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