THEATRICAL RECORDS[372]
The technical word used of bringing out a play was διδάσκειν (“to
teach”), and the technical name for the director of the performance was
_didascalus_ (διδάσκαλος) or “teacher.” We have already noted (p. 198,
above) that _didascalia_ (διδασκαλία; “teaching”) was the name for a
group of plays brought out by a tragic playwright at one time, and the
same word was applied to a record of the theatrical contests. At the
beginning the didascalus and the author were identical, for the reason
that the primitive poets taught the choreutae what they were to sing,
that the poets in the one-actor period carried the histrionic parts
themselves and still taught the choreutae their rôles, and that even when
they had ceased to act in their plays they yet continued to train those
who did.
The Athenian archons seem to have kept records of the contests at the
Dionysiac festivals, the archon eponymus for the City Dionysia and the
king archon for the Lenaea. These records, of course, were not compiled
in the interests of literary research such as flourished in Alexandrian
times but merely for the private convenience of the officials and
for documentary purposes. Apparently they consisted of a bald series
of entries, chronicling the choregi, tribes, poet-didascali, actors,
plays, and victors in the various dithyrambic and dramatic events. In
the fourth century B.C. these archives were published by Aristotle in
a work entitled _Didascaliae_. His service probably was mainly that of
unearthing the material and arranging it in chronological sequence and of
making it available to a wider public, for Dr. Jachmann has made it seem
clear that he did not edit the archons’ record to any great extent. In
consequence Aristotle’s book contained too much and was overloaded with
unimportant details. Its main value consisted in being a court of last
resort and a source from which smaller and less unwieldy lists might be
compiled.
Some of these indirect products of Aristotle’s industry were entered
upon stone and are still preserved in fragments. The first of these is
for convenience referred to as the Fasti (“calendar” or “register”) and
contained the annual victors in each event at the City Dionysia from
about 502/1 B.C. when volunteer comuses were first given a place in the
festival program. This inscription was cut upon the face of a wall built
of four rows of superimposed blocks and almost six feet in height. The
text was arranged in vertical columns. There were originally sixteen of
these and most of them contained one hundred and forty-one lines. The
presence of a heading over the first five columns, however, reduced the
lines upon them to one hundred and forty. For the most part the lines
in adjoining columns were placed exactly opposite one another, but
toward the bottom of col. 13 the writing was crowded so that this column
perhaps contained no less than one hundred and fifty-three lines. As the
entries for 346-342 B.C. fell in this space, most authorities accept Dr.
Wilhelm’s conclusion that the body of the inscription was cut at that
period and received additional entries, year by year, for subsequent
festivals until about 319 B.C.[373] Whoever was responsible for the
original inscription must have excerpted the appropriate items from
Aristotle’s _Didascaliae_ and, for the brief period intervening between
the publication of Aristotle’s book and 346-342 B.C., from the original
archives.
[Illustration: FIG. 75.—Wilhelm’s Transcription and Restoration of Two
Fragments of the Athenian Fasti.
See p. 320, n. 1]
— πρῶτ]ον κῶμοι ἦσαν τῶ[ι Διονύσωι —
[Ξ]ενοκλείδης ἐχορήγε Πανδιονὶ[ς ἀνδρῶν] [ὁ δεῖνα ἐχορήγει]
[Μ]άγνης ἐδίδασκεν Κλεαίνετ[ος Κυδαθη: [ὁ δεῖνα ἐδίδασκε]
ἐχορήγει]
τραγωιδῶν κωμωιδῶ[ν] [ὑποκριτὴς ὁ δεῖνα]
Περικλῆς Χολαρ: ἐχορή Θαρ[— — ἐχορήγει] [Ἐπὶ Τιμαρχίδου 447/6]
5 Αἰσχύλος ἐ[δ]ίδασκε [ὁ δεῖνα ἐδίδασκε] [—ὶς παίδων]
[Ἐπὶ Χάρητος 472/1] [τραγωιδῶν] [ὁ δεῖνα ἐχορήγει]
[— παίδων] [...]: ἐχορή Ἐ[ρεχθηὶς ἀνδρῶν]
[ὁ δεῖνα ἐχορήγει] [...] ἐδίδασκεν Βίω[ν ἐχορήγει]
[— ἀνδρῶν] [Ἐπὶ Φίλο]κλέους 459/8 κω[μωιδῶν]
10 [ὁ δεὶνα ἐχ]ο[ρήγει] [Οἰ]νηὶς παίδων Ἀνδ[— ἐχορήγει]
[κωμωιδῶν] Δημόδοκος ἐχορήγε Καλ[λίας ἐδίδασκεν]
[ὁ δεῖνα ἐχ]ορήγει Ἱπποθωντὶς ἀνδρῶν τρα[γωιδῶν]
[... ἐδίδ]ασκεν Εὐκτήμων Ἐλευ: ἐχορή Θαλ[— ἐχορήγει]
[τραγωιδῶν] κωμωιδῶν Κα[ρκίνος ἐδίδασκε]
15 [ὁ δεῖνα ἐχ]ορήγει Εὐρυκλείδης ἐχορήγει ὑπ[οκριτὴς ὁ δεῖνα]
Πολυφράσμω]ν ἐδίδασ Εὐφρόνιος ἐδίδασκε Ἐπ[ὶ Καλλιμάχου 446/5]
[Ἐπὶ Πραξιέργο]υ 471/0 τραγωιδῶν [κτλ.]
[... ντὶς πα]ίδων Ξενοκλῆς Ἀφιδνα: ἐχορή
[... ἐχο]ρήγει Αἰσχύλος ἐδίδασκεν
20 [... ἀνδρ]ῶν Ἐπὶ Ἅβρωνος 458/7
[... ἐχ]ορήγ Ἐρεχθηὶς παίδων
[κωμωιδῶν] Χαρίας Ἀγρυλῆ: ἐχορή
[... ἐχορήγε]ι Λεωντὶς ἀνδρῶν
[κτλ. Δεινόστρατος ἐχορ[ήγει]
κωμωιδῶν
[... ἐχ]ορήγ[ει
The character of the Fasti will appear most clearly from Fig. 75,[374] a
transcript and restoration of two fragments on which were originally cut
the tops of cols. 3-5. The Greek letters within brackets are restorations
where the stone is broken away or illegible. Inasmuch as the entries
follow a fixed order from year to year and occupy a definite number of
lines, except as slight changes were occasionally introduced into the
program, it is often easy to restore everything but proper names. Of the
heading of the inscription, which extended over the first five columns,
only the center is preserved. When complete it probably read somewhat as
follows: οἵδε νενικήκασιν ... ἀφ’ οὗ πρῶτ]ον κῶμοι ἦσαν τῶ[ι Διονύσωι
Ἐλευθερεῖ (“The following gained the victory ... since first there were
comuses in honor of Dionysus Eleuthereus”). Let us examine more closely
the record of the year which begins at line nine in the second column
of Fig. 75 (col. 4 in the complete inscription). The entries for each
year begin with ἐπί (“in the time of”), followed by the name of the
Athenian archon eponymus in the genitive case. The archon for this year
was Philocles, whose term ran from July, 459 B.C., to July, 458 B.C.
Since the festivals came in the spring the record under consideration is
for the City Dionysia of 458 B.C. The inscription is so formulaic and
condensed that it has necessarily been expanded somewhat in the following
translation:
In the archonship of Philocles.
The tribe Oeneis was victorious with a dithyrambic chorus of boys;
Demodocus was choregus.
The tribe Hippothontis was victorious with a dithyrambic chorus of men;
Euctemon of Eleusis was choregus.
In the contest of comedians:
Euryclides was choregus,
Euphronius was didascalus.
In the contest of tragedians:
Xenocles of Aphidnae was choregus,
Aeschylus was didascalus.
This was the year in which Aeschylus competed in Athens for the last time
and was victorious with his Orestean trilogy.
About 278 B.C. two other inscriptions were compiled from Aristotle’s
publication of theatrical records. I refer to the stone Didascaliae and
to the Victors’-Lists. The former gave the full program of the dramatic,
but not the dithyrambic, events for each year and fell into four
divisions, dealing respectively with tragedy and with comedy at each of
the two festivals. Fig. 76_a_[375] gives a transcript of two fragments
which reproduce the programs of tragedy at the City Dionysia in 341 and
340 B.C. They may be freely translated, as shown on p. 323.
[Illustration: FIG. 76_a_.—Wilhelm’s Transcription and Restoration of Two
Fragments of the Stone Didascaliae at Athens.
See p. 322, n. 1]
[Ἐπὶ Σωσιγένους σατυρι] 342/1
[— —]
[παλαι]ᾶι Νε[οπτόλεμος]
[Ἰφιγε]νείαι Εὐρ[ιπ]ίδο[υ]
[ποη]: Ἀστυδάμας
[Ἀχι]λλεῖ ὑπε: Θετταλός
5 Ἀθάμαντι ὑπε: Νεοπτόλ[εμος]
[Ἀν]τιγόνηι ὑπε: Ἀθηνόδω[ρος]
[Εὐ]άρετος δ[εύ:] Τεύκρωι
[ὑπ]ε: Ἀθηνόδωρος
[Ἀχι]λλεῖ ὑ[πε]: Θετταλός
10 [... ε]ι ὑπ[ε: Ν]εοπτόλεμος
[Ἀφαρεὺς] τρί: Πελιάσιν
[ὑπε: Νεοπτ]όλεμος
-κι Ὀρέστηι [ὑπε: Ἀθηνόδωρος]
Αὔγηι ὑπε: Θεττα[λός]
—
15 ὑπο: Νεοπτόλεμος ἐνίκ[α]
—
ς Ἐπὶ Νικομάχου σατυρι 341/0
Τιμοκλῆς Λυκούργωι
—
παλαιᾶι: Νεοπτόλεμ[ος]
-αι Ὀρέστηι Εὐριπιδο
—
20 ποη: Ἀστυδάμας
Παρθενοπαίωι ὑπε: Θετ[ταλός]
[Λυκά]ονι ὑπε: Νεοπτόλε[μος]
[...ο]κλῆς δεύ: Φρίξωι
-ι [ὑπε:] Θετταλός
25 [Οἰδί]ποδι ὑπε: Νεοπτολ[εμος]
—
[Εὐάρ]ετος τρί
[Ἀλκ]μέ[ων]ι: ὑπε: Θεττα[λός]
[...λ]ηι: ὑπε: Νεοπτό[λε]
[ὑπο: Θ[ετταλὸς ἐνίκα
30 [Ἐπὶ Θεο]φράστου σα[τυρι 340/39
[...] Φορκίσ[ι]
[παλαιᾶι· Νικ?]όστρ[ατος]
[... Εὐ]ριπί[δου]
[...]ο [...
There are several matters here which are worthy of comment. It will be
noted that by 341 B.C. the tragic poets no longer closed each group of
plays with a satyric drama, but one satyr-play was performed instead as
a preface to the tragic contest. It followed that the playwrights, the
number of whose dramas now corresponded to that of the star performers,
were no longer handicapped by being allotted the exclusive services
of a single star and his troupe but were placed upon terms of perfect
equality by having all the stars in turn at their command, each for a
different tragedy. This explains why in 340 B.C., when we must suppose
that three players of the first rank with their supporting companies were
for some reason not available, the number of tragedies presented by each
playwright was likewise reduced to two and the histrionic talent was
thus kept evenly distributed. The fact that the tragic writers no longer
devoted whole trilogies to different aspects of the same theme made it
easy to reduce the number of tragedies in any year in order to conform
to an emergency in the histrionic conditions. Furthermore, old tragedies
were not now permitted to compete with new ones, as was said to have been
the practice in the case of Aeschylus’ plays after his decease (see p.
203, above); but beginning at the City Dionysia of 386 B.C., as we learn
from the Fasti, an old tragedy was performed, outside of the contest,
every year. It is interesting to observe that in both these years and
again in 339 B.C. (see next to the last line in Fig. 76_a_) plays of
Euripides were chosen for this purpose, and this is in accord with the
steady growth of that poet’s popularity as compared with Aeschylus and
Sophocles. As already stated, the Didascaliae were inscribed in 278 B.C.,
but the record was kept up to date by contemporaneous entries for over a
century subsequently.
[Illustration: FIG. 76_b_.—Translation of Inscription in Fig. 76_a_.]
In the archonship of Sosigenes (342/1 B.C.). Satyr-play:
⸺ was poet with his ⸺.
Old tragedy: Neoptolemus
acted in Euripides’ _Iphigenia_.
Poets: Astydamas was first
with the _Achilles_ acted by Thettalus
with the _Athamas_ acted by Neoptolemus
with the _Antigone_ acted by Athenodorus;
Evaretus was second with the _Teucer_
acted by Athenodorus
with the _Achilles_ acted by Thettalus
with the ⸺ acted by Neoptolemus;
Aphareus was third with the _Daughters of Pelias_
acted by Neoptolemus
with the _Orestes_ acted by Athenodorus
with the _Auge_ acted by Thettalus;
the actor Neoptolemus was victor.
In the archonship of Nicomachus (341/0 B.C.). Satyr-play:
Timocles was poet with his _Lycurgus_.
Old tragedy: Neoptolemus
acted in Euripides’ _Orestes_.
Poets: Astydamas was first
with the _Parthenopaeus_ acted by Thettalus
with the _Lycaon_ acted by Neoptolemus;
⸺cles was second with the _Phrixus_
acted by Thettalus
with the _Oedipus_ acted by Neoptolemus;
Evaretus was third
with the _Alcmeon_ acted by Thettalus
with the ⸺ acted by Neoptolemus;
the actor Thettalus was victor.
The Victors’-Lists were prepared at the same time as the stone
Didascaliae and were likewise derived from Aristotle,[376] but they were
very different in character. They recorded the aggregate of victories
won by poets and actors in tragedy and comedy at each of the two
festivals—eight lists in all. I shall content myself with citing one
fragment from the list of tragic poets who were victorious at the City
Dionysia (cf. Fig. 77 _a_ and _b_).[377] The names were arranged in the
chronological order of their first victory at the festival in question,
in this case the City Dionysia; and after each name was entered the
total number of victories gained at that festival. We are especially
interested in two names in this list, Aeschylus and Sophocles. Of course
the former’s name did not originally head the list; it stood in the
eleventh line. The numeral is broken away from behind his name, but we
know from other sources that he won thirteen (ΔΙΙΙ) victories. He died
before the establishment of the tragic contest at the Lenaea, so that
his competition was restricted to the City Dionysia. But Suidas reports
that according to some Aeschylus had gained twenty-eight victories.
Perhaps the larger number is not to be rejected as worthless but is to
be regarded as including the victories which Aeschylus’ plays are said
to have won after his decease in competition, at both festivals, with
the works of living tragedians. To Sophocles the inscription assigns
eighteen (ΔΓΙΙΙ) victories at the City Dionysia, and that is the number
which most authorities give. But Suidas, who regularly records the
aggregate of victories at both festivals, credits him with twenty-four
victories. Sophocles must, therefore, have been victorious six times at
the Lenaea. Euripides’ name does not appear upon any extant portion of
the Victors’-List. He is usually stated to have won five victories, but
some notices report fifteen. Possibly we are to understand that he won
ten Lenaean victories. His comparative lack of success while living thus
stands in striking contrast to his popularity subsequently.
[Illustration: FIG. 77_a_.—A Fragment of the Athenian Victors’-List
See p. 324, n. 2]
[Illustration: FIG. 77_b_.—Wilhelm’s Transcription and Restoration of Two
Fragments of the Athenian Victors’-List.
See p. 324, n. 2]
[......]ασ[—]
[Καρκί]νος ΔΙ
10 — [Ἀστ]υδάμας ΓΙΙ [—?]
[Αἰ]σχύ[λος —] [Θεο]δέκτας ΓΙΙ
[Εὐ]έτης Ι [Ἀφα]ρεύς ΙΙ
[Πο]λυφράσμ[ων —] [....ω]ν ΙΙ Αι
[Νόθ]ιππος Ι ...... Φρ-
15 [Σοφ]οκλῆς ΔΓΙΙΙ ......... ΙΙ Ὁμ-
[....]τος ΙΙ[—?] ΔΙ
[Ἀριστι]ας [—] Ξ-
Dr. Reisch has propounded an ingenious and plausible theory with
reference to the housing of the Didascaliae and the Victors’-Lists (cf.
_op. cit._, pp. 302 ff.). He believes that these catalogues were prepared
for the master of contests (the agonothete, see p. 271, above) for the
year 278 B.C., who also erected a special structure in the precinct of
Dionysus Eleuthereus to receive them. The dedicatory inscription is
extant, but unfortunately the name of the agonothete is broken away. He
supposes this building to have been hexagonal, with three sides of solid
wall and the other three left open. This arrangement was designed to
afford a maximum of light for reading the inscriptions on the interior of
the building. On the left wall, as one passed through the main entrance,
were cut the tragic Didascaliae of the City Dionysia. On the architrave
above was the Victors’-List for the tragic poets at this festival, and
on the architrave over the adjoining (open) side to the right was the
Victors’-List for the tragic actors. On the next wall to the right were
the comic Didascaliae of the City Dionysia, and on the architrave above
that side and the adjoining (open) one were the Victors’-Lists of the
comic poets and actors who had won victories at this festival. On the
third wall stood both the comic and also the tragic Didascaliae of the
Lenaea. On the architrave above this wall were the Victors’-Lists of the
comic poets and actors at the Lenaea, and on the architrave above the
sixth (open) side were those of the tragic poets and actors at the same
festival. Dr. Reisch’s reconstruction may be incorrect in some minor
details, but must certainly be accepted in principle.
One matter in connection with all these inscriptions has been a subject
of keen controversy among scholars, and the end is not yet. The problem
is too complicated to be discussed upon its merits here, but the
general situation may be outlined. When a poet did not serve as his
own didascalus but brought out his play through someone else, did the
name of the didascalus or that of the poet appear in the records? On a
few points general agreement is possible. For example, when a poet had
applied for a chorus in his own name but died before the festival and
someone else had to assume his didascalic duties, care seems to have been
taken at all periods to indicate the original didascalus. Again, in cases
of deliberate deception, as when a man without dramatic powers secured
the consent of a playwright to bring out the latter’s work as his own
and applied for a chorus as if for his own play, naturally the name of
the pseudo-author would be the only one to appear in the records. The
crucial case remains, viz., when a dramatist wished to be relieved of the
burden of stage management and arranged for a didascalus to ask for a
chorus and assume responsibility for the performance. The matter becomes
important with reference to Aristophanes and the correct restoration of
the Victors’-Lists for comic poets at the City Dionysia and the Lenaea.
When Aristophanes had written his first play, the _Banqueters_, youth,
inexperience, diffidence, or some other motive for desiring to avoid
the responsibility of staging his play caused him to intrust it to
Callistratus for production at the Lenaea of 427 B.C. The same process
was repeated at the City Dionysia of 426 B.C. and the Lenaea of 425
B.C., when Callistratus brought out Aristophanes’ _Babylonians_ and
_Acharnians_, respectively. The former piece was apparently unsuccessful,
but the latter was awarded the first prize. At the Lenaea of 424 B.C.
Aristophanes was equally successful with the _Knights_, which, however,
he produced _in his own name_. In vss. 512 ff. of this play the chorus
declares that many Athenians approached the poet and expressed their
surprise that he had not long before asked for a chorus in his own name.
This passage implies that the real authorship of Aristophanes’ earlier
pieces was known to a large section of the public, and makes it clear
that he had produced no earlier plays in his own name. Therefore if
he had won a City victory during this period the comedy with which he
won it must have been brought out in the name of another. The earliest
City Dionysia, then, at which he could have produced a play in his own
name was in 424 B.C., two months later than the _Knights_. Now in the
Victors’-List for comic poets at the City Dionysia (Fig. 78),[378] the
letters Ἀρι appear in line seven of the second column. Is the name of
Aristophanes or that of Aristomenes to be restored here?
We know that Eupolis, whose name stands next below in the list, won a
victory at the City Dionysia of 421 B.C. and that Hermippus and Cratinus
were successful at the City festival in 422 and 423 B.C., respectively.
This leaves the City Dionysia of 424 B.C. for some unknown victor, who
may have been Aristophanes producing a play in his own name. But, on the
other hand, these victories of Hermippus and Cratinus were certainly not
their first, and it is possible that the victory of Eupolis in 421 B.C.
was also not his first. If any of these men was in fact the City victor
in 424 B.C., Aristophanes’ name could be read at this point on the stone
only by supposing that he had won a City victory at some date prior to
the _Knights_ and consequently with a play which had been brought out
by another. If this hypothesis is correct, it would automatically be
established that at this period victories were credited to the actual
poet rather than to his didascalus. The argument here is by no means
conclusive, however, and most authorities follow Dr. Wilhelm in restoring
the name of Aristomenes, another poet who belonged to the same general
period.
[Illustration: FIG. 78.—Wilhelm’s Transcription and Restoration of Four
Fragments of the Athenian Victors’-List.
See p. 327, n. 1]
[Ἀστικαὶ ποητῶν] [Τηλεκλεί]δης ΙΙΙ Νικοφῶ[ν —]
[κωμικῶν] [.........]ς Ι Θεόπομπ[ος —]
[Χιωνίδης —] — Κη]φισό[δοτος —]
— — ...]ι[ππος? —]
5 — Ι Φερ[εκράτης —] —
[.........]ς Ι Ἕρμ[ιππος —] —
— Ἀρι[στομένης —] —
[Μάγνη]ς ΔΙ Εὔ[πολις —] —
[......ο]ς Ι Κα[λλίστρατος —] —
10 [Ἀλικιμέ]νη[ς] Ι Φρύ[νιχος —] —
[......]ς Ι Ἀμ[ειψίας —] —
[Εὐφρόν]ιος Ι Πλά[των —] —
[Ἐκφαν]τίδης ΙΙΙΙ Φιλ[ωνίδης —] —
[Κρατῖνος] ΓΙ Λύκ[ις —] —
15 [Διοπ]είθης ΙΙ Λεύ[κων —] —
[Κρά]της ΙΙΙ
[Καλλία]ς ΙΙ
The same problem recurs in connection with the comic Victors’-List
for the Lenaea (Fig. 79).[379] Here Aristophanes’ name is certainly to
be restored somewhere in the lacuna below the name of Eupolis in the
first column. But whether his name stood in a position corresponding
to his own victory in 424 B.C. or in one corresponding to his victory
through the agency of Callistratus in the previous year, or whether (to
state it differently) the name of Callistratus must be restored ahead of
Aristophanes’ own name because of his victory in 425 B.C., are questions
which are still incapable of categorical answers. Lack of space will
prevent a further argument of the matter, and I must close with a summary
of Dr. Jachmann’s conclusions. His discussion is not only the latest but
takes certain factors into account which had previously been ignored.
He points out that the archons’ records, Aristotle’s _Didascaliae_,
and the different types of inscriptions must be sharply differentiated
and that the first named are the ultimate source of all the others.
The archons, of course, kept their records with no thought of later
literary investigations but mainly with a view to having a definite list
of men whom they were to hold responsible for different events upon
their programs. Naturally, then, they had no interest in current or
subsequent charges of plagiarism, pretended authorship, etc. Jachmann
maintains that prior to about 380 B.C. the archons entered the name of
the didascalus alone, but after that date they recorded the names of both
didascalus and poet when these differed. He supposes the change to have
been due to a law, which was made necessary by the increasing practice of
intrusting plays to men who were not their authors and to the consequent
differentiation of function between poets and didascali. According
to Jachmann the same situation probably obtained also in Aristotle’s
_Didascaliae_; but in the Victors’-Lists and the inscriptional
Didascaliae only the didascali were listed before 380 B.C. and after that
date only the poets. In the Fasti, on the contrary, only the didascali,
as the use of the verb ἐδίδασκε would indicate, appeared at any time.
[Illustration: FIG. 79.—Wilhelm’s Transcription and Restoration of Five
Fragments of the Athenian Victors’-List.
See p. 328, n. 1]
[Ληναικ]α[ὶ ποη]τῶν Πο[.....] Ι Φίλι[ππος Γ?]ΙΙ —
[κωμικ]ῶν Με[ταγένη]ς ΙΙ Χόρη[γος —] Διο[νύσι]ος Ι
[Ξ]ενόφιλος Ι Θεό[πομπ]ος ΙΙ Ἀναξα[νδρί]δης ΙΙΙ Κλέ[αρχ]ος [Ι.]
[Τ]ηλεκλείδης Γ Πολ[ύζηλο]ς ΙΙΙΙ Φιλέτα[ιρο]ς ΙΙ Ἀθηνοκλῆς[
5 Ἀριστομένης ΙΙ Νικοφ[ῶν —] Εὔβουλος ΓΙ Πυρ[ήν?] Ι 5
Κρατῖνος ΙΙΙ Ἀπο[λλοφάνη]ς Ι Ἔφιππος Ι[.?] Ἀλκήνωρ Ι
Φερεκράτης ΙΙ Ἀμ[ειψίας —] [Ἀ]ντιφάν[ης] ΓΙΙΙ Τιμοκλῆς Ι
Ἕρμιππος ΙΙΙΙ Ν[ικοχάρης —] [Μ]νησίμ[αχος] Ι Προκλείδης Ι
Φρύνιχος ΙΙ Ξενο[φ]ῶν Ι Ναυ[σικράτ]ης ΙΙΙ Μ[έν]ανδρος Ι[—
10 Μυρτίλος Ι Φιλύλλιος Ι Εὐφάνη[ς —] Φ[ι]λήμων ΙΙΙ 10
[Εὔ]πολις ΙΙΙ Φιλόνικος Ι Ἄλεξις ΙΙ [—] Ἀπολλόδωρο[ς—]
— [.......]ς Ι [Ἀρ]ιστ[οφῶν —] Δίφιλος ΙΙΙ
— [Κηφισόδοτος Ι — Φιλιππίδης ΙΙ[—
— — — Νικόστρατος [—
15 — — — Καλλιάδης Ι 15
— — — Ἀμεινίας Ι
— — [Ἀσκληπιό?δω]ρος Ι Ι Ι Ι
Besides some other inscriptions of lesser importance than those already
discussed, Aristotle’s _Didascaliae_ was the source, directly or
indirectly, also of several treatises, collections of classified data,
catalogues, etc., dealing with various phases of Greek theatrical history
and compiled by such men as Dicaearchus, Callimachus, and Aristophanes of
Byzantium. I shall close with an account of one of these. I refer to the
system of numbering which was applied to ancient plays. Thus, according
to the ancient hypothesis (argument) to Sophocles’ _Antigone_ that drama
“was counted the thirty-second” (λέλεκται δὲ τὸ δρᾶμα τοῦτο τριακοστὸν
δεύτερον), and the first hypothesis to Aristophanes’ _Birds_ declares
that that comedy “is the thirty-fifth” (ἔστι δὲ λέ). Before going farther
it will be best to state that the latter numeral is inexplicable under
any theory, but that Dindorf’s substitution of ιέ for λέ (“fifteen” for
“thirty-five”) is a satisfactory and convincing emendation. With the
publication of the Vatican hypothesis to Euripides’ _Alcestis_ in 1834
a third numeral came to light: τὸ δρᾶμα ἐποιήθη ι̅ζ̅ (“the drama was
made seventeenth”). By far the most significant numeral, however, was
published in the _Oxyrhynchus Papyri_ in 1904. Here at the top of the
last column of a hypothesis to Cratinus’ lost _Dionysalexandros_ stood
the following heading, doubtless repeated from the beginning of the
hypothesis, which is now lost:
Διονυσ[αλέξανδρος] “The Dionysalexandros
η̅ Eighth
κρατ[εινου] Of Cratinus”
Finally, one of the fragmentary hypotheses to two of Menander’s plays
published in the _Oxyrhynchus Papyri_ of 1914 begins as follows: “The
_Imbrians_, commencing ‘For how long a time, Demeas, my good man, I ...
you.’ This he wrote in the archonship of Nicocles, being his [7·]th
play (ταύτην [ἔγρα]ψεν ἐπὶ Νικοκλέο[υς..]την καὶ ἑβδομηκοστ[ήν]), and
he gave it for production at the Dionysia; but on account of the tyrant
Lachares the festival was not celebrated. Subsequently it was acted by
the Athenian Callippus.” This numeral is partly illegible, but was in
the seventies, probably seventy-first, seventy-third, seventy-sixth, or
seventy-ninth, possibly seventy-fourth or seventy-fifth.
The interpretation of these numerals has suffered from the fact that
they did not become known simultaneously and from the further fact
that for the most part explanations have been advanced by editors who
contented themselves with proposing the most plausible interpretation
of the particular numeral before them without taking the others into
consideration. Of the many suggestions offered I shall here confine
my discussion to two, the chronological and the alphabetical. The
former interpretation is the oldest and receives confirmation from the
fact that Terence’s comedies are not only arranged chronologically
in our manuscripts but are provided with numerals on that basis in
the didascalic notices which are prefixed to these Latin plays. These
numbers, of course, would trace back the system only to the Romans
and to about the time of Varro in the first century b.c. But inasmuch
as Aeschines’ speeches are arranged on the same principle, there can
be no doubt that the Alexandrian Greeks were familiar with it. The
chronological interpretation, however, has been open to three objections:
(1) It is impossible for Aristophanes’ _Birds_ to have been thirty-fifth
in a chronological arrangement of his plays. This obstacle may be evaded
by accepting Dindorf’s emendation. (2) The _Antigone_ and _Alcestis_
numerals are somewhat smaller than we might expect, since they seem to
assign too few plays to the earlier years of Sophocles’ and Euripides’
activity as playwrights. This is not a serious objection but must be
taken into account. (3) The _Alcestis_ took the place of a satyric drama
and therefore stood fourth in its group. Consequently its numeral ought
to be divisible by four, and the number seventeen does not satisfy this
requirement and does not seem consistent with the tetralogic system
employed at the City Dionysia during this period.
These difficulties are not insuperable, but first I wish to refer to
another interpretation, which has enjoyed great popularity. There is
no doubt that the Greeks were acquainted, and at an early date, with
the alphabetical arrangement of titles. The Oxyrhynchus arguments to
Menander’s plays, for example, seem to have been arranged in accordance
with this principle. The objection that there would be no point in
recording numerals derived from an alphabetical system for the reason
that it would be as easy to turn to a given play by means of its initial
letters as by means of its number is invalid because in alphabetical
lists the Greeks ignored all letters except the first. For example,
fifteen of Euripides’ extant titles begin with alpha, and there was no
a priori method of knowing which of the fifteen places available the
_Alcestis_ would occupy (Fig. 80).[380] It becomes necessary, then, to
examine the alphabetical explanation without prejudice, and fortunately
it is now possible to reach an incontrovertible conclusion. The numerals
have never lent themselves cordially to this interpretation, but the
final _coup de grâce_ was delivered by the recent discovery of the
numeral for Menander’s _Imbrians_. Menander is said to have written from
one hundred and five to one hundred and nine pieces, but only eighty-six
titles are now known. Fifty-one of these, however, have initial letters
which come after iota in the Greek alphabet. Now the smallest restoration
which is possible for the Menander numeral is seventy-one, and
seventy-one plus fifty-one make one hundred and twenty-two, or thirteen
more than the largest number recorded by any authority as the aggregate
of Menander’s works. Therefore the alphabetical explanation must be
rejected.
[Illustration: FIG. 80.—The Villa Albani Statue of Euripides in the
Louvre with the Beginning of an Alphabetical List of His Plays.
See p. 332, n. 1]
We may now return to the chronological interpretation, and first let
us note the light which the _Dionysalexandros_ numeral throws upon the
situation. It is significant that this number is not incorporated within
the hypothesis but stood at the top of the last column and had doubtless
appeared also at the beginning of the hypothesis (now lost). In my
opinion this was the original form of such a notice and shows why in the
fuller form of statement found elsewhere a different verb is employed
in each case—λέλεκται, ἔστι, ἐποιήθη, and ἔγραψεν. When Aristophanes of
Byzantium, or whoever was responsible for the change, transferred these
items from the heading and made them integral parts of the hypothesis,
finding no verb in the original version before him and resting under the
necessity of now using one, he did not deem it essential to paraphrase
the information always in the same way but, as was natural, employed now
one expression and now another. If it be true that the original function
of the numerals was as we find it in the Cratinus hypothesis, only one
explanation is possible—it was a device for the convenience of some
library, probably that at Alexandria. If so, every play in the collection
would bear a number and these numbers would run consecutively for each
author. In other words if any play were not preserved in the library,
that fact would not be indicated by an unoccupied number being left as
a gap in the enumeration. Of course it is conceivable that the basis
of arrangement was purely arbitrary and even varied with each author,
and in fact there has been a distinct tendency among recent authorities
to accept some such pessimistic conclusion. But it is more probable,
until the contrary be proved, that some rational system (alphabetical,
chronological, etc.) was employed and employed consistently.
Now there can be little room left for doubt as to what system was
actually chosen, when it is observed that the foregoing statement of the
numerals’ purpose and use obviates two of the three objections to the
chronological interpretation. Euripides produced his first play in 455
B.C. and died in 406 B.C. He is said to have written ninety-two plays,
or an average of one and four-fifths per annum. If the _Alcestis_ were
actually his seventeenth piece he must have written less than one play
a year between 455 B.C. and 438 B.C., when the _Alcestis_ was produced,
and two and one-third plays a year thereafter. It is true that Euripides’
career opened slowly and that many of his later works are characterized
by hasty and careless execution. But this disparity is too great, even
apart from the objection that _ex hypothesi_ the _Alcestis_ numeral ought
to be a multiple of four. If we suppose, however, that only the plays
that were preserved received a number, the situation at once clears.
We are informed that seventy-eight of Euripides’ works (four of them
spurious) were preserved. This is confirmed by the fact that seventy-two
of his titles are now known, for the number of titles now extant
generally approximates closely the number of an author’s plays which
were known by the ancients. If, then, the _Alcestis_ was seventeenth
among the seventy-eight works which were passing under the name of
Euripides in antiquity and if it retained the same relative position as
in the complete list, it must have been about the twentieth play which
he brought out. This number, being divisible by four, would be suitable
for the last play of a tetralogy and would have the merit of reducing
slightly the disproportion between the earlier and the later activity
of the poet. Moreover, since the earlier plays of a dramatist are more
likely to have been lost than the later ones, it is possible to suppose
that the _Alcestis_ may have been twenty-fourth or even twenty-eighth
in a complete list (chronological) of his writings. The point is that
the purpose of the numerals as deducible from the _Dionysalexandros_
instance is capable of obviating all objections to the chronological
interpretation of the _Alcestis_ numeral.
Similarly, Sophocles is said to have written one hundred and twenty-three
plays, and his career extended from about 468 B.C. to 406 B.C., yielding
an average of about two plays per annum. Inasmuch as the _Antigone_ was
probably performed in 441 B.C. and bears the numeral thirty-two, an
unmodified chronological interpretation would give an average of one
and one-seventh plays a year for Sophocles’ earlier period and of two
and three-sevenths for his later period. But we now have fragments of
somewhat more than one hundred Sophoclean plays; and if the _Antigone_
was thirty-second among these and retained the same relative position
as at first, it would have been about the thirty-seventh play which
Sophocles wrote. Of course this is a mere estimate, but again this
solution has the merit of assigning a slightly larger number of plays to
the earlier years of the poet and of reducing, to that extent, the only
objection to the chronological interpretation of this numeral.
Aristophanes’ first comedy was produced in 427 B.C., and his last one
not much later than 388 B.C. To him were attributed forty-four plays,
four of which were considered spurious. Apparently all of his works were
known to the ancients. The _Birds_ was produced at the City Dionysia
of 414 B.C. in the fourteenth year of his activity as a playwright.
There is, therefore, no a priori reason for refusing to believe that it
was Aristophanes’ fifteenth play. Nor does any obstacle arise from the
chronology of the plays, so far as they can be dated. On the other hand
the traditional numeral, thirty-five, is inexplicable under any logical
system of enumeration, while Dindorf’s emendation is paleographically
simple. Therefore we must accept the substitution and the chronological
interpretation.
Cratinus’ career began about 452 B.C. and closed in 423 B.C. or soon
thereafter. Most scholars suppose his _Dionysalexandros_ to have been
brought out in 430 or 429 B.C., though I was myself at first inclined
to favor an earlier date. He is said to have written twenty-one plays.
Twenty-six titles, however, were accepted for him by Meineke and Kock
in their editions of the Greek comic fragments. Probably a few of these
titles must be rejected as spurious or transferred to the younger
Cratinus, but it is also possible that Cratinus was much more productive
than is commonly supposed and that twenty-one was the number of his
preserved works in Alexandrian times, not of all that he had composed.
As the custom of publishing comedies seems to have started only at about
the beginning of Cratinus’ career (see p. 55, above), it would not be
surprising if many of his plays, especially of his earlier plays, were
lost. At any rate in a chronological arrangement of twenty-one comedies,
whether they were the whole or only the preserved part of Cratinus’
work, the _Dionysalexandros_ could be the eighth. These conclusions
are acceptable to Professor R. H. Tanner, who will shortly publish a
dissertation dealing with the chronology of Cratinus’ plays and whose
results on the point now under discussion he has kindly permitted me to
summarize here. He follows Croiset in assigning the _Dionysalexandros_
to the Lenaea of 430 B.C.; six plays he definitely dates before the
_Dionysalexandros_, and a seventh somewhat less positively. In the
thirteen remaining he has found nothing to indicate a date prior to 430
B.C. Some of them certainly belong to the period subsequent to 430 B.C.
It will be seen that these conclusions are in thorough accord with my
interpretation of the numeral.
The chronology of Menander’s life is not free from uncertainties, but
these do not seriously affect the present discussion. His first play was
performed perhaps as early as 324 B.C., and his decease probably took
place in 292/1 B.C. During these thirty-three or thirty-four years he
composed some one hundred and nine pieces or slightly over three per
annum. Now Nicocles was archon in 302/1 B.C. If, then, the hypothesis
is correct in assigning the _Imbrians_ to the archonship of this man,
the number seventy-one (the smallest restoration which is possible)
or seventy-nine (the largest possible) would almost perfectly fit the
requirements of the case. Eighty-six Menandrian titles are now known, and
it is not likely that many of his plays were lost in Alexandrian times.
We may, therefore, summarize the preceding discussion as follows: If we
follow Dindorf in reading ιέ for λέ in the hypothesis to Aristophanes’
_Birds_, the numerals are capable of a uniform interpretation; they
were a library device and were assigned to the plays represented in
some collection, most probably that at Alexandria, according to the
dates of their premières. It is needless to state that in establishing
the chronological sequence of the plays in their possession the library
authorities would depend upon Aristotle’s _Didascaliae_ or other
handbooks derived therefrom.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Cf. Hermann Deckinger, _Die Darstellung der persönlichen Motive bei
Aischylos und Sophokles_ (1911), p. 1.
[2] Cf. Aristotle _Poetics_ 1449_a_8. The other passages cited in this
paragraph are _ibid._ 1449_b_33 and 1450_a_10, 1450_b_17-21, 1453_b_1-3,
1462_a_12, and 1462_a_14-17.
[3] Cf. his paper entitled “Dramatic Criticism and the Theatre” in
_Creative Criticism_, p. 56 (1917).
[4] Cf. Aristotle _Rhetoric_ 1403_b_33 (Jebb’s translation). This
statement needs to be interpreted in the light of pp. 190 f., below.
[5] Cf. _op. cit._, p. 56. The italics are mine.
[6] Cf. Clayton Hamilton, _The Theory of the Theatre_ (1910), p. 3;
and J. B. Matthews, _North American Review_, CLXXXVII (1908), 213 f.:
“They believe that the playhouse has now, has had in the past, and must
always have a monopoly of the dramatic form. They cannot recognize the
legitimacy of a play which is not intended to be played. They know that
the great dramatist of every period when the drama has flourished has
always planned his plays for performance in the theater of his own time,
by the actors of his own time, and before the spectators of his own
time”; and _The Independent_, LXVIII (1910), 187: “In other words, the
literary quality is something that may be added to a drama, but which is
not essential to its value as a play in the theater itself.”
[7] Cf. _Conversations with Eckermann_, March 28, 1827 (Oxenford’s
translation).
[8] Cf. _The Inn of Tranquillity_ (1912), p. 277.
[9] Cf. _Classical Philology_, IX (1914), 96.
[10] Cf. _Euripides and His Age_ (1913), p. 89. See p. 217, below.
[11] Cf. _The Theatre of Ideas_ (1915), pp. 9 ff. (copyrighted by the
George H. Doran Company).
[12] Cf. Welcker, _Nachtrag zu der Schrift über die Aeschylische Trilogie
nebst einer Abhandlung über das Satyrspiel_ (1826); Furtwängler, “Der
Satyr aus Pergamon,” _Berliner Winckelmannsfest Programm_, XL (1880);
U. von Wilamowitz-Möllendorff, _Einleitung in die griechische Tragödie_
[Vol. I of his edition of Euripides’ _Heracles_ (1889)], pp. 43 ff. and
_Neue Jahrbücher für das klassische Altertum_, XXIX (1912), 464 ff.;
Bethe, _Prolegomena zur Geschichte des Theaters im Altherthum_ (1896);
G. Körte, “Satyrn und Böcke,” in Bethe’s _Prolegomena_, pp. 339 ff.;
Wernicke, “Bockschöre und Satyrdrama,” _Hermes_, XXXII (1897), 290
ff.; Schmid, _Zur Geschichte des gr. Dithyrambus_ (1901); Reisch, “Zur
Vorgeschichte der attischen Tragödie,” in _Festschrift Theodor Gomperz_
(1902), pp. 451 ff.; Crusius, _s.v._ “Dithyrambos,” in Pauly-Wissowa,
_Real-Encyclopädie_, V, 1203 ff. (1903); Dieterich, “Die Entstehung
der Tragödie,” _Archiv für Religionswissenschaft_, XI (1908), 163 ff.
[Kleine Schriften, pp. 414 ff.]; Farnell, _Cults of the Greek States_,
V, 85 ff., and especially pp. 224 ff. (1909), and “The Megala Dionysia
and the Origin of Tragedy,” _Journal of Hellenic Studies_, XXIX (1909),
xlvii; Ridgeway, _The Origin of Tragedy with Special Reference to
the Greek Tragedians_ (1910), and _The Dramas and Dramatic Dances of
Non-European Races in Special Reference to the Origin of Greek Tragedy_
(1915), reviewed by Flickinger in _Classical Weekly_, XI (1918), 107 ff.;
Nilsson, “Der Ursprung der Tragödie,” _Neue Jahrbücher für das klassische
Altertum_, XXVII (1911), 609 ff. and 673 ff.; Jane Harrison, _Themis,
a Study of the Social Origins of Greek Religion_ (1912); Murray, “The
Ritual Forms Preserved in Greek Tragedy,” in Miss Harrison’s _Themis_,
pp. 341 ff.; Flickinger, “Tragedy and Satyric Drama,” _Classical
Philology_, VIII (1913), 261 ff.; and Cook, _Zeus, a Study in Ancient
Religion_, I (1914), 665 ff. and 695 ff.
[13] Cf. Lawson, _Annual of British School at Athens_, VI (1900), 125
ff.; Dawkins, _ibid._, XI (1905), 72 ff.; and Wace, _ibid._, XVI (1910),
232 ff.
[14] Cf. Suidas, _s.v._ “Phrynichus.”
[15] Cf. _Euripides the Rationalist_, p. 243.
[16] Cf. von Wilamowitz, _Neue Jahrbücher f. kl. Altertum_, XXIX (1912),
474, and Cook, _Zeus_, I, xiii f.
[17] Cf. his _Aristotle on the Art of Poetry_, p. 135. This opinion
is confirmed by the fact that men of such importance as Thespis and
Phrynichus are not so much as mentioned in the _Poetics_.
[18] Cf. _Poetics_ 1449_a_9-11: γενομένη <δ’> ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς αὐτοσχεδιαστική,
... καὶ ἡ μὲν ἀπὸ τῶν ἐξαρχόντων τὸν διθύραμβον.
[19] Cf. _Laws_ 700 B: καὶ ἄλλο (sc. εἶδος ᾠδῆς) Διονύσου γένεσις, οἶμαι,
διθύραμβος λεγόμενος.
[20] Cf. Bergk, _Poetae Lyrici Graeci⁴_, II, 404, fr. 77:
ὡς Διονύσοι’ ἄνακτος καλὸν ἐξάρξαι μέλος
οἶδα διθύραμβον, οἴνῳ συγκεραυνωθεὶς φρένας.
[21] Cf. _ibid._, III, 559, fr. 1, vs. 16.
[22] Cf. _Olymp._ XIII, 18 f.:
ταὶ Διονύσου πόθεν ἐξέφανεν
σὺν βοηλάτᾳ χάριτες διθυράμβῳ;
Βοηλάτᾳ is usually explained by reference to the ox prize, cf. schol.
Plato, _Republic_, 394C: εὑρεθῆναι μὲν τὸν διθύραμβον ἐν Κορίνθῳ ὑπὸ
Ἀρίονός φασι. τῶν δὲ ποιητῶν τῷ μὲν πρώτῳ βοῦς ἔπαθλον ἦν, τῷ δὲ δευτέρῳ
ἀμφορεύς, τῷ δὲ τρίτῳ τράγος, ὃν τρυγὶ κεχρισμένον ἀπῆγον. Kern, Crusius,
and Ridgeway, however, refer it to the practice of an Arcadian community,
the Cynaethaens, of whom Pausanias (viii. 19. 1) speaks as follows: “And
as to the things most worthy of mention there is a shrine of Dionysus
there, and in the winter season they celebrate a festival, in which men
who have anointed themselves with oil lift up a bull from the herd,
whatever one the god himself puts in their minds to lift, and carry it to
the shrine. Such was their manner of sacrifice.” Cf. Pauly-Wissowa, V,
1041 and 1206, and _Origin of Tragedy_, p. 6.
[23] Cf. Kaibel, _Comicorum Graecorum Fragmenta_, p. 115, fr. 132;
οὐκ ἔστι διθύραμβος ὅκχ’ ὕδωρ πίῃς.
[24] Published by Rabe in _Rheinisches Museum für Philologie_, LXIII
(1908), 150.
[25] Cf. Aristotle’s _Poetics_ 1448_b_1: καὶ τὸ ποιεῖν αὐτοὶ [sc. οἱ
Δωριεῖς] μὲν δρᾶν, Ἀθηναίους δὲ πράττειν προσαγορεύειν. In referring to
this passage von Wilamowitz says: “So viel wahr ist, dass δρᾶμα in der
Tat ein Fremdwort ist; man redet im Kultus nur von δρώμενα”; cf. _op.
cit._, p. 467, n. 3.
[26] Cf. Haigh, _The Tragic Drama of the Greeks_ (1896), p. 17, n. 1,
and Pickard-Cambridge in _Classical Review_, XXVI (1912), 54. It is also
possible that Arion’s employment of a new generic term (δράματα) for his
dithyrambs is alluded to. Herodotus may have taken it as a matter of
course that everyone knew what this new name was and consequently failed
to mention it, thus leaving the passage ambiguous.
[27] Cf. Suidas, _s.v._ “Arion”: λέγεται καὶ τραγικοῦ τρόπου εὑρετὴς
γενέσθαι καὶ πρῶτος χορὸν στῆσαι <κύκλιον> καὶ διθύραμβον ᾆσαι καὶ
ὀνομάσαι τὸ ᾀδόμενον ὑπὸ τοῦ χοροῦ καὶ σατύρους εἰσενεγκεῖν ἔμμετρα
λέγοντας. I cannot agree with Reisch, _op. cit._, p. 471, and
Pickard-Cambridge, _op. cit._, p. 54, in thinking that this notice refers
to three separate types of performances instead of one.
[28] See p. 7, n. 4, above.
[29] Cf. Pickard-Cambridge, _op. cit._, p. 55.
[30] Cf. Suidas, _s.v._ “Thespis”: Θέσπις Ἰκαρίου πόλεως Ἀττικῆς,
τραγικὸς ἑκκαιδέκατος ἀπὸ τοῦ πρώτου γενομένου τραγῳδιοποιοῦ Ἐπιγένους
τοῦ Σικυωνίου τιθέμενος, ὡς δέ τινες, δεύτερος μετὰ Ἐπιγένην· ἄλλοι δὲ
αὐτὸν πρῶτον τραγικὸν γενέσθαι φασί.
[31] Cf. Suidas, _s.v._, Photius, _s.v._, and Apostolius xiii. 42:
Ἐπιγένου τοῦ Σικυωνίου τραγῳδίαν εἰς τὸν Διόνυσον ποιήσαντος, ἐπεφώνησάν
τινες τοῦτο· ὅθεν ἡ παροιμία.
[32] Cf. _The Origin of Tragedy_, p. 58.
[33] About a dozen explanations in addition to those discussed in the
text are listed and criticized in _Classical Philology_, VIII (1913), 269
ff.
[34] Cf. Jacoby, _Das Marmor Parium_, p. 14: ἀφ’ οὖ Θέσπις ὁ ποιητὴς
[ὑπεκρίνα]το πρῶτος, ὃς ἐδίδαξη [δρ]ᾶ[μα ἐν ἄ]στ[ει καὶ ἆθλον ἐ]τέθη ὁ
[τ]ράγος, ἔτη ΗΗ𐅄[ΔΔ·], ἄρχοντος Ἀθ[ήνησι] ... ναιου τοῦ προτέρου.
[35] Cf. _op. cit._, ρ. 468: “An der Tatsache, dass in älterer Zeit dem
Tragödenchor ein Bock als Preis (der als Opferthier und Opferschmaus
dienen sollte), gegeben wurde, wie dem Dithyrambenchor zu gliechem Zwecke
ein Stier, daran zu zweifeln ist kein Grund.”
[36] Cf. _op. cit._, p. 59: “Since the interpretation of τραγῳδία as
the ‘song of the men in goat-costume’ must be given up, the word can be
interpreted as the ‘song _around_’ or ‘_for_ the goat’—whether the goat
be sacrifice or prize.”
[37] Cf. Eusebius’ _Chronica_, Ol. 47, 2 (591-590 B.C.; Armenian version,
Ol. 48, 1): τοῖς ἀγωνιζομένοις παρ’ Ἕλλησι τράγος ἐδίδοτο, ἀφ’ οὖ καὶ
τραγικοὶ ἐκλήθησαν. Jerome’s Latin version reads: “his temporibus
certantibus in agone (de voce _add._ R) tragus, id est hircus, in praemio
dabatur. Unde aiunt tragoedos nuncupatos.”
[38] Contrary to Herodotus, these choruses were τραγικοί only after the
transfer, not before—a negligible error.
[39] Of course, it is possible to argue that goats may have been
sacrificed to Adrastus and that τραγικός and τραγῳδός were consequently
older terms than is maintained in the text; this would also explain why
the goat was continued as a prize after the sacrifice proper had been
given over to Melanippus. Cf., however, Farnell, _Cults of the Greek
States_, V, 233 and note _d_.
[40] Cf. Plato _Minos_ 321A: ἡ δὲ τραγῳδία ἐστὶ παλαιὸν ἐνθάδε, οὐχ ὡς
οἴονται ἀπὸ Θέσπιδος ἀρξαμένη οὐδ’ ἀπὸ Φρυνίχου, ἀλλ’ εἰ θέλεις ἐννοῆσαι,
πάνυ παλαιὸν αὐτὸ εὑρήσεις ὂν τῆσδε τῆς πόλεως εὕρημα.
[41] Cf. _Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion²_ (1908), p. 568.
Of course, I do not mean to deny that impersonation was subsequently
borrowed from true drama by rites of various kinds which had not
contained it at first. This situation probably obtained with reference to
the Eleusinian mysteries in their later forms.
The indebtedness of tragedy to epic poetry for subject matter, dignity
of treatment and of diction, and development of plot, including such
technical devices as recognition (ἀναγνώρισις) and reversal of situation
(περιπέτεια) is too well established to require argument. Aeschylus
is said to have declared that his tragedies were “slices from Homer’s
bountiful banquets” (Athenaeus, p. 347E). The pertinent passages from
Aristotle’s _Poetics_ have been conveniently assembled by Throop, “Epic
and Dramatic,” _Washington University Studies_, V (1917), 1 ff.
[42] Cf. Plutarch _Solon_ xxix. If Thespis treated the traditional myths
with some freedom, that may have added to Solon’s anger.
[43] Cf. Diogenes Laertius iii. 56: τὸ παλαιὸν ἐν τῇ τραγῳδίᾳ πρότερον
μὲν μόνος ὁ χορὸς διεδραμάτιζεν, ὕστερον δὲ Θέσπις ἕνα ὑποκριτὴν ἐξεῦρεν
ὑπὲρ τοῦ διαναπαύεσθαι τὸν χορόν.
[44] Cf. _The Origin of Tragedy_, p. 60.
[45] Cf. Hiller, _Rheinisches Museum für Philologie_, XXXIX (1884), 329.
[46] Cf. Horace _Ars Poetica_, vs. 276:
dicitur et plaustris vexisse poemata Thespis.
[47] Cf. _Kleine Schriften_, p. 422, and _Neue Jahrbücher für das
klassische Altertum_, XXIX (1912), 474.
[48] Cf. Suidas, _s.v._ “Thespis”: μνημονεύεται δὲ τῶν δραμάτων αὐτοῦ
Ἆθλα Πελίου ἢ Φόρβας, Ἱερεῖς, Ἠίθεοι, Πενθεύς.
[49] Cf. Diogenes Laertius v. 92. Both Aristoxenus and Heraclides were
pupils of Aristotle.
[50] Cf. Ridgeway, _op. cit._, p. 69.
[51] Cf. Suidas, _s.v._ οὐδὲν πρὸς τὸν Διόνυσον (quoted on p. 29, n. 2,
below).
[52] The cognomen was due to the belief that the image and cult were
derived from Eleutherae. At Eleutherae itself, however, his cognomen
would naturally be different. There he was known as Διόνυσος Μελάναιγις,
“Dionysus of the Black-Goat-Skin.” From this fact an abortive attempt has
recently been made to derive a new explanation for tragic performances
being denominated “goat-songs”; cf. _Classical Philology_, VIII (1913),
270.
[53] Cf. _Marmor Parium_ (quoted on p. 14, n. 2, above).
[54] Cf. _Poetics_ 1449_a_19 ff., Bywater’s translation.
[55] Cf. _op. cit._, p. 472. This exegesis has now been commended by
Pickard-Cambridge; cf. _Classical Review_, XXVI (1912), 53. Cornford has
expressed the same view by means of a neat paraphrase: ἐκ σατυρικοῦ εἰς
σεμνὸν μετέβαλεν, cf. _The Origin of Attic Comedy_ (1914), p. 214, n. 1.
Gomperz’ translation (1897) reads as follows: “Was das Wachstum ihrer
Grossartigkeit anlangt, so hat sich das Trauerspiel im Gegensatze zur
ursprünglichen Kleinheit der Fabeln und der zum Possenhaften neigenden
Artung der Diction ihres satyrspielartigen Ursprungs wegen erst spät zu
höherer Würde erhoben.... Ursprünglich hatte man sich nämlich, da die
Dichtung satyrhaft und mehr balletartig war, des trochäischen Tetrameters
bedient.”
[56] Cf. _Poetics_ 1449_a_22 f., Butcher’s translation.
[57] In 467 B.C. Aristias concluded his tragedies with the _Palaestae_,
“a satyric drama of his father Pratinas” (cf. arg. Aesch. _Seven
against Thebes_). It is generally supposed that this was a posthumous
piece. But Professor Capps suggests that Pratinas may frequently have
provided a satyr-play for someone’s else trilogy, and thus explains
the disproportionate number of satyric dramas in Pratinas’ list and of
tragedies in other poets’ lists.
[58] Cf. Suidas, _s.v._ “Pratinas”: ... Φλιάσιος, ποιητὴς τραγῳδίας,
ἀντηγωνίζετο Αἰσχύλῳ τε καὶ Χοιρίλῳ, ἐπὶ τῆς ἑβδομηκοστῆς Ὀλυμπιάδος, καὶ
πρῶτος ἔγραψε Σατύρους ... καὶ δράματα μὲν ἐπεδείξατο νʹ, ὦν Σατυρικὰ
λβʹ. ἐνίκησε δὲ ἅπαξ. Note that the earliest name was simply Σάτυροι,
“satyrs.” Murray has proposed another interpretation of Suidas’ phrase:
“I take this to mean that Pratinas was the first person to write words
for the revelling masquers to learn by heart. Thespis, like many early
Elizabethans, had been content with a general direction: ‘Enter Satyrs,
in revel, saying anything’” (incorporated in Miss Harrison’s _Themis_, p.
344). Nevertheless, he adds that he “does not wish to combat” the other
view.
[59] Fig. 3 is taken from Furtwängler and Reichhold, _Griechische
Vasenmalarei_, first series, II, Pls. 11-12. The _membrum virile_ has
been omitted in the reproduction.
[60] Cf. _op. cit._, I, 696 f.
[61] This was originally assembled by Hartwig in _Römische
Mittheilungen_, XII (1897), 89 ff. and Wernicke, _op. cit._ It is now
conveniently summarized by Cook, _op. cit._, pp. 697 ff.
[62] Fig. 4 is taken from Baumeister, _Denkmäler_, Fig. 422. The two
craters at Deepdene are illustrated in Cook, _op. cit._, Pl. XXXIX, Figs.
1-2.
[63] The three dinoi are discussed by Miss Bieber in _Athenische
Mitteilungen_, XXXVI (1911), 269 ff. and Pl. XIII, Figs. 1-3 and Pl. XIV,
Figs. 1-5. My Figs. 5-7 are taken from her publication, corresponding
to Pl. XIII, Fig. 1, Pl. XIV, Fig. 4, and Pl. XIV, Figs, 1 and 2
respectively. Cook maintains that all six vases are descended from a
fresco by Polygnotus, _op. cit._, pp. 700 f.; but this suggestion seems
improbable.
[64] Cf. De Prott, “De Amphora Neapolitana Fabulae Satyricae Apparatum
Scaenicum Repraesentante,” in _Schedae Philologicae Hermanno Usener
Oblatae_ (Bonn, 1891), pp. 47 ff. It seems strange that De Prott should
mar his own interpretation by supposing the figure whom I have called
Hesione to be a Muse. The Scythian cap ought to be decisive.
[65] Cf. Miss Bieber, _op. cit._, Pl. XIV, Fig. 3.
[66] Except the eleventh and twelfth choreutae on the Naples crater (Fig.
4), viz., the figure with a lyre near the middle of the lower row and the
fully clad figure next to the last on the right. If De Prott is correct
in considering these figures choreutae, they must be regarded (I suppose)
as having not yet completed their make-up.
[67] Fig. 8 is taken from Baumeister, _Denkmäler_, Fig. 424. The
choreutae in this scene are not to be understood as having no tails;
their position does not permit this feature to be seen, cf. Haigh, _The
Attic Theatre³_, p. 293, note.
[68] Cf. _Etymologicum Magnum_, _s.v._: τραγῳδία: ... ἢ ὅτι τὰ πολλὰ οἱ
χοροὶ ἐκ σατύρων συνίσταντο, οὓς ἐκάλουν τράγους σκώπτοντες ἢ διὰ τὴν τοῦ
σώματος δασύτητα ἢ διὰ τὴν περὶ τὰ ἀφροδίσια σπουδήν· τοιοῦτον γὰρ τὸ
ζῷον. ἢ ὅτι οἱ χορευταὶ τὰς κόμας ἀνέπλεκον, σχῆμα τράγων μιμούμενοι.
[69] Cf. Horace _Ars Poetica_, vss. 220 f:
carmine qui tragico vilem certavit ob hircum,
mox etiam agrestis Satyros nudavit, etc.
[70] Cf. Suidas and Photius, _s.v._ οὐδὲν πρὸς τὸν Διόνυσον and
Apostolius xiii. 42. After giving the explanation of this phrase already
cited on p. 12, n. 3, above, they continue: βέλτιον δὲ οὕτως, τὸ πρόσθεν
εἰς τὸν Διόνυσον γράφοντες τούτοις ἠγωνίζοντο, ἅπερ καὶ Σατυρικὰ ἐλέγετο·
ὕστερον δὲ μεταβάντες εἰς τὸ τραγῳδίας γράφειν, κατὰ μικρὸν εἰς μύθους
καὶ ἱστορίας ἐτράπησαν, μηκέτι τοῦ Διονύσου μνημονεύοντες, ὅθεν τοῦτο
καὶ ἐπεφώνησαν. καὶ Χαμαιλέων ἐν τῷ Περὶ Θέσπιδος τὰ παραπλήσια ἱστορεῖ.
The word παραπλήσια leaves it doubtful for how much of this notice
Chamaeleon (Aristotle’s pupil) should be held responsible. But at the
most his accountability cannot extend beyond explaining the introduction
of non-Dionysiac themes; the side remarks are Byzantine.
[71] Cf. von Wilamowitz, _N. Jahrbücher f. kl. Altertum_, XXIX (1912),
461, and Tanner, _Transactions American Philological Association_, XLVI
(1915), 173 ff.
[72] Fig. 9 is taken from the _Journal of Hellenic Studies_, XI (1890),
Pl. XI, and is reproduced by permission of the Council of the Hellenic
Society.
[73] Reisch, _op. cit._, pp. 456 f., considers the goat-men Pans, or
choreutae in some such comedy as Eupolis’ Αἶγες.
[74] Cf. Nauck, _Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta_, p. 69, fr. 207:
τράγος γένειον ἆρα πενθήσεις σύ γε.
The use of the nominative τράγος instead of a vocative is harsh, and
Shorey, _Classical Philology_, IV (1909), 433 ff., interprets the line
as an abbreviated comparison with ὡς omitted: “<If you kiss that fire>,
you’ll be the goat (in the proverb) who mourned his beard.” Of course,
this play must have been written considerably before 456 B.C., the year
of Aeschylus’ decease.
[75] Cf. _Oxyrhynchus Papyri_, IX (1912), 59:
νέος γὰρ ὢν ἀνὴρ
πώγωνι θάλλων ὡς τράγος κνήκῳ χλιδᾷς.
[76] Cf. Euripides’ _Cyclops_, vss. 79 f.:
δοῦλος ἀλαίνων
σὺν τᾷδε τράγου χλαίνᾳ μελέᾳ.
Reisch thinks the goatskin characterized the chorus as shepherds; cf.
_op. cit._, p. 458, note; Ridgeway considers it “the meanest form of
apparel that could be worn by a slave”; cf. _Origin of Tragedy_, p. 87.
[77] Fig. 10 is taken from Höber, _Griechische Vasen_, Fig. 57 (1909).
[78] Cf. Reinach, _Repertoire des Vases Peints_, I, 193, or Baumeister,
_Denkmäler_, Supplementtafel, Fig. 7.
[79] Cf. _op. cit._, p. 459. The possibility of direct borrowing had
already been denied by Wernicke, _op. cit._, pp. 302-6. Wernicke’s
objections are not altogether convincing.
[80] Fig. 11 is taken from a photograph for which I am indebted to
Professor Heinrich Bulle. He was also kind enough to express the
following judgment with regard to the inscription: “Ich kann nicht mit
Ch. Fränkel, _Satyr- und Bakchennamen auf Vasenbildern_ (1912), S. 35,
der Lesung von Schulze (_Göttinger gel. Anz._ 1896, S. 254) ΣΙΒΥΡΤΑΣ
zustimmen; denn die Inschrift ist ja rechtslaüfig. Man kann übrigens auch
deutlich an dem Kleinerwerden der Buchstaben sehen, dass der Zeichner von
links nach rechts geschrieben hat. Ich glaube mit Urlichs, (_Verzeichniss
d. Antikensammlung d. Univ. Wurzburgs_, I, S. 50), dass es eine einfache
Verschreibung aus ΣΑΤΥΡΟΣ ist.” The _membrum virile_ has been omitted in
the reproduction.
[81] Cf. the contemporaneous sileni in connection with the “wagon-ship”
of Dionysus; see Fig. 65 and p. 121, below.
[82] Why “almost” is inserted here does not appear. Many Greek divinities
are mentioned on Ridgeway’s pages, but none is recognized as “totally
independent” of the cult of the dead.
[83] Cf. his _Dramas and Dramatic Dances_, etc., pp. 63, 337, 385, and
_passim_.
[84] Cf. Marrett, _Classical Review_, XXX (1916), 159.
[85] Cf. Zieliński, _Die Gliederung der altattischen Komödie_ (1885);
Humphreys, “The Agon of the Old Comedy,” _American Journal of Philology_,
VIII (1887), 179 ff.; Poppelreuter, _De Comoediae Atticae Primordiis_
(1893); A. Körte, “Archäologische Studien zur alten Komödie,” _Jahrbuch
d. archäologischen Instituts_, VIII (1893), 61 ff.; Loeschcke,
_Athenische Mittheilungen_, XIX (1894), 518, note; Bethe, _Prolegomena
zur Geschichte des Theaters im Alterthum_ (1896), pp. 48 ff.; Mazon,
_Essai sur la Composition des Comédies d’Aristophane_ (1904); Capps,
“The Introduction of Comedy into the City Dionysia,” _University of
Chicago Decennial Publications_, VI (1904), 266 ff., and in Columbia
University lectures on _Greek Literature_ (1912), pp. 124 ff.; Navarre,
“Les origines et la structure technique de la comédie ancienne,” _Revue
des Études anciennes_, XIII (1911), 245 ff.; White, _The Verse of Greek
Comedy_ (1912); Cornford, _The Origin of Attic Comedy_ (1914), reviewed
by Flickinger in _Classical Weekly_, VIII (1915), 221 ff.; and Ridgeway,
_The Dramas and Dramatic Dances of Non-European Races with an Appendix on
the Origin of Greek Comedy_ (1915), reviewed by Flickinger, _Classical
Weekly_, XI (1918), 109 f.
[86] I am indebted to Professor Capps for this translation; the word is
generally taken to mean “masks” here.
[87] Cf. Aristotle’s _Poetics_ 1449_a_37-_b_9.
[88] The phallus was a representation of the _membrum virile_, and such
ceremonies were primarily intended to secure fertility.
[89] Cf. Aristotle’s _Poetics_ 1449_a_9-13.
[90] The second is, of course, the personification of Increase; the
first is not so obvious. Some connect it with Demeter; it has also been
proposed to interpret it as the Cretan form of ζημία, “damage.” The one
would therefore represent the productive and the other the destructive
powers; cf. Macan’s edition _ad loc._ This would accord very neatly with
Cornford’s positive and negative charms.
[91] Cf. Jacoby, _Das Marmor Parium_, p. 13: ἀφ’ οὑ ἐν Ἀθ[ήν]αις
κωμω[ιδῶν χο]ρ[ὸς ἐτ]έθη, [στη]σάν[των πρώ]των Ἰκαριέων, εὑροντος
Σουσαρίωνος, καὶ ᾆθλον ἐτέθη πρῶτον ὶσχάδω[ν] ἄρσιχο[ς] καὶ οἴνου
με[τ]ρητής, [ἔτη .... The exact date is not determinable but is
limited to a period of twenty years by other entries just before and
after this one.
[92] Figs. 12 and 13 are taken, by permission of the Council of the
Hellenic Society, from the _Journal of Hellenic Studies_, II (1881), Pl.
XIV, A1 and B1; Fig. 14 from Poppelreuter, _op. cit._, p. 8; and Figs. 15
and 16 from Robinson, _Boston Museum Catalogue of Greek, Etruscan, and
Roman Vases_ (1893), p. 136.
[93] Cf. Capps, _University of Chicago Decennial Publications_, VI, 286,
and _American Journal of Philology_, XXVIII (1907), 186 f.
[94] The divisions of tragedy are discussed on pp. 192 f., below. Five
of the terms applied to the divisions of comedy appear also in tragedy,
viz., prologue, parodus, episode, stasimum, and exodus; several, if not
all, of the five seem to have originated in tragedy.
[95] From this second half of the parabasis comedy developed another
epirrhematic division to which Zieliński also gave the name of syzygy.
This was not exclusively choral, however, stood at no definite point in
the play, and differed in still other respects from the epirrhematic
syzygy of the parabasis. Three syzygies appear in Aristophanes’
_Acharnians_ and _Birds_, none in his _Lysistrata_, _Women in Council_,
and _Plutus_. Cf. White, _op. cit._, § 677. Since it is apparent that
such syzygies are not primary in origin, they have been ignored in the
foregoing discussion.
[96] Or at least reflect its influence; cf. the syzygies mentioned in the
last note.
[97] Cf. Cornford, _op. cit._, p. 46.
[98] Cf. White, “An Unrecognized Actor in Greek Comedy,” _Harvard
Studies_, XVII (1906), 124 f.
[99] Cf. Zieliński, _op. cit._, p. 190.
[100] Published by Usener in _Rheinisches Museum f. Philologie_, XXVIII
(1873), 418.
[101] Cf. Aristophanes’ _Clouds_, vss. 537 ff. (Rogers’ translation). The
original of “filthy symbols” is σκύτινον καθειμένον. It has therefore
been suggested, especially since there seems to be an allusion to a
phallus even in the _Clouds_ (vs. 734), that Aristophanes is not to be
understood as discontinuing the use of the phallus altogether in this
play, but merely as abandoning the φαλλος καθειμένος in favor of the less
indecent φαλλὸς ἀναδεδεμένος. Both types are seen in Fig. 17.
[102] Figs. 17-19 are taken from Körte, _op. cit._, p. 69 (Fig. 1), p.
78 (Fig. 3), and p. 80 (Fig. 5), respectively. In Fig. 17 there are only
three actors; the end figures are flute-players. Körte believes this
scene to be taken from Middle Comedy. In Fig. 19 the phallus has been
omitted.
[103] Figs. 20 and 21 are taken from Körte, _op. cit._, p. 91 (Fig. 8),
and Baumeister’s _Denkmäler_, Fig. 2099, respectively. The phallus has
been omitted from some of the actors.
[104] Cf. Aristotle’s _Poetics_ 1448_a_31 f.
[105] Those who admit this claim rest under the necessity of placing the
introduction of actors at this early date. This would mean that comedy
had actors before tragedy did! On the other hand, the reader needs to
be warned that I place the introduction of comic actors later than most
writers.
[106] Cf. Aristophanes’ _Wasps_, vs. 57, and Kock, _Comicorum Graecorum
Fragmenta_, I, 9 f., fr. 2 (Ecphantides), and I, 323, fr. 244 (Eupolis).
[107] Von Wilamowitz’ skepticism with regard to Megarian comedy, however,
has not gained many converts; cf. “Die megarische Komödie,” _Hermes_, IX
(1875), 319 ff.
[108] Cf. Navarre, _op. cit._, p. 268. The same fact is brought out more
graphically in the lithographic table at the close of Zieliński’s book.
[109] The episodes referred to in this sentence are more properly termed
“mediating scenes” in contradistinction to the true episodes (5) which
follow the parabasis (cf. White, _The Verse of Greek Comedy_, §§ 679 f.).
Twenty-six connecting links of this sort occur in Aristophanes, twenty
of them just before an agon or parabasis. Syzygies are also employed to
extend the length of the play, especially in the first half (cf. p. 41,
n. 1, above).
[110] Cf. Aristotle’s _Poetics_ 1448_a_32-4.
[111] Cf. Aristophanes’ _Frogs_, vss. 416-30, Rogers’ translation. The
original is more vulgar than would be tolerable in an English translation.
[112] Cf. Kaibel, _Comicorum Graecorum Fragmenta_, p. 18.
[113] Some would interpret this passage as meaning that Cratinus was
the first to observe the aesthetic law that not more than three persons
should participate in the same conversation (cf. Rees, _The So-called
Rule of Three Actors in the Classical Greek Drama_, p. 9, n. 1). When
the only speakers were the individual choreutae, who were twenty-four
in number, such a restriction must have been unheard of. On the other
hand, if it should prove true that Megarian actors were brought in
before the time of Cratinus, then we must suppose that their number was
at first in excess of three and was reduced to three by him. Of course,
the use of but three actors in the tragedy and comedy of this period
would automatically result in not more than three persons participating
in a conversation and so in the observance of the aesthetic law. This
statement, however, is subject to the qualification that the chorus
leaders continued to have speaking parts both in comedy (see p. 44,
above), and in tragedy (cf. pp. 164 f. and 169, below), and that a fourth
actor was occasionally employed (cf. pp. 171 and 182, below). In any case
I am of the opinion that conscious formulation of the aesthetic law was
not made until Hellenistic times (see pp. 187 f., below).
[114] Cf. Aristophanes’ _Knights_, vss. 522 f., Rogers’ translation.
[115] Cf. “The Introduction of Comedy into the City Dionysia,”
_University of Chicago Decennial Publications_, VI, 266 ff.
[116] Cf. Columbia University Lectures on _Greek Literature_, p. 130.
[117] Cf. Cornford, _op. cit._, pp. 179 and 193, n. 1; see p. 48, above.
[118] It is unfortunate that there is at present no satisfactory book
dealing with the Greek theater on the structural side. English readers
are practically restricted to Haigh’s _The Attic Theatre_, revised by
Pickard-Cambridge in 1907, which devotes nearly one hundred pages to a
summary and criticism of the different views. But this work has already
been off the press for a decade and on the main issue, viz., as to
whether the Greek theater of the classical period was provided with a
raised stage for actors, makes too many concessions to the traditional
view. For German readers, on the other hand, the situation is not a
great deal better. Dörpfeld’s book has been before the public for over
twenty years, and in the interim his opinions have necessarily changed on
many points. He has promised a thoroughly revised second edition, which
is demanded also by the excavation of additional theaters and by the
publication of numerous special articles. But it is hardly likely that
this promise will ever be redeemed. The only comfort is to be derived
from the fact that, as works of major importance have appeared, Dörpfeld
has promptly published critiques which have often been of such length as
to furnish convenient restatements of his views. These more recent works
in German, however, have attempted merely to force a modification of
certain details in Dörpfeld’s position; they are in no wise calculated to
serve as independent presentations of the whole matter or as a means of
orientation for the uninitiated.
From the extensive bibliographical material which is available it
is manifestly impossible to cite more than a fraction here. The
outstanding books are Dörpfeld-Reisch, _Das griechische Theater_
(1896), defended against reviewers and partially modified in “Das
griechische Theater Vitruvs,” _Athenische Mittheilungen_, XXII (1897),
439 ff., and XXIII (1898), 326 ff.; Puchstein, _Die griechische Bühne_
(1901), answered by Dörpfeld in _Athenische Mittheilungen_, XXVIII
(1903), 383 ff.; and Fiechter, _Die baugeschichtliche Entwicklung des
antiken Theaters_ (1914), summarized by its author and criticized by
Dörpfeld in _Jahrbuch d. arch. Instituts, Anzeiger_, XXX (1915), 93
ff. and 96 ff., respectively. Other important publications are von
Wilamowitz-Möllendorff, “Die Bühne des Aischylos,” _Hermes_, XXI (1886),
597 ff.; Todt, “Noch Einmal die Bühne des Aeschylos,” _Philologus_,
XLVIII (1889), 505 ff.; Capps, “Vitruvius and the Greek Stage,”
_University of Chicago Studies in Classical Philology_, I (1893), 3 ff.;
Bethe, _Prolegomena zur Geschichte des Theaters im Alterthum_ (1896), and
“Die hellenistischen Bühnen und ihre Decorationen,” _Jahrbuch d. arch.
Instituts_, XV (1900), 59 ff. (answered by Dörpfeld in “Die vermeintliche
Bühne des hellenistischen Theaters,” _ibid._, XVI [1901], 22 ff.);
Petersen, “Nachlese in Athen: Das Theater des Dionysos,” _ibid._, XXIII
(1908), 33 ff.; and Versakis, “Das Skenengebäude d. Dionysos-Theaters,”
_ibid._, XXIV (1909), 194 ff., answered by Dörpfeld, _ibid._, pp. 224 ff.
Still other titles will be cited as they are needed in the discussion.
See also p. 221, below. For reports on the excavations of various
theaters the reader should consult the bibliographical references given
by Dörpfeld-Reisch and Fiechter in their footnotes.
[119] For a slight variability in the application of the word orchestra
see p. 83 and nn. 1 and 2, below; see also p. 72, n. 3.
[120] Fig. 22 is specially drawn and does not exactly reproduce any
single theatrical structure. Fig. 23 is taken, simplified and slightly
altered, from Dörpfeld-Reisch, _Das griechische Theater_, Pl. VIII (_a_).
[121] Dörpfeld claims that the name was given because the speakers
stood there in addressing the public assemblies and that the same place
was known as the _theologium_ when used by divinities; cf. _Athenische
Mittheilungen_, XXIII (1898), 348 f., and XXVIII (1903), 395, and
_Jahrbuch d. arch. Instituts, Anzeiger_, XXX (1915), 98. Reisch thought
that logium was the name of some kind of special structure in the
orchestra; cf. _Das griechische Theater_, p. 302. Inscriptions prove the
presence of a logium in the Delian theater in 279 B.C. (εἰς τὸ λογεῖον
τῆς σκηνῆς) and 180 B.C. (τὴν κατασκευὴν τῶν πινάκων τῶν ἐπὶ τὸ λογεῖον);
cf. Homolle, _Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique_, XVIII (1894), 162
and 165, and Robinson, _American Journal of Philology_, XXV (1904), 191;
but they do not make its nature clear. Personally I am of the opinion
that at Athens speakers always stood in the orchestra to address the
public assemblies until the building of the Nero stage about 67 A.D.; cf.
Flickinger, _Plutarch as a Source of Information on the Greek Theater_
(1904), p. 55, and see p. 102, below. My present view, therefore, is that
logium suffered a change of meaning, being first applied to the top of
the proscenium and being used for elevated action of various kinds, as
explained in the text, and afterward being applied to the stage as the
place of actors and public speakers. In either case, it referred to the
same general part of the theater, viz., an elevated platform in front of
the scene-building. But the original application of this term is one of
the most perplexing problems in connection with scenic antiquities, and
it is earnestly to be hoped that additional evidence may be brought to
light which will unmistakably reveal its earlier history. The word does
not appear in literature until Roman times (thrice in Plutarch), but then
indisputably means “stage.” See next paragraph in text.
[122] “Theater” (θέατρον) is derived from θεᾶσθαι, to “see,” and was
originally applied to the space occupied by the spectators. The wider
meaning was a natural but later development. It is customary to employ
the Latin term _cavea_ (“an excavated place”) to express the narrower
meaning.
[123] Fig. 24 is taken from Wilberg’s drawing, simplified by the omission
of numerous details, in _Forschungen in Ephesos_, II, Fig. 96. I am
responsible for the addition of the names.
[124] That this platform (or rather its equivalent in purely Roman
theaters) might be conventionally regarded as the roof of the
scene-building appears from Seneca _Medea_, vs. 973 (Medea speaking):
“excelsa nostrae tecta conscendam domus,” and vs. 995 (Jason speaking):
“en ipsa tecti parte praecipiti imminet.”
[125] The word occurs only in Pollux, _Onomasticon_, IV, § 127.
[126] Dörpfeld applies the term to the first story of the purely Greek
(stageless) theater (see p. 100, below).
[127] For a discussion of the technical terms from the traditional
standpoint, cf. A. Müller, “Untersuchungen zu den Bühnenalterthümern,”
_Philologus_, Supplementband, VII (1899), 3 ff. Many of the terms,
notably σκηνή, have numerous secondary meanings; cf. Flickinger,
_Plutarch as a Source of Information on the Greek Theater_, pp. 23
ff., and Scherling, _De Vocis_ Σκηνή, _Quantum ad Theatrum Graecum
Pertinet, Significatione et Usu_ (1906). Thymele is sometimes extended
in application so as to denote the whole orchestra; hence θυμελικός was
sometimes applied to purely orchestral performers (or their performances)
in contradistinction to those who came into more immediate relationship
with the scene-building and who were in consequence known as σκηνικοί
(see pp. 96 f., below).
[128] Fig. 25 is taken from a photograph by Professor D. M. Robinson.
[129] Figs. 26 f. are taken from photographs by Dr. A. S. Cooley; Fig. 28
from one by Professor D. M. Robinson.
[130] Fig. 1 is taken from a photograph furnished by Professor D. M.
Robinson.
[131] Fig. 29 is specially drawn and is based upon several different
drawings.
[132] Fig. 30 is taken from Wieseler’s _Theatergebäude und Denkmäler
d. Bühnenwesens bei den Griechern und Römern_, Pl. I, Fig. 1, and is
magnified two diameters as compared with the original coin. See also the
medallion on the outside cover, which is reproduced from the _British
Museum Catalogue of Greek Coins, Attica, Megaris, Aegina_, Pl. XIX, Fig.
8. Fig. 31 is from a photograph by Dr. A. S. Cooley.
[133] Fig. 32 is redrawn, with slight alterations, from Dörpfeld-Reisch,
_Das griechische Theater_, Pl. II. The age of the different remains is
indicated in colors in _ibid._, Pl. I.
[134] Cf. Photius, _s.v._ ἴκρια. τὰ ἐν τῇ ἀγορᾷ, ἀφ’ ὤν ἐθεῶντο τοὺς
Διονυσιακοὺς αγῶνας πρὶν ἤ κατασκευασθῆναι τὸ ἐν Διονύσου θέατρον;
likewise _s.v._ ληναῖον and ὀρχήστρα.
[135] Cf. Suidas, _s.v._ Πρατίνας ... ἀντηγωνίζετο δὲ Αὶσχύλῳ τε καὶ
Χοιρίλῳ, ἐπὶ τῆς ἑβδομηκοστῆς Ὀλυμπιάδος, ... ἐπιδεικνυμένου δὲ τούτου
συνέβη τὰ ἴκρια, ἐφ’ ὧν ἑστήκεσαν οἱ θεαταί πεσεῖν. καὶ ἐκ τούτου θέατρον
ᾠκοδομήθη Ἀθηναίοις. It is also possible that the orchestra in the
precinct of Dionysus is somewhat earlier than is maintained in the text,
possibly going back to the vicinity of 534 B.C., and that it was the
earlier and less substantial seats near it which collapsed _ca._ 499 B.C.
[136] Figs. 33 f. are taken from photographs by Dr. A. S. Cooley. The
position of these stones is marked by B and C respectively in Fig. 32.
Another arc of the same orchestral circle is indicated by a cutting in
the native rock near the east parodus, A in Fig. 32.
[137] Fig. 32_a_ is taken from F. Noack, Σκηνὴ Τραγική, _eine Studie über
die scenischen Anlage auf der Orchestra des Aischylos und der anderen
Tragiker_ (1915), p. 3.
[138] Possibly the seats did not go back of this road at this period;
they certainly did in the fourth century (Fig. 32).
[139] Cf. Dignan, _The Idle Actor in Aeschylus_ (1905), p. 13, n. 14.
[140] Or in the south half of the old orchestra in case the orchestra was
moved fifty feet nearer the Acropolis at this time (see p. 68, below).
[141] Cf. Aristotle’s _Poetics_ 1449_a_18, and Vitruvius, _De
Architectura_, VII, praefatio, § 11.
[142] Dörpfeld, following Reisch, is willing to accept a date as early as
421-415 B.C., cf. _Das griechische Theater_, pp. 21 f.
[143] Fig. 35 is taken from Fiechter, _op. cit._, Fig. 14.
[144] So Furtwängler, “Zum Dionysostheater in Athen,”
_Sitzungsberichte d. bayer. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu München,
philosophisch-philologische u. historische Classe_, 1901, p. 411;
Puchstein, _op. cit._, pp. 137 ff.; E. A. Gardner, _Ancient Athens_,
pp. 435 f. and 448; and Fiechter, _op. cit._, p. 11. Dörpfeld, on the
contrary, would attribute these foundations to the Lycurgus theater in
the next century; cf. _Das griechische Theater_, pp. 59 ff.
[145] Cf. Dörpfeld, “Das griechische Theater zu Pergamon,” _Athenische
Mittheilungen_, XXXII (1907), 231; but differently in _Das griechische
Theater_, pp. 61 ff.
[146] As in the Hellenistic theater (Fig. 38).
[147] Except possibly at Thoricus (see p. 103, below).
[148] Cf. pseudo-Plutarch _X Oratorum Vitae_, 841D and 852C.
[149] Cf. Dörpfeld, “Das Theater von Ephesos,” _Jahrbuch d. arch.
Instituts, Anzeiger_, XXVIII (1913), 38.
[150] Dörpfeld, “Das Theater von Ephesos,” Jahrbuch d. arch. Instituts,
Anzeiger, XXVIII (1913), 40 f.
[151] Fig. 38 is taken from Dörpfeld-Reisch, _Das griechische Theater_,
Fig. 26.
[152] Cf. _ibid._, p. 63. This shift has been disputed by many but is
defended by Fiechter, _op. cit._, pp. 9 ff.
[153] Cf. Dörpfeld, _Das griechische Theater_, p. 89.
[154] Cf. ibid., p. 89; _Athenische Mittheilungen_, XXII (1897), 459;
XXIII (1898), 330 and 347; and XXVIII (1903), 414. For the Graeco-Roman
stage see pp. 80 ff. and 110 f., below.
[155] Fig. 39 is from a photograph taken by Dr. Lewis L. Forman and
furnished by Dr. A. S. Cooley. Owing to its change of function, in Roman
times the orchestra was sometimes known as the κονίστρα (= the Latin
_arena_); owing to its change of shape, it was sometimes called σῖγμα
from its resemblance to the semicircular form of the Greek letter Ϲ.
[156] Fig. 40 is taken from Dörpfeld-Reisch, _Das griechische Theater_,
Fig. 32.
[157] Fig. 41 is from a photograph belonging to Northwestern University;
the stone steps at the left and another slab at the right do not appear
in this view (see Fig. 39). For the latest interpretation and drawing of
the frieze, cf. Cook, _Zeus_, I, 708 ff., and the pocket at end of his
volume.
[158] Fig. 42 is taken from _Athenische Mittheilungen_, XXII (1897), 452.
[159] Vitruvius, of course, speaks of Roman feet, which are equal to
11.65 English inches.
[160] Fig. 43 is taken from _Athenische Mittheilungen_, XXII (1897),
453. This drawing differs somewhat from that given in _Das griechische
Theater_, Fig. 66, which was prepared while Dörpfeld was still of the
opinion that Vitruvius was describing the Hellenistic theater and had
misapprehended the function of its proscenium (see p. 81, below). He now
includes the proscenium at the back of the stage in the _scaenae frons_.
[161] Whatever _scaena_ may mean in Latin, _in scaena_ in this context is
at least equivalent to “on the stage.”
[162] Cf. p. 61, n. 2, above and pp. 96 f., below.
[163] Cf. Pollux _Onomasticon_ iv, § 123: καὶ σκηνὴ μὲν ὑποκριτῶν ἴδιον,
ἡ δὲ ὀρχήστρα τοῦ χοροῦ.
[164] Cf. _ibid._, iv, § 127: εἰσελθόντες δὲ κατὰ τὴν ὀρχήστραν ἐπὶ τὴν
σκηνὴν ἀναβαίνουσι διὰ κλιμάκων.
[165] Dörpfeld’s views were first given general publicity in the Appendix
to Müller’s _Lehrbuch der griechischen Bühnenalterthümern_ (1886), pp.
415 f., but were not published in full until 1896. They have suffered
modification in several material points since then.
[166] Cf. _De Architectura_ v. 8, 2: “ita his praescriptionibus qui
voluerit uti, emendatas efficiet theatrorum perfectiones.”
[167] This is now Dörpfeld’s name for what he at first called the Asia
Minor type; cf. _Athenische Mittheilungen_, XXVIII (1903), 389 and 414.
The latter term was unfortunate as suggesting a geographical restriction
which had no basis in fact.
[168] Cf. Plutarch _Life of Pompey_, c. xlii.
[169] It is significant that Vitruvius seems to have depended upon
Asia Minor rather than the Greek mainland for his knowledge of Greek
architecture; cf. Noack, “Das Proscenion in der Theaterfrage,”
_Philologus_, LVIII (1899), 16 ff.
[170] Cf. _Athenische Mittheilungen_, XXII (1897), 439 ff.
[171] Cf. _Athenische Mittheilungen_, XXII (1897), 443, 449 f., and 454,
and Fiechter, _op. cit._, pp. 59 ff.
[172] It is easy to see why he should do so. When Hellenistic theaters
were made over into Graeco-Roman structures, several rows of seats were
often removed, resulting in a drop of several feet between the auditorium
and the orchestra (see p. 116, below, and Fig. 24). So distinct a line of
demarcation could scarcely be ignored in favor of any less clearly marked
boundary. In fact, the orchestra in the narrowest sense (see next note)
was sometimes not indicated at all in the Graeco-Roman theaters.
[173] The word is applied also to a still more restricted space which in
some Graeco-Roman and most earlier theaters is marked off by a circular
boundary.
[174] Of course, Dörpfeld and Fiechter cite only a fraction of the
instances available (others are given in Puchstein’s table, _op. cit._,
p. 7), but it is to be inferred that they bring forward those which
are most favorable to their own position and most difficult for their
opponents to explain. For example, the proscenium of the Hellenistic
theater in Athens was about thirteen feet (English) high, which exceeds
Vitruvius’ maximum. Consequently Fiechter says nothing about it. In
general, the Hellenistic proscenia were higher than the Graeco-Roman
stages.
[175] Doubtless for the reason that in the pitlike Graeco-Roman orchestra
the smaller circle really was not needed and often was not indicated (see
p. 83, n. 1).
[176] Cf. Dörpfeld, _Athenische Mittheilungen_, XXVIII (1903), 403 and
405.
[177] Cf. Bethe, _Jahrbuch d. arch. Instituts_, XV (1900), 71 f., and
Dörpfeld, _ibid._, XVI (1901), 35 f.
[178] Cf. _Athenische Mittheilungen_, XXVIII (1903), 424 ff. The
arguments advanced in this article are reaffirmed as still valid in
_Jahrbuch d. arch. Instituts, Anzeiger_, XXX (1915), 99 ff.
[179] Cf. _Hermes_, XXI (1886), 603.
[180] Cf. “The Greek Stage According to the Extant Dramas,” _Transactions
of the American Philological Association_, XXII (1891), 5 ff. Similar
results were obtained by White, “The ‘Stage’ in Aristophanes,” _Harvard
Studies_, II (1891), 159 ff.
[181] Fig. 45 is from a photograph belonging to the University of
Chicago. The inscription beneath the seat reads: “Of the priest of
Dionysus Eleuthereus.”
[182] Cf. scholium on vs. 299 of the _Frogs_: ἀποροῦσι δέ τινες πῶς
ἀπὸ τοῦ λογείου περιελθὼν καὶ κρυφθεὶς ὄπισθεν τοῦ ἱερέως τοῦτο λέγει.
φαίνονται δὲ οὐκ εἶναι ἐπὶ τοῦ λογείου ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ τῆς ὀρχήστρας.
[183] Cf. Graeber, _De Poetarum Atticorum Arte Scaenica_ (1911), p. 4.
[184] Cf. Rees, “The Function of the Πρόθυρον in the Production of
Greek Plays,” _Classical Philology_, X (1915), 128 and n. 2. For other
interpretations consistent with a stageless theater, cf. White, _Harvard
Studies_, II (1891), 164 ff., and Capps, _Transactions of the American
Philological Association_, XXII (1891), 64 ff. A convenient summary from
the pro-stage point of view may be found in Haigh, _The Attic Theatre³_,
pp. 166 f.
[185] Cf. Aristotle’s _Poetics_ 1456_a_29, and see pp. 144 ff., below.
[186] Cf. White, _op. cit._, p. 167, note, and Robert, “Zur
Theaterfrage,” _Hermes_, XXXII (1897), 447.
[187] See pp. 99, 116 f., 134 f., and 144-49, below. Cf. Capps, “The
Chorus in the Later Greek Drama,” _American Journal of Archaeology_, X
(1895), 287 ff.; Körte, “Das Fortleben des Chors im griechischen Drama,”
_N. Jahrbücher f. kl. Altertum_, V (1900), 81 ff.; Flickinger, “ΧΟΡΟΥ in
Terence’s _Heauton_ and Agathon’s ΕΜΒΟΛΙΜΑ,” _Classical Philology_, VII
(1912), 24 ff.; and Duckett, _Studies in Ennius_ (1915), pp. 53 ff.
[188] See p. 147, below, and cf. Graf, _Szenische Untersuchungen zu
Menander_ (1914), p. 14. The same motive appears also in the fifth
century, in Euripides’ _Phoenician Maids_, vss. 192 ff., and _Phaethon_
(Nauck, _Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta_, p. 602, fr. 773, vss. 10 ff.);
cf. Fraenkel, _De Media et Nova Comoedia_ (1912), p. 71, and Harms, _De
Introitu Personarum in Euripidis et Novae Comoediae Fabulis_ (1914), p.
60; see p. 282, below.
[189] The former phrase occurs in Aristotle’s _Poetics_ 1453_a_27,
1455_a_28, 1459_b_25, and 1460_a_15, and Demosthenes xix, p. 449, § 337;
the latter in Aristotle’s (?) _Poetics_ 1452_b_18 and 25, Aristotle’s
_Problems_ 918_b_26, 920_a_9, and 922_b_17, and Demosthenes xviii, p.
288, § 180. Cf. Richards, _Classical Review_, V (1891), 97, and XVIII
(1904), 179, and Flickinger, “The Meaning of ἐπὶ τῆς σκηνῆς in Writers
of the Fourth Century,” _University of Chicago Decennial Publications_,
VI (1902), 11 ff., and “Scaenica,” _Transactions of the American
Philological Association_, XL (1909), 109 ff.
[190] Cf. Athenaeus, p. 211 B.
[191] Cf. Diodorus Siculus xi. 10, Plutarch _Life of Brutus_, c. xlv, and
_Life of Demetrius_, c. xxxii, and Lucian (?), _Lucius sive Asinus_, § 47.
[192] Cf. _American Journal of Philology_, XVIII (1897), 120.
[193] Cf. Aristotle’s _Poetics_ 1460_a_11-17.
[194] Cf. Aristotle (?) _Poetics_ 1452_b_24 f.
[195] Cf. Clemens Alexandrinus (Potter), p. 688, and Vitruvius viii,
praefatio § 1. Incidentally it may be remarked that Euripides’
philosophizing and personal views are found in his choral odes no less
than in the histrionic parts of his plays (see p. 140, below).
[196] Cf. Frei, _De Certaminibus Thymelicis_ (1900), pp. 14 and 15. The
dissertation provoked a controversy between Bethe and Dörpfeld; cf.
Bethe, “Thymeliker und Skeniker,” _Hermes_, XXXVI (1901), 597 ff., and
Dörpfeld, “Thymele und Skene,” _ibid._, XXXVII (1902), 249 ff. and 483 ff.
[197] Cf. _Athenische Mittheilungen_, XXVIII (1903), 420 f.
[198] The Greek text has already been quoted on p. 78, nn. 1 and 2.
[199] Cf. _Clouds_, vss. 1486 ff. A somewhat similar use of ladders is
mentioned in Euripides’ _Bacchanals_, vss. 1212 ff.
[200] Cf. Pollux iv. 124: τὸ δὲ ὑποσκήνιον κίοσι καὶ ἀγαλματίοις
κεκόσμηται πρὸς τὸ θέατρον τετραμμένοις, ὑπὸ τὸ λογεῖον κείμενον.
[201] Also, the front wall of this room, just as σκηνή is not only the
scene-building as a whole but also its front wall; cf. Flickinger,
_Plutarch as a Source of Information on the Greek Theater_, pp. 43 f.
[202] Cf. _Athenische Mittheilungen_, XXVIII (1903), 418 ff.
[203] Robert would emend the text so that the statement would explain the
proscenium instead of the hyposcenium; cf. _Hermes_, XXXII (1897), 448.
In that case ὑπό must mean “behind,” a possible meaning, and Pollux would
be speaking of the proscenium in a theater with a stage. Pollux includes
the proscenium in his catalogue of theater parts (see pp. 97 f., above),
but does not define it.
[204] Cf. Plutarch _Life of Lycurgus_, c. vi, and Flickinger, _Plutarch
as a Source of Information on the Greek Theater_ (1904), p. 52.
[205] Cf. Plutarch _Life of Demetrius_, c. xxxiv.
[206] Cf. Plutarch _Praecepta Gerendae Reipublicae_ 823B, and see p. 59,
n. 1, above.
[207] Cf. Plutarch’s _Life of Aratus_, c. xxiii: ἐπιστήσας δὲ ταῖς
παρόδοις τοὺς Ἀχαιοὺς αὐτὸς ἀπὸ τῆς σκηνῆς εἰς τὸ μέσον προῆλθε. For
other interpretations, cf. Robert, _Hermes_, XXXII (1897), 448 ff.;
Müller, _Philologus_, Supplementband, VII (1899), 52 f. and 90 f.;
Dörpfeld, _Athenische Mittheilungen_, XXVIII (1903), 421 ff., etc.
[208] A convenient chronological table of the extant theaters is given by
Fiechter, _op. cit._, pp. 24-27.
[209] Fig. 46 is taken from Dörpfeld-Reisch, _Das griechische Theater_,
Fig. 50. Figs. 47-52 are from photographs by Dr. A. S. Cooley.
[210] Figs. 53-54 are redrawn from Dörpfeld-Reisch, _Das griechische
Theater_, Figs. 44-45, respectively; Fig. 55 is from a photograph by Dr.
A. S. Cooley.
[211] Cf. Pollux _Onomasticon_ iv, § 132: αἱ Χαρώνιοι κλίμακες.
[212] Cf. Fossum in _American Journal of Archaeology_, II (1898), 187 ff.
and Pl. IV; see p. 288, n. 2, below.
[213] A convenient series of excerpts from the Delian inscriptions is
given by Haigh, _The Attic Theatre³_, pp. 379 ff.
[214] Fig. 56 is taken from Dörpfeld-Reisch, _Das griechische Theater_,
Fig. 35; and Fig. 57 is from a photograph of the German Archaeological
Institute at Athens.
[215] ... ἀγω] νοθετήσας τὸ προσκήνιον καὶ τοὺς πίν[ακας, and ... ἱερεὺ]ς
γενόμενος ⸺ τὴν σκηνὴν καὶ τὰ θυρώμ[ατα τῷ Ἀμ]φιαράῳ. For the functions
of an agonothete, see pp. 271 f., below. For the θυρώματα, cf. Dörpfeld
in _Athenische Mittheilungen_, XXVIII (1903), 394, and _Jahrbuch d.
arch. Instituts, Anzeiger_, XXX (1915), 102; wrongly interpreted in _Das
griechische Theater_, p. 109.
[216] Fig. 58 is taken from _Athenische Mittheilungen_, XXII (1897), Pl.
X.
[217] Cf. Dörpfeld in _Athenische Mittheilungen_, XXII (1897), 458, and
XXVIII (1903), 429.
[218] Fig. 59 is taken from Niemann’s drawing in _Forschungen in
Ephesos_, II, Pl. VIII; and Figs. 60-62 are from drawings by Wilberg,
_ibid._, Figs. 5, 56, and 57, respectively. Cf. also Dörpfeld, “Das
Theater von Ephesos,” _Jahrbuch d. arch. Instituts, Anzeiger_, XXVIII
(1913), 37 ff.
[219] Fig. 63 is redrawn from _Athenische Mittheilungen_, XXIII (1898),
Pl. XI; the cross-hatched walls belong to the Graeco-Roman rebuilding.
Fig. 64 is from a photograph taken by Professor C. P. Bill and furnished
by Dr. A. S. Cooley.
[220] Cf. Dörpfeld, in _Athenische Mittheilungen_, XXII (1897), 456 ff.
[221] Cf. Dörpfeld, _ibid._, XXII (1897), 458 f.; XXIII (1898), 337; and
XXVIII (1903), 426.
[222] Cf. Duckett, _Studies in Ennius_ (1915), p. 70.
[223] Cf. the works mentioned on pp. xvii and xx f., above. There is no
special literature on this subject.
[224] Cf. chaps. iv and ix and the bibliographies on pp. 196 and 318,
below.
[225] A drachma contained six obols and was worth about eighteen cents
without making allowance for the greater purchase value of money in
antiquity.
[226] Cf. Haigh, _The Attic Theatre_ (3d ed. by Pickard-Cambridge, 1907),
p. 1.
[227] The affirmative side of the question is presented by Haigh, _op.
cit._, pp. 324 ff.; the negative by Rogers, Introduction to Aristophanes’
_Women in Council_ (1902), pp. xxix ff.
[228] Cf. Frickenhaus, “Der Schiffskarren des Dionysos in Athen,”
_Jahrbuch d. arch. Instituts_, XXVII (1912), 61 ff. Fig. 65 originally
appeared as Beilage I, Fig. 3, in connection with this article. It is
taken from a drawing by Signor G. Gatti, a photograph of which was
furnished me through the courtesy of Professor Ghisardini, Director of
the Museo Civico at Bologna.
[229] Cf. Plautus’ _The Casket_, vss. 89 f.:
per Dionysia
mater pompam me spectatum duxit,
and vss. 156 ff.:
fuere Sicyoni iam diu Dionysia.
mercator venit huc ad ludos Lemnius,
isque hic compressit virginem, adulescentulus,
<vi>, vinulentus, multa nocte, in via.
For the differences between Old Comedy, Middle Comedy, and New Comedy,
see p. 39, above.
[230] Cf. his Preface to _Bajazet_.
[231] Cf. Ribbeck, _Rheinisches Museum_, XXX (1875), 145.
[232] Cf. Aristotle’s _Poetics_ 1456_a_6 and 1453_a_19.
[233] Cf. _ibid._, 1451_b_25.
[234] Cf. _Oxyrhynchus Papyri_, IX (1912), 30 ff.
[235] For still further developments in the history of satyric drama see
pp. 198 f., below.
[236] Cf. Kock, _Comicorum Atticorum Fragmenta_, II, 90, fr. 191.
[237] Cf. Freytag’s _Technique of the Drama²_, translated by MacEwan, p.
75, and Hense, _Die Modificirung der Maske in der griechischen Tragödie²_
(1905), pp. 2 f.
[238] Cf. Lounsbury, _Shakespeare as a Dramatic Artist_ (1902), p. 175
(italics mine).
[239] Cf. _ibid._, p. 204. The passages referred to are Sophocles’
_Philoctetes_, vss. 38 f., 649 f., and 696-99, and _Antigone_, vss.
1016-22 and 1080-83. The expressions employed in the Greek could be
seriously objected to only by the most fastidious.
[240] Cf. Haigh, _The Attic Theatre³_, p. 2.
[241] Cf. argument, _Demosthenes’ Against Midias_, §§ 2 f.
[242] In addition to the works mentioned on pp. xvii and xx f., above,
cf. Decharme, _Euripides and the Spirit of His Dramas_ (1892), translated
by Loeb (1906); Capps “The Chorus in the Later Greek Drama,” _American
Journal of Archaeology_, X (1895), 287 ff.; Helmreich, _Der Chor bei
Sophokles und Euripides_ (1905); A. Körte, “Das Fortleben des Chors im
gr. Drama,” _N. Jahrb. f. d. kl. Altertum_, V (1900), 81 ff.; Flickinger,
“ΧΟΡΟΥ in Terence’s _Heauton_, The Shifting of Choral Rôles in Menander,
and Agathon’s ἘΜΒΟΛΙΜΑ,” _Classical Philology_, VII (1912), 24 ff.;
Stephenson, _Some Aspects of the Dramatic Art of Aeschylus_ (1913);
Fries, _De Conexu Chori Personae cum Fabulae Actione_ (1913); and
Duckett, _Studies in Eunius_ (1915).
[243] Nevertheless, it has been ignored by certain recent writers on the
origin of tragedy, cf. _Classical Philology_, VIII (1913), 283.
[244] Whether the satyric chorus was increased at the same time is
unknown. In Fig. 4, which represents a satyric drama of about 400 B.C.,
not more than twelve choreutae are represented.
[245] For the differences between sileni and satyrs and for their
appearance on the stage, see pp. 24-32.
[246] Cf. the scholia to Sophocles’ _Ajax_, vs. 134, to Euripides’
_Phoenician Maids_, vs. 202, etc.