No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Aristophanes in Greek shadow theatre: codification and adaptation of Peace and Frogs performed by Evgenios Spatharis
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 March 2018
Abstract
After an introduction considering the reception of Aristophanic comedy and the significance of shadow theatre in modern Greek culture, this article explores the possibilities of adapting Aristophanes’ plays to the latter art form. Using Evgenios Spatharis’ shadow performances of Peace (c. 1986) and Frogs (1978) as case studies, I examine the way obscenity is handled and roles are allocated. These adaptations are viewed in relation to the generic prerequisites rather than just the medium of Greek shadow theatre, which is characterized by a high level of codification.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies, University of Birmingham, 2018
References
1 This is a revised form of a postgraduate paper I wrote under the supervision of Prof. Fiona Macintosh, to whom I owe a debt of gratitude. Special thanks are also due to Prof. Ioannis Konstantakos, Prof. Anna Stavrakopoulou, and Thomas Agrafiotis for providing important bibliographical help, to Dr Armand D'Angour for correcting my English in the latest draft, and to the anonymous reviewers and the editor of the journal for their invaluable feedback.
2 For a detailed discussion of the reception of Aristophanes in modern Greece, see Van Steen, G., Venom in Verse: Aristophanes in Modern Greece (Princeton 2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. prologue and epilogue. For performances see also M. Mavrogeni, ‘O Aριστοφάνης στη νέα ελληνική σκηνή’, Ph.D. thesis, University of Crete, 2006; E. Hall and A. Wrigley (eds), Aristophanes in Performance, 421 BC–AD 2007: Peace, Birds, and Frogs (Oxford 2007); and Diamantakou, K., ‘Η επιβίωση και αναβίωση του Αριστοφάνη με όχημα τον Πλούτο ’, in Vivilakis, I. (ed.), Στέφανος: Τιμητική προσφορά στον Βάλτερ Πούχνερ (Athens 2007) 423–32Google Scholar. For the graphic novels, see Apostolidis, T. and Akokalidis, G., Οι κωμωδίες του Αριστοφάνη σε κόμικς, 11 vols. (Athens 1983–6)Google Scholar; Antoniou, C., Η μεταφορά των κωμωδιών του Αριστοφάνη σε κόμικς (Athens 1989)Google Scholar; E. Kalkani, ‘Αρχαία κωμωδία και παιδικό βιβλίο: οι διασκευές του Αριστοφάνη’, Ph.D. thesis, University of the Aegean, 2004; and Knopp, K., ‘Ο Αριστοφάνης σε κόμικς ως εξαγώγιμο πολιτιστικό προϊόν’, in Markantonatos, Α. and Pappas, Th. (eds), Αττική κωμωδία: πρόσωπα και προσεγγίσεις (Athens 2011) 860–84Google Scholar. For case-studies of Aristophanes’ reception in various countries, see Douglas, S. O. (ed.), Ancient Comedy and Reception. Essays in Honor of Jeffrey Henderson (Berlin and New York 2013)Google Scholar; Walsh, P. (ed.), Brill's Companion to the Reception of Aristophanes (Leiden and Boston 2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For reception in Britain specifically, see Wrigley, A., Performing Greek Drama in Oxford and on Tour with the Balliol Players (Exeter 2011)Google Scholar; P. A. Walsh, ‘Comedy and Conflict: The Modern Reception of Aristophanes’, Ph.D. thesis, Brown University, 2008. For the United States, see S. C. Day, ‘Aristophanes' Plays in the United States: A Production History in the Context of Sociopolitical Revelations’, Ph.D. thesis, Tufts University, 2001. For France see R. Piana, ‘La Réception d'Aristophane en France de Palissot à Vitez 1760-1962’, Ph.D. thesis, University of Paris, 2005.
3 Exceptions are Hadjipantazis, T., Από του Νείλου μέχρι του Δουνάβεως, Β1 (Heracleion 2012) 215–233 Google Scholar; Hadjipantazis, T., Διάγραμμα ιστορίας του νεοελληνικού θεάτρου (Athens 2014) 269–303 Google Scholar; Sideris, G., ‘Θέατρο και Καραγκιόζης: μια πρώτη ματιά στη σχέση τους’, Θέατρο 10 (1963) 35–39 Google Scholar. Karagiozis is also included in Dimaras, K., Ιστορία της νεοελληνικής λογοτεχνίας, 6th edn (Athens 1975) 248–9Google Scholar. ‘The theatrical history of modern Greece has no other similar phenomenon of successful assimilation of a foreign model with such a universal acceptance and such a social functionality. [. . .] The isolation of shadow theatre from the history of modern Greek theatre is methodologically unjustified and historically unfair’: Puchner, W., ‘Η θέση του Καραγκιόζη στην ιστορία του νεοελληνικού θεάτρου’, in Ελληνική θεατρολογία: δώδεκα μελετήματα (Athens 1988) 413 Google Scholar, 416; the translation is my own.
4 Karantzola, E., Kyrdi, K., Spanelli, T. and Tsiagani, T., Γλώσσα Α΄ Δημοτικού: γράμματα, λέξεις, ιστορίες, Ι (Athens [2006]) 46–50;Google Scholar Tsilimeni, T., Grekos, N., Kesaris, L. and Kaplanoglou, M., Aνθολόγιο λογοτεχνικών κειμένων A΄ και B΄ Δημοτικού ‘το δελφίνι’ (Athens [2006]) 132–4Google Scholar.
5 The second part of the play starts with the act ‘O Καραγκιόζης Βασιλιάς’, with all shadow-characters played by actors. In the original performance (1973-4) the actors were instructed by Spatharis for this act.
6 Art Theatre – Karolos Koun, Acharnians, video of live performance (1976), available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGP7ad2a6I4 [accessed 7/7/2017].
7 For a detailed bibliography on Greek shadow theatre, see Puchner, W., ‘Σύντομη αναλυτική βιβλιογραφία του Θεάτρου Σκιών στην Eλλάδα’, Λαογραφία 31 (1976–8) 294–324 Google Scholar, and 32 (1979-81) 370-8. In English, two informative introductions are Myrsiades, L. and Myrsiades, K., Karagiozis: Culture & Comedy in Greek Puppet Theatre (Lexington 1992)Google Scholar; and Gudas, R., The Bitter-Sweet Art: Karaghiozis, the Greek Shadow Theatre (Athens 1986)Google Scholar.
8 Whitman, C., Aristophanes and the Comic Hero (Cambridge, MA 1964) 281–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
9 Kakridis, Ph., ‘Karagiozis und Aristophanes. Gedanken zur Form griechischer Volkskomodien’, Hellenica I (1972) 18–20;Google Scholar Myrsiades, L., ‘Aristophanic comedy and the modern Greek Karagkiozis performance’, Classical and Modern Literature 2 (1987) 99–110 Google Scholar. For similarities, see Nitsos, K., ‘Το θέατρο σκιών και η αρχαία αττική κωμωδία: ο Αριστoφάνης πρόδρομος των κωμωδιών του Καραγκιόζη’, Ρόδα 18 (1969) 8–9;Google Scholar and Andreadis, G., Από τον Αισχύλο στον Μπρεχτ όλος ο κόσμος μια σκηνή (Athens 2008) 387–404 Google Scholar.
10 Reich, H., Der Mimus: ein litterar-entwickelungsgeschichtlicher Versuch (Berlin 1903) 686–93Google Scholar; for an overview of genealogical approaches see Myrsiades, ‘Aristophanic comedy’. As for Caimi, G., Καραγκιόζης ή Η αρχαία κωμωδία στην ψυχή του θεάτρου σκιών (Athens 1990 Google Scholar; the French original, Athens 1935, had the phrase ‘Comédie grecque’ in the title), it never makes any correlation between the two comic genres. See Diamantakou, K., Liontaki, K., and Tzivelekis, N., ‘Αριστοφάνης και Καραγκιόζης: αντανακλάσεις και οσμώσεις στο Θέατρο Τέχνης’, in Morfakidis, M. and Papadopoulou, P. (eds), Ελληνικό θέατρο σκιών - Άυλη πολιτιστική κληρονομιά· Προς τιμήν του Βάλτερ Πούχνερ (Granada 2016) 294–5Google Scholar.
11 For the Karagiozis tradition in Koun's productions see Van Steen, Venom in Verse, 169–78; Kotzamani, M., ‘Karlos Koun, Karaghiozis and the Birds: Aristophanes as popular theatre’, in Robb, D. (ed.), Clowns, Fools and Picaros: Popular Forms in Theatre, Fiction and Film (New York 2007) 179–94;Google Scholar and Diamantakou et al., ‘Αριστοφάνης και Καραγκιόζης’, 293-312.
12 Papageorgiou, I., ‘Ο Οιδίπους Tύραννος του Σοφοκλή στο ελληνικό θέατρο σκιών’, Λογείον 2 (2012) 230–1Google Scholar.
13 See Papageorgiou, ‘Ο Οιδίπους Tύραννος’, 231-6.
14 Hadjipantazis, T., ‘Προσαρμογή λογίων κειμένων στο δραματολόγιο του Καραγκιόζη’, in Όψεις της λαϊκής και της λόγιας νεοελληνικής λογοτεχνίας: 5η επιστημονική Συνάντηση αφιερωμένη στον Γιάννη Αποστολάκη (14–16 Μαΐου 1992) (Thessaloniki 1994) 121;Google Scholar Papageorgiou, ‘Ο Οιδίπους Tύραννος’, 232–3.
15 Michopoulos, P., Πέντε κωμωδίες και δύο ηρωικά (Athens 1972) 9 Google Scholar.
16 For Spatharis’ television performances see Chotzakoglou, A., ‘T.V. Performances (1978-early 1990s) by E. Spatharis: the significance of “public educational television” in the course of the steps from folk to art shadow theatre’, in International Scientific Conference eRA–9, 22–24/9/2014 (Piraeus 2014) 1–8 Google Scholar, especially n. 5 and 13. Unfortunately, the majority of these video tapes have been lost or erased.
17 Soldatos, G. (ed.), Ο Καραγκιόζης των Σπαθάρηδων: κωμωδίες του θεάτρου σκιών και φιγούρες (Athens 1979)Google Scholar.
18 For a good overview of theorists and terminology, see Sanders, J., Adaptation and Appropriation (London 2006) 1–25 Google Scholar, 161–4.
19 Hutcheon, L., A Theory of Adaptation (New York and London 2006) 16.Google Scholar Translation theory has also offered relevant terms, especially Jacobson's ‘intersemiotic translation’ or ‘transmutation’ (an interpretation of verbal signs by means of signs of nonverbal sign systems) and Lefevere's ‘translation as rewriting’ (a text adapting another text in the direction of certain ideology or poetics). ‘Transcoding’ differs from such theories and terms in that it does not require a text as the source or the outcome of the adaptation. Instead, any medium or genre is applicable. On this trait of adaptation studies, see Emig, R., ‘Adaptation in theory’, in Nicklas, P. and Lindner, O. (eds), Adaptation and Cultural Appropriation: Literature, Film, and the Arts (Berlin and Boston 2012) 14–24.Google Scholar In our case, adapting Aristophanes into shadow theatre is not merely a matter of ‘translating’ a script (verbally and culturally), but also ‘translating’ a theatrical practice (from actors to figures, from ὀρχήστρα to μπερντές etc.)
20 Hutcheon, A Theory of Adaptation, 148.
21 Op.cit., 35.
22 The presence of animals in Greek shadow theatre is less common. They appear in Το μαγεμένο δεντρί, where the characters are transformed into half-animals by a daemon, in some versions of Ο γάμος του Καραγκιόζη as part of the dowry – both plays come from the Ottoman repertoire – and in the few plays of the group Ο Καραγκιόζης στη ζούγκλα. Sometimes Karagiozis rides on a donkey, which he calls his car.
23 For linguistic similarities between the two genres see Tresoroukova, I., ‘“Ντόπιος από τον καιρό του Αισώπου” – χαρακτηριστικά στοιχεία της γλώσσας του Αριστοφάνη στις κωμωδίες του Καραγκιόζη’, in Dimadis, K. (ed.), Ο ελληνικός κόσμος ανάμεσα στην εποχή του Διαφωτισμού και στον εικοστό αιώνα (Πρακτικά του Γ΄ Ευρωπαϊκού Συνεδρίου Νεοελληνικών Σπουδών ΕΕΝΣ), III (Athens 2007) 187–94Google Scholar; and Yangoullis, K., ‘Μακροσκελείς λέξεις στον Αριστοφάνη, στον Καραγκιόζη και στους ποιητάρηδες’, Ο Κύκλος 6 (1980) 207–8.Google Scholar
24 Sifakis, G., Η παραδοσιακή δραματουργία του Καραγκιόζη (Athens 1984) 27–52 Google Scholar. ‘In the plays we consider as genuine [= not of Ottoman origin], this structure is more strict’: Petris, G., Ο Καραγκιόζης: δοκίμιο κοινωνιολογικό (Athens 1986) 148;Google Scholar the translation is my own.
25 For the conventions of shadow theatre see Sifakis, Η παραδοσιακή δραματουργία; Petris, Ο Καραγκιόζης, 99–106, 139–61, 180–95; and Kiourtsakis, G., Προφορική παράδοση και ομαδική δημιουργία: το παράδειγμα του Καραγκιόζη, 2nd edn (Athens 1996) 21–4Google Scholar.
26 Even the ‘stock’ name Ξανθίας (Ach, Vesp, Av, Nub, Ran) is not used for all domestic slaves.
27 Aristophanes omits, shortens, extends, duplicates or reorders parts. In shadow theatre, only shortenings and extensions are possible; see Sifakis, Η παραδοσιακή δραματουργία, 46.
28 Dover, K. J., Aristophanic Comedy (Berkeley 1972)Google Scholar still remains the most acclaimed introduction to Aristophanes, with emphasis on fantasy vs politics; also Silk, M. S., Aristophanes and the Definition of Comedy (Oxford 2000)Google Scholar, with emphasis on style. For structure see Zimmermann, B., Untersuchen zur Form und dramatischen Technik der Aristophanischen Komödien, 3 vols. (Königstein 1984–7)Google Scholar; for ritual Bowie, A., Aristophanes: Myth, Ritual and Comedy (Cambridge 1996)Google Scholar; for ideology Konstan, D., Greek Comedy and Ideology (New York 1995)Google Scholar; for freedom of speech Halliwell, S., ‘Comic satire and freedom of speech in Classical Athens’, JHS 111 (1991) 48–70 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; for characters Whitman, Comic Hero, and Silk, M. S., ‘The people of Aristophanes’, in Pelling, C. (ed.), Characterization and Individuality in Greek Literature (Oxford 1990) 150–73;Google Scholar for language Willi, A. (ed.), The Language of Greek Comedy (Oxford 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and López Eire, A., La Lengua Coloquial de la Comedia Aristofánica (Murcia 1996)Google Scholar; for production Pickard-Cambridge, A., Gould, J., and Lewis, D., The Dramatic Festivals of Athens, 2nd edn (Oxford 1988)Google Scholar; and Csapo, E. and Slater, W., The Context of Ancient Drama (Ann Arbor 1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
29 Hutcheon, A Theory of Adaptation, 38.
30 Marianna Koutalou's adaptation of Peace, performed by Spatharis, was a television production by ERT (1986-9) in two twenty-minute episodes. The direction was by Mary Koutsouri and music by Yorgos Papadakis. The documentation for this broadcast is poor. Ε. Spatharis, Peace [video], television recording (198–), available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2I_BIOA_J8 (episode 1) and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyDINMVlqww (episode 2) [accessed 7/7/2017]. Karagiozis and the Frogs was a 1978 radio production, commissioned by the Third Program of ERA, given also as a live performance by Spatharis at the Progressive Cultural Association of Hymettus, along with an adaptation of Iphigenia in Aulis. The Frogs was a musical adaptation, of forty-five minutes’ duration, using script and lyrics byYorgos Pavrianos and music by Dimitris Lekkas. It was a great success: in 1980 it was released on disc by Minos and the show toured in Greece and abroad. In December 2008 it was revived at the Zappeion in Athens for the celebration of the seventieth anniversary of the founding of ERA and was broadcast live on the Second Programme. A film of this revival was released on DVD by Τα Νέα in 2009. On 6 April 2009, in the first Spatharia Festival after Evgenios’ death, a revival of the show was performed in his memory by his relatives and partners. Ε. Spatharis, Frogs, video of live performance (2008), available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhnXFG27v9I [accessed 7/7/2017]. G. Pavrianos (ed.), Το θέατρο σκιών του Ευγένιου Σπαθάρη παρουσιάζει σήμερον: Ο Μέγας Αλέξανδρος και ο κατηραμένος όφις – Ιφιγένεια εν Αυλίδι – Βάτραχοι [booklet and dvd], video of live performances and television recordings, Τα Νέα (2009). D. Lekkas, ‘Χατζηδάκις-Ευριπιδάκης vs Θεοδωράκης-Αισχυλάκης: ένα διήγημα του Δημήτρη Λέκκα’, Lifo, 29 July 2013, available at http://www.lifo.gr/team/prosklitirio_nekron/40274 [accessed 7/7/2017]. Spathario Museum, Spatharia Festival 2009 [programme], available at http://www.karagiozismuseum.gr/festival/PROSKL-FEST09.pdf [accessed 7/7/2017].
31 For βινεῖν alone see Collard, C., ‘ Βινεῖν and Aristophanes, Lysistrata 934’, Liverpool Classical Monthly 4 (1979) 213–14Google Scholar; Sommerstein, A., ‘ βινεῖν ’, Liverpool Classical Monthly 5 (1980) 47;Google Scholar Baldwin, B., ‘The use of βινεῖν κινεῖν ’, American Journal of Philology 102 (1981) 79–80 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jocelyn, H. D., ‘Attic βινεῖν and English f. . .’, Liverpool Classical Monthly 5 (1980) 65–7;Google Scholar Bain, D., ‘Six Greek verbs of sexual congress (βινῶ, κινῶ, πυγίζω, ληκῶ, οἴϕω, λαικάζω)’, Classical Quarterly ns 41 (1991) 51–77 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
32 Rosen, R., Old Comedy and the Iambographic Tradition (Atlanta 1988)Google Scholar.
33 Robson, J., Humour, Obscenity and Aristophanes (Tübingen 2006)Google Scholar.
34 Halliwell, S., Greek Laughter: A Study of Cultural Psychology from Homer to Early Christianity (Cambridge 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
35 Sommerstein, A., Talking About Laughter and Other Studies in Greek Comedy (Oxford 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
36 Myrsiades and Myrsiades, Karagiozis, 54-5.
37 Puchner maintains that this ‘deformation’ of the traditional audience inevitably aligned shadow theatre with other theatrical genres, and inserted ancient drama into Karagiozis, resulting in the decay of its authentic folk character: Puchner, W., ‘Το παραδοσιακό κοινό του θεάτρου σκιών στην Ελλάδα’, in Ευρωπαϊκή θεατρολογία: ένδεκα μελετήματα (Athens 1984) 272 Google Scholar; Puchner, W., Θεωρία του λαϊκού θεάτρου: Κριτικές παρατηρήσεις στο γενετικό κώδικα της θεατρικής συμπεριφοράς του ανθρώπου’ [Λαογραφία, annexe 9] (Athens 1985) 18.Google Scholar
38 Bakhtin, M., Rabelais and his World (Cambridge, MA 1968;Google Scholar Russian original Moscow 1965). Kiourtsakis, G., Καρναβάλι και Καραγκιόζης: οι ρίζες και οι μεταμορφώσεις του λαϊκού γέλιου, 2nd edn (Athens 1985) 191–9,Google Scholar 203–8, 341–9. For a historical account of the process in late nineteenth – early twentieth century, see Hadjipantazis, T., Η εισβολή του Καραγκιόζη στην Αθήνα του 1890 (Athens 1984)Google Scholar.
39 The language that Barba-Yorgos speaks is based on a comic perception of the Vlach language rather than on the Vlach language itself (i.e. Aromanian). In Markos Xanthos’ Ο γάμος του Μπαρμπαγιώργου, Barba-Yorgos says to Karagiozis: ‘Να, στο τσουπί πάω να κάνω ψίχα γουρτζουλαβίδα, μαθές.’ The editor notes that γουρτζουλαβίδα is an alteration of εργολαβία [contracting work] and, here, a metaphor for sex. Indeed, the young bride does not understand the word and Barba-Yorgos brags: ‘Τήρα, τήρα ρε, που θα την μάθω γω!’ His response can be understood both as ‘I will teach her. . . Vlach’ and ‘I will teach her. . . sex’. G. Ioannou (ed.), O Καραγκιόζης, 2 vols (Athens 1971) I, 21. Note that τσουπί, for instance, is from Albanian rather than Vlach.
40 From the same script (Ι, 6; 18): ‘Βρε χαμάλη, είναι μούτρα αυτά για έρωτα; Δεν κοιτάς που είσαι σαν ουρακοτάγκος;’ (Fatme to Karagiozis). ‘Nα σου πάρει ο διάολος τον πατέλα’ (Kollitiris to his father) and ‘Να σου τον πάρει, αρχιλωποδύταρε, ανάθεμα το γονιό σου’ (Karagiozis’ reply).
41 When Karagiozis is scared, he says that he has soiled himself and needs clean pants: a formulaic joke. It is notable, though, that the word ‘shit’ is avoided. Cf. Markos Xanthos’ Η μεταμόρφωσις του Καραγκιόζη (Ioannou, O Καραγκιόζης, II, 73).
42 Henderson, J., The Maculate Muse: Obscene Language in Attic Comedy (London 1975) 62 Google Scholar, 91.
43 Op.cit., 91.
44 Op.cit., 63.
45 Op.cit., 63–4.
46 All ancient Greek passages are from Wilson, N. G. (ed.), Aristophanis Fabulae, I (Oxford 2007)Google Scholar. The transcriptions of the shadow performances are my own.
47 Hadjipantazis, ‘Προσαρμογή λογίων κειμένων’, 124; the translation is my own.
48 Op.cit.
49 Cornford, F., The Origin of Attic Comedy (London 1914) 152–3Google Scholar.
50 Silk, ‘The people of Aristophanes’, 163 f. On the debate, also see Whitman, Comic Hero, 281-7; McLeish, K., The Theatre of Aristophanes (London 1980)Google Scholar 53ff; Baldwin, R., An Aristotelian Critique of Homeric Comic Technique in the Iliad (Florida 1997) 120–237.Google Scholar
51 The central idea of this adaptation is the replacement of the tragedians’ agon by an agon between the living composers Theodorakis and Hadjidakis.
52 I use this term as opposed to these of transposition and commentary; Cartmell, I. and Whelehan, D., Adaptations: from Text to Screen, Screen to Text (London 1999) 24 Google Scholar. In analogue, ‘while it may enrich and deepen our understanding of the new cultural product to be aware of its shaping intertext, it may not be entirely necessary to enjoy the work independently’ (Sanders, Adaptation and Appropriation, 22).
53 I disagree with Van Steen (Venom in Verse, 253) that ‘the diminutive suffix –akis added to the classical playwrights’ names both alluded to and belittled the modern artists as being inferior to their ancient counterparts’. The value of these composers was never in doubt, in the public consciousness at least. They are for modern Greek music as eminent as are Aeschylus and Euripides for ancient tragedy. And if this show ‘made fun’ of them, it is characteristic of comedy to honour public figures by parody – just as Aristophanes honoured the tragedians by ‘dedicating’ his work to them. Also note that the composers’ shadow-puppets are oversized, which in shadow-theatre terms is an indication of authority, and that Hadjidakis was the director of ERA's Third Programme at that time. In Greek, the suffix –akis may just imply affection.
54 For the wordplay in the original contest, see Konstantakos, Ι., ‘Η αβάσταχτη ελαφρότητα των στίχων: παιχνίδια γρίφων στον ποιητικό αγώνα των Βατράχων του Αριστοφάνη’, in Tsitsiridis, S. (ed.), Παραχορήγημα: μελετήματα για το αρχαίο θέατρο προς τιμήν του καθηγητή Γρηγόρη Μ. Σηφάκη (Heracleion 2010) 317–41.Google Scholar
55 Lada-Richards, I., Initiating Dionysus: Ritual and Theatre in Aristophanes' Frogs (Oxford 1999)Google Scholar. Also Riu, X., Dionysism and Comedy (Lanham 1999)Google Scholar.
56 See Rosen, R., ‘The Greek “comic hero”’, in Revermann, M. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Greek Comedy (Cambridge 2014) 222–40Google Scholar.
57 Whitman, Comic Hero, 281-7.
58 In the case of tragedy, there seems to be more flexibility in Karagiozis’ integration in the plot; see Papageorgiou, ‘Ο Οιδίπους Tύραννος’, 241-3 on three adaptations of OT. In Pavrianos’ adaptation of Odyssey, performed by Spatharis (ERT 1981), Karagiozis and Odysseus manage to equally maintain a leading role, because the latter doesn't claim the comic status of the former. In Giokas’ comics-adaptation of the Odyssey (1999), the two heroes maintain their leading role, both having a humorous profile. This is enabled by the narrative structure of comics, which brings one or the other character to the fore each time (in each panel), whereas in shadow theatre the μπερντές is shared by everyone. Ε. Spatharis, Homer's Odyssey [video], television recording (1981–2), available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3HtX7fdGyU [accessed 7/7/2017]. Giokas, P., Η Οδύσσεια του Οδυσσέα σε κόμικς με σύντροφο τον Καραγκιόζη, 4 vols. (Athens 1999)Google Scholar.
59 From the repertoire of the famous marionettist Christos Konitsiatis in the 1890s, Δον Ηλίας Κολοκύθας was introduced into shadow theatre by Mimaros. Hadjipantazis, Η εισβολή του Καραγκιόζη, 50; Caimi, Καραγκιόζης ή Η αρχαία κωμωδία, 131.
60 Ιntroduced by Mimaros with the title Ιατρός άνευ επιστήμης (first attested performance on 16 July 1902). See Stavrakopoulou, A., ‘Μολιέρος και Καραγκιόζης: o Γιατρός με το Στανιό και η τύχη του στο ελληνικό θέατρο σκιών’, in Georgakaki, K. (ed.), Σχέσεις του νεοελληνικού θεάτρου με το ευρωπαϊκό: πρακτικά του Β΄ Πανελλήνιου Θεατρολογικού Συνεδρίου (Αθήνα 2004) 281–9Google Scholar.
61 See G. Kehagioglou, ‘Nεοελληνικά λογοτεχνικά λαϊκά βιβλία και μεταμορφώσεις τους: το Mυθολογικόν Συντίπα και O Kαραγκιόζης πλοίαρχος του M. Ξάνθου’, Επιστημονική Επετηρίς της Φιλοσοφικής Σχολής Α.Π.Θ. – Περίοδος Β΄, Tεύχος Tμήματος Φιλολογίας 5 (1995) 153-63.
62 Its introduction is also attributed to Mimaros: Caimi, Καραγκιόζης ή Η αρχαία κωμωδία, 130; Spatharis, S., Αυτοβιογραφία και η τέχνη του Καραγκιόζη, 4th edn (Athens 1992) 222 Google Scholar; I. Papageorgiou, ‘Διαβόλου κατορθώματα στο ελληνικό θέατρο σκιών’, in Morfakidis and Papadopoulou, Ελληνικό θέατρο σκιών, 60. A 1899 performance by Roulias is attested: Hadjipantazis, Η εισβολή του Καραγκιόζη, 73.
63 Hadjipantazis, ‘Προσαρμογή λογίων κειμένων’, 124-6. ‘The role of Karaghiozis himself in the non-comedic performances was not always significant’, Papageorgiou, I., ‘Traditional Oral theatre meets popular middle-class melodrama: the Greek shadow-theatre puppeteer Vasilaros’, Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 39.1 (2015) 118 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
64 The puppeteer Tasos Konstas, for instance, merges Karagiozis with Trygaeus: Φιγούρες και κούκλες, September 2010, 2 [newsletter], available at http://fkt.gr/EFIMERIDA-01.pdf [accessed 7/7/2017].
65 Whitman, Comic Hero, 233.
66 This structure, described by Papageorgiou, is an expansion of the functions which apply to the long-established comedies, as set by Sifakis, Η παραδοσιακή δραματουργία. Papageorgiou, I., ‘Η διαδικασία δημιουργίας των ταξιδιωτικών περιπετειών του Kαραγκιόζη’, Καθέδρα 2, Κρατικό Πανεπιστήμιο Λομονόσοφ της Μόσχας, Φιλολογική Σχολή, Τμήμα Βυζαντινής και Νεοελληνικής Φιλολογίας, Εταιρία Νεοελληνικών Σπουδών (Moscow 2016) 153–63Google Scholar.
67 Emig, ‘Adaptation in theory’, 16.