Thumiger, C. (2009) on Ancient Ad Modern (Meta)Theatres Definitions and Practices_MD 63, Pp. 9-58

8/18/2019 Thumiger, C. (2009) on Ancient Ad Modern (Meta)Theatres Definitions and Practices_MD 63, Pp. 9-58

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thumiger-c-2009-on-ancient-ad-modern-metatheatres-definitions-and-practicesmd 1/51

Fabrizio Serra editore and Accademia Editoriale are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Materiali e discussioni per l'analisi dei testi classici.

http://www.jstor.org

ccademia Editoriale

On ancient and modern (meta)theatres: definitions and practicesAuthor(s): Chiara ThumigerSource: Materiali e discussioni per l'analisi dei testi classici, No. 63 (2009), pp. 9-58Published by: Fabrizio Serra editoreStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27784314Accessed: 31-03-2015 18:40 UTC

EFERENCES

Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:http://www.jstor.org/stable/27784314?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents

You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content

in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 186.62.33.73 on Tue, 31 Mar 2015 18:40:16 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=fabser

http://www.jstor.org/stable/27784314

http://www.jstor.org/stable/27784314?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/27784314?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents

http://www.jstor.org/stable/27784314

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=fabser

http://www.jstor.org/



Chiara

Thumiger

On

ancient

and modern

(meta)theatres:

definitions

and

practices

1.

1.1.

Defining

'metatheatre'

The

critical notion of ?metatheatre? was first suggested by

Abel

in

1963.

Since then

the

term

has

been

immensely

suc

cessful,

in

two

opposite

ways:

on

the

one

hand,

as

a

concept

ap

plicable

to

all

sorts

of

gaps

in

the

hermeneutics

of

difficult

texts;

on

the

other,

with

equal

passion

and

commitment,

as

quintessence

of the

post-modern tendency

to

privilege

the

blurring

of boundar

ies,

therefore

a

suggestion

to

be

wary

of,

if

not to

dismiss

entirely1

Both

receptions

of

the

notion

were

bound

to

find

an

ideal

environ

ment

in

the field of

classical

studies,

especially

drama.

Here,

in

fact,

the

difficulty

in

accessing

ancient

texts

and the

controversial

debate

between modernist and historicist

readings

are

remarkable.

Thus,

the

concept

of

'metatheatre'

has raised

great

interest

in

re

cent

discussions

of

Greek

tragedy.2

As

soon

emerged,

however,

the

very

concept

of

'metatheatre'

is

far from

unproblematic,

and

calls

in

a

number of

implications

which

are

often

overlooked,

as

Rosenmeyer

highlighted

in

his

es

say

on

the

topic.3

The

validity

of

a

universal

category

of 'metathe

atricar

is

what this article

sets

out

to

challenge.

An

analysis

of

'metatheatre',

first of

all,

has

to

take

notice

of

its

1

See

Taplin,

Wilson

1993,

p.

169

on

the

increasing

interest

in

theatrical

self-refer

entiality

in

classical

scholarship

as

determining

a

?false

dichotomy

?

between

a

?

self

conscious

and

playful

methodology

?

and

?an

over-demanding

empiricism

?.

I

would

like

to

thank Herb

Golder,

Richard

Seaford,

Ian

MacGregor

Morris,

Lorna

Hardwick,

Mike

Edwards,

and

the four

anonymous

readers

at

?md?

for

their

comments

on

ear

lier drafts

of this

article.

I

am

especially

indebted

to

Pat

Easterling,

whose

acute

criti

cism

has

helped

me

immensely

to

re-think

the final

version

of

this work.

2

See

representatively

the

monographs

by

Batchelder

1995,

Segal

1996,

Ringer

1998,

Dobrov

2001.

A

different

voice

is

that of

Radke

2003,

who

rejects

in

toto

metatheatri

cal and

generally

modernist

readings

of

the Bacchae

and bases

her

reading

of

the

play

largely

on

the

principles

expressed

in

Aristotle's

Poetics.

3

Rosenmeyer

2002.

Rosenmeyer

offers an

insightful

commentary on the fortune

of the

concept

and

an

instructive illustration

of what

he

describes

as

its

Overload'.

I

am

very

indebted

to

this

piece

of

scholarship

for the

development

of

the

present

essay.

?MD?

'

63

?

2

9







io

Chiara

Thumiger

lack of a universal definition. Many formulas have been offered,

but

on

close

scrutiny

a

clear

and

tangible

notion is

not

yet

available.

If

we

look

at

scholarly

definitions of

'metatheatre' and metafic

tion

in

both

modern

and

ancient

literature,

what

is

striking

is their

vagueness

and

appeal

to

general

functions

and

effects

as

if

they

did

not

need

to

be

argued

for.

The

concept

has become

more

and

more

elusive

over

the

past

forty

years.

Abel

defined

metatheatrical

plays

as

?th??tre

pieces

about life

seen as

already

theatricalized...

[whose

characters]

themselves

knew

they

were

dramatic

before

the playwright took note of them?. These characters ?are aware

of

their

own

theatricality

?

and

?the

playwright

has

the

obligation

to

acknowledge

in

the

very

structure

of this

play

that

it

was

his

imagination

which

controlled the

event

from

beginning

to

end?.1

For

James

Calderwood,

?metatheatre?

is

?a

kind of

anti-form

in

which

boundaries

between

the

play

as a

work of

self-contained

art

and

life

are

dissolved?.2

Turning

to

the

field of

classical stud

ies,

Marino

Barchiesi,

in

a

pioneering

application

of

metatheatrical

interpretations

to

Roman

theatre

(especially

Plautus),

qualifies

it

thus:

?the

epic

"I"

has

penetrated progressively

into the

drama,

and

expressing

itself

in

the

self-awareness of

the

actor-persona,

in

the

intermingling

of

more

levels of

reality

and

in

the

tendency,

now

[in

our

modern

time]

predominant,

of

the

theatre

to

repre

sent

itself?.3 For

Bruno

Gentili,

?metatheatrical?

is

a

play

that

is

?constructed from

previously

existing

plays?.4

Moving

to

narra

tive

literature

more

broadly,

for

Patricia

Waugh

the

?metafictional

novel tends

to

be

constructed

on

the

principle

of

a

fundamental

and

sustained

opposition:

the construction

of

a

fictional

illusion

(as

in

traditional

realism)

and

the

laying

bare

of

that

illusion

...

itbreaks down the distinction between "creation" and "criticism"

and

merges

them

into

the

concepts

of

"interpretation"

and

"de

construction"?.5 For

Richard

Hornby,

?metatheatre?

is

?whenever

the

subject

of

a

play

turns

out

to

be,

in

some

sense,

drama

itself?.6

In

Niall

Slater's

words,

it

is

?

theatrically

self-conscious

theatre,

the

atre

which

is

aware

of

its

own

nature

as

a

medium

and

capable

of

exploiting

its

own

conventions

and

devices for comic

and

occasion

ally

pathetic

effect?.7

For

Jean-Pierre

Maquerlot

?"metatheatre"

1

Abel

1963,

pp.

60-61.

2

Calderwood

1971, pp.

4, 5,11,12.

Barchiesi

1970,

p.

116

(my translation).

4

Gentili

1979, p. 15.

Waugh

1984,

p.

6.

6

Hornby

iq86.

d. 17.

7

Slater

1990,

p.

103.







On ancient and modern

(meta)theatres

11

will designate all forms of playing within the performance-text that

calls

attention

to

the dramatic and theatrical codes

subsuming

the

stage

repr?sentation?'.1

Anton

Bierl

understands

metatragedy

as

a

species

of ?metatheatre

...

the

totality

of mechanisms

whereby

the

poet

reveals that

he

is

aware

of himself

as

the

creator

of

drama

and

whereby

the theatre refers

to

itself?.2Mark

Ringer

argues

that

?"metatheatre" and "metadrama"

mean

drama

within

drama

as

well

as

drama

about drama....

it

encompasses

all forms of

theatri

cal

self-referentiality?.3

Gregory

Dobrov,

who

largely

examines

a

number of ?figures of play? inGreek tragedy, calls it ?that process

whereby

a

representation

doubles back

on

itself,

where

a

narrative

or

performance

recognises,

engages,

or

exploits

its

own

fictionali

ty?.4 Finally,

Rosenmeyer's

summary:

?the

play

recognizes

its

own

status

as

fiction

and

performs

a

hermeneutics of itself?.5

We

seem

to

be still far from the 'considerable

flexibility

and

...

healthy,

mutual

intelligibility

with

respect

to

terminology

and

definitions' that

Ringer

optimistically

applauds.6

What

we

have

is,

rather,

a

community

of

indefiniteness,

in

which

very

diverse

phe

nomena are

put together (self-referentiality, intertextuality

decon

struction...)

and

no

advance

towards

clarity

or a

fixed

canon

has

been reached

in

forty

years.

The

reasons

for this

are

not

contingent.

.

2.

Audience

and

spectacle:

dualism and

liminality

First,

in

the definitions

quoted,

a

dualism

between

'art'

and

life',

'fiction' and

'reality',

and

so

forth

is

established.

It

is

suggested

that

'metatheatre'

is

not

simply

a

literal

reference,

in

a

play,

to

the

the

atrical

medium,

but

a

feature that

engages

more

deeply

with the

boundaries between what is perceived

as

'art' and 'reality', 'fabri

cation'

and

'natural',

undermining

and

challenging

these bound

aries,

exploiting

their

ambivalence

or

inviting

closer

engagement

with them.

This

instantiation of

fiction

versus

reality,

however,

on

which

'metatheatre'

(thus

defined)

is

played

is

far from

straightfor

ward when

considering

literature,

but

especially

it is

not

for

the

atre.7

1

Maquerlot

1990,

p.

42.

2

Bierl

1991,

p.

116

(transi,

by

T.

Marier).

3

Ringer

1998,

p.

7.

4

Dobrov

2001,

p.

9.

5

Rosenmeyer

2002,

p.

97.

6

Ringer

1998,

p.

9.

7

These difficulties

are

evident

in

a sense of unease

with

the

concept

of 'illusion'

which

emerged early

in

scholarship,

but did

not

show itself

capable

of

eliminating

the

concept

from

the

picture

:

ifakis

1971

claims

that

?illusion

as a

psychological

phenom

enon

was

entirely

alien

to

the Greeks

?

while

?even

after

Brecht's

revolution

against







12

Chiara

Thumiger

The theatrical experience, in fact, isby definition a fluid, liminal

one,

where

the

boundaries between

what

one

might

wish

to

define

as

'real'

vs

'fictitious',

public

vs

stage,

actors

vs

characters

are

shift

ing

and

continuously

re-negotiated

in

the

open

field

of the

interac

tion

between

audience and

spectacle.1

The

relationship

between

audience and

spectacle,

a

relationship

of

alternating

distance and

identification,

and of

varying expectation,

changes

with

every

in

stance.

The

process

of

engagement

with

the boundaries

between

'art' and

'reality'

is

sensitive

to

changes

in

any

of

these,

so

that

it

is impossible to conceive of a universal, fixed 'metatheatre' in the

traditional

drama

-

to

say

nothing

of the theatre of

the

absurd,

and others

-

the

theatre of

illusion

...

is

still

very

much

alive?

(p.

7),

and

?it is

wrong

...

to

speak

of

interruption

or

disruption

of illusion

and

thus

imply

that illusion

is

the normal

state

of affairs

?

with reference

to

Old

Comedy;

?any

conventional

type

of

drama?

(like

ancient

drama)

?is

anti-illusionistic?

(p.

11).

Muecke

1977

shows the

same awareness

as

he

adopts

the

term

?

dramatic illusion?

but

?for the

sake

of

convenience

?,

however

recognising

crucially

that

?the

contrasting

of different fictions

as

a

technique

of

com

edy

derives

...

more

from

the double

nature

of the theatre

itself,

than

from

a

special

historical

relationship

between the

performers

of

old

comedy

and

their audience?.

Ta

plin

1986

points

out

that

?

"illusion"

is

a

badly ambiguous

term

to

use

of

a

highly

non

naturalistic th??tre?

(p.

164).

Bain

1987

speaks

?unrepentantly

of the dramatic illusion

on

the

assumption

that

...

the reader

will

understand what

Im

saying? (p.

1),

distin

guishing

?

theatricality

?

(found

in

tragedy)

from

?breach of

the illusion?

(not

found)

(p.

14).

Lada-Richards

(1997,

p.

79)

affirms

instead that ?the mode of

the

tragic

genre

(as

opposed

to

comedy)

...

consistently

maintains

the

illusion

of

its

own

fiction

and,

consequently,

demands

from

its

performer

to

become absorbed

into

the

being

imper

sonated?.

Marshall

(2000,

p.

330)

claims

that

?any

discussion

of illusion

or

Coleridge's

"willing

suspension

of disbelief"

is

inappropriate

and

necessarily inadequate

for the

fifth-century

tragic

stage?

-

though

he

retains

the

concept

as

a

working

term.

Slater

2002

clearly

exposes

that

?illusion

itself

is

an

artifice?,

and

?when

we

speak

of "break

ing

the illusion"

we

imply

that the

contract

[between

performers

and

audience]

is

somehow violated

...

it

would

be

better

to

speak

of

a

renegotiation

of the

contract?.

1

There is

a

psychological

reason

for

this

provisionality

of boundaries when

it

comes

to

theatre,

a reason

that

has

to

do with the

representation

of

humanity

that

theatre

offers

as

constructed

by

the

interaction

with the

audience,

rather

than

pre

existing

the

performance.

Fisher-Lichte

2002

offers

a

fitting

account

of

the

history

of

European

theatre

as

activity

that

by

definition

challenges

identities

and

representa

tions

(pp.

4-5),

establishing

a

?dialectical

relationship

...

between theatre and the

so

cial

reality

of the

theatregoers

?

...

?a

permanent

dynamisation?

in

the

way

the

social

reality

of

the

audience

is

incorporated

or

discussed

in

the

theatrical

representation (p.

5).

Once

we

accept

theatre

performance

as

?concerned

with

staging

identity

?

(p.

4),

and

account

for

the

fluid

and

liminal

quality

of

?

identity

?

as

constructed

in

the

space

between

audience

and

spectacle

/actors,

it

becomes

apparent

that

to

define

sharply

?

reality

?

vs

?illusion?

in

the

context

of theatre is difficult. Cf. Ruffini 1981, p.

10:

?per

haps

the

moment

has

come,

to

give

in

to

the

fact

that

the

history

of theatre

is

not

the

history

of

a

category

through

which

we

select the

objects

of

our

inquiry,

but

a

history

of

objects

which,

once

incorporated

into

our

inquiry,

redefine

progressively

a

category

which

becomes,

after

all,

perfunctory [my

translation]?.







On ancient

and modern

(meta)theatres

13

way we conceive of a universal, fixed category for, say, 'recognition

scenes',

'messenger

speeches',

and

so on.

Thus,

the theatrical

experience

appears

from

the

start to

be

an

open

field

of

intersections

between

the

two

poles

of

audience

and

spectacle,

rather than

a

well-defined,

self-enclosed

product,

and

is

therefore

inherently

'metatheatrical'.

With

reference

to

literature

more

widely,

modern

scholarship

is

increasingly

sensitive

to

this

point.

From

Jauss'

Re?eptions?sthetik

to

contemporary

'reception

studies' there

is

a

tendency

to

deny

literary

texts

the

status

of

a

determined, univocal item independent of 'the receiver'.1 Such

theoretical

objections

to

a

critical determinism

in

defining

'text'

are

especially

urgent

for

theatrical literature

-

one

could

argue,

in

fact,

that

it is

a

'theatrical' model of

engagement

with narrative

and

poetry

which

is

at

work

in

reception

theories,

a

model

which

has

provided

reception

studies

with

many

instruments and

analo

gies:

the

very

idea of

the

'plurality'

of

the

response

to

a

text

is

implicitly

a

theatrical one.2

Secondly,

elements of 'self-awareness' and

'self-referentiality',

recurrent

in

discussions of 'metatheatre' and

in

the formulas

I

have

quoted,

are

also

problematic.

Self-awareness and

self-referentiality

presuppose

an

objective

notion

of

'self,

both

applied

to

people

(if

we are

talking

about the

actors)

and

to

what

we

might

call 'institu

tions'

(such

as

'the

theatre',

a

genre,

a

festival,

the

activity

of

play

writing,

and

so

on).

Also,

they

presuppose

an

agreement

on

what

'awareness' entails:

the

postulate

that the reader

or

on-looker,

or

indeed themodern

critic,

can

detect and evaluate

rigourously

mo

ments

of 'awareness'

in

the author of

an

(ancient)

work,

or

that

the

awareness

of

a

dramatic character should

exist

per

se as

an

item

to be

analysed.3

Most to the

point,

they

look at theatre as the sum

1

Cf. Martindale

2006,

p.

3

for the reference

to

Jauss'

1967

lecture.

2

Cf.

Batstone

2006,

p.

17

on

the

'point

of

reception'

where

the

reading

of

a

text

takes

place:

?in

the theatre

of

plurality

we

find the fiction of

identity

?.

3

Moreover,

even

if

agreement

on

these

two,

'self

and

'awareness',

were

reached

we

would

be

leftwith the

impasse

of

the irreducible

'ontological'

self-referentiality

of

all

products,

including

works

of

art.

As

Maquerlot

appropriately

explains

(1990,

p.

41):

?

hether

its

metatheatrical

statement

is

articulate

or

not,

barely

audible

or

excep

tionally

eloquent,

every

work of

art

is,

up

to

a

point,

self-reflexive

or

self-focusing

in

that

it

calls

attention, quite apart

from

its

"message",

to

its

physical

existence

or

phe

nomenal

being

...

take the

most

decidedly

unshakespearean,

unbrechtian,

unpiran

dellian,

unbeckettian,

Broadway

or

Boulevard

comedy

arid

listen

carefully

to

what

it

does

not

say

but

all the time

speaks

of

and

you

will

hear

a

metadramatic

whisper

that

I

can

amplify

for

you:

"here

I

am,

rather

poor

stuff,

I

admit;

a

cheap

but

quite

efficient







14

Chiara

Thumiger

of individual

subjectivities

-

overlooking

the fact thatwhat makes

theatre

unique

is

its

diffuse

nature

as

interaction

between

two

'communities',

the

public

and the

actors

onstage.

The

weight

of

these

objections

becomes

most

apparent

in

the

complexities

of

dramatic

characterisation,

as

Rosenmeyer

explains

addressing

tragic irony:

?in

drama,

the

actor-character

addresses

the

audience,

sometimes

over

the heads of

his

fellow

characters,

sometimes

through

them. And from the

very

beginning

the bound

ary

between what

is

an

actor

and what

is

a

character

is

not

entirely

clear?.1 Among the shifting exchange of these individual subjec

tivities,

those of the

actors

and those

of

the

public,

and

within the

awareness

of

conventions

they

share,

the borders

of

'self,

'reality',

'fiction'

are

continuously

moving.

Ortega,

in

his Idea del

Teatro,

summarised

the

complex

item

formed

by

audience and

actors

as

a

combinaci?n de

hiperactivos

y

hiperpasivos,

?a

combination

of

hyper

active

[the

actors]

and

hyper-passive?

individuals

(the

spectators).2

This is

a

felicitous

formula,

provided

that

we

take

passivity

not

in

the

reductive

sense

of inert

receiving,

but

as

intentional

availability

to

respond

to

a

code that isunderstood

as

different from and

more

'intense'

than the

every-day

one.

Intensification

to

the

point

of

im

plausibility

appears,

in

fact,

to

be

specific

to

theatrical characters:

?when

we

speak

of

theatricality,

we

include

a

tendency

on

the

part

of the

dramatic

hero

...

to

engage

in

self-dramatization,

often

at

the

point

where

his

weakness

or

the

misfortune that holds

him

captive

is

most

apparent...

[the]

disproportion

between

rhetorical

energy

and

personal disintegration

is

a source

of

powerful

irony,

which

is,

by

and

large,

unavailable

to

the

writer of

narrative

...

because

the

novel

lacks

the

ability

to

trace

a

character's

progress

of

decline

by

the

gauge

of

shaped,

public

speech?.3

In

this

environ

ment,

in

which

a

set

of

new

and

different

rules

apply,

an

every-day

term

such

as

'self-awareness'

appears

ultimately meaningless.4

provider

of illusion. Das

Verfremdungseffekt

is

not

my

forte,

but still

you

will find

me

very

metadramatic

in

my

own

way

and

very

metatheatrical

too

because

I

am

so

obvi

ously representative

of

the codes

of

twentieth-century

bourgeois

comedy?.

1

Rosenmeyer

1996,

p.

500.

2

Ortega

1946, p.

36.

3

Rosenmeyer

1996,

p.

500.

4

The

paradoxical

status

enjoyed

by

the actorial

self,

sketched

out

by

Rosenmeyer,

exposes the distinction between the two twentieth-century approaches to acting, the

Brechtian

(dissociation,

as

much

as

possible,

of

the

actor

from the dramatis

persona)

and

the

Stanislavskian

('adjustment'

and

'reincarnation',

fusion with

the

new

iden

tity)

as

fictional and

provisional

(that

is,

didactic and

valid insofar

as

it remains

a

pragmatic

indication for

theatre

practitioners).

Both

estrangement

and identification







On ancient

and

modern

(meta)theatres

15

The difficulties we have mentioned are inherent in a qualifica

tion of 'metatheatre'

as

a

universal

term

rather than

a

shortcom

ing

of

the definitions

we

have

seen.

Greater

precision

could

not

be

achieved without

testing

the

universality

of

the

concept

against

the

particularity

of each

instance

in its

performed reception.

Un

less the

concept

of 'metatheatre'

is

to

be

dismissed

altogether,

to

argue

for

its

working validity

we

should

approach

it

as a

system

of

effects

as

varied

and

elusive

as

theatre

itself,

with effects

potentially

very

different and

intertwined with the

dynamics

of

the audience

spectacle exchange.

We

mentioned

liminality

and

fluidity

as

constitutive

of such

ex

change

and of the theatrical

experience

overall.

To

clarify

this

point

it is

useful

here

to

recall Goffman's work

on

the ?frames? that

we

use

to

understand

reality

and

to

organise

experience.1

Goffman

challenges

a

radical

conceptualisation

of

the 'theatrical'

versus

the

'real',

explaining

that

human

experience

is

organised along

a

rath

are,

in

fact,

two

psychological

constructions,

two

strategies,

not

facts,

just

as

the

op

position

between

?cognitive?

(Brechtian?)

and

?emotional-empathic?

(Stanislavski

an?)

engagement

with the dramatis

persona

are. On this

point,

Marshall 2000 is

very

helpful:

?the

supposed

polarity

that

separates

what

is

theatrical

[here:

'Brechtian

]

from what

is

dramatic

[here

:

'Stanislavskian

]

assumes

that

an

audience's intellectual

appreciation

of

an

actor's

craft

is

incommensurate

with

an

emotional

appreciation

of

the character's situation. On

the

contrary

...

both levels of

awareness are

maintained

simultaneously))

(see

also

p.

329).

In

a

very

instructive

piece

(however

not

always

per

suasive)

Lada-Richards

applies

the

opposition

between Brecht's

and

Stanislavsky's

theories

to

ancient

theatre,

testing

its

validity

as

marker for

comedy

vs

tragedy,

the

genre

?

which tells the

spectator

he's

in

a

th??tre?

(p.

72,

quoting

Brecht)

and that of

identification and fusion.

Lada-Richards

is

very

cautious in

presenting

the

analogy

as

a

working

instrument

rather than

a

perfect

formula,

and

introduces several

complexi

ties

to

it;

the

schema

appears

however

to

lie

on

an

over-simplifying postulate

about

the actor's

self,

as evident in the treatment of

Sophocles'

Philoctetes : ?in line 120 the

actor's self indeed

agrees

to

yield

its

consent

to

adopt

a

different

persona?

(p.

80);

?the

actor

[playing

Neoptolemus]

was

required

to

remodel

thoroughly

himself

as

to meet

Odysseus'

standards;

in

fact,

he

was

required,

in

a

Stanislavskian

way,

to

see

the world

through

the

eyes

of his character?

(p.

83),

but

?Neoptolemus' attempted

fusion of

persona

/personality

remained

superficial?

(84);

?Neoptolemus,

the

inter

nalized

actor,

ruined his

"secondary"

impersonation

through

his failure

to

achieve

...

a

Stanislavskian

"complete

conversion"

...

he

ultimately

indulged

in

a

Brechtian

impersonation)) (p.

84).

It is

rather the

case

that

this

oscillation between

cognitive

and

emotional

response,

distance and

identification,

actor

and

persona

is

always

there

in

theatrical

experiences,

and

is

not

specific

to

one

genre

or

approach.

1

Goffman

1986.

See

Easterling's

1990

use

of

it

in

her

treatment

of character

in

tragedy

(pp.

84-88).

See

Goldhill

1999,

esp. pp.

12-17

for

a

re-elaboration

of

various

approaches

to

'gaze'

and

optics

towards what

one

may

call

a

'sociology

of

viewing'

mindful of

ancient

theatre

as

civic

and social

moment,

and

drawing

on

the work of

Bakthin

as

well

as

anthropologists

like

van

Gennep

and

Turner.







i6

Chiara

Thumiger

ermore

complex

combination of levels,

including

dreams,

games,

and

performances

of

various

kinds.

All

these

imply

different

types

of

'framing.

His

proposed starting point

is

the

question

?under

which

circumstances

do

we

think

things

are

real??.

We

have

at

our

disposal,

he

argues,

a

number of

?subworlds? which

have ?each

its

own

special

and

separate

style

of existence?:1

theatrical

per

formances

are

examples

of such

subworlds,

with

varying

degrees.

Within

this

category

Goffman

establishes

a

distinction

in

terms

of

?purity?,

namely

?the exclusiveness

of

the

claim of the watchers

on the activity theywatch?.2 That is, at the 'pure' end of the spec

trum we

find

dramatic

Scriptings

(where

the absence

of

an

audi

ence

means

that

there

is

no

performance).

At

the

other

end,

the

least

'pure',

we

find work

performances

(like

at

construction

sites)

or

rehearsals,

which

are

brought

into

effect

whether

an

audience

is

there

to

see

them

or

not.

In

between these

two,

we

find

a

variety

of

intermediate

phenomena,

such

as

contests

or

matches,

ceremo

nies

(weddings

and

funerals),

public

speeches,

and

lectures.

Differ

ent

degrees

of

'purity',

of

'autonomous

existence'

of

the

spectacle

from

the

spectators engender

different

sets

of emotional

responses

from

the

audience and of

cooperation

between audience

and

ac

tors.

?Th??tre

audience?,

Goffman

continues,

is

also

complex,

as

it

combines

two

identities: the

theatre-goer

(the

individual

citi

zen),

and the

on-looker,

(the

accomplice

to

the

theatrical

mode,

who

chooses

to

adopt

and

endorse

a

'syntax

of

response'

which

is

proper

to

theatre).3

These

two

identities

coexist

in

the

audience,

with

varying

proportions,

and

are

qualified

on

the basis of their

participation

to

One

world',

or

'the

other',

or

indeed

to

both

with

different

modalities.4

The

following

questions

arise:

how does

engagement

between

audience

and

spectacle vary?

How

does

the balance between

on

looker

and

theatre-goer vary?

Ancient

theatre,

arguably,

is

'purer'

(in

Goffman's

sense)

than

Western

twentieth-century

theatre

in its

1

James

1950,

pp.

283-324,

quoted by

Goffman

1986,

p.

2.

2

Goffman

1986,

pp.

125-127.

3

Ibidem,

pp.

129-130.

4

Ortega

(1946,

p. 49)

explored

these substantial

dualidades ?de

espacio? (stage

and

seats);

?de

personas?

(actors

and

public)

(p.

49);

ultimately,

the

one

between

what

we

may

call

the

tenor

and the

vehicle

of

the

metaphor

of

reality

theatre offers

:

these

are

both forms of ?ser?, of ?being?: the drama and the 'world outside', the rose and

the

girl's

cheek

in

the

metaphor

?a

girl's

cheek

is

a rose?

(p.

43)

are

two

equally

real

dimensions,

which

depend

on one

another

and

are

both

necessary

for

the final

com

bination

to

exist,

just

as

stage

and

seats,

actors

and

public

are

necessary

to

each other

for

the

theatrical

experience

to

exist.







On ancient

and

modern

(meta)theatres

17

closer engagement between audience and spectacle, in its integra

tion

of

on-lookers

and

theatre-goers,

of

context

(the

dramatic fes

tival)

and fictional

events

(the

actual drama

presented).

How

does

this

affect

our

understanding

of 'metatheatre'

there,

and

in

later

literature?

A

way

of

experiencing

theatre

and

'metatheatre'

is

dependent

on

what

status

is

held

by

'theatre'

as

institution

and

practice.

A

'metatheatricar effect

is

achieved within

the

complex

exchange

be

tween

audience and

spectacle

-

it is

felt

against,

or

interacts

with

the expectation(s) in terms of ?frame(s)? (as inGoffman) and con

ventions

to

which

the

audience,

or

reader,

must

be

accustomed.1

This

expectation

is,

first,

an

historical

fact;

second,

a

fact

related

to

genre;

third,

a

fact determined

by

the

specifics

of

each audience

and of each

performance

as

unrepeatable

event.2

That

is,

'meta

theatre' has

to

be

located

in

the

open

field of reactions

and

ex

changes

between audience and

spectacle,

but

it

also has

to

be

con

textualised:

historicised

(our

first

item)

as

well

as

located within

the

parameters

of the

genre

(our

second

item)

just

as

any

other

?defamiliarizing

device?.3 The

third

point,

the

unique reception

of the

single performance,

irremediably

eludes

our

grasp;

we

shall

therefore

concentrate

our

efforts

on

the first

two.

1

As

the

name

itself, fmetatheatre\

reveals:

since

the

interpretation

given

to

the

title

of the

Aristotelian

writings

a

e

a

a

a

(understood

as

?the

writings

be

yond

the

topic

treated

in

the

Physics?,

while

it

possibly simply

indicated

the work's

place

in

the

canonical

arrangement

of the

philosopher's writing,

?after

the

Physics?),

in

fact,

in

compound

names

the

'meta' indicates

a

reaching beyond,

and

subsequently

a

switching

back

and

forth,

a

blurring

of the

boundaries of what the

object

(in

our

case

'theatre')

entails.

2

Even

Dobrov,

who

argues

for

?metatheatre?

as a

substantial component of

an

cient

drama

and

sets

for

himself

a

?descriptive

phenomenological?

agenda

(p.

9),

has

to

diagnose

that

an

evolution

to

allow the

genre

to

?

react to

itself

?

was

needed

for

'metatheatrical'

aspects

to

develop,

explaining

thus the fact

that

?

Euripides'

later

plays

are

perceptibly

richer

in

self-conscious detail

than

the earlier

surviving

plays

of

Aeschylus

?

(p.

11).

This idea

of

an

evolution

from

one

?state

of fiction?

to

the

other

contradicts Dobrov's

prolegomenon

(pp.

8-9),

the

idea that

the

metafictional

should be

somewhat

constitutionally

part

of

the Athenian

drama

as

?multiple negotiation

?,

in

termingled

with the

dynamics

of

the first

democracy.

?Metatheatre?

cannot

be both

a

later

product

in

the evolution

of

a

genre,

and

a

component

of its

primary

physis.

This

ambiguity

is

due,

again,

to

the

problems

inherent

to

a

notion

of

'metatheatre'

as

fixed

item.

3

For

'metatheatre'

as

a

defamiliarising

and

estranging

device

see

Jestrovic

2002,

2006.







18

Chiara

Thumiger

.

3.

Reconstructing

the

context:

history

Such

need for

context

has

not

always

been

perceived.

This

has

happened

regardless

of whether metatheatrical

readings

were

supported

or

contested;

most

have dealt with

the

topic

sur

prisingly

assuming

its

absoluteness.

Sometimes,

in

a

dogmatic

fashion,

'metatheatre' has been

seen as

construction

and

anach

ronistic

by

critics

if

applied

to

tragedy,

without

exploring why

and

risking

a

simplistic

dismissal

of the

concept

as a

'late

and

devious "anti-form"

imposed

on

something

more

primitive

and

pure

...

a

sign

of

decadent,

self

indulgent complexity'

imposed

onto

?the

innocent

child of

the

European

canon

[i.e.

Greek

the

atre]?.1

In

discussions

on

'metatheatre' the

relationship

between

audi

ence

and

spectacle,

or

the

notion of fiction

as

culturally

deter

mined have

not

been

prominent.

Abel's seminal work

did under

line

a

link

between

'metatheatre' and

a

cultural

milieu,

a

historical

moment

characterised

by

a

weak and relativist

view

of

reality.2

However, his claims rested upon an

opposition

between 'metathe

atre'

and

tragedy

'proper'

which

subsumes

a

dogmatic,

rigid,

'post

Nietzschean' ideal of the

ancient

genre

as

a

monolithic

category

of the

spirit,

under which

much of

Euripides'

work would

hardly

fall.3

Conversely,

a

stereotypical

image

of

an

'anti-tragic'

modern

world

was

implied:

Abel

argued

that

?one

cannot

create

tragedy

without

accepting

some

implacable

values

as

true.

Now

the

West

ern

imagination

has,

on

the

whole,

been liberal and

sceptical;

it

1

As in

Dobrov's defence

of ?metatheatre?

(2001,

pp.

10-11).

2

See

Abel

1963,

esp. pp.

40-58

(?Hamlet,

Q.E.D.?)

on

why

?it

was

quite

impos

sible

in

the

age

of

Elizabeth

for

any

dramatist,

including

Shakespeare,

to

make

true

tragedy

of Hamlet's

story?

(p.

41).

Abel

emphasises

the

role of 'Christian

sensibility'

to

determine this

impossibility

(p.

43).

Likewise

Barchiesi

1970,

p.

119:

?I

believe

that

nowadays'

metatheatrical obsession

is

mainly

to

be connected

with

our

painful

in

ability

to

unify

"reality" according

to

a

synthetic principie?

(my

translation).

3

Cf.

Bain's

comments

(1987,

p.

8).

See Abel's

closing

summary

(1963,

p.

113)

on

the

?values

and disvalues of

tragedy

and

'metatheatre'?,

where

tragedy

is

summed

up

as

that

which

?

gives

by

far

the

stronger

sense

of

the

reality

of

the world

...

glorifies

the

structure

of

the world

...

makes human

existence

more

vivid

by

showing

its vulner

ability to fate

...

tries tomediate between world and man

...

cannot operate without

the

assumption

of

an

ultimate order

?.

In

short,

?

there

is

no

such

thing

as

humanistic

tragedy

?.

More

cautiously

Buxton

(1996,

p.

42)

suggests

that

?a

feature of

many

plays

called

"tragedies"

is

the

sense

they

convey

of the

presence

of

a

metaphysical

struc

ture

informing

and

conferring

significance

on

events

?.







On

ancient

and modern

(meta)theatres

19

has tended to regard all implacable values as false?. As Susan Son

tag

reminds

us,

however,

there

is

more

articulation and

complexity

within the ?modern

world?,1

which

cannot

be

easily categorised

as

altogether

sceptical

and

relativist,

as

if

its

Christian tradition

and

the

weight

of

twentieth-century

totalitarian

ideologies

bore

no

im

portance.

Likewise,

there

is

more

articulation

to

ancient

tragedy,

and

to

'metatheatre' itself.2

Despite

these

warnings,

in

metatheatrical

interpretations

the

tendency

to

flatten

diversity

and

reify

'theatre'

and

'metatheatre'

has

persisted,

and the

assumption

that

all

aspects

of metafiction

should

be

equated

with

a

post-modern

phenomenon

(or

be

ac

companied by

the cultural

implications

of

post-modernity)

still

looms

large.3

The

reference

to

a

view of

art

and

a

Weltanschauung

1

See

discussion

in

Sontag

(1966,

pp.

135-136,138):

?that

life

is

a

dream,

all the

meta

plays

presuppose.

But

there

are

restful

dreams,

troubled

dreams,

and

nightmares.

The

modern

dream

-

which the modern

metaplays

projects

-

is

a

nightmare,

a

nightmare

of

repetition,

stalled

action,

exhausted

feeling.

There

are

discontinuities between the

modern

nightmare

and

the

Renaissance

dream which Abel

...

neglects,

at

the

price

of

misreading

the

text?.

2

Waugh

questioned

this line

by arguing

formetafiction more

generally

as

linked

indeed

to

an

age

of

relativism

and

scepticism

-

a

?c?l?bration

of the

power

of

the

creative

imagination together

with

an

uncertainty

about the

validity

of

its

represen

tations

...

a

pervasive insecurity

about

the

relationship

of fiction

to

reality

?

(Waugh

1984,

p.

2)

-

but

as

literary

engagement.

Against

readings

of

'metatheatre'

as

essentially

ludic and

'escapist',

she

suggests

that

?[metafictional

works]

are

...

extremely

respon

sible both

in

socio-cultural

terms

and

in

terms

of the

development

of

the

novel itself

?.

Hutcheon

(1989,

p.

61)

similarly

argues

for

?a

critical

return

to

history

and

politics

through

-

not

despite

-

metafictional self-consciousness and

parodie

intertextuality?.

This

interpretation

links metafiction

to

a

certain

intellectual

milieu,

but

redeeming

it

from accusations

of

solidarity

with the

?age

of

relativism

?

in

which

we

live

(Waugh

1984,

p. 78).

In

fact,

that 'metatheatre'

could

be

engaged

was

readily apparent

since

Brecht's

use

of antinaturalistic features

for

a

didactic

purpose,

a

type

of

'metatheatre'

obviously

very

far from the relativism

and

mistrust

in

fixed values

of

Pirandellian and

Absurdist theatre.

Likewise,

in

cultures other than

the

Western

a

different 'metathe

atre'

is

possible:

in

African

theatre,

as

explored

by

Crow

2002,

?metatheatre?

is

less

?

existential

in its

central

thrust

[than

inWestern

drama]

-

less centred

on

the

self and

the

"problem"

of

its

identity

and

individual

capacity

for

fulfilment

and realization

?

(p.

2).

Rehm

(2002,

p.

23)

offers

a

similar distinction

with

reference

to

ancient

'meta

theatre':

?in

my

view

the

metatheatrical

aspect

in

Greek

tragedy

does

not

operate

primarily

on

an

aesthetic

level

(delight

in

the theatrical

play

for

its

own

sake)

nor

does

it

signal

a

"crisis

of

representation",

where the

drama

refers

to

its

own

(and

other)

performances

and little

else?.

3

See

representatively

Segal

1997,

pp.

272-338,

?The

crisis of

Symbols?.

Zeitlin

1980,

p.

57,

on

Euripides'

Orestes as

?ironie,

decadent, 'modern', even

'post-modern

?

by

virtue of the

?

self-conscious

awareness

of

a

tradition

which

has reached the end

of

its

organic

development...

both

[...]

emancipation

from

tradition

and

[...]

disinheri

tance

and loss?.







20

Chiara

Thumiger

characterised by crisis or scepticism is also scattered throughout

theworks of those critics

who

recognise

some

degree

of 'metathe

atre'

in

ancient

texts,

generally

coupling

crisis

and relativism with

meta-forms.

I

propose

to

focus

our

attention

on

ancient views

on

art to

argue

for

or

against

the

applicability

of 'metatheatre'

to

ancient

theatre.

The

very

concepts

of

'art'

and 'fiction' have

changed

in

the

history

of

Western

culture.1

Fiction

as

?untruth?,

or as

?artificial

cr?ation?

originally

meant

?for the

purpose

of

d?ception?2

reflects

broadly

themodern production and fruition of fiction as an alternative to,

if

not

escape

from

reality,

characterised

by

a

sharp

separation

be

tween

work and

audience,

theatre-goer

and on-looker.

Since the

concept

of 'metatheatre'

is

meaningful only

in

relation

to

other

objects

(art,

reality)

it

has

to

be defined

in

contrast to

the

notion

of

theatre

proper

to

that

point

in

history.

We

should

ask, therefore,

what

these 'notions of theatre'

are

and what this

'vision

of

reality'

is

for Greek drama.

The

separateness


spectacle,

on-looker

and

theatre-goer

of the

type

modern audiences

may experience

in

the dark of

a

cinema

watching

a

thriller,

akin

to

the

'impurity'

of

performance

proposed by

Goffman,

had

not

been

among

the

expectations

of

the Athenian theatrical audience for

comedy,

nor

for

tragedy.3

The

distinction between fictional

account,

artistic

ere

1

Barchiesi

(1970,

pp.

115-116)

explored

(with

some

simplification)

the

?birth

of

modern th??tre? and

the evolution that led

to

what

he

called the

?pr?sent

crisis?

starting

from

Hegel's

Aesthetics:

?the

man

of

the Renaissance has

based

theatre,

for

the

first

time,

exclusively

on

human

relationships

(zwischenmenschlich),

expressed

by

dialogues.

A

fundamental

aspect

of the

drama

is

now

its

being

assoluto

e

p?ma?o,

in

as

much

as

it

does

not

recognize

anything

outside

itself,

and

nothing

can

intrude

into

it:

not

the

'epic

of

the

playwright,

absent from the

text... not

the

actor,

or

the

character,

fused

as

they

are

in

an

autonomous

theatrical

entity...;

not

the

public

...

who

witness,

almost

paralysed,

the

spectacle

of

a

'second

world'

in

order

to

forget

themselves

in

it

entirely

...

this

pattern

can

be

considered

valid

from

the

Renaissance

until the

end

of

the

nineteenth

Century?

(my

translation).

2

I

am

quoting

here from the

entry

fiction

in

the

Oxford English Dictionary.

3

Artaud

1938

spelt

out

this

modern

tendency

to

see

theatre

as

?entertainment,

that

aspect

of

useless

artificiality,

an

evening's

amusement

so

typical

of

our own

th??tre?

(p.

42),

hitting

the

mark,

with

characteristic

emphasis,

of

modern

art more

widely:

?[they

have

instilled]

a

concept

of

art

for art's

sake

in

us,

art

on

the

one

hand

and life

on

the

other,

...[a]

lazy,

ineffective

idea... This

concept

of

unworldly

art,

charm

poetry

existing

solely

to

charm

away

the

hours

is

a

decadent

notion,

an un

mistakable

symptom

of

the

emasculatory

force

within

us?

(p.

58).

In

the

same

years

the

American

playwright

Wilder

denounces

the

same

frustration

in

the

preface

to

his

metatheatrical

play

Out

Town

(1937):

?I

began

to

feel

that the

theatre

was

not

only







On

ancient

and modern

(meta)theatres

21

ation and reality, in fact a crucial philosophical division, cannot be

taken for

granted

in

the

same

terms

for

the

ancient

Greeks

as

it is

for

us.

This is

confirmed further

by

the fact that the

birth of

ancient

poetic

theory

-

which considers

poetry

as an

autonomous

object

of

investigation

-

is

located

late

in

the

development

of Greek

liter

ature.

1

One

might

profitably

invoke,

and

compare,

the collision of

what

were

called,

in

broad

terms,

a

'poetic

of truth' and

a

'poetic

of

fiction'

within the

ancient view

of

art.2

These

correspond

to

a

vi

sion

of the

poet's

role

as

asserting

external

'inspiration',

and

to

the

modern vision of the poet holding himself entirely responsible for

his work.3 The first characterises the

pre-Aristotelian conception

of

art

as

mimetic

truth,

with

no

independent

life

or

aim

(Plato's

fierce

criticism of

poetry

is

to

be

read

on

these

assumptions).4

The

second

is

a

'new

poetic

of

fiction',

which

arises

as

an

alternative 'at

some

point

in

the

fifth

century

bc

?.5 The

poetic

of

truth

judges

po

etry

by

?transcendent

criteria

?,

where the

criteria

of the

poetic

of

fiction

are

?immanent?

-

meaning

?internal?.6

One

may

suggest

that,

within this broad

evolution,

Euripidean

tragedy

is

located

at

a

crucial

stage

in

the

passage

from

a

poetic

of truth

to

a

poetic

of

fiction,

whereby

the

rules

of

art

and the

independence

of

art

from

external

reality

are

acknowledged;7

that,

in

broad

terms,

indepen

dence

of

performance

and

its

expectations correspond

with

a

poetic

of

fiction;

and

that,

say,

Euripides'

audiences would have had other

expectations

than

ours,

or

expectations

less

exclusively

defined.8

inadequate,

it

was

evasive;

it

did

not

wish

to

draw

upon

its

deeper

potentialities.

I

found

a

word for

it: it

aimed

to

be

soothing?

(p.

viii).

1

Representatively,

see

Ford

2002

and Ford

2003.

2

Finkelberg 1998, p.

21.

3

See also

Kernan

(1979, p.

146),

assimilating

under

this

respect

ancient and

medi

eval

society

against

the moderns:

?the

poet

did

his work

relatively

unself-consciously

...

by

the

19th

century

the situation

had

changed

completely.

The

fine

arts,

including

literature,

had become

the

mainstays

of

such

central cultural values

as

creativity

and

beauty,

and the

objectifications

of that humanistic substitute for the

soul,

the

tran

scendental

power

of

imagination?.

4

Finkelberg

1998,

p.

17;

Wood

1993,

p.

15.

5

Finkelberg

1998,

p.

26.

6

Ibidem,

25.

7

The

nature

of this

'passage'

has been

explored

from

various

points

of

view

by

scholarship.

Despite

obvious

differences,

the

non-straightforward

nature

of 'fiction

as a

theoretical

concept

in

antiquity

is

widely

affirmed.

Gill

(1993,

p.

87)

goes

so

far

as

to

claim

that

?even in

Plato's

acknowledgements

of the

incomplete

truth

of

his

myths

or

arguments,

there

is

no

equivalent

for the modern

claim

that the

status

of

such

discourse

is

"fictional"

?.

8

Along

these

lines,

Kullman

1993,

p.

253

points

out

that

spectacle

metaphors

would

be 'undenkbar'

for

Euripides

(despite

his fame

for

being

experimentalist,

etc.).

Eu







22

Chiara

Thumiger

.

4.

Reconstructing

the

context:

genre

The

second element of 'context'

is

the

expectation

commended

by

different

genres.

The

varying

expectations

for

tragedy

and

comedy

in terms

of

audience

response

have

been discussed

at

length,

and

the

debate

on

the

topic

has

developed

in

the

past twenty

years.

Oliver

Taplin

first

described the

two

genres

as

?two

quite

differ

ent

modes of

interplay

between

stage

and

auditorium?,

whereby

?most

tragedy

casts

its

spell

in

a

more

exclusive,

almost

hypnotic

way

... itdemands the total concentration of its

audience,

intellec

tual

and

emotional?.1

On

this

interpretation,

'metatheatrical'

allu

sion

of

the kind familiar

from

Old

Comedy

is

absent from the

trag

ic

genre,

and

if

present

would

be

much

more

damaging

-

almost

absurd

-

for

our

'suspension

of

disbelief,

since

the

tragic

genre,

necessarily

characterized

by

amore

heightened

emotional

tension,

is not

as

hospitable

as

comedy

towards

digression

and

play.

Many

scholars,

including Taplin

himself,

are now

inclined

to

adopt

a

less

oppositional

view of the

two

genres

in

this

respect.2

In both tragedy and comedy, in fact,we find a number of con

ventions

which

allow

varying

degrees

of

self-referentiality

as

an

expected

part

of

the

'frame'. These

are

most

evident

in

Old

Com

ripides

?

treated

life

with

much

more

seriousness

[than

us]?

(my

translation);

on

the

other

hand,

argues

Kullman,

only

with

Plato does

an

abstraction

of

'fiction'

start

to

define

itself,

and

only

as

a

devaluation

of

the

visible

world,

seen

as

faint

copy

of world

of

Ideas,

rather

than

as

interest

for

the

rules

and

status

of

fiction

per

se.

Sifakis

(1971,

p.

9),

on

the

same

point:

'none

of

the

characteristics

of

modern

realistic

(my

italics)

drama

can

be found

in

Greek

(or Roman)

drama.

The

stories

were

old...

;

so

their end

was

known;

the dramatic characters were not

individuals,

but

types;

...the dramatic

situations

...

were

all

'legendary',

cosmic

in

their function

to

account

for

humanity's

past;

...[Greek

drama]

did

not

aim at

realistically representing

everyday

human life

on

the

stage

or

at

creating

the illusion of

reality

for the

audience?.

1

Taplin

1986,

pp.

164,

171-173

with corrections in

1996

and

1993,

pp.

67-68.

The

op

position

between

tragedy

and

comedy

would work

better

if

Aeschylus

or

Sophocles

were

taken

as

representative

of

the

tragic

genre:

Taplin

(1986,

p.

65)

in

fact

expressly

omitted

late

Euripides,

in

whose

work

we

can

find

several

'comic',

or

'un-tragic'

in

stances

(Helen,

Ion...).

See

also

Bain

1977,

p.

23

and

1987,

pp.

2, 9

on

the

distinction

between

audience

addresses

and

equivalent

effects

in

the two

genres;

Muecke

1977,

p.

59:

?the

break of

the

illusion

in

comedy

could

well have

been

funny

by

virtue

of

breaking

the

rules

of

tragedy?;

Steiner

1996, pp.

534-535

on

the

deep

?cut?

between

the

two

registers,

the

comic

and the

tragic;

Slater

2002,

p.

7,

who

draws

a

connec

tion

between

(lack

of)

sympathetic

identification

and

metatheatrical

overtones.

Lada

Richards

1997

still

adopts

a

working

model

that

has

?comic

versus

tragic

game?

with

reference

to

metatheatricar issues.

2

Cf.

Taplin,

Wilson

1993.







On ancient

and modern

(meta)theatres

23

edy,where the parabasis or the references to the audience are ex

pected

as

an

integral

part

of the

three-dimensional

performative

experience.

Tragedy,

however,

also accommodates

features which

invite

engagement


spectacle

as

part

of the

composite,

'multimediatic'

experience

of the dramatic festival

overall.

Choral

self-referentiality

recurrent

in

the

corpus

of

extant

tragedies

(most

famously,

but

not

exclusively

in

895-896:

?For

if

such

deeds

are

held

in

honour,

why

should

we

join

in

the

sacred

dance??),

is

wholly

part

of the

performance

and

invites

?the audi

ence to

participate in

a

more

integrated exp?rience?.1 Moreover,

the

chorus of

tragedy

'mimics'

or

evokes

metaphorically

other

'choral

performances'

with which the Greek audiences

were

famil

iar,

as

Taplin

underlines

(e.g.,

?paian, epinikion,

hymenaios, parthe

neion

and

so

forth

?).

This

establishes

a

?

continuity,

with

differing

degrees

of

intensity,

between

the

tragic

chorus

and

[a]

range

of

collective cultural

activities

external

to

tragedy

?,2

encouraging

a

complex

communal

engagement,

spelt

out in

the interaction be

tween

audience and

spectacle.

The

difference from

self-referential elements

in

comedy,

as

East

erling

formulates

it,

is one of ?tone?.3 Ancient

playwrights

were

sensitive

to

anachronism:

while

reference

to

features such

as

the

chorus

were

allowed

within the

integrated

response

of the audi

ence,

one

notes

?the

vague

way

in

which

the

tragedians

allude

to

1

Henrichs

1994,

p.

59-

Henrichs

rightly

describes

the

common

ground

between

imagination

and

polis

as

?fluid?: ?choral

performance

takes

place

in

both

worlds

?

(p.

68).

See

also

Csapo

(2000,

pp.

417-426)

on

tragic

self-referentiality

and

especially

Euripidean

?choral

projection?,

with

a

list

of

instances

(pp.

420-421);

Wiles

2007,

p.

176,

commenting

again

on

the

much-discussed

passage

from

or,

and

contemplating

a

different

?unifying dynamic?

effected

by

choral

dance,

that

between

?this

evanescent

world? and

?the

incorruptible,

deathless world of the

gods?

(in

Bacon's

words,

1994

1995,

20).

2

Taplin,

Wilson

1993,

p.

170.

Bain

1987,

p.

11:

?self-reference

in

tragedy

is

effected

by language

which

does

not

take

us

out

of

the

Homeric

world,

a

world

of

song,

music,

muses,

bards

and minstrels

?.

Compare

Helena's famous lines

at

II.

vi,

357-358

(

a

/

a

&

e

e

'

a

),

her

?metafictional?

claim that

?even

in

days

to

come/we

may

be

a

song

for

men

that

are

yet

to

be?

is

in

tegrated

with

her

experience,

that of

a

noble

woman

accustomed

to

hear

rhapsodes

singing

the

enterprises

of

famous

and

noble

people.

Similarly,

see

Odysseus'

tears

listening

to

Demodocus'

account

of

the

destruction of

Troy

at

Alkinoos'

banquet

in

Od.

vin,

487-531.

3

Easterling

1997a,

p.

167:

?perhaps

the

main

difference

between

tragedy

and

com

edy

lies not in their contact with the audience but in the tone of that contact. For the

tragedian

there

is

a

paramount

question

of

decorum,

that

is,

what

is

appropriate

to

the

seriousness and

dignity

of the

genre

and

to

its

setting

in

the

time of the

Homeric

h?roes?.







24

Chiara

Thumiger

their own medium?, and on how tragedy, unlike comedy, 'studi

ously

avoided?

an

?unequivocal

reference

to

contemporary

insti

tutions?.1

On

the other

hand,

in

comedy

'metatheatrical'

features

are

integrated by

virtue

of

a

ludic

quality,

where

a

special

kind

of

spectatorship

allows

a more

relaxed

response

-

what

one

may

call

a

'down

keying

.

hese

features

involve

no

?break

of

illusion,

since if

theatre

is

illusion the down

keying

is

part

of

it?.2 All

in

all,

these

types

of

audience-spectacle

engagement

offer

the

public

exactly

what

they

expect

to

see

from the

only

kind

of

tragedy,

or

comedy they have ever experienced; they are not a 'defamiliaris

ing'

device.

In

summary,

we

have

argued

that 'metatheatre'

is

a

problem

atic

and

elusive

concept,

which

cannot

be

used

as

a

fixed

item.

This

is

due,

first of

all,

to

the fluid and

liminal

nature

of theatre

as

performed

experience

from

the

start.

Secondly,

there

are

further

qualifications

to

be

made,

in

terms

of

historical and

cultural

con

text

(what

expectation

is

held

by

the

contemporary

audience?)

and

in

terms

of

genre

(what

are

the

requirements

and

conventions of

a

specific

theatrical

genre,

and what

expectations

do

they

raise?).

The

engagement


spectacle,

and the

contig

uous

relationship

between -looker' and

'theatre-goer'

emerge

as

central

in

this

discussion.

2.

2.

.

A

glossary

of

audience-spectacle

engagement

To

bring

the

discussion

to

the

concrete

level

of

text

and

practice,

we

shall

now

sketch

out

a

tentative

'glossary'

of references

which

are

specifically

relevant to the

exchange


spectacle.

This

'glossary'

is

formal

in

organisation,

grouping

items

which

are

similar

in

dramatic

language

and

practice;

the

aim,

how

ever,

is

to

highlight

how

similar

elements

within such

a

'glossary'

can

combine

very

differently

within

the

overall

'syntax'

of

perfor

1

Easterling

1986,

p.

6.

At

the

same

time,

some

theatrical conventions of ancient

theatre

(formal

and metric

patterns, among

others)

?mark the

difference

between

theatrical

and

ordinary

discourse,

reminding

the

spectators

that

they

are

theatai

at

a

special

event

with its

own

established

conventions

and

its

own

kind

of

sacrifice?

(Easterling

1997a,

p.

158).

2

Rosenmeyer

2002,

p.

103

quoting

Goffman

1974,

p.

364.

To

play

with

genres,

moreover,

is

written in

the

dna

of

comedy,

as

recently scholarship

has

increasingly

explored:

see

representatively

Platter

2007.







On

ancient

and

modern

(meta)theatres

25

mance, changing with the changing elements of context we have

just

discussed.

We shall

refer

to

theatrical

examples

from different

periods

-

from

antiquity

until

twentieth-century

plays.

In

no

way

are

we

aiming

at

giving

an

exhaustive

overview;

instead,

we

shall

use a

limited

number

of

plays

in

order

to

establish

a

background

of

working

comparisons.

The

items

we

analyse

are

the

instances

most

commonly

men

tioned

in

scholarship

of

'metatheatre',

from

Abel onwards:

fol

lowing Rosenmeyer's

summary

of such

'entries',

we

find: charac

ters

showing

themselves

?to

be

aware

of

being

on

a

stage?;

?the

character's dramatic life

[as]

already

theatricalized?;

?the

plot

[as]

product

of

the author's

own

imagination

and

not

rooted

in

a

fixed

tradition?;

?characters

[who]

tend

to

improvise,

thus

usurping

the

role of the

playwright?;

?the

playwright

[as]

not

fully

in

control

of

his

own

material?;

?the

action

[as]

marked

by

a

dream

of

[with]

the

quality

of

a

dream?;

?closure

undermined,

and

authority

sub

verted));

?language

[as]

self-centred,

with words

manipulated

as

pointers

to

other words

more

than

as

signifiers?.1

We

shall

broadly

follow these

points

-

although

being

aware

that

what

separates

them is a

working

distinction,

rather than a

rigid

categorization,

and

many

elements could

indeed

belong

to

more

than

one

group.

2.1.1.

Reference

to

facts related

to

performance

These

are

perhaps

the

most

readily acknowledged

instances of

engagement

between

audience

and

spectacle.

Some

of these

are

sometimes

called

'epic

devices'

-

devices

which

to

some

extent

?expose

the

system

of mediation:

...asides,

prologues,

epilogues,

direct addresses

to

the

audience, songs,

the

chorus?;2

then

we

find,

more

widely,

literal

references

to

the theatre

as

institution and

practice:

the

theatre

building,

the

author/director,

the

actors,

the

theatrical

conventions;

finally,

instances

of

'play-in-the-play',

when

a

'play',

a

theatrical

performance

is

actually

staged

within the

plot

(for

instance,

the

'Murder

of

Gonzago' staged by

the

prince

in

Shakespeare's

Hamlet.

Some

of

these

references

are

found

in

ancient

theatre,

both

comedy

and

tragedy

These should

be framed within

the

expecta

tions raised

by

the

two

genres,

rather

than

measured

against

our

modern fetishism of improvisation - ?our European sense of stage

1

Rosenmeyer

2002,

pp.

87-88.

2

Jestrovic's

definition

(2006, p.

32).







26

Chiara

Thumiger

freedom and spontaneous

inspiration?.1

In

Aristophanic

comedy

the

parabasis

(the

interruption

of the drama

to

leave

space

for

a

speech

given

by

the

chorus,

who dismiss

their

scenic

clothes

to

ad

dress

the

audience

on

contemporary

issues)

exposes

the fictional

nature

of the

drama

by

interrupting

it

openly.2

Audience address

es^

e e

...,

ea

a,

also work

as a

particular

reminder

of

spectatorship,

inviting

a

personal

engagement

on

the

issues

at

play: ?being

addressed

directly

or

semi-directly

does

modify

our

psychic

response;

and thismodification

is

not

quite

similar

to

the

one we experience when watching a play-in-the-play or overhear

ing

actors

speak

about the th??tre?.3 References

to

contemporary

facts and

mention

of

contemporary

public figures

familiar

to

the

audience,

and

in

particular

of

tragic

playwrights,

such

as

Eurip

ides,

as

target

of

mockery

are

similar versions of

?exposing

the

system

of

m?diation?

while

addressing political,

ethical

or

literary

issues.

These elements

are

not

alienating

or

defamiliarising,

as

they

are

part

of the

expected

conventions

of the

genre.

At

various

degrees,

self-reflective elements

are

also found

in

the

tragic performance,

even

though

more

integrated

into

the

dramat

ic

action

and

never

implying

an

interruption

of the dramatic

plot

or

an

integration

with the

contemporary

world

-

we

have

comment

ed

on

this

tragic

?

avoidance

of

anachronism ?.4 The

most

notable

feature

here

is

the allusions of the chorus

to

their

own

mimetic

dance.5

In

addition,

readers

have

noticed other elements

as

pos

sible

ground

for

interplay

between

audience and

spectacle,

such

as

the

exploitation

of the

usage

of

a

limited number of

actors

and

of

their

recognizable

voice

behind

the

mask,6

and

the

reference

to

masking.7

Winnington-Ingram,

for

instance,

discussing

Sophocles'

1

Artaud

1938,

p.

37,

advocating

?the

superior

value

of

theatre

conventions?

in

tra

ditions other than that

of

nineteenth-century

modern theatre

(e.g.,

Balinese

theatre)

in

conveying

the

utmost

expressiveness

through depersonalisation (p.

40).

Awareness

of

this

modern

Western

prejudice

is

important

in

assessing

ancient

theatre

-

see

Si

fakis

1971,

pp.

10-11

on

the

opposition

between

modern drama and ancient

'conven

tional'

drama.

2

On

this

see

Slater

2002,

pp.

14-19;

Sifakis

1971,

pp.

11-14.

3

Maquerlot

1990,

p.

48.

4

See

p.

24

with

n.

1.

5

See

p.

23

above.

6

Cf.

Pavlovskis

1977

for

an

overview

of

'the

additional,

frequently

ironic

dimen

sion

which

the

duplication

of

voices

can

have

contributed

to

these

plays';

cf.

Mar

shall

2000,

pp. 338-339

for

a

more

recent

assessment

of

actors'

'role-sharing'

as a

play

wright's

tool

in

ancient

drama.

7

Euripides'

Bacchae

is

the

play

where

such

interpretations

have been

most

notable,

but

by

no

means

the

only

one.

See

Wiles

2007,

pp.

220-236

for

a

discussion

and

criti

cism

of

'metatheatrical'

readings

of

tragic

masking.







On

ancient

and

modern

(metajtheatres

27

Electra (1296, 1309) notes that ?Electra iswarned not to betray her

joy:

there

is

no

fear of

that,

she

says,

since

her

ancient

hatred

is

engrained

upon

her.

A

reference,

as

the

editors

rightly

say,

to

her

"unchanging

mask"?.1

The

reference,

thus

interpreted,

aligns

the

non-naturalistic

mask with the

emotions

at

play, enhancing

'real

ism',

perhaps,

but

most

importantly

inviting

a

more

complex

en

gagement

on

the

part

of

the audience with

the contradictions

in

the character's

own

feelings.2

'Epic'

devices

are

also found

in

tragedy:

in

particular,

the

Eu

ripidean prologue, the conventionality of the codas, and the deus

ex

machina

might

expose

the element

of

mediation

in

the

perfor

1

Winnington-Ingram

1969,

p.

130.

2

Elam

suggests

that

?

devices which

break

the frame

of

the

action

-

or,

better,

break

the

internal

communication

system

-

continue

to

confirm

the

facticity

of the

repr?sentation?

(Elam

1980,

pp.

87-92

in

Rosenmeyer

2002,

p.

103).

See

also

Rosen

meyer

2002,

p.

93:

?th??tre

has

from the

beginning,

with

a

few

exceptions,

such

as

Menander

and

the latest

realism,

been

a

formal and

semantic

construct

positioned

at

a

certain

remove

from

the

patterns

of

experienced

reality,

and hence

less

in

need

of

the

realignments

introduced

by

the

tools of

'metatheatre'?,

and

Hornby

(1986,

p.

14)

on

the chimera

of 'realism'

: ?no

form

of

drama

or

theatre

is

any

closer

or

further

from

life than

any

other,

in

any

way

that

truly

matters.

No

plays,

however

"realistic",

reflect

life

directly;

all

plays,

however

"unrealistic",

are

semiological

devices

for

cat

egorizing

and

measuring

life

directly?.

The

paradox

of the

Electro,

example,

that refer

ences to

the

medium

can

enhance realism

and

equally

undermine

it

(a

paradox

which

Goff

2000

exposes

subtly

with

reference

to

Euripides'

Electra;

see

also

Marshall

2000,

pp.

326;

341),

is

only

solved

by

allowing

for the

complexities

of the

audience-spectacle

relationship.

'Realism',

and

its

expectations,

is

in

itself

a

problematic

concept,

its reifi

cation

standing

on

an

agreed,

determinist

view

of what

reality

is,

and

on

its

acknowl

edgement

by

the

audience

as one

consciousness.

One

should

not

forget

that the real

ist

tradition

is

not

a

fixed

genre,

or

literary

practice;

rather,

it is

that

in

which

?l'effet

du r?el

is

not

so

much

characteristic

as

ultimately

decisive?

...so we

should consider

realism

not

as

a

?

period

term,

but

as a

designation

of

a

perennial

mode

of

represent

ing

the

world"

in its

"consequential

logic

and

circumstantiality",

a

mode which

has

no

"single style"

and whose actual

style,

or

styles,

in

any

given

age vary

according

to

cultural

norms,

and

whose "dominance

at

any

one

time is

a

...

cultural

option"

?

(Silk

2000,

pp.

212-213,

quoting

Stern

1973,

pp.

32, 28, 52,

79,158).

As

we

allow

for

the

nature

of audience

response

as

plural

and

complicitous

to

the theatrical

conventions,

'real

ism' loses

its

relevance.

In

this

way,

Ortega's

formula

in

Idea

del

Teatro

(1946)

which

qualifies

the trans-historical

nature

of

theatre

as

substantially

one

of

'play'

and

'es

capism', ?jugar?

and

?diversi?n?

(pp.

54-55)

(?el

supreme

escapismo

que

es

la

farsa,

la

suprema

aspiraci?n

del

ser

humano?,

p.

57)

appears

simplistic.

What

theatre

brings

to

effect

is

a

continuous

interplay

between

the

two

levels,

in

which

they

become

no

lon

ger

distinguishable

;

the

audience-spectacle

interaction is

the

locus

in

which

varying

modulations

of

realism,

naturalism,

or

(de)humanisation

are

played.

Likewise,

when

Ortega spoke

of

a

?dehumanisation

of art?

(1925),

he offered a

suggestive

formula for

much of

twentieth-century

artistic and

literary

avant-garde,

but

he

spoke

arbitrarily

on a

postulate

of

the

'human'

as

something

definite

and

clear,

which

asserts

that

a

character

in

Beckett

is

less

'humanised'

and

real

than

one

in

Chekhov.







28

Chiara

Thumiger

mance.1 This is especially overt if a divine character is

reciting

the

prologue,

as

in

Euripides'

Bacchae,

where

the

dramatic

action

is

encircled

by

the

presentation

of

Dionysus's plan

and

motivations,

almost

from

the

viewpoint

of

a

stage

director,

at

the

start,

and his

appearance

ex

machina,

at

the

end.

In

Hippolytus,

Aphrodite's

moti

vations

and

destructive

plan

are

similarly

exposed

at

the

beginning,

placing

the

expectations

of

the

audience

in

perspective

of the

en

suing

developments.

The

'epic

device'

of the

tragic

prologue

functions

within the

range of responses ancient audiences were used to, and has no

alienating

result.2 The

same

effect

can

be

achieved

without

a

pro

logue.

In

Sophocles'

Ajax,

the

opening

exchange

between

Athena

and

Odysseus

about

their

victim,

Ajax,

establishes

a

hierarchy

in

awareness

between

characters

thatmimics

that

between

audience

and

dramatic

characters,

creating

a

momentary

and

provisional

complicity

between

the

public

and

the

two

characters

onstage,

which

will be

repeatedly

tested

by

the

development

of

events,

as

the

ethical

implications

of

Ajax's

victimisation

are

highlighted.

In

ancient

tragedy

we

do

not

find instances

of

play-in-the-play

whereby

a

miniature

of

the

events

taking

place

in

the

larger

drama

is

placed

en

ab?mewithin

the

play

such

as

those

of

modern

examples.3

1

See

Dunn

(1996,

pp.

57,

46)

on

how elements such

as

deus

ex

machina,

aition

and

coda

'authorize

the

end',

and

corroborate

control

on

the

part

of

the

author;

the

aition

articulates

a

connection

between

the

dimension

of

the

play

and the

real

world

of

the

audience

-

but

perhaps

a

pretended

connection,

which

therefore

underlines the

'fab

rication

process'.

The

functionally

equivalent

deus

device works

in

the

same

way.

As

Dunn

reminds

us:

?

hereas

the

epilogue

speaker

in

Gay

and

Shakespeare

explicitly

breaks the

dramatic

illusion

by

exposing

an

actor or

an

author,

the

deus

in

Euripides

is

a

more

conventional

participant

in

the

action;

if

there

is

a

breach

in

dramatic illusion,

it is

only

implied?

(ibidem,

p.

29).

2

See Bain

(1987

p.

2)

on

how

instances

which

appear

to

offer

?direct communica

tion?

with

the

public

in

tragic

prologues

(esp.

Euripidean)

remain

however

vague

and

carefully

avoid

mention

of the

spectators,

in

contrast

to

comedy.

There

are

argu

ably

examples

of

tragic

prologues

which

may

appear

to

get

close

to

Aristophanic,

or

Menandrean

self-consciousness:

in

Euripides'

Telephus

fr.

696,

8

the

speaker

com

ments,

'I'll

cut

my

story

short',

a

a

e

;

in

Aeschylus'

Carians

/

Europa

fr.

99,

also

likely

to

belong

to

a

prologue,

Europa

says:

a

a

e

a a

a

,

?I

shall

tell

the

tale

of

the

past

in

a

few

words

?

(p.

4).

These

remain

however

part

of

the

metalingual

conventions

of

speeches,

and

Bain

is correct

in

his

judgement

about

Menandrean

audience

addresses,

that

?

there

is

nothing

like

this

in

tragedy

?

(1987,

2).

3

I

disagree

here

with

the

interpretation

of

Dionysus

in

the Bacchae

as

stage

direc

tor

instantiating

an

internal

play

(see

Goward

1999,

pp.

158-159

for

a

representation

of

the

god's

suggestio

falsi

in

the

prologue

along

those

lines).

The

prologue

of

the

Bacchae,

rather,

promotes

complicity

with

the

audience

'against'

Pentheus,

with

an







On

ancient

and modern

(meta)theatres

29

Instances of organised deception, however, may be compared as

they

prompt

a

functionally

similar

engagement

of the audience

with

the

spectacle,

playing

on

the

degrees

of

knowledge

shared

by

characters

and

by

the

spectators.

Easterling

offers

a

sophisticated

analysis

of

such

interplay

in

Sophocles'

Philoctetes,

where

the

mi

mesis

of

theatrical

dynamics

(the

make-up

of

a

studious

deceit

in

order

to

convince Philoctetes

to

give

up

his

bow)

serves

the

pur

pose

of

exploring

moral

issues

that

can

only

be

played

out

in

full

in

the

intermediary

area

between audience

and

actors. In

particular,

the exchange between Odysseus

and

Neoptolemus, playing

out

their

deceit

in

the

presence

of

Philoctetes,

has

multiple

meanings:

they

are

part

of

the

make-believe

at

the

expense

of

Philoctetes;

they

are

a

'secret'

communication

between

the

two

accomplices;

they

are

a

super-dramatic

communication

to

the audience.1

In Eu

ripides'

Bacchae,

the

dressing-up

scene

(821-846,

912-970)

has been

interpreted

with 'metatheatrical'

overtones,

as

mise

en

ab?me,

isolat

ing

Pentheus

as

unwitting

actor,

and

foregrounding

an

abstraction

of the

tragic

experience.2

Rather,

the

effect

of

the

scene

is

perhaps

to

invite the

audience

to

appreciate

the

multiple

suggestions

that

the

dressing-up

carries,

and the

very

means

by

which we

judge

in

dividuals

from

what

we see.

Pentheus'

attire

evokes

initiatory

rites,

burials,

the

preparation

for

a

hunting expedition,

the

stereotype

of

womanish

vanity,

a

reference

to

warriors

dressing

up

for battle.3

The

importance

of

the visual level

promotes

an

engagement

with

the

various

layers

of

the character

which

integrates

appearance

and

hidden desires

or

intentions,

while

the

different

implications

of

his behaviour

are

exposed:

transvestism,

cross-gender

mimesis,

ambitions

as

hunter,

death.4

additional

complication,

since

what

the

god

promises

to

do

will

not

happen;

and the

additional

effect

is

to

invite

reflection

on

the

reliability

of traditional divinities.

1

Easterling

1997a,

p.

171

on

how

?the

ironic

play

with the dramatic

medium

is

intimately

related

to

the central

issue

[of

the

play]?.

2

Cf.

Segal

1986,

p.

73:

?in the

Bacchae

Euripides

has

tragedy

act

out,

in

the

visual

form of

dramatic

representation,

its

own

illusion-creating

processes

of

masking,

rob

ing,

and

fiction-making

...

the

scene

mirrors back

to

the

audience

their

own

willing

ness to

endow

an

actor

on

the

stage

with

the

personage

of

a

mythical

being merely

by

virtue

of the

mask

and

robes

with

which

the

poet

clothes

him?;

see

Segal

1997

for

a

broader

'metatheatrical'

interpretation

of the

play.

3On all

these,

see

Thumiger

2007,

p.

127with n. 97.

4

On the

importance

of

the

disguise

motif

in

tragedy

see

Muecke

1982,

who

claims

that

the motif

became

an

element of

parody

in

comedy only

by

contrast

with

its

use

in

tragedy.

Muecke

notes

how

Euripides

introduced

disguise

in

myths

in

which

it

did







30

Chiara

Thumiger

Ajax s 'deception speech' (646-692) functions on

comparable

multiple

levels. The

hero's

words

have

different

meanings

to

him

self,

to

Tecmessa,

who

is

silently

present

beside

him,

to

the

gods,

and

finally

to

the

audience.

By

then,

Ajax

has

already

conceived his

suicidal

plan,

we are

made

to

believe,

and

some

of the

words

he

utters,

if

ambiguous,

are

true

to

his

real

feelings:

?I

shall

go

where

I

can

find

an

untrodden

place

and

I

shall

hide

this

sword of

mine

...

digging

in

the

ground

where

nobody

shall

see

it;

let

night

and

Ha

des

keep

it

safely

down below?

(657-660),

where his

own

body,

in

fact,will be such sought-for 'hiding place'. His words appeal dif

ferently

to

different characters:

to

Tecmessa,

he

is

retreating

from

his

challenging

attitude

towards

the

gods

and

his

chiefs,

?even

I,

who

at

that

time

was so

terribly

firm,

like

iron

hardened

by dip

ping,

have been

softened

like

a

woman

in

my

speech,

thanks

to

the

woman

here?

(650-652);

to

the

gods,

he

is

bowing,

but also

pray

ing

?that

what

my

heart

desires

may

be

accomplished

right

to

the

end?

-

a

reference

to

consistency

which

betrays

his real

feelings;

to

the

audience,

he

is

offering

a

complex

set

of

suggestions

and

contradictory

clues:

at

646-648,

he

warns

that ?time

brings

forth

all

things...?,

seemingly

alluding

to

his

unexpected softening,

but

in

fact

to

his

imminent

suicide;

that

?even

things

that

are

terrible

and

very

strong

yield

to

what

is

held

in

honour?

(669-670),

yes;

but

qualifying

this

with

imagery

such

as

the

alternating

seasons,

the

winds

taming

the

sea,

day

and

night,

sleep

(670-676),

cyclical

phenomena

that

warn

the

public

of

the

fact that

this

announced

'change'

in

the

hero's will

may

change

again

as

easily

-

as

indeed it

will.

The

deception,

finally,

has the

hero

himself

as

victim

too,

as

his inner

doubts

and the

contrasting

arguments

for

and

against

are

also reflected in these

multiple

meanings.

The

composite

theatri

cal

reception

of

his

ambiguous

words

spell

out

the

various

facets

of

the self

and

of

the

process

of decision

making,

offering

at

the

same

time

a

paradigm

of how

theatre

works.1

The

theme

of

deceit

(especially

but

not

exclusively

divine

deceit),

central

in

various

ways

in

our

last

Sophoclean

passage

and else

not

exist

-

such

as

Telephus,

Philoctetes,

and

Helen,

arguing

that

even

though

in

the

case

of

the Bacchae

?the

use

of

disguise

...

is

to

be

set

within

the

tragic

tradition

in

which

disguise

is

a

plot

device?,

even

though

the

element

determines

a

superimposition

of

Dionysus' role onto that of the

tragedian

creating

his text

(pp.

33-34).

1

Contrast

Ringer

s

reading

(1998,

pp.

31-49)

and

its

punctual

interpretation

of

Ajax

as

metatheatrical',

even

identifying

the

tent

of

the

hero with

the

stage-within-the

play

(both

in

Greek).







On ancient

and

modern

(meta)theatres

31

where, is also central in classical theatre, from the Oresteia to Plau

tus.1

It

works

in

the

staged

practice

of

theatre with

much

greater

intensity

than

it

would

in

narrative,

interacting

with the

partial,

if

privileged

viewpoint

assigned

to

the audience.

An

analogous

case

is

the

theme of

Tear of

being laughed

at',

Tear

of

mockery',

topi

cal

in

tragedy,

which

also

urges

an

engagement

between the

public

and

the

internal

audiences

within

the drama.

This

concern,

which

draws

primarily

on

actual

social

norms

shared

by

the

audience

and

endorsed

by

the

play,

prompts

the audience

to

a more

aware en

gagement with the drama and invites scrutiny of their

own

ways

of

reacting

to

the fate of

others.2

The

play-in-the-play

device

was

a

favourite

in

European

drama

and theatre.

Thomas

Kyd's

the

Spanish

Tragedy

(1580)

is

organised

around

reduplications

of

events.

The

plot

is

set

in

motion

by

the

killing

of

Andrea,

the lover

of Bel

Imperia;

this death

is

replicated

in

that of

Horatius,

Andrea's

loyal

friend and

now

also lover of

Bel

Imperia;

and

finally

re-enacted

in

the dramatised

staging

of

a

play-in-the-play

where

the killers

of Andrea and

Horatio

will be

slaughtered

on

stage.

Likewise

in

Hamlet,

the

staging

of

The

Mur

der

of

Gon?ago

by

order of

the

prince

enacts

themurder

of

the

king

concerted

by

his

own

brother and

by

the

queen.

In

both

examples

the

play-in-the-play

is

an

enclosed

item

placed

within the

body

of

dramatic

events.

An

entirely

different

educational

and moral

purpose

is

be

hind

play-in-the-play

used

as

defamiliarisation

device

in

Brecht

's

theory

and

practice

of

estrangement

(Verfremdung).

The

aim

of

openly

declaring

the fictional

nature

of

the theatrical

experience

is

to

hinder

emotional

reactions

that

would be

an

obstacle

to

true

engagement with the

play

and invite the audience to question

their

identification

with

the

staged

events

rather than

abandon

ing

themselves

to

them.

In

this

way,

Brechtian

'epic

theatre'

is

aimed

at

transcending

the

individual

experience,

at

appealing

not

to

the

spectator's

feelings

and

emotional identification

but

to

his

reason

and

judgement.3

Far

from the

existential

objection

to

what

'reality'

is,

the

intended effect

is

to

reinforce

the

weight

and

1

Explored

by

P?trone

1983.

2

On 'fear of

mockery'

as

motif

in

tragedy

see

Catto

1991.

3 For a

definition,

see Brecht

1964:

?the essential

point

of

epic

theatre is

perhaps

that

it

appeals

less

to

the

feelings

than

to

the

spectator's

reason.

Instead

of

sharing

an

experience

the

spectator

must

come to

grip

with

things

?

(p.

23).

We have commented

on

the

insidious

nature

of

this

distinction

(pp.

14-15,

n.

4).







32

Chiara

Thumiger

the objectivity of themessage conveyed. The nature of fiction

and

reality

are

not

brought

into

discussion; rather,

an

objective

response

to

facts is

sought.

So,

in

Brechtes Caucasian

Chalk Circle

the

exemplary

'chalk circle'

is

a

play-in-the-play

framed within

a

staged

'struggle

for the

valley'.

In

this

frame

the

members of

two

kolchos

villages

are

discussing

the

settling

of

a

territory

on

which

they

both

claim

rights.

To

illustrate

their

motives,

one

vil

lage

stages

the

old

legend

of the

'chalk

circle'

(a

version

of the

judgement

of

King

Solomon)

whose

morals,

?that

what there is

should belong to those who are good for it?, is applicable to the

fictional audience

in

the

sense

that

?the

valley

should

belong

to

the

waterers,

that

it shall

bear

fruits?,

and

to

the

real

audience

in

more

universal

terms.

The

play-in-the-play

has the

function of

objectifying

piece

of

fiction ithin

the

fiction,

nd

highlighting

it

for the

audience

to

evaluate and

eventually

endorse,

in

co-op

eration

with

the

internal

audience.

In

other

twentieth-century

theatrical

experiences

the

reference

to

theatre

building

and

to

elements of

staging

(the

director,

the

ac

tors,

the

author,

the

public) gains

a

much

more

radical and alien

ating

effect.

In

Lorca's

El

Publico

(1930)1

a

'director'

is

present

on

stage,

negotiating

with

the

actors

the

performing

of

a

new,

un

conventional

kind of

theatre.

Pirandello's

trilogy

of

the

'Theatre

within

the

theatre'

(Six

Characters,

1921;

Tonight

we

Improvise,

1930;

Each

in

his

own

way,

1924)

is

entirely

set

in

the

world of

theatre

staging.

The

show

proper

is

hindered

from

starting

by

some

situ

ation

of

impasse

during

the

staging

process.

In

Six

Characters,

it

is

the

arrival of the

characters

deprived

of

plot

or

author

to

give

them

substance.

In

Each

in

his

own

way,

we

have

the

open

inclu

sion of elements like the

prima

donna actress, a theatre

company,

the

commenting

audience,

an

old theatre

critic,

the

box office

through

a

complicated

set

of

stage

directions;

this

causes

the

plot

to

be

hampered

and

aborted

from the

beginning,

and

interrupted

before the

end of the

representation.

In

Tonight

we

improvise stage

directions

are

also

heavy,

and

voices

from

the

audience,

the allu

sion to

Pirandello himself

as

author,

the talk

about

improvisation,

1

KG.

Lorca,

El

Publico,

1930.

The

structure

of

the

play

and the

development

of

the

plot

have

no

conventional

logic.

A

successful

theatre

director is

urged by

friends

to

turn

from

the

staging

of

a

Romeo

and

Juliet

in

an

Open-air

theatre'

to

a

'theatre

under

the

sand',

a

theatre

which

defies

theatrical

conventions

and

tells the truth. As

the

director

had

initially

argued,

the

audience

would

never

tolerate such

a

theatre.

Faced

with

the

truth,

the

audience

destroys

the

theatre and

attacks

the

actors.







On

ancient

and modern

(meta)theatres

33

plot, characters, and producers make the staging of a 'plot' impos

sible.1

In

Ionesco's Rhinoceroses

(i960)

the

alienating

effect

is

more

cir

cumscribed. The

play

centres

on a

small

town

dealing

with the sud

den

appearance

of

a

rhinoceros.

The

first

rhinoceros

is

followed

by

a

second,

then

a

third,

until

it

becomes

a

universal

movement

of

rhinoceroses

whereby

the

whole

city

is

transformed.

The

process

is

witnessed

through

the

eyes

of

a

set

of characters

including

a

generally

na?ve

and

often

drunk

man,

Berenger,

his

rational and

arrogant counterpart, Jean,

an

Old Gentleman and

a

Logician.

As

all

inhabitants of the

city

transform

themselves into

rhinoceroses,

at

the end of the

process

only

one

character,

Berenger,

retains

hu

man

semblances.

In

the

play,

Ionesco

as

author

is

mentioned

open

ly

Jean:

?instead

of

squandering

all

your spare money

on

drink,

isn't

it

better

to

buy

a

ticket

for

an

interesting

play?

Do

you

know

anything

about

the

avant

garde

theatre there's

so

much talk about?

Have

you

seen

Ionesco's

plays??

and

?will

you

come

with

me

to

the

theatre this

evening?

?

(23-24).

Beckett also

uses

open

references

to

authorship

and

staging,

though

in a less

literal,

insisted

way

At the end of

Waiting

for

Godot,

for

instance,

Pozzo

wonders,

addressing

Vladimir:

?where

are

we??

?I

couldn't tell

you?

?It

isn't

by

any

chance the

place

known

as

the

Board?? ?Never

heard

of

it?

?What is it

like??

?(looking

around).

It's

indescribable.

It's

like

nothing.

There's

nothing.

There's

a

tree,?

?Then

it's

not

the Board?.

The

engagement

between

audience

and

spectacle

engendered

by

these elements

of

'metatheatrical

glossary'

is

more

radical

when

the

opposition

between the

two,

and between on-looker

and

theatre-goer' becomes sharper - that is, in some twentieth-century

theatre.

In

the

case

of

Pirandello,

the talk about the

medium

ex

cludes

any

other

talk,

and

an

abstraction of

art,

creation,

fiction

as

concepts

is

invited.

No

other theme

is

allowed

to root

and

impose

1

See

Jestrovic

(2006,

p.

39)

on

the

different

outcomes

of

defamiliarising

devices

in

Pirandello

and

Brecht: ?Pirandello

presents

theatre

within

theatre

in

the

form of

ro

mantic

irony

...

the

playwright

[leaves]

the audience

in

a

state

of

ambiguity

between

contemplating theatricality

as a

metaphor

and

indulging

in

the

as-if

world

that

the

play

has

to

offer.

The

process

...

serves

to

shift the

line

between theatre and

life,

illu

sion and

reality...

Brecht uses devices of

theatricality

not tomake theatre the theme

of his

work,

but

to

represent

and

problematise reality...

[he]

uses

Verfremdung

not

only

to

distance

the

familiar,

but also

to

ensure

the

correct

comprehension

of the

material and

to

influence

the

reception

process

?.







34

Chiara

Thumiger

itself on the audience, as self-referentiality shifts the focus from

the

eventual

human

or

moral

issues

of

the drama

to

the

nature

or

creation,

art,

authorship,

and

so on.

In

Ionesco

and Beckett

too,

the

inclusion of the author

or

of

plain

references

to

the medium

gains

an

existential,

philosophical

value that

questions

the

status

of

reality,

and reduces life

to

a

nonsensical

show.

On

the

contrary,

the

mimesis

between

'theatricality'

and

'reality'

in

ancient

exam

ples

promotes

a

closer

engagement


staged

events,

where the

various

degrees

of

understanding

and

identifica

tion characterizing audience reception reproduce dynamics inter

nal

to

the

drama,

and

vice-versa.

2.

.

2.

Intertextuality

Extra-textual allusions

to

other

plays

or

literary

texts

are men

tioned

as a

vehicle

for 'metatheatrical'

engagement.

The

category

is

broad,

and

may

include

parody,

quotation,

homage,

plain

ref

erence,

teasing,

and

apparent

and sustained

engagement

with

an

other

text.

This

device

promotes

engagement

between audience

and spectacle by pointing at the 'story' as part of a tradition, or

connected

with

previous

texts,

allowing

the

audience

to

appreci

ate

and

evaluate

allusions,

new

versions

of the

plot,

and

creative

re-elaborations.

To

trace

intertextuality

in

ancient

drama would

be

an

endless

task.

For ancient

literatures,

in

fact,

a

notion of

work

of

art as

a

completely

new

'creation'

is

not

applicable.1

All

stories

told,

from

epics

to

choral

songs

and

to

theatrical

plays

draw

on

a

long

tradition of

characters,

myths

and motifs

and

put

them

selves

in

dialogue

with alternative

or

past

versions.

This

aspect

is

deeply rooted in the very

nature

of Greek literary culture, and, if

anything,

qualifies

ancient

fiction

as

more

integrated

with the

ex

pectations

and

shared

background

of the

public

than

our own.

In

this

way,

the

Agamemnon

of

the

Oresteia

has

to

be understood

in

the

light

of his Iliadic

counterpart;

the Electra

plays

by Sophocles

and

Euripides

establish

a

continuous

dialogue

with the

Aeschylean

Choephoroi;2

and

so on.

In

comedy,

the

practice

of

paratragoedia

is

characteristically

more

punctual

and

overt

than

the

use

of the

pre

vious

tradition

in

the

tragedians.

Aristophanes

explicitly

mentions

the

tragic

playwrights

(even

foregrounding

Aeschylus

and

Eurip

1

On

this

point,

see

Bain

1977,

p.

13;

Sifakis

1971,

pp.

7-8.

2

See

representatively

the

discussion

in

Marshall

2000,

esp.

pp.

332-335.







On ancient and

modern

(meta)theatres

35

ides as tragedians inFrogs) and uses themockery of tragic lines as

part

of

his

comic

repertoire.1

In

twentieth-century

works

we

find

a

different

type

of

intertex

tuality

which

reflects

the

modern

view of

the author

and of

the

text

as

unicum,

as new

creation.

The

expectations

of

Western

audi

ences

at

the end of

the

nineteenth-century

are

broadly

of

natural

ism

and

'suspense'

: a

play

should

offer

a

story

which

is

entirely

the

playwright's

creation and whose

outcome

is

not

predicted.

When

intertextuality

is

open

and

emphasised,

therefore,

it

is

an

inten

tional move with a specific alienating effect. For instance, Garcia

Lorca's

El

Publico

(1930)

re-elaborates

the

Shakespearean

drama

of

Romeo

and

Juliet

and

revisits

it

in

a

provoking,

homosexual

key.

The

teatro

bajo

la

arena

is

the

personal,

authentic

drama

to

which

the

conventional,

canonical

teatro

al

aire

libre

is

opposed;

two

homo

sexual

lovers,

who

love

each

other with

an

immeasurable

love',

replace

Romeo and

Juliet.

The

engagement

with

a

classic of the

Western

theatrical

canon

becomes

an

instrument

to

criticise the

conventions

to

which

a

bourgeois

public

would

be

accustomed,

and

the audience's

lack of critical

judgement.

In

Stoppard's

Ros

encrant^

and

Guildenstern

are

Dead

Shakespeare's

Hamlet

provides

the

entire

dramatic

context

and material

for

a

net

of

literary

jokes:

?I

thought

you

said

we were

actors?

-

?Oh.

Oh

well,

we are.

But

there

hasn't been

much call?

-

?You

lost.

Well then

-

one

of

the

1

Hornby

(1986,

p.

88)

rightly

says

that

?

there

are

many ways

in

which

a

play

can

refer

to

other

literature.

In

each

case,

the

degree

of metadramatic

estrangement

gen

erated

is

proportional

to

the

degree

to

which the audience

recognizes

the

literary

allusion

as

such?.

For

ancient

literature

such

recognition

cannot

be

taken

for

granted.

By

this do

not

dismiss the

deep knowledge

of

Homeric

and

tragic

texts

that

an

cient

audiences had

(Aristophanes'

Frogs

shows the

extent

of such

widespread

literary

competence

beyond

any

doubt),

but

I

wish

to

advance

that the

very concepts

of

'quo

tation'

and

'allusion'

as

extra-fictional

phenomena

are

functional

to

-

our

-

strong

and

personalistic

view

of

authorship

and

text.

For

example, Winnington-Ingram,

in

a

discussion

of

Euripides

as

poietes

sofos,

rightly

points

at

a

reading

of

the

younger

tragedian's

Electra

as

containing

a

parodistic

reference of

Choephoroi,

as

?exhibition

of cleverness

?

and

a

way

?to

score

points

at

the

expense

of the

archaic

technique

of

the

older

poet?

(Winnington-Ingram

1969,

p.

129).

This

involves,

yes,

some

notion of

authorship

and

a

reference

adpersonam

to

the work

and

status

of

the

older

tragedian;

but

accomodating

the

allusion

and

the re-elaboration

within

the

various

voices

of

the

play.

For

a

different

view,

see

Slater

(1985,

p.

169)

on

Plautus

(?the

Plautine

process

of

composition

is

the

very

paradigm

of metatheatre

:

he

imitates

not

life but

a

previ

ous

text?)

and

Dobrov

(2001,

p.

158)

(?tragedy

habitually

reshapes

and

manipulates

epic

narratives

to

produce

a new

fable that

is

...

aware

of

itself of theatrical

perfor

mance?).

The

role of allusion

to

different

versions

of the

same

story

in

tragedy

has

been

treated

by

Stinton

1990

and

Halleran

1997.







36

Chiara

Thumiger

Greeks,

perhaps?

You're familiar with the

tragedies

of

antiquity,

are

you?

The

great

homicidal

classics?

Matri,

patri,

fratri,

sorori,

uxori

[...]...?.

There

are

important

differences

between these

two

and

our an

cient

examples.

It is

undeniable

that

all

literature

is

'intertextual'

or

'transtextual',

and

that ?issues of

indebtedness,

transformation

and

critique?1

are an

irreducible

part

of

a

text

as

product

neces

sarily

linked

to

a

practice

and

institution,

and

part

of

a

'canon of

some

sort.

Though

proper

to

most

texts,

however,

intertextuality

is as varied in effect as themany texts, traditions and practices may

be. The

'metatheatrical\

alienating

effect

in these

instances

de

pends,

of

course,

on

the

type

of

engagement

the allusion

invites.

In

the

case

of the

Aeschylean

Agamemnon,

ancient

audiences

are

prompted

to

evaluate

the character

of

the

king

and

his abhorrent

decision

to

sacrifice

his

daughter complying

to

the order

of

Chal

cas

(Ag.

186)

by

measuring

it

against

the

Iliadic

representation

of

the

king.

At

II

1,

106-120

Agamemnon

refuses

to

obey

the

seer,

with disastrous

consequences

for

the

army;

the

presence

of the

tradition behind

the

play

enriches

the audience's

response

with

an

additional element

to

judge

the

moral and

emotional

representa

tion

onstage.2

In

modern

texts,

operative

within

a

view

of

'text',

'author'

and

'canon'

exclusively

defined,

other

works

are

referred

to

and

objectified

with

a

polemical

intent,

to

invite the

audience

to

abstract themselves

as

audience,

judge

their

own

expectations

from

theatre

and discover

their

own

prejudices. Only

in

the

light

of this

shift

can we

properly

understand

Artaud's

claim

in

his

avant-garde

manifesto,

that

?we

must

finally

do

away

with

the idea

of

master

pieces

reserved

for

a

so-called

elite

but

incomprehensible

to

the

masses?, as this ?

idolising

of

masterpieces

? is ?an

aspect

ofmiddle

class

conformity

?,

and

we

should

?repudiate

theatre's

superstition

concerning

the

script

and

the

author's

autocracy?.3

2.1.

3.

Motifs afferent

to

the

sphere

of

perception

Moving

closer

to

the

text,

we

find

a

number

of

themes

and motifs

which invite

interplay

between

audience

and

spectacle

through

their

relevance

to

spectatorship:

viewing, doubling,

perception

and

its

failure:

sleep,

madness,

delusion,

deceit,

and

intoxication.

1

Rosenmeyer

2002,

pp.

97-98.

2

As

explored by

Goldhill

1990,

p.

124.

3

Artaud

1938,

pp.

55,

56-57,

82.







On ancient

and

modern

(meta)theatres

37

Emphasis on seeing as vehicle of knowledge is important in trag

edy,

most

overtly

in

and

Euripides'

Bacchae. The fate of

Oedipus

'the

wise',

who failed

to

'see' the detail that

was

most

important

to

him,

his

real

identity,

culminates

in

his

self-blinding

-

a

paradox

implicit

in

his

own

name,

which

engenders

a

play

with the Greek

root

*oid>

'to see'/'know'.1

Seeing

and

knowing

are

intertwined

in

the

play,

and

qualify

the

whole

development

of

events:

the

final

blinding

of

Oedipus

?negates

the

communication

between

mask

and

audience?,2

in

such

a

way

as

to

protect

the

individual from

the

vision of an unbearable reality,but also to protect this reality from

the

pollution

that

Oedipus

carries with him.

Similarly,

Tiresias'

blindness

can

be

conceived

as a

shield which

protects

or

isolates

the

world

from

the

pollution

of

a

man

who

has

seen

too

much:

the

stories

of

the

two

men,

even

though

opposed

in

the

tragedy,

are

brought

together

by

this

common

destiny,

which has

seeing

and

awareness at

the

centre.

The

act

of

seeing

is

therefore

a

subject

in

its

own

right

in

or,

and the

very

idea of

knowledge

and

reliability

is

brought

into

question.3

In

the

Bacchae,

Pentheus'

inability

to

see,

emphasised throughout

the

play,

will

turn

him into

an

unwitting

spectacle,

as

he

will

be satisfied

in

his desire

to

be

exposed,

and

will

finally

be handed

over

to

slaughter.

At

the

end

of the

play,

a

black

out

of

vision will be invoked

by

one

of the

two

surviving

charac

ters,

Agave,

a

black-out which

is

also

a

bitter

denial

of

the

commu

nal

experience

of

being

a

theatrical

audience:

e a e

'

a

/

e a

5

e

([I

wish

to

go

where]

..

.neither defiled Cithaeron

may

see

me,

nor

I

(may

see)

Cithaeron

with

my eyes

1384-1385).

These

are

only

two

examples

within

a

cul

ture

which

gave

prominence

to

seeing

and

knowledge:

as

Goldhill

says,

?the role of

sight

and

understanding,

illusion and

fantasy,

is

a

recurring

problematic

of Greek

enquiry,

not

only

in

drama?.4

Doubling

is

also

present

in

tragedy

as

a

reminder of

the

fallacy

of human

judgement,

and

is

modelled

on

the

duplicity

inherent

in

the

polarity

of audience and

spectacle.

In

Euripides'

Bacchae,

in

his

1

See

Buxton

1980;

Seale

1982,

pp.

215-260;

Calarne

1996,

pp.

18-19;

Buxton

1996

on

ot;

Goldhill

1986

on

the

?

fifth-century enlightenment

?

in

terms

of

epistemological

evaluation

of

reality

and

human

judgement,

especially

in

or;

1999

and

2000 on

Greek

theatre

within

a

'sociology'

and

a

'history'

of

vision.

2

Calarne

1996,

p.

28.

3

Buxton

1996,

p.

45:

?if

I

had

to

summarize the

impact

of

Oedipus

Tyrannos,

I

would do

it

like

this.

What,

when

it

comes

to

it,

can

you

rely

on??.

4

Goldhill

1986,

p.

281.







38

Chiara

Thumiger

hallucinations, Pentheus exclaims: ?Now I seem to see two suns,

and

a

double

city

of

Thebes,

two

cities

with

seven

g?tes ...?

(918

922),

echoing

his initial

words,

with which he

rejected

the

idea

that

Dionysus

might

be

a

god:

?is

there

[in

Asia]

[another]

Zeus,

who

generates

new

gods??

(467).

Euripides'

Helen

stages

the

version

of

the

story

according

to

which Helen did

not

go

to

Troy,

but

was

replaced

by

an

image

fashioned

by

Hera,

an

e

-

a

.

he

motif of the eidolon

naturally

engenders

a

reflection

on

the

vanity

of human conflicts and the

illusory

driftwhich

befalls

relationships, two themes which mimic the nature of theatre as

'perceived'

phenomenon.

As

Menelaus

comments

in

his bewilder

ment,

on

hearing

that 'Helen' is

in

Egypt

(while

he

thought

she

had been

on

the

ship

with

him

all

along):

I

am

then

to

find

another

woman

living

here

with the

same name

as

my

wife. She

called her the

begotten

child of

Zeus.

Can

there be

a man

that

hath

the

name

of Zeus

by

the banks

of

Nile? The

Zeus

of heaven

is

only

one,

at

any

rate.

Where

is

there

a

Sparta

in

theworld

save

where

Eurotas

glides

between his

reedy

banks? The

name

of

Tyndareus

is

the

name

of

one

alone.

Is

there

any

land of the

same name as

Lacedaemon

or

Troy?I

know

not

what

to

say;

for

naturally

there

are

many

in

thewide world

that

have the

same

names,

cities

and

women

too;

there

is

nothing,

then,

to

marvel

at.

(490-499)

Doubling

is

a

challenge

to

the

reality

of

facts,

or

an

attempt

to

explain

it;

but

it

also

points

at

the

performance

as

part

of

this chal

lenge,

and

as a

way

to

explore

this

challenge.1

Madness and

derangement

as

the

cause

of

a

distorted

percep

tion

are

an

important

part

of the

tragic repertoire,

and also

invite

the audience to reflect on human

knowledge

of

reality:

hf,

Orestes,

the Bacchae

are

perhaps

the three

most

extreme

examples

in

which

the

stupor

of

maddened characters

(Heracles,

Orestes,

Pentheus)

offers

a

different

angle

from which

to

observe

reality,

and

produce,

to

an

extent,

an

alternative

reality.

At

hf

822-873

Lyssa

and

Iris

ex

pose

Hera's

plan

against

Heracles,

to

drive

him

mad and

urge

him

to

slaughter

his

own

children.

In

this

'epic'

instance

the

audience

find

themselves

in

the

privileged

perspective

of the

divine

mind

'directing'

the

play

from

inside,

and

are

established

as

'spectators',

in complicity with the two divine presences, of a plan inwhich

Heracles

is

unwitting

actor.

The

hero's

derangement

is

the

junc

1

See

Thumiger

2011

about the

motifs of

doubling

and

viewing

in

tragedy.







On ancient

and

modern

(meta)theatres

39

ture between these two levels, as he is unaware of the nature of

his

ensuing

actions.

Mental

soundness

as

precondition

for

correct

perception

and

sense

of

reality

is

theatrically

loaded,

as

the audi

ence,

in

contemplating

madness,

are

also invited

to

test

their

own

judgements

and

perceptions.

In

Euripides'

Orestes,

as

the hero

lays

prey

of the

visions

of the

Erinyes,

different

characters

display

dif

ferent

reactions.

Electra does

not

share her

brother's

perceptions,

and

regards

them

as

hallucinations

(314-315).

However,

when

Or

estes

faces Menelaus

(409-413),

he

recognizes

the three

Erinyes

as

an actual presence: at 409, referring to the three goddesses, he says,'

a e e

a

,

a

a

'

?

a

,

?I

know the

ones

you

mean.

I

don't

care

to

name

them?.

In

this double take

on

the

god

desses'

status

of

reality

within

the theatrical

representation

and/or

hallucinations,

madness

invites the audience

to

test

their

own

ideas

on

the

divine,

on

guilt

and

pollution,

and

on

human

responsibility

These

tragic

instances

engage

with

theatricality

in

an

integrated

way

within

the

audience-spectacle exchange.

The themes

of

mirroring,

double and

appearance,

and the

overall

metaphor

of

the world

as

stage

will

have

great

fortune

in

the

history

of

European

theatre.

A

staging procedure

shapes

the

whole

of

Shakespeare's

The

Tempest

(1610-1611)

and Calder?n

de

la

Barca's

La

vida

es

sue?o

(1635).

In

these

two

examples,

the

staging

of

a

deceit

at

the

expense

of

characters,

a

deceit

carried

out

through

the

use

of

intoxicating

and

sleep-inducing

substances,

has

theatri

cal characteristics

and

invites the audience

to

reflect

on

the

expe

rience of

viewing

and

perceiving

reality,

with

a

playful

thrust

in

The

Tempest,1

and

with

ethical

implications

in

Calder?n,

where

the

reference

to

theatricality

is

spelt

out

as a

message

on

'true nature'

vs.

appearances

which is shared with the

public.2

The

plot

of

Shakespeare's

The

Tempest

commences

when

King

Alonso of

Naples

and his

entourage

sail home

for

Italy.

They

encounter

a

violent

storm,

which

washes

everyone

ashore

on

a

1

E.g.,

Gonzalo

fantasises

he

were

the

king

of

the

island,

and how

he

would

gov

ern

it:

?I'th'

commonwealth

I

would

by

contraries

execute

all

things...?,

trying

to

recreate

a

?golden

age?

ambient:

?no

kind

of

traffic

would

I

admit,

no

name

of

mag

istrate

...

all

things

in

common nature

should

produce,

without

sweat

or

endeavour?,

ili; etc.).2

E.g., Segismundo:

?the

world,

in

short,

is

where

men

dream

/ the

different

parts

that

they

are

playing?

(p.

168),

but

all

the

same

?...this

is

a

dream,

and

I

must

do

/what

good

I

can

when

even

in

/

his

dreams

such

goodness

is

not

lost

/

upon

a

man?.







40

Chiara

Thumiger

strange island inhabited by themagician Prospero who has delib

erately

conjured

up

the

storm.

Prospero

is

the

rightful

Duke of

Milan and has

dwelled

on

the

enchanted islewith

his

daughter,

Mi

randa,

for

twelve

years

after

his

brother

Antonio,

and

Alonso,

the

King

of

Naples, conspired

to

usurp

his throne.

They

had

set

Pros

pero

and Miranda adrift

in

a

boat,

and

they

had

eventually

found

themselves marooned

on

the island.

Prospero

and

Miranda live

in

a cave on

the

island which

is

also

inhabited

by

Ariel,

a

spirit

who

carries

out

the

bidding

of

Prospero,

and

the

half human Caliban.

Various plots against themain characters are tried in the course

of the

play,

but

fail

thanks

to

the

magic

of

Prospero;

the

play

ends

with all

the

plotters

repenting,

as

the

tempest

is

calmed.

Many

theatrically

active

elements

are

present

here:

Prosperous

'authorial'

figure, directing

the

story

through

sorcery

and enchant

ments,

Ariel's

'special

effects'

and

the characters'

sleep

induced

at

the

right

moments,

the

setting

on

an

enchanted

island,

secluded

from

the 'real

world'.

We

find

clear

references

to

the work

of

a

poet

in

the

closing

lines

(?now

my

charms

are

all

o'erthrown?,

says Prospero,

?...but

release

me

from

my

bands/with

the

help

of

your

good

hands

?,

with

reference

to

clapping

at

the end of

a

show).

Also

in

La

vida

es

sue?o

a

'mastermind',

King

Basilio,

directs

the

creation

of

a

parallel

world

to serve

his

own

purposes.

Here

the

engagement

between audience

and

spectacle

broadly

proposes

a

reflection

on

the

deceiving

quality

of

appearances,

and

on

the

ca

ducity

of human

life.

King

Basilio has

locked his

son

Segismundo

in

a

tower

for the first

twenty

years

of his

life,

in

order

to

escape

a

grim

prophecy

that

his

son

would become the

ruin

of

his

coun

try and his own father.

Segismundo

is

kept

unaware of his condi

tion

as

a

prince;

when

he

reaches

the

age

of

twenty

his

father

the

king

decides

to

give

him

a

chance

to come

out

of his

prison

and

prove

his

character.

Segismundo

is

admitted

into

the

royal

court,

but

under

the

effect

of

drugs

that

make

him

live

the

experience

as

a

dream.

In

this

way,

in

case

something unexpected

occurred,

he

could be

returned

to

the

tower

and

remain

convinced that

noth

ing

has

really

happened.

Illusion

and

hallucination

caused

by

drugs

are

the

practical

expedient

to

test

Segismundo's

nature;

but

they

become the symbol of how true nature defies appearances, and

prophecies

disguise

instead of

revealing

the

truth

about

human be

ings.

King

Basilio's

solution

to

avoid the

prophecy,

paradoxically,

has

had the

result

of

accomplishing

it

instead,

initially

turning

the







On

ancient

and

modern

(meta)theatres

41

secluded prince into the beast and the resentful, dangerous crea

ture

the

prophecy

had

(wrongly)

envisaged.

The motif

of

mirroring

and

doubling

is

used

by

these

play

wrights

to

explore

the

mystery

of human character.

In

the

sec

ond

Act,

Astolfo

meets to

his astonishment

his

former lover

Ro

saura

(under

the

false

name

of

Astrea)

after

long

separation;

he

is

now

courting

another

woman,

Estrella.

He

still

carries

a

portrait

of

Rosaura

hanging

from his

neck,

and

is

required

to

dismiss

it

by

his

jealous

new

lover.

Upon

their

meeting,

prompted by

the

portrait

Rosaura and Astolfo

have

an

exchange

on

the

concept

of

original

and

copy,

person

and

picture,

which

interacts

with

a

reflection

on

the

deeper

discontinuities

between

appearances

and

truth:

For

although

a

feigned

resemblance

/

Eyes

and voice and

tongue

might

try/

Ah,

the truthful

heart would

tremble,

/

And

expose

the

lie';

and

again,

Astolfo

to

Rosaura-Astrea,

on

Princess

Estrellaos

wish

to

receive

the

portrait

of

Rosaura:

Tell

the

Princess,

then,

Astrea,

/ That

I

so es

teem

her

message,

/That

to

send

to

her

a

copy

/

Seems

to

me so

slight

a

present,

/

How

so

highly

it

is

valued

/

By

myself,

I

think

it

better

/

To

present the

original,

And you easilymay present it,Since, inpoint of fact,

you

bring

it/ ith

you

in

your

own

sweet

person

.

he

baroque

motif

of

life

s

play

and

dream

is

made

explicit

in

the famous

monologue

of

Segis

mundo

at

the

beginning

of the

play,

What

is

life?

A

frenzy

/ hat

is

life?

An

illusion,

/A

shadow,

a

fiction,

/And the

greatest

profit

is

small;

/

For

all of

life

is

a

dream,

/And

dreams,

are

nothing

but dreams

?.

This

?play

metaphor?,

and wider

reflections

on

representation

and

duplication

?seem

to

have

been

one

of the characteristics

of the

[Elizabethan]

period?.1

As

Righter

points

out,

the

uses

of

stage

metaphors ?were so common as to become, inmany instances,

almost

automatic,

an

unconscious

trick of

speech?.2

It is

not

surprising

that

in

the

twentieth

century

this form

of

'metatheatricaF

instances has had

an

impact

unseen

before.

In

some

way

this

expresses

a

distinctive

quality

of

our

time,

as

the

1

On these

motifs

as

characterising

the

theatrical

production

in

the

so-called

Span

ish

siglo

de

oro

the

seventeenth

century

(with

Lope

de

Vega,

Pedro

Calder?n de la

Barca,

Cervantes

among

the

most

distinguished

representatives)

see

Fisher-Lichte

2002,

pp.

80-85.

2

Righter

1962,

p.

83. See also Fisher-Lichte 2002,

p.

54 on how ?the confrontation

with the

opposition

between

appearance

and

reality

provoked

a

growing

awareness

of

the

relativity

of

human

perception?

in

the

philosophical

milieu

in

the

Elizabethan

period.







42

Chiara

Thumiger

metaphor becomes a more radical, existentialist questioning of

the

boundaries

of what

we

perceive

as

being

real.

In

Genet's The

Balcony

(1957)

we

find

a

brothel

where

workers and

clients

are

in

volved

in

a

game

of

transvestism

and

mirrors

directed

by

a

demi

urgic

?madam Irma?.

The

status

of

the

reality

outside

the brothel

is

ultimately

questioned

and

the

staging

and

acting

process

are

highlighted;

empty

social

conventions

mirror

the

expedients

of

theatre

and vice

versa,

and the real

world

outside results

in

being

falser than

the

one

inside.

Copy

and

original

are

played

with: ?it's

the plumber leaving?? ?which one?? ?the real one? ?the one who

repairs

the

taps?

?is

the

other

one

fake??

and

so

on.

In

Beckett's

Krapp7s

last

tape

(1958),

the

mirroring

item is

the

tape

recorded

by

Krapp

years

before,

when he

was

thirty-nine,

and

endlessly

re-lis

tened

to.

At

the

beginning

of

Stoppard's

Rosenkrant^

and

Guilden

stern are

Dead

(1966),

we

find

a

playful

scene

with the

two

sides of

three

coins,

and with

the

concept

of

doubling

and

reproducibility

where

Guildenstern

announces:

?I

am

the

essence

of

a

man

spin

ning

double-headed

coins,

and

betting

against

himself

in

private

atonement

for

an

unremembered

past? (10-11). Seeing

and

percep

tion

are

central

in

other

works

of Beckett

too. In

Happy

Days

(1961)

we

find

Winnie's

attempts

to attract

Willie's

attention,

and

craving

for

the

?happy

days

when there

are

sounds?,

and her final

accusa

tions

to

him

that he

is

?deaf and

dumb?

(58);

there

is

themotif of

sleep,

eyes

and

eyesight,

blindness,

visibility,

obscurity,

and watch

ing

through spyglass

in

Endgame

(1957).

The

scenario

itself offers

from

the

start

an

identity

between

life,

or

rather

man

and

stage,

the

act

of

perceiving

and

the

object

of

perception:

?A

bare interior

...

left

and

right

back,

high

up,

two

small

windows,

curtains

drawn

... centre, in an armchair on castors, covered with an old sheet,

Hamm?:

a

setting

which

may

be

seen

to

reproduce

the

inside of

a

human

head,

with

two

eyes

shut

on

the world

outside,

a

world

screened

from

the

sight

of the

actors

as

much

as

it is

to

the

audi

ence,

who

are

gazing

at

it

through

from

the back

of

an

imaginary

head. The

central

actor,

Hamm

(a

helpless

'ham'?)

is

covered

with

'an

old

sheet',

a

personalized,

down-sized

stage-curtain,

which

will

return

at

the

end of the

play,

as

he

covers

his

head with

a

hand

kerchief

to

signpost

the

'end' of

the

drama,

reducing

the limits of

representation even further through this 'no longer seeing', rather

than

the 'no

longer

being

seen'

that

the

curtains

usually

effect

at

the

end of

theatrical

performances.

In

Waiting

for

Godot

(1948)

Poz

zo

becomes

blind

in

the

second

act,

and the

audience

are

alluded

to







On

ancient

and modern

(meta)theatres

43

as ?those people spying on us ... hallucinations?, with Pozzo's final

outburst

on

the

absurdity

of

time

and

existence

expressed, again,

as

annihilation of

perception:

?one

day,

is

that

not

enough

for

you,

one

day

like

any

other

day,

one

day

he

went

dumb,

one

day

I

went

blind,

one

day

well

go

deaf,

one

day

we were

born,

one

day

we

shall die...?.

The

motifs

of

sleep

and dream

as

alternatives

or

challenge

to

reality

are

also

important.

Sleep,

a

recurrent

image

for

death,

loss

of

consciousness,

or

fictional

delusion

is

staged

and often

longed

for. Both in La vida

es

sue?o (sleep is crucial

to

Segismundo^ decep

tion

154-155)

and the

Tempest

(as

part

of

Prosperous

arts),

sleep

is

akin

to

intoxication and

madness

in

mimicking

theatrical

illusion.

In

Waiting

for

Godot

Estragone

and

Vladimir

talk

over

Lucky

while

he

sleeps

(e.g.,

93),

and

in

Stoppard's

play

Rosencrantz

observes

that death

is

like

?being asleep

in

a

box?

(52).

Narcotics

and alco

hol

as

instruments

of delusion

appear

everywhere

in

the works

quoted:

from the

drugged Segismund

of

Calder?n

s

play,

to

the

Tempest's

Stefano,

Caliban and

Trinculo,

to

Beckett's various char

acters,

to

Ionesco's

drunks,

to

Chantal's

penchant

for

alcohol

in

The

Balcony.

As

madness and

intoxication

become the lever for reflection

on

and

understanding

of

an

objective

level of

reality,

the

mind and

mental life

as

expressed

through

verbal

utterances

are

often

ques

tioned.

In

Ionesco's

Rhinoceroses,

the relativisation

of

mental

san

ity

and of

reason as

Cartesian

proofs

of

existence

undermines

the

status

of the

events

going

on

in

the

play.

Berenger:

?It

would

have

never

entered

my

mind ?

-

Jean:

?You

have

no

mind ?

(15).

'Mad'

as

idiomatic

for

wrong

or

misjudged

is

abundant

-

for

example

Daisy,

on being acknowledged that she was

telling

the truth, exclaims

banally:

?So

you

see,

I'm

not

mad after all ?

(43).

The notion of

normality

is

questioned:

?who

can

say

where

the

normal

stops

and

the abnormal

begins?

Can

you

personally

define these

concepts

of

normality

and

abnormality?))

(84).

In

modern

cinema

this last Absurdist'

use

of the 'metatheatrical'

element

is

the

most

popular

one,

as

it

obviously

strikes

a

sensitive

chord

in

modern

audiences

-

reality

as

construction

or

illusion

is

a

contemporary

fixation. Three

movies

show

this

in

a

conspicu

ous

way.

In

Wachowsky's

Matrix

(1999)

certain human

beings

re

alise

they

are

living

in

a

fictional,

digital

reality

created

by

superior

creatures

who

aim

at

enslaving

humanity;

in

Amen?bar's

Abre

los

Ojos

(1997)

the

cryonic sleep

of

the

main

character

creates

a se







44

Chiara

Thumiger

ries of parallel worlds inwhich his mind is lost, and he is unable

to

regain

his

true

self.

Finally,

the

alienation of

our

modern

lives

reduced

by

pervasive

media

to

a

pre-arranged

spectacle

is

at

the

core

in

Weir's The

Truman Show

(1998),

where

a

Prospero-like

me

dia

genius,

Mr.

Christof,

has

organised

and

managed

a

monstrous

reality

show,

the life of

Truman

Burbank,

consecrated from

birth

to

be

an

unwitting

actor

on

television.

One

day

he revolts

against

the

monotony

and

desperation

of

his

spectacularised

life and

fi

nally

manages

to

escape,

having

survived

an

artificially

induced

storm reminiscent of the Tempest's opening: but the storm ishere

emptied

of

any

ludic

or

constructive

quality,

and

offers

a

power

ful

image

of

the sadistic

obstinacy

of Christofs mediatic

master

mind.

In

fact,

the

difference between

wise,

joyful

and

hedonistic

Prospero

and the

hardened

and

cynical

Christof

seems

to

offer

a

good

illustration

of

the

two

different

qualities

of 'metatheatrical'

reference

in

Elizabethan

or

Baroque

theatre,

and

in

the

concerns

of the

twentieth

century.

On

the

other

hand,

a

Brechtian

use

of

the

epic

device

in

cinema

is

Woody

Allen

s

comedy

Melinda and Melinda

(2004),

where

the

main

events,

the

story

of

a

troubled

New York

woman

who

returns

to

the

city

after

having disappeared

for

a

few

months,

are

made

the

object

of

conversation

by

a

group

of

friends

in

a

restaurant.

One

of

the diners

sees

Melinda's

story

as

the

script

for

a

tragedy;

another,

as

material

for

a

comedy.

The

movie

proceeds

in

re-enact

ing

two

versions

of the

story

of

Melinda,

along

each of

the

two

paths

in

order

to

show,

at

the

end

(paraphrasing

a

character's

line),

that 'our

tears

of

joy

and

tears

of

sorrow are one

and

the same'.

The

alienating

frame,

the

conversation in

the

restaurant,

guides

the viewer's

participation

in the

unfolding

drama towards a more

aware,

newly

scrutinised

moral and

emotional

engagement.1

1

In

this

example

the

play

with the

knowledge

of,

and

expectations

from

genres

held

by

the

public

is

a

'meta-theatrical' feature

that invites

specifically

a

scrutiny

of

the

audience's

emotional

and

intellectual

exigencies

and

availability

With

the

obvi

ous

distinctions,

compare

Brecht

on

the

opposition

between

?

dramatic

th??tre?

(i.e.

bourgeois,

nineteenth-century

theatre)

and

?epic

th??tre?: ?The dramatic theatre's

spectator

says:

Yes,

I

have felt like that

too

-

Just

like

me

-

It's

only

natural

-

It'll

never

change

-

The

sufferings

of

this

man

appal

me,

because

they

are

inescapable

-

That's

great

art;

it

all

seems

the

most

obvious

thing

in

the

world

-1

weep

when

theyweep,

I

laugh

when

they laugh.

The

epic

theatre's

spectator says:

I'd

never

have

thought

it

-

That's

not

the

way

-

That's

extraordinary,

hardly

believable

-

It's

got

to

stop

-

The suf

ferings

of

this

man

appal

me,

because

they

are

unnecessary

-

That's

great

art;

nothing

obvious

in it -1

laugh

when

they

weep,

I

weep

when

they laugh

?

(p.

71).







On

ancient

and

modern

(meta)theatres

45

This overview of the motif of seeing, perceiving and its failure

shows how

elements of

'metatheatrical'

glossary

may

have differ

ent

outcomes,

as

well

as

different

ideologies

underlying

them. This

variation

depends

on

the

type

of

engagement

between

audience

and

spectacle

that

is

determined

in

each

instance.

Seeing, perceiv

ing,

and

understanding

are

in

themselves

important

aspects

of hu

man

life,

activities

that

exist in

their

own

terms;

whether

they

may

acquire

an

existential

thrust

engendering

considerations about the

validity

of

a

notion

of

reality

depends

on

how

they

are

used

in

the

theatrical syntax of each play. Preoccupation about these aspects

of

the

human

experience

is

arguably

specific

to

Western

civilisa

tion;1

theatre

engages

with them

in

different

ways,

hardly

reduc

ible

to

a

unifying

pattern.

2.1.

4.

Metalingual

references

Engagement


spectacle

is

also enhanced

by

metalingual

instances

-

i.e.,

instances

in

which

language

refers

to

itself,

exposing

its

artificiality,

its

provisionality

the failure

or

hin

drance of its communicative purpose. Possibly any utterance, even

in

everyday

discourse,

must

refer

to

itself

to

some

extent,

which

makes this

item

problematic

to

isolate;

in

theatre,

however,

insis

tence

on

utterance,

on

'the

words',

is

heightened by

comparison

to

every-day

speech,

just

as

the

emphasis

on

gesturing

and

visual

as

pects

is.

This

insistence

responds

to

the

necessities

imposed

by

the

theatrical

medium;

it

is

a

way

of

holding

the

action

and the

mutual

plausibility

of characters

together,

to

remind

spectators

and

actors

of

words

previously

spoken,

to

maintain

the

dialogic,

'dramatic'

quality

of the

text.

In

dramatic

practice,

the

metalingual might

comprise

references

to

one's

inability,

or

prohibition,

or

willingness

to

talk;

reference

to

the

style,

appropriateness

or

effectiveness

of

the

others'

speech;

general

awareness

of

tropes

or

other

imagery

on

the

part

of characters

using

them,

or

implied

for

the audience.

These

textual

elements

are

pervasive

in

tragedy,

a

genre

which

'puts language

in

the

middle',2

with

its

dangerous

power

and

its

1

See

Hornby

1986,

p.

180:

?as

I

began

to

explore

the theme of

perception

inWest

ern

drama,

I

became

impressed

by

how

it

recurs.

Husserl

saw

this

very

conflict

as a

"crisis"

in

Western

society,

as

there seemed

a

widening

gap

between

the

objective

formulations

of

science and the

subjective

world

in

which

we

live. This

gap

goes

back

to

the

ancient

Greeks,

however,

who invented

the

scientific

method

?.

2

Goldhill

1997,

p.

145:

?the

way

in

which

"language

is

a

sort

of

instructive

way

to

organize

reality"

(Pi.

Cratylus

388bi3)

is

a

shared

fixation of

the

intellectual

activity







46

Chiara

Thumiger

contradictions, and which uses a number of features, such as the

'messenger

speech',

or

passages

of

rhesis

in

which

long

sections

are

uttered

by

the

same

character

and

the

acts

of

reporting

and

persuasion

are

at

the

centre.

First,

there

are

recurring

motifs fore

grounding

speech

and communication

per

se.

Lack

of

freedom

of

speech

in

front of

a

king

is

repeatedly

evoked,

and

so

is

the

unreli

ability

of

speech:

examples

are

the

messenger's

reluctance

in

front

of

Pentheus

in

the

Bacchae

(at

671,

where

a

servant

does

not

dare

speak

freely,

in

part

because of

Pentheus' ,

'sharp'

and

royal nature) and Sophocles' (300-462), the exchange between

Oedipus

and

Tiresias,

where

the

seer

has

a

most

unwelcome

mes

sage

to

deliver and

is

challenged

by

the

king's

proud

temper.

In

both

examples

the

use

of

'authority'

on

the

part

of

two

(seem

ingly) unwitting

characters

to

repress,

or

control

communication

-

two

elements of

characterisation,

internal

to

the

drama

-

interact

with the

theatrical

level,

mimicking

the

position

of

the

audience,

their

access to

information,

restricted

as

it

is

to

the

utterances

of

characters,

and the

importance

of

their

availability

to

hear.

Then,

especially

in

Euripides,

we

can

also find

a

number of

'apologetic'

phatic

expressions,

which

may

seem

at

first

sight

to

aim

at

likelihood and

linguistic

naturalism. This

is

the

case

when

the

herdsman

introduces

into his

narrative

the

indirect

speech

of

a

third

character,

at

Bacchae

717:

he

defines

him

in

advance

as

a

a

'

a

a

?

,

?

one

who

often

comes

to

the

city

and

is

ready

with words

?,

as

if

to

?

apologise

?

for the

ensu

ing

fluent

idiom,

which would

not

be

naturalistically

plausible

if

applied

to

himself This remark

both

prepares

the on-looker for

the

conventionality

of

a

messenger

speech,

and adds

plausibility

to the

following

passage. Likewise, we may mention Hecuba's

cue

in

Euripides'

Troades

686-687:

the

queen

apologises

for

using

a

conventional nautical simile

to

express

her

turmoil,

as

she,

being

a

woman,

would

not

be

supposed

to

have

a

direct

experience

of

ships

and

sailing:

a

e a

e

?

a

,

/

a

'

a

a

'

e

,

a a

?I

have

never

boarded

a

ship

myself,

but

I

know

having

seen,

and from what

I've

heard?.

Again,

the remark

exposes

a

non-naturalistic

element,

the

use

of

analogic

imagery

at

an

emotionally charged

time;

at

the

same

time,

it

makes

itplausible within the portrayal of the character. The double effect

of

the

classical

city

...

democracy

prided

itself

on

putting

matters

es

meson,

'into the

public

domain

to

be

contested'.

Tragedy

puts

language

itself

es mes?n?.







On

ancient

and modern

(meta)theatres

47

of these instances isdue to the problems implicit in the concept of

'realism',

as we

have

seen.

Whether

a

metalingual

instance

func

tions

as a

reminder of

fictionality

or,

on

the

contrary,

as an

element

of

plausibility

depends

also

on

the

expectations

played

out

in

the

audience-spectacle relationship.

In

the

tragic

genre

this

expectation

is

obviously

different from

that

implied

of,

say,

nineteenth-century

audiences;

and within the

tragic

genre,

it

changes

from

Aeschylus

to

Euripides

in

a

way

that

is

visible

in

the idiom of

the

two

authors;

this

explains

our

Euripidean examples

in

terms

of

a

search for

a

more convincing, characterised style.

Then,

we

could

mention insistence

on

the

power

of

words.

In

Bacchae,

for

instance,

the

opposition

between the

king

and

Diony

sus' 'seduction'

is

centred

on

the

power

of verbal

persuasion,

devel

oping

from

Pentheus'

diffidence

to

Dionysus'

words

to

his

falling

under their

spell.

Pentheus

appears

baffled and

bewildered

by

Dio

nysus'

utterances.

At

475

Pentheus

sneers,

e

'

e

?

e a

(?you

have counterfeited

it

well?);

at

479

he

says

to

the

god

'

a a e a

,

e

'

(?again

you

have diverted

this

matter,

speaking cleverly

and

saying nothing?);

at

489,

he takes

the

stranger

to

be

using

low

?sophistries?

(

a

a

);

at

491,

he finds him

?not

untrained

in

words?

(

a

a

),

and

at

650

he attacks his

enemy

as

?

always

introducing

strange

Statements?

(

a

e

a

ae

),

Statements

which

prove

him

to

be

dangerously

?clever?

(

,

655),

and

preparing

a

trap

for

him

(

'

e

a

a,

?now

this

is

a

trick

you

are

devising

against

me?,

805).

A

few

lines later Pentheus

will

again

comment

on

the

god's

words,

now

to

express

his

approval

and

consent,

with

an

ironic

effect:

at

818 a a e a a e (?what you say is

right?),

and at 824

e

'

e

a a

'

e

a

a

(?what

you say

is

right

again

How

clever

you

are,

and

have

been all

along ?).

His

final defeat

is

entirely

determined

by

the

effect that these

words

have

had

on

him

to

convince

him

of

a

certain

'version

of

reality.

The focus

on

words

is

also linked

to

a

focus

on

intellectual

and

moral value

:

ord

play

on

sophia

and all

it

may

entail,

from

clever

ness

and

sophistry,

deceit

to true

wisdom,

is

pervasive

in

the

text

and

connected

to

language

as

vehicle of

communication,

but also

obfuscation of truth.

In

our

examples

from

twentieth-century

theatre

language

is

again

at

the

centre

of

the

dramatic

happening,

but

in

a

completely

different

way.

Mockery

of the rational

power

of

language (logics,







48

Chiara

Thumiger

argument, syllogism...) as instruments of sound communication is

consistently exploited.

In

Genet's The

Balcony,

the

game

of mirror

reflections that

composes

the

stage

is

perpetuated

in

the contradic

tory,

symmetrical

statements

about

reality,

such

as

?the

queen

is

snoring

and

she

is

not

snoring?

?she

is

embroidering

and she

is

not

embroidering?,

and

so

on.

In

Ionesco's

Rhinoceroses

power,

values,

and

language

are

relativised,

and verbal

communication

devalued

altogether:

left

alone

in

a

world of

rhinoceroses,

at

the end of

the

play,

Berenger

laments:

?to

talk

to

them I'd have

to

learn

their

lan

guage. Or they'd have to learn mine. But what language do I speak?

What

is

my

language?

Am

I

talking

French?.. .butwhat

is

French?

I

can

call

it

French if

I

want

and

nobody

can

say

it

isn't

-

I'm

the

only

one

who

speaks

it?.We

find

a

recurrent

devaluation of

logic

and

rationalism

as

empty

display

of

'cleverness',

mainly

embodied

by

the characters of the

Logician

and

Jean.

The

first

claims

that ?fear

must

yield

to

reason?

(io),

practises

syllogisms

in

order

to

extend

the

concept

of

'cat'

starting

from the number of

its

paws

(e.g.,

18-21)

and

uses

the

weapons

of

logic

to

distinguish

one

rhinoceros

from the

other

by

the

number of

its

horns

(28-29,34-35,

85-86).

Jean

blames

Berenger

for

being

?

devoid of

logic

?

(19)

when

he

replies,

to

his:

?I

sometimes

wonder

if

I

exist

myself?:

?you

don't

exist

...

because

you

don't

think. Start

thinking,

then

you

will?.

He

tells

Berenger

to

?use

the

weapons

of

patience

and

culture,

the

weap

ons

of the

mind?

(21,19).

The obsession with

definition

ismocked

continuously,

for

instance

by Berenger:

?lunacy

is

lunacy

and that's

all

there

is

to

it

Everybody

knows what

lunacy

is.

And

what about

the

rhinoceroses

-

are

they

practice

or are

they

theory?

?

(84).

Beckett's

language

is

constantly

tuned

on

repetition

and deter

mines a

emptily

formal communication between characters. The

conventionality

of

language

is

exposed

through

syntactic

means,

through

broken,

almost

monosyllabic

exchanges.1 Stoppard

also

uses

linguistic

impasse.

Guildenstern and

Rosencrantz:

?now

mind

1

Cf.

Endgame (p.

23),

Clov and

Hamm:

?So,

you

all

want

me

to

leave

you??

Natu

rally

?So,

I'll

leave

you?

?You

can't

leave

us?

?Then,

I

shan't leave

you?

-

and

so on.

Waiting

for

Godot,

Vladimir

and

Estragon:

?We

could

start

all

over

again perhaps.

?

?That

should be

easy?

?It's the

start

that

is

difficult))

?You

can

start

from

anything

?

?yes,

but

you

have

to

decide?

?true?

Silence,

?help

me ? ?I'm

trying?

Silence,

?when

you

seek

you

hear?

?you

do?

?that

prevents you

from

finding?

?it

does

that

prevents

you

from

thinking?

?you

think

all

the

same?

?No,

no,

impossible?

?

that's the

idea,

let's

contradict

each

other?

?impossible?

?you

think

so??

?

we're

in

no

danger

of

thinking

any

more?

(pp.

63-64).







On

ancient

and modern

(meta)theatres

49

your tongue, or we'll have it out and throw the rest of you away,

like

a

nightingale

at

a

Roman

feast?

-

took the

very

words

out

of

my

mouth?

-

?you'd

be

lost for

words?

-

?you'd

be

tongue-tied?

-

?like

a

mute

in

a

monologue?

-

?like

a

nightingale

at

a

Roman

feast?

-

?your

diction

will

go

to

pi?ces?

-

?your

lines will be

cut? ?to

dumb

shows?

-

?and

dramatic

pauses?

-

?

you'll

never

find

your

tongue

?

-

?lick

your

lips?

-

?taste

your

tears?

-

?your

breakfast?

-

?you

won

t

know the diff?rence?

-

?there

won

t

be

any?

-

?we'll take

the

very

words

out

of

your

mouth?

-

?so

you

Ve

caught

up?

(46).

The metalingual function, in summary, is inherent in human

verbal

communication,

and

as

such

it is

foregrounded

and

inten

sified

in

theatrical communication.

The

ideology

conveyed by

the

device, however,

depends

on

the

type

of

complicity

which

is

created

between

audience

and

spectators:

in

tragedy,

such refer

ences are

intertwined with the conventions of

the

genre,

and

may

reinforce

plausibility,

as

we

have

seen,

or

problematise

values,

or

expose

the

dangers

and

import

of

rhetoric

and debates

as

part

of civic life.

In

our

twentieth-century

examples,

instead,

the

aim

appears

to

be

a

questioning

of the

status

of

reality

and of the

pos

sibilities

of

representation,

with

an

alienating

and

defamiliarising

effect.

2.1.

5.

Narratological

facts1

Plot

structure

is

an

element which

conveys

a

rhythm

of existence

which

is

different

from

that of

every-day

life,

and

may

invite inter

action

between

audience

and

spectacle.

At

stake here is

not

only

a

generally

conceived

undermining

of

naturalism,

problematic

as

it

is

to

define.

We

can

define the

narratologic qualities

of

the

'meta

theatrical',

or more

broadly,

of the

'meta-fictional'

in

these

terms:

lack

of closure and loss of authorial

control,

improvising,

over

plotting

as

well

as

under-plotting,

a

generally ?parodie,

playful,

excessive

or

deceptively

na?ve

style

of

writing?;2

narrative

struc

turing

that

conveys

a

?Chinese

box?

effect,3

and

a

play

with

the

different frames

or

narrative

levels

(metalepsis).4

1

By

?narratological

facts

?

I

mean

here the

quality

of

the

plot,

of

the

dramatic

action,

rather

than the

technical

analysis

of

the different

voices

and

viewpoints

ex

pressed

in

a text.

2

In

Waugh's

terms,

1984,

p.

2.

3 For

instance,

as listed

by Hornby

1986:

play-within-the-play,

ceremonies-within

the-play,

role-playing

within-the-role. Dobrov

2001

analyses

similar instantiations

of

'metatheatre' under ?surface

play?,

mise

en

ab?me and ?counterfact?.

4

Defined

by

Genette

1972, 2004.







50

Chiara

Thumiger

It is interesting to notice that our ancient, Elizabethan and Ba

roque

examples

do

not

apply

here:

in

all

these

a

strong

sense

of

'a

story'

being

told,

of

beginning

and

end,

is

maintained:

the

events

going

on

are

important.

The

undermining

of the

plot

and the

over

coming

of

the

need for

-

or

the

possibility,

even

-

of

ca

story'

is

specific

to

the

twentieth-century.

A

quick

glance

at

our

examples

from

Beckett, Ionesco,

Pirandello

and

Genet

reveals

character

istically

weak,

nonsensical

and

static

plots,

where

no

beginning,

catastrophe

and

clear

conclusion

are

there

to

be

found,

and the

lack of a substance and a consistency in the story appears to be

a

fundamental motif

per

se.

In

Ionesco's

Rhinoceroses the themes

of

appearance,

outside

reality

and the

existence

of

a

world alto

gether

are

at

the

core

and invalidate

the

plot

from

the

start.

The

main event

-

the

invasion/epidemics

of

rhinoceroses

in

town

-

is

equal

to

a

hallucination

or a

detachment

from

reality

and the

plot

is

simply

a

description

of

the

various

(in)abilities

to

deal with

this

change.

In

Beckett's

Happy Days,

Endgame,

Waiting

for

Godot and

Krapp's

Last

Tape

we

find

the

representation

of

an

absurd and static

world,

where the

staff of

a

show

-

words, visibility,

communica

tion,

appearance,

motion,

time

-

are

withdrawn

and

the

ultimate

loneliness

of human

beings

is

left

to

speak

for itself

There

is

no

change

in

scenarios,

no

beginning

or

end: the

drama

appears

to

be

a

randomly

picked

segment

of

what,

one

would

think,

is

a

nonsen

sical

stream

of

empty

existence.

2.

.

6.

Features

of

characterisation

The

way

character

is

constructed

and

references

to

selfhood

can

also invite

a

reflection

on

the distance between audience and spec

tacle,

played,

as

it

is,

on

identification

and

the

staging

of

identities.

Abel

spoke

of

Hamlet

as

a

?metatheatrical

character))

in

his

being

characterised

by improvisation,

transparency,

fragility

and

?

dream

like

melancholy?.

More

generally,

metatheatrical characters

?show

themselves

to

be

aware

of

being

on

a

stage?;

their

?

dramatic

life

has

been

already

theatricalized,

but

they

do

not

know the

kind

of

plot

in

which

they

are

engaged)).1

There

are

difficulties,

again,

in

identifying

such

features

with

a

definite,

fixed

effect:

life

is

by

itself

theatricalised;

characters

by

definition

ignore

the

plot

they

are

en

1

As in

Rosenmeyer

2002,

p.

88

on

Abel

1963.







On ancient

and modern

(meta)theatres

51

gaged in; finally, 'knowing' is an elusive activity in the space that

separates

audience

and

spectacle,

as

we

have

seen.

The

representation

of

character,

in

fact,

works

in

specific

ways

in

such

a

space.

Though

characters

displaying

Hamletic features of

doubt,

impasse

and self-reflectiveness

are

inconceivable

for

ancient

tragedy,

the difference

is

surely

one

of overall

representation

of

self and

expectation

from

a

literary

character,

rather

than variation

in

degrees

of

'meta-theatricality'.1

Here

too,

our

twentieth-cen

tury

examples ought

to

be

singled

out.

As

was

the

case

for

nar

ratological elements, characters in Elizabethan and Baroque the

atre

remain

within

the

requirements

of traditional

construction,

fundamentally

informed

by

naturalism and human

plausibility.

From

Pirandello

onwards, however,

the

requirements

of

a

suppos

edly

'rounded'

character

are

challenged.2

In

his

Six

Characters,

in

Beckett's

plays,

in

Genet's

masks and

in

Lorca

or

Stoppard's

re

elaboration of

literary figures

we

see

a

systematic

undermining

of

humanistic

characterisation,

at

varying degrees,

whereby

the

very

concept

and

legitimacy

of character is

at

stake.

Identity

and

the

self

are

questioned

in

a

philosophical

sense,

urging

the audience

to

restrain from

identification, and,

in

fact,

making

identification

impossible.

The

'puppet-like'

characters

of

The

Balcony

expose

the

fictitiousness

of

their roles. The

bishop:

?Do

I

make

myself

clear,

mirror,

gilded

image,

ornate as

a

box

of

Mexican

cigars?

And

I

wish

to

be

bishop

in

solitude,

for

appearance

alone...

?;

the

judge:

?look

here:

you've

got

to

be

a

model thief

if

I

have

to

be

a

model

judge.

1

True,

much

has

been

written

about

the

relationship

between the

Shakespear

ean

Hamlet and the

tragic

Orestes,

starting

from

Murray's

1914

essay,

and

continuing

with the Freudian

interpretation

of the

relationship

between

son

and father

figure

in

both

myths.

We

cannot

explore

the

connection

here

(see

however

Paduano

2007

for

a

subtle and

updated

discussion).

What

concerns

us

here is the

characterisation

of

the

tragic

Orestes

and

that

of the

Shakespearean

hero

:

though

impasse

and

doubt

characterises the

Euripidean

Orestes

too

(in

Electro,

and

Orestes)

the

focus of the

psy

chology

and

inaction

of

the Danish hero

in

not

imaginable

in

ancient

drama:

in

Pad

uano's words

?Shakespeare

...

gives

dramatic substance

to

the

shadows of

subjective

phantasmagoria

?,

which

in

Euripides

was

but

a

hint

(2007,

41)?

2

Again,

I

do

not

wish

to

sum

up

twentieth-century

theatre

in

a

rigid

formula:

just

as

Brecht's

'metatheatre'

is

deeply

different

from

that of

Pirandello

or

the

Absurdists

in

other

respects,

so

there

are

examples

of 'metatheatrical'

twentieth-century

charac

terisation

which

are

'rounded'

and

naturalistic

(most

notably,

Thornton Wilder's

Our

Town,

1937,

where

a

stage-director

introduces each of

the three

acts,

and the life of

individual characters

unfolding

over a

period

of thirteen

years).

All the

same,

it is fair

to

say

that

most

twentieth

century

'metatheatrical'

works

depart

from

naturalism

in

the

representation

of

characters,

as

much

as

they

do

shrink

away

from consistent

and

self-enclosed

plots.







52

Chiara

Thumiger

Ifyou're a fake thief, Ibecome a fake judge ?; and so on. At the end

of

Ionesco's

Rhinoceroses,

the

main

character

is

lost

in

a

game

of

reflecting

mirrors,

hanging

pictures

and rhinoceroses' heads:

?peo

pie

who

hang

on

to

their

individuality always

come

to

a

bad

end ?;

in

Endgame,

characters

are

self-referentially

aware

of their

nature

as

'stories',

Clov

and

Hamm:

?Oh,

by

the

way, your

story??

?What

story??

?the

one

you've

been

telling yourself

all

your

...

days?.

?Ah

you

mean

my

chronicle??

?That's the

one?.

In

Waiting

for

Godot,

Vladimir and

Estragone

react

thus

to

Pozzo's

cries for

help:

?But

at this place, at thismoment of time, all mankind is us, whether

we

like

it

or

not.

Let

us

make the

most

of

it,

before

it

is

too

late

Let

us

represent

worthily

for

once

the

foul

brood

to

which

a

cruel

fate

consigned

us

What do

you

say?

[...]

It

is

true

thatwhen with

folded

arms

we

weigh

the

pros

and

cons we are

no

less

a

credit

to

our

species...?.

In

these

twentieth-century

characters

we

also

notice

a

general

poverty

of

substance,

sometimes achieved

through

a

frivolous

abundance of

detail

(the

empty

idiosyncrasy

of Beckett's

human

ity,

the

care

for

appearance

in

Genet's

actors

of the

Balcony).

This

rarefied

rendering

of the human

is

a

reaction

to

the

naturalistic

acting

and characterisation

which

was

the

rule

in

nineteenth-cen

tury

theatre.

In

Pirandello and

Absurdist authors

this refusal

of

naturalistic

representation

has

an

existentialist

thrust

-

what

is

at

stake

is

the

very

substance

of the human

self,

which

appears

in

creasingly

elusive and

estranged.

This

same

reaction

takes

a

differ

ent

philosophical

direction

in

Brecht's

loathing

of

the

individual,

as

it

is

denounced

that

?...our

age groans

too

heavily

under

the

weight

of this child of the sixteenth

century

that the nineteenth

fed tomonstrous size ...we are

anonymous

forces.

Individuality

is

an

arabesque

we

have

discarded.

All

the

ominous

events

we

have

been

witnessing

in

the

last twelve

years

are

nothing

but

a

very

awk

ward and

longwinded

way

of

burying

the

concept

of

the

European

individual

in

the

grave

ithas

dug

for itself?.1 Brecht's

intent

was

to

achieve

a

super-moral,

objective

representation

more

true to

hu

manity,

and

capable

of

urging

serious

engagement

and

a

scrutiny

of identification

in

the

audience.

In

the

playwrights

of Absurdism

the

outcome

is

a

more

radical

giving

up

of

the

possibility

of

repre

sentation itself. The root of the two ishowever common, as spelt

1

Hofmannstahl

on

Brecht,

prologue

to

Baal's first

representation

in

Vienna

(1926).







On

ancient

and modern

(meta)theatres

53

out by Artaud, a disenchantment with psychologism and the abil

ity

of words

themselves

to

exhaust the truth

on

human

nature:

?we

must

admit

theatre's

sphere

is

physical

and

plastic,

not

psy

chological?;

and

?any

true

feeling

cannot

in

reality

be

expressed.

To

do

so

is

to

betray

it.To

express

it,

however,

is

to

conceal

it.

True

expression

conceals

what

it

exhibits...

?.1

3.

Conclusions

We

have

argued

that 'metatheatre'

as

an

unquestioned

critical

item

does not do

justice

to the

fluidity

and

liminality

which are inherent

in

the theatrical

experience.

We

have

then

explored

how 'theatre'

is

a

diverse

experience, occupying

different

spaces

and

being

con

stantly

redefined

in

terms

of the

relationship

between audience

and

spectacle, through

history;

from

one

genre

to

the

other;

even

from

one

performance

to

the other.

We

have then

proposed

to

look

at

instances which

are

labelled

as

'metatheatrical'

by

scholar

ship

in

terms

of the

type

of

engagement

they

promote

between

audience

and

spectacle,

rather than

against

a

fixed critical

category,

'metatheatre', which appears to pose more problems than it solves.

We

have then sketched

a

'glossary'

of

audience-spectacle

interac

tion,

in

order

to

illustrate

some

recurrent

features

through

which

theatre

plays

with

the liminal

space

that

separates

the

public

from

the

staged

events

and from the

actors,

proposing

that

even

given

the

same

elements of

'glossary',

'syntactic'

variations

may

produce

very

diverse

results

in

the 'text'

(broadly

intended)

and

its

recep

tion.

1

Artaud

1938, pp. 52-53.

See

also

59:

?this

...

personalism

...

must

come to an

end.

No

more

personal

poems

befitting

those who write

them

more

than

those who

read

them.

Once and for

all,

enough

of these

displays

of

closed,

conceited,

personal

art...

?;

and Wilder

(1937),

against

contemporary

bourgeois

theatre:

?they

loaded the

stage

with

specific

objects,

because

every

concrete

object

on

the

stage

fixes

and

nar

rows

the

action

to

one moment in

time

and

place

...

no

great

age

in

the theatre

ever

attempted

to

capture

the audiences'

belief

through

this

kind

of

specification

and lo

calization

...

such

childish

attempts

to

be "real"?

(p.

xi).

These

voices,

and Artaud's

appeal

against

personalism

and

praise

of

conventional

theatre

cannot

help

but

re

mind,

and

repropose

to

us

Aristotle's

famous

(and

baffling)

remark

about theatrical

(tragic)

characterisation,

that

?

tragedy

is

mimesis

not

of

persons

[a

&

]

but

of

actions and life

[

a

e a

?

]?,

and

that

?the

goal

is

a

certain

kind

of action

[

a

],

not

a

qualitative

state

[

a

]

[determined

by]

characters

[

]?;

so

that,

all

in

all,

?

ithout

action there could

be

no

tragedy,

but without character

there

could

be'

(Poetics

145(^15-24);

and

that

?

poetry

is

more

philosophical

and

higher

than his

tory

?

for

just

that

reason,

that

it

relates

more

of the

universal,

while

history

?relates

particulars))

(Poetics

i45ib6-9).







54

Chiara

Thumiger

It is

always

unsafe to sum up 'ancient'

against

'modern ,a sup

posed

'simplicity'

and

clarity

of ancient

theatre

versus

a

'fin

de

si?

cle'

decadent,

disengaged

outlook

as

specific

to

contemporary

pro

ductions.

Some

of the

diversity

within modern

Western

theatrical

experiences

have become

apparent

in

the

course

of this article.

Broadly,

however,

we can

claim that

one

of the distinctive

char

acteristics

of

ancient

theatre

is its

organic

unity,

its

integration

of

landscape

and

stage,

of

festival and

representation,

of

actors

and

chorus.

In

this

context,

the

on-looking

audience

is

urged

to

find

communal responses to the events they are faced with, which tend

to

represent

the

universally

human,

rather than the

idiosyncrati

cally

personal.

At

the other end

of the

spectrum,

the

very

'private'

shock that 'metatheatre'

in

Beckett

or

Ionesco

delivers

appeals

in

stead

to

the

neurosis

of the

modern

on-looker,

who

suspects

the

absurdity

of the world

and,

most

importantly,

relates

to

literary

tradition

only

in

the

isolation of the education

s/he has

received,

and tends

to

enjoy

theatre

mostly

as one

individual's

experience.1

King's

College

London

Bibliography

Abel

1963:

L.

Abel,

'Metatheatre':

New

View

of

Dramatic

Form,

New York.

Artaud

1938

:

.

Artaud,

Le

Th??tre

et

son

Double

(The

Theatre

and

its

ouble,

London

1970).

Bacon

1994-1995:

H.

Bacon,

The chorus

in

Greek

life

and

drama,

?Arion?

2,

pp.

4-24.

Bain

1977:

D.

Bain,

Actors

and Audience:

a

Study

of

Asides and Related

Con

ventions in

Greek

Drama,

Oxford.

Bain

1987:

D.

Bain,

Some

reflections

n

the illusion

in

Greek

tragedy,

Bull.

Inst.

Class. Stud.

?

34,

pp.

1-14.

Barchiesi

1970:

M.

Barchiesi,

Plauto

e

il "metateatro

antico",

?il

verri?

31,

pp.

113-130.

Batchelder

1995:

A.

G.

Batchelder,

The seal

of

Orestes:

self-reference

nd

au

thority

n

Sophocles'

Electra,

Lanham

(md).

Batstone

2006:

W. W

Batstone,

Provocation: the

point

of

reception theory,

in

C.

W

Martindale

(ed.),

Classics

and the

Uses

of

Reception,

Oxford,

pp.

14-20.

Brecht

1964:

.

Brecht,

Brecht

on

Theatre,

London.

Bierl

1991:

A. F.

H.

Bierl,

Dionysus

und die

griechischeTrag?die.

Politische

und

''metatheatralische" Aspekte im Text, T?bingen.

1

On

modern theatre

?

making

stage

and

auditorium

into

two

closed

worlds

with

out

any

possible

communication

between them?

see

Artaud

1938,

p.

66.







On

ancient

and modern

(meta

hheatres

55

Buxton 1996:R. Buxton,What canyon rely n inOedipus Rex?, inM. S. Silk

(ed.)

Tragedy

and

the

Tragic,

Oxford,

pp.

8-48.

Calderwood

1971:

J.

Calderwood.

Shakespearean

Metadrama. The

Idea

of

the

Play

in

Titus

Andronicus,

Love's

Labor's

Lost,

Romeo

and

Juliet,

A Mid

summer's

Night

Dream

and

Richard

II,

Minneapolis.

Catto

1991:

.

A.

Catto,

The

fear of mockery:

a

tragic

motivation,

?Class.

Bull.?

67,

pp.

17-26.

Cropp,

Lee,

Sansone

2000:

M.

Cropp,

.

Lee,

D. Sansone

(edd.),

Euripides

and

Tragic

Theatre

in

the

ate

Fifth

Century,

Urbana-Champaign

(il),

spe

cial

volume of ?Iiiin.

Class. Stud.?

24-25.

Crow

2002:

.

Crow, African

'metatheatre':

criticising ociety, elebrating

the

stage,

?Research

in

African

Literature

?,

33,1,

pp.

133-143.

Csapo

2000:

E.

Csapo,

Late

Euripidean

Music,

in

Cropp,

Lee and Sansone

2000,

pp.

399-426.

Dobrov

2001:

G.

W

Dobrov,

Figures

of play:

Greek

Drama

and

Metafictional

Poetics,

Oxford.

Dunn

1996:

R

Dunn,

Tragedy's

End,

New

York.

Easterling

1986:

P. E.

Easterling,

Anachronism

in

Greek

tragedy,

?Journ.

Hell. Stud.?

106,

pp.

163-174.

Easterling

1990:

R E.

Easterling,

Constructing

character

in

Greek

tragedy,

n

C.

.

R.

Pelling

(ed.),

Characterisation

and

Individuality

in

Greek

Litera

ture, Oxford,

pp.

83-99.

Easterling

1997:

P. E.

Easterling

(ed.),

The

Camb?dge

Companion

to

Greek

Tragedy,Cambridge.

Easterling

1997a:

R E.

Easterling,

Form

and

performance,

n

Idem

(ed.),

The

Camb?dge Companion

to

Greek

Tragedy,

Cambridge,

pp.

151-178.

Elam

1980:

K.

Elam,

The Semiotics

of

Theatre and

Drama,

Methuen.

Finkelberg

1998:

M.

Finkelberg,

The

Birth

of

Literary

Fiction in

Ancient

Greece,

Oxford.

Fisher-Lichte

2002:

E.

Fisher-Lichte,

History

of

European

Drama

and The

atre,

London.

Ford 2002: A. Ford, The O?gins of C?ticism: LiteraryCulture and Poetic

Theory

in

Classical

Greece,

Princeton.

Ford

2003:

A.

Ford,

From

letters

o

literature:

reading

the

'song

culture'

of

Classical

Greece,

in

H.

Yunis

(ed.),

Written Texts

and theRise

of

Literate

Culture

in

Ancient

Greece,

Cambridge,

pp.

15-37.

Genette

1972:

G.

Genette,

Discours

du

R?cit,

Paris.

Genette

2004:

G.

Genette,

Metalepse,

Paris.

Gentili

1979:

.

Gentili,

Theat?cal

Performances

in

the

Ancient

World:

Hel

lenistic

nd

Early

Roman

Theatre,

Amsterdam.

Gill

1993:

C.

Gill,

Plato

on

falsehood-not

iction,

inC.

Gill and

T.

P.

Wiseman

(eds.),

Lies

and

Fiction

in

the

Ancient

World,

Exeter,

pp.

38-87.

Goff 2000: .Goff, Try tomake it real compared towhat? Eu?pides' Electra

and

the

play

of

genres',

in

Cropp,

Lee,

Sansone

(edd.)

2000,

pp.

93-106.

Goffman

1986:

E.

Goffman,

Frame

Analysis:

An

Essay

on

the

Organisation

of

Experience,

Cambridge.







56

Chiara

Thumiger

Goldhill 1986: S.Goldhill, Reading Tragedy,Cambridge.

Goldhill

1990:

S.

Goldhill,

Character and

action,

representation

nd

reading,

in

C.

Pelling

(ed.),

Characterisation

and

Individuality

in

Greek

Literature,

Oxford,

pp.

100-127.

Goldhill

1997:

S.

Goldhill,

The

language

of

tragedy:

hetoric nd

communica

tion,

in

Easterling

1997,

pp.

127-150.

Goldhill,

Osborne

1999:

S.

Goldhill,

R.

Osborne

(eds.),

Performance

Cul

ture

nd Athenian

Democracy,

Cambridge.

Goldhill

1999:

S.

Goldhill,

Programme

Notes,

in

Goldhill,

Osborne

(eds.)

1999, 1-29.

Goldhill 2000: S.Goldhill, Placing Theatre in thehistory fvision, inRutter,

Sparkes

(eds.)

2000,

pp.

161-179.

Goward

1999:

B.

Goward,

Telling Tragedy.

Narrative

Technique

in

Aeschylus,

Sophocles

and

Euripides,

London.

Halleran

1997:

M. R.

Halleran,

It's

not

what

you

say:

unspoken

allusions

in

Greek

tragedy,

?md?

39,

pp.

151-163.

Henrichs

1994:

A.

Henrichs,

Why

should

I

dance? Choral

self-referentiality

n

Greek

tragedy,

?Arion?

3,1,

pp.

96-111.

Hornby

1986:

R.

Hornby,

Drama,

Metadrama

and

Perception,

Lewisburg.

Hutcheon

1989:

L.

Hutcheon,

The Politics

of

Post-modernism,

ew

York.

James 1950:W.James, Principles ofPsychology,

New York.

Jestrovic

2002:

S.

Jestrovic,

Theatricality

as

Estrangement

of

art

and

life

n

the

Russian Avant

garde,

?Substance?

98-99,

vol.

31,

pp.

42-56.

Jestrovic

2006:

S.

Jestrovic,

Theatre

of

Estrangement,

Toronto.

Kernan

1979:

A.

Kernan,

The

Playwright

as

Magician,

Yale.

Kullmann

1993:

W

Kullmann,

Die

Rolle

des

euripideischen

entheus:

haben

die Bakchen

eine

metatheatralische

Bedeutung?,

in

Philantropia

kai Eusebe

ia:

Festschrift?r

A.

Dihle

%um

70.

G?ttingen,

pp.

248-263.

Lada-Richards

1997:

I.

Lada-Richards,

"Estrangement"

or

"reincarnation"?

Performers

nd

Performance

on

the

Classical

Athenian

Stage,

?Arion?

5,

2,

pp.

66-107.

Maquerlot

1990:

J.-P.

Maquerlot,

Playing

within the

play.

Towards a semiot

ics

of

metadrama and

'metatheatre',

in F.

Laroque

(ed.),

The show within.

Dramatic

and other

insets.

English

Renaissance

Drama

(1550-1642),

Mont

pellier,

pp.

39-49.

Marier

2003:

T.

Marier,

review of Bierl

1991,

?Bryn

Mawr

Class.

Rev.?.

Marshall

2000:

C. W.

Marshall,

Theatrical

reference

n

Euripides'

Electra,

in

Cropp,

Lee,

Sansone

(eds.)

2000,

pp.

325-341.

Martindale

2006:

C.

Martindale,

Classics and theUses

of

Reception,

Oxford.

Muecke

1977:

F.

Muecke,

Playing

with the

play:

theatrical

self-consciousness

in

Aristophanes,

?

Antichthon?

11,

pp.

52-67.

Muecke 1982: F Muecke, I knowyou - byyour rags.Costume and disguise in

fifth-century

rama,

?Antichthon?

16,

pp.

17-34.

Murray

1914:

G.

Murray,

Hamlet and

Orestes: A

Study

in

Traditional

Types,

London.







On

ancient

and modern

(meta)theatres

57

Ortega y Gasset 1925: J.Ortega y Gasset, La deshumanizaci?n del Arte

(1925);

The

Dehumani^ation of

art,

transi,

by

A.

Brown,

London

1972).

Ortega

y

Gasset

1946:

J.

Ortega

y

Gasset,

Idea del

Teatro.

Una

abreviatura,

[lecture

given

in

Lisbon

April

1946,

and

in

Madrid,

May

1946;

pubi,

in

1958,

?La

Revista

Nacional de educaci?n?

62].

Paduano

2007:

G.

Paduano,

Electras and

Hamlet,

in R.

Littlejohn,

S. Son

cini

(eds.),

Myths

of

Europe,

Amsterdam,

pp.

35-50.

Pavlovkis

1977:

Z.

Pavlovkis,

The

voice

of

the

ctors

in

Greek

tragedy,

cw?

71,

pp.

113-123.

P?trone

1983:

G.

P?trone,

Teatro

Antico

e

Inganno:

Finzioni

Plautine,

Palermo.

Platter 2007: C. Platter,AHstophanes and theCarnival ofGenres,Baltimore

(md).

Radke

2003:

G.

Radke,

Tragik

und

Metatragik.

Euripides'

Bakchen und die

moderne

Literaturwissenschaft,

erlin.

Rehm

2002:

R.

Rehm,

The

Play

of

Space,

Princeton.

Righter

1962:

A.

Righter,

Shakespeare

and the

dea

of

the

Play,

London.

Ringer

1998:

M.

Ringer,

Electra

and

the

empty

urn:

'metatheatre'

nd role

playing

in

Sophocles,

Chapel

Hill

(nc).

Rosenmeyer

1996:

T.

G.

Rosenmeyer,

Ironies in seHous

drama,

in

M.

S.

Silk

(ed.),

Tragedy

and

the

Tragic,

Oxford,

pp.

497-519.

Rosenmeyer

2002:

T.

G.

Rosenmeyer,

"Metatheater":

an

essay

on

overload,

?Arion?

10,

pp.

87-119.

Ruffini

1981:

R

Ruffini,

Semiotica

del

Testo.

L'esempio

Teatro,

Roma.

Rutter,

Sparkes

2000:

N.

K.

Rutter,

.

A.

Sparkes

(eds.),

Word

and

Image

in

Ancient

Greece,

Edinburgh.

Segal

1986:

Ch.

Segal,

Interpreting

reek

Tragedy,

Ithaca

(ny).

Segal

1997:

Ch.

Segal,

Dionysiac

Poetics

and

Euripides'

Bacchae,

expanded

edn. with

a

new

afterword

by

the

author,

Princeton.

Sifakis

1971:

G.

M.

Sifakis,

Parabasis

and Animal

Choruses,

London.

Silk

1996:

M.

S.

Silk

(ed.),

Tragedy

and the

Tragic,

Oxford.

Silk

2000:

M.

S.

Silk,

AHstophanes

and the

Definition of

Comedy,

Oxford.

Slater

1985:

N. W

Slater,

Plautus in

Performance.

The Theatre

of

the

Mind,

Princeton.

Slater

1990:

N.

W

Slater,

Amphitruo,

Bacchae,

and

'metatheatre',

?

Lexis

?

5-6,

pp.

101-125.

Slater

2002:

N. W.

Slater,

Spectator

Politics,

'metatheatre'

nd

Performance

in

Aristotle,

Philadelphia.

Sontag

1966:

S.

Sontag, Against Interpretation,

ew York.

Steiner

1996:

G.

Sontag,

Tragedy,

pure

and

simple,

inM.

S.

Silk

(ed.),

Trag

edy

nd the

Tragic,

Oxford,

pp.

534-546.

Stern

1973:

J.

P.

Stern,

On

Realism,

London.

Stinton 1990: T. C. W. Stinton, The scope and limit of allusion in Greek trag

edy,

in

Collected

Papers

on

Greek

Tragedy,

Oxford,

pp.

454-492.

Taplin

1986

:

.

Taplin,

'Fifth-centuryragedy

nd

comedy: synkrisis,

Jour

.

Hell. Stud.?

106,

pp.

163-174.







Thumiger, C. (2009) on Ancient Ad Modern (Meta)Theatres Definitions and Practices_MD 63, Pp. 9-58

Documents