TRĂGOEDIA (τραγῳδία), tragedy. (1) GREEK. The tragedy of the ancient
Greeks as well as their comedy confessedly originated in the
worship of the god Dionysus. The peculiarity which most strikingly
distinguishes the Greek tragedy from that of modern times, is the
lyrical or choral part. This was the offspring of the dithyrambic and
choral odes from which, as applied to the worship of Dionysus, Greek
tragedy took its rise. The name of Tragedy (τραγῳδία) is probably
derived from the goatlike appearance of the Satyrs who sang or acted
with mimetic gesticulations (ὄρχησις) the old Bacchic songs, with
Silenus, the constant companion of Dionysus, for their leader. The
Dionysian dithyrambs were sometimes of a gay and at other times
of a mournful character: it was from the latter that the stately
and solemn tragedy of the Greeks arose. Great improvements were
introduced in the dithyramb by Arion, a contemporary of Periander.
Before his time the dithyramb was sung in a wild and irregular
manner; but he is said to have invented the Cyclic chorus, by which
we are to understand that the Dithyramb was danced by a chorus of
fifty men round an altar. The choral Dithyrambic songs prevailed
to some extent, as all choral poetry did, amongst the Dorians of
the Peloponnesus; whence the choral element of the Attic tragedy
was always written in the Dorian dialect, thus showing its origin.
The lyrical poetry was, however, especially popular at Sicyon and
Corinth. In the latter city Arion made his improvements; in the
former “tragic choruses,” i.e. dithyrambs of a sad and plaintive
character, were very ancient. From the more solemn Dithyrambs then,
as improved by Arion, ultimately sprang the dramatic tragedy of
Athens, somewhat in the following manner. The choruses were under
the direction of a leader or exarchus, who, it may be supposed,
came forward separately, and whose part was sometimes taken by
the poet himself. We may also conjecture that the exarchus in
each case led off by singing or reciting his part in a solo, and
that the chorus dancing round the altar then expressed their
feelings of joy or sorrow at his story, representing the perils and
sufferings of Dionysus, or some hero, as it might be. The subjects
of this Dithyrambic tragedy were not, however, always confined
to Dionysus. Even Arion wrote Dithyrambs, relating to different
heroes, a practice in which he was followed by succeeding poets.
It is easy to conceive how the introduction of an actor or speaker
independent of the chorus might have been suggested by the exarchs
coming forward separately and making short off-hand speeches,
whether learnt by heart beforehand, or made on the spur of the
moment. [CHORUS.] But it is also possible, if not probable, that
it was suggested by the rhapsodical recitations of the epic and
gnomic poets formerly prevalent in Greece: the gnomic poetry being
generally written in Iambic verse, the metre of the Attic dialogue.
This however is certain, that the union of the Iambic dialogue with
the lyrical chorus took place at Athens under Pisistratus, and
that it was attributed to Thespis, a native of Icaria, one of the
country demes or parishes of Attica where the worship of Dionysus
had long prevailed. The alteration made by him, and which gave to
the old tragedy a new and dramatic character, was very simple but
very important. He introduced an actor, as it is recorded, for the
sake of giving rest to the chorus, and independent of it, in which
capacity he probably appeared himself, taking various parts in the
same piece, under various disguises, which he was enabled to assume
by means of linen masks, the invention of which is attributed to
him. Now as a chorus, by means of its leader, could maintain a
dialogue with the actor, it is easy to see how with one actor only a
dramatic action might be introduced, continued, and concluded, by the
speeches between the choral songs expressive of the joy or sorrow of
the chorus at the various events of the drama. With respect to the
character of the drama of Thespis there has been much doubt: some
writers, and especially Bentley, have maintained that his plays were
all satyrical and ludicrous, i.e. the plot of them was some story
of Bacchus, the chorus consisted principally of satyrs, and the
argument was merry. But perhaps the truth is that in the early part
of his career Thespis retained the satyrical character of the older
tragedy, but afterwards inclined to more serious compositions, which
would almost oblige him to discard the Satyrs from his choruses.
That he did write serious dramas is intimated by the titles of the
plays ascribed to him, as well as by the character of the fragments
of Iambic verse quoted by ancient writers as his. It is evident that
the introduction of the dialogue must also have caused an alteration
in the arrangement of the chorus, which could not remain cyclic or
circular, but must have been drawn up in a rectangular form about the
thymele or altar of Bacchus in front of the actor, who was elevated
on a platform or table (ἐλεός), the forerunner of the stage. The
lines of Horace (_Ar. Poet._ 276):--
“Dicitur et plaustris vexisse poemata Thespis,
Quae canerent agerentque peruncti faecibus ora”--
are founded on a misconception of the origin of the Attic tragedy,
and the tale about the waggons of Thespis probably arose out of a
confusion of the waggon of the comedian Susarion with the _platform_
of the Thespian actor. The first representation of Thespis was in
B.C. 535. His immediate successors were the Athenian Choerilus
and Phrynichus, the former of whom represented plays as early as
B.C. 524. Phrynichus was a pupil of Thespis, and gained his first
victory in the dramatic contests B.C. 511. In his works, the lyric
or choral element still predominated over the dramatic, and he was
distinguished for the sweetness of his melodies, which in the time of
the Peloponnesian war were very popular with the admirers of the old
style of music. The first use of female masks is also attributed to
him, and he so far deviated from the general practice of the Attic
tragedians as to write a drama on a subject of contemporary history,
the capture of Miletus by the Persians, B.C. 494.--We now come to
the first writer of Satyrical dramas, Pratinas of Phlius, a town not
far from Sicyon, and which laid claim to the invention of tragedy
as well as comedy. For some time previously to this poet, and
probably as early as Thespis, tragedy had been gradually departing
more and more from its old characteristics, and inclining to heroic
fables, to which the chorus of Satyrs was not a fit accompaniment.
But the fun and merriment caused by them were too good to be lost.
Accordingly the Satyrical drama, distinct from the recent and
dramatic tragedy, but suggested by the sportive element of the old
Dithyramb, was founded by Pratinas, who however appears to have been
surpassed in his own invention by Choerilus. It was always written
by tragedians, and generally three tragedies and one Satyrical piece
were represented together, which in some instances at least formed a
connected whole, called a tetralogy (τετραλογία). The Satyrical piece
was acted last, so that the minds of the spectators were agreeably
relieved by a merry after-piece at the close of an earnest and
engrossing tragedy. The distinguishing feature of this drama was the
chorus of Satyrs, in appropriate dresses and masks, and its subjects
seem to have been taken from the same class of the adventures of
Bacchus and of the heroes as those of tragedy; but of course they
were so treated and selected, that the presence of rustic satyrs
would seem appropriate. In their jokes and drollery consisted the
merriment of the piece; for the kings and heroes who were introduced
into their company were not of necessity thereby divested of their
epic and legendary character, though they were obliged to conform to
their situation and suffer some diminution of dignity, from their
position. Hence Horace (_Ar. Poet._ 231) says:--
“Effutire leves indigna Tragoedia versus
Intererit Satyris paulum pudibunda protervis.”--
alluding in the first line to the mythic or epic element of
the Satyric drama, which he calls Tragoedia, and in the second
representing it as being rather ashamed of its company. The “Cyclops”
of Euripides is the only Satyric drama now extant.--The great
improvements in tragedy were introduced by Aeschylus. This poet added
a second actor, diminished the parts of the chorus, and made the
dialogue the principal part of the action. He also availed himself of
the aid of Agatharchus, the scene-painter, and improved the costume
of his actors by giving them thick-soled boots (ἐμβάται), as well as
the masks, which he made more expressive and characteristic. Horace
(_Ar. Poet._ 278) thus alludes to his improvements:--
“personae pallaeque repertor honestae
Aeschylus, et modicis instravit pulpita tignis
Et docuit magnumque loqui, nitique cothurno.”--
The custom of contending with trilogies (τριλογίαι), or with three
plays at a time, is said to have been also introduced by him. In
fact he did so much for tragedy, and so completely built it up to
its “towering height,” that he was considered the father of it.
The subjects of his dramas were not connected with the worship of
Dionysus; but rather with the great cycle of Hellenic legends and
some of the myths of the Homeric Epos. Accordingly, he said of
himself that his dramas were but scraps and fragments from the great
feasts of Homer. In the latter part of his life Aeschylus made use
of one of the improvements of Sophocles, namely the τριταγωνιστής,
or third actor. This was the finishing stroke to the dramatic
element of Attic tragedy, which Sophocles is said to have matured
by further improvements in costume and scene-painting. Under him
tragedy appears with less of sublimity and sternness than in the
hands of Aeschylus, but with more of calm grandeur and quiet dignity
and touching incident. The plays of Sophocles are the perfection of
the Grecian tragic drama, as a work of art and poetic composition in
a thoroughly chastened and classic style. In the hands of Euripides
tragedy deteriorated not only in dignity, but also in its moral
and religious significance. He introduces his heroes in rags and
tatters, and busies them with petty affairs, and makes them speak the
language of every-day life. As Sophocles said of him, he represented
men not as they ought to be, but as they are, without any ideal
greatness or poetic character. His dialogues too were little else
than the rhetorical and forensic language of his day cleverly put
into verse: full of sophistry and quibbling distinctions. One of the
peculiarities of his tragedies was the πρόλογος, an introductory
monologue, with which some hero or god opens the play, telling who
he is, what is the state of affairs, and what has happened up to
the time of his address, so as to put the audience in possession
of every fact which it might be necessary for them to know: a
very business-like proceeding no doubt, but a poor make-shift for
artistical skill. The “Deus ex machina,” also, though not always, in
a “nodus, tali vindice dignus,” was frequently employed by Euripides
to effect the _dénoûment_ of his pieces. The chorus too no longer
discharged its proper and high functions either as a representative
of the feelings of unprejudiced observers, or, as one of the actors,
and a part of the whole, joining in the development of the piece.
Many of his choral odes in fact are but remotely connected in subject
with the action of the play. Another novelty of Euripides was the
use of the monodies or lyrical songs, in which not the chorus,
but the principal persons of the drama, declare their emotions
and sufferings. Euripides was also the inventor of tragi-comedy.
A specimen of the Euripidean tragi-comedy is still extant in the
Alcestis, acted B.C. 438, as the last of four pieces, and therefore
as a substitute for a Satyrical drama. Though tragic in its form and
some of its scenes, it has a mixture of comic and satyric characters
(_e.g._ Hercules) and concludes happily.--The parts which constitute
a Greek tragedy, _as to its form_, are, the prologue, episode, exode,
and choral songs; the last divided into the parode and stasimon. The
πρόλογος is all that part of a tragedy which precedes the parodos
of the chorus, _i.e._ the first act. The ἐπεισόδιον is all the part
between whole choral odes. The ἔξοδος that part which has no choral
ode after it. Of the choral part the πάροδος is the first speech
of the whole chorus (not broken up into parts): the stasimon is
without anapaests and trochees. These two divisions were sung by
all the choreutae, but the “songs on the stage” and the κόμμοι by a
part only. The commus, which properly means a wailing for the dead,
was generally used to express strong excitement, or lively sympathy
with grief and suffering, especially by Aeschylus. It was common to
the actors and a portion only of the chorus. Again the πάροδος was
so named as being the passage-song of the chorus sung while it was
advancing to its proper place in the orchestra, and therefore in
anapaestic or marching verse: the στάσιμον, as being chaunted by the
chorus when standing still in its proper position.--The materials of
Greek tragedy were the national mythology,
“Presenting Thebes, or Pelop’s line,
Or the tale of Troy divine.”
The exceptions to this were the two historical tragedies, the
“Capture of Miletus” by Phrynichus, and the “Persians” of Aeschylus;
but they belong to an early period of the art. Hence the plot
and story of the Grecian tragedy were of necessity known to the
spectators, a circumstance which strongly distinguishes the ancient
tragedy from the modern.--The functions of the Chorus in Greek
Tragedy were very important, as described by Horace (_Ar. Poet._ 193),
“Actoris partes chorus officiumque virile
Defendat: neu quid medios intercinat actus,
Quod non proposito conducat, et haereat apte,” &c.
It often expresses the reflections of a dispassionate and
right-minded spectator, and inculcates the lessons of morality and
resignation to the will of heaven, taught by the occurrence of
the piece in which it is engaged. With respect to the number of
the chorus see CHORUS.--(2) ROMAN. The tragedy of the Romans was
borrowed from the Greek, but the construction of the Roman theatre
afforded no appropriate place for the chorus, which was therefore
obliged to appear on the stage, instead of in the orchestra. The
first tragic poet and actor at Rome was Livius Andronicus, a Greek
by birth, who began to exhibit in B.C. 240. In his monodies (or the
lyrical parts sung, not by a chorus, but by one person), it was
customary to separate the singing from the mimetic dancing, leaving
the latter only to the actor, while the singing was performed by a
boy placed near the flute-player (_ante tibicinem_); so that the
dialogue only (_diverbia_) was left to be spoken by the actors.
Livius Andronicus was followed by Naevius, Ennius, Pacuvius, and
Attius. These five poets belong to the earlier epoch of Roman
tragedy, in which little was written but translations and imitations
of the Greek, with occasional insertions of original matter. How
they imitated the structure of the choral odes is doubtful--perhaps
they never attempted it. In the age of Augustus the writing of
tragedies, whether original or imitations, seems to have been quite
a fashionable occupation. The emperor himself attempted an Ajax, but
did not succeed. One of the principal tragedians of this epoch was
Asinius Pollio, to whom the line (Virg. _Eclog._ viii. 10) applies--
“Sola Sophocleo tua carmina digna cothurno.”
Ovid wrote a tragedy on the subject of Medea. Quintilian says of
Varius, who was distinguished in epic as well as tragic poetry, that
his Thyestes might be compared with any of the Greek tragedies. Some
fragments of this Thyestes are extant, but we have no other remains
of the tragedy of the Augustan age. The loss perhaps is not great.
The only complete Roman tragedies that have come down to us are the
ten attributed to the philosopher Seneca; but whether he wrote any
of them or not is a disputed point. To whatever age they belong,
they are beyond description bombastic and frigid, utterly unnatural
in character and action, full of the most revolting violations of
propriety, and barren of all theatrical effect. Still they have had
admirers: Heinsius calls the Hippolytus “divine,” and prefers the
Troades to the Hecuba of Euripides: even Racine has borrowed from
the Hippolytus in Phèdre. Roman tragedians sometimes wrote tragedies
on subjects taken from their national history. Pacuvius, _e.g._
wrote a _Paulus_, L. Accius a _Brutus_ and a _Decius_. Curiatius
Maternus, also a distinguished orator in the reign of Domitian, wrote
a Domitius and a Cato, the latter of which gave offence to the rulers
of the state.