Chapter XXIII: Appendix: D (2)

[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.