§ 4 Tragedy at the City Dionysia
Of the dramatic performances at the City Dionysia, which we have next to consider, the tragic were the most important. The City Dionysia was specially connected with the growth of the tragic drama, and it was here that the earliest public contests in tragedy were established. The first competition was held in B.C. 535, and was rendered doubly memorable by the fact that Thespis, now an old man, took part in the performance, and won the prize of victory.42 Shortly before this time Pisistratus, who was a great patron of art and literature, had returned from exile, and begun his last tyranny. It must have been under his auspices, therefore, that tragedy was first officially recognized by the State, and made an annual institution. As to the character of these early contests, and the arrangements concerning the number of poets and plays, nothing has been recorded.43 It is uncertain whether the regulations were the same as those which afterwards prevailed during the fifth century. But we are told that the tragic poet Choerilus, who began to exhibit in 523, composed no less than a hundred and sixty plays.44 The largeness of the number would seem to show that even in the sixth century it was the custom for each competing poet to bring out several plays at each festival.
When we turn to the fifth century, the information is fairly complete. Several records have been preserved, referring chiefly to the three great tragic poets, and giving a more or less detailed account of the results of the competitions. It may be interesting to mention some of these records. The earliest refers to the year 499, and tells us that three poets—Aeschylus, Choerilus, and Pratinas—took part in the tragic contest.45 From the next we learn that in 472 Aeschylus won the first prize, and that the plays he exhibited were the Phineus, Persae, Glaucus, and the satyric drama Prometheus.46 In 467, Aeschylus was first with the Laius, Oedipus, Septem contra Thebas, and the satyric play Sphinx; Aristias was second with the Perseus, Tantalus, and the satyric play Palaestae, written by his father Pratinas; Polyphradmon was third with the Lycurgean tetralogy.47 The name of one of the plays of Aristias has doubtless dropped out accidentally, as there is no other instance of poets competing at the same festival with a different number of plays. A very interesting record is that for the year 458, when Aeschylus was again victorious, this time with the Orestean group of plays, the Agamemnon, Choephori, Eumenides, and satyric Proteus.48 In 438 Sophocles was first; Euripides was second with the Cressae, Alcmaeon in Psophis, Telephus, and Alcestis. In 431 Euphorion was first, Sophocles second, and Euripides third with the Medea, Philoctetes, Dictys, and satyric play Theristae. In 428 Euripides was first (the Hippolytus being one of his plays), Iophon second, Ion third.49 Among the last of the notices is that for the year 415, when Euripides, who produced the Alexander, Palamedes, Troades, and satyric drama Sisyphus, was defeated for the first prize by an obscure poet called Xenocles, who produced the Oedipus, Lycaon, Bacchae and satyric play Athamas. After Euripides’ death, in B.C. 406, his Iphigenia in Aulis, Alcmaeon, and Bacchae were produced by his son at the City Dionysia.50 The evidence of these various records, when compared with one another, proves conclusively that during the whole, or almost the whole, of the fifth century there was no variation in the arrangement of the tragic contests at the City Dionysia. The rule as to the number of poets and plays was as follows. At each festival three poets appeared as competitors,51 and each poet was required to exhibit four plays, consisting of three tragedies and a satyric drama.52 If the number seems surprising, we should remember that an ancient drama was only about half the length of a modern one, and that four plays of this type could easily have been got through in a single day. On one occasion the rule just mentioned appears to have been partially relaxed. In 438 Euripides was allowed to substitute the Alcestis, a tragedy with a slightly comic tinge, for the usual satyric drama. Whether this practice ever became common in the fifth century is uncertain. The records give no further instance. In all other cases where they mention the names of the four plays produced, the last is a satyric play. It was this custom of concluding the three tragedies with the licentious merriment of the satyrs which suggested to Ion of Chios his well-known remark, that virtue, like a tragic poet’s group of plays, should always contain a satyric element.53
The four plays exhibited by each poet might be composed on two different systems. They might form independent works of art, and have no inner connexion with one another; or they might deal with successive phases of the same legend, and be fused into a single artistic whole. The general name for the group of plays was ‘didascalia’, or a ‘teaching’54, because in ancient times the author had to teach them to the actors. But when they were connected together by unity of subject, they were denoted by a special term. The four plays were called a ‘tetralogy’;55 the three tragedies, regarded apart from the satyric drama, were called a ‘trilogy’. As applied to the drama, however, both words first occur at a comparatively late date:56 and as, to judge from their etymology, they seem properly to denote groups of speeches rather than groups of plays, it is possible that their dramatic application is a secondary one, and that the grammarians applied to the drama the word ‘tetralogy’ which properly denoted such groups of four speeches about fictitious cases as those of Antiphon, and afterwards formed the word ‘trilogy’ by analogy to denote three plays connected in subject with each other but not with the satyric play. In earlier times such collective titles as Lycurgeia, Oresteia, and the like were used.57 The practice of writing plays in trilogies and tetralogies is chiefly associated with the name of Aeschylus. Whether it was invented by him, or inherited from his predecessors, is uncertain. We have no information as to the manner in which the poets of the sixth century were accustomed to combine their plays together. But whatever the origin of the system may have been, it was undoubtedly Aeschylus who first perceived the various developments of which it was capable, and brought it to perfection. In his hands it became a mighty instrument for the inculcation of religious truths. The central idea in the moral system of Aeschylus was the disastrous effect of sin, not only upon the sinner himself, but also upon his remote descendants. The curse entailed in the sinful act clung to a family from one generation to another. In the trilogy, with its wide range of time and subject, he was able to trace the whole course of this hereditary evil, and to follow the crime from its original commission down to the period of its final expiation. The Orestean trilogy, which has fortunately been preserved, is a magnificent example of his method. The Agamemnon depicts the murder of the returning chieftain by his adulterous wife. In the Choephori vengeance is taken on the murderess, after years of waiting, by her own son. In the Eumenides the matricide, a prey to remorse, is hunted from place to place by the Furies of his mother, until their rage is at length appeased by divine intervention. These successive pictures of crime and vengeance form a series of unapproachable grandeur. The general effect of the whole may be appreciated even by a modern reader. But in the ancient theatre the impression produced must have been far more vivid, as one play followed another upon the stage, and the dark scenes of guilt were unfolded in due sequence before the very eyes of the audience.
Apart from the Oresteia, very little is recorded about the tetralogies written by Aeschylus. He is known to have composed a Lycurgeia, on the fate of Lycurgus, the Thracian king and opponent of Bacchus; and an Oedipodeia, on the fortunes of the house of Oedipus. It is also fairly certain that he treated the legends about Hector, Ajax, Prometheus, and the daughters of Danaus in trilogic form. But these are the only instances for which there is clear evidence. No doubt most of his plays were written as tetralogies. Still, he does not seem to have adhered to the system on every occasion. The plays which he exhibited in 472—the Phineus, Persae, Glaucus, and satyric drama Prometheus—had apparently no connexion with one another.58 There are also, among the titles of his lost dramas, several, such as the Sisyphus and the Atalanta, which seem to stand in an isolated position, and to be hardly capable of combination. In some cases, again, he may have adopted the tetralogic form only in part. The three tragedies may have formed a trilogy, while the concluding satyric drama was on a different subject. Thus the satyric Prometheus was produced, not with the Promethean trilogy, as we should have expected, but in a different combination altogether. There is no less uncertainty as to the structure of the lost tetralogies. It would be a mistake to assume that they were all as perfect in arrangement as the Oresteia. Even from the few remains and notices preserved we can see that the tetralogy was a flexible form of art, and could be treated in various ways. The connexion between the parts might be tightened or relaxed at will. In the Theban trilogy—the Laius, Oedipus, and Septem contra Thebas—there was a long lapse of years between the separate plays. In the Oresteia the intervals of time are much shorter. In the Lycurgeia, which described the invasion of Thrace by Dionysus, his defeat, capture, and final victory, the three plays followed so closely in point of time, that they must have been like successive acts in a single drama. Again, the trilogies might differ in respect of artistic completeness. The Oresteia forms a perfect whole. The legend is traced to its conclusion, and ends satisfactorily with the purification of Orestes. But the Theban trilogy was treated more in the chronicle fashion. It closed abruptly at a point where the course of events was still unfinished. The final scene of the Septem is full of forebodings of impending calamity. So marked is this feature, that before the discovery in recent years of the record which proves that the Septem was the last play of the three, all critics were agreed that it must have been followed by another tragedy.59 This example shows us the necessity of caution in dealing with the whole subject of tetralogies. Since there is so much uncertainty as to the number of them written by Aeschylus, and the manner in which he wrote them, it is dangerous to go beyond the limits of direct evidence. Various schemes have been propounded by scholars, in which the titles of the lost plays are all arranged in tetralogic groups. But these systems must be regarded as entirely conjectural.
The satyric drama, by which the three tragedies were followed, was a survival from the primitive period of the Bacchic worship. With its strange medley of incongruous elements, of valour and cowardice, passion and merriment, heroic dignity and coarse indecency, it reproduced the various qualities of the ancient dithyramb. The chorus was always composed of satyrs. The leading characters consisted partly of heroes from the tragic stage, partly of semi-ludicrous personages, such as Silenus, Autolycus, and Polyphemus. The presence of the tragic kings and heroes in the midst of these disreputable associates and undignified surroundings was one of the most curious features in the performance. It had to be managed with great tact by the poet. The dignity of the heroes was not to be unduly lowered, and yet they must not seem too exalted for their company.60 In the case of a tetralogy the awkwardness of the situation would be greatly intensified. Here the satyric drama dealt with the same legend as the preceding tragedies, but from a humorous point of view. It often happened that the very same hero whose disastrous fate had just been exhibited in the trilogy was reintroduced under a sportive aspect. In the satyric play Lycurgus, which concluded the Lycurgean tetralogy, the chief part must have been taken by Lycurgus himself. In the Sphinx, the last play of the Oedipodeia, Oedipus must have appeared in person. This practice of concluding the tragic spectacle with a burlesque representation of the same or similar characters and incidents seems a questionable proceeding to modern taste. It would be difficult to defend it on artistic grounds. It originated not so much in the desire to provide a comic relief after the tragedies as in religious conservatism. The dramatic performances were part of a Bacchic festival. But the Bacchic element had long been discarded by tragedy. The satyric play, which still remained true to the primitive type, was therefore retained in the programme, in order to appease the god and to keep up the religious associations of the drama.
During the earlier part of the fifth century the practice of writing plays in tetralogies seems to have been generally adopted, not only by Aeschylus, but by all other tragic poets. One such tetralogy, the Lycurgeia of Polyphradmon, happens to have been recorded. It was Sophocles who first gave up the system, and regularly composed his four plays on independent subjects.61 The example set by Sophocles was followed by the younger generation. Even as early as 467, when Aeschylus brought out his Oedipodeia, and Polyphradmon his Lycurgeia, the third poet, Aristias, competed with a group of disconnected plays. After the death of Aeschylus the tetralogy speedily went out of fashion. It was never attempted by Euripides. In fact during the latter half of the fifth century only three tetralogies are mentioned. A Pandionis was written by Philocles, the nephew of Aeschylus, who naturally followed in his uncle’s footsteps. An Oedipodeia was composed by Meletus, the prosecutor of Socrates. Plato is also said to have written a tetralogy before he abandoned poetry for philosophy.62 After the end of the fifth century all traces of the tetralogy disappear. One reason for its decline in popularity and rapid discontinuance may have been the increased length of plays. A tragedy of the later poets was considerably longer, and contained much more incident, than a tragedy of Aeschylus. A trilogy composed of dramas of this bulk would have been a vast and laborious undertaking. Another reason may have been the gradual change in religious sentiment. The doctrine of the hereditary curse in families, which the trilogy was admirably adapted to exemplify, no longer held a prominent place in the moral ideas of post-Aeschylean poets. The chief motive of their tragedy was human passion rather than religious truth. In such circumstances the trilogy, as a form of art, had no advantages sufficient to compensate for the unwieldiness of its size.
It has been worth while to discuss in some detail the arrangement of the tragic contests at the City Dionysia during the fifth century, because this was the great period of Attic tragedy. The fourth century is of less importance. For the first half of the century there is a complete blank in our information on the subject. But when we come to the latter half, we have the evidence of an interesting inscription, which contains a full record of the tragic performances at the City Dionysia for the years 341 and 340.63 From this record it appears that considerable changes had now been made in the annual programme. The old system, by which each of the three poets was required to exhibit a satyric play, had been abandoned. A single specimen of this type of drama was now considered sufficient, and was produced at the commencement of the proceedings. The satyric drama, with its primitive coarseness, had little attraction for the more refined taste of the fourth century; and it was only religious scruples which caused it to be retained at all. The satyric play was followed by an old tragedy, written by one of the three great tragic poets. In 341 the play chosen was the Iphigeneia of Euripides, in 340 it was the Orestes. This practice was also a new departure.64 In the fifth century the exhibition of old tragedies was, with rare exceptions, unknown at the City Dionysia. After these two preliminary performances came the contest with original plays. The number of poets was still there, as in former times. But the number of plays was diminished, and seems to have varied from year to year. In 341 each poet exhibited three tragedies; in 340 each poet exhibited two. Theodectes, who flourished in the middle of the fourth century, wrote fifty tragedies and engaged in thirteen contests.65 Aphareus wrote thirty-five admittedly genuine tragedies, and engaged in eight contests, between 368 and 341.66 This seems to imply that in most of the contests they produced four plays; but the conclusion is not certain, for they may have written plays which were never intended for the stage, as their contemporary Chaeremon did.67 The reduction in the number of original plays points to a gradual decline in the vitality of the tragic drama at Athens. These various changes must have been made in the course of the sixty years preceding the period of the inscription. But the exact date of their introduction cannot be determined.
With the close of the fourth century the famous period of Athenian tragedy came to an end. After this date the only tragic poets of any celebrity were those who flourished at Alexandria. But though the genius of the Attic poets was exhausted, there was no immediate cessation in the production of new plays. The contests were still maintained. A long series of inscriptions shows that, down even to the Christian era, ‘original tragedies’ continued to be the chief ornament of the City Dionysia. The names of several Athenian tragic poets belonging to this period have been preserved in theatrical records. One of them was a descendant of Sophocles. As to the character of the contests, and the proportion of old tragedies to new ones, nothing is known. After the first century A.D. the composition of original tragic dramas for the stage was finally discontinued in all parts of Greece, and must therefore have been abandoned at the City Dionysia. But the festival itself still continued to flourish; and the reproduction of old plays may have lasted, there as elsewhere, for one or two centuries later.68