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

• Autorzy: Elisa Ganser , Daniele Cuneo
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

1The 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.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

actor; dramaturgy; comedy; Nātyaśāstra; Abhinavabhāratī; Mānavadharmaśāstra; Arthaśāstra; prahasana; vyutpatti

• Wydawca: Księgarnia Akademicka
• Czasopismo: Cracow Indological Studies
• Rocznik: 2012
• Tom: 14
• Strony: 87-131

Twórcy

autor

Elisa Ganser

• Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, Paris

autor

Daniele Cuneo

• University of Cambridge

Bibliografia

• Amarakośa, with the unpublished South Indian Commentaries.Ed. by A. A. Ramanathan. Madras: Adyar Library and Research Centre,1971, 1978, 1983. 3 vols. The Adyar Library Series, Vol. 101.
• Aṣṭādhyāyī of Pāṇini. Roman transliteration and English translation.Ed. by S.M. Katre. (1968). Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
• Kuṭṭanīmata of Dāmodara Gupta, with a New Commentary Rasadīpikā.Ed. by T.M. Tripathi. (1924). Bombay: The Gujarati News Printing Press.
• Dhvanyāloka of Ānandavardhana, with the commentary of Abhinavagupta.Ed. by Pattābhirāma Śāstrī. (1940). Benares: Kashi Sanskrit Series 135
• Nāṭyaśāstra [NŚ] of Bharata, with the Abhinavabhāratī [ABh] of Abhinavagupta.Ed. by M. Ramakrishna Kavi. (1926-1964). Baroda: OrientalInstitute. 4 volumes. Vol. 1 (ch. 1-7), 2nd ed., revised and critically ed. byK. S. Ramaswami Sastri, 1956; Vol. 2 (ch. 8-18), 1934; Vol. 3 (ch. 19-27),1954; Vol. 4 (ch. 28-37). Ed. by late M. Ramakrishna Kavi and J.S. Pade,1964.
• Yājñavalkyasmr̥ ti with the commentary Vīramitrodaya by Mitra Miśra andthe commentary Mitākṣarā by Vijñāneśvara. Ed. by N.S. Khiste. (1930).Varanasi: Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office
• Saṅgītaratnākara of Śārṅgadeva, with Kalānidhi of Kallinātha andSudhākara of Siṃhabhūpāla. Ed. by S. Subrahmanya Sastri. (1943-1953).Madras: Adyar Library
• Sāhityadarpaṇa of Viśvanātha. Ed. by Acharya Krsnamohan Sastri withhis commentary Lakṣmī. (1919). Kashi Sanskrit Series, Vol 145.Varanasi: Chowkhamba
• Amaladass, A. (1993). The concept of vyutpatti in Indian Aesthetics. In: WienerZeitschrift der Kunde Sudasiens - Supplementband: 261-271
• Bansat-Boudon, L. (1991-2). Drama and Dharma in Indian Speculations.In: Indologica Taurinensia 17-18: 35-62
• Bansat-Boudon, L. (1992). Poétique du théâtre indien. Lectures du Nāṭyaśāstra.Paris: École Française d’Extrême Orient
• Bansat-Boudon, L. (2004). Pourquoi le Théâtre? Le réponse indienne.Paris: Summulae
• Bansat-Boudon, L. (2006). Théâtre de l’Inde ancienne. Paris: Gallimard
• Bhattacharya, S. (1934). Rasābhāsa in Alaṃkāra Literature. In: Calcutta OrientalJournal 2: 237-247
• Board of Scholars (1989). The Nāṭya Śāstra of Bharatamuni. Translated intoEnglish. Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications
• Bonnerjea, B. (1931). Prayascitta, or Hindu Ideas on the Expiation of Sin.Bombay: The British India Press
• Bourdieu, P. (2003 [1st ed. 1997]). Méditations pascaliennes. Paris: Éditionsdu Seuil. 3rd ed. (English translation) (2000). Pascalian Meditations.Stanford: Stanford University Press
• Brunner-Lachaux, H. (1968). Somaśambhupaddhati (Deuxième Partie). Pondichéry:Institut Français d’Indologie
• Cuneo, D. (forthcoming). Rasa: Abhinavagupta on the Purpose(s) of Art.In: Nair, S. (Ed.). The Natyasastra Anthology. New York: McFarland
• Filliozat, P. S. (1967). Oeuvres poétiques de Nīlakaṇṭha Dīkṣita, Texte, traductionet notes. Pondichéry: Institut français d’indologie
• Ganser, E. (forthcoming). Trajectories of dance on the surface of theatricalmeanings. A contribution to the theory of rasa from the fourth chapter ofthe Abhinavabhāratī. In: Mirnig, N. Szántó, P. D. and Williams, M. (eds.).Puṣpikā: Tracing Ancient India Through Texts and Traditions. Contributionsto Current Research in Indology, Vol.1. Oxford: Oxbow Books
• Gerow, E. (1971). A Glossary of Indian Figures of Speech. The Hague-Paris:Mouton
• Ghosh, M. (1950-1967). Nāṭyaśāstra of Bharata. Edition and Translation.Varanasi: Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series
• Gnoli, R. (1968). The Aesthetic Experience according to Abhinavagupta.2nd ed. Varanasi: Chowkamba Sanskrit Studies 62
• Hardikar, A. R. (1994). The Aesthetic Appreciator or sahr̥ daya. In: Annalsof the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute 75: 265-272
• Ingalls, D. H. H. (ed.) (1990). The Dhvanyāloka of Ānandavardhana withthe Locana of Abhinavagupta, translated by D. H. H. Ingalls, J. M. Massonand M. V. Patwardan. London: Harvard Oriental Series 49
• Iravati (2003). Performing Artists in Ancient India. New Delhi: D. K. Printworld.
• Kane, P. V. (1941) A History of Dharmaśāstra. Vol. 2, part 1. Poona: BhandarkarOriental Research Institute
• Kane, P. V. (1953). A History of Dharmaśāstra. Vol. 4. Poona: BhandarkarOriental Research Institute
• Kane, P. V. (1971). History of Sanskrit Poetics. 4th ed. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass
• Kangle, R. P. (1960). The Kauṭilya Arthaśāstra, Part I, A critical Edition witha Glossary. Bombay: University of Bombay Studies
• Kangle, R. P. (1963). The Kauṭilya Arthaśāstra, Part II, An English Translationwith Critical and Explanatory Notes. Bombay: University of BombayStudies
• Kangle, R. P. (1965). The Kauṭilya Arthaśāstra, Part III, A study. Bombay: Universityof Bombay Studies
• Konow, S. (1920). Das indische Drama. Berlin/Leipzig: Vereinigung wissenschaftlicherVerleger
• Krishnamoorthy, K. (1974). The concept of Rasābhāsa in Sanskrit LiteraryTheory. In: Krishnamoorthy, K. (ed.). Essays in Sanskrit Criticicsm.Dharwar: Karnatak University
• Krishnamoorthy, K. (1990). Rasaucitya as a Criterion of Literary Judgementin Indian Theory and Practice. In: Pūrṇatarayī, Sri Ravivarma SanskritGranthavali Journal 17/2.
• Kunjunni Raja, K. (1997). Sahr̥daya: the Ideal Art-Connoisseur. In: Lienhard,S., Piovano, I. (eds.) (1997). Lex et Litterae, Studies in Honour of ProfessorOscar Botto, pp. 419-423. Torino: Edizioni dell’orso
• Leavitt, G. (2011). The social in Kashmiri Aesthetics: Suggesting andSpeciously Savoring Rasa in Ānandavardhana and Abhinavagupta.In: Bronner, Y.; Cox, W.; McCrea, L. (eds.) (2012). South Asian Textsin History: Critical Engagements with Sheldon Pollock, pp. 267-289.Ann Arbor: Association for Asian Studies.
• Lienhard, S. (1984). A History of Indian Literature. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz
• Lockwood, M.; Bhat, V. (1978). Bhagavadajjuka Prahasana. A PhilosophicalFarce by King Mahendravikramavarma Pallava (Edition and Translation).Madras: Diocesan Press.
• Masson, J. M. (1979). The Sahr̥daya. In: Sinha, J. P. (ed.) (1979). LudwikSternbach Felicitation Volume, pp. 313-316. Lucknow: Akhila BharatiyaSanskrit Parishad
• Menon, K. P. S. (1995). Major Kūṭiyāṭṭam Artists and Families. In: SangeetNatak Akademi 111-114 (Special Issue: Kūtiyāttam): 128-140
• Olivelle, P. (2005). Manu’s Code of Law. A Critical Edition and Translation ofthe Mānava-Dharmaśāstra. Oxford: Oxford University Press
• Pollock, S. (1985). The Theory of Practice and the Practice of Theory in IndianIntellectual History. In: Journal of The American Oriental Society105/3: 499-519
• Pollock, S. (1989). The Idea of Śāstra in Traditional India. In: Dallapiccola,A. L. (ed.) (1989). Shastric Traditions in Indian Arts, pp. 17-26. Wiesbaden:Harrassowitz Verlag
• Pollock, S. (2001). The Social Aesthetic and Sanskrit Literary Theory.In: Journal of Indian Philosophy 29: 197-229
• Raghavan, V. (1942). The History of Aucitya in Sanskrit Poetics. In: Raghavan,V. (ed.). Some Concepts of Alamkāraśāstra. Madras: Adyar Library
• Raghavan, V. (1989). The Comic Element in Sanskrit Literature. Madras: SamskritaRanga
• Rangacharya, A. (1996). The Nāṭyaśāstra. English Translation with CriticalNotes. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal
• Rossella, D. (2009). Satire, Wit and Humour on Kings and Ascetics in KāvyaLiterature. ‘He who laughs last, laughs best’. In: Rossi, P. M., Pieruccini,C. (eds.) (2009). Kings and Ascetics in Indian Classical Literature,pp. 117‑134. Milano: Cisalpino Istituto Editoriale Universitario [Quadernidi Acme 112]
• Siegel, L. (1987). Laughing Matters. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
• Suryakanta (1952). A study of Kṣemendra’s KavikaṇṭhabhāraṇaAucityavicāracarcāand Suvr̥ ttatilaka, with an English Translation. In: PoonaOrientalist 17: 1-219
• Srinivasan, S. A. (1980). On the composition of the Nātyaśāstra. Reinbek: Verlagfür Orientalistische Fachpublikationen
• Unni, N. P. (1998). The Nāṭyaśāstra, text with introduction, English translationand indices in four volumes. Nag Publications: Delhi
• Suntharalingam, V. (a.k.a. S. Visuvalingam) (1983). Abhinavagupta’s Conceptionof Humour: Its Resonances in Sanskrit Drama, Poetry, HinduMythology and Spiritual Practice. Benares: Benares Hindu University.Unpublished PhD Thesis
• Vatsyayan, K. (1996). Bharata. The Nāṭyaśāstra. Delhi: Sahitya Akademi