SOURCE: Haigh, A. E. “Dramatic Contests at Athens.” In The Attic Theatre: A Description of the Stage and Theatre of the Athenians, and of the Dramatic Performances at Athens, pp. 1-36. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1889.

[In the following excerpt, Haigh describes the festivals celebrating Dionysus, particularly their drama contests.]

DRAMATIC CONTESTS AT ATHENS.

1. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ATTIC DRAMA.

The ancient Athenian drama was in many respects unlike any kind of dramatic performance that we are accustomed to in modern times. The difference extended not only to the character of the plays themselves, and the manner in which they were presented upon the stage, but also to the circumstances under which the production took place. In order to form an accurate conception of the external features of the old Greek drama it will be necessary to dismiss from the mind many of the associations with which the modern stage is connected. In the first place, the luxury of having theatrical entertainments at every season of the year was a thing never heard of among the ancient Athenians. The dramatic performances at Athens, instead of being spread over the whole year, were confined within very limited periods. They were restricted to the two great festivals of Dionysus, the Lenaea and the City Dionysia. It is true that at these festivals the number of plays exhibited was large enough to satisfy the most enthusiastic playgoer. Several days in succession were devoted entirely to the drama, and on each day tragedies and comedies followed one another without intermission from morning till evening. But with the exception of the two festivals of Dionysus there was no other occasion on which plays were acted in the Athenian theatre. There were dramatic exhibitions in the various townships of Attica during the Rural Dionysia; but in Athens itself the drama was restricted to the two periods already mentioned. In fact, as far as regards the time and duration of the performances, the ancient drama had much in common with the modern musical festival, in which at certain fixed seasons several days in succession are devoted entirely to music.

Another vital point of difference lay in the fact that the ancient drama was managed wholly by the state. To provide for the amusement of the people was considered to be one of the regular duties of the government. In England theatres are simply private enterprises. In some foreign countries certain theatres receive subventions from the state, and are subject to a code of rules; but for practical purposes their connexion with the state is only a slight one. But in Athens the superintendence of the annual dramatic performances was just as much a part of the public administration of affairs as was the repair of the dockyards, the equipment of fleets, or the despatch of armies. Poets and actors were both selected by the state. The cost of the performance was a tax upon the richer classes. Every wealthy citizen had in his turn to defray the expenses of a tragedy or a comedy, just as he had to pay for one of the ships of the fleet, or perform any other of the state burdens. The theatre was a public institution for the benefit of the whole people. Every Athenian citizen of whatever degree was entitled to be present at the annual dramatic performances; and if he was too poor to pay the entrance fee, he received the price of admission from the state.

The audience consisted practically of the whole body of the people. In a modern theatre, owing to its limited dimensions, the spectators are few in number, and have no representative character about them. But the theatre of Dionysus at Athens was capable of containing nearly thirty thousand people. Every Athenian attended the performances at the Dionysia as a matter of course. The audience therefore to which the Athenian dramatic poet addressed himself was in reality a gathering of the whole body of his fellow-countrymen. In those days books were not plentiful, and their use was confined to a limited class. The ordinary Athenian depended for his literary pleasures upon the various public performances and recitations of poetical compositions. The drama was therefore much more to him than to a modern playgoer. At the present day, when continual supplies of fresh literature are accessible to every one, it is hard to realise the excitement and expectancy with which an Athenian looked forward to the annual exhibition of dramas at the Dionysia. It was here that his taste for novelty in literature was gratified. It was here that he found an equivalent for the books, magazines, and newspapers of modern civilization. Hence he was able to sit day after day, from morning to evening, listening to tragedy and comedy, without any feeling of satiety. The enthusiasm with which the drama was generally regarded, and the direct manner in which the author was brought into contact with the whole body of his countrymen, contributed to make the vocation of the dramatic writer one of the very greatest importance. The leading tragic poets especially are known to have exercised a most profound influence upon the national mind and character. They were spoken of as the teachers of the people. Their writings were invested with a sort of Homeric sanctity, and appealed to as authorities upon questions of science and morality. Maxims and quotations from their plays were upon every one's lips. Many passages in Plato and Aristophanes prove the enormous influence for good and evil which was exercised by the Greek tragic poets, and there is probably no other instance in history of a drama which was so thoroughly popular, and formed such an essential part of the national life¹.

Another prominent characteristic of the Attic stage, which distinguishes it from that of modern times, was the fact that almost every dramatic performance took the form of a contest. In the best period of the Greek drama the production of a play by itself, as a mere exhibition, was a thing unknown. In later times celebrated plays by the great dramatists were sometimes exhibited alone. But in the period covered by the names of Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, and Aristophanes, the only mode of exhibiting plays was by competing in the dramatic contests at the festivals of Dionysus. Prizes were offered by the state. A limited number of poets, after careful selection by the state, were allowed to take part in the competition. The result was decided by a jury publicly appointed. It is curious to notice how strongly implanted in the Greek nature was this passion for anything in the shape of a contest. It is seen in the case of most branches of poetry and music. Dithyrambs were generally produced in competitions at festivals between rival poets and choruses. Recitations of the old epic poems took the form of contests between rhapsodists. Public performances on flute and harp were mostly of the same character. There can be no doubt that the stimulus of rivalry and competition had a considerable effect upon the genius of the poets. It is remarkable in how many instances the Athenian dramatic writers retained the full vigour of their intellect even in extreme old age. For example, the tragedies composed in their latest years by the three great tragic poets show not the slightest symptoms of decaying power. The Agamemnon of Aeschylus, one of the most splendid products of the Greek drama, was brought out shortly before the poet's death. The Oedipus Coloneus of Sophocles and the Bacchae of Euripides were both written very late in life. The reason of this extraordinary vitality was no doubt partly due to the excitement caused by the public competitions in the theatre, which acted as a stimulus to the mind, and prevented that decay of power which usually accompanies old age.

But the most conspicuous difference between the ancient and modern drama lay in the essentially religious character of the former. The Athenian drama was not only an amusement for the people: it was also part of a great religious celebration. Throughout its history it never ceased to be closely connected with the religion of the state. It was developed originally out of the songs and hymns in honour of Dionysus, the god of wine. In later times its range was widened, and its tone secularised: but it continued to be performed solely at the festivals of Dionysus. Together with the other contests and ceremonials it was regarded as a celebration in honour of the god. The spectator who sat watching a tragedy or a comedy was not merely providing for his own amusement, but was also joining in an act of worship. Many facts tend to show the sacred character of the festivals of Dionysus, and the performances which accompanied them. The festivals themselves were not mere human institutions, but were established in obedience to the direct commands of the oracle. On these occasions the whole city gave itself up to pleasure, and to the worship of the genial wine-god. For the time being there was an end of business and litigation. Peace and harmony were supposed to prevail universally, and nothing was allowed to disturb the general enjoyment. Distraints for debt were forbidden by law during the continuance of the festival. Prisoners were temporarily released from gaol, to enable them to join in the worship of the god. Assaults and outrages, if committed during the Dionysia, were regarded as offences against religion, and were punished with the utmost severity. The ordinary course of law was not considered sufficient, and they were dealt with under an exceptional process at a special meeting of the Assembly. As a proof of the indignation which was aroused by such violations of the harmony of the festival it is recorded that on one occasion a certain Ctesicles was put to death for merely striking a personal enemy during the procession. To preserve the sanctity of the festival from contamination, no person suffering from civil disability was allowed to take part in a chorus at the Dionysia, or even to superintend the training of it. The performances in the theatre, being the most conspicuous part of the proceedings at the festival, were equally sacred in character. The god Dionysus was supposed to be present in person to witness and enjoy them. This belief was symbolised by a curious old custom. On the evening before the dramatic contests began, the Ephebi used to take the statue of the god out of its shrine, and carry it in procession by torchlight to the theatre, and place it in the orchestra in full view of the stage. There it remained until the end of the festival, in token of the presence of the god. The religious character of the dramatic performances is still further shown by the fact that most of the front seats in the theatre were given up to the priests of the different deities. In the centre of the front row, and in the best seat of all, sat the priest of Dionysus, presiding over the celebrations in honour of the god. The theatre itself was regarded as a temple of Dionysus, and possessed all the sanctity attaching to such a place. Any form of insult committed there during the Dionysia was doubly criminal. Merely to eject a man from a seat he had taken wrongfully was a piece of sacrilege punishable with death. The people who took part in the different contests, the poets, choregi, actors, and singers, were regarded as ministers of the god Dionysus. Their persons and dresses were sacred. To strike a choregus in the theatre, as Meidias struck Demosthenes, was an offence against religion and the gods. In order to understand the outward character and surroundings of the old Greek drama it is most essential to realise the fact that the whole proceedings were part of a religious celebration, and were intended to be an act of homage to the god, as well as an amusement for the people².

2. FIRST INSTITUTION OF DRAMATIC COMPETITIONS.

The date of the first institution of dramatic contests in Athens may be determined approximately, though the exact year cannot be fixed. During the earlier stages of the development of tragedy and comedy there was nothing in the shape of a contest. The first rude innovations upon the old hymns to Dionysus were mere tentative experiments by individuals, exhibited upon their own responsibility. Thespis has the credit of having introduced tragedy into Athens. At first he was without a rival or competitor, and gave exhibitions of the new form of art merely as a private enterprise. One of these performances is said to have been witnessed by Solon. As Solon died not later than 558 b.c., it follows that Thespis must have begun to exhibit before that date. The progress of tragedy in popular favour was so rapid, that it was speedily accepted as a regular form of entertainment, and public contests were established even during the lifetime of Thespis. Aristophanes says distinctly that Thespis ‘competed’ with his tragedies. The Parian Marble puts the date of the first contest in which Thespis took part, and for which the prize was a goat, between the years 542 and 520 b.c. Suidas gives 535 as the date of the first appearance of Thespis. He is doubtless referring, not to his early exhibitions of the new form of art, but to his first appearance in a regular public contest. If these dates are to be relied upon, it follows that Thespis began his innovations during the first half of the sixth century, and that public competitions in tragedy were established early in the second half. Everything connected with the life and art of Thespis is wrapped in great obscurity, and it is therefore uncertain how far the above traditions can be accepted as true. But at any rate there is no doubt that long before the end of the sixth century contests in tragedy were flourishing in full vigour. The names of three tragic poets, who lived in the generation after Thespis, are recorded. These were Choerilus, Phrynichus, and Pratinas. Choerilus is said to have first ‘engaged in contests’ in the year 523. Phrynichus won the prize for tragedy in 511. In 499 Aeschylus made his first public appearance. His competitors on this occasion were Choerilus and Pratinas. By this time it is probable that the arrangements for the tragic contests had been reduced to a regular system. During the greater part of the fifth century the ordinary rule was for three poets to take part in the competition, and for each poet to exhibit three tragedies and one satyric drama, making four plays in all. It is probable that this rule had already been established when Aeschylus made his first appearance in public. An arrangement of this kind would of course be the growth of time, and during the earlier tragic contests there was no doubt much irregularity in regard to the number of poets competing, and the number of plays exhibited. For instance, Pratinas is said to have brought out fifty plays, thirty-two of which were satyric dramas. He cannot therefore have been accustomed to exhibit three tragedies along with each satyric drama. On the other hand the number of plays ascribed to Choerilus was one hundred and sixty. It follows that during the greater part of his career he must have been accustomed to exhibit as many as four plays annually, else he could not have found occasions for producing so large a number. Hence it is probable that by the time of Aeschylus the system of tragic contests had already been reduced to that shape which afterwards prevailed, and that each poet was expected to produce four plays.

Comedy, as we learn from Aristotle, was much later than tragedy in being recognised by the state. For a long time it was kept up by voluntary enterprise, and not much importance was attached to it. The first Athenian comic poets of note were Chionides and Magnes. Chionides began to exhibit in 487 b.c. It is hardly likely that the date of his first appearance would have been preserved with such accuracy, if comedy had still been merely a private undertaking, without any connexion with the state. There seems therefore to be good ground for assuming that the institution of public contests in comedy was not later than 487 b.c.³ At any rate it cannot have been later than 459 b.c. This is proved by an inscription which records the names of the victors at the City Dionysia, and among them gives the name of the victor in comedy. The exact year to which the inscription refers is unknown, but at any rate it was anterior to 458 b.c. It follows that 459 is the very latest date to which the institution of public contests in comedy can be assigned⁴.

Speaking roughly then the recognition of tragedy by the state, and the institution of annual competitions, date from the latter half of the sixth century. The similar recognition of comedy dates from the first half of the fifth century. These contests took place at the festivals of Dionysus. The Greek drama was essentially an offshoot of the worship of Dionysus, and throughout its history, as far as Athens was concerned, it continued to retain its close connexion with that worship. In other parts of Greece, when the drama had been fully established as a form of art, dramatic exhibitions were occasionally introduced into festivals with which originally they had no connexion. Thus they were introduced in later times into the Pythian games. But the Athenians were more conservative, and confined the drama to the festivals of Dionysus⁵. In Athens there were three of these festivals, the Anthesteria, the Great or City Dionysia, and the Lenaea. There were also the Rural Dionysia, celebrated in the various demes of Attica. Of the Athenian festivals the Anthesteria was the oldest. But it had little, if any, connexion with the drama. The important festivals in the history of Greek drama were the City Dionysia and the Lenaea. They were themselves of late origin, and therefore offered a more suitable occasion for the introduction of a new form of art. The date of their institution and development is wrapt in obscurity. Various theories have been started as to their early history, but in the absence of definite facts it seems hardly worth while to hazard conjectures on such a subject. All that is required in an account of the Greek drama is to describe as fully as possible the character of these festivals during the fifth and succeeding centuries, and thus enable the reader to picture to himself the circumstances and surroundings which accompanied an Athenian theatrical performance.

3. THE CITY DIONYSIA.

By far the most splendid of the festivals of Dionysus was the Great or City Dionysia. It was called the City Dionysia in opposition to the Lenaea. The significance of the names is not perfectly clear. The Lenaea was so called because it was held in the Lenaeum, or sacred enclosure of Dionysus on the south side of the Acropolis. The contests at this festival were called ‘contests at the Lenaeum.’ On the other hand, contests at the Great Dionysia were called ‘contests in the city.’ But as the Lenaeum was from the earliest times a part of the city, it is difficult to see the reason of the distinction⁶. And besides this, the contests at the Great Dionysia were, during all the period with which we are acquainted, held in the very same place as those at the Lenaea. The most plausible explanation is as follows. The Lenaea was a small festival; and the whole of the celebrations connected with it took place in or near the Lenaeum. At the Great Dionysia the festivities were on a larger scale; and in addition to the contests in the sacred enclosure of Dionysus there were also other ceremonies in various parts of the city, more especially the chorus in the market-place before the statues of the twelve gods. It is probable therefore that the festival was called the City Dionysia to denote the wider area over which the various celebrations were spread. The date of the City Dionysia can be fixed with a fair amount of certainty. It took place in Elaphebolion, a month which answers to the last half of March and the first half of April. It must have terminated on the 15th, and begun on the 10th or 11th⁷. It could hardly have lasted less than five days. The long series of performances and celebrations which had to be gone through could not have been packed into a smaller space of time. Whether it extended to six days is a point that cannot be determined.

Before proceeding to describe the dramatic part of the performances at the City Dionysia it may be as well first of all to collect together such information as is attainable concerning the general character of the festival. It was held at a time of year when the spring was just commencing, and the sea had again become navigable. Occasionally stormy weather interfered with the proceedings. In the time of Demetrius the procession through the city was prevented by a heavy fall of snow. But the winter was generally at an end⁸. The city was full of visitors from all parts of Greece. During the period of Athenian supremacy it was at this season of the year that the allies came to Athens to pay the annual tribute. Ambassadors frequently chose this time for the transaction of public business. There were also the crowds of visitors who were attracted to Athens merely from a desire to see the splendours of the festival. The consequence was that the streets were thronged with strangers, and the city presented an animated appearance in marked contrast to the quietness of the winter festival of the Lenaea⁹. The Athenians were glad of the opportunity of displaying the magnificence of their city before such a vast concourse of foreign Greeks. The procession through the streets, the sacrifices to the gods, the dithyrambs, the tragedies, and the comedies were all calculated to impress strangers with the wealth and public spirit and literary taste of the Athenians. In addition to the ordinary proceedings of the festival one or two ceremonies of a striking character were introduced for the express purpose of emphasising the power of Athens in the eyes of the visitors. At the commencement of the performances in the theatre the tribute collected from the allies was solemnly deposited in the orchestra in the presence of the assembled multitude. On the same occasion the herald made an announcement concerning the crowns which had been bestowed by foreign states upon Athens or upon Athenian citizens, and the crowns themselves were brought forward and laid in the orchestra beside the tribute¹⁰. By scenes of this kind the festival was made an occasion for glorifying Athens in the presence of foreign Greeks. In the fourth century, after the fall of the Athenian Empire, the political splendour of the City Dionysia came to an end. But the magnificence of the spectacle and the vastness of the gathering do not seem to have been in any way diminished. Visitors were attracted from all parts of Greece, not by political business, but by the celebrity of the dramatic exhibitions. Demosthenes speaks of the ‘multitudes of strangers’ who were present, and Aeschines describes the audience at the City Dionysia as consisting of ‘the whole Greek nation¹¹.’ Though Athens was shorn of her political power, the crowds which continued to attend the festival testified to her unimpaired supremacy in art and literature.

One of the most brilliant spectacles at the City Dionysia was the great procession in honour of Dionysus, which was probably held upon the first day of the festival. Athenians of every class, men, women, and even girls, made a point of being present to witness or take part in it. Vast crowds filled the streets; and the casual encounters which took place on these occasions often served as a foundation to the plots of the New Comedy¹². The members of the procession wore brilliantly-coloured garments and ornaments of gold. Many of them had their faces covered with masks. Some were in chariots; others walked on foot. Among the people who took part in the procession were the choregi to the different choruses. For instance, when Demosthenes was choregus, he had a golden crown and mantle made specially for use at the procession. Alcibiades on a similar occasion was dressed in purple, and excited much admiration by his beauty¹³. It is not improbable that the performers in the various lyric and dramatic competitions also joined in the procession. Part of the show consisted of the trains of victims which were afterwards to be sacrificed to Dionysus. An old inscription records how the Ephebi offered a bull to Dionysus at the City Dionysia, after first taking it round in the procession. Many victims were publicly provided by the state, and many others were doubtless offered by individuals, or by different classes of the population. All these would be conducted round in the procession. Conspicuous among the train of people were the canephori, or virgins bearing upon their heads the baskets containing the sacrificial implements. The procession, in the course of its march, halted in the market-place, and a chorus danced and sung in front of the statues of the twelve gods. Further details concerning the order of the proceedings are nowhere recorded, but it is easy to imagine that the brilliant colours of the procession itself, the vast crowds of spectators, and the splendid public buildings of Athens in the background, combined to form an effective spectacle.

The entertainments provided in the theatre during the City Dionysia were of two kinds. In the first place there were the dramatic competitions, at which tragedies, comedies, and satyric dramas were exhibited. In the second place there were the choral competitions, which consisted of performances of dithyrambs to the accompaniment of the flute. It is most important not to confuse together the details of these two classes of contest. Even in the most recent works upon the Greek drama many mistakes have been caused by filling out the description of the dramatic performances with facts and circumstances which had really nothing to do with them, but applied solely to the choral competitions. At the City Dionysia there were two of these choral competitions, one between choruses of boys, and the other between choruses of men. The choruses were called cyclic choruses, because of the circular form in which they stood. Each of them was composed of fifty members. There were five choruses of boys and five choruses of men, and each chorus was supplied by one of the ten tribes of Attica. In this way all ten tribes took part in one or other of the two competitions. The important point to remember in regard to these dithyrambic choruses is that the contest in which they were engaged was essentially a tribal one. In the dramatic competitions the rivalry was confined to the individual poets and choregi. The choruses were selected indiscriminately from the whole population. But each dithyrambic chorus represented one of the ten tribes. Its choregus was a member of that tribe. The singers were exclusively chosen from the same tribe¹⁴. The victory of the chorus was a victory for the tribe to which it belonged. The prize of victory, the tripod, though presented to the choregus, and erected in some public place at his expense, was regarded as appertaining equally to the tribe. In the records of victories with dithyrambic choruses, preserved on inscriptions and elsewhere, the name of the tribe to which the chorus belonged is always given in a prominent position. On the other hand the records of dramatic victories give merely the names of the choregus, the poet, and the principal actor. There is no mention of any tribe¹⁵. It follows that the tribes had nothing to do with the dramatic contests. In order to avoid error it is most important to keep this fact clearly in view, that in the dithyrambic contests the competitors were really the ten tribes of Attica, while the drama was a matter with which only individual citizens were concerned.

4. TRAGEDY AT THE CITY DIONYSIA IN THE FIFTH CENTURY.

We come now to the dramatic performances at the City Dionysia. These were of two kinds, tragic and comic. The first point to be considered is the number of the competing poets, and the number of the plays produced, at each celebration of the festival. The most difficult part of the enquiry is that which concerns tragedy during the fifth century. In the fourth century various changes and innovations were introduced, which call for separate consideration. The fifth century stands by itself, and the question as to the number of tragedies produced during that period at each celebration of the City Dionysia is one of considerable intricacy. But it deserves to be considered in detail, as it is of much more interest than a mere question of numbers, and practically involves the whole subject of trilogies and tetralogies. The practice of writing plays in trilogies and tetralogies produced the most profound effect upon the art of Aeschylus. Any enquiry therefore into the origin and character of this practice will throw light upon one of the most interesting parts in the history of the Greek drama. It will be best in the first place to enumerate all the records which bear upon the subject. Fortunately a sufficient number have been preserved to enable us to determine with moderate certainty the regulations as to the number of tragic poets and tragedies at the City Dionysia during the fifth century.

The earliest record is for the year 499 b.c., when Aeschylus made his first public appearance, and his competitors were Choerilus and Pratinas. Nothing is known as to the plays produced on this occasion. The next record refers to the year 472. In this year Aeschylus produced the Phineus, Persae, Glaucus, and Prometheus, and was successful in winning the first prize. The Prometheus here mentioned was of course not the Prometheus Vinctus, but a satyric play in which the same myth was treated humorously, and of which two or three fragments are preserved¹⁶. For the year 467 there is a very complete record of the tragic competition. Aeschylus was again first, and his plays were the Laius, Oedipus, Septem versus Thebas, and satyric play Sphinx. Aristias was second with the Perseus, Tantalus, and satyric play Palaestae written by his father Pratinas. Polyphradmon was third with the Lycurgean tetralogy¹⁷. According to this notice Aristias only exhibited three plays, while his competitors each exhibited four. But there can be little doubt that the name of one of his plays has dropped out accidentally, and that he produced four like the rest. This is proved by a comparison with the records of other tragic contests, of which a large number exist, referring to very different periods. In these records varieties are found both in the number of poets competing, and in the number of plays exhibited by each poet. But in one respect complete uniformity prevails. With the exception of the case before us there is no instance of poets competing in the same festival with a different number of plays. There can hardly then be any doubt that in the present instance the three poets each exhibited four plays. The next record is for the year 458. This was the year in which Aeschylus made his last appearance as a dramatic poet. He produced the Orestean tetralogy, consisting of the Agamemnon, Choephori, Eumenides, and satyric drama Proteus. The names of the other poets are not mentioned¹⁸. In addition to the above notices it is also known that on one occasion Aeschylus competed with the four plays composing his Lycurgean tetralogy. The tetralogy dealt with the fate of Lycurgus, king of the Edoni, and consisted of the Edoni, Bassarides, Neanisci, and satyric play Lycurgus. On another occasion he exhibited a trilogy dealing with the legend of Prometheus. This trilogy, of which the Prometheus Vinctus was the central play, no doubt concluded with a satyric drama; but there is no record of it among ancient writers¹⁹. After the death of Aeschylus there is a gap in our information till the year 438, when Sophocles and Euripides were competitors. Sophocles was first; Euripides second with the Cressae, Alcmaeon in Psophis, Telephus, and Alcestis. In 431 they were again competitors, but this time the first place was taken by Euphorion. Sophocles was second; Euripides third with the Medea, Philoctetes, Dictys, and satyric play Theristae. In 428 the Hippolytus of Euripides was produced; but for this year only the names of the poets have been preserved. Euripides was first, Iophon second, Ion third²⁰. The year 415 was memorable for the defeat of Euripides by an obscure poet called Xenocles. On this occasion Xenocles was first with the Oedipus, Lycaon, Bacchae, and satyric play Athamas. Euripides was second with the Alexander, Palamedes, Troades, and satyric play Sisyphus. The only other record which bears upon the present subject is to the effect that after the death of Euripides, and therefore after 406 b.c., his Iphigeneia in Aulis, Alcmaeon, and Bacchae were produced by his son at the City Dionysia²¹.

In the above notices and records the name of the festival at which the contest took place, and the plays were produced, is usually not mentioned. An exception is made in one case. It is expressly stated that it was at the City Dionysia that the three posthumous tragedies of Euripides were exhibited. Otherwise nothing is said about the festival. But there is not the slightest doubt that all the above notices refer to the City Dionysia. In one instance there is positive proof of the fact. An inscription recently discovered in the Acropolis shows that it was at the City Dionysia that the Orestean tetralogy was produced²². Various considerations make it practically certain that the other notices refer to the same festival. At the Lenaea the performances of tragedy were always comparatively unimportant. It is doubtful whether they existed at all during the earlier half of the fifth century. In the fourth century they came to be confined to mere reproductions of old tragedies. It is impossible to suppose that the three great masters of tragedy,—Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides,—during the height of their reputation, produced their plays at this relatively insignificant festival. The omission of all mention of the festival in the notices about their tragedies is in itself a conclusive proof that there could be no doubt upon the subject, and that it was a matter of general knowledge that they were brought out at the City Dionysia. The case was very different in comedy. Comedy flourished with equal vigour at both festivals. Hence in the records about the plays of Aristophanes care is generally taken to notify the festival at which they were produced. In the case of tragedy it was felt that any such specification was unnecessary.

From the notices and records enumerated above two conclusions may be drawn concerning the tragic contests at the City Dionysia during the fifth century. The number of poets who took part in the competition was limited to three, and each poet was expected to exhibit four plays, consisting of three tragedies and a satyric drama. As regards the number of poets, it might perhaps be suggested that the records give, not the names of all the competitors, but merely those of the three most successful ones. But the evidence of the comic didascaliae proves that this was not the case. It is known for a fact that after the beginning of the fourth century the number of competitors in comedy was five. But the comic didascaliae of the period invariably give the names of all five competitors, together with the plays they produced. When therefore only three poets are mentioned, it follows that the number of competitors was limited to three. The practice of recording the names of all the competing poets need cause no surprise. As a matter of fact it was a considerable distinction for a poet to be allowed to exhibit at all at one of the annual festivals. In addition to the testimony of the didascaliae there is the following direct evidence concerning the number of the tragic poets. It is expressly stated that in 499 the competitors in the tragic contest were the three poets Aeschylus, Choerilus, and Pratinas. Then again it is recorded of Sophocles that he ‘won twenty victories, was often second, never third.’ This form of statement seems clearly to imply that the number of competitors in tragedy never exceeded three. Even on general grounds it is evident that the number could hardly have been greater. If there had been four or five poets, it would have implied the production of sixteen or twenty tragedies. But it is difficult to see how such a large number of tragedies could have been compressed within the limited period of the festival, along with the comedies and dithyrambs, and various other festivities and entertainments.

The fact then that each poet exhibited three tragedies and a satyric play is clearly demonstrated by the records, and also confirmed by a statement in Diogenes Laërtius²³. The practice of terminating the tragic pieces with the biosterous licence of the satyric drama suggested to Ion of Chios, the tragic poet of the fifth century, his well-known remark that virtue, like a tragic poet's group of plays, should always contain a satyric element. It is noticeable that on one occasion Euripides substituted the Alcestis, a short tragedy with a tinge of comedy about it, for the usual satyric drama. This may have been not infrequently the case, especially during the latter half of the fifth century. The statement in the last notice, that the Iphigeneia, Alcmaeon, and Bacchae of Euripides were brought out by his son at the City Dionysia, does not necessarily imply that they were brought out by themselves, without any satyric play to make up the number four. It is possible indeed that at this late period the satyric play had begun to be occasionally dispensed with. But on the other hand it is very likely that the satyric play in this case was supplied by the younger Euripides. That no mention of it is made in the above statement is easily intelligible, since the writer does not profess to give a record of the tragic contest for the year, but is merely concerned with the biography of the elder Euripides.

5. TRILOGIES AND TETRALOGIES.

The four plays exhibited by each poet might either be independent works of art, totally unconnected in subject, or they might deal with the same legend, and be fused together into a single artistic whole. When the four plays were connected by community of subject, they were called tetralogies. Similarly the three tragedies, regarded apart from the satyric drama, were called trilogies when connected together in this manner. The practice of exhibiting trilogies and tetralogies is inseparably connected with the name of Aeschylus. Unfortunately there is no information as to the origin and development of the custom. It is not known whether he invented it, or inherited it from his predecessors. But we know that before the time of Aeschylus tragedy as a form of art had made but little progress. It was he that inspired it with dignity and splendour. It is far from likely that the rough and unfinished productions of his predecessors should have been cast in the elaborate mould of the tetralogy. And the largeness of design involved in tracing the same tragic story through three successive dramas is a conception peculiarly akin to the grandeur of Aeschylus' genius. Hence it is exceedingly probable, though not certain, that the system was his invention. He did not employ it on all occasions. In one of the records quoted above the four plays which he is said to have exhibited together are apparently quite unconnected in subject. These are the Phineus, Persae, Glaucus, and Prometheus, produced in 472. As a matter of fact the only tetralogies of Aeschylus for which there is direct evidence are the four already mentioned, dealing with the legends of Oedipus, Lycurgus, Prometheus, and Orestes. How many more he wrote is a matter of uncertainty. If the system of tetralogies was invented by him, it could hardly have been developed in its full completeness all at once. It is probable that he began his career by exhibiting groups of isolated plays. Even in later times the record just referred to proves that he did not invariably employ the form of the tetralogy.

Fortunately for our knowledge of the Greek drama, a specimen of the Aeschylean trilogy has been preserved in the Oresteia. This was the latest work of its author, and in it the trilogic form of composition is brought to the highest perfection. A great crime is committed, and its consequences are traced through successive plays, until finally the guilt is expiated, and the ministers of vengeance satisfied. The whole forms a magnificent work of art; and the separate plays, though complete in themselves, gain additional significance and impressiveness from their position in the trilogy. The general effect can be appreciated even by a modern reader, but must have been still more striking to an ancient audience, before whom the three plays were performed in succession in the course of the same morning. But it would be a mistake to suppose that all the trilogies of Aeschylus were equally perfect in construction. Probably in some cases they treated of one subject without possessing much real artistic unity. The three plays, while depicting successive stages in some great national legend, may have been strung together after the fashion of a chronicle or history, rather than welded into one compact whole. This seems to have been to some extent the case with the Oedipodeia. The third play of this trilogy, the Seven against Thebes, certainly did not bring the legend to a conclusion in the same artistic and satisfying manner in which the Oresteia is concluded by the Eumenides. The final scene of the Seven against Thebes is like the prelude to a new play. In this scene Antigone proclaims her resolve to bury the corpse of her brother in spite of Creon's prohibition, and the herald warns her of the risk she will incur by setting the authorities at defiance²⁴. Here then is an instance of a trilogy which breaks off in the middle of a legend, at a point where there is no artistic necessity for it to do so. The concluding play of the three, instead of bringing matters to a final settlement, ends with a suggestion of future difficulties and crimes. A trilogy of this kind resembles the poems of the Epic Cycle, in which legends were linked together in chronological order, and the point at which the story began and ended was determined by purely accidental considerations. Other trilogies of Aeschylus may have approximated to the same type. At any rate it is most unlikely that they were all as perfect and harmonious in construction as the Oresteia. Attempts have been made, especially by Hermann and Welcker, to take the titles of the lost plays of Aeschylus, and group them together into tetralogies. But it is clear that conjectural arrangements of this kind must be received with the very greatest caution, and this for two reasons. In the first place it is uncertain how many of the tetralogies of Aeschylus conformed to the perfect model of the Oresteia. In the second place it is probable that a large number of his plays were not composed in tetralogies at all.

The relation of the satyric play to the three tragedies which preceded it is a question of some importance in connexion with the composition of tetralogies. The usual theory seems to have been that the satyric play should deal with the same subject as the trilogy, but from a humorous point of view; and that some of the personages out of the trilogy should appear in it. The king or hero whose sufferings had already been depicted was now to be exhibited in a different aspect, amid the wild surroundings of a satyr's existence. It was necessary to give a certain tinge of poetry and romance to the composition, and not jar the feelings with a sense of incongruity, by introducing the tragic personage into scenes of ordinary comedy. This is well expressed in the lines of Horace:—

Verum ita risores, ita commendare dicaces
Conveniet Satyros, ita vertere seria ludo,
Ne quicumque deus, quicumque adhibebitur heros,
Regali conspectus in auro nuper et ostro,
Migret in obscuras humili sermone tabernas,
Aut dum vitet humum nubes et inania captet(25).

The satyric plays of Aeschylus seem, when they formed part of a tetralogy, to have been of this type. The Oedipodeia concluded with the Sphinx, the Lycurgeia with the Lycurgus. In both these plays some of the personages out of the preceding trilogy must have appeared. The Oresteia is called a tetralogy, and therefore the Proteus, the satyric play with which it concluded, was probably connected with the other three plays in subject. But in the absence of information it is impossible to say what that connexion was, and what personages took the leading part in the play. Curiously enough the satyric play Prometheus did not conclude the Promethean trilogy, as we should have expected, but was performed along with the Persae, and two other independent plays. The practice of terminating a trilogy with a satyric play upon the same subject may seem questionable to modern taste, and can hardly be defended on artistic grounds. Like many other customs of the Greek drama, it was an accident due to the circumstances in which tragedy originated. Tragedy was developed out of the odes to Dionysus sung by choruses of satyrs; and as it departed more and more from its original character, a regard for antiquity required that the satyric element should be retained in some form or another. Hence the practice of concluding every tragic performance with a satyric play of the old-fashioned type.

Sophocles is said to have been the first to abandon the system of writing plays in tetralogies. Each of his dramas formed an independent work of art. It appears to be implied that before his time the practice of writing tetralogies had been very generally adopted; and it is only natural to suppose that the commanding genius of Aeschylus would cause his example to be widely followed. But the fashion set by Sophocles was adopted by the younger poets. In 467, the very next year after the first tragic victory of Sophocles, when Aeschylus produced his Theban tetralogy, and Polyphradmon his Lycurgeia, the third poet Aristias appears to have exhibited a group of independent plays²⁶. After the death of Aeschylus the practice of composing tetralogies rapidly went into disuse. The records show that Euripides abandoned the system. 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 continued the traditions of the Aeschylean system. An Oedipodeia, apparently a tetralogy, was composed by Meletus, the prosecutor of Socrates. Plato is said to have written a tetralogy in his youth, but to have abandoned poetry for philosophy before it was exhibited. In the course of the succeeding century the practice of writing tetralogies came to be so little regarded that Aristotle never even mentions it in his Poetics²⁷.

Some difficulty has been made as to the derivation of the words trilogy and tetralogy. As far as their etymology goes they ought to denote groups of speeches rather than groups of plays. In their dramatic sense the words do not occur frequently, and were of comparatively late origin. The word tetralogy, as applied to the drama, is not found before the time of Aristotle; the word trilogy not before that of Aristophanes the grammarian. It is quite possible that the dramatic meaning of a tetralogy may have been a secondary one, and that the word was used at first in reference to oratory. It was the custom of the Greek orators to write groups of four speeches, two for the prosecution and two for the defence, about fictitious cases, to serve as models for their pupils. Three groups of this kind, composed by Antiphon, have come down to us, and are called tetralogies. It is very likely that this was the original meaning of the word, and that it was only in the course of the fourth century that it came to be applied by analogy to the drama. It would be convenient to have a generic term to denote groups of four plays composed about a single subject in the Aeschylean fashion. When the word tetralogy had once acquired this sense, it would be an easy step to form by analogy the word trilogy, to denote the three tragedies apart from the satyric play. Satyric plays were treated with comparative neglect in later times, and were easily separable from the tragedies which preceded them. Possibly also in many cases the three tragedies may have been connected in subject with one another, but independent of the satyric play. Hence the convenience of a term to denote the three tragedies by themselves. It is said that the grammarians Aristarchus and Apollonius preferred to disregard the satyric plays altogether, and to speak only of trilogies. But although the generic terms trilogy and tetralogy were of relatively late origin, it was customary at a much earlier period to give a common name to groups of plays composed on the tetralogic system. The poet Aristophanes cites the group of plays about Lycurgus under the title of the Lycurgeia; and in the same way he cites the group of plays about Orestes as the Oresteia²⁸. These and similar titles no doubt dated from the time of Aeschylus himself.

6. TRAGEDY AT THE CITY DIONYSIA IN LATER TIMES.

It has been worth while to discuss in some detail the question as to the number of tragedies produced each year at the City Dionysia during the fifth century, because of the interest of the subject. The fourth century is a period of decay as far as tragedy is concerned. For the first half of the century there is a complete blank in our information as to the system of tragic competitions at the City Dionysia. On coming to the latter half of the century it is found that considerable changes had been made. An inscription discovered in recent years gives a copious record of the tragic contests at the City Dionysia for the years 341 and 340²⁹. From this record it appears that the satyric drama had now been completely separated from tragedy. The proceedings commenced with the performance of a single satyric play. Then followed a representation of an old tragedy by one of the great tragic poets. In 341 the old tragedy was the ‘Iphigeneia’ of Euripides; in 340 it was the Orestes of Euripides. Then at length after the satyric play and the old tragedy had been performed, came the competition with new and original tragedies. The number of competing poets was still three, as it had been from the earliest times. But the number of tragedies varied from year to year. In 341 each poet exhibited three tragedies; in 340 each poet exhibited two. Here the information ends. It appears then that by the latter half of the fourth century the satyric drama had receded still further into the background. In the fifth century each poet had exhibited one satyric play at the end of his three tragedies. But now a single satyric play at the commencement of the proceedings was considered sufficient. The poet who was to have the honour of performing this play would be selected beforehand by the archon. There is no evidence to show when the new system came into existence; but it must have been in the course of the first half of the fourth century. Another point to be noticed is the gradual decrease in the number of new tragedies produced each year. In 341 it was nine; in 340 it was only six. It is impossible to say with certainty what was the practice during the first half of the fourth century. When the change in regard to the satyric drama was first made, the tragic poets may have continued to produce four plays apiece, substituting a tragedy for the old satyric play, just as Euripides had done in 438, when he exhibited the Alcestis. Or on the other hand the change may have consisted in simply discontinuing the satyric play, and leaving the tragic poets to compete with three tragedies only. There is very little evidence which bears upon the subject, but such as it is, it rather points to the conclusion that at first the number four was retained. Theodectes, the rhetorician and tragic poet, flourished in the middle of the fourth century. He wrote ‘fifty tragedies,’ and engaged in thirteen contests. These numbers seem to imply that in most of the contests in which he was engaged he exhibited four tragedies. Again, Aphareus, the tragic poet, wrote thirty-five confessedly genuine tragedies, and engaged in eight contests ranging in date from 368 to 341. Here too the inference seems to be that he must have exhibited four tragedies on most of these occasions³⁰. The only way to escape such an inference would be to suppose that both Aphareus and Theodectes wrote a considerable number of plays which were never intended for the stage. Such a practice was not unknown at this time. The tragic poet Chaeremon, the contemporary of Aphareus and Theodectes, wrote tragedies which were simply intended to be read³¹. But as yet the practice was unusual, and nothing of the kind is related of Theodectes and Aphareus. Hence the probability is that during the earlier part of the fourth century each poet at the City Dionysia exhibited four tragedies. But owing to the scantiness of the evidence it is impossible to come to any certain conclusion on the subject.

It has been seen that in 340 the total number of new tragedies produced at the City Dionysia was only six. The decrease in numbers points to the gradual decay of tragedy at Athens. With the close of the fourth century the productive period of Attic tragedy came to an end. The centre of literary activity was transferred from Athens to Alexandria, and to this city the more creative poetical minds were attracted. During the third century we meet with the names of many celebrated tragic poets at Alexandria. On the other hand, after the fourth century hardly a single Athenian tragic poet is mentioned. Competitions in tragedy continued to be held in Athens at the City Dionysia even down to Roman times. But in most cases the tragedies exhibited must have been old ones. It is true that in public decrees recording the proclamation of crowns at the City Dionysia the phrase ‘at the performance of new tragedies’ continues to occur as late as Roman times. But there can have been no significance in the phrase. It was merely an instance of the retention of an old formula when its meaning was obsolete.

7. COMEDY AT THE CITY DIONYSIA.

The history of the tragic contests at the City Dionysia having now been traced down to the latest times, the contests in comedy have next to be considered. This is a subject of much less difficulty. It has already been pointed out that it was in the course of the earlier half of the fifth century that comedy was first recognised by the state. The performances of comedy, which had previously been mere voluntary undertakings, were now superintended by the archon, and regular public contests were instituted. It is impossible to determine the exact date of their institution. Nor is there any certain evidence to show whether it was at the Lenaea or the City Dionysia that comedy was first officially recognised. As far as the City Dionysia is concerned the only fact that can be established with certainty is that contests in comedy were fully elaborated at any rate as early as the year 459 b.c. This is proved by the inscriptions already referred to on a previous page. Whether they had existed for many years previously is a question which there is no evidence to determine.

The number of poets who were allowed to take part in the comic contests at the City Dionysia differed at different periods. During the fifth century it was limited to three, as in tragedy. The Clouds, the Peace, and the Birds of Aristophanes were all brought out at the City Dionysia during the latter part of the fifth century; and on each of these occasions Aristophanes was opposed by two competitors³². At the Lenaea during the fifth century the number of the competing poets was also three. In the beginning of the fourth century the number was raised to five at both festivals, and appears to have continued unchanged throughout the subsequent history of the Attic drama³³. The reason of the increase was probably due to the disappearance of the chorus from comedy. A comedy without a chorus would be less expensive, and would take less time to perform. A larger number of comedies was therefore provided, and the number of poets had consequently to be increased.

It does not appear however that comedy was ever exhibited at Athens on the same large scale as tragedy. It has already been shown that during the most flourishing period of Attic tragedy each poet was accustomed to produce no less than four plays at the annual festival. But in comedy it was the invariable practice to compete with single plays only. In all the notices of comic contests which remain there is no instance of a poet competing with more than one play. The total number of comedies produced each year at the City Dionysia would be three during the fifth century, and five during the succeeding centuries. These figures appear small compared with the number of tragedies produced each year at the same festival. But although each poet competed with a single play, it was not impossible for a man to exhibit two comedies at the same contest. However in order to do so he had to appear really as two poets, and to compete as it were against himself. The total number of comedies remained the same, but the poet was allowed to appear twice over, and to run a double chance of success. Instances of such an occurrence are occasionally found. In 422 Philonides took the place of two poets, and exhibited both the Prelude and the Wasps. He was first with the Prelude, and second with the Wasps, and his antagonist Leucon was third with the Ambassadors³⁴. Both the Prelude and the Wasps were really plays of Aristophanes, but were brought out in the name of the poet Philonides. Again in 353 Diodorus made a double appearance, and was second with the Corpse, and third with the Madman³⁵. Such instances of a poet taking the place of two competitors, and thus running a double chance of obtaining the first position, cannot have been of common occurrence. They were probably due, when they did occur, either to an exceptional dearth of new comedies, or to very marked inferiority on the part of the other poets who had applied for permission to compete.

It has already been pointed out that comedy was much later than tragedy in being officially recognised by the state. It also lasted much longer. One of the most brilliant periods of Attic comedy falls at a time when tragedy had practically come to an end. A sure symptom of decay, both in tragedy and comedy, was the tendency to fall back upon the past, and reproduce old plays, instead of striking out new developments. As regards tragedy this practice had already become prevalent by the middle of the fourth century. But in comedy the creative impulse was still at that time predominant. A fresh direction was being given to the art by the development of the New Comedy, or comedy of manners. There was not as yet any tendency to have recourse to the past. In the record of the exhibitions of comedy for the year 353 there is no trace of any reproduction of old plays. When the practice first commenced it is impossible to say. Probably it was not until the more productive period of the New Comedy had come to an end, and the creative instinct had begun to flag. There is a complete break in our information from the middle of the fourth century to the beginning of the second. When we come to the second century, the practice of reproducing old comedies is found to have become a regular occurrence. This appears from the series of inscriptions recording the comic exhibitions at the City Dionysia during the earlier half of the second century. It is seen that the five new comedies were regularly preceded by an old one, just as in tragedy, a hundred and fifty years before, the proceedings had commenced with the performance of an old play. Among the old comedies reproduced in this manner appear Menander's Ghost and Misogynist, Philemon's Phocians, Posidippus' Outcast, and Philippides' Lover of the Athenians. It is noticeable that all these plays belong to the New Comedy, and that there are no traces of any tendency to fall back upon the Middle or the Old Comedy. The records just referred to prove that the New Comedy retained its vitality and productiveness much longer than had been previously suspected, and that original comedies were frequently exhibited at the City Dionysia as late as the second century. On every occasion when there was a contest the full complement of five new plays was produced. How long this lasted it is impossible to determine. Even in these records of the second century there are symptoms of approaching decay in the productiveness of the comic drama. Almost every other year, and sometimes for two or three years in succession, occur the ominous words, ‘This year there was no exhibition of comedies.’ Probably by the end of the second century the performances of new and original comedies had become a very exceptional occurrence.

8. ORDER OF CONTESTS AT THE CITY DIONYSIA.

The regulations concerning the dramatic contests at the City Dionysia have now been described in detail. Before passing on to the Lenaea it will be well to take a general survey of the various competitions at the City Dionysia. There were two dithyrambic contests, one between five choruses of boys, and the other between five choruses of men. There was a tragic contest in which three poets took part. During the fifth and earlier part of the fourth century each of these poets exhibited four plays. Later on the number of original plays began to be diminished, and the competition was preceded by an old tragedy. There was also a contest in comedy in which originally three poets took part; but in the course of the fourth century the number of poets was raised to five. Each poet exhibited a single comedy.

As to the order in which the various performances took place, and the method in which they were grouped together, there is very little evidence. One thing may be regarded as certain, and that is that the three groups of tragedies were performed on three successive days. It is difficult to see what other arrangement would have been possible, as two groups, consisting of eight tragedies, would have been too much for a single day. As to the relative arrangement of dithyrambs, comedies, and tragedies not much can be laid down for certain. In all the records which refer to the City Dionysia the various competitions are always enumerated in the same order. First come the choruses of boys, then the choruses of men, then comedy, then tragedy. Also in the law of Evegorus the same order is observed in recounting the different performances at the City Dionysia. It has been argued that this was the order in which the contests took place; that the dithyrambs came first, then the comedies, and the tragedies last of all. But there seems to be very little justification for such an inference. It is quite as likely that the order followed in these lists was based upon the relative importance of the different contests. In fact, the only piece of evidence in regard to the subject which has any appearance of certainty about it seems to show that at any rate during the fifth century the comedies followed the tragedies at the City Dionysia. This evidence is contained in a passage in the Birds of Aristophanes. The Birds was performed at the City Dionysia. In that play the chorus, in the course of a short ode, remark how delightful it would be to have wings. They say that if one of the spectators was tired with the tragic choruses, he might fly away home, and have his dinner, and then fly back again to the comic choruses. It follows that at that time the comedies were performed after the tragedies. In the fifth century there were three comedies performed at the City Dionysia, and three groups of tragedies. Most likely therefore each group of tragedies was performed in the mornings of three successive days, and was followed in the afternoon by a comedy. In the fourth century, when the number of comedies was raised to five, a new arrangement would be necessary. Possibly the comedies were then transferred to a single day by themselves. But on these and other points of the same kind there is really no available evidence. One thing is certain, that the whole series of performances, consisting of ten dithyrambs, three to five comedies, and twelve tragedies, cannot have taken up less than four days in the performance³⁶. Even if they could have been compressed into three days, it would have exceeded the limits of human endurance to have sat out performances of such enormous length. The festival as a whole, with the procession and other minor amusements, lasted probably either five or six days, as was previously pointed out.

Notes

1. See especially Plat. Rep. 598 D, E; Aristoph. Ran. 1008 ff., 1054 ff.

2. Most of the details concerning the religious character of the proceedings at the Dionysia are derived from Demosth. Meid. §§ 8-10, 16, 51-53, 55, 58-60, 178-180. As to the release of prisoners see Demosth. Androt. § 68, and schol. ad loc. For the practice of placing the statue of Dionysus in the theatre see Corp. Inscr. Att. ii. 470, 471. Most of the front seats were given up to priests: see Corp. Inscr. Att. iii. 240-384. …

3. Aristot. Poet. cc. 3, 5. …

4. The inscription in Corp. Inscr. Att. ii. 971 a records the fact that at the City Dionysia Magnes won the prize for comedy, Aeschylus for tragedy. There is another inscription which records that in 458 b.c. Euphronius won the prize for comedy, Aeschylus for tragedy. As this was the last appearance of Aeschylus as a tragic poet, it follows that the first inscription cannot refer to a later year than 459 b.c.

5. Schol. Aristoph. Nub. 311; Plut. Symp. p. 674 D.

6. Aristoph. Acharn. 504. … That the Lenaeum was from early times inside the city is plain from Thucyd. ii. 15.

7. This is proved by certain passages in Aeschines and Demosthenes. … Hence the City Dionysia must have terminated on the 15th. See Aeschin. Ctesiph. § 68, Fals. Leg. § 61; Demosth. Meid. § 8. The feast of Asclepius and the Proagon were on the 8th, Aeschin. Ctesiph. § 67. But the Proagon took place ‘a few days’ before the City Dionysia, Schol. Aeschin. Ctesiph. § 67. The City Dionysia cannot therefore have begun before the 10th.

8. Theophrast. Char. 3; Plut. Demetr. p. 894 B.

9. Aristoph. Achar. 505, 506; Thucyd. v. 23.

10. Isocrat. Orat. viii. § 82; Aeschin. Ctesiph. §§ 32-48.

11. Dem. Meid. § 74; Aeschin. Ctesiph. § 43.

12. Demosth. Meid. § 10; Menand. Frag. Incert. 32.

13. Dem. Meid. § 22; Plut. Cupid. Divit. 527 E; Athen. 543 C.

14. Demosth. Meid. § 13; Antiphon orat. vi. §§ 12, 13.

15. Corp. Inscr. Gr. vol. i. pp. 342-348; Corp. Inscr. Att. ii. 971.…

16. Arg. to Aesch. Persae.

17. Arg. to Aesch. Theb.

18. Arg. to Aesch. Agam.

19. Schol. Aristoph. Thesm. 142; Arg. to Aesch. Prom.; Schol. Aesch. Prom. 94.

20. Args. to Euripid. Alcest., Med., Hippol.

21. Aelian Var. Hist. ii. 8; Schol. Aristoph. Ran. 67.

22. This inscription was discovered in the Acropolis in 1886. …

23. Diog. Laërt. iii. 56. …

24. The didascalia to the Septem v. Thebas was first brought to light by Franz in 1848 (Didasc. zu Aesch. Sept., Berl. 1848). Previously to the discovery of this didascalia there was hardly any point upon which the critics were more unanimous than that the Septem must have been the middle play of a trilogy. The concluding scene, in which Antigone proclaims her resolve to bury the corpse of her brother, was supposed to obviously pave the way to the final play of the three, in which the same subject was treated as in the Antigone of Sophocles. The publication of the didascalia revealed the fact that the Septem was after all the concluding play of the group, and that the trilogy consisted of the Laius, the Oedipus, and the Septem. Nothing could have more clearly demonstrated the futility of endeavouring, by mere conjecture, to arrange the lost plays of Aeschylus in tetralogies.

25. Hor. Ars Poet. 225 foll.

26. Arg. to Aeschyl. Theb.

27. Schol. Aristoph. Av. 282; Schol. Plat. Apol. p. 330, ed. Bekk.; Aelian Var. Hist. ii. 30.

28. Aristoph. Thesm. 135, Ran. 1124.

29. Corp. Inscr. Att. ii. 973.

30. Plut, X orat. 839 D.

31. Aristot. Rhet. iii. 11.

32. Args. to Aristoph. Nubes, Pax, Aves.

33. Arg. to Aristoph. Plutus; Corp. Inscr. Att. ii. 972, 975. It is not always known to which of the two festivals these various notices refer. But in every case the number of the poets appears as five. It is therefore practically certain that the number was raised to five at both festivals after the fifth century.

34. Arg. to Aristoph. Vespae.

35. Corp. Inscr. Att. ii. 972.

36. Polus is said to have acted eight tragedies in four days when he was seventy years old (Plut. An seni & c. 785 C). If it was at the City Dionysia, he might have done so, supposing that the old tragedy was performed on the first day, and the new tragedies on the three following days. But as there is nothing to show whether the feat of Polus was performed at Athens or elsewhere, it is impossible to base any conclusions upon the statement.