THE COMIC IN THE TRAGIC Parody and Critique in Modern PrÓduction.s of Euripides' Hecuba

Productions of Euripides' H ecuba in the autumn of 2004 and of 2005 a distinctive insight into ways in which the contexts of product10n and recept10n and the aesthetic forms of Greek drama performances on the have become a site for the working out of various kinds of transvers1bllity, that IS, crossing and even dissalution of the porous boundaries of genre, of and of inter and intra-cultural concepts and categories. Research. on techniques is a significant part of this investigation, especially in the successive processes of translating for the stage ( rewntmg) and then transplanting the translation to the . stage, which of mvol:es further reworking and rewriting. The staging itself represents a meetmg for inter-subjectivities of writers, directors, actors and Th1s paper is of a series in which I consider various aspects of these quest10ns here I shall focus on the relationship between parody and tragedy 1ts reception by critics.


THE COMIC IN THE TRAGIC Parody and Critique in Modern PrÓduction. s of Euripides' Hecuba
Loma HARDWICK Productions of Euripides' H ecuba in the autumn of 2004 and of 2005 a distinctive insight into ways in which the contexts of product10n and recept10n and the aesthetic forms of Greek drama performances on the have become a site for the working out of various kinds of transvers1bllity, that IS, crossing and even dissalution of the porous boundaries of genre, of and of inter and intra-cultural concepts and categories. Research. on techniques is a significant part of this investigation, especially in the successive processes of translating for the stage ( rewntmg) and then transplanting the translation to the . stage, which of mvol:es further reworking and rewriting. The staging itself represents a meetmg for inter-subjectivities of writers, directors, actors and Th1s paper is of a series in which I consider various aspects of these quest10ns here I shall focus on the relationship between parody and tragedy 1ts reception by critics.
, This discussion will focus on three recent productions of H ecuba the There have also been significant recent productions in the USA, includmg one m a translation by the classicist Marianne McDonald, staged by 6th@Penn Theatre in San Diego, Califomia in November and December directed by Emery. The front cover of the programme for this product10n mcluded a quotatlon from Mahatma Gandhi -'If the world keeps on taking an eye for an eye,. everyone will be blind' .1 It appears that H ecuba has become the play of chmce m the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq in 2003 by forces of the and l!Ksupported coalition and there are a variety of instructive for this trend, including the impact on the choices of duectors and au?1ences. The play deals not only with the suffering of the of war and t?e d1splaced but also with revenge and with what Nehad Selaiha has calle? t?e equally destructive intalerance of the oppressed' .2 In an investigation of this I prefer to discuss only those productions that I have personally attended so I wlll confine the detailed discussion to the three UK productions. These are: Key issues in the translation and adaptation ofEuripides' text'for the stage and for its reception by critics and audiences revolve round the representations of violence and the parody of es tablisbed institutions. The representation of violence (on and off the stage) and of responses to it, including reven ge and attempts to procure justice, whether retributive or restorative, is crucial to the conceptualisation of pain and suffering and its consequences and central to understanding of the impact of Greek drama on the contemporary stage. Although my focus on this discussion is .on parody, the issue ofpain and suffering and their consequences is always just under the surface, reminding us how parody brings comedy and ·tragedy together. · Two aspects of the productions of H ecuba involve parody of es tablisbed institutions, both Greek and modem. The -parody bas implications both for the society depicted in the play and for the modem analogue created by the responses of spectators and critics, which is sometimes in tension with the analogue constructed by the writer and actors. The key aspects of parody in H ecuba are: (i) how the abuse of xenia (hospitality) is handled in the verbal translation and the non-verbal aspectsof staging (ii) how the parody of demoeratic debate and decision making is presented.
In both cases, critique of these institutions· is part of the dynamics of Euripides' play so the manner in which these aspects are transplanted to the modem stage reflects interpretation of the Euripides text as well as revealing assumptions about the cultural horizons of modem audiences.

Paratragedy
The contexts of parody in the 5th century BCE have been discussed by Michael Silk in his essay 'Aristophanic Paratragedy' .8 He notes that the terms paratragedy and parody are Joften used interchangeably and that paratragedy has been categorised iri a number of aspects (literary genre, locus, scene, formal elements, conventions, motifs), but argues that while all parody is paratragic, not all paratragedy is parodie. The distinguishing feature of parody is that it is satirica! and subversive, that it recalls a more or less specific original and subverts it. In his play Acharnians, Aristophanes has lines that profess the seriousness of comedy: "I talk affairs of state in a comedy. You see, comedy has a sense of duty too" (Acharnians 499 -500).
Dikaiopolis' 'sense of duty' can be interpreted in many ways and these almost always mark a prolonged, complex and paradoxical engagement with tragedy.9 In Aristophanes' terms, this involved parody of scenes and lines from tragedy for comic effect. In Euripides' H ecuba, the dynamics of the e11gagement are different -the focus of tragedy is realigned through parody of social and politica! institutions and conventions. In Aristophanes, comedy is explored through the appropriation of tragic language. In Euripides, tragedy is explored through comic variants on situations that should be serious, and are. There is a sudden switch from a social norm to something incompatible with it. In terms of staging, the move may be accomplished verbally or through situation and the physicality of the body. The disruptions to the norm offer a satirica! image that moves beyond comedy to align ironically with the reversal mode that is central to tragedy, where the self-referentiality is to the institutions of the polis and its cultural context, rather than primarily to the play itself. This brings the sustained authority associated with the 'sense of duty' in Aristophanes.
My discussion here broadens the scope of the concept of parody in that I extend it to parody of institutions and social conventions which are both represented in tragedy and in other texts and institutions central to the ancient Greek experience. I also emphasise the point that parody can occur within tragedy itself. Thus, in H ecuba, the treatment of xenia and the associated values and obligations of reciprocity alludes metatheatrically to the Odyssey and its structuring theme of the u se and abuse of hospitality in the context of Odysseus' return to Ithaca after the Trojan war, when he finds that the suitors for Penelope have abused his household and wealth. Similarly, the treatment of demoeratic debate and decision-making alludes to the practices of the Athenian democracy as well as to drama. Furthermore, in the fifth century BCE, there was contemporary debate about the role of the xenos or guest-friend in war.
Thucydides alludes to the fear of the Athenian leader Perides that hls xenos the Spartan leader Archldamus, would spare Perides' estates in Attica when' the ravaged by the Spartans -Perides made over hls land to the polis m order to avmd accusations of preferential treatment IO (Thucydides, Ristory of the Peloponnesian War, 2.13).
In the casesbothof xenia and of demokratia there is a collision between the cultural stereotype and the evidence for its fragility. It is noteworthy that m Aristophanes Frogs ( 405 BCE), the de bate on whether Euripides or Aeschylus should be recalled from the underworld hlnges on the value of each dramatist for the citizens. The treatment of Euripides is based on hls stylistic characteristics; the Aeschylus is based on hls lessons for the citizens. Aeschylus' Grestew had, m 458 BCE, presented a situation in whlch the endless cyde of c?uld be by civic and legal conventions. Thls was possibly a nostalgie Ideal for Citlzens at the end of the 5th century after the miseries and brutalities of the Peloponnesian war. If a date towards the end of the 420s is accepted for H ecuba ( an argument based partly on Aristöphanic parody of the play P.artly on roetrical analysis 11 ), then the atrocities perpetrated by the Athemans m Thyrea and Scione would have been fresh in the public mind, as wou!d the issues concerning the treatment of the defeated that provoked the Mytdene de bate ( 427 BCE), later to be semi-dramatised by the historian . Thus there is a certain slipperiness concernmg what is the 'original' experience, text, institution or convention that is being parodied in the Hecuba. The audience, whether ancientor modern, is an active in making decisions about what precisely is being parodied. There Is, an distinction between the impact of comedy · in reconst_ructmg the audience's knowledge and the trickier question ofhow comedy may bnng about the reconstruction of attitudes, preconceptions and sympathies.l2 These nuances are compounded in the case of parody. · . In the productions of H ecuba that are under discussion the examples of parody focus on the debasernent of institutions:

Xeniahospitality
In the D?nmar f! ecuba, McGuiness' script was spare. It foliowed the Euripides dosely m outhne but eschewed verbal decoration and roetaphor and left substantial breathing spaces for the direction and designtoengage the audience's response. Thls was a vital aspect of the use of parody and depended on the 311 interplay betwben linguistic aspects of the play-text and. the semiotic systems that make up the theatrical event.l3 The perversion of xenia was exposed when Hecuba discussed with Polymestor hls care of her son, but the setting was the incongruous one of a· tea-party on a seaside beach, complete with tartan picnic rug and tea cups. Of course, she knew that the youth had been murdered for the Trojan gold and to appease the Greeks but she discussed hlrp with Polymestor without giving any indication of her awareness. The contrast between her demeanour as social hostess and her ragged dothes and dire situation, exposed on the beach in Thrace, lent a blackly comic dimension to the ritual of the beach picnic, in whlch the rug was carefully laid out and the social rituals of the pouring of tea and handing round of tea cups and sandwiches were meticulously observed. The contrast with Hecuba's behaviour at the end of the play could nothave been more acute. She ended pawing at the sand with her fingers like the dog that she was fated to become.
The tea-party ritual served two ends. lt used a culturally iconic but slightly outdated modern western social ritual to explain the conven ti ons of hospitality to an audience that was probably not aware of the intertextual and metatheatrical allusions in Euripides. It did thls in a way that also tricked the audience by implying the triviality of a convention eroded and degr:aded by misuse and retaining cultural validity and authority in the ancient text if embedded m religious sanctions. Thus in one sense xenia was domesticated into English tradition, yet because of thls the horrific impact of Hecuba's vengeance was intensified and . the scene in whlch the blood-stained pareels containing the remains of Polymestor's chlldren were thrown around as if in a party game turned into a variation on sparagmos, in whlch Hecuba's role has been partly that of a Bacchlc maenad (Euripides Hecuba, line 1077). When she sawher dead son she had begun a Bacchic lament, now she became the initiator in the tearing apart of the chlldren)4 Perhaps, too, the scene in the Donmar production parodied the cultural (mis)understanding by 'middle England' that understood neither the Greek nor the Asiatic values in which hospitality and redprocity were and are embedded and hence also did not understand the way that abuse begets abuse and the victnn.' becomes the avenger. The anodyne associations of 'hospitality' in modern England were exposed but the semiotic and structural force of the was also used to develop the audience's understanding of the abuse of xema by Polymestor and the redprocity implicit in Hecuba's revenge.
. I i 312

Demokratia: the democratie process
In the RSC H ecuba the key aspects of parody were parody of demoeratic de bate and decision making. This pointed up the contrast between the acceptance by the Greeks that democracy was absolute and their betrayal of democracy in the decision to sacrifice Polyxena ( recounted by an Odysseus whose quasi-American accent was ridiculed by the critics) and, even more prominently, the mock 'trial' by Agamemnon after the grotesque exercise of redprocity . by Hecuba. Here the Chorus stood grouped behind him, a back-drop that ironically suggested an alternative silent and silenced jury. In the Foursight company's production, which had an all female cast, Agamemnon was played by a Chorus memher as were the other main parts. Changes of costume were made on the stage and the singing of the Chorus was in a number of different languages. Thus questions about judgement and of guilt and responsibility were more open-ended whereas in the RSC production, democracy was shown to be perverted and corrupted by the very people who proclaimed its values.
The responses of theatre critics and audiences to the RSC production focussed on surface issues, .especially its perceived anti-Americanism rather than on the deep-seated question ofthe critique of democratie processes. The critics' attacks.on the RSC Hecuba mainly use the language of theatre and aesthetics, yet the focus seems to be partly on the perceived attacks on the 'use and abuse' of the ideals and processes of democracy. The production was interpreted by critics as an attack on the US and UK 'coalition' in the invasion of Iraq. Tony Harrison's translation was attacked by critics for 'thumping down every modem parallel' .Is There also seems to have been a sense of ideological weariness at a time when so many productions of Greek plays trimed the text to attack the neo-conservatives in Washington. There was also perhaps some 'tragedy fatigue'; as Clapp put it 'the cycle ofrevenge with its bloody display of children's bodies, now looks almost routine'. The production was 'read' as crudely identifying Greeks with the USA and UK and as identifying the Trojans not merely with Iraqi people but with Islamic tradition. The Chorus was repeatedly spoken of by some critics as though it was represented by the heavily veiled Muslim women depicted exotically in · the art photos in the programme.J6 These programme photographs were actually in contrast to the costumes in the production itself, which were compatible with any eastem Europdm, Balkan or near-Eastem situation;!7. Apart from some textual references to 'coalition forces' (which were arguably not inappropriate as a description of the Greek alliance under Agamemnon) and the American accent affected by the actor playing Odysseus, the set, costume and acting styles in London did not suggest a narrowly focused presentist interpretation of the play. Furthermore, although Tony Harrison's 313 introductioJ to the publisbed text did refer passionately to the Iraq situation as a stimulus to the production this was contextualised in its performance history and the parallels drawn between the suffering depicted 'În Euripides' plays and those of communities ravaged by war at all times and in all places.I8 The US tour of the play, for which the initial director Laurence Boswen was in effect replaced by the writer Tony Harrison, appeared to counter-attack the critics by replacing the politically neutral set used in London with one made up of military tents hearing the markings 'USA' and 'UK'. Harrison has stated that he obtained the tents from military suppliers and that they still smelled of chemical weapons.l9 In the reception of both the UK and the US stagings, opportunities for discussion of the implication of Harrison's translation and Euripides' text for critique of the workings of democracy were lost in the debates about Iraq and anti-Americanism. Tosome extent, the reception of the play by theatre critics seems to indicate a back-lash against the use of theatre as a platform for protest against the actions of the American and British governments. The theatre critic of the Scotsman, Joyce Macmillan made a telling point in her comments on the impact of anti-Americanism in comedy shows at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival in 2005 when she said that this detracted from and deflected attention away from British involvement in Iraq and other aspects of American foreign policy. 2 0 There was an analogous situation in the critics' response to the RSC Hecuba in that the attention paid to the perceived anti-coalition rhetoric of the production deflected attention from the much deeper-seated issue of the parody of the processes of democracy, embedded in the Euripides text and actualised by Harrison in his translation and in the semiotics of the production. It appears that parody of the claims of democracy is thought to be more threatening to modem western senses of cultural identity than is the blander and politically 'acceptable' reading of Euripides' play as an attack on war and on mistreatment of the defeated in generaL In addition to the reluctance of critics and audiences to respond to the play's parodie questioning of the processes of democracy there is a further iconoclastic dimension in that present -day classicists tend to allude to ancient democracy and its inheritance as a justification for the continued study of their subject. Therefore it may be considered threatening to the cl'assical tradition when attacks on the neo-conservative appropriation of the ·concept of democracy as a justification for attacks on non-demoeratic states also involve a critical assessment of the operation of ancient democracy and of the implications of ancient critiques.
Taken together, the parodies of xenia and demokratia must have been devastating to Euripides' audience. According to Herodotus, the Athenian playwright Phrynichus was fmed becal}se the contemporary allusions in one of his I ! plays reminded the Athenians of their current troubles (Herodotus, 6.21). Tony Harrison took up this allusion in his play The Labourers of Heracles (fust performed in Delphi 1995) in which he himself spoke as The Spirit of Phrynichos: "The spirit of Phrynichos cries out. .. Cast aside mythology and turn your feaiful gaze To blazing Miletos, yesterday's today's".21 The 'Phrynichos effect' on modern western audiences is equally challenging and merits further research. Certainly it seems as though all the 2004/5 productions of Euripides' H ecu ba used parody effectively to . reconstruct audience's knowledge. However, the RSC production at least was less successful in its radical use of Euripidean parody as a means of actually transforming audience's assumptions about the workings of democracy. The transfer of critica! attention to .the immediate issues of US/UK policy actionsin respect of Iraq also involved a denial about the deep issues underlying the perceived genealogy of democracy in the tradition running from ancient Athens to modern western society and democracy's current status as a 'foundation myth', the cornerstone of western identity and justification for western foreign and military policy. This issue raises a number of research questions about the cultural and politica! contexts in which Greek plays were created and those in which they have been received and I shall hope to discuss these in future papers. Notes 2 3