國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
History, in this way, has several different versions due to different ways of storytelling, but the historical facts are not changed. White explains, “The events themselves are not substantially changed from one account to another. That is to say, the data that are to be analyzed are not significantly different in the different accounts.
What is different are the modalities of their relationships” (97). White emphasizes the multiple interpretations to the same historical event, but he, as a historian, does not assert that history is totally equal to literature because history after all needs to take into concern events that actually happen. A classic historical work will not be denied by any new explanation or data discovered by the next generation (97). What White intends to propose is that the overemphasis of scientific dimension of history limits our perception of history and the knowledge of history as a literary artifact liberates us to create and accept different interpretations of history. Hence, White’s theory indeed provides a significant theoretical background for re-writing history for historians, literary authors, and readers.
B. Wertenbaker’s Concept of History
Comparing British theatre with American theatre, Richard Palmer observes that the history play is more popular in British theatre (2), and the tradition of the history play in Britain may even be traced back to the 16th century (2). Nevertheless, the tradition of the history play transforms immensely in the 20th century, especially owing to the question of the objectivity of history (Palmer 1-2). Palmer attributes this change to the difference between Old History and New History (12-13). Obviously, Palmer’s distinction between the two concepts of history echoes Hayden White’s assertion of history as a literary artifact different from scientific and objective history.
Historical facts may be rearranged and retold for different purposes by different people; in this way, the playwright of the history play has multiple strategies in using
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
historical materials, and Palmer concludes eight methods.3 Chapters Three and Four will have a further discussion on how Wertenbaker uses historical materials in all her history plays. Before that, the following analyzes Wertenbaker’s concept of history in general in three plays, Credible Witness, Three Birds Alighting on a Field, and The Break of Day, for three purposes: to illustrate White’s statement by Wertenbaker’s plays, to legitimate Wertenbaker’s rewriting history, and to describe Wertenbaker’s concept of history as background to the following two chapters.
1. The Narrative Element in History
From Hayden White’s point of view, “history as a discipline is in bad shape today because it has lost sight of its origins in the literary imagination. In the interest of appearing scientific and objective, it has repressed and denied to itself its own greatest source of strength and renewal” (Tropics 99, emphasis in original). In order to pursue the scientific accuracy and objectivity of history, history writing loses the power of literary imagination and the possibilities of different interpretations. Like White’s point, Wertenbaker in Credible Witness (2001) describes an immigration officer and a guard, who are both historian-like and both insist only on a “credible witness” to judge whether asylum seekers may stay in Britain or not. Their emphasis on evidence blinds themselves, showing a wrong judgment in deciding not to permit asylum seekers to stay. Ironically, with the assistance of refugees, they at the end
3 Palmer distinguishes strategies of using history into eight types: first, “Characters and situation are largely fictional, but the style of the play mimics that of a play from an earlier period” (9); second,
“Plays based on legendary sources, that may or may not have historical foundation, contain characters known to the audience, who possess some degree of historic validity for the audience” (9); third, “Even with fictional characters, some plays have their setting, characterization, and action determined by a historical period” (9); fourth, “Fictional characters react to a background of actual historical events in plays” (9); fifth, “Plays that depict specific historical characters and situations, but in a recognizably exaggerated fashion, include travesties of history” (9); sixth, “In many plays historical figures interact with fictional characters, sometimes in real, sometimes in imaginary circumstances” (9); seventh,
“Recognizable figures from the past appear principally in private and therefore largely imaginative circumstances” (9); eighth, “A play may depict, as accurately as possible, the behavior of historical figures in reported events” (9).
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
realize scientific evidence is neither the only source of making history nor the only way to reveal truth; rather, everyone’s narrative and they themselves are “credible witnesses.”
Credible Witness premiered at the Royal Court Jerwood Theatre Upstairs in 2001, telling a story about a Macedonian mother, Petra Karagy, who flies to Britain in pursuit of her son, Alexander Karagy.4
Simon is like one of those historians who only care about the scientific Because of using a false passport, Petra is detained and locked in a detention center, where she meets some asylum seekers, including Aziz, Shivan, and Ameena. Simon Le Britten is the major immigration officer in charge of all asylum seekers. Lacking the historical knowledge of complicated relationship between Greece and Macedonia, Simon does not believe Petra’s words that her son is persecuted by Greeks simply because of teaching
Macedonia history. Without evidence and official papers, Simon doubts Petra’s words and the existence of Alexander. He describes his job, “Now I’ll tell you the facts of this case,” and states, “The challenge of this job is to find the truth of a story and it’s a challenge I relish. I’m like a historian myself, sifting the evidence” (Credible Witness 199). Like science-disciplined historians whom White and Wertenbaker criticize, Simon claims for the authority of the only truth and the priority of the credible
evidence he sifts from the false. Deciding which evidence is true, he is an authority on explaining facts. Simon intensely depends on official records to judge the legitimacy of asylum seekers. Therefore, without any paper record of Alexander, Simon declares Alexander “vanishes” (199). In other words, Alexander disappears, becoming “no one,” in both histories of England and Greece due to a lack of official records.
4 According to Credible Witness Resource Pace published by Royal Court Theatre, Wertenbaker and the directors, actors, actresses all went to detention centers to interview asylum seekers. During a period of two weeks, they talked with asylum seekers and then shared their discovery when they went back to the theatre. About two and a half years later, Credible Witness was finally completed (Royal Court. n. pag.).
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
accuracy of history, so he relies on official papers a lot. Official evidence becomes the only way to decide whether asylum seekers may stay or not. Aziz lacks any official evidence so he is restricted within the detention center. He, a refugee from Algeria, comes to England for political asylum in order to escape a civil war in his own country. Horrified by the civil war, he declares that Algerian history makes his head come off, so he sees his head everywhere. However, his fear is not a piece of official evidence. He expresses, “When I came here I told them I was running away because my head was going to be torn off. We don’t accept fear of the future, they tell me, only what happened: were you officially threatened? Officially? There’s a civil war in Algeria, I say. It’s not officially a civil war, they say” (206 emphasis added).
According to the 1951 United Nation Convention on Refugees, which Britain is one of the signatories, refugees are people who are forced to leave their countries for security owing to “a well founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, memberships of a particular social group or political opinion” (Royal Court. n. pag.). Britain has an obligation to obey the convention and to accept refugees. However, refugees are often regarded as criminals and locked in detention centers while waiting for examination (Royal Court. n. pag.). The most effectual way to prove refugees’ claim is official records, so Aziz’s fear of losing his head off and an unofficial civil war in Algeria are not reliable evidence. As a result, Aziz, like other refugees, is detained as a prisoner.5
Without any aid from the English government, Petra, providing no official record to prove herself and the existence of her son, decides to go on a hunger strike
5 Compared with many other European countries, the UK takes far fewer asylum seekers even though it has the obligation to follow the 1951 United Nations Convention on Refugees (Royal Court. n. pag.).
Asylum seekers are not welcome in Britain, and with the increase of the population of refugees and their problems, the asylum issue becomes one of the crucial subjects in contemporary Britain. Theatres also reflect this political and cultural issue and perform several plays on the relevant subject (Aston,
“The Bogus Woman” 5).
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
until the government finds Alexander. Although Simon believes official papers only, he is kind and willing to help Petra. He mentions that he understands every refugee’s miserable experience in their country, personally refusing to send them back to be killed or tortured, but he needs evidence to prove their asylum claim even if just some marks of torture on the body. Simon expresses, “I feel sorry for those going back to hunger and disease, believe me, but I have to see the marks of torture before I let anyone in. Genuine. Deep. Or the real fear of death. It’s easier than you think. There were no torture marks on your son” (215 emphasis added). Consequently, “body”
becomes a credible witness as well as official records. The authority represented by Simon, however, only needs marks of physical torture, but what refugees suffer from is mental torture. The invisible marks of torture are still unofficial; thus, when Simon declares that there are no torture marks on Alexander, he denies both Alexander’s right of claiming asylum and his existence in England.
Immigration officers need to sift evidence like historians who decide which evidence is true. Nevertheless, the way they sift facts has been controlled by their prejudice. Especially, when immigration officers encounter refugees, who are foreigners and who are different from them, the cultural difference leads the officers to distrust refugees. Alexander reveals that the English government does not believe he was beaten by the police, and the main reason is that the translator misinterprets his words.
I had only the false passport. I’d pretended I didn’t know any English because I was nervous and I thought an interpreter would help. That was two lies—you’d told me the English don’t forgive lies. The embassy man misinterpreted everything I said to the official. It made me unsure, hearing it in another language, but so different—I become confused.
They didn’t want to believe I was beaten by the police, they asked how
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
many, details. I couldn’t say for sure. (219)
As a result, “when no one believes you, you begin to doubt yourself” (219), Alexander comments. The interpreter’s and the officer’s distrust to him eventually makes him conclude, “I was humiliated” (219).
The consequence of humiliation caused from distrust is a revolt, which also explicates why asylum seekers in the detention center rebel against Paul. Paul, a guard in the detection center, does not believe Shivan, a refugee from Sri Lanka, is a doctor;
he sees Aziz as a crazy person whose head is everywhere; he doubts Petra’s pursuit of Alexander. He presupposes that their claims are false and denies their right to stay in England. Paul says to Petra, “You’re not even supposed to be here. You can’t refuse to eat perfectly decent food which is costing the taxpayer all this money, especially when you were probably starving in your own country” (207-08). Paul values the tax that English people pay more than the life of refugees, so Paul’s comment is exactly like what Michael Billington describes, England “is locked into a notion of itself as an island fortress destined to repel unwanted boarders” (“Credible Witness” emphasis added).
Paul’s island mentality angers refugees in the detention center, so they cause a small revolt. Shivan reads Paradise Lost to get through the humiliation in the center, believing the power of language in the book may give him strength. Now he uses English language in Paradise Lost to rebel against English people, quoting from Milton’s description of hell to express the asylum seekers’ condition in the detention center: “No light, but rather darkness visible / Served only to discover sights of woe / Regions of sorrow, doleful shades— / Where peace and rest can never dwell, hope never come” (I. 63-66). Shivan, echoing Satan’s anger, continues referring to Satan’s speech: “Our prison strong, this huge convex of fire / Outrageous to devour, immures us round” (II. 434-35). Refused to be seen as a doctor in the center, Shivan then
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
decides to be Lucifer in hell. While he cites Paradise Lost, he claps rhythmically and Aziz joins this music-like revolt with dancing. Paul does not believe those refugees’
narration, so Shivan retorts, “If we don’t share the truth of language, what then? You don’t believe I’m a doctor, why should I believe you’re a guard? If language
disintegrates, there’s nothing left. He [any person who needs help] needs help, you deny him, he riots” (Credible Witness 209). The distrust among people separates themselves. Furthermore, if people do not believe in each other, a credible witness is still incredible. Simon and Paul are eager to find facts, official records, and the marks of torture, but they ignore those refugees’ words and feelings. In this way, Simon and Paul never find the truth of history, except fragmental records.
Ironically, Simon asks for the evidence of the marks of torture on the refugees’
body, but he never “sees” them. When Simon decides to send all the refugees back to their countries, Petra helps Ameena to claim her right of political asylum. Ameena takes off her blouse, showing a great many cigarette burns on her body. Shivan expresses, “She’s been here eight months. The doctor has given her the strongest tranquillisers he could find, but he hasn’t once examined her” (232). Because of rape and torture in Somalia, Ameena comes to England for a new life. The English
government, however, sends two male interpreters to interview her, and one of them is even Ameena’s tribal enemy in Somalia. As a result, Ameena is said to be a prostitute.
Suffering from huge physical and mental tortures, Ameena has a nervous breakdown.
The doctor in the detention center only gives her pills, but never examines her. Simon has a record in a file, saying she screams at the doctor, but he never finds out the reason why she screams at him. Therefore, Ameena’s “file” means nothing, and Simon’s insistence on official papers becomes nonsensical and ridiculous. Moreover, even if Simon insists on the marks of tortures on the body, if he does not look, the marks are useless.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Petra forces Simon not only to “see” Ameena’s body, but also to “listen” to her story. Words for Ameena are like “medicine” (234). They do not taste good, but they cure her. Ameena must narrate her story in order to remedy the traumatic past. Like White’s comparison between a therapeutic process and history writing, Ameena has to
“re-emplot” her life history so that she can change the meaning of horrible facts to help herself. Her words are medicine for her as well as “credible testimony” for Simon. Petra urges her to tell her story, arguing, “Go on, Ameena. Mr. Le Britten wants credible testimony. Let’s give him testimony” (233). Without scientific objectivity, the personal narration now becomes a credible witness. If Simon
represents the science-motivated historian, now he, by believing people’s narration of their history, realizes that history contains the narrative element, which helps him to get rid of his prejudice, or in White’s term, ideology (Tropics 99). White asserts that if historians understand the narrative element in their history writing, then “this
recognition would serve as a potent antidote to the tendency of historians to become captive of ideological preconceptions which they do not recognize as such but honor as the ‘correct’ perception of ‘the way things really are’” (Tropics 99 emphasis in original). Hence, facts and evidence are not the only important elements in history, and the realization of the narrative form of history assists historians in moving to “a higher level of self-consciousness” (Tropics 99). In this light, Simon has to open his eyes to see the truth inscribed of the bodies of the refugees and his mind to accept the oral evidence besides documents. Realizing his narrow eyes and mind, Simon finally confesses, “I’m making too many mistakes” (Credible Witness 236).
2. The Right to Narrate History
Like Hayden White who asserts history is a literary artifact, Wertenbaker in Credible Witness emphasizes the important role of personal narration in history.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Nevertheless, the playwright further asks a question, who has the right to narrate or write history? Or in the case of Credible Witness, who has the right to narrate or write English history? After Simon admits his fault, Petra replies, “Me, too. I’ve been walled, like you. History shifts, we can’t hold it. Simon, when we turn to you, don’t cover your eyes and think of the kings and queens of England. Look at us: we are your history now” (236). Accordingly, every refugee in the detention center has the right to narrate his or her history; by implication, everyone, including English and non-English, can use his or her own way to tell and write English history. In the play, none of the characters is “pure” English. The name of Simon Le Britten indicates his Norman ancestor. Sara Freeman suggests that the last name, Le Britten, “harkens to the Norman conquest in the middle ages,” and it implies “a complex history of
conquest, colonialization, and migration” (64). Like Simon who works for the English government, Paul is also an immigrant, who comes from North India. All the refugees are from everywhere in the world: Petra from Macedonia, Ameena Somalia, Shivan Sri Lanka, and Aziz Algeria. Alexander’s students are all exiles: Anna is Balkan, Henry Eritrean, and Ali Algerian. Forced to leave their own countries, they come to Britain, becoming parts of England and parts of English history.
Wertenbaker in her article “Everyone Comes to Café Europa” explains two concepts of Europe: Café Europe and Fortress Europe. Through her emphasis on Café Europe, the dramatist reveals her concept of history as a public café, where everyone can talk about their story freely. Europe for Wertenbaker is supposed to be like a café, instead of a fortress, and she describes, “Cafés are half inside, half outside, they
Wertenbaker in her article “Everyone Comes to Café Europa” explains two concepts of Europe: Café Europe and Fortress Europe. Through her emphasis on Café Europe, the dramatist reveals her concept of history as a public café, where everyone can talk about their story freely. Europe for Wertenbaker is supposed to be like a café, instead of a fortress, and she describes, “Cafés are half inside, half outside, they