§ 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]