Note 129 — Chapter I · DRAMATIC CONTESTS AT ATHENS

There is no consecutive account in any ancient writer of the mode of selecting the judges and of voting. Our knowledge of the subject has to be pieced together from the three following passages: (1) Plut. Cim. p. 483 E ἔθεντο δ’ εἰς μνήμην αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν τῶν τραγῳδῶν κρίσιν ὀνομαστὴν γενομένην. πρώτην γὰρ διδασκαλίαν τοῦ Σοφοκλέους ἔτι νέου καθέντος, Ἀψεφίων ὁ ἄρχων, φιλονεικίας οὔσης καὶ παρατάξεως τῶν θεατῶν, κριτὰς μὲν οὐκ ἐκλήρωσε τοῦ ἀγῶνος, ὡς δὲ Κίμων μετὰ τῶν συστρατήγων προελθὼν εἰς τὸ θέατρον ἐποιήσατο τῷ θεῷ τὰς νενομισμένας σπονδάς, οὐκ ἀφῆκεν αὐτοὺς ἀπελθεῖν, ἀλλ’ ὁρκώσας ἠνάγκασε καθίσαι καὶ κρῖναι δέκα ὄντας, ἀπὸ φυλῆς μιᾶς ἕκαστον. (2) Isocrat. xvii. § 43 Πυθόδωρον γὰρ τὸν σκηνίτην καλούμενον, ὃς ὑπὲρ Πασίωνος ἅπαντα καὶ λέγει καὶ πράττει, τίς οὐκ οἶδεν ὑμῶν πέρυσιν ἀνοίξαντα τὰς ὑδρίας καὶ τοὺς κριτὰς ἐξελόντα τοὺς ὑπὸ τῆς βουλῆς εἰσβληθέντας; καίτοι ὅστις μικρῶν ἕνεκα καὶ περὶ τοῦ σώματος κινδυνεύων ταύτας ὑπανοίγειν ἐτόλμησεν, αἳ σεσημασμέναι μὲν ἦσαν ὑπὸ τῶν πρυτάνεων, κατεσφραγισμέναι δ’ ὑπὸ τῶν χορηγῶν, ἐφυλάττοντο δ’ ὑπὸ τῶν ταμιῶν, ἔκειντο δ’ ἐν ἀκροπόλει, τί δεῖ θαυμάζειν εἰ κτλ. (3) Lysias iv. § 3 ἐβουλόμην δ’ ἂν μὴ ἀπολαχεῖν αὐτὸν κριτὴν Διονυσίοις, ἵν’ ὑμῖν φανερὸς ἐγένετο ἐμοὶ διηλλαγμένος, κρίνας τὴν ἐμὴν φυλὴν νικᾶν. νῦν δὲ ἔγραψε μὲν ταῦτα εἰς τὸ γραμματεῖον, ἀπέλαχε δέ. καὶ ὅτι ἀληθῆ ταῦτα λέγω Φιλῖνος καὶ Διοκλῆς ἴσασιν. ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἔστ’ αὐτοῖς μαρτυρῆσαι μὴ διομοσαμένοις περὶ τῆς αἰτίας ἧς ἐγὼ φεύγω, ἐπεὶ σαφῶς ἔγνωτ’ ἂν ὅτι ἡμεῖς ἦμεν αὐτὸν οἱ κριτὴν ἐμβαλόντες, καὶ ἡμῶν εἵνεκα ἐκαθέζετο. The first of these passages refers to a dramatic contest, the third to a dithyrambic one. It is uncertain to which the second refers. But there is no reason to suppose (with Oehmichen, Bühnenwesen, p. 206) that the mode of selecting the judges was different in the dramatic and the dithyrambic contests. That there were ten urns for the names on the preliminary list of judges is inferred from the plural ὑδρίαι in Isocrates. That a second list of judges was appointed by lot from the larger list before the commencement of each contest, and that this second list consisted of ten persons, one from each of the ten tribes, seems to be proved by the words of Plutarch, κριτὰς μὲν οὐκ ἐκλήρωσε τοῦ ἀγῶνος ... ἀπὸ φυλῆς μιᾶς ἕκαστον. That there was another selection of judges by lot after the contest, and that the number of judges who actually decided the result was smaller than the number of those who sat through the performance and voted, is proved by two expressions in the above passages: (1) ἔγραψε μὲν ταῦτα εἰς τὸ γραμματεῖον, ἀπέλαχε δέ, i.e. he voted in my favour, but his vote was not drawn; (2) ἡμῶν εἵνεκα ἐκαθέζετο. Καθίζειν and καθέζεσθαι were the regular words used of a judge at a contest. It is clear therefore that the person here referred to sat through the performance as a judge, but that after the performance was over his vote was not drawn by lot.

The above conclusions are those of Petersen (Preisrichter der grossen Dionysien). Mommsen (Bursian’s Jahresbericht, lii. pp. 354-8) raises some objections. He suggests (1) that the plural ὑδρίαι is merely rhetorical, and that there was only one urn for all the names, (2) that the selection of a second list of judges before the contest is not mentioned by Lysias, and was probably a fiction of Plutarch’s. It may be replied that Lysias had no occasion to refer to this preliminary ballot. He was not giving an account of the entire system of judging, and therefore only mentioned the points which enforced his argument. Still, it must be confessed that the evidence about the judges is very fragmentary, and that Petersen’s scheme depends largely on conjecture.