In tragedy, whose subject was usually legend, but which also dealt with questions of the day, such as the occupation of Miletus and the wars with the Persians, there was at first a distinct preponderance of the lyric element supplied by the chorus over the purely dramatic part. Before the time of Aeschylus there was little idea of dramatic treatment; at that time there was only a single actor who, together with the chorus, supplied the whole action, and confined himself chiefly to recitations, so that there could be no question of striking situations and dialogue. Aeschylus then introduced a second actor; and as these actors, by a change of dress, could undertake several parts, the action was enlarged and animated, and the dialogue grew more interesting. When Sophocles added a third actor—an innovation of which Aeschylus, too, made use in his later period, and which constituted the highest number ever used in the Greek drama—the victory of the dramatic part over the lyric was accomplished; and from that time onward the chorus sank in importance compared with the actors, and at last disappeared altogether. In the tragedies of Euripides the dramatic element had become so important that the chorus could really be dispensed with; true, Euripides could not venture entirely to discard this custom, which was sanctified by religion and tradition, but, by gradually diminishing the share of the chorus in the action, he prepared for its complete abandonment. In Aeschylus, therefore, the solemn songs and reflections of the chorus occupy a considerable space, and the chorus even sometimes takes an active part in the action, since it preponderates in the play, and may be regarded as an acting personage; in Euripides its presence is more accidental—it expounds the dogmas and opinions of the poet, but takes no part in the action, and in tragedies it might be entirely left out without injury. In Sophocles alone the chorus and dialogue are harmoniously balanced. Corresponding to these changes in the position of the chorus was the amount assigned to them for declamation. We may say in general that the chorus sang an entrance song (πάροδος), and afterwards during the further course of the play choric songs to mark pauses in the action, accompanied by marching, but without leaving the orchestra, and these were called standing songs (στάσιμα); these long odes divided the drama into a series of parts, called episodes (ἐπεισόδια), which may be compared to our acts, since the action stops during the song, and the spectator has time to collect himself and to let what he has heard and seen act upon him, while the song continued through the interval helps him to keep the impression produced by the action, or else prepares him for what is to follow.
The older comedy, of which Aristophanes is the chief representative, made use of chorus and dialogue in the same way as tragedy. Its subjects referred to actual life, and dealt with political, social, and literary questions, and others of universal interest, but in a fantastic manner, with the most eccentric masques and absurd contrivances, dealing out hits all round with the wildest licence, and sparing neither the common citizen nor the most powerful and exalted personages. The part played by the chorus differed in many respects from that undertaken in tragedy; the comic chorus very often stepped entirely outside the action, and, as the mouthpiece of the poet, who used this opportunity to bring his political or other opinions before the public, to fight out personal quarrels, and, in general, to say whatever he pleased, it directed itself to the public; such are those comic choruses which bear the name Parabasis. The comic chorus was also adequately distinguished from the tragic, both in the difference of costume and in the number of its members; the latter were generally only twelve, and the former twice as many. Again, the dances and rhythmic movements of the comic choruses differed greatly from those of the tragic. But even during the lifetime of Aristophanes, the transformation of the comedy began in its outer form as well as in its real nature. The outer change consisted in the abolition of the chorus, the expenditure of which the citizens were no longer willing to defray, and thus an excellent opportunity was lost of saying rough truths with a laughing face, and the way was paved for a gradual change of subject. The change was accomplished by the so-called newer Attic Comedy, which had no chorus, and, instead of political or social satire, took as its subject pictures from Athenian life, love intrigues, comic misunderstandings, etc., and, in fact, more closely resembled our modern comedies. Then the lyric element naturally vanished, which in the older comedy, as in tragedy, appeared not only in the chorus but also in the dramatic performance of the actors; the action was presented only by dialogue, and the musical element, which had formerly played a very important part in comedy, was confined to accompaniment of the recitation, and thus became entirely subordinate.
The satyric drama is the one in which we can trace the fewest changes, but it had only a short existence. It was invented by Pratinas, a contemporary of Aeschylus, probably with the intention of compensating the public, who must have sadly missed the popular sports which had formerly enlivened the celebration of the Dionysia, and to satisfy their desire for coarser fare. At first the satyric drama seems to have preceded the tragedies, but this was soon changed. In the best period of the drama we never find satyric plays alone without tragedies preceding them; they were so essentially a part of the tragedy that we only hear of tragic writers as composers of satyric dramas. The best period of the satyric drama was the time of Pratinas and Aeschylus; Sophocles and Euripides, too, composed them—one by the latter has come down to us, the “Cyclops”—but at that time its best period was already over, since it no longer formed the necessary conclusion of a dramatic tetralogy. Still, satyric dramas retained their position on the stage until the second century, and, in fact, the Alexandrine poets made a fresh attempt to connect the satyric drama with tragedies in a tetralogy. We know very little about the subject of these later satyric dramas. The titles of Alexandrine plays that have come down to us show that at that time actual life was introduced, though the mythological subjects which had formed the sole basis of the ancient satyric drama were also used.
The ancient drama, under which we include tragedy, satyric drama, and comedy, was a combination of three arts—poetry, music, and dancing. The last was, as a rule, confined to the chorus, and it very seldom happened that an actor in the play performed a dance, but the musical part belonged not only to the chorus but also to the actors; for though the usual dialogue consisted merely in recitation, yet there were long passages in the purely dramatic part which were not declaimed by the actors, but sung. Our modern writers express very different opinions about the mode in which the dialogues were recited. It appears to us most probable that in comedy there was, as a rule, only speaking, without any musical accompaniment; while in tragedy continuous musical composition was introduced alternating with dramatic speech—that is, spoken recitation, accompanied by music—and even with simple declamation. Then there were also solo songs by the actors, of which the metre was lyric, and these bore some resemblance to the airs of our modern opera; they are less common in the older tragedy than in Euripides, with whom they sometimes take a disproportionately large place. There were also musical dialogues between the actors and chorus, in particular its leader. The instruments used for accompaniment were the lyre and cithara, and also the flute. The stringed instruments were used chiefly for striking a few notes like the chords struck at our recitations; the flute only indicated the chief notes, and accompanied the melody of the chorus and the solo song either at the same height or one or two octaves higher. Flute playing accompanied most of the choric songs; with the chorus entered a flute player, who always took his place on the thymele. In later tragedy the music, which had formerly been very simple, grew more elaborate and complicated; several flute players played at the same time, and with their shrill music very often drowned the singing; but the solo performances on the stage were accompanied by only a single flute.
The choregraphic element in the drama, which belonged especially to the chorus in tragedy, consisted chiefly in marching with various figures, much like our modern polonaise. The dances in comedy were much more lively and often of a lascivious character, and those of a satyric chorus were also of a burlesque nature. But, doubtless, the choric dancing consisted not merely in certain regular movements of the feet adapted to the music, but also in rhythmic motions of the whole body, and especially of the hands and arms, so that their dancing must have somewhat resembled our modern ballet. It is not easy to get any complete conception of it; the later hypotheses are by no means proved, and many strange statements have been made about the recitation of the chorus, the division of verses and words of the song among the semi-chorus, leaders, or individual members. In any case the task of the chorus was no easy one, since the members were not professional artists like the actors, but amateurs, who had to be specially trained for each performance. This was due to the institution of the Choragia.
In ancient times the equipment and performance of plays was not, as afterwards, a duty of the State; the poet undertook the expenses, and tried to cover them by entrance money. But when the theatrical representation became a regular part of the Dionysiac festivals, the State took the matter in its own hands, and arranged things in such a way that the expenses for the chorus were undertaken by some wealthy citizen as a liturgy, while the rest of the expenses were defrayed by the State. This liturgy was called Choragia, because originally the person who defrayed the expenses also trained and led the chorus. For the various choric performances required at the many festivals—since besides tragic and comic choruses there were also cyclic and other choral representations—each tribe chose its “choragus,” and this was done a year in advance, because the preparations required a great deal of time. If a poet wanted to perform one of his dramas at a festival, he need not consider how to procure the necessary actors, but only how to get his chorus. For this purpose he addressed himself to that archon whose duty it was to make the arrangements for the festival in question, and begged him to assign him a choragus. It appears to have been in the power of this official to accept or refuse the play. Probably the poets handed in the manuscript of their plays. The only limitations in applying were that the poet must be a citizen, and of unstained reputation; and in comedy, on account of its political character, he must be of a certain age—thirty years, according to most of the statements. If the archon accepted the drama, he assigned the poet one of the choragi, either by election or lot. It was by no means a matter of indifference whether this was required for tragedy or comedy; for at the time when they competed with tetralogies, tragedy involved at least as much expense as did comedy with its larger chorus. It is probable, therefore, that the choragi were sometimes assisted by the State, especially as in later times, when the glory of Athens had departed, and its citizens were no longer so rich, it became more and more difficult to find people ready to undertake these great expenses; and in later times it was not unusual for several choragi together to undertake a chorus.
The first duty of the choragus was to collect the necessary number of persons and to pay those who were not bound to appear unpaid. He had also to choose and pay a chorus teacher, who had to train the chorus (χοροδιδάσκαλος), and usually undertook the place of chorus-leader at the performance. In former times, when this instruction of the chorus was not a profession as it was later on, and the poet often helped in the training, the choragus frequently trained the chorus himself, and even appeared as their leader at the performance; but in later times this was unusual. The choragus had also to procure, or if necessary hire, a place for the training of the chorus, to keep the members during the time of training, and to provide them with festive garments and wreaths for the performance. It rested with him to spend a large or a small amount for this last purpose, but a choragus who equipped a comic chorus economically, risked being made the subject of the poet’s sarcasm on some future occasion, and in the allotment of prizes, too, the appearance of the chorus would be considered, as well as the manner in which it performed its task.
The chorus-members were usually free citizens; strangers were jealously excluded. Their task was by no means a light one; bodily dexterity was required for the dances, and good musical training, good delivery and comprehension of the poetic text were necessary in order to give a satisfactory representation of the poet’s work before the keenly critical Attic public. It is, therefore, natural that a good choragus took considerable trouble to procure a good chorus, the rather as the choragia was a contest in which not only the poet but also the choragi contended for the prize. Besides those already mentioned, the choragi had also other duties: to procure the requisites, such as decoration for the side-scenes, perhaps even to supply sacrificial animals if they were required in the play. In later times, when the chorus had lost its importance, and the expenses were less considerable, the choragus had also to supply the dresses of the actors, though this was never the case in the best period of the drama. In fact, as we may learn from the inscriptions, a complete change in the choragia took place in the Hellenistic period. It became the custom for the people to choose presidents of contests (ἀγωνοθέυαι), whose duty it was to provide for the musical competitions at the Dionysia and other festivals. They had to attend to the regular and suitable performance of the contests, to supply certain sacrificial animals, etc.; this was often a very expensive undertaking, and, like all officials, they had to make a statement concerning their office at the conclusion of its duration. This institution in a way placed the choragia in the hands of the people, who transferred their duties to the presidents, and these had then to equip all the choruses, which were no longer so numerous as they had been formerly. This innovation was necessitated by the fact that the number of rich families of whom these pecuniary sacrifices could be demanded, had become very small, and these now supplied the presidents. This change in the arrangements of the choragia seems to have taken place under the rule of Demetrius of Phalerum, towards the end of the fourth century B.C.
It is a well-known fact that in the ancient theatre women never appeared on the stage, and all women’s parts were presented by men; we have also noted the fact that there was at first only a single actor, who represented various parts one after another, and entered into a dialogue with the leader of the chorus, and that Aeschylus added a second, and Sophocles a third. Originally the poet himself appeared as actor, and when there were several actors, as protagonist—that is he represented the chief part. When Sophocles, who had himself appeared a few times, abandoned this custom, it gradually fell into disuse, and the first actor, as well as the two others, was supplied to the poet by the State. As a rule, the actors were allotted to the poets by lot; it seems, however, that before the State undertook to pay an actor, he had to submit to examination, and that only those who had already appeared, and whose performances were well known, were excluded from this examination. The State, then, engaged for each festival a number of protagonists, deuteragonists, and tritagonists, corresponding to the number of poets contending; thus, if there were three poets competing, they required nine actors, supposing the same actors continued to perform throughout the whole tetralogy, of which we cannot be certain. The lot assigned to each of the poets one out of the three classes; still, we know that some poets always had the same protagonist, who appeared in all their plays, and for whom, in fact, they sometimes wrote a special part; therefore, it must have been customary for poets who had already been victorious to ask for a particular protagonist without drawing lots, and this custom probably became the rule afterwards. We cannot, however, say how the two others were chosen.
The parts of the play were now divided between these three actors; the chief part, which, as a rule, was the most difficult, fell to the protagonist; the next in importance—viz., the one which was brought into the closest connection with the chief person, fell to the deuteragonist; the tritagonist undertook unimportant parts, such as messengers, heralds, etc., and these actors of the lowest class did not stand in particular estimation with the public. But as the plays contained more than three parts, each actor had to undertake several, and therefore, even while composing a play, the poet had to be careful that the actors, if they had to appear in another part, had sufficient time for change of costume, and that the absence of an actor who was to be used for another part should be in some way explained. There were, however, plays in which it was absolutely impossible to manage with three actors, and for these there was a contrivance about which the exponents of passages referring to it hold very different opinions, and, indeed, there seem to be mistakes or misrepresentations in the authors themselves. It is most probable that when a poet required more than the three actors assigned him by the State he applied to the choragus, and came to an agreement with him; he then supplied a fourth actor, or even a fifth, since it was only small parts that had to be thus undertaken, and, if necessary, the choragus also provided a second, or minor, chorus, such as was required in certain plays (parachorêgêma). There were also dumb personages, or statists, called also “spear-bearers,” since these parts were frequently merely standing parts. We do not know whether the State or the choragus paid for these. We have, in fact, little information about the payment given to the actors, which must have been, however, different in proportion to their performances; in the Macedonian period celebrated actors received very high pay. In the Hellenistic period a complete transformation took place in acting. When the chorus was abolished, and the representation of dramas in consequence became easier, and took place at other festivals as well as the Dionysia, unions of actors were formed, calling themselves “Dionysiac artists,” concerning which the inscriptions give us a good deal of interesting information. A number of these companies combined together into sacred guilds, which had their seat in the large towns, and sent their members in companies into small towns and also into the provinces as far as Asia Minor, for festive representations. We are best acquainted with the arrangements of the Dionysiac artist company of Teos, an Ionic town on the coast of Lydia. These not only appeared in Asia Minor, but had also rights in Delphi, Thebes, and Thespiae. It numbered a great many members, not only actors, but also writers of tragedies, comedies, and satyric dramas, epic poems, and encomia; composers, musicians, dancers, machinists, decorators, wardrobe owners, etc. They also instituted a dramatic musical school, a kind of Conservatorium, in which pupils from various parts of Greece were trained, and usually in turn became members of the guild. It is very interesting to examine the details, management, inner organisation, and life of the members of these actors’ guilds in the Alexandrine period, but unfortunately space does not permit us to do so here.