电视、视频等新媒体的竞争与合作；以及扩大正典以包括不同的性别，

虽然印度还没有一个单一的系统戏剧理论，但剧作家、导演、演员和评论家长期以来一直在他们的写作和演讲中对戏剧进行理论论证。在此卷之前，学者们对这些文本的访问权限有限，因此对印度戏剧的历史以及它如何融入世界戏剧场景都没有完整的看法。大多数现有的奖学金要么是对一般“印度剧院”的同质化总结，要么侧重于单一的艺术家、语言或地区；这本书颂扬了印度戏剧写作和实践的异质性，同时提供了一个有凝聚力的叙述。

Dharwadker 的介绍将历史置于语境中，将其划分为四个不同的时期（1790-1870；1870-1930；1940-1955；[End Page 598] 1955-至今），以戏剧和戏剧的形式和内容的显着变化为标志。戏剧（书面）和戏剧（表演）之间的区别在多个层面的印度话语中很重要，包括文学/知识分子（这有利于戏剧并解释了大量完全是文学的“壁橱戏剧”）、性别（它是对于女性来说，写作或导演比在……上表演更受人尊敬。