The Attic tragedies certainly cannot be considered in the same way as myths, although, as we know precisely, myth, with very rare exceptions, totally characterized their content. With the epiphany of dramatic art, however, that mythic content, was not, as happened for many centuries and in a certain sense even in lyric poetry, accepted to be then, albeit within an evolutionary process, substantially handed down, but for the first time was made the subject of a profound reinterpretation: that myth, which for a long time guided existence and traced the way, was subjected to a process of problematization that then virtuously resulted in cathartic critical vision. This problematizing ability, which emerges contextually with the birth of the theatron and thus of Greek tragedy and which indeed in a certain sense, as we shall see, qualified them ontologically, in turn becomes apparent with the appearance of the figure of the Hypokrites who, by becoming the object and subject of representation, becomes the fundamental and foundational element of that dialogical dimension that has characterized the specificity of dramatic art from its origins. It is precisely in the dialogical dimension, born with the placing of the Hypokrites in front of the chorus, that human action, unfolding itself through the newly born “interpreting/responding” capacity, will pave the way for tragic consciousness, that tragic consciousness which in turn, precisely in the critical reinterpretation of myth, will find its original inspirations. Hence the question arises as to how and with what extraordinary novelties Greek tragedy reworked that ancient wisdom, which now, for the first time, is made the subject of vision: that vision which, thanks to the unavoidable corporeity of the actor, no longer refers back to a glorious past but reveals itself, offering itself in representation, as a “problematic presence”.