The Actor’s Social Status and Agency. Fame or Misery?
The Actor’s Social Status and Agency. Fame or Misery?

Summary/Abstract: The position of the actor in the Nāṭyaśāstra,2the first and foremost Indian treatise of dramaturgical principles, is ambiguous, to say the least. Although the actor represents the practical focus of a large number of chapters (all that concern abhinaya, i.e. “representation”) and the veritable centre of any conceivable theatrical performance, the actors are cursed to be degraded to the status of śūdras in the thirty-sixth chapter of the Nāṭyaśāstra, because they have misused their histrionic abilities to mock the r̥ ṣis. The lowermost social status of the actors in ancient Indian society is confirmed by passages of the Mānavadharmaśāstra, and other Smr̥ tis. However, the last chapter of the Nāṭyaśāstra leaves the possibility for the actors to redeem themselves from their condition and win back their original status of brāhmaṇas. An inquiry into the aforementioned curse-and-atonement episode allows us to account for the ambiguity of the status of the performer, especially focusing on the thirty-sixth and thirty-seventh chapter of the Nāṭyaśāstra in the light of Abhinavagupta’s commentary, and to assess the general ethics of the profession in early and medieval India.

• Details
• Contents