The late Indian theatre director Ratan Thiyam once quipped, when asked why he had chosen to stage a Manipuri adaptation of William Shakespeare’s Macbeth, that the main motivation was financial: “We didn’t have to pay any royalties to the playwright.”A more earnest response might have alluded to the existing tradition of adapting Macbeth in Manipur, a state in the far northeast of India that is separated from the rest of the country by Bangladesh. The politics of this phenomenon is complicated, but I would guess that Thiyam wanted his interviewer to do some basic research.Still, the answer was only partly facetious. The fact that there is no copyright attached to Shakespeare’s plays has been a commercial boon to many, from 18th-century impresarios to 19th-century publishers to Hollywood filmmakers in the silent movie era. Shakespeare himself, of course, felt little obligation towards the writers whose texts he pilfered (“Good artists copy, great artists steal” and so on).People often make the mistake of crediting Shakespeare as the sole creator of his stories and characters, as if they were a set of universal blueprints for future literary and dramatic enterprises. But it would be more accurate to say that Shakespeare identified existing stories and characters, adapting them towards his own ends. These, in turn, became available as additional — but never quite unique — resources for actors, wordsmiths, musicians and other artists.We could call these resources archetypes. They are collective points of reference that give shape and coherence to what can feel like the chaos of being human: reminders that differences of language, culture, race and class are significant but not fundamental and that there is such a thing as a shared human condition.Archetypes also imply adaptation. There is no single, definitive version of a story or character; all we have are millions of variations on any given theme. One might think that this is obvious, but it needs saying again as the world — trying to fill the void left by the conclusion of the Fifa World Cup, and choosing to ignore real issues such as the climate crisis, genocide or the rise of the broligarchy — has decided that the urgent debates of our time are about The Odyssey.What is your clever take or strong opinion on Christopher Nolan’s Imax film or Homer’s epic poem? Remember, you needn’t have watched or read either. But you really should have something to say. The culture wars depend on it.Unfortunately, even the real experts in this discussion have lapsed into soundbite commentary. Emily Wilson, whose 2017 modern English translation of the ancient Greek text has been cited by Nolan as an inspiration, knows the terrain better than most. But despite affirming that gripes about historical accuracy are ridiculous (in The Odyssey we are in the terrain of the mythical, after all), Wilson has used her newfound celebrity to trash Nolan for failing to meet Homer’s writerly standards. And while the classics professor is quick to remind everyone that the story of Odysseus was compiled and embellished via pre-Hellenistic oral tradition over centuries, she is still curiously attached to the notion of an “original”, against which takes such as Nolan’s may be judged.Much has been made, too, about Nolan’s use of the Greek concept xenia. His screenplay refers to it as Zeus’ law: an injunction to be hospitable to strangers and for guests, in turn, to respect their hosts. Does it really matter if, heaven forbid, Nolan presents what was previously an arcane piece of lore in contemporary terms? That is to say, with an eye to the resurgence of nativist populism around the globe? To practise xenophobia is, etymologically speaking, to reject the notion of xenia as an ethical foundation.Elsewhere, xenia is described in various ways. The golden rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you, or words to that effect. It’s in the Bible, the Quran, the Torah and the teachings of Buddha. It’s in every secular philosophy worth quoting and indigenous knowledge systems around the world. In South Africa we say ubuntu.Call it what you will — that’s the point of adaptation. It’s nothing new.Business Day