THE PREPARATION FOR THE CONTESTS
§ 1. _The Poets._
Dramatic performances at Athens, as was pointed out, were entirely in
the hands of the state. They were sacred institutions in honour of
Dionysus, and their regulation was as much the duty of the government as
the management of any other religious ceremonial. Of the two festivals
to which they were confined, the City Dionysia was superintended by the
archon eponymus, the Lenaea by the archon basileus. These two archons
were therefore responsible for the dramatic exhibitions at their
respective festivals.[193] They had not much to do with the details of
preparation. Their function was rather one of general supervision. They
had to select the proper persons, set them to work, and see that they
performed their work efficiently. At Athens this was a complex matter,
and required a good deal of arrangement. The requisite number of poets
had to be chosen and their plays approved. Choregi had to be appointed to
pay the expenses of the different choruses. Actors had then to be engaged
and distributed among the poets. It was the duty of the archon to make
all these selections, and to bring poets, actors, and choregi together.
In the present chapter we shall explain in detail the manner in which
these various arrangements were carried out.
When a poet wished to compete at one of the festivals, he sent in his
application to the archon, together with copies of the plays he proposed
to exhibit. As it was a great honour to be allowed to take part in
the competitions, there was usually no lack of applicants. The archon
then read through the plays submitted to him, and proceeded to select,
from among the various candidates, the number of poets required by
the particular festival. If it was tragedy at the City Dionysia which
he was providing for, he would choose three poets; if it was tragedy
at the Lenaea, he would choose two. In comedy the number of poets was
originally three, and in later times five. When the archon accepted a
poet’s application, and placed him on the official list of competitors,
he was said to ‘grant him a chorus’, because the next step was to provide
him with a choregus, who paid the expenses of his chorus. In the same
way, when a poet applied for permission to exhibit, he was said to ‘ask
for a chorus’.[194] The task imposed upon the archon of deciding between
the rival claims of the dramatic poets must have been a very difficult
and a very invidious one. Even if he acted with the best intentions, he
could hardly avoid giving offence. Sometimes there were manifest cases
of jobbery and favouritism. One archon refused a chorus to the great
comic poet Cratinus; another gave a chorus to a certain Cleomachus in
preference to Sophocles.[195] But it is unlikely that instances of this
kind were very common. Probably in most years the poets of the highest
reputation were chosen. In a city like Athens, where the magistrates were
entirely at the mercy of the people, it would be impossible for them to
disregard popular opinion in a very flagrant manner.
Some of the old scholiasts say that a poet was not allowed to exhibit
till he had reached the age of thirty or forty.[196] But this is clearly
a mistake. The only limit of age in any of these Bacchic contests was
that which prohibited a man under forty from serving as choregus to a
chorus of boys. As for the dramatic poets, they were free to compete
as soon as they had reached twenty, passed their dokimasia, and been
enrolled as full citizens. Most of the great poets seem to have begun
their career at a very early age. Aeschylus was only twenty-five when he
made his first appearance. Sophocles began to exhibit at twenty-eight,
Euripides at twenty-six,[197] while Aristophanes must have been even
younger when he brought out the Knights.[198]
It was not uncommon at Athens for a poet to have his plays produced by
a friend, instead of coming forward in his own person. Various motives
might lead him to do so. A young poet, feeling diffident about his
powers, might wish to make his first experiments anonymously. This was
apparently the reason why the first three plays of Aristophanes—the
Banqueters, Babylonians, and Acharnians—were brought out by
Callistratus.[199] It was not till 424, when the Knights was exhibited,
that Aristophanes applied for a chorus in his own name. In the parabasis
to this play he explains that the reasons which made him keep in the
background at first were caution and timidity, and a feeling that one
ought to proceed warily in the business of comic writing, and advance
by slow degrees, just as a steersman begins by serving as a rower.[200]
Sometimes, again, a poet wrote a play for his son, and allowed him to
bring it out and get the credit of the authorship, so as to give him a
successful start in his dramatic career. Aristophanes for this reason
entrusted his two last comedies to his son Araros; and Sophocles is said
to have entrusted his son Iophon with tragedies.[201] It occasionally
happened also that a wealthy citizen, with literary ambitions, bought a
play from a clever but needy author and exhibited it as his own. Plato,
the poet of the Old Comedy, is said to have made an income by sales of
this kind.[202] Probably, however, the commonest reason for vicarious
production was the mere desire to escape trouble and responsibility.
The older poets had superintended in person everything connected with
the bringing out of a play. In later times, as play-writing became
more and more a purely literary pursuit, it was natural for authors
occasionally to transfer the theatrical part of the business to other
shoulders. They hired stage-managers to look after the rehearsals, and
they got theatrical friends to make the necessary arrangements with the
archon. Aristophanes, in the middle of his career, entrusted many of his
comedies to Philonides and Callistratus.[203] The Autolycus of Eupolis
was brought out by Demostratus; Philippus, son of Aristophanes, is said
to have competed frequently with plays of Eubulus.[204] Aphareus, the
rhetorician and tragic poet of the fourth century, though he exhibited in
eight contests, never brought out a play in his own name.[205] In these
and similar cases it is difficult to suggest any other motive than love
of ease.
As regards the relationship between the poet and the friend who produced
his plays for him, there are one or two points which deserve notice. It
was the nominal poet who applied to the archon, received the chorus,
and undertook the whole responsibility. At the same time the name of
the real poet was often quite well known. Of course, if secrecy was an
object, this would not be so. When a father wrote plays for his son, or
a needy author sold plays to a literary aspirant, the real authorship
must have been concealed, at any rate for a time. But in other cases
it seems to have been an open secret from the first. Aristophanes, in
the Knights, says that many people had been asking him why he gave his
plays to Callistratus instead of applying for a chorus in person.[206]
In the Wasps, which is generally supposed not to have been brought out
by himself, he refers to the author of the play in terms only applicable
to himself.[207] Here, then, there was no attempt at concealment. At the
same time the nominal author must have been the one officially recognized
by the state. It must have been he who received the rewards of victory,
and whose name was stated as victor in the public records. It is true
that in the records which have been preserved the practice is to give the
name of the real author, and to add as a note that the play was actually
brought out by such and such a person. But this can hardly have been the
original form of the entry. It must be due to the corrections of the
grammarians who collected and edited the notices.
§ 2. _The Choregi._
The next point to consider is the nomination of the choregi, who provided
the choruses. In the case of the dithyrambic contests, which were tribal
in character, the choregi were appointed by the separate tribes, the
appointment taking place one month after the last festival.[208] But as
the drama had no connexion with the tribal system, the dramatic choregi
were taken indiscriminately from the general mass of citizens. They were
nominated by the archon in charge of each festival immediately after his
accession to office in July.[209] This, at any rate, was the original
system. But about the middle of the fourth century a change was made in
the case of the comic choregi. Their appointment was transferred from the
archon to the tribes.[210] Ten choregi were required every year, and each
tribe had to supply one. By this innovation the election of the comic
choregi was assimilated to that of the dithyrambic. But the change was
a mere piece of administrative detail, and had no further significance.
The comic contests remained, as before, independent of the tribal
arrangement, and the name of the tribe never appears in the records of
the contests.[211]
The choregia was one of the public burdens which had to be undertaken in
turn by the richer citizens. Any man of sufficient wealth might be called
upon after he had reached the age of twenty, though no one under the age
of forty could be choregus to a boys’ chorus.[212] The order was fixed by
law. But a citizen of unusual generosity and ambition might volunteer for
the office out of his proper turn. The defendant in one of the speeches
of Lysias tries to favourably impress the jury by explaining to them that
he has supplied eight choruses in nine years, in addition to such burdens
as the war-tax and the trierarchy.[213] Sometimes, however, there was a
difficulty in finding, even among those who were liable, a sufficient
number of rich men to fill the office. This was especially the case
towards the end of the Peloponnesian War, when there had been long and
heavy drains upon the resources of the state.[214] Accordingly in 406 it
was found necessary to lighten the burden. A law was passed that, each
dramatic chorus at the City Dionysia should be provided by two choregi
instead of one, thus diminishing the cost to individuals by half. This
law was only intended as a temporary expedient. It was not applied to the
Lenaea[215]; and even at the City Dionysia it was repealed in the course
of the next fifty years.[216]
The institution of the choregia lasted till nearly the end of the
fourth century.[217] But about the year 318 it was abolished, and a new
system adopted in its place.[218] The providing of the choruses was
now undertaken by the state, and an officer called the Agonothetes was
elected annually to carry out the arrangements. This official had the
general management of the musical and dramatic contests, and had to
perform all the duties which had previously fallen to the choregi, and
even to erect the tripods and other memorials of victory.[219] Though
assisted by contributions from the state, he had to bear the greater
part of the expenses himself, and was always chosen on account of his
wealth.[220] At this time the cost of the tragic and comic choruses
would not be very great, as the choral part of the drama had begun to
disappear. But there were other expenses connected with the dramatic
choregia, all of which he would have to meet. The change of system was
no doubt rendered necessary by the circumstances of the time and the
dearth of rich citizens. But it must have robbed the festivals of much
of their interest. In former days the keenness of the rivalry between
the individual choregi had contributed largely to the vitality of the
contests. All this source of excitement was now lost by the substitution
of a single all-powerful official. The name of the Agonothetes occurs
frequently in inscriptions during the third century. After this date
there is no mention of any further changes till about the first century
A.D., when there seems to have been a sort of antiquarian revival, and an
attempt was made to reintroduce the old choregi.[221] But the Agonothetes
was still retained as general manager of the competitions.
When the archon had selected the poets who were to exhibit, and had made
up his list of the choregi who were to supply the choruses, the next
thing necessary was to arrange choregi and poets together in pairs. Each
choregus had one poet assigned to him, for whose chorus (or choruses) he
was responsible. The process of pairing was a matter of great importance
to the competitors. A choregus who obtained an inferior poet would be
severely handicapped in the contest; and a poet who was joined to a
mean and parsimonious choregus would be equally unfortunate. If the
arrangement had been left to the magistrate, it would have given numerous
opportunities for corruption and favouritism. The Athenians, as usual,
evaded this difficulty by the use of the lot.
There is, indeed, no definite information as to the manner in which the
assignment was carried out in the case of tragic and comic choruses.
But in the case of the dithyrambic choruses there are full accounts of
the manner in which similar arrangements were made; and it will not be
difficult, from the analogy of these proceedings, to form a fairly clear
conception of the proceedings in regard to tragedy and comedy. Some
time before the festival a meeting of the ecclesia was held, at which
the distribution took place under the superintendence of the archon.
The proceedings were quite public, and any Athenian citizen who wished
could be present. The choregi first drew lots for order of choice, and
then each chose his own flute-player. The choregus who had obtained the
privilege of choosing first selected the flute-player whom he considered
to be the best of the ten. So they went on till all the flute-players
were chosen. The scene was a lively one. The success of the choregus,
and in consequence the success of his tribe, depended to a certain
extent upon his luck in getting a good or bad flute-player. Hence the
whole process was followed with the greatest interest by the crowds
of spectators present. As each lot was drawn, the result was greeted
with expressions of triumph or disappointment by the partisans of the
different choregi.[222] The above information is derived from the account
given by Demosthenes, in the speech against Meidias, of the preliminary
arrangements for the dithyrambic contests. Nothing is there said about
the choice or assignation of the poets. Probably in this contest only
old dithyrambs were reproduced, and there were no poets to be assigned.
That such was often the case is proved by inscriptions.[223] But when
the contest was with original dithyrambs, and poets were required, they
seem to have been allotted to the choregi in much the same manner as the
flute-players. The defendant in one of the speeches of Antiphon says
that, when he was choregus to a chorus of boys at the Thargelia, the poet
Pantacles was assigned to him by lot[224].
§ 3. _Selection of the Actors._
Poets and choregi having been associated together in pairs, there still
remained the selection and appointment of the actors. The manner in which
they were appointed differed very considerably at different periods. To
take the case of tragic actors first. Before the time of Aeschylus, when
tragedy was more a lyrical than a dramatic performance, consisting of
long choral odes interspersed with recitatives, actors did not exist as
a separate class. Only one actor was required in each play, and his part
was taken by the poet.[225] But when Aeschylus increased the number of
actors to two, and converted tragedy from a lyrical into a dramatic form
of art, the poets ceased to perform in their own plays, and the actor’s
profession came into existence. For the next fifty years or so it does
not appear that the state took any part in the selection of the actors.
It left the matter in the hands of the poets. Particular actors are found
to have been permanently connected with particular poets. Aeschylus is
said to have first employed Cleander as his actor, and to have afterwards
associated a second actor with him in the person of Mynniscus.[226]
Tlepolemus acted continuously for Sophocles.[227] It is stated, on the
authority of Ister, that Sophocles was accustomed to write his plays
with a view to the capacities of his actors.[228] This story, whether
true or not, shows that he chose his actors himself, at any rate during
the earlier part of his career. But as the actors grew in importance,
their selection was no longer left to the choice of individual poets, but
was undertaken by the state. Henceforth we cease to hear of particular
poets and actors being permanently associated together. The statement of
Thomas Magister, that Cephisophon was the actor of Euripides, appears to
be a mere conjecture, as Cephisophon is nowhere else described in that
way.[229] The change in the method of selection was probably introduced
about the middle of the fifth century, when the contests in acting
were established, and the position of the actors received its first
official recognition. Under the new arrangement, three protagonists
were first of all selected by the archon. There is no information as
to the way in which they were selected. They may have been chosen by
means of a small competition, similar to that between comic actors at
the Chytri. The subordinate actors were apparently not chosen by the
state, but each protagonist was allowed to provide his own deuteragonist
and tritagonist.[230] When the three leading actors had been chosen
they were assigned to the three competing tragic poets by lot. Probably
the system was the same as in the assignation of the flute-players to
the dithyrambic choruses. The poets would first draw lots for order of
choice, and then each poet would choose his actor. The actor performed
all the tragedies of the poet to whom he was allotted. Thus in 418 the
three tragedies of Callistratus were acted by Callippides; the three
tragedies of his rival were acted by Lysicrates.[231] The actor who won
the prize for acting was permitted to compete as a matter of course at
the next festival without having to submit to the process of selection
by the archon. Such was the system adopted during the latter half of the
fifth century.[232] How long it lasted cannot be determined; but when
we come to the middle of the fourth century, a further alteration is
found to have been introduced. By this time the importance of the actors
had increased to a still greater extent. In fact, Aristotle says that
in his day the success of a play depended much more upon the actor than
the poet.[233] It was probably felt that under the old arrangement the
poet who obtained by lot the greatest actor had an unfair advantage over
his rivals. A new system was therefore introduced, by which the talents
of the actors were divided with perfect equality among the poets. Each
tragedy was performed by a separate actor. All the actors appeared in
turn in the service of each of the poets. Thus in 341 Astydamas exhibited
three tragedies. His Achilles was acted by Thessalus, his Athamas by
Neoptolemus, his Antigone by Athenodorus. The three tragedies of each of
his competitors were performed by the same three actors.[234] By this
arrangement no poet had any advantage over his rivals, but as far as
the excellence of the actors was concerned all were on exactly the same
level. The system just described appears to have been retained without
alteration during the remaining period of Attic tragedy.
The mode of distributing the actors in comedy was much the same as that
in tragedy. During the earlier part of the fifth century the poets were
left to choose their own actors. Thus the comic poet Crates is said
to have begun his career as actor to Cratinus. But in later times no
instances are to be found of comic actors being permanently connected
with particular poets. The story that Philonides and Callistratus were
actors of Aristophanes is a mere fiction of one of the old commentators,
based upon a misunderstanding.[235] It is evident, therefore, that the
state began to undertake the selection and appointment of the comic
actors about the same time that a corresponding change was made in
regard to tragedy. No doubt the mode of distribution was identical.
The actors were first appointed by the state, and the poets then drew
lots for them. As the comic poets competed with single plays, only one
method of distribution was possible, and there was no need of the further
alteration which was afterwards made in tragedy. The number of poets
in the comic contests was originally three, and in later times five. A
corresponding number of actors would be required. Sometimes, however, a
smaller number was selected, and one actor appeared in two comedies. In
288 Aristomachus was the actor assigned both to Simylus and Diodorus.
About B.C. 160 Damon is found occasionally acting in two comedies at the
same competition.[236] It is not likely that such a course was adopted
except on occasions when it was impossible to obtain five comic actors of
fairly equal merit.
§ 4. _The Training of the Chorus._
The archon had now for the present finished his part of the business. He
had seen that the proper number of poets, actors, and choregi had been
chosen. He had seen that each choregus was provided with his own poet
and actor. It was now the duty of choregus and poet to attend to the
subsequent preparations. The choregus was responsible for the selection
and payment of the chorus. He had also to provide a room for them to
rehearse in.[237] Very little is known concerning the relations between
the choregus and his chorus. Such few details as have been recorded refer
rather to the dithyramb than to the drama. The dithyrambic choruses
were selected exclusively from the tribes which they represented in
the competition. Each tribe had a specially appointed agent, who was
employed by the choregus to collect his chorus for him.[238] But the
drama having nothing to do with the tribes, there was no limitation upon
the selection of the dramatic choruses. Aristotle happens in one place to
remark that a tragic and a comic chorus often consisted of much the same
individual members.[239] It is quite clear, therefore, that the dramatic
choruses were chosen from the general body of citizens, and that a man
might serve in two of them at the same time. There was probably a class
of professional singers who made their livelihood by serving in these
choruses. A rich choregus would have a great advantage over his rivals
by offering higher pay, and so securing better singers. The stories
about the boarding and lodging of the choreutae also refer mainly to
the dithyrambic choruses. The choregus in Antiphon’s speech lodged his
chorus in his own house, and gave special directions that every delicacy
which was ordered by the trainer should be provided for them.[240] But
this was a chorus of boys. The professionals who served in the dramatic
choruses are not likely to have been lodged in the house of the choregus,
especially as they were often in the service of two choregi at the same
time. However, it seems that the diet of the choruses was well attended
to, so that the members should appear in the best possible condition on
the day of the contests. Plutarch mentions eels, lettuce, garlic, and
cheese as delicacies provided for this purpose. The appetite of the Attic
choreutae passed into a proverb.[241]
During the earlier period of the Athenian drama the principal part
in the training and instruction of the chorus was undertaken by the
poet himself. In fact, the regular name at Athens for a dramatic or
dithyrambic poet was didaskalos, or ‘the teacher’, owing to the part he
took in teaching his play or poem to the chorus. In the same way, when
a poet brought out a tragedy or a comedy, the technical expression was
that he ‘taught’ such and such a play. The play, or group of plays,
exhibited by a single poet was called a ‘teaching’[242]. In addition
to the evidence supplied by these expressions, there is also no lack
of direct testimony as to the important part taken by the older poets
in the production of their plays. In fact, they were quite as much
stage-managers as poets. The older dramatic writers, such as Thespis,
Pratinas, Cratinus, and Phrynichus, were called ‘dancers’, not only
because of the prominent part which the chorus and the dancing filled
in their plays, but also because they gave instruction in choric
dancing.[243] Aeschylus is said to have superintended personally the
whole of the training of his choruses, and to have invented many
new dances and movements for them. His innovations in regard to the
scenery and the dresses of the actors entirely transformed the outward
appearance of the drama.[244] This intimate connexion between the poet
and the stage, between the literary and the theatrical part of dramatic
production, continued to exist during the great period of Athenian drama.
Sophocles appeared personally in some of his plays. In the Thamyris he
played the harp. In the Nausicaa he won great applause by the skill with
which he played ball in the scene where Nausicaa is sporting with her
maidens.[245] Euripides also seems to have superintended the training of
his choruses in person, as there is a story in Plutarch which represents
him as singing over one of his odes to the choreutae.[246]
The poet was assisted in his task by a subordinate, who looked after the
routine part of the work, and was called a hypodidaskalos, or ‘assistant
teacher’. This was the proper term to denote the professional trainer,
as opposed to the didaskalos, or poet.[247] But towards the end of the
fifth and the beginning of the fourth century the practice in these
matters underwent a change. Poetry and stage-management began to be
sharply discriminated from one another. A class of literary dramatic
writers arose, such as Theodectes and Aphareus, who were quite as much
rhetoricians as poets. They knew nothing about the details of training a
chorus, or preparing a play for representation. In these circumstances
the greater part of the management was undertaken by the professional
instructor. The term didaskalos, which had originally been confined
to the poet, was now applied to these hired trainers.[248] A class
of men came into existence who made choral instruction their regular
business. One of these, named Sannio, is mentioned by Demosthenes,
and was celebrated for his skill in training tragic choruses.[249]
These professional teachers were hired and paid by the choregus. A
rich choregus had a great advantage in being able to secure the best
assistance. Xenophon mentions the case of a certain choregus called
Antisthenes, who knew little or nothing about music and choruses himself,
but was always successful in his competitions, because he took care to
provide himself with the most skilful trainers procurable.[250] It is
obvious that in these later times, when the poets ceased to attend to the
details of stage-management, the importance of the professional trainers
must have been very much increased. The hiring of a good trainer would be
one of the first conditions of success.
§ 5. _The Expenses of the Choregia._
It will now be possible to form some conception of the expenses which
the choregus had to meet. The principal item was the hire of the chorus
during the whole period of training. This part of the expenditure
was borne entirely by the choregus without any assistance from the
state.[251] Then again, he had to provide an instructor for his chorus.
As the competition between rich choregi was of the keenest character, the
services of a really good instructor must have been expensive. In the
third place, a flute-player was required. In the dithyrambic choruses
the flute-players were selected by the state, and assigned by lot to the
choregi. But in the dramatic choruses they appear to have been chosen by
the choregus himself, who would therefore have to pay their salary.[252]
Fourthly, the various mute characters that appeared upon the stage, such
as the attendants upon kings and queens, were supplied by the choregus.
This is proved by the story in Plutarch of a tragedian at Athens who
was going to act the part of a queen, and who refused to perform unless
the choregus would provide him with a train of female attendants
dressed in expensive fashion.[253] The number and splendour of the mute
characters would add greatly to the magnificence of the spectacle, and
form a considerable item in the expenses of a wealthy choregus. It is
also probable that in early times, when the actors were chosen by the
poets, their salary was paid by the choregus. But later the selection
and payment of the actors were undertaken entirely by the state.[254]
The principal part then of the expenditure of the choregus consisted in
paying the salaries of the various persons just mentioned. In addition to
this, he had to provide the dresses of the chorus, which were often very
magnificent. For example, the comic poet Antiphanes mentions the case of
a choregus who ruined himself by dressing his chorus in gold. Demosthenes
supplied his chorus of men with golden crowns.[255] Sometimes the love
of splendour degenerated into mere vulgar ostentation. Unnecessary
magnificence in the appointments of a comic chorus is mentioned by
Aristotle as a proof of vulgarity. On the other hand, economical
choregi saved expense by hiring second-hand dresses from the dealers in
theatrical costumes.[256] Another item in the expenses of the choregia
was the supply of dresses for the various mute characters and subordinate
personages. With the dresses of the actors themselves the choregus had
probably nothing to do. As for the ordinary kinds of scenery, they were
part of the permanent fixtures of the theatre, and would be provided by
the lessee. But when anything very special in the way of scenery was
required by the necessities of a particular play, it is most probable
that the expenses were borne by the choregus. As far, then, as can be
gathered from ancient notices, the expenses of the choregia consisted in
the hire of the chorus, the instructor, the flute-player, and the mute
characters; in providing dresses for the chorus and the mute characters;
and in supplying such exceptional scenery as the theatre did not possess.
A choregus who was anxious for victory, and who was ready to spend money
over the production of the play, would easily be put to very considerable
expense. The defendant in one of the speeches of Lysias tells us that a
tragic chorus cost him thirty minae, a comic chorus sixteen, a chorus
of boys fifteen. It follows that a comic chorus was only about half as
expensive as a tragic one, and cost about the same as a chorus of boys.
On the other hand, a chorus of men at the City Dionysia cost fifty minae.
These figures bear out the statement of Demosthenes, that a chorus of men
was much more expensive than a tragic chorus. The chorus of men consisted
of fifty members; and the payment of so large a number, together with the
dresses and crowns which the choregi used to provide them with, would
easily account for the expense. A tragic chorus consisted of only fifteen
members, and yet it cost about twice as much as a comic chorus, which
consisted of twenty-four. But we must remember that the tragic chorus
had to perform in several plays, the comic chorus in only one. Also it
does not appear to have been customary to spend very much money upon a
comedy. In another speech of Lysias, a certain Aristophanes is said to
have expended fifty minae over two tragic choruses. He was therefore
rather more economical than the person mentioned above, who spent thirty
minae over one.[257] It would be very interesting to be able to form
some conception of the amount which these sums would represent at the
present day. It appears that in the time of Aristophanes the daily wages
for common and unskilled labour were three obols.[258] If we take as a
modern equivalent the case of the agricultural labourer who gets ten
shillings a week, or one shilling and eightpence per day, it follows that
three obols in ancient Attica were equivalent to about one shilling and
eightpence at the present time. If this calculation is anywhere near the
mark, then a choregus who spent thirty minae on a tragic chorus would be
spending a sum equivalent to about £500 of our money. The sixteen minae
paid for a comic chorus would represent about £266. Comparisons of this
kind are very conjectural; but they enable one to form some idea of the
immense sums of money which must have been spent at Athens in the course
of a single year upon dramatic and choral performances. There were eight
dramatic and ten dithyrambic choruses at the City Dionysia. There were
seven or eight dramatic choruses at the Lenaea. Besides this there were
dithyrambic choruses at the Thargelia, Prometheia, and Hephaesteia; and
dithyrambic and pyrrhic choruses at the Panathenaea. The expenses of all
these choruses were drawn from a single small state, about the size of
an English county, in which wealth was by no means abundant. It is easy
therefore to see that there was not much exaggeration in the complaint of
Demosthenes, that the Athenians spent more upon their festivals than they
ever spent upon a naval expedition.[259]
If the choregi neglected their duties, and were careless about the
efficiency of their choruses, it was the duty of the archon to bring
pressure to bear upon them.[260] But such interference was not often
necessary. On the contrary the rivalry between the choregi was so
keen, and their desire for victory so great, that it often led them
into expenses which they could not afford. Demosthenes says that men
frequently spent all their property upon these competitions.[261]
The choregus in Antiphanes has already been referred to, who reduced
himself to beggary by his extravagance in providing golden dresses for
his chorus. Besides the mere spirit of emulation there was another
inducement to lavish vast sums upon these choregic displays. For a
wealthy politician it was an easy means of gaining popularity, and
increasing his influence in the state. Nicias is said to have owed a
great deal of his power to the splendour of his choruses, upon which he
spent more money than any of his contemporaries or predecessors.[262]
With the double motives of ambition and emulation at work, it was natural
that considerable jealousy should be excited between the rival choregi,
the ‘anti-choregi’, as they were called. Sometimes this hostility ended
in blows. When Taureas and Alcibiades were competitors with choruses of
boys, a dispute having arisen as to the parentage of one of the boys
in Alcibiades’ chorus, the matter ended in a personal conflict in the
orchestra.[263] Demosthenes, in his speech against Meidias, cites many
examples of the bitterness and animosity with which choregi regarded one
another. He adds that there would have been some excuse for the assault
of Meidias upon himself if it had been caused by the jealousy of a rival
choregus.[264]
§ 6. _The Performances in the Theatre._
When the preparations were all completed, a few days before the actual
festival there was a preliminary ceremony called the Proagon. It took
place in the Odeum, a sort of smaller theatre to the south of the
Acropolis, not far from the theatre of Dionysus. The Proagon was a
kind of show or spectacle, and served as an introduction to the actual
performances at the festival. Each of the tragic poets who were about
to compete in the approaching contest appeared upon the stage in the
presence of the people, accompanied by his choregus, his actors, and
the members of the chorus. All of them wore crowns upon their heads;
but the actors were without their masks and their stage dresses. As
they paraded upon the stage some announcement was made to the people,
of which the exact nature is not known. But it is very likely that this
occasion was taken for making known to the people the names of the poet
and his actors, together with the titles of the tragedies shortly to be
performed, and other information of a similar character. At the same
time the people would have an opportunity of becoming acquainted with
poets and actors who were making their first appearance. The splendour
of the dresses of choruses and choregi, upon which great sums of money
were spent, would make a spectacle of some magnificence, and appeal
to the popular taste. At the Proagon which followed shortly after the
death of Euripides, it is said that Sophocles appeared upon the stage
in a dark-coloured dress, and introduced his actors and chorus without
the usual crowns. It is nowhere definitely stated that the comic and
dithyrambic poets and choruses took part in the Proagon. But the whole
of our information about the ceremony is derived from one or two
brief and casual notices, in which very few details are given. It is
hardly probable that only tragedy was represented. The magnificence
of the spectacle would be very much increased by the large and
gorgeously-dressed choruses of boys and men.[265]
During the period of the actual contests the audience met in the theatre
every morning soon after daybreak. Considering the number of plays
which had to be produced, it was necessary that the proceedings should
begin at an early hour.[266] The vast gathering of spectators, like all
public meetings at Athens, was first of all purified by the offer of a
small sacrifice. Then libations were poured in front of the statue of
the god Dionysus.[267] If the festival was the City Dionysia, before
the tragedies began the opportunity was taken to proclaim the names of
citizens upon whom crowns had been bestowed, together with the services
for which they had been granted. The proclamation before such a vast
multitude of citizens was naturally considered a very great honour.[268]
During the period of Athenian supremacy another striking ceremony
preceded the tragedies at the City Dionysia. The tribute collected from
the dependent states was divided into talents, and solemnly deposited in
the orchestra.[269] Then the orphans whose fathers had been killed in
battle, and who had been educated by the state, and had now reached the
age of manhood, were brought forward upon the stage equipped in complete
armour. The herald made a proclamation, recounting what the state had
done for them, and they were then publicly discharged from state control
to take their place as ordinary citizens.[270] After these preliminaries
had been gone through the dramatic performances commenced. The order
in which the different plays were to be performed was determined by
lot.[271] Each poet, as his turn came, was summoned by name by the public
herald and ordered to produce his play.[272] The summons to each poet was
accompanied in later times by the blowing of a trumpet, a custom which
originated as follows. On one occasion an actor called Hermon had left
the building, expecting that his comedy would come on late. But as it was
called for sooner than he expected, there was a hitch in the proceedings
owing to his absence. The blowing of the trumpet was therefore instituted
to mark the commencement of each new performance, and let people in
the neighbourhood of the theatre know at what rate the contest was
progressing.[273] The order in which the poets competed was determined by
lot, as stated above. It was considered an advantage to be drawn last,
as the latest performance left the most vivid impression upon the minds
of the judges. This would be especially the case in such competitions as
lasted over three days. The Ecclesiazusae of Aristophanes was drawn first
for performance. The poet therefore, in the course of this play, implores
the judges not to let the ballot damage his chances, but to judge the
choruses on their merits, unlike the courtesans, who forget all except
their latest lovers.[274]
At the end of each competition the judges wrote their verdicts upon
tablets. Five of these tablets were drawn by lot, and decided the result.
The names of the victorious poet and choregus were then proclaimed by
the herald, and they were crowned with a chaplet of ivy in the presence
of the spectators. At the conclusion of the festival the successful
poet celebrated his victory by a solemn sacrifice, followed by a grand
banquet, at which most of his friends were present. The members of the
chorus were also there, and probably the choregus and the actors. The
scene of Plato’s Symposium is laid in Agathon’s house the day after the
banquet in honour of his first tragic victory. Socrates had avoided the
banquet itself, because of the crush of people, but came next day to a
more private gathering.[275] A victory, especially at the City Dionysia,
was regarded as a splendid distinction. On one occasion Ion of Chios,
after winning the first prize in both the tragic and the dithyrambic
contests at the same festival, showed the extent of his joy by making a
present of a jar of Chian wine to every Athenian citizen.[276]
The next day but one after the conclusion of the City Dionysia a special
assembly of the people was convened in the theatre of Dionysus to discuss
matters connected with the festival. No doubt a similar assembly was held
after the Lenaea, though the fact is nowhere actually stated. At this
assembly the conduct of the archon, who had had the management of the
festival which was just over, was taken into consideration. Any neglect
of his duties, or any unfairness in the choice of poets and actors, would
be punished. At the same time crowns and other distinctions were voted
in honour of officials who had performed their duties in connexion with
the festival satisfactorily. It has been pointed out that the judges
in the dramatic and dithyrambic contests were liable to prosecution
and punishment if they were suspected of dishonesty in their verdicts.
Probably such charges were brought forward and decided at this assembly
in the theatre. Then came the hearing of complaints as to any violation
of the sanctity of the festival.[277] The aggrieved person stated his
charges before the assembled people: the defendant made his reply: the
people then proceeded to vote. If they acquitted the defendant there was
an end of the matter. But if they voted against him the prosecutor then
carried the case before the ordinary law-courts, where, of course, the
previous verdict of the people weighed very much in his favour.[278]
§ 7. _Reproduction of Old Plays._
At Athens, during the fifth century, when the drama was in its most
flourishing state, plays were usually exhibited once, and once only.
There were only two festivals in the whole year at which regular
theatrical performances could be held. Consequently, as long as the
creative period of the drama lasted, the few days given up to them barely
sufficed even for a single performance of the various new compositions.
Nor were repetitions necessary. The theatre at Athens was of enormous
size, so that every man had a chance of seeing a play when it was first
brought out. If it was successful, and he wished to see it again, he
had numerous opportunities of doing so at the Rural Dionysia, where
reproductions were the rule. For these reasons the Athenian stage of the
fifth century was confined almost exclusively to original works. When a
play had once been performed, it was never seen again, as far as Athens
was concerned, unless it happened to be of extraordinary merit. It is
stated on the authority of Dicaearchus that the Frogs of Aristophanes
‘was so much admired on account of its parabasis that it was actually
repeated’.[279] The language here used implies that such a repetition was
a very unusual circumstance. It is true that when the Capture of Miletus,
the historical play of Phrynichus, caused so much commotion in the
theatre the Athenians are said to have passed a law that ‘for the future
no one should exhibit this drama’.[280] But the law must have referred to
its reproduction at the Rural Dionysia.
At Athens then during the fifth century even successful plays were only
exhibited once. But if a play was unsuccessful, the poet was allowed
to revise and rewrite it, and to compete with it again in its improved
shape.[281] The revision of unsuccessful plays seems to have been a
common practice with the Athenian dramatic writers. It is mentioned as
rather a peculiarity in the comic poet Anaxandrides, that when one of
his comedies was unsuccessful, he used to destroy it at once, without
taking the trouble to emend it and try his fortunes with it a second
time.[282] Many plays were revised and re-exhibited in this manner,
and in consequence many plays existed in ancient times in a double
form. Such was the case with the Lemnian Women of Sophocles, and the
Autolycus and Phrixus of Euripides.[283] The Hippolytus of Euripides
which we at present possess is a revised edition pruned of its original
defects.[284] The Clouds of Aristophanes on its first appearance was very
unsuccessful, and was altered in many important particulars before it
reached the form in which it has come down to us.[285] Among the other
plays of Aristophanes, the Peace, the Plutus, and the Thesmophoriazusae
were brought out a second time in a corrected form.[286] Instances of
the revision of plays are not uncommon among the writers of the Middle
and New Comedy. Sometimes the original title was retained in the revised
version, as for instance in the Heiress of Menander. Sometimes a new
title was adopted. Thus the Braggart Captain of Diphilus appeared
subsequently as the Eunuch.[287]
One remarkable exception to the general practice demands notice. In the
Life of Aeschylus it is said that the Athenians felt such an admiration
for him, that they passed a decree after his death that any one who
offered to exhibit his plays should receive a chorus from the archon.
This does not mean that his plays were to be performed as a mere isolated
exhibition, apart from the regular contests, but that any person might
be allowed to compete at the ordinary tragic contests with plays of
Aeschylus instead of new plays of his own. If any one offered to do so,
the archon was bound to give him a chorus. He would then take his place
as one of the three competing poets; but while his rivals exhibited new
and original tragedies, he would confine himself to reproducing tragedies
of Aeschylus. Probably the men who undertook these revivals were in most
cases celebrated actors. In this way the plays of Aeschylus were often
brought into competition with the plays of later writers, and appear to
have been generally successful. Philostratus refers to the custom.[288]
He says that the Athenians invited Aeschylus after his death to the
festivals of Dionysus, and that his plays were acted over again, and
were victorious a second time. This passage makes it quite clear that
the tragedies of Aeschylus were exhibited in the ordinary contests, and
not as a separate performance by themselves. There is a reference in the
beginning of the Acharnians to a competition of this kind. Dicaeopolis
had come to the theatre to see the tragic contests.[289] He was expecting
that the performance would commence with plays of Aeschylus; but to his
disgust the frigid Theognis was the first to be called upon.[290] Here
then is a picture of a contest in which the tragic poet Theognis was
opposed by a competitor who exhibited, not plays of his own, but plays of
Aeschylus. It is to the practice of reproducing his plays after his death
that Aeschylus alludes in the Frogs, when he remarks that his poetry has
not died with him, like that of Euripides.[291] Quintilian refers to the
same custom, though his language is not quite accurate. He says that
the tragedies of Aeschylus were sublime, but rough and unfinished; and
therefore the Athenians permitted subsequent poets to polish and revise
them, and exhibit them at the competitions in their amended form; and in
this way many of them won the prize.[292] This story, however, of the
revision of the plays of Aeschylus by subsequent poets (as distinct from
their corruption by actors) is not otherwise supported.[293]
From this reproduction of old plays of Aeschylus must be carefully
distinguished those instances where plays, which Aeschylus had left
unpublished at his death, were produced for the first time by his son
Euphorion. It is said that Euphorion won four victories with his father’s
unpublished tragedies. In a similar manner the Oedipus Coloneus of
Sophocles was produced for the first time by his grandson four years
after the poet’s death. And after the death of Euripides, his Iphigeneia
in Aulis, Alcmaeon, and Bacchae were brought out by his son at the
City Dionysia.[294] On such occasions as these, although no doubt the
real authorship of the plays was perfectly well known at the time, the
relative appeared as the nominal author. He asked for a chorus from
the archon in his own name. The plays he produced were new ones. There
is therefore no similarity between instances of this kind and those
occasions when a man asked for a chorus, not in his own name, but in
order to produce old plays of Aeschylus.
It was not till the fourth century that the reproduction of old plays
developed into a regular custom. The practice was at first confined
to tragedy. This branch of the drama had passed beyond the period of
healthy growth, and already showed symptoms of decay. The three great
tragic poets of the fifth century had in their several lines exhausted
the capabilities of Attic tragedy. Their successors were mostly feeble
imitators of Euripides. Under such circumstances the tendency to fall
back upon the early drama naturally became more prevalent. In the records
of the City Dionysia during the latter half of the fourth century it
is found that the series of new tragedies was invariably preceded by
the performance of an old one.[295] The same practice was also no doubt
adopted at the Lenaea. The actors who had the privilege of conducting
these revivals would be selected by the archon, probably after a
small preliminary competition of the kind described in the previous
chapter.[296] It appears that these actors, in preparing the old plays
for reproduction, were sometimes inclined to tamper with the text, and
to introduce what they considered improvements, just as the plays of
Shakespeare were adapted for the stage by Garrick in the last century. A
law was passed by the orator Lycurgus to put a stop to this practice. It
was enacted that a public copy should be made of the works of Aeschylus,
Sophocles, and Euripides, and deposited in the state archives; and that
the actors, in their performances, should not be allowed to deviate from
the text of the copy.[297] It is very probable that this authorized
version eventually found its way to Alexandria. Ptolemy the Third was a
great collector of manuscripts. He borrowed from the Athenians an old
copy of the works of Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides, promising to
return it after he had made a transcript, and depositing fifteen talents
as security. The transcript was made in the best possible style. Ptolemy
then proceeded to keep the original manuscript for himself, and sent back
merely the transcript to Athens. The Athenians had to console themselves
with the fifteen talents which were forfeited. This old copy of the
tragic writers was most probably that made in accordance with the law of
Lycurgus.[298]
Athenian comedy, as was previously pointed out, continued to grow and
develop long after tragedy had been reduced to a state of stagnation. The
need for the reproduction of old comedies was therefore not felt until a
much later epoch. The first recorded instances of revivals of this kind
belong to the second century B.C. The system which was then introduced
appears to have been identical with that adopted in the case of tragedy.
A single old comedy was exhibited at each festival as a prelude to the
new ones. As far as our information goes the specimen selected was taken
in every case from the works of Menander and his contemporaries.[299]
To turn once more to tragedy. The fourth century was an age of great
actors, just as the fifth century had been an age of great poets. The
principal actors of the fourth century filled a more important place in
the history of tragedy than the dramatic poets themselves. Their fame
was chiefly derived from their impersonations of characters out of the
great tragedies of the past. A novel interpretation of a celebrated
rôle, such as that of Antigone or Medea, was a much greater event in
dramatic circles, and excited far more discussion, than the production
of a new play. In exactly the same way the great English actors of the
last hundred years or so are remembered, not so much for the new dramas
which they brought out, as for their impersonation of parts like Hamlet
and Othello. From the numerous references to Athenian actors of the
fourth century, and to the old tragedies which they exhibited, it is
possible to glean some interesting facts in regard to these revivals.
We are able to trace the course of the popular taste, and to discover
who were the favourite poets, and which were the plays in most demand.
The three great masters of tragedy, Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides,
occupied a position by themselves in popular estimation, and quite
overshadowed all other poets. This is proved by the law of Lycurgus. But
though the existence of the law shows that the tragedies of Aeschylus
were occasionally reproduced, and were therefore liable to corruption,
it does not appear that in this later age Aeschylus was very popular
upon the stage. The only allusion to a particular revival of his plays
is that which occurs in one of the letters of Alciphron, where the
tragic actor Licymnius is said to have been victorious in the Propompi
of Aeschylus.[300] On the other hand, the reproductions of plays of
Sophocles and Euripides are very frequently referred to. And it is a
significant fact that when the actor Satyrus was consoling Demosthenes
for the ill-success of his first speech before the assembly, and wished
to point out to him the defectiveness of his elocution, he asked him to
repeat ‘a speech out of Sophocles or Euripides’, implying that these were
the two poets whom every one knew.[301] In the Poetics of Aristotle the
laws of the drama are based upon the plays of Sophocles and Euripides,
while Aeschylus is comparatively disregarded. The simplicity of his
plots and the elevation and occasional obscurity of his language were
distasteful to an age which looked for ingenuity in the management of
the incidents, and rhetorical facility in the style. These qualities
were found to perfection in Euripides, and there can be no doubt that
he was the favourite poet of the fourth century. The records of the
tragic performances at the City Dionysia for the years 341-339 B.C. show
that in each of these years the old tragedy selected for exhibition
was one by Euripides. In 341 it was the Iphigeneia, in 340 it was the
Orestes. The title of the play produced in 339 is lost, but the author
was Euripides.[302] Other plays of his which were favourites at this
time were the Cresphontes, the Oenomaus, and the Hecuba, in all of
which Aeschines is said to have played the part of tritagonist. The
Oenomaus and the Hecuba are also mentioned as plays in which the great
actor Theodorus was especially effective. In the dream of Thrasyllus
before the battle of Arginusae the plays which were being acted were
the Phoenissae and the Supplices of Euripides.[303] Though the story
of the dream is apocryphal, these two tragedies were doubtless popular
ones during the fourth century. As to the plays of Sophocles, it is said
that Polus, the contemporary of Demosthenes, and the greatest actor of
his time, was celebrated for his performance of the leading parts in the
Oedipus Tyrannus, the Oedipus Coloneus, and the Electra. The Antigone
of Sophocles was often acted by Theodorus and by Aristodemus. A certain
Timotheus used to make a great impression in the part of Ajax. Lastly,
the Epigoni of Sophocles is mentioned in connexion with Andronicus,
another contemporary of Demosthenes.[304] It is interesting to observe
that of the plays which the popular taste of the fourth century had begun
to select for revival by far the greater number are among those which are
still extant.