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]

##