THE AUDIENCE
§ 1. _Composition of the Audience._
The theatre of Dionysus at Athens, during the period of the Lenaea
and the City Dionysia, presented a spectacle which for interest and
significance has few parallels in the ancient or the modern world. The
city kept universal holiday. The various proceedings were in reality
so many religious celebrations. But there was nothing of an austere
character about the worship of Dionysus. To give freedom from care was
his special attribute, and the sincerest mode of paying homage to his
power was by a genial enjoyment of the various pleasures of life. At
this time of universal merriment the dramatic performances formed the
principal attraction. Each day soon after sunrise the great majority of
the citizens made their way to the southern slopes of the Acropolis,
where the theatre of Dionysus was situated. The tiers of seats rising up
the side of the hill were speedily filled with a crowd of nearly twenty
thousand persons. The sight of such a vast multitude of people, gathered
together at daybreak in the huge open amphitheatre, and dressed for the
most part in white, or in red, brown, yellow, and other rich colours,
must have been exceedingly striking and picturesque. The performances
which brought them together were not unworthy of the occasion. The plays
exhibited at the festivals of Dionysus rank among the very noblest
achievements of Greek genius. For beauty of form, depth of meaning,
and poetical inspiration they have never been surpassed. It would be
difficult to point to any similar example of the whole population of a
city meeting together each year to enjoy works of the highest artistic
beauty. It is seldom that art and poetry have penetrated so deeply into
the life of the ordinary citizens. Our curiosity is naturally excited
in regard to the tone and composition of the audiences before which a
drama of such an exceptional character was exhibited. The object of the
following chapter will be to bring together and present in one view all
the available information upon this subject.
At the Lenaea, which was held in the winter, when travelling was
difficult, the audience consisted almost exclusively of natives
of Athens. The City Dionysia came about two months later, at the
commencement of the spring, and attracted great crowds of strangers
from various parts of Greece. Representatives from the allied states
came to pay the annual tribute at this season of the year. It was also
a favourite time for the arrival of ambassadors from foreign cities;
and it was considered a mere matter of politeness to provide them with
front seats in the theatre, if they happened to be in Athens during the
celebration of the City Dionysia.[980] In addition to these visitors of
a representative character, there were also great numbers of private
individuals, attracted to Athens from all parts of Greece by the
magnificence of the festival, and the fame of the dramatic exhibitions.
Altogether the visitors formed a considerable portion of the audience
at the City Dionysia. One of the great aggravations of the offence of
Meidias was that his assault upon Demosthenes was committed in the
presence of ‘large multitudes of strangers’.[981] Apparently the natives
of foreign states were not allowed to purchase tickets for the theatre in
their own name, but had to get them through an Athenian citizen.[982]
The composition of the purely Athenian part of the audience is a subject
upon which a great deal has been written, the principal difficulty being
the question as to the admittance of boys and women to the dramatic
performances. In the treatment of this matter scholars appear to have
been unduly biassed by a preconceived opinion as to what was right
and proper. Undoubtedly Athenian women were kept in a state of almost
Oriental seclusion. And the old Attic comedy was pervaded by a coarseness
which seems to make it utterly unfit for boys and women. For these
reasons some writers have gone so far as to assert that they were never
present at any dramatic performances whatsoever.[983] Others, while not
excluding them from tragedy, have declared that it was an impossibility
that they should have been present at the performances of comedy.[984]
But the attempt to draw a distinction between tragedy and comedy, in
regard to the admission of boys and women to the theatre, will not bear
examination. If they were present at one, they must have been present at
both. The tragic and the comic competitions frequently took place upon
the same days, and succeeded one another without any interval; and it is
difficult to suppose that, after the tragedies were over, a large part
of the audience had to be turned out before the comedies could begin.
Moreover, if women and boys had been present at the tragedies, they would
of necessity have been spectators of the satyric dramas, which were
nearly as coarse as the comedies. It is useless therefore to endeavour to
separate tragedy from comedy in the consideration of this question.
As a matter of fact the evidence upon the subject, if considered without
prejudice, makes it practically certain that there were no restrictions
of the kind suggested. The audience at the dramatic performances, whether
tragic or comic, was drawn from every class of the population. Men,
women, boys, and slaves were all allowed to be present. The evidence
from ancient authors is too copious to be accounted for on any other
supposition. There are three passages in Plato which in themselves
are almost enough to decide the question. In one place, speaking of
poetry in general, and more especially of tragedy, Plato says it is a
kind of rhetoric addressed to ‘boys, women, and men, slaves, and free
citizens without distinction’. In another place, where he is treating
of the management of his ideal republic, he says there will be no great
readiness to allow the tragic poets to ‘erect their stages in the
market-place, and perform before women and children, and the general
public’. A passage of this kind would have very little point, unless it
was intended as a condemnation of the prevailing practice. In a third
place he declares that if there was a general exhibition of all kinds of
public amusements, and the audience were called upon to state what they
were most pleased with, the little children would vote for the conjuror,
the boys for the comic poet, the young men and the more refined sort of
women for the tragic poet.[985] These three passages of Plato are hardly
consistent with the supposition that the drama was a spectacle which boys
and women were never allowed to witness.
In addition to the above evidence there are also several places in
Aristophanes where boys and women are referred to as forming part of the
audience. For instance, in the Clouds Aristophanes prides himself on
having refrained from introducing the phallus ‘to make the boys laugh’.
In the Peace he says that ‘both the boys and the men’ ought to wish for
his victory in the contest, because of his boldness in attacking Cleon.
In another part of the Peace, when some barley is thrown among the male
part of the spectators, Trygaeus remarks that the women have not got
any.[986] Other passages of the same kind might be quoted. That women
were present at the New Comedy is proved conclusively by a letter of
Alciphron, in which Menander is supposed to be writing to his mistress
Glycera. In this letter he says that nothing is dearer to him than to be
crowned with the ivy of Dionysus, as victor in the comic contest, ‘while
Glycera is sitting in the theatre and looking on.’[987] Other pieces of
evidence are as follows. In Lucian’s dialogue Solon tells Anacharsis
that the Athenians educate their sons by taking them to tragedies and
comedies, and showing them examples of virtue and vice, so as to teach
them what to imitate and what to avoid.[988] In the Frogs there is
the well-known passage in which Aeschylus taunts Euripides with the
immorality of his plays, which have caused women of refinement to commit
suicide from very shame. If women were never present at the performance
of the tragedies of Euripides, there would be very little meaning in
the reproach.[989] Then again we are told that when Alcibiades was
choregus, and ‘entered the theatre’ dressed in a splendid purple robe,
he was admired ‘not only by the men, but also by the women’.[990] The
shameless person in Theophrastus smuggles his sons into the theatre with
a ticket which belongs to some one else. The miser never takes his sons
to the theatre except when the entrance is free.[991] The regulation
of Sphyromachus, providing that men, women, and courtesans should sit
apart from one another, can hardly have referred to any place but the
theatre.[992] The cumulative effect of all these passages is difficult
to resist. It is impossible to explain them all away by far-fetched
interpretations. Even the story of the effect produced by the Eumenides
of Aeschylus upon the audience—of the boys dying of fright and the women
having miscarriages—such a story, though in itself a foolish invention,
could hardly have originated unless women and boys had been regularly
present at the theatre.[993] That they were admitted at a later period
is proved by the direct evidence of inscriptions in the theatre of
Dionysus, which show that in Hadrian’s time seats were specially reserved
for priestesses and other women.[994] This fact would not of course be
conclusive evidence as to the custom which prevailed in the classical
period of Athenian history. But, as far as it goes, it tends to confirm
the conclusions based upon the evidence of ancient authors.
No doubt at first sight it appears a very startling fact that women and
boys should have been spectators of the Old Comedy. But it should always
be remembered that the comedies performed at the festivals of Dionysus
were a portion of a religious celebration, which it was a pious duty
to take part in. Ribaldry and coarseness were a traditional element in
the worship of Dionysus, handed down from rude and primitive times, and
were not lightly to be dispensed with. The Greeks in such matters were
thoroughly conservative. It was a feeling of this kind which caused
the satyric drama to be developed side by side with tragedy, in order
that the old licentious merriment of the satyrs might not be utterly
forgotten. The coarseness of the Old Comedy, being a regular part of the
celebrations in honour of Dionysus, might be witnessed by boys and women
without degradation, though their presence at similar scenes in real life
would have been regarded in a very different manner. Where the worship of
the gods was concerned, the practice of keeping women in strict seclusion
was allowed to drop into abeyance. Women and even girls were present at
the phallic processions in honour of Dionysus.[995] Their appearance
on such occasions was regarded as a mere matter of course. It need not
therefore surprise us that women and boys should have been present in the
theatre at the performances of the Old Comedy.
Whether they were ever present in large numbers is a further question.
Even those writers who admit that their presence was not prohibited
by law, generally add that the more respectable women would in all
probability keep away.[996] But the only authority for such a notion is
to be found in a couple of passages in Aristophanes, which represent the
husband as present in the theatre, while the wife was at home.[997] There
is nothing so unusual in an occurrence of this kind as to warrant any
sweeping conclusions. Some people must necessarily have remained at home,
from the mere fact that the theatre would not have been large enough to
contain the whole population of Athens, if men, women, and children had
all been present. But it is hardly probable, for the reasons already
stated, that there was anything disreputable in a woman visiting the
theatre. Reformers like Aristotle were in advance of ordinary public
opinion in their feelings about such matters. Aristotle expresses a
strong opinion that boys should be prevented from seeing or hearing
any piece of coarseness or indecency.[998] Even if such ribaldry is an
essential feature in the worship of any particular deity, he says that
only men should be allowed to be present. The men should pay the proper
homage to gods of this character on behalf of themselves, their wives,
and their children; but boys should not be permitted to be witnesses of
comedies and similar spectacles. This passage, in which Aristotle is
combating the prevailing practice of the times, is an additional proof
that boys were present at the performance of comedies, and shows clearly
that when the worship of the gods was concerned ordinary public opinion
did not consider such spectacles improper.[999]
Besides women and children it appears that slaves were occasionally
present at the theatre. Plato in the Gorgias mentions slaves as one
of the classes before which the tragic poets will not be allowed to
perform in his ideal commonwealth.[1000] The shameless man described by
Theophrastus takes the ‘paedagogus’ to the theatre, along with his sons,
and crowds them all into seats which did not really belong to him.[1001]
It is not, however, probable that the number of slaves among the audience
was ever very great. Their presence would depend upon the kindness of
their masters. But the two passages just quoted prove that there was no
law to prevent their attendance.
§ 2. _Price of Admission._
The dramatic entertainments at Athens were provided by the state for
the benefit of the whole people. The entrance was originally free, and
every man was allowed to get the best seat he could. But, as the drama
was extremely popular from the very first, the struggle for seats caused
great disturbances. People used to come and secure places the night
before the performance began; citizens complained that they were crowded
out of the theatre by foreigners; blows and fights were of frequent
occurrence. It was therefore decided to charge a small entrance fee, and
to sell all the seats in advance. In this way the crush of people was
avoided, and, as each man’s seat was secured for him, he was able to go
to the theatre at a more reasonable hour.[1002] The price of a seat for
one day’s performance was two obols. The same price appears to have been
charged for all the different parts of the theatre, with the exception
of the reserved seats for priests, officials, and other distinguished
persons.[1003] A gradation of prices, according to the goodness and
badness of the seat, would probably not have been tolerated by the
democracy, as giving the rich too great an advantage over the poor.
Until the close of the fifth century every man had to pay for his place,
although the charge was a small one. But the poorer classes began to
complain that the expense was too great for them, and that the rich
citizens bought up all the seats. Accordingly, a measure was framed
directing that every citizen who cared to apply should have the price
of the entrance paid to him by the state. The sum given in this way was
called ‘theoric’ money. It used formerly to be supposed, on the strength
of statements in Plutarch and Ulpian, that this theoric system was
introduced by Pericles.[1004] But the recently discovered Constitution
of Athens has now shown that it was of much later date. The originator
of the grant was the demagogue Cleophon, who succeeded Cleon in the
leadership of the democracy. The year in which he introduced it is not
given; but it must have been in the interval between the death of Cleon
in 422 and his own death in 404. The amount of the payment was two obols,
the price of a single seat. It is said that soon afterwards Callicrates,
another demagogue, promised to raise the grant to three obols, the
object apparently being to provide an extra obol for refreshments.[1005]
But this promise was probably never carried out, as two obols is the
sum usually mentioned in later times as the theoric grant for a single
day.[1006] Of course if the festival lasted for several days, and there
were performances in the theatre on each of them, the amount given by the
state would be increased in proportion. Thus certain authors speak of a
grant of four obols, or of six; but they are referring no doubt to the
sum given for the whole festival.[1007] The theoric money was distributed
in the different townships. Every man whose name was entered on the town
lists as a full citizen might claim his share.[1008] But it is probable
that at first only the poorer classes applied. No one was allowed to
obtain the grant unless he made his application in person. A certain
Conon, who succeeded in getting the money in the name of his son, who
was absent at the time, was fined a talent for the offence.[1009] In its
original form this theoric system may seem not altogether indefensible.
The theatrical performances were a sort of religious celebration,
provided by the state; and it was unreasonable that any citizen should
be debarred from attending them by poverty. But in the course of the
fourth century the system was expanded and developed until it became a
scandalous abuse. Grants were given, not only for the Dionysia, but for
all the other Athenian festivals, to provide the citizens with banquets
and means of enjoyment. The rich began to claim the money with quite
as much eagerness as the poor. The military revenues were impoverished
in order to supply the Theoric Fund, which had now grown to huge
proportions. A law was passed making it a capital offence even to propose
to divert this theoric money to any other purpose. As a consequence the
resources of the state were crippled, and the people demoralized. The
theoric question became one of the chief difficulties which Demosthenes
had to deal with, in his efforts to rouse the Athenian people to action
against Philip.[1010]
[Illustration: FIG. 32.]
The tickets of admission in the ancient theatre appear to have
generally consisted of small leaden coins stamped with some theatrical
emblem.[1011] Such coins could easily be renewed and stamped afresh for
the different festivals. Many of them have been discovered in modern
times, both in Attica and elsewhere, and date from the fifth century
down to the Christian era. The specimen which is here given (Fig.
32) contains a representation of three comic masks, with the name of
the play, the Prophetess, inscribed above, and the name of the poet,
Menander, underneath.[1012] In addition to these leaden coins certain
tickets made of ivory or bone, and apparently connected with the theatre,
have also been preserved. But they are far fewer in number than the
leaden coins, and only date from the Christian era. They are found
solely in Graeco-Roman districts. They are too elaborate and permanent
in workmanship to have served as ordinary tickets, and were probably
intended for the occupants of the reserved seats in the front rows. They
usually contain some figure or emblem on the one side, and a description
of the emblem in Greek on the other, together with a number in Greek and
Latin. The specimen in the text (Fig. 33) exhibits the head of Kronos
on the obverse, with the inscription ‘Kronos’ and the number thirteen
on the reverse.[1013] The numbers never rise higher than fifteen, and
cannot therefore refer to the individual seats in the different rows.
Probably both the numbers and the emblems denote particular blocks of
seats. We know that in the theatre at Syracuse certain blocks were called
after the names of gods and princes, such as Hieron, Zeus, and Hercules;
and that in the Roman theatre Germanicus gave his name to a particular
block.[1014] It is a very plausible conjecture, therefore, that emblems
like that of Kronos refer to some similar method of designation.
[Illustration: FIG. 33.]
Besides the two kinds of ticket just described, a large number of
bronze coins have been found in Athens and Attica, of which the exact
significance is uncertain. But Svoronos, the latest writer on the
subject, is inclined to think that they too were intended as marks of
admission to the theatre.[1015] These coins date from the fourth to the
second century B.C. On the obverse they are generally stamped with an
image of Athene, or a lion’s head, or a group of owls. On the reverse
there is a letter of the alphabet, either single, or repeated more than
once (Fig. 34). Sometimes there is no symbol on the coin, but both the
obverse and the reverse contain the same alphabetical letter or letters.
It is possible, as Svoronos thinks, that these coins were theatrical
tickets, and that the letters, of which there are at least fifty-two
varieties, referred to various divisions of seats in the auditorium.
[Illustration: FIG. 34.]
The receipts from the sale of places in the theatre went to the lessee.
The arrangement in this matter was a peculiar one. The lessee was a
person who entered into a contract with the state, by which he undertook
to keep the fabric of the theatre in good repair, and in return was
allowed to take all the entrance money. If he failed to keep the theatre
in good condition, the state did the necessary repairs itself, and made
him pay the expenses. He had to provide reserved seats in the front rows
for distinguished persons, and it is uncertain whether the state paid
him for these seats or not. For all the other portions of the theatre he
was allowed to charge two obols and no more.[1016] Occasionally, towards
the end of a performance, he seems to have allowed the people free
admittance, if there was any room to spare.[1017]
§ 3. _The Distribution of the Seats._
When the theatre was full the audience numbered nearly twenty thousand
persons. As to the arrangement of this enormous mass of people some few
facts are known, and some inferences may be made; but the information
is not very complete. The great distinction was between the dignitaries
who had reserved seats in the front, and the occupants of the ordinary
two-obol seats at the back. A gradation of seats with descending
prices was, as previously stated, unknown to the ancient Athenians.
The privilege of having a reserved seat in the theatre was called
‘proedria’, and was conferred by the state.[1018] From the large number
of persons who enjoyed the distinction it is clear that several of the
front rows must have been reserved; and this conclusion is confirmed by
the inscriptions in the theatre, which show that seats were assigned
to particular individuals as far back as the twenty-fourth tier from
the front.[1019] The recipients of the honour, or at any rate the more
prominent of them, were conducted in a solemn procession to the theatre
each morning by one of the state officials.[1020]
Foremost among the persons who had seats in the front rows were the
priests and religious officers connected with the different divinities.
That they should be distinguished in this manner was only in keeping
with the essentially religious character of the ancient Greek drama. An
inscription referring to the theatre at the Peiraeeus, and belonging
to the third or fourth century B.C., mentions the priests specially
by name as the most conspicuous members of the class who had the
‘proedria’.[1021] The inscriptions upon the seats in the theatre at
Athens, which represent for the most part the arrangement that existed
during the reign of Hadrian, place the matter in a very clear light. They
enable us to determine the occupants of sixty out of sixty-seven seats in
the front row; and it is found that of these sixty persons no less than
fifty were priests, or ministers connected with religion. Similarly, in
the rows immediately behind the front row, a large number of places were
set apart for the different priests and priestesses.[1022] Such was the
arrangement in the time of Hadrian, and there can be little doubt that
it was much the same in its general character during the period of the
Athenian democracy.
Among state officials the nine archons and the ten generals had
distinguished places in the theatre. In Hadrian’s time the archons
occupied seats in the front row, and it is probable that this position
was assigned to them from the earliest period.[1023] The generals were
in some prominent part of the theatre, but the exact place is not known.
The snob in Theophrastus was always anxious to sit as near to them as
possible.[1024] Ambassadors from foreign states, as was previously
pointed out, were generally provided with front seats, on the motion
of some member of the Council. Demosthenes is taunted by Aeschines for
the excessive politeness which he showed to Philip’s ambassadors on
an occasion of this kind. The lessee of the theatre at the Peiraeeus,
as appears from an inscription still extant, was ordered to provide
the ambassadors from Colophon with reserved places at the Dionysia.
The Spartan ambassadors were sitting in ‘a most distinguished part of
the theatre’ when they considerately gave up a place to an old man
for whom no one else would make room.[1025] The judges of the various
contests sat together in a body, and would naturally be provided
with one of the best places in the theatre.[1026] The orphan sons of
men who had fallen in battle received from the state, in addition to
other honours, the distinction of ‘proedria’. The same privilege was
frequently conferred by decree upon great public benefactors, and was
generally made hereditary in the family, descending by succession to the
eldest male representative. An honour of this kind was bestowed upon
Demosthenes.[1027]
With the exception of the reserved places in the front rows, the rest of
the auditorium consisted of the ordinary two-obol seats. Concerning the
arrangements adopted in this part of the theatre a few details have been
recorded. It appears that special portions of the auditorium were set
apart for the different classes of the community. There was a particular
place for the members of the Council of Five Hundred, and another place
for the Ephebi, or youths between the age of eighteen and twenty.[1028]
The women were separated from the men, and the courtesans sat apart from
the other women.[1029] It is probable that all the women sat at the back
of the theatre, at a long distance from the stage. Foreigners also seem
usually to have had a special place.[1030] The amphitheatre of seats was
divided into thirteen blocks by the passages which ran upwards from the
orchestra. It is very probable that in the arrangement of the audience
each tribe had a special block assigned to it. The blocks of seats
were thirteen from the first. The tribes were originally ten, though
they were raised in later times to twelve and thirteen. It is possible
that the three unappropriated blocks were assigned respectively to the
Council, the Ephebi, and Foreigners.[1031] But the excavations in the
theatre afford grounds for inferring that there was a connexion between
certain blocks and certain tribes, and the thing is not improbable in
itself.[1032] The tribal divisions played a large part in the various
details of Attic administration, and an arrangement by tribes would have
greatly facilitated the process of distributing the enormous mass of
spectators among their proper seats.
[Illustration: FIG. 35.]
Before leaving this part of the subject it may be useful to give a
complete list of the priests and officials for whom the front row was
reserved in later times. It is still possible, as already stated, to
determine the occupants of sixty out of the sixty-seven seats; and the
arrangement, with a few exceptions, is that of Hadrian’s time.[1033]
The list of names is not without interest, as it enables us, better than
any description, to form a general conception of the sort of arrangement
which was probably adopted at an earlier period. It also affords a
curious glimpse into the religious side of the old Athenian life, and
helps us to realize the variety and multiplicity of priests, deities, and
ceremonials. In the very centre of the front row, in the best place in
the whole theatre, sat the priest of Dionysus Eleuthereus, on a throne
of elaborate workmanship. A representation of the throne (Fig. 35) is
inserted on the previous page.[1034] As the theatre was regarded as a
temple of Dionysus, and the drama was a celebration in his honour, it
was only fitting that his priest should occupy the most conspicuous
and distinguished position. There is a reference to the arrangement in
the Frogs of Aristophanes, in the scene where Dionysus is terrified by
the goblins of Hades, and desperately appeals to his own priest for
protection.[1035] Of the thirty-three seats to the left of the priest
of Dionysus the occupants of twenty-six are still known, and were as
follows:—
Priest of Zeus the Protector of the City.
The Sacrificer.
The Torch bearer.
Priest of Pythian Apollo.
The Hieromnemon.[1036]
Priest and Chief Priest of Augustus Caesar.
Priest of Hadrian Eleuthereus.
King Archon.
Chief Archon.
Polemarch.
The General.
The Herald.
Thesmothetes.
Thesmothetes.
Thesmothetes.
Thesmothetes.
The Sacred Herald.
... and Apollo.
Diogenes the Benefactor.[1037]
Priest of Attalus Eponymus.
The Iacchus-carrier.[1038]
Priest of Asclepius the Healer.
Fire-bringer from the Acropolis.[1039]
Priest of the People, the Graces, and Rome.
Holy Herald and Priest.
Priest of Apollo of Zoster.
All the thrones to the right hand of the priest of Dionysus have been
preserved, and were occupied by the following persons:—
Interpreter appointed by the Pythian Oracle.[1040]
Priest of Olympian Zeus.
Hierophant.
Priest of Delian Apollo.
Priest of Poseidon the Nourisher.
Priest of the Graces, and of Fire-bearing Artemis of the Tower.
Interpreter chosen from the Eupatridae by the people for life.
Priest of Poseidon the Earth-holder and Poseidon Erectheus.
Priest of Artemis Colaenis.
Priest of Dionysus the Singer, chosen from the Euneidae.
Bullock-keeper of Palladian Zeus.
Priest of Zeus of the Council and Athene of the Council.[1041]
Priest of Zeus the Deliverer and Athene the Deliverer.
Priest of Antinous the Dancer, chosen from the Company of Actors.[1042]
Priest of Apollo Patrous.
Priest of Dionysus the Singer, chosen from the Company of Actors.
Priest of Glory and Order.
Priest of Asclepius.
Priest of the Muses.
Priest of Zeus the god of Friendship.
Priest of the Twelve Gods.
Statue-cleanser of Zeus at Pisa.
Priest of the Lycean Apollo.
Statue-cleanser of Olympian Zeus in the City.
Priest of the Dioscuri and the Hero Epitegius.[1043]
Priest of Heavenly Nemesis.
Priest of Hephaestus.
Priest of Apollo the Laurel-wearer.
Priest of Dionysus of Aulon.
The Stone-carrier.[1044]
Priest of Theseus.
Bullock-keeper of Zeus the Accomplisher.
Priest of Demeter and Persephone.
The priests enumerated here were the principal dignitaries in the
Athenian hierarchy. Behind them sat a large gathering of inferior priests
and priestesses. Their presence in such numbers at performances like the
Old and Middle Comedy affords a curious illustration of the religious
sentiment of the Athenians, and indicates clearly that the coarseness of
the early comedy, and its burlesque representations of the gods and their
adventures, did not constitute any offence against religion, but formed
an appropriate element in the worship of Dionysus.
§ 4. _Various Arrangements in connexion with the Audience._
The performance of plays began soon after sunrise, and continued all day
long without intermission. There was no such thing as an interval for
refreshments; one play followed another in rapid succession.[1045] Apart
from direct evidence upon the subject, it is manifest that, considering
the large number of plays which had to be gone through in the time, any
delay would have been out of the question. Consequently the spectators
were careful to have a good meal before starting for the theatre.[1046]
There was also a plentiful consumption of wine and various light
refreshments in the course of the actual performances. The time for such
an indulgence was during the tedious portions of a play, but when one of
the great actors came upon the stage the provisions were laid aside, and
the audience became all attention.[1047]
The theatre must have presented a bright and festive appearance.
Crowns were worn in honour of Dionysus by the express command of the
oracle.[1048] The gaily-coloured dresses of the spectators would add
greatly to the brilliancy of the scene. At the same time the comfort of
the audience was not very much consulted. The seats were of wood, or in
later times of stone, and had no backs; the people had to sit there all
day long, packed together as closely as was possible. Many men brought
cushions and carpets with them. Aeschines draws a contemptuous picture
of Demosthenes escorting Philip’s ambassadors to the theatre in person,
and arranging their cushions and spreading their carpets with his own
hands. The toady in Theophrastus, when he accompanies a wealthy man to
the theatre, is careful to take the cushion out of the slave’s hands,
and to insist upon placing it ready for his patron.[1049] There was
no shelter from the sun. The theatre faced towards the south, and was
entirely uncovered. But as the dramatic performances took place at the
end of the winter, or early in the spring, the heat would not usually be
excessive. Probably the sun was in many cases very welcome. If, however,
any shelter was required, hats appear to have been worn, though the
Athenians generally went bare-headed except upon a journey.[1050] It has
been suggested that small awnings were sometimes erected upon rods by
individual spectators for their own convenience, and that the ‘purple
cloths’ which Demosthenes spread out for Philip’s ambassadors were
awnings of this description.[1051] It is true that an awning was provided
for the priest of Dionysus, as the chief dignitary of the meeting. But
it is improbable that the same convenience was extended to any other
members of the audience, at any rate in the period of the democracy. In
Roman times awnings were erected for the front rows of spectators; but
this was a late innovation.[1052]
To keep order among a gathering of about twenty thousand persons, crowded
together in a comparatively small space, must have been a matter of some
difficulty. Certain officers called ‘staffbearers’ were stationed in the
theatre for the purpose.[1053] Superintendents were also appointed to
maintain discipline among the numerous chorus-singers.[1054] Disturbances
were not infrequent, and arose from various causes. Sometimes the
rivalry between two choregi resulted in actual violence. For example,
on one occasion, when Taureas and Alcibiades were competitors in a
dithyrambic contest, a fight broke out between them, in the course of
which Alcibiades, being the stronger man of the two, drove Taureas out of
the orchestra.[1055] That the feeling between the choregi often ran very
high has already been pointed out in a previous chapter. Disputes about
seats were another fertile source of disturbance. With the exception of
the front row, the individual places were not separated from one another,
but the people sat together on the long benches. Such an arrangement was
very likely to cause confusion. Demosthenes mentions the case of a highly
distinguished citizen, who ran great risk of being put to death, owing
to his having forcibly ejected a man from his seat. Personal violence in
the theatre was regarded as a crime against religion, and was strictly
prohibited. If any dispute arose, the proper course was to appeal to the
officers; and the man who took the law into his own hands was guilty of a
capital offence.[1056]
§ 5. _Character of Attic Audiences._
The Athenians were a lively audience, and gave expression to their
feelings in the most unmistakable manner. The noise and uproar produced
by an excited crowd of twenty thousand persons must have been of a
deafening character, and is described in the most uncomplimentary
language by Plato.[1057] It was exceedingly difficult for the judges to
resist such demonstrations, and to vote in accordance with their own
private judgement. The ordinary modes of signifying pleasure or disgust
were much the same in ancient as in modern times, and consisted of
hisses and groans on the one hand, and shouts and clapping of hands on
the other.[1058] The Athenians had also a peculiar way of marking their
disapproval of a performance by kicking with the heels of their sandals
against the front of the stone benches on which they were sitting.[1059]
Stones were occasionally thrown by an irate audience. Aeschines was
hissed off the stage, and ‘almost stoned to death’, in the course of his
theatrical career. There is an allusion to the practice in the story of
the second-rate musician, who borrowed a supply of stone from a friend
in order to build a house, and promised to repay him with the stones he
collected from his next performance in public.[1060] Country audiences in
the Attic demes used figs and olives, and similar missiles, for pelting
unpopular actors.[1061] On the other hand, encores were not unknown, if
particular passages took the fancy of the audience. Socrates is said to
have encored the first three lines of the Orestes of Euripides.[1062]
If the Athenians were dissatisfied with an actor or a play, they had
no hesitation about revealing the fact, but promptly put a stop to
the performance by means of hisses and groans and stamping with the
heels. They were able to do so with greater readiness, as several plays
were always performed in succession, and they could call for the next
play, without bringing the entertainment to a close. In this way they
sometimes got through the programme very rapidly. There is an instance
of such an occurrence in the story of the comic actor Hermon, whose play
should naturally have come on late in the day; but, as all the previous
performers were promptly hissed off the stage one after another, he was
called upon much sooner than he expected, and in consequence was not
ready to appear.[1063] If the tale about the comic poet Diphilus is true,
it would seem that even the authors of very unsuccessful plays were
sometimes forcibly ejected from the theatre.[1064]
A few scattered notices and descriptions, referring to the spectators
in the Athenian theatre, show that human nature was very much the same
in ancient times as at the present day. Certain types of character,
which were generally to be met with among an Attic audience, will
easily be recognized as familiar figures. There was the man of taste,
who prided himself upon his superior discernment, and used to hiss
when every one else was applauding, and clap when every one else was
silent.[1065] There was the person who made himself objectionable to
his neighbours by whistling an accompaniment to tunes which happened to
please him.[1066] There were the ‘young men of the town’, who took a
malign pleasure in hissing a play off the stage.[1067] There were the
people who brought out their provisions during the less exciting parts
of the entertainment.[1068] There was the somnolent individual who slept
peacefully through tragedies and comedies, and was not even waked up by
the noise of the audience going away.[1069] Certain indications show that
the employment of the clâque was not unknown to Greek actors and poets.
The parasite Philaporus, who had recently taken up the profession of an
actor, and was anxious about the result of his first public appearance,
writes to a friend to ask him to come with a large body of supporters,
and drown with their applause the hisses of the critical part of the
audience. Philemon, in spite of his inferior talents as a comic writer,
is said to have frequently won victories from Menander by practices of
this kind.[1070]
The character of the Athenian audience as a whole is well exemplified by
the stories of their treatment of individual poets. Although they were
willing to tolerate the utmost ribaldry upon the stage, and to allow
the gods and sacred legends to be burlesqued in the most ridiculous
fashion, they were at the same time extremely orthodox in regard to the
national religion. Any atheistical sentiments, and any violations of
their religious law, were liable to provoke an outburst of the greatest
violence. Aeschylus on one occasion was nearly killed in the theatre
itself, because he was supposed to have revealed part of the mysteries
in the course of a tragedy. He was only saved by flying for refuge to
the altar of Dionysus in the orchestra.[1071] Euripides also caused a
great uproar by beginning his Melanippe with the line, ‘Zeus, whoever
Zeus be, for I know not save by report,’ &c. In a subsequent production
of a revised version of the play he altered the line to ‘Zeus, as is
reported by truth’,[1072] &c. In the same way sentiments which violated
the moral feeling of the audience were received with intense indignation,
and sometimes resulted in the stoppage of the play. The Danaë of
Euripides is said to have been nearly hissed off the stage because of
a passage in praise of money.[1073] On the other hand, wise and noble
sentiments excited great enthusiasm. Aristophanes was rewarded with a
chaplet from the sacred olive because of the splendid passage in which
he counsels mercy to the disfranchised citizens. Sophocles is said to
have been appointed one of the generals in the Samian expedition on
account of the excellent political wisdom shown in certain passages of
the Antigone.[1074] The partiality of the Athenians for idealism in art
is shown by the reception which they gave to Phrynichus’s tragedy of
the Capture of Miletus, an historical drama in which the misfortunes of
the Ionians were forcibly portrayed. So far from admiring the skill of
the poet, they fined him a thousand drachmas for reminding them of the
miseries of their kinsfolk, and passed a law forbidding the reproduction
of this particular play.[1075]
The enthusiasm of the Athenians for the drama was unbounded. Nowhere was
the theatre more crowded. In the words of one of the old historians, they
‘spent the public revenues on their festivals, were more familiar with
the stage than with the camp, and paid more regard to verse-makers than
to generals’.[1076] The speeches of Demosthenes are full of complaints
in the same strain. The eagerness with which dramatic victories were
coveted, and the elaborate monuments erected to commemorate them, have
already been referred to in a previous chapter. It was not, however,
till the middle of the fourth century that the devotion to this and
similar amusements grew to such a height as to become a positive vice,
and to sap the military energies of the people. The Athenians of the
fifth century showed that enthusiasm for art and music and the drama was
not inconsistent with energy of character. As a matter of fact the very
greatest period of the Attic drama is also the period of the political
supremacy of Athens.
As far as intelligence and discrimination are concerned, the Athenian
audiences were probably superior to any audience of the same size
which has ever been brought together. Their keen and rapid intellect
was a subject of frequent praise among the ancients, and was ascribed
to the exhilarating influence of the Attic climate.[1077] They were
especially distinguished for the refinement of their taste in matters
of art and literature, and for the soberness of judgement with which
they rejected any sort of florid exuberance. That they were keenly alive
to the attractions of beauty of form and chastened simplicity of style
is proved by the fact that Sophocles was by far the most successful
of their tragic poets. Though Euripides became more popular among the
later Greeks, Sophocles in his own life-time obtained far more victories
than any other tragic writer.[1078] At the same time it is easy to
form an exaggerated idea of the refinement of an Attic audience. They
were drawn from all classes of the people, and a large proportion were
ignorant and uncultured. Plato speaks in the most disparaging terms of
them, and charges them with having corrupted the dramatic poets, and
brought them down to their own level.[1079] His evidence is perhaps
rather prejudiced. But Aristotle, who had much greater faith in popular
judgement, is not very complimentary. He divides the theatrical audience
into two classes, the refined and cultured class on the one hand, and the
mass of rough and ignorant artisans on the other. One of his objections
to the profession of an actor or musician is that he must accommodate
himself to the level of the ignorant part of his audience.[1080] He
mentions examples in the Poetics of the low level of popular taste, from
which it appears that the average spectator in ancient times was, like
his modern counterpart, fond of ‘happy terminations’. He cared little
for the artistic requirements of the composition; his desire was to see
virtue rewarded, and vice punished, at the end of a play. Then again, a
large part of the audience, Aristotle remarks, were so ignorant as to
be unacquainted with the ordinary facts of mythology, which formed the
basis of most tragedies. In judging a play, they paid more regard to the
actor’s voice than to the poet’s genius.[1081] At the same time, in spite
of depreciatory criticisms, it must be remembered that the true criterion
of a people’s taste is to be found in the character of the popular
favourites. The victorious career of Sophocles, lasting over more than
fifty years, is a convincing proof of the fact that, at any rate during
the fifth century, the dramatic taste of the Athenians was altogether
higher than that of an ordinary popular audience.[1082]
APPENDIX A
The information concerning the dates at which the plays of the great
Attic dramatists were produced, and the success which they met with in
the competitions, is derived from various brief notices, which occur
mostly in the Arguments prefixed to the different plays, and which
were ultimately derived from Aristotle’s Didascaliae, or from other
collections of the same kind (see chap. i. p. 47). A list of these
notices is here appended:—
472 B.C.
Arg. Aesch., Persae: Ἐπὶ Μένωνος τραγῳδῶν Αἰσχύλος ἐνίκα Φινεῖ, Πέρσαις,
Γλαύκῳ, Προμηθεῖ.
467 B.C.
Arg. Aesch. Septem: Ἐδιδάχθη ἐπὶ Θεαγενίδου ὀλυμπιάδι οηʹ. ἐνίκα Λαΐῳ,
Οἰδίποδι, Ἑπτὰ ἐπὶ Θήβας, Σφιγγὶ σατυρικῇ. δεύτερος Ἀριστίας Περσεῖ,
Ταντάλῳ, Παλαισταῖς σατυρικοῖς τοῖς Πρατίνου πατρός. τρίτος Πολυφράδμων
Λυκουργείᾳ τετραλογίᾳ.
458 B.C.
Arg. Aesch. Agamemnon: Ἐδιδάχθη τὸ δρᾶμα ἐπὶ ἄρχοντος Φιλοκλέους,
ὀλυμπιάδι ὀγδοηκοστῇ ἔτει δευτέρῳ. πρῶτος Αἰσχύλος Ἀγαμέμνονι, Χοηφόροις,
Εὐμενίσι, Πρωτεῖ σατυρικῷ. ἐχορήγει Ξενοκλῆς Ἀφιδνεύς.
455 B.C.
Vit. Eurip. p. 4 Dindf.: Ἤρξατο δὲ διδάσκειν (ὁ Εὐριπίδης) ἐπὶ Καλλίου
ἄρχοντος κατ’ ὀλυμπιάδα παʹ ἔτει αʹ, πρῶτον δ’ ἐδίδαξε τὰς Πελιάδας, ὅτε
καὶ τρίτος ἐγένετο.
450 B.C. (?)
Arg. Eur. Rhesus: Ἐν μέντοι ταῖς διδασκαλίαις ὡς γνήσιον ἀναγέγραπται.
Schol. Rhes. 529: Κράτης ἀγνοεῖν φησι τὸν Εὐριπίδην τὴν περὶ τὰ μετέωρα
θεωρίαν διὰ τὸ νέον εἶναι ὅτε τὸν Ῥῆσον ἐδίδασκε.
438 B.C.
Arg. Eur. Alcestis: Ἐδιδάχθη ἐπὶ Γλαυκίνου ἄρχοντος ὀλυμπιάδι πεʹ, πρῶτος
ἦν Σοφοκλῆς, δεύτερος Εὐριπίδης Κρήσσαις, Ἀλκμαίωνι τῷ διὰ Ψωφῖδος,
Τηλέφῳ, Ἀλκήστιδι.
431 B.C.
Arg. Eur. Medea: Ἐδιδάχθη ἐπὶ Πυθοδώρου ἄρχοντος κατὰ τὴν ὀγδοηκοστὴν
ἑβδόμην ὀλυμπιάδα. πρῶτος Εὐφορίων, δεύτερος Σοφοκλῆς, τρίτος Εὐριπίδης
Μηδείᾳ, Φιλοκτήτῃ, Δίκτυϊ, Θερισταῖς σατύροις. οὐ σώζεται.
430 B.C. (?)
Aristid. vol. ii. p. 334 Dindf.: Σοφοκλῆς Φιλοκλέους ἡττᾶτο ἐν Ἀθηναίοις
τὸν Οἰδίπουν, ὦ Ζεῦ καὶ θεοί.
428 B.C.
Arg. Eur. Hippolytus: Ἐδιδάχθη ἐπὶ Ἀμείνονος ἄρχοντος ὀλυμπιάδι
ὀγδοηκοστῇ ἑβδόμῃ, ἔτει τετάρτῳ. πρῶτος Εὐριπίδης, δεύτερος Ἰοφῶν, τρίτος
Ἴων.
425 B.C.
Arg. Arist. Acharnenses: Ἐδιδάχθη ἐπὶ Εὐθύνου ἄρχοντος ἐν Ληναίοις
διὰ Καλλιστράτου· καὶ πρῶτος ἦν. δεύτερος Κρατῖνος Χειμαζομένοις· οὐ
σώζονται. τρίτος Εὔπολις Νουμηνίαις.
424 B.C.
Arg. Arist. Equites: Ἐδιδάχθη τὸ δρᾶμα ἐπὶ Στρατοκλέους ἄρχοντος δημοσίᾳ
εἰς Λήναια, δι’ αὐτοῦ τοῦ Ἀριστοφάνους. πρῶτος ἐνίκα· δεύτερος Κρατῖνος
Σατύροις· τρίτος Ἀριστομένης Ὑλοφόροις.
423 B.C.
Arg. Arist. Nubes: Αἱ πρῶται Νεφέλαι ἐν ἄστει ἐδιδάχθησαν ἐπὶ ἄρχοντος
Ἰσάρχου, ὅτε Κρατῖνος μὲν ἐνίκα Πυτίνῃ, Ἀμειψίας δὲ Κόννῳ.
422 B.C.
Arg. Arist. Nubes: Αἱ δὲ δεύτεραι Νεφέλαι ἐπὶ Ἀμεινίου ἄρχοντος.
Arg. Arist. Vespae: Ἐδιδάχθη ἐπὶ ἄρχοντος Ἀμεινίου διὰ Φιλωνίδου εἰς
Λήναια· καὶ ἐνίκα πρῶτος. δεύτερος ἦν Φιλωνίδης Προάγωνι, Λεύκων Πρέσβεσι
τρίτος. (See p. 21, n. 2).
421 B.C.
Arg. Arist. Pax: Ἐνίκησε δὲ τῷ δράματι ὁ ποιητὴς ἐπὶ ἄρχοντος Ἀλκαίου, ἐν
ἄστει. πρῶτος Εὔπολις Κόλαξι, δεύτερος Ἀριστοφάνης Εἰρήνῃ, τρίτος Λεύκων
Φράτορσι. τὸ δὲ δρᾶμα ὑπεκρίνατο Ἀπολλόδωρος ✱ἡνίκα ἑρμῆν λοιοκρότης✱.
(See p. 41, n. 2).
415 B.C.
Ael. Var. Hist. ii. 8: Κατὰ τὴν πρώτην καὶ ἐνενηκοστὴν ὀλυμπιάδα ...
ἀντηγωνίσαντο ἀλλήλοις Ξενοκλῆς καὶ Εὐριπίδης· καὶ πρῶτός γε ἦν Ξενοκλῆς,
ὅστις ποτὲ οὗτός ἐστιν, Οἰδίποδι καὶ Λυκάονι καὶ Βάκχαις καὶ Ἀθάμαντι
σατυρικῷ. τούτου δεύτερος Εὐριπίδης ἦν Ἀλεξάνδρῳ καὶ Παλαμήδει καὶ Τρῳάσι
καὶ Σισύφῳ σατυρικῷ.
414 B.C.
Arg. I. Arist. Aves: Ἐδιδάχθη ἐπὶ Χαβρίου διὰ Καλλιστράτου ἐν ἄστει,
ὃς ἦν δεύτερος τοῖς Ὄρνισι, πρῶτος Ἀμειψίας Κωμασταῖς, τρίτος Φρύνιχος
Μονοτρόπῳ. Arg. II. Arist. Aves: Ἐπὶ Χαβρίου ... εἰς Λήναια τὸν Ἀμφιάραον
ἐδίδαξε διὰ Φιλωνίδου.
412 B.C.
Schol. Arist. Ran. 53: Ἡ δὲ Ἀνδρομέδα ὀγδόῳ ἔτει προεισῆλθεν. Schol.
Arist. Thesm. 1012: συνδεδίδακται γὰρ τῇ Ἑλένῃ.
411 B.C.
Arg. Arist. Lysistrata: Ἐδιδάχθη ἐπὶ Καλλίου ἄρχοντος τοῦ μετὰ Κλεόκριτον
ἄρξαντος. εἰσῆκται δὲ διὰ Καλλιστράτου.
409 B.C.
Arg. Soph. Philoctetes: Ἐδιδάχθη ἐπὶ Γλαυκίππου. πρῶτος ἦν Σοφοκλῆς.
408 B.C.
Schol. Eur. Orest. 371: Πρὸ γὰρ Διοκλέους, ἐφ’ οὗ τὸν Ὀρέστην ἐδίδαξε.
409-407 B.C. (?)
Arg. Eur. Phoenissae: Ἐδιδάχθη ἐπὶ Ναυσικράτους (unknown, probably
‘suffectus’) ἄρχοντος ὀλυμπιάδ ... πρῶτος ... δεύτερος Εὐριπίδης, τρίτος
... ὁ Οἰνόμαος καὶ Χρύσιππος καὶ Φοίνισσαι καὶ ... σατυρ ... οὐ σώζεται.
Schol. Arist. Ran. 53: διὰ τί δὲ μὴ ἄλλο τι τῶν πρὸ ὀλίγου διδαχθέντων
καὶ καλῶν, Ὑψιπύλης, Φοινισσῶν, Ἀντιόπης;
405 B.C.
Arg. Arist. Ranae: Ἐδιδάχθη ἐπὶ Καλλίου τοῦ μετὰ Ἀντιγένη διὰ Φιλωνίδου
εἰς Λήναια. πρῶτος ἦν· Φρύνιχος δεύτερος Μούσαις· Πλάτων τρίτος Κλεοφῶντι.
— B.C.
Schol. Arist. Ran. 67: Οὕτω γὰρ καὶ αἱ Διδασκαλίαι φέρουσι, τελευτήσαντος
Εὐριπίδου τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ δεδιδαχέναι ὁμώνυμον ἐν ἄστει Ἰφιγένειαν τὴν ἐν
Αὐλίδι, Ἀλκμαίωνα, Βάκχας.
401 B.C.
Arg. Soph. O. C.: Τὸν ἐπὶ Κολωνῷ Οἰδίποδα ἐπὶ τετελευτηκότι τῷ πάππῳ
Σοφοκλῆς ὁ ὑϊδοῦς ἐδίδαξεν, υἱὸς ὢν Ἀρίστωνος, ἐπὶ ἄρχοντος Μίκωνος.
388 B.C.
Arg. Arist. Plutus: Ἐδιδάχθη ἐπὶ ἄρχοντος Ἀντιπάτρου, ἀνταγωνιζομένου
αὐτῷ Νικοχάρους μὲν Λάκωσιν, Ἀριστομένους δὲ Ἀδμήτῳ, Νικοφῶντος δὲ
Ἀδώνιδι, Ἀλκαίου δὲ Πασιφάῃ.
APPENDIX B
The Athenian inscriptions bearing upon the drama and dramatic contests
are to be found, edited by Köhler, in the Corpus Inscriptionum Atticarum,
ii. 2. pp. 394 ff., iv. 2. pp. 218 ff. Since their publication in this
form much work has been done in reference to them by Wilhelm, Capps, and
others. The following selection gives the most important inscriptions,
with the conclusions which seem to be best warranted, omitting portions
the restoration of which seems too uncertain to be useful.
The conjectural dates are inserted and conjectural supplements marked
off by square brackets where the evidence is reasonably good: letters
enclosed in round brackets simply expand the abbreviations contained in
the inscription.
I. _List of victors in the City Dionysia_ (C. I. A. ii. 971, iv. 971).
The fragments have been arranged on the hypothesis that they formed part
of an inscription in 15 columns of 140 or 142 lines each: Columns 1, 2,
7-12 and 16 have been lost, as well as the greater part of the remainder.
Capps conjectures that the inscription began in 502-501, and that this
date was that of the beginning of choregia in tragedy and dithyramb
(Capps, Introd. of Comedy into the City Dionysia, p. 29). The heading,
of which at present only twelve letters remain (more widely spaced than
the rest of the inscription), seems to have extended over the head of the
first 6 columns, and probably ran (Capps, l.c., p. 29)—
[ἀπὸ ........... ἐφ’ οὗ πρῶτ]ον κῶμοι ἦσαν τῶ[ν ἐν ἄστει Διονυσίων οἵδε
ἐνίκων].
We next have fragments of Cols. III, IV, V (971 _a_, _f_).
Col. III. Col. IV. Col. V.
B.C. 473-2 B.C. 460-59
Ξ]ενοκλείδης ἐχορήγε[ι Πανδιονὶ[ς ἀνδρῶν
Μ]άγνης ἐδίδασκεν. Κλεαίνετ[ος ἐχορήγει
τραγῳδῶν κωμῳδῶν
Περικλῆς Χολαρ(γεὺς) Θαρ[.. ἐχορήγει
ἐχορή(γει) B.C. 447-6
Αἰσχύλος ἐδίδασκεν. ............ ...... 5
[ἐπὶ Χάρητος]
(B.C. 472-1) [τραγῳδῶν] ......
............ ......... ἐχορή(γει) ......
............ ..... ἐδίδασκεν. Βίω[ν ἐχορήγει
............ ἐπὶ Φιλ]οκλεόυς (B.C. 459-8) κωμ[ῳδῶν
............ Οἰ]νηὶς παίδων, Ἀνδ[.... ἐχορήγει 10
............ Δημόδοκος ἐχορήγε[ι Καλ[λίας ἐδίδασκε
...... ἐχ]ορήγει Ἱπποθωντὶς ἀνδρῶν τρα[γῳδῶν
... ς ἐδίδ]ασκεν. Εὐκτήμων Ἐλευ(σίνιος) Θα[...... ἐχορήγει
ἐχορή(γει)
[τραγῳδῶν] κωμῳδῶν Κα[ρκίνος ἐδίδασκεν
...... ἐχ]ορήγει Εὐρυκλείδης ἐχορήγει, ὑπ[οκριτὴς .... 15
Πολυφράσμω]ν ἐδίδασ(κεν). Εὐφρόνιος ἐδίδασκε. ἐπ[ὶ Καλλιμάχου
ἐπὶ Πραξιέργο]υ (B.C. 471-0)
τραγῳδῶν, (B.C. 446-5)
Ἱπποθωντὶς πα]ίδων Ξενοκλῆς Ἀφιδαν(ῖος) ἐχορή(γει)
..... ἐχο]ρήγει Αἰσχύλος ἐδίδασκεν.
...... ων ἐπὶ Ἅβρωνος (B.C. 458-7) 20
... ἐχ]ορήγ[ει Ἐρεχθηὶς παίδων,
[κωμῳδῶν] ... Χαρίας Ἀγρυλῆ(θεν) ἐχορή[γει
... ἐχορήγ]ει Λεωντὶς ἀνδρῶν
Δεινόστρατος ἐχο[ρήγει
κωμῳδῶν 25
.... ἐχ]ορήγ[ει.
The next fragment (971 _b_) belongs to the years B.C. 423-1, and to Col.
VII.
[κωμῳδῶν]
...... Παια[νιεὺς ἐχορήγει.
Ἕρμιππ]ος ἐδ[ίδασκε
τραγῳ]δῶν
... ω]ν Παιανιε[ὺς ἐχορή]γει,
Με]νεκράτης ἐδί[δασκεν
ὑπ]οκριτὴς Μυνν[ίσκος.
ἐ]πὶ Αλκαίου (B.C. 422-1)
Ἱπποθωντὶς παίδων
Ἀρίσταρχος Δεκε(λεεὺς) ἐχορή(γει)
Αἰαντὶς ἀνδρῶν,
Δημοσθένης ἐχορήγει.
κ]ωμῳδ[ῶν
..... ἐχορ]ήγ[ει
We next come to Col. XIII (fr. 971 _g_), B.C. 348-6.
[κωμῳδῶν]
..... [ἐχορήγει
Ἄ]λεξις ἐδ[ίδασκεν.
τραγῳδῶν
Κλ]εόμαχος Ἀχα[ρν(εὺς) ἐχορήγει,
Ἀ[σ]τυδάμ[α]ς ἐδ[ίδασκεν,
ὑ[πο]κριτὴς Θ[ετταλός.
ἐ]πὶ Θεμιστοκλέους (B.C. 347-6)
Ἐρεχθηὶς παίδων.
Διονυσ ....
The position of fr. 971 _d_ is uncertain; Capps places it B.C. 344-3,
Wilhelm, 336-5 B.C. It belongs in any case to the latter half of the
fourth century.
Κεκροπ[ὶς παίδων
Διόφαν[τος ... ἐχορήγει
Κεκροπὶς [ἀνδρῶν
Ὀνήτωρ [ἐχορήγει
κωμῳδ[ῶν
Διοπείθ[ης .... ἐχορήγει
Προκλεί[δης ἐδίδασκεν
τραγῳδῶν
We next have two passages at the bottom of Cols. XIII, XIV (971 _e_), the
years in the former being 343-1, and in the second 331-0.
Col. XIII. Col. XIV.
.........
l. 126 ......... ἐ]πὶ Ἀριστ[ο]φάνους (B.C. 331-0)
......... Οἰνηὶς παίδω[ν
[τραγῳδῶν] .... τος [Ἀχ]αρν[(εὺς) ἐχορή(γει)
..... ἐ]χορή(γει) Ἱπποθωντὶς ἀνδρ[ῶν
l. 130 .... ἐ]δίδ[ασ]κε ...... ος [Π]ει[ρ]αιε[ὺς ἐχορή(γει)
ὑποκριτὴς Ἀ]θηνόδωρος. κωμ]ῳδ[ῶν
ἐπὶ Σωσιγένους (B.C. 342-1) ...............
Αἰγηὶς παίδ]ων ...............
..... Δι]ομε[εὺς ἐχορ]ή(γει) τραγ]ῳ[δῶν
l. 135 Ἱπποθωντὶς] ἀνδρῶν
.... ἐκ Κοί]λης ἐχορή(γει)
[κωμῳδῶν]
........ ης [ἐχορήγει
...............
l. 140 [τραγῳδῶν]
........ ἐχ]ορ[ήγει
Ἀστυδάμας ἐδί]δ[ασκεν
Finally, from near the top of Cols. XIV, XV (971 _h_) we have fragments
from 341-0 and 330-28 respectively. Col. XIV includes a fragment first
printed by Wilhelm, op. cit., p. 27.
Col. XIV. Col. XV.
............ ... ς Κε[....
τρ]αγῳδῶν ἐ[χορήγ]ει
Ἀρρενείδης Παιανι(εὺς) ἐχο[ρήγει Θεόφιλος ἐδίδ[ασκεν]
Ἀστυδάμας ἐδίδα]σκεν τραγῳδῶν
ὑποκριτὴς Θεττα]λὸς Θ]ηραμένης Κηφισι[εὺς
Ἐ]πὶ Θεοφράστο[υ (B.C. 340-39) ἐχορ]ή[γει
[πα]λαιὸν δρᾶμ[α ..... .... κ]λης ἐδίδασ[κεν
π]αρεδίδαξα[ν οἱ] κ[ω]μ[ῳδοί ὑπο]κριτὴς
Ἀ]ντιοχὶς παί[δων .... Ἀθηνόδωρος
ἐπὶ Κηφισοφῶντος, (B.C. 329-8)
Ἱπποθωντὶς παί[δων
II. _Record of Comic Contests at the Lenaea_ (C. I. A. ii. 972, Col. I).
The inscription of which this forms a part consists of two columns,
the first containing records of comic contests, the second of tragic
contests, at the Lenaea. The date of the contests recorded in the first
column has been generally taken to be B.C. 354-2: but Capps (The Dating
of some Didascalic Inscriptions, Amer. Journ. of Archaeology, 1900, pp.
74 ff.) has shown almost conclusively that the true date is B.C. 290-8
(it is possibly a year or two later, see Wilhelm, Urkunden dramatischer
Aufführungen in Athen, p. 52, as the date of Diotimus’ archonship is not
absolutely certain). This column must have contained the last records
of comic contests at the Lenaea which came within the plan of this
inscription, as the next column begins the records of tragic contests.
It would appear, therefore, that the date of the transcribing of this
series of didascaliae upon stone was in all probability circ. B.C. 287.
Capps conjectures (with much reason) that C. I. A. ii. 972 formed part
of one great didascalic inscription arranged in the order (1) Tragedy
at the Dionysia, (2) Comedy at the Dionysia, (3) Comedy at the Lenaea,
(4) Tragedy at the Lenaea. The extant fragments, therefore, mark the
junction of parts (3) and (4). The original stone is now lost, and the
record depends on the copies of Fourmont and Le Bas, the latter being
apparently the more trustworthy.
..... τέ(ταρτος) ....]στίδι
ὑπε(κρίνετο) Ἀριστόμ]αχος.
.... ης πέμ(πτος) Ἀνασῳζο(μένοις),
ὑπε(κρίνετο) Ἀντ]ιφάνης.
ὑπο(κριτὴς) Ἱερ]ώνυμος ἐνίκα.
ἐπὶ Δι]οτίμου Σιμύλος (B.C. 289-8)
... σίᾳ ὑπε(κρίνετο) Ἀριστόμαχος.
Διόδωρος δεύ(τερος) Νεκρῷ
ὑπε(κρίνετο) Ἀριστόμαχος.
Διόδωρος τρί(τος) Μαινομένῳ
ὑπε(κρίνετο) Κηφίσιος.
Φο]ινικ[ίδ]ης τέ(ταρτος) Ποητεῖ
ὑπε(κρίνετο) .....]ης
III. _Record of Tragic Contests at the Lenaea_ (C. I. A. ii. 972, Col.
II).
The second column of the fragment to which the last quoted list belongs;
Köhler has fixed the date beyond question.
Π]ειρ[ιθόῳ .....
ὑπε(κρίνετο) .....
ὑπο(κριτὴς) [.... ἐνίκα
ἐπὶ [Ἀστυφίλου ....... (B.C. 420-19)
Ἀγα[μέμνονι ......
ὑπ[ε(κρίνετο) ......
Ἡρα[κ ......
Θησ[εῖ, ......,
ὑπ[ε(κρίνετο) ...
ὑπο(κριτὴς) [..... ἐνίκα
ἐπὶ Ἀρχ[ίου ...... (B.C. 419-8)
Τυροῖ, Τ .........,
ὑπε(κρίνετο) Λυσικράτ(ης).
Καλλίστρατος ......
Ἀμφιλόχῳ, Ἰξίονι
ὑπε(κρίνετο) Καλλιππί[δης
ὑπ]ο(κριτὴς) Καλλιππί[δης ἐνίκα
ἐπ Ἀ]ντ[ι]φ[ῶ]ντος Σ ..... (B.C. 418-7)
....... π ......
IV. _Record of Tragic Contests at the City Dionysia_ (C. I. A. ii. 973).
παλαιᾷ.] Νε[οπτόλεμος
Ἰφιγε]νείᾳ Εὐ[ριπί]δο[υ
ποη(ταί)·] Ἀστυδάμας
Ἀχι]λλεῖ, ὑπε(κρίνετο) Θετταλός,
Ἀθάμαντι, ὑπε(κρίνετο) Νεοπτόλ[εμος,
Ἀν]τιγόνῃ, ὑπε(κρίνετο) Ἀθηνόδω[ρος.
Εὐ]άρετος [δεύ(τερος)] Τεύκρῳ,
ὑπ]ε(κρίνετο) Ἀθηνόδωρος·
Ἀχι]λ[λ]εῖ, [ὑπε(κρίνετο)] Θετταλός·
..... εῖ], ὑ[πε(κρίνετο) Νε]οπτόλεμος·
...... τ]ρί(τος) [Π]ελιάσιν,
ὑπε(κρίνετο) Νεοπτ]όλεμος·
Ὀρέστη[ι, ὑπε(κρίνετο) Ἀθη]ν[όδωρος·
Αὔ[γῃ] ὑπε(κρίνετο) Θεττ[αλό]ς·
ὑπο(κριτὴς) Νεοπτόλεμος ἐνίκ[α.
ἐπὶ Νικομάχου· σατυρι(κῷ)· (B.C. 341-0)
Τιμοκλῆς Λυκούργῳ·
παλαιᾷ· Νεοπτόλεμ[ος
Ὀρέστῃ Εὐριπίδου·
π]οη(ταί)· Ἀστυδάμας
Παρθενοπαίῳ, ὑπε(κρίνετο) Θετ[ταλός·
Λυκά]ονι, ὑπε(κρίνετο) Νεοπτόλε[μος
...... οκλῆς δεύ(τερος) Φρίξῳ,
ὑπε(κρίνετο)] Θετταλός·
Οἰδί]ποδι, ὑπε(κρίνετο) Νεοπτόλ[εμος·
ὑπο(κριτὴς) Θε]τταλὸς ἐνίκα.
ἐπὶ Θεο]φράστου· σατυ[ρι(κῷ)· (B.C. 340-39)
..... Φορκίσ[ι.
παλαιᾷ .... ό]στρ[ατος
....... Εὐ]ριπί[δου.
V. _Record of Comic Contests_ (festival uncertain).
This inscription (which he numbers 974 _c_) was found in 1901, and is
published (with restorations) by Wilhelm, op. cit., pp. 43 ff.; it is a
record of the years B.C. 313-11. Col. I only is printed below; the second
column being too fragmentary.
ὑπε(κρίνετο) Ἀσκληπιόδ]ωρο[ς
Μένανδρος] πέμ(πτος) Ἡνιόχῳ
ὑπε(κρίνετο) Κάλ]λιππος πρεσβύτ(ερος)
ὑπο(κριτὴς) Κάλλι]ππος νεώ(τερος) ἐνίκ[α
ἐπὶ Πολέμ]ωνος παλαιᾷ (B.C. 312-11)
....... Θ]ησαυρῷ Ἀναξαν(δρίδου)
ποη(τὴς) Φιλιπ]πίδης Μύστιδι
ὑπε(κρίνετο) Ἀσκ]ληπιόδωρος
Νικόστ]ρατος δεύ(τερος)
.....]οσκόπῳ
ὑπε(κρίνετο) Κ]άλλιππος νεώτε(ρος)
Ἀμεινί]ας τρί(τος) Ἀπολειπούσει
οὗτος ἔ]φηβος ὢν ἐνεμήθη
ὑπε(κρίνετο) Ἀσκ]ληπιόδωρος
Θεόφιλο]ς (?) τέταρτος Παγκρατιασ(τῇ)
ὑπε(κρίνετο) ... ιπ]πος
........ πέμ(πτος) Π]αιδίῳ
[ὑπε(κρίνετο) ....]
ὑπο(κριτὴς) Ἀσκληπιόδωρο]ς ἐνίκ[α.
VI. _Record of Comic Contests at the City Dionysia_ (C. I. A. ii. 975).
The inscription consists of a number of fragments. The date of those
numbered _a-e_ is tolerably certain; they range from about B.C. 190-160.
The others, _f-i_, have been dated by Capps from about B.C. 308-260;
but these dates and the restorations suggested by him are disputed by
Wilhelm, who places the date of _f_, with a good deal of reason, only
shortly before that of _a_, and also dates _g-i_ (not included in the
present selection) much later. The first part of fragment _f_ is as
follows:—
..... Ἐρχιεῦσιν
ὑπε(κρίνετο) ...]μος (Ἱερώνυμος Capps, Νικόδημος Wilhelm.)
ἐπὶ ......] οὐκ ἐγένετο
...... π]αλαιᾷ
.......] Φωκεῦσι Φιλή(μονος)
ποη(ταὶ) ...] κράτης Ἀπε (Κράτης Ἀπελεύθεροις Capps,
..... ὑ]πε(κρίνετο) Νικόδημος Ἀριστοκράτης Ἀπε- Wilhelm.)
...... Ἀ]νεψιοῖς.
Fragments _a-e_ are arranged as forming an inscription in five columns by
Köhler (C. I. A.) as follows:—
Col. I. Col. II. Col. III. Col. IV. Col. V.
1st col. of _a_ 2nd col. of _a_ — — —
1st col. of _b_ 2nd col. of _b_ _c_ _d_
1st col. of _e_ 2nd col. of _e_
Wilhelm arranges them as follows, op. cit., pp. 68 ff.:—
Col. I. Col. II. Col. III. Col. IV.
1st col. of _a_ 2nd col. of _a_ — —
1st col. of _b_ 2nd col. of _b_ _c_ _d_
1st col. of _e_ 2nd col. of _e_ —
It is impossible at present to decide with certainty between the two
arrangements. The former is here followed, but indications of Wilhelm’s
arrangement are also given.
Col. I is too fragmentary to be intelligible. (It includes the 1st col.
of a.)
Col. II (the 2nd col. of _a_).
Τιμ]όσ[τρατος] Λυτ[ρουμένῳ
ὑπε(κρίνετο) Διογείτων·
ὑπο(κριτὴς) Κράτης ἐνίκα
ἐπὶ Συμμάχου οὐκ ἐγ[ένετο (B.C. 188-7)
ἐπὶ Θεοξένου οὐκ [ἐγένετο (B.C. 187-6)
ἐπὶ Ζωπύρου· [παλαιᾷ· (B.C. 186-5)
Ἐράτων Με[γαρικῇ Σιμύλου (?)
ποη(ταὶ) Λαίν[ης ...
ὑπε(κρίνετο) .....
Then after an interval the 1st col. of _b_ (Wilhelm makes this a
continuation of Col. I of _a_, and accordingly dates it _before_ the
portion just given).
...... Ἐφήβοις
ὑπε(κρίνετο) .....]
ὑπο(κριτὴς) ..... ἐ]νίκα
ἐπὶ ...... οὐ]κ ἐγένετο
ἐπὶ ...... ο]υ· παλαιᾷ·
...... Μισογ]ύνει Μενάνδρου·
ποη(ταὶ) ....]νης Ἀδελφαῖς
ὑπε(κρίνετο) ....]ς
........ Δακτυλίῳ
ὑπε(κρίνετο) .....]ων
..... Φιλ]αθην[αίῳ.
Col. III (2nd col. of _b_; according to Wilhelm, a continuation of Col.
II, i.e. of the 2nd col. of _a_).
ποη(ταὶ) Κρίτων Ἐφεσίοις,
ὑ]πε(κρίνετο) Σώφιλος·
Παράμονος Ναυαγῷ,
ὑπε(κρίνετο) Ὀνήσιμος
Τιμόστρατος Φιλοικείῳ,
ὑπε(κρίνετο) Καλλίστρατος·
Σωγένης Φιλοδεσπότῳ,
ὑπε(κρίνετο) Ἑκαταῖος·
Φιλήμων νεώ(τερος) Μιλησίᾳ,
ὑπε(κρίνετο) Κράτης.
ὑπο(κριτὴς) Ὀνήσιμος ἐνίκ[α·
ἐπὶ Ἑρμογένου οὐκ [ἐγέ]νετο. (B.C. 183-2)
ἐπὶ Τιμησιάν[ακτος· π]αλαιᾷ· (B.C. 182-1)
Φιλόστρατο[ς Ἀποκλε]ιομένει Ποσει(δίππου)·
ποη(ταὶ) [Ἀρχικλῆς (?) Ναυ]κλῆρῳ,
ὑπε(κρίνετο) ......
........ σ]ιν
[ὑπε(κρίνετο) .....]
...... Διαδικ]αζομένοις,
[ὑπε(κρίνετο) ......]
...... μ]ένοις
[ὑπε(κρίνετο) ......]
........ υ]μένῳ
Then an interval in which only a few letters are legible, the 1st col. of
fragment _e_.
...... εὐ]εργετοῦντι
[ὑπε(κρίνετο) ......]
....... ἐξ]απατῶντι,
[ὑπε(κρίνετο) ......]
... ω]ν Συντ ....
ὑπε(κρίνετο) .....]ης
..... Συναγωνι ...
ὑπε(κρίνετο) ...]ίδης.
ὑπο(κριτὴς) ... ξέ]νος ἐνί[κα
ἐπὶ ... παλαι]ᾷ Προ ...
Col. IV (according to Wilhelm, Col. III), fragment _c_.
..... Μονοτ]ρόπῳ
.............
ποη(ταὶ) .... Ἀν]ασῳζομέ-
[νοις, ὑπε(κρίνετο) ...]
...... υμένῳ
ὑπε(κρίνετο) ....]ος
...... Ἀγνοοῦντι,
ὑπε(κρίνετο) Κριτόδ]ημος
...... Νε]μέσει,
ὑπε(κρίνετο) Σώ]νικος·
Παρά]μονος Χορηγοῦντι,
ὑπε(κρίνετο)] Μόνιμος
ὑπ]ο(κριτὴς) Κριτόδημος ἐνίκα.
ἐ]πὶ Εὐνίκου οὐκ ἐγένε[το. (B.C. 169-8)
ἐπὶ Ξενοκλέους· παλαι[ᾷ· (B.C. 168-7)
Μόνιμος Φάσματι Μεν[άνδρου.
ποη(ταί)· Παράμονος τεθνηκὼς ..... ις
ὑπε(κρίνετο) Δάμων·
Κρίτων Αἰτωλῷ,
ὑπε(κρίνετο) Μόνιμος·
Βίοττος Ποητεῖ,
ὑπε(κρίνετο) Δάμων·
Λάμπυτος ....
ὑπε(κρίνετο) Κα[βείριχος (?)
Ἐπικ[ράτης .....
Then after an interval 2nd col. of _e_.
ἐπὶ] Εὐερ[γ ..... οὐκ ἐγένετο (B.C. 164-3)
ἐ]πὶ Ἐράστο[υ οὐκ ἐγένετο (B.C. 163-2)
ἐπὶ Ποσει[δωνίου οὐκ ἐγένετο. (B.C. 162-1)
.........
ἐπὶ Ἀρισ[τόλα· παλαιᾷ (B.C. 161-0)
Ἡρακ[λε ....
πο[η(ταί) .....
Col. V (according to Wilhelm, Col. IV), fragment _d_.
ὑπε(κρίνετο) Καβεί]ριχος·
Ἐπ]ιγέ[ν]ης Λυτρουμένῳ
ὑπε(κρίνετο) Καβείριχος·
ὑπο(κριτὴς) Νικόλαος ἐνίκα·
ἐπὶ Ἀνθεστηρίου οὐκ ἐγένε[το. (soon after B.C. 160)
ἐπὶ Καλλιστράτου οὐκ ἐγένε[το.
ἐπὶ Μνησιθέου· παλαιᾷ·
Δάμων Φιλαθηναίῳ Φιλιππ[ίδου·
πο(ηταί)· Φιλοκλῆς Τραυματίᾳ,
ὑπε(κρίνετο) Καλλικράτης·
Χαιρίων Αὑτοῦ καταψευδομέ[νῳ.
ὑπε(κρίνετο) Δάμων·
Βίοττος Ἀγνοοῦντι,
ὑπε(κρίνετο) Δάμων·
Τιμόξενος Συνκρύπτον[τι,
ὑπε(κρίνετο) Καλλικράτης·
Ἀγαθοκλῆς Ὁμονοίᾳ,
ὑπεκρίνετο Νικόλ[αος.
VII. _Lists of tragic and comic poets and actors, and the number of their
victories_ (C. I. A. ii. 977, iv. 977).
This inscription was no doubt based on the Νῖκαι τραγικαὶ καὶ κωμικαί of
Aristotle, and afterwards carried on by additions into the second century
B.C.; the order of the names is that of the first victory of each poet
or actor at the contest in question, and each column of the inscription
contained seventeen names. There are over thirty fragments, and it is
not always possible to say whether the lists given in them refer to the
Lenaea or the City Dionysia. The following selection of the fragments
is based on Capps’s paper on this inscription in the Amer. Journal of
Philology, xx. pp. 388 ff.: and on the fuller study by Wilhelm, op. cit.,
pp. 89 ff.
1. Tragic poets.
(_a_) At the City Dionysia.
Fragment _a_.
Αἰ]σχύλ[ος ..
Εὐ]έτης Ι
Πο]λυφράσμ[ων ...
Νόθ]ιππος Ι
Σοφ]οκλῆς ΔΠΙΙΙ
..... τος ΙΙ
Ἀριστ]ίας
Fragment _b_.
..... ας ..
Καρκί]νος ΔΙ
Ἀστ]υδάμας Π[ΙΙ]Ι
Θεο]δέκτας ΠΙΙ
Ἀφαρ]εὺς ΙΙ
.... ν . Ι
.... ΙΙ
(_b_) Festival uncertain.
Fragment _c_.
...... ας Ι
.... δης Ι
..... ράτης Ι
Ἀστυδ]άμας ..
.... ΙΙ
2. Comic poets.
(_a_) At the City Dionysia.
Fragments _i_ and _k_, together with two fragments first published by
Wilhelm, l.c., p. 106, and arranged by him in three columns as follows:—
[ἀστικαὶ ποητῶν] Τηλεκλεί]δης ΙΙΙ Νικοφῶ[ν ...
[κωμικῶν] .......] ς Ι Θεόπομπ[ος
[Χιωνίδης ...] — Κη]φισό[δοτος
— — ...] ι [...
— Φερ[εκράτης ..
— ]ς Ι Ἕρμ[ιππος ..
— Ἀρι[στομένης ..
Μάγνη]ς ΔΙ Εὔ[πολις ...
...... ο]ς Ι Κα[λλίστρατος ..
Ἀλκιμέ]νη[ς] Ι Φρύ[νιχος ..
.....]ς Ι Ἀμ[ειψίας ..
Εὐφρόν]ιος Ι Πλά[των ...
Ἐκφαν]τίδης ΙΙΙΙ Φιλ[ωνίδης ..
Κρατῖ]νος ΠΙ Λύκ[ις
Διοπ]είθης ΙΙ Λεύ[κων
Κρά]της ΙΙΙ
Καλλία]ς ΙΙ
The following new fragment is published by Wilhelm, p. 118.
Πο]σείδιππος ΙΙΙΙ ....
Σατυρίων Ι Νίκαρχος Ι Πο ...
Ἀ]πολλόδωρος ΙΙ Νικόμαχος Ι Ὀ ...
Φιλ]ήμων ΠΙ Ἀριστοκράτης Ι ...
Δαμ]όξενος Ι Λαίνης ΙΙΙ
Φοινικ]ίδης ΙΙ Φιλήμω[ν
(_b_) At the Lenaea.
This list at present consists of fragments _d-h_, which have been
arranged in four columns; one column must have preceded them in the
original, and over the head of the lost column and the present first
column the title of the list ran, of which only one or two traces remain.
It probably (according to Capps) read thus:—οἵδε ἐνίκων τὰ Λήναια ποητῶν
κωμικῶν (or τῶν κωμικῶν). The extant portions run as follows (including
conjectural restorations; cf. Wilhelm, op. cit., p. 123). See addendum to
p. 27, n. 1. According to Wilhelm the heading was Ληναικαὶ ποητῶν κωμικῶν.
I. II. III. IV.
Τὰ Λῆναι]α πο[ητῶν Πο ..... Ι Φίλιπ[πος ..] ΙΙ Θ ....
κωμι]κῶν Με[ταγέ]νης ΙΙ Χορη[γός .. Δι .... ος Ι
Ξ]ενόφιλος Ι Θεό[πομπ]ος ΙΙ Ἀναξα[νδρί]δης ΙΙΙ. Κλέα[ρχ]ος ..
Τ]ηλεκλείδης Π Πολ[ύζηλο]ς ΙΙΙΙ Φιλέτα[ιρο]ς ΙΙ Ἀθηνοκλῆς ..
5 Ἀριστομένης ΙΙ Νικοφ[ῶν .. Εὔβουλος ΙΙΙ Πῦρ[ων] Ι
Κρατῖνος ΙΙΙ Ἀπολ[λοφάν]ης Ι Ἔφιππος Ι Ἀλκ[ήν]ωρ Ι
Φερεκράτης ΙΙ Ἀμ[ειψίας Ἀ]ντιφάνη[ς ΠΙΙΙ Τιμοκλῆς Ι
Ἕρμιππος ΙΙΙΙ Νι[κοχάρης .. Μ]νησίμα[χος] Ι. ΙΙ Προκλείδης Ι
Φρύνιχος ΙΙ Ξεν[οφ]ῶν Ι Ναυσ[ικράτ]ης ΙΙΙ. Μ[έν]ανδρος Ι..
10 Μυρτίλος Ι Φιλύλλιος Ι Ευφάνη[ς .. Φ[ιλ]ήμων ΙΙΙ.
Εὔ]πολις ΙΙΙ Φιλόνικος Ι Ἄλεξις ΙΙ ... Ἀπολλόδωρο[ς..
..... ς Ι Ἀρ]ιστο[φῶν .. Δίφιλος ΙΙΙ.
..... Φιλιππίδης ΙΙ
..... Νικόστρατος..
..... Καλλιάδης Ι
..... Ἀμειν[ία]ς Ι
Κηφισόδω]ρος Ι. .....
(Διονυσόδωρος or
Ἀσκληπιόδωρος,
Wilhelm).
3. Tragic actors.
(_a_) At the City Dionysia.
Fragment _e′_.
ὑποκριτῶν τ[ραγικῶν ......
Ἡρακλεί[δης .. ......
Νικόμαχο[ς .. ......
Μυ[ν]νίσκος .. Ν ......
Σαώνδας ... Θε ......
Ανδ[ρων ΙΙ Α]σ ...
Χ]αι[ρ]έ[σ]τρατος Ι. Ἀθην[όδωρος
Μενεκ]ράτης .. Ἀρι[στόδημος ..
Λεπ]τίν[ης ...
(_b_) At the Lenaea.
Fragments _o_, _z_, _x_ and _b′_, and two fragments published by Wilhelm,
who puts all together as follows, op. cit., p. 144.
ὑποκριτῶν τραγικῶν Χαρίδημος .. . . . . . . . . . .
Χαιρέσ[τ]ρατος Ι Φίλιππος ... . . . . . Ε[
Με]ν[εκρά]της Ι Φύτιος ΙΙ ..... μ]ος ΙΙ Βάκχ[...
Λεπτίν]ης ΙΙΙ Εὐπόλεμο[ς .....]ς ΙΙ Στεμφ[ύλιος
. . . . . Θρασύβο[υλος] Ι Ἐ[......]ς Ι Ξένων Ι
Μυννίσκ]ος ΙΙ Ἀριστόδ[ημος] ΙΙ Ἀρ[ιστοφ]ῶν Ι Χαρίας [
Ἡρακλεί]δης Π Μίρων ΙΙ Πο ..... Ἀντιμέ[νης
Νικόστρα]τος ΙΙΙ Κλ]εο[δάμα]ς Ι Ν ...... Τεισίλα[ς
Θεόδωρος ΙΙΙ Ἀρχίας ... Γο[ργ ...
Ἵππαρχος ΠΙ Πραξία[ς .. Νίκων ΙΙ ..
Ἀμεινίας Ι Ἱερομν[ήμων] ΙΙΙ Ἀριστόνι[κος
Ἀν]δροσθένης Ι Φιλ[... Πύρριχος [..
Νεο]πτόλεμος Ι Νικ[... Ἀγήτωρ
Θεττα]λός ΙΙ Ἀρι[... Θηραμέν[ης
.....]ς ΙΙ . . . . . Κλεῖτος
Ἀριστ]ίων Ι
..... άδ]ης Ι
Fragment _l_ (previously assigned to the list of poets; but see Wilhelm,
op. cit., pp. 161, 253, who dates the fragment before B.C. 375).
Σάτ]υρος ΠΙ
Φι]λήμων ΙΙ
Κα]λλίστρατ[ος ..
4. Comic actors.
Fragments _u_, _v_ (probably Lenaean, of the third century B.C.).
Ἀρισταγόρας Ι Πολυ[κλῆς ..
Κάλλιππος ΙΙΙΙ Λυκίσ[κος
Ἀ]σκληπιόδωρος Π Σωσικλ[ῆς.
Π]ολύευκτος Ι Πολύζηλ[ος
Π]υρραλεύς Ι Πυθάρατος Ι
Μ]οσχίων ΙΙ Καλλίας ΙΙΙ
..μ...ν ΙΙ Μενεκ[λῆ]ς Ι
Ἱ]ερώνυμος ΙΙΙΙ Δ[ημήτρ]ιος ΙΙ
Ἀ]ριστόμαχος ΙΙΙ Πιτθεύς Ι
Δέ]ρκετος Ι .. Ἡρακλείδης Ι[Ι.]
. . . . . . . . .
Φιλοκ[λῆς ... ρος ΙΙ
Ἀριστοκράτης Ι . . . .
Ἐμμενίδης Ι .... ΙΙ
Αὐτόλυκος Ι Δ[ημο]κράτης Ι
Φιλωνίδης Ι Φιλ[ο]στέφανος Ι
Σωκράτης Ι Ἑρμόφαντος Ι
There are a good many other fragments, containing in some cases
(fragments _f′_, _w_, _p_, and possibly _d′_, _g′_) the names of comic
actors, while in other cases the nature of the list and its place in the
inscription is uncertain: but the above will serve as specimens.
VIII. The following inscriptions are also of interest:—
1. C. I. A. ii. 1289. (Wilhelm, op. cit., p. 209; Capps, Am. Journ. Arch.
iv. p. 76.)
Ὁ δῆμος ἐ[χορήγει ἐπὶ Ἀναξι]κράτους ἄρχοντος· (B.C. 307-6)
ἀγωνοθέ[της Ξενοκλῆς Ξ]είνιδος Σφήττιος·
ποιητὴς τραγῳδοῖς ἐνίκα [Φανόστρατος] Ἡρακλείδου Ἁλικαρνασσεύς,
ὑποκριτὴς τραγῳδοῖς ἐνίκ[α .......]ν Εὐανορίδου Κυδαθηναιεύς,
ποιητὴς κωμῳδοῖς ἐνί[κα Φιλήμω]ν Δάμωνος Διομειεύς,
ὑποκριτὴς κ[ωμῳδοῖς ἐνίκα Κάλλιπ]πος Καλλίου Σουνιεύς.
2. Fragments (found in Rome) of a list of comic poets with their
victories at each festival arranged according to the places they won (see
Wilhelm, pp. 195 ff.).
(_a_) I. G. xiv. 1097.
ἐ]πὶ Ἀντιοχίδου Κύ[κλωψιν (?) ἐπὶ (B.C. 434)
......]ς κωμῳδίᾳ. δʹ ἐν ἄ[στει ἐπὶ
...... κω]μῳδίᾳ· ἐπὶ Τιμοκλέ[ους ... (B.C. 440)
.....] ἐπὶ Θεοδώρου Σατύροις [ἐπὶ .... (B.C. 437)
..... Ὑπ]έροις σιδηροῖς· ἐπὶ Πυ[θοδώρου ... (B.C. 431)
....]οις. εʹ ἐπὶ Ἀντιοχίδου [.... (B.C. 434)
Λ]ύσιππος ἐνίκα μὲν [ἐν ἄστει ἐπὶ
Γλαυκίπ]που }
_or_ Θεοπόμ]που } Καταχήναις [ἐπὶ .... (B.C. 409 or 410)
.....]αις· αὗται μόναι σῶ[αι·
.... ἐ]πὶ Διοφάντου Διονυ[σ ..... (B.C. 394)
γʹ ἐν ἄσ]τει ἐπὶ Νικοτέλους (B.C. 390)
δʹ ἐν ἄστ]ε[ι] ἐπὶ Λυσιμάχου [...... (B.C. 435)
εʹ ἐν ἄστε]ι ἐπὶ Μορυχίδου [.... ἐπὶ (B.C. 439)
....... ο]υς Κολεοφόροις
(_b_) All but the last two lines probably refer to the comic poet
Anaxandrides, as the plays named show. I. G. xiv. 1098.
..... ἐπὶ Χιώνος Μαι[νομένῳ (?) (B.C. 364)
ἐπὶ Μόλωνος] Διονύσου γονα[ῖς, ἐπὶ (B.C. 361)
Νικοφήμου] Ἀμπρακιώτιδι· γʹ ἐν [ἄστει (B.C. 360)
ἐπὶ Φανο]στράτου Ἐρεχθεῖ, ἐ[πὶ .... (B.C. 382)
......]λεῖ, ἐπὶ Χαρισάνδρ[ου (B.C. 375)
.... ἐπὶ ἱπ]ποδάμαντος Ἰοῖ· ἐ[πὶ Φρασι- (B.C. 374, 370)
κλείδου] Ὀδυσσεῖ· ἐπὶ Κηφισοδ[ώρου (B.C. 365)
.....] ἐπὶ Ἀπολλοδώρου Ἀγ[ροίκοις (?) (B.C. 349)
......]ξίππου· Λήναια ἐπ[ὶ
..... π]οιῷ, ἐπὶ Ναυσιγένους [.... (B.C. 367)
...... δʹ ἐ]ν ἄστει· ἐπὶ Χίωνος [ (B.C. 364)
... εʹ ἐν ἄστ]ει ἐπὶ Ἀγαθοκλέ[ους (B.C. 356)
........ ἐ]πὶ Θουδήμου Ἀ[.... (B.C. 352)
]ου Ἀντέρωτι [......
...... ἐ]νίκα Λήναι[α ....
.... βʹ ἦν] ἐν ἄστ[ει ...
APPENDIX C
THE ORIGINAL PLACE OF THE LENAEA
The question where the Lenaean contests took place before the building
of the great theatre of Dionysus has been unfortunately complicated with
other problems, of which no final solution can be given. For it has been
customary to assume that the Lenaeum was identical with the temple of
Dionysus ἐν Λίμναις, or at least that the latter was included in the
Lenaeum; and thus all the disputes respecting the site of the temple ἐν
Λίμναις have been regarded as applying also to the site of the Lenaeum.
Hence the discussion of the evidence for the site of the Lenaeum is more
difficult than it need be.
I. It is to be noticed in the first place, as Miss Harrison points out
(Primitive Athens, pp. 96-7), that, on the one hand, none of those
writers who themselves saw the temple ἐν Λίμναις (and indeed hardly any
writers, the possible exceptions being considered below) speak of it as
the Lenaeum or in connexion with the Lenaeum; while on the other hand,
contemporary (and nearly all later) mentions of the dramatic contest at
the Lenaea fail to connect it with the Λίμναι. And it is obvious that,
as the precinct ἐν Λίμναις was only open once a year, on the 12th of
Anthesterion (pseudo-Dem. in Neaer. § 76, see below), the Lenaeum cannot
(any more than the temple or precinct of Dionysus Eleuthereus) have been
absolutely identical with it, though the possibility is not thereby
excluded that the Lenaeum may have been a larger precinct in a part of
which the temple ἐν Λίμναις stood.
The passages referring to the ἐν Λίμναις, without reference to the
Lenaeum, are Thuc. ii. 15; Aristoph. Ran. 211 sqq.; pseudo-Dem. in Neaer.
§ 76; and Phanodemus ap. Athen. xi. p. 465 a: there can also be little
doubt that Paus. i. 20. 3 refers to the temple ἐν Λίμναις, though he does
not name it. I make only such comments on these passages as are necessary
for showing that they afford no ground for the identification of the
Lenaeum and the ἐν Λίμναις.
(A) Thuc. ii. 15: τὸ δὲ πρὸ τούτου ἡ ἀκρόπολις ἡ νῦν οὖσα πόλις ἦν καὶ τὸ
ὑπ’ αὐτὴν πρὸς νότον μάλιστα τετραμμένον· τεκμήριον δέ· τὰ γὰρ ἱερὰ ἐν
αὐτῇ τῇ ἀκροπόλει καὶ ἄλλων θεῶν ἐστί, καὶ τὰ ἔξω πρὸς τοῦτο τὸ μέρος τῆς
πόλεως μᾶλλον ἵδρυται, τό τε τοῦ Διὸς τοῦ Ὀλυμπίου καὶ τὸ Πύθιον καὶ τὸ
τῆς Γῆς καὶ τὸ ἐν Λίμναις Διονύσου, ᾧ τὰ ἀρχαιότερα Διονύσια τῇ δωδεκάτῃ
ποιεῖται ἐν μηνὶ Ἀνθεστηριῶνι.
This passage can only be used to prove the ἐν Λίμναις identical with the
Lenaeum (or closely connected) if we can identify the ἀρχαιότερα Διονύσια
with the Lenaean festival or part of it. Gilbert, Dörpfeld, and others
have attempted to do this. (It should be noted that, in the case of
Dörpfeld and his followers, this attempt is secondary to an attempt to
fix the temple ἐν Λίμναις at a particular spot, where he has discovered
the remains of a precinct of Dionysus, containing a wine-press, ληνός.)
They argue that the use of the comparative ἀρχαιότερα by Thucydides
implies that he knew only of _two_ Dionysia, one the older, the other
the later. The later must obviously be the Great or City Dionysia; and
therefore the earlier, it is argued, must be the Anthesteria, Lenaea and
Rural Dionysia, all regarded as one and the same festival; the place
of the Anthesteria must therefore be the place of the Lenaea; and as a
comparison of Thucydides with the pseudo-Dem. in Neaeram (below) proves
that the place of at least one part of the Anthesteria—that which was
celebrated on the 12th Anthesterion—was the ἐν Λίμναις, it follows that
the Lenaea must also have taken place ἐν Λίμναις, not of course in the
actual sanctuary of Dionysus, but close to it.
Now it can be shown (1) that the stress laid on the comparative is
unwarranted, (2) that there are other grounds for refusing to identify
the Anthesteria and the Lenaea.
(1) There are other passages in classical Greek literature in which
the comparative of words denoting age, &c., is used of the oldest,
not of two, but of several. Nilsson (Studia de Dionysiis Atticis, p.
54) collects the following, in addition to Homeric instances noted by
Kühner-Gerth (Griech. Gramm. § 349, p. 3).
Lys. x. 5: ὁ γὰρ πρεσβύτερος ἀδελφὸς Πανταλέων ἅπαντα παρέλαβε καὶ
ἐπιτροπεύσας ἡμᾶς τῶν πατρῴων ἀπεστέρησεν.
Lys. xiii. 67: ἦσαν τοίνυν οὗτοι, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, τέτταρες ἀδελφοί.
τούτων εἷς μὲν ὁ πρεσβύτερος κτλ.
Xen. Cyr. v. 1. 6: ὡς δ’ ἡμῶν ὁ γεραίτερος εἶπε (where the context shows
that a good many people were concerned. The reading γεραίτερος is far
better supported than γεραίτατος).
Theocr. xv. 139: οὔθ’ Ἕκτωρ, Ἑκάβας ὁ γεραίτερος εἴκατι παίδων.
Other instances could probably be found, in spite of the tendency of
grammarians and editors to force these cases into the supposed orthodox
form, by emending the comparative to the superlative (as e.g. they have
done in Aelian, Var. H. ii. 41).
All that the comparative really implies is that one individual case is
separated off from the rest, and the rest treated as a single combined
group. On this view the ἀρχαιότερα Διονύσια will be the older ceremony,
the Anthesteria, as contrasted with the group well known to be recent,
viz. the great popular festivals, the City Dionysia and the Lenaea. If
πρεσβύτερος and γεραίτερος can be used of one brother as opposed to the
rest, why not ἀρχαιότερα of one festival as opposed to the rest, these
latter being grouped together in thought as recent in comparison with the
one?
There is, further, a note by Prof. Capps in the Trans. Amer. Philol.
Assoc. vol. xxxii, summarizing a paper in which he claims to distinguish
the meaning of ἀρχαιότερα from that of παλαιότερα, to show that previous
critics of Thucydides have confused them, and that on the true view of
ἀρχαιότερα the view of Gilbert, Dörpfeld, &c., is impossible. But the
paper has not been published as a whole.
(2) The Lenaea was celebrated in the month Gamelion, which in other
places was called Lenaeon; the Anthesteria in Anthesterion. Gilbert’s
attempt to prove that the names of the months were changed and the
festivals transferred from one month to another breaks down entirely
(Nilsson, l.c., pp. 1-37, disproves it completely), nor would the attempt
have been made but for the necessity of providing some such explanation,
if the two festivals were to be identified. The separation in time of the
festivals is sufficient to disprove their identity.
Again, in C. I. A. ii. 834 b (pp. 516 ff.) we have the accounts of
certain officials called ἐπιστάται Ἐλευσινόθεν καὶ ταμίαι τοῖν θεοῖν in
the year B.C. 329-8. Col. II, containing the accounts ἐπὶ τῆς Πανδιονίδος
ἕκτης πρυτανείας, includes in l. 46 ἐπιστάταις Ἐπιλήναια εἰς Διονύσια
θῦσαι ΔΔ∸, and in l. 68 εἰς Χόας δημοσίοις ἱερεῖον ΔΔ𐅂𐅂𐅂. This proves
that the Epilenaea (the same form occurs in Ath. Pol. ch. lvii, though
it is altered by editors, and probably also in C. I. A. ii. 741) was a
distinct festival from the Anthesteria, of which the Choes formed a part.
(This was shown by Körte, Rhein. Mus. lii. pp. 168 ff., and Wachsmuth,
Abh. der Sächs. Ges. der Wiss. xviii. pp. 40 ff.) A later inscription,
C. I. A. iii. 1160, date c. B.C. 193-2, separates equally clearly the
Lenaea from the Χύτροι (vide Nilsson, l.c., pp. 42-4): and Nilsson
gives other passages quite as conclusive (l.c., p. 143), of which one
is worth quoting, a gloss found in Photius, Suidas, &c., s.v. τὰ ἐκ τῶν
ἁμαξῶν σκώμματα· ἐπὶ τῶν ἀπαρακαλύπτως σκωπτόντων. Ἀθήνησι γὰρ ἐν τῇ τῶν
Χοῶν ἑορτῇ οἱ κωμάζοντες ἐπὶ τῶν ἁμαξῶν τοὺς ἀπαντῶντας ἔσκωπτόν τε καὶ
ἐλοιδόρουν. τὸ δ’ αὐτὸ καὶ τοῖς Ληναίοις ὕστερον ἐποίουν.
It follows, therefore, that the Anthesteria, the ἀρχαιότερα Διονύσια of
Thucydides, cannot be identified with the Lenaea, and that whatever may
be proved from Thucydides as to the site of the temple ἐν Λίμναις, in
which the former were partly celebrated, nothing follows in reference to
the Lenaeum.
(B) Aristoph. Ran. 211 sqq.:
λιμναῖα κρηνῶν τέκνα,
ξύναυλον ὕμνων βοὰν
φθεγξώμεθ’, εὔγηρυν ἐμὰν ἀοιδάν,
κοὰξ κοάξ,
ἣν ἀμφὶ Νυσήιον
Διὸς Διόνυσον ἐν
Λίμναισιν ἰαχήσαμεν,
ἡνίχ’ ὁ κραιπαλόκωμος
τοῖς ἱεροῖσι Χύτροισι
χωρεῖ κατ’ ἐμὸν τέμενος λαῶν ὄχλος.
The fact that the play was produced at the Lenaea (B.C. 405) cannot
possibly be used to prove that the Lenaea and the Chutroi, at which the
‘Frogs’ profess to have raised their hymn to Dionysus (in the _past_, it
is to be noticed), were the same festival.
(C) Pseudo-Dem. in Neaer. §§ 73 sqq.: καὶ αὕτη ἡ γυνὴ ὑμῖν ἔθυε τὰ ἄρρητα
ἱερὰ ὑπὲρ τῆς πόλεως, καὶ εἶδεν ἃ οὐ προσῆκεν αὐτὴν ὁρᾶν ξένην οὖσαν, καὶ
τοιαύτη οὖσα εἰσῆλθεν οἷ οὐδεὶς ἄλλος Ἀθηναίων τοσούτων ὄντων εἰσέρχεται
ἀλλ’ ἢ ἡ τοῦ βασιλέως γυνή, ἐξώρκωσέ τε τὰς γεραρὰς τὰς ὑπηρετούσας
τοῖς ἱεροῖς, ἐξεδόθη δὲ τῷ Διονύσῳ γυνή.... § 76: καὶ τοῦτον τὸν νόμον
γράψαντες ἐν στήλῃ λιθίνῃ ἔστησαν ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ τοῦ Διονύσου παρὰ τὸν βωμὸν
ἐν Λίμναις (καὶ αὕτη ἡ στήλη ἔτι καὶ νῦν ἕστηκεν, ἀμυδροῖς γράμμασιν
Ἀττικοῖς δηλοῦσα τὰ γεγραμμένα).... καὶ διὰ ταῦτα ἐν τῷ ἀρχαιοτάτῳ ἱερῷ
τοῦ Διονύσου καὶ ἁγιωτάτῳ ἐν Λίμναις ἔστησαν, ἵνα μὴ πολλοὶ εἰδῶσι τὰ
γεγραμμένα· ἅπαξ γὰρ τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ ἑκάστου ἀνοίγεται, τῇ δωδεκάτῃ τοῦ
Ἀνθεστηριῶνος μηνός.... § 78: =ὅρκος γεραρῶν.= ἁγιστεύω καὶ εἰμὶ καθαρὰ
καὶ ἁγνὴ ἀπό τε τῶν ἄλλων τῶν οὐ καθαρευόντων καὶ ἀπ’ ἀνδρὸς συνουσίας,
καὶ τὰ Θεοίνια καὶ τὰ Ἰοβάκχεια γεραίρω τῷ Διονύσῳ κατὰ τὰ πάτρια καὶ ἐν
τοῖς καθήκουσι χρόνοις.
Here there is no hint of the Lenaeum or Lenaea at all.
(D) Paus. i. 20. 3: τοῦ Διονύσου δέ ἐστι πρὸς τῷ θεάτρῳ τὸ ἀρχαιότατον
ἱερόν· δύο δέ εἰσιν ἐντὸς τοῦ περιβόλου ναοὶ καὶ Διόνυσοι, ὅ τε
Ἐλευθερεὺς καὶ ὃν Ἀλκαμένης ἐποίησεν ἐλέφαντος καὶ χρυσοῦ.
(E) Athen. xi. p. 465 a: Φανόδημος δὲ πρὸς τῷ ἱερῷ φησι τοῦ ἐν Λίμναις
Διονύσου τὸ γλεῦκος φέροντας τοὺς Ἀθηναίους ἐκ τῶν πίθων τῷ θεῷ
κιρνάναι, εἶτ’ αὐτοὺς (v. ll. αὐτοῖς, αὐτοί) προσφέρεσθαι· ὅθεν καὶ
Λίμναιον κληθῆναι τὸν Διόνυσον, ὅτι μιχθὲν τὸ γλεῦκος τῷ ὕδατι τότε
πρῶτον ἐπόθη κεκραμένον.
Now it is clear that none of the above passages gives us any assistance
towards the localization of the Lenaeum. Nor do the references to the
Lenaic performances themselves. The festival is called Λήναια (Aristoph.
Ach. 1155; Athen. p. 130 d, &c.): ἐπὶ Ληναίῳ ἀγών (Aristoph. Ach. 504):
ἐπιλήναια Διονύσια (Ath. Pol. c. 57; C. I. A. ii. 834 b and probably
731), and we have such phrases as ἐπὶ Ληναίῳ νικᾶν, διδάσκειν, &c.: but
in none of these cases is there any hint of the Λίμναι (e.g. Plat. Prot.
327 d; Dem. Meid. § 10).
For what reasons, then, drawn from literary evidence, has it been assumed
that the Lenaea and the Anthesteria (partly held ἐν Λίμναις) were
identical?
(1) The passage of Athenaeus above quoted has been compared with Anon.
de Comoed. αʹ. l. 6 ff. (Kaibel. Fr. Com. p. 7) τὴν αὐτὴν (sc. τὴν
κωμῳδίαν) δὲ καὶ τρυγῳδίαν φασὶ διὰ τὸ τοῖς εὐδοκιμοῦσιν ἐπὶ τῷ Ληναίῳ
γλεῦκος δίδοσθαι, ὅπερ ἐκάλουν τρύγα, ἢ ὅτι μήπω προσωπείων ηὑρημένων
τρυγὶ διαχρίοντες τὰ πρόσωπα ὑπεκρίνοντο. But the two passages refer to
entirely different ceremonies. That of which Athenaeus speaks was part
of the Choes, the first drinking of the new wine at the Anthesteria. The
second refers to the prize of a bottle of new wine given to successful
poets at the Lenaea; it is a conjectural explanation of the name
τρυγῳδία. There is nothing whatever to show that the passages refer to
ceremonies in any way connected, except the use of the word γλεῦκος in
both.
(2) Hesychius: λίμναι· ἐν Ἀθήναις [ἇς] τόπος ἀνειμένος Διονύσῳ, ὅπου τὰ
λαία ἤγετο. Editors generally, following Musurus, emend to Λήναια, but
this is not proof. The true reading may be Λιμναῖα.
(3) The one passage which can be treated seriously is a Schol. on
Aristoph. Ach. 961, explaining the origin of the Choes: εἰς τὴν
ἑορτὴν τῶν Χοῶν· ἐπετελεῖτο δὲ Πυανεψιῶνος ὀγδόῃ· οἱ δὲ Ἀνθεστηριῶνος
⟨δω⟩δεκάτῃ. φησὶ δὲ Ἀπολλόδωρος Ἀνθεστήρια καλεῖσθαι κοινῶς τὴν ὅλην
ἑορτὴν Διονύσῳ ἀγομένην, κατὰ μέρος δὲ Πιθοιγίαν Χόας Χύτραν. καὶ αὖθις.
ὅτι Ὀρέστης μετὰ τὸν φόνον εἰς Ἀθήνας ἀφικόμενος (ἦν δὲ ἑορτὴ Διονύσου
Ληναίου), ὡς μὴ γένοιτο ὁμόσπονδος ἀπεκτονὼς τὴν μητέρα ἐμηχανήσατο
τοιόνδε τι Πανδίων ... καὶ ἀπ’ ἐκείνου Ἀθηναίοις ἑορτὴ ἐνομίσθη οἱ Χόες.
This passage as it stands undoubtedly represents the Choes as instituted
to form part of a festival of Dionysus Lenaeus. But our suspicions are
aroused when we find that the other versions of the same story make no
allusion to Dionysus Lenaeus. The corresponding expression in Schol. ad
Aristoph. Eq. 95 (which Rutherford transfers to Ach. 961) is κατέλαβεν
δὲ αὐτὸν (sc. τὸν Πανδίονα) εὐωχίαν τινα δημοτελῆ ποιοῦντα. (Other
versions are Athen. x. p. 437 b; Plut. Quaest Symp. p. 613 b and p. 643
a; Schol. Tzetzae ad Lycophr. 1374; Suidas s.v. Χόες.) It is at least
probable, therefore, that the parenthesis ἦν δὲ ἑορτὴ Διονύσου Ληναίου is
an erroneous gloss by the compiler of the first-quoted scholium, whose
state of mind in regard to the facts concerning the festivals mentioned
is sufficiently indicated by the early part of the scholium. Rutherford
has made plain the unreliability of the scholiasts on Aristophanes,
and this single passage is of no value when compared with the weight
of evidence against the identification of the two festivals. Nilsson
(l.c., p. 57) may be right in his suggestion that Ληναίου is an error
for Λιμναίου. ΛΗΝΑΙΟΥ and ΛΙΜΝΑΙΟΥ are very much alike, and the latter,
being less familiar, might easily be changed into the former. Athen.
xi. 465 a (quoted above), quoting Phanodemus, mentions Λιμναῖος as a
name of Dionysus, especially connected with the Anthesteria. But in fact
the emendation, though highly probable, is needless so far as the case
against identifying the festivals is concerned. I do not notice some
other passages cited by Gilbert in support of the identification, because
so far as I can discover no one does or would now so use them: in any
case Nilsson’s reply is sufficient.
II. With regard to the archaeological evidence adduced by Dörpfeld (Ath.
Mitth. 1895, Griech. Theat. p. 7) and Miss Harrison, it seems enough to
say that though the precinct discovered by the former, and identified by
them with the precinct ἐν Λίμναις, contains the remains of a ληνός, this
does not itself prove that it was a precinct of Dionysus Lenaeus, much
less that it was the Lenaeum for which we are looking. If it were the
precinct of Dionysus Lenaeus it might contain a ληνός (though this is not
necessary); but to argue the converse is quite fallacious. Nor does the
existence of other ληνοί in the neighbourhood help the argument. There is
some plausibility, indeed, in the idea that the Lenaeum may have been a
place or district in which there were many ληνοί, but (1) it is certainly
not proved that Dörpfeld’s precinct was the temple ἐν Λίμναις, and so,
even if it were the Lenaeum, the two temples would not necessarily be
identified, and (2) it is very probable that the title Λήναιος is not
derived from ληνός at all. We will first deal with these two points
before discussing such positive evidence as there is for the site of the
Lenaeum.
(1) As to the temple ἐν Λίμναις, the first important piece of evidence
as to the site is the passage of Thucydides, and next the passages
of pseudo-Dem. in Neaeram and Pausanias, all quoted above. To take
Thucydides first. The most natural and obvious interpretation, the one
which a reader would assume if not on the look out for difficulties,
would take πρὸς τοῦτο τὸ μέρος as = πρὸς τὸ ὑπ’ αὐτὴν πρὸς νότον μάλιστα
τετραμμένον. It cannot indeed be said that it would be _impossible_ for
it to mean ‘near this original city’ (including the acropolis and the
land south of it); but, as Prof. E. Gardner points out (Ancient Athens,
p. 144), one would expect πρὸς νότῳ (or πρὸς τούτῳ τῷ μέρει) in such a
case; and such an interpretation gives us no reason why Thucydides should
have mentioned the south at all. On the most natural interpretation then
of Thucydides the temple ἐν Λίμναις was to the south of the acropolis (or
SW.), not, like Dörpfeld’s precinct, on the WNW. Pausanias, moreover,
says that the ἀρχαιότατον ἱερόν of Dionysus was πρὸς τῷ θεάτρῳ. (ἱερόν
as Carroll points out (Class. Rev. July, 1905) often means the whole
precinct, and not merely the shrine or sanctuary; several shrines may
be included in one precinct.) Carroll reminds us (l.c.) that ‘Fischbach
(Wiener Stud. xv. pp. 161-91) has shown conclusively that Pausanias was
thoroughly acquainted with Thucydides, and made extensive use of the
historian in his description of Athens; so much that he appropriates
words, phrases, and terms of expression found in Thucydides. These
stylistic resemblances exclude the acceptance of an intermediate channel.
Pausanias had also the benefit of a tradition handed down by local guides
respecting important sites. Hence when he makes a statement manifestly
based on Thucydides, the presumption is that he understood his authority
and interpreted him correctly.’ Now in the present case it is admitted
that Pausanias had Thucydides before him; and when Thucydides speaks
of the ἀρχαιότερα Διονύσια as celebrated at the temple ἐν Λίμναις, and
when the pseudo-Demosthenes (l.c.), a connecting link, speaks of the
ἐν Λίμναις as the ἀρχαιότατον ἱερόν of Dionysus, it is infinitely more
natural to suppose that Pausanias also, speaking of the ἀρχαιότατον
ἱερόν, refers to the precinct ἐν Λίμναις, and that therefore the temple
ἐν Λίμναις was πρὸς τῷ θεάτρῳ, than with Wilamowitz (Hermes, xxi) to
construct a theory of clumsy mistakes on Pausanias’ part. Of course, for
the reasons given by Wilamowitz, the ἐν Λίμναις was not the same as the
theatre or temple of Dionysus Eleuthereus, but it may well have been
within the same ἱερόν, the same sacred precinct, or quite close to it, on
the SW. of the acropolis.
Now Miss Harrison (l.c., p. 83) writes that ‘Thucydides himself seems to
warn us. He seems to say, “not that precinct which you all know so well
and think so much of, not that theatre where year by year you all go,
but an earlier and more venerable place, and, that there be no mistake,
the place where you go on the 12th day of Anthesterion, &c.”’: and she
concludes that Pausanias was wrong in saying that the oldest sanctuary of
Dionysus was πρὸς τῷ θεάτρῳ. Thucydides, she seems to argue, would not
have been at such pains to distinguish the two ‘hiera’ if they had been
close to each other. But (if he is really intending to distinguish them)
this may just as well have been because they _were_ close to each other
and might be confused. However, so far as this passage goes, the theatre
may or may not have been near the oldest sanctuary; Thucydides would not
have any reason to think of the theatre _in either case_, for the simple
reason that it was not old enough to add anything to his argument, and
any mention of it would have been irrelevant and confusing.
The most natural conclusion then from the words of Thucydides and
Pausanias is that the temple ἐν Λίμναις was near the theatre, and not
in Dörpfeld’s precinct to the WNW. of the acropolis. (In spite of Miss
Harrison it seems that the other temples mentioned by Thucydides can be
accommodated with sites at least as well on the view here taken as on
that taken by Dörpfeld, and I should say very much better. See Bates
(Trans. Amer. Phil. Assoc, vol. 30); E. Gardner (l.c.); Farnell (Class.
Rev. 1900, &c.).)
I pass on to the attempt to identify the ἐν Λίμναις with Dörpfeld’s
precinct on the evidence of pseudo-Demosthenes. The passage gives the
oath taken by the γεραραί or attendants at the ceremony on the 12th of
Anthesterion. They swear that they celebrate (or will celebrate, though
I cannot find any authority for the reading γεραρῶ) the Theoinia and
Iobaccheia in the customary manner and at the customary times. Therefore,
Miss Harrison seems to wish us to argue, the Iobaccheia took place like
the ceremony on the 12th of Anthesterion in the ἐν Λίμναις, and the
Iobacchic inscription discovered in Dörpfeld’s precinct proves this
precinct to be the place of the Iobaccheia, and therefore to be the ἐν
Λίμναις. This is simply a case of _non sequitur_. Suppose a ceremony of
the English Church which required of its attendants a solemn declaration,
‘I am (or, I will be) a regular communicant,’ it could not be inferred
that the Communion Service was part of the ceremony, or took place at the
same spot. Even, therefore, if a Baccheion has been found, guaranteed
by the inscription (and of this there is no doubt), there is nothing to
prove either that it, or any older building beneath it, is the temple
ἐν Λίμναις, or that the third-century inscription on the pillar by
the altar is the representative of the far older στήλη by the altar ἐν
Λίμναις mentioned by the pseudo-Demosthenes. Prof. Ernest Gardner also
points out (l.c., p. 113) that the Iobaccheia mentioned in the oath
cannot be the same as the rites of the Iobacchi of the inscription, for
‘the one is a state ceremony, the other a private one; and, moreover,
the Iobaccheia are not among the festivals which the Iobacchi celebrate,
and of which we have a complete list’ (see Roberts and Gardner, Greek
Epigraphy, ii. pp. 236 ff.). The fact that the lower building contains
a wine-press and places for an altar and stelae does not prove that it
was the ἐν Λίμναις: it proves at most that it was an old Βακχεῖον, like
the one above it. There is no proof at all of the crucial point—that the
Iobaccheia were celebrated only, or celebrated at all, in the temple ἐν
Λίμναις: Dörpfeld’s precinct is probably only one of the many Βακχεῖα
which (as Prof. E. Gardner, l.c., notes) must have existed in Athens,
and the practice of setting up stelae was too general to allow of any
argument being drawn from the one found. On the whole, the statement
‘I celebrate (or, will celebrate) the Iobaccheia at the proper times’
suggests that the reference is to some time _not_ the present, and
that the Iobaccheia are quite distinct from the ceremony of the 12th
of Anthesterion. The nature of the enclosure surrounding Dörpfeld’s
precinct also admits of many explanations besides the one Miss Harrison
offers. Perhaps if it _was_ the ἐν Λίμναις, only open once a year and
kept strictly secret, it would be carefully enclosed, and would have
only a small door, and would contain no votive offerings; but to argue
the converse is simply bad reasoning. Since then Dörpfeld’s precinct
was probably _not_ the temple ἐν Λίμναις, the place of the Anthesteria,
it gives us no ground for identifying the sites or the ceremonies of
the Anthesteria and the Lenaea; and we have seen that the fact that it
contains a ληνός is quite insufficient to prove that the precinct was the
Lenaeum. So that the discovery of the precinct, interesting as it is in
itself, throws no light whatever on the problem before us—the site of the
Lenaeum.
(2) As regards the derivation of the title Λήναιος, the form of the
word suggests derivation from a feminine λήνη, not a masculine ληνός,
and this view finds support on other grounds from Ribbeck (Anfänge und
Entwickelung des Dionysos-Kult in Attika, p. 13); Farnell (Class. Rev.
1900), and Nilsson (l.c., pp. 111 ff.). Shortly, the reasons for the
derivation from λήνη are as follows. Hesychius gives us λῆναι· βάκχαι·
Ἀρκάδες: and Ribbeck, comparing this with Odyssey xix. 230 ὁ μὲν (sc.
κύων) λάε νεβρὸν ἀπάγχων, suggests that the root is λαϝ, ‘tear,’ and
that the λῆναι were bacchants of the mountains who rent a fawn in their
ecstasy. We find also the verb ληναΐζειν. If this is so, the Lenaea
probably at first included orgiastic rites, and it is significant in this
connexion that there were mysteries connected with Lenaea at Myconos; and
it may be added that in C. I. A. 834 b the fact that expenditure for the
Lenaea appears in the accounts of the ἐπιστάται Ἐλευσινόθεν has by some
been interpreted as pointing in the same direction, and suggesting in
connexion with the Lenaea mystic rites having reference to the fertility
of the ground. If so, the derivation from ληνός must give way; it is
in any case uncertain, though perhaps it was the popular derivation in
ancient times. It does not, however, seem to me to follow necessarily (as
Dr. Farnell appears to think) that because both the Anthesteria and the
Lenaea involved secret rites, they were even probably the same festival.
The arguments given by Nilsson and others, and partly reproduced above,
are a sufficient reply.
III. Finally, we have to ask, what positive evidence have we for the site
of the Lenaeum?
(1) It was in the ἀγορά. This seems to be a legitimate inference from two
passages of Photius, viz. ληναῖον· περίβολος μέγας Ἀθήνησιν ἐν ᾧ τοὺς
ἀγῶνας ἦγον πρὸ τοῦ τὸ θέατρον οἰκοδομηθῆναι ὀνομάζοντες ἐπὶ Ληναίῳ.
ἔστιν δὲ ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ ἱερὸν Διονύσου Ληναίου (so practically Hesych.
s.v. ἐπὶ Ληναίῳ ἀγών), and ἴκρια· τὰ ἐν τῇ ἀγορᾷ ἀφ’ ὧν ἐθεῶντο τοὺς
Διονυσιακοὺς ἀγῶνας πρὶν ἢ κατασκευασθῆναι τὸ ἐν Διονύσου θέατρον. Again,
Schol. ad Dem. de Cor. § 129 describes τὸ κλίσιον τὸ πρὸς τῷ καλαμίτῃ
ἥρωϊ as ἐν ἀγορᾷ, while the ἱερόν of the hero is said to be πρὸς τῷ
Ληναίῳ. Whatever is to be said about the hero, he at any rate serves to
connect the Ληναῖον and the ἀγορά. That there was anciently an orchestra
in the market-place at Athens appears also from Photius, ὀρχήστρα· πρῶτον
ἐκλήθη ἐν τῇ ἀγορᾷ, and Plato, Laws 817 c, speaks of stages erected
in the market-place by tragic poets. Socrates speaks of book-shops in
the orchestra (Plato, Apol. 26 E). But the site of the ἀγορά itself is
still so much disputed that we are left in uncertainty. The statement of
Timaeus, Lex. Plat., ὀρχήστρα τόπος ἐπιφάνης εἰς πανήγυριν ἔνθα Ἁρμοδίου
καὶ Ἀριστογείτονος εἰκόνες, does not really help, as the position of
these statues is itself disputed. It may have been at the NE. or the
NW. corner of the acropolis. We have to be content therefore with the
information that the old Lenaic performances took place in a temporary
wooden theatre in (or by) the market-place—wherever this was, and that
the particular spot in (or by) the market-place was the Lenaeum, a
περίβολος μέγας.
(2) The Scholia on Aristophanes twice over state that the Lenaea took
place ἐν ἀγροῖς. Schol. ad Aristoph. Ach. 504 reads οὑπὶ Ληναίῳ τ’ ἀγών·
ὁ τῶν Διονυσίων ἀγὼν ἐτελεῖτο δὶς τοῦ ἔτους, τὸ μὲν πρῶτον ἔαρος ἐν
ἄστει, ὅτε καὶ οἱ φόροι Ἀθήνησιν ἐφέροντο, τὸ δὲ δεύτερον ἐν ἀγροῖς ὁ ἐπὶ
Ληναίῳ λεγόμενος, ὅτε ξένοι οὐ παρῆσαν Ἀθήνησι· χειμὼν γὰρ λοιπὸν ἦν: and
Schol. id. 202 ἄξω τὰ καὶ ἀγρούς· τὰ Λήναια λεγόμενα. ἔνθεν τὰ Λήναια
καὶ ὁ ἐπιλήναιος ἀγὼν τελεῖται τῷ Διονύσῳ· Λήναιον γάρ ἐστιν ἐν ἀγροῖς
ἱερὸν τοῦ Διονύσου· διὰ τὸ πλεκτοὺς ἐνταῦθα γεγονέναι, ἢ διὰ τὸ πρῶτον
ἐν τούτῳ τῷ τόπῳ ληνὸν τεθῆναι. Μένανδρος· τραγῳδὸς ἦν ἀγών, Διονύσια.
So also Steph. Byz. Λήναιος· ἀγὼν Διονύσου ἐν ἀγροῖς ἀπὸ τῆς ληνοῦ·
Ἀπολλόδωρος ἐν τρίτῳ χρονικῶν. But the confusion of these remarks is
plain (see Nilsson, l.c. 78), and when the Scholia on Aristophanes which
comment on the Dionysiac festivals are taken altogether, it is clear that
no consistent view is to be found in them and no confidence is to be
placed in them. It is enough to note that Schol. ad Ar. Ach. 378 places
the Lenaea in autumn. The Scholiasts’ ἐν ἀγροῖς is no doubt due to the
need of distinguishing the Lenaea from the Dionysia ἐν ἄστει, properly
so called in opposition, not to the Lenaea, but to the rural Dionysia.
Religious nomenclature is not so consistent that we can assume that all
the Dionysia except the festival named ἐν ἄστει were once ἐν ἀγροῖς, but
it is still possible that the Lenaeum was once outside the walls, and
afterwards came to be included in their circuit. Hesychius (s.v. ἐπὶ
Ληναίῳ ἀγών) describes it as ἐν τῷ ἄστει.
M. Foucart (Le Culte de Dionysos en Attique, p. 105) thinks that he has
found an indication of the site in C. I. A. IV. i. p. 66, in part of an
inscription which runs, τὸ δὲ ψήφισμα τόδε ... ἀναγράψας ὁ γραμματεὺς ὁ
τῆς βουλῆς ἐν στήλῃ λιθίνῃ καταθέτω ἐν τῷ Νηλείῳ παρὰ τὰ ἴκρια, and he
attempts (l.c., p. 109) to fix the site of this Neleion. But his proof
that παρὰ τὰ ἴκρια means ‘by the Lenaean theatre’ is very weak.
APPENDIX D
The following extracts are from a series of inscriptions containing the
accounts of the priests of Apollo at Delos. These priests had charge of
the various public buildings in the island, including the theatre. The
part of their accounts which refers to the theatre is of great interest,
because of the light which it throws on the theatrical architecture of
the time. A collection of the notices concerning the theatre is given by
Homolle in Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, 1894, pp. 161 ff. The
most important passages are given below.
290 B.C. τοῖς τὴν σκηνὴν ἐργολαβήσασι καὶ τὸ προσκήνιον ΗΗΗΗΔ.
282 B.C. Ἡρακλείδῃ εἰς τὸ προσκήνιον γράψαντι πίνακας δύο μισθὸς δραχμαὶ
𐅂𐅂𐅂Ι· Ἀντιδότῳ τοῦ προσκηνίου γρά[ψαν]τι πίνακας δύο . . . . . . . . . .
. . Θεοδότῳ πίνακα εἰς τὸ προσκήνιον ποιήσαντι μισθὸς δραχμαὶ ΔΔΔ· εἰς
τοῦτο κατε[χρήσθη ξύλον] ἐλάτινον τῶν ὑπαρχόντων . . . . . ἀπὸ τούτων
ἠλεί[ψα]μεν τὰς θύρας πάσας . . . . . . καὶ ὅσα ἔδει τῆς σκηνῆς τῆς ἐν
τῷ θεάτρῳ.
281 B.C. τοὺς πίνακας εἰς τὸ θέατρον ἀνενέγκασι ΙΙΙ . . . . . . . χαλκοῦ
εἰς τὴν σκηνὴν μνᾶς ΙΙ.
279 B.C. (δραχμὰς) ἃς ἐξέτεισε Ἀρίγνωτος Ἀντιπάτρου ὑπὲρ τῆς ἐγγύης
ἧς ἠγγύητο Δίαιτον Ἀπολλοδώρου τῆς τοῦ θεάτρου περιοικοδομίας τὸ καθ’
αὑτὸν μέρος . . . . . . τορνίσκον εἰς τὸ θέατρον ἐργασαμένῳ Ἀντιγόνῳ
Καΐκου, παρέχοντι αὐτῷ πάντα εἰς τὸ ἔργον πλὴγ ξύλων, μισθὸς . . . . .
. . τοῦ θεάτρου τὴν ὀρχήστραν καὶ τοὺς ὁλκοὺς ἀνακαθάραντι καὶ τὸν χοῦν
ἐξενέγκασι μισθωτοῖς, ἀρχιτέκτονος ἐγδόντος, μισθὸς 𐅃𐅂𐅂 . . . . . . . .
. . τῆς σκηνῆς τὸ τέγος καταλείψαντι Ἕρμωνι Δ𐅂𐅂 . . . . . . . εἰς τὸ
[λογε]ῖον τῆς σκηνῆς (ξύλον). . . .
276 B.C. [ἐργο]λάβαις τοῦ θεάτρου τῶν ὁλκῶν τὴν δευτέραν δόσιν Χ𐅅.
274 B.C. [ἀγαγοῦσι εἰς] τὸ θέατρον ἀπὸ τοῦ νεωκορίου λίθους οὓς εἰργάσατο
. . . . . . . συστήσαντι τὸ παρασκήνιον . . . . . . . . . . . [ἀπενέγκαντι
εἰς] τὸ θέατρον λίθους τῶν ἐκ Τήνου δύο καὶ ἐκ τοῦ σταδίου . . . . . . .
. . ἐγλαβόντι τὴν πρισμὴν τῶν στοῶν τῶν εἰς τὰς σκηνάς . . . . . τῷ τοὺς
ἥλους ἐγλαβόντι [τοὺς εἰς τὰς σκ]ηνὰς καὶ τὰ παρασκήνια τὴμ μνᾶν 𐅂𐅂
ἀπεστησάμεθα κατὰ τὴν συγγραφὴν μνᾶς τριάκοντα ἑπτὰ μετὰ τοῦ ἀρχιτέκτονος
καὶ τῶν ἐπιμελητῶν . . . . . . . . Θεοδήμῳ τῷ ἐγλαβόντι ποιῆσαι τὴν σκηνὴν
τὴν μέσην καὶ τὰ παρασκήνια τὰ κάτω δραχμῶν ΗΗΗΗ𐅄ΔΔΔΔ𐅃𐅂𐅂𐅂𐅂 . . . . . . . .
Ἐπικλύτῃ τῷ ἐγλαβόντι τὰς σκηνὰς τὰς παλαιὰς . . . καὶ ἐπισκευάσαι καὶ τὰς
ἐπάνω σκηνὰς καινὰς ποιῆσαι δύο καὶ τὰ παρασκήνια τὰ ἄνω καινὰ ποιῆσαι δύο
καὶ τοῖς παλαιοῖς πίναξι τῶν παρασκηνίων περι . . . σαι καὶ τὰς ἐξώστρας
καὶ τὴν κλίμακα καὶ τοὺς βαθμοὺς ἐπισκευάσαι 𐅄ΔΔΔ𐅃𐅂𐅂 . . . . . . . . τοῖς
ἐγλαβοῦσι γράψαι τὰς σκηνὰς καὶ τὰ παρασκήνια τά τε ἐπάνω καὶ τὰ ὑποκάτω
δραχμῶν ΧΧ𐅅 . . . . . . . . . . τῷ ἐγλαβόντι . . . . σαι τὸ παρασκήνιον
τὸ ἐν τῷ θεάτρῳ δραχμῶν ΗΗΗ𐅄ΔΔΔΔ . . . . . . . . . Θρασυλέῳ τῷ ἐγλαβόντι
ἐργάσασθαι τὸ ἐπιστύ[λιον] . . . . \ΙΟΥ . . . . . . Ἀρχέλᾳ . . .
καταχρίσαντι τὸ τεῖχος τῆς σκηνῆς κατὰ τὴν συγγραφὴν ἀπέδομεν τὸ γινόμενον
ἀρχιτέκτονος κελεύοντος καὶ τῶν ἐπιμελητῶν.
269 B.C. τὴν σκηνὴν τὴν ἐν τῷ θεάτρῳ ἀνακαθάρασι 𐅂Ι . . . . . . . . . .
παρὰ Τέλλωνος ἀτράκτους δύο ὥστε κλίμα[κα] εἰς τὸ θέατρον 𐅂𐅂𐅂𐅂 . . . . .
. . . . .Θεοδήμῳ κλιμακτῆρας παρασχόντι καὶ κατασκευάσαντι 𐅂𐅂𐅂ΙΙΙ . . . .
. . . . . Διονυσίῳ ἐγλαβόντι τὴν ὀρχήστραν τοῦ θεάτρου καταχρῖσαι τὴν
πρώτην δόσιν ἔδομεν . . . . . . . . . Σωσιμένει Ἀντιγόνου τῶν λίθων τῶν
τῆς εἰς τὸν θησαυρὸν (?) ἔδομεν . . . . . . Ἀντίκῳ τῆς διόδου τῆς ἐν τῷ
θεάτρῳ . . . . . . . . Ἀντίκῳ Καΐκου ἐγλαβόντι καθάραι τὸν τόπον τῇ διόδῳ
τῇ ἐν τῷ θεάτρῳ πάντα κύκλῳ ἔδομεν . . . . . . . . . Ἀριστοκλεῖ καὶ
Καλλιμένει τῆς λιθείας τῆς εἰς τὸ παρασκήνιον ἐκ ποδῶν πεντακοσίων
ἔδομεν . . . . . . . . . . . . Φιλανδρίδει Παρίῳ τῆς [λιθείας] τῆς εἰς
τὰς κρηπῖδας [τὰς] ἐν τῷ θεάτρῳ ἐγλαβόντι πόδας χιλίους ἔδομεν . . . . . .
. . . . λίθων τῶν εἰς τὸ θέατρον . . . . . . . . .
250 B.C. τὸ θέατρον ἀνακαθάραι . . . . . . . . . κλεῖς καὶ χελώνιον ἐπὶ
τὸν Ἰνωπὸν καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ Ἡράκλειον καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν σκηνήν . . . . . . . . . . .
Παρμένοντι ἀνακαθάραντι τὴν ἐπαγωγίδα τὴν ἐν τῷ θεάτρῳ . . . . . . .
Ὠφελίωνι τοὺς κρουνοὺς διακαθάραντι τοὺς ἐν τῇ σκηνῇ . . . . . . . . .
Νεογένει ἐπιγράψαντι ἐπὶ τὸ προσκήνιον . . . . . . . . . . . τῆς λιθείας
τῆς εἰς τὸ θέατρον ἐξέδομεν πόδας διακοσίους, τὸμ πόδα δραχμῶν 𐅃𐅂𐅂 . . . .
. . . . . . . . τῆς ἐργασίας τοῦ ἐπιθεάτρου ἐξέδομεν πόδας διακοσίους . .
. . . . . . . Εὐκλείδει ἐργολαβήσαντι τὸν ὀρθοστάτην καὶ τὸν καταληπτῆρα
θεῖναι καὶ ἐργάσασθαι ἐν τῷ ἐπιθεάτρῳ . . . .
180 B.C. [ξύλον . . . . κατεχρήσθη εἰς] τὴν κατασκευὴν τῶν πινάκων τῶν
ἐπὶ τὸ λογεῖον.
The earliest notices refer to the old wooden structure. The erection of a
stone theatre was apparently begun about 275 B.C., and completed in the
course of the third century. A large part of this theatre still remains.
But the stone proscenium of the Vitruvian type, of which the foundations
are preserved, was probably a later work constructed in the second
century B.C. This proscenium is not enclosed by side-wings (παρασκήνια),
but open at both ends (see Fig. 12). But the inscription for 269 B.C.
expressly mentions τῆς λιθείας τῆς εἰς τὸ παρασκήνιον. Hence it is
probable that in the stage-buildings erected in the middle of the third
century the stage was of wood, and was terminated at each end by stone
side-wings. In the second century, when a regular stone proscenium was
erected, these side-wings were removed (see Dörpfeld, Griech. Theater, p.
148).
The word σκηνή is used in the inscriptions in two senses. It denotes (1)
the stage-buildings as a whole, e.g. τοὺς κρουνοὺς τοὺς ἐν τῇ σκηνῇ, (2)
the wall at the rear of the stage, or the boards by which that wall was
covered, e.g. τὴν σκηνὴν τὴν μέσην καὶ τὰ παρασκήνια, τὰς σκηνὰς καὶ τὰ
παρασκήνια. This wall or boarding is called ἡ μέση σκηνή as opposed to
the παρασκήνια on each side, and αἱ ἐπάνω σκηναί in opposition to the
προσκήνιον underneath (so Homolle, l.c., p. 165). Apparently the whole
building was only two stories, and the back-scene rose one story above
the stage. Bethe, however (Prolegomena, p. 234), suggests that there were
three stories; that ἡ μέση σκηνή denoted the middle story, and αἱ ἐπάνω
σκηναί the top story, of the back-scene; the bottom story being concealed
behind the προσκήνιον. But as only two stories are mentioned in connexion
with the side-wings (τὰ παρασκήνια τά τε ἐπάνω καὶ τὰ ὑποκάτω), it seems
unlikely that the central part of the building should have had more than
two.
Some of the technical terms are new. The lines of seats in the early
theatre are called ὁλκοί, as resembling furrows dug in the slope of the
auditorium. The horizontal passage dividing the upper belt (διάζωμα)
of seats from the lower is the δίοδος. The word περιοικοδομία seems to
denote the wall by which the outside of the auditorium was enclosed and
supported where necessary. The ἐπιθέατρον must have been the upper belt
of seats. The ὀρθοστάτης and καταληπτήρ are explained by Homolle as a
sort of balustrade and coping by which the top of the auditorium was
finished off. The κλῖμαξ and κλιμακτῆρες may have been the steps leading
up from orchestra to stage; but this is not certain. See on these points
Homolle, l.c., pp. 163 ff.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Dem. Androt. § 68, and schol. ad loc.; Meid. § 10, &c.
[2] Dem. Meid. §§ 51-3.
[3] See below, p. 9.
[4] C. I. A. iii. 240-384. Hesych. s.v. νεμήσεις θέας.
[5] Dem. Meid. §§ 8-10.
[6] Ibid. § 180.
[7] Ibid. § 178.
[8] See esp. Aristoph. Ran. 1008 ff., 1054 ff.; Plat. Rep. 598 D, E.
[9] Plut. Solon, p. 95 B. ἀρχομένων δὲ τῶν περὶ Θέσπιν ἤδη τὴν τραγῳδίαν
κινεῖν, καὶ διὰ τὴν καινότητα τοὺς πολλοὺς ἄγοντος τοῦ πράγματος, οὔπω δὲ
εἰς ἅμιλλαν ἐναγώνιον ἐξηγμένου κτλ.
[10] Aristot. Poet. c. v.
[11] For dramatic exhibitions in other parts of Greece, see The Tragic
Drama of the Greeks, p. 436.
[12] Gilbert (Die Festzeiten der attischen Dionysien, 1872) and more
recently Dörpfeld (Das griechische Theater, p. 9) have attempted to
show that the Lenaea was only a part of the Anthesteria, and that the
Anthesteria was only the Athenian counterpart of the Rural Dionysia.
Gilbert was refuted by Schömann, Alterth. ii. 579-99. Wachsmuth, Abhandl.
der Sächs. Gesell. der Wissensch. xviii. p. 33 ff., and Körte, Rhein.
Mus., 1897, p. 168 ff., show that an inscription C. I. A. ii. 834 b
proves that there must have been a considerable interval between the
Lenaea and Anthesteria. It is an account of the sums expended by the
ἐπιστάται Ἐλευσινόθεν in B.C. 329-328. In col. ii. 46 we read ἐπιστάταις
ἐπιλήναια εἰς Διονύσια θῦσαι ΔΔ; in ii. 68, twenty-two lines later, εἰς
Χοὰς δημοσίοις ἱερεῖον κτλ. (The adjective ἐπιλήναιος is also found in
the papyrus of Ath. Pol. c. 57, and the inscription confirms the reading
ἐπιληναίων, which editors alter to ἐπὶ Ληναίῳ). [The whole subject of the
Dionysiac festivals has been investigated afresh by Nilsson (Studia de
Dionysiis Atticis, 1900), who proves at length the separateness of the
four festivals.]
[13] Dem. Meid. § 10.
[14] See below, p. 9.
[15] [See articles on Dionysus in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encycl., and
Preller-Robert, Griech. Mythologie.]
[16] Paus. i. 29; Philostrat. Vit. Soph. p. 549.
[17] Διονύσια τὰ ἐν ἄστει C. I. A. ii. 341, 402, 404; Διονύσια τὰ ἀστικά
Thuc. v. 20; Διονύσια τὰ μεγάλα Athen. Pol. c. 56, C. I. A. ii. 312, 331;
Διονύσια Athen. Pol. c. 56.
[18] This is proved by the inscription on the chief seat at the theatre,
Ἱερέως Διονύσου Ἐλευθερέως (C. I. A. iii. 240).
[19] νίκη ἀστική Diog. Laërt. viii. 90. To produce plays at the City
Dionysia was ἐν ἄστει διδάσκειν Schol. Aristoph. Ran. 67, or εἰς ἄστυ
καθιέναι Arg. ii. Aristoph. Aves: cf. διδασκαλία ἀστική Plut. X Orat. 839
D.
[20] The feast of Asclepius and the Proagon were on the 8th of
Elaphebolion, Aeschin. Ctesiph. § 67; the Proagon took place ‘a few
days’ before the City Dionysia, Schol. ibid.: the City Dionysia cannot
therefore have begun before the 10th. The festival must have terminated
on the 15th, since after it came the Pandia, the next day the ἐκκλησία
ἐν Διονύσου, and the next day, when the first assembly mentioned by
Aeschines and Demosthenes took place, was the 18th. See Aeschin. Ctes. §
68; Fals. Leg. § 61; Dem. Meid. § 8.
[21] Stormy weather sometimes interfered with the proceedings. In the
time of Demetrius a snowfall prevented the procession. Theophr. Char. 3;
Plut. Demetr. p. 894 B.
[22] Aeschin. Ctes. § 43; cf. Dem. Meid. § 74.
[23] Aristoph. Ach. 505, 506; Thuc. v. 23.
[24] The procession must have been on the first day, for (1) in Dem.
Meid. § 10 it comes first in the list of proceedings, (2) it was not till
after the procession was over that the statue was placed in the theatre
to witness the dramatic and dithyrambic contests.
[25] Paus. i. 29. 2, 38. 8; Philostrat. Vit. Soph. p. 549.
[26] Menand. Fragm. 558 (Kock).
[27] Plut. Cupid. Divit. 527 E.
[28] C. I. A. ii. 420, 470, 471.
[29] C. I. A. ii. 471, 741.
[30] Dem. Meid. § 22; Athen. p. 534 C.
[31] Xen. Hipparch. iii. 2.
[32] Philostrat. Vit. Soph. p. 549.
[33] C. I. A. ii. 470, 471. Hence Aristophanes in the Frogs selects
Dionysus as the most experienced of dramatic critics. Cf. also Aristoph.
Eq. 536 θεᾶσθαι λιπαρὸν παρὰ τῷ Διονύσῳ. Late writers (Philostrat. Vit.
Apoll. p. 161; Dio Chrys., orat. 31, p. 631 R) protest against shedding
human blood in gladiatorial combats in the very orchestra visited by the
god Dionysus.
[34] In the lists of victors at the City Dionysia (C. I. A. ii. 971 a-e,
iv. 971 f-h) the contests enumerated are always the same, viz. παίδων,
ἀνδρῶν, κωμῳδῶν, τραγῳδῶν. Cp. Athen. Pol. c. 56 χορηγοὺς τραγῳδοῖς
καθίστησι τρεῖς ... ἔπειτα παραλαβὼν τοὺς χορηγοὺς τοὺς ἐνηνεγμένους ὑπὸ
τῶν φυλῶν εἰς Διονύσια ἀνδράσιν καὶ παισὶν καὶ κωμῳδοῖς κτλ. Dem. Meid.
§ 10 καὶ τοῖς ἐν ἄστει Διονυσίοις ἡ πομπὴ καὶ οἱ παῖδες ⟨καὶ οἱ ἄνδρες⟩
καὶ ὁ κῶμος καὶ οἱ κωμῳδοὶ καὶ οἱ τραγῳδοί. (The words καὶ οἱ ἄνδρες have
obviously fallen out.) Cp. also C. I. A. ii. 553 (list of victors παισὶν
ἢ ἀνδράσιν).
[35] Dem. Meid. § 156 loosely calls the choruses of men αὐληταὶ ἄνδρες,
and the author of the first Argument to the speech, misled by this,
states that there were αὐλητῶν χοροί at the City Dionysia. But other
passages in the speech, e.g. §§ 15, 17, show that the expression means
not that the men were flute-players, but that they sang dithyrambs
accompanied by the flute. See Wieseler, Das Satyrspiel, pp. 46-8.
[36] [Marmor Par. ep. 46. For the archon v. Munro, Class. Rev. xv. p.
357. For choregia v. Capps, Introduction of Comedy to the City Dionysia,
p. 27 ff.]
[37] Schol. Aeschin. Timarch. § 11 ἐξ ἔθους Ἀθηναῖοι [κατέστησαν] κατὰ
φυλὴν πεντήκοντα παίδων χορὸν ἢ ἀνδρῶν, ὥστε γενέσθαι δέκα χορούς, ἐπειδὴ
καὶ δέκα φυλαί. λέγονται δὲ οἱ διθύραμβοι χοροὶ κύκλιοι, καὶ χορὸς
κύκλιος.
[38] Dem. Meid. § 13; Antiphon orat. vi. §§ 12, 13.
[39] Lysias xxi. § 2; Dem. Meid. § 5 τῆς φυλῆς ἀδίκως ἀφαιρεθείσης τὸν
τρίποδα. The choregus of a dithyrambic chorus was said χορηγεῖν τῇ φυλῇ.
Plut. X orat. 835 B ἐχορήγησε κυκλίῳ χορῷ τῇ αὑτοῦ φυλῇ ἀγωνιζομένῃ
διθυράμβῳ: Isaeus v. § 36 οὗτος γὰρ τῇ μὲν φυλῇ εἰς Διονύσια χορηγήσας
τέταρτος ἐγένετο, τραγῳδοῖς δὲ καὶ πυρριχισταῖς ὕστατος. (Bentley’s
emendation, τέταρτος ἐγένετο τραγῳδοῖς, καὶ πυρριχισταῖς ὕστατος makes
Dicaeogenes fourth in the tragic contest, in which there were never more
than three competitors.)
[40] In the time of Aristotle the choregi in comedy were appointed by the
tribes. But this was a late innovation, and produced no change in the
character of the contest. See chap. ii. § 2.
[41] C. I. A. ii. 971 (printed in Appendix B). Ibid. ii. 1234 ff.
[42] Marm. Par. ep. 43 ἀφ’ οὗ Θέσπις ὁ ποιητὴς [ἐφάνη], πρῶτος ὃς ἐδίδαξε
[δρ]ᾶ[μα ἐν ἄ]στ[ει, καὶ ἐ]τέθη ὁ [τ]ράγος [ἆθλον], ἔτη.... The date is
mutilated, but must have fallen between 542 and 520, the preceding and
subsequent epochs. Suidas s.v. Θέσπις (ἐδίδαξε δὲ ἐπὶ τῆς πρώτης καὶ ξʹ
ὀλυμπιάδος) doubtless refers to the same contest, which may therefore be
assigned to B.C. 536-5.
[43] [Capps (The Introduction of Comedy into the City Dionysia) renders
it highly probable that choregia was not introduced until about B.C. 502.]
[44] Suidas s.v. Χοιρίλος. The same lexicon, s.v. Πρατίνας, says that
Pratinas composed fifty plays, of which thirty-two were satyric: but
it is unsafe to draw inferences from this as to relative proportion of
satyric plays and tragedies in these early days, since the numbers may
refer merely to the plays which happened to be preserved in the time of
the grammarians.
[45] Suidas s.v. Πρατίνας.
[46] Arg. Aesch. Persae.
[47] Arg. Aesch. Sept. c. Theb.
[48] Arg. Aesch. Agam.
[49] Args. Eur. Alcest., Med., Hippol.
[50] Aelian Var. Hist. ii. 8; Schol. Aristoph. Ran. 67.
[51] Athen. Pol. c. 56; C. I. A. ii. 972, 973, 975.
[52] Cp. Diog. Laërt. iii. 56. Θρασύλλος δέ φησι καὶ κατὰ τὴν τραγικὴν
τετραλογίαν ἐκδοῦναι αὐτὸν (sc. τὸν Πλάτωνα) τοὺς διαλόγους, οἷον ἐκεῖνοι
τέτρασι δράμασιν ἠγωνίζοντο, Διονυσίοις, Ληναίοις, Παναθηναίοις, Χύτροις,
ὧν τὸ τέταρτον ἦν σατυρικόν· τὰ δὲ τέτταρα δράματα ἐκαλεῖτο τετραλογία.
Thrasyllus was a philosopher of the time of Tiberius. The passage οἷον
... τετραλογία is probably an explanatory interpolation by Diogenes
himself. The statement that the four plays of a tetralogy were performed
at four different festivals is absurd in itself, and abundantly disproved
by inscriptions and other evidence (e.g. Schol. Aristoph. Ran. 67).
[53] Plut. Pericl. p. 154 E.
[54] Plut. l.c.; Id. X orat. 839 D διδασκαλίας ἀστικὰς καθῆκεν ἓξ ... καὶ
ἑτέρας δύο Ληναϊκάς; Anthol. Pal. vii. 37 ἡ δ’ ἐνὶ χερσὶν | κούριμος, ἐκ
ποίης ἥδε διδασκαλίης;
[55] That the word τετραλογία was applied only to a group of four plays
connected in subject is proved by the statement of Suidas (s.v. Σοφοκλῆς)
that Sophocles abandoned the practice of exhibiting ‘tetralogies’,
though we know that he exhibited four plays at a time; and also by the
application of the word by Greek writers to the Oresteia of Aeschylus
(Schol. Aristoph. Ran. 1155), the Pandionis of Philocles (Schol.
Aristoph. Av. 282), the Lycurgeia of Aeschylus (Schol. Aristoph. Thesm.
135), and the Lycurgeia of Polyphradmon (Arg. Aesch. Sept. c. Theb.). All
these were groups of plays on a single subject.
[56] Schol. Aristoph. Ran. 1155 τετραλογίαν φέρουσι τὴν Ὀρεστείαν αἱ
Διδασκαλίαι (i.e. the Διδασκαλίαι of Aristotle). The other passages where
τετραλογία occurs in a dramatic sense are Diog. Laërt. iii. 56, ix. 45;
Schol. Plat. Apol. p. 330; Schol. Aristoph. Ran. 1155, where it is said
that the grammarians Aristarchus and Apollonius disregarded the satyric
plays and spoke only of trilogies; Schol. Av. 282, Thesm. 142; Arg.
Aesch. Sept. c. Theb. τριλογία is found only in Schol. Aristoph. Ran.
1155; Diog. Laërt. iii. 61; Suidas s.v. Νικόμαχος.
[57] Aristoph. Thesm. 135, Ran. 1124. See, on these titles, The Tragic
Drama of the Greeks, p. 114.
[58] [Donaldson, Theatre of the Greeks, p. 118, suggests possible
connexions; but they are highly conjectural.]
[59] [Other critics, however, suppose that the final scene was added
in some later revision of the play, after Sophocles’ Antigone had been
written, or when it became customary to present single plays of Aeschylus
(see below, p. 74), which would often be shorter than those of other
poets, and might therefore be lengthened by the addition of a scene.]
[60] Cp. Hor. Ars Poet. 225 ff.
[61] Suidas s.v. Σοφοκλῆς· καὶ αὐτὸς ἦρξε τοῦ δρᾶμα πρὸς δρᾶμα
ἀγωνίζεσθαι, ἀλλὰ μὴ τετραλογίαν. The words seem to imply that he
exhibited only one play at each festival: but the didascalic records
show that this cannot have been the case. Probably, therefore, Suidas
has misunderstood and misquoted his authority, who meant to say that
Sophocles exhibited not single plays but groups of plays unconnected in
subject. The suggestion of Oehmichen (Philol. Wochenschr., 1887, p. 1058)
that after the reform of Sophocles each poet exhibited one of his plays
on each successive day of the competition, and that this is what Suidas
means, is rendered most improbable by the fact that tetralogies were
still occasionally written; and that Sophocles would have no power, as
poet, to make such a change in the arrangement of the festival.
[62] Schol. Aristoph. Av. 282; Schol. Plat. Apol. p. 330 (Bekk.); Aelian
Var. Hist. ii. 30.
[63] C. I. A., ii. 973 (quoted in Appendix B).
[64] [If the inscription C. I. A. ii. 971 c recorded by Pittakis,
L’ancienne Athènes, p. 168, is reliable, an old tragedy was performed in
B.C. 387-386. The phrase used is παλαιὸν δρᾶμα παρεδίδαξαν οἱ τραγῳδοί:
but the interpretation of this fragment is full of difficulties, see
Wilhelm, Urkunden dramat. Aufführungen in Athen, p. 22 ff. The use of
the expression παρεδίδαξαν (cf. παραχορήγημα) seems to show that at this
date the performance of an old tragedy was exceptional; while in the
inscription recording the years 341, &c., it would seem to be treated as
a regular part of the festival.]
[65] Suidas s.v. Θεοδέκτης; Steph. Byz. s.v. Φάσηλις.
[66] Plut. X Orat. 839 D.
[67] Aristot. Rhet. iii. 11.
[68] See The Tragic Drama of the Greeks, p. 444 ff.: and (for the City
Dionysia in the second century A.D.) cp. C. I. A. iii. 78; Philostr. Vit.
Soph. p. 549; Paus. i. 29, ii. 38, 8.
[69] Aristot. Poet. ch. v. καὶ γὰρ χορὸν κωμῳδῶν ὀψέ ποτε ὁ ἄρχων ἔδωκεν,
ἀλλ’ ἐθελονταὶ ἦσαν.
[70] C. I. A. ii. 971 a (quoted, Appendix B) [B.C. 463 is the latest
possible date of the events referred to in this part of this inscription.
Capps (Introduction of Comedy into City Dionysia) with great probability
dates them 473-472; he fixes the date of the granting of a comic chorus
(whether at the Lenaea or City Dionysia is uncertain) by the archon
at 487, when, according to Suidas s.v. Χιωνίδης, Chionides began to
exhibit; and the date of the first choregia in tragedy at about 502.
This would justify sufficiently Aristotle’s ὀψέ ποτε. Suidas’ date for
Chionides’ first exhibition is not really inconsistent with the Dorian
tradition recorded by Aristotle that Epicharmus was πολλῷ πρότερος
Χιωνίδου καὶ Μάγνητος, since the generally recorded date of the former,
B.C. 488 onwards, is most probably a ‘floruit’ date, based on the time
of his first performances at Syracuse, not the date of the beginning of
his career at Megara Hyblaea, which may have been a good deal earlier.
Capps shows ground for believing that Aristotle and Suidas—the former
directly, the latter perhaps indirectly—obtained their knowledge from the
official records, and are therefore quite reliable. At the head of the
inscription, C. I. A. ii. 971 a, are the words πρῶ]τον κῶμοι ἦσαν τ[ῶν
..., which must originally have formed part of the general heading of
the whole inscription, whose earlier columns are lost. Capps conjectures
(with some reason) that it originally ran ἀπὸ (name of archon) ἐφ’ οὗ
πρῶτον κῶμοι ἦσαν τῶν ἐν ἄστει Διονυσίων οἵδε ἐνίκων. But κῶμοι cannot
mean ‘comedies’, as Köhler and Wilamowitz assumed when they dated the
beginning of choregia in comedy by this inscription. Cf. Wilhelm,
Urkunden dramatischer Aufführungen in Athen, pp. 11 ff, 241 ff.]
[71] Args. Aristoph. Nubes, Pax, Aves.
[72] Arg. Aristoph. Plutus (festival uncertain); Ath. Pol. c. 56 (City
Dionysia); C. I. A. ii. 972 (Lenaea), 975 (City Dionysia). [If C. I. G.
xiv. 1097 is rightly restored and interpreted by Wilhelm, l.c., p. 195
ff., it would seem as if there were five competitors as early as B.C. 434
at the Dionysia; this is very difficult to reconcile with the consistent
mention by the Arguments of three only.]
[73] Arg. Aristoph. Vespae. [The passage, however, is almost certainly
corrupt, and most editors are now agreed that in its existing form,
according to which Philonides brought out both the Προάγων and the
Σφῆκες, it cannot stand; and that even if both plays can have been the
work of Aristophanes, they cannot both have been produced by Philonides.
For the various emendations, vide Kanngiesser, Über die alte komische
Bühne, p. 270; Petersen, Fleck. Jahrb. lxxxv. p. 662; Leo, Rhein. Mus.
xxxiii. p. 404; the introductions to Rogers and van Leeuwen’s editions of
the Wasps; and a brief summary in Excursus I of Starkie’s edition. It is
very doubtful whether there is good evidence for the practice alluded to,
as regards the fifth century B.C.]
[74] C. I. A. ii. 972. [The inscription leaves no room for doubt here,
except for the remote possibility that there may have been two poets of
the name Diodorus. Capps, Amer. Journ. Archaeol., 1900, argues almost
conclusively that the inscription is to be dated 290-288, and not 353,
the date given by Mr. Haigh, and generally accepted until recently.]
[75] C. I. A. ii. 972. [Mr. Haigh wrote 353, but see note on previous
page.]
[76] C. I. A. ii. 975 (quoted, Appendix B). [If Capps is right in dating
the fragment 975 f between B.C. 308 and 290, the practice must have been
begun by that date; see Amer. Journ. Arch., 1900, p. 89 ff., but Wilhelm,
Urkunden dramat. Aufführungen in Athen, p. 68, disputes the date, and
with some reason. See also Wilhelm, ibid., p. 149. The practice is proved
for the early part of the second century by fragment a.]
[77] [The evidence for this is a fragment of an inscription published by
Wilhelm, loc. cit., p. 27 ff., and connecting with C. I. A. ii. 971 h.
See Appendix B. The expression used παλαιὸν δρᾶμα παρεδίδαξαν οἱ κωμῳδοί
(cp. παραχορήγημα), when compared with the expressions used in 975 a,
&c., shows that the performance was exceptional, and the play is not
mentioned; cp. the parallel expressions in the case of tragedy, p. 19,
supra, n. 1.]
[78] C. I. G. 1585, 1587, 2759; Athen. Mitth., 1894, pp. 96, 97; Ἐφημ.
Ἀρχαιολ., 1884, pp. 120, 124, 126; Rangabé, Antiq. Hellén., vol. ii. no.
965.
[79] The fact that inscriptions (C. I. A. 971 a-e, iv. 971 f-h)
and the law of Evegorus, quoted Dem. Meid. § 10, all mention first chorus
of boys, then choruses of men, then comedy, then tragedy, proves nothing,
as there is nothing to show that the contests are being spoken of in
order of performance, rather than in order of relative importance.
[80] Arist. Poet. ch. xxiv. suggests that an epic poem should be shorter
than the old epics, and about equal to that of the tragedies offered at
one hearing (τὸ πλῆθος τῶν τραγῳδιῶν τῶν εἰς μίαν ἀκρόασιν τιθεμένων).
A performance of four tragedies a day would give about 6,000 lines of
tragedy (including satyric drama), while the Iliad contains about 15,000
lines, and the Odyssey about 12,000.
[81] Aristoph. Av. 785 ff. οὐδέν ἐστ’ ἄμεινον οὐδ’ ἥδιον ἢ φῦσαι πτερά.
| αὐτίχ’ ὑμῶν τῶν θεατῶν εἴ τις ἦν ὑπόπτερος, | εἶτα πεινῶν τοῖς χοροῖσι
τῶν τραγῳδῶν ἤχθετο, | ἐκπτόμενος ἂν οὗτος ἠρίστησεν ἐλθὼν οἴκαδε, | κᾆτ’
ἂν ἐμπλησθεὶς ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς αὖθις αὖ κατέπτετο. Müller (Griech. Bühn., p. 322)
and others take ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς to mean generally ‘to us in the theatre’. But
in that case there would be no point in the sentence. There is obviously
a contrast between ὑμεῖς, the spectators, and ἡμεῖς the comic chorus.
The same contrast is emphasized in the previous group of trochaics, vv.
753-68. Lipsius accepts the change of τραγῳδῶν to τρυγῳδῶν (‘the other
comic choruses’ as opposed to ἡμεῖς, the Birds), and infers that all the
comedies were performed in one day by themselves (Ber. der K. S. Ges. der
Wiss. zu Leipzig, philol.-histor. Classe, 1885, p. 417). But the change
is quite gratuitous and makes the whole passage feeble and obscure.
[82] [See p. 69.]
[83] [Either connected with ληνός ‘wine-press’ or λῆναι = βάκχαι, vid.
Appendix C.]
[84] [See Appendix C for authorities and for a discussion of the site of
the Lenaeum and its relation to the temple of Dionysus ἐν Λίμναις.]
[85] [See Appendix C.]
[86] Bekk. Anecd. p. 235, 6; C. I. A. ii. 834 b, col. 2, where the
expenditure on the Lenaea is placed about the middle of the sixth
prytany, i.e. in Gamelion. [Nilsson, Studia de Dionysiis Atticis, pp.
1-37, confirms the date here given, after a very full discussion.]
[87] Plat. Symp. 223 c; Theophrast. Char. 3.
[88] Aristoph. Ach. 501 ff.
[89] Dem. Meid. § 10 καὶ ἡ ἐπὶ Ληναίῳ πομπὴ καὶ οἱ τραγῳδοὶ καὶ οἱ
κωμῳδοί. That there were no dithyrambs at the Lenaea is proved by this
passage, and by C. I. A. ii. 553, which enumerates the festivals at which
dithyrambic choruses competed, viz. City Dionysia, Thargelia, Prometheia,
Hephaesteia. C. I. A. ii. 1367, recording a dithyrambic victory at the
Lenaea, is of comparatively late date.
[90] Suidas s.v. τὰ ἐκ τῶν ἁμαξῶν σκώμματα.
[91] C. I. A. ii. 972 (see Appendix B).
[92] Hence in Diod. Sic. xv. 74 δεδιδαχότος Ληναίοις τραγῳδίαν (of
Dionysius’ victory in 367), the expression διδάσκειν τραγῳδίαν probably
means ‘to compete in the tragic contests’, and implies nothing as to the
number of plays presented. Cf. Plat. Symp. 173 A ὅτε τῇ πρώτῃ τραγῳδίᾳ
ἐνίκησεν Ἀγάθων, ‘won his first tragic victory’.
[93] Athen. p. 217 A.
[94] Diod. Sic. xv. 74; Plut. X Orat. 839 D; C. I. A. ii. 977 b, c (see
Appendix B).
[95] [C. I. A. ii. 1289 shows that tragedy was still performed in B.C.
307-306. This is the last mention of it. (Capps, Amer. Journ. Arch., iv.
p. 76.)]
[96] C. I. A. iii. 1160.
[97] See above, p. 20, note 2.
[98] [Capps (Introduction of Comedy into the City Dionysia, p. 25) shows
that whether the victory of Chionides recorded by Suidas was won at the
Dionysia or Lenaea, there is no reason for doubting the existence of
contests in 487 B.C., on the evidence of inscriptions. C. I. A. ii. 977
d as it stands must have been preceded by another column of names of
victors, which would almost certainly take us back as far; and there was
room for the name of Chionides above that of Magnes in 977 i (Dionysian
victors) in a position which would imply an early date for his first
victory; cp. also Amer. Journ. Philol. xx. pp. 396, 397.]
[99] Arg. to Acharn.
[100] Args. to Acharn., Equit., Vesp., Ran.
[101] See p. 21, note.
[102] [If Capps is right, C. I. A. ii. 975 f proves that old comedies
were acted at the City Dionysia at a date between 308 and 290, but this
date is very uncertain; see p. 22, note. C. I. A. ii. 972, col. 1, which
Capps, followed by Wilhelm, dates soon after B.C. 290, does not show any
sign of the practice; it may have begun at the City Dionysia, and have
been afterwards extended to the Lenaea; but it is not easy to believe
this without confirmatory evidence; and the difficulty is avoided if
Capps’ date for 975 f is not accepted.]
[103] [C. I. A. ii. 977 gives lists of tragic and comic poets and
actors. In the case of the comic poets and actors, some names (those of
Agathocles and Biottus) are known from 975 d to belong to the middle of
the second century; but it is not certain to what festival the part of
this inscription in which their names occur (fragm. m) belongs.]
[104] Schol. Aristoph. Plut 954; Plut. Phoc. c. 30.
[105] See The Tragic Drama of the Greeks, p. 128, note 4.
[106] C. I. A. ii. 972, col. II.
[107] Athen. p. 217 A; Plat. Symp. 173 A.
[108] Diod. Sic. xv. 74.
[109] The Acharnians, Equites, Vespae, and Ranae at the Lenaea; the
Nubes, Pax, and Aves, at the City Dionysia.
[110] C. I. A. ii. 977 d, i.
[111] [See Capps, Amer. Journ. Philol. xx. p. 396, who remarks that
Aristophanes (Equit. 517 ff.) referring to the great poets of the past,
omits Teleclides and Hermippus, who had been very successful at the
Lenaea, and was especially disappointed at failing to obtain a ‘City
victory’ with the Nubes in 423, after his two Lenaean victories. The
reason suggested, however, for the omission of these two poets can hardly
be correct, as Cratinus, who is mentioned, was also especially successful
at the Lenaea.]
[112] [Nilsson (Studia de Dionysiis Atticis, p. 108) shows that the
festival was probably not celebrated in all the demes at precisely the
same time, though it always took place after the autumn sowing, being
in fact in origin a ceremony designed to secure the fertility of the
new-sown seed. Cf. Plat. Rep. v. p. 475 D ὥσπερ δὲ ἀπομεμισθωκότες τὰ ὦτα
ἐπακοῦσαι πάντων χορῶν περιθέουσι τοῖς Διονυσίοις οὔτε τῶν κατὰ πόλεις
οὔτε τῶν κατὰ κώμας ἀπολειπόμενοι. There must also have been time for the
troupes of actors to move from one place to another.]
[113] See Aristoph. Ach. 69, 241 ff. Also Plut. de Cup. div. p. 527 D;
id. Non suav. viv. sec. Epic. p. 1098 B; Heraclitus fr. 127 Byw.
[114] Dem. Meid. § 10; C. I. A. ii. 164, 467, 468, 589, 741; iv. 2, 834
b; Aelian Var. Hist. ii. 13.
[115] Dem. de Cor. § 180; Aeschin. Timarch. § 157.
[116] C. I. A. iv. 574 b, c, g.
[117] Ibid. ii. 469, 470, 594.
[118] C. I. A. iv. 1282 b, 1285 b.
[119] Ibid. ii. 585.
[120] Isaeus viii. § 15. We also hear of such celebrations at Brauron
(Ar. Pax 874, with Schol.; Schol. in Dem. Conon. § 35; Suidas s.v.
Βραύρων); and at Myrrhinus (C. I. A. ii. 575, 578).
[121] Dörpfeld u. Reisch, Griech. Theat. p. 109 ff.
[122] In addition to the instance at the Peiraeeus recorded above, the
only known example is at Salamis, C. I. A. ii. 470 Διονυσίων τῶν ἐν
Σαλαμῖνι τραγῳδῶν τ[ῷ καινῷ ἀγ]ῶνι, if the restoration be correct.
[123] Dem. de Cor. § 262.
[124] [It must be admitted that it is not easy to reconcile this with
Aristot. Poet. ix, where it is said that even the well-known plays or
legends are well known only to few, ἐπεὶ καὶ τὰ γνώριμα ὀλίγοις γνώριμά
ἐστιν, ἀλλ’ ὅμως εὐφραίνει πάντας. Aristotle may be speaking particularly
of his own day, when probably few poets or plays had the celebrity
enjoyed by the plays of the three great tragedians of the previous
century.]
[125] [Vid. J. E. Harrison, Proleg. to the Study of Greek Religion, c. i.]
[126] This seems to be the meaning of Plut. x orat. 841 F εἰσήνεγκε
δὲ καὶ νόμους (sc. Lycurgus), τὸν περὶ τῶν κωμῳδῶν ἀγῶνα τοῖς
Χύτροις ἐπιτελεῖν ἐφάμιλλον ἐν τῷ θεάτρῳ, καὶ τὸν νικήσαντα εἰς ἄστυ
καταλέγεσθαι, πρότερον οὐκ ἐξόν, ἀναλαμβάνων τὸν ἀγῶνα ἐκλελοιπότα. The
contest must be the same as the ἀγῶνες Χύτρινοι quoted from Philochorus
by Schol. ad Aristoph. Ran. 220. [See Nilsson, Studia de Dionysiis
Atticis, p. 57.]
[127] Philostrat. Vit Apoll. p. 158.
[128] Schol. Aristoph. Aves, 445; Suidas s.v. ἐν πέντε κριτῶν γόνασι.
[129] There is no consecutive account in any ancient writer of the mode
of selecting the judges and of voting. Our knowledge of the subject
has to be pieced together from the three following passages: (1) Plut.
Cim. p. 483 E ἔθεντο δ’ εἰς μνήμην αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν τῶν τραγῳδῶν κρίσιν
ὀνομαστὴν γενομένην. πρώτην γὰρ διδασκαλίαν τοῦ Σοφοκλέους ἔτι νέου
καθέντος, Ἀψεφίων ὁ ἄρχων, φιλονεικίας οὔσης καὶ παρατάξεως τῶν θεατῶν,
κριτὰς μὲν οὐκ ἐκλήρωσε τοῦ ἀγῶνος, ὡς δὲ Κίμων μετὰ τῶν συστρατήγων
προελθὼν εἰς τὸ θέατρον ἐποιήσατο τῷ θεῷ τὰς νενομισμένας σπονδάς, οὐκ
ἀφῆκεν αὐτοὺς ἀπελθεῖν, ἀλλ’ ὁρκώσας ἠνάγκασε καθίσαι καὶ κρῖναι δέκα
ὄντας, ἀπὸ φυλῆς μιᾶς ἕκαστον. (2) Isocrat. xvii. § 43 Πυθόδωρον γὰρ τὸν
σκηνίτην καλούμενον, ὃς ὑπὲρ Πασίωνος ἅπαντα καὶ λέγει καὶ πράττει, τίς
οὐκ οἶδεν ὑμῶν πέρυσιν ἀνοίξαντα τὰς ὑδρίας καὶ τοὺς κριτὰς ἐξελόντα
τοὺς ὑπὸ τῆς βουλῆς εἰσβληθέντας; καίτοι ὅστις μικρῶν ἕνεκα καὶ περὶ τοῦ
σώματος κινδυνεύων ταύτας ὑπανοίγειν ἐτόλμησεν, αἳ σεσημασμέναι μὲν ἦσαν
ὑπὸ τῶν πρυτάνεων, κατεσφραγισμέναι δ’ ὑπὸ τῶν χορηγῶν, ἐφυλάττοντο δ’
ὑπὸ τῶν ταμιῶν, ἔκειντο δ’ ἐν ἀκροπόλει, τί δεῖ θαυμάζειν εἰ κτλ. (3)
Lysias iv. § 3 ἐβουλόμην δ’ ἂν μὴ ἀπολαχεῖν αὐτὸν κριτὴν Διονυσίοις, ἵν’
ὑμῖν φανερὸς ἐγένετο ἐμοὶ διηλλαγμένος, κρίνας τὴν ἐμὴν φυλὴν νικᾶν.
νῦν δὲ ἔγραψε μὲν ταῦτα εἰς τὸ γραμματεῖον, ἀπέλαχε δέ. καὶ ὅτι ἀληθῆ
ταῦτα λέγω Φιλῖνος καὶ Διοκλῆς ἴσασιν. ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἔστ’ αὐτοῖς μαρτυρῆσαι
μὴ διομοσαμένοις περὶ τῆς αἰτίας ἧς ἐγὼ φεύγω, ἐπεὶ σαφῶς ἔγνωτ’ ἂν ὅτι
ἡμεῖς ἦμεν αὐτὸν οἱ κριτὴν ἐμβαλόντες, καὶ ἡμῶν εἵνεκα ἐκαθέζετο. The
first of these passages refers to a dramatic contest, the third to a
dithyrambic one. It is uncertain to which the second refers. But there is
no reason to suppose (with Oehmichen, Bühnenwesen, p. 206) that the mode
of selecting the judges was different in the dramatic and the dithyrambic
contests. That there were ten urns for the names on the preliminary list
of judges is inferred from the plural ὑδρίαι in Isocrates. That a second
list of judges was appointed by lot from the larger list _before_ the
commencement of each contest, and that this second list consisted of
ten persons, one from each of the ten tribes, seems to be proved by the
words of Plutarch, κριτὰς μὲν οὐκ ἐκλήρωσε τοῦ ἀγῶνος ... ἀπὸ φυλῆς μιᾶς
ἕκαστον. That there was another selection of judges by lot _after_ the
contest, and that the number of judges who actually decided the result
was smaller than the number of those who sat through the performance and
voted, is proved by two expressions in the above passages: (1) ἔγραψε μὲν
ταῦτα εἰς τὸ γραμματεῖον, ἀπέλαχε δέ, i.e. he voted in my favour, but his
vote was not drawn; (2) ἡμῶν εἵνεκα ἐκαθέζετο. Καθίζειν and καθέζεσθαι
were the regular words used of a judge at a contest. It is clear
therefore that the person here referred to sat through the performance as
a judge, but that after the performance was over his vote was not drawn
by lot.
The above conclusions are those of Petersen (Preisrichter der grossen
Dionysien). Mommsen (Bursian’s Jahresbericht, lii. pp. 354-8) raises some
objections. He suggests (1) that the plural ὑδρίαι is merely rhetorical,
and that there was only one urn for all the names, (2) that the selection
of a second list of judges _before_ the contest is not mentioned by
Lysias, and was probably a fiction of Plutarch’s. It may be replied that
Lysias had no occasion to refer to this preliminary ballot. He was not
giving an account of the entire system of judging, and therefore only
mentioned the points which enforced his argument. Still, it must be
confessed that the evidence about the judges is very fragmentary, and
that Petersen’s scheme depends largely on conjecture.
[130] Dem. Meid. § 17 ὀμνύουσι παρεστηκὼς τοῖς κριταῖς. Aristoph. Eccles.
1163 μὴ ’πιορκεῖν, ἀλλὰ κρίνειν τοὺς χοροὺς ὀρθῶς ἀεί.
[131] Special seats were assigned to the judges at Alexandria, and no
doubt the Attic custom was followed there: cp. Vitruv. vii. praef. § 5
cum secretae sedes iudicibus essent distributae.
[132] Aelian Var. Hist. ii. 13 καὶ προσέταττον τοῖς κριταῖς ἄνωθεν
Ἀριστοφάνην ἀλλὰ μὴ ἄλλον γράφειν. Lysias iv. § 3 ἔγραψε μὲν ταῦτα ἐς τὸ
γραμματεῖον.
[133] This follows from Lysias iv. § 3 ἐβουλόμην δ’ ἂν μὴ ἀπολαχεῖν αὐτὸν
κριτὴν Διονυσίοις, ἵν’ ὑμῖν φανερὸς ἐγένετο ἐμοὶ διηλλαγμένος, κρίνας τὴν
ἐμὴν φυλὴν νικᾶν. νῦν δὲ ἔγραψε μὲν ταῦτα εἰς τὸ γραμματεῖον, ἀπέλαχε δέ.
[134] Aristoph. Aves 445-7 ΧΟ. ὄμνυμ’ ἐπὶ τούτοις, πᾶσι νικᾶν τοῖς
κριταῖς | καὶ τοῖς θεαταῖς πᾶσιν. ΠΕ. ἔσται ταυταγί. | ΧΟ. εἰ δὲ
παραβαίην, ἑνὶ κριτῇ νικᾶν μόνον.
[135] Vita Aeschyli; Suidas s.v. Αἰσχύλος.
[136] See above, p. 28.
[137] The number of his plays is given as 123 by Suidas, and as 104 or
130 in the Life.
[138] Vita Eur.
[139] Args. to Eur. Alcestis and Medea.
[140] Aelian Var. Hist. ii. 8; Suidas s.v. Νικόμαχος.
[141] Arg. to Soph. Oed. Tyr.
[142] Lysias iv. § 3.
[143] Dem. Meid. §§ 5, 17, 65.
[144] Andocid. Alcibiad. § 20 ἀλλὰ τῶν κριτῶν οἱ μὲν φοβούμενοι οἱ δὲ
χαριζόμενοι νικᾶν ἔκριναν αὐτόν.
[145] Aul. Gell. N. A. 17. 4.
[146] Plut. Demosth. 859 D εὐημερῶν δὲ καὶ κατέχων τὸ θέατρον ἐνδείᾳ
παρασκευῆς καὶ χορηγίας κρατεῖσθαι.
[147] Id. Nicias, 524 D.
[148] Xen. Memor. iii. 4. 3.
[149] Isaeus v. § 36.
[150] Aeschin. Ctesiph. § 232.
[151] Aelian Var. Hist. ii. 13.
[152] Plato, Legg. 700 C-701 A. 659 A-C.
[153] [Cp. Butcher, Harvard Lectures, p. 173 ff.]
[154] Alciphron ii. 3; Plut. An seni &c. p. 785 B; Athen. p. 217 A
στεφανοῦται Ληναίοις; Aristid. vol. ii. p. 2 (Dindf.) τοῦτον στεφανοῦν
καὶ πρῶτον ἀναγορεύειν.
[155] Dem. Meid. § 5; Lysias xxi. § 2; Schol. Aeschin. Timarch. § 11;
Isaeus vii. § 40; 2nd Arg. to Dem. Meid. p. 510. The monuments of
Lysicrates and Thrasyllus, which were surmounted with tripods (Stuart and
Revett, Antiquities of Athens, vol. i. chap. iv. pt. 3, vol. ii. p. 31),
were in honour of victories with dithyrambic choruses; cp. C. I. A. ii.
1242, 1247.
[156] Marmor Par. epp. 39, 43.
[157] Schol. Aristoph. Ran. 367 τὸν μισθὸν τῶν κωμῳδῶν ἐμείωσαν; Eccles.
102 τὸν μισθὸν τῶν ποιητῶν συνέτεμε; Hesych. s.v. μισθός· τὸ ἔπαθλον τῶν
κωμικῶν ... ἔμμισθοι δὲ πέντε ἦσαν. As the competitors in comedy were
five, this last passage proves that _all_ the competing poets received a
reward of money.
[158] Plut. X orat. 842 A.
[159] Aristoph. Ran. 367, and Schol. ad loc.
[160] Arg. Aristoph. Nub.
[161] Vit. Soph.; Aristid. vol. ii. p. 344 (Dindf.).
[162] C. I. A. ii. 971 a-e, iv. 971 f-h.
[163] Arg. Aristoph. Vesp. ἐνίκα πρῶτος Φιλωνίδης. Arg. Nub. ὅτε Κρατῖνος
μὲν ἐνίκα Πυτίνῃ, Ἀμειψίας δὲ Κόννῳ. Arg. Pax ἐνίκησε δὲ τῷ δράματι ὁ
ποιητὴς ... δεύτερος Ἀριστοφάνης Εἰρήνῃ.
[164] C. I. A. iv. 971 f.
[165] C. I. A. ii. 971 a-e, iv. 971 f-h. Hence Rose’s ingenious
emendation of the conclusion to the first Arg. to the Pax—τὸ δὲ δρᾶμα
ὑπεκρίνατο Ἀπολλόδωρος, ἡνίκα ἑρμῆν λοιοκρότης [ἐνίκα Ἕρμων ὁ ὑποκριτής
Rose]—must be regarded as very doubtful, as the Pax was produced at the
City Dionysia.
[166] C. I. A. ii. 975 a-e: see also note 6 below.
[167] C. I. A. ii. 972, col. ii. The mention of the victorious actor’s
name shows that the comic list in this inscription, like the tragic, must
refer to the Lenaea.
[168] [C. I. A. ii. 972, col. i, as dated by Capps (Amer. Journ. Arch.
xx. p. 74 ff.), who shows almost conclusive grounds for substituting this
date for the date 354 hitherto generally accepted, and is followed by
Wilhelm.]
[169] [Circ. B.C. 330, according to Capps, l.c. p. 84. The date depends
upon the conjectural restoration of some fragments of C. I. A. ii.
977, especially fragment u. If Wilhelm’s restoration of C. I. A. ii.
1289 is correct (Urkunden dramat. Aufführungen in Athen, pp. 149, 209
ff.) there is evidence of contests of comic actors in B.C. 307-6; and
the inscription 974 c, elucidated by Wilhelm, l.c., p. 43, shows that
there were contests in 313-312; but it is not certain to which festival
this inscription belongs. Wilhelm, l.c., p. 253, even infers, from a
restoration of C. I. A. ii. 977 l (i′ according to his numbering), that
these contests existed as early as the beginning of the fourth or end
of the fifth century: the restoration is highly probable, and if it is
correct, contests of comic actors can be traced back nearly as far as
contests of tragic actors; but again it is uncertain to which festival
the inscription refers, and it is going too far to use the combined
evidence of this inscription, and the Arg. to the Pax, as emended, to
prove the existence of contests at the City Dionysia in 421 B.C.]
[170] C. I. A. ii. 973.
[171] Dem. Fals. Leg. § 246.
[172] C. I. A. ii. 975 b, 972.
[173] Diod. Sic. xiii. 97.
[174] For the City Dionysia see above, pp. 18 and 24. For the Lenaea
there is no evidence, but the practice was probably much the same. See p.
26.
[175] Alciphron iii. 48 κακὸς κακῶς ἀπόλοιτο καὶ ἄφωνος εἴη Λικύμνιος
ὁ τῆς τραγῳδίας ὑποκριτής. ὡς γὰρ ἐνίκα τοὺς ἀντιτέχνους Κριτίαν τὸν
Κλεωναῖον καὶ Ἵππασον τὸν Ἀμβρακιώτην τοὺς Αἰσχύλου Προπομποὺς κ.τ.λ.
Athen. p. 584 D Ἀνδρονίκου δὲ τοῦ τραγῳδοῦ ἀπ’ ἀγῶνός τινος, ἐν ᾧ τοὺς
Ἐπιγόνους εὐημερήκει, πίνειν μέλλοντος παρ’ αὐτῇ κτλ.
[176] See above, p. 31.
[177] Theophrast. Char. 22 ταινία ξυλίνη.
[178] Lysias xxi. § 4 κωμῳδοῖς χορηγῶν Κηφισοδώρῳ ἐνίκων, καὶ ἀνήλωσα σὺν
τῇ τῆς σκευῆς ἀναθέσει ἑκκαίδεκα μνᾶς.
[179] Plut. Themist. 114 C πίνακα τῆς νίκης ἀνέθηκε. Aristot. Pol. viii.
6 ἐκ τοῦ πίνακος ὃν ἀνέθηκε Θράσιππος.
[180] C. I. A. ii. 1289; Bull. Corr. Hell. iii. pl. 5.
[181] Reisch, Griechische Weihgeschenke, p. 118 ff.
[182] Plut. Themist. 114 C. Cp. C. I. A. ii. 1280, 1285 (a metrical
inscription), 1289, iv. 1280 b, 1282 b, 1285 b, &c.
[183] C. I. A. ii. 971 a-e, iv. 971 f-h. See Appendix B.
[184] C. I. A. ii. 972, 973, 975. See Appendix B.