path: root/76555-0.txt

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 76555 ***





[Illustration: _Frontispiece._

FIG. 1. THEATRE AT ATHENS, FROM THE EAST.]




                                   THE
                              ATTIC THEATRE

                  A DESCRIPTION OF THE STAGE AND THEATRE
                  OF THE ATHENIANS, AND OF THE DRAMATIC
                          PERFORMANCES AT ATHENS

                                    BY
                               A. E. HAIGH
              LATE FELLOW OF CORPUS CHRISTI COLLEGE, OXFORD

                              THIRD EDITION
                      REVISED AND IN PART RE-WRITTEN
                                    BY
                      A. W. PICKARD-CAMBRIDGE, M.A.
                        FELLOW OF BALLIOL COLLEGE

                            WITH ILLUSTRATIONS

                                  OXFORD
                          AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
                                  MCMVII

                            HENRY FROWDE, M.A.
                  PUBLISHER TO THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD
                            LONDON, EDINBURGH
                           NEW YORK AND TORONTO

                   _Made and Printed in Great Britain_




PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION


My purpose in this book has been to collect and piece together all the
available information concerning the outward features and surroundings
of the old Athenian dramatic performances; in other words, to write
a history of the Attic drama from the theatrical, as opposed to the
literary, point of view. The subject is one which has been practically
revolutionized during the last half-century, partly through the labours
of various scholars in interpreting the notices of the old grammarians,
but more especially owing to the rich discoveries of inscriptions
relating to theatrical affairs, and the information supplied by
excavations in the old Greek theatres. But in spite of the copious
accession of fresh materials, it is now more than fifty years since
any work has appeared in English, in which this particular department
of Greek dramatic history has been treated in a comprehensive manner.
The neglect is all the more remarkable, as the subject is undeniably of
great interest and importance, and this for two reasons. In the first
place it is difficult to understand and appreciate the peculiar qualities
of the existing Greek plays, without acquiring some knowledge of the
circumstances under which they were produced, and the limitations within
which the ancient dramatic poets had to work. In the second place, as
the Attic drama was essentially a public institution, and formed one of
the most conspicuous elements in the national life, the various details
connected with its management are incidentally most instructive, because
of the light which they throw upon the habits, feelings, and tastes of
the old Athenians. It is owing to these several considerations that the
present work has been undertaken.

Unfortunately, with the exception of a list of names and definitions
in Pollux, and a few observations upon the theatre in Vitruvius, none
of the ancient treatises, which dealt with the various portions of the
subject, have been preserved. The materials have in consequence to
be collected from the most multifarious sources—from casual remarks
in ancient authors, from incidental references in the Greek dramas,
from obscure and often contradictory notices in the scholiasts and
grammarians, from old inscriptions, and the ruins of Greek theatres,
from vases, statuettes, wall-paintings, and other works of art. In the
treatment of questions which depend upon evidence of this intricate and
complex character, it is inevitable that there should be much diversity
of opinion, and that numberless opportunities should be afforded for
ingenious conjectures and fanciful combinations. As a matter of fact the
whole history of the Attic drama has been to a certain extent obscured
by the mass of controversy and hypothesis to which it has given rise.
My purpose throughout the following pages has been to keep close to the
original sources of information, to restrict myself to such facts as seem
to be fairly well established by the evidence, and to clear the subject
of all those fine-drawn theories and conjectures which have no definite
foundation to depend upon. For every statement concerning the Attic drama
I have been careful to quote the ultimate authority, and the plan which
I have adopted, in the citation of evidence, has been as follows. Where
a passage is appealed to in support of some mere matter of fact, about
which there could be no particular difference of opinion, I have been
content to simply give the reference. But in cases where the inference is
more dubious, I have quoted the original authorities in full, so as to
enable the reader to judge for himself as to the validity of the views
adopted in the text. It would have been impossible, within the limits of
a single volume, to discuss in detail all the points concerning which
controversies have been raised. The more important questions I have
treated at considerable length; but as regards matters of minute detail
and trivial interest, I have merely given my own opinion in the text, and
appended a statement of the evidence in the notes.

The various books, articles, monographs, and dissertations, which
have been written on the subject of the Attic theatre and dramatic
performances, are numerous enough in themselves to constitute a
considerable literature. It will be sufficient in the present place to
mention those to which I have been principally indebted. Of writings in
which the subject is treated as a whole the most important is Albert
Müller’s _Lehrbuch der Griechischen Bühnenalterthümer_ (Freiburg,
1886)—a work which is conspicuous for the industry, learning, and
sound judgement displayed in its compilation, and for the lucid
manner in which an immense amount of information is compressed into a
comparatively limited space. The exhaustive account which it contains
of the bibliography of the subject is especially valuable. Another book
which I have found of the greatest help is Schneider’s _Das Attische
Theaterwesen_ (Weimar, 1835). It consists mainly of a citation in full of
all the ancient passages which refer to performances in the theatre; and
although Schneider’s own views and inferences are now mostly antiquated,
and his collection of ‘Quellen’ requires to be supplemented, the work
will always be most interesting and serviceable to students of the Attic
drama. The description of the Greek dramatic performances in the third
volume of Bergk’s _Griechische Literaturgeschichte_ (Berlin, 1884) has
been exceedingly useful and suggestive; and considerable assistance has
been derived from the similar account in vol. ii. pt. 2 of Bernhardy’s
_Grundriss der Griechischen Litteratur_ (Halle, 1880).

As regards the separate portions of the subject, the following is a
list of the treatises which I have found of most assistance. For the
Dionysiac festivals: Böckh’s dissertation, _Vom Unterschiede der Lenäen,
Anthesterien, und ländlichen Dionysien_, Berlin, 1816; A. Mommsen’s
_Heortologie_, Leipzig, 1864. For the arrangements connected with the
dramatic contests and the production of a play: Rohde’s article on the
Proagon in _Rhein. Museum_, xxxviii. p. 251 ff.; Sauppe’s paper, _Ueber
die Wahl der Richter_, &c., in _Sächs. Gesellschaft der Wissensch. zu
Leipzig_, 1855; Petersen’s _Preisrichter der grossen Dionysien_, Progr.
Dorpat, 1878; Lipsius, _Ueber die dramatische Choregie_, in _Sächs.
Gesell. der Wissensch._, 1885. For the structure and arrangement of the
theatre: Kawerau’s article _Theatergebäude_, in vol. iii. of Baumeister’s
_Denkmäler des klassischen Alterthums_, 1888; Vischer’s _Die Entdeckungen
im Dionysostheater_ (_Neues Schweizerisches Museum_, 1863); Julius’s
article, _Das Theater des Dionysos_ (_Zeitschrift für bild. Kunst_,
1878); J. R. Wheeler’s _Theatre of Dionysus_ (_Papers of the American
School of Classical Studies at Athens_, vol. i); Kabbadias, on the
theatre at Epidaurus, in _Πρακτικὰ τῆς ἐν Ἀθήναις ἀρχαιολογικῆς ἑταιρίας_,
1881 and 1883; the account of the Greek theatre by Wieseler in vol.
83 of Ersch and Gruber’s _Allgemeine Encyklopädie_, 1866; Wieseler’s
_Theatergebäude und Denkmäler des Bühnenwesens bei Griechen und Römern_,
1851; and Strack’s _Das altgriechische Theatergebäude_, Potsdam, 1843.
On the question of the scenery: Niejahr’s _Quaestiones Aristophaneae
Scaenicae_ (Greifswald, 1877); Sommerbrodt’s _De Aeschyli re scenica_
(in _Scenica_, Berlin, 1876). On the actors in the Greek drama, their
costume, style, and mode of delivery: Grysar, _De Graecorum tragoedia_,
&c. (Cöln, 1830); K. F. Hermann, _De distributione personarum inter
histriones in tragoediis graecis_ (Marburg, 1840); Beer, _Ueber die Zahl
der Schauspieler bei Aristophanes_ (Leipzig, 1844); Sommerbrodt’s two
articles _De Histrionibus_ and _De Arte Histrionum_, in his _Scenica_;
Wieseler’s _Das Satyrspiel_ (Göttingen, 1848); Dierk’s two dissertations,
_De tragicorum histrionum habitu scaenico apud Graecos_ (Göttingen,
1883), _Ueber das Costüm der griechischen Schauspieler in der alten
Komödie_ (_Archaeol. Zeitung_, xliii); Christ’s _Metrik der Griechen und
Römer_ (Leipzig, 1879). On the subject of the chorus: K. O. Müller’s
_Dissertations on the Eumenides_ (Engl. transl., London, 1853); G.
Hermann’s _De choro Eumenidum_ (Opusc. ii. p. 129 ff.); Schultze’s _De
chori Graecorum tragici habitu externo_ (Berlin, 1857); Sommerbrodt’s _De
chori tragici principibus_, in _Scenica_; and Arnoldt’s _Die Chorpartieen
bei Aristophanes_ (Leipzig, 1873).

In conclusion I wish to express my obligations to Professor Gardner for
his assistance in various questions connected with archaeology, and
to Mr. Evelyn Abbott for many valuable suggestions and criticisms. I
have to thank the Council of the Hellenic Society for their permission
to reproduce the illustration of a chorus of birds from the _Hellenic
Journal_. I desire at the same time to acknowledge the great courtesy
with which Dr. Dörpfeld, of the German Archaeological Institute, has
supplied me with the latest information concerning his excavations in the
theatre of Dionysus, and his views on Greek theatres in general.

OXFORD, _June, 1889_.




PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION


Since the first edition of this book was published many important
additions have been made to our knowledge of the Greek stage. Various
theatres have been excavated for the first time; fresh inscriptions
have been discovered; and the evidence of the ancient authorities has
been examined and sifted with the minutest care. The effect has been
to throw a new light on many points which were previously obscure. In
order to incorporate these results in the present edition, it was found
necessary to make considerable alterations in the book. The third and
fourth chapters—those dealing with the Theatre and the Scenery—have
been entirely re-written. The first chapter, on the Dramatic Contests
at Athens, has been re-written in parts. The other chapters have been
carefully revised throughout, and numerous corrections and additions
have been inserted, especially on such subjects as the choregia, the
theoric fund, the theatre-tickets, and the costume of the actors and
the chorus. Eleven new illustrations have been added. The old ones have
been mostly retained, with the exception of the ground-plan and the two
views of the theatre at Athens, which have been replaced by more accurate
representations.

The number of books, treatises, and articles which have been written
on the subject during the last few years is so great that it would be
impossible to mention them all. I propose in the following list to
specify only those which I have found most useful, and to which I am
chiefly indebted. Many others will be referred to in the notes. The most
important work of recent years on the Greek theatre is Dörpfeld and
Reisch’s _Das griechische Theater_ (Athens, 1896). The admirable and
exhaustive account of the Theatre of Dionysus at Athens, which is given
in this book, has superseded all previous descriptions. Dörpfeld appears
to have now proved conclusively that the stone theatre at Athens was not
earlier than the fourth century B.C., and his views on the subject have
been followed in the present edition. The book also contains a valuable
summary of the chief points of interest in other theatres recently
excavated, and a complete exposition of Dörpfeld’s theory about the Greek
stage. Some further developments and modifications of this theory will
be found in two articles lately published by Dörpfeld in the _Bulletin
de Correspondance Hellénique_, 1896, p. 563 ff., and in _Athenische
Mittheilungen_, 1897, p. 439 ff. After reading through Dörpfeld’s
arguments, and those of other scholars who support his views, I am still
of opinion that the old theory is the right one, and that the Greek
actors performed on a stage from the first; though no doubt the stage of
the fifth century was much lower than that of later times. Among other
writings which deal with the subject of the Greek theatre as a whole I
may mention the following:—Oehmichen, _Das Bühnenwesen der Griechen und
Römer_, München, 1890; Navarre, _Dionysos_, Paris, 1895 (a lucid and
well-written summary); the valuable articles by Prof. Jebb in Smith’s
_Dictionary of Antiquities_ (v. _Theatrum_), and by Prof. P. Gardner in
Jevons and Gardner’s _Manual of Greek and Roman Antiquities_; and Bethe’s
_Prolegomena zur Geschichte des Theaters im Alterthum_, Leipzig, 1896.
This last book, though often rather fanciful in its conclusions, is full
of useful information and interesting suggestions.

To turn to the treatises on special portions of the subject. The point
which has been most discussed in recent years is the question of the
stage. The following are among the more important articles which
have been written in favour of Dörpfeld’s views:—White, _The Stage
in Aristophanes_ (_Harvard Studies_, ii. pp. 159-205); Bodensteiner,
_Scenische Fragen im griechischen Drama_ (Leipzig, 1893); Capps, _The
Chorus in the later Greek Drama_ (_American Journal of Archaeology_, x.
3. pp. 287-325), _The Stage in the Greek Theatre_ (New Haven, 1891),
_Vitruvius and the Greek Stage_ (_Studies in Classical Philology_,
Chicago, 1893, p. 3 ff). The opposite side of the question has been
defended by Todt, _Noch einmal die Bühne des Aeschylos_ (_Philologus_,
1889, p. 505 ff.); Curtius, _Orchestra und Bühne_ (_Berliner Philolog.
Wochenschrift_, 1893, p. 97 ff.); Prof. E. Gardner, _A Plea for
Vitruvius_ (_Supplementary Papers of the Hellenic Journal_, 1892, p.
92 ff.); Lechat, _Épidaure_ (Paris, 1895, p. 215 ff.); Zacher, _Die
erhöhte Bühne bei Aristophanes_ (_Philologus_, 1896, p. 181 ff.);
Chamonard, _Bulletin de Corr. Hellénique_, 1896, p. 294 ff. (an
admirable criticism); and also in various reviews of Dörpfeld’s book,
and especially by Bethe (_Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen_, 1897, pp.
701-28), and by A. Müller (_Berl. Philolog. Wochenschrift_, 1897, pp.
1121-31). Special views, which may be regarded as a sort of compromise
between the ordinary theory and that of Dörpfeld, are advocated by
Weismann in _Die scenische Aufführung der griechischen Dramen_ (München,
1893), _Zur Thymele-frage_ (_Jahrb. für classische Philologie_, 1895,
pp. 673-9), _Scenische Anweisungen, &c._ (Bamberg, 1896); and by Christ
in _Jahrb. für classische Philologie_, 1894, p. 27 ff., p. 157 ff., and
_Sitzungsberichte der bayer. Akad. der Wissenschaften_, 1894, pp. 1-52.
All these articles, together with others which might be mentioned, have
been of great service in the preparation of the present edition. Opinions
may differ as to the soundness of the views which they respectively
advocate. But there can be no doubt that this exhaustive discussion of
the subject has brought to light many new facts, and cleared up many
difficulties.

As regards the theatres which have been recently explored and excavated,
I have consulted (in addition to Dörpfeld’s book) the following
sources:—Hermann, Bohn, and Fränkel, _Ausgrabungen zu Pergamon_, Berlin,
1888, p. 40 ff. (theatre at Pergamon); _Athen. Mittheilungen_, 1894,
p. 65 ff. (theatre at Magnesia); _Papers of the American School of
Archaeological Studies at Athens_, 1888, pp. 1-34 (Thoricus); _American
Journal of Archaeology_, 1891, p. 253 ff., 1895, p. 331 ff. (Eretria);
_Ibid._ 1889, p. 267 ff., 1893, p. 388 ff. (Sicyon); Defrasse and
Lechat, _Épidaure_, Paris, 1895 (Epidaurus); Schultz, Gardner, and
Loring in _Excavations at Megalopolis, Supplement to Hellenic Journal_,
1892 (Megalopolis); Chamonard, _Bulletin de Corr. Hellénique_, 1896, p.
256 ff. (Delos); _Athen. Mittheilungen_, 1893, p. 404 ff. (Tralles);
Lanckoronski, _Städte Pamphyliens und Pisidiens_, Wien, 1892 (contains
a very valuable account, with excellent plans and illustrations, of
certain Asia Minor theatres hitherto but little known); Schrader,
_Berl. Philolog. Wochenschrift_, April 16, 1898, pp. 508, 509 (a
brief preliminary notice of the interesting theatre at Priene, lately
excavated).

The subject of the choregic arrangements has been ably treated by Capps
in his _Dramatic Synchoregia at Athens_ (_American Journal of Philology_,
xvii. 3. pp. 319-28), which I have followed in most points. For certain
questions connected with the Dionysiac festivals I have consulted with
advantage Körte’s article _Zu Dionysos-Festen_ (_Rhein. Museum_, 1897,
pp. 168-74), and Wachsmuth, _Das Thukydideische Urathen_ (_Abhandl.
der Sächs. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften_, xviii. pp. 1-56). As for
the costume of actors and chorus, the most valuable and instructive
of recent treatises are Körte’s _Studien zur alten Komödie_ (_Jahrb.
des archaeol. Instituts_, 1893, pp. 61-93), and his articles in _Athen.
Mittheilungen_, 1894, p. 346 ff., and in Bethe’s _Prolegomena_, p.
339 ff.; Crusius, in _Philologus_, xlviii. p. 696 ff.; Poppelreuter,
_De Comoediae Atticae Primordiis_, Berlin, 1893; Loeschcke, _Athen.
Mittheilungen_, 1894, p. 519 ff.; and Bethe’s _Prolegomena_, p. 35
ff. Other articles on special points from which I have taken various
suggestions are—Neckel, _Das Ekkyklema_ (Friedland, 1890); Cook, _The
Thymele in Greek Theatres_ (_Classical Review_, Oct. 1895); Reisch,
_Griechische Weihgeschenke_ (Wien, 1890); and Svoronos, Περὶ τῶν
Εἰσιτηρίων (_Journal International d’ Archéologie Numismatique_, 1898,
i. pp. 37-120). I should also mention Albert Müller’s _Die neueren
Arbeiten auf dem Gebiete des griech. Bühnenwesens_ (_Philologus_, Suppl.
vi. 1891)—an interesting and judicious criticism of the various writings
about the Greek stage which had appeared shortly before the publication
of the article.

It will be seen that many of the authorities mentioned in the preface to
the first edition have been superseded, at any rate in part, by these
more recent investigations. But I have thought it best to reprint the
earlier list, since there are few of the old authorities which are not
still worth consulting on some point or another.

I gladly take this opportunity of expressing my obligations to various
friends for the corrections and suggestions which they have sent to me.
I have derived many valuable hints from the reviews and notices of the
first edition, and especially from the very friendly and useful criticism
by Mr. L. C. Purser in _Hermathena_, and from that by Mr. H. Richards
in the _Academy_. I am greatly indebted to Professor E. Gardner for the
photograph of the Epidaurian theatre which is reproduced in Fig. 7; and
to the Council of the Hellenic Society for their permission to copy from
the _Hellenic Journal_ the illustration of a satyric chorus. I have to
thank the Provost of Oriel, Professor P. Gardner, Mr. F. Madan, Rev.
G. C. Richards, and other friends for their help and advice in various
matters; and Dr. Albert Müller, Professor White, and Mr. Capps for their
kindness in sending me writings of theirs on the subject of the Greek
stage which have proved of very great service.

OXFORD, _July, 1898_.




PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION


After the lamented death of Mr. Haigh, the Delegates of the Clarendon
Press entrusted me with the revision of his book for a third edition,
and his relatives kindly supplied me with the materials which he had
collected for a revision. I have tried to follow as far as possible such
indications as I could find of his own intentions in regard to the new
edition. He had re-written parts of Chapters I and II, and his review
of Puchstein’s _Die griechische Bühne_ showed sufficiently what view he
took of that work. He also left careful analyses of many papers which
had appeared in periodicals since the second edition, with occasional
criticisms. It is clear from the manner in which the portions of the
book referred to were re-written that he intended to cut out many of the
repetitions, both of matter and expression, which had been allowed to
remain in the second edition. I have therefore felt at liberty to follow
him in this respect; but the space gained has been almost all filled
by the new matter which it has been necessary to insert, either at the
suggestion of his own notes, or in consequence of important writings on
the subject since the last edition.

Since 1898 the inscriptions bearing upon the Greek drama have been
the subject of thorough investigation at the hands of Prof. Edward
Capps, Dr. Adolph Wilhelm, and others. The complete treatment of all
the inscriptional evidence in the latter’s _Urkunden dramatischer
Aufführungen in Athen_, just published, is an invaluable contribution to
the history of the Greek theatre and drama, and I have made as much use
of it as the time of its publication allowed, the revision of the present
volume having been almost completed by that date. It was beyond the
scope of the present work to embark on a full discussion of the points
of detail on which the chief authorities on the inscriptions differ; but
I have re-written many of the notes on these points, and have tried to
give sufficient indications of the character of the evidence. Further, in
re-writing Appendix B, as it was necessary to do in the light of recent
work on the subject, I have thought it best to give the reader access to
considerably more of the inscriptional material, though still omitting
many fragments whose readings, date, or meaning were too uncertain to
allow them to be of value to the ordinary student.

Puchstein’s book, _Die griechische Bühne_, above referred to, is the
other work of first-rate importance in connexion with the Greek theatre
which has appeared since 1898. There has been much controversy in regard
to the theories contained in it, and Dr. Dörpfeld has published a reply
to most of Puchstein’s contentions (_Athenische Mittheilungen_, 1903,
383 ff.). But though in several points of detail Puchstein’s position
seems to be open to criticism, it is very difficult to believe that Dr.
Dörpfeld has improved his case for his own theory; and I have followed
both Mr. Haigh’s view and my own conviction, in not modifying in any
essential point the opinions expressed in the last edition. I have,
however, altered the expressions ‘Lycurgean’ and ‘Hellenistic’ in most
cases where they were applied in the last edition to the stage-buildings
of different periods, since Puchstein’s work makes it at least an open
question whether some of the ‘Lycurgean’ work is not to be ascribed to
an earlier period, and some of the ‘Hellenistic’ work to Lycurgus. Mr.
Haigh’s manuscript notes show, I think, that he would have approved of
this. The new section on Puchstein’s theory follows in most points the
lines of Mr. Haigh’s article on the subject in the _Classical Review_.
I have inserted a number of references to the writings of Puchstein,
Dörpfeld, and others who have taken part in the controversy as to the
stage-buildings; and I have in many cases written fresh notes upon these
and other points which have come into dispute since 1898, or upon which
fresh light has been thrown. In cases where I could find no warrant
in Mr. Haigh’s own notes or writings for the views expressed, I have
included these notes in square brackets, and I have, so far as I could,
avoided inserting in the text anything with which I had reason to think
he would have disagreed.

On one point on which there has recently been much controversy, the site
of the Lenaeum, I have thought it best to relegate the discussion to
a new Appendix; partly owing to its complicated character, and partly
because I am not sure that Mr. Haigh would have entirely agreed with my
views. He had not of course seen Miss Harrison’s _Primitive Athens_, and
I do not think he had read some other recent writings on the subject,
when he began to rewrite Chapter I; in particular, he seems not to have
been acquainted with Nilsson’s _Studia de Dionysiis Atticis_—the most
valuable contribution of recent years to discussions on the festivals.
I have therefore allowed myself a fairly free hand in dealing with this
topic. I am much indebted to Mr. W. H. Forbes of Balliol College for his
kind criticisms on this part of my work.

The following are the principal writings which have been published since
the last edition, and which I have been able to consult, besides those
already named: E. Capps, papers in the _American Journal of Philology_,
_American Journal of Archaeology_, and _Chicago Decennial Publications_,
vol. vi; Miss Harrison, _Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion_; E.
A. Gardner, _Ancient Athens_; Roberts and Gardner, _Greek Epigraphy_,
vol. ii; Mazon, _Sur le Proagon_ (Rev. de Philologie, 1903); A. Müller,
_Untersuchungen zu den Bühnenalterthümern_, and papers in _Philologus_
and _Berlin. Philolog. Wochenschrift_; Noack, _Das Proskenion in der
Theaterfrage_ (Philologus, lviii); Exon, _A New Theory of the Eccyclema_
(Hermathena, xxvi); Dörpfeld, papers in _Hermes_ and _Athenische
Mittheilungen_; Frei, _De certaminibus Thymelicis_; Hampel, _Was lehrt
Aischylos’ Orestie für die Theaterfrage?_; Flickinger, _The meaning of
ἐπὶ τῆς σκηνῆς in the Fourth Century B.C._; Engelmann, _Archäologische
Studien zu den Tragikern_; P. Gardner, _The Scenery of the Greek Stage_
(J. Hell. Stud., 1899); Devrient, _Das Kind auf der antiken Bühne_;
Dignan, _The Idle Actor in Aeschylus_; Völker, _Berühmte Schauspieler im
griechischen Alterthum_; J. W. White, _An Unrecognized Actor in Greek
Comedy_ (Harvard Stud. Class. Phil., 1906); Hense, _Die Modificirung der
Maske in der griechischen Tragödie_; Körte, _Das Fortleben des Chors im
griechischen Drama_ (Neue Jahrb. für Philol., 1900); Navarre, _Utrum
Mulieres Athenienses scenicos ludos spectaverint_; Römer, _Über den
litterarisch-aesthetischen Bildungsstand des attischen Theaterpublikums_;
Foucart, _Le Culte de Dionysos en Attique_; besides the reviews of
many of these works, and the introductions and notes to Starkie’s,
Rogers’s, Sharpley’s, and van Leeuwen’s editions of a number of plays of
Aristophanes, and various articles in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encyclopädie_.

                                                  A. W. PICKARD-CAMBRIDGE.

BALLIOL COLLEGE, _January, 1907_.




CONTENTS


                                                                      PAGE

  CHAP. I. DRAMATIC CONTESTS AT ATHENS                                   1

    § 1. General Character of the Contests                               1

    § 2. Earliest history of Dramatic Competitions                       5

    § 3. The City Dionysia                                               6

    § 4. Tragedy at the City Dionysia                                   10

    § 5. Comedy at the City Dionysia                                    20

    § 6. Order of Contests at the City Dionysia                         23

    § 7. The Lenaea                                                     24

    § 8. Rural Dionysia and Anthesteria                                 29

    § 9. The Judges                                                     31

    § 10. The Prizes                                                    38

    § 11. Contests between Actors                                       40

    § 12. Records of Dramatic Contests                                  44

  CHAP. II. THE PREPARATION FOR THE CONTESTS                            49

    § 1. The Poets                                                      49

    § 2. The Choregi                                                    53

    § 3. Selection of the Actors                                        57

    § 4. The Training of the Chorus                                     60

    § 5. The Expenses of the Choregia                                   63

    § 6. The Performances in the Theatre                                67

    § 7. Reproduction of Old Plays                                      71

  CHAP. III. THE THEATRE                                                78

    § 1. Introductory                                                   78

    § 2. The old Wooden Theatres at Athens                              80

    § 3. The Stone Theatre                                              86

    § 4. The Auditorium                                                 90

    § 5. The Orchestra                                                 101

    § 6. Ruins of the Stage-buildings at Athens                        112

    § 7. The Earlier Stage-buildings                                   116

    § 8. The Later Stage-buildings of the pre-Roman period             120

    § 9. Puchstein’s Theory of the Stage-buildings                     130

    § 10. The Stage-buildings in Roman Times                           133

    § 11. Exceptional Stage-buildings                                  137

    § 12. Wieseler’s Theory of the Greek Stage                         140

    § 13. Dörpfeld’s Theory of the Greek Stage                         144

    § 14. Various Details                                              174

  CHAP. IV. THE SCENERY                                                179

    § 1. General Character of the Scenery                              179

    § 2. Mechanical Arrangements for the Scenery                       186

    § 3. The Entrances to the Stage                                    188

    § 4. Changes of Scene                                              195

    § 5. Stage Properties, &c.                                         199

    § 6. The Ekkyklema                                                 201

    § 7. The Mechane and Theologeion                                   209

    § 8. Other Mechanical Contrivances                                 217

  CHAP. V. THE ACTORS                                                  221

    § 1. Rise of the Actor’s Profession                                221

    § 2. The distribution of the Parts among the Actors                230

    § 3. Extra Performers                                              234

    § 4. Costume of the Tragic Actors                                  237

    § 5. Costume of Satyric Actors                                     255

    § 6. Costume of Comic Actors                                       257

    § 7. Speech, Song, and Recitative                                  266

    § 8. Importance of the Voice in Greek Acting                       272

    § 9. Style of Greek Acting                                         275

    § 10. The Actors’ Guild                                            278

    § 11. Social Position of Actors                                    281

    § 12. Celebrated Athenian Actors                                   282

  CHAP. VI. THE CHORUS                                                 285

    § 1. History of the Chorus                                         285

    § 2. Size of the Chorus                                            288

    § 3. Costume of the Chorus                                         290

    § 4. Arrangement of the Chorus                                     298

    § 5. The Delivery of the Choral Part                               305

    § 6. The Dancing                                                   311

    § 7. The Music                                                     319

  CHAP. VII. THE AUDIENCE                                              323

    § 1. Composition of the Audience                                   323

    § 2. Price of Admission                                            329

    § 3. The Distribution of the Seats                                 334

    § 4. Various Arrangements in connexion with the Audience           341

    § 5. Character of Attic Audiences                                  343

  APPENDIX A. Arguments, &c., to Plays                                 349

  APPENDIX B. Dramatic Inscriptions                                    352

  APPENDIX C. The Original Place of the Lenaea                         368

  APPENDIX D. Inscriptions from Delos                                  379

  GREEK INDEX                                                          382

  GENERAL INDEX                                                        386




LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS


 FIG.

   1. Theatre at Athens from the East                       _Frontispiece._

   2. Theatre at Athens from the North                       to face p. 78

   3. Ground-plan of Theatre at Athens                             page 91

   4. Part of the auditorium in the theatre at Athens              ”    95

   5. Coin with view of the theatre at Athens                      ”    99

   6. Ground-plan of the theatre at Epidaurus                      ”   104

   7. Theatre at Epidaurus from the North-East              to face p. 104

   8. Gates in the theatre at Epidaurus                           page 111

   8 A. Diagram of pillars, &c., of proscenia                      ”   122

   9. Part of the hyposkenion in the theatre at Epidaurus          ”   124

  10. Front of the stage-buildings at Aspendos                     ”   134

  11. Ground-plan of the theatre at Megalopolis                    ”   138

  12. Ground-plan of the theatre at Delos                          ”   139

  13. Scene from a Comedy of the Phlyakes                          ”   155

  14. Scene from a Comedy of the Phlyakes                          ”   156

  14 A. Diagram of the Ekkyklema, according to Exon                ”   206

  15. Relief with three tragic actors                              ”   241

  16. Statuette of tragic actor                                    ”   243

  17. Tragic masks                                                 ”   246

  18. Tragic masks                                                 ”   247

  19. Scene from a tragedy, showing the size of the cothurni       ”   249

  20. Tragic scene                                                 ”   253

  21. Tragic scene                                                 ”   253

  22. Actors in a satyric drama                                    ”   255

  23. Actors in the Old Comedy                                     ”   257

  24. Two statuettes of actors in the Old Comedy                   ”   258

  25. Masks of the New Comedy                                      ”   264

  26. Masks of the New Comedy                                      ”   264

  27. Scene from the New Comedy                                    ”   265

  28. Members of a satyric chorus                                  ”   292

  29. Members of a satyric chorus                                  ”   293

  30. A chorus of Birds                                            ”   297

  31. Diagram illustrating the entrance of the chorus              ”   299

  32. Lead admission-coin                                          ”   332

  33. Ivory admission-coin                                         ”   333

  34. Bronze admission-coin                                        ”   334

  35. Throne of the priest of Dionysus                             ”   338




THE ATTIC THEATRE




CHAPTER I

DRAMATIC CONTESTS AT ATHENS


§ 1. _General Character of the Contests._

The Attic drama, like most ancient forms of art and poetry, was
originally the offspring of religious enthusiasm. It was developed out
of the songs and dances in honour of Dionysus, the god of wine and
vegetation. In course of time, as it assumed a regular dramatic shape,
its range of subject was extended far beyond the limits of the Bacchic
mythology. Its religious significance was also gradually diminished,
and it began to be written more and more from the purely human point
of view. But in spite of these changes, its outward connexion with the
Bacchic worship was preserved unimpaired throughout the whole period
of its history. Dramatic representations at Athens were confined, from
first to last, to the great festivals of Dionysus. They were regarded
as a religious ceremonial, as an act of homage to the god. They never
became, as with us, an ordinary amusement of everyday life. During the
greater part of the year the Athenians had to be content with other forms
of entertainment. It was only when the annual festivals of Dionysus
came round that they were able to gratify their passion for the stage.
On such occasions their eagerness and enthusiasm were proportionately
great. The whole city kept holiday, and gave itself up to pleasure, and
to the worship of the wine-god. Business was abandoned; the law-courts
were closed; distraints for debt were forbidden during the continuance
of the festival; even prisoners were released from gaol, to enable them
to share in the common festivities.[1] The theatre, the chief centre
of attraction, was thronged with spectators; and the number of plays
provided was large enough to compensate for their scarcity at other
periods. Several days in succession were devoted to the drama. Tragedies
and comedies followed one another without intermission from morning
till evening. In the midst of these pleasures the religious aspect of
the performance, as a ceremony in honour of Dionysus, established in
obedience to the direct commands of the oracle,[2] was not forgotten. The
audience came with garlands on their heads, as to a sacred gathering.
The statue of Dionysus was brought to the theatre, and placed in front
of the stage, so that the god might enjoy the spectacle along with his
worshippers.[3] The chief seats in the theatre were mostly occupied by
priests, and the central seat of all was reserved for the priest of
Dionysus.[4] The performance of plays was preceded by the sacrifice of
a victim to the god of the festival. The poets who wrote the plays, the
choregi who paid for them, and the actors and singers who performed them,
were all looked upon as ministers of religion, and their persons were
sacred and inviolable. The theatre itself possessed all the sanctity
attaching to a divine temple. Any form of outrage committed there was
treated, not merely as an offence against the ordinary laws, but as a
sacrilegious act, and was punished with corresponding severity. The
ordinary course of law was not considered sufficient, and they were
dealt with under an exceptional process at a special meeting of the
Assembly.[5] It is recorded that on one occasion a certain Ctesicles
was put to death for merely striking a personal enemy during the
procession.[6] Merely to eject a man from a seat which he had taken
wrongfully was a piece of sacrilege punishable with death.[7] These
various characteristics of the Attic drama—its limitation to certain
annual festivals, and its religious associations—have no parallel on
the modern stage, apart from isolated survivals like the performance
at Ober-Ammergau. The modern theatre has long since been divorced from
ecclesiastical influence, and is unrestricted as to season. But its
original surroundings were not dissimilar. The Mysteries and Miracle
Plays from which it is descended, and which were performed year by year
for the instruction of the people on the great Feast-days of the Church,
suggest many points of comparison with the exhibitions at the Attic
Dionysia.

Another remarkable feature of the ancient theatre is the fact that almost
all the dramatic representations were arranged in the form of a contest.
Prizes were offered by the managers of the festival, and poets and actors
exhibited their plays in competition with one another. The victory was
awarded by the decision of a carefully selected jury. It is curious to
notice how strongly implanted in the Greek nature was this passion for
anything in the shape of a contest. It was not peculiar to the drama, or
to the Athenian festivals, but prevailed throughout Greece in all festal
gatherings where music and poetry were performed. Every Greek city of any
importance had its annual meetings, with a long list of competitions.
There were contests in choral singing of various kinds; contests in
original poetry, and in the recitation of ancient epics; contests between
harp-players, flute-players, trumpeters, and heralds. In this respect a
Greek festival was not unlike a Welsh Eisteddfod, with its rival bards
and choruses. In the case of the drama the element of competition must
have added largely to the interest of the entertainment, and must have
acted as a powerful stimulus upon the minds of poets and performers
alike. The fertility of the old Attic dramatists, and the energy which
enabled them to produce, in extreme old age, such masterpieces as the
Agamemnon of Aeschylus, the Oedipus Coloneus of Sophocles, and the
Bacchae of Euripides, may have been partly due to the invigorating
influence of the contests, and the rivalry which they engendered.

The management of the dramatic performances was in the hands of the
State, and was entrusted to the same official who had the general control
of the festival. The superintendence which he exercised was not merely a
formal one. His duties were important and carefully defined. He had to
select the poets who took part in the competitions, and the plays which
they exhibited. He had to choose the actors, and distribute them among
the different poets. He was also responsible for seeing that the work of
preparation was carefully carried out. The expense of the performance
was one of the regular public burdens, and was imposed in turn upon the
richer citizens. In modern times there is no example of a theatre so
entirely dependent upon the State. In England the drama is left solely to
private enterprise. In countries like France and Germany, though certain
theatres receive subventions from the State, and are subject to a code
of rules, the government takes little part in the direction of their
affairs. But the Athenian drama stood on a different footing. As a sacred
ceremonial, closely connected with the religious worship of the State,
it was naturally placed under public control. Even from the secular
point of view it was considered a fitting object for the attention of
statesmen. To provide for the amusement and instruction of the people
was, according to the Greeks, one of the regular duties of a government;
and they would have thought it unwise to abandon to private venturers an
institution which possessed the educational value and wide popularity of
the drama. For the audience to which the Athenian poet addressed himself
was in reality a gathering of the whole body of his fellow countrymen.
The theatre of Dionysus was capable of containing nearly twenty thousand
people. Books were not plentiful, and their use was confined to a limited
class. The ordinary Athenian depended for his literary pleasures upon the
various public performances and recitations of poetical compositions. The
drama was, therefore, much more to him than to a modern playgoer. At the
present day, when continual supplies of fresh literature are accessible
to every one, it is hard to realize the excitement and expectancy with
which an Athenian looked forward to the annual exhibition of dramas
at the Dionysia. It was here that his taste for novelty in literature
was gratified. It was here that he found an equivalent for the books,
magazines, and newspapers of modern civilization. Hence he was able to
sit day after day, from morning to evening, listening to tragedy and
comedy, without any feeling of satiety. The enthusiasm with which the
drama was regarded, and the direct manner in which the author was brought
into contact with the whole body of his countrymen, contributed to make
the vocation of the dramatic writer one of the very greatest importance.
The leading tragic poets especially exercised a most profound influence
upon the national mind and character. They were the teachers of the
people. Their writings were invested with an almost Homeric sanctity, and
appealed to as authorities on questions of science and morality. Maxims
and quotations from their plays were upon every one’s lips. Many passages
in Aristophanes and Plato prove the enormous influence for good and evil
which was exercised by the Greek tragic poets, and there is probably no
other instance in history of a drama which was so thoroughly popular, and
formed so essential a part of the national life.[8]


§ 2. _Earliest history of Dramatic Competitions._

The establishment of these dramatic contests under State management
dates, not from the earliest period of the drama, but from the time
when it had begun to assume a fixed and definite shape. Originally
there were no public competitions. The various innovations upon the old
hymns to Dionysus, out of which the drama was evolved, were carried
out at first by voluntary effort. Thespis is said to have introduced
tragedy into Athens. But his earliest exhibitions were given on his own
responsibility, and as a private speculation.[9] The development of
comedy was also the result of individual enterprise. The performance was
for a long time left to amateurs, and regarded as of no importance. It
was only when the drama had attained a certain pitch of excellence, and
become widely popular, that it was taken in hand by the State, and annual
contests introduced.[10] The date of their institution cannot always be
determined exactly. It differed in the case of different festivals, and
in the case of tragedy as compared with comedy. But there is sufficient
evidence to show that no contest was earlier in date than the latter half
of the sixth century.

All these competitions, as we have seen, were confined to the festivals
of Dionysus.[11] In Attica these were of four kinds. There were the Rural
Dionysia, celebrated in the various Attic denies; and there were the
feasts held in Athens itself, the Anthesteria, the City Dionysia, and the
Lenaea.[12] The importance of these gatherings from the theatrical point
of view varied considerably. The Anthesteria seems at no time to have had
much connexion with the drama. The Rural Dionysia were merely provincial
celebrations, and depended almost entirely for their supply of plays upon
the Athenian theatre. The City Dionysia and the Lenaea were the really
significant festivals in the history of the ancient stage. It was here
that the great Attic poets exhibited their works, and it was here that
the drama was first brought to perfection. Each festival had its peculiar
character. At the City Dionysia tragedy held the chief place; at the
Lenaea comedy was of most importance. Various indications show that this
was the case. In the list of proceedings at the City Dionysia tragedy
is placed last of all, as being the chief attraction; while in the list
referring to the Lenaea the same place is assigned to comedy, and for the
same reason.[13] Again, the dithyramb, the original source of tragedy,
was from the first a prominent feature at the City Dionysia, though
unknown at the Lenaea till a late period.[14] On the other hand the
comic actors’ contest was introduced into the Lenaea long before it was
extended to the City Dionysia. This difference between the two festivals,
as regards the type of drama preferred by each, was probably due to some
original difference in the cult of the two deities, Dionysus Eleuthereus
and Dionysus Lenaeus, to whom they were respectively consecrated.[15]


§ 3. _The City Dionysia._

The City Dionysia, the feast of Dionysus Eleuthereus,[16] was the most
famous and magnificent of all the Bacchic festivals, and was therefore
also called the Great Dionysia, or simply the Dionysia, without any
further epithet.[17] It was held from the first inside the city, at the
sacred enclosure of Eleuthereus[18] on the south of the Acropolis. Hence
the name City Dionysia, to distinguish it from the Anthesteria and the
Lenaea, which, at any rate in early times, were celebrated outside the
walls. A poet who brought out his plays at this festival was said to
exhibit them ‘in the city’; if successful, he was said to have won ‘a
city victory’.[19] The feast lasted for at least five days, and possibly
for six. It took place in the month Elaphebolion, at a date corresponding
to the end of March.[20] The spring was then just beginning, and the sea
had again become navigable.[21] Consequently the city was crowded with
visitors from all parts of Greece. It was at this season that the allies
came to Athens to pay the annual tribute. Ambassadors from foreign states
often chose this time for the transaction of diplomatic business. Large
numbers of strangers were attracted by mere pleasure, and the celebrity
of the festival. Aeschines, in his rhetorical language, describes the
audience in the theatre at the City Dionysia as consisting of the ‘whole
Greek nation’.[22] The presence of so many strangers gave a lively
appearance to the streets, in marked contrast to the quietness which
prevailed at the winter festival of the Lenaea.[23] The Athenians gladly
seized this opportunity of displaying before foreign Greeks the glories
of their city. The various spectacles provided, the religious ceremonial,
the trains of sacrificial victims, the choral songs and dances, the
tragedies and comedies exhibited before countless multitudes in the vast
open-air theatre, were all calculated to impress strangers with the
wealth, public spirit, and artistic supremacy of Athens.

The first day of the festival was devoted to a grand religious
procession, in which the ancient image of Dionysus Eleuthereus, preserved
in one of his temples at the foot of the Acropolis, played a prominent
part.[24] There was a tradition that this statue, together with the cult
of the deity, had been originally brought to Athens from Eleutherae, a
border town between Attica and Boeotia. The procession was instituted to
commemorate this sacred event. The statue was taken out of its shrine,
and carried along the road to Eleutherae as far as a certain temple near
the Academy. It was then brought back again, following on its return
the actual route traversed on its first entrance into Athens.[25] As a
spectacle, this procession was the most magnificent part of the whole
festival. Athenians of every class, men, women, and even girls, came out
to witness or take part in it. The casual encounters which took place
on these occasions might serve as a foundation for the plots of the New
Comedy.[26] The members of the procession were dressed in brilliantly
coloured garments. Some of them wore ornaments of gold, and had masks
upon their faces. The rich drove in chariots; the poorer classes walked
on foot.[27] In front came the archon, the manager of the festival,
attended by various magistrates and priests. The ephebi, equipped with
shields and spears, acted as escort to the sacred image.[28] A long
train of victims followed, partly provided by the State, partly offered
by individuals, or by different classes of the population.[29] The
canephori, young virgins bearing upon their heads the baskets containing
the sacrificial implements, formed one of the most picturesque features
in the show. The choregi were also there, attended by their respective
choruses, all dressed in striking costume. When Demosthenes served as
choregus to his tribe, he had a gold crown and embroidered mantle made
specially for use at the procession. Alcibiades on a similar occasion was
dressed in purple, and excited much admiration by his beauty.[30] From
these few details, which happen to have been recorded, we may form some
notion of the general splendour of the spectacle. The route followed by
the procession was as follows. On leaving the Temple of Dionysus it came
first to the market-place, where a halt was made, and a chorus danced
and sang before the statues of the twelve gods.[31] It then marched out
through the city gates along the road to Eleutherae. When it reached the
Academy the statue of the god was placed on a pedestal, and the different
victims were sacrificed. The rest of the day was spent in feasting and
merriment.[32] At nightfall they returned to Athens by torchlight. But
the sacred image, instead of being restored to its shrine, was carried
to the theatre by the ephebi, and set up in the orchestra, so as to be
present at the entertainments given on the following days.[33]

These entertainments were of two kinds. There were the dramatic contests,
in tragedy, comedy, and satyric drama; and there were the lyrical
contests, at which dithyrambs were performed.[34] The dithyramb was a
hymn in honour of Dionysus, sung to the accompaniment of the flute by
a chorus of fifty members. The chorus stood in a circular form round
the altar, and was therefore called a ‘cyclic’ chorus. At the City
Dionysia there were two of these lyrical contests, one between five
choruses of boys, and the other between five choruses of men.[35] The
first contest of men took place in B.C. 509-508, in the Archonship of
Lysagoras, though the system of choregia was probably not introduced
till a few years later.[36] Each chorus was provided by one of the ten
Attic tribes. Hence all ten tribes took part in one or other of the two
competitions.[37] The contest was essentially a tribal one. The members
of each chorus, together with the choregus, were selected exclusively
from the tribe which they represented.[38] The victory of the chorus
was a victory for the tribe. The prize of victory, the tripod, though
given to the choregus, and erected in some public place at his expense,
was regarded as equally the property of the tribe.[39] In the records
of dithyrambic competitions the name of the victorious tribe was always
placed in the most prominent position. The dramatic contests, on the
other hand, had no connexion with the tribes. Actors, choruses, and
choregi were chosen indiscriminately from the whole population.[40]
The performers competed in their own interest solely, and not as
representatives of any other body. The records of dramatic victories give
merely the names of the choregus, the poet, and the principal actor.[41]
It is important to keep this difference between the two kinds of contest
clearly in view, since many mistakes have been caused by attributing to
the dramatic kind features which belong exclusively to the dithyrambic.


§ 4. _Tragedy at the City Dionysia._

Of the dramatic performances at the City Dionysia, which we have next
to consider, the tragic were the most important. The City Dionysia was
specially connected with the growth of the tragic drama, and it was here
that the earliest public contests in tragedy were established. The first
competition was held in B.C. 535, and was rendered doubly memorable by
the fact that Thespis, now an old man, took part in the performance, and
won the prize of victory.[42] Shortly before this time Pisistratus, who
was a great patron of art and literature, had returned from exile, and
begun his last tyranny. It must have been under his auspices, therefore,
that tragedy was first officially recognized by the State, and made an
annual institution. As to the character of these early contests, and
the arrangements concerning the number of poets and plays, nothing has
been recorded.[43] It is uncertain whether the regulations were the same
as those which afterwards prevailed during the fifth century. But we
are told that the tragic poet Choerilus, who began to exhibit in 523,
composed no less than a hundred and sixty plays.[44] The largeness of
the number would seem to show that even in the sixth century it was
the custom for each competing poet to bring out several plays at each
festival.

When we turn to the fifth century, the information is fairly complete.
Several records have been preserved, referring chiefly to the three
great tragic poets, and giving a more or less detailed account of the
results of the competitions. It may be interesting to mention some of
these records. The earliest refers to the year 499, and tells us that
three poets—Aeschylus, Choerilus, and Pratinas—took part in the tragic
contest.[45] From the next we learn that in 472 Aeschylus won the first
prize, and that the plays he exhibited were the Phineus, Persae, Glaucus,
and the satyric drama Prometheus.[46] In 467, Aeschylus was first with
the Laius, Oedipus, Septem contra Thebas, and the satyric play Sphinx;
Aristias was second with the Perseus, Tantalus, and the satyric play
Palaestae, written by his father Pratinas; Polyphradmon was third with
the Lycurgean tetralogy.[47] The name of one of the plays of Aristias
has doubtless dropped out accidentally, as there is no other instance of
poets competing at the same festival with a different number of plays.
A very interesting record is that for the year 458, when Aeschylus
was again victorious, this time with the Orestean group of plays,
the Agamemnon, Choephori, Eumenides, and satyric Proteus.[48] In 438
Sophocles was first; Euripides was second with the Cressae, Alcmaeon in
Psophis, Telephus, and Alcestis. In 431 Euphorion was first, Sophocles
second, and Euripides third with the Medea, Philoctetes, Dictys, and
satyric play Theristae. In 428 Euripides was first (the Hippolytus being
one of his plays), Iophon second, Ion third.[49] Among the last of the
notices is that for the year 415, when Euripides, who produced the
Alexander, Palamedes, Troades, and satyric drama Sisyphus, was defeated
for the first prize by an obscure poet called Xenocles, who produced
the Oedipus, Lycaon, Bacchae and satyric play Athamas. After Euripides’
death, in B.C. 406, his Iphigenia in Aulis, Alcmaeon, and Bacchae were
produced by his son at the City Dionysia.[50] The evidence of these
various records, when compared with one another, proves conclusively
that during the whole, or almost the whole, of the fifth century there
was no variation in the arrangement of the tragic contests at the City
Dionysia. The rule as to the number of poets and plays was as follows.
At each festival three poets appeared as competitors,[51] and each poet
was required to exhibit four plays, consisting of three tragedies and a
satyric drama.[52] If the number seems surprising, we should remember
that an ancient drama was only about half the length of a modern one,
and that four plays of this type could easily have been got through in
a single day. On one occasion the rule just mentioned appears to have
been partially relaxed. In 438 Euripides was allowed to substitute the
Alcestis, a tragedy with a slightly comic tinge, for the usual satyric
drama. Whether this practice ever became common in the fifth century
is uncertain. The records give no further instance. In all other cases
where they mention the names of the four plays produced, the last is a
satyric play. It was this custom of concluding the three tragedies with
the licentious merriment of the satyrs which suggested to Ion of Chios
his well-known remark, that virtue, like a tragic poet’s group of plays,
should always contain a satyric element.[53]

The four plays exhibited by each poet might be composed on two different
systems. They might form independent works of art, and have no inner
connexion with one another; or they might deal with successive phases of
the same legend, and be fused into a single artistic whole. The general
name for the group of plays was ‘didascalia’, or a ‘teaching’[54],
because in ancient times the author had to teach them to the actors. But
when they were connected together by unity of subject, they were denoted
by a special term. The four plays were called a ‘tetralogy’;[55] the
three tragedies, regarded apart from the satyric drama, were called a
‘trilogy’. As applied to the drama, however, both words first occur at
a comparatively late date:[56] and as, to judge from their etymology,
they seem properly to denote groups of speeches rather than groups of
plays, it is possible that their dramatic application is a secondary
one, and that the grammarians applied to the drama the word ‘tetralogy’
which properly denoted such groups of four speeches about fictitious
cases as those of Antiphon, and afterwards formed the word ‘trilogy’ by
analogy to denote three plays connected in subject with each other but
not with the satyric play. In earlier times such collective titles as
Lycurgeia, Oresteia, and the like were used.[57] The practice of writing
plays in trilogies and tetralogies is chiefly associated with the name
of Aeschylus. Whether it was invented by him, or inherited from his
predecessors, is uncertain. We have no information as to the manner in
which the poets of the sixth century were accustomed to combine their
plays together. But whatever the origin of the system may have been, it
was undoubtedly Aeschylus who first perceived the various developments
of which it was capable, and brought it to perfection. In his hands it
became a mighty instrument for the inculcation of religious truths. The
central idea in the moral system of Aeschylus was the disastrous effect
of sin, not only upon the sinner himself, but also upon his remote
descendants. The curse entailed in the sinful act clung to a family from
one generation to another. In the trilogy, with its wide range of time
and subject, he was able to trace the whole course of this hereditary
evil, and to follow the crime from its original commission down to
the period of its final expiation. The Orestean trilogy, which has
fortunately been preserved, is a magnificent example of his method. The
Agamemnon depicts the murder of the returning chieftain by his adulterous
wife. In the Choephori vengeance is taken on the murderess, after years
of waiting, by her own son. In the Eumenides the matricide, a prey to
remorse, is hunted from place to place by the Furies of his mother, until
their rage is at length appeased by divine intervention. These successive
pictures of crime and vengeance form a series of unapproachable grandeur.
The general effect of the whole may be appreciated even by a modern
reader. But in the ancient theatre the impression produced must have been
far more vivid, as one play followed another upon the stage, and the
dark scenes of guilt were unfolded in due sequence before the very eyes
of the audience.

Apart from the Oresteia, very little is recorded about the tetralogies
written by Aeschylus. He is known to have composed a Lycurgeia, on the
fate of Lycurgus, the Thracian king and opponent of Bacchus; and an
Oedipodeia, on the fortunes of the house of Oedipus. It is also fairly
certain that he treated the legends about Hector, Ajax, Prometheus,
and the daughters of Danaus in trilogic form. But these are the only
instances for which there is clear evidence. No doubt most of his plays
were written as tetralogies. Still, he does not seem to have adhered to
the system on every occasion. The plays which he exhibited in 472—the
Phineus, Persae, Glaucus, and satyric drama Prometheus—had apparently
no connexion with one another.[58] There are also, among the titles of
his lost dramas, several, such as the Sisyphus and the Atalanta, which
seem to stand in an isolated position, and to be hardly capable of
combination. In some cases, again, he may have adopted the tetralogic
form only in part. The three tragedies may have formed a trilogy, while
the concluding satyric drama was on a different subject. Thus the satyric
Prometheus was produced, not with the Promethean trilogy, as we should
have expected, but in a different combination altogether. There is no
less uncertainty as to the structure of the lost tetralogies. It would
be a mistake to assume that they were all as perfect in arrangement as
the Oresteia. Even from the few remains and notices preserved we can
see that the tetralogy was a flexible form of art, and could be treated
in various ways. The connexion between the parts might be tightened or
relaxed at will. In the Theban trilogy—the Laius, Oedipus, and Septem
contra Thebas—there was a long lapse of years between the separate plays.
In the Oresteia the intervals of time are much shorter. In the Lycurgeia,
which described the invasion of Thrace by Dionysus, his defeat, capture,
and final victory, the three plays followed so closely in point of time,
that they must have been like successive acts in a single drama. Again,
the trilogies might differ in respect of artistic completeness. The
Oresteia forms a perfect whole. The legend is traced to its conclusion,
and ends satisfactorily with the purification of Orestes. But the Theban
trilogy was treated more in the chronicle fashion. It closed abruptly at
a point where the course of events was still unfinished. The final scene
of the Septem is full of forebodings of impending calamity. So marked is
this feature, that before the discovery in recent years of the record
which proves that the Septem was the last play of the three, all critics
were agreed that it must have been followed by another tragedy.[59] This
example shows us the necessity of caution in dealing with the whole
subject of tetralogies. Since there is so much uncertainty as to the
number of them written by Aeschylus, and the manner in which he wrote
them, it is dangerous to go beyond the limits of direct evidence. Various
schemes have been propounded by scholars, in which the titles of the lost
plays are all arranged in tetralogic groups. But these systems must be
regarded as entirely conjectural.

The satyric drama, by which the three tragedies were followed, was a
survival from the primitive period of the Bacchic worship. With its
strange medley of incongruous elements, of valour and cowardice, passion
and merriment, heroic dignity and coarse indecency, it reproduced the
various qualities of the ancient dithyramb. The chorus was always
composed of satyrs. The leading characters consisted partly of heroes
from the tragic stage, partly of semi-ludicrous personages, such as
Silenus, Autolycus, and Polyphemus. The presence of the tragic kings and
heroes in the midst of these disreputable associates and undignified
surroundings was one of the most curious features in the performance. It
had to be managed with great tact by the poet. The dignity of the heroes
was not to be unduly lowered, and yet they must not seem too exalted for
their company.[60] In the case of a tetralogy the awkwardness of the
situation would be greatly intensified. Here the satyric drama dealt
with the same legend as the preceding tragedies, but from a humorous
point of view. It often happened that the very same hero whose disastrous
fate had just been exhibited in the trilogy was reintroduced under
a sportive aspect. In the satyric play Lycurgus, which concluded the
Lycurgean tetralogy, the chief part must have been taken by Lycurgus
himself. In the Sphinx, the last play of the Oedipodeia, Oedipus must
have appeared in person. This practice of concluding the tragic spectacle
with a burlesque representation of the same or similar characters and
incidents seems a questionable proceeding to modern taste. It would be
difficult to defend it on artistic grounds. It originated not so much in
the desire to provide a comic relief after the tragedies as in religious
conservatism. The dramatic performances were part of a Bacchic festival.
But the Bacchic element had long been discarded by tragedy. The satyric
play, which still remained true to the primitive type, was therefore
retained in the programme, in order to appease the god and to keep up the
religious associations of the drama.

During the earlier part of the fifth century the practice of writing
plays in tetralogies seems to have been generally adopted, not only
by Aeschylus, but by all other tragic poets. One such tetralogy, the
Lycurgeia of Polyphradmon, happens to have been recorded. It was
Sophocles who first gave up the system, and regularly composed his four
plays on independent subjects.[61] The example set by Sophocles was
followed by the younger generation. Even as early as 467, when Aeschylus
brought out his Oedipodeia, and Polyphradmon his Lycurgeia, the third
poet, Aristias, competed with a group of disconnected plays. After the
death of Aeschylus the tetralogy speedily went out of fashion. It was
never attempted by Euripides. In fact during the latter half of the fifth
century only three tetralogies are mentioned. A Pandionis was written
by Philocles, the nephew of Aeschylus, who naturally followed in his
uncle’s footsteps. An Oedipodeia was composed by Meletus, the prosecutor
of Socrates. Plato is also said to have written a tetralogy before he
abandoned poetry for philosophy.[62] After the end of the fifth century
all traces of the tetralogy disappear. One reason for its decline in
popularity and rapid discontinuance may have been the increased length
of plays. A tragedy of the later poets was considerably longer, and
contained much more incident, than a tragedy of Aeschylus. A trilogy
composed of dramas of this bulk would have been a vast and laborious
undertaking. Another reason may have been the gradual change in religious
sentiment. The doctrine of the hereditary curse in families, which the
trilogy was admirably adapted to exemplify, no longer held a prominent
place in the moral ideas of post-Aeschylean poets. The chief motive of
their tragedy was human passion rather than religious truth. In such
circumstances the trilogy, as a form of art, had no advantages sufficient
to compensate for the unwieldiness of its size.

It has been worth while to discuss in some detail the arrangement of the
tragic contests at the City Dionysia during the fifth century, because
this was the great period of Attic tragedy. The fourth century is of less
importance. For the first half of the century there is a complete blank
in our information on the subject. But when we come to the latter half,
we have the evidence of an interesting inscription, which contains a full
record of the tragic performances at the City Dionysia for the years 341
and 340.[63] From this record it appears that considerable changes had
now been made in the annual programme. The old system, by which each
of the three poets was required to exhibit a satyric play, had been
abandoned. A single specimen of this type of drama was now considered
sufficient, and was produced at the commencement of the proceedings. The
satyric drama, with its primitive coarseness, had little attraction for
the more refined taste of the fourth century; and it was only religious
scruples which caused it to be retained at all. The satyric play was
followed by an old tragedy, written by one of the three great tragic
poets. In 341 the play chosen was the Iphigeneia of Euripides, in 340
it was the Orestes. This practice was also a new departure.[64] In the
fifth century the exhibition of old tragedies was, with rare exceptions,
unknown at the City Dionysia. After these two preliminary performances
came the contest with original plays. The number of poets was still
there, as in former times. But the number of plays was diminished, and
seems to have varied from year to year. In 341 each poet exhibited three
tragedies; in 340 each poet exhibited two. Theodectes, who flourished
in the middle of the fourth century, wrote fifty tragedies and engaged
in thirteen contests.[65] Aphareus wrote thirty-five admittedly genuine
tragedies, and engaged in eight contests, between 368 and 341.[66] This
seems to imply that in most of the contests they produced four plays; but
the conclusion is not certain, for they may have written plays which were
never intended for the stage, as their contemporary Chaeremon did.[67]
The reduction in the number of original plays points to a gradual decline
in the vitality of the tragic drama at Athens. These various changes must
have been made in the course of the sixty years preceding the period
of the inscription. But the exact date of their introduction cannot be
determined.

With the close of the fourth century the famous period of Athenian
tragedy came to an end. After this date the only tragic poets of any
celebrity were those who flourished at Alexandria. But though the genius
of the Attic poets was exhausted, there was no immediate cessation in
the production of new plays. The contests were still maintained. A long
series of inscriptions shows that, down even to the Christian era,
‘original tragedies’ continued to be the chief ornament of the City
Dionysia. The names of several Athenian tragic poets belonging to this
period have been preserved in theatrical records. One of them was a
descendant of Sophocles. As to the character of the contests, and the
proportion of old tragedies to new ones, nothing is known. After the
first century A.D. the composition of original tragic dramas for the
stage was finally discontinued in all parts of Greece, and must therefore
have been abandoned at the City Dionysia. But the festival itself still
continued to flourish; and the reproduction of old plays may have lasted,
there as elsewhere, for one or two centuries later.[68]


§ 5. _Comedy at the City Dionysia._

Very little is known about the early history of the comic contests at
the City Dionysia. The date of their first institution can only be
fixed approximately. Aristotle tells us that they were of later origin
than those in tragedy.[69] This being so, they cannot have reached back
further than about 500 B.C. On the other hand, there is an inscription
which proves that they were already in existence in 463.[70] Their
establishment must therefore be assigned to some period within the first
four decades of the century. The number of poets who were allowed to
compete differed at different epochs. In the fifth century it was always
three, as in tragedy.[71] But early in the fourth century it was raised
to five, both at the City Dionysia and at the Lenaea, and this continued
ever afterwards to be the regulation number.[72] The increase was
probably due, partly to the growing popularity of the comic drama, partly
also to the fact that, owing to the curtailment of the chorus, comedies
were now less expensive to produce, and took less time to perform. Each
poet competed with a single play. This was the invariable practice on the
comic stage, both at the City Dionysia and at the Lenaea. The exhibition
of groups of plays, after the manner of the tragic poets, was unknown
in the history of comedy. Still, in spite of this rule, an author was
sometimes enabled to bring out two plays at the same festival. But in
order to do so he had to take the place of two poets, and to compete
as it were against himself. The number of comedies remained the same.
Thus in 422 Aristophanes made a double appearance, and was first with
the Prelude, and second with the Wasps. Leucon, his sole antagonist,
was third with the Ambassadors.[73] In 288 Diodorus was second with
the Corpse, and third with the Madman.[74] Such cases, however, were
apparently very rare, and must have been due either to some exceptional
dearth in the supply of dramatists, or to the marked inferiority of the
other poets who had applied for permission to compete.

We have seen that comedy was much later than tragedy in obtaining
official recognition from the State. It also continued to grow and
develop much longer. A sure symptom of decline, both in tragedy and
comedy, was the tendency to fall back upon the past, and to reproduce
old plays, instead of striking out new developments. In the case of
tragedy this custom had already begun to prevail as early as the middle
of the fourth century. But comedy was still at that time in the height
of its career. A fresh direction was being given to the art, under the
leadership of Menander and Philemon, by the evolution of the New Comedy,
a comedy of manners and everyday life. There was no desire as yet to have
recourse to the ancient poets. In a record of comic contests for the
year 288,[75] the plays exhibited are all new ones. But when we reach
the second century the custom of performing old comedies is found to
have been fully established. Numerous records of the comic performances
during that period have been preserved, and in every case the five new
comedies are preceded by an old one.[76] There had been occasional
revivals before this, for instance in the year 340, but these seem to
have been exceptional.[77] Among the plays reproduced are Menander’s
Ghost and Misogynist, Philemon’s Phocians, and Posidippus’ Outcast. It is
noticeable that all these revivals were limited to the New Comedy. There
is no trace of a reproduction of plays from the Middle and the Old. Nor
is this surprising. The comedy of early times was so local and personal
in its allusions, and depended so much for its interest upon contemporary
events, that it could not be expected to attract the ordinary public of a
later generation.

From the records just referred to it is evident that during the second
century B.C. comedy still flourished as vigorously as ever at the City
Dionysia. The festival had sometimes to be abandoned, owing to the
pressure of war and other calamities. But whenever there was a contest,
five new plays were exhibited. After the second century the notices about
this festival come to an end. But it is well known that in other parts
of Greece original comedies continued to form a part of the programme
at various festal gatherings down to the first century of the Christian
era.[78] We may therefore conclude without much doubt that they were
retained at the City Dionysia for an equally long period.


§ 6. _Order of Contests at the City Dionysia._

Before leaving the subject of the City Dionysia, it may be interesting
to say a few words about the performances as a whole, and the order in
which they took place. The programme to be gone through was a long one.
In the fifth century it consisted of five choruses of boys, five choruses
of men, three comedies, and three groups of tragedies, each containing
four plays. As to the arrangement of these various items there is not
much information.[79] But one thing seems certain, that the three groups
of tragedies must have been exhibited on three successive days. It is
difficult to see what other system was possible. Two groups, consisting
of eight dramas, would have been far too much for a single day.[80] Nor
can we suppose that plays belonging to the same group were performed on
different days. If this had been the case, the value of the tetralogic
form of composition would have been almost entirely destroyed. Further
than this, there is a passage in Aristophanes which seems to prove that
tragedies and comedies were produced on the same day. In the Birds,[81]
which was brought out at the City Dionysia, the chorus remark that it
would be a delightful thing to have wings. They say that if one of the
spectators was tired with the tragic choruses, he might fly away home,
have his dinner, and fly back again in time for the comic choruses. It
appears to follow from this that the comedies were performed after the
tragedies. As there were three comedies during the fifth century, and
three groups of tragedies, the arrangement must have been that each
tragic group was performed in the morning of three successive days, and
was followed in the afternoon by a comedy. The festival as a whole lasted
for five or six days. The first day was taken up by the procession. Three
more were taken up by the tragedies and comedies. The remaining one or
two days would be devoted to the dithyrambs. Such was the system during
the life-time of Aeschylus and Sophocles. In the fourth century, when
the number of comedies had been raised to five, the number of tragedies
diminished, and a satyric drama and an old tragedy placed at the head of
the tragic contests, various rearrangements would be necessary. But there
is nothing to show how they were carried out.[82]


§ 7. _The Lenaea._

The Lenaea was a festival in honour of Dionysus Lenaeus.[83] It was
celebrated, at any rate, during the earliest times, in a sacred enclosure
called the Lenaeum.[84] Hence the feast was also termed the ‘Contest at
the Lenaeum’, or the ‘Epilenaean Dionysia’; and the poet who won a prize
there was said to have been ‘victorious at the Lenaeum’.[85] The site of
the Lenaeum is unfortunately a matter in much dispute, and no certain
conclusion has been arrived at. Except that it was in or close to the
market-place, the site of which is itself uncertain, nothing definite can
be said about it.

The Lenaea was a winter gathering. It was held in the month of Gamelion,
at a time corresponding to the end of January.[86] The weather was still
often stormy, and the sea was not yet considered safe for voyagers.[87]
Consequently there were few visitors in Athens. The festival was a
domestic sort of holiday, confined to the Athenians themselves. The
proceedings were simple and unpretentious, as compared with the splendid
ceremonial and vast audiences at the City Dionysia. Aristophanes, in
the Acharnians, which was produced at the Lenaea, says he can now abuse
Athens as much as he likes, without being accused of degrading her in the
eyes of foreign Greeks.[88] The entertainments at the Lenaea consisted of
a procession, and of contests in tragedy and comedy.[89] The procession
was not an impressive spectacle, like that at the City Dionysia, but was
conducted in primitive fashion by men who drove about in wagons, and
assailed the bystanders with abuse and ridicule.[90] The festival as a
whole was much shorter than the City Dionysia.

The early history of tragedy at the Lenaea is veiled in obscurity. The
first piece of information on the subject which we possess belongs to
the latter part of the fifth century. It consists of a record of the
tragic performances at the Lenaea for the years 419 and 418.[91] In both
these years the number of poets who competed was two, and each of them
exhibited three tragedies.[92] There is no mention of a satyric play.
Again, we are told that in 416 Agathon won a tragic victory at the
Lenaea.[93] These two notices comprise all that is known about tragedy
at this festival during the fifth century. They appear to prove that
towards the close of the century the tragic contests had become a regular
institution, though the number of poets and plays was much smaller than
at the City Dionysia. Whether the contests were of recent origin, or
reached back for many years, cannot be ascertained. During the fourth
century new tragedies continued to be produced at the Lenaea without
any cessation. In 367 Dionysius, the tyrant of Syracuse, won the tragic
prize there. Aphareus, who flourished about 350, exhibited there on two
occasions. Theodectes, the pupil of Aristotle, obtained one victory at
the Lenaea; Astydamas, his contemporary, obtained seven.[94] As to the
arrangement of the contest during this period, and the number of plays
produced, there is no information. But it is probable that the new
tragedies were preceded by an old one, as at the City Dionysia. After
the fourth century nothing further is known about the connexion of the
Lenaea with the tragic drama.[95] The festival continued to be celebrated
down to the second century A.D., and possibly later.[96] But whether
tragedies, either old or new, were still included in the programme, is
quite uncertain.

Comedy was the special product of the Lenaea, and was regarded as of more
importance than tragedy. It was doubtless at this festival that comic
contests were first regularly organized. The date is not recorded. But
they must have been in existence at any rate as early as 463,[97] since
at that time they were already included in the City Dionysia. There is
also another piece of evidence. Chionides, one of the early comic poets,
is said to have begun to exhibit plays in 487. It is unlikely that the
exact year of his first appearance would have been remembered, unless it
had referred to a regular public contest. Hence we may probably assume
that comic contests had been established as early as 487; and if so,
they may have been established at the Lenaea.[98] But they cannot go
back beyond about 500, since comedy in general was a later institution
than tragedy. The first definite and dated record of a comic contest
at the Lenaea is for the year 425, when Aristophanes produced his
Acharnians.[99] From this time forward the history of comedy at the
Lenaea is much the same as its history at the City Dionysia. During the
fifth century there were three competing poets, and each brought out a
single play.[100] In the fourth century the number of poets was varied to
five.[101] The practice of exhibiting an old comedy as a prelude to the
new ones was introduced in the course of the next hundred years.[102] In
the second century original comedy was still flourishing as vigorously as
ever at Athens, though none of the records so far dated with certainty
refer to the Lenaea.[103] There is no evidence as to its later course.

A few remarks may be made here on the relative importance of the Lenaea
and the City Dionysia from the theatrical point of view. The City
Dionysia was much the most splendid and imposing gathering of the two. It
was attended by larger crowds of people, and was subjected to stricter
regulations. Aliens were not allowed to take part in the choruses; metics
were forbidden to serve as choregi.[104] No such prohibitions existed at
the Lenaea. It must obviously have been a much greater honour for a poet
to produce his plays at the City Dionysia, before the vast concourse of
citizens and strangers, than in the comparative privacy of the Lenaea.
In tragedy this was more particularly the case. The great tragic poets,
after their fame had been once established, seem to have mostly confined
themselves to the City Dionysia. Sophocles, for instance, won eighteen
victories there, and only two or six at the Lenaea.[105] The Lenaea would
be generally reserved for inferior poets, or for youthful authors who had
still their reputation to make. Thus in 418 one of the competitors was an
obscure poet called Callistratus.[106] In 416 the victor was Agathon, who
had never yet obtained a tragic prize.[107] Foreign poets may also have
been generally confined to this festival. It was here that Dionysius,
the tyrant of Syracuse, won his solitary success.[108] The circumstances
were rather different in regard to comedy. The leading comic poets seem
to have made little distinction between the two festivals. Aristophanes
produced his plays indifferently at both.[109] Cratinus won six Lenaean
victories as opposed to three in the City, Teleclides five as opposed to
three.[110] In explanation of this fact we should remember that comedy
was the chief feature at the Lenaea, tragedy an appendage. Also, as
the competitors in comedy only produced one play at a time, a poet of
a fertile mind would need two contests in the year in order to exhibit
what he had written. Still, in spite of the more equal distribution of
the comic poets between the two festivals, there can be little doubt that
even in comedy a ‘City victory’ was always the highest distinction.[111]


§ 8. _Rural Dionysia and Anthesteria._

The Rural Dionysia were provincial festivals, held about the end of
December[112] in the country districts of Attica. Originally they
were very simple in character.[113] The villagers, holding aloft the
phallus, marched in procession to the altar of Dionysus, where a goat was
sacrificed, and songs and dances performed in honour of the god. Then
came various country sports; and the day ended in drinking and merriment.
Later on, as the people advanced in wealth and refinement, the dignity
of many of these festivals was much increased. Dramatic contests began
to be introduced, in imitation of those already established in Athens.
Eventually, by the end of the fifth century, all the larger Attic towns
appear to have provided themselves with theatres and annual theatrical
exhibitions. The most important of these local gatherings was that in the
Peiraeeus, which was supported by contributions of money from the state
treasury, and attended by large crowds from Athens and the neighbouring
districts. The procession, with which the proceedings commenced, must
have been a striking spectacle. The whole body of the ephebi took part
in it. Then there were contests in tragedy and comedy. The fame of
these contests is shown by the fact that even distinguished poets, such
as Euripides, occasionally appeared as competitors; and that foreign
ambassadors, if present in Athens at the time, were invited to attend
as a matter of course.[114] Among other festivals which seem to have
acquired more than a local celebrity, we may mention those of Collytus
where Aeschines acted the part of Oenomaus in the play of Sophocles,[115]
Eleusis,[116] Salamis,[117] and Icaria, and at these proclamation was
made of crowns which had been bestowed on deserving citizens.[118]
At Aixone there were performances of comedies, but tragedies are not
mentioned.[119] At Phlya there were dramatic performances, probably
of both kinds.[120] The remains of a theatre have been found at
Thoricus.[121]

The plays produced at these rustic Dionysia were mostly old ones, which
had already been successful on the Athenian stage. The exhibition of new
and original dramas was exceptional, and confined to a few important
towns.[122] Usually the proceedings took the form of a contest between
troupes of actors, who competed with plays of established reputation.
Prizes were offered by the different demes, and companies were formed in
Athens for the purpose of touring the country, and contending against
one another. Aeschines in his youth served as tritagonist in a troupe
of this kind, having been hired for a provincial tour by ‘the ranters’,
Simylus and Socrates.[123] These constant revivals of old plays at the
Rural Dionysia are a fact of some importance in the history of the Attic
drama. It was in this way that the Athenian audience was familiarized
with the masterpieces of the past, which might otherwise have been
forgotten. In Athens itself there were not many opportunities of seeing
them acted. There were only two dramatic festivals in the year, and these
were mostly given up to original compositions. Yet the audience was
obviously well acquainted with the older dramas. The frequent parodies
and allusions in Aristophanes prove that this was the case.[124] It was
at the Rural Dionysia that they acquired their knowledge. The spectators
in the Athenian theatre consisted partly of natives of Athens, partly
of citizens from the country districts. For the natives there were the
festivals of the adjoining demes, such as Collytus and the Peiraeeus;
for the provincials there were their own local gatherings. Both classes
therefore would have many chances of witnessing the reproduction of
celebrated plays.

The Anthesteria had so little connexion with the drama that it is
unnecessary to describe the manner in which it was celebrated.[125]
Regular performances of plays were apparently unknown there during the
classical period. The only trace of anything theatrical is a certain
contest between comic actors, which took place on the Chytri, the
last day of the festival. The victor at this contest was allowed the
undisputed right of acting at the forthcoming City Dionysia a month
later.[126] Probably the performance consisted in the recitation of
selected portions of a comedy by the different competitors. The contest
had fallen into disuse during the latter part of the fourth century, but
was restored by the orator Lycurgus. In much later times, during the
first century A.D., we hear of ‘tragic monodies’ and ‘comic parabases’
being performed at the Anthesteria.[127] But the notice is too slight and
vague to enable us to judge as to the general character of the exhibition.


§ 9. _The Judges._

The institution of the dramatic contests at the different Attic
festivals has now been described in detail. As regards the management
of the competition many points still remain to be considered, viz. the
selection of the judges, the mode of giving the verdict, the prizes for
poets and actors, and the public records of the results. First as to the
judges. The number of the judges in the comic contests was five.[128]
The number in the tragic contests was probably the same, but there is
no direct evidence upon the subject. The process of selection seems to
have been as follows.[129] Several days before the actual commencement
of the festival the Council, assisted by the choregi, elected by vote
a preliminary list of judges. A certain number of names were selected
from each of the ten tribes of Attica. The different choregi, as was
natural, endeavoured to get their own partisans upon the list. The names
of the persons chosen were then inscribed upon tablets, and the tablets
were placed in ten urns, each urn containing the names belonging to a
single tribe. The urns were then carefully locked up and sealed in the
presence of the prytanes and choregi, handed over to the custody of
the treasurers, and deposited in the Acropolis. The preliminary list
of judges was kept a secret from every one except the Council and the
choregi, in order that no improper influence might be brought to bear
upon them. The penalty for tampering with the urns was death. It is not
known from what class the nominees were selected, or whether any property
qualification was necessary. Obviously the judges in the dramatic and
dithyrambic contests had a very delicate office to perform. If their
verdict was to be of value, it was necessary that they should be men of
culture and discernment. It is most likely therefore that there was some
limitation upon the number of persons qualified to act in this capacity.

Until the time of the festival the preliminary list of citizens remained
sealed up in urns in the Acropolis. On the first day of the competitions
the ten urns were produced in the theatre, and placed in some prominent
position. The persons whose names were contained in the urns were all
present in the theatre. Probably they received a special summons from
the archon shortly before the festival. At the commencement of the
contest the archon proceeded to draw a single name from all the urns
in succession. The ten persons whose names were drawn constituted the
second list of judges, and each of them represented one of the ten
tribes of Attica. After being selected by lot in the manner described,
they were called forward by the archon, and took a solemn oath that they
would give an impartial verdict.[130] They were then conducted to seats
specially appointed for them, and the contest began.[131] At the end of
the performances each of them gave his vote, writing upon a tablet the
names of the competitors in order of merit.[132] These tablets, ten in
number, were then placed in an urn, and the archon proceeded to draw
forth five of them at random. The result of the competition was decided
in accordance with these five lists, and the persons whose tablets were
drawn from the urn constituted the ultimate body of five judges. It thus
appears that up to the very last the judges who recorded their votes
were not sure whether the votes would eventually have effect, or turn
out to be so much waste paper. This uncertainty was of course a great
obstacle to intimidation and bribery. After the competition was over,
and the verdict announced, the names of the five judges, whose votes had
decided the day, were not kept secret. It was known how each of them had
voted. But the other votes, which had been recorded but not drawn from
the urn, were destroyed without being made public.[133] It was naturally
considered a much greater honour to win a victory by the unanimous vote
of all five judges than by a mere majority of one.[134] But it is very
doubtful whether any public record was kept of the number of votes by
which a victory was gained.

Whether the decision of the judges was generally given with discernment,
and how far it corresponded with the ultimate verdict of posterity, is
a question of some interest. Both Aeschylus and Sophocles were usually
successful, and this speaks highly for the taste of the judges. Aeschylus
won thirteen victories; and as he produced four plays on each occasion,
it follows that no less than fifty-two of his plays obtained the first
prize. Whether the total number of his plays was seventy or ninety,
the proportion of victories was very large.[135] Sophocles was equally
fortunate. He won eighteen victories at the City Dionysia, and at least
two at the Lenaea.[136] The number of his plays, as given by different
authorities, varies from a hundred-and-four to a hundred-and-thirty.[137]
Thus on the lowest estimate considerably more than half his plays gained
the first position. Euripides was not so successful. He only won five
victories, though he wrote between ninety and a hundred plays.[138] His
failure was partly due to the fact that he often had the misfortune
to contend against Sophocles. He was beaten by Sophocles in 438 and
431, and probably on many other occasions of which no record has been
preserved.[139] But at other times he was defeated by very inferior
poets. In 415 he was beaten by Xenocles, and on another occasion by the
obscure poet Nicomachus.[140] But the most surprising verdict of which
there is any record is the defeat of the Oedipus Tyrannus of Sophocles by
Philocles, the nephew of Aeschylus.[141] Of course the other three plays,
along with which the Oedipus Tyrannus was produced, may not have been of
equal merit. Still it must always seem an extraordinary fact, and a proof
of the fallibility of Athenian judges, that a play which is generally
allowed to be one of the greatest dramas of antiquity should have been
defeated by a third-rate poet such as Philocles.

Verdicts of this indefensible character might be due to various causes.
The judges might be corrupt, or might be intimidated. The spirit of
emulation ran very high at these contests, and men were often not very
particular as to the means by which they obtained the victory. There is
an instance in one of the speeches of Lysias. The defendant is showing
that the prosecutor had been on very friendly terms with him a short
time before. The proof he brings forward is that when he was choregus
at the City Dionysia he got the prosecutor appointed on the preliminary
list of judges for the express purpose of voting for his own chorus.
The prosecutor was pledged to vote for the chorus of the defendant,
whether it was good or bad. He appears to have actually done so; but
unfortunately, at the final drawing, his name was not selected, and
his vote was therefore of no value.[142] Another example of the use of
corruption is afforded by the case of Meidias, who is said to have won
the victory with his chorus of men at the City Dionysia by bribing or
intimidating the judges.[143] Similarly at a contest of boys’ choruses,
Alcibiades, in spite of his outrageous conduct in assaulting a rival
choregus, won the first prize, because some of the judges were afraid
to vote against him, and others had been bought over to his side.[144]
The verdict of each individual judge was made public. Hence it is easy
to see that judges might often be afraid to incur the hostility of rich
and unscrupulous citizens by voting against them. The above instances
all refer to dithyrambic contests. No doubt in these cases, as the whole
tribe was concerned with the result, party feeling ran exceptionally
high. In the dramatic competitions only individuals were engaged, and
there was less general excitement about the result. Yet even here corrupt
influences were sometimes employed. Menander, the greatest comic poet of
his time, was often defeated by Philemon owing to jobbery and intrigue
similar to that described above.[145]

One not unfrequent cause then of unfair verdicts must have been
corruption and intimidation. There is also another point to be kept in
view in estimating the value of the decisions of the ancient judges. The
plays of Sophocles and Euripides were no doubt immeasurably superior,
as literary works, to the plays of Philocles, Xenocles, and Nicomachus,
by which they were defeated. And yet in these and similar instances the
verdicts of the judges may perhaps have had some justification. One
is apt to forget the importance of the manner in which the play was
presented upon the stage. Even in modern times an inferior play, if well
mounted and acted, is more impressive than a good play badly performed.
This must have been still more the case in the ancient drama, where
the singing and dancing of the chorus formed such an important element
in the success of the performance. It can easily be seen that, however
well a play was written, if it was ill-mounted, and if the chorus was
badly trained, this would greatly diminish the chances of success. Now
the ancient poet was dependent upon his choregus for the mounting of
the piece and for the selection of the chorus. If the choregus was rich
and generous the play was put upon the stage in the very best manner,
with all the advantages of fine dresses and a well-trained chorus. An
ambitious choregus spared no pains to do his part of the work thoroughly.
But if the choregus was a miserly man he tried to do the thing as cheaply
as possible. He hired inferior singers, and cut down the prices of the
dresses and other accessories. Hence the success of a play depended
nearly as much upon the choregus as upon the poet. Several examples
illustrate this fact. Demosthenes, shortly before his death, is said to
have dreamt that he was acting in a tragedy in a contest with Archias;
but although he was highly successful, and produced a great impression
upon the audience, he was defeated in the contest because of the wretched
manner in which the play was mounted upon the stage.[146] Then there is
the case of Nicias. He was a man of great wealth, but not of commanding
talents. Accordingly he tried to win popularity by the magnificence
with which he performed his duties as choregus. The result was that he
obtained the victory in every competition in which he engaged.[147]
Antisthenes is another instance of a rich choregus who, although he
knew nothing about music and poetry, was always successful in his
contests, because he spared no expense in the preparations.[148] There
is an example of a different kind of choregus in one of the speeches of
Isaeus. A certain Dicaeogenes regarded his office of choregus merely
as a burden, and tried to perform it in the most economical manner.
The consequence was that he was always unsuccessful. He engaged in a
dithyrambic and tragic contest, and in a contest of pyrrhic dancers. On
the first occasion he was last but one, on the other two occasions he
was last.[149] Obviously the tragic poet who had the misfortune to be
associated with Dicaeogenes would have a very small chance of success.
The above examples show very clearly that the money of the choregus was
almost as important towards securing victory as the genius of the poet.

The best critics would attend mainly to the merits of the piece in
itself, apart from the splendour of the accompaniments. But the mass of
the spectators would be dazzled by gorgeous dresses and effective singing
and dancing. And the mass of the spectators had a great deal to do with
the verdict. If they were strongly in favour of a particular poet, it
was difficult for the judges to act in opposition to their wishes. The
judges were liable to prosecution and imprisonment if their verdict was
supposed to be unjust; and the case would be tried before a jury chosen
from the very audience which they had thwarted.[150] That the multitude
on occasions made their wishes known most emphatically, and brought
great pressure to bear upon the judges, is shown by Aelian’s account
of the first performance of the Clouds. The story is a fable, but is
interesting as an illustration of the occasional behaviour of an Athenian
audience. It is said that the people were so delighted with the Clouds,
that they applauded the poet more than they had ever done before, and
insisted on the judges placing the name of Aristophanes first upon the
list.[151] Plato laments on several occasions the despotism exercised by
the audience in the theatre. In former times, he says, the verdict was
not decided by ‘hisses and unmusical shouts, as at the present day, nor
by applause and clapping of hands’, but the rabble were compelled by the
attendants to keep quiet. In another place he says that the judge should
be the instructor, not the pupil, of the audience, and should refuse
to be intimidated by their shouts into giving a false verdict. But at
the present day, he adds, the decision rests with the multitude, and is
practically decided by public vote, and the result is the degeneracy
of poets and spectators alike.[152] These passages of Plato prove how
much the judges were under the dominion of the audience; and a general
audience would be especially likely to be carried away by the splendour
of the choregic part of the exhibition, by the music, dancing, and
scenery. But on the whole, in spite of occasional cases of corruption,
and in spite of the despotism of the multitude, one would be inclined
to say, arguing from results, that the judges performed their duties
well. The best proof of their fairness lies in the continued success of
Aeschylus and Sophocles.[153]


§ 10. _The Prizes._

When the contest was ended, and the decision of the judges had been
announced, the names of the victorious poet and of his choregus were
publicly proclaimed by the herald, and they were crowned with garlands
of ivy in the presence of the spectators. The crowning probably took
place upon the stage, and was performed by the archon.[154] There is no
mention of any special prize for the choregus, in addition to the honour
of the crown and the public proclamation of his victory. It is often
stated that the successful choregus received a tripod from the State,
which he was expected to erect upon a monument in some public place,
with an inscription recording his victory. But this was only the case in
the dithyrambic contests. In these contests each choregus appeared as
the representative of one of the ten tribes of Attica; the tripod which
he received belonged really to the tribe, and was intended to serve as
a tribal monument.[155] The dramatic choregi had no such representative
character, nor were they provided with any memorial of victory by the
State.

As to the rewards for the poets, the tradition was that in the earliest
times the prize for tragedy was a goat, the prize for comedy a basket
of figs and a jar of wine.[156] After the dramatic contests had been
regularly organized, each of the competing poets received a payment of
money from the State, differing no doubt in amount, according to the
place he gained in the competition.[157] Nothing is known as to the value
of these prizes. But as the ancient dramatist had not only to write
his plays, but also to superintend their production, the demands upon
his time and energy must have been very great, and the rewards would
be correspondingly large. Some idea of the scale on which the amounts
were graduated, according to the place of each poet in the competition,
may be gathered from the analogy of the dithyrambic contests instituted
by Lycurgus in the Peiraeeus. In these contests not less than three
choruses were to take part, and the prizes were to be ten minae for
the first chorus, eight for the second, and six for the third.[158]
The payment of the dramatic poets was probably arranged in a somewhat
similar proportion. Towards the end of the fifth century the prizes
were reduced in amount by certain commissioners of the Treasury, named
Archinus and Agyrrhius. Accordingly in the Frogs of Aristophanes these
two statesmen are placed in the list of bad men who are not allowed to
join the chorus of the initiated.[159] The fact that all of the competing
poets received a reward of money need cause no astonishment. They were
the poets chosen, after selection, to provide the entertainment at the
annual festivals. They were not selected until their plays had been
carefully examined by the archon and found to be of the requisite merit.
To be allowed to exhibit at all was a considerable distinction. There
was nothing dishonourable for an ordinary poet in being placed last in
the competition. No doubt for one of the great dramatic writers such
a position was regarded as a disgrace. When Aristophanes was third it
is spoken of as a distinct rebuff.[160] But to obtain the second place
was always creditable. It is mentioned as a proof of the greatness of
Sophocles that he ‘obtained twenty victories and was often second’.
When he was defeated for the first place by Philocles, the disgrace
consisted, not in his being second, but in his being beaten by such an
inferior poet.[161] At the same time to be second was never regarded as a
‘victory’. The title of victor was reserved for the first poet. This is
proved by the passage about Sophocles just quoted, and also by the fact
that in the list of victors at the City Dionysia only the names of the
first poets in the tragic and comic contests are enumerated.[162] It is
clearly owing to an error that the second poet is sometimes spoken of as
a victor.[163]


§ 11. _Contests between actors._

In addition to the rewards just mentioned, prizes for acting were
instituted in later times. At first the principal competitors in the
dramatic contests were the choregus and the poet. Upon their efforts
the success of a play mainly depended. It was to them that the rewards
of victory were assigned, and it was their names which were recorded in
the public monuments. But as time went on the profession of the actor
gradually increased in importance. Eventually the success of a play came
to depend principally upon the actors. The competition was extended to
them. A prize was offered for the most successful actor as well as for
the most successful poet. The name of the victorious actors began to be
recorded in the official lists. As regards the date of these innovations
the following facts may be gathered from existing monuments. At the
City Dionysia contests between tragic actors were established for the
first time about the year 446 B.C.[164] Contests between comic actors
at this festival are not mentioned in the inscriptional records of
performances during the fifth and fourth centuries.[165] In the second
century they seem to have become a regular institution, but nothing
certain can be ascertained concerning the intervening period.[166] At the
Lenaea, contests between tragic actors can be traced back as far as 420
B.C.,[167] and contests between comic actors as far as about 289 with
certainty,[168] and considerably earlier with fair probability.[169]

These contests were limited to the principal actors or protagonists in
each play. The subordinate actors, the deuteragonist and tritagonist,
had nothing to do with them. The principal actor in a Greek play was a
much more important personage than even the ‘star’ in a modern company.
The actors in a Greek play were limited to three in number, and each
of them had to play several parts in succession, by means of changes
in dress and mask. Hence the protagonist had to perform not only the
principal part, but also several of the subordinate ones. Besides this,
the composition of most Greek tragedies was designed with the express
purpose of bringing out into strong relief the character of the principal
personage. The incidents were intended to draw forth his different
emotions: the subordinate characters were so many foils to him. As a
consequence, the success of a Greek play depended almost wholly upon the
protagonist. In the ordinary language of the times he was said to ‘act
the play’, as if the other performers were of no importance. To take an
example from existing inscriptions, it is recorded that in 340 ‘Astydamas
was victorious with the Parthenopaeus, acted by Thessalus, and the
Lycaon, acted by Neoptolemus’.[170] This is the regular form of the old
records both in tragedy and comedy. Demosthenes uses similar language.
Referring to the Phoenix of Euripides, he says that ‘Theodorus and
Aristodemus never acted this play’. The form of the language is proof of
the overwhelming importance of the protagonist.[171] The only other point
to be noticed is that the success of the actor was quite independent of
the success of the play in which he was performing. Thus in one of the
comic contests of the second century the prize for acting was won by
Onesimus. But the play in which he acted, the Shipwrecked Mariner, only
won the second place. The successful comedy, the Ephesians, was acted by
Sophilus. Similarly in the tragic contests of the year 418 the prize for
acting was won by Callippides; but the poet Callistratus, whose three
tragedies he performed, was only second. The tragedies of the successful
poet were acted by Lysicrates.[172]

The actors’ contests which we have hitherto been describing took place
at the performance of new tragedies and comedies, and existed side by
side with contests between poets and choregi. But there were other
occasions in which actors met in competition. The reproduction of old
plays generally took the form of contests between actors. These contests
were of two kinds. In the first kind each actor performed a different
play. At the same time the victory was decided, not by the merits of the
play, but by the skill of the actor. There are several references to
competitions of this sort. For instance, before the battle of Arginusae,
Thrasyllus is said to have dreamt that he was engaged in a contest in
the theatre at Athens, and that he and his fellow generals were acting
the Phoenissae of Euripides, while their opponents were acting the
Supplices.[173] The most frequent occasion for reproductions of old
plays in this manner must have been afforded by the Rural Dionysia
in the different townships of Attica. The dramatic performances at
these festivals were mostly confined, as we have already seen, to the
exhibition of old tragedies and comedies. The town offered a prize for
acting, and the leading Athenian actors came down with their companies
and took part in the contest, each performing a different play. But at
the great Athenian festivals, the Lenaea and the City Dionysia, there are
no traces of such competitions to be found in the records. They may have
been introduced in late times; but during the more flourishing period of
the drama, when the older poets were reproduced at these festivals, one
play seems to have been considered sufficient.[174]

The second kind of competition with old plays differed from the first
in this respect, that each actor performed the same play. For instance,
Licymnius, the tragic actor, is said to have defeated Critias and
Hippasus in the Propompi of Aeschylus. Andronicus, another tragic actor,
was successful in the Epigoni on one occasion; and it is implied that his
opponents acted the same play.[175] In contests of this description it is
not probable that the whole play was acted by each of the competitors,
but only special portions of it. The contest would be useful for purposes
of selection. When the custom arose of prefacing the performances of new
tragedies and new comedies by the reproduction of an ancient drama, it
would be necessary for the state to choose the actor who was to manage
the reproduction. Very probably the selection was made by a competition
of the kind we are describing, in which a portion of an old play was
performed by each of the candidates. The contests between comic actors at
the Chytri have already been referred to.[176] Most likely they were of
the same description.


§ 12. _Records of dramatic contests._

It is difficult in modern times to realize fully the keenness of the
interest with which the various dramatic contests were regarded by the
old Athenians, and the value which was attached to victories obtained
in them. The greatest statesman was proud to be successful with a
chorus in tragedy or comedy. It was a proof both of his taste and of
his munificence. The tragic poet held as high a place in the popular
estimation as the orator or the general. Victorious competitors were not
content with the mere temporary glory they obtained. Every care was taken
to perpetuate the memory of their success in a permanent form. Elaborate
records were also erected by the state. A description of the various
kinds of memorials, of which fragments have been preserved, will be a
convincing proof of the enthusiasm with which the drama was regarded in
ancient times.

First, as to the private monuments. These were erected by the victorious
choregi, and appear to have differed widely in style and costliness,
according to the wealth and taste of the individuals. Thus the mean
man in Theophrastus, when he had been successful with a tragic chorus,
was content to erect a mere wooden scroll in commemoration of his
victory.[177] Another cheap device was to dedicate some article of
theatrical costume, such as an actor’s mask.[178] But the ordinary form
of memorial, in the case of the dramatic contests, consisted of a marble
tablet, containing a painting or sculptured relief.[179] At first, no
doubt, these tablets were of small size and simple workmanship; but in
course of time, with the growth of luxurious habits, they began to assume
a more elaborate form. For instance, the monument set up by Xenocles
in 306 was about fourteen feet high, the tablet being enclosed in a
magnificent architectural structure, with columns and entablature.[180]
The paintings and reliefs upon the tablets were no less variable. Some
of them depicted masks, or crowns of victory, or similar emblems; others
contained representations of Dionysus or Silenus. Sometimes groups of
figures were portrayed, such as a chorus of singers with the choregus in
the centre. Sometimes a scene was inserted from the tragedy or comedy in
which the victory had been obtained.[181] But though the tablets differed
in magnificence, the inscriptions upon them were generally simple and
concise, and consisted merely of the names of the poet and choregus,
and of the archon for the year, with the addition in later times of the
name of the actor. The record inscribed by Themistocles in honour of his
tragic victory in 476 ran as follows:[182]—

  Choregus, Themistocles of Phrearria:
  Poet, Phrynichus:
  Archon, Adeimantus.

As regards public memorials, we can hardly doubt that from the earliest
period records of the different contests were preserved in the official
archives. But in addition to these documentary registers, elaborate
monuments of stone were erected by the state in or near to the theatre of
Dionysus. Considerable fragments of these monuments have been discovered
by recent excavations. They may be divided into three classes. The first
class consisted of records of all the contests at some one particular
festival. Such records were of the most general description, and
contained merely a list of victors’ names. Fragments have been discovered
of the records of the contests at the City Dionysia during the fifth
and fourth centuries.[183] The style is the same throughout. The boys’
choruses are mentioned first, then the choruses of men, then comedy,
and tragedy last of all. In the dithyrambic contests the names of the
victorious tribe and choregus are given; in the dramatic contests the
names of the victorious choregus and poet. The only difference between
the earlier and later portions of the record is that towards the middle
of the fifth century the name of the tragic actor begins to be appended.

The second class of public monuments was devoted to the record of one
particular kind of contest at a particular festival. Records are extant
of tragedy at the Lenaea in the fifth century, and at the City Dionysia
in the fourth; also of comedy at the Lenaea in the third century, and
at the City Dionysia in the second.[184] The names of all the competing
poets are given, together with the titles of the plays they produced, and
the names of the actors who performed them. At the end comes the name of
the actor who won the prize for acting. If there was any reproduction of
an old tragedy or comedy, the name of the play is given, together with
the name of the actor.

The third class of monument consisted of lists of tragic and comic
actors, and tragic and comic poets, with numerals after each of them,
denoting the number of victories they had won in the course of their
career. There were separate lists for the City Dionysia and the Lenaea.
There were consequently eight lists in all, four for each festival.
Numerous fragments have been discovered, but unfortunately the most
interesting parts are not always the best preserved.[185] Still, they
throw light upon several small points in connexion with the drama.
One fragment confirms the statement of Diodorus, that the number of
Sophocles’ victories was eighteen. At any rate that is proved to have
been the number of his victories at the City Dionysia. Cratinus is
represented as having won three victories at the City Dionysia and six at
the Lenaea. This tallies exactly with the account of Suidas, who gives
the total number of his victories as nine.[186]

None of the public monuments, of which fragments have been recovered,
appear to have been erected before the third century, or, at the
earliest, the latter part of the fourth century B.C. But there can
be no doubt that similar monuments existed at a much earlier period.
These earlier records, together with the choregic inscriptions and the
documents in the public archives, must have been the source from which
Aristotle derived the information contained in his two books about
the contests at the Dionysia. Of these two books the first was called
‘Dionysiac Victories’, and though it is never quoted by ancient writers,
it probably contained the same sort of information as the first and third
classes of public monuments. The other book was called the ‘Didascaliae’,
and is very frequently referred to and quoted from.[187] It contained
lists of the poets who competed at each festival, together with the names
of the plays they produced. It was therefore similar to the second class
of monuments. ‘Didascalia,’ in its dramatic sense, meant originally the
teaching and training of a chorus. It then came to denote the play or
group of plays produced by a poet at a single festival.[188] Lastly, it
was used to denote a record concerning the production of a play or group
of plays. It is in this sense that Aristotle used it as the title of his
book. The work would not be a mere compilation from existing records and
monuments. It must have required some care and research. For instance,
when a poet had his plays brought out vicariously, we cannot doubt that
the name of the nominal author was entered in the public records, and
not that of the real poet. Aristophanes usually brought out his plays in
this manner. Then again a poet’s plays were sometimes brought out after
his death in the name of his son. In these and similar cases it would
be the duty of the compiler of a work like Aristotle’s to correct the
mistakes of the public records, and to substitute where necessary the
name of the real author of the play. Corrections of this kind were no
doubt made by Aristotle and his successors. The Didascaliae of Aristotle
is the ultimate source of our information as to the production and the
success of the plays of the great Athenian dramatists. Callimachus,
the grammarian of Alexandria, wrote a book of a similar kind, based
upon Aristotle’s work.[189] It was from Callimachus that Aristophanes,
the grammarian, derived the information which he incorporated in his
Arguments to the Greek plays.[190] The existing Arguments are mainly
fragments of the work of Aristophanes.[191] Thus the process of
derivation from Aristotle can be traced step by step. The list of victors
at the City Dionysia for the year 458, which was dug up at Athens a few
years ago, tallies in every particular with the facts recorded in the
Argument to the Agamemnon of Aeschylus.[192]




CHAPTER II

THE PREPARATION FOR THE CONTESTS


§ 1. _The Poets._

Dramatic performances at Athens, as was pointed out, were entirely in
the hands of the state. They were sacred institutions in honour of
Dionysus, and their regulation was as much the duty of the government as
the management of any other religious ceremonial. Of the two festivals
to which they were confined, the City Dionysia was superintended by the
archon eponymus, the Lenaea by the archon basileus. These two archons
were therefore responsible for the dramatic exhibitions at their
respective festivals.[193] They had not much to do with the details of
preparation. Their function was rather one of general supervision. They
had to select the proper persons, set them to work, and see that they
performed their work efficiently. At Athens this was a complex matter,
and required a good deal of arrangement. The requisite number of poets
had to be chosen and their plays approved. Choregi had to be appointed to
pay the expenses of the different choruses. Actors had then to be engaged
and distributed among the poets. It was the duty of the archon to make
all these selections, and to bring poets, actors, and choregi together.
In the present chapter we shall explain in detail the manner in which
these various arrangements were carried out.

When a poet wished to compete at one of the festivals, he sent in his
application to the archon, together with copies of the plays he proposed
to exhibit. As it was a great honour to be allowed to take part in
the competitions, there was usually no lack of applicants. The archon
then read through the plays submitted to him, and proceeded to select,
from among the various candidates, the number of poets required by
the particular festival. If it was tragedy at the City Dionysia which
he was providing for, he would choose three poets; if it was tragedy
at the Lenaea, he would choose two. In comedy the number of poets was
originally three, and in later times five. When the archon accepted a
poet’s application, and placed him on the official list of competitors,
he was said to ‘grant him a chorus’, because the next step was to provide
him with a choregus, who paid the expenses of his chorus. In the same
way, when a poet applied for permission to exhibit, he was said to ‘ask
for a chorus’.[194] The task imposed upon the archon of deciding between
the rival claims of the dramatic poets must have been a very difficult
and a very invidious one. Even if he acted with the best intentions, he
could hardly avoid giving offence. Sometimes there were manifest cases
of jobbery and favouritism. One archon refused a chorus to the great
comic poet Cratinus; another gave a chorus to a certain Cleomachus in
preference to Sophocles.[195] But it is unlikely that instances of this
kind were very common. Probably in most years the poets of the highest
reputation were chosen. In a city like Athens, where the magistrates were
entirely at the mercy of the people, it would be impossible for them to
disregard popular opinion in a very flagrant manner.

Some of the old scholiasts say that a poet was not allowed to exhibit
till he had reached the age of thirty or forty.[196] But this is clearly
a mistake. The only limit of age in any of these Bacchic contests was
that which prohibited a man under forty from serving as choregus to a
chorus of boys. As for the dramatic poets, they were free to compete
as soon as they had reached twenty, passed their dokimasia, and been
enrolled as full citizens. Most of the great poets seem to have begun
their career at a very early age. Aeschylus was only twenty-five when he
made his first appearance. Sophocles began to exhibit at twenty-eight,
Euripides at twenty-six,[197] while Aristophanes must have been even
younger when he brought out the Knights.[198]

It was not uncommon at Athens for a poet to have his plays produced by
a friend, instead of coming forward in his own person. Various motives
might lead him to do so. A young poet, feeling diffident about his
powers, might wish to make his first experiments anonymously. This was
apparently the reason why the first three plays of Aristophanes—the
Banqueters, Babylonians, and Acharnians—were brought out by
Callistratus.[199] It was not till 424, when the Knights was exhibited,
that Aristophanes applied for a chorus in his own name. In the parabasis
to this play he explains that the reasons which made him keep in the
background at first were caution and timidity, and a feeling that one
ought to proceed warily in the business of comic writing, and advance
by slow degrees, just as a steersman begins by serving as a rower.[200]
Sometimes, again, a poet wrote a play for his son, and allowed him to
bring it out and get the credit of the authorship, so as to give him a
successful start in his dramatic career. Aristophanes for this reason
entrusted his two last comedies to his son Araros; and Sophocles is said
to have entrusted his son Iophon with tragedies.[201] It occasionally
happened also that a wealthy citizen, with literary ambitions, bought a
play from a clever but needy author and exhibited it as his own. Plato,
the poet of the Old Comedy, is said to have made an income by sales of
this kind.[202] Probably, however, the commonest reason for vicarious
production was the mere desire to escape trouble and responsibility.
The older poets had superintended in person everything connected with
the bringing out of a play. In later times, as play-writing became
more and more a purely literary pursuit, it was natural for authors
occasionally to transfer the theatrical part of the business to other
shoulders. They hired stage-managers to look after the rehearsals, and
they got theatrical friends to make the necessary arrangements with the
archon. Aristophanes, in the middle of his career, entrusted many of his
comedies to Philonides and Callistratus.[203] The Autolycus of Eupolis
was brought out by Demostratus; Philippus, son of Aristophanes, is said
to have competed frequently with plays of Eubulus.[204] Aphareus, the
rhetorician and tragic poet of the fourth century, though he exhibited in
eight contests, never brought out a play in his own name.[205] In these
and similar cases it is difficult to suggest any other motive than love
of ease.

As regards the relationship between the poet and the friend who produced
his plays for him, there are one or two points which deserve notice. It
was the nominal poet who applied to the archon, received the chorus,
and undertook the whole responsibility. At the same time the name of
the real poet was often quite well known. Of course, if secrecy was an
object, this would not be so. When a father wrote plays for his son, or
a needy author sold plays to a literary aspirant, the real authorship
must have been concealed, at any rate for a time. But in other cases
it seems to have been an open secret from the first. Aristophanes, in
the Knights, says that many people had been asking him why he gave his
plays to Callistratus instead of applying for a chorus in person.[206]
In the Wasps, which is generally supposed not to have been brought out
by himself, he refers to the author of the play in terms only applicable
to himself.[207] Here, then, there was no attempt at concealment. At the
same time the nominal author must have been the one officially recognized
by the state. It must have been he who received the rewards of victory,
and whose name was stated as victor in the public records. It is true
that in the records which have been preserved the practice is to give the
name of the real author, and to add as a note that the play was actually
brought out by such and such a person. But this can hardly have been the
original form of the entry. It must be due to the corrections of the
grammarians who collected and edited the notices.


§ 2. _The Choregi._

The next point to consider is the nomination of the choregi, who provided
the choruses. In the case of the dithyrambic contests, which were tribal
in character, the choregi were appointed by the separate tribes, the
appointment taking place one month after the last festival.[208] But as
the drama had no connexion with the tribal system, the dramatic choregi
were taken indiscriminately from the general mass of citizens. They were
nominated by the archon in charge of each festival immediately after his
accession to office in July.[209] This, at any rate, was the original
system. But about the middle of the fourth century a change was made in
the case of the comic choregi. Their appointment was transferred from the
archon to the tribes.[210] Ten choregi were required every year, and each
tribe had to supply one. By this innovation the election of the comic
choregi was assimilated to that of the dithyrambic. But the change was
a mere piece of administrative detail, and had no further significance.
The comic contests remained, as before, independent of the tribal
arrangement, and the name of the tribe never appears in the records of
the contests.[211]

The choregia was one of the public burdens which had to be undertaken in
turn by the richer citizens. Any man of sufficient wealth might be called
upon after he had reached the age of twenty, though no one under the age
of forty could be choregus to a boys’ chorus.[212] The order was fixed by
law. But a citizen of unusual generosity and ambition might volunteer for
the office out of his proper turn. The defendant in one of the speeches
of Lysias tries to favourably impress the jury by explaining to them that
he has supplied eight choruses in nine years, in addition to such burdens
as the war-tax and the trierarchy.[213] Sometimes, however, there was a
difficulty in finding, even among those who were liable, a sufficient
number of rich men to fill the office. This was especially the case
towards the end of the Peloponnesian War, when there had been long and
heavy drains upon the resources of the state.[214] Accordingly in 406 it
was found necessary to lighten the burden. A law was passed that, each
dramatic chorus at the City Dionysia should be provided by two choregi
instead of one, thus diminishing the cost to individuals by half. This
law was only intended as a temporary expedient. It was not applied to the
Lenaea[215]; and even at the City Dionysia it was repealed in the course
of the next fifty years.[216]

The institution of the choregia lasted till nearly the end of the
fourth century.[217] But about the year 318 it was abolished, and a new
system adopted in its place.[218] The providing of the choruses was
now undertaken by the state, and an officer called the Agonothetes was
elected annually to carry out the arrangements. This official had the
general management of the musical and dramatic contests, and had to
perform all the duties which had previously fallen to the choregi, and
even to erect the tripods and other memorials of victory.[219] Though
assisted by contributions from the state, he had to bear the greater
part of the expenses himself, and was always chosen on account of his
wealth.[220] At this time the cost of the tragic and comic choruses
would not be very great, as the choral part of the drama had begun to
disappear. But there were other expenses connected with the dramatic
choregia, all of which he would have to meet. The change of system was
no doubt rendered necessary by the circumstances of the time and the
dearth of rich citizens. But it must have robbed the festivals of much
of their interest. In former days the keenness of the rivalry between
the individual choregi had contributed largely to the vitality of the
contests. All this source of excitement was now lost by the substitution
of a single all-powerful official. The name of the Agonothetes occurs
frequently in inscriptions during the third century. After this date
there is no mention of any further changes till about the first century
A.D., when there seems to have been a sort of antiquarian revival, and an
attempt was made to reintroduce the old choregi.[221] But the Agonothetes
was still retained as general manager of the competitions.

When the archon had selected the poets who were to exhibit, and had made
up his list of the choregi who were to supply the choruses, the next
thing necessary was to arrange choregi and poets together in pairs. Each
choregus had one poet assigned to him, for whose chorus (or choruses) he
was responsible. The process of pairing was a matter of great importance
to the competitors. A choregus who obtained an inferior poet would be
severely handicapped in the contest; and a poet who was joined to a
mean and parsimonious choregus would be equally unfortunate. If the
arrangement had been left to the magistrate, it would have given numerous
opportunities for corruption and favouritism. The Athenians, as usual,
evaded this difficulty by the use of the lot.

There is, indeed, no definite information as to the manner in which the
assignment was carried out in the case of tragic and comic choruses.
But in the case of the dithyrambic choruses there are full accounts of
the manner in which similar arrangements were made; and it will not be
difficult, from the analogy of these proceedings, to form a fairly clear
conception of the proceedings in regard to tragedy and comedy. Some
time before the festival a meeting of the ecclesia was held, at which
the distribution took place under the superintendence of the archon.
The proceedings were quite public, and any Athenian citizen who wished
could be present. The choregi first drew lots for order of choice, and
then each chose his own flute-player. The choregus who had obtained the
privilege of choosing first selected the flute-player whom he considered
to be the best of the ten. So they went on till all the flute-players
were chosen. The scene was a lively one. The success of the choregus,
and in consequence the success of his tribe, depended to a certain
extent upon his luck in getting a good or bad flute-player. Hence the
whole process was followed with the greatest interest by the crowds
of spectators present. As each lot was drawn, the result was greeted
with expressions of triumph or disappointment by the partisans of the
different choregi.[222] The above information is derived from the account
given by Demosthenes, in the speech against Meidias, of the preliminary
arrangements for the dithyrambic contests. Nothing is there said about
the choice or assignation of the poets. Probably in this contest only
old dithyrambs were reproduced, and there were no poets to be assigned.
That such was often the case is proved by inscriptions.[223] But when
the contest was with original dithyrambs, and poets were required, they
seem to have been allotted to the choregi in much the same manner as the
flute-players. The defendant in one of the speeches of Antiphon says
that, when he was choregus to a chorus of boys at the Thargelia, the poet
Pantacles was assigned to him by lot[224].


§ 3. _Selection of the Actors._

Poets and choregi having been associated together in pairs, there still
remained the selection and appointment of the actors. The manner in which
they were appointed differed very considerably at different periods. To
take the case of tragic actors first. Before the time of Aeschylus, when
tragedy was more a lyrical than a dramatic performance, consisting of
long choral odes interspersed with recitatives, actors did not exist as
a separate class. Only one actor was required in each play, and his part
was taken by the poet.[225] But when Aeschylus increased the number of
actors to two, and converted tragedy from a lyrical into a dramatic form
of art, the poets ceased to perform in their own plays, and the actor’s
profession came into existence. For the next fifty years or so it does
not appear that the state took any part in the selection of the actors.
It left the matter in the hands of the poets. Particular actors are found
to have been permanently connected with particular poets. Aeschylus is
said to have first employed Cleander as his actor, and to have afterwards
associated a second actor with him in the person of Mynniscus.[226]
Tlepolemus acted continuously for Sophocles.[227] It is stated, on the
authority of Ister, that Sophocles was accustomed to write his plays
with a view to the capacities of his actors.[228] This story, whether
true or not, shows that he chose his actors himself, at any rate during
the earlier part of his career. But as the actors grew in importance,
their selection was no longer left to the choice of individual poets, but
was undertaken by the state. Henceforth we cease to hear of particular
poets and actors being permanently associated together. The statement of
Thomas Magister, that Cephisophon was the actor of Euripides, appears to
be a mere conjecture, as Cephisophon is nowhere else described in that
way.[229] The change in the method of selection was probably introduced
about the middle of the fifth century, when the contests in acting
were established, and the position of the actors received its first
official recognition. Under the new arrangement, three protagonists
were first of all selected by the archon. There is no information as
to the way in which they were selected. They may have been chosen by
means of a small competition, similar to that between comic actors at
the Chytri. The subordinate actors were apparently not chosen by the
state, but each protagonist was allowed to provide his own deuteragonist
and tritagonist.[230] When the three leading actors had been chosen
they were assigned to the three competing tragic poets by lot. Probably
the system was the same as in the assignation of the flute-players to
the dithyrambic choruses. The poets would first draw lots for order of
choice, and then each poet would choose his actor. The actor performed
all the tragedies of the poet to whom he was allotted. Thus in 418 the
three tragedies of Callistratus were acted by Callippides; the three
tragedies of his rival were acted by Lysicrates.[231] The actor who won
the prize for acting was permitted to compete as a matter of course at
the next festival without having to submit to the process of selection
by the archon. Such was the system adopted during the latter half of the
fifth century.[232] How long it lasted cannot be determined; but when
we come to the middle of the fourth century, a further alteration is
found to have been introduced. By this time the importance of the actors
had increased to a still greater extent. In fact, Aristotle says that
in his day the success of a play depended much more upon the actor than
the poet.[233] It was probably felt that under the old arrangement the
poet who obtained by lot the greatest actor had an unfair advantage over
his rivals. A new system was therefore introduced, by which the talents
of the actors were divided with perfect equality among the poets. Each
tragedy was performed by a separate actor. All the actors appeared in
turn in the service of each of the poets. Thus in 341 Astydamas exhibited
three tragedies. His Achilles was acted by Thessalus, his Athamas by
Neoptolemus, his Antigone by Athenodorus. The three tragedies of each of
his competitors were performed by the same three actors.[234] By this
arrangement no poet had any advantage over his rivals, but as far as
the excellence of the actors was concerned all were on exactly the same
level. The system just described appears to have been retained without
alteration during the remaining period of Attic tragedy.

The mode of distributing the actors in comedy was much the same as that
in tragedy. During the earlier part of the fifth century the poets were
left to choose their own actors. Thus the comic poet Crates is said
to have begun his career as actor to Cratinus. But in later times no
instances are to be found of comic actors being permanently connected
with particular poets. The story that Philonides and Callistratus were
actors of Aristophanes is a mere fiction of one of the old commentators,
based upon a misunderstanding.[235] It is evident, therefore, that the
state began to undertake the selection and appointment of the comic
actors about the same time that a corresponding change was made in
regard to tragedy. No doubt the mode of distribution was identical.
The actors were first appointed by the state, and the poets then drew
lots for them. As the comic poets competed with single plays, only one
method of distribution was possible, and there was no need of the further
alteration which was afterwards made in tragedy. The number of poets
in the comic contests was originally three, and in later times five. A
corresponding number of actors would be required. Sometimes, however, a
smaller number was selected, and one actor appeared in two comedies. In
288 Aristomachus was the actor assigned both to Simylus and Diodorus.
About B.C. 160 Damon is found occasionally acting in two comedies at the
same competition.[236] It is not likely that such a course was adopted
except on occasions when it was impossible to obtain five comic actors of
fairly equal merit.


§ 4. _The Training of the Chorus._

The archon had now for the present finished his part of the business. He
had seen that the proper number of poets, actors, and choregi had been
chosen. He had seen that each choregus was provided with his own poet
and actor. It was now the duty of choregus and poet to attend to the
subsequent preparations. The choregus was responsible for the selection
and payment of the chorus. He had also to provide a room for them to
rehearse in.[237] Very little is known concerning the relations between
the choregus and his chorus. Such few details as have been recorded refer
rather to the dithyramb than to the drama. The dithyrambic choruses
were selected exclusively from the tribes which they represented in
the competition. Each tribe had a specially appointed agent, who was
employed by the choregus to collect his chorus for him.[238] But the
drama having nothing to do with the tribes, there was no limitation upon
the selection of the dramatic choruses. Aristotle happens in one place to
remark that a tragic and a comic chorus often consisted of much the same
individual members.[239] It is quite clear, therefore, that the dramatic
choruses were chosen from the general body of citizens, and that a man
might serve in two of them at the same time. There was probably a class
of professional singers who made their livelihood by serving in these
choruses. A rich choregus would have a great advantage over his rivals
by offering higher pay, and so securing better singers. The stories
about the boarding and lodging of the choreutae also refer mainly to
the dithyrambic choruses. The choregus in Antiphon’s speech lodged his
chorus in his own house, and gave special directions that every delicacy
which was ordered by the trainer should be provided for them.[240] But
this was a chorus of boys. The professionals who served in the dramatic
choruses are not likely to have been lodged in the house of the choregus,
especially as they were often in the service of two choregi at the same
time. However, it seems that the diet of the choruses was well attended
to, so that the members should appear in the best possible condition on
the day of the contests. Plutarch mentions eels, lettuce, garlic, and
cheese as delicacies provided for this purpose. The appetite of the Attic
choreutae passed into a proverb.[241]

During the earlier period of the Athenian drama the principal part
in the training and instruction of the chorus was undertaken by the
poet himself. In fact, the regular name at Athens for a dramatic or
dithyrambic poet was didaskalos, or ‘the teacher’, owing to the part he
took in teaching his play or poem to the chorus. In the same way, when
a poet brought out a tragedy or a comedy, the technical expression was
that he ‘taught’ such and such a play. The play, or group of plays,
exhibited by a single poet was called a ‘teaching’[242]. In addition
to the evidence supplied by these expressions, there is also no lack
of direct testimony as to the important part taken by the older poets
in the production of their plays. In fact, they were quite as much
stage-managers as poets. The older dramatic writers, such as Thespis,
Pratinas, Cratinus, and Phrynichus, were called ‘dancers’, not only
because of the prominent part which the chorus and the dancing filled
in their plays, but also because they gave instruction in choric
dancing.[243] Aeschylus is said to have superintended personally the
whole of the training of his choruses, and to have invented many
new dances and movements for them. His innovations in regard to the
scenery and the dresses of the actors entirely transformed the outward
appearance of the drama.[244] This intimate connexion between the poet
and the stage, between the literary and the theatrical part of dramatic
production, continued to exist during the great period of Athenian drama.
Sophocles appeared personally in some of his plays. In the Thamyris he
played the harp. In the Nausicaa he won great applause by the skill with
which he played ball in the scene where Nausicaa is sporting with her
maidens.[245] Euripides also seems to have superintended the training of
his choruses in person, as there is a story in Plutarch which represents
him as singing over one of his odes to the choreutae.[246]

The poet was assisted in his task by a subordinate, who looked after the
routine part of the work, and was called a hypodidaskalos, or ‘assistant
teacher’. This was the proper term to denote the professional trainer,
as opposed to the didaskalos, or poet.[247] But towards the end of the
fifth and the beginning of the fourth century the practice in these
matters underwent a change. Poetry and stage-management began to be
sharply discriminated from one another. A class of literary dramatic
writers arose, such as Theodectes and Aphareus, who were quite as much
rhetoricians as poets. They knew nothing about the details of training a
chorus, or preparing a play for representation. In these circumstances
the greater part of the management was undertaken by the professional
instructor. The term didaskalos, which had originally been confined
to the poet, was now applied to these hired trainers.[248] A class
of men came into existence who made choral instruction their regular
business. One of these, named Sannio, is mentioned by Demosthenes,
and was celebrated for his skill in training tragic choruses.[249]
These professional teachers were hired and paid by the choregus. A
rich choregus had a great advantage in being able to secure the best
assistance. Xenophon mentions the case of a certain choregus called
Antisthenes, who knew little or nothing about music and choruses himself,
but was always successful in his competitions, because he took care to
provide himself with the most skilful trainers procurable.[250] It is
obvious that in these later times, when the poets ceased to attend to the
details of stage-management, the importance of the professional trainers
must have been very much increased. The hiring of a good trainer would be
one of the first conditions of success.


§ 5. _The Expenses of the Choregia._

It will now be possible to form some conception of the expenses which
the choregus had to meet. The principal item was the hire of the chorus
during the whole period of training. This part of the expenditure
was borne entirely by the choregus without any assistance from the
state.[251] Then again, he had to provide an instructor for his chorus.
As the competition between rich choregi was of the keenest character, the
services of a really good instructor must have been expensive. In the
third place, a flute-player was required. In the dithyrambic choruses
the flute-players were selected by the state, and assigned by lot to the
choregi. But in the dramatic choruses they appear to have been chosen by
the choregus himself, who would therefore have to pay their salary.[252]
Fourthly, the various mute characters that appeared upon the stage, such
as the attendants upon kings and queens, were supplied by the choregus.
This is proved by the story in Plutarch of a tragedian at Athens who
was going to act the part of a queen, and who refused to perform unless
the choregus would provide him with a train of female attendants
dressed in expensive fashion.[253] The number and splendour of the mute
characters would add greatly to the magnificence of the spectacle, and
form a considerable item in the expenses of a wealthy choregus. It is
also probable that in early times, when the actors were chosen by the
poets, their salary was paid by the choregus. But later the selection
and payment of the actors were undertaken entirely by the state.[254]
The principal part then of the expenditure of the choregus consisted in
paying the salaries of the various persons just mentioned. In addition to
this, he had to provide the dresses of the chorus, which were often very
magnificent. For example, the comic poet Antiphanes mentions the case of
a choregus who ruined himself by dressing his chorus in gold. Demosthenes
supplied his chorus of men with golden crowns.[255] Sometimes the love
of splendour degenerated into mere vulgar ostentation. Unnecessary
magnificence in the appointments of a comic chorus is mentioned by
Aristotle as a proof of vulgarity. On the other hand, economical
choregi saved expense by hiring second-hand dresses from the dealers in
theatrical costumes.[256] Another item in the expenses of the choregia
was the supply of dresses for the various mute characters and subordinate
personages. With the dresses of the actors themselves the choregus had
probably nothing to do. As for the ordinary kinds of scenery, they were
part of the permanent fixtures of the theatre, and would be provided by
the lessee. But when anything very special in the way of scenery was
required by the necessities of a particular play, it is most probable
that the expenses were borne by the choregus. As far, then, as can be
gathered from ancient notices, the expenses of the choregia consisted in
the hire of the chorus, the instructor, the flute-player, and the mute
characters; in providing dresses for the chorus and the mute characters;
and in supplying such exceptional scenery as the theatre did not possess.

A choregus who was anxious for victory, and who was ready to spend money
over the production of the play, would easily be put to very considerable
expense. The defendant in one of the speeches of Lysias tells us that a
tragic chorus cost him thirty minae, a comic chorus sixteen, a chorus
of boys fifteen. It follows that a comic chorus was only about half as
expensive as a tragic one, and cost about the same as a chorus of boys.
On the other hand, a chorus of men at the City Dionysia cost fifty minae.
These figures bear out the statement of Demosthenes, that a chorus of men
was much more expensive than a tragic chorus. The chorus of men consisted
of fifty members; and the payment of so large a number, together with the
dresses and crowns which the choregi used to provide them with, would
easily account for the expense. A tragic chorus consisted of only fifteen
members, and yet it cost about twice as much as a comic chorus, which
consisted of twenty-four. But we must remember that the tragic chorus
had to perform in several plays, the comic chorus in only one. Also it
does not appear to have been customary to spend very much money upon a
comedy. In another speech of Lysias, a certain Aristophanes is said to
have expended fifty minae over two tragic choruses. He was therefore
rather more economical than the person mentioned above, who spent thirty
minae over one.[257] It would be very interesting to be able to form
some conception of the amount which these sums would represent at the
present day. It appears that in the time of Aristophanes the daily wages
for common and unskilled labour were three obols.[258] If we take as a
modern equivalent the case of the agricultural labourer who gets ten
shillings a week, or one shilling and eightpence per day, it follows that
three obols in ancient Attica were equivalent to about one shilling and
eightpence at the present time. If this calculation is anywhere near the
mark, then a choregus who spent thirty minae on a tragic chorus would be
spending a sum equivalent to about £500 of our money. The sixteen minae
paid for a comic chorus would represent about £266. Comparisons of this
kind are very conjectural; but they enable one to form some idea of the
immense sums of money which must have been spent at Athens in the course
of a single year upon dramatic and choral performances. There were eight
dramatic and ten dithyrambic choruses at the City Dionysia. There were
seven or eight dramatic choruses at the Lenaea. Besides this there were
dithyrambic choruses at the Thargelia, Prometheia, and Hephaesteia; and
dithyrambic and pyrrhic choruses at the Panathenaea. The expenses of all
these choruses were drawn from a single small state, about the size of
an English county, in which wealth was by no means abundant. It is easy
therefore to see that there was not much exaggeration in the complaint of
Demosthenes, that the Athenians spent more upon their festivals than they
ever spent upon a naval expedition.[259]

If the choregi neglected their duties, and were careless about the
efficiency of their choruses, it was the duty of the archon to bring
pressure to bear upon them.[260] But such interference was not often
necessary. On the contrary the rivalry between the choregi was so
keen, and their desire for victory so great, that it often led them
into expenses which they could not afford. Demosthenes says that men
frequently spent all their property upon these competitions.[261]
The choregus in Antiphanes has already been referred to, who reduced
himself to beggary by his extravagance in providing golden dresses for
his chorus. Besides the mere spirit of emulation there was another
inducement to lavish vast sums upon these choregic displays. For a
wealthy politician it was an easy means of gaining popularity, and
increasing his influence in the state. Nicias is said to have owed a
great deal of his power to the splendour of his choruses, upon which he
spent more money than any of his contemporaries or predecessors.[262]
With the double motives of ambition and emulation at work, it was natural
that considerable jealousy should be excited between the rival choregi,
the ‘anti-choregi’, as they were called. Sometimes this hostility ended
in blows. When Taureas and Alcibiades were competitors with choruses of
boys, a dispute having arisen as to the parentage of one of the boys
in Alcibiades’ chorus, the matter ended in a personal conflict in the
orchestra.[263] Demosthenes, in his speech against Meidias, cites many
examples of the bitterness and animosity with which choregi regarded one
another. He adds that there would have been some excuse for the assault
of Meidias upon himself if it had been caused by the jealousy of a rival
choregus.[264]


§ 6. _The Performances in the Theatre._

When the preparations were all completed, a few days before the actual
festival there was a preliminary ceremony called the Proagon. It took
place in the Odeum, a sort of smaller theatre to the south of the
Acropolis, not far from the theatre of Dionysus. The Proagon was a
kind of show or spectacle, and served as an introduction to the actual
performances at the festival. Each of the tragic poets who were about
to compete in the approaching contest appeared upon the stage in the
presence of the people, accompanied by his choregus, his actors, and
the members of the chorus. All of them wore crowns upon their heads;
but the actors were without their masks and their stage dresses. As
they paraded upon the stage some announcement was made to the people,
of which the exact nature is not known. But it is very likely that this
occasion was taken for making known to the people the names of the poet
and his actors, together with the titles of the tragedies shortly to be
performed, and other information of a similar character. At the same
time the people would have an opportunity of becoming acquainted with
poets and actors who were making their first appearance. The splendour
of the dresses of choruses and choregi, upon which great sums of money
were spent, would make a spectacle of some magnificence, and appeal
to the popular taste. At the Proagon which followed shortly after the
death of Euripides, it is said that Sophocles appeared upon the stage
in a dark-coloured dress, and introduced his actors and chorus without
the usual crowns. It is nowhere definitely stated that the comic and
dithyrambic poets and choruses took part in the Proagon. But the whole
of our information about the ceremony is derived from one or two
brief and casual notices, in which very few details are given. It is
hardly probable that only tragedy was represented. The magnificence
of the spectacle would be very much increased by the large and
gorgeously-dressed choruses of boys and men.[265]

During the period of the actual contests the audience met in the theatre
every morning soon after daybreak. Considering the number of plays
which had to be produced, it was necessary that the proceedings should
begin at an early hour.[266] The vast gathering of spectators, like all
public meetings at Athens, was first of all purified by the offer of a
small sacrifice. Then libations were poured in front of the statue of
the god Dionysus.[267] If the festival was the City Dionysia, before
the tragedies began the opportunity was taken to proclaim the names of
citizens upon whom crowns had been bestowed, together with the services
for which they had been granted. The proclamation before such a vast
multitude of citizens was naturally considered a very great honour.[268]
During the period of Athenian supremacy another striking ceremony
preceded the tragedies at the City Dionysia. The tribute collected from
the dependent states was divided into talents, and solemnly deposited in
the orchestra.[269] Then the orphans whose fathers had been killed in
battle, and who had been educated by the state, and had now reached the
age of manhood, were brought forward upon the stage equipped in complete
armour. The herald made a proclamation, recounting what the state had
done for them, and they were then publicly discharged from state control
to take their place as ordinary citizens.[270] After these preliminaries
had been gone through the dramatic performances commenced. The order
in which the different plays were to be performed was determined by
lot.[271] Each poet, as his turn came, was summoned by name by the public
herald and ordered to produce his play.[272] The summons to each poet was
accompanied in later times by the blowing of a trumpet, a custom which
originated as follows. On one occasion an actor called Hermon had left
the building, expecting that his comedy would come on late. But as it was
called for sooner than he expected, there was a hitch in the proceedings
owing to his absence. The blowing of the trumpet was therefore instituted
to mark the commencement of each new performance, and let people in
the neighbourhood of the theatre know at what rate the contest was
progressing.[273] The order in which the poets competed was determined by
lot, as stated above. It was considered an advantage to be drawn last,
as the latest performance left the most vivid impression upon the minds
of the judges. This would be especially the case in such competitions as
lasted over three days. The Ecclesiazusae of Aristophanes was drawn first
for performance. The poet therefore, in the course of this play, implores
the judges not to let the ballot damage his chances, but to judge the
choruses on their merits, unlike the courtesans, who forget all except
their latest lovers.[274]

At the end of each competition the judges wrote their verdicts upon
tablets. Five of these tablets were drawn by lot, and decided the result.
The names of the victorious poet and choregus were then proclaimed by
the herald, and they were crowned with a chaplet of ivy in the presence
of the spectators. At the conclusion of the festival the successful
poet celebrated his victory by a solemn sacrifice, followed by a grand
banquet, at which most of his friends were present. The members of the
chorus were also there, and probably the choregus and the actors. The
scene of Plato’s Symposium is laid in Agathon’s house the day after the
banquet in honour of his first tragic victory. Socrates had avoided the
banquet itself, because of the crush of people, but came next day to a
more private gathering.[275] A victory, especially at the City Dionysia,
was regarded as a splendid distinction. On one occasion Ion of Chios,
after winning the first prize in both the tragic and the dithyrambic
contests at the same festival, showed the extent of his joy by making a
present of a jar of Chian wine to every Athenian citizen.[276]

The next day but one after the conclusion of the City Dionysia a special
assembly of the people was convened in the theatre of Dionysus to discuss
matters connected with the festival. No doubt a similar assembly was held
after the Lenaea, though the fact is nowhere actually stated. At this
assembly the conduct of the archon, who had had the management of the
festival which was just over, was taken into consideration. Any neglect
of his duties, or any unfairness in the choice of poets and actors, would
be punished. At the same time crowns and other distinctions were voted
in honour of officials who had performed their duties in connexion with
the festival satisfactorily. It has been pointed out that the judges
in the dramatic and dithyrambic contests were liable to prosecution
and punishment if they were suspected of dishonesty in their verdicts.
Probably such charges were brought forward and decided at this assembly
in the theatre. Then came the hearing of complaints as to any violation
of the sanctity of the festival.[277] The aggrieved person stated his
charges before the assembled people: the defendant made his reply: the
people then proceeded to vote. If they acquitted the defendant there was
an end of the matter. But if they voted against him the prosecutor then
carried the case before the ordinary law-courts, where, of course, the
previous verdict of the people weighed very much in his favour.[278]


§ 7. _Reproduction of Old Plays._

At Athens, during the fifth century, when the drama was in its most
flourishing state, plays were usually exhibited once, and once only.
There were only two festivals in the whole year at which regular
theatrical performances could be held. Consequently, as long as the
creative period of the drama lasted, the few days given up to them barely
sufficed even for a single performance of the various new compositions.
Nor were repetitions necessary. The theatre at Athens was of enormous
size, so that every man had a chance of seeing a play when it was first
brought out. If it was successful, and he wished to see it again, he
had numerous opportunities of doing so at the Rural Dionysia, where
reproductions were the rule. For these reasons the Athenian stage of the
fifth century was confined almost exclusively to original works. When a
play had once been performed, it was never seen again, as far as Athens
was concerned, unless it happened to be of extraordinary merit. It is
stated on the authority of Dicaearchus that the Frogs of Aristophanes
‘was so much admired on account of its parabasis that it was actually
repeated’.[279] The language here used implies that such a repetition was
a very unusual circumstance. It is true that when the Capture of Miletus,
the historical play of Phrynichus, caused so much commotion in the
theatre the Athenians are said to have passed a law that ‘for the future
no one should exhibit this drama’.[280] But the law must have referred to
its reproduction at the Rural Dionysia.

At Athens then during the fifth century even successful plays were only
exhibited once. But if a play was unsuccessful, the poet was allowed
to revise and rewrite it, and to compete with it again in its improved
shape.[281] The revision of unsuccessful plays seems to have been a
common practice with the Athenian dramatic writers. It is mentioned as
rather a peculiarity in the comic poet Anaxandrides, that when one of
his comedies was unsuccessful, he used to destroy it at once, without
taking the trouble to emend it and try his fortunes with it a second
time.[282] Many plays were revised and re-exhibited in this manner,
and in consequence many plays existed in ancient times in a double
form. Such was the case with the Lemnian Women of Sophocles, and the
Autolycus and Phrixus of Euripides.[283] The Hippolytus of Euripides
which we at present possess is a revised edition pruned of its original
defects.[284] The Clouds of Aristophanes on its first appearance was very
unsuccessful, and was altered in many important particulars before it
reached the form in which it has come down to us.[285] Among the other
plays of Aristophanes, the Peace, the Plutus, and the Thesmophoriazusae
were brought out a second time in a corrected form.[286] Instances of
the revision of plays are not uncommon among the writers of the Middle
and New Comedy. Sometimes the original title was retained in the revised
version, as for instance in the Heiress of Menander. Sometimes a new
title was adopted. Thus the Braggart Captain of Diphilus appeared
subsequently as the Eunuch.[287]

One remarkable exception to the general practice demands notice. In the
Life of Aeschylus it is said that the Athenians felt such an admiration
for him, that they passed a decree after his death that any one who
offered to exhibit his plays should receive a chorus from the archon.
This does not mean that his plays were to be performed as a mere isolated
exhibition, apart from the regular contests, but that any person might
be allowed to compete at the ordinary tragic contests with plays of
Aeschylus instead of new plays of his own. If any one offered to do so,
the archon was bound to give him a chorus. He would then take his place
as one of the three competing poets; but while his rivals exhibited new
and original tragedies, he would confine himself to reproducing tragedies
of Aeschylus. Probably the men who undertook these revivals were in most
cases celebrated actors. In this way the plays of Aeschylus were often
brought into competition with the plays of later writers, and appear to
have been generally successful. Philostratus refers to the custom.[288]
He says that the Athenians invited Aeschylus after his death to the
festivals of Dionysus, and that his plays were acted over again, and
were victorious a second time. This passage makes it quite clear that
the tragedies of Aeschylus were exhibited in the ordinary contests, and
not as a separate performance by themselves. There is a reference in the
beginning of the Acharnians to a competition of this kind. Dicaeopolis
had come to the theatre to see the tragic contests.[289] He was expecting
that the performance would commence with plays of Aeschylus; but to his
disgust the frigid Theognis was the first to be called upon.[290] Here
then is a picture of a contest in which the tragic poet Theognis was
opposed by a competitor who exhibited, not plays of his own, but plays of
Aeschylus. It is to the practice of reproducing his plays after his death
that Aeschylus alludes in the Frogs, when he remarks that his poetry has
not died with him, like that of Euripides.[291] Quintilian refers to the
same custom, though his language is not quite accurate. He says that
the tragedies of Aeschylus were sublime, but rough and unfinished; and
therefore the Athenians permitted subsequent poets to polish and revise
them, and exhibit them at the competitions in their amended form; and in
this way many of them won the prize.[292] This story, however, of the
revision of the plays of Aeschylus by subsequent poets (as distinct from
their corruption by actors) is not otherwise supported.[293]

From this reproduction of old plays of Aeschylus must be carefully
distinguished those instances where plays, which Aeschylus had left
unpublished at his death, were produced for the first time by his son
Euphorion. It is said that Euphorion won four victories with his father’s
unpublished tragedies. In a similar manner the Oedipus Coloneus of
Sophocles was produced for the first time by his grandson four years
after the poet’s death. And after the death of Euripides, his Iphigeneia
in Aulis, Alcmaeon, and Bacchae were brought out by his son at the
City Dionysia.[294] On such occasions as these, although no doubt the
real authorship of the plays was perfectly well known at the time, the
relative appeared as the nominal author. He asked for a chorus from
the archon in his own name. The plays he produced were new ones. There
is therefore no similarity between instances of this kind and those
occasions when a man asked for a chorus, not in his own name, but in
order to produce old plays of Aeschylus.

It was not till the fourth century that the reproduction of old plays
developed into a regular custom. The practice was at first confined
to tragedy. This branch of the drama had passed beyond the period of
healthy growth, and already showed symptoms of decay. The three great
tragic poets of the fifth century had in their several lines exhausted
the capabilities of Attic tragedy. Their successors were mostly feeble
imitators of Euripides. Under such circumstances the tendency to fall
back upon the early drama naturally became more prevalent. In the records
of the City Dionysia during the latter half of the fourth century it
is found that the series of new tragedies was invariably preceded by
the performance of an old one.[295] The same practice was also no doubt
adopted at the Lenaea. The actors who had the privilege of conducting
these revivals would be selected by the archon, probably after a
small preliminary competition of the kind described in the previous
chapter.[296] It appears that these actors, in preparing the old plays
for reproduction, were sometimes inclined to tamper with the text, and
to introduce what they considered improvements, just as the plays of
Shakespeare were adapted for the stage by Garrick in the last century. A
law was passed by the orator Lycurgus to put a stop to this practice. It
was enacted that a public copy should be made of the works of Aeschylus,
Sophocles, and Euripides, and deposited in the state archives; and that
the actors, in their performances, should not be allowed to deviate from
the text of the copy.[297] It is very probable that this authorized
version eventually found its way to Alexandria. Ptolemy the Third was a
great collector of manuscripts. He borrowed from the Athenians an old
copy of the works of Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides, promising to
return it after he had made a transcript, and depositing fifteen talents
as security. The transcript was made in the best possible style. Ptolemy
then proceeded to keep the original manuscript for himself, and sent back
merely the transcript to Athens. The Athenians had to console themselves
with the fifteen talents which were forfeited. This old copy of the
tragic writers was most probably that made in accordance with the law of
Lycurgus.[298]

Athenian comedy, as was previously pointed out, continued to grow and
develop long after tragedy had been reduced to a state of stagnation. The
need for the reproduction of old comedies was therefore not felt until a
much later epoch. The first recorded instances of revivals of this kind
belong to the second century B.C. The system which was then introduced
appears to have been identical with that adopted in the case of tragedy.
A single old comedy was exhibited at each festival as a prelude to the
new ones. As far as our information goes the specimen selected was taken
in every case from the works of Menander and his contemporaries.[299]

To turn once more to tragedy. The fourth century was an age of great
actors, just as the fifth century had been an age of great poets. The
principal actors of the fourth century filled a more important place in
the history of tragedy than the dramatic poets themselves. Their fame
was chiefly derived from their impersonations of characters out of the
great tragedies of the past. A novel interpretation of a celebrated
rôle, such as that of Antigone or Medea, was a much greater event in
dramatic circles, and excited far more discussion, than the production
of a new play. In exactly the same way the great English actors of the
last hundred years or so are remembered, not so much for the new dramas
which they brought out, as for their impersonation of parts like Hamlet
and Othello. From the numerous references to Athenian actors of the
fourth century, and to the old tragedies which they exhibited, it is
possible to glean some interesting facts in regard to these revivals.
We are able to trace the course of the popular taste, and to discover
who were the favourite poets, and which were the plays in most demand.
The three great masters of tragedy, Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides,
occupied a position by themselves in popular estimation, and quite
overshadowed all other poets. This is proved by the law of Lycurgus. But
though the existence of the law shows that the tragedies of Aeschylus
were occasionally reproduced, and were therefore liable to corruption,
it does not appear that in this later age Aeschylus was very popular
upon the stage. The only allusion to a particular revival of his plays
is that which occurs in one of the letters of Alciphron, where the
tragic actor Licymnius is said to have been victorious in the Propompi
of Aeschylus.[300] On the other hand, the reproductions of plays of
Sophocles and Euripides are very frequently referred to. And it is a
significant fact that when the actor Satyrus was consoling Demosthenes
for the ill-success of his first speech before the assembly, and wished
to point out to him the defectiveness of his elocution, he asked him to
repeat ‘a speech out of Sophocles or Euripides’, implying that these were
the two poets whom every one knew.[301] In the Poetics of Aristotle the
laws of the drama are based upon the plays of Sophocles and Euripides,
while Aeschylus is comparatively disregarded. The simplicity of his
plots and the elevation and occasional obscurity of his language were
distasteful to an age which looked for ingenuity in the management of
the incidents, and rhetorical facility in the style. These qualities
were found to perfection in Euripides, and there can be no doubt that
he was the favourite poet of the fourth century. The records of the
tragic performances at the City Dionysia for the years 341-339 B.C. show
that in each of these years the old tragedy selected for exhibition
was one by Euripides. In 341 it was the Iphigeneia, in 340 it was the
Orestes. The title of the play produced in 339 is lost, but the author
was Euripides.[302] Other plays of his which were favourites at this
time were the Cresphontes, the Oenomaus, and the Hecuba, in all of
which Aeschines is said to have played the part of tritagonist. The
Oenomaus and the Hecuba are also mentioned as plays in which the great
actor Theodorus was especially effective. In the dream of Thrasyllus
before the battle of Arginusae the plays which were being acted were
the Phoenissae and the Supplices of Euripides.[303] Though the story
of the dream is apocryphal, these two tragedies were doubtless popular
ones during the fourth century. As to the plays of Sophocles, it is said
that Polus, the contemporary of Demosthenes, and the greatest actor of
his time, was celebrated for his performance of the leading parts in the
Oedipus Tyrannus, the Oedipus Coloneus, and the Electra. The Antigone
of Sophocles was often acted by Theodorus and by Aristodemus. A certain
Timotheus used to make a great impression in the part of Ajax. Lastly,
the Epigoni of Sophocles is mentioned in connexion with Andronicus,
another contemporary of Demosthenes.[304] It is interesting to observe
that of the plays which the popular taste of the fourth century had begun
to select for revival by far the greater number are among those which are
still extant.




CHAPTER III

THE THEATRE


§ 1. _Introductory._

The theatre at Athens, whether regarded from the historical or the
architectural point of view, is one of the most interesting buildings
in the world.[305] It was apparently the first stone theatre erected
in Greece, and may therefore be regarded as the prototype of all other
ancient theatres, both Greek and Roman. It cannot indeed claim to have
been contemporary with the most glorious period of the Attic drama.
Recent investigations have shown that the greater part of it cannot be
dated before the middle of the fourth century with any certainty. Still,
it occupied almost exactly the same site as the old wooden theatre
in which the plays of Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides were first
exhibited. It no doubt reproduced in a more permanent form the main
features and characteristics of that ancient theatre. It was itself the
scene of those great revivals of Attic tragedy in the fourth century
to which we have already alluded. In connexion with a building of such
importance the smallest details are not without interest. The object of
the chapter will be, firstly, to give an account of the existing remains
and present condition of this theatre; secondly, to determine what must
have been its original form and appearance, before the primitive design
had been obscured by later alterations; thirdly, from the evidence thus
collected, and from other sources, to draw such inferences as seem
possible concerning the older theatre of the fifth century. It will be
necessary at the same time to make occasional references to various other
Greek theatres, both for the purpose of illustration and comparison,
and also in order to fill up the gaps in our information caused by the
ruinous condition of the Athenian theatre. Many of these other theatres
have lately been excavated in a thorough and systematic manner, at
Epidaurus, Megalopolis, Delos, Eretria, and elsewhere. The discoveries
made in the course of the excavations have added greatly to our knowledge
of the Greek stage.

[Illustration: _To face p. 78._

FIG. 2. THEATRE AT ATHENS, FROM THE NORTH.]

The construction and general arrangement of a Greek theatre differed
widely from any form of theatre to be found at the present day. The
Greek theatre was exposed to the open air, and had no roof or covering
of any kind. It was generally built upon the slope of a hill in or
near the city. It was of enormous magnitude, compared with a modern
theatre, being intended to contain at one and the same time the whole
theatre-going population of the city. The largest part of it consisted of
the auditorium, or tiers of seats for the spectators. These seats rose
one above the other like a flight of steps, and were arranged in the
form of a semicircle with the two ends prolonged. The flat space at the
bottom of the auditorium, corresponding to the stalls and pit in a modern
theatre, was called the orchestra or ‘dancing-place’, and was used by
the chorus only, the spectators being entirely excluded from it. At the
further end of the orchestra, facing the tiers of seats, rose the stage
and the stage-buildings. The stage was a long platform, much narrower
than a modern stage, and was reserved for the actors, as opposed to the
chorus. The open-air building, the performance in broad daylight, the
vast crowds of spectators, the chorus grouped together in the centre, the
actors standing on the narrow stage behind them—all these characteristics
of a Greek theatrical exhibition must have combined to produce a scene
to which there is no exact parallel at the present day. This fact should
be kept clearly in view, in discussing all questions connected with
the Greek stage. Many errors have been caused, and many unnecessary
difficulties have been raised, owing to the failure to realize the
essential difference between the external features of the ancient and the
modern drama.


§ 2. _The old Wooden Theatres at Athens._

The type of theatre described above was of course only developed very
gradually by the Athenians. It came into existence side by side with the
growth of their drama. At first there was no permanent theatre. Attic
tragedy grew out of the dithyrambs performed by choruses in honour of
Dionysus. For such exhibitions all that was required was an orchestra,
or circular dancing-place. The chorus performed in the middle, the
spectators ranged themselves all round the ring. The first innovation was
the introduction of a dialogue between the coryphaeus and the choreutae
in the intervals of the choral odes. For the purpose of carrying on
this dialogue the coryphaeus used to mount upon the sacrificial table
which stood beside the altar in the centre of the orchestra.[306] Such
sacrificial tables are often found in ancient vase paintings by the side
of the regular altars, and were used for cutting up the victims, or for
receiving various bloodless offerings such as cakes and vegetables.[307]
Both the table and the altar were called by the same name, Thymele.[308]
This table, on which the coryphaeus took his stand, surrounded by the
choristers, was the prototype of the stage in the later Greek theatre.
The next step in the development of the drama and of the theatre was
the introduction of a single actor by Thespis. This actor took the part
in the dialogue previously played by the coryphaeus. But the part was
now much expanded and developed. The actor, instead of remaining in the
centre of the orchestra throughout the performance, used to come and go,
and appear in many roles in succession, using a different costume on each
occasion. A booth was erected just outside the orchestra, for him to
change his dress and mask in. The platform on which he stood during the
delivery of the dialogue was removed from the centre of the orchestra,
and placed immediately in front of the booth, to facilitate his exits and
entrances. This change led inevitably to others. The chorus, which had
previously stood in a circle round the coryphaeus, now drew themselves
up in lines facing the actor’s platform, so as to converse with him in
a natural manner. The spectators, instead of being ranged all round the
orchestra, were confined to two-thirds of it. The remaining portion was
taken up by the stage.

Such then was the arrangement of the theatre in the latter part of the
sixth century. There was a booth with a small platform for the actor. In
front of it lay the orchestra, occupied by the chorus. The audience sat
in rows round the orchestra, facing the platform. At this early period
the seats provided for the audience were only temporary erections. They
were called ‘ikria’, and consisted of wooden benches rising in tiers
one above the other, and resting on wooden supports.[309] The booth and
platform were also mere temporary constructions of wood. But in these
rude erections, hastily put up each year for the annual performances,
were already to be found all the essential parts of the later Greek
theatres. Nothing more was required than to change the material from
wood to stone, and to introduce greater elaboration into the design. In
course of time the old wooden benches developed into the magnificent
amphitheatres of which the remains still survive. The booth and platform
were converted into imposing stage-buildings. The recollection of their
origin was preserved in their name. Even in the latest times, when the
stage-buildings of a Greek theatre had come to be elaborate structures of
stone, they were still called by the name ‘skene’, which means properly a
booth or tent.

In this sketch of the early history of the Greek theatre one point
deserves especial notice. The most important part of the whole building,
and that which formed the starting-point in the process of development,
was the orchestra, or place for the chorus. The auditorium and the
stage-buildings were only later additions. In all theatres of purely
Greek origin the orchestra continued to maintain its prominent position.
All other parts were subordinated to it. The general conception of a
Greek theatre was that of a building with a circular dancing-place in
the centre, and with tiers of seats arranged round two-thirds of the
ring, while the remaining side was occupied by the stage. The result was
that all the spectators had an equally good view of the orchestra, while
many of them had only a very poor view of the stage. This arrangement
was no doubt quite natural at first, when the chorus was still the most
conspicuous feature in the drama. But it may seem remarkable that it
should have been retained in later times. We should remember, however,
that ancient theatres were built, not only for the drama, but also for
choral and musical competitions of the most various kinds. Among the
Greeks these latter were held solely in the orchestra, and had nothing
to do with the stage. As they far exceeded the dramatic performances in
number, it was essential in a Greek theatre that every member of the
audience should have a clear and direct view of the orchestra; the view
on to the stage was a matter of secondary importance. In Roman theatres
the case was different. Here all performances, choral, musical, and
dramatic, were transferred to the stage; the orchestra was given up to
the spectators. The arrangements were, therefore, considerably modified.
The orchestra and auditorium were reduced in size to a semicircle.[310]
The consequence was that the stage became a much more prominent object,
and that all the spectators had a fairly good view of it.

To return to the wooden theatres of the sixth century. As regards the
place in which they were erected, there is some difficulty. The remains
of an old orchestra belonging to the sixth century were discovered not
many years ago in the enclosure of Dionysus Eleuthereus at the foot of
the Acropolis. It follows, therefore, as a matter of practical certainty
that the dramatic performances at the City Dionysia must have been given
from the first in this orchestra, within the enclosure of the god of the
festival. No doubt in the same way the Lenaeum was the original site of
the performances at the Lenaea;[311] but the site of the Lenaeum itself
is much disputed. The most probable view is that it was in or adjoining
the market-place: but it is not certain where the market-place itself
lay.[312] There was an old proverb in use at Athens, by which a bad seat
at any spectacle was called the ‘view from the poplar’. The grammarians,
who apparently follow Eratosthenes, give the following explanation. They
say that at the old dramatic exhibitions the wooden benches for the
spectators reached as far as a certain poplar; and that the people who
could not get seats on the benches used to scramble up the poplar.[313]
It is possible that the story is an attempt to account by conjecture for
a current proverbial expression; but it may represent a genuine tradition.

Till the end of the sixth century the Athenians were contented with the
rough temporary erections just described. But in 499, the year in which
Aeschylus made his first appearance, there was an accident at one of
their dramatic performances. The wooden benches on which the spectators
were sitting collapsed. In consequence of this accident, as Suidas
tells us, they resolved to build a more permanent theatre.[314] It was
generally supposed, until quite recent times, that the theatre here
mentioned was the great stone theatre still in existence. But Dörpfeld
has made it certain that at least a great part of this building is not
earlier than the middle of the fourth century; and though Puchstein
is possibly right in seeing traces of a stone theatre dating from the
end of the fifth century, this does not take us back to the time of
Aeschylus.[315] What then was the building to which Suidas refers? The
answer to this question has been supplied by a recent discovery of a
very interesting kind. On digging down into the earth foundations of
the present auditorium it has been ascertained that these foundations
consist of two layers. The upper one belongs to the fourth century, as
is shown by the fragments of pottery embedded in it; the lower one
is proved by similar evidence to be not later than the fifth.[316] It
follows, therefore, that the Athenians must have built earth embankments
for the support of the auditorium as early as the fifth century, and
it is doubtless to this work that Suidas alludes. The innovation
adopted in 499, in consequence of the accident, was not the erection
of a stone theatre, but the substitution of solid earth foundations
for the ‘ikria’ or wooden supports on which the seats had previously
rested. The new theatre still resembled the old one, in that the benches
and the stage-buildings were made of wood; but greater security and
permanence were afforded by the erection of the embankments. The site
chosen for this new theatre was the enclosure of Eleuthereus, where the
City Dionysia, the most important of the dramatic festivals, was held.
From this time forward all theatrical performances were transferred to
the same enclosure. The Lenaeum was abandoned as a place of dramatic
entertainment. The contrary opinion, that the old wooden theatre at the
Lenaeum continued to be used for the Lenaean festival until the erection
of the stone theatre in the fourth century,[317] is most improbable. The
need for a secure auditorium in place of the previous ‘ikria’ would be
felt just as much at the Lenaea as at the City Dionysia. But there is no
trace or record of a permanent theatre at the Lenaeum. The recurrence of
the expression ‘contests at the Lenaeum’ down to the latter part of the
fourth century proves nothing.[318] The phrase might easily have been
retained, after its local significance was gone, by a kind of survival
common in all languages. In just the same way the performances at the
City Dionysia were still distinguished from all others as performances
‘in the city’, when the reason for the distinction had long since
disappeared.

A few faint traces of this theatre of the fifth century are still to
be discerned amid the remains of the later building, and will be found
indicated in the plan (Fig. 3).[319] The orchestra was the same as
that which had already existed in the sixth century. Its position is
determined by two fragments of the border, marked _q_ and _r_, and by
some excavations in the rock at _i_. It lay a few yards to the south-east
of the later orchestra. One peculiarity of this orchestra of the sixth
and fifth centuries is that, when it was originally constructed, its
southern portion stood about six feet above the level of the adjacent
ground. It was, therefore, supported and enclosed on this side by a
wall of the same height, to which the fragments _q_ and _r_ belong.
Later on the inequality of level was removed by piling up earth along
the border-wall. Probably this alteration was made towards the end of
the sixth century, when stage-buildings began to be erected; though
it is possible that at first the gap between the orchestra and the
stage-buildings was merely covered over with a wooden flooring. A similar
instance of an orchestra built on a slope, and ending on one side in a
raised terrace, has been found at Thoricus.[320] But in this case, as
there were no stage-buildings, the inequality was allowed to remain. Very
likely the theatre was not used for dramatic purposes. As regards the
auditorium of the fifth century, the earth embankments for the reception
of the seats have already been described. Three pieces of ancient
masonry, marked _k_, _l_, and _m_ in the plan, may perhaps be regarded as
parts of the supporting walls which terminated these embankments on each
wing. The stage-buildings, being made of wood, have left no trace behind
them of any kind. Their probable character will be discussed later on.

It is evident, from the above description, that the theatre of the
fifth century was a far less imposing structure than was once supposed.
The result of recent excavations has been to modify largely all our
previous notions as to the great period of the Athenian drama. In place
of the majestic stone theatre, in which it was once thought that the
plays of Sophocles and Euripides were produced, we have now to picture
to ourselves a simple wooden building, resting on earth foundations,
and devoid of all architectural ornament. The difference is no doubt
a great one. Still, it is not perhaps so great as might appear at
first sight. The impressiveness of the old Greek drama, regarded as
a spectacle, depended on other considerations than the magnificence
of the building in which it was exhibited. When the vast roofless
amphitheatre was filled from end to end with the concourse of citizens
and strangers, it would make little difference in the significance of
the scene whether the benches were of wood or stone. The orchestra of
a Greek theatre was always much the same in character, in the grandest
as well as in the simplest theatres; and the graceful evolutions of the
chorus under the open sky would be equally effective in both. The long
scenic background, with its painted decorations, cannot have varied much
in appearance, whether it rested on a wall of stone or on a wall of
timber. Although, therefore, the theatre of the great Athenian dramatists
was an unpretentious structure, as compared with those which were
erected in after times, it is unnecessary to suppose that there was any
corresponding inferiority in the outward splendour of the performances.


§ 3. _The Stone Theatre._

The stone theatre, which we have now to describe, is ascribed by Dörpfeld
to about the middle of the fourth century. His reasons for assigning
this date to it are as follows.[321] In all the older portions of
the building, which belong to the original plan, there is a certain
similarity in the style of the workmanship, and in the nature of the
materials employed, which points to the fourth century as the date of
erection. We have seen, too, that the upper foundations of the auditorium
are proved to be not earlier than the fourth century by the fragments
of pottery which they contain. Further than this, various minute pieces
of evidence, leading to the same conclusion, have been discovered in
different parts of the building. One of the stones used in the western
wing of the auditorium bears, as a mason’s mark, the Ionic letter Omega—a
letter which was not introduced into Athens before the year 403 B.C.
(It must, however, be admitted that the argument drawn from this stone
is not quite conclusive, as it is probable that the Ionic alphabet was
in private use before the archonship of Euclides in 403.[322]) Another
stone in the same wing contains an inscription, and has been built into
the wall with the inscription inverted.[323] As the inscription itself
is not earlier than the middle or end of the fifth century, the wall for
which the stone was employed must obviously belong to a later period.
Again, part of the basis of a statue has been found in the theatre,
inscribed with the first half of the name ‘Astydamas’. The basis is
shown by its shape to have fitted on to the inside corner of the west
wing of the auditorium. As it is known that a statue of Astydamas was
erected in the theatre about the year 340, it follows that this portion
of the auditorium must have been finished at that date.[324] These
archaeological indications are supported by literary evidence. A decree
of the people has been preserved, belonging to the year 330 B.C., in
which a vote of thanks is passed to a certain Eudemus of Plataea for
lending a thousand yoke of oxen for ‘the construction of the Panathenaic
race-course and the theatre’.[325] There is also the series of decrees
and notices, referring to the finance administration of the orator
Lycurgus, and ascribing to him, among other things, the ‘completion of
the theatre’.[326] Lycurgus was finance minister between 338 and 326,
and died about 325. The evidence shows beyond doubt that Lycurgus did
important work in connexion with the theatre, and that the theatre
was considerably changed, in the third quarter of the fourth century
B.C.[327] But it has been recently argued by Puchstein that there are
traces of a stone theatre of earlier date, which he assigns to the last
years of the fifth century. He would throw back to this date a great part
of the work generally termed Lycurgean, and would ascribe to Lycurgus
the construction of the stage-buildings generally termed Hellenistic and
assigned to the first or second century B.C. The evidence for this must
be considered later. The theory is not improbable, and would solve some
difficulties; but at the same time it is not so certain as to justify
the definite rejection of the older view, and it will be more convenient
to discuss it separately.[328]

In the so-called Hellenistic reconstruction of the stage-buildings
which has been referred to, the essential feature was the building of a
stone-columned proscenium or stage front, and it is this which Puchstein
now refers to Lycurgus. In the first century A.D. the stage-buildings
were again reconstructed. Part of the frieze still remains, with an
inscription dedicating the work to the Emperor Nero.[329] About two
centuries later a certain Phaedrus erected a new stage, and commemorated
the fact by some verses on one of the steps.[330] At this point all
traces of the history of the theatre are lost. During the Middle Ages it
disappeared so completely from view that its very site was forgotten.
For a long time modern travellers knew nothing upon the subject. The
true site was first pointed out by Chandler in 1765. In 1862 excavations
were commenced by the German architect Strack, and continued for three
years. The theatre was again exposed to view, and large portions of it
were found to have been preserved. Some further discoveries were made in
1877. Lastly, in 1886, 1889, and 1895 new excavations have been carried
on under the direction of Dörpfeld, acting for the German Archaeological
Institute. The result of these latest investigations has been to clear up
many doubtful points in the history of the building, and the arrangement
of its various parts.

The new theatre, like the old one, was erected in the enclosure of
Dionysus Eleuthereus. This enclosure lay at the foot of the Acropolis,
by which it was bounded on the northern side. Its southern boundary may
possibly be identical with certain fragments of an old wall, marked x in
the plan. Within the enclosure were two temples of Dionysus, of which the
foundations have recently been discovered. The oldest, marked _t_, was
the nearest to the Acropolis, and is assigned by Dörpfeld to the sixth
century. It contained the ancient image of Dionysus Eleuthereus which was
carried in the annual procession at the City Dionysia. The more recent
temple (_u_) lay a few yards to the south of the old one. In it stood a
gold and ivory statue of Dionysus made by Alcamenes towards the end of
the fifth century. The temple itself was probably of the same date.[331]
Near this temple are the remains of a square foundation (_w_), also of
the fifth century, which possibly served as the basis for an altar.[332]
The site chosen for the new theatre was almost identical with that of
the old one, but lay a few yards further to the north-west. The reasons
for this change were apparently twofold. By bringing the auditorium
closer to the Acropolis, it was possible to make a more extensive use of
the slope of the hill as a support for the tiers of seats. At the same
time a larger space was left between the orchestra and the old temple
of Dionysus, and so afforded more room for the stage-buildings. In one
respect the position of the theatre differed from that usually adopted
in later times. The auditorium faced almost directly towards the south.
This arrangement was generally avoided by the Greeks, and Vitruvius
expressly warns architects against the danger of adopting it, because of
the terrible heat caused by the midday sun glaring into the concavity of
the theatre.[333] But at Athens there were special reasons on the other
side. If the theatre was to be built in the enclosure of Eleuthereus, the
only natural position was along the slopes of the Acropolis, and facing
towards the south. The rising ground supplied an excellent foundation for
the central portion of the auditorium. The choice of any other situation
would have involved the erection of costly and elaborate substructures.
The Athenians, therefore, from motives of economy, preferred the southern
aspect, in spite of its obvious disadvantages. The same course was also
adopted in the theatres of Eretria and Syracuse.

In proceeding to describe in detail the form and construction of
the theatre it will be convenient to take the different portions in
succession. A Greek theatre is naturally divided into three parts, the
auditorium, the orchestra, and the stage-buildings. In the following
description the auditorium will be considered first, the orchestra next.
The stage-buildings, as forming the most difficult part of the whole
subject, will be reserved for the last.


§ 4. _The Auditorium._

The auditorium, or the portion of the theatre containing the seats
for the spectators, was called the ‘cavea’ in Latin; but there was no
technical name for it in Greek. In almost all Greek theatres it was built
upon the side of a hill, so that the natural slope of the ground might
serve as a foundation for the tiers of seats. At Athens, as we have seen,
the rising ground at the foot of the Acropolis was utilized for this
purpose, and supported the central part of the building. It was only at
the two wings, on the east and west, that artificial substructures were
necessary, in order to bring the back seats up to the proper height.
The walls by which the auditorium was bounded on the outside have been
preserved to a certain extent, and suffice to mark clearly the original
shape of the building. On the western side of the theatre, from _a_ to
_b_ in the plan (Fig. 3)[334], where a strong support was required for
the embankment, a device was adopted which is still commonly employed
at the present day. If a single wall had been erected, it must have
been of enormous width. As a substitute two narrow walls were built in
parallel lines, with cross-walls at intervals, and the intervening space
was filled up with earth. Thus the same result was obtained at a less
expense. Along the north-western curve of the theatre, between _b_ and
_c_, a single wall proved sufficient, owing to the diminishing size of
the embankment. At the point _c_ the rock of the Acropolis abutted upon
the theatre, and was hollowed out into a regular curve. This is without
doubt the portion of the theatre referred to by the ancients as Katatome,
or ‘the Cutting’.[335] In the rock at this place is a natural grotto
enlarged by artificial means, and 34 ft. long by 20 ft. broad. Here
Thrasyllus erected an elaborate monument to commemorate his victory with
a chorus of men in 319 B.C. In front of the grotto stood three columns
supporting an entablature, and surmounted by a statue of Dionysus. On the
architrave was an inscription recording the victory of Thrasyllus. Inside
the grotto were statues of Apollo and Artemis destroying the children
of Niobe. In modern times the grotto has been converted into a chapel
of Our Lady. The columns and entablature were in excellent preservation
when Stuart visited Athens, but they were shattered by a mine during the
Greek revolution. Above the grotto are two columns, which were erected
to commemorate victories with dithyrambic choruses. On the capitals can
still be seen the holes made to receive the legs of the tripods.[336]
After the Katatome the eastern boundary wall, from _f_ to _g_, is very
peculiar in shape. But the reason of the irregularity has not yet been
explained, owing to the scantiness of the remains in this part of the
theatre. The two wings of the auditorium are terminated on the south by
the walls marked _a-a_ and _g-g_. These walls are of unequal length, the
eastern wall being about 111 ft., the western only 88 ft. They are not in
the same straight line, but if continued inwards would meet in an obtuse
angle in the orchestra. This arrangement was the one generally adopted by
the Greeks.

[Illustration: FIG. 3. GROUND-PLAN OF THEATRE AT ATHENS.]

The above description, together with the plan, will give a fair idea of
the general outline of the auditorium. If we compare it with the theatre
of Epidaurus (Fig. 6), which was built at the end of the fourth century,
and designed on one harmonious plan, we shall perceive at once the great
inferiority of the Athenian theatre in point of grace and symmetry of
outline. In most Greek theatres the auditorium was of the same width
from one end to the other, and was shaped in a symmetrical curve. In
the theatre at Athens the two wings of the auditorium are narrowed so
considerably towards the south as to be less than half the depth of the
central part. The outside boundary does not run in a regular curve, but
is very much flattened where it encounters the rock of the Acropolis,
and terminates in a straight line at each of the southern corners. But
the strangest point of all is that the eastern wing, at its termination,
is several yards wider than the western wing—an arrangement utterly
destructive of symmetry of design. The theatre at Athens was built for
use rather than for show. Its shape was determined by the conformation
of the ground and by the situation of the adjoining rocks. Although,
therefore, it is the most interesting of Greek theatres on account of
its historical associations, in point of mere beauty it cannot take the
highest rank.

We now come to the interior of the auditorium. The boundary between the
auditorium and the orchestra is denoted by the dark line in the plan. It
will be observed that in the theatre of Dionysus the inside boundary of
the auditorium consists of a semicircle with the two ends prolonged in
parallel straight lines. This was not the plan usually followed in Greek
theatres. In most of the later theatres the two ends of the semicircle
were prolonged in the same curve as before, so that the inside boundary
of the auditorium formed about two-thirds of a regular circle. The effect
of this arrangement was that the spectators sitting at the extremities of
the two wings faced towards the centre of the orchestra, and away from
the stage. Nor is this surprising. It was previously pointed out that in
Greek theatres, where the choral and musical contests greatly outnumbered
the dramatic, the orchestra was always the most important part of the
whole building. But the arrangement adopted at Athens, of prolonging
the two ends of the semicircle in a straight line, had the advantage of
giving the spectators in the wings a much better view of the stage. The
same plan was also adopted in the theatre of the Peiraeeus, and in the
theatres of Assos, Acrae, and Termessos. At Epidaurus and Magnesia a
third plan was pursued, differing from both the above. The two ends of
the semicircle were prolonged, not in a straight line, nor yet in the
same curve as before, but from a new centre, and with a longer radius,
so that while they converged to a certain extent, they did not converge
so much as in the ordinary Greek theatres. This arrangement, which may
be regarded as a compromise between the other two, is perhaps the most
beautiful of them all. It is apparently recommended by Vitruvius, though
the passage in which he refers to it is extremely ambiguous and has been
interpreted in various other ways.[337]

The interior of the auditorium consisted of a series of stone seats
rising tier above tier in a gentle slope from the boundary of the
orchestra to the outside extremities of the building. Immediately under
the cliff of the Acropolis the seats were carved out of the living
rock. With this exception they were made of Peiraic limestone. In some
of the upper portions of the theatre they were fixed upon conglomerate
foundations. But in most parts they were placed directly upon the bare
earth, and were therefore easily capable of being removed. For this
reason the greater number of them have disappeared, having been taken
away during the Middle Ages for building purposes. All that remain are
from twenty to thirty rows in the bottom of the theatre, and portions of
a few rows at the top. From these, however, it is possible to obtain a
clear conception of the style and arrangement of the auditorium. In order
to make the following description more intelligible, an illustration
is here inserted, consisting of a restoration of the extremity of the
eastern wing (Fig. 4). In this illustration _a_ is the orchestra, _b_ the
eastern entrance into the orchestra, _c_ the southern boundary wall of
the east wing of the auditorium.[338]

[Illustration: FIG. 4.]

To proceed with the description of the seats. The lowest step of the
auditorium rose about ten inches above the level of the orchestra, and
then sloped gently upward towards the front row of seats, where it
reached a height of fourteen inches. It was built of large slabs of
stone, and formed a sort of passage between the orchestra and the seats.
The curve of the seats did not coincide exactly with the curve of the
orchestra, but was drawn from a centre rather more to the south, and
receded slightly on the two wings. As a consequence the passage was wider
at the sides than in the centre, the width at the sides being about eight
feet, the width at the centre only four. The same variety of curve is
found in the theatre at the Peiraeeus; and Dörpfeld supposes that it was
adopted in order to give more room at the entrances of the passage, where
the press of people would be the greatest.[339] The first row of seats
was far superior to the others, and consisted of marble thrones with
backs to them. Each throne was about 25 inches wide and 23 inches deep.
In the centre was the throne of the priest of Dionysus, slightly larger
than the others, and elaborately and beautifully carved. This throne,
unlike the rest, was provided with a canopy resting on wooden posts,
the holes for which are still visible. Many of the thrones, including
that of the chief priest, had receptacles in front of them in which
footstools might be placed. The thrones were originally sixty-seven in
number, but only sixty of them are now preserved. Fourteen of these were
no longer standing in their proper position at the time of the first
excavations. Some of them had been designedly removed in Roman times,
when certain alterations were made in the front row; others had been
accidentally displaced. Most of them have now been restored to their
original sites. That the thrones were erected at the latest by the time
of Lycurgus appears to be proved by the excellence of the workmanship.
Each of them has an inscription in the front, recording the title of the
priest or official for whom the seat was reserved. These inscriptions
are all of the Hellenistic or Roman period; but behind them are faint
traces of older inscriptions, which may possibly go back to the fourth
century. The practice of erecting superior seats in the first row for
people of distinction was a common one in Greek theatres. At Megalopolis,
for example, the front bench was provided with a back, though it was not
divided into separate seats, as at Athens. In the theatre of Epidaurus
there were three rows of superior workmanship, one at the bottom of the
auditorium and two others half-way up the slope, one on each side of
the longitudinal passage. But the most peculiar arrangement was that
adopted at Oropus and Priene. At Oropus five magnificent thrones were
placed inside the ring of the orchestra itself, and well in front of
the lowest tier of seats, each throne standing a few yards distant from
the other. At Priene a long stone bench with a back was erected in the
same position, and in this bench five thrones were inserted at regular
intervals.[340]

Immediately behind the line of thrones there was a vacant space about
33 inches wide. Then came what appears to be a small step. But Dörpfeld
has shown that this step is merely the back part of an ordinary seat,
of which the front portion has been removed. In the original theatre
there was a regular tier of seats following closely on the thrones. But
in later times the front half of this tier was taken away. The object
of the change, as Dörpfeld thinks, was to open out a wide space for the
reception of a row of wooden thrones, which might serve as a supplement
to the marble ones.[341] After the step, which we have just described,
began the first of the ordinary tiers of seats, which were continued in
exactly the same style from this point up to the top of the building.
The shape of the seats is very much the same as in other Greek theatres.
Their dimensions are as follows. Each seat was 13 inches high, and was
hollowed out slightly in front, so that the person sitting on it might
have more freedom for his legs. The surface of the seat was 33 inches
across, and was divided into three distinct portions. The first part was
for sitting upon, and was 13 inches deep. The second part was 2 inches
lower, and was intended to receive the feet of the persons upon the seat
above. It was 16 inches across. The third part was merely a narrow edge,
of the same level as the first part, and 4 inches deep. The height of the
tiers, as we have seen, was 13 inches. If we add to this the 2 inches
of the depression in front, it raises the height of the actual seat to
15 inches. A seat of this kind would be rather low for a man of average
size. But it was the practice of the Greek spectator to provide himself
with a cushion, which would raise the surface to a more comfortable
level. The structure of the tiers in the manner described appears to have
been due to a desire for economy in the use of space. In a Greek theatre,
where an immense number of people had to be accommodated with seats in
tolerable proximity to the orchestra and stage, it was necessary to place
them as close together as possible. If the surface of each tier had been
perfectly flat from front to back, the distance between the successive
tiers must have been considerably increased, in order to obtain a height
of 15 inches. The depression in the tiers provided the requisite height,
while allowing a much smaller interval. Along the front of the rows of
seats were two sets of vertical lines engraved in the stone. The lines
in the first set were 13 inches apart; the lines in the second, which
are rather fainter, were at intervals of 16 inches. Probably the second
series of lines was intended to mark off the separate seats. In the first
series the intervals are too narrow for this purpose, and can only have
served as general measures of distance.

For the purpose of giving access to the different parts of the auditorium
a series of passages ran in divergent lines, like the spokes of a wheel,
from the orchestra up to the outside boundary. The passages were fourteen
in number, and the two upon the extreme south at each side adjoined
immediately upon the boundary walls. In theatres of large size, such as
those of Epidaurus and Aspendos, it was usual to insert extra passages in
the upper part of the auditorium. The manner in which they were arranged
will be seen by looking at the plan of the Epidaurus theatre (Fig. 6). At
Athens the upper portion of the building has so entirely disappeared that
it is impossible to say whether it ever contained additional passages of
this kind. But the great size of the theatre makes it probable that such
was the case. These vertical passages were always very narrow, in order
to save room. At Athens they were only about 27 inches in width, the
result being that not more than one person could ascend at a time. The
arrangement of the steps along the passages in the Athenian theatre was
altogether exceptional, and is only paralleled at the Peiraeeus. In all
other Greek theatres each tier of seats had two steps corresponding to
it in the vertical passages. But at Athens, and also at the Peiraeeus,
there was only one step for each tier of seats. As the seats were 13
inches high, while the steps were only 8½, it was necessary to make up
the difference by building the steps with a sloping surface. The surface
was furrowed over, to make the ascent more easy. The fourteen passages
divided the auditorium into thirteen blocks. Such blocks were called
‘cunei’ or ‘wedges’ in Latin, because of their shape. In Greek they were
called ‘kerkides’, from their resemblance to the ‘kerkis’, a tapering
rod used in weaving.[342] The front row in each ‘kerkis’ contained five
marble thrones, with the exception of the two ‘kerkides’ on the extreme
south of each wing, which contained six thrones each; so that the total
number of marble thrones was sixty-seven.

In addition to the vertical passages all Greek theatres of any size
were also intersected by one or two longitudinal passages, called
‘praecinctiones’ in Latin. These passages divided the auditorium
into sections, called ‘belts’ or ‘girdles’ in Greek technical
terminology.[343] A passage of this kind may still be traced in the
upper part of the theatre of Dionysus. Its course is determined by the
foundations at _d_, by certain excavations in the rock at _e_, and by
the two entrances at _b_ and _f_. The great width of the passage—about
15 feet—is explained by the fact that it was also intended to serve as
a road. From ancient times there had been a road at the foot of the
Acropolis, running from east to west. Traces of this old road have been
discovered during the excavations of 1889, and lie about 26 feet below
the level of the present auditorium. When its course was intercepted by
the erection of the theatre, this passage was constructed on a larger
scale than usual, to serve as a substitute. On ordinary occasions, when
the theatre was empty, it would be used as a public highway.[344] That it
formed a conspicuous object in the midst of the auditorium is shown by a
coin in the British Museum (Fig. 5), which contains on one side a rude
representation of the theatre at Athens.[345] On this coin, in spite of
the roughness of the design, the passage stands out very prominently.
Whether there was a second longitudinal passage in the Athenian theatre
is uncertain. But the space to the north of the existing passage is so
small when compared with the space to the south of it, that it seems
reasonable to infer that there was another passage lower down, dividing
the under part of the auditorium into two sections. It was the fashion
in Roman theatres to erect a portico along the top of the auditorium,
following the line of the uppermost tier of seats.[346] But there are
no traces of such a portico in the theatre at Athens, or in any other
theatre of purely Greek origin.

[Illustration: FIG. 5.]

The following facts and measurements will give some idea of the size and
capacity of the Athenian theatre. The distance between the inside corners
of the auditorium was 72 feet. The distance between the outside corners
was 288 feet. In the centre of the auditorium, from north to south, it
is calculated that there must have been 78 tiers of seats. Of course on
each of the two wings the number of tiers would be considerably less than
half that amount. The arrangements throughout were designed with the
view of bringing together the largest possible number of people within
the smallest possible compass. The vertical passages were little over
2 feet in width. The seats were constructed in such a manner that the
spectators could be packed tightly together, without any space being
wasted. As the theatre was in the open air the close crowding of the
audience was no doubt much less intolerable than it would have been in a
covered building. At the same time the situation of the spectator cannot
have been a very comfortable one. He had to remain cramped up in one
position, with no back to lean against, and with very little opportunity
of moving his limbs. That the Athenians were willing to put up with
such inconveniences for several days in succession is a proof of their
enthusiastic devotion to music and the drama. The total number of people
who could be accommodated in the theatre at Athens is shown by recent
calculations to have been about 17,000.[347] The theatres at Epidaurus
and Megalopolis held nearly the same number.[348] Plato, referring to
the wooden theatre of his own time, speaks of ‘more than thirty thousand
spectators’.[349] But this must have been an exaggeration. The old
theatre of the fifth century is not likely to have been larger and more
capacious than the theatre of Lycurgus.

The auditorium, unlike the rest of the building, was subjected to very
little alteration in later times. The parts of it which are still
preserved remain in much the same state as in the age of Lycurgus. The
various successive changes in the style of the dramatic performances,
while they led to corresponding changes in the orchestra and the
stage-buildings, had naturally no effect upon the structure of the
auditorium. A few innovations were introduced in the Roman period, mostly
for the purpose of increasing the comfort of the more distinguished
spectators. We have seen that in the old theatre the only person provided
with a canopy was the priest of Dionysus. The same luxury was now
extended to all the people in the front benches. An awning was erected
on wooden posts to protect them from the sun. Three lines of holes for
the reception of the posts may still be traced in the stone-work, one in
front of the thrones, one behind, and one in the second row of ordinary
seats. It seems that about this date there was an increase in the number
of people for whom seats of honour were required. The front row of the
ordinary benches was removed, in the way already described, to supply the
necessary space. Single marble thrones were also set up here and there in
the rows further back. Another change, which involved some disfigurement
of the building, was made about the same time. A large stone basis,
approached by steps, was erected in front of the sixth vertical passage,
thus closing the approach to that passage, and also necessitating the
removal of four of the marble thrones, which were placed elsewhere. The
basis was probably intended as a sort of royal box, and held a special
throne reserved for people of imperial rank. A similar basis was also
erected, probably for the same purpose, behind the seat of the priest of
Dionysus.


§ 5. _The Orchestra._

After the auditorium the next great division of the theatre is the
orchestra. This was the name given to the flat surface enclosed between
the stage-buildings and the inside boundary of the auditorium. It was
called the orchestra, or dancing-place’, because in Greek theatres it
was reserved for the performances of the chorus.[350] In later times it
was also called the Sigma, because its shape resembled the semicircular
figure which was adopted in the fourth century as the symbol of the
letter sigma.[351] In one place the word ‘konistra’ is employed to
denote the orchestra.[352] Konistra means properly the arena of a
wrestling-school. It would hardly be applicable as a term for the early
Greek orchestras, which were used for music and dancing, but not for
gymnastic contests. Probably therefore this meaning of the word was of
late origin, and first arose in the Roman period, when Greek theatres
occasionally became the scene of gladiatorial contests. Among the Romans
the orchestra was given up to the spectators, and the performances of
singers and dancers took place upon the stage. Hence the later Greek
commentators and grammarians often used the word ‘orchestra’ improperly
to denote the stage, which in Roman theatres had now become the actual
dancing-place. This later signification of the term has given rise to
much confusion. When a Greek scholiast speaks of the orchestra, it is
necessary to look carefully to the context, to see whether he means the
stage, or the orchestra in its proper sense.[353]

The orchestra in the Athenian theatre is mostly of very late date, and
contains but few traces of the original structure. Our knowledge of
the early Greek orchestra has to be derived from other sources. Before
proceeding to discuss this part of the subject, it will be convenient in
the first place to give a brief description of the existing remains in
the theatre at Athens. The only portion of the old orchestra of Lycurgus
which has been preserved is the gutter. This gutter, which was intended
to drain off the water from the tiers of seats, ran immediately inside
the border-line of the auditorium. It was made of limestone, and was
about a yard in width. At the western corner it was 31 inches deep, but
increased in depth all the way round to the eastern corner, where the
depth was 43 inches. Here it made a sudden drop of about a yard, and then
ran off in a south-easterly direction underneath the stage-buildings.
It had no covering, except opposite the vertical passages, where it was
bridged over with slabs of limestone. Apart from this gutter the greater
part of the present orchestra belongs to the time of Nero. At this date
considerable changes were made. The stage was probably pushed forward as
far as the two corners of the auditorium. The orchestra, having been thus
largely reduced in size, was covered over with the marble pavement which
still remains. This pavement consists for the most part of rectangular
slabs, placed in lines parallel to the stage. But in the centre there
is a large rhombus-shaped figure, bordered with two strips, and paved
with small slabs also of a rhombus shape. In the middle of the figure
is a block containing a small circular depression, which was probably
intended to receive an altar of Dionysus. At the time when the pavement
was constructed, the gutter was also covered over entirely with slabs
of marble, with rosette-shaped openings at intervals. Some of these
openings have been preserved, and are indicated in the plan. At the
same time a marble balustrade was erected in front of the first step of
the auditorium. It is marked by the dark line in the plan. Most of it
is still standing, and consists of marble slabs bound together by iron
clamps, and 43 inches high. The purpose of the balustrade must have been
to serve as a protection to the spectators in the front rows, when the
orchestra was given up to gladiatorial combats or similar exhibitions.
After these innovations of the Neronian period the orchestra seems to
have been untouched until about the end of the third century A.D., when
Phaedrus erected his new stage. It was then made water-tight, for the
purpose of holding mimic sea-fights in it. The gutter was filled up, and
the rosette-shaped openings closed. Traces of the pipes used for letting
on and letting off the water for the sea-fight have been discovered in
various parts of the building.

In the course of recent excavations underneath the orchestra two
discoveries have been made. It appears that at some unknown period
certain tunnels of irregular shape, and too small to serve as passages,
were bored through the rock, but filled up again as soon as made. Also,
just in front of the Roman stage, the rock was cut away in a straight
line, and the cutting was continued as far as the stage-buildings, the
interval being filled up with earth. The purpose of both these works is
quite uncertain.[354]

It will be seen, from the above description, that the remains of the
Athenian theatre throw very little light upon the character of the
ancient orchestra. Fortunately, during the last ten or fifteen years, a
large number of other theatres have been excavated, which suffered less
from reconstruction, and in which the orchestras have been left more
or less in their original condition. The finest and best preserved of
these is the theatre of Epidaurus, which was built at the end of the
fourth century.[355] It is described by Pausanias as the most beautiful
theatre in the world.[356] A plan of the building (Fig. 6) is here
inserted, together with a view taken from the north-east (Fig. 7).[357]
The evidence derived from this and other theatres will enable us to clear
up many questions in connexion with the orchestra, to which the Athenian
theatre supplies no answer.

[Illustration: FIG. 6.]

In the early Greek theatres, as already pointed out, the seats of the
spectators were so arranged that every one had an excellent view of the
orchestra, while the view of the stage was in many cases a very poor one.
When the Romans gave up the orchestra to the spectators, and transferred
all the performances to the stage, they made various alterations in the
arrangement and proportions of the theatre. They largely diminished the
size of the orchestra by bringing the stage several yards forward; and at
the same time they cut off considerable portions from the two ends of the
auditorium. In this way they were enabled to make the stage much deeper,
so as to accommodate a larger number of performers. By shortening the
wings of the auditorium they abolished those seats which looked away from
the stage. Vitruvius gives some interesting directions for determining
the proper proportions of a Greek and Roman theatre.[358] According
to his figures the orchestra in a Roman theatre constituted an exact
semicircle. The front line of the stage coincided precisely with the
diameter of the orchestra. In a Greek theatre the stage was placed much
further back. The distance between the central point of the front line
of the stage and the central point in the opposite circumference of the
orchestra was six-sevenths of the diameter of the orchestra. In a Greek
theatre therefore, according to this statement, if the circumference of
the orchestra was prolonged so as to form a complete circle, it would
be found that the front line of the stage only intersected a very small
portion of that circle. None of the existing theatres coincide exactly
with the rules laid down by Vitruvius. Sometimes the stage stands
further back than he directs, as at the Peiraeeus. Sometimes it reaches
further forward, as at Megalopolis. But in most cases the deviation is
very slight, and his description, taken as a general statement, may be
regarded as approximately true. The fact is instructive. The largeness of
the space allotted to the orchestra by the arrangement above described
enables us to realize very clearly the subordinate position of the stage
in Greek theatres.

[Illustration: _To face p. 104._

FIG. 7. THEATRE AT EPIDAURUS, FROM THE NORTH-EAST.]

Vitruvius in the above account uses the word ‘orchestra’ in its ordinary
sense, to denote the whole space included within the border-line of
the auditorium. But we may limit the meaning of the word, and confine
it to the actual dancing-place, excluding the gutter which usually ran
inside the auditorium. If this is done, it will be found that in many
Greek theatres the circumference of the orchestra, when prolonged,
forms a complete circle, without touching the stage. The theatre of
Epidaurus (Fig. 6) offers a good example.[359] The dancing-place is
here surrounded by a circular kerbstone, fifteen inches wide, which only
reaches within a yard of the stage-buildings. It has been contended
that all Greek theatres were constructed on this principle; that the
stage was pushed back sufficiently far to allow the orchestra, in its
narrower sense, to form a complete circle. The line of the orchestra
might be marked out in stone, or it might not; but there was always room
for it.[360] This, however, is an exaggeration. There are many Greek
theatres, such as those of Delos, Assos, and Sicyon, in which the circle
of the actual dancing-place could not be completed without encroaching
upon the stage.[361] At Megalopolis (Fig. 11), if such a circle was
completed, about a third of it would be intersected. Here the orchestra
was unusually large, and the stage was therefore brought further forward,
in order to be within a reasonable distance of the auditorium. These
examples show that the Greeks had no pedantic feeling on the subject of
the orchestra circle. No doubt in ancient times, before the development
of the drama, their orchestras formed complete circles; and possibly
they were enclosed all round with a kerbstone. The old orchestra at
Athens seems to have been so encircled. But when regular theatres with
stage-buildings began to be erected the architects appear to have
discarded the stone border, and with it the imaginary circle, and to have
contented themselves with allowing a sufficient space for the chorus,
according to the requirements of each particular theatre. In many cases,
as it happened, they left room enough for a full circle. At Epidaurus
such a circle was actually marked out in stone. But this is the only
known example; and there are several theatres in which the stage was so
placed as to make a complete circle impossible.

At Athens, as we have seen, there was an interval of several feet between
the front row of benches and the circuit of the orchestra. The interval
was filled by a broad sloping step, which served as a passage to the
auditorium. A similar passage is found at the Peiraeeus. But in most
Greek theatres there was no passage of this kind, and the line of seats
bordered immediately on the orchestra and the gutter by which it was
encircled. The gutter was a regular feature in Greek orchestras, and was
constructed in various styles. The Athenian type, with its broad and deep
channel, and bridges at intervals, seems to have been exceptional and
antique, and is not found elsewhere except at Sicyon and the Peiraeeus.
In some places, such as Megalopolis, the gutter was much narrower, so
as to need no bridges. At Epidaurus and Eretria, on the other hand, it
was very broad and very shallow, and might be used as a passage to the
auditorium in dry weather. The gutter at Epidaurus is no less than 7
feet across, and only 8 inches deep. The surface of the orchestra was
in most cases, as at Athens, a few inches below the level of the front
row of seats. It used often to be asserted that the surface was boarded
over with planks. But this is an error, due to the fact that the Greek
grammarians often used the word ‘orchestra’ to denote the stage.[362]
The evidence of the theatres lately excavated shows that in almost every
case the Greek orchestra consisted simply of earth beaten down hard and
flat. It is true that the orchestra at Eretria was paved with slabs of
limestone, and that at Delos, which lay on the rock, was covered with
a ‘coating’ of some kind or another.[363] But in all other instances,
as far as we know, the surface was merely of earth. Marble pavements
are never found in Greek theatres, except when they had been built or
reconstructed in the Roman fashion. Lines were sometimes marked on the
floor of the orchestra, to assist the chorus in their evolutions.[364]
Similar lines are used on the modern stage when complicated ballets are
produced. Aristotle mentions cases of orchestras being strewed with
chaff, and remarks that when this was done the choruses were not heard
so well. But it is uncertain to what theatres or to what occasions he is
referring.[365]

In every Greek orchestra there was an altar of Dionysus. The fact
is proved by the express testimony of ancient writers, and also by
the circumstance that the dramatic performances were preceded by a
sacrifice.[366] However, there is only one theatre, that of Priene, in
which any remains of an altar have been discovered. In this theatre,
which was excavated for the first time in the year 1897, the altar is
still found standing in its original position. It is placed just in
front of the first row of seats, and exactly opposite the centre of
the stage.[367] Whether this was the usual position of the altar in a
Greek theatre seems doubtful. In the earliest period, when the drama was
still a purely lyrical performance, the altar stood in the centre of the
orchestra, and the chorus danced round about it. The evidence supplied
by the remains at Athens and Epidaurus rather favours the view that in
these theatres it still occupied the same position. In the middle of
the theatre at Epidaurus there is a round stone, 28 inches in diameter,
let into the ground, so as to be on the same level with the surrounding
surface. In the middle of the stone is a circular hole. A similar hole,
as we have seen, is found in the later Athenian orchestra. The only
plausible explanation of these holes is that they were intended for
the reception of small stone altars. It is probable, therefore, that
the practice varied in regard to the situation of the altar. In some
theatres, such as those of Athens and Epidaurus, it may have been placed
in the middle of the orchestra, after the ancient fashion. In others,
such as that of Priene, it may have been drawn further back towards
the auditorium, so as to leave a clear space for the evolutions of the
chorus. The altar of the theatre was called the Thymele, because of the
sacrifices offered upon it. It is called by this name in a fragment of
Pratinas.[368] In later times the use of the word was extended, so as
to denote, not only the altar, but also the space round about it; and
‘thymele’ became a regular name for an orchestra.[369] Later still, when
the Romans substituted the stage for the orchestra, the word ‘thymele’,
having become identical in meaning with the word ‘orchestra’, was
employed in similar fashion to signify the ‘stage’.[370]

In one or two Greek theatres subterranean passages have been discovered,
leading from the stage-buildings to the middle of the orchestra. These
passages are generally rather more than six feet in height, and from
two to three feet wide. There is one in the theatre of Eretria, with a
flight of steps leading down to it at each end.[371] Another has been
found at Magnesia; but as only a small portion of it still remains, it
is impossible to say where it began and where it ended, or whether it
had any exit into the orchestra.[372] The passage at Sicyon is rather
peculiar. A small drain runs underground from the auditorium to the
centre of the orchestra, where it falls into a square tank. From the
tank onwards there is a regular vaulted passage, which is continued as
far as the back of the stage-buildings, and finally ends in a tunnel
in the rock. Where it passes under the stage, a flight of steps leads
down to it; but no traces of an entrance from the orchestra can be
detected.[373] These three passages, when first discovered, were thought
to have some connexion with the dramatic performances; and it was
supposed that they might be used to enable ghosts to appear suddenly
in the middle of the orchestra. But this theory seems to be untenable,
for the following reasons. In the first place, no traces of such
passages have been found at Athens, and Epidaurus, and other theatres
where excavations have been carried on. But if they had been a regular
contrivance in dramatic exhibitions, it is impossible to suppose that
the Athenians would not have made use of them. Secondly, the passage
at Sicyon not only reaches as far as the stage, but also runs right
on to the back of the stage-buildings, where it would have been of no
use for the purpose suggested. Thirdly, there is no decisive evidence
that the passages at Sicyon and Magnesia opened out into the orchestra.
Fourthly, similar passages of Roman workmanship have been discovered at
Tralles and at Magnesia, the passage in the latter place having been
substituted for the previous Greek one. But these Roman passages had
no exit into the orchestra, as the remains clearly show. After running
from the stage-buildings to the middle of the orchestra, they branched
off to right and left like the letter T, and then stopped.[374] The fact
then that the Romans built tunnels of this kind, which had no connexion
with performances in the orchestra, is a strong reason for assuming
that the Greeks might do the same. What the purpose of the tunnels was,
whether Greek or Roman, has not yet been explained, and remains very
mysterious.[375]

[Illustration: FIG. 8.]

In all Greek theatres the front of the stage-buildings was separated
from the wings of the auditorium by a vacant space several feet in
width. Two open passages, one on the right and one on the left, led into
the orchestra. The passages were closed on the outside by large gates,
and these gates formed the only architectural connexion between the
auditorium and the stage-buildings.[376] In some theatres, such as those
of Epidaurus and Assos, the gates which led into the orchestra stood
side by side with other gates leading into the stage-buildings.[377]
Sufficient remains of the gates at Epidaurus have been preserved to admit
of a complete restoration of them. The present illustration represents
the two gates on the western side of the theatre (Fig. 8). The gate to
the right leads into the orchestra; that to the left leads into the
stage-buildings.[378] In the Athenian theatre, owing to the defective
character of the remains in this part, it is impossible to determine
whether there were two gates on each side or only one. The passages at
Athens measured nine feet across on the outside. But they grew gradually
wider, as one approached the orchestra, because of the oblique position
of the boundary walls of the auditorium. These orchestral passages
answered a double purpose. In the first place, they formed the principal
entrance to the theatre for the general public. In many theatres they
were the only entrances. In Athens there were two others at the upper
end of the auditorium; but the main approaches in all theatres were
those between the auditorium and the stage-buildings. The spectators
came in by the orchestra, and then ascended the vertical passages to
their proper seats. In the second place, it was by these passages that
the chorus entered the orchestra at the commencement of each play. The
technical name for the passages was ‘parodoi’ or ‘eisodoi’.[379] In
Roman theatres they were of course done away with, as the Roman stage
was brought much more forward than the Greek, and the two ends coalesced
with the wings of the auditorium. In place of the old open passages the
Romans built vaulted entrances underneath the auditorium, and parallel
with the stage. Later Greek writers, misled by the analogy of the Roman
theatres, sometimes apply the terms ‘vault’ and ‘archway’ to the open
side-entrances of the Greek theatre. But such language is inaccurate.[380]


§ 6. _Ruins of the Stage-buildings at Athens._

The third and last division of the theatre consists of the
stage-buildings, the ‘skene’, as they were called. This word has a
curious history in connexion with the drama. Originally it meant the
booth or tent in which the single actor of the Thespian period used to
change his costume. Then as this booth gradually developed into a large
and elaborate structure, the word ‘skene’ extended its meaning at the
same time, and came to be the regular term for the stage-buildings of a
theatre.[381] Later on it began to be applied not only to the whole of
the buildings, but also to the more important parts of them. It was used
to denote the stage or platform on which the actors performed[382]; and
also the back-scene, with its painted decoration, in front of which they
stood.[383] Eventually it was employed as a general term for the scene of
action, or for the portions or scenes into which a play was divided.[384]
These last three meanings of the word are still retained in its English
derivative.

The question as to the structure of the stage-buildings in a Greek
theatre is one of the greatest interest, because of its intimate
connexion with many disputed points of dramatic history. Unfortunately,
it is a subject upon which the information supplied by the existing
ruins is very defective. In all the remaining theatres of purely Greek
origin little has been left of the stage-buildings beyond the mere
foundations, and it is impossible from such evidence to go very far in
the process of conjectural reconstruction. Our knowledge of the upper
part of the building has to be derived mainly from casual notices in the
old grammarians. In treating this question it will be best to follow the
same arrangement as in the case of the orchestra, and to begin by giving
a short account of the ruins in the theatre of Dionysus at Athens. The
stage-buildings at Athens were very frequently altered and reconstructed
in the course of their history, and the task of distinguishing between
the confused remains of the different periods has been by no means an
easy one. The recent investigations of Dörpfeld have for the first time
placed the matter in a fairly clear light. The results of his discoveries
are indicated in the plan of the theatre already given.

The oldest stage-buildings, which Dörpfeld dates soon after the middle
of the fourth century and Puchstein at the end of the fifth, are marked
by cross-shading in the plan, and denoted by the letter _n_. They
consisted, as will be seen, of a long and narrow rectangular structure.
In the front, towards each end, were two projecting side-wings. The
length of the building was 152 feet, and its depth, measured between the
wings, 21 feet. The wings themselves were 25 feet wide, and projected
about 17 feet on the inside. The roof of the building was originally
supported by a line of columns running along the centre, of which some
traces still remain. At the back of the building there was a low narrow
wall, running immediately in front of the supporting wall, and fitted
with square holes at regular intervals. The purpose of the wall is very
obscure; but Dörpfeld conjectures that the upper story was of wood, and
not of stone, and that it rested on wooden beams which were placed in
these holes. Puchstein, on the other hand, believes that there was an
upper story of stone. The evidence is not sufficiently clear to render
a decision possible.[385] As regards the appearance of the building in
the front nothing can be ascertained with certainty. The space between
the side-wings evidently contained the stage, but no traces of it are
to be found. It must therefore have been a temporary erection of wood.
Dörpfeld supposes that the front of the two side-wings, and the front
of the wall between them, were decorated with columns and entablatures
about thirteen feet high.[386] But the evidence for this opinion is far
from conclusive. It is founded on the fact that the stylobates used in
the later side-wings were not originally designed for that position,
but had obviously been used somewhere else before. Dörpfeld supposes,
perhaps correctly, that they stood at first in front of the Lycurgean
side-wings.[387] But this is no justification for assuming that the wall
between the wings in the Lycurgean building was also decorated in the
same way. The stylobate used for this part of the later building was
a new one, and not an old one rearranged; and this fact seems to show
that there was no such stylobate in the building of Lycurgus. Otherwise
there would have been just as much reason for using it, as for using
the two stylobates from the wings. On the whole then it is clear that
we know very little about the old stage-building of the fourth or late
fifth century beyond the shape of its ground-plan. As to its height, the
material used in its upper stories, and the manner in which its front was
embellished, there is no certain evidence.

The history of the stage-buildings during the next two hundred years
or so is a blank. Nothing can be ascertained on this subject from the
ruins. The first great alteration of which traces remain was carried out
in the course of the first or second century B.C. according to Dörpfeld,
the fourth century according to Puchstein. A permanent stone proscenium
was then erected in the space between the wings. It is marked _o_ in
the plan. The front of this proscenium consisted of a row of columns
supporting an entablature. Its height, as may be calculated from the
traces of the columns, was about 13 feet; its depth between 9 and 10
feet. It was covered on the top with a wooden platform, resting on beams,
the holes for which are still visible in fragments of the architrave. In
the centre of the front part of the proscenium was a door leading out
into the orchestra. This door varied in width at different periods from
4½ to 5½ feet, but there is nothing to show which was the earlier and
which the later of the two widths. Traces of a smaller door, to the west
of the central one, have also been discovered; but there are no traces
of a door to the east. As this new stage was only about ten feet deep,
smaller side-wings were required. The old wings of the earlier theatre
were therefore thrown back about 5½ feet, thus adding several feet to the
width of the ‘parodoi’. Beyond the construction of the stone proscenium
no further remains of new erections belonging to this reconstruction have
been discovered; but it is probable that the upper part of the building
was considerably altered at the same time.

The second great reconstruction of the stage-buildings took place in the
reign of Nero, after a lapse of perhaps two hundred years. The whole
of this part of the theatre was then adapted to the Roman fashion. An
elaborate architectural façade, consisting of columns and entablatures,
was erected at the back of the stage, the old Lycurgean wall _n_ being
used as a foundation. A portion of the frieze from this façade is still
in existence, and contains the dedication to Nero which has already been
referred to.[388] Two of the columns are also preserved in part. Behind
the columns and frieze a wall was erected, according to the Roman custom;
and at the same time new side-wings were built, slightly diminishing
the length of the whole structure. The foundations of these erections
are marked _p_ in the plan. In Roman theatres, as we have seen, the
stage projected much further forward than in the Greek. It was also
reduced in height to five feet, so that the spectators in the orchestra
might be able to see over the top. A stage of this type was doubtless
erected in the Athenian theatre at the time of these reconstructions,
though it has now entirely disappeared. But part of it seems to have
been used for the existing stage, that of Phaedrus, by which it was
replaced in the third century A.D. This stage, which is four feet three
inches high, is adorned in front with a bas-relief. The bas-relief has
obviously been constructed out of old materials, and has been much cut
about, and curtailed several inches in height, before being placed in
its present situation. It seems clear that it was intended originally
for the Neronian stage, which must therefore have been about five feet
high. The position of the front-wall in the Neronian stage cannot be
determined from the ruins, but was probably much the same as in the stage
of Phaedrus (_h-h_). One peculiarity of the Neronian reconstruction is
the fact that the old Greek side-wings, with their rows of columns, were
allowed to remain. But how they harmonized with the new Roman wings and
columns it is difficult to conjecture.[389]

The last change of which we have any trace or record was that effected by
Phaedrus about two centuries later. The stage was then lowered several
inches, and the front-wall erected in its present position. Half of it
still remains, together with a flight of steps leading down from stage
to orchestra. Such steps were common in Roman theatres, and had no doubt
existed previously in the Neronian theatre. The bas-relief, which had
formerly been a continuous one, was cut into sections, and arranged with
recesses at intervals, the recesses being filled with stone figures. One
of these—a kneeling Silenus—has been preserved. As to the purpose of
this reconstruction by Phaedrus there is much uncertainty. But Dörpfeld
conjectures that it may have been due, partly to the ruinous condition
of the old Neronian stage, partly to a desire to make the orchestra
water-tight for the purpose of holding mimic sea-fights in the manner
already described.[390]


§ 7. _The Earlier Stage-buildings._

We have now described the various traces of stage-buildings in the
Athenian theatre down to the time of Phaedrus. It remains to consider
the subject from a more general point of view, and to supplement and
illustrate the previous narrative by evidence derived from other
sources. The first and most interesting question concerns the structure
of the stage-buildings during the great period of the Attic drama from
Aeschylus to Aristophanes. On this point the existing remains throw very
little light. Still there are a few general conclusions which seem to
be fairly well established. It is evident, in the first place, that the
stage-buildings from the fifth down to the middle of the fourth century,
if Dörpfeld’s dates are adopted—those of the greater part of the fifth
century, according to Puchstein—must have been made of wood, and not of
stone. If they had been made of stone, it is difficult to believe that
they would have left no traces behind them. As regards their shape, they
probably resembled in general outline the earliest stone structure,
and consisted of an oblong building with projecting side-wings. These
side-wings were called ‘paraskenia’, because they lay on each side of the
‘skene’ or stage, and are actually mentioned by Demosthenes in his speech
against Meidias as forming a part of the theatre at that time.[391] But
though the stage-buildings of the fifth century were constructed of wood
only, they must have been firm and substantial erections, and at least
two stories in height. The use of such contrivances as the ‘mechane’ and
the ‘theologeion’, by which gods were exhibited high up in air, would
require buildings of not less than two stories, and of considerable
solidity. Hence we may also conclude that they were permanent structures,
and that they were not put up and taken down at each festival. No doubt,
in the course of a century and a half, they were often renewed, and often
changed and modified in detail, as experience suggested. During the first
years of the fifth century, when there was only one actor, they must
have been much smaller than they afterwards became, when the number of
the actors had been raised to three. But after the middle of the fifth
century, when they had reached their full size, it is unlikely that they
should have been pulled down and re-erected more often than was rendered
necessary by the mere process of decay. Whether the stage in these
early buildings was protected by a roof or covering, running from one
side-wing to the other, is uncertain. But a roof of this kind would have
been a distinct advantage, for the purpose of concealing the crane-like
mechanism by which the deus ex machina was exhibited.

To consider next the character of the early stage. The stage in Greek was
called ‘skene’, for the reason already mentioned[392]; and ‘okribas’,
because it consisted originally of a wooden platform.[393] It was also
called ‘logeion’, or the ‘speaking-place’, because the actors stood
there and carried on the dialogue. It was opposed to the orchestra, or
dancing-place, in which the chorus went through their performances.[394]
Another name for it was the ‘proskenion’, from its position in front
of the ‘skene’, or back-wall.[395] As regards the shape of the early
stage, there is even less archaeological evidence than in the case of the
stage-buildings. The stage continued to be constructed of wood long after
the rest of the building had begun to be made of stone. As a result, all
traces of it have disappeared. But certain inferences may be drawn from
the structure of the earliest stage-buildings represented in the ruins.
If we look at the outline of these buildings (_n-n_), we shall see that
the side-wings project about seventeen feet. But in the reconstruction
which Dörpfeld assigns to the Hellenistic period, Puchstein to the
fourth century, when a stone stage (_o-o_) was erected, the wings were
drawn back about five feet on each side. It follows almost as a matter
of certainty that the wooden stage of the earlier theatre must have
been about fifteen feet deep, so as to fill up the space between the
wings.[396] This conclusion is confirmed by the remains of the original
stage-buildings at Eretria, which are the oldest hitherto found outside
Athens, and which apparently belong to the same period as the earliest
ruins found at Athens.[397] Here too we find the same outline and
dimensions. There is a long narrow building, with wings projecting about
seventeen feet on each side.[398] From this evidence we are justified
in assuming that the early Greek stage was considerably deeper than the
later one, and was not less than about fifteen feet across. As to its
height, we have no information beyond that which is supplied by the
existing dramas. These dramas however show that in the theatre of the
fifth century it was easy for the actors on the stage to converse with
the chorus in the orchestra; and that there was nothing to prevent actors
and chorus from passing from stage to orchestra and from orchestra to
stage whenever they desired. Hence the stage of the fifth century cannot
have been raised many feet above the level of the orchestra. The object
of the stage was to place the actors in a prominent position, and to
ensure that they should not be hidden from view by the chorus in front of
them. This purpose would easily be effected by a stage of only a few feet
in height. Some easy means of communication between stage and orchestra
must have been provided, to enable actors and chorus to pass to and fro.
A long flight of steps, or a sloping ascent, may have been used for the
purpose.

Such then, as far as we can tell, was the character of the stage
and stage-buildings during the early period of the Greek drama. The
stage-buildings consisted of a long and narrow rectangular structure,
made entirely of wood, not less than two stories high, and with
side-wings at each end. Between the wings was a platform about fifteen
feet deep, and a few feet in height, connected with the orchestra by a
flight of steps or in some similar way. This type of building lasted till
the end of the fifth or middle of the fourth century. A new departure
was then made. Stage-buildings began to be constructed of stone, at
any rate in the lower stories. The earliest known examples are those
at Athens and Eretria. But the stage itself still remained a wooden
one.[399] Its depth was still about fifteen feet. As to its height we
have no information.[400] The fourth century was a period of transition
and development in the history of the Greek theatre; and it was probably
during this century that various new experiments were made in the
structure and arrangement of the stage and stage-buildings. But the first
steps in the process cannot be traced in detail, owing to the lack of
evidence. The final results of the various experiments, as exemplified in
the theatres of a later period, will be discussed in the next section.


§ 8. _The later Stage-buildings of the pre-Roman period._

In describing the ruins of the stage-buildings in the Athenian theatre
we showed that the first great alteration made in the older structure
was the erection of a stone stage. This stage was about thirteen feet
high, and from nine to ten feet deep, and was enclosed between shallower
side-wings. The change effected at Athens is a type of similar changes
which were carried out in most of the other Greek theatres with which we
are acquainted. The recent excavations at Megalopolis, Delos, Eretria,
and many other places, show that from the beginning of the second century
onwards, and probably earlier, stone proscenia of the kind just described
became a regular feature in ordinary Greek theatres.[401] Moreover there
is evidence to prove that as early as the beginning of the third century
proscenia made of wood, but resembling the later stone ones in height and
depth, had begun to be erected in various cities. The theatre at Sicyon
was built about this period, and the stage-buildings were to a large
extent excavated out of the rock. The slopes which led up to the stage
on each side, being cut out of the rock, still remain, and prove that
the stage was about eleven feet above the level of the orchestra. The
old wall which served as a foundation for the wooden proscenium is also
partly preserved, and runs along the line of the later stone erection. In
it are holes for the posts on which the wooden stage was supported.[402]
At Eretria, again, the theatre was reconstructed about the beginning of
the third century, and the orchestra was sunk about eleven feet into
the rock, but the stage-buildings were left at their original level.
Hence the wooden stage built in front of them must have been eleven feet
high.[403] The theatre at Priene is somewhat exceptional. Here there
are the remains of a proscenium belonging to the third century, but
built of stone like those of later times. This, however, is the only
instance yet discovered of a stone proscenium which can be ascribed with
certainty to such an early period.[404] From these various indications
it seems probable that the tall and narrow stage of the later type began
to become general at the close of the fourth century, though at first
it was usually made of wood. In the course of the second and first
centuries this wooden stage was replaced in most theatres by a permanent
one of stone. The evidence derived from the ruins as to the size and
shape of the later stage corresponds, in most cases, with the statement
of Vitruvius, the Roman architect, who wrote about the end of the first
century B.C. In his account of the Greek theatre of his own time he lays
it down as a rule that the proscenium should be from ten to twelve feet
high, and about ten feet deep.[405]

[Illustration: FIG. 8 A.]

From the numerous remains of these later stone proscenia which have
been excavated during the last few years it is possible to obtain
a fairly accurate conception of their general character. The upper
surface, or stage proper, was made of wood. The front seems to have
consisted in every case of a series of stone columns supporting an
entablature. The spaces between the columns were filled in with painted
boards or ‘pinakes’, these, like the stage, being made of wood for
acoustic reasons.[406] The columns themselves were adapted sometimes
more and sometimes less carefully, to the purpose for which they were
required.[407] In some cases, as at Athens and Sicyon, they consisted
simply of entire columns. In others, the columns were provided with
rims running down the centre of each side, to hold the pinakes, as at
Megalopolis and Eretria. In others, the place of the columns was taken by
half-columns resting against pillars, as more convenient for holding the
pinakes. These pillars were in some cases without grooves or projections
for the pinakes, as at Epidaurus; in others, as at Priene, New Pleuron,
and Delos, they were regularly provided with them.[408] A diagram is
here given (Fig. 8 A, after Puchstein) representing the shapes of these
supports. The row of pillars would not only serve as a support to the
stage, but would serve as a background for the choral performances in
the orchestra so far as one was needed.[409] Dörpfeld, who believes that
the dramatic performances also took place entirely in the orchestra,
supposes that the pinakes were painted in scenic fashion so as to serve
as a background to the actors. There is not a particle of evidence to
support this view.[410] Not only would a back-scene interrupted by
columns be peculiar; but the accounts of the theatre of Delos in the
third century B.C. appear to demonstrate that the pinakes were not used
for this purpose. We find there that the joiner who made a single pinax
received 30 drachmae, while the painter who painted two only received 3
drachmae 1 obol.[411] The smallness of the latter sum seems a clear proof
that the painting was not of the artistic kind we should expect in a
back-scene, but a very simple affair, suitable to the supporting wall of
a stage. It is very probable that the pinakes were painted in imitation
of folding-doors, or of wood-work divided into panels. Puchstein
conjectures that the stone structures found at Priene and Termessos, made
to resemble such doors or panelled work, are reminiscences of the earlier
pinakes, and similar instances of vacant spaces made to imitate doors
are common on Lycian grave[412] monuments and Pompeian wall-paintings.
This architectural front was called the ‘hyposkenion’, from its position
beneath the ‘skene’ or stage. Pollux says it was adorned with ‘columns
and small statues’.[413] Statues, however, were not used as a decoration
during the pre-Roman period. In Roman times they appear to have been
sometimes inserted in the intercolumnia, in place of the painted boards.
At Epidaurus, for instance, the space between the columns in the
side-wings was filled in at some late period with groups of sculpture.
At Delos, statues and other votive erections were placed along the
front of the proscenium.[414] Possibly Pollux may be referring to these
later customs; or he may have been thinking of the Roman stage, which
was sometimes decorated in front with a sculptured frieze, like that
of Phaedrus in the Athenian theatre. It is evident from the ruins that
there was no permanent means of communication between the orchestra and
the top of the stage. As regards the connexion with the interior of the
stage the custom seems to have varied. At Priene there were three doors
leading out into the orchestra.[415] At Athens the proscenium had one
door in the centre, and another smaller one on the western side. But
in most theatres there was only a single door, that in the centre; and
this door varied in width from 3 feet 3 inches at Delos to 4 feet at
Epidaurus.[416] At Megalopolis, however, and also at Thespiae, there is
no door of any kind leading out from the front of the proscenium into the
orchestra.[417] Probably most theatres had doors leading from the end
of the stage-buildings into the ‘parodoi’ or side-entrances, though they
cannot always be traced, owing to the scantiness of the remains. Their
position would no doubt vary, according to the structure of the different
theatres. At Epidaurus doors of this kind were placed immediately beyond
the side-wings, at each extremity of the proscenium. The illustration
which is here inserted (Fig. 9) will give a clear idea of the appearance
of these proscenia. It represents a restoration of one end of the
hyposkenion at Epidaurus. The front of the proscenium is denoted by the
letter _a_, the side-wing by _b_, while _c_ marks the door leading out
into the parodos.[418]

[Illustration: FIG. 9.]

In size these proscenia usually conformed to the rules of Vitruvius, and
were about ten feet deep, and from ten to twelve feet high. But sometimes
they were much lower than he directs. The proscenium at Oropus was only 8
ft. 2 in. in height, that at Priene only 8 ft. 8 in.[419] The proscenium
at Delos is given variously as 8 ft. 3 in. and 9 ft. 2 in.[420] On the
other hand, the stages at Athens and at the Peiraeeus were thirteen feet
above the level of the orchestra.[421] The wings by which the stage was
enclosed on each side sometimes projected a few feet beyond the front
line of the proscenium, as at Athens. Sometimes, as at Eretria, there
was no projection, and the front of the wings was continuous with that
of the stage. In many theatres, again, such as those of Megalopolis and
Sicyon, there were no permanent side-wings, and the stage was terminated
at each end by a mere wall.[422] In such cases it is probable that during
the dramatic performances temporary side-wings of wood were erected. The
theatres of Epidaurus, Oropus, Sicyon, and the later buildings at Eretria
exhibit a peculiar feature in the shape of certain ramps or sloping
passages visible to the audience and leading up from the parodos and the
outside of the stage-buildings to the door in the walls terminating the
ends of the stage. The position of those ramps is clearly shown in the
plan of the Epidaurian theatre (Fig. 6). It is possible that they were
used by the chorus for the purpose of descending from the first floor of
the stage-buildings to the entrance of the parodos. But probably they
served mainly for the entrance of actors who represented persons supposed
to be coming from a distance. The objection of Robert and Dörpfeld[423]
that the actor would have to come up the ramps and wait at the door of
the side-wings in view of the audience for his cue, before he could
enter—which they justly say would be a ridiculous sight—assumes what
it is quite unnecessary to assume, namely, that plays were performed
without practice or proper stage-management. Very little rehearsal would
be required in order that the actor’s arrival might be duly timed. A
different device for the entrance of such actors is found at Priene and
Assos. There are no side-wings, but the stage is rather longer than the
back-scene or the buildings of which the back-scene formed the face, and
is continued for some distance down each side of the buildings. The ends
of the stage are terminated by a wall containing no door. The idea seems
to have been that the persons supposed to come from a distance should
make their way down one of the passages on each side of the skene, and so
come round the corner of the stage. The theatres at Delos, Termessos, and
Ephesus seem to have employed variations of this device.[424]

When we turn from the stage to the stage-buildings of this period, our
information is very incomplete owing to the scanty nature of the ruins.
But it is probable that the stage-buildings began about this period to
assume a more imposing appearance than in former times. We have seen that
in the case of the earlier buildings there is some doubt whether the
upper stories were made of wood or of stone. After the beginning of the
third century it is probable that stone began to be used for all stories
alike.[425] The buildings must also have been of a considerable height,
to allow of a suitable back-scene above the tall proscenium.[426] As to
the decoration of the wall at the back of the stage nothing is known.
In the later Greek theatres, built in the Roman fashion, this wall was
constructed in an elaborate architectural design. It usually consisted
of two or three rows of columns, rising one above the other, and each
surmounted with appropriate entablatures and pediments. Its height was
often as great at the top of the auditorium—an arrangement which was
found to improve the acoustic properties of the theatre. Back-walls of
this sumptuous character are still in part preserved in the Graeco-Roman
theatres of Aspendos, Tauromenium, and various other cities. But it is
uncertain how far they can be traced back into or beyond the Hellenistic
period.[427] It is still keenly disputed whether the supporting walls
for the stage-buildings, found in the ruins of different theatres, are
really strong enough to bear the weight of two stories. As regards the
doors which led from the back-wall on to the stage there is no positive
evidence to be obtained from the existing ruins. But Pollux and Vitruvius
state that they were three in number.[428]

The most essential difference between the theatre which we are
considering and that of the fifth century lay in the substitution of
a tall and narrow stage for a low and comparatively deep one. This
change was far more important than a mere change of material from wood
to stone. The question naturally arises, what was the reason for the
alteration? The answer is to be found in the fact that the Greek drama
itself passed through a no less radical transformation at the same time.
In the course of the fourth century it was gradually transformed from a
choral to a non-choral drama. When we come to the third century we find
that the chorus, which once played the chief part both in tragedy and
comedy, had sunk into insignificance. It was often discarded altogether.
When retained, it had nothing to do but to sing interludes between the
successive acts. Its presence no more implied that the play was a choral
play than the presence of the band in a modern theatre implies that the
performance is an opera. The old intercourse between actors and chorus
was a thing of the past.[429] The low deep stage was no longer necessary,
to enable actors and chorus to converse together, or to supply room, when
required, for the presence of the chorus by the side of the actors. Under
these circumstances it would obviously be an advantage to make the stage
as high as possible, in order to improve the view of the upper rows of
spectators. The ancient theatres were of enormous size. At Athens, for
example, the topmost tier of seats was 300 feet distant from the stage,
and 100 feet above the level of the orchestra. In such a theatre, the
higher the stage, the better would be the view of the majority of the
audience. It was doubtless for this reason that the stage was raised to
about ten or twelve feet in the course of the third century. At the same
time its depth was necessarily diminished, in order that the spectators
in the lowest rows might be able to see down to the end of it. The loss
of depth was of no importance in the acting of a play, because of the
practical exclusion of the chorus from the stage.

In connexion with this subject a difficulty has been raised by some
scholars which deserves consideration. It is generally admitted that the
Vitruvian stage was well adapted for the later kind of drama. But from
the fourth century down to Roman times the theatre was used quite as much
for the revival of old plays as for the representation of new ones. It is
contended that the ancient plays, with their intimate connexion between
actors and chorus, could not possibly have been exhibited on a stage
which was raised twelve feet above the level of the orchestra. In answer
to this objection it may be pointed out that the only ancient plays which
were ever revived during the period with which we are now dealing were
those of Sophocles and Euripides. Aeschylus and Aristophanes had gone
out of fashion. The plays of Sophocles and Euripides could easily have
been adapted for the Vitruvian stage by excisions and modifications in
the choral part. If the chorus, as sometimes happened, took an important
share in the dialogue, its part on such occasions might be given to extra
characters on the stage. That the old plays were revised and adapted in
this manner at a later period is proved by the express testimony of Dion
Chrysostomus,[430] and there is no improbability in assuming that the
same practice had begun to prevail as early as the third century B.C.
It might, however, sometimes be necessary, during the revival of the
ancient dramas, to provide a means of communication between stage and
orchestra. In such cases temporary wooden steps were placed in front of
the proscenium. There is ample evidence for the use of this contrivance.
Pollux tells us that when the players entered by the orchestra they
ascended the stage by means of steps.[431] Athenaeus, the writer on
military engines, speaks of the steps which were placed in front of the
stage for the use of the actors.[432] Steps of this kind are depicted
in several vase-paintings from Magna Graecia, belonging to the third
century B.C., and representing theatrical scenes.[433] There is also
a wall-painting at Herculaneum, which shows us one of these flights of
steps standing by itself, with an actor’s mask at the top.[434] From
these indications we see that, although there was no permanent means of
communication between stage and orchestra in the Hellenistic theatres, a
temporary connexion could always be supplied when necessary.


§ 9. _Puchstein’s Theory of the Stage-buildings._

The theory of Puchstein, already so often alluded to, ascribes to
Lycurgus the construction of the proscenium consisting of stone columns
and pinakes, and throws back to the end of the fifth century the
Lycurgean structures usually so called. His principal ground for this
change of date lies in the development which he traces in the form of
the columns in question.[435] He thinks it certain that the use of full
columns must have preceded that of half-columns, and that columns without
special contrivances for holding pinakes must be earlier than simple
ones. Thus the full columns of the proscenia of Athens, Sicyon, and the
Peiraeeus, which have no such contrivances, will belong to the earliest
period of stone proscenia; they will be earlier than those of Megalopolis
and Eretria, which have rims for holding the pinakes, and still earlier
than the plain half-columns of Epidaurus and the grooved half-columns
of Priene, Assos, Delos, Pleuron, Oropus, &c. The proscenia of Priene,
Pleuron, and Delos appear to belong to the third century B.C.; and
Puchstein accordingly throws back the Athenian columned proscenium to the
latter half of the fourth century, the time of Lycurgus. The theory is at
least plausible; but it is not certain. Development is not always in a
straight line or in logical order, and does not always require intervals
of many years between one stage and another; different experiments
may be tried simultaneously in different cases, and recurrence to old
types, or preservation of them after new ones have been invented, is a
common thing in the history of architecture. The form of the proscenium,
therefore, cannot be used with certainty as a chronological criterion,
though it may be very suggestive. It follows, in Puchstein’s view, from
the earlier dating of the stone proscenium, that the so-called Lycurgean
stage-building, with its deep side-wings, must have been erected some
time before Lycurgus, towards the end of the fifth or beginning of
the fourth century. The date which Puchstein suggests for the stone
proscenium at Athens is certainly more probable on _a priori_ grounds
than that given by Dörpfeld. According to Dörpfeld’s chronology, the
earliest stage-buildings at Athens were apparently later than those at
Eretria and other Greek cities. Dörpfeld has conceded that the old skene
at Eretria is of the fourth or fifth century, and may be older than the
Lycurgean.[436] But it is hard to believe that the city in which the
drama was first developed should not have been the first also to provide
itself with a permanent stage.

Professor E. A. Gardner also shows reasons of a technical character in
favour of the earlier date.[437] The foundations of the chryselephantine
statue of Dionysus by Alcamenes are of conglomerate and breccia.
Alcamenes was at work during the latter half of the fifth century; and
the later temple in the precinct below the theatre was built to contain
this statue. Now, as Professor Gardner points out, it is unlikely that
the Athenians would have undertaken so costly a work in the later part
of the Peloponnesian war. On the other hand, there is no trace of the
use of breccia in foundations in the Periclean age. The temple probably
therefore dates from the time between the Peace of Nicias in 421 B.C. and
the Sicilian expedition in 415 B.C. And if the temple was built then, it
is not unlikely that the theatre may have been begun at the same time.
The fact that the architectural technique of the theatre, particularly in
the use of conglomerate blocks, is the same as that of the temple points
the same way. The work may have begun about B.C. 420, and progressed
gradually and continuously up to the time of Lycurgus. The exact year in
which the higher stage was erected cannot, of course, be fixed.[438]

Puchstein also doubts whether the whole of the existing auditorium
was built in the time of Lycurgus.[439] There is a fragment of a wall
(not marked) in front of _a—a_ in the plan, which Dörpfeld does not
mention in his text, though he marks it in one of his plans.[440] This,
Puchstein suggests, is the supporting wall of an auditorium older than
the Lycurgean. Besides this he finds evidence of stone seats in the
fifth century. It has already been mentioned that a stone built into the
western wing of the auditorium contains a fifth-century inscription.[441]
This inscription consists of the words βολῆς ὑπηρετῶν, and was probably
part of a seat-step, reserved for the servants of the βουλή. If so, there
must have been a stone auditorium before the time of Lycurgus.

A further point in Puchstein’s theory concerns the height of the stage
in the building which he assigns to the fifth century.[442] The only
possible purpose of the deep side-wings was to enclose a stage. The
analogy of later theatres of the same type, such as those of Tyndaris
and Segesta, where traces of the stage still remain, render any other
conclusion indefensible. No other hypothesis has any support from any
monuments whatever. This stage may have been of wood, proscenium and all,
and this would account for its disappearance; or it may have had slight
stone supports, which might easily have left no trace. The height of
this old stage at Athens may be determined approximately by a comparison
with the almost contemporary stage-buildings at Eretria, where there is
evidence to show that the stage must have been not less than nine or ten
feet from the ground. But this does not mean that still earlier the stage
was not, as previously contended,[443] a comparatively low one, such
as would be suitable for the plays of Aeschylus and the earlier plays
of Aristophanes. Nor is the existence of a high stage about 400 B.C.
inconsistent with the presence of a chorus, as Dörpfeld thinks.[444] The
decision depends not on the presence of a chorus, but on the intimacy of
the connexion between the chorus and the actors. As long as they freely
commingled together, the stage must have been moderately low. But when
the chorus ceased to take any active part in the play, the raising of the
stage would do no harm, and would be an advantage, as giving the audience
a better view of the actors. Now it was precisely towards the end of the
fifth century that the chorus began to lose its old significance, and
to assume the functions of mere singers of interludes.[445] Hence there
would be nothing surprising if it were proved, and not merely rendered
likely, as by Puchstein, that at this date the stage began to be of a
greater height than formerly.


§ 10. _The Stage-buildings in Roman Times._

We have now followed the development of the stage-buildings from the old
wooden erections of the fifth century to the more solid and elaborate
structures of the Hellenistic period. All that remains is to trace their
history during the later ages of Roman supremacy. We have shown that
at Athens the stage-buildings were practically reconstructed after the
Roman fashion in the time of Nero. The same tendency had already become
prevalent in other places at a much earlier period. After the middle
of the first century B.C. most of the new theatres built by the Greeks
were constructed in the Roman style. The majority of the old ones began
about the same time to be altered and modified under Roman influence.
This latter process, however, was never carried out universally. It was
confined mainly to the more outlying parts of the Hellenic world, such
as Sicily and Asia Minor. In Greece proper it was a comparatively rare
occurrence. Athens and Argos are the only cities on the Greek mainland
which are known to have Romanized their theatres. Still, looking at
the Greek world as a whole, it may be said that from the time of the
Christian era the great majority of Hellenic theatres were adapted to
the Roman model. It was at this period that the stage-buildings began
to be constructed on a more lofty scale, and their front adorned with
the gorgeous architectural embellishments which we have previously
described. Some idea of their magnificence may be obtained from the
existing remains, and especially from those of the theatre at Aspendos,
which is well preserved. A restoration of part of the interior of this
theatre (Fig. 10) is here inserted.[446] The back-wall erected at Athens
in the time of Nero was of the same type, though smaller in size. Façades
of this imposing character may perhaps be thought too elaborate for the
back-wall of a theatre. When dramas were being performed, and they
were covered with painted scenery, their architectural beauty would be
concealed from the eyes of the spectators. But ancient theatres were
regularly used, not only for dramatic performances, but also for various
other purposes, both artistic and political. On such occasions, when the
stage was without scenic decoration, the architectural grandeur of the
back-wall would add greatly to the beauty of the stage-buildings, and
form a pleasing object to the eye. Probably, too, at many of the dramatic
exhibitions, when the action was laid before a temple or palace, painted
scenery was dispensed with, and the architectural façade supplied an
appropriate background.

[Illustration: FIG. 10.]

It will be seen from the illustration that in the theatre of Aspendos
there were five doors at the back of the stage. There was a large door
in the centre, and two smaller ones on each side. The same arrangement
was generally adopted in Graeco-Roman theatres. But Pollux and Vitruvius
speak of three doors as the regulation number.[447] Possibly, therefore,
the five doors of the later theatres were not all used during the
dramatic representations. When the stage was prepared for the performance
of a play, the two doors on the outside may have been covered up with
scenery; or temporary side-wings may have been erected in front of them.
Another noticeable feature in the theatre of Aspendos is the roof over
the stage. Traces of a similar roof are also found at Orange, and justify
the conclusion that in most theatres of the Roman type the stage was
covered over.[448] Whether the same practice prevailed in the Hellenistic
theatres there is no evidence to show. But the convenience of the
arrangement is so obvious, that we can hardly doubt that it began to be
employed at a comparatively early period.

In a large number of cases the process of Romanizing the Greek theatres
was not carried out completely. Many theatres, whether built or
reconstructed on the new model, still retained features which were
essentially Greek. This was the case at Athens. The Greek stage was
usually the same length as one diameter of the orchestra. The Roman stage
was twice as long, and extended some distance into the wings of the
auditorium on each side. There was no open space between the auditorium
and the side-wings; the place of the old Greek ‘parodoi’ was supplied
by vaulted subways. But at Athens, when the Neronian alterations were
made, the stage was not prolonged in the Roman style, but remained of the
same length as before. The entrances into the orchestra at _a_ and _g_
were thus left open (Fig. 3). In many other places, especially in Asia
Minor, the Romanization was of a still more partial kind. In theatres
such as those of Termessos, Perge, and Sagalassos the general outline
of the building was hardly affected by the change. The front line of
the stage was not pushed forward; the orchestra still remained nearly a
complete circle; open passages were left between the auditorium and the
stage-buildings. The only important alteration was in the size of the
stage, which was lengthened at each end, and deepened by throwing the
front of the stage-buildings farther back. The height of the stage was
but slightly diminished. In a Roman theatre it was usually five feet.
But the stages at Termessos, Sagalassos, and Patara vary from eight feet
to nine, and were therefore very little lower than the ordinary stage of
the Vitruvian type.[449]

These examples show how trifling in many cases was the difference between
the Graeco-Roman theatres and those of the purely Greek type. They also
throw some light on another question of considerable interest. In Roman
theatres all performances were confined to the stage; the orchestra was
given up to spectators of distinguished rank. It may be asked whether
the Greeks, when they built their theatres in the Roman style, adopted
the same custom. The answer seems to be that they did not. It is most
improbable that theatres should have been constructed in Asia Minor with
the old full-sized orchestra, unless this orchestra had been intended
as a place for choral performances. The fact that in many of these
theatres the stage was eight or nine feet high proves the same thing. If
the spectators had been placed immediately in front of it, their view
would have been very much obstructed. We know, too, that in the Athenian
theatre, even after the Roman stage had been introduced, the marble
thrones round the orchestra continued to be the chief seats of honour.
Hence it is evident that the orchestra must have been still a place for
the performers, and not a place for distinguished spectators. The chief
purpose of the Greeks, in Romanizing their theatres, was to provide
a deep and capacious stage for spectacles of the Roman type, such as
pantomimes and pyrrhic ballets. The old Greek performances were given as
before in the orchestra. As far as the drama is concerned, the orchestra
would seldom be required at this period, the lyrical part of tragedy and
comedy having now practically disappeared. But the choral and musical
competitions still flourished as vigorously as ever, and these were kept
to their original place, and not transferred to the stage.


§ 11. _Exceptional Stage-buildings._

The stage-buildings which we have hitherto described have been those
of the normal type. But there are several places in which peculiar and
exceptional structures were erected, either for reasons connected with
the nature of the ground, or for mere love of variety. Some of these may
be worth mentioning. The theatre at Pergamon was apparently built about
the beginning of the second century B.C.[450] But the stage-buildings,
instead of being made of stone, as was usual at that period, consisted
of temporary wooden erections, which were put up and taken down at
each festival. Stone blocks were let into the ground, with holes for
the reception of the beams by which the building was supported. When
the performances were over, the whole apparatus might be removed in a
short time. It was only at a later period that permanent stage-buildings
were constructed. The reason for this curious arrangement, according to
Dörpfeld, was to leave the way open to a temple in the neighbourhood.
As the auditorium lay on a terrace, with not much room in front of it,
permanent stage-buildings would have filled up the whole space, and
blocked the passage to the temple.

Another remarkable instance of deviation from the ordinary practice is
supplied by the theatre at Megalopolis.[451] In this theatre (Fig. 11)
the place of the stage-buildings was taken by a vast council-chamber,
called the Thersilion, which faced towards the auditorium. Its façade
consisted of a vestibule, 26 feet high, and resting on a flight of five
steps. Originally, when dramas were to be performed, a temporary wooden
stage was erected in front of the Thersilion. The foundation-wall for
a stage of this kind has been discovered, and lies at a distance of 24
feet from the columns of the vestibule. It is obvious therefore that
the vestibule cannot itself have formed the background. A stage 24 feet
across would have been far too deep for a Greek theatre. Temporary
scenic decorations must have been erected some feet in front of the
council-chamber. In later times a stone proscenium of the ordinary type
was erected on the site of the old wooden one. But when this was done,
it is probable that the Thersilion had fallen into ruins. Otherwise the
beauty of its appearance would have been altogether marred by the stone
structure in front of it.

[Illustration: FIG. 11.]

But the most peculiar of the stage-buildings which have hitherto been
discovered is that at Delos. A representation of the ground-plan (Fig.
12) is inserted on the next page.[452] This building consisted of a
single oblong room. In front of it was an ordinary proscenium, about
ten feet deep, and eight or nine feet high, resting on half-columns.
The spaces between the columns were filled, as usual, with painted
boards. The curious feature is that this same proscenium was continued
in a modified form round the rest of the building, so as to serve as a
portico. On the sides and in the rear it rested on rectangular pillars
instead of on columns. The spaces between the pillars were considerably
wider than the spaces between the columns, and were left open, instead
of being filled up with boards. Porticoes of this kind were often
erected close to the stage-buildings, as a shelter from the rain; but
the position of the one at Delos is altogether exceptional. Another
remarkable feature in this building is the fact that the proscenium was
open at each end, and was not even enclosed with a wall. When dramas
were being performed, wooden side-wings must have been put up for the
occasion.[453]

[Illustration: FIG. 12.]


§ 12. _Wieseler’s Theory of the Greek Stage._

In a Greek dramatic performance the relative position occupied by actors
and chorus was quite unlike anything to be seen in a modern theatre.
The actors appeared upon a raised platform, the chorus performed in the
orchestra underneath. When the actors were present, and the dialogue
was proceeding, the chorus stood with their backs towards the audience,
and their faces towards the stage.[454] In the early period the stage
was only of moderate height, and communication between stage and
orchestra was therefore a matter of no difficulty. Later on, when the
chorus began to be excluded from all share in the action, the stage
was raised several feet, and the actors were thus placed some distance
above the heads of the chorus. But both in the earlier and the later
period, and whether the stage was a high or a low one, there was always
a clearly marked distinction between the normal position of actors and
chorus respectively. This fact places prominently before us the radical
difference between a Greek chorus and that of a modern opera. It shows
us that in the groupings of actors and chorus in a Greek theatre there
could be none of that realistic imitation of ordinary life which is
sometimes seen upon the modern stage. To produce effects of this kind
would be impossible, where the chorus was standing beneath the actors,
and with their backs towards the audience. This position of the chorus
in the Greek theatre, which seems peculiar to our modern notions, was
not due to any abstract considerations of propriety, but was merely
the result of the peculiar circumstances under which the Greek drama
was developed. Originally the performance was almost entirely lyrical,
and the stage and the actors were a mere appendage. The chorus, being
the principal performers, and the most prominent object of attention,
occupied the central position in the orchestra. The actors were placed on
a stage behind them, so as to be visible to the spectators. Eventually
the dialogue between the actors completely overshadowed the songs of the
chorus, and the lyrical element in the performance was treated as a kind
of interlude. But the chorus still continued to occupy that prominent
position in the theatre which its original importance had assigned to it.

Since the beginning of the last century various difficulties have been
raised in connexion with this subject, and various theories have been
invented for the purpose of removing the supposed difficulties. All
this speculation appears to have had its origin in the same source.
Until quite recent years it was assumed by every scholar that the stage
of the fifth century must have been of the same height and structure
as the later stage described by Vitruvius. But it was felt that the
dramas of the fifth century could not possibly have been written for
a theatre in which the actors were raised about twelve feet above the
level of the chorus. The relationship between actors and chorus in these
early dramas is far too close to allow it to be supposed that they were
separated by a barrier of this kind. Still, there was the testimony of
Vitruvius, who said the stage was about twelve feet high, and whose
measurements were supposed to apply to all theatres, early as well as
late. The first attempt to meet the difficulty was made by Hermann, at
the beginning of the century; and his theory was afterwards adopted and
developed by Wieseler. According to this view the chorus did not stand
upon the level of the orchestra, but upon a sort of subsidiary platform,
erected immediately in front of the twelve-foot stage. The height of
the platform, they said, was so arranged as to bring the chorus into
moderate proximity to the actors, without concealing them from the view
of the audience. This platform for the chorus was generally accepted by
writers upon the Greek drama until about ten years ago. Its existence
was defended, partly on general grounds, partly by an appeal to certain
passages in ancient authors. To take the ancient authorities first.
Hermann supposed that the platform was called ‘orchestra’ in a narrower
sense. He cited a passage in Suidas, where the orchestra is described
as coming next to the ‘skene’, and as being a wooden erection on which
mimes performed. But in this passage the context clearly proves that
the word ‘orchestra’ is used in its later sense as the ‘stage’.[455]
Wieseler endeavoured to prove that the platform for the chorus was
denoted by the word ‘thymele’. Now ‘thymele’, as we have seen, was a
word which had a great many meanings in connexion with the theatre. It
denoted, first, the altar of Dionysus; secondly, the orchestra; thirdly,
the stage.[456] If the passages are carefully examined in which it is
asserted that ‘thymele’ denotes a platform for the chorus in front of the
stage, it will be found that in the majority of them the word is much
more naturally explained as meaning the stage itself, or the orchestra.
In one or two cases the language used is apparently due to a confusion
between the different meanings of the term. In no case is there a clear
and definite description of a platform standing half-way up between the
orchestra and the stage.[457] If such a platform had really existed,
it seems incredible that there should have been no mention of it. As
far, then, as ancient authorities are concerned, the theory as to the
existence of a platform for the chorus finds no support.

On general grounds there are several fatal objections to the theory. In
the first place, if it were correct, we should have to believe that the
Greeks first of all constructed an orchestra for the chorus to perform
in; then built a stage twelve feet high; then, finding they had made
their stage a great deal too lofty, got out of the difficulty by erecting
a platform each year, to bring the chorus within reach of the actors. To
suppose that the Greeks acted in this way would be to suppose that they
were altogether deficient in common sense. In the second place, it must
not be forgotten that the performances at the City Dionysia consisted
of dithyrambs as well as dramas. The dithyrambic chorus consisted of
fifty members, and stood in a circular position. They must therefore
have required a very considerable space for their performances. The
oblong platform in front of the stage would not have been large enough
to accommodate them, but would have been large enough to encroach very
extensively upon the orchestra, and to drive the dithyrambic choruses
into one end of it. That such was the case is most improbable. In the
third place, in the recently excavated Greek theatres there are no traces
of any appliances for the erection of the supposed platform. We should
have expected to find holes in the floor of the orchestra, and sockets
in the hyposkenion, for the reception of the beams by which the platform
was supported. But there is no theatre in which any such traces are to
be found. Fourthly, on the floor of the orchestra at Epidaurus a large
circle is marked out with a stone border immediately in front of the
stage (Fig. 6). It is difficult to resist the conclusion that this circle
was intended for the performances of the chorus. For these reasons,
combined with the silence of ancient writers, there appears to be no
doubt that the platform for the chorus in front of the stage must be
regarded as a fiction of modern times.

All the difficulties which this platform was invented to explain
will disappear, if we assume that the stage of the fifth century was
considerably lower than that of later times. It was only in the earlier
period of the drama that a close communication between actors and chorus
was required. In the subsequent epoch the existence of a lofty stage
presents no difficulty. And the assumption of a low stage for the period
of Aeschylus and his immediate successors is on general grounds the most
natural one. We are told that originally, when the drama was still a
lyrical performance, the coryphaeus used to mount upon a small table,
in the intervals between the odes, in order to converse with the rest of
the chorus. Later on, an actor was substituted for the coryphaeus. Later
still, in the course of the fifth century, a second and a third actor
were introduced. Now it is absurd to suppose that, while the coryphaeus
was replaced in this tentative way by a gradually increasing number of
actors, the old table on which he performed should have been suddenly
converted into a complete Vitruvian stage, twelve feet high, and fifty
feet long. It is much more natural to imagine that the development of
the stage was also a slow and experimental process, and that in the
fifth century its size was intermediate between the low table of the
sixth century and the tall proscenium of later times. The few traces of
archaeological evidence which we possess concerning the early stage are
distinctly in favour of this view. It is also supported by the well-known
description in Horace. Horace, in his account of the development of Greek
tragedy, tells us that Aeschylus ‘erected a stage on beams of moderate
size’.[458] Horace’s information, as we know, was derived from Greek
sources. Hence it appears that the ordinary Greek tradition favoured the
belief that the early stage was a low one, and that it contrasted in this
respect with the stage of later times.


§ 13. _Dörpfeld’s Theory of the Greek Stage._

Another theory of a far more revolutionary kind has been propounded in
recent years by Höpken[459], and amplified and developed by Dörpfeld.
Dörpfeld assumes, like Wieseler, that the proscenium of the fifth century
must have been of the same height as that described by Vitruvius. But he
gets out of the consequent difficulty by supposing that the proscenium
was intended, not as a stage for the actors, but as a background. He
denies the existence of a stage in purely Greek theatres either of the
earlier or of the later period. He believes that in all Greek theatres
the actors and the chorus performed together in the orchestra. The
proscenium represented the palace or other building before which the
action took place. The front-wall of the stage-buildings immediately
behind the proscenium represented merely the sky. This theory has
been the subject of much discussion and controversy during the last
twenty years. As it has been accepted by several scholars, it will be
necessary to consider it in detail. I propose in the present section to
explain the grounds on which, as it seems to me, it must be regarded as
untenable; and to discuss at length the evidence on which the belief in
the existence of a Greek stage is founded. In dealing with this subject
it will be convenient to divide the period covered by the Greek drama
into two parts, and to consider first the later part, from about 300 B.C.
onwards; and then to return to the earlier period, that of the fourth and
fifth centuries. The evidence in the two cases is somewhat different, and
will be more clearly understood if taken separately.

1. THE LATER STAGE.—First, then, as to the later or ‘Hellenistic’ period.
Recent excavations, as was previously pointed out, have now given us a
fairly clear idea as to the shape and structure of the stage-buildings
during this period. We now know that from the beginning of the third
century onwards, or, if Puchstein is right, from a considerably earlier
date, the stage-buildings in an ordinary Greek theatre, though varying
in detail, conformed to the same general type. They consisted of a long
rectangular structure, in front of which was a narrow platform, usually
about twelve feet high and ten feet deep. This platform was called the
‘proskenion’. In the third century it appears to have been generally made
of wood. But in the course of the second and first centuries, or in the
fourth century, if Puchstein is right, a stone proscenium was substituted
for the old wooden ones in almost every theatre. What then was the
purpose of this proscenium, this long platform, twelve feet high and ten
feet deep, which we find in all Greek theatres after the fourth century?
For an answer to this question we naturally turn to Vitruvius, who wrote
a book about architecture towards the end of the first century B.C.,
and in the course of it gave a detailed description of Greek and Roman
theatres. Vitruvius tells us that every Greek theatre has a stage, and
that this stage is from ten to twelve feet high and about ten feet deep.
Its narrowness is due to the fact that it is only used by the actors in
tragedy and comedy; all other performers appear in the orchestra.[460] He
adds that the Roman stage is much lower and much deeper, and this for two
reasons. It had to be deeper, because all the performers appeared upon
it. It had to be lower, because in a Roman theatre the spectators sat in
the orchestra, and would not therefore have been able to see over the
top of a twelve-foot stage.[461] Here then we seem to have a clear and
final answer to our question. The proscenium which we find in all Greek
theatres after about 300 B.C., and in some perhaps a century earlier,
answers exactly to the description of Vitruvius. It must therefore have
been intended to serve as a stage.

Dörpfeld, it is well known, refuses to accept this conclusion. But his
method of dealing with the testimony of Vitruvius has changed since he
wrote his book on the Greek theatre. He then supposed that Vitruvius
had been guilty of an error. While admitting that he was correct in
his measurements of the Greek proscenium, he asserted that he had made
a mistake as to its purpose; that he had confused the background of
the Hellenistic theatre with the stage of the Roman.[462] But this
explanation is one which it is impossible to accept. It is absurd to
suppose that Vitruvius was mistaken. He was a professional architect,
writing about his own special subject, and writing at the very time when
many of these Greek proscenia were being erected. His remark about the
Greek stage is not introduced as an _obiter dictum_, but is made the
basis of the distinction which he draws between Greek and Roman theatres.
He had evidently therefore thought about the subject. But even if we
suppose that he could make a mistake of this kind, even if we suppose
that he had never been in Greece, and never seen a Greek play acted
there, still it is incredible that such an absurd error should have
remained uncorrected in his book. The connexion between Greece and Rome
was so intimate, that there must have been thousands of people in Rome
who had seen Greek plays performed in a Greek theatre, and knew how it
was done. If Vitruvius had made this absurd blunder, some one would have
been sure to point it out to him, and he would have had it corrected.

Since the publication of his book Dörpfeld has shifted his ground on
this question.[463] He now suggests a new method of explaining away
the testimony of Vitruvius. He supposes that Vitruvius, when speaking
of the stage in the Greek theatre, was referring, not to the ordinary
Greek theatre, but to the peculiar type of Graeco-Roman theatre found in
various cities of Asia Minor, such as Termessos and Sagalassos. These
theatres, as we have shown, exhibited a sort of transition between the
Greek and the Roman model. While their general design was Greek, their
stages were partially lowered and deepened, so as to come nearer to the
Roman practice.[464] In theatres of this kind Dörpfeld admits that the
actors performed upon the stage; and he contends that it is to them
that Vitruvius refers, and not to the regular Greek theatres, in which
the actors always appeared in the orchestra. But in the first place it
is difficult to believe that Vitruvius, when he speaks of the ‘Greek’
theatre, should mean something quite different. Why should he describe
as ‘Greek’ a type of building which was not found in Greece proper, and
which was essentially a combination of Greek and Roman attributes? In
the second place, the evidence of the existing remains is inconsistent
with the new hypothesis. Vitruvius says that the proscenium in the Greek
theatre should be from ten to twelve feet high, and in ordinary cases
about ten feet deep. Now what do we find in the remains of the regular
Greek theatres? We find that in the great majority of cases the height
and depth answer exactly to this description. But when we turn to the
Asia Minor theatres what do we find? The average height is from eight
to nine feet, the average depth from twelve to eighteen. In the face of
these measurements it is useless to contend that Vitruvius is alluding
to the Asia Minor theatres. The type which he describes is the ordinary
Hellenistic type.[465]

The two facts already mentioned—first, the fact that Vitruvius tells us
that every Greek theatre should possess a stage of a certain height,
and secondly, the fact that all Greek theatres after about 300 B.C. are
found to possess a stage corresponding to his description—these two
facts appear sufficient in themselves to decide the whole question. But
there is no lack of further evidence. Various ancient writers may be
cited as witnesses. Pollux, in his description of the Greek theatre,
says that ‘the stage is appropriated to the actors, the orchestra to the
chorus’.[466] Later on he says that the actors, when they ‘enter by the
orchestra, ascend the stage by means of steps’.[467] The scholiasts to
the extant dramas often speak of the performance in a Greek theatre as
being partly in the orchestra and partly on the stage. The commentator
on the Frogs asserts that the scene with Charon and the ferry-boat must
be ‘either upon the logeion, or in the orchestra’. Later on he says that
Dionysus here appears ‘not on the logeion, but in the orchestra’. The
scholiast on the Knights discusses the question why the sausage-seller
should ‘ascend from the parodos on to the logeion’. There are other
scholia to the same effect, which it would be tedious to quote.[468] In
these passages from the scholiasts and from Pollux the point to notice
is the following. They do not merely say that there was a stage in Greek
theatres, but they describe the performance as one partly on the stage,
and partly in the orchestra. Dörpfeld says they are all mistaken; that
they lived after the Christian era, and were confusing the Greek theatre
with the Roman. But this would not account for their mistake, if mistake
there were. In Roman theatres all performances were confined to the
stage; the orchestra was occupied by senators and other distinguished
persons. How then can Pollux and the scholiasts have got this notion of
a performance in which stage and orchestra were used at the same time?
There was nothing in the Roman practice to suggest it. It can only have
been derived from the Greek theatre. But apart from this, the suggestion
that Pollux and the scholiasts were misled by their recollection of Roman
customs is not a fortunate one. It implies that their writings were
the result of personal observation. But no one can read a page of them
without perceiving that they were merely compilations from Alexandrian
sources. The scholiasts in many cases mention their authorities, and
these authorities often go back as far as Aristophanes and Aristarchus,
and even beyond. They do indeed confuse the evidence a good deal, when
they try to reconcile different statements, or when they misapply
statements of earlier authorities to particular passages, and explain the
passages wrongly; but the statements themselves are due to Alexandrian
tradition, not to their own observations. When they say that Greek dramas
were performed partly on the stage and partly in the orchestra, it is
evident that the Alexandrians thought the same. The testimony of Pollux
and the scholiasts is really testimony of the third century B.C.

Another writer whose words appear to be decisive on this question
is Horace. His statement about Aeschylus, to the effect that he
‘erected a stage on beams (or posts) of moderate size’, has already
been quoted.[469] It is true that Horace is often inaccurate in his
description of the early Greek drama. It may be contended, therefore,
that his account of the reforms of Aeschylus is only of doubtful
authority. But one thing is certain, that Horace, in describing the
development of the Greek theatre, would never have mentioned the
erection of a stage, unless a stage had been a regular part of the
Greek theatres of his own day. Dörpfeld, in dealing with this passage,
offers two alternatives. He first suggests that ‘pulpitum’ means the
‘stage-buildings’. But he cites no authority for such a meaning, and
none is to be found. The word ‘pulpitum’ in Latin always means a stage
or platform. Then, if the first alternative seems unsatisfactory, he
suggests that Horace has made a slip, and that he was confusing the Greek
stage with the Roman.[470] But Horace, as we know, was for a long time
in Athens, and must have often seen Greek plays performed. It is hardly
conceivable, therefore, that he should have made a mistake on such a
simple matter as the presence or absence of a stage.

To turn next to the archaeological evidence. Excavations have brought to
light several facts which bear closely upon this subject of the stage.
The evidence derived from this source appears to be even more fatal to
the new theory than the literary testimony. One of the most convincing
proofs is that afforded by the structure of the stage-buildings at
Sicyon, Eretria, and Oropus.[471] We have seen that, according to
Dörpfeld’s view, the proscenium was the background, and the action of the
drama took place in front of it, in the orchestra. Obviously, if this
was so, the most important part of the stage-buildings must have been
the rooms immediately behind the proscenium, or in other words, behind
the back-scene. Now what do we find at Sicyon? We find that one-third of
the space behind the proscenium consisted of solid rock. The Sicyonians,
in order to save the expense of erecting a lofty auditorium, excavated
their theatre out of the rock to a depth of about twelve feet. But
they attached so little importance to the rooms behind the proscenium,
that they did not take the trouble to excavate the whole of this part.
They left one-third of it as it was. It was only when they came to the
first floor of the stage-building, the floor on a level with the top of
the proscenium, that they provided clear room from end to end of the
structure. Their conduct, on Dörpfeld’s theory, was very peculiar.[472]
But the people of Eretria acted in a still stranger manner. They too
excavated their theatre out of the rock. But they left the whole of the
space behind the proscenium unexcavated. Consequently at Eretria the
ground-floor of the stage-buildings was on a level, not with the floor
of the orchestra, but with the top of the proscenium. There could hardly
be a more decisive proof that at Eretria the actors appeared, not in
front of the proscenium, but on the top of it. Then there is the case
of Oropus. Here the stage-buildings were built upon the ground, and
the rooms behind the proscenium were originally open from end to end.
But later on the Oropians proceeded to fill up the greater part of the
space with earth, and left only a narrow passage immediately behind the
proscenium. Such conduct is irreconcilable with the supposition that the
proscenium was the back-scene.[473]

Another proof is afforded by the height of the proscenium. The normal
height, as already shown, was about twelve feet. But some proscenia, such
as those at Athens and the Peiraeeus, were as much as thirteen feet.
On the other hand others were considerably less. That of Oropus, for
instance, was only about eight feet high; and the columns which supported
the entablature were only six feet six inches.[474] On Dörpfeld’s view
these proscenia, with their architectural front, represented the palace
or other building before which the action took place. What then are we to
think of a palace about fifty feet long, and only eight feet in height?
The background at Oropus during the performance of a tragedy must have
been a most peculiar one. We should remember that the Greek tragic actor
walked upon ‘cothurni’, which added about six inches to his stature. He
also wore a mask with a lofty ‘onkos’, which raised his height by another
six inches. Consequently the Greek tragic actor, when equipped for the
stage, can hardly have stood less than about six feet six. This being so,
if Dörpfeld’s view is correct, it follows that the actor who took the
part of the king at Oropus must have been just about the same height as
the columns which supported the roof of his own palace. When he made his
entrance through the central door of the palace, he would have to bend
his head, in order to avoid knocking it against the cross-beams. Surely
the theory is a weak one which involves such ridiculous consequences. If
the Greeks had adopted a background of this absurdly diminutive height,
without any reason for doing so, this fact alone would have been strange
enough. But it must appear stranger still that, having once adopted it,
they should proceed to add about twelve inches to the stature of their
actors, in order to make the disproportion between the size of the actors
and the size of the palace still more preposterous.[475]

The reason which Dörpfeld gives for the lowness of the proscenium—the
background, as he calls it—is as follows. He says that such proscenia
were first erected at Athens in the fifth century, and were intended to
represent an ordinary house of that period. But the ordinary Athenian
house of the fifth century was, he asserts, about twelve feet high.[476]
To this theory there are several answers. In the first place, as we
have seen, some proscenia were only about eight or nine feet in height;
which is far lower than any ordinary Greek house, either at Athens or
elsewhere. In the second place there is no clear evidence to show that
the Athenian house of the fifth century was twelve feet high. From the
remains lately discovered at Delos it appears that in the better class
of houses there even the first story was more than twelve feet.[477]
But granting, for the sake of argument, that an Athenian house of the
fifth century was of the size which Dörpfeld supposes, it is difficult
to see what this has got to do with the height of the scenic background.
The Athenian theatre, we should remember, was developed originally as
a place for tragedy rather than as a place for comedy. The background
therefore must have been intended to represent, in most cases, a palace
or a temple. But why should this palace or temple have been made the same
height as an ordinary house? Moreover, the proportions must have appeared
extraordinary. A structure about fifty feet long, and twelve feet high,
would be altogether unlike any palace or temple. Dörpfeld replies to
this that it is impossible on the stage to represent buildings as large
as they really are; that in modern scene-paintings the representations
of palaces and temples are much reduced in size as compared with the
originals.[478] This is quite true. But they are reduced to scale, and
in a proper proportion. A modern scene-painter, in representing St.
Paul’s, would no doubt have to make his representation much smaller than
the actual St. Paul’s. But in diminishing the height he would diminish
the width at the same time. No modern scene-painter would produce a
temple fifty feet long and twelve feet high; nor can we suppose that the
ancients would have put up with a similar disproportion.

Again, there is the question as to the doors in the proscenium. If it was
the background, it ought to have had three doors, the usual number in
a Greek back-scene, as Pollux and Vitruvius tell us. But in most of the
proscenia discovered there is only one door. In two of the proscenia,
those at Megalopolis and Thespiae, there is no door of any kind. Even the
single door, when it is found, is very narrow for the central door of
the back-scene. At Epidaurus it is only four feet wide, at Oropus only 3
feet 8 inches, at Delos only 3 feet 3 inches.[479] A door so narrow as
this would be altogether unsuitable as the central door of the palace,
and quite inconsistent with the use of the ekkyklema. When we come to
the Graeco-Roman theatres, where the wall at the back of the stage has
in many cases been preserved, there we find everything corresponding
closely with the descriptions of the grammarians. There is always the
requisite number of doors, and the central door is of considerable width.
At Termessos it is about seven feet.[480] As regards the absence of the
three doors in the proscenium Dörpfeld gives the following explanation.
These Hellenistic proscenia, as we see from the remains, consisted of
an entablature resting on columns. The spaces between the columns were
filled in with wooden boards. Dörpfeld suggests that when doors were
required they might be provided _ad libitum_ by removing the intervening
boards.[481] But if three doors were regularly required in the dramatic
performances, it is most improbable that they should not have been
provided as a permanent fixture in the proscenium. It is most improbable
that the Greeks should have put themselves to the trouble of opening
out these temporary doors at each festival. In any case we can hardly
doubt that, if the proscenium had been the back-scene, the Greeks would
always have provided at least one permanent door, and would not, as at
Megalopolis and Thespiae, have erected proscenia in which there was no
door of any kind. The absence of a door in these two places seems to
prove conclusively that communication between the orchestra and the
space behind the proscenium was a matter of no importance.

[Illustration: FIG. 13.]

Another piece of archaeological evidence is supplied by the
vase-paintings found in the Greek cities of South Italy.[482] Two
specimens are here inserted.[483] These paintings, which have already
been briefly referred to, belong to the third century B.C. They represent
comic scenes acted by the Phlyakes. The Phlyakes were a sort of farcical
comedians, whose performances were not unlike those of the oldest Attic
comedy. In many of these paintings they are represented as acting on a
stage.[484] The stage, in most cases, is obviously made of wood, and
varies in character from a rude and simple platform to an erection
of some solidity. In one or two instances, however, it is a tall and
elaborate structure, apparently built of stone, and adorned with columns
in front, just like the proscenia we have been discussing.[485] Often
there is a flight of steps leading down to the orchestra.[486] In one
case the action is taking place partly on the stage and partly in the
orchestra. One of the actors is represented as actually ascending the
steps to the stage.[487] This evidence seems to prove beyond a doubt
that in the Greek cities of South Italy, during the third century B.C.,
performances were sometimes given in theatres with a tall stage, and
that both stage and orchestra were employed for the purpose, and were
connected by steps.

[Illustration: FIG. 14.]

Dörpfeld now admits that this was the case. But he contends that the
arrangement was an exceptional one, intended only for the farces of the
Phlyakes. For these performances, he allows, wooden stages were erected,
and the exhibition took place partly on the stage and partly in the
orchestra. But the regular dramas—the tragedies, and the comedies—were
performed solely in the orchestra.[488] All this, however, is the purest
assumption.[489] There is not a particle of evidence to support it. It
is altogether improbable that a different arrangement should have been
adopted in the case of these farces, and in the case of the regular
drama. Besides this, as we have already pointed out, in one or two of the
paintings the stage on which the Phlyakes are performing is apparently
a permanent stone erection, and not a mere temporary platform of wood.
It seems certain, therefore, that the Greeks of South Italy during the
third century B.C. provided a stage for their actors in all dramatic
performances; and, this being so, we can hardly doubt that the same was
the case in Greece generally.

One or two further objections to the new theory may be briefly mentioned.
If we look at the plan of the theatre at Epidaurus (Figs. 6 and 7), it
will be found that the stone border of the circular orchestra reaches to
within two or three feet of the proscenium. If the actors had performed
in front of the proscenium, they would have been sometimes inside the
stone border, and sometimes outside of it; and the whole arrangement
strikes one as awkward and unsymmetrical. Again, in the theatre at Delos
(Fig. 12), statues and other votive offerings were erected immediately in
front of the columns of the proscenium. The bases on which they rested
still remain.[490] But, if the proscenium had been the background, it
is difficult to suppose that this place would have been chosen for such
erections. When the proscenium was uncovered by scenery, and represented
an ancient palace, these votive offerings and statues would have been
altogether inappropriate as a part of the back-scene. When painted
decorations were to be set up, they would have formed an inconvenient
obstacle in the way of the mechanical arrangements. And if they were
required to serve as scenery, why were they only employed at Delos? The
probability therefore is that they were a mere architectural decoration
of the stage-front.[491]

We have now gone through the principal arguments, literary and
archaeological, which demonstrate the existence of a stage during the
Hellenistic period. It remains to consider the reasons which induce
Dörpfeld, in spite of this apparently overwhelming evidence, to deny the
existence of such a stage. And in judging this question we must remember
the fact already mentioned, that the chorus, at this time, had ceased
to take an active share in the play, and that its functions were hardly
more important than those of a band of musicians in a modern theatre.
To turn now to Dörpfeld’s reasons. He says, in the first place, that
these proscenia of the Vitruvian type would have been too narrow for
the performance of a play.[492] But their narrowness has often been
exaggerated, owing to inaccurate calculations. None of them, as it now
appears, were less than from nine to ten feet in depth.[493] But a stage
about ten feet deep, and from fifty to sixty feet long, would be amply
sufficient for the performance of a Greek play, when the chorus was
confined to the orchestra. The fact has been proved by actual experiment.
Most English scholars have probably seen the Greek plays produced in the
open-air theatre at Bradfield. The stage there is only ten feet deep and
thirty feet long. Yet every one who has been present at one of these
performances must admit that there was plenty of room upon the stage.
I am informed that on one occasion, in the funeral procession in the
Alcestis, as many as sixty people were brought upon the stage at the same
time, and without any inconvenient crowding.[494] It is clear then that
the Vitruvian stage, which was just as deep and twice as long as that
at Bradfield, would have been large enough to accommodate the chorus as
well as the actors in an ancient Greek drama, and would have been more
than large enough for the performance of a play in which the chorus was
practically confined to the orchestra.

Dörpfeld further objects that these Hellenistic proscenia were too high
to have served as a stage, since the spectators in the front rows would
have been too far below the actors to see the latter properly.[495] It
is only in the Asiatic theatres, where the front seats of the auditorium
were raised so as to give a good view of the actors, that he will allow
that the actors appeared on the high stage; in such cases the height of
the seats would make a ten-foot stage virtually equivalent to a five-foot
one, such as the Romans employed. But in the first place, we find that at
Mantinea also the lowest seats were raised four feet above the orchestra,
so that this is not a peculiarity of Asiatic theatres.[496] In the
second place, if these proscenia were too high for a stage, they would
have been much too low for a background. Their height varied from eight
to thirteen feet; and a stage of thirteen feet would be far less of an
anomaly than a back-scene of eight feet. Further, it has been shown by
Maass[497] that the height of the proscenium varies very regularly with
the distance of the proscenium from the central point of the circle of
the auditorium. The nearer this point, the lower the stage. The object
of this can only have been to accommodate the height of the stage to the
view of the audience. It would be inexplicable unless the actors were on
the top of the proscenium. It seems also to be proved that in most cases
the greater part of the actor’s person would easily be visible from the
greater number of seats,[498] including the lowest or front rows. When it
was necessary, as it was through the greater part of the fifth century,
for chorus and actors to communicate more or less intimately with one
another, the stage was lower, and the view from some seats therefore
less good; but when the chorus ceased to take a share in the dialogue, it
became both possible and natural to raise the height of the stage and so
improve the view.

Another objection of Dörpfeld’s is that in the existing proscenia there
is no trace of any means of communication between the stage and the
orchestra.[499] But we have shown that such communication was seldom
required at this time, owing to the insignificance of the chorus; and
that, when it was wanted, it was supplied by temporary wooden steps.
Dörpfeld replies that, if the stage was thirteen feet high, the steps
must have been so large as to project a long way into the orchestra, and
produce an unsightly appearance. But this result could have been avoided
without difficulty. Where the stage was exceptionally lofty, the steps
might have been placed in a parallel line to it. At Tralles, where there
is a proscenium of the Graeco-Roman type, and nearly ten feet high, such
steps are actually found, lying parallel to the stage, and on each side
of the door which leads out from the front wall of the stage into the
orchestra.[500] A similar arrangement might easily have been adopted,
when necessary, in the Hellenistic theatres.

In support of his theory Dörpfeld brings forward an argument based on
the theatre at Megalopolis (Fig. 11). We have already described the
peculiar construction of this theatre, in which the Thersilion took the
place of the ordinary stage-buildings. In front of the Thersilion, and
twenty-four feet distant from it, is the foundation-wall of a wooden
proscenium. This proscenium, however, appears to have been of later date
than the original theatre. Dörpfeld supposes that, before its erection,
the actors performed their parts immediately in front of the Thersilion,
and on the level of the orchestra. He bases his belief on the following
grounds. The façade of the Thersilion rested on a flight of five steps,
each about thirteen inches high. To one side of the Thersilion was
a building, apparently called the Skanotheka, and probably used for
storing the scenic decorations. In this building are the remains of a low
wall, running in the same straight line as the bottom of the flight of
steps, and about the same length as the stage must have been. Dörpfeld
supposes that this wall was used, in the original state of the theatre,
for working a ‘scaena ductilis’. He supposes that, when dramas were to
be performed, a wooden scene-painting was pushed out along this wall
immediately in front of the lowest step of the Thersilion, and served as
a background. The actors in front of it must have been on the floor of
the orchestra.[501] But this arrangement appears to be impossible. If
the back-scene had been placed in the position he supposes, immediately
in front of the steep flight of steps, the representation of dramas
would have been little short of ridiculous. The actor entering from
the back-scene would have had to come down these steps to reach the
threshold of the door. At first little more than his legs would have been
seen, at any rate by the spectators in the upper part of the theatre.
His whole person would hardly have become visible until he reached the
lowest step. For a tragic actor to make his entrance in this way would
have been far from dignified. Also, in plays like the Hippolytus and
the Alcestis, when a sick woman on a couch had to be carried out, it
would have been extremely awkward to have to carry her down a flight of
steps as steep as those at Megalopolis. The ekkyklema would, of course,
have been quite impossible to work. Again, it seems certain that the
supposed ‘scaena ductilis’ would itself be quite unworkable. Is it likely
that a huge painted board, more than a hundred feet long and more than
twenty-five feet high, was pulled out in front of the Thersilion to
serve as a back-scene? The ‘scaena ductilis’ (cf. Serv. ad Verg. Georg.
iii. 24), which Dörpfeld thinks was such as has been described, was
not a contrivance of this sort, but was a small affair, a variety of
the ‘scaena versilis’ or periaktos; it was drawn _apart_, to disclose
a new scene behind, and was not drawn across the stage. Moreover, the
construction of ancient theatres, even of those with side-wings, shows
that there was no room and no opportunity for the hauling to and fro
of huge boards such as Dörpfeld imagines. It is true that much remains
obscure in regard to the theatre at Megalopolis; but this solution at
least is out of the question.[502] Although, therefore, the Skanotheka at
Megalopolis may very likely have been used for the storage of scenery,
it is clear that this scenery, when used, cannot have been put up in the
place which Dörpfeld suggests.

Another argument against the ordinary theory is based by Dörpfeld on the
remains of the theatre at Delos (Fig. 12). We have shown that at Delos
the proscenium was continued, though in a different form, round the sides
and back of the stage-buildings.[503] Dörpfeld argues that it cannot
have been a stage, as it would be absurd to erect a stage all round the
stage-buildings.[504] If this is so, we might reply that it cannot have
been a background either, since it would be equally absurd to construct a
background in the same position. But as a matter of fact there is nothing
in the arrangement at Delos which conflicts in any way with the ordinary
opinion about the Greek stage. The erection at the sides and the back of
the stage-buildings, though of the same height as the erection in front,
was different in structure, and formed an open portico. The erection
in front was like the usual Hellenistic proscenium, and must have been
designed for the same purpose. If the proscenium in other theatres was
intended for a stage, it must have been intended for a stage at Delos.

Dörpfeld has a theory about the origin of the Roman stage, which he
brings forward as a strong argument in favour of his other views.
According to Vitruvius the Roman stage was developed out of the Greek.
The difference in size was due to the following reasons. The Romans
preferred to give up the orchestra to the spectators and to transfer
all performances to the stage. It was necessary, therefore, to deepen
the stage, in order to find room for the additional performers. It was
also necessary to lower it, in order to allow the spectators in the
orchestra to have a clear view.[505] Dörpfeld says that this account of
the matter is erroneous. According to his theory the Roman stage was
discovered by accident rather than by design. The Romans, when they
first began to adapt the Greek theatre to their own purposes, found
the orchestra too large, and consequently divided it in two. The half
nearest the auditorium they dug out to a depth of five feet, and placed
spectators there. The other half they used for theatrical and other
performances, just as it had been used by the Greeks. In this way they
found that they had got what was practically a stage five feet high; and
for the future, instead of digging out the nearer half of the orchestra,
they started on the level, and built a raised stage. The Roman stage
therefore represents, not the Greek proscenium, but the further half of
the Greek orchestra; and this fact proves that it was in the orchestra
that the Greek actors performed.[506] This theory is no doubt extremely
ingenious. But unfortunately it appears to be inconsistent with the facts
of the case. If it was true, we should expect to find the stage in all
Roman theatres occupying the site of one half of the Greek orchestra,
and the back of the Roman stage corresponding to the front of the Greek
proscenium. Now in the normal Roman theatre this is more or less the
case. The Romans eventually reduced their orchestra to a semicircle,
and brought their stage forward to the position described by Dörpfeld.
But the Graeco-Roman theatres of Asia Minor, to which we have already
referred, fail entirely to correspond to his hypothesis. These theatres
were among the earliest to be built in the Roman fashion, and might
therefore be expected, more than any others, to exemplify the process
of transition which he describes. But what do we find? We find that the
stage, so far from occupying one half of the orchestra, stands in exactly
the same position as the old Greek proscenium. The orchestra in these
theatres still forms nearly a complete circle. The stage is deepened by
pushing the back-scene more into the rear. Further than this, the height
of the stage is not five feet, as it ought to be, but from eight to nine
feet.[507] These examples seem to prove that Vitruvius is more correct
than Dörpfeld in his view of the matter; and that the Roman stage was
really a modification of the Greek. When we find in these Asia Minor
theatres a Roman stage standing in exactly the same position as the
proscenium in the Greek theatres, and differing only in being longer and
deeper, and two or three feet lower, we can hardly resist the conclusion
that the Greek proscenium was the prototype of the Roman, and that it was
intended for the same purpose.

The proscenium in a Greek theatre was called, among other names, the
‘logeion’ or ‘speaking-place’. It is so called by Vitruvius, and the word
‘logeion’ occurs in Delian inscriptions as early as the third century
B.C.[508]. This being so, we are naturally led to ask how this fact
is to be reconciled with Dörpfeld’s theory. If the proscenium was the
background, and not the stage, why should it have been called ‘logeion’
or the speaking-place? Dörpfeld gives the following answer. He says
that in Greek tragedies the gods, when exhibited in a supernatural
manner, used to make their appearance on the palace roof, or, in
other words, on the proscenium; and that it was therefore called the
‘theologeion’, or for shortness the ‘logeion’.[509] But this statement
will not bear examination. The usual device for revealing gods in
supernatural splendour was the mechane, and not the theologeion. Even
when the theologeion was employed, there is no evidence to show that it
was identical with the palace roof.[510] The contrivance for enabling
actors to stand on the roof of a palace or other building was called the
‘distegia’. Instances of its employment are rare. In the extant dramas
there are only eight or nine certain examples.[511] If, therefore, the
proscenium really represented the building in the background, the top
of it cannot have been called the ‘speaking-place’ because the actors
spoke from it. Eight or nine instances out of forty-four dramas are
insufficient to justify us in regarding it as a regular speaking-place.
The plain statement of Vitruvius, that the ‘pulpitum’ of the actors was
in Greek called ‘logeion’, Dörpfeld attempts to get round by supposing
that the place which had been the ‘theologeion’, or, more shortly,
‘logeion’—the speaking-place of gods—retained its name by a natural
conservatism when employed by actors. This is ingenious; but it is surely
far more natural to suppose that it was called ‘logeion’ all along
because it was the regular speaking-place for all actors, and not only
for occasional gods.[512]

We have now considered the principal arguments which can be brought
forward on either side concerning this stage question, as far as it
relates to the later period. Some minor points have been omitted; but
they would not affect the question very much either way. The result
appears to show that, at any rate as far as the later period is
concerned, the evidence in favour of a stage altogether outweighs any
considerations which can be adduced on the other side.

2. THE EARLIER STAGE. We now come to the earlier and more important
period, the period of the fifth century, when the drama was still in
reality a choral drama, and the fourth century, during which the chorus
was rapidly declining in importance, but was still commonly employed.

For the fourth century we have the testimony of Aristotle. Aristotle in
many places speaks of the songs of the actors as τὰ ἀπὸ τῆς σκηνῆς, in
opposition to the songs of the chorus, τὰ τοῦ χοροῦ.[513] Further he
speaks of the actor’s part as being played ἐπὶ τῆς σκηνῆς.[514] According
to the usual interpretation of these passages, he means that the actors
played their part ‘upon the stage’, and sang their songs ‘from the
stage’. Dörpfeld, however, proposes in these cases to translate the word
σκηνή as the ‘background’, and not as the ‘stage’. He supposes Aristotle
to mean that the actors performed ‘at the background’, and sang their
songs ‘from the background’. He denies that the two expressions imply the
existence of a stage.[515] Now the translations which he suggests may be
possible, as far as the Greek is concerned. But it is very difficult
to believe that they are the right translations in these particular
passages of Aristotle. Aristotle’s words seem to clearly imply that
there was some essential and conspicuous difference between the position
of the actors and that of the chorus.[516] But if, as Dörpfeld thinks,
they all performed together in the orchestra, there would be no such
distinguishing mark. It is true that the actors might, for the most part,
be rather nearer to the stage-buildings; and the chorus might, for the
most part, be rather more distant from them. But practically they would
be standing in the same place; there would be no pronounced difference.
Aristotle’s words appear to be explicable only on the supposition that
the actors appeared upon a stage, the chorus in the orchestra.

For the fifth century we have the evidence supplied by the use of certain
words in Aristophanes. In three places, where an actor is approaching
the back-scene, he is said to ‘mount up’ (ἀναβαίνειν).[517] In two
other places, where he is leaving the back-scene, he is said to ‘go
down’ (καταβαίνειν).[518] In all these passages there is nothing in the
circumstances of the drama to suggest that the action was taking place
on raised ground. The expressions can only refer, as the scholiast says,
to the stage. It has been proposed to translate the two words as ‘come
on’ and ‘depart’ respectively.[519] But such a usage of the terms is
otherwise unknown in Greek. Moreover, in one place—the scene in the
Knights—this translation is proved to be impossible. Here Demosthenes
calls out to the sausage-seller, ‘mount up here’ (ἀνάβαινε δεῦρο). He
then shows him the people, the markets, and the harbours; and tells
him that he will be lord of all. But this is not enough. He says, ‘you
have not seen all yet’, and bids him ‘mount up on to this table also’;
and then proceeds to show him the islands round about.[520] These words
show conclusively that ἀναβαίνειν must mean ‘mount up’ in the previous
passage, and likewise determine the meaning of this word, and of
καταβαίνειν, in the parallel passages.

The extant dramas have been carefully ransacked during the last few
years,[521] and it is not likely that many new points will now be
discovered. Much of the evidence that has been brought forward on
both sides of the question is really of little value. It depends upon
a too scrupulous and literal interpretation of the text, or upon a
forgetfulness of the fact that there is much that is conventional in all
dramatic performances. For instance, when old men are approaching the
palace, and complain of the steepness of the way, this fact is supposed
to be a proof of the existence of a stage.[522] It is suggested that
they enter by the orchestra, and that the ascent of which they complain
is the ascent on to the stage. But, if this was so, these old men must
have timed their entrance very exactly, so as to reach the foot of the
stage just when they came to the verses in which they began to grumble
about the ascent. And this, combined with the obvious inadequacy of the
ascent on to the stage to represent a really fatiguing road, would make
the whole proceeding rather ludicrous. It seems more natural to assume
that their remarks had no reference to the stage, and that the steepness
of which they complain was left to the imagination of the spectators.
Then again, the appearances of ghosts and spectres are cited as evidence
in favour of a stage. It is said that they could not be made to appear
from underground, unless there was a raised platform out of which they
ascended. Now there is no doubt that in the later theatre ghosts were
made to arise from beneath the earth. Pollux gives a description of the
mechanism by which it was done. But there is no certain proof that they
made their appearance in this way during the fifth century. It would be
unsafe, therefore, to infer anything from these spectral apparitions
concerning the structure of the early theatre. Again, there are those
scenes in which the chorus might be expected to enter the palace, but
fail to do so. For instance, when Medea’s children are being murdered,
and call out for help, the chorus, after proposing to rush to their
assistance, eventually remain where they are and sing an ode.[523] But it
is unnecessary, in this and in similar cases, to explain their inaction
by supposing that there was any difficulty in passing from the orchestra
to the palace because of the stage which lay between. A sufficient reason
is to be found in the fact that, if they had gone into the palace, the
scene of action would have been left empty.

It will be best to disregard all evidence of this inconclusive kind, and
to confine our attention to those points which really throw light upon
the question as to the relative position of actors and chorus during the
fifth century. The following facts seem to be established. It is evident
that the chorus sometimes entered and sometimes departed through the
back-scene. Instances are not very common; there are only about six in
the extant dramas.[524] Still, they undoubtedly occur. It is evident,
too, that the actors sometimes entered by the orchestra. They must have
done so when they entered along with the chorus, and they probably did
so when they entered in chariots or wagons.[525] This gives us about
seven instances where the actors came in by the orchestra. They may have
done so much more frequently. This is a point which will be considered
later on. But these seven cases are the only ones for which there is
any convincing evidence. On the other hand, it was a common thing for
actors and chorus to depart together through the orchestra. Many plays
end in this way, such as the Eumenides and the Septem. In Aristophanes
it is a favourite form of conclusion for actors and chorus to go off
through the orchestra in a joyful procession.[526] The general result
then is this, that it was plainly permissible in the fifth century for
the chorus to enter or leave by the back-scene, and for the actors to
enter or leave by the orchestra; though the last of these practices is
the only one of which there are many certain examples. But when we pass
on from these entrances and exits, and look at the rest of the play, we
find that it is very unusual, during the course of the action, for the
chorus to come on the stage, or for the actors to go into the orchestra.
The instances in which, apart from entrances and exits, the actors and
the chorus can be shown to have come into close physical contact with
one another, are remarkably few. We may mention, as examples, the scene
in which the chorus tries to prevent Creon from seizing Antigone, and
the scene where the farmers mount the stage to draw the statue of Peace
out of the well. Opinions may differ as to individual cases, but the
total number of instances of this kind does not amount, at the outside,
to more than about fifteen.[527] The conclusion we may draw from this
evidence is as follows. There was nothing in the fifth century theatre to
prevent the actors from moving into the place occupied by the chorus, and
there was nothing to prevent the chorus moving into the place occupied
by the actors. But, except when they were entering or leaving the scene
of action, they do not appear to have done so usually, but to have kept
apart from one another.

What then does all this prove as regards the stage? On the one hand, it
proves conclusively that the stage of the fifth century cannot have been
as high as the ordinary later or Hellenistic stage. If the fifth-century
stage had been twelve feet above the level of the orchestra, there would
have been the greatest awkwardness in actors and chorus passing from
one place to the other. But, on the other hand, it does not in any way
exclude the possibility of there having been a stage of some kind or
another. If we suppose that the fifth-century stage was lower and deeper
than that of later times, and that it was connected with the orchestra
by a long flight of steps, or by a sloping ascent, all difficulties
about the performance of the extant dramas disappear. Actors and chorus
could easily pass from stage to orchestra, or vice versa. The fact that
they so seldom came into contact with one another, except when entering
or leaving the theatre, is a strong confirmation of the view that there
was a stage of some kind, and that it was reserved in most cases for the
actors, while the usual place for the chorus was in the orchestra.

The main reason for the employment of a stage must have been to make the
actors clearly visible to the audience, and to prevent the view of them
being impeded by the chorus in the orchestra. A few feet of elevation
would be sufficient to produce this result. Dörpfeld, it is true, denies
that any such precaution was necessary. He denies that the actors, even
without a stage, would have been hidden from view by the chorus.[528]
But if we look at the plan of a Greek theatre, it is clear that if the
actors were in the orchestra, and the chorus stood in front of them, the
chorus must have obstructed the view of a great many of the spectators.
In fact we have ancient testimony to that effect. The tragic chorus stood
in three rows. We are told that the worst and most ungainly choristers
(the ‘laurostatae’, as they were called) were placed in the middle
row, because they were not clearly seen by the spectators.[529] But,
however the chorus stood, there could only have been _one_ row between
these ‘laurostatae’ and the audience. If, then, the actors had been in
the orchestra, with _three_ rows of choristers in front of them, the
obstruction to the view would obviously have been very much greater.
And it is important to remember that the spectators who would have
suffered most by this arrangement would have been the occupants of the
lowest tiers of seats. Now these seats were reserved as seats of honour,
and were confined to high officials and distinguished citizens. Hence,
if Dörpfeld’s theory is correct, the distinction which the Athenians
bestowed upon their leading citizens cannot have been one of very much
value. The benches which they assigned to them must have been the worst
seats for view in the whole theatre.[530]

Dörpfeld further objects that, if we suppose a low stage at Athens in the
fifth century, the history of the Greek stage becomes a very fantastic
and peculiar affair. We have first a stage of five or six feet, then in
the next period it rises to about twelve feet, then later on in the Roman
period it suddenly drops to five again. His own theory, he says, is much
simpler. There was no stage at all till the Roman period, and then a
stage of five feet was erected.[531] But the figures given by Dörpfeld
are quite fallacious. There was no sudden rise and fall of the kind he
describes. We have no means of determining the exact height of the stage
during the fifth century. But when we come to the later period we find
that it was not fixed at twelve feet, but varied from eight to thirteen.
There was no settled rule. Architects naturally tried new experiments.
Different heights were adopted in different places. Probably there was
just the same variety and love of experiment in the early period. Again,
when we come to the Roman period, we do not find that the height of the
stage was suddenly fixed at five feet. In many places it was as much as
eight or nine. Wherever we look in the history of the Greek theatre, we
perceive a gradual transition from one type of stage to another; and the
reasons for the successive changes are generally to be explained by the
varying circumstances of the contemporary drama.

The archaeological evidence on the subject of the early stage has already
been discussed.[532] Unfortunately it amounts to very little. The oldest
stage-buildings, being made of wood, have disappeared without leaving
any trace behind them. However, such evidence as can be obtained tends
to confirm the testimony of the dramas themselves, and to show that the
stage of the fifth century was lower and deeper than that of subsequent
times. There is also this point to be taken into consideration. The
existence of a lofty stage during the Hellenistic period and perhaps
from the fourth century onwards appears to be now proved by irresistible
testimony. This being so, it is altogether improbable on general grounds
that there should have been no stage at all during the preceding period.
To suppose that the Greeks began without any stage of any kind, and then
after so long a time suddenly erected a stage about twelve feet high, is
a most unlikely hypothesis. But if we imagine that a stage existed from
the first, and that it was a low one in the fifth century, and was then
gradually raised in consequence of the changed character of the drama,
the process becomes much more intelligible. The presence of a stage
during the later period is strong presumptive evidence in favour of an
earlier one.[533]

The last few years have been prolific in new theories on the subject of
the stage. Most of them may be regarded as developments or modifications
of Dörpfeld’s views. Before leaving this subject it may be well to give
a brief account of the more important of them. Bethe considers that
there can no longer be any doubt as to the existence of the Hellenistic
stage. He also agrees that the passages in Aristophanes prove the use
of a low stage at the time when Aristophanes wrote. But for the greater
part of the fifth century he denies its existence. He considers that
the first Greek stage was erected in 427 or in 426, and that this date
was an important epoch in the development of the theatre. He founds his
belief on the fact that after this date there is no further instance of
the use of the ekkyklema, while before this date there is no example of
the use of the mechane, the theologeion, and the drop-scene.[534] But,
in the first place, it is by no means clear why the presence or absence
of these contrivances should involve the existence or non-existence of
a stage. In the second place, his dates are open to question. There is
no proof, as we shall see later on, that the machinery which he mentions
was introduced or discontinued at the time specified. Another theory has
been put forward by Weissmann. He, too, accepts the Hellenistic stage,
but agrees with Dörpfeld that in the fifth century actors and chorus
performed on the same level. However, he thinks that the passages in
which old men complain of the steepness of the road prove that there must
have been a raised platform which they had to ascend. As one of these
passages—that in the Hercules Furens—is spoken by the chorus, he comes
to the conclusion that there was a large platform for actors and chorus
combined. This platform extended from the back-scene over a considerable
part of the orchestra, and on it stood the actors and chorus, both on
the same level.[535] To this it may be answered, that the evidence on
which he relies is far too slight a justification for such a sweeping
hypothesis. Also on general grounds it is inconceivable that the Greeks,
when they already possessed an orchestra which was admirably adapted
for choral performances, should have taken the trouble to erect a huge
platform on the top of it. Christ agrees in the main with Weissmann. He
accepts the Hellenistic stage for the later period, and also the platform
for the chorus in the orchestra during the fifth century. But he thinks
the passages in Aristophanes prove that the actors even then stood higher
than the chorus. He therefore supposes two stages: one immediately before
the back-scene, for the actors; and another larger and lower one in the
orchestra, for the use of the chorus.[536] He thus eventually comes
round to the same conclusion as Wieseler, though by a very different
process. His theory, however, is open to the same objections as that of
Weissmann. This orchestral platform is utterly improbable in itself, and
is unsupported by any sufficient evidence. Lastly, there is Robert’s
hypothesis. Robert denies the existence of a stage during the fifth
century; but supposes that one was erected in the course of the fourth
century for the performance of new plays, in which there was practically
no chorus. Henceforth new plays were acted on the stage, old plays in
front of it, in the orchestra.[537] But it is impossible to suppose that
in the same theatre, and at the same festival, the proscenium should have
served at one time as a stage, and at another time as a background. Nor
is there anything in the ancient authorities to support such a view.


§ 14. _Various Details._

To return to the subject of the construction of the theatre in general.
It is obvious that, considering the enormous size of the building, and
the immense numbers of spectators which it was intended to accommodate,
the greatest attention must have been bestowed upon its acoustic
properties. Vitruvius is most emphatic upon the necessity of keeping
this object in view, when choosing a site for a theatre. The situation
against the side of a hill, and the gentle and symmetrical upward slope
of the tiers of seats, are mentioned as qualities by which acoustic
excellence was ensured. The height of the stage-buildings was also of
great importance. It was found that the best results were obtained
by making them exactly the same height as the uppermost parts of the
auditorium.[538] That this was the ordinary practice during the Roman
period is proved by the remains of various theatres, such as those of
Aspendos and Orange. But whether, at any time during the Greek period,
stage-buildings were constructed on this enormous scale is very doubtful.
Another matter on which the ancient architects insisted was the wooden
flooring of the stage, which tended to make the voices of the actors more
audible. When Alexander the Great wished to have a stage built entirely
of bronze, it was pointed out to him that this material would be fatal
from the acoustic point of view.[539] Vitruvius mentions a peculiar
practice which was adopted for the purpose of adding resonance to the
voices of the actors. Hollow vessels of bronze, of different tones, were
suspended in niches in various parts of the auditorium. When a sound was
uttered of the same tone as that of any of the vessels, its resonance
was increased. He states that this custom, though not adopted in Rome,
existed in many Greek and Italian theatres; and that Mummius, after
his capture of Corinth, brought back several of these vessels from the
theatre there.[540] In the remains of the existing theatres no traces are
to be found of the niches he describes. It is probable that the whole
plan was merely an experiment adopted in a few special cases. As far as
Athens was concerned, no such extraneous assistance to the voice was
necessary. Experiments at the present day have shown that the acoustic
properties of the theatre of Dionysus are excellent; and this must have
been still more the case when the stage-buildings were standing. Probably
therefore, in spite of the vast numbers of the audience, the persons in
the back rows could hear the words spoken in the orchestra and upon the
stage much more clearly than might at first have been supposed.

Another point mentioned by Vitruvius in connexion with the theatre is
the advantage of erecting porticoes in the rear of the stage-buildings,
to serve as a shelter for the people in case of a sudden shower of rain,
and also for the convenience of the choregi. He adds that at Athens
there were three buildings close to the theatre, which served admirably
for this purpose. These were the Odeion, the temple of Dionysus, and
the Portico of Eumenes.[541] The Odeion here referred to was that built
by Pericles, which probably stood on the eastern side of the theatre,
though its exact site has not yet been determined with certainty.[542]
The temple of Dionysus mentioned by Vitruvius is apparently the older
of the two temples, marked _t_ in the plan, and lying to the south-west
of the stage-buildings. The Portico of Eumenes is supposed to have been
built by Eumenes II, in the beginning of the second century, and it is
thought that traces of it are to be found stretching westwards from the
theatre.[543] Immediately to the south of the stage-buildings are the
foundations of a long rectangular erection, belonging to the same date as
the stage-buildings themselves, and marked _s_ in the plan. This erection
was no doubt a portico, built in the fourth century for the purpose
described by Vitruvius. In the theatre itself there was no protection for
the general mass of the people either from the sun or from the rain. The
huge canvas awnings, suspended upon masts, which the Latin writers refer
to, were an invention of the Italians, and were only adopted in Greek
theatres at a very late period.[544]

The interior of the theatre at Athens was decorated with the statues
of various public persons, some distinguished, others not. In the
time of Lycurgus bronze statues were erected in honour of Aeschylus,
Sophocles, and Euripides.[545] Pausanias mentions that in his time
there were several statues of dramatic poets in the theatre, but, with
the exception of Sophocles, Euripides, and Menander, they were all
very obscure individuals.[546] The base of Menander’s statue, with an
inscription recording his name and the name of the sculptor, has been
discovered near the western parodos. Its original site, however, is
unknown.[547] Astydamas, the tragic poet, was voted a statue in the
theatre on account of the excellence of his tragedy called Parthenopaeus.
He wrote an epigram to be inscribed upon the base, regretting that
he had not been born in the time of the great tragic writers, so as
to be able to compete with worthy antagonists. The Athenians were so
disgusted with his conceit, that they refused to allow the epigram to be
inscribed, and the expression, ‘to praise one’s self like Astydamas,’
passed into a proverb.[548] The statue of Astydamas originally stood
at the inside corner of the auditorium on the western side, and there
was probably a corresponding statue on the eastern side.[549] One of
the grammarians says that there were also statues of Themistocles and
Miltiades in the theatre, each with a captured Persian standing beside
him. But his statement is probably a fiction, invented to explain the
passage on which he was commenting, and which he misunderstood.[550]
In later times, it is stated, a statue of Eurycleides the conjuror was
erected in the theatre.[551] It is probable that during the reign of
Hadrian thirteen statues of him were placed in the thirteen different
blocks of the auditorium. The inscriptions on the bases of four of these
statues have been found in the existing remains of the theatre.[552]
In addition to the statues, various votive offerings were erected in
the two side-entrances. Many of the bases were still in their original
position when the theatre was first excavated, but they have now mostly
disappeared. Four of them, however, still remain. One of them supported
the memorial erected by Xenocles in 306, to commemorate his services as
Agonothetes. The other three belong to the Roman period.[553] There were
also various inscriptions and tablets connected with theatrical affairs.
A copy of the decree of the Amphictyonic Council, conferring certain
privileges upon the Athenian actors, was inscribed on stone and put up in
the theatre.[554] Numerous records of dramatic and dithyrambic contests
were erected either in the theatre or in the immediate neighbourhood.
There were lists of the victors in all the competitions at the Lenaea and
the City Dionysia. There were lists of all the tragedies and comedies
ever produced in the theatre at Athens. There were lists of all the poets
and actors who had competed there, with the number of their victories
appended to each name. An account of these various records has already
been given at the end of the first chapter.

Before concluding this description of the theatre of Dionysus it may
be interesting to give some account of the various other purposes for
which it was used at different times, in addition to its primary object
as a place for dramatic representations and contests of dithyrambic
choruses. The recitations of the rhapsodists, and the competitions
between the harp-players, were also transferred to the same place from
the Odeion, in which they had been held previously.[555] Besides this,
various ceremonies unconnected with art took place in the theatre during
the festivals of Dionysus. Those which took place at the commencement
of the City Dionysia have already been mentioned.[556] The annual
cock-fight in commemoration of the Persian invasion was also held in the
theatre.[557] But the most important of the non-dramatic purposes for
which the theatre came to be used was that of a meeting-place for the
assemblies of the people. In the fifth and fourth centuries the regular
place of assembly was the Pnyx. But already at a very early period
special assemblies used to be held in the theatre after each festival
of Dionysus, to discuss matters connected with the festival.[558] These
semi-religious meetings probably paved the way for the later practice
of holding ordinary meetings there. As early as the year 411, on the
occasion of the overthrow of the Four Hundred, Thucydides mentions that
an assembly of the people was held in the theatre.[559] It was in the
theatre that the meeting was convened which condemned Phocion and his
friends to death in 317 B.C.[560] In 295 Demetrius, after capturing the
city, summoned a gathering of the people in the theatre.[561] These
meetings were all of a special character, and were not regular assemblies
of the people; but they served as precedents for the use of the theatre
for political, as opposed to religious and artistic, purposes. Similarly,
we are told on the authority of Aristotle that the Ephebi received their
shields and spears from the state at assemblies of the people in the
theatre.[562] After the middle of the third century the theatre became
the regular meeting-place. The Pnyx henceforward was only used for
assemblies for the election of magistrates.[563] In this later period
the theatre was also used for various exhibitions which seemed unworthy
of its character as a temple of Dionysus. Sword-swallowers, conjurors,
and exhibitors of puppet-shows are mentioned among the entertainers who
occupied the stage which had formerly been dignified by Euripides.[564]
But the greatest degradation which the theatre at Athens ever suffered
was when, under the influence of Roman custom, it was given up to
gladiatorial combats. This was a pollution which called forth indignant
protests from writers such as Philostratus and Dion Chrysostom.[565]




CHAPTER IV

THE SCENERY


§ 1. _General Character of the Scenery._

In the production of a play the chief objects on which care and money
were bestowed were the training of the chorus, the payment of the
actors, and the supply of suitable dresses. The scenery was never made
a prominent feature of the exhibition. All that was required was an
appropriate background to show off to advantage the figures of the
performers. The simplicity in the character of the ancient scenery
was a necessary result of the peculiar construction of the stage. The
Attic stage, though from sixty to seventy feet long, was apparently
never more than about fifteen feet in depth, and was still further
contracted in after times. On a long and narrow platform of this kind,
any representation of the interior of a building would be out of the
question. All those elaborate spectacular illusions, which are rendered
practicable by the great depth of the modern stage, were impossible.
Nothing more was required than to cover over the wall at the back with a
suitable view. Again, not only were the mechanical arrangements simple,
but the number of scenes in use upon the Attic stage was very limited.
Not only was a change of scene in the course of the same play practically
unknown, but there was often very little difference between one play and
another as regards the character of the scenery required. Each of the
three great branches of the drama had a background of a conventional
type, specially appropriated to itself, and this typical background was
the one usually adopted. When therefore a series of tragedies was being
exhibited, or a series of comedies, it must often have happened that the
same scenery would do duty for several plays in succession.

The use of painted scenery, natural as it appears to us, was only
invented very gradually by the Athenians. For a long time the erection
at the back of the stage continued to retain its original character. It
was regarded, not as a back-scene, but merely as a retiring-place for the
actors. The notion of covering it over with painted scenery, in such a
way as to make it represent the supposed scene of action in the play, was
a development of comparatively late times. The old drama had no scenic
background. The action was supposed to take place in some open region;
the decorations were confined to such properties as could be put up on
the stage; the wooden hoarding in the rear was nothing more than the
front of the actors’ room. Things were still in this primitive condition
when Aeschylus wrote his four earlier plays. The progress of the art
of scenic decoration can be traced very distinctly by comparing these
plays with his later tragedies. In the first four there is no mention of
any scenery, no clear definition of the exact spot where the action is
taking place. The scenic appliances are limited to properties erected
in front of the hoarding. In the Supplices the scene is laid in an open
district at some distance from the city. In the centre is an altar of
the gods, at which the suppliants take refuge.[566] Otherwise there is a
total absence of local colouring. In the Persae, the next in order of his
plays, the action is also laid at a distance from the palace. The only
object mentioned as actually in sight is the tomb of Darius.[567] In the
Septem the performers are gathered together within the walls of Thebes
beside an altar on some rising ground, from which the towers of the city
are visible.[568] But there is no clear definition of the scene, and no
mention of any palace or other building from which the actors make their
entrance. In the Prometheus the action takes place in a rocky region of
Scythia. But in all probability the cliff to which Prometheus is chained
was merely built up upon the stage. There is nothing in the play to
suggest an elaborate representation of the view. In these four plays the
background was still a bare wall with doors for the actors. It had no
scenic significance. But when we come to the Oresteia, the last dramatic
production of Aeschylus, a great change is noticeable. The scene is
now laid in front of a building which is clearly defined and frequently
referred to. In the first two tragedies it is the palace of Agamemnon at
Argos; in the third it is the temple of Apollo at Delphi, and later on
the temple of Athene at Athens.[569] The contrast between these plays
and the earlier ones, as regards local colour and allusions to the scene
of action, is very marked and conspicuous, and denotes a considerable
advance in the art of mounting a play. The old actors’ booth had now
become a regular scenic background.[570] The bare hoarding was covered
with painting, to represent a palace, or a temple, or whatever else might
be required. This conclusion, which may be deduced from the extant dramas
themselves, is confirmed by the ancient traditions as to the introduction
of scene-painting. Aristotle says it was invented by Sophocles; Vitruvius
apparently ascribes it to Aeschylus.[571] Whichever statement be correct,
it is clear, from the fact of its being attributed to both poets, that
it must have been introduced at that particular period when both were
exhibiting upon the stage. It cannot be placed earlier than the first
appearance of Sophocles in 468, or later than the last appearance of
Aeschylus in 458. Moreover Sophocles, if he really invented it, is
not likely to have done so immediately on his first appearance. The
most probable date, therefore, is some period not very long before the
production of the Oresteia, and subsequent to the production of the four
early plays of Aeschylus.

By the middle of the fifth century, then, we may regard the use
of painted scenery as fully established. Taking this date as our
starting-point, it will be interesting to consider the question as to
the number and character of the scenes most in use upon the Attic stage.
Our principal authority will be the Greek plays still in existence.
Vitruvius divides scenery into three classes—tragic, comic, and satyric.
According to his description, the salient features in a tragic scene were
columns, pediments, statues, and other signs of regal magnificence. In
comedy the scene represented a private house, with projecting balconies,
and windows looking out upon the stage. The scenery in the satyric drama
consisted of a rustic region, with trees, caverns, mountains, and other
objects of the same kind.[572] The above list is not intended to be an
exhaustive one. It merely describes in general outline the type of scene
which was most characteristic of each of the three great branches of the
drama. At the same time, it is more exhaustive than might at first sight
be supposed. If the extant Greek dramas are examined, it will be found
that in the great majority of cases the scenery conforms to the general
type described by Vitruvius. To take the tragic poets first. Twenty-five
tragedies by Sophocles and Euripides have been preserved. In no less than
seventeen out of the twenty-five the scene is laid in front of a palace
or temple.[573] In all these cases the general character of the scenery
would be exactly such as Vitruvius describes. The prominent feature
would be a magnificent building, with columns, pediments, and statues.
Of the remaining eight tragedies, there are four in which the scene
consists of an encampment, with tents in the background.[574] The other
four all require special scenery. In the Philoctetes the scene is laid
in front of a cavern in a desert island. In the Ajax it is laid partly
before the tent of Ajax, partly in a solitary quarter by the sea-shore.
The background in the Oedipus Coloneus consists of a country region,
with the sacred enclosure of the Eumenides in the centre. Finally, the
Electra of Euripides is altogether exceptional in having its scene laid
before a humble country cottage. On the whole, the evidence of the extant
tragedies tends to confirm the statement of Vitruvius, and exemplifies
the conventional character of Greek tragic scenery. In the great majority
of instances the background would be an imposing pile of buildings,
adorned with various architectural embellishments. As to the satyric
drama, the Cyclops of Euripides is the only specimen of this class of
composition which has been preserved. The scene there corresponds exactly
to the descriptions of Vitruvius, and consists of a country region, with
the cave of Polyphemus in the centre. There can be little doubt that in
most satyric dramas the background was of much the same character. As
the chorus always consisted of satyrs, whose dwelling was in the forest,
the scene of the play would naturally be laid in some deserted country
district. The scene in the New Comedy was almost invariably laid in front
of an ordinary private house, as is proved by the adaptations of Plautus
and Terence. As to the Old Comedy, in six out of the eleven comedies of
Aristophanes, the background consists merely of a house, or of houses
standing side by side.[575] In four others the principal part of the
action takes place before a house. In the Thesmophoriazusae the scene
consists of a house and a temple standing side by side. In the Lysistrata
there is a private house, and near it the entrance to the Acropolis. In
the Acharnians the opening scene takes place in the Pnyx; the rest of the
action is carried on before the houses of Dicaeopolis, Euripides, and
Lamachus. The scene in the Knights is laid partly before the house of
Demos, and partly in the Pnyx. The only comedy in which the scenery is of
an altogether exceptional character is the Birds, in which the background
consists of a wild country region, filled with rocks, and trees, and
bushes. It appears, therefore, that even in the Old Comedy there was not
much variety in the scenery.

As regards the style of the ancient scene-painting, and the degree
of perfection to which it was eventually brought, it is difficult to
speak with any certainty. But in the fifth century, at any rate, there
can be little doubt that the scenery was of the simplest description.
Landscape-painting was still in its infancy, and altogether subordinated
to the painting of the human figure. When landscapes were introduced into
a picture, they were suggested rather than worked out in detail.[576]
A city was represented by a few houses, a forest by a few trees, and
so on. The paintings for the stage were probably of the same general
type. The scenes most in use were front views of temples, palaces, and
dwelling-houses. In such cases a rough indication of the different
buildings would be considered sufficient. That they were depicted with
any completeness and realism is far from likely, though the newly
discovered art of perspective was undoubtedly applied to architecture and
the painting of architectural scenes much earlier than to landscape.[577]
It is true that the personages in the extant dramas often use words
which seem to imply an elaborate architectural background. They speak
of columns, triglyphs, cornices, and pediments.[578] In the Ion they
even admire in detail the bas-reliefs with which the temple front was
decorated.[579] But it is not certain that the objects mentioned were all
of them actually represented upon the stage. Many of them may have been
left to the imagination. As for natural scenery, there was probably very
little of this in the early theatre. If the action was laid in a country
region, as in the Philoctetes and the Oedipus Coloneus, and in the
generality of satyric plays, the necessary effect might be produced by a
few rocks, and trees, and other similar objects. In later times it was
customary, when the background represented a palace or temple, to insert
a landscape on either side.[580] Even in the plays of the fifth century
there are occasional references to such landscapes. Helen, standing
before the palace of the Egyptian king, points to the ‘streams of the
Nile’ as flowing close by. The old man in the Electra, when he reaches
the palace of the Atreidae, shows Orestes the country round about, with
Argos and Mycenae in the distance. The Trojan captives descry, from the
Greek encampment, the smoke and flames of burning Troy.[581] But here
again we may doubt whether, on the contemporary stage, these places were
really visible to the spectators. At any rate, if they were delineated
at all, it was probably in a slight and symbolical fashion. As time went
on the art of scenic decoration was much improved and elaborated. In
the Hellenistic period it seems to have reached a fairly high degree of
development. Natural phenomena were now depicted with more realism. Seas
and rivers, earth and sky, are mentioned among the objects delineated.
Even regions in Hades and Tartarus were represented upon the stage.[582]
The progress of landscape-painting in general among the later Greeks
naturally produced its effect upon the work of the scenic artists. But it
would be an anachronism to attribute efforts of this ambitious kind to
the contemporaries of Sophocles and Euripides.

The introduction of magnificent decorations appears to be always a
later development in the history of the drama. On the Elizabethan stage
the back-scene consisted of a bare wall, and anything in the way of
spectacular effect was provided by the movements and groupings of the
actors. To produce an impression by scenic means would have been alien
to the taste of the Athenians of the fifth century. In the dramatic
performances of that period the conspicuous feature was the chorus in
the foreground, with its graceful arrangement and picturesque dresses.
Above the chorus, on the narrow stage, stood the actors and mute figures,
arranged in line, and dressed in brilliant colours. The long scene in
the rear was so far decorated as to form a pleasing background, and show
off the persons of the actors to advantage. But no attempt was made
to produce a realistic landscape, or to convey the ideas of depth and
distance. In its general effect the scene upon the stage resembled a long
frieze or bas-relief, with the figures painted in brilliant colours,
rather than a picture with a distant perspective.


§ 2. _Mechanical Arrangements for the Scenery._

The scenery consisted of painted curtains or boards, attached to the wall
at the back of the stage.[583] As the mechanical arrangements for fixing
them up have not been described by any of the ancient writers, a detailed
account of the matter is impossible. But some facts can be deduced from
the testimony of the existing dramas. In every Greek play the action
was supposed to take place in the open air. The scene was generally
laid before some building or tent, or in a country district with a rock
or cavern in the background. The upper portion of the painted scene
represented merely the sky, and was probably the same in all dramas. The
lower portion delineated the building or landscape which the particular
play required. It used to be commonly supposed that this lower portion
projected two or three feet in front of the upper; that the back-scene
was not a flat surface from top to bottom, but that a narrow ledge or
platform ran across from wing to wing about half-way up.[584] The object
of this hypothesis was to provide room for the ‘distegia’. The distegia
was a contrivance which enabled actors to take their stand upon the roof
of a palace or private house.[585] Eight or nine instances of its use are
to be found in the existing Greek plays. Thus the Agamemnon of Aeschylus
opens with the watchman sitting upon the roof of the palace at Argos, and
waiting for the beacon’s signal. In the Phoenissae of Euripides Antigone
and the attendant mount upon the roof to get a view of the army encamped
outside the city. In the concluding scene of the Orestes Hermione,
Orestes, and Pylades are seen standing upon the roof of the palace.
Examples also occur in comedy. In the Acharnians the wife of Dicaeopolis
views the procession from the roof of the house. At the commencement of
the Wasps Bdelycleon is seen sleeping upon the roof, and later on his
father Philocleon tries to escape through the chimney. At the end of the
Clouds Strepsiades climbs up a ladder to the roof of the phrontisterion,
in order to set it on fire. In the Lysistrata Myrrhina and Lysistrata are
seen upon the battlements of the Acropolis. The distegia may also have
been used in that scene of the Supplices where Evadne appears upon the
summit of a cliff, and then flings herself down.[586] In all these cases
it used to be imagined that the standing-room for the actor was provided
in the way described; that the lower part of the scene projected two or
three feet, and so furnished a permanent platform in the background.
But this theory is improbable on several grounds. We have seen that the
distegia was only employed in comparatively few instances. It seems
unlikely, therefore, that an elaborate structure of this kind should have
been erected merely to meet these occasional requirements. Further than
this, if the scene had been divided in half by a horizontal line, and the
lower half had protruded several feet, this arrangement, though suitable
enough when the background was a palace, would have been absurdly
inappropriate when a country district was to be represented. It is also
questionable whether the ancient stage was wide enough to permit the
arrangement. If may have been possible in early times; but the Vitruvian
stage, which was only ten feet across, can hardly have been encroached
upon to the extent of two or three feet. It is far more probable that
the back-scene was flat from top to bottom. This supposition is more
in harmony with the simple style of the ancient scenery. As for the
distegia, it was provided most likely by a projecting balcony or upper
story, which might be introduced when required, without encroaching upon
the narrow stage. Such balconies were not uncommon in Greek and Roman
houses.[587] And that they were used in the theatre is expressly stated
by Vitruvius, who tells us that the houses in comedy were of the type
called ‘Maeniana’, or houses with projecting galleries.[588] In ordinary
cases the distegia would resemble a structure of this kind. But where the
surroundings were exceptional, as in the Lysistrata, it might easily be
decorated in such a way as to conform to the rest of the scenery.

If the scene represented a dwelling-house, there were windows in the
upper story, out of which the characters could peer upon the stage. Such
windows are mentioned by Vitruvius, and instances of their use occur in
the extant comedies. For example, Philocleon, in the Wasps, tries to
escape out of an upper window, and in the Ecclesiazusae the old woman
and the young girl are seen looking out of one.[589] It need hardly
be remarked that the doors of the building represented by the painted
scenery would correspond more or less closely with the permanent doors
in the back-wall, so as to admit of easy ingress and egress to the
actors. In the same way, if the scene was a cavern in a country region,
the entrance to the cavern would be made to correspond with the central
door in the wall at the back. Concerning the manner in which the scenery
was finished off at the top nothing can be laid down for certain. It
is not even known whether the stage was covered with a roof or not.
But the analogy of Roman theatres, and the general convenience of the
arrangement, are in favour of such a covering.[590]


§ 3. _The Entrances to the Stage._

The question as to the number and the character of the entrances leading
upon the stage is of some importance in connexion with the Greek drama.
In order to avoid confusion in dealing with this subject, it is necessary
to distinguish carefully between the permanent doors in the walls
surrounding the stage, and the temporary doors or entrances which were
left when the scenery had been put up. First, as to the permanent doors.
We have shown already that the remains of the purely Greek theatres
are so defective, that it is impossible, from the evidence which they
supply, to come to any conclusion as to the number of these doors. But
it is evident, from the statements of Pollux, that the Hellenistic type
of theatre, which is the one he describes, must have possessed at least
five such doors. It must have had three doors in the wall at the back
of the stage, and two doors at the sides, one leading from each of the
wings. Probably the same plan was adopted in the older buildings of the
fourth and fifth centuries, whether of stone or wood. In later times,
when the Graeco-Roman theatres were erected, the stage was considerably
lengthened, and in consequence the number of the doors in the wall at
the back was raised to five. But it has been pointed out in the last
chapter that in all probability only three of these doors were used in
the course of the actual performances, and that the two outer ones were
either covered over by the scenery, or concealed by temporary side-wings
of wood.[591]

The next point to be considered is the number of the entrances which
had to be provided when the scenery was erected, and the stage was made
ready for a dramatic performance. Pollux and Vitruvius, in speaking
of the scenery and stage decorations, agree in saying that there were
three doors at the back of the stage.[592] But this statement is much
too universal. In the majority of cases, no doubt, there were three such
doors. When the scene represented a palace, or temple, or dwelling-house,
three doors appear to have been always used. But when the scene was of
an exceptional character, the number of the entrances from the back of
the stage would vary according to the requirements of the play. For
instance, in the Philoctetes there would only be a single entrance, that
from the cavern. In the first part of the Ajax the only entrance would
be that leading out of the tent; in the second part there would be no
entrance at all, the background consisting merely of a solitary region
by the sea-shore. In the Cyclops, the only opening at the back of the
stage was the mouth of Polyphemus’ cave. In such plays as the Prometheus
of Aeschylus, and the Andromeda of Euripides, the background consisted
of rocks and cliffs, and there was no entrance from that quarter. It is
clear, therefore, that the statement that a Greek scene was provided with
three doors or entrances at the back is not universally true, but only
applies to the majority of cases.

Some details concerning the character of the three doors may be gathered
from the statements in Pollux and Vitruvius.[593] When the scene was
a palace, the central door was decorated with regal grandeur. The
side-doors were supposed to lead to the guest-chambers. Occasionally
one of the side-doors led to a guest-chamber, the other to a slaves’
prison. In comedy, the character and arrangement of the doors would vary
considerably, according as the scene was laid in front of one, or two, or
three dwelling-houses. In the last case, of which an example is supplied
by the Acharnians, there would be one door for each of the three houses.
Sometimes one of the side-doors represented the way into an outhouse,
or workshop, or stable. Sometimes it led into a temple, as in the
Thesmophoriazusae. In comedy, no doubt, there was much greater diversity
as to scenic details than in tragedy.

A curious regulation concerning the usage of these three doors is
mentioned by Pollux.[594] He says that the central door was reserved
for the principal character, the door to the right for the secondary
characters, the door to the left for those of least significance. It
is plain that this statement must be taken with very considerable
deductions. In the first place, it only applies to tragedy, and only
to those plays in which the background represented a palace or similar
building. Even then it cannot have been by any means universal. In fact
it only applies to dramas of the type of the Oedipus Tyrannus, in which
the principal character is at the same time a person of the highest
rank. In such cases it is very likely that his rule about the doors was
observed. It would be in harmony with the statuesque and conventional
character of Greek tragedy. But there are many plays in which it would
be absurd to suppose that any such regulation was adopted. For instance,
in the Antigone it can hardly be imagined that the tyrant Creon entered
only by a side-door, while the central door, with its regal splendour,
was reserved for the oppressed heroine Antigone. Similarly, in the
Electra, it is ridiculous to suppose that Clytaemnestra entered from the
inferior part of the palace, Electra from the more magnificent. There
can be no doubt that Pollux, in his statement about the doors, has been
following his favourite practice, and has made a general rule out of a
few special instances.

The openings at the back of the stage always led out of some building,
tent, cavern, or other dwelling-place. They could only therefore be used
by persons who were supposed to be inside the dwelling-place. People
coming from the neighbourhood, or from a distance, had to enter the
stage in a different way. For this purpose doors in the side-wings were
provided.[595] The subject of these side-entrances on to the stage has
been much discussed in recent years.[596] Many scholars have endeavoured
to prove that they were a late invention, confined to the Hellenistic
theatre, and that they never existed in the fifth century. They suppose
that in the old Athenian theatre the only side-entrances were those in
the orchestra, and that the actors who entered or departed otherwise than
through the back-scene always used the orchestra for this purpose. Now it
is no doubt true, as we have already shown, that they used it sometimes.
There are about twenty cases in which actors and chorus leave together
in a sort of procession, chiefly at the end of a play[597]; and there
are two cases in which they enter together.[598] There are also those
scenes—about five in number—when the actors enter in chariots.[599] On
all these occasions it can hardly be doubted that the actors entered
and departed through the orchestra. But the other examples which have
been brought forward are entirely conjectural. It is said that, when
the actors and the chorus were supposed to come from the same place,
they must always have used the same entrance. In the Philoctetes, for
example, Odysseus, Neoptolemus, and the chorus all come from the ship.
If, therefore, the sailors entered by the orchestra, the two heroes must
have done the same. But there is no necessity for such an assumption. It
would be absurd to demand this minute accuracy in the representation of a
play. Then there are cases where an actor on the stage sees another from
a distance; but about ten lines intervene before the second actor comes
near enough to enter into conversation with the first.[600] It is argued
that he must have had a long way to go, and must therefore have come
round by the parodos. But in all these places there is nothing to show
that the person approaching was seen by the audience as soon as he was
descried from the stage. He may have received his ‘cue’ some time after
his advent was announced. It is common enough on the modern stage, when
the scene is in the open air, for an actor’s approach to be announced
some time before he actually appears. Also, there are several cases in
the ancient dramas when an actor begins to converse with the people on
the stage only two or three lines after he is first seen.[601] These
passages might be cited to prove that he had only a short way to go, and
must therefore have come in by the stage. But in reality all inferences
of this kind are far too subtle to be of any value. We can hardly imagine
the ancient dramatists counting the number of yards to be walked before
they settled the number of verses to be spoken. Another set of instances
are those in which a character, after coming into sight, takes a long
time to reach the point he is aiming at. Euelpides and Peisthetaerus
stumble about during the delivery of fifty-three lines before they
reach the hoopoe’s dwelling-place. Dionysus and Xanthias converse for
thirty-five lines before coming to the house of Hercules.[602] They
too, it is said, must have entered by the orchestra, otherwise they
would have reached their destination much sooner. But there is no need
to suppose, in these and similar cases, that the characters were moving
straight forward all the time. Any actors of ordinary experience would
know how to arrange their progress in such a way as to come to the right
place at the right moment. Lastly, there are scenes in which an actor,
on making his entrance, fails to perceive at once another actor on the
stage; or addresses the chorus before the actor; or is seen by the chorus
before he is seen by the actor.[603] All this is said to prove that he
must have come in by the parodos, and that the other actor was at first
concealed from view by the intervening side-wings. But in the first place
the ancient stage was so low and narrow that, as soon as an actor had
fairly entered the orchestra, he could not fail to see the persons on the
stage just as well as those in the orchestra. In the second place these
arguments all depend on the same fallacy. They assume that in a dramatic
performance, when an actor comes in, the question as to whom he shall see
first, and which person he shall address first, is decided, not by the
convenience of the poet, but by the science of optics. The experience of
the modern stage is sufficient to prove that this is not the case.

It would be unsafe then to lay any stress on the instances just cited.
The cases in which there are adequate grounds for supposing that the
actors entered or departed by the orchestra amount to no more than about
thirty. The question is whether these cases are sufficient to justify
a wider inference. Are we to assume that, because the actors sometimes
used the parodoi, they did so always? On the one hand it may be said that
in the early theatre, with its low stage and easy communication between
stage and orchestra, there was nothing to stand in the way of such a
practice. On the other hand there is the fact that in the later Greek
theatre the actors, when coming from a distance, usually entered by the
side-wings.[604] Of course in this later theatre, with its twelve-foot
stage, there were obvious reasons for doing so. Still, the existence of
the practice in late times is a presumption in favour of its existence
previously. Moreover, when side-wings had once been introduced, nothing
could be more natural than to use them as entrances. The convenience to
the actors would be very great. It is difficult to see why they should
have been compelled to go all round by the parodoi when there was an
easier mode of entrance close at hand. On the whole, therefore, it seems
most probable that the side-entrances were generally used by the actors
even as early as the fifth century, and that the orchestra was only
employed in special cases, such as processions with the chorus.

As regards the use of these side-entrances the Athenians had a special
regulation which was due entirely to local causes. The theatre at Athens
was situated in such a position that the western side looked towards
the city and the harbour, the eastern side towards the open country. In
consequence of this fact the side-entrances upon the Athenian stage came
to acquire a peculiar significance. If a man entered by the western side,
it was understood that he was coming from the city where the scene of the
action was laid, or from the immediate neighbourhood; or else that he
had arrived from distant parts by sea, and was coming from the harbour.
The eastern entrance was reserved for people who had journeyed from a
distance by land. The same regulation was applied to the entrances to
the orchestra. If a chorus came from the city, or the harbour, or the
suburbs, it used the western parodos; if it came by land from a distance,
it used the eastern.[605] It is obvious that at Athens, where play-bills
were unknown, a conventional arrangement of this kind would be of great
assistance to the audience, and would enable them to follow the action
of the piece with greater ease and intelligence than they could otherwise
have done. The custom originated in the topographical situation of the
Athenian theatre, but was afterwards adopted in all other Greek theatres,
and became a conventional rule of the Greek stage. The entrances to the
right of the audience were used by persons from the neighbourhood; the
entrances to the left by persons from a distance.


§ 4. _Changes of Scene._

A change of scene during the actual progress of a play was a practice
almost unknown upon the Greek stage during the classical period. In the
extant tragedies only two instances are to be found, one in the Eumenides
of Aeschylus, the other in the Ajax of Sophocles. It does not appear
that in either case very much alteration in the scenery was required. In
the Eumenides the earlier part of the action takes place in front of the
temple of Apollo at Delphi, the latter part before the temple of Athene
at Athens.[606] All that was here necessary was to change the statue in
front of the temple. The background doubtless remained the same during
both portions of the play. There is no reason to suppose that any attempt
was made to depict the actual scenery of Delphi or of Athens. Such a
supposition would be inconsistent with the rude and undeveloped state
of scenic decoration during the Aeschylean period, and moreover minute
accuracy of that kind was foreign to the Athenian taste. In the Ajax the
play begins in front of the tent of Ajax, but ends in a solitary region
by the sea-shore. Here again a very slight alteration in the scenery
would have been sufficient. Probably in the opening scene the tent of
Ajax was represented in the centre, and there may have been some slight
suggestion of a coast view on either side. During the latter part of
the play the tent would be made to disappear, leaving only the coast
view behind. A change of this kind might have been easily carried out,
without much mechanical elaboration. It is to be noticed that in each of
the above cases, while the scenery was being changed, both orchestra and
stage were deserted by the performers. In the Eumenides it was not until
Apollo had retired into the temple, and the Furies had set out in pursuit
of Orestes, that the change from Delphi to Athens took place. Similarly
in the Ajax both Tecmessa and the chorus had disappeared in search of
Ajax before the scene was transferred to the sea-shore.

The Old Comedy was a creation of the wildest fancy, utterly unfettered
by any limitations of fact or probability. The scene of the action in
the plays shifts about from one place to another in the most irregular
fashion. All considerations of time and space are disregarded. But it
may be taken for certain that on the actual stage no attempt was made to
represent these changes of scene in a realistic manner. The scenery was
no doubt of the simplest and most unpretending character, corresponding
to the economical manner in which comedies were put upon the stage. In
all the extant plays of Aristophanes a single background would have been
sufficient. For instance, in the Frogs the action takes place partly
before the house of Hercules, partly in Hades before the house of Pluto.
The background probably represented the houses standing side by side, or
a single house may have done duty for that of Hercules and that of Pluto
in turn. The opening scene of the Acharnians takes place in the Pnyx;
the rest of the play is carried on before the houses of Dicaeopolis,
Euripides, and Lamachus. Most likely the three houses stood in a row,
the Pnyx being sufficiently represented by a few benches upon the stage.
The fact that the house of Dicaeopolis was supposed to be sometimes in
the town, and sometimes in the country, would be of very little moment
in a performance like the Old Comedy, where the realities of existence
were totally disregarded. In the Lysistrata the action is rapidly
transferred from the front of a house to the front of the Acropolis. In
the Thesmophoriazusae it takes place partly before a house, partly before
the temple of Demeter. It is not necessary, in either of these plays,
to suppose any change in the scenery. The house and the Acropolis in
the one case, and the house and temple in the other, would be depicted
as standing side by side. In the Knights the background throughout the
play consisted of the house of Demos; and the Pnyx, as in the Acharnians,
was represented by a few benches. As far then as the Old Comedy is
concerned it is probable that changes of scenery in the course of a play
were seldom or never resorted to. In the New Comedy, to judge from the
adaptations of Plautus and Terence, they appear to have been equally
infrequent.

The only appliances for changing scenery that are mentioned by the
ancient Greek writers are the ‘periaktoi’.[607] These were huge
triangular prisms, revolving on a socket at the base. Each of the three
sides of the prism consisted of a large flat surface, shaped like an
upright parallelogram. One of these prisms was placed at each end of
the stage, in such a manner as to fit in exactly with the scene at the
back, and continue it in the direction of the side-wings. Each of the
three sides was painted to represent a different view, but care was
taken that in every case the painting should coincide exactly with the
painting in the back-scene.[608] As the periaktos was turned round, it
presented a different surface to the spectators. Accordingly it was
possible, by revolving both the periaktoi, to make a change in the
character of the scenery at each end of the stage, while the scene in the
background remained the same as before. The periaktos to the right of
the audience depicted views in the immediate neighbourhood of the city
where the action was taking place. The periaktos to the left represented
a more remote country. This fact corresponds exactly with the regulation
already referred to, that the entrances to the right of the audience were
reserved for people from the immediate neighbourhood, while people from a
distance came in by the left.

The principal use of the periaktoi must have been to produce a change of
scene in cases where the prominent feature of the background remained
the same. For instance, if the action had been taking place in front of
a temple or palace, and was to be transferred to a temple or palace in a
different country, the requisite alteration might easily be carried out
by means of the periaktoi. The building in the background would remain
the same, but the scenery on each side would be altered. Occasions for
using the periaktoi might sometimes occur during the course of a single
play. But such cases, as we have seen, were extremely rare. It must have
been chiefly in the intervals between successive plays that the periaktoi
were employed. Most Greek tragedies and comedies took place before a
temple, a palace, or a private house. If therefore a series of plays was
being exhibited, it might be convenient to retain the same scene in the
background, and produce the necessary distinction between the different
plays by altering the scenery at each side. The usage of the periaktoi
was regulated by a curious conventional custom. If only one periaktos was
turned round, the alteration in the scenery was, of course, confined to
one end of the stage. This was done when the change of scene was supposed
to be a slight one, and was merely from one part of the same district to
another. But when the action was transferred to an entirely new district,
then both the periaktoi were turned round, and the scenery was changed
at each end. The representation of scenery on the periaktoi was probably
of the simple and symbolical character which marked Greek stage scenery
in general; a rock would stand for a mountainous district, a waved blue
line and a dolphin for the sea, a river god perhaps, holding a vessel
of water, for a river.[609] Besides their use in effecting a change of
scene, the periaktoi were also employed to introduce sea-gods and objects
too heavy for the mechane. It is not said how this was managed. But it
is possible that, of the two sides of the periaktos which were out of
sight of the audience, one contained a small ledge or balcony, on which
the sea-god took his stand. As the machine rolled round, he would come
suddenly into view.[610]

It is difficult to say when the periaktoi were first introduced, and
whether they were used at all during the classical period of the Greek
drama. They are mentioned by one grammarian among a list of stage
appliances which might be ascribed to Aeschylus,[611] and it is true
that they might have been used in producing the change of scene in the
Eumenides from the temple at Delphi to the temple at Athens. But they
could have been easily dispensed with. In fact, as far as the extant
Greek dramas are concerned, there are no occasions on which it is
necessary to suppose that they were used, and there are no passages in
which they are referred to.[612]

The periaktoi, as stated above, are the only appliances for changing
scenery that are mentioned in Greek writings. Servius describes another
kind of contrivance, by means of which the scene was parted asunder in
the middle, and then drawn aside in both directions, so as to disclose a
new scene behind.[613] But it is probable that this invention dated from
comparatively late times. There is nothing in the existing Greek dramas
to suggest that such a contrivance was in use during the classical period.


§ 5. _Stage Properties, &c._

In addition to the scenery in the background, the stage was of course
decorated with such objects and properties as were required by the
particular play. Aeschylus is said to have been the first to adorn the
stage in this manner.[614] If the scene was a palace or temple, statues
of the gods were generally placed in front of it, and are frequently
referred to in the course of the drama. For instance, there was the
statue of Athene in front of her temple in the Eumenides, and the statues
of the tutelary deities before the palace of the Atreidae in the Electra
of Sophocles. In the Hippolytus there were two statues in front of the
palace of Theseus, one of Artemis the huntress, and the other of Cypris,
the goddess of love. When Hippolytus returns from the hunt, he offers
a garland of flowers to the statue of Artemis, but refuses to pay any
homage to the statue of Cypris, in spite of the remonstrances of his
attendant. Again, in the country region depicted in the Oedipus Coloneus
the statue of the hero Colonus stood in a conspicuous position.[615]
Other examples of the practice of decorating the stage with statues are
often to be met with both in tragedy and in comedy. Altars, again, were
very common objects upon the Greek stage. In the Supplices of Aeschylus
the fugitive maidens take refuge round an altar. The Oedipus Tyrannus
opens with the spectacle of a group of Thebans kneeling in supplication
before the altar of Apollo.[616] Another constant feature in the stage
decoration was the stone obelisk in honour of Apollo of the Highways. It
was an ordinary practice among the Greeks to place such obelisks in front
of their houses. Their presence upon the stage is often referred to by
the dramatic poets.[617] Various other objects were occasionally required
by particular plays. There was the tomb of Darius in the Persae, and the
tomb of Agamemnon in the Choephori. In the Oedipus Coloneus a rocky ledge
was needed for Oedipus to rest himself upon. In the Acharnians and the
Knights a few benches must have been erected upon the stage to serve as
a rude imitation of the Pnyx. Walls, watch-towers, and beacon-towers are
mentioned by Pollux; and the presence of other similar decorations and
erections can be inferred from the extant tragedies and comedies.[618]

There was one piece of realism which the Greeks were not averse to,
and that was the presence of horses and chariots in the theatre. We
have already referred to the instances in tragedy where persons from
a distance arrive in chariots drawn by horses or mules. The vast size
of the Greek theatre made it peculiarly suitable for displays of this
character. In the Agamemnon of Aeschylus, Agamemnon and Cassandra
approach the palace in a chariot; Agamemnon remains seated there for
a considerable time, while he converses with Clytaemnestra; he then
dismounts and enters the palace, leaving Cassandra still in the chariot.
In the Electra of Euripides, when Clytaemnestra comes to visit her
daughter at the country cottage, she arrives in a chariot, accompanied by
Trojan maidens, who assist her to dismount.[619] Animals for riding were
also occasionally introduced. In the Prometheus there is the winged steed
upon which Oceanus makes his entrance; and in the Frogs of Aristophanes
Xanthias rides in upon a donkey.[620]


§ 6. _The Ekkyklema._

Several mechanical contrivances are mentioned in connexion with the Greek
stage. The most peculiar of these, and the one most alien to all our
modern notions of stage illusion, is the ekkyklema.[621] We have seen
that in a Greek theatre the action always took place in the open air,
before some temple or dwelling-place. It was impossible to transfer the
scene to the inside of the building because of the continual presence
of the chorus in the orchestra. Still, it might sometimes happen that
a powerful dramatic effect could be produced, if a deed accomplished
indoors was exposed to view. The most natural way of doing this would
have been to draw aside the back-scene, and reveal a portion of the
interior. But in the Greek theatre, owing to the narrowness of the
stage-buildings, such a device was hardly practicable. Even if the
stage-buildings had been made deeper, there were obvious objections in
the way. The relative position of the auditorium and the stage was such
that, if a room had been opened out behind the back-scene, a large part
of the audience would not have been able to see into it. In any case,
the back part of the room would have been almost in the dark. Further
than this, the whole arrangement was far too elaborate for the simple
notions of the ancient stage-managers. For these reasons a more primitive
device was adopted. Scenes inside the house or palace were revealed by
means of the ekkyklema. This was a small wooden platform, rolling upon
wheels, which was kept inside the stage-buildings. When it was required
to be used, one of the doors in the background was thrown open, and it
was pushed forward on to the stage. Upon it was arranged a group of
figures, representing in a sort of tableau the deed or occurrence which
had just taken place inside the building. It was mostly used in cases
where a murder had been committed. The ekkyklema was rolled out upon
the stage, and on it were seen the corpses of the murdered persons, the
murderers standing beside them with the bloody weapons in their hands. It
might be rolled through any of the three doors at the back of the stage.
The contrivance was of course a purely conventional one, due to the
necessities of the Greek theatre. All pretence of realism and illusion
was abandoned. But this was a point on which the Greeks did not lay very
much stress. In such matters custom is everything. To a modern spectator,
used to elaborate stage effects, the device would appear intolerable. But
the Greeks, living at a time when stage decoration was in its infancy,
were less exacting in their demands. And when they had once accepted the
ekkyklema as a conventional contrivance for exhibiting interiors their
plastic genius would enable them to use it to the best advantage. The
sudden spectacle of the murderer standing beside his victim’s body, with
the instrument of death in his hands, might easily be formed into a most
impressive tableau.

The ekkyklema was probably invented towards the middle of the fifth
century, about the time when the actor’s booth was first converted
into a regular back-scene. It is used twice in the Oresteia. In the
Agamemnon, after the murder has been committed, the platform rolls out,
and reveals the person of Clytaemnestra, standing over the dead bodies
of Agamemnon and Cassandra. In the Choephori there is a parallel scene.
Orestes is brought into view standing beside the bodies of Aegisthus
and Clytaemnestra, and pointing to the net in which his father had been
entangled and slaughtered many years ago. He is seized with frenzy,
descends from the ekkyklema, and hastens away to the temple of Apollo at
Delphi. The platform is then withdrawn into the palace.[622] During the
rest of the century there are many instances of the use of the ekkyklema
in tragedy. In the Ajax the interior of the tent is exposed to view by
this contrivance; and at the end of the Antigone the body of Eurydice is
exhibited, lying beside the altar at which she has stabbed herself. In
the Hippolytus, after the suicide of Phaedra, her dead body is displayed
upon the ekkyklema, and Theseus takes from it the letter in which she
makes her charge against Hippolytus. In the Electra of Sophocles the
door is thrown open at the command of Aegisthus, and the platform rolls
out and exhibits Orestes and Pylades standing beside the corpse of
Clytaemnestra, which is covered with a cloth. Aegisthus himself removes
the cloth, and then Orestes and Pylades descend to the stage, and the
platform is drawn back again. In the Hecuba the sons of Polymestor, who
have been slaughtered inside the tent, are made visible to the spectators
by means of the ekkyklema. In the Hercules Furens Hercules is exhibited
lying prostrate between the bodies of his wife and children, with his
face covered up, and his limbs chained to the broken column which he had
thrown down in his frenzy. Amphitryon then comes out of the palace, and
loosens his chains. Later on Theseus arrives, and uncovers his face and
helps him to rise. He then descends to the stage, and the ekkyklema is
rolled back into the palace. Lastly, in the Electra of Euripides, the
bodies of Aegisthus and Clytaemnestra are shown to the audience by means
of this device.[623]

The ekkyklema is also occasionally used in Comedy. Aristophanes, on two
occasions, employs it in a burlesque sort of way, when he is introducing
tragic poets on the stage. In the Thesmophoriazusae, Euripides and
Mnesilochus call at the house of Agathon to borrow some female clothing.
Agathon is rolled out on the ekkyklema, lends them some articles which
are brought to him from inside the house, and then, when he is tired
of their importunity, orders himself to be ‘rolled in again as fast as
possible’. In the Acharnians Dicaeopolis goes to the house of Euripides
to borrow a tragic dress. Euripides is upstairs in his study writing
tragedies, and cannot come down, but allows himself to be rolled out, and
supplies the necessary dresses.[624] These two passages in Aristophanes,
where the mechanism of the apparatus is carefully emphasized in order
to add to the ridicule, are very valuable as evidence concerning the
structure of the ekkyklema. The device is also used in the Clouds to show
the inside of the phrontisterion. The disciples of Socrates are seen
hard at work on their studies, with globes, diagrams, black-boards, and
other scholastic materials round about them. In the Knights, when the
Propylaea is thrown open, and reveals a vision of ancient Athens, with
Demos dressed up in the antique style, the spectacle may possibly have
been produced by means of the ekkyklema.[625]

From the examples of the use of the ekkyklema which have just been
cited we may gather some further particulars as to its character and
construction. It appears that persons upon the ekkyklema could easily
descend to the stage, and that persons on the stage could easily touch
those on the ekkyklema. It follows that it must have been a low platform,
not much above the level of the stage. As regards its length and breadth,
it was evidently large enough to support several persons. At the same
time it cannot have been of any very great size. Its width must have been
less than the width of the doors in the background, to permit of its
being rolled through them. Its depth cannot have been very great, because
of the narrowness of the Greek stage. In the Acharnians, when Euripides
is rolled out, he is represented as still sitting in his room upstairs.
But it is unlikely, as some suppose, that in this case the platform was
made taller than usual, to produce the effect of an upper story. As
Euripides has to hand various articles to Dicaeopolis, who is standing on
the stage, there cannot have been much difference of level between the
two. The exact mechanism of the ekkyklema, however, remains uncertain.
It is practically undisputed that the grooves or rails found at Eretria,
running on to the later stage straight from its back-scene were intended
for some such contrivance to run on.[626] On the other hand it has been
argued from the use of certain words in the scholiast’s descriptions
that the ekkyklema must have revolved on a pivot,[627] and it has been
suggested that the mechanism was like that of which a diagram is given in
the accompanying figure, where _ss_ is the stage, _ww_ the back-scene,
_a_ shows the ekkyklema at rest and not in use, _b_ shows it in process
of being rolled round for use, _c_ shows it after being rolled out. This,
however, finds no confirmation in anything in the ruins; the straight
rails at Eretria are against it, and the words referred to may be
explained by the use of a windlass or similar mechanism used in rolling
out the ekkyklema. Judging from the width of the rails at Eretria, the
width of the ekkyklema may have been about ten feet, and the doors must
therefore have been rather larger. The suggested revolving ekkyklema
might afford more standing room, but there is not sufficient evidence of
its existence.

[Illustration: FIG. 14 A.]

In addition to the passages already mentioned, there are two other
places in the extant dramas where the scholiasts say that the ekkyklema
was employed. But they appear to have been mistaken in both cases. The
first instance is in the Thesmophoriazusae. The action of this play
begins before Agathon’s house, but after about three hundred lines is
transferred to the front of Demeter’s temple, where the women hold their
assembly. At this point there is a stage-direction to say that ‘the
Thesmophorion is rolled out’.[628] If these words mean that the scene was
laid in the interior of the temple, and that the ekkyklema was rolled
out in order to represent it, the suggestion is undoubtedly wrong. It
would be absurd to imagine that the rest of the play was transacted on a
small platform like the ekkyklema. But possibly the author of the note
was referring, not to the ekkyklema, but to some mechanism by which he
believed that the necessary change of scene was brought about. The second
place is the well-known scene at the beginning of the Eumenides.[629]
The play opens with the speech of the priestess, delivered in front
of the temple. Then, when she departs, the interior of the temple is
suddenly brought into view, and shows us Orestes kneeling before the
altar, with the sleeping Furies round about him, and Apollo and Hermes
standing close by. To suppose, as the scholiast suggests, that this
effect was produced by the ekkyklema, is hardly possible. The platform
would have been far too small to accommodate a whole tragic chorus,
together with three actors. At the same time, though the explanation of
the scholiast appears impracticable, it is difficult to suggest any other
way in which the scene might have been acted. We cannot assume that the
back-scene was drawn apart, and disclosed the inside of the temple in a
set-piece, after the modern fashion. This mode of revealing interiors was
apparently never used on the Greek stage. If it had been possible, there
would have been no need to invent the ekkyklema. It has been suggested
that the spectacle was not really exhibited to the audience; that Apollo,
Hermes, and Orestes appeared alone in front of the temple; that the ghost
of Clytaemnestra called to the Furies through the temple door; and that
it was not until then that the Furies came into sight, rushing out in
obedience to her summons. But the general character of the scene, and
the expressions used in the course of the dialogue, appear to be fatal
to this supposition.[630] In fact, the difficulty is one for which no
satisfactory solution has yet been found.

The ekkyklema seems to our notions such a rude device, that many critics
have been led to deny its existence, at any rate during the classical
period. They allow that it must have been used in later times, as it is
described in detail by Pollux: but they refuse to believe that it could
have been tolerated by the Athenians of the fifth century.[631] The
evidence, however, in its favour is too strong to be set aside in this
way. The passages in which it is parodied by Aristophanes correspond so
closely with the descriptions of Pollux that they must obviously refer
to the same mechanical device.[632] There are also the numerous other
scenes in which an interior is revealed. It is difficult to see how the
Greeks, with their peculiar stage arrangements, could have acted these
scenes, except by some such contrivance as the ekkyklema. Those who deny
its existence explain away these passages in various ways. They say that
in many cases the bodies might have been carried out on to the stage, or
arranged just outside the door, so as to be visible to the spectators.
On other occasions they suppose that the back-scene was drawn aside,
and showed the interior of the building. But there are several scenes
to which none of these explanations would apply. In the Hercules Furens
Hercules is shown chained to the broken column, and we cannot suppose
that the column was carried out on to the stage. Nor can the spectacle
have been exhibited inside the palace front. It must have been outside;
since Amphitryon, as soon as Hercules begins to rouse himself, proposes
to fly within the palace for refuge.[633] In the same way the scholars
of Socrates cannot have been carried out, along with their globes and
diagrams. Yet they too must have appeared upon the stage, and not inside
the building; for it is explained to Strepsiades that they cannot remain
long ‘in the open air outside’.[634] It is impossible, therefore, to
account for these and other scenes in the way suggested.[635] They must
have been effected by the ekkyklema. As for the objection that the
ekkyklema was a device too clumsy for the refined taste of the fifth
century, though admissible in later times, this is a kind of argument
which is not supported by experience. The history of the drama in many
countries shows that the greatest literary and dramatic excellence
may coexist with the utmost simplicity and clumsiness in the stage
arrangements. It was so in England and it was so in France. The drama of
these two countries reached its highest point at a period when the art of
stage decoration was in a most primitive condition. On general grounds it
would be more reasonable to assume that the ekkyklema was impossible to
the Hellenistic Greeks, than that it was impossible to the Greeks of the
time of Sophocles. If the former could tolerate it, the latter are not
likely to have made any difficulty.

A contrivance called the exostra is occasionally referred to by the
grammarians, and is mentioned in a Delian inscription of the third
century B.C. The name implies that it was something which was ‘pushed
out’ upon the stage. The metaphorical use of the word in Polybius and
Cicero proves it to have been a platform on which objects were exhibited
in a conspicuous manner. It is probable, therefore, that the statement
of the ancient writers is correct, and that the exostra was merely the
ekkyklema under another name.[636]


§ 7. _The Mechane and Theologeion._

Another appliance of even greater importance than the ekkyklema, and
one very frequently employed upon the Greek stage, was the ‘mechane’ or
Machine.[637] It consisted of a sort of crane with a pulley attached,
by which weights could be raised or lowered. It was placed in the left
or western corner of the stage, at the very top of the back-scene. It
was used when the characters of a play had to appear or disappear in a
supernatural manner. By its means a god or hero could be lowered from
heaven down to earth, or raised up from earth to heaven, or exhibited
motionless in mid-air. Sometimes the god was represented as sitting
in a chariot, or on a winged steed; but in most cases he was simply
suspended from the rope by means of a hook and bands fastened round his
body. The strength of the mechane must have been considerable, since it
was powerful enough to support two or three people at the same time. As
to the way in which it was worked, and the manner in which the actors
were made to disappear from view at the top of the stage, there is no
information. Unfortunately the construction of the upper part of the
stage-buildings is a subject about which we are entirely ignorant. It
is useless therefore to hazard conjectures concerning the exact nature
of the arrangements adopted. The grammarians also speak of two other
contrivances, the Crane and the Fig-branch, as used for moving people
through the air. But whether they were really distinct from the mechane
is far from certain. The Fig-branch is said to have been designed
specially for comedy. It appears, however, from the description to have
been much the same as the mechane, and was probably only a comic name
for it.[638] The Crane is described as an instrument for conveying the
bodies of dead heroes up into the sky. Possibly the Crane also was merely
another name for the mechane; or it may have been a separate contrivance,
placed at the other end of the back-scene, and used exclusively for the
removal of dead bodies. In any case it cannot have differed very much
from the mechane in structure.[639] There are one or two passages in the
ancient writers where the mechane is described as a ‘kind of ekkyklema’,
and persons are said to have been rolled out by means of it.[640] It is
uncertain in these cases whether the grammarians are confusing the two
machines; or whether they are thinking of the theologeion, which, as we
shall see later on, may have been worked by mechanism similar to that of
the ekkyklema.

Examples of the use of the mechane are fairly common both in the extant
dramas and in the records of the grammarians. At the same time there is
often a doubt, when a personage makes his appearance on high, whether
he was exhibited by means of this device or in some other way. For the
present, therefore, we will confine ourselves to those cases where the
person is described as moving through the air, and where it seems clear
that, if any machinery was employed, it must have been the mechane. The
earliest instance is probably that in the Prometheus. Oceanus descends
on a ‘winged quadruped’, converses some time with Prometheus, and then
rides away again, saying as he goes that his steed yearns to ‘skim
with its wings the smooth paths of air’. We are told also that in the
Psychostasia, the lost play of Aeschylus, the body of Memnon was carried
by Dawn into the sky.[641] Both these instances have been doubted,
but merely on general grounds, and without adequate reason. But there
are two other supposed examples in Aeschylus which are far more open
to question. There is the scene in the Eumenides where Athene arrives
from Troas, and where it is thought that she descends from the sky. The
language, however, in which she describes her journey is ambiguous and
full of difficulty. In three successive lines she appears to say that
she has walked, flown, and driven in a chariot.[642] It would be unsafe
in a case like this to draw any inference as to the exact manner in
which she made her entrance on to the stage. There is also the scene in
the Prometheus where the Oceanides enter in a ‘winged car’, halt in
front of Prometheus for about a hundred and fifty lines, and then, at
his bidding, dismount from their ‘swift-rushing seat’ and descend into
the orchestra.[643] Here, too, the mechane has been suggested. But it is
scarcely credible that a whole tragic chorus should have been suspended
in front of Prometheus during the delivery of a hundred and fifty
lines. Even if the machinery had been strong enough to support twelve
or fifteen choristers, the spectacle would have been ludicrous.[644] It
is much better to suppose that the car was rolled in along the stage,
its previous flight being left to the imagination of the spectators.
After the time of Aeschylus there are many instances of the use of the
mechane. Euripides often employs it to wind up his plays. At the end of
the Andromache Thetis comes into view ‘voyaging through the bright air’.
At the end of the Electra the Dioscuri arrive by a ‘path impossible to
mortals’, and depart later on ‘through the regions of the sky’. Medea’s
appearance with her children in the aerial car may be safely regarded
as a further example, though there is no mention in this case of any
ascent or descent.[645] The device is also introduced in other parts of
a play. In the Hercules Furens Iris and Lyssa come down from heaven in a
chariot; then Iris re-ascends, while Lyssa goes on into the palace. In
the Bellerophon the hero rode up to heaven on the winged steed Pegasus;
and in the Andromeda Perseus flew down through the air to the foot of the
cliff where the heroine was chained.[646] The mechane is also parodied
in many places by Aristophanes. In the Clouds, Socrates is seen hanging
in a basket in mid-air, and studying astronomy. Iris, in the Birds,
comes floating down from the sky in such an irregular and eccentric
fashion that Peisthetaerus has the greatest difficulty in bringing her
to a standstill. In a fragment of the Daedalus the actor who is going to
ascend entreats the man in charge of the machinery to give him warning,
before he begins to haul up the rope, by exclaiming ‘hail, light of the
sun’. The ascent of Trygaeus upon a beetle in the Peace was intended as a
parody upon the Bellerophon of Euripides. The speech of Trygaeus, in the
course of his aerial journey, consists of a ludicrous mixture of phrases
from the Bellerophon, shouts to the beetle to keep his head straight, and
terrified appeals to the stage-manager to look after the security of the
pulley.[647]

In addition to the mechane there was also another appliance in
use upon the Greek stage for the purpose of exhibiting gods in a
supernatural manner. It was called the theologeion, and represented
the gods as stationary in heaven, and not as moving through the air.
It consisted, apparently, of a narrow platform in the upper part of
the back-scene.[648] Probably it was similar in construction to the
ekkyklema, and was usually invisible, but was pushed forward through
an opening at the back when required. It has been suggested that the
theologeion was in reality nothing more than the palace roof. But this
theory is hardly a plausible one. When the gods were to be exhibited
in celestial splendour in the sky, it would have been undignified and
incongruous to place them on the roof of a human habitation. Also the
position of the theologeion is expressly described as being high up
above the stage.[649] As regards its usage, the only recorded instance
is that in the Psychostasia of Aeschylus. Zeus was there represented as
sitting in heaven, holding scales in his hands, in which were placed the
destinies of Achilles and Memnon respectively. On each side of him stood
Thetis and Dawn, supplicating for the lives of their sons. The scene
was in imitation of that in the Iliad, where Zeus weighs the fates of
Achilles and Hector.[650] It is probable that the theologeion was also
used in the Peace, in the scene where Trygaeus ascends to heaven, and
converses with Hermes in front of the palace of Zeus.[651]

The relationship between the theologeion and the mechane has been much
discussed during the last few years, and various theories have been
brought forward on the subject. Some of the critics think the mechane
was the older and more primitive device, and that the theologeion was
invented towards the end of the fifth century, to serve as a substitute,
and avoid the awkwardness of the previous arrangement.[652] Others take
exactly the opposite view, and regard the theologeion as the simple
contrivance of the early drama, and the mechane as a later and more
picturesque piece of machinery.[653] Neither of these views can be
maintained except by a somewhat arbitrary treatment of the evidence. We
have clear testimony as to the existence both of the mechane and of the
theologeion in the time of Aeschylus; and it seems uncritical to reject
this testimony in the one case, and accept it in the other. As regards
the question of priority, it is impossible to come to any decision,
owing to the paucity of the early dramas which have been preserved.
But there is one point which deserves consideration. We have seen that
there are several cases at the close of a play in which the mechane was
unquestionably used to introduce the god who solved the difficulties
of the plot. The god’s arrival is described in language which leaves
no doubt upon the subject. But there are many other cases in which he
appears for a similar purpose, and in which he is simply described as
standing in some elevated position, and nothing is said about any flight
through the air.[654] There are also several plays at the end of which
the god appears abruptly, without any notice as to his standing-place,
or the manner in which he arrived; but in which it is evident, from the
analogy of the other dramas, that he appeared above the heads of the
ordinary actors.[655] In both these latter classes of play there is some
uncertainty as to the nature of the machinery employed. The question
may be raised whether, when there is no mention of any movement through
the air, the god was introduced by the mechane or by the theologeion.
Was he floated down from the sky, or pushed out through the back-scene?
Some scholars maintain that the theologeion was the device used in
these particular cases; and the supposition is no doubt possible. But,
on the other hand, the fact that there is no allusion to the mechane
in the course of the dialogue proves nothing as to its presence or
its absence. There are many places in which, though the ekkyklema was
obviously employed, the text contains no reference to it. Also it is
clear that from the beginning of the fourth century the mechane became
the regular contrivance for introducing gods at the close of a drama.
Plato remarks that the tragedians, when in a difficulty, ‘have recourse
to the mechane, and suspend their gods in mid-air.’ Antiphanes, the comic
poet, ridicules the practice of hanging out the mechane at the end of a
tragedy. Aristotle speaks of the mechane as the invariable device on such
occasions. The phrase ‘deus ex machina’ appears already in the fourth
century as a proverbial expression for an unexpected benefactor.[656]
It seems more probable, therefore, that the mechane was regularly used,
even in the fifth century, for the same purpose. We have several cases in
which it must have been so employed, and none in which it is necessary
to introduce the theologeion. The only known example of the use of the
theologeion is that in the Psychostasia. Any further cases in which its
presence is assumed must be purely conjectural.

Before leaving this subject a few remarks may be made on the general
question of the appearances of the gods in tragedy. In the early
drama the gods often played an important part in the action of the
piece. They came down to earth and mixed with mankind after the old
Homeric fashion. Their arrivals and departures might be conducted in a
supernatural manner, but when they were once on the stage they moved
about like ordinary human beings. Such is still the case in plays like
the Eumenides of Aeschylus. But later on, as the tone of the drama became
more entirely human, the gods began to be excluded more and more from any
real share in the plot. Their occasional presence at the scene of action
was managed with more dignity and splendour. It is rare to find them
appearing side by side with human beings, as Athene apparently does in
the Rhesus and in the opening scene of the Ajax.[657] The Bacchae is an
exceptional case, since Dionysus is there disguised as a young man. But
usually, in the later drama, the intervention of the gods was restricted
to the beginning and the end of the play, when they came forward to
speak the prologue and the epilogue. In such cases they no longer join
with mortal men in the free and easy intercourse of the Homeric period.
Their movements are more dignified and celestial. It is true that in the
prologues, when they are alone, and no human beings have yet intruded
on the stage, they make their entrance on foot, and walk the earth like
ordinary men.[658] But at the end of the play, when the stage is occupied
by mortals, they disdain to tread the same ground with them, and are
exhibited in the sky by means of the mechane. Even in the prologues it
appears that the same practice was introduced in the course of the fourth
century, and that henceforth all apparitions of the gods, both at the
beginning and the end of a play, were made equally supernatural.[659]
This formal introduction of deities at the beginning and the close, which
was now practically the sole survivor of the old divine participation
in the drama, is the subject of a well-known criticism by Aristotle.
He allows that it is perfectly legitimate, when the gods are carefully
excluded from the action, and are brought in merely to give information
about the past, or to predict the future. But he strongly censures the
later practice of employing them at the end of a tragedy to solve the
difficulties of the plot. He says that in a well-constructed play the
conclusions should be the natural result of the preceding incidents, and
there should be no need of any supernatural agency.[660] Euripides has
generally been regarded as the chief offender against his rule, and as
the author of the custom which he condemns. But it will be found, on
examining his plays, that there are very few of them in which the god is
really used as a last resort. There are only two instances in which he
can be said to solve the problems of the situation. In the other cases
he is introduced, not so much to set matters right, as to inform the
characters of the destiny which awaits them. His function is confined to
announcing the future course of events.[661] These, therefore, are what
Aristotle would call permissible uses of the ‘deus ex machina’.


§ 8. _Other Mechanical Contrivances._

Several other devices in use upon the Attic stage are briefly mentioned
by Pollux, but his descriptions are so meagre and obscure that little
can be inferred as to their exact character. Charon’s Steps was a
contrivance for bringing ghosts and spectres up from the other world. It
can hardly have been anything else than a flight of steps leading out
upon the stage from underneath. The ‘anapiesma’ was used by river-gods,
Furies, and other subterranean beings for the purpose of appearing above
ground. The word ‘anapiesma’ seems to mean something which was pushed
back. It is probable, therefore, that the contrivance was merely the
ordinary trap-door of the modern theatre, through which the spectral
being was raised on to the stage.[662] Whether these two devices were
used as early as the fifth century is somewhat doubtful. There are
few occasions in the extant plays and fragments where they would have
been serviceable, and none where they are absolutely necessary. The
ghost of Darius in the Persae arises out of his tomb, and the ghost of
Achilles in the lost Polyxena of Sophocles apparently revealed himself
in the same way.[663] In these two cases it is needless to suppose any
special apparatus beyond the tomb itself. The ghost of Clytaemnestra in
the Eumenides, and that of Polydorus in the Hecuba, may possibly have
risen from underground. But there is nothing in the text of the plays
to show that this was the case, and an entrance in the ordinary manner
would have satisfied all requirements. Some critics suppose that in
the Prometheus the punishment which had been threatened by Hermes was
actually carried out before the eyes of the spectators, and that the
tragedy ended with the disappearance of Prometheus beneath the stage. But
a melodramatic conclusion of this kind seems far from probable, and out
of keeping with the character of the ancient drama. It is more likely
that when the play was over the actor simply walked off the stage, or was
concealed from view by a curtain. Or he may have remained in position
until the beginning of the next piece, the Prometheus Unbound, in which
he was again represented as chained to a cliff. The ‘bronteion’ was a
device for imitating the noise of thunder behind the scenes, and was of
a very simple character. Pebbles were poured out of a jar into a large
brazen vessel; bags were filled with stones and flung against a metal
surface; or leaden balls were dropped upon a sheet of leather stretched
tight.[664] The ‘keraunoskopeion’ was obviously intended to imitate
lightning, though the description in Pollux is unintelligible. But Heron,
the mathematician, speaks of a device used in automaton theatres, by
which a plank, with a flash of lightning painted on a dark background,
was shot out of a box into a receptacle below. Possibly Pollux may be
alluding to an arrangement of this kind.[665] The ‘stropheion’ was some
sort of revolving machinery, by which heroes were exhibited in heaven,
or deaths at sea or in battle were represented. The ‘hemikyklion’ was
semicircular in shape, and gave a distant view of a city, or of a person
swimming in the sea. The ‘hemistrophion’ is merely mentioned by name, and
no description of it is appended.[666]

The question whether a drop-scene was used in the Athenian theatre
during the great period of the drama is one which has not yet been
satisfactorily settled. In Roman theatres a drop-scene was invariably
used between the different plays, the mechanism being exactly the reverse
of that employed in modern times. When a play was going to begin, the
curtain was let down into a narrow crevice in front of the stage, and
at the end of the performance was drawn up again.[667] There can be
no doubt that similar curtains were used in Greek theatres at a later
period; but the question is whether they were used at Athens during the
fifth and fourth centuries. There are no references to anything of the
kind in the extant Greek dramas, and there are no passages in ancient
writers which can be held to prove the existence of a drop-scene in the
early Athenian theatre.[668] The question must therefore be discussed
on general grounds. To our modern notions a drop-scene appears to be
almost a necessity in the case of plays which commence with the actors
already in position upon the stage. In the Greek drama such plays are not
infrequent. For instance, in the opening scene of the Oedipus Tyrannus
the Thebans are discovered kneeling at the altar before the palace of the
king. In the Troades, when Poseidon comes forward to speak the prologue,
he sees Hecuba stretched upon the ground in an attitude of despair. The
Orestes of Euripides opens with Orestes stretched upon a bed in front
of the palace, and his sister Electra watching beside him. Many other
examples might be cited of plays which begin with the actors already in
a fixed position. Unless, therefore, a drop-scene was used between the
plays, it would have to be supposed that the actors came on the stage in
full view of the people, took up the required position, and then began
the dialogue. There would be a great sacrifice of illusion in such a
mode of commencement. Besides this, the drop-scene would of course be
a natural and obvious mode of concealing the stage from view while the
scenery was being altered between the different plays. For these reasons
it has been inferred that the Athenians cannot have done without one.
But, on the other hand, it has already been pointed out that it is a
great mistake to apply our modern notions of propriety to an ancient
dramatic performance. The Greeks did not lay very much stress upon
realism and illusion in their scenic arrangements. They were satisfied
with simple and conventional methods of representing events upon the
stage. Such devices as the ekkyklema and the periaktoi would never have
been tolerated by them, if their aim had been to produce an illusion by
the accurate imitation of real objects. Hence it is possible that in the
dramas just referred to they were quite content for the actors to come
forward and take up their position in full view of the audience, before
the play actually commenced. That such a supposition is not inadmissible
is proved by the custom of the early English drama. On the Elizabethan
stage we know for a fact that there was no drop-scene, and that in many
cases a tableau had to be arranged before the eyes of the spectators
before the action could begin. Yet the audience of those days was not
dissatisfied. The Athenians may have been equally indifferent in the
matter of the drop-scene. At the same time there is no evidence to prove
that such was the case. And the drop-scene is a very convenient device,
and one that would naturally suggest itself. On the whole therefore
it seems safest, until further evidence is forthcoming, to regard the
question as an open one.[669]




CHAPTER V

THE ACTORS


§ 1. _Rise of the Actor’s Profession._

Before proceeding to give an account of the actors in the ancient Greek
drama, there are one or two points which ought to be made clear, in order
to avoid possible misconceptions. In the first place the actors and the
chorus were entirely distinct from one another. The chorus was chosen and
paid by the choregus, and performed in the orchestra. The actors were
hired by the state, and their proper place was upon the stage. The term
‘hypokrites’, or ‘actor’, was never applied to the members of the chorus.
It was not even applied to all the performers upon the stage, but only to
such of them as took a prominent part in the dialogue. The various mute
characters, such as the soldiers and attendants, and also the subordinate
characters who had only a few words to say, were not dignified with
the title of ‘actor’. In the second place it should be remembered that
the Greek actors invariably wore masks, and were consequently able to
appear in several parts in the course of the same performance. When,
therefore, it is said that in the early history of Greek tragedy only
a single actor was employed in each play, this does not imply that the
number of characters was limited to one. All it implies is that only one
character could appear at a time. The number of actors in a Greek play
never exceeded three, even in the latest period. But the effect of this
regulation upon the capacities of the Greek drama was less cramping and
restrictive than might have been supposed. There was no limitation to the
number of mute and subordinate characters which might be introduced at
any time upon the stage. There was no restriction upon the number of the
more prominent characters, provided they were not brought upon the stage
simultaneously. The only limitation was this—that not more than three of
the more prominent characters could take part in the dialogue in the
course of the same scene.

The principal function of the actors was to carry on the dialogue and
work out the action of the play. The principal function of the chorus
was to sing the odes which filled up the pauses in the action. Of course
very frequently the chorus took part in the dialogue; but, speaking in
general terms, the dialogue was the business of the actors. Such was
the condition of things during the best period of the Attic drama. But
in former times the case had been very different. At first the whole
performance was a choral one, and consisted simply of the songs and
hymns chanted at the festivals of Dionysus. There were no actors and
there was no dialogue. The history of the early development of the drama
is in other words the history of the gradual introduction of actors
and dialogue into a choral entertainment, and the gradual increase in
the importance of the dialogue, until eventually it overshadowed the
choral part altogether. The first step in the process by which a lyrical
performance was converted into a dramatic one was as follows. The custom
arose of filling up the intervals between the different portions of the
choral songs with recitations by the leader of the chorus, and dialogues
between him and the other members. For this purpose the leader of the
chorus used to mount upon a small table. The subject of the recitations
and the dialogues would be the same as the subject of the ode, and would
in most cases refer to the adventures of the god Dionysus. In these
interludes by the leader of the chorus lay the germ of the drama. The
performance as a whole was still essentially lyrical, but the practice
of inserting dialogue had been established.[670] In the case of tragedy
the next step forward was taken by Thespis. He introduced a single
actor, who took the part which had previously been taken by the leader
of the chorus, and filled up the pauses in the choral odes either with
monologues or with dialogues between himself and the leader.[671] Not
much is known about the drama of Thespis except that it was still
essentially lyrical. But as he is said to have employed masks, it is
clear that the single actor might appear in different characters in
successive scenes, and in this way some approach might be made to a
dramatic representation of a story.[672] The decisive innovation was due
to Aeschylus. He introduced a second actor, and effected a total change
in the character of the performance. Henceforward the intervals between
the choral odes were filled with dialogues between the two actors upon
the stage, instead of dialogues between the single actor and the leader
of the chorus. At the same time Aeschylus cut down the length of the
choral odes, and made the dialogue the essential and prominent feature of
the performance.[673] The result was a radical change in the nature of
tragedy: it became a dramatic instead of a lyrical form of art. During
the greater part of his career Aeschylus was contented with two actors.
Three at least out of his seven extant plays are written for performance
by two actors only.[674] This limitation upon the number of the
performers necessitated great simplicity in the construction of the play,
since it was impossible for more than two personages to take part in the
dialogue at the same time. Hence the earlier plays of Aeschylus, though
essentially dramatic in comparison with anything which preceded them, are
simple in plot and lyrical in tone when compared with the tragedies of
his successors. The different scenes rather serve to unfold a series of
pictures than to develop a complicated plot. Descriptive speeches take
the place of animated dialogue. Sophocles added greatly to the capacities
of the drama by introducing a third actor.[675] He was thus enabled to
give much greater variety and spirit to the dialogue. In his hands
for the first time tragedy became completely dramatic, and the lyrical
element was thrust still further into the background. The innovation of
Sophocles was adopted by Aeschylus in his later years, and the Orestean
trilogy—the last and most elaborate of his works—requires three actors.
Under Sophocles tragedy received its full development. The number of
actors in tragedy was henceforward limited to three.

The satyric drama was intimately connected with tragedy, and the number
of actors was apparently the same. Thus the Cyclops of Euripides,
the only extant satyric play, requires three actors. In the Naples
vase-painting, which represents the performers in a satyric play, three
actors are depicted.[676] It is true that the Alcestis of Euripides,
which was performed in place of the usual satyric drama, only requires
two actors. But the number in this case was probably due to the choice of
the poet, and not to any official regulation. In regard to comedy, very
little is known as to the steps by which it was developed. The source of
comedy lay in the phallic songs performed at the festivals of Dionysus.
The dramatic element originated in the interludes by the leader of the
chorus. The process of development must have been much the same as in
tragedy; but the names of the persons who introduced actors and dialogue
into comedy were forgotten even in Aristotle’s time. The only piece of
information upon the subject is to the effect that Cratinus was the first
to limit the number of actors to three, and that before his time there
was no regulation as to the number of persons introduced upon the stage.
After the time of Cratinus there were no further innovations, and the
number of the actors in comedy was permanently fixed at three.[677]

This number was never exceeded either in comedy or in tragedy. All the
extant Greek plays could be performed by three actors. It is sometimes
said that the Oedipus Coloneus of Sophocles requires four actors; but
this is not the case. Although there are several occasions on which
Ismene appears upon the stage simultaneously with three other personages,
still on each of these occasions she does not say a word, but is merely
a mute figure. It is evident therefore that during this portion of the
play her part was taken by a ‘super’, while at the beginning and end
of the play, where she had speeches to make, the part was acted by the
tritagonist.[678] It might at first sight appear that the comedies of
Aristophanes require more than three actors; but investigations have
shown that there is not one of his plays which could not be performed by
this number, assisted by a supply of ‘supers’.[679]

The smallness of the number of the actors necessarily limited the
capacities of the Greek drama. The realistic effect produced by a
promiscuous conversation between a large group of persons was impossible
upon the Greek stage. Sometimes a certain awkwardness was caused by
the limitation in the number of the performers. For instance, at the
end of the Orestes of Euripides, Orestes is seen upon the roof of the
palace threatening to kill Hermione, and Pylades is standing beside
him. Menelaus from below makes a piteous appeal to Pylades, but Pylades
says not a single word in reply, but leaves Orestes to answer for him.
His silence is very unnatural, and is only to be accounted for by the
fact that there was no actor to spare, and therefore the poet could not
put any words in his mouth. Two of the actors were already employed in
playing the parts of Orestes and Menelaus, and the third was required
for Apollo, who comes on the scene immediately afterwards. Consequently
the part of Pylades had to be taken by a mute personage. Again there is
the scene at the end of the Electra of Euripides. Orestes has heard his
fate, and as he leaves the stage he bids farewell to Pylades, and urges
him to marry his sister Electra. Pylades maintains a stolid silence,
and the Dioscuri reply on his behalf. Here again his silence is due to
the necessities of the case. The three actors with whom the poet was
supplied were all employed, and Pylades was merely a dumb figure. Similar
instances of awkward and almost ludicrous silence on the part of certain
characters will occur to all readers of the Greek drama. But they are
not so numerous as might have been expected, and it is astonishing to
find how successfully the Greek drama, keeping within its own peculiar
limits, was able to accomplish its ends with three actors only.

There were several advantages in the smallness of the number. In the
first place the dialogue gained in clearness and simplicity, owing to the
fewness of the persons taking part in it. This simplicity was especially
well suited to the severe and statuesque character of Greek tragedy, in
which the rapid movement of a dialogue between a large number of persons
would have been altogether inappropriate. In the extant Greek tragedies
even the three actors permitted by custom are used with considerable
reserve. In most cases one of them stands by in silence, while the other
two carry on the dialogue. The two change from time to time, but it is
only on rare occasions and for brief periods that all three converse
promiscuously together. There was another obvious advantage in the
restriction. As only three actors were needed, it was easy to ensure that
they should all be performers of first-rate excellence. In modern times
the large number of actors required constitutes a great difficulty. It
is rare to see the subordinate characters in a play of Shakespeare even
tolerably performed. The effect of the piece is spoiled by the feebleness
of the princes, dukes, lords, and ladies who crowd the stage. In the
Greek drama, owing to the limitation upon the number of the performers,
this difficulty was avoided, and a high standard of excellence maintained
throughout the play. It was all the more necessary, among the Greeks, to
take some precaution of this kind, since the size of the theatre demanded
unusual powers in the actor. In a modern theatre an actor, however poor,
can at any rate usually be heard. But in the vast open-air theatre at
Athens it required a man with an exceptionally clear and powerful voice
to make himself audible to the vast multitude of spectators. It cannot
have been an easy task to find actors who combined histrionic talent with
voices of sufficient power, and if a large number had been required,
there would have been great difficulty in meeting the demand.

The original Greek word for an actor was ‘hypokrites’. Etymologically
the word seems to have meant ‘one who answers’.[680] In the times
before Aeschylus, when there was only one actor, all the dialogue was
necessarily carried on between the actor and the chorus. It is therefore
not improbable that the duty of replying to the questions and remarks
of the chorus may have been regarded as the salient feature in the
performance of the actor, and have given rise to his name, as the old
grammarians assert. In the course of the fourth century the old Attic
word for an actor went out of use, and a new one was substituted.
Henceforward actors were generally called ‘artists’, or ‘artists of
Dionysus’.[681]

As far as tragedy is concerned, the art of acting may be said to have
commenced in the time of Thespis. But actors did not come into existence
as a separate class until many years afterwards. Before the period of
Aeschylus, when only a single actor was required, his part was taken
by the poet. It is expressly said that Thespis was ‘himself acting,
according to ancient custom’, at that performance which excited the
disapproval of Solon.[682] But when a second actor was introduced by
Aeschylus, then the actor’s profession became of necessity distinct
from that of the poet. For some time afterwards the poets continued
to act occasionally in their own tragedies, side by side with the
professional actors. But the practice went gradually out of fashion in
the course of the earlier part of the fifth century. Aeschylus appears,
from the statement in his Life, to have abandoned the stage even before
the introduction of a second actor.[683] Sophocles was prevented from
appearing as an actor by the weakness of his voice. It is true that he
sometimes performed in public. In the Thamyris he played the harp, and
in the Nausicaa he delighted the spectators by his skill with the ball.
But it is not likely that on either of these occasions he took a regular
actor’s part. He probably appeared upon the scene merely as a mute
character, in order to show his skill with the harp and the ball.[684]
After the time of Sophocles there are no further instances of tragic
poets performing in their own plays.[685] As to the early history of
comic acting very little is known. Cratinus is mentioned as one of the
old poets who were called ‘dancers’, and it is therefore probable that
he acted in his own comedies. Crates is said to have begun his career
as an actor of Cratinus.[686] But after his time there is no certain
instance of a comic poet appearing upon the stage. The professional actor
was universally employed. The statement that Aristophanes acted the part
of Cleon in the Knights is due to a misconception on the part of the
scholiast.[687]

It appears then that it was in the beginning of the fifth century that
the profession of the actor came into existence as a distinct occupation.
It grew very rapidly in importance. At first the actors who took part in
the competitions were regarded as mere subordinates, and had no share
in the honours and rewards. But towards the middle of the century a
change was made, and prizes began to be instituted for the best actors,
as well as for the best poets. The names of the actors began to be
recorded in the official lists of victors, side by side with those of
the poets and choregi.[688] In the fourth century the actors sprang
into still greater prominence. The art of acting tended to outshine the
art of dramatic writing. An age of great actors succeeded to an age
of great poets. The same phenomenon is not uncommon in the theatrical
history of other nations. In England, for instance, a period of dramatic
productiveness was followed by a period of sterility and insignificance,
and from the time of Garrick downwards the names of the great actors,
who have made themselves famous by interpreting the masterpieces of
Shakespeare, are more conspicuous than the names of dramatic authors. In
Athens the fourth century was the period when acting was brought to the
greatest perfection. To such an extent had the importance of the actor’s
profession increased, that in Aristotle’s time a play depended more for
its success upon the skill of the actor than upon the genius of the poet.
The effect upon dramatic writing was most pernicious. The poets began to
write their plays with a view to exhibiting the capacities of the actors.
Scenes which had no connexion with the plot were introduced for the sole
purpose of enabling an actor to make a display of his talents.[689]
Sophocles is said by one of the old grammarians to have been guilty of
the same sort of practice. But if there is any truth in the statement,
the evil effects are not very apparent in the extant tragedies.[690]
The charge might be brought with more plausibility against the monodies
of Euripides, which are often feeble from a literary point of view, but
would enable an actor with a fine voice to make a great impression.
However, it was not until the fourth century that the influence of the
actors became so universal as to inflict distinct injury upon the art of
dramatic writing.

The selection of the necessary number of actors for each dramatic
performance was, except in very early times, undertaken by the state. The
details in connexion with this arrangement have already been discussed
in a previous chapter.[691] The main points may be recapitulated here.
During the early part of the fifth century the poets chose their own
actors. Certain poets and certain actors were permanently associated
together. But as the actors increased in importance, they were placed
on the same footing as the poets and choregi, and were appointed by
the state. They were then distributed among the poets by lot. In the
course of the fourth century the use of the lot was discontinued in the
case of tragedy, and a new arrangement was adopted, which was rendered
possible by the fact that each tragic poet exhibited several tragedies
at the same time. Under the new system each tragedy was performed by a
different actor, and in this way all the competing poets enjoyed in turn
the services of all the actors. In comedy, as each poet exhibited only a
single play, the old system of distribution by lot was retained. If an
actor was engaged for one of the great Athenian festivals, and failed
to put in an appearance, he was fined by the state. On one occasion
Athenodorus, the great tragic actor, was hired to perform at the City
Dionysia. But he failed to keep his engagement, as he preferred to be
present and perform at the festivities held by Alexander the Great in
Phoenicia, after his return from Egypt. A heavy fine was inflicted upon
him in consequence, and was paid by Alexander.[692]


§ 2. _The distribution of the Parts among the Actors._

It has been shown that the number of the actors in a Greek play was
limited to three. The principal actor was called the protagonist; next in
importance came the deuteragonist; the tritagonist played the inferior
characters.[693] The importance of the protagonist on the Greek stage
has been pointed out already.[694] In the ordinary theatrical language
of the time a play was said to be ‘acted by’ the protagonist, as if the
other actors were of no account. The protagonist was publicly appointed
by the state, but was allowed to choose the second and third actors
at his own discretion. In the same way the prize for acting at each
festival was confined to the protagonists. In tragedy more especially
the protagonist was a person of the greatest importance. The whole
structure of a Greek tragedy was designed with the object of fixing the
interest upon some grand central figure. The significance of the other
characters consisted mainly in their capacity to excite the passions
and draw forth the sentiments of the leading personage. This being so,
it was essential that the protagonist should concentrate the interest
upon himself; otherwise the harmony and balance of the play would have
been destroyed. Hence the subordinate actors were strictly forbidden to
attempt to outshine the protagonist. Even if they had finer voices than
the protagonist, they were made to moderate and restrain their powers,
so as to allow the protagonist to retain the superiority, and rivet the
attention of the spectators upon the central character.[695] The jealousy
of protagonists towards their fellow-actors is well exemplified by the
story about Theodorus, who had a theory that the first speaker in a play
always attracted the sympathies of the audience, and therefore would
never allow any other actor, however inferior, to appear upon the stage
before himself.[696]

The distribution of the different parts among the actors was undertaken
by the poet if the play was a new one.[697] But if an old play was being
reproduced, the matter would be arranged by the protagonist who had the
management of the performance. The three actors between them filled all
the parts in a play, appearing in various characters successively. Such
a practice was rendered possible by the use of masks. An actor had only
to change his mask and his dress, and he could then reappear in a new
character. Changes of this kind could be effected in a very few moments,
as is shown by the one or two traditions on the subject which have been
preserved by the ancient scholiasts. For example, in the opening scene of
the Phoenissae Jocasta speaks the prologue, and then leaves the stage.
Thereupon Antigone and an old attendant mount by a staircase on to the
roof of the palace, in order to view the Argive army encamped outside
the walls. The scholiast tells us that the protagonist played the parts
both of Jocasta and of Antigone. It was necessary, therefore, after
Jocasta had left the stage, that there should be a slight interval before
Antigone appeared upon the palace roof, to give the actor time to change
his mask and dress. Euripides managed this by making the attendant come
out alone upon the roof at first, and look about him to see that the
coast is clear, while he addresses a few words to Antigone, who is still
inside the palace. When he sees that all is safe, he calls on Antigone to
follow after him, and she thereupon mounts the staircase, and appears to
the spectators. The speech of the attendant, while he is looking about
upon the roof, consists of only fifteen iambic lines. Thus the space of
time required to speak fifteen lines was enough to enable an actor to
change from one character to another.[698] There is a further instance
which shows that even less time was necessary. In the Choephori, when
Aegisthus is murdered, a servant rushes out upon the stage and calls to
Clytaemnestra. As Clytaemnestra comes out, he apparently runs back into
the palace. Clytaemnestra speaks five lines, and then Orestes hastens out
of the palace, followed by Pylades. In the scene which ensues Pylades has
three lines to speak; and the scholiast says that his part was taken by
the servant who had just left the stage, so as to avoid the necessity of
four actors. The servant must therefore have changed his mask in a very
few moments.[699]

In the distribution of parts the protagonist took the principal
character. The parts of Oedipus, Electra, and Antigone, in the plays
of the same name by Sophocles, are specially mentioned as having been
acted by celebrated protagonists. Orestes in the play of Euripides is
also described as the part of the protagonist.[700] Usually, as in the
above instances, the chief personage gave the name to the piece. But
this was not always the case. In the Oenomaus of Sophocles the part of
Oenomaus was played by the tritagonist Aeschines. In the Cresphontes of
Euripides the principal character was Merope, and was taken by Theodorus.
The part of Cresphontes fell to Aeschines as tritagonist.[701] In the
Agamemnon of Aeschylus most likely the protagonist played the part of
Clytaemnestra, as this is certainly the most impressive character in the
play, though not the one with which the spectators are in sympathy. The
protagonist had also to take his share of the subordinate characters when
he could be spared. It has already been mentioned that in the Phoenissae
of Euripides the protagonist appeared in the part of Antigone as well
as in that of Jocasta. At times he took even the smallest characters
if the necessities of the play demanded it. Plutarch states that the
protagonist, in the part of a messenger or an attendant, often gained
more applause than the actor who bore the sceptre and the crown.[702]
It was, in fact, the chief advantage of the Greek system that even the
subordinate characters were played with as much excellence as the more
important ones. The tritagonist took what in modern times would be
called the ‘heavy’ parts. It was his special privilege, as Demosthenes
remarks, to play the tyrant and the sceptred monarch.[703] Aeschines,
in his career as tritagonist, often had to act gloomy tyrants of this
kind, such as Creon, Cresphontes, and Oenomaus. Such characters did not
require great powers in the actor. There was no pathos to be excited, no
play of conflicting emotions to be exhibited. All that was necessary was
a powerful voice, and a capacity for declaiming verses. Most likely for
the same reason the tritagonist usually spoke the prologues, which also
did not require much more in the actor than good powers of elocution.
Thus the ghost of Polydorus, which speaks the prologue in the Hecuba of
Euripides, was acted by Aeschines as tritagonist.[704] The deuteragonist
took the parts which, in point of interest, were intermediate between the
leading characters and the heavy parts which fell to the tritagonist.
There are not, however, any traditions as to particular characters having
been played by the deuteragonist. Attempts have been made in modern times
to assign the characters in the extant Greek dramas to the protagonist,
deuteragonist, and tritagonist respectively.[705] Such speculations are
interesting, in so far as they show that all the existing plays could be
perfectly well performed by three actors. Otherwise they are not of very
great value. There is generally no difficulty in deciding which was the
leading character. But it is obvious that the subordinate parts might be
distributed in various ways; and no doubt the arrangement differed at
different periods. There are no traditions on the subject in addition to
those already mentioned. Any attempt, therefore, to reproduce the exact
arrangement adopted at a particular period must depend more or less upon
conjecture.


§ 3. _Extra Performers._

For every Greek play a chorus was provided by the choregus, and three
actors were supplied by the state. But in most plays a certain number
of additional performers was required. The parts which these extra
performers had to fill may be divided, roughly speaking, into three
classes. In the first place there were the various mute personages, who
simply appeared upon the stage, and did nothing more. The second class
consisted of minor characters with only a few words to say. In these
cases extra performers were required, either because the regular actors
were already occupied, or because the part was that of a boy or girl,
which the regular actor would be unable to take. Thirdly, in many cases
a small subordinate chorus was required, in addition to the ordinary
one. The general name for the persons who undertook these parts was
‘parachoregemata’.[706] This word obviously means something which is
supplied by the choregus in addition to his ordinary expenditure. It
follows, therefore, that the cost of the extra performers was borne by
the choregus. Properly he was only responsible for the chorus; but if
additional men were required, he had to supply them. This conclusion is
confirmed by Plutarch’s story of a certain tragic actor who was going
to appear as a queen, but refused to proceed with the part, unless the
choregus provided him with a train of female attendants.[707] Extra
performers were especially necessary in the Old Comedy, in which a great
number of characters appear upon the stage.

It remains to consider more in detail the three classes of
‘parachoregemata’[708]. The mute personages appeared most frequently
in the shape of attendants, body-guards, crowds of people, and so on.
The Oedipus Rex opens with a number of suppliants kneeling at the altar
before the palace of the king. In the Choephori Orestes and Pylades
are accompanied by attendants. The judgement scene in the Eumenides
requires twelve performers to play the parts of the members of the
Areopagus. In the Agamemnon, when the king and Cassandra arrive in the
chariot, servants stand ready to spread carpets beneath their feet.[709]
Probably in many other instances great personages were accompanied by
attendants, although there is no special reference to them in the play.
Not infrequently more prominent characters appeared upon the stage as
mute figures. Pylades says nothing throughout the Electra of Sophocles
and the Electra of Euripides. In the latter play one of the Dioscuri
must also have been a dumb figure, since two actors were already upon
the stage when the Dioscuri make their appearance. The person of Force
in the Prometheus Vinctus is another example. A very frequent occasion
for the employment of mute characters was in pathetic scenes between
parents and their children. The children appear as silent figures, but
give occasion for touching speeches by their parents. There is an example
in the Ajax of Sophocles, where Ajax addresses his son Eurysaces. But the
instances in Euripides are much more frequent. There is the celebrated
scene in the Medea, where Medea half relents at the sight of her
children. There is the address of Megara to her children in the Hercules
Furens. Other examples are to be found in the introduction of Manto, the
daughter of Teiresias, in the Phoenissae, and of Polymestor’s children
in the Hecuba.[710] Mute figures were also very useful in occasionally
personating one of the regular characters of the play, when the actor
of the character was temporarily required for another purpose. It has
already been pointed out that in the middle of the Oedipus Coloneus the
part of Ismene is played by a dumb personage, to enable the previous
actor of the part to appear in another character. In the final scene of
Orestes, most of the prominent characters are brought upon the stage
together, after the fashion of a modern drama. But only three of them
can speak: Helen, Hermione, Electra, and Pylades are all mute figures.
The silence of Pylades is especially unnatural. In cases of this kind an
attempt is made to produce effects which were hardly compatible with the
limited resources of Greek tragedy.

The second class of extra performers took all those minor parts in which
there was a certain amount of speaking or singing, but which it was
impossible for the regular actors to take. In tragedy such performers
were mostly required for the boys’ parts, which were unsuitable for
grown-up actors. Euripides was especially fond of introducing boys upon
the stage. In the Alcestis Eumelus bewails his mother’s death in a short
ode. Another example is the mournful dialogue between Andromache and her
little son Molossus.[711] In the Old Comedy these additional actors were
frequently needed to perform small parts at times when the three regular
actors were already on the stage. Examples are very numerous. There are
the daughters of Trygaeus in the Peace, and the daughters of the Megarian
in the Acharnians. The herald and Pseudartabas are additional examples
from the Acharnians.[712]

In the third place an extra chorus was sometimes required. The Propompi
in the Eumenides, and the chorus of boys in the Wasps, both appear side
by side with the regular chorus, and must therefore have been personated
by extra performers. An additional chorus, consisting of shepherds, was
also required in the Alexander of Euripides.[713] Sometimes the extra
chorus was not visible to the spectators, but sang behind the scenes. In
such cases the singing might be done by members of the regular chorus,
if they had not yet entered the orchestra. Examples are to be found in
the chorus of frogs in the Frogs of Aristophanes, and Agathon’s chorus in
the Thesmophoriazusae.[714] Their part would be taken by members of the
regular chorus. In the opening scene of the Hippolytus a band of huntsmen
sing a short ode to Artemis upon the stage. Immediately after their
disappearance the regular chorus, consisting of women of Troezen, enters
the orchestra. In this case the huntsmen cannot have been personated by
members of the regular chorus; but it is possible that the singing was
done by the chorus behind the scenes, while the huntsmen were represented
by mute figures.[715]


§ 4. _Costume of the Tragic Actors._

The dress of the actors in tragedy was always entirely distinct from
that of the chorus. The chorus consisted originally of satyrs, the
half-human followers of Dionysus. Later on it came to be composed in most
cases of ordinary citizens, and was dressed accordingly. But the actors
represented from the first the gods and heroes of the old mythology. For
them a different costume was required. The practice of the Greeks in
regard to this costume was totally opposed to all modern notions upon
the subject. Historical accuracy and archaeological minuteness in the
mounting of a play were matters of complete indifference to the Greeks.
Accordingly, when bringing these heroic characters upon the stage,
they never made any attempt to produce an accurate imitation of the
costume of the Homeric period. At the same time they were not content
that the heroes and gods of their tragedy should appear upon the scene
in the garments of ordinary life. Such an arrangement would have been
inconsistent with the ideal character of Greek tragedy. A special dress
was therefore employed, similar to that of common life, but more flowing
and dignified. The garments were dyed with every variety of brilliant
colour. The bulk of the actor was increased by padding his chest and
limbs, and placing huge wooden soles under his feet. Masks were employed
in which every feature was exaggerated, to give superhuman dignity
and terror to the expression. In this way a conventional costume was
elaborated, which continued for centuries to be the regular dress of the
tragic actors. All the leading characters in a Greek tragedy were dressed
in this fashion, with only such slight variations and additions as the
particular case required.

The origin of this tragic costume is a subject about which very little
is known. According to the later Greek tradition it was invented almost
entirely by Aeschylus.[716] But this is probably an exaggeration.
Aeschylus was no doubt mainly instrumental in developing and improving
the costume, and giving it a definite shape. But that the whole idea of
it was his own creation is hardly credible. Most likely it had existed,
though in a less elaborate form, long before his time. As for its origin,
the most plausible view seems to be that it was derived from the old
traditional garb of the Bacchic cultus, worn by Dionysus himself and by
his chief attendants.[717] Several indications point in this direction.
In early works of art Dionysus and his followers often appear in a long
flowing robe, not unlike that of the tragic stage. They also wear a tall
hunting boot, which was sometimes called the cothurnus, and which may
have been the prototype from which the tragic cothurnus was developed.
The custom of disguising the features with a mask or some similar device
was always a regular institution in the mummeries connected with the
Bacchic worship. The old comic actors, before the invention of the
theatrical mask, used to smear their faces with wine, or cover them with
fig-leaves. Masks were regularly worn in the processions of Dionysus down
to the latest times. The Latin peasantry, at their Bacchic festivals,
used to cover their faces with masks made out of the bark of trees.[718]
All these facts are in favour of the conclusion that the tragic dress,
with its mask, its cothurnus, and its flowing robe, was not so much the
invention of the fifth century as a development from the old festal
costume.[719] This theory has also the advantage of ascribing a parallel
origin to the dresses of the chorus and those of the actors. While the
chorus, in the older drama, appeared in the guise of satyrs or rustic
votaries of Dionysus, the actors, whose part was more dignified, assumed
the garb of Dionysus himself and of his chief attendants. One ancient
tradition asserts that the tragic dress was copied in later times by
the hierophants and torch-bearers at the Eleusinian mysteries.[720]
Some scholars have twisted this tradition round, and suggested that it
was from the hierophants and torch-bearers that the first notion of the
tragic dress was borrowed. But neither view can be regarded as probable.
That the two costumes were not dissimilar seems to be proved by the
existence of the tradition referred to. But it is unlikely that the garb
used at the performances in honour of one deity should have been borrowed
from the cultus of another. The resemblance may be better explained by
the supposition that both costumes were ancient religious dresses, used
in the worship of Dionysus and Demeter respectively.

[Illustration: FIG. 15.]

Whatever may have been the origin of the tragic costume, there is no
doubt that the form of it which eventually prevailed upon the Greek stage
dates from the time of Aeschylus. His creative genius revolutionized
every department of Greek tragedy. It was he who transformed it into an
essentially dramatic species of art, and gave it the characteristics
of grandeur and terror. It was necessary to make a corresponding
improvement in the dresses of the actors, and this reform also was
effected by Aeschylus. The type of costume which he gradually developed
was so well adapted to its purpose, that it continued unchanged in its
principal characteristics throughout the remaining history of Greek
tragedy. Subsequent generations, while making various small additions
and alterations, never altogether abandoned the original design. Our
knowledge of the subject is derived partly from the descriptions of
Pollux and others, partly from works of art. Few of these works,
unfortunately, are of early date. There is the Naples vase, belonging to
the end of the fifth century, and depicting the performers in a satyric
play. The two actors who take the heroic parts in this performance (Fig.
22) are dressed more or less closely in the tragic style. There is also a
votive relief (Fig. 15) from the Peiraeeus, of the early fourth century,
in which three tragic actors are depicted in stage costume, two of them
with their masks in their hands.[721] But the work in this relief is
so bare and devoid of detail, that it adds little to our knowledge.
The Andromeda vase, of the same date, exhibits Andromeda chained to a
rock, with Perseus and other figures on each side of her, and dressed
in a costume which was evidently suggested by that of tragedy, though
it is not a complete theatrical dress.[722] Numerous vases from Magna
Graecia, belonging mostly to the fourth century, represent scenes out of
tragedies.[723] But these too are not portrayed as theatrical scenes;
and the costumes of the characters, though often resembling those of the
tragic stage, cannot be regarded as regular actors’ costumes. Still, all
these paintings are valuable, as exhibiting in a general way some of
the main features of the tragic dress. Apart from examples of the above
kind, the works of art on which we have to depend are all of late date,
and mostly of Italian origin.[724] But Greek tragedies were commonly
performed in Italy even in imperial times; and Roman tragedy was in all
respects a mere reproduction of the Greek. Hence delineations of tragic
scenes and figures, though Italian in origin, present the characteristics
of the Greek stage. It would be unsafe to depend upon them for points
of minute detail. But they correspond in the main with the descriptions
of Pollux, and it is possible to obtain from them a fairly trustworthy
picture of the general appearance of the Greek actors. The accompanying
figure of a tragic actor (Fig. 16) is copied from an ivory statuette
found in the ruins of a villa near Rieti.[725] On comparing together
these various representations, which range in date over a period of
five or six hundred years, it is interesting to find that they all bear
a strong family resemblance to one another. The pictures of the tragic
actor, whether found on Greek vases, Etruscan mosaics, or wall-paintings
of Cyrene and Pompeii, obviously belong to one common type. In spite of
considerable differences in point of detail they portray the same general
conception. This fact confirms the ancient tradition, that the costume
of the tragic stage, in all its more important features, was definitely
settled by Aeschylus in the course of the fifth century.

The contrast between the ancient and the modern actor is marked by
nothing so conspicuously as by the use of masks. These masks, or similar
devices, were a regular feature in the old Dionysiac worship, and were
probably inherited as such by the tragic stage, and not invented of set
purpose. With the growth of tragedy they soon acquired a new character.
Thespis, the earliest of tragic actors, is said at the commencement of
his career to have merely painted his face with white lead or purslane.
Later on he employed masks; but these were of a very simple character,
consisting merely of linen, without paint or colouring. Choerilus
introduced certain improvements which are not specified. Phrynichus set
the example of using female masks.[726] Aeschylus was the first to employ
painted masks, and to portray features of a dreadful and awe-inspiring
character. Though not the inventor of the tragic mask, as some ancient
writers assert, he was the first to give it that distinctive character
from which in later times it never varied except in detail.[727] After
the time of Aeschylus there is no further mention of any radical
alterations or improvements in the manufacture of masks.

The use of masks is indissolubly connected with the style and character
of Greek tragedy. It is said to have added resonance to the actor’s
voice; and this was a point of great importance in the vast theatres of
the ancients.[728] Also without masks it would have been impossible
for one actor to play several parts, or for men to play the parts of
women. At the same time the practice had its inconvenient side. The
Greek actor was deprived of any opportunity for displaying those powers
of facial expression which are one of the chief excellences in modern
acting. It was only by his gestures that he could emphasize the meaning
of what he had to say: his features remained immovable. But niceties of
facial expression would have been scarcely visible in the huge expanse
of a Greek theatre. The tragic mask, on which were depicted in bold and
striking lines the main traits in the character represented, was really
much more effective, and could be seen by the most distant spectator.
Then again it must have been difficult, if not impossible, for a Greek
actor to delineate finely drawn shades of individual character. The masks
necessarily ran in general types, such as that of the brutal tyrant,
the crafty statesman, the suffering maiden, and so on. The acting would
have to correspond. It would be difficult to imagine the part of Hamlet
acted in a mask. But the characters of Greek tragedy were mostly types
rather than individuals. The heroes and heroines were drawn in broad
general outlines, and there was little attempt at delicate strokes
of character-painting. The use of masks no doubt helped to give this
particular bent to Greek tragedy.

[Illustration: FIG. 16.]

Masks were generally made of linen. Cork and wood were occasionally
used.[729] The mask covered the whole of the head, both in front
and behind.[730] Caps were often worn underneath, to serve as a
protection.[731] The white of the eye was painted on the mask, but the
place for the pupil was left hollow, to enable the actor to see.[732]
The expression of the tragic mask was gloomy and often fierce; the mouth
was opened wide, to give a clear outlet to the actor’s voice. One of
the most characteristic features of the tragic mask was the onkos,[733]
a cone-shaped prolongation of the upper part of the mask above the
forehead, intended to give size and impressiveness to the face, and
used where dignity was to be imparted. It varied in size according to
the character of the personage. The onkos of the tyrant was especially
large; that of women was less than that of men. A character was not
necessarily represented by the same mask throughout the piece. The
effects of misfortune or of accident had often to be depicted by a fresh
mask. For instance, in the Helen of Euripides Helen returns upon the
stage with her hair shorn off, and her cheeks pale with weeping. Oedipus,
at the end of the Oedipus Tyrannus of Sophocles, is seen with blinded
eyes and blood-stained face. In such cases a change of mask must have
been necessary. There are a few occasions in the extant tragedies where
a change of facial expression seems to be demanded by the circumstances,
but was rendered impossible by the mask. Thus in the Electra of
Sophocles, the heroine is unable to show her joy at her brother’s return,
and the poet has to get over this as best he can. He makes Orestes bid
her show no signs of joy for fear of arousing suspicion, while she
declares that there is no risk of this, for hatred of her mother has
become too engrained in her for her expression to change suddenly, and
her joy itself will bring tears and not laughter.[734]

The number and variety of the masks used in tragedy may be seen from
the accounts in Pollux. For the ordinary tragic personages there were
regular masks of a stereotyped character. Pollux enumerates twenty-eight
kinds.[735] His information was derived from Alexandrian sources, and
his list represents the number of masks which were employed on the later
Greek stage for the ordinary characters of tragedy. It is not likely
that in the time of Sophocles or Euripides the use of masks was reduced
so completely to a system as in the later period; but the descriptions
in Pollux will give an adequate idea of the style of the masks used in
earlier times. Of the twenty-eight masks described by Pollux six are for
old men, eight for young men, three for attendants, and eleven for women.
The principal features by which the different masks are discriminated
from one another are the style of the hair, the colour of the complexion,
the height of the onkos, and the expression of the eyes. To take a few
examples. The strong and powerful man, such as the tyrant, has thick
black hair and beard, a tall onkos, and a frown upon his brow. The man
wasted by disease has fair hair, a pale complexion, and a smaller onkos.
The handsome youth has fair ringlets, a light complexion, and bright
eyes. The lover is distinguished by black hair and a pale complexion. The
maiden in misfortune has her hair cut short in token of sorrow. The aged
lady has white hair and a small onkos, and her complexion is rather pale.
Attendants and messengers are marked by special characteristics. One of
them wears a cap, another has a peaked beard, a third has a snub nose
and hair drawn back. One sees from these examples how completely Greek
tragedy was dominated by conventional rules, in this as in all other
respects. As soon as a personage entered the stage, his mask alone was
enough to give the spectators a very fair conception of his character and
position.

[Illustration: FIG. 17.]

The twenty-eight tragic masks enumerated by Pollux were used for the
ordinary characters of tragedy, and formed a regular part of the stock
of the Greek stage-manager. But special masks were required when any
unusual character was introduced. Pollux gives a long list of such
masks.[736] In the first place there were numbers of mythological beings
with strange attributes. Actaeon had to be represented with horns, Argo
with a multitude of eyes. Evippe in the play of Euripides had the head
of a mare. A special mask of this kind must have been required to depict
Io with the ox-horns in the Prometheus Vinctus of Aeschylus. A second
class of special masks was needed to represent allegorical figures such
as Justice, Persuasion, Deceit, Jealousy. Of this kind are the figures of
Death in the Alcestis of Euripides, and Frenzy in the Hercules Furens.
Lastly, there were personifications of cities, rivers, and mountains.
Five specimens of ancient tragic masks are given in figs. 17, 18. The
first is the mask of a youth, the fifth that of a man; the second and
third are probably masks of women. The fourth is an example of one of
the special masks, and depicts Perseus with the cap of darkness upon his
head.[737]

[Illustration: FIG. 18.]

We come now to the dress of the tragic actors. Nothing is known as to
the appearance of this dress in the time of Thespis and his immediate
successors. Our information refers solely to the tragic costume as
modified and developed by Aeschylus in the course of the fifth century.
The object of Aeschylus in these innovations was to add fresh splendour
to the costume, and make it worthy of the colossal beings by which his
stage was peopled. For this purpose he employed various devices. Among
these was the cothurnus, or tragic boot, which was intended to increase
the stature of the actors, and to give them an appearance of superhuman
grandeur. It was a boot with a wooden sole of enormous thickness attached
to it. The wooden sole was painted in various colours.[738] According
to some grammarians Aeschylus invented the boot altogether;[739] others
say his innovation consisted merely in giving increased thickness to the
sole, and so raising the height of the actors.[740] This latter view
is probably the correct one. The original of the cothurnus, as already
remarked, may very likely have been the hunting boot of the same name
worn by Dionysius, which was a boot reaching high up the calf, but
with soles of ordinary size. After the time of Aeschylus the tragic
cothurnus continued to be a regular feature in theatrical costume down
to the latest period of Greek and Roman tragedy.[741] It varied in
height according to the dignity and position of the wearers, a king, for
instance, being provided with a larger cothurnus than a mere attendant.
In this way the physical stature of the persons upon the stage was made
to correspond to their social position. In the accompanying illustration
(Fig. 19), representing a tragic scene, the difference between the
cothurnus of the servant and that of the hero is very conspicuous.[742]
Whether the cothurnus was worn by all the characters in a tragedy, or
only by the more important ones, is uncertain. There was another tragic
boot called the ‘krepis’, of a white colour, which was introduced by
Sophocles, and used by the chorus as well as by the actors. Possibly
this may have been a boot more like those of ordinary life than the
cothurnus, and may have been worn by the subordinate characters.[743] The
illustrations show that the cothurnus was rather a clumsy contrivance,
and that it must have been somewhat inconvenient to walk with. The tragic
actor had to be very careful to avoid stumbling upon the stage. Lucian
says that accidents were not infrequent. Aeschines met with a misfortune
of this kind as he was acting the part of Oenomaus at Collytus. In the
scene where Oenomaus pursues Pelops he tripped up and fell, and had to
be lifted up again by the chorus-trainer Sannio.[744] The use of the
cothurnus, combined with the onkos, or prolongation of the crown of
the mask, added greatly to the stature of the tragic actor. To prevent
his seeming thin in comparison with his height, it was found necessary
to increase his bulk by padding. His figure was thus made to appear of
uniformly large proportions.[745]

[Illustration: FIG. 19.]

The garments of the tragic actor were the same as the ordinary Greek
dress, but their style and colour were more magnificent. They consisted
of an under-garment or tunic, and an over-garment or mantle. The tunic
was brilliantly variegated in colour. Sometimes it was adorned with
stripes, at other times with the figures of animals and flowers, or
similar ornamentation. A special tunic of purple was worn by queens. The
ordinary tragic tunic reached down to the feet. But the tunics worn by
females upon the stage were sometimes longer than those worn by men, and
trailed upon the ground, as the name ‘syrtos’ implies. On the other hand,
it appears from various illustrations that shorter ones were occasionally
provided for attendants and other minor characters. The tunic of the
tragic actor was fastened with a broad girdle high up under the breast,
and flowed down in long and graceful folds, giving an appearance of
height and dignity. It was also supplied with long sleeves reaching
to the waist. In ordinary life sleeves of this kind were considered
effeminate by the European Greeks, and were mostly confined to the Greeks
of Asia. The general character and appearance of the tragic tunic is well
exemplified in the illustrations already given.[746]

The over-garments were the same in shape as those worn off the stage,
and consisted of two varieties. The ‘himation’ was a long mantle
passing round the right shoulder, and covering the greater part of the
body. The ‘chlamys’ was a short cloak flung across the left shoulder.
As far as shape was concerned all the tragic mantles belonged to one
or the other of these two classes, but they differed in colour and
material. Pollux gives a list of several of them, but does not append
any description.[747] The mere names prove that they were very gorgeous
in colour. There were mantles of saffron, of frog-green, of gold, and
of purple. Queens wore a white mantle with purple borders. These were
the colours worn by tragic personages under ordinary circumstances. But
if they were in misfortune or in exile, the fact was signified to the
spectators from the very first by dressing them in the garb of mourning.
In such cases the colours used were black, dun, grey, yellow, or dirty
white.

Coverings for the head were not usually worn by the Greeks except when
they were on a journey. The same practice was observed upon the stage.
Thus in the Oedipus Coloneus, Ismene arrives from Thebes wearing a
‘Thessalian hat’. Ladies also wore a ‘mitra’, or band for binding the
hair. In the scene in the Bacchae, where Pentheus is dressed up as a
female, one of the articles mentioned is the hair-band.[748]

Such was the tragic costume as settled by Aeschylus, and universally
adopted upon the Greek stage. No stress was laid upon historical
accuracy; no attempt was made to discriminate one rank from another by
marked variety in the dress. The same garb in its main features was
worn by nearly all the characters of a Greek tragedy. In some instances
special costumes were invented for particular classes of men. Soothsayers
such as Teiresias always wore a woollen garment of network, which covered
the whole of the body. Shepherds were provided with a short leathern
tunic. Occasionally also heroes in great misfortune, such as Telephus
and Philoctetes, were dressed in rags.[749] But the majority of the
characters wore the regular tragic costume, with slight additions and
variations; and the only means by which the spectators were enabled to
identify the well-known personages of mythology, and to discriminate
between the different ranks of the characters, was by the presence of
small conventional emblems. For instance, the gods and goddesses always
appeared with the particular weapon or article of dress with which
their names were associated. Apollo carried his bow, and Hermes his
magic wand. Athene wore the aegis.[750] In the same way the well-known
heroes of antiquity had generally some speciality in their costume which
enabled the spectators to recognize them as soon as they came upon the
stage. Hercules was always conspicuous by means of his club and lion’s
skin; Perseus wore the cap of darkness, as depicted in the illustration
already given.[751] Kings in a similar manner were distinguished by the
crown upon their head, and the sceptre in their hand. They also had a
special article of dress, consisting of a short tunic with a swelling
bosom, worn over the ordinary tunic.[752] Foreigners were discriminated
by some one particular attribute, rather than by a complete variety in
their costume. For example, Darius wore the Persian turban; otherwise he
was probably dressed in the ordinary tragic style.[753] Warriors were
equipped with complete armour, and occasionally had a short cloak of
scarlet or purple wrapped round the hand and elbow for protection.[754]
Old men usually carried a staff in their hands. The staff with a curved
handle, which occurs not infrequently in ancient works of art, was said
to be an invention of Sophocles.[755] Crowns of olive or laurel were worn
by messengers who brought good tidings; crowns of myrtle were a sign
of festivity.[756] The above examples illustrate the mode in which the
different characters and classes were discriminated upon the Greek stage
by small varieties in their equipment. But in its main features the dress
of the majority of the characters was the same, and consisted of the
elaborate Aeschylean costume.

[Illustration: FIG. 20.]

[Illustration: FIG. 21.]

The tragic costume, after having been once elaborated, was retained
for centuries without any important innovation. The tragic actor must
have been an impressive, though rather unnatural, figure, upon the
stage. His large stature and bulky limbs, his harsh and strongly-marked
features, his tunic with its long folds and brilliantly variegated
pattern, his mantle with its gorgeous colours, must have combined to
produce a spectacle of some magnificence. We must remember that he was
intended to be seen in theatres of vast dimensions, in which even the
front rows of spectators were a considerable distance from the stage,
while the more distant part of the audience could only discern general
effects. For such theatres the tragic costume of the Greeks was admirably
adapted, however unwieldy and unnatural it may have appeared on a closer
inspection. Its magnificence and dignity were especially appropriate to
the ideal figures which move in the dramas of Aeschylus and Sophocles.
In the Frogs of Aristophanes Aeschylus is humorously made to declare
that it was only right that the demigods of tragedy should wear finer
clothes, and use longer words, than ordinary mortals. The tragedy of
Euripides was altogether more human in tone, and a more ordinary costume
would have been better suited to it. But the Greeks, with their strong
feeling of conservatism in matters of art, clung to the form of dress
already established. The result was not altogether satisfactory. The
attempt to exhibit human nature pure and simple upon the Greek stage
was bound to appear somewhat incongruous. It often happened that the
speeches and actions of the heroes in Euripides were highly inconsistent
with the superhuman grandeur of their personal appearance. In any case
the step from the sublime to the ridiculous was a very short one in the
case of the Greek tragic actor. The play had to be elevated in tone,
and the performance of a high standard, to carry off the magnificence
of the actor’s appearance. Otherwise his unwieldy bulk and gloomy
features excited laughter rather than tears. Lucian is especially
fond of ridiculing the tragic actors of the time. He laughs at their
‘chest-paddings and stomach-paddings’, ‘their cavernous mouths that look
as if they were going to swallow up the spectators’, and the ‘huge boots
on which they are mounted’. He wonders how they can walk across the
stage in safety.[757] In Philostratus there is an amusing story of the
extraordinary effect produced upon a country audience in Spain by the
appearance of a tragic actor before them for the first time. It is said
that as soon as he came upon the stage they began to be rather alarmed
at his wide mouth, his long strides, his huge figure, and his unearthly
dress. But when he lifted up his voice and commenced his speech in the
loud and sonorous clang of the tragic stage, there was a general panic,
and they all fled out of the theatre as if he had been a demon.[758] In
order to give an idea of the style and character of Greek tragic acting,
two representations of tragic scenes (Figs. 20 and 21) are inserted, the
first of which obviously represents Medea hesitating about the murder of
her children.[759]


§ 5. _Costume of Satyric Actors._

[Illustration: FIG. 22.]

Tragedy and the satyric drama were sister forms of art, descended
from the same original. But while tragedy advanced in dignity and
magnificence, the satyric drama retained all the wild licence and
merriment which in early times had characterized the dithyrambic
performances in honour of Dionysus. Its chorus invariably consisted
of satyrs. Of the characters upon the stage, with which we are at
present concerned, one was always Silenus, the drunken old follower
of Dionysus; the rest were mainly heroes out of mythology, or other
legendary beings. In the Cyclops of Euripides, the only extant specimen
of a satyric play, the characters consist of Silenus, Odysseus, and the
Cyclops. Concerning the costume of the actors the notices of Pollux are
exceedingly brief. But it is possible to obtain fairly clear conceptions
on the subject from several works of art, and more especially from the
well-known vase-painting at Naples.[760] From this painting we see that
the characters in a satyric drama, with the exception of Silenus, were
dressed in much the same way as in tragedy. Their masks exhibit the
same features, and their garments are of the same general description.
The tunic appears to have been rather shorter, to facilitate ease of
movement, as the acting in a satyric play was no doubt less dignified
and statuesque than in tragedy. For the same reason the tall cothurnus
of tragedy does not appear to have been worn. It is not depicted in
the works of art; and although this fact in itself is perhaps hardly
decisive, since even in representations of tragic scenes the cothurnus
is occasionally left out, still on general grounds it appears to be
most improbable that the cothurnus should have been worn in the satyric
drama. But, on the whole, the heroic characters in satyric plays were
dressed in much the same fashion as in tragedy. As to Silenus, his mask
always represents a drunken old man, with a half-bestial expression.
His under-garments, as depicted in works of art, are of two kinds.
Sometimes he wears a tight-fitting dress, encasing the whole of his
body with the exception of his head, hands, and feet. At other times
he wears close-fitting trousers, and a tunic reaching to the knees.
All these garments are made of shaggy materials, to resemble the hide
of animals.[761] Certain over-garments are also mentioned by Pollux as
having been worn by Silenus, such as fawn-skins, goat-skins, imitation
panther-skins, mantles of purple, and mantles inwoven with flowers or
animals.[762] The figures in the illustration (Fig. 22), which is taken
from the vase-painting already referred to, represent the three actors in
a satyric drama. The first is playing the part of some unknown hero of
mythology. His tunic is rather short, and he has no cothurnus; otherwise
he exhibits the usual features of the tragic actor. The second figure
represents Hercules. His tunic is still shorter, and barely reaches to
the knees. The third figure is that of Silenus. His body is covered with
a single close-fitting garment, and he carries a panther-skin over his
shoulders. All these figures are holding their masks in their hands.


§ 6. _Costume of Comic Actors._

[Illustration: FIG. 23.]

The Old Comedy was essentially the product of a particular time and
place. With its local allusions and personal satire it was unsuited
for reproduction or imitation among later generations. Consequently
very few traditions were preserved concerning the style of the masks
and dresses used in it. The literary evidence is extremely scanty, and
we have to depend almost entirely on works of art for our knowledge of
the subject. We have already referred to the vase-paintings from Magna
Graecia (Figs. 13 and 14), depicting comic scenes acted by the Phlyakes.
These Phlyakes represented one branch of the old Doric comedy, and their
performances evidently originated in the same phallic exhibitions out
of which Attic comedy was developed. There are many points in common
between the two. In both the phallus was regularly worn. In both a
frequent source of ridicule was found in parodies of tragic dramas, or of
legendary fables.[763] On these grounds it was long since suspected that
the costume of the Phlyakes might resemble that of the old Attic comedy,
and might be used to illustrate it. This opinion has been confirmed by
recent investigations.[764] An Attic vase (Fig. 23) of the early fourth
century, previously overlooked, throws much light upon the subject. It
gives us a picture of three comic actors dressed in their stage costume,
and holding their masks in their hands.[765] There are also a number of
terra cotta statuettes, of Attic workmanship, and belonging to the end
of the fifth and the beginning of the fourth centuries, which apparently
represent figures from the comic stage. Copies of two of these statuettes
(Fig. 24) are here inserted.[766] The costume found on the vase and
in the statuettes is much the same as that depicted in the Phlyakes
paintings. It seems certain, therefore, that the dress of the Phlyakes
was akin to that used in the old Athenian comedy; and it is now possible,
from the sources just enumerated, to determine the general character of
this latter costume.

[Illustration: FIG. 24.]

The Old Comedy was the direct descendant of the boisterous phallic
performances at the festivals of Dionysus. Coarseness and indecency
were an essential part of it. The actors therefore regularly wore the
phallus.[767] This fact, which is expressly stated by the grammarians,
is confirmed by the evidence of the paintings and statuettes. It is
true that Aristophanes in the Clouds takes credit to himself for having
discarded this piece of indecency, and for having introduced a more
refined style of wit into his comedy. But whatever he may have done
in the Clouds—and it is doubtful how far his words are to be taken in
the literal sense—there are numerous passages to show that in most of
his other plays he followed the ordinary custom.[768] Another constant
feature in the old comic dress was the grotesque padding of the body in
front and behind. The figures of the actors, women as well as men, were
stuffed out into an extravagant and ludicrous shape. The padding, as we
see from the works of art, was enclosed in a tight-fitting under-garment,
which covered the whole of the actor’s person except his head, hands, and
feet.[769] This under-garment was made of some elastic knitted material,
so as to fit close to the figure. In most cases it was dyed a flesh
colour and represented the skin. But in some of the Phlyakes vases (e.g.
Fig. 14) the arms and legs of the actors were ornamented with stripes,
and a tight jersey was worn over the body, and painted in imitation of
the naked figure. Apart from the under-garment the clothes worn by the
actors were the tunic and mantle of ordinary life. References to various
kinds of mantles and tunics are common in the plays of Aristophanes.[770]
But it appears from the paintings and statuettes that in most cases these
garments were cut shorter than those of real life, so as to display the
phallus.

The masks of the Old Comedy fall into two classes, those for real
characters, and those for fictitious ones. When real individuals were
introduced upon the stage, such as Socrates and Euripides, the masks
were portraits of the actual persons. Before a word was spoken the
character was recognized by the audience. When Aristophanes brought out
the Knights, the general terror inspired by Cleon was so great, that the
mask-makers refused to make a portrait-mask of him, and an ordinary mask
had to be worn. Socrates, during the performance of the Clouds, is said
to have stood up in his place in the theatre, to enable the strangers
present to identify him with the character upon the stage.[771] The
fictitious masks, as we learn from the grammarians, were grotesque and
extravagant in type.[772] They are represented as such in the works of
art. The mouth is large and wide open, and the features twisted into a
grimace. At the same time the masks in the Attic representations are less
distorted and unnatural than those of the Phlyakes vases. The expression
on the masks is mostly of a cheerful and festive kind; but sometimes
crafty, thoughtful, or angry features are portrayed. Not infrequently in
the Old Comedy figures of a fanciful and absurd character were introduced
upon the stage. Thus Pseudartabas, the King’s Eye, had a mask with one
huge eye in the centre of it. The trochilus in the Birds created laughter
by its immense beak. The epops was provided with a ridiculously long
crest, but seems otherwise to have been dressed like a human figure. Iris
in the Birds came on the stage with outspread wings, swelling tunic,
and a head-covering of enormous size, so as to cause Peisthetaerus to
ask her whether she was a ship or a hat. Prometheus, with his umbrella,
and Lamachus with his nodding crests, are further examples of grotesque
costume.[773] The covering for the feet was not, as in the later comedy,
of one conventional type, but varied according to the sex and position
of the character. Several kinds of boot and shoe are referred to in
Aristophanes.[774]

As regards the origin of the actor’s costume which we have been
describing nothing is known from tradition. But Körte has a very
plausible conjecture on the subject.[775] He points out that in the early
Attic representations of Bacchic scenes there are no traces of figures
resembling those of the old comic actors. The followers of Dionysus
consist of Sileni and (later on) of satyrs. On the other hand, in the
numerous Bacchic vases found at Corinth there are no satyrs and Sileni;
their place is taken by a group of curious beings who resemble the old
comic actors in these two respects—the phallus and the exaggerated bulk
of the lower part of the body. These figures have no generic name; but
their individual names are inserted on one of the vases, and show that
they were not human beings, but creatures of the goblin type.[776]
Similar figures are also found in vases from the Kabeirion at Thebes,
but in this case they appear as burlesque actors taking part in Bacchic
festivities.[777] Körte suggests that these goblin followers of Dionysus
were the prototype of the actors in the Old Comedy; that it was in the
neighbourhood of Corinth that they were first transformed into performers
of farce and burlesque; and that this species of comedy, together with
the ludicrous garb of the actors, then spread over various other parts
of Greece, such as Athens, Thebes, and Magna Graecia. That the old Attic
comedy was largely indebted to that of the northern Peloponnese is shown
by various traditions; and the debt may very well have consisted in the
introduction of these farcical comedians, and their combination with the
old Attic choruses. If this theory is correct—and there is much to be
said in its favour—it points to a curious antithesis between the early
history of tragedy and comedy. The satyrs and the Corinthian goblins were
both of them semi-human votaries of Dionysus, and both of them played
an important part in the development of the drama. But while the satyrs
became the chorus of tragedy, the goblins changed into the actors of the
comic stage.

The New Comedy was of much longer duration than the Old Comedy, and
was much more widely spread. It continued to flourish at Athens itself
as late as the imperial epoch, and was transferred to Rome in the
translations of Plautus and Terence and the other comic writers. There is
no lack of information as to the costumes generally in use.[778] In the
first place all the actors wore masks, just as in the other branches of
the Greek drama. As far as abstract fitness goes, the masks might well
have been dispensed with. As the New Comedy was essentially a comedy of
manners and everyday life, and its chief excellence lay in the accurate
delineation of ordinary human character, it is probable that a style
of representation after the fashion of the modern stage would have
been much more appropriate to it. In a theatre of moderate size, with
actors untrammelled by the use of masks, all the finer shades in the
character-painting might have been exhibited clearly to the spectators.
But in ancient times such a thing was impossible. To the Greek mind the
use of masks was inseparably associated with the stage; and the Greeks
were in such matters extremely tenacious of ancient custom. It is also
very questionable whether in their enormous theatres masks could possibly
have been dispensed with. At any rate they were invariably retained in
the New Comedy. But it is a strange thing that, although in all other
respects the New Comedy was a faithful representation of ordinary life
and manners, the masks employed should have been of the most ludicrous
and grotesque character. The fact is expressly stated by Platonius, and
is borne out by the evidence of numerous works of art.[779] There was
a total disregard for realism and fidelity to nature. The exaggerated
eyebrows and distorted mouths gave an utterly unnatural expression to the
features. Such masks were perfectly in keeping with the tone of the Old
Comedy, in which parody and caricature predominated. But it is strange
that they should have been adopted in the New Comedy, which otherwise
was praised for holding the mirror up to nature. The reason probably lay
in the size of the theatres. The excellence and humour of a finely-drawn
mask would have been lost upon an audience seated at a great distance
from the stage. Of course the statement of Platonius has to be taken with
some qualification. The masks were not invariably distorted. Some of the
young men and women were depicted with handsome, though strongly-marked,
features, as in tragedy. But the comic characters always wore masks of
the grotesque kind just referred to. Copies of four comic masks (Figs. 25
and 26) are given on the next page.[780]

Pollux supplies a long list of the masks in ordinary use in the New
Comedy, with accurate descriptions of each of them.[781] His list
comprises masks for nine old men, eleven young men, seven slaves, three
old women, and fourteen young women. In this list are included all
the stock characters of the New Comedy, such as the harsh father, the
benevolent old man, the prodigal son, the rustic youth, the heiress,
the bully, the pimp, the procuress, and the courtesan. For all these
characters there are regular masks with strongly characteristic features.
In the plays of the New Comedy, as each personage stepped upon the stage,
he must have been recognized at once by the audience as an old friend.
Constant repetition must have rendered them familiar with the typical
features of each sort of character. Certain kinds of complexion, and
certain styles of hair and eyebrow, were appropriated to particular
classes. White or grey hair was of course the regular sign of old age.
Red hair was the mark of a roguish slave. Thick curly hair denoted
strength and vigour. Miserly old men wore their hair close-cropped,
while soldiers were distinguished by great shaggy manes. The hair of the
courtesans was bound up with golden ornaments, or brilliantly-coloured
bands. Beards were distinctive of manhood or middle age, and were not
used in the masks of youths or old men. The complexion was always a
prominent feature in the mask. A dark sun-burnt complexion was the sign
of rude health, and was given to soldiers, country youths, or young men
who frequented the palaestra. A white complexion denoted effeminacy;
pallor was the result of love or ill-health. Red cheeks, as well as red
hair, were given to rogues. The eyebrows were strongly marked and highly
characteristic. When drawn up they denoted pride or impudence, and were
used in the masks of young men and of parasites. The hot-tempered old
father, who alternated between fits of passion and fits of affection,
had one eyebrow drawn up and the other in its natural position, and
he used to turn that side of his face to the audience which was best
in keeping with his temper at the moment. Noses were generally of the
straight Greek type; but old men and ‘parasites’ occasionally had hook
noses, and the country youth was provided with a snub nose. Sometimes the
ears showed signs of bruises, to denote that the person had frequented
the boxing-school. The modern equivalent would be a broken nose, but
among Greek boxers the ear was the part principally aimed at. The above
abstract of the account in Pollux, together with the illustrations on
the previous page, will give some idea of the different styles of mask
employed in the later comedy.

[Illustration: FIG. 25.]

[Illustration: FIG. 26.]

[Illustration: FIG. 27.]

The costume of the actors in the New Comedy was copied from that of
ordinary life. The covering for the foot was the same for all the
characters, and consisted of a light sort of shoe, which was merely drawn
on, without being tied in any way.[782] Pollux gives a short account of
the dresses used in the New Comedy, from which it appears that particular
colours were appropriated to particular classes.[783] White was worn by
old men and slaves, purple by young men, black or grey by parasites.
Pimps had a bright-coloured tunic, and a variegated mantle. Old women
were dressed in green or light blue, young women and priestesses
in white. Procuresses wore a purple band round the head. The above
statements are to a certain extent corroborated by the testimony of the
works of art, but there are numerous exceptions. They cannot therefore be
regarded as an exhaustive account of the subject. Other details of dress
and costume are mentioned by Pollux. Old men carried a staff with a bent
handle. Rustics were dressed in a leather tunic, and bore a wallet and
staff, and occasionally a hunting-net. Pimps had a straight staff, and
carried an oil flask and a flesh-scraper. Heiresses were distinguished
by fringes to their dress. Considered as a whole the costume of the New
Comedy seems to have been even more conventional than that of tragedy.
The colour of a person’s dress, the features of his mask, and small
details in his equipment, would tell the spectators at once what sort of
a character he was intended to represent. A scene from a wall-painting
(Fig. 27) is here inserted, as a specimen of the style and outward
appearance of the New Comedy.[784]


§ 7. _Speech, Song, and Recitative._

The profession of acting in ancient times required a great variety of
accomplishments. The words of a play were partly spoken and partly sung,
and it was necessary that the actor should have a knowledge of music,
and a carefully cultivated voice. He had to combine the qualities of a
modern actor with those of an operatic singer. In fact the Greek drama
was not unlike a modern comic opera in this particular respect, that
it consisted of a mixture of speaking and of singing. The question
as to the mode in which the different portions of the dialogue were
delivered, and the proportion which speech bore to song in the parts of
the actors, is a matter of very great interest. In the first place there
can be little doubt that, with few exceptions, all that portion of the
dialogue which was written in the ordinary iambic trimeter was merely
spoken or declaimed, with no musical accompaniment whatsoever. This of
course constituted by far the larger part of the dialogue. Some remarks
of Aristotle in the Poetics may be cited in proof of the above statement.
Aristotle expressly says that in certain portions of the drama there
was no music at all. In another place he remarks that when dialogue was
introduced into tragedy, the iambic trimeter was naturally adopted as
the most suitable metre, since it is ‘better adapted for being spoken’
than any other.[785] A second argument is to be found in the practice of
the Roman stage. In two of the manuscripts of Plautus there are marks
in the margin to discriminate between the portions of the play which
were spoken, and the portions which were sung. The result is to show
that, while the rest of the play was sung, the iambic trimeters were
always spoken.[786] As Roman comedy was a close and faithful imitation
of the Greek, it follows almost as a matter of certainty that the iambic
trimeters were spoken in the Greek drama also. It is true that in one
place Lucian contemptuously remarks about the tragic actor, that he
‘occasionally even sings the iambic lines’.[787] But this statement, at
the very most, cannot be held to prove more than that in Lucian’s time
iambic passages were sometimes sung or chanted. It is no proof that such
a practice ever existed in the classical period. It is quite possible
that in the second century A.D., when the chorus had either disappeared
from tragedy, or been very much curtailed, some of the more emotional
portions of the iambic dialogue were sung or chanted as a sort of
equivalent. But Lucian himself speaks of the practice with disapproval,
as a sign of bad taste and degeneracy. In the best period of the drama
there can be little doubt that the ordinary iambics were spoken. The only
exception was in cases where iambic lines occurred in close connexion
with lyrical metres. For instance, iambics are sometimes inserted in the
midst of a lyrical passage. At other times speeches in iambics alternate
with speeches in a lyrical metre, and the pairs of speeches are bound
up into one metrical system. In such cases the iambics were probably
given in song or recitative. But the regular iambic dialogue, and in
consequence the greater part of the play, was spoken without musical
accompaniment.

The lyrical portions of a Greek play were almost always sung. In an
actor’s part the lyrical passages consisted either of solos, or of duets
and trios between the characters on the stage, or of joint performances
in which actors and chorus took part alternately. These musical passages
were in tragedy confined mainly to lamentations and outbursts of
grief.[788] In general it may be said that, both in tragedy and comedy,
song was substituted for speech in those scenes where the emotions were
deeply roused, and found their fittest expression in music.

In addition to the declamation of the ordinary dialogue, and the singing
of the lyrical passages, there was also a third mode of enunciation
in use upon the Greek stage. It was called ‘parakataloge’, and came
half-way between speech on the one hand, and song on the other. Its
name was due to the fact that it was allied in character to ‘kataloge’,
or ordinary declamation. It corresponded closely to what is called
recitative in modern music, and consisted in delivering the words in a
sort of chant, to the accompaniment of a musical instrument. On account
of its intermediate character it was sometimes called ‘speech’, and
sometimes ‘song’. It was first invented by Archilochus, and employed by
him in the delivery of his iambics, which were partly sung, and partly
given in recitative. A special kind of harp, called the klepsiambos,
was originally employed for the purpose of the accompaniment. Recitative
was subsequently introduced into the drama, as Plutarch expressly
states.[789] It is not easy to determine, by means of the slight and
hazy notices upon the subject, what were the particular portions
of a play in which recitative was employed. But there are certain
indications which seem to show that it was used in the delivery of
iambic, trochaic, and anapaestic tetrameters, and of regular anapaestic
dimeters. Thus it is distinctly recorded of the actor Nicostratus that
he gave trochaic tetrameters in recitative to the accompaniment of the
flute.[790] Then again, the two sets of trochaic tetrameters, which
came at the end of the parabasis, cannot have been sung, as their very
name implies. The probability therefore is that they were given in
recitative.[791] Thirdly, there is a passage in the Peace where the
metre changes abruptly from lyrics to trochaic tetrameters without any
break in the sentence.[792] It is difficult to suppose that in such a
case a transition was made suddenly from song to mere speech. But the
transition from song to recitative would have been quite feasible.
Fourthly, it is asserted that on those occasions when the speech of an
actor was accompanied by dancing on the part of the chorus, the metres
employed were mostly iambic and anapaestic tetrameters.[793] But as it is
impossible, in the case of Greek performers, to imagine dancing without
a musical accompaniment, the verses must have been given in recitative.
Fifthly, in the parabasis to the Birds the nightingale is asked to lead
off the anapaests with the flute; and the scholiast remarks that ‘the
parabasis was often spoken to the accompaniment of the flute’.[794]
This statement means that the anapaestic tetrameters, which constitute
the parabasis proper, were given in recitative. Lastly, there is the
fact that the terms ‘speech’ and ‘song’ are both used of anapaests,
implying that they occupied an intermediate position.[795] For these and
other similar reasons it appears probable that recitative was employed
in passages written in the metres already specified, that is to say, in
iambic, trochaic, and anapaestic tetrameters and in regular anapaestic
dimeters. It seems too that on certain rare occasions it was used in
lyrical passages.[796]

It may be interesting to collect together in this place such information
as we possess concerning the musicians and musical instruments employed
in the Greek drama. The instrument generally used for the accompaniment
both of the singing and of the recitative was the flute.[797] The
harp had formerly been employed very frequently. But it was found
that the flute, being a wind instrument, harmonized better with the
human voice.[798] However, the harp was occasionally introduced. In
the Frogs Aeschylus calls for the harp, when he is going to give a
specimen of the lyrics of Euripides. Similarly, in the parody of the
choruses of Aeschylus, the recurrence of the refrain ‘phlattothrat’
points to an accompaniment on the harp. A harpist is depicted on the
Naples vase, side by side with the flute-player.[799] In the beginning
of the Birds, when the chorus makes its entrance, the regular chorus
of twenty-four birds is preceded by four others, the flamingo, cock,
hoopoe, and gobbler. These were apparently musicians; and the instrument
which they played must have been the harp; since later on, when the
parabasis is going to begin, Procne has to be sent for specially to play
the flute-accompaniment.[800] As regards the number of musicians and
instruments, the ordinary provision for a tragedy or comedy was a single
flute-player. In the Delphic inscriptions of the third century, which
give the names of the performers in the various contests at the Soteria,
we find that in every dramatic exhibition only one flute-player was
provided. Works of art never depict more than one; and one is the number
mentioned by the grammarians.[801] But extra music might be supplied in
special cases. Harpists, as we have seen, were occasionally employed, and
as many as four of them seem to have been used in the Birds. Probably
in the same way, when a special effect was to be produced, the number
of the flute-players might be augmented. As to the costume of the
musicians very little is known. In works of art they never appear in
masks. But in the Birds it is clear that the flute-player and the four
harpists were disguised as birds, and wore masks of an appropriate kind.
Possibly in the Old Comedy the musicians were often arrayed in the same
fashion as the chorus. But in tragedy and satyric drama the evidence of
the vase-paintings would seem to show that they had no masks, but were
dressed either in ordinary costume or in the long and ornamental tunic of
the actors.[802] Their position during the performance was naturally in
the orchestra, close to the chorus. In the Birds Procne has to come down
from the stage to the orchestra, in order to accompany the parabasis. We
are told also that at the end of a drama the flute-player marched out
at the head of the chorus.[803] Hence we may conclude that he entered
in front of them at the beginning of a play; and this supposition is
confirmed by the manner in which the four harpists make their entrance in
the Birds. Very probably the usual place for the musicians was near the
altar of Dionysus.


§ 8. _Importance of the Voice in Greek Acting._

In ancient acting the possession of a fine musical voice was a matter
of absolute necessity. Several considerations will make it evident that
the voice of the actor, upon the Greek stage, must have been far more
important than it is at present. In the first place a considerable
portion of the words in every Greek play was either sung or delivered
in recitative. In the second place each actor had to play several parts
in succession, and to appear sometimes as a man, and sometimes as a
woman. It would be essential, therefore, to mark the difference between
the various personages by a corresponding variety in the tone of voice
employed; and for this purpose an organ of great flexibility and compass
must have been required. In the third place the whole character of
Greek acting was largely modified by the costume of the performers. A
modern actor adds force and emphasis to his speeches by means of the
variety of his facial expression. A single glance, a slight movement
of the features, is often enough to produce a very great effect. But
to the Greek actor this mode of impressing the spectators was denied,
owing to the use of masks. His features bore the same settled expression
throughout the play. Even his gestures, in the case of tragedy, must have
been much more restricted than in modern times, owing to the nature of
the dress which he had to wear. On account of these limitations he was
compelled to rely mainly upon his voice for the purpose of expressing
all the fleeting emotions of the character he represented. Great skill
and variety in the modulation of his tones were needed to counterbalance
the absence of facial movement. Lastly, the Greek actor required a voice
of enormous power, in order to make himself heard. When it is remembered
that the theatre of Dionysus was in the open air, and was capable of
holding nearly twenty thousand spectators, it will easily be seen that,
in spite of the excellence of the acoustic arrangements, the demands upon
the actor’s voice must have been excessively great.

For these various reasons the first and most essential requisite in a
Greek actor was a powerful and expressive voice. As a matter of fact,
whenever an actor is mentioned by an ancient author, he is referred to
in language which at the present day would seem much more appropriate to
a notice of an operatic singer. It is always the excellence of the voice
which is emphasized, little regard being paid to other accomplishments.
And it is not so much the quality as the strength of the voice which is
commended. The highest merit, on the Greek stage, was to have a voice
that could fill the whole theatre. Numberless passages from ancient
authors might be quoted in proof of this assertion, but a few specimens
will suffice. Of Neoptolemus, the great tragic actor, it is said that
‘his powerful voice’ had raised him to the head of his profession.[804]
Licymnius, the actor mentioned in one of the letters of Alciphron, won
the prize for acting at a tragic contest on account of ‘his clear and
resonant utterance’.[805] Dionysius, the tyrant of Syracuse, on a certain
occasion, being covetous of distinction as a dramatic writer, dispatched
a company of actors to the Olympic festival, to give a performance of
one of his tragedies. As he wished to ensure that the exhibition should
be of the highest excellence, he was careful to choose ‘actors with the
best voices’.[806] In a similar manner the emperor Nero prided himself on
his talents as an actor. He instituted a tragic contest at the Isthmian
festival, in order to display his powers. At this contest the actor
Epeirotes ‘was in splendid voice, and as his tones were more magnificent
than ever, he won the greatest applause’.[807] The above passages are in
reference to particular actors. Remarks about acting in general are of
the same type. Demosthenes is reported to have said that ‘actors should
be judged by their voices, politicians by their wisdom’. According to
Zeno an actor was bound to have ‘a powerful voice and great strength’.
Aristotle defines the science of acting as being ‘concerned with the
voice, and the mode of adapting it to the expression of the different
passions’. Lucian remarks that the actor is ‘responsible for his voice
only’. Plato would expel ‘the actors with their beautiful voices’ from
his ideal state.[808] Finally, there is the curious fact recorded by
Cicero, that in the performance of a Greek play, when the actors of the
second and third parts ‘had louder voices’ than the protagonist, they
used to moderate and restrain their tones, in order to leave him the
pre-eminence.[809] These passages, and others of the same kind which
might be quoted, read like notices about operatic singers and musical
performances, and prove conclusively the supreme importance of the voice
among the ancient Greek actors.

Such being the requirements of the Greek stage, it was necessary that
the actors should receive a musical education as elaborate as that of a
professional singer in modern times. Cicero informs us that the Greek
tragic actors spent many years in the training of their voices, and
used to test them, before each performance, by running over all their
notes from the highest to the lowest.[810] They had to be careful and
abstemious in their diet, as excess in eating and drinking was found to
be inconsistent with the possession of a good voice.[811] The importance
attached to this particular quality in the actor’s art was not always
beneficial in its results. Actors were sometimes inclined to violate good
taste by intruding into their performances mere exhibitions of skill in
the manipulation of the voice. They were ready to catch the applause of
the populace by startling effects, such as imitations of the rushing of
streams, the roaring of seas, and the cries of animals.[812] Moreover,
it was a common fault among the ancient actors that, as a result of
excessive training, their voices sounded artificial and unnatural.
There was a special term to denote the forced tone of voice which was
caused by too much exercise. Aristotle remarks that one of the principal
excellences of the tragic actor Theodorus was the thoroughly natural
character of his delivery. Unlike other actors, he seemed to speak with
his own voice.[813]


§ 9. _Style of Greek Acting._

Both in tragic and comic acting a loud and exceedingly distinct utterance
must have been a matter of necessity. But in comedy the tone of voice
adopted appears, as was only natural, to have been much less sonorous
than that of the tragic actors, and to have approached far more closely
to the style of ordinary conversation.[814] In tragedy, on the other
hand, it was the conventional practice to declaim the verses with a loud
and ringing intonation, and to fill the theatre with a deep volume of
sound. Ancient authors often refer to the sonorous utterances of the
tragic stage.[815] With bad actors the practice would easily degenerate
into mere bombast. Pollux mentions a series of epithets, such as
‘booming’ and ‘bellowing’, which were applied to actors guilty of such
exaggeration. Socrates and Simylus, the tragic actors with whom Aeschines
went on tour in the country districts of Attica, derived their nickname
of ‘the Ranters’ from a fault of this kind.[816]

Another point which was required from ancient actors was great
distinctness in the articulation of the separate words, and a careful
observance of the rhythm and metre of the verses. In this respect the
Athenians were a most exacting audience. Cicero speaks of their ‘refined
and scrupulous ear’, their ‘sound and uncorrupted taste’.[817] Ancient
audiences in general had a much keener ear for the melody of verse than
is to be found in a modern theatre. A slovenly recitation of poetry,
and a failure to emphasize the metre, would not have been tolerated by
them. Cicero remarks on the fact that, though the mass of the people knew
nothing about the theory of versification, their instinctive feeling for
rhythmical utterance was wonderfully keen. He says that if an actor
should spoil the metre in the slightest degree, by making a mistake about
a quantity, or by dropping or inserting a syllable, there would be a
storm of disapproval from the audience.[818] No such sensitiveness is to
be found in modern theatres. It is common enough at the present day to
hear blank verse declaimed as if it were prose. But among the ancient
Greeks the feeling for correctness of rhythm in poetical recitations
was just as instinctive as is the feeling for correctness of tune among
ordinary musical audiences at the present time. If an actor in a Greek
theatre made a slip in the metre of his verses, it was regarded in
much the same way as a note out of tune would be regarded in a modern
concert-room. As a consequence the mode of declamation practised on the
ancient stage must have been much more rhythmical than anything we are
now accustomed to, and the pauses and movements of the metre must have
been much more clearly emphasized.

The use of appropriate gesture, in the case of Greek acting, was
especially important, since facial expression was prevented by the
mask, and the actor had to depend solely on the tones of his voice, and
the effectiveness of his movements. In comedy, as might be expected,
the gesticulation was of a free and unconstrained character, and is
exemplified in numerous works of art. In tragedy, on the other hand, a
more dignified style was adopted. The nature of the tragic actor’s dress
was sufficient in itself to make a realistic type of acting impossible.
Of course it is easy to exaggerate the cumbersomeness of the ancient
costume. It would be a mistake to suppose that it hampered the actor’s
limbs to such an extent as to prevent him moving about like an ordinary
human being. Many passages in the ancient dramas prove that this was not
the case. Actors could walk rapidly off the stage, or fly for refuge to
an altar, or kneel down in supplication, without any difficulty.[819]
They could even fall flat on the ground. Philoctetes sinks to the earth
in a fainting-fit, overcome by the pain of his wound. Iolaus is knocked
down by the Argive herald, while trying to protect the children of
Hercules. Ajax throws himself on his sword, and Evadne flings herself
from a rock on to the funeral pyre beneath. Hecuba, at the beginning
of the Troades, lies stretched upon the earth in an agony of grief;
and later on, when she hears the doom of Cassandra, she again falls
prostrate.[820] But although, as we see from these examples, the tragic
actor was not debarred from the ordinary use of his limbs, still the
character of his dress must have made violent and impetuous movements a
matter of great difficulty. Even if they had been easy, they would have
been inconsistent with the tone of the tragic stage. The world of Greek
tragedy was an ideal world of heroes and demigods, whose nature was
grander and nobler than that of human beings. The realistic portrayal
of ordinary human passions was foreign to the purpose of Greek tragedy.
Scenes of physical violence or of abject prostration, such as those
which have just been mentioned, are of rare occurrence. To be in harmony
with this elevation of tone it was necessary that the acting should be
dignified and self-restrained. Violent movements were usually avoided.
A certain statuesque simplicity and gracefulness of pose accompanied
the gestures of the tragic actor. On the long and narrow stage the
figures were arranged in picturesque and striking groups, and the
successive scenes in the play presented to the eye of the spectator a
series of artistic tableaux. The representations of tragic scenes and
personages in ancient works of art are characterized by a dignity and
a repose which call to mind the creations of the sculptor. This sober
and restrained style of acting was developed under the influence of
Aeschylus and Sophocles during the great period of Attic tragedy. In
later times a tendency towards realism and exaggeration in the gestures
and the movements began to show itself. The actors of the fourth century
were censured by many critics for having degraded the art of acting
from its former high level, and for having introduced a style which was
unworthy of the dignity of the tragic stage. Callippides was called an
ape by the old actor Mynniscus because of the exaggerated vehemence
of his manner.[821] But as the tragic costume, with its burdensome
accompaniments, was retained with little alteration, it must have
prevented any great advance in the direction of realism and violent
gesticulation. The statuesque style of acting continued on the whole to
be characteristic of the tragic stage, and was indeed the only proper
style for Greek tragedy.


§ 10. _The Actors’ Guild._

In the course of the fourth century the members of the theatrical
profession at Athens, together with the performers in the various lyric
and musical contests, formed themselves into a guild, for the purpose of
protecting their interests and increasing their importance. The members
of the guild were called The Artists of Dionysus. Poets, actors, and
chorus-singers, trainers, and musicians all belonged to the guild. When
it first came into existence is not known for certain. Sophocles is said
to have formed a sort of literary club, which may have been the prototype
of the guild; but it is possible that there was no connexion between the
two. At any rate it was fully established in the time of Aristotle, by
whom it is mentioned.[822]

The guild was of great value in maintaining and enforcing the various
privileges of the members. These were very considerable. Musical and
dramatic contests among the Greeks were confined almost entirely to
the great religious festivals, and regarded as celebrations in honour
of the gods. The professionals who took part in them were ministers
engaged in the service of the gods, and their presence was necessary
for the due performance of the various observances. To enable them to
fulfil their engagements, many of the ordinary laws and regulations
were relaxed. In the first place actors and musicians were permitted to
travel through foreign and hostile states for the purpose of attending
the festivals. Even in time of war their persons and property were
ensured from violation. Owing to this custom the actors Aristodemus and
Neoptolemus were able to travel frequently to and fro between Athens and
Macedonia during the height of the war, and to assist materially in the
negotiation of the peace.[823] In the second place actors and musicians
claimed to be exempt from naval and military service, in order to pursue
their professional avocations in Athens and elsewhere. In the time of
Demosthenes this immunity from service was occasionally granted, but had
not yet hardened into an invariable custom. Demosthenes mentions the
cases of two musicians who were severely punished for avoiding military
service. One of them was Sannio the chorus-trainer, and the other was
Aristides the chorus-singer. Meidias also is said to have used the most
strenuous exertions to prevent the chorus of Demosthenes from being
exempted from service.[824] At this time, therefore, it seems that such
immunity was sometimes granted and sometimes not. Later on the Guild of
Artists of Dionysus succeeded in getting the Amphictyonic Council to pass
a decree, by which the Athenians were bound as a religious obligation
to grant exemption from military service to all members of the dramatic
and musical profession. In the same decree the duty of allowing them a
safe passage through their territories was enforced upon the Greek nation
generally. This decree was renewed towards the beginning of the third
century at the request of the Guild. A copy of the decree was engraved
on stone and erected in the theatre at Athens, and has fortunately
been preserved.[825] A translation of the more important passages will
be of interest, as throwing light upon the position of the theatrical
profession at Athens. It ran as follows: ‘It was resolved by the
Amphictyonic Council that security of person and property, and exemption
from arrest during peace and war, be ensured to the artists of Dionysus
at Athens; ... that they enjoy that exemption from military service
and that personal security which have previously been granted to them
by the whole Greek nation; that the artists of Dionysus be exempt from
naval and military service, in order that they may hold the appointed
celebrations in honour of the gods at the proper seasons, and be released
from other business, and consecrated to the service of the gods; that
it be unlawful to arrest or seize an artist of Dionysus in time of war
or peace, unless for debt due to a city or a private person; that, if
an artist be arrested in violation of these conditions, the person who
arrests him, and the city in which the violation of the law occurs, be
brought to account before the Amphictyonic Council; that the immunity
from service and personal security which are granted by the Amphictyonic
Council to the artists of Dionysus at Athens be perpetual; that the
secretaries cause a copy of this decree to be engraved on a stone pillar
and erected in the temple, and another sealed copy of the same to be sent
to Athens, in order to show the Athenians that the Amphictyonic Council
is deeply concerned in the observance of religious duties at Athens, and
is ready to accede to the requests of the artists of Dionysus, and to
ratify their present privileges, and confer such other benefits upon them
as may be possible.’ In this decree it is very noticeable that dramatic
and musical performances are treated throughout as divine observances in
honour of the gods, and the actors and other professionals are described
as ministers consecrated to the service of religion. The maintenance
of their privileges is therefore a sacred obligation in which the
Amphictyonic Council is deeply interested.

Another inscription has been preserved referring to the Athenian Guild
of Artists of Dionysus.[826] It appears that the Guild had a sacred
enclosure and altar at Eleusis, where they were accustomed to offer
libations to Demeter and Kore at the time of the Eleusinian mysteries.
During the disturbances of the Sullan campaigns the altar was dismantled,
and the yearly celebrations discontinued. The inscription is a decree of
the Guild thanking a certain Philemon for his exertions in restoring the
altar and renewing the annual ceremonies.

From the time of the fourth century onwards guilds of actors similar
to that at Athens were rapidly formed in various places throughout the
Greek-speaking world. In this way the masterpieces of Greek tragedy were
made familiar to the most remote districts to which Greek civilization
had penetrated. But it is beyond the scope of the present work to
trace the progress of the Greek drama outside the limits of Athens and
Attica.[827]


§ 11. _Social Position of Actors._

In Greece the profession of the actor was an honourable one, and there
was no suspicion of degradation about it, as there was in Rome.[828]
Actors and other dramatic performers were regarded as ministers of
religion. In the dramatic exhibitions at Athens the actors were placed on
the same level as the poets and choregi. Their names were recorded in the
public archives, and in commemorative tablets; and competitions in acting
were established side by side with the competitions between the poets.
It is true that Aeschines is very frequently taunted by Demosthenes with
his theatrical career, but the taunts are due to the fact, not that he
was an actor, but that he was an unsuccessful one. Actors at the head of
their profession occupied a very distinguished position. Aristodemus, the
tragic actor, was on two occasions sent as ambassador to Macedon by the
Athenians, and was largely instrumental in negotiating the peace.[829]
The great Athenian actors were much sought after by the monarchs of the
time. Aristodemus and Neoptolemus were frequently at the court of Philip,
and Thessalus and Athenodorus at the court of Alexander.[830] Thessalus
was a great favourite with Alexander, and was employed by him on delicate
missions.[831] The leading actors seem to have made large incomes. For
instance, Polus told Demosthenes that he was paid a talent for acting
during two days, only.[832] It is not stated whether the performance
to which he refers took place at Athens, or elsewhere; but in all
probability it was in some foreign state. There is no evidence to show
what salaries were paid to the actors at the great Athenian festivals.

As for the lower ranks of the profession, the tritagonists,
chorus-singers, musicians, and so on, though there was nothing
dishonourable about their calling, their reputation does not seem to
have been very high. Their strolling and uncertain manner of life
seems to have had a bad effect upon their character. Aristotle, in his
Problems, asks the question why it is that the artists of Dionysus are
generally men of bad character. He thinks the reason is partly due to the
vicissitudes in their fortunes, and the rapid alternations between luxury
and poverty, partly to the fact that their professional duties left them
no time for general culture.[833] His remarks of course apply mainly to
the lower grades of the profession.


§ 12. _Celebrated Athenian Actors._

Before concluding this account of Greek acting some notice of the
principal Greek actors may not be out of place. Unfortunately in most
cases little more is known about them than their names. Several tragic
actors of the fifth century are referred to by ancient writers, such as
Cleander and Mynniscus, the actors of Aeschylus, and Cleidemides and
Tlepolemus, the actors of Sophocles.[834] But no details are recorded as
to their individual characteristics and different styles. One interesting
fact is known about Mynniscus, to the effect that he considered the
acting of his successors as deficient in dignity and over-realistic.
He was especially severe upon Callippides, the representative of the
younger generation of actors.[835] This Callippides was notorious for his
conceit. On one occasion, when he was giving himself airs in the presence
of Agesilaus the Spartan, he was considerably disconcerted by being
asked by the latter whether he was ‘Callippides the pantaloon’.[836]
Another tragic actor of the same period was Nicostratus, who was
especially excellent in his delivery of the long narrative speeches
of the messengers. His style was so perfect that to ‘do a thing like
Nicostratus’ came to be a proverbial expression for doing it rightly.[837]

But it was in the age of Demosthenes that the most celebrated group
of tragic actors flourished. Among them was Polus of Aegina, who was
considered to be the greatest actor of his time, and whose name is very
frequently referred to by later writers. He was one of the actors who had
the credit of having taught elocution to Demosthenes.[838] At the age of
seventy, and shortly before his death, he performed the feat of acting
eight tragedies in four days.[839] A well-known story is told about him
to the following effect. Soon after the death of a favourite son, he
happened to be acting the part of Electra in the play of Sophocles. In
the scene in which Electra takes in her hands the urn supposed to contain
the ashes of Orestes, and pours forth a lamentation over his death,
Polus came upon the stage with the urn containing the ashes of his own
son, and holding it in his hands proceeded to act the scene with such
profound depth of feeling as to produce the greatest impression upon the
audience. As Gellius remarks, the acting in this case was no fiction, but
a reality.[840] Another of the great actors of this time was Theodorus,
about whom a few facts are recorded. The exceedingly natural tone of his
delivery, and his habit of never permitting any of the subordinate actors
to appear upon the stage before himself, have already been referred
to. He considered that tragedy was much more difficult to act in than
comedy, and once told the comic actor Satyrus that it was easy enough to
make an audience laugh, but to make them weep was the difficulty.[841]
His own powers in this respect were very great. Once when acting in
Thessaly he produced such an effect upon the brutal tyrant Alexander of
Pherae that Alexander was compelled to leave the theatre, because, as he
afterwards told Theodorus, he was ashamed to be seen weeping over the
sufferings of an actor, while he was perfectly callous about those of
his countrymen.[842] The tomb of Theodorus, close to the banks of the
Cephisus, was still to be seen in the time of Pausanias.[843]

The other leading tragic actors of this period were Aristodemus,
Neoptolemus, Thessalus, and Athenodorus. The two former were frequently
at the court of Philip, and took a large part in bringing about the peace
of Philocrates. They are therefore denounced by Demosthenes as traitors
to their country, and advocates of Philip’s interests.[844] Neoptolemus
was the actor who, at the banquet held in Philip’s palace on the day
before his assassination, recited a passage out of a tragedy bearing upon
the uncertainty of human fortune, and the inexorable power of death. The
fact was afterwards remembered as an ominous coincidence.[845] Thessalus
and Athenodorus were often rivals. At Tyre, after the return of Alexander
from Egypt, they were the principal competitors in the great tragic
contest, in which the kings of Cyprus were the choregi, and the chief
generals of the army acted as judges. On this occasion Athenodorus won,
to the great grief of Alexander, who said he would have given a part of
his kingdom to have ensured the victory of Thessalus.[846] The same two
actors were also competitors at the City Dionysia in the year 341, but
both of them were then beaten by Neoptolemus.[847]

Among the Greeks the distinction between the tragic and the comic actors
was as complete as that between the tragic and comic poets.[848] There
are no instances during the classical period of an actor attempting both
branches of the profession. Still less is recorded about the great comic
actors than about the actors of tragedy. A few names are mentioned, but
there is almost a total absence of details concerning their style and
mannerisms. We are told that one of Hermon’s jests was to knock the heads
of his fellow-actors with a stick, and that Parmenon was celebrated for
his skill in imitating the grunting of a hog.[849] Interesting criticisms
on the acting and the actors in comedy are unfortunately nowhere to be
found.




CHAPTER VI

THE CHORUS


§ 1. _History of the Chorus._

The history of the chorus in the Greek drama is a history of gradual
decay. In the earliest period, when both tragedy and comedy were mainly
lyrical, the members of the chorus were the sole performers. After the
introduction of actors and dialogue the chorus still continued for a time
to play the leading part. But from the beginning of the fifth century
it began slowly to dwindle in importance, until at length it either
disappeared altogether, or sank to the position of the band in a modern
theatre. As far as tragedy is concerned the process of decline can be
traced with clearness in the existing dramas. It takes various forms.
In the first place there is a gradual diminution in the length of the
part assigned to the chorus. In the Supplices, the oldest of existing
Greek tragedies, the choral part forms no less than three-fifths of the
whole composition. In the other plays of Aeschylus, with the exception
of the Prometheus, it amounts on the average to about a half. In the
tragedies of Sophocles and Euripides the size is very much reduced.
The choral part in Sophocles varies from about a quarter of the whole
in the Ajax and the Antigone to about a seventh in the Electra and the
Philoctetes. In Euripides it varies from about a quarter in such plays
as the Bacchae and Alcestis to about a ninth in the Orestes. It appears
therefore that in the fifth century the part of the chorus was gradually
but continuously diminished in size. Then again there is a constant
tendency throughout the century to reduce the importance of the chorus
by severing its connexion with the plot. In the lyrical tragedies of
the earliest period the chorus was no doubt on most occasions the
principal object of interest, and took the leading part in the play. This
is still the case in some of the extant tragedies of Aeschylus. In the
Supplices, for instance, the whole subject of the plot is the destiny
of the fugitive maidens who form the chorus. It is their adventures
which excite the sympathy of the audience; the other characters are of
very little significance. In the Eumenides the interest centres chiefly
round the conduct and feelings of the Furies. Even in the Septem and the
Persae, though the chorus play a less prominent part, their connexion
with the plot is still a very close one. Their destiny is involved in
that of the principal characters. But in the other plays of Aeschylus
the chorus begins to take much the same position as it occupies in
Sophocles, and in the earlier plays of Euripides. It was at this period
that Attic tragedy reached its highest perfection, and the question as
to the proper place of the chorus in the plot was solved in the manner
most consistent with the genius of Greek drama. The chorus is now thrown
much further into the background, and appears in most plays, not as a
participant in the action, but merely as a sympathetic witness. While
the dialogue is proceeding, it follows the course of events with the
keenest interest, but seldom actively interferes. In the pauses between
the action it moralizes on the significance of the incidents which have
just occurred. Such is its position during the middle of the century. It
has been removed from the stress and turmoil of the action into a calmer
and more remote region, though it still preserves its interest in the
events upon the stage. But in the later plays of Euripides a further
development is noticeable. The chorus begins to lose even its interest
in the action. In the pauses between the dialogue it sings odes of a
mythological character, which have only the remotest connexion with the
incidents of the plot. In the course of the dialogue itself it converses
less frequently with the actors than it had done hitherto. There is
also a tendency to transfer much of the music from the orchestra to the
stage. The old duets between actors and chorus are reduced both in size
and number, and their place is taken by solos and duets sung exclusively
upon the stage. This tendency to exclude the chorus from the play was
carried still further by Agathon, who gave up all pretence of connexion
between the plot and the songs of the chorus, and converted his odes
into professed interludes. In the time of Aristotle this practice had
become universal. The choral odes were now regarded in much the same
light as the pieces of music performed between the acts in a modern
theatre.[850] Whether the chorus still took any part in the dialogue is
not stated. But we can hardly doubt that the tendency already strongly
marked in Euripides had been developed to its natural results, and that
the tragic chorus of the later fourth century was practically excluded
from all share in the conduct of the play. After the fourth century very
little is known about its history. But the evidence seems to show that
it was sometimes discarded even as early as the third century; and in
later times this came to be more and more the ordinary custom. Even when
retained, its functions were merely those of the modern band.[851]

The history of the comic chorus is very similar. If we look at the extant
plays of Aristophanes, we find that in the first nine, which were all
produced in the fifth century, the chorus is an important and conspicuous
element. But in the tenth, the Ecclesiazusae, which was brought out in
392, there is a great change. The parabasis has disappeared, and the
functions of the chorus are mainly confined to the singing of three
or four odes, of no great length. In the Plutus, produced in 388, the
decline of the chorus is still more marked. It has only about forty
lines assigned to it in the course of the dialogue; and in the pauses
between the dialogue it sang interludes unconnected with the plot.[852]
During the rest of the century the comic chorus seems to have still
lingered on in a position similar to that which it holds in the Plutus.
The grammarians who say that it was abolished entirely by the Middle
Comedy apparently exaggerate the state of affairs.[853] There was still a
comic chorus in the time of Aristotle.[854] Even in the New Comedy the
earlier poets, such as Menander and Philemon, appear to have retained
it in some of their plays, though merely for the purpose of providing
interludes.[855] After the fourth century there are few traces of its
presence. It is true that it was regularly used in the comedies at the
Delphic Soteria during the third century.[856] It is mentioned in the
accounts of the Hieropoioi at Delos in 279 B.C.[857] It is found also in
one comedy of Plautus, the Rudens. But in Terence there are no signs of
it. This fact, combined with the statement of the grammarians that the
New Comedy had no chorus, makes it certain that after the third century
it had practically disappeared.[858]


§ 2. _Size of the Chorus._

The tragic chorus, being a direct descendant of the old dithyrambic
choruses, originally consisted of fifty members.[859] After all connexion
between tragedy and the dithyramb had been severed, the number of the
choreutae in a tragic chorus was reduced to twelve. It has been suggested
that this number was due to the practice of each poet exhibiting four
tragedies at a time. It is supposed that the original chorus of fifty was
divided as equally as possible among the four tragedies, so that each
chorus came to consist of twelve members. The conjecture is a plausible
one, but cannot be regarded as certain, owing to the scantiness of our
information concerning the early history of tragedy. The size of the
tragic chorus remained unaltered until the time of Sophocles, and in all
the earlier plays of Aeschylus twelve choreutae are employed. Sophocles
raised the number from twelve to fifteen.[860] After his time there was
no further change during the great period of the Attic drama. The tragic
chorus was always composed of fifteen persons. The various technical
terms which refer to the arrangement of the tragic chorus are all based
on the supposition that it is a chorus of fifteen. It is not quite
certain whether the innovation of Sophocles was adopted by Aeschylus in
his later plays. The Oresteia of Aeschylus was brought out ten years
after the first appearance of Sophocles; and it has been contended that
the chorus in this trilogy contained fifteen members. There is hardly
sufficient evidence to determine the matter with any certainty.[861] On
general grounds it seems probable that Aeschylus should have followed
the example of Sophocles. At any rate there is no doubt that after the
middle of the fifth century the number of the choreutae was fixed at
fifteen.[862] The satyric chorus was of the same size as the tragic—a
natural result of the intimate connexion between tragedy and the satyric
drama.[863] The comic chorus, as long as it continued to be an integral
part of the play, invariably consisted of twenty-four members. All the
authorities are unanimous on the subject.[864] These were the numbers
adopted in the various kinds of drama throughout the classical period
of Greek literature. But in later times, after the dramatic choruses had
been reduced to insignificance, and merely provided the music between
the successive acts, their size, at any rate in some theatres, appears
to have been diminished. Thus the comic chorus at the Delphic Soteria
contained only seven members; and the tragic chorus depicted on the
wall-painting at Cyrene is also a chorus of seven.[865] Whether these
cases were exceptional, or whether seven had now come to be the usual
number of a theatrical chorus, there is no evidence to show.

The size of the chorus in the Greek drama was regulated by conventional
rules, and no change was made to suit the requirements of a particular
play. For instance, in the Supplices of Aeschylus the number of the
Danaides was fifty, but the chorus probably consisted of twelve maidens
who did duty for the fifty. In the Supplices of Euripides the actual
suppliants were the seven wives of the slaughtered chieftains, but
the chorus was raised to its proper number by the addition of female
attendants. It has sometimes been suggested that in the Eumenides, where
the Furies are twelve or fifteen instead of three, legendary tradition
was sacrificed to theatrical requirements. But, as there is no evidence
to show that the number of the Furies had been settled at three as early
as the time of Aeschylus, it is quite possible that in this case the
usual size of the chorus was not inappropriate.


§ 3. _Costume of the Chorus._

The costume of the chorus, as already pointed out, was entirely distinct
from that of the actors. The tragic, comic, and satyric choruses all
wore masks, in accordance with the usual Bacchic tradition.[866] In
other respects their costume had nothing in common, but was designed in
accordance with the spirit of the respective types of drama. The tragic
chorus was usually composed of old men, or women, or maidens. In such
cases they wore the ordinary Greek dress, consisting of a tunic and a
mantle. No attempt was made to give them an impressive appearance by
the use of strange and magnificent costumes, similar to those worn by
the actors. Such costumes were perfectly appropriate to the heroes and
gods upon the stage, but would have been out of place in the chorus,
which was generally supposed to represent the ordinary public. The
masks of the tragic chorus would of course be suitable to the age and
sex of the persons represented. A special kind of white shoe, said to
be the invention of Sophocles, was worn by the tragic chorus.[867] Old
men usually carried a staff.[868] Various little details in dress and
equipment would be added according to circumstances. Thus the chorus of
bereaved matrons in the Supplices of Euripides were dressed in black
garments, and had their hair cut short, as a sign of mourning; and
carried branches twined with wool, the symbol of supplication, in their
hands. The chorus of maidens in the Choephori, who had come to offer
libations at the tomb of Agamemnon, were also dressed in black.[869]
In some cases the tragic chorus was altogether of an exceptional
character, and required a special costume. In the Supplices of Aeschylus
the daughters of the Egyptian Danaus appear to have been dressed as
foreigners. Probably the same was the case with the Persian Elders in
the Persae. The Bacchantes in the play of Euripides carried tambourines
in their hands, and were doubtless also provided with fawn-skins and
wands of ivy.[870] But no tragic chorus ever caused a greater sensation
than the chorus of Furies in the Eumenides of Aeschylus. Their costume
was designed by Aeschylus himself, and the snakes in the hair, which
afterwards became one of their regular attributes, were specially
invented for the occasion. As they rushed into the orchestra, their black
dresses, distorted features, and snaky locks are said to have inspired
the spectators with terror.[871] But this chorus was of a very unusual
kind. In most cases the tragic chorus was composed of ordinary men and
women, and their dress was that of everyday life.

[Illustration: FIG. 28.]

The choruses of goat-like satyrs who sang the dithyrambs in honour of
Dionysus were the original source both of tragedy and of the satyric
drama. These satyrs appear to have been an importation from the
Peloponnesus. They are unknown to the oldest Ionic traditions. Among the
primitive Ionians their place is taken by the Sileni—beings of a similar
type, but resembling horses rather than goats.[872] Thus in the Homeric
hymns it is the Sileni who are mentioned as companions of Dionysus, and
there is no reference to the satyrs.[873] In the earliest Attic vases
satyrs are never depicted, but only the horse-like Sileni. That the
satyrs, with their goatish horns and tails, were a Doric conception
is proved by various indications. In a fragment of Hesiod, where they
are mentioned for the first time, the account of their genealogy which
is given connects them with Argos.[874] We hear of ‘goat choruses’ as
an ancient institution at Sicyon.[875] Pratinas, the first celebrated
writer of satyric drama, was a native of Phlius. As for the costume of
the satyrs who formed the chorus of the primitive drama there is not
very much evidence of an early date. Vases depicting Bacchic scenes are
sufficiently common, but few of them can be shown to have any connexion
with a dramatic performance. The earliest reliable testimony is that
supplied by the Pandora vase.[876] This vase, which belongs to the middle
of the fifth century, contains a scene from the Pandora myth, and also
a representation of a group of masked satyrs (Fig. 28) dancing round
a flute-player. The satyrs are portrayed as half men and half goats.
They have goat’s horns upon their heads, and goat’s hoofs instead of
feet; and their tails are those of goats. Such seems to have been the
appearance of a satyric chorus at the time the vase was painted. The next
representation in point of date is that of the Naples vase (Fig. 29),
which is about fifty years later. Here there is a considerable change
in the make-up of the satyrs. The goatish element is less conspicuous.
The goat’s horns and hoofs have disappeared, and the tail is more like
that of a horse. In fact the type begins to approximate to that of
the old Ionic Sileni, or horse-deities. The only part which resembles
a goat is the shaggy skin round the loins. The style of satyr here
depicted is the one which eventually prevailed in the theatre. Later
representations of satyric choruses portray them in much the same way as
the Naples vase, with goat’s loins and horse’s tails, but without hoofs
or horns.[877] This evidence shows us that the satyr of the fourth and
subsequent centuries was a modification of the original conception. The
earliest stage satyrs were genuine goat-deities of the Doric type. But
in the course of the fifth century there was a reaction in favour of the
indigenous Sileni or horse-deities. The two types were mixed together,
and so produced the conventional satyr of the later theatre.[878] Some
scholars maintain that the type was the same from the first, and that the
old dancers in the tragic and satyric drama resembled Sileni more than
satyrs.[879] But this theory is scarcely compatible with the evidence of
the Pandora vase. The fact, too, that tragedy was called the ‘goat-song’
seems to prove decisively that the oldest choruses were composed of
goat-like beings.[880] There is also a fragment of a satyric play by
Aeschylus in which one of the chorus-singers is actually addressed as
a goat.[881] With this evidence before us we can hardly doubt that the
Doric satyrs were the original performers in Attic tragedy and satyric
drama, and that the Ionic element was introduced later on.

[Illustration: FIG. 29.]

Some other points in connexion with the satyr’s costume have still to
be mentioned. The phallus, the regular symbol of Dionysiac worship, was
invariably worn. The goat-skin round the loins was often replaced by a
conventional substitute, consisting of drawers of some woven material, to
which the tail and phallus were attached. Drawers of this kind are worn
by all the satyrs in the Pandora vase, and by one satyr in the Naples
vase, and are also found in a later painting.[882] Apart from the drawers
and the goat-skin, the satyrs are represented in the works of art as
perfectly naked.[883] But probably in the theatre they had flesh-coloured
tights, similar to those used by the comic actors. Slippers were no doubt
also used, and may in early times have been made in imitation of a hoof,
as in the Pandora vase. In addition to the regular satyric costume the
satyrs occasionally wore other clothes, suited to the part they played in
the particular drama. Thus the satyrs in the Cyclops of Euripides, being
servants of Polyphemus, were dressed in the ordinary leather jerkin of
the serving-man.[884] Silenus, the head of the troop, was not a member of
the chorus, but appeared upon the stage with the other actors. His dress
has been described already. He was a sort of elderly satyr, and is to be
distinguished from the old Ionic Sileni, whose appearance was entirely
different. His origin is rather obscure; but he may perhaps have been a
later development, suggested by the requirements of the satyric drama.

The chorus in the Old Comedy, unlike that of the satyric drama, was
of the most varied and fanciful character, and was drawn from every
possible source. All classes and professions were introduced at some
time or another.[885] There were choruses of Poets, Sophists, Athletes,
Trades-women, Sorcerers, Knights, Drummers, and so on. Foreign nations
were often represented, such as Persians, Macedonians, and Thracian
women. Even individuals were multiplied into a species, and produced
choruses of Hesiodi and Archilochi. When the members consisted of human
beings, they were dressed in the tunic and mantle of ordinary life,
with such slight additions as were necessary to mark the different
professions and nationalities. The mantle was laid aside for the purpose
of dancing, as the dances of the Old Comedy were of a wild and energetic
character, and required freedom of action.[886] The masks were of a
ludicrous type, with the features distorted.[887] In addition to the
human choruses there were also those composed of mythological beings,
such as Furies, Amazons, Sphinxes, and Sirens. These would be dressed no
doubt in the traditional costume. Many choruses consisted of fanciful
and ridiculous personifications. There were choruses of Towns, Islands,
and Merchant ships; of Clouds and Seasons; of Dramas and Epistles. In
all these cases the dress and general make-up appear to have been of
a grotesque character, and only in a remote degree emblematic of the
ideas and objects personified. For instance, the Clouds of Aristophanes
appeared as women dressed in gaily coloured garments, and wore masks
of a ridiculous type, with long noses and other exaggerations. The only
resemblance to Clouds was in the colours of the dresses.[888] Probably
in other similar cases the personification was carried out in the same
rough-and-ready manner. Another class of choruses was composed of various
kinds of animals. We have the Birds and Wasps of Aristophanes; and we
hear of other poets introducing Goats, Frogs, Vultures, Storks, Ants,
Fishes, Bees, Nightingales, and so on. Choruses of this kind appear to
have been a favourite institution among the Athenians, quite apart from
the drama. A theory has been propounded that they were survivals of an
old theriomorphic form of worship, and that they were the original source
of the comic chorus.[889] As for their connexion with a primitive type of
religion, this is a speculative subject with which we have no concern.
But the notion that they were the prototype of the comic chorus is not
sufficiently supported by evidence. This chorus consisted originally
of the ‘comus’, or band of revellers, who led the phallic processions
in honour of Dionysus; and there is no reason to suppose that these
revellers were dressed otherwise than as men. The varied character of the
later chorus was due to the fancy and imagination of the Attic poets, who
introduced all kinds of eccentric beings upon the stage, and among them
choruses of animals. These latter, however, were only a small proportion
of the whole, and it seems hardly justifiable to choose them out from
the rest as specially connected with the origin of comedy. As regards
the costume of these animal choruses, it would be highly interesting to
know how it was managed. There are five vase-paintings of the early fifth
century which depict such choruses dancing to the accompaniment of a
flute-player; though it is doubtful whether in any case the performance
is of a dramatic kind. One of these choruses consists of men disguised as
horses, with knights riding on their shoulders; and it has been suggested
that the chorus of Knights in Aristophanes was represented in this
way.[890] Two others depict men riding on ostriches or on dolphins.[891]
In these pictures, however, the whole conception is far too fanciful
and unreal to throw any light on the question of the costume actually
used in the theatre. In another vase the dancers are tall figures, with
heads like those of a cock, and bodies enveloped in long cloaks.[892]
A dress of this kind might have been employed upon the stage; but
unfortunately the cloaks conceal so much of the dancer’s person that the
evidence of the vase is not very instructive. The best painting for our
present purpose is one which represents a chorus of birds, and which is
here reproduced (Fig. 30).[893] The costume is clearly delineated. The
bodies of the choreutae are covered with a close-fitting dress, made in
rough imitation of feathers. Two long ends hang down from each side of
the waist, and a bunch of feathers is affixed to each knee. The arms
are provided with wings. A row of upright feathers is attached to the
crown of the head, and the mask is made with a long and pointed nose,
suggestive of the beak of a bird. From this painting we may obtain a
fairly clear idea of the manner in which animals were imitated in the
Old Comedy. We see that there was none of the realism one meets with
in a modern pantomime. The imitation was only carried so far as to be
generally suggestive of the animal intended. The body and legs were
left unfettered, to allow of free movement in the dance. At the same
time, to judge from the specimen before us, the costumes seem to have
been designed with a great deal of spirit and humour, and to have been
extremely well adapted to the purpose for which they were intended.

[Illustration: FIG. 30.]


§ 4. _Arrangement of the Chorus._

Except on rare occasions the dramatic choruses were drawn up in
formations of military regularity, both on their first entrance, and
during the progress of the play. They presented a perfectly symmetrical
appearance in the orchestra. In this respect they offer a contrast to
the choruses in a modern opera, and to the crowds which are introduced
upon the modern stage. As a rule no attempt was made to imitate the
fluctuating movements and haphazard grouping of an ordinary crowd. The
chorus marched into the orchestra, and took up its position before the
stage, with the regularity and precision of a body of soldiers. In all
dramatic choruses—tragic, comic, and satyric—the rectangular formation
was invariably adopted, as opposed to the circular arrangement of the
dithyrambic choruses.[894] This quadrangular formation was probably
of Doric origin.[895] Every dramatic chorus, when drawn up in this
way, consisted of a certain number of ‘ranks’, and a certain number of
‘files’. For instance, the tragic chorus, with its fifteen members,
contained five ranks of three men each, and three files of five men each.
Similarly the comic chorus, which was composed of twenty-four persons,
contained six ranks of four men each, and four files of six men each.
According to the Attic phraseology a chorus was said to be drawn up ‘by
ranks’ when the different members of the same rank stood one behind the
other. It was said to be drawn up ‘by files’ when the members of the
same file were one behind the other. Accordingly, when a tragic chorus
was drawn up ‘by ranks’, the men stood five abreast and three deep. When
it was drawn up ‘by files’, they stood three abreast and five deep. The
same regulations applied to the comic chorus. It might be arranged ‘by
ranks’, with the men six abreast and four deep; or ‘by files’, with the
men four abreast and six deep.[896] The arrangements throughout were
of this military character. In fact the training of a choreutes was
considered by many of the ancient writers to be an excellent preparation
for warlike service.[897]

[Illustration: FIG. 31.]

In the great majority of cases the chorus was supposed to consist of
persons from the neighbourhood, and therefore entered the orchestra
by the western passage. Their right side was towards the stage, and
their left side towards the spectators. As a consequence, the left side
of the chorus was much the most conspicuous and important, and the
best-trained choreutae were placed there.[898] The tragic chorus might
enter five abreast and three deep, or three abreast and five deep,
according as the formation was by ranks or by files. As a matter of fact
the arrangement by files was the one almost invariably adopted. There
are several technical terms in connexion with the tragic chorus, and
they all refer to a chorus which is supposed to be entering from the
western side, and to be drawn up three abreast and five deep. An oblong
formation of this kind would evidently be more convenient in the narrow
side-entrances, and would present a broader surface to the spectators
and to the stage. The diagram (Fig. 31) represents a tragic chorus
entering three abreast from the western parodos. The members of the first
file were called ‘aristerostatae’, or ‘men on the left’, and consisted
of the handsomest and most skilful of the choreutae. The middle file
was the least important of the three, as it was most out of sight of
the spectators. The worst choreutae were placed in this file, and were
called ‘laurostatae’, or ‘men in the passage’. The third file was the
one nearest to the stage. Occasionally, if the chorus wheeled completely
round, it came in full view of the spectators. It was therefore of
more importance than the middle file, and a better class of choreutae
were placed in it. They were called the ‘dexiostatae’, or ‘men on the
right’.[899] The six men who composed the front and hindmost ranks—nos.
1, 6, 11, 5, 10, and 15 in the diagram—were styled ‘kraspeditae’,
or ‘fringe-men’.[900] Finally, the three files had different names,
according to their relative proximity to the spectators. The members of
the left file were called ‘front-line men’; the members of the middle
and right-hand files were called ‘second-line men’ and ‘third-line men’
respectively.[901]

The central position, no. 3 in the diagram, was occupied by the
coryphaeus, or leader of the chorus.[902] The post of the leader was an
extremely arduous one. While the dialogue was in progress, he had to
carry on conversations with the actors upon the stage. During the choral
odes he had to give the note to the choreutae, and superintend the dances
and manœuvres. At the same time his own dancing and mimetic gestures were
supposed to be a conspicuous feature in the performance. Demosthenes,
speaking of dithyrambic choruses, says that the loss of the coryphaeus
means the ruin of the chorus; and this must have been still more the
case in a dramatic performance.[903] On the other hand the possession
of a skilful leader would contribute very largely to the success of the
chorus and of the drama. The choreutae on each side of the leader, nos. 2
and 4 in the diagram, were called his ‘parastatae’, or ‘assistants’, and
were next in importance to the leader himself. The two choreutae on the
outside, nos. 1 and 5 in the diagram, were called the ‘third men’.[904]
As already remarked, the coryphaeus, together with the other four members
of the left file, constituted the pick of the whole chorus.

Concerning the formation in which the comic chorus entered the orchestra
there is not much information. Like the tragic chorus, it might enter
either by ranks or by files; that is to say, it might come in six abreast
and four deep, or four abreast and six deep. There can be no doubt that
the oblong formation of four abreast and six deep was the one usually
adopted. It would be more suitable from every point of view. Both the
tragic and the comic choruses were probably preceded into the orchestra
by the flute-player.[905] On certain rare occasions the formal entrance
in a rectangular body was dispensed with, and an irregular mode of
entrance was adopted, in order to produce a dramatic effect. The best
example is in the Eumenides of Aeschylus. When the Furies made their
second appearance, they came rushing into the orchestra one by one,
in hot pursuit of Orestes, and created a profound sensation by their
movements and appearance.[906] There is another instance in the Birds of
Aristophanes. The birds begin by entering one by one. The flamingo comes
first, and its appearance is criticized by the actors upon the stage.
The cock follows, and is similarly criticized. Then comes the hoopoe,
and after it the glutton-bird. These, as we have seen, were probably
musicians. Finally, the chorus of twenty-four birds come fluttering in
together, so as to block up the side-entrances.[907] In the Lysistrata
the chorus is divided into two halves, one consisting of men, the other
of women. The chorus of men enters first; the chorus of women follows
after an interval.[908] But instances of this kind were very rare and
exceptional. Usually the chorus entered in a rectangular body, with the
precision of a troop of soldiers.

In most cases the entrance of the chorus took place at the conclusion
of the ‘prologue’ or introductory scene upon the stage; and the march
in was accompanied by a chant, which was called the ‘parodos’, or
entrance-song.[909] However, in a considerable number of plays there
was no parodos at all, but the chorus entered the orchestra in silence,
while the first act of the drama was in progress, and then commenced a
musical dialogue with the actors upon the stage. Instances of this mode
of entrance are to be found in such tragedies as the Electra of Sophocles
and the Orestes of Euripides.[910] A few plays do not conform to either
of these two conventional types. Occasionally, for instance, there is
no prologue, and the play begins with the parodos, as in the Supplices
and Persae of Aeschylus. This was no doubt the old-fashioned mode of
commencement, derived from the times when the drama was still entirely
lyrical. Then again, in the Eumenides the parodos is sung on the second
entrance of the Furies, after their arrival at Athens. In the Supplices
of Euripides the chorus are seen kneeling upon the stage in supplication
when the play commences. There they remain in silence during the
performance of the prologue, and then proceed to sing an ode, in place
of the usual parodos, from their position on the stage. In the Clouds it
appears that the chorus chant the first two odes behind the scenes, and
then enter the orchestra silently. The Rhesus commences with a dialogue
in anapaests between Hector and the chorus.

The next point to be considered is the position taken up by the chorus
after entering the orchestra. On most occasions, as already stated, the
chorus came in by the western side, drawn up in rectangular formation,
with the stage on its right hand and the spectators on its left. It
advanced half-way into the orchestra, then came to a halt, and each
member of the chorus turned round to the right, so as to face the stage.
By this manœuvre the whole chorus was made to look towards the stage, and
the arrangement by files was converted into one by ranks. For instance,
the tragic chorus, which had entered three abreast and five deep, now
stood before the stage five abreast and three deep. The coryphaeus and
principal choreutae stood in the back line, and retained their position
nearest to the spectators, and furthest away from the stage. This
position they kept throughout the performance.[911] In a similar manner
the comic chorus, after entering the orchestra four abreast and six
deep, would halt in front of the stage, go through the manœuvre just
described, and convert itself into a body standing six abreast and four
deep. There is no information as to the position of the coryphaeus in the
comic chorus. But there can be no doubt that, like the tragic coryphaeus,
he stood in the back row, as near as possible to the spectators.

While the actors were upon the stage, and the dialogue was in progress,
the chorus continued to stand with their backs towards the spectators,
and their faces towards the stage, so as to follow the course of the
action.[912] This was their normal position during the play, and,
although it may seem strange to our modern ideas, it was a necessary
consequence of the peculiar circumstances under which the Greek drama
was developed. When the stage was empty, the pauses between the acts
were filled up by the choral odes called stasima. There is no reliable
information as to the position and movements of the chorus during the
performance of the stasima. As the singing was accompanied by dancing,
the choreutae must have been moving to and fro. But in the absence of
evidence it seems useless to venture on conjectures as to the exact
nature of the evolutions. One thing may be regarded as certain, that
during the performance of the stasima the chorus did not continue to
face towards the empty stage, and turn their backs upon the audience.
Such a position would have been quite unnatural and unmeaning. In the
Old Comedy there was a peculiar sort of interlude called the parabasis,
which came during a pause in the action, and consisted of a series of
lyrics and addresses, delivered by the chorus, and dealing with ordinary
topics of the day. While reciting the first part of the parabasis the
chorus wheeled completely round so as to face the spectators. Hence the
name ‘parabasis’, which means ‘a turning aside’. The latter part was
antistrophical in form, and during its delivery the chorus separated into
two divisions, which stood facing one another. The different portions of
the parabasis were then given by each division in turn.[913]

Sometimes, though not often, in the course of a play the chorus left the
orchestra for a short period, and made a second entrance later on.[914]
The instances of the practice which occur in the Eumenides and the Ajax
were necessitated by the change of scene in those plays.[915] There is
another example in the Helena of Euripides. Helen and the chorus retire
into the palace, to inquire about the fate of Menelaus from Theonoe. In
their absence Menelaus enters the stage, and recounts his adventures
to the audience. Then Helen and the chorus return, and the recognition
gradually takes place.[916] Similar temporary departures of the chorus
are to be found in the Alcestis and the Ecclesiazusae; but they seem to
have been of very rare occurrence.[917] At the end of the play the chorus
retired by the passage from which it had entered, and was preceded by
the flute-player.[918] In the Seven against Thebes the chorus leave the
orchestra in two divisions, one following the body of Polyneices, the
other that of Eteocles. But in most cases they probably marched but in
the same rectangular formation in which they had entered.


§ 5. _The Delivery of the Choral Part._

As regards the delivery of the words, the chorus, like the actors, was
not confined to one manner only, but used song, speech, and recitative
by turns, according to the varying character of the metre. The lyrical
portions of the drama were almost invariably sung. The ordinary iambic
trimeters were spoken. The systems of anapaestic dimeters, and the
iambic, trochaic, and anapaestic tetrameters were delivered in recitative
to the accompaniment of the flute.[919] A question now arises which is
of great interest and importance in connexion with the choral part of
the performance. It is obvious to any reader of a Greek play that many
of the speeches and songs assigned to the chorus were not intended to be
delivered by the whole of the chorus, but by individual members. This
fact is patent to every one. But when any attempt is made to settle the
exact character of the distribution the greatest diversity of opinion
prevails. Attempts have been made to portion out the choral odes
between different members and sections of the chorus on the strength of
indications supplied by the metre, or by the sense of the words.[920]
But it is plain that inferences based on evidence of this kind must be
very uncertain in character. As a matter of fact different investigators
have arrived at the most contradictory conclusions. Hence in the present
state of our knowledge any detailed account of the matter is out of
the question. It will be necessary to be content with certain general
conclusions, which are based on actual evidence, or are so plausible in
themselves as to be very widely accepted.

First, then, as to the part taken by the chorus as a whole. In ordinary
circumstances the parodos and the stasima appear to have been sung by
the whole chorus together. The parodos, as already explained, was the
song of the chorus on its first entrance. The stasima were the long and
important odes inserted between the successive divisions of the play, in
order to fill up the pauses in the action. It is natural in itself to
suppose that these portions should have been sung by the whole chorus,
and the supposition is borne out by the statements of Aristotle.[921]
Sometimes there were exceptions. For example, the chorus in the Alcestis,
on its first entrance, is divided into two half-choruses, which sing
successive passages of the parodos alternately. In the Ion the parodos
is obviously sung by subdivisions or by individuals, and not by the
whole chorus. In the Frogs a long speech by the coryphaeus is inserted
in the middle of the parodos. In the Lysistrata the chorus is divided
throughout the play into two half-choruses, one of men, the other of
women.[922] But in the majority of cases the parodos and the stasima were
given by the whole body of the chorus. Not infrequently, in the middle of
the dialogue, small odes were inserted which resembled stasima in their
general character, but differed from them in point of brevity, and from
the fact that they came in the course of the dialogue, and not during
a pause in the action. They were often songs of triumph or exultation,
occasioned by sudden developments in the plot; and were accompanied by
a lively dance.[923] These short odes were no doubt sung by the whole
chorus, in the same manner as the stasima. It has been suggested that the
strophes and antistrophes in the stasima were delivered by half-choruses
in succession, and that the epode was given by the whole chorus. But
there is no real evidence in support of this hypothesis, and epodes are
only rarely to be met with in dramatic choruses.

In the second place some of the words assigned to the chorus were
actually delivered by the coryphaeus. There is no direct testimony to
this effect, but the matter hardly admits of doubt. On a great many
occasions the chorus drops the tone of lyrical exaltation, and converses
with the persons on the stage in an easy and familiar manner. It plays
the part of an ordinary actor. In all such cases it is evident that
the chorus must have been represented by the coryphaeus alone. The
dialogues between the actors and the coryphaeus were a peculiar and
distinctive feature of the old Greek drama. They were, in fact, a direct
survival from the early period, when there was only a single actor upon
the stage, and when the dramatic element in a play was necessarily
confined to conversations between the actor and the chorus. In addition
to the dialogues just mentioned, there are several other portions of
the chorus which may be assigned to the coryphaeus with a fair amount
of certainty. Such are the anapaests with which the approach of a new
personage is announced at the end of a choral ode in tragedy. These
anapaests, being delivered in recitative, would make a gentle transition
from the song of the chorus to the speech of the actors. Then again, it
is probable that in comedy all the anapaestic tetrameters were spoken by
the coryphaeus, including the speech to the people at the commencement
of the parabasis, and speeches such as that which is inserted in the
parodos of the Frogs.[924] In comedy also the coryphaeus had frequently
to address words of exhortation and remonstrance to the rest of the
chorus.[925] As regards the anapaests at the beginning and the end of
a play, the question is far more doubtful. It was the old fashion in
tragedy for the entrance song of the chorus to commence with a series of
anapaests. The custom is retained in the Persae, Supplices, and Agamemnon
of Aeschylus, and the Ajax of Sophocles. Most Greek plays also conclude
with a few anapaests. It has been suggested that the verses in each case
were delivered by the coryphaeus alone; but the suggestion is hardly a
plausible one. If chanted in combination by the whole body of the chorus
they would make its entrance and departure much more impressive. It need
hardly be remarked that, when the chorus was divided into half-choruses,
the part generally taken by the coryphaeus was in this case taken by the
leaders of the two halves. For example, throughout the Lysistrata the
chorus of men and the chorus of women were represented in the dialogue
by their respective leaders. In the Seven against Thebes the concluding
anapaests would be spoken by the leaders of the hemichoria. It is also
highly probable that the two sets of trochaic tetrameters, which come at
the end of the parabasis, were recited, not by the half-choruses, but by
their leaders.

Thirdly, certain portions of the chorus were occasionally spoken or sung
by individual choreutae. The best known example is in the Agamemnon,
during the murder of the king, when the chorus stands outside the palace,
debating helplessly as to what it ought to do, and each of the old men
pronounces his opinion in turn. There is another instance in the lyrical
ode at the commencement of the Eumenides. The Furies wake up, find that
Orestes is gone, and reproach Apollo in a series of brief, detached
sentences, each being sung by one member of the chorus.[926] The above
examples admit of no doubt. Whether the practice was a common one, and
whether the choral parts were frequently distributed among individual
choreutae, is a matter of great uncertainty. It is manifestly unsafe to
infer that it was done in all cases where the choral passage is full of
mutual exhortations and addresses, and the language is broken up into
disconnected sentences. For example, in the parodoi in Aristophanes the
members of the chorus often address one another by name, and exhort
one another to greater activity. But it does not therefore follow, as
has been supposed, that these passages were delivered in portions by
individuals. A chorus might be perfectly well chanted by the whole body,
though written in vivid and dramatic style.[927] It is hardly safe
therefore to distribute choral passages among individual choreutae except
on very strong evidence. The extent to which the practice prevailed in
the ancient drama must be regarded as an open question.

Fourthly, the division into half-choruses was not infrequent.[928] It
might be done in two ways. In the first place the chorus throughout
the whole play might be composed of two separate divisions, differing
from one another in point of age, sex, or position. The chorus in the
Lysistrata, consisting of one body of men, and one body of women, is an
example. In the second place the chorus might be divided temporarily
into half-choruses, either because of the special requirements of the
play, or merely for purposes of singing and recitation. There are several
certain examples in tragedy. In the Ajax of Sophocles the sailors
hasten off, some to the east and some to the west, in search of Ajax.
They return after a time from opposite sides of the orchestra, bringing
word that they have not found him. In the Orestes, while Helen is being
attacked within the palace, Electra keeps watch outside, and posts the
chorus in two divisions at each end of the orchestra, to guard against
surprise.[929] The examples in the Alcestis and the Seven against Thebes
have already been referred to. In comedy the practice was not at all
uncommon, if the testimony of certain manuscripts is to be accepted.
Various choral passages in the comedies of Aristophanes are distributed
between half-choruses, including the two odes at the end of the
parabasis, and other lyrical pieces of an antistrophic character.[930]

A suggestion has been made that the divisions into ranks and files were
utilized for musical purposes; that in tragedy, for instance, successive
passages were delivered in turns by ranks of three men, or files of five
men; and that the ranks and files of the comic chorus were used in the
same manner. This is pure conjecture. It may or may not have been the
case; but there is no evidence one way or the other. As to the musical
duets it is impossible to speak with certainty. Whether they were mostly
given by the whole chorus, or by halves, or smaller subdivisions, or
by individual choreutae, or by the coryphaeus, is a matter concerning
which there is no trustworthy information.[931] Such indications as are
supplied by varieties in metre, grammar, or subject, are too vague and
uncertain to lead to any definite conclusion. Unless, therefore, further
evidence of a distinct character is discovered, this particular question
will have to be regarded as an unsettled problem.


§ 6. _The Dancing._

In the ancient Greek drama, as in modern opera, the three sister arts
of Music, Poetry, and Dancing were all brought into requisition.
But there was this difference—in the Greek drama the poetry was the
principal feature of the performance; the music and the dancing were
subordinate. Moreover, dancing was seldom introduced by itself as a
mere spectacle; it was mainly used in combination with singing, to
interpret and add vividness to the words of the song. The music, the
poetry, and the dancing were blended together into one harmonious whole,
each part gaining an advantage by its combination with the other two.
Most, if not all, of the choral songs were accompanied by dances of one
sort or another. To the Greek mind there was an inseparable connexion
between song and dance, and the notion of choral singing unaccompanied
by dancing would have appeared strange and unusual. The two arts had
grown and developed simultaneously, as appears from the fact that many
of the technical terms in metrical phraseology referred originally to
the movements of the dance. For instance, the smallest division of a
verse was called a ‘foot’. A verse of two feet was styled a ‘basis’, or
‘stepping’. The words ‘arsis’ and ‘thesis’, which denoted the varying
stress of the voice in singing, originally referred to the raising
up and placing down of the foot in marching and dancing. These terms
show how closely the two arts of dancing and singing were associated
together in ancient Greece. A choreutes who was unable to accompany a
song with expressive dance-movements was looked down upon as an inferior
performer.[932] Dancing therefore, as might have been expected, played
a most important part in tragedy, comedy, and the satyric drama. It was
held among the Greeks in the greatest estimation, and there was none of
that feeling of degradation about it which was common among the Romans.
A man might dance in public without any loss of dignity, provided the
dance was of a graceful and becoming character. Sophocles himself, the
great tragic poet and fellow general of Pericles, was not ashamed to
appear in a dance in one of his own tragedies.[933]

At the same time it should be remembered that dancing in ancient Greece
was a very different thing from dancing in modern times. It included
a great deal more. The word ‘dancing’ in English necessarily implies
movement with the feet. It would be impossible in English to say that a
man was dancing, if he continued to stand in the same position. But in
Greek dancing this was not necessarily the case. The word ‘orchesis’,
which we translate as ‘dancing’, had in reality a much wider meaning.
Greek dancing originated, according to Plato, in the instinctive tendency
of mankind to accompany speech and song with explanatory movements of
the body.[934] It was essentially a mimetic performance. It included,
not only all such motions as are denoted by dancing in the modern sense
of the word, but also every kind of gesture and posture by which various
objects and events can be represented in dumb show. Its principal
function was to interpret and illustrate the words of poetry. For this
purpose nothing could be more important than appropriate gesticulation.
Hence in Greek dancing the movements of the hands and arms played a
larger part than the movements of the feet. The same was the case
in Roman dancing also. A few quotations will illustrate this fact.
Telestes, the celebrated dancer employed by Aeschylus, was said to be
able to ‘depict events with his hands in the most skilful manner’.[935]
Demetrius the Cynic, after witnessing the performance of a celebrated
dancer, exclaimed that he ‘spoke with his hands’.[936] Ovid, in his Art
of Love, when advising a lover to show off his best qualities before
his mistress, tells him to sing if he has a good voice, to dance ‘if
his arms are flexible’.[937] The flourishes and gesticulations with
which a professional carver cut out a hare were called ‘dancing’ by the
ancients.[938] Quintilian, speaking of the gestures used in oratory,
gravely says that there ought to be a considerable difference between the
orator and the dancer; that the gestures of the orator should represent
the general sense of the words, rather than the particular objects
mentioned.[939] The bare fact of his comparing an orator with a dancer is
a proof of the vital difference between ancient and modern dancing, and
the importance of mere gesticulation in the former.

The purpose, then, of ancient dancing was to represent various objects
and events by means of gestures, postures, and attitudes. In this kind
of mimicry the nations of southern Europe are particularly skilful,
as may be seen at the present day. The art was carried by the Greeks
to the highest perfection, and a good dancer was able to accompany a
song with such expressive pantomime as to create a visible picture of
the things described. Aristotle defines dancing as an imitation of
‘actions, characters, and passions by means of postures and rhythmical
movements’.[940] His language indicates very clearly the unlimited
capabilities of Greek dancing. Its general character will be well
exemplified by the following account from Plutarch’s Symposiaca. Dancing,
it is there stated, might be divided into Motions, Postures, and
Indications. Motions were of the greatest use in depicting actions and
passions. Postures were the attitudes in which each motion terminated.
For example, a dancer might halt in such a posture as to suggest Apollo,
or Pan, or a Bacchante. Indications were not mimetic at all, but
consisted in merely pointing out certain objects, such as the heaven, the
earth, the bystanders. Dancing might be defined as poetry without words.
The combination of poetry and dancing, of words and gestures, produced
a perfect imitation.[941] In the above account from Plutarch we have a
clear exposition of the Greek conception of dancing as the handmaid of
poetry. Its function was to delineate and to emphasize the creations of
the poet. This was the part which it played in the Greek drama. It is
most important, therefore, when speaking of dancing in connexion with
the old dramatic performances, to remember the essential difference
between the ancient and modern meaning of the words.

Some few facts have been recorded concerning the history of dancing in
connexion with the drama. In the earliest times it consisted mainly
of movements with the feet. The use of the hands and arms in dancing,
and the introduction of elaborate gesticulation, was a development due
to a later period.[942] In the old-fashioned dramas of Thespis and
his immediate successors dancing necessarily played a very important
part. Both tragedy and comedy were at that time mainly lyrical, and
the long choral odes were accompanied throughout by dances. The early
dramatists, such as Thespis, Phrynichus, Pratinas, and Cratinus, were
called ‘dancers’ as well as poets, because one of their principal
duties consisted in training their choruses in the art of dancing.[943]
Phrynichus, in an epigram of which two verses are still preserved, boasts
of having discovered more figures in dancing than there are waves in a
stormy sea.[944] The tragic dance of the sixth century, to judge from
the specimens given by Philocleon at the end of the Wasps, was of a
wild and lively character.[945] The tone of solemnity, by which it was
afterwards distinguished, was due to the innovations of Aeschylus. It was
probably in the time of Aeschylus that dancing in tragedy reached its
highest pitch of excellence. His long choruses gave ample opportunities
for the display of the dancer’s skill. Moreover, the training of the
chorus was personally superintended by Aeschylus, and he is said to have
himself invented a great number of postures and attitudes to be used
in dancing.[946] Towards the end of the fifth century the art appears
to have declined in significance, along with the general decrease in
the importance of the chorus. It began to lose something of its mimetic
character. Plato, the comic poet, who flourished at the end of the fifth
century, contrasts the mediocrity of the choral dancing in his day with
the excellence of that of a former period. In old times, he says, a good
dancer was a sight worth seeing; but the choreutae of the present day
stand in a row, like so many cripples, and bawl out their songs, without
any attempt at appropriate motions and gestures.[947] This deterioration
was a necessary consequence of the tendency to thrust the chorus more and
more into the background.

The general character of the dancing in the Greek drama has already
been described. As far as details are concerned our information is very
defective, and only slight indications are to be obtained from the
existing plays. It is probable that, when the parodoi commenced with
a series of anapaests, the chorus only marched in, without dancing.
But all parodoi written in lyrical metres were undoubtedly accompanied
with a dance. The iambic and trochaic tetrameters, in which many of
the parodoi in Aristophanes are written, seem to have been generally
intended for choruses which entered running, and with an appearance
of great haste.[948] The stasima, or long choral odes between the
acts, are said by many of the scholiasts to have been unaccompanied by
dancing, and to have been delivered by the chorus standing perfectly
still.[949] The statement is no doubt an error, due to false etymology.
The stasima, or ‘stationary songs’, were so called, not because the
chorus stood still during their delivery, but because it remained all
the time in the orchestra. They were therefore opposed to the parodoi,
which were delivered while the chorus was coming in, and to the exodoi,
which were delivered while it was going out.[950] That the stasima were
accompanied by dancing is proved by several references to dancing which
they contain.[951] A tradition has been preserved by one scholiast
concerning the manœuvres of the chorus in the stasima. It is said that
during the strophe they moved to the right, during the antistrophe
to the left; and that during the epode they remained standing in the
same position as at first.[952] This description, however, has probably
been applied to the drama by mistake. A manœuvre of the kind mentioned,
though suitable to the circular chorus of the dithyramb, would be out of
place in the rectangular formations of the dramatic choruses. Also it is
comparatively rare to find epodes in the stasima. As for the incidental
odes, which occur in the middle of the dialogue, many of those were
written in the lively hyporchematic style, to mark the joy of the chorus
at an unexpected turn of fortune. Some of the regular stasima were of
the same type.[953] The dances by which these odes were accompanied were
extremely brisk and energetic, in tragedy as well as in comedy.[954] The
exodoi, or concluding utterances of the chorus, were not usually attended
with dancing, but were delivered in recitative as the chorus marched
out. There is an exception in the Wasps and the Ecclesiazusae, which are
terminated by the chorus dancing out of the orchestra. But Aristophanes
himself remarks that this was an innovation.[955] There is no reason to
suppose that in tragedy the kommoi, or musical dialogues between actors
and chorus, were unaccompanied with dancing. But naturally, if this was
the case, the dance would be of a quiet and sober kind, consisting more
of appropriate gestures and motions than of dancing in the modern sense
of the word.

During a large part of every Greek play the chorus had nothing to say
or sing, but merely stood watching the actors, and listening to the
dialogue. It would be absurd to imagine that they remained stolid and
indifferent during all this period. Chorus and actors were supposed to
form one harmonious group, and no doubt the chorus followed the events
upon the stage with a keen appearance of interest, and expressed their
sympathy with the different characters by every kind of gesture and
by-play. Occasionally the long descriptive speeches delivered from
the stage were accompanied with a mimetic dance on the part of the
chorus.[956] The events described by the actor were represented in dumb
show by the choreutae. In comedy it was a regular practice to introduce
descriptive speeches of this sort, the metres used being iambic or
anapaestic tetrameters, which were especially suitable for dancing
to. There is an example in the Clouds, where Strepsiades describes
his quarrel with Pheidippides. The various phases of the quarrel were
represented in dumb show by the chorus, keeping time with the recitative
of the actor.[957] Again, we are told that Telestes, the dancer employed
by Aeschylus, ‘danced the Seven against Thebes’ so successfully as to
bring the various events before the very eyes of the spectators. The
statement no doubt refers to the dumb show with which he accompanied the
long descriptive speeches that abound in that play.[958]

Each of the three different species of the drama had its own special kind
of dance. The tragic dance was called the ‘emmeleia’. It was grave and
majestic in its motions, and was one of the two dances approved of by
Plato, and admitted into his ideal republic.[959] Some of the postures or
figures in the tragic dance are mentioned by the ancient writers. One of
them represented a man in the act of thrusting with the sword; another
depicted a man in an attitude of menace, with clenched fist. The rest
are a mere list of names, of which the meaning is uncertain. But it is
plain from the existence of such lists that the art of tragic dancing was
reduced to a regular system, and that the various attitudes and postures
were taught in a methodical manner.[960] We can hardly be mistaken in
assuming that as a rule the movements of the tragic dance were slow and
deliberate, and more like walking than dancing in the modern sense.
The odes called ‘hyporchemata’, with their lively motions, were only
adopted in tragedy on special occasions, to show the excessive joy of
the choreutae.[961] The kommos at the conclusion of the Persae gives
us a vivid picture of the general style of a tragic dance. The Persian
Elders follow Xerxes on his way to the palace, bewailing the ruin of the
empire in mournful strains. At each fresh exclamation of grief they fall
into some new posture, first beating their breasts, then plucking their
beards, then rending their garments, then tearing their hair; and in this
manner they gradually make their exit from the orchestra.[962]

The comic dance was called the ‘kordax’. Its movements were coarse and
lascivious, and its general style was suggestive of the phallic songs
out of which comedy had been developed. It was a dance for drunken
people, and no one but a man without any sense of shame would dance it
when he was sober. It was considered vulgar and disgraceful by Plato,
and excluded from his commonwealth.[963] Aristophanes, in the Clouds,
takes credit to himself for having abandoned it in that play; but, as
the scholiast remarks, he frequently introduces it elsewhere.[964] In
the comic dances the wildest movements were admissible. The chorus, at
the end of the Wasps, when encouraging the sons of Carcinus to fresh
exertions, bid them ‘whirl round like tops, and fling their legs up into
the sky’. Occasionally the circular dance of the dithyrambic chorus was
adopted in comedy.[965]

The dance used in the satyric drama was called the ‘sikinnis’. It was
mainly a parody and caricature of noble and graceful dances, and was
very violent and rapid in its movements. One of the postures used in the
satyric dance was called the owl, and is variously explained by the old
grammarians as having consisted in shading the eyes with the hands, or in
turning the head to and fro like an owl.[966]


§ 7. _The Music._

The music of a Greek play was simple in its character, and altogether
subordinate to the poetry. As Plutarch remarks, it was a sort of
seasoning or relish, the words being the main attraction.[967] Any
comparison therefore between a Greek play and a modern opera, as far as
the music is concerned, must be entirely illusive. In the first place
all Greek choral singing was in unison. The use of harmony in choral
compositions was apparently unknown to the Greeks. Even in modern times
Greek Church Music has retained the practice of chanting in unison.
Consequently the general style of the music in a Greek drama must
have been exceedingly simple and severe compared with the intricate
combinations of modern music. In the second place, the music was fitted
to the words, instead of the words being subordinated to the music. Each
note of the music corresponded, in most cases, to a separate syllable of
the verse, and the time of the music was determined entirely by the metre
of the verse. The ode was chanted in unison, syllable after syllable,
by the whole body of the choreutae. The modern practice of adapting the
words to the exigences of the music, and making different parts of the
chorus sing different words at the same time, was altogether unknown.
Hence it is probable that the words of a Greek chorus were heard with
considerable distinctness by the whole audience. When all the singing
was in unison, and the notes of the music corresponded to the syllables
of the verse, there was no reason why this should not be the case. In
modern choral singing the poetry is so far sacrificed to the music that
even the general drift of the words cannot usually be distinguished
with much clearness. But this could never have been the case in the
ancient drama, where the lyrical portions of the play often contained
the finest poetry and the profoundest thoughts of the whole composition.
The choreutae were doubtless made to sing with great precision and
distinctness of utterance; and this training, combined with the simple
character of the music, would make it possible for the words of an
ancient chorus to be heard without difficulty. In the third place, the
instrumental accompaniment was limited in amount, and was never allowed
to predominate. As a rule it was given by a single flute or harp, and
was the same, note for note, as the melody. In lyrical, as opposed to
dramatic, poetry there was a tendency for the flute to overpower the
voices. Pratinas, in a lyrical fragment still preserved, complains of
this practice, saying that ‘the Muse has made Poetry the mistress: let
the flute play the second part; it is but the servant of Poetry’.[968]
These words, which only refer to a tendency in the lyrical poets of the
time, are significant as showing the Greek conception of the relative
position of instrument and voice in choral singing. In the Greek drama,
as already remarked, the instrumental portion of the music was altogether
subordinate; and the music as a whole was made subservient to the words
and the poetry.

Greek music was written in various Modes, as they were called, concerning
the nature of which there has been much conflict of opinion. It is
uncertain whether the Modes were distinguished from one another, like
the modern major and minor scales, by the order of the intervals in the
octave, or whether the difference was one of pitch, like the difference
between the keys in modern music.[969] These Modes, whatever their exact
character, were each of them associated with a particular kind of music.
Every Mode had a special kind of metre and of melody appropriated to
itself, and a composition in a given Mode was necessarily of a certain
well-defined character. The difference between the music of the several
Modes was very much the same as that between various kinds of national
music in modern times. For example, an air in the Phrygian Mode bore the
same sort of relation to one in the Lydian as a lively Swiss song bears
to a plaintive Irish melody. Of the various Modes used in Greek music the
tragic poets selected those which were most suited to their purpose. The
Dorian and the Mixolydian Modes were the two most commonly employed in
tragedy. The Dorian was majestic and dignified in style; the Mixolydian
was pathetic. The one was used in the solemn and profound choral odes,
the other in cases where deep emotion had to be expressed.[970] Besides
these two principal Modes, certain others were occasionally employed.
The old Ionic Mode was severe and sober, before the degeneracy of the
Ionic nation had altered its character. It was therefore well adapted to
tragedy, and was used by Aeschylus.[971] The music of the Phrygian Mode
was passionate and enthusiastic, and was first introduced into tragedy
by Sophocles.[972] The Hypodorian and the Hypophrygian Modes were only
employed in the songs of the actors upon the stage, and not in choral
odes. The reason was that the style of their music was better suited
to realistic acting than to choral singing.[973] Sometimes a few notes
of instrumental music were inserted by themselves, at intervals in the
choral songs, as a sort of refrain. The ‘phlattothrat’, which recurs in
the parody of Aeschylus’s lyrics in the Frogs, is an instance of such a
refrain, the instrument used being the harp. The flute was also employed
in the same way. Such refrains were called ‘diaulia’.[974]

During the latter part of the fifth century the character of Greek music
underwent a considerable change. The severity and simplicity of the music
of the Aeschylean period were succeeded by a style in which softness,
variety, and flexibility were the prominent features. The author of the
movement was the celebrated musician Timotheus.[975] His innovations
were regarded by the philosophers and old-fashioned critics as so many
corruptions of the art of music, and as a proof of the growing effeminacy
of the age.[976] In one of the comedies of Pherecrates the person of
Music is made to complain of the treatment she has received at the hands
of various composers, and ends her complaint by charging Timotheus with
having outraged and insulted her more than any one else had done, and
compares his florid melodies to the ‘intricate movements of ants in a
nest’.[977] The new kind of music was very generally adopted by the later
tragic poets, such as Euripides and Agathon, and is frequently ridiculed
by Aristophanes.[978] Euripides appears to have foreseen from the first
that the new style would soon become popular. On a certain occasion, when
a novel composition by Timotheus was loudly hissed in the theatre, he
told him not to be discouraged by his temporary want of success, as in a
few years he would be sure to have every audience at his feet.[979] The
prediction was verified by the result.




CHAPTER VII

THE AUDIENCE


§ 1. _Composition of the Audience._

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


§ 2. _Price of Admission._

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

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

[Illustration: FIG. 32.]

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

[Illustration: FIG. 33.]

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

[Illustration: FIG. 34.]

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


§ 3. _The Distribution of the Seats._

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

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

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

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

[Illustration: FIG. 35.]

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


§ 5. _Character of Attic Audiences._

The Athenians were a lively audience, and gave expression to their
feelings in the most unmistakable manner. The noise and uproar produced
by an excited crowd of twenty thousand persons must have been of a
deafening character, and is described in the most uncomplimentary
language by Plato.[1057] It was exceedingly difficult for the judges to
resist such demonstrations, and to vote in accordance with their own
private judgement. The ordinary modes of signifying pleasure or disgust
were much the same in ancient as in modern times, and consisted of
hisses and groans on the one hand, and shouts and clapping of hands on
the other.[1058] The Athenians had also a peculiar way of marking their
disapproval of a performance by kicking with the heels of their sandals
against the front of the stone benches on which they were sitting.[1059]
Stones were occasionally thrown by an irate audience. Aeschines was
hissed off the stage, and ‘almost stoned to death’, in the course of his
theatrical career. There is an allusion to the practice in the story of
the second-rate musician, who borrowed a supply of stone from a friend
in order to build a house, and promised to repay him with the stones he
collected from his next performance in public.[1060] Country audiences in
the Attic demes used figs and olives, and similar missiles, for pelting
unpopular actors.[1061] On the other hand, encores were not unknown, if
particular passages took the fancy of the audience. Socrates is said to
have encored the first three lines of the Orestes of Euripides.[1062]

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

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

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

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

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




APPENDIX A


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


472 B.C.

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


467 B.C.

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


458 B.C.

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


455 B.C.

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


450 B.C. (?)

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


438 B.C.

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


431 B.C.

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


430 B.C. (?)

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


428 B.C.

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


425 B.C.

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


424 B.C.

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


423 B.C.

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


422 B.C.

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

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


421 B.C.

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


415 B.C.

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


414 B.C.

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


412 B.C.

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


411 B.C.

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


409 B.C.

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


408 B.C.

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


409-407 B.C. (?)

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


405 B.C.

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


— B.C.

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


401 B.C.

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


388 B.C.

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




APPENDIX B


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

         Col. XIII.                     Col. XIV.

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

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

  Col. XIV.                               Col. XV.

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


V. _Record of Comic Contests_ (festival uncertain).

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then after an interval 2nd col. of _e_.

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

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

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


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

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


1. Tragic poets.

(_a_) At the City Dionysia.

Fragment _a_.

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

Fragment _b_.

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

(_b_) Festival uncertain.

Fragment _c_.

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


2. Comic poets.

(_a_) At the City Dionysia.

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

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

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

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

(_b_) At the Lenaea.

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

    I.                  II.                III.                 IV.

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


3. Tragic actors.

(_a_) At the City Dionysia.

Fragment _e′_.

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

(_b_) At the Lenaea.

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

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

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

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


4. Comic actors.

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

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

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


VIII. The following inscriptions are also of interest:—

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

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

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

(_a_) I. G. xiv. 1097.

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

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

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




APPENDIX C

THE ORIGINAL PLACE OF THE LENAEA


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(B) Aristoph. Ran. 211 sqq.:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




APPENDIX D


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




FOOTNOTES


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

[2] Dem. Meid. §§ 51-3.

[3] See below, p. 9.

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

[5] Dem. Meid. §§ 8-10.

[6] Ibid. § 180.

[7] Ibid. § 178.

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

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

[10] Aristot. Poet. c. v.

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

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

[13] Dem. Meid. § 10.

[14] See below, p. 9.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[31] Xen. Hipparch. iii. 2.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[45] Suidas s.v. Πρατίνας.

[46] Arg. Aesch. Persae.

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

[48] Arg. Aesch. Agam.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[66] Plut. X Orat. 839 D.

[67] Aristot. Rhet. iii. 11.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[82] [See p. 69.]

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

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

[85] [See Appendix C.]

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

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

[88] Aristoph. Ach. 501 ff.

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

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

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

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

[93] Athen. p. 217 A.

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

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

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

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

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

[99] Arg. to Acharn.

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

[101] See p. 21, note.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[108] Diod. Sic. xv. 74.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[119] Ibid. ii. 585.

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

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

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

[123] Dem. de Cor. § 262.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[136] See above, p. 28.

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

[138] Vita Eur.

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

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

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

[142] Lysias iv. § 3.

[143] Dem. Meid. §§ 5, 17, 65.

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

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

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

[147] Id. Nicias, 524 D.

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

[149] Isaeus v. § 36.

[150] Aeschin. Ctesiph. § 232.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[158] Plut. X orat. 842 A.

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

[160] Arg. Aristoph. Nub.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[171] Dem. Fals. Leg. § 246.

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

[173] Diod. Sic. xiii. 97.

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

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

[176] See above, p. 31.

[177] Theophrast. Char. 22 ταινία ξυλίνη.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[190] Etym. Mag. s.v. πίναξ.

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

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

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

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

[195] Cratinus l.c.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[202] Suidas s.v. Ἀρκάδας μιμούμενοι.

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

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

[205] Plut. X orat. 839 D.

[206] Aristoph. Equit. 512, 513.

[207] Id. Vesp. 1016-22.

[208] Arg. ii to Dem. Meid.

[209] Athen. Pol. c. 56.

[210] Ibid.

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

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

[213] Lysias l.c.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[225] Aristot. Rhet. iii. 1.

[226] Vita Aesch.

[227] Schol. Aristoph. Nub. 1267.

[228] Vita Soph.

[229] Vita Eur.

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

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

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

[233] Aristot. Rhet. iii. 1.

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

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

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

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

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

[239] Aristot. Pol. iii. 3.

[240] Antiphon l.c.

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

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

[243] Athen. p. 22 A.

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

[245] Eustath. Odyss. p. 1553.

[246] Plut. De Audiendo, 46 B.

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

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

[249] Dem. Meid. §§ 58, 59.

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

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

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

[253] Plut. Phocion p. 750 C.

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

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

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

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

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

[259] Demosth. Philipp. i. § 35.

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

[261] Dem. Meid. § 61.

[262] Plutarch Nicias, p. 524 D.

[263] Andocid. Alcibiad. § 20.

[264] Dem. Meid. §§ 58-66.

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

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

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

[268] Aeschin. Ctesiph. §§ 48, 230.

[269] Isocrat. viii. § 82.

[270] Aeschin. Ctesiph. §§ 153, 154.

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

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

[273] Pollux iv. 88.

[274] Aristoph. Eccles. 1154 ff.

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

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

[277] Cf. ch. i. § 1.

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

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

[280] Herod, vi. 21.

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

[282] Athen. p. 374 A.

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

[284] Arg. Eur. Hipp.

[285] Arg. Aristoph. Nub.

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

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

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

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

[290] Aristoph. Acharn. 9-12.

[291] Id. Ran. 868.

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

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

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

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

[296] See above, p. 31.

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

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

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

[300] Alciphron. Epist. iii. 48.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[315] See below, p. 130.

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

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

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

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

[320] Griech. Theater, p. 111.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[328] See below, p. 130.

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

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

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

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

[333] Vitruv. v. 3. 2.

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

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

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

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

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

[339] Griech. Theater, p. 51.

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

[341] Griech. Theater, p. 44.

[342] Pollux iv. 123.

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

[344] Griech. Theater, p. 41.

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

[346] Vitruv. v. 6. 4.

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

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

[349] Plat. Symp. 175 E.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[358] Vitruv. v. 6 and 7.

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

[360] Griech. Theater, p. 175.

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

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

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

[364] Hesych. s.v. γραμμαί.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[371] Griech. Theater, p. 116.

[372] Ibid. p. 156.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[388] See above, p. 88.

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

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

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

[392] See above, p. 112.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[402] Griech. Theater, p. 118.

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

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

[405] Vitruv. v. 7.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[421] Griech. Theater, p. 99.

[422] See the plans in Griech. Theater.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[434] Wieseler, Denkmäl. iv. 5.

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

[436] Griech. Theater, p. 113.

[437] Ancient Athens, p. 435.

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

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

[440] Tafel iii.

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

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

[443] Above, p. 119, and below, § 13.

[444] See note on p. 128.

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

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

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

[448] Müller, Bühnenalt., p. 28.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[456] See above, p. 108.

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

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

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

[460] Vitruv. v. 7 ‘ita a tribus centris hac descriptione ampliorem
habent orchestram Graeci et scaenam recessiorem minoreque latitudine
pulpitum, quod λογεῖον appellant, ideo quod eo tragici et comici actores
in scaena peragunt, reliqui autem artifices suas per orchestram praestant
actiones, itaque ex eo scaenici et thymelici graece separatim nominantur.
Eius logei altitudo non minus debet esse pedum decem, non plus duodecim.’
Whether under ‘reliqui artifices’ Vitruvius included the dramatic
chorus is very doubtful. The dramatic chorus had almost disappeared
in his day. Moreover ‘thymelici’ as opposed to ‘scaenici’ generally
means the competitors in musical and literary contests, as opposed to
the competitors in dramatic contests. But the words of Vitruvius about
the position of the actors upon the stage are free from all ambiguity.
[Cp. Frei, de Certaminibus Thymelicis. Dörpfeld’s suggestion (Deutsche
Littztg. 1901, p. 1816) that dramatic actors were called σκηνικοί because
they were nearer the σκηνή, and musical performers θυμελικοί as being
in the centre of the orchestra, round the θυμέλη, forces the words to
fit his theory, but gives a far less natural meaning to the distinction.
According to this, the members of the chorus in the drama also ought to
be called θυμελικοί.]

[461] Ibid. v. 6.

[462] Griech. Theater, p. 364.

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

[464] See above, p. 135.

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

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

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

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

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

[470] Griech. Theater, p. 348.

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

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

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

[474] See above, p. 125.

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

[476] Griech. Theater, p. 381.

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

[478] Griech. Theater, p. 381.

[479] See above, p. 124.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[488] Griech. Theater, p. 327.

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

[490] Griech. Theater, p. 147.

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

[492] Griech. Theater, p. 361.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[499] Griech. Theater, p. 342.

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

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

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

[503] See above, p. 138.

[504] Griech. Theater, p. 146.

[505] Vitruv. v. 6.

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

[507] See above, p. 135.

[508] See above, p. 118.

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

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

[511] See below, p. 186.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[526] See below, p. 191.

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

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

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

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

[531] Griech. Theater, p. 363.

[532] See above, p. 118.

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

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

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

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

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

[538] Vitruv. v. 6.

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

[540] Vitruv. v. 5.

[541] Id. v. 9.

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

[543] Same references.

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

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

[546] Pausan. i. 21. I.

[547] Griech. Theater, p. 71.

[548] Suidas s.v. σαυτὴν ἐπαινεῖς.

[549] See above, p. 87.

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

[551] Athen., p. 19 E.

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

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

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

[555] Hesych. s.v. ᾠδεῖον.

[556] See ch. ii.

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

[558] Dem. Meid. § 9.

[559] Thuc. viii. 93, 94.

[560] Plut. Phoc. 757 D.

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

[562] Harpocrat. s.v. περίπολος.

[563] Poll. viii. 132.

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

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

[566] Aesch. Suppl. 189.

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

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

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

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

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

[572] Vitruv. v. 6.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[588] Vitruv. v. 6.

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

[590] See above, p. 135.

[591] See above, p. 135.

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

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

[594] See the previous note.

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

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

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

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

[599] See below, p. 201.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[629] Schol. Eum. 64.

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

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

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

[633] Herc. Fur. 1008, 1070.

[634] Nub. 184, 198.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[642] Eum. 403-5.

[643] Prom. 135, 280.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[660] Aristot. Poet. c. 15.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[672] Suidas s.v. Θέσπις.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[697] Alciphron, Epist. iii. 71.

[698] Schol. Eur. Phoen. 93.

[699] Schol. Aesch. Choeph. 900.

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

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

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

[703] Dem. Fals. Leg. § 247.

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

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

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

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

[708] See note 2 on the previous page.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[715] Eur. Hipp. 61.

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

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

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

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

[720] Athen. p. 21 E.

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

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

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

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

[725] From Monumenti Inediti, xi. 13.

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

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

[728] Aul. Gell. v. 7.

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

[730] Aul. Gell. v. 7.

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

[732] Wieseler, Denkmäler, p. 42.

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

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

[735] Poll. iv. 133-41.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[747] Poll. iv. 116-18.

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

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

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

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

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

[753] Aesch. Pers. 661.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[767] Schol. Aristoph. Nub. 538.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[774] Müller, Bühnenalt. p. 253.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[781] Poll. iv. 143-54. Cp. Quint. Inst. xi. 3. 74.

[782] This shoe was called ἐμβάς in Greek, and soccus in Latin: see
Ammon. de diff. vocab. p. 49; Aristoph. Nub. 858.

[783] Poll. iv. 119-20.

[784] The illustration is from Monumenti Inediti, xi. 32.

[785] Aristot. Poet. c. 6 τὸ δὲ χωρὶς τοῖς εἴδεσι τὸ διὰ μέτρων ἔνια
μόνον περαίνεσθαι καὶ πάλιν ἕτερα διὰ μέλους, c. 4 λέξεως δὲ γενομένης
αὐτὴ ἡ φύσις τὸ οἰκεῖον μέτρον εὗρε, μάλιστα γὰρ λεκτικὸν τῶν μέτρων τὸ
ἰαμβεῖόν ἐστιν.

[786] The mark C (canticum) denotes the part which was sung, D V
(diverbium) the part which was spoken. These marks are found in cod.
vetus (B), and cod. decurtatus (C), and the plays in which they occur are
the Trinummus, Poenulus, Pseudolus, Truculentus, and parts of others. See
Christ, Metrik, pp. 677 ff.

[787] Lucian, de Salt. 27 ἐνίοτε καὶ περιᾴδων τὰ ἰαμβεῖα.

[788] Songs by the actors were called τὰ ἀπὸ τῆς σκηνῆς. The solos (in
tragedy) were called μονῳδίαι, the duets and trios had no special name.
Musical duets between actors and chorus were in tragedy called κόμμοι.
Suidas s.vv. μονῳδεῖν, μονῳδία; Aristot. Poet. c. 12.

[789] Plut. Mus. p. 1140 F ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ Ἀρχίλοχος τὴν τῶν τριμέτρων
ῥυθμοποιΐαν προσεξεῦρε ... καὶ τὴν παρακαταλογήν, καὶ τὴν περὶ ταῦτα
κροῦσιν ... ἔτι δὲ τῶν ἰαμβείων τὸ τὰ μὲν λέγεσθαι παρὰ τὴν κροῦσιν, τὰ
δ’ ᾄδεσθαι, Ἀρχίλοχόν φασι καταδεῖξαι, εἶθ’ οὕτω χρήσασθαι τοὺς τραγικοὺς
ποιητάς. Athen. p. 636 B ἐν οἷς γὰρ (φησὶ) τοὺς ἰάμβους ᾖδον, ἰαμβύκας
ἐκάλουν· ἐν οἷς δὲ παρελογίζοντο τὰ ἐν τοῖς μέτροις, κλεψιάμβους. Hesych.
s.v. καταλογή· τὸ τὰ ᾄσματα μὴ ὑπὸ μέλει λέγειν.

[790] Xen. Symp. vi. 3 ὥσπερ Νικόστρατος ὁ ὑποκριτὴς τετράμετρα πρὸς τὸν
αὐλὸν κατέλεγεν.

[791] The two groups of trochaic tetrameters in the parabasis were called
ἐπίρρημα and ἀντεπίρρημα. See Platon. in Dindf. Prolegom. de Comoed. p.
21.

[792] Aristoph. Pax 1171, 1172.

[793] Schol. Arist. Nub. 1355 οὕτως ἔλεγον πρὸς χορὸν λέγειν, ὅτε τοῦ
ὑποκριτοῦ διατιθεμένου τὴν ῥῆσιν, ὁ χορὸς ὠρχεῖτο. διὸ καὶ ἐκλέγονται ὡς
ἐπὶ τὸ πλεῖστον ἐν τοῖς τοιούτοις τὰ τετράμετρα, ἢ τὰ ἀναπαιστικά, ἢ τὰ
ἰαμβικά, διὰ τὸ ῥᾳδίως ἐμπίπτειν ἐν τούτοις τὸν τοιοῦτον ῥυθμόν.

[794] Aristoph. Av. 682-4 ἀλλ’, ὦ καλλιβόαν κρέκουσ’ | αὐλὸν φθέγμασιν
ἠρινοῖς, | ἄρχου τῶν ἀναπαίστων, and Schol. ad loc. πολλάκις πρὸς αὐλὸν
λέγουσι τὰς παραβάσεις.

[795] The exodos, mostly consisting of anapaests, is described as ἅπερ
ἐπὶ τῇ ἐξόδῳ τοῦ δράματος ᾄδεται in Schol. Arist. Vesp. 270, and as ὃ
ἐξιόντες ᾖδον in Poll. iv. 108. But in Dindf. Proll. de Com. p. 37 it
is called τὸ ἐπὶ τέλει λεγόμενον τοῦ χοροῦ. As far as the anapaestic
tetrameters are concerned, the word ᾄδοντας in Aristoph. Plut. 1209, and
Hesych.’s definition of ἀνάπαιστα as τὰ ἐν ταῖς παραβάσεσι τῶν χορῶν
ᾄσματα, show that they were not merely spoken: the expression λέξοντας
ἔπη in Aristoph. Equit. 508 proves that they were not sung. See Christ,
Metrik, pp. 680 ff.

[796] Aristot. Probl. xix. 6 διὰ τί ἡ παρακαταλογὴ ἐν ταῖς ᾠδαῖς τραγικόν;

[797] Schol. Aristoph. Nub. 312, Vesp. 580; Aristoph. Eccles. 890-2.

[798] Sext. Empir. p. 751, 21; Aristot. Probl. xix. 43.

[799] Aristoph. Ran. 1286, 1304. Baumeister, Denkmäler, no. 422.

[800] Aristoph. Av. 226 ff., 659 ff.

[801] Lüders, Die dionysischen Künstler, pp. 187 ff. Schol. Aristoph.
Vesp. 582 ἔθος δὲ ἦν ἐν ταῖς ἐξόδοις τῆς τραγῳδίας χορικῶν προσώπων
προηγεῖσθαι αὐλητήν, ὥστε αὐλοῦντα προπέμπειν.

[802] See Baumeister, Denkmäler, nos. 422, 424; Journal of Hellenic
Studies, xi. plate 11 (reproduced in Fig. 28).

[803] Schol. Aristoph. Vesp. 582.

[804] Diod. Sic. xvi. 92 Νεοπτόλεμος ὁ τραγῳδός, πρωτεύων τῇ μεγαλοφωνίᾳ
καὶ τῇ δόξῃ.

[805] Alciph. iii. 48 τορῷ τινι καὶ γεγωνοτέρῳ φωνήματι χρησάμενος.

[806] Diod. Sic. xv. 7 ἐξαπέστειλε τοὺς εὐφωνοτάτους τῶν ὑποκριτῶν ...
οὗτοι δὲ τὸ μὲν πρῶτον διὰ τὴν εὐφωνίαν ἐξέπληττον τοὺς ἀκούοντας.

[807] Lucian, Nero 9 ὁ δ’ Ἠπειρώτης ἄριστα φωνῆς ἔχων, εὐδοκιμῶν δ’ ἐπ’
αὐτῇ καὶ θαυμαζόμενος λαμπροτέρᾳ τοῦ εἰωθότος.

[808] Plut. X orat. p. 848 B τοὺς ὑποκριτὰς ἔφη δεῖν κρίνειν ἐκ τῆς
φωνῆς. Diog. Laërt. vii. 20 τὴν μὲν φωνὴν καὶ τὴν δύναμιν μεγάλην ἔχειν.
Aristot. Rhet. iii. 1. Lucian, de Salt. 27 μόνης τῆς φωνῆς ὑπεύθυνον
παρέχων ἑαυτόν. Plat. Legg. 817 C καλλίφωνοι ὑποκριταί.

[809] Cic. div. in Caecil. § 48 ‘cum possit aliquanto clarius dicere ...
multum summittere, ut ille princeps quam maxime excellat’.

[810] Cic. de Orat. i. § 251.

[811] Aristot. Probl. xi. 22; Athen. p. 343 E.

[812] Plut. Aud. Poet. 18 B.

[813] Aristot. Rhet. iii. 2 διὸ δεῖ λανθάνειν ποιοῦντας, καὶ μὴ δοκεῖν
λέγειν πεπλασμένως ἀλλὰ πεφυκότως ... οἷον ἡ Θεοδώρου φωνὴ πέπονθε πρὸς
τὴν τῶν ἄλλων ὑποκριτῶν· ἣ μὲν γὰρ τοῦ λέγοντος ἔοικεν εἶναι, αἳ δ’
ἀλλότριαι.

[814] Lucian, Anachar. c. 23 αὐτοὶ δὲ (οἱ τραγῳδοὶ) μεγάλα τε ἐκεκράγεσαν
καὶ διέβαινον οὐκ οἶδ’ ὅπως ἀσφαλῶς ἐν τοῖς ὑποδήμασι ... οἱ δὲ κωμῳδοὶ
βραχύτεροι μὲν ἐκείνων καὶ πεζοὶ καὶ ἀνθρωπινώτεροι καὶ ἧττον ἐβόων.

[815] Philostrat. vit. Apoll. v. 8 (p. 171 Kayser) ἐπεὶ δὲ ἐξάρας τὴν
φωνὴν γεγωνὸν ἐφθέγξατο; Lucian, l.c. See also the passages quoted on p.
273.

[816] Pollux (iv. 114), speaking of tragic acting, says εἴποις δ’
ἂν βαρύστονος ὑποκριτής, βομβῶν, περιβομβῶν, ληκυθίζων, λαρυγγίζων,
φαρυγγίζων. Dem. de Cor. § 262.

[817] Cic. Orat. §§ 25, 27.

[818] Cic. de Orat. iii. §§ 195, 196, Parad. § 26.

[819] Antig. 76, Hel. 543, Androm. 529, Orest. 382, Hec. 339, &c.

[820] Phil. 819, Heraclid. 75, Ajax 865, Eur. Suppl. 1070, Troad. 36,
462. Polymestor (Hec. 1058) and the Delphic priestess (Eum. 34) speak of
themselves as crawling out on all fours. But it is unnecessary to suppose
that they actually made their entrance from the back-scene in this way.

[821] Aristot. Poet c. 26 ἡ μὲν οὖν τραγῳδία τοιαύτη ἐστίν, ὡς καὶ οἱ
πρότερον τοὺς ὑστέρους αὐτῶν ᾤοντο ὑποκριτάς, ὡς λίαν γὰρ ὑπερβάλλοντα
πίθηκον ὁ Μυννίσκος τὸν Καλλιππίδην ἐκάλει, τοιαύτη δὲ δόξα καὶ περὶ
Πινδάρου ἦν ... εἶτα οὐδὲ κίνησις ἅπασα ἀποδοκιμαστέα, εἴπερ μηδ’
ὄρχησις, ἀλλ’ ἡ φαύλων, ὅπερ καὶ Καλλιππίδῃ ἐπετιμᾶτο καὶ νῦν ἄλλοις ὡς
οὐκ ἐλευθέρας γυναῖκας μιμουμένων.

[822] Vit. Soph. ταῖς δὲ Μούσαις θίασον ἐκ τῶν πεπαιδευμένων συναγαγεῖν.
Aristot. Probl. xxx. 10 οἱ Διονυσιακοὶ τεχνῖται.

[823] Dem. Fals. Leg. § 315.

[824] Dem. Meid. §§ 15, 58-60.

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

[826] C. I. A. ii. 552.

[827] For a complete account of these guilds see Lüders, Die dionysischen
Künstler; Foucart, Les Associations religieuses chez les Grecs.

[828] Corn. Nep. praef. 5 ‘in scaenam vero prodire et populo esse
spectaculo nemini in iisdem gentibus fuit turpitudini’. Livy xxiv. 24 (of
Ariston the tragic actor) ‘huic genus et fortuna honesta erant; nec ars,
quia nihil tale apud Graecos pudori est, ea deformabat’.

[829] Aesch. Fals. Leg. §§ 15-19; Dem. de Cor. § 21.

[830] Dem. Fals. Leg. § 315, de Pace § 6; Diod. Sic. xvi. 92; Plut. Alex.
681 D.

[831] Plut. Alex. 669 D.

[832] Plut. X orat. p. 848 B. Gellius, N. A. xi. 9, gives the same story
about Aristodemus.

[833] Aristot. Prob. xxx. 10.

[834] Vit. Aesch.; Schol. Aristoph. Ran. 803, Nub. 1267.

[835] Aristot. Poet. c. 26.

[836] Xen. Symp. iii. 11; Plut. Ages. p. 607 D ἀλλὰ οὐ σύγε ἐσσὶ
Καλλιππίδας ὁ δεικηλίκτας;

[837] Macar. Cent. iii. 46; Prov. Coisl. 124.

[838] Rhet. Graec. vi. p. 35 (Walz).

[839] Plut. an sen. 785 C.

[840] Gell. N. A. vii. 5.

[841] Plut. de se laud. 545 F.

[842] Ael. Var. Hist. xiv. 40.

[843] Pausan. i. 37. 3.

[844] See above, p. 279.

[845] Diod. Sic. xvi. 92.

[846] Plut. Alex. 681 D.

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

[848] Plat. Rep. 395 B ἀλλ’ οὐδέ τοι ὑποκριταὶ κωμῳδοῖς τε καὶ τραγῳδοῖς
οἱ αὐτοί.

[849] Schol. Aristoph. Nub. 542; Plut. Aud. Poet. 18 B. [For an account
of all that is known of the celebrated Greek actors see Völker, Berühmte
Schauspieler im griech. Alterthum, 1899.]

[850] Aristot. Poet. c. 18.

[851] For details see the Tragic Drama of the Greeks, pp. 452 ff.

[852] Vit. Aristoph. p. 36 Dindf. The places for the interludes are
marked χοροῦ in the text (ll. 321, 626, 801, 958).

[853] Platon. de Comoed. p. 21 Dindf. οἱ δὲ τῆς μέσης κωμῳδίας ποιηταὶ
... τὰ χορικὰ μέλη παρέλιπον. Platon. p. 20 says the Aeolosicon of
Aristophanes had no chorus; but frag. 8 seems to show that it had.
Similarly the statement of Anon. de Comoed. p. 27 Dindf., that the Plutus
χορῶν ἐστέρηται, is not entirely true.

[854] Aristot. Pol. iii. 3 ὥσπερ γε καὶ χορὸν ὁτὲ μὲν κωμικὸν ὁτὲ δὲ
τραγικὸν ἕτερον εἶναί φαμεν, τῶν αὐτῶν πολλάκις ἀνθρώπων ὄντων. Eth. Nic.
iv. 6 κωμῳδοῖς χορηγῶν ἐν τῇ παρόδῳ πορφύραν εἰσφέρων. Athen. Pol. c. 56,
where the appointment of χορηγοὶ κωμῳδοῖς is described. This probably
implies a chorus; though not necessarily, as a choregus would be required
to meet the other expenses of a play. [Cp. Aeschin. in Tim. § 157 πρῴην
ἐν τοῖς κατ’ ἀγροὺς Διονυσίοις κωμῳδῶν ὄντων ἐν Κολλυτῷ καὶ Παρμένωνος
τοῦ ὑποκριτοῦ εἰπόντος τι πρὸς τὸν χορὸν ἀνάπαιστον (345 B.C.).] The
substitution of an agonothetes for the choregi at the end of the fourth
century may have been connected with the decline of the chorus. See
above, p. 55.

[855] Vit. Aristoph. p. 36 Dindf. τὸν Πλοῦτον γράψας, εἰς τὸ
διαναπαύεσθαι τὰ σκηνικὰ πρόσωπα καὶ μετεσκευάσθαι, ἐπιγράφει χοροῦ,
φθεγγόμενος ἐν ἐκείνοις ἃ καὶ ὁρῶμεν τοὺς νέους (i.e. Menander and
Philemon, cp. p. 35) ἐπιγράφοντας ζήλῳ Ἀριστοφάνους.

[856] Lüders, Die dionysischen Künstler, pp. 187 ff.

[857] Bull. Cor. Hell. xiv. p. 396; Körte, Neue Jahrb. 1900, pp. 83 ff.

[858] Anon. de Comoed. p. 27 Dindf.

[859] Poll. iv. 110. Pollux further states that the number continued to
be fifty until the Eumenides of Aeschylus was produced; and that the
people were so alarmed at the sight of the fifty Furies that they passed
a law reducing the number of the tragic chorus. The story is of course
a fiction, on a par with the statement in the Life, that Aeschylus was
banished to Sicily as a punishment for terrifying the people with his
Eumenides.

[860] Suid. s.v. Σοφοκλῆς; Vit. Soph. p. 2 Dindf.

[861] The decision of the question depends on the passage in the
Agamemnon, s.vv. 1344-71. There is no doubt that the twelve iambic
couplets, 1348-71, were delivered by twelve choreutae. The difficulty is
to decide whether the three trochaic tetrameters, 1344, 1346, and 1347,
were delivered by three additional choreutae, or by the coryphaeus.
Either view is plausible, and it seems impossible to determine the matter
without further evidence. The statement of Schol. Arist. Equit. 586, that
the chorus in the Agamemnon was fifteen in number, is merely an inference
from the passage just referred to. The statement of Schol. Aesch. Eum.
585, that the chorus in the Eumenides consisted of fifteen persons, is
simply grounded on the assumption that the number was the same as in
later times. In neither case is the evidence of any independent value.

[862] Fifteen is the number given in Poll. iv. 109; Suid. s.v. χορός;
Schol. Arist. Av. 298, Equit. 586; Schol. Aesch. Eum. 585. The number is
given as fourteen in Vit. Aesch.; Bekk. Anecd. p. 746; Tzetzes, Prolegom.
ad Lycophr. p. 254 M. The explanation of the discrepancy lies in the
fact that when the chorus is said to consist of fourteen members the
coryphaeus is not included.

[863] Tzetzes, l.c., τὴν δὲ τραγῳδίαν καὶ τοὺς σατύρους ἐπίσης μὲν
ἔχειν χορευτὰς ιαʹ (? ιδʹ). Id. apud Dübner, Prolegom. de Com. p. xxiv.
ἑκκαίδεκα δὲ σατύρων, τραγῳδίας. Though the numbers are wrong in both
passages, it is plain that the tragic and satyric choruses were of the
same size.

[864] Poll. iv. 109; Schol. Arist Av. 298, Acharn. 219; Bekk. Anecd. p.
746, &c.

[865] Lüders, l.c. pp. 187 ff. Wieseler, Denkmäler, xiii. 2.

[866] Pausan. i. 28. 6; Schol. Arist. Nub. 343; Baumeister, Denkmäler,
no. 422.

[867] Vit. Soph.

[868] Aesch. Agam. 75; Eur. Herc. Fur. 108.

[869] Eur. Suppl. 10, 97; Aesch. Choeph. 10, 11.

[870] Aesch. Suppl. 234-6 ἀνέλληνα στόλον | πέπλοισι βαρβάροισι καὶ
πυκνώμασι | χλίοντα; Eur. Bacch. 58.

[871] Aesch. Eum. 52; vit. Aesch. p. 4 Dindf.; Poll. iv. 110; Pausan. i.
28. 6.

[872] See Fürtwängler, Annali dell’ Instituto, 1877, pp. 225 ff., 449 ff.

[873] Hymn to Aphrodite, l. 262.

[874] Strabo, x. p. 471.

[875] Herod. v. 67.

[876] Journal of Hellenic Studies, xi. plate xi, from which the present
illustration is taken by permission of the Council of the Hellenic
Society.

[877] Wieseler, Denkmäler, vi. 3. Baumeister, Denkmäler, no. 424. In the
latter painting the tail and phallus are not visible; but this appears to
be merely owing to the position of the two satyrs. It can hardly be taken
as evidence that the tail and phallus had been discarded at this time.

[878] See Körte, in Bethe’s Prolegomena, pp. 339 ff.

[879] So Loeschcke, Athen. Mittheil. 1894, p. 522; Bethe, Prolegomena, p.
38.

[880] [Miss Harrison, Proleg. to the Study of Greek Religion, p. 421,
derives τραγῳδία from τράγος in the sense of ‘spelt’; but the derivation
is more than doubtful.]

[881] Frag. 207 (Nauck) τράγος γένειον ἆρα πενθήσεις σύ γε.

[882] Wieseler, Denkmäler, vi. 3.

[883] Cp. Hor. A. P. 221 ‘mox etiam agrestes Satyros _nudavit_’.

[884] Cyclops 80 σὺν τᾷδε τράγου χλαίνᾳ.

[885] See the list of titles of comedies in Meineke, Hist. Crit. Com.
Graec. pp. 269 ff.

[886] Arist. Acharn. 627 ἀλλ’ ἀποδύντες τοῖς ἀναπαίστοις ἐπίωμεν; Thesm.
656 τῶν θ’ ἱματίων ἀποδύσας.

[887] Schol. Aristoph. Nub. 343.

[888] Schol. Aristoph. Nub. 289.

[889] Poppelreuter, De Comoed. Atticae Primordiis, 1893, p. 15.
Loeschcke, Athen. Mittheil. 1894, p. 519. Cook, Journal of Hellenic
Studies, 1894, pp. 165 ff.

[890] So Poppelreuter, l.c. pp. 9-11. A copy of the vase is given on p. 8.

[891] Bollettino Archeologico Napolitano, Nuova Serie, v. tav. 7.

[892] Journal of Hellenic Studies, ii. plate xiv A.

[893] The illustration is taken, by permission of the Council of the
Hellenic Society, from the Journal of Hellenic Studies, ii. plate xiv B.
See Mr. Cecil Smith’s interesting article on the subject.

[894] Tzetzes, Prolegom. ad Lycophr. p. 254 M, τραγικῶν δὲ καὶ σατυρικῶν
καὶ κωμικῶν ποιητῶν κοινὸν μὲν τὸ τετραγώνως ἔχειν ἱστάμενον τὸν χορόν:
Bekk. Anecd. p. 746; Et. Mag. s.v. τραγῳδία; vit. Aristoph. (Dindf.
Prolegom. de Com. p. 36).

[895] Athen. p. 181 C.

[896] Poll. iv. 108, 109 καὶ τραγικοῦ μὲν χοροῦ ζυγὰ πέντε ἐκ τριῶν καὶ
στοῖχοι τρεῖς ἐκ πέντε· πεντεκαίδεκα γὰρ ἦσαν ὁ χορός. καὶ κατὰ τρεῖς μὲν
εἰσῄεσαν, εἰ κατὰ ζυγὰ γίνοιτο ἡ πάροδος· εἰ δὲ κατὰ στοίχους, ἀνὰ πέντε
εἰσῄεσαν ... ὁ δὲ κωμικὸς χορὸς τέτταρες καὶ εἴκοσιν ἦσαν οἱ χορευταί,
ζυγὰ ἕξ, ἕκαστον δὲ ζυγὸν ἐκ τεττάρων, στοῖχοι δὲ τέτταρες, ἓξ ἄνδρας
ἔχων ἕκαστος στοῖχος.

[897] Athen. p. 628 F.

[898] Schol. Aristid. iii. p. 535 Dindf. ὅτε εἰσῄεσαν οἱ χοροὶ πλαγίως
βαδίζοντες ἐποιοῦντο τοὺς ὕμνους καὶ εἶχον τοὺς θεατὰς ἐν ἀριστερᾷ αὐτῶν
καὶ οἱ πρῶτοι τοῦ χοροῦ ἀριστερὸν στοῖχον, p. 536 τοὺς οὖν καλοὺς τῶν
χορευτῶν ἔταττον εἰσιόντες ἐν τοῖς [τῶν] ἑαυτῶν ἀριστεροῖς, ἵνα εὑρεθῶσι
πρὸς τὸν δῆμον ὁρῶντες.

[899] Poll. ii. 161 τάχα δὲ καὶ ὁ ἀριστεροστάτης ἐν χορῷ προσήκοι ἂν
τῇ ἀριστερᾷ, ὡς ὁ δεξιοστάτης τῇ δεξιᾷ. Phot. s.v. λαυροστάται· μέσον
τοῦ χοροῦ· οἱονεὶ γὰρ ἐν στενωπῷ εἰσιν· φαυλότεροι δὲ οὗτοι. Hesych.
λαυροστάται· οἱ ἐν τοῖς μέσοις ζυγοὶ ... μὴ θεωρούμενοι. The ὑποκόλπιον
τοῦ χοροῦ, defined by Hesych. as τῆς στάσεως χῶραι αἱ ἄτιμοι, probably
included the whole file of laurostatae, though some scholars confine it
to nos. 7, 8, and 9.

[900] Plut. Conv. p. 678 D ὥσπερ χοροῦ, τοῦ συμποσίου τὸν κρασπεδίτην τῷ
κορυφαίῳ συνήκοον ἔχοντος. The κρασπεδῖται were also called ψιλεῖς; cp.
Suid. s.v. ψιλεύς· ἐπ’ ἄκρου χοροῦ ἱστάμενος: Hesych. s.v. ψιλεῖς· οἱ
ὕστατοι χορεύοντες.

[901] Hesych. s.v. ἀριστεροστάτης· ὁ πρωτοστάτης τοῦ χοροῦ. Poll. iv. 106
δεξιοστάτης, ἀριστεροστάτης, δευτεροστάτης, τριτοστάτης. [Cp. Menander
fr. 165 (Kock) ὥσπερ τῶν χορῶν | οὐ πάντες ᾄδουσ’, ἀλλ’ ἄφωνοι δύο τινὲς
| ἢ τρεῖς παρεστήκασι πάντων ἔσχατοι | εἰς τὸν ἀριθμόν, καὶ τοῦθ’ ὁμοίως
πως ἔχει. This probably means that the mute members of the chorus were
placed in the third file, the δεξιοστάται or τριτοστάται, whom Hesych.
calls ἔσχατοι (s.v. λαυροστάται· οἱ ἐν τοῖς μέσοις ζυγοὶ ... οἱ δὲ
ἐπιτεταγμένοι πρῶτοι καὶ ἔσχατοι).]

[902] Phot. s.v. τρίτος ἀριστεροῦ· ἐν τοῖς τραγικοῖς χοροῖς τριῶν ὄντων
στοίχων καὶ πέντε ζυγῶν, ὁ μὲν ἀριστερὸς πρὸς τῷ θεάτρῳ ἦν, ὁ δὲ δεξιὸς
πρὸς τῷ προσκηνίῳ. συνέβαινεν οὖν τὸν μέσον τοῦ ἀριστεροῦ στοίχου τὴν
ἐντιμοτάτην καὶ τὴν οἷον τοῦ πρωτοστάτου χώραν ἐπέχειν καὶ στάσιν.
The coryphaeus was also called χορηγός Athen. p. 633 A, χοραγός Plut.
Apophth. Lac. p. 219 E, ἡγεμών and ἡγεμὼν κορυφαῖος Dem. Meid. § 60,
χοροστάτης Hesych., χορολέκτης Ael. Hist. An. xi. 1, χοροποιός Xen. Ages.
ii. 17.

[903] Dem. Meid. § 60.

[904] Aristot. Met. iv. 11 ταῦτα δ’ ἐστὶν ὅσα πρός τι ἓν ὡρισμένον
διέστηκε κατὰ τὸν λόγον, οἷον παραστάτης τριτοστάτου πρότερον, καὶ
παρανήτη νήτης· ἔνθα μὲν γὰρ ὁ κορυφαῖος, ἔνθα δὲ ἡ μέση ἀρχή.

[905] See above, p. 271.

[906] Poll. iv. 109; Vit. Aesch. p. 4 Dindf.

[907] Arist. Av. 268-96.

[908] Arist. Lysist. 254, 319. In the Ecclesiazusae the chorus probably
entered together at l. 285. The extra women in the first scene were not
members of the chorus, but παραχορηγήματα.

[909] Arg. Aesch. Pers. τῶν δὲ χορῶν τὰ μέν ἐστι παροδικά, ὡς ὅτε λέγει
δι’ ἣν αἰτίαν πάρεστιν, ὡς τὸ “Τύριον οἶδμα λιποῦσα”. Schol. Eur. Phoen.
πάροδος δέ ἐστιν ᾠδὴ χοροῦ βαδίζοντος ᾀδομένη ἅμα τῇ εἰσόδῳ, ὡς τὸ “Σῖγα
σῖγα λεπτὸν ἴχνος ἀρβύλης τίθετε”. Aristot. Poet. c. 12 defines the
parodos as ἡ πρώτη λέξις ὅλου χοροῦ. He thus extends the meaning of the
word so as to include, not only entrance-songs in the proper sense, but
also those cases where the chorus enter in silence, and sing their odes
later on. [Masqueray, Théorie des formes lyriques de la tragédie grecque,
c. ii, analyses in detail the parodoi of the extant plays.]

[910] Other examples are the Prom. Vinct. of Aeschylus; the Philoctetes
of Sophocles; the Medea, Heracleidae, Troades, and Electra of Euripides.

[911] Müller (Die griech. Bühnenalt. p. 214), following Hermann (Opusc.
vi. 2, p. 144) supposes the whole chorus to have wheeled completely
round, so that the left file came to be nearest to the stage. He thinks
it more natural for the coryphaeus to have been immediately in front of
the stage, where he would be in a position to converse with the actors.
But he could do so equally well from the centre of the back row. And
it seems most improbable that care should have been taken, during the
entrance into the orchestra, to place the coryphaeus and best choreutae
in the line most conspicuous to the spectators, but that throughout the
rest of the performance they should have been stationed in a position
where the majority of the spectators would hardly have been able to see
them.

[912] Anon. de Com. (Dindf. Prolegom. de Com. p. 29); Vit. Aristoph.
(ibid. p. 36); Schol. Arist. Equit. 505.

[913] Schol. Arist. Equit. 505, Pax 733. As to the formation during the
latter part of the parabasis, it is almost certain that the chorus was
then divided into ἡμιχόρια. Two MSS. assign the strophe and antistrophe
to ἡμιχόρια in Nubes 563, 595, Vespae 1060, 1091, Aves 737, 769, and
the epirrhema and antepirrhema in Ranae 686, 717. See Arnoldt, Die
Chorpartieen bei Aristoph. pp. 180 ff. That the half-choruses stood
facing one another seems to be indicated by Hephaest. 14, p. 131, ἔστι
δέ τις ἐν ταῖς κωμῳδίαις καὶ ἡ καλουμένη παράβασις, ἐπειδὰν εἰσελθόντες
εἰς τὸ θέατρον καὶ ἀντιπρόσωπον ἀλλήλοις στάντες οἱ χορευταὶ παρέβαινον:
Anon. de Comoed. (Dübner, Prolegom. de Com. p. xx) ἀπελθόντων δὲ τῶν
ὑποκριτῶν πρὸς ἀμφότερα τὰ μέρη τοῦ δήμου ὁρῶν ἐκ τετραμέτρου δεκαὲξ
στίχους ἀναπαίστους ἐφθέγγετο, καὶ τοῦτο ἐκαλεῖτο στροφή.

[914] Poll. iv. 108. The temporary departure was called μετάστασις, the
return ἐπιπάροδος.

[915] Aesch. Eum. 235; Soph. Ajax 815.

[916] Eur. Hel. 327 ff.

[917] Eur. Alc. 746; Arist. Eccles. 310.

[918] Schol. Arist. Vesp. 580.

[919] See chap. v. pp. 270 ff.

[920] See especially Arnoldt, Die Chorpartieen bei Aristophanes (Leipzig,
1873), Die chorische Technik des Euripides (Halle, 1878), Der Chor
im Agamemnon des Aeschylos (Halle, 1881); Christ, Theilung des Chors
im attischen Drama (München, 1877); Muff, Die chorische Technik des
Sophokles (Halle, 1877), De choro Persarum (Halle, 1878), Der Chor in
den Sieben des Aeschylos (Halle, 1882); Hense, Der Chor des Sophokles
(Berlin, 1877), Ueber die Vortragsweise Soph. Stasima (Rhein. Museum,
xxxii); Zielinski, Die Gliederung der altattischen Komödie (Leipzig,
1885).

[921] In Poet. c. 12 he defines the πάροδος as ἡ πρώτη λέξις ὅλου χοροῦ,
implying that other odes were also sung by the whole chorus. If so,
the στάσιμα, which were far the most important of the other odes, must
have been so sung. Whether the expression ὅλα χορικὰ μέλη, applied to
the στάσιμα, means ‘sung by the whole chorus’, or merely ‘unbroken’, as
opposed to the κόμμοι, is uncertain.

[922] Schol. Eur. Alc. 79 ἐκ γερόντων Φεραίων ὁ χορός, διαιρεῖται δὲ
εἰς δύο ἡμιχόρια. That the anapaests in Ranae 354-71, which come in the
middle of the parodos, were spoken by the coryphaeus is proved by the
concluding lines (ὑμεῖς δ’ ἀνεγείρετε μολπὴν κ.τ.λ.), in which the rest
of the chorus is commanded to begin.

[923] When these short odes were of a lively character, they were
apparently called ὑπορχήματα by the grammarians, and regarded as a
separate class. But even stasima might be composed in the hyporchematic
style. It seems better, therefore, to regard ὑπόρχημα as a term
applicable, not to short lyrics only, but to any lyrics of a lively and
dance-like metre. See the Tragic Drama of the Greeks, pp. 357, 359.

[924] See the previous page.

[925] e.g. Arist. Ran. 382, Vesp. 1516, Thesmoph. 655, &c.

[926] Aesch. Agam. 1344 ff., Eum. 140 ff., Schol. ad loc. ἀναστήσει
αὐτὰς οὐκ ἀθρόως, μιμούμενος ἐμφατικῶς τὴν ἀλήθειαν, ἀλλ’ ἐγείρεταί τις
πρώτη, ὥστε μὴ ἀθρόως τὸν χορὸν φθέγξασθαι. Müller (Griech. Bühnenalt.
p. 218) is mistaken in citing the passage in the Lysistrata, 727-80, as
an example of the delivery of words by individual choreutae. The three
women who take part in the dialogue are not members of the chorus, but
performers upon the stage.

[927] Cp. the sensible remarks of the Schol. on Arist. Ran. 375 ἐντεῦθεν
Ἀρίσταρχος ὑπενόησε μὴ ὅλου τοῦ χοροῦ εἶναι τὰ πρῶτα· τοῦτο δὲ οὐκ
ἀξιόπιστον. πολλάκις γὰρ ἀλλήλοις οὕτω παρακελεύονται οἱ περὶ τὸν χορόν.

[928] Poll. iv. 107 καὶ ἡμιχόριον δὲ καὶ διχορία καὶ ἀντιχόρια. ἔοικε
δὲ ταὐτὸν εἶναι ταυτὶ τὰ τρία ὀνόματα· ὁπόταν γὰρ ὁ χορὸς εἰς δύο μέρη
τμηθῇ, τὸ μὲν πρᾶγμα καλεῖται διχορία, ἑκατέρα δὲ ἡ μοῖρα ἡμιχόριον, ἃ
δ’ ἀντᾴδουσιν, ἀντιχόρια. The Schol. on Arist. Equit. 589 has a curious
note to the effect that, when the chorus was divided into two halves of
different sex or age, the older or stronger half was always slightly more
numerous. In a comic chorus there would be 13 men to 11 women, 13 women
to 11 boys, and so on.

[929] Soph. Ajax 866 ff.; Eur. Orest. 1258 ff.

[930] See Arnoldt, Die Chorpartieen bei Aristophanes, pp. 180 ff., where
a list is given of the passages which are assigned to half-choruses by
Rav. and Ven., e.g. Acharn. 1150, 1162, Nub. 563, 595. Vesp. 1060, 1091,
Av. 737, 769, 1058, 1088, Eccles. 290, 301, Thesmoph. 659, Lysist. 321.
[J. W. White, Harvard Stud, in Class. Phil. vol. xvii, assigns a more
important part to the leader of the second semi-chorus in comedy than has
usually been recognized, but the evidence is not conclusive.]

[931] Bergk’s notion (Griech. Lit. iii. p. 131) that in Arist. Poet. c.
12 (κοινὰ μὲν ἁπάντων ταῦτα, ἴδια δὲ τὰ ἀπὸ τῆς σκηνῆς καὶ κόμμοι) ἴδια
= ‘sung by individuals or sections’ is clearly wrong. ἴδια = ‘not found
in all plays’, and the word to be supplied with ἁπάντων is δραμάτων, not
χορευτῶν.

[932] Athen. p. 628 E εἰ δέ τις ... ταῖς ᾠδαῖς ἐπιτυγχάνων μηδὲν λέγοι
κατὰ τὴν ὄρχησιν, οὗτος δ’ ἦν ἀδόκιμος.

[933] Athen. p. 20 F.

[934] Plat. Legg. 816 A.

[935] Athen. p. 21 F ἄκρως ταῖς χερσὶ τὰ λεγόμενα δεικνυούσαις.

[936] Lucian, de Salt. 63 ταῖς χερσὶ λαλεῖν.

[937] Ovid, Ars Am. i. 595 ‘si vox est, canta; si mollia bracchia, salta’.

[938] Juv. v. 120 ‘structorem interea, ne qua indignatio desit, |
saltantem spectes et chironomunta volanti | cultello’.

[939] Quint. Inst. xi. 3. 89 ‘abesse enim plurimum a saltatore debet
orator, ut sit gestus ad sensus magis quam ad verba accommodatus’, &c.

[940] Arist. Poet. c. 1 καὶ γὰρ οὗτοι (οἱ ὀρχησταὶ) διὰ τῶν
σχηματιζομένων ῥυθμῶν μιμοῦνται καὶ ἤθη καὶ πάθη καὶ πράξεις.

[941] Plut. Symp. 747 B fol. The three divisions of dancing are φοραί,
σχήματα, δείξεις.

[942] Athen. p. 630 B πρώτη δὲ εὕρηται ἡ περὶ τοὺς πόδας κίνησις τῆς διὰ
τῶν χειρῶν. οἱ γὰρ παλαιοὶ τοὺς πόδας μᾶλλον ἐγυμνάζοντο ἐν τοῖς ἀγῶσι.

[943] Athen. p. 22 A.

[944] Plut. Symp. 732 F σχήματα δ’ ὄρχησις τόσα μοι πόρεν ὅσσ’ ἐνὶ πόντῳ
| κύματα ποιεῖται χείματι νὺξ ὀλοή.

[945] Arist. Vesp. 1474 ff.

[946] Athen. p. 21 E.

[947] Athen. p. 628 E ὥστ’ εἴ τις ὀρχοῖτ’ εὖ, θέαμ’ ἦν· νῦν δὲ δρῶσιν
οὐδέν, | ἀλλ’ ὥσπερ ἀπόπληκτοι στάδην ἑστῶτες ὠρύονται.

[948] Aristoph. Acharn. 204 τῇδε πᾶς ἕπου, δίωκε, καὶ τὸν ἄνδρα πυνθάνου
κ.τ.λ., Schol. ad loc. γέγραπται δὲ τὸ μέτρον τροχαϊκόν, πρόσφορον τῇ
τῶν διωκόντων γερόντων σπουδῇ. ταῦτα δὲ ποιεῖν εἰώθασιν οἱ τῶν δραμάτων
ποιηταὶ κωμικοὶ καὶ τραγικοί, ἐπειδὰν δρομαίως εἰσάγωσι τοὺς χορούς, ἵνα
ὁ λόγος συντρέχῃ τῷ δράματι. Cp. Pax 301, 325, Plutus 257.

[949] Schol. Eur. Phoen. 202; Suidas s.v. στάσιμον, &c.

[950] On the use of ἔξοδος in this sense see the Tragic Drama of the
Greeks, p. 352. The word was also applied to the whole of the concluding
scene of a tragedy.

[951] Aesch. Eum. 307 ἄγε δὴ καὶ χορὸν ἅψωμεν. Eur. Herc. Fur. 761 πρὸς
χοροὺς τραπώμεθα. Arist. Thesmoph. 953 ὅρμα, χώρει | κοῦφα ποσίν, ἄγ’ ἐς
κύκλον, | χειρὶ σύναπτε χεῖρα. Other passages of the same kind are not
infrequent.

[952] Schol. Eur. Hec. 647 (p. 211 Dindf.).

[953] See above, p. 307, note 2.

[954] The liveliness of these dances, even in tragedy, is proved by such
expressions as the following: Soph. Ajax 693 ἔφριξ’ ἔρωτι, περιχαρὴς δ’
ἀνεπτόμαν. Eur. Orest. 1353 ἰὼ ἰὼ φίλαι, κτύπον ἐγείρετε, κτύπον καὶ
βοάν. El. 859 θὲς ἐς χορόν, ὦ φίλα, ἴχνος, | ὡς νεβρὸς οὐράνιον | πήδημα
κουφίζουσα σὺν ἀγλαΐᾳ.

[955] Arist. Vesp. 1536 τοῦτο γὰρ οὐδείς πω πάρος δέδρακεν, | ὀρχούμενον
ὅστις ἀπήλλαξεν χορὸν τρυγῳδῶν, Schol. ad loc. εἰσέρχεται γὰρ ὁ χορὸς
ὀρχούμενος, οὐδαμῶς δὲ ἐξέρχεται. Eccles. 1179 αἴρεσθ’ ἄνω, ἰαί, εὐαί.

[956] Schol. Arist. Ran. 924 ἡ πρὸς τὰς ῥήσεις ὑπόρχησις.

[957] Schol. Arist. Nub. 1355 οὕτως ἔλεγον πρὸς χορὸν λέγειν, ὅτε τοῦ
ὑποκριτοῦ διατιθεμένου τὴν ῥῆσιν ὁ χορὸς ὠρχεῖτο.

[958] Athen. p. 22 A Ἀριστοκλῆς γοῦν φησιν ὅτι Τελέστης, ὁ Αἰσχύλου
ὀρχηστής, οὕτως ἦν τεχνίτης, ὥστε ἐν τῷ ὀρχεῖσθαι τοὺς Ἑπτὰ ἐπὶ Θήβας
φανερὰ ποιῆσαι τὰ πράγματα δι’ ὀρχήσεως.

[959] Plat Legg. 816 A.

[960] Suid. s.v. ξιφισμός; Hesych. s.v. ξιφίζειν; Poll. iv. 105 καὶ μὴν
τραγικῆς ὀρχήσεως σχήματα σιμὴ χείρ, καλαθίσκος, χεὶρ καταπρηνής, ξύλου
παράληψις, διπλῆ, θερμαυστρίς, κυβίστησις, παραβῆναι τέτταρα.

[961] See above, p. 307, note 2.

[962] Aesch. Pers. 1038 ff.

[963] Schol. Arist. Nub. 542 κόρδαξ κωμική, ἥτις αἰσχρῶς κινεῖ τὴν ὀσφύν.
Hesych. s.v. κόρδαξ; Plat. Legg. p. 816 A; Theoph. Char. 6.

[964] Arist. Nub. 540 οὐδὲ κόρδαχ’ εἵλκυσεν.

[965] Arist. Vesp. 1529 στρόβει, παράβαινε κύκλῳ καὶ γάστρισον σεαυτόν,
| ῥῖπτε σκέλος οὐράνιον· βέμβικες ἐγγενέσθων. Thesm. 953 ὅρμα, χώρει |
κοῦφα ποσίν, ἄγ’ ἐς κύκλον, | χειρὶ σύναπτε χεῖρα.

[966] Poll. iv. 99, 103; Athen. p. 629 F-630 A; Dion. Hal. A. R. vii. 72;
Phot. s.v. σκώπευμα.

[967] Plut. Symp. 713 C τὸ δὲ μέλος καὶ τὸν ῥυθμὸν ὥσπερ ὄψον ἐπὶ τῷ
λόγῳ, καὶ μὴ καθ’ αὑτὰ προσφέρεσθαι.

[968] Pratinas apud Athen. p. 617 B τὰν ἀοιδὰν κατέστασε Πιερὶς
βασίλειαν· ὁ δ’ αὐλὸς | ὕστερον χορευέτω· καὶ γάρ ἐσθ’ ὑπηρέτας.

[969] See, on the whole question, Monro’s Modes of Ancient Greek Music,
Oxford, 1894, Macran’s Aristoxenus, 1902.

[970] Plut. Mus. 1136 D-F.

[971] Heracleid. ap. Athen., p. 625 B; Aesch. Suppl. 69 Ἰαονίοισι νόμοισι.

[972] Vit. Soph., p. 8 Dindf.

[973] Aristot. Prob. xix. 30, 48.

[974] Arist. Ran. 1286 ff.; Hesych. s.v. διαύλιον· ὁπόταν ἐν τοῖς μέλεσι
μεταξὺ παραβάλλῃ μέλος τι ὁ ποιητὴς παρασιωπήσαντος τοῦ χοροῦ.

[975] Suid. s.v. Τιμόθεος. Plut. Mus. 1135 D.

[976] Suid. l.c. τὴν ἀρχαίαν μουσικὴν ἐπὶ τὸ μαλακώτερον μετήγαγεν.

[977] Pherecrat. Cheiron. frag. 145 (Kock) ᾄδων ἐκτραπέλους μυρμηκίας.

[978] Arist. Ran. 1301 ff., Thesm. 100 μύρμηκος ἀτραπούς, ἢ τί
διαμινύρεται; Schol. ad loc. ὡς λεπτὰ καὶ ἀγκύλα ἀνακρουομένου μέλη τοῦ
Ἀγάθωνος· τοιαῦται γὰρ αἱ τῶν μυρμήκων ὁδοί.

[979] Plut. An seni etc. 795 C.

[980] Dem. de Cor. § 28.

[981] Dem. Meid. § 74.

[982] Theophrast. Char. 9 καὶ ξένοις δὲ αὑτοῦ θέαν ἀγοράσας μὴ δοὺς τὸ
μέρος θεωρεῖν.

[983] E.g. Böttiger, Kleine Schriften, i. pp. 295 ff.; Wachsmuth, Hellen.
Alterthumskunde, ii. p. 391; Bergk, Griech. Literaturgesch. iii. p. 49.

[984] E.g. Bernhardy, Griech. Literaturgesch. ii. 2. p. 132; Böckh, Trag.
Princip. p. 37; Meineke, Menand. et Philem. Reliq. p. 345.

[985] Plat. Gorg. 502 B-E, Legg. 817 A-C, 658 A-D.

[986] Aristoph. Nub. 537-9, Pax 765, 766, 962-7. Cp. also Eupolis,
Προσπάλτιοι, fr. 244 (Kock) Ἡράκλεις, τοῦτ’ ἔστι σοι | τὸ σκῶμμ’ ἀσελγὲς
καὶ Μεγαρικὸν καὶ σφόδρα | ψυχρόν. γελῶσιν, ὡς ὁρᾷς, τὰ παιδία. Arist.
Pax 50-3 ἐγὼ δὲ τὸν λόγον γε τοῖσι παιδίοις | καὶ τοῖσιν ἀνδρίοισι
καὶ τοῖς ἀνδράσι | καὶ τοῖς ὑπερτάτοισιν ἀνδράσιν φράσω | καὶ τοῖς
ὑπερηνορέουσιν. [Rogers, Introd. to the Ecclesiazusae, takes this
passage, in which women are not mentioned, to prove that they were not
present. But the point of the jest is in the enumeration of men in an
ascending scale of manliness, and to mention women, even if they were
present, would have spoiled it. The other passages which he quotes,
Eccles. 165 ff., 435 ff., 1144 ff., and the situation in the Thesmoph.,
are satisfied if we suppose a large preponderance of men; but they do not
require us to assume the exclusion of women.]

[987] Alciphron, Epist. ii. 3. [Rogers, l.c. quotes a sentence of
Glycera’s supposed reply, where she speaks of herself as standing in the
wings and watching the performance, to prove that ὁρώσης καὶ καθημένης ἐν
τῷ θεάτρῳ does not imply that women were in the audience. But καθημένης
ἐν τῷ θεάτρῳ naturally and almost technically means this; and the two
passages need not be taken to refer to the same point in Glycera’s
supposed proceedings.]

[988] Lucian, Anachar. 22.

[989] Aristoph. Ran. 1050, 1051.

[990] Athen. p. 534 C.

[991] Theophrast. Char. 9 and 13.

[992] Schol. Aristoph. Eccles. 22.

[993] Vit. Aeschyli, p. 4 Dindf.

[994] C. I. A. iii. 282, 313, 315, 316, 321, 322, 324, 325, 333, 342,
343, 345, 350, 351, 354, 361, &c.

[995] Aristoph. Achar. 241-6; Menand. fr. 558 (Kock).

[996] E.g. Müller, Die griech. Bühnenalterthümer, p. 291.

[997] Aristoph. Av. 793-6 εἴ τε μοιχεύων τις ὑμῶν ἐστιν ὅστις τυγχάνει, |
κᾆθ’ ὁρᾷ τὸν ἄνδρα τῆς γυναικὸς ἐν βουλευτικῷ, | οὗτος ἂν πάλιν παρ’ ὑμῶν
πτερυγίσας ἀνέπτατο, | εἶτα βινήσας ἐκεῖθεν αὖθις αὖ καθέζετο. Thesm.
395-7 ὥστ’ εὐθὺς εἰσιόντες ἀπὸ τῶν ἰκρίων | ὑποβλέπουσ’ ἡμᾶς, σκοποῦνταί
τ’ εὐθέως | μὴ μοιχὸς ἔνδον ᾖ τις ἀποκεκρυμμένος.

[998] Aristot. Pol. vii. 17 ἐπιμελὲς μὲν οὖν ἔστω τοῖς ἄρχουσι μηθὲν
μήτε ἄγαλμα μήτε γραφὴν εἶναι τοιούτων πράξεων μίμησιν, εἰ μὴ παρά τισι
θεοῖς τοιούτοις οἷς καὶ τὸν τωθασμὸν ἀποδίδωσιν ὁ νόμος· πρὸς δὲ τούτοις
ἀφίησιν ὁ νόμος τοὺς ἔχοντας ἡλικίαν πλέον προσήκουσαν καὶ ὑπὲρ αὑτῶν καὶ
τέκνων καὶ γυναικῶν τιμαλφεῖν τοὺς θεούς. τοὺς δὲ νεωτέρους οὔτ’ ἰάμβων
οὔτε κωμῳδίας θεατὰς νομοθετητέον.

[999] [Navarre, Utrum mulieres Athenienses scenicos ludos spectaverint,
1900, discusses the evidence in detail, and comes to the same conclusions
as those which are stated in the text.]

[1000] Plat. Gorg. 502 D.

[1001] Theophrast. Char. 9.

[1002] Schol. Lucian, Tim. 49; Suidas s.v. θεωρικόν.

[1003] Dem. de Cor. § 28 ἀλλ’ ἐν τοῖν δυοῖν ὀβολοῖν ἐθεώρουν ἄν. This
passage shows that there cannot have been any alternative between the
reserved seats for distinguished persons and the ordinary two-obol seats.
Two obols is also the sum mentioned by Phot., Suid., and Etym. Mag. s.
vv. θεωρικόν; Etym. Mag. θεωρικά; Liban. Hyp. to Dem. Olynth. i; Schol.
Aristoph. Vesp. 1184. The entrance fee is given as one obol by Ulpian
on Dem. Olynth. i. § 1; and as three obols by Schol. Dem. de Cor. §
28. But both are no doubt mistaken. It is given as a drachma by Schol.
Lucian, Tim. 49; Phot. and Suid. s. vv. θεωρικά; Philochorus apud Harp.
s.v. θεωρικά. But the drachma probably denotes the aggregate fees for
successive days at one festival. Plat. Apol. 26 D has most likely no
reference to the theatre. See Appendix C.

[1004] Plut. Pericl. 157 A; Ulpian on Dem. Olynth. i. § 1.

[1005] Ath. Pol. c. 28 (see Kenyon’s and Sandys’s notes).

[1006] Dem. de Contrib. § 169; Phot., Suid., Etym. Mag. s. vv. θεωρικόν;
Etym. Mag. s.v. θεωρικά; Liban. and Ulpian, ll. cc. It was called
διωβολία (Aristot. Pol. ii. 7) or διωβελία (Ath. Pol. c. 28; Bekk. Anecd.
237, 15).

[1007] Four are mentioned in [Dem.] Prooem. 53; six in Schol. Lucian,
Tim. 49; Lucian, Encom. Dem. 36; Suid. δραχμὴ χαλαζῶσα; Suid., Harp., and
Phot. θεωρικά.

[1008] Dem. in Leoch. § 37.

[1009] Hyperid. in Dem. col. xxiv.

[1010] Harp. s.v. θεωρικά; Liban. Hyp. to Dem. Olynth. i; Ammonius, de
diff. vocab., s.v. θεωρός; Dem. Olynth. i. § 19, de Cor. § 118, Philipp.
iv. § 38.

[1011] For a full account of these theatre-tickets see Benndorf,
Zeitschrift für die österreichischen Gymnasien, 1875, pp. 579-95.

[1012] The illustration is taken from Baumeister, Denkmäler, no. 1833.

[1013] It is taken from Baumeister, no. 1835.

[1014] C. I. G. 5369; Tac. Ann. ii. 83.

[1015] Svoronos, περὶ τῶν Εἰσιτηρίων τῶν ἀρχαίων, in Journal
International d’Archéologie Numismatique, 1898, vol. i, pt. 1, pp.
37-120. The illustration in the text (Fig. 34) is taken from this article.

[1016] The lessee was generally called ἀρχιτέκτων (Dem. de Cor. § 28),
because part of his contract was to look after the buildings of the
theatre. He was also called θεατροπώλης (Poll. vii. 199), from the fact
of his selling seats; and θεατρώνης (Theophrast. Char. 11), from the fact
of his having taken the theatre on lease. The nature of the arrangement
with the lessee may be gathered from (1) C. I. A. ii. 573, in which the
lessees of the theatre at the Peiraeeus engage to keep the fabric in
good repair; (2) Dem. de Cor. § 28 ἢ θέαν μὴ κατανεῖμαι τὸν ἀρχιτέκτονα
αὐτοῖς κελεῦσαι; (3) Ulpian on Dem. Olynth. i. § 1 ὥστε λαμβάνειν ... δύο
ὀβολούς, ἵνα ... τὸν δ’ ἄλλον παρέχειν ἔχωσι τῷ ἀρχιτέκτονι τοῦ θεάτρου.

[1017] Theophrast. Char. 30.

[1018] Schol. Aristoph. Equit. 572. Pollux, iv. 121, states rather
doubtfully that the προεδρία in the theatre might also be called πρῶτον
ξύλον. If the expression was really used, it must have dated from the
time when the theatre was still a wooden one.

[1019] C. I. A. iii. 240-384.

[1020] C. I. A. ii. 589 shows that in the Peiraeeus the demarch used to
conduct the persons honoured with proedria to the theatre. A similar
practice was no doubt observed at Athens.

[1021] C. I. A. ii. 589 καὶ εἰσαγέτω αὐτὸν ὁ δήμαρχος εἰς τὸ θέατρον
καθάπερ ἱερεῖς καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους οἷς δέδοται ἡ προεδρία παρὰ Πειραιέων.
Cp. also Hesych. s.v. νεμήσεις θέας· Ἀθηναῖοι τὰς ἐν τῷ θεάτρῳ καθέδρας,
ψηφίσματι νενεμημένας προεδρίας ἱερεῦσιν.

[1022] C. I. A. iii. 240-384. Dörpfeld, Griech. Theater, p. 47.

[1023] The thrones of seven of the archons are still preserved (C. I. A.
iii. 254-60). Those of two of the Thesmothetae are missing, but no doubt
stood in the front row with the others.

[1024] Aristoph. Equit. 573-6; Theophrast. Char. 5.

[1025] Aeschin. Fals. Leg. § 111, Ctesiph. § 76; Dem. de Cor. § 28; C. I.
A. ii. 164; Cic. de Senect. § 63; Val. Max. iii. 5.

[1026] See above, p. 33.

[1027] Aeschin. Ctesiph. § 154; Plut. X Orat., psephisms I and II, p. 851
A-F.

[1028] Schol. Aristoph. Av. 795; Poll. iv. 122 βουλευτικὸν μέρος τοῦ
θεάτρου καὶ ἐφηβικόν.

[1029] Schol. Aristoph. Eccles. 22.

[1030] Aristoph. Pax 962-6 ΤΡ. καὶ τοῖς θεαταῖς ῥῖπτε τῶν κριθῶν. ΟΙ.
ἰδού. | ΤΡ. ἔδωκας ἤδη; ΟΙ. νὴ τὸν Ἑρμῆν, ὥστε γε | ... οὐκ ἔστιν
οὐδεὶς ὅστις οὐ κριθὴν ἔχει. | ΤΡ. οὐχ αἱ γυναῖκές γ’ ἔλαβον. Alexis,
Γυναικοκρατία, fr. 1 (Meineke, Frag. Com. Gr. iii. p. 402) ἐνταῦθα περὶ
τὴν ἐσχάτην δεῖ κερκίδα | ὑμᾶς καθιζούσας θεωρεῖν ὡς ξένας [this must
mean that foreigners were in one of the extreme _side_ kerkides (see p.
98), not at the _back_ of the theatre].

[1031] [Willems, Le Nu dans la Comédie Ancienne, 1901, places the Council
in the central block, the foreigners at one side of the auditorium, the
Ephebi on the other, while the tribes occupied the other ten. A clay
theatre ticket found at Megalopolis proves that blocks were assigned to
special tribes in that theatre (Castrioles, Ἐφημ. Διέθνης τῆς Νομισμ.
Ἀρχαιολ. 1900, p. 55). See also Svoronos, quoted p. 333 n.]

[1032] In the central block, on the third step, was a statue of Hadrian,
of which the base is still preserved, erected in 112 A.D. by the
Areopagus, the Council of Six Hundred, and the people of Athens (C. I.
A. ii. 464). Besides this, the bases of three other statues of Hadrian,
erected by different tribes, are still in existence. They are all on
the second step. The first, erected by the tribe Erectheis, is in the
first block from the eastern end; the second, erected by the tribe
Acamantis, is in the sixth block from the eastern end; the third, erected
by the tribe Oeneis, is in the sixth block from the western end (C. I.
A. iii. 466-8). Thus the place of each statue in the series of blocks
corresponded exactly with the place of the tribe in the official list of
tribes. It is therefore a highly plausible conjecture that, in addition
to the statue of Hadrian in the central block, there were twelve other
statues erected by the twelve tribes in the remaining blocks; and that
each tribe had a special block appropriated to itself. See Benndorf,
Beiträge zur Kenntniss des att. Theaters, pp. 4 ff.

[1033] Fourteen of the thrones were out of place when the theatre was
first excavated (see p. 95). The position of some of them is rather
conjectural. In the list given in the text Dörpfeld’s arrangement has
been followed (Griech. Theater, p. 47). For the inscriptions see C. I.
A. iii. 240-302. There is a very full account of the inscriptions on the
thrones in Wheeler’s article on the Theatre of Dionysus, in Papers of the
American School of Classical Studies at Athens, vol. i. pp. 152 ff.

[1034] The illustration is taken from Zeitschrift für bildende Kunst,
vol. xiii. p. 196. On the back of the chair are depicted two Satyrs,
holding a bunch of grapes. In the front, underneath the seat, are
two Oriental figures, engaged in a fight with winged lions. On the
arms of the throne are figures of Cupids, setting cocks to fight.
The appropriateness of the Satyrs, as a decoration in the theatre of
Dionysus, is obvious. The cocks, no doubt, refer to the annual cock-fight
held in the theatre (see above, chap. iii. p. 177). The significance of
the Oriental figures has not yet been explained.

[1035] Aristoph. Ran. 297.

[1036] i.e. the representative of Athens at the Amphictyonic Council.

[1037] A Macedonian commander of the third century, who restored Athens
to freedom after the death of Demetrius.

[1038] i.e. the priest who carried the Iacchus, or sacred statue of
Dionysus, at the Eleusinian procession.

[1039] i.e. the priest who looked after the sacrificial fire in the
temple of Athene on the Acropolis.

[1040] He was one of the three Exegetae, or Interpreters of sacred law,
and was appointed by the Pythian oracle. A second was chosen by the
people from the Eupatridae, and also had a seat in the front row.

[1041] They were the guardians of the βουλή, and their altars were in the
βουλευτήριον.

[1042] This Antinous was a favourite of Hadrian’s, and was drowned in the
Nile, and afterwards deified.

[1043] Unknown.

[1044] Probably an official who carried a sacred stone in some
procession; but nothing is known about him.

[1045] Aeschin. Ctesiph. § 76 ἅμα τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἡγεῖτο τοῖς πρέσβεσιν εἰς
τὸ θέατρον. Dem. Meid. § 74 ἐγὼ δ’ ὑπ’ ἐχθροῦ νήφοντος, ἕωθεν, κ.τ.λ.
Aristoph. Av. 786-9 αὐτίχ’ ὑμῶν τῶν θεατῶν εἴ τις ἦν ὑπόπτερος, | εἶτα
πεινῶν τοῖς χοροῖσι τῶν τραγῳδῶν ἤχθετο, | ἐκπτόμενος ἂν οὗτος ἠρίστησεν
ἐλθὼν οἴκαδε, | κᾆτ’ ἂν ἐμπλησθεὶς ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς αὖθις αὖ κατέπτατο.

[1046] Philochorus ap. Athen. p. 464 E Ἀθηναῖοι τοῖς Διονυσιακοῖς ἀγῶσι
τὸ μὲν πρῶτον ἠριστηκότες καὶ πεπωκότες ἐβάδιζον ἐπὶ τὴν θέαν.

[1047] Philochor. ap. Athen. l.c. παρὰ δὲ τὸν ἀγῶνα πάντα οἶνος αὐτοῖς
ᾠνοχοεῖτο καὶ τραγήματα παρεφέρετο. Aristot. Eth. Nic. x. 5 καὶ ἐν τοῖς
θεάτροις οἱ τραγηματίζοντες, ὅταν φαῦλοι οἱ ἀγωνιζόμενοι ὦσι, τότε
μάλιστ’ αὐτὸ δρῶσιν.

[1048] Philochor. ap. Athen, l.c. καὶ ἐστεφανωμένοι ἐθεώρουν. Dem. Meid.
§ 52.

[1049] Aeschin. Ctesiph. § 76, Fals. Leg. § 111; Theophrast. Char. 2.

[1050] Suidas s.v. Δράκων· ὑπὸ τῶν Αἰγινητῶν ἐν τῷ θεάτρῳ, ἐπιρριψάντων
αὐτῷ ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν πετάσους πλείονας καὶ χιτῶνας καὶ ἱμάτια, ἀπεπνίγη.

[1051] The φοινικίδες mentioned by Aeschines (Ctesiph. § 76) were
probably coverlets or carpets.

[1052] See above, p. 100.

[1053] Called ῥαβδοφόροι (Schol. Aristoph. Pax 734), and ῥαβδοῦχοι (Pax
734): cp. Dem. Meid. § 179.

[1054] Suid. ἐπιμεληταί ἐχειροτονοῦντο τῶν χορῶν, ὡς μὴ ἀτακτεῖν τοὺς
χορευτὰς ἐν τοῖς θεάτροις.

[1055] Andocid. Alcibiad. § 20.

[1056] Dem. Meid. §§ 178, 179.

[1057] Plat. Legg. 700 C.

[1058] Dem. Meid. §§ 14, 226; Alciphron, Epist. iii. 71.

[1059] Poll. iv. 122 τὸ μέντοι τὰ ἑδώλια ταῖς πτέρναις κατακρούειν
πτερνοκοπεῖν ἔλεγον· ἐποίουν δὲ τοῦτο ὁπότε τινὰ ἐκβάλοιεν.

[1060] Dem. Fals. Leg. § 337; Athen. p. 245 E.

[1061] Dem. de Cor. § 262.

[1062] Cic. Tusc. iv. § 63. Αὖθις seems to have been the word used; cp.
Xen. Symp. ix. 4 ἅμα δὲ ἐβόων αὖθις.

[1063] Poll. iv. 88. The word for hissing an actor off the stage was
ἐκβάλλειν; to be hissed off was ἐκπίπτειν. See Dem. de Cor. § 265, Poll.
iv. 122.

[1064] Athen. p. 583 F.

[1065] Theophrast. Char. 11.

[1066] Theophrast. Char. l.c.

[1067] Alciphron, Epist. iii. 71 ἵνα, κἄν τι λάθωμεν ἀποσφαλέντες, μὴ
λάβῃ χώραν τὰ ἀστικὰ μειράκια κλώζειν ἢ συρίττειν.

[1068] Aristot. Eth. Nic. x. 5.

[1069] Theophrast. Char. 14.

[1070] Alciphron, Epist. iii. 71; Aul. Gell. N. A. xvii. 4.

[1071] Aristot. Eth. Nic. iii. 2, and Eustath. ad loc.

[1072] Plut. Amator. 756 C; Nauck, Trag. Gk. Frag. p. 511.

[1073] Senec. Epist. 115; Nauck, Trag. Gr. Frag. p. 457.

[1074] Vit. Aristoph. (Dindf. Prolegom. de Com. p. 12); Arg. to Soph.
Antiq.

[1075] Herod. vi. 21.

[1076] Justin. 17. 9. The passage was very likely from Theopompus.

[1077] Dem. Olynth. iii. § 15 καὶ γνῶναι πάντων ὑμεῖς ὀξύτατοι τὰ
ῥηθέντα. Cic. de Fato § 7 ‘Athenis tenue caelum, ex quo acutiores etiam
putantur Attici’.

[1078] Cic. Orat. § 25 ‘(Athenienses) quorum semper fuit prudens
sincerumque iudicium, nihil ut possent nisi incorruptum audire et
elegans’; § 27 ‘ad Atticorum igitur aures teretes et religiosas qui se
accommodant, ii sunt existimandi Attice dicere’.

[1079] Plat. Legg. 659 B.C.

[1080] Aristot. Pol. viii. 7 ἐπεὶ δ’ ὁ θεατὴς διττός, ὃ μὲν ἐλεύθερος καὶ
πεπαιδευμένος, ὃ δὲ φορτικὸς ἐκ βαναύσων καὶ θητῶν καὶ ἄλλων τοιούτων
συγκείμενος. Ibid. 6 ὁ γὰρ θεατὴς φορτικὸς ὢν μεταβάλλειν εἴωθε τὴν
μουσικήν, ὥστε καὶ τοὺς τεχνίτας τοὺς πρὸς αὐτὸν μελετῶντας αὐτούς τε
ποιούς τινας ποιεῖ καὶ τὰ σώματα διὰ τὰς κινήσεις.

[1081] Aristot. Poet. c. 13 δευτέρα δ’ ἡ πρώτη λεγομένη ὑπὸ τινῶν
ἐστι σύστασις, ἡ διπλῆν τε τὴν σύστασιν ἔχουσα καθάπερ ἡ Ὀδύσσεια καὶ
τελευτῶσα ἐξ ἐναντίας τοῖς βελτίοσι καὶ χείροσιν. δοκεῖ δὲ εἶναι πρώτη
διὰ τὴν τῶν θεάτρων ἀσθένειαν, ἀκολουθοῦσι γὰρ οἱ ποιηταὶ κατ’ εὐχὴν
ποιοῦντες τοῖς θεαταῖς. Ibid. c. 9 (of the old legends) ἐπεὶ καὶ τὰ
γνώριμα ὀλίγοις γνώριμά ἐστιν, ἀλλ’ ὅμως εὐφραίνει πάντας. Id. Rhet. iii.
1 ἐκεῖ μεῖζον δύνανται νῦν τῶν ποιητῶν οἱ ὑποκριταί.

[1082] [Cp. Römer, Ueber den litterarisch-aesthetischen Bildungsstand des
attischen Theaterpublikums, 1901.]




GREEK INDEX


  Α

  ἀγκυρίς, 209, 210.

  ἀγορά, 377.

  ἀγῶνες Χύτρινοι, 31.

  αἰγείρου θέα, 83.

  αἰῶραι, 209.

  αἰώρημα, 209.

  ἀναβάδην, 204.

  ἀναβαθμοί, 217.

  ἀναβαίνειν, 109, 148, 166, 167.

  ἀναδιδάσκειν, 71.

  ἀνάπαιστοι, 269, 270, 295.

  ἀναπίεσμα, 217.

  ἀναπλάσματα, 259.

  ἀνδρῶν χορός, 9, 10.

  Ἀνθεστήρια, 372.

  ἀντεπίρρημα, 269.

  ἀντιχόρια, 309.

  ἀπαγγέλλειν, 68.

  ἀπ’ αἰγείρου θέα, 83.

  ἀπὸ μηχανῆς, 215.

  ἀποκρίνεσθαι, 222, 227.

  ἀποκριτής, 227.

  ἀπολαχεῖν, 32.

  ἀριστεροστάτης, 300.

  ἅρπαξ, 209.

  ἀρχιτέκτων, 334, 379.

  ᾆσμα, 56.

  αὖθις, 344.

  αὐλαία, 219.

  αὐληταὶ ἄνδρες, 9.

  αὐλητής, 271.

  αὐλητῶν χοροί, 9.

  ἁψίς, 112, 194.


  Β

  βαθμοί, 379.

  βαρύστονος, 275.

  βῆμα, 88, 107, 142.

  βομβῶν, 275.

  βουλευτικόν, 328, 337.

  βροντεῖον, 218.

  βωμός, 80, 107, 108, 200.

  βωμὸς Διονύσου, 142.


  Γ

  γέρανος, 210.

  γεραραί, 375.

  γλεῦκος, 371, 372.

  γραμμαί, 107.

  γραμματεῖον, 33, 34.

  γραφαί, 200.


  Δ

  δεικηλίκτας, 282.

  δείξεις, 313.

  δεξιοστάτης, 300.

  δευτεραγωνιστής, 234.

  δευτεροστάτης, 300.

  διαζώματα, 98, 381.

  διασκευή, 71.

  διαύλιον, 321.

  διδασκαλεῖον, 60.

  διδασκαλία, 13, 61.

  διδασκαλία ἀστική, 7, 13.

  διδασκαλία Ληναϊκή, 13.

  διδασκαλία τραγική, 13.

  Διδασκαλίαι, 13, 47, 48, 351.

  διδασκαλίαν καθιέναι, 13, 32.

  διδάσκαλος, 56, 61, 62.

  διδάσκειν τραγῳδίαν, 25.

  διθύραμβος, 10, 222.

  δίοδος, 98, 380, 381.

  Διονύσια, 6, 9, 378.

  Διονύσια ἀρχαιότερα, 368-70, 374.

  Διονύσια τὰ ἀστικά, 7.

  Διονύσια τὰ ἐν ἄστει, 7, 9.

  Διονύσια τὰ ἐπὶ Ληναίῳ, 6, 372.

  Διονύσια τὰ ἐπιλήναια, 6, 370, 372.

  Διονύσια τὰ κατ’ ἀγρούς, 5, 29, 288.

  Διονύσια τὰ κατὰ κώμας, 29.

  Διονύσια τὰ κατὰ πόλεις, 29.

  Διονύσια τὰ μεγάλα, 7.

  Διονυσιακοὶ ἀγῶνες, 377.

  Διονυσιακοὶ τεχνῖται, 278.

  Διονυσιακὸν θέατρον, 87, 377.

  Διόνυσος Ἐλευθερεύς, 6, 7, 371.

  Διόνυσος Λήναιος, 24, 372, 373, 377.

  Διόνυσος Λιμναῖος, 372, 373.

  Διόνυσος ὁ ἐν Λίμναις, 371.

  διπλῆ, 317.

  διστεγία, 186.

  διχορία, 309.

  διωβελία, 331.


  Ε

  ἐγκύκληθρον, 201.

  ἐγκύκλημα, 201, 202, 205.

  εἰς ἄστυ καθιέναι, 7.

  εἰς ἄστυ καταλέγεσθαι, 31.

  εἰσκυκλεῖν, 204.

  εἰσκύκλημα, 201.

  εἴσοδος, 112.

  ἐκβάλλειν, 344.

  ἐκκλησία ἐν Διονύσου, 7.

  ἐκκυκλεῖν, 201, 204, 205, 211.

  ἐκκύκλημα, 201, 211.

  ἐκπίπτειν, 344.

  ἔκσκευα πρόσωπα, 246.

  ἐλεός, 80, 167, 222.

  Ἐλευθερεύς, 7.

  ἐμβάς, 266.

  ἐμβάτης, 248.

  ἐν ἀγροῖς, 29, 378.

  ἐν ἄστει διδάσκειν, 7, 13.

  ἐν τοῖν δυοῖν ὀβολοῖν, 330.

  ἐξάρχειν, 222.

  ἔξοδος, 270, 271, 315.

  ἐξώστρα, 309, 379.

  ἐπαναβαίνειν, 167.

  ἐπεισκυκλεῖν, 211.

  ἐπὶ Ληναίῳ, 24, 25, 372, 377, 378.

  ἐπιθέατρον, 98, 380, 381.

  ἐπιλήναια Διονύσια, 6, 370, 372.

  ἐπιμεληταί, 343.

  ἐπιμεληταὶ τῆς πομπῆς, 49.

  ἐπιμεληταὶ τῶν μυστηρίων, 49.

  ἐπιπάροδος, 305.

  ἐπίρρημα, 269.

  ἐπιστάται Ἐλευσινόθεν, 6, 370, 377.

  εὐημερεῖν, 43, 228.

  Εὔνους, 261.

  εὐφωνία, 273.

  ἐφαπτίς, 252.

  ἐφηβικόν, 337.

  ἐώρημα, 209.


  Ζ

  ζυγόν, 299, 301.

  ζῶναι, 98.

  ζωστῆρες, 209.


  Η

  ἡγεμών, 301.

  ἡγεμὼν κορυφαῖος, 301.

  ἡμικύκλιον, 101, 218.

  ἡμιστρόφιον, 218.

  ἡμιχόριον, 304, 307, 309.


  Θ

  θέα, 324, 341.

  θέα παρ’ αἰγείρῳ, 81, 83.

  θεᾶσθαι, 9.

  θεατής, 102, 348.

  θεατρίζειν, 107, 142.

  θέατρον, 81, 83, 87, 326, 348, 371, 374, 377.

  θεατροπώλης, 334.

  θεατρώνης, 334.

  θεολογεῖον, 126, 213.

  θεὸς ἀπὸ μηχανῆς, 211, 215, 216.

  θερμαυστρίς, 317.

  θεωρικόν, 331.

  θίασος, 278.

  θυμέλη, 80, 107, 108, 109, 142.

  θυμελικοί, 146, 172.


  Ι

  ἰαμβεῖον, 267, 269.

  ἰαμβύκη, 269.

  Ἰαόνιοι νόμοι, 321.

  ἴδια ᾄσματα, 310.

  ἴκρια, 81, 83, 87, 328, 377.

  ἱματιομίσθαι, 64.

  ἱματιομισθωταί, 64.

  ἱμάτιον, 250, 295.


  Κ

  καθάρσιον, 68.

  καθέζεσθαι, 32.

  καθιέναι, 228.

  καθίζειν, 32.

  καινὸς ἀγών, 30.

  καλαθίσκος, 317.

  καλαμίτης ἥρως, 377.

  κατὰ ζυγά, 299.

  κατὰ στοίχους, 102, 299.

  καταβαίνειν, 166.

  καταβλήματα, 185, 186, 198.

  καταλέγειν, 269.

  καταληπτήρ, 380, 381.

  καταλογή, 269.

  κατατομή, 90.

  κέραμος, 186.

  κεραυνοσκοπεῖον, 218.

  κερκίς, 98, 337.

  κίνησις, 278, 314.

  κλεψίαμβος, 269.

  κλῖμαξ, 129, 148, 379, 381.

  κλιμακτῆρες, 380, 381.

  κόθορνος, 248.

  κόλπωμα, 252.

  κόμμος, 268.

  κονίστρα, 101, 142.

  κόρδαξ, 318.

  κορυφαῖος, 300, 301.

  κράδη, 210.

  κρασπεδίτης, 300.

  κρηπίς, 248.

  κριτὴν ἐμβάλλειν, 32.

  κριτής, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36.

  κροῦσις, 269.

  κυβίστησις, 317.

  κύκλιος χορός, 10.

  κῶμος, 9, 20, 352.

  κωμῳδοί, 9, 20, 25, 108, 275.


  Λ

  λαρυγγίζειν, 275.

  λαυροστάτης, 170, 300.

  ληκυθίζειν, 275.

  λῆναι, 24, 376.

  Λήναια, 24, 372.

  Ληναϊκὸν θέατρον, 83.

  Λήναιον, 24, 368 ff.

  ληνός, 24, 369, 373, 376.

  Λίμναι, 24, 368 ff.

  λογεῖον, 102, 107, 112, 118, 123, 126, 146, 148, 149, 379, 380.


  Μ

  μεγαλοφωνία, 273.

  μετασκευάζεσθαι, 288.

  μετάστασις, 305.

  μηχανή, 197, 199, 209, 211, 212, 215, 216.

  μηχανοποιός, 209.

  μῖμοι, 107, 142.

  μισθός, 39.

  μονῳδία, 268.

  μυρμηκία, 321.

  μύρμηκος ἀτραπός, 321.


  Ν

  νέμειν, 51, 58.

  νεμήσεις θέας, 2, 335.

  νεμήσεις ὑποκριτῶν, 58.

  Νῖκαι τραγικαὶ καὶ κωμικαί, 362.

  νικᾶν, 40.

  νικᾶν τὰ Λήναια, 364.

  νικᾶν τραγῳδίᾳ, 26.

  νίκη ἀστική, 7.


  Ξ

  ξιφίζειν, 317.

  ξιφισμός, 317.

  ξύλου παράληψις, 317.


  Ο

  ὄγκος, 244.

  ὀκρίβας, 68, 118, 248.

  ὁλκοί, 379, 381.

  Ὄμβρικος, 261.

  ὀρθοστάτης, 380, 381.

  ὄρχησις, 311, 312, 314.

  ὀρχηστής, 313.

  ὀρχήστρα, 82, 90, 101, 102, 107, 142, 148, 166, 377.

  Ὀφέλανδρος, 261.


  Π

  παίδων χορός, 9, 10.

  παλαιὸν δρᾶμα, 19, 22.

  Παναθήναια, 12.

  παρ’ αἰγείρου θέα, 81, 83.

  παραβαίνειν, 149, 305.

  παράβασις, 149, 270, 305.

  παραβῆναι τέτταρα, 317.

  παραδιδάσκειν, 19, 22.

  παρακαταλογή, 268, 270.

  παραλογίζεσθαι, 269.

  παραπέτασμα, 118, 185, 186, 219.

  παρασκήνια, 117, 127, 139, 142, 191, 379.

  παρασκήνια τὰ ἄνω, 139, 379-81.

  παρασκήνια τὰ κάτω, 139, 379-81.

  παρασκήνιον, 235, 380.

  παραστάτης, 301.

  παραχορήγημα, 234, 235, 301.

  παρεπιγραφή, 206.

  πάροδος, 112, 149, 194, 209, 288, 302, 306.

  πεπλασμένως, 275.

  περίακτοι, 185, 191, 197, 218.

  περιβομβῶν, 275.

  περιοικοδομία, 379, 381.

  πίναξ, 45, 118, 123, 126, 186, 379, 380.

  ποικίλον, 250.

  πομπή, 9, 49.

  προάγων, 67, 68.

  προγαστρίδια, 259.

  προεδρία, 335.

  πρόλογος, 224.

  πρὸς τὰς ῥήσεις ὑπόρχησις, 317.

  πρὸς χορὸν λέγειν, 269, 317.

  προσκήνιον, 118, 127, 129, 172, 186, 219, 379-81.

  προσωπεῖον, 262.

  πρωταγωνιστεῖν, 227.

  πρωταγωνιστής, 223.

  πρῶτον ξύλον, 335.

  πρωτοστάτης, 301.

  πτερνοκοπεῖν, 344.

  πυρριχισταί, 10.


  Ρ

  ῥαβδοῦχοι, 343.

  ῥαβδοφόροι, 343.

  ῥῆσις, 224, 317.


  Σ

  σατυρικόν, 12.

  σάτυροι, 289.

  σαυτὴν ἐπαινεῖς, 176, 228.

  σίγμα, 90, 101.

  σιμὴ χείρ, 317.

  σκευή, 259.

  σκηναὶ αἱ ἐπάνω, 112, 126, 379-81.

  σκηνή, 108, 112, 141, 142, 148, 149, 166, 186, 199, 268, 379-81.

  σκηνὴ ἡ μέση, 112, 379-81.

  σκηνικὰ πρόσωπα, 288.

  σκηνικοί, 146, 172.

  σκηνογραφία, 112, 181.

  σκώπευμα, 318.

  στάσιμον, 306, 315.

  στοῖχος, 149, 299, 301.

  στροφεῖον, 218.

  στροφή, 305.

  σύκινος κλάδος, 210.

  σχήματα, 313.

  σωμάτιον, 249, 259.


  Τ

  τὰ ἀπὸ τῆς ὀρχήστρας, 149.

  τὰ ἀπὸ τῆς σκηνῆς, 149, 165, 166, 268.

  τὰ ἐκ τῶν ἁμαξῶν σκώμματα, 25.

  ταινία ξυλίνη, 44.

  ταινίαι, 209.

  τάφοι, 200.

  τετραλογία, 12, 13, 17.

  τετράμετρον, 269.

  τεχνίτης, 227, 278, 317.

  τὸ ἐπὶ τῆς σκηνῆς, 165, 166.

  τράγος, 294.

  τραγῳδοί, 9, 20, 25, 108, 275.

  τραγῳδῶν χοροί, 24.

  τράπεζα, 80, 222.

  τριλογία, 13.

  τρίμετρα, 269.

  τρίπους, 10.

  τρίτος ἀριστεροῦ, 301.

  τριτοστάτης, 300, 301.

  τροχός, 209.

  τρυγῳδία, 372.

  τρυγῳδοί, 310.


  Υ

  ὑδρίαι, 32.

  ὑποδιδάσκαλος, 62.

  ὑποκόλπιον, 300.

  ὑποκρίνεσθαι, 227, 228.

  ὑποκριτής, 58, 148, 165, 223, 224, 227, 229, 274, 284.

  ὑπόρχημα, 307.

  ὑπόρχησις, 317.

  ὑποσκήνιον, 123, 148.

  ὑφάσματα, 186, 198.


  Φ

  φαλλικά, 222.

  φαλλός, 259.

  φαρυγγίζειν, 275.

  φαρυγγίνδην, 61.

  φοινικίδες, 342.

  φοραί, 313.


  Χ

  Χαρώνιοι κλίμακες, 217.

  χεὶρ καταπρηνής, 317.

  χειρίδες, 250.

  χερσὶ λαλεῖν, 312.

  χιτών, 250.

  χιτὼν ἀμφίμαλλος, 256.

  χιτὼν μαλλωτός, 256.

  χιτὼν χορταῖος, 256.

  Χόες, 370, 372.

  χοραγός, 301.

  χορευτής, 61, 80, 299.

  χορηγεῖν, 55, 56, 63.

  χορηγεῖν κωμῳδοῖς, 44, 288.

  χορηγεῖν παισί, 90.

  χορηγεῖν τῇ φυλῇ, 10.

  χορηγεῖν τραγῳδοῖς, 10.

  χορηγεῖον, 60.

  χορηγία, 37.

  χορηγός, 10, 32, 56, 63, 64, 66, 301.

  χορικὰ μέλη, 287.

  χοροκτόνος, 54.

  χορολέκτης, 60, 301.

  χορὸν αἰτεῖν, 50.

  χορὸν διδόναι, 20, 50.

  χορὸν εἰσάγειν, 69.

  χοροποιός, 301.

  χοροστάτης, 301.

  χοροῦ τυγχάνειν, 50.

  Χύτροι, 12, 31, 371.


  Ψ

  ψαλίς, 112.

  ψιλεύς, 300.


  Ω

  ᾠδεῖον, 67, 68, 87, 177.




GENERAL INDEX


  A

  Acoustics, attention paid to, 174.

  Acrae, theatre at, 93.

  Acting, importance of the voice in, 272 ff.
    Musical training necessary for, 274.
    Style of enunciation used in, 275.
    Gestures used in, 276.

  Actors, contests between, 40 ff.
    Importance of protagonists, 42.
    Reproduction of old plays by, 43 f.
    Originally chosen by the poets, afterwards by the state, 57 ff.,
        229, 230.
    How assigned to the poets, 58.
    Paid by the state, 64.
    Tamper with the text of old plays, 74.
    The first actor introduced by Thespis, 80.
    Enter and depart by orchestra, 168, 169, 192 f.
    Meaning of the term actor, 221.
    Gradual introduction of, 222 ff.
    Number of actors in tragedy, comedy, and satyric drama, 223.
    Effect of small number of, 225.
    The Greek names for an actor, 226 f.
    Rise of the actor’s profession, 227.
    Increase in the proportion of, 228, 229.
    Distribution of parts among, 230 ff.
    Changes of costume by, 232.
    Costume of tragic actors, 237 ff.;
      of satyric actors, 255 ff.;
      of comic actors, 257 ff.
    Importance of the voice in, 272 ff.
    Musical training of, 274.
    Style of Greek acting, 275 ff.
    The Actors’ Guild, 278 ff.
    Privileges of, 278.
    Social position of, 281.
    Salaries of, 281.
    General character of, 282.
    Celebrated Athenian actors, 282 ff.
    Comic, lists of, 365.

  Aegis, the, worn by Athene, 251.

  Aeschines, acted Oenomaus, 29.
    Hired by Socrates and Simylus, 30.
    As tritagonist, 33.
    His accident at Collytus, 249.
    Taunted by Demosthenes, 281.

  Aeschylus, his first appearance as a dramatist, 11, 83.
    His Oedipodeia, 11, 15.
    His Oresteia, 12, 14, 15.
    Trilogies and tetralogies of, 13 ff.
    His Lycurgeia, 15, 17.
    His Promethean trilogy, 15.
    Number of his victories, 34.
    Records concerning his Oresteia, 48.
    Exhibits at an early age, 50.
    Actors of, 57.
    Trains his choruses, 61.
    Reproduction of his plays after his death, 73, 76.
    Text of his plays, 74, 76.
    Not popular in later times, 76.
    His stage, 150.
    His statue in the theatre, 176.
    Scenery in his plays, 180.
    Said to have invented scene-painting, 181.
    Invents stage decorations, 199.
    Introduces a second actor, 223.
    Ceases to act in person, 227.
    His improvements in the tragic costume, 238, 240, 242, 248.
    His choruses, 285 ff., 289 ff.
    Designs the dress of the Furies, 291.
    Improves the tragic dance, 314.
    His Eumenides, 327.
    Nearly killed for impiety, 346.

  Agathon, his first victory, 28, 70.
    His treatment of the chorus, 286.
    Adopts the new style of music, 321.

  Agonothetes, the, 54, 55.

  Agyrrhius, commissioner of the treasury, 40.

  Aixone, comedies at, 30.

  Alcamenes, 131.

  Alcibiades, admired for his beauty, 9, 327.
    Corrupts the judges, 35.
    Assaults Taureas, 66, 343.

  Alexander the Great, wishes to make a stage of bronze, 174.

  Altar, in the orchestra, 107.
    On the stage, 200.

  Ambassadors, provided with front seats, 324, 336.

  Anapaests, given in recitative, 269.
    Sometimes delivered by the coryphaeus, 308.

  Anapiesma, the, 217.

  Anaxandrides, never revises his comedies, 71.

  Andronicus, victorious in the Epigoni, 43.

  Anthesteria, the, distinct from the Lenaea, 6, 369 ff.
    Where celebrated, 368 ff.
    Dramatic performances at, 31, 44.

  Anti-choregi, 66.

  Antisthenes, his success as choregus, 37, 62.

  Apaturius, 127.

  Aphareus, engages in eight contests, 19.
    Exhibits at the Lenaea, 26.
    Entrusts his plays to others, 52.
    Rhetorician as well as poet, 62.

  Apollonius, disregards tetralogies, 13.

  Applause, mode of expressing, 344.

  Araros, son of Aristophanes, 51.

  Archilochus, invents recitative, 268.

  Archinus, commissioner of the treasury, 40.

  Archons, the, manage the festivals, 49.
    Their seats in the theatre, 336.

  Arguments, of plays, 48, 349.

  Aristarchus, disregards tetralogies, 13.

  Aristerostatae, 300.

  Aristias, competes with Aeschylus, 12.

  Aristodemus, the actor, 278, 281, 283.

  Aristophanes, the grammarian, 13.
    His Arguments, 47.

  Aristophanes, the poet, competes at the City Dionysia, 21, 28;
      at the Lenaea, 25, 27, 28.
    Story about his Clouds, 38.
    Third in a certain contest, 40.
    Exhibits at an early age, 51.
    Entrusts his plays to others, 51, 52.
    His Ecclesiazusae, 69.
    His Frogs much admired, 71.
    Scenery in his plays, 183, 196.
    Parodies the ekkyklema, 204.
    Parodies the mechane, 212.
    Discards the phallus, 259.
    His choruses, 287.
    Discards the kordax, 318.
    Honoured with a chaplet from the sacred olive, 346.

  Aristotle, his remark on the stories of plays, 30.
    His Didascaliae, 47.
    Censures extravagance in choregi, 64.
    His opinion concerning the deus ex machina, 216.
    His definition of acting, 273.
    His opinion about actors, 282.
    His definition of dancing, 313.
    His remarks about the admission of boys to comedies, 329.
    His description of Attic audiences, 348.

  Arsis, 311.

  Artists of Dionysus, 278.

  Asia Minor, theatres in, 133 ff., 148, 163.

  Aspendos, theatre at, passages in, 97.
    Back-wall at, 127, 134.
    Roof in, 135.

  Assembly, the, meetings of, in the theatre, 70, 178.

  Assos, theatre at, 94, 159.
    Orchestra in, 106.
    Gates, 110.
    Date of proscenium, 130.

  Assteas, his vase-painting, 127.

  Astydamas, his victories at the Lenaea, 26.
    Statue of, 87.
    Conceit of, 176.

  Astydamas, protagonist, 42.

  Athenodorus, the actor, 230, 281, 283, 284.

  Audience, the, representative character of, 4.
    Enthusiasm for the drama, 4, 346.
    Overrules the judges, 37, 344.
    Closely packed, 97, 99.
    Number of, 100.
    At the Lenaea, 324.
    At the City Dionysia, 324.
    Includes women, boys, and slaves, 324 ff.
    Distribution of seats among, 334 ff.
    Price of admission, 331, 334.
    Tickets of admission, 332.
    The proedria, 332.
    Occupants of the front rows, 335 ff.
    Comfort of, 100, 342.
    Their mode of expressing pleasure and disapproval, 344.
    Characteristics of, 344.
    Their orthodoxy, 345.
    Their intelligence and taste, 347.
    Preservation of order among, 343.

  Auditorium, the, originally of wood, 81, 84.
    In the theatre at Athens, 90 ff.
    Shape of, 92.
    Interior of, 93 ff.
    Passages in, 97 ff.
    Size of, 99, 100.
    Later history of, 100.
    Puchstein’s theory of, 131, 132.

  Awnings, 95, 100.
    Not generally used in Greek theatres, 176, 342.


  B

  Back-wall, the, 126, 127.
    In theatres of the Roman period, 133.
    Doors in, 134, 154.

  Balconies, on the stage, 187.

  Banquets, in honour of victory, 70.

  Basis (metrical term), 311.

  Bethe, on uses of proscenium, 123.
    Theory of the stage, 172, 173.
    On the drop-scene, 220.
    On the tragic costume, 239.

  Birds, chorus of, 297.
    Their mode of entrance, 302.

  Boots, in tragedy, 248 ff.
    In the Old Comedy, 260.
    In the New Comedy, 266.

  Boys, admitted to the theatre, 324 ff.

  Bradfield, theatre at, 158.

  Bronteion, the, 218.


  C

  Callicrates, promises to increase theoric distributions, 331.

  Callimachus, the grammarian, 47, 48.

  Callippides, the actor, 277, 282.

  Callistratus, exhibits plays of Aristophanes, 51, 52.
    Not an actor, 59.

  Carpets, in the theatre, 342.

  Cavea, the, 90.

  Cephisophon, 57.

  Chaeremon, 19.

  Changes, of scenery, 195 ff.
    Of costume, 231 ff.

  Chariots, in the theatre, 201.

  Charon’s Steps, 217.

  Chionides, 20, 26, 27.

  Chlamys, the, 250.

  Choerilus, number of his plays, 11.
    Competes with Aeschylus, 11.
    His improvements in masks, 242.

  Choes, 370, 372.

  Choregi, first appointment of, 11, 20, 352.
    Importance of, 36.
    How appointed, 53.
    Age of, 53.
    Replaced by synchoregi, 54;
      by the agonothetes, 54.
    Reintroduced, 55.
    Assignation of poets to, 55 f.
    Duties of, 61.
    Expenditure of, 63 ff.
    Rivalry between, 66.

  Choreutae, their appetite, 61.
    Delivery of words by single choreutae, 308.
    Decline in the excellence of, 314.

  Chorus, the, granted by the archon, 50.
    Selection and training of, 60 ff.
    Paid by the choregus, 63.
    Its dresses supplied by the choregus, 64.
    Cost of different kinds of, 64.
    Decline of, 128.
    Position of during the performance, 140, 148.
    Supposed platform for, 141.
    Occasional inaction of, 168.
    Enters and departs by the back-scene, 168.
    Comes into contact with the actors, 169.
    Extra choruses, 237.
    Gradual decline of in tragedy, 285 ff.;
      in comedy, 287 ff.
    Its size in tragedy, comedy, and satyric drama, 288 ff.
    Its costume in tragedy, 290 ff.;
      in satyric drama, 292 ff.;
      in the Old Comedy, 295 ff.
    Rectangular arrangement of, 298.
    Its mode of entrance, 299, 301.
    Irregular entrance of, 302.
    The parodos, 302.
    Its formation when in the orchestra, 303.
    Manœuvres of, 304.
    Second entrance of, 305.
    Exit of, 305.
    Delivery of words by the whole chorus, 306;
      by the coryphaeus, 307;
      by single choreutae, 308;
      by half-choruses, 309.
    Decline of choral dancing, 314.
    Accompanies the actors’ speeches with mimetic dances, 316.
    Sings in unison, 319.

  Chorus-trainers, 62.
    Paid by the choregus, 63.

  Christ, theory of the stage, 173.

  Chytri, the, dramatic contests at, 31, 44, 371.

  Cinesias, said to have abolished the choregia, 54.

  City Dionysia, the, compared with the Lenaea, 6, 7, 27, 28.
    Meaning of the name, 7.
    Date, 7.
    Character of the proceedings at, 7 ff.
    Procession at, 8, 9.
    Contests at, 9, 10.
    Tragedy at, 10 ff.
    Comedy at, 20 ff.
    Order of contests at, 23, 24.
    Actors’ contests at, 41.
    Managed by the archon eponymus, 49.
    Synchoregi at, 54.
    Proclamation of crowns at, 68.
    Tribute displayed at, 68.
    Orphans paraded at, 68.
    Where celebrated, 82, 84.

  Clâque, the, 345.

  Cleander, actor of Aeschylus, 57, 282.

  Cleidemides, actor of Sophocles, 282.

  Cleon, terror inspired by, 260.

  Cleophon, invents theoric distributions, 331.

  Clouds, chorus of, 295.

  Cock-fight, the, in the theatre, 177.

  Collytus, dramatic performances at, 29.

  Comedy, first institution of contests in, 5, 20, 26, 27.
    Specially prominent at the Lenaea, 6.
    Choregia in, 20.
    At the City Dionysia, 20 ff., 358 ff.
    Number of poets and plays in the comic contests, 20.
    Reproduction of old comedies, 22.
    At the Lenaea, 26, 27, 355 ff.
    At the Anthesteria, 31.
    Number of actors in, 224.
    Costume of actors in, 257 ff.
    Decline of the chorus in, 287.
    Size of the chorus in, 289.
    Costume of the chorus in, 295 ff.
    Dances used in, 318.
    Its connexion with religion, 328.

  Conjurors, in the theatre, 178.

  Contests, the dramatic, confined to a few festivals, 1.
    Managed by the state, 3.
    Universal prevalence of, 3.
    First institution of, 5, 11, 20, 26.
    Tragic contests at the City Dionysia, 10 ff.
    Comic contests at the City Dionysia, 20 ff.
    Tragic contests at the Lenaea, 25.
    Comic contests at the Lenaea, 26.
    Comic contests at the Anthesteria, 31.
    The judges in, 31 ff.
    Prizes for, 38 ff.
    Between actors, 40 ff.
    Records of, 44 ff.
    Commence at daybreak, 68.
    Preceded by a sacrifice, 68.
    Order determined by lot, 69.
    Announced by a trumpet, 69.

  Coryphaeus, the, in the early drama, 80.
    Position and importance of, 301.
    Delivers portions of the choral part alone, 308.

  Costume, of the tragic actors, 237 ff.
    Origin of the tragic costume, 238 ff.
    Improved by Aeschylus, 240.
    Ancient representations of the tragic costume, 241, 243.
    Tragic masks, 244 ff.
    The cothurnus, 248 ff.
    The tragic tunic, 250.
    The tragic mantle, 250.
    Head-coverings in tragedy, 251.
    Special costumes in tragedy, 251, 252.
    General character of the tragic costume, 252 ff.
    Costume of satyric actors, 255 ff.
    Costume of actors in the Old Comedy, 257 ff.
    Origin of this costume, 261.
    Costume of actors in the New Comedy, 261 ff.
    Cumbersomeness of the tragic costume often exaggerated, 276.
    Costume of the tragic chorus, 290;
      of the satyric chorus, 292 ff.;
      of the comic chorus, 295 ff.

  Cothurnus, the, 244 ff.
    Not worn in satyric dramas, 255.

  Council, the, special seats for, 337.

  Courtesans, special seats for, 337.

  Crane, the, 210.

  Crates, actor to Cratinus, 59, 228.

  Cratinus, satirized by Aristophanes, 9.
    His victories, 28, 46.
    Refused a chorus by the archon, 50.
    Called a dancer, 61, 228, 314.

  Crowns, proclaimed at the City Dionysia, 68.
    Bestowed on victors at the contests, 69.
    Worn by kings and messengers, 252.
    Worn by the spectators, 342.

  Cunei, the, 98.

  Curators, at the City Dionysia and Lenaea, 49.

  Cushions, in the theatre, 96, 342.


  D

  Dancing, importance of in the Greek drama, 311.
    Its mimetic character, 312.
    History of, 314.
    How far employed in the drama, 315.
    Used as an accompaniment to speeches from the stage, 316.
    The tragic dance, 317.
    The comic dance, 318.
    The satyric dance, 318.

  Delivery, different modes of, 266 ff.
    Louder in tragedy than in comedy, 275.
    More rhythmical than in modern times, 275.
    Delivery of the choral part, 305 ff.

  Delos, theatre at, orchestra in, 106, 121 ff., 139, 157.
    The hyposkenion, 107, 121, 123, 124, 125, 157.
    The pinakes, 123, 130.
    Date of proscenium, 130.
    Shape of stage-buildings, 139.
    Erections in front of proscenium, 157.
    Dörpfeld’s view concerning, 162.
    Accounts in connexion with, 379 ff.

  Demosthenes, his choregic dress, 8.
    His dream, 37.
    Supplies his chorus with golden crowns, 64.
    Complains of the amount spent upon choruses, 66.
    His remark about actors, 273.
    Assaulted by Meidias, 324.

  Deus ex machina, 215.

  Deuteragonist, 230, 234.

  Deuterostatae, 300.

  Dexiostatae, 300.

  Diaulia, 321.

  Dicaeogenes, his meanness, 37.

  Didascalia, meaning of the word, 47.
    The tragic didascaliae, 13; cf. 352 ff.

  Didaskalos, 61.

  Diodorus, exhibits two comedies at one contest, 21.

  Dionysia, _see_ City Dionysia, Rural Dionysia.

  Dionysius, exhibits at the Lenaea, 26, 28.

  Dionysus, Eleuthereus and Lenaeus, 6.
    His statue carried in procession, 8;
      placed in the theatre, 9.
    His temples, 88, 89, 175, 368 ff.
    His priest, 339.

  Diphilus, ejected from the theatre, 345.

  Distegia, the, 186.

  Distribution, of the parts among the actors, 230 ff.

  Dithyrambic contests, 6, 9, 24, 39, 53, 56, 65.

  Doors, from stage to orchestra, 115, 124, 153.
    Into the parodoi, 125.
    In the back-wall, 125, 134, 189.
    In the back-scene, 188.
    From the side-wings, 189, 191.
    Regulations about the doors on to the stage, 190, 194.

  Dorian Mode, the, 320.

  Dörpfeld, on date of first stone theatre at Athens, 83, 87.
    On Lycurgus’s work, 87, 88, 114.
    On the oldest stage-buildings, 113, 114, 117.
    On date of first important reconstruction, 114, 119.
    On the character of this reconstruction, 119.
    On date of stone proscenium at Athens, 131.
    His theory of the Greek stage, 144 ff.
    Contradicted by Vitruvius, 145 ff.;
      by other ancient authorities, 148 ff.
    Inconsistent with the archaeological evidence, 150 ff., 171.
    Arguments in favour of, 158 ff.
    Early literary evidence against, 165 ff.
    Evidence of the extant dramas concerning, 166 ff.
    The reason for the stage, 170.

  Drawers, worn by the satyrs, 294.

  Drop-scene, the, 218.

  Duets, between actors, 268.


  E

  Eisodoi, 112.

  Ekkyklema, the, character of, 201 ff., 205.
    Instances of in the extant dramas, 203 ff., 206 ff.
    Recent theories about, 205, 208.

  Eleusis, dramatic performances at, 29.

  Eleutherae, statue of Dionysus at, 8.

  Eleuthereus, title of Dionysus, 6, 8.

  Emmeleia, the, 317.

  Encores, 344.

  Entrances. _See_ Doors (above).

  Ephebi, receive their shields and spears in the theatre, 178.
    Their seats, 337.

  Epicharmus, date of, 20.

  Epidaurus, theatre at, its symmetry of shape, 92.
    Auditorium in, 93.
    Chief seats in, 95.
    Passages in, 97.
    Size of, 100.
    Date of, 104, 119.
    Orchestra in, 105, 143, 157.
    The gutter, 107.
    The altar, 108.
    Gates, 110.
    The hyposkenion, 123-5, 154.
    Side-wings, 125.
    Ramps, 125.

  Epiparodos, the, 305.

  Eretria, theatre at, 89.
    The orchestra, 107.
    Tunnel in, 109.
    Stage-buildings at, 119, 120, 121, 151, 165.
    Stage in, 122, 132.
    Side-wings, 125.
    Date of proscenium, 130.

  Eubulus, entrusts his plays to Philippus, 52.

  Eudemus, helps in construction of theatre, 87.

  Eumenes, portico of, 175.

  Euphorion, produces plays of Aeschylus, 73.

  Eupolis, entrusts one of his plays to Demostratus, 52.

  Euripides, his Alcestis, 12, 13.
    His Medea, Hippolytus, and Troades, 12.
    Defeated by Xenocles, 12, 35;
      by Nicomachus, 35.
    His Iphigeneia in Aulis and Bacchae, 12, 76.
    Reproduction of his tragedies in later times, 18, 76.
    Exhibits a new tragedy at the Peiraeeus, 29.
    Number of his victories, 34.
    Exhibits at an early age, 51.
    His relation with Cephisophon, 57.
    Trains his own choruses, 62.
    Text of his plays, 74.
    His popularity, 71.
    His statue in the theatre, 176.
    Scenery in his plays, 183, 184.
    His use of the deus ex machina, 216.
    Often introduces children on the stage, 237.
    Character of his tragedies, 254.
    His choruses, 285-7.
    Adopts the new style of music, 321.
    Predicts the speedy popularity of Timotheus, 322.
    Charged with writing immoral plays, 327.
    His Melanippe, 346;
      his Danaë, 346.

  Eurycleides, his statue in the theatre, 176.

  Evegorus, law of, 23.

  Exodoi, not usually accompanied with dances, 316.

  Exostra, the, 209.

  Extra performers, 235 ff.


  F

  Fig-branch, the, 210.

  Files, in choruses, 298.

  Flute, the, regularly used in the Greek drama, 270.

  Flute-players, how assigned, 56.
    Paid by the choregus, 63.
    Number of, 270.
    Costume of, 271.
    Position of during the performance, 271.

  Foreigners, their seats, 337.

  Furies, chorus of, 291.
    Its mode of entrance, 302.


  G

  Gates, leading to the orchestra, 110.

  Generals, their seats in the theatre, 336.

  Gerarae, the oath of, 371, 375.

  Gestures, most important in the Greek drama, 276.
    Restrained in character, 277.

  Ghosts, on the Greek stage, 168, 217.

  Girdles, part of the tragic costume, 250.

  Gladiatorial contests, in the theatre, 102, 178.

  Gods, manner of their appearance on the ancient stage, 215 ff.

  Graeco-Roman theatres, character of, 127, 133 ff.
    Use of orchestra in, 136.
    Inconsistent with Dörpfeld’s theory, 163.

  Guild, the Actors’, 278 ff.

  Gutters, in the orchestra, 102, 106, 107.


  H

  Hadrian, statues of in the Athenian theatre, 176.

  Harp, the, occasionally employed in the Greek drama, 270.

  Harp-players, their number, costume, and position during the
        performances, 270, 271.

  Hats, worn by the spectators, 342.

  Head-coverings, for the actors, 251.

  Hemichoria, 307, 319, 320.

  Hemikyklion, the, 218.

  Hemistrophion, the, 218.

  Hermon, the actor, 284, 344.

  Himation, the, 250.

  Horace, his reference to the Greek stage, 144, 150.

  Horses, in the theatre, 201.

  Hypodidaskalos, the, 62.

  Hypokrites, use of the word, 220.
    Its derivation, 226.

  Hypophrygian Mode, the, 321.

  Hyporchemata, 307, 316, 317.

  Hyposkenion, the, 123 ff.


  I

  Iambics, tetrameters, given in recitative, 269.

  Iambic trimeters, spoken without musical accompaniment, 267.
    Rarely sung, 267.

  Icaria, dramatic performances at, 29.

  Ikria, the, 83, 84, 87.

  Inscriptions bearing on the drama, 352 ff.

  Iobaccheia, 375.

  Ion of Chios, his remark about virtue, 13.
    His present to the Athenians, 70.

  Ionic Mode, the, 321.

  Iophon, exhibits plays of his father Sophocles, 51.


  J

  Judges, in the dramatic contests, their number, 31.
    Mode of selection, 32 ff.
    The process of voting, 33.
    Value of their verdicts, 34 ff.
    Sometimes corrupted and intimidated, 35.
    Afraid of the audience, 37.
    Their seats, 336.


  K

  Kataloge, 268.

  Katatome, the, 90.

  Keraunoskopeion, the, 218.

  Kerkides, the, 98.
    Assigned to particular tribes, 337.

  Klepsiambos, the, 269.

  Knights, chorus of, 296.

  Kolpoma, the, 252.

  Kommos, the, 268.
    Accompanied by dances, 316.
    The kommos in the Persae, 318.

  Konistra, the, 101.

  Kordax, the, 318.

  Kraspeditae, the, 300.

  Krepis, the, 248.


  L

  Laurostatae, the, 170, 300.

  Lenaea, the, not part of the Anthesteria, 5, 6, 372 ff.
    Compared with the City Dionysia, 6, 7, 27.
    Meaning of the name, 24, 376.
    Date of, 25.
    Where celebrated, 25, 83, 368 ff.
    General character of, 25, 26.
    Tragic contests at, 25, 26 ff.
    Comic contests at, 26, 27.
    Actors’ contests at, 41.
    Managed by the archon basileus, 49.

  Lenaeum, the, 24, 25.
    Site of, 368 ff.
    Wooden theatre at, 83, 84.

  Lenaeus, title of Dionysus, 24, 372, 376.

  Lessee, the, 334.

  Licymnius, the actor, victorious in the Propompi, 43.
    His voice, 273.

  Limnaeus, title of Dionysus, 372, 373.

  Logeion, the, 117, 163.
    Not the same as the theologeion, 164.

  Lucian, ridicules the tragic actors, 254, 273.

  Lycurgus, the orator, his law concerning the Anthesteria, 31.
    Institutes dithyrambic contests at the Peiraeeus, 39.
    His law for preserving the text of the great tragic poets, 74.
    Completes the theatre, 87.
    Puchstein’s theory of, 87, 88, 130 ff.


  M

  Maeniana, 187.

  Magna Graecia, theatres of, 127, 133, 155 ff.

  Magnesia, theatre at, its shape, 93.
    Tunnel in, 109.

  Market-place, the, suggested site of the Lenaeon, 25, 377.
    Dramatic performances at, 83.

  Marshes, the, temple in, 24, 368 ff.
    Site of, 368 ff.

  Masks, invention of, 238, 242.
    Results of the use of, 242, 243.
    The tragic mask, 244, 245.
    The mask of Silenus, 256.
    The masks in the Old Comedy, 259, 260;
      in the New Comedy, 262 ff.
    The masks of the tragic chorus, 291;
      of the satyric chorus, 292;
      of the comic chorus, 295.

  Mechane, the, character of, 209 ff.
    Instances of the use of, 211 ff.
    Relation to the theologeion, 213 ff.

  Megalopolis, theatre at, chief seats in, 95.
    Size of, 100.
    The orchestra in, 105, 106.
    The gutter, 107.
    Date of, 119.
    Stage in, 121, 122, 125.
    No door in hyposkenion, 124, 154.
    Date of proscenium, 130.
    Stage-buildings in, 137.
    Skanotheka and scaena ductilis in, 160 ff.

  Meidias, corrupts the judges, 35.
    Assaults Demosthenes, 324.
    Interferes with Demosthenes’ chorus, 117, 279.

  Meletus, his Oedipodeia, 18.

  Menander, reproduction of comedies of, 22.
    Defeated by Philemon, 36, 345.
    His statue in the theatre, 176.
    Retains the chorus, 288.
    His desire for distinction as a dramatist, 326.

  Miltiades, his statue in the theatre, 176.

  Mitra, the, 251.

  Mixolydian Mode, the, 320.

  Modes, the, 320, 321.

  Monodies, 268.

  Mummius, 175.

  Music, in the Greek drama.
    The instruments employed, 269, 270.
    Number of musicians, 270.
    General character of, 319 ff.
    The Modes, 320, 321.
    Deterioration of Greek Music during the fifth century, 321.

  Musical instruments, in the Greek drama, 269, 270.

  Musicians, in the Greek drama, 270.

  Mute characters, 63, 235, 236.

  Mynniscus, actor of Aeschylus, 57, 227, 282.
    Calls Callippides an ape, 277.


  N

  Neoptolemus, the actor, 273, 279, 281, 283, 284.

  Nero, competes in the tragic contests, 273.

  Nicias, as choregus, 37, 66.

  Nicostratus, the actor, 269.


  O

  Obelisks, on the stage, 200.

  Odeion, the, used for the Proagon, 67.
    Of Pericles, 175.
    Formerly used for performances by rhapsodists and harp-players, 177.

  Okribas, the, 118.

  Onkos, the, 244.

  Orange, theatre at, 135.

  Orchesis, 312.

  Orchestra, the, importance of, 80, 81.
    In Roman theatres, 82.
    In the market-place, 83.
    The old orchestra in the Athenian theatre, 84.
    Names of, 101.
    The orchestra in the stone theatre at Athens, 102.
    Comparison of Greek and Roman orchestras, 104.
    Not always a complete circle, 106.
    Passages round, 106.
    The gutter, 102, 106, 107.
    Floor of, 107.
    Altar in, 107.
    Subterranean passages in, 103, 109.
    Entrances into, 110 ff.
    Use of in Romanized Greek theatres, 135, 136.
    Hermann’s theory concerning, 141.
    Book-shops in old orchestra, 377.

  Oropus, theatre at, chief seats in, 96.
    Proscenium at, 125, 130, 152, 153.
    Stage-buildings in, 151.

  Orphans, paraded in the theatre, 68.
    Have the proedria, 336.

  Ovid, his advice to lovers, 312.


  P

  Pantacles, the poet, 56.

  Parabasis, delivered partly in recitative, 269.
    Disappearance of, 287.
    Position of the chorus during, 304.

  Parachoregemata, 235 ff.

  Parakataloge, 268.

  Paraskenia, 117, 235, 379 ff.

  Parastatae, the, 301.

  Parmenon, the actor, 284.

  Parodoi, 112, 194.

  Parodos, or entrance song, 302.
    The second parodos, 305.
    Given by the whole chorus, 306.
    Generally accompanied with dancing, 315.

  Passages, in the auditorium, 97, 98.
    Under the orchestra, 103, 109.
    Round the orchestra, 106.
    Into the orchestra, 110 ff., 194.

  Patara, theatre at, 136.

  Peiraeeus, the, dramatic performances at, 29.
    Shape of theatre at, 93.
    Passages in, 97, 98.
    The orchestra, 105, 106.
    The gutter, 107.
    Date of proscenium, 130.

  Pergamon, theatre at, 137, 159.

  Perge, theatre at, partially Romanized, 135.

  Periaktoi, the, 197 ff.

  Phaedrus, stage of, 88, 115.

  Phallus, the, worn by comic actors, 257-9;
    by the satyrs, 294.

  Pherecrates, censures the music of Timotheus, 321.

  Philemon, reproduction of comedies of, 22.
    Defeats Menander, 36, 245.
    Retains the chorus, 288.

  Philippus, son of Aristophanes, 52.

  Philocles, writes a Pandionis, 17.

  Philonides, exhibits plays of Aristophanes, 21, 52.
    Not an actor, 59.

  Phlya, dramatic performances at, 30.

  Phlyakes, their performances, 155 ff., 257.

  Phrygian Mode, the, 320.

  Phrynichus, called a dancer, 61, 314.
    His Capture of Miletus, 71.
    Introduces female masks, 242.
    Skilful in inventing new dances, 314.

  Pinakes, 122, 123, 127, 130.

  Pisistratus, 11.

  Plato, the philosopher, writes a tetralogy, 18.
    His opinion of Attic audiences, 38, 344, 347.
    Would exclude actors from his ideal state, 274.
    Praises the tragic dance, 317.
    Disapproves of the kordax, 318.
    His remarks about the drama in connexion with boys and women, 326.

  Plato, the poet, sells his comedies, 51.
    His remarks on the decline of choral dancing, 314.

  Pleuron, date of proscenium, 130.

  Plutarch, his description of Greek dancing, 313.
    His remark about music, 319.

  Pnyx, the, disused as a meeting-place for popular assemblies, 178.

  Poets, influence of, 4.
    Number of, at the different dramatic contests, 12, 19, 20, 25.
    Age of, 50, 51.
    Produce plays in other persons’ names, 51, 52.
    Originally also stage-managers, 51, 61.
    How assigned to the choregi, 55, 56.
    Act in their own plays, 227.
    Tragic, at the Dionysia, 362.
    Comic, at the Dionysia, 363;
      at the Lenaea, 364.

  Police, in the theatre, 343.

  Polus, the actor, his salary, 281.
    Stories about, 283.

  Polycleitus, architect of the Epidaurian theatre, 104.

  Polyphradmon, his Lycurgean tetralogy, 12.

  Poplar, the, near the old theatre, 83.

  Portico, in the auditorium, 99.
    At Delos, 139.
    In the fourth century at Athens, 175.
    Of Eumenes, 175.

  Posidippus, reproduction of his plays, 22.

  Praecinctiones, 98.

  Pratinas, number of his plays, 11.
    Competes with Aeschylus, 11.
    Called a dancer, 61, 314.
    Complains of the flute-players, 320.

  Price of admission, two obols, 330.
    Granted by the state to needy citizens, 330 ff.

  Priene, theatre at, altar in the orchestra of, 108.
    Stage in, 121.
    Doors in hyposkenion, 124.
    Chief seats in, 96.
    Proscenium in, 125.

  Priestesses, their seats, 335, 341.

  Priests, their seats, 335, 338 ff.

  Privileges, enjoyed by actors, 278 ff.

  Prizes, for choregi, 39, 69.
    For poets, 39, 69.

  Proagon, the, 67.

  Probole, the, 70.

  Production, of a play, 49 ff.
    Concealment of the poet’s name, 51 ff.
    Formerly managed by the poet himself, 51.
    Posthumous production of plays, 74.

  Proedria, the, 335.
    Conferred on priests, 335;
      on archons and generals, 336;
      On various other persons, 336.

  Prologue, the, 302.

  Proskenion, the, 118, 122 ff.

  Protagonist, his importance, 42, 230.
    Parts taken by him, 232, 233.

  Protostatae, the, 301.

  Ptolemy, the Third, a collector of manuscripts, 75.

  Puchstein, on date of first stone theatre at Athens, 83, 87, 130 ff.
    On Lycurgus’s work, 87, 88, 130 ff.
    On the oldest stage-buildings, 113, 114, 117, 130 ff.
    On date of first reconstruction, 114, 119, 130 ff.
    On character of this reconstruction, 119, 130 ff.
    On pinakes, 123, 130.
    On date of stone proscenium, 130 ff.
    On date of stone auditorium, 131, 132.
    On stage in fifth century, 132.

  Pulpitum, meaning of the word, 150.

  Puppet shows, in the theatre, 178.


  Q

  Quintilian, his statement about Aeschylus, 73.
    His comparison of the orator and the dancer, 312.


  R

  Ramps, in the stage-buildings, 125.

  Ranks, in choruses, 298.

  Recitative, how far employed in the Greek drama, 268 ff., 305.

  Records, of dramatic contests, 44 ff., 352 ff.
    Erected in or near the theatre, 176.

  Refrains, 321.

  Refreshments, in the theatre, 341.

  Religion, its connexion with the drama, 1 ff., 328.

  Reproduction, of old tragedies, 72 ff.
    Of old comedies, 22.
    Of plays at the Rural Dionysia, 29, 30.
    By the actors, 43, 74.
    Almost unknown during the fifth century, 74.
    Favourite tragedies in later times, 75, 76.
    On the Vitruvian stage, 129.

  Revision, of plays, 71.

  Robert, theory of the stage, 173.

  Romanization, of Greek theatres, 133 ff.
    Often only partially carried out, 135.
    Dörpfeld’s theory concerning, 162 ff.

  Roof, over the stage, 118, 135.

  Rural Dionysia, the, 6, 29, 30.
    Old plays at, 43.


  S

  Sagalassos, theatre at, partially Romanized, 135.
    The stage, 135.

  Salamis, dramatic performances at, 29.

  Salaries of the actors, 281.

  Sannio, the chorus-trainer, 62, 279.

  Satyric drama, at the City Dionysia, 11.
    Its relation to tragedy, 16.
    Decline in the importance of, 18.
    Number of actors in, 224.
    Costume of actors in, 225.
    Size of the chorus in, 256.
    Origin of the satyric chorus, 289.
    Costume of the satyric chorus, 292 ff.
    The satyric dance, 318.

  Satyrus, the actor, 76.

  Scaena ductilis, supposed use of at Megalopolis, 161.
    Character of, 199.

  Scene-painting, invention of, 181.
    Character of in ancient times, 183 ff.

  Scenery, occasionally supplied by the choregus, 64.
    Simple in character, 179.
    Gradual introduction of, 179 ff.
    Inventor of, 181.
    Number of scenes not large, 182, 183.
    Character of ancient scene-painting, 183 ff.
    Mechanical arrangements for the scenery, 186 ff.
    Entrances to the stage, 188 ff.
    Regulations concerning the entrances, 190.
    Changes of scene, 195 ff.
    The periaktoi, 197 ff.
    Stage-properties, 199.
    The ekkyklema, 201 ff.
    The exostra, 209.
    The mechane and theologeion, 209 ff.
    Various contrivances, 217.

  Sea-fights, in the orchestra, 103.

  Seats, the, originally of wood, 81.
    In the Athenian theatre, 94 ff.
    For distinguished persons, 94, 100.
    Price of, 330.
    Distribution of, 334 ff.

  Segesta, stage at, 132.

  Shepherds, their costume on the stage, 251.

  Sicyon, theatre at, the orchestra in, 106.
    The gutter, 107.
    Tunnel in, 108.
    The stage-buildings, 120, 151.
    The stage, 125.
    Ramps in, 125.
    The proscenium, 130.

  Side entrances, on to the stage, 191 ff.
    To the orchestra, 110 ff., 194 ff.

  Side-wings, in the Athenian theatre, 113, 114.
    Called paraskenia, 117.
    Various shapes of, 125.
    At Delos, 139.
    Entrances from, 191 ff.

  Sigma, the, 101.

  Sikinnis, the, 318.

  Sileni, their relation to satyrs, 292 ff.

  Silenus, his costume, 256.
    His relation to the satyrs and Sileni, 295.

  Simylus, the actor, 30, 275.

  Skanotheka, at Megalopolis, 160.

  Skene, origin of the term, 80.
    Various meanings of, 141.

  Slaves, admitted to the theatre, 325, 329.

  Sleeves, in the tragic costume, 250.

  Soccus, the, 266.

  Socrates, the actor, 30, 275.

  Socrates, his behaviour during the performance of the Clouds, 260.

  Solos, by actors, 268.

  Song, used in lyrical passages, 268, 305.

  Soothsayers, their costume on the stage, 251.

  Sophocles, competes with Euripides, 12.
    Abandons the practice of writing tetralogies, 17.
    Number of his victories, 28, 34, 46.
    Defeated by Philocles, 35, 40.
    Never third in a contest, 40.
    Refused a chorus by the archon, 50.
    Exhibits at an early age, 51.
    Entrusts plays to his son Iophon, 52.
    His actor Tlepolemus, 57.
    Writes for the actors, 57, 229.
    Appears occasionally upon the stage, 62, 227.
    His conduct at the death of Euripides, 67.
    The text of his plays, 74.
    Popular tragedies of, 76.
    His statue in the theatre, 176.
    Said to have invented scene-painting, 181.
    Scenery in his plays, 182.
    Introduces a third actor, 224.
    Prevented from acting by the weakness of his voice, 227.
    Invents the krepis, 248;
      and the curved staff, 252.
    His choruses, 285, 286.
    Increases the size of the chorus, 289.
    Appointed general, 346.
    His popularity, 347, 348.

  Speech, used in the delivery of iambic trimeters, 267, 305.

  Sphyromachus, his regulation about the seats, 327.

  Staffbearers, 343.

  Stage, the, original form of, 80.
    History of in the stone theatre at Athens, 113 ff.
    Names for, 118, 163.
    In early times, 118 ff.
    In the pre-Roman period, 130 ff.
    Puchstein’s theory of, 132 ff.
    In theatres of the Roman period, 133 ff.
    At Megalopolis, 137.
    At Delos, 138.
    Wieseler’s theory of, 140 ff.
    Gradual development of, 144.
    Dörpfeld’s theory of, 144 ff.
    Literary evidence for the later stage, 145 ff.
    Archaeological evidence for the later stage, 150 ff.
    Dörpfeld’s arguments against the later stage, 158 ff.
    Development of the Roman stage from the Greek, 162 ff.
    Literary evidence for the early stage, 165 ff.
    Evidence of the extant dramas concerning, 167 ff.
    The reason for the stage, 170.
    Varies in height at different periods, 171.
    Various theories concerning, 172 ff.
    Occasionally used by the chorus, 169.

  Stage-buildings, the, origin of, 80.
    History of in the stone theatre at Athens, 112 ff.
    Puchstein’s view of, 113, 114, 117, 130 ff.
    In early times, 116 ff.
    In the pre-Roman period, 126.
    In theatres of the Roman period, 133 ff.
    At Pergamon, 137.
    At Megalopolis, 137.
    At Delos, 138.
    The space behind the proscenium, 151.

  Stage-properties, 199 ff.

  Stasima, movements of the chorus during, 303.
    Delivered by the whole chorus, 306.
    Accompanied with dancing, 315.

  Statues, in the theatre, 176.
    On the stage, 200.

  Statuettes, of comic actors, 258.

  Steps, between orchestra and stage, 129, 148, 149, 156.
    Charon’s, 217.

  Stropheion, the, 218.

  Sword-swallowers, in the theatre, 178.

  Synchoregia, the, 54.

  Syracuse, theatre at, 89.

  Syrtos, the, 250.


  T

  Tablets, erected by the choregi, 44.

  Taureas, assaulted by Alcibiades, 66, 343.

  Tauromenium, theatre at, 127.

  Telestes, dancer employed by Aeschylus, 312.
    Dances the Seven Against Thebes, 317.

  Temples, of Dionysus, 88, 89, 175, 368 ff.

  Termessos, theatre at, 93.
    Partially Romanized, 135.
    The stage, 135.
    Door in the back-wall, 154.

  Tetralogies, 12, 13 ff.
    Meaning of the term, 13.
    Invention of, 14.
    Character of, 14.
    Disuse of, 17.

  Text, of old plays, officially preserved, 74.

  Theatre, the Greek, general character of, 79.
    Originally of wood, 80.
    Importance of the orchestra in, 81.
    Compared with the Roman, 82.
    Site of the old wooden theatres, 82-4, App.
    Seldom faces the south, 89.
    Shape of the auditorium, 90.
    Passages in, 97.
    The orchestra, 101 ff.
    The eisodoi, 110 ff.
    The stage-buildings and stage in early times, 113 ff.;
      in pre-Roman times, 120 ff.;
      in Roman times, 133 ff.
    Reasons of changes in, 127.
    Use of orchestra in later times, 136.
    Exceptional stage-buildings, 137 ff.
    Wieseler’s theory of the stage in, 146 ff.
    Dörpfeld’s theory of the stage in, 144 ff.
    Other theories of the stage, 172 ff.
    Acoustic properties of, 174.

  Theatre, of Dionysus at Athens, first permanent erection at, 83 ff.
    Remains of the fifth century theatre, 83, 84.
    Compared with that of later times, 85.
    Date of the stone theatre, 86, 87.
    Later history of, 87, 88.
    Site of, 88.
    The auditorium, 90 ff.
    The orchestra, 101 ff.
    The stage-buildings, 113 ff.
    Statues and monuments in, 176.
    Various uses of, 177, 178.
    Buildings near, 175.

  Themistocles, victorious in a dramatic contest, 45.
    His statue in the theatre, 176.

  Theodectes, engages in thirteen contests, 19.
    Victorious at the Lenaea, 26.
    Rhetorician as well as poet, 62.

  Theodorus, the actor, always delivers the first speech in a tragedy,
        231.
    Excellence of his voice, 274.
    Stories about him, 283.

  Theognis, the tragic poet, 73.

  Theologeion, the, character of, 213 ff.
    Its relation to the mechane, 213.
    Not identical with the logeion, 126, 164.

  Theoric money, 330 ff.

  Thersilion, the, at Megalopolis, 137, 160.

  Thesis, 311.

  Thespiae, theatre at, 124, 154.

  Thespis, the inventor of tragedy, 5, 80.
    His first victory, 11.
    Called a dancer, 61, 314.
    Acts in his own plays, 227.
    His use of masks, 242.

  Thessalus, the actor, 283, 284.

  Thoricus, theatre at, 30, 85.

  Thrasyllus, his dream, 43.

  Thrones, in the Athenian theatre, 94.
    Throne of the priest of Dionysus, 336.

  Thymele, in the early theatres, 80.
    In the stone theatres, 107.
    Various meanings of the word, 108, 142.
    Wieseler’s theory concerning, 142 ff.

  Tickets, of admission to the theatre, 332 ff.

  Timotheus, author of the new style of music, 321.

  Tlepolemus, actor of Sophocles, 57, 282.

  Tombs, on the stage, 200.

  Tragedy, first institution of contests in, 5, 11, 25, 356.
    At the City Dionysia, 11 ff.
    Reproduction of old tragedies, 19, 72.
    At the Lenaea, 25, 26, 356.
    Number of actors in, 222 ff.
    Costume of actors in, 237 ff.
    Decline of the chorus in, 286 ff.
    Size of the chorus in, 288 ff.
    Costume of the chorus in, 290.
    The tragic dance, 316.

  Training, of the chorus, 60 ff.

  Tralles, theatre at, tunnel in, 110.
    Steps in, 167.

  Tribes, the Attic, dithyrambic contests between, 10.
    Have no connexion with the dramatic contests, 10.
    Certain blocks in the theatre appropriated to them, 337.

  Tribute, displayed at the City Dionysia, 68.

  Trilogies, 13, 14.

  Trios, between actors, 268.

  Tripods, the prizes in the dithyrambic contests, 39.

  Tritagonist, the, 233.

  Tritostatae, the, 300.

  Trochaic tetrameters, given in recitative, 269.

  Tunic, of tragic actors, 250.
    Of satyric actors, 256.

  Tunnels, under the orchestra, 103, 109, 110.

  Turban, worn by Darius, 252.

  Tyndaris, stage at, 132.


  V

  Vitruvius, his advice about sites of theatres, 89;
      about the shape of the auditorium, 93.
    Description of the Greek and Roman orchestra, 105;
      of the Greek and Roman stage, 146, 163, 164.
    Dörpfeld’s views about, 145 ff.
    On scene-painting, 181 ff.

  Voice, importance of in the Greek drama, 272.
    Its strength more regarded than its quality, 273.
    Training of the voice, 274.


  W

  Wieseler, his theory of the Greek stage, 140 ff.

  Windows, in the back-scene, 188.

  Women, admitted to the theatre, 324 ff.
    Their seats, 337.


  X

  Xenocles, defeats Euripides, 12.


  Z

  Zeno, his remark about actors, 273.




ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA

Transcriber’s Note: The footnote numbers in this e-text are given in
[square brackets].


Page 21, note 1, _for_ C.I.G. _read_ the Roman inscription I.G. [72]

Page 26, l. 25, _for_ It was doubtless.... But they must _read_ It is
therefore possible that it was at this festival that comic contests were
first regularly organized. If so, they must

Page 27, note 1, _add_: Wilhelm, however (p. 123), does not believe that
the first extant column of 977d was preceded by a lost column; and if he
is right, the list of victorious poets at the Lenaea only takes us back
at most to about 450 B.C. The question turns partly on the reconstruction
of the original heading of this part of the inscription; it must, I
think, be regarded as still an open one, and with it, the question of the
date of the first comic contests at the Lenaea. [98]

Page 41, note 3, _for_ xx. _read_ iv. [168]

Page 48, note 4, _add_: According to Wilhelm, p. 257, Körte has proved
that the Νῖκαι of Aristotle is the direct source, not of C. I. A. ii.
971, but only of C. I. A. ii. 977. I have not yet been able to obtain
Körte’s paper: but I see no reason to doubt that 971 also has an
Aristotelian basis, even if that basis be not the Νῖκαι. [192]

Page 51, note 2, _add_: Menander also ἐδίδαξε πρῶτον ἔφηβος ὤν (Anon. de
Com.: Kaibel, Com. Fr. p. 9). [198]

Page 54, note 5, _add_: [Capps, however, points out (Amer. Journ. Arch.
iv. p. 85) that Plutarch does not date precisely Nicanor’s acceptance of
the office: and that C. I. A. iv. 2. 584 b mentions choregi in the year
317-316.] [218]

           _Printed wholly in England for the MUSTON COMPANY._

      _By LOWE & BRYDONE, PRINTERS, LTD., PARK STREET, CAMDEN TOWN,
                             LONDON, N.W.1_



*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 76555 ***