TRĂGOEDIA

( τραγῳδία ), tragedy. (1) Greek. The tragedy of the ancient Greeks as well as their comedy confe edly originated in the worship of the god Dionysus. The peculiarity which most strikingly distinguishes the Greek tragedy from that of modern times, is the lyrical or choral part. This was the offspring of the dithyrambic and choral odes from which, as applied to the worship of Dionysus, Greek tragedy took its rise. The name of Tragedy ( τραγῳδία ) is probably derived from the goatlike appearance of the Satyrs who sang or acted with mimetic gesticulations ( ὄρχησις ) the old Bacchic songs, with Silenus, the constant companion of Dionysus, for their leader. The Dionysian dithyrambs were sometimes of a gay and at other times of a mournful character: it was from the latter that the stately and solemn tragedy of the Greeks arose. Great improvements were introduced in the dithyramb by Arion, a contemporary of Per i an der. Before his time the dithyramb was sung in a wild and irregular manner; but he is said to have invented the Cyclic chorus, by which we are to understand that the Dithyramb was danced by a chorus of fifty men round an altar. The choral Dithyrambic songs prevailed to some extent, as all choral poetry did, amongst the Dorians of the Peloponnesus; whence the choral element of the Attic tragedy was always written in the Dorian dialect, thus showing its origin. The lyrical poetry was, however, especially popular at Sicyon and Corinth. In the latter city Arion made his improvements; in the former “tragic choruses,” i.e. dithyrambs of a sad and plaintive character, were very ancient. From the more solemn Dithyrambs then, as improved by Arion, ultimately sprang the dramatic tragedy of Athens, somewhat in the following manner. The choruses were under the direction of a leader or exarch us, who, it may be supposed, came forward separately, and whose part was sometimes taken by the poet himself. We may also conjecture that the exarch us in each case led off by singing or reciting his part in a solo, and that the chorus dancing round the altar then expre ed their feelings of joy or sorrow at his story, representing the perils and sufferings of Dionysus, or some hero, as it might be. The subjects of this Dithyrambic tragedy were not, however, always confined to Dionysus. Even Arion wrote Dithyrambs, relating to different heroes, a practice in which he was followed by succeeding poets. It is easy to conceive how the introduction of an actor or speaker independent of the chorus might have been suggested by the exarchs coming forward separately and making short off-hand speeches, whether learnt by heart beforehand, or made on the spur of the moment. [ Chorus . ] But it is also po ible, if not probable, that it was suggested by the rhapsodical recitations of the epic and gnomic poets formerly prevalent in Greece: the gnomic poetry being generally written in Iambic verse, the metre of the Attic dialogue. This however is certain, that the union of the Iambic dialogue with the lyrical chorus took place at Athens under Pis i stratus, and that it was attributed to Thespis, a native of Icaria, one of the country demes or parishes of Attica where the worship of Dionysus had long prevailed. The alteration made by him, and which gave to the old tragedy a new and dramatic character, was very simple but very important. He introduced an actor, as it is recorded, for the sake of giving rest to the chorus, and independent of it, in which capacity he probably appeared himself, taking various parts in the same piece, under various disguises, which he was enabled to a ume by means of linen masks, the invention of which is attributed to him. Now as a chorus, by means of its leader, could maintain a dialogue with the actor, it is easy to see how with one actor only a dramatic action might be introduced, continued, and concluded, by the speeches between the choral songs expre ive of the joy or sorrow of the chorus at the various events of the drama. With respect to the character of the drama of Thespis there has been much doubt: some writers, and especially Bentley, have maintained that his plays were all satyrical and ludicrous, i.e. the plot of them was some story of Bacchus, the chorus consisted principally of satyrs, and the argument was merry. But perhaps the truth is that in the early part of his career Thespis retained the satyrical character of the older tragedy, but afterwards inclined to more serious compositions, which would almost oblige him to discard the Satyrs from his choruses. That he did write serious dramas is intimated by the titles of the plays ascribed to him, as well as by the character of the fragments of Iambic verse quoted by ancient writers as his. It is evident that the introduction of the dialogue must also have caused an alteration in the arrangement of the chorus, which could not remain cyclic or circular, but must have been drawn up in a rectangular form about the thymele or altar of Bacchus in front of the actor, who was elevated on a platform or table ( ἐλεός ), the forerunner of the stage. The lines of Horace ( Ar. Poet. 276):— “Dicitur et plaustris vexi e poemata Thespis, Quae canerent a gerent que peruncti faecibus ora”— are founded on a misconception of the origin of the Attic tragedy, and the tale about the waggons of Thespis probably arose out of a confusion of the waggon of the comedian Susarion with the platform of the Thespian actor. The first representation of Thespis was in B.C. 535. His immediate succe ors were the A then i an Choerilus and Phrynichus, the former of whom represented plays as early as B.C. 524. Phrynichus was a pupil of Thespis, and gained his first victory in the dramatic contests B.C. 511. In his works, the lyric or choral element still predominated over the dramatic, and he was distinguished for the sweetne of his melodies, which in the time of the Peloponnesian war were very popular with the admirers of the old style of music. The first use of female masks is also attributed to him, and he so far deviated from the general practice of the Attic tragedians as to write a drama on a subject of contemporary history, the capture of Miletus by the Persians, B.C. 494.—We now come to the first writer of Satyrical dramas, Prat in as of Phlius, a town not far from Sicyon, and which laid claim to the invention of tragedy as well as comedy. For some time previously to this poet, and probably as early as Thespis, tragedy had been gradually departing more and more from its old characteristics, and inclining to heroic fables, to which the chorus of Satyrs was not a fit accompaniment. But the fun and merriment caused by them were too good to be lost. Accordingly the Satyrical drama, distinct from the recent and dramatic tragedy, but suggested by the sportive element of the old Dithyramb, was founded by Prat in as, who however appears to have been surpa ed in his own invention by Choerilus. It was always written by tragedians, and generally three tragedies and one Satyrical piece were represented together, which in some instances at least formed a connected whole, called a tetralogy ( τετραλογία ). The Satyrical piece was acted last, so that the minds of the spectators were agreeably relieved by a merry after-piece at the close of an earnest and engro ing tragedy. The distinguishing feature of this drama was the chorus of Satyrs, in appropriate dre es and masks, and its subjects seem to have been taken from the same cla of the adventures of Bacchus and of the heroes as those of tragedy; but of course they were so treated and selected, that the presence of rustic satyrs would seem appropriate. In their jokes and drollery consisted the merriment of the piece; for the kings and heroes who were introduced into their company were not of nece ity thereby divested of their epic and legendary character, though they were obliged to conform to their situation and suffer some diminution of dignity, from their position. Hence Horace ( Ar. Poet. 231) says:— “Effutire leves indign a Tragoedia versus Intererit Satyris paulum pudibund a protervis.”— alluding in the first line to the mythic or epic element of the Satyric drama, which he calls Tragoedia, and in the second representing it as being rather ashamed of its company. The “Cyclops” of Euripi des is the only Satyric drama now extant.—The great improvements in tragedy were introduced by Aeschylus. This poet added a second actor, diminished the parts of the chorus, and made the dialogue the principal part of the action. He also availed himself of the aid of A gath arch us, the scene-painter, and improved the costume of his actors by giving them thick-soled boots ( ἐμβάται ), as well as the masks, which he made more expre ive and characteristic. Horace ( Ar. Poet. 278) thus alludes to his improvements:— “personae pallae que repertor honestae Aeschylus, et modicis instravit pulpit a tignis Et docuit magnum que loqui, nitique cothurno.”— The custom of contending with trilogies ( τριλογίαι ), or with three plays at a time, is said to have been also introduced by him. In fact he did so much for tragedy, and so completely built it up to its “towering height,” that he was considered the father of it. The subjects of his dramas were not connected with the worship of Dionysus; but rather with the great cycle of Hellenic legends and some of the myths of the Homeric Epos. Accordingly, he said of himself that his dramas were but scraps and fragments from the great feasts of Homer. In the latter part of his life Aeschylus made use of one of the improvements of Sophocles, namely the τριταγωνιστής , or third actor. This was the finishing stroke to the dramatic element of Attic tragedy, which Sophocles is said to have matured by further improvements in costume and scene-painting. Under him tragedy appears with le of sublimity and sternne than in the hands of Aeschylus, but with more of calm grandeur and quiet dignity and touching incident. The plays of Sophocles are the perfection of the Grecian tragic drama, as a work of art and poetic composition in a thoroughly chastened and cla ic style. In the hands of Euripi des tragedy deteriorated not only in dignity, but also in its moral and religious significance. He introduces his heroes in rags and tatters, and busies them with petty affairs, and makes them speak the language of every-day life. As Sophocles said of him, he represented men not as they ought to be, but as they are, without any ideal greatne or poetic character. His dialogues too were little else than the rhetorical and forensic language of his day cleverly put into verse: full of sophistry and quibbling distinctions. One of the peculiarities of his tragedies was the πρόλογος , an introductory monologue, with which some hero or god opens the play, telling who he is, what is the state of affairs, and what has happened up to the time of his addre , so as to put the audience in po e ion of every fact which it might be nece ary for them to know: a very busine -like proceeding no doubt, but a poor make-shift for artistical skill. The “ Deus ex machina ,” also, though not always, in a “ nodus, tali vindice dignus ,” was frequently employed by Euripi des to effect the dénoûment of his pieces. The chorus too no longer discharged its proper and high functions either as a representative of the feelings of unprejudiced observers, or, as one of the actors, and a part of the whole, joining in the development of the piece. Many of his choral odes in fact are but remotely connected in subject with the action of the play. Another novelty of Euripi des was the use of the monodies or lyrical songs, in which not the chorus, but the principal persons of the drama, declare their emotions and sufferings. Euripi des was also the inventor of tragi-comedy. A specimen of the Euripi dean tragi-comedy is still extant in the Alcestis, acted B.C. 438, as the last of four pieces, and therefore as a substitute for a Satyrical drama. Though tragic in its form and some of its scenes, it has a mixture of comic and satyric characters ( e.g. Hercules) and concludes happily.—The parts which constitute a Greek tragedy, as to its form , are, the prologue, episode, exode, and choral songs; the last divided into the parode and stasimon. The πρόλογος is all that part of a tragedy which precedes the parodos of the chorus, i.e. the first act. The ἐπεισόδιον is all the part between whole choral odes. The ἔξοδος that part which has no choral ode after it. Of the choral part the πάροδος is the first speech of the whole chorus (not broken up into parts): the stasimon is without anapaests and trochees. These two divisions were sung by all the choreutae, but the “songs on the stage” and the κόμμοι by a part only. The comm us, which properly means a wailing for the dead, was generally used to expre strong excitement, or lively sympathy with grief and suffering, especially by Aeschylus. It was common to the actors and a portion only of the chorus. Again the πάροδος was so named as being the pa age-song of the chorus sung while it was advancing to its proper place in the orchestra, and therefore in anapaestic or marching verse: the στάσιμον , as being chaunted by the chorus when standing still in its proper position.—The materials of Greek tragedy were the national mythology, “Presenting Thebes, or Pelop’s line, Or the tale of Troy divine.” The exceptions to this were the two historical tragedies, the “Capture of Miletus” by Phrynichus, and the “Persians” of Aeschylus; but they belong to an early period of the art. Hence the plot and story of the Grecian tragedy were of nece ity known to the spectators, a circumstance which strongly distinguishes the ancient tragedy from the modern.—The functions of the Chorus in Greek Tragedy were very important, as described by Horace ( Ar. Poet. 193), “Actor is partes chorus officiumque virile Defend at: neu quid medios intercinat act us, Quod non pro pos i to conducat, et haereat apte,” . It often expre es the reflections of a dispa ionate and right-minded spectator, and inculcates the le ons of morality and resignation to the will of heaven, taught by the occurrence of the piece in which it is engaged. With respect to the number of the chorus see Chorus .—(2) Roman. The tragedy of the Romans was borrowed from the Greek, but the construction of the Roman theatre afforded no appropriate place for the chorus, which was therefore obliged to appear on the stage, instead of in the orchestra. The first tragic poet and actor at Rome was Livius Andronicus, a Greek by birth, who began to exhibit in B.C. 240. In his monodies (or the lyrical parts sung, not by a chorus, but by one person), it was customary to separate the singing from the mimetic dancing, leaving the latter only to the actor, while the singing was performed by a boy placed near the flute-player ( ante tibicinem ); so that the dialogue only ( diverbia ) was left to be spoken by the actors. Livius Andronicus was followed by Naevius, Ennius, Pacuvius, and Attius. These five poets belong to the earlier epoch of Roman tragedy, in which little was written but translations and imitations of the Greek, with occasional insertions of original matter. How they imitated the structure of the choral odes is doubtful—perhaps they never attempted it. In the age of August us the writing of tragedies, whether original or imitations, seems to have been quite a fashionable occupation. The emperor himself attempted an Ajax, but did not succeed. One of the principal tragedians of this epoch was As in i us Pollio, to whom the line (Virg. Eclog. viii. 10) applies— “Sola Sophocleo tua carmina digna cothurno.” Ovid wrote a tragedy on the subject of Medea. Quintilian says of Varius, who was distinguished in epic as well as tragic poetry, that his Thyestes might be compared with any of the Greek tragedies. Some fragments of this Thyestes are extant, but we have no other remains of the tragedy of the August an age. The lo perhaps is not great. The only complete Roman tragedies that have come down to us are the ten attributed to the philosopher Seneca; but whether he wrote any of them or not is a disputed point. To whatever age they belong, they are beyond description bombastic and frigid, utterly unnatural in character and action, full of the most revolting violations of propriety, and barren of all theatrical effect. Still they have had admirers: Heinsius calls the Hippolytus “divine,” and prefers the Troades to the Hecuba of Euripi des: even Racine has borrowed from the Hippolytus in Phèdre. Roman tragedians sometimes wrote tragedies on subjects taken from their national history. Pacuvius, e.g. wrote a Paulus , L. Accius a Brutus and a Decius . Curiatius Maternus, also a distinguished orator in the reign of Domitian, wrote a Domitius and a Cato, the latter of which gave offence to the rulers of the state.