§ 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.