ABSTRACT
Scholars have long sought to find common ground between folk theatres like Chhau and the refined Classical theatre form. The two types of performance must have run in parallel for hundreds of years, but Sanskrit theatre died out in the eleventh century with the Muslim invasions because of its dependence on royal patronage. In contrast, folk theatre has survived. Farley Richmond claims that the Seraikella royal family exaggerated the Classical status of their dance, ‘often denying any tribal origins for the form’ (Richmond 1990, p. 361). Others simply assume that an art created by and for kings should be classed as Classical: ‘Since the art developed under the patronage of the royal court, it has a gilded, Classical flavour’ (J.B. Singh Deo 1973, p. 47). In keeping with the royal family’s enthusiasm for the British Raj (who granted their Privy Purses) they would have wanted to exaggerate the ancient dignity of their dances, the heritage that linked contemporary dramatic events to the Sanskrit age so popular with the English.
