[Illustration: _Frontispiece._
FIG. 1. THEATRE AT ATHENS, FROM THE EAST.]
THE
ATTIC THEATRE
A DESCRIPTION OF THE STAGE AND THEATRE
OF THE ATHENIANS, AND OF THE DRAMATIC
PERFORMANCES AT ATHENS
BY
A. E. HAIGH
LATE FELLOW OF CORPUS CHRISTI COLLEGE, OXFORD
THIRD EDITION
REVISED AND IN PART RE-WRITTEN
BY
A. W. PICKARD-CAMBRIDGE, M.A.
FELLOW OF BALLIOL COLLEGE
WITH ILLUSTRATIONS
OXFORD
AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
MCMVII
HENRY FROWDE, M.A.
PUBLISHER TO THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD
LONDON, EDINBURGH
NEW YORK AND TORONTO
_Made and Printed in Great Britain_
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION
My purpose in this book has been to collect and piece together all the
available information concerning the outward features and surroundings
of the old Athenian dramatic performances; in other words, to write
a history of the Attic drama from the theatrical, as opposed to the
literary, point of view. The subject is one which has been practically
revolutionized during the last half-century, partly through the labours
of various scholars in interpreting the notices of the old grammarians,
but more especially owing to the rich discoveries of inscriptions
relating to theatrical affairs, and the information supplied by
excavations in the old Greek theatres. But in spite of the copious
accession of fresh materials, it is now more than fifty years since
any work has appeared in English, in which this particular department
of Greek dramatic history has been treated in a comprehensive manner.
The neglect is all the more remarkable, as the subject is undeniably of
great interest and importance, and this for two reasons. In the first
place it is difficult to understand and appreciate the peculiar qualities
of the existing Greek plays, without acquiring some knowledge of the
circumstances under which they were produced, and the limitations within
which the ancient dramatic poets had to work. In the second place, as
the Attic drama was essentially a public institution, and formed one of
the most conspicuous elements in the national life, the various details
connected with its management are incidentally most instructive, because
of the light which they throw upon the habits, feelings, and tastes of
the old Athenians. It is owing to these several considerations that the
present work has been undertaken.
Unfortunately, with the exception of a list of names and definitions
in Pollux, and a few observations upon the theatre in Vitruvius, none
of the ancient treatises, which dealt with the various portions of the
subject, have been preserved. The materials have in consequence to
be collected from the most multifarious sources—from casual remarks
in ancient authors, from incidental references in the Greek dramas,
from obscure and often contradictory notices in the scholiasts and
grammarians, from old inscriptions, and the ruins of Greek theatres,
from vases, statuettes, wall-paintings, and other works of art. In the
treatment of questions which depend upon evidence of this intricate and
complex character, it is inevitable that there should be much diversity
of opinion, and that numberless opportunities should be afforded for
ingenious conjectures and fanciful combinations. As a matter of fact the
whole history of the Attic drama has been to a certain extent obscured
by the mass of controversy and hypothesis to which it has given rise.
My purpose throughout the following pages has been to keep close to the
original sources of information, to restrict myself to such facts as seem
to be fairly well established by the evidence, and to clear the subject
of all those fine-drawn theories and conjectures which have no definite
foundation to depend upon. For every statement concerning the Attic drama
I have been careful to quote the ultimate authority, and the plan which
I have adopted, in the citation of evidence, has been as follows. Where
a passage is appealed to in support of some mere matter of fact, about
which there could be no particular difference of opinion, I have been
content to simply give the reference. But in cases where the inference is
more dubious, I have quoted the original authorities in full, so as to
enable the reader to judge for himself as to the validity of the views
adopted in the text. It would have been impossible, within the limits of
a single volume, to discuss in detail all the points concerning which
controversies have been raised. The more important questions I have
treated at considerable length; but as regards matters of minute detail
and trivial interest, I have merely given my own opinion in the text, and
appended a statement of the evidence in the notes.
The various books, articles, monographs, and dissertations, which
have been written on the subject of the Attic theatre and dramatic
performances, are numerous enough in themselves to constitute a
considerable literature. It will be sufficient in the present place to
mention those to which I have been principally indebted. Of writings in
which the subject is treated as a whole the most important is Albert
Müller’s _Lehrbuch der Griechischen Bühnenalterthümer_ (Freiburg,
1886)—a work which is conspicuous for the industry, learning, and
sound judgement displayed in its compilation, and for the lucid
manner in which an immense amount of information is compressed into a
comparatively limited space. The exhaustive account which it contains
of the bibliography of the subject is especially valuable. Another book
which I have found of the greatest help is Schneider’s _Das Attische
Theaterwesen_ (Weimar, 1835). It consists mainly of a citation in full of
all the ancient passages which refer to performances in the theatre; and
although Schneider’s own views and inferences are now mostly antiquated,
and his collection of ‘Quellen’ requires to be supplemented, the work
will always be most interesting and serviceable to students of the Attic
drama. The description of the Greek dramatic performances in the third
volume of Bergk’s _Griechische Literaturgeschichte_ (Berlin, 1884) has
been exceedingly useful and suggestive; and considerable assistance has
been derived from the similar account in vol. ii. pt. 2 of Bernhardy’s
_Grundriss der Griechischen Litteratur_ (Halle, 1880).
As regards the separate portions of the subject, the following is a
list of the treatises which I have found of most assistance. For the
Dionysiac festivals: Böckh’s dissertation, _Vom Unterschiede der Lenäen,
Anthesterien, und ländlichen Dionysien_, Berlin, 1816; A. Mommsen’s
_Heortologie_, Leipzig, 1864. For the arrangements connected with the
dramatic contests and the production of a play: Rohde’s article on the
Proagon in _Rhein. Museum_, xxxviii. p. 251 ff.; Sauppe’s paper, _Ueber
die Wahl der Richter_, &c., in _Sächs. Gesellschaft der Wissensch. zu
Leipzig_, 1855; Petersen’s _Preisrichter der grossen Dionysien_, Progr.
Dorpat, 1878; Lipsius, _Ueber die dramatische Choregie_, in _Sächs.
Gesell. der Wissensch._, 1885. For the structure and arrangement of the
theatre: Kawerau’s article _Theatergebäude_, in vol. iii. of Baumeister’s
_Denkmäler des klassischen Alterthums_, 1888; Vischer’s _Die Entdeckungen
im Dionysostheater_ (_Neues Schweizerisches Museum_, 1863); Julius’s
article, _Das Theater des Dionysos_ (_Zeitschrift für bild. Kunst_,
1878); J. R. Wheeler’s _Theatre of Dionysus_ (_Papers of the American
School of Classical Studies at Athens_, vol. i); Kabbadias, on the
theatre at Epidaurus, in _Πρακτικὰ τῆς ἐν Ἀθήναις ἀρχαιολογικῆς ἑταιρίας_,
1881 and 1883; the account of the Greek theatre by Wieseler in vol.
83 of Ersch and Gruber’s _Allgemeine Encyklopädie_, 1866; Wieseler’s
_Theatergebäude und Denkmäler des Bühnenwesens bei Griechen und Römern_,
1851; and Strack’s _Das altgriechische Theatergebäude_, Potsdam, 1843.
On the question of the scenery: Niejahr’s _Quaestiones Aristophaneae
Scaenicae_ (Greifswald, 1877); Sommerbrodt’s _De Aeschyli re scenica_
(in _Scenica_, Berlin, 1876). On the actors in the Greek drama, their
costume, style, and mode of delivery: Grysar, _De Graecorum tragoedia_,
&c. (Cöln, 1830); K. F. Hermann, _De distributione personarum inter
histriones in tragoediis graecis_ (Marburg, 1840); Beer, _Ueber die Zahl
der Schauspieler bei Aristophanes_ (Leipzig, 1844); Sommerbrodt’s two
articles _De Histrionibus_ and _De Arte Histrionum_, in his _Scenica_;
Wieseler’s _Das Satyrspiel_ (Göttingen, 1848); Dierk’s two dissertations,
_De tragicorum histrionum habitu scaenico apud Graecos_ (Göttingen,
1883), _Ueber das Costüm der griechischen Schauspieler in der alten
Komödie_ (_Archaeol. Zeitung_, xliii); Christ’s _Metrik der Griechen und
Römer_ (Leipzig, 1879). On the subject of the chorus: K. O. Müller’s
_Dissertations on the Eumenides_ (Engl. transl., London, 1853); G.
Hermann’s _De choro Eumenidum_ (Opusc. ii. p. 129 ff.); Schultze’s _De
chori Graecorum tragici habitu externo_ (Berlin, 1857); Sommerbrodt’s _De
chori tragici principibus_, in _Scenica_; and Arnoldt’s _Die Chorpartieen
bei Aristophanes_ (Leipzig, 1873).
In conclusion I wish to express my obligations to Professor Gardner for
his assistance in various questions connected with archaeology, and
to Mr. Evelyn Abbott for many valuable suggestions and criticisms. I
have to thank the Council of the Hellenic Society for their permission
to reproduce the illustration of a chorus of birds from the _Hellenic
Journal_. I desire at the same time to acknowledge the great courtesy
with which Dr. Dörpfeld, of the German Archaeological Institute, has
supplied me with the latest information concerning his excavations in the
theatre of Dionysus, and his views on Greek theatres in general.
OXFORD, _June, 1889_.
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION
Since the first edition of this book was published many important
additions have been made to our knowledge of the Greek stage. Various
theatres have been excavated for the first time; fresh inscriptions
have been discovered; and the evidence of the ancient authorities has
been examined and sifted with the minutest care. The effect has been
to throw a new light on many points which were previously obscure. In
order to incorporate these results in the present edition, it was found
necessary to make considerable alterations in the book. The third and
fourth chapters—those dealing with the Theatre and the Scenery—have
been entirely re-written. The first chapter, on the Dramatic Contests
at Athens, has been re-written in parts. The other chapters have been
carefully revised throughout, and numerous corrections and additions
have been inserted, especially on such subjects as the choregia, the
theoric fund, the theatre-tickets, and the costume of the actors and
the chorus. Eleven new illustrations have been added. The old ones have
been mostly retained, with the exception of the ground-plan and the two
views of the theatre at Athens, which have been replaced by more accurate
representations.
The number of books, treatises, and articles which have been written
on the subject during the last few years is so great that it would be
impossible to mention them all. I propose in the following list to
specify only those which I have found most useful, and to which I am
chiefly indebted. Many others will be referred to in the notes. The most
important work of recent years on the Greek theatre is Dörpfeld and
Reisch’s _Das griechische Theater_ (Athens, 1896). The admirable and
exhaustive account of the Theatre of Dionysus at Athens, which is given
in this book, has superseded all previous descriptions. Dörpfeld appears
to have now proved conclusively that the stone theatre at Athens was not
earlier than the fourth century B.C., and his views on the subject have
been followed in the present edition. The book also contains a valuable
summary of the chief points of interest in other theatres recently
excavated, and a complete exposition of Dörpfeld’s theory about the Greek
stage. Some further developments and modifications of this theory will
be found in two articles lately published by Dörpfeld in the _Bulletin
de Correspondance Hellénique_, 1896, p. 563 ff., and in _Athenische
Mittheilungen_, 1897, p. 439 ff. After reading through Dörpfeld’s
arguments, and those of other scholars who support his views, I am still
of opinion that the old theory is the right one, and that the Greek
actors performed on a stage from the first; though no doubt the stage of
the fifth century was much lower than that of later times. Among other
writings which deal with the subject of the Greek theatre as a whole I
may mention the following:—Oehmichen, _Das Bühnenwesen der Griechen und
Römer_, München, 1890; Navarre, _Dionysos_, Paris, 1895 (a lucid and
well-written summary); the valuable articles by Prof. Jebb in Smith’s
_Dictionary of Antiquities_ (v. _Theatrum_), and by Prof. P. Gardner in
Jevons and Gardner’s _Manual of Greek and Roman Antiquities_; and Bethe’s
_Prolegomena zur Geschichte des Theaters im Alterthum_, Leipzig, 1896.
This last book, though often rather fanciful in its conclusions, is full
of useful information and interesting suggestions.
To turn to the treatises on special portions of the subject. The point
which has been most discussed in recent years is the question of the
stage. The following are among the more important articles which
have been written in favour of Dörpfeld’s views:—White, _The Stage
in Aristophanes_ (_Harvard Studies_, ii. pp. 159-205); Bodensteiner,
_Scenische Fragen im griechischen Drama_ (Leipzig, 1893); Capps, _The
Chorus in the later Greek Drama_ (_American Journal of Archaeology_, x.
3. pp. 287-325), _The Stage in the Greek Theatre_ (New Haven, 1891),
_Vitruvius and the Greek Stage_ (_Studies in Classical Philology_,
Chicago, 1893, p. 3 ff). The opposite side of the question has been
defended by Todt, _Noch einmal die Bühne des Aeschylos_ (_Philologus_,
1889, p. 505 ff.); Curtius, _Orchestra und Bühne_ (_Berliner Philolog.
Wochenschrift_, 1893, p. 97 ff.); Prof. E. Gardner, _A Plea for
Vitruvius_ (_Supplementary Papers of the Hellenic Journal_, 1892, p.
92 ff.); Lechat, _Épidaure_ (Paris, 1895, p. 215 ff.); Zacher, _Die
erhöhte Bühne bei Aristophanes_ (_Philologus_, 1896, p. 181 ff.);
Chamonard, _Bulletin de Corr. Hellénique_, 1896, p. 294 ff. (an
admirable criticism); and also in various reviews of Dörpfeld’s book,
and especially by Bethe (_Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen_, 1897, pp.
701-28), and by A. Müller (_Berl. Philolog. Wochenschrift_, 1897, pp.
1121-31). Special views, which may be regarded as a sort of compromise
between the ordinary theory and that of Dörpfeld, are advocated by
Weismann in _Die scenische Aufführung der griechischen Dramen_ (München,
1893), _Zur Thymele-frage_ (_Jahrb. für classische Philologie_, 1895,
pp. 673-9), _Scenische Anweisungen, &c._ (Bamberg, 1896); and by Christ
in _Jahrb. für classische Philologie_, 1894, p. 27 ff., p. 157 ff., and
_Sitzungsberichte der bayer. Akad. der Wissenschaften_, 1894, pp. 1-52.
All these articles, together with others which might be mentioned, have
been of great service in the preparation of the present edition. Opinions
may differ as to the soundness of the views which they respectively
advocate. But there can be no doubt that this exhaustive discussion of
the subject has brought to light many new facts, and cleared up many
difficulties.
As regards the theatres which have been recently explored and excavated,
I have consulted (in addition to Dörpfeld’s book) the following
sources:—Hermann, Bohn, and Fränkel, _Ausgrabungen zu Pergamon_, Berlin,
1888, p. 40 ff. (theatre at Pergamon); _Athen. Mittheilungen_, 1894,
p. 65 ff. (theatre at Magnesia); _Papers of the American School of
Archaeological Studies at Athens_, 1888, pp. 1-34 (Thoricus); _American
Journal of Archaeology_, 1891, p. 253 ff., 1895, p. 331 ff. (Eretria);
_Ibid._ 1889, p. 267 ff., 1893, p. 388 ff. (Sicyon); Defrasse and
Lechat, _Épidaure_, Paris, 1895 (Epidaurus); Schultz, Gardner, and
Loring in _Excavations at Megalopolis, Supplement to Hellenic Journal_,
1892 (Megalopolis); Chamonard, _Bulletin de Corr. Hellénique_, 1896, p.
256 ff. (Delos); _Athen. Mittheilungen_, 1893, p. 404 ff. (Tralles);
Lanckoronski, _Städte Pamphyliens und Pisidiens_, Wien, 1892 (contains
a very valuable account, with excellent plans and illustrations, of
certain Asia Minor theatres hitherto but little known); Schrader,
_Berl. Philolog. Wochenschrift_, April 16, 1898, pp. 508, 509 (a
brief preliminary notice of the interesting theatre at Priene, lately
excavated).
The subject of the choregic arrangements has been ably treated by Capps
in his _Dramatic Synchoregia at Athens_ (_American Journal of Philology_,
xvii. 3. pp. 319-28), which I have followed in most points. For certain
questions connected with the Dionysiac festivals I have consulted with
advantage Körte’s article _Zu Dionysos-Festen_ (_Rhein. Museum_, 1897,
pp. 168-74), and Wachsmuth, _Das Thukydideische Urathen_ (_Abhandl.
der Sächs. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften_, xviii. pp. 1-56). As for
the costume of actors and chorus, the most valuable and instructive
of recent treatises are Körte’s _Studien zur alten Komödie_ (_Jahrb.
des archaeol. Instituts_, 1893, pp. 61-93), and his articles in _Athen.
Mittheilungen_, 1894, p. 346 ff., and in Bethe’s _Prolegomena_, p.
339 ff.; Crusius, in _Philologus_, xlviii. p. 696 ff.; Poppelreuter,
_De Comoediae Atticae Primordiis_, Berlin, 1893; Loeschcke, _Athen.
Mittheilungen_, 1894, p. 519 ff.; and Bethe’s _Prolegomena_, p. 35
ff. Other articles on special points from which I have taken various
suggestions are—Neckel, _Das Ekkyklema_ (Friedland, 1890); Cook, _The
Thymele in Greek Theatres_ (_Classical Review_, Oct. 1895); Reisch,
_Griechische Weihgeschenke_ (Wien, 1890); and Svoronos, Περὶ τῶν
Εἰσιτηρίων (_Journal International d’ Archéologie Numismatique_, 1898,
i. pp. 37-120). I should also mention Albert Müller’s _Die neueren
Arbeiten auf dem Gebiete des griech. Bühnenwesens_ (_Philologus_, Suppl.
vi. 1891)—an interesting and judicious criticism of the various writings
about the Greek stage which had appeared shortly before the publication
of the article.
It will be seen that many of the authorities mentioned in the preface to
the first edition have been superseded, at any rate in part, by these
more recent investigations. But I have thought it best to reprint the
earlier list, since there are few of the old authorities which are not
still worth consulting on some point or another.
I gladly take this opportunity of expressing my obligations to various
friends for the corrections and suggestions which they have sent to me.
I have derived many valuable hints from the reviews and notices of the
first edition, and especially from the very friendly and useful criticism
by Mr. L. C. Purser in _Hermathena_, and from that by Mr. H. Richards
in the _Academy_. I am greatly indebted to Professor E. Gardner for the
photograph of the Epidaurian theatre which is reproduced in Fig. 7; and
to the Council of the Hellenic Society for their permission to copy from
the _Hellenic Journal_ the illustration of a satyric chorus. I have to
thank the Provost of Oriel, Professor P. Gardner, Mr. F. Madan, Rev.
G. C. Richards, and other friends for their help and advice in various
matters; and Dr. Albert Müller, Professor White, and Mr. Capps for their
kindness in sending me writings of theirs on the subject of the Greek
stage which have proved of very great service.
OXFORD, _July, 1898_.
PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION
After the lamented death of Mr. Haigh, the Delegates of the Clarendon
Press entrusted me with the revision of his book for a third edition,
and his relatives kindly supplied me with the materials which he had
collected for a revision. I have tried to follow as far as possible such
indications as I could find of his own intentions in regard to the new
edition. He had re-written parts of Chapters I and II, and his review
of Puchstein’s _Die griechische Bühne_ showed sufficiently what view he
took of that work. He also left careful analyses of many papers which
had appeared in periodicals since the second edition, with occasional
criticisms. It is clear from the manner in which the portions of the
book referred to were re-written that he intended to cut out many of the
repetitions, both of matter and expression, which had been allowed to
remain in the second edition. I have therefore felt at liberty to follow
him in this respect; but the space gained has been almost all filled
by the new matter which it has been necessary to insert, either at the
suggestion of his own notes, or in consequence of important writings on
the subject since the last edition.
Since 1898 the inscriptions bearing upon the Greek drama have been
the subject of thorough investigation at the hands of Prof. Edward
Capps, Dr. Adolph Wilhelm, and others. The complete treatment of all
the inscriptional evidence in the latter’s _Urkunden dramatischer
Aufführungen in Athen_, just published, is an invaluable contribution to
the history of the Greek theatre and drama, and I have made as much use
of it as the time of its publication allowed, the revision of the present
volume having been almost completed by that date. It was beyond the
scope of the present work to embark on a full discussion of the points
of detail on which the chief authorities on the inscriptions differ; but
I have re-written many of the notes on these points, and have tried to
give sufficient indications of the character of the evidence. Further, in
re-writing Appendix B, as it was necessary to do in the light of recent
work on the subject, I have thought it best to give the reader access to
considerably more of the inscriptional material, though still omitting
many fragments whose readings, date, or meaning were too uncertain to
allow them to be of value to the ordinary student.
Puchstein’s book, _Die griechische Bühne_, above referred to, is the
other work of first-rate importance in connexion with the Greek theatre
which has appeared since 1898. There has been much controversy in regard
to the theories contained in it, and Dr. Dörpfeld has published a reply
to most of Puchstein’s contentions (_Athenische Mittheilungen_, 1903,
383 ff.). But though in several points of detail Puchstein’s position
seems to be open to criticism, it is very difficult to believe that Dr.
Dörpfeld has improved his case for his own theory; and I have followed
both Mr. Haigh’s view and my own conviction, in not modifying in any
essential point the opinions expressed in the last edition. I have,
however, altered the expressions ‘Lycurgean’ and ‘Hellenistic’ in most
cases where they were applied in the last edition to the stage-buildings
of different periods, since Puchstein’s work makes it at least an open
question whether some of the ‘Lycurgean’ work is not to be ascribed to
an earlier period, and some of the ‘Hellenistic’ work to Lycurgus. Mr.
Haigh’s manuscript notes show, I think, that he would have approved of
this. The new section on Puchstein’s theory follows in most points the
lines of Mr. Haigh’s article on the subject in the _Classical Review_.
I have inserted a number of references to the writings of Puchstein,
Dörpfeld, and others who have taken part in the controversy as to the
stage-buildings; and I have in many cases written fresh notes upon these
and other points which have come into dispute since 1898, or upon which
fresh light has been thrown. In cases where I could find no warrant
in Mr. Haigh’s own notes or writings for the views expressed, I have
included these notes in square brackets, and I have, so far as I could,
avoided inserting in the text anything with which I had reason to think
he would have disagreed.
On one point on which there has recently been much controversy, the site
of the Lenaeum, I have thought it best to relegate the discussion to
a new Appendix; partly owing to its complicated character, and partly
because I am not sure that Mr. Haigh would have entirely agreed with my
views. He had not of course seen Miss Harrison’s _Primitive Athens_, and
I do not think he had read some other recent writings on the subject,
when he began to rewrite Chapter I; in particular, he seems not to have
been acquainted with Nilsson’s _Studia de Dionysiis Atticis_—the most
valuable contribution of recent years to discussions on the festivals.
I have therefore allowed myself a fairly free hand in dealing with this
topic. I am much indebted to Mr. W. H. Forbes of Balliol College for his
kind criticisms on this part of my work.
The following are the principal writings which have been published since
the last edition, and which I have been able to consult, besides those
already named: E. Capps, papers in the _American Journal of Philology_,
_American Journal of Archaeology_, and _Chicago Decennial Publications_,
vol. vi; Miss Harrison, _Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion_; E.
A. Gardner, _Ancient Athens_; Roberts and Gardner, _Greek Epigraphy_,
vol. ii; Mazon, _Sur le Proagon_ (Rev. de Philologie, 1903); A. Müller,
_Untersuchungen zu den Bühnenalterthümern_, and papers in _Philologus_
and _Berlin. Philolog. Wochenschrift_; Noack, _Das Proskenion in der
Theaterfrage_ (Philologus, lviii); Exon, _A New Theory of the Eccyclema_
(Hermathena, xxvi); Dörpfeld, papers in _Hermes_ and _Athenische
Mittheilungen_; Frei, _De certaminibus Thymelicis_; Hampel, _Was lehrt
Aischylos’ Orestie für die Theaterfrage?_; Flickinger, _The meaning of
ἐπὶ τῆς σκηνῆς in the Fourth Century B.C._; Engelmann, _Archäologische
Studien zu den Tragikern_; P. Gardner, _The Scenery of the Greek Stage_
(J. Hell. Stud., 1899); Devrient, _Das Kind auf der antiken Bühne_;
Dignan, _The Idle Actor in Aeschylus_; Völker, _Berühmte Schauspieler im
griechischen Alterthum_; J. W. White, _An Unrecognized Actor in Greek
Comedy_ (Harvard Stud. Class. Phil., 1906); Hense, _Die Modificirung der
Maske in der griechischen Tragödie_; Körte, _Das Fortleben des Chors im
griechischen Drama_ (Neue Jahrb. für Philol., 1900); Navarre, _Utrum
Mulieres Athenienses scenicos ludos spectaverint_; Römer, _Über den
litterarisch-aesthetischen Bildungsstand des attischen Theaterpublikums_;
Foucart, _Le Culte de Dionysos en Attique_; besides the reviews of
many of these works, and the introductions and notes to Starkie’s,
Rogers’s, Sharpley’s, and van Leeuwen’s editions of a number of plays of
Aristophanes, and various articles in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encyclopädie_.
A. W. PICKARD-CAMBRIDGE.
BALLIOL COLLEGE, _January, 1907_.
CONTENTS
PAGE
CHAP. I. DRAMATIC CONTESTS AT ATHENS 1
§ 1. General Character of the Contests 1
§ 2. Earliest history of Dramatic Competitions 5
§ 3. The City Dionysia 6
§ 4. Tragedy at the City Dionysia 10
§ 5. Comedy at the City Dionysia 20
§ 6. Order of Contests at the City Dionysia 23
§ 7. The Lenaea 24
§ 8. Rural Dionysia and Anthesteria 29
§ 9. The Judges 31
§ 10. The Prizes 38
§ 11. Contests between Actors 40
§ 12. Records of Dramatic Contests 44
CHAP. II. THE PREPARATION FOR THE CONTESTS 49
§ 1. The Poets 49
§ 2. The Choregi 53
§ 3. Selection of the Actors 57
§ 4. The Training of the Chorus 60
§ 5. The Expenses of the Choregia 63
§ 6. The Performances in the Theatre 67
§ 7. Reproduction of Old Plays 71
CHAP. III. THE THEATRE 78
§ 1. Introductory 78
§ 2. The old Wooden Theatres at Athens 80
§ 3. The Stone Theatre 86
§ 4. The Auditorium 90
§ 5. The Orchestra 101
§ 6. Ruins of the Stage-buildings at Athens 112
§ 7. The Earlier Stage-buildings 116
§ 8. The Later Stage-buildings of the pre-Roman period 120
§ 9. Puchstein’s Theory of the Stage-buildings 130
§ 10. The Stage-buildings in Roman Times 133
§ 11. Exceptional Stage-buildings 137
§ 12. Wieseler’s Theory of the Greek Stage 140
§ 13. Dörpfeld’s Theory of the Greek Stage 144
§ 14. Various Details 174
CHAP. IV. THE SCENERY 179
§ 1. General Character of the Scenery 179
§ 2. Mechanical Arrangements for the Scenery 186
§ 3. The Entrances to the Stage 188
§ 4. Changes of Scene 195
§ 5. Stage Properties, &c. 199
§ 6. The Ekkyklema 201
§ 7. The Mechane and Theologeion 209
§ 8. Other Mechanical Contrivances 217
CHAP. V. THE ACTORS 221
§ 1. Rise of the Actor’s Profession 221
§ 2. The distribution of the Parts among the Actors 230
§ 3. Extra Performers 234
§ 4. Costume of the Tragic Actors 237
§ 5. Costume of Satyric Actors 255
§ 6. Costume of Comic Actors 257
§ 7. Speech, Song, and Recitative 266
§ 8. Importance of the Voice in Greek Acting 272
§ 9. Style of Greek Acting 275
§ 10. The Actors’ Guild 278
§ 11. Social Position of Actors 281
§ 12. Celebrated Athenian Actors 282
CHAP. VI. THE CHORUS 285
§ 1. History of the Chorus 285
§ 2. Size of the Chorus 288
§ 3. Costume of the Chorus 290
§ 4. Arrangement of the Chorus 298
§ 5. The Delivery of the Choral Part 305
§ 6. The Dancing 311
§ 7. The Music 319
CHAP. VII. THE AUDIENCE 323
§ 1. Composition of the Audience 323
§ 2. Price of Admission 329
§ 3. The Distribution of the Seats 334
§ 4. Various Arrangements in connexion with the Audience 341
§ 5. Character of Attic Audiences 343
APPENDIX A. Arguments, &c., to Plays 349
APPENDIX B. Dramatic Inscriptions 352
APPENDIX C. The Original Place of the Lenaea 368
APPENDIX D. Inscriptions from Delos 379
GREEK INDEX 382
GENERAL INDEX 386
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
FIG.
1. Theatre at Athens from the East _Frontispiece._
2. Theatre at Athens from the North to face p. 78
3. Ground-plan of Theatre at Athens page 91
4. Part of the auditorium in the theatre at Athens ” 95
5. Coin with view of the theatre at Athens ” 99
6. Ground-plan of the theatre at Epidaurus ” 104
7. Theatre at Epidaurus from the North-East to face p. 104
8. Gates in the theatre at Epidaurus page 111
8 A. Diagram of pillars, &c., of proscenia ” 122
9. Part of the hyposkenion in the theatre at Epidaurus ” 124
10. Front of the stage-buildings at Aspendos ” 134
11. Ground-plan of the theatre at Megalopolis ” 138
12. Ground-plan of the theatre at Delos ” 139
13. Scene from a Comedy of the Phlyakes ” 155
14. Scene from a Comedy of the Phlyakes ” 156
14 A. Diagram of the Ekkyklema, according to Exon ” 206
15. Relief with three tragic actors ” 241
16. Statuette of tragic actor ” 243
17. Tragic masks ” 246
18. Tragic masks ” 247
19. Scene from a tragedy, showing the size of the cothurni ” 249
20. Tragic scene ” 253
21. Tragic scene ” 253
22. Actors in a satyric drama ” 255
23. Actors in the Old Comedy ” 257
24. Two statuettes of actors in the Old Comedy ” 258
25. Masks of the New Comedy ” 264
26. Masks of the New Comedy ” 264
27. Scene from the New Comedy ” 265
28. Members of a satyric chorus ” 292
29. Members of a satyric chorus ” 293
30. A chorus of Birds ” 297
31. Diagram illustrating the entrance of the chorus ” 299
32. Lead admission-coin ” 332
33. Ivory admission-coin ” 333
34. Bronze admission-coin ” 334
35. Throne of the priest of Dionysus ” 338
THE ATTIC THEATRE
CHAPTER I
DRAMATIC CONTESTS AT ATHENS
§ 1. _General Character of the Contests._
The Attic drama, like most ancient forms of art and poetry, was
originally the offspring of religious enthusiasm. It was developed out
of the songs and dances in honour of Dionysus, the god of wine and
vegetation. In course of time, as it assumed a regular dramatic shape,
its range of subject was extended far beyond the limits of the Bacchic
mythology. Its religious significance was also gradually diminished,
and it began to be written more and more from the purely human point
of view. But in spite of these changes, its outward connexion with the
Bacchic worship was preserved unimpaired throughout the whole period
of its history. Dramatic representations at Athens were confined, from
first to last, to the great festivals of Dionysus. They were regarded
as a religious ceremonial, as an act of homage to the god. They never
became, as with us, an ordinary amusement of everyday life. During the
greater part of the year the Athenians had to be content with other forms
of entertainment. It was only when the annual festivals of Dionysus
came round that they were able to gratify their passion for the stage.
On such occasions their eagerness and enthusiasm were proportionately
great. The whole city kept holiday, and gave itself up to pleasure, and
to the worship of the wine-god. Business was abandoned; the law-courts
were closed; distraints for debt were forbidden during the continuance
of the festival; even prisoners were released from gaol, to enable them
to share in the common festivities.[1] The theatre, the chief centre
of attraction, was thronged with spectators; and the number of plays
provided was large enough to compensate for their scarcity at other
periods. Several days in succession were devoted to the drama. Tragedies
and comedies followed one another without intermission from morning
till evening. In the midst of these pleasures the religious aspect of
the performance, as a ceremony in honour of Dionysus, established in
obedience to the direct commands of the oracle,[2] was not forgotten. The
audience came with garlands on their heads, as to a sacred gathering.
The statue of Dionysus was brought to the theatre, and placed in front
of the stage, so that the god might enjoy the spectacle along with his
worshippers.[3] The chief seats in the theatre were mostly occupied by
priests, and the central seat of all was reserved for the priest of
Dionysus.[4] The performance of plays was preceded by the sacrifice of
a victim to the god of the festival. The poets who wrote the plays, the
choregi who paid for them, and the actors and singers who performed them,
were all looked upon as ministers of religion, and their persons were
sacred and inviolable. The theatre itself possessed all the sanctity
attaching to a divine temple. Any form of outrage committed there was
treated, not merely as an offence against the ordinary laws, but as a
sacrilegious act, and was punished with corresponding severity. The
ordinary course of law was not considered sufficient, and they were
dealt with under an exceptional process at a special meeting of the
Assembly.[5] It is recorded that on one occasion a certain Ctesicles
was put to death for merely striking a personal enemy during the
procession.[6] Merely to eject a man from a seat which he had taken
wrongfully was a piece of sacrilege punishable with death.[7] These
various characteristics of the Attic drama—its limitation to certain
annual festivals, and its religious associations—have no parallel on
the modern stage, apart from isolated survivals like the performance
at Ober-Ammergau. The modern theatre has long since been divorced from
ecclesiastical influence, and is unrestricted as to season. But its
original surroundings were not dissimilar. The Mysteries and Miracle
Plays from which it is descended, and which were performed year by year
for the instruction of the people on the great Feast-days of the Church,
suggest many points of comparison with the exhibitions at the Attic
Dionysia.
Another remarkable feature of the ancient theatre is the fact that almost
all the dramatic representations were arranged in the form of a contest.
Prizes were offered by the managers of the festival, and poets and actors
exhibited their plays in competition with one another. The victory was
awarded by the decision of a carefully selected jury. It is curious to
notice how strongly implanted in the Greek nature was this passion for
anything in the shape of a contest. It was not peculiar to the drama, or
to the Athenian festivals, but prevailed throughout Greece in all festal
gatherings where music and poetry were performed. Every Greek city of any
importance had its annual meetings, with a long list of competitions.
There were contests in choral singing of various kinds; contests in
original poetry, and in the recitation of ancient epics; contests between
harp-players, flute-players, trumpeters, and heralds. In this respect a
Greek festival was not unlike a Welsh Eisteddfod, with its rival bards
and choruses. In the case of the drama the element of competition must
have added largely to the interest of the entertainment, and must have
acted as a powerful stimulus upon the minds of poets and performers
alike. The fertility of the old Attic dramatists, and the energy which
enabled them to produce, in extreme old age, such masterpieces as the
Agamemnon of Aeschylus, the Oedipus Coloneus of Sophocles, and the
Bacchae of Euripides, may have been partly due to the invigorating
influence of the contests, and the rivalry which they engendered.
The management of the dramatic performances was in the hands of the
State, and was entrusted to the same official who had the general control
of the festival. The superintendence which he exercised was not merely a
formal one. His duties were important and carefully defined. He had to
select the poets who took part in the competitions, and the plays which
they exhibited. He had to choose the actors, and distribute them among
the different poets. He was also responsible for seeing that the work of
preparation was carefully carried out. The expense of the performance
was one of the regular public burdens, and was imposed in turn upon the
richer citizens. In modern times there is no example of a theatre so
entirely dependent upon the State. In England the drama is left solely to
private enterprise. In countries like France and Germany, though certain
theatres receive subventions from the State, and are subject to a code
of rules, the government takes little part in the direction of their
affairs. But the Athenian drama stood on a different footing. As a sacred
ceremonial, closely connected with the religious worship of the State,
it was naturally placed under public control. Even from the secular
point of view it was considered a fitting object for the attention of
statesmen. To provide for the amusement and instruction of the people
was, according to the Greeks, one of the regular duties of a government;
and they would have thought it unwise to abandon to private venturers an
institution which possessed the educational value and wide popularity of
the drama. For the audience to which the Athenian poet addressed himself
was in reality a gathering of the whole body of his fellow countrymen.
The theatre of Dionysus was capable of containing nearly twenty thousand
people. Books were not plentiful, and their use was confined to a limited
class. The ordinary Athenian depended for his literary pleasures upon the
various public performances and recitations of poetical compositions. The
drama was, therefore, much more to him than to a modern playgoer. At the
present day, when continual supplies of fresh literature are accessible
to every one, it is hard to realize the excitement and expectancy with
which an Athenian looked forward to the annual exhibition of dramas
at the Dionysia. It was here that his taste for novelty in literature
was gratified. It was here that he found an equivalent for the books,
magazines, and newspapers of modern civilization. Hence he was able to
sit day after day, from morning to evening, listening to tragedy and
comedy, without any feeling of satiety. The enthusiasm with which the
drama was regarded, and the direct manner in which the author was brought
into contact with the whole body of his countrymen, contributed to make
the vocation of the dramatic writer one of the very greatest importance.
The leading tragic poets especially exercised a most profound influence
upon the national mind and character. They were the teachers of the
people. Their writings were invested with an almost Homeric sanctity, and
appealed to as authorities on questions of science and morality. Maxims
and quotations from their plays were upon every one’s lips. Many passages
in Aristophanes and Plato prove the enormous influence for good and evil
which was exercised by the Greek tragic poets, and there is probably no
other instance in history of a drama which was so thoroughly popular, and
formed so essential a part of the national life.[8]
§ 2. _Earliest history of Dramatic Competitions._
The establishment of these dramatic contests under State management
dates, not from the earliest period of the drama, but from the time
when it had begun to assume a fixed and definite shape. Originally
there were no public competitions. The various innovations upon the old
hymns to Dionysus, out of which the drama was evolved, were carried
out at first by voluntary effort. Thespis is said to have introduced
tragedy into Athens. But his earliest exhibitions were given on his own
responsibility, and as a private speculation.[9] The development of
comedy was also the result of individual enterprise. The performance was
for a long time left to amateurs, and regarded as of no importance. It
was only when the drama had attained a certain pitch of excellence, and
become widely popular, that it was taken in hand by the State, and annual
contests introduced.[10] The date of their institution cannot always be
determined exactly. It differed in the case of different festivals, and
in the case of tragedy as compared with comedy. But there is sufficient
evidence to show that no contest was earlier in date than the latter half
of the sixth century.
All these competitions, as we have seen, were confined to the festivals
of Dionysus.[11] In Attica these were of four kinds. There were the Rural
Dionysia, celebrated in the various Attic denies; and there were the
feasts held in Athens itself, the Anthesteria, the City Dionysia, and the
Lenaea.[12] The importance of these gatherings from the theatrical point
of view varied considerably. The Anthesteria seems at no time to have had
much connexion with the drama. The Rural Dionysia were merely provincial
celebrations, and depended almost entirely for their supply of plays upon
the Athenian theatre. The City Dionysia and the Lenaea were the really
significant festivals in the history of the ancient stage. It was here
that the great Attic poets exhibited their works, and it was here that
the drama was first brought to perfection. Each festival had its peculiar
character. At the City Dionysia tragedy held the chief place; at the
Lenaea comedy was of most importance. Various indications show that this
was the case. In the list of proceedings at the City Dionysia tragedy
is placed last of all, as being the chief attraction; while in the list
referring to the Lenaea the same place is assigned to comedy, and for the
same reason.[13] Again, the dithyramb, the original source of tragedy,
was from the first a prominent feature at the City Dionysia, though
unknown at the Lenaea till a late period.[14] On the other hand the
comic actors’ contest was introduced into the Lenaea long before it was
extended to the City Dionysia. This difference between the two festivals,
as regards the type of drama preferred by each, was probably due to some
original difference in the cult of the two deities, Dionysus Eleuthereus
and Dionysus Lenaeus, to whom they were respectively consecrated.[15]
§ 3. _The City Dionysia._
The City Dionysia, the feast of Dionysus Eleuthereus,[16] was the most
famous and magnificent of all the Bacchic festivals, and was therefore
also called the Great Dionysia, or simply the Dionysia, without any
further epithet.[17] It was held from the first inside the city, at the
sacred enclosure of Eleuthereus[18] on the south of the Acropolis. Hence
the name City Dionysia, to distinguish it from the Anthesteria and the
Lenaea, which, at any rate in early times, were celebrated outside the
walls. A poet who brought out his plays at this festival was said to
exhibit them ‘in the city’; if successful, he was said to have won ‘a
city victory’.[19] The feast lasted for at least five days, and possibly
for six. It took place in the month Elaphebolion, at a date corresponding
to the end of March.[20] The spring was then just beginning, and the sea
had again become navigable.[21] Consequently the city was crowded with
visitors from all parts of Greece. It was at this season that the allies
came to Athens to pay the annual tribute. Ambassadors from foreign states
often chose this time for the transaction of diplomatic business. Large
numbers of strangers were attracted by mere pleasure, and the celebrity
of the festival. Aeschines, in his rhetorical language, describes the
audience in the theatre at the City Dionysia as consisting of the ‘whole
Greek nation’.[22] The presence of so many strangers gave a lively
appearance to the streets, in marked contrast to the quietness which
prevailed at the winter festival of the Lenaea.[23] The Athenians gladly
seized this opportunity of displaying before foreign Greeks the glories
of their city. The various spectacles provided, the religious ceremonial,
the trains of sacrificial victims, the choral songs and dances, the
tragedies and comedies exhibited before countless multitudes in the vast
open-air theatre, were all calculated to impress strangers with the
wealth, public spirit, and artistic supremacy of Athens.
The first day of the festival was devoted to a grand religious
procession, in which the ancient image of Dionysus Eleuthereus, preserved
in one of his temples at the foot of the Acropolis, played a prominent
part.[24] There was a tradition that this statue, together with the cult
of the deity, had been originally brought to Athens from Eleutherae, a
border town between Attica and Boeotia. The procession was instituted to
commemorate this sacred event. The statue was taken out of its shrine,
and carried along the road to Eleutherae as far as a certain temple near
the Academy. It was then brought back again, following on its return
the actual route traversed on its first entrance into Athens.[25] As a
spectacle, this procession was the most magnificent part of the whole
festival. Athenians of every class, men, women, and even girls, came out
to witness or take part in it. The casual encounters which took place
on these occasions might serve as a foundation for the plots of the New
Comedy.[26] The members of the procession were dressed in brilliantly
coloured garments. Some of them wore ornaments of gold, and had masks
upon their faces. The rich drove in chariots; the poorer classes walked
on foot.[27] In front came the archon, the manager of the festival,
attended by various magistrates and priests. The ephebi, equipped with
shields and spears, acted as escort to the sacred image.[28] A long
train of victims followed, partly provided by the State, partly offered
by individuals, or by different classes of the population.[29] The
canephori, young virgins bearing upon their heads the baskets containing
the sacrificial implements, formed one of the most picturesque features
in the show. The choregi were also there, attended by their respective
choruses, all dressed in striking costume. When Demosthenes served as
choregus to his tribe, he had a gold crown and embroidered mantle made
specially for use at the procession. Alcibiades on a similar occasion was
dressed in purple, and excited much admiration by his beauty.[30] From
these few details, which happen to have been recorded, we may form some
notion of the general splendour of the spectacle. The route followed by
the procession was as follows. On leaving the Temple of Dionysus it came
first to the market-place, where a halt was made, and a chorus danced
and sang before the statues of the twelve gods.[31] It then marched out
through the city gates along the road to Eleutherae. When it reached the
Academy the statue of the god was placed on a pedestal, and the different
victims were sacrificed. The rest of the day was spent in feasting and
merriment.[32] At nightfall they returned to Athens by torchlight. But
the sacred image, instead of being restored to its shrine, was carried
to the theatre by the ephebi, and set up in the orchestra, so as to be
present at the entertainments given on the following days.[33]
These entertainments were of two kinds. There were the dramatic contests,
in tragedy, comedy, and satyric drama; and there were the lyrical
contests, at which dithyrambs were performed.[34] The dithyramb was a
hymn in honour of Dionysus, sung to the accompaniment of the flute by
a chorus of fifty members. The chorus stood in a circular form round
the altar, and was therefore called a ‘cyclic’ chorus. At the City
Dionysia there were two of these lyrical contests, one between five
choruses of boys, and the other between five choruses of men.[35] The
first contest of men took place in B.C. 509-508, in the Archonship of
Lysagoras, though the system of choregia was probably not introduced
till a few years later.[36] Each chorus was provided by one of the ten
Attic tribes. Hence all ten tribes took part in one or other of the two
competitions.[37] The contest was essentially a tribal one. The members
of each chorus, together with the choregus, were selected exclusively
from the tribe which they represented.[38] The victory of the chorus
was a victory for the tribe. The prize of victory, the tripod, though
given to the choregus, and erected in some public place at his expense,
was regarded as equally the property of the tribe.[39] In the records
of dithyrambic competitions the name of the victorious tribe was always
placed in the most prominent position. The dramatic contests, on the
other hand, had no connexion with the tribes. Actors, choruses, and
choregi were chosen indiscriminately from the whole population.[40]
The performers competed in their own interest solely, and not as
representatives of any other body. The records of dramatic victories give
merely the names of the choregus, the poet, and the principal actor.[41]
It is important to keep this difference between the two kinds of contest
clearly in view, since many mistakes have been caused by attributing to
the dramatic kind features which belong exclusively to the dithyrambic.
§ 4. _Tragedy at the City Dionysia._
Of the dramatic performances at the City Dionysia, which we have next
to consider, the tragic were the most important. The City Dionysia was
specially connected with the growth of the tragic drama, and it was here
that the earliest public contests in tragedy were established. The first
competition was held in B.C. 535, and was rendered doubly memorable by
the fact that Thespis, now an old man, took part in the performance, and
won the prize of victory.[42] Shortly before this time Pisistratus, who
was a great patron of art and literature, had returned from exile, and
begun his last tyranny. It must have been under his auspices, therefore,
that tragedy was first officially recognized by the State, and made an
annual institution. As to the character of these early contests, and
the arrangements concerning the number of poets and plays, nothing has
been recorded.[43] It is uncertain whether the regulations were the same
as those which afterwards prevailed during the fifth century. But we
are told that the tragic poet Choerilus, who began to exhibit in 523,
composed no less than a hundred and sixty plays.[44] The largeness of
the number would seem to show that even in the sixth century it was
the custom for each competing poet to bring out several plays at each
festival.
When we turn to the fifth century, the information is fairly complete.
Several records have been preserved, referring chiefly to the three
great tragic poets, and giving a more or less detailed account of the
results of the competitions. It may be interesting to mention some of
these records. The earliest refers to the year 499, and tells us that
three poets—Aeschylus, Choerilus, and Pratinas—took part in the tragic
contest.[45] From the next we learn that in 472 Aeschylus won the first
prize, and that the plays he exhibited were the Phineus, Persae, Glaucus,
and the satyric drama Prometheus.[46] In 467, Aeschylus was first with
the Laius, Oedipus, Septem contra Thebas, and the satyric play Sphinx;
Aristias was second with the Perseus, Tantalus, and the satyric play
Palaestae, written by his father Pratinas; Polyphradmon was third with
the Lycurgean tetralogy.[47] The name of one of the plays of Aristias
has doubtless dropped out accidentally, as there is no other instance of
poets competing at the same festival with a different number of plays.
A very interesting record is that for the year 458, when Aeschylus
was again victorious, this time with the Orestean group of plays,
the Agamemnon, Choephori, Eumenides, and satyric Proteus.[48] In 438
Sophocles was first; Euripides was second with the Cressae, Alcmaeon in
Psophis, Telephus, and Alcestis. In 431 Euphorion was first, Sophocles
second, and Euripides third with the Medea, Philoctetes, Dictys, and
satyric play Theristae. In 428 Euripides was first (the Hippolytus being
one of his plays), Iophon second, Ion third.[49] Among the last of the
notices is that for the year 415, when Euripides, who produced the
Alexander, Palamedes, Troades, and satyric drama Sisyphus, was defeated
for the first prize by an obscure poet called Xenocles, who produced
the Oedipus, Lycaon, Bacchae and satyric play Athamas. After Euripides’
death, in B.C. 406, his Iphigenia in Aulis, Alcmaeon, and Bacchae were
produced by his son at the City Dionysia.[50] The evidence of these
various records, when compared with one another, proves conclusively
that during the whole, or almost the whole, of the fifth century there
was no variation in the arrangement of the tragic contests at the City
Dionysia. The rule as to the number of poets and plays was as follows.
At each festival three poets appeared as competitors,[51] and each poet
was required to exhibit four plays, consisting of three tragedies and a
satyric drama.[52] If the number seems surprising, we should remember
that an ancient drama was only about half the length of a modern one,
and that four plays of this type could easily have been got through in
a single day. On one occasion the rule just mentioned appears to have
been partially relaxed. In 438 Euripides was allowed to substitute the
Alcestis, a tragedy with a slightly comic tinge, for the usual satyric
drama. Whether this practice ever became common in the fifth century
is uncertain. The records give no further instance. In all other cases
where they mention the names of the four plays produced, the last is a
satyric play. It was this custom of concluding the three tragedies with
the licentious merriment of the satyrs which suggested to Ion of Chios
his well-known remark, that virtue, like a tragic poet’s group of plays,
should always contain a satyric element.[53]
The four plays exhibited by each poet might be composed on two different
systems. They might form independent works of art, and have no inner
connexion with one another; or they might deal with successive phases of
the same legend, and be fused into a single artistic whole. The general
name for the group of plays was ‘didascalia’, or a ‘teaching’[54],
because in ancient times the author had to teach them to the actors. But
when they were connected together by unity of subject, they were denoted
by a special term. The four plays were called a ‘tetralogy’;[55] the
three tragedies, regarded apart from the satyric drama, were called a
‘trilogy’. As applied to the drama, however, both words first occur at
a comparatively late date:[56] and as, to judge from their etymology,
they seem properly to denote groups of speeches rather than groups of
plays, it is possible that their dramatic application is a secondary
one, and that the grammarians applied to the drama the word ‘tetralogy’
which properly denoted such groups of four speeches about fictitious
cases as those of Antiphon, and afterwards formed the word ‘trilogy’ by
analogy to denote three plays connected in subject with each other but
not with the satyric play. In earlier times such collective titles as
Lycurgeia, Oresteia, and the like were used.[57] The practice of writing
plays in trilogies and tetralogies is chiefly associated with the name
of Aeschylus. Whether it was invented by him, or inherited from his
predecessors, is uncertain. We have no information as to the manner in
which the poets of the sixth century were accustomed to combine their
plays together. But whatever the origin of the system may have been, it
was undoubtedly Aeschylus who first perceived the various developments
of which it was capable, and brought it to perfection. In his hands it
became a mighty instrument for the inculcation of religious truths. The
central idea in the moral system of Aeschylus was the disastrous effect
of sin, not only upon the sinner himself, but also upon his remote
descendants. The curse entailed in the sinful act clung to a family from
one generation to another. In the trilogy, with its wide range of time
and subject, he was able to trace the whole course of this hereditary
evil, and to follow the crime from its original commission down to
the period of its final expiation. The Orestean trilogy, which has
fortunately been preserved, is a magnificent example of his method. The
Agamemnon depicts the murder of the returning chieftain by his adulterous
wife. In the Choephori vengeance is taken on the murderess, after years
of waiting, by her own son. In the Eumenides the matricide, a prey to
remorse, is hunted from place to place by the Furies of his mother, until
their rage is at length appeased by divine intervention. These successive
pictures of crime and vengeance form a series of unapproachable grandeur.
The general effect of the whole may be appreciated even by a modern
reader. But in the ancient theatre the impression produced must have been
far more vivid, as one play followed another upon the stage, and the
dark scenes of guilt were unfolded in due sequence before the very eyes
of the audience.
Apart from the Oresteia, very little is recorded about the tetralogies
written by Aeschylus. He is known to have composed a Lycurgeia, on the
fate of Lycurgus, the Thracian king and opponent of Bacchus; and an
Oedipodeia, on the fortunes of the house of Oedipus. It is also fairly
certain that he treated the legends about Hector, Ajax, Prometheus,
and the daughters of Danaus in trilogic form. But these are the only
instances for which there is clear evidence. No doubt most of his plays
were written as tetralogies. Still, he does not seem to have adhered to
the system on every occasion. The plays which he exhibited in 472—the
Phineus, Persae, Glaucus, and satyric drama Prometheus—had apparently
no connexion with one another.[58] There are also, among the titles of
his lost dramas, several, such as the Sisyphus and the Atalanta, which
seem to stand in an isolated position, and to be hardly capable of
combination. In some cases, again, he may have adopted the tetralogic
form only in part. The three tragedies may have formed a trilogy, while
the concluding satyric drama was on a different subject. Thus the satyric
Prometheus was produced, not with the Promethean trilogy, as we should
have expected, but in a different combination altogether. There is no
less uncertainty as to the structure of the lost tetralogies. It would
be a mistake to assume that they were all as perfect in arrangement as
the Oresteia. Even from the few remains and notices preserved we can
see that the tetralogy was a flexible form of art, and could be treated
in various ways. The connexion between the parts might be tightened or
relaxed at will. In the Theban trilogy—the Laius, Oedipus, and Septem
contra Thebas—there was a long lapse of years between the separate plays.
In the Oresteia the intervals of time are much shorter. In the Lycurgeia,
which described the invasion of Thrace by Dionysus, his defeat, capture,
and final victory, the three plays followed so closely in point of time,
that they must have been like successive acts in a single drama. Again,
the trilogies might differ in respect of artistic completeness. The
Oresteia forms a perfect whole. The legend is traced to its conclusion,
and ends satisfactorily with the purification of Orestes. But the Theban
trilogy was treated more in the chronicle fashion. It closed abruptly at
a point where the course of events was still unfinished. The final scene
of the Septem is full of forebodings of impending calamity. So marked is
this feature, that before the discovery in recent years of the record
which proves that the Septem was the last play of the three, all critics
were agreed that it must have been followed by another tragedy.[59] This
example shows us the necessity of caution in dealing with the whole
subject of tetralogies. Since there is so much uncertainty as to the
number of them written by Aeschylus, and the manner in which he wrote
them, it is dangerous to go beyond the limits of direct evidence. Various
schemes have been propounded by scholars, in which the titles of the lost
plays are all arranged in tetralogic groups. But these systems must be
regarded as entirely conjectural.
The satyric drama, by which the three tragedies were followed, was a
survival from the primitive period of the Bacchic worship. With its
strange medley of incongruous elements, of valour and cowardice, passion
and merriment, heroic dignity and coarse indecency, it reproduced the
various qualities of the ancient dithyramb. The chorus was always
composed of satyrs. The leading characters consisted partly of heroes
from the tragic stage, partly of semi-ludicrous personages, such as
Silenus, Autolycus, and Polyphemus. The presence of the tragic kings and
heroes in the midst of these disreputable associates and undignified
surroundings was one of the most curious features in the performance. It
had to be managed with great tact by the poet. The dignity of the heroes
was not to be unduly lowered, and yet they must not seem too exalted for
their company.[60] In the case of a tetralogy the awkwardness of the
situation would be greatly intensified. Here the satyric drama dealt
with the same legend as the preceding tragedies, but from a humorous
point of view. It often happened that the very same hero whose disastrous
fate had just been exhibited in the trilogy was reintroduced under
a sportive aspect. In the satyric play Lycurgus, which concluded the
Lycurgean tetralogy, the chief part must have been taken by Lycurgus
himself. In the Sphinx, the last play of the Oedipodeia, Oedipus must
have appeared in person. This practice of concluding the tragic spectacle
with a burlesque representation of the same or similar characters and
incidents seems a questionable proceeding to modern taste. It would be
difficult to defend it on artistic grounds. It originated not so much in
the desire to provide a comic relief after the tragedies as in religious
conservatism. The dramatic performances were part of a Bacchic festival.
But the Bacchic element had long been discarded by tragedy. The satyric
play, which still remained true to the primitive type, was therefore
retained in the programme, in order to appease the god and to keep up the
religious associations of the drama.
During the earlier part of the fifth century the practice of writing
plays in tetralogies seems to have been generally adopted, not only
by Aeschylus, but by all other tragic poets. One such tetralogy, the
Lycurgeia of Polyphradmon, happens to have been recorded. It was
Sophocles who first gave up the system, and regularly composed his four
plays on independent subjects.[61] The example set by Sophocles was
followed by the younger generation. Even as early as 467, when Aeschylus
brought out his Oedipodeia, and Polyphradmon his Lycurgeia, the third
poet, Aristias, competed with a group of disconnected plays. After the
death of Aeschylus the tetralogy speedily went out of fashion. It was
never attempted by Euripides. In fact during the latter half of the fifth
century only three tetralogies are mentioned. A Pandionis was written
by Philocles, the nephew of Aeschylus, who naturally followed in his
uncle’s footsteps. An Oedipodeia was composed by Meletus, the prosecutor
of Socrates. Plato is also said to have written a tetralogy before he
abandoned poetry for philosophy.[62] After the end of the fifth century
all traces of the tetralogy disappear. One reason for its decline in
popularity and rapid discontinuance may have been the increased length
of plays. A tragedy of the later poets was considerably longer, and
contained much more incident, than a tragedy of Aeschylus. A trilogy
composed of dramas of this bulk would have been a vast and laborious
undertaking. Another reason may have been the gradual change in religious
sentiment. The doctrine of the hereditary curse in families, which the
trilogy was admirably adapted to exemplify, no longer held a prominent
place in the moral ideas of post-Aeschylean poets. The chief motive of
their tragedy was human passion rather than religious truth. In such
circumstances the trilogy, as a form of art, had no advantages sufficient
to compensate for the unwieldiness of its size.
It has been worth while to discuss in some detail the arrangement of the
tragic contests at the City Dionysia during the fifth century, because
this was the great period of Attic tragedy. The fourth century is of less
importance. For the first half of the century there is a complete blank
in our information on the subject. But when we come to the latter half,
we have the evidence of an interesting inscription, which contains a full
record of the tragic performances at the City Dionysia for the years 341
and 340.[63] From this record it appears that considerable changes had
now been made in the annual programme. The old system, by which each
of the three poets was required to exhibit a satyric play, had been
abandoned. A single specimen of this type of drama was now considered
sufficient, and was produced at the commencement of the proceedings. The
satyric drama, with its primitive coarseness, had little attraction for
the more refined taste of the fourth century; and it was only religious
scruples which caused it to be retained at all. The satyric play was
followed by an old tragedy, written by one of the three great tragic
poets. In 341 the play chosen was the Iphigeneia of Euripides, in 340
it was the Orestes. This practice was also a new departure.[64] In the
fifth century the exhibition of old tragedies was, with rare exceptions,
unknown at the City Dionysia. After these two preliminary performances
came the contest with original plays. The number of poets was still
there, as in former times. But the number of plays was diminished, and
seems to have varied from year to year. In 341 each poet exhibited three
tragedies; in 340 each poet exhibited two. Theodectes, who flourished
in the middle of the fourth century, wrote fifty tragedies and engaged
in thirteen contests.[65] Aphareus wrote thirty-five admittedly genuine
tragedies, and engaged in eight contests, between 368 and 341.[66] This
seems to imply that in most of the contests they produced four plays; but
the conclusion is not certain, for they may have written plays which were
never intended for the stage, as their contemporary Chaeremon did.[67]
The reduction in the number of original plays points to a gradual decline
in the vitality of the tragic drama at Athens. These various changes must
have been made in the course of the sixty years preceding the period
of the inscription. But the exact date of their introduction cannot be
determined.
With the close of the fourth century the famous period of Athenian
tragedy came to an end. After this date the only tragic poets of any
celebrity were those who flourished at Alexandria. But though the genius
of the Attic poets was exhausted, there was no immediate cessation in
the production of new plays. The contests were still maintained. A long
series of inscriptions shows that, down even to the Christian era,
‘original tragedies’ continued to be the chief ornament of the City
Dionysia. The names of several Athenian tragic poets belonging to this
period have been preserved in theatrical records. One of them was a
descendant of Sophocles. As to the character of the contests, and the
proportion of old tragedies to new ones, nothing is known. After the
first century A.D. the composition of original tragic dramas for the
stage was finally discontinued in all parts of Greece, and must therefore
have been abandoned at the City Dionysia. But the festival itself still
continued to flourish; and the reproduction of old plays may have lasted,
there as elsewhere, for one or two centuries later.[68]
§ 5. _Comedy at the City Dionysia._
Very little is known about the early history of the comic contests at
the City Dionysia. The date of their first institution can only be
fixed approximately. Aristotle tells us that they were of later origin
than those in tragedy.[69] This being so, they cannot have reached back
further than about 500 B.C. On the other hand, there is an inscription
which proves that they were already in existence in 463.[70] Their
establishment must therefore be assigned to some period within the first
four decades of the century. The number of poets who were allowed to
compete differed at different epochs. In the fifth century it was always
three, as in tragedy.[71] But early in the fourth century it was raised
to five, both at the City Dionysia and at the Lenaea, and this continued
ever afterwards to be the regulation number.[72] The increase was
probably due, partly to the growing popularity of the comic drama, partly
also to the fact that, owing to the curtailment of the chorus, comedies
were now less expensive to produce, and took less time to perform. Each
poet competed with a single play. This was the invariable practice on the
comic stage, both at the City Dionysia and at the Lenaea. The exhibition
of groups of plays, after the manner of the tragic poets, was unknown
in the history of comedy. Still, in spite of this rule, an author was
sometimes enabled to bring out two plays at the same festival. But in
order to do so he had to take the place of two poets, and to compete
as it were against himself. The number of comedies remained the same.
Thus in 422 Aristophanes made a double appearance, and was first with
the Prelude, and second with the Wasps. Leucon, his sole antagonist,
was third with the Ambassadors.[73] In 288 Diodorus was second with
the Corpse, and third with the Madman.[74] Such cases, however, were
apparently very rare, and must have been due either to some exceptional
dearth in the supply of dramatists, or to the marked inferiority of the
other poets who had applied for permission to compete.
We have seen that comedy was much later than tragedy in obtaining
official recognition from the State. It also continued to grow and
develop much longer. A sure symptom of decline, both in tragedy and
comedy, was the tendency to fall back upon the past, and to reproduce
old plays, instead of striking out new developments. In the case of
tragedy this custom had already begun to prevail as early as the middle
of the fourth century. But comedy was still at that time in the height
of its career. A fresh direction was being given to the art, under the
leadership of Menander and Philemon, by the evolution of the New Comedy,
a comedy of manners and everyday life. There was no desire as yet to have
recourse to the ancient poets. In a record of comic contests for the
year 288,[75] the plays exhibited are all new ones. But when we reach
the second century the custom of performing old comedies is found to
have been fully established. Numerous records of the comic performances
during that period have been preserved, and in every case the five new
comedies are preceded by an old one.[76] There had been occasional
revivals before this, for instance in the year 340, but these seem to
have been exceptional.[77] Among the plays reproduced are Menander’s
Ghost and Misogynist, Philemon’s Phocians, and Posidippus’ Outcast. It is
noticeable that all these revivals were limited to the New Comedy. There
is no trace of a reproduction of plays from the Middle and the Old. Nor
is this surprising. The comedy of early times was so local and personal
in its allusions, and depended so much for its interest upon contemporary
events, that it could not be expected to attract the ordinary public of a
later generation.
From the records just referred to it is evident that during the second
century B.C. comedy still flourished as vigorously as ever at the City
Dionysia. The festival had sometimes to be abandoned, owing to the
pressure of war and other calamities. But whenever there was a contest,
five new plays were exhibited. After the second century the notices about
this festival come to an end. But it is well known that in other parts
of Greece original comedies continued to form a part of the programme
at various festal gatherings down to the first century of the Christian
era.[78] We may therefore conclude without much doubt that they were
retained at the City Dionysia for an equally long period.
§ 6. _Order of Contests at the City Dionysia._
Before leaving the subject of the City Dionysia, it may be interesting
to say a few words about the performances as a whole, and the order in
which they took place. The programme to be gone through was a long one.
In the fifth century it consisted of five choruses of boys, five choruses
of men, three comedies, and three groups of tragedies, each containing
four plays. As to the arrangement of these various items there is not
much information.[79] But one thing seems certain, that the three groups
of tragedies must have been exhibited on three successive days. It is
difficult to see what other system was possible. Two groups, consisting
of eight dramas, would have been far too much for a single day.[80] Nor
can we suppose that plays belonging to the same group were performed on
different days. If this had been the case, the value of the tetralogic
form of composition would have been almost entirely destroyed. Further
than this, there is a passage in Aristophanes which seems to prove that
tragedies and comedies were produced on the same day. In the Birds,[81]
which was brought out at the City Dionysia, the chorus remark that it
would be a delightful thing to have wings. They say that if one of the
spectators was tired with the tragic choruses, he might fly away home,
have his dinner, and fly back again in time for the comic choruses. It
appears to follow from this that the comedies were performed after the
tragedies. As there were three comedies during the fifth century, and
three groups of tragedies, the arrangement must have been that each
tragic group was performed in the morning of three successive days, and
was followed in the afternoon by a comedy. The festival as a whole lasted
for five or six days. The first day was taken up by the procession. Three
more were taken up by the tragedies and comedies. The remaining one or
two days would be devoted to the dithyrambs. Such was the system during
the life-time of Aeschylus and Sophocles. In the fourth century, when
the number of comedies had been raised to five, the number of tragedies
diminished, and a satyric drama and an old tragedy placed at the head of
the tragic contests, various rearrangements would be necessary. But there
is nothing to show how they were carried out.[82]
§ 7. _The Lenaea._
The Lenaea was a festival in honour of Dionysus Lenaeus.[83] It was
celebrated, at any rate, during the earliest times, in a sacred enclosure
called the Lenaeum.[84] Hence the feast was also termed the ‘Contest at
the Lenaeum’, or the ‘Epilenaean Dionysia’; and the poet who won a prize
there was said to have been ‘victorious at the Lenaeum’.[85] The site of
the Lenaeum is unfortunately a matter in much dispute, and no certain
conclusion has been arrived at. Except that it was in or close to the
market-place, the site of which is itself uncertain, nothing definite can
be said about it.
The Lenaea was a winter gathering. It was held in the month of Gamelion,
at a time corresponding to the end of January.[86] The weather was still
often stormy, and the sea was not yet considered safe for voyagers.[87]
Consequently there were few visitors in Athens. The festival was a
domestic sort of holiday, confined to the Athenians themselves. The
proceedings were simple and unpretentious, as compared with the splendid
ceremonial and vast audiences at the City Dionysia. Aristophanes, in
the Acharnians, which was produced at the Lenaea, says he can now abuse
Athens as much as he likes, without being accused of degrading her in the
eyes of foreign Greeks.[88] The entertainments at the Lenaea consisted of
a procession, and of contests in tragedy and comedy.[89] The procession
was not an impressive spectacle, like that at the City Dionysia, but was
conducted in primitive fashion by men who drove about in wagons, and
assailed the bystanders with abuse and ridicule.[90] The festival as a
whole was much shorter than the City Dionysia.
The early history of tragedy at the Lenaea is veiled in obscurity. The
first piece of information on the subject which we possess belongs to
the latter part of the fifth century. It consists of a record of the
tragic performances at the Lenaea for the years 419 and 418.[91] In both
these years the number of poets who competed was two, and each of them
exhibited three tragedies.[92] There is no mention of a satyric play.
Again, we are told that in 416 Agathon won a tragic victory at the
Lenaea.[93] These two notices comprise all that is known about tragedy
at this festival during the fifth century. They appear to prove that
towards the close of the century the tragic contests had become a regular
institution, though the number of poets and plays was much smaller than
at the City Dionysia. Whether the contests were of recent origin, or
reached back for many years, cannot be ascertained. During the fourth
century new tragedies continued to be produced at the Lenaea without
any cessation. In 367 Dionysius, the tyrant of Syracuse, won the tragic
prize there. Aphareus, who flourished about 350, exhibited there on two
occasions. Theodectes, the pupil of Aristotle, obtained one victory at
the Lenaea; Astydamas, his contemporary, obtained seven.[94] As to the
arrangement of the contest during this period, and the number of plays
produced, there is no information. But it is probable that the new
tragedies were preceded by an old one, as at the City Dionysia. After
the fourth century nothing further is known about the connexion of the
Lenaea with the tragic drama.[95] The festival continued to be celebrated
down to the second century A.D., and possibly later.[96] But whether
tragedies, either old or new, were still included in the programme, is
quite uncertain.
Comedy was the special product of the Lenaea, and was regarded as of more
importance than tragedy. It was doubtless at this festival that comic
contests were first regularly organized. The date is not recorded. But
they must have been in existence at any rate as early as 463,[97] since
at that time they were already included in the City Dionysia. There is
also another piece of evidence. Chionides, one of the early comic poets,
is said to have begun to exhibit plays in 487. It is unlikely that the
exact year of his first appearance would have been remembered, unless it
had referred to a regular public contest. Hence we may probably assume
that comic contests had been established as early as 487; and if so,
they may have been established at the Lenaea.[98] But they cannot go
back beyond about 500, since comedy in general was a later institution
than tragedy. The first definite and dated record of a comic contest
at the Lenaea is for the year 425, when Aristophanes produced his
Acharnians.[99] From this time forward the history of comedy at the
Lenaea is much the same as its history at the City Dionysia. During the
fifth century there were three competing poets, and each brought out a
single play.[100] In the fourth century the number of poets was varied to
five.[101] The practice of exhibiting an old comedy as a prelude to the
new ones was introduced in the course of the next hundred years.[102] In
the second century original comedy was still flourishing as vigorously as
ever at Athens, though none of the records so far dated with certainty
refer to the Lenaea.[103] There is no evidence as to its later course.
A few remarks may be made here on the relative importance of the Lenaea
and the City Dionysia from the theatrical point of view. The City
Dionysia was much the most splendid and imposing gathering of the two. It
was attended by larger crowds of people, and was subjected to stricter
regulations. Aliens were not allowed to take part in the choruses; metics
were forbidden to serve as choregi.[104] No such prohibitions existed at
the Lenaea. It must obviously have been a much greater honour for a poet
to produce his plays at the City Dionysia, before the vast concourse of
citizens and strangers, than in the comparative privacy of the Lenaea.
In tragedy this was more particularly the case. The great tragic poets,
after their fame had been once established, seem to have mostly confined
themselves to the City Dionysia. Sophocles, for instance, won eighteen
victories there, and only two or six at the Lenaea.[105] The Lenaea would
be generally reserved for inferior poets, or for youthful authors who had
still their reputation to make. Thus in 418 one of the competitors was an
obscure poet called Callistratus.[106] In 416 the victor was Agathon, who
had never yet obtained a tragic prize.[107] Foreign poets may also have
been generally confined to this festival. It was here that Dionysius,
the tyrant of Syracuse, won his solitary success.[108] The circumstances
were rather different in regard to comedy. The leading comic poets seem
to have made little distinction between the two festivals. Aristophanes
produced his plays indifferently at both.[109] Cratinus won six Lenaean
victories as opposed to three in the City, Teleclides five as opposed to
three.[110] In explanation of this fact we should remember that comedy
was the chief feature at the Lenaea, tragedy an appendage. Also, as
the competitors in comedy only produced one play at a time, a poet of
a fertile mind would need two contests in the year in order to exhibit
what he had written. Still, in spite of the more equal distribution of
the comic poets between the two festivals, there can be little doubt that
even in comedy a ‘City victory’ was always the highest distinction.[111]
§ 8. _Rural Dionysia and Anthesteria._
The Rural Dionysia were provincial festivals, held about the end of
December[112] in the country districts of Attica. Originally they
were very simple in character.[113] The villagers, holding aloft the
phallus, marched in procession to the altar of Dionysus, where a goat was
sacrificed, and songs and dances performed in honour of the god. Then
came various country sports; and the day ended in drinking and merriment.
Later on, as the people advanced in wealth and refinement, the dignity
of many of these festivals was much increased. Dramatic contests began
to be introduced, in imitation of those already established in Athens.
Eventually, by the end of the fifth century, all the larger Attic towns
appear to have provided themselves with theatres and annual theatrical
exhibitions. The most important of these local gatherings was that in the
Peiraeeus, which was supported by contributions of money from the state
treasury, and attended by large crowds from Athens and the neighbouring
districts. The procession, with which the proceedings commenced, must
have been a striking spectacle. The whole body of the ephebi took part
in it. Then there were contests in tragedy and comedy. The fame of
these contests is shown by the fact that even distinguished poets, such
as Euripides, occasionally appeared as competitors; and that foreign
ambassadors, if present in Athens at the time, were invited to attend
as a matter of course.[114] Among other festivals which seem to have
acquired more than a local celebrity, we may mention those of Collytus
where Aeschines acted the part of Oenomaus in the play of Sophocles,[115]
Eleusis,[116] Salamis,[117] and Icaria, and at these proclamation was
made of crowns which had been bestowed on deserving citizens.[118]
At Aixone there were performances of comedies, but tragedies are not
mentioned.[119] At Phlya there were dramatic performances, probably
of both kinds.[120] The remains of a theatre have been found at
Thoricus.[121]
The plays produced at these rustic Dionysia were mostly old ones, which
had already been successful on the Athenian stage. The exhibition of new
and original dramas was exceptional, and confined to a few important
towns.[122] Usually the proceedings took the form of a contest between
troupes of actors, who competed with plays of established reputation.
Prizes were offered by the different demes, and companies were formed in
Athens for the purpose of touring the country, and contending against
one another. Aeschines in his youth served as tritagonist in a troupe
of this kind, having been hired for a provincial tour by ‘the ranters’,
Simylus and Socrates.[123] These constant revivals of old plays at the
Rural Dionysia are a fact of some importance in the history of the Attic
drama. It was in this way that the Athenian audience was familiarized
with the masterpieces of the past, which might otherwise have been
forgotten. In Athens itself there were not many opportunities of seeing
them acted. There were only two dramatic festivals in the year, and these
were mostly given up to original compositions. Yet the audience was
obviously well acquainted with the older dramas. The frequent parodies
and allusions in Aristophanes prove that this was the case.[124] It was
at the Rural Dionysia that they acquired their knowledge. The spectators
in the Athenian theatre consisted partly of natives of Athens, partly
of citizens from the country districts. For the natives there were the
festivals of the adjoining demes, such as Collytus and the Peiraeeus;
for the provincials there were their own local gatherings. Both classes
therefore would have many chances of witnessing the reproduction of
celebrated plays.
The Anthesteria had so little connexion with the drama that it is
unnecessary to describe the manner in which it was celebrated.[125]
Regular performances of plays were apparently unknown there during the
classical period. The only trace of anything theatrical is a certain
contest between comic actors, which took place on the Chytri, the
last day of the festival. The victor at this contest was allowed the
undisputed right of acting at the forthcoming City Dionysia a month
later.[126] Probably the performance consisted in the recitation of
selected portions of a comedy by the different competitors. The contest
had fallen into disuse during the latter part of the fourth century, but
was restored by the orator Lycurgus. In much later times, during the
first century A.D., we hear of ‘tragic monodies’ and ‘comic parabases’
being performed at the Anthesteria.[127] But the notice is too slight and
vague to enable us to judge as to the general character of the exhibition.
§ 9. _The Judges._
The institution of the dramatic contests at the different Attic
festivals has now been described in detail. As regards the management
of the competition many points still remain to be considered, viz. the
selection of the judges, the mode of giving the verdict, the prizes for
poets and actors, and the public records of the results. First as to the
judges. The number of the judges in the comic contests was five.[128]
The number in the tragic contests was probably the same, but there is
no direct evidence upon the subject. The process of selection seems to
have been as follows.[129] Several days before the actual commencement
of the festival the Council, assisted by the choregi, elected by vote
a preliminary list of judges. A certain number of names were selected
from each of the ten tribes of Attica. The different choregi, as was
natural, endeavoured to get their own partisans upon the list. The names
of the persons chosen were then inscribed upon tablets, and the tablets
were placed in ten urns, each urn containing the names belonging to a
single tribe. The urns were then carefully locked up and sealed in the
presence of the prytanes and choregi, handed over to the custody of
the treasurers, and deposited in the Acropolis. The preliminary list
of judges was kept a secret from every one except the Council and the
choregi, in order that no improper influence might be brought to bear
upon them. The penalty for tampering with the urns was death. It is not
known from what class the nominees were selected, or whether any property
qualification was necessary. Obviously the judges in the dramatic and
dithyrambic contests had a very delicate office to perform. If their
verdict was to be of value, it was necessary that they should be men of
culture and discernment. It is most likely therefore that there was some
limitation upon the number of persons qualified to act in this capacity.
Until the time of the festival the preliminary list of citizens remained
sealed up in urns in the Acropolis. On the first day of the competitions
the ten urns were produced in the theatre, and placed in some prominent
position. The persons whose names were contained in the urns were all
present in the theatre. Probably they received a special summons from
the archon shortly before the festival. At the commencement of the
contest the archon proceeded to draw a single name from all the urns
in succession. The ten persons whose names were drawn constituted the
second list of judges, and each of them represented one of the ten
tribes of Attica. After being selected by lot in the manner described,
they were called forward by the archon, and took a solemn oath that they
would give an impartial verdict.[130] They were then conducted to seats
specially appointed for them, and the contest began.[131] At the end of
the performances each of them gave his vote, writing upon a tablet the
names of the competitors in order of merit.[132] These tablets, ten in
number, were then placed in an urn, and the archon proceeded to draw
forth five of them at random. The result of the competition was decided
in accordance with these five lists, and the persons whose tablets were
drawn from the urn constituted the ultimate body of five judges. It thus
appears that up to the very last the judges who recorded their votes
were not sure whether the votes would eventually have effect, or turn
out to be so much waste paper. This uncertainty was of course a great
obstacle to intimidation and bribery. After the competition was over,
and the verdict announced, the names of the five judges, whose votes had
decided the day, were not kept secret. It was known how each of them had
voted. But the other votes, which had been recorded but not drawn from
the urn, were destroyed without being made public.[133] It was naturally
considered a much greater honour to win a victory by the unanimous vote
of all five judges than by a mere majority of one.[134] But it is very
doubtful whether any public record was kept of the number of votes by
which a victory was gained.
Whether the decision of the judges was generally given with discernment,
and how far it corresponded with the ultimate verdict of posterity, is
a question of some interest. Both Aeschylus and Sophocles were usually
successful, and this speaks highly for the taste of the judges. Aeschylus
won thirteen victories; and as he produced four plays on each occasion,
it follows that no less than fifty-two of his plays obtained the first
prize. Whether the total number of his plays was seventy or ninety,
the proportion of victories was very large.[135] Sophocles was equally
fortunate. He won eighteen victories at the City Dionysia, and at least
two at the Lenaea.[136] The number of his plays, as given by different
authorities, varies from a hundred-and-four to a hundred-and-thirty.[137]
Thus on the lowest estimate considerably more than half his plays gained
the first position. Euripides was not so successful. He only won five
victories, though he wrote between ninety and a hundred plays.[138] His
failure was partly due to the fact that he often had the misfortune
to contend against Sophocles. He was beaten by Sophocles in 438 and
431, and probably on many other occasions of which no record has been
preserved.[139] But at other times he was defeated by very inferior
poets. In 415 he was beaten by Xenocles, and on another occasion by the
obscure poet Nicomachus.[140] But the most surprising verdict of which
there is any record is the defeat of the Oedipus Tyrannus of Sophocles by
Philocles, the nephew of Aeschylus.[141] Of course the other three plays,
along with which the Oedipus Tyrannus was produced, may not have been of
equal merit. Still it must always seem an extraordinary fact, and a proof
of the fallibility of Athenian judges, that a play which is generally
allowed to be one of the greatest dramas of antiquity should have been
defeated by a third-rate poet such as Philocles.
Verdicts of this indefensible character might be due to various causes.
The judges might be corrupt, or might be intimidated. The spirit of
emulation ran very high at these contests, and men were often not very
particular as to the means by which they obtained the victory. There is
an instance in one of the speeches of Lysias. The defendant is showing
that the prosecutor had been on very friendly terms with him a short
time before. The proof he brings forward is that when he was choregus
at the City Dionysia he got the prosecutor appointed on the preliminary
list of judges for the express purpose of voting for his own chorus.
The prosecutor was pledged to vote for the chorus of the defendant,
whether it was good or bad. He appears to have actually done so; but
unfortunately, at the final drawing, his name was not selected, and
his vote was therefore of no value.[142] Another example of the use of
corruption is afforded by the case of Meidias, who is said to have won
the victory with his chorus of men at the City Dionysia by bribing or
intimidating the judges.[143] Similarly at a contest of boys’ choruses,
Alcibiades, in spite of his outrageous conduct in assaulting a rival
choregus, won the first prize, because some of the judges were afraid
to vote against him, and others had been bought over to his side.[144]
The verdict of each individual judge was made public. Hence it is easy
to see that judges might often be afraid to incur the hostility of rich
and unscrupulous citizens by voting against them. The above instances
all refer to dithyrambic contests. No doubt in these cases, as the whole
tribe was concerned with the result, party feeling ran exceptionally
high. In the dramatic competitions only individuals were engaged, and
there was less general excitement about the result. Yet even here corrupt
influences were sometimes employed. Menander, the greatest comic poet of
his time, was often defeated by Philemon owing to jobbery and intrigue
similar to that described above.[145]
One not unfrequent cause then of unfair verdicts must have been
corruption and intimidation. There is also another point to be kept in
view in estimating the value of the decisions of the ancient judges. The
plays of Sophocles and Euripides were no doubt immeasurably superior,
as literary works, to the plays of Philocles, Xenocles, and Nicomachus,
by which they were defeated. And yet in these and similar instances the
verdicts of the judges may perhaps have had some justification. One
is apt to forget the importance of the manner in which the play was
presented upon the stage. Even in modern times an inferior play, if well
mounted and acted, is more impressive than a good play badly performed.
This must have been still more the case in the ancient drama, where
the singing and dancing of the chorus formed such an important element
in the success of the performance. It can easily be seen that, however
well a play was written, if it was ill-mounted, and if the chorus was
badly trained, this would greatly diminish the chances of success. Now
the ancient poet was dependent upon his choregus for the mounting of
the piece and for the selection of the chorus. If the choregus was rich
and generous the play was put upon the stage in the very best manner,
with all the advantages of fine dresses and a well-trained chorus. An
ambitious choregus spared no pains to do his part of the work thoroughly.
But if the choregus was a miserly man he tried to do the thing as cheaply
as possible. He hired inferior singers, and cut down the prices of the
dresses and other accessories. Hence the success of a play depended
nearly as much upon the choregus as upon the poet. Several examples
illustrate this fact. Demosthenes, shortly before his death, is said to
have dreamt that he was acting in a tragedy in a contest with Archias;
but although he was highly successful, and produced a great impression
upon the audience, he was defeated in the contest because of the wretched
manner in which the play was mounted upon the stage.[146] Then there is
the case of Nicias. He was a man of great wealth, but not of commanding
talents. Accordingly he tried to win popularity by the magnificence
with which he performed his duties as choregus. The result was that he
obtained the victory in every competition in which he engaged.[147]
Antisthenes is another instance of a rich choregus who, although he
knew nothing about music and poetry, was always successful in his
contests, because he spared no expense in the preparations.[148] There
is an example of a different kind of choregus in one of the speeches of
Isaeus. A certain Dicaeogenes regarded his office of choregus merely
as a burden, and tried to perform it in the most economical manner.
The consequence was that he was always unsuccessful. He engaged in a
dithyrambic and tragic contest, and in a contest of pyrrhic dancers. On
the first occasion he was last but one, on the other two occasions he
was last.[149] Obviously the tragic poet who had the misfortune to be
associated with Dicaeogenes would have a very small chance of success.
The above examples show very clearly that the money of the choregus was
almost as important towards securing victory as the genius of the poet.
The best critics would attend mainly to the merits of the piece in
itself, apart from the splendour of the accompaniments. But the mass of
the spectators would be dazzled by gorgeous dresses and effective singing
and dancing. And the mass of the spectators had a great deal to do with
the verdict. If they were strongly in favour of a particular poet, it
was difficult for the judges to act in opposition to their wishes. The
judges were liable to prosecution and imprisonment if their verdict was
supposed to be unjust; and the case would be tried before a jury chosen
from the very audience which they had thwarted.[150] That the multitude
on occasions made their wishes known most emphatically, and brought
great pressure to bear upon the judges, is shown by Aelian’s account
of the first performance of the Clouds. The story is a fable, but is
interesting as an illustration of the occasional behaviour of an Athenian
audience. It is said that the people were so delighted with the Clouds,
that they applauded the poet more than they had ever done before, and
insisted on the judges placing the name of Aristophanes first upon the
list.[151] Plato laments on several occasions the despotism exercised by
the audience in the theatre. In former times, he says, the verdict was
not decided by ‘hisses and unmusical shouts, as at the present day, nor
by applause and clapping of hands’, but the rabble were compelled by the
attendants to keep quiet. In another place he says that the judge should
be the instructor, not the pupil, of the audience, and should refuse
to be intimidated by their shouts into giving a false verdict. But at
the present day, he adds, the decision rests with the multitude, and is
practically decided by public vote, and the result is the degeneracy
of poets and spectators alike.[152] These passages of Plato prove how
much the judges were under the dominion of the audience; and a general
audience would be especially likely to be carried away by the splendour
of the choregic part of the exhibition, by the music, dancing, and
scenery. But on the whole, in spite of occasional cases of corruption,
and in spite of the despotism of the multitude, one would be inclined
to say, arguing from results, that the judges performed their duties
well. The best proof of their fairness lies in the continued success of
Aeschylus and Sophocles.[153]
§ 10. _The Prizes._
When the contest was ended, and the decision of the judges had been
announced, the names of the victorious poet and of his choregus were
publicly proclaimed by the herald, and they were crowned with garlands
of ivy in the presence of the spectators. The crowning probably took
place upon the stage, and was performed by the archon.[154] There is no
mention of any special prize for the choregus, in addition to the honour
of the crown and the public proclamation of his victory. It is often
stated that the successful choregus received a tripod from the State,
which he was expected to erect upon a monument in some public place,
with an inscription recording his victory. But this was only the case in
the dithyrambic contests. In these contests each choregus appeared as
the representative of one of the ten tribes of Attica; the tripod which
he received belonged really to the tribe, and was intended to serve as
a tribal monument.[155] The dramatic choregi had no such representative
character, nor were they provided with any memorial of victory by the
State.
As to the rewards for the poets, the tradition was that in the earliest
times the prize for tragedy was a goat, the prize for comedy a basket
of figs and a jar of wine.[156] After the dramatic contests had been
regularly organized, each of the competing poets received a payment of
money from the State, differing no doubt in amount, according to the
place he gained in the competition.[157] Nothing is known as to the value
of these prizes. But as the ancient dramatist had not only to write
his plays, but also to superintend their production, the demands upon
his time and energy must have been very great, and the rewards would
be correspondingly large. Some idea of the scale on which the amounts
were graduated, according to the place of each poet in the competition,
may be gathered from the analogy of the dithyrambic contests instituted
by Lycurgus in the Peiraeeus. In these contests not less than three
choruses were to take part, and the prizes were to be ten minae for
the first chorus, eight for the second, and six for the third.[158]
The payment of the dramatic poets was probably arranged in a somewhat
similar proportion. Towards the end of the fifth century the prizes
were reduced in amount by certain commissioners of the Treasury, named
Archinus and Agyrrhius. Accordingly in the Frogs of Aristophanes these
two statesmen are placed in the list of bad men who are not allowed to
join the chorus of the initiated.[159] The fact that all of the competing
poets received a reward of money need cause no astonishment. They were
the poets chosen, after selection, to provide the entertainment at the
annual festivals. They were not selected until their plays had been
carefully examined by the archon and found to be of the requisite merit.
To be allowed to exhibit at all was a considerable distinction. There
was nothing dishonourable for an ordinary poet in being placed last in
the competition. No doubt for one of the great dramatic writers such
a position was regarded as a disgrace. When Aristophanes was third it
is spoken of as a distinct rebuff.[160] But to obtain the second place
was always creditable. It is mentioned as a proof of the greatness of
Sophocles that he ‘obtained twenty victories and was often second’.
When he was defeated for the first place by Philocles, the disgrace
consisted, not in his being second, but in his being beaten by such an
inferior poet.[161] At the same time to be second was never regarded as a
‘victory’. The title of victor was reserved for the first poet. This is
proved by the passage about Sophocles just quoted, and also by the fact
that in the list of victors at the City Dionysia only the names of the
first poets in the tragic and comic contests are enumerated.[162] It is
clearly owing to an error that the second poet is sometimes spoken of as
a victor.[163]
§ 11. _Contests between actors._
In addition to the rewards just mentioned, prizes for acting were
instituted in later times. At first the principal competitors in the
dramatic contests were the choregus and the poet. Upon their efforts
the success of a play mainly depended. It was to them that the rewards
of victory were assigned, and it was their names which were recorded in
the public monuments. But as time went on the profession of the actor
gradually increased in importance. Eventually the success of a play came
to depend principally upon the actors. The competition was extended to
them. A prize was offered for the most successful actor as well as for
the most successful poet. The name of the victorious actors began to be
recorded in the official lists. As regards the date of these innovations
the following facts may be gathered from existing monuments. At the
City Dionysia contests between tragic actors were established for the
first time about the year 446 B.C.[164] Contests between comic actors
at this festival are not mentioned in the inscriptional records of
performances during the fifth and fourth centuries.[165] In the second
century they seem to have become a regular institution, but nothing
certain can be ascertained concerning the intervening period.[166] At the
Lenaea, contests between tragic actors can be traced back as far as 420
B.C.,[167] and contests between comic actors as far as about 289 with
certainty,[168] and considerably earlier with fair probability.[169]
These contests were limited to the principal actors or protagonists in
each play. The subordinate actors, the deuteragonist and tritagonist,
had nothing to do with them. The principal actor in a Greek play was a
much more important personage than even the ‘star’ in a modern company.
The actors in a Greek play were limited to three in number, and each
of them had to play several parts in succession, by means of changes
in dress and mask. Hence the protagonist had to perform not only the
principal part, but also several of the subordinate ones. Besides this,
the composition of most Greek tragedies was designed with the express
purpose of bringing out into strong relief the character of the principal
personage. The incidents were intended to draw forth his different
emotions: the subordinate characters were so many foils to him. As a
consequence, the success of a Greek play depended almost wholly upon the
protagonist. In the ordinary language of the times he was said to ‘act
the play’, as if the other performers were of no importance. To take an
example from existing inscriptions, it is recorded that in 340 ‘Astydamas
was victorious with the Parthenopaeus, acted by Thessalus, and the
Lycaon, acted by Neoptolemus’.[170] This is the regular form of the old
records both in tragedy and comedy. Demosthenes uses similar language.
Referring to the Phoenix of Euripides, he says that ‘Theodorus and
Aristodemus never acted this play’. The form of the language is proof of
the overwhelming importance of the protagonist.[171] The only other point
to be noticed is that the success of the actor was quite independent of
the success of the play in which he was performing. Thus in one of the
comic contests of the second century the prize for acting was won by
Onesimus. But the play in which he acted, the Shipwrecked Mariner, only
won the second place. The successful comedy, the Ephesians, was acted by
Sophilus. Similarly in the tragic contests of the year 418 the prize for
acting was won by Callippides; but the poet Callistratus, whose three
tragedies he performed, was only second. The tragedies of the successful
poet were acted by Lysicrates.[172]
The actors’ contests which we have hitherto been describing took place
at the performance of new tragedies and comedies, and existed side by
side with contests between poets and choregi. But there were other
occasions in which actors met in competition. The reproduction of old
plays generally took the form of contests between actors. These contests
were of two kinds. In the first kind each actor performed a different
play. At the same time the victory was decided, not by the merits of the
play, but by the skill of the actor. There are several references to
competitions of this sort. For instance, before the battle of Arginusae,
Thrasyllus is said to have dreamt that he was engaged in a contest in
the theatre at Athens, and that he and his fellow generals were acting
the Phoenissae of Euripides, while their opponents were acting the
Supplices.[173] The most frequent occasion for reproductions of old
plays in this manner must have been afforded by the Rural Dionysia
in the different townships of Attica. The dramatic performances at
these festivals were mostly confined, as we have already seen, to the
exhibition of old tragedies and comedies. The town offered a prize for
acting, and the leading Athenian actors came down with their companies
and took part in the contest, each performing a different play. But at
the great Athenian festivals, the Lenaea and the City Dionysia, there are
no traces of such competitions to be found in the records. They may have
been introduced in late times; but during the more flourishing period of
the drama, when the older poets were reproduced at these festivals, one
play seems to have been considered sufficient.[174]
The second kind of competition with old plays differed from the first
in this respect, that each actor performed the same play. For instance,
Licymnius, the tragic actor, is said to have defeated Critias and
Hippasus in the Propompi of Aeschylus. Andronicus, another tragic actor,
was successful in the Epigoni on one occasion; and it is implied that his
opponents acted the same play.[175] In contests of this description it is
not probable that the whole play was acted by each of the competitors,
but only special portions of it. The contest would be useful for purposes
of selection. When the custom arose of prefacing the performances of new
tragedies and new comedies by the reproduction of an ancient drama, it
would be necessary for the state to choose the actor who was to manage
the reproduction. Very probably the selection was made by a competition
of the kind we are describing, in which a portion of an old play was
performed by each of the candidates. The contests between comic actors at
the Chytri have already been referred to.[176] Most likely they were of
the same description.
§ 12. _Records of dramatic contests._
It is difficult in modern times to realize fully the keenness of the
interest with which the various dramatic contests were regarded by the
old Athenians, and the value which was attached to victories obtained
in them. The greatest statesman was proud to be successful with a
chorus in tragedy or comedy. It was a proof both of his taste and of
his munificence. The tragic poet held as high a place in the popular
estimation as the orator or the general. Victorious competitors were not
content with the mere temporary glory they obtained. Every care was taken
to perpetuate the memory of their success in a permanent form. Elaborate
records were also erected by the state. A description of the various
kinds of memorials, of which fragments have been preserved, will be a
convincing proof of the enthusiasm with which the drama was regarded in
ancient times.
First, as to the private monuments. These were erected by the victorious
choregi, and appear to have differed widely in style and costliness,
according to the wealth and taste of the individuals. Thus the mean
man in Theophrastus, when he had been successful with a tragic chorus,
was content to erect a mere wooden scroll in commemoration of his
victory.[177] Another cheap device was to dedicate some article of
theatrical costume, such as an actor’s mask.[178] But the ordinary form
of memorial, in the case of the dramatic contests, consisted of a marble
tablet, containing a painting or sculptured relief.[179] At first, no
doubt, these tablets were of small size and simple workmanship; but in
course of time, with the growth of luxurious habits, they began to assume
a more elaborate form. For instance, the monument set up by Xenocles
in 306 was about fourteen feet high, the tablet being enclosed in a
magnificent architectural structure, with columns and entablature.[180]
The paintings and reliefs upon the tablets were no less variable. Some
of them depicted masks, or crowns of victory, or similar emblems; others
contained representations of Dionysus or Silenus. Sometimes groups of
figures were portrayed, such as a chorus of singers with the choregus in
the centre. Sometimes a scene was inserted from the tragedy or comedy in
which the victory had been obtained.[181] But though the tablets differed
in magnificence, the inscriptions upon them were generally simple and
concise, and consisted merely of the names of the poet and choregus,
and of the archon for the year, with the addition in later times of the
name of the actor. The record inscribed by Themistocles in honour of his
tragic victory in 476 ran as follows:[182]—
Choregus, Themistocles of Phrearria:
Poet, Phrynichus:
Archon, Adeimantus.
As regards public memorials, we can hardly doubt that from the earliest
period records of the different contests were preserved in the official
archives. But in addition to these documentary registers, elaborate
monuments of stone were erected by the state in or near to the theatre of
Dionysus. Considerable fragments of these monuments have been discovered
by recent excavations. They may be divided into three classes. The first
class consisted of records of all the contests at some one particular
festival. Such records were of the most general description, and
contained merely a list of victors’ names. Fragments have been discovered
of the records of the contests at the City Dionysia during the fifth
and fourth centuries.[183] The style is the same throughout. The boys’
choruses are mentioned first, then the choruses of men, then comedy,
and tragedy last of all. In the dithyrambic contests the names of the
victorious tribe and choregus are given; in the dramatic contests the
names of the victorious choregus and poet. The only difference between
the earlier and later portions of the record is that towards the middle
of the fifth century the name of the tragic actor begins to be appended.
The second class of public monuments was devoted to the record of one
particular kind of contest at a particular festival. Records are extant
of tragedy at the Lenaea in the fifth century, and at the City Dionysia
in the fourth; also of comedy at the Lenaea in the third century, and
at the City Dionysia in the second.[184] The names of all the competing
poets are given, together with the titles of the plays they produced, and
the names of the actors who performed them. At the end comes the name of
the actor who won the prize for acting. If there was any reproduction of
an old tragedy or comedy, the name of the play is given, together with
the name of the actor.
The third class of monument consisted of lists of tragic and comic
actors, and tragic and comic poets, with numerals after each of them,
denoting the number of victories they had won in the course of their
career. There were separate lists for the City Dionysia and the Lenaea.
There were consequently eight lists in all, four for each festival.
Numerous fragments have been discovered, but unfortunately the most
interesting parts are not always the best preserved.[185] Still, they
throw light upon several small points in connexion with the drama.
One fragment confirms the statement of Diodorus, that the number of
Sophocles’ victories was eighteen. At any rate that is proved to have
been the number of his victories at the City Dionysia. Cratinus is
represented as having won three victories at the City Dionysia and six at
the Lenaea. This tallies exactly with the account of Suidas, who gives
the total number of his victories as nine.[186]
None of the public monuments, of which fragments have been recovered,
appear to have been erected before the third century, or, at the
earliest, the latter part of the fourth century B.C. But there can
be no doubt that similar monuments existed at a much earlier period.
These earlier records, together with the choregic inscriptions and the
documents in the public archives, must have been the source from which
Aristotle derived the information contained in his two books about
the contests at the Dionysia. Of these two books the first was called
‘Dionysiac Victories’, and though it is never quoted by ancient writers,
it probably contained the same sort of information as the first and third
classes of public monuments. The other book was called the ‘Didascaliae’,
and is very frequently referred to and quoted from.[187] It contained
lists of the poets who competed at each festival, together with the names
of the plays they produced. It was therefore similar to the second class
of monuments. ‘Didascalia,’ in its dramatic sense, meant originally the
teaching and training of a chorus. It then came to denote the play or
group of plays produced by a poet at a single festival.[188] Lastly, it
was used to denote a record concerning the production of a play or group
of plays. It is in this sense that Aristotle used it as the title of his
book. The work would not be a mere compilation from existing records and
monuments. It must have required some care and research. For instance,
when a poet had his plays brought out vicariously, we cannot doubt that
the name of the nominal author was entered in the public records, and
not that of the real poet. Aristophanes usually brought out his plays in
this manner. Then again a poet’s plays were sometimes brought out after
his death in the name of his son. In these and similar cases it would
be the duty of the compiler of a work like Aristotle’s to correct the
mistakes of the public records, and to substitute where necessary the
name of the real author of the play. Corrections of this kind were no
doubt made by Aristotle and his successors. The Didascaliae of Aristotle
is the ultimate source of our information as to the production and the
success of the plays of the great Athenian dramatists. Callimachus,
the grammarian of Alexandria, wrote a book of a similar kind, based
upon Aristotle’s work.[189] It was from Callimachus that Aristophanes,
the grammarian, derived the information which he incorporated in his
Arguments to the Greek plays.[190] The existing Arguments are mainly
fragments of the work of Aristophanes.[191] Thus the process of
derivation from Aristotle can be traced step by step. The list of victors
at the City Dionysia for the year 458, which was dug up at Athens a few
years ago, tallies in every particular with the facts recorded in the
Argument to the Agamemnon of Aeschylus.[192]