CHAPTER IX
THEATRICAL RECORDS[372]
The technical word used of bringing out a play was διδάσκειν (“to teach”), and the technical name for the director of the performance was _didascalus_ (διδάσκαλος) or “teacher.” We have already noted (p. 198, above) that _didascalia_ (διδασκαλία; “teaching”) was the name for a group of plays brought out by a tragic playwright at one time, and the same word was applied to a record of the theatrical contests. At the beginning the didascalus and the author were identical, for the reason that the primitive poets taught the choreutae what they were to sing, that the poets in the one-actor period carried the histrionic parts themselves and still taught the choreutae their rôles, and that even when they had ceased to act in their plays they yet continued to train those who did.
The Athenian archons seem to have kept records of the contests at the Dionysiac festivals, the archon eponymus for the City Dionysia and the king archon for the Lenaea. These records, of course, were not compiled in the interests of literary research such as flourished in Alexandrian times but merely for the private convenience of the officials and for documentary purposes. Apparently they consisted of a bald series of entries, chronicling the choregi, tribes, poet-didascali, actors, plays, and victors in the various dithyrambic and dramatic events. In the fourth century B.C. these archives were published by Aristotle in a work entitled _Didascaliae_. His service probably was mainly that of unearthing the material and arranging it in chronological sequence and of making it available to a wider public, for Dr. Jachmann has made it seem clear that he did not edit the archons’ record to any great extent. In consequence Aristotle’s book contained too much and was overloaded with unimportant details. Its main value consisted in being a court of last resort and a source from which smaller and less unwieldy lists might be compiled.
Some of these indirect products of Aristotle’s industry were entered upon stone and are still preserved in fragments. The first of these is for convenience referred to as the Fasti (“calendar” or “register”) and contained the annual victors in each event at the City Dionysia from about 502/1 B.C. when volunteer comuses were first given a place in the festival program. This inscription was cut upon the face of a wall built of four rows of superimposed blocks and almost six feet in height. The text was arranged in vertical columns. There were originally sixteen of these and most of them contained one hundred and forty-one lines. The presence of a heading over the first five columns, however, reduced the lines upon them to one hundred and forty. For the most part the lines in adjoining columns were placed exactly opposite one another, but toward the bottom of col. 13 the writing was crowded so that this column perhaps contained no less than one hundred and fifty-three lines. As the entries for 346-342 B.C. fell in this space, most authorities accept Dr. Wilhelm’s conclusion that the body of the inscription was cut at that period and received additional entries, year by year, for subsequent festivals until about 319 B.C.[373] Whoever was responsible for the original inscription must have excerpted the appropriate items from Aristotle’s _Didascaliae_ and, for the brief period intervening between the publication of Aristotle’s book and 346-342 B.C., from the original archives.
[Illustration: FIG. 75.—Wilhelm’s Transcription and Restoration of Two Fragments of the Athenian Fasti.
See p. 320, n. 1]
— πρῶτ]ον κῶμοι ἦσαν τῶ[ι Διονύσωι — [Ξ]ενοκλείδης ἐχορήγε Πανδιονὶ[ς ἀνδρῶν] [ὁ δεῖνα ἐχορήγει] [Μ]άγνης ἐδίδασκεν Κλεαίνετ[ος Κυδαθη: [ὁ δεῖνα ἐδίδασκε] ἐχορήγει] τραγωιδῶν κωμωιδῶ[ν] [ὑποκριτὴς ὁ δεῖνα] Περικλῆς Χολαρ: ἐχορή Θαρ[— — ἐχορήγει] [Ἐπὶ Τιμαρχίδου 447/6] 5 Αἰσχύλος ἐ[δ]ίδασκε [ὁ δεῖνα ἐδίδασκε] [—ὶς παίδων] [Ἐπὶ Χάρητος 472/1] [τραγωιδῶν] [ὁ δεῖνα ἐχορήγει] [— παίδων] [...]: ἐχορή Ἐ[ρεχθηὶς ἀνδρῶν] [ὁ δεῖνα ἐχορήγει] [...] ἐδίδασκεν Βίω[ν ἐχορήγει] [— ἀνδρῶν] [Ἐπὶ Φίλο]κλέους 459/8 κω[μωιδῶν] 10 [ὁ δεὶνα ἐχ]ο[ρήγει] [Οἰ]νηὶς παίδων Ἀνδ[— ἐχορήγει] [κωμωιδῶν] Δημόδοκος ἐχορήγε Καλ[λίας ἐδίδασκεν] [ὁ δεῖνα ἐχ]ορήγει Ἱπποθωντὶς ἀνδρῶν τρα[γωιδῶν] [... ἐδίδ]ασκεν Εὐκτήμων Ἐλευ: ἐχορή Θαλ[— ἐχορήγει] [τραγωιδῶν] κωμωιδῶν Κα[ρκίνος ἐδίδασκε] 15 [ὁ δεῖνα ἐχ]ορήγει Εὐρυκλείδης ἐχορήγει ὑπ[οκριτὴς ὁ δεῖνα] Πολυφράσμω]ν ἐδίδασ Εὐφρόνιος ἐδίδασκε Ἐπ[ὶ Καλλιμάχου 446/5] [Ἐπὶ Πραξιέργο]υ 471/0 τραγωιδῶν [κτλ.] [... ντὶς πα]ίδων Ξενοκλῆς Ἀφιδνα: ἐχορή [... ἐχο]ρήγει Αἰσχύλος ἐδίδασκεν 20 [... ἀνδρ]ῶν Ἐπὶ Ἅβρωνος 458/7 [... ἐχ]ορήγ Ἐρεχθηὶς παίδων [κωμωιδῶν] Χαρίας Ἀγρυλῆ: ἐχορή [... ἐχορήγε]ι Λεωντὶς ἀνδρῶν [κτλ. Δεινόστρατος ἐχορ[ήγει] κωμωιδῶν [... ἐχ]ορήγ[ει
The character of the Fasti will appear most clearly from Fig. 75,[374] a transcript and restoration of two fragments on which were originally cut the tops of cols. 3-5. The Greek letters within brackets are restorations where the stone is broken away or illegible. Inasmuch as the entries follow a fixed order from year to year and occupy a definite number of lines, except as slight changes were occasionally introduced into the program, it is often easy to restore everything but proper names. Of the heading of the inscription, which extended over the first five columns, only the center is preserved. When complete it probably read somewhat as follows: οἵδε νενικήκασιν ... ἀφ’ οὗ πρῶτ]ον κῶμοι ἦσαν τῶ[ι Διονύσωι Ἐλευθερεῖ (“The following gained the victory ... since first there were comuses in honor of Dionysus Eleuthereus”). Let us examine more closely the record of the year which begins at line nine in the second column of Fig. 75 (col. 4 in the complete inscription). The entries for each year begin with ἐπί (“in the time of”), followed by the name of the Athenian archon eponymus in the genitive case. The archon for this year was Philocles, whose term ran from July, 459 B.C., to July, 458 B.C. Since the festivals came in the spring the record under consideration is for the City Dionysia of 458 B.C. The inscription is so formulaic and condensed that it has necessarily been expanded somewhat in the following translation:
In the archonship of Philocles. The tribe Oeneis was victorious with a dithyrambic chorus of boys; Demodocus was choregus. The tribe Hippothontis was victorious with a dithyrambic chorus of men; Euctemon of Eleusis was choregus. In the contest of comedians: Euryclides was choregus, Euphronius was didascalus. In the contest of tragedians: Xenocles of Aphidnae was choregus, Aeschylus was didascalus.
This was the year in which Aeschylus competed in Athens for the last time and was victorious with his Orestean trilogy.
About 278 B.C. two other inscriptions were compiled from Aristotle’s publication of theatrical records. I refer to the stone Didascaliae and to the Victors’-Lists. The former gave the full program of the dramatic, but not the dithyrambic, events for each year and fell into four divisions, dealing respectively with tragedy and with comedy at each of the two festivals. Fig. 76_a_[375] gives a transcript of two fragments which reproduce the programs of tragedy at the City Dionysia in 341 and 340 B.C. They may be freely translated, as shown on p. 323.
[Illustration: FIG. 76_a_.—Wilhelm’s Transcription and Restoration of Two Fragments of the Stone Didascaliae at Athens.
See p. 322, n. 1]
[Ἐπὶ Σωσιγένους σατυρι] 342/1 [— —] [παλαι]ᾶι Νε[οπτόλεμος] [Ἰφιγε]νείαι Εὐρ[ιπ]ίδο[υ] [ποη]: Ἀστυδάμας [Ἀχι]λλεῖ ὑπε: Θετταλός 5 Ἀθάμαντι ὑπε: Νεοπτόλ[εμος] [Ἀν]τιγόνηι ὑπε: Ἀθηνόδω[ρος] [Εὐ]άρετος δ[εύ:] Τεύκρωι [ὑπ]ε: Ἀθηνόδωρος [Ἀχι]λλεῖ ὑ[πε]: Θετταλός 10 [... ε]ι ὑπ[ε: Ν]εοπτόλεμος [Ἀφαρεὺς] τρί: Πελιάσιν [ὑπε: Νεοπτ]όλεμος -κι Ὀρέστηι [ὑπε: Ἀθηνόδωρος] Αὔγηι ὑπε: Θεττα[λός] — 15 ὑπο: Νεοπτόλεμος ἐνίκ[α] — ς Ἐπὶ Νικομάχου σατυρι 341/0 Τιμοκλῆς Λυκούργωι — παλαιᾶι: Νεοπτόλεμ[ος] -αι Ὀρέστηι Εὐριπιδο — 20 ποη: Ἀστυδάμας Παρθενοπαίωι ὑπε: Θετ[ταλός] [Λυκά]ονι ὑπε: Νεοπτόλε[μος] [...ο]κλῆς δεύ: Φρίξωι -ι [ὑπε:] Θετταλός 25 [Οἰδί]ποδι ὑπε: Νεοπτολ[εμος] — [Εὐάρ]ετος τρί [Ἀλκ]μέ[ων]ι: ὑπε: Θεττα[λός] [...λ]ηι: ὑπε: Νεοπτό[λε] [ὑπο: Θ[ετταλὸς ἐνίκα 30 [Ἐπὶ Θεο]φράστου σα[τυρι 340/39 [...] Φορκίσ[ι] [παλαιᾶι· Νικ?]όστρ[ατος] [... Εὐ]ριπί[δου] [...]ο [...
There are several matters here which are worthy of comment. It will be noted that by 341 B.C. the tragic poets no longer closed each group of plays with a satyric drama, but one satyr-play was performed instead as a preface to the tragic contest. It followed that the playwrights, the number of whose dramas now corresponded to that of the star performers, were no longer handicapped by being allotted the exclusive services of a single star and his troupe but were placed upon terms of perfect equality by having all the stars in turn at their command, each for a different tragedy. This explains why in 340 B.C., when we must suppose that three players of the first rank with their supporting companies were for some reason not available, the number of tragedies presented by each playwright was likewise reduced to two and the histrionic talent was thus kept evenly distributed. The fact that the tragic writers no longer devoted whole trilogies to different aspects of the same theme made it easy to reduce the number of tragedies in any year in order to conform to an emergency in the histrionic conditions. Furthermore, old tragedies were not now permitted to compete with new ones, as was said to have been the practice in the case of Aeschylus’ plays after his decease (see p. 203, above); but beginning at the City Dionysia of 386 B.C., as we learn from the Fasti, an old tragedy was performed, outside of the contest, every year. It is interesting to observe that in both these years and again in 339 B.C. (see next to the last line in Fig. 76_a_) plays of Euripides were chosen for this purpose, and this is in accord with the steady growth of that poet’s popularity as compared with Aeschylus and Sophocles. As already stated, the Didascaliae were inscribed in 278 B.C., but the record was kept up to date by contemporaneous entries for over a century subsequently.
[Illustration: FIG. 76_b_.—Translation of Inscription in Fig. 76_a_.]
In the archonship of Sosigenes (342/1 B.C.). Satyr-play: ⸺ was poet with his ⸺. Old tragedy: Neoptolemus acted in Euripides’ _Iphigenia_. Poets: Astydamas was first with the _Achilles_ acted by Thettalus with the _Athamas_ acted by Neoptolemus with the _Antigone_ acted by Athenodorus; Evaretus was second with the _Teucer_ acted by Athenodorus with the _Achilles_ acted by Thettalus with the ⸺ acted by Neoptolemus; Aphareus was third with the _Daughters of Pelias_ acted by Neoptolemus with the _Orestes_ acted by Athenodorus with the _Auge_ acted by Thettalus; the actor Neoptolemus was victor. In the archonship of Nicomachus (341/0 B.C.). Satyr-play: Timocles was poet with his _Lycurgus_. Old tragedy: Neoptolemus acted in Euripides’ _Orestes_. Poets: Astydamas was first with the _Parthenopaeus_ acted by Thettalus with the _Lycaon_ acted by Neoptolemus; ⸺cles was second with the _Phrixus_ acted by Thettalus with the _Oedipus_ acted by Neoptolemus; Evaretus was third with the _Alcmeon_ acted by Thettalus with the ⸺ acted by Neoptolemus; the actor Thettalus was victor.
The Victors’-Lists were prepared at the same time as the stone Didascaliae and were likewise derived from Aristotle,[376] but they were very different in character. They recorded the aggregate of victories won by poets and actors in tragedy and comedy at each of the two festivals—eight lists in all. I shall content myself with citing one fragment from the list of tragic poets who were victorious at the City Dionysia (cf. Fig. 77 _a_ and _b_).[377] The names were arranged in the chronological order of their first victory at the festival in question, in this case the City Dionysia; and after each name was entered the total number of victories gained at that festival. We are especially interested in two names in this list, Aeschylus and Sophocles. Of course the former’s name did not originally head the list; it stood in the eleventh line. The numeral is broken away from behind his name, but we know from other sources that he won thirteen (ΔΙΙΙ) victories. He died before the establishment of the tragic contest at the Lenaea, so that his competition was restricted to the City Dionysia. But Suidas reports that according to some Aeschylus had gained twenty-eight victories. Perhaps the larger number is not to be rejected as worthless but is to be regarded as including the victories which Aeschylus’ plays are said to have won after his decease in competition, at both festivals, with the works of living tragedians. To Sophocles the inscription assigns eighteen (ΔΓΙΙΙ) victories at the City Dionysia, and that is the number which most authorities give. But Suidas, who regularly records the aggregate of victories at both festivals, credits him with twenty-four victories. Sophocles must, therefore, have been victorious six times at the Lenaea. Euripides’ name does not appear upon any extant portion of the Victors’-List. He is usually stated to have won five victories, but some notices report fifteen. Possibly we are to understand that he won ten Lenaean victories. His comparative lack of success while living thus stands in striking contrast to his popularity subsequently.
[Illustration: FIG. 77_a_.—A Fragment of the Athenian Victors’-List
See p. 324, n. 2]
[Illustration: FIG. 77_b_.—Wilhelm’s Transcription and Restoration of Two Fragments of the Athenian Victors’-List.
See p. 324, n. 2]
[......]ασ[—] [Καρκί]νος ΔΙ 10 — [Ἀστ]υδάμας ΓΙΙ [—?] [Αἰ]σχύ[λος —] [Θεο]δέκτας ΓΙΙ [Εὐ]έτης Ι [Ἀφα]ρεύς ΙΙ [Πο]λυφράσμ[ων —] [....ω]ν ΙΙ Αι [Νόθ]ιππος Ι ...... Φρ- 15 [Σοφ]οκλῆς ΔΓΙΙΙ ......... ΙΙ Ὁμ- [....]τος ΙΙ[—?] ΔΙ [Ἀριστι]ας [—] Ξ-
Dr. Reisch has propounded an ingenious and plausible theory with reference to the housing of the Didascaliae and the Victors’-Lists (cf. _op. cit._, pp. 302 ff.). He believes that these catalogues were prepared for the master of contests (the agonothete, see p. 271, above) for the year 278 B.C., who also erected a special structure in the precinct of Dionysus Eleuthereus to receive them. The dedicatory inscription is extant, but unfortunately the name of the agonothete is broken away. He supposes this building to have been hexagonal, with three sides of solid wall and the other three left open. This arrangement was designed to afford a maximum of light for reading the inscriptions on the interior of the building. On the left wall, as one passed through the main entrance, were cut the tragic Didascaliae of the City Dionysia. On the architrave above was the Victors’-List for the tragic poets at this festival, and on the architrave over the adjoining (open) side to the right was the Victors’-List for the tragic actors. On the next wall to the right were the comic Didascaliae of the City Dionysia, and on the architrave above that side and the adjoining (open) one were the Victors’-Lists of the comic poets and actors who had won victories at this festival. On the third wall stood both the comic and also the tragic Didascaliae of the Lenaea. On the architrave above this wall were the Victors’-Lists of the comic poets and actors at the Lenaea, and on the architrave above the sixth (open) side were those of the tragic poets and actors at the same festival. Dr. Reisch’s reconstruction may be incorrect in some minor details, but must certainly be accepted in principle.
One matter in connection with all these inscriptions has been a subject of keen controversy among scholars, and the end is not yet. The problem is too complicated to be discussed upon its merits here, but the general situation may be outlined. When a poet did not serve as his own didascalus but brought out his play through someone else, did the name of the didascalus or that of the poet appear in the records? On a few points general agreement is possible. For example, when a poet had applied for a chorus in his own name but died before the festival and someone else had to assume his didascalic duties, care seems to have been taken at all periods to indicate the original didascalus. Again, in cases of deliberate deception, as when a man without dramatic powers secured the consent of a playwright to bring out the latter’s work as his own and applied for a chorus as if for his own play, naturally the name of the pseudo-author would be the only one to appear in the records. The crucial case remains, viz., when a dramatist wished to be relieved of the burden of stage management and arranged for a didascalus to ask for a chorus and assume responsibility for the performance. The matter becomes important with reference to Aristophanes and the correct restoration of the Victors’-Lists for comic poets at the City Dionysia and the Lenaea.
When Aristophanes had written his first play, the _Banqueters_, youth, inexperience, diffidence, or some other motive for desiring to avoid the responsibility of staging his play caused him to intrust it to Callistratus for production at the Lenaea of 427 B.C. The same process was repeated at the City Dionysia of 426 B.C. and the Lenaea of 425 B.C., when Callistratus brought out Aristophanes’ _Babylonians_ and _Acharnians_, respectively. The former piece was apparently unsuccessful, but the latter was awarded the first prize. At the Lenaea of 424 B.C. Aristophanes was equally successful with the _Knights_, which, however, he produced _in his own name_. In vss. 512 ff. of this play the chorus declares that many Athenians approached the poet and expressed their surprise that he had not long before asked for a chorus in his own name. This passage implies that the real authorship of Aristophanes’ earlier pieces was known to a large section of the public, and makes it clear that he had produced no earlier plays in his own name. Therefore if he had won a City victory during this period the comedy with which he won it must have been brought out in the name of another. The earliest City Dionysia, then, at which he could have produced a play in his own name was in 424 B.C., two months later than the _Knights_. Now in the Victors’-List for comic poets at the City Dionysia (Fig. 78),[378] the letters Ἀρι appear in line seven of the second column. Is the name of Aristophanes or that of Aristomenes to be restored here?
We know that Eupolis, whose name stands next below in the list, won a victory at the City Dionysia of 421 B.C. and that Hermippus and Cratinus were successful at the City festival in 422 and 423 B.C., respectively. This leaves the City Dionysia of 424 B.C. for some unknown victor, who may have been Aristophanes producing a play in his own name. But, on the other hand, these victories of Hermippus and Cratinus were certainly not their first, and it is possible that the victory of Eupolis in 421 B.C. was also not his first. If any of these men was in fact the City victor in 424 B.C., Aristophanes’ name could be read at this point on the stone only by supposing that he had won a City victory at some date prior to the _Knights_ and consequently with a play which had been brought out by another. If this hypothesis is correct, it would automatically be established that at this period victories were credited to the actual poet rather than to his didascalus. The argument here is by no means conclusive, however, and most authorities follow Dr. Wilhelm in restoring the name of Aristomenes, another poet who belonged to the same general period.
[Illustration: FIG. 78.—Wilhelm’s Transcription and Restoration of Four Fragments of the Athenian Victors’-List.
See p. 327, n. 1]
[Ἀστικαὶ ποητῶν] [Τηλεκλεί]δης ΙΙΙ Νικοφῶ[ν —] [κωμικῶν] [.........]ς Ι Θεόπομπ[ος —] [Χιωνίδης —] — Κη]φισό[δοτος —] — — ...]ι[ππος? —] 5 — Ι Φερ[εκράτης —] — [.........]ς Ι Ἕρμ[ιππος —] — — Ἀρι[στομένης —] — [Μάγνη]ς ΔΙ Εὔ[πολις —] — [......ο]ς Ι Κα[λλίστρατος —] — 10 [Ἀλικιμέ]νη[ς] Ι Φρύ[νιχος —] — [......]ς Ι Ἀμ[ειψίας —] — [Εὐφρόν]ιος Ι Πλά[των —] — [Ἐκφαν]τίδης ΙΙΙΙ Φιλ[ωνίδης —] — [Κρατῖνος] ΓΙ Λύκ[ις —] — 15 [Διοπ]είθης ΙΙ Λεύ[κων —] — [Κρά]της ΙΙΙ [Καλλία]ς ΙΙ
The same problem recurs in connection with the comic Victors’-List for the Lenaea (Fig. 79).[379] Here Aristophanes’ name is certainly to be restored somewhere in the lacuna below the name of Eupolis in the first column. But whether his name stood in a position corresponding to his own victory in 424 B.C. or in one corresponding to his victory through the agency of Callistratus in the previous year, or whether (to state it differently) the name of Callistratus must be restored ahead of Aristophanes’ own name because of his victory in 425 B.C., are questions which are still incapable of categorical answers. Lack of space will prevent a further argument of the matter, and I must close with a summary of Dr. Jachmann’s conclusions. His discussion is not only the latest but takes certain factors into account which had previously been ignored. He points out that the archons’ records, Aristotle’s _Didascaliae_, and the different types of inscriptions must be sharply differentiated and that the first named are the ultimate source of all the others. The archons, of course, kept their records with no thought of later literary investigations but mainly with a view to having a definite list of men whom they were to hold responsible for different events upon their programs. Naturally, then, they had no interest in current or subsequent charges of plagiarism, pretended authorship, etc. Jachmann maintains that prior to about 380 B.C. the archons entered the name of the didascalus alone, but after that date they recorded the names of both didascalus and poet when these differed. He supposes the change to have been due to a law, which was made necessary by the increasing practice of intrusting plays to men who were not their authors and to the consequent differentiation of function between poets and didascali. According to Jachmann the same situation probably obtained also in Aristotle’s _Didascaliae_; but in the Victors’-Lists and the inscriptional Didascaliae only the didascali were listed before 380 B.C. and after that date only the poets. In the Fasti, on the contrary, only the didascali, as the use of the verb ἐδίδασκε would indicate, appeared at any time.
[Illustration: FIG. 79.—Wilhelm’s Transcription and Restoration of Five Fragments of the Athenian Victors’-List.
See p. 328, n. 1]
[Ληναικ]α[ὶ ποη]τῶν Πο[.....] Ι Φίλι[ππος Γ?]ΙΙ — [κωμικ]ῶν Με[ταγένη]ς ΙΙ Χόρη[γος —] Διο[νύσι]ος Ι [Ξ]ενόφιλος Ι Θεό[πομπ]ος ΙΙ Ἀναξα[νδρί]δης ΙΙΙ Κλέ[αρχ]ος [Ι.] [Τ]ηλεκλείδης Γ Πολ[ύζηλο]ς ΙΙΙΙ Φιλέτα[ιρο]ς ΙΙ Ἀθηνοκλῆς[ 5 Ἀριστομένης ΙΙ Νικοφ[ῶν —] Εὔβουλος ΓΙ Πυρ[ήν?] Ι 5 Κρατῖνος ΙΙΙ Ἀπο[λλοφάνη]ς Ι Ἔφιππος Ι[.?] Ἀλκήνωρ Ι Φερεκράτης ΙΙ Ἀμ[ειψίας —] [Ἀ]ντιφάν[ης] ΓΙΙΙ Τιμοκλῆς Ι Ἕρμιππος ΙΙΙΙ Ν[ικοχάρης —] [Μ]νησίμ[αχος] Ι Προκλείδης Ι Φρύνιχος ΙΙ Ξενο[φ]ῶν Ι Ναυ[σικράτ]ης ΙΙΙ Μ[έν]ανδρος Ι[— 10 Μυρτίλος Ι Φιλύλλιος Ι Εὐφάνη[ς —] Φ[ι]λήμων ΙΙΙ 10 [Εὔ]πολις ΙΙΙ Φιλόνικος Ι Ἄλεξις ΙΙ [—] Ἀπολλόδωρο[ς—] — [.......]ς Ι [Ἀρ]ιστ[οφῶν —] Δίφιλος ΙΙΙ — [Κηφισόδοτος Ι — Φιλιππίδης ΙΙ[— — — — Νικόστρατος [— 15 — — — Καλλιάδης Ι 15 — — — Ἀμεινίας Ι — — [Ἀσκληπιό?δω]ρος Ι Ι Ι Ι
Besides some other inscriptions of lesser importance than those already discussed, Aristotle’s _Didascaliae_ was the source, directly or indirectly, also of several treatises, collections of classified data, catalogues, etc., dealing with various phases of Greek theatrical history and compiled by such men as Dicaearchus, Callimachus, and Aristophanes of Byzantium. I shall close with an account of one of these. I refer to the system of numbering which was applied to ancient plays. Thus, according to the ancient hypothesis (argument) to Sophocles’ _Antigone_ that drama “was counted the thirty-second” (λέλεκται δὲ τὸ δρᾶμα τοῦτο τριακοστὸν δεύτερον), and the first hypothesis to Aristophanes’ _Birds_ declares that that comedy “is the thirty-fifth” (ἔστι δὲ λέ). Before going farther it will be best to state that the latter numeral is inexplicable under any theory, but that Dindorf’s substitution of ιέ for λέ (“fifteen” for “thirty-five”) is a satisfactory and convincing emendation. With the publication of the Vatican hypothesis to Euripides’ _Alcestis_ in 1834 a third numeral came to light: τὸ δρᾶμα ἐποιήθη ι̅ζ̅ (“the drama was made seventeenth”). By far the most significant numeral, however, was published in the _Oxyrhynchus Papyri_ in 1904. Here at the top of the last column of a hypothesis to Cratinus’ lost _Dionysalexandros_ stood the following heading, doubtless repeated from the beginning of the hypothesis, which is now lost:
Διονυσ[αλέξανδρος] “The Dionysalexandros η̅ Eighth κρατ[εινου] Of Cratinus”
Finally, one of the fragmentary hypotheses to two of Menander’s plays published in the _Oxyrhynchus Papyri_ of 1914 begins as follows: “The _Imbrians_, commencing ‘For how long a time, Demeas, my good man, I ... you.’ This he wrote in the archonship of Nicocles, being his [7·]th play (ταύτην [ἔγρα]ψεν ἐπὶ Νικοκλέο[υς..]την καὶ ἑβδομηκοστ[ήν]), and he gave it for production at the Dionysia; but on account of the tyrant Lachares the festival was not celebrated. Subsequently it was acted by the Athenian Callippus.” This numeral is partly illegible, but was in the seventies, probably seventy-first, seventy-third, seventy-sixth, or seventy-ninth, possibly seventy-fourth or seventy-fifth.
The interpretation of these numerals has suffered from the fact that they did not become known simultaneously and from the further fact that for the most part explanations have been advanced by editors who contented themselves with proposing the most plausible interpretation of the particular numeral before them without taking the others into consideration. Of the many suggestions offered I shall here confine my discussion to two, the chronological and the alphabetical. The former interpretation is the oldest and receives confirmation from the fact that Terence’s comedies are not only arranged chronologically in our manuscripts but are provided with numerals on that basis in the didascalic notices which are prefixed to these Latin plays. These numbers, of course, would trace back the system only to the Romans and to about the time of Varro in the first century b.c. But inasmuch as Aeschines’ speeches are arranged on the same principle, there can be no doubt that the Alexandrian Greeks were familiar with it. The chronological interpretation, however, has been open to three objections: (1) It is impossible for Aristophanes’ _Birds_ to have been thirty-fifth in a chronological arrangement of his plays. This obstacle may be evaded by accepting Dindorf’s emendation. (2) The _Antigone_ and _Alcestis_ numerals are somewhat smaller than we might expect, since they seem to assign too few plays to the earlier years of Sophocles’ and Euripides’
## activity as playwrights. This is not a serious objection but must be
taken into account. (3) The _Alcestis_ took the place of a satyric drama and therefore stood fourth in its group. Consequently its numeral ought to be divisible by four, and the number seventeen does not satisfy this requirement and does not seem consistent with the tetralogic system employed at the City Dionysia during this period.
These difficulties are not insuperable, but first I wish to refer to another interpretation, which has enjoyed great popularity. There is no doubt that the Greeks were acquainted, and at an early date, with the alphabetical arrangement of titles. The Oxyrhynchus arguments to Menander’s plays, for example, seem to have been arranged in accordance with this principle. The objection that there would be no point in recording numerals derived from an alphabetical system for the reason that it would be as easy to turn to a given play by means of its initial letters as by means of its number is invalid because in alphabetical lists the Greeks ignored all letters except the first. For example, fifteen of Euripides’ extant titles begin with alpha, and there was no a priori method of knowing which of the fifteen places available the _Alcestis_ would occupy (Fig. 80).[380] It becomes necessary, then, to examine the alphabetical explanation without prejudice, and fortunately it is now possible to reach an incontrovertible conclusion. The numerals have never lent themselves cordially to this interpretation, but the final _coup de grâce_ was delivered by the recent discovery of the numeral for Menander’s _Imbrians_. Menander is said to have written from one hundred and five to one hundred and nine pieces, but only eighty-six titles are now known. Fifty-one of these, however, have initial letters which come after iota in the Greek alphabet. Now the smallest restoration which is possible for the Menander numeral is seventy-one, and seventy-one plus fifty-one make one hundred and twenty-two, or thirteen more than the largest number recorded by any authority as the aggregate of Menander’s works. Therefore the alphabetical explanation must be rejected.
[Illustration: FIG. 80.—The Villa Albani Statue of Euripides in the Louvre with the Beginning of an Alphabetical List of His Plays.
See p. 332, n. 1]
We may now return to the chronological interpretation, and first let us note the light which the _Dionysalexandros_ numeral throws upon the situation. It is significant that this number is not incorporated within the hypothesis but stood at the top of the last column and had doubtless appeared also at the beginning of the hypothesis (now lost). In my opinion this was the original form of such a notice and shows why in the fuller form of statement found elsewhere a different verb is employed in each case—λέλεκται, ἔστι, ἐποιήθη, and ἔγραψεν. When Aristophanes of Byzantium, or whoever was responsible for the change, transferred these items from the heading and made them integral parts of the hypothesis, finding no verb in the original version before him and resting under the necessity of now using one, he did not deem it essential to paraphrase the information always in the same way but, as was natural, employed now one expression and now another. If it be true that the original function of the numerals was as we find it in the Cratinus hypothesis, only one explanation is possible—it was a device for the convenience of some library, probably that at Alexandria. If so, every play in the collection would bear a number and these numbers would run consecutively for each author. In other words if any play were not preserved in the library, that fact would not be indicated by an unoccupied number being left as a gap in the enumeration. Of course it is conceivable that the basis of arrangement was purely arbitrary and even varied with each author, and in fact there has been a distinct tendency among recent authorities to accept some such pessimistic conclusion. But it is more probable, until the contrary be proved, that some rational system (alphabetical, chronological, etc.) was employed and employed consistently.
Now there can be little room left for doubt as to what system was actually chosen, when it is observed that the foregoing statement of the numerals’ purpose and use obviates two of the three objections to the chronological interpretation. Euripides produced his first play in 455 B.C. and died in 406 B.C. He is said to have written ninety-two plays, or an average of one and four-fifths per annum. If the _Alcestis_ were actually his seventeenth piece he must have written less than one play a year between 455 B.C. and 438 B.C., when the _Alcestis_ was produced, and two and one-third plays a year thereafter. It is true that Euripides’ career opened slowly and that many of his later works are characterized by hasty and careless execution. But this disparity is too great, even apart from the objection that _ex hypothesi_ the _Alcestis_ numeral ought to be a multiple of four. If we suppose, however, that only the plays that were preserved received a number, the situation at once clears. We are informed that seventy-eight of Euripides’ works (four of them spurious) were preserved. This is confirmed by the fact that seventy-two of his titles are now known, for the number of titles now extant generally approximates closely the number of an author’s plays which were known by the ancients. If, then, the _Alcestis_ was seventeenth among the seventy-eight works which were passing under the name of Euripides in antiquity and if it retained the same relative position as in the complete list, it must have been about the twentieth play which he brought out. This number, being divisible by four, would be suitable for the last play of a tetralogy and would have the merit of reducing slightly the disproportion between the earlier and the later activity of the poet. Moreover, since the earlier plays of a dramatist are more likely to have been lost than the later ones, it is possible to suppose that the _Alcestis_ may have been twenty-fourth or even twenty-eighth in a complete list (chronological) of his writings. The point is that the purpose of the numerals as deducible from the _Dionysalexandros_ instance is capable of obviating all objections to the chronological interpretation of the _Alcestis_ numeral.
Similarly, Sophocles is said to have written one hundred and twenty-three plays, and his career extended from about 468 B.C. to 406 B.C., yielding an average of about two plays per annum. Inasmuch as the _Antigone_ was probably performed in 441 B.C. and bears the numeral thirty-two, an unmodified chronological interpretation would give an average of one and one-seventh plays a year for Sophocles’ earlier period and of two and three-sevenths for his later period. But we now have fragments of somewhat more than one hundred Sophoclean plays; and if the _Antigone_ was thirty-second among these and retained the same relative position as at first, it would have been about the thirty-seventh play which Sophocles wrote. Of course this is a mere estimate, but again this solution has the merit of assigning a slightly larger number of plays to the earlier years of the poet and of reducing, to that extent, the only objection to the chronological interpretation of this numeral.
Aristophanes’ first comedy was produced in 427 B.C., and his last one not much later than 388 B.C. To him were attributed forty-four plays, four of which were considered spurious. Apparently all of his works were known to the ancients. The _Birds_ was produced at the City Dionysia of 414 B.C. in the fourteenth year of his activity as a playwright. There is, therefore, no a priori reason for refusing to believe that it was Aristophanes’ fifteenth play. Nor does any obstacle arise from the chronology of the plays, so far as they can be dated. On the other hand the traditional numeral, thirty-five, is inexplicable under any logical system of enumeration, while Dindorf’s emendation is paleographically simple. Therefore we must accept the substitution and the chronological interpretation.
Cratinus’ career began about 452 B.C. and closed in 423 B.C. or soon thereafter. Most scholars suppose his _Dionysalexandros_ to have been brought out in 430 or 429 B.C., though I was myself at first inclined to favor an earlier date. He is said to have written twenty-one plays. Twenty-six titles, however, were accepted for him by Meineke and Kock in their editions of the Greek comic fragments. Probably a few of these titles must be rejected as spurious or transferred to the younger Cratinus, but it is also possible that Cratinus was much more productive than is commonly supposed and that twenty-one was the number of his preserved works in Alexandrian times, not of all that he had composed. As the custom of publishing comedies seems to have started only at about the beginning of Cratinus’ career (see p. 55, above), it would not be surprising if many of his plays, especially of his earlier plays, were lost. At any rate in a chronological arrangement of twenty-one comedies, whether they were the whole or only the preserved part of Cratinus’ work, the _Dionysalexandros_ could be the eighth. These conclusions are acceptable to Professor R. H. Tanner, who will shortly publish a dissertation dealing with the chronology of Cratinus’ plays and whose results on the point now under discussion he has kindly permitted me to summarize here. He follows Croiset in assigning the _Dionysalexandros_ to the Lenaea of 430 B.C.; six plays he definitely dates before the _Dionysalexandros_, and a seventh somewhat less positively. In the thirteen remaining he has found nothing to indicate a date prior to 430 B.C. Some of them certainly belong to the period subsequent to 430 B.C. It will be seen that these conclusions are in thorough accord with my interpretation of the numeral.
The chronology of Menander’s life is not free from uncertainties, but these do not seriously affect the present discussion. His first play was performed perhaps as early as 324 B.C., and his decease probably took place in 292/1 B.C. During these thirty-three or thirty-four years he composed some one hundred and nine pieces or slightly over three per annum. Now Nicocles was archon in 302/1 B.C. If, then, the hypothesis is correct in assigning the _Imbrians_ to the archonship of this man, the number seventy-one (the smallest restoration which is possible) or seventy-nine (the largest possible) would almost perfectly fit the requirements of the case. Eighty-six Menandrian titles are now known, and it is not likely that many of his plays were lost in Alexandrian times.
We may, therefore, summarize the preceding discussion as follows: If we follow Dindorf in reading ιέ for λέ in the hypothesis to Aristophanes’ _Birds_, the numerals are capable of a uniform interpretation; they were a library device and were assigned to the plays represented in some collection, most probably that at Alexandria, according to the dates of their premières. It is needless to state that in establishing the chronological sequence of the plays in their possession the library authorities would depend upon Aristotle’s _Didascaliae_ or other handbooks derived therefrom.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Cf. Hermann Deckinger, _Die Darstellung der persönlichen Motive bei Aischylos und Sophokles_ (1911), p. 1.
[2] Cf. Aristotle _Poetics_ 1449_a_8. The other passages cited in this paragraph are _ibid._ 1449_b_33 and 1450_a_10, 1450_b_17-21, 1453_b_1-3, 1462_a_12, and 1462_a_14-17.
[3] Cf. his paper entitled “Dramatic Criticism and the Theatre” in _Creative Criticism_, p. 56 (1917).
[4] Cf. Aristotle _Rhetoric_ 1403_b_33 (Jebb’s translation). This statement needs to be interpreted in the light of pp. 190 f., below.
[5] Cf. _op. cit._, p. 56. The italics are mine.
[6] Cf. Clayton Hamilton, _The Theory of the Theatre_ (1910), p. 3; and J. B. Matthews, _North American Review_, CLXXXVII (1908), 213 f.: “They believe that the playhouse has now, has had in the past, and must always have a monopoly of the dramatic form. They cannot recognize the legitimacy of a play which is not intended to be played. They know that the great dramatist of every period when the drama has flourished has always planned his plays for performance in the theater of his own time, by the actors of his own time, and before the spectators of his own time”; and _The Independent_, LXVIII (1910), 187: “In other words, the literary quality is something that may be added to a drama, but which is not essential to its value as a play in the theater itself.”
[7] Cf. _Conversations with Eckermann_, March 28, 1827 (Oxenford’s translation).
[8] Cf. _The Inn of Tranquillity_ (1912), p. 277.
[9] Cf. _Classical Philology_, IX (1914), 96.
[10] Cf. _Euripides and His Age_ (1913), p. 89. See p. 217, below.
[11] Cf. _The Theatre of Ideas_ (1915), pp. 9 ff. (copyrighted by the George H. Doran Company).
[12] Cf. Welcker, _Nachtrag zu der Schrift über die Aeschylische Trilogie nebst einer Abhandlung über das Satyrspiel_ (1826); Furtwängler, “Der Satyr aus Pergamon,” _Berliner Winckelmannsfest Programm_, XL (1880); U. von Wilamowitz-Möllendorff, _Einleitung in die griechische Tragödie_ [Vol. I of his edition of Euripides’ _Heracles_ (1889)], pp. 43 ff. and _Neue Jahrbücher für das klassische Altertum_, XXIX (1912), 464 ff.; Bethe, _Prolegomena zur Geschichte des Theaters im Altherthum_ (1896); G. Körte, “Satyrn und Böcke,” in Bethe’s _Prolegomena_, pp. 339 ff.; Wernicke, “Bockschöre und Satyrdrama,” _Hermes_, XXXII (1897), 290 ff.; Schmid, _Zur Geschichte des gr. Dithyrambus_ (1901); Reisch, “Zur Vorgeschichte der attischen Tragödie,” in _Festschrift Theodor Gomperz_ (1902), pp. 451 ff.; Crusius, _s.v._ “Dithyrambos,” in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encyclopädie_, V, 1203 ff. (1903); Dieterich, “Die Entstehung der Tragödie,” _Archiv für Religionswissenschaft_, XI (1908), 163 ff. [Kleine Schriften, pp. 414 ff.]; Farnell, _Cults of the Greek States_, V, 85 ff., and especially pp. 224 ff. (1909), and “The Megala Dionysia and the Origin of Tragedy,” _Journal of Hellenic Studies_, XXIX (1909), xlvii; Ridgeway, _The Origin of Tragedy with Special Reference to the Greek Tragedians_ (1910), and _The Dramas and Dramatic Dances of Non-European Races in Special Reference to the Origin of Greek Tragedy_ (1915), reviewed by Flickinger in _Classical Weekly_, XI (1918), 107 ff.; Nilsson, “Der Ursprung der Tragödie,” _Neue Jahrbücher für das klassische Altertum_, XXVII (1911), 609 ff. and 673 ff.; Jane Harrison, _Themis, a Study of the Social Origins of Greek Religion_ (1912); Murray, “The Ritual Forms Preserved in Greek Tragedy,” in Miss Harrison’s _Themis_, pp. 341 ff.; Flickinger, “Tragedy and Satyric Drama,” _Classical Philology_, VIII (1913), 261 ff.; and Cook, _Zeus, a Study in Ancient Religion_, I (1914), 665 ff. and 695 ff.
[13] Cf. Lawson, _Annual of British School at Athens_, VI (1900), 125 ff.; Dawkins, _ibid._, XI (1905), 72 ff.; and Wace, _ibid._, XVI (1910), 232 ff.
[14] Cf. Suidas, _s.v._ “Phrynichus.”
[15] Cf. _Euripides the Rationalist_, p. 243.
[16] Cf. von Wilamowitz, _Neue Jahrbücher f. kl. Altertum_, XXIX (1912), 474, and Cook, _Zeus_, I, xiii f.
[17] Cf. his _Aristotle on the Art of Poetry_, p. 135. This opinion is confirmed by the fact that men of such importance as Thespis and Phrynichus are not so much as mentioned in the _Poetics_.
[18] Cf. _Poetics_ 1449_a_9-11: γενομένη <δ’> ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς αὐτοσχεδιαστική, ... καὶ ἡ μὲν ἀπὸ τῶν ἐξαρχόντων τὸν διθύραμβον.
[19] Cf. _Laws_ 700 B: καὶ ἄλλο (sc. εἶδος ᾠδῆς) Διονύσου γένεσις, οἶμαι, διθύραμβος λεγόμενος.
[20] Cf. Bergk, _Poetae Lyrici Graeci⁴_, II, 404, fr. 77:
ὡς Διονύσοι’ ἄνακτος καλὸν ἐξάρξαι μέλος οἶδα διθύραμβον, οἴνῳ συγκεραυνωθεὶς φρένας.
[21] Cf. _ibid._, III, 559, fr. 1, vs. 16.
[22] Cf. _Olymp._ XIII, 18 f.:
ταὶ Διονύσου πόθεν ἐξέφανεν σὺν βοηλάτᾳ χάριτες διθυράμβῳ;
Βοηλάτᾳ is usually explained by reference to the ox prize, cf. schol. Plato, _Republic_, 394C: εὑρεθῆναι μὲν τὸν διθύραμβον ἐν Κορίνθῳ ὑπὸ Ἀρίονός φασι. τῶν δὲ ποιητῶν τῷ μὲν πρώτῳ βοῦς ἔπαθλον ἦν, τῷ δὲ δευτέρῳ ἀμφορεύς, τῷ δὲ τρίτῳ τράγος, ὃν τρυγὶ κεχρισμένον ἀπῆγον. Kern, Crusius, and Ridgeway, however, refer it to the practice of an Arcadian community, the Cynaethaens, of whom Pausanias (viii. 19. 1) speaks as follows: “And as to the things most worthy of mention there is a shrine of Dionysus there, and in the winter season they celebrate a festival, in which men who have anointed themselves with oil lift up a bull from the herd, whatever one the god himself puts in their minds to lift, and carry it to the shrine. Such was their manner of sacrifice.” Cf. Pauly-Wissowa, V, 1041 and 1206, and _Origin of Tragedy_, p. 6.
[23] Cf. Kaibel, _Comicorum Graecorum Fragmenta_, p. 115, fr. 132;
οὐκ ἔστι διθύραμβος ὅκχ’ ὕδωρ πίῃς.
[24] Published by Rabe in _Rheinisches Museum für Philologie_, LXIII (1908), 150.
[25] Cf. Aristotle’s _Poetics_ 1448_b_1: καὶ τὸ ποιεῖν αὐτοὶ [sc. οἱ Δωριεῖς] μὲν δρᾶν, Ἀθηναίους δὲ πράττειν προσαγορεύειν. In referring to this passage von Wilamowitz says: “So viel wahr ist, dass δρᾶμα in der Tat ein Fremdwort ist; man redet im Kultus nur von δρώμενα”; cf. _op. cit._, p. 467, n. 3.
[26] Cf. Haigh, _The Tragic Drama of the Greeks_ (1896), p. 17, n. 1, and Pickard-Cambridge in _Classical Review_, XXVI (1912), 54. It is also possible that Arion’s employment of a new generic term (δράματα) for his dithyrambs is alluded to. Herodotus may have taken it as a matter of course that everyone knew what this new name was and consequently failed to mention it, thus leaving the passage ambiguous.
[27] Cf. Suidas, _s.v._ “Arion”: λέγεται καὶ τραγικοῦ τρόπου εὑρετὴς γενέσθαι καὶ πρῶτος χορὸν στῆσαι <κύκλιον> καὶ διθύραμβον ᾆσαι καὶ ὀνομάσαι τὸ ᾀδόμενον ὑπὸ τοῦ χοροῦ καὶ σατύρους εἰσενεγκεῖν ἔμμετρα λέγοντας. I cannot agree with Reisch, _op. cit._, p. 471, and Pickard-Cambridge, _op. cit._, p. 54, in thinking that this notice refers to three separate types of performances instead of one.
[28] See p. 7, n. 4, above.
[29] Cf. Pickard-Cambridge, _op. cit._, p. 55.
[30] Cf. Suidas, _s.v._ “Thespis”: Θέσπις Ἰκαρίου πόλεως Ἀττικῆς, τραγικὸς ἑκκαιδέκατος ἀπὸ τοῦ πρώτου γενομένου τραγῳδιοποιοῦ Ἐπιγένους τοῦ Σικυωνίου τιθέμενος, ὡς δέ τινες, δεύτερος μετὰ Ἐπιγένην· ἄλλοι δὲ αὐτὸν πρῶτον τραγικὸν γενέσθαι φασί.
[31] Cf. Suidas, _s.v._, Photius, _s.v._, and Apostolius xiii. 42: Ἐπιγένου τοῦ Σικυωνίου τραγῳδίαν εἰς τὸν Διόνυσον ποιήσαντος, ἐπεφώνησάν τινες τοῦτο· ὅθεν ἡ παροιμία.
[32] Cf. _The Origin of Tragedy_, p. 58.
[33] About a dozen explanations in addition to those discussed in the text are listed and criticized in _Classical Philology_, VIII (1913), 269 ff.
[34] Cf. Jacoby, _Das Marmor Parium_, p. 14: ἀφ’ οὖ Θέσπις ὁ ποιητὴς [ὑπεκρίνα]το πρῶτος, ὃς ἐδίδαξη [δρ]ᾶ[μα ἐν ἄ]στ[ει καὶ ἆθλον ἐ]τέθη ὁ [τ]ράγος, ἔτη ΗΗ𐅄[ΔΔ·], ἄρχοντος Ἀθ[ήνησι] ... ναιου τοῦ προτέρου.
[35] Cf. _op. cit._, ρ. 468: “An der Tatsache, dass in älterer Zeit dem Tragödenchor ein Bock als Preis (der als Opferthier und Opferschmaus dienen sollte), gegeben wurde, wie dem Dithyrambenchor zu gliechem Zwecke ein Stier, daran zu zweifeln ist kein Grund.”
[36] Cf. _op. cit._, p. 59: “Since the interpretation of τραγῳδία as the ‘song of the men in goat-costume’ must be given up, the word can be interpreted as the ‘song _around_’ or ‘_for_ the goat’—whether the goat be sacrifice or prize.”
[37] Cf. Eusebius’ _Chronica_, Ol. 47, 2 (591-590 B.C.; Armenian version, Ol. 48, 1): τοῖς ἀγωνιζομένοις παρ’ Ἕλλησι τράγος ἐδίδοτο, ἀφ’ οὖ καὶ τραγικοὶ ἐκλήθησαν. Jerome’s Latin version reads: “his temporibus certantibus in agone (de voce _add._ R) tragus, id est hircus, in praemio dabatur. Unde aiunt tragoedos nuncupatos.”
[38] Contrary to Herodotus, these choruses were τραγικοί only after the transfer, not before—a negligible error.
[39] Of course, it is possible to argue that goats may have been sacrificed to Adrastus and that τραγικός and τραγῳδός were consequently older terms than is maintained in the text; this would also explain why the goat was continued as a prize after the sacrifice proper had been given over to Melanippus. Cf., however, Farnell, _Cults of the Greek States_, V, 233 and note _d_.
[40] Cf. Plato _Minos_ 321A: ἡ δὲ τραγῳδία ἐστὶ παλαιὸν ἐνθάδε, οὐχ ὡς οἴονται ἀπὸ Θέσπιδος ἀρξαμένη οὐδ’ ἀπὸ Φρυνίχου, ἀλλ’ εἰ θέλεις ἐννοῆσαι, πάνυ παλαιὸν αὐτὸ εὑρήσεις ὂν τῆσδε τῆς πόλεως εὕρημα.
[41] Cf. _Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion²_ (1908), p. 568. Of course, I do not mean to deny that impersonation was subsequently borrowed from true drama by rites of various kinds which had not contained it at first. This situation probably obtained with reference to the Eleusinian mysteries in their later forms.
The indebtedness of tragedy to epic poetry for subject matter, dignity of treatment and of diction, and development of plot, including such technical devices as recognition (ἀναγνώρισις) and reversal of situation (περιπέτεια) is too well established to require argument. Aeschylus is said to have declared that his tragedies were “slices from Homer’s bountiful banquets” (Athenaeus, p. 347E). The pertinent passages from Aristotle’s _Poetics_ have been conveniently assembled by Throop, “Epic and Dramatic,” _Washington University Studies_, V (1917), 1 ff.
[42] Cf. Plutarch _Solon_ xxix. If Thespis treated the traditional myths with some freedom, that may have added to Solon’s anger.
[43] Cf. Diogenes Laertius iii. 56: τὸ παλαιὸν ἐν τῇ τραγῳδίᾳ πρότερον μὲν μόνος ὁ χορὸς διεδραμάτιζεν, ὕστερον δὲ Θέσπις ἕνα ὑποκριτὴν ἐξεῦρεν ὑπὲρ τοῦ διαναπαύεσθαι τὸν χορόν.
[44] Cf. _The Origin of Tragedy_, p. 60.
[45] Cf. Hiller, _Rheinisches Museum für Philologie_, XXXIX (1884), 329.
[46] Cf. Horace _Ars Poetica_, vs. 276:
dicitur et plaustris vexisse poemata Thespis.
[47] Cf. _Kleine Schriften_, p. 422, and _Neue Jahrbücher für das klassische Altertum_, XXIX (1912), 474.
[48] Cf. Suidas, _s.v._ “Thespis”: μνημονεύεται δὲ τῶν δραμάτων αὐτοῦ Ἆθλα Πελίου ἢ Φόρβας, Ἱερεῖς, Ἠίθεοι, Πενθεύς.
[49] Cf. Diogenes Laertius v. 92. Both Aristoxenus and Heraclides were pupils of Aristotle.
[50] Cf. Ridgeway, _op. cit._, p. 69.
[51] Cf. Suidas, _s.v._ οὐδὲν πρὸς τὸν Διόνυσον (quoted on p. 29, n. 2, below).
[52] The cognomen was due to the belief that the image and cult were derived from Eleutherae. At Eleutherae itself, however, his cognomen would naturally be different. There he was known as Διόνυσος Μελάναιγις, “Dionysus of the Black-Goat-Skin.” From this fact an abortive attempt has recently been made to derive a new explanation for tragic performances being denominated “goat-songs”; cf. _Classical Philology_, VIII (1913), 270.
[53] Cf. _Marmor Parium_ (quoted on p. 14, n. 2, above).
[54] Cf. _Poetics_ 1449_a_19 ff., Bywater’s translation.
[55] Cf. _op. cit._, p. 472. This exegesis has now been commended by Pickard-Cambridge; cf. _Classical Review_, XXVI (1912), 53. Cornford has expressed the same view by means of a neat paraphrase: ἐκ σατυρικοῦ εἰς σεμνὸν μετέβαλεν, cf. _The Origin of Attic Comedy_ (1914), p. 214, n. 1. Gomperz’ translation (1897) reads as follows: “Was das Wachstum ihrer Grossartigkeit anlangt, so hat sich das Trauerspiel im Gegensatze zur ursprünglichen Kleinheit der Fabeln und der zum Possenhaften neigenden Artung der Diction ihres satyrspielartigen Ursprungs wegen erst spät zu höherer Würde erhoben.... Ursprünglich hatte man sich nämlich, da die Dichtung satyrhaft und mehr balletartig war, des trochäischen Tetrameters bedient.”
[56] Cf. _Poetics_ 1449_a_22 f., Butcher’s translation.
[57] In 467 B.C. Aristias concluded his tragedies with the _Palaestae_, “a satyric drama of his father Pratinas” (cf. arg. Aesch. _Seven against Thebes_). It is generally supposed that this was a posthumous piece. But Professor Capps suggests that Pratinas may frequently have provided a satyr-play for someone’s else trilogy, and thus explains the disproportionate number of satyric dramas in Pratinas’ list and of tragedies in other poets’ lists.
[58] Cf. Suidas, _s.v._ “Pratinas”: ... Φλιάσιος, ποιητὴς τραγῳδίας, ἀντηγωνίζετο Αἰσχύλῳ τε καὶ Χοιρίλῳ, ἐπὶ τῆς ἑβδομηκοστῆς Ὀλυμπιάδος, καὶ πρῶτος ἔγραψε Σατύρους ... καὶ δράματα μὲν ἐπεδείξατο νʹ, ὦν Σατυρικὰ λβʹ. ἐνίκησε δὲ ἅπαξ. Note that the earliest name was simply Σάτυροι, “satyrs.” Murray has proposed another interpretation of Suidas’ phrase: “I take this to mean that Pratinas was the first person to write words for the revelling masquers to learn by heart. Thespis, like many early Elizabethans, had been content with a general direction: ‘Enter Satyrs, in revel, saying anything’” (incorporated in Miss Harrison’s _Themis_, p. 344). Nevertheless, he adds that he “does not wish to combat” the other view.
[59] Fig. 3 is taken from Furtwängler and Reichhold, _Griechische Vasenmalarei_, first series, II, Pls. 11-12. The _membrum virile_ has been omitted in the reproduction.
[60] Cf. _op. cit._, I, 696 f.
[61] This was originally assembled by Hartwig in _Römische Mittheilungen_, XII (1897), 89 ff. and Wernicke, _op. cit._ It is now conveniently summarized by Cook, _op. cit._, pp. 697 ff.
[62] Fig. 4 is taken from Baumeister, _Denkmäler_, Fig. 422. The two craters at Deepdene are illustrated in Cook, _op. cit._, Pl. XXXIX, Figs. 1-2.
[63] The three dinoi are discussed by Miss Bieber in _Athenische Mitteilungen_, XXXVI (1911), 269 ff. and Pl. XIII, Figs. 1-3 and Pl. XIV, Figs. 1-5. My Figs. 5-7 are taken from her publication, corresponding to Pl. XIII, Fig. 1, Pl. XIV, Fig. 4, and Pl. XIV, Figs, 1 and 2 respectively. Cook maintains that all six vases are descended from a fresco by Polygnotus, _op. cit._, pp. 700 f.; but this suggestion seems improbable.
[64] Cf. De Prott, “De Amphora Neapolitana Fabulae Satyricae Apparatum Scaenicum Repraesentante,” in _Schedae Philologicae Hermanno Usener Oblatae_ (Bonn, 1891), pp. 47 ff. It seems strange that De Prott should mar his own interpretation by supposing the figure whom I have called Hesione to be a Muse. The Scythian cap ought to be decisive.
[65] Cf. Miss Bieber, _op. cit._, Pl. XIV, Fig. 3.
[66] Except the eleventh and twelfth choreutae on the Naples crater (Fig. 4), viz., the figure with a lyre near the middle of the lower row and the fully clad figure next to the last on the right. If De Prott is correct in considering these figures choreutae, they must be regarded (I suppose) as having not yet completed their make-up.
[67] Fig. 8 is taken from Baumeister, _Denkmäler_, Fig. 424. The choreutae in this scene are not to be understood as having no tails; their position does not permit this feature to be seen, cf. Haigh, _The Attic Theatre³_, p. 293, note.
[68] Cf. _Etymologicum Magnum_, _s.v._: τραγῳδία: ... ἢ ὅτι τὰ πολλὰ οἱ χοροὶ ἐκ σατύρων συνίσταντο, οὓς ἐκάλουν τράγους σκώπτοντες ἢ διὰ τὴν τοῦ σώματος δασύτητα ἢ διὰ τὴν περὶ τὰ ἀφροδίσια σπουδήν· τοιοῦτον γὰρ τὸ ζῷον. ἢ ὅτι οἱ χορευταὶ τὰς κόμας ἀνέπλεκον, σχῆμα τράγων μιμούμενοι.
[69] Cf. Horace _Ars Poetica_, vss. 220 f:
carmine qui tragico vilem certavit ob hircum, mox etiam agrestis Satyros nudavit, etc.
[70] Cf. Suidas and Photius, _s.v._ οὐδὲν πρὸς τὸν Διόνυσον and Apostolius xiii. 42. After giving the explanation of this phrase already cited on p. 12, n. 3, above, they continue: βέλτιον δὲ οὕτως, τὸ πρόσθεν εἰς τὸν Διόνυσον γράφοντες τούτοις ἠγωνίζοντο, ἅπερ καὶ Σατυρικὰ ἐλέγετο· ὕστερον δὲ μεταβάντες εἰς τὸ τραγῳδίας γράφειν, κατὰ μικρὸν εἰς μύθους καὶ ἱστορίας ἐτράπησαν, μηκέτι τοῦ Διονύσου μνημονεύοντες, ὅθεν τοῦτο καὶ ἐπεφώνησαν. καὶ Χαμαιλέων ἐν τῷ Περὶ Θέσπιδος τὰ παραπλήσια ἱστορεῖ. The word παραπλήσια leaves it doubtful for how much of this notice Chamaeleon (Aristotle’s pupil) should be held responsible. But at the most his accountability cannot extend beyond explaining the introduction of non-Dionysiac themes; the side remarks are Byzantine.
[71] Cf. von Wilamowitz, _N. Jahrbücher f. kl. Altertum_, XXIX (1912), 461, and Tanner, _Transactions American Philological Association_, XLVI (1915), 173 ff.
[72] Fig. 9 is taken from the _Journal of Hellenic Studies_, XI (1890), Pl. XI, and is reproduced by permission of the Council of the Hellenic Society.
[73] Reisch, _op. cit._, pp. 456 f., considers the goat-men Pans, or choreutae in some such comedy as Eupolis’ Αἶγες.
[74] Cf. Nauck, _Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta_, p. 69, fr. 207:
τράγος γένειον ἆρα πενθήσεις σύ γε.
The use of the nominative τράγος instead of a vocative is harsh, and Shorey, _Classical Philology_, IV (1909), 433 ff., interprets the line as an abbreviated comparison with ὡς omitted: “<If you kiss that fire>, you’ll be the goat (in the proverb) who mourned his beard.” Of course, this play must have been written considerably before 456 B.C., the year of Aeschylus’ decease.
[75] Cf. _Oxyrhynchus Papyri_, IX (1912), 59:
νέος γὰρ ὢν ἀνὴρ πώγωνι θάλλων ὡς τράγος κνήκῳ χλιδᾷς.
[76] Cf. Euripides’ _Cyclops_, vss. 79 f.:
δοῦλος ἀλαίνων σὺν τᾷδε τράγου χλαίνᾳ μελέᾳ.
Reisch thinks the goatskin characterized the chorus as shepherds; cf. _op. cit._, p. 458, note; Ridgeway considers it “the meanest form of apparel that could be worn by a slave”; cf. _Origin of Tragedy_, p. 87.
[77] Fig. 10 is taken from Höber, _Griechische Vasen_, Fig. 57 (1909).
[78] Cf. Reinach, _Repertoire des Vases Peints_, I, 193, or Baumeister, _Denkmäler_, Supplementtafel, Fig. 7.
[79] Cf. _op. cit._, p. 459. The possibility of direct borrowing had already been denied by Wernicke, _op. cit._, pp. 302-6. Wernicke’s objections are not altogether convincing.
[80] Fig. 11 is taken from a photograph for which I am indebted to Professor Heinrich Bulle. He was also kind enough to express the following judgment with regard to the inscription: “Ich kann nicht mit Ch. Fränkel, _Satyr- und Bakchennamen auf Vasenbildern_ (1912), S. 35, der Lesung von Schulze (_Göttinger gel. Anz._ 1896, S. 254) ΣΙΒΥΡΤΑΣ zustimmen; denn die Inschrift ist ja rechtslaüfig. Man kann übrigens auch deutlich an dem Kleinerwerden der Buchstaben sehen, dass der Zeichner von links nach rechts geschrieben hat. Ich glaube mit Urlichs, (_Verzeichniss d. Antikensammlung d. Univ. Wurzburgs_, I, S. 50), dass es eine einfache Verschreibung aus ΣΑΤΥΡΟΣ ist.” The _membrum virile_ has been omitted in the reproduction.
[81] Cf. the contemporaneous sileni in connection with the “wagon-ship” of Dionysus; see Fig. 65 and p. 121, below.
[82] Why “almost” is inserted here does not appear. Many Greek divinities are mentioned on Ridgeway’s pages, but none is recognized as “totally independent” of the cult of the dead.
[83] Cf. his _Dramas and Dramatic Dances_, etc., pp. 63, 337, 385, and _passim_.
[84] Cf. Marrett, _Classical Review_, XXX (1916), 159.
[85] Cf. Zieliński, _Die Gliederung der altattischen Komödie_ (1885); Humphreys, “The Agon of the Old Comedy,” _American Journal of Philology_, VIII (1887), 179 ff.; Poppelreuter, _De Comoediae Atticae Primordiis_ (1893); A. Körte, “Archäologische Studien zur alten Komödie,” _Jahrbuch d. archäologischen Instituts_, VIII (1893), 61 ff.; Loeschcke, _Athenische Mittheilungen_, XIX (1894), 518, note; Bethe, _Prolegomena zur Geschichte des Theaters im Alterthum_ (1896), pp. 48 ff.; Mazon, _Essai sur la Composition des Comédies d’Aristophane_ (1904); Capps, “The Introduction of Comedy into the City Dionysia,” _University of Chicago Decennial Publications_, VI (1904), 266 ff., and in Columbia University lectures on _Greek Literature_ (1912), pp. 124 ff.; Navarre, “Les origines et la structure technique de la comédie ancienne,” _Revue des Études anciennes_, XIII (1911), 245 ff.; White, _The Verse of Greek Comedy_ (1912); Cornford, _The Origin of Attic Comedy_ (1914), reviewed by Flickinger in _Classical Weekly_, VIII (1915), 221 ff.; and Ridgeway, _The Dramas and Dramatic Dances of Non-European Races with an Appendix on the Origin of Greek Comedy_ (1915), reviewed by Flickinger, _Classical Weekly_, XI (1918), 109 f.
[86] I am indebted to Professor Capps for this translation; the word is generally taken to mean “masks” here.
[87] Cf. Aristotle’s _Poetics_ 1449_a_37-_b_9.
[88] The phallus was a representation of the _membrum virile_, and such ceremonies were primarily intended to secure fertility.
[89] Cf. Aristotle’s _Poetics_ 1449_a_9-13.
[90] The second is, of course, the personification of Increase; the first is not so obvious. Some connect it with Demeter; it has also been proposed to interpret it as the Cretan form of ζημία, “damage.” The one would therefore represent the productive and the other the destructive powers; cf. Macan’s edition _ad loc._ This would accord very neatly with Cornford’s positive and negative charms.
[91] Cf. Jacoby, _Das Marmor Parium_, p. 13: ἀφ’ οὑ ἐν Ἀθ[ήν]αις κωμω[ιδῶν χο]ρ[ὸς ἐτ]έθη, [στη]σάν[των πρώ]των Ἰκαριέων, εὑροντος Σουσαρίωνος, καὶ ᾆθλον ἐτέθη πρῶτον ὶσχάδω[ν] ἄρσιχο[ς] καὶ οἴνου με[τ]ρητής, [ἔτη .... The exact date is not determinable but is limited to a period of twenty years by other entries just before and after this one.
[92] Figs. 12 and 13 are taken, by permission of the Council of the Hellenic Society, from the _Journal of Hellenic Studies_, II (1881), Pl. XIV, A1 and B1; Fig. 14 from Poppelreuter, _op. cit._, p. 8; and Figs. 15 and 16 from Robinson, _Boston Museum Catalogue of Greek, Etruscan, and Roman Vases_ (1893), p. 136.
[93] Cf. Capps, _University of Chicago Decennial Publications_, VI, 286, and _American Journal of Philology_, XXVIII (1907), 186 f.
[94] The divisions of tragedy are discussed on pp. 192 f., below. Five of the terms applied to the divisions of comedy appear also in tragedy, viz., prologue, parodus, episode, stasimum, and exodus; several, if not all, of the five seem to have originated in tragedy.
[95] From this second half of the parabasis comedy developed another epirrhematic division to which Zieliński also gave the name of syzygy. This was not exclusively choral, however, stood at no definite point in the play, and differed in still other respects from the epirrhematic syzygy of the parabasis. Three syzygies appear in Aristophanes’ _Acharnians_ and _Birds_, none in his _Lysistrata_, _Women in Council_, and _Plutus_. Cf. White, _op. cit._, § 677. Since it is apparent that such syzygies are not primary in origin, they have been ignored in the foregoing discussion.
[96] Or at least reflect its influence; cf. the syzygies mentioned in the last note.
[97] Cf. Cornford, _op. cit._, p. 46.
[98] Cf. White, “An Unrecognized Actor in Greek Comedy,” _Harvard Studies_, XVII (1906), 124 f.
[99] Cf. Zieliński, _op. cit._, p. 190.
[100] Published by Usener in _Rheinisches Museum f. Philologie_, XXVIII (1873), 418.
[101] Cf. Aristophanes’ _Clouds_, vss. 537 ff. (Rogers’ translation). The original of “filthy symbols” is σκύτινον καθειμένον. It has therefore been suggested, especially since there seems to be an allusion to a phallus even in the _Clouds_ (vs. 734), that Aristophanes is not to be understood as discontinuing the use of the phallus altogether in this play, but merely as abandoning the φαλλος καθειμένος in favor of the less indecent φαλλὸς ἀναδεδεμένος. Both types are seen in Fig. 17.
[102] Figs. 17-19 are taken from Körte, _op. cit._, p. 69 (Fig. 1), p. 78 (Fig. 3), and p. 80 (Fig. 5), respectively. In Fig. 17 there are only three actors; the end figures are flute-players. Körte believes this scene to be taken from Middle Comedy. In Fig. 19 the phallus has been omitted.
[103] Figs. 20 and 21 are taken from Körte, _op. cit._, p. 91 (Fig. 8), and Baumeister’s _Denkmäler_, Fig. 2099, respectively. The phallus has been omitted from some of the actors.
[104] Cf. Aristotle’s _Poetics_ 1448_a_31 f.
[105] Those who admit this claim rest under the necessity of placing the introduction of actors at this early date. This would mean that comedy had actors before tragedy did! On the other hand, the reader needs to be warned that I place the introduction of comic actors later than most writers.
[106] Cf. Aristophanes’ _Wasps_, vs. 57, and Kock, _Comicorum Graecorum Fragmenta_, I, 9 f., fr. 2 (Ecphantides), and I, 323, fr. 244 (Eupolis).
[107] Von Wilamowitz’ skepticism with regard to Megarian comedy, however, has not gained many converts; cf. “Die megarische Komödie,” _Hermes_, IX (1875), 319 ff.
[108] Cf. Navarre, _op. cit._, p. 268. The same fact is brought out more graphically in the lithographic table at the close of Zieliński’s book.
[109] The episodes referred to in this sentence are more properly termed “mediating scenes” in contradistinction to the true episodes (5) which follow the parabasis (cf. White, _The Verse of Greek Comedy_, §§ 679 f.). Twenty-six connecting links of this sort occur in Aristophanes, twenty of them just before an agon or parabasis. Syzygies are also employed to extend the length of the play, especially in the first half (cf. p. 41, n. 1, above).
[110] Cf. Aristotle’s _Poetics_ 1448_a_32-4.
[111] Cf. Aristophanes’ _Frogs_, vss. 416-30, Rogers’ translation. The original is more vulgar than would be tolerable in an English translation.
[112] Cf. Kaibel, _Comicorum Graecorum Fragmenta_, p. 18.
[113] Some would interpret this passage as meaning that Cratinus was the first to observe the aesthetic law that not more than three persons should participate in the same conversation (cf. Rees, _The So-called Rule of Three Actors in the Classical Greek Drama_, p. 9, n. 1). When the only speakers were the individual choreutae, who were twenty-four in number, such a restriction must have been unheard of. On the other hand, if it should prove true that Megarian actors were brought in before the time of Cratinus, then we must suppose that their number was at first in excess of three and was reduced to three by him. Of course, the use of but three actors in the tragedy and comedy of this period would automatically result in not more than three persons participating in a conversation and so in the observance of the aesthetic law. This statement, however, is subject to the qualification that the chorus leaders continued to have speaking parts both in comedy (see p. 44, above), and in tragedy (cf. pp. 164 f. and 169, below), and that a fourth actor was occasionally employed (cf. pp. 171 and 182, below). In any case I am of the opinion that conscious formulation of the aesthetic law was not made until Hellenistic times (see pp. 187 f., below).
[114] Cf. Aristophanes’ _Knights_, vss. 522 f., Rogers’ translation.
[115] Cf. “The Introduction of Comedy into the City Dionysia,” _University of Chicago Decennial Publications_, VI, 266 ff.
[116] Cf. Columbia University Lectures on _Greek Literature_, p. 130.
[117] Cf. Cornford, _op. cit._, pp. 179 and 193, n. 1; see p. 48, above.
[118] It is unfortunate that there is at present no satisfactory book dealing with the Greek theater on the structural side. English readers are practically restricted to Haigh’s _The Attic Theatre_, revised by Pickard-Cambridge in 1907, which devotes nearly one hundred pages to a summary and criticism of the different views. But this work has already been off the press for a decade and on the main issue, viz., as to whether the Greek theater of the classical period was provided with a raised stage for actors, makes too many concessions to the traditional view. For German readers, on the other hand, the situation is not a great deal better. Dörpfeld’s book has been before the public for over twenty years, and in the interim his opinions have necessarily changed on many points. He has promised a thoroughly revised second edition, which is demanded also by the excavation of additional theaters and by the publication of numerous special articles. But it is hardly likely that this promise will ever be redeemed. The only comfort is to be derived from the fact that, as works of major importance have appeared, Dörpfeld has promptly published critiques which have often been of such length as to furnish convenient restatements of his views. These more recent works in German, however, have attempted merely to force a modification of certain details in Dörpfeld’s position; they are in no wise calculated to serve as independent presentations of the whole matter or as a means of orientation for the uninitiated.
From the extensive bibliographical material which is available it is manifestly impossible to cite more than a fraction here. The outstanding books are Dörpfeld-Reisch, _Das griechische Theater_ (1896), defended against reviewers and partially modified in “Das griechische Theater Vitruvs,” _Athenische Mittheilungen_, XXII (1897), 439 ff., and XXIII (1898), 326 ff.; Puchstein, _Die griechische Bühne_ (1901), answered by Dörpfeld in _Athenische Mittheilungen_, XXVIII (1903), 383 ff.; and Fiechter, _Die baugeschichtliche Entwicklung des antiken Theaters_ (1914), summarized by its author and criticized by Dörpfeld in _Jahrbuch d. arch. Instituts, Anzeiger_, XXX (1915), 93 ff. and 96 ff., respectively. Other important publications are von Wilamowitz-Möllendorff, “Die Bühne des Aischylos,” _Hermes_, XXI (1886), 597 ff.; Todt, “Noch Einmal die Bühne des Aeschylos,” _Philologus_, XLVIII (1889), 505 ff.; Capps, “Vitruvius and the Greek Stage,” _University of Chicago Studies in Classical Philology_, I (1893), 3 ff.; Bethe, _Prolegomena zur Geschichte des Theaters im Alterthum_ (1896), and “Die hellenistischen Bühnen und ihre Decorationen,” _Jahrbuch d. arch. Instituts_, XV (1900), 59 ff. (answered by Dörpfeld in “Die vermeintliche Bühne des hellenistischen Theaters,” _ibid._, XVI [1901], 22 ff.); Petersen, “Nachlese in Athen: Das Theater des Dionysos,” _ibid._, XXIII (1908), 33 ff.; and Versakis, “Das Skenengebäude d. Dionysos-Theaters,” _ibid._, XXIV (1909), 194 ff., answered by Dörpfeld, _ibid._, pp. 224 ff. Still other titles will be cited as they are needed in the discussion. See also p. 221, below. For reports on the excavations of various theaters the reader should consult the bibliographical references given by Dörpfeld-Reisch and Fiechter in their footnotes.
[119] For a slight variability in the application of the word orchestra see p. 83 and nn. 1 and 2, below; see also p. 72, n. 3.
[120] Fig. 22 is specially drawn and does not exactly reproduce any single theatrical structure. Fig. 23 is taken, simplified and slightly altered, from Dörpfeld-Reisch, _Das griechische Theater_, Pl. VIII (_a_).
[121] Dörpfeld claims that the name was given because the speakers stood there in addressing the public assemblies and that the same place was known as the _theologium_ when used by divinities; cf. _Athenische Mittheilungen_, XXIII (1898), 348 f., and XXVIII (1903), 395, and _Jahrbuch d. arch. Instituts, Anzeiger_, XXX (1915), 98. Reisch thought that logium was the name of some kind of special structure in the orchestra; cf. _Das griechische Theater_, p. 302. Inscriptions prove the presence of a logium in the Delian theater in 279 B.C. (εἰς τὸ λογεῖον τῆς σκηνῆς) and 180 B.C. (τὴν κατασκευὴν τῶν πινάκων τῶν ἐπὶ τὸ λογεῖον); cf. Homolle, _Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique_, XVIII (1894), 162 and 165, and Robinson, _American Journal of Philology_, XXV (1904), 191; but they do not make its nature clear. Personally I am of the opinion that at Athens speakers always stood in the orchestra to address the public assemblies until the building of the Nero stage about 67 A.D.; cf. Flickinger, _Plutarch as a Source of Information on the Greek Theater_ (1904), p. 55, and see p. 102, below. My present view, therefore, is that logium suffered a change of meaning, being first applied to the top of the proscenium and being used for elevated action of various kinds, as explained in the text, and afterward being applied to the stage as the place of actors and public speakers. In either case, it referred to the same general part of the theater, viz., an elevated platform in front of the scene-building. But the original application of this term is one of the most perplexing problems in connection with scenic antiquities, and it is earnestly to be hoped that additional evidence may be brought to light which will unmistakably reveal its earlier history. The word does not appear in literature until Roman times (thrice in Plutarch), but then indisputably means “stage.” See next paragraph in text.
[122] “Theater” (θέατρον) is derived from θεᾶσθαι, to “see,” and was originally applied to the space occupied by the spectators. The wider meaning was a natural but later development. It is customary to employ the Latin term _cavea_ (“an excavated place”) to express the narrower meaning.
[123] Fig. 24 is taken from Wilberg’s drawing, simplified by the omission of numerous details, in _Forschungen in Ephesos_, II, Fig. 96. I am responsible for the addition of the names.
[124] That this platform (or rather its equivalent in purely Roman theaters) might be conventionally regarded as the roof of the scene-building appears from Seneca _Medea_, vs. 973 (Medea speaking): “excelsa nostrae tecta conscendam domus,” and vs. 995 (Jason speaking): “en ipsa tecti parte praecipiti imminet.”
[125] The word occurs only in Pollux, _Onomasticon_, IV, § 127.
[126] Dörpfeld applies the term to the first story of the purely Greek (stageless) theater (see p. 100, below).
[127] For a discussion of the technical terms from the traditional standpoint, cf. A. Müller, “Untersuchungen zu den Bühnenalterthümern,” _Philologus_, Supplementband, VII (1899), 3 ff. Many of the terms, notably σκηνή, have numerous secondary meanings; cf. Flickinger, _Plutarch as a Source of Information on the Greek Theater_, pp. 23 ff., and Scherling, _De Vocis_ Σκηνή, _Quantum ad Theatrum Graecum Pertinet, Significatione et Usu_ (1906). Thymele is sometimes extended in application so as to denote the whole orchestra; hence θυμελικός was sometimes applied to purely orchestral performers (or their performances) in contradistinction to those who came into more immediate relationship with the scene-building and who were in consequence known as σκηνικοί (see pp. 96 f., below).
[128] Fig. 25 is taken from a photograph by Professor D. M. Robinson.
[129] Figs. 26 f. are taken from photographs by Dr. A. S. Cooley; Fig. 28 from one by Professor D. M. Robinson.
[130] Fig. 1 is taken from a photograph furnished by Professor D. M. Robinson.
[131] Fig. 29 is specially drawn and is based upon several different drawings.
[132] Fig. 30 is taken from Wieseler’s _Theatergebäude und Denkmäler d. Bühnenwesens bei den Griechern und Römern_, Pl. I, Fig. 1, and is magnified two diameters as compared with the original coin. See also the medallion on the outside cover, which is reproduced from the _British Museum Catalogue of Greek Coins, Attica, Megaris, Aegina_, Pl. XIX, Fig. 8. Fig. 31 is from a photograph by Dr. A. S. Cooley.
[133] Fig. 32 is redrawn, with slight alterations, from Dörpfeld-Reisch, _Das griechische Theater_, Pl. II. The age of the different remains is indicated in colors in _ibid._, Pl. I.
[134] Cf. Photius, _s.v._ ἴκρια. τὰ ἐν τῇ ἀγορᾷ, ἀφ’ ὤν ἐθεῶντο τοὺς Διονυσιακοὺς αγῶνας πρὶν ἤ κατασκευασθῆναι τὸ ἐν Διονύσου θέατρον; likewise _s.v._ ληναῖον and ὀρχήστρα.
[135] Cf. Suidas, _s.v._ Πρατίνας ... ἀντηγωνίζετο δὲ Αὶσχύλῳ τε καὶ Χοιρίλῳ, ἐπὶ τῆς ἑβδομηκοστῆς Ὀλυμπιάδος, ... ἐπιδεικνυμένου δὲ τούτου συνέβη τὰ ἴκρια, ἐφ’ ὧν ἑστήκεσαν οἱ θεαταί πεσεῖν. καὶ ἐκ τούτου θέατρον ᾠκοδομήθη Ἀθηναίοις. It is also possible that the orchestra in the precinct of Dionysus is somewhat earlier than is maintained in the text, possibly going back to the vicinity of 534 B.C., and that it was the earlier and less substantial seats near it which collapsed _ca._ 499 B.C.
[136] Figs. 33 f. are taken from photographs by Dr. A. S. Cooley. The position of these stones is marked by B and C respectively in Fig. 32. Another arc of the same orchestral circle is indicated by a cutting in the native rock near the east parodus, A in Fig. 32.
[137] Fig. 32_a_ is taken from F. Noack, Σκηνὴ Τραγική, _eine Studie über die scenischen Anlage auf der Orchestra des Aischylos und der anderen Tragiker_ (1915), p. 3.
[138] Possibly the seats did not go back of this road at this period; they certainly did in the fourth century (Fig. 32).
[139] Cf. Dignan, _The Idle Actor in Aeschylus_ (1905), p. 13, n. 14.
[140] Or in the south half of the old orchestra in case the orchestra was moved fifty feet nearer the Acropolis at this time (see p. 68, below).
[141] Cf. Aristotle’s _Poetics_ 1449_a_18, and Vitruvius, _De Architectura_, VII, praefatio, § 11.
[142] Dörpfeld, following Reisch, is willing to accept a date as early as 421-415 B.C., cf. _Das griechische Theater_, pp. 21 f.
[143] Fig. 35 is taken from Fiechter, _op. cit._, Fig. 14.
[144] So Furtwängler, “Zum Dionysostheater in Athen,” _Sitzungsberichte d. bayer. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu München, philosophisch-philologische u. historische Classe_, 1901, p. 411; Puchstein, _op. cit._, pp. 137 ff.; E. A. Gardner, _Ancient Athens_, pp. 435 f. and 448; and Fiechter, _op. cit._, p. 11. Dörpfeld, on the contrary, would attribute these foundations to the Lycurgus theater in the next century; cf. _Das griechische Theater_, pp. 59 ff.
[145] Cf. Dörpfeld, “Das griechische Theater zu Pergamon,” _Athenische Mittheilungen_, XXXII (1907), 231; but differently in _Das griechische Theater_, pp. 61 ff.
[146] As in the Hellenistic theater (Fig. 38).
[147] Except possibly at Thoricus (see p. 103, below).
[148] Cf. pseudo-Plutarch _X Oratorum Vitae_, 841D and 852C.
[149] Cf. Dörpfeld, “Das Theater von Ephesos,” _Jahrbuch d. arch. Instituts, Anzeiger_, XXVIII (1913), 38.
[150] Dörpfeld, “Das Theater von Ephesos,” Jahrbuch d. arch. Instituts, Anzeiger, XXVIII (1913), 40 f.
[151] Fig. 38 is taken from Dörpfeld-Reisch, _Das griechische Theater_, Fig. 26.
[152] Cf. _ibid._, p. 63. This shift has been disputed by many but is defended by Fiechter, _op. cit._, pp. 9 ff.
[153] Cf. Dörpfeld, _Das griechische Theater_, p. 89.
[154] Cf. ibid., p. 89; _Athenische Mittheilungen_, XXII (1897), 459; XXIII (1898), 330 and 347; and XXVIII (1903), 414. For the Graeco-Roman stage see pp. 80 ff. and 110 f., below.
[155] Fig. 39 is from a photograph taken by Dr. Lewis L. Forman and furnished by Dr. A. S. Cooley. Owing to its change of function, in Roman times the orchestra was sometimes known as the κονίστρα (= the Latin _arena_); owing to its change of shape, it was sometimes called σῖγμα from its resemblance to the semicircular form of the Greek letter Ϲ.
[156] Fig. 40 is taken from Dörpfeld-Reisch, _Das griechische Theater_, Fig. 32.
[157] Fig. 41 is from a photograph belonging to Northwestern University; the stone steps at the left and another slab at the right do not appear in this view (see Fig. 39). For the latest interpretation and drawing of the frieze, cf. Cook, _Zeus_, I, 708 ff., and the pocket at end of his volume.
[158] Fig. 42 is taken from _Athenische Mittheilungen_, XXII (1897), 452.
[159] Vitruvius, of course, speaks of Roman feet, which are equal to 11.65 English inches.
[160] Fig. 43 is taken from _Athenische Mittheilungen_, XXII (1897), 453. This drawing differs somewhat from that given in _Das griechische Theater_, Fig. 66, which was prepared while Dörpfeld was still of the opinion that Vitruvius was describing the Hellenistic theater and had misapprehended the function of its proscenium (see p. 81, below). He now includes the proscenium at the back of the stage in the _scaenae frons_.
[161] Whatever _scaena_ may mean in Latin, _in scaena_ in this context is at least equivalent to “on the stage.”
[162] Cf. p. 61, n. 2, above and pp. 96 f., below.
[163] Cf. Pollux _Onomasticon_ iv, § 123: καὶ σκηνὴ μὲν ὑποκριτῶν ἴδιον, ἡ δὲ ὀρχήστρα τοῦ χοροῦ.
[164] Cf. _ibid._, iv, § 127: εἰσελθόντες δὲ κατὰ τὴν ὀρχήστραν ἐπὶ τὴν σκηνὴν ἀναβαίνουσι διὰ κλιμάκων.
[165] Dörpfeld’s views were first given general publicity in the Appendix to Müller’s _Lehrbuch der griechischen Bühnenalterthümern_ (1886), pp. 415 f., but were not published in full until 1896. They have suffered modification in several material points since then.
[166] Cf. _De Architectura_ v. 8, 2: “ita his praescriptionibus qui voluerit uti, emendatas efficiet theatrorum perfectiones.”
[167] This is now Dörpfeld’s name for what he at first called the Asia Minor type; cf. _Athenische Mittheilungen_, XXVIII (1903), 389 and 414. The latter term was unfortunate as suggesting a geographical restriction which had no basis in fact.
[168] Cf. Plutarch _Life of Pompey_, c. xlii.
[169] It is significant that Vitruvius seems to have depended upon Asia Minor rather than the Greek mainland for his knowledge of Greek architecture; cf. Noack, “Das Proscenion in der Theaterfrage,” _Philologus_, LVIII (1899), 16 ff.
[170] Cf. _Athenische Mittheilungen_, XXII (1897), 439 ff.
[171] Cf. _Athenische Mittheilungen_, XXII (1897), 443, 449 f., and 454, and Fiechter, _op. cit._, pp. 59 ff.
[172] It is easy to see why he should do so. When Hellenistic theaters were made over into Graeco-Roman structures, several rows of seats were often removed, resulting in a drop of several feet between the auditorium and the orchestra (see p. 116, below, and Fig. 24). So distinct a line of demarcation could scarcely be ignored in favor of any less clearly marked boundary. In fact, the orchestra in the narrowest sense (see next note) was sometimes not indicated at all in the Graeco-Roman theaters.
[173] The word is applied also to a still more restricted space which in some Graeco-Roman and most earlier theaters is marked off by a circular boundary.
[174] Of course, Dörpfeld and Fiechter cite only a fraction of the instances available (others are given in Puchstein’s table, _op. cit._, p. 7), but it is to be inferred that they bring forward those which are most favorable to their own position and most difficult for their opponents to explain. For example, the proscenium of the Hellenistic theater in Athens was about thirteen feet (English) high, which exceeds Vitruvius’ maximum. Consequently Fiechter says nothing about it. In general, the Hellenistic proscenia were higher than the Graeco-Roman stages.
[175] Doubtless for the reason that in the pitlike Graeco-Roman orchestra the smaller circle really was not needed and often was not indicated (see p. 83, n. 1).
[176] Cf. Dörpfeld, _Athenische Mittheilungen_, XXVIII (1903), 403 and 405.
[177] Cf. Bethe, _Jahrbuch d. arch. Instituts_, XV (1900), 71 f., and Dörpfeld, _ibid._, XVI (1901), 35 f.
[178] Cf. _Athenische Mittheilungen_, XXVIII (1903), 424 ff. The arguments advanced in this article are reaffirmed as still valid in _Jahrbuch d. arch. Instituts, Anzeiger_, XXX (1915), 99 ff.
[179] Cf. _Hermes_, XXI (1886), 603.
[180] Cf. “The Greek Stage According to the Extant Dramas,” _Transactions of the American Philological Association_, XXII (1891), 5 ff. Similar results were obtained by White, “The ‘Stage’ in Aristophanes,” _Harvard Studies_, II (1891), 159 ff.
[181] Fig. 45 is from a photograph belonging to the University of Chicago. The inscription beneath the seat reads: “Of the priest of Dionysus Eleuthereus.”
[182] Cf. scholium on vs. 299 of the _Frogs_: ἀποροῦσι δέ τινες πῶς ἀπὸ τοῦ λογείου περιελθὼν καὶ κρυφθεὶς ὄπισθεν τοῦ ἱερέως τοῦτο λέγει. φαίνονται δὲ οὐκ εἶναι ἐπὶ τοῦ λογείου ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ τῆς ὀρχήστρας.
[183] Cf. Graeber, _De Poetarum Atticorum Arte Scaenica_ (1911), p. 4.
[184] Cf. Rees, “The Function of the Πρόθυρον in the Production of Greek Plays,” _Classical Philology_, X (1915), 128 and n. 2. For other interpretations consistent with a stageless theater, cf. White, _Harvard Studies_, II (1891), 164 ff., and Capps, _Transactions of the American Philological Association_, XXII (1891), 64 ff. A convenient summary from the pro-stage point of view may be found in Haigh, _The Attic Theatre³_, pp. 166 f.
[185] Cf. Aristotle’s _Poetics_ 1456_a_29, and see pp. 144 ff., below.
[186] Cf. White, _op. cit._, p. 167, note, and Robert, “Zur Theaterfrage,” _Hermes_, XXXII (1897), 447.
[187] See pp. 99, 116 f., 134 f., and 144-49, below. Cf. Capps, “The Chorus in the Later Greek Drama,” _American Journal of Archaeology_, X (1895), 287 ff.; Körte, “Das Fortleben des Chors im griechischen Drama,” _N. Jahrbücher f. kl. Altertum_, V (1900), 81 ff.; Flickinger, “ΧΟΡΟΥ in Terence’s _Heauton_ and Agathon’s ΕΜΒΟΛΙΜΑ,” _Classical Philology_, VII (1912), 24 ff.; and Duckett, _Studies in Ennius_ (1915), pp. 53 ff.
[188] See p. 147, below, and cf. Graf, _Szenische Untersuchungen zu Menander_ (1914), p. 14. The same motive appears also in the fifth century, in Euripides’ _Phoenician Maids_, vss. 192 ff., and _Phaethon_ (Nauck, _Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta_, p. 602, fr. 773, vss. 10 ff.); cf. Fraenkel, _De Media et Nova Comoedia_ (1912), p. 71, and Harms, _De Introitu Personarum in Euripidis et Novae Comoediae Fabulis_ (1914), p. 60; see p. 282, below.
[189] The former phrase occurs in Aristotle’s _Poetics_ 1453_a_27, 1455_a_28, 1459_b_25, and 1460_a_15, and Demosthenes xix, p. 449, § 337; the latter in Aristotle’s (?) _Poetics_ 1452_b_18 and 25, Aristotle’s _Problems_ 918_b_26, 920_a_9, and 922_b_17, and Demosthenes xviii, p. 288, § 180. Cf. Richards, _Classical Review_, V (1891), 97, and XVIII (1904), 179, and Flickinger, “The Meaning of ἐπὶ τῆς σκηνῆς in Writers of the Fourth Century,” _University of Chicago Decennial Publications_, VI (1902), 11 ff., and “Scaenica,” _Transactions of the American Philological Association_, XL (1909), 109 ff.
[190] Cf. Athenaeus, p. 211 B.
[191] Cf. Diodorus Siculus xi. 10, Plutarch _Life of Brutus_, c. xlv, and _Life of Demetrius_, c. xxxii, and Lucian (?), _Lucius sive Asinus_, § 47.
[192] Cf. _American Journal of Philology_, XVIII (1897), 120.
[193] Cf. Aristotle’s _Poetics_ 1460_a_11-17.
[194] Cf. Aristotle (?) _Poetics_ 1452_b_24 f.
[195] Cf. Clemens Alexandrinus (Potter), p. 688, and Vitruvius viii, praefatio § 1. Incidentally it may be remarked that Euripides’ philosophizing and personal views are found in his choral odes no less than in the histrionic parts of his plays (see p. 140, below).
[196] Cf. Frei, _De Certaminibus Thymelicis_ (1900), pp. 14 and 15. The dissertation provoked a controversy between Bethe and Dörpfeld; cf. Bethe, “Thymeliker und Skeniker,” _Hermes_, XXXVI (1901), 597 ff., and Dörpfeld, “Thymele und Skene,” _ibid._, XXXVII (1902), 249 ff. and 483 ff.
[197] Cf. _Athenische Mittheilungen_, XXVIII (1903), 420 f.
[198] The Greek text has already been quoted on p. 78, nn. 1 and 2.
[199] Cf. _Clouds_, vss. 1486 ff. A somewhat similar use of ladders is mentioned in Euripides’ _Bacchanals_, vss. 1212 ff.
[200] Cf. Pollux iv. 124: τὸ δὲ ὑποσκήνιον κίοσι καὶ ἀγαλματίοις κεκόσμηται πρὸς τὸ θέατρον τετραμμένοις, ὑπὸ τὸ λογεῖον κείμενον.
[201] Also, the front wall of this room, just as σκηνή is not only the scene-building as a whole but also its front wall; cf. Flickinger, _Plutarch as a Source of Information on the Greek Theater_, pp. 43 f.
[202] Cf. _Athenische Mittheilungen_, XXVIII (1903), 418 ff.
[203] Robert would emend the text so that the statement would explain the proscenium instead of the hyposcenium; cf. _Hermes_, XXXII (1897), 448. In that case ὑπό must mean “behind,” a possible meaning, and Pollux would be speaking of the proscenium in a theater with a stage. Pollux includes the proscenium in his catalogue of theater parts (see pp. 97 f., above), but does not define it.
[204] Cf. Plutarch _Life of Lycurgus_, c. vi, and Flickinger, _Plutarch as a Source of Information on the Greek Theater_ (1904), p. 52.
[205] Cf. Plutarch _Life of Demetrius_, c. xxxiv.
[206] Cf. Plutarch _Praecepta Gerendae Reipublicae_ 823B, and see p. 59, n. 1, above.
[207] Cf. Plutarch’s _Life of Aratus_, c. xxiii: ἐπιστήσας δὲ ταῖς παρόδοις τοὺς Ἀχαιοὺς αὐτὸς ἀπὸ τῆς σκηνῆς εἰς τὸ μέσον προῆλθε. For other interpretations, cf. Robert, _Hermes_, XXXII (1897), 448 ff.; Müller, _Philologus_, Supplementband, VII (1899), 52 f. and 90 f.; Dörpfeld, _Athenische Mittheilungen_, XXVIII (1903), 421 ff., etc.
[208] A convenient chronological table of the extant theaters is given by Fiechter, _op. cit._, pp. 24-27.
[209] Fig. 46 is taken from Dörpfeld-Reisch, _Das griechische Theater_, Fig. 50. Figs. 47-52 are from photographs by Dr. A. S. Cooley.
[210] Figs. 53-54 are redrawn from Dörpfeld-Reisch, _Das griechische Theater_, Figs. 44-45, respectively; Fig. 55 is from a photograph by Dr. A. S. Cooley.
[211] Cf. Pollux _Onomasticon_ iv, § 132: αἱ Χαρώνιοι κλίμακες.
[212] Cf. Fossum in _American Journal of Archaeology_, II (1898), 187 ff. and Pl. IV; see p. 288, n. 2, below.
[213] A convenient series of excerpts from the Delian inscriptions is given by Haigh, _The Attic Theatre³_, pp. 379 ff.
[214] Fig. 56 is taken from Dörpfeld-Reisch, _Das griechische Theater_, Fig. 35; and Fig. 57 is from a photograph of the German Archaeological Institute at Athens.
[215] ... ἀγω] νοθετήσας τὸ προσκήνιον καὶ τοὺς πίν[ακας, and ... ἱερεὺ]ς γενόμενος ⸺ τὴν σκηνὴν καὶ τὰ θυρώμ[ατα τῷ Ἀμ]φιαράῳ. For the functions of an agonothete, see pp. 271 f., below. For the θυρώματα, cf. Dörpfeld in _Athenische Mittheilungen_, XXVIII (1903), 394, and _Jahrbuch d. arch. Instituts, Anzeiger_, XXX (1915), 102; wrongly interpreted in _Das griechische Theater_, p. 109.
[216] Fig. 58 is taken from _Athenische Mittheilungen_, XXII (1897), Pl. X.
[217] Cf. Dörpfeld in _Athenische Mittheilungen_, XXII (1897), 458, and XXVIII (1903), 429.
[218] Fig. 59 is taken from Niemann’s drawing in _Forschungen in Ephesos_, II, Pl. VIII; and Figs. 60-62 are from drawings by Wilberg, _ibid._, Figs. 5, 56, and 57, respectively. Cf. also Dörpfeld, “Das Theater von Ephesos,” _Jahrbuch d. arch. Instituts, Anzeiger_, XXVIII (1913), 37 ff.
[219] Fig. 63 is redrawn from _Athenische Mittheilungen_, XXIII (1898), Pl. XI; the cross-hatched walls belong to the Graeco-Roman rebuilding. Fig. 64 is from a photograph taken by Professor C. P. Bill and furnished by Dr. A. S. Cooley.
[220] Cf. Dörpfeld, in _Athenische Mittheilungen_, XXII (1897), 456 ff.
[221] Cf. Dörpfeld, _ibid._, XXII (1897), 458 f.; XXIII (1898), 337; and XXVIII (1903), 426.
[222] Cf. Duckett, _Studies in Ennius_ (1915), p. 70.
[223] Cf. the works mentioned on pp. xvii and xx f., above. There is no special literature on this subject.
[224] Cf. chaps. iv and ix and the bibliographies on pp. 196 and 318, below.
[225] A drachma contained six obols and was worth about eighteen cents without making allowance for the greater purchase value of money in antiquity.
[226] Cf. Haigh, _The Attic Theatre_ (3d ed. by Pickard-Cambridge, 1907), p. 1.
[227] The affirmative side of the question is presented by Haigh, _op. cit._, pp. 324 ff.; the negative by Rogers, Introduction to Aristophanes’ _Women in Council_ (1902), pp. xxix ff.
[228] Cf. Frickenhaus, “Der Schiffskarren des Dionysos in Athen,” _Jahrbuch d. arch. Instituts_, XXVII (1912), 61 ff. Fig. 65 originally appeared as Beilage I, Fig. 3, in connection with this article. It is taken from a drawing by Signor G. Gatti, a photograph of which was furnished me through the courtesy of Professor Ghisardini, Director of the Museo Civico at Bologna.
[229] Cf. Plautus’ _The Casket_, vss. 89 f.:
per Dionysia mater pompam me spectatum duxit,
and vss. 156 ff.:
fuere Sicyoni iam diu Dionysia. mercator venit huc ad ludos Lemnius, isque hic compressit virginem, adulescentulus, <vi>, vinulentus, multa nocte, in via.
For the differences between Old Comedy, Middle Comedy, and New Comedy, see p. 39, above.
[230] Cf. his Preface to _Bajazet_.
[231] Cf. Ribbeck, _Rheinisches Museum_, XXX (1875), 145.
[232] Cf. Aristotle’s _Poetics_ 1456_a_6 and 1453_a_19.
[233] Cf. _ibid._, 1451_b_25.
[234] Cf. _Oxyrhynchus Papyri_, IX (1912), 30 ff.
[235] For still further developments in the history of satyric drama see pp. 198 f., below.
[236] Cf. Kock, _Comicorum Atticorum Fragmenta_, II, 90, fr. 191.
[237] Cf. Freytag’s _Technique of the Drama²_, translated by MacEwan, p. 75, and Hense, _Die Modificirung der Maske in der griechischen Tragödie²_ (1905), pp. 2 f.
[238] Cf. Lounsbury, _Shakespeare as a Dramatic Artist_ (1902), p. 175 (italics mine).
[239] Cf. _ibid._, p. 204. The passages referred to are Sophocles’ _Philoctetes_, vss. 38 f., 649 f., and 696-99, and _Antigone_, vss. 1016-22 and 1080-83. The expressions employed in the Greek could be seriously objected to only by the most fastidious.
[240] Cf. Haigh, _The Attic Theatre³_, p. 2.
[241] Cf. argument, _Demosthenes’ Against Midias_, §§ 2 f.
[242] In addition to the works mentioned on pp. xvii and xx f., above, cf. Decharme, _Euripides and the Spirit of His Dramas_ (1892), translated by Loeb (1906); Capps “The Chorus in the Later Greek Drama,” _American Journal of Archaeology_, X (1895), 287 ff.; Helmreich, _Der Chor bei Sophokles und Euripides_ (1905); A. Körte, “Das Fortleben des Chors im gr. Drama,” _N. Jahrb. f. d. kl. Altertum_, V (1900), 81 ff.; Flickinger, “ΧΟΡΟΥ in Terence’s _Heauton_, The Shifting of Choral Rôles in Menander, and Agathon’s ἘΜΒΟΛΙΜΑ,” _Classical Philology_, VII (1912), 24 ff.; Stephenson, _Some Aspects of the Dramatic Art of Aeschylus_ (1913); Fries, _De Conexu Chori Personae cum Fabulae Actione_ (1913); and Duckett, _Studies in Eunius_ (1915).
[243] Nevertheless, it has been ignored by certain recent writers on the origin of tragedy, cf. _Classical Philology_, VIII (1913), 283.
[244] Whether the satyric chorus was increased at the same time is unknown. In Fig. 4, which represents a satyric drama of about 400 B.C., not more than twelve choreutae are represented.
[245] For the differences between sileni and satyrs and for their appearance on the stage, see pp. 24-32.
[246] Cf. the scholia to Sophocles’ _Ajax_, vs. 134, to Euripides’ _Phoenician Maids_, vs. 202, etc.
[247] _Conversations with Eckermann_, July 5, 1827 (Oxenford’s translation).
[248] Cf. Graeber, _De Poetarum Atticorum Arte Scaenica_ (1911), pp. 56 ff.
[249] Cf. Flickinger, _op. cit._, pp. 28 ff.
[250] Cf. Aristotle’s _Poetics_, 1456_a_26 ff.
[251] Cf. _Philologus_, LXX (1911), 497 f.
[252] Cf. _Revue des Études anciennes_, XIII (1911), 273.
[253] In the Jernstedt fragment; cf. Capps, _Four Plays of Menander_, pp. 98 f.
[254] Cf. Kock, _Comicorum Atticorum Fragmenta_, II, 333 f., fr. 107.
[255] Cf. Verrall, _Euripides the Rationalist_, p. 219, note.
[256] Cf. Archer, _Play-making_, p. 142.
[257] Cf. _The Origin of Attic Comedy_, p. 107.
[258] Cf. _Zur Dramaturgie des Äschylus_ (1892), p. 135.
[259] Cf. Euripides’ _Helen_, vs. 184, and _Medea_, vss. 131 ff.
[260] Cf. Euripides’ _Hecabe_, vs. 105, and _Electra_, vss. 168 ff.
[261] Cf. Sophocles’ _Maidens of Trachis_, vs. 103, and _Ajax_, vs. 143, Euripides’ _Hippolytus_, vss. 129 ff., etc.
[262] Cf. Sophocles’ _Oedipus the King_, vs. 144, and _Antigone_, vss. 164 f., Euripides’ _Trojan Women_, vss. 143-45, Aristophanes’ _Clouds_, vs. 269, _Peace_, vss. 296 ff., _Birds_, vss. 310 f., and _Plutus_, vs. 255, etc.
[263] Cf. Verrall’s edition of Euripides’ _Ion_ (1890), p. lx.
[264] Cf. p. 89 of his edition (1896).
[265] Cf. John Dennis, _The Impartial Critick_ (1693).
[266] Cf. Tovey, _Letters of Thomas Gray_, II, 293 f.
[267] Cf. Dennis, _op. cit._
[268] _Four Plays of Euripides_ (1905), pp. 125-30.
[269] Cf. Murray, _Euripides and His Age_ (1913), p. 238.
[270] _Thucydides Mythistoricus_ (1907), p. 147 (italics mine).
[271] In addition to the works mentioned on pp. xvii and xx f., above, cf. Detscheff, _De Tragoediarum Graecarum Conformatione Scaenica ac Dramatica_ (1904); Rees, “The Meaning of Parachoregema,” _Classical Philology_, II (1907), 387 ff.; _The So-called Rule of Three Actors in the Classical Greek Drama_ (1908); “The Number of the Dramatic Company in the Period of the Technitae,” _American Journal of Philology_, XXXI (1910), 43 ff., and “The Three Actor Rule in Menander,” _Classical Philology_, V (1910), 291 ff.; O’Connor, _Chapters in the History of Actors and Acting in Ancient Greece_ (1908); Leo, _Der Monolog im Drama_ (1908), and _Plautinische Forschungen²_ (1912), pp. 226 ff.; Listmann, _Die Technik des Dreigesprächs in der griechischen Tragödie_ (1910); Kaffenberger, _Das Dreischauspielergesetz in der griechischen Tragödie_ (1911); Foster, _The Divisions in the Plays of Plautus and Terence_ (1913); Stephenson, _Some Aspects of the Dramatic Art of Aeschylus_ (1913); Graf, _Szensiche Untersuchungen zu Menander_ (1914); and Conrad, _The Technique of Continuous Action in Roman Comedy_ (1915), reviewed by Flickinger in _Classical Weekly_, X (1917), 147 ff.
Fig. 66 is taken from Baumeister’s _Denkmäler_, Fig. 1637. The apparent height of the tragic actors is said to have been increased by means of the ὄγκος projecting above the head and of thick-soled boots (κόθορνοι), both represented in Fig. 66. The employment of such paraphernalia rests upon late evidence, however, and has been disputed for fifth-century tragedy; cf. for example Smith, “The Use of the High-soled Shoe or Buskin in Greek Tragedy of the Fifth or Fourth Centuries B.C.,” _Harvard Studies_, XVI (1905), 123 ff. For the costumes of comic actors, see pp. 46 f., above.
[272] Cf. Capps, “The Introduction of Comedy into the City Dionysia,” _University of Chicago Decennial Publications_, VI, 269, n. 37.
[273] Cf. Tanner, _Transactions of American Philological Association_, XLVI (1915), 185-87. For Sophocles, cf. Jebb’s _Electra_, p. lvii.
[274] Cf. Rees, _Classical Philology_, V (1910), 291 ff., and Kaffenberger, _op. cit._, p. 10.
[275] Cf. C. F. Hermann, _De Distributione Personarum inter Histriones in Tragoediis Graecis_ (1840), pp. 32-34.
[276] Cf. Prescott, “Three Puer-Scenes in Plautus and the Distribution of Rôles,” _Harvard Studies_, XXI (1910), 44. It ought to be added that some authorities deny that Prometheus was represented by a dummy, believing that this tragedy belonged to the three-actor period (see further, p. 228, below).
[277] Cf. Lewes, _Life of Goethe²_, p. 424.
[278] Cf. _Four Plays of Euripides_ (1905), pp. 1 ff.
[279] Cf. the scholium on vs. 93.
[280] Cf. Devrient, _Das Kind auf der antiken Bühne_ (1904).
[281] Cf. _Oxyrhynchus Papyri_, VI (1908), 69.
[282] Cf. Rees, _American Journal of Philology_, XXXI (1910), 43 ff.
[283] Cf. Horace _Ars Poetica_, vs. 192; see also p. 53, n. 1, above.
[284] Cf. Leo, _Rheinisches Museum für Philologie_, LII (1897), 513.
[285] Cf. Seneca’s _Agamemnon_, vss. 981 ff.
[286] Cf. Lounsbury, _Shakespeare as a Dramatic Artist_, pp. 111 f.
[287] Cf. U. von Wilamowitz-Möllendorff, _Herakles²_, I, 119, note, and Euripides _Alcestis_, vss. 393 ff.
[288] Cf. Aristotle’s _Rhetoric_ 1403_b_33, quoted as the motto of this chapter.
[289] Cf. _Play-making_, p. 129.
[290] Cf. _The So-called Rule of Three Actors in the Classical Greek Drama_, pp. 45-60.
[291] In addition to the works mentioned on pp. xvii and xx f., above, cf. A. T. Murray, _On Parody and Paratragoedia in Aristophanes_ (1891); Mazon, “Sur le Proagôn,” _Revue de Philologie_, XXVII (1903), 263 ff.; Rees, “The Significance of the Parodoi in the Greek Theater,” _American Journal of Philology_, XXXII (1911), 377 ff.; Graeber, _De Poetarum Atticorum Arte Scaenica_ (1911); Robert, _Die Masken der neueren attischen Komödie_ (1911); and the bibliography listed on p. 318, below.
[292] Cf. _Acharnians_, vss. 501 ff., Starkie’s edition, excursus V, and Croiset, _Aristophanes and the Political Parties at Athens_, pp. 42 ff. (Loeb’s translation).
[293] Cf. Demosthenes’ _Against Midias_, § 74.
[294] It probably began upon the tenth day of Elaphebolion (cf. Adams, _Transactions of American Philological Association_, XLI [1910], 60 ff.) and closed on the fifteenth.
[295] Cf. the Introduction to Hayley’s edition, pp. xxiii ff.
[296] Cf. Capps, in _Classical Philology_, I (1906), 219, note on l. 5, and Wilhelm, _Urkunden dramatischer Aufführungen in Athen_, pp. 195 ff.
[297] Cf. _The Theory of the Theater_, p. 118.
[298] Cf. his _Aristotle on the Art of Poetry_, pp. 48 f.
[299] Cf. Dryden, _Dramatic Essays_ (Everyman’s Library edition), p. 20.
[300] Cf. Philostratus, _Apollonius of Tyana_, p. 245.
[301] Cf. note on vs. 38 in Tucker’s edition.
[302] Cf. note on these lines in Starkie’s edition, and Murray, _op. cit._, p. 30.
[303] Figs. 68 f. are taken from Robert, _op. cit._, Figs. 55 and 77, respectively.
[304] Cf. _Laws_ 659A-C.
[305] See pp. xvii f. above, and cf. Bartsch, _Entwickelung des Charakters der Medea in der Tragödie des Euripides_ (Breslau, 1852), p. 24. For the Boeotian version of the incident in Euripides’ _Suppliants_, cf. Pausanias i. 39. 2.
[306] There is a tradition that this play was not produced in Athens, and some maintain that it was first played at Argos. In that case, in addition to appealing to the convictions of the pro-Athenian, anti-Spartan party in Argos, there must also have been the political motive of gaining converts for that party.
[307] Cf. _Lectures on Dramatic Art and Literature_, translated by Black and Morrison, p. 38.
[308] In addition to the works mentioned on pp. xvii and xx f., above, and the bibliography listed on pp. 57-59, above, cf. Hense, _Die Modificirung der Maske in der griechischen Tragödie²_ (1905); Dignan, _The Idle Actor in Aeschylus_ (1905); Flickinger, “Scaenica,” _Transactions of the American Philological Association_, XL (1909), 109 ff.; Robert, _Die Masken der neueren attischen Komödie_ (1911); Rees, “The Significance of the Parodoi in the Greek Theater,” _American Journal of Philology_, XXXII (1911), 377 ff., and “The Function of the Πρόθυρον in the Production of Greek Plays,” _Classical Philology_, X (1915), 117 ff.; Harms, _De Introitu Personarum in Euripidis et Novae Comoediae Fabulis_ (1914); Mooney, _The House-Door on the Ancient Stage_ (1914); and Rambo, “The Wing-Entrances in Roman Comedy,” _Classical Philology_, X (1915), 411 ff.
[309] Cf. Craig, _On the Art of the Theatre_ (1911), pp. 13 and 54 ff., and Cornford, _Thucydides Mythistoricus_ (1907), p. 142, n. 2.
[310] Fig. 70 is taken from Dörpfeld-Reisch, _Das griechische Theater_, Fig. 43; Fig. 71 is from a photograph taken by Professor L. L. Forman and furnished by Dr. A. S. Cooley.
[311] Cf. _Three Plays for Puritans_, p. xxxvi.
[312] Fig. 72 is taken from Puchstein, _Die griechische Bühne_, Fig. 3.
[313] Cf. Ridgeway, _Dramas and Dramatic Dances of Non-European Races_, p. 83.
[314] Fig. 73 is taken from Baumeister, _Denkmäler_, Fig. 980. Within the prothyron are the king of Corinth and his daughter, Jason’s second wife. The latter is being assisted by her brother. In front lies an opened box which contained the poisoned gifts. From the other side the queen comes rushing. In the foreground is Medea slaying one of her children, while a youth tries to rescue the other. In the center is Oistros, the demon of madness, mounted upon a dragon chariot. Further on Jason is hastening to aid his boys, and on the extreme right is the ghost of Aeetes, Medea’s father. The design is apparently not based upon Euripides’ _Medea_. Cf. Earle’s edition, pp. 60 f.
[315] Cf. _Discours des trois unités_, I, 119 (Regnier’s edition; 1862).
[316] Cf. Legrand, _The New Greek Comedy_, pp. 356 f., Loeb’s translation.
[317] For another interpretation cf. Mooney, _op. cit._, p. 19 and n. 13.
[318] The _Ajax_ is one of the earliest among Sophocles’ extant plays, but its exact date is not known. I have assumed that it preceded the introduction of a proscenium about 430 B.C. (see p. 235, above). If it was written after that innovation, the statement in the text would have to be altered accordingly, but the general method of procedure remains the same in either case.
[319] Cf. Jebb, _The Attic Orators_, Vol. I, p. ciii.
[320] In addition to the works mentioned on pp. xvii and xx f. and the bibliography listed on pp. 57-59, above, cf. Campbell, _Classical Review_, IV (1890), 303 ff.; Verrall in his edition of Euripides’ _Ion_ (1890), pp. xlviii ff.; Krause, _Quaestiones Aristophaneae Scaenicae_ (1903); Kent, “The Time Element in the Greek Drama,” _Transactions of the American Philological Association_, XXXVII (1906), 39 ff.; Felsch, _Quibus Artificiis Adhibitis Poetae Tragici Graeci Unitates Illas et Temporis et Loci Observaverint_ (1907); Polczyk, _De Unitatibus et Loci et Temporis in Nova Comoedia Observatis_ (1909); Marek, _De Temporis et Loci Unitatibus a Seneca Tragico Observatis_ (1909); Wolf, _Die Bezeichnung von Ort und Zeit in der attischen Tragödie_ (1911); Butcher, _Aristotle’s Theory of Poetry and Fine Art⁴_ (1911), pp. 274 ff.; Brasse, _Quatenus in Fabulis Plautinis et Loci et Temporis Unitatibus Species Veritatis Neglegatur_ (1914); and Manning, _A Study of Archaism in Euripides_ (1916).
[321] ΧΟΡΟΥ is printed at this point in most editions but occurs in no manuscript (see p. 145, above); it has been inserted by the editors.
[322] Cf. Scott, _Classical Philology_, VIII (1913), 453 ff.
[323] Πάλαι in vs. 587 is entirely subjective; cf. Conrad, _The Technique of Continuous Action in Roman Comedy_ (1915), pp. 22 ff.
[324] For example, the slips which occur in Aristophanes’ _Lysistrata_ (vss. 725 and 881).
[325] Cf. _Discours des trois unités_, I, 113 f. (Regnier’s edition), quoted by Butcher, _op. cit._, pp. 294 f.
[326] Cf. the introduction to his edition of the _Agamemnon_, and _Four Plays of Euripides_, pp. 1-42.
[327] Cf. _Dramatic Essays_ (Everyman’s Library edition), p. 18.
[328] Cf. _Poetics_ 1449_b_12-14.
[329] Cf. England’s edition of Euripides’ _Iphigenia at Aulis_, p. xxvii.
[330] Cf. _The Bookman_, XXX (1909), 37.
[331] Cf. Archer, _Play-making_, pp. 123 f.
[332] Cf. _Poetics_ 1450_a_38 f.
[333] Cf. _Poetics_ 1450_b_22-35.
[334] Cf. _The Old English Dramatists_, III.
[335] Cf. _Poetics_ 1451_a_15-22.
[336] Cf. _Technique of the Drama_, MacEwan’s translation², pp. 30 ff.
[337] Cf. _Shakespeare as a Dramatic Artist_ (1902), pp. 150 f.
[338] Cf. _Poetics_ 1459_b_22-28.
[339] Cf. _op. cit._, p. 92.
[340] Cf. _Dramatic Essays_ (Everyman’s Library edition), pp. 12 f.
[341] Cf. _Poetics_ 1454_a_31 ff.
[342] Cf. _Thucydides Mythistoricus_ (1907), p. 146.
[343] In addition to the works mentioned on pp. xvii and xx f., above, cf. Petersen, _Preisrichter der grossen Dionysien_ (1878); Hayley, “Social and Domestic Position of Women in Aristophanes,” _Harvard Studies_, I (1890), 159 ff.; Lounsbury, _Shakespeare as a Dramatic Artist_ (1902); Goodwin’s edition of Demosthenes’ _Against Midias_, Appendix IV (1906); Capps, “Epigraphical Problems in the History of Attic Comedy,” _American Journal of Philology_, XXVIII (1907), 179 ff.; Legrand, _Daos; Tableau de la comédie grecque pendant la période dite nouvelle_ (1910), translated by Loeb in 1917 under the title _The New Greek Comedy_; Sheppard, _Greek Tragedy_ (1911); and Ruppel, _Konzeption und Ausarbeitung der aristophanischen Komödien_ (1913).
[344] A mina was equivalent to one hundred drachmae and was worth about $18, though allowance must be made for the greater purchase value of money in those days.
[345] Cf. Lysias xxi, §§ 1-5.
[346] Cf. his _Life of Nicias_, III.
[347] Cf. Aristotle, _Constitution of Athens_, c. 56.
[348] Cf. Kock, _Comicorum Atticorum Fragmenta_, I, 16, fr. 15 (Cratinus).
[349] Cf. Sheppard, _op. cit._, p. 58.
[350] Cf. Legrand, _op. cit._, pp. 312-15 and 455 f.
[351] Cf. Prescott in _Classical Philology_, XI (1916), 132.
[352] Cf. Hall, _The Ancient History of the Near East²_ (1913), p. 48.
[353] Cf. Albright, _The Shakesperian Stage_ (1909), pp. 148 f.
[354] In addition to the works mentioned on pp. xvii and xx f., above, cf. Thirlwall, “On the Irony of Sophocles,”_Philological Museum_, II (1833), 483 ff.; Neckel, _Das Ekkyklema_ (1890); Trautwein, _De Prologorum Plautinorum Indole atque Natura_ (1890); Dörpfeld-Reisch, _Das griechische Theater_ (1896), pp. 234 ff.; Bethe, _Prolegomena zur Geschichte des Theaters im Alterthum_ (1896), pp. 100 ff.; Exon, “A New Theory of the Eccyclema,” _Hermathena_, XI (1901), 132 ff.; Leo, _Der Monolog im Drama, ein Beitrag zur griechisch-römischen Poetik_ (1908); Polczyk, _De Unitatibus et Loci et Temporis in Nova Comoedia Observatis_ (1909); Flickinger, “Dramatic Irony in Terence,” _Classical Weekly_, III (1910), 202 ff.; Arnold, _The Soliloquies of Shakespeare_ (1911); Fensterbusch, _Die Bühne des Aristophanes_ (1912), pp. 51 ff.; Harms, _De Introitu Personarum in Euripidis et Novae Comoediae Fabulis_ (1914); and Rees, “The Function of the Πρόθυροv in the Production of Greek Plays,” _Classical Philology_, X (1915), 134 ff.
[355] Cf. scholia to Aeschylus’ _Eumenides_, vs. 64, Aristophanes’ _Acharnians_, vs. 408 and _Clouds_, vs. 184, and Clemens Alexandrinus, p. 11 (Potter).
[356] Fig. 74 is specially drawn, but owes several features to Figs. 93 f. in Dörpfeld-Reisch, _Das griechische Theater_. Since Exon’s discussion and drawing of the eccyclema presuppose a theater with a stage, it has been necessary to modify his conception so as to bring it into conformity with the Dörpfeld theory.
[357] See p. 244, n. 1, above.
[358] Cf. scholia to Aristophanes’ _Acharnians_, vs. 408 and _Women at the Thesmophoria_, vs. 284; Pollux iv. 128, and Eustathius, p. 976, 15.
[359] The _exostra_ (ἐξ, “out” + ὠθεῖν, to “push”) seems to have performed about the same function as the eccyclema; cf. Pollux iv. 129; perhaps it was only the more specific name for this later type.
[360] On the basis of ἀναβάδην in vs. 399, for which the scholiasts preserve two interpretations, some writers would have us believe that Euripides was shown in the second story. Tracks for the wheels of an eccyclema have been reported on the logium level of the theater at Eretria (see p. 107, above).
[361] Cf. _Poetics_ 1454_b_1 and 1461_b_21.
[362] Cf. _Euripides and the Spirit of His Dramas_, pp. 263 ff., Loeb’s translation (1906).
[363] According to late authorities Greek theaters were provided with revolving prisms (_periacti_) with a different view painted on each of their three sides. These could be turned to indicate a change of scene. There is no evidence, however, that this contrivance was employed during the classical period of Greek drama, although Dörpfeld thought that a place was provided for it in the earlier parascenia at Epidaurus (cf. _Das griechische Theater_, p. 126). The _geranos_ (“crane”) and the _krade_ (“branch”) were probably only other names for the μηχανή.
[364] Cf. Themistius _Oration_ xxvi, 316 D.
[365] Cf. _Poetics_ 1451_b_26.
[366] Cf. Archer, _Play-making_, p. 119.
[367] Cf. _Hamburgische Dramaturgie_, Zimmern’s translation, p. 377.
[368] Cf. _Euripides and His Age_, p. 206.
[369] Cf. Reitzenstein, _Hermes_, XXXV (1900), 622 ff.
[370] Cf. Kock, _Fragmenta Comicorum Atticorum_, II, 500, fr. 79.
[371] Aristotle’s theory of the purificatory effects of tragedy has not fallen within the scope of my text, but I cannot forbear citing Fairchild, “Aristotle’s Doctrine of Katharsis and the Positive or Constructive Activity Involved,” _Classical Journal_ XII (1916), 44 ff.
[372] Cf. Capps, “Dramatic Synchoregia at Athens,” _American Journal of Philology_, XVII (1896) 319 ff.; “Catalogues of Victors at the Dionysia and Lenaea,” _ibid._, XX (1899), 388 ff.; “The Dating of Some Didascalic Inscriptions,” _American Journal of Archaeology_, IV (1900), 74 ff.; “The Introduction of Comedy into the City Dionysia,” _Decennial Publications of the University of Chicago_, VI (1904), 259 ff.; and “Epigraphical Problems in the History of Attic Comedy,” _American Journal of Philology_, XXVIII (1907), 179 ff.; Wilhelm, _Urkunden dramatischer Aufführungen in Athen_ (1906), and “Eine Inschrift aus Athen,” _Anzeiger d. Akademie d. Wissenschaften in Wien, phil.-hist. Klasse_, XLIII (1906), 77 ff.; Clark, “A Study of the Chronology of Menander’s Life,” _Classical Philology_, I (1906), 313 ff.; _Oxyrhynchus Papyri_, IV (1904), 69 ff., and X (1914), 81 ff.; O’Connor, _Chapters in the History of Actors and
## Acting in Ancient Greece_ (1908); Jachmann, _De Aristotelis Didascaliis_
(1909); and Flickinger, “Certain Numerals in the Greek Dramatic Hypotheses,” _Classical Philology_, V (1910), 1 ff.
[373] Reisch, however, in his review of Wilhelm in _Zeitschrift f. östr. Gymnasien_, LVIII (1907), 297 f. maintained that the original cutting went to the bottom of col. 14. This would postpone the preparation of the inscription until about 330 B.C. and would make it a feature of the completion of the theater by Lycurgus at about that time. He suggests that the Fasti stood in the left parodus of the theater.
[374] Fig. 75 is taken from Wilhelm, _Urkunden dramatischer Aufführungen in Athen_, p. 18, and represents fragments _a_ and _f_ of _Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum_, II, 971.
[375] Fig. 76_a_ is taken from Wilhelm, _op. cit._, p. 40, and represents _Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum_, II, 973.
[376] Körte, “Aristoteles’ ΝΙΚΑΙ ΔΙΟΝΥΣΙΑΚΑΙ,” _Classical Philology_, I (1906), 391 ff., maintained that the Victors’-Lists were transferred to stone straight from another book of Aristotle’s entitled Νῖκαι Διονυσιακαὶ Ἀστικαὶ καὶ Ληναϊκαί (“Victories at the City Dionysia and the Lenaea”). Our knowledge of the nature of this work is confined to what can be inferred from its title and is too vague to justify dogmatic conclusions.
[377] Figs. 77_a_ and _b_ are taken from Wilhelm, _op. cit._, 101, and represent _Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum_, II, 977_a_ and _ab_ respectively.
[378] Fig. 78 is taken from Wilhelm, _op. cit._, p. 107 and represents _Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum_, II, 977_i_ and _k_, together with two previously unpublished fragments.
[379] Fig. 79 is taken from Wilhelm, _op. cit._, p. 123, and represents _Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum_, II, 977_d_, _e_, _f_, _g_, and _h_.
[380] Fig. 80 is taken from Clarac, _Musée de Sculpture_, III, Pl. 294, Fig. 65. Note that the first play in the list on the background is the ΑΛΚΕΣ[ΤΙΣ].
INDICES
INDEX OF PASSAGES
(=Boldface= figures refer to the pages of this volume. Works which are known to us only by title or short fragments are indicated by an asterisk.)
Aeschylus (525-456 B.C.) _Agamemnon_ (City Dionysia, 458 B.C.): vss. 1 ff., =225=, =285=, =291=, =305=; 40 ff., =298 f.=; 589, =255=; 810, =255 f.=; 855 ff., =155=, =166=; 905-57, =276=; 1343-45, =128=, =229=; 1344-71, =134=, =158-60=; 1348-71, =44=; 1372, =128=; also =137=, =198=, =256=, =258 f.= _Eumenides_ (City Dionysia, 458 B.C.): vss. 1 ff., =305=; 33-64, =286=; 64 (schol.), =285=; 79, =206=; 93, =286 f.=; 94, =287=; 140-79, =151=, =287=; 234, =247=, =250=; 244, =151=; 306-96, =153 f.=; 744, =232=; 746-53, =171=; also =136 f.=, =198=, =232=, =247=, =258 f.=, =274= _Libation-Bearers_ (City Dionysia, 458 B.C.): vss. 10-16, =210 f.=; 22 f., =150=; 766 ff., =166=; 886-902, 892 (schol.), =178=; 900-903, =170=; 904, =128=; also =125=, =137-39=, =198=, =248=, =258 f.= _Niobe_,* =230= _Persians_ (City Dionysia, 472 B.C.): arg., =299=; vss. 1 ff., =150=, =208=, =299=; 155 f., =208 f.=; 231-44, =219 f.=; 249-90, =165=; 302-526, =128=; 348, 474 f., =220=; 681, =106=, =225 f.=; 761, =206=; 849 ff., =175=; also =56=, =124=, =134=, =136=, =139=, =166 f.=, =192=, =226=, =248 f.=, =276=, =298=, =305= _Prometheus Bound_ (_ca._ 470 B.C.): vss. 3, 12, =210 f.=; 81-88, =174=, =228=; 85, =210 f.=, =88 ff.=, =305=; 124-29, =290=; 133 f., =150=; 136-40, =210=; 272-82, =290=; 284-87, 397 ff., =289 f.=; 1067, =137=; 1093, =228=; also =20=, =134=, =137=, =139=, =166-68=, =174=; =192=, =226-28=, =258= _Prometheus the Fire-Kindler_,* frag. 207 (Nauck), =30= _Prometheus Unbound_* (_ca._ 470 B.C.), =227 f.=, =258= _Proteus_* (City Dionysia, 458 B.C.), =198= _Seven against Thebes_ (City Dionysia, 467 B.C.): arg., =23=; vss. 1, =206=; 4-7, =210=; 78-180, =230=; 214, 240, =150=; 235, =206=; 375-676, =275 f.=; 800-821, =128=; 961-1005, =175=, =179=, =283=; also =134=, =136-38=, =166 f.=, =205=, =226= _Suppliants_ (_ca._ 490 B.C.): vss. 1 ff., =150=; 1-175, =230=; 12, 176, =209=; 234-480, =165=, =230=; 234-503, =163 f.=, =166=, =169=; 247 ff., =209=; 524-99, =252=; 775-980, =173=; 776-836, =174=; 907-53, =164=, =166=; 953-80, =174=; also =56=, =133 f.=, =136-38=, =163 f.=, =167-69=, =192=, =205=, =226=, =234=, =265=, =298=, =304 f.= _Weighing of Souls_,* =292=
Agathon (first tragic victory, Lenaea, 416 B.C.) _Antheus_,* =124=
Alexis (Middle Comedy), frag. 107 (Kock), =147=
Antiphanes (Middle Comedy), frag. 191 (Kock), =127=, =316=
Apostolius (born _ca._ 1420 A.D.), xiii. 42, =12 f.=, =21=, =29=
Archilochus (_ca._ 680-640 B.C.), frag. 77 (Bergk), =7=
Aristophanes (_ca._ 444-386 B.C.; Old Comedy) _Acharnians_ (Lenaea, 425 B.C.): vss. 20, =207=; 100-104, =171=, =173=, =187=; 133-74, =254=; 237-79, =36=; 262, =42=; 280-83, =37=, =151=; 347-92, =41= note, =42= note; 399 and (schol.), =288=; 408, =288=; 408 (schol.), =285=, =287=; 479, =288=; 490-625, =41= note, =42= note; 501-7, =196 f.=; 640, =218=; 719-835, =41=; 732, =91 f.=; 860-970, =41=; 1000-1068, =41= note, =42= note; 1003-7, =242=; 1069 f., =210=; 1069-1142, =41=; also =327= _Babylonians_* (City Dionysia, 426 B.C.), =196=, =327= _Banqueters_* (Lenaea, 427 B.C.), =326= _Birds_ (City Dionysia, 414 B.C.): arg., =330 f.=, =335=, =337=; 310 f., =151=; 644 f., =212=; 786 ff., =197=; 801-902, =41= note, =42= note; 1101 f., =214=; 1118-1268, 1494-1705, =41= note, =42= note; 1615-79, =171=, =173=, =187=; 1763-66, =214=; also =234= _Clouds_ (City Dionysia, 423 B.C.): vss. 1, =238=, =243=; 126-32, =311=; 184 (schol.), =285=; 218 ff., =292=; 269, =151=; 537-39, =46=; 734, =46=; 1486 ff., =98=; also =135=, =138=, =207=, =213=, =235= _Frogs_ (Lenaea, 405 B.C.): vss. 1-460, =88-91=, =207=, =248=; 154 f., =225=; 209 ff., =142=; 299 (schol.), =91=; 315, =142=; 416-30, =51-53=; 454 f., =225=; 555, =171=, =173=, =187=; 644-66, =132=; 674-737, =204=; 810 f., =122=; 830, =310=; 866-69, =203 f.=; 1411 ff., =171=, =173=, =187=; also =127=, =135=, =138= _Knights_ (Lenaea, 424 B.C.): vss. 149, =91=; 230-32, =213=; 461-97, =50=; 512-14, =327=; 522 f., =54=; 544-50, =216=; also =138 f.=, =327= _Lysistrata_ (Lenaea, 411 B.C.): vss. 1-6, =309=; 78-246, =171=, =173=, =187=; 385, =207=; 725, 881, =256=; also =41=, =278= _Peace_ (City Dionysia, 421 B.C.): vss. 80 ff., =292=; 296 ff., =151=; 765-68, =214=; 962-65, =216=; 1039-1126, =50= _Plutus_ (388 B.C.): vss. 255, =151=; 322-486, =49=; 626, =254=, =257=; 770, =146=; 789-99, =216=; 821 f., =240=; also =41=, =43=, =92= _Proagon_* (422 B.C.), =205= _Wasps_ (Lenaea, 422 B.C.): vss. 57, =48=; 58 f., =216=; 1342, 1514, =91=; also =274= _Women at the Thesmophoria_ (_ca._ 411 B.C.): vss. 67 f., =240=; 96, 265, =288=; 284 (schol.), =287=; also =188=, =207=, =278= _Women in Council_ (Lenaea, 392 B.C.): vss. 46-265, =44=; 311-478, =251=; 729, =146=; 871-1160, =138=; 876, =146=; 1152, =91=; 1154-58, =214=; 1158-62, =200=; 1179-83, =214 f.=; also =41=, =43=, =92=, =135=, =188=, =278=
_Aristophanis Vita_, § 11, =145=
Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) _Constitution of Athens_, c. 56, =273= _Didascaliae_,* =319-21=, =324=, =329 f.=, =337= _Dionysian Victories_,* =324= note 1 _Poetics_: 1448_a_31 f., =47=; _a_32-34, =51=; _b_1, =8=; 1449_a_8, =xi=; _a_9-13, =6 f.=, =16=, =36=, =44=; _a_18, =66=, =236=; _a_19 ff., =21-23=, =29=; _a_22 f., =22=; _a_37-_b_9, =35=; _a_38, =54 f.=; _b_3, =55=; _b_5-9, =50 f.=; _b_12-14, =257=; _b_33, =xi=; 1450_a_10, =xi=; _a_38 f., =261=; _b_17-21, =xi=; _b_22-35, =261 f.=; 1451_a_15-22, =262=; _b_25, =125=; _b_26, =301=; 1452_b_18, =93=; _b_24 f., =93=, =96=; 1453_a_19, =125=; _a_27, =93=; _b_1-3, =xi=; 1454_a_31-33, =267=; _b_1, =293=; 1455_a_28, =93=; 1456_a_6, =125=; _a_26-32, =144-49=; 1459_b_22-28, =263=; _b_25, =93=; 1460_a_11-17, =93=, =95 f.=; 1461_b_21, =293=; 1462_a_12, _a_14-17, =xi=; also =xxi=, =6= note 1, =17=, =246=, =317= _Politics_, 1336_b_28 f., =190= _Problems_, 918_b_26, 920_a_9, 922_b_17, =93= _Rhetoric_, 1403_b_33, =xii=, =162=, =190=
Athenaeus (_ca._ 230 A.D.): p. 211B, =94=; p. 347E, =17=
Bacchylides (_ca._ 468 B.C.) _Theseus_, =10=, =16=
Clemens Alexandrinus (_ca._ 200 A.D.): p. 11 (schol.), =285=; p. 688, =96=
_Corpus Inscriptionum._ _See_ Inscriptions
Cratinus (Old Comedy; first victory at City Dionysia, 452 B.C.), frag. 15 (Kock), =273= _Dionysalexandros_* (_ca._ 430 B.C.), arg., =330=, =332-36=
Demosthenes (_ca._ 384-322 B.C.): xviii. 180, xix. 337, =93=; xxi, arg. 2 f., =132=; xxi. 74, =197=; 178-80, =132=
Diodorus Siculus (_ca._ 48 B.C.), xi. 10, =94=
Diogenes Laertius (_ca._ 200 A.D.): iii. 56, =18 f.=; v. 92, =20=
Ecphantides (Old Comedy; first victory _ca._ 455 B.C.), frag. 2 (Kock), =48=
Epicharmus (_ca._ 485 B.C.), frag. 132 (Kaibel), =8=
_Etymologicum Magnum_ (tenth century, A.D.), _s.v._ θυμέλη, =18=; _s.v._ τραγῳδία, =27-29=
Eupolis (Old Comedy), frag. 244 (Kock), =48= Αἶγες, =30=
Euripides (485-406 B.C.) _Alcestis_ (City Dionysia, 438 B.C.): arg., =330-32=; vss. 1 ff., =206=, =300=, =305=; 22 f., =240=, =300=; 24-26, =211=; 77, =252=; 206, =240=; 243 ff., =306=; 391, =129=; 393 ff., =179=, =189=; 423 f., 435-76, =152=; 452, =218=; 476, 506, =239 f.=; 747-861, =234 f.=, =250 f.=, =306=; 837 ff., =306=, =311=; 861 ff., 934-61, =307=; 1102, =315=; 1144-46, =232=; also =199=, =201=, =205=, =265= _Andromache_ (_ca._ 430 B.C.): vss. 1, 16, =206=, =306=; 445-49, =219=; 547, =179=; 547-766, =170=; 732 ff., 881, =176=; 815-25, =159=, =240=; 877-79, =281=; 1231 ff., =259=, =295=; also =219=, =257= _Andromeda_,* =292= _Bacchanals_ (City Dionysia, posthumous): vss. 1, =206=, =291=; 170-79, 210-12, =212=; 526, =7=; 1024-1152, =128=; 1212 ff., =98=; also =124=, =154=, =291=, =314= _Bellerophon_,* 292 _Children of Heracles_ (_ca._ 430 B.C.): vss. 120 ff., =166=; 309-15, =218=; 642 f., =242 f.=; 1026-29, =218=; 1052, =128=; also =218= _Cyclops_ (_ca._ 440 B.C.): vss. 11 ff., =126=; 79 f., =31=; 445 f., =240=; 479-82, =241=; 507 f., =240=; 601 ff., =153 f.=; 608-27, 648, =154=; 653, =153 f.=; 655-62, =154=; 668, =222=; 694 f., =241=; also =22=, =29=, =126=, =167=, =199=, =224=, =241=, =253= _Electra_ (_ca._ 413 B.C.): vss. 1-53, =259=; 168 ff., =151=; 341 ff., =281=; 434-78, =139-41=, =143=; 1165-67, =128=; 1238, =259=; also =125=, =260= _Hecabe_ (_ca._ 425 B.C.): vss. 1-58, =226=, =302=; 68 f., =226=; 105, =151=; 736-51, =312=; 1034-55, =131=, =159=; 1056, =222=; 1132-1237, 275 _Helen_ (412 B.C.): vss. 1-67, =301=; 184, =151=; 306, 317, =143=; 385, 515, =251=; 1165-68, =248=; 1186-1300, =170=; 1301-68, =142=; 1387 ff., =156=, =160=, =294=; 1629 ff., =143=; 1662, =249= _Hippolytus_ (428 B.C.): vss. 42 f., =302=; 61-72, =141=; 129 ff., =151=; 178-81, =240=; 565-600, =241 f.=; 710-14, =156=; 776-87, =159=; 1060-63, =312=; 1102-19, =140=; 1342, =222=; 1423-30, =295=; also =235= _Hypsipyle_,* vss. 1579 ff., =179 f.= _Ion_ (_ca._ 412 B.C.): vss. 72 f., =302 f.=; 183-228, =160=; 234 f., =151=; 666 f., =157=; 675, =177=; 760, =157=; 1130 ff., =177=; 1520 ff., =312=; 1553 ff., =302 f.= _Iphigenia at Aulis_ (City Dionysia, posthumous): vss. 1, =225=; 164 ff., 187 f., =151=; 303, 307, =310=; 794-800, =140=; 1211 ff., =267=; 1532 f., =242 f.=; also =205=, =302= _Iphigenia among the Taurians_ (_ca._ 414 B.C.): vss. 42 f., =308=; 66, =252=; 1061-68, =156=, =160=; 1068-70, =88=; 1234-83, =142 f.=; 1392, =294=; 1435 ff., =201 f.=, =294 f.=; 1446-61, =295=; 1447, 1462, =249=; 1467 f., =160 f.=; 1497 ff., xvii, =215=; also =205= _Madness of Heracles_ (_ca._ 421 B.C.): vss. 158-205, =275=; 749-54, =128=; 822 ff., =260=, =310=; 1029 ff., =128=, =288 f.= _Medea_ (431 B.C.): arg., =266 f.=; vss. 1 ff., =307 f.=; 49-52, =307=; 56-58, =240=, =308 f.=; 131 ff., =151=; 230-66, =156 f.=; 465-575, =275=; 663 ff., =293=; 824 ff., =xviii=, =217=; 1053 f., =159=; 1271 ff., =179=; 1279 ff., =160=; 1312 ff., =159=; 1321 ff., =292=; also =237=, =266 f.= _Orestes_ (408 B.C.): vss. 1, =238=, =243=; 26 f., =306=; 131-211, =153=; 1103 f., =156=; 1245, =177=; 1251, =143 f.=; 1313-20, =222 f.=; 1353 ff., =143 f.=; 1554, 1591, =177=; 1625-32, =292 f.=, =295 f.=; 1691 (schol.), =215=; 1691 ff., =xvii=, =215=; also =303= _Phaethon_,* frag. 773 (Nauck), =93= _Phoenician Maids_ (_ca._ 410 B.C.): vss. 88-102, =178=, =191=, =281=, =291=; 93 (schol.), =178=; 192 ff., =93=, =282=; 202 ff., =151=; 202 (schol.), =139=; 261-73, 357 f., =249=; 638-75, =140=; 801-27, =140 f.=; 1019-67, =140=; 1264-82, =178=, =181=; 1308, =222=; 1764 ff., =xvii=, =215=; also =136=, =138=, =205= [_Rhesus_] (possibly a fourth-century production): vss. 1 ff., =299=; 10, =209=; 565-674, =251=; 627 f., 885 f., =291=; also =92=, =148=, =224=, =253= _Suppliants_ (_ca._ 421 B.C.): vss. 403-8, =219=; 510-13, =171=; 598-634, =257=; 1071, =129=; 1183, =294=; also =137 f.=, =205=, =218=, =231 f.= _Trojan Women_ (415 B.C.): vss. 1 f., =305=; 143-45, =151=; 208 f., =218=; also =274=
Eusebius (_ca._ 300 A.D.) _Chronica_, Ol. 47, 2, =14=
Eustathius (twelfth century A.D.), p. 976, 15, =287=
Hegemon (Old Comedy), =217=
Herodotus (_ca._ 484-428 B.C.): i. 23, =9 f.=; v. 63, =11-15=; v. 82 f., =37=
Homer (_ca._ 875 B.C.) _Iliad_ iii, =255=; xxii. 205 f., =95= _Odyssey_ iv, =280=; iv. 121 f., vi. 102 ff., =255=; xi. 185 f. and 445, =254 f.=; xxiv. 417, =282= Also =245=, =266=, =277=, =279 f.=, =282=, =289=, =301=, =304-6=
Horace (65-68 B.C.) _Ars Poetica_: vss. 119 ff., =266=; 189 f., =193=; 192, =186=; 220 f., =28 f.=; 276, =19=
Inscriptions From Athens, =72=, =74=, =90=, =319-30= From Delos, =59= note, =107 f.= From Delphi, =185= From Oropus, =108 f.= From Paros, =14=, =21=, =38=
Jerome (Hieronymus; _ca._ 400 A.D.) _Chr._, Ol. 47, 2, =14=
_Liber Glossarum_, =46=
Lucian (_ca._ 150 A.D.) _Lucius sive Asinus_, § 47, =94=
Lysias (458-378 B.C.), xxi. 1-5, =271=
Magnes (Old Comedy), =54=
_Marmor Parium_ (264 B.C.): p. 13 (Jacoby), =38=; p. 14, =14=, =21=
_Medea_* (unknown author; fourth century B.C.), =146=, =148=
Menander (New Comedy; 342-291 B.C.) _Girl with Shorn Locks_, =147=, =304= _Hero_,* =304= _Imbrians_* (_ca._ 301 B.C.), arg., =331 f.=, =336 f.= Jernstedt frag., =147=
_Parian Chronicle._ _See_ _Marmor Parium_
Pausanias (second century A.D.), viii. 9. 1, =7=
Philemon (New Comedy; died _ca._ 262 B.C.), frag. 79 (Kock), =309=
Philostratus (_ca._ 200 A.D.) _Apollonius of Tyana_, p. 245, =203=
Photius (died 891 A.D.) _Lexicon_, _s.v._ ἴκρια, _s.v._ ληναῖον, _s.v._ ὀρχήστρα, =63=; _s.v._ οὐδὲν πρὸς τὸν Διόνυσον, =12 f.=, =21=, =29=
Phrynichus (first tragic victory, 511 B.C.) _Capture of Miletus_ (_ca._ 490 B.C.), =124= _Phoenician Women_ (City Dionysia, 476 B.C.), =56=, =124=, =141=, =192=, =205=, =210=, =276=, =298=, =305=
Pindar (522-442 B.C.) _Olym._ xiii, =7=, =9=
Plato (428-347 B.C.) _Laws_, p. 659A-C, =216=; 700B, =7= _Minos_, p. 321A, =16= _Republic_, p. 394C (schol.), =7=, =11= _Symposium_, p. 194B, =205 f.=
Plautus (died 184 B.C.) _Amphitruo_, vss. 1 ff., 463 ff., =304=; also =208= _Braggart Captain_: vss. 79 ff., =304=; 88, =208=; 145 ff., =303 f.=; 523 ff., =243= _Captives_: vss. 69, =256=; 460-768, =255 f.=; 897, =256= _Carthaginian_, vss. 94, 372, =207= _Casket_: vss. 89 f., =123=; 149 ff., =304=; 156-59, =123= _Churl_: vss. 1-3, =207=; 448, =238= _Fisherman’s Rope_: vs. 32, =208=; also =236= _Haunted House_, vss. 1, =240=; 248, =238 f.= _Menaechmi_: vss. 8 f., =207=; 956, =249= _Merchant_, vss. 3-5, =309= _Persian_, =278= _Pseudolus_ (191 B.C.), vss. 720 f., =233=
Plutarch (_ca._ 90 A.D.) _Aratus_ xxiii, =103= _Brutus_ xlv, =94= _Demetrius_ xxxii, =94=; xxxiv, =101-3= _Lycurgus_ vi, =101= _Nicias_ iii, =271= _Pompey_ xlii, =81= _Solon_ xxix, =17-19= _Praecepta Ger. Reip._, p. 823B, =102= [_X Oratorum Vitae_], p. 841D, 852C, =69= Also =60= note
Pollux (second century A.D.) _Onomasticon_: iv. 123, =18 f.=, =78 f.=, =97-99=; 124, =100 f.=; 127, =60=, =78 f.=; 128, =287=; 132, =106=; also =94=, =213=
Pratinas (_ca._ 499 B.C.), frag. 1 (Bergk), =7=
Seneca (died 65 A.D.) _Agamemnon_, vss. 981 ff., =188=; also =141= _Hercules on Mt. Oeta_, vss. 104 ff., 583 ff., 1031 ff., =141= _Medea_, vss. 973, 995, =60=
Simonides (556-467 B.C.) _Memnon_,* =11=
Solon (639-559 B.C.) _Elegies_,* =8 f.=, =11=
Sophocles (497-406/5 B.C.) _Ajax_ (_ca._ 440 B.C.): vss. 1 ff., =291=; 134 (schol.), =139=; 143, =151=; 344, =287=; 372 ff., =306=; 593, =287=; 814, =247=, =250=; 865, =129=, =282=; 892, 915, =244=; also =244= _Antigone_ (_ca._ 441 B.C.): arg., =330 f.=, =335=; vss. 18 f., =240=; 101, =206=; 164 f., =151=; 334-75, =142=; 639-723, =275=; 806 ff., =306=; 1016-22, 1080-83, =131=; 1115-52, =142=; 1293, =128=; also =139=, =192 f.=, =282= _Electra_ (_ca._ 420-414 B.C.): vss. 4, =206=; 15, 32 ff., =259 f.=, =310=; 129 f., =151 f.=; 310 ff., 516 ff., =152=; 660 ff., =168=; 1202-4, =155 f.=; 1296-1313, =222=; 1404, =128=; also =125= _Maidens of Trachis_ (_ca._ 420-410 B.C.): vss. =1-48=, =302=; 103, =151=; 167 f., =314=; 307-27, =176 f.=; 983-1263, =129=; 1170-73, =314=; also =139= _Nausicaa_,* =169= _Oedipus at Colonus_ (402 B.C.; posthumous): vss. 1 ff., 38, =212=; 117, =151=; 494-506, =171=; 1099-1555, 1457-99, =182=, =187=; 1611 ff., =187=; also =180-82=, =205=, =218=, =227=, =231=, =236= _Oedipus the King_ (_ca._ 430 B.C.): vss. 6 f., =240=; 91-95, =155=; 144, =151=; 264, =313=; 924 ff., =167 f.=; 1014 ff., =314=; 1268-79, =131=; 1307, =222=; also =205=, =273= _Philoctetes_ (409 B.C.): vss. 38 f., =131=; 135 ff., =150=; 649 f., 696-99, =131=; 825-62, =153=; 1070-95, =158=; 1408, =296= _Thamyris_,* =169= _Trackers_ (_Ichneutae_; _ca._ 445 B.C.): =22=, =29-31=, =126=, =199=
Suidas (_ca._ 970 A.D.), _s.v._ Aeschylus, =325=; _s.v._ Arion, =10=; _s.v._ οὐδὲν πρὸς τὸν Διόνυσον, =12 f.=, =15=, =21=, =29=; _s.v._ Phrynichus, =4=; _s.v._ Pratinas, =23=, =63=; _s.v._ Sophocles, =325=; _s.v._ Thespis, =12=, =20=
Terence (died 159 B.C.) _Andrian girl_ (166 B.C.): vss. 236 ff., =314=; 247, 301 ff., =315 f.=; 420 ff., =315=; 489-94, =242=; 581-96, 625 ff., =315=; 820 f., =310=; 957 ff., =315=; also =279=, =304= _Brothers_ (160 B.C.), vs. 517, =310= _Phormio_ (161 B.C.), vss. 862-69, =241= _Self-Tormentor_ (163 B.C.): vss. 171, 409, =141 f.=; 410, =253=, =257=; 748, =141 f.=
Themistius (died _ca._ 388 A.D.), p. 316D, =298=
Thespis (sixth century B.C.), =20 f.=
Tzetzes (twelfth century A.D.), p. 18 (Kaibel _Com. Gr. Frag._), =52 f.=
Vitruvius (_ca._ 15 B.C.): v. 6 f., =75-77=, =87=, =97=; v. 8, 2, =80=; vii. praefatio, 11, =66=, =236=; viii, praefatio, 1, =96=; also =79-87=, =90 f.=, =92=
GENERAL INDEX
(References to ancient playwrights are supplementary to the Index of Passages; those to modern playwrights may be found by consulting “Parallels.” For theaters at various sites see “Theater.” All references are to the pages of this volume.)
Acceleration of time, 250-57
Actors, xi f., xiv, xix, 5, 35, 132 f., 162-95; first actor, 16-19, 162, 165; two actors, 163-71, 173-76, 183, 231 f.; three actors, 166-71, 176-83, 185-88, 231; number of, 129, 172-82, 182-84, 192; poets as, 18, 168 f., 318; coryphaeus as, 165, 169-71; in satyr-plays, 26; in comus, 43-46; in comedy, 46-49, 54-56; position in theater, 60, 77-79, 81 f., 86, 88-103, 117, 130, 149; ignored, 91, 163, 169, 173, 209, 230, 232; and chorus, 136-39, 149; contests of, 169, 269; guilds, 185-88; female rôles, 4, 188 f.; social position, 190 f.; specialization, 191 f., 202 f.; how introduced, 208-12; how paid, 165, 183 f., 270; how assigned, 273 f. _See_ Aesthetic Law, Children, Lay Figure, Masks, Motivation, Mute, Parachoregema, etc.
Acts, 148, 192-95, 265, 301, 307, 311
Adrastus, 11-15, 17, 35
Aeschylus: first tragic poet, 2, 33; introduced second actor, 166, 183; indebted to Homer, 17; imitated by Euripides, xviii; contested with Pratinas and Choerilus, 23 f., 63; originated tetralogies, 23, 133 f.; brought knowledge of Epicharmus to Athens, 56; historical themes, 124; dialogue, 170 f.; plays repeated, 203 f., 324; murders, 229; soliloquies, 305; iambic resolutions, 171 f.; victories, 272, 321, 324 f.
Aesthetic law of actors, 53, 186-88; violence, 130 f., 229; of supports for stage, 86; effect of third actor, 167
Aetiology, 6, 15, 295
Agathon, 93, 124, 144-46, 148, 205 f.
Agon, 41, 43-46, 49, 55, 193, 275
Agonothete, 109, 271 f., 325
Alexis, 304
ἀναβαίνω, 91 f.
ἀναγνώρισις. _See_ Recognition
Ancestor worship, 33 f.
Anthropology, 4 f.
Aparts (asides), 312
ἀποκρίνεσθαι, 16
Arion, 8-11, 13, 24, 32 f.
Aristias, 23
Aristomenes, 327 f.
Aristophanes: productivity, 335; sought prize, xviii, 213-16; used coryphaei as actors, 44; borrowed ἐξόδια, 45; use of phallus, 46 f.; of chorus, 146; _Frogs_ repeated, 204; imitated Euripides, 302; technique of dual entrance, 310; iambic resolutions, 172; position of name in records, 326-29
Aristotle, ix, xxi, 5 f., 21; and spectacle, xi-xiii, xv f.; on origin of comedy, 35 f., 50-52, 54 f.; of tragedy, 6, 21 f., 28 f.
ἀταξία, ἀτάκτως, 52 f., 184
Audience, xiii, xvii, xix, 120 f., 132, 213, 215-20, 302 f., 305 f.
Back scene, 65 f., 226-29, 241
Bethe, 79
Blinding, 131, 159, 222
βοηλάτης, 7
Box set, xv, 229
Bulle, 31 f.
Burial, 282 f.
Butcher, 252
Bywater, 6, 51
Callistratus, 326, 328
Capps, 23, 35, 55 f., 88, 144
Castelvetro, xiii, 130
Charon’s steps, 106
Chauvinism, xvii f., 217-20
Children, 120 f., 179 f., 189
Chionides, 35, 51, 54
Choerilus, 23, 63
Choregus, 132, 182, 186, 205, 269-71, 273
ΧΟΡΟΥ, 145-48, 193 f., 254
Chorus (choreutae), 2, 5, 10 f., 132, 133-61; size of in dithyramb, 11, 132, 197; in satyr-play, 26; in tragedy, 133 f.; in comedy, 42, 134 f.; of satyrs, 2, 10, 15, 24-32, 136, 154; “goat” choruses at Sicyon, 11; non-satyric at Sicyon, 13 f., 15; likewise at Athens, 10 f.; of sileni, 16, 21, 24, 26, 29, 32, 135; transferred from Adrastus to Dionysus, 11-15; in comus, 42-46, 134; in comedy, 49, 51, 53 f., 135; as actors, 18, 43-45, 184; speaks through coryphaeus, 165; history of, 92 f., 97, 116 f., 148 f., 168, 193; position of, 77-79, 81, 88, 95, 99, 130, 149; relation to actors, 136-39, 147, 149, 193; relevancy of odes, 139-50; second and third chorus, 141;
## participation in plot, 88, 93, 117, 143 f.;
constantly present, 154-60, 226, 243, 247, 250, 253, 307, 312; withdraws, 154, 247, 250 f., 306; preferably feeble, 160; introduces actors, 208-11; songs a hindrance, 153 f.; how paid, 165, 270 f. _See_ Embolima, Impersonation, Motivation, Odes, etc.
City Dionysia, 196 f., 273; reorganized, 24, 203, 269; procession, 20, 121-23, 132, 197, 224; dithyrambs, 11, 23, 197; satyr-plays, 23 f., 198 f., 204; tragedy, 21, 119, 197; old tragedies, 204, 324; comus, 24, 38, 119 f., 319; comedy, 51, 119, 197, 199 f.; tetralogies, 23, 133 f., 198 f., 203 f., 322 f., 332; contest of actors, 169, 183-85, 202; records, 318-28. _See_ Prize, Proagon, etc.
Clisthenes, 11, 14 f.
Closet drama, xii, xiv
Coincidence, 277, 293
Comedy: etymology, 36; Old, Middle, and New, 39 f.; divisions, 40-42, 193-95; violence in, 132; chorus, 134 f., 147, 149, 162. _See_ Origin of Comedy, Comus, etc.
Commus, 96
Comus, 24, 36-38, 42-46, 119 f., 127, 132, 162, 319
_Contaminatio_, 188, 194
Conventions, xvi, 66, 91, 129, 132, 152-54, 157 f., 165 f., 182, 208, 224-26, 228, 233 f., 236 f., 248, 254 f., 260 f., 266, 284, 287, 309 f.
Cook, 24, 26
Corinth, 4, 7-9, 11, 13, 15
Cornford, 36 f., 51, 149 f., 160, 224, 267
Coryphaeus, 10 f., 16, 18, 44, 49, 53, 134, 165, 168, 171, 187
Costumes, 271; of satyrs, 2, 16, 24-32; of sileni, 16, 24, 26, 29, 32; in comus, 38, 43 f.; in comedy, 46 f., 135; in tragedy, 135 f., 162; of tragia choreutae, 2, 16, 21 f., 24-32
Crane. _See_ μηχανή
Crates, 35, 50-52, 54-56
Cratinus, 52-56, 327, 330, 335 f.
Criticism, xi, xiii-xvi
Curtain, 243-45, 247, 250, 311
Deckinger, x
De Prott, 26 f.
Deus ex machina, 59 f., 201 f., 258 f., 292-98, 303. _See_ μηχανή
Dialogue, 10, 18, 164 f., 169-71, 178-82, 186 f., 232, 239, 241 f., 252, 259 f., 299 f., 309-11
Didascalia (group of plays), 198, 318; (record), 318, 321-26, 330
Didascalic numerals, 330-37
Didascalus, 318, 326-30
Dieterich, 6, 19
Dindorf, 330, 335, 337
Dionysus, 2, 6 f., 10-17, 20 f., 26, 33, 36, 104, 119, 121-24, 126 f., 142, 162 f., 198 f. _See_ “Nothing to do with Dionysus”
Dithyramb: source of tragedy, 2, 4, 6, 16, 119, 123, 198; source of satyric drama, 2, 4, 23 f., 123, 198; nature of, 6-8, 10 f., 33, 123, 133, 162, 197; broadened, 7, 10 f.; improvisational, 6, 10, 23; poetized, 8-11, 23; given titles, 9 f.; impersonation, 10, 16 f., 162 f.; modified by Thespis, 16-21; admitted to City Dionysia, 11, 23, 197; prizes for, 7, 11, 14, 269
Dorians, 8 f., 15 f., 47 f., 56
Dörpfeld, 58 f., 61, 67, 72, 74-76, 80-86, 97 f., 100, 117, 130, 226
Drachma, 120, 269
Drama, xiv f., 8 f., 10, 16 f. _See_ Satyric Drama
Dramaturgy, x, xii _See_ Technique
δρώμενα, 6, 8, 17
Dryden, 202, 257, 265
Eccyclema, 107, 241, 284-89
ἐλεός, 18
Eleusis, 6, 17, 37
Eleutherae, 21, 63, 122
Embolima, 93, 144-49
England, 258 f.
Eniautos-Daimon, 6
Environment, ix, xvi
Epic, xi, 17, 95, 244, 257, 263. _See_ Homer
Epicharmus, 50 f., 56
Epigenes, 12 f., 15, 24, 32 f.
Epilogue, 258 f.
Episcenium, 59, 106-9, 111, 113, 289
Episode (ἐπεισόδιον), 41, 47, 49
Euripides: career, xviii, 205, 334; imitated Aeschylus, xviii; and Thespis, 299 f.; tags, xvii, 215; melodramatic, xviii; chauvinistic, xviii, 217-19; sought prize, xvii f., 215, 217-19; introduced sex problems, xviii; chorus, 144-46; deus ex machina, 201 f., 258 f., 294-96, 303; prologue, 206, 258, 299-304; eccyclema, 288; μηχανή, 292; soliloquies, 299-302, 305-9; technique of simultaneous entrance, 310; iambic resolutions, 172; indicated scene of action, 206; was criticized, 266 f., 293, 300, 302; modified myths, 300 f.; as skeptic, 96, 140; productivity, 334; popularity, xviii, 204, 272 f., 324 f.
ἐξάρχων, 6 f., 16, 36, 44
Exodus, 41 f., 45 f., 55
Exon, 286
Exostra, 288
Fasti, 319-21, 324, 330
Fear and pity, 128, 245, 317
Fiechter, 70, 79, 81-86
Flight, 289-92
Flute-player, 26, 30, 271
Frei, 96
Frickenhaus, 20, 121
Fries, 138
Furtwängler, 16, 67
γέρανος, 298
Ghosts, 106, 225 f., 248, 302
Gildersleeve, 94
Goat: as prize, 7, 11, 13-16, 24, 268; as sacrifice, 14 f., 269; “goat” choruses, 11 f., 15; goat-song, 13 f., 21; goatskin, 26-28, 30 f. _See_ Satyrs and Choreutae
Gods, position of, 289-93
Gomperz, 22
Goodell, xvii f.
Guglielmino, xvii
Haigh, 10, 27, 79, 120 f.
Harrison, 6, 17
Heraclides, 20 f.
Hermann, 78 f.
Homer, 17, 244, 254 f., 266, 279 f., 282, 289, 300, 304-6. _See_ Epic
Hyposcenium, 61, 74, 84 f., 97, 100 f., 111, 113, 115
Hypothesis, 330
Iambic. _See_ Meter
Icaria, 4, 16 f., 19, 21, 38
ἴκρια, 63, 66, 105, 108
Immediate effects, xvii
Impersonation (μίμησις), 10, 16-18, 43-45, 49, 53 f., 162 f.
Improvisation, 6, 10, 16, 36, 38
Interior scenes, xv, 68, 128, 229, 231, 237-43, 248, 278, 284 f.
Irony, 312-17
Jachmann, 329 f.
Judges, 214-16, 272 f.
Kaffenberger, 172, 187
Kaibel, 152
καταβαίνω, 91 f., 102 f.
Katharsis, 317
κῶμος. _See_ Comus
κονίστρα, 72
Körte, 46 f., 324
κράδη, 298
Lay figure, 166 f., 174, 228, 244
Legrand, 277
Lenaea, 38, 56, 119 f., 183 f., 196, 202, 204 f., 269, 273, 318, 324-29
Leo, 187, 307
Lighting, 224-26, 233, 243, 253
Litigiousness, 274 f.
Logium (λογεῖον), 59 f., 76, 86, 97 f., 100, 102, 107, 111 f., 288, 291 f.
Lot, 272 f.
Lycurgus, 68-70, 191. _See_ Theater
_Machina._ _See_ μηχανή
Magic, 17, 153, 155
Magnes, 35, 51, 54
Marrett, 34
Masks, 19, 26, 42, 49, 54, 130, 163 f., 173, 188, 212 f., 221-24, 266
μηχανή, 68, 109, 235, 287, 289, 292 f.
Megara, 47 f., 56
μελάναιγις, 21
Menander, 304, 332, 336 f.
Messenger, 128, 164, 191, 229, 241, 248, 251, 276, 294
Meter, 10, 16; iambic, 22, 171 f.; trochaic tetrameter, 22, 45
μίμησις. _See_ Impersonation
Mina, 269
Mooney, 231, 243
Motivation: for movements of actors, 93, 147, 173 f., 229-33, 238-43, 249, 261, 281 f., 300; for movements of chorus, 150-52, 250 f.; for choral odes, 140-43, 152-54, 217; for unchanging features, 222 f.; for lack of darkness, 225 f.; for silence, 165, 176 f., 232; for soliloquies, 304 f., 308
Murder. _See_ Violence
Murray, A. T., 201, 210
Murray, G., xviii, 2, 6, 23, 158, 303
Music, xi
Mute, 174, 176 f., 179-81, 232, 244, 271
Mythology, xviii, 123-26, 217, 219. _See_ Themes
Navarre, 42, 146
Nemesis, 275 f.
Nilsson, 9
“Nothing to do with Dionysus,” 12 f., 21, 29
Numerals given plays, 330-37
Obol, 120
Odes (στάσιμα), xv, 23, 41, 139-50, 152-54, 162 f., 192 f., 217, 252. _See_ Embolima
Oratorio, 16
Orchestra, 57, 63, 65 f., 68 f., 72-79, 81-86, 88-91, 93, 95, 97-100, 102-8, 110-17, 130, 221, 223, 226, 228, 231, 233, 289, 292, 298
Origin of comedy, 1, 35-56; obscurity of, 6, 35 f.; improvisational, 36; and comus, 36-38, 42-46, 127, 133; impersonation, 43-45, 49, 53 f., 162 f.; actors from Megara, 46-48, 53, 56; influence of tragedy, 49 f., 53 f., 127, 146; of mime, 50 f., 56, 127; plot, 50-52, 54, 127
Origin of tragedy, 1-35; no serious gaps, 6; improvisational, 6; from dithyramb, 2, 4, 6, 16, 133, 198; Arion, 8-11; Sicyon, 11-15; occasion for name, 13-15, 268; Icaria, 16 f.; Thespis, 16-21; impersonation, 16-18, 162 f.; first actor, 16-19; non-Dionysiac themes, 21, 23, 198 f.; passed through “satyric” stage, 22 f., 28 f. _See_ Homer, Ridgeway, Satyrs, Sileni, Thespis, etc.
ὄψις. _See_ Spectacle
Panels. _See_ πίνακες
Parabasis, 41-43, 45 f., 49 f., 55, 193
Parachoregema, 182, 186, 271
Parallelism in comus and comedy, 42-46
Parallels from modern theory and modern and mediaeval drama: Albright, 283; Archer, 148, 190 f., 261, 302; Brown, 263; Corneille, 256, 264; Cornford, 149, 224; Craig, 223 f., 284; Dennis, 152, 155, 221; Dryden, 202, 265; Elizabethan drama, 23, 188, 224, 244; Galsworthy, xv f.; Goethe, xiv, 12, 125, 140; Gray, 155; Greene, 145; Hamilton, xiii, 201; Ibsen, 242, 261, 266, 299, 311; Jones, xix; Kennedy, 264; Lessing, 225, 246, 303; Lounsbury, 130, 263 f., 279; Lowell, 262; Marlowe, 254; Matthews, xiii f.; Middleton, 313; Molière, 230 f., 264, 297 f.; Parker, 238; Racine, 124, 147, 264; Savage, 261; Schlegel, 220; Shakespeare, 123, 128, 141, 170, 188, 201 f., 208, 212, 225, 232, 243, 252, 256, 263, 283, 297, 303 f., 313; Shaw, 229; Sutro, 229; Voltaire, 201, 225; Walter, 263; also x, 16, 120, 123-25, 129-31, 162 f., 170, 190, 201 f., 236, 238, 243 f., 246, 248, 302
Parascenium, 58, 66-70, 97 f., 104 f., 107 f., 111, 228, 235, 285, 287, 289
Parodus (of chorus), 40, 45 f., 49, 55, 209, 252, 287, 298 f., 304
Parodus (of theater), 59-61, 65 f., 70, 72, 75, 99, 102-4, 106, 108, 208, 226-28, 230 f., 233-35, 286
Parody, 39, 200 f., 207, 210, 288, 309
Patriotism, xvii f., 217-20
Periacti, 298
περιπέτεια. _See_ Reversal of Situation
Phallic, 36 f., 43, 46 f.
Phlius, 4, 23 f.
Phrynichus, 4, 6, 124, 141
Pickard-Cambridge, 3, 10, 12, 14, 22
πίνακες, 68, 71, 86, 107-9, 235 f., 244
Pisistratus, 21, 63
Plautus, ix, xx, 188, 194 f., 234, 304, 307, 309-11
Playbill, 204-13, 254, 301
Plot, 50-52, 54, 127, 261-63
Plutarch. _See_ Theater
Poets, xvi, 18, 26, 123-27, 220, 271, 273, 318, 326-30
Pollux. _See_ Theater
Pompey, 80 f., 85
Porch, 68, 235 f., 238
Pratinas, 4, 23 f., 25, 63
Prescott, 174, 278
Prickard, 202
Prize, xvii f., 7, 11, 14 f., 16, 24, 213-20, 268 f.
Proagon, 204-6
Procession, 20, 121-23, 132, 197, 224
Prologue, 35, 40, 49, 55 f., 206, 208-10, 252, 298-304
Properties, 65, 106, 226, 228
Proscenium, 58-60, 66, 68-71, 76, 80-87, 91 f., 97-101, 103-9, 111-14, 228, 235-39, 241, 244, 285, 287 f., 291 f.
πρόθυρον. _See_ Porch
Psychology, xiv, xviii, 4, 296
Puchstein, 79, 92
Ramps, 104
Recognition (ἀναγνώρισις), 17
Rees, 53, 172, 187, 192
Reisch, 3, 10, 14, 22, 30 f., 59, 319
Reversal of situation (περιπέτεια), 17
Richter, 150
Ridgeway, 6 f., 12, 18-21, 31, 33-35, 236
Robert, 101
Rogers, 121, 214 f.
Ruppel, 273
Satyric drama (satyr-play), 2, 9, 22-32, 33 f., 125-27, 136, 198, 203 f., 322
Satyrs, 2, 10 f., 13, 16, 22 f., 24-32, 126, 136, 154, 162
_Scaena._ _See_ σκηνή
Scene-building. _See_ σκηνή
Scene of action, 206-8, 226-31, 233-36, 258, 300; changed, 206, 235, 247 f., 250 f.
Scenery, xii, 66, 236, 244, 247 f., 260. _See_ πίνακες
Schmid, 3
Scott, 254
Seneca, ix, xx, 141, 187
Sheppard, 276
Shorey, 30
Sicyon, 11-15, 21, 35, 80, 104, 108
σῖγμα, 72
Silence, 42, 91, 163, 165, 169, 173 f., 176 f., 186 f., 230, 232
Sileni, 16, 21 f., 24, 26, 29, 32, 121 f., 135, 162
Simonides, 11
σκηνή (_scaena_; scene-building), 57 f., 66-70, 72, 77 f., 87, 93-98, 102-9, 111, 113, 226, 228, 231, 233, 235-37, 244, 284 f., 287-89, 291; ἐπὶ (ἀπὸ) σκηνῆς, 93-98; _in scaena_, 77; _scaenae frons_, 76, 83 f.
σκηνικός, 61, 77 f., 96 f.
Soliloquy, 240, 258, 286, 299-309, 311 f.
Solon, 9, 17-19
Sophocles: third actor, 53, 167, 183; ceased acting, 169; use of chorus, 144; was refused a chorus, 273; scenery, 66, 236; μηχανή, 296; soliloquies, 305; irony, 313; imitated Euripides, 302; iambic resolutions, 172; productivity, 335; victories, 272 f., 325
Spectacle (ὄψις), xi f., xvi
Spingarn, xi-xiii, xv
Stage, xx, 60, 72-88, 91-100, 102 f., 111 f., 114-17, 130, 149. _See_ σκηνή and Logium
Stasima. _See_ Odes
Stephenson, 158
Suicide, 129-32, 159, 244
Susarion, 38, 47 f., 52 f.
Synchoregi, 271
Syzygy, 41, 43
Tanner, 336
Technique, ix f., xiv f., xvii, 10, 128 f., 173-76, 182, 191 f., 209 f., 229, 232, 239 f., 299 f., 310
Terence, xx, 194 f., 234, 304, 307, 309-11, 316, 331
Tetralogy (trilogy), 23 f., 133 f., 198 f., 203 f., 257 f., 265 f., 300, 322 f., 332, 334
Theater (as a structure), 1, 57-117 Technical terms, 57-61 Greek, 76 f., 80; Roman, 75-77, 80; Hellenistic, 70 f., 76, 80, 82-87, 97, 100, 110 f.; Graeco-Roman, 80, 82-87, 110-14 Athens, 62-75; site, 62 f., 208, 233 f.; size, 121, 221, 224, 312; in market-place, 63, 105; orchestra of _ca._ 499 B.C., 63, 65 f., 104, 226-28, 230; _ca._ 465 B.C., 66, 68, 228, 231 f., 285, 289; _ca._ 430 B.C., 67 f., 70, 235, 287, 289; Lycurgus, 68-70, 96, 103; Hellenistic, 70 f.; Nero, 72-74, 81, 98-101, 117; Phaedrus, 72, 74 f., 98 Delos, 70 f., 80, 82 f., 107 f.; Delphi, 108, 116; Epidaurus, 70 f., 80, 104; Ephesus, 82 f., 109, 111-13, 116; Eretria, 70 f., 80, 82, 84, 104-7, 288; Megalopolis, 80, 108; Mitylene, 80 f., 85; Oropus, 80, 82, 84, 108-11, 113; Patara, 82-84; Pergamum, 80, 110 f., 116; Priene, 82 f., 86, 110 f., 113 f., 116; Sicyon, 80, 104, 108; Termessus, 82-85, 110 f.; Thoricus, 69, 80, 103 f., 227 Vitruvius on, 75-87, 90, 92, 97; Pollux on, 78, 94, 98-100, 106; Plutarch, 101-3; Pompey’s, 80 f., 85; and fifth-century plays, 87-92; ἀναβαίνω, καταβαίνω, 91 f., 102 f.; and chorus, 92 f.; ἐπὶ τῆς σκηνῆς, 93-98; θυμελικός, σκηνικός, 95-97
θέατρον, 60
Themes, 7 f., 10, 13, 20 f., 123-27, 198 f., 279, 315
Theologium, 59 f., 111
Thespis: not mentioned in _Poetics_, 6; and Solon, 9, 17-19; place as tragic poet, 9, 12, 33; borrowings, 16; innovations, 16, 19 f.; first actor, 16-19, 163; impersonation, 16-18; his “grand step,” 19 f.; his wagon, 19 f.; non-Dionysiac themes, 20 f.; genuineness of extant titles, 20 f.; victor in first Athenian contest, 21; dramas somewhat like satyr-plays, 23; prologues, 55 f., 298-300
Thirlwall, 313, 316
Throop, 17
Thymele, 18, 57, 61, 73, 79, 95-97, 104
θυμελικός, 61, 77 f., 81, 95-97
θυρώματα, 107, 109, 111
Tomb ceremonies, 6, 12, 33-35
τραγικοὶ χοροί, 11 f., 15
τραγῳδία, 2, 8, 13-15, 21, 27 f.
τραγῳδοί, 11, 13, 15 f., 21
Tragedy: wagons in, 19 f.; at City Dionysia, 21; influence on comedy, 49 f., 53 f., 127, 146; influenced by epic, 17, 257, 263; themes, 123-25; chorus of, 135 f., 148-50, 162; early form, 162 f.;
## act divisions, 192 f.
Trochaic tetrameter. _See_ Meter
Tyche, 277
Unities, 201 f., 246-67, 277, 279, 295, 300
Vases: satyrs on, 16, 22-32; sileni on, 22, 24, 26, 29, 32; satyr-plays on, 25-27, 29-32; comus on, 38, 46; wagon-ship on, 20
Verrall, 5, 147, 151, 253
Vestibule. _See_ Porch
Victories, 272 f., 324 f.
Victors’-Lists, 324-30
Violence, 127-32, 158-60, 229, 241, 247, 284 f.
Wagons, 19 f., 121 f.
Welcker, 1-3, 13
Wernicke, 31
Wieseler, 79 f.
Wilamowitz-Möllendorff, von, 8, 11, 19, 48, 88, 189
Wilhelm, 319, 328
Women, 4, 42, 121, 180 f., 191, 277-83
Year spirit, 6