|
| actors'
reputations |
Date:
Wed, 5 May 1993
From: Jenny Roberts
Subject: actors' reputations
While I was away in Washington at the NEH democracy shindig, my
students met without me and took notes for me on what was a very
interesting discussion. The unresolved questions that arose included
an inquiry as to why actors/actresses tend to have bad reputations
not only in Rome (the particular topic at hand) but more generally.
Some obvious answers come to mind, but I'd be curious what list
members have to say.
Date:
Wed, 5 May 1993
From:
Robin Mitchell
Subject: Re: actors' reputations
The
bad reputation of actors probably stems ultimately from their
ability to don and shed identities as if they were costumes. The
knowledge, even subconscious, that one's identity is or can be a
sham leads to epistemelogical/metaphysical sceptism, etc.. Nietzsche
writes much in his later works about the culture of the actor, a
fault he found in his society; I think this can be found in Beyond
Good and Evil, but I'm a bit rusty on this topic.
Date:
Wed, 5 May 1993
From:
Robert A. Kaster
Subject:
Re: actors' reputations
I have a lot of sympathy for Robin Mitchell's reply regarding
identity-shifting; but it occurs to me to ask whether such "shiftiness"--and
the bad reputation of actors more generally--becomes an issue
only(?) when the actors are largely drawn from one or another kind
of out-group (persons of servile origin at Rome, Blacks, Jews, other
ethnic minorities in 20th cent. USA). To what extent is the "why"
connected with the "where and when," and with the
sociology of the profession?
Date:
Wed, 5 May 1993
From:
David Meadows
Subject:
Re: actors' reputations
On the Roman side, I have always maintained that a prime reason for
actors' reputations being bad was, ancillary to RM's suggestion,
because they could not be held to their word: i.e. they did not have
bona fides because of the very profession they practiced. As such,
actors are branded with infamia from the start. It's interesting to
note in passing that if someone of more reputable stock practised
the ars ludicrae as a minor, their reputation would not suffer ...
once they passed the magic age of 25, however, they were counted
among the infames.
Date:
Wed, 5 May 1993
From: David Meadows
Subject: Re: actors' reputations (fwd)
I forwarded the original question to William Slater and this was his
response; it should prove useful: It is wrong to lump greek and
Roman actors together as "having bad reputations". From
Aristotle to Philostratus the actor's unions had a reputation for
causing truble, and the Aristotle passage seems to be thinking of
itinerant scoundrels. But Greek actos were free and often
politically powerful, whereas Roman actors were with few exceptions
not free, and subject to legal penalties. Cornelius nepos states the
difference clearly. On the other hand Roman actors [Pylades, Mnester
etc.] enoyed very high standing at court; and Philo says - probably
wrongly - that Apelles was in the consilium. It is interesting that
the greatest greek pantomime of the East ca. 200 A.D. never
performed in the West at all. Different rules applied, just as
Brutus could not get the actor Kannoutios to come up from Naples to
Rome. He was free. The fact that even greek actors could be beaten
on stage or in the theatre is another and complicated legal problem.
Date: Wed, 5 May 1993
From: S. Georgia Nugent
Subject: Re: actors' reputations
I have remembered for many years a phrase in Michael Goldman's book
The Actor's Freedom--Toward A Theory of Drama (1985) to the effect
that actors, because they assume the fictive personae of dramatic
characters are "ontologically subversive," and are
therefore disturbing to a society that would like to believe that
identities are stable and reliable. In part, he argues, this
accounts for the moral queasiness with which actors are often
viewed.
Date:
Wed, 5 May 1993
From: Robin Mitchell
Subject:
Re: actors' reputations
Well,
this all goes back to Republic 3, doesn't it? All the stuff on the
effect of mimesis on the stability of the soul?
Date:
Wed, 5 May 1993 16:21:29 -0400
From:
Gary Brower
Subject: Re: actors' reputations (fwd)
Since I don't have a copy at hand, I can't supply the precise
reference, but if one were to check the index of White's edition of
Artemidorus' _Dream Handbook_, several references to actors might be
found. I remember one in particular where eunuchs are compared to
actors, because neither can be trusted as to their true identity --
again, unfortunately, I can't remember the citation, but it
shouldn't be too hard to find.
Date:
Tue, 1 Jun 1993
From:
DONALD LATEINER
Subject: Re: thanks on actors
Footnote
on actors: Cath. Edwards, "The Politics of Immorality in
Ancient Rome_ (Cambridge 1993) has a chapter on "representations
of actors and the theater" which provides a context for bad
repute within Roman moralizing discourse. Don Lateiner, OWU |
| Culled
from
classics.log9305
and
9306 |
|