37Local Mimesis, Plateaic DiegesisAaron Golish

Local Mimesis and Plateaic Diegesis: Distinguishing the Self-referential from the Metatheatrical in Greek Tragedy

Itisdifficulttospeculatewithcertaintyontheoriginalreceptionofancienttheatrepracticeortoattempttoreconstructitindangerofpresentism.Yet,whilecontemporarypresumptions advance and refine documentation, there is a balance to be found toavoid unnecessary anachronism. Some scholars ofGreek theatremisapply theories ofcontemporary theatre to theAthenian stage, assuming the rules are analogues at best1 andatworstuniversalsof theatre.Ofchiefconcernamong these is thequestionof thetwentiethcenturynotionofmetatheatre.OriginallyconceivedbyLionelAbelasagenericdistinction of modern theatre, characterized by theatrical self-awareness dating fromShakespeareonwards,metatheatreaccording toAbel is antithetical to traditionalGreektragicandcomicforms.2DespiteAbel’sdesignationofmetatheatreasagenre,thetermhasrapidlyacquiredseveraldefinitionsallofwhichsharethecommonnotionof“theatricalself-referentality.”3 InhisbookSpectator Politics forexample,NiallSlaterappropriatesanother definition fromMarkRinger, bywhichmetatheatre “encompasses all formsoftheatre self-referentiality.”4Slater’sadoptionofRinger’sdefinition insteadofprovidinghisowndiscussionofmetatheatresuggeststhatscholarsarecomfortableusingmetatheatre asanall-encompassingtermforanyself-referentiality,avoidingcriticalengagementwiththenatureofmetatheatreand ignoring itsandsemantic functions.Sinceself-referentialmomentssaturateGreektheatreiscertainlyfullofself-referentialmoments,scholarshavebeguntodescribeitasmetatheatrical.Theyapplymodernaspectsofmetatheatricality,suchastheatrical double-visionanddislocationtotheAthenianstageasthoughAtheniansandmodernaudiencessharedthesameexperienceoftheatricalself-referentiality.Tocombat

1In‘“Estrangement”or“Reincarnation”PerformersandPerformanceontheClassicalAthenianStage,” IsmeneLada-RichardsappliesthedichotomyofthemodernBrechtiantheatreof‘alienation’andtheStanislavskian“immersivemethod”toGreekdrama,albeitasanextendedanalogy.Indoingso,sheappliestwomodernistschoolsofthoughtondramatotextsfromtwothousandfivehundredyearsprior.2 Lionel Abel. Metatheatre: A New View of Dramatic Form (New York: Hill and Wang, 1963) 113.3RichardHornbydescribesmetatheatre“asdramaaboutdrama;itoccurswheneverthesubjectofaplayturnsouttobe,insomesense,dramaitself”(31).Hornby’sdefinitionistoobroadtohaveanyrealapplicationbeyondhisgeneralpoststructuralistclaimthat“alldramaismetadramatic,sinceitssubjectisalways,willy-nilly,thedrama/culturecomplex”(31),sincealldramaispartofaself-referringintertextualweb.4Slater’sbookdetails‘metatheatre’asatoolinAristophanes’arsenal,whichfosterscriticalthinkinginitsreaders.YetSlateromitstodefinewhat“metatheatre”is,thusimplyingthatitsmerepresencealwaysresultsina“dislocation”effect.Thisbroadapplicationoftwentiethcenturyterminologyistroublesomewhenappliedwithoutqualificationtoworksfromvastlydifferentcultures,especiallywhensaidscholarshippurportstoexplainthatsemioticenvironment.

38 HIRUNDO 2014

this anachronistic viewof theGreek stage, let us differentiate betweenmere theatrical self-reference andmetatheatricality.Theatricalself-referencialitycanaffectanynumberof semanticmissives, butmetatheatricality is limited to self-reference that produces anaesthetic“unease,dislocationofperception”intheaudienceandisdescribedas“estrange”or‘alienation’bytheorists.”5Consideringthisdistinction,letusexplorewhymetatheatrecannot systematically function in theAthenian context despite the ample evidence oftextualandtheatricalself-referentiality.Iwillinvestigatetheroleofmimesisanddiegesis, andlocusandplateaincreatingthetheatrespace,andthenIwillattempttorecalibrateourunderstandingofAthenian theatricalself-referenceasservingapolitical functionratherthananaestheticone.Itherebyhopetodemonstratethemeritofunderstandingperceptionsoftheatreinitsownmilieu,ratherthanstudyhowmodernproductionsofclassicaltextsmightmakeuseofmetatheatricality.

Mimesis & Diegesis: Why Greek Theatre is Predominantly Diegetic

Looking at mythical scenes painted on a Greek amphora, the untrained eyecannotdifferentiateadepictionofatragedyfromaregularmythicscene.Paintersavoidedrepresentingscenesfromthetragicstageliterally,astheywouldhaveappeared.6Theimageexcludesstagepropertiesandtheatricaldevices.Charactersarenotdepictedwearingmasksorcostumes,andwomenappearaswomenratherthanmaleactorsindrag.Inmanyways,thislimitstheamountofinformationwecangatherfromthistypeofmonumentalevidenceon the stagingofGreek tragedy.Thevasesdonot indicatehow theplaying spacewasorganized,orwhatthecostumesandmaskslookedlike.ThePronomos vaseisafamousexceptionthatprovestherulesinceitincludesafewfiguresholdingmasks,anddoesnotdepictamythicordramaticscene,buttheperformersthemselveseitherbeforeorafteraplay.Nevertheless,thatmostvasesdepictmythicactionratherthandramaticperformanceprovidesvaluable insightonhow theGreeksviewed theatricalityandwhat relationshiptheactorsboretothecharacterstheyportrayed.ThefactthattheatricalaccessoriesarenotincludedsuggeststhattheGreekaudienceviewedthestagingassecondarytothestory.7

5 Richard Hornby, Drama, Metadrama, and Perception (Lewisburg: Bucknell UP, 1986) 32. Hornbyclaimsthat“this‘seeingdouble’isthetruesourceofthesignificanceofmetadrama.”(32).6 Alan Hughes, Performing Greek Comedy (New York: Cambridge UP, 2011) 3.7ItissignificantthatvasepaintingsdepictingOldComedy(archaia)doincludetheliteraltrappingsoftheatresuchasthepaddedcostumes.InPerforming Greek Comedy, AlanHughesclaimsthatthisisinpartduetothemetatheatricalself-referentialityofOldComedy.Yet,heagreesthatdepictionsofcomedy“calledforadifferentconvention,becauseneitherthecharactersnortheirstoryhadanyprevious,independentexistence.”(3)Painterslackedthevisualvocabularyforrepresentingthescenesfromdrama.UnlikeTragedyandSatyr-play,basedonfamiliarmyths,OldComedyfeaturedoriginalnarratives.Therefore,painterssituatedtheirimagesofOld

39Local Mimesis, Plateaic DiegesisAaron Golish

Moreover,thenarrativediegesiswasmoreimportanttotheGreeksthanmimesis,ormoreprecisely,Atheniantheatreismoreadiegeticmediumthanamimeticone. This may at first seem like an extreme statement considering both Plato andAristotle identify theatreasmimetic.Aristotle,however, identifiesnotonly tragedyandcomedy, but also all other arts asmimetic: “ἐποποιία δὴ καὶ ἡ τῆς τραγῳδίας ποίησιςἔτιδὲκωμῳδίακαὶἡδιθυραμβοποιητικὴκαὶτῆςαὐλητικῆςἡπλείστηκαὶκιθαριστικῆςπᾶσαιτυγχάνουσινοὖσαιμιμήσειςτὸσύνολον.”8Therefore,wemustdistinguishbetweenAristotelianμιμήσιςthatreferstoall“artfulrepresentations,”andtheμιμήσιςthatreferstoimitation.Examiningtheirdefinitionscloser,itisclearthattheatrecarriesbothspecificdiegeticandmimeticelements.Plato,forone,explainsthatallstoriesarediegetic:“ἆρ᾽οὐπάνταὅσαὑπὸμυθολόγωνἢποιητῶνλέγεται διήγησις οὖσα τυγχάνει ἢ γεγονότωνἢ ὄντων ἢ μελλόντων.”9 If all stories are diegetic then all theatre, as driven primarilyby plot,10 must also be diegetic. Plato proceeds to distinguish storytellingmethods bytheirmimetic element: “ἆρ᾽ οὖν οὐχὶ ἤτοι ἁπλῇ διηγήσει ἢ διὰ μιμήσεως γιγνομένῃ ἢδι᾽ἀμφοτέρωνπεραίνουσιν.”11Plato articulateshere adistinctionbetweendiegetic andmimeticstorytellingmeaningwhetherthestoryistold(diegesis)orshown(mimesis).HisdistinctionisalsoalatentassumptioninAristotle’spoetics.LikePlato,Aristotleclaimsthatμιμεῖσθαι,“representation,”canbeaccomplishedentirelyorpartlythroughἀπαγγέλλοντα,“narration,” or through μίμησίς, “imitation.” Therefore, he adopts Plato’s distinctionbetween‘showing’astorymimeticallyandtellingastorydiegetically.

καὶγὰρἐντοῖςαὐτοῖςκαὶτὰαὐτὰμιμεῖσθαιἔστινὁτὲμὲν ἀπαγγέλλοντα,ἢἕτερόντιγιγνόμενονὥσπερὍμηροςποιεῖἢὡς τὸναὐτὸνκαὶμὴμεταβάλλοντα,ἢπάνταςὡςπράττονταςκαὶ ἐνεργοῦντας†τοὺςμιμουμένους†.12

Comedywithinthetheatresothattheviewercouldcontextualizewhattheywereseeing.Suchafeaturewasunnecessaryforthefamiliarmythsdepictedintragedyandsatyr-play.8Aristot.Poet.1447a.9.“Epicpoetrythenandtragicpoetryandstillmorecomedicpoetryandthedithyrambicpoetryandmostaulosandkitheraplayingaltogetherthesehappentobeartfulrepresentations.”Alltranslationsaretheauthor’sunlessotherwisenoted.9Plat.Rep.392d.“Isnoteverythingthatistoldbystorytellersorpoetsadiegesisofthingsthathavecometopassorthingsthatareorthingsthataredestined?”10AfterallAristotletellsus that μῦθος, “plot,” is the ψυχή, “soul,” of tragedy. (Poet. 1450a). 11Plat.Rep.392d.“Do they not then proceed by true narration [diegesis] or narration that is produced through imitation [mimesis] or through both?”12Aristot.Poet.1448a.“Forineachofthese[arts]itispossibletorepresentthesamethingbynarratingandbecominganother,justasHomerdoes[i.e.alternatingnarrationandvoicingcharacters],orwithoutadoptingthemannerofanother[asinpurenarration],orelsethewholeactionrepresentedascarriedoutbytheimitated.”

40 HIRUNDO 2014

Therefore,diegesisandmimesisarenotnecessarilyantitheticallyopposed,buttwoaspectsofstorytelling.Alltheatreisdiegeticinsofarasittellsastory,butismimeticbecauseittellsthisstory,atleastinpartbyrepresentingthecharacters.However,Platomustemphasizethemimeticqualityof theatre inorder todistinguish it fromEpic,which featuresbothnarrationandcharacterization.Sohowmimetic is then theAthenian theatre?Andwhatdoesthishavetodowithmetatheatre?

If it isdemonstrable that theAthenian theatre isnotentirelymimetic,asPlatoandAristotlebelieve,thenitisnotpossibleforaperformertobreaktheverisimilitudeandcreateametatheatricalmoment.Itispreciselythisbreakingofthemimeticverisimilitudethatcreatesthedislocationanddoublevisionofmetatheatre;actorscertainlyadopttheirroles,buthowmuchof the story is really shown tous, andhowmuch is told?On theAthenianstagemostofthestoryoccursoffstageandisreportedἀπαγγέλλω,“toreport,”totheaudience.ThisisnottosaythatGreektheatreisamererecitationofthenarrative,butthetextssuggestanacuteevasionofrepresentingactiononstage. Asfarasimitationisconcerned,afterestablishingtragedyasmimetic,Aristotlequicklydistances it fromhis initial claim.Throughout the restofhisPoetics, imitationgraduallylosesitsimportance.First,AristotleclaimsthatTragedyistherepresentationofaction,13andthatthetargetoftragedyistheplot.14Then,hesuggeststhatcharacterisnotasnecessaryfortragedyasplot15:“ἀρχὴμὲνοὖνκαὶοἷονψυχὴὁμῦθοςτῆςτραγῳδίας,δεύτερονδὲτὰἤθη.”16Butifcharacterissecondaryinnature,howcantheatrebeessentiallymimetic?Iftherepresentationofpersonalitiesonstage,themimesis,issecondarytotherepresentationoftheplot,thediegesis,thentragedyisnotentirely mimetic.WhileIamnot going to suggest that it would be possible to produce theatre entirely without therepresentationofapersonalityonstage,IwillarguethatontheGreekstagemostoftheplotistolddietetically.Infact,theonlypartsofthediegesisthatareroutinelyportrayedmimeticallyontheAthenianstagearetheargumentativedialoguesandagonspeeches. IntheBacchae,forexample,Dionysusandothermissivecharactersreportmostof the plot after it happens off-stage.Although they always appear in character whendelivering thesemissive reports, the action occurs elsewhere.These narrative passages

13Aristot.Poet.1450a“Chiefamongthese[thesixaspectsoftragedy]isthearrangementofactions.Fortragedyisnottherepresentationofmenbutofactionandlife.”14Aristot.Poet.1450a.“Thereforetheactionsandplotaretheendoftragedy,andaltogethertheendismostimportant.”15 Ibid.“Yettragedycannotbeproducedwithoutactionsbutitcanbewithoutcharacterization.”16Aristot.Poet.1450a.“Plot then is the foundation of tragedy, the soul as it were, character on the other hand is secondary.”

41Local Mimesis, Plateaic DiegesisAaron Golish

are also rife with visceral imagery especially when they describe deaths or other keyπεριπέτεια,“reversals.”KeyexamplesofthisarethemessengerspeechesfromHippolytos andthisonefromThe Bacchae:

Shewasfoamingatthemouth. Herdilatedeyeballsrolled. Hermindwasgone–possessedbyBacchus- Shecouldnothearherson. Grippinghislefthandandforearm Andpurchasingherfootagainstthedoomedman’sribs, Shedraggedhisarmoffattheshoulder.(Eur.Ba.1122) Thispassageisnotmimetic,butpurediegeticstorytelling,andratherthanbeingtheatricalitisactuallyquiteliterary.Thevividimagerytypicalofthesemissivescenessuggeststheaudienceshould listen to the language toappreciate the tragedyrather thanwitness theevent.TheGreekaversiontorepresentingtragicactiononstageisdifficulttoexplain,andIdonotbelievethereisanysingleexplanation.Nonetheless,evenAristotleseemstosuggestthatthepowerofdramaisnotinthesightofthespectaclebutintheideaoftheplot.Thus,hesaysthataplotshouldbeconstructedsothatanyonehearingit,evenwithoutseeingit,wouldbejustasthrilledwithpityandfear.17Whilethisdoesnotexplainthephenomenon,itlendsusinsightontheGreekaestheticsensibilityandexplainswhytheGreekstageisabsentofaction. Thismayseemasideissue,butitisfundamentalthatweacknowledgethenatureof Greek performance in order to ask ourselves if a metatheatre that affects audiencedislocationcantrulyexistintheGreekdiegeticrealm.Orismetatheatreauniquelymodernphenomenonbornoutof and against thenineteenth and twentieth century traditionsofimmersivenaturalisttheatre.Iforonebelievethattheconceptofmetatheatrecouldonlyhave emerged as part of the response to the darkened theatre of the naturalists by thelikesofBrecht,hisalienatingmethodofVerfremdung,andotheranti-realistreactionaries. 18Furthermore,metatheatreisonlystriking19 (andit isonlymetatheatreif it isstriking)ifwehave constructedour epistemological/semantic conceptionof theatre to involve a

17Aristot.Poet.1453b.18ItisimportanttoacknowledgethatthedarkeningofthetheatreisanineteenthcenturyinnovationintroducedlargelybyWagnerinThe Art-Work of the FutureaspartofhistheoryofGesamtkunstwerk,“total–artwork,”andbyAndréAntoineinhisnaturalistThéâtre Libre.Thismethodmakestheaudiencelessawareoftheirownpresenceandthatoftheirfellowpatronsastheylosethemselvesintheimmersionofthepiece.19Metatheatredistinguishesfromself-referencebybeingstriking.

42 HIRUNDO 2014

rigidseparationbetweentwoworlds,theworldofthetheatreperformanceandtheworldof the diegesis.20 In order for ametatheatrical theatre to exist for theGreeks, as somescholarswouldsuggest,theGreekswouldhavetorecognizethisstarkseparationofthestage.ApplyingRichardWeimann’stheoreticaldescriptionofthelocusandplateaplayingspacestotheGreekstageIwilldemonstratewhythisstarkdivisionwouldhavebeenalientoanAthenianaudience.

The Locus and the Platea:Situating Theatrical Space and the Direction of the Address.

In Shakespeare and the Popular Tradition in the Theatre, Robert Weimannidentifiestwokeylocationsonthestage,eachrepresentingaspecificmodeofperformanceandexpression,andeachmodecarriesadifferentrelationshiptowardstheaudience,theplayingspace,andmimesis.21Originally,Weimannappliedhistheorytothedramaturgyoftheearlymodernpublicstage,asitwasderivedfromthepopulartraditionsofmedievalstagecraft.Iwillshow,however,thathistheoryhasfarwiderapplications,especiallyintherealmoftheAthenianstage.Weimannsuggests,“thattheElizabethanplatformstage–farfromconstitutingaunifiedrepresentationalspace–canitselfbesaidtohaveprovidedtwodifferent,althoughnotrigidlyopposed,modesofauthorizingdramaticdiscourse.”22Thefirst,thelocus,isthescaffoldandtheplayingareafurthestfromtheaudienceassociatedwiththe“localizingcapacitiesoftherepresentedinthedramaticworld.”Namely,thisisthespaceoffixedsymbolic locationsandsteadymimeticverisimilitude.Theother, theplatea,isthe‘un-localized’playingareaclosesttotheaudience,associatedinsteadwiththeactor, theperformance,“andtheneutralmaterialityof theplatformstage.”23This isthespacebetweenthemimeticallyportrayeddiegesisandtheaudience.Itisalsoa“non-illusionisticmodeofperformance.”24Inthemedievalandearlymoderntheatre,thisareaisfavouredbyclownfigures,butontheGreekstageittakesonawiderrole.25

20Hencethedouble-visionofwitnessingtwoworldsatonce,therepresentedworldofthestoryandtheactualworldoftheperformance,andthedislocationoutofthemimeticallyrepresentedworldofthestory.21ErikaLinT,“PerformancePracticeandTheatricalPrivilege:RethinkingWeimann’sConceptsofLocusandPlatea,”New Theatre Quarterly 22(2006)284.22 Robert Weimann, “Bifold Authority in Shakespeare’s Theatre,” Shakespeare Quarterly 39 (1988) 409.23Weimann(1988)409.24Lin(2006)284.25 Ibid,286.Thetheatrical‘space’ofthelocusandtheplateaisnotstrictlyspeakingaspaceoftheatricalgeography.Theplateatendstobeclosertotheaudience,butthese“spaces”arecreatedbythemodeofthe

43Local Mimesis, Plateaic DiegesisAaron Golish

Unlike themodern proscenium stage, which often facilitates a fully localized performance,26 the Greek stage, like the thrust Elizabethan stage, encourages plateaic performance;theactormustcompetewiththepublicnessofthecirculartheatrewheretheaudience’sattentionisfreetowander.Asaresult,actinginsuchspacestendstoengagedirectlywiththeaudienceandalwaysremainspartiallyintheplateaic space.Alocalized performanceinsuchaspace,withactorsaloofanddetachedfromtheiraudiencewouldalsodistanceaudienceinterestandinvestment.OntheGreekstage,thelocusisthespacewherethemimeticactionoccurs(oratleastwhatlittleonstagemimeticactionactuallyoccurs).Theplateaisthespaceoccupiedcontinuallybythechorus(likethemedievalclown),aswellasanycharacterdeliveringanaddresstowardtheaudience.Thelinebetweenthelocus actionandtheplateaisnotridgedandatanytimeaperformermaymovefromonetotheother.27AlthoughGreekstagingisstilllargelyamysterytous,wedoknowthatthechorusoccupiedthespaceoftheorchestra.Thatis,thechorusoccupiesthephysicalspaceclosest totheaudience.Whilesomeevidencesuggeststhattheactorsremainedpredominantlyontheskene,theareafurthestfromtheaudience,wealsoknowthatthecentreoftheorchestratypicallycommandsthestrongestacousticresonance.28

Furthermore, theagon tradition often included speeches that do not appear tobewrittenasdirectaddresses to their interlocutor,but ratheraspleasoraddresses toahigher power,29 ormore often amoral proclamation to an ambiguous listener. Iwouldproposethatintermsofstaging,wherepossible,thespeakerwouldaddressanyspeechesto theaudience from theplatea,perhapseven from thecentreof theorchestra.30WhenHippolytos makes his rebuttal against Theseus’s accusation, he quickly establisheshimself on the platea by addressing his audiencewhen he says: “ἐγὼ δ᾽ ἄκομψος εἰςὄχλονδοῦναι λόγον, / ἐςἥλικαςδὲκὠλίγουςσοφώτερος: / ἔχει δὲμοῖρανκαὶ τόδ᾽: οἱ

performance.Theactormakesthespacethroughtheirperformanceandbytheirrelationshipwiththeaudience.26Thisisnottosuggestthatplateaicspacescannotexistontheprosceniumstage,butthatthetheatricalframingtechnologyoftheprosceniumstagelendsitselftoillusionisticlocalizedperformanceinawaythatismoredifficulttoachieveonathruststage.27ItisdifficulttoclaimthatcertainhubristictragicfiguressuchasOedipusandPentheuswouldspendasmuchtimeontheplateasincetheirownhubristicinsolenceisolatesthemfromtheworld. 28SeeMastronarde(1990)andPickard(1893).29Hippolytos’sspeechatline616illustratessuchaplea.HedirectshislamentimmediatelytowardsZeusandthentowardsageneralunspecifiedaudience.HeonlyaddressestheNurseagainatline651.Thismay,inpart,representHippolytos’smisogynisticnature,butnonetheless,manyofthespeechesfromthisplayandothershaveanambiguousdirectionofaddress.30Weimannalsodiscusseshowthosecharactersontheplateaare“theatricallyprivileged,”becauseoftheircloserandmoreinfluentialrelationshiptotheaudience.(Lin284)Theagontraditionsimilarlygrantstemporaryspecialtheatricalprivilegetothespeakerandtheholderoftheplatea.

44 HIRUNDO 2014

γὰρ ἐνσοφοῖς /φαῦλοιπαρ᾽ὄχλῳμουσικώτεροι λέγειν.”31But,who is the crowd thathe is speaking before?The only crowd on stage is the chorus ofTroezenwomen, butgivenHippolytos’smisogyny,alreadyestablishedinhislastspeech(whereherefusestoevenaddressawomanforfiftylines),itisunlikelythathewouldbenervousinfrontofacrowdofwomen.Additionally,givenhishatredforwomen,itisevenmoreunlikelythathewouldcare to convince themof anything.Therefore, theonlycrowd left to addressisthetheatreaudienceitself.Somecommentatorsmaybeinclinedtoidentifythisasanexampleofmetatheatre,butHippolytossituateshisaddressontheplatea.Hestandsinaneutralspace,andwhileheisstillcaughtupinhisowntragicaction,hisaddresstakesonapublicdimension:“Asamatterofcourse,suchplatea-directedmimesiscouldneverbestrictlyrepresentational:“thereremainsinbrightdaylightthesocialoccasioninsidethepublictheatre[...]andtheawarenessofthetheatricaloccasioninthedramaticlanguageitself.”32Therefore,toanaudience,towhomhedirectlyengagesandonethatisalwaysaware of their ‘social occasion,’ the dislocation, which is imperative to metatheatre,is impossible. If the actor stepped out of character to deliver his lines, the effectmayhavebeendifferent,buthedoesnot.HippolytosremainsHippolytosevenwhenhestepsforwardtoengagedirectlywiththeaudience.TheAthenianstageisfluidandinthisinstantHippolytoschangesthetheatricalspaceintotheekklesia,hebreaksthediegeticframeofthenarrativewithoutbreakingcharacterorbecomingsuddenlyawareofhisowntheatricality.

Debate Culture and the Didascalia:

The Purpose that Self-reference Does Serve in Greek Theatre

IfwereturnagaintoHippolytos’sspeechwemayfindthat,despitehisclaimtothecontrary,hisspeechisquitewellcomposed.Hebeginshumblyenoughbymakingasubtleparrhesiastic invocation,impliesthathewillspeakfranklyclaiming thatheisnotskilledinrefinedspeech.Hehasalsoalreadyrefutedthevalueoffine words inhisfirstremarktoTheseus:“τὸμέντοιπρᾶγμ᾽,ἔχονκαλοὺςλόγους,/εἴτιςδιαπτύξειενοὐκαλὸντόδε.”33InthiswellcalculatedmoveHippolytoshasnotonlysuggeststhathisfather’sspeechisbaseless,butmoreintricatelyimpliesthatTheseususedfinerhetorictocovera

31Eur.Hipp.986.“Iamunskilledatgivingspeechesbeforeacrowd.Iammoreskilledamongstafewpeopleofmyownage.Thisisrespectable.Forsimplemenamongstthewisearemoreaccomplishedspeakingbeforeamob.”32Weimann(1983)40.Author’semphasis.33 Eur.Hipp.984.“Andyettobesureyourcasemakesforafinespeech,thoughifsomeoneweretounfoldit,itwouldnotbepretty.”

45Local Mimesis, Plateaic DiegesisAaron Golish

weakargument,whilesayingHippolytos’sownspeechbycontrastwillbeunrefinedandthereforetruthful.Whatmakesthismanoeuvreespeciallyimpressiveisthattheoppositeiscloser tothetruth.Theseus’sspeechispassionateandunguarded,whileHippolytos’sspeechisself-consciousandcarefullymovesfromoneargumenttoanother.34

Hippolytos’s speech is not merely a dramatic monologue but also a brilliantexercise in rhetoric.Aristotle too identifies a trend in characterization that makes thecharacterssoundmorelikerhetors.“οἱμὲνγὰρἀρχαῖοιπολιτικῶςἐποίουνλέγοντας,οἱδὲνῦνῥητορικῶς.”35Asarhetorthen,inthisspeechHippolytosexistsonanextra-diegeticspaceandanextra-theatricalspace.HeisperformingbothontheAtheniansstageasatragiccharacterandasapublicfigureaddressingtheAthenianpeople.PoliticsareendemictotheGreek theatre.PerhapsbeforeAthensdeveloped itsdemocratic tradition, the charactersspokelikestatesmen,butbyAristotle’stimethecharactersspokelikerhetoricians.Theyspokelikerhetoriciansbecausetheyperformedananalogousroletotherhetorinpublicdebate.Thus,itcomesasnosurprisethatAristotleconsidersλέξις,“diction,”asbeingoneofthesixelementsoftheatre.36 FortheGreeksthetheatrewasmorethanaplacefortherepresentationsofstories.Tragedyorcomedy,italwaysservedapoliticaldiscursivepurpose.Itisforthisreasonthatthetheatreconventionsturnthetheatrespaceintoaplateaicdebatehall.Thecharacterson theGreekstagespeakout toward theaudiencemoralizingon thesituation theyfindthemselvesin.TheconventionofhavingagonspeechcompetitionsrepresentsauniquelyGreektradition,atraditionequallyathomeinthetheatreandintheassembly.AsPeterArnott explains, Greek theatre didascalia served a duel function of entertainment andeducation.37WeobservethiselementinHippolytos’sspeech,whichisatoncedramatic,rhetorical,anddidacticinthemannerthatithighlightsthejudicialprocess(andthelackof

34Eur.Hipp.990.“Nevertheless, necessity, brought by this misfortune, forces me to release my tongue. But first, I will begin to address where you first entrapped me, since you’re going to murder me without my rebuttal.” Hippolytos suggests here that he will ἀφεῖναι, “release”, his tongue, as though he has until now been restraining. This is another rhetorical ploy to suggest his speech will be sincere. Yet his next sentence is self-conscious of the act of argument. He lays out what he will be arguing against and draws attention to the calmness of his own ἀντιλέξοντ, “rebuttal.”35 Aristot. Poet. 1450b. “Ancient writers make their characters speak politically; modern writers, rhetorically.” 36 Ibid.“Thefourthprinciplethenislexis.Bylexisismeanttheexpressionthroughwords,whichholdsthesameeffectinbothmetreandprose.” Itisnotablethattheeffectofdictionisthesameinbothpoetryandprose.Hence,Hipploytos’sin-verse-pseudo-rhetoricaladdressmighthavethesameeffectasagenuinerhetor’saddressintheassemblyorbeforethecourts.37SeeArnott(1970).Also,notethatdidascalia,theAtheniantermforthetetralogyofplaysthatstructuredthecityDionysia,stemsfromthesamerootasdidaskalos,“placeofteaching.”

46 HIRUNDO 2014

itwithinthescene).38Thetheatreitselfbecameacentreofdebatewithinwhichthecitizensofthecitycouldbeintroducedandinformedonvariousissuesfromamoralorintellectualpointofview.Aplaywright’sjobthereforewastopresentbothanargumentforacertaincourseofaction,andunlikemedievalmoralityplays,toalsoallowotherargumentsavoice,inessencetotheatricalizethedebatecultureoftheekklesia.AsBlanshardpointsout,itisquitepossiblethat theassemblyofthejuryandtheaudienceat thetheatreareidenticalinstitutionsconveningindifferentlocations.Thisalsoexplainsthecoincidingincreaseinthesizeofthetheatre,fromasmallerwoodentheatrefortheAthenianelitetothestonetheatreofDionysus,andtheparallelincreaseinthenumberofjurorsattendingtheekklesia afterPericles’decreepromisedpaymentforjurors.39 Theself-referentialfeaturesofGreektragedyservearhetoricalfunction,nottocreate ametatheatrical experience.TheGreek theatrewas a centre of debate and eachplayanargumentwithinagreaterculturaldebate,andjustastheGreeksweretrainedtoarguebycitingtheflawsintheirantagonist’sargument,theplaywrightspracticedcitingandrefutingeachother’smoralclaims.SincetheGreekstagewasanopen-airtheatre-in-the-roundwhere theaudiencememberwas free to talkwith theirneighbour,appreciatethelandscapeandperhapseveneat,thetheatrewouldhaverequiredastyleofactingthatmadefrequentuseoftheplatea.40Actorswouldhaveusuallymadetheiraddressestotheaudienceinordertomaintainaconnectionandtoholdaudienceinterest.

Yet,thiswouldnotbemetatheatrical.Metatheatrerequirestheaudience,immersedinthelocalized mimesis,toexperienceadislocationwhenaperformerreferstotheirowntheatricality.Ontheplateaicstage,which,ontheotherhand,isalreadyun-localized,thelinebetweenthetwoworldsoftheplay’sdiegesisandtheworldoftheperformanceitselfblurs.41Charactersmoveseamlesslyfromlocustoplatea.ThereisnometatheatricalityintheGreektheatre,onlyextra-theatricality,thestagingandtheatricalizingoftheagonculture

38Eur.Hipp.1055.“You’llbanishmefrommycountryuntriedbyacrossexamination,withoutoath,withoutargument,withouttheoracle’sprophecy?”Thislinehighlightsthefailureofduejudicialprocess.39 AlastairJ.L.Blanshard,“WhatCountsasthedemos?SomeNotesontheRelationshipbetweentheJuryand“thePeople”inClassicalAthens,”Phoenix58(2004)28-48.40ItisnoteworthythattheGreekarchitecture ofthetheatron(literallytheseeing-place)favoursanexpansiveviewofthelandscapebeyondthestage,unliketheRomanauditorium,whichblockstheviewwithalargearchitecturalskene.Therefore,theGreekaudience’sattention,unlikeamoderndarkenedtheatre,isfreetoexplorethelandscapeinbroaddaylight.Beyondtheactors’performance,ancienttheatrehasveryfewtechnologiesbesidesdirect,un-mimeticaudienceaddresstoholdtheaudience’sattention.41ItisimportanttonoteSlater’spointon“OldComedy[as]nonillusionarydrama.Itisnotatheatreofillusionoccasionallydisruptedbyprimitivechoralinterventions[...]illusionisnot“broken”andthenseamlesslygluedbacktogether.”Thereisnoillusioninthefirstplace.Theaudienceisprimarilyawareoftheirpresenceinthetheatreandtheiractions,thustheactingstylewouldnothaveexhibitedevenanapproachtonaturalism.”(21).

47Local Mimesis, Plateaic DiegesisAaron Golish

thatexistsbeyondtheatre.Metatheatredrawsattentiontotheatricalpracticesthemselvesandhowtocriticizethem.Thetheatricalself-referencesontheAthenianstageemphasizethepoliticalculturearoundthetheatreandservestotrainAtheniansonhowtocriticizetheperformanceofrhetorsandotherpublicfigures.Metatheatrecouldnotexistuntiltheatremakersinthetwentiethcenturyquestionedtheconventionsoftheirnaturalistillusionisticstage. Therefore, it is inappropriate and academically improper for theatre scholars orclassiciststoapplymetatheatricalityanachronisticallytotheGreekstage.

Aaron Golish

Bibliography Primary Sources: Aristotle.Poetics.Trans.W.H.Fyfe.Cambridge,Massachusetts:HarvardUP,1932. Euripides. The Bacchae,Euripidis Fabulae,Ed.GilbertMurray,Oxford:ClarendonPress,1913.Euripides.Hippolytos.Trans.DavidKovacs.Cambridge:HarvardUP,1994.Euripides.The Bacchae.Trans.PaulRoche.NewYork:SignetClassics,1998.Euripides.Hippolytos.Trans.PaulRoche.NewYork:SignetClassics.1998. Plato.The Republic.Trans.PaulShorey.Cambridge:HarvardUP,1969. Secondary Sources:

Abel,Lionel.Metatheatre: A New View of Dramatic Form.NewYork:HillandWang,1963.

Arnott,Peter.“DramaasEducation.”Educational Theatre Journal 22,no.1(1970):35-42.

Blanshard,AlastairJ.L.“WhatCountsasthedemos?SomeNotesontheRelationshipbetweentheJuryand“ThePeople”inClassicalAthens.”Phoenix 58,no.1/2(2004):28-48.

Hornby,Richard.Drama, Metadrama, and Perception.Lewisburg:BucknellUP,1986.Hughes,Alan.Performing Greek Comedy.NewYork:CambridgeUP,2011.Lada-Richards,Ismene.“‘Estrangement’or“Reincarnation”?Performersand

PerformanceontheClassicalAthenianStage.”Arion 5,no.2(1997):66-107.Lin,ErikaT.“PerformancePracticeandTheatricalPrivilege:RethinkingWeimann’s

ConceptsofLocus andPlatea.”New Theatre Quarterly 22,no.3(2006):283-298.

Mastronarde,DonaldJ.“ActorsonHigh:TheSkeneRoof,theCrane,andtheGodsin

48 HIRUNDO 2014

AtticDrama.”Classical Antiquity9,no.2(1990):247-294.Pickard,John.“TheRelativePositionofActorsandChorusintheGreekTheatreoftheV

CenturyB.C.PartI.ConsiderationoftheExtantTheatres.”The American Journal of Philology 14,no.1(1893):68-89.

Rosenmeyer,ThomasG.“‘Metatheatre’:AnEssayonOverload.”Arion 10,no.2(2002):87-119.

Slater,NiallW.Spectator Politics: Metatheatre and Performance in Aristophanes.Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress,2002.

Wagner,Richard.The Art-Work of the Future, and Other Works.Trans.anded.W.AshtonEllis.Lincoln:UniversityofNebraskaPress,1993.

Weimann,Robert.“BifoldAuthorityinShakespeare’sTheatre.”Shakespeare Quarterly 39,no.4(1988):401-417.