CHAPTER VII

THE AUDIENCE

§ 1. _Composition of the Audience._

The theatre of Dionysus at Athens, during the period of the Lenaea and the City Dionysia, presented a spectacle which for interest and significance has few parallels in the ancient or the modern world. The city kept universal holiday. The various proceedings were in reality so many religious celebrations. But there was nothing of an austere character about the worship of Dionysus. To give freedom from care was his special attribute, and the sincerest mode of paying homage to his power was by a genial enjoyment of the various pleasures of life. At this time of universal merriment the dramatic performances formed the principal attraction. Each day soon after sunrise the great majority of the citizens made their way to the southern slopes of the Acropolis, where the theatre of Dionysus was situated. The tiers of seats rising up the side of the hill were speedily filled with a crowd of nearly twenty thousand persons. The sight of such a vast multitude of people, gathered together at daybreak in the huge open amphitheatre, and dressed for the most part in white, or in red, brown, yellow, and other rich colours, must have been exceedingly striking and picturesque. The performances which brought them together were not unworthy of the occasion. The plays exhibited at the festivals of Dionysus rank among the very noblest achievements of Greek genius. For beauty of form, depth of meaning, and poetical inspiration they have never been surpassed. It would be difficult to point to any similar example of the whole population of a city meeting together each year to enjoy works of the highest artistic beauty. It is seldom that art and poetry have penetrated so deeply into the life of the ordinary citizens. Our curiosity is naturally excited in regard to the tone and composition of the audiences before which a drama of such an exceptional character was exhibited. The object of the following chapter will be to bring together and present in one view all the available information upon this subject.

At the Lenaea, which was held in the winter, when travelling was difficult, the audience consisted almost exclusively of natives of Athens. The City Dionysia came about two months later, at the commencement of the spring, and attracted great crowds of strangers from various parts of Greece. Representatives from the allied states came to pay the annual tribute at this season of the year. It was also a favourite time for the arrival of ambassadors from foreign cities; and it was considered a mere matter of politeness to provide them with front seats in the theatre, if they happened to be in Athens during the celebration of the City Dionysia.[980] In addition to these visitors of a representative character, there were also great numbers of private individuals, attracted to Athens from all parts of Greece by the magnificence of the festival, and the fame of the dramatic exhibitions. Altogether the visitors formed a considerable portion of the audience at the City Dionysia. One of the great aggravations of the offence of Meidias was that his assault upon Demosthenes was committed in the presence of ‘large multitudes of strangers’.[981] Apparently the natives of foreign states were not allowed to purchase tickets for the theatre in their own name, but had to get them through an Athenian citizen.[982]

The composition of the purely Athenian part of the audience is a subject upon which a great deal has been written, the principal difficulty being the question as to the admittance of boys and women to the dramatic performances. In the treatment of this matter scholars appear to have been unduly biassed by a preconceived opinion as to what was right and proper. Undoubtedly Athenian women were kept in a state of almost Oriental seclusion. And the old Attic comedy was pervaded by a coarseness which seems to make it utterly unfit for boys and women. For these reasons some writers have gone so far as to assert that they were never present at any dramatic performances whatsoever.[983] Others, while not excluding them from tragedy, have declared that it was an impossibility that they should have been present at the performances of comedy.[984] But the attempt to draw a distinction between tragedy and comedy, in regard to the admission of boys and women to the theatre, will not bear examination. If they were present at one, they must have been present at both. The tragic and the comic competitions frequently took place upon the same days, and succeeded one another without any interval; and it is difficult to suppose that, after the tragedies were over, a large part of the audience had to be turned out before the comedies could begin. Moreover, if women and boys had been present at the tragedies, they would of necessity have been spectators of the satyric dramas, which were nearly as coarse as the comedies. It is useless therefore to endeavour to separate tragedy from comedy in the consideration of this question.

As a matter of fact the evidence upon the subject, if considered without prejudice, makes it practically certain that there were no restrictions of the kind suggested. The audience at the dramatic performances, whether tragic or comic, was drawn from every class of the population. Men, women, boys, and slaves were all allowed to be present. The evidence from ancient authors is too copious to be accounted for on any other supposition. There are three passages in Plato which in themselves are almost enough to decide the question. In one place, speaking of poetry in general, and more especially of tragedy, Plato says it is a kind of rhetoric addressed to ‘boys, women, and men, slaves, and free citizens without distinction’. In another place, where he is treating of the management of his ideal republic, he says there will be no great readiness to allow the tragic poets to ‘erect their stages in the market-place, and perform before women and children, and the general public’. A passage of this kind would have very little point, unless it was intended as a condemnation of the prevailing practice. In a third place he declares that if there was a general exhibition of all kinds of public amusements, and the audience were called upon to state what they were most pleased with, the little children would vote for the conjuror, the boys for the comic poet, the young men and the more refined sort of women for the tragic poet.[985] These three passages of Plato are hardly consistent with the supposition that the drama was a spectacle which boys and women were never allowed to witness.

In addition to the above evidence there are also several places in Aristophanes where boys and women are referred to as forming part of the audience. For instance, in the Clouds Aristophanes prides himself on having refrained from introducing the phallus ‘to make the boys laugh’. In the Peace he says that ‘both the boys and the men’ ought to wish for his victory in the contest, because of his boldness in attacking Cleon. In another part of the Peace, when some barley is thrown among the male part of the spectators, Trygaeus remarks that the women have not got any.[986] Other passages of the same kind might be quoted. That women were present at the New Comedy is proved conclusively by a letter of Alciphron, in which Menander is supposed to be writing to his mistress Glycera. In this letter he says that nothing is dearer to him than to be crowned with the ivy of Dionysus, as victor in the comic contest, ‘while Glycera is sitting in the theatre and looking on.’[987] Other pieces of evidence are as follows. In Lucian’s dialogue Solon tells Anacharsis that the Athenians educate their sons by taking them to tragedies and comedies, and showing them examples of virtue and vice, so as to teach them what to imitate and what to avoid.[988] In the Frogs there is the well-known passage in which Aeschylus taunts Euripides with the immorality of his plays, which have caused women of refinement to commit suicide from very shame. If women were never present at the performance of the tragedies of Euripides, there would be very little meaning in the reproach.[989] Then again we are told that when Alcibiades was choregus, and ‘entered the theatre’ dressed in a splendid purple robe, he was admired ‘not only by the men, but also by the women’.[990] The shameless person in Theophrastus smuggles his sons into the theatre with a ticket which belongs to some one else. The miser never takes his sons to the theatre except when the entrance is free.[991] The regulation of Sphyromachus, providing that men, women, and courtesans should sit apart from one another, can hardly have referred to any place but the theatre.[992] The cumulative effect of all these passages is difficult to resist. It is impossible to explain them all away by far-fetched interpretations. Even the story of the effect produced by the Eumenides of Aeschylus upon the audience—of the boys dying of fright and the women having miscarriages—such a story, though in itself a foolish invention, could hardly have originated unless women and boys had been regularly present at the theatre.[993] That they were admitted at a later period is proved by the direct evidence of inscriptions in the theatre of Dionysus, which show that in Hadrian’s time seats were specially reserved for priestesses and other women.[994] This fact would not of course be conclusive evidence as to the custom which prevailed in the classical period of Athenian history. But, as far as it goes, it tends to confirm the conclusions based upon the evidence of ancient authors.

No doubt at first sight it appears a very startling fact that women and boys should have been spectators of the Old Comedy. But it should always be remembered that the comedies performed at the festivals of Dionysus were a portion of a religious celebration, which it was a pious duty to take part in. Ribaldry and coarseness were a traditional element in the worship of Dionysus, handed down from rude and primitive times, and were not lightly to be dispensed with. The Greeks in such matters were thoroughly conservative. It was a feeling of this kind which caused the satyric drama to be developed side by side with tragedy, in order that the old licentious merriment of the satyrs might not be utterly forgotten. The coarseness of the Old Comedy, being a regular part of the celebrations in honour of Dionysus, might be witnessed by boys and women without degradation, though their presence at similar scenes in real life would have been regarded in a very different manner. Where the worship of the gods was concerned, the practice of keeping women in strict seclusion was allowed to drop into abeyance. Women and even girls were present at the phallic processions in honour of Dionysus.[995] Their appearance on such occasions was regarded as a mere matter of course. It need not therefore surprise us that women and boys should have been present in the theatre at the performances of the Old Comedy.

Whether they were ever present in large numbers is a further question. Even those writers who admit that their presence was not prohibited by law, generally add that the more respectable women would in all probability keep away.[996] But the only authority for such a notion is to be found in a couple of passages in Aristophanes, which represent the husband as present in the theatre, while the wife was at home.[997] There is nothing so unusual in an occurrence of this kind as to warrant any sweeping conclusions. Some people must necessarily have remained at home, from the mere fact that the theatre would not have been large enough to contain the whole population of Athens, if men, women, and children had all been present. But it is hardly probable, for the reasons already stated, that there was anything disreputable in a woman visiting the theatre. Reformers like Aristotle were in advance of ordinary public opinion in their feelings about such matters. Aristotle expresses a strong opinion that boys should be prevented from seeing or hearing any piece of coarseness or indecency.[998] Even if such ribaldry is an essential feature in the worship of any particular deity, he says that only men should be allowed to be present. The men should pay the proper homage to gods of this character on behalf of themselves, their wives, and their children; but boys should not be permitted to be witnesses of comedies and similar spectacles. This passage, in which Aristotle is combating the prevailing practice of the times, is an additional proof that boys were present at the performance of comedies, and shows clearly that when the worship of the gods was concerned ordinary public opinion did not consider such spectacles improper.[999]

Besides women and children it appears that slaves were occasionally present at the theatre. Plato in the Gorgias mentions slaves as one of the classes before which the tragic poets will not be allowed to perform in his ideal commonwealth.[1000] The shameless man described by Theophrastus takes the ‘paedagogus’ to the theatre, along with his sons, and crowds them all into seats which did not really belong to him.[1001] It is not, however, probable that the number of slaves among the audience was ever very great. Their presence would depend upon the kindness of their masters. But the two passages just quoted prove that there was no law to prevent their attendance.

§ 2. _Price of Admission._

The dramatic entertainments at Athens were provided by the state for the benefit of the whole people. The entrance was originally free, and every man was allowed to get the best seat he could. But, as the drama was extremely popular from the very first, the struggle for seats caused great disturbances. People used to come and secure places the night before the performance began; citizens complained that they were crowded out of the theatre by foreigners; blows and fights were of frequent occurrence. It was therefore decided to charge a small entrance fee, and to sell all the seats in advance. In this way the crush of people was avoided, and, as each man’s seat was secured for him, he was able to go to the theatre at a more reasonable hour.[1002] The price of a seat for one day’s performance was two obols. The same price appears to have been charged for all the different parts of the theatre, with the exception of the reserved seats for priests, officials, and other distinguished persons.[1003] A gradation of prices, according to the goodness and badness of the seat, would probably not have been tolerated by the democracy, as giving the rich too great an advantage over the poor.

Until the close of the fifth century every man had to pay for his place, although the charge was a small one. But the poorer classes began to complain that the expense was too great for them, and that the rich citizens bought up all the seats. Accordingly, a measure was framed directing that every citizen who cared to apply should have the price of the entrance paid to him by the state. The sum given in this way was called ‘theoric’ money. It used formerly to be supposed, on the strength of statements in Plutarch and Ulpian, that this theoric system was introduced by Pericles.[1004] But the recently discovered Constitution of Athens has now shown that it was of much later date. The originator of the grant was the demagogue Cleophon, who succeeded Cleon in the leadership of the democracy. The year in which he introduced it is not given; but it must have been in the interval between the death of Cleon in 422 and his own death in 404. The amount of the payment was two obols, the price of a single seat. It is said that soon afterwards Callicrates, another demagogue, promised to raise the grant to three obols, the object apparently being to provide an extra obol for refreshments.[1005] But this promise was probably never carried out, as two obols is the sum usually mentioned in later times as the theoric grant for a single day.[1006] Of course if the festival lasted for several days, and there were performances in the theatre on each of them, the amount given by the state would be increased in proportion. Thus certain authors speak of a grant of four obols, or of six; but they are referring no doubt to the sum given for the whole festival.[1007] The theoric money was distributed in the different townships. Every man whose name was entered on the town lists as a full citizen might claim his share.[1008] But it is probable that at first only the poorer classes applied. No one was allowed to obtain the grant unless he made his application in person. A certain Conon, who succeeded in getting the money in the name of his son, who was absent at the time, was fined a talent for the offence.[1009] In its original form this theoric system may seem not altogether indefensible. The theatrical performances were a sort of religious celebration, provided by the state; and it was unreasonable that any citizen should be debarred from attending them by poverty. But in the course of the fourth century the system was expanded and developed until it became a scandalous abuse. Grants were given, not only for the Dionysia, but for all the other Athenian festivals, to provide the citizens with banquets and means of enjoyment. The rich began to claim the money with quite as much eagerness as the poor. The military revenues were impoverished in order to supply the Theoric Fund, which had now grown to huge proportions. A law was passed making it a capital offence even to propose to divert this theoric money to any other purpose. As a consequence the resources of the state were crippled, and the people demoralized. The theoric question became one of the chief difficulties which Demosthenes had to deal with, in his efforts to rouse the Athenian people to action against Philip.[1010]

[Illustration: FIG. 32.]

The tickets of admission in the ancient theatre appear to have generally consisted of small leaden coins stamped with some theatrical emblem.[1011] Such coins could easily be renewed and stamped afresh for the different festivals. Many of them have been discovered in modern times, both in Attica and elsewhere, and date from the fifth century down to the Christian era. The specimen which is here given (Fig. 32) contains a representation of three comic masks, with the name of the play, the Prophetess, inscribed above, and the name of the poet, Menander, underneath.[1012] In addition to these leaden coins certain tickets made of ivory or bone, and apparently connected with the theatre, have also been preserved. But they are far fewer in number than the leaden coins, and only date from the Christian era. They are found solely in Graeco-Roman districts. They are too elaborate and permanent in workmanship to have served as ordinary tickets, and were probably intended for the occupants of the reserved seats in the front rows. They usually contain some figure or emblem on the one side, and a description of the emblem in Greek on the other, together with a number in Greek and Latin. The specimen in the text (Fig. 33) exhibits the head of Kronos on the obverse, with the inscription ‘Kronos’ and the number thirteen on the reverse.[1013] The numbers never rise higher than fifteen, and cannot therefore refer to the individual seats in the different rows. Probably both the numbers and the emblems denote particular blocks of seats. We know that in the theatre at Syracuse certain blocks were called after the names of gods and princes, such as Hieron, Zeus, and Hercules; and that in the Roman theatre Germanicus gave his name to a particular block.[1014] It is a very plausible conjecture, therefore, that emblems like that of Kronos refer to some similar method of designation.

[Illustration: FIG. 33.]

Besides the two kinds of ticket just described, a large number of bronze coins have been found in Athens and Attica, of which the exact significance is uncertain. But Svoronos, the latest writer on the subject, is inclined to think that they too were intended as marks of admission to the theatre.[1015] These coins date from the fourth to the second century B.C. On the obverse they are generally stamped with an image of Athene, or a lion’s head, or a group of owls. On the reverse there is a letter of the alphabet, either single, or repeated more than once (Fig. 34). Sometimes there is no symbol on the coin, but both the obverse and the reverse contain the same alphabetical letter or letters. It is possible, as Svoronos thinks, that these coins were theatrical tickets, and that the letters, of which there are at least fifty-two varieties, referred to various divisions of seats in the auditorium.

[Illustration: FIG. 34.]

The receipts from the sale of places in the theatre went to the lessee. The arrangement in this matter was a peculiar one. The lessee was a person who entered into a contract with the state, by which he undertook to keep the fabric of the theatre in good repair, and in return was allowed to take all the entrance money. If he failed to keep the theatre in good condition, the state did the necessary repairs itself, and made him pay the expenses. He had to provide reserved seats in the front rows for distinguished persons, and it is uncertain whether the state paid him for these seats or not. For all the other portions of the theatre he was allowed to charge two obols and no more.[1016] Occasionally, towards the end of a performance, he seems to have allowed the people free admittance, if there was any room to spare.[1017]

§ 3. _The Distribution of the Seats._

When the theatre was full the audience numbered nearly twenty thousand persons. As to the arrangement of this enormous mass of people some few facts are known, and some inferences may be made; but the information is not very complete. The great distinction was between the dignitaries who had reserved seats in the front, and the occupants of the ordinary two-obol seats at the back. A gradation of seats with descending prices was, as previously stated, unknown to the ancient Athenians. The privilege of having a reserved seat in the theatre was called ‘proedria’, and was conferred by the state.[1018] From the large number of persons who enjoyed the distinction it is clear that several of the front rows must have been reserved; and this conclusion is confirmed by the inscriptions in the theatre, which show that seats were assigned to particular individuals as far back as the twenty-fourth tier from the front.[1019] The recipients of the honour, or at any rate the more prominent of them, were conducted in a solemn procession to the theatre each morning by one of the state officials.[1020]

Foremost among the persons who had seats in the front rows were the priests and religious officers connected with the different divinities. That they should be distinguished in this manner was only in keeping with the essentially religious character of the ancient Greek drama. An inscription referring to the theatre at the Peiraeeus, and belonging to the third or fourth century B.C., mentions the priests specially by name as the most conspicuous members of the class who had the ‘proedria’.[1021] The inscriptions upon the seats in the theatre at Athens, which represent for the most part the arrangement that existed during the reign of Hadrian, place the matter in a very clear light. They enable us to determine the occupants of sixty out of sixty-seven seats in the front row; and it is found that of these sixty persons no less than fifty were priests, or ministers connected with religion. Similarly, in the rows immediately behind the front row, a large number of places were set apart for the different priests and priestesses.[1022] Such was the arrangement in the time of Hadrian, and there can be little doubt that it was much the same in its general character during the period of the Athenian democracy.

Among state officials the nine archons and the ten generals had distinguished places in the theatre. In Hadrian’s time the archons occupied seats in the front row, and it is probable that this position was assigned to them from the earliest period.[1023] The generals were in some prominent part of the theatre, but the exact place is not known. The snob in Theophrastus was always anxious to sit as near to them as possible.[1024] Ambassadors from foreign states, as was previously pointed out, were generally provided with front seats, on the motion of some member of the Council. Demosthenes is taunted by Aeschines for the excessive politeness which he showed to Philip’s ambassadors on an occasion of this kind. The lessee of the theatre at the Peiraeeus, as appears from an inscription still extant, was ordered to provide the ambassadors from Colophon with reserved places at the Dionysia. The Spartan ambassadors were sitting in ‘a most distinguished part of the theatre’ when they considerately gave up a place to an old man for whom no one else would make room.[1025] The judges of the various contests sat together in a body, and would naturally be provided with one of the best places in the theatre.[1026] The orphan sons of men who had fallen in battle received from the state, in addition to other honours, the distinction of ‘proedria’. The same privilege was frequently conferred by decree upon great public benefactors, and was generally made hereditary in the family, descending by succession to the eldest male representative. An honour of this kind was bestowed upon Demosthenes.[1027]

With the exception of the reserved places in the front rows, the rest of the auditorium consisted of the ordinary two-obol seats. Concerning the arrangements adopted in this part of the theatre a few details have been recorded. It appears that special portions of the auditorium were set apart for the different classes of the community. There was a particular place for the members of the Council of Five Hundred, and another place for the Ephebi, or youths between the age of eighteen and twenty.[1028] The women were separated from the men, and the courtesans sat apart from the other women.[1029] It is probable that all the women sat at the back of the theatre, at a long distance from the stage. Foreigners also seem usually to have had a special place.[1030] The amphitheatre of seats was divided into thirteen blocks by the passages which ran upwards from the orchestra. It is very probable that in the arrangement of the audience each tribe had a special block assigned to it. The blocks of seats were thirteen from the first. The tribes were originally ten, though they were raised in later times to twelve and thirteen. It is possible that the three unappropriated blocks were assigned respectively to the Council, the Ephebi, and Foreigners.[1031] But the excavations in the theatre afford grounds for inferring that there was a connexion between certain blocks and certain tribes, and the thing is not improbable in itself.[1032] The tribal divisions played a large part in the various details of Attic administration, and an arrangement by tribes would have greatly facilitated the process of distributing the enormous mass of spectators among their proper seats.

[Illustration: FIG. 35.]

Before leaving this part of the subject it may be useful to give a complete list of the priests and officials for whom the front row was reserved in later times. It is still possible, as already stated, to determine the occupants of sixty out of the sixty-seven seats; and the arrangement, with a few exceptions, is that of Hadrian’s time.[1033] The list of names is not without interest, as it enables us, better than any description, to form a general conception of the sort of arrangement which was probably adopted at an earlier period. It also affords a curious glimpse into the religious side of the old Athenian life, and helps us to realize the variety and multiplicity of priests, deities, and ceremonials. In the very centre of the front row, in the best place in the whole theatre, sat the priest of Dionysus Eleuthereus, on a throne of elaborate workmanship. A representation of the throne (Fig. 35) is inserted on the previous page.[1034] As the theatre was regarded as a temple of Dionysus, and the drama was a celebration in his honour, it was only fitting that his priest should occupy the most conspicuous and distinguished position. There is a reference to the arrangement in the Frogs of Aristophanes, in the scene where Dionysus is terrified by the goblins of Hades, and desperately appeals to his own priest for protection.[1035] Of the thirty-three seats to the left of the priest of Dionysus the occupants of twenty-six are still known, and were as follows:—

Priest of Zeus the Protector of the City. The Sacrificer. The Torch bearer. Priest of Pythian Apollo. The Hieromnemon.[1036] Priest and Chief Priest of Augustus Caesar. Priest of Hadrian Eleuthereus. King Archon. Chief Archon. Polemarch. The General. The Herald. Thesmothetes. Thesmothetes. Thesmothetes. Thesmothetes. The Sacred Herald. ... and Apollo. Diogenes the Benefactor.[1037] Priest of Attalus Eponymus. The Iacchus-carrier.[1038] Priest of Asclepius the Healer. Fire-bringer from the Acropolis.[1039] Priest of the People, the Graces, and Rome. Holy Herald and Priest. Priest of Apollo of Zoster.

All the thrones to the right hand of the priest of Dionysus have been preserved, and were occupied by the following persons:—

Interpreter appointed by the Pythian Oracle.[1040] Priest of Olympian Zeus. Hierophant. Priest of Delian Apollo. Priest of Poseidon the Nourisher. Priest of the Graces, and of Fire-bearing Artemis of the Tower. Interpreter chosen from the Eupatridae by the people for life. Priest of Poseidon the Earth-holder and Poseidon Erectheus. Priest of Artemis Colaenis. Priest of Dionysus the Singer, chosen from the Euneidae. Bullock-keeper of Palladian Zeus. Priest of Zeus of the Council and Athene of the Council.[1041] Priest of Zeus the Deliverer and Athene the Deliverer. Priest of Antinous the Dancer, chosen from the Company of Actors.[1042] Priest of Apollo Patrous. Priest of Dionysus the Singer, chosen from the Company of Actors. Priest of Glory and Order. Priest of Asclepius. Priest of the Muses. Priest of Zeus the god of Friendship. Priest of the Twelve Gods. Statue-cleanser of Zeus at Pisa. Priest of the Lycean Apollo. Statue-cleanser of Olympian Zeus in the City. Priest of the Dioscuri and the Hero Epitegius.[1043] Priest of Heavenly Nemesis. Priest of Hephaestus. Priest of Apollo the Laurel-wearer. Priest of Dionysus of Aulon. The Stone-carrier.[1044] Priest of Theseus. Bullock-keeper of Zeus the Accomplisher. Priest of Demeter and Persephone.

The priests enumerated here were the principal dignitaries in the Athenian hierarchy. Behind them sat a large gathering of inferior priests and priestesses. Their presence in such numbers at performances like the Old and Middle Comedy affords a curious illustration of the religious sentiment of the Athenians, and indicates clearly that the coarseness of the early comedy, and its burlesque representations of the gods and their adventures, did not constitute any offence against religion, but formed an appropriate element in the worship of Dionysus.

§ 4. _Various Arrangements in connexion with the Audience._

The performance of plays began soon after sunrise, and continued all day long without intermission. There was no such thing as an interval for refreshments; one play followed another in rapid succession.[1045] Apart from direct evidence upon the subject, it is manifest that, considering the large number of plays which had to be gone through in the time, any delay would have been out of the question. Consequently the spectators were careful to have a good meal before starting for the theatre.[1046] There was also a plentiful consumption of wine and various light refreshments in the course of the actual performances. The time for such an indulgence was during the tedious portions of a play, but when one of the great actors came upon the stage the provisions were laid aside, and the audience became all attention.[1047]

The theatre must have presented a bright and festive appearance. Crowns were worn in honour of Dionysus by the express command of the oracle.[1048] The gaily-coloured dresses of the spectators would add greatly to the brilliancy of the scene. At the same time the comfort of the audience was not very much consulted. The seats were of wood, or in later times of stone, and had no backs; the people had to sit there all day long, packed together as closely as was possible. Many men brought cushions and carpets with them. Aeschines draws a contemptuous picture of Demosthenes escorting Philip’s ambassadors to the theatre in person, and arranging their cushions and spreading their carpets with his own hands. The toady in Theophrastus, when he accompanies a wealthy man to the theatre, is careful to take the cushion out of the slave’s hands, and to insist upon placing it ready for his patron.[1049] There was no shelter from the sun. The theatre faced towards the south, and was entirely uncovered. But as the dramatic performances took place at the end of the winter, or early in the spring, the heat would not usually be excessive. Probably the sun was in many cases very welcome. If, however, any shelter was required, hats appear to have been worn, though the Athenians generally went bare-headed except upon a journey.[1050] It has been suggested that small awnings were sometimes erected upon rods by individual spectators for their own convenience, and that the ‘purple cloths’ which Demosthenes spread out for Philip’s ambassadors were awnings of this description.[1051] It is true that an awning was provided for the priest of Dionysus, as the chief dignitary of the meeting. But it is improbable that the same convenience was extended to any other members of the audience, at any rate in the period of the democracy. In Roman times awnings were erected for the front rows of spectators; but this was a late innovation.[1052]

To keep order among a gathering of about twenty thousand persons, crowded together in a comparatively small space, must have been a matter of some difficulty. Certain officers called ‘staffbearers’ were stationed in the theatre for the purpose.[1053] Superintendents were also appointed to maintain discipline among the numerous chorus-singers.[1054] Disturbances were not infrequent, and arose from various causes. Sometimes the rivalry between two choregi resulted in actual violence. For example, on one occasion, when Taureas and Alcibiades were competitors in a dithyrambic contest, a fight broke out between them, in the course of which Alcibiades, being the stronger man of the two, drove Taureas out of the orchestra.[1055] That the feeling between the choregi often ran very high has already been pointed out in a previous chapter. Disputes about seats were another fertile source of disturbance. With the exception of the front row, the individual places were not separated from one another, but the people sat together on the long benches. Such an arrangement was very likely to cause confusion. Demosthenes mentions the case of a highly distinguished citizen, who ran great risk of being put to death, owing to his having forcibly ejected a man from his seat. Personal violence in the theatre was regarded as a crime against religion, and was strictly prohibited. If any dispute arose, the proper course was to appeal to the officers; and the man who took the law into his own hands was guilty of a capital offence.[1056]

§ 5. _Character of Attic Audiences._

The Athenians were a lively audience, and gave expression to their feelings in the most unmistakable manner. The noise and uproar produced by an excited crowd of twenty thousand persons must have been of a deafening character, and is described in the most uncomplimentary language by Plato.[1057] It was exceedingly difficult for the judges to resist such demonstrations, and to vote in accordance with their own private judgement. The ordinary modes of signifying pleasure or disgust were much the same in ancient as in modern times, and consisted of hisses and groans on the one hand, and shouts and clapping of hands on the other.[1058] The Athenians had also a peculiar way of marking their disapproval of a performance by kicking with the heels of their sandals against the front of the stone benches on which they were sitting.[1059] Stones were occasionally thrown by an irate audience. Aeschines was hissed off the stage, and ‘almost stoned to death’, in the course of his theatrical career. There is an allusion to the practice in the story of the second-rate musician, who borrowed a supply of stone from a friend in order to build a house, and promised to repay him with the stones he collected from his next performance in public.[1060] Country audiences in the Attic demes used figs and olives, and similar missiles, for pelting unpopular actors.[1061] On the other hand, encores were not unknown, if

## particular passages took the fancy of the audience. Socrates is said to

have encored the first three lines of the Orestes of Euripides.[1062]

If the Athenians were dissatisfied with an actor or a play, they had no hesitation about revealing the fact, but promptly put a stop to the performance by means of hisses and groans and stamping with the heels. They were able to do so with greater readiness, as several plays were always performed in succession, and they could call for the next play, without bringing the entertainment to a close. In this way they sometimes got through the programme very rapidly. There is an instance of such an occurrence in the story of the comic actor Hermon, whose play should naturally have come on late in the day; but, as all the previous performers were promptly hissed off the stage one after another, he was called upon much sooner than he expected, and in consequence was not ready to appear.[1063] If the tale about the comic poet Diphilus is true, it would seem that even the authors of very unsuccessful plays were sometimes forcibly ejected from the theatre.[1064]

A few scattered notices and descriptions, referring to the spectators in the Athenian theatre, show that human nature was very much the same in ancient times as at the present day. Certain types of character, which were generally to be met with among an Attic audience, will easily be recognized as familiar figures. There was the man of taste, who prided himself upon his superior discernment, and used to hiss when every one else was applauding, and clap when every one else was silent.[1065] There was the person who made himself objectionable to his neighbours by whistling an accompaniment to tunes which happened to please him.[1066] There were the ‘young men of the town’, who took a malign pleasure in hissing a play off the stage.[1067] There were the people who brought out their provisions during the less exciting parts of the entertainment.[1068] There was the somnolent individual who slept peacefully through tragedies and comedies, and was not even waked up by the noise of the audience going away.[1069] Certain indications show that the employment of the clâque was not unknown to Greek actors and poets. The parasite Philaporus, who had recently taken up the profession of an actor, and was anxious about the result of his first public appearance, writes to a friend to ask him to come with a large body of supporters, and drown with their applause the hisses of the critical part of the audience. Philemon, in spite of his inferior talents as a comic writer, is said to have frequently won victories from Menander by practices of this kind.[1070]

The character of the Athenian audience as a whole is well exemplified by the stories of their treatment of individual poets. Although they were willing to tolerate the utmost ribaldry upon the stage, and to allow the gods and sacred legends to be burlesqued in the most ridiculous fashion, they were at the same time extremely orthodox in regard to the national religion. Any atheistical sentiments, and any violations of their religious law, were liable to provoke an outburst of the greatest violence. Aeschylus on one occasion was nearly killed in the theatre itself, because he was supposed to have revealed part of the mysteries in the course of a tragedy. He was only saved by flying for refuge to the altar of Dionysus in the orchestra.[1071] Euripides also caused a great uproar by beginning his Melanippe with the line, ‘Zeus, whoever Zeus be, for I know not save by report,’ &c. In a subsequent production of a revised version of the play he altered the line to ‘Zeus, as is reported by truth’,[1072] &c. In the same way sentiments which violated the moral feeling of the audience were received with intense indignation, and sometimes resulted in the stoppage of the play. The Danaë of Euripides is said to have been nearly hissed off the stage because of a passage in praise of money.[1073] On the other hand, wise and noble sentiments excited great enthusiasm. Aristophanes was rewarded with a chaplet from the sacred olive because of the splendid passage in which he counsels mercy to the disfranchised citizens. Sophocles is said to have been appointed one of the generals in the Samian expedition on account of the excellent political wisdom shown in certain passages of the Antigone.[1074] The partiality of the Athenians for idealism in art is shown by the reception which they gave to Phrynichus’s tragedy of the Capture of Miletus, an historical drama in which the misfortunes of the Ionians were forcibly portrayed. So far from admiring the skill of the poet, they fined him a thousand drachmas for reminding them of the miseries of their kinsfolk, and passed a law forbidding the reproduction of this particular play.[1075]

The enthusiasm of the Athenians for the drama was unbounded. Nowhere was the theatre more crowded. In the words of one of the old historians, they ‘spent the public revenues on their festivals, were more familiar with the stage than with the camp, and paid more regard to verse-makers than to generals’.[1076] The speeches of Demosthenes are full of complaints in the same strain. The eagerness with which dramatic victories were coveted, and the elaborate monuments erected to commemorate them, have already been referred to in a previous chapter. It was not, however, till the middle of the fourth century that the devotion to this and similar amusements grew to such a height as to become a positive vice, and to sap the military energies of the people. The Athenians of the fifth century showed that enthusiasm for art and music and the drama was not inconsistent with energy of character. As a matter of fact the very greatest period of the Attic drama is also the period of the political supremacy of Athens.

As far as intelligence and discrimination are concerned, the Athenian audiences were probably superior to any audience of the same size which has ever been brought together. Their keen and rapid intellect was a subject of frequent praise among the ancients, and was ascribed to the exhilarating influence of the Attic climate.[1077] They were especially distinguished for the refinement of their taste in matters of art and literature, and for the soberness of judgement with which they rejected any sort of florid exuberance. That they were keenly alive to the attractions of beauty of form and chastened simplicity of style is proved by the fact that Sophocles was by far the most successful of their tragic poets. Though Euripides became more popular among the later Greeks, Sophocles in his own life-time obtained far more victories than any other tragic writer.[1078] At the same time it is easy to form an exaggerated idea of the refinement of an Attic audience. They were drawn from all classes of the people, and a large proportion were ignorant and uncultured. Plato speaks in the most disparaging terms of them, and charges them with having corrupted the dramatic poets, and brought them down to their own level.[1079] His evidence is perhaps rather prejudiced. But Aristotle, who had much greater faith in popular judgement, is not very complimentary. He divides the theatrical audience into two classes, the refined and cultured class on the one hand, and the mass of rough and ignorant artisans on the other. One of his objections to the profession of an actor or musician is that he must accommodate himself to the level of the ignorant part of his audience.[1080] He mentions examples in the Poetics of the low level of popular taste, from which it appears that the average spectator in ancient times was, like his modern counterpart, fond of ‘happy terminations’. He cared little for the artistic requirements of the composition; his desire was to see virtue rewarded, and vice punished, at the end of a play. Then again, a large part of the audience, Aristotle remarks, were so ignorant as to be unacquainted with the ordinary facts of mythology, which formed the basis of most tragedies. In judging a play, they paid more regard to the actor’s voice than to the poet’s genius.[1081] At the same time, in spite of depreciatory criticisms, it must be remembered that the true criterion of a people’s taste is to be found in the character of the popular favourites. The victorious career of Sophocles, lasting over more than fifty years, is a convincing proof of the fact that, at any rate during the fifth century, the dramatic taste of the Athenians was altogether higher than that of an ordinary popular audience.[1082]

APPENDIX A

The information concerning the dates at which the plays of the great Attic dramatists were produced, and the success which they met with in the competitions, is derived from various brief notices, which occur mostly in the Arguments prefixed to the different plays, and which were ultimately derived from Aristotle’s Didascaliae, or from other collections of the same kind (see chap. i. p. 47). A list of these notices is here appended:—

472 B.C.

Arg. Aesch., Persae: Ἐπὶ Μένωνος τραγῳδῶν Αἰσχύλος ἐνίκα Φινεῖ, Πέρσαις, Γλαύκῳ, Προμηθεῖ.

467 B.C.

Arg. Aesch. Septem: Ἐδιδάχθη ἐπὶ Θεαγενίδου ὀλυμπιάδι οηʹ. ἐνίκα Λαΐῳ, Οἰδίποδι, Ἑπτὰ ἐπὶ Θήβας, Σφιγγὶ σατυρικῇ. δεύτερος Ἀριστίας Περσεῖ, Ταντάλῳ, Παλαισταῖς σατυρικοῖς τοῖς Πρατίνου πατρός. τρίτος Πολυφράδμων Λυκουργείᾳ τετραλογίᾳ.

458 B.C.

Arg. Aesch. Agamemnon: Ἐδιδάχθη τὸ δρᾶμα ἐπὶ ἄρχοντος Φιλοκλέους, ὀλυμπιάδι ὀγδοηκοστῇ ἔτει δευτέρῳ. πρῶτος Αἰσχύλος Ἀγαμέμνονι, Χοηφόροις, Εὐμενίσι, Πρωτεῖ σατυρικῷ. ἐχορήγει Ξενοκλῆς Ἀφιδνεύς.

455 B.C.

Vit. Eurip. p. 4 Dindf.: Ἤρξατο δὲ διδάσκειν (ὁ Εὐριπίδης) ἐπὶ Καλλίου ἄρχοντος κατ’ ὀλυμπιάδα παʹ ἔτει αʹ, πρῶτον δ’ ἐδίδαξε τὰς Πελιάδας, ὅτε καὶ τρίτος ἐγένετο.

450 B.C. (?)

Arg. Eur. Rhesus: Ἐν μέντοι ταῖς διδασκαλίαις ὡς γνήσιον ἀναγέγραπται. Schol. Rhes. 529: Κράτης ἀγνοεῖν φησι τὸν Εὐριπίδην τὴν περὶ τὰ μετέωρα θεωρίαν διὰ τὸ νέον εἶναι ὅτε τὸν Ῥῆσον ἐδίδασκε.

438 B.C.

Arg. Eur. Alcestis: Ἐδιδάχθη ἐπὶ Γλαυκίνου ἄρχοντος ὀλυμπιάδι πεʹ, πρῶτος ἦν Σοφοκλῆς, δεύτερος Εὐριπίδης Κρήσσαις, Ἀλκμαίωνι τῷ διὰ Ψωφῖδος, Τηλέφῳ, Ἀλκήστιδι.

431 B.C.

Arg. Eur. Medea: Ἐδιδάχθη ἐπὶ Πυθοδώρου ἄρχοντος κατὰ τὴν ὀγδοηκοστὴν ἑβδόμην ὀλυμπιάδα. πρῶτος Εὐφορίων, δεύτερος Σοφοκλῆς, τρίτος Εὐριπίδης Μηδείᾳ, Φιλοκτήτῃ, Δίκτυϊ, Θερισταῖς σατύροις. οὐ σώζεται.

430 B.C. (?)

Aristid. vol. ii. p. 334 Dindf.: Σοφοκλῆς Φιλοκλέους ἡττᾶτο ἐν Ἀθηναίοις τὸν Οἰδίπουν, ὦ Ζεῦ καὶ θεοί.

428 B.C.

Arg. Eur. Hippolytus: Ἐδιδάχθη ἐπὶ Ἀμείνονος ἄρχοντος ὀλυμπιάδι ὀγδοηκοστῇ ἑβδόμῃ, ἔτει τετάρτῳ. πρῶτος Εὐριπίδης, δεύτερος Ἰοφῶν, τρίτος Ἴων.

425 B.C.

Arg. Arist. Acharnenses: Ἐδιδάχθη ἐπὶ Εὐθύνου ἄρχοντος ἐν Ληναίοις διὰ Καλλιστράτου· καὶ πρῶτος ἦν. δεύτερος Κρατῖνος Χειμαζομένοις· οὐ σώζονται. τρίτος Εὔπολις Νουμηνίαις.

424 B.C.

Arg. Arist. Equites: Ἐδιδάχθη τὸ δρᾶμα ἐπὶ Στρατοκλέους ἄρχοντος δημοσίᾳ εἰς Λήναια, δι’ αὐτοῦ τοῦ Ἀριστοφάνους. πρῶτος ἐνίκα· δεύτερος Κρατῖνος Σατύροις· τρίτος Ἀριστομένης Ὑλοφόροις.

423 B.C.

Arg. Arist. Nubes: Αἱ πρῶται Νεφέλαι ἐν ἄστει ἐδιδάχθησαν ἐπὶ ἄρχοντος Ἰσάρχου, ὅτε Κρατῖνος μὲν ἐνίκα Πυτίνῃ, Ἀμειψίας δὲ Κόννῳ.

422 B.C.

Arg. Arist. Nubes: Αἱ δὲ δεύτεραι Νεφέλαι ἐπὶ Ἀμεινίου ἄρχοντος.

Arg. Arist. Vespae: Ἐδιδάχθη ἐπὶ ἄρχοντος Ἀμεινίου διὰ Φιλωνίδου εἰς Λήναια· καὶ ἐνίκα πρῶτος. δεύτερος ἦν Φιλωνίδης Προάγωνι, Λεύκων Πρέσβεσι τρίτος. (See p. 21, n. 2).

421 B.C.

Arg. Arist. Pax: Ἐνίκησε δὲ τῷ δράματι ὁ ποιητὴς ἐπὶ ἄρχοντος Ἀλκαίου, ἐν ἄστει. πρῶτος Εὔπολις Κόλαξι, δεύτερος Ἀριστοφάνης Εἰρήνῃ, τρίτος Λεύκων Φράτορσι. τὸ δὲ δρᾶμα ὑπεκρίνατο Ἀπολλόδωρος ✱ἡνίκα ἑρμῆν λοιοκρότης✱. (See p. 41, n. 2).

415 B.C.

Ael. Var. Hist. ii. 8: Κατὰ τὴν πρώτην καὶ ἐνενηκοστὴν ὀλυμπιάδα ... ἀντηγωνίσαντο ἀλλήλοις Ξενοκλῆς καὶ Εὐριπίδης· καὶ πρῶτός γε ἦν Ξενοκλῆς, ὅστις ποτὲ οὗτός ἐστιν, Οἰδίποδι καὶ Λυκάονι καὶ Βάκχαις καὶ Ἀθάμαντι σατυρικῷ. τούτου δεύτερος Εὐριπίδης ἦν Ἀλεξάνδρῳ καὶ Παλαμήδει καὶ Τρῳάσι καὶ Σισύφῳ σατυρικῷ.

414 B.C.

Arg. I. Arist. Aves: Ἐδιδάχθη ἐπὶ Χαβρίου διὰ Καλλιστράτου ἐν ἄστει, ὃς ἦν δεύτερος τοῖς Ὄρνισι, πρῶτος Ἀμειψίας Κωμασταῖς, τρίτος Φρύνιχος Μονοτρόπῳ. Arg. II. Arist. Aves: Ἐπὶ Χαβρίου ... εἰς Λήναια τὸν Ἀμφιάραον ἐδίδαξε διὰ Φιλωνίδου.

412 B.C.

Schol. Arist. Ran. 53: Ἡ δὲ Ἀνδρομέδα ὀγδόῳ ἔτει προεισῆλθεν. Schol. Arist. Thesm. 1012: συνδεδίδακται γὰρ τῇ Ἑλένῃ.

411 B.C.

Arg. Arist. Lysistrata: Ἐδιδάχθη ἐπὶ Καλλίου ἄρχοντος τοῦ μετὰ Κλεόκριτον ἄρξαντος. εἰσῆκται δὲ διὰ Καλλιστράτου.

409 B.C.

Arg. Soph. Philoctetes: Ἐδιδάχθη ἐπὶ Γλαυκίππου. πρῶτος ἦν Σοφοκλῆς.

408 B.C.

Schol. Eur. Orest. 371: Πρὸ γὰρ Διοκλέους, ἐφ’ οὗ τὸν Ὀρέστην ἐδίδαξε.

409-407 B.C. (?)

Arg. Eur. Phoenissae: Ἐδιδάχθη ἐπὶ Ναυσικράτους (unknown, probably ‘suffectus’) ἄρχοντος ὀλυμπιάδ ... πρῶτος ... δεύτερος Εὐριπίδης, τρίτος ... ὁ Οἰνόμαος καὶ Χρύσιππος καὶ Φοίνισσαι καὶ ... σατυρ ... οὐ σώζεται. Schol. Arist. Ran. 53: διὰ τί δὲ μὴ ἄλλο τι τῶν πρὸ ὀλίγου διδαχθέντων καὶ καλῶν, Ὑψιπύλης, Φοινισσῶν, Ἀντιόπης;

405 B.C.

Arg. Arist. Ranae: Ἐδιδάχθη ἐπὶ Καλλίου τοῦ μετὰ Ἀντιγένη διὰ Φιλωνίδου εἰς Λήναια. πρῶτος ἦν· Φρύνιχος δεύτερος Μούσαις· Πλάτων τρίτος Κλεοφῶντι.

— B.C.

Schol. Arist. Ran. 67: Οὕτω γὰρ καὶ αἱ Διδασκαλίαι φέρουσι, τελευτήσαντος Εὐριπίδου τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ δεδιδαχέναι ὁμώνυμον ἐν ἄστει Ἰφιγένειαν τὴν ἐν Αὐλίδι, Ἀλκμαίωνα, Βάκχας.

401 B.C.

Arg. Soph. O. C.: Τὸν ἐπὶ Κολωνῷ Οἰδίποδα ἐπὶ τετελευτηκότι τῷ πάππῳ Σοφοκλῆς ὁ ὑϊδοῦς ἐδίδαξεν, υἱὸς ὢν Ἀρίστωνος, ἐπὶ ἄρχοντος Μίκωνος.

388 B.C.

Arg. Arist. Plutus: Ἐδιδάχθη ἐπὶ ἄρχοντος Ἀντιπάτρου, ἀνταγωνιζομένου αὐτῷ Νικοχάρους μὲν Λάκωσιν, Ἀριστομένους δὲ Ἀδμήτῳ, Νικοφῶντος δὲ Ἀδώνιδι, Ἀλκαίου δὲ Πασιφάῃ.

APPENDIX B

The Athenian inscriptions bearing upon the drama and dramatic contests are to be found, edited by Köhler, in the Corpus Inscriptionum Atticarum, ii. 2. pp. 394 ff., iv. 2. pp. 218 ff. Since their publication in this form much work has been done in reference to them by Wilhelm, Capps, and others. The following selection gives the most important inscriptions, with the conclusions which seem to be best warranted, omitting portions the restoration of which seems too uncertain to be useful.

The conjectural dates are inserted and conjectural supplements marked off by square brackets where the evidence is reasonably good: letters enclosed in round brackets simply expand the abbreviations contained in the inscription.

I. _List of victors in the City Dionysia_ (C. I. A. ii. 971, iv. 971).

The fragments have been arranged on the hypothesis that they formed part of an inscription in 15 columns of 140 or 142 lines each: Columns 1, 2, 7-12 and 16 have been lost, as well as the greater part of the remainder. Capps conjectures that the inscription began in 502-501, and that this date was that of the beginning of choregia in tragedy and dithyramb (Capps, Introd. of Comedy into the City Dionysia, p. 29). The heading, of which at present only twelve letters remain (more widely spaced than the rest of the inscription), seems to have extended over the head of the first 6 columns, and probably ran (Capps, l.c., p. 29)—

[ἀπὸ ........... ἐφ’ οὗ πρῶτ]ον κῶμοι ἦσαν τῶ[ν ἐν ἄστει Διονυσίων οἵδε ἐνίκων].

We next have fragments of Cols. III, IV, V (971 _a_, _f_).

Col. III. Col. IV. Col. V.

B.C. 473-2 B.C. 460-59

Ξ]ενοκλείδης ἐχορήγε[ι Πανδιονὶ[ς ἀνδρῶν Μ]άγνης ἐδίδασκεν. Κλεαίνετ[ος ἐχορήγει τραγῳδῶν κωμῳδῶν Περικλῆς Χολαρ(γεὺς) Θαρ[.. ἐχορήγει ἐχορή(γει) B.C. 447-6 Αἰσχύλος ἐδίδασκεν. ............ ...... 5 [ἐπὶ Χάρητος] (B.C. 472-1) [τραγῳδῶν] ...... ............ ......... ἐχορή(γει) ...... ............ ..... ἐδίδασκεν. Βίω[ν ἐχορήγει ............ ἐπὶ Φιλ]οκλεόυς (B.C. 459-8) κωμ[ῳδῶν ............ Οἰ]νηὶς παίδων, Ἀνδ[.... ἐχορήγει 10 ............ Δημόδοκος ἐχορήγε[ι Καλ[λίας ἐδίδασκε ...... ἐχ]ορήγει Ἱπποθωντὶς ἀνδρῶν τρα[γῳδῶν ... ς ἐδίδ]ασκεν. Εὐκτήμων Ἐλευ(σίνιος) Θα[...... ἐχορήγει ἐχορή(γει) [τραγῳδῶν] κωμῳδῶν Κα[ρκίνος ἐδίδασκεν ...... ἐχ]ορήγει Εὐρυκλείδης ἐχορήγει, ὑπ[οκριτὴς .... 15 Πολυφράσμω]ν ἐδίδασ(κεν). Εὐφρόνιος ἐδίδασκε. ἐπ[ὶ Καλλιμάχου ἐπὶ Πραξιέργο]υ (B.C. 471-0) τραγῳδῶν, (B.C. 446-5) Ἱπποθωντὶς πα]ίδων Ξενοκλῆς Ἀφιδαν(ῖος) ἐχορή(γει) ..... ἐχο]ρήγει Αἰσχύλος ἐδίδασκεν. ...... ων ἐπὶ Ἅβρωνος (B.C. 458-7) 20 ... ἐχ]ορήγ[ει Ἐρεχθηὶς παίδων, [κωμῳδῶν] ... Χαρίας Ἀγρυλῆ(θεν) ἐχορή[γει ... ἐχορήγ]ει Λεωντὶς ἀνδρῶν Δεινόστρατος ἐχο[ρήγει κωμῳδῶν 25 .... ἐχ]ορήγ[ει.

The next fragment (971 _b_) belongs to the years B.C. 423-1, and to Col. VII.

[κωμῳδῶν] ...... Παια[νιεὺς ἐχορήγει. Ἕρμιππ]ος ἐδ[ίδασκε τραγῳ]δῶν ... ω]ν Παιανιε[ὺς ἐχορή]γει, Με]νεκράτης ἐδί[δασκεν ὑπ]οκριτὴς Μυνν[ίσκος. ἐ]πὶ Αλκαίου (B.C. 422-1) Ἱπποθωντὶς παίδων Ἀρίσταρχος Δεκε(λεεὺς) ἐχορή(γει) Αἰαντὶς ἀνδρῶν, Δημοσθένης ἐχορήγει. κ]ωμῳδ[ῶν ..... ἐχορ]ήγ[ει

We next come to Col. XIII (fr. 971 _g_), B.C. 348-6.

[κωμῳδῶν] ..... [ἐχορήγει Ἄ]λεξις ἐδ[ίδασκεν. τραγῳδῶν Κλ]εόμαχος Ἀχα[ρν(εὺς) ἐχορήγει, Ἀ[σ]τυδάμ[α]ς ἐδ[ίδασκεν, ὑ[πο]κριτὴς Θ[ετταλός. ἐ]πὶ Θεμιστοκλέους (B.C. 347-6) Ἐρεχθηὶς παίδων. Διονυσ ....

The position of fr. 971 _d_ is uncertain; Capps places it B.C. 344-3, Wilhelm, 336-5 B.C. It belongs in any case to the latter half of the fourth century.

Κεκροπ[ὶς παίδων Διόφαν[τος ... ἐχορήγει Κεκροπὶς [ἀνδρῶν Ὀνήτωρ [ἐχορήγει κωμῳδ[ῶν Διοπείθ[ης .... ἐχορήγει Προκλεί[δης ἐδίδασκεν τραγῳδῶν

We next have two passages at the bottom of Cols. XIII, XIV (971 _e_), the years in the former being 343-1, and in the second 331-0.

Col. XIII. Col. XIV.

......... l. 126 ......... ἐ]πὶ Ἀριστ[ο]φάνους (B.C. 331-0) ......... Οἰνηὶς παίδω[ν [τραγῳδῶν] .... τος [Ἀχ]αρν[(εὺς) ἐχορή(γει) ..... ἐ]χορή(γει) Ἱπποθωντὶς ἀνδρ[ῶν l. 130 .... ἐ]δίδ[ασ]κε ...... ος [Π]ει[ρ]αιε[ὺς ἐχορή(γει) ὑποκριτὴς Ἀ]θηνόδωρος. κωμ]ῳδ[ῶν ἐπὶ Σωσιγένους (B.C. 342-1) ............... Αἰγηὶς παίδ]ων ............... ..... Δι]ομε[εὺς ἐχορ]ή(γει) τραγ]ῳ[δῶν l. 135 Ἱπποθωντὶς] ἀνδρῶν .... ἐκ Κοί]λης ἐχορή(γει) [κωμῳδῶν] ........ ης [ἐχορήγει ............... l. 140 [τραγῳδῶν] ........ ἐχ]ορ[ήγει Ἀστυδάμας ἐδί]δ[ασκεν

Finally, from near the top of Cols. XIV, XV (971 _h_) we have fragments from 341-0 and 330-28 respectively. Col. XIV includes a fragment first printed by Wilhelm, op. cit., p. 27.

Col. XIV. Col. XV.

............ ... ς Κε[.... τρ]αγῳδῶν ἐ[χορήγ]ει Ἀρρενείδης Παιανι(εὺς) ἐχο[ρήγει Θεόφιλος ἐδίδ[ασκεν] Ἀστυδάμας ἐδίδα]σκεν τραγῳδῶν ὑποκριτὴς Θεττα]λὸς Θ]ηραμένης Κηφισι[εὺς Ἐ]πὶ Θεοφράστο[υ (B.C. 340-39) ἐχορ]ή[γει [πα]λαιὸν δρᾶμ[α ..... .... κ]λης ἐδίδασ[κεν π]αρεδίδαξα[ν οἱ] κ[ω]μ[ῳδοί ὑπο]κριτὴς Ἀ]ντιοχὶς παί[δων .... Ἀθηνόδωρος ἐπὶ Κηφισοφῶντος, (B.C. 329-8) Ἱπποθωντὶς παί[δων

II. _Record of Comic Contests at the Lenaea_ (C. I. A. ii. 972, Col. I).

The inscription of which this forms a part consists of two columns, the first containing records of comic contests, the second of tragic contests, at the Lenaea. The date of the contests recorded in the first column has been generally taken to be B.C. 354-2: but Capps (The Dating of some Didascalic Inscriptions, Amer. Journ. of Archaeology, 1900, pp. 74 ff.) has shown almost conclusively that the true date is B.C. 290-8 (it is possibly a year or two later, see Wilhelm, Urkunden dramatischer Aufführungen in Athen, p. 52, as the date of Diotimus’ archonship is not absolutely certain). This column must have contained the last records of comic contests at the Lenaea which came within the plan of this inscription, as the next column begins the records of tragic contests. It would appear, therefore, that the date of the transcribing of this series of didascaliae upon stone was in all probability circ. B.C. 287. Capps conjectures (with much reason) that C. I. A. ii. 972 formed part of one great didascalic inscription arranged in the order (1) Tragedy at the Dionysia, (2) Comedy at the Dionysia, (3) Comedy at the Lenaea, (4) Tragedy at the Lenaea. The extant fragments, therefore, mark the junction of parts (3) and (4). The original stone is now lost, and the record depends on the copies of Fourmont and Le Bas, the latter being apparently the more trustworthy.

..... τέ(ταρτος) ....]στίδι ὑπε(κρίνετο) Ἀριστόμ]αχος. .... ης πέμ(πτος) Ἀνασῳζο(μένοις), ὑπε(κρίνετο) Ἀντ]ιφάνης. ὑπο(κριτὴς) Ἱερ]ώνυμος ἐνίκα. ἐπὶ Δι]οτίμου Σιμύλος (B.C. 289-8) ... σίᾳ ὑπε(κρίνετο) Ἀριστόμαχος. Διόδωρος δεύ(τερος) Νεκρῷ ὑπε(κρίνετο) Ἀριστόμαχος. Διόδωρος τρί(τος) Μαινομένῳ ὑπε(κρίνετο) Κηφίσιος. Φο]ινικ[ίδ]ης τέ(ταρτος) Ποητεῖ ὑπε(κρίνετο) .....]ης

III. _Record of Tragic Contests at the Lenaea_ (C. I. A. ii. 972, Col. II).

The second column of the fragment to which the last quoted list belongs; Köhler has fixed the date beyond question.

Π]ειρ[ιθόῳ ..... ὑπε(κρίνετο) ..... ὑπο(κριτὴς) [.... ἐνίκα ἐπὶ [Ἀστυφίλου ....... (B.C. 420-19) Ἀγα[μέμνονι ...... ὑπ[ε(κρίνετο) ...... Ἡρα[κ ...... Θησ[εῖ, ......, ὑπ[ε(κρίνετο) ... ὑπο(κριτὴς) [..... ἐνίκα ἐπὶ Ἀρχ[ίου ...... (B.C. 419-8) Τυροῖ, Τ ........., ὑπε(κρίνετο) Λυσικράτ(ης). Καλλίστρατος ...... Ἀμφιλόχῳ, Ἰξίονι ὑπε(κρίνετο) Καλλιππί[δης ὑπ]ο(κριτὴς) Καλλιππί[δης ἐνίκα ἐπ Ἀ]ντ[ι]φ[ῶ]ντος Σ ..... (B.C. 418-7) ....... π ......

IV. _Record of Tragic Contests at the City Dionysia_ (C. I. A. ii. 973).

παλαιᾷ.] Νε[οπτόλεμος Ἰφιγε]νείᾳ Εὐ[ριπί]δο[υ ποη(ταί)·] Ἀστυδάμας Ἀχι]λλεῖ, ὑπε(κρίνετο) Θετταλός, Ἀθάμαντι, ὑπε(κρίνετο) Νεοπτόλ[εμος, Ἀν]τιγόνῃ, ὑπε(κρίνετο) Ἀθηνόδω[ρος. Εὐ]άρετος [δεύ(τερος)] Τεύκρῳ, ὑπ]ε(κρίνετο) Ἀθηνόδωρος· Ἀχι]λ[λ]εῖ, [ὑπε(κρίνετο)] Θετταλός· ..... εῖ], ὑ[πε(κρίνετο) Νε]οπτόλεμος· ...... τ]ρί(τος) [Π]ελιάσιν, ὑπε(κρίνετο) Νεοπτ]όλεμος· Ὀρέστη[ι, ὑπε(κρίνετο) Ἀθη]ν[όδωρος· Αὔ[γῃ] ὑπε(κρίνετο) Θεττ[αλό]ς· ὑπο(κριτὴς) Νεοπτόλεμος ἐνίκ[α. ἐπὶ Νικομάχου· σατυρι(κῷ)· (B.C. 341-0) Τιμοκλῆς Λυκούργῳ· παλαιᾷ· Νεοπτόλεμ[ος Ὀρέστῃ Εὐριπίδου· π]οη(ταί)· Ἀστυδάμας Παρθενοπαίῳ, ὑπε(κρίνετο) Θετ[ταλός· Λυκά]ονι, ὑπε(κρίνετο) Νεοπτόλε[μος ...... οκλῆς δεύ(τερος) Φρίξῳ, ὑπε(κρίνετο)] Θετταλός· Οἰδί]ποδι, ὑπε(κρίνετο) Νεοπτόλ[εμος· ὑπο(κριτὴς) Θε]τταλὸς ἐνίκα. ἐπὶ Θεο]φράστου· σατυ[ρι(κῷ)· (B.C. 340-39) ..... Φορκίσ[ι. παλαιᾷ .... ό]στρ[ατος ....... Εὐ]ριπί[δου.

V. _Record of Comic Contests_ (festival uncertain).

This inscription (which he numbers 974 _c_) was found in 1901, and is published (with restorations) by Wilhelm, op. cit., pp. 43 ff.; it is a record of the years B.C. 313-11. Col. I only is printed below; the second column being too fragmentary.

ὑπε(κρίνετο) Ἀσκληπιόδ]ωρο[ς Μένανδρος] πέμ(πτος) Ἡνιόχῳ ὑπε(κρίνετο) Κάλ]λιππος πρεσβύτ(ερος) ὑπο(κριτὴς) Κάλλι]ππος νεώ(τερος) ἐνίκ[α ἐπὶ Πολέμ]ωνος παλαιᾷ (B.C. 312-11) ....... Θ]ησαυρῷ Ἀναξαν(δρίδου) ποη(τὴς) Φιλιπ]πίδης Μύστιδι ὑπε(κρίνετο) Ἀσκ]ληπιόδωρος Νικόστ]ρατος δεύ(τερος) .....]οσκόπῳ ὑπε(κρίνετο) Κ]άλλιππος νεώτε(ρος) Ἀμεινί]ας τρί(τος) Ἀπολειπούσει οὗτος ἔ]φηβος ὢν ἐνεμήθη ὑπε(κρίνετο) Ἀσκ]ληπιόδωρος Θεόφιλο]ς (?) τέταρτος Παγκρατιασ(τῇ) ὑπε(κρίνετο) ... ιπ]πος ........ πέμ(πτος) Π]αιδίῳ [ὑπε(κρίνετο) ....] ὑπο(κριτὴς) Ἀσκληπιόδωρο]ς ἐνίκ[α.

VI. _Record of Comic Contests at the City Dionysia_ (C. I. A. ii. 975).

The inscription consists of a number of fragments. The date of those numbered _a-e_ is tolerably certain; they range from about B.C. 190-160. The others, _f-i_, have been dated by Capps from about B.C. 308-260; but these dates and the restorations suggested by him are disputed by Wilhelm, who places the date of _f_, with a good deal of reason, only shortly before that of _a_, and also dates _g-i_ (not included in the present selection) much later. The first part of fragment _f_ is as follows:—

..... Ἐρχιεῦσιν ὑπε(κρίνετο) ...]μος (Ἱερώνυμος Capps, Νικόδημος Wilhelm.) ἐπὶ ......] οὐκ ἐγένετο ...... π]αλαιᾷ .......] Φωκεῦσι Φιλή(μονος) ποη(ταὶ) ...] κράτης Ἀπε (Κράτης Ἀπελεύθεροις Capps, ..... ὑ]πε(κρίνετο) Νικόδημος Ἀριστοκράτης Ἀπε- Wilhelm.) ...... Ἀ]νεψιοῖς.

Fragments _a-e_ are arranged as forming an inscription in five columns by Köhler (C. I. A.) as follows:—

Col. I. Col. II. Col. III. Col. IV. Col. V. 1st col. of _a_ 2nd col. of _a_ — — — 1st col. of _b_ 2nd col. of _b_ _c_ _d_ 1st col. of _e_ 2nd col. of _e_

Wilhelm arranges them as follows, op. cit., pp. 68 ff.:—

Col. I. Col. II. Col. III. Col. IV. 1st col. of _a_ 2nd col. of _a_ — — 1st col. of _b_ 2nd col. of _b_ _c_ _d_ 1st col. of _e_ 2nd col. of _e_ —

It is impossible at present to decide with certainty between the two arrangements. The former is here followed, but indications of Wilhelm’s arrangement are also given.

Col. I is too fragmentary to be intelligible. (It includes the 1st col. of a.)

Col. II (the 2nd col. of _a_).

Τιμ]όσ[τρατος] Λυτ[ρουμένῳ ὑπε(κρίνετο) Διογείτων· ὑπο(κριτὴς) Κράτης ἐνίκα ἐπὶ Συμμάχου οὐκ ἐγ[ένετο (B.C. 188-7) ἐπὶ Θεοξένου οὐκ [ἐγένετο (B.C. 187-6) ἐπὶ Ζωπύρου· [παλαιᾷ· (B.C. 186-5) Ἐράτων Με[γαρικῇ Σιμύλου (?) ποη(ταὶ) Λαίν[ης ... ὑπε(κρίνετο) .....

Then after an interval the 1st col. of _b_ (Wilhelm makes this a continuation of Col. I of _a_, and accordingly dates it _before_ the portion just given).

...... Ἐφήβοις ὑπε(κρίνετο) .....] ὑπο(κριτὴς) ..... ἐ]νίκα ἐπὶ ...... οὐ]κ ἐγένετο ἐπὶ ...... ο]υ· παλαιᾷ· ...... Μισογ]ύνει Μενάνδρου· ποη(ταὶ) ....]νης Ἀδελφαῖς ὑπε(κρίνετο) ....]ς ........ Δακτυλίῳ ὑπε(κρίνετο) .....]ων ..... Φιλ]αθην[αίῳ.

Col. III (2nd col. of _b_; according to Wilhelm, a continuation of Col. II, i.e. of the 2nd col. of _a_).

ποη(ταὶ) Κρίτων Ἐφεσίοις, ὑ]πε(κρίνετο) Σώφιλος· Παράμονος Ναυαγῷ, ὑπε(κρίνετο) Ὀνήσιμος Τιμόστρατος Φιλοικείῳ, ὑπε(κρίνετο) Καλλίστρατος· Σωγένης Φιλοδεσπότῳ, ὑπε(κρίνετο) Ἑκαταῖος· Φιλήμων νεώ(τερος) Μιλησίᾳ, ὑπε(κρίνετο) Κράτης. ὑπο(κριτὴς) Ὀνήσιμος ἐνίκ[α· ἐπὶ Ἑρμογένου οὐκ [ἐγέ]νετο. (B.C. 183-2) ἐπὶ Τιμησιάν[ακτος· π]αλαιᾷ· (B.C. 182-1) Φιλόστρατο[ς Ἀποκλε]ιομένει Ποσει(δίππου)· ποη(ταὶ) [Ἀρχικλῆς (?) Ναυ]κλῆρῳ, ὑπε(κρίνετο) ...... ........ σ]ιν [ὑπε(κρίνετο) .....] ...... Διαδικ]αζομένοις, [ὑπε(κρίνετο) ......] ...... μ]ένοις [ὑπε(κρίνετο) ......] ........ υ]μένῳ

Then an interval in which only a few letters are legible, the 1st col. of fragment _e_.

...... εὐ]εργετοῦντι [ὑπε(κρίνετο) ......] ....... ἐξ]απατῶντι, [ὑπε(κρίνετο) ......] ... ω]ν Συντ .... ὑπε(κρίνετο) .....]ης ..... Συναγωνι ... ὑπε(κρίνετο) ...]ίδης. ὑπο(κριτὴς) ... ξέ]νος ἐνί[κα ἐπὶ ... παλαι]ᾷ Προ ...

Col. IV (according to Wilhelm, Col. III), fragment _c_.

..... Μονοτ]ρόπῳ ............. ποη(ταὶ) .... Ἀν]ασῳζομέ- [νοις, ὑπε(κρίνετο) ...] ...... υμένῳ ὑπε(κρίνετο) ....]ος ...... Ἀγνοοῦντι, ὑπε(κρίνετο) Κριτόδ]ημος ...... Νε]μέσει, ὑπε(κρίνετο) Σώ]νικος· Παρά]μονος Χορηγοῦντι, ὑπε(κρίνετο)] Μόνιμος ὑπ]ο(κριτὴς) Κριτόδημος ἐνίκα. ἐ]πὶ Εὐνίκου οὐκ ἐγένε[το. (B.C. 169-8) ἐπὶ Ξενοκλέους· παλαι[ᾷ· (B.C. 168-7) Μόνιμος Φάσματι Μεν[άνδρου. ποη(ταί)· Παράμονος τεθνηκὼς ..... ις ὑπε(κρίνετο) Δάμων· Κρίτων Αἰτωλῷ, ὑπε(κρίνετο) Μόνιμος· Βίοττος Ποητεῖ, ὑπε(κρίνετο) Δάμων· Λάμπυτος .... ὑπε(κρίνετο) Κα[βείριχος (?) Ἐπικ[ράτης .....

Then after an interval 2nd col. of _e_.

ἐπὶ] Εὐερ[γ ..... οὐκ ἐγένετο (B.C. 164-3) ἐ]πὶ Ἐράστο[υ οὐκ ἐγένετο (B.C. 163-2) ἐπὶ Ποσει[δωνίου οὐκ ἐγένετο. (B.C. 162-1) ......... ἐπὶ Ἀρισ[τόλα· παλαιᾷ (B.C. 161-0) Ἡρακ[λε .... πο[η(ταί) .....

Col. V (according to Wilhelm, Col. IV), fragment _d_.

ὑπε(κρίνετο) Καβεί]ριχος· Ἐπ]ιγέ[ν]ης Λυτρουμένῳ ὑπε(κρίνετο) Καβείριχος· ὑπο(κριτὴς) Νικόλαος ἐνίκα· ἐπὶ Ἀνθεστηρίου οὐκ ἐγένε[το. (soon after B.C. 160) ἐπὶ Καλλιστράτου οὐκ ἐγένε[το. ἐπὶ Μνησιθέου· παλαιᾷ· Δάμων Φιλαθηναίῳ Φιλιππ[ίδου· πο(ηταί)· Φιλοκλῆς Τραυματίᾳ, ὑπε(κρίνετο) Καλλικράτης· Χαιρίων Αὑτοῦ καταψευδομέ[νῳ. ὑπε(κρίνετο) Δάμων· Βίοττος Ἀγνοοῦντι, ὑπε(κρίνετο) Δάμων· Τιμόξενος Συνκρύπτον[τι, ὑπε(κρίνετο) Καλλικράτης· Ἀγαθοκλῆς Ὁμονοίᾳ, ὑπεκρίνετο Νικόλ[αος.

VII. _Lists of tragic and comic poets and actors, and the number of their victories_ (C. I. A. ii. 977, iv. 977).

This inscription was no doubt based on the Νῖκαι τραγικαὶ καὶ κωμικαί of Aristotle, and afterwards carried on by additions into the second century B.C.; the order of the names is that of the first victory of each poet or actor at the contest in question, and each column of the inscription contained seventeen names. There are over thirty fragments, and it is not always possible to say whether the lists given in them refer to the Lenaea or the City Dionysia. The following selection of the fragments is based on Capps’s paper on this inscription in the Amer. Journal of Philology, xx. pp. 388 ff.: and on the fuller study by Wilhelm, op. cit., pp. 89 ff.

1. Tragic poets.

(_a_) At the City Dionysia.

Fragment _a_.

Αἰ]σχύλ[ος .. Εὐ]έτης Ι Πο]λυφράσμ[ων ... Νόθ]ιππος Ι Σοφ]οκλῆς ΔΠΙΙΙ ..... τος ΙΙ Ἀριστ]ίας

Fragment _b_.

..... ας .. Καρκί]νος ΔΙ Ἀστ]υδάμας Π[ΙΙ]Ι Θεο]δέκτας ΠΙΙ Ἀφαρ]εὺς ΙΙ .... ν . Ι .... ΙΙ

(_b_) Festival uncertain.

Fragment _c_.

...... ας Ι .... δης Ι ..... ράτης Ι Ἀστυδ]άμας .. .... ΙΙ

2. Comic poets.

(_a_) At the City Dionysia.

Fragments _i_ and _k_, together with two fragments first published by Wilhelm, l.c., p. 106, and arranged by him in three columns as follows:—

[ἀστικαὶ ποητῶν] Τηλεκλεί]δης ΙΙΙ Νικοφῶ[ν ... [κωμικῶν] .......] ς Ι Θεόπομπ[ος [Χιωνίδης ...] — Κη]φισό[δοτος — — ...] ι [... — Φερ[εκράτης .. — ]ς Ι Ἕρμ[ιππος .. — Ἀρι[στομένης .. Μάγνη]ς ΔΙ Εὔ[πολις ... ...... ο]ς Ι Κα[λλίστρατος .. Ἀλκιμέ]νη[ς] Ι Φρύ[νιχος .. .....]ς Ι Ἀμ[ειψίας .. Εὐφρόν]ιος Ι Πλά[των ... Ἐκφαν]τίδης ΙΙΙΙ Φιλ[ωνίδης .. Κρατῖ]νος ΠΙ Λύκ[ις Διοπ]είθης ΙΙ Λεύ[κων Κρά]της ΙΙΙ Καλλία]ς ΙΙ

The following new fragment is published by Wilhelm, p. 118.

Πο]σείδιππος ΙΙΙΙ .... Σατυρίων Ι Νίκαρχος Ι Πο ... Ἀ]πολλόδωρος ΙΙ Νικόμαχος Ι Ὀ ... Φιλ]ήμων ΠΙ Ἀριστοκράτης Ι ... Δαμ]όξενος Ι Λαίνης ΙΙΙ Φοινικ]ίδης ΙΙ Φιλήμω[ν

(_b_) At the Lenaea.

This list at present consists of fragments _d-h_, which have been arranged in four columns; one column must have preceded them in the original, and over the head of the lost column and the present first column the title of the list ran, of which only one or two traces remain. It probably (according to Capps) read thus:—οἵδε ἐνίκων τὰ Λήναια ποητῶν κωμικῶν (or τῶν κωμικῶν). The extant portions run as follows (including conjectural restorations; cf. Wilhelm, op. cit., p. 123). See addendum to p. 27, n. 1. According to Wilhelm the heading was Ληναικαὶ ποητῶν κωμικῶν.

I. II. III. IV.

Τὰ Λῆναι]α πο[ητῶν Πο ..... Ι Φίλιπ[πος ..] ΙΙ Θ .... κωμι]κῶν Με[ταγέ]νης ΙΙ Χορη[γός .. Δι .... ος Ι Ξ]ενόφιλος Ι Θεό[πομπ]ος ΙΙ Ἀναξα[νδρί]δης ΙΙΙ. Κλέα[ρχ]ος .. Τ]ηλεκλείδης Π Πολ[ύζηλο]ς ΙΙΙΙ Φιλέτα[ιρο]ς ΙΙ Ἀθηνοκλῆς .. 5 Ἀριστομένης ΙΙ Νικοφ[ῶν .. Εὔβουλος ΙΙΙ Πῦρ[ων] Ι Κρατῖνος ΙΙΙ Ἀπολ[λοφάν]ης Ι Ἔφιππος Ι Ἀλκ[ήν]ωρ Ι Φερεκράτης ΙΙ Ἀμ[ειψίας Ἀ]ντιφάνη[ς ΠΙΙΙ Τιμοκλῆς Ι Ἕρμιππος ΙΙΙΙ Νι[κοχάρης .. Μ]νησίμα[χος] Ι. ΙΙ Προκλείδης Ι Φρύνιχος ΙΙ Ξεν[οφ]ῶν Ι Ναυσ[ικράτ]ης ΙΙΙ. Μ[έν]ανδρος Ι.. 10 Μυρτίλος Ι Φιλύλλιος Ι Ευφάνη[ς .. Φ[ιλ]ήμων ΙΙΙ. Εὔ]πολις ΙΙΙ Φιλόνικος Ι Ἄλεξις ΙΙ ... Ἀπολλόδωρο[ς.. ..... ς Ι Ἀρ]ιστο[φῶν .. Δίφιλος ΙΙΙ. ..... Φιλιππίδης ΙΙ ..... Νικόστρατος.. ..... Καλλιάδης Ι ..... Ἀμειν[ία]ς Ι Κηφισόδω]ρος Ι. ..... (Διονυσόδωρος or Ἀσκληπιόδωρος, Wilhelm).

3. Tragic actors.

(_a_) At the City Dionysia.

Fragment _e′_.

ὑποκριτῶν τ[ραγικῶν ...... Ἡρακλεί[δης .. ...... Νικόμαχο[ς .. ...... Μυ[ν]νίσκος .. Ν ...... Σαώνδας ... Θε ...... Ανδ[ρων ΙΙ Α]σ ... Χ]αι[ρ]έ[σ]τρατος Ι. Ἀθην[όδωρος Μενεκ]ράτης .. Ἀρι[στόδημος .. Λεπ]τίν[ης ...

(_b_) At the Lenaea.

Fragments _o_, _z_, _x_ and _b′_, and two fragments published by Wilhelm, who puts all together as follows, op. cit., p. 144.

ὑποκριτῶν τραγικῶν Χαρίδημος .. . . . . . . . . . . Χαιρέσ[τ]ρατος Ι Φίλιππος ... . . . . . Ε[ Με]ν[εκρά]της Ι Φύτιος ΙΙ ..... μ]ος ΙΙ Βάκχ[... Λεπτίν]ης ΙΙΙ Εὐπόλεμο[ς .....]ς ΙΙ Στεμφ[ύλιος . . . . . Θρασύβο[υλος] Ι Ἐ[......]ς Ι Ξένων Ι Μυννίσκ]ος ΙΙ Ἀριστόδ[ημος] ΙΙ Ἀρ[ιστοφ]ῶν Ι Χαρίας [ Ἡρακλεί]δης Π Μίρων ΙΙ Πο ..... Ἀντιμέ[νης Νικόστρα]τος ΙΙΙ Κλ]εο[δάμα]ς Ι Ν ...... Τεισίλα[ς Θεόδωρος ΙΙΙ Ἀρχίας ... Γο[ργ ... Ἵππαρχος ΠΙ Πραξία[ς .. Νίκων ΙΙ .. Ἀμεινίας Ι Ἱερομν[ήμων] ΙΙΙ Ἀριστόνι[κος Ἀν]δροσθένης Ι Φιλ[... Πύρριχος [.. Νεο]πτόλεμος Ι Νικ[... Ἀγήτωρ Θεττα]λός ΙΙ Ἀρι[... Θηραμέν[ης .....]ς ΙΙ . . . . . Κλεῖτος Ἀριστ]ίων Ι ..... άδ]ης Ι

Fragment _l_ (previously assigned to the list of poets; but see Wilhelm, op. cit., pp. 161, 253, who dates the fragment before B.C. 375).

Σάτ]υρος ΠΙ Φι]λήμων ΙΙ Κα]λλίστρατ[ος ..

4. Comic actors.

Fragments _u_, _v_ (probably Lenaean, of the third century B.C.).

Ἀρισταγόρας Ι Πολυ[κλῆς .. Κάλλιππος ΙΙΙΙ Λυκίσ[κος Ἀ]σκληπιόδωρος Π Σωσικλ[ῆς. Π]ολύευκτος Ι Πολύζηλ[ος Π]υρραλεύς Ι Πυθάρατος Ι Μ]οσχίων ΙΙ Καλλίας ΙΙΙ ..μ...ν ΙΙ Μενεκ[λῆ]ς Ι Ἱ]ερώνυμος ΙΙΙΙ Δ[ημήτρ]ιος ΙΙ Ἀ]ριστόμαχος ΙΙΙ Πιτθεύς Ι Δέ]ρκετος Ι .. Ἡρακλείδης Ι[Ι.] . . . . . . . . . Φιλοκ[λῆς ... ρος ΙΙ Ἀριστοκράτης Ι . . . . Ἐμμενίδης Ι .... ΙΙ Αὐτόλυκος Ι Δ[ημο]κράτης Ι Φιλωνίδης Ι Φιλ[ο]στέφανος Ι Σωκράτης Ι Ἑρμόφαντος Ι

There are a good many other fragments, containing in some cases (fragments _f′_, _w_, _p_, and possibly _d′_, _g′_) the names of comic actors, while in other cases the nature of the list and its place in the inscription is uncertain: but the above will serve as specimens.

VIII. The following inscriptions are also of interest:—

1. C. I. A. ii. 1289. (Wilhelm, op. cit., p. 209; Capps, Am. Journ. Arch. iv. p. 76.)

Ὁ δῆμος ἐ[χορήγει ἐπὶ Ἀναξι]κράτους ἄρχοντος· (B.C. 307-6) ἀγωνοθέ[της Ξενοκλῆς Ξ]είνιδος Σφήττιος· ποιητὴς τραγῳδοῖς ἐνίκα [Φανόστρατος] Ἡρακλείδου Ἁλικαρνασσεύς, ὑποκριτὴς τραγῳδοῖς ἐνίκ[α .......]ν Εὐανορίδου Κυδαθηναιεύς, ποιητὴς κωμῳδοῖς ἐνί[κα Φιλήμω]ν Δάμωνος Διομειεύς, ὑποκριτὴς κ[ωμῳδοῖς ἐνίκα Κάλλιπ]πος Καλλίου Σουνιεύς.

2. Fragments (found in Rome) of a list of comic poets with their victories at each festival arranged according to the places they won (see Wilhelm, pp. 195 ff.).

(_a_) I. G. xiv. 1097.

ἐ]πὶ Ἀντιοχίδου Κύ[κλωψιν (?) ἐπὶ (B.C. 434) ......]ς κωμῳδίᾳ. δʹ ἐν ἄ[στει ἐπὶ ...... κω]μῳδίᾳ· ἐπὶ Τιμοκλέ[ους ... (B.C. 440) .....] ἐπὶ Θεοδώρου Σατύροις [ἐπὶ .... (B.C. 437) ..... Ὑπ]έροις σιδηροῖς· ἐπὶ Πυ[θοδώρου ... (B.C. 431) ....]οις. εʹ ἐπὶ Ἀντιοχίδου [.... (B.C. 434) Λ]ύσιππος ἐνίκα μὲν [ἐν ἄστει ἐπὶ Γλαυκίπ]που } _or_ Θεοπόμ]που } Καταχήναις [ἐπὶ .... (B.C. 409 or 410) .....]αις· αὗται μόναι σῶ[αι· .... ἐ]πὶ Διοφάντου Διονυ[σ ..... (B.C. 394) γʹ ἐν ἄσ]τει ἐπὶ Νικοτέλους (B.C. 390) δʹ ἐν ἄστ]ε[ι] ἐπὶ Λυσιμάχου [...... (B.C. 435) εʹ ἐν ἄστε]ι ἐπὶ Μορυχίδου [.... ἐπὶ (B.C. 439) ....... ο]υς Κολεοφόροις

(_b_) All but the last two lines probably refer to the comic poet Anaxandrides, as the plays named show. I. G. xiv. 1098.

..... ἐπὶ Χιώνος Μαι[νομένῳ (?) (B.C. 364) ἐπὶ Μόλωνος] Διονύσου γονα[ῖς, ἐπὶ (B.C. 361) Νικοφήμου] Ἀμπρακιώτιδι· γʹ ἐν [ἄστει (B.C. 360) ἐπὶ Φανο]στράτου Ἐρεχθεῖ, ἐ[πὶ .... (B.C. 382) ......]λεῖ, ἐπὶ Χαρισάνδρ[ου (B.C. 375) .... ἐπὶ ἱπ]ποδάμαντος Ἰοῖ· ἐ[πὶ Φρασι- (B.C. 374, 370) κλείδου] Ὀδυσσεῖ· ἐπὶ Κηφισοδ[ώρου (B.C. 365) .....] ἐπὶ Ἀπολλοδώρου Ἀγ[ροίκοις (?) (B.C. 349) ......]ξίππου· Λήναια ἐπ[ὶ ..... π]οιῷ, ἐπὶ Ναυσιγένους [.... (B.C. 367) ...... δʹ ἐ]ν ἄστει· ἐπὶ Χίωνος [ (B.C. 364) ... εʹ ἐν ἄστ]ει ἐπὶ Ἀγαθοκλέ[ους (B.C. 356) ........ ἐ]πὶ Θουδήμου Ἀ[.... (B.C. 352) ]ου Ἀντέρωτι [...... ...... ἐ]νίκα Λήναι[α .... .... βʹ ἦν] ἐν ἄστ[ει ...

APPENDIX C

THE ORIGINAL PLACE OF THE LENAEA

The question where the Lenaean contests took place before the building of the great theatre of Dionysus has been unfortunately complicated with other problems, of which no final solution can be given. For it has been customary to assume that the Lenaeum was identical with the temple of Dionysus ἐν Λίμναις, or at least that the latter was included in the Lenaeum; and thus all the disputes respecting the site of the temple ἐν Λίμναις have been regarded as applying also to the site of the Lenaeum. Hence the discussion of the evidence for the site of the Lenaeum is more difficult than it need be.

I. It is to be noticed in the first place, as Miss Harrison points out (Primitive Athens, pp. 96-7), that, on the one hand, none of those writers who themselves saw the temple ἐν Λίμναις (and indeed hardly any writers, the possible exceptions being considered below) speak of it as the Lenaeum or in connexion with the Lenaeum; while on the other hand, contemporary (and nearly all later) mentions of the dramatic contest at the Lenaea fail to connect it with the Λίμναι. And it is obvious that, as the precinct ἐν Λίμναις was only open once a year, on the 12th of Anthesterion (pseudo-Dem. in Neaer. § 76, see below), the Lenaeum cannot (any more than the temple or precinct of Dionysus Eleuthereus) have been absolutely identical with it, though the possibility is not thereby excluded that the Lenaeum may have been a larger precinct in a part of which the temple ἐν Λίμναις stood.

The passages referring to the ἐν Λίμναις, without reference to the Lenaeum, are Thuc. ii. 15; Aristoph. Ran. 211 sqq.; pseudo-Dem. in Neaer. § 76; and Phanodemus ap. Athen. xi. p. 465 a: there can also be little doubt that Paus. i. 20. 3 refers to the temple ἐν Λίμναις, though he does not name it. I make only such comments on these passages as are necessary for showing that they afford no ground for the identification of the Lenaeum and the ἐν Λίμναις.

(A) Thuc. ii. 15: τὸ δὲ πρὸ τούτου ἡ ἀκρόπολις ἡ νῦν οὖσα πόλις ἦν καὶ τὸ ὑπ’ αὐτὴν πρὸς νότον μάλιστα τετραμμένον· τεκμήριον δέ· τὰ γὰρ ἱερὰ ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ἀκροπόλει καὶ ἄλλων θεῶν ἐστί, καὶ τὰ ἔξω πρὸς τοῦτο τὸ μέρος τῆς πόλεως μᾶλλον ἵδρυται, τό τε τοῦ Διὸς τοῦ Ὀλυμπίου καὶ τὸ Πύθιον καὶ τὸ τῆς Γῆς καὶ τὸ ἐν Λίμναις Διονύσου, ᾧ τὰ ἀρχαιότερα Διονύσια τῇ δωδεκάτῃ ποιεῖται ἐν μηνὶ Ἀνθεστηριῶνι.

This passage can only be used to prove the ἐν Λίμναις identical with the Lenaeum (or closely connected) if we can identify the ἀρχαιότερα Διονύσια with the Lenaean festival or part of it. Gilbert, Dörpfeld, and others have attempted to do this. (It should be noted that, in the case of Dörpfeld and his followers, this attempt is secondary to an attempt to fix the temple ἐν Λίμναις at a particular spot, where he has discovered the remains of a precinct of Dionysus, containing a wine-press, ληνός.) They argue that the use of the comparative ἀρχαιότερα by Thucydides implies that he knew only of _two_ Dionysia, one the older, the other the later. The later must obviously be the Great or City Dionysia; and therefore the earlier, it is argued, must be the Anthesteria, Lenaea and Rural Dionysia, all regarded as one and the same festival; the place of the Anthesteria must therefore be the place of the Lenaea; and as a comparison of Thucydides with the pseudo-Dem. in Neaeram (below) proves that the place of at least one part of the Anthesteria—that which was celebrated on the 12th Anthesterion—was the ἐν Λίμναις, it follows that the Lenaea must also have taken place ἐν Λίμναις, not of course in the actual sanctuary of Dionysus, but close to it.

Now it can be shown (1) that the stress laid on the comparative is unwarranted, (2) that there are other grounds for refusing to identify the Anthesteria and the Lenaea.

(1) There are other passages in classical Greek literature in which the comparative of words denoting age, &c., is used of the oldest, not of two, but of several. Nilsson (Studia de Dionysiis Atticis, p. 54) collects the following, in addition to Homeric instances noted by Kühner-Gerth (Griech. Gramm. § 349, p. 3).

Lys. x. 5: ὁ γὰρ πρεσβύτερος ἀδελφὸς Πανταλέων ἅπαντα παρέλαβε καὶ ἐπιτροπεύσας ἡμᾶς τῶν πατρῴων ἀπεστέρησεν.

Lys. xiii. 67: ἦσαν τοίνυν οὗτοι, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, τέτταρες ἀδελφοί. τούτων εἷς μὲν ὁ πρεσβύτερος κτλ.

Xen. Cyr. v. 1. 6: ὡς δ’ ἡμῶν ὁ γεραίτερος εἶπε (where the context shows that a good many people were concerned. The reading γεραίτερος is far better supported than γεραίτατος).

Theocr. xv. 139: οὔθ’ Ἕκτωρ, Ἑκάβας ὁ γεραίτερος εἴκατι παίδων.

Other instances could probably be found, in spite of the tendency of grammarians and editors to force these cases into the supposed orthodox form, by emending the comparative to the superlative (as e.g. they have done in Aelian, Var. H. ii. 41).

All that the comparative really implies is that one individual case is separated off from the rest, and the rest treated as a single combined group. On this view the ἀρχαιότερα Διονύσια will be the older ceremony, the Anthesteria, as contrasted with the group well known to be recent, viz. the great popular festivals, the City Dionysia and the Lenaea. If πρεσβύτερος and γεραίτερος can be used of one brother as opposed to the rest, why not ἀρχαιότερα of one festival as opposed to the rest, these latter being grouped together in thought as recent in comparison with the one?

There is, further, a note by Prof. Capps in the Trans. Amer. Philol. Assoc. vol. xxxii, summarizing a paper in which he claims to distinguish the meaning of ἀρχαιότερα from that of παλαιότερα, to show that previous critics of Thucydides have confused them, and that on the true view of ἀρχαιότερα the view of Gilbert, Dörpfeld, &c., is impossible. But the paper has not been published as a whole.

(2) The Lenaea was celebrated in the month Gamelion, which in other places was called Lenaeon; the Anthesteria in Anthesterion. Gilbert’s attempt to prove that the names of the months were changed and the festivals transferred from one month to another breaks down entirely (Nilsson, l.c., pp. 1-37, disproves it completely), nor would the attempt have been made but for the necessity of providing some such explanation, if the two festivals were to be identified. The separation in time of the festivals is sufficient to disprove their identity.

Again, in C. I. A. ii. 834 b (pp. 516 ff.) we have the accounts of certain officials called ἐπιστάται Ἐλευσινόθεν καὶ ταμίαι τοῖν θεοῖν in the year B.C. 329-8. Col. II, containing the accounts ἐπὶ τῆς Πανδιονίδος ἕκτης πρυτανείας, includes in l. 46 ἐπιστάταις Ἐπιλήναια εἰς Διονύσια θῦσαι ΔΔ∸, and in l. 68 εἰς Χόας δημοσίοις ἱερεῖον ΔΔ𐅂𐅂𐅂. This proves that the Epilenaea (the same form occurs in Ath. Pol. ch. lvii, though it is altered by editors, and probably also in C. I. A. ii. 741) was a distinct festival from the Anthesteria, of which the Choes formed a part. (This was shown by Körte, Rhein. Mus. lii. pp. 168 ff., and Wachsmuth, Abh. der Sächs. Ges. der Wiss. xviii. pp. 40 ff.) A later inscription, C. I. A. iii. 1160, date c. B.C. 193-2, separates equally clearly the Lenaea from the Χύτροι (vide Nilsson, l.c., pp. 42-4): and Nilsson gives other passages quite as conclusive (l.c., p. 143), of which one is worth quoting, a gloss found in Photius, Suidas, &c., s.v. τὰ ἐκ τῶν ἁμαξῶν σκώμματα· ἐπὶ τῶν ἀπαρακαλύπτως σκωπτόντων. Ἀθήνησι γὰρ ἐν τῇ τῶν Χοῶν ἑορτῇ οἱ κωμάζοντες ἐπὶ τῶν ἁμαξῶν τοὺς ἀπαντῶντας ἔσκωπτόν τε καὶ ἐλοιδόρουν. τὸ δ’ αὐτὸ καὶ τοῖς Ληναίοις ὕστερον ἐποίουν.

It follows, therefore, that the Anthesteria, the ἀρχαιότερα Διονύσια of Thucydides, cannot be identified with the Lenaea, and that whatever may be proved from Thucydides as to the site of the temple ἐν Λίμναις, in which the former were partly celebrated, nothing follows in reference to the Lenaeum.

(B) Aristoph. Ran. 211 sqq.:

λιμναῖα κρηνῶν τέκνα, ξύναυλον ὕμνων βοὰν φθεγξώμεθ’, εὔγηρυν ἐμὰν ἀοιδάν, κοὰξ κοάξ, ἣν ἀμφὶ Νυσήιον Διὸς Διόνυσον ἐν Λίμναισιν ἰαχήσαμεν, ἡνίχ’ ὁ κραιπαλόκωμος τοῖς ἱεροῖσι Χύτροισι χωρεῖ κατ’ ἐμὸν τέμενος λαῶν ὄχλος.

The fact that the play was produced at the Lenaea (B.C. 405) cannot possibly be used to prove that the Lenaea and the Chutroi, at which the ‘Frogs’ profess to have raised their hymn to Dionysus (in the _past_, it is to be noticed), were the same festival.

(C) Pseudo-Dem. in Neaer. §§ 73 sqq.: καὶ αὕτη ἡ γυνὴ ὑμῖν ἔθυε τὰ ἄρρητα ἱερὰ ὑπὲρ τῆς πόλεως, καὶ εἶδεν ἃ οὐ προσῆκεν αὐτὴν ὁρᾶν ξένην οὖσαν, καὶ τοιαύτη οὖσα εἰσῆλθεν οἷ οὐδεὶς ἄλλος Ἀθηναίων τοσούτων ὄντων εἰσέρχεται ἀλλ’ ἢ ἡ τοῦ βασιλέως γυνή, ἐξώρκωσέ τε τὰς γεραρὰς τὰς ὑπηρετούσας τοῖς ἱεροῖς, ἐξεδόθη δὲ τῷ Διονύσῳ γυνή.... § 76: καὶ τοῦτον τὸν νόμον γράψαντες ἐν στήλῃ λιθίνῃ ἔστησαν ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ τοῦ Διονύσου παρὰ τὸν βωμὸν ἐν Λίμναις (καὶ αὕτη ἡ στήλη ἔτι καὶ νῦν ἕστηκεν, ἀμυδροῖς γράμμασιν Ἀττικοῖς δηλοῦσα τὰ γεγραμμένα).... καὶ διὰ ταῦτα ἐν τῷ ἀρχαιοτάτῳ ἱερῷ τοῦ Διονύσου καὶ ἁγιωτάτῳ ἐν Λίμναις ἔστησαν, ἵνα μὴ πολλοὶ εἰδῶσι τὰ γεγραμμένα· ἅπαξ γὰρ τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ ἑκάστου ἀνοίγεται, τῇ δωδεκάτῃ τοῦ Ἀνθεστηριῶνος μηνός.... § 78: =ὅρκος γεραρῶν.= ἁγιστεύω καὶ εἰμὶ καθαρὰ καὶ ἁγνὴ ἀπό τε τῶν ἄλλων τῶν οὐ καθαρευόντων καὶ ἀπ’ ἀνδρὸς συνουσίας, καὶ τὰ Θεοίνια καὶ τὰ Ἰοβάκχεια γεραίρω τῷ Διονύσῳ κατὰ τὰ πάτρια καὶ ἐν τοῖς καθήκουσι χρόνοις.

Here there is no hint of the Lenaeum or Lenaea at all.

(D) Paus. i. 20. 3: τοῦ Διονύσου δέ ἐστι πρὸς τῷ θεάτρῳ τὸ ἀρχαιότατον ἱερόν· δύο δέ εἰσιν ἐντὸς τοῦ περιβόλου ναοὶ καὶ Διόνυσοι, ὅ τε Ἐλευθερεὺς καὶ ὃν Ἀλκαμένης ἐποίησεν ἐλέφαντος καὶ χρυσοῦ.

(E) Athen. xi. p. 465 a: Φανόδημος δὲ πρὸς τῷ ἱερῷ φησι τοῦ ἐν Λίμναις Διονύσου τὸ γλεῦκος φέροντας τοὺς Ἀθηναίους ἐκ τῶν πίθων τῷ θεῷ κιρνάναι, εἶτ’ αὐτοὺς (v. ll. αὐτοῖς, αὐτοί) προσφέρεσθαι· ὅθεν καὶ Λίμναιον κληθῆναι τὸν Διόνυσον, ὅτι μιχθὲν τὸ γλεῦκος τῷ ὕδατι τότε πρῶτον ἐπόθη κεκραμένον.

Now it is clear that none of the above passages gives us any assistance towards the localization of the Lenaeum. Nor do the references to the Lenaic performances themselves. The festival is called Λήναια (Aristoph. Ach. 1155; Athen. p. 130 d, &c.): ἐπὶ Ληναίῳ ἀγών (Aristoph. Ach. 504): ἐπιλήναια Διονύσια (Ath. Pol. c. 57; C. I. A. ii. 834 b and probably 731), and we have such phrases as ἐπὶ Ληναίῳ νικᾶν, διδάσκειν, &c.: but in none of these cases is there any hint of the Λίμναι (e.g. Plat. Prot. 327 d; Dem. Meid. § 10).

For what reasons, then, drawn from literary evidence, has it been assumed that the Lenaea and the Anthesteria (partly held ἐν Λίμναις) were identical?

(1) The passage of Athenaeus above quoted has been compared with Anon. de Comoed. αʹ. l. 6 ff. (Kaibel. Fr. Com. p. 7) τὴν αὐτὴν (sc. τὴν κωμῳδίαν) δὲ καὶ τρυγῳδίαν φασὶ διὰ τὸ τοῖς εὐδοκιμοῦσιν ἐπὶ τῷ Ληναίῳ γλεῦκος δίδοσθαι, ὅπερ ἐκάλουν τρύγα, ἢ ὅτι μήπω προσωπείων ηὑρημένων τρυγὶ διαχρίοντες τὰ πρόσωπα ὑπεκρίνοντο. But the two passages refer to entirely different ceremonies. That of which Athenaeus speaks was part of the Choes, the first drinking of the new wine at the Anthesteria. The second refers to the prize of a bottle of new wine given to successful poets at the Lenaea; it is a conjectural explanation of the name τρυγῳδία. There is nothing whatever to show that the passages refer to ceremonies in any way connected, except the use of the word γλεῦκος in both.

(2) Hesychius: λίμναι· ἐν Ἀθήναις [ἇς] τόπος ἀνειμένος Διονύσῳ, ὅπου τὰ λαία ἤγετο. Editors generally, following Musurus, emend to Λήναια, but this is not proof. The true reading may be Λιμναῖα.

(3) The one passage which can be treated seriously is a Schol. on Aristoph. Ach. 961, explaining the origin of the Choes: εἰς τὴν ἑορτὴν τῶν Χοῶν· ἐπετελεῖτο δὲ Πυανεψιῶνος ὀγδόῃ· οἱ δὲ Ἀνθεστηριῶνος ⟨δω⟩δεκάτῃ. φησὶ δὲ Ἀπολλόδωρος Ἀνθεστήρια καλεῖσθαι κοινῶς τὴν ὅλην ἑορτὴν Διονύσῳ ἀγομένην, κατὰ μέρος δὲ Πιθοιγίαν Χόας Χύτραν. καὶ αὖθις. ὅτι Ὀρέστης μετὰ τὸν φόνον εἰς Ἀθήνας ἀφικόμενος (ἦν δὲ ἑορτὴ Διονύσου Ληναίου), ὡς μὴ γένοιτο ὁμόσπονδος ἀπεκτονὼς τὴν μητέρα ἐμηχανήσατο τοιόνδε τι Πανδίων ... καὶ ἀπ’ ἐκείνου Ἀθηναίοις ἑορτὴ ἐνομίσθη οἱ Χόες. This passage as it stands undoubtedly represents the Choes as instituted to form part of a festival of Dionysus Lenaeus. But our suspicions are aroused when we find that the other versions of the same story make no allusion to Dionysus Lenaeus. The corresponding expression in Schol. ad Aristoph. Eq. 95 (which Rutherford transfers to Ach. 961) is κατέλαβεν δὲ αὐτὸν (sc. τὸν Πανδίονα) εὐωχίαν τινα δημοτελῆ ποιοῦντα. (Other versions are Athen. x. p. 437 b; Plut. Quaest Symp. p. 613 b and p. 643 a; Schol. Tzetzae ad Lycophr. 1374; Suidas s.v. Χόες.) It is at least probable, therefore, that the parenthesis ἦν δὲ ἑορτὴ Διονύσου Ληναίου is an erroneous gloss by the compiler of the first-quoted scholium, whose state of mind in regard to the facts concerning the festivals mentioned is sufficiently indicated by the early part of the scholium. Rutherford has made plain the unreliability of the scholiasts on Aristophanes, and this single passage is of no value when compared with the weight of evidence against the identification of the two festivals. Nilsson (l.c., p. 57) may be right in his suggestion that Ληναίου is an error for Λιμναίου. ΛΗΝΑΙΟΥ and ΛΙΜΝΑΙΟΥ are very much alike, and the latter, being less familiar, might easily be changed into the former. Athen. xi. 465 a (quoted above), quoting Phanodemus, mentions Λιμναῖος as a name of Dionysus, especially connected with the Anthesteria. But in fact the emendation, though highly probable, is needless so far as the case against identifying the festivals is concerned. I do not notice some other passages cited by Gilbert in support of the identification, because so far as I can discover no one does or would now so use them: in any case Nilsson’s reply is sufficient.

II. With regard to the archaeological evidence adduced by Dörpfeld (Ath. Mitth. 1895, Griech. Theat. p. 7) and Miss Harrison, it seems enough to say that though the precinct discovered by the former, and identified by them with the precinct ἐν Λίμναις, contains the remains of a ληνός, this does not itself prove that it was a precinct of Dionysus Lenaeus, much less that it was the Lenaeum for which we are looking. If it were the precinct of Dionysus Lenaeus it might contain a ληνός (though this is not necessary); but to argue the converse is quite fallacious. Nor does the existence of other ληνοί in the neighbourhood help the argument. There is some plausibility, indeed, in the idea that the Lenaeum may have been a place or district in which there were many ληνοί, but (1) it is certainly not proved that Dörpfeld’s precinct was the temple ἐν Λίμναις, and so, even if it were the Lenaeum, the two temples would not necessarily be identified, and (2) it is very probable that the title Λήναιος is not derived from ληνός at all. We will first deal with these two points before discussing such positive evidence as there is for the site of the Lenaeum.

(1) As to the temple ἐν Λίμναις, the first important piece of evidence as to the site is the passage of Thucydides, and next the passages of pseudo-Dem. in Neaeram and Pausanias, all quoted above. To take Thucydides first. The most natural and obvious interpretation, the one which a reader would assume if not on the look out for difficulties, would take πρὸς τοῦτο τὸ μέρος as = πρὸς τὸ ὑπ’ αὐτὴν πρὸς νότον μάλιστα τετραμμένον. It cannot indeed be said that it would be _impossible_ for it to mean ‘near this original city’ (including the acropolis and the land south of it); but, as Prof. E. Gardner points out (Ancient Athens, p. 144), one would expect πρὸς νότῳ (or πρὸς τούτῳ τῷ μέρει) in such a case; and such an interpretation gives us no reason why Thucydides should have mentioned the south at all. On the most natural interpretation then of Thucydides the temple ἐν Λίμναις was to the south of the acropolis (or SW.), not, like Dörpfeld’s precinct, on the WNW. Pausanias, moreover, says that the ἀρχαιότατον ἱερόν of Dionysus was πρὸς τῷ θεάτρῳ. (ἱερόν as Carroll points out (Class. Rev. July, 1905) often means the whole precinct, and not merely the shrine or sanctuary; several shrines may be included in one precinct.) Carroll reminds us (l.c.) that ‘Fischbach (Wiener Stud. xv. pp. 161-91) has shown conclusively that Pausanias was thoroughly acquainted with Thucydides, and made extensive use of the historian in his description of Athens; so much that he appropriates words, phrases, and terms of expression found in Thucydides. These stylistic resemblances exclude the acceptance of an intermediate channel. Pausanias had also the benefit of a tradition handed down by local guides respecting important sites. Hence when he makes a statement manifestly based on Thucydides, the presumption is that he understood his authority and interpreted him correctly.’ Now in the present case it is admitted that Pausanias had Thucydides before him; and when Thucydides speaks of the ἀρχαιότερα Διονύσια as celebrated at the temple ἐν Λίμναις, and when the pseudo-Demosthenes (l.c.), a connecting link, speaks of the ἐν Λίμναις as the ἀρχαιότατον ἱερόν of Dionysus, it is infinitely more natural to suppose that Pausanias also, speaking of the ἀρχαιότατον ἱερόν, refers to the precinct ἐν Λίμναις, and that therefore the temple ἐν Λίμναις was πρὸς τῷ θεάτρῳ, than with Wilamowitz (Hermes, xxi) to construct a theory of clumsy mistakes on Pausanias’ part. Of course, for the reasons given by Wilamowitz, the ἐν Λίμναις was not the same as the theatre or temple of Dionysus Eleuthereus, but it may well have been within the same ἱερόν, the same sacred precinct, or quite close to it, on the SW. of the acropolis.

Now Miss Harrison (l.c., p. 83) writes that ‘Thucydides himself seems to warn us. He seems to say, “not that precinct which you all know so well and think so much of, not that theatre where year by year you all go, but an earlier and more venerable place, and, that there be no mistake, the place where you go on the 12th day of Anthesterion, &c.”’: and she concludes that Pausanias was wrong in saying that the oldest sanctuary of Dionysus was πρὸς τῷ θεάτρῳ. Thucydides, she seems to argue, would not have been at such pains to distinguish the two ‘hiera’ if they had been close to each other. But (if he is really intending to distinguish them) this may just as well have been because they _were_ close to each other and might be confused. However, so far as this passage goes, the theatre may or may not have been near the oldest sanctuary; Thucydides would not have any reason to think of the theatre _in either case_, for the simple reason that it was not old enough to add anything to his argument, and any mention of it would have been irrelevant and confusing.

The most natural conclusion then from the words of Thucydides and Pausanias is that the temple ἐν Λίμναις was near the theatre, and not in Dörpfeld’s precinct to the WNW. of the acropolis. (In spite of Miss Harrison it seems that the other temples mentioned by Thucydides can be accommodated with sites at least as well on the view here taken as on that taken by Dörpfeld, and I should say very much better. See Bates (Trans. Amer. Phil. Assoc, vol. 30); E. Gardner (l.c.); Farnell (Class. Rev. 1900, &c.).)

I pass on to the attempt to identify the ἐν Λίμναις with Dörpfeld’s precinct on the evidence of pseudo-Demosthenes. The passage gives the oath taken by the γεραραί or attendants at the ceremony on the 12th of Anthesterion. They swear that they celebrate (or will celebrate, though I cannot find any authority for the reading γεραρῶ) the Theoinia and Iobaccheia in the customary manner and at the customary times. Therefore, Miss Harrison seems to wish us to argue, the Iobaccheia took place like the ceremony on the 12th of Anthesterion in the ἐν Λίμναις, and the Iobacchic inscription discovered in Dörpfeld’s precinct proves this precinct to be the place of the Iobaccheia, and therefore to be the ἐν Λίμναις. This is simply a case of _non sequitur_. Suppose a ceremony of the English Church which required of its attendants a solemn declaration, ‘I am (or, I will be) a regular communicant,’ it could not be inferred that the Communion Service was part of the ceremony, or took place at the same spot. Even, therefore, if a Baccheion has been found, guaranteed by the inscription (and of this there is no doubt), there is nothing to prove either that it, or any older building beneath it, is the temple ἐν Λίμναις, or that the third-century inscription on the pillar by the altar is the representative of the far older στήλη by the altar ἐν Λίμναις mentioned by the pseudo-Demosthenes. Prof. Ernest Gardner also points out (l.c., p. 113) that the Iobaccheia mentioned in the oath cannot be the same as the rites of the Iobacchi of the inscription, for ‘the one is a state ceremony, the other a private one; and, moreover, the Iobaccheia are not among the festivals which the Iobacchi celebrate, and of which we have a complete list’ (see Roberts and Gardner, Greek Epigraphy, ii. pp. 236 ff.). The fact that the lower building contains a wine-press and places for an altar and stelae does not prove that it was the ἐν Λίμναις: it proves at most that it was an old Βακχεῖον, like the one above it. There is no proof at all of the crucial point—that the Iobaccheia were celebrated only, or celebrated at all, in the temple ἐν Λίμναις: Dörpfeld’s precinct is probably only one of the many Βακχεῖα which (as Prof. E. Gardner, l.c., notes) must have existed in Athens, and the practice of setting up stelae was too general to allow of any argument being drawn from the one found. On the whole, the statement ‘I celebrate (or, will celebrate) the Iobaccheia at the proper times’ suggests that the reference is to some time _not_ the present, and that the Iobaccheia are quite distinct from the ceremony of the 12th of Anthesterion. The nature of the enclosure surrounding Dörpfeld’s precinct also admits of many explanations besides the one Miss Harrison offers. Perhaps if it _was_ the ἐν Λίμναις, only open once a year and kept strictly secret, it would be carefully enclosed, and would have only a small door, and would contain no votive offerings; but to argue the converse is simply bad reasoning. Since then Dörpfeld’s precinct was probably _not_ the temple ἐν Λίμναις, the place of the Anthesteria, it gives us no ground for identifying the sites or the ceremonies of the Anthesteria and the Lenaea; and we have seen that the fact that it contains a ληνός is quite insufficient to prove that the precinct was the Lenaeum. So that the discovery of the precinct, interesting as it is in itself, throws no light whatever on the problem before us—the site of the Lenaeum.

(2) As regards the derivation of the title Λήναιος, the form of the word suggests derivation from a feminine λήνη, not a masculine ληνός, and this view finds support on other grounds from Ribbeck (Anfänge und Entwickelung des Dionysos-Kult in Attika, p. 13); Farnell (Class. Rev. 1900), and Nilsson (l.c., pp. 111 ff.). Shortly, the reasons for the derivation from λήνη are as follows. Hesychius gives us λῆναι· βάκχαι· Ἀρκάδες: and Ribbeck, comparing this with Odyssey xix. 230 ὁ μὲν (sc. κύων) λάε νεβρὸν ἀπάγχων, suggests that the root is λαϝ, ‘tear,’ and that the λῆναι were bacchants of the mountains who rent a fawn in their ecstasy. We find also the verb ληναΐζειν. If this is so, the Lenaea probably at first included orgiastic rites, and it is significant in this connexion that there were mysteries connected with Lenaea at Myconos; and it may be added that in C. I. A. 834 b the fact that expenditure for the Lenaea appears in the accounts of the ἐπιστάται Ἐλευσινόθεν has by some been interpreted as pointing in the same direction, and suggesting in connexion with the Lenaea mystic rites having reference to the fertility of the ground. If so, the derivation from ληνός must give way; it is in any case uncertain, though perhaps it was the popular derivation in ancient times. It does not, however, seem to me to follow necessarily (as Dr. Farnell appears to think) that because both the Anthesteria and the Lenaea involved secret rites, they were even probably the same festival. The arguments given by Nilsson and others, and partly reproduced above, are a sufficient reply.

III. Finally, we have to ask, what positive evidence have we for the site of the Lenaeum?

(1) It was in the ἀγορά. This seems to be a legitimate inference from two passages of Photius, viz. ληναῖον· περίβολος μέγας Ἀθήνησιν ἐν ᾧ τοὺς ἀγῶνας ἦγον πρὸ τοῦ τὸ θέατρον οἰκοδομηθῆναι ὀνομάζοντες ἐπὶ Ληναίῳ. ἔστιν δὲ ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ ἱερὸν Διονύσου Ληναίου (so practically Hesych. s.v. ἐπὶ Ληναίῳ ἀγών), and ἴκρια· τὰ ἐν τῇ ἀγορᾷ ἀφ’ ὧν ἐθεῶντο τοὺς Διονυσιακοὺς ἀγῶνας πρὶν ἢ κατασκευασθῆναι τὸ ἐν Διονύσου θέατρον. Again, Schol. ad Dem. de Cor. § 129 describes τὸ κλίσιον τὸ πρὸς τῷ καλαμίτῃ ἥρωϊ as ἐν ἀγορᾷ, while the ἱερόν of the hero is said to be πρὸς τῷ Ληναίῳ. Whatever is to be said about the hero, he at any rate serves to connect the Ληναῖον and the ἀγορά. That there was anciently an orchestra in the market-place at Athens appears also from Photius, ὀρχήστρα· πρῶτον ἐκλήθη ἐν τῇ ἀγορᾷ, and Plato, Laws 817 c, speaks of stages erected in the market-place by tragic poets. Socrates speaks of book-shops in the orchestra (Plato, Apol. 26 E). But the site of the ἀγορά itself is still so much disputed that we are left in uncertainty. The statement of Timaeus, Lex. Plat., ὀρχήστρα τόπος ἐπιφάνης εἰς πανήγυριν ἔνθα Ἁρμοδίου καὶ Ἀριστογείτονος εἰκόνες, does not really help, as the position of these statues is itself disputed. It may have been at the NE. or the NW. corner of the acropolis. We have to be content therefore with the information that the old Lenaic performances took place in a temporary wooden theatre in (or by) the market-place—wherever this was, and that the particular spot in (or by) the market-place was the Lenaeum, a περίβολος μέγας.

(2) The Scholia on Aristophanes twice over state that the Lenaea took place ἐν ἀγροῖς. Schol. ad Aristoph. Ach. 504 reads οὑπὶ Ληναίῳ τ’ ἀγών· ὁ τῶν Διονυσίων ἀγὼν ἐτελεῖτο δὶς τοῦ ἔτους, τὸ μὲν πρῶτον ἔαρος ἐν ἄστει, ὅτε καὶ οἱ φόροι Ἀθήνησιν ἐφέροντο, τὸ δὲ δεύτερον ἐν ἀγροῖς ὁ ἐπὶ Ληναίῳ λεγόμενος, ὅτε ξένοι οὐ παρῆσαν Ἀθήνησι· χειμὼν γὰρ λοιπὸν ἦν: and Schol. id. 202 ἄξω τὰ καὶ ἀγρούς· τὰ Λήναια λεγόμενα. ἔνθεν τὰ Λήναια καὶ ὁ ἐπιλήναιος ἀγὼν τελεῖται τῷ Διονύσῳ· Λήναιον γάρ ἐστιν ἐν ἀγροῖς ἱερὸν τοῦ Διονύσου· διὰ τὸ πλεκτοὺς ἐνταῦθα γεγονέναι, ἢ διὰ τὸ πρῶτον ἐν τούτῳ τῷ τόπῳ ληνὸν τεθῆναι. Μένανδρος· τραγῳδὸς ἦν ἀγών, Διονύσια. So also Steph. Byz. Λήναιος· ἀγὼν Διονύσου ἐν ἀγροῖς ἀπὸ τῆς ληνοῦ· Ἀπολλόδωρος ἐν τρίτῳ χρονικῶν. But the confusion of these remarks is plain (see Nilsson, l.c. 78), and when the Scholia on Aristophanes which comment on the Dionysiac festivals are taken altogether, it is clear that no consistent view is to be found in them and no confidence is to be placed in them. It is enough to note that Schol. ad Ar. Ach. 378 places the Lenaea in autumn. The Scholiasts’ ἐν ἀγροῖς is no doubt due to the need of distinguishing the Lenaea from the Dionysia ἐν ἄστει, properly so called in opposition, not to the Lenaea, but to the rural Dionysia. Religious nomenclature is not so consistent that we can assume that all the Dionysia except the festival named ἐν ἄστει were once ἐν ἀγροῖς, but it is still possible that the Lenaeum was once outside the walls, and afterwards came to be included in their circuit. Hesychius (s.v. ἐπὶ Ληναίῳ ἀγών) describes it as ἐν τῷ ἄστει.

M. Foucart (Le Culte de Dionysos en Attique, p. 105) thinks that he has found an indication of the site in C. I. A. IV. i. p. 66, in part of an inscription which runs, τὸ δὲ ψήφισμα τόδε ... ἀναγράψας ὁ γραμματεὺς ὁ τῆς βουλῆς ἐν στήλῃ λιθίνῃ καταθέτω ἐν τῷ Νηλείῳ παρὰ τὰ ἴκρια, and he attempts (l.c., p. 109) to fix the site of this Neleion. But his proof that παρὰ τὰ ἴκρια means ‘by the Lenaean theatre’ is very weak.

APPENDIX D

The following extracts are from a series of inscriptions containing the accounts of the priests of Apollo at Delos. These priests had charge of the various public buildings in the island, including the theatre. The part of their accounts which refers to the theatre is of great interest, because of the light which it throws on the theatrical architecture of the time. A collection of the notices concerning the theatre is given by Homolle in Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, 1894, pp. 161 ff. The most important passages are given below.

290 B.C. τοῖς τὴν σκηνὴν ἐργολαβήσασι καὶ τὸ προσκήνιον ΗΗΗΗΔ.

282 B.C. Ἡρακλείδῃ εἰς τὸ προσκήνιον γράψαντι πίνακας δύο μισθὸς δραχμαὶ 𐅂𐅂𐅂Ι· Ἀντιδότῳ τοῦ προσκηνίου γρά[ψαν]τι πίνακας δύο . . . . . . . . . . . . Θεοδότῳ πίνακα εἰς τὸ προσκήνιον ποιήσαντι μισθὸς δραχμαὶ ΔΔΔ· εἰς τοῦτο κατε[χρήσθη ξύλον] ἐλάτινον τῶν ὑπαρχόντων . . . . . ἀπὸ τούτων ἠλεί[ψα]μεν τὰς θύρας πάσας . . . . . . καὶ ὅσα ἔδει τῆς σκηνῆς τῆς ἐν τῷ θεάτρῳ.

281 B.C. τοὺς πίνακας εἰς τὸ θέατρον ἀνενέγκασι ΙΙΙ . . . . . . . χαλκοῦ εἰς τὴν σκηνὴν μνᾶς ΙΙ.

279 B.C. (δραχμὰς) ἃς ἐξέτεισε Ἀρίγνωτος Ἀντιπάτρου ὑπὲρ τῆς ἐγγύης ἧς ἠγγύητο Δίαιτον Ἀπολλοδώρου τῆς τοῦ θεάτρου περιοικοδομίας τὸ καθ’ αὑτὸν μέρος . . . . . . τορνίσκον εἰς τὸ θέατρον ἐργασαμένῳ Ἀντιγόνῳ Καΐκου, παρέχοντι αὐτῷ πάντα εἰς τὸ ἔργον πλὴγ ξύλων, μισθὸς . . . . . . . τοῦ θεάτρου τὴν ὀρχήστραν καὶ τοὺς ὁλκοὺς ἀνακαθάραντι καὶ τὸν χοῦν ἐξενέγκασι μισθωτοῖς, ἀρχιτέκτονος ἐγδόντος, μισθὸς 𐅃𐅂𐅂 . . . . . . . . . . τῆς σκηνῆς τὸ τέγος καταλείψαντι Ἕρμωνι Δ𐅂𐅂 . . . . . . . εἰς τὸ [λογε]ῖον τῆς σκηνῆς (ξύλον). . . .

276 B.C. [ἐργο]λάβαις τοῦ θεάτρου τῶν ὁλκῶν τὴν δευτέραν δόσιν Χ𐅅.

274 B.C. [ἀγαγοῦσι εἰς] τὸ θέατρον ἀπὸ τοῦ νεωκορίου λίθους οὓς εἰργάσατο . . . . . . . συστήσαντι τὸ παρασκήνιον . . . . . . . . . . . [ἀπενέγκαντι εἰς] τὸ θέατρον λίθους τῶν ἐκ Τήνου δύο καὶ ἐκ τοῦ σταδίου . . . . . . . . . ἐγλαβόντι τὴν πρισμὴν τῶν στοῶν τῶν εἰς τὰς σκηνάς . . . . . τῷ τοὺς ἥλους ἐγλαβόντι [τοὺς εἰς τὰς σκ]ηνὰς καὶ τὰ παρασκήνια τὴμ μνᾶν 𐅂𐅂 ἀπεστησάμεθα κατὰ τὴν συγγραφὴν μνᾶς τριάκοντα ἑπτὰ μετὰ τοῦ ἀρχιτέκτονος καὶ τῶν ἐπιμελητῶν . . . . . . . . Θεοδήμῳ τῷ ἐγλαβόντι ποιῆσαι τὴν σκηνὴν τὴν μέσην καὶ τὰ παρασκήνια τὰ κάτω δραχμῶν ΗΗΗΗ𐅄ΔΔΔΔ𐅃𐅂𐅂𐅂𐅂 . . . . . . . . Ἐπικλύτῃ τῷ ἐγλαβόντι τὰς σκηνὰς τὰς παλαιὰς . . . καὶ ἐπισκευάσαι καὶ τὰς ἐπάνω σκηνὰς καινὰς ποιῆσαι δύο καὶ τὰ παρασκήνια τὰ ἄνω καινὰ ποιῆσαι δύο καὶ τοῖς παλαιοῖς πίναξι τῶν παρασκηνίων περι . . . σαι καὶ τὰς ἐξώστρας καὶ τὴν κλίμακα καὶ τοὺς βαθμοὺς ἐπισκευάσαι 𐅄ΔΔΔ𐅃𐅂𐅂 . . . . . . . . τοῖς ἐγλαβοῦσι γράψαι τὰς σκηνὰς καὶ τὰ παρασκήνια τά τε ἐπάνω καὶ τὰ ὑποκάτω δραχμῶν ΧΧ𐅅 . . . . . . . . . . τῷ ἐγλαβόντι . . . . σαι τὸ παρασκήνιον τὸ ἐν τῷ θεάτρῳ δραχμῶν ΗΗΗ𐅄ΔΔΔΔ . . . . . . . . . Θρασυλέῳ τῷ ἐγλαβόντι ἐργάσασθαι τὸ ἐπιστύ[λιον] . . . . \ΙΟΥ . . . . . . Ἀρχέλᾳ . . . καταχρίσαντι τὸ τεῖχος τῆς σκηνῆς κατὰ τὴν συγγραφὴν ἀπέδομεν τὸ γινόμενον ἀρχιτέκτονος κελεύοντος καὶ τῶν ἐπιμελητῶν.

269 B.C. τὴν σκηνὴν τὴν ἐν τῷ θεάτρῳ ἀνακαθάρασι 𐅂Ι . . . . . . . . . . παρὰ Τέλλωνος ἀτράκτους δύο ὥστε κλίμα[κα] εἰς τὸ θέατρον 𐅂𐅂𐅂𐅂 . . . . . . . . . .Θεοδήμῳ κλιμακτῆρας παρασχόντι καὶ κατασκευάσαντι 𐅂𐅂𐅂ΙΙΙ . . . . . . . . . Διονυσίῳ ἐγλαβόντι τὴν ὀρχήστραν τοῦ θεάτρου καταχρῖσαι τὴν πρώτην δόσιν ἔδομεν . . . . . . . . . Σωσιμένει Ἀντιγόνου τῶν λίθων τῶν τῆς εἰς τὸν θησαυρὸν (?) ἔδομεν . . . . . . Ἀντίκῳ τῆς διόδου τῆς ἐν τῷ θεάτρῳ . . . . . . . . Ἀντίκῳ Καΐκου ἐγλαβόντι καθάραι τὸν τόπον τῇ διόδῳ τῇ ἐν τῷ θεάτρῳ πάντα κύκλῳ ἔδομεν . . . . . . . . . Ἀριστοκλεῖ καὶ Καλλιμένει τῆς λιθείας τῆς εἰς τὸ παρασκήνιον ἐκ ποδῶν πεντακοσίων ἔδομεν . . . . . . . . . . . . Φιλανδρίδει Παρίῳ τῆς [λιθείας] τῆς εἰς τὰς κρηπῖδας [τὰς] ἐν τῷ θεάτρῳ ἐγλαβόντι πόδας χιλίους ἔδομεν . . . . . . . . . . λίθων τῶν εἰς τὸ θέατρον . . . . . . . . .

250 B.C. τὸ θέατρον ἀνακαθάραι . . . . . . . . . κλεῖς καὶ χελώνιον ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰνωπὸν καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ Ἡράκλειον καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν σκηνήν . . . . . . . . . . . Παρμένοντι ἀνακαθάραντι τὴν ἐπαγωγίδα τὴν ἐν τῷ θεάτρῳ . . . . . . . Ὠφελίωνι τοὺς κρουνοὺς διακαθάραντι τοὺς ἐν τῇ σκηνῇ . . . . . . . . . Νεογένει ἐπιγράψαντι ἐπὶ τὸ προσκήνιον . . . . . . . . . . . τῆς λιθείας τῆς εἰς τὸ θέατρον ἐξέδομεν πόδας διακοσίους, τὸμ πόδα δραχμῶν 𐅃𐅂𐅂 . . . . . . . . . . . . τῆς ἐργασίας τοῦ ἐπιθεάτρου ἐξέδομεν πόδας διακοσίους . . . . . . . . . Εὐκλείδει ἐργολαβήσαντι τὸν ὀρθοστάτην καὶ τὸν καταληπτῆρα θεῖναι καὶ ἐργάσασθαι ἐν τῷ ἐπιθεάτρῳ . . . .

180 B.C. [ξύλον . . . . κατεχρήσθη εἰς] τὴν κατασκευὴν τῶν πινάκων τῶν ἐπὶ τὸ λογεῖον.

The earliest notices refer to the old wooden structure. The erection of a stone theatre was apparently begun about 275 B.C., and completed in the course of the third century. A large part of this theatre still remains. But the stone proscenium of the Vitruvian type, of which the foundations are preserved, was probably a later work constructed in the second century B.C. This proscenium is not enclosed by side-wings (παρασκήνια), but open at both ends (see Fig. 12). But the inscription for 269 B.C. expressly mentions τῆς λιθείας τῆς εἰς τὸ παρασκήνιον. Hence it is probable that in the stage-buildings erected in the middle of the third century the stage was of wood, and was terminated at each end by stone side-wings. In the second century, when a regular stone proscenium was erected, these side-wings were removed (see Dörpfeld, Griech. Theater, p. 148).

The word σκηνή is used in the inscriptions in two senses. It denotes (1) the stage-buildings as a whole, e.g. τοὺς κρουνοὺς τοὺς ἐν τῇ σκηνῇ, (2) the wall at the rear of the stage, or the boards by which that wall was covered, e.g. τὴν σκηνὴν τὴν μέσην καὶ τὰ παρασκήνια, τὰς σκηνὰς καὶ τὰ παρασκήνια. This wall or boarding is called ἡ μέση σκηνή as opposed to the παρασκήνια on each side, and αἱ ἐπάνω σκηναί in opposition to the προσκήνιον underneath (so Homolle, l.c., p. 165). Apparently the whole building was only two stories, and the back-scene rose one story above the stage. Bethe, however (Prolegomena, p. 234), suggests that there were three stories; that ἡ μέση σκηνή denoted the middle story, and αἱ ἐπάνω σκηναί the top story, of the back-scene; the bottom story being concealed behind the προσκήνιον. But as only two stories are mentioned in connexion with the side-wings (τὰ παρασκήνια τά τε ἐπάνω καὶ τὰ ὑποκάτω), it seems unlikely that the central part of the building should have had more than two.

Some of the technical terms are new. The lines of seats in the early theatre are called ὁλκοί, as resembling furrows dug in the slope of the auditorium. The horizontal passage dividing the upper belt (διάζωμα) of seats from the lower is the δίοδος. The word περιοικοδομία seems to denote the wall by which the outside of the auditorium was enclosed and supported where necessary. The ἐπιθέατρον must have been the upper belt of seats. The ὀρθοστάτης and καταληπτήρ are explained by Homolle as a sort of balustrade and coping by which the top of the auditorium was finished off. The κλῖμαξ and κλιμακτῆρες may have been the steps leading up from orchestra to stage; but this is not certain. See on these points Homolle, l.c., pp. 163 ff.

FOOTNOTES

[1] Dem. Androt. § 68, and schol. ad loc.; Meid. § 10, &c.

[2] Dem. Meid. §§ 51-3.

[3] See below, p. 9.

[4] C. I. A. iii. 240-384. Hesych. s.v. νεμήσεις θέας.

[5] Dem. Meid. §§ 8-10.

[6] Ibid. § 180.

[7] Ibid. § 178.

[8] See esp. Aristoph. Ran. 1008 ff., 1054 ff.; Plat. Rep. 598 D, E.

[9] Plut. Solon, p. 95 B. ἀρχομένων δὲ τῶν περὶ Θέσπιν ἤδη τὴν τραγῳδίαν κινεῖν, καὶ διὰ τὴν καινότητα τοὺς πολλοὺς ἄγοντος τοῦ πράγματος, οὔπω δὲ εἰς ἅμιλλαν ἐναγώνιον ἐξηγμένου κτλ.

[10] Aristot. Poet. c. v.

[11] For dramatic exhibitions in other parts of Greece, see The Tragic Drama of the Greeks, p. 436.

[12] Gilbert (Die Festzeiten der attischen Dionysien, 1872) and more recently Dörpfeld (Das griechische Theater, p. 9) have attempted to show that the Lenaea was only a part of the Anthesteria, and that the Anthesteria was only the Athenian counterpart of the Rural Dionysia. Gilbert was refuted by Schömann, Alterth. ii. 579-99. Wachsmuth, Abhandl. der Sächs. Gesell. der Wissensch. xviii. p. 33 ff., and Körte, Rhein. Mus., 1897, p. 168 ff., show that an inscription C. I. A. ii. 834 b proves that there must have been a considerable interval between the Lenaea and Anthesteria. It is an account of the sums expended by the ἐπιστάται Ἐλευσινόθεν in B.C. 329-328. In col. ii. 46 we read ἐπιστάταις ἐπιλήναια εἰς Διονύσια θῦσαι ΔΔ; in ii. 68, twenty-two lines later, εἰς Χοὰς δημοσίοις ἱερεῖον κτλ. (The adjective ἐπιλήναιος is also found in the papyrus of Ath. Pol. c. 57, and the inscription confirms the reading ἐπιληναίων, which editors alter to ἐπὶ Ληναίῳ). [The whole subject of the Dionysiac festivals has been investigated afresh by Nilsson (Studia de Dionysiis Atticis, 1900), who proves at length the separateness of the four festivals.]

[13] Dem. Meid. § 10.

[14] See below, p. 9.

[15] [See articles on Dionysus in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encycl., and Preller-Robert, Griech. Mythologie.]

[16] Paus. i. 29; Philostrat. Vit. Soph. p. 549.

[17] Διονύσια τὰ ἐν ἄστει C. I. A. ii. 341, 402, 404; Διονύσια τὰ ἀστικά Thuc. v. 20; Διονύσια τὰ μεγάλα Athen. Pol. c. 56, C. I. A. ii. 312, 331; Διονύσια Athen. Pol. c. 56.

[18] This is proved by the inscription on the chief seat at the theatre, Ἱερέως Διονύσου Ἐλευθερέως (C. I. A. iii. 240).

[19] νίκη ἀστική Diog. Laërt. viii. 90. To produce plays at the City Dionysia was ἐν ἄστει διδάσκειν Schol. Aristoph. Ran. 67, or εἰς ἄστυ καθιέναι Arg. ii. Aristoph. Aves: cf. διδασκαλία ἀστική Plut. X Orat. 839 D.

[20] The feast of Asclepius and the Proagon were on the 8th of Elaphebolion, Aeschin. Ctesiph. § 67; the Proagon took place ‘a few days’ before the City Dionysia, Schol. ibid.: the City Dionysia cannot therefore have begun before the 10th. The festival must have terminated on the 15th, since after it came the Pandia, the next day the ἐκκλησία ἐν Διονύσου, and the next day, when the first assembly mentioned by Aeschines and Demosthenes took place, was the 18th. See Aeschin. Ctes. § 68; Fals. Leg. § 61; Dem. Meid. § 8.

[21] Stormy weather sometimes interfered with the proceedings. In the time of Demetrius a snowfall prevented the procession. Theophr. Char. 3; Plut. Demetr. p. 894 B.

[22] Aeschin. Ctes. § 43; cf. Dem. Meid. § 74.

[23] Aristoph. Ach. 505, 506; Thuc. v. 23.

[24] The procession must have been on the first day, for (1) in Dem. Meid. § 10 it comes first in the list of proceedings, (2) it was not till after the procession was over that the statue was placed in the theatre to witness the dramatic and dithyrambic contests.

[25] Paus. i. 29. 2, 38. 8; Philostrat. Vit. Soph. p. 549.

[26] Menand. Fragm. 558 (Kock).

[27] Plut. Cupid. Divit. 527 E.

[28] C. I. A. ii. 420, 470, 471.

[29] C. I. A. ii. 471, 741.

[30] Dem. Meid. § 22; Athen. p. 534 C.

[31] Xen. Hipparch. iii. 2.

[32] Philostrat. Vit. Soph. p. 549.

[33] C. I. A. ii. 470, 471. Hence Aristophanes in the Frogs selects Dionysus as the most experienced of dramatic critics. Cf. also Aristoph. Eq. 536 θεᾶσθαι λιπαρὸν παρὰ τῷ Διονύσῳ. Late writers (Philostrat. Vit. Apoll. p. 161; Dio Chrys., orat. 31, p. 631 R) protest against shedding human blood in gladiatorial combats in the very orchestra visited by the god Dionysus.

[34] In the lists of victors at the City Dionysia (C. I. A. ii. 971 a-e, iv. 971 f-h) the contests enumerated are always the same, viz. παίδων, ἀνδρῶν, κωμῳδῶν, τραγῳδῶν. Cp. Athen. Pol. c. 56 χορηγοὺς τραγῳδοῖς καθίστησι τρεῖς ... ἔπειτα παραλαβὼν τοὺς χορηγοὺς τοὺς ἐνηνεγμένους ὑπὸ τῶν φυλῶν εἰς Διονύσια ἀνδράσιν καὶ παισὶν καὶ κωμῳδοῖς κτλ. Dem. Meid. § 10 καὶ τοῖς ἐν ἄστει Διονυσίοις ἡ πομπὴ καὶ οἱ παῖδες ⟨καὶ οἱ ἄνδρες⟩ καὶ ὁ κῶμος καὶ οἱ κωμῳδοὶ καὶ οἱ τραγῳδοί. (The words καὶ οἱ ἄνδρες have obviously fallen out.) Cp. also C. I. A. ii. 553 (list of victors παισὶν ἢ ἀνδράσιν).

[35] Dem. Meid. § 156 loosely calls the choruses of men αὐληταὶ ἄνδρες, and the author of the first Argument to the speech, misled by this, states that there were αὐλητῶν χοροί at the City Dionysia. But other passages in the speech, e.g. §§ 15, 17, show that the expression means not that the men were flute-players, but that they sang dithyrambs accompanied by the flute. See Wieseler, Das Satyrspiel, pp. 46-8.

[36] [Marmor Par. ep. 46. For the archon v. Munro, Class. Rev. xv. p. 357. For choregia v. Capps, Introduction of Comedy to the City Dionysia, p. 27 ff.]

[37] Schol. Aeschin. Timarch. § 11 ἐξ ἔθους Ἀθηναῖοι [κατέστησαν] κατὰ φυλὴν πεντήκοντα παίδων χορὸν ἢ ἀνδρῶν, ὥστε γενέσθαι δέκα χορούς, ἐπειδὴ καὶ δέκα φυλαί. λέγονται δὲ οἱ διθύραμβοι χοροὶ κύκλιοι, καὶ χορὸς κύκλιος.

[38] Dem. Meid. § 13; Antiphon orat. vi. §§ 12, 13.

[39] Lysias xxi. § 2; Dem. Meid. § 5 τῆς φυλῆς ἀδίκως ἀφαιρεθείσης τὸν τρίποδα. The choregus of a dithyrambic chorus was said χορηγεῖν τῇ φυλῇ. Plut. X orat. 835 B ἐχορήγησε κυκλίῳ χορῷ τῇ αὑτοῦ φυλῇ ἀγωνιζομένῃ διθυράμβῳ: Isaeus v. § 36 οὗτος γὰρ τῇ μὲν φυλῇ εἰς Διονύσια χορηγήσας τέταρτος ἐγένετο, τραγῳδοῖς δὲ καὶ πυρριχισταῖς ὕστατος. (Bentley’s emendation, τέταρτος ἐγένετο τραγῳδοῖς, καὶ πυρριχισταῖς ὕστατος makes Dicaeogenes fourth in the tragic contest, in which there were never more than three competitors.)

[40] In the time of Aristotle the choregi in comedy were appointed by the tribes. But this was a late innovation, and produced no change in the character of the contest. See chap. ii. § 2.

[41] C. I. A. ii. 971 (printed in Appendix B). Ibid. ii. 1234 ff.

[42] Marm. Par. ep. 43 ἀφ’ οὗ Θέσπις ὁ ποιητὴς [ἐφάνη], πρῶτος ὃς ἐδίδαξε [δρ]ᾶ[μα ἐν ἄ]στ[ει, καὶ ἐ]τέθη ὁ [τ]ράγος [ἆθλον], ἔτη.... The date is mutilated, but must have fallen between 542 and 520, the preceding and subsequent epochs. Suidas s.v. Θέσπις (ἐδίδαξε δὲ ἐπὶ τῆς πρώτης καὶ ξʹ ὀλυμπιάδος) doubtless refers to the same contest, which may therefore be assigned to B.C. 536-5.

[43] [Capps (The Introduction of Comedy into the City Dionysia) renders it highly probable that choregia was not introduced until about B.C. 502.]

[44] Suidas s.v. Χοιρίλος. The same lexicon, s.v. Πρατίνας, says that Pratinas composed fifty plays, of which thirty-two were satyric: but it is unsafe to draw inferences from this as to relative proportion of satyric plays and tragedies in these early days, since the numbers may refer merely to the plays which happened to be preserved in the time of the grammarians.

[45] Suidas s.v. Πρατίνας.

[46] Arg. Aesch. Persae.

[47] Arg. Aesch. Sept. c. Theb.

[48] Arg. Aesch. Agam.

[49] Args. Eur. Alcest., Med., Hippol.

[50] Aelian Var. Hist. ii. 8; Schol. Aristoph. Ran. 67.

[51] Athen. Pol. c. 56; C. I. A. ii. 972, 973, 975.

[52] Cp. Diog. Laërt. iii. 56. Θρασύλλος δέ φησι καὶ κατὰ τὴν τραγικὴν τετραλογίαν ἐκδοῦναι αὐτὸν (sc. τὸν Πλάτωνα) τοὺς διαλόγους, οἷον ἐκεῖνοι τέτρασι δράμασιν ἠγωνίζοντο, Διονυσίοις, Ληναίοις, Παναθηναίοις, Χύτροις, ὧν τὸ τέταρτον ἦν σατυρικόν· τὰ δὲ τέτταρα δράματα ἐκαλεῖτο τετραλογία. Thrasyllus was a philosopher of the time of Tiberius. The passage οἷον ... τετραλογία is probably an explanatory interpolation by Diogenes himself. The statement that the four plays of a tetralogy were performed at four different festivals is absurd in itself, and abundantly disproved by inscriptions and other evidence (e.g. Schol. Aristoph. Ran. 67).

[53] Plut. Pericl. p. 154 E.

[54] Plut. l.c.; Id. X orat. 839 D διδασκαλίας ἀστικὰς καθῆκεν ἓξ ... καὶ ἑτέρας δύο Ληναϊκάς; Anthol. Pal. vii. 37 ἡ δ’ ἐνὶ χερσὶν | κούριμος, ἐκ ποίης ἥδε διδασκαλίης;

[55] That the word τετραλογία was applied only to a group of four plays connected in subject is proved by the statement of Suidas (s.v. Σοφοκλῆς) that Sophocles abandoned the practice of exhibiting ‘tetralogies’, though we know that he exhibited four plays at a time; and also by the application of the word by Greek writers to the Oresteia of Aeschylus (Schol. Aristoph. Ran. 1155), the Pandionis of Philocles (Schol. Aristoph. Av. 282), the Lycurgeia of Aeschylus (Schol. Aristoph. Thesm. 135), and the Lycurgeia of Polyphradmon (Arg. Aesch. Sept. c. Theb.). All these were groups of plays on a single subject.

[56] Schol. Aristoph. Ran. 1155 τετραλογίαν φέρουσι τὴν Ὀρεστείαν αἱ Διδασκαλίαι (i.e. the Διδασκαλίαι of Aristotle). The other passages where τετραλογία occurs in a dramatic sense are Diog. Laërt. iii. 56, ix. 45; Schol. Plat. Apol. p. 330; Schol. Aristoph. Ran. 1155, where it is said that the grammarians Aristarchus and Apollonius disregarded the satyric plays and spoke only of trilogies; Schol. Av. 282, Thesm. 142; Arg. Aesch. Sept. c. Theb. τριλογία is found only in Schol. Aristoph. Ran. 1155; Diog. Laërt. iii. 61; Suidas s.v. Νικόμαχος.

[57] Aristoph. Thesm. 135, Ran. 1124. See, on these titles, The Tragic Drama of the Greeks, p. 114.

[58] [Donaldson, Theatre of the Greeks, p. 118, suggests possible connexions; but they are highly conjectural.]

[59] [Other critics, however, suppose that the final scene was added in some later revision of the play, after Sophocles’ Antigone had been written, or when it became customary to present single plays of Aeschylus (see below, p. 74), which would often be shorter than those of other poets, and might therefore be lengthened by the addition of a scene.]

[60] Cp. Hor. Ars Poet. 225 ff.

[61] Suidas s.v. Σοφοκλῆς· καὶ αὐτὸς ἦρξε τοῦ δρᾶμα πρὸς δρᾶμα ἀγωνίζεσθαι, ἀλλὰ μὴ τετραλογίαν. The words seem to imply that he exhibited only one play at each festival: but the didascalic records show that this cannot have been the case. Probably, therefore, Suidas has misunderstood and misquoted his authority, who meant to say that Sophocles exhibited not single plays but groups of plays unconnected in subject. The suggestion of Oehmichen (Philol. Wochenschr., 1887, p. 1058) that after the reform of Sophocles each poet exhibited one of his plays on each successive day of the competition, and that this is what Suidas means, is rendered most improbable by the fact that tetralogies were still occasionally written; and that Sophocles would have no power, as poet, to make such a change in the arrangement of the festival.

[62] Schol. Aristoph. Av. 282; Schol. Plat. Apol. p. 330 (Bekk.); Aelian Var. Hist. ii. 30.

[63] C. I. A., ii. 973 (quoted in Appendix B).

[64] [If the inscription C. I. A. ii. 971 c recorded by Pittakis, L’ancienne Athènes, p. 168, is reliable, an old tragedy was performed in B.C. 387-386. The phrase used is παλαιὸν δρᾶμα παρεδίδαξαν οἱ τραγῳδοί: but the interpretation of this fragment is full of difficulties, see Wilhelm, Urkunden dramat. Aufführungen in Athen, p. 22 ff. The use of the expression παρεδίδαξαν (cf. παραχορήγημα) seems to show that at this date the performance of an old tragedy was exceptional; while in the inscription recording the years 341, &c., it would seem to be treated as a regular part of the festival.]

[65] Suidas s.v. Θεοδέκτης; Steph. Byz. s.v. Φάσηλις.

[66] Plut. X Orat. 839 D.

[67] Aristot. Rhet. iii. 11.

[68] See The Tragic Drama of the Greeks, p. 444 ff.: and (for the City Dionysia in the second century A.D.) cp. C. I. A. iii. 78; Philostr. Vit. Soph. p. 549; Paus. i. 29, ii. 38, 8.

[69] Aristot. Poet. ch. v. καὶ γὰρ χορὸν κωμῳδῶν ὀψέ ποτε ὁ ἄρχων ἔδωκεν, ἀλλ’ ἐθελονταὶ ἦσαν.

[70] C. I. A. ii. 971 a (quoted, Appendix B) [B.C. 463 is the latest possible date of the events referred to in this part of this inscription. Capps (Introduction of Comedy into City Dionysia) with great probability dates them 473-472; he fixes the date of the granting of a comic chorus (whether at the Lenaea or City Dionysia is uncertain) by the archon at 487, when, according to Suidas s.v. Χιωνίδης, Chionides began to exhibit; and the date of the first choregia in tragedy at about 502. This would justify sufficiently Aristotle’s ὀψέ ποτε. Suidas’ date for Chionides’ first exhibition is not really inconsistent with the Dorian tradition recorded by Aristotle that Epicharmus was πολλῷ πρότερος Χιωνίδου καὶ Μάγνητος, since the generally recorded date of the former, B.C. 488 onwards, is most probably a ‘floruit’ date, based on the time of his first performances at Syracuse, not the date of the beginning of his career at Megara Hyblaea, which may have been a good deal earlier. Capps shows ground for believing that Aristotle and Suidas—the former directly, the latter perhaps indirectly—obtained their knowledge from the official records, and are therefore quite reliable. At the head of the inscription, C. I. A. ii. 971 a, are the words πρῶ]τον κῶμοι ἦσαν τ[ῶν ..., which must originally have formed part of the general heading of the whole inscription, whose earlier columns are lost. Capps conjectures (with some reason) that it originally ran ἀπὸ (name of archon) ἐφ’ οὗ πρῶτον κῶμοι ἦσαν τῶν ἐν ἄστει Διονυσίων οἵδε ἐνίκων. But κῶμοι cannot mean ‘comedies’, as Köhler and Wilamowitz assumed when they dated the beginning of choregia in comedy by this inscription. Cf. Wilhelm, Urkunden dramatischer Aufführungen in Athen, pp. 11 ff, 241 ff.]

[71] Args. Aristoph. Nubes, Pax, Aves.

[72] Arg. Aristoph. Plutus (festival uncertain); Ath. Pol. c. 56 (City Dionysia); C. I. A. ii. 972 (Lenaea), 975 (City Dionysia). [If C. I. G. xiv. 1097 is rightly restored and interpreted by Wilhelm, l.c., p. 195 ff., it would seem as if there were five competitors as early as B.C. 434 at the Dionysia; this is very difficult to reconcile with the consistent mention by the Arguments of three only.]

[73] Arg. Aristoph. Vespae. [The passage, however, is almost certainly corrupt, and most editors are now agreed that in its existing form, according to which Philonides brought out both the Προάγων and the Σφῆκες, it cannot stand; and that even if both plays can have been the work of Aristophanes, they cannot both have been produced by Philonides. For the various emendations, vide Kanngiesser, Über die alte komische Bühne, p. 270; Petersen, Fleck. Jahrb. lxxxv. p. 662; Leo, Rhein. Mus. xxxiii. p. 404; the introductions to Rogers and van Leeuwen’s editions of the Wasps; and a brief summary in Excursus I of Starkie’s edition. It is very doubtful whether there is good evidence for the practice alluded to, as regards the fifth century B.C.]

[74] C. I. A. ii. 972. [The inscription leaves no room for doubt here, except for the remote possibility that there may have been two poets of the name Diodorus. Capps, Amer. Journ. Archaeol., 1900, argues almost conclusively that the inscription is to be dated 290-288, and not 353, the date given by Mr. Haigh, and generally accepted until recently.]

[75] C. I. A. ii. 972. [Mr. Haigh wrote 353, but see note on previous page.]

[76] C. I. A. ii. 975 (quoted, Appendix B). [If Capps is right in dating the fragment 975 f between B.C. 308 and 290, the practice must have been begun by that date; see Amer. Journ. Arch., 1900, p. 89 ff., but Wilhelm, Urkunden dramat. Aufführungen in Athen, p. 68, disputes the date, and with some reason. See also Wilhelm, ibid., p. 149. The practice is proved for the early part of the second century by fragment a.]

[77] [The evidence for this is a fragment of an inscription published by Wilhelm, loc. cit., p. 27 ff., and connecting with C. I. A. ii. 971 h. See Appendix B. The expression used παλαιὸν δρᾶμα παρεδίδαξαν οἱ κωμῳδοί (cp. παραχορήγημα), when compared with the expressions used in 975 a, &c., shows that the performance was exceptional, and the play is not mentioned; cp. the parallel expressions in the case of tragedy, p. 19, supra, n. 1.]

[78] C. I. G. 1585, 1587, 2759; Athen. Mitth., 1894, pp. 96, 97; Ἐφημ. Ἀρχαιολ., 1884, pp. 120, 124, 126; Rangabé, Antiq. Hellén., vol. ii. no. 965.

[79] The fact that inscriptions (C. I. A. 971 a-e, iv. 971 f-h) and the law of Evegorus, quoted Dem. Meid. § 10, all mention first chorus of boys, then choruses of men, then comedy, then tragedy, proves nothing, as there is nothing to show that the contests are being spoken of in order of performance, rather than in order of relative importance.

[80] Arist. Poet. ch. xxiv. suggests that an epic poem should be shorter than the old epics, and about equal to that of the tragedies offered at one hearing (τὸ πλῆθος τῶν τραγῳδιῶν τῶν εἰς μίαν ἀκρόασιν τιθεμένων). A performance of four tragedies a day would give about 6,000 lines of tragedy (including satyric drama), while the Iliad contains about 15,000 lines, and the Odyssey about 12,000.

[81] Aristoph. Av. 785 ff. οὐδέν ἐστ’ ἄμεινον οὐδ’ ἥδιον ἢ φῦσαι πτερά. | αὐτίχ’ ὑμῶν τῶν θεατῶν εἴ τις ἦν ὑπόπτερος, | εἶτα πεινῶν τοῖς χοροῖσι τῶν τραγῳδῶν ἤχθετο, | ἐκπτόμενος ἂν οὗτος ἠρίστησεν ἐλθὼν οἴκαδε, | κᾆτ’ ἂν ἐμπλησθεὶς ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς αὖθις αὖ κατέπτετο. Müller (Griech. Bühn., p. 322) and others take ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς to mean generally ‘to us in the theatre’. But in that case there would be no point in the sentence. There is obviously a contrast between ὑμεῖς, the spectators, and ἡμεῖς the comic chorus. The same contrast is emphasized in the previous group of trochaics, vv. 753-68. Lipsius accepts the change of τραγῳδῶν to τρυγῳδῶν (‘the other comic choruses’ as opposed to ἡμεῖς, the Birds), and infers that all the comedies were performed in one day by themselves (Ber. der K. S. Ges. der Wiss. zu Leipzig, philol.-histor. Classe, 1885, p. 417). But the change is quite gratuitous and makes the whole passage feeble and obscure.

[82] [See p. 69.]

[83] [Either connected with ληνός ‘wine-press’ or λῆναι = βάκχαι, vid. Appendix C.]

[84] [See Appendix C for authorities and for a discussion of the site of the Lenaeum and its relation to the temple of Dionysus ἐν Λίμναις.]

[85] [See Appendix C.]

[86] Bekk. Anecd. p. 235, 6; C. I. A. ii. 834 b, col. 2, where the expenditure on the Lenaea is placed about the middle of the sixth prytany, i.e. in Gamelion. [Nilsson, Studia de Dionysiis Atticis, pp. 1-37, confirms the date here given, after a very full discussion.]

[87] Plat. Symp. 223 c; Theophrast. Char. 3.

[88] Aristoph. Ach. 501 ff.

[89] Dem. Meid. § 10 καὶ ἡ ἐπὶ Ληναίῳ πομπὴ καὶ οἱ τραγῳδοὶ καὶ οἱ κωμῳδοί. That there were no dithyrambs at the Lenaea is proved by this passage, and by C. I. A. ii. 553, which enumerates the festivals at which dithyrambic choruses competed, viz. City Dionysia, Thargelia, Prometheia, Hephaesteia. C. I. A. ii. 1367, recording a dithyrambic victory at the Lenaea, is of comparatively late date.

[90] Suidas s.v. τὰ ἐκ τῶν ἁμαξῶν σκώμματα.

[91] C. I. A. ii. 972 (see Appendix B).

[92] Hence in Diod. Sic. xv. 74 δεδιδαχότος Ληναίοις τραγῳδίαν (of Dionysius’ victory in 367), the expression διδάσκειν τραγῳδίαν probably means ‘to compete in the tragic contests’, and implies nothing as to the number of plays presented. Cf. Plat. Symp. 173 A ὅτε τῇ πρώτῃ τραγῳδίᾳ ἐνίκησεν Ἀγάθων, ‘won his first tragic victory’.

[93] Athen. p. 217 A.

[94] Diod. Sic. xv. 74; Plut. X Orat. 839 D; C. I. A. ii. 977 b, c (see Appendix B).

[95] [C. I. A. ii. 1289 shows that tragedy was still performed in B.C. 307-306. This is the last mention of it. (Capps, Amer. Journ. Arch., iv. p. 76.)]

[96] C. I. A. iii. 1160.

[97] See above, p. 20, note 2.

[98] [Capps (Introduction of Comedy into the City Dionysia, p. 25) shows that whether the victory of Chionides recorded by Suidas was won at the Dionysia or Lenaea, there is no reason for doubting the existence of contests in 487 B.C., on the evidence of inscriptions. C. I. A. ii. 977 d as it stands must have been preceded by another column of names of victors, which would almost certainly take us back as far; and there was room for the name of Chionides above that of Magnes in 977 i (Dionysian victors) in a position which would imply an early date for his first victory; cp. also Amer. Journ. Philol. xx. pp. 396, 397.]

[99] Arg. to Acharn.

[100] Args. to Acharn., Equit., Vesp., Ran.

[101] See p. 21, note.

[102] [If Capps is right, C. I. A. ii. 975 f proves that old comedies were acted at the City Dionysia at a date between 308 and 290, but this date is very uncertain; see p. 22, note. C. I. A. ii. 972, col. 1, which Capps, followed by Wilhelm, dates soon after B.C. 290, does not show any sign of the practice; it may have begun at the City Dionysia, and have been afterwards extended to the Lenaea; but it is not easy to believe this without confirmatory evidence; and the difficulty is avoided if Capps’ date for 975 f is not accepted.]

[103] [C. I. A. ii. 977 gives lists of tragic and comic poets and actors. In the case of the comic poets and actors, some names (those of Agathocles and Biottus) are known from 975 d to belong to the middle of the second century; but it is not certain to what festival the part of this inscription in which their names occur (fragm. m) belongs.]

[104] Schol. Aristoph. Plut 954; Plut. Phoc. c. 30.

[105] See The Tragic Drama of the Greeks, p. 128, note 4.

[106] C. I. A. ii. 972, col. II.

[107] Athen. p. 217 A; Plat. Symp. 173 A.

[108] Diod. Sic. xv. 74.

[109] The Acharnians, Equites, Vespae, and Ranae at the Lenaea; the Nubes, Pax, and Aves, at the City Dionysia.

[110] C. I. A. ii. 977 d, i.

[111] [See Capps, Amer. Journ. Philol. xx. p. 396, who remarks that Aristophanes (Equit. 517 ff.) referring to the great poets of the past, omits Teleclides and Hermippus, who had been very successful at the Lenaea, and was especially disappointed at failing to obtain a ‘City victory’ with the Nubes in 423, after his two Lenaean victories. The reason suggested, however, for the omission of these two poets can hardly be correct, as Cratinus, who is mentioned, was also especially successful at the Lenaea.]

[112] [Nilsson (Studia de Dionysiis Atticis, p. 108) shows that the festival was probably not celebrated in all the demes at precisely the same time, though it always took place after the autumn sowing, being in fact in origin a ceremony designed to secure the fertility of the new-sown seed. Cf. Plat. Rep. v. p. 475 D ὥσπερ δὲ ἀπομεμισθωκότες τὰ ὦτα ἐπακοῦσαι πάντων χορῶν περιθέουσι τοῖς Διονυσίοις οὔτε τῶν κατὰ πόλεις οὔτε τῶν κατὰ κώμας ἀπολειπόμενοι. There must also have been time for the troupes of actors to move from one place to another.]

[113] See Aristoph. Ach. 69, 241 ff. Also Plut. de Cup. div. p. 527 D; id. Non suav. viv. sec. Epic. p. 1098 B; Heraclitus fr. 127 Byw.

[114] Dem. Meid. § 10; C. I. A. ii. 164, 467, 468, 589, 741; iv. 2, 834 b; Aelian Var. Hist. ii. 13.

[115] Dem. de Cor. § 180; Aeschin. Timarch. § 157.

[116] C. I. A. iv. 574 b, c, g.

[117] Ibid. ii. 469, 470, 594.

[118] C. I. A. iv. 1282 b, 1285 b.

[119] Ibid. ii. 585.

[120] Isaeus viii. § 15. We also hear of such celebrations at Brauron (Ar. Pax 874, with Schol.; Schol. in Dem. Conon. § 35; Suidas s.v. Βραύρων); and at Myrrhinus (C. I. A. ii. 575, 578).

[121] Dörpfeld u. Reisch, Griech. Theat. p. 109 ff.

[122] In addition to the instance at the Peiraeeus recorded above, the only known example is at Salamis, C. I. A. ii. 470 Διονυσίων τῶν ἐν Σαλαμῖνι τραγῳδῶν τ[ῷ καινῷ ἀγ]ῶνι, if the restoration be correct.

[123] Dem. de Cor. § 262.

[124] [It must be admitted that it is not easy to reconcile this with Aristot. Poet. ix, where it is said that even the well-known plays or legends are well known only to few, ἐπεὶ καὶ τὰ γνώριμα ὀλίγοις γνώριμά ἐστιν, ἀλλ’ ὅμως εὐφραίνει πάντας. Aristotle may be speaking particularly of his own day, when probably few poets or plays had the celebrity enjoyed by the plays of the three great tragedians of the previous century.]

[125] [Vid. J. E. Harrison, Proleg. to the Study of Greek Religion, c. i.]

[126] This seems to be the meaning of Plut. x orat. 841 F εἰσήνεγκε δὲ καὶ νόμους (sc. Lycurgus), τὸν περὶ τῶν κωμῳδῶν ἀγῶνα τοῖς Χύτροις ἐπιτελεῖν ἐφάμιλλον ἐν τῷ θεάτρῳ, καὶ τὸν νικήσαντα εἰς ἄστυ καταλέγεσθαι, πρότερον οὐκ ἐξόν, ἀναλαμβάνων τὸν ἀγῶνα ἐκλελοιπότα. The contest must be the same as the ἀγῶνες Χύτρινοι quoted from Philochorus by Schol. ad Aristoph. Ran. 220. [See Nilsson, Studia de Dionysiis Atticis, p. 57.]

[127] Philostrat. Vit Apoll. p. 158.

[128] Schol. Aristoph. Aves, 445; Suidas s.v. ἐν πέντε κριτῶν γόνασι.

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

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

[130] Dem. Meid. § 17 ὀμνύουσι παρεστηκὼς τοῖς κριταῖς. Aristoph. Eccles. 1163 μὴ ’πιορκεῖν, ἀλλὰ κρίνειν τοὺς χοροὺς ὀρθῶς ἀεί.

[131] Special seats were assigned to the judges at Alexandria, and no doubt the Attic custom was followed there: cp. Vitruv. vii. praef. § 5 cum secretae sedes iudicibus essent distributae.

[132] Aelian Var. Hist. ii. 13 καὶ προσέταττον τοῖς κριταῖς ἄνωθεν Ἀριστοφάνην ἀλλὰ μὴ ἄλλον γράφειν. Lysias iv. § 3 ἔγραψε μὲν ταῦτα ἐς τὸ γραμματεῖον.

[133] This follows from Lysias iv. § 3 ἐβουλόμην δ’ ἂν μὴ ἀπολαχεῖν αὐτὸν κριτὴν Διονυσίοις, ἵν’ ὑμῖν φανερὸς ἐγένετο ἐμοὶ διηλλαγμένος, κρίνας τὴν ἐμὴν φυλὴν νικᾶν. νῦν δὲ ἔγραψε μὲν ταῦτα εἰς τὸ γραμματεῖον, ἀπέλαχε δέ.

[134] Aristoph. Aves 445-7 ΧΟ. ὄμνυμ’ ἐπὶ τούτοις, πᾶσι νικᾶν τοῖς κριταῖς | καὶ τοῖς θεαταῖς πᾶσιν. ΠΕ. ἔσται ταυταγί. | ΧΟ. εἰ δὲ παραβαίην, ἑνὶ κριτῇ νικᾶν μόνον.

[135] Vita Aeschyli; Suidas s.v. Αἰσχύλος.

[136] See above, p. 28.

[137] The number of his plays is given as 123 by Suidas, and as 104 or 130 in the Life.

[138] Vita Eur.

[139] Args. to Eur. Alcestis and Medea.

[140] Aelian Var. Hist. ii. 8; Suidas s.v. Νικόμαχος.

[141] Arg. to Soph. Oed. Tyr.

[142] Lysias iv. § 3.

[143] Dem. Meid. §§ 5, 17, 65.

[144] Andocid. Alcibiad. § 20 ἀλλὰ τῶν κριτῶν οἱ μὲν φοβούμενοι οἱ δὲ χαριζόμενοι νικᾶν ἔκριναν αὐτόν.

[145] Aul. Gell. N. A. 17. 4.

[146] Plut. Demosth. 859 D εὐημερῶν δὲ καὶ κατέχων τὸ θέατρον ἐνδείᾳ παρασκευῆς καὶ χορηγίας κρατεῖσθαι.

[147] Id. Nicias, 524 D.

[148] Xen. Memor. iii. 4. 3.

[149] Isaeus v. § 36.

[150] Aeschin. Ctesiph. § 232.

[151] Aelian Var. Hist. ii. 13.

[152] Plato, Legg. 700 C-701 A. 659 A-C.

[153] [Cp. Butcher, Harvard Lectures, p. 173 ff.]

[154] Alciphron ii. 3; Plut. An seni &c. p. 785 B; Athen. p. 217 A στεφανοῦται Ληναίοις; Aristid. vol. ii. p. 2 (Dindf.) τοῦτον στεφανοῦν καὶ πρῶτον ἀναγορεύειν.

[155] Dem. Meid. § 5; Lysias xxi. § 2; Schol. Aeschin. Timarch. § 11; Isaeus vii. § 40; 2nd Arg. to Dem. Meid. p. 510. The monuments of Lysicrates and Thrasyllus, which were surmounted with tripods (Stuart and Revett, Antiquities of Athens, vol. i. chap. iv. pt. 3, vol. ii. p. 31), were in honour of victories with dithyrambic choruses; cp. C. I. A. ii. 1242, 1247.

[156] Marmor Par. epp. 39, 43.

[157] Schol. Aristoph. Ran. 367 τὸν μισθὸν τῶν κωμῳδῶν ἐμείωσαν; Eccles. 102 τὸν μισθὸν τῶν ποιητῶν συνέτεμε; Hesych. s.v. μισθός· τὸ ἔπαθλον τῶν κωμικῶν ... ἔμμισθοι δὲ πέντε ἦσαν. As the competitors in comedy were five, this last passage proves that _all_ the competing poets received a reward of money.

[158] Plut. X orat. 842 A.

[159] Aristoph. Ran. 367, and Schol. ad loc.

[160] Arg. Aristoph. Nub.

[161] Vit. Soph.; Aristid. vol. ii. p. 344 (Dindf.).

[162] C. I. A. ii. 971 a-e, iv. 971 f-h.

[163] Arg. Aristoph. Vesp. ἐνίκα πρῶτος Φιλωνίδης. Arg. Nub. ὅτε Κρατῖνος μὲν ἐνίκα Πυτίνῃ, Ἀμειψίας δὲ Κόννῳ. Arg. Pax ἐνίκησε δὲ τῷ δράματι ὁ ποιητὴς ... δεύτερος Ἀριστοφάνης Εἰρήνῃ.

[164] C. I. A. iv. 971 f.

[165] C. I. A. ii. 971 a-e, iv. 971 f-h. Hence Rose’s ingenious emendation of the conclusion to the first Arg. to the Pax—τὸ δὲ δρᾶμα ὑπεκρίνατο Ἀπολλόδωρος, ἡνίκα ἑρμῆν λοιοκρότης [ἐνίκα Ἕρμων ὁ ὑποκριτής Rose]—must be regarded as very doubtful, as the Pax was produced at the City Dionysia.

[166] C. I. A. ii. 975 a-e: see also note 6 below.

[167] C. I. A. ii. 972, col. ii. The mention of the victorious actor’s name shows that the comic list in this inscription, like the tragic, must refer to the Lenaea.

[168] [C. I. A. ii. 972, col. i, as dated by Capps (Amer. Journ. Arch. xx. p. 74 ff.), who shows almost conclusive grounds for substituting this date for the date 354 hitherto generally accepted, and is followed by Wilhelm.]

[169] [Circ. B.C. 330, according to Capps, l.c. p. 84. The date depends upon the conjectural restoration of some fragments of C. I. A. ii. 977, especially fragment u. If Wilhelm’s restoration of C. I. A. ii. 1289 is correct (Urkunden dramat. Aufführungen in Athen, pp. 149, 209 ff.) there is evidence of contests of comic actors in B.C. 307-6; and the inscription 974 c, elucidated by Wilhelm, l.c., p. 43, shows that there were contests in 313-312; but it is not certain to which festival this inscription belongs. Wilhelm, l.c., p. 253, even infers, from a restoration of C. I. A. ii. 977 l (i′ according to his numbering), that these contests existed as early as the beginning of the fourth or end of the fifth century: the restoration is highly probable, and if it is correct, contests of comic actors can be traced back nearly as far as contests of tragic actors; but again it is uncertain to which festival the inscription refers, and it is going too far to use the combined evidence of this inscription, and the Arg. to the Pax, as emended, to prove the existence of contests at the City Dionysia in 421 B.C.]

[170] C. I. A. ii. 973.

[171] Dem. Fals. Leg. § 246.

[172] C. I. A. ii. 975 b, 972.

[173] Diod. Sic. xiii. 97.

[174] For the City Dionysia see above, pp. 18 and 24. For the Lenaea there is no evidence, but the practice was probably much the same. See p. 26.

[175] Alciphron iii. 48 κακὸς κακῶς ἀπόλοιτο καὶ ἄφωνος εἴη Λικύμνιος ὁ τῆς τραγῳδίας ὑποκριτής. ὡς γὰρ ἐνίκα τοὺς ἀντιτέχνους Κριτίαν τὸν Κλεωναῖον καὶ Ἵππασον τὸν Ἀμβρακιώτην τοὺς Αἰσχύλου Προπομποὺς κ.τ.λ. Athen. p. 584 D Ἀνδρονίκου δὲ τοῦ τραγῳδοῦ ἀπ’ ἀγῶνός τινος, ἐν ᾧ τοὺς Ἐπιγόνους εὐημερήκει, πίνειν μέλλοντος παρ’ αὐτῇ κτλ.

[176] See above, p. 31.

[177] Theophrast. Char. 22 ταινία ξυλίνη.

[178] Lysias xxi. § 4 κωμῳδοῖς χορηγῶν Κηφισοδώρῳ ἐνίκων, καὶ ἀνήλωσα σὺν τῇ τῆς σκευῆς ἀναθέσει ἑκκαίδεκα μνᾶς.

[179] Plut. Themist. 114 C πίνακα τῆς νίκης ἀνέθηκε. Aristot. Pol. viii. 6 ἐκ τοῦ πίνακος ὃν ἀνέθηκε Θράσιππος.

[180] C. I. A. ii. 1289; Bull. Corr. Hell. iii. pl. 5.

[181] Reisch, Griechische Weihgeschenke, p. 118 ff.

[182] Plut. Themist. 114 C. Cp. C. I. A. ii. 1280, 1285 (a metrical inscription), 1289, iv. 1280 b, 1282 b, 1285 b, &c.

[183] C. I. A. ii. 971 a-e, iv. 971 f-h. See Appendix B.

[184] C. I. A. ii. 972, 973, 975. See Appendix B.

[185] C. I. A. ii. 977, iv. 977.

[186] Diod. Sic. xiii. 103; Suidas s.v. Κρατῖνος.

[187] Diog. Laërt. v. 1. 26. A complete list of the quotations from Aristotle’s Διδασκαλίαι is given in Bekker’s Aristotle, vol. v, p. 1572.

[188] See pp. 13 (note 2), 61.

[189] Suidas s.v. Καλλίμαχος; Schol. Aristoph. Nub. 552.

[190] Etym. Mag. s.v. πίναξ.

[191] Trendelenburg, Gramm. Graec. de Arte Tragica Iudiciorum Reliquiae, p. 3 foll.

[192] C. I. A. iv. 971 f. See above, p. 20, note 3. [It is not at all improbable that the extant inscriptions which have been described in this section were to a great extent based on the work of Aristotle himself, this work being itself based on earlier records now lost. It would only be natural that the theatre officials would take advantage of so important a compilation as the Διδασκαλίαι and Νῖκαι Διονυσιακαί of Aristotle, and might well have extracts from it engraved on stone in the theatre. The fact that the last record in C. I. A. ii. 971 belongs to the year 328 B.C. has also led some writers to conjecture that this whole inscription represents the work of Aristotle. This view is confirmed by the fact that Aristotle, with Callisthenes, prepared a record of Pythian victors for the temple of Delphi, which was engraved on stone at the public cost, B.C. 331. (Homolle, Bull. de Corr. Hell. xxii. 261, 631; Bourguet, ibid. xxiv. 504; Dittenberger, Sylloge Inscr. Gr. 915.) Cp. Reisch in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encycl., Art. Didaskaliai; Wilhelm, Urkunden dramatischer Aufführungen in Athen, pp. 13-15. The latter work gives a very complete account of the extant inscriptions.]

[193] Ath. Pol. cc. 56, 57. The archons superintended the various contests themselves, but were assisted by curators in the organization of the processions. These ἐπιμεληταὶ τῆς πομπῆς were ten in number at the City Dionysia. Until 352 they were elected by the people from the general mass of the citizens, and paid the expenses of the procession themselves. After 352 they were chosen by lot, one from each tribe, and received 100 minae from the state to cover expenses. In the third century the system of election was reintroduced. The curators at the Lenaea were also curators of the Eleusinian mysteries (ἐπιμεληταὶ τῶν μυστηρίων), four in number, and elected by the state, two from the people generally, one each from the Κήρυκες and Εὐμολπίδαι. See Sandys’ notes ad loc.

[194] Suidas s.v. χορὸν δίδωμι; Athen. p. 638 F; Cratinus fr. 15 (Kock); cf. Aristot. Poet. c. v, Ath. Pol. l.c.

[195] Cratinus l.c.

[196] Schol. Aristoph. Nub. 510, 530.

[197] Suidas s.v. Αἰσχύλος; Marm. Par. ep. 56; Vita I Eurip.

[198] Schol. Aristoph. Ran. 504; Arg. Aristoph. Equit.; cf. Suidas s.v. Εὔπολις. [The remarkable didascalic inscription (974 c) printed by Wilhelm, Urkunden dramat. Aufführungen in Athen, p. 45, and reproduced in Appendix B, notices of a certain Ameinias (probably), who won the third place with his play, that ἔφηβος ὢν ἐνεμήθη. Wilhelm shows that this use of νέμειν and its cognates, to signify permission to compete, was a technical one, and quotes conclusive parallels.]

[199] Schol. Aristoph. Nub. 531; Anon. de Com. (Kaibel Com. Fr. p. 8); Suidas s.v. Σαμίων ὁ δῆμος; Arg. Aristoph. Acharn.

[200] Aristoph. Equit. 512-44; cf. Nub. 528-31.

[201] Arg. Aristoph. Plutus; Schol. Aristoph. Ran. 73.

[202] Suidas s.v. Ἀρκάδας μιμούμενοι.

[203] Args. Aristoph. Av., Lysist., Vesp., Ran.

[204] Athen. p. 216 D; Vit. Aristoph.

[205] Plut. X orat. 839 D.

[206] Aristoph. Equit. 512, 513.

[207] Id. Vesp. 1016-22.

[208] Arg. ii to Dem. Meid.

[209] Athen. Pol. c. 56.

[210] Ibid.

[211] C. I. A. ii. 971 d, iv. 971 h.

[212] Lysias xxi. §§ 1-5; Aeschin. Timarch. §§ 11, 12; Harpocrat. s.v. ὅτι νόμος.

[213] Lysias l.c.

[214] In the time of Demosthenes the tribe Pandionis was for three years unable to supply a dithyrambic choregus. Dem. Meid. § 13.

[215] Schol. Aristoph. Ran. 406, who suggests that the system was also extended to the Lenaea. But this is disproved by Lysias xxi. § 4, where the defendant says he was choregus (not synchoregus) to a comic chorus in B.C. 402. The synchoregia cannot, therefore, have been applied to both festivals.

[216] C. I. A. ii. 971 c (tragic choregus at City Dionysia for 387) [but the interpretation of this fragment is very difficult]. Tragic synchoregi occur twice in inscriptions at the beginning of the fourth century (C. I. A. ii. 1280, iv. 1280 b); and are mentioned by Isaeus v. § 36 (B.C. 389) and Lysias xix., § 29 (B.C. 394-389); but as the festival is not mentioned by either author, it may have been the Lenaea, and so no inference can be drawn as to the discontinuance of the synchoregia. In C. I. A. iv. 971 h we find a comic choregus in 329; in C. I. A. iv. 1280 b (beginning of fourth century) and ii. 1280 b (middle of fourth century) we find comic synchoregi, but as the latter inscription was found at a distance from Athens, it may refer to the Rural Dionysia, at which joint choregi were sometimes appointed; e.g. C. I. A. iv. 1282 b mentions three tragic choregi in partnership at Icaria.

[217] The statement of Schol. Aristoph. Ran. 406, that soon after the institution of synchoregi the choregia as a whole was abolished by Cinesias is disproved by Ath. Pol. c. 56, which shows that choregi were a regular institution in the latter half of the fourth century. Capps (Am. J. Arch. 1895, p. 316) conjectures that the scholiast’s error arose from his misunderstanding of the epithet χοροκτόνος, applied to Cinesias as a bad poet, not as a legislator against choruses.

[218] There were still choregi in 319 (C. I. A. ii. 1246, 1247). But Nicanor was appointed Agonothetes immediately after the death of Antipater (Plut. Phoc. 31), who died in 319.

[219] C. I. A. ii. 302, 307, 314, 331, 379.

[220] C. I. A. ii. 314, καὶ εἰς ταῦτα πάντα ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων ἀναλώσας πολλὰ χρήματα. This phrase, however, does not imply that he paid the whole of the expenses; and the formula ὁ δῆμος ἐχορήγει, constantly found in agonothetic inscriptions, seems to show that the people bore a part [e.g. C. I. A. ii. 1289, quoted App. B].

[221] C. I. A. iii. 78 (Agonothetes and choregus together); ibid. 79, 83, 84 (choregi alone); ibid. 1, 10, 121, 457, 613, 721, 810, 1091 (Agonothetes alone).

[222] Demosth. Meid. §§ 13, 14; 2nd Arg. to Meidias, p. 510.

[223] C. I. A. ii. 1246 Νικίας Νικοδήμου Ξυπεταίων ἀνέθηκε νικήσας χορηγῶν Κεκροπίδι παίδων· Πανταλέων Σικυώνιος ηὔλει· ᾆσμα Ἐλπήνωρ Τιμοθέου· Νέαιχμος ἦρχεν. In this case the dithyramb performed was the Elpenor of the celebrated poet Timotheus. When old dithyrambs were performed, and no poet was necessary, a professional trainer was hired to look after the chorus. Such was the διδάσκαλος mentioned by Demosthenes (Meid. § 17).

[224] Antiphon, orat. vi. § 11 ἐπειδὴ χορηγὸς κατεστάθην εἰς Θαργήλια καὶ ἔλαχον Παντακλέα διδάσκαλον κτλ. Pantacles was a poet, and not a mere trainer of choruses, like the διδάσκαλος hired by Demosthenes. This is proved by a passage in Etym. Mag. v. διδάσκαλος· ἰδίως διδασκάλους λέγουσιν οἱ Ἀττικοὶ τοὺς ποιητὰς τῶν διθυράμβων ἢ τῶν κωμῳδιῶν ἢ τῶν τραγῳδιῶν. Ἀντίφων ἐν τῷ περὶ τοῦ χορευτοῦ· ἔλαχόν, φησι, Παντακλέα διδάσκαλον· ὅτι γὰρ ὁ Παντακλῆς ποιητής, δεδήλωκεν Ἀριστοτέλης ἐν ταῖς Διδασκαλίαις. When there was a poet, a professional trainer was not usually required. The poet undertook the training of the chorus.

[225] Aristot. Rhet. iii. 1.

[226] Vita Aesch.

[227] Schol. Aristoph. Nub. 1267.

[228] Vita Soph.

[229] Vita Eur.

[230] Dem. Fals. Leg. §§ 10, 246; de Cor. § 262.

[231] C. I. A. ii. 972.

[232] Suidas s.v. νεμήσεις ὑποκριτῶν· οἱ ποιηταὶ ἐλάμβανον τρεῖς ὑποκριτὰς κλήρῳ νεμηθέντας, ὑποκρινομένους (? ὑποκρινουμένους) τὰ δράματα· ὧν ὁ νικήσας εἰς τοὐπιὸν ἄκριτος παραλαμβάνεται. Obviously ὁ νικήσας denotes, not the victorious poet, nor yet the actor who acted for him, but the actor who won the prize for acting. Τοὐπιόν apparently means ‘the next festival’. The victorious actor was allowed to act at the next festival as a matter of course. The ‘three actors’ are the three protagonists required at each tragic contest, and not the three actors required by each poet. This is proved by the words ὧν ὁ νικήσας, which imply that the three actors mentioned all took part in the actors’ contest. But the actors’ contest was limited to the protagonists; the subordinate actors had nothing to do with it. See above, p. 42.

[233] Aristot. Rhet. iii. 1.

[234] C. I. A. ii. 973.

[235] Schol. Aristoph. Equit. 534; Vita Aristoph. (Dindf. Prolegom. de Comoed. p. 36). The commentator, misunderstanding the expression that certain plays of Aristophanes were brought out by Philonides and Callistratus (ἐδιδάχθη διὰ Φιλωνίδου κτλ.), concluded that these persons were actors.

[236] C. I. A. ii. 972, 975 c and d.

[237] Xen. Hiero ix. 4, Resp. Athen. i. 13. The training-room was called διδασκαλεῖον (Antiphon orat. vi. § 11), or χορηγεῖον (Bekk. Anecd. p. 72, 17; Pollux iv. 106, ix. 42).

[238] Antiphon orat. vi. §§ 11-13; Pollux iv. 106. The agent was called χορολέκτης.

[239] Aristot. Pol. iii. 3.

[240] Antiphon l.c.

[241] Plutarch Glor. Athen. 349 A; Suidas s.v. φαρυγγίνδην· ὡς ἀριστίνδην· σκώπτοντες γὰρ τὴν γαστριμαργίαν τῶν χορευτῶν Ἀττικοὶ οὕτω λέγουσι.

[242] Suidas s.v. διδάσκαλος; Aristoph. Ran. 1026 εἶτα διδάξας Πέρσας κτλ.; Anthol. Pal. vii. 37 (of a mask of Antigone or Electra) ἐκ ποίης ἥδε διδασκαλίης; Plut. Pericles 154 E ἀλλ’ Ἴωνα μὲν ὥσπερ τραγικὴν διδασκαλίαν ἀξιοῦντα τὴν ἀρετὴν ἔχειν τι πάντως καὶ σατυρικὸν μέρος ἐῶμεν.

[243] Athen. p. 22 A.

[244] Athen. p. 21 C; Vit. Aeschyli; Philostrat. Vit. Apoll. p. 244.

[245] Eustath. Odyss. p. 1553.

[246] Plut. De Audiendo, 46 B.

[247] Photius v. ὑποδιδάσκαλος; Plat. Ion p. 536 A.

[248] Thus the trainer hired by Demosthenes for his chorus is called διδάσκαλος, Dem. Meid. § 17.

[249] Dem. Meid. §§ 58, 59.

[250] Xen. Mem. iii. 4. 3.

[251] Xen. Resp. Athen. i. 13 χορηγοῦσι μὲν οἱ πλούσιοι, χορηγεῖται δὲ ὁ δῆμος ... ἀξιοῖ οὖν ἀργύριον λαμβάνειν ὁ δῆμος καὶ ᾄδων καὶ τρέχων καὶ ὀρχούμενος ... ἵνα αὐτός τε ἔχῃ καὶ οἱ πλούσιοι πενέστεροι γίγνωνται. First Arg. to Dem. Meid., p. 509 χορηγὸς ... ὁ τὰ ἀναλώματα παρέχων τὰ περὶ τὸν χορόν. Plut. Glor. Athen. 349 B. The statement of the Scholiast on Dionysius Thrax (Bekk. Anecd. p. 746), that every comic and tragic poet was supplied with a chorus ‘supported by the state’, appears to be merely a loose way of saying that the dramatic choruses were provided by choregi appointed by the state. The author of the 2nd Arg. to the Meidias says that the choregus ‘received sums of money for the support of the chorus’. But his authority is of the weakest description. He is quite mistaken as to the Dionysiac festivals, imagining that the Great Dionysia was a triennial affair, as opposed to the Small or annual celebration. Hence his testimony is of no value in the face of other authorities.

[252] The name of the flute-player is inserted in all dithyrambic records except the earliest, but never in the dramatic records. This seems to show that their status was different, and that the dramatic flute-player was not appointed officially.

[253] Plut. Phocion p. 750 C.

[254] The actors were assigned by the state to the poets, and not to the choregi: hence it is quite clear that in later times the choregi did not pay for them. See Suidas s.v. νεμήσεις ὑποκριτῶν.

[255] Antiphanes apud Athen. p. 103 E; Dem. Meid. § 16.

[256] Aristot. Eth. Nic. iv. 6. Pollux vii. 78 τοὺς δὲ τὰς ἐσθῆτας ἀπομισθοῦντας τοῖς χορηγοῖς οἱ μὲν νέοι ἱματιομίσθας ἐκάλουν, οἱ δὲ παλαιοὶ ἱματιομισθωτάς.

[257] Lysias xxi. §§ 1-5, xix. §§ 29, 42; Dem. Meid. § 156.

[258] Aristoph. Eccles. 307; Böckh, Public Economy of Athens, i. p. 157 (Engl. transl.).

[259] Demosth. Philipp. i. § 35.

[260] Xen. Hiero ix. 4 καὶ γὰρ ὅταν χοροὺς ἡμῖν βουλώμεθα ἀγωνίζεσθαι, ἆθλα μὲν ὁ ἄρχων προτίθησιν, ἀθροίζειν δὲ αὐτοὺς προστέτακται χορηγοῖς καὶ ἄλλοις διδάσκειν, καὶ ἀνάγκην προστιθέναι τοῖς ἐνδεῶς τι ποιοῦσιν.

[261] Dem. Meid. § 61.

[262] Plutarch Nicias, p. 524 D.

[263] Andocid. Alcibiad. § 20.

[264] Dem. Meid. §§ 58-66.

[265] Our knowledge of the Proagon is derived from the following passages:—Aeschin. Ctesiph. §§ 66, 67 ὁ γὰρ μισαλέξανδρος νυνὶ φάσκων εἶναι ... γράφει ψήφισμα ... ἐκκλησίαν ποιεῖν τοὺς πρυτάνεις τῇ ὀγδόῃ ἱσταμένου τοῦ ἐλαφηβολιῶνος μηνός, ὅτ’ ἦν τῷ Ἀσκληπιῷ ἡ θυσία καὶ ὁ προάγων. Schol. Aeschin. Ctesiph. § 67 ἐγίγνοντο πρὸ τῶν μεγάλων Διονυσίων ἡμέραις ὀλίγαις ἔμπροσθεν ἐν τῷ ᾠδείῳ καλουμένῳ τῶν τραγῳδῶν ἀγὼν καὶ ἐπίδειξις ὧν μέλλουσι δραμάτων ἀγωνίζεσθαι ἐν τῷ θεάτρῳ· δι’ ὃ ἐτύμως προάγων καλεῖται. εἰσίασι δὲ δίχα προσώπων οἱ ὑποκριταὶ γυμνοί. Vita Euripid. λέγουσι δὲ καὶ Σοφοκλέα, ἀκούσαντα ὅτι ἐτελεύτησε, αὐτὸν μὲν ἱματίῳ φαιῷ ἤτοι πορφυρῷ προελθεῖν, τὸν δὲ χορὸν καὶ τοὺς ὑποκριτὰς ἀστεφανώτους εἰσαγαγεῖν ἐν τῷ προάγωνι, καὶ δακρῦσαι τὸν δῆμον. Schol. Aristoph. Wasps 1104 οἱ δ’ ἐν ᾠδείῳ· ἔστι τόπος θεατροειδής, ἐν ᾧ εἰώθασι τὰ ποιήματα ἀπαγγέλλειν πρὶν τῆς εἰς τὸ θέατρον ἀπαγγελίας. That the Proagon was a contest is out of the question. The contest was to follow some days later. Nor can it have been a dress rehearsal, as part of one day would not have sufficed for the rehearsal of twelve tragedies and five comedies. Προάγων denotes ‘the ceremony before the contest’, just as πρόγαμος means ‘the ceremony before the marriage’. The expression of the Schol. on Aeschines τῶν τραγῳδῶν ἀγών is probably due to a misunderstanding of the word προάγων. The passage in Plato’s Symposium 194 A (ἐπιλήσμων μεντἂν εἴην, ὦ Ἀγάθων, ... εἰ ἰδὼν τὴν σὴν ἀνδρείαν καὶ μεγαλοφροσύνην ἀναβαίνοντος ἐπὶ τὸν ὀκρίβαντα μετὰ τῶν ὑποκριτῶν καὶ βλέψαντος ἐναντία τοσούτῳ θεάτρῳ, μέλλοντος ἐπιδείξεσθαι σαυτοῦ λόγους, καὶ οὐδ’ ὁπωστιοῦν ἐκπλαγέντος κτλ.) probably refers to the Proagon. If so ἀπαγγέλλειν in the Schol. and ἐπιδείξεσθαι λόγους both probably refer to an announcement of the plots or subjects of the plays (λόγος is so used, Aristoph. Vesp. 54, Pax 50, and Hesych. λόγος· ἡ τοῦ δράματος ὑπόθεσις). See Mazon, Revue de Philologie, 1903, pp. 263 ff. That there was a Proagon before the Lenaea as well as the City Dionysia seems natural in itself, and is implied by the use of the plural in such inscriptions as C. I. A. ii. 307 ἐπετέλεσε δὲ καὶ τοὺς προάγωνας τοὺς ἐν τοῖς ἱεροῖς κτλ.

[266] Aeschin. Ctesiph. § 76 ἅμα τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἡγεῖτο τοῖς πρέσβεσιν εἰς τὸ θέατρον. Demosth. Meid. § 74.

[267] Suidas s.v. καθάρσιον; Pollux viii. 104; Plut. Cimon p. 482 E; Philostrat. vit. Apoll. p. 161.

[268] Aeschin. Ctesiph. §§ 48, 230.

[269] Isocrat. viii. § 82.

[270] Aeschin. Ctesiph. §§ 153, 154.

[271] Aristid. περὶ ῥητορικῆς, vol. ii. p. 2 (Dindf.).

[272] The passage from Philochorus (Athen. p. 464 E καὶ τοῖς χοροῖς εἰσιοῦσιν ἐνέχεον πίνειν καὶ διηγωνισμένοις ὅτ’ ἐξεπορεύοντο ἐνέχεον πάλιν) affords no warrant for assuming, with Müller (Griech. Bühnen, p. 373), that before the commencement of each play the poet and his chorus entered the orchestra and offered a libation to Dionysus. [Aristoph. Ach. 11 ἀλλ’ ὠδυνήθην ἕτερον αὖ τραγῳδικόν, | ὅτε δὴ ’κεχήνη προσδοκῶν τὸν Αἰσχύλον, | ὁ δ’ ἀνεῖπεν, εἴσαγ’, ὦ Θέογνι, τὸν χορόν, is generally taken to refer to this point in the proceedings. But it is not likely that the names, &c., of the poets would be unknown to the spectators, when the Proagon had taken place only a few days before; see p. 66; and Mazon is probably right (Rev. de Philologie, 1903, p. 264) in making the lines refer to the Proagon itself.]

[273] Pollux iv. 88.

[274] Aristoph. Eccles. 1154 ff.

[275] Plat. Symp. 173 A. 174 A.

[276] Athen. p. 3 F; Schol. Aristoph. Pax 835.

[277] Cf. ch. i. § 1.

[278] Dem. Meid. §§ 8-10; C. I. A. ii. 114, 307, 420.

[279] Arg. Aristoph. Ran. οὕτω δὲ ἐθαυμάσθη τὸ δρᾶμα διὰ τὴν ἐν αὐτῷ παράβασιν ὥστε καὶ ἀνεδιδάχθη, ὥς φησι Δικαίαρχος.

[280] Herod, vi. 21.

[281] A revised edition of a play was called διασκευή, Athen. p. 110 C.

[282] Athen. p. 374 A.

[283] Nauck, Frag. Trag. Graec. pp. 215, 441, 627.

[284] Arg. Eur. Hipp.

[285] Arg. Aristoph. Nub.

[286] Arg. Aristoph. Pax; Meineke, Frag. Com. Graec. i. pp. 1074, 1130.

[287] Meineke, iv. 116, 377. Additional instances of revision of plays are to be found in the Autolycus of Eupolis, the Synoris of Diphilus, and the Phryx of Alexis. The Demetrius of Alexis appeared subsequently as the Philetaerus, the Ἄγροικοι of Antiphanes as the Butalion. See Meineke, ii. 440; iii. 36, 403, 500; iv. 412.

[288] Philostrat. vit. Apoll. p. 245.

[289] [Or more probably to the Odeum to see the Proagon; see p. 69, n. 3.]

[290] Aristoph. Acharn. 9-12.

[291] Id. Ran. 868.

[292] Quint. Inst. x. 1. 66.

[293] [See, however, note on p. 16, on the Septem of Aeschylus.]

[294] Suidas s.v. Εὐφορίων; Arg. Soph. Oed. Col.; Schol. Aristoph. Ran. 67.

[295] See above, pp. 18 and 26.

[296] See above, p. 31.

[297] Plut. X orat. 841 F εἰσήνεγκε δὲ καὶ νόμους ... τὸν δέ, ὡς χαλκᾶς εἰκόνας ἀναθεῖναι τῶν ποιητῶν, Αἰσχύλου, Σοφοκλέους, Εὐριπίδου, καὶ τὰς τραγῳδίας αὐτῶν ἐν κοινῷ γραψαμένους φυλάττειν, καὶ τὸν τῆς πόλεως γραμματέα παραναγιγνώσκειν τοῖς ὑποκρινομένοις· οὐκ ἐξεῖναι γὰρ αὐτὰς ὑποκρίνεσθαι. The general meaning of the passage is clear, though the text is corrupt. Various emendations have been proposed, e.g. παρ’ αὐτὰς ὑποκρίνεσθαι, Wyttenbach; αὐτὰς ἄλλως ὑποκρίνεσθαι, Grysar: ἄλλως ὑποκρίνεσθαι, Dübner.

[298] Galen Comm. ii. on Hippocrat. Epidem. iii. (p. 607 Kühn).

[299] See above, pp. 22 and 27.

[300] Alciphron. Epist. iii. 48.

[301] Plut. Demosth. p. 849 A.

[302] C. I. A. ii. 973.

[303] Demosth. de Cor. §§ 180, 267; Aelian Var. Hist. xiv. 40; Plut. Fort. Alexand. 333 F; Diod. Sic. xiii. 97.

[304] Aul. Gell. vii. 5; Stob. Flor. 97, 28 (ii. p. 211 Meineke); Demosth. Fals. Leg. § 246; Schol. Soph. Ajax 865; Athen. p. 584 D.

[305] Throughout the present chapter my account of the existing remains of the Athenian theatre has been taken almost entirely from Dörpfeld and Reisch, Das griechische Theater, 1896. Dörpfeld’s minute and admirable description of the theatre has superseded all previous treatises on the subject. For the old authorities see Preface to the First Edition, p. viii.

[306] Pollux iv. 123 ἐλεὸς δ’ ἦν τράπεζα ἀρχαία, ἐφ’ ἣν πρὸ Θέσπιδος εἷς τις ἀναβὰς τοῖς χορευταῖς ἀπεκρίνατο. Etym. Mag. s.v. θυμέλη· τράπεζα δὲ ἦν ἐφ’ ἧς ἑστῶτες ἐν τοῖς ἀγροῖς ᾖδον, μήπω τάξιν λαβούσης τραγῳδίας. Dörpfeld (Griechische Theater, pp. 34, 278) thinks the ἐλεός was the altar step, which in some cases was of great size. Cp. the specimen he gives on p. 34. He quotes Pollux iv. 123 θυμέλη, εἴτε βῆμά τι οὖσα, εἴτε βωμός. But this passage does not mean that Pollux thought the thymele was

## partly an altar and partly a platform. It means that he was uncertain

which of the two it was. Probably he was thinking of the later sense of θυμέλη = ‘the stage’.

[307] Cp. Cook on the Thymele in Greek Theatres, Classical Review, October 1895, p. 371, and below, p. 108, with notes.

[308] Suidas s.v. σκηνή; Pollux iv. 123; Etym. Mag. s.v. θυμέλη.

[309] Hesych. s.v. παρ’ αἰγείρου θέα ... τὰ ἴκρια, ἅ ἐστιν ὀρθὰ ξύλα ἔχοντα σανίδας προσδεδεμένας, οἷον βαθμούς, ἐφ’ αἷς ἐκαθέζοντο πρὸ τοῦ κατασκευασθῆναι τὸ θέατρον. Cp. Bekk. Anecd. p. 354; Hesych. and Suidas s.v. ἴκρια; Eustath. Od. p. 1472.

[310] All theatres, in which the orchestra consists of an exact semicircle, are either Roman, or built under Roman influence. See Vitruv. v. 6.

[311] The term θέατρον Ληναϊκόν mentioned by Pollux (iv. 121) may refer to the old wooden theatre in the Lenaeum.

[312] See Appendix C for a discussion of the site of the Lenaeum.

[313] Suidas s.v. ἀπ’ αἰγείρου θέα. Hesych. s.vv. αἰγείρου θέα, παρ’ αἰγείρου θέα, θέα παρ’ αἰγείρῳ. Eustath. Od. p. 1472.

[314] Suidas s.v. Πρατίνας ... συνέβη τὰ ἴκρια, ἐφ’ ὧν ἑστήκεσαν οἱ θεαταί, πεσεῖν, καὶ ἐκ τούτου θέατρον ᾠκοδομήθη Ἀθηναίοις.

[315] See below, p. 130.

[316] Dörpfeld and Reisch, Griechische Theater, p. 31.

[317] Wilamowitz, Hermes, xxi. p. 622. Griech. Theater, p. 9.

[318] Aristoph. Acharn. 504; Plat. Prot. 327 D; Dem. Meid. § 10 (law of Evegorus); C. I. A. ii. 741 (334-331 B.C.).

[319] Griech. Theater, pp. 26 ff.

[320] Griech. Theater, p. 111.

[321] Griech. Theater, pp. 36 ff.

[322] Fürtwängler, Sitzungsber. der Akad. der Wiss. zu München, 1901, p. 415. Roberts and Gardner, Greek Epigraphy, ii. Introd. p. xiii.

[323] C. I. A. i. 499. Cp. p. 132.

[324] Tragic Drama of the Greeks, p. 430.

[325] C. I. A. ii. 176.

[326] Plut. X orat. 841 C καὶ τὸ ἐν Διονύσου θέατρον ἐπιστατῶν ἐτελεύτησε. Id. Psephism. iii. πρὸς δὲ τούτοις ἡμίεργα παραλαβὼν τούς τε νεωσοίκους καὶ τὴν σκευοθήκην καὶ τὸ θέατρον τὸ Διονυσιακὸν ἐξειργάσατο καὶ ἐπετέλεσε. Paus. i. 29. 16 οἰκοδομήματα δὲ ἐπετέλεσε μὲν τὸ θέατρον ἑτέρων ὑπαρξαμένων. Hyperid. or. dep. 118 Kenyon ταχθεὶς δὲ ἐπὶ τῇ διοικήσει τῶν χρημάτων εὗρε πόρους, ᾠκοδόμησε δὲ τὸ θέατρον, τὸ ᾠδεῖον, τὰ νεώρια, τριήρεις ἐποιήσατο, λιμένας.

[327] [Aristoph. Thesm. 395 (B.C. 411) and Cratinus, Frag. Incert. 51 (before B.C. 422) call the spectators’ seats ἴκρια, ‘benches’: but the name might survive after the material had been changed from wood to stone; and Puchstein may be right in dating this before the end of the fifth century. See below, p. 131.]

[328] See below, p. 130.

[329] C. I. A. iii. 158.

[330] C. I. A. iii. 239 σοὶ τόδε καλὸν ἔτευξε φιλόργιε βῆμα θεήτρου | Φαῖδρος Ζωίλου βιοδώτορος Ἀτθίδος ἀρχός.

[331] See E. A. Gardner, Ancient Athens, p. 435.

[332] Paus. i. 20 3; Griech. Theater, pp. 10 ff.

[333] Vitruv. v. 3. 2.

[334] The plan is copied from that given in Griech. Theater, Tafel I.

[335] Harp. s.v. κατατομή· Ὑπερείδης ἐν τῷ κατὰ Δημοσθένους. καὶ καθήμενος κάτω ὑπὸ τῇ κατατομῇ. Φιλόχορος δὲ ἐν ἕκτῃ οὕτως· Αἰσχραῖος Ἀναγυράσιος ἀνέθηκε τὸν ὑπὲρ θεάτρου τρίποδα καταργυρώσας, νενικηκὼς τῷ πρότερον ἔτει χορηγῶν παισί, καὶ ἐπέγραψεν ἐπὶ τὴν κατατομὴν τῆς πέτρας. Bekk Anecd. p. 270. 21 κατατομὴ ἡ ὀρχήστρα ἡ νῦν σίγμα, ἢ μέρος τι τοῦ θεάτρου κατετμήθη, ἐπεὶ ἐν ὄρει κατεσκεύασται.

[336] Paus. i. 21. 5; C. I. A. ii. 1247; Stuart and Revett’s Antiquities of Athens, ii. 8. For a detailed description of the Thrasyllus monument see Harrison and Verrall, Mythology and Monuments of Ancient Athens, pp. 266 ff.; E. Gardner, Ancient Athens, p. 403.

[337] See Griech. Theater, pp. 169 ff.; Capps, Vitruvius and the Greek Stage, pp. 18 ff.

[338] The illustration is copied, with a few alterations, from Zeitschrift für bildende Kunst, xiii. p. 197.

[339] Griech. Theater, p. 51.

[340] Gardner and Loring, Excavations at Megalopolis, p. 74; Griech. Theater, pp. 101, 121; Schrader, Berl. Phil. Wochenschrift, April 16, 1898, p. 508.

[341] Griech. Theater, p. 44.

[342] Pollux iv. 123.

[343] διαζώματα, C. I. G. 4283; ζῶναι, Malal. p. 222. The longitudinal passages are called δίοδοι in the Delian inscription for 269 B.C. The upper belt of seats is called ἐπιθέατρον in the inscription for 250 B.C. See Bull. Corr. Hell., 1894, pp. 162 ff.

[344] Griech. Theater, p. 41.

[345] The copy is taken from Wieseler’s Denkmäler des Bühnenwesens, i. 1.

[346] Vitruv. v. 6. 4.

[347] Griech. Theater, p. 45. Dörpfeld obtains this result by allowing for each person a space of 16 inches—the distance between the vertical lines already mentioned (p. 97). If 19 inches is allowed, he calculates that the theatre would have held about 14,000 people.

[348] Megalopolis held about 17,000 (Gardner), or 18,700 (Schultz); Epidaurus about 17,000 (Gardner). These calculations, however, should be slightly reduced, as they are based on an allowance of only 13 inches for each person (see above, p. 97), which is certainly too small, though the experience of modern theatre managers shows that, where the seats have no dividing arms, 14 inches is sufficient and 16 inches ample. (See Gardner, Ancient Athens, p. 439.) See Excavations at Megalopolis, p. 69.

[349] Plat. Symp. 175 E.

[350] Phot. s.v. ὀρχήστρα ... τοῦ θεάτρου τὸ κάτω ἡμικύκλιον, οὗ καὶ οἱ χοροὶ ᾖδον καὶ ὠρχοῦντο.

[351] Bekk. Anecd. p. 270. 21 ἡ ὀρχήστρα ἡ νῦν σίγμα λεγομένη. Ibid. p. 286. 16.

[352] Suidas s.v. σκηνή ... ἡ κονίστρα, τουτέστι τὸ κάτω ἔδαφος τοῦ θεάτρου. The same scholium is repeated in Schol. Gregor. Nazianz. laud. patr. 355 B.

[353] e.g. Schol. Aristoph. Equit. 505 (of the chorus) ἑστᾶσι μὲν γὰρ κατὰ στοῖχον οἱ πρὸς τὴν ὀρχήστραν ἀποβλέποντες· ὅταν δὲ παραβῶσιν, ἐφεξῆς ἑστῶτες καὶ πρὸς τοὺς θεατὰς βλέποντες τὸν λόγον ποιοῦνται. Here ὀρχήστρα obviously = λογεῖον. Cp. Suidas s.v. σκηνή; Isidor. Origg. xviii. 44 ‘orchestra autem pulpitum erat scaenae’. [A full history of the meanings of the word is given in A. Müller’s Untersuchungen zu den Bühnenalterthümern, pp. 77-88.]

[354] Griech. Theater, pp. 57, 58.

[355] For the date see Griech. Theater, pp. 129 ff.; Christ, Sitzungsber. bayer. Akad. der Wissen. 1894, pp. 30 ff.; Lechat, Épidaure, p. 106.

[356] Paus. ii. 27. 5 Ἐπιδαυρίοις δέ ἐστι θέατρον ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ, μάλιστα ἐμοὶ δοκεῖν θέας ἄξιον· τὰ μὲν γὰρ Ῥωμαίων πολὺ δή τι ὑπερῆρκε τῶν πανταχοῦ τῷ κόσμῳ, μεγέθει δὲ Ἀρκάδων τὸ ἐν Μεγάλῃ πόλει· ἁρμονίας δὲ ἢ κάλλους ἕνεκα ἀρχιτέκτων ποῖος ἐς ἅμιλλαν Πολυκλείτῳ γένοιτ’ ἂν ἀξιόχρεως; Πολύκλειτος γὰρ τὸ θέατρον τοῦτο καὶ οἴκημα τὸ περιφερὲς ὁ ποιήσας ἦν.

[357] The view is copied from a photograph taken by Prof. Ernest Gardner, and kindly lent for reproduction. The plan is from Baumeister’s Denkmäler, iii. p. 1735.

[358] Vitruv. v. 6 and 7.

[359] Other examples are found at Athens, the Peiraeeus, and Eretria. See Fig. 3, and the plans in Griech. Theater, pp. 98 and 112.

[360] Griech. Theater, p. 175.

[361] See the plans in Griech. Theater, pp. 117, 144, 149.

[362] Suidas s.v. σκηνή ... μετὰ τὴν σκηνὴν εὐθὺς καὶ τὰ παρασκήνια ἡ ὀρχήστρα. αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ὁ τόπος ὁ ἐκ σανίδων ἔχων τὸ ἔδαφος, ἀφ’ οὗ θεατρίζουσιν οἱ μῖμοι. Here the word ὀρχήστρα clearly = λογεῖον. Cp. p. 102, note.

[363] Griech. Theater, p. 116. Bulletin de Corr. Hell. 1894, p. 163 τὴν ὀρχήστραν τοῦ θεάτρου καταχρῖσαι (date 269 B.C.).

[364] Hesych. s.v. γραμμαί.

[365] Aristot. Prob. xi. 25 διὰ τί, ὅταν ἀχυρωθῶσιν αἱ ὀρχῆστραι, ἧττον οἱ χοροὶ γεγώνασιν;

[366] Suidas s.v. σκηνή ... εἶτα μετὰ τὴν ὀρχήστραν (i.e. the stage) βωμὸς τοῦ Διονύσου. Poll. iv. 123 ἡ δὲ ὀρχήστρα τοῦ χοροῦ, ἐν ᾗ καὶ ἡ θυμέλη, εἴτε βῆμά τι οὖσα εἴτε βωμός. For the sacrifices in the theatre see p. 68.

[367] Schrader, Berl. Philolog. Wochenschrift, 1898, April 16, p. 509.

[368] Suidas s.v. σκηνή ... μετὰ τὴν ὀρχήστραν βωμὸς τοῦ Διονύσου, ὃς καλεῖται θυμέλη παρὰ τὸ θύειν. Etym. Mag. s.v. θυμέλη. Pratinas apud Athen. 517 B τίς ὕβρις ἔμολεν ἐπὶ Διονυσιάδα πολυπάταγα θυμέλαν;

[369] Phrynichus p. 163 (Lob.) θυμέλην· τοῦτο οἱ μὲν ἀρχαῖοι ἀντὶ τοῦ θυσίαν ἐτίθουν, οἱ δὲ νῦν ἐπὶ τοῦ τόπου ἐν τῷ θεάτρῳ, ἐν ᾧ αὐληταὶ καὶ κιθαρῳδοὶ καὶ ἄλλοι τινὲς ἀγωνίζονται· σὺ μέντοι ἔνθα μὲν κωμῳδοὶ καὶ τραγῳδοὶ ἀγωνίζονται λογεῖον ἐρεῖς, ἔνθα δὲ οἱ αὐληταὶ καὶ οἱ χοροὶ ὀρχήστραν, μὴ λέγε δὲ θυμέλην.

[370] Bekk. Anecd. p. 292 σκηνὴ δ’ ἐστὶν ἡ νῦν λεγομένη θυμέλη. Schol. Arist. Equit. 149 ὡς ἐν θυμέλῃ δὲ τὸ ἀνάβαινε. [Cp. Robert, Hermes xxxii. p. 441; Bethe, ibid. xxxvi. p. 597, and Dörpfeld, ibid. xxxvii. p. 249 for more recent discussions of the meaning of θυμέλη. Dörpfeld may be right in explaining the various meanings of the word by its having originally included not only the altar, but the broad base or stone platform on which the altar stood, e.g. in front of a temple. But Robert’s connexion of the word with θεμέλιον and τιθέναι instead of with θύω is more than doubtful. See also Müller, Unters. zu den Bühnenalterth., pp. 93-108.]

[371] Griech. Theater, p. 116.

[372] Ibid. p. 156.

[373] Amer. Journ. Arch., 1891, p. 281; 1893, p. 404.

[374] Athen. Mittheil., 1893, p. 407; Griech. Theater, p. 157.

[375] [Sharpley (Aristoph. Pax Introd., p. 27) thinks that it is ‘trifling with words’ to say that the purpose has not been explained. He thinks it certain that these tunnels were used for the appearance of actors in the orchestra, and constructs a theory of the scenic arrangements of the Pax on this hypothesis, assuming the correctness of Dörpfeld’s theory of the stage. But if Dörpfeld’s theory of the stage is to be rejected, owing to a balance of considerations against it (see below), then these tunnels do remain unexplained and their purpose mysterious. The fact that at Eretria they _could_ be used as Sharpley suggests proves nothing as to the manner in which they _were_ used, unless the theory of their use fits in with other evidence as to theatrical performances. We know nothing of the performances in the theatre at Eretria; there are no such tunnels at Athens, and there are other ways of explaining the Pax.]

[376] Remains of such gateways are to be found at Sicyon, Delos, and Pergamon. See the plans in Griech. Theater, pp. 117, 144, 151.

[377] Griech. Theater, pp. 129, 150.

[378] The illustration is taken from Πρακτικὰ τῆς ἐν Ἀθήν. ἀρχαιολ. ἑταιρίας for 1883.

[379] Πάροδοι in Schol. Arist. Equit. 149; Poll. iv. 126; εἴσοδοι in Arist. Nub. 326, Av. 296. The word πάροδος was also used to denote the entrances on to the stage, e.g. in Plut. Demetr. 905 B; Poll. iv. 128; Athen. 622 D.

[380] Vitruv. v. 6. The side-entrances are called ψαλίς in Poll. iv. 123; ἁψίς in Vit. Aristoph. (Dindf. Prolegom. de Comoed. p. 36).

[381] e.g. τῆς σκηνῆς τὸ τέγος καταλείψαντι ... εἰς τὸ λογεῖον τῆς σκηνῆς (Delian inscription, 279 B.C., in Bull. Corr. Hell. 1894, pp. 162 ff.).

[382] e.g. Aristot. Poet. c. 24 τὸ ἐπὶ τῆς σκηνῆς καὶ τῶν ὑποκριτῶν μέρος. Polyb. xxx. 13 πύκται τέσσαρες ἀνέβησαν ἐπὶ τὴν σκηνήν.

[383] Plut. Demetr. 900 D ἔλεγε νῦν πρῶτον ἑωρακέναι πόρνην προερχομένην ἐκ τραγικῆς σκηνῆς. So ἡ σκηνὴ ἡ μέση, τὰς ἐπάνω σκηνὰς καινὰς ποιῆσαι, γράψαι τὰς σκηνάς, κ.τ.λ. (Delian inscription, 274 B.C., in Bull. Corr. Hell. l.c.). Hence σκηνογραφία = scene-painting (Aristot. Poet. c. 4). [Müller, Unters. zu den Bühnenalterth., pp. 1 ff., gives fully the history of the various meanings of σκηνή.]

[384] Arg. Aesch. Pers. καὶ ἔστιν ἡ μὲν σκηνὴ τοῦ δράματος περὶ τῷ τάφῳ Δαρείου. Bekk. Anecd. iii. p. 1461 εἰς πέντε σκηνὰς διαιρεῖ τὸ δρᾶμα.

[385] Puchstein, Die Griech. Bühne, p. 136.

[386] Griech. Theater, pp. 62 ff.

[387] Puchstein, l.c., p. 102, denies this, on the ground that these stylobates are not long enough for the foundation walls of the Lycurgean building, and cannot therefore have been originally made for them.

[388] See above, p. 88.

[389] [Dörpfeld has, since the publication of his book, changed his mind, and now thinks that the Neronian stage was higher, and belonged to the Vitruvian Graeco-Roman, not to the Roman type (Ath. Mitth. 1897, p. 459; 1898, pp. 330, 347). Puchstein is inclined to agree (die griech. Bühne, p. 101). But, in fact, the evidence is insufficient to prove anything as to the height of the stage.]

[390] Griech. Theater, pp. 89-90.

[391] Harpocrat. (s.v. παρασκήνια) quotes Theophrastus for the definition of paraskenia as places on one side of the stage, used for storage purposes. The παρασκήνια τά τε ἐπάνω καὶ τὰ ὑποκάτω mentioned along with the σκηναί in the Delian inscription of 274 B.C. (Bull. Corr. Hell. 1894, pp. 162 ff.) were doubtless side-wings. Demosthenes (Meid. § 17) accuses Meidias of ‘nailing up the paraskenia’, and so preventing his dithyrambic chorus from making its appearance. Probably he nailed up the doors out of the side-wings into the parodoi. The word is also explained by the commentators as = (1) the entrances to the orchestra (Didymus quoted by Harpocrat. l.c.), or (2) the entrances to the stage (Phot. and Etym. Mag. s.v.; Bekk. Anecd. p. 292; Ulpian on Dem. Meid. § 17), or (3) the doors on each side of the main door in the back-scene (Suidas s.v. σκηνή). But these explanations are probably false inferences from the passage in Demosthenes, or from some other source. Cp. Müller, Unters. zu den Bühnenalt., pp. 57-62, for the history of the word παρασκήνια.

[392] See above, p. 112.

[393] Hesych. s.v. ὀκρίβας· τὸ λογεῖον ἐφ’ οὗ οἱ τραγῳδοὶ ἠγωνίζοντο. Plat. Symp. 194 A ἀναβαίνοντος ἐπὶ τὸν ὀκρίβαντα μετὰ τῶν ὑποκριτῶν. The stage referred to in this latter passage was probably in the Odeion. See above, p. 68, and Mazon, Rev. de Philologie, 1903, p. 265.

[394] Delian inscription of 279 B.C. εἰς τὸ [λογε]ῖον τῆς σκηνῆς; 180 B.C. τῶν πινάκων τῶν ἐπὶ τὸ λογεῖον (Bull. Corr. Hell. 1894, pp. 162 ff.). Phryn. p. 163 (Lob.) σὺ μέντοι, ἔνθα μὲν κωμῳδοὶ καὶ τραγῳδοὶ ἀγωνίζονται, λογεῖον ἐρεῖς. Cp. Müller, l.c., pp. 49-57, for the history of this and similar words.

[395] Delian inscription of 290 B.C. τὴν σκηνὴν ἐργολαβήσασι καὶ τὸ προσκήνιον; 282 B.C. εἰς τὸ προσκήνιον γράψαντι πίνακας (Bull. Corr. Hell. l.c.). Inscription on architrave of proscenium at Oropus (Griech. Theater, p. 103) ἀγωνοθετήσας τὸ προσκήνιον καὶ τοὺς πίνακας. Polyb. xxx. 13 τούτους δὲ στήσας ἐπὶ τὸ προσκήνιον μετὰ τοῦ χοροῦ. The word προσκήνιον also denoted (1) the painted scenery at the back of the stage. Cp. Suidas s.v. προσκήνιον· τὸ πρὸ τῆς σκηνῆς παραπέτασμα. Nannio the courtesan (fourth century B.C.) was called ‘proskenion’ because of the deceptive character of her beauty (Athen. p. 587 B). A representation of Demetrius (third century B.C.) was painted ἐπὶ τοῦ προσκηνίου. (2) The drop-scene (in late Greek). Cp. Synesius (about 400 A.D.), Aegypt. 128 C εἰ δέ τις ... κυνοφθαλμίζοιτο διὰ τοῦ προσκηνίου. Cp. Müller, l.c., pp. 35 ff., for history of the meanings of the word.

[396] Dörpfeld (p. 69) denies that there was ever a wooden stage between the wings of the Lycurgean building. He thinks the space was originally filled up with a wooden proscenium, of the same height as the later Hellenistic one of stone; and that both these proscenia served as backgrounds, and not as stages. He argues that if there had been a stage, it must have been made of stone. But if he is justified in assuming the existence of an early wooden proscenium, we are surely justified in assuming the existence of a stage of the same material.

[397] The theatres of Epidaurus and Megalopolis were formerly assigned to about the middle of the fourth century. But it now appears probable that they were not earlier than the end of that century. See Dörpfeld, Griech. Theater, pp. 129 ff., 140.

[398] See the plan in Griech. Theater, p. 112.

[399] This was probably for acoustic reasons; see below, p. 122.

[400] Dörpfeld (p. 69) argues that the original erection put up between the wings of the Lycurgean building must have been 13 ft. high, since the back-wall was adorned with columns and entablature of that height. But there is no proof of the existence of these columns and this entablature. In fact, the evidence is all the other way. See above, p. 114. Prof. E. Gardner (Excavations at Megalopolis, p. 84) thinks there is actual proof of the existence of a low wooden stage at Megalopolis in early times. The question really depends on the date of the three lower steps of the Thersilion, which he supposes to be considerably later than the stone auditorium. Dörpfeld, however (Griech. Theater, p. 140), assigns them to the same period.

[401] Griech. Theater, pp. 100, 102, 113, 120, 143, 147, 150, 156. Puchstein in many cases assigns an earlier date, e.g. at Megalopolis. (Die Griech. Bühne, p. 90.)

[402] Griech. Theater, p. 118.

[403] Ibid., p. 115. There is the foundation-wall of a wooden proscenium at Megalopolis, apparently of the third century, and running on the same line as the later stone proscenium. But whether it was of the same height is unknown. See Excavations at Megalopolis, p. 85.

[404] Schrader, Berl. Philolog. Wochenschrift, 1898, April 16, p. 508. The stone proscenium at Epidaurus has sometimes been assigned to the end of the fourth century, when the rest of the theatre was built. Dörpfeld thinks it more probable that it was a later structure (Griech. Theater, p. 232). Puchstein, however, dates the stone proscenium at Megalopolis in the third or even the fourth century.

[405] Vitruv. v. 7.

[406] Puchstein, Griech. Bühne, pp. 41 ff.

[407] Ibid., pp. 17, 18. See below, p. 130.

[408] See (besides Puchstein, l.c.) Excavations at Megalopolis, p. 87; Griech. Theater, p. 116. Cp. ibid., pp. 103, 150, for similar traces at Assos and Oropus. The architrave of the proscenium at Oropus bore the inscription ἀγωνοθετήσας τὸ προσκήνιον καὶ τοὺς πίνακας (ibid., p. 102). The Delian inscriptions of 282 B.C. and 180 B.C. mention πίνακες εἰς τὸ προσκήνιον, πίνακες ἐπὶ τὸ λογεῖον (Bull. Corr. Hell. 1894, p. 162).

[409] [See Bethe, Jahrb. Arch. Inst. 1900, p. 79. There is nothing absurd, as Dörpfeld seems to think (ibid. 1901, p. 22), in the proscenium thus serving two purposes in the two different types of performance. Why should it not?]

[410] See Puchstein, l.c., p. 23.

[411] Bull. Corr. Hell. 1894, p. 162.

[412] Puchstein, l.c., p. 38.

[413] Poll. iv. 124 τὸ δὲ ὑποσκήνιον κίοσι καὶ ἀγαλματίοις κεκόσμητο πρὸς τὸ θέατρον τετραμμένοις, ὑπὸ τὸ λογεῖον κείμενον. When Athenaeus (631 E) speaks of a flute-player waiting in the hyposkenion till his turn came to perform, it is uncertain whether the word there denotes a room under the stage, or is used generally for the whole of the stage-buildings. See Müller, Unters. zu den Bühnenalt., pp. 62-5.

[414] Griech. Theater, pp. 127, 147.

[415] Schrader, Berl. Philolog. Wochenschrift, 1898, April 16, p. 509; Puchstein, l.c., pp. 19, 50.

[416] Griech. Theater, pp. 99, 102, 115, 125, 147, 150, 384. Dörpfeld now thinks that there may have been three doors at Delos, but the matter is very doubtful (Bull. Corr. Hell. 1896, p. 570).

[417] Excavations at Megalopolis, p. 86. Chamonard, Bull. Corr. Hell. 1896, p. 296.

[418] The illustration is taken from Baumeister’s Denkmäler, iii. plate lxv.

[419] Griech. Theater, 103. Bull. Corr. Hell. 1896, p. 595.

[420] Chamonard (Bull. Corr. Hell. 1896, p. 296), judging from the width of the supporting columns, makes the height of the Delian proscenium 8 ft. 2 in. Dörpfeld (ibid., p. 564), arguing that these columns must have been the same height as the pillars at the side-entrance, supposes the proscenium to have been 9 ft. 2 in.

[421] Griech. Theater, p. 99.

[422] See the plans in Griech. Theater.

[423] [Robert, Gött. Gel. Anz. 1902, p. 425; Dörpfeld, Ath. Mitth. 1903, p. 407. The latter’s suggestion (l.c. 1898, p. 351) that they were used to bring stage machinery into the θεολογεῖον, which he identifies with the stage or λογεῖον, is met by the rejection of this identification; see below, p. 164.]

[424] Puchstein, Griech. Bühne, pp. 49, 58, &c.

[425] The remains at Sicyon and Eretria show that at any rate the _first_ story—that above the proscenium—was made of stone.

[426] The phrase αἱ ἐπάνω σκηναί in the Delian inscription of 274 B.C. appears to show that the back-scene of that time must have been two stories high (Bull. Corr. Hell. 1894, p. 162), [and the large sum of 2,500 drachmae paid for painting the σκηναί and παρασκήνια, when compared with the 6 drachmae 2 obols for painting the four πίνακες ἐς τὸ προσκήνιον suggests that the former was elaborate and artistic decoration, the latter something much simpler. See above, p. 123, and Bethe, Jahrb. Arch. Inst. 1900, p. 64; P. Gardner, J. Hell. Stud. 1899, p. 259, shows reason for thinking that the painting on the σκηναί represented architectural decoration, perhaps of an elaborate kind.]

[427] [Vitruvius, vii. 5. 5, says that Apaturius of Alabanda, about the middle of the first century B.C., treated the architectural back-scene in a fantastic manner, and it is therefore probable, though the inference is not certain, that the style in a simpler form had been in vogue for some time previously. A terra-cotta from the S. Angelo collection, belonging to the first or second century B.C., presents a back-scene of two stories (Röm. Mitth. xii. p. 140; Bethe, Jahrb. Arch. Inst. 1900, p. 61). There is also a vase-painting from Magna Graecia in Madrid by Assteas, representing the Mad Heracles murdering his child (Baumeister, Denkm. 732; Bethe, l.c., p. 60), with an architectural background of two stories enclosed on both sides, and with a roof. As Assteas painted in the fourth century B.C. (Robert, art. Assteas, in Pauly-Wiss. Encycl.), Bethe, l.c., argues that the architectural back-scene was known in Magna Graecia, and probably therefore in Greece proper, at that date. But it is uncertain whether the scene represents an actual stage performance. The murder, so far as we know, was never presented on the stage: it took place in a room. The scene depicted may therefore represent the scene as narrated by a messenger, and the buildings cannot be assumed to be a stage background. The inferences from the terra-cotta are equally disputed. (Dörpfeld, Jahrb. Arch. Inst. 1901, pp. 27 ff.; Graef., Hermes 1901, pp. 81 ff.) Cp. note on p. 172.]

[428] Vitruv. v. 6; Poll. iv. 124.

[429] The point of course is not, as Dörpfeld seems to imply (Jahrb. Arch. Inst. 1901, p. 25; Ath. Mitth. 1903, pp. 389, 406), whether there was ever a chorus or not at this time; but that there was no longer a chorus in close communication with the actors, as in some plays of Aeschylus, and therefore requiring a low stage. Bethe is, however, not justified in assuming that there was _no_ stage in Aeschylus’ time (see below, p. 172). A low one would allow sufficient intercourse between chorus and actors.

[430] Tragic Drama of the Greeks, p. 452.

[431] Poll. iv. 127. See below, p. 148.

[432] Athen. de Mach., p. 29 (Wesch.) κατεσκεύασαν δέ τινες ἐν πολιορκίᾳ κλιμάκων γένη παραπλήσια τοῖς τιθεμένοις ἐν τοῖς θεάτροις πρὸς τὰ προσκήνια τοῖς ὑποκριταῖς. The meaning of this passage has been much disputed. But Weissmann (Scenische Anweis. pp. 49 ff.) has shown conclusively, as it seems to me, from a parallel passage in Apollodorus περὶ κλιμάκων, that Athenaeus is referring, not to ladders used on the stage for mounting the back-scene, but to steps about 12 feet high, placed in front of the stage.

[433] See Fig. 13. Other specimens are given in Baumeister, Denkmäler, ii. pp. 819, 820; Griechische Theater, pp. 322-324.

[434] Wieseler, Denkmäl. iv. 5.

[435] Puchstein, Griech. Bühne, pp. 17 ff.

[436] Griech. Theater, p. 113.

[437] Ancient Athens, p. 435.

[438] Fürtwängler, Sitzungsber. der Akad. der Wiss. zu München, 1901, pp. 411-6: q.v. for further arguments.

[439] Puchstein, l.c., p. 138.

[440] Tafel iii.

[441] Cp. p. 87. Dörpfeld’s objection that the shape is not that of such seat-steps is disposed of by a comparison with other seat-steps elsewhere; Puchstein, l.c., p. 139. The inscription is C. I. A. i. 499.

[442] l.c., p. 136.

[443] Above, p. 119, and below, § 13.

[444] See note on p. 128.

[445] Aristot. Poet. c. 18, ad fin.

[446] The illustration is taken from Lanckoronski, Städte Pamphyliens und Pisidiens (Wien, 1892), vol. i. plate 27.

[447] Vitruv. v. 6; Poll. iv. 124.

[448] Müller, Bühnenalt., p. 28.

[449] See Lanckoronski, Städte Pamphyliens und Pisidiens, vol. i. pp. 51 ff., and plate 14 (Perge), vol. ii. pp. 92 ff., and plates 10-13 (Termessos), pp. 152 ff., and plate 26 (Sagalassos); Texier, Description de l’Asie Mineure, vol. iii. plates 181 and 182 (Patara), plate 215 (Myra). The stage at Termessos was 8 feet high, that at Patara 8½ feet, that at Sagalassos 9 feet. At Magnesia and at Tralles, where in other respects the theatres were more completely Romanized, the height of the stages was 7 ft. 6 in. and 9 ft. 10 in. respectively (Griech. Theater, p. 156). See also Puchstein, Griech. Bühne, on all these theatres.

[450] Griech. Theater, pp. 150 ff.

[451] See Excavations at Megalopolis, Supplementary Paper published by the Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies, 1892; Puchstein, Griech. Bühne, pp. 88 ff. The plan is copied from Griech. Theater, p. 134.

[452] From Griech. Theater, p. 144. For the description of the theatre, see ibid., pp. 144 ff.; Chamonard, Bull. Corr. Hell., 1896, pp. 256 ff.; Puchstein, l.c., pp. 53 ff.

[453] Side-wings (παρασκήνια) are mentioned not infrequently in the Delian inscriptions for 274 and 269 B.C. (Bull. Corr. Hell., 1894, p. 162) as forming part of the theatre. But the present proscenium was probably erected in the second century. At that date the permanent side-wings must have been abolished.

[454] Dindorf, Prolegom. de Comoed. p. 29 καὶ ὅτε μὲν πρὸς τοὺς ὑποκριτὰς διελέγετο (ὁ χορὸς ὁ κωμικός), πρὸς τὴν σκηνὴν ἀφεώρα, ὅτε δὲ ἀπελθόντων τῶν ὑποκριτῶν τοὺς ἀναπαίστους διεξῄει, πρὸς τὸν δῆμον ἀπεστρέφετο. Ibid. p. 36 εἰσῄει (ὁ χορὸς ὁ κωμικὸς) ἐν τετραγώνῳ σχήματι, ἀφορῶν εἰς τοὺς ὑποκριτάς. Cp. ibid. p. 21; Dübner, Prolegom. de Comoed. p. 20; Schol. Aristoph. Equit. 505.

[455] G. Hermann, Opusc. vi. 2, pp. 152 ff. The passage occurs in Suidas and Etym. Mag., _s.v._ σκηνή; and in a more complete form in Schol. Gregor. Nazianz. 355 B. The last version runs as follows:—μετὰ τὴν σκηνὴν εὐθὺς καὶ τὰ παρασκήνια ἡ ὀρχήστρα. αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ὁ τόπος ὁ ἐκ σανίδων ἔχων τὸ ἔδαφος, ἐφ’ οὗ θεατρίζουσιν οἱ μῖμοι. εἶτα μετὰ τὴν ὀρχήστραν βωμὸς ἦν τοῦ Διονύσου, τετράγωνον οἰκοδόμημα κενὸν ἐπὶ τοῦ μέσου, ὃ καλεῖται θυμέλη παρὰ τοῦ θύειν. μετὰ τὴν θυμέλην ἡ κονίστρα, τουτέστι τὸ κάτω ἔδαφος τοῦ θεάτρου. It is clear that ὀρχήστρα here means the stage. This appears not only from the context, but also from the fact that it is said to have been the place for the μῖμοι. Wieseler bases upon the above passage his peculiar theory that the ‘thymele’ was the platform for the chorus, and not an altar at all. He relies on the words τετράγωνον οἰκοδόμημα κενόν. It is true that the passage is obscure. But if it proves one thing more than another, it proves that the ‘thymele’ was the altar of Dionysus, and stood in the orchestra.

[456] See above, p. 108.

[457] In addition to the scholium quoted in the preceding note, the following passages are cited to prove that θυμέλη sometimes = the special platform for the chorus, between the orchestra and the stage:—(1) Anthol. Pal. vii. 21 πολλάκις ἐν θυμέλῃσι καὶ ἐν σκηνῇσι τεθηλὼς | βλαισὸς Ἀχαρνίτης κισσὸς κ.τ.λ. (2) Corp. Ins. Gr. 6750 δόξαν φωνήεσσαν ἐνὶ σκηναῖσι λαβοῦσαν | παντοίης ἀρετῆς ἐν μείμοις, εἶτα χοροῖσι | πολλάκις ἐν θυμέλαις. (3) Schol. Aristid. iii, p. 536 (Dindf.) ὁ χορὸς ὅτε εἰσῄει ἐν τῇ ὀρχήστρᾳ ᾗ (MS. ἣ) ἐστι θυμέλη. (4) Poll. iv. 123 ἡ δὲ ὀρχήστρα τοῦ χοροῦ, ἐν ᾗ καὶ ἡ θυμέλη, εἴτε βῆμά τι οὖσα εἴτε βωμός. (5) Isidor. Origg. xviii. 47 ‘et dicti thymelici, quod olim in orchestra stantes cantabant super pulpitum quod thymele vocabatur.’ In the first and second passages θυμέλη obviously = ὀρχήστρα. In the third passage it = ὀρχήστρα or βωμὸς Διονύσου, according as ἥ or ᾗ is read. In the fourth passage there is apparently a confusion of the two meanings of θυμέλη as ‘a stage’ and ‘an altar’. In the fifth passage the two meanings of ‘orchestra’ and ‘stage’ are confused. [Cp. p. 108, n.]

[458] Horace, Ars Poet. 278-80 ‘post hunc personae pallaeque repertor honestae | Aeschylus et modicis instravit pulpita tignis | et docuit magnumque loqui nitique cothurno.’ [The passage becomes still more significant if we translate ‘tignis’ ‘posts’, i.e. uprights. It bears this sense in Caes. B. G. iv. 17, 3. ‘Tigna bina sesquipedalia paulum ab imo praeacuta ... in flumen defixerat.’ See P. Gardner, J. Hell. Stud. 1899, p. 257.]

[459] Höpken, De Theatro Attico, Bonn, 1884.

[460] Vitruv. v. 7 ‘ita a tribus centris hac descriptione ampliorem habent orchestram Graeci et scaenam recessiorem minoreque latitudine pulpitum, quod λογεῖον appellant, ideo quod eo tragici et comici actores in scaena peragunt, reliqui autem artifices suas per orchestram praestant

## actiones, itaque ex eo scaenici et thymelici graece separatim nominantur.

Eius logei altitudo non minus debet esse pedum decem, non plus duodecim.’ Whether under ‘reliqui artifices’ Vitruvius included the dramatic chorus is very doubtful. The dramatic chorus had almost disappeared in his day. Moreover ‘thymelici’ as opposed to ‘scaenici’ generally means the competitors in musical and literary contests, as opposed to the competitors in dramatic contests. But the words of Vitruvius about the position of the actors upon the stage are free from all ambiguity. [Cp. Frei, de Certaminibus Thymelicis. Dörpfeld’s suggestion (Deutsche Littztg. 1901, p. 1816) that dramatic actors were called σκηνικοί because they were nearer the σκηνή, and musical performers θυμελικοί as being in the centre of the orchestra, round the θυμέλη, forces the words to fit his theory, but gives a far less natural meaning to the distinction. According to this, the members of the chorus in the drama also ought to be called θυμελικοί.]

[461] Ibid. v. 6.

[462] Griech. Theater, p. 364.

[463] Bull. Corr. Hell. 1896, pp. 577 ff.; Athen. Mittheil. 1897, pp. 444 ff.; 1903, p. 386, &c.

[464] See above, p. 135.

[465] [The discussion is continued by Bethe, Hermes, 1898, pp. 313 ff., and Dörpfeld, Ath. Mitth. 1898, pp. 326 ff.; 1903, pp. 424 ff. The latter admits that the Hellenistic stage corresponds better in depth with Vitruvius’ rule, and his further arguments in support of his theory are very unconvincing. (As regards some of them, see pp. 158 ff.) In various other details the Hellenistic and Asiatic theatres nearly all deviate from the exact figures given by Vitruvius, though the approximations are in most cases close. One theatre corresponds in one point with the figures given, one in another, as one would expect: and in most points, other than those above mentioned, neither the Hellenistic nor the Asiatic type has much advantage over the other in respect of precise correspondence. (See Noack, Philologus, lviii, pp. 9 ff.) The clearest result of Dörpfeld’s controversy with Bethe, and later with Puchstein, is that theatres of both types varied much more than most writers have allowed. Why should they not have done so? At the same time, Vitruvius’ rules are as nearly in accordance with the general features of the Hellenistic type as general rules can be reasonably expected to be.]

[466] Poll. iv. 123 καὶ σκηνὴ μὲν ὑποκριτῶν ἴδιον, ἡ δὲ ὀρχήστρα τοῦ χοροῦ. Dörpfeld (p. 347, and Ath. Mitth. 1903, p. 419) says that σκηνή here = ‘the stage-buildings’. But the mention of the λογεῖον in the previous line of Pollux, and the description of the ὑποσκήνιον, almost immediately afterwards, as ὑπὸ τὸ λογεῖον κείμενον, clearly show that the type of theatre described by Pollux was one which possessed a stage. If so, this stage must have been used by the actors.

[467] Poll. iv. 127 εἰσελθόντες δὲ κατὰ τὴν ὀρχήστραν ἐπὶ τὴν σκηνὴν ἀναβαίνουσι διὰ κλιμάκων. Here too Dörpfeld (p. 347, and Ath. Mitth. 1903, p. 406) thinks σκηνή = the house in the background, and that the sentence refers to cases like Aristoph. Nub. 1486, where Strepsiades climbs on to the roof. But why should the actors have used steps to mount the house only when they entered the theatre by the orchestra? They would need them just as much if they entered by the doors in the back-scene.

[468] Schol. Ran. 183 ἠλλοιῶσθαι χρὴ τὴν σκηνὴν καὶ εἶναι κατὰ τὴν Ἀχερουσίαν λίμνην τὸν τόπον ἐπὶ τοῦ λογείου ἢ ἐπὶ τῆς ὀρχήστρας. Ibid. 299 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. Schol. Equit. 149 ἵνα, φησίν, ἐκ τῆς παρόδου ἐπὶ τὸ λογεῖον ἀναβῇ. διὰ τί οὖν ἐκ τῆς παρόδου; τοῦτο γὰρ οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον. Ibid. 506 λέγεται δὲ παράβασις ... ἐπειδὴ παραβαίνει ὁ χορὸς τὸν τόπον. ἑστᾶσι μὲν γὰρ κατὰ στοῖχον οἱ πρὸς τὴν ὀρχήστραν (i.e. the stage) ἀποβλέποντες· ὅταν δὲ παραβῶσιν, ἐφεξῆς ἑστῶτες καὶ πρὸς τοὺς θεατὰς βλέποντες τὸν λόγον ποιοῦνται. Vit. Aesch. p. 8 (Dindf.) τὰ γὰρ δράματα συμπληροῦσιν οἱ πρεσβύτατοι τῶν θεῶν, καὶ ἔστι τὰ ἀπὸ τῆς σκηνῆς καὶ τῆς ὀρχήστρας θεῖα πάντα πρόσωπα.

[469] See above, p. 144, and note 1.

[470] Griech. Theater, p. 348.

[471] Griech. Theater, pp. 103, 113-16, 118.

[472] [Noack (Philologus, lviii. p. 6) argues that the reason was that at the north end, where the rock is not cut away, it is much higher, and the cutting and removal would be very expensive. But we know nothing of the willingness or unwillingness of the Sicyonians to spend money on public and religious objects, and the simpler theory seems to be that the space was not wanted. The same remark applies to Noack’s explanation of the case of Eretria by considerations of expense.]

[473] [Noack, l.c., contends that the division of the skene and filling of half the space with earth is later work, and throws no light on the scheme of the Hellenistic theatre. This is very doubtful; but even if it were proved the other cases quoted would be sufficient for the argument in the text.]

[474] See above, p. 125.

[475] This point is well brought out by Chamonard, Bull. Corr. Hell. 1896, p. 296.

[476] Griech. Theater, p. 381.

[477] Chamonard, l.c., p. 294.

[478] Griech. Theater, p. 381.

[479] See above, p. 124.

[480] Lanckoronski, Städte Pamphyliens, &c., vol. ii. plate 10.

[481] Griech. Theater, p. 380. [Also Noack, Philologus, lviii. pp. 2 ff.; to whom Puchstein, Griech. Bühne, pp. 30 ff., replies sufficiently. The evidence of the vases (see below), where actors are shown acting _on_ a stage with columns in front, is conclusive against his contention that the _only_ proper support for a stage is a wall, and that therefore the columns of the proscenium can only represent a back-scene.]

[482] On the subject of these vase-paintings see especially Heydemann, Die Phlyakendarstellungen auf bemalten Vasen, Jahrb. Kais. Deutsch. Archäol. Inst. 1886, pp. 260 ff. Bethe, Prolegomena zur Geschichte des Theaters, pp. 278 ff. Reisch, in Griech. Theater, pp. 311 ff.

[483] They are taken from Wieseler’s Denkmäler, ix. 14 and 15 (= Baumeister, figs. 1828 and 1830).

[484] Fig. 13. Cp. the specimens in Wieseler’s Denkmäl. ix. 8; Griech. Theater, pp. 315, 322, and 323; Baumeister’s Denkmäl., figs. 902, 903, 1826, 1827, 1829.

[485] Fig. 14. Cp. also the specimen in Griech. Theater, p. 318.

[486] Fig. 13. Cp. also Griech. Theater, pp. 322-4; Baumeister, figs. 902, 903.

[487] Baumeister, fig. 903. Griech. Theater, p. 322.

[488] Griech. Theater, p. 327.

[489] [The same must be said of his later suggestion (Jahrb. Arch. Inst. 1901, p. 36) that the columns on the Phlyakes vases are not really curtailed, and do not therefore point to a taller stage, but are complete and imply a stage between three and four feet high.]

[490] Griech. Theater, p. 147.

[491] Puchstein, Griech. Bühne, p. 24.

[492] Griech. Theater, p. 361.

[493] The stage at Athens was about 9 ft. 3 in.; at Epidaurus about 10½ ft. (Griech. Theater, pp. 78, 128). That at Delos was about 10 ft. (Chamonard, Bull. Corr. Hell. 1896, p. 306). As Lechat (Épidaure, p. 208) points out, it is necessary, in calculating the depth, not to measure from wall to wall, but to take into account the projecting cornice. In some cases, as he also remarks, the wall of the back-scene may have been narrower than the wall beneath, on which it rested; and this would add slightly to the depth of the stage.

[494] These facts and measurements have been kindly supplied to me by Dr. Gray.

[495] Griech. Theater, p. 342; Ath. Mitth. 1898, pp. 337, 345, &c.

[496] Fougères, Mantinée et l’Arcadie, pp. 165 ff. According to Dörpfeld’s theory that the proscenium was the back-scene, these lowest seats would be on a level with the roof of the back-scene, which is absurd. His argument that in cases where a removal of the lower rows or steps of seats is certain (as at Assos, Pergamon, and Delphi), we may assume that the theatre was converted from the supposed stageless Hellenistic type to the Asiatic, is most unconvincing. Why were the rows not similarly removed at Priene and Magnesia, though the high stage was erected there? If he can suppose that in these cases seats were allowed to remain which were bad for dramatic performances, why not in other cases?

[497] Wochenschr. für Klass. Phil. 1899, p. 260.

[498] [For controversy on this point, cf. A. Müller, Unters. zu den Bühnenalt., pp. 108 ff.; Dörpfeld, Ath. Mitth. 1899, p. 310; Müller, Philologus, lix. p. 330. Müller accepts Maass’ conclusions, though he corrects some of his figures. Both Müller and Dörpfeld calculate how much of the orchestra or of the actor on the stage could be seen by the spectators in different parts of different theatres. But any conclusions drawn from such calculations are precarious; we have no reason to suppose that there was a larger proportion of good seats in ancient theatres than in modern; still less that the front seats were all necessarily better for seeing the actors, any more than front seats or other seats of honour are in many cases in modern theatres.]

[499] Griech. Theater, p. 342.

[500] Athen. Mittheil. 1893, p. 410.

[501] Griech. Theater, pp. 138, 139.

[502] See Puchstein, Griech. Bühne, p. 88; and P. Gardner, J. Hell. Stud. 1899, p. 258.

[503] See above, p. 138.

[504] Griech. Theater, p. 146.

[505] Vitruv. v. 6.

[506] Griech. Theater, pp. 385 ff.

[507] See above, p. 135.

[508] See above, p. 118.

[509] Griech. Theater, p. 365. Ath. Mitth. 1903, p. 395.

[510] On these points see below, pp. 209-15. Even if we suppose that the theologeion was used in the cases mentioned on p. 213 to exhibit the deus ex machina, the text of the plays shows that the god appeared _above_ the roof, and not upon it. Cp. Ion. 1549 ὑπερτελὴς οἴκων, Orest. 1631 ἐν αἰθέρος πτυχαῖς.

[511] See below, p. 186.

[512] [It is also argued (Noack, Philologus, 1899, 1; Robert, Gött. Gel. Anz. 1902, 418; Dörpfeld, Ath. Mitth. 1903, p. 403) that, because in all the Roman and Graeco-Roman theatres, where the actors stood on the logeion, the back-scene which formed their background was decorated with columns, while the proscenium was not so decorated, it follows that when the proscenium _was_ so decorated, i.e. in the earlier periods, it and not the wall above and behind the logeion must have been the actors’ background, and the actors must have played in front of the proscenium. But this is no proof at all, unless it is assumed that decorations were _only_ employed to make backgrounds for actors, and _only_ disused because not wanted for this purpose. This is neither likely in itself, nor is it confirmed by anything in the evidence.

Dörpfeld also argues (Ath. Mitth. 1903, p. 396) that the grooves for wheels, of which traces are found leading out of the door in the back-scene on to the logeion at Eretria, prove that the logeion was used by gods only, as ordinary personages in chariots came only through the side entrances into the orchestra. But all that can be argued from these grooves is that the logeion was used for something on wheels, whether chariots or the ekkyklema, which Dörpfeld rejects. There is nothing to show who used the vehicle, whatever it may have been. If an actor could do so when representing a god, he could do so when representing a mortal. Cp. Fossum, Amer. J. Arch. 1898, p. 187; cp. P. Gardner, J. Hell. Stud. 1899, p. 252.]

[513] Aristot. Probl. xix. 15 τὰ μὲν ἀπὸ σκηνῆς οὐκ ἀντίστροφα, τὰ δὲ τοῦ χοροῦ ἀντίστροφα· ὁ μὲν γὰρ ὑποκριτὴς ἀγωνιστής, ὁ δὲ χορὸς ἧττον μιμεῖται. Poet. c. 12 ἴδια δὲ τὰ ἀπὸ τῆς σκηνῆς καὶ κομμοί ... κομμός δὲ θρῆνος κοινὸς χοροῦ καὶ ἀπὸ σκηνῆς.

[514] Poet. c. 24 διὰ τὸ ἐν μὲν τῇ τραγῳδίᾳ μὴ ἐνδέχεσθαι ἅμα πραττόμενα πολλὰ μέρη μιμεῖσθαι, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἐπὶ τῆς σκηνῆς καὶ τῶν ὑποκριτῶν μέρος μόνον. Cp. cc. 13, 17.

[515] Griech. Theater, pp. 284, 346.

[516] [Flickinger (The Meaning of ἐπὶ τῆς σκηνῆς in Writers of the Fourth Century, Chicago, 1902) tries to show that ἐπὶ τῆς σκηνῆς in Aristotle and Demosthenes does not mean ‘on the stage’ in any sense which would imply an elevated stage, but simply ‘at the performance’, ‘as part of a play’, &c., like ἐπὶ θέατρον later. He succeeds in interpreting the passages consistently with this, and in showing that in later writers the words often bore this meaning. But the changed application of many technical terms, e.g. ὀρχήστρα, θυμέλη, &c., in later writers shows that no reliance is to be placed on the supposed analogy; and the other meaning still seems by far the most natural in Aristotle. Dörpfeld (Deutsch. Littztg. 1901, p. 1817) thinks that the absence of the expression ἀπὸ τῆς ὀρχήστρας to balance ἀπὸ τῆς σκηνῆς is very significant as proving that all performers alike were in the orchestra. It needs only the most elementary logic to dispose of this argument. Cp. Müller, Unters. zu den Bühnenalt., for the full history of the words σκηνή, &c.]

[517] Equit. 148 δεῦρο δεῦρ’, ὦ φίλτατε, | ἀνάβαινε σωτὴρ τῇ πόλει καὶ νῷν φανείς. Acharn. 732 ἄμβατε ποττὰν μᾶδδαν. Vesp. 1342 ἀνάβαινε δεῦρο χρυσομηλολόνθιον.

[518] Eccles. 1151 τί δῆτα διατρίβεις ἔχων, ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἄγεις | τασδὶ λαβών; ἐν ὅσῳ δὲ καταβαίνεις, ἐγὼ | ἐπᾴσομαι κ.τ.λ. Vesp. 1514 ἀτὰρ καταβατέον γ’ ἐπ’ αὐτούς. In the last passage καταβατέον might perhaps mean ‘I must contend with them’. But it is more probable that the meaning here is the same as in the other passage.

[519] Bodensteiner, Scenische Fragen, pp. 699, 700. Capps, The Stage in the Greek Theatre, pp. 67, 68.

[520] Equit. 169 ἀλλ’ ἐπανάβηθι κἀπὶ τοὐλεὸν τοδί. The significance of this line, as regards the present question, was first pointed out by Zacher. Philologus, 1896, p. 181. Cp. Müller, l.c., pp. 1 ff.

[521] Harzmann, Quaestiones Scenicae, 1889. White, The Stage in Aristophanes, 1891. Capps, The Stage in the Greek Theatre, 1891. Bodensteiner, Scenische Fragen, 1893. Weissmann, Die scenische Aufführung der griechischen Dramen, 1893. Hampel, Was lehrt Aeschylos’ Orestie für die Theaterfrage? 1899. Engelmann, Archäologische Studien zu den Tragikern, 1900. Krause, Quaestiones Aristophaneae Scenicae, 1903.

[522] Eur. El. 489, Ion 727, Herc. Fur. 119. In the last passage it is the chorus which makes the complaint; so that in this case, if there was any visible ascent, it cannot have been the ascent on to the stage.

[523] Eur. Med. 1275. Cp. Agam. 1344, Cyclops 630, Hipp. 780, Hec. 1042, &c.

[524] Aesch. Choeph. 22, 1063; Eum. 140. Eur. Troad. 176; Hel. 385, 517. In Aristoph. Av. 667 Procne (the flute-player of the chorus) enters from the back-scene, and then descends into the orchestra. Several other instances are given by Capps, pp. 9, 10; but they are all very doubtful.

[525] See below, pp. 191, 201.

[526] See below, p. 191.

[527] The following instances appear to be certain—Aesch. Suppl. 208, 832; Choeph. 22 ff. Soph. Oed. Col. 826 ff. Eur. Suppl. 1, 815: Hel. 1627 ff.: Rhesus 681; Iph. Aul. 599. Aristoph. Pax 246 ff. Many other examples will be found in the treatises already mentioned; but the evidence for most of them appears to be very slight.

[528] Griech. Theater, pp. 353 ff.

[529] Phot. and Hesych. s.v. λαυροστάται.

[530] [Seats of honour are not of course necessarily the best for seeing or hearing (see p. 159, note), but they are not likely to be the worst.]

[531] Griech. Theater, p. 363.

[532] See above, p. 118.

[533] [Frei, De certaminibus thymelicis, traces back to the second half of the fourth century the distinction of θυμελικοὶ and σκηνικοὶ ἀγῶνες, and so proves the existence of a stage at that time. Engelmann, Archäol. Stud. zu den Tragikern, supports Dörpfeld’s view by reference to vase paintings, which he thinks were suggested by theatrical scenes, and represent actions taking place in the orchestra, with the columnar προσκήνιον as background. But the background could in most cases be equally well the back of the stage; and it is not certain that the vases in question present dramatic scenes at all. Columns, &c., are common on all vases to indicate a house or a temple, where there is no reference to a stage; and in black-figured vases, where all such reference is out of the question, we find Prometheus and Odysseus tied to columns instead of to a rock or a mast. See E. A. Gardner, Class. Rev. 1901, p. 432.]

[534] Bethe, Prolegomena zur Geschichte des Theaters, pp. 205 ff.

[535] Scenische Aufführung, p. 37. Jahrb. für classische Philologie, 1895, pp. 673 ff. See above, p. 167.

[536] Jahrb. für class. Philologie, 1894, pp. 161 ff.

[537] Hermes, 1897, pp. 450 ff.

[538] Vitruv. v. 6.

[539] Plut., Non posse suaviter, &c. 1096 B.

[540] Vitruv. v. 5.

[541] Id. v. 9.

[542] Plut. Pericles, 160 A. Pausan. i. 14. I. See Gardner, Ancient Athens; Harrison, Primitive Athens.

[543] Same references.

[544] Val. Max. ii. 4. 6. C. I. G. 4283.

[545] Plut. X. orat. 841 F.

[546] Pausan. i. 21. I.

[547] Griech. Theater, p. 71.

[548] Suidas s.v. σαυτὴν ἐπαινεῖς.

[549] See above, p. 87.

[550] Schol. Aristid. iii. p. 535, Dindf. So Wilamowitz, Aristoteles und Athen, i. p. 263. Christ, however (Sitzungs. bayer. Akad. der Wissen. 1894, p. 3), thinks the statement about the statues is true, though the scholiast was mistaken in applying it to the passage in Aristides.

[551] Athen., p. 19 E.

[552] C. I. A. iii. 469.

[553] Griech. Theater, p. 70. For the inscription on the Xenocles monument see C. I. A. ii. 1289.

[554] C. I. A. ii. 551.

[555] Hesych. s.v. ᾠδεῖον.

[556] See ch. ii.

[557] Aelian. Var. Hist. ii. 28. On the outside of the arms, in the throne of the priest of Dionysus, there are two bas-reliefs, in which kneeling Cupids are depicted in the act of setting cocks to fight. The significance of the reliefs is explained by the fact that the annual cock-fight was held in the theatre.

[558] Dem. Meid. § 9.

[559] Thuc. viii. 93, 94.

[560] Plut. Phoc. 757 D.

[561] Id. Demetr. 905 A. Müller (Bühnenalt. p. 74) is mistaken in stating, on the authority of Diod. xvi. 84, that on the news of the capture of Elatea in 339 the Athenians hastily assembled in the theatre. That they met in the Pnyx is proved by the passage in Dem. de Cor. § 169. Diodorus is merely using the language of his own time, when the theatre was the regular meeting-place.

[562] Harpocrat. s.v. περίπολος.

[563] Poll. viii. 132.

[564] Plut. Lycurg. 51 E. Athen. 19 E. Alciphron iii. 20.

[565] Dion Chrysost. or. xxxi. p. 386 (Dindf.). Philostrat. vit. Apoll. iv. 22.

[566] Aesch. Suppl. 189.

[567] Pers. 659. The palace is often referred to (159, 230, 524, 849, 1038); but this does not show that it was supposed to be visible. And the fact that Atossa made her first entrance on a chariot (159, 607), though coming from the palace, seems to prove that it was out of sight.

[568] Septem 95, 240, 265, 549, 823.

[569] Agam. 3, Choeph. 22, Eum. 35, 242.

[570] Reisch (Griech. Theater, pp. 194, 200) thinks the actors’ booth was originally in the side-entrance to the orchestra. He thinks the first stage-buildings were erected about 465, when scenery was introduced; and that these buildings were henceforth used for actors’ rooms. But it is much simpler to suppose that the actors’ booth stood fronting the spectators from the first, and that it was gradually converted into a stage-building.

[571] Aristot. Poet. c. 4 τρεῖς δὲ καὶ σκηνογραφίαν Σοφοκλῆς. Vitruv. vii. praef. § 11 primum Agatharchus Athenis Aeschylo docente tragoediam scaenam fecit et de ea commentarium reliquit. Prof. Jebb (Dict. Antiq. ii. p. 816) thinks the two statements may be reconciled by supposing that the words ‘Aeschylo docente tragoediam’ merely fix the date, without implying that Aeschylus had anything to do with the innovation. [Prof. P. Gardner (J. Hell. Stud. 1899, p. 253) points out that, according to Vitruvius, Agatharchus, like Democritus and Anaxagoras, seems to have studied perspective theoretically; and the story that he was enticed by Alcibiades into his house, and not released till he had painted its interior, combined with Vitruvius’ notice, suggests that he was precisely the kind of painter for a stage; while the date suggested has nothing chronologically against it.]

[572] Vitruv. v. 6.

[573] Viz. Soph. O. R., Antig., Electr., Trach.; Eur. Alc., Med., Hipp., Herc. Fur., Phoen., Hel., Orest., Bacch., Ion, Iph. Taur., Andr., Suppl., Heraclid.

[574] Viz. Eur. Hec., Troad., Iph. Aul., Rhesus.

[575] Viz. the Wasps, Peace, Clouds, Frogs, Ecclesiazusae, Plutus.

[576] [This was so not only in vase paintings, but in such elaborate works as those of Polygnotus at Delphi: cp. P. Gardner, J. Hell. Stud. 1899, p. 254.]

[577] [See P. Gardner, J. Hell. Stud. 1899, pp. 255 ff.]

[578] Bacch. 590, 1211; Orest. 1569; Iph. Taur. 113, 130.

[579] Ion 190 ff. [It is noticeable that the occurrence of the technical terms of architecture and other arts is particularly common in Euripides, who shows special acquaintance with the arts and their processes. This may perhaps confirm the otherwise uncertain tradition (Vit. Eur.) that he was once a painter: cp. Huddilston, The Attitude of the Greek Tragedians towards Art.]

[580] Such scenes were depicted on the periaktoi, Poll. iv. 126, 131. See below, p. 197.

[581] Eur. Hel. 1, Troad. 1256; Soph. El. 4 ff.

[582] Poll. iv. 131 καταβλήματα ... κατεβάλλετο ἐπὶ τὰς περιάκτους ὄρος δεικνύντα ἢ θάλατταν ἢ ποταμὸν ἢ ἄλλο τι τοιοῦτον. Anon. de comoed. (xx. 28 Dübner) πολυτελέσι δαπάναις κατεσκευάζετο ἡ σκηνὴ ... πεποικιλμένη παραπετάσμασι καὶ ὀθόναις λευκαῖς καὶ μελαίναις ... εἰς τύπον θαλάσσης ταρτάρου ᾅδου ... γῆς καὶ οὐρανοῦ κ.τ.λ.

[583] Poll. iv. 131 καταβλήματα δὲ ὑφάσματα ἢ πίνακες ἦσαν ἔχοντες γραφὰς τῇ χρείᾳ τῶν δραμάτων προσφόρους· κατεβάλλετο δὲ ἐπὶ τὰς περιάκτους. Ibid. 125 κλίσιον ... παραπετάσμασιν δηλούμενον. Suid. s.v. προσκήνιον τὸ πρὸ τῆς σκηνῆς παραπέτασμα. Anon. de comoed. (xx. 28 Dübner) σκηνὴ πεποικιλμένη παραπετάσμασι καὶ ὀθόναις.

[584] So Müller, Bühnenalt. pp. 118, 142.

[585] Poll. iv. 129 ἡ δὲ διστεγία ποτὲ μὲν ἐν οἴκῳ βασιλείῳ διῆρες δωμάτιον, οἷον ἀφ’ οὗ ἐν Φοινίσσαις ἡ Ἀντιγόνη βλέπει τὸν στρατόν, ποτὲ δὲ καὶ κέραμος, ἀφ’ οὗ βάλλουσι τῷ κεράμῳ· ἐν δὲ κωμῳδίᾳ ἀπὸ τῆς διστεγίας πορνοβοσκοί τι κατοπτεύουσιν ἢ γρᾴδια ἢ γύναια καταβλέπει.

[586] Agam. 3, Phoen. 89, Orest. 1567-75, Acharn. 262, Vesp. 68 and 144, Nub. 1485-1503, Lysist. 864, 874, and 883, Eur. Suppl. 990.

[587] Dict. Antiq. i. pp. 663, 666.

[588] Vitruv. v. 6.

[589] Vitruv. v. 6. Vesp. 379, Eccles. 924, 930, 961-3.

[590] See above, p. 135.

[591] See above, p. 135.

[592] Poll. iv. 124, 126; Vitruv. v. 6.

[593] Vitruv. v. 6 ‘ipsae autem scaenae suas habent rationes explicatas ita uti mediae valvae ornatus habeant aulae regiae, dextra ac sinistra hospitalia.’ Poll. iv. 124 τριῶν δὲ τῶν κατὰ τὴν σκηνὴν θυρῶν ἡ μέση μὲν βασίλειον ἢ σπήλαιον ἢ οἶκος ἔνδοξος ἢ πᾶν τοῦ πρωταγωνιστοῦ τοῦ δράματος, ἡ δὲ δεξιὰ τοῦ δευτεραγωνιστοῦντος καταγώγιον· ἡ δὲ ἀριστερὰ τὸ εὐτελέστατον ἔχει πρόσωπον ἢ ἱερὸν ἐξηρημωμένον, ἢ ἄοικός ἐστιν. ἐν δὲ τραγῳδίᾳ ἡ μὲν δεξιὰ θύρα ξενών ἐστιν, εἱρκτὴ δὲ ἡ λαιά. τὸ δὲ κλίσιον ἐν κωμῳδίᾳ παράκειται παρὰ τὴν οἰκίαν, παραπετάσμασι δηλούμενον, καὶ ἔστι μὲν σταθμὸς ὑποζυγίων ... ἐν δὲ Ἀντιφάνους Ἀκεστρίᾳ καὶ ἐργαστήριον γέγονεν. Throughout this passage Pollux is guilty of his usual fault of converting particular cases into general rules.

[594] See the previous note.

[595] Poll. iv. 126 παρ’ ἑκάτερα δὲ τῶν δύο θυρῶν τῶν περὶ τὴν μέσην ἄλλαι δύο εἶεν ἄν, μία ἑκατέρωθεν, πρὸς ἃς αἱ περίακτοι συμπεπήγασιν. Vitruv. v. 6 ‘secundum ea loca versurae sunt procurrentes, quae efficiunt una a foro, altera a peregre, aditus in scaenam’. Phot. s.v. παρασκήνια· αἱ εἴσοδοι αἱ εἰς τὴν σκηνήν. Schol. Aristoph. Lysist. 321 νῦν ἐστιν ἡμιχόριον τὸ λέγον ἐκ γυναικῶν εἰσερχομένων ἄνωθεν ... τὸ δὲ ἄλλο ἡμιχόριον ἐξ ἀνδρῶν κάτωθεν ἐπερχομένων.

[596] See Harzmann, Quaestiones Scenicae, pp. 43 ff.; Bodensteiner, Scenische Fragen, pp. 703 ff.; Capps, The Stage in the Greek Theatre, pp. 12 ff.; Weissmann, Scenische Aufführung, pp. 25 ff., 76.

[597] Cf. Aesch. Suppl. 1018; Pers. 1076. Eur. Suppl. 1231; Alc. 741. Aristoph. Acharn. 1231; Vesp. 1535; Pax 1357; Ran. 1524. For other instances see Bodensteiner, p. 690. Only one of these cases—the funeral procession in the Alcestis—occurs in the middle of a play.

[598] Alcestis 861; Plutus 253. Capps (pp. 20 ff.) gives some additional instances; but for these there is no clear evidence.

[599] See below, p. 201.

[600] E.g. Oed. Tyr. 1110-21; Agam. 498-503; Ion 392-401; Oed. Col. 310-24. See Harzmann, pp. 43 ff.

[601] E.g. Trach. 178-80, 731-4; Phil. 539-42.

[602] Av. 1-53, Ran. 1-35.

[603] E.g. Bacch. 1216 ff.; Hec. 484 ff.; Aj. 1040 ff. See, for other instances, Harzmann, pp. 45 ff.; Bodensteiner, pp. 716 ff.

[604] See above, pp. 125, 126, for the various devices for such entrances.

[605] Vitruv. v. 6 ‘secundum ea loca versurae sunt procurrentes, quae efficiunt una a foro, altera a peregre, aditus in scaenam’. Vit. Aristoph. (Dindf. Prolegom. de Comoed. p. 36) ὁ κωμικὸς χορὸς συνέστηκεν ἐξ ἀνδρῶν κδʹ. καὶ εἰ μὲν ὡς ἀπὸ τῆς πόλεως ἤρχετο ἐπὶ τὸ θέατρον, διὰ τῆς ἀριστερᾶς ἁψῖδος εἰσῄει, εἰ δὲ ὡς ἀπὸ ἀγροῦ, διὰ τῆς δεξιᾶς. Poll. iv. 126 τῶν μέντοι παρόδων ἡ μὲν δεξιὰ ἀγρόθεν ἢ ἐκ λιμένος ἢ ἐκ πόλεως ἄγει· οἱ δὲ ἀλλαχόθεν πεζοὶ ἀφικνούμενοι κατὰ τὴν ἑτέραν εἰσίασιν. In the Life the words ἀπὸ ἀγροῦ denote ‘from a distance’. In Pollux ἀγρόθεν apparently means ‘from the country in the suburbs’; but the word is obscure, and possibly corrupt. As applied to the _stage_ the words ‘right’ and ‘left’ were always used from the point of view of the actors: cp. the account of the periaktoi in Poll. iv. 126. But as applied to the orchestra they were sometimes used from the point of view of the actors, sometimes from that of the audience. Hence the eastern parodos might be called the right or the left parodos, according to the point of view from which it was regarded. This is the reason of the apparent discrepancy between the statements in the Life and in Pollux. The author of the Life is looking at the orchestra from the point of view of the actors, Pollux from the point of view of the audience.

[606] At line 566 the scene of action is transferred in reality to the Areopagus (cf. 685 πάγον δ’ Ἄρειον τόνδε). But this change must have been imagined, and not represented. After Orestes and the Furies arrive in front of the temple of Athene, they remain continuously on the stage till the end of the trial.

[607] Poll. iv. 126 παρ’ ἑκάτερα δὲ τῶν δύο θυρῶν τῶν περὶ τὴν μέσην ἄλλαι δύο εἶεν ἄν, μία ἑκατέρωθεν, πρὸς ἅς αἱ περίακτοι συμπεπήγασιν, ἡ μὲν δεξιὰ τὰ ἔξω πόλεως δηλοῦσα, ἡ δ’ ἑτέρα τὰ ἐκ πόλεως, μάλιστα τὰ ἐκ λιμένος· καὶ θεούς τε θαλαττίους ἐπάγει, καὶ πάνθ’ ὅσα ἐπαχθέστερα ὄντα ἡ μηχανὴ φέρειν ἀδυνατεῖ. εἰ δ’ ἐπιστραφεῖεν αἱ περίακτοι, ἡ δεξιὰ μὲν ἀμείβει τόπον (a. l. τὸ πᾶν) ἀμφότεραι δὲ χώραν ὑπαλλάττουσιν. Vitruv. v. 6 ‘secundum autem spatia ad ornatus comparata, quae loca Graeci περιάκτους dicunt, ab eo quod machinae sunt in his locis versatiles trigonoe habentes singulae tres species ornationis, quae, cum aut fabularum mutationes sunt futurae, seu deorum adventus cum tonitribus repentinis, versentur mutentque speciem ornationis in fronte’, &c. Serv. on Verg. Georg. iii. 24 ‘scaena quae fiebat aut versilis erat aut ductilis erat. Versilis tum erat cum subito tota machinis quibusdam convertebatur, et aliam picturae faciem ostendebat’. A change of τόπος means a change from one part of the same district to another; a change of χώρα means an entire change of district. Niejahr (Comment. Scaen. pp. 1 ff.), Oehmichen (Bühnenwesen, p. 241), and P. Gardner, J. Hell. Stud. 1899, p. 262, think the passage ἡ μὲν δεξιὰ ... ἀδυνατεῖ refers, not to the periaktoi, but to the side-doors. But (1) the run of the passage is against this view, (2) δηλοῦσα could hardly be used of a door, (3) Vitruvius says the periaktoi were used for introducing gods, and thus proves that θεοὺς ἐπάγει in Pollux also refers to the periaktoi.

[608] [P. Gardner, J. Hell. Stud. 1899, p. 260, disputes the view that the periaktoi stood in line with a painted background and altered a small part of it. He thinks that before the existence of a painted background the periaktoi stood alone and indicated a change of scene in a merely symbolical way.]

[609] [Cp. P. Gardner, J. Hell. Stud. 1899, p. 261. He interprets in this sense Pollux iv. 131 καταβλήματα δὲ ὑφάσματα ἢ πίνακες ἦσαν ἔχοντες γραφὰς τῇ χρείᾳ τῶν δραμάτων προσφόρους· κατεβάλλετο δ’ ἐπὶ τὰς περιάκτους ὄρος δεικνύντα ἢ θάλατταν ἢ ποταμὸν ἢ ἄλλο τι τοιοῦτον.]

[610] The suggestion is due to Navarre, Dionysos, p. 137. [Cf. Holwerda, Ath. Mitth. 1898, p. 386.] Possibly Plutarch may be referring to this contrivance when he says (de Esu Carn. 996 B) μηχανὴν αἱρεῖ ποιητικὸς ἀνὴρ σκηνῆς περιφερομένης.

[611] Cramer, Anecd. Par. i. 19.

[612] [P. Gardner, l.c. p. 260, thinks that so simple, conventional, and yet effective an arrangement is quite in the manner of the fifth century, and belongs to the same class as the ekkyklema and the mask, which were certainly Aeschylean.]

[613] Serv. on Verg. Georg. iii. 24 ‘scaena quae fiebat aut versilis erat aut ductilis erat ... ductilis tum cum tractis tabulatis huc atque illuc species picturae nudabatur interior’.

[614] Vit. Aesch. p. 6 Dindf. καὶ τὴν ὄψιν τῶν θεωμένων κατέπληξε τῇ λαμπρότητι, γραφαῖς καὶ μηχαναῖς, βωμοῖς τε καὶ τάφοις, σάλπιγξιν, εἰδώλοις, Ἐρινύσι κ.τ.λ.

[615] Aesch. Eum. 242; Soph. Electr. 1373, Oed. Col. 59; Eur. Hipp. 70-106.

[616] Aesch. Suppl. 188-200; Soph. Oed. Tyr. 1-3, 142.

[617] Poll. iv. 123; Aesch. Agam. 1080 ff.; Schol. Eur. Phoen. 631; Arist. Vesp. 875.

[618] Aesch. Pers. 684, Choeph. 4; Soph. Oed. Col. 19; Poll. iv. 127.

[619] Aesch. Agam. 782 ff. Eur. El. 988 ff. Other instances occur in Pers. 159 (cp. 607), Troad. 569, Iph. Aul. 600. But there is no reason to infer from Aesch. Suppl. 181 and Pers. 1000 that chariots were actually introduced in these two places.

[620] Prom. 286, 395; Ran. 27. As for the horse on which Ismene is riding (Oed. Col. 312), or the captured horses of Rhesus (Rhes. 671), or the flocks of Polyphemus (Cycl. 82), it is most improbable that these were brought into the theatre.

[621] The ekkyklema is described in the following passages:—Poll. iv. 128. καὶ τὸ μὲν ἐκκύκλημα ἐπὶ ξύλων ὑψηλὸν βάθρον, ᾧ ἐπίκειται θρόνος· δείκνυσι δὲ τὰ ὑπὸ σκηνὴν ἐν ταῖς οἰκίαις ἀπόρρητα πραχθέντα, καὶ τὸ ῥῆμα τοῦ ἔργου καλεῖται ἐκκυκλεῖν. ἐφ’ οὗ δὲ εἰσάγεται τὸ ἐκκύκλημα, εἰσκύκλημα ὀνομάζεται, καὶ χρὴ τοῦτο νοεῖσθαι καθ’ ἑκάστην θύραν, οἱονεὶ καθ’ ἑκάστην οἰκίαν. (The θρόνος mentioned by Pollux must be derived from some particular instance of the use of the ekkyklema. The epithet ὑψηλόν is not strictly correct: cf. p. 232.) Eustath. Il. 976. 15 τὸ ἐγκύκλημα, ὃ καὶ ἐγκύκληθρον λέγεται, μηχάνημα ἦν ὑπότροχον, ὑφ’ οὗ ἐδείκνυτο τὰ ἐν τῇ σκευῇ ἢ σκηνῇ. Schol. Aesch. Choeph. 973 ἀνοίγεται ἡ σκηνὴ καὶ ἐπὶ ἐκκυκλήματος ὁρᾶται τὰ σώματα. Schol. Arist. Thesm. 96 ἐπὶ ἐκκυκλήματος γὰρ φαίνεται. Schol. Arist. Acharn. 408 ἐκκύκλημα δὲ λέγεται μηχάνημα ξύλινον τροχοὺς ἔχον, ὅπερ περιστρεφόμενον τὰ δοκοῦντα ἔνδον ὡς ἐν οἰκίᾳ πράττεσθαι καὶ τοῖς ἔξω ἐδείκνυε, λέγω δὴ τοῖς θεαταῖς. Schol. Aesch. Eum. 64 καὶ δευτέρα δὲ γίγνεται φαντασία· στραφέντα γὰρ μηχανήματα ἔνδηλα ποιεῖ τὰ κατὰ τὸ μαντεῖον ὡς ἔχει. Schol. Arist. Nub. 184 ὁρᾷ δὲ ὡς φιλοσόφους κομῶντας, στραφέντος τοῦ ἐγκυκλήματος. Schol. Clem. Alex. iv. 97 σκεῦός τι ὑπότροχον ἐκτὸς τῆς σκηνῆς, οὗ στρεφομένου ἐδόκει τὰ ἔσω τοῖς ἔξω φανερὰ γίνεσθαι. Reisch (Griech. Theater, p. 236) thinks the last four passages, in which the word στρέφειν is used, refer to a different kind of machine, by which the back-scene was rolled apart, and disclosed the interior. But this is to lay too much stress on the exact words of the grammarians. They are all obviously referring to the same device. See below, p. 206.

[622] Agam. 1379, 1404, 1440. Choeph. 973, 981.

[623] Ajax 346; Antig. 1293, 1301; Hipp. 808, 857; Soph. El. 1458-75; Hec. 1051, 1118; Herc. Fur. 1029-1402; Eur. El. 1177, 1243, 1276.

[624] Thesm. 95, 96 ΕΥ. σίγα. ΜΝ. τί δ’ έστιν; ΕΥ. Ἁγάθων ἐξέρχεται. | ΜΝ. καὶ ποῖός ἐστιν; ΕΥ. οὗτος οὑκκυκλούμενος, 238 ἐνεγκάτω τις ἔνδοθεν δᾷδ’ ἢ λύχνον, 265 εἴσω τις ὡς τάχιστά μ’ εἰσκυκλησάτω. Id. Acharn. 399 αὐτὸς δ’ ἔνδον ἀναβάδην ποιεῖ, 408, 409 ΔΙ. ἀλλ’ ἐκκυκλήθητ’. ΕΥ. ἀλλ’ ἀδύνατον. ΔΙ. ἀλλ’ ὅμως. | ΕΥ. ἀλλ’ ἐκκυκλήσομαι· καταβαίνειν δ’ οὐ σχολή. The word ἀναβάδην usually means ‘with one’s feet up’, and is so taken by many scholars in the present passage. But καταβαίνειν in l. 409 seems to prove that here at least it must mean ‘upstairs’.

[625] Nub. 181 ff., Equit. 1327.

[626] [Fossum, Am. J. Arch. 1898, p. 188; Dörpfeld, Ath. Mitth. 1903, p. 396. See above, p. 165 n.]

[627] [Exon, Hermathena, 1900, pp. 132 ff.; Navarre, Revue des Études Anciennes, 1901, p. 102. The words are περιστρεφόμενον, στραφέντα, and the variant ἐγκύκλημα (compared with ἐγκύκλιος, &c., of rotatory movement): see above, p. 201. Exon also doubts if ἀνοίγεται ἡ σκηνή could be used of opening a door for the ἐκκύκλημα to pass, and thinks that the portion of the back-scene which formed part of the ἐκκύκλημα on his theory was by the side of the door, and that there was a similar apparatus by each door. But this is pressing the meaning of ἀνοίγεται ἡ σκηνή too closely. The words of Pollux, however, do suggest that the ἐκκύκλημα could be adapted to any of the three doors.]

[628] Schol. Thesm. 284 παρεπιγραφή. ἐκκυκλεῖται ἐπὶ τὸ ἔξω τὸ θεσμοφόριον. The words ὠθεῖται τὸ ἱερόν are inserted in the text. These παρεπιγραφαί were stage-directions appended to the text of the plays; but when and by whom they were written is unknown.

[629] Schol. Eum. 64.

[630] When Apollo (l. 67) says καὶ νῦν ἁλούσας τάσδε τὰς μάργους ὁρᾷς, it is hardly conceivable that the Furies should not have been visible to the audience. Also l. 179 ἔξω, κελεύω, τῶνδε δωμάτων τάχος | χωρεῖτε implies that they were still inside the temple: but according to the theory in the text they had come out of the temple at l. 140.

[631] Reisch, Griech. Theater, pp. 234 ff.; Capps, The Stage in the Greek Theatre, pp. 237 ff. Neckel (Das Ekkyklema, pp. 7 ff.) thinks the ekkyklema was too rude a device for the taste of Aeschylus and Sophocles, and that it was first introduced in the time of Euripides. Bethe (Prolegomena, pp. 104 ff.) thinks it was used by Aeschylus and Sophocles, but gradually dropped by Euripides.

[632] Reisch (pp. 237 ff.) explains the two scenes in the Thesmophoriazusae and the Acharnians by supposing that Agathon and Euripides were rolled out on couches. But this theory destroys all the point and humour of the scenes.

[633] Herc. Fur. 1008, 1070.

[634] Nub. 184, 198.

[635] Additional proofs that the bodies were not _carried_ out are (1) Agam. 1379, where Clytaemnestra says she is standing on ‘the very spot where she struck the blow’, (2) Antig. 1301, where Eurydice is seen lying beside the altar at which she had stabbed herself. That the ekkyklema-scenes were _outside_ the building, and on the stage, is also proved by Eur. El. 1245, 1276, where the Dioscuri, though standing above the palace roof, can see the bodies of Clytaemnestra and Aegisthus.

[636] Poll. iv. 129 τὴν δὲ ἐξώστραν ταὐτὸν τῷ ἐκκυκλήματι νομίζουσιν. Hesych. s.v. ἐξώστρα· ἐπὶ τῆς σκηνῆς τὸ ἐκκύκλημα. Delian inscription of 274 B.C. (Bull. Corr. Hell. 1894, p. 162) τὰς ἐξώστρας ... ἐπισκευάσαι. Polyb. xi. 6. 8 τῆς τύχης ὥσπερ ἐπίτηδες ἐπὶ τὴν ἐξώστραν ἀναβιβαζούσης τὴν ὑμετέραν ἄγνοιαν. Cic. de Prov. Cons. § 14 iam in exostra helluatur, antea post siparium solebat.

[637] Poll. iv. 128 ἡ μηχανὴ δὲ θεοὺς δείκνυσι καὶ ἥρως τοὺς ἐν ἀέρι, Βελλεροφόντας ἢ Περσέας, καὶ κεῖται κατὰ τὴν ἀριστερὰν πάροδον, ὑπὲρ τὴν σκηνὴν τὸ ὕψος. Schol. Luc. Philops. vii. p. 375 (Lehmann) ἄνωθεν ὑπὲρ τὰς παρ’ ἑκάτερα τῆς μέσης τοῦ θεάτρου θύρας ... μηχανῶν δύο μετεωριζομένων ἡ ἐξ ἀριστερῶν θεοὺς καὶ ἥρωας ἐνεφάνιζε παρευθύ, ὥσπερ λύσιν φέροντας τῶν ἀμηχάνων. Aristoph. Daedal. fr. 9 (Meineke) ὁ μηχανοποιός, ὁπότε βούλει τὸν τροχὸν | ἐλᾶν ἀνεκάς, λέγε, χαῖρε φέγγος ἡλίου. The μηχανή was also called ἐώρημα, Suidas. s.v. [This should probably be αἰώρημα.] The ropes to which the actor was suspended were called αἰῶραι; Poll. iv. 131 αἰώρας δ’ ἂν εἴποις τοὺς κάλως οἳ κατήρτηνται ἐξ ὕψους ἀνέχειν τοὺς ἐπὶ τοῦ ἀέρος φέρεσθαι δοκοῦντας ἥρως ἢ θεούς. The hook by which he was fastened was ἅρπαξ or ἀγκυρίς; Bekk. Anecd. i. 232 (of the Crane) ἅρπαξ ... ἐξ οὗ ὁ ἐσκευασμένος ὑποκριτὴς τραγῳδεῖ. Plut. Prov. 116 (of the Fig-Branch) ἀγκυρίς, ἀφ’ ἧς οἱ ὑποκριταὶ ... ἐξαρτῶνται ... ζωστῆρσι καὶ ταινίαις κατειλημμένοι.

[638] Plut. Prov. 116 κράδης ῥαγείσης· νῦν οὐχ ὁ σύκινος κλάδος, ἀλλ’ ἡ ἀγκυρίς, ἀφ’ ἧς οἱ ὑποκριταὶ ἐν ταῖς τραγικαῖς σκηναῖς ἐξαρτῶνται θεοῦ μιμούμενοι ἐπιφάνειαν. So Hesych. s.v. κράδη. Pollux (iv. 128) makes the κράδη the comic counterpart of the μηχανή, which is utterly improbable. Crusius (Philologus, 1889, p. 698) suggests very plausibly that κράδης ῥαγείσης was the beginning of a line in some comic poet, who applied the name ‘fig-branch’ contemptuously to the hook of the μηχανή.

[639] Poll. iv. 130 ἡ δέ γέρανος μηχάνημά ἐστιν ἐκ μετεώρου καταφερόμενον ἐφ’ ἁρπαγῇ σώματος, ᾧ κέχρηται Ἠὼς ἁρπάζουσα τὸ σῶμα τὸ Μέμνονος. The scholiast on Lucian (quoted on p. 209) speaks of two μηχαναί, one at each end of the back-scene; and then proceeds to describe the ordinary μηχανή, but says nothing about the other one. Hence Oehmichen (Bühnenwesen, p. 247) conjectures that this other μηχανή was the γέρανος.

[640] Bekk. Anecd. i. 208 μηχανή ἐστι παρὰ τοῖς κωμικοῖς ἐκκυκλήματός τι εἶδος ... δείξεως χάριν θεοῦ ἢ ἄλλου τινὸς ἥρωος. Lucian, Philops. 29 θεὸν ἀπὸ μηχανῆς ἐπεισκυκληθῆναί μοι τοῦτον ᾤμην. Philostrat. vit. Apoll. vi. 11 ἐφ’ ὑψηλῆς καὶ θείας μηχανῆς ἐκκυκλοῦσιν.

[641] Prom. 284, 394. Pollux, iv. 130.

[642] Eum. 403-5.

[643] Prom. 135, 280.

[644] That the capacities of the μηχανή were not unlimited is proved by Pollux, iv. 126 θεοὺς θαλαττίους ἐπάγει, καὶ πάνθ’ ὅσα ἐπαχθέστερα ὄντα ἡ μηχανὴ φέρειν ἀδυνατεῖ.

[645] Androm. 1229, Eur. El. 1235, 1349, Med. 1317 ff.

[646] Herc. Fur. 817, 872, 880. Eur. frags. 124, 306, 307. Poll. iv. 128.

[647] Nub. 218, Av. 1199, Daedal. frag. 9, Pax 154 ff.

[648] A supposed representation of a theologeion on a medallion of the Roman period, found at Orange, is given in Baumeister, fig. 1832, and Griech. Theater, p. 335. Jupiter, Minerva, and Victoria are depicted as sitting on a tall and narrow stage, while Mars and Hercules confront one another underneath. But there is nothing to show that the scene represents a theatrical performance.

[649] See next note. See also p. 164.

[650] Poll. iv. 130 ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ θεολογείου ὄντος ὑπὲρ τὴν σκηνὴν ἐν ὕψει ἐπιφαίνονται θεοί, ὡς Ζεὺς καὶ οἱ περὶ αὐτὸν ἐν Ψυχοστασίᾳ. Plut. Aud. Poet. 17 A.

[651] Niejahr, however (Quaest. Scaen. pp. 20 ff.), suggests that Trygaeus only rose a short distance upon the beetle, then descended to earth again, and that his own house then did duty as the house of Zeus. [Cp. Sharpley’s edition of the Peace, Introduction.]

[652] Wilamowitz, Herakles, i. p. 148.

[653] Reisch, Griech. Theater, pp. 227 ff. Bodensteiner, Scenische Fragen, pp. 665 ff. Bethe (Prolegomena, p. 133) thinks neither the mechane nor the theologeion were used before about 427, when he supposes there was a great reorganization of the scenic arrangements (see above, p. 172).

[654] Ion 1549, Rhesus 886, Orest. 1631.

[655] Hipp. 1282, Iph. Taur. 1435, Eur. Suppl. 1183, Hel. 1642, Phil. 1409, Bacch. 1331.

[656] Plat. Cratyl. 425 D οἱ τραγῳδοί, ἐπειδάν τι ἀπορῶσιν, ἐπὶ τὰς μηχανὰς καταφεύγουσι θεοὺς αἴροντες. Antiphanes (Meineke, iii. p. 106) ἔπειθ’ ὅταν μηδὲν δύνωντ’ εἰπεῖν ἔτι | ... αἴρουσιν ὥσπερ δάκτυλον τὴν μηχανήν, | καὶ τοῖς θεωμένοισιν ἀποχρώντως ἔχει. Aristot. Poet. c. 15. Demosth. p. 1025 ὥσπερ ἀπὸ μηχανῆς. Schol. Plat. Bekk. p. 381 ἀπὸ μηχανῆς θεὸς ἐπεφάνης· Μένανδρος Θεοφορουμένῃ.

[657] Rhesus 596 (cp. 627); Ajax 1-133.

[658] Cp. Hipp. 53 ἔξω τῶνδε βήσομαι τόπων. Ion 76 ἐς δαφνώδη γύαλα βήσομαι τάδε. In the Troades, though Hecuba is on the stage during the speech of Poseidon and his colloquy with Athene, she is lying prostrate on the ground, overcome with grief, and is unconscious of their presence.

[659] Aristot. Poet. c. 15 ἀλλὰ μηχανῇ χρηστέον ἐπὶ τὰ ἔξω τοῦ δράματος, ἢ ὅσα πρὸ τοῦ γέγονεν ἃ οὐχ οἷόν τε ἄνθρωπον εἰδέναι, ἢ ὅσα ὕστερον ἃ δεῖται προαγορεύσεως καὶ ἀγγελίας. Here ὅσα πρὸ τοῦ γέγονεν apparently refers to the prologue. For the practice of later times cp. Evanthius de Commedia, p. 6 Reif. (quoted by Bethe, Prolegom. p. 133) ‘deinde θεοὺς ἀπὸ μηχανῆς, id est, deos narrandis argumentis machinatos, ceteri Latini ad instar Graecorum habent’.

[660] Aristot. Poet. c. 15.

[661] See the Tragic Drama of the Greeks, p. 245.

[662] Poll. iv. 132 αἱ δὲ Χαρώνιοι κλίμακες, κατὰ τὰς ἐκ τῶν ἑδωλίων καθόδους κείμεναι, τὰ εἴδωλα ἀπ’ αὐτῶν ἀναπέμπουσιν. τὰ δὲ ἀναπιέσματα, τὸ μέν ἐστιν ἐν τῇ σκηνῇ ὡς ποταμὸν ἀνελθεῖν ἢ τοιοῦτόν τι πρόσωπον, τὸ δὲ περὶ τοὺς ἀναβαθμούς, ἀφ’ ὧν ἀνέβαινον Ἐρινύες.

[663] Pers. 659, Nauck, Trag. Graec. Frag. p. 246 προφαινομένου ὑπὲρ τοῦ τάφου.

[664] Schol. Nub. 292; Poll. iv. 130; Heron (in Thevenot, Mathematici Veteres, p. 263). See Weismann, Scen. Anweis. pp. 45 ff.

[665] Poll. iv. 130 κεραυνοσκοπεῖον ... περίακτος ὑψηλή. Heron, l.c. p. 265. Weismann (l.c. p. 48), who was the first to draw attention to the passage in Heron, supposes that there was a periaktos high up in the back-scene, and that an apparatus like that of Heron’s was fastened to all three sides of it, so that by revolving the periaktos three successive flashes might be exhibited.

[666] Poll. iv. 127, 131, 132.

[667] Ovid, Met. iii. 111; Hor. Ep. ii. 1. 189.

[668] The following passages are cited in proof of the existence of a drop-scene:—(1) Athen. 536 A γενομένων δὲ τῶν Δημητρίων Ἀθήνησιν ἐγράφετο ἐπὶ τοῦ προσκηνίου (ὁ Δημήτριος) ἐπὶ τῆς οἰκουμένης ὀχούμενος. Here προσκήνιον more probably denotes the scene at the back of the stage. (2) Suid. s.v. προσκήνιον· τὸ πρὸ τῆς σκηνῆς παραπέτασμα· ἡ δὲ τύχη παρελκομένη τὴν πρόφασιν καθάπερ ἐπὶ προσκήνιον παρεγύμνωσε τὰς ἀληθεῖς ἐπινοίας. Suidas has here mistaken the meaning of the passage he quotes, in which προσκήνιον = ‘the stage’. (3) Synesius (flor. about 400 A.D.) Aegypt. p. 128 C εἰ δέ τις ... κυνοφθαλμίζοιτο διὰ τοῦ προσκηνίου. Even if προσκήνιον means the drop-scene in this passage, it would be no proof of the existence of a drop-scene in classical times. (4) Poll. iv. 122 (speaking of the theatre) ἔξεστι δὲ καὶ τὸ παραπέτασμα αὐλαίαν καλεῖν, Ὑπερείδου εἰπόντος ἐν τῷ κατὰ Πατροκλέους· οἱ δὲ ἐννέα ἄρχοντες εἱστιῶντο ἐν τῇ στοᾷ, περιφραξάμενοί τι μέρος αὐτῆς αὐλαίᾳ. Suidas s.v. αὐλαία, and Bekk. Anecd. p. 463 αὐλαία τὸ τῆς σκηνῆς παραπέτασμα· κέχρηται δὲ αὐτῷ Ὑπερείδης ἐν τῷ κατὰ Πατροκλέους. Hesych. s.ν. αὐλαία ... τὸ τῆς σκηνῆς παραπέτασμα. Et. Mag. p. 170 λέγονται δὲ αὐλαῖαι καὶ τὰ παραπετάσματα τῆς σκηνῆς, ὡς παρὰ τῷ θεολόγῳ. It is obvious that the grammarians here cited were thinking of a drop-scene. But the passage they refer to in Hypereides has nothing to do with a drop-scene. It is doubtful, therefore, whether this testimony is of any value except for the practice of later times. It can hardly be considered decisive for the classical period.

[669] Bethe (Prolegomena, pp. 198 ff.) thinks the drop-scene was introduced into the Greek theatre about 427 B.C., at the same time as the raised stage. His reason is that none of the plays which begin with a tableau are previous to 427 in date. But the Agamemnon commences with the watchman reclining on the palace roof. The Heracleidae (probably anterior to 427) opens with a group of suppliants at an altar. The Oedipus Rex, which also begins with a tableau, is of unknown date, and there is nothing to show that it was later than 427.

[670] Poll. iv. 123 ἐλεὸς δ’ ἦν τράπεζα ἀρχαία, ἐφ’ ἣν πρὸ Θέσπιδος εἷς τις ἀναβὰς τοῖς χορευταῖς ἀπεκρίνατο. Arist. Poet. c. 4 καὶ ἡ μὲν (τραγῳδία ἐγένετο) ἀπὸ τῶν ἐξαρχόντων τὸν διθύραμβον, ἡ δὲ (κωμῳδία) ἀπὸ τῶν τὰ φαλλικά.

[671] Diog. Laërt. iii. 56 ὥσπερ δὲ τὸ παλαιὸν ἐν τῇ τραγῳδίᾳ πρότερον μὲν μόνος ὁ χορὸς διεδραμάτιζεν, ὕστερον δὲ Θέσπις ἕνα ὑποκριτὴν ἐξεῦρεν ὑπὲρ τοῦ διαναπαύεσθαι τὸν χορόν.

[672] Suidas s.v. Θέσπις.

[673] Aristot. Poet. c. 4 καὶ τό τε τῶν ὑποκριτῶν πλῆθος ἐξ ἑνὸς εἰς δύο πρῶτος Αἰσχύλος ἤγαγε καὶ τὰ τοῦ χοροῦ ἠλάττωσε καὶ τὸν λόγον πρωταγωνιστὴν παρεσκεύασεν.

[674] Viz. the Supplices, Persae, and Seven against Thebes. In the concluding scene of the Seven the part of Ismene would not be taken by a regular actor. Apparently the opening scene of the Prometheus requires three actors, unless we are to adopt the very improbable supposition that the person of Prometheus was represented by a wooden figure, which was nailed to the rock, and from behind which the protagonist spoke the part. [In favour of the lay figure, see Wecklein’s Edition of the Prometheus, Introd. p. 54; Navarre, Annales de la Faculté des Lettres de Bordeaux, Rev. des Études Anciennes, 1901; against it, Bodensteiner, Jahrb. für class. Philol., Suppl.-bd. xix. p. 674; Bethe, Proleg. p. 180, &c.]

[675] Aristot. Poet. c. 4; Diog. Laërt. iii. 56; vit. Soph.; Suidas s.v. Σοφοκλῆς. The Life of Aeschylus assigns the introduction of the third actor to Aeschylus, but adds that Dicaearchus ascribed it to Sophocles. The passage in Themistius (xxvi. p. 316 D) καὶ οὐ προσέχομεν Ἀριστοτέλει ὅτι τὸ μὲν πρῶτον ὁ χορὸς εἰσιὼν ᾖδεν εἰς τοὺς θεούς, Θέσπις δὲ πρόλογόν τε καὶ ῥῆσιν ἐξεῦρεν, Αἰσχύλος δὲ τρίτον ὑποκριτήν (a. l. τρίτον ὑποκριτάς) is doubtful, and cannot weigh against Aristotle’s definite statement in the Poetics. The balance of evidence is distinctly in favour of the conclusion that the third actor was first introduced by Sophocles.

[676] Baumeister, Denkmäler, No. 422; Eur. Cyclops 197 ff.

[677] Arist. Poet. cc. 4, 5; Anon. de Comoed. (Dindf. Prolegom. de Comoed. p. 27); Diomedes, p. 490 K.

[678] Soph. O. C. 1117 ff., 1249 ff., 1500 ff.

[679] Cp. Beer, Über die Zahl der Schauspieler bei Aristophanes, Leipz. 1844.

[680] Phot. s.v. ὑποκρίνεσθαι· τὸ ἀποκρίνεσθαι οἱ παλαιοί· καὶ ὁ ὑποκριτὴς ἐντεῦθεν, ὁ ἀποκρινόμενος τῷ χορῷ. So also Hesych. s.v. ὑποκρίνοιτο, and Poll. iv. 123. Apollon. Lex. Hom. s.v. ὑποκρίναιτο· πρωταγωνιστοῦντος γὰρ τοῦ χοροῦ τὸ παλαιὸν οὗτοι ὥσπερ ἀποκριταὶ ᾖσαν, ἀποκρινόμενοι πρὸς τὸν χορόν.

[681] Demosth. Fals. Leg. § 192 πάντας τοὺς τεχνίτας συνήγαγεν; Aristot. Prob. xxx. 10 οἱ περὶ τὸν Διόνυσον τεχνῖται; Polyb. xvi. 21.

[682] Plut. Solon p. 95 C; Aristot. Rhet. iii. 1 ὑπεκρίνοντο γὰρ αὐτοὶ τὰς τραγῳδίας οἱ ποιηταὶ τὸ πρῶτον.

[683] The words in the Life are ἐχρήσατο δ’ ὑποκριτῇ πρώτῳ μὲν Κλεάνδρῳ, ἔπειτα καὶ τὸν δεύτερον αὐτῷ προσῆψε Μυννίσκον τὸν Χαλκιδέα· τὸν δὲ τρίτον ὑποκριτὴν αὐτὸς ἐξεῦρεν, ὡς δὲ Δικαίαρχος ὁ Μεσσήνιος, Σοφοκλῆς. These words imply that he employed Mynniscus for the first time on the occasion of his introduction of a second actor; and that previously to this innovation, when only one actor was required, he had been accustomed to employ Cleander, instead of acting himself. He must, therefore, have given up acting before the production of the Supplices, and considerably before the first appearance of Sophocles. The statement that Sophocles was the _first_ dramatic poet to abandon acting in person can only be true to the extent that he was the first poet who never acted at all.

[684] Vit. Soph. πρῶτον μὲν καταλύσας τὴν ὑπόκρισιν τοῦ ποιητοῦ διὰ τὴν ἰδίαν μικροφωνίαν; Athen. p. 20 F; Eustath. Od. p. 1533.

[685] Müller (Griech. Bühnenalt. p. 184) states, on the authority of Zenob. Prov. v. 100, that Astydamas the Elder acted in his own tragedy, the Parthenopaeus. The words in Zenobius are εὐημερήσας ἐν τῇ ὑποκρίσει Παρθενοπαίου. But this is merely a carelessness of expression, on which no stress can be laid. In the account given by Suidas (s.v. σαυτὴν ἐπαινεῖς) of the same occurrence the expression is εὐημερήσαντι ἐπὶ τραγῳδίας διδασκαλίᾳ Παρθενοπαίου. The Parthenopaeus was really written by Astydamas the Younger. See the Tragic Drama of the Greeks, p. 430.

[686] Athen. p. 22 A; Schol. Aristoph. Equit. 534.

[687] Vit. Aristoph. p. 34 Dindf.; Arg. ii. Equit. The story arose from a misunderstanding of the phrase καθιέναι τὸ δρᾶμα δι’ ἑαυτοῦ. The Knights was the first play Aristophanes produced in his own name. See Meineke, Frag. Com. Gr. ii. 928 ff. Antiphanes is said (Müller, Die griech. Bühnen, p. 184) to have acted one of his own comedies, the evidence being the inscription in Corp. Ins. Att. ii. 972 [Ἀντιφάνη]ς πέμ(πτος) Ἀνασῳζο(μένοις)· [ὑπεκρίνετο Ἀντ]ιφάνης. But it is by no means certain that the name of the poet is rightly filled in as Antiphanes. Even if it is, it does not follow that the actor Antiphanes was the same person.

[688] See chap. i. p. 44.

[689] Aristot. Poet. c. 9 λέγω δ’ ἐπεισοδιώδη μῦθον ἐν ᾧ τὰ ἐπεισόδια μετ’ ἄλληλα οὔτ’ εἰκὸς οὔτ’ ἀνάγκη εἶναι. τοιαῦται δὲ ποιοῦνται ὑπὸ μὲν τῶν φαύλων ποιητῶν δι’ αὐτούς, ὑπὸ δὲ τῶν ἀγαθῶν διὰ τοὺς ὑποκριτάς: Rhet. iii. 1 μεῖζον δύνανται νῦν τῶν ποιητῶν οἱ ὑποκριταί.

[690] Vit. Soph. p. 3 Dindf.

[691] See chap. ii. pp. 57 ff.

[692] Plut. Alex. p. 681 E.

[693] Plut. Rep. Ger. 817 A; Dem. Fals. Leg. § 10; Suidas s.v. Σοφοκλῆς.

[694] See chap. i. p. 42, ch. ii. p. 57.

[695] Cic. Div. in Caecil. § 48 ‘ut in actoribus Graecis fieri videmus, saepe illum, qui est secundarum aut tertiarum partium, cum possit aliquanto clarius dicere quam ipse primarum, multum summittere, ut ille princeps quam maxime excellat,’ &c.

[696] Aristot. Pol. vii. 17. The story about Theodorus has caused some difficulty. Does it mean that Theodorus, besides taking the principal character, also played the part of the person who made the first speech in the tragedy? If so, he would have been debarred from acting some of the most popular tragedies of the time. For instance, the actor who took the part of Electra in the play of Sophocles could not act the part of the paedagogus, since Electra comes on the stage as soon as the paedagogus leaves it. There would be the same difficulty about the Orestes, the Medea, and many other plays. It has been suggested that the reference is to some preliminary announcement of the title of the play, which Theodorus preferred to make himself, instead of leaving it to a subordinate. Such announcements were made in Greek theatres in later times (cp. Lucian, Pseudolog. 19; Heliod. Aethiop. viii. 17; Synesius, περὶ προνοίας, p. 128 D), and may have been customary in Athens, or in other parts of Greece, in the time of Theodorus. But it is extremely improbable that the reference is to any such practice. The audience would hardly pay much attention to the voice of the person who announced the name of the coming play. The meaning is probably that Theodorus used to take the part of the character which spoke first, whenever it was possible to do so. In such plays as the Electra it would be impossible.

[697] Alciphron, Epist. iii. 71.

[698] Schol. Eur. Phoen. 93.

[699] Schol. Aesch. Choeph. 900.

[700] Aul. Gell. vii. 5; Stob. Flor. 97. 28; Dem. Fals. Leg. § 246; Strattis ap. Kock, Frag. Com. Gr. i. p. 711.

[701] Hesych. s.v. ἀρουραῖος Οἰνόμαος; Dem. de Cor. § 180; Aelian, Var. Hist. xiv. 40.

[702] Plut. Lysand. p. 466 D.

[703] Dem. Fals. Leg. § 247.

[704] Dem. l.c., de Cor. §§ 180, 267. [Devrient, Das Kind auf der antiken Bühne, thinks that the words spoken by children in the Alcestis, Andromache, &c., were declaimed by the tritagonist from behind the stage, while a real child appeared on the stage and went through the gestures.]

[705] K. F. Hermann, De distributione personarum in trag. graec., 1842; Richter, Die Vertheilung der Rollen der griech. Tragödie, 1842; Croiset, Histoire de la Litt. grecq., iii. passim.

[706] As there is some doubt about the meaning of the word παραχορήγημα, it will be well to quote the passages where it occurs. They are (1) Schol. Aesch. Prom. 12 ἐν παραχορηγήματι αὐτῷ εἰδωλοποιηθεῖσα Βία. (2) Schol. Aesch. Eum. 573 ἐν παραχορηγήματι αὐτῷ εἰσιν οἱ Ἀρεοπαγῖται μηδαμοῦ διαλεγόμενοι. (3) Schol. Aristoph. Ran. 211 ταῦτα καλεῖται παραχορηγήματα, ἐπειδὴ οὐχ ὁρῶνται ἐν τῷ θεάτρῳ οἱ βάτραχοι, οὐδὲ ὁ χορός, ἀλλ’ ἔσωθεν μιμοῦνται τοὺς βατράχους· ὁ δὲ ἀληθῶς χορὸς ἐκ τῶν εὐσεβῶν νεκρῶν συνέστηκεν. (4) Schol. Aristoph. Pax 113 τὰ τοιαῦτα παραχορηγήματα καλοῦσιν, οἷα νῦν τὰ παιδία ποιεῖ καλοῦντα τὸν πατέρα· εἶτα πρὸς οὐδὲν ἔτι τούτοις χρήσεται. (5) Poll. iv. 109 ὁπότε μὴν ἀντὶ τετάρτου ὑποκριτοῦ δέοι τινὰ τῶν χορευτῶν εἰπεῖν ἐν ᾠδῇ, παρασκήνιον καλεῖται τὸ πρᾶγμα, ὡς ἐν Ἀγαμέμνονι Αἰσχύλου· εἰ δὲ τέταρτος ὑποκριτής τι παραφθέγξαιτο, τοῦτο παραχορήγημα ὀνομάζεται, καὶ πεπρᾶχθαί φασιν αὐτὸ ἐν Μέμνονι Αἰσχύλου. The first and second instances refer to mute personages, the third instance refers to an extra chorus, the fourth to extra performers who say only a few words upon the stage. It is therefore quite clear that the word παραχορήγημα included all classes of extra performers, as distinct from the actors and the chorus. There are no grounds for excluding the mute personages from the class of παραχορηγήματα, as Müller (Griech. Bühnenalt. p. 179) and others have done. Pollux appears to make the distinction between παρασκήνιον and παραχορήγημα lie in the fact that the former sang, the latter spoke. The distinction is a foolish one, and was probably due to Pollux’s habit of generalizing from one particular instance. The word παρασκήνιον, in its present sense, only occurs in the passage of Pollux. To judge from the etymology of the word, it may have denoted performers behind the scenes. The words ἐν Ἀγαμέμνονι Αἰσχύλου in the passage of Pollux are corrupt, the corruption arising from the words ἐν Μέμνονι Αἰσχύλου which follow. There is no παρασκήνιον in the Agamemnon. The reference cannot be to the speech of Pylades in the Choephori (vv. 900-902), because (1) the Choephori could not be called the Agamemnon, (2) the part of Pylades was taken by one of the regular actors, as the scholiast ad loc. informs us.

[707] Plut. Phocion, p. 750 C.

[708] See note 2 on the previous page.

[709] Aesch. Choeph. 713, Eum. 678 ff., Agam. 908.

[710] Soph. Aj. 544; Eur. Med. 1021, Herc. Fur. 454, Phoen. 834, Hecub. 978.

[711] Eur. Alc. 393, Androm. 504.

[712] Aristoph. Pax 114, Acharn. 43, 94, 729.

[713] Aesch. Eum. 1032; Aristoph. Vesp. 248; Schol. Eur. Hipp. 58.

[714] Aristoph. Ran. 209, Thesm. 104.

[715] Eur. Hipp. 61.

[716] Athen. p. 21 E; Hor. A. P. 278; Philostrat. vit. Apoll. vi. 11; Cramer, Anecd. Par. i. p. 19; Evanth. de trag. et com. (Gronov. Thesaur. viii. p. 1683); Suidas s.v. Αἰσχύλος.

[717] See Crusius, Philologus, 1889, p. 703.

[718] Schol. Aristoph. Nub. 296; Suidas s.v. θρίαμβος; Plut. Cupid. Divit. 527 D; Verg. Georg. ii. 387.

[719] Bethe (Prolegomena, pp. 35-46) finds an additional proof of this theory in the Bologna vase (cp. Dümmler, Rhein. Museum, 1888, p. 355). In this vase Dionysus is represented sitting in a boat-shaped car, with a satyr playing a flute on each side of him. The car is drawn by two satyrs, and two others are leading an ox. A boy and four women follow behind. Bethe thinks this scene was part of an old tragic performance; that the single actor of the period always played the part of Dionysus, and therefore naturally wore his costume. He also thinks the car was the prototype of the later stage, and is identical with the wagons in which Thespis is said to have carried about his tragedies (Hor. A. P. 276). Unfortunately for these theories there is nothing to show that the procession depicted on the vase had any connexion with a dramatic performance. Such processions with Dionysus in a boat-shaped car are known to have existed in other parts of Greece (Philostrat. vit. Soph. i. 25; cp. Crusius, Philologus, 1889, p. 209); and though interesting as illustrations of the Bacchic mythology, they throw no light on the early history of the drama.

[720] Athen. p. 21 E.

[721] See, on the subject of this relief, Robert, Athen. Mittheil. 1882, pp. 389 ff.

[722] See Bethe, Jahrb. des Archaeol. Instituts, 1896, pp. 292 ff., and pl. 2.

[723] See especially the Medea vase (Baumeister, Denkmäler, no. 980). Copies of many of these vases are given by Huddilston, in Greek Tragedy in the Light of Vase-Paintings, 1898.

[724] A list of them will be found in Müller, Griech. Bühnenalt. p. 226.

[725] From Monumenti Inediti, xi. 13.

[726] Suidas s.vv. Θέσπις, Χοιρίλος, Φρύνιχος.

[727] Suidas s.v. Αἰσχύλος; Hor. A. P. 278; Evanth. de trag. et com. (Gronov. Thesaur. viii. p. 1683).

[728] Aul. Gell. v. 7.

[729] Poll. x. 167; Isidor. Orig. x. 119; Suidas s.v. Θέσπις; Verg. Georg. ii. 387; Prudent. c. Symmach. ii. 646.

[730] Aul. Gell. v. 7.

[731] Schol. Dem. Fals. Leg. § 256. See fig. 23.

[732] Wieseler, Denkmäler, p. 42.

[733] Poll. iv. 133-5, 139.

[734] [Soph. El. 1296 ff. Other cases are Aesch. Eum. 968, 990, and Eur. Orest. 1317. Cf. Hense, Die Modificirung der Maske in der griech. Tragödie, ed. ii (1905), where the various cases in which a change of mask is certain or suspected are discussed.]

[735] Poll. iv. 133-41.

[736] Poll. iv. 141, 142. Special masks were called ἔκσκευα πρόσωπα.

[737] The masks in fig. 17 are copied from Wieseler, Denkmäler, v. 20, 24, 26. The first is a marble, the second and third are from wall-paintings at Herculaneum. The masks in fig. 18 are copied from the Archaeol. Zeitung for 1878. They are from wall-paintings at Pompeii. For a list of the various works of art illustrating the subject see Müller, Griech. Bühnenalt. p. 273.

[738] The name for the tragic boot in Greek was ἐμβάτης (Suid. s.v. Αἰσχύλος), ὀκρίβας (Lucian, Nero c. 9), or κόθορνος (vit. Aesch.). Cothurnus was the regular name in Latin. Pollux (iv. 115) appears to be mistaken in calling ἐμβάτης the comic boot, in opposition to the notices in other grammarians. The sole of the cothurnus was of wood, as appears from Schol. Lucian, Epist. Saturn. 19. Works of art show that it was painted: see Wieseler, Denkmäler, vii, viii; and cp. Ovid. Am. ii. 18. 15 ‘risit Amor pallamque meam pictosque cothurnos’.

[739] Suidas s.v. Αἰσχύλος; Aristot. apud Themist. or. xxvi. p. 316; Philostrat., vit. Apoll. vi. 11; Porphyr. on Hor. A. P. 278.

[740] Vit. Aesch. p. 7 Dindf.

[741] Lucian, Nero c. 9, Necyom. c. 16, Iupp. Trag. c. 41, de Salt. c. 27; Martial, viii. 3, 13, &c.

[742] The illustration is from Wieseler, Denkmäler, ix. 1. The original is a wall-painting from Pompeii.

[743] Vit. Soph. p. 2 Dindf.

[744] Lucian, Somnium vel Gallus 26; vit. Aeschin.

[745] Phot. s.v. σωμάτια; Lucian, de Salt. 27.

[746] For the general account of the χιτών or tunic see Pollux iv. 115-18. The epithet ποικίλον shows that it was brilliantly coloured. As to the length of the tunic see Lucian, Iupp. Trag. c. 41, Eustath. II. p. 954. 47, and the works of art referred to on pp. 240, 241. For the ornamentation and the girdle see the same works of art. The sleeves were called χειρίδες (vit. Aesch. p. 6 Dindf.; Lucian, Iupp. Trag. c. 41).

[747] Poll. iv. 116-18.

[748] Poll. iv. 116; Soph. O. C. 314; Eur. Bacch. 833.

[749] Poll. iv. 116, 117; Varro, Res Rust. ii. 11.

[750] Aesch. Eum. 181, 404; Poll. iv. 117.

[751] Poll. iv. 117. See fig. 18.

[752] Lucian, Somn. vel Gall. 26; Poll. iv. 116. The special tunic was called κόλπωμα.

[753] Aesch. Pers. 661.

[754] Poll. iv. 116, 117. The cloak was called ἐφαπτίς.

[755] Eur. Ion 743; Vit. Soph. p. 2 Dindf.

[756] Aesch. Agam. 493; Soph. O. R. 83; Eur. Alc. 759.

[757] Lucian, de Salt. 27, Anachar. 23.

[758] Philostrat. vit. Apoll. v. 9.

[759] The illustrations are taken from Monumenti Inediti, xi. 31, 32. The originals are wall-paintings at Pompeii.

[760] Baumeister, Denkmäler, nos. 422 (the Naples vase), 424, 1631; Wieseler, Denkmäler, vi. 1, 2 (the Naples vase), 3-10. See above, p. 240.

[761] Specimens of the first kind of dress are to be found in Wieseler, vi. 2 (= Baumeister, 422), 6, 7, 10; specimens of the second kind in vi. 8 (= Baum. 1631), 9. The tunic was called χιτὼν χορταῖος, μαλλωτός, ἀμφίμαλλος, and was apparently made of wool: cp. Poll. iv. 118; Hesych. and Suid. s.v. χορταῖος; Dion. Hal. A. R. vii. 72; Ael. Var. Hist. iii. 40.

[762] Poll. iv. 118. These articles are part of the dress of Silenus. The other actors were dressed quite differently. The dress of the chorus is described in the next chapter.

[763] There does not appear, however, to be any instance of an old Attic comedy being acted by the Phlyakes. The scene in Baumeister no. 904, where Hercules is knocking against a door, and a slave on a donkey follows behind, was formerly supposed to be the opening scene of the Frogs. But this is very doubtful. The character in the vase-painting is the real Hercules, and not Dionysus disguised.

[764] Körte, Studien zur Alten Komödie, Jahrbuch des archaeol. Instituts, 1893, pp. 61-93.

[765] The illustration is taken from Compte Rendu de la Commission Impériale Archéologique, 1870-1, plate iv. 1. The vase was found in the Crimea, but is now at St. Petersburg. In the original there are two other figures (not actors), one on each side of the group. These have been omitted from the copy.

[766] The two figures are from Körte, l.c. pp. 78 and 80. Both were found at Athens. For a complete list of these statuettes see Körte, pp. 77-86.

[767] Schol. Aristoph. Nub. 538.

[768] Aristoph. Nub. 538 οὐδὲν ἦλθε ῥαψαμένη σκύτινον καθειμένον κ.τ.λ. Possibly Aristophanes only means that he used the φαλλὸς ἀναδεδεμένος instead of the more indecent καθειμένος. Nub. 734 seems to show that the φαλλός was used even in the Clouds. For its employment in the other plays cp. Acharn. 156 ff., 1216 ff., Vesp. 1342, Pax 1349, Lysist. 928, 937, 987 ff., 1073 ff., Thesm. 59, 141, 239, 643, 1114. [Willems, Le Nu dans la Comédie Ancienne, tries to show that Aristophanes’ use of the phallus was exceptional, but without success. He also argues that in Vesp. 1342, Pax 886, Thesm. 1181, Ach. 1198, Ran. 1308 mute parts were played by ἑταῖραι absolutely nude; but the evidence is quite insufficient, and can be otherwise explained.]

[769] The padding was called σωμάτιον. Cp. Phot. σωμάτια, τὰ ἀναπλάσματα οἷς οἱ ὑποκριταὶ διασάττουσιν αὑτούς. Luc. Iupp. Trag. 41 προγαστρίδια καὶ σωμάτια. The name of the under-garment is uncertain. Müller (Bühnenalt. p. 230) thinks it too was called σωμάτιον, on the strength of Poll. iv. 115 καὶ σκευὴ μὲν ἡ τῶν ὑποκριτῶν στολὴ (ἡ δ’ αὐτὴ καὶ σωμάτιον ἐκαλεῖτο). But this is very doubtful.

[770] For the references see Müller, Bühnenalt. pp. 249 ff.

[771] Poll. iv. 143; Platon. de Comoed. (Dindf. p. 21); Aristoph. Equit. 230; Ael. Var. Hist. ii. 13.

[772] Poll. iv. 143 ἐπὶ τὸ γελοιότερον ἐσχημάτιστο.

[773] Schol. Aristoph. Acharn. 97; Aristoph. Av. 62, 94, 104, 1203 (with Schol. ad loc.), 1508, Acharn. 575 ff.

[774] Müller, Bühnenalt. p. 253.

[775] Jahrbuch des archaeol. Inst. 1893, pp. 89 ff.

[776] The vase with the names (Εὔνους, Ὀφέλανδρος, Ὄμβρικος) is given by Körte, p. 91. For another specimen see Baumeister, no. 2099.

[777] Körte, Athen. Mittheil. 1884, pp. 346 ff. See the specimen given by Cook in the Classical Review, 1895, p. 373.

[778] For a list of the works of art illustrating the subject see Müller, Bühnenalt. pp. 258, 273-6.

[779] Platon. ap. Dindf. Proll. de Com. p. 21 ἐν δὲ τῇ μέσῃ καὶ νέᾳ κωμῳδίᾳ ἐπίτηδες τὰ προσωπεῖα πρὸς τὸ γελοιότερον ἐδημιούργησαν ... ὁρῶμεν γοῦν τὰ προσωπεῖα τῆς Μενάνδρου κωμῳδίας τὰς ὀφρῦς ὁποίας ἔχει, καὶ ὅπως ἐξεστραμμένον τὸ στόμα καὶ οὐδὲ κατ’ ἀνθρώπων φύσιν. See Wieseler, Denkmäl. v. 27-52; Baumeister, nos. 905-8.

[780] Fig. 25 is taken from Archaeol. Zeitung, 1878, Taf. 4, and represents the masks of a girl and a slave. The original is a wall-painting at Pompeii. Fig. 26, which is taken from Monumenti Inediti, xi. 32, contains two copies of terra cottas found at Pompeii. It will be seen that the mask of the girl is not unlike a tragic mask in general character.

[781] Poll. iv. 143-54. Cp. Quint. Inst. xi. 3. 74.

[782] This shoe was called ἐμβάς in Greek, and soccus in Latin: see Ammon. de diff. vocab. p. 49; Aristoph. Nub. 858.

[783] Poll. iv. 119-20.

[784] The illustration is from Monumenti Inediti, xi. 32.

[785] Aristot. Poet. c. 6 τὸ δὲ χωρὶς τοῖς εἴδεσι τὸ διὰ μέτρων ἔνια μόνον περαίνεσθαι καὶ πάλιν ἕτερα διὰ μέλους, c. 4 λέξεως δὲ γενομένης αὐτὴ ἡ φύσις τὸ οἰκεῖον μέτρον εὗρε, μάλιστα γὰρ λεκτικὸν τῶν μέτρων τὸ ἰαμβεῖόν ἐστιν.

[786] The mark C (canticum) denotes the part which was sung, D V (diverbium) the part which was spoken. These marks are found in cod. vetus (B), and cod. decurtatus (C), and the plays in which they occur are the Trinummus, Poenulus, Pseudolus, Truculentus, and parts of others. See Christ, Metrik, pp. 677 ff.

[787] Lucian, de Salt. 27 ἐνίοτε καὶ περιᾴδων τὰ ἰαμβεῖα.

[788] Songs by the actors were called τὰ ἀπὸ τῆς σκηνῆς. The solos (in tragedy) were called μονῳδίαι, the duets and trios had no special name. Musical duets between actors and chorus were in tragedy called κόμμοι. Suidas s.vv. μονῳδεῖν, μονῳδία; Aristot. Poet. c. 12.

[789] Plut. Mus. p. 1140 F ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ Ἀρχίλοχος τὴν τῶν τριμέτρων ῥυθμοποιΐαν προσεξεῦρε ... καὶ τὴν παρακαταλογήν, καὶ τὴν περὶ ταῦτα κροῦσιν ... ἔτι δὲ τῶν ἰαμβείων τὸ τὰ μὲν λέγεσθαι παρὰ τὴν κροῦσιν, τὰ δ’ ᾄδεσθαι, Ἀρχίλοχόν φασι καταδεῖξαι, εἶθ’ οὕτω χρήσασθαι τοὺς τραγικοὺς ποιητάς. Athen. p. 636 B ἐν οἷς γὰρ (φησὶ) τοὺς ἰάμβους ᾖδον, ἰαμβύκας ἐκάλουν· ἐν οἷς δὲ παρελογίζοντο τὰ ἐν τοῖς μέτροις, κλεψιάμβους. Hesych. s.v. καταλογή· τὸ τὰ ᾄσματα μὴ ὑπὸ μέλει λέγειν.

[790] Xen. Symp. vi. 3 ὥσπερ Νικόστρατος ὁ ὑποκριτὴς τετράμετρα πρὸς τὸν αὐλὸν κατέλεγεν.

[791] The two groups of trochaic tetrameters in the parabasis were called ἐπίρρημα and ἀντεπίρρημα. See Platon. in Dindf. Prolegom. de Comoed. p. 21.

[792] Aristoph. Pax 1171, 1172.

[793] Schol. Arist. Nub. 1355 οὕτως ἔλεγον πρὸς χορὸν λέγειν, ὅτε τοῦ ὑποκριτοῦ διατιθεμένου τὴν ῥῆσιν, ὁ χορὸς ὠρχεῖτο. διὸ καὶ ἐκλέγονται ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πλεῖστον ἐν τοῖς τοιούτοις τὰ τετράμετρα, ἢ τὰ ἀναπαιστικά, ἢ τὰ ἰαμβικά, διὰ τὸ ῥᾳδίως ἐμπίπτειν ἐν τούτοις τὸν τοιοῦτον ῥυθμόν.

[794] Aristoph. Av. 682-4 ἀλλ’, ὦ καλλιβόαν κρέκουσ’ | αὐλὸν φθέγμασιν ἠρινοῖς, | ἄρχου τῶν ἀναπαίστων, and Schol. ad loc. πολλάκις πρὸς αὐλὸν λέγουσι τὰς παραβάσεις.

[795] The exodos, mostly consisting of anapaests, is described as ἅπερ ἐπὶ τῇ ἐξόδῳ τοῦ δράματος ᾄδεται in Schol. Arist. Vesp. 270, and as ὃ ἐξιόντες ᾖδον in Poll. iv. 108. But in Dindf. Proll. de Com. p. 37 it is called τὸ ἐπὶ τέλει λεγόμενον τοῦ χοροῦ. As far as the anapaestic tetrameters are concerned, the word ᾄδοντας in Aristoph. Plut. 1209, and Hesych.’s definition of ἀνάπαιστα as τὰ ἐν ταῖς παραβάσεσι τῶν χορῶν ᾄσματα, show that they were not merely spoken: the expression λέξοντας ἔπη in Aristoph. Equit. 508 proves that they were not sung. See Christ, Metrik, pp. 680 ff.

[796] Aristot. Probl. xix. 6 διὰ τί ἡ παρακαταλογὴ ἐν ταῖς ᾠδαῖς τραγικόν;

[797] Schol. Aristoph. Nub. 312, Vesp. 580; Aristoph. Eccles. 890-2.

[798] Sext. Empir. p. 751, 21; Aristot. Probl. xix. 43.

[799] Aristoph. Ran. 1286, 1304. Baumeister, Denkmäler, no. 422.

[800] Aristoph. Av. 226 ff., 659 ff.

[801] Lüders, Die dionysischen Künstler, pp. 187 ff. Schol. Aristoph. Vesp. 582 ἔθος δὲ ἦν ἐν ταῖς ἐξόδοις τῆς τραγῳδίας χορικῶν προσώπων προηγεῖσθαι αὐλητήν, ὥστε αὐλοῦντα προπέμπειν.

[802] See Baumeister, Denkmäler, nos. 422, 424; Journal of Hellenic Studies, xi. plate 11 (reproduced in Fig. 28).

[803] Schol. Aristoph. Vesp. 582.

[804] Diod. Sic. xvi. 92 Νεοπτόλεμος ὁ τραγῳδός, πρωτεύων τῇ μεγαλοφωνίᾳ καὶ τῇ δόξῃ.

[805] Alciph. iii. 48 τορῷ τινι καὶ γεγωνοτέρῳ φωνήματι χρησάμενος.

[806] Diod. Sic. xv. 7 ἐξαπέστειλε τοὺς εὐφωνοτάτους τῶν ὑποκριτῶν ... οὗτοι δὲ τὸ μὲν πρῶτον διὰ τὴν εὐφωνίαν ἐξέπληττον τοὺς ἀκούοντας.

[807] Lucian, Nero 9 ὁ δ’ Ἠπειρώτης ἄριστα φωνῆς ἔχων, εὐδοκιμῶν δ’ ἐπ’ αὐτῇ καὶ θαυμαζόμενος λαμπροτέρᾳ τοῦ εἰωθότος.

[808] Plut. X orat. p. 848 B τοὺς ὑποκριτὰς ἔφη δεῖν κρίνειν ἐκ τῆς φωνῆς. Diog. Laërt. vii. 20 τὴν μὲν φωνὴν καὶ τὴν δύναμιν μεγάλην ἔχειν. Aristot. Rhet. iii. 1. Lucian, de Salt. 27 μόνης τῆς φωνῆς ὑπεύθυνον παρέχων ἑαυτόν. Plat. Legg. 817 C καλλίφωνοι ὑποκριταί.

[809] Cic. div. in Caecil. § 48 ‘cum possit aliquanto clarius dicere ... multum summittere, ut ille princeps quam maxime excellat’.

[810] Cic. de Orat. i. § 251.

[811] Aristot. Probl. xi. 22; Athen. p. 343 E.

[812] Plut. Aud. Poet. 18 B.

[813] Aristot. Rhet. iii. 2 διὸ δεῖ λανθάνειν ποιοῦντας, καὶ μὴ δοκεῖν λέγειν πεπλασμένως ἀλλὰ πεφυκότως ... οἷον ἡ Θεοδώρου φωνὴ πέπονθε πρὸς τὴν τῶν ἄλλων ὑποκριτῶν· ἣ μὲν γὰρ τοῦ λέγοντος ἔοικεν εἶναι, αἳ δ’ ἀλλότριαι.

[814] Lucian, Anachar. c. 23 αὐτοὶ δὲ (οἱ τραγῳδοὶ) μεγάλα τε ἐκεκράγεσαν καὶ διέβαινον οὐκ οἶδ’ ὅπως ἀσφαλῶς ἐν τοῖς ὑποδήμασι ... οἱ δὲ κωμῳδοὶ βραχύτεροι μὲν ἐκείνων καὶ πεζοὶ καὶ ἀνθρωπινώτεροι καὶ ἧττον ἐβόων.

[815] Philostrat. vit. Apoll. v. 8 (p. 171 Kayser) ἐπεὶ δὲ ἐξάρας τὴν φωνὴν γεγωνὸν ἐφθέγξατο; Lucian, l.c. See also the passages quoted on p. 273.

[816] Pollux (iv. 114), speaking of tragic acting, says εἴποις δ’ ἂν βαρύστονος ὑποκριτής, βομβῶν, περιβομβῶν, ληκυθίζων, λαρυγγίζων, φαρυγγίζων. Dem. de Cor. § 262.

[817] Cic. Orat. §§ 25, 27.

[818] Cic. de Orat. iii. §§ 195, 196, Parad. § 26.

[819] Antig. 76, Hel. 543, Androm. 529, Orest. 382, Hec. 339, &c.

[820] Phil. 819, Heraclid. 75, Ajax 865, Eur. Suppl. 1070, Troad. 36, 462. Polymestor (Hec. 1058) and the Delphic priestess (Eum. 34) speak of themselves as crawling out on all fours. But it is unnecessary to suppose that they actually made their entrance from the back-scene in this way.

[821] Aristot. Poet c. 26 ἡ μὲν οὖν τραγῳδία τοιαύτη ἐστίν, ὡς καὶ οἱ πρότερον τοὺς ὑστέρους αὐτῶν ᾤοντο ὑποκριτάς, ὡς λίαν γὰρ ὑπερβάλλοντα πίθηκον ὁ Μυννίσκος τὸν Καλλιππίδην ἐκάλει, τοιαύτη δὲ δόξα καὶ περὶ Πινδάρου ἦν ... εἶτα οὐδὲ κίνησις ἅπασα ἀποδοκιμαστέα, εἴπερ μηδ’ ὄρχησις, ἀλλ’ ἡ φαύλων, ὅπερ καὶ Καλλιππίδῃ ἐπετιμᾶτο καὶ νῦν ἄλλοις ὡς οὐκ ἐλευθέρας γυναῖκας μιμουμένων.

[822] Vit. Soph. ταῖς δὲ Μούσαις θίασον ἐκ τῶν πεπαιδευμένων συναγαγεῖν. Aristot. Probl. xxx. 10 οἱ Διονυσιακοὶ τεχνῖται.

[823] Dem. Fals. Leg. § 315.

[824] Dem. Meid. §§ 15, 58-60.

[825] C. I. A. ii. 551.

[826] C. I. A. ii. 552.

[827] For a complete account of these guilds see Lüders, Die dionysischen Künstler; Foucart, Les Associations religieuses chez les Grecs.

[828] Corn. Nep. praef. 5 ‘in scaenam vero prodire et populo esse spectaculo nemini in iisdem gentibus fuit turpitudini’. Livy xxiv. 24 (of Ariston the tragic actor) ‘huic genus et fortuna honesta erant; nec ars, quia nihil tale apud Graecos pudori est, ea deformabat’.

[829] Aesch. Fals. Leg. §§ 15-19; Dem. de Cor. § 21.

[830] Dem. Fals. Leg. § 315, de Pace § 6; Diod. Sic. xvi. 92; Plut. Alex. 681 D.

[831] Plut. Alex. 669 D.

[832] Plut. X orat. p. 848 B. Gellius, N. A. xi. 9, gives the same story about Aristodemus.

[833] Aristot. Prob. xxx. 10.

[834] Vit. Aesch.; Schol. Aristoph. Ran. 803, Nub. 1267.

[835] Aristot. Poet. c. 26.

[836] Xen. Symp. iii. 11; Plut. Ages. p. 607 D ἀλλὰ οὐ σύγε ἐσσὶ Καλλιππίδας ὁ δεικηλίκτας;

[837] Macar. Cent. iii. 46; Prov. Coisl. 124.

[838] Rhet. Graec. vi. p. 35 (Walz).

[839] Plut. an sen. 785 C.

[840] Gell. N. A. vii. 5.

[841] Plut. de se laud. 545 F.

[842] Ael. Var. Hist. xiv. 40.

[843] Pausan. i. 37. 3.

[844] See above, p. 279.

[845] Diod. Sic. xvi. 92.

[846] Plut. Alex. 681 D.

[847] C. I. A. ii. 973.

[848] Plat. Rep. 395 B ἀλλ’ οὐδέ τοι ὑποκριταὶ κωμῳδοῖς τε καὶ τραγῳδοῖς οἱ αὐτοί.

[849] Schol. Aristoph. Nub. 542; Plut. Aud. Poet. 18 B. [For an account of all that is known of the celebrated Greek actors see Völker, Berühmte Schauspieler im griech. Alterthum, 1899.]

[850] Aristot. Poet. c. 18.

[851] For details see the Tragic Drama of the Greeks, pp. 452 ff.

[852] Vit. Aristoph. p. 36 Dindf. The places for the interludes are marked χοροῦ in the text (ll. 321, 626, 801, 958).

[853] Platon. de Comoed. p. 21 Dindf. οἱ δὲ τῆς μέσης κωμῳδίας ποιηταὶ ... τὰ χορικὰ μέλη παρέλιπον. Platon. p. 20 says the Aeolosicon of Aristophanes had no chorus; but frag. 8 seems to show that it had. Similarly the statement of Anon. de Comoed. p. 27 Dindf., that the Plutus χορῶν ἐστέρηται, is not entirely true.

[854] Aristot. Pol. iii. 3 ὥσπερ γε καὶ χορὸν ὁτὲ μὲν κωμικὸν ὁτὲ δὲ τραγικὸν ἕτερον εἶναί φαμεν, τῶν αὐτῶν πολλάκις ἀνθρώπων ὄντων. Eth. Nic. iv. 6 κωμῳδοῖς χορηγῶν ἐν τῇ παρόδῳ πορφύραν εἰσφέρων. Athen. Pol. c. 56, where the appointment of χορηγοὶ κωμῳδοῖς is described. This probably implies a chorus; though not necessarily, as a choregus would be required to meet the other expenses of a play. [Cp. Aeschin. in Tim. § 157 πρῴην ἐν τοῖς κατ’ ἀγροὺς Διονυσίοις κωμῳδῶν ὄντων ἐν Κολλυτῷ καὶ Παρμένωνος τοῦ ὑποκριτοῦ εἰπόντος τι πρὸς τὸν χορὸν ἀνάπαιστον (345 B.C.).] The substitution of an agonothetes for the choregi at the end of the fourth century may have been connected with the decline of the chorus. See above, p. 55.

[855] Vit. Aristoph. p. 36 Dindf. τὸν Πλοῦτον γράψας, εἰς τὸ διαναπαύεσθαι τὰ σκηνικὰ πρόσωπα καὶ μετεσκευάσθαι, ἐπιγράφει χοροῦ, φθεγγόμενος ἐν ἐκείνοις ἃ καὶ ὁρῶμεν τοὺς νέους (i.e. Menander and Philemon, cp. p. 35) ἐπιγράφοντας ζήλῳ Ἀριστοφάνους.

[856] Lüders, Die dionysischen Künstler, pp. 187 ff.

[857] Bull. Cor. Hell. xiv. p. 396; Körte, Neue Jahrb. 1900, pp. 83 ff.

[858] Anon. de Comoed. p. 27 Dindf.

[859] Poll. iv. 110. Pollux further states that the number continued to be fifty until the Eumenides of Aeschylus was produced; and that the people were so alarmed at the sight of the fifty Furies that they passed a law reducing the number of the tragic chorus. The story is of course a fiction, on a par with the statement in the Life, that Aeschylus was banished to Sicily as a punishment for terrifying the people with his Eumenides.

[860] Suid. s.v. Σοφοκλῆς; Vit. Soph. p. 2 Dindf.

[861] The decision of the question depends on the passage in the Agamemnon, s.vv. 1344-71. There is no doubt that the twelve iambic couplets, 1348-71, were delivered by twelve choreutae. The difficulty is to decide whether the three trochaic tetrameters, 1344, 1346, and 1347, were delivered by three additional choreutae, or by the coryphaeus. Either view is plausible, and it seems impossible to determine the matter without further evidence. The statement of Schol. Arist. Equit. 586, that the chorus in the Agamemnon was fifteen in number, is merely an inference from the passage just referred to. The statement of Schol. Aesch. Eum. 585, that the chorus in the Eumenides consisted of fifteen persons, is simply grounded on the assumption that the number was the same as in later times. In neither case is the evidence of any independent value.

[862] Fifteen is the number given in Poll. iv. 109; Suid. s.v. χορός; Schol. Arist. Av. 298, Equit. 586; Schol. Aesch. Eum. 585. The number is given as fourteen in Vit. Aesch.; Bekk. Anecd. p. 746; Tzetzes, Prolegom. ad Lycophr. p. 254 M. The explanation of the discrepancy lies in the fact that when the chorus is said to consist of fourteen members the coryphaeus is not included.

[863] Tzetzes, l.c., τὴν δὲ τραγῳδίαν καὶ τοὺς σατύρους ἐπίσης μὲν ἔχειν χορευτὰς ιαʹ (? ιδʹ). Id. apud Dübner, Prolegom. de Com. p. xxiv. ἑκκαίδεκα δὲ σατύρων, τραγῳδίας. Though the numbers are wrong in both passages, it is plain that the tragic and satyric choruses were of the same size.

[864] Poll. iv. 109; Schol. Arist Av. 298, Acharn. 219; Bekk. Anecd. p. 746, &c.

[865] Lüders, l.c. pp. 187 ff. Wieseler, Denkmäler, xiii. 2.

[866] Pausan. i. 28. 6; Schol. Arist. Nub. 343; Baumeister, Denkmäler, no. 422.

[867] Vit. Soph.

[868] Aesch. Agam. 75; Eur. Herc. Fur. 108.

[869] Eur. Suppl. 10, 97; Aesch. Choeph. 10, 11.

[870] Aesch. Suppl. 234-6 ἀνέλληνα στόλον | πέπλοισι βαρβάροισι καὶ πυκνώμασι | χλίοντα; Eur. Bacch. 58.

[871] Aesch. Eum. 52; vit. Aesch. p. 4 Dindf.; Poll. iv. 110; Pausan. i. 28. 6.

[872] See Fürtwängler, Annali dell’ Instituto, 1877, pp. 225 ff., 449 ff.

[873] Hymn to Aphrodite, l. 262.

[874] Strabo, x. p. 471.

[875] Herod. v. 67.

[876] Journal of Hellenic Studies, xi. plate xi, from which the present illustration is taken by permission of the Council of the Hellenic Society.

[877] Wieseler, Denkmäler, vi. 3. Baumeister, Denkmäler, no. 424. In the latter painting the tail and phallus are not visible; but this appears to be merely owing to the position of the two satyrs. It can hardly be taken as evidence that the tail and phallus had been discarded at this time.

[878] See Körte, in Bethe’s Prolegomena, pp. 339 ff.

[879] So Loeschcke, Athen. Mittheil. 1894, p. 522; Bethe, Prolegomena, p. 38.

[880] [Miss Harrison, Proleg. to the Study of Greek Religion, p. 421, derives τραγῳδία from τράγος in the sense of ‘spelt’; but the derivation is more than doubtful.]

[881] Frag. 207 (Nauck) τράγος γένειον ἆρα πενθήσεις σύ γε.

[882] Wieseler, Denkmäler, vi. 3.

[883] Cp. Hor. A. P. 221 ‘mox etiam agrestes Satyros _nudavit_’.

[884] Cyclops 80 σὺν τᾷδε τράγου χλαίνᾳ.

[885] See the list of titles of comedies in Meineke, Hist. Crit. Com. Graec. pp. 269 ff.

[886] Arist. Acharn. 627 ἀλλ’ ἀποδύντες τοῖς ἀναπαίστοις ἐπίωμεν; Thesm. 656 τῶν θ’ ἱματίων ἀποδύσας.

[887] Schol. Aristoph. Nub. 343.

[888] Schol. Aristoph. Nub. 289.

[889] Poppelreuter, De Comoed. Atticae Primordiis, 1893, p. 15. Loeschcke, Athen. Mittheil. 1894, p. 519. Cook, Journal of Hellenic Studies, 1894, pp. 165 ff.

[890] So Poppelreuter, l.c. pp. 9-11. A copy of the vase is given on p. 8.

[891] Bollettino Archeologico Napolitano, Nuova Serie, v. tav. 7.

[892] Journal of Hellenic Studies, ii. plate xiv A.

[893] The illustration is taken, by permission of the Council of the Hellenic Society, from the Journal of Hellenic Studies, ii. plate xiv B. See Mr. Cecil Smith’s interesting article on the subject.

[894] Tzetzes, Prolegom. ad Lycophr. p. 254 M, τραγικῶν δὲ καὶ σατυρικῶν καὶ κωμικῶν ποιητῶν κοινὸν μὲν τὸ τετραγώνως ἔχειν ἱστάμενον τὸν χορόν: Bekk. Anecd. p. 746; Et. Mag. s.v. τραγῳδία; vit. Aristoph. (Dindf. Prolegom. de Com. p. 36).

[895] Athen. p. 181 C.

[896] Poll. iv. 108, 109 καὶ τραγικοῦ μὲν χοροῦ ζυγὰ πέντε ἐκ τριῶν καὶ στοῖχοι τρεῖς ἐκ πέντε· πεντεκαίδεκα γὰρ ἦσαν ὁ χορός. καὶ κατὰ τρεῖς μὲν εἰσῄεσαν, εἰ κατὰ ζυγὰ γίνοιτο ἡ πάροδος· εἰ δὲ κατὰ στοίχους, ἀνὰ πέντε εἰσῄεσαν ... ὁ δὲ κωμικὸς χορὸς τέτταρες καὶ εἴκοσιν ἦσαν οἱ χορευταί, ζυγὰ ἕξ, ἕκαστον δὲ ζυγὸν ἐκ τεττάρων, στοῖχοι δὲ τέτταρες, ἓξ ἄνδρας ἔχων ἕκαστος στοῖχος.

[897] Athen. p. 628 F.

[898] Schol. Aristid. iii. p. 535 Dindf. ὅτε εἰσῄεσαν οἱ χοροὶ πλαγίως βαδίζοντες ἐποιοῦντο τοὺς ὕμνους καὶ εἶχον τοὺς θεατὰς ἐν ἀριστερᾷ αὐτῶν καὶ οἱ πρῶτοι τοῦ χοροῦ ἀριστερὸν στοῖχον, p. 536 τοὺς οὖν καλοὺς τῶν χορευτῶν ἔταττον εἰσιόντες ἐν τοῖς [τῶν] ἑαυτῶν ἀριστεροῖς, ἵνα εὑρεθῶσι πρὸς τὸν δῆμον ὁρῶντες.

[899] Poll. ii. 161 τάχα δὲ καὶ ὁ ἀριστεροστάτης ἐν χορῷ προσήκοι ἂν τῇ ἀριστερᾷ, ὡς ὁ δεξιοστάτης τῇ δεξιᾷ. Phot. s.v. λαυροστάται· μέσον τοῦ χοροῦ· οἱονεὶ γὰρ ἐν στενωπῷ εἰσιν· φαυλότεροι δὲ οὗτοι. Hesych. λαυροστάται· οἱ ἐν τοῖς μέσοις ζυγοὶ ... μὴ θεωρούμενοι. The ὑποκόλπιον τοῦ χοροῦ, defined by Hesych. as τῆς στάσεως χῶραι αἱ ἄτιμοι, probably included the whole file of laurostatae, though some scholars confine it to nos. 7, 8, and 9.

[900] Plut. Conv. p. 678 D ὥσπερ χοροῦ, τοῦ συμποσίου τὸν κρασπεδίτην τῷ κορυφαίῳ συνήκοον ἔχοντος. The κρασπεδῖται were also called ψιλεῖς; cp. Suid. s.v. ψιλεύς· ἐπ’ ἄκρου χοροῦ ἱστάμενος: Hesych. s.v. ψιλεῖς· οἱ ὕστατοι χορεύοντες.

[901] Hesych. s.v. ἀριστεροστάτης· ὁ πρωτοστάτης τοῦ χοροῦ. Poll. iv. 106 δεξιοστάτης, ἀριστεροστάτης, δευτεροστάτης, τριτοστάτης. [Cp. Menander fr. 165 (Kock) ὥσπερ τῶν χορῶν | οὐ πάντες ᾄδουσ’, ἀλλ’ ἄφωνοι δύο τινὲς | ἢ τρεῖς παρεστήκασι πάντων ἔσχατοι | εἰς τὸν ἀριθμόν, καὶ τοῦθ’ ὁμοίως πως ἔχει. This probably means that the mute members of the chorus were placed in the third file, the δεξιοστάται or τριτοστάται, whom Hesych. calls ἔσχατοι (s.v. λαυροστάται· οἱ ἐν τοῖς μέσοις ζυγοὶ ... οἱ δὲ ἐπιτεταγμένοι πρῶτοι καὶ ἔσχατοι).]

[902] Phot. s.v. τρίτος ἀριστεροῦ· ἐν τοῖς τραγικοῖς χοροῖς τριῶν ὄντων στοίχων καὶ πέντε ζυγῶν, ὁ μὲν ἀριστερὸς πρὸς τῷ θεάτρῳ ἦν, ὁ δὲ δεξιὸς πρὸς τῷ προσκηνίῳ. συνέβαινεν οὖν τὸν μέσον τοῦ ἀριστεροῦ στοίχου τὴν ἐντιμοτάτην καὶ τὴν οἷον τοῦ πρωτοστάτου χώραν ἐπέχειν καὶ στάσιν. The coryphaeus was also called χορηγός Athen. p. 633 A, χοραγός Plut. Apophth. Lac. p. 219 E, ἡγεμών and ἡγεμὼν κορυφαῖος Dem. Meid. § 60, χοροστάτης Hesych., χορολέκτης Ael. Hist. An. xi. 1, χοροποιός Xen. Ages. ii. 17.

[903] Dem. Meid. § 60.

[904] Aristot. Met. iv. 11 ταῦτα δ’ ἐστὶν ὅσα πρός τι ἓν ὡρισμένον διέστηκε κατὰ τὸν λόγον, οἷον παραστάτης τριτοστάτου πρότερον, καὶ παρανήτη νήτης· ἔνθα μὲν γὰρ ὁ κορυφαῖος, ἔνθα δὲ ἡ μέση ἀρχή.

[905] See above, p. 271.

[906] Poll. iv. 109; Vit. Aesch. p. 4 Dindf.

[907] Arist. Av. 268-96.

[908] Arist. Lysist. 254, 319. In the Ecclesiazusae the chorus probably entered together at l. 285. The extra women in the first scene were not members of the chorus, but παραχορηγήματα.

[909] Arg. Aesch. Pers. τῶν δὲ χορῶν τὰ μέν ἐστι παροδικά, ὡς ὅτε λέγει δι’ ἣν αἰτίαν πάρεστιν, ὡς τὸ “Τύριον οἶδμα λιποῦσα”. Schol. Eur. Phoen. πάροδος δέ ἐστιν ᾠδὴ χοροῦ βαδίζοντος ᾀδομένη ἅμα τῇ εἰσόδῳ, ὡς τὸ “Σῖγα σῖγα λεπτὸν ἴχνος ἀρβύλης τίθετε”. Aristot. Poet. c. 12 defines the parodos as ἡ πρώτη λέξις ὅλου χοροῦ. He thus extends the meaning of the word so as to include, not only entrance-songs in the proper sense, but also those cases where the chorus enter in silence, and sing their odes later on. [Masqueray, Théorie des formes lyriques de la tragédie grecque, c. ii, analyses in detail the parodoi of the extant plays.]

[910] Other examples are the Prom. Vinct. of Aeschylus; the Philoctetes of Sophocles; the Medea, Heracleidae, Troades, and Electra of Euripides.

[911] Müller (Die griech. Bühnenalt. p. 214), following Hermann (Opusc. vi. 2, p. 144) supposes the whole chorus to have wheeled completely round, so that the left file came to be nearest to the stage. He thinks it more natural for the coryphaeus to have been immediately in front of the stage, where he would be in a position to converse with the actors. But he could do so equally well from the centre of the back row. And it seems most improbable that care should have been taken, during the entrance into the orchestra, to place the coryphaeus and best choreutae in the line most conspicuous to the spectators, but that throughout the rest of the performance they should have been stationed in a position where the majority of the spectators would hardly have been able to see them.

[912] Anon. de Com. (Dindf. Prolegom. de Com. p. 29); Vit. Aristoph. (ibid. p. 36); Schol. Arist. Equit. 505.

[913] Schol. Arist. Equit. 505, Pax 733. As to the formation during the latter part of the parabasis, it is almost certain that the chorus was then divided into ἡμιχόρια. Two MSS. assign the strophe and antistrophe to ἡμιχόρια in Nubes 563, 595, Vespae 1060, 1091, Aves 737, 769, and the epirrhema and antepirrhema in Ranae 686, 717. See Arnoldt, Die Chorpartieen bei Aristoph. pp. 180 ff. That the half-choruses stood facing one another seems to be indicated by Hephaest. 14, p. 131, ἔστι δέ τις ἐν ταῖς κωμῳδίαις καὶ ἡ καλουμένη παράβασις, ἐπειδὰν εἰσελθόντες εἰς τὸ θέατρον καὶ ἀντιπρόσωπον ἀλλήλοις στάντες οἱ χορευταὶ παρέβαινον: Anon. de Comoed. (Dübner, Prolegom. de Com. p. xx) ἀπελθόντων δὲ τῶν ὑποκριτῶν πρὸς ἀμφότερα τὰ μέρη τοῦ δήμου ὁρῶν ἐκ τετραμέτρου δεκαὲξ στίχους ἀναπαίστους ἐφθέγγετο, καὶ τοῦτο ἐκαλεῖτο στροφή.

[914] Poll. iv. 108. The temporary departure was called μετάστασις, the return ἐπιπάροδος.

[915] Aesch. Eum. 235; Soph. Ajax 815.

[916] Eur. Hel. 327 ff.

[917] Eur. Alc. 746; Arist. Eccles. 310.

[918] Schol. Arist. Vesp. 580.

[919] See chap. v. pp. 270 ff.

[920] See especially Arnoldt, Die Chorpartieen bei Aristophanes (Leipzig, 1873), Die chorische Technik des Euripides (Halle, 1878), Der Chor im Agamemnon des Aeschylos (Halle, 1881); Christ, Theilung des Chors im attischen Drama (München, 1877); Muff, Die chorische Technik des Sophokles (Halle, 1877), De choro Persarum (Halle, 1878), Der Chor in den Sieben des Aeschylos (Halle, 1882); Hense, Der Chor des Sophokles (Berlin, 1877), Ueber die Vortragsweise Soph. Stasima (Rhein. Museum, xxxii); Zielinski, Die Gliederung der altattischen Komödie (Leipzig, 1885).

[921] In Poet. c. 12 he defines the πάροδος as ἡ πρώτη λέξις ὅλου χοροῦ, implying that other odes were also sung by the whole chorus. If so, the στάσιμα, which were far the most important of the other odes, must have been so sung. Whether the expression ὅλα χορικὰ μέλη, applied to the στάσιμα, means ‘sung by the whole chorus’, or merely ‘unbroken’, as opposed to the κόμμοι, is uncertain.

[922] Schol. Eur. Alc. 79 ἐκ γερόντων Φεραίων ὁ χορός, διαιρεῖται δὲ εἰς δύο ἡμιχόρια. That the anapaests in Ranae 354-71, which come in the middle of the parodos, were spoken by the coryphaeus is proved by the concluding lines (ὑμεῖς δ’ ἀνεγείρετε μολπὴν κ.τ.λ.), in which the rest of the chorus is commanded to begin.

[923] When these short odes were of a lively character, they were apparently called ὑπορχήματα by the grammarians, and regarded as a separate class. But even stasima might be composed in the hyporchematic style. It seems better, therefore, to regard ὑπόρχημα as a term applicable, not to short lyrics only, but to any lyrics of a lively and dance-like metre. See the Tragic Drama of the Greeks, pp. 357, 359.

[924] See the previous page.

[925] e.g. Arist. Ran. 382, Vesp. 1516, Thesmoph. 655, &c.

[926] Aesch. Agam. 1344 ff., Eum. 140 ff., Schol. ad loc. ἀναστήσει αὐτὰς οὐκ ἀθρόως, μιμούμενος ἐμφατικῶς τὴν ἀλήθειαν, ἀλλ’ ἐγείρεταί τις πρώτη, ὥστε μὴ ἀθρόως τὸν χορὸν φθέγξασθαι. Müller (Griech. Bühnenalt. p. 218) is mistaken in citing the passage in the Lysistrata, 727-80, as an example of the delivery of words by individual choreutae. The three women who take part in the dialogue are not members of the chorus, but performers upon the stage.

[927] Cp. the sensible remarks of the Schol. on Arist. Ran. 375 ἐντεῦθεν Ἀρίσταρχος ὑπενόησε μὴ ὅλου τοῦ χοροῦ εἶναι τὰ πρῶτα· τοῦτο δὲ οὐκ ἀξιόπιστον. πολλάκις γὰρ ἀλλήλοις οὕτω παρακελεύονται οἱ περὶ τὸν χορόν.

[928] Poll. iv. 107 καὶ ἡμιχόριον δὲ καὶ διχορία καὶ ἀντιχόρια. ἔοικε δὲ ταὐτὸν εἶναι ταυτὶ τὰ τρία ὀνόματα· ὁπόταν γὰρ ὁ χορὸς εἰς δύο μέρη τμηθῇ, τὸ μὲν πρᾶγμα καλεῖται διχορία, ἑκατέρα δὲ ἡ μοῖρα ἡμιχόριον, ἃ δ’ ἀντᾴδουσιν, ἀντιχόρια. The Schol. on Arist. Equit. 589 has a curious note to the effect that, when the chorus was divided into two halves of different sex or age, the older or stronger half was always slightly more numerous. In a comic chorus there would be 13 men to 11 women, 13 women to 11 boys, and so on.

[929] Soph. Ajax 866 ff.; Eur. Orest. 1258 ff.

[930] See Arnoldt, Die Chorpartieen bei Aristophanes, pp. 180 ff., where a list is given of the passages which are assigned to half-choruses by Rav. and Ven., e.g. Acharn. 1150, 1162, Nub. 563, 595. Vesp. 1060, 1091, Av. 737, 769, 1058, 1088, Eccles. 290, 301, Thesmoph. 659, Lysist. 321. [J. W. White, Harvard Stud, in Class. Phil. vol. xvii, assigns a more important part to the leader of the second semi-chorus in comedy than has usually been recognized, but the evidence is not conclusive.]

[931] Bergk’s notion (Griech. Lit. iii. p. 131) that in Arist. Poet. c. 12 (κοινὰ μὲν ἁπάντων ταῦτα, ἴδια δὲ τὰ ἀπὸ τῆς σκηνῆς καὶ κόμμοι) ἴδια = ‘sung by individuals or sections’ is clearly wrong. ἴδια = ‘not found in all plays’, and the word to be supplied with ἁπάντων is δραμάτων, not χορευτῶν.

[932] Athen. p. 628 E εἰ δέ τις ... ταῖς ᾠδαῖς ἐπιτυγχάνων μηδὲν λέγοι κατὰ τὴν ὄρχησιν, οὗτος δ’ ἦν ἀδόκιμος.

[933] Athen. p. 20 F.

[934] Plat. Legg. 816 A.

[935] Athen. p. 21 F ἄκρως ταῖς χερσὶ τὰ λεγόμενα δεικνυούσαις.

[936] Lucian, de Salt. 63 ταῖς χερσὶ λαλεῖν.

[937] Ovid, Ars Am. i. 595 ‘si vox est, canta; si mollia bracchia, salta’.

[938] Juv. v. 120 ‘structorem interea, ne qua indignatio desit, | saltantem spectes et chironomunta volanti | cultello’.

[939] Quint. Inst. xi. 3. 89 ‘abesse enim plurimum a saltatore debet orator, ut sit gestus ad sensus magis quam ad verba accommodatus’, &c.

[940] Arist. Poet. c. 1 καὶ γὰρ οὗτοι (οἱ ὀρχησταὶ) διὰ τῶν σχηματιζομένων ῥυθμῶν μιμοῦνται καὶ ἤθη καὶ πάθη καὶ πράξεις.

[941] Plut. Symp. 747 B fol. The three divisions of dancing are φοραί, σχήματα, δείξεις.

[942] Athen. p. 630 B πρώτη δὲ εὕρηται ἡ περὶ τοὺς πόδας κίνησις τῆς διὰ τῶν χειρῶν. οἱ γὰρ παλαιοὶ τοὺς πόδας μᾶλλον ἐγυμνάζοντο ἐν τοῖς ἀγῶσι.

[943] Athen. p. 22 A.

[944] Plut. Symp. 732 F σχήματα δ’ ὄρχησις τόσα μοι πόρεν ὅσσ’ ἐνὶ πόντῳ | κύματα ποιεῖται χείματι νὺξ ὀλοή.

[945] Arist. Vesp. 1474 ff.

[946] Athen. p. 21 E.

[947] Athen. p. 628 E ὥστ’ εἴ τις ὀρχοῖτ’ εὖ, θέαμ’ ἦν· νῦν δὲ δρῶσιν οὐδέν, | ἀλλ’ ὥσπερ ἀπόπληκτοι στάδην ἑστῶτες ὠρύονται.

[948] Aristoph. Acharn. 204 τῇδε πᾶς ἕπου, δίωκε, καὶ τὸν ἄνδρα πυνθάνου κ.τ.λ., Schol. ad loc. γέγραπται δὲ τὸ μέτρον τροχαϊκόν, πρόσφορον τῇ τῶν διωκόντων γερόντων σπουδῇ. ταῦτα δὲ ποιεῖν εἰώθασιν οἱ τῶν δραμάτων ποιηταὶ κωμικοὶ καὶ τραγικοί, ἐπειδὰν δρομαίως εἰσάγωσι τοὺς χορούς, ἵνα ὁ λόγος συντρέχῃ τῷ δράματι. Cp. Pax 301, 325, Plutus 257.

[949] Schol. Eur. Phoen. 202; Suidas s.v. στάσιμον, &c.

[950] On the use of ἔξοδος in this sense see the Tragic Drama of the Greeks, p. 352. The word was also applied to the whole of the concluding scene of a tragedy.

[951] Aesch. Eum. 307 ἄγε δὴ καὶ χορὸν ἅψωμεν. Eur. Herc. Fur. 761 πρὸς χοροὺς τραπώμεθα. Arist. Thesmoph. 953 ὅρμα, χώρει | κοῦφα ποσίν, ἄγ’ ἐς κύκλον, | χειρὶ σύναπτε χεῖρα. Other passages of the same kind are not infrequent.

[952] Schol. Eur. Hec. 647 (p. 211 Dindf.).

[953] See above, p. 307, note 2.

[954] The liveliness of these dances, even in tragedy, is proved by such expressions as the following: Soph. Ajax 693 ἔφριξ’ ἔρωτι, περιχαρὴς δ’ ἀνεπτόμαν. Eur. Orest. 1353 ἰὼ ἰὼ φίλαι, κτύπον ἐγείρετε, κτύπον καὶ βοάν. El. 859 θὲς ἐς χορόν, ὦ φίλα, ἴχνος, | ὡς νεβρὸς οὐράνιον | πήδημα κουφίζουσα σὺν ἀγλαΐᾳ.

[955] Arist. Vesp. 1536 τοῦτο γὰρ οὐδείς πω πάρος δέδρακεν, | ὀρχούμενον ὅστις ἀπήλλαξεν χορὸν τρυγῳδῶν, Schol. ad loc. εἰσέρχεται γὰρ ὁ χορὸς ὀρχούμενος, οὐδαμῶς δὲ ἐξέρχεται. Eccles. 1179 αἴρεσθ’ ἄνω, ἰαί, εὐαί.

[956] Schol. Arist. Ran. 924 ἡ πρὸς τὰς ῥήσεις ὑπόρχησις.

[957] Schol. Arist. Nub. 1355 οὕτως ἔλεγον πρὸς χορὸν λέγειν, ὅτε τοῦ ὑποκριτοῦ διατιθεμένου τὴν ῥῆσιν ὁ χορὸς ὠρχεῖτο.

[958] Athen. p. 22 A Ἀριστοκλῆς γοῦν φησιν ὅτι Τελέστης, ὁ Αἰσχύλου ὀρχηστής, οὕτως ἦν τεχνίτης, ὥστε ἐν τῷ ὀρχεῖσθαι τοὺς Ἑπτὰ ἐπὶ Θήβας φανερὰ ποιῆσαι τὰ πράγματα δι’ ὀρχήσεως.

[959] Plat Legg. 816 A.

[960] Suid. s.v. ξιφισμός; Hesych. s.v. ξιφίζειν; Poll. iv. 105 καὶ μὴν τραγικῆς ὀρχήσεως σχήματα σιμὴ χείρ, καλαθίσκος, χεὶρ καταπρηνής, ξύλου παράληψις, διπλῆ, θερμαυστρίς, κυβίστησις, παραβῆναι τέτταρα.

[961] See above, p. 307, note 2.

[962] Aesch. Pers. 1038 ff.

[963] Schol. Arist. Nub. 542 κόρδαξ κωμική, ἥτις αἰσχρῶς κινεῖ τὴν ὀσφύν. Hesych. s.v. κόρδαξ; Plat. Legg. p. 816 A; Theoph. Char. 6.

[964] Arist. Nub. 540 οὐδὲ κόρδαχ’ εἵλκυσεν.

[965] Arist. Vesp. 1529 στρόβει, παράβαινε κύκλῳ καὶ γάστρισον σεαυτόν, | ῥῖπτε σκέλος οὐράνιον· βέμβικες ἐγγενέσθων. Thesm. 953 ὅρμα, χώρει | κοῦφα ποσίν, ἄγ’ ἐς κύκλον, | χειρὶ σύναπτε χεῖρα.

[966] Poll. iv. 99, 103; Athen. p. 629 F-630 A; Dion. Hal. A. R. vii. 72; Phot. s.v. σκώπευμα.

[967] Plut. Symp. 713 C τὸ δὲ μέλος καὶ τὸν ῥυθμὸν ὥσπερ ὄψον ἐπὶ τῷ λόγῳ, καὶ μὴ καθ’ αὑτὰ προσφέρεσθαι.

[968] Pratinas apud Athen. p. 617 B τὰν ἀοιδὰν κατέστασε Πιερὶς βασίλειαν· ὁ δ’ αὐλὸς | ὕστερον χορευέτω· καὶ γάρ ἐσθ’ ὑπηρέτας.

[969] See, on the whole question, Monro’s Modes of Ancient Greek Music, Oxford, 1894, Macran’s Aristoxenus, 1902.

[970] Plut. Mus. 1136 D-F.

[971] Heracleid. ap. Athen., p. 625 B; Aesch. Suppl. 69 Ἰαονίοισι νόμοισι.

[972] Vit. Soph., p. 8 Dindf.

[973] Aristot. Prob. xix. 30, 48.

[974] Arist. Ran. 1286 ff.; Hesych. s.v. διαύλιον· ὁπόταν ἐν τοῖς μέλεσι μεταξὺ παραβάλλῃ μέλος τι ὁ ποιητὴς παρασιωπήσαντος τοῦ χοροῦ.

[975] Suid. s.v. Τιμόθεος. Plut. Mus. 1135 D.

[976] Suid. l.c. τὴν ἀρχαίαν μουσικὴν ἐπὶ τὸ μαλακώτερον μετήγαγεν.

[977] Pherecrat. Cheiron. frag. 145 (Kock) ᾄδων ἐκτραπέλους μυρμηκίας.

[978] Arist. Ran. 1301 ff., Thesm. 100 μύρμηκος ἀτραπούς, ἢ τί διαμινύρεται; Schol. ad loc. ὡς λεπτὰ καὶ ἀγκύλα ἀνακρουομένου μέλη τοῦ Ἀγάθωνος· τοιαῦται γὰρ αἱ τῶν μυρμήκων ὁδοί.

[979] Plut. An seni etc. 795 C.

[980] Dem. de Cor. § 28.

[981] Dem. Meid. § 74.

[982] Theophrast. Char. 9 καὶ ξένοις δὲ αὑτοῦ θέαν ἀγοράσας μὴ δοὺς τὸ μέρος θεωρεῖν.

[983] E.g. Böttiger, Kleine Schriften, i. pp. 295 ff.; Wachsmuth, Hellen. Alterthumskunde, ii. p. 391; Bergk, Griech. Literaturgesch. iii. p. 49.

[984] E.g. Bernhardy, Griech. Literaturgesch. ii. 2. p. 132; Böckh, Trag. Princip. p. 37; Meineke, Menand. et Philem. Reliq. p. 345.

[985] Plat. Gorg. 502 B-E, Legg. 817 A-C, 658 A-D.

[986] Aristoph. Nub. 537-9, Pax 765, 766, 962-7. Cp. also Eupolis, Προσπάλτιοι, fr. 244 (Kock) Ἡράκλεις, τοῦτ’ ἔστι σοι | τὸ σκῶμμ’ ἀσελγὲς καὶ Μεγαρικὸν καὶ σφόδρα | ψυχρόν. γελῶσιν, ὡς ὁρᾷς, τὰ παιδία. Arist. Pax 50-3 ἐγὼ δὲ τὸν λόγον γε τοῖσι παιδίοις | καὶ τοῖσιν ἀνδρίοισι καὶ τοῖς ἀνδράσι | καὶ τοῖς ὑπερτάτοισιν ἀνδράσιν φράσω | καὶ τοῖς ὑπερηνορέουσιν. [Rogers, Introd. to the Ecclesiazusae, takes this passage, in which women are not mentioned, to prove that they were not present. But the point of the jest is in the enumeration of men in an ascending scale of manliness, and to mention women, even if they were present, would have spoiled it. The other passages which he quotes, Eccles. 165 ff., 435 ff., 1144 ff., and the situation in the Thesmoph., are satisfied if we suppose a large preponderance of men; but they do not require us to assume the exclusion of women.]

[987] Alciphron, Epist. ii. 3. [Rogers, l.c. quotes a sentence of Glycera’s supposed reply, where she speaks of herself as standing in the wings and watching the performance, to prove that ὁρώσης καὶ καθημένης ἐν τῷ θεάτρῳ does not imply that women were in the audience. But καθημένης ἐν τῷ θεάτρῳ naturally and almost technically means this; and the two passages need not be taken to refer to the same point in Glycera’s supposed proceedings.]

[988] Lucian, Anachar. 22.

[989] Aristoph. Ran. 1050, 1051.

[990] Athen. p. 534 C.

[991] Theophrast. Char. 9 and 13.

[992] Schol. Aristoph. Eccles. 22.

[993] Vit. Aeschyli, p. 4 Dindf.

[994] C. I. A. iii. 282, 313, 315, 316, 321, 322, 324, 325, 333, 342, 343, 345, 350, 351, 354, 361, &c.

[995] Aristoph. Achar. 241-6; Menand. fr. 558 (Kock).

[996] E.g. Müller, Die griech. Bühnenalterthümer, p. 291.

[997] Aristoph. Av. 793-6 εἴ τε μοιχεύων τις ὑμῶν ἐστιν ὅστις τυγχάνει, | κᾆθ’ ὁρᾷ τὸν ἄνδρα τῆς γυναικὸς ἐν βουλευτικῷ, | οὗτος ἂν πάλιν παρ’ ὑμῶν πτερυγίσας ἀνέπτατο, | εἶτα βινήσας ἐκεῖθεν αὖθις αὖ καθέζετο. Thesm. 395-7 ὥστ’ εὐθὺς εἰσιόντες ἀπὸ τῶν ἰκρίων | ὑποβλέπουσ’ ἡμᾶς, σκοποῦνταί τ’ εὐθέως | μὴ μοιχὸς ἔνδον ᾖ τις ἀποκεκρυμμένος.

[998] Aristot. Pol. vii. 17 ἐπιμελὲς μὲν οὖν ἔστω τοῖς ἄρχουσι μηθὲν μήτε ἄγαλμα μήτε γραφὴν εἶναι τοιούτων πράξεων μίμησιν, εἰ μὴ παρά τισι θεοῖς τοιούτοις οἷς καὶ τὸν τωθασμὸν ἀποδίδωσιν ὁ νόμος· πρὸς δὲ τούτοις ἀφίησιν ὁ νόμος τοὺς ἔχοντας ἡλικίαν πλέον προσήκουσαν καὶ ὑπὲρ αὑτῶν καὶ τέκνων καὶ γυναικῶν τιμαλφεῖν τοὺς θεούς. τοὺς δὲ νεωτέρους οὔτ’ ἰάμβων οὔτε κωμῳδίας θεατὰς νομοθετητέον.

[999] [Navarre, Utrum mulieres Athenienses scenicos ludos spectaverint, 1900, discusses the evidence in detail, and comes to the same conclusions as those which are stated in the text.]

[1000] Plat. Gorg. 502 D.

[1001] Theophrast. Char. 9.

[1002] Schol. Lucian, Tim. 49; Suidas s.v. θεωρικόν.

[1003] Dem. de Cor. § 28 ἀλλ’ ἐν τοῖν δυοῖν ὀβολοῖν ἐθεώρουν ἄν. This passage shows that there cannot have been any alternative between the reserved seats for distinguished persons and the ordinary two-obol seats. Two obols is also the sum mentioned by Phot., Suid., and Etym. Mag. s. vv. θεωρικόν; Etym. Mag. θεωρικά; Liban. Hyp. to Dem. Olynth. i; Schol. Aristoph. Vesp. 1184. The entrance fee is given as one obol by Ulpian on Dem. Olynth. i. § 1; and as three obols by Schol. Dem. de Cor. § 28. But both are no doubt mistaken. It is given as a drachma by Schol. Lucian, Tim. 49; Phot. and Suid. s. vv. θεωρικά; Philochorus apud Harp. s.v. θεωρικά. But the drachma probably denotes the aggregate fees for successive days at one festival. Plat. Apol. 26 D has most likely no reference to the theatre. See Appendix C.

[1004] Plut. Pericl. 157 A; Ulpian on Dem. Olynth. i. § 1.

[1005] Ath. Pol. c. 28 (see Kenyon’s and Sandys’s notes).

[1006] Dem. de Contrib. § 169; Phot., Suid., Etym. Mag. s. vv. θεωρικόν; Etym. Mag. s.v. θεωρικά; Liban. and Ulpian, ll. cc. It was called διωβολία (Aristot. Pol. ii. 7) or διωβελία (Ath. Pol. c. 28; Bekk. Anecd. 237, 15).

[1007] Four are mentioned in [Dem.] Prooem. 53; six in Schol. Lucian, Tim. 49; Lucian, Encom. Dem. 36; Suid. δραχμὴ χαλαζῶσα; Suid., Harp., and Phot. θεωρικά.

[1008] Dem. in Leoch. § 37.

[1009] Hyperid. in Dem. col. xxiv.

[1010] Harp. s.v. θεωρικά; Liban. Hyp. to Dem. Olynth. i; Ammonius, de diff. vocab., s.v. θεωρός; Dem. Olynth. i. § 19, de Cor. § 118, Philipp. iv. § 38.

[1011] For a full account of these theatre-tickets see Benndorf, Zeitschrift für die österreichischen Gymnasien, 1875, pp. 579-95.

[1012] The illustration is taken from Baumeister, Denkmäler, no. 1833.

[1013] It is taken from Baumeister, no. 1835.

[1014] C. I. G. 5369; Tac. Ann. ii. 83.

[1015] Svoronos, περὶ τῶν Εἰσιτηρίων τῶν ἀρχαίων, in Journal International d’Archéologie Numismatique, 1898, vol. i, pt. 1, pp. 37-120. The illustration in the text (Fig. 34) is taken from this article.

[1016] The lessee was generally called ἀρχιτέκτων (Dem. de Cor. § 28), because part of his contract was to look after the buildings of the theatre. He was also called θεατροπώλης (Poll. vii. 199), from the fact of his selling seats; and θεατρώνης (Theophrast. Char. 11), from the fact of his having taken the theatre on lease. The nature of the arrangement with the lessee may be gathered from (1) C. I. A. ii. 573, in which the lessees of the theatre at the Peiraeeus engage to keep the fabric in good repair; (2) Dem. de Cor. § 28 ἢ θέαν μὴ κατανεῖμαι τὸν ἀρχιτέκτονα αὐτοῖς κελεῦσαι; (3) Ulpian on Dem. Olynth. i. § 1 ὥστε λαμβάνειν ... δύο ὀβολούς, ἵνα ... τὸν δ’ ἄλλον παρέχειν ἔχωσι τῷ ἀρχιτέκτονι τοῦ θεάτρου.

[1017] Theophrast. Char. 30.

[1018] Schol. Aristoph. Equit. 572. Pollux, iv. 121, states rather doubtfully that the προεδρία in the theatre might also be called πρῶτον ξύλον. If the expression was really used, it must have dated from the time when the theatre was still a wooden one.

[1019] C. I. A. iii. 240-384.

[1020] C. I. A. ii. 589 shows that in the Peiraeeus the demarch used to conduct the persons honoured with proedria to the theatre. A similar practice was no doubt observed at Athens.

[1021] C. I. A. ii. 589 καὶ εἰσαγέτω αὐτὸν ὁ δήμαρχος εἰς τὸ θέατρον καθάπερ ἱερεῖς καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους οἷς δέδοται ἡ προεδρία παρὰ Πειραιέων. Cp. also Hesych. s.v. νεμήσεις θέας· Ἀθηναῖοι τὰς ἐν τῷ θεάτρῳ καθέδρας, ψηφίσματι νενεμημένας προεδρίας ἱερεῦσιν.

[1022] C. I. A. iii. 240-384. Dörpfeld, Griech. Theater, p. 47.

[1023] The thrones of seven of the archons are still preserved (C. I. A. iii. 254-60). Those of two of the Thesmothetae are missing, but no doubt stood in the front row with the others.

[1024] Aristoph. Equit. 573-6; Theophrast. Char. 5.

[1025] Aeschin. Fals. Leg. § 111, Ctesiph. § 76; Dem. de Cor. § 28; C. I. A. ii. 164; Cic. de Senect. § 63; Val. Max. iii. 5.

[1026] See above, p. 33.

[1027] Aeschin. Ctesiph. § 154; Plut. X Orat., psephisms I and II, p. 851 A-F.

[1028] Schol. Aristoph. Av. 795; Poll. iv. 122 βουλευτικὸν μέρος τοῦ θεάτρου καὶ ἐφηβικόν.

[1029] Schol. Aristoph. Eccles. 22.

[1030] Aristoph. Pax 962-6 ΤΡ. καὶ τοῖς θεαταῖς ῥῖπτε τῶν κριθῶν. ΟΙ. ἰδού. | ΤΡ. ἔδωκας ἤδη; ΟΙ. νὴ τὸν Ἑρμῆν, ὥστε γε | ... οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδεὶς ὅστις οὐ κριθὴν ἔχει. | ΤΡ. οὐχ αἱ γυναῖκές γ’ ἔλαβον. Alexis, Γυναικοκρατία, fr. 1 (Meineke, Frag. Com. Gr. iii. p. 402) ἐνταῦθα περὶ τὴν ἐσχάτην δεῖ κερκίδα | ὑμᾶς καθιζούσας θεωρεῖν ὡς ξένας [this must mean that foreigners were in one of the extreme _side_ kerkides (see p. 98), not at the _back_ of the theatre].

[1031] [Willems, Le Nu dans la Comédie Ancienne, 1901, places the Council in the central block, the foreigners at one side of the auditorium, the Ephebi on the other, while the tribes occupied the other ten. A clay theatre ticket found at Megalopolis proves that blocks were assigned to special tribes in that theatre (Castrioles, Ἐφημ. Διέθνης τῆς Νομισμ. Ἀρχαιολ. 1900, p. 55). See also Svoronos, quoted p. 333 n.]

[1032] In the central block, on the third step, was a statue of Hadrian, of which the base is still preserved, erected in 112 A.D. by the Areopagus, the Council of Six Hundred, and the people of Athens (C. I. A. ii. 464). Besides this, the bases of three other statues of Hadrian, erected by different tribes, are still in existence. They are all on the second step. The first, erected by the tribe Erectheis, is in the first block from the eastern end; the second, erected by the tribe Acamantis, is in the sixth block from the eastern end; the third, erected by the tribe Oeneis, is in the sixth block from the western end (C. I. A. iii. 466-8). Thus the place of each statue in the series of blocks corresponded exactly with the place of the tribe in the official list of tribes. It is therefore a highly plausible conjecture that, in addition to the statue of Hadrian in the central block, there were twelve other statues erected by the twelve tribes in the remaining blocks; and that each tribe had a special block appropriated to itself. See Benndorf, Beiträge zur Kenntniss des att. Theaters, pp. 4 ff.

[1033] Fourteen of the thrones were out of place when the theatre was first excavated (see p. 95). The position of some of them is rather conjectural. In the list given in the text Dörpfeld’s arrangement has been followed (Griech. Theater, p. 47). For the inscriptions see C. I. A. iii. 240-302. There is a very full account of the inscriptions on the thrones in Wheeler’s article on the Theatre of Dionysus, in Papers of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, vol. i. pp. 152 ff.

[1034] The illustration is taken from Zeitschrift für bildende Kunst, vol. xiii. p. 196. On the back of the chair are depicted two Satyrs, holding a bunch of grapes. In the front, underneath the seat, are two Oriental figures, engaged in a fight with winged lions. On the arms of the throne are figures of Cupids, setting cocks to fight. The appropriateness of the Satyrs, as a decoration in the theatre of Dionysus, is obvious. The cocks, no doubt, refer to the annual cock-fight held in the theatre (see above, chap. iii. p. 177). The significance of the Oriental figures has not yet been explained.

[1035] Aristoph. Ran. 297.

[1036] i.e. the representative of Athens at the Amphictyonic Council.

[1037] A Macedonian commander of the third century, who restored Athens to freedom after the death of Demetrius.

[1038] i.e. the priest who carried the Iacchus, or sacred statue of Dionysus, at the Eleusinian procession.

[1039] i.e. the priest who looked after the sacrificial fire in the temple of Athene on the Acropolis.

[1040] He was one of the three Exegetae, or Interpreters of sacred law, and was appointed by the Pythian oracle. A second was chosen by the people from the Eupatridae, and also had a seat in the front row.

[1041] They were the guardians of the βουλή, and their altars were in the βουλευτήριον.

[1042] This Antinous was a favourite of Hadrian’s, and was drowned in the Nile, and afterwards deified.

[1043] Unknown.

[1044] Probably an official who carried a sacred stone in some procession; but nothing is known about him.

[1045] Aeschin. Ctesiph. § 76 ἅμα τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἡγεῖτο τοῖς πρέσβεσιν εἰς τὸ θέατρον. Dem. Meid. § 74 ἐγὼ δ’ ὑπ’ ἐχθροῦ νήφοντος, ἕωθεν, κ.τ.λ. Aristoph. Av. 786-9 αὐτίχ’ ὑμῶν τῶν θεατῶν εἴ τις ἦν ὑπόπτερος, | εἶτα πεινῶν τοῖς χοροῖσι τῶν τραγῳδῶν ἤχθετο, | ἐκπτόμενος ἂν οὗτος ἠρίστησεν ἐλθὼν οἴκαδε, | κᾆτ’ ἂν ἐμπλησθεὶς ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς αὖθις αὖ κατέπτατο.

[1046] Philochorus ap. Athen. p. 464 E Ἀθηναῖοι τοῖς Διονυσιακοῖς ἀγῶσι τὸ μὲν πρῶτον ἠριστηκότες καὶ πεπωκότες ἐβάδιζον ἐπὶ τὴν θέαν.

[1047] Philochor. ap. Athen. l.c. παρὰ δὲ τὸν ἀγῶνα πάντα οἶνος αὐτοῖς ᾠνοχοεῖτο καὶ τραγήματα παρεφέρετο. Aristot. Eth. Nic. x. 5 καὶ ἐν τοῖς θεάτροις οἱ τραγηματίζοντες, ὅταν φαῦλοι οἱ ἀγωνιζόμενοι ὦσι, τότε μάλιστ’ αὐτὸ δρῶσιν.

[1048] Philochor. ap. Athen, l.c. καὶ ἐστεφανωμένοι ἐθεώρουν. Dem. Meid. § 52.

[1049] Aeschin. Ctesiph. § 76, Fals. Leg. § 111; Theophrast. Char. 2.

[1050] Suidas s.v. Δράκων· ὑπὸ τῶν Αἰγινητῶν ἐν τῷ θεάτρῳ, ἐπιρριψάντων αὐτῷ ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν πετάσους πλείονας καὶ χιτῶνας καὶ ἱμάτια, ἀπεπνίγη.

[1051] The φοινικίδες mentioned by Aeschines (Ctesiph. § 76) were probably coverlets or carpets.

[1052] See above, p. 100.

[1053] Called ῥαβδοφόροι (Schol. Aristoph. Pax 734), and ῥαβδοῦχοι (Pax 734): cp. Dem. Meid. § 179.

[1054] Suid. ἐπιμεληταί ἐχειροτονοῦντο τῶν χορῶν, ὡς μὴ ἀτακτεῖν τοὺς χορευτὰς ἐν τοῖς θεάτροις.

[1055] Andocid. Alcibiad. § 20.

[1056] Dem. Meid. §§ 178, 179.

[1057] Plat. Legg. 700 C.

[1058] Dem. Meid. §§ 14, 226; Alciphron, Epist. iii. 71.

[1059] Poll. iv. 122 τὸ μέντοι τὰ ἑδώλια ταῖς πτέρναις κατακρούειν πτερνοκοπεῖν ἔλεγον· ἐποίουν δὲ τοῦτο ὁπότε τινὰ ἐκβάλοιεν.

[1060] Dem. Fals. Leg. § 337; Athen. p. 245 E.

[1061] Dem. de Cor. § 262.

[1062] Cic. Tusc. iv. § 63. Αὖθις seems to have been the word used; cp. Xen. Symp. ix. 4 ἅμα δὲ ἐβόων αὖθις.

[1063] Poll. iv. 88. The word for hissing an actor off the stage was ἐκβάλλειν; to be hissed off was ἐκπίπτειν. See Dem. de Cor. § 265, Poll. iv. 122.

[1064] Athen. p. 583 F.

[1065] Theophrast. Char. 11.

[1066] Theophrast. Char. l.c.

[1067] Alciphron, Epist. iii. 71 ἵνα, κἄν τι λάθωμεν ἀποσφαλέντες, μὴ λάβῃ χώραν τὰ ἀστικὰ μειράκια κλώζειν ἢ συρίττειν.

[1068] Aristot. Eth. Nic. x. 5.

[1069] Theophrast. Char. 14.

[1070] Alciphron, Epist. iii. 71; Aul. Gell. N. A. xvii. 4.

[1071] Aristot. Eth. Nic. iii. 2, and Eustath. ad loc.

[1072] Plut. Amator. 756 C; Nauck, Trag. Gk. Frag. p. 511.

[1073] Senec. Epist. 115; Nauck, Trag. Gr. Frag. p. 457.

[1074] Vit. Aristoph. (Dindf. Prolegom. de Com. p. 12); Arg. to Soph. Antiq.

[1075] Herod. vi. 21.

[1076] Justin. 17. 9. The passage was very likely from Theopompus.

[1077] Dem. Olynth. iii. § 15 καὶ γνῶναι πάντων ὑμεῖς ὀξύτατοι τὰ ῥηθέντα. Cic. de Fato § 7 ‘Athenis tenue caelum, ex quo acutiores etiam putantur Attici’.

[1078] Cic. Orat. § 25 ‘(Athenienses) quorum semper fuit prudens sincerumque iudicium, nihil ut possent nisi incorruptum audire et elegans’; § 27 ‘ad Atticorum igitur aures teretes et religiosas qui se accommodant, ii sunt existimandi Attice dicere’.

[1079] Plat. Legg. 659 B.C.

[1080] Aristot. Pol. viii. 7 ἐπεὶ δ’ ὁ θεατὴς διττός, ὃ μὲν ἐλεύθερος καὶ πεπαιδευμένος, ὃ δὲ φορτικὸς ἐκ βαναύσων καὶ θητῶν καὶ ἄλλων τοιούτων συγκείμενος. Ibid. 6 ὁ γὰρ θεατὴς φορτικὸς ὢν μεταβάλλειν εἴωθε τὴν μουσικήν, ὥστε καὶ τοὺς τεχνίτας τοὺς πρὸς αὐτὸν μελετῶντας αὐτούς τε ποιούς τινας ποιεῖ καὶ τὰ σώματα διὰ τὰς κινήσεις.

[1081] Aristot. Poet. c. 13 δευτέρα δ’ ἡ πρώτη λεγομένη ὑπὸ τινῶν ἐστι σύστασις, ἡ διπλῆν τε τὴν σύστασιν ἔχουσα καθάπερ ἡ Ὀδύσσεια καὶ τελευτῶσα ἐξ ἐναντίας τοῖς βελτίοσι καὶ χείροσιν. δοκεῖ δὲ εἶναι πρώτη διὰ τὴν τῶν θεάτρων ἀσθένειαν, ἀκολουθοῦσι γὰρ οἱ ποιηταὶ κατ’ εὐχὴν ποιοῦντες τοῖς θεαταῖς. Ibid. c. 9 (of the old legends) ἐπεὶ καὶ τὰ γνώριμα ὀλίγοις γνώριμά ἐστιν, ἀλλ’ ὅμως εὐφραίνει πάντας. Id. Rhet. iii. 1 ἐκεῖ μεῖζον δύνανται νῦν τῶν ποιητῶν οἱ ὑποκριταί.

[1082] [Cp. Römer, Ueber den litterarisch-aesthetischen Bildungsstand des attischen Theaterpublikums, 1901.]

GREEK INDEX

Α

ἀγκυρίς, 209, 210.

ἀγορά, 377.

ἀγῶνες Χύτρινοι, 31.

αἰγείρου θέα, 83.

αἰῶραι, 209.

αἰώρημα, 209.

ἀναβάδην, 204.

ἀναβαθμοί, 217.

ἀναβαίνειν, 109, 148, 166, 167.

ἀναδιδάσκειν, 71.

ἀνάπαιστοι, 269, 270, 295.

ἀναπίεσμα, 217.

ἀναπλάσματα, 259.

ἀνδρῶν χορός, 9, 10.

Ἀνθεστήρια, 372.

ἀντεπίρρημα, 269.

ἀντιχόρια, 309.

ἀπαγγέλλειν, 68.

ἀπ’ αἰγείρου θέα, 83.

ἀπὸ μηχανῆς, 215.

ἀποκρίνεσθαι, 222, 227.

ἀποκριτής, 227.

ἀπολαχεῖν, 32.

ἀριστεροστάτης, 300.

ἅρπαξ, 209.

ἀρχιτέκτων, 334, 379.

ᾆσμα, 56.

αὖθις, 344.

αὐλαία, 219.

αὐληταὶ ἄνδρες, 9.

αὐλητής, 271.

αὐλητῶν χοροί, 9.

ἁψίς, 112, 194.

Β

βαθμοί, 379.

βαρύστονος, 275.

βῆμα, 88, 107, 142.

βομβῶν, 275.

βουλευτικόν, 328, 337.

βροντεῖον, 218.

βωμός, 80, 107, 108, 200.

βωμὸς Διονύσου, 142.

Γ

γέρανος, 210.

γεραραί, 375.

γλεῦκος, 371, 372.

γραμμαί, 107.

γραμματεῖον, 33, 34.

γραφαί, 200.

Δ

δεικηλίκτας, 282.

δείξεις, 313.

δεξιοστάτης, 300.

δευτεραγωνιστής, 234.

δευτεροστάτης, 300.

διαζώματα, 98, 381.

διασκευή, 71.

διαύλιον, 321.

διδασκαλεῖον, 60.

διδασκαλία, 13, 61.

διδασκαλία ἀστική, 7, 13.

διδασκαλία Ληναϊκή, 13.

διδασκαλία τραγική, 13.

Διδασκαλίαι, 13, 47, 48, 351.

διδασκαλίαν καθιέναι, 13, 32.

διδάσκαλος, 56, 61, 62.

διδάσκειν τραγῳδίαν, 25.

διθύραμβος, 10, 222.

δίοδος, 98, 380, 381.

Διονύσια, 6, 9, 378.

Διονύσια ἀρχαιότερα, 368-70, 374.

Διονύσια τὰ ἀστικά, 7.

Διονύσια τὰ ἐν ἄστει, 7, 9.

Διονύσια τὰ ἐπὶ Ληναίῳ, 6, 372.

Διονύσια τὰ ἐπιλήναια, 6, 370, 372.

Διονύσια τὰ κατ’ ἀγρούς, 5, 29, 288.

Διονύσια τὰ κατὰ κώμας, 29.

Διονύσια τὰ κατὰ πόλεις, 29.

Διονύσια τὰ μεγάλα, 7.

Διονυσιακοὶ ἀγῶνες, 377.

Διονυσιακοὶ τεχνῖται, 278.

Διονυσιακὸν θέατρον, 87, 377.

Διόνυσος Ἐλευθερεύς, 6, 7, 371.

Διόνυσος Λήναιος, 24, 372, 373, 377.

Διόνυσος Λιμναῖος, 372, 373.

Διόνυσος ὁ ἐν Λίμναις, 371.

διπλῆ, 317.

διστεγία, 186.

διχορία, 309.

διωβελία, 331.

Ε

ἐγκύκληθρον, 201.

ἐγκύκλημα, 201, 202, 205.

εἰς ἄστυ καθιέναι, 7.

εἰς ἄστυ καταλέγεσθαι, 31.

εἰσκυκλεῖν, 204.

εἰσκύκλημα, 201.

εἴσοδος, 112.

ἐκβάλλειν, 344.

ἐκκλησία ἐν Διονύσου, 7.

ἐκκυκλεῖν, 201, 204, 205, 211.

ἐκκύκλημα, 201, 211.

ἐκπίπτειν, 344.

ἔκσκευα πρόσωπα, 246.

ἐλεός, 80, 167, 222.

Ἐλευθερεύς, 7.

ἐμβάς, 266.

ἐμβάτης, 248.

ἐν ἀγροῖς, 29, 378.

ἐν ἄστει διδάσκειν, 7, 13.

ἐν τοῖν δυοῖν ὀβολοῖν, 330.

ἐξάρχειν, 222.

ἔξοδος, 270, 271, 315.

ἐξώστρα, 309, 379.

ἐπαναβαίνειν, 167.

ἐπεισκυκλεῖν, 211.

ἐπὶ Ληναίῳ, 24, 25, 372, 377, 378.

ἐπιθέατρον, 98, 380, 381.

ἐπιλήναια Διονύσια, 6, 370, 372.

ἐπιμεληταί, 343.

ἐπιμεληταὶ τῆς πομπῆς, 49.

ἐπιμεληταὶ τῶν μυστηρίων, 49.

ἐπιπάροδος, 305.

ἐπίρρημα, 269.

ἐπιστάται Ἐλευσινόθεν, 6, 370, 377.

εὐημερεῖν, 43, 228.

Εὔνους, 261.

εὐφωνία, 273.

ἐφαπτίς, 252.

ἐφηβικόν, 337.

ἐώρημα, 209.

Ζ

ζυγόν, 299, 301.

ζῶναι, 98.

ζωστῆρες, 209.

Η

ἡγεμών, 301.

ἡγεμὼν κορυφαῖος, 301.

ἡμικύκλιον, 101, 218.

ἡμιστρόφιον, 218.

ἡμιχόριον, 304, 307, 309.

Θ

θέα, 324, 341.

θέα παρ’ αἰγείρῳ, 81, 83.

θεᾶσθαι, 9.

θεατής, 102, 348.

θεατρίζειν, 107, 142.

θέατρον, 81, 83, 87, 326, 348, 371, 374, 377.

θεατροπώλης, 334.

θεατρώνης, 334.

θεολογεῖον, 126, 213.

θεὸς ἀπὸ μηχανῆς, 211, 215, 216.

θερμαυστρίς, 317.

θεωρικόν, 331.

θίασος, 278.

θυμέλη, 80, 107, 108, 109, 142.

θυμελικοί, 146, 172.

Ι

ἰαμβεῖον, 267, 269.

ἰαμβύκη, 269.

Ἰαόνιοι νόμοι, 321.

ἴδια ᾄσματα, 310.

ἴκρια, 81, 83, 87, 328, 377.

ἱματιομίσθαι, 64.

ἱματιομισθωταί, 64.

ἱμάτιον, 250, 295.

Κ

καθάρσιον, 68.

καθέζεσθαι, 32.

καθιέναι, 228.

καθίζειν, 32.

καινὸς ἀγών, 30.

καλαθίσκος, 317.

καλαμίτης ἥρως, 377.

κατὰ ζυγά, 299.

κατὰ στοίχους, 102, 299.

καταβαίνειν, 166.

καταβλήματα, 185, 186, 198.

καταλέγειν, 269.

καταληπτήρ, 380, 381.

καταλογή, 269.

κατατομή, 90.

κέραμος, 186.

κεραυνοσκοπεῖον, 218.

κερκίς, 98, 337.

κίνησις, 278, 314.

κλεψίαμβος, 269.

κλῖμαξ, 129, 148, 379, 381.

κλιμακτῆρες, 380, 381.

κόθορνος, 248.

κόλπωμα, 252.

κόμμος, 268.

κονίστρα, 101, 142.

κόρδαξ, 318.

κορυφαῖος, 300, 301.

κράδη, 210.

κρασπεδίτης, 300.

κρηπίς, 248.

κριτὴν ἐμβάλλειν, 32.

κριτής, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36.

κροῦσις, 269.

κυβίστησις, 317.

κύκλιος χορός, 10.

κῶμος, 9, 20, 352.

κωμῳδοί, 9, 20, 25, 108, 275.

Λ

λαρυγγίζειν, 275.

λαυροστάτης, 170, 300.

ληκυθίζειν, 275.

λῆναι, 24, 376.

Λήναια, 24, 372.

Ληναϊκὸν θέατρον, 83.

Λήναιον, 24, 368 ff.

ληνός, 24, 369, 373, 376.

Λίμναι, 24, 368 ff.

λογεῖον, 102, 107, 112, 118, 123, 126, 146, 148, 149, 379, 380.

Μ

μεγαλοφωνία, 273.

μετασκευάζεσθαι, 288.

μετάστασις, 305.

μηχανή, 197, 199, 209, 211, 212, 215, 216.

μηχανοποιός, 209.

μῖμοι, 107, 142.

μισθός, 39.

μονῳδία, 268.

μυρμηκία, 321.

μύρμηκος ἀτραπός, 321.

Ν

νέμειν, 51, 58.

νεμήσεις θέας, 2, 335.

νεμήσεις ὑποκριτῶν, 58.

Νῖκαι τραγικαὶ καὶ κωμικαί, 362.

νικᾶν, 40.

νικᾶν τὰ Λήναια, 364.

νικᾶν τραγῳδίᾳ, 26.

νίκη ἀστική, 7.

Ξ

ξιφίζειν, 317.

ξιφισμός, 317.

ξύλου παράληψις, 317.

Ο

ὄγκος, 244.

ὀκρίβας, 68, 118, 248.

ὁλκοί, 379, 381.

Ὄμβρικος, 261.

ὀρθοστάτης, 380, 381.

ὄρχησις, 311, 312, 314.

ὀρχηστής, 313.

ὀρχήστρα, 82, 90, 101, 102, 107, 142, 148, 166, 377.

Ὀφέλανδρος, 261.

Π

παίδων χορός, 9, 10.

παλαιὸν δρᾶμα, 19, 22.

Παναθήναια, 12.

παρ’ αἰγείρου θέα, 81, 83.

παραβαίνειν, 149, 305.

παράβασις, 149, 270, 305.

παραβῆναι τέτταρα, 317.

παραδιδάσκειν, 19, 22.

παρακαταλογή, 268, 270.

παραλογίζεσθαι, 269.

παραπέτασμα, 118, 185, 186, 219.

παρασκήνια, 117, 127, 139, 142, 191, 379.

παρασκήνια τὰ ἄνω, 139, 379-81.

παρασκήνια τὰ κάτω, 139, 379-81.

παρασκήνιον, 235, 380.

παραστάτης, 301.

παραχορήγημα, 234, 235, 301.

παρεπιγραφή, 206.

πάροδος, 112, 149, 194, 209, 288, 302, 306.

πεπλασμένως, 275.

περίακτοι, 185, 191, 197, 218.

περιβομβῶν, 275.

περιοικοδομία, 379, 381.

πίναξ, 45, 118, 123, 126, 186, 379, 380.

ποικίλον, 250.

πομπή, 9, 49.

προάγων, 67, 68.

προγαστρίδια, 259.

προεδρία, 335.

πρόλογος, 224.

πρὸς τὰς ῥήσεις ὑπόρχησις, 317.

πρὸς χορὸν λέγειν, 269, 317.

προσκήνιον, 118, 127, 129, 172, 186, 219, 379-81.

προσωπεῖον, 262.

πρωταγωνιστεῖν, 227.

πρωταγωνιστής, 223.

πρῶτον ξύλον, 335.

πρωτοστάτης, 301.

πτερνοκοπεῖν, 344.

πυρριχισταί, 10.

Ρ

ῥαβδοῦχοι, 343.

ῥαβδοφόροι, 343.

ῥῆσις, 224, 317.

Σ

σατυρικόν, 12.

σάτυροι, 289.

σαυτὴν ἐπαινεῖς, 176, 228.

σίγμα, 90, 101.

σιμὴ χείρ, 317.

σκευή, 259.

σκηναὶ αἱ ἐπάνω, 112, 126, 379-81.

σκηνή, 108, 112, 141, 142, 148, 149, 166, 186, 199, 268, 379-81.

σκηνὴ ἡ μέση, 112, 379-81.

σκηνικὰ πρόσωπα, 288.

σκηνικοί, 146, 172.

σκηνογραφία, 112, 181.

σκώπευμα, 318.

στάσιμον, 306, 315.

στοῖχος, 149, 299, 301.

στροφεῖον, 218.

στροφή, 305.

σύκινος κλάδος, 210.

σχήματα, 313.

σωμάτιον, 249, 259.

Τ

τὰ ἀπὸ τῆς ὀρχήστρας, 149.

τὰ ἀπὸ τῆς σκηνῆς, 149, 165, 166, 268.

τὰ ἐκ τῶν ἁμαξῶν σκώμματα, 25.

ταινία ξυλίνη, 44.

ταινίαι, 209.

τάφοι, 200.

τετραλογία, 12, 13, 17.

τετράμετρον, 269.

τεχνίτης, 227, 278, 317.

τὸ ἐπὶ τῆς σκηνῆς, 165, 166.

τράγος, 294.

τραγῳδοί, 9, 20, 25, 108, 275.

τραγῳδῶν χοροί, 24.

τράπεζα, 80, 222.

τριλογία, 13.

τρίμετρα, 269.

τρίπους, 10.

τρίτος ἀριστεροῦ, 301.

τριτοστάτης, 300, 301.

τροχός, 209.

τρυγῳδία, 372.

τρυγῳδοί, 310.

Υ

ὑδρίαι, 32.

ὑποδιδάσκαλος, 62.

ὑποκόλπιον, 300.

ὑποκρίνεσθαι, 227, 228.

ὑποκριτής, 58, 148, 165, 223, 224, 227, 229, 274, 284.

ὑπόρχημα, 307.

ὑπόρχησις, 317.

ὑποσκήνιον, 123, 148.

ὑφάσματα, 186, 198.

Φ

φαλλικά, 222.

φαλλός, 259.

φαρυγγίζειν, 275.

φαρυγγίνδην, 61.

φοινικίδες, 342.

φοραί, 313.

Χ

Χαρώνιοι κλίμακες, 217.

χεὶρ καταπρηνής, 317.

χειρίδες, 250.

χερσὶ λαλεῖν, 312.

χιτών, 250.

χιτὼν ἀμφίμαλλος, 256.

χιτὼν μαλλωτός, 256.

χιτὼν χορταῖος, 256.

Χόες, 370, 372.

χοραγός, 301.

χορευτής, 61, 80, 299.

χορηγεῖν, 55, 56, 63.

χορηγεῖν κωμῳδοῖς, 44, 288.

χορηγεῖν παισί, 90.

χορηγεῖν τῇ φυλῇ, 10.

χορηγεῖν τραγῳδοῖς, 10.

χορηγεῖον, 60.

χορηγία, 37.

χορηγός, 10, 32, 56, 63, 64, 66, 301.

χορικὰ μέλη, 287.

χοροκτόνος, 54.

χορολέκτης, 60, 301.

χορὸν αἰτεῖν, 50.

χορὸν διδόναι, 20, 50.

χορὸν εἰσάγειν, 69.

χοροποιός, 301.

χοροστάτης, 301.

χοροῦ τυγχάνειν, 50.

Χύτροι, 12, 31, 371.

Ψ

ψαλίς, 112.

ψιλεύς, 300.

Ω

ᾠδεῖον, 67, 68, 87, 177.

GENERAL INDEX

A

Acoustics, attention paid to, 174.

Acrae, theatre at, 93.

## Acting, importance of the voice in, 272 ff.

Musical training necessary for, 274. Style of enunciation used in, 275. Gestures used in, 276.

Actors, contests between, 40 ff. Importance of protagonists, 42. Reproduction of old plays by, 43 f. Originally chosen by the poets, afterwards by the state, 57 ff., 229, 230. How assigned to the poets, 58. Paid by the state, 64. Tamper with the text of old plays, 74. The first actor introduced by Thespis, 80. Enter and depart by orchestra, 168, 169, 192 f. Meaning of the term actor, 221. Gradual introduction of, 222 ff. Number of actors in tragedy, comedy, and satyric drama, 223. Effect of small number of, 225. The Greek names for an actor, 226 f. Rise of the actor’s profession, 227. Increase in the proportion of, 228, 229. Distribution of parts among, 230 ff. Changes of costume by, 232. Costume of tragic actors, 237 ff.; of satyric actors, 255 ff.; of comic actors, 257 ff. Importance of the voice in, 272 ff. Musical training of, 274. Style of Greek acting, 275 ff. The Actors’ Guild, 278 ff. Privileges of, 278. Social position of, 281. Salaries of, 281. General character of, 282. Celebrated Athenian actors, 282 ff. Comic, lists of, 365.

Aegis, the, worn by Athene, 251.

Aeschines, acted Oenomaus, 29. Hired by Socrates and Simylus, 30. As tritagonist, 33. His accident at Collytus, 249. Taunted by Demosthenes, 281.

Aeschylus, his first appearance as a dramatist, 11, 83. His Oedipodeia, 11, 15. His Oresteia, 12, 14, 15. Trilogies and tetralogies of, 13 ff. His Lycurgeia, 15, 17. His Promethean trilogy, 15. Number of his victories, 34. Records concerning his Oresteia, 48. Exhibits at an early age, 50. Actors of, 57. Trains his choruses, 61. Reproduction of his plays after his death, 73, 76. Text of his plays, 74, 76. Not popular in later times, 76. His stage, 150. His statue in the theatre, 176. Scenery in his plays, 180. Said to have invented scene-painting, 181. Invents stage decorations, 199. Introduces a second actor, 223. Ceases to act in person, 227. His improvements in the tragic costume, 238, 240, 242, 248. His choruses, 285 ff., 289 ff. Designs the dress of the Furies, 291. Improves the tragic dance, 314. His Eumenides, 327. Nearly killed for impiety, 346.

Agathon, his first victory, 28, 70. His treatment of the chorus, 286. Adopts the new style of music, 321.

Agonothetes, the, 54, 55.

Agyrrhius, commissioner of the treasury, 40.

Aixone, comedies at, 30.

Alcamenes, 131.

Alcibiades, admired for his beauty, 9, 327. Corrupts the judges, 35. Assaults Taureas, 66, 343.

Alexander the Great, wishes to make a stage of bronze, 174.

Altar, in the orchestra, 107. On the stage, 200.

Ambassadors, provided with front seats, 324, 336.

Anapaests, given in recitative, 269. Sometimes delivered by the coryphaeus, 308.

Anapiesma, the, 217.

Anaxandrides, never revises his comedies, 71.

Andronicus, victorious in the Epigoni, 43.

Anthesteria, the, distinct from the Lenaea, 6, 369 ff. Where celebrated, 368 ff. Dramatic performances at, 31, 44.

Anti-choregi, 66.

Antisthenes, his success as choregus, 37, 62.

Apaturius, 127.

Aphareus, engages in eight contests, 19. Exhibits at the Lenaea, 26. Entrusts his plays to others, 52. Rhetorician as well as poet, 62.

Apollonius, disregards tetralogies, 13.

Applause, mode of expressing, 344.

Araros, son of Aristophanes, 51.

Archilochus, invents recitative, 268.

Archinus, commissioner of the treasury, 40.

Archons, the, manage the festivals, 49. Their seats in the theatre, 336.

Arguments, of plays, 48, 349.

Aristarchus, disregards tetralogies, 13.

Aristerostatae, 300.

Aristias, competes with Aeschylus, 12.

Aristodemus, the actor, 278, 281, 283.

Aristophanes, the grammarian, 13. His Arguments, 47.

Aristophanes, the poet, competes at the City Dionysia, 21, 28; at the Lenaea, 25, 27, 28. Story about his Clouds, 38. Third in a certain contest, 40. Exhibits at an early age, 51. Entrusts his plays to others, 51, 52. His Ecclesiazusae, 69. His Frogs much admired, 71. Scenery in his plays, 183, 196. Parodies the ekkyklema, 204. Parodies the mechane, 212. Discards the phallus, 259. His choruses, 287. Discards the kordax, 318. Honoured with a chaplet from the sacred olive, 346.

Aristotle, his remark on the stories of plays, 30. His Didascaliae, 47. Censures extravagance in choregi, 64. His opinion concerning the deus ex machina, 216. His definition of acting, 273. His opinion about actors, 282. His definition of dancing, 313. His remarks about the admission of boys to comedies, 329. His description of Attic audiences, 348.

Arsis, 311.

Artists of Dionysus, 278.

Asia Minor, theatres in, 133 ff., 148, 163.

Aspendos, theatre at, passages in, 97. Back-wall at, 127, 134. Roof in, 135.

Assembly, the, meetings of, in the theatre, 70, 178.

Assos, theatre at, 94, 159. Orchestra in, 106. Gates, 110. Date of proscenium, 130.

Assteas, his vase-painting, 127.

Astydamas, his victories at the Lenaea, 26. Statue of, 87. Conceit of, 176.

Astydamas, protagonist, 42.

Athenodorus, the actor, 230, 281, 283, 284.

Audience, the, representative character of, 4. Enthusiasm for the drama, 4, 346. Overrules the judges, 37, 344. Closely packed, 97, 99. Number of, 100. At the Lenaea, 324. At the City Dionysia, 324. Includes women, boys, and slaves, 324 ff. Distribution of seats among, 334 ff. Price of admission, 331, 334. Tickets of admission, 332. The proedria, 332. Occupants of the front rows, 335 ff. Comfort of, 100, 342. Their mode of expressing pleasure and disapproval, 344. Characteristics of, 344. Their orthodoxy, 345. Their intelligence and taste, 347. Preservation of order among, 343.

Auditorium, the, originally of wood, 81, 84. In the theatre at Athens, 90 ff. Shape of, 92. Interior of, 93 ff. Passages in, 97 ff. Size of, 99, 100. Later history of, 100. Puchstein’s theory of, 131, 132.

Awnings, 95, 100. Not generally used in Greek theatres, 176, 342.

B

Back-wall, the, 126, 127. In theatres of the Roman period, 133. Doors in, 134, 154.

Balconies, on the stage, 187.

Banquets, in honour of victory, 70.

Basis (metrical term), 311.

Bethe, on uses of proscenium, 123. Theory of the stage, 172, 173. On the drop-scene, 220. On the tragic costume, 239.

Birds, chorus of, 297. Their mode of entrance, 302.

Boots, in tragedy, 248 ff. In the Old Comedy, 260. In the New Comedy, 266.

Boys, admitted to the theatre, 324 ff.

Bradfield, theatre at, 158.

Bronteion, the, 218.

C

Callicrates, promises to increase theoric distributions, 331.

Callimachus, the grammarian, 47, 48.

Callippides, the actor, 277, 282.

Callistratus, exhibits plays of Aristophanes, 51, 52. Not an actor, 59.

Carpets, in the theatre, 342.

Cavea, the, 90.

Cephisophon, 57.

Chaeremon, 19.

Changes, of scenery, 195 ff. Of costume, 231 ff.

Chariots, in the theatre, 201.

Charon’s Steps, 217.

Chionides, 20, 26, 27.

Chlamys, the, 250.

Choerilus, number of his plays, 11. Competes with Aeschylus, 11. His improvements in masks, 242.

Choes, 370, 372.

Choregi, first appointment of, 11, 20, 352. Importance of, 36. How appointed, 53. Age of, 53. Replaced by synchoregi, 54; by the agonothetes, 54. Reintroduced, 55. Assignation of poets to, 55 f. Duties of, 61. Expenditure of, 63 ff. Rivalry between, 66.

Choreutae, their appetite, 61. Delivery of words by single choreutae, 308. Decline in the excellence of, 314.

Chorus, the, granted by the archon, 50. Selection and training of, 60 ff. Paid by the choregus, 63. Its dresses supplied by the choregus, 64. Cost of different kinds of, 64. Decline of, 128. Position of during the performance, 140, 148. Supposed platform for, 141. Occasional inaction of, 168. Enters and departs by the back-scene, 168. Comes into contact with the actors, 169. Extra choruses, 237. Gradual decline of in tragedy, 285 ff.; in comedy, 287 ff. Its size in tragedy, comedy, and satyric drama, 288 ff. Its costume in tragedy, 290 ff.; in satyric drama, 292 ff.; in the Old Comedy, 295 ff. Rectangular arrangement of, 298. Its mode of entrance, 299, 301. Irregular entrance of, 302. The parodos, 302. Its formation when in the orchestra, 303. Manœuvres of, 304. Second entrance of, 305. Exit of, 305. Delivery of words by the whole chorus, 306; by the coryphaeus, 307; by single choreutae, 308; by half-choruses, 309. Decline of choral dancing, 314. Accompanies the actors’ speeches with mimetic dances, 316. Sings in unison, 319.

Chorus-trainers, 62. Paid by the choregus, 63.

Christ, theory of the stage, 173.

Chytri, the, dramatic contests at, 31, 44, 371.

Cinesias, said to have abolished the choregia, 54.

City Dionysia, the, compared with the Lenaea, 6, 7, 27, 28. Meaning of the name, 7. Date, 7. Character of the proceedings at, 7 ff. Procession at, 8, 9. Contests at, 9, 10. Tragedy at, 10 ff. Comedy at, 20 ff. Order of contests at, 23, 24. Actors’ contests at, 41. Managed by the archon eponymus, 49. Synchoregi at, 54. Proclamation of crowns at, 68. Tribute displayed at, 68. Orphans paraded at, 68. Where celebrated, 82, 84.

Clâque, the, 345.

Cleander, actor of Aeschylus, 57, 282.

Cleidemides, actor of Sophocles, 282.

Cleon, terror inspired by, 260.

Cleophon, invents theoric distributions, 331.

Clouds, chorus of, 295.

Cock-fight, the, in the theatre, 177.

Collytus, dramatic performances at, 29.

Comedy, first institution of contests in, 5, 20, 26, 27. Specially prominent at the Lenaea, 6. Choregia in, 20. At the City Dionysia, 20 ff., 358 ff. Number of poets and plays in the comic contests, 20. Reproduction of old comedies, 22. At the Lenaea, 26, 27, 355 ff. At the Anthesteria, 31. Number of actors in, 224. Costume of actors in, 257 ff. Decline of the chorus in, 287. Size of the chorus in, 289. Costume of the chorus in, 295 ff. Dances used in, 318. Its connexion with religion, 328.

Conjurors, in the theatre, 178.

Contests, the dramatic, confined to a few festivals, 1. Managed by the state, 3. Universal prevalence of, 3. First institution of, 5, 11, 20, 26. Tragic contests at the City Dionysia, 10 ff. Comic contests at the City Dionysia, 20 ff. Tragic contests at the Lenaea, 25. Comic contests at the Lenaea, 26. Comic contests at the Anthesteria, 31. The judges in, 31 ff. Prizes for, 38 ff. Between actors, 40 ff. Records of, 44 ff. Commence at daybreak, 68. Preceded by a sacrifice, 68. Order determined by lot, 69. Announced by a trumpet, 69.

Coryphaeus, the, in the early drama, 80. Position and importance of, 301. Delivers portions of the choral part alone, 308.

Costume, of the tragic actors, 237 ff. Origin of the tragic costume, 238 ff. Improved by Aeschylus, 240. Ancient representations of the tragic costume, 241, 243. Tragic masks, 244 ff. The cothurnus, 248 ff. The tragic tunic, 250. The tragic mantle, 250. Head-coverings in tragedy, 251. Special costumes in tragedy, 251, 252. General character of the tragic costume, 252 ff. Costume of satyric actors, 255 ff. Costume of actors in the Old Comedy, 257 ff. Origin of this costume, 261. Costume of actors in the New Comedy, 261 ff. Cumbersomeness of the tragic costume often exaggerated, 276. Costume of the tragic chorus, 290; of the satyric chorus, 292 ff.; of the comic chorus, 295 ff.

Cothurnus, the, 244 ff. Not worn in satyric dramas, 255.

Council, the, special seats for, 337.

Courtesans, special seats for, 337.

Crane, the, 210.

Crates, actor to Cratinus, 59, 228.

Cratinus, satirized by Aristophanes, 9. His victories, 28, 46. Refused a chorus by the archon, 50. Called a dancer, 61, 228, 314.

Crowns, proclaimed at the City Dionysia, 68. Bestowed on victors at the contests, 69. Worn by kings and messengers, 252. Worn by the spectators, 342.

Cunei, the, 98.

Curators, at the City Dionysia and Lenaea, 49.

Cushions, in the theatre, 96, 342.

D

Dancing, importance of in the Greek drama, 311. Its mimetic character, 312. History of, 314. How far employed in the drama, 315. Used as an accompaniment to speeches from the stage, 316. The tragic dance, 317. The comic dance, 318. The satyric dance, 318.

Delivery, different modes of, 266 ff. Louder in tragedy than in comedy, 275. More rhythmical than in modern times, 275. Delivery of the choral part, 305 ff.

Delos, theatre at, orchestra in, 106, 121 ff., 139, 157. The hyposkenion, 107, 121, 123, 124, 125, 157. The pinakes, 123, 130. Date of proscenium, 130. Shape of stage-buildings, 139. Erections in front of proscenium, 157. Dörpfeld’s view concerning, 162. Accounts in connexion with, 379 ff.

Demosthenes, his choregic dress, 8. His dream, 37. Supplies his chorus with golden crowns, 64. Complains of the amount spent upon choruses, 66. His remark about actors, 273. Assaulted by Meidias, 324.

Deus ex machina, 215.

Deuteragonist, 230, 234.

Deuterostatae, 300.

Dexiostatae, 300.

Diaulia, 321.

Dicaeogenes, his meanness, 37.

Didascalia, meaning of the word, 47. The tragic didascaliae, 13; cf. 352 ff.

Didaskalos, 61.

Diodorus, exhibits two comedies at one contest, 21.

Dionysia, _see_ City Dionysia, Rural Dionysia.

Dionysius, exhibits at the Lenaea, 26, 28.

Dionysus, Eleuthereus and Lenaeus, 6. His statue carried in procession, 8; placed in the theatre, 9. His temples, 88, 89, 175, 368 ff. His priest, 339.

Diphilus, ejected from the theatre, 345.

Distegia, the, 186.

Distribution, of the parts among the actors, 230 ff.

Dithyrambic contests, 6, 9, 24, 39, 53, 56, 65.

Doors, from stage to orchestra, 115, 124, 153. Into the parodoi, 125. In the back-wall, 125, 134, 189. In the back-scene, 188. From the side-wings, 189, 191. Regulations about the doors on to the stage, 190, 194.

Dorian Mode, the, 320.

Dörpfeld, on date of first stone theatre at Athens, 83, 87. On Lycurgus’s work, 87, 88, 114. On the oldest stage-buildings, 113, 114, 117. On date of first important reconstruction, 114, 119. On the character of this reconstruction, 119. On date of stone proscenium at Athens, 131. His theory of the Greek stage, 144 ff. Contradicted by Vitruvius, 145 ff.; by other ancient authorities, 148 ff. Inconsistent with the archaeological evidence, 150 ff., 171. Arguments in favour of, 158 ff. Early literary evidence against, 165 ff. Evidence of the extant dramas concerning, 166 ff. The reason for the stage, 170.

Drawers, worn by the satyrs, 294.

Drop-scene, the, 218.

Duets, between actors, 268.

E

Eisodoi, 112.

Ekkyklema, the, character of, 201 ff., 205. Instances of in the extant dramas, 203 ff., 206 ff. Recent theories about, 205, 208.

Eleusis, dramatic performances at, 29.

Eleutherae, statue of Dionysus at, 8.

Eleuthereus, title of Dionysus, 6, 8.

Emmeleia, the, 317.

Encores, 344.

Entrances. _See_ Doors (above).

Ephebi, receive their shields and spears in the theatre, 178. Their seats, 337.

Epicharmus, date of, 20.

Epidaurus, theatre at, its symmetry of shape, 92. Auditorium in, 93. Chief seats in, 95. Passages in, 97. Size of, 100. Date of, 104, 119. Orchestra in, 105, 143, 157. The gutter, 107. The altar, 108. Gates, 110. The hyposkenion, 123-5, 154. Side-wings, 125. Ramps, 125.

Epiparodos, the, 305.

Eretria, theatre at, 89. The orchestra, 107. Tunnel in, 109. Stage-buildings at, 119, 120, 121, 151, 165. Stage in, 122, 132. Side-wings, 125. Date of proscenium, 130.

Eubulus, entrusts his plays to Philippus, 52.

Eudemus, helps in construction of theatre, 87.

Eumenes, portico of, 175.

Euphorion, produces plays of Aeschylus, 73.

Eupolis, entrusts one of his plays to Demostratus, 52.

Euripides, his Alcestis, 12, 13. His Medea, Hippolytus, and Troades, 12. Defeated by Xenocles, 12, 35; by Nicomachus, 35. His Iphigeneia in Aulis and Bacchae, 12, 76. Reproduction of his tragedies in later times, 18, 76. Exhibits a new tragedy at the Peiraeeus, 29. Number of his victories, 34. Exhibits at an early age, 51. His relation with Cephisophon, 57. Trains his own choruses, 62. Text of his plays, 74. His popularity, 71. His statue in the theatre, 176. Scenery in his plays, 183, 184. His use of the deus ex machina, 216. Often introduces children on the stage, 237. Character of his tragedies, 254. His choruses, 285-7. Adopts the new style of music, 321. Predicts the speedy popularity of Timotheus, 322. Charged with writing immoral plays, 327. His Melanippe, 346; his Danaë, 346.

Eurycleides, his statue in the theatre, 176.

Evegorus, law of, 23.

Exodoi, not usually accompanied with dances, 316.

Exostra, the, 209.

Extra performers, 235 ff.

F

Fig-branch, the, 210.

Files, in choruses, 298.

Flute, the, regularly used in the Greek drama, 270.

Flute-players, how assigned, 56. Paid by the choregus, 63. Number of, 270. Costume of, 271. Position of during the performance, 271.

Foreigners, their seats, 337.

Furies, chorus of, 291. Its mode of entrance, 302.

G

Gates, leading to the orchestra, 110.

Generals, their seats in the theatre, 336.

Gerarae, the oath of, 371, 375.

Gestures, most important in the Greek drama, 276. Restrained in character, 277.

Ghosts, on the Greek stage, 168, 217.

Girdles, part of the tragic costume, 250.

Gladiatorial contests, in the theatre, 102, 178.

Gods, manner of their appearance on the ancient stage, 215 ff.

Graeco-Roman theatres, character of, 127, 133 ff. Use of orchestra in, 136. Inconsistent with Dörpfeld’s theory, 163.

Guild, the Actors’, 278 ff.

Gutters, in the orchestra, 102, 106, 107.

H

Hadrian, statues of in the Athenian theatre, 176.

Harp, the, occasionally employed in the Greek drama, 270.

Harp-players, their number, costume, and position during the performances, 270, 271.

Hats, worn by the spectators, 342.

Head-coverings, for the actors, 251.

Hemichoria, 307, 319, 320.

Hemikyklion, the, 218.

Hemistrophion, the, 218.

Hermon, the actor, 284, 344.

Himation, the, 250.

Horace, his reference to the Greek stage, 144, 150.

Horses, in the theatre, 201.

Hypodidaskalos, the, 62.

Hypokrites, use of the word, 220. Its derivation, 226.

Hypophrygian Mode, the, 321.

Hyporchemata, 307, 316, 317.

Hyposkenion, the, 123 ff.

I

Iambics, tetrameters, given in recitative, 269.

Iambic trimeters, spoken without musical accompaniment, 267. Rarely sung, 267.

Icaria, dramatic performances at, 29.

Ikria, the, 83, 84, 87.

Inscriptions bearing on the drama, 352 ff.

Iobaccheia, 375.

Ion of Chios, his remark about virtue, 13. His present to the Athenians, 70.

Ionic Mode, the, 321.

Iophon, exhibits plays of his father Sophocles, 51.

J

Judges, in the dramatic contests, their number, 31. Mode of selection, 32 ff. The process of voting, 33. Value of their verdicts, 34 ff. Sometimes corrupted and intimidated, 35. Afraid of the audience, 37. Their seats, 336.

K

Kataloge, 268.

Katatome, the, 90.

Keraunoskopeion, the, 218.

Kerkides, the, 98. Assigned to particular tribes, 337.

Klepsiambos, the, 269.

Knights, chorus of, 296.

Kolpoma, the, 252.

Kommos, the, 268. Accompanied by dances, 316. The kommos in the Persae, 318.

Konistra, the, 101.

Kordax, the, 318.

Kraspeditae, the, 300.

Krepis, the, 248.

L

Laurostatae, the, 170, 300.

Lenaea, the, not part of the Anthesteria, 5, 6, 372 ff. Compared with the City Dionysia, 6, 7, 27. Meaning of the name, 24, 376. Date of, 25. Where celebrated, 25, 83, 368 ff. General character of, 25, 26. Tragic contests at, 25, 26 ff. Comic contests at, 26, 27. Actors’ contests at, 41. Managed by the archon basileus, 49.

Lenaeum, the, 24, 25. Site of, 368 ff. Wooden theatre at, 83, 84.

Lenaeus, title of Dionysus, 24, 372, 376.

Lessee, the, 334.

Licymnius, the actor, victorious in the Propompi, 43. His voice, 273.

Limnaeus, title of Dionysus, 372, 373.

Logeion, the, 117, 163. Not the same as the theologeion, 164.

Lucian, ridicules the tragic actors, 254, 273.

Lycurgus, the orator, his law concerning the Anthesteria, 31. Institutes dithyrambic contests at the Peiraeeus, 39. His law for preserving the text of the great tragic poets, 74. Completes the theatre, 87. Puchstein’s theory of, 87, 88, 130 ff.

M

Maeniana, 187.

Magna Graecia, theatres of, 127, 133, 155 ff.

Magnesia, theatre at, its shape, 93. Tunnel in, 109.

Market-place, the, suggested site of the Lenaeon, 25, 377. Dramatic performances at, 83.

Marshes, the, temple in, 24, 368 ff. Site of, 368 ff.

Masks, invention of, 238, 242. Results of the use of, 242, 243. The tragic mask, 244, 245. The mask of Silenus, 256. The masks in the Old Comedy, 259, 260; in the New Comedy, 262 ff. The masks of the tragic chorus, 291; of the satyric chorus, 292; of the comic chorus, 295.

Mechane, the, character of, 209 ff. Instances of the use of, 211 ff. Relation to the theologeion, 213 ff.

Megalopolis, theatre at, chief seats in, 95. Size of, 100. The orchestra in, 105, 106. The gutter, 107. Date of, 119. Stage in, 121, 122, 125. No door in hyposkenion, 124, 154. Date of proscenium, 130. Stage-buildings in, 137. Skanotheka and scaena ductilis in, 160 ff.

Meidias, corrupts the judges, 35. Assaults Demosthenes, 324. Interferes with Demosthenes’ chorus, 117, 279.

Meletus, his Oedipodeia, 18.

Menander, reproduction of comedies of, 22. Defeated by Philemon, 36, 345. His statue in the theatre, 176. Retains the chorus, 288. His desire for distinction as a dramatist, 326.

Miltiades, his statue in the theatre, 176.

Mitra, the, 251.

Mixolydian Mode, the, 320.

Modes, the, 320, 321.

Monodies, 268.

Mummius, 175.

Music, in the Greek drama. The instruments employed, 269, 270. Number of musicians, 270. General character of, 319 ff. The Modes, 320, 321. Deterioration of Greek Music during the fifth century, 321.

Musical instruments, in the Greek drama, 269, 270.

Musicians, in the Greek drama, 270.

Mute characters, 63, 235, 236.

Mynniscus, actor of Aeschylus, 57, 227, 282. Calls Callippides an ape, 277.

N

Neoptolemus, the actor, 273, 279, 281, 283, 284.

Nero, competes in the tragic contests, 273.

Nicias, as choregus, 37, 66.

Nicostratus, the actor, 269.

O

Obelisks, on the stage, 200.

Odeion, the, used for the Proagon, 67. Of Pericles, 175. Formerly used for performances by rhapsodists and harp-players, 177.

Okribas, the, 118.

Onkos, the, 244.

Orange, theatre at, 135.

Orchesis, 312.

Orchestra, the, importance of, 80, 81. In Roman theatres, 82. In the market-place, 83. The old orchestra in the Athenian theatre, 84. Names of, 101. The orchestra in the stone theatre at Athens, 102. Comparison of Greek and Roman orchestras, 104. Not always a complete circle, 106. Passages round, 106. The gutter, 102, 106, 107. Floor of, 107. Altar in, 107. Subterranean passages in, 103, 109. Entrances into, 110 ff. Use of in Romanized Greek theatres, 135, 136. Hermann’s theory concerning, 141. Book-shops in old orchestra, 377.

Oropus, theatre at, chief seats in, 96. Proscenium at, 125, 130, 152, 153. Stage-buildings in, 151.

Orphans, paraded in the theatre, 68. Have the proedria, 336.

Ovid, his advice to lovers, 312.

P

Pantacles, the poet, 56.

Parabasis, delivered partly in recitative, 269. Disappearance of, 287. Position of the chorus during, 304.

Parachoregemata, 235 ff.

Parakataloge, 268.

Paraskenia, 117, 235, 379 ff.

Parastatae, the, 301.

Parmenon, the actor, 284.

Parodoi, 112, 194.

Parodos, or entrance song, 302. The second parodos, 305. Given by the whole chorus, 306. Generally accompanied with dancing, 315.

Passages, in the auditorium, 97, 98. Under the orchestra, 103, 109. Round the orchestra, 106. Into the orchestra, 110 ff., 194.

Patara, theatre at, 136.

Peiraeeus, the, dramatic performances at, 29. Shape of theatre at, 93. Passages in, 97, 98. The orchestra, 105, 106. The gutter, 107. Date of proscenium, 130.

Pergamon, theatre at, 137, 159.

Perge, theatre at, partially Romanized, 135.

Periaktoi, the, 197 ff.

Phaedrus, stage of, 88, 115.

Phallus, the, worn by comic actors, 257-9; by the satyrs, 294.

Pherecrates, censures the music of Timotheus, 321.

Philemon, reproduction of comedies of, 22. Defeats Menander, 36, 245. Retains the chorus, 288.

Philippus, son of Aristophanes, 52.

Philocles, writes a Pandionis, 17.

Philonides, exhibits plays of Aristophanes, 21, 52. Not an actor, 59.

Phlya, dramatic performances at, 30.

Phlyakes, their performances, 155 ff., 257.

Phrygian Mode, the, 320.

Phrynichus, called a dancer, 61, 314. His Capture of Miletus, 71. Introduces female masks, 242. Skilful in inventing new dances, 314.

Pinakes, 122, 123, 127, 130.

Pisistratus, 11.

Plato, the philosopher, writes a tetralogy, 18. His opinion of Attic audiences, 38, 344, 347. Would exclude actors from his ideal state, 274. Praises the tragic dance, 317. Disapproves of the kordax, 318. His remarks about the drama in connexion with boys and women, 326.

Plato, the poet, sells his comedies, 51. His remarks on the decline of choral dancing, 314.

Pleuron, date of proscenium, 130.

Plutarch, his description of Greek dancing, 313. His remark about music, 319.

Pnyx, the, disused as a meeting-place for popular assemblies, 178.

Poets, influence of, 4. Number of, at the different dramatic contests, 12, 19, 20, 25. Age of, 50, 51. Produce plays in other persons’ names, 51, 52. Originally also stage-managers, 51, 61. How assigned to the choregi, 55, 56.

## Act in their own plays, 227.

Tragic, at the Dionysia, 362. Comic, at the Dionysia, 363; at the Lenaea, 364.

Police, in the theatre, 343.

Polus, the actor, his salary, 281. Stories about, 283.

Polycleitus, architect of the Epidaurian theatre, 104.

Polyphradmon, his Lycurgean tetralogy, 12.

Poplar, the, near the old theatre, 83.

Portico, in the auditorium, 99. At Delos, 139. In the fourth century at Athens, 175. Of Eumenes, 175.

Posidippus, reproduction of his plays, 22.

Praecinctiones, 98.

Pratinas, number of his plays, 11. Competes with Aeschylus, 11. Called a dancer, 61, 314. Complains of the flute-players, 320.

Price of admission, two obols, 330. Granted by the state to needy citizens, 330 ff.

Priene, theatre at, altar in the orchestra of, 108. Stage in, 121. Doors in hyposkenion, 124. Chief seats in, 96. Proscenium in, 125.

Priestesses, their seats, 335, 341.

Priests, their seats, 335, 338 ff.

Privileges, enjoyed by actors, 278 ff.

Prizes, for choregi, 39, 69. For poets, 39, 69.

Proagon, the, 67.

Probole, the, 70.

Production, of a play, 49 ff. Concealment of the poet’s name, 51 ff. Formerly managed by the poet himself, 51. Posthumous production of plays, 74.

Proedria, the, 335. Conferred on priests, 335; on archons and generals, 336; On various other persons, 336.

Prologue, the, 302.

Proskenion, the, 118, 122 ff.

Protagonist, his importance, 42, 230. Parts taken by him, 232, 233.

Protostatae, the, 301.

Ptolemy, the Third, a collector of manuscripts, 75.

Puchstein, on date of first stone theatre at Athens, 83, 87, 130 ff. On Lycurgus’s work, 87, 88, 130 ff. On the oldest stage-buildings, 113, 114, 117, 130 ff. On date of first reconstruction, 114, 119, 130 ff. On character of this reconstruction, 119, 130 ff. On pinakes, 123, 130. On date of stone proscenium, 130 ff. On date of stone auditorium, 131, 132. On stage in fifth century, 132.

Pulpitum, meaning of the word, 150.

Puppet shows, in the theatre, 178.

Q

Quintilian, his statement about Aeschylus, 73. His comparison of the orator and the dancer, 312.

R

Ramps, in the stage-buildings, 125.

Ranks, in choruses, 298.

Recitative, how far employed in the Greek drama, 268 ff., 305.

Records, of dramatic contests, 44 ff., 352 ff. Erected in or near the theatre, 176.

Refrains, 321.

Refreshments, in the theatre, 341.

Religion, its connexion with the drama, 1 ff., 328.

Reproduction, of old tragedies, 72 ff. Of old comedies, 22. Of plays at the Rural Dionysia, 29, 30. By the actors, 43, 74. Almost unknown during the fifth century, 74. Favourite tragedies in later times, 75, 76. On the Vitruvian stage, 129.

Revision, of plays, 71.

Robert, theory of the stage, 173.

Romanization, of Greek theatres, 133 ff. Often only partially carried out, 135. Dörpfeld’s theory concerning, 162 ff.

Roof, over the stage, 118, 135.

Rural Dionysia, the, 6, 29, 30. Old plays at, 43.

S

Sagalassos, theatre at, partially Romanized, 135. The stage, 135.

Salamis, dramatic performances at, 29.

Salaries of the actors, 281.

Sannio, the chorus-trainer, 62, 279.

Satyric drama, at the City Dionysia, 11. Its relation to tragedy, 16. Decline in the importance of, 18. Number of actors in, 224. Costume of actors in, 225. Size of the chorus in, 256. Origin of the satyric chorus, 289. Costume of the satyric chorus, 292 ff. The satyric dance, 318.

Satyrus, the actor, 76.

Scaena ductilis, supposed use of at Megalopolis, 161. Character of, 199.

Scene-painting, invention of, 181. Character of in ancient times, 183 ff.

Scenery, occasionally supplied by the choregus, 64. Simple in character, 179. Gradual introduction of, 179 ff. Inventor of, 181. Number of scenes not large, 182, 183. Character of ancient scene-painting, 183 ff. Mechanical arrangements for the scenery, 186 ff. Entrances to the stage, 188 ff. Regulations concerning the entrances, 190. Changes of scene, 195 ff. The periaktoi, 197 ff. Stage-properties, 199. The ekkyklema, 201 ff. The exostra, 209. The mechane and theologeion, 209 ff. Various contrivances, 217.

Sea-fights, in the orchestra, 103.

Seats, the, originally of wood, 81. In the Athenian theatre, 94 ff. For distinguished persons, 94, 100. Price of, 330. Distribution of, 334 ff.

Segesta, stage at, 132.

Shepherds, their costume on the stage, 251.

Sicyon, theatre at, the orchestra in, 106. The gutter, 107. Tunnel in, 108. The stage-buildings, 120, 151. The stage, 125. Ramps in, 125. The proscenium, 130.

Side entrances, on to the stage, 191 ff. To the orchestra, 110 ff., 194 ff.

Side-wings, in the Athenian theatre, 113, 114. Called paraskenia, 117. Various shapes of, 125. At Delos, 139. Entrances from, 191 ff.

Sigma, the, 101.

Sikinnis, the, 318.

Sileni, their relation to satyrs, 292 ff.

Silenus, his costume, 256. His relation to the satyrs and Sileni, 295.

Simylus, the actor, 30, 275.

Skanotheka, at Megalopolis, 160.

Skene, origin of the term, 80. Various meanings of, 141.

Slaves, admitted to the theatre, 325, 329.

Sleeves, in the tragic costume, 250.

Soccus, the, 266.

Socrates, the actor, 30, 275.

Socrates, his behaviour during the performance of the Clouds, 260.

Solos, by actors, 268.

Song, used in lyrical passages, 268, 305.

Soothsayers, their costume on the stage, 251.

Sophocles, competes with Euripides, 12. Abandons the practice of writing tetralogies, 17. Number of his victories, 28, 34, 46. Defeated by Philocles, 35, 40. Never third in a contest, 40. Refused a chorus by the archon, 50. Exhibits at an early age, 51. Entrusts plays to his son Iophon, 52. His actor Tlepolemus, 57. Writes for the actors, 57, 229. Appears occasionally upon the stage, 62, 227. His conduct at the death of Euripides, 67. The text of his plays, 74. Popular tragedies of, 76. His statue in the theatre, 176. Said to have invented scene-painting, 181. Scenery in his plays, 182. Introduces a third actor, 224. Prevented from acting by the weakness of his voice, 227. Invents the krepis, 248; and the curved staff, 252. His choruses, 285, 286. Increases the size of the chorus, 289. Appointed general, 346. His popularity, 347, 348.

Speech, used in the delivery of iambic trimeters, 267, 305.

Sphyromachus, his regulation about the seats, 327.

Staffbearers, 343.

Stage, the, original form of, 80. History of in the stone theatre at Athens, 113 ff. Names for, 118, 163. In early times, 118 ff. In the pre-Roman period, 130 ff. Puchstein’s theory of, 132 ff. In theatres of the Roman period, 133 ff. At Megalopolis, 137. At Delos, 138. Wieseler’s theory of, 140 ff. Gradual development of, 144. Dörpfeld’s theory of, 144 ff. Literary evidence for the later stage, 145 ff. Archaeological evidence for the later stage, 150 ff. Dörpfeld’s arguments against the later stage, 158 ff. Development of the Roman stage from the Greek, 162 ff. Literary evidence for the early stage, 165 ff. Evidence of the extant dramas concerning, 167 ff. The reason for the stage, 170. Varies in height at different periods, 171. Various theories concerning, 172 ff. Occasionally used by the chorus, 169.

Stage-buildings, the, origin of, 80. History of in the stone theatre at Athens, 112 ff. Puchstein’s view of, 113, 114, 117, 130 ff. In early times, 116 ff. In the pre-Roman period, 126. In theatres of the Roman period, 133 ff. At Pergamon, 137. At Megalopolis, 137. At Delos, 138. The space behind the proscenium, 151.

Stage-properties, 199 ff.

Stasima, movements of the chorus during, 303. Delivered by the whole chorus, 306. Accompanied with dancing, 315.

Statues, in the theatre, 176. On the stage, 200.

Statuettes, of comic actors, 258.

Steps, between orchestra and stage, 129, 148, 149, 156. Charon’s, 217.

Stropheion, the, 218.

Sword-swallowers, in the theatre, 178.

Synchoregia, the, 54.

Syracuse, theatre at, 89.

Syrtos, the, 250.

T

Tablets, erected by the choregi, 44.

Taureas, assaulted by Alcibiades, 66, 343.

Tauromenium, theatre at, 127.

Telestes, dancer employed by Aeschylus, 312. Dances the Seven Against Thebes, 317.

Temples, of Dionysus, 88, 89, 175, 368 ff.

Termessos, theatre at, 93.

## Partially Romanized, 135.

The stage, 135. Door in the back-wall, 154.

Tetralogies, 12, 13 ff. Meaning of the term, 13. Invention of, 14. Character of, 14. Disuse of, 17.

Text, of old plays, officially preserved, 74.

Theatre, the Greek, general character of, 79. Originally of wood, 80. Importance of the orchestra in, 81. Compared with the Roman, 82. Site of the old wooden theatres, 82-4, App. Seldom faces the south, 89. Shape of the auditorium, 90. Passages in, 97. The orchestra, 101 ff. The eisodoi, 110 ff. The stage-buildings and stage in early times, 113 ff.; in pre-Roman times, 120 ff.; in Roman times, 133 ff. Reasons of changes in, 127. Use of orchestra in later times, 136. Exceptional stage-buildings, 137 ff. Wieseler’s theory of the stage in, 146 ff. Dörpfeld’s theory of the stage in, 144 ff. Other theories of the stage, 172 ff. Acoustic properties of, 174.

Theatre, of Dionysus at Athens, first permanent erection at, 83 ff. Remains of the fifth century theatre, 83, 84. Compared with that of later times, 85. Date of the stone theatre, 86, 87. Later history of, 87, 88. Site of, 88. The auditorium, 90 ff. The orchestra, 101 ff. The stage-buildings, 113 ff. Statues and monuments in, 176. Various uses of, 177, 178. Buildings near, 175.

Themistocles, victorious in a dramatic contest, 45. His statue in the theatre, 176.

Theodectes, engages in thirteen contests, 19. Victorious at the Lenaea, 26. Rhetorician as well as poet, 62.

Theodorus, the actor, always delivers the first speech in a tragedy, 231. Excellence of his voice, 274. Stories about him, 283.

Theognis, the tragic poet, 73.

Theologeion, the, character of, 213 ff. Its relation to the mechane, 213. Not identical with the logeion, 126, 164.

Theoric money, 330 ff.

Thersilion, the, at Megalopolis, 137, 160.

Thesis, 311.

Thespiae, theatre at, 124, 154.

Thespis, the inventor of tragedy, 5, 80. His first victory, 11. Called a dancer, 61, 314. Acts in his own plays, 227. His use of masks, 242.

Thessalus, the actor, 283, 284.

Thoricus, theatre at, 30, 85.

Thrasyllus, his dream, 43.

Thrones, in the Athenian theatre, 94. Throne of the priest of Dionysus, 336.

Thymele, in the early theatres, 80. In the stone theatres, 107. Various meanings of the word, 108, 142. Wieseler’s theory concerning, 142 ff.

Tickets, of admission to the theatre, 332 ff.

Timotheus, author of the new style of music, 321.

Tlepolemus, actor of Sophocles, 57, 282.

Tombs, on the stage, 200.

Tragedy, first institution of contests in, 5, 11, 25, 356. At the City Dionysia, 11 ff. Reproduction of old tragedies, 19, 72. At the Lenaea, 25, 26, 356. Number of actors in, 222 ff. Costume of actors in, 237 ff. Decline of the chorus in, 286 ff. Size of the chorus in, 288 ff. Costume of the chorus in, 290. The tragic dance, 316.

Training, of the chorus, 60 ff.

Tralles, theatre at, tunnel in, 110. Steps in, 167.

Tribes, the Attic, dithyrambic contests between, 10. Have no connexion with the dramatic contests, 10. Certain blocks in the theatre appropriated to them, 337.

Tribute, displayed at the City Dionysia, 68.

Trilogies, 13, 14.

Trios, between actors, 268.

Tripods, the prizes in the dithyrambic contests, 39.

Tritagonist, the, 233.

Tritostatae, the, 300.

Trochaic tetrameters, given in recitative, 269.

Tunic, of tragic actors, 250. Of satyric actors, 256.

Tunnels, under the orchestra, 103, 109, 110.

Turban, worn by Darius, 252.

Tyndaris, stage at, 132.

V

Vitruvius, his advice about sites of theatres, 89; about the shape of the auditorium, 93. Description of the Greek and Roman orchestra, 105; of the Greek and Roman stage, 146, 163, 164. Dörpfeld’s views about, 145 ff. On scene-painting, 181 ff.

Voice, importance of in the Greek drama, 272. Its strength more regarded than its quality, 273. Training of the voice, 274.

W

Wieseler, his theory of the Greek stage, 140 ff.

Windows, in the back-scene, 188.

Women, admitted to the theatre, 324 ff. Their seats, 337.

X

Xenocles, defeats Euripides, 12.

Z

Zeno, his remark about actors, 273.

ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA

Transcriber’s Note: The footnote numbers in this e-text are given in [square brackets].

Page 21, note 1, _for_ C.I.G. _read_ the Roman inscription I.G. [72]

Page 26, l. 25, _for_ It was doubtless.... But they must _read_ It is therefore possible that it was at this festival that comic contests were first regularly organized. If so, they must

Page 27, note 1, _add_: Wilhelm, however (p. 123), does not believe that the first extant column of 977d was preceded by a lost column; and if he is right, the list of victorious poets at the Lenaea only takes us back at most to about 450 B.C. The question turns partly on the reconstruction of the original heading of this part of the inscription; it must, I think, be regarded as still an open one, and with it, the question of the date of the first comic contests at the Lenaea. [98]

Page 41, note 3, _for_ xx. _read_ iv. [168]

Page 48, note 4, _add_: According to Wilhelm, p. 257, Körte has proved that the Νῖκαι of Aristotle is the direct source, not of C. I. A. ii. 971, but only of C. I. A. ii. 977. I have not yet been able to obtain Körte’s paper: but I see no reason to doubt that 971 also has an Aristotelian basis, even if that basis be not the Νῖκαι. [192]

Page 51, note 2, _add_: Menander also ἐδίδαξε πρῶτον ἔφηβος ὤν (Anon. de Com.: Kaibel, Com. Fr. p. 9). [198]

Page 54, note 5, _add_: [Capps, however, points out (Amer. Journ. Arch. iv. p. 85) that Plutarch does not date precisely Nicanor’s acceptance of the office: and that C. I. A. iv. 2. 584 b mentions choregi in the year 317-316.] [218]

_Printed wholly in England for the MUSTON COMPANY._

_By LOWE & BRYDONE, PRINTERS, LTD., PARK STREET, CAMDEN TOWN, LONDON, N.W.1_