The dithyrambic chorus, originally of 50 men, was separated into four choruses of 12 or 15 each, and plays were composed in groups of four, three tragedies, sometimes forming a tril ogy on one subject but later usually on discon nected themes, and a fourth satyric play, re taining the satyrs of the ancient festivals. Each play consisted of a series of passages of dia logue interspersed by the odes of the chorus. The dialogue introduced various persons and developed a complete story, usually taken from mythology and dealing with the life of some particular hero. Not more than three actors shared in the dialogue at one time, the second actor having been introduced by ./Eschylus, and the third by Sophocles. The chorus occa sionally took part in the dialogue, but its main function was the singing of odes with accom paniment of music and dancing. In iEschylus the chorus is of great importance, and its ex planations, advice, and lamentations are essen tial to the representation of the action; but by the time of Euripides, its part is subordinate and its odes often have no connection with the dialogue. Although subjects were drawn from mythology, and the same story was often treated by several dramatists, large freedom was per mitted in the treatment of the myths, and con sequently there is development in subject matter as in form. 2Eschylus treats the myths as supernatural revelations and deals with the course of fate or Nemesis rather than with the conflict of human motives. Sophocles is inter ested in human nature and in moral law, in human life rather than in the supernatural. Euripides treats the myths with free invention and in a realistic and even skeptical fashion, transforming gods and heroes into men and women of the day, delighting in situations of emotional intensity, and making the passion of love for the first time of capital importance as a dramatic motive.
The symmetry and unity of Attic tragedy were in part the result of limitations imposed by the conditions of the theatrical performance, resulting in the three unities, the value of which has been the subject of much controversy in modern times. The unity of action involved the restriction of the incidents of a play to those strictly concerned with the main action; the unity of time confined the events of the action to a single day; and the unity of 'place to a single place. In spite of these and other re strictions already noted, the plays, though want ing the wealth of incident and the variety and surprise common to the best modern plays, are by no means lacking in human interest. More over, they represent the height of poetic style. The splendor and beauty of their language and the exquisite perfection of their versification as well as the power and truth of their representa tion of human character and deed, place them among the consummate products of the imagina tion. After the 5th century tragedies continued to be numerous and popular not only in Athens but in other Greek towns; and later the plays of the great dramatists and of some of their successors were performed in Alexandria and Rome. Only fragments of later tragedy, how ever, have survived.
Comedy, like tragedy, sprang from the wor ship of Dionysus, developing from the frolic and buffoonery of the harvest festival. Farces
were exhibited early in the 6th century, but the first great comic writer was Aristophanes. His comedies were satirical and burlesque criticisms of the life of Athens in his day, dealing with political and intellectual tendencies and fash ionable follies, and putting no limit to direct personal satire. Socrates, for example, was caricatured in the 'Clouds) and Euripides in the
The early development of the drama in Rome seems to have been similar to that in Greece and other countries; but as no representatives of the early folk drama or the Atellan farces have survived, it is impossible to trace any peculiarities in its national develop ment. Roman drama is, indeed, known to us only in the works of three writers, the comedies of Plautus and Terence and the tragedies of Seneca. In this late development it is only a borrowing from the Greek. Terence, aiming at literary excellence and protesting against the coarseness and brutality of his audiences, seems to have imitated or even translated Menander without attempt at any departure. Plautus while he also followed the new comedy of the Greeks, appears to have derived some of his characteristics from the earlier Roman farces, and at all events exhibits a coarseness and directness of humor suited to his audience and characteristic of Roman taste. These Roman comedies served as models and incentives for the dramatic writers of the Renaissance, and its stock characters and lively intrigue have had an influential existence down to the present day. In the same way the tragedies of Seneca served as models for the humanists and became the I main classical influence upon modern never acted, they were rhetorical imi tations of Euripides and later Greek tragic writers, preserving in the main the form of Attic tragedy, dealing with the most sensational and bloody stories from Greek Mythology and abounding in extravagant declamation and sen tentious philosophizing. Stilt another inherit ance for future ages came from. the very dregs of the Roman theatre, the Mimes_ The theatre in the later empire ceased to be the home of the drama, and was given over to bloody spectacle and indecent pantomime. Attacked violently by the early fathers, it ceased with the triumph of Christianity; but the dispersed mimes became the ancestors of the traveling entertainers of the Middle Ages, and the traditions of clownery and farce were handed down from generation to generation.