important as to entitle their author to be considered as the father of
Attic tragedy. This title he would have deserved, if he had only
introduced the dialogue, which distinguished his drama from that of
the preceding poets, who had told the story of each piece in a series
of monologues. So long as this was the case, the lyrical part must
have created the chief interest; and the difference between the Attic
tragedy and the choral songs which were exhibited in a similar manner
in the Dorian cities was perhaps not so striking as their agreement.
The innovation made by Aeschylus altered the whole character of the
poem; raised the purely dramatic portion from a subordinate to the
principal rank, and expanded it into a richly varied and well
organised composition. With him, it would seem, and as a natural
consequence of this great change, arose the usage, which to us appears
so singular, of exhibiting what was sometimes called a trilogy, which
comprised three distinct tragedies at the same time."

Grote says:--

"The tragic drama belonged essentially to the festivals in honour of
the god Dionysus; being originally a chorus sung in his honour, to
which were successively superadded: First, an iambic monologue; next,
a dialogue with two actors; lastly, a regular plot with three actors,
and a chorus itself interwoven into the scene. Its subjects were from
the beginning, and always continued to be, persons either divine or
heroic above the level of historical life, and borrowed from what was
called the mythical past. 'The Persae' of Aeschylus, indeed, forms a
splendid exception; but the two analogous dramas of his contemporary,
Phrynichus, 'The Phoenissae,' and 'The Capture of Miletus,' were not
successful enough to invite subsequent tragedians to meddle with
contemporary events. To three serious dramas, or a trilogy--at first