Adaptation Theory

The approach I am using in this dissertation is the comprehensive theory of adaptation formed by Hutcheon (2006). I find this theory fruitful because it encompasses all of the above-mentioned aspects that affect the coming into being of a text, that repeats a previous text, within a single methodological frame. The concept of adaptation has several advantages over possible 'synonyms'. In contrast to 'retelling', it does not limit itself to spoken words as a medium for bringing across a certain content. A concept like 'version' is limited because it does not do justice to the creativity that went into the new composition. And better than 'translation' or 'transcreation', the concept of adaptation leaves space for compositions that remain within the same language.

Before discussing the different definitional layers of 'adaptation', I will comment, following Hutcheon, upon what it means to treat a work as adaptation. By calling a text an adaptation we announce its overt relation to another work or works (Hutcheon 2006:

6).³⁰ As a consequence, framing my set of texts as adaptations firstly establishes the coherence of the Dharmaparīkṣā tradition, and thus of my dissertation, and related to this, suggests the idea of circulation or even evolution throughout these texts.³¹ Secondly, it

28 The edited volume Orsini published together with Schofield (2015) can be seen as an extension of this approach, focusing on auditory or performative aspects of texts in their contexts.

29 See Freschi and Maas (2017: 20-21)

30 'This is what Gérard Genette would call a text in the "second degree"' (Hutcheon 2006: 6).

31 Evolution is suggested when considering the adaptations as a tradition of adaptations, which implies a sense of time (cf. Conclusion).

implies certain relations of authority between the discussed works. On the other hand, calling a text an adaptation also implies changes that went into its creation, so that each adaptation has its own autonomous aura. For this dissertation, this implies that each chapter, discussing one specific adaptation or particular set of adaptations, can stand on its own. To put this double nature more simply, 'adaptation is repetition, but repetition without replication' (Hutcheon 2006: 7).

In Hutcheon's theory analysing a work or works as adaptation involves three (concurrent) perspectives. Firstly, an adaptation is a product, or a formal entity, that is an 'announced and extensive transposition of a particular work or works' (Hutcheon 2006: 7). This transposition can involve a change in medium (e.g. from book to film), or a change in language, in which case it is something like translation, or any other change such as a change in genre or frame. Treating the textual tradition in this dissertation as a series of adapted products will therefore lead to examining these kinds of formal characteristics of the texts. It is important to note about the cases under discussion, that the transposition is not always announced in the text. However, we can suppose that the receivers of the adaptation were most-likely aware of precedents. Secondly, adaptation can be seen as a process. It always involves (re-)interpretation and (re)creation (Hutcheon 2006: 8). This perspective on adaptation brings the creating agent, the adapter, in view.

Why did the adapter adapt this work, what are his motivations? These motivations can involve personal interests (one likes a work), economic lures, or cultural capital (the authoritative aura of the precedent) amongst other reasons. In the texts I am dealing with, economic motivations can be seen for example in Manohardās' adaptation, since he was commissioned by his patrons (cf. Chapter 3, p. 147), and I suspect that cultural capital underlies most of the latest versions. Further, perceiving adaptations as a process also entails knowing about the life of the adapter, because understanding the author's adaptive choices supposes to be aware of the historical context in which he lived (in terms of society, literature, religion, place, etc.). Thirdly, adaptation involves a process of reception in a particular way. For the audience, adaptations are a form of intertextuality:

'we experience adaptations (as adaptations) as palimpsests through our memory of other works that resonate through repetition with variation' (Hutcheon 2006: 8). Their 'palimpsestuous' nature may lead to frustration, but also to pleasure. The mixture of novelty within familiarity and difference within repetition has a definite appeal to the audience. This appeal might come forth from the comfort that lies in the repetition of adaptations, but also from the intellectual and aesthetical pleasure of understanding the interplay between works. In this way, this perspective from adaptation theory can lead to insights with regard to the prevalence of 'textual traditions' in Indian literary culture.

Another idea coined by Hutcheon in which adaptation as product and as process (of creation and reception) intersect, is 'modes of engagement'. Hutcheon discerns the telling mode, the showing (or performance) mode, and the interactive mode. From the perspective of the adapted product, the modes of engagement partially replace the

medium of the product, although different media can involve the same mode of engagement. For example, both the films and the theatre plays about Harry Potter are in the showing mode. The formal aspects of an adaptation will be defined by its mode of engagement, which in turn will depend on the process of adaptation. This involves not only in which way the adapter wants his audience to be engaged with his creation, but also what the contextual expectations or conventions are that will influence the audience's engagement with the adaptation. As such, essentially with the concept of modes of engagement, we can evaluate how the audience was involved with the text, and how this changed between different adaptations. In this dissertation, the question I will ask is what aspects within the product that relate to (1) telling; (2) the visual, gestural, auditory or aural (vs. oral); or (3) interaction, demonstrate a change in the engagement expected by the audience.³² Hutcheon's approach of foregrounding modes of engagement instead of media is definitely relevant in a study of pre-modern to early modern Indian literature, because it enables us to appreciate changes in aural aspects of a text which are central to Indian literary culture, on the basis of written sources.³³ Further, the added value of examining an audience's engagement within the frame of adaptation theory is that it reveals the different ways or immersive depths with which one particular content could be experienced.

The theory of adaptation by Hutcheon (2006) provides a comprehensive frame to analyse a textual tradition in its diversity and its coherence. It enables to zoom in on the different stimuli that influence the composition of a new 'version', including its author, its historical and geographical context, and its purposed audience. At the same time, adaptation theory provides a structure to evaluate the 'cultural' significance of a specific tradition and to examine the relation between the texts that make up this tradition. When we succeedingly shift the perspective from product to process, such examination is able to provide insights into certain evolutions in the religious and literary realm.

A final comment to conclude this section is that Hutcheon notes that adaptation should not be limited to complete works, but that it can also involve particular stories (or fragments), or characters. I do not use this understanding of adaptation in my dissertation, because it would blur the difference between adaptations of the Dharmaparīkṣā and the literary intertexts that influence each specific adaptation of the Dharmaparīkṣā.

32 We could also induce a change in actual engagement by the audience on the base of for example, manuscripts.

I discuss preliminary conclusions below (p. 47) but refer to De Jonckheere 2019 for further details.

33 'Aurality' is a term mostly used in relation to performances (such as theatre or bardic performance) to refer to the (shared) hearing of a text. It includes not only the voiced text, but also other auditory elements that accompany the text, such as the melody of the performance, or other melodic, rhythmic or plainly sound effects taking place at the performance.

I address this especially in Chapter 3.