Chapter IX: Theatrical Records372 (2)

[79] Cf. _op. cit._, p. 459. The possibility of direct borrowing had already been denied by Wernicke, _op. cit._, pp. 302-6. Wernicke’s objections are not altogether convincing.

[80] Fig. 11 is taken from a photograph for which I am indebted to Professor Heinrich Bulle. He was also kind enough to express the following judgment with regard to the inscription: “Ich kann nicht mit Ch. Fränkel, _Satyr- und Bakchennamen auf Vasenbildern_ (1912), S. 35, der Lesung von Schulze (_Göttinger gel. Anz._ 1896, S. 254) ΣΙΒΥΡΤΑΣ zustimmen; denn die Inschrift ist ja rechtslaüfig. Man kann übrigens auch deutlich an dem Kleinerwerden der Buchstaben sehen, dass der Zeichner von links nach rechts geschrieben hat. Ich glaube mit Urlichs, (_Verzeichniss d. Antikensammlung d. Univ. Wurzburgs_, I, S. 50), dass es eine einfache Verschreibung aus ΣΑΤΥΡΟΣ ist.” The _membrum virile_ has been omitted in the reproduction.

[81] Cf. the contemporaneous sileni in connection with the “wagon-ship” of Dionysus; see Fig. 65 and p. 121, below.

[82] Why “almost” is inserted here does not appear. Many Greek divinities are mentioned on Ridgeway’s pages, but none is recognized as “totally independent” of the cult of the dead.

[83] Cf. his _Dramas and Dramatic Dances_, etc., pp. 63, 337, 385, and _passim_.

[84] Cf. Marrett, _Classical Review_, XXX (1916), 159.

[85] Cf. Zieliński, _Die Gliederung der altattischen Komödie_ (1885); Humphreys, “The Agon of the Old Comedy,” _American Journal of Philology_, VIII (1887), 179 ff.; Poppelreuter, _De Comoediae Atticae Primordiis_ (1893); A. Körte, “Archäologische Studien zur alten Komödie,” _Jahrbuch d. archäologischen Instituts_, VIII (1893), 61 ff.; Loeschcke, _Athenische Mittheilungen_, XIX (1894), 518, note; Bethe, _Prolegomena zur Geschichte des Theaters im Alterthum_ (1896), pp. 48 ff.; Mazon, _Essai sur la Composition des Comédies d’Aristophane_ (1904); Capps, “The Introduction of Comedy into the City Dionysia,” _University of Chicago Decennial Publications_, VI (1904), 266 ff., and in Columbia University lectures on _Greek Literature_ (1912), pp. 124 ff.; Navarre, “Les origines et la structure technique de la comédie ancienne,” _Revue des Études anciennes_, XIII (1911), 245 ff.; White, _The Verse of Greek Comedy_ (1912); Cornford, _The Origin of Attic Comedy_ (1914), reviewed by Flickinger in _Classical Weekly_, VIII (1915), 221 ff.; and Ridgeway, _The Dramas and Dramatic Dances of Non-European Races with an Appendix on the Origin of Greek Comedy_ (1915), reviewed by Flickinger, _Classical Weekly_, XI (1918), 109 f.

[86] I am indebted to Professor Capps for this translation; the word is generally taken to mean “masks” here.

[87] Cf. Aristotle’s _Poetics_ 1449_a_37-_b_9.

[88] The phallus was a representation of the _membrum virile_, and such ceremonies were primarily intended to secure fertility.

[89] Cf. Aristotle’s _Poetics_ 1449_a_9-13.

[90] The second is, of course, the personification of Increase; the first is not so obvious. Some connect it with Demeter; it has also been proposed to interpret it as the Cretan form of ζημία, “damage.” The one would therefore represent the productive and the other the destructive powers; cf. Macan’s edition _ad loc._ This would accord very neatly with Cornford’s positive and negative charms.

[91] Cf. Jacoby, _Das Marmor Parium_, p. 13: ἀφ’ οὑ ἐν Ἀθ[ήν]αις κωμω[ιδῶν χο]ρ[ὸς ἐτ]έθη, [στη]σάν[των πρώ]των Ἰκαριέων, εὑροντος Σουσαρίωνος, καὶ ᾆθλον ἐτέθη πρῶτον ὶσχάδω[ν] ἄρσιχο[ς] καὶ οἴνου με[τ]ρητής, [ἔτη .... The exact date is not determinable but is limited to a period of twenty years by other entries just before and after this one.

[92] Figs. 12 and 13 are taken, by permission of the Council of the Hellenic Society, from the _Journal of Hellenic Studies_, II (1881), Pl. XIV, A1 and B1; Fig. 14 from Poppelreuter, _op. cit._, p. 8; and Figs. 15 and 16 from Robinson, _Boston Museum Catalogue of Greek, Etruscan, and Roman Vases_ (1893), p. 136.

[93] Cf. Capps, _University of Chicago Decennial Publications_, VI, 286, and _American Journal of Philology_, XXVIII (1907), 186 f.

[94] The divisions of tragedy are discussed on pp. 192 f., below. Five of the terms applied to the divisions of comedy appear also in tragedy, viz., prologue, parodus, episode, stasimum, and exodus; several, if not all, of the five seem to have originated in tragedy.

[95] From this second half of the parabasis comedy developed another epirrhematic division to which Zieliński also gave the name of syzygy. This was not exclusively choral, however, stood at no definite point in the play, and differed in still other respects from the epirrhematic syzygy of the parabasis. Three syzygies appear in Aristophanes’ _Acharnians_ and _Birds_, none in his _Lysistrata_, _Women in Council_, and _Plutus_. Cf. White, _op. cit._, § 677. Since it is apparent that such syzygies are not primary in origin, they have been ignored in the foregoing discussion.

[96] Or at least reflect its influence; cf. the syzygies mentioned in the last note.

[97] Cf. Cornford, _op. cit._, p. 46.

[98] Cf. White, “An Unrecognized Actor in Greek Comedy,” _Harvard Studies_, XVII (1906), 124 f.

[99] Cf. Zieliński, _op. cit._, p. 190.

[100] Published by Usener in _Rheinisches Museum f. Philologie_, XXVIII (1873), 418.

[101] Cf. Aristophanes’ _Clouds_, vss. 537 ff. (Rogers’ translation). The original of “filthy symbols” is σκύτινον καθειμένον. It has therefore been suggested, especially since there seems to be an allusion to a phallus even in the _Clouds_ (vs. 734), that Aristophanes is not to be understood as discontinuing the use of the phallus altogether in this play, but merely as abandoning the φαλλος καθειμένος in favor of the less indecent φαλλὸς ἀναδεδεμένος. Both types are seen in Fig. 17.

[102] Figs. 17-19 are taken from Körte, _op. cit._, p. 69 (Fig. 1), p. 78 (Fig. 3), and p. 80 (Fig. 5), respectively. In Fig. 17 there are only three actors; the end figures are flute-players. Körte believes this scene to be taken from Middle Comedy. In Fig. 19 the phallus has been omitted.

[103] Figs. 20 and 21 are taken from Körte, _op. cit._, p. 91 (Fig. 8), and Baumeister’s _Denkmäler_, Fig. 2099, respectively. The phallus has been omitted from some of the actors.

[104] Cf. Aristotle’s _Poetics_ 1448_a_31 f.

[105] Those who admit this claim rest under the necessity of placing the introduction of actors at this early date. This would mean that comedy had actors before tragedy did! On the other hand, the reader needs to be warned that I place the introduction of comic actors later than most writers.

[106] Cf. Aristophanes’ _Wasps_, vs. 57, and Kock, _Comicorum Graecorum Fragmenta_, I, 9 f., fr. 2 (Ecphantides), and I, 323, fr. 244 (Eupolis).

[107] Von Wilamowitz’ skepticism with regard to Megarian comedy, however, has not gained many converts; cf. “Die megarische Komödie,” _Hermes_, IX (1875), 319 ff.

[108] Cf. Navarre, _op. cit._, p. 268. The same fact is brought out more graphically in the lithographic table at the close of Zieliński’s book.

[109] The episodes referred to in this sentence are more properly termed “mediating scenes” in contradistinction to the true episodes (5) which follow the parabasis (cf. White, _The Verse of Greek Comedy_, §§ 679 f.). Twenty-six connecting links of this sort occur in Aristophanes, twenty of them just before an agon or parabasis. Syzygies are also employed to extend the length of the play, especially in the first half (cf. p. 41, n. 1, above).

[110] Cf. Aristotle’s _Poetics_ 1448_a_32-4.

[111] Cf. Aristophanes’ _Frogs_, vss. 416-30, Rogers’ translation. The original is more vulgar than would be tolerable in an English translation.

[112] Cf. Kaibel, _Comicorum Graecorum Fragmenta_, p. 18.

[113] Some would interpret this passage as meaning that Cratinus was the first to observe the aesthetic law that not more than three persons should participate in the same conversation (cf. Rees, _The So-called Rule of Three Actors in the Classical Greek Drama_, p. 9, n. 1). When the only speakers were the individual choreutae, who were twenty-four in number, such a restriction must have been unheard of. On the other hand, if it should prove true that Megarian actors were brought in before the time of Cratinus, then we must suppose that their number was at first in excess of three and was reduced to three by him. Of course, the use of but three actors in the tragedy and comedy of this period would automatically result in not more than three persons participating in a conversation and so in the observance of the aesthetic law. This statement, however, is subject to the qualification that the chorus leaders continued to have speaking parts both in comedy (see p. 44, above), and in tragedy (cf. pp. 164 f. and 169, below), and that a fourth actor was occasionally employed (cf. pp. 171 and 182, below). In any case I am of the opinion that conscious formulation of the aesthetic law was not made until Hellenistic times (see pp. 187 f., below).

[114] Cf. Aristophanes’ _Knights_, vss. 522 f., Rogers’ translation.

[115] Cf. “The Introduction of Comedy into the City Dionysia,” _University of Chicago Decennial Publications_, VI, 266 ff.

[116] Cf. Columbia University Lectures on _Greek Literature_, p. 130.

[117] Cf. Cornford, _op. cit._, pp. 179 and 193, n. 1; see p. 48, above.

[118] It is unfortunate that there is at present no satisfactory book dealing with the Greek theater on the structural side. English readers are practically restricted to Haigh’s _The Attic Theatre_, revised by Pickard-Cambridge in 1907, which devotes nearly one hundred pages to a summary and criticism of the different views. But this work has already been off the press for a decade and on the main issue, viz., as to whether the Greek theater of the classical period was provided with a raised stage for actors, makes too many concessions to the traditional view. For German readers, on the other hand, the situation is not a great deal better. Dörpfeld’s book has been before the public for over twenty years, and in the interim his opinions have necessarily changed on many points. He has promised a thoroughly revised second edition, which is demanded also by the excavation of additional theaters and by the publication of numerous special articles. But it is hardly likely that this promise will ever be redeemed. The only comfort is to be derived from the fact that, as works of major importance have appeared, Dörpfeld has promptly published critiques which have often been of such length as to furnish convenient restatements of his views. These more recent works in German, however, have attempted merely to force a modification of certain details in Dörpfeld’s position; they are in no wise calculated to serve as independent presentations of the whole matter or as a means of orientation for the uninitiated.

From the extensive bibliographical material which is available it is manifestly impossible to cite more than a fraction here. The outstanding books are Dörpfeld-Reisch, _Das griechische Theater_ (1896), defended against reviewers and partially modified in “Das griechische Theater Vitruvs,” _Athenische Mittheilungen_, XXII (1897), 439 ff., and XXIII (1898), 326 ff.; Puchstein, _Die griechische Bühne_ (1901), answered by Dörpfeld in _Athenische Mittheilungen_, XXVIII (1903), 383 ff.; and Fiechter, _Die baugeschichtliche Entwicklung des antiken Theaters_ (1914), summarized by its author and criticized by Dörpfeld in _Jahrbuch d. arch. Instituts, Anzeiger_, XXX (1915), 93 ff. and 96 ff., respectively. Other important publications are von Wilamowitz-Möllendorff, “Die Bühne des Aischylos,” _Hermes_, XXI (1886), 597 ff.; Todt, “Noch Einmal die Bühne des Aeschylos,” _Philologus_, XLVIII (1889), 505 ff.; Capps, “Vitruvius and the Greek Stage,” _University of Chicago Studies in Classical Philology_, I (1893), 3 ff.; Bethe, _Prolegomena zur Geschichte des Theaters im Alterthum_ (1896), and “Die hellenistischen Bühnen und ihre Decorationen,” _Jahrbuch d. arch. Instituts_, XV (1900), 59 ff. (answered by Dörpfeld in “Die vermeintliche Bühne des hellenistischen Theaters,” _ibid._, XVI [1901], 22 ff.); Petersen, “Nachlese in Athen: Das Theater des Dionysos,” _ibid._, XXIII (1908), 33 ff.; and Versakis, “Das Skenengebäude d. Dionysos-Theaters,” _ibid._, XXIV (1909), 194 ff., answered by Dörpfeld, _ibid._, pp. 224 ff. Still other titles will be cited as they are needed in the discussion. See also p. 221, below. For reports on the excavations of various theaters the reader should consult the bibliographical references given by Dörpfeld-Reisch and Fiechter in their footnotes.

[119] For a slight variability in the application of the word orchestra see p. 83 and nn. 1 and 2, below; see also p. 72, n. 3.

[120] Fig. 22 is specially drawn and does not exactly reproduce any single theatrical structure. Fig. 23 is taken, simplified and slightly altered, from Dörpfeld-Reisch, _Das griechische Theater_, Pl. VIII (_a_).

[121] Dörpfeld claims that the name was given because the speakers stood there in addressing the public assemblies and that the same place was known as the _theologium_ when used by divinities; cf. _Athenische Mittheilungen_, XXIII (1898), 348 f., and XXVIII (1903), 395, and _Jahrbuch d. arch. Instituts, Anzeiger_, XXX (1915), 98. Reisch thought that logium was the name of some kind of special structure in the orchestra; cf. _Das griechische Theater_, p. 302. Inscriptions prove the presence of a logium in the Delian theater in 279 B.C. (εἰς τὸ λογεῖον τῆς σκηνῆς) and 180 B.C. (τὴν κατασκευὴν τῶν πινάκων τῶν ἐπὶ τὸ λογεῖον); cf. Homolle, _Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique_, XVIII (1894), 162 and 165, and Robinson, _American Journal of Philology_, XXV (1904), 191; but they do not make its nature clear. Personally I am of the opinion that at Athens speakers always stood in the orchestra to address the public assemblies until the building of the Nero stage about 67 A.D.; cf. Flickinger, _Plutarch as a Source of Information on the Greek Theater_ (1904), p. 55, and see p. 102, below. My present view, therefore, is that logium suffered a change of meaning, being first applied to the top of the proscenium and being used for elevated action of various kinds, as explained in the text, and afterward being applied to the stage as the place of actors and public speakers. In either case, it referred to the same general part of the theater, viz., an elevated platform in front of the scene-building. But the original application of this term is one of the most perplexing problems in connection with scenic antiquities, and it is earnestly to be hoped that additional evidence may be brought to light which will unmistakably reveal its earlier history. The word does not appear in literature until Roman times (thrice in Plutarch), but then indisputably means “stage.” See next paragraph in text.

[122] “Theater” (θέατρον) is derived from θεᾶσθαι, to “see,” and was originally applied to the space occupied by the spectators. The wider meaning was a natural but later development. It is customary to employ the Latin term _cavea_ (“an excavated place”) to express the narrower meaning.

[123] Fig. 24 is taken from Wilberg’s drawing, simplified by the omission of numerous details, in _Forschungen in Ephesos_, II, Fig. 96. I am responsible for the addition of the names.

[124] That this platform (or rather its equivalent in purely Roman theaters) might be conventionally regarded as the roof of the scene-building appears from Seneca _Medea_, vs. 973 (Medea speaking): “excelsa nostrae tecta conscendam domus,” and vs. 995 (Jason speaking): “en ipsa tecti parte praecipiti imminet.”

[125] The word occurs only in Pollux, _Onomasticon_, IV, § 127.

[126] Dörpfeld applies the term to the first story of the purely Greek (stageless) theater (see p. 100, below).

[127] For a discussion of the technical terms from the traditional standpoint, cf. A. Müller, “Untersuchungen zu den Bühnenalterthümern,” _Philologus_, Supplementband, VII (1899), 3 ff. Many of the terms, notably σκηνή, have numerous secondary meanings; cf. Flickinger, _Plutarch as a Source of Information on the Greek Theater_, pp. 23 ff., and Scherling, _De Vocis_ Σκηνή, _Quantum ad Theatrum Graecum Pertinet, Significatione et Usu_ (1906). Thymele is sometimes extended in application so as to denote the whole orchestra; hence θυμελικός was sometimes applied to purely orchestral performers (or their performances) in contradistinction to those who came into more immediate relationship with the scene-building and who were in consequence known as σκηνικοί (see pp. 96 f., below).

[128] Fig. 25 is taken from a photograph by Professor D. M. Robinson.

[129] Figs. 26 f. are taken from photographs by Dr. A. S. Cooley; Fig. 28 from one by Professor D. M. Robinson.

[130] Fig. 1 is taken from a photograph furnished by Professor D. M. Robinson.

[131] Fig. 29 is specially drawn and is based upon several different drawings.

[132] Fig. 30 is taken from Wieseler’s _Theatergebäude und Denkmäler d. Bühnenwesens bei den Griechern und Römern_, Pl. I, Fig. 1, and is magnified two diameters as compared with the original coin. See also the medallion on the outside cover, which is reproduced from the _British Museum Catalogue of Greek Coins, Attica, Megaris, Aegina_, Pl. XIX, Fig. 8. Fig. 31 is from a photograph by Dr. A. S. Cooley.

[133] Fig. 32 is redrawn, with slight alterations, from Dörpfeld-Reisch, _Das griechische Theater_, Pl. II. The age of the different remains is indicated in colors in _ibid._, Pl. I.

[134] Cf. Photius, _s.v._ ἴκρια. τὰ ἐν τῇ ἀγορᾷ, ἀφ’ ὤν ἐθεῶντο τοὺς Διονυσιακοὺς αγῶνας πρὶν ἤ κατασκευασθῆναι τὸ ἐν Διονύσου θέατρον; likewise _s.v._ ληναῖον and ὀρχήστρα.

[135] Cf. Suidas, _s.v._ Πρατίνας ... ἀντηγωνίζετο δὲ Αὶσχύλῳ τε καὶ Χοιρίλῳ, ἐπὶ τῆς ἑβδομηκοστῆς Ὀλυμπιάδος, ... ἐπιδεικνυμένου δὲ τούτου συνέβη τὰ ἴκρια, ἐφ’ ὧν ἑστήκεσαν οἱ θεαταί πεσεῖν. καὶ ἐκ τούτου θέατρον ᾠκοδομήθη Ἀθηναίοις. It is also possible that the orchestra in the precinct of Dionysus is somewhat earlier than is maintained in the text, possibly going back to the vicinity of 534 B.C., and that it was the earlier and less substantial seats near it which collapsed _ca._ 499 B.C.

[136] Figs. 33 f. are taken from photographs by Dr. A. S. Cooley. The position of these stones is marked by B and C respectively in Fig. 32. Another arc of the same orchestral circle is indicated by a cutting in the native rock near the east parodus, A in Fig. 32.

[137] Fig. 32_a_ is taken from F. Noack, Σκηνὴ Τραγική, _eine Studie über die scenischen Anlage auf der Orchestra des Aischylos und der anderen Tragiker_ (1915), p. 3.

[138] Possibly the seats did not go back of this road at this period; they certainly did in the fourth century (Fig. 32).

[139] Cf. Dignan, _The Idle Actor in Aeschylus_ (1905), p. 13, n. 14.

[140] Or in the south half of the old orchestra in case the orchestra was moved fifty feet nearer the Acropolis at this time (see p. 68, below).

[141] Cf. Aristotle’s _Poetics_ 1449_a_18, and Vitruvius, _De Architectura_, VII, praefatio, § 11.

[142] Dörpfeld, following Reisch, is willing to accept a date as early as 421-415 B.C., cf. _Das griechische Theater_, pp. 21 f.

[143] Fig. 35 is taken from Fiechter, _op. cit._, Fig. 14.

[144] So Furtwängler, “Zum Dionysostheater in Athen,” _Sitzungsberichte d. bayer. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu München, philosophisch-philologische u. historische Classe_, 1901, p. 411; Puchstein, _op. cit._, pp. 137 ff.; E. A. Gardner, _Ancient Athens_, pp. 435 f. and 448; and Fiechter, _op. cit._, p. 11. Dörpfeld, on the contrary, would attribute these foundations to the Lycurgus theater in the next century; cf. _Das griechische Theater_, pp. 59 ff.

[145] Cf. Dörpfeld, “Das griechische Theater zu Pergamon,” _Athenische Mittheilungen_, XXXII (1907), 231; but differently in _Das griechische Theater_, pp. 61 ff.

[146] As in the Hellenistic theater (Fig. 38).

[147] Except possibly at Thoricus (see p. 103, below).

[148] Cf. pseudo-Plutarch _X Oratorum Vitae_, 841D and 852C.

[149] Cf. Dörpfeld, “Das Theater von Ephesos,” _Jahrbuch d. arch. Instituts, Anzeiger_, XXVIII (1913), 38.

[150] Dörpfeld, “Das Theater von Ephesos,” Jahrbuch d. arch. Instituts, Anzeiger, XXVIII (1913), 40 f.

[151] Fig. 38 is taken from Dörpfeld-Reisch, _Das griechische Theater_, Fig. 26.

[152] Cf. _ibid._, p. 63. This shift has been disputed by many but is defended by Fiechter, _op. cit._, pp. 9 ff.

[153] Cf. Dörpfeld, _Das griechische Theater_, p. 89.

[154] Cf. ibid., p. 89; _Athenische Mittheilungen_, XXII (1897), 459; XXIII (1898), 330 and 347; and XXVIII (1903), 414. For the Graeco-Roman stage see pp. 80 ff. and 110 f., below.

[155] Fig. 39 is from a photograph taken by Dr. Lewis L. Forman and furnished by Dr. A. S. Cooley. Owing to its change of function, in Roman times the orchestra was sometimes known as the κονίστρα (= the Latin _arena_); owing to its change of shape, it was sometimes called σῖγμα from its resemblance to the semicircular form of the Greek letter Ϲ.

[156] Fig. 40 is taken from Dörpfeld-Reisch, _Das griechische Theater_, Fig. 32.

[157] Fig. 41 is from a photograph belonging to Northwestern University; the stone steps at the left and another slab at the right do not appear in this view (see Fig. 39). For the latest interpretation and drawing of the frieze, cf. Cook, _Zeus_, I, 708 ff., and the pocket at end of his volume.

[158] Fig. 42 is taken from _Athenische Mittheilungen_, XXII (1897), 452.

[159] Vitruvius, of course, speaks of Roman feet, which are equal to 11.65 English inches.

[160] Fig. 43 is taken from _Athenische Mittheilungen_, XXII (1897), 453. This drawing differs somewhat from that given in _Das griechische Theater_, Fig. 66, which was prepared while Dörpfeld was still of the opinion that Vitruvius was describing the Hellenistic theater and had misapprehended the function of its proscenium (see p. 81, below). He now includes the proscenium at the back of the stage in the _scaenae frons_.

[161] Whatever _scaena_ may mean in Latin, _in scaena_ in this context is at least equivalent to “on the stage.”

[162] Cf. p. 61, n. 2, above and pp. 96 f., below.

[163] Cf. Pollux _Onomasticon_ iv, § 123: καὶ σκηνὴ μὲν ὑποκριτῶν ἴδιον, ἡ δὲ ὀρχήστρα τοῦ χοροῦ.

[164] Cf. _ibid._, iv, § 127: εἰσελθόντες δὲ κατὰ τὴν ὀρχήστραν ἐπὶ τὴν σκηνὴν ἀναβαίνουσι διὰ κλιμάκων.

[165] Dörpfeld’s views were first given general publicity in the Appendix to Müller’s _Lehrbuch der griechischen Bühnenalterthümern_ (1886), pp. 415 f., but were not published in full until 1896. They have suffered modification in several material points since then.

[166] Cf. _De Architectura_ v. 8, 2: “ita his praescriptionibus qui voluerit uti, emendatas efficiet theatrorum perfectiones.”

[167] This is now Dörpfeld’s name for what he at first called the Asia Minor type; cf. _Athenische Mittheilungen_, XXVIII (1903), 389 and 414. The latter term was unfortunate as suggesting a geographical restriction which had no basis in fact.

[168] Cf. Plutarch _Life of Pompey_, c. xlii.

[169] It is significant that Vitruvius seems to have depended upon Asia Minor rather than the Greek mainland for his knowledge of Greek architecture; cf. Noack, “Das Proscenion in der Theaterfrage,” _Philologus_, LVIII (1899), 16 ff.

[170] Cf. _Athenische Mittheilungen_, XXII (1897), 439 ff.

[171] Cf. _Athenische Mittheilungen_, XXII (1897), 443, 449 f., and 454, and Fiechter, _op. cit._, pp. 59 ff.

[172] It is easy to see why he should do so. When Hellenistic theaters were made over into Graeco-Roman structures, several rows of seats were often removed, resulting in a drop of several feet between the auditorium and the orchestra (see p. 116, below, and Fig. 24). So distinct a line of demarcation could scarcely be ignored in favor of any less clearly marked boundary. In fact, the orchestra in the narrowest sense (see next note) was sometimes not indicated at all in the Graeco-Roman theaters.

[173] The word is applied also to a still more restricted space which in some Graeco-Roman and most earlier theaters is marked off by a circular boundary.

[174] Of course, Dörpfeld and Fiechter cite only a fraction of the instances available (others are given in Puchstein’s table, _op. cit._, p. 7), but it is to be inferred that they bring forward those which are most favorable to their own position and most difficult for their opponents to explain. For example, the proscenium of the Hellenistic theater in Athens was about thirteen feet (English) high, which exceeds Vitruvius’ maximum. Consequently Fiechter says nothing about it. In general, the Hellenistic proscenia were higher than the Graeco-Roman stages.

[175] Doubtless for the reason that in the pitlike Graeco-Roman orchestra the smaller circle really was not needed and often was not indicated (see p. 83, n. 1).

[176] Cf. Dörpfeld, _Athenische Mittheilungen_, XXVIII (1903), 403 and 405.

[177] Cf. Bethe, _Jahrbuch d. arch. Instituts_, XV (1900), 71 f., and Dörpfeld, _ibid._, XVI (1901), 35 f.

[178] Cf. _Athenische Mittheilungen_, XXVIII (1903), 424 ff. The arguments advanced in this article are reaffirmed as still valid in _Jahrbuch d. arch. Instituts, Anzeiger_, XXX (1915), 99 ff.

[179] Cf. _Hermes_, XXI (1886), 603.

[180] Cf. “The Greek Stage According to the Extant Dramas,” _Transactions of the American Philological Association_, XXII (1891), 5 ff. Similar results were obtained by White, “The ‘Stage’ in Aristophanes,” _Harvard Studies_, II (1891), 159 ff.

[181] Fig. 45 is from a photograph belonging to the University of Chicago. The inscription beneath the seat reads: “Of the priest of Dionysus Eleuthereus.”

[182] Cf. scholium on vs. 299 of the _Frogs_: ἀποροῦσι δέ τινες πῶς ἀπὸ τοῦ λογείου περιελθὼν καὶ κρυφθεὶς ὄπισθεν τοῦ ἱερέως τοῦτο λέγει. φαίνονται δὲ οὐκ εἶναι ἐπὶ τοῦ λογείου ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ τῆς ὀρχήστρας.

[183] Cf. Graeber, _De Poetarum Atticorum Arte Scaenica_ (1911), p. 4.

[184] Cf. Rees, “The Function of the Πρόθυρον in the Production of Greek Plays,” _Classical Philology_, X (1915), 128 and n. 2. For other interpretations consistent with a stageless theater, cf. White, _Harvard Studies_, II (1891), 164 ff., and Capps, _Transactions of the American Philological Association_, XXII (1891), 64 ff. A convenient summary from the pro-stage point of view may be found in Haigh, _The Attic Theatre³_, pp. 166 f.

[185] Cf. Aristotle’s _Poetics_ 1456_a_29, and see pp. 144 ff., below.

[186] Cf. White, _op. cit._, p. 167, note, and Robert, “Zur Theaterfrage,” _Hermes_, XXXII (1897), 447.

[187] See pp. 99, 116 f., 134 f., and 144-49, below. Cf. Capps, “The Chorus in the Later Greek Drama,” _American Journal of Archaeology_, X (1895), 287 ff.; Körte, “Das Fortleben des Chors im griechischen Drama,” _N. Jahrbücher f. kl. Altertum_, V (1900), 81 ff.; Flickinger, “ΧΟΡΟΥ in Terence’s _Heauton_ and Agathon’s ΕΜΒΟΛΙΜΑ,” _Classical Philology_, VII (1912), 24 ff.; and Duckett, _Studies in Ennius_ (1915), pp. 53 ff.

[188] See p. 147, below, and cf. Graf, _Szenische Untersuchungen zu Menander_ (1914), p. 14. The same motive appears also in the fifth century, in Euripides’ _Phoenician Maids_, vss. 192 ff., and _Phaethon_ (Nauck, _Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta_, p. 602, fr. 773, vss. 10 ff.); cf. Fraenkel, _De Media et Nova Comoedia_ (1912), p. 71, and Harms, _De Introitu Personarum in Euripidis et Novae Comoediae Fabulis_ (1914), p. 60; see p. 282, below.

[189] The former phrase occurs in Aristotle’s _Poetics_ 1453_a_27, 1455_a_28, 1459_b_25, and 1460_a_15, and Demosthenes xix, p. 449, § 337; the latter in Aristotle’s (?) _Poetics_ 1452_b_18 and 25, Aristotle’s _Problems_ 918_b_26, 920_a_9, and 922_b_17, and Demosthenes xviii, p. 288, § 180. Cf. Richards, _Classical Review_, V (1891), 97, and XVIII (1904), 179, and Flickinger, “The Meaning of ἐπὶ τῆς σκηνῆς in Writers of the Fourth Century,” _University of Chicago Decennial Publications_, VI (1902), 11 ff., and “Scaenica,” _Transactions of the American Philological Association_, XL (1909), 109 ff.

[190] Cf. Athenaeus, p. 211 B.

[191] Cf. Diodorus Siculus xi. 10, Plutarch _Life of Brutus_, c. xlv, and _Life of Demetrius_, c. xxxii, and Lucian (?), _Lucius sive Asinus_, § 47.

[192] Cf. _American Journal of Philology_, XVIII (1897), 120.

[193] Cf. Aristotle’s _Poetics_ 1460_a_11-17.

[194] Cf. Aristotle (?) _Poetics_ 1452_b_24 f.

[195] Cf. Clemens Alexandrinus (Potter), p. 688, and Vitruvius viii, praefatio § 1. Incidentally it may be remarked that Euripides’ philosophizing and personal views are found in his choral odes no less than in the histrionic parts of his plays (see p. 140, below).

[196] Cf. Frei, _De Certaminibus Thymelicis_ (1900), pp. 14 and 15. The dissertation provoked a controversy between Bethe and Dörpfeld; cf. Bethe, “Thymeliker und Skeniker,” _Hermes_, XXXVI (1901), 597 ff., and Dörpfeld, “Thymele und Skene,” _ibid._, XXXVII (1902), 249 ff. and 483 ff.

[197] Cf. _Athenische Mittheilungen_, XXVIII (1903), 420 f.

[198] The Greek text has already been quoted on p. 78, nn. 1 and 2.

[199] Cf. _Clouds_, vss. 1486 ff. A somewhat similar use of ladders is mentioned in Euripides’ _Bacchanals_, vss. 1212 ff.

[200] Cf. Pollux iv. 124: τὸ δὲ ὑποσκήνιον κίοσι καὶ ἀγαλματίοις κεκόσμηται πρὸς τὸ θέατρον τετραμμένοις, ὑπὸ τὸ λογεῖον κείμενον.

[201] Also, the front wall of this room, just as σκηνή is not only the scene-building as a whole but also its front wall; cf. Flickinger, _Plutarch as a Source of Information on the Greek Theater_, pp. 43 f.

[202] Cf. _Athenische Mittheilungen_, XXVIII (1903), 418 ff.

[203] Robert would emend the text so that the statement would explain the proscenium instead of the hyposcenium; cf. _Hermes_, XXXII (1897), 448. In that case ὑπό must mean “behind,” a possible meaning, and Pollux would be speaking of the proscenium in a theater with a stage. Pollux includes the proscenium in his catalogue of theater parts (see pp. 97 f., above), but does not define it.

[204] Cf. Plutarch _Life of Lycurgus_, c. vi, and Flickinger, _Plutarch as a Source of Information on the Greek Theater_ (1904), p. 52.

[205] Cf. Plutarch _Life of Demetrius_, c. xxxiv.

[206] Cf. Plutarch _Praecepta Gerendae Reipublicae_ 823B, and see p. 59, n. 1, above.

[207] Cf. Plutarch’s _Life of Aratus_, c. xxiii: ἐπιστήσας δὲ ταῖς παρόδοις τοὺς Ἀχαιοὺς αὐτὸς ἀπὸ τῆς σκηνῆς εἰς τὸ μέσον προῆλθε. For other interpretations, cf. Robert, _Hermes_, XXXII (1897), 448 ff.; Müller, _Philologus_, Supplementband, VII (1899), 52 f. and 90 f.; Dörpfeld, _Athenische Mittheilungen_, XXVIII (1903), 421 ff., etc.

[208] A convenient chronological table of the extant theaters is given by Fiechter, _op. cit._, pp. 24-27.

[209] Fig. 46 is taken from Dörpfeld-Reisch, _Das griechische Theater_, Fig. 50. Figs. 47-52 are from photographs by Dr. A. S. Cooley.

[210] Figs. 53-54 are redrawn from Dörpfeld-Reisch, _Das griechische Theater_, Figs. 44-45, respectively; Fig. 55 is from a photograph by Dr. A. S. Cooley.

[211] Cf. Pollux _Onomasticon_ iv, § 132: αἱ Χαρώνιοι κλίμακες.

[212] Cf. Fossum in _American Journal of Archaeology_, II (1898), 187 ff. and Pl. IV; see p. 288, n. 2, below.

[213] A convenient series of excerpts from the Delian inscriptions is given by Haigh, _The Attic Theatre³_, pp. 379 ff.

[214] Fig. 56 is taken from Dörpfeld-Reisch, _Das griechische Theater_, Fig. 35; and Fig. 57 is from a photograph of the German Archaeological Institute at Athens.

[215] ... ἀγω] νοθετήσας τὸ προσκήνιον καὶ τοὺς πίν[ακας, and ... ἱερεὺ]ς γενόμενος ⸺ τὴν σκηνὴν καὶ τὰ θυρώμ[ατα τῷ Ἀμ]φιαράῳ. For the functions of an agonothete, see pp. 271 f., below. For the θυρώματα, cf. Dörpfeld in _Athenische Mittheilungen_, XXVIII (1903), 394, and _Jahrbuch d. arch. Instituts, Anzeiger_, XXX (1915), 102; wrongly interpreted in _Das griechische Theater_, p. 109.

[216] Fig. 58 is taken from _Athenische Mittheilungen_, XXII (1897), Pl. X.

[217] Cf. Dörpfeld in _Athenische Mittheilungen_, XXII (1897), 458, and XXVIII (1903), 429.

[218] Fig. 59 is taken from Niemann’s drawing in _Forschungen in Ephesos_, II, Pl. VIII; and Figs. 60-62 are from drawings by Wilberg, _ibid._, Figs. 5, 56, and 57, respectively. Cf. also Dörpfeld, “Das Theater von Ephesos,” _Jahrbuch d. arch. Instituts, Anzeiger_, XXVIII (1913), 37 ff.

[219] Fig. 63 is redrawn from _Athenische Mittheilungen_, XXIII (1898), Pl. XI; the cross-hatched walls belong to the Graeco-Roman rebuilding. Fig. 64 is from a photograph taken by Professor C. P. Bill and furnished by Dr. A. S. Cooley.

[220] Cf. Dörpfeld, in _Athenische Mittheilungen_, XXII (1897), 456 ff.

[221] Cf. Dörpfeld, _ibid._, XXII (1897), 458 f.; XXIII (1898), 337; and XXVIII (1903), 426.

[222] Cf. Duckett, _Studies in Ennius_ (1915), p. 70.

[223] Cf. the works mentioned on pp. xvii and xx f., above. There is no special literature on this subject.

[224] Cf. chaps. iv and ix and the bibliographies on pp. 196 and 318, below.

[225] A drachma contained six obols and was worth about eighteen cents without making allowance for the greater purchase value of money in antiquity.

[226] Cf. Haigh, _The Attic Theatre_ (3d ed. by Pickard-Cambridge, 1907), p. 1.

[227] The affirmative side of the question is presented by Haigh, _op. cit._, pp. 324 ff.; the negative by Rogers, Introduction to Aristophanes’ _Women in Council_ (1902), pp. xxix ff.

[228] Cf. Frickenhaus, “Der Schiffskarren des Dionysos in Athen,” _Jahrbuch d. arch. Instituts_, XXVII (1912), 61 ff. Fig. 65 originally appeared as Beilage I, Fig. 3, in connection with this article. It is taken from a drawing by Signor G. Gatti, a photograph of which was furnished me through the courtesy of Professor Ghisardini, Director of the Museo Civico at Bologna.

[229] Cf. Plautus’ _The Casket_, vss. 89 f.:

per Dionysia
mater pompam me spectatum duxit,

and vss. 156 ff.:

fuere Sicyoni iam diu Dionysia.
mercator venit huc ad ludos Lemnius,
isque hic compressit virginem, adulescentulus,
<vi>, vinulentus, multa nocte, in via.

For the differences between Old Comedy, Middle Comedy, and New Comedy, see p. 39, above.

[230] Cf. his Preface to _Bajazet_.

[231] Cf. Ribbeck, _Rheinisches Museum_, XXX (1875), 145.

[232] Cf. Aristotle’s _Poetics_ 1456_a_6 and 1453_a_19.

[233] Cf. _ibid._, 1451_b_25.

[234] Cf. _Oxyrhynchus Papyri_, IX (1912), 30 ff.

[235] For still further developments in the history of satyric drama see pp. 198 f., below.

[236] Cf. Kock, _Comicorum Atticorum Fragmenta_, II, 90, fr. 191.

[237] Cf. Freytag’s _Technique of the Drama²_, translated by MacEwan, p. 75, and Hense, _Die Modificirung der Maske in der griechischen Tragödie²_ (1905), pp. 2 f.

[238] Cf. Lounsbury, _Shakespeare as a Dramatic Artist_ (1902), p. 175 (italics mine).

[239] Cf. _ibid._, p. 204. The passages referred to are Sophocles’ _Philoctetes_, vss. 38 f., 649 f., and 696-99, and _Antigone_, vss. 1016-22 and 1080-83. The expressions employed in the Greek could be seriously objected to only by the most fastidious.

[240] Cf. Haigh, _The Attic Theatre³_, p. 2.

[241] Cf. argument, _Demosthenes’ Against Midias_, §§ 2 f.

[242] In addition to the works mentioned on pp. xvii and xx f., above, cf. Decharme, _Euripides and the Spirit of His Dramas_ (1892), translated by Loeb (1906); Capps “The Chorus in the Later Greek Drama,” _American Journal of Archaeology_, X (1895), 287 ff.; Helmreich, _Der Chor bei Sophokles und Euripides_ (1905); A. Körte, “Das Fortleben des Chors im gr. Drama,” _N. Jahrb. f. d. kl. Altertum_, V (1900), 81 ff.; Flickinger, “ΧΟΡΟΥ in Terence’s _Heauton_, The Shifting of Choral Rôles in Menander, and Agathon’s ἘΜΒΟΛΙΜΑ,” _Classical Philology_, VII (1912), 24 ff.; Stephenson, _Some Aspects of the Dramatic Art of Aeschylus_ (1913); Fries, _De Conexu Chori Personae cum Fabulae Actione_ (1913); and Duckett, _Studies in Eunius_ (1915).

[243] Nevertheless, it has been ignored by certain recent writers on the origin of tragedy, cf. _Classical Philology_, VIII (1913), 283.

[244] Whether the satyric chorus was increased at the same time is unknown. In Fig. 4, which represents a satyric drama of about 400 B.C., not more than twelve choreutae are represented.

[245] For the differences between sileni and satyrs and for their appearance on the stage, see pp. 24-32.

[246] Cf. the scholia to Sophocles’ _Ajax_, vs. 134, to Euripides’ _Phoenician Maids_, vs. 202, etc.

[247] _Conversations with Eckermann_, July 5, 1827 (Oxenford’s translation).

[248] Cf. Graeber, _De Poetarum Atticorum Arte Scaenica_ (1911), pp. 56 ff.

[249] Cf. Flickinger, _op. cit._, pp. 28 ff.

[250] Cf. Aristotle’s _Poetics_, 1456_a_26 ff.

[251] Cf. _Philologus_, LXX (1911), 497 f.

[252] Cf. _Revue des Études anciennes_, XIII (1911), 273.

[253] In the Jernstedt fragment; cf. Capps, _Four Plays of Menander_, pp. 98 f.

[254] Cf. Kock, _Comicorum Atticorum Fragmenta_, II, 333 f., fr. 107.

[255] Cf. Verrall, _Euripides the Rationalist_, p. 219, note.

[256] Cf. Archer, _Play-making_, p. 142.

[257] Cf. _The Origin of Attic Comedy_, p. 107.

[258] Cf. _Zur Dramaturgie des Äschylus_ (1892), p. 135.

[259] Cf. Euripides’ _Helen_, vs. 184, and _Medea_, vss. 131 ff.

[260] Cf. Euripides’ _Hecabe_, vs. 105, and _Electra_, vss. 168 ff.

[261] Cf. Sophocles’ _Maidens of Trachis_, vs. 103, and _Ajax_, vs. 143, Euripides’ _Hippolytus_, vss. 129 ff., etc.

[262] Cf. Sophocles’ _Oedipus the King_, vs. 144, and _Antigone_, vss. 164 f., Euripides’ _Trojan Women_, vss. 143-45, Aristophanes’ _Clouds_, vs. 269, _Peace_, vss. 296 ff., _Birds_, vss. 310 f., and _Plutus_, vs. 255, etc.

[263] Cf. Verrall’s edition of Euripides’ _Ion_ (1890), p. lx.

[264] Cf. p. 89 of his edition (1896).

[265] Cf. John Dennis, _The Impartial Critick_ (1693).

[266] Cf. Tovey, _Letters of Thomas Gray_, II, 293 f.

[267] Cf. Dennis, _op. cit._

[268] _Four Plays of Euripides_ (1905), pp. 125-30.

[269] Cf. Murray, _Euripides and His Age_ (1913), p. 238.

[270] _Thucydides Mythistoricus_ (1907), p. 147 (italics mine).

[271] In addition to the works mentioned on pp. xvii and xx f., above, cf. Detscheff, _De Tragoediarum Graecarum Conformatione Scaenica ac Dramatica_ (1904); Rees, “The Meaning of Parachoregema,” _Classical Philology_, II (1907), 387 ff.; _The So-called Rule of Three Actors in the Classical Greek Drama_ (1908); “The Number of the Dramatic Company in the Period of the Technitae,” _American Journal of Philology_, XXXI (1910), 43 ff., and “The Three Actor Rule in Menander,” _Classical Philology_, V (1910), 291 ff.; O’Connor, _Chapters in the History of Actors and Acting in Ancient Greece_ (1908); Leo, _Der Monolog im Drama_ (1908), and _Plautinische Forschungen²_ (1912), pp. 226 ff.; Listmann, _Die Technik des Dreigesprächs in der griechischen Tragödie_ (1910); Kaffenberger, _Das Dreischauspielergesetz in der griechischen Tragödie_ (1911); Foster, _The Divisions in the Plays of Plautus and Terence_ (1913); Stephenson, _Some Aspects of the Dramatic Art of Aeschylus_ (1913); Graf, _Szensiche Untersuchungen zu Menander_ (1914); and Conrad, _The Technique of Continuous Action in Roman Comedy_ (1915), reviewed by Flickinger in _Classical Weekly_, X (1917), 147 ff.

Fig. 66 is taken from Baumeister’s _Denkmäler_, Fig. 1637. The apparent height of the tragic actors is said to have been increased by means of the ὄγκος projecting above the head and of thick-soled boots (κόθορνοι), both represented in Fig. 66. The employment of such paraphernalia rests upon late evidence, however, and has been disputed for fifth-century tragedy; cf. for example Smith, “The Use of the High-soled Shoe or Buskin in Greek Tragedy of the Fifth or Fourth Centuries B.C.,” _Harvard Studies_, XVI (1905), 123 ff. For the costumes of comic actors, see pp. 46 f., above.

[272] Cf. Capps, “The Introduction of Comedy into the City Dionysia,” _University of Chicago Decennial Publications_, VI, 269, n. 37.

[273] Cf. Tanner, _Transactions of American Philological Association_, XLVI (1915), 185-87. For Sophocles, cf. Jebb’s _Electra_, p. lvii.

[274] Cf. Rees, _Classical Philology_, V (1910), 291 ff., and Kaffenberger, _op. cit._, p. 10.

[275] Cf. C. F. Hermann, _De Distributione Personarum inter Histriones in Tragoediis Graecis_ (1840), pp. 32-34.

[276] Cf. Prescott, “Three Puer-Scenes in Plautus and the Distribution of Rôles,” _Harvard Studies_, XXI (1910), 44. It ought to be added that some authorities deny that Prometheus was represented by a dummy, believing that this tragedy belonged to the three-actor period (see further, p. 228, below).

[277] Cf. Lewes, _Life of Goethe²_, p. 424.

[278] Cf. _Four Plays of Euripides_ (1905), pp. 1 ff.

[279] Cf. the scholium on vs. 93.

[280] Cf. Devrient, _Das Kind auf der antiken Bühne_ (1904).

[281] Cf. _Oxyrhynchus Papyri_, VI (1908), 69.

[282] Cf. Rees, _American Journal of Philology_, XXXI (1910), 43 ff.

[283] Cf. Horace _Ars Poetica_, vs. 192; see also p. 53, n. 1, above.

[284] Cf. Leo, _Rheinisches Museum für Philologie_, LII (1897), 513.

[285] Cf. Seneca’s _Agamemnon_, vss. 981 ff.

[286] Cf. Lounsbury, _Shakespeare as a Dramatic Artist_, pp. 111 f.

[287] Cf. U. von Wilamowitz-Möllendorff, _Herakles²_, I, 119, note, and Euripides _Alcestis_, vss. 393 ff.

[288] Cf. Aristotle’s _Rhetoric_ 1403_b_33, quoted as the motto of this chapter.

[289] Cf. _Play-making_, p. 129.

[290] Cf. _The So-called Rule of Three Actors in the Classical Greek Drama_, pp. 45-60.

[291] In addition to the works mentioned on pp. xvii and xx f., above, cf. A. T. Murray, _On Parody and Paratragoedia in Aristophanes_ (1891); Mazon, “Sur le Proagôn,” _Revue de Philologie_, XXVII (1903), 263 ff.; Rees, “The Significance of the Parodoi in the Greek Theater,” _American Journal of Philology_, XXXII (1911), 377 ff.; Graeber, _De Poetarum Atticorum Arte Scaenica_ (1911); Robert, _Die Masken der neueren attischen Komödie_ (1911); and the bibliography listed on p. 318, below.

[292] Cf. _Acharnians_, vss. 501 ff., Starkie’s edition, excursus V, and Croiset, _Aristophanes and the Political Parties at Athens_, pp. 42 ff. (Loeb’s translation).

[293] Cf. Demosthenes’ _Against Midias_, § 74.

[294] It probably began upon the tenth day of Elaphebolion (cf. Adams, _Transactions of American Philological Association_, XLI [1910], 60 ff.) and closed on the fifteenth.

[295] Cf. the Introduction to Hayley’s edition, pp. xxiii ff.

[296] Cf. Capps, in _Classical Philology_, I (1906), 219, note on l. 5, and Wilhelm, _Urkunden dramatischer Aufführungen in Athen_, pp. 195 ff.

[297] Cf. _The Theory of the Theater_, p. 118.

[298] Cf. his _Aristotle on the Art of Poetry_, pp. 48 f.

[299] Cf. Dryden, _Dramatic Essays_ (Everyman’s Library edition), p. 20.

[300] Cf. Philostratus, _Apollonius of Tyana_, p. 245.

[301] Cf. note on vs. 38 in Tucker’s edition.

[302] Cf. note on these lines in Starkie’s edition, and Murray, _op. cit._, p. 30.

[303] Figs. 68 f. are taken from Robert, _op. cit._, Figs. 55 and 77, respectively.

[304] Cf. _Laws_ 659A-C.

[305] See pp. xvii f. above, and cf. Bartsch, _Entwickelung des Charakters der Medea in der Tragödie des Euripides_ (Breslau, 1852), p. 24. For the Boeotian version of the incident in Euripides’ _Suppliants_, cf. Pausanias i. 39. 2.

[306] There is a tradition that this play was not produced in Athens, and some maintain that it was first played at Argos. In that case, in addition to appealing to the convictions of the pro-Athenian, anti-Spartan party in Argos, there must also have been the political motive of gaining converts for that party.

[307] Cf. _Lectures on Dramatic Art and Literature_, translated by Black and Morrison, p. 38.

[308] In addition to the works mentioned on pp. xvii and xx f., above, and the bibliography listed on pp. 57-59, above, cf. Hense, _Die Modificirung der Maske in der griechischen Tragödie²_ (1905); Dignan, _The Idle Actor in Aeschylus_ (1905); Flickinger, “Scaenica,” _Transactions of the American Philological Association_, XL (1909), 109 ff.; Robert, _Die Masken der neueren attischen Komödie_ (1911); Rees, “The Significance of the Parodoi in the Greek Theater,” _American Journal of Philology_, XXXII (1911), 377 ff., and “The Function of the Πρόθυρον in the Production of Greek Plays,” _Classical Philology_, X (1915), 117 ff.; Harms, _De Introitu Personarum in Euripidis et Novae Comoediae Fabulis_ (1914); Mooney, _The House-Door on the Ancient Stage_ (1914); and Rambo, “The Wing-Entrances in Roman Comedy,” _Classical Philology_, X (1915), 411 ff.

[309] Cf. Craig, _On the Art of the Theatre_ (1911), pp. 13 and 54 ff., and Cornford, _Thucydides Mythistoricus_ (1907), p. 142, n. 2.

[310] Fig. 70 is taken from Dörpfeld-Reisch, _Das griechische Theater_, Fig. 43; Fig. 71 is from a photograph taken by Professor L. L. Forman and furnished by Dr. A. S. Cooley.

[311] Cf. _Three Plays for Puritans_, p. xxxvi.

[312] Fig. 72 is taken from Puchstein, _Die griechische Bühne_, Fig. 3.

[313] Cf. Ridgeway, _Dramas and Dramatic Dances of Non-European Races_, p. 83.

[314] Fig. 73 is taken from Baumeister, _Denkmäler_, Fig. 980. Within the prothyron are the king of Corinth and his daughter, Jason’s second wife. The latter is being assisted by her brother. In front lies an opened box which contained the poisoned gifts. From the other side the queen comes rushing. In the foreground is Medea slaying one of her children, while a youth tries to rescue the other. In the center is Oistros, the demon of madness, mounted upon a dragon chariot. Further on Jason is hastening to aid his boys, and on the extreme right is the ghost of Aeetes, Medea’s father. The design is apparently not based upon Euripides’ _Medea_. Cf. Earle’s edition, pp. 60 f.

[315] Cf. _Discours des trois unités_, I, 119 (Regnier’s edition; 1862).

[316] Cf. Legrand, _The New Greek Comedy_, pp. 356 f., Loeb’s translation.

[317] For another interpretation cf. Mooney, _op. cit._, p. 19 and n. 13.

[318] The _Ajax_ is one of the earliest among Sophocles’ extant plays, but its exact date is not known. I have assumed that it preceded the introduction of a proscenium about 430 B.C. (see p. 235, above). If it was written after that innovation, the statement in the text would have to be altered accordingly, but the general method of procedure remains the same in either case.

[319] Cf. Jebb, _The Attic Orators_, Vol. I, p. ciii.

[320] In addition to the works mentioned on pp. xvii and xx f. and the bibliography listed on pp. 57-59, above, cf. Campbell, _Classical Review_, IV (1890), 303 ff.; Verrall in his edition of Euripides’ _Ion_ (1890), pp. xlviii ff.; Krause, _Quaestiones Aristophaneae Scaenicae_ (1903); Kent, “The Time Element in the Greek Drama,” _Transactions of the American Philological Association_, XXXVII (1906), 39 ff.; Felsch, _Quibus Artificiis Adhibitis Poetae Tragici Graeci Unitates Illas et Temporis et Loci Observaverint_ (1907); Polczyk, _De Unitatibus et Loci et Temporis in Nova Comoedia Observatis_ (1909); Marek, _De Temporis et Loci Unitatibus a Seneca Tragico Observatis_ (1909); Wolf, _Die Bezeichnung von Ort und Zeit in der attischen Tragödie_ (1911); Butcher, _Aristotle’s Theory of Poetry and Fine Art⁴_ (1911), pp. 274 ff.; Brasse, _Quatenus in Fabulis Plautinis et Loci et Temporis Unitatibus Species Veritatis Neglegatur_ (1914); and Manning, _A Study of Archaism in Euripides_ (1916).

[321] ΧΟΡΟΥ is printed at this point in most editions but occurs in no manuscript (see p. 145, above); it has been inserted by the editors.

[322] Cf. Scott, _Classical Philology_, VIII (1913), 453 ff.

[323] Πάλαι in vs. 587 is entirely subjective; cf. Conrad, _The Technique of Continuous Action in Roman Comedy_ (1915), pp. 22 ff.

[324] For example, the slips which occur in Aristophanes’ _Lysistrata_ (vss. 725 and 881).

[325] Cf. _Discours des trois unités_, I, 113 f. (Regnier’s edition), quoted by Butcher, _op. cit._, pp. 294 f.

[326] Cf. the introduction to his edition of the _Agamemnon_, and _Four Plays of Euripides_, pp. 1-42.

[327] Cf. _Dramatic Essays_ (Everyman’s Library edition), p. 18.

[328] Cf. _Poetics_ 1449_b_12-14.

[329] Cf. England’s edition of Euripides’ _Iphigenia at Aulis_, p. xxvii.

[330] Cf. _The Bookman_, XXX (1909), 37.

[331] Cf. Archer, _Play-making_, pp. 123 f.

[332] Cf. _Poetics_ 1450_a_38 f.

[333] Cf. _Poetics_ 1450_b_22-35.

[334] Cf. _The Old English Dramatists_, III.

[335] Cf. _Poetics_ 1451_a_15-22.

[336] Cf. _Technique of the Drama_, MacEwan’s translation², pp. 30 ff.

[337] Cf. _Shakespeare as a Dramatic Artist_ (1902), pp. 150 f.

[338] Cf. _Poetics_ 1459_b_22-28.

[339] Cf. _op. cit._, p. 92.

[340] Cf. _Dramatic Essays_ (Everyman’s Library edition), pp. 12 f.

[341] Cf. _Poetics_ 1454_a_31 ff.

[342] Cf. _Thucydides Mythistoricus_ (1907), p. 146.

[343] In addition to the works mentioned on pp. xvii and xx f., above, cf. Petersen, _Preisrichter der grossen Dionysien_ (1878); Hayley, “Social and Domestic Position of Women in Aristophanes,” _Harvard Studies_, I (1890), 159 ff.; Lounsbury, _Shakespeare as a Dramatic Artist_ (1902); Goodwin’s edition of Demosthenes’ _Against Midias_, Appendix IV (1906); Capps, “Epigraphical Problems in the History of Attic Comedy,” _American Journal of Philology_, XXVIII (1907), 179 ff.; Legrand, _Daos; Tableau de la comédie grecque pendant la période dite nouvelle_ (1910), translated by Loeb in 1917 under the title _The New Greek Comedy_; Sheppard, _Greek Tragedy_ (1911); and Ruppel, _Konzeption und Ausarbeitung der aristophanischen Komödien_ (1913).

[344] A mina was equivalent to one hundred drachmae and was worth about $18, though allowance must be made for the greater purchase value of money in those days.

[345] Cf. Lysias xxi, §§ 1-5.

[346] Cf. his _Life of Nicias_, III.

[347] Cf. Aristotle, _Constitution of Athens_, c. 56.

[348] Cf. Kock, _Comicorum Atticorum Fragmenta_, I, 16, fr. 15 (Cratinus).

[349] Cf. Sheppard, _op. cit._, p. 58.

[350] Cf. Legrand, _op. cit._, pp. 312-15 and 455 f.

[351] Cf. Prescott in _Classical Philology_, XI (1916), 132.

[352] Cf. Hall, _The Ancient History of the Near East²_ (1913), p. 48.

[353] Cf. Albright, _The Shakesperian Stage_ (1909), pp. 148 f.

[354] In addition to the works mentioned on pp. xvii and xx f., above, cf. Thirlwall, “On the Irony of Sophocles,”_Philological Museum_, II (1833), 483 ff.; Neckel, _Das Ekkyklema_ (1890); Trautwein, _De Prologorum Plautinorum Indole atque Natura_ (1890); Dörpfeld-Reisch, _Das griechische Theater_ (1896), pp. 234 ff.; Bethe, _Prolegomena zur Geschichte des Theaters im Alterthum_ (1896), pp. 100 ff.; Exon, “A New Theory of the Eccyclema,” _Hermathena_, XI (1901), 132 ff.; Leo, _Der Monolog im Drama, ein Beitrag zur griechisch-römischen Poetik_ (1908); Polczyk, _De Unitatibus et Loci et Temporis in Nova Comoedia Observatis_ (1909); Flickinger, “Dramatic Irony in Terence,” _Classical Weekly_, III (1910), 202 ff.; Arnold, _The Soliloquies of Shakespeare_ (1911); Fensterbusch, _Die Bühne des Aristophanes_ (1912), pp. 51 ff.; Harms, _De Introitu Personarum in Euripidis et Novae Comoediae Fabulis_ (1914); and Rees, “The Function of the Πρόθυροv in the Production of Greek Plays,” _Classical Philology_, X (1915), 134 ff.

[355] Cf. scholia to Aeschylus’ _Eumenides_, vs. 64, Aristophanes’ _Acharnians_, vs. 408 and _Clouds_, vs. 184, and Clemens Alexandrinus, p. 11 (Potter).

[356] Fig. 74 is specially drawn, but owes several features to Figs. 93 f. in Dörpfeld-Reisch, _Das griechische Theater_. Since Exon’s discussion and drawing of the eccyclema presuppose a theater with a stage, it has been necessary to modify his conception so as to bring it into conformity with the Dörpfeld theory.

[357] See p. 244, n. 1, above.

[358] Cf. scholia to Aristophanes’ _Acharnians_, vs. 408 and _Women at the Thesmophoria_, vs. 284; Pollux iv. 128, and Eustathius, p. 976, 15.

[359] The _exostra_ (ἐξ, “out” + ὠθεῖν, to “push”) seems to have performed about the same function as the eccyclema; cf. Pollux iv. 129; perhaps it was only the more specific name for this later type.

[360] On the basis of ἀναβάδην in vs. 399, for which the scholiasts preserve two interpretations, some writers would have us believe that Euripides was shown in the second story. Tracks for the wheels of an eccyclema have been reported on the logium level of the theater at Eretria (see p. 107, above).

[361] Cf. _Poetics_ 1454_b_1 and 1461_b_21.

[362] Cf. _Euripides and the Spirit of His Dramas_, pp. 263 ff., Loeb’s translation (1906).

[363] According to late authorities Greek theaters were provided with revolving prisms (_periacti_) with a different view painted on each of their three sides. These could be turned to indicate a change of scene. There is no evidence, however, that this contrivance was employed during the classical period of Greek drama, although Dörpfeld thought that a place was provided for it in the earlier parascenia at Epidaurus (cf. _Das griechische Theater_, p. 126). The _geranos_ (“crane”) and the _krade_ (“branch”) were probably only other names for the μηχανή.

[364] Cf. Themistius _Oration_ xxvi, 316 D.

[365] Cf. _Poetics_ 1451_b_26.

[366] Cf. Archer, _Play-making_, p. 119.

[367] Cf. _Hamburgische Dramaturgie_, Zimmern’s translation, p. 377.

[368] Cf. _Euripides and His Age_, p. 206.

[369] Cf. Reitzenstein, _Hermes_, XXXV (1900), 622 ff.

[370] Cf. Kock, _Fragmenta Comicorum Atticorum_, II, 500, fr. 79.

[371] Aristotle’s theory of the purificatory effects of tragedy has not fallen within the scope of my text, but I cannot forbear citing Fairchild, “Aristotle’s Doctrine of Katharsis and the Positive or Constructive Activity Involved,” _Classical Journal_ XII (1916), 44 ff.

[372] Cf. Capps, “Dramatic Synchoregia at Athens,” _American Journal of Philology_, XVII (1896) 319 ff.; “Catalogues of Victors at the Dionysia and Lenaea,” _ibid._, XX (1899), 388 ff.; “The Dating of Some Didascalic Inscriptions,” _American Journal of Archaeology_, IV (1900), 74 ff.; “The Introduction of Comedy into the City Dionysia,” _Decennial Publications of the University of Chicago_, VI (1904), 259 ff.; and “Epigraphical Problems in the History of Attic Comedy,” _American Journal of Philology_, XXVIII (1907), 179 ff.; Wilhelm, _Urkunden dramatischer Aufführungen in Athen_ (1906), and “Eine Inschrift aus Athen,” _Anzeiger d. Akademie d. Wissenschaften in Wien, phil.-hist. Klasse_, XLIII (1906), 77 ff.; Clark, “A Study of the Chronology of Menander’s Life,” _Classical Philology_, I (1906), 313 ff.; _Oxyrhynchus Papyri_, IV (1904), 69 ff., and X (1914), 81 ff.; O’Connor, _Chapters in the History of Actors and Acting in Ancient Greece_ (1908); Jachmann, _De Aristotelis Didascaliis_ (1909); and Flickinger, “Certain Numerals in the Greek Dramatic Hypotheses,” _Classical Philology_, V (1910), 1 ff.

[373] Reisch, however, in his review of Wilhelm in _Zeitschrift f. östr. Gymnasien_, LVIII (1907), 297 f. maintained that the original cutting went to the bottom of col. 14. This would postpone the preparation of the inscription until about 330 B.C. and would make it a feature of the completion of the theater by Lycurgus at about that time. He suggests that the Fasti stood in the left parodus of the theater.

[374] Fig. 75 is taken from Wilhelm, _Urkunden dramatischer Aufführungen in Athen_, p. 18, and represents fragments _a_ and _f_ of _Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum_, II, 971.

[375] Fig. 76_a_ is taken from Wilhelm, _op. cit._, p. 40, and represents _Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum_, II, 973.

[376] Körte, “Aristoteles’ ΝΙΚΑΙ ΔΙΟΝΥΣΙΑΚΑΙ,” _Classical Philology_, I (1906), 391 ff., maintained that the Victors’-Lists were transferred to stone straight from another book of Aristotle’s entitled Νῖκαι Διονυσιακαὶ Ἀστικαὶ καὶ Ληναϊκαί (“Victories at the City Dionysia and the Lenaea”). Our knowledge of the nature of this work is confined to what can be inferred from its title and is too vague to justify dogmatic conclusions.

[377] Figs. 77_a_ and _b_ are taken from Wilhelm, _op. cit._, 101, and represent _Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum_, II, 977_a_ and _ab_ respectively.

[378] Fig. 78 is taken from Wilhelm, _op. cit._, p. 107 and represents _Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum_, II, 977_i_ and _k_, together with two previously unpublished fragments.

[379] Fig. 79 is taken from Wilhelm, _op. cit._, p. 123, and represents _Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum_, II, 977_d_, _e_, _f_, _g_, and _h_.

[380] Fig. 80 is taken from Clarac, _Musée de Sculpture_, III, Pl. 294, Fig. 65. Note that the first play in the list on the background is the ΑΛΚΕΣ[ΤΙΣ].

INDICES

INDEX OF PASSAGES