Open Research Online The Open University’s repository of research publications and other research outputs A Rich Reward in Tears: Hippolytus and Phaedra in drama, dance, opera and film Thesis How to cite: Mckee, Tori Lynn (2017). A Rich Reward in Tears: Hippolytus and Phaedra in drama, dance, opera and film. PhD thesis The Open University. For guidance on citations see FAQs. c 2017 The Author https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Version: Version of Record Link(s) to article on publisher’s website: http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.21954/ou.ro.0000be9c Copyright and Moral Rights for the articles on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. For more information on Open Research Online’s data policy on reuse of materials please consult the policies page. oro.open.ac.uk A Rich Reward in Tears Hippolytus and Phaedra in drama, dance, opera and film Tori Lynn McKee B.A. (Hons), M.Phil. (Oxon) A thesis presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Classical Studies Department The Open University United Kingdom 30 June 2016 A Rich Reward in Tears: Hippolytus and Phaedra in drama, dance, opera and film Tori Lynn McKee Abstract This thesis is a study of thematic clusters in the performance reception of the Hip- polytus and Phaedra tradition – the body of reception material based on Euripides’ Hippolytus, Seneca’s Phaedra, and/or Racine’s Phèdre. This is the first comprehensive study of these three major source texts as a collective whole, challenging not only the idea of a single original ‘source text’, but also the idea of a directly linear reception pattern. I visualise the reception of the Hippolytus and Phaedra tradition as a porous membrane, containing a number of different items, from texts to performances, inter- acting in a multi-dimensional, fluid way, manifesting itself in different forms depending on the political, social, historical or literary context in which this story has emerged since Racine himself reworked Euripides and Seneca in the late seventeenth century. Each chapter has a particular thematic focus, within which I provide more detailed case study analyses from particular works across multiple genres. The Introduction provides close readings of the source texts and outlines my cross-genre theoretical framework. The second chapter focusses on the question of consanguinity and the impact of the incest motif on early adaptations. In the third chapter, I explore two 20th-century adaptations, both of which emerged during a decade dominated by Freud’s discoveries. In the fourth chapter, I focus on adaptations that explore and problematise Hippolytus’ sexuality. My fifth chapter focuses exclusively on the operatic and dance traditions, arguing that these genres lead to a prioritisation of the Phaedra character. The thesis concludes with a final chapter which traces the role of the divine within the reception tradition of Hippolytus and Phaedra examining in particular how recent adaptations move away from an earlier focus on psychology and human emotion to a new emphasis on the supernatural forces in the wider world. A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Classical Studies at the Open University 30 June 2016 ii Acknowledgements ‘Don’t stop believin’.’ –Journey I would primarily like to give thanks to my supervisors, Lorna Hardwick, Fiona Macintosh, and Joanna Paul for their advice and guidance, thought-provoking discus- sion, probing questions, constant motivation, and friendship. I acknowledge the use of facilities at the University of Oxford, Open University, and University of Cambridge, without which my research would not have been possible. The Open University in particular has provided invaluable skills development and financial support, as well as unparalleled electronic resources. The Archive of Performances of Greek and Roman Drama (APGRD) at the University of Oxford has been a particularly valuable research ‘home away from home’ and I have benefitted from much helpful conversation and feedback at various events, including two Postgraduate Symposia where I was invited to present my research. I thank Margaret Williamson and Yana Zarifi for introducing me to Hippolytus and Phaedra all those years ago at Dartmouth College. This has been a very part-time endeavour, and I am grateful to my employers over the past six and a half years who have allowed me the flexibility and support to pursue my research alongside full-time employment. In particular, I am grateful to Caroline Mawson at Wadham College, Oxford, John Harding at the University of Cambridge Disability Resource Centre, and Geoff Parks at Jesus College, Cambridge. I thank my parents, Michael and Denise McKee for moral and financial support, and in particular for encouraging my passion for learning from an early age. I also thank my sisters Cassidy and Seana McKee, for their constant enthusiasm, regular pep-talks, and general positive energy and good vibes. I thank my in-laws Geoff and Gay Sutton, and brother-in-law Richard Sutton for restorative meals and entertaining music. I thank my dear Oxford and Cambridge friends who have always been there for me in the ups and downs of this long endeavour: Laura Bok, Glenn Lacki, Evert van Emde Boas, Kate Wilkinson, John-Paul Shepherd, Anouk Petersen, Luuk Huitink, Simon Perris, Sarah Alve, Ruth Shelton, Sam Cooper, Elizabeth Russell, Richard Sanford, Jo Kershaw, Hannah Perks and Kirsty Wayland. I thank Laura and Simon in particular for taking the time to proofread and comment on my final draft. Finally, I thank David for everything. iii iv Contents Texts and Editions vii List of Figures ix 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Prelude . 1 1.2 Source Texts . 4 1.2.1 Euripides’ Hippolytus ........................ 5 1.2.2 Seneca’s Phaedra .......................... 22 1.2.3 Racine’s Phèdre ........................... 28 1.3 Theoretical Framework . 34 2 Consanguinity 47 2.1 The Incest Theme in Renaissance Drama . 49 2.2 Edmund Smith’s Phaedra and Hippolitus, 1707 . 59 2.3 Rameau’s Hippolyte et Aricie, 1733 . 76 2.4 Conclusion . 87 3 Psychoanalytical readings 93 3.1 Psychoanalysis, Freud, and the ‘other’ incest drama . 95 3.2 Eugene O’Neill’s Desire Under the Elms, 1924 . 100 3.3 H.D.’s Hippolytus Temporizes, 1927 . 108 3.4 Postcript: Psychoanalytical antecedents . 117 3.5 Conclusion . 126 4 Hippolytus’ (homo)sexuality 129 4.1 (Homo)sexuality in Scholarship . 132 4.1.1 Ovidian echoes . 141 4.2 Robinson Jeffers’ Poetry . 143 4.2.1 Cawdor, 1928 . 145 4.2.2 The Cretan Woman, 1954 . 152 4.3 Conclusion . 164 5 Phaedra as Diva 167 5.1 The ‘envoicing’ of Phaedra . 170 5.1.1 Prelude: Ildebrando Pizzetti’s Fedra, 1915 . 183 5.2 Martha Graham’s Phaedra, 1962 . 185 5.3 George Roumanis’ Ode to Phaedra, 1978 and 1995 . 191 5.4 Benjamin Britten’s Phaedra, 1976 and 2013 . 197 v vi CONTENTS 5.4.1 Richard Alston and Benjamin Britten . 198 5.5 Conclusion . 203 6 The Metaphysical Turn 207 6.1 Gods in the Source Material . 209 6.2 Exit the Gods: Earlier Adaptations . 214 6.3 Re-enter the Gods: Recent Adaptations . 218 6.3.1 Tony Harrison’s Phaedra Britannica, 1975 . 218 6.3.2 Ted Hughes’ Phèdre, 1998 . 225 6.3.3 Edwin Morgan’s Phaedra, 2000 and Frank McGuinness’ Phaedra, 2006 . 229 6.4 Conclusion: Tragedies on a Cosmological Scale? . 234 7 Epilogue 241 A Plot Comparison 265 B Transcripts 271 B.1 Interview with Richard Alston . 271 B.2 Interview with George Roumanis . 279 Texts and Editions I use the following editions of the three source texts: Barrett (1964) and Halleran (1995) for Euripides, Fitch (2002) for Seneca, and Parish (1996) (French text with commentary) and Cairncross (1970) (translation and commentary) for Racine. vii viii CONTENTS List of Figures 2.1 Edmund Smith’s Hippolytus . 62 4.1 Martha Graham’s Phaedra’s Dream . 130 5.1 Sarah Bernhardt as Phèdre . 168 5.2 Martha Graham’s Night Journey . 179 5.3 Martha Graham’s Phaedra, the two goddesses . 187 5.4 Martha Graham’s Phaedra, Phaedra and Theseus . 190 ix x LIST OF FIGURES Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Prelude I hate the idea of theatre just being an evening pastime. It should be emo- tionally and intellectually demanding. I love football. The level of analysis that you listen to on the terraces is astonishing. If people did that in the theatre . but they don’t. They expect to sit back and not participate. If there’s a good place for new musicals, opera or whatever, then there should be a place for good new writing, irrespective of box office. (Sarah Kane)1 Every single one of the five plays that Sarah Kane wrote in her short life was surrounded by controversy. Accusations of gratuitous violence, lack of structure, and lack of character development, which were levelled against her first play, Blasted, could apply as easily to Kane’s second work, Phaedra’s Love, which premiered at the Gate Theatre on 15 May 1996 as part of their ‘New Playwrights, Ancient Sources’ series.2 Kane, who directed the performance herself, felt it important to ‘try to do the violence as realistically as possible.’ She recalled the first fully staged rehearsal as follows: And the very first time when we did the final scene with all the blood and the false bowels by the end of it we were all severely traumatised. All the actors were standing there covered in blood having just raped and slit their throats; and then one of them said, ‘this is the most disgusting play I’ve ever been in,’ and he walked out. But because of the work we’d done 1As quoted in Saunders (2002), 15.