Greek Shadow Theatre

INTRODUCTION Patras is considered to be, indeed is, the cradle of modern Greek Shadow Theatre. It is the city where the art of the modern Greek Karagiozis was born, evolved and flourished, a course which certainly had broader roots spreading across the wider region. Shadow Theatre, in particular, started out in western Greece, moving from Epirus (centred around Ioannina) and downwards from there to the region of southwestern Peloponnese. In other words, it developed in a geographical line running through Epirus, Acarnania and Aetolia up to Achaia, Ilia and Messenia. The specific geographical area, mainly lowlands, allowed easy travelling for itinerant puppet masters, who, according to the available sources, started out from Ioannina, were active in Aetoloakarnania and arrived in Patras, the centre of western Greece.

The city of Patras, with its port and commercial traffic, was the ideal place for spreading the art of Karagiozis across the western Peloponnese, through the fertile plain of Ilia, as far as Kalamata. Considering the geography of the area, it is easy to appreciate how easily this type of entertainment could spread southwards and establish itself across the entire lowland line of western Greece. The mountain range of Pindos was the main geographical barrier, impeding the passage of artists to eastern Greece. However, in time, Athens as the capital, would eventually embrace Shadow Theatre and indeed this came about via the centre of western Greece, namely Patras.

While Constantinople was, during Ottoman rule, the centre of the Ottoman Shadow Theatre (and, after 1923, of the Turkish too), Athens, as the capital of the Kingdom of Greece, from 1830 onwards, on the edge of the Balkans became home to the modern Greek Karagiozis only at the beginning of the 20th century, mainly thanks to the intense personality of Antonis Mollas. Patras, however, had not lost its reign.

The demise of the Shadow Theatre of Patras and western Greece came much later on, sometime in the 1980s, due to the predominance of TV as entertainment and for specific artistic reasons, which however will not be discussed in this study.

In other words, despite the influence of Athens and the inevitable, geographical spread of Shadow Theatre to the northern part of eastern Greece through Thessaly to the city of Thessaloniki, Patras and western Greece remained the centre of Karagiozis art nationally up to the post-Junta period. This historic evolution of the Shadow Theatre Art throughout western Greece and focusing particularly on the hub of Patras is the subject of this study, starting with the geographical origin of the natural course of a route from Epirus and Ali Pasha’s Ioannina to reach, through Aetoloakarnania, Patras and Kalamata from the late 19th century to 1940.

1. The Shadow Theatre aesthetics The identification of the modern Greek Shadow Theatre with “Karagiozis” is not global, as it does not apply to other Shadow Theatres of the world, such as those that flourished in Southeast Asia (China, Java, India) or those found in the West.

Therefore, the modern Greek Karagiozis is a “unique” division in the International Shadow Theatre.

In this sense, a more specific conceptual and philosophical definition of Karagiozis art uses the fundamental characteristics of modern Greek Shadow Theatre 1

as a reference point, which arise through the operation and aesthetics of the Shadow Theatre Art (as an integrated and indivisible whole).

To therefore approach the concept and philosophy of Shadow Theatre, we must consider the following: - The key reference point to Shadow Theatre is the shadow, generated by light on the taut surface of flat fabric.

- The creation of shadows is also caused by the two-dimensional puppets, moving on the flat fabric and materialising due to the light.

- The movement of the puppet transforms into drama through the life-giving narration of the puppeteer.

2. The origin of Shadow Theatre The history of Shadow Theatre goes back centuries. It is an art that essentially appeared as soon as men realised the significance of the alternation of light and darkness, as the primary cause for the creation of shadow and subsequently for the appearance of theatrical drama.

Shadow Theatre flourished mainly in South East Asia and the Eastern Mediterranean. The East is a vast geographical area, where the existential and philosophical perceptions of its introvert people are considered completely different from Western worldviews and lifestyles.

Across the vast and deeply mysterious continent of Asia, from the eastern Mediterranean to the Pacific coast, much of the research distinguishes the Far East region exclusively as the cradle of Shadow Theatre. In particular, many researchers hold that the birthplace of Shadow Theatre is Southeast Asia, in the triangle that connects China with India and Indonesia.

A common component of these views is that the wider area of the East is generally characterised by intense mysticism and the constant search for the transcendental. This form of religiosity can be expressed in Shadow Theatre, using the two-dimensional shadow, far removed from the westernised realistic approaches of perspective and the three dimensions.

However, the Chinese origin scenario for Shadow Theatre seems to be the most convincing one in current research, mainly due to the oldest existing written evidence, which mentions the existence of the Chinese Shadow Theatre as far back as the eleventh century AD. This evidence coincides with the Sung Dynasty. In any case, the origins of Shadow Theatre in China have been lost to the mists of time and are reflected in a series of beliefs and legends.

In our opinion, however, the East, overall, has always been distinguished for the search for the transcendental. In this sense, Greek culture, as a vital part of the eastern Mediterranean, had always been interwoven with the wider mysticism of the East. This close relationship is also due to the strategic position of Greece, which stands on the geographical “crossroads” of East and West.

This specific position, ensuring the inextricable link between Hellenism and Eastern spirituality, led science and art to new hypotheses concerning the possible origin of Shadow Theatre from the equally “mystical” area of the eastern 2

Mediterranean. Indeed, in the last century, there was significant concern among researchers examining the exact relation of Shadow Theatre and ancient Greek civilization. In fact, as an extension to this hypothesis, it was also examined whether Ottoman Turks found the art of Shadow Theatre in the Byzantine Empire and adopted it. This view is indeed possible, considering the proven existence of Shadow Theatre in Egypt in the first decades of the 16th century, from where the Ottomans brought it to Constantinople and established it as the dominant spectacle of the Ottoman Empire.

As regards the initial hypothesis, on whether Shadow Theatre existed in the Mediterranean in ancient times, there were many views stressing the possible relationship of Shadow Theatre with the Homeric epics, the Eleusinian mysteries, the black figure-and red figure pottery and above all, with Plato’s Allegory of the Cave.

Such views have been expressed as early as the interwar period by foreign scholars such as Louis Roussel, but without well-supported argumentation.

At the same time however, History as a science requires written sources rather than mere indications, to accept the Greek civilisation as a generator of Shadow Theatre. As long as the relevant proof is not published, the prevailing view will remain that China, as it holds the oldest known written evidence dating from the 11th century, is the birthplace of Shadow Theatre.

It is our opinion, however, that Shadow Theatre aesthetics, as mentioned, closely resemble the aesthetics abundant in ancient Greek culture. However, this affinity is merely an important indicator, not actual proof, of the origins of Shadow Theatre. It is therefore certain that to confirm the above origin, clear evidence of historical research is imperative.

3. The origin and Greek identity of Karagiozis It has been a few years since that warm day in July 2010, when UNESCO inscribed Karagiozis (though not Shadow Theatre as a whole) as the intangible cultural heritage of Turkey. Several years after this decision, which brought the barefoot hero back into the spotlight, we believe that it is high time for a more composed assessment of the matter, through direct reference to clear historical facts, without extreme exaggerations favouring either side.

The age-old and renowned art of modern Greek Shadow Theatre has Karagiozis as its protagonist, whose origin has given rise to various hypotheses. The best-known scenario is based on ancient oral traditions and suggests that Karagiozis was a real person, who used to work, possibly as a builder, in Bursa, Asia Minor.

Indeed, there is tomb in this city where the Turks contend this particular hero is buried. Other, better documented scientific theories, however report that Karagiozis was not a real person but a character born of mime, i.e. the comedians of mimic theatre of the Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine times. This theory was formulated initially in the early 20th century by German scholar Hermann Reich and was adopted by many other scholars.

The definite conclusion from these theories is that Karagiozis was indeed born and bred by the people of the multiethnic Byzantine, and later, Ottoman empire, first in the form of comic mime, and then in the form of Ottoman KaragĂśz. In other words, 3

the ancestors of Greek Karagiozis are his Ottoman counterpart and more distantly, the ugly, hunchbacks and barefoot mime artists, i.e. the comedians of mimic theatre. The creation of national states in the Balkans led to the “nationalisation” of Karagöz, firstly with the appearance of Greek Karagiozis upon the establishment of the modern Greek state, in 1830 and secondly, with the appearance of Turkish Karagöz (upon the establishment of Kemal’s Turkish state, much later, in 1923).

This nationalisation however cannot under any circumstances compromise the universality of Karagiozis, as a creation of the peoples of the Byzantine empire and (after 1453) of the peoples of the Ottoman Empire. To comprehend the aforementioned universality of Karagiozis we should first understand the fundamental difference between the concept of the nation state and the concept of the empire, an understanding that is often not a given and may frequently lead to conceptual confusion. In particular, the empire, as structure and form, has nothing to do with today's nation states. It is a multi-ethnic grouping, where different peoples coexist regardless of which people have military dominance. In this sense, the Byzantine and the Ottoman Empire, for example, can in no way be identified with Greece and Turkey respectively, or any other nation state. These are empires belonging to all their peoples, from whom the common cultural and theatrical heritage of the mimes and the Ottoman Karagöz arose.

However, apart from their common protagonist, the creation of the modern Greek Shadow Theatre is, in its turn, also a continuation of the Ottoman Shadow Theatre performances, which is evident in the structure of certain plays and particularly comedies, based on the static parade of scrim characters e.g. the comedy “Karagiozis the Scholar”. However, the modern Greek scrim was not limited to comedies of this type, but took a step further, with new comedies of a more flexible and edited theatrical structure, such as “Karagiozis the doctor, by force”, which is clearly influenced by Moliere’s comedies.

Moreover, the modern Greek Shadow Theatre was even further diversified compared to its Ottoman counterpart, as it was heavily influenced by the epic tradition of Epirus. This influence led to a different repertoire, more complex and more dramatic, largely with heroic plays though also the folkloric, including, “Captain Gris”, “Christian fighter”, “Katsantonis”, “Diakos”, “Captain Chronis” or “Alexander the Great and the cursed serpent”.

Furthermore, modern Greek Karagiozis managed to diversify also in terms of its audience, as it became a purely popular and family show, which led to technical innovation due to the increase of viewers (e.g., enlargement of the scrim’s dimensions, automatic change of the settings on the scrim, the invention of the handle-fitting for the automatic rotation of the puppet, etc.). The diversifications were also extended to the creation of new characters like Pasha, Dervenagas, Tachir, fighters of the 1821 Greek War of Independence, Alexander the Great, and settings (cottage-sarayi), which are only found in modern Greek Karagiozis and were never presented on the Ottoman and Turkish scrim. However, the most important diversification concerns the very appearance of modern Greek Karagiozis compared to the Ottoman-Turkish Karagöz.

4

The Ottoman Karagรถz and his Turkish counterpart, as a replica of the former, appear wearing hat, shoes and fancy clothes, not representing the fringes of society but rather somewhere within the middle class. Given the aforementioned absence of the Pasha character and the Sarayi in the Ottoman and Turkish performances, it is clear that there is no social dimension to the performances of the Ottoman-Turkish Shadow Theatre, which justifies the attire of Karagรถz. On the contrary, modern Greek Karagiozis is barefoot, bareheaded and his clothes are covered with patches. These characteristics provide a strong social dimension to Karagiozis, in terms of his social origin among the lower classes, confirmed by the ramshackle hut (cottage, after 1922), juxtaposed to the luxurious seraglio of the Pasha. This development should clearly be credited to the Epirus tradition of Shadow Theatre, which evolved in different and purely Greek patterns compared to those of the Ottoman tradition. At the same time, the Turkish (national) Shadow Theatre remains, even today, an almost identical copy of its predecessor, the Ottoman Shadow Theatre, without any significant and substantial diversification or evolution, as was the case with modern Greek Karagiozis.

However, the differences between Karagiozis and Karagรถz and specifically the characteristics of their national identity do not in any way detract from their proven universality and the common Byzantine and Ottoman cultural origin of both the Greek and the Turkish Karagiozis, as key features of communication, entertainment, art and unity of the Eastern Mediterranean peoples.

4. The Ottoman Shadow Theatre From the first half of the 16th century onwards, Shadow Theatre became the dominant form of show in Istanbul and gradually spread across the entire Ottoman Empire. The acceptance of the Theatre was mainly due to the particularly philosophical structure of Shadow Theatre and the special relationship that Islam had developed with this form of art. Islam is deeply sceptical towards arts such as sculpture and theatre, i.e. arts concerning human appearances and the personal element.

For this reason, it was easier for the Islamic religious leadership to accept a spectacle, the performers of which were not humans, but shadow puppets. Therefore, from the theatrical heritage of the Byzantine Empire, the Ottomans adopted Shadow Theatre, which did not contradict the Koran.

In the multi-ethnic Ottoman Empire, which was the continuation of the Byzantine Empire, four Milliyets (nationalities) were officially recognised: the religiously dominant milliyet of the Turks, the Armenians, the Jews and the Roman milliyet, in which the Greeks predominated. Under the above organizational structure, it is futile to look for similarities between the operation of a multi-ethnic empire and the operation of a national state (like the national states of Europe). Therefore, Shadow Theatre during the Turkish rule was indeed named Ottoman (because the Ottoman Turks militarily dominated the empire), but it was not a Turkish national theatre, in the same sense that it was not a purely Greek Theatre.

5

Ultimately, Shadow Theatre had a multi-ethnic character and was arranged and undertaken by the Greeks, the Turks, the Armenians, the Jews etc.. In other words, it was organised and performed by the subjects of the Ottoman Empire, regardless of nationality or religion. Therefore, in this sense, the Ottoman Shadow Theatre could in no way be characterised as a national theatre in general.

The structural description of the Ottoman Shadow Theatre performances is particularly important, as it was these performances that influenced the comedies of modern Greek Karagiozis. The main repertoire of the Ottoman Shadow Theatre is represented by the theatrical genre of comedy, with the Ottoman Karagöz as protagonist. The Karagöz comedy consists of the following structural parts: a) Introduction or Preface: The poetic preface is the only non-comic part of the performance and is characterised by its strong philosophical content. It pays homage to the enduring relationship between God and human life, through the symbolism of the ephemeral shadows on the scrim. b) Dialogue: The comic dialogue held between Karagöz and his friend, Hacivat, puts an end to the sober atmosphere of the preface. It is a comic climax of senseless verbal misunderstanding, which, however, is not accompanied by any substantive action. c) Plot: In the plot, which is the main part of the play, Karagöz and Hacivat are accompanied by other characters of the Ottoman scrim. These characters form a set which reflects the microcosm and the “neighbourhood” of the empire. d) Closure: This is the closing of the play with yet another dialogue between Karagöz and Hacivat. During this epilogue, among other things, the play for the following day would be announced.

The main characteristics of these comedies are: 1) comic ingenuities, usually expressed through the linguistic absurdity of verbal misunderstanding, 2) the endless slaps exchanged among the characters and 3) the rude and profane content of dialogues and of the overall atmosphere in the course of the play’s plot.

The protagonist of the Ottoman Shadow Theatre is the ugly, hunchback Karagöz, with a long arm and shaved head. The description holds similarities with Karagiozis of the modern Greek Shadow Theatre, with the difference, however, that his Ottoman counterpart belongs, as mentioned before, in the middle-class bourgeoisie. This status is confirmed by the fancy clothes, hat and especially by the shoes that Karagöz wears, unlike the always barefoot and ragged Karagiozis.

5. The Epirus Shadow Theatre The history of modern Greek Shadow Theatre begins with the establishment of the modern Greek state in 1830. During the Turkish occupation, throughout the Ottoman Empire, mainly comic Ottoman Shadow Theatre was performed, which is one of the two parts of the prehistory of modern Greek Karagiozis. The prehistory of this artform, on the Greek mainland centres on Tripoli in 1799 and Ioannina in 1809, confirming the beliefs of K. Dimaras that “Karagiozis was known in Greece before the War of Independence”. Pouqueville’s reference to shadow puppet players in the 6

seraglio of Tripoli is indeed significant, but lacks the substantial descriptive content provided by Hobhouse, ten years later, of a Karagiozis performance in Ioannina.

“An evening or two before our departure from Ioannina, we went to see the only advance which the Turks have made towards scenic representations. This was a puppet show, conducted by a Jew who visits this place during the Ramadan, with his card performers. The show, a sort of ombre-chinoise, was set up in one corner of a very dirty coffee-house, which was full of spectators, mostly young boys. The admittance was two paras for a cup of coffee and two or three more of those small coins put onto a plate handed round after the performance. The hero of the piece was a kind of Punch, called Cara-keus, who had, as a traveller has well expressed it, the equipage of the God of Gardens supported by a string around his neck. The next indignity was a droll, called Codja-Haivat, the Sancho of Cara-keus: A man and a woman were the remaining figures, except that the catastrophe of the drama was brought about apprpriately by the appearance of the Devil himself. The dialogue, which was all in Turkish, and accompanied by the accented tones of the Jew, I did not understand: It caused loud and frequent bursts of laughter from the audience; Yet the action, which was perfectly intelligible, was too horribly gross to describe. Those who have seen Morris-dancing in some counties of England may have a faint idea of it. If the character of a nation, as has been said, can be well appreciated by a view of the amusements in which they delight, this puppet-show would place the Turks very low in the estimation of the observer. They have none, we are informed, of a more decent kind”.

Based on the above description, we can draw the following conclusions: a) Ioannina was one of the great cities of the Balkans at the time, where Shadow Theatre performances were given, something very reasonable for that time (early 19th century), when Ioannina was a major cultural and commercial centre. b) The specific performance was given in Turkish by a Jewish puppeteer. However, it is certain that Greek language too was used by non-Christian residents of Ioannina at that time, while it is also certain that Shadow Theatre during the Turkish rule was also played in Greek by citizens across the empire, regardless of nationality or religion.

Therefore, based on the above conclusions, we can interpret some reports of puppeteers and scholars, according to which, at the time of Ali Pasha in Epirus, particularly Ioannina, puppeteer Iakovos was artistically active. Citing oral traditions of older puppeteers, Julio Caimi referred to the Jewish puppeteer Jacob, who lived in Ioannina at the time of Ali Pasha and was later exiled to Constantinople. Puppeteer Dimitris Mollas, on the other hand, also invoking reports of older puppeteers, refers to the Greek puppeteer Iakovos, who was the teacher of puppeteer Ilias. Hobhouse’s account, combined with the traditions preserved by Caimis and Mollas confirm the theory of Kostas Biris (which some researchers including Grigoris Sifakis denied) on heroic Epirus Shadow Theatre, which flourished in the city of Ioannina, in the 19th century, with Iakovos being its pioneer.

The Epirus Shadow Theatre spread across free Greece in the late 19th century, especially after the annexation of southern Epirus and Thessaly to the Greek State in the year 1881. The main communicators of the Epirus Shadow Theatre were the 7

apprentices of puppeteer Ilias, for example, Yiannis Roulias, Memos Christodoulou, Thomas Arseniou, Charilaos Bassiakos Vasilis Tsilias and Liakos Prevezanos.

The traditional performances of Epirus mainly had heroic content, which is confirmed by the relevant report of puppeteer Panagiotis Michopoulos: “During my tours in Greece, wherever I went before the war, I used to chat with the elderly who spoke of years gone by. Some of them informed me that their grandparents had watched Karagiozis during the years of slavery. (...) In Paramythia, in 1933 a ninetyyear old man in good health, told me: “You’re not a bad puppeteer yourself, but you are not what the old puppeteers used to be, who performed the tortures of Christians by the tyrant Ali Pasha with only five koutsounia (puppets)”.

The epic tradition of the Karagiozis of Epirus created the puppets of Pasha and Veligekas, the seraglio and the play of Alexander the Great and the damned serpent.

The above heroic tradition of Epirus, along with the art of the comic Ottoman Shadow Theatre were used, after 1890, by the Patras puppeteer, Mimaros. The combination of these two artistic trends eventually led to the emergence of modern Greek Karagiozis and the creation of heroic plays (“Captain Gris”, “Christian Fighter”, “Katsantonis” etc.).

6. Mimaros, his associates and his apprentices In 1881, the regions of Thessaly and Southern Epirus were incorporated to the Greek State, through diplomacy and military conflict. This unification played a particularly important role in the subsequent history of modern Greek Karagiozis.

During the 19th century the so-called “Epirus School” of Shadow Theatre had already developed and its representatives were artistically active throughout the region. With the extension of the borders in 1881, the puppeteers of Epirus could move more easily within free Greece, presenting Epirus Shadow Theatre plays.

At the same time, the existing aversion of intellectuals to popular culture and the Byzantine tradition in general became somewhat mitigated. In this context, the main representatives of this generation (Zampelios, Politis, Paparrigopoulos etc.) then had a positive approach to folk tradition coming from the Ottoman and Byzantine Empires.

These changes proved beneficial, among other things, for the eastern folk art of Shadow Theatre. In this way, the modern Greek Karagiozis was significantly diversified from the obscene Karagöz and became inspired (thanks to the Epirus School) from myths, legends, traditions and particularly modern Greek history.

Moreover, the heroic themes of Karagiozis were in line with the then flourishing patriotic atmosphere of the “Great Idea”.

These changes, however, did not come overnight. On the contrary, they were developed through continuous nurturing and materialised, slowly but steadily, in the late 19th and early 20th century. During this period, the modern Greek Karagiozis has an increasingly strong presence in the cultural realm, through an inspired and creative assimilation of the existing artistic legacy of Epirus and Ottoman Shadow Theatre.

The main agent of the above assimilation task (as well as of many more inspired 8

innovations) is considered to be puppeteer Dimitris Sardounis or Mimaros from Patras.

Mimaros is considered the founder of modern Greek Shadow Theatre.

However, his biographical information is rather vague and not entirely clear.

According to the latest research, he was born in 1860, in Kalamata. He grew up in Messolonghi and was artistically active mainly in Patras. He was particularly educated for his time, as he was a High School graduate, while he was also a cantor at the then Cathedral of Patras. According to prevailing information, at a young age he travelled to Constantinople, where he learned the secrets of Ottoman Shadow Theatre from Yiannis Vrahalis.

However, from an early age, Dimitris Sardounis had also watched the work of puppeteers from Aetoloakarnania (mainly Liakos Prevezanos) who initiated him in the tradition of Epirus Shadow Theatre. Thanks to his above apprenticeship and his artistic flair and education, Mimaros managed to create his own special mix of Epirus and Ottoman Shadow Theatre, combining the best qualities of both traditions and rejecting the crassness of Karagöz. Out of this mix, modern Greek Karagiozis emerged.

With the dawn of the last decade of the 19th century and during the 1890s, Mimaros developed these significant reforms in the city of Patras. In 1891, written sources refer to a puppeteer’s shack in the Psilalonia area of Patras, without however mentioning the name of Mimaros or another puppeteer. Mimaros is named as a puppeteer for the first time in 1894, when he performed with great success at Psilalonia. At the same time, he also seems, according to publications of the time, to have been performing in Ilia and Kalamata, gaining acclaim and proving his artistic prevalence across western Greece.

Dimitris Sardounis is best known as “Mimaros”, either because of his mimetic skills, or, most likely, because “Mimis” is an abbreviation of his name, which was then converted to the superlative “Mimaros”, as this was common practice in the Peloponnese (e.g., Vasilaros, Yiannaros, Antonaros, Costaros etc.).

But beyond all that, Mimaros was the mind behind inspired innovations in the art of Karagiozis, such as the introduction of the puppets of Pasha and Veligekas from the Epirus tradition onto the scrim, the introduction of heroic plays (with the most typical being the heroic play “Captain Gris”), the creation of new characters, like Nionios of Zakynthos and Kollitiris replacing older relevant characters of the Ottoman Shadow Theatre, though mainly the moralisation of the show and the removal of the obscene and indecent characteristics of the Ottoman Karagöz.

Moreover, Mimaros’ fruitful collaboration with Roulias, led the latter to finalize and introduce the character of simple, hillbilly, shepherd Barbagiorgos. Meanwhile, Mimaros worked closely with several of his contemporary puppeteers, like Kontos and extensively, with Pangalos and Agapitos.

Pangalos hailed from Zakynthos. He was artistically active mainly in Patras and the rest of the Peloponnese, performing the rude comedies of the Ottoman Shadow Theatre. He stayed loyal to the Ottoman tradition and resisted the groundbreaking 9

reforms of Mimaros. Pangalos was also famous for his hilarious jokes and the pranks he played upon others, and others on him.

One of the many hilarious stories about Pangalos is narrated by Giorgos Tzamoulias: “I know a story about Pangalos, with Giorgos Karvounopoulos, who played the guitar and came from Asia Minor. At that time, old puppeteers hired musicians to accompany the performances. At some time, these two had fallen out and were not on speaking terms. Then, one day, Pangalos was eating in a tavern. Those were hard times. Then, in comes Karvounopoulos and sees Pangalos eating. He thinks to himself that Pangalos must be well off to be able to sit there and eat. He must have earned big bucks somewhere, to afford to dine in that tavern.

Karvounopoulos starts chatting with the tavern keeper and tells him about Pangalos: “He is the best puppeteer. There’s no other like him in Greece”. Pangalos hears this and immediately says in his characteristic voice: “Give him to something to eat, man.

Can’t you see he is hungry? Treat him”! Karvounopoulos ate, drank and upon leaving, in front of Pangalos says to the tavern keeper: “You know, he’s the worse amateur there is!” Immediately, he runs off! He used to play guitar for Pangalos, but at that point, they had fallen out”.

Vasilis Agapitos or Zestos came from (according to the prevailing story) Niochori of Aetoloakarnania. His contribution to the hellenisation of Ottoman Karagiozis is deemed as very important, because of his apprenticeship mainly with Mimaros but also with puppeteers of the Epirus School (Vasilis Tsilias and Liakos Prevezanos). “Agapitos” (i.e. Dearest) was his nickname, which he adopted as his surname, reflecting, however, his popular, “dearest” character. He was also known as “Zestos” (i.e. Warm). According to Caimi, he was called Zestos “because of his very warm performances”. According to others, though, this nickname was Mimaros’ invention, as Zestos used to have his tea warm, even in the summer. Agapitos had a deep friendship and cooperation with Pangalos despite their contradicting characters.

Both of them (though Pangalos to a larger extent) seem to be the key sources of information for Julio Caimi, when he was conducting research on Karagiozis during the interwar period, in Patras.

Gradually, Sardounis’ artistic activity becomes known throughout the western Peloponnese (from Patras and Gastouni to Pyrgos and Kalamata) to culminate in the three year period 1899-1902, when Mimaros presented with great success, his plays in Athens. However, from 1903 (the last confirmed performance by Mimaros at Olgas square in Patras) onwards, Mimaros drew away from the artistic limelight and died prior to 1912, forgotten and marginalized. His turbulent artistic career and the equally turbulent era he lived in inspired the fictional biography by Vasileios Christopoulos, with the title: “Sto fos tis asetilinis” (“In the light of acetylene”) (ed. Kedros, Athens 2002).

Mimaros instructed many apprentices, with the most important being the following (in alphabetical order): Andreas Arakopoulos or Koutsandreas (brother of Thodorelos and famous for his singing), Theodoros Arakopoulos or Thodorelos (brother of Koutsandreas and teacher of Sotiris Spatharis), Andreas Voutsinas, Mitsos Manolopoulos or Dimitris Ntalianis, Panayiotis Bekos and Andreas Sotiropoulos.

10

Voutsinas was born in Patras. Julio Caimi writes that Voutsinas “much more than others, is truly devoted to his teacher, Mimaros. In his room, hanging on the wall, always with him in his wallet, is a picture of Mimaros. He never parts with it!”.

During the interwar period, he was among the best puppeteers in Patras. Caimi also states the following about the artistic value of Voutsinas: “Secretive and shy, he is governed by a deep sense of the art he performs. He also often complains about the lack of spirit in the audience, that causes him to make concessions, which he condemns. But he's a professional and has to earn a living. (...) He seems indifferent towards himself. He has no ambitions, other than his art, which he considers timeless and would love to raise to a higher level. (...) Voutsinas is an artist with whom you can talk about art, in its universal sense. On stage he feels what he plays, to the point of suffering”. However, Andreas Voutsinas deteriorated after the war, in the 1950s, although he was not very old at the time.

Manolopoulos came from Amaliada and was distinguished for his impersonations. He was, along with Antonis Mollas, the most popular puppeteer in Athens, in the interwar period. Starting from the music scene of the Metaxourgio area, he was artistically active across the Peloponnese and the islands, reaching as far as Egypt, from where he introduced the coloured leather puppet to Athens. He also introduced the Kollitiria trio, adding two more Kollitiria to the first son of Karagiozis.

He was one of the founding members of the Hellenic Shadow Theatre Association.

Bekos came from Patras. He was artistically active during the late 19th and early 20th century with great success in Patras and Athens.

Sotiropoulos came from Patras. He was an apprentice to Mimaros and to Manolopoulos. He was artistically active mainly in Patras, Athens and across the Peloponnese. His son, Christos, also a puppeteer, was hanged by the Germans during the Nazi Occupation because he performed patriotic heroic plays. The story is very similar to that of Vasilis Androutsopoulos, who performed Karagiozis during his military service in Patras. After his discharge from the army, he stayed as a resident in the city, performing until 1942, when he was killed by the Germans, as he was going to a fountain for water.

7. Yiannis Roulias and Barbagiorgos Yiannis Roulias came from Amfilochia. He is one of the most important representatives of the Epirus School of Karagiozis. He watched performances of old Iakovos, but he learned the art mainly from Ilias, who was the main apprentice of Iakovos. Initially Roulias was artistically active in the area of Aetoloakarnania and western Greece, for many years working alongside Dimitris Sardounis or Mimaros.

He is considered to be the artist who introduced the hillbilly puppet Barbagiorgos. He then successfully continued his artistic career in Athens, where (according to research

by Theodoros Hatzipantazis) he excelled with his heroic performances and in conveying the culture of Epirus tradition to the Greek capital. With his small theatre in Stadiou street as his base, he was unrivalled in status and popularity in the 1890s, introducing his heroic plays and the leading character of Barbagiorgos. Indeed, he even named his theatre: “Barbagiorgos Theatre”. He took on many apprentices, the 11

most notable being Antonis Mollas, but with the dawn of the 20th century, his career began to decline and as a result he gradually faded from the limelight. He died in 1905. His life inspired Yiannis Vlachoyiannis, who, in his short story: “Tis Technis ta Farmakia” (“Art’s Bitterness”) uses puppeteer Roulias (Foulias) as his protagonist, and repeated his pursuit in the fictional biography: “I periplaniseis enos kallitechni” (“The Wanderings of an Artist”), which was published in twelve parts in the online edition of the Hellenic Shadow Theatre Association “O Karagiozis Mas”. Below is an excerpt from “The Wanderings of an Artist”, where Mimaros and Roulias artistically coexist, under poetic license, at Psilalonia square of Patras: “It was getting dark in Psilalonia. The stage had been set up. Sardounis and Yiannis advertised a new comedy with an original title: “The Shipwreck of Karagiozis and Barbagiorgos”. Pangalos and his pack were in the audience and he was very angry about the nerve of Sardounis and above all, that of the “foreigner”; he was ready for trickery and tomfoolery. If the show was bad, he would laugh his head off and relish the “Shipwreck of the two Bros”, as he said with supposedly innocent innuendo and supposedly benevolent insults. If, by a thousand-to-one-chance, the show was good, then Pangalos had another plan ready to undermine and ruin the two puppeteers.

The show at Psilalonia started badly for Sardounis and Yiannis. Right from the start, Pangalos was heckling to interrupt the flow of the play. So, when he heard Karagiozis saying to Hadziavatis: “Yesterday, I was in the square, selling bagels”, Pangalos impudently shouted: “Why don’t you go to sell bagels yourselves, having the nerve to play Karagiozis? Which of you is a puppeteer? You are nothing but bagel -sellers! Zeroes”. However, the show flowed very well for the rest of the audience, who gradually became somewhat annoyed by Pangalos’ constant interference. Even Agapitos watched this new play with interest, in which Hadziavatis convinces Karagiozis to become a captain, hire a ship and find a good boatswain.

Although, in fact the play was not all that original. The original plot had been played for years by the puppeteers of Aetoloakarnania with the title: “The Three Rascals”. It was a clever and decent comedy, where Karagiozis uses his intelligence to defeat a devious teacher and his three students on an island. Sardounis however, made his necessary alterations to this plot. What he did was to incorporate stage techniques, which he knew from the Ottoman Shadow Theatre and which puppeteers of Aetoloakarnania ignored. He therefore presented the sea and the boat on the scrim, as he had known them from a comedy of Karagoz as boatman. Yet, the most important innovation, was his performance as the hillbilly, Barbagiorgos - boatswain.

The audience laughed heartily and Pangalos began to worry. His heckling had no result, as viewers were rolling in the aisles with the hillbilly simpleton, shepherd Barbagiorgos next to sharp and witty Karagiozis. Yiannis’ teaching helped Sardounis perform the dialect, accent and hilarious linguistic peculiarities of Yokel 12

Barbagiorgos, in a delightful manner, mocking through his lifestyle and attitude the neighbours of Patras, from nearby Aetoloakarnania: -

My good uncle! Shall I take you on the boat and make you a boatswain?

Good God no, not me. You'll play some trick on me, poor soul.

But I’ll give you figs to eat from Kalamata where we’re going.

The good ones? Well, in that case I’m coming, Karagiozis. I’ll become plump.

The play was going very well, and it was therefore time for Pangalos to implement his reserve plan. He immediately slipped behind the scrim, supposedly to help the two puppeteers, while in fact wanting to sabotage the performance. Sardounis welcomed him with a polite nod, but realized that danger was imminent and signalled to Yiannis to be on guard. Indeed, Pangalos had bold and daring plans in mind, which even involved the collapse of the actual stage. He therefore politely asked to help, holding and moving the Yokel’s puppet, but Sardounis managed to outdo him with his Karagiozis: -

Uncle, there are dangerous rascals on this island.

I know, son. I know. I am not like other villagers, me.

Students make easy rivals. I’ll eliminate them.

Oh deary me! Oh deary me! Oy! Oy! Oy! Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

What are you mooing for, you hillbilly cow? You’re hurting my ears.

I know that, son. I know. I’m smart, I am, I tell you.

Our great rival though, is that teacher of theirs.

I will annihilate him. I’ll show him, son.

That’s the spirit, uncle. And if he doesn’t bother us, he’ll get a buck.

And if he does trouble us, son? And if he plays some trick on us, poor souls?

You’ll beat him till he is blue, cause otherwise he’ll even grab our figs.

Aye. Tell me son, who is he, so that I may thrash him without mercy?

His name is Mitsos Pangalos. He has been holding you and shaking you for some time now.

The one who holds me, is it that rascal indeed? Aye! I will whip him!

Yes! Hit him till the paper falls off his neck!

Then Pangalos could not hold himself and cried, laughing: “If it is a matter of the paper falling off, then show me the money and I am out of here. As for your figs leave them to Hadziavatis for his fruitcake, the way you made him and your Karagiozis”. Everyone was in hysterics and most of all, the three puppeteers.

Pangalos, indeed, plugged a hole he had in his throat with paper, for his voice to come out. On the other hand, it was common knowledge that if anyone gave him money he became as sweet as honey: “You are not so bad at Karagiozis! Not bad! Almost good”. Pangalos asked for cash “right here, right now” and immediately left the 13

scrim, paid and supposedly morally vindicated for calling Sardounis’ protagonist a “fruitcake”. However, he did not have the proper insight to predict that a new era was coming for the art of Karagiozis, not only in Patras, but also across Greece. The two friends, after the end of the play, celebrated their great success at Pantokratoras, in the basement room of Sardounis. Indeed, the latter could not stop drinking”…

Roulias, was therefore mainly known as the artist who introduced the puppet of Barbagiorgos to the modern Greek Shadow Theatre. Both the personality and artistic career of Roulias, and the first appearance of the benevolent yokel on the scrim, have, at times, been studied from various angles. In this study, we will try to explore the above references on specific matters, in order to distinguish: the historical approach from the folkloric approach, history from legend and finally the reliable sources from widespread, though not always reliable information. Our study will begin with the critical examination of the information available to us about when the Uncle of Karagiozis was first introduced on the scrim of modern Greek Shadow Theatre.

Generally, the problem regarding the creation and first appearance of Barbagiorgos on the scrim is very much like the case of Karagiozis. There are two theories about the origin of the barefoot protagonist of modern Greek Shadow Theatre: The first is based on the old oral tradition of the comedian of Bursa, who was hung by the Pasha and was later brought back to life by Hadziavatis as a shadow and with a puppet behind a cloth. Several versions of this story, which is governed by mythical dimensions, have survived. The second version is based on the scientific theory of German Hermann Reich, who proves that Karagiozis originated from the Hellenistic and Byzantine mimes. Therefore, establishing the above distinction as our basis, we will henceforth attempt to distinguish the Barbagiorgos legend from Barbagiorgos history.

For the legend of Barbagiorgos, we can report three versions in total: The first concerns his origin from the characters of the Ottoman Shadow Theatre. The second version refers to the origin of this character from the Epirus Shadow Theatre. Finally, the third version which is also the most prevalent, is associated with oral traditions, according to which, the yokel character was a real person who lived in Katouna of Aetoloakarnania.

For the first version, Mystakidou stresses that it is likely that Barbagiorgos is associated with the Ottoman puppet of Baba-Chimmet, i.e. the logger of Kastamonu in today's northern Turkey, just like Dionysios Frigkos, namely Nionios, is an evolution (according to the same theory) of the Ottoman puppet of Frank Frenk. In the case of Barbagiorgos the crook replaces Baba-Chimmet’s axe, given that both characters share rather naive, rough and, in short, provincial traits.

According to the second version referring to the Epirus School, Mimis Mollas says “the puppet of Barbagiorgos comes straight from the tradition of Epirus and is not in any way related to the Woodsman of Kastamonu. (...) Roulias who learned Barbagiorgos from the students of Iakovos at his home town Amfilochia-Kravasaras, presented the character for the first time in Athens”.

14

Finally, according to the third version, Barbagiorgos was a real person, a man of Roumeli from Agrafa, living in Katouna of Akarnania according to Kostas Biris and the largely oral information that he had collected himself from Takis Lappas.

Mystakidou’s conclusions that the roots of Barbagiorgos are found in Ottoman Karagiozis (in order to connect the yokel character mainly with Baba-Chimmet or other Ottoman characters, such as Touzsouz Deli Bekir) are refuted by the first explicit mention of the name “Barbagiorgos” in the Athenian newspaper “Kairoi” of 28th July 1895, where Roulia’s scene in Athens is cited as: “Barbagiorgos Theatre”.

The association of Barbagiorgos name with puppeteer Roulias confirms the connection of the former with the Epirus tradition of Karagiozis, the main communicator of which was Roulias.

The origin of Barbagiorgos from Baba-Chimmet cannot be proven, merely on the grounds of some common comic traits between the characters of the Ottoman and modern Greek Shadow Theatre, especially considering that Roulias had no connection whatsoever with the Ottoman tradition. On the contrary, the possible evolution of Nionios from Ottoman puppet of Frenk is clearly much more reasonable and credible, particularly considering that Nionios is Mimaros’ creation, who was also a communicator of the Ottoman tradition. Sior Dionysios represents the Western culture, which Mimaros specified in the Ionian Islands (due to their proximity to Patras) and at the very time that Frenk symbolised the western, Frankish element of Constantinople.

In comedies, the western culture and Nionios’ dialect were heavily satirised and this infuriated the people of Zakynthos, who felt offended by the way Nionios was portrayed by puppeteers, according to reports leading to anger from spectators at a performance in Gastouni. In heroic plays, Nionios symbolised again the western element, like in “Captain Gris” or moreover in the “Orphan girl of Chios” where he is asked to marry the orphaned girl so that she will gain foreign citizenship, to escape the harem. Nionios and Barbagiorgos first appear on the scrim officially, a year apart (1894 and 1895 respectively). In terms of scrim symbolism however, Nionios cannot have the symbolic dynamics of Barbagiorgos. The latter is beyond the fleeting and simple characters (like those of Nionios, Frenk or Baba-Chimmet), acquiring a legendary status with his heroic plays.

The same character is similarly interpreted by the legend of Katouna too, where indeed he is identified with a real local person. The relevant views of Takis Lappas and Kostas Biris however, made the mistake to date the inspiration of Barbagiorgos to a specific year (1896), to introduce (as they claim) this character a year later in Athens on the occasion of the overall feeling of grief, due to defeat in the war of 1897. Moreover, these reports are also refuted by the 1895 source, showing that the Barbagiorgos puppet had been earlier introduced by Roulias, and indeed as the name of a theatre. Roulias comes even before Mimaros, as the association of Barbagiorgos with the artist from Patras is expressly reported, in 1896 in Kalamata (i.e. one year after the Roulia’s report). Therefore, the oral legend of Katouna merely attempts to legitimize oral tradition, which linked Barbagiorgos to Mimaros and mainly to Roulias. The above genealogy, however, does not allow us to search 15

anything but segments of historical truths and mainly an aesthetic and philosophical theory: Based on the above theory, Barbagiorgos does not represent just a comic character or a local dialect but an entire epic tradition. It represents the tradition of Epirus, which has been underestimated by many, but is confirmed as historical truth by the very heroic repertoire of Karagiozis. This repertoire does not exist in the Ottoman tradition and its creation cannot be attributed to a single artist (like Mimaros) unless it had previously evolved through the Epirus School.

Barbagiorgos, as an extension of the Epirus School characters is not limited (in the comedies) to simple passages from the scrim (like Nionios), but is the main protagonist in plays such as: “The Ship Master” or “The Two Lords”. In heroic plays, on the other hand, he remains one of the henchmen of Katsantonis or Diakos. His role, in other words, became the lead in comedy, while in the heroic plays remaining as it had been -not so much as a name, but mainly in essence- in Epirus Shadow Theatre.

According to Dimitris Mollas, “in the performances of traditional pre-revolutionary heroes, Barbagiorgos is ...one of their lads.” Having the above origin of the puppet of Barbagiorgos from the Epirus Shadow Theatre as our guiding principle, we can trace the roots of this character and his history before his first official appearance in Athens in 1895, in Roulias’ theatre.

We should, in other words, examine the place of characters of the Epirus Shadow Theatre, as part of History. In particular, the Greek characters of the Epirus scrim come from parts of Epirus and north-western Greece (e.g. Katsantonis), while the Turkish characters refer to personalities of the same region, such as Ali Pasha (symbolising the power of the Pasha in general), Tachir (which is none other than the Tachir Abazis,, the guardian of order and right hand of Ali) and Dervenagas, who becomes even more identifiable in the character of Veligkekas. The same reasoning also applies to the case of Barbagiorgos, provided, however that we should not seek a specific historical figure, but a more general category of “personalised” heroes.

Some seminal heroic plays of the modern Greek Shadow Theatre are (in any case) the best sources for our research, given that these plays come directly from the tradition of Epirus. One of these plays is the “Christian Fighter”, a heroic play with clear Epirus orientation, both in terms of its field of action and its content. The main protagonists of this play, apart from Karagiozis, are the Greek fustanella-wearers and their Turkish opponents, with the bloody “Christian Fighter” standing out.

It is obvious that each fustanella-wearing character of Shadow Theatre has his roots in the Epirus tradition, since appearing in heroic plays of Epirus origin. The same obviously applies to Turkish conquerors. More specifically, the above two character categories do not exist in the Ottoman tradition shows, nor in modern Turkish plays. Both these character categories (tsolias and Agas) are a global novelty in Shadow Theatre, coming from the Ottoman era and the Epirus culture. It is therefore obvious that a fustanella-wearer, like Barbagiorgos, would reasonably come from the same source, having the initially minor but constant role of “warrior” in the heroic plays and then a more comic role in comedies (just like bloodthirsty Pasha or Dervenagas of the heroic plays evolve in comedies to formal institutions of power and 16

simple instruments of power, respectively). The above “genealogy” also confirms the Epirus history of Barbagiorgos as the extension of the Greek who beats Dervenagas, as the Turkish conqueror and instrument of power.

The artistic authorship of Barbagiorgos and of the heroic plays cannot be attributed, as a form of parthenogenesis, to a particular artist, like Roulias or Mimaros. The latter indeed founded the modern Greek Shadow Theatre, but to get to this point, he had to be established within a pre-existing tradition. This tradition was not merely Ottoman, but primarily of Epirus, especially as regards heroic works, which already existed and subsequently emerged as a genre by Mimaros (too).

Regarding the case of Barbagiorgos, Mimaros and his apprentices worked more on other characters (more familiar in the culture of Patras, like Nionios) and gradually ceased to build on the yokel shepherd, who was more popular among artists from Epirus. This is confirmed by Takis Lappas despite some historical inaccuracies, with a triumphant performance of Roulias in Patras, after the “unfortunate” war of 1897, because of which, according to legend, Mimaros stopped giving emphasis to the Barbagiorgos role, as Roulias did. More specifically, that night, after Roulias’ triumph, Mimaros “out of envy, they said, broke the hookah he was smoking”.

8. Critical consideration of controversial views on Yiannis Roulias The puppet of yokel Barbagiorgos, as has been mentioned, appeared for the first time on the scrim of the Shadow Theatre of puppeteer Yiannis Roulias, in 1895 in Athens. Obviously, this information does not confirm the above artist as the creator of Barbagiorgos, but essentially credits him as the puppeteer who introduced this puppet along with its origin from the Epirus Shadow Theatre. It is undeniable, however, that oral tradition and the general consensus of Greek puppeteers hold Roulias as the father of Barbagiorgos regardless of proof, although they give special credit to Mimaros for developing the character of the shepherd from Roumeli in the modern Greek Shadow Theatre.

What is important, however, is to consider puppeteer Roulias not only as the artist who introduced Barbagiorgos, but more generally as the crucially influential artist for Shadow Theatre and the artistic life of Athens in late 19th and early 20th century. The above artistic merit, however, is not widely held which may be unfair to Roulias, as he is referred to only as the likely creator of Barbagiorgos while his contemporary, Mimaros is known not only as the creator of Nionios puppet, but also, quite rightly, as the founder of the modern Greek Shadow Theatre.

In the context of our above pursuit, we will attempt to approach Roulias as an artist in general and not only in relation to Barbagiorgos. This approach starts with the critical consideration of reports about Roulias by oldest researchers of Shadow Theatre: In this context, Julio Caimi, in one of the first books ever written on Karagiozis, reports on the artistic value of Roulias: “Roulias, who had a moderate technique, was gifted with great imagination. He enriched [shadow] theatre, creating the character of Barbagiorgos”. Although Caimi praises Roulias’ creative imagination, he starts his critique with the characterisation “moderate technique”, 17

which of course is not flattering for an artist. Indeed, the same view is reproduced by subsequent scholars, when the latter use information from Caimi’s book.

For example, in 1977, Panayiotis Kalonaros, draws information probably from Caimi’s book too (since the 1990 translated edition of Caimi’s French book by Kostas Mekkas and Takis Milias, was obviously not released at the time) and writes the following on Roulias: “Roulias, a moderate performer in terms of technique, was widely accepted as the father of Barbagiorgos, who stepped out of his creator’s head, like Athena was born from Zeus’ forehead”. The term “moderate performer” for Yiannis Roulias (by Kalonaros) is clearly reproduced from Caimi’s book, as confirmed by the French original. Caimi’s characterisation is excessive, considering that he had no opportunity to watch Roulias’ performances.

In Caimi’s case then we must be particularly mindful of the access he had to each set and with his sources of information, especially Pangalos. Pangalos was distinguished for his colourful and extravagant character, while the rivalry between Patras and Aetoloakarnania is something that would hardly leave his judgement for Roulias unaffected. It is therefore very likely that to Caimi, Pangalos was critical as regards the artistic value of the puppeteer from Akarnania.

A different review of Roulias, seemingly positive, but in fact again rather harsh, was written by Kostas Biris. From this review, despite containing several inaccuracies, we can establish the following about Roulias: “As a puppeteer he worked in Athens, but only excelled in playing Barbagiorgos”. This review is apparently a positive one, but in fact limits Roulias’ value to his connection with playing Barbagiorgos. This raises the question about whether Biris gives a valid and comprehensive review. It is true, of course, that Yiannis Roulias was intrinsically linked with Barbagiorgos. The lingering question, however, is whether his artistic value was broader and went beyond the mere highlights of a certainly emblematic puppet, as was that of the yokel shepherd. Besides, Biris’ validity is disputed in many parts of the above text, e.g. on the matter of the first appearance of Barbagiorgos on the scrim or on the year of Roulias’ death, perhaps because Biris draws material, to a large extent, from oral information that was initially also gathered most predominantly by Takis Lappas.

Overall, the use of oral tradition in scientific research is potentially hazardous and this makes us rather cautious regarding the information collected by Lappas and then first used by Biris. It is also wise to have similar reservations as regards information in other books, such as the book by Mimis Mollas, since it is often limited to purely oral information and when, in particular, he refers to oral information to prove that “Mimaros and Roulias first saw Barbagiorgos at Epachtos when they were young - performed by Tsilias”.

Without a doubt the most important work on the question of Roulias’ artistic value (and furthermore on a number of historical matters related to Karagiozis) has been done by researchers who sought the most valid information possible using a more strictly scientific approach. This category of researchers includes Hatzipantazis, who studied Roulias’ status in the artistic circles of late 19th - early 20th century 18

Athens, using a more rigorous historical-scientific methodology and approach, which was lacking in the rather folkloric treatment of the specific genre of that time.

Accordingly, the aforementioned scientific approach in the case of puppeteer Roulias in Athens, as we will detail below, is the one that clearly refutes the relevant personal reviews by Caimi and Biris. Hatzipantazis, with his valid scientific methodology for the historical approach of Shadow Theatre in Athens in the 1890s and early 1900s, studies, among other things, the case of Roulias, whom he emphatically stresses was unrivalled in status and popularity during the 1890s in Athens as his “Barbagiorgos” theatre at the Stadium, according to the newspaper “Scrip”, would fill with about five hundred spectators every night. Therefore, using the methodology and conclusions of Theodoros Hatzipantazis (through the study of Athenian newspapers) as criterion for Roulias’ case, we will attempt to shed light on some aspects of the artistic value of the latter, not only in relation to Barbagiorgos but also in a broader sense. Specifically, we firmly believe that the above historical approach will also verify the oral tradition existing about Roulias, according to which, his artistic value could not be confined simply to the narrow limits of a specific puppet.

The bulk of this oral tradition was recorded by Fotiadis, who, of course, collected the relevant information from various sources, such as K. Konstas or Caimi.

In this context, Caimi himself describes the specific incident as follows: “We report the following, as narrated by Mistos Vasiliotis, in a village of Arcadia. In 1898, he was in Kifisia, a summer resort of the aristocracy, not far from Athens, where Roulias had his Shadow Theatre. One night, while a heroic play was performed, we were surprised to see the audience leaving from an Opera performance, across the street from Roulias’ hut, and flocking in to watch engrossed and to the end, the play Roulias was staging. This was indeed, both for Roulias and for his theatre, a true triumph”.

Caimi’s above report is particularly important, especially considering that Caimi himself had, in the same book, characterised Roulias’ technique as “moderate”.

However, the wider oral tradition confirms the artistic value of Yiannis Roulias, the epitome being his artistic adventures in Filippiada, at the time under Turkish rule.

Nevertheless, what presently interests us most is preserved information on Roulias, not from the oral tradition, but from the Athenian press of the 1890s and 1900s.

Hatzipantazis’ study led us to examine the matter even further, presenting two more indicative reports. The reports praise Barbagiorgos, yet do not fail to comment on Roulias: A) The first report is from the newspaper “Scrip” (6th June 1901), referring to the prevalence of shepherd Barbagiorgos’ character: “The most popular puppet, among those moving on the scrim, is Barbagiorgos by far, the naive old yokel. This character appeared on the scrim of Karagiozis, only two years ago (sic). However, he emerged from his creator’s head in perfection. He is the most flawless ethnography of the people of Roumeli. I do not know his creator, though I would like to know him since he has his own merit on the Greek scene. I believe, however, he is the man performing today at Ilissos. How he managed to study not only the mountainous and inimitable twang of the Roumeli dialect, but also the wonderful omissions of this 19

dialect and how he created this outstanding herdsman, representing a complete part of Greek life, is a wonder. Compared to this character, Karagiozis is but a weak oriental rascal character. He has no use, other than as a supporting character.

Barbagiorgos alone is triumphant and I assure you that this cheese-reeking farmer deeply moves me as an artistic creation”.

The author of the text signs as “the other” and praises the puppet of Barbagiorgos. His personal review is undoubtedly objective, because he also praises the creator of this character, without knowing him, meaning his view is unbiased and unaffected by personal friendships or interests. The author’s knowledge of Shadow Theatre is not extensive, as shown by the erroneous dating of the first appearance of Barbagiorgos, which was in fact before 1899 in Athens, as we have already mentioned. The author was neither aware of that, nor of the name of the person who has “his own merit on the Greek scene” Yiannis Roulias and therefore does not provide a name to his readers but rather describes him as “the man performing today at Ilissos”. The praise for this creator is given, as genuine praise should, in honest, effective and particularly simple wording: “This cheese-reeking farmer deeply moves me as an artistic creation”.

B) The second text we quote, is clearly written by Zacharias Papantoniou, who signed with the initials “Z. P.” This text was published on the front page of the newspaper “Scrip” 20th March 1905 on the occasion of Yiannis Roulias’ death. The first finding of this obituary is that Roulias died in 1905 and not in 1908 as erroneously claimed by Kostas Biris, Mimis Mollas and other researchers. In particular, Biris writes that Roulias “died in 1908 at an early age”, while Mollas writes that “Roulias’ heyday was up to 1905. He died young in 1908”. This mistake was initially made by Takis Lappas, who writes that Roulias “died in 1908” and also (probably based on the then oral tradition) that “after Yiannis Roulias’ death, his wife took his place (...) and the public were unaware that it was a woman”. Leaving aside any false or unconfirmed information, we return to the text of “Z. P.” and year 1905, citing not so much the praise on Barbagiorgos, but the simple and modest reviews on Roulias’ talent, who is indeed characterised, among other things, “reverential to the details” and “wisely conversant with things”, while his Aetoloakarnania origin is confirmed, without however, excluding the possibility of a distant origin from Karpenisi.

“Roulias, the man who played Karagiozis and completed it, creating Barbagiorgos, was buried in the usual manner the funerals of all unknown creators are held. The people of Plaka, Vatrachonisi, Aerides, Gargaretta, had laughed heartily because of him, so naturally none wept. Roulias died? So what?

Barbagiorgos lives! Let creators die - the heroes live on. Of course, Barbagiorgos lives on although Roulias died. But since it is certain that inanimate things weep, that tin or paper farmer puppet must be very sad. Creators are rare, like martyrs, while imitators, reproducers, manufacturers are in abundance. The story, at least this story we write today, cannot leave such a death without comment. It should at least cause a stir, and that should be enough. Roulias gave us a single detail of his life: that he came from Karpenissi. He came to Athens to play Karagiozis- this is not surprising 20

with the complexity of the people of Evrytania- but he did not come alone. He came accompanied. He brought along a huge fustanella-wearer from Velouchi. Who is Barbagiorgos? Gentlemen, all things require some scrutiny. Barbagiorgos, however is a human mountain, he doesn’t need criticism. Barbagiorgos is poetry and wants people to judge him. Roulias, before dying did not explain when and why he had created him. Spontaneous actions are unaccountable. One thing is certain. That Barbagiorgos, fully armed with his big mouth and jumping out of his creator’s head, was the need of the Greek soul. Barbagiorgos appeared on the lit scrim of Karagiozis to fight Veligekas. (...) The fustanella-wearer proceeds, fearing only European culture but threatening everything else, to pursue Veligekas, the force of violence. Roulias did not make this sincere straightforward person a Peloponnesian. He defined him as coming from Roumeli. In this matter too, he was wisely conversant with things. How many deaths are more insignificant than your own, poor artist, unhappy creator, man of the people, you we called Roulias! Farewell. Z. P. PS At that time, it so happened that my manuscript was read by the translator of “Faust”, Mr K. Hatzopoulos, who made an observation. According to him, Roulias did not come from Karpenisi, but from Valtos, which he knew for a fact from his time in military service, when as a reservist lieutenant he had Roulias as a soldier. I will be very sorry if the information proves accurate! It would be preferable if Roulias came from my hometown, Karpenisi as many have indeed assured me. In any case, it is no wonder that cities rival for the origin of such a man”.

9. Vasilaros and Dinos Mourelatos Vasilaros (Vasilis Andrikopoulos) was born in Rododafni, Aigio. He was an apprentice to Sotiropoulos though mainly to Manolopoulos. His education helped him write many plays of his own, emphasizing on social dramas and themes drawn from literature (such as “Les Misérables”), from religious life (such as “Kassiani”) and from Greek history, collaborating with other writers like Giannis Margaritis, who was secretary to the community of Andravida. The written plays of Vasilaros were ground-breaking for their time, with an emphasis on dramatic works, paving the way for Artistic Shadow Theatre.

Vasilaros and Theodoropoulos were both very important for the Shadow Theatre of Patras and for modern Greek Shadow Theatre in general, during the interwar period. If Mimaros was the man who, with his changes, brought the modern Greek Karagiozis to life, Vasilaros and Theodoropoulos were those who evolved the modern Greek Shadow Theatre, with their innovations and initiatives. They were not apprentices to Mimaros, but utilised his tradition and evolved it, so that Patras remained the major artistic centre of Karagiozis in Greece, after the war and up to the post-junta period.

Vasilaros and Theodoropoulos, according to reports of the time, constantly disagreed, but never fell out. On the contrary, they shared a mutual respect. Vasilaros successfully played in smaller towns too, leaving behind many notebooks, with significant notes both on the performances and on the history of Karagiozis. One of his most memorable comments concerns the competition between Shadow Theatre 21

and the cinema: “Wherever I go, visiting cinemas are vociferously competing with us”. As Dimitris Mollas points out: “Wherever Vasilaros went, he left the audience excited and amazed”. He left the profession when he retired, in 1966. In the late 1970s, “Ermis” editions published two notable volumes, with puppets and settings of Vasilaros, edited by the Yayannou Brothers and I. Digklis.

One of the most important apprentices of Vasilaros was the puppeteer from Patras, Yiannaros Mourelatos, son of Ntinos Mourelatos with whom Vasilaros worked closely. Ntinos Mourelatos was born in Patras, while his origin was from Lixouri of Kefallinia. He did not perform Karagiozis himself, but worked systematically in writing theatrical plays, burlesques, Shadow Theatre plays and satirical dialogues, with rhymes inspired by current affairs. He was a tobacconist, in the Synora area of Patras, opposite the KETCH army camp. He helped all his colleagues and was the “point of reference” for all puppeteers, very much like Yiannis Moustakas in Athens.

He is very important for the Shadow Theatre of Patras and modern Greek Shadow Theatre in general, as well as for modern Greek Theatre too.

10. Kassiani (one of the most important plays by puppeteer Vasilaros) The Shadow Theatre of Patras reached higher levels in terms of writing and interpretative expression. One of its leading representatives, Vasilaros, apart from the traditional repertoire, gained public acclaim with his artistic plays. One of his most important works, if not the major, is his masterpiece “Kassiani” which has been recorded as a legend in our Byzantine tradition. With plays like “Kassiani” that were unknown to the general Karagiozis audience, the traditional repertoire evolved to an equally inspired, yet more mature, artistic expression, through which modern Greek Shadow Theatre touches the mythos, ethos, dianoia, lexis, melos, and opsis of tragedy. It is a play with a complete scenario, well developed and tragic characters, rich ideas (related to religious life), excellent wording (in purist Greek), Byzantine melody (melos) and opsis: The form of the expressionless, yet exceptionally crafted puppets hand over its lead to the life-giving word, animating them in the same manner that the ancient word brought life to the expressionless masks of ancient tragedy.

It is a play focusing on human actions in accordance with the Orthodox worldview of the Byzantine empire and the Christian philosophy on the salvation of the soul and the afterlife. One project, rationally structured and shaped, with a beginning, middle and end. It is a play with catharsis, as is fitting in genuine tragedies. Clearly, some of its elements can be adapted to modern times, although this should be attempted with thorough respect to the original text. Purist Greek gives way to demotic Greek, while preserving the spirit and the meaning of the words. The play becomes shorter, so that it is not tiresome for modern audiences. The pomposity is possibly limited, yet remains, to convey the tragic quality of the characters.

Karagiozis too, becomes a secondary character, although preserving his crucial and stable role, providing a stoical but cheerful tone, while he echoes both ancient Diogenes and the mimes of Byzantium, to which he directly refers as the jester Denderis.

22

DINOS THEODOROPOULOS Dinos Theodoropoulos (1890-1975) hailed from Aggelonas in Molai, Lakonia.

Theodoropoulos and Vasilaros, as already mentioned, were both very important for the Shadow Theatre of Patras and for modern Greek Shadow Theatre in general, during the interwar period, as they evolved the modern Greek Shadow Theatre with their innovations and initiatives. Although Dimitris Mollas cites Sardounis as the teacher of Theodoropoulos, Theodoropoulos, was in fact and according to his own words “self-taught”.

This view is supported by the fact that Dinos Theodoropoulos arrived in Athens from Aggelonas in 1906 and by the proven fact that Mimaros performed in Athens up to 1902, although his exact year of death is not known. 1912 specifically, has not been confirmed as Mimaros’ year of death, in the same manner that Mimaros’ artistic activity in Athens in the period 1908-1909, as reported by Kostas Biris remains unconfirmed, since Biris does not cite any sources of his time, nor have any of his allegations been cross-checked by other researchers retrospectively, at least not to date. At the same time, Biris reports that Roulias was Mimaros’ “assistant” in 1908 in Athens, which is however wrong, as it has been established that Roulias died in 1905. Given the above, Biris’ relevant information is unfounded and sources show that Mimaros did not perform after his last show in Patras, at Olgas Square in 1903, which strengthens the view that Theodoropoulos could not have been his apprentice.

Theodoropoulos had a great career in Greece and abroad. Already, in the early th 20 century, he had successfully performed in Athens, mainly in the area of Dexameni, while the great man of the Shadow Theatre of Piraeus, Christos Charidimos, was his apprentice. According Charidimos, Dinos Theodoropoulos “lived in Dexameni for many years. When Dinos Theodoropoulos saw that I could draw Karagiozis puppets nicely, he took me with him and I made his puppets, also helping him with his performances. He was a great puppeteer and very much loved by the Athenian public. Under Dinos Theodoropoulos, I mastered the art of puppeteering and decided to start performing before the Athenian audience. I was very lucky indeed, as an impresario from Methana appeared, asking Dinos Theodoropoulos to recommend a good puppeteer to perform in his theatre. Theodoropoulos told him to take me. When the impresario saw me, he laughed, because I was very young. He told Theodoropoulos: “This is a kid! Can he perform Karagiozis?” Then Theodoropoulos told him: “You may think he is young, but I guarantee you that he is good in his art.

He has performed in my place, one night I was feeling unwell and I watched him play; that’s why I can guarantee he is good. His voice is strong, he can mime, he moves all puppets very well, he can nicely paint anything required for our job. If you are not convinced, I’ll make him act some Karagiozis characters”. Which I did; the impresario heard me, liked me and we agreed. He gave me, at that time, one hundred drachmas as advance payment and I went to Methana and started my first performances. In Methana, I worked for two months, the shows stopped and I had to leave as I had no other shows to continue. As I was getting ready to leave, the old puppeteer Ioannis Papoulias arrived, who took over the theatre and so I left. I returned to Athens, but did not find Dinos Theodoropoulos at Dexameni. I learned 23

that he had left and gone to America, where he stayed for 16 years, playing Karagiozis”.

Before coming to Athens, Theodoropoulos had been to Egypt too, while on his trip to America, he almost travelled across the whole of Europe. He settled in the U.S.A., from 1914 to 1929, where among other things, he invented the first colour PVC puppet and was artistically active in the largest cities of the United States (Baltimore, Boston, Los Angeles, Washington, Salt Lake, Philadelphia, etc.). Upon his return to Greece, he settled in Patras, where he developed an intense artistic activity, took on remarkable apprentices, pioneered in many areas, like impressive advertising or the use of technology of the time (gramophone, microphone, etc.) and enriched the repertoire with many new plays, insofar that puppeteer Yiannaros referred to him as the “professor” of repertoire. He was artistically active nationwide, especially in the Peloponnese and the best theatres of Patras, such as the “Achillion”, “Panachaikon”, “Rekor” and elsewhere, while the Marouda neighbourhood became the meeting point of Patras high society and officials, thanks to Dinos Theodoropoulos.

Theodoropoulos contribution to Shadow Theatre was also reported by Mimis Mollas, as follows: “He was one of the key players in the creation of modern Greek Karagiozis and teacher for all modern artists of Patras, regardless of their school of origin. He influenced Athenian artists too -when performing at Dexameni- namely, Charidimos and Kouzaros, after his return from America. He spent many years in America. (...) When he returned, Dinos had transparent PVC puppets and plenty of new plays. Jules Verne, Mythology, operettas and jungle-themed plays. He was a high school graduate at the time, but was incredibly cultivated”.

It is, however, true that Dinos Theodoropoulos was also criticised, even by well-known researchers, such as Julio Caimi. Caimi’s harsh and negative criticism of Theodoropoulos, was clearly not vindicated in retrospect and suggests either incorrect and frivolous aesthetic perception and judgment (which is rather unusual for a researcher like Caimi) or bias (most likely) due to personal reasons or malice (which was possibly due to Caimi’s relations with other Patras puppeteers at the time), as we have already shown. Nonetheless, the vindication of Theodoropoulos’ innovations came about in the passage of time and was manifested in the words and practices of puppeteers, whether his apprentices or not, who to this day systematically use his (currently acknowledged) novelties. Thanks to these novelties, Patras remained the major artistic centre of Karagiozis in Greece, after the war and up to the post-junta period.

In particular, as we have shown in the case of Yiannis Roulias too, Caimi had made many more errors of judgement, with the most typical example being the case of Dinos Theodoropoulos, about whom he wrote several negative reviews, concluding as follows: “Theodoropoulos’ novelties are pointless and do not have any artistic objective. It seems futile to say anything further of his theatre”. History, however proved Caimi’s criticism wrong, thus leading us to additional reasonable doubt regarding Caimi’s judgement in general and whether it was objective.

24

As regards these reviews, we suspect that Julio Caimi drew information from non-objective sources. The study of Karagiozis had always been challenged by the fact that many researchers and artists penned their reviews depending on their friendships and their likes, dislikes, prejudice or interests and personal relationships with puppeteers in general (e.g. Caimi uses positive expressions for Andreas Voutsinas, who was the main “rival” of Dinos Theodoropoulos in Patras, in the 1930s). Therefore, in Caimi’s case, as mentioned before, we must be particularly mindful of the access he had to each set and with his sources of information, e.g.

Pangalos. Colourful and spontaneous Pangalos seems in this case to have good relations with Voutsinas, which possibly also determined his judgement - influenced by personal interests- against Theodoropoulos (then the rival of Voutsinas). It is therefore likely that, once again, Pangalos negatively influenced Caimi as regards Theodoropoulos’ artistic value, as he did in the case of Yiannis Roulias.

Julio Caimi’s criticism of Theodoropoulos was eventually not vindicated by history. The latter was indeed characterised by Caimi as “a fan of extreme contemporary reform”, but in the long run, Theodoropoulos’ novelties were anything but extreme and, as mentioned above, have since been adopted by all puppeteers (e.g. use of microphone, replacement of the live band with recorded songs, puppets made of PVC etc.). For argument's sake, Orestis, one of the apprentices of Theodoropoulos narrates (to Vasileios Christopoulos): “Theodoropoulos was a reformer of the Shadow Theatre. (...) He made Karagiozis a great spectacle, which successfully competed with other spectacles, especially cinema. Many people abused him, accusing him of disrespecting tradition. Yet, they were all forced to accept his innovations. It is thanks to Theodoropoulos that cinema did not manage to eliminate Shadow Theatre and that until 1980 some puppeteers performed daily”.

Sofia Theodoropoulou, born in Patras in 1945, was the daughter and apprentice of Dinos Theodoropoulos, from whom she inherited a multifaceted artistic talent and even the ability (among other things) to perform Karagiozis. She founded the “Theodoropoulion Patras Children’s Theatre & Shadow Theatre”, based at the Theodoropoulos’ home in Patras, behind Skagiopoulio Foundation. His daughter Sofia transformed this house, built by Theodoropoulos, into a theatre, where she was artistically active, with the support of her six talented children that she introduced to the world of Theatre and, as regards Karagiozis, with the help of her three sons: Nikos Theodoropoulos-Fragopoulos, Dinos and Tassos. Her children, after her death (on Carnival Saturday, 28 February 2009, only 64 years old), presented the following act, summarizing the artistic and personal value of Sofia Theodoropoulou: “Karagiozis and Guardian Angel Sofoula” Hadziavatis (Enters and knocks on the hut of Karagiozis): Karagkioziiiiiis!!!

Karagkioziiiiiis!!! Come down quickly man, it’s urgent...

Karagiozis: Stop it, you old git; stop knocking; the roof tiles may fall and kill me. What do you want, Hadzadzaris?

Hadziavatis: Come down quickly, I tell you, it’s urgent.

25

Karagiozis: I’m telling you I can’t now, go away. Go away, I’m reading the newspaper!

Hadziavatis (Slams): Come out now!!!

Karagiozis: Riiiiiiiiight (falls on him and hits him). What do you want, you silly baboon, bothering me at this hour of day?

Hadziavatis: Come on, my dear. Come on, haven’t you heard?

Karagiozis: Heard what, man? What happened? Because I’ve been sleeping for about forty days and haven’t got a clue.

Hadziavatis: Come on, my dear. It's Sofoula, our protector!

Karagiozis: What? What happened to Sofoula?

Hadziavatis: She’s gone Karagiozis! We were surprised at her decision... She travelled to the neighbourhood of angels!

Karagiozis: What are you saying, man? Sofoula? When did this happen, man, when?

Hadziavatis: Just like that. She left, Karagiozis, she became our guardianangel. Now, she watches over us from above and protects us, as she has done all these years with the theatre she made and brought us to live in and took us around Greece for performances and she shook and moved us; our Sofoula, who loved us and still does. Now she is watching over us from above, my Karagiozis!

Karagiozis: What are you saying, Hadzadzaris? So Sofoula is gone? She went to rest and find Grandpa Dinos... And now what, Hadzadzaris? What will become of the theatre that Sofoula made, her voice and her work?

Hadziavatis: Come on now Karagiozis, hasn’t Sofoula left her successors to bring us to life? Hasn’t she left her children? Her children will continue the theatre she created. Her voice will continue to be heard through them, and so will Sofoula’s work and Grandpa Dinos work that has made history... And when history is made, it stays so, nobody can take it away, my Karagiozis.

Karagiozis: That’s true, man. It’s Nikos, Tassos and Dinos, who will continue Sofoula’s work and will revive us forever.

Hadziavatis: That’s right, Karagiozis! Come on... Get ready now, so we may go and light a candle for Sofoula and tell her that we love her very much and that from now on she will be our guardian-angel forever. Rest in peace, our Sofoula! Your voice will always be heard through us!

Karagiozis: And she is really loud, Hadzadzaris. Oh oh oh!

Hadziavatis: That’s the way it should be! Now let’s go, we are running late...

Yiannis Protopsaltis on Dinos Theodoropoulos...

“My name is Yiannis Protopsaltis. I was born in Kavasila of Ilia, on 1 July 1936, to Corfiot parents. My father’s real surname was Egglezos. My father was a cantor (in Greek: protopsaltis) in church. They used to call him: “Protophsaltis!

Protopsaltis!” and when I was born, nobody asked him the name of the child and they named me “Protopsaltis” straight away. At that time in 1936, they said that we were living the era of abundance, under Metaxas’ government. That’s what they said, but it was not so. Then, the Occupation began. There was famine then. I was a child. When 26

I was born, here in the village, I was starving. I went to foster homes, I became a beggar, I became hungry, I became a shepherd. When the Germans left, the day after the Occupation, I left with my mother and went to Pyrgos, on a bus reading “seventy” on its side. In Pyrgos, just a kid at the time, I went to a farrier and I learned the job of farrier and I also learned to ride. I became a bagel-seller, I became a peanut-seller, a duvet-maker, a coffin-maker, a gravedigger. I am a man of the old times.

I went to school in Pyrgos. I finished the First Grade. I also attended the Second Grade for a month or so. The other years, they let me go. But I am literate.

And, to be honest, I learned it all from Theodoropoulos, who set the programs every morning. Without knowing what he wrote, I knew what he was saying. I got involved with Karagiozis in 1949 in Pyrgos with Theodoropoulos, I was thirteen years old then, and then we went to Kalamata, Tripoli, Patras, Aegio and Agrinio. So, I met Theodoropoulos in Pyrgos. In the evening when people came to the show, I told Theodoropoulos: “Old-man, shall I come in and help you” and he said: “Yes”.

That’s how we met. This was a job too, but I also liked Karagiozis. What kind of jobs were there to do then? We continued and performed together for many years, until he was dismissed from the army, sometime near 1960. That year, I left Theodoropoulos and started working in building. I became a builder in Athens. But I also performed Karagiozis occasionally. I performed in Agios Nikolaos, in Petroupoli and elsewhere, with paper puppets, some of which I still have at home.

Dinos Theodoropoulos was a good man, but had some quirks, like all puppeteers. He did not have much to do, whether socially or professionally, with other puppeteers. And this is something I followed too. I only hung out with Yiannaros in Patras. I learnt all Theodoropoulos performances off by heart, one by one, and knew all the plays by heart and in detail, word for word, like a magnetic tape. I loved this job. Theodoropoulos did all the voices. He also had his daughter, Sofia, with him all the time behind the scrim, since she was a toddler, as well as myself, as an assistant. Sofa was nine years younger than me. Later, we became extended family with Sofia. I am Godfather to her son Tassos. We played together in the summer and in winter too. In Achagia, in Alissos, Patras, Agios Andreas, mainly in Agia-Sofia, Agios Dionysios, Psilalonia, Maroudas. There, we played with Theodoropoulos. In winter, however, I went back too. People were coming to see Karagiozis then, they loved Karagiozis; they generally liked Karagiozis here in Kavasila too.

I was outside Theodoropoulos’ theatre, writing the programs. Without knowing what I said. But I knew what I was writing. How? Because I was looking at the letters of Theodoropoulos and copied them. I was an artist in writing. Though I didn’t know how to read or write. I looked and I wrote. That is, I painted the letters of Theodoropoulos. Around there, a woman came by in the morning, selling figs.

Athanasia, Theodoropoulos’ wife, came out and the woman said: “I asked your kid, if you want some figs”. “What kid?”, says Athanasia. “He is not my kid! He is my foster son”. At that point Sofia, Theodoropoulos’ daughter, said: “We should give Yiannis some figs to eat too”. In the end, they ate them themselves. Later, Theodoropoulos left and went to the impresario. The impresario had a tailor shop in Tripoli. Sofia fell ill.

Athanasia said to me: “Go fetch Dinos”. Just as I was about to leave the theatre, I 27

saw Athanasia falling ill too. I went to the tailor shop, I found Theodoropoulos and told him to come to the theatre, because Sofia had fallen ill and Athanasia had too.

He replied: “God knows what these two have eaten. Go figure what they have eaten”.

As soon as Theodoropoulos went into the theatre, something unbelievable happened.

Theodoropoulos too fell ill. He fell ill too because of the figs.

Who would perform now? We were to perform the play “Karagiozis Captain”.

I did not like it and said: “Mr Dinos, I want to perform a play I like. The “King of the Mountains” with the Olympus captain”. “Ok”, he said, “Go ahead”. But he did give me some encouragement. Otherwise, I would be dumbstruck. I would not be able to speak. As soon as I started, he urged me: “Come on, then! Speak!” No voice came out of me: “Go on! Speak!”, he goes again and that’s how I unblocked. Indeed, I spoke and was on fire! Then, I said: “Mr Theodoropoulos fell ill with food poisoning and will not perform. I will perform instead, as his main assistant”. It was my first show.

The public knew that. And it was indeed a difficult play to perform. I performed with Sofia as my assistant, who was watching me while I talked and wiped the sweat off my forehead. At first, Theodoropoulos and his wife did not want to give me credit. Some days later, Theodoropoulos told me: “It’s like you and I are identical, Yiannis”.

But I was also making various things for him. Never mind! As a child, I wasn’t always obedient. At some point, we were eating. Theodoropoulos, his wife, his daughter and I. Then, without any reason, he said: “You have no business sitting at the king’s table to eat”. I threw the plate and retorted: “Farewell to you, to your queen and your table”. Why not tell him so? I had learned the job well. I had no need.

He was, however, justified. When he died, I came from Athens and went to his funeral.

What’s right is right. Theodoropoulos was very fond of me and my wife, especially when I baptised his grandchild, Tassos. May he rest in peace! He was a very good man! I stopped working with Theodoropoulos when I joined the army”…

Recollections of Giorgos Balabanis (1958-2015) Giorgos Balabanis was born in Patras. He was an apprentice to Antonaros, Yiannaros’ assistant and close associate of the “Theodoropoulion Shadow Theatre” and Nikos Theodoropoulos-Fragopoulos (son of Sofia Theodoropoulou), who stood by him up to his last moments. His funeral expenses were covered by the Hellenic Shadow Theatre Association. The eulogy was delivered by puppeteer Thomas Ath. Agrafiotis, as member of the Artistic Council of the Hellenic Shadow Theatre Association, along with the following text, which he wrote himself and was published in the newspaper “Gnomi” and in the Association’s digital monthly magazine, “O Karagiozis mas”: “I watched Giorgos Balabanis for the first time at the end of September 2006, during the 3rd Greek Shadow Theatre Competition, in the city of Patras. During his award ceremony, on the last day of the festival, I was impressed with his clever quotes, a fine example of spontaneity, improvisation and sharp wit, which made me fully agree with the relevant comment of one of the organizers: - Giorgos Balabanis!

A natural-born puppeteer!

28

One and-a-half months later, I met Balabanis in person, after a performance he gave at the Theodoropouleio Theatre, where he lived for over ten years. He was a genuine folk artist, spontaneous and sharp, exactly as when I had first seen him. He was the main associate of Sofia Theodoropoulou. He presented the heroic play, The Olympian Eagle, which, as he said, was perhaps his favourite, a play by puppeteer Dinos Theodoropoulos, full of fun, action and emotion. We also met in the offices of the Hellenic Shadow Theatre Association, at the annual meeting in November of the same year, when Giorgos with Sofia, had their own struggle, among a very competitive environment that often did not do them justice and treated them in a biased manner, as was the norm of the local star-system, even in the seemingly innocent field of Karagiozis.

Sofia and Giorgos and I often met and worked together, either in Theodoropoulio or in other venues, such as the Laiko Theatro, at Germanou Street, during the summer performances of 2007. One and-a-half years later, Sofia left us, disappointed by the professional war she had experienced, but also vindicated after death. The premature loss of Sofia, perhaps signalled the end of the most creative and artistically happy period for Giorgos. His action continued, with the same creativity, beside Sofia's son, Nikos Theodoropoulos. In this way, Nikos learnt the art alongside a worthy teacher and associate. You see, Giorgos knew Karagiozis, was a true artist if somewhat bohemian (though, intentionally) - and had met most of the old puppeteers of post-war Patras and indeed had worked with them. Above all, Giorgos stood out for his guileless, generous and forbearing character, a typical value of the honest and, unfortunately, now lost, folk nature of old Greek puppeteers.

Some people embittered him, a few months before his death, in a way not befitting an artist, who loved, like no other, Patras and the Shadow Theatre of the city. Decent as he was, Giorgos replied in a letter to the Press, but this decency of his was not forgiven by the “central system”. He was hurt, but not spiteful. Finally, thanks to Nikos Theodoropoulos’ actions, the Hellenic Shadow Theatre Association acknowledged Giorgos’ contribution in practice, when he left peacefully, quietly and discreetly. May you rest in peace, Giorgos! We will never forget you”…

Antonis and Dimitris Mollas Antonis Mollas was born in Vatrachonisi in Athens, but hailed (as to his origin) from Mani. He was an apprentice to Yiannis Roulias, who successfully performed in Athens in the last decade of the 19th century. Antonis Mollas’ artistic evolution was rapid, as he is regarded as the puppeteer who upgraded the spoken word of Karagiozis, leaving aside bawdy jokes as he supported that “bawdiness is the wit of fools”. He was also among the founders (with Manolopoulos) of the Hellenic Shadow Theatre Association in 1925. He made important stage innovations (e.g. the use of two consecutive scenes) and invented new characters, such as Morfonios and the chubby officer of the palace, Halil, better known as “Peponias”. French scholar Louis Roussel based almost all his two-volume scientific work on modern Greek Karagiozis on the “incomparable and therefore unquestionable superiority of Mollas”. The value of Antonis Mollas was such, that the writing of various leaflets 29

with Karagiozis plays is attributed to him, although said leaflets are considered counterfeit.

According to the biography written for Antonis Mollas by his son, Mimis, “Mollas’ performances were not only crowded with common people - to whom they were mainly addressed - but also by representatives of intellectual and scientific circles, and the state Administration. King Constantine and his sons, the later kings George and Paul, were among his regular viewers”. A remarkable biography for Antonis Mollas was also written by his daughter, Areti Molla-Giovanou and published in 1981 by “Kedros” editions, under the title: “The puppeteer Antonis Mollas”. More generally, however, as his son writes, “Antonis Mollas managed to leave a deep mark in his passage from this life”. In this way, even Antonis Mollas’ death on 28 December 1948 symbolically triggered the beginning of the decline of Shadow Theatre, with the dawn of the second half of the 20th century. His apprentices, mainly Dimitris Mollas, Giorgos-Stephanos Alibertis, Giorgos Koutsouris, Nikos Chortaridis, Andreas Nikitopoulos and Manolis Mantzouranis, are the puppeteers defining what is currently known as the “Athenian School” of modern Greek Shadow Theatre.

Dimitris Mollas (1917-1987) hailed from Athens. He was son and apprentice to Antonis Mollas. “He started performing while in the Army in 1938 in Florina”. He had excellent encyclopaedic knowledge and university education, a writing flair and multifaceted artistic activity, not only in Shadow Theatre, but also in many other arts (e.g. cinema, where he worked with great directors such as Elijah Kazan, in the film “America-America” etc.). He also participated shortly before his death, along with Manthos Athinaios, Stamatis Generalis and Giorgos Mamais, the Apotheosis of “Katsandonis” in Lakis Papastathis film “Theofilos” (1987). However, apart from his artistic activity, Mimis Mollas also stood out for his political activity, because of which he was driven to exile in Makronissos, while his book “Our Karagiozis: Hellenic Shadow Theatre”, published fifteen years after his death by “Sychroni Epochi” editions, is considered monumental. From this book, we cite (indicatively) the following about the origin of Shadow Theatre: “We Greeks, since our country has played a key role in the creation of intellectual achievements, could claim authorship of the genre, without the risk of being characterised as selfish. The assertive view is enhanced, both by the central idea of the Eleusinian Mysteries- appearance of the Hierophant on the stretched fabric and the relevant hints of Plato (Republic Z 514d), where the allegory of the cave is a reference to Shadow Theatre”.

Dimitris Mollas’ letter to Dinos Theodoropoulos The Karagiozis festival held in the winter of 1966 to 1967 in Patras was not the only one held in the cradle of modern Greek Shadow Theatre for over a century.

Neither was it perhaps the only eventful festival, if one considers the injustices or misunderstandings that do occur, resulting in a number of reactions before or after the actual festival. It was, however, the only Karagiozis festival, which, in addition to all the above, was accompanied by a letter-historic evidence of an intellectual 30

professional puppeteer from Athens, which set things right in place and restored order.

Puppeteer Mimis Mollas, son of the great Athenian puppeteer Anthonis Mollas, participated in this festival, and although he could have left enjoying the glory and the gains from his participation, he preferred to break his silence and clarify some situations, as he could not tolerate the unprecedented injustices that had taken place.

Naturally, these were neither the first nor the last of unfair and unjust situations that arise in such events. It was, however, the first of the extremely rare occasions that a visiting artist rather than exploiting situations, opted for the difficult path of virtue.

Mimis Mollas is thus proven to be, above all, a true artist, with morals, personal will and mainly personality. As history is repeated, it should be noted that never again under similar circumstances has any other puppeteer managed to stand tall and rank justice above his personal convenience. In this sense, Mimis Mollas’ letter is particularly significant and is why his many references to Dinos Theodoropoulos acquire even greater value.

Briefly, the story goes as follows: Mollas was invited to perform at a festival, in which, for obvious reasons, top and veteran puppeteers of Patras, Vasilaros and Theodoropoulos had not been included. Vasilaros was about seventy years old, while Theodoropoulos was over seventy-five. At the time however they were both considered as pillars of modern Greek- and of course Patras’- modern Karagiozis, a fact that is nowadays recognised.

The two puppeteers experienced great unfairness, which according to the letter, is attributed to two factors: a) purely political reasons, with clear references to the then Mayor and an employee of the municipality and the organizing committee, and b) Patras’ puppeteers, with puppeteer Nikos Panagiotaras being the only one to be specifically mentioned.

Our personal view, based on common sense and on experience, is that in this case the Mayor - and any Mayor hosting a similar festival - does not and should not have a direct and clear opinion on what happens in such events, given that he assigns said projects to specific and supposedly experienced persons of the municipality, whom he trusts. Therefore, the responsibility should be sought in the employee, regardless of his position, who however - as Mollas admits - is but a mere executive agent who may have followed orders for a number of “intentional” mistakes, always convenient for unscrupulous individuals at the expense of the weakest links. In this case, the liability of employees (or members of the organizing committee) is great, as is their wilful blindness and their submissiveness to others, although most of the liability always lies with the instigator.

The latter role is assumed, as it seems, by many younger puppeteers at the time, who are portrayed by Mollas as “lobbyists” and “anti-collectivists” but, as there are many incidents, only one is explicitly named, which is rather unfair because in this way his even more unscrupulous and devious associates are covered. In this sense, perhaps Nikos Panagiotaras has been wronged, because he is the only one mentioned, unlike the others who participated in the attempt. Mollas notes that all the above do not deserve to be called “colleagues”.

31

Vasilaros too is mentioned, who had also been a victim of this conspiracy but stood tall, although marginalised, as Dimitris Mollas described, showing respect to Dinos Theodoropoulos and therefore confirming for yet another time that, although Vasilaros and Theodoropoulos disagreed on everything, they shared a mutual respect for each other. It is a mutual respect, that is nowadays missing from the Karagiozis genre. Vasilaros “was completely honest and was looking for his veteran friend”.

However, the greatest respect to Theodoropoulos is exhibited by Mollas himself. Having a clear and profound understanding of Shadow Theatre, the writer of the letter in the beginning lists the causes that created the misunderstanding, with particular reference to the mediator and puppeteer Thanasis Spyropoulos, to conclude in a real apology to Dinos Theodoropoulos, mainly attributing “lack of sharpness” to himself. This apology, a true masterpiece of literary-legal expression, flows like a river and outlines the essence of his words, which do not so much refer to the event itself (which had happened, is happening and will always continue to happen as a result of human nature) but to something deeper: That on the occasion of this event, he pays a tribute to a great Greek puppeteer, one of the pillars of the art of modern Greek- and Patras- Shadow Theatre.

However, Mollas’ praise of Theodoropoulos is not written because the author of the letter wants to apologize. It is written because he believes it, as also recorded in his book, which, as mentioned above, was published a few decades later. Dimitris Mollas with his words pays homage to an artist, whom Patras had not ultimately honoured, as it should. Perhaps, by responsibility of the very trade of puppeteers...

Indeed these words, we repeat, do not come from any random puppeteer, but an artist of opinion, ethics, personal will and character, who honoured his teachers.

“Our art is a traditional one; old puppeteers are also our fathers”.

Yet, at the same time, he had the courage, when law was on his side to talk with harsh words and publicly, because, as we know, written words remain: “You sow weeds” Mollas writes about the younger puppeteers of Patras “you tricked me, telling me that Vasilaros and Dinos are at loggerheads” although “I asked that my former colleagues, Vasilaros and Theodoropoulos, be invited”. On the fall of an oak, every man gathers wood...

Dimitris Mollas’ words to the liable puppeteers are harsh, but unfortunately reflect the sad reality of a lack of morals, with history repeating itself, since as Mollas writes “there is still bread in your teeth; the bread you have from performing Theodoropoulos”...

Athens, 24 January 1967.

Dear Esteemed Mr. Theodoropoulos.

I write to you as I have arrived in Athens, where I was quickly sent because of the flu I got in Patras.

As there will be quite some hype on my stance during “Karagiozis Week”, as it is only now that I realised some things and as I am anyway terribly exposed to you, I think it is necessary that I make the following clarifications.

32

Above all, I am sorry that I too unwittingly contributed to the bitterness you experienced, a bitterness that I was too late to realize was deliberately cultivated by malevolent petty little people.

Naturally, today, order should have been restored. This however does not mean, I assure you it does not mean, that I have any less appreciation for you than that other serious colleagues have for you.

I will clearly explain the facts that justify me, without this diminishing the value of your order via Spiropoulos to me, namely that you expected greater courtesy and understanding of me.

My only excuse is that I was a victim to my somewhat great romanticism, which dampens my ability to read between the lines, or maybe I was victimised by a periodic lack of sharpness, that prevented me from seeing how the colleagues of Patras think and act. I had very little information on this.

I report verbatim, what was said on my stage, at the time colleague Spyropoulos told me of your complaint.

I immediately took a break and demanded to see the head of the organizing committee.

I do admit that, maybe due to the fever I had, maybe due to my irritation - as I was trying a thousand combinations to finish a decent performance, leaving out characters that I could no longer vocally perform - maybe because I was piqued by your words, maybe due to endless other incidents, the manner I talked to the representative of the municipality was rough and unnecessarily irritating, because he personally was not to blame for anything.

Sir, I said, you can tell Mr. Mayor, that I accepted to participate in your event without any special privileges, I accepted my treatment as equal with other people of our trade whom I refuse to call colleagues, I accepted the order you specified unbeknown to me, I accepted extraordinary subsequent participations in the event, which break down the unity of my presentation and above all I accepted to work this very moment, shivering and with mute, so that I would not to spoil your schedule, and all this without the slightest request of any additional consideration.

I did, however, ask that my former colleagues, Messrs Vasilaros and Theodoropoulos be formally invited.

And as to Mr Vasilaros, well there he is! But he was not officially invited; he is watching the show behind the stage - like a mere assistant, along with all other common puppeteers, their helpers, their wives and your friends that you sneaked backstage.

Did I or did I not give you their addresses two months ago?

Tell the Mayor that, neither the premieres nor your official guests matter to me, when among them the people honoured by us ourselves are not included. Dear Sir, we do not want any honour when you disregard established artists of the genre, our teachers.

Redress, gentlemen. Redress!!!

Poor Raftopoulos, shrank from my feisty words and mumbled excuses until, the Deus ex machina, Mr Panagiotaras, who apparently misunderstood the fact that I 33

had helped him because he was abandoned by the rest, and assumed that he could play… politician to me.

This is where it exploded (I really flew off the handle).

Yes, Panagiotaras, I am a star in my job and whether I deserve it or not, will be judged by the public. But who are you? And why do you promote yourself as the Mayor’s defender?

I have a conflict with the organizing committee and if it so happens, that you too are a part of this committee, by your deferred participation based on political notes, I inform you that you should be satisfied with only your technical participation alone and not play Hadzadzaris with me, because you picked the wrong man to fight and I am way out of your league.

No Sir, when I say “the puppeteers of Patras” I meant you, yes you who are now gobsmacked, I did not mean Vasilaros; no matter how hard you may try, you can’t trick me now. I meant you, who tricked me telling me that Vasilaros and Dinos are at loggerheads, and I, like a fool, believed you and thought that when Vasilaros asked “Where is Dinos” he did so to soften the edge of their conflict- their inexistent conflict, a mere figment of your sick imagination- while the man was being completely honest and was merely looking for his veteran friend.

You, the “puppeteers of Patras” I was referring to, the ones that sow weeds among us, simply to make us become like you! You are the ones who lied to me that supposedly Dinos was not in Patras, but the village where his daughter had got a job.

If you are a friend of the Mayor's, go tell him that Dinos will not be the Unknown Soldier, go tell him that if it weren’t for Dinos he wouldn’t be holding a festival today and that there is still bread in your teeth; the bread you have from performing Theodoropoulos.

Please sit down; I do not forget that I am in Patras, but don’t you forget that you are behind by scrim.

Only now did I realise that you found your chance to “gather wood”.

Of course, you had to arrange for the invitation.

Poor wretch! If this happened in Athens and they did not invite my father, I would kill them. It’s the same thing! As our art is a traditional one, old puppeteers are also our fathers.

But you will pay for this. Who knows when and to whom.

Sit down I told you! Do not look for new rhetorics... Just remember this one thing: if your little brains fabricated this entire plot, only to isolate us... For your information, Dinos watched my show last night, in the audience, and congratulated me via Spyropoulos.

Well, you can suck (obscene phrase) Mr politician.

Hey, Technician! Turn on the spotlight and ring the bell before we all start looking the same around here.

Mr Theodoropoulos.

I write only what I said. Naturally, you can draw your own conclusions on what he said, but only my words may be distorted.

34

All these things were said in the presence of at least twenty people behind the scrim and unfortunately in the presence of the audience, as the speakers were on. But I should say, I said what I felt and I do not care how many people heard it. The only bad thing is that, who knows why, the Mayor- while he made the most flattering comment for me on the first day- after this incident, avoided to meet me.

As for his representative‌ Panagiotaras disappeared as soon as the lights were on.

Mr Theodoropoulos.

I apologize for saying that you watched my show and congratulated me. I am sure - without meaning to sound selfish- that is what would have happened. However, the reactions of Panagiotaras and his gang upon hearing this lie were revealing, as I clearly realised their roguery and petty speculation.

Nonetheless, regardless of all the things I mentioned, I apologize again as I should have been sharp enough to realize everything sooner.

With respect Dimitris Mollas

35