The Origin of Greek Tragedy in the Light of Dramatic Technique

7/28/2019 The Origin of Greek Tragedy in the Light of Dramatic Technique

1/33

The Origin of Greek Tragedy in the Light of Dramatic TechniqueAuthor(s): Donald Clive StuartSource: Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol. 47 (1916),pp. 173-204Published by: The Johns Hopkins University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/282834 .Accessed: 13/07/2013 17:58

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toTransactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 18 9.123.99.105 on Sat, 13 Jul 20 13 17:58:20 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhuphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/282834?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/282834?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup


2/33

Vol. xlvii] The Orzgin of Greek Tragedy I73

XIII. -The Orzgin of Greek Tragedy in the Light of Dra-matic Technique

By PROFESSOR DONALD CLIVESTUARTPRINCETON UNIVERSITY

EXCEPT or hose who adhere to some form f the traditionalyiew of the origin of Greek tragedy from ithyramb o satyr-

chorus, to tragedy the question has now resolved tself ntotwo well-defined heories. Professor Ridgeway finds heoriginof tragedy n the ritual performed y the chorus worshippingdead heroes at the tomb.1 On the other hand, there s thetheory hat the germ of Greek tragedy s to be sought in theritual which celebrated the annual death and rebirth f vege-tation, that was a feature of the cult of Dionysus. Thisview is held by Professor Gilbert Murray,2 Miss Jane Harri-son, and Mr. F. M. Cornford.3 Mr. Pickard-Cambridge,4 fwe may judge from his review of Professor Ridgeway's work,may also be placed among those who do not accept the theoryadvanced by that scholar. Only in certain particulars doesProfessor Murray subscribe to Professor Ridgeway's views;and, n the final analysis, these two scholars are still far apartin regard to the question of the ultimate origin of Greek

tragedy. Professor Murray states his position n this matteras follows:"The following note presupposes certain general views

about the origin and essential nature of Greek Tragedy. Itassumes that Tragedy is in origin a Ritual Dance, a SacerLudiis, representing normally the Aition, or the supposedhistorical Cause, of some current ritual practice: e.g. theHippolytus represents the legendary death of that hero, re-

' William Ridgeway, The Origin of Tragedy, Cambridge, 9IO. Also, TheDramas and Dramatic Dances of Non-European Races, Cambridge, 9I5.

2 Gilbert Murray, Excursus on the Ritual Forms Preserved in GreekTragedy," n Miss Jane Harrison's Themis Cambridge, 9I2), 34I-363.

3 F. M. Cornford, he Origin ofAttic Comedy, ondon, 9I4.4 Class. Rev. xxvi (1912), 52-59. See also Professor Ridgeway's reply, b.

134-149-

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/33

174 Donald Clive Stuart [I916

garded as the Aition of a certain ritual amentation practicedby the maidens of Trozen. Further, t assumes, in accordwith the overwhelming weight of ancient tradition, hat theDance in question s originally r centrally hat of Dionysus;and it regards Dionysus, in this connection, s the spirit ofthe Dithyramb or Spring Dromenon, an 'Eniautos-Daimon,'who represents he cyclic death and rebirth f the world, n-cluding the rebirth f the tribe by the return f the heroes ofdead ancestors.

" These conceptions, t will be seen, are in general agree-ment with he recent work of Dieterich Arclhivfiir eligions-wissenschaft, i, pp. I63-I96); also with that of Usener (ib.VII, pp. 303-313), as developed by Dr. Farnell (Cults, vol. v,p. 235, note A), and the indications of the Macedonianmummeries described by Mr. Dawkins and others. I mustalso acknowledge a large debt to Prof. Ridgeway's Tomb-theory, he more so since I ultimately iffer rom him on themain question, and seek to show that certain features intragedy which he regards as markedly foreign o Dionysus-worship, re in reality natural expressions of it.

" It is of course clear that Tragedy, as we possess it, con-tains many non-Dionysiac elements. The ancients them-selves have warned us of that. It has been influenced bythe epic, by hero cults, and by various ceremonies not con-

nected with Dionysus. Indeed, the actual Aition treated nTragedy is seldom confessedly nd obviously Dionysiac. Itis so sometimes, s sometimes t is the founding of a torch-race or the original reception of suppliants at some altar ofsanctuary. But it is much more often the death or Pathlosof some hero. Indeed I think it can be shown that everyextant tragedy contains somewhere owards the end the cele-bration of a tabu tomb. This point we gladly concede toProfessor Ridgeway. I wish to suggest, however, hat whilethe content has strayed far from Dionysus, the forms oftragedy retain clear traces of the original drama of the Deathand Rebirth of the Year Spirit."5

5 Op. cit. 341 f. I have reproduced rofessorMurray's apitalization n thecitations rom is work.



4/33

Vol. xlvii] The Origin of Greek Tragedy I75

Many of the arguments for and against the theories of theorigin of tragedy re based upon certain peculiarities n the con-struction of Greek tragedy, c.g. the agon, the threnos, hetheopluany, he appearance of the tomb, the peripeteia, theanagnorisis, the role of the chorus, the messenger, he ghost,etc. There are, however, other technical elements in theconstruction f Greek drama, which are not easily explained,nor, as yet, sufficiently lucidated for the student of dramatictechnique. For instance, wvhys there so much more narra-

tion of past events and of events behind the scenes in tragedythan there is in comedy ? Why is tragedy so retrospectivethat one can almost say it is in the past tense, while comedyis prospective nd is in the present and future ense, and, asis natural in drama, deals with present and future events nthe story? Why are scenes of violence and death banishedfrom view in tragedy, while in comedy scenes of violence areportrayed upon the stage? Why, in comedy, does the agonor contest proceed before he eyes of the spectators, nd whyis it carried on by the individual hero and - let us say - theindividual villain; whereas in certain tragedies the principalagon occurs behind the scenes, or, f it is on the stage, takesplace between an individual nd the chorus? Why, in earlytragedy especially, re both the hero and the villain relativelyinsignificant igures, eldom issuing from behind the scenes,

and why did the r6le of the villain never become extremelyimportant; while, in comedy, each of these parts attainsgreater development nd the chorus becomes a relatively essimportant actor n the play ? Why is there a stricter nityof action in tragedy than in comedy? Why, in tragedy, sthe point of attack, .e. the place in the story where the playbegins, closer to the climax and the d6nouement than incomedy? Finally, why is tragedy more serious in tone andcomedy ighter nd more humorous a question which s notso easily answered as one might think? The reasons forthese technical differences etween the two forms of Greekdrama need explanation. By comedy s meant in every caseAristophanic omedy.

Attempts have been made to answer some of the questions



5/33

I 76 Donald Clive Stuart [19i6

outlined above. Thus we have been told many times whydeaths were niot ortrayed efore the eyes of the spectators;but none of the explanations of this curious practice isentirely atisfactory. Hitherto there has been too marked atendency o separate tragedy nd comedy n dealing with thequestion of origin. We must try to find ut what there is inpostulated rituals that makes it possible or impossible, fromthe point of view of dramatic technique, for these differentkinds of drama to emerge, n forms so similar in some ways

and so dissimilar n others.We shall attempt to show that it is impossible for Greektragedy to have developed out of the ritual postulated byProfessor Murray, because Aeschylean tragedy is not con-structed echnically n a form which corresponds o the formof this ritual. We shall attempt o show, however, that it ispossible for Greek comedy to have developed out of the ritualpostulated by Mr. Cornford which is essentially he rittual fProfessor Murray), because the construction f the plays ofAristophanes corresponds to what may be called the tech-nique of this ritual. Also, we shall attempt o show that t ispossible, so far as dramatic echnique s concerned, or Greektragedy o have arisen out of the ritual of the worship of deadheroes postulated by Professor Ridgeway. Finally, we hopeto prove that, whatever theory s suggested in the future n

regard to the origin of Greek drama, the test of dramatictechnique will be founad o be of value in showing whether tis possible or impossible for Greek tragedy or comedy tohave evolved from any postulated ritual. It may well befound that this test is more valuable in disproving ratherthan in proving ny theory f the origin of Greek drama, ndthat it brings negative evidence against the validity of Pro-fessor Murray's hypothesis ather han positive corroborativeevidence of Professor Ridgeway's view. No student ofdramatic technique, however, will be inclined to accept anytheory of the origin of any drama unless that theory showsthat it is possible for that drama to have arisen in its par-ticular form from he postulated ource. We are fully warethat objections to the theory of Professor Murray and of



6/33


Mr. Cornford nd to the theory f Professor Ridgeway havebeen made on other critical grounds; but, at present, we arenot concerned with those objections. We wish to introduce,if possible, a new method of testing present or future heoriesof the origin of Greek drama which are founded on any re-constructed itual.

Professor Murray has reconstructed he ritual of the deathand rebirth f the " Year Spirit - the ritual of fertility inwhich he seeks the origin of tragedy. " If we examine," he

says, " the kind of myth which seems to underly he various'Eniautos ' celebrations we shall find:I. "An Agon or Contest, the Year against its Enemy,

Light against Darkness, Summer against Winter.2. "A Pathos of the Year-Daimon, generally a ritual or

sacrificial eath, n which Adonis or Attis is slain by the tabuanimal, the Pharmakos stoned, Osiris, Dionysus, Pentheus,Orpheus, Hippolytus torn to pieces (o-1rapayato0').

3. " A Messenger. For this Pathos seems seldom or neverto be actually performed under the eyes of the audience.(The reason of this s not hard to suggest.) It is announcedby a messenger. 'The news comes' that Pan the Great,Thammuz, Adonis, Osiris is dead, and the dead body is oftenbrought n on a bier. This leads to

4. "A Thzrenos r Lamentation. Specially characteristic,

however, s a clash of contrary motions, the death of theold being also the triumph of the new; see p. 318 f. ofPlutarch's account of the Oschophoria.

5 and 6. "An Anagnorisis discovery r recognition ofthe slain and mutilated Daimon, followedby his Resurrectionor Apotheosis or, in some sense, his Epiphany in glory.This I shall call by the general name Theophany. It natu-rally goes with a Peripeteia or extreme change of feelingfrom grief to joy. 6

This theory s a development of the theory set forth byDieterich,7 hat the origin of tragedy s to be at least par-tially explained, f not wholly, by the existence of the Sacer

6O9P cit. 342 f.

7 A. Dieterich, leine Schriffen (Leipzig, 1911), p. 414 if.



7/33

178 Donald Clive Stuart [I916

Liudus at Eleusis, especially as Aeschylus was a native ofthat place and as his tragedies were a development of thedramatic ritual performed here. Professor Murray ums upDieterich's views as follows: " Dieterich has already shownthat a characteristic f the Sacer Ludus in the mysteries wasa Peripeteia, or Reversal. It was a change from sorrow ojoy, from darkness and sights of inexplicable terror o lightand the discovery f the reborn God. Such a Peripeteia isclearly associated with an Anagnorisis, Recognition or Dis-

covery. Such formulae from the mysteries as eap-EZTE,MVITrat, Troy EoV cTE7(oa,OLEZJov Hv'p?'KaFLEv, -vyXaipo1iezv-"Eovyov ,caKo'v, vppov 4,ELvov, imply a close connection be-tween the Peripeteia and the Anagnorisis, nd enable us tounderstand why these two elements are regarded by Aristotleas normally elonging to Tragedy. Now Peripeteia of somekind is perhaps in itself a necessary or normal part of anydramatic story. But no one could say the same of Anag-norisis. It must come into Greek Tragedy from the SacerLudus, in which he dead God is Recognized or Discovered." 8

Professor Murray assumes that tragedy is in origin a"Ritual Dance, a Sacer Luduts, and that originally therewere the following component parts of the ritual in thefollowing order: Agon, Pathos, Messenger, T/irenos, ndTlieophiazyor Anagnorisis and Tlieophtazy). He points out

the connection between the ritual and the Satyrs as follows:"BBut those who have read Miss Harrison's article on theKouretes (B.S.A. xv, and Chapter i, above) will recognizethat the Satyrs are the wrpo'7roXota4,oves in the rout ofDionysus, especially associated with his 'initiations and/hierourgiai' that is, exactly with our Sacer Ludus ofDionysus. Strabo, pp. 466-8, mnakes his pretty clear.Hence comes their connection with the dead and with theanodos of Kore. The subject could be illustrated t length,but probably the above point, as it stands, will hardly be dis-puted. The Satyr-play, oming at the end of the tetralogy,represented he joyous arrival of the Reliving Dionysus andhis rout of attendant daimones at the end of the Sacer

8 Op.cit. 342.



8/33

Vol. xlvii] The Origin of Greek Tragedy 179

Ludus. . . . It would suit my general purpose equally wellto suppose that the Dionysus-ritual had developed into twodivergent forms, he satyr-play f Pratinas and the tragedyof Thespis, which were at a certain date artificially ombinedby law. In any case there must have been close kindredbetween the two. And after all Aristotle has told usthat Tragedy EcKrov)Yar-vptKovuJre,3aXEvPoet. 4). It 'de-veloped out of the Satyric'- at the very east, from ome-thing kin to the Satyrs. I therefore ontinue provisionally- to accept as a starting-point ome tragic performance nd-ing in a satyr-play."

This starting-point eems to be really a step further nfrom his real point of departure, the Sacer Ludus. Thetragic performance eems already at this stage to have beenpractically tetralogy, .e. a tragic trilogy nd a satyr-play.He traces the further evelopment s follows:

"Now we know that in the historical development ofTragedy a process of differentiation ccurred. The Satyr-play became more distinct and separate from the tragediesand was eventually dropped altogether; and, secondly, theseparate Tragedies became independent rtistic wholes.

"This process produced, I conceive, two results. First,the cutting ff f the Satyr-play eft the tragic trilogy withoutits proper close. What was it to do ? Should it end with a

threnos nd trust for ts theophany o the distinct nd irrele-vant Satyr-play which happened to follow ? or should itignore the Satyr-play and make a theophany of its own?Both types of tragedy occur, but gradually the second tendsto predominate.

"Secondly, what is to happen to the Anagnorisis andPeripeteia ? Their proper place is, as it were, transitionalfrom he Threnos of tragedy to the Theophany of the Satyr-play; if anything, they go rather with the Satyrs. Hencethese two elements are set loose. Quite often, ven in thetragedies which have a full Theophany, they do not occur intheir proper place just before he Theophany, yet they lwayscontinue to haunt the atmosphere."

9 Op. ii. 343-344-



9/33

i8o Donald CiziveStuart [19I6

So far as anagnorisis and peripeteia are concerned, wemay immediately uestion whether ither one of these termsactually represents n element peculiar to Greek tragedy andwhether heir presence needs to be explained. As ProfessorMurray dmits, hough rather guardedly, peripeteia of somekind is necessary or normal n drama. We must nsist, how-ever, that anagnorisis, s defined by Aristotle, s just as nor-mal a part of any kind of drama, and indeed of any kind ofstory, s it is of Greek tragedy. There are many examples

of recognition cenes in both medieval and modern drama.The presence of the recognition scene in Greek tragedyneeds no more explanation than does the presence of suchscenes in Greek epic poetry. As a matter f fact, Aeschylus,if we may udge from his extant plays, made little use of theanagnorisis; and this theatrically ffective cene, n its highlydeveloped form, eems to be rather the device of the moresophisticated dramatists han a survival from primitive itu-alistic drama. Professor Murray says that the tragic poets"find it hard to write without bringing n an Anagnorisissomewhere." However hard they found it, they certainlydid not find t any harder than any writer f fiction oes.

The seeming importance of the anagnorisis is due to aninteresting misconception on the part of Aristotle. Theremay be some reason to conjecture that these critical terms,

peripeteia and anagnorisis, were used in regard to tragedybefore his time; but if these terms were first pplied by himto dramatic technique, we question whether his choice ofwords to express what was evidently n his mind was entirelyfelicitous. Probably no one will be inclined to deny thatAristotle must have enjoyed, ust as every theatre-goer oes,dramatic suspense and surprise, which are th_ very soul ofall drama. Now it is true that Aristotle never discussesdirectly he elements of suspense and of surprise; 10 but evi-dently cenes in which there was a reversal, s in the OedzipsRex and in the Lynzceuis, hich are cited by him as examples

10 See Bywater's note on 1452 a 3 of the Poetics. I hope to discuss this wholequestion of the element of surprise in drama, as implied by Aristotle, at somelater time.



10/33

Vol.xlvii] The Origin of Greek Tragedy i8i

of the peripeteia and which are actually scenes causing stun-ning surprise, aroused him to a high pitch of emotion, asthey would arouse any spectator. On the other hand, anyone who has analyzed the emotional effect f a recognitionscene will undoubtedly dmit that it is the element of sus-pense in such scenes which arouses one to a high pitch ofdramatic xcitement. Thus Aristotle pointed out the impor-tance of the anagnorisis and the peripeteia, which he consid-ered effective ecause they are recognition cenes and scenes

of reversal, while, as a matter f fact, they are of the utmostimportance because they are moments which arouse surpriseand suspense. He insisted on the means, but not on the end.While it must be admitted hat he was unfailing n his choiceof two excellent means, he introduced wo terms nto Greekdramatic criticism which somewhat becloud the real question.Thus we have to interpret hese terms; but we do not haveto explain the presence of anagnorisis nd peripeteia n Greektragedy any more than in any other drama of any other age.

Finally, it may be pointed out that in Greek tragedy herecognition scene performs he function of exposition andpreparation for the agon (Choephorae),of exciting incident(Helen), of climax (OedipitssRer), and of denouement Ion).Sometimes it is a great dramatic struggle, s in the Electraof Sophocles; sometimes t is passed over quickly, as in the

Helen' sometimes t constitutes practically he whole plot ofthe play, as in the Iphzizrenian Tawris. Professor Murraysays the recognition cene has been set loose; but there islittle reason to believe that it was ever canonically situatedjust before the theophany. As for the peripeteia being thechange from grief to joy at the resurrection f the new god,according to Professor Murray's theory, what must be saidof the peripeteia attendant upon the agon and the deathof the god? Is there not just as much of a peripeteia orreversal n the death of the god as in his resurrection Pro-fessor Murray lso asserts hat the anagnorisis, peripeteia, ndthe theophany once belonged to the satyr-play. Thus theother plays must have been concerned merely with the agon,pathos, messenger, nd the threnos. However, that is very



11/33

I82 Donald Clive Stuart [19I6

little material for three plays, and it is hard to see why threeplays, or perhaps four, hould have been written n one plot.The trilogy, s we know it, often contains three plays on thesame theme, but each one has a complete plot. It is farmore plausible to view the early trilogy s the juxtapositionof three plays, each with a complete plot; but in all of themthe same thread of the story would be preserved n order tointroduce more incidents and to increase the amount of theaction and to give the whole story more length and breadth.

The problem facing the primitive ramatist was to increasethe action and to make it fuller. The problem was not tomake three plays out of material for one, and to spread thethin plot over three tragedies and a satyr-play.

The opening scene of the ritual reconstructed y ProfessorMurray is an agon, or contest, he year against its enemy,light against darkness, summer against winter. Now, sinceProfessor Murray expressly points out that the second step,the pathos, seems seldom or never to have actually been per-formed under the eyes of the audience, and since he makesno such restriction n regard to the agon, we are safe inassuming that he believes the agon to have been enactedand not narrated. Now an agon postulates two rival par-ticipants, ontending before the eyes of the worshippers. Intechnical anguage, the point of attack not necessarily he

place where the myth began, but where the ritual beganwas far enough back to include the agon. If the ritualshowed the agon with two contestants, r performers, nerepresenting he year and the other ts enemy, hen we canrest assured that the primitive rama did the same thing. Itwouildl e unthinkable, ramatically, or action ini a ritzual obecomne zarrationzsn thle drama springi'ng romii hat rituzal.The whole history f Greek drama, as we can trace it, showsthe narrative, r the epic and lyric elements, ecoming action.A parallel development took place in the religious dramaof the Middle Ages, which evolved from the church ritual.Whatever s action n the ritual, r has the germ of action n t,appears as action, not as narration, n the medieval liturgicaldrama. Not until the rediscovery f ancient tragedy n the



12/33


Renaissance do we find narration ubstituted or action, underthe influence of the extremely narrative and retrospectiveancient tragedies dramas remarkable because the inicidentswhich form the plot are often supposed to have happenedbefore the play begins, or take place off the stage after theopening of the play. The natural thing n drama is to rep-resent, not narrate, ncidents; and if Greek tragedy s note-worthy because it is narrative and retrospective, we mustseek the explanation of this in its origin. The case of the

drama in the Middle Ages is not cited as proof of our theory,but t certainly onstitutes lluminating orroborative vidence.Thus the agon with the two contestants or performers,

represented n the underlying ritual according to ProfessorMurray, must have been enacted n the primitive ragedy hatsprang from that ritual. But how is this possible when weknow very well that there was only one actor in Greek tragedyuntil Aeschylus introduced the second? Probably neitherProfessor Murray nor any one else will argue that the contestof the year against its enemy was carried on between theleader and the chorus. Indeed, Mr. Cornford plainly in-dividualizes the two contestants, alling them agonist andantagonist, hero and villain; and he postulates a chorus anda leader in addition to these performers.1'

The second step in the ritual, he pathos, Professor Mur-

ray places behind the scenes. It may be said in passingthat it is not entirely plain just how the end of the agon,which brought about the pathos, was placed behind thescenes, while the beginning was in full view of the wor-shippers. However that may be, Professor Murray says thatthe "reason for this the placing of the pathos behind thescenes- "is not hard to suggest." On the contrary, hereason is really hard to find; and the treatment f the deathscene in Greek tragedy is very difficult o explain on thebasis of Professor Murray's theory. As a rule, the actualdeath in Greek tragedy is off the stage; and yet, while itdoes not take place within the view of the spectators, t issometimes within hearing. Also the dead body is often ex-

11 OP- cit. p. 71.



13/33

184 Donald CliveStuart [I916

posed to view. We cannot argue that these practices arelegitimately ccounted for by such suggestions as aversionto the sight of physical suffering Pr-ometleus, ercules), or,as the Renaissance critics said, terror at the sight of blood(P/iloctetes),12 r the desire to avoid defiling semi-religiousceremony by death (Ajax). Furthermore, t cannot be saidthat deaths could not occur on the stage because there wasno meains of removing he body from he scene. The Ajaxis very trong vidence that such was not the case. The fact

that the difficulty f portraying eath agony on the stagewas overcome in one instance, s proof that the real reasonfor regularly keeping deaths off the stage lies far deeper,and is to be sought n the tradition f some ritual rather hanin a practice due to conditions of primitive tage mechanism.Thus we cannot accept the explanation that this custom arosefrom the actual difficulty f representing- uch an incidenteffectively rom a theatrical point of view. It is easier toventure than to accept suggestions. We could wish thatProfessor Murray had told us his reason. However, weagree with him that the pathos was not on the stage, andthat the reason is inherent n the ritual underlying ragedy,whatever hat ritual may be.

The fact that the pathos is narrated or " messengered -to employ he expressive terminology f the modern dramatic

critic is not sufficient o explain the great amount of narra-tion n Greek tragedy and its strikingly etrospective uality,found especially in the choral odes. Professor Murray'sritual does not impress one as being retrospective. Thereis only one narrated incident in it, and that incident issupposed to take place while the ritual is being enacted.Nothing in what may be called the plot of the ritual looksback to anything which is supposed to have happenedbefore the agon. Greek tragedy, on the contrary, ooksback to events which precede the opening of the play; andthe narrative element, lthough constantly ompared to epicpoetry, annot possibly be explained as an outgrowth f the

12 We refer o the scene in which the hero faints rom he bleeding of hiswound.



14/33

Vol. xlvii] ThzeOrigin of Greek Tragedy I85

epic. Thus, while the habit of narrating the pathos in theritual might explain the narration of the death in tragedy,it would hardly have introduced the narrative element intotragedy to the extent n which we find t, nor would it havecaused tragedy constantly o hark back to events long pastin the life of the hero. Greek tragedies, especially thoselike the Oedipus Rex, impress us deeply with the feeling thatthe development of the action is inevitable. Critics haveoften explained this as resulting rom he atmosphere of fate

pervading the action; but there s another cause for this ele-ment of inevitableness, nd it lies in the handling- f the plot.The Greek dramatist s inclined to develop his action, not byevents in the ever-changing resent, but by disclosing eventsof the unchangeable past. Remove the events which hap-pened before almost any Greek tragedy begins and little ofthe action remains; but, because these events have alreadytaken place and their consequences cannot be undone, theaudience waits solemnly for the inexorable doom to fall. Atthe beginning of a Shakespearean tragedy it is the futurewhich threatens vil. In Greek tragedy t is the past whichforebodes he doom.13 There must be an explanation for his;but nothing n the ritual of fertility ffers reason for thisphase of the technique of Greek tragedy.

As for the messenger and the threnos, which form the

third and fourth steps in Professor Murray's ritual, theirpresence in Greek tragedy undoubtedly needs explanation;and in all probability he explanation is to be found in thefact that tragedy originated n some ritual. But for the rea-sons already advanced, the ritual postulated by ProfessorMurray s not the right one, because it does not offer sat-isfactory xplanation of what, we must insist, s a curiousform of drama; and his ritual will at least have to be so re-constructed s to admit of performance by a single leaderor actor and a chorus (see pp. I82-I83 above). There are,however, many technical problems stated above which this

13 If this statement is true in regard to Hamlet, it is because that play isstrongly nfluenced by Greek tradition and technique passing through Senecandramas and Kyd's Sp5anish Tragedy.



15/33

i86 Donald CliveStuart [19I6

ritual, even when thus modified, would leave entirely un-solved.

Let us now consider Professor Ridgeway's theory. Hehas been led to the conclusion "that (i) Tragedy proper didnot arise in the worship of the Thracian god Dionysus; but(2) that t sprang out of the indigenous worship of the dead,especially of dead chiefs such as Adrastus, the ancient pre-Dorian and pre-Achaean king of Sicyon, as described by

Herodotus 4 in a passage which is our earliest authority orGreek tragic dances'; (3) that the cult of Dionysus was notindigenous n Sicyon, but had been introduced here by Cleis-thenes as it had been also brought nto Attica and Naxos),and had been superimposed upon the cult of the old king;(4) that even if it were true that Tragedy proper arose outof the worship of Dionysus, it would no less have originatedin the worship of the dead, since Dionysus was regarded bythe Greeks as a hk;o 15 (i.e. a man turned nto a saint) as wellas a god." 16 Professor Ridgeway holds further hat "theSicyonians honoured their old chief with sacrifices nd tragicdances for the same reasons as those for which ancestors,heroes, and saints have been, and still are being, worshippedin Western Asia, India, Burma, China, Japan, and, n a word,in almost every corner of the world." He brings up many

objections on historical grounds to Professor Murray's heory,and cites in favor of his own view much corroborative vi-dence based on the parallel development of tragic dancesamong other primitive nations. He also points out what heconsiders to be survivals n tragedy of the primitive worshipof the dead hero, such as the presence of the tomb in somany tragedies, he kommos ung over the dead hero who isbeing borne to the tomb, and the commemorative ommossung over his grave when many years have elapsed since hisburial; also the libations n the C/ioephorae, he ghost in thePersac, etc.

Let us now see how Professor Ridgeway's theory stands14 V, 67- 15 Plut. Qaaes/. Graec. 36; de Is. et Osir. 35.16 Dramas and Dramatic Dances, 5-6.



16/33

Vol.xlvii] The Origin of Greek Tragedy i87

the test of dramatic echnique which we have just applied tothe rival view.

There were evidently wo kinds of choral laments for thedead, as Nilsson has pointed out.17 In the one the leadersings the lament and the chorus sings the refrain. The com-position of the oldest tragedies is similar to this form. Theother form consisted of antiphonal choral song, retained inthe Septem, Choephorae, nd the Persae. Commemorativerites were performed at the tomb of the dead hero.

Naturally his great deeds would be recalled to mind. Themanner of his death would be sung. There would be thelament tself, he threnos. We may also assume, at the endof the ritual, he presence of the same note of future peaceor of future ll, which occurs in so many Greek tragedies ustbefore the close and which is another feature peculiar toGreek tragedy. The point may be urged that at the end ofRomeo and Juliet there is a note of future peace; but in thedenouement of Greek tragedy this foreshadowing of thefuture - happy or unhappy seems to be canonical and canhardly be explained by the theory that one play of a trilogyis preparing for the next one. We shall not insist toostrongly on this poinit; but we offer the suggestion that itwould be perfectly atural for the chorus, having sung of thepast deeds and of the death or triumph f the hero, finally o

think of the future nd what it holds for those who are soclosely bound to him.Now -all this ritual could have been carried on by the

chorus without a leader at first. No individual charactersare needed. However, one phase of the development oftragedy, which we shall attempt to trace, is what may becalled the individualization of choral functions, .e. the in-troduction of individual actors to discharge functions thatoriginally elonged to the chorus. We shall attempt o showhow the separate characters thus evolved out of the chorus,which at first erformed Greek tragedy lone. According toProfessor Bywater, when Aristotle says that tragedy began

17 Nilsson, Totenklage und Tragodie," in Archiv fizr Religionswissenschaft,ix ( I906), 286.



17/33

I88 Donald Clive Stuart [I9i6

with mprovisations, e means that the author of the dithy-ramb came forward with an improvisation, .e. with a pr-qrts r" spoken statement," which he improvised n the interval be-tween the two halves of the song of the chorus that beingthe origin of the great constituents of a Greek drama, aspoken part and a sung part, an actor and a chorus.'8 Ofcourse, Aristotle s not speaking here of a chorus worshippinga dead hero; but since the improvisation ook place in thechorus to which Aristotle refers, t seems quite possible that

the same development would occur n the choral worship ofthe dead, especially since we know that n one form, erhapsa later form, the lament was actually carried on betweenthe chorus and the eader. It is probable that the genre of thechoral ode developed as a whole; and if the leader of thechoral odes connected with the worship of Dionysus beganto improvise between the songs of the chorus, a paralleldevelopment was bound to take place sooner or later n thechoral odes connected with the worship of the dead hero.In this connection, one may recall to mind that the originof the prose encomium and the lauidatlo, delivered by oneperson, s to be sought in the threnos sung by the chorus.

A chorus with a leader, therefore, ang of the dead hero athis tomb. The fact that the hero is dead is of the utmostimportance o our theory. The great deeds and all that was

important n the life of the hero would necessarily be told innarrative orm. The whole ceremony would consist of retro-spective narration, ot merely part of it, as in the. itual offertility. Thus, at the outset, the problem in the primitiveform f Greek drama derived from heritual of the hero wouldbe to reduce in quantity his retrospective, arrative lement,which remains to such a great extent even in the mosthighly developed Greek tragedy. The point of attack in aritual performed or a dead hero is naturally placed after thedeath of the hero. This fact would explain, n tragedy, notonly the choral odes dealing with the past deeds of the hero,but also those dealing with his ancestors. As for his death,

18 See note 1449 a II of Bywater's edition of the Poetics. I assume that thefunctions of author, actor, and leader were performed by the same individual.



18/33

Vol. xlvii] The Origin of Greek Tragedy I89

we may infer from the incontrovertible vidence of the laterplays that it was recounted by the leader of the chorus.Thus the leader of the chorus developed into the messenger,not into the hero, because the hero did not appear. Since inthe ritual the death of the hero had already occurred, ndhence could not take place before the eyes of the chorus, tbecame traditional n Greek tragedy to keep the death of thehero off the stage. For the student of dramatic technique,this is a more satisfactory xplanation of the practice of plac-

ing the agon and the pathos behind the scenes than the ex-planations based on mechanical, psychological, or religiousgrounds, which are cited above.

Since the hero was dead and the leader had developed intothe messenger, the chorus those interested n the fate ofthe hero becomes the principal character, not in the myth,but in the ritual. We see a survival of this not only n thepreponderance of the choral element in tragedy, but also inthe fact that the chorus is always most nterested n the herowhen he finally ppears on the Greek stage. Its fate islinked with his. We follow the action in the Septem and inthe Persae by beholding the reaction of the different ventson the mind and emotions of the chorus. It is true thatin the Persae the character of Atossa, the wife and mother,is very important; but she is the individualization of a

function of the chorus, with the maternal interest dded.Her role could revert o the chorus and the play would stillexist. A development has simply taken place from thechorus interested n the fate of the hero into an individualmore interested n the fate of the hero. Also, in the Suip-pliants, the chorus is, let us say, the heroine. Thus thechorus, which was at first ot the chief character n the mythbut only the principal character in the performance f theritual, has now become the heroine of the drama itself.This is one of the natural developments which would almostinevitably ake place if choral worship of a dead hero beganto evolve into drama. However, as we shall try to showlater, this was not the only way in which a hero or heroinewas introduced n the Greek stage. A still further ndividu-



19/33

Igo Donald Clive Stzuart [I9I6

alization of a collective r6le is found in such characters asthose of Chrysothemis nd Ismene, the respective foils oftheir sisters. These characters fulfil he somewhat pale roleof prudent counsellor and friend, which s distinctly r6le ofthe chorus given to an individual.

To be dogmatic n regard to the chronological rder of thesuccessive steps in the evolution of this ritual would bedangerous, but plainly the point of attack had to be pushedback in primitive ragedy to include the hero within he play

itself. It would be natural for a band of worshippers ofthe hero, stimulated by ecstasy and deep emotions as theywould be, to feel the presence of the departed spirit. Thus,in primitive ragedy, after the process of individualizationhad progressed far enough to create the type of characterrepresented by Atossa, the next step would naturally bethe embodiment of the spirit of the hero, an example ofwhich is found in the Persac, when the spirit of the deadDarius appears. The fact that the same actor-leader of thechorus could essay such a role is hardly to be offered asevidence that the leader of the chorus became the hero ofthe play. We must distinguish arefully between the actorand the role itself. The leader had assumed the role of themessenger before the hero could possibly have appeared inthe play. In the ritual and in the primitive drama which

grew out of the ritual, before the role of the hero was intro-duced, the chorus must have been practically he hero of theplay. The choral role was the sympathetic r6le, and theSuippliants bears witness, as we have already said, to thisstage in the development of drama.

The next step is, of course, to place the point of attackback far enough to include the hero n the drama ust beforethe hour of his death. This is the regular point of attackin Greek tragedy; and it is perhaps not without ignificancein this connection that Polyneices, one of the heroes in theSeptcm, does not appear on the stage alive, but that his bodyis brought n and the conventional ament or threnos s sungover it and over the body of Eteocles. In the Agamemnon,the hero, the character with which the chorus and hence the



20/33

Vol. xlvii] Tze Origin of Greek Tragedy I9I

spectators sympathize, s on the stage alive but once duringthe whole play. It would seem that the individual hero hadgreat difficulty n playing n important art on the stage, andhad to force his way before the spectators, because in theritual he played no part at all before the eyes of the wor-shippers. Finally, the point of attack was never pushed veryfar back in Greek tragedy, whereas in medieval drama, whichhad perhaps begun with the ritual dealing with the Resur-rection, the point of attack was set farther nd farther ack

until the whole life of Christ was included and finally theCreation. Hence we have the Shakespearean point of attackfar away from the climax. The Greeks, however, met theproblem of showing more of the hero's career by dramatizingit in the form of a trilogy. Tlhus they responded to thisnatural impulse to show more in action and to tell less innarrative peeches, whereas each separate play of the trilogyheld to the slightly modified orm of the ritual.

In that the point of attack in the single tragedy is thusheld remarkably close to the climax and the denouement,Greek tragedy differs greatly from other forms of nationaldrama. The most important result of this selection of theopening scene is what Aristotle calls the unity of action.Whatever may be narrated n a play that is thus constructed,little can be enacted that is episodic. There are relatively

few events in the course of a Greek tragedy n comparisonwith other forms of drama. Also, the compression of theaction caused by placing the point of attack close to the de-nouement makes it natural for the action in Greek tragediesto run its course during " one revolution of the sun." Thehero has but little time to live even when he has been, so tospeak, resurrected. Finally, the one scene of the ritual wasthe tomb, nd thus the use of a single scene crystallized ntoa tradition; and because there are few events in the lasthours of the life of the hero, they are likely to happen inorne place. Only under exceptional circumstances does thescene of Greek tragedy change.

If, for reasons stated above, the hero in Greek tragedy haddifficulty n getting on the stage and in staying on -for ny



21/33

I92 Donald Clive Stuart [I9I6

length of time, his adversary had at least as much difficultyin this respect. We have already pointed out objections toProfessor Murray's theory of the agon or contest betweentwo individuals; but there s still more to be said against it.In the first lace, there s no agon on the stage between twoindividuals n the most primitive lays of Aeschylus. In thePersace he agon is over before the play begins. In the Sep-tem the agon is behind the scenes. In the Sugppliants heagon is between the chorus and an individual, herald rep-

resenting n a rather pale manner the real antagonist, thesons of Aegyptus. Indeed, it is not until Aeschylus employsthree actors that we find a real antagonist and a clash be-tween wo ndividuals n the stage. Eteocles, n the Septemn, shardly o be considered purely s an antagonist, or he chorus,through whose eyes we watch the action unfold, aments forhim as well as for his brother. The scene, however, n whichhis mood clashes with he emotions f the chorus s, perhaps,primitive orm f the agon -- a form which existed before theappearance of an antagonist who remains ctively hostile o thehero throughout he play. The Sit.ppliants hows the nextstep, n which the active antagonist s vicariously epresentedon the stage. In the Agarmemnon he two individual contest-ants face each other on the stage in an "obligatory scene." 19

Again, the reason for the non-appearance of the antagonist

on the stage may be sought n the fact that if tragedy devel-oped from the worship of the dead hero, and if, therefore,the hero had to be brought to life and then put upon thestage, naturally he antagonist and the clash of the contend-ing forces in the agon would have to be introduced slowlyand almost haltingly, s the framework of Greek tragedybecame larger. Thus there are comparatively ew scenes ofany kind between individuals n the dramas of Aeschylus, ndhe only really earns how to handle the agon after Sophocleshas introduced the third actor. Had the agon between the

19 am indebted to Mr. William Archer for this excellent translation of theFrench phrase, scene (zfaire. He defines the obligatory scene as " one which theaudience (more or less clearly and consciously) foresees and desires, and the ab-sence of which it maywith reason resent." - Play-Making (Boston, I9I2), p. 227.



22/33


hero and his enemy been enacted in the ritual, s ProfessorMurray would lead -us to believe, nstead of being narrated,as it must have been on Professor Ridgeway's theory, t ishard to see why Aeschylus generally and the other drama-tists at times should have been so prone to place obligatoryscenes between two principal characters off the stage, andwhy the antagonist, f he had appeared in the ritual, houldnot have continued to figure n early tragedy. Indeed, inorder to explain the construction of Greek tragedy in its

more developed form, we must postulate a ritual and then aritualistic drama, in which neither the hero nor his enemyappeared. In this connection the fact s hardly without ig-nificance hat there s a preponderance of choral and femaler6les, or, one may say, roles of those interested n the fate ofthe hero, over the short r6le of the hero himself. Also, inthe lament over the dead body of Hector in the Iliad, it isinteresting o note that it is the women who carry on thethrenos, whereas Priam, although he is present, does not takepart in the lament. Thus perhaps in the preponderance ofthe choral and the female r6les in early tragedy we may seethe survival of a traditional ament sung by women.

When the point of attack had been set back in the plotand the hero was brought on the stage, his role slowly butsurely gained in importance and in length, and the r6le of

those interested n his fate decreased in importance. But itis a striking act that rarely n a Greek tragedy do we see thefault of the hero committed nd expiated in the same play.Old tradition unconsciously held the point of attack close tothe death of the hero. As tragedy evolved, however, herewas evidently shift n the dramatic emphasis, and hence inthe sympathy f the spectator, rom he chorus to individualsinterested n the hero, and finally o the hero himself, whohad, as it were, risen from the tomb to enact before the eyesof the audience many if not all of the events that the ritualhad presented n narrative orm.

In his book, The Origin of Attic Comedy, Mr. Cornfordtakes practically he same point of departure as does Profes.



23/33

I94 Donald Clive Stuart LI9I6

sor Murray. Evidence is presented that " Athenian Comedyarose out of a ritual drama essentially the same in type asthat from whichProfessor Murray derives Athenian Tragedy."Since he holds that the case for the origin of comedy isclearer and more convincing and reinforces rofessor Mur-ray's hypothesis, he same technical test must be applied tothis theory, specially as Mr. Cornford elieves that ProfessorMurray's hypothesis is, in the main, true."

The parabasis, Mr. Cornford holds, is the most striking

thing in Greek comedy. It normally pens with a farewellto the actors, who leave the stage until t is over. It dividesthe play into two parts: (i) prologuie r exposition cenes, ar-odos, goni, parabasis, (2) klomos (a festal procession), and amarriage. Somewhere between he agon and the komos thereis also a scene of sacrifice nd feast. In several of the earlierplays of Aristophanes these two elements, acrifice nd feast," form nearly he whole of the action, nd fillnearly the wholetime of presentation, n the second part. In the later plays,from he Birds onward, plots of a more complicated type aredeveloped, chiefly n this atter half of the play; but still theold sequence of fixed ncidents in the old order remains asthe substructure f the action: Ago/i, Sacrifice, Feast, Mar-riage, K6mos. Another regularly recurring ype of incidentis the interruption f the Sacrifice or the Feast, or both, by a

series of unwelcome intruders, who are successively put toderision by the protagonist nd driven away with blows. ...This canonical plot formula preserves the stereotyped ctionof a ritual or folk drama, older than iterary Comedy and of apattern well known to us from ther sources." 0

This is not the place to discuss in detail evidence adducedby Mr. Cornford n support of his theory. His success infinding urvivals from the ritual in Aristophanic comedy sfar more complete and convincing han is Professor Murray'seffort opoint out canonical ritualistic cenes in Greek tragedy.His conclusion shows, however, how very similar these twosupposed rituals are. "Starting from Aristotle's authorita-tive statement," he says, " we sought the nucleus of Comedy

20 Op.cit. p. 3-



24/33

Vol. xlvii] Tue Orzgin f Greek Tragedy I95

in the Phallic ceremonies, llustrated by Aristophanes in therites performed y Dikaiopolis at his Country Dionysia. Wefound there, n barest outline, ritual procedure n three parts.(i) The procession of the worshippers f Phales moves on itsway, carrying the emblem of the god on a pole and the in-struments f sacrifice. (2) It pauses at some fixed place forthe sacrifice, ccompanied by a prayer to Dionysus. (3) Theprocession moves on again singing the Phallic Song. ThisKdmos hymn reflects he two essential elements: invocation

and induction of the good influence r spirit, magical abuseand expulsion of the evil. The same two elements we foundperpetuated n the comic Parabasis. In the Agon which regu-larly precedes the Parabasis we now have come to see theequivalent of the sacrifice which precedes the Phallic Song.The Agon s the beginning of the sacrifice n its primitive ra-matic form the conflict between the good and evil princi-ples, Summer nd Winter, Life and Death. The good spirit sslain, dismembered, ooked, and eaten in the communal feast,and yet brought ack to life. These acts survive n the stand-ing features of the comic plot between the Parabasis and theExodos. Finally comes the sacred Marriage of the risen God,restored to life and youth to be the husband of the MotherGoddess. This marriage is the necessary consummation ofthe Phallic ritual, which, when it takes a dramatic form, imu-

lates the union of Heaven and Earth for the renewal of alllife n Spring." 1One of the most convincing parts of Mr. Cornford's ook

is the Appendix, containing synopsis of the extant comediesshowing the reminiscences of the ritual; and it is to thisAppendix that we shall refer for much evidence in supportof our theory.

It will be remembered that from this ritual of the deathand rebirth of the good spirit, Professor Murray derivesperhaps the peripeteia and surely the anagnorisis of Greektragedy. Mr. Cornford oes not pretend to find either peri-peteia or anagnorisis n comedy, nd rightly o, in our opinion.For reasons stated above, we do not believe that the presence

21 Op. Cit. p. 103 f.



25/33

I96 Donald Clize Stuart [I9I6

of the recognition cene proves anything. But it would seema pertinent uestion to ask Professor Murray, nd also Mr.Cornford, ince he accepts this theory, why peripeteia andanagnorisis happened to develop in tragedy out of the ritual,but not in comedy. Surely f these two forms f drama aroseout of essentially he same ritual, hey must have been strik-ingly similar n form nd content before the wide divergencedeveloped. Just how the question can be answered is notplaini. As for the theophany, t might not be so difficult o

explain why that element should remain in tragedy nd notin comedy, although the burden of proof may well be leftwith Professor Murray and Mr. Cornford.

In regard to the agon carried on by two individuals, therepresentatives of two parties or principles which are ineffect he hero and villain of the whole piece," the objectionsadvanced above in respect to tragedy re by no means validin the case of comedy. When Aristotle ays that Aeschylusintroduced the second actor, he is speaking of tragedy ndnot of comedy. If Mr. Cornford's theory s correct, thenthere must have been in his ritual at least two individualperformers rom the earliest times much earlier than inthe ritual out of which tragedy grew. Therefore, we shouldexpect to find n comedy, s we know t, many scenes, espe-cially the agon, carried on between two individuals, nstead

of finding n individual and a chorus clashing n the obliga-tory cene. In the analyses of the comedies given by Mr.Cornford himself, we are immediately truck by the fact thatthe action in Aristophanic comedy, specially in the agon, iscarried on by individual characters. A mere glance at thispart of his work, or at the comedies themselves, will confirmthis very mportant act. We should also expect the agon tobe enacted on the stage, and to be a real, clear-cut struggle,not kept off he stage nor outside the limits of the action ofthe play. Mr. Cornford's synopses prove that this is thecase beyond the shadow of a doubt.

With these individual r6les, agonist and antagonist, heroand villain, probably well defined n the ritual, t is not sur-prising to find them so well defined and so important n



26/33

Vol.xlvii] The Origin of Greek Tragedy 197

comedy, nstead of playing almost a minor part, as they doin early tragedy, nd, as it were, finding t difficult o appearon the stage at all. If we are surprised at the importanceand the extent of the choral role in Aeschylus, what musthave been the case before his time n view of the statementof Aristotle hat " the number of actors was first ncreased totwo by Aeschylus, who curtailed the business of the chorusand made the dialogue, or spoken portion, ake the leadingpart in the play." 22 It is not without ignificance hat, while

Aristotle knew that Aeschylus introduced the second actorinto tragedy, he did not know who gave comedy a pluralityof actors, probably because comedy had more than one fromthe beginning. In comedy the role of the hero is well devel-oped. The hero carries on the action, and the antagonists,together with the role of the alazon, or impostor, re no lesswell developed and important.

Under these conditions there s consequently diminutionin importance of the choral role. While the statements fMr. Cornford bout the function f the tragic chorus are notentirely cceptable, the points that he makes in regard tothe comic chorus are very lluminating. He shows that thecomic chorus is very partisan, and that its partisan sympa-thies probably survive from ts original function s partici-pant in the ritual without an audience; that after he agon

and the parabasis the comic chorus has no part in theaction until the exodos; that its most important unction sin connection with the agon; and that at the beginning ofthe agon the chorus is more or less violently on the sideof one of the adversaries against the other, or else dividedagainst itself, ne half taking each side. If the chorus s atfirst hostile to the agonist t changes and always ends on thevictorious ide. Mr. Cornford does not offer ny explanationof this phenomenon of changing sides or of being at anytime against the hero; but one is immediately truck by thefact that in only one tragedy Eumenides) is there a chorustaking sides against the hero, and that the tragic chorusnever changes its allegiance. The explanation of this may

22 Bywater'sranslationf 449 a 15 of hePoetics.



27/33

198 Donald Clive Stuart [i9i6

well lie in the ritual commemorating he dead hero. Thechorus celebrating the hero would naturally be on his sidefirst, ast, and always. It could not be hostile to him. TheEiunenides, the exception to the rule, s a relatively ate play,and the latest of the extant plays of Aeschylus. In comedy,however, here seems to have been no such strong bond tokeep the chorus faithful o the hero. There is no such merg-ing of the roles of chorus and hero in comedy as there s inthe Suippliants. In the case of comedy the individual hero

had appeared even in the underlying ritual, nd hence thechorus was never paramount as it was in tragedy. We seethe action n tragedy through he eyes of the chorus; but incomedy we see the action through the eyes of the hero andnot always through the eyes of the possibly hostile chorus.Perhaps the explanation of this phenomenon may be that inthe agon of the ritual both the agonist and the antagonist,Summer and Winter, were leaders of a half chorus. Thusthe original ritualistic form may be preserved in the Iysis-trala, in which the chorus s divided nto two hostile groups.This is also the situation n the Ac/iarnians, n which, s Mr.Cornford ays, " Dikaiopolis pleads for peace with Sparta.He converts Half Chorus i. Their Leader fights with theother Leader, whose party all for Lamachus." 23 Thus, sincein the ritual underlying omedy here was a well-defined gon,

the chorus would naturally be divided, ome siding with thehero, ome siding with the villain, until n the end, since theremust be a joyful outcome, he whole chorus would be on theside of the victor the new god. On the other hand, sincethere was no enacted agon in the ritual underlying ragedy,the chorus would be immutably n sympathy with the hero.

23 0p. cit. p. 223. The presence of the agon in Professor Murray's econ-

structed ritual underlying tragedy cannot be explained in this manner, since thereis no evidence that the tragic chorus was ever divided into hostile half choruses.In the Septem the chorus separates into two groups at the end, but these semi-choruses are not hostile to each other. This division is probably a stage devicefor removing the dead heroes who cannot be buried together. Indeed, thedivision of the comic chorus into hostile groups and the entire solidarity of thetragic chorus, together with ts complete loyalty to the hero, are additional evidenceof the impossibility of deriving both tragedy and comedy from the same ritual.



28/33


Indeed, before the hero could be portrayed n tragedy on thestage, the chorus was what is technically known as the sym-pathetic character. There would be no chance for dividedallegiance under such circumstances. This considerationleads us to an explanation of the relative unimportance ofthe chorus in comedy and the relative importance of theroles of hero and villain. These two roles in comedy de-veloped evidently rom the leader of the chorus. The roleof the messenger was not needed. From the earliest times,

the interest of the worshipper or the spectator must havebeen centred on the individual agonist and antagonist, n-stead of being centred on those who were beholding thestruggle. The hero and the villain were present in fleshand blood in the ritual underlying omedy.

Both Mr. Cornford nd Professor Murray postulate in thisritual the sacrifice n which the good spirit s slain, dismem-bered, cooked, and eaten in the communal feast and yet isbrought back to life. Professor Murray derives from thisthe pathos, behind the scenes, and the messenger. Mr.Cornford derives sacrifice, cooking, and feast. Again wemust ask why this ritual developed so differently n the twoforms of drama. At this point of our discussion, however,the question of action on and off the stage must arise, andimmediately very remarkable state of affairs s disclosed.

The action in comedy, unlike that of tragedy, s practicallyalways on the stage. This is just what we should expect tofind f comedy developed from the ritual adopted by Mr.Cornford; for n this ritual everything f importance s actedout before the eyes of the worshippers and there is littleplace for narration. In comedy the role of the messenger sas unimportant s it is important n tragedy. There is aspeech in the Knights by a character who is practically amessenger, oncerning he agon of the Paphlagonian and theSausage-seller before the Senate; but this use of the messen-ger is perhaps due to the fact that the agon described s arepetition f the scene just enacted on the stage, with anotherscene of the same kind, but more vitally important o theaction, still to come; or perhaps, with the choral r6le filled



29/33

200 Donald Clive Stuart [I9I6

by the Knights, the senators could not be introduced n thestage. In the Birds, a messenger describes the building ofthe walls of the new city, but this s hardly vital part of theaction. Also, these two speeches are in parody of thespeeches of messengers in tragedy, s is clearly shown bythe language. Thus, as a rule, everything f any importancein comedy is acted on the stage, with the exception of thecanonical feast. In the Wasps, this feast is reported byXanthias. Only in the Kniglts does a feast take place on

the stage, and even in that play there s mention f anotherfeast to which the Sausage-seller is invited nd which s sup-posed to come after the play is over. That the canonicalfeast s practically lways behind the scenes is hardly due tomere chance; nor is it to be ascribed to any difficulty fstage presentation. No explanation f the technical handlingof this ncident has been offered, or are we able to suggestone at present. The important oint n regard to our theory,however, s that, withi he exception of this incident, ll theevents vital to the plot of comedy are enacted on the stage,whereas in tragedy there is much narration of important n-cidents. This difference n dramatic technique is not to beascribed to the difference between a serious play and acomedy. There is much narration of important ncidents fthe plot in the comedies of Plautus and Terence -a further

proof of the influence of the technique of tragedy on thelater comedy through Menander. The difference betweenGreek tragedy and comedy in this respect is rather to beascribed to the difference n their origin.

Finally, we must call attention not only to the absence ofnarration but also of the retrospective lement in the ritualand hence in comedy. Not oiily are the events on the stage,but the action is in the present and looks toward the future.The point of attack is already far enough back in the ritualto include the whole action and plot of the play. Only thepresent situation has to be explained, and then the storyunfolds with many ncidents before our eyes. There was notthe need of pushing back the point of attack n comedy thatthere was in tragedy. All these differences n dramatic



30/33


technique between these two kinds of Greek drama cannotbe without deep significance.

Professor Murray believes that the important roblem s toexplain how tragedy could end unhappily while the ritual hada happy ending. A far more troublesome problem s how toreconcile his theory of the origin of tragedy with the state-ment of Aristotle hat tragedy developed c rov or-avpuptcoVinto a serious play. "That the two types of drama whichwere presented to the same audience at the same festivals of

Dionysuis hould have had their origins n different ults, s athesis so paradoxical that only the most cogent proof couldrecommend t to serious attention." This statement on thepart of Mr. Cornford leads him correctly to ask and toattempt to answer the question: "Given that Tragedy andComedy have come from he same type of ritual drama, howand why did they part and take their divergent outes towardsforms of art so widely different? 24 To the student of dra-matic technique this s the question of paramount mportance,rather han the question how tragedy and comedy happenedto be played on the same stage at the same time. While wehave no important objections to the single points that Mr.Cornford makes in his answer to this question, we cannotaccept them as proof, because he does not touch on any ofthe vital differences n the technique of these two forms of

drama. His discussion of plot and character n tragedy andcomedy s too general to be of any use in solving the problem.When he confines himself o the question of the evolution ofcomedy, he is very convincing; but as soon as he tries tostrengthen rofessor Murray's theory f the origin of tragedy,he is not only unconvincing, ut he has unconsciously fur-nished much of the evidence tending to disprove that theory.

No one denies that the worship of the dead hero has hadsome influence on the tragic form of drama, n spite of thefact that Aristotle does not mention this nfluence, ut saysthat tragedy arose from he dithyrambic horus of the satyrs.The question is: when did this influence f the worship ofthe dead hero begin to be exerted on the tragic form of dra-

24 Op. Cit. p. I90.



31/33

202 Doniald Clive Stuart [I9I6

matic art? Professor Ridgeway and Dr. Jevons25 deny aDionysiac origin of tragedy, holding that there was dramabefore the worship of Dionysus was introduced. Now deadheroes may well have been worshipped before the introduc-tion of the Dionysiac cult, as Herodotus would seem toprovre rom his description of the ceremonies around thetomb of Adrastus. Nevertheless, how can we be sure thatthere was actually a dramatic element developed at that timein the ritual? Nilsson holds "that the fundamental ifference

between tragedy nd choral lamentation for the dead is thatthe former s a td'lSv 8p(O.VTW.... When the messengertells something nd the chorus laments, hat s almost identi-cal with the epic form of the lamentation or the dead. Thedifference s shown when the hero himself appears. Hiermuss der langst erkannte mimische Trieb im Dionysuskultangezogen werden." 6 Apart from the question of theappearance of the hero, this theory ffers partial solutionto the whole question. There were at least two forms ofchoral worship: the worship of Dionysus, and the worshipof the dead hero. There seems to be no reason to deny thatthe dramatic element arose first n the worship of Dionysus,especially since the ritual was probably more dramatic thanwas the more narrative form of the ritual followvedn theworship-of he hero. The mimetic lement, having made its

appearance in the Dionysiac ritual, was either introducedinto the hero ritual or, what amounts to the same thing inthe end, while the Dionysiac form of choral drama was in itsinfancy, he worship of the hero was drawn into it and, in ameasure, ombinedwith t. Yet, because of the difference e-tween hetwo forms f ritual, woforms f drama were evolved.

In this connection, however, we must not fail to take intoconsideration he theory et forth y Dr. Jevons. He rejectsthe idea that the origin of tragedy is to be sought in thedithyramb, nd claims that "the view established and com-monly held by classical scholars, that the Greek drama had

2 F. B. Jevons, " Masks and the Origin of Greek Drama," Folk Lore, XXVIII

(I9I6), 17I ff.26 Op. cit. 287.



32/33


its origin n the worship of Dionysus, is obviously erroneous;masking and acting were known and practised by the fore-fathers of the Greeks long before the worship of Dionysuswas established, even though it was in connection with theworship of Dionysus that masking and acting reached theirhighest development." 7 He holds that there was no mask-ing without acting and no acting without masking. Whilewe do not wish to indulge in meticulous distinctions, we dofeel that there may be masking without acting, that masks

may well have been the insignia of the ritual, nd that a per-former who is wearing a mask is not necessarily an actor anymore than s a bishop who s wearing a mitre. Drama meanssomething more than persons in costume reciting a ritual.Dr. Jevons brings evidence, however, hat the choruses in theworship of dead ancestors, in the worship of vegetationspirits, and in the worship of theriomorphic pirits woremasks, and that in Greece all three forms of cult becamedramatic performances, .e. tragedy, omedy, nd satyr-play.These forms f dramatic art came to be incorporated n onefestival, he Dionysia. Now the dramatic element must havearisen first in some one of the three dramatic rites. Justexactly what this dramatic element was we are frankly notgoing to attempt o define; but we feel sure that t was some-thing more than mere costume. We believe, for the reasons

stated above, that this true dramatic element did not arisefirst n the choral rites of hero worship. The case of thereligious drama in the Middle Ages, which evolved from heritual of the Catholic church, s evidence that a dramatic formof ritual can exist for centuries without becoming drama, forit was not until the tenth century hat the liturgical dramadeveloped. Thus we see no reason to deny that these Greekrituals were practised for years before any one of them be-came a drama; and we hold that the dramatic element arosefirst n the chorus of the satyrs in connection with the wor-ship of Dionysus. Our belief in this theory s strengthenedby the fact that Aristotle makes the statement hat tragedydeveloped e, rov o-arvptKov.

27 Op. Cit. 174.



33/33

204 Donald Clive Stuart [i9i6

We hold, further, hat when this dramatic element hadbeen introduced, nd the choral worship of Dionysus had be-come a primitive atyr-play, he choral worship of the deadwas drawn nto, and, in a measure, combined with this satyr-play, on which, at the same time, it superimposed ts ownspecial technique. The similarity n technical constructionbetween tragedy and such satyr-plays s the Ichneutae andthe Cyclops, s well as the close juxtaposition of the tragedyand the satyr-play n the tetralogy, would point to some such

primitive onnection. The difference etween the primitiverituals from which these two forms of drama sprang wouldaccount for the minor differences n their technical con-struction.

Finally, whatever may be thought of this part of ourtheory, the important points which we have attempted toprove are: (i) that it is impossible to derive tragedy, as weknow t, from he ritual from which we can trace the evolutionof comedy, because of the wide divergence n dramatic tech-nique between these two forms of drama; (2) that the onlyritual thus far suggested which will explain the technicalconstruction f Greek tragedy s the ritual of the worship ofthe dead hero.

The Origin of Greek Tragedy in the Light of Dramatic Technique

Documents