The impact of democracy on Attic drama
Disclaimer
The article below was originally written in the form of an undergraduate assignment for the Greek Open University in 2006, during a period when the author's academic skills were still under development. Although the quality of this article does not match the quality of later examples of the same author's work, it is written in a thorough manner and contains useful information to nowadays students and other readers with non-specialised knowledge; therefore, it has been proudly included on this website.
The reader needs to be warned that the original assignment, on which this article was based on, was written in Greek and was intended to be read by specialised academics. Despite the author's best intentions to present his essay in the clearest way possible, some points and arguments might still be lost in translation. The author recommends that for any unknown words or specialised vocabulary, the readers should refer to the web for additional information.
The author admits that the bibliography for this article is limited, matching the requirements of an undergraduate assignment of this level. The author did not include any additional bibliography during the translation of his work in English due to time and access limitations. It must also be noted that the original bibliography for this article was studied from translated copies in Greek; therefore, the page numbers suggested in the citations below match the page numbers of the translated copies and not the original volumes.
Introduction
This article presents a brief discussion on the birth and gradual evolution of Attic drama under the influence of the democratic institutions of the Athenian city-state. The paper is divided in three sections. The first section is a general introduction on the birth of Attic drama, presenting the socio-political conditions of its first appearance. The second section discusses the impact of Athenian democracy on the regulation of theatrical events and the evolution of Attic theatre. The third section discusses the social reflections and social critique noted in the theatrical plays of the 5th century BC, in relation to the democratic institutions of the Athenian city-state. The final section concludes on the interaction between Athenian democracy and Attic drama.
The birth of Attic drama
The birth of Attic drama coincides with the developments of the religious festival of the City Dionysia (Dionysia ta en Astei = Διονύσια τὰ ἐν Ἄστει), also known as the Great Dionysia (Dionysia ta Megala = Διονύσια τὰ Μεγάλα), which were introduced in Athens during the 6th century BC. The restructure of the festivals, with the addition of dithyrambic dances and tragedies, is most likely attributed to the tyrant Peisistratus (Blume 1986, 23-33). The official introduction of tragic games in the Great Dionysia can be placed circa 534/3 BC (Chourmouziadis 1991, 47). The Dionysian cult and the parallel evolution of Attic drama were favoured by the popular policies of the Athenian tyrants. Dionysus was a rural god and its cult aimed in strengthening the bonds of the rural populations of Attica, on whom the tyrants based their powers and popular support (Lesky 1987, 78).
Although paradoxical, the birth of Attic drama must be attributed to the Peisistratid tyranny instead of the Classical democracy; however, during its early phases, Attic drama was based on two features, which later formed the core principles of democracy. The first feature was the total participation of the Demos in the dramatic competitions and the Dionysian cult, which resembled the total participation of the Athenian citizens in the city-state’s democratic institutions during the 5th century BC. It is no coincidence that the chronological peak of Athenian democracy coincides with the peak of Attic drama (Andrianou 2001, 28). The second feature shared between drama and democracy was dialogue in the form of oral argumentation, a basic element of any peaceful human interaction and conflict resolution. The theatrical dialogue was an innovation by Thespis, who was the first poet to introduce a principal actor that responded to the singing chorus (Lesky 1981, 333-4).
The contribution of Athenian democracy in the evolution of Attic drama
The 5th century BC was the most creative period for Attic drama and the most flourishing era of Athenian democracy (Andrianou 2001, 28); this fact suggests a strong and parallel interaction between the two institutions. The Athenian Demos formed the basis of the city-state’s democratic institutions; therefore, together with the evolution of the democratic governance system, the Athenian Demos contributed to the evolution of Attic drama and to the functions that supported the theatrical events.
The successful function of the theatrical competitions demanded a full participation from the Athenian Demos, which was also necessary for any form of political decision. The Athenian citizens participated in the theatrical competitions at the Theatre of Dionysus as actively as they participated in the People’s Assembly at the Hill of Pnyx (Baldry 1992, 31). The same number of participants that could attend the People’s Assembly had the right to watch the theatrical plays and form a large audience. The Athenian citizens who took over official duties as members of the Council of the 500, the administration mechanisms and the judicial system of the city-state, where the same individuals who contributed to the theatrical events as directors, dancers, actors and even judges (Xifara 2001, 16).
The participation of the entire people’s body, know as a pandemic participation (pan + Demos = entire people), was achieved by various legal means. In relation to the staff of the theatrical plays, the law forecasted that each play-sponsor was obliged to finance the team’s nutrition expenses during the games and a daily salary for the chorus participants (χορός = choros) and the chorus-master (χοροδιδάσκαλος = chorodidaskalos). This way, the government ensured that even the people from the poorest social groups could participate in the theatrical teams (Blume 1986, 50).
At the same time, the law ensured that poor people could watch the theatrical games as members of the audience without paying fees. The government guaranteed a state contribution towards the theatrical fees known at the Theartical Salary (Θεωρικός Μισθός = Theorikos Misthos), which allowed the poorest social groups and their families to attend the theatrical events. This approach was based on the idea that the theatrical events were not a form of entertainment, as we might think of them today, but a form of social education.
The participation of women as members of the audience in the theatrical events was fully acceptable, although women could neither act, nor be members of the chorus. This suggests an early form of gender-equality in Athens, at least in relation to the theatrical events (Flacelière 2003, 254); still, during Classical antiquity women were not regarded citizens, they had no political rights and could not partake in any political or judicial institution of the Athenian democracy.
The theatrical events were part of a broader competition that took place during the Dionysian festivals, which also promoted the democratic spirit of contest among the theatrical teams (Baldry 1992, 35). The procedures and regulations that characterised the function of the theatrical games were an extension of the city-state’s democratic institutions. The appointed lords (Άρχοντες = Archontes) of the city-state would grant each liturgy (Λειτουργία = Leitourgia) of ‘teaching’ the audience a theatrical play to a different wealthy sponsor (Χορηγός = Choregos). During the Great Dionysia, the Eponymous Archon of the city, who was the most prominent representative of the state, was charged with allocating the theatrical liturgies to the city’s most wealthy patrons. This specific tradition promoted the political aspects behind the Dionysian festivals, which used to run parallel with religion.
In reality, the sponsors (the Choregoi) of the theatrical plays were volunteers. Only in case a sponsor could not be found, then the Eponymous Archon would order a wealthy citizen to undertake the liturgy. In case of disagreement, the latter was entitled to appeal in court and practise his legal right of Antidosis, an exchange of personal possessions what would allow another sponsor to complete the liturgy. This procedure was forecasted by the city-state’s democratic institutions to allow the posibility of a legal appeal, if this was necessary (Blume 1986, 48-50).
The composers of the theatrical plays, who were broadly called poets, were not only chosen based on their personal reputation, but also due to their political and ideological beliefs. Public opinion often favoured the most famous poets just as it favoured the famous political speakers. The allocation of a poet to a sponsor was by draw, following the same process as the selection of candidates for any other office in the Athenian democracy (Blume 1986, 48-50).
The members of the Dithyramb Chorus were chosen from the members of the Athenian Tribes, while the members of the Tragedy Chorus were chosen form the entire citizens’ body. Participation in the chorus was compulsory and strict fines were in place in case of refusal (Blume 1986, 48-50).
The selection process for the judges of the theatrical competitions resembled the selection process for the jury in the Athenian courts of law. The judges were initially elected by a council consisted of equal members from each Athenian Tribe. The final selection was by random draw through a sealed ballot box (Blume 1986, 60). The judges were placed under vows just as any other public servant appointed to function under the Athenian democratic institutions of the time. The ten judges for each competition event would produce ten votes; however, there was another process right after, which cancelled half of these votes by draw. This allowed further transparency in appointing a winner (Blume 1986, 60).
The above procedures suggest a direct correlation between the operation of the city-state’s democratic institutions and the operation of the theatrical events. Most aspects of public involvement for the city-state’s political institutions were practically applied in the organisation and regulation of Attic theatre.
Oral speech or Logos (Λόγος), which promotes rational argumentation for the orderly function of any democracy, was in full blossom in Athens during the 5th century BC. Logos was an essential element of the public-speaking culture of the Athenians, and during that time, it was further enhanced by the development of professional rhetoric for the participation in the People’s Assembly (Ekklesia), the Citizen’s Council (Boule) and the Courts of Law. The same Logos and the same public-speaking techniques were applied in theatre through the use of narration, convincing rhetoric, rational argumentation, dialogue, and of course, singing (Baldry 1992, 32-3).
The developments in Attic drama were also affected by the popularity of the Dionysian Cult in Athens, which was not only characterised by public religious events. The theatrical games had a deeply social character, as Dionysus represented the popular spirit and the popular preferences of the rural populations of Athens. Dionysus functioned as Athens’ second patron-god, next to Athena, who united all of its peoples and produced a feeling of commonality. The unity of the Athenian people, which was demanded by the city-state’s democratic institutions, was achieved through the total (Pan-Demic) participation of the Demos in the theatrical games. Such games had a local character during the Lenaia Festivals (Λήναια), which took place at the end of January, and a Pan-Hellenic character during the Great Dionysia at the beginning of spring, which also allowed the participation of representatives from many other Greek city-states (Baldry 1992, 37-9).
The Great Dionysia of the 5th century BC can be righteously characterised as the ultimate expression of Athenian might. The Pan-Hellenic character of the festivals attracted numbers of visitors from other areas of the Greek-speaking world, including representatives from Athens’ military allies, who were there to deposit their annual fees as contribution to the alliance’s expenses. The wealth and the city’s superiority were projected to its foreign visitors though a costly exhibition of power, which took place before the beginning of the theatrical contests. During this exhibition, large ceramic containers full of silver Talents (Attic coins of 60 mnae or 6,000 drachmas) were carried on stage to demonstrate the city’s income surplus. During the same event, state representatives offered the city’s most profane citizens an honorary wreath to thank them for their contributions to democracy. Furthermore, the orphans of the fallen Athenian warriors were invited on stage, where they were offered a free hoplite armour as an expression of gratitude for their fathers’ sacrifices (Blume 1986, 33). All these expressions of wealth and power, which took place right before the beginning of the theatrical contests, aimed in strengthening the community’s patriotic instincts and in stressing Athens’ might and prestige to its foreign visitors.
Finally, it is important to note that Athenian democracy was the first institution in human history to erect publicly funded theatres and other immobile installations of monumental character for theatrical events. Such constructions appeared during the most prosperous period of economic growth, during the Golden Century of Pericles, and were funded by the significantly large ally contributions that flew into the city (Chourmouziadis 1991, 53). Such monumental constructions not only served the needs of the Athenian people, but also promoted state propaganda to the city’s foreign visitors, both friends and foes.
Common social reflections of the 5th century BC theatrical plays
In the previous section it was noted that the Athenian lords (the Archons) selected the poets to write their theatrical plays not only based on their personal reputation, but also due to their political and ideological beliefs. This process raises a series of questions regarding the thematology of the theatrical plays written at that time, and in relation to the ideas they were expected to transmit to the audience. Such ideas probably reflected the broader socio-political issues noted in the democratic institutions of the 5th century BC.
The poets usually belonged to Athens’ richest and most prominent social groups, such as Sophocles, who was elected General in 440 BC. The social descent of most poets, which associated with the city’s aristocratic circles, allowed them to be inspired by myths regarding royal figures and royal courts (Andrewes 1999, 326). The protagonists of Attic drama were the city’s patron heroes, who were used to reflect on Athens’ mythological past and interact with the audience (Vernant & Naquet 1998, 18-19). On the other hand, the supposed divine descent of the Athenian aristocrats and those who comprised Athens' most prominent social groups, was an issue that was discussed and critiqued through the theatrical events in relation to the functions of democracy. In that sense, there was a contrasting relationship between the aristocratic protagonists of a theatrical play, who represented the traditional, customary and hereditary laws of previous eras, and the chorus, which represented the free citizens of the democratic city-state, who promoted public justice.
The use of judicial terminology and the promotion of themes associated with Athens’ judicial system was another element of social reflection born within Attic drama. The tragedy poets used a complex vocabulary, which borrowed elements from the language and the terminology employed in the Athenian Courts of Law. Their judicial language was purposely disguised with meaning inaccuracies and style fluctuations; these were then applied on the traditional protagonist-hero, who was a person from Athens’ mythological and religious past. The poet’s arguments, which were implemented on the protagonist-hero by the play’s circumstances, expressed a new system of moral values, which was generated by the application of human laws. This way, the poet offered the audience a social dilemma to reflect on, which contrasted the traditional and religious moral code of the past with a strict yet ambiguous modern system of human justice (Vernant & Naquet 1998, 21).
The principles of Athens’ judicial system were also placed under question in line with the aforementioned social dilemma. In his Eumenides, Aeschylus presents Orestes at the Supreme Court, the Areios Pagos, where he is trialled for the murder of his mother. The trial scene offers Aeschylus an opportunity to express his objections in relation to the reforms by Ephialtes, which were passed four years earlier and took away most of the Supreme Court’s powers (Andrewes 1999, 237).
Finally, the most important social reflections in Attic theatre are noted in the comedies, which used to attack the politicians and other individuals who manipulated the Athenian people and Athens’ political life. In Attic comedy, the Athenian citizen could self-identify with the daily characters appearing in the plays. This situation allowed a contemporary social reflection, which was direct and compatible with the viewer’s daily reality. A characteristic example was the mocking of the demagogue Cleon by Aristophanes in his comedy Knights (Hippeis = Ἱππῆς) in 424 BC (Andrewes 1999, 331). With this comedy, Aristophanes tried to raise public concern regarding the influence of demagogues on public decisions, which often led to catastrophic consequences.
Conclusions
The relationship between Attic drama and Athenian democracy was direct and vivid throughout the development and duration of both institutions. The birth of Attic drama was due to the efforts of the Peisistratid tyranny to gain popular support; however, the development of Attic drama shared two common features with the democratic institutions of 5th century BC: the dialogue as a mean of oral argumentation and the full participation of the citizens’ body.
The Athenian democracy contributed greatly to the development of Attic drama. It expanded the religious celebrations and the Pan-Hellenic character of the Dionysian cult, which allowed full participation in the theatrical events for the entire community and its foreign visitors. Furthermore, the city’s democratic institutions promoted the Logos, a public-speaking culture that was simultaneously enchanced by the development of professional rhetoric, which demanded strong oral skills and clear argumentation. The Logos formed the backbone of Athenian politics and Attic drama. The democratic institutions also formed the legal context, the rules, requirements and regulation for the theatrical events, which followed the structure and functions of the city’s democratic institutions. Finally, the Athenian democracy produced the most favourable economic and political conditions, which allowed Attic drama to flourish and expand its reputation outside Athens.
Attic drama produced a series of social reflections, which associated with the functions and structure of Athenian democracy. Its main focus was an ethical dilemma regarding the validity of traditional moral codes, established by myths and religion, against human laws, established in favour of the community. Furthermore, Attic drama allowed the Athenians to interact with the heroes and the patron-gods of their city-state, and to reflect on their past and present situation. Finally, the theatrical plays, particularly the comedies, produced a series of political reflections regarding the effectiveness of the democratic system itself.
Bibliography
Andrewes, A., 1999, Ancient Greek Society (original title: The Greeks), translated by A. Panagopoulos, 3rd edition, Athens: Morphotiko Idryma Ethnikis Trapezis.
Andrianou, E., 2001, ‘The origins and the early phases of ancient Greek drama’, in Konstantopoulou, D. (ed.) Ancient Greek Theatre. The Drama from Aeschylus to Menander, Patra: Greek Open University, 27-40.
Baldry, H.C., 1992, The (Ancient) Greek Tragic Theatre, translated by G. Christodoulou, 3rd edition, Athens: Kardamitsas.
Blume, H.D, 1986, Introduction to the Ancient Theatre (original title: Einführung in das antike Theaterwesen), translated by M. Iatrou, Athens: Morphotiko Idryma Ethnikis Trapezis.
Chourmouziadis, N., 1991, Terms and Transformations in Ancient Greek Tragedy, Athens: Gnosi.
Flacelière, R., 2003 The Public and Private Life of the Ancient Greeks (original title: La vie quotidienne en Grèce au siècle de Péricles), translated by G.D. Vandoros, 13th edition, Athens: Papadimas.
Lesky, A., 1981, A History of Ancient Greek Literature (original title: Geschichte der Griechischen Literatur), fifth edition, translated by A.G. Tsombanaki, Thessaloniki: Kyriakidis Bros. SA.
Lesky, A., 1987, The Tragic Poetry of the Ancient Greeks (original title: Die tragische Dichtung der Hellenen), translated by N.Ch. Chourmouziadis, Athens: Morphotiko Idryma Ethnikis Trapezis.
Vernant, J.P. and Naquet, P.V., 1998, Myths and Tragedy in Ancient Greece (original title: Mythe et société en Grèce ancienne), translated by K. Alexopoulou, Athens: Zacharopoulos.
Xifara, P., 2001, ‘Introduction to Ancient Greek theatre, in Konstantopoulou, D. (ed.) Ancient Greek Theatre. The Drama from Aeschylus to Menander, Patra: Greek Open University, 25-26.