Translating the Tragic: Mimetic Transformation of Attic Tragedies on the Contemporary Stage Burç İdem Dinçel Doctor of Philosophy in Drama School of Creative Arts Trinity College Dublin, August 2019 Declaration I declare that this thesis has not been submitted as an exercise for a degree at this or any other university and it is entirely my own work. I agree to deposit this thesis in the University’s open access institutional repository or allow the library to do so on my behalf, subject to Irish Copyright Legislation and Trinity College Library conditions of use and acknowledgement. Signature _________________________ i Summary The present study seeks to answer a fundamental series of questions related to the act of translation immanent to theatrical productions in general: which factors bring the real action into being during a performance? How feasible is it to regard (translated) textual materials as yardsticks while trying to make sense of the modern-day performances of Ancient Greek tragedies? What can be the “source” in a given translational act that is concerned with the translation of the concept of the “tragic” into the dynamics of the target culture? Is it still possible to talk of the so-called source text/s, when what is at stake is the actual translation of an ontological human condition? What kind of communication takes place between spectators and actors in contemporary performances of Attic tragedies? Behind the articulation of these questions lies a hypothesis that deems translation as a form of actual production that comes into existence by way of actors’ (physical and verbal) mimetic interaction with the source dramaturgy, thereby echoing the director’s individual staging approach to the plays at hand. In other words, insofar as the survival of Ancient Greek tragedies on the contemporary stage is on the table, regarding translation as a mode of textual production falls short of doing justice to the actual mimetic transformation of the human suffering that is crucial to the plays of Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides. Within this context, such notions as mimesis, tragedy, the idea of the “tragic,” (source/target) dramaturgy, directing, and acting, not to mention physicality, come to the fore as decisive concepts while approaching the present-day performances of Attic tragedies in a translational framework. For mimesis can plausibly be taken up here as the key to considering the physicality of the performative space of theatre in terms of translation—a corporeal realm which the majority of translation scholars refrain from probing into, even when they advocate the idea of embracing performance as translation and translation as performance. The current investigation delves into this terrain by taking the works of Theodoros Terzopoulos, Şahika Tekand and Tadashi Suzuki on Attic tragedy as case studies. Comprised of three interrelated parts, the dissertation itself endeavours to construct a methodology in the first two chapters before incorporating it into the last ones that are dedicated to the theatrical praxes of Terzopoulos, Tekand and Suzuki. The adopted method of inquiry is simple: each chapter commences from the point where its individual subject(s) and problematics arise from. For that reason, after diagnosing the issues of the literature produced within the spheres of Translation Studies, Classics, and Theatre and Performance Studies vis- à-vis the reception of Attic tragedies on the contemporary stage in the introduction, the first ii chapter gets down to the nuts and bolts of mimesis by honing in on its archaic overtones and proceeds with the writings of Xenophon, Plato and Aristotle, where the mimetic terminology evolved into (re)presentation, (re)creation, world-making, imitation, and so on. Consecutively concentrating on mimesis qua imitation, mimesis qua mimesis, mimesis qua translation / translation qua mimesis, the chapter constitutes the basis for a discussion of the modi operandi of Denis Diderot and Gotthold Ephraim Lessing with an eye to their echoes in the oeuvre of Samuel Beckett in the twentieth century. The second chapter dwells upon the idea of the “tragic” by zeroing in on the fragments of Heraclitus alongside Plato and Aristotle. Throughout, special emphasis is placed on the ancient quarrel between philosophy and poetry together with the sociological dynamics surrounding Ancient Greek tragedies and Roman tragedy. This, in turn, lays the groundwork for a confrontation with the German Post-Idealist transformation of the idea into a philosophical category. The fact that mimesis is a recurring thematic variant running almost parallel to the reception of (Attic) tragedy and the tragic allows for an expansion of the previous chapter’s meditations on the notion into this part, where translational journey of the “tragic” is monitored from antiquity to Beckett. The remainder of the foray is allocated to the staging practices of Terzopoulos, Tekand and Suzuki. The remaining chapters begin by offering an account of the socio-cultural climes in which the Attis Theatre, Studio Players and Suzuki Company of Toga respectively emerged, and progress with thorough explorations of the particular acting methods of the directors. Thus, the Biodynamic Method of Terzopoulos, the Performative Staging and Acting Method of Tekand, and the Suzuki Method are canvassed in detail to divulge the manners in which the archaic and ancient conceptions of mimesis can shed notional light on the underlying aesthetics of the directors’ translation of Ancient Greek tragedies into the dynamics of the contemporary stage. To be able to lend an ear to the practical resonances of the theoretical points raised over the course of the inquiry, every chapter in this final section sequentially terminates with the analyses of Terzopoulos’ reworking(s) of Aeschylus’ Persians (2006) and Prometheus Bound (2010), Tekand’s reworking of Sophocles’ Theban plays as Oedipus Trilogy (2002/2004/2006), as well as with Suzuki’s reworking(s) of Euripides’ Bacchae as Dionysus (1998) and his Elektra (2010). These examinations, in return, pave the way for a conclusion whereby to recapitulate the findings of the dissertation. iii Table of Contents Acknowledgements vi Introduction: The Lie of the Land ix PART I Chapter 1. Mimetic Bases of Translation as Performance and Performance as Translation 1.1 Foundations of Mimesis 1 1.2 Mimesis qua Mimesis 10 1.3 Mimesis qua Imitatio(n) 24 1.4 Mimesis qua Translation / Translation qua Mimesis 37 1.5 Paradoxes of Mimesis and Their Implications 55 for the Contemporary Staging Praxis (as Translation) PART II Chapter 2. The Translational Journey of the “Tragic” 2.1 The Idea of the “Tragic” and Attic Tragedies 71 2.2 Roman Transformation of Attic Tragedies 95 2.3 The Birth of Tragedy (out of Music) 119 2.4 The Death of Tragedy 136 2.5 The Birth Pangs of the Tragic Absolute 147 on the Contemporary Stage PART III Chapter 3. Attis Theatre 3.1 Underlying Dynamics of the Socio-Cultural Milieu 157 in Greece before Attis 3.2 Attis Theatre 161 3.3 The Biodynamic Method of Theodoros Terzopoulos 166 3.4 The Mimetic Aesthetics of the Biodynamic Method 173 3.5 The Persians and Prometheus Bound 185 iv Chapter 4. The Studio Players 4.1 Underlying Dynamics of the Socio-Cultural Milieu 200 in Turkey before the Studio 4.2 The Studio Players 205 4.3 The Performative Staging and Acting Method of Şahika Tekand 212 4.4 The Mimetic Aesthetics of the Performative Staging 217 and Acting Method 4.5 The Oedipus Trilogy 228 Chapter 5. Suzuki Company of Toga (SCOT) 5.1 Underlying Dynamics of the Socio-Cultural Milieu 236 in Japan before SCOT 5.2 SCOT 239 5.3 The Suzuki Method 245 5.4 The Mimetic Aesthetics of the Suzuki Method 252 5.5 Dionysus and Elektra 258 Conclusion: The Lay of the Land 267 Appendices 1 The Persians and Prometheus Bound 269 2 The Oedipus Trilogy 270 3 Dionysus and Elektra 272 Bibliography 273 v Acknowledgements The present study would not see the light of the day without the support of various people who have contributed to this project in different ways. I was blessed with the opportunity to have had certain individuals involved in formal phases. My supervisor Assistant Professor Nicholas Johnson did more than provide me with constructive feedback. His belief in the work from the time he came across it turned him into a spiritual companion who walked me through this winding road, where my internal examiner Professor Matthew Causey has also been an inspirational mentor, whose sharp critique and burning questions opened my eyes to the philosophical scope of my material in the making. Correlatively, the prospect of having Professor Fiona Macintosh as my external examiner was an extra source of motivation, for she has been one of the foremost scholars with whom I found myself conversing the most, albeit from afar, ever since my research interests began to shift into the field of Classical Reception Studies in my late undergraduate and early postgraduate years. I sincerely thank these three significant figures for agreeing to take active parts at vital stages of my PhD. It was, in fact, Professor Emeritus Stephen Wilmer who made it possible for this project to continue when it came to a halt in 2012. I would never think that a conference paper delivered in the middle of a personal breakdown could lead to an encounter that would dispatch me from Boğaziçi University, and eventually take me to Trinity College Dublin in 2014 for more pivotal encounters, in addition to the ones saluted above. On that note, I remain indebted to Assistant Professor Małgorzata Budzowska from University of Łódź too for a regrettably short-lived collaboration which nourished this investigation in a myriad of fashions, most notably by giving me a kick in the guts whenever I delved deeper into the nuances of what have been shared moments of intellectual joy once.