Comedy and tragedy in Cretan and Heptanesian theatre

Disclaimer

The article below was originally written in the form of an undergraduate assignment for the Greek Open University in 2007, during a period when the author's academic skills were still under development. Although the quality of this article does not match the quality of later examples of the same author's work, it is written in a thorough manner and contains useful information to nowadays students and other readers with non-specialised knowledge; therefore, it has been proudly included on this website.

The reader needs to be warned that the original assignment, on which this article was based on, was written in Greek and was intended to be read by specialised academics. Despite the author's best intentions to present his essay in the clearest way possible, some points and arguments might still be lost in translation. The author recommends that for any unknown words or specialised vocabulary, the readers should refer to the web for additional information.

The author admits that the bibliography for this article is limited, matching the requirements of an undergraduate assignment of this level. The author did not include any additional bibliography during the translation of his work in English due to time and access limitations. It must also be noted that the original bibliography for this article was studied from translated copies in Greek; therefore, the page numbers suggested in the citations below match the page numbers of the translated copies and not the original volumes.

Introduction

This article discuses Cretan and Heptanesian drama, and compares their characteristic features and their influences. The paper is divided in four sections. The first section discusses drama production in Crete during its chronological peak, focusing primarily on the tragedies written between the 16th and 17th centuries. The second section discusses drama production in the Heptanese. It examines its relationships with Crete, the pre-existing Venetian traditions and the broader Western education of the Heptanesian play writers. The third section focuses on the play Iphigenia by Petros Katsaitis and discusses its characteristic features, which were inspired by the Cretan tradition, European Renaissance, contemporary Baroque and folk theatre. The final section presents a summary and some basic conclusions in relation to drama production in the two aforementioned regions, and their contribution to the broader evolution of modern Greek theatre.

1. Tragedy and comedy in Crete

Cretan drama associates with the Venetian occupation of the island (AD 1211-1669) and the impact of Italian Renaissance theatre on the Cretan theatrical tradition. The peaceful conditions during the late occupation period in Crete (16th and 17th centuries) resulted to the flourishing of literature and the arts in general (Pouchner 2002, 87). This period was characterised by three main dramatists, who belonged to the island’s most prominent social strata and also worked for the Venetian administration. Their education was Italian and was based on the principles of Humanism, which they introduced in Cretan drama production. These dramatists were Georgios Chortatsis (AD 1550-1610), Ioannis Andreas Troelos (17th century) and Markos Antonios Foskolos (AD 1597-1662) (Pouchner 2002, 180).

1.1 Tragedy in Crete

The first and greatest tragic composition in Crete was Erophili by the Rethymnian play writer Georgios Chortatsis, written circa AD 1600. The prototype of Erophili was the Italian tragedy Orbecce by Giambattista Giraldi, written in AD 1549; however, there are other influences from the play Filostrato e Pamfila by Antonio Cammelli il Pistoia, written in AD 1508 (Pouchner 2002, 94-5). The play’s intermedia are all taken from the epic composition La Gerusalemme Liberata By Torquato Tasso (AD 1544-1595). In his composition, Chortatsis purposely avoids the academic rhetorisms of Italian Renaissance tragedy and focuses on the psychological fluctuations of his two protagonists (Pouchner 2002, 94-5). This brings Chortatsis closer to the modern Greek novelists of the psycho-graphic school.

The moral conclusion in Erophili is the symbolic unity between love and death. Erophili dies unmarried, while her love for Panaretos if fulfilled through the simultaneous death of the two youths. The play also projects the ‘memento mori’ (the futility of death) of medieval Christian philosophy, in conjunction with the almighty power of love in both life and death. Such elements dominate the Classicising Renaissance compositions. Chortatsis describes the psychological cosmos of his protagonists in a lively manner: Erophili remains loyal to love until death; Panaretos survives a series of psychological fluctuations until he realises Erophili’s love; and finally, the king takes revenge on the two youths, which has the form of a deeply sadistic pleasure. Chortatsis’ symbolisms are everywhere in the play and can even be noted in the names of his protagonists: Ero-phili = friend of love, Pan-aretos = full of virtue, Filo-gonos = friend of the offspring, Chyso-nomi = golden law, etc. (Pouchner 2002, 96-105).

Erophili is a five-act drama in political verse and the poet’s technique shows a composition of high aesthetic value, which is not only noted in the use of language, but also in the structure of verse. Although monologues take over most of the play, the writer alternates them with dialogues, which ‘break’ the play’s monotony for the viewers. Furthermore, he uses word forms and syntax techniques, which impress the audience and assist in the plot’s escalation. In the verses, there are intentional delays in announcing the verbs, rhetorical questions, shifting of words and phrases in an irrational order (hyperbaton feature), long pauses, syllable-sharing between words, rhetorical repetition patterns and long descriptions of visual images (poetic image-building). Erophili is characterised by a rich use of carefully-designed rhymes; however, Chortatsis often surprises the viewers with the repetition of unconnected rhymes, which create a peculiar aesthetic impression. By the repetition of standardised rhyme forms (e.g. ομάδι- Άδη, κάμω- γάμο, ψυχή μου- κορμί μου, etc.), Chortatsis allows a constructive memorisation of his narrative. His innovative techniques also includes the use of verbal announcement formulae for the introduction of people and events taking place away from the viewers. Such announcements are necessary as the story unfolds on a monotopic stage (Pouchner 2002, 106-133).

A typical feature of contemporary dramas, which is also noted in the works of Chortatsis, is tragic irony. Tragic irony manipulates the audience’s emotional fluctuations through the controlled flow of information, which takes place in different levels. Chortatsis uses a technique of reduced communication on stage, during which one of the protagonists accidentally hears the comments of another protagonist without being noticed. In other occasions, he uses the technique of the hidden listener (hide-and-listen technique) and the self-commenting technique. By following the theatrical conventions set by Aristotle (Περὶ Ποιητικῆς), Chortatsis purposely limits the stage-time to one day (Pouchner 2002, 139-49).

The play King Rodolino by the Rethymnian Ioannis Andreas Troelos, written circa AD 1640, is a Greek adaptation of the Italian play Il Re Torrismondo by Torquato Tasso. The story is similar to Erophili and its main focus is the relationship between love, death and friendship. In the play, there are two couples of lovers instead of one, and their interactions end with a quadruple suicide. In relation to its structure, King Rodolino does not have any intermedia; this innovation stands out as the play not only differs in relation to the works of Chortatsis, but also in relation to its own prototype. Instead of intermedia, there are lyric parts that separate the acts of the main plot, the verses of which are highly poetic. The play is dominated by monologues and Troelos copies some of Chortatsis’ narration techniques, such are the consultation scene between the king and one of his officials. The play belongs to the Classicising Renaissance compositions because its central theme is the almighty power of love and the medieval ‘memento mori’; however, the extreme psychological fluctuations of all the protagonists, the final schizophrenic behaviour of the main protagonist and the diversions noted in the play’s characters are likely to suggest connections with late Baroque theatre (Pouchner 2002, 159-161).

The tragedy Zeno was written between AD 1631 and 1683. Its writer is currently unknown; however, it is likely to be someone from Crete, who lived in the Heptanese. Its prototype is also named Zeno and, written in Latin by the English Jesuit dramatist Joseph Simons (AD 1595-1671). The central topic of the play are the intrigues and punishment of the Byzantine Emperor Zeno, who ruled between AD 474-475 and again between AD 476-491. The play is based on true events and its protagonists are historically recorded people. Although its structure is Classicising, the play consists of several innovations, which are not noted in the plays by Chortatsis and Troelos. The prologue is converted to an introductory dialogue; there are no intermedia and no choric parts at the end of the play’s acts; the plot does not form a unity; the scenic space and time are deflected; there appear numerous second actors and auxiliaries on stage during brief scenes; and, there is strong emphasis in spectacle scenes. As with Askia in Erophili, Zeno includes scenes with ghosts, which appear in the form of heavenly presences, or even ghosts of people, such as magicians and prophets. There are brutal and horrifying events, with blood being spilled on stage, which is a totally unusual feature in Greek drama. Finally, the information flow to the audience is controlled by various hide-and-listen scenes. The play is a typical baroque-style historical tragedy, which also bears resemblance with early Elizabethan English theatre, and more specifically with Shakespeare’s work. The play requires the use of a polytopic stage, most likely tripartite with a mutual foreground. In any case, the Greek writer who adapted the original drama, was most likely used to such theatrical practices, which differed significantly compared to Greek drama (Pouchner 2002, 162-4).

1.2 Comedy in Crete

In this paper, Cretan comedy is discussed in relation to three plays: Katzourmpos by Georgios Chortatsis (AD 1550-1610), written towards the end of the 16th century; Stathis, which is the work of an unknown writer, most likely placed in the early 17th century; and finally, Fortunatos by Markos Antonios Foskolos (AD 1597-1662), written in AD 1655. Unlike Cretan tragedies, Cretan comedies do not have Italian prototypes. They consist of act compilations taken from Italian Renaissance literature and are most likely influenced by commedia erudita, which is the Italian scholarly-composed erotic comedy. The protagonists of Cretan comedy copy popular character-types from commedia erudita, such as the old lover (e.g. Pantalone), the educated teacher who shows off by mixing Greek with Latin (dottore), the coward-bully army officer (capitano) with his thugs, the cunning and always-hungry servants (zanni), the old matchmakers and prostitutes (ruffianae), and many others. The same characters are also noted in the Italian art comedy, the commedia dell’ arte, which is unlikely to have impacted on Cretan comedy during the late 16th and early 17th centuries. Cretan comedies were not played by professional actors, which was the case in commedia dell’ arte; they were not based on improvisations following specific and standardised acts (lazzi); and finally, the actors were not wearing half-face masks. All three Cretan comedies under discussion have the same exact plot, as they do with all other known comedies from the above period. The plot describes the love between a young couple, which suddenly becomes threatened by the presence of an old lover, who attempts to seduce the girl. The end of the plot is always happy (Pouchner 2002, 165).

Katzourmpos by Georgios Chortatsis has been named after the typical cunning servant (zanni) who is the comedy’s main character. Katzourmpos has been the prototype for all Cretan comedies and focuses on the relationship between love and luck, which contrasts with the love and death relationship noted in Erophili. The comedy’s protagonists are conventional, with non-symbolic names, and their characters are rooted in Latin comedy or even Hellenistic comedy, as they resemble some characters by Menander (c.342/41 – c.290 BC). The comedy consists of five acts; interestingly, segments from Kampourtzos are used as intermedia in the pastoral drama Panoria, written by Chortatsis at about the same period. In fact, both plays survive in the same manuscript (Pouchner 2002, 165-8).

The comedy Stathis belongs to an unknown writer and its date is currently unclear. The play survives in a three-act Heptanesian remake and its prologue coincides with the monologue of Love from the fifth act of Panoria. The plot is the same as in Kampourtzos and Fortunatos. The latter was written by Markos Antonios Foskolos during the siege of Chandax in 1655. Foskolos lived during the mid 17th century, which was the era of the counter-reformation. His comedy is better-structured compared to the other two and he also introduces new comic characters, such as the bulky and quarrelsome Catholic monk Fraros. Foskolos promotes ethical teachings, adapted to serve the realities of an urban environment (Pouchner 2002, 165-8).

2. Tragedy and comedy in the Heptanese

During the 17th century, the continuity of Cretan drama migrated to the Heptanese. After the fall of Chandax in AD 1669, many Cretan scholars escaped to the Venetian-occupied Heptanese, where they introduced the Cretan dramaturgy at its peak to the local theatrical traditions. The theatrical activities in the Heptanese had been vibrant since the 16th century, with various comedies played in Corfu and possible remakes of Attic dramas played in Zante, such as the Persians by Aeschylus (472 BC). The Cretan plays were introduced in the Heptanesian tradition, they were copied by local dramatists and were played by amateur theatrical groups. During its greatest peak (17th-18th century), Heptanesian drama combined artistic elements from Crete, local folk traditions and scholarly features from contemporary European drama (Pouchner 2002, 188-90).

2.1 Tragedy in the Heptanese

The play Eugena by the Zakynthian writer Theodoros Montzeleze was first published in Venice in AD 1646 and copied the Classicising dramaturgy of Crete. It consists of long narrative sections, deficient scene divisions and several meaningless repetitions, which do not comply with the technical perfection of its Cretan prototypes. The story is about the young princess Eugena, who is amputated by her evil stepmother. During the play, Holy Mary performs a miracle and restores her physical appearance. The occurrence of miracles in Heptanesian drama originates from the sacra rappresentazione of medieval Italian theatre. In general, the play follows the conventions of folk-religious drama combined with elements from Chortatsis’ Erophili. For example, after the evil stepmother’s execution, the murderer exhibits her severed head to the public, which is placed in a basket, corresponding to the scene with the dismembered body of Panaretos in Erophili. The play’s structure is loose, following long gaps between the acts. Based on its structure, it was probably designed to be played on a polytopic stage. There is also mention of the term ‘milima’ (μίλημα = talk) during a short act, which confirms the relationship between Heptanesian drama and the ‘omilies’ (ομιλίες = talks). The latter were folk carnival performances, which were played with half-face masks and were combined with singing recitation (Pouchner 2002, 192-4).

The tragedies Iphigenia (AD 1720) and Thyestes (AD 1721) by Petros Katsaitis (AD 1838-1896) from Kephalonia borrow their plots from ancient Greek mythology; however, their prototypes are two homonymous Italian tragedies by Lodovico Dolce (AD 1508/10-1568), written during the early 16th century. In both plays, Katsaitis introduces elements from Erophili in a attempt to copy the Classicising traditions of Crete. Both plays are characterised by the projection of strong Christian beliefs, while Iphigenia also contains national-patriotic elements, which are absent in Cretan dramaturgy. An additional innovation in Iphigenia is the introduction of three comedy acts after the end of the main plot, the protagonists of which associate with the Italian commedia dell’ arte. Thyestes, on the other hand, promotes a sort of populist ideology, a Christian sense of divine justice and preachings that vary from anti-Aristotelian to soulful. The psychological characteristics of the protagonists are given from a petty-bourgeois perspective, which resembles the Fortunatos by Foskolos. The awful crimes of the Tantalides are described in terms of popular criminology. The popularism in Katsaitis’ approach is combined with scholarly elements from the ‘omilies’ and the commedia dell’ arte; therefore, his work not only continues the Cretan tradition, but also forms an introduction to modern Greek theatre (Pouchner 2002, 195-201).

2.2 Comedy in the Heptanese

Heptanesian comedy consists of two major plays: the Comedy of the Fake Doctors (Η Κωμωδία των Ψευτογιατρών) by Savoyas Rousmelis (18th century) and Chasis (Χάσης) by Demetrius Gouzelis (AD 1774-1843). The Comedy of the Fake Doctors, written in AD 1745, is a contemporary satirical play, which mocks the stupidity and credulity of the Zakynthian society to the “kompogiannites” (κομπογιαννίτες), the uncertified touring doctors of that period. It is written in political verse and consists of five acts which are not accompanied by intermedia. The play includes a plethora of comic characters, who become involved in unbelievable and confusing situations. At the end of the play, the person who wins is Sbogos Vittoros (Humpback Victor), who makes good use of the hide-and-listen technique: during the early scenes he remains invisible to the other protagonists, he listens to their conversations without being noticed, he comments on what is said by the fake doctors, and finally exposes them. The play is definitely influenced by the Ηeptanesian ‘omilies’ (talks) and is also likely to carry elements from the commedia dell’ arte. Chasis (Χάσης) by Demetrius Gouzelis was written circa 1790 and its original title used to be The Fighting and the Fixing-Up (Το Τσάκωμα και το Φτιάσιμον). The play does not have a continuous plot; it consists of four acts with loose structure, which is why it was later converted to an ‘omilia’ (talk). Gouzelis is likely to be the last representative of Italian comedy traditions in Greece; his protagonist Theodoros Katapodis is the last ‘bravo’ (thug) of Greek comedy (Pouchner 2002, 201-4).

3. Iphigenia (AD 1720) by Petros Katsaitis

The tragedy Iphigenia by Petros Katsaitis is a free-structured remake taken from ancient Greek mythology, although the play’s prototype is typically Italian. As noted earlier, the play promotes Christian moral values and projects an early form of Greek national identity, while at the same time, it critiques 18th century social structure and its elite groups. The interplay between the plot’s theme and the original myth was most likely influenced by the broader personality of Petros Katsaitis. The writer belonged to a family of Heptanesian nobles of intermediate social status; he was educated according to the principles of Italian Humanism and had studied many Italian and Cretan dramatists of his time. In his works, Katsaitis adopted an ‘anti-Asian’ approach, which was due to his participation in the Ottoman-Venetian War (AD 1684-1699) and the Morosini campaign (Guerra di Morea), which led to his captivity in AD 1715. Katsaitis is usually accused to be a careless dramatist as he does not follow the conventions of the Classicising dramaturgy of Crete. In reality, however, Katsaitis is an 18th century writer and represents an era when Cretan Classicising conventions had fallen out of use. During that period, Heptanesian drama was forming its own distinct features (Pouchner 1984, 185-8).

Despite its diversion from the Cretan tradition, Iphigenia maintains certain dependencies from Cretan drama: Katsaitis still follows a five-act division in political verse; he introduces the typical “dance of the maidens” in the same way as this was used in Erophili; and finally, he uses the Cretan dialect, which he enriches with Heptanesian idioms. Various rhyme-forms from Erophili are copied directly into Iphigenia, such as the rhyming bi-poles ‘κάμω- γάμο’ (do-wedding), ‘ονομάζω- κράζω’ (to name-to call), ομάδι- Άδη (group-Hades) (Pouchner 1984, 192-8).

Iphigenia follows the principles described in Aristotle’s Poetics (Περὶ Ποιητικῆς), where the scenic time is limited to one day; on the other hand, this is not the case with the tragedy Thyestes. The plot unfolds on a monotopic stage, which requires certain modifications. The play depends on a constant and quick change of sets; however, there are no evidence for the use of set-technology in Heptanesian theatre, at least similar to the one used in contemporary Baroque theatre. It is likely that Katsaitis’ plays were performed on a mobile wooden stage (palkoskino), which allowed the use of painted tableaux at the background, combined with doors entering the main stage (Pouchner 1984, 198-201).

Katsaitis’ drama techniques are often characterised as amateurisms and imitations, mainly of those by Chortatsis. The announcement technique is used clumsily and quite often it conveys false information; complex forms of information flow are purposely avoided; finally, there is a preference in the hide-and-listen technique, which carries no unexpected revelations (Pouchner 1984, 201-5).

The comic scenes at the end of the fifth act have led many researchers to argue that Katsaitis wrote a comedy play instead of a tragedy, if not a loose tragicomedy. Although the play is not comic, it promotes folk and simultaneously didactic pieces of information in a humorous manner, which does not exist in Cretan drama. Katsaitis disputes the code of honour of the ruling elites of his time; he promotes Christian beliefs through Odysseus and Phenisus; he demystifies idolatry and magic; he promotes a spirit of anti-militarism, yet at the same time, he outbursts patriotic emotions; he cultivates Greek national consciousness, and at the same time, he warns the viewers about the Asian threat. From a historical point of view, the play was written after the Peloponnese had been re-captured by the Ottomans; hence, Katsaitis wished to stress this situation to his audience (Pouchner 1984, 210-5).

In relation to its theme, Iphigenia moves parallel to Erophili and stresses the element of sorrow of the unmarried young girl, who stands in front of death (Katsaitis 1950 [1720], Act 4, Verses 201-4, 66). The death of Iphigenia becomes her willing sacrifice, this time not for love, but for the homeland’s victory (Katsaitis 1950 [1720], Act 4, Verses 493-7, 74). By contrast to Erophili, the death of Iphigenia is finally ‘cancelled’ and replaced by a happy end, which consists of three comedy acts. These acts appear to replace the intermedia that are noted in Cretan tradition. They most likely reveal a transitional phase in Heptanesian drama, during which the intermedia were played all together after the end of the plot. Furthermore, it appears likely that from the 17th century onwards, the use of intermedia was gradually abandoned (Pouchner 1984, 189).

The three comic/satirical acts at the end of Iphigenia’s fifth act are an excellent example of Katsaitis’ familiarity with Italian commedia dell’ arte. It is presumed that Katsaitis came into contact with this form of comedy during his military service in Nauplion; however, one cannot exclude the familiarity of the Heptanesians, in general, with such theatrical acts, which were either spread through Venetian theatre, or by the customary satirical acts of the carnival celebrations in the Heptanese (Grammatas 1987, 27-32). It is the author’s personal view that Katsaitis could have also been influenced by the acts of commedia erudita, as these are noted in Chortatsis’ Katzourmpos.

In Iphigenia, Katsaitis mocks specific characters borrowed from Italian folk comedy. These are the coward-bully Captain Couviello and his thugs, the two zanni called Barlakias and Scapinos, and the old-lover Tiburtzio (Grammatas 1987, 27-32). Sarganellos is a typical creation of the comédie italienne, which was played by Italian troupes in Paris during the time of Molière (AD 1622-1673). He resembles Monsieur de Pourceaugnac (AD 1669), a comic character by Molière, who was first-introduced during the contact period between French and Italian troupes in 17th century Paris. Such characters probably reached the Heptanese after the exile of Italian performers from France, who probably carried on with their theatrical tours in the Venetian-occupied territories, including the Heptanese (Pouchner 2002, 197). Of course, Katsaitis’ satirical acts cannot necessarily be categorised as comedy acts, but perhaps parody acts with strong elements of folk culture. It appears likely that at the end of his drama, Katsaitis does not wish cover up the proceeding tragic events of Iphigenia’s myth. Instead, he uses parody independently in order to mock the social stratification system of his era, and perhaps predict the fall of Heptanesian aristocracy in favour of other urban social groups. Furthermore, the parody is connected with the plot of Iphigenia as it associates with the clash between Chalkias and Agamemnon; this clash probably implied the power struggle between politics and religion, which was likely to assist in the social mobility of the bourgeois (Grammatas 1987, 32-3). In that sense, Katsaitis is not a clumsy imitator of Cretan dramaturgy, but a play writer from another chronological period and a different context, the social concerns of which, he transfers on stage.

Summary and conclusions

Cretan and Heptanesian dramas were highly influenced by Italian Renaissance prototypes, as well as the ideas of Humanism, which were spread through education in the Venetian-occupied territories of the 16th and 17th centuries. In relation to tragedy, both drama schools welcomed ideas from contemporary Italian play writers; in relation to comedy, they adopted the stereotypical characters of commedia erudita and commedia dell’ arte.

Georgios Chortatsis is the most prominent Cretan dramatist, who stands out due to his complex and highly impressive composition techniques. He established the political verse with coupled rhyme and his works became prototypes for many Cretan and Heptanisian dramatists. After the fall of Chandax in AD 1669, the centre of Greek drama moved from Crete to the Heptanese. The local dramatists welcomed the Cretan plays and combined them with features from folk-carnival ‘omilies’ (‘talks’) and other existing Italian traditions of their own homeland.

A prominent Heptanesian dramatist was Petros Katsaitis. His contribution is noted in relation to the description of character psychology, the application of social critique through satire, the projection of religious concerns and folk moral values, and finally, the first attempt to create a Greek national identity through drama. In that sense, Katsaitis can be considered a modern Greek dramatist, or at least a precursor of modern Greek theatre.

Bibliography

Grammatas, Th., 1987, ‘The presence of commedia dell’ arte in the Heptanesian theatre of the 18th century. The case of ‘Iphigenia’ by Petros Katsaitis’, in Modern Greek Theatre, History – Dramatography, Twelve Studies, Athens: Culture, 24-41.
Katsaitis, P., 1950 [1720], Iphigenia, in Kriaras, Em. (ed.) ‘Katsaitis: Iphigenia – Thyestes – Klauthmos Peloponnesou: anecdote works, critical edition with introduction, notes and glossary’, Collection de l'Institut français d'Athènes, 43.
Puchner, W., 1984, ‘Petros Katsaitis and the Cretan theatre’, in Puchner, W. (ed.) European Theatrology. Eleven Studies, Athens: Goulandris-Horn Institution.
Puchner, W., 2002, ‘The pre-revolutionary Greek theatre’, in Puchner, W. (ed.) Modern Greek Theatre (1600-1940) – Cinema, Volume I, The Modern Greek Theatre until World War II, Patra: Greek Open University, 77-299.