Conversations with Iphigenia - an introduction by Christine Plastow

When new plays inspired by Greek tragedy are presented on the modern stage, the terms ‘translation’, ‘adaptation’, and ‘version’ are often applied in various and interchangeable ways. A number of questions can be raised about the nature and usefulness of these categories. Our distance, in many senses, from the original plays cannot be denied, and the differences between modern versions may be subordinate to the greater difference between the modern and ancient contexts. And yet, the reception process does not only work forwards – that is, by ancient texts informing and allowing for the creation of modern works – but backwards: modern reworkings and reinterpretations of Greek tragedies have the potential to enhance our perception and comprehension of the original plays.

In May 2016, the Gate Theatre in Notting Hill staged The Iphigenia Quartet as part of its season about the family, Nuclear. The Quartet retold the story of Euripides’ Iphigenia in Aulis, a play which depicts Agamemnon’s decision to sacrifice his daughter Iphigenia to Artemis so that the Greek fleet may set sail for Troy with a favourable wind. The Iphigenia Quartet comprised four plays: Agamemnon by Caroline Bird, Iphigenia by Suhayla El-Bushra, Clytemnestra by Lulu Raczka, and Chorus by Chris Thorpe. The plays were shown in alternating pairs: Agamemnon and Clytemnestra, and Iphigenia and Chorus. 

Two seminars entitled ‘Conversations with Iphigenia’, organised by Geraldine Brodie and Emma Cole, assisted by Angela Paschini and myself, were held on 10 May 2016 in London and 17 May 2016 in Bristol [1]. These seminars brought together academics, theatre practitioners and the playwrights of The Iphigenia Quartet in a discussion of the plays themselves and adaptation of Greek tragedy more generally. In the round-table discussions here transcribed, the playwrights were invited to discuss their inspirations and writing processes for these works, before opening up for questions and debate regarding wider issues involved in translation and adaptation.

The discussion touches on several pertinent issues for current scholarship in theatre adaptation and classical reception of Greek tragedy. Both Suhayla El-Bushra and Lulu Raczka discuss more or less overtly their aims to present a feminist interpretation of Iphigenia in Aulis, through the characters of Iphigenia and Clytemnestra respectively. The theme is indeed present in the discussion of all four plays: Chris Thorpe notes his view of the tendency of his ‘modern chorus’ of public interest and opinion to focus on ‘the kind of people who society in general is either sexually interested in or most interested in punishing for supposed transgressions, so young women’. Caroline Bird, too, explains that her presentation of Clytemnestra was intended to appear offensively stereotypical in the beginning of her play, before revealing that her persona is a self-imposed one in order to cope with the abuse she has suffered at the hands of the Greeks. These discussions reflect the relatively large number of feminist interpretations of ancient Greek tragedy on the modern stage and the modern scholarly interest in feminist readings of Greek myth [2]. An example of such efforts can be seen in the work of speaker David Bullen with By Jove Theatre Company. 

The Iphigenia Quartet is clearly situated within this feminist tradition, though Suhayla El-Bushra’s Iphigenia in particular also aims to evoke further political connotations. Her discussion links her work to themes of Western imperialism and the consequences of violent conflict in Syria and other countries. Greek tragedies have often been seen as ideal vessels for modern political messages, as they are distant enough from their original setting, both temporally and geographically, for their themes to be easy to lift and place into a different setting. Such political adaptations are exemplified in Seamus Heaney’s The Cure at Troy, which resonated with themes of apartheid South Africa and the Northern Irish conflict [3], and in the collection of plays Black Medea: Adaptations for Modern Plays, which transcribe the character of Medea to the experience of multiple black women. The political reception of Greek tragedy has been discussed by, for example, Carter, who notes that reception of these plays permits readings which would not be possible in the original context, but which are nevertheless extremely effective [4].

The conversation also includes pertinent discussion of various issues of theatre translation and adaptation in theory and practice. In discussing his writing process, Chris Thorpe describes his task as a ‘translation of intent’, aiming to ‘replicate the intended effect on an audience that the original script had in its original language.’ Such a method has been examined by a number of translation theorists, and touches on the enduring question of ‘performability’ versus ‘readability’ in theatre translation [5]. This is, of course, of particular interest in the case of Greek tragedy, where the original performance context is all but lost. Thorpe’s comments particularly illustrate the distinction between source texts for which the original playwright’s intentions can be accessed directly and those for which they cannot, and the need to attempt to access such information within the text itself, particularly without specialist knowledge of the culture in which it was originally performed. This, as Thorpe illustrates, can be insightfully articulated through comparison with truly modern phenomena, such as, in this case, the online forum. 

Caroline Bird evocatively describes her own writing process as a ‘heart transplant’, suggesting a process more of adaptation than translation. She discusses placing her own feelings and experiences towards the story inside her version of it, in an act she calls ‘reignit[ing] the dilemma’ of the narrative. The distinction, if one exists, between translation and adaptation is perhaps the most pertinent point raised in the discussion. Katja Krebs, both in this discussion and elsewhere, draws attention to the importance of these terms for concepts of individual creativity, authorship, and originality, and posits that the definition of a text as an adaptation or a translation speaks to the cultural importance of both the source text and the rewriting [6]. Krebs, Emma Cole and David Bullen reflect on the purpose of these terms, asking who they serve, whether funding bodies, those who commission work, academics, or theatre practitioners. In the end, for practitioners the question appears to be one of personal process, in terms of access to the original text, the number of translations consulted, and, most crucially, the ability to access a core theme or intention of the text, whether in a personal or theory-driven manner.

Christine Plastow

[1] The seminars were run in partnership with the Gate Theatre, the UCL Joint Faculty Institute of Graduate Studies, and the University of Bristol’s Institute of Greece, Rome, and the Classical Tradition.

[2] The subject is discussed by, amongst many others, Foley (‘Modern Performance and Adaptation’, p. 2; Female Acts in Greek Tragedy), Friedman (Feminist Theatrical Revisions, pp. 21-96), and Zajko and Leonard (Laughing with Medusa)

[3] Corcoran, ‘Stalled in the Pre-articulate’, p. 697.

[4] Carter, ‘The Political Reception of Greek Tragedy’, p. 146. See also Foley, ‘Modern Performance and Adaptation’, 3; Leonard and Prins, Classical Reception and the Political.

[5] On relocating an intended effect, see Upton, Moving Target. On ‘performability’ and ‘readability’, see Bassnett, ‘Translating for the Theatre’ and ‘Still Trapped in the Labyrinth’. See also Baines, Marinetti, and Perteghella, Staging and Performing Translation.

[6] Krebs, ‘Translation and Adaptation: Two Sides of an Ideological Coin’ and Translation and Adaptation in Theatre and Film. 

• Seminar One - Suhayla El-Bushra and Chris Thorpe 
  in conversation with Geraldine Brodie and Emma Cole
• Seminar Two - Caroline Bird and Lulu Raczka  
  in conversation with Emma Cole, Geraldine Brodie, David Bullen and Katja Krebs