[186] Diod. Sic. xiii. 103; Suidas s.v. Κρατῖνος.
[187] Diog. Laërt. v. 1. 26. A complete list of the quotations from
Aristotle’s Διδασκαλίαι is given in Bekker’s Aristotle, vol. v, p. 1572.
[188] See pp. 13 (note 2), 61.
[189] Suidas s.v. Καλλίμαχος; Schol. Aristoph. Nub. 552.
[190] Etym. Mag. s.v. πίναξ.
[191] Trendelenburg, Gramm. Graec. de Arte Tragica Iudiciorum Reliquiae,
p. 3 foll.
[192] C. I. A. iv. 971 f. See above, p. 20, note 3. [It is not at all
improbable that the extant inscriptions which have been described in
this section were to a great extent based on the work of Aristotle
himself, this work being itself based on earlier records now lost. It
would only be natural that the theatre officials would take advantage of
so important a compilation as the Διδασκαλίαι and Νῖκαι Διονυσιακαί of
Aristotle, and might well have extracts from it engraved on stone in the
theatre. The fact that the last record in C. I. A. ii. 971 belongs to the
year 328 B.C. has also led some writers to conjecture that this whole
inscription represents the work of Aristotle. This view is confirmed
by the fact that Aristotle, with Callisthenes, prepared a record of
Pythian victors for the temple of Delphi, which was engraved on stone
at the public cost, B.C. 331. (Homolle, Bull. de Corr. Hell. xxii. 261,
631; Bourguet, ibid. xxiv. 504; Dittenberger, Sylloge Inscr. Gr. 915.)
Cp. Reisch in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encycl., Art. Didaskaliai; Wilhelm,
Urkunden dramatischer Aufführungen in Athen, pp. 13-15. The latter work
gives a very complete account of the extant inscriptions.]
[193] Ath. Pol. cc. 56, 57. The archons superintended the various
contests themselves, but were assisted by curators in the organization of
the processions. These ἐπιμεληταὶ τῆς πομπῆς were ten in number at the
City Dionysia. Until 352 they were elected by the people from the general
mass of the citizens, and paid the expenses of the procession themselves.
After 352 they were chosen by lot, one from each tribe, and received
100 minae from the state to cover expenses. In the third century the
system of election was reintroduced. The curators at the Lenaea were also
curators of the Eleusinian mysteries (ἐπιμεληταὶ τῶν μυστηρίων), four in
number, and elected by the state, two from the people generally, one each
from the Κήρυκες and Εὐμολπίδαι. See Sandys’ notes ad loc.
[194] Suidas s.v. χορὸν δίδωμι; Athen. p. 638 F; Cratinus fr. 15 (Kock);
cf. Aristot. Poet. c. v, Ath. Pol. l.c.
[195] Cratinus l.c.
[196] Schol. Aristoph. Nub. 510, 530.
[197] Suidas s.v. Αἰσχύλος; Marm. Par. ep. 56; Vita I Eurip.
[198] Schol. Aristoph. Ran. 504; Arg. Aristoph. Equit.; cf. Suidas s.v.
Εὔπολις. [The remarkable didascalic inscription (974 c) printed by
Wilhelm, Urkunden dramat. Aufführungen in Athen, p. 45, and reproduced in
Appendix B, notices of a certain Ameinias (probably), who won the third
place with his play, that ἔφηβος ὢν ἐνεμήθη. Wilhelm shows that this
use of νέμειν and its cognates, to signify permission to compete, was a
technical one, and quotes conclusive parallels.]
[199] Schol. Aristoph. Nub. 531; Anon. de Com. (Kaibel Com. Fr. p. 8);
Suidas s.v. Σαμίων ὁ δῆμος; Arg. Aristoph. Acharn.
[200] Aristoph. Equit. 512-44; cf. Nub. 528-31.
[201] Arg. Aristoph. Plutus; Schol. Aristoph. Ran. 73.
[202] Suidas s.v. Ἀρκάδας μιμούμενοι.
[203] Args. Aristoph. Av., Lysist., Vesp., Ran.
[204] Athen. p. 216 D; Vit. Aristoph.
[205] Plut. X orat. 839 D.
[206] Aristoph. Equit. 512, 513.
[207] Id. Vesp. 1016-22.
[208] Arg. ii to Dem. Meid.
[209] Athen. Pol. c. 56.
[210] Ibid.
[211] C. I. A. ii. 971 d, iv. 971 h.
[212] Lysias xxi. §§ 1-5; Aeschin. Timarch. §§ 11, 12; Harpocrat. s.v.
ὅτι νόμος.
[213] Lysias l.c.
[214] In the time of Demosthenes the tribe Pandionis was for three years
unable to supply a dithyrambic choregus. Dem. Meid. § 13.
[215] Schol. Aristoph. Ran. 406, who suggests that the system was also
extended to the Lenaea. But this is disproved by Lysias xxi. § 4, where
the defendant says he was choregus (not synchoregus) to a comic chorus in
B.C. 402. The synchoregia cannot, therefore, have been applied to both
festivals.
[216] C. I. A. ii. 971 c (tragic choregus at City Dionysia for 387) [but
the interpretation of this fragment is very difficult]. Tragic synchoregi
occur twice in inscriptions at the beginning of the fourth century (C.
I. A. ii. 1280, iv. 1280 b); and are mentioned by Isaeus v. § 36 (B.C.
389) and Lysias xix., § 29 (B.C. 394-389); but as the festival is not
mentioned by either author, it may have been the Lenaea, and so no
inference can be drawn as to the discontinuance of the synchoregia. In C.
I. A. iv. 971 h we find a comic choregus in 329; in C. I. A. iv. 1280 b
(beginning of fourth century) and ii. 1280 b (middle of fourth century)
we find comic synchoregi, but as the latter inscription was found at a
distance from Athens, it may refer to the Rural Dionysia, at which joint
choregi were sometimes appointed; e.g. C. I. A. iv. 1282 b mentions three
tragic choregi in partnership at Icaria.
[217] The statement of Schol. Aristoph. Ran. 406, that soon after the
institution of synchoregi the choregia as a whole was abolished by
Cinesias is disproved by Ath. Pol. c. 56, which shows that choregi were a
regular institution in the latter half of the fourth century. Capps (Am.
J. Arch. 1895, p. 316) conjectures that the scholiast’s error arose from
his misunderstanding of the epithet χοροκτόνος, applied to Cinesias as a
bad poet, not as a legislator against choruses.
[218] There were still choregi in 319 (C. I. A. ii. 1246, 1247). But
Nicanor was appointed Agonothetes immediately after the death of
Antipater (Plut. Phoc. 31), who died in 319.
[219] C. I. A. ii. 302, 307, 314, 331, 379.
[220] C. I. A. ii. 314, καὶ εἰς ταῦτα πάντα ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων ἀναλώσας πολλὰ
χρήματα. This phrase, however, does not imply that he paid the whole
of the expenses; and the formula ὁ δῆμος ἐχορήγει, constantly found in
agonothetic inscriptions, seems to show that the people bore a part [e.g.
C. I. A. ii. 1289, quoted App. B].
[221] C. I. A. iii. 78 (Agonothetes and choregus together); ibid. 79,
83, 84 (choregi alone); ibid. 1, 10, 121, 457, 613, 721, 810, 1091
(Agonothetes alone).
[222] Demosth. Meid. §§ 13, 14; 2nd Arg. to Meidias, p. 510.
[223] C. I. A. ii. 1246 Νικίας Νικοδήμου Ξυπεταίων ἀνέθηκε νικήσας
χορηγῶν Κεκροπίδι παίδων· Πανταλέων Σικυώνιος ηὔλει· ᾆσμα Ἐλπήνωρ
Τιμοθέου· Νέαιχμος ἦρχεν. In this case the dithyramb performed was the
Elpenor of the celebrated poet Timotheus. When old dithyrambs were
performed, and no poet was necessary, a professional trainer was hired to
look after the chorus. Such was the διδάσκαλος mentioned by Demosthenes
(Meid. § 17).
[224] Antiphon, orat. vi. § 11 ἐπειδὴ χορηγὸς κατεστάθην εἰς Θαργήλια
καὶ ἔλαχον Παντακλέα διδάσκαλον κτλ. Pantacles was a poet, and not a
mere trainer of choruses, like the διδάσκαλος hired by Demosthenes. This
is proved by a passage in Etym. Mag. v. διδάσκαλος· ἰδίως διδασκάλους
λέγουσιν οἱ Ἀττικοὶ τοὺς ποιητὰς τῶν διθυράμβων ἢ τῶν κωμῳδιῶν ἢ τῶν
τραγῳδιῶν. Ἀντίφων ἐν τῷ περὶ τοῦ χορευτοῦ· ἔλαχόν, φησι, Παντακλέα
διδάσκαλον· ὅτι γὰρ ὁ Παντακλῆς ποιητής, δεδήλωκεν Ἀριστοτέλης ἐν ταῖς
Διδασκαλίαις. When there was a poet, a professional trainer was not
usually required. The poet undertook the training of the chorus.
[225] Aristot. Rhet. iii. 1.
[226] Vita Aesch.
[227] Schol. Aristoph. Nub. 1267.
[228] Vita Soph.
[229] Vita Eur.
[230] Dem. Fals. Leg. §§ 10, 246; de Cor. § 262.
[231] C. I. A. ii. 972.
[232] Suidas s.v. νεμήσεις ὑποκριτῶν· οἱ ποιηταὶ ἐλάμβανον τρεῖς
ὑποκριτὰς κλήρῳ νεμηθέντας, ὑποκρινομένους (? ὑποκρινουμένους) τὰ
δράματα· ὧν ὁ νικήσας εἰς τοὐπιὸν ἄκριτος παραλαμβάνεται. Obviously ὁ
νικήσας denotes, not the victorious poet, nor yet the actor who acted
for him, but the actor who won the prize for acting. Τοὐπιόν apparently
means ‘the next festival’. The victorious actor was allowed to act at
the next festival as a matter of course. The ‘three actors’ are the
three protagonists required at each tragic contest, and not the three
actors required by each poet. This is proved by the words ὧν ὁ νικήσας,
which imply that the three actors mentioned all took part in the actors’
contest. But the actors’ contest was limited to the protagonists; the
subordinate actors had nothing to do with it. See above, p. 42.
[233] Aristot. Rhet. iii. 1.
[234] C. I. A. ii. 973.
[235] Schol. Aristoph. Equit. 534; Vita Aristoph. (Dindf. Prolegom.
de Comoed. p. 36). The commentator, misunderstanding the expression
that certain plays of Aristophanes were brought out by Philonides and
Callistratus (ἐδιδάχθη διὰ Φιλωνίδου κτλ.), concluded that these persons
were actors.
[236] C. I. A. ii. 972, 975 c and d.
[237] Xen. Hiero ix. 4, Resp. Athen. i. 13. The training-room was called
διδασκαλεῖον (Antiphon orat. vi. § 11), or χορηγεῖον (Bekk. Anecd. p. 72,
17; Pollux iv. 106, ix. 42).
[238] Antiphon orat. vi. §§ 11-13; Pollux iv. 106. The agent was called
χορολέκτης.
[239] Aristot. Pol. iii. 3.
[240] Antiphon l.c.
[241] Plutarch Glor. Athen. 349 A; Suidas s.v. φαρυγγίνδην· ὡς
ἀριστίνδην· σκώπτοντες γὰρ τὴν γαστριμαργίαν τῶν χορευτῶν Ἀττικοὶ οὕτω
λέγουσι.
[242] Suidas s.v. διδάσκαλος; Aristoph. Ran. 1026 εἶτα διδάξας Πέρσας
κτλ.; Anthol. Pal. vii. 37 (of a mask of Antigone or Electra) ἐκ ποίης
ἥδε διδασκαλίης; Plut. Pericles 154 E ἀλλ’ Ἴωνα μὲν ὥσπερ τραγικὴν
διδασκαλίαν ἀξιοῦντα τὴν ἀρετὴν ἔχειν τι πάντως καὶ σατυρικὸν μέρος ἐῶμεν.
[243] Athen. p. 22 A.
[244] Athen. p. 21 C; Vit. Aeschyli; Philostrat. Vit. Apoll. p. 244.
[245] Eustath. Odyss. p. 1553.
[246] Plut. De Audiendo, 46 B.
[247] Photius v. ὑποδιδάσκαλος; Plat. Ion p. 536 A.
[248] Thus the trainer hired by Demosthenes for his chorus is called
διδάσκαλος, Dem. Meid. § 17.
[249] Dem. Meid. §§ 58, 59.
[250] Xen. Mem. iii. 4. 3.
[251] Xen. Resp. Athen. i. 13 χορηγοῦσι μὲν οἱ πλούσιοι, χορηγεῖται δὲ ὁ
δῆμος ... ἀξιοῖ οὖν ἀργύριον λαμβάνειν ὁ δῆμος καὶ ᾄδων καὶ τρέχων καὶ
ὀρχούμενος ... ἵνα αὐτός τε ἔχῃ καὶ οἱ πλούσιοι πενέστεροι γίγνωνται.
First Arg. to Dem. Meid., p. 509 χορηγὸς ... ὁ τὰ ἀναλώματα παρέχων τὰ
περὶ τὸν χορόν. Plut. Glor. Athen. 349 B. The statement of the Scholiast
on Dionysius Thrax (Bekk. Anecd. p. 746), that every comic and tragic
poet was supplied with a chorus ‘supported by the state’, appears to be
merely a loose way of saying that the dramatic choruses were provided by
choregi appointed by the state. The author of the 2nd Arg. to the Meidias
says that the choregus ‘received sums of money for the support of the
chorus’. But his authority is of the weakest description. He is quite
mistaken as to the Dionysiac festivals, imagining that the Great Dionysia
was a triennial affair, as opposed to the Small or annual celebration.
Hence his testimony is of no value in the face of other authorities.
[252] The name of the flute-player is inserted in all dithyrambic records
except the earliest, but never in the dramatic records. This seems to
show that their status was different, and that the dramatic flute-player
was not appointed officially.
[253] Plut. Phocion p. 750 C.
[254] The actors were assigned by the state to the poets, and not to the
choregi: hence it is quite clear that in later times the choregi did not
pay for them. See Suidas s.v. νεμήσεις ὑποκριτῶν.
[255] Antiphanes apud Athen. p. 103 E; Dem. Meid. § 16.
[256] Aristot. Eth. Nic. iv. 6. Pollux vii. 78 τοὺς δὲ τὰς ἐσθῆτας
ἀπομισθοῦντας τοῖς χορηγοῖς οἱ μὲν νέοι ἱματιομίσθας ἐκάλουν, οἱ δὲ
παλαιοὶ ἱματιομισθωτάς.
[257] Lysias xxi. §§ 1-5, xix. §§ 29, 42; Dem. Meid. § 156.
[258] Aristoph. Eccles. 307; Böckh, Public Economy of Athens, i. p. 157
(Engl. transl.).
[259] Demosth. Philipp. i. § 35.
[260] Xen. Hiero ix. 4 καὶ γὰρ ὅταν χοροὺς ἡμῖν βουλώμεθα ἀγωνίζεσθαι,
ἆθλα μὲν ὁ ἄρχων προτίθησιν, ἀθροίζειν δὲ αὐτοὺς προστέτακται χορηγοῖς
καὶ ἄλλοις διδάσκειν, καὶ ἀνάγκην προστιθέναι τοῖς ἐνδεῶς τι ποιοῦσιν.
[261] Dem. Meid. § 61.
[262] Plutarch Nicias, p. 524 D.
[263] Andocid. Alcibiad. § 20.
[264] Dem. Meid. §§ 58-66.
[265] Our knowledge of the Proagon is derived from the following
passages:—Aeschin. Ctesiph. §§ 66, 67 ὁ γὰρ μισαλέξανδρος νυνὶ φάσκων
εἶναι ... γράφει ψήφισμα ... ἐκκλησίαν ποιεῖν τοὺς πρυτάνεις τῇ ὀγδόῃ
ἱσταμένου τοῦ ἐλαφηβολιῶνος μηνός, ὅτ’ ἦν τῷ Ἀσκληπιῷ ἡ θυσία καὶ
ὁ προάγων. Schol. Aeschin. Ctesiph. § 67 ἐγίγνοντο πρὸ τῶν μεγάλων
Διονυσίων ἡμέραις ὀλίγαις ἔμπροσθεν ἐν τῷ ᾠδείῳ καλουμένῳ τῶν τραγῳδῶν
ἀγὼν καὶ ἐπίδειξις ὧν μέλλουσι δραμάτων ἀγωνίζεσθαι ἐν τῷ θεάτρῳ· δι’ ὃ
ἐτύμως προάγων καλεῖται. εἰσίασι δὲ δίχα προσώπων οἱ ὑποκριταὶ γυμνοί.
Vita Euripid. λέγουσι δὲ καὶ Σοφοκλέα, ἀκούσαντα ὅτι ἐτελεύτησε, αὐτὸν
μὲν ἱματίῳ φαιῷ ἤτοι πορφυρῷ προελθεῖν, τὸν δὲ χορὸν καὶ τοὺς ὑποκριτὰς
ἀστεφανώτους εἰσαγαγεῖν ἐν τῷ προάγωνι, καὶ δακρῦσαι τὸν δῆμον. Schol.
Aristoph. Wasps 1104 οἱ δ’ ἐν ᾠδείῳ· ἔστι τόπος θεατροειδής, ἐν ᾧ
εἰώθασι τὰ ποιήματα ἀπαγγέλλειν πρὶν τῆς εἰς τὸ θέατρον ἀπαγγελίας.
That the Proagon was a contest is out of the question. The contest was
to follow some days later. Nor can it have been a dress rehearsal, as
part of one day would not have sufficed for the rehearsal of twelve
tragedies and five comedies. Προάγων denotes ‘the ceremony before the
contest’, just as πρόγαμος means ‘the ceremony before the marriage’.
The expression of the Schol. on Aeschines τῶν τραγῳδῶν ἀγών is probably
due to a misunderstanding of the word προάγων. The passage in Plato’s
Symposium 194 A (ἐπιλήσμων μεντἂν εἴην, ὦ Ἀγάθων, ... εἰ ἰδὼν τὴν σὴν
ἀνδρείαν καὶ μεγαλοφροσύνην ἀναβαίνοντος ἐπὶ τὸν ὀκρίβαντα μετὰ τῶν
ὑποκριτῶν καὶ βλέψαντος ἐναντία τοσούτῳ θεάτρῳ, μέλλοντος ἐπιδείξεσθαι
σαυτοῦ λόγους, καὶ οὐδ’ ὁπωστιοῦν ἐκπλαγέντος κτλ.) probably refers to
the Proagon. If so ἀπαγγέλλειν in the Schol. and ἐπιδείξεσθαι λόγους both
probably refer to an announcement of the plots or subjects of the plays
(λόγος is so used, Aristoph. Vesp. 54, Pax 50, and Hesych. λόγος· ἡ τοῦ
δράματος ὑπόθεσις). See Mazon, Revue de Philologie, 1903, pp. 263 ff.
That there was a Proagon before the Lenaea as well as the City Dionysia
seems natural in itself, and is implied by the use of the plural in such
inscriptions as C. I. A. ii. 307 ἐπετέλεσε δὲ καὶ τοὺς προάγωνας τοὺς ἐν
τοῖς ἱεροῖς κτλ.
[266] Aeschin. Ctesiph. § 76 ἅμα τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἡγεῖτο τοῖς πρέσβεσιν εἰς τὸ
θέατρον. Demosth. Meid. § 74.
[267] Suidas s.v. καθάρσιον; Pollux viii. 104; Plut. Cimon p. 482 E;
Philostrat. vit. Apoll. p. 161.
[268] Aeschin. Ctesiph. §§ 48, 230.
[269] Isocrat. viii. § 82.
[270] Aeschin. Ctesiph. §§ 153, 154.
[271] Aristid. περὶ ῥητορικῆς, vol. ii. p. 2 (Dindf.).
[272] The passage from Philochorus (Athen. p. 464 E καὶ τοῖς χοροῖς
εἰσιοῦσιν ἐνέχεον πίνειν καὶ διηγωνισμένοις ὅτ’ ἐξεπορεύοντο ἐνέχεον
πάλιν) affords no warrant for assuming, with Müller (Griech. Bühnen, p.
373), that before the commencement of each play the poet and his chorus
entered the orchestra and offered a libation to Dionysus. [Aristoph. Ach.
11 ἀλλ’ ὠδυνήθην ἕτερον αὖ τραγῳδικόν, | ὅτε δὴ ’κεχήνη προσδοκῶν τὸν
Αἰσχύλον, | ὁ δ’ ἀνεῖπεν, εἴσαγ’, ὦ Θέογνι, τὸν χορόν, is generally taken
to refer to this point in the proceedings. But it is not likely that the
names, &c., of the poets would be unknown to the spectators, when the
Proagon had taken place only a few days before; see p. 66; and Mazon is
probably right (Rev. de Philologie, 1903, p. 264) in making the lines
refer to the Proagon itself.]
[273] Pollux iv. 88.
[274] Aristoph. Eccles. 1154 ff.
[275] Plat. Symp. 173 A. 174 A.
[276] Athen. p. 3 F; Schol. Aristoph. Pax 835.
[277] Cf. ch. i. § 1.
[278] Dem. Meid. §§ 8-10; C. I. A. ii. 114, 307, 420.
[279] Arg. Aristoph. Ran. οὕτω δὲ ἐθαυμάσθη τὸ δρᾶμα διὰ τὴν ἐν αὐτῷ
παράβασιν ὥστε καὶ ἀνεδιδάχθη, ὥς φησι Δικαίαρχος.
[280] Herod, vi. 21.
[281] A revised edition of a play was called διασκευή, Athen. p. 110 C.
[282] Athen. p. 374 A.
[283] Nauck, Frag. Trag. Graec. pp. 215, 441, 627.
[284] Arg. Eur. Hipp.
[285] Arg. Aristoph. Nub.
[286] Arg. Aristoph. Pax; Meineke, Frag. Com. Graec. i. pp. 1074, 1130.
[287] Meineke, iv. 116, 377. Additional instances of revision of plays
are to be found in the Autolycus of Eupolis, the Synoris of Diphilus, and
the Phryx of Alexis. The Demetrius of Alexis appeared subsequently as the
Philetaerus, the Ἄγροικοι of Antiphanes as the Butalion. See Meineke, ii.
440; iii. 36, 403, 500; iv. 412.
[288] Philostrat. vit. Apoll. p. 245.
[289] [Or more probably to the Odeum to see the Proagon; see p. 69, n. 3.]
[290] Aristoph. Acharn. 9-12.
[291] Id. Ran. 868.
[292] Quint. Inst. x. 1. 66.
[293] [See, however, note on p. 16, on the Septem of Aeschylus.]
[294] Suidas s.v. Εὐφορίων; Arg. Soph. Oed. Col.; Schol. Aristoph. Ran.
67.
[295] See above, pp. 18 and 26.
[296] See above, p. 31.
[297] Plut. X orat. 841 F εἰσήνεγκε δὲ καὶ νόμους ... τὸν δέ, ὡς χαλκᾶς
εἰκόνας ἀναθεῖναι τῶν ποιητῶν, Αἰσχύλου, Σοφοκλέους, Εὐριπίδου, καὶ
τὰς τραγῳδίας αὐτῶν ἐν κοινῷ γραψαμένους φυλάττειν, καὶ τὸν τῆς πόλεως
γραμματέα παραναγιγνώσκειν τοῖς ὑποκρινομένοις· οὐκ ἐξεῖναι γὰρ αὐτὰς
ὑποκρίνεσθαι. The general meaning of the passage is clear, though the
text is corrupt. Various emendations have been proposed, e.g. παρ’
αὐτὰς ὑποκρίνεσθαι, Wyttenbach; αὐτὰς ἄλλως ὑποκρίνεσθαι, Grysar: ἄλλως
ὑποκρίνεσθαι, Dübner.
[298] Galen Comm. ii. on Hippocrat. Epidem. iii. (p. 607 Kühn).
[299] See above, pp. 22 and 27.
[300] Alciphron. Epist. iii. 48.
[301] Plut. Demosth. p. 849 A.
[302] C. I. A. ii. 973.
[303] Demosth. de Cor. §§ 180, 267; Aelian Var. Hist. xiv. 40; Plut.
Fort. Alexand. 333 F; Diod. Sic. xiii. 97.
[304] Aul. Gell. vii. 5; Stob. Flor. 97, 28 (ii. p. 211 Meineke);
Demosth. Fals. Leg. § 246; Schol. Soph. Ajax 865; Athen. p. 584 D.
[305] Throughout the present chapter my account of the existing remains
of the Athenian theatre has been taken almost entirely from Dörpfeld and
Reisch, Das griechische Theater, 1896. Dörpfeld’s minute and admirable
description of the theatre has superseded all previous treatises on the
subject. For the old authorities see Preface to the First Edition, p.
viii.
[306] Pollux iv. 123 ἐλεὸς δ’ ἦν τράπεζα ἀρχαία, ἐφ’ ἣν πρὸ Θέσπιδος εἷς
τις ἀναβὰς τοῖς χορευταῖς ἀπεκρίνατο. Etym. Mag. s.v. θυμέλη· τράπεζα δὲ
ἦν ἐφ’ ἧς ἑστῶτες ἐν τοῖς ἀγροῖς ᾖδον, μήπω τάξιν λαβούσης τραγῳδίας.
Dörpfeld (Griechische Theater, pp. 34, 278) thinks the ἐλεός was the
altar step, which in some cases was of great size. Cp. the specimen he
gives on p. 34. He quotes Pollux iv. 123 θυμέλη, εἴτε βῆμά τι οὖσα, εἴτε
βωμός. But this passage does not mean that Pollux thought the thymele was
partly an altar and partly a platform. It means that he was uncertain
which of the two it was. Probably he was thinking of the later sense of
θυμέλη = ‘the stage’.
[307] Cp. Cook on the Thymele in Greek Theatres, Classical Review,
October 1895, p. 371, and below, p. 108, with notes.
[308] Suidas s.v. σκηνή; Pollux iv. 123; Etym. Mag. s.v. θυμέλη.
[309] Hesych. s.v. παρ’ αἰγείρου θέα ... τὰ ἴκρια, ἅ ἐστιν ὀρθὰ ξύλα
ἔχοντα σανίδας προσδεδεμένας, οἷον βαθμούς, ἐφ’ αἷς ἐκαθέζοντο πρὸ τοῦ
κατασκευασθῆναι τὸ θέατρον. Cp. Bekk. Anecd. p. 354; Hesych. and Suidas
s.v. ἴκρια; Eustath. Od. p. 1472.
[310] All theatres, in which the orchestra consists of an exact
semicircle, are either Roman, or built under Roman influence. See Vitruv.
v. 6.
[311] The term θέατρον Ληναϊκόν mentioned by Pollux (iv. 121) may refer
to the old wooden theatre in the Lenaeum.
[312] See Appendix C for a discussion of the site of the Lenaeum.
[313] Suidas s.v. ἀπ’ αἰγείρου θέα. Hesych. s.vv. αἰγείρου θέα, παρ’
αἰγείρου θέα, θέα παρ’ αἰγείρῳ. Eustath. Od. p. 1472.
[314] Suidas s.v. Πρατίνας ... συνέβη τὰ ἴκρια, ἐφ’ ὧν ἑστήκεσαν οἱ
θεαταί, πεσεῖν, καὶ ἐκ τούτου θέατρον ᾠκοδομήθη Ἀθηναίοις.
[315] See below, p. 130.
[316] Dörpfeld and Reisch, Griechische Theater, p. 31.
[317] Wilamowitz, Hermes, xxi. p. 622. Griech. Theater, p. 9.
[318] Aristoph. Acharn. 504; Plat. Prot. 327 D; Dem. Meid. § 10 (law of
Evegorus); C. I. A. ii. 741 (334-331 B.C.).
[319] Griech. Theater, pp. 26 ff.
[320] Griech. Theater, p. 111.
[321] Griech. Theater, pp. 36 ff.
[322] Fürtwängler, Sitzungsber. der Akad. der Wiss. zu München, 1901, p.
415. Roberts and Gardner, Greek Epigraphy, ii. Introd. p. xiii.
[323] C. I. A. i. 499. Cp. p. 132.
[324] Tragic Drama of the Greeks, p. 430.
[325] C. I. A. ii. 176.
[326] Plut. X orat. 841 C καὶ τὸ ἐν Διονύσου θέατρον ἐπιστατῶν
ἐτελεύτησε. Id. Psephism. iii. πρὸς δὲ τούτοις ἡμίεργα παραλαβὼν τούς τε
νεωσοίκους καὶ τὴν σκευοθήκην καὶ τὸ θέατρον τὸ Διονυσιακὸν ἐξειργάσατο
καὶ ἐπετέλεσε. Paus. i. 29. 16 οἰκοδομήματα δὲ ἐπετέλεσε μὲν τὸ θέατρον
ἑτέρων ὑπαρξαμένων. Hyperid. or. dep. 118 Kenyon ταχθεὶς δὲ ἐπὶ τῇ
διοικήσει τῶν χρημάτων εὗρε πόρους, ᾠκοδόμησε δὲ τὸ θέατρον, τὸ ᾠδεῖον,
τὰ νεώρια, τριήρεις ἐποιήσατο, λιμένας.
[327] [Aristoph. Thesm. 395 (B.C. 411) and Cratinus, Frag. Incert. 51
(before B.C. 422) call the spectators’ seats ἴκρια, ‘benches’: but the
name might survive after the material had been changed from wood to
stone; and Puchstein may be right in dating this before the end of the
fifth century. See below, p. 131.]
[328] See below, p. 130.
[329] C. I. A. iii. 158.
[330] C. I. A. iii. 239 σοὶ τόδε καλὸν ἔτευξε φιλόργιε βῆμα θεήτρου |
Φαῖδρος Ζωίλου βιοδώτορος Ἀτθίδος ἀρχός.
[331] See E. A. Gardner, Ancient Athens, p. 435.
[332] Paus. i. 20 3; Griech. Theater, pp. 10 ff.
[333] Vitruv. v. 3. 2.
[334] The plan is copied from that given in Griech. Theater, Tafel I.
[335] Harp. s.v. κατατομή· Ὑπερείδης ἐν τῷ κατὰ Δημοσθένους. καὶ
καθήμενος κάτω ὑπὸ τῇ κατατομῇ. Φιλόχορος δὲ ἐν ἕκτῃ οὕτως· Αἰσχραῖος
Ἀναγυράσιος ἀνέθηκε τὸν ὑπὲρ θεάτρου τρίποδα καταργυρώσας, νενικηκὼς τῷ
πρότερον ἔτει χορηγῶν παισί, καὶ ἐπέγραψεν ἐπὶ τὴν κατατομὴν τῆς πέτρας.
Bekk Anecd. p. 270. 21 κατατομὴ ἡ ὀρχήστρα ἡ νῦν σίγμα, ἢ μέρος τι τοῦ
θεάτρου κατετμήθη, ἐπεὶ ἐν ὄρει κατεσκεύασται.
[336] Paus. i. 21. 5; C. I. A. ii. 1247; Stuart and Revett’s Antiquities
of Athens, ii. 8. For a detailed description of the Thrasyllus monument
see Harrison and Verrall, Mythology and Monuments of Ancient Athens, pp.
266 ff.; E. Gardner, Ancient Athens, p. 403.
[337] See Griech. Theater, pp. 169 ff.; Capps, Vitruvius and the Greek
Stage, pp. 18 ff.
[338] The illustration is copied, with a few alterations, from
Zeitschrift für bildende Kunst, xiii. p. 197.
[339] Griech. Theater, p. 51.
[340] Gardner and Loring, Excavations at Megalopolis, p. 74; Griech.
Theater, pp. 101, 121; Schrader, Berl. Phil. Wochenschrift, April 16,
1898, p. 508.
[341] Griech. Theater, p. 44.
[342] Pollux iv. 123.
[343] διαζώματα, C. I. G. 4283; ζῶναι, Malal. p. 222. The longitudinal
passages are called δίοδοι in the Delian inscription for 269 B.C. The
upper belt of seats is called ἐπιθέατρον in the inscription for 250 B.C.
See Bull. Corr. Hell., 1894, pp. 162 ff.
[344] Griech. Theater, p. 41.
[345] The copy is taken from Wieseler’s Denkmäler des Bühnenwesens, i. 1.
[346] Vitruv. v. 6. 4.
[347] Griech. Theater, p. 45. Dörpfeld obtains this result by allowing
for each person a space of 16 inches—the distance between the vertical
lines already mentioned (p. 97). If 19 inches is allowed, he calculates
that the theatre would have held about 14,000 people.
[348] Megalopolis held about 17,000 (Gardner), or 18,700 (Schultz);
Epidaurus about 17,000 (Gardner). These calculations, however, should be
slightly reduced, as they are based on an allowance of only 13 inches for
each person (see above, p. 97), which is certainly too small, though the
experience of modern theatre managers shows that, where the seats have no
dividing arms, 14 inches is sufficient and 16 inches ample. (See Gardner,
Ancient Athens, p. 439.) See Excavations at Megalopolis, p. 69.
[349] Plat. Symp. 175 E.
[350] Phot. s.v. ὀρχήστρα ... τοῦ θεάτρου τὸ κάτω ἡμικύκλιον, οὗ καὶ οἱ
χοροὶ ᾖδον καὶ ὠρχοῦντο.
[351] Bekk. Anecd. p. 270. 21 ἡ ὀρχήστρα ἡ νῦν σίγμα λεγομένη. Ibid. p.
286. 16.
[352] Suidas s.v. σκηνή ... ἡ κονίστρα, τουτέστι τὸ κάτω ἔδαφος τοῦ
θεάτρου. The same scholium is repeated in Schol. Gregor. Nazianz. laud.
patr. 355 B.
[353] e.g. Schol. Aristoph. Equit. 505 (of the chorus) ἑστᾶσι μὲν γὰρ
κατὰ στοῖχον οἱ πρὸς τὴν ὀρχήστραν ἀποβλέποντες· ὅταν δὲ παραβῶσιν,
ἐφεξῆς ἑστῶτες καὶ πρὸς τοὺς θεατὰς βλέποντες τὸν λόγον ποιοῦνται. Here
ὀρχήστρα obviously = λογεῖον. Cp. Suidas s.v. σκηνή; Isidor. Origg.
xviii. 44 ‘orchestra autem pulpitum erat scaenae’. [A full history of
the meanings of the word is given in A. Müller’s Untersuchungen zu den
Bühnenalterthümern, pp. 77-88.]
[354] Griech. Theater, pp. 57, 58.
[355] For the date see Griech. Theater, pp. 129 ff.; Christ, Sitzungsber.
bayer. Akad. der Wissen. 1894, pp. 30 ff.; Lechat, Épidaure, p. 106.
[356] Paus. ii. 27. 5 Ἐπιδαυρίοις δέ ἐστι θέατρον ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ, μάλιστα
ἐμοὶ δοκεῖν θέας ἄξιον· τὰ μὲν γὰρ Ῥωμαίων πολὺ δή τι ὑπερῆρκε τῶν
πανταχοῦ τῷ κόσμῳ, μεγέθει δὲ Ἀρκάδων τὸ ἐν Μεγάλῃ πόλει· ἁρμονίας
δὲ ἢ κάλλους ἕνεκα ἀρχιτέκτων ποῖος ἐς ἅμιλλαν Πολυκλείτῳ γένοιτ’ ἂν
ἀξιόχρεως; Πολύκλειτος γὰρ τὸ θέατρον τοῦτο καὶ οἴκημα τὸ περιφερὲς ὁ
ποιήσας ἦν.
[357] The view is copied from a photograph taken by Prof. Ernest
Gardner, and kindly lent for reproduction. The plan is from Baumeister’s
Denkmäler, iii. p. 1735.
[358] Vitruv. v. 6 and 7.
[359] Other examples are found at Athens, the Peiraeeus, and Eretria. See
Fig. 3, and the plans in Griech. Theater, pp. 98 and 112.
[360] Griech. Theater, p. 175.
[361] See the plans in Griech. Theater, pp. 117, 144, 149.
[362] Suidas s.v. σκηνή ... μετὰ τὴν σκηνὴν εὐθὺς καὶ τὰ παρασκήνια ἡ
ὀρχήστρα. αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ὁ τόπος ὁ ἐκ σανίδων ἔχων τὸ ἔδαφος, ἀφ’ οὗ
θεατρίζουσιν οἱ μῖμοι. Here the word ὀρχήστρα clearly = λογεῖον. Cp. p.
102, note.
[363] Griech. Theater, p. 116. Bulletin de Corr. Hell. 1894, p. 163 τὴν
ὀρχήστραν τοῦ θεάτρου καταχρῖσαι (date 269 B.C.).
[364] Hesych. s.v. γραμμαί.
[365] Aristot. Prob. xi. 25 διὰ τί, ὅταν ἀχυρωθῶσιν αἱ ὀρχῆστραι, ἧττον
οἱ χοροὶ γεγώνασιν;
[366] Suidas s.v. σκηνή ... εἶτα μετὰ τὴν ὀρχήστραν (i.e. the stage)
βωμὸς τοῦ Διονύσου. Poll. iv. 123 ἡ δὲ ὀρχήστρα τοῦ χοροῦ, ἐν ᾗ καὶ ἡ
θυμέλη, εἴτε βῆμά τι οὖσα εἴτε βωμός. For the sacrifices in the theatre
see p. 68.
[367] Schrader, Berl. Philolog. Wochenschrift, 1898, April 16, p. 509.
[368] Suidas s.v. σκηνή ... μετὰ τὴν ὀρχήστραν βωμὸς τοῦ Διονύσου, ὃς
καλεῖται θυμέλη παρὰ τὸ θύειν. Etym. Mag. s.v. θυμέλη. Pratinas apud
Athen. 517 B τίς ὕβρις ἔμολεν ἐπὶ Διονυσιάδα πολυπάταγα θυμέλαν;
[369] Phrynichus p. 163 (Lob.) θυμέλην· τοῦτο οἱ μὲν ἀρχαῖοι ἀντὶ τοῦ
θυσίαν ἐτίθουν, οἱ δὲ νῦν ἐπὶ τοῦ τόπου ἐν τῷ θεάτρῳ, ἐν ᾧ αὐληταὶ καὶ
κιθαρῳδοὶ καὶ ἄλλοι τινὲς ἀγωνίζονται· σὺ μέντοι ἔνθα μὲν κωμῳδοὶ καὶ
τραγῳδοὶ ἀγωνίζονται λογεῖον ἐρεῖς, ἔνθα δὲ οἱ αὐληταὶ καὶ οἱ χοροὶ
ὀρχήστραν, μὴ λέγε δὲ θυμέλην.
[370] Bekk. Anecd. p. 292 σκηνὴ δ’ ἐστὶν ἡ νῦν λεγομένη θυμέλη. Schol.
Arist. Equit. 149 ὡς ἐν θυμέλῃ δὲ τὸ ἀνάβαινε. [Cp. Robert, Hermes
xxxii. p. 441; Bethe, ibid. xxxvi. p. 597, and Dörpfeld, ibid. xxxvii.
p. 249 for more recent discussions of the meaning of θυμέλη. Dörpfeld
may be right in explaining the various meanings of the word by its
having originally included not only the altar, but the broad base or
stone platform on which the altar stood, e.g. in front of a temple.
But Robert’s connexion of the word with θεμέλιον and τιθέναι instead
of with θύω is more than doubtful. See also Müller, Unters. zu den
Bühnenalterth., pp. 93-108.]
[371] Griech. Theater, p. 116.
[372] Ibid. p. 156.
[373] Amer. Journ. Arch., 1891, p. 281; 1893, p. 404.
[374] Athen. Mittheil., 1893, p. 407; Griech. Theater, p. 157.
[375] [Sharpley (Aristoph. Pax Introd., p. 27) thinks that it is
‘trifling with words’ to say that the purpose has not been explained.
He thinks it certain that these tunnels were used for the appearance
of actors in the orchestra, and constructs a theory of the scenic
arrangements of the Pax on this hypothesis, assuming the correctness
of Dörpfeld’s theory of the stage. But if Dörpfeld’s theory of the
stage is to be rejected, owing to a balance of considerations against
it (see below), then these tunnels do remain unexplained and their
purpose mysterious. The fact that at Eretria they _could_ be used as
Sharpley suggests proves nothing as to the manner in which they _were_
used, unless the theory of their use fits in with other evidence as to
theatrical performances. We know nothing of the performances in the
theatre at Eretria; there are no such tunnels at Athens, and there are
other ways of explaining the Pax.]
[376] Remains of such gateways are to be found at Sicyon, Delos, and
Pergamon. See the plans in Griech. Theater, pp. 117, 144, 151.
[377] Griech. Theater, pp. 129, 150.
[378] The illustration is taken from Πρακτικὰ τῆς ἐν Ἀθήν. ἀρχαιολ.
ἑταιρίας for 1883.
[379] Πάροδοι in Schol. Arist. Equit. 149; Poll. iv. 126; εἴσοδοι in
Arist. Nub. 326, Av. 296. The word πάροδος was also used to denote the
entrances on to the stage, e.g. in Plut. Demetr. 905 B; Poll. iv. 128;
Athen. 622 D.
[380] Vitruv. v. 6. The side-entrances are called ψαλίς in Poll. iv. 123;
ἁψίς in Vit. Aristoph. (Dindf. Prolegom. de Comoed. p. 36).
[381] e.g. τῆς σκηνῆς τὸ τέγος καταλείψαντι ... εἰς τὸ λογεῖον τῆς σκηνῆς
(Delian inscription, 279 B.C., in Bull. Corr. Hell. 1894, pp. 162 ff.).
[382] e.g. Aristot. Poet. c. 24 τὸ ἐπὶ τῆς σκηνῆς καὶ τῶν ὑποκριτῶν
μέρος. Polyb. xxx. 13 πύκται τέσσαρες ἀνέβησαν ἐπὶ τὴν σκηνήν.
[383] Plut. Demetr. 900 D ἔλεγε νῦν πρῶτον ἑωρακέναι πόρνην προερχομένην
ἐκ τραγικῆς σκηνῆς. So ἡ σκηνὴ ἡ μέση, τὰς ἐπάνω σκηνὰς καινὰς ποιῆσαι,
γράψαι τὰς σκηνάς, κ.τ.λ. (Delian inscription, 274 B.C., in Bull. Corr.
Hell. l.c.). Hence σκηνογραφία = scene-painting (Aristot. Poet. c. 4).
[Müller, Unters. zu den Bühnenalterth., pp. 1 ff., gives fully the
history of the various meanings of σκηνή.]
[384] Arg. Aesch. Pers. καὶ ἔστιν ἡ μὲν σκηνὴ τοῦ δράματος περὶ τῷ τάφῳ
Δαρείου. Bekk. Anecd. iii. p. 1461 εἰς πέντε σκηνὰς διαιρεῖ τὸ δρᾶμα.
[385] Puchstein, Die Griech. Bühne, p. 136.
[386] Griech. Theater, pp. 62 ff.
[387] Puchstein, l.c., p. 102, denies this, on the ground that these
stylobates are not long enough for the foundation walls of the Lycurgean
building, and cannot therefore have been originally made for them.
[388] See above, p. 88.
[389] [Dörpfeld has, since the publication of his book, changed his mind,
and now thinks that the Neronian stage was higher, and belonged to the
Vitruvian Graeco-Roman, not to the Roman type (Ath. Mitth. 1897, p. 459;
1898, pp. 330, 347). Puchstein is inclined to agree (die griech. Bühne,
p. 101). But, in fact, the evidence is insufficient to prove anything as
to the height of the stage.]
[390] Griech. Theater, pp. 89-90.
[391] Harpocrat. (s.v. παρασκήνια) quotes Theophrastus for the definition
of paraskenia as places on one side of the stage, used for storage
purposes. The παρασκήνια τά τε ἐπάνω καὶ τὰ ὑποκάτω mentioned along with
the σκηναί in the Delian inscription of 274 B.C. (Bull. Corr. Hell. 1894,
pp. 162 ff.) were doubtless side-wings. Demosthenes (Meid. § 17) accuses
Meidias of ‘nailing up the paraskenia’, and so preventing his dithyrambic
chorus from making its appearance. Probably he nailed up the doors out
of the side-wings into the parodoi. The word is also explained by the
commentators as = (1) the entrances to the orchestra (Didymus quoted by
Harpocrat. l.c.), or (2) the entrances to the stage (Phot. and Etym. Mag.
s.v.; Bekk. Anecd. p. 292; Ulpian on Dem. Meid. § 17), or (3) the doors
on each side of the main door in the back-scene (Suidas s.v. σκηνή).
But these explanations are probably false inferences from the passage
in Demosthenes, or from some other source. Cp. Müller, Unters. zu den
Bühnenalt., pp. 57-62, for the history of the word παρασκήνια.
[392] See above, p. 112.
[393] Hesych. s.v. ὀκρίβας· τὸ λογεῖον ἐφ’ οὗ οἱ τραγῳδοὶ ἠγωνίζοντο.
Plat. Symp. 194 A ἀναβαίνοντος ἐπὶ τὸν ὀκρίβαντα μετὰ τῶν ὑποκριτῶν. The
stage referred to in this latter passage was probably in the Odeion. See
above, p. 68, and Mazon, Rev. de Philologie, 1903, p. 265.
[394] Delian inscription of 279 B.C. εἰς τὸ [λογε]ῖον τῆς σκηνῆς; 180
B.C. τῶν πινάκων τῶν ἐπὶ τὸ λογεῖον (Bull. Corr. Hell. 1894, pp. 162
ff.). Phryn. p. 163 (Lob.) σὺ μέντοι, ἔνθα μὲν κωμῳδοὶ καὶ τραγῳδοὶ
ἀγωνίζονται, λογεῖον ἐρεῖς. Cp. Müller, l.c., pp. 49-57, for the history
of this and similar words.
[395] Delian inscription of 290 B.C. τὴν σκηνὴν ἐργολαβήσασι καὶ τὸ
προσκήνιον; 282 B.C. εἰς τὸ προσκήνιον γράψαντι πίνακας (Bull. Corr.
Hell. l.c.). Inscription on architrave of proscenium at Oropus (Griech.
Theater, p. 103) ἀγωνοθετήσας τὸ προσκήνιον καὶ τοὺς πίνακας. Polyb.
xxx. 13 τούτους δὲ στήσας ἐπὶ τὸ προσκήνιον μετὰ τοῦ χοροῦ. The word
προσκήνιον also denoted (1) the painted scenery at the back of the stage.
Cp. Suidas s.v. προσκήνιον· τὸ πρὸ τῆς σκηνῆς παραπέτασμα. Nannio the
courtesan (fourth century B.C.) was called ‘proskenion’ because of the
deceptive character of her beauty (Athen. p. 587 B). A representation of
Demetrius (third century B.C.) was painted ἐπὶ τοῦ προσκηνίου. (2) The
drop-scene (in late Greek). Cp. Synesius (about 400 A.D.), Aegypt. 128 C
εἰ δέ τις ... κυνοφθαλμίζοιτο διὰ τοῦ προσκηνίου. Cp. Müller, l.c., pp.
35 ff., for history of the meanings of the word.
[396] Dörpfeld (p. 69) denies that there was ever a wooden stage between
the wings of the Lycurgean building. He thinks the space was originally
filled up with a wooden proscenium, of the same height as the later
Hellenistic one of stone; and that both these proscenia served as
backgrounds, and not as stages. He argues that if there had been a stage,
it must have been made of stone. But if he is justified in assuming the
existence of an early wooden proscenium, we are surely justified in
assuming the existence of a stage of the same material.
[397] The theatres of Epidaurus and Megalopolis were formerly assigned to
about the middle of the fourth century. But it now appears probable that
they were not earlier than the end of that century. See Dörpfeld, Griech.
Theater, pp. 129 ff., 140.
[398] See the plan in Griech. Theater, p. 112.
[399] This was probably for acoustic reasons; see below, p. 122.
[400] Dörpfeld (p. 69) argues that the original erection put up between
the wings of the Lycurgean building must have been 13 ft. high, since the
back-wall was adorned with columns and entablature of that height. But
there is no proof of the existence of these columns and this entablature.
In fact, the evidence is all the other way. See above, p. 114. Prof. E.
Gardner (Excavations at Megalopolis, p. 84) thinks there is actual proof
of the existence of a low wooden stage at Megalopolis in early times.
The question really depends on the date of the three lower steps of the
Thersilion, which he supposes to be considerably later than the stone
auditorium. Dörpfeld, however (Griech. Theater, p. 140), assigns them to
the same period.
[401] Griech. Theater, pp. 100, 102, 113, 120, 143, 147, 150, 156.
Puchstein in many cases assigns an earlier date, e.g. at Megalopolis.
(Die Griech. Bühne, p. 90.)
[402] Griech. Theater, p. 118.
[403] Ibid., p. 115. There is the foundation-wall of a wooden proscenium
at Megalopolis, apparently of the third century, and running on the same
line as the later stone proscenium. But whether it was of the same height
is unknown. See Excavations at Megalopolis, p. 85.
[404] Schrader, Berl. Philolog. Wochenschrift, 1898, April 16, p. 508.
The stone proscenium at Epidaurus has sometimes been assigned to the end
of the fourth century, when the rest of the theatre was built. Dörpfeld
thinks it more probable that it was a later structure (Griech. Theater,
p. 232). Puchstein, however, dates the stone proscenium at Megalopolis in
the third or even the fourth century.
[405] Vitruv. v. 7.
[406] Puchstein, Griech. Bühne, pp. 41 ff.
[407] Ibid., pp. 17, 18. See below, p. 130.
[408] See (besides Puchstein, l.c.) Excavations at Megalopolis, p. 87;
Griech. Theater, p. 116. Cp. ibid., pp. 103, 150, for similar traces at
Assos and Oropus. The architrave of the proscenium at Oropus bore the
inscription ἀγωνοθετήσας τὸ προσκήνιον καὶ τοὺς πίνακας (ibid., p. 102).
The Delian inscriptions of 282 B.C. and 180 B.C. mention πίνακες εἰς τὸ
προσκήνιον, πίνακες ἐπὶ τὸ λογεῖον (Bull. Corr. Hell. 1894, p. 162).
[409] [See Bethe, Jahrb. Arch. Inst. 1900, p. 79. There is nothing
absurd, as Dörpfeld seems to think (ibid. 1901, p. 22), in the proscenium
thus serving two purposes in the two different types of performance. Why
should it not?]
[410] See Puchstein, l.c., p. 23.
[411] Bull. Corr. Hell. 1894, p. 162.
[412] Puchstein, l.c., p. 38.
[413] Poll. iv. 124 τὸ δὲ ὑποσκήνιον κίοσι καὶ ἀγαλματίοις κεκόσμητο πρὸς
τὸ θέατρον τετραμμένοις, ὑπὸ τὸ λογεῖον κείμενον. When Athenaeus (631 E)
speaks of a flute-player waiting in the hyposkenion till his turn came
to perform, it is uncertain whether the word there denotes a room under
the stage, or is used generally for the whole of the stage-buildings. See
Müller, Unters. zu den Bühnenalt., pp. 62-5.
[414] Griech. Theater, pp. 127, 147.
[415] Schrader, Berl. Philolog. Wochenschrift, 1898, April 16, p. 509;
Puchstein, l.c., pp. 19, 50.
[416] Griech. Theater, pp. 99, 102, 115, 125, 147, 150, 384. Dörpfeld now
thinks that there may have been three doors at Delos, but the matter is
very doubtful (Bull. Corr. Hell. 1896, p. 570).
[417] Excavations at Megalopolis, p. 86. Chamonard, Bull. Corr. Hell.
1896, p. 296.
[418] The illustration is taken from Baumeister’s Denkmäler, iii. plate
lxv.
[419] Griech. Theater, 103. Bull. Corr. Hell. 1896, p. 595.
[420] Chamonard (Bull. Corr. Hell. 1896, p. 296), judging from the width
of the supporting columns, makes the height of the Delian proscenium 8
ft. 2 in. Dörpfeld (ibid., p. 564), arguing that these columns must have
been the same height as the pillars at the side-entrance, supposes the
proscenium to have been 9 ft. 2 in.
[421] Griech. Theater, p. 99.
[422] See the plans in Griech. Theater.
[423] [Robert, Gött. Gel. Anz. 1902, p. 425; Dörpfeld, Ath. Mitth. 1903,
p. 407. The latter’s suggestion (l.c. 1898, p. 351) that they were used
to bring stage machinery into the θεολογεῖον, which he identifies with
the stage or λογεῖον, is met by the rejection of this identification; see
below, p. 164.]
[424] Puchstein, Griech. Bühne, pp. 49, 58, &c.
[425] The remains at Sicyon and Eretria show that at any rate the _first_
story—that above the proscenium—was made of stone.
[426] The phrase αἱ ἐπάνω σκηναί in the Delian inscription of 274
B.C. appears to show that the back-scene of that time must have been
two stories high (Bull. Corr. Hell. 1894, p. 162), [and the large sum
of 2,500 drachmae paid for painting the σκηναί and παρασκήνια, when
compared with the 6 drachmae 2 obols for painting the four πίνακες
ἐς τὸ προσκήνιον suggests that the former was elaborate and artistic
decoration, the latter something much simpler. See above, p. 123, and
Bethe, Jahrb. Arch. Inst. 1900, p. 64; P. Gardner, J. Hell. Stud. 1899,
p. 259, shows reason for thinking that the painting on the σκηναί
represented architectural decoration, perhaps of an elaborate kind.]
[427] [Vitruvius, vii. 5. 5, says that Apaturius of Alabanda, about the
middle of the first century B.C., treated the architectural back-scene in
a fantastic manner, and it is therefore probable, though the inference
is not certain, that the style in a simpler form had been in vogue for
some time previously. A terra-cotta from the S. Angelo collection,
belonging to the first or second century B.C., presents a back-scene of
two stories (Röm. Mitth. xii. p. 140; Bethe, Jahrb. Arch. Inst. 1900,
p. 61). There is also a vase-painting from Magna Graecia in Madrid by
Assteas, representing the Mad Heracles murdering his child (Baumeister,
Denkm. 732; Bethe, l.c., p. 60), with an architectural background of two
stories enclosed on both sides, and with a roof. As Assteas painted in
the fourth century B.C. (Robert, art. Assteas, in Pauly-Wiss. Encycl.),
Bethe, l.c., argues that the architectural back-scene was known in Magna
Graecia, and probably therefore in Greece proper, at that date. But it
is uncertain whether the scene represents an actual stage performance.
The murder, so far as we know, was never presented on the stage: it took
place in a room. The scene depicted may therefore represent the scene
as narrated by a messenger, and the buildings cannot be assumed to be
a stage background. The inferences from the terra-cotta are equally
disputed. (Dörpfeld, Jahrb. Arch. Inst. 1901, pp. 27 ff.; Graef., Hermes
1901, pp. 81 ff.) Cp. note on p. 172.]
[428] Vitruv. v. 6; Poll. iv. 124.
[429] The point of course is not, as Dörpfeld seems to imply (Jahrb.
Arch. Inst. 1901, p. 25; Ath. Mitth. 1903, pp. 389, 406), whether there
was ever a chorus or not at this time; but that there was no longer
a chorus in close communication with the actors, as in some plays of
Aeschylus, and therefore requiring a low stage. Bethe is, however, not
justified in assuming that there was _no_ stage in Aeschylus’ time (see
below, p. 172). A low one would allow sufficient intercourse between
chorus and actors.
[430] Tragic Drama of the Greeks, p. 452.
[431] Poll. iv. 127. See below, p. 148.
[432] Athen. de Mach., p. 29 (Wesch.) κατεσκεύασαν δέ τινες ἐν πολιορκίᾳ
κλιμάκων γένη παραπλήσια τοῖς τιθεμένοις ἐν τοῖς θεάτροις πρὸς τὰ
προσκήνια τοῖς ὑποκριταῖς. The meaning of this passage has been much
disputed. But Weissmann (Scenische Anweis. pp. 49 ff.) has shown
conclusively, as it seems to me, from a parallel passage in Apollodorus
περὶ κλιμάκων, that Athenaeus is referring, not to ladders used on the
stage for mounting the back-scene, but to steps about 12 feet high,
placed in front of the stage.
[433] See Fig. 13. Other specimens are given in Baumeister, Denkmäler,
ii. pp. 819, 820; Griechische Theater, pp. 322-324.
[434] Wieseler, Denkmäl. iv. 5.
[435] Puchstein, Griech. Bühne, pp. 17 ff.
[436] Griech. Theater, p. 113.
[437] Ancient Athens, p. 435.
[438] Fürtwängler, Sitzungsber. der Akad. der Wiss. zu München, 1901, pp.
411-6: q.v. for further arguments.
[439] Puchstein, l.c., p. 138.
[440] Tafel iii.
[441] Cp. p. 87. Dörpfeld’s objection that the shape is not that of
such seat-steps is disposed of by a comparison with other seat-steps
elsewhere; Puchstein, l.c., p. 139. The inscription is C. I. A. i. 499.
[442] l.c., p. 136.
[443] Above, p. 119, and below, § 13.
[444] See note on p. 128.
[445] Aristot. Poet. c. 18, ad fin.
[446] The illustration is taken from Lanckoronski, Städte Pamphyliens und
Pisidiens (Wien, 1892), vol. i. plate 27.
[447] Vitruv. v. 6; Poll. iv. 124.
[448] Müller, Bühnenalt., p. 28.
[449] See Lanckoronski, Städte Pamphyliens und Pisidiens, vol. i. pp.
51 ff., and plate 14 (Perge), vol. ii. pp. 92 ff., and plates 10-13
(Termessos), pp. 152 ff., and plate 26 (Sagalassos); Texier, Description
de l’Asie Mineure, vol. iii. plates 181 and 182 (Patara), plate 215
(Myra). The stage at Termessos was 8 feet high, that at Patara 8½ feet,
that at Sagalassos 9 feet. At Magnesia and at Tralles, where in other
respects the theatres were more completely Romanized, the height of the
stages was 7 ft. 6 in. and 9 ft. 10 in. respectively (Griech. Theater, p.
156). See also Puchstein, Griech. Bühne, on all these theatres.
[450] Griech. Theater, pp. 150 ff.
[451] See Excavations at Megalopolis, Supplementary Paper published by
the Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies, 1892; Puchstein,
Griech. Bühne, pp. 88 ff. The plan is copied from Griech. Theater, p. 134.
[452] From Griech. Theater, p. 144. For the description of the theatre,
see ibid., pp. 144 ff.; Chamonard, Bull. Corr. Hell., 1896, pp. 256 ff.;
Puchstein, l.c., pp. 53 ff.
[453] Side-wings (παρασκήνια) are mentioned not infrequently in the
Delian inscriptions for 274 and 269 B.C. (Bull. Corr. Hell., 1894, p.
162) as forming part of the theatre. But the present proscenium was
probably erected in the second century. At that date the permanent
side-wings must have been abolished.
[454] Dindorf, Prolegom. de Comoed. p. 29 καὶ ὅτε μὲν πρὸς τοὺς ὑποκριτὰς
διελέγετο (ὁ χορὸς ὁ κωμικός), πρὸς τὴν σκηνὴν ἀφεώρα, ὅτε δὲ ἀπελθόντων
τῶν ὑποκριτῶν τοὺς ἀναπαίστους διεξῄει, πρὸς τὸν δῆμον ἀπεστρέφετο. Ibid.
p. 36 εἰσῄει (ὁ χορὸς ὁ κωμικὸς) ἐν τετραγώνῳ σχήματι, ἀφορῶν εἰς τοὺς
ὑποκριτάς. Cp. ibid. p. 21; Dübner, Prolegom. de Comoed. p. 20; Schol.
Aristoph. Equit. 505.
[455] G. Hermann, Opusc. vi. 2, pp. 152 ff. The passage occurs in Suidas
and Etym. Mag., _s.v._ σκηνή; and in a more complete form in Schol.
Gregor. Nazianz. 355 B. The last version runs as follows:—μετὰ τὴν σκηνὴν
εὐθὺς καὶ τὰ παρασκήνια ἡ ὀρχήστρα. αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ὁ τόπος ὁ ἐκ σανίδων
ἔχων τὸ ἔδαφος, ἐφ’ οὗ θεατρίζουσιν οἱ μῖμοι. εἶτα μετὰ τὴν ὀρχήστραν
βωμὸς ἦν τοῦ Διονύσου, τετράγωνον οἰκοδόμημα κενὸν ἐπὶ τοῦ μέσου, ὃ
καλεῖται θυμέλη παρὰ τοῦ θύειν. μετὰ τὴν θυμέλην ἡ κονίστρα, τουτέστι τὸ
κάτω ἔδαφος τοῦ θεάτρου. It is clear that ὀρχήστρα here means the stage.
This appears not only from the context, but also from the fact that it
is said to have been the place for the μῖμοι. Wieseler bases upon the
above passage his peculiar theory that the ‘thymele’ was the platform for
the chorus, and not an altar at all. He relies on the words τετράγωνον
οἰκοδόμημα κενόν. It is true that the passage is obscure. But if it
proves one thing more than another, it proves that the ‘thymele’ was the
altar of Dionysus, and stood in the orchestra.
[456] See above, p. 108.
[457] In addition to the scholium quoted in the preceding note, the
following passages are cited to prove that θυμέλη sometimes = the special
platform for the chorus, between the orchestra and the stage:—(1) Anthol.
Pal. vii. 21 πολλάκις ἐν θυμέλῃσι καὶ ἐν σκηνῇσι τεθηλὼς | βλαισὸς
Ἀχαρνίτης κισσὸς κ.τ.λ. (2) Corp. Ins. Gr. 6750 δόξαν φωνήεσσαν ἐνὶ
σκηναῖσι λαβοῦσαν | παντοίης ἀρετῆς ἐν μείμοις, εἶτα χοροῖσι | πολλάκις
ἐν θυμέλαις. (3) Schol. Aristid. iii, p. 536 (Dindf.) ὁ χορὸς ὅτε εἰσῄει
ἐν τῇ ὀρχήστρᾳ ᾗ (MS. ἣ) ἐστι θυμέλη. (4) Poll. iv. 123 ἡ δὲ ὀρχήστρα
τοῦ χοροῦ, ἐν ᾗ καὶ ἡ θυμέλη, εἴτε βῆμά τι οὖσα εἴτε βωμός. (5) Isidor.
Origg. xviii. 47 ‘et dicti thymelici, quod olim in orchestra stantes
cantabant super pulpitum quod thymele vocabatur.’ In the first and
second passages θυμέλη obviously = ὀρχήστρα. In the third passage it =
ὀρχήστρα or βωμὸς Διονύσου, according as ἥ or ᾗ is read. In the fourth
passage there is apparently a confusion of the two meanings of θυμέλη
as ‘a stage’ and ‘an altar’. In the fifth passage the two meanings of
‘orchestra’ and ‘stage’ are confused. [Cp. p. 108, n.]
[458] Horace, Ars Poet. 278-80 ‘post hunc personae pallaeque repertor
honestae | Aeschylus et modicis instravit pulpita tignis | et docuit
magnumque loqui nitique cothurno.’ [The passage becomes still more
significant if we translate ‘tignis’ ‘posts’, i.e. uprights. It bears
this sense in Caes. B. G. iv. 17, 3. ‘Tigna bina sesquipedalia paulum ab
imo praeacuta ... in flumen defixerat.’ See P. Gardner, J. Hell. Stud.
1899, p. 257.]
[459] Höpken, De Theatro Attico, Bonn, 1884.
[460] Vitruv. v. 7 ‘ita a tribus centris hac descriptione ampliorem
habent orchestram Graeci et scaenam recessiorem minoreque latitudine
pulpitum, quod λογεῖον appellant, ideo quod eo tragici et comici actores
in scaena peragunt, reliqui autem artifices suas per orchestram praestant
actiones, itaque ex eo scaenici et thymelici graece separatim nominantur.
Eius logei altitudo non minus debet esse pedum decem, non plus duodecim.’
Whether under ‘reliqui artifices’ Vitruvius included the dramatic
chorus is very doubtful. The dramatic chorus had almost disappeared
in his day. Moreover ‘thymelici’ as opposed to ‘scaenici’ generally
means the competitors in musical and literary contests, as opposed to
the competitors in dramatic contests. But the words of Vitruvius about
the position of the actors upon the stage are free from all ambiguity.
[Cp. Frei, de Certaminibus Thymelicis. Dörpfeld’s suggestion (Deutsche
Littztg. 1901, p. 1816) that dramatic actors were called σκηνικοί because
they were nearer the σκηνή, and musical performers θυμελικοί as being
in the centre of the orchestra, round the θυμέλη, forces the words to
fit his theory, but gives a far less natural meaning to the distinction.
According to this, the members of the chorus in the drama also ought to
be called θυμελικοί.]
[461] Ibid. v. 6.
[462] Griech. Theater, p. 364.
[463] Bull. Corr. Hell. 1896, pp. 577 ff.; Athen. Mittheil. 1897, pp. 444
ff.; 1903, p. 386, &c.
[464] See above, p. 135.
[465] [The discussion is continued by Bethe, Hermes, 1898, pp. 313 ff.,
and Dörpfeld, Ath. Mitth. 1898, pp. 326 ff.; 1903, pp. 424 ff. The latter
admits that the Hellenistic stage corresponds better in depth with
Vitruvius’ rule, and his further arguments in support of his theory are
very unconvincing. (As regards some of them, see pp. 158 ff.) In various
other details the Hellenistic and Asiatic theatres nearly all deviate
from the exact figures given by Vitruvius, though the approximations
are in most cases close. One theatre corresponds in one point with the
figures given, one in another, as one would expect: and in most points,
other than those above mentioned, neither the Hellenistic nor the
Asiatic type has much advantage over the other in respect of precise
correspondence. (See Noack, Philologus, lviii, pp. 9 ff.) The clearest
result of Dörpfeld’s controversy with Bethe, and later with Puchstein,
is that theatres of both types varied much more than most writers have
allowed. Why should they not have done so? At the same time, Vitruvius’
rules are as nearly in accordance with the general features of the
Hellenistic type as general rules can be reasonably expected to be.]
[466] Poll. iv. 123 καὶ σκηνὴ μὲν ὑποκριτῶν ἴδιον, ἡ δὲ ὀρχήστρα τοῦ
χοροῦ. Dörpfeld (p. 347, and Ath. Mitth. 1903, p. 419) says that σκηνή
here = ‘the stage-buildings’. But the mention of the λογεῖον in the
previous line of Pollux, and the description of the ὑποσκήνιον, almost
immediately afterwards, as ὑπὸ τὸ λογεῖον κείμενον, clearly show that the
type of theatre described by Pollux was one which possessed a stage. If
so, this stage must have been used by the actors.
[467] Poll. iv. 127 εἰσελθόντες δὲ κατὰ τὴν ὀρχήστραν ἐπὶ τὴν σκηνὴν
ἀναβαίνουσι διὰ κλιμάκων. Here too Dörpfeld (p. 347, and Ath. Mitth.
1903, p. 406) thinks σκηνή = the house in the background, and that the
sentence refers to cases like Aristoph. Nub. 1486, where Strepsiades
climbs on to the roof. But why should the actors have used steps to mount
the house only when they entered the theatre by the orchestra? They would
need them just as much if they entered by the doors in the back-scene.
[468] Schol. Ran. 183 ἠλλοιῶσθαι χρὴ τὴν σκηνὴν καὶ εἶναι κατὰ τὴν
Ἀχερουσίαν λίμνην τὸν τόπον ἐπὶ τοῦ λογείου ἢ ἐπὶ τῆς ὀρχήστρας. Ibid.
299 ἀποροῦσι δέ τινες πῶς ἀπὸ τοῦ λογείου περιελθὼν καὶ κρυφθεὶς ὄπισθεν
τοῦ ἱερέως τοῦτο λέγει. φαίνονται δὲ οὐκ εἶναι ἐπὶ τοῦ λογείου ἀλλ’
ἐπὶ τῆς ὀρχήστρας. Schol. Equit. 149 ἵνα, φησίν, ἐκ τῆς παρόδου ἐπὶ τὸ
λογεῖον ἀναβῇ. διὰ τί οὖν ἐκ τῆς παρόδου; τοῦτο γὰρ οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον. Ibid.
506 λέγεται δὲ παράβασις ... ἐπειδὴ παραβαίνει ὁ χορὸς τὸν τόπον. ἑστᾶσι
μὲν γὰρ κατὰ στοῖχον οἱ πρὸς τὴν ὀρχήστραν (i.e. the stage) ἀποβλέποντες·
ὅταν δὲ παραβῶσιν, ἐφεξῆς ἑστῶτες καὶ πρὸς τοὺς θεατὰς βλέποντες τὸν
λόγον ποιοῦνται. Vit. Aesch. p. 8 (Dindf.) τὰ γὰρ δράματα συμπληροῦσιν οἱ
πρεσβύτατοι τῶν θεῶν, καὶ ἔστι τὰ ἀπὸ τῆς σκηνῆς καὶ τῆς ὀρχήστρας θεῖα
πάντα πρόσωπα.
[469] See above, p. 144, and note 1.
[470] Griech. Theater, p. 348.
[471] Griech. Theater, pp. 103, 113-16, 118.
[472] [Noack (Philologus, lviii. p. 6) argues that the reason was that at
the north end, where the rock is not cut away, it is much higher, and the
cutting and removal would be very expensive. But we know nothing of the
willingness or unwillingness of the Sicyonians to spend money on public
and religious objects, and the simpler theory seems to be that the space
was not wanted. The same remark applies to Noack’s explanation of the
case of Eretria by considerations of expense.]
[473] [Noack, l.c., contends that the division of the skene and filling
of half the space with earth is later work, and throws no light on the
scheme of the Hellenistic theatre. This is very doubtful; but even if it
were proved the other cases quoted would be sufficient for the argument
in the text.]
[474] See above, p. 125.
[475] This point is well brought out by Chamonard, Bull. Corr. Hell.
1896, p. 296.
[476] Griech. Theater, p. 381.
[477] Chamonard, l.c., p. 294.
[478] Griech. Theater, p. 381.
[479] See above, p. 124.
[480] Lanckoronski, Städte Pamphyliens, &c., vol. ii. plate 10.
[481] Griech. Theater, p. 380. [Also Noack, Philologus, lviii. pp. 2 ff.;
to whom Puchstein, Griech. Bühne, pp. 30 ff., replies sufficiently. The
evidence of the vases (see below), where actors are shown acting _on_ a
stage with columns in front, is conclusive against his contention that
the _only_ proper support for a stage is a wall, and that therefore the
columns of the proscenium can only represent a back-scene.]
[482] On the subject of these vase-paintings see especially Heydemann,
Die Phlyakendarstellungen auf bemalten Vasen, Jahrb. Kais. Deutsch.
Archäol. Inst. 1886, pp. 260 ff. Bethe, Prolegomena zur Geschichte des
Theaters, pp. 278 ff. Reisch, in Griech. Theater, pp. 311 ff.
[483] They are taken from Wieseler’s Denkmäler, ix. 14 and 15 (=
Baumeister, figs. 1828 and 1830).
[484] Fig. 13. Cp. the specimens in Wieseler’s Denkmäl. ix. 8; Griech.
Theater, pp. 315, 322, and 323; Baumeister’s Denkmäl., figs. 902, 903,
1826, 1827, 1829.
[485] Fig. 14. Cp. also the specimen in Griech. Theater, p. 318.
[486] Fig. 13. Cp. also Griech. Theater, pp. 322-4; Baumeister, figs.
902, 903.
[487] Baumeister, fig. 903. Griech. Theater, p. 322.
[488] Griech. Theater, p. 327.
[489] [The same must be said of his later suggestion (Jahrb. Arch. Inst.
1901, p. 36) that the columns on the Phlyakes vases are not really
curtailed, and do not therefore point to a taller stage, but are complete
and imply a stage between three and four feet high.]
[490] Griech. Theater, p. 147.
[491] Puchstein, Griech. Bühne, p. 24.
[492] Griech. Theater, p. 361.
[493] The stage at Athens was about 9 ft. 3 in.; at Epidaurus about
10½ ft. (Griech. Theater, pp. 78, 128). That at Delos was about 10 ft.
(Chamonard, Bull. Corr. Hell. 1896, p. 306). As Lechat (Épidaure, p. 208)
points out, it is necessary, in calculating the depth, not to measure
from wall to wall, but to take into account the projecting cornice. In
some cases, as he also remarks, the wall of the back-scene may have been
narrower than the wall beneath, on which it rested; and this would add
slightly to the depth of the stage.
[494] These facts and measurements have been kindly supplied to me by Dr.
Gray.
[495] Griech. Theater, p. 342; Ath. Mitth. 1898, pp. 337, 345, &c.
[496] Fougères, Mantinée et l’Arcadie, pp. 165 ff. According to
Dörpfeld’s theory that the proscenium was the back-scene, these lowest
seats would be on a level with the roof of the back-scene, which is
absurd. His argument that in cases where a removal of the lower rows
or steps of seats is certain (as at Assos, Pergamon, and Delphi), we
may assume that the theatre was converted from the supposed stageless
Hellenistic type to the Asiatic, is most unconvincing. Why were the rows
not similarly removed at Priene and Magnesia, though the high stage was
erected there? If he can suppose that in these cases seats were allowed
to remain which were bad for dramatic performances, why not in other
cases?
[497] Wochenschr. für Klass. Phil. 1899, p. 260.
[498] [For controversy on this point, cf. A. Müller, Unters. zu den
Bühnenalt., pp. 108 ff.; Dörpfeld, Ath. Mitth. 1899, p. 310; Müller,
Philologus, lix. p. 330. Müller accepts Maass’ conclusions, though he
corrects some of his figures. Both Müller and Dörpfeld calculate how
much of the orchestra or of the actor on the stage could be seen by the
spectators in different parts of different theatres. But any conclusions
drawn from such calculations are precarious; we have no reason to suppose
that there was a larger proportion of good seats in ancient theatres than
in modern; still less that the front seats were all necessarily better
for seeing the actors, any more than front seats or other seats of honour
are in many cases in modern theatres.]
[499] Griech. Theater, p. 342.
[500] Athen. Mittheil. 1893, p. 410.
[501] Griech. Theater, pp. 138, 139.
[502] See Puchstein, Griech. Bühne, p. 88; and P. Gardner, J. Hell. Stud.
1899, p. 258.
[503] See above, p. 138.
[504] Griech. Theater, p. 146.
[505] Vitruv. v. 6.
[506] Griech. Theater, pp. 385 ff.
[507] See above, p. 135.
[508] See above, p. 118.
[509] Griech. Theater, p. 365. Ath. Mitth. 1903, p. 395.
[510] On these points see below, pp. 209-15. Even if we suppose that the
theologeion was used in the cases mentioned on p. 213 to exhibit the deus
ex machina, the text of the plays shows that the god appeared _above_
the roof, and not upon it. Cp. Ion. 1549 ὑπερτελὴς οἴκων, Orest. 1631 ἐν
αἰθέρος πτυχαῖς.
[511] See below, p. 186.
[512] [It is also argued (Noack, Philologus, 1899, 1; Robert, Gött. Gel.
Anz. 1902, 418; Dörpfeld, Ath. Mitth. 1903, p. 403) that, because in
all the Roman and Graeco-Roman theatres, where the actors stood on the
logeion, the back-scene which formed their background was decorated with
columns, while the proscenium was not so decorated, it follows that when
the proscenium _was_ so decorated, i.e. in the earlier periods, it and
not the wall above and behind the logeion must have been the actors’
background, and the actors must have played in front of the proscenium.
But this is no proof at all, unless it is assumed that decorations were
_only_ employed to make backgrounds for actors, and _only_ disused
because not wanted for this purpose. This is neither likely in itself,
nor is it confirmed by anything in the evidence.
Dörpfeld also argues (Ath. Mitth. 1903, p. 396) that the grooves for
wheels, of which traces are found leading out of the door in the
back-scene on to the logeion at Eretria, prove that the logeion was used
by gods only, as ordinary personages in chariots came only through the
side entrances into the orchestra. But all that can be argued from these
grooves is that the logeion was used for something on wheels, whether
chariots or the ekkyklema, which Dörpfeld rejects. There is nothing to
show who used the vehicle, whatever it may have been. If an actor could
do so when representing a god, he could do so when representing a mortal.
Cp. Fossum, Amer. J. Arch. 1898, p. 187; cp. P. Gardner, J. Hell. Stud.
1899, p. 252.]
[513] Aristot. Probl. xix. 15 τὰ μὲν ἀπὸ σκηνῆς οὐκ ἀντίστροφα, τὰ δὲ
τοῦ χοροῦ ἀντίστροφα· ὁ μὲν γὰρ ὑποκριτὴς ἀγωνιστής, ὁ δὲ χορὸς ἧττον
μιμεῖται. Poet. c. 12 ἴδια δὲ τὰ ἀπὸ τῆς σκηνῆς καὶ κομμοί ... κομμός δὲ
θρῆνος κοινὸς χοροῦ καὶ ἀπὸ σκηνῆς.
[514] Poet. c. 24 διὰ τὸ ἐν μὲν τῇ τραγῳδίᾳ μὴ ἐνδέχεσθαι ἅμα πραττόμενα
πολλὰ μέρη μιμεῖσθαι, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἐπὶ τῆς σκηνῆς καὶ τῶν ὑποκριτῶν μέρος
μόνον. Cp. cc. 13, 17.
[515] Griech. Theater, pp. 284, 346.
[516] [Flickinger (The Meaning of ἐπὶ τῆς σκηνῆς in Writers of the Fourth
Century, Chicago, 1902) tries to show that ἐπὶ τῆς σκηνῆς in Aristotle
and Demosthenes does not mean ‘on the stage’ in any sense which would
imply an elevated stage, but simply ‘at the performance’, ‘as part of
a play’, &c., like ἐπὶ θέατρον later. He succeeds in interpreting the
passages consistently with this, and in showing that in later writers
the words often bore this meaning. But the changed application of
many technical terms, e.g. ὀρχήστρα, θυμέλη, &c., in later writers
shows that no reliance is to be placed on the supposed analogy; and
the other meaning still seems by far the most natural in Aristotle.
Dörpfeld (Deutsch. Littztg. 1901, p. 1817) thinks that the absence of
the expression ἀπὸ τῆς ὀρχήστρας to balance ἀπὸ τῆς σκηνῆς is very
significant as proving that all performers alike were in the orchestra.
It needs only the most elementary logic to dispose of this argument. Cp.
Müller, Unters. zu den Bühnenalt., for the full history of the words
σκηνή, &c.]
[517] Equit. 148 δεῦρο δεῦρ’, ὦ φίλτατε, | ἀνάβαινε σωτὴρ τῇ πόλει καὶ
νῷν φανείς. Acharn. 732 ἄμβατε ποττὰν μᾶδδαν. Vesp. 1342 ἀνάβαινε δεῦρο
χρυσομηλολόνθιον.
[518] Eccles. 1151 τί δῆτα διατρίβεις ἔχων, ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἄγεις | τασδὶ λαβών;
ἐν ὅσῳ δὲ καταβαίνεις, ἐγὼ | ἐπᾴσομαι κ.τ.λ. Vesp. 1514 ἀτὰρ καταβατέον
γ’ ἐπ’ αὐτούς. In the last passage καταβατέον might perhaps mean ‘I must
contend with them’. But it is more probable that the meaning here is the
same as in the other passage.
[519] Bodensteiner, Scenische Fragen, pp. 699, 700. Capps, The Stage in
the Greek Theatre, pp. 67, 68.
[520] Equit. 169 ἀλλ’ ἐπανάβηθι κἀπὶ τοὐλεὸν τοδί. The significance of
this line, as regards the present question, was first pointed out by
Zacher. Philologus, 1896, p. 181. Cp. Müller, l.c., pp. 1 ff.
[521] Harzmann, Quaestiones Scenicae, 1889. White, The Stage in
Aristophanes, 1891. Capps, The Stage in the Greek Theatre, 1891.
Bodensteiner, Scenische Fragen, 1893. Weissmann, Die scenische Aufführung
der griechischen Dramen, 1893. Hampel, Was lehrt Aeschylos’ Orestie
für die Theaterfrage? 1899. Engelmann, Archäologische Studien zu den
Tragikern, 1900. Krause, Quaestiones Aristophaneae Scenicae, 1903.
[522] Eur. El. 489, Ion 727, Herc. Fur. 119. In the last passage it is
the chorus which makes the complaint; so that in this case, if there was
any visible ascent, it cannot have been the ascent on to the stage.
[523] Eur. Med. 1275. Cp. Agam. 1344, Cyclops 630, Hipp. 780, Hec. 1042,
&c.
[524] Aesch. Choeph. 22, 1063; Eum. 140. Eur. Troad. 176; Hel. 385, 517.
In Aristoph. Av. 667 Procne (the flute-player of the chorus) enters from
the back-scene, and then descends into the orchestra. Several other
instances are given by Capps, pp. 9, 10; but they are all very doubtful.
[525] See below, pp. 191, 201.
[526] See below, p. 191.
[527] The following instances appear to be certain—Aesch. Suppl. 208,
832; Choeph. 22 ff. Soph. Oed. Col. 826 ff. Eur. Suppl. 1, 815: Hel. 1627
ff.: Rhesus 681; Iph. Aul. 599. Aristoph. Pax 246 ff. Many other examples
will be found in the treatises already mentioned; but the evidence for
most of them appears to be very slight.
[528] Griech. Theater, pp. 353 ff.
[529] Phot. and Hesych. s.v. λαυροστάται.
[530] [Seats of honour are not of course necessarily the best for seeing
or hearing (see p. 159, note), but they are not likely to be the worst.]
[531] Griech. Theater, p. 363.
[532] See above, p. 118.
[533] [Frei, De certaminibus thymelicis, traces back to the second
half of the fourth century the distinction of θυμελικοὶ and σκηνικοὶ
ἀγῶνες, and so proves the existence of a stage at that time. Engelmann,
Archäol. Stud. zu den Tragikern, supports Dörpfeld’s view by reference
to vase paintings, which he thinks were suggested by theatrical scenes,
and represent actions taking place in the orchestra, with the columnar
προσκήνιον as background. But the background could in most cases be
equally well the back of the stage; and it is not certain that the vases
in question present dramatic scenes at all. Columns, &c., are common on
all vases to indicate a house or a temple, where there is no reference to
a stage; and in black-figured vases, where all such reference is out of
the question, we find Prometheus and Odysseus tied to columns instead of
to a rock or a mast. See E. A. Gardner, Class. Rev. 1901, p. 432.]
[534] Bethe, Prolegomena zur Geschichte des Theaters, pp. 205 ff.
[535] Scenische Aufführung, p. 37. Jahrb. für classische Philologie,
1895, pp. 673 ff. See above, p. 167.
[536] Jahrb. für class. Philologie, 1894, pp. 161 ff.
[537] Hermes, 1897, pp. 450 ff.
[538] Vitruv. v. 6.
[539] Plut., Non posse suaviter, &c. 1096 B.
[540] Vitruv. v. 5.
[541] Id. v. 9.
[542] Plut. Pericles, 160 A. Pausan. i. 14. I. See Gardner, Ancient
Athens; Harrison, Primitive Athens.
[543] Same references.
[544] Val. Max. ii. 4. 6. C. I. G. 4283.
[545] Plut. X. orat. 841 F.
[546] Pausan. i. 21. I.
[547] Griech. Theater, p. 71.
[548] Suidas s.v. σαυτὴν ἐπαινεῖς.
[549] See above, p. 87.
[550] Schol. Aristid. iii. p. 535, Dindf. So Wilamowitz, Aristoteles und
Athen, i. p. 263. Christ, however (Sitzungs. bayer. Akad. der Wissen.
1894, p. 3), thinks the statement about the statues is true, though the
scholiast was mistaken in applying it to the passage in Aristides.
[551] Athen., p. 19 E.
[552] C. I. A. iii. 469.
[553] Griech. Theater, p. 70. For the inscription on the Xenocles
monument see C. I. A. ii. 1289.
[554] C. I. A. ii. 551.
[555] Hesych. s.v. ᾠδεῖον.
[556] See ch. ii.
[557] Aelian. Var. Hist. ii. 28. On the outside of the arms, in the
throne of the priest of Dionysus, there are two bas-reliefs, in which
kneeling Cupids are depicted in the act of setting cocks to fight. The
significance of the reliefs is explained by the fact that the annual
cock-fight was held in the theatre.
[558] Dem. Meid. § 9.
[559] Thuc. viii. 93, 94.
[560] Plut. Phoc. 757 D.
[561] Id. Demetr. 905 A. Müller (Bühnenalt. p. 74) is mistaken in
stating, on the authority of Diod. xvi. 84, that on the news of the
capture of Elatea in 339 the Athenians hastily assembled in the theatre.
That they met in the Pnyx is proved by the passage in Dem. de Cor. § 169.
Diodorus is merely using the language of his own time, when the theatre
was the regular meeting-place.
[562] Harpocrat. s.v. περίπολος.
[563] Poll. viii. 132.
[564] Plut. Lycurg. 51 E. Athen. 19 E. Alciphron iii. 20.
[565] Dion Chrysost. or. xxxi. p. 386 (Dindf.). Philostrat. vit. Apoll.
iv. 22.
[566] Aesch. Suppl. 189.
[567] Pers. 659. The palace is often referred to (159, 230, 524, 849,
1038); but this does not show that it was supposed to be visible. And the
fact that Atossa made her first entrance on a chariot (159, 607), though
coming from the palace, seems to prove that it was out of sight.
[568] Septem 95, 240, 265, 549, 823.
[569] Agam. 3, Choeph. 22, Eum. 35, 242.
[570] Reisch (Griech. Theater, pp. 194, 200) thinks the actors’ booth was
originally in the side-entrance to the orchestra. He thinks the first
stage-buildings were erected about 465, when scenery was introduced;
and that these buildings were henceforth used for actors’ rooms. But it
is much simpler to suppose that the actors’ booth stood fronting the
spectators from the first, and that it was gradually converted into a
stage-building.
[571] Aristot. Poet. c. 4 τρεῖς δὲ καὶ σκηνογραφίαν Σοφοκλῆς. Vitruv.
vii. praef. § 11 primum Agatharchus Athenis Aeschylo docente tragoediam
scaenam fecit et de ea commentarium reliquit. Prof. Jebb (Dict. Antiq.
ii. p. 816) thinks the two statements may be reconciled by supposing that
the words ‘Aeschylo docente tragoediam’ merely fix the date, without
implying that Aeschylus had anything to do with the innovation. [Prof.
P. Gardner (J. Hell. Stud. 1899, p. 253) points out that, according to
Vitruvius, Agatharchus, like Democritus and Anaxagoras, seems to have
studied perspective theoretically; and the story that he was enticed
by Alcibiades into his house, and not released till he had painted its
interior, combined with Vitruvius’ notice, suggests that he was precisely
the kind of painter for a stage; while the date suggested has nothing
chronologically against it.]
[572] Vitruv. v. 6.
[573] Viz. Soph. O. R., Antig., Electr., Trach.; Eur. Alc., Med., Hipp.,
Herc. Fur., Phoen., Hel., Orest., Bacch., Ion, Iph. Taur., Andr., Suppl.,
Heraclid.
[574] Viz. Eur. Hec., Troad., Iph. Aul., Rhesus.
[575] Viz. the Wasps, Peace, Clouds, Frogs, Ecclesiazusae, Plutus.
[576] [This was so not only in vase paintings, but in such elaborate
works as those of Polygnotus at Delphi: cp. P. Gardner, J. Hell. Stud.
1899, p. 254.]
[577] [See P. Gardner, J. Hell. Stud. 1899, pp. 255 ff.]
[578] Bacch. 590, 1211; Orest. 1569; Iph. Taur. 113, 130.
[579] Ion 190 ff. [It is noticeable that the occurrence of the technical
terms of architecture and other arts is particularly common in Euripides,
who shows special acquaintance with the arts and their processes. This
may perhaps confirm the otherwise uncertain tradition (Vit. Eur.) that he
was once a painter: cp. Huddilston, The Attitude of the Greek Tragedians
towards Art.]
[580] Such scenes were depicted on the periaktoi, Poll. iv. 126, 131. See
below, p. 197.
[581] Eur. Hel. 1, Troad. 1256; Soph. El. 4 ff.
[582] Poll. iv. 131 καταβλήματα ... κατεβάλλετο ἐπὶ τὰς περιάκτους ὄρος
δεικνύντα ἢ θάλατταν ἢ ποταμὸν ἢ ἄλλο τι τοιοῦτον. Anon. de comoed. (xx.
28 Dübner) πολυτελέσι δαπάναις κατεσκευάζετο ἡ σκηνὴ ... πεποικιλμένη
παραπετάσμασι καὶ ὀθόναις λευκαῖς καὶ μελαίναις ... εἰς τύπον θαλάσσης
ταρτάρου ᾅδου ... γῆς καὶ οὐρανοῦ κ.τ.λ.
[583] Poll. iv. 131 καταβλήματα δὲ ὑφάσματα ἢ πίνακες ἦσαν ἔχοντες γραφὰς
τῇ χρείᾳ τῶν δραμάτων προσφόρους· κατεβάλλετο δὲ ἐπὶ τὰς περιάκτους.
Ibid. 125 κλίσιον ... παραπετάσμασιν δηλούμενον. Suid. s.v. προσκήνιον
τὸ πρὸ τῆς σκηνῆς παραπέτασμα. Anon. de comoed. (xx. 28 Dübner) σκηνὴ
πεποικιλμένη παραπετάσμασι καὶ ὀθόναις.
[584] So Müller, Bühnenalt. pp. 118, 142.
[585] Poll. iv. 129 ἡ δὲ διστεγία ποτὲ μὲν ἐν οἴκῳ βασιλείῳ διῆρες
δωμάτιον, οἷον ἀφ’ οὗ ἐν Φοινίσσαις ἡ Ἀντιγόνη βλέπει τὸν στρατόν,
ποτὲ δὲ καὶ κέραμος, ἀφ’ οὗ βάλλουσι τῷ κεράμῳ· ἐν δὲ κωμῳδίᾳ ἀπὸ τῆς
διστεγίας πορνοβοσκοί τι κατοπτεύουσιν ἢ γρᾴδια ἢ γύναια καταβλέπει.
[586] Agam. 3, Phoen. 89, Orest. 1567-75, Acharn. 262, Vesp. 68 and 144,
Nub. 1485-1503, Lysist. 864, 874, and 883, Eur. Suppl. 990.
[587] Dict. Antiq. i. pp. 663, 666.
[588] Vitruv. v. 6.
[589] Vitruv. v. 6. Vesp. 379, Eccles. 924, 930, 961-3.
[590] See above, p. 135.
[591] See above, p. 135.
[592] Poll. iv. 124, 126; Vitruv. v. 6.
[593] Vitruv. v. 6 ‘ipsae autem scaenae suas habent rationes explicatas
ita uti mediae valvae ornatus habeant aulae regiae, dextra ac sinistra
hospitalia.’ Poll. iv. 124 τριῶν δὲ τῶν κατὰ τὴν σκηνὴν θυρῶν ἡ μέση
μὲν βασίλειον ἢ σπήλαιον ἢ οἶκος ἔνδοξος ἢ πᾶν τοῦ πρωταγωνιστοῦ τοῦ
δράματος, ἡ δὲ δεξιὰ τοῦ δευτεραγωνιστοῦντος καταγώγιον· ἡ δὲ ἀριστερὰ τὸ
εὐτελέστατον ἔχει πρόσωπον ἢ ἱερὸν ἐξηρημωμένον, ἢ ἄοικός ἐστιν. ἐν δὲ
τραγῳδίᾳ ἡ μὲν δεξιὰ θύρα ξενών ἐστιν, εἱρκτὴ δὲ ἡ λαιά. τὸ δὲ κλίσιον
ἐν κωμῳδίᾳ παράκειται παρὰ τὴν οἰκίαν, παραπετάσμασι δηλούμενον, καὶ
ἔστι μὲν σταθμὸς ὑποζυγίων ... ἐν δὲ Ἀντιφάνους Ἀκεστρίᾳ καὶ ἐργαστήριον
γέγονεν. Throughout this passage Pollux is guilty of his usual fault of
converting particular cases into general rules.
[594] See the previous note.
[595] Poll. iv. 126 παρ’ ἑκάτερα δὲ τῶν δύο θυρῶν τῶν περὶ τὴν μέσην
ἄλλαι δύο εἶεν ἄν, μία ἑκατέρωθεν, πρὸς ἃς αἱ περίακτοι συμπεπήγασιν.
Vitruv. v. 6 ‘secundum ea loca versurae sunt procurrentes, quae efficiunt
una a foro, altera a peregre, aditus in scaenam’. Phot. s.v. παρασκήνια·
αἱ εἴσοδοι αἱ εἰς τὴν σκηνήν. Schol. Aristoph. Lysist. 321 νῦν ἐστιν
ἡμιχόριον τὸ λέγον ἐκ γυναικῶν εἰσερχομένων ἄνωθεν ... τὸ δὲ ἄλλο
ἡμιχόριον ἐξ ἀνδρῶν κάτωθεν ἐπερχομένων.
[596] See Harzmann, Quaestiones Scenicae, pp. 43 ff.; Bodensteiner,
Scenische Fragen, pp. 703 ff.; Capps, The Stage in the Greek Theatre, pp.
12 ff.; Weissmann, Scenische Aufführung, pp. 25 ff., 76.
[597] Cf. Aesch. Suppl. 1018; Pers. 1076. Eur. Suppl. 1231; Alc. 741.
Aristoph. Acharn. 1231; Vesp. 1535; Pax 1357; Ran. 1524. For other
instances see Bodensteiner, p. 690. Only one of these cases—the funeral
procession in the Alcestis—occurs in the middle of a play.
[598] Alcestis 861; Plutus 253. Capps (pp. 20 ff.) gives some additional
instances; but for these there is no clear evidence.
[599] See below, p. 201.
[600] E.g. Oed. Tyr. 1110-21; Agam. 498-503; Ion 392-401; Oed. Col.
310-24. See Harzmann, pp. 43 ff.
[601] E.g. Trach. 178-80, 731-4; Phil. 539-42.
[602] Av. 1-53, Ran. 1-35.
[603] E.g. Bacch. 1216 ff.; Hec. 484 ff.; Aj. 1040 ff. See, for other
instances, Harzmann, pp. 45 ff.; Bodensteiner, pp. 716 ff.
[604] See above, pp. 125, 126, for the various devices for such entrances.
[605] Vitruv. v. 6 ‘secundum ea loca versurae sunt procurrentes, quae
efficiunt una a foro, altera a peregre, aditus in scaenam’. Vit.
Aristoph. (Dindf. Prolegom. de Comoed. p. 36) ὁ κωμικὸς χορὸς συνέστηκεν
ἐξ ἀνδρῶν κδʹ. καὶ εἰ μὲν ὡς ἀπὸ τῆς πόλεως ἤρχετο ἐπὶ τὸ θέατρον, διὰ
τῆς ἀριστερᾶς ἁψῖδος εἰσῄει, εἰ δὲ ὡς ἀπὸ ἀγροῦ, διὰ τῆς δεξιᾶς. Poll.
iv. 126 τῶν μέντοι παρόδων ἡ μὲν δεξιὰ ἀγρόθεν ἢ ἐκ λιμένος ἢ ἐκ πόλεως
ἄγει· οἱ δὲ ἀλλαχόθεν πεζοὶ ἀφικνούμενοι κατὰ τὴν ἑτέραν εἰσίασιν. In
the Life the words ἀπὸ ἀγροῦ denote ‘from a distance’. In Pollux ἀγρόθεν
apparently means ‘from the country in the suburbs’; but the word is
obscure, and possibly corrupt. As applied to the _stage_ the words
‘right’ and ‘left’ were always used from the point of view of the actors:
cp. the account of the periaktoi in Poll. iv. 126. But as applied to the
orchestra they were sometimes used from the point of view of the actors,
sometimes from that of the audience. Hence the eastern parodos might be
called the right or the left parodos, according to the point of view from
which it was regarded. This is the reason of the apparent discrepancy
between the statements in the Life and in Pollux. The author of the Life
is looking at the orchestra from the point of view of the actors, Pollux
from the point of view of the audience.
[606] At line 566 the scene of action is transferred in reality to the
Areopagus (cf. 685 πάγον δ’ Ἄρειον τόνδε). But this change must have been
imagined, and not represented. After Orestes and the Furies arrive in
front of the temple of Athene, they remain continuously on the stage till
the end of the trial.
[607] Poll. iv. 126 παρ’ ἑκάτερα δὲ τῶν δύο θυρῶν τῶν περὶ τὴν μέσην
ἄλλαι δύο εἶεν ἄν, μία ἑκατέρωθεν, πρὸς ἅς αἱ περίακτοι συμπεπήγασιν, ἡ
μὲν δεξιὰ τὰ ἔξω πόλεως δηλοῦσα, ἡ δ’ ἑτέρα τὰ ἐκ πόλεως, μάλιστα τὰ ἐκ
λιμένος· καὶ θεούς τε θαλαττίους ἐπάγει, καὶ πάνθ’ ὅσα ἐπαχθέστερα ὄντα
ἡ μηχανὴ φέρειν ἀδυνατεῖ. εἰ δ’ ἐπιστραφεῖεν αἱ περίακτοι, ἡ δεξιὰ μὲν
ἀμείβει τόπον (a. l. τὸ πᾶν) ἀμφότεραι δὲ χώραν ὑπαλλάττουσιν. Vitruv.
v. 6 ‘secundum autem spatia ad ornatus comparata, quae loca Graeci
περιάκτους dicunt, ab eo quod machinae sunt in his locis versatiles
trigonoe habentes singulae tres species ornationis, quae, cum aut
fabularum mutationes sunt futurae, seu deorum adventus cum tonitribus
repentinis, versentur mutentque speciem ornationis in fronte’, &c.
Serv. on Verg. Georg. iii. 24 ‘scaena quae fiebat aut versilis erat aut
ductilis erat. Versilis tum erat cum subito tota machinis quibusdam
convertebatur, et aliam picturae faciem ostendebat’. A change of τόπος
means a change from one part of the same district to another; a change
of χώρα means an entire change of district. Niejahr (Comment. Scaen. pp.
1 ff.), Oehmichen (Bühnenwesen, p. 241), and P. Gardner, J. Hell. Stud.
1899, p. 262, think the passage ἡ μὲν δεξιὰ ... ἀδυνατεῖ refers, not to
the periaktoi, but to the side-doors. But (1) the run of the passage
is against this view, (2) δηλοῦσα could hardly be used of a door, (3)
Vitruvius says the periaktoi were used for introducing gods, and thus
proves that θεοὺς ἐπάγει in Pollux also refers to the periaktoi.
[608] [P. Gardner, J. Hell. Stud. 1899, p. 260, disputes the view that
the periaktoi stood in line with a painted background and altered a small
part of it. He thinks that before the existence of a painted background
the periaktoi stood alone and indicated a change of scene in a merely
symbolical way.]
[609] [Cp. P. Gardner, J. Hell. Stud. 1899, p. 261. He interprets
in this sense Pollux iv. 131 καταβλήματα δὲ ὑφάσματα ἢ πίνακες ἦσαν
ἔχοντες γραφὰς τῇ χρείᾳ τῶν δραμάτων προσφόρους· κατεβάλλετο δ’ ἐπὶ τὰς
περιάκτους ὄρος δεικνύντα ἢ θάλατταν ἢ ποταμὸν ἢ ἄλλο τι τοιοῦτον.]
[610] The suggestion is due to Navarre, Dionysos, p. 137. [Cf. Holwerda,
Ath. Mitth. 1898, p. 386.] Possibly Plutarch may be referring to this
contrivance when he says (de Esu Carn. 996 B) μηχανὴν αἱρεῖ ποιητικὸς
ἀνὴρ σκηνῆς περιφερομένης.
[611] Cramer, Anecd. Par. i. 19.
[612] [P. Gardner, l.c. p. 260, thinks that so simple, conventional, and
yet effective an arrangement is quite in the manner of the fifth century,
and belongs to the same class as the ekkyklema and the mask, which were
certainly Aeschylean.]
[613] Serv. on Verg. Georg. iii. 24 ‘scaena quae fiebat aut versilis erat
aut ductilis erat ... ductilis tum cum tractis tabulatis huc atque illuc
species picturae nudabatur interior’.
[614] Vit. Aesch. p. 6 Dindf. καὶ τὴν ὄψιν τῶν θεωμένων κατέπληξε τῇ
λαμπρότητι, γραφαῖς καὶ μηχαναῖς, βωμοῖς τε καὶ τάφοις, σάλπιγξιν,
εἰδώλοις, Ἐρινύσι κ.τ.λ.
[615] Aesch. Eum. 242; Soph. Electr. 1373, Oed. Col. 59; Eur. Hipp.
70-106.
[616] Aesch. Suppl. 188-200; Soph. Oed. Tyr. 1-3, 142.
[617] Poll. iv. 123; Aesch. Agam. 1080 ff.; Schol. Eur. Phoen. 631;
Arist. Vesp. 875.
[618] Aesch. Pers. 684, Choeph. 4; Soph. Oed. Col. 19; Poll. iv. 127.
[619] Aesch. Agam. 782 ff. Eur. El. 988 ff. Other instances occur in
Pers. 159 (cp. 607), Troad. 569, Iph. Aul. 600. But there is no reason to
infer from Aesch. Suppl. 181 and Pers. 1000 that chariots were actually
introduced in these two places.
[620] Prom. 286, 395; Ran. 27. As for the horse on which Ismene is riding
(Oed. Col. 312), or the captured horses of Rhesus (Rhes. 671), or the
flocks of Polyphemus (Cycl. 82), it is most improbable that these were
brought into the theatre.
[621] The ekkyklema is described in the following passages:—Poll. iv.
128. καὶ τὸ μὲν ἐκκύκλημα ἐπὶ ξύλων ὑψηλὸν βάθρον, ᾧ ἐπίκειται θρόνος·
δείκνυσι δὲ τὰ ὑπὸ σκηνὴν ἐν ταῖς οἰκίαις ἀπόρρητα πραχθέντα, καὶ τὸ
ῥῆμα τοῦ ἔργου καλεῖται ἐκκυκλεῖν. ἐφ’ οὗ δὲ εἰσάγεται τὸ ἐκκύκλημα,
εἰσκύκλημα ὀνομάζεται, καὶ χρὴ τοῦτο νοεῖσθαι καθ’ ἑκάστην θύραν, οἱονεὶ
καθ’ ἑκάστην οἰκίαν. (The θρόνος mentioned by Pollux must be derived from
some particular instance of the use of the ekkyklema. The epithet ὑψηλόν
is not strictly correct: cf. p. 232.) Eustath. Il. 976. 15 τὸ ἐγκύκλημα,
ὃ καὶ ἐγκύκληθρον λέγεται, μηχάνημα ἦν ὑπότροχον, ὑφ’ οὗ ἐδείκνυτο τὰ ἐν
τῇ σκευῇ ἢ σκηνῇ. Schol. Aesch. Choeph. 973 ἀνοίγεται ἡ σκηνὴ καὶ ἐπὶ
ἐκκυκλήματος ὁρᾶται τὰ σώματα. Schol. Arist. Thesm. 96 ἐπὶ ἐκκυκλήματος
γὰρ φαίνεται. Schol. Arist. Acharn. 408 ἐκκύκλημα δὲ λέγεται μηχάνημα
ξύλινον τροχοὺς ἔχον, ὅπερ περιστρεφόμενον τὰ δοκοῦντα ἔνδον ὡς ἐν οἰκίᾳ
πράττεσθαι καὶ τοῖς ἔξω ἐδείκνυε, λέγω δὴ τοῖς θεαταῖς. Schol. Aesch.
Eum. 64 καὶ δευτέρα δὲ γίγνεται φαντασία· στραφέντα γὰρ μηχανήματα
ἔνδηλα ποιεῖ τὰ κατὰ τὸ μαντεῖον ὡς ἔχει. Schol. Arist. Nub. 184 ὁρᾷ δὲ
ὡς φιλοσόφους κομῶντας, στραφέντος τοῦ ἐγκυκλήματος. Schol. Clem. Alex.
iv. 97 σκεῦός τι ὑπότροχον ἐκτὸς τῆς σκηνῆς, οὗ στρεφομένου ἐδόκει τὰ
ἔσω τοῖς ἔξω φανερὰ γίνεσθαι. Reisch (Griech. Theater, p. 236) thinks
the last four passages, in which the word στρέφειν is used, refer to a
different kind of machine, by which the back-scene was rolled apart, and
disclosed the interior. But this is to lay too much stress on the exact
words of the grammarians. They are all obviously referring to the same
device. See below, p. 206.
[622] Agam. 1379, 1404, 1440. Choeph. 973, 981.
[623] Ajax 346; Antig. 1293, 1301; Hipp. 808, 857; Soph. El. 1458-75;
Hec. 1051, 1118; Herc. Fur. 1029-1402; Eur. El. 1177, 1243, 1276.
[624] Thesm. 95, 96 ΕΥ. σίγα. ΜΝ. τί δ’ έστιν; ΕΥ. Ἁγάθων ἐξέρχεται. |
ΜΝ. καὶ ποῖός ἐστιν; ΕΥ. οὗτος οὑκκυκλούμενος, 238 ἐνεγκάτω τις ἔνδοθεν
δᾷδ’ ἢ λύχνον, 265 εἴσω τις ὡς τάχιστά μ’ εἰσκυκλησάτω. Id. Acharn. 399
αὐτὸς δ’ ἔνδον ἀναβάδην ποιεῖ, 408, 409 ΔΙ. ἀλλ’ ἐκκυκλήθητ’. ΕΥ. ἀλλ’
ἀδύνατον. ΔΙ. ἀλλ’ ὅμως. | ΕΥ. ἀλλ’ ἐκκυκλήσομαι· καταβαίνειν δ’ οὐ
σχολή. The word ἀναβάδην usually means ‘with one’s feet up’, and is so
taken by many scholars in the present passage. But καταβαίνειν in l. 409
seems to prove that here at least it must mean ‘upstairs’.
[625] Nub. 181 ff., Equit. 1327.
[626] [Fossum, Am. J. Arch. 1898, p. 188; Dörpfeld, Ath. Mitth. 1903, p.
396. See above, p. 165 n.]
[627] [Exon, Hermathena, 1900, pp. 132 ff.; Navarre, Revue des Études
Anciennes, 1901, p. 102. The words are περιστρεφόμενον, στραφέντα,
and the variant ἐγκύκλημα (compared with ἐγκύκλιος, &c., of rotatory
movement): see above, p. 201. Exon also doubts if ἀνοίγεται ἡ σκηνή
could be used of opening a door for the ἐκκύκλημα to pass, and thinks
that the portion of the back-scene which formed part of the ἐκκύκλημα
on his theory was by the side of the door, and that there was a similar
apparatus by each door. But this is pressing the meaning of ἀνοίγεται
ἡ σκηνή too closely. The words of Pollux, however, do suggest that the
ἐκκύκλημα could be adapted to any of the three doors.]
[628] Schol. Thesm. 284 παρεπιγραφή. ἐκκυκλεῖται ἐπὶ τὸ ἔξω τὸ
θεσμοφόριον. The words ὠθεῖται τὸ ἱερόν are inserted in the text. These
παρεπιγραφαί were stage-directions appended to the text of the plays; but
when and by whom they were written is unknown.
[629] Schol. Eum. 64.
[630] When Apollo (l. 67) says καὶ νῦν ἁλούσας τάσδε τὰς μάργους ὁρᾷς, it
is hardly conceivable that the Furies should not have been visible to the
audience. Also l. 179 ἔξω, κελεύω, τῶνδε δωμάτων τάχος | χωρεῖτε implies
that they were still inside the temple: but according to the theory in
the text they had come out of the temple at l. 140.
[631] Reisch, Griech. Theater, pp. 234 ff.; Capps, The Stage in the
Greek Theatre, pp. 237 ff. Neckel (Das Ekkyklema, pp. 7 ff.) thinks the
ekkyklema was too rude a device for the taste of Aeschylus and Sophocles,
and that it was first introduced in the time of Euripides. Bethe
(Prolegomena, pp. 104 ff.) thinks it was used by Aeschylus and Sophocles,
but gradually dropped by Euripides.
[632] Reisch (pp. 237 ff.) explains the two scenes in the
Thesmophoriazusae and the Acharnians by supposing that Agathon and
Euripides were rolled out on couches. But this theory destroys all the
point and humour of the scenes.
[633] Herc. Fur. 1008, 1070.
[634] Nub. 184, 198.
[635] Additional proofs that the bodies were not _carried_ out are
(1) Agam. 1379, where Clytaemnestra says she is standing on ‘the very
spot where she struck the blow’, (2) Antig. 1301, where Eurydice is
seen lying beside the altar at which she had stabbed herself. That the
ekkyklema-scenes were _outside_ the building, and on the stage, is also
proved by Eur. El. 1245, 1276, where the Dioscuri, though standing above
the palace roof, can see the bodies of Clytaemnestra and Aegisthus.
[636] Poll. iv. 129 τὴν δὲ ἐξώστραν ταὐτὸν τῷ ἐκκυκλήματι νομίζουσιν.
Hesych. s.v. ἐξώστρα· ἐπὶ τῆς σκηνῆς τὸ ἐκκύκλημα. Delian inscription of
274 B.C. (Bull. Corr. Hell. 1894, p. 162) τὰς ἐξώστρας ... ἐπισκευάσαι.
Polyb. xi. 6. 8 τῆς τύχης ὥσπερ ἐπίτηδες ἐπὶ τὴν ἐξώστραν ἀναβιβαζούσης
τὴν ὑμετέραν ἄγνοιαν. Cic. de Prov. Cons. § 14 iam in exostra helluatur,
antea post siparium solebat.
[637] Poll. iv. 128 ἡ μηχανὴ δὲ θεοὺς δείκνυσι καὶ ἥρως τοὺς ἐν ἀέρι,
Βελλεροφόντας ἢ Περσέας, καὶ κεῖται κατὰ τὴν ἀριστερὰν πάροδον, ὑπὲρ
τὴν σκηνὴν τὸ ὕψος. Schol. Luc. Philops. vii. p. 375 (Lehmann) ἄνωθεν
ὑπὲρ τὰς παρ’ ἑκάτερα τῆς μέσης τοῦ θεάτρου θύρας ... μηχανῶν δύο
μετεωριζομένων ἡ ἐξ ἀριστερῶν θεοὺς καὶ ἥρωας ἐνεφάνιζε παρευθύ,
ὥσπερ λύσιν φέροντας τῶν ἀμηχάνων. Aristoph. Daedal. fr. 9 (Meineke)
ὁ μηχανοποιός, ὁπότε βούλει τὸν τροχὸν | ἐλᾶν ἀνεκάς, λέγε, χαῖρε
φέγγος ἡλίου. The μηχανή was also called ἐώρημα, Suidas. s.v. [This
should probably be αἰώρημα.] The ropes to which the actor was suspended
were called αἰῶραι; Poll. iv. 131 αἰώρας δ’ ἂν εἴποις τοὺς κάλως οἳ
κατήρτηνται ἐξ ὕψους ἀνέχειν τοὺς ἐπὶ τοῦ ἀέρος φέρεσθαι δοκοῦντας ἥρως
ἢ θεούς. The hook by which he was fastened was ἅρπαξ or ἀγκυρίς; Bekk.
Anecd. i. 232 (of the Crane) ἅρπαξ ... ἐξ οὗ ὁ ἐσκευασμένος ὑποκριτὴς
τραγῳδεῖ. Plut. Prov. 116 (of the Fig-Branch) ἀγκυρίς, ἀφ’ ἧς οἱ
ὑποκριταὶ ... ἐξαρτῶνται ... ζωστῆρσι καὶ ταινίαις κατειλημμένοι.
[638] Plut. Prov. 116 κράδης ῥαγείσης· νῦν οὐχ ὁ σύκινος κλάδος, ἀλλ’ ἡ
ἀγκυρίς, ἀφ’ ἧς οἱ ὑποκριταὶ ἐν ταῖς τραγικαῖς σκηναῖς ἐξαρτῶνται θεοῦ
μιμούμενοι ἐπιφάνειαν. So Hesych. s.v. κράδη. Pollux (iv. 128) makes the
κράδη the comic counterpart of the μηχανή, which is utterly improbable.
Crusius (Philologus, 1889, p. 698) suggests very plausibly that κράδης
ῥαγείσης was the beginning of a line in some comic poet, who applied the
name ‘fig-branch’ contemptuously to the hook of the μηχανή.
[639] Poll. iv. 130 ἡ δέ γέρανος μηχάνημά ἐστιν ἐκ μετεώρου καταφερόμενον
ἐφ’ ἁρπαγῇ σώματος, ᾧ κέχρηται Ἠὼς ἁρπάζουσα τὸ σῶμα τὸ Μέμνονος. The
scholiast on Lucian (quoted on p. 209) speaks of two μηχαναί, one at each
end of the back-scene; and then proceeds to describe the ordinary μηχανή,
but says nothing about the other one. Hence Oehmichen (Bühnenwesen, p.
247) conjectures that this other μηχανή was the γέρανος.
[640] Bekk. Anecd. i. 208 μηχανή ἐστι παρὰ τοῖς κωμικοῖς ἐκκυκλήματός τι
εἶδος ... δείξεως χάριν θεοῦ ἢ ἄλλου τινὸς ἥρωος. Lucian, Philops. 29
θεὸν ἀπὸ μηχανῆς ἐπεισκυκληθῆναί μοι τοῦτον ᾤμην. Philostrat. vit. Apoll.
vi. 11 ἐφ’ ὑψηλῆς καὶ θείας μηχανῆς ἐκκυκλοῦσιν.
[641] Prom. 284, 394. Pollux, iv. 130.
[642] Eum. 403-5.
[643] Prom. 135, 280.
[644] That the capacities of the μηχανή were not unlimited is proved by
Pollux, iv. 126 θεοὺς θαλαττίους ἐπάγει, καὶ πάνθ’ ὅσα ἐπαχθέστερα ὄντα ἡ
μηχανὴ φέρειν ἀδυνατεῖ.
[645] Androm. 1229, Eur. El. 1235, 1349, Med. 1317 ff.
[646] Herc. Fur. 817, 872, 880. Eur. frags. 124, 306, 307. Poll. iv. 128.
[647] Nub. 218, Av. 1199, Daedal. frag. 9, Pax 154 ff.
[648] A supposed representation of a theologeion on a medallion of the
Roman period, found at Orange, is given in Baumeister, fig. 1832, and
Griech. Theater, p. 335. Jupiter, Minerva, and Victoria are depicted as
sitting on a tall and narrow stage, while Mars and Hercules confront
one another underneath. But there is nothing to show that the scene
represents a theatrical performance.
[649] See next note. See also p. 164.
[650] Poll. iv. 130 ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ θεολογείου ὄντος ὑπὲρ τὴν σκηνὴν ἐν ὕψει
ἐπιφαίνονται θεοί, ὡς Ζεὺς καὶ οἱ περὶ αὐτὸν ἐν Ψυχοστασίᾳ. Plut. Aud.
Poet. 17 A.
[651] Niejahr, however (Quaest. Scaen. pp. 20 ff.), suggests that
Trygaeus only rose a short distance upon the beetle, then descended to
earth again, and that his own house then did duty as the house of Zeus.
[Cp. Sharpley’s edition of the Peace, Introduction.]
[652] Wilamowitz, Herakles, i. p. 148.
[653] Reisch, Griech. Theater, pp. 227 ff. Bodensteiner, Scenische
Fragen, pp. 665 ff. Bethe (Prolegomena, p. 133) thinks neither the
mechane nor the theologeion were used before about 427, when he supposes
there was a great reorganization of the scenic arrangements (see above,
p. 172).
[654] Ion 1549, Rhesus 886, Orest. 1631.
[655] Hipp. 1282, Iph. Taur. 1435, Eur. Suppl. 1183, Hel. 1642, Phil.
1409, Bacch. 1331.
[656] Plat. Cratyl. 425 D οἱ τραγῳδοί, ἐπειδάν τι ἀπορῶσιν, ἐπὶ τὰς
μηχανὰς καταφεύγουσι θεοὺς αἴροντες. Antiphanes (Meineke, iii. p. 106)
ἔπειθ’ ὅταν μηδὲν δύνωντ’ εἰπεῖν ἔτι | ... αἴρουσιν ὥσπερ δάκτυλον τὴν
μηχανήν, | καὶ τοῖς θεωμένοισιν ἀποχρώντως ἔχει. Aristot. Poet. c. 15.
Demosth. p. 1025 ὥσπερ ἀπὸ μηχανῆς. Schol. Plat. Bekk. p. 381 ἀπὸ μηχανῆς
θεὸς ἐπεφάνης· Μένανδρος Θεοφορουμένῃ.
[657] Rhesus 596 (cp. 627); Ajax 1-133.
[658] Cp. Hipp. 53 ἔξω τῶνδε βήσομαι τόπων. Ion 76 ἐς δαφνώδη γύαλα
βήσομαι τάδε. In the Troades, though Hecuba is on the stage during the
speech of Poseidon and his colloquy with Athene, she is lying prostrate
on the ground, overcome with grief, and is unconscious of their presence.
[659] Aristot. Poet. c. 15 ἀλλὰ μηχανῇ χρηστέον ἐπὶ τὰ ἔξω τοῦ δράματος,
ἢ ὅσα πρὸ τοῦ γέγονεν ἃ οὐχ οἷόν τε ἄνθρωπον εἰδέναι, ἢ ὅσα ὕστερον ἃ
δεῖται προαγορεύσεως καὶ ἀγγελίας. Here ὅσα πρὸ τοῦ γέγονεν apparently
refers to the prologue. For the practice of later times cp. Evanthius de
Commedia, p. 6 Reif. (quoted by Bethe, Prolegom. p. 133) ‘deinde θεοὺς
ἀπὸ μηχανῆς, id est, deos narrandis argumentis machinatos, ceteri Latini
ad instar Graecorum habent’.
[660] Aristot. Poet. c. 15.
[661] See the Tragic Drama of the Greeks, p. 245.
[662] Poll. iv. 132 αἱ δὲ Χαρώνιοι κλίμακες, κατὰ τὰς ἐκ τῶν ἑδωλίων
καθόδους κείμεναι, τὰ εἴδωλα ἀπ’ αὐτῶν ἀναπέμπουσιν. τὰ δὲ ἀναπιέσματα,
τὸ μέν ἐστιν ἐν τῇ σκηνῇ ὡς ποταμὸν ἀνελθεῖν ἢ τοιοῦτόν τι πρόσωπον, τὸ
δὲ περὶ τοὺς ἀναβαθμούς, ἀφ’ ὧν ἀνέβαινον Ἐρινύες.
[663] Pers. 659, Nauck, Trag. Graec. Frag. p. 246 προφαινομένου ὑπὲρ τοῦ
τάφου.
[664] Schol. Nub. 292; Poll. iv. 130; Heron (in Thevenot, Mathematici
Veteres, p. 263). See Weismann, Scen. Anweis. pp. 45 ff.
[665] Poll. iv. 130 κεραυνοσκοπεῖον ... περίακτος ὑψηλή. Heron, l.c.
p. 265. Weismann (l.c. p. 48), who was the first to draw attention to
the passage in Heron, supposes that there was a periaktos high up in
the back-scene, and that an apparatus like that of Heron’s was fastened
to all three sides of it, so that by revolving the periaktos three
successive flashes might be exhibited.
[666] Poll. iv. 127, 131, 132.
[667] Ovid, Met. iii. 111; Hor. Ep. ii. 1. 189.
[668] The following passages are cited in proof of the existence of a
drop-scene:—(1) Athen. 536 A γενομένων δὲ τῶν Δημητρίων Ἀθήνησιν ἐγράφετο
ἐπὶ τοῦ προσκηνίου (ὁ Δημήτριος) ἐπὶ τῆς οἰκουμένης ὀχούμενος. Here
προσκήνιον more probably denotes the scene at the back of the stage.
(2) Suid. s.v. προσκήνιον· τὸ πρὸ τῆς σκηνῆς παραπέτασμα· ἡ δὲ τύχη
παρελκομένη τὴν πρόφασιν καθάπερ ἐπὶ προσκήνιον παρεγύμνωσε τὰς ἀληθεῖς
ἐπινοίας. Suidas has here mistaken the meaning of the passage he quotes,
in which προσκήνιον = ‘the stage’. (3) Synesius (flor. about 400 A.D.)
Aegypt. p. 128 C εἰ δέ τις ... κυνοφθαλμίζοιτο διὰ τοῦ προσκηνίου. Even
if προσκήνιον means the drop-scene in this passage, it would be no proof
of the existence of a drop-scene in classical times. (4) Poll. iv. 122
(speaking of the theatre) ἔξεστι δὲ καὶ τὸ παραπέτασμα αὐλαίαν καλεῖν,
Ὑπερείδου εἰπόντος ἐν τῷ κατὰ Πατροκλέους· οἱ δὲ ἐννέα ἄρχοντες εἱστιῶντο
ἐν τῇ στοᾷ, περιφραξάμενοί τι μέρος αὐτῆς αὐλαίᾳ. Suidas s.v. αὐλαία, and
Bekk. Anecd. p. 463 αὐλαία τὸ τῆς σκηνῆς παραπέτασμα· κέχρηται δὲ αὐτῷ
Ὑπερείδης ἐν τῷ κατὰ Πατροκλέους. Hesych. s.ν. αὐλαία ... τὸ τῆς σκηνῆς
παραπέτασμα. Et. Mag. p. 170 λέγονται δὲ αὐλαῖαι καὶ τὰ παραπετάσματα
τῆς σκηνῆς, ὡς παρὰ τῷ θεολόγῳ. It is obvious that the grammarians
here cited were thinking of a drop-scene. But the passage they refer
to in Hypereides has nothing to do with a drop-scene. It is doubtful,
therefore, whether this testimony is of any value except for the practice
of later times. It can hardly be considered decisive for the classical
period.
[669] Bethe (Prolegomena, pp. 198 ff.) thinks the drop-scene was
introduced into the Greek theatre about 427 B.C., at the same time as the
raised stage. His reason is that none of the plays which begin with a
tableau are previous to 427 in date. But the Agamemnon commences with the
watchman reclining on the palace roof. The Heracleidae (probably anterior
to 427) opens with a group of suppliants at an altar. The Oedipus Rex,
which also begins with a tableau, is of unknown date, and there is
nothing to show that it was later than 427.
[670] Poll. iv. 123 ἐλεὸς δ’ ἦν τράπεζα ἀρχαία, ἐφ’ ἣν πρὸ Θέσπιδος
εἷς τις ἀναβὰς τοῖς χορευταῖς ἀπεκρίνατο. Arist. Poet. c. 4 καὶ ἡ μὲν
(τραγῳδία ἐγένετο) ἀπὸ τῶν ἐξαρχόντων τὸν διθύραμβον, ἡ δὲ (κωμῳδία) ἀπὸ
τῶν τὰ φαλλικά.
[671] Diog. Laërt. iii. 56 ὥσπερ δὲ τὸ παλαιὸν ἐν τῇ τραγῳδίᾳ πρότερον
μὲν μόνος ὁ χορὸς διεδραμάτιζεν, ὕστερον δὲ Θέσπις ἕνα ὑποκριτὴν ἐξεῦρεν
ὑπὲρ τοῦ διαναπαύεσθαι τὸν χορόν.
[672] Suidas s.v. Θέσπις.
[673] Aristot. Poet. c. 4 καὶ τό τε τῶν ὑποκριτῶν πλῆθος ἐξ ἑνὸς εἰς
δύο πρῶτος Αἰσχύλος ἤγαγε καὶ τὰ τοῦ χοροῦ ἠλάττωσε καὶ τὸν λόγον
πρωταγωνιστὴν παρεσκεύασεν.
[674] Viz. the Supplices, Persae, and Seven against Thebes. In the
concluding scene of the Seven the part of Ismene would not be taken by a
regular actor. Apparently the opening scene of the Prometheus requires
three actors, unless we are to adopt the very improbable supposition that
the person of Prometheus was represented by a wooden figure, which was
nailed to the rock, and from behind which the protagonist spoke the part.
[In favour of the lay figure, see Wecklein’s Edition of the Prometheus,
Introd. p. 54; Navarre, Annales de la Faculté des Lettres de Bordeaux,
Rev. des Études Anciennes, 1901; against it, Bodensteiner, Jahrb. für
class. Philol., Suppl.-bd. xix. p. 674; Bethe, Proleg. p. 180, &c.]
[675] Aristot. Poet. c. 4; Diog. Laërt. iii. 56; vit. Soph.; Suidas s.v.
Σοφοκλῆς. The Life of Aeschylus assigns the introduction of the third
actor to Aeschylus, but adds that Dicaearchus ascribed it to Sophocles.
The passage in Themistius (xxvi. p. 316 D) καὶ οὐ προσέχομεν Ἀριστοτέλει
ὅτι τὸ μὲν πρῶτον ὁ χορὸς εἰσιὼν ᾖδεν εἰς τοὺς θεούς, Θέσπις δὲ πρόλογόν
τε καὶ ῥῆσιν ἐξεῦρεν, Αἰσχύλος δὲ τρίτον ὑποκριτήν (a. l. τρίτον
ὑποκριτάς) is doubtful, and cannot weigh against Aristotle’s definite
statement in the Poetics. The balance of evidence is distinctly in favour
of the conclusion that the third actor was first introduced by Sophocles.
[676] Baumeister, Denkmäler, No. 422; Eur. Cyclops 197 ff.
[677] Arist. Poet. cc. 4, 5; Anon. de Comoed. (Dindf. Prolegom. de
Comoed. p. 27); Diomedes, p. 490 K.
[678] Soph. O. C. 1117 ff., 1249 ff., 1500 ff.
[679] Cp. Beer, Über die Zahl der Schauspieler bei Aristophanes, Leipz.
1844.
[680] Phot. s.v. ὑποκρίνεσθαι· τὸ ἀποκρίνεσθαι οἱ παλαιοί· καὶ ὁ
ὑποκριτὴς ἐντεῦθεν, ὁ ἀποκρινόμενος τῷ χορῷ. So also Hesych. s.v.
ὑποκρίνοιτο, and Poll. iv. 123. Apollon. Lex. Hom. s.v. ὑποκρίναιτο·
πρωταγωνιστοῦντος γὰρ τοῦ χοροῦ τὸ παλαιὸν οὗτοι ὥσπερ ἀποκριταὶ ᾖσαν,
ἀποκρινόμενοι πρὸς τὸν χορόν.
[681] Demosth. Fals. Leg. § 192 πάντας τοὺς τεχνίτας συνήγαγεν; Aristot.
Prob. xxx. 10 οἱ περὶ τὸν Διόνυσον τεχνῖται; Polyb. xvi. 21.
[682] Plut. Solon p. 95 C; Aristot. Rhet. iii. 1 ὑπεκρίνοντο γὰρ αὐτοὶ
τὰς τραγῳδίας οἱ ποιηταὶ τὸ πρῶτον.
[683] The words in the Life are ἐχρήσατο δ’ ὑποκριτῇ πρώτῳ μὲν Κλεάνδρῳ,
ἔπειτα καὶ τὸν δεύτερον αὐτῷ προσῆψε Μυννίσκον τὸν Χαλκιδέα· τὸν δὲ
τρίτον ὑποκριτὴν αὐτὸς ἐξεῦρεν, ὡς δὲ Δικαίαρχος ὁ Μεσσήνιος, Σοφοκλῆς.
These words imply that he employed Mynniscus for the first time on the
occasion of his introduction of a second actor; and that previously to
this innovation, when only one actor was required, he had been accustomed
to employ Cleander, instead of acting himself. He must, therefore, have
given up acting before the production of the Supplices, and considerably
before the first appearance of Sophocles. The statement that Sophocles
was the _first_ dramatic poet to abandon acting in person can only be
true to the extent that he was the first poet who never acted at all.
[684] Vit. Soph. πρῶτον μὲν καταλύσας τὴν ὑπόκρισιν τοῦ ποιητοῦ διὰ τὴν
ἰδίαν μικροφωνίαν; Athen. p. 20 F; Eustath. Od. p. 1533.
[685] Müller (Griech. Bühnenalt. p. 184) states, on the authority of
Zenob. Prov. v. 100, that Astydamas the Elder acted in his own tragedy,
the Parthenopaeus. The words in Zenobius are εὐημερήσας ἐν τῇ ὑποκρίσει
Παρθενοπαίου. But this is merely a carelessness of expression, on which
no stress can be laid. In the account given by Suidas (s.v. σαυτὴν
ἐπαινεῖς) of the same occurrence the expression is εὐημερήσαντι ἐπὶ
τραγῳδίας διδασκαλίᾳ Παρθενοπαίου. The Parthenopaeus was really written
by Astydamas the Younger. See the Tragic Drama of the Greeks, p. 430.
[686] Athen. p. 22 A; Schol. Aristoph. Equit. 534.
[687] Vit. Aristoph. p. 34 Dindf.; Arg. ii. Equit. The story arose from a
misunderstanding of the phrase καθιέναι τὸ δρᾶμα δι’ ἑαυτοῦ. The Knights
was the first play Aristophanes produced in his own name. See Meineke,
Frag. Com. Gr. ii. 928 ff. Antiphanes is said (Müller, Die griech.
Bühnen, p. 184) to have acted one of his own comedies, the evidence
being the inscription in Corp. Ins. Att. ii. 972 [Ἀντιφάνη]ς πέμ(πτος)
Ἀνασῳζο(μένοις)· [ὑπεκρίνετο Ἀντ]ιφάνης. But it is by no means certain
that the name of the poet is rightly filled in as Antiphanes. Even if it
is, it does not follow that the actor Antiphanes was the same person.
[688] See chap. i. p. 44.
[689] Aristot. Poet. c. 9 λέγω δ’ ἐπεισοδιώδη μῦθον ἐν ᾧ τὰ ἐπεισόδια
μετ’ ἄλληλα οὔτ’ εἰκὸς οὔτ’ ἀνάγκη εἶναι. τοιαῦται δὲ ποιοῦνται ὑπὸ μὲν
τῶν φαύλων ποιητῶν δι’ αὐτούς, ὑπὸ δὲ τῶν ἀγαθῶν διὰ τοὺς ὑποκριτάς:
Rhet. iii. 1 μεῖζον δύνανται νῦν τῶν ποιητῶν οἱ ὑποκριταί.
[690] Vit. Soph. p. 3 Dindf.
[691] See chap. ii. pp. 57 ff.
[692] Plut. Alex. p. 681 E.
[693] Plut. Rep. Ger. 817 A; Dem. Fals. Leg. § 10; Suidas s.v. Σοφοκλῆς.
[694] See chap. i. p. 42, ch. ii. p. 57.
[695] Cic. Div. in Caecil. § 48 ‘ut in actoribus Graecis fieri videmus,
saepe illum, qui est secundarum aut tertiarum partium, cum possit
aliquanto clarius dicere quam ipse primarum, multum summittere, ut ille
princeps quam maxime excellat,’ &c.
[696] Aristot. Pol. vii. 17. The story about Theodorus has caused some
difficulty. Does it mean that Theodorus, besides taking the principal
character, also played the part of the person who made the first speech
in the tragedy? If so, he would have been debarred from acting some of
the most popular tragedies of the time. For instance, the actor who
took the part of Electra in the play of Sophocles could not act the
part of the paedagogus, since Electra comes on the stage as soon as
the paedagogus leaves it. There would be the same difficulty about the
Orestes, the Medea, and many other plays. It has been suggested that the
reference is to some preliminary announcement of the title of the play,
which Theodorus preferred to make himself, instead of leaving it to a
subordinate. Such announcements were made in Greek theatres in later
times (cp. Lucian, Pseudolog. 19; Heliod. Aethiop. viii. 17; Synesius,
περὶ προνοίας, p. 128 D), and may have been customary in Athens, or in
other parts of Greece, in the time of Theodorus. But it is extremely
improbable that the reference is to any such practice. The audience would
hardly pay much attention to the voice of the person who announced the
name of the coming play. The meaning is probably that Theodorus used
to take the part of the character which spoke first, whenever it was
possible to do so. In such plays as the Electra it would be impossible.
[697] Alciphron, Epist. iii. 71.
[698] Schol. Eur. Phoen. 93.
[699] Schol. Aesch. Choeph. 900.
[700] Aul. Gell. vii. 5; Stob. Flor. 97. 28; Dem. Fals. Leg. § 246;
Strattis ap. Kock, Frag. Com. Gr. i. p. 711.
[701] Hesych. s.v. ἀρουραῖος Οἰνόμαος; Dem. de Cor. § 180; Aelian, Var.
Hist. xiv. 40.
[702] Plut. Lysand. p. 466 D.
[703] Dem. Fals. Leg. § 247.
[704] Dem. l.c., de Cor. §§ 180, 267. [Devrient, Das Kind auf der
antiken Bühne, thinks that the words spoken by children in the Alcestis,
Andromache, &c., were declaimed by the tritagonist from behind the stage,
while a real child appeared on the stage and went through the gestures.]
[705] K. F. Hermann, De distributione personarum in trag. graec., 1842;
Richter, Die Vertheilung der Rollen der griech. Tragödie, 1842; Croiset,
Histoire de la Litt. grecq., iii. passim.
[706] As there is some doubt about the meaning of the word παραχορήγημα,
it will be well to quote the passages where it occurs. They are (1)
Schol. Aesch. Prom. 12 ἐν παραχορηγήματι αὐτῷ εἰδωλοποιηθεῖσα Βία. (2)
Schol. Aesch. Eum. 573 ἐν παραχορηγήματι αὐτῷ εἰσιν οἱ Ἀρεοπαγῖται
μηδαμοῦ διαλεγόμενοι. (3) Schol. Aristoph. Ran. 211 ταῦτα καλεῖται
παραχορηγήματα, ἐπειδὴ οὐχ ὁρῶνται ἐν τῷ θεάτρῳ οἱ βάτραχοι, οὐδὲ ὁ
χορός, ἀλλ’ ἔσωθεν μιμοῦνται τοὺς βατράχους· ὁ δὲ ἀληθῶς χορὸς ἐκ τῶν
εὐσεβῶν νεκρῶν συνέστηκεν. (4) Schol. Aristoph. Pax 113 τὰ τοιαῦτα
παραχορηγήματα καλοῦσιν, οἷα νῦν τὰ παιδία ποιεῖ καλοῦντα τὸν πατέρα·
εἶτα πρὸς οὐδὲν ἔτι τούτοις χρήσεται. (5) Poll. iv. 109 ὁπότε μὴν ἀντὶ
τετάρτου ὑποκριτοῦ δέοι τινὰ τῶν χορευτῶν εἰπεῖν ἐν ᾠδῇ, παρασκήνιον
καλεῖται τὸ πρᾶγμα, ὡς ἐν Ἀγαμέμνονι Αἰσχύλου· εἰ δὲ τέταρτος ὑποκριτής
τι παραφθέγξαιτο, τοῦτο παραχορήγημα ὀνομάζεται, καὶ πεπρᾶχθαί φασιν
αὐτὸ ἐν Μέμνονι Αἰσχύλου. The first and second instances refer to mute
personages, the third instance refers to an extra chorus, the fourth
to extra performers who say only a few words upon the stage. It is
therefore quite clear that the word παραχορήγημα included all classes
of extra performers, as distinct from the actors and the chorus. There
are no grounds for excluding the mute personages from the class of
παραχορηγήματα, as Müller (Griech. Bühnenalt. p. 179) and others have
done. Pollux appears to make the distinction between παρασκήνιον and
παραχορήγημα lie in the fact that the former sang, the latter spoke. The
distinction is a foolish one, and was probably due to Pollux’s habit of
generalizing from one particular instance. The word παρασκήνιον, in its
present sense, only occurs in the passage of Pollux. To judge from the
etymology of the word, it may have denoted performers behind the scenes.
The words ἐν Ἀγαμέμνονι Αἰσχύλου in the passage of Pollux are corrupt,
the corruption arising from the words ἐν Μέμνονι Αἰσχύλου which follow.
There is no παρασκήνιον in the Agamemnon. The reference cannot be to
the speech of Pylades in the Choephori (vv. 900-902), because (1) the
Choephori could not be called the Agamemnon, (2) the part of Pylades was
taken by one of the regular actors, as the scholiast ad loc. informs us.
[707] Plut. Phocion, p. 750 C.
[708] See note 2 on the previous page.
[709] Aesch. Choeph. 713, Eum. 678 ff., Agam. 908.
[710] Soph. Aj. 544; Eur. Med. 1021, Herc. Fur. 454, Phoen. 834, Hecub.
978.
[711] Eur. Alc. 393, Androm. 504.
[712] Aristoph. Pax 114, Acharn. 43, 94, 729.
[713] Aesch. Eum. 1032; Aristoph. Vesp. 248; Schol. Eur. Hipp. 58.
[714] Aristoph. Ran. 209, Thesm. 104.
[715] Eur. Hipp. 61.
[716] Athen. p. 21 E; Hor. A. P. 278; Philostrat. vit. Apoll. vi. 11;
Cramer, Anecd. Par. i. p. 19; Evanth. de trag. et com. (Gronov. Thesaur.
viii. p. 1683); Suidas s.v. Αἰσχύλος.
[717] See Crusius, Philologus, 1889, p. 703.
[718] Schol. Aristoph. Nub. 296; Suidas s.v. θρίαμβος; Plut. Cupid.
Divit. 527 D; Verg. Georg. ii. 387.
[719] Bethe (Prolegomena, pp. 35-46) finds an additional proof of this
theory in the Bologna vase (cp. Dümmler, Rhein. Museum, 1888, p. 355).
In this vase Dionysus is represented sitting in a boat-shaped car, with
a satyr playing a flute on each side of him. The car is drawn by two
satyrs, and two others are leading an ox. A boy and four women follow
behind. Bethe thinks this scene was part of an old tragic performance;
that the single actor of the period always played the part of Dionysus,
and therefore naturally wore his costume. He also thinks the car was
the prototype of the later stage, and is identical with the wagons in
which Thespis is said to have carried about his tragedies (Hor. A. P.
276). Unfortunately for these theories there is nothing to show that
the procession depicted on the vase had any connexion with a dramatic
performance. Such processions with Dionysus in a boat-shaped car are
known to have existed in other parts of Greece (Philostrat. vit. Soph.
i. 25; cp. Crusius, Philologus, 1889, p. 209); and though interesting as
illustrations of the Bacchic mythology, they throw no light on the early
history of the drama.
[720] Athen. p. 21 E.
[721] See, on the subject of this relief, Robert, Athen. Mittheil. 1882,
pp. 389 ff.
[722] See Bethe, Jahrb. des Archaeol. Instituts, 1896, pp. 292 ff., and
pl. 2.
[723] See especially the Medea vase (Baumeister, Denkmäler, no. 980).
Copies of many of these vases are given by Huddilston, in Greek Tragedy
in the Light of Vase-Paintings, 1898.
[724] A list of them will be found in Müller, Griech. Bühnenalt. p. 226.
[725] From Monumenti Inediti, xi. 13.
[726] Suidas s.vv. Θέσπις, Χοιρίλος, Φρύνιχος.
[727] Suidas s.v. Αἰσχύλος; Hor. A. P. 278; Evanth. de trag. et com.
(Gronov. Thesaur. viii. p. 1683).
[728] Aul. Gell. v. 7.
[729] Poll. x. 167; Isidor. Orig. x. 119; Suidas s.v. Θέσπις; Verg.
Georg. ii. 387; Prudent. c. Symmach. ii. 646.
[730] Aul. Gell. v. 7.
[731] Schol. Dem. Fals. Leg. § 256. See fig. 23.
[732] Wieseler, Denkmäler, p. 42.
[733] Poll. iv. 133-5, 139.
[734] [Soph. El. 1296 ff. Other cases are Aesch. Eum. 968, 990, and
Eur. Orest. 1317. Cf. Hense, Die Modificirung der Maske in der griech.
Tragödie, ed. ii (1905), where the various cases in which a change of
mask is certain or suspected are discussed.]
[735] Poll. iv. 133-41.
[736] Poll. iv. 141, 142. Special masks were called ἔκσκευα πρόσωπα.
[737] The masks in fig. 17 are copied from Wieseler, Denkmäler, v.
20, 24, 26. The first is a marble, the second and third are from
wall-paintings at Herculaneum. The masks in fig. 18 are copied from the
Archaeol. Zeitung for 1878. They are from wall-paintings at Pompeii. For
a list of the various works of art illustrating the subject see Müller,
Griech. Bühnenalt. p. 273.
[738] The name for the tragic boot in Greek was ἐμβάτης (Suid. s.v.
Αἰσχύλος), ὀκρίβας (Lucian, Nero c. 9), or κόθορνος (vit. Aesch.).
Cothurnus was the regular name in Latin. Pollux (iv. 115) appears to be
mistaken in calling ἐμβάτης the comic boot, in opposition to the notices
in other grammarians. The sole of the cothurnus was of wood, as appears
from Schol. Lucian, Epist. Saturn. 19. Works of art show that it was
painted: see Wieseler, Denkmäler, vii, viii; and cp. Ovid. Am. ii. 18. 15
‘risit Amor pallamque meam pictosque cothurnos’.
[739] Suidas s.v. Αἰσχύλος; Aristot. apud Themist. or. xxvi. p. 316;
Philostrat., vit. Apoll. vi. 11; Porphyr. on Hor. A. P. 278.
[740] Vit. Aesch. p. 7 Dindf.
[741] Lucian, Nero c. 9, Necyom. c. 16, Iupp. Trag. c. 41, de Salt. c.
27; Martial, viii. 3, 13, &c.
[742] The illustration is from Wieseler, Denkmäler, ix. 1. The original
is a wall-painting from Pompeii.
[743] Vit. Soph. p. 2 Dindf.
[744] Lucian, Somnium vel Gallus 26; vit. Aeschin.
[745] Phot. s.v. σωμάτια; Lucian, de Salt. 27.
[746] For the general account of the χιτών or tunic see Pollux iv.
115-18. The epithet ποικίλον shows that it was brilliantly coloured. As
to the length of the tunic see Lucian, Iupp. Trag. c. 41, Eustath. II.
p. 954. 47, and the works of art referred to on pp. 240, 241. For the
ornamentation and the girdle see the same works of art. The sleeves were
called χειρίδες (vit. Aesch. p. 6 Dindf.; Lucian, Iupp. Trag. c. 41).
[747] Poll. iv. 116-18.
[748] Poll. iv. 116; Soph. O. C. 314; Eur. Bacch. 833.
[749] Poll. iv. 116, 117; Varro, Res Rust. ii. 11.
[750] Aesch. Eum. 181, 404; Poll. iv. 117.
[751] Poll. iv. 117. See fig. 18.
[752] Lucian, Somn. vel Gall. 26; Poll. iv. 116. The special tunic was
called κόλπωμα.
[753] Aesch. Pers. 661.
[754] Poll. iv. 116, 117. The cloak was called ἐφαπτίς.
[755] Eur. Ion 743; Vit. Soph. p. 2 Dindf.
[756] Aesch. Agam. 493; Soph. O. R. 83; Eur. Alc. 759.
[757] Lucian, de Salt. 27, Anachar. 23.
[758] Philostrat. vit. Apoll. v. 9.
[759] The illustrations are taken from Monumenti Inediti, xi. 31, 32. The
originals are wall-paintings at Pompeii.
[760] Baumeister, Denkmäler, nos. 422 (the Naples vase), 424, 1631;
Wieseler, Denkmäler, vi. 1, 2 (the Naples vase), 3-10. See above, p. 240.
[761] Specimens of the first kind of dress are to be found in Wieseler,
vi. 2 (= Baumeister, 422), 6, 7, 10; specimens of the second kind in
vi. 8 (= Baum. 1631), 9. The tunic was called χιτὼν χορταῖος, μαλλωτός,
ἀμφίμαλλος, and was apparently made of wool: cp. Poll. iv. 118; Hesych.
and Suid. s.v. χορταῖος; Dion. Hal. A. R. vii. 72; Ael. Var. Hist. iii.
40.
[762] Poll. iv. 118. These articles are part of the dress of Silenus. The
other actors were dressed quite differently. The dress of the chorus is
described in the next chapter.
[763] There does not appear, however, to be any instance of an old
Attic comedy being acted by the Phlyakes. The scene in Baumeister no.
904, where Hercules is knocking against a door, and a slave on a donkey
follows behind, was formerly supposed to be the opening scene of the
Frogs. But this is very doubtful. The character in the vase-painting is
the real Hercules, and not Dionysus disguised.
[764] Körte, Studien zur Alten Komödie, Jahrbuch des archaeol. Instituts,
1893, pp. 61-93.
[765] The illustration is taken from Compte Rendu de la Commission
Impériale Archéologique, 1870-1, plate iv. 1. The vase was found in the
Crimea, but is now at St. Petersburg. In the original there are two other
figures (not actors), one on each side of the group. These have been
omitted from the copy.
[766] The two figures are from Körte, l.c. pp. 78 and 80. Both were found
at Athens. For a complete list of these statuettes see Körte, pp. 77-86.
[767] Schol. Aristoph. Nub. 538.
[768] Aristoph. Nub. 538 οὐδὲν ἦλθε ῥαψαμένη σκύτινον καθειμένον κ.τ.λ.
Possibly Aristophanes only means that he used the φαλλὸς ἀναδεδεμένος
instead of the more indecent καθειμένος. Nub. 734 seems to show that the
φαλλός was used even in the Clouds. For its employment in the other plays
cp. Acharn. 156 ff., 1216 ff., Vesp. 1342, Pax 1349, Lysist. 928, 937,
987 ff., 1073 ff., Thesm. 59, 141, 239, 643, 1114. [Willems, Le Nu dans
la Comédie Ancienne, tries to show that Aristophanes’ use of the phallus
was exceptional, but without success. He also argues that in Vesp. 1342,
Pax 886, Thesm. 1181, Ach. 1198, Ran. 1308 mute parts were played by
ἑταῖραι absolutely nude; but the evidence is quite insufficient, and can
be otherwise explained.]
[769] The padding was called σωμάτιον. Cp. Phot. σωμάτια, τὰ ἀναπλάσματα
οἷς οἱ ὑποκριταὶ διασάττουσιν αὑτούς. Luc. Iupp. Trag. 41 προγαστρίδια
καὶ σωμάτια. The name of the under-garment is uncertain. Müller
(Bühnenalt. p. 230) thinks it too was called σωμάτιον, on the strength of
Poll. iv. 115 καὶ σκευὴ μὲν ἡ τῶν ὑποκριτῶν στολὴ (ἡ δ’ αὐτὴ καὶ σωμάτιον
ἐκαλεῖτο). But this is very doubtful.
[770] For the references see Müller, Bühnenalt. pp. 249 ff.
[771] Poll. iv. 143; Platon. de Comoed. (Dindf. p. 21); Aristoph. Equit.
230; Ael. Var. Hist. ii. 13.
[772] Poll. iv. 143 ἐπὶ τὸ γελοιότερον ἐσχημάτιστο.
[773] Schol. Aristoph. Acharn. 97; Aristoph. Av. 62, 94, 104, 1203 (with
Schol. ad loc.), 1508, Acharn. 575 ff.
[774] Müller, Bühnenalt. p. 253.
[775] Jahrbuch des archaeol. Inst. 1893, pp. 89 ff.
[776] The vase with the names (Εὔνους, Ὀφέλανδρος, Ὄμβρικος) is given by
Körte, p. 91. For another specimen see Baumeister, no. 2099.
[777] Körte, Athen. Mittheil. 1884, pp. 346 ff. See the specimen given by
Cook in the Classical Review, 1895, p. 373.
[778] For a list of the works of art illustrating the subject see Müller,
Bühnenalt. pp. 258, 273-6.
[779] Platon. ap. Dindf. Proll. de Com. p. 21 ἐν δὲ τῇ μέσῃ καὶ νέᾳ
κωμῳδίᾳ ἐπίτηδες τὰ προσωπεῖα πρὸς τὸ γελοιότερον ἐδημιούργησαν ...
ὁρῶμεν γοῦν τὰ προσωπεῖα τῆς Μενάνδρου κωμῳδίας τὰς ὀφρῦς ὁποίας ἔχει,
καὶ ὅπως ἐξεστραμμένον τὸ στόμα καὶ οὐδὲ κατ’ ἀνθρώπων φύσιν. See
Wieseler, Denkmäl. v. 27-52; Baumeister, nos. 905-8.
[780] Fig. 25 is taken from Archaeol. Zeitung, 1878, Taf. 4, and
represents the masks of a girl and a slave. The original is a
wall-painting at Pompeii. Fig. 26, which is taken from Monumenti Inediti,
xi. 32, contains two copies of terra cottas found at Pompeii. It will be
seen that the mask of the girl is not unlike a tragic mask in general
character.
[781] Poll. iv. 143-54. Cp. Quint. Inst. xi. 3. 74.
[782] This shoe was called ἐμβάς in Greek, and soccus in Latin: see
Ammon. de diff. vocab. p. 49; Aristoph. Nub. 858.
[783] Poll. iv. 119-20.
[784] The illustration is from Monumenti Inediti, xi. 32.
[785] Aristot. Poet. c. 6 τὸ δὲ χωρὶς τοῖς εἴδεσι τὸ διὰ μέτρων ἔνια
μόνον περαίνεσθαι καὶ πάλιν ἕτερα διὰ μέλους, c. 4 λέξεως δὲ γενομένης
αὐτὴ ἡ φύσις τὸ οἰκεῖον μέτρον εὗρε, μάλιστα γὰρ λεκτικὸν τῶν μέτρων τὸ
ἰαμβεῖόν ἐστιν.
[786] The mark C (canticum) denotes the part which was sung, D V
(diverbium) the part which was spoken. These marks are found in cod.
vetus (B), and cod. decurtatus (C), and the plays in which they occur are
the Trinummus, Poenulus, Pseudolus, Truculentus, and parts of others. See
Christ, Metrik, pp. 677 ff.
[787] Lucian, de Salt. 27 ἐνίοτε καὶ περιᾴδων τὰ ἰαμβεῖα.
[788] Songs by the actors were called τὰ ἀπὸ τῆς σκηνῆς. The solos (in
tragedy) were called μονῳδίαι, the duets and trios had no special name.
Musical duets between actors and chorus were in tragedy called κόμμοι.
Suidas s.vv. μονῳδεῖν, μονῳδία; Aristot. Poet. c. 12.
[789] Plut. Mus. p. 1140 F ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ Ἀρχίλοχος τὴν τῶν τριμέτρων
ῥυθμοποιΐαν προσεξεῦρε ... καὶ τὴν παρακαταλογήν, καὶ τὴν περὶ ταῦτα
κροῦσιν ... ἔτι δὲ τῶν ἰαμβείων τὸ τὰ μὲν λέγεσθαι παρὰ τὴν κροῦσιν, τὰ
δ’ ᾄδεσθαι, Ἀρχίλοχόν φασι καταδεῖξαι, εἶθ’ οὕτω χρήσασθαι τοὺς τραγικοὺς
ποιητάς. Athen. p. 636 B ἐν οἷς γὰρ (φησὶ) τοὺς ἰάμβους ᾖδον, ἰαμβύκας
ἐκάλουν· ἐν οἷς δὲ παρελογίζοντο τὰ ἐν τοῖς μέτροις, κλεψιάμβους. Hesych.
s.v. καταλογή· τὸ τὰ ᾄσματα μὴ ὑπὸ μέλει λέγειν.
[790] Xen. Symp. vi. 3 ὥσπερ Νικόστρατος ὁ ὑποκριτὴς τετράμετρα πρὸς τὸν
αὐλὸν κατέλεγεν.
[791] The two groups of trochaic tetrameters in the parabasis were called
ἐπίρρημα and ἀντεπίρρημα. See Platon. in Dindf. Prolegom. de Comoed. p.
21.
[792] Aristoph. Pax 1171, 1172.
[793] Schol. Arist. Nub. 1355 οὕτως ἔλεγον πρὸς χορὸν λέγειν, ὅτε τοῦ
ὑποκριτοῦ διατιθεμένου τὴν ῥῆσιν, ὁ χορὸς ὠρχεῖτο. διὸ καὶ ἐκλέγονται ὡς
ἐπὶ τὸ πλεῖστον ἐν τοῖς τοιούτοις τὰ τετράμετρα, ἢ τὰ ἀναπαιστικά, ἢ τὰ
ἰαμβικά, διὰ τὸ ῥᾳδίως ἐμπίπτειν ἐν τούτοις τὸν τοιοῦτον ῥυθμόν.
[794] Aristoph. Av. 682-4 ἀλλ’, ὦ καλλιβόαν κρέκουσ’ | αὐλὸν φθέγμασιν
ἠρινοῖς, | ἄρχου τῶν ἀναπαίστων, and Schol. ad loc. πολλάκις πρὸς αὐλὸν
λέγουσι τὰς παραβάσεις.
[795] The exodos, mostly consisting of anapaests, is described as ἅπερ
ἐπὶ τῇ ἐξόδῳ τοῦ δράματος ᾄδεται in Schol. Arist. Vesp. 270, and as ὃ
ἐξιόντες ᾖδον in Poll. iv. 108. But in Dindf. Proll. de Com. p. 37 it
is called τὸ ἐπὶ τέλει λεγόμενον τοῦ χοροῦ. As far as the anapaestic
tetrameters are concerned, the word ᾄδοντας in Aristoph. Plut. 1209, and
Hesych.’s definition of ἀνάπαιστα as τὰ ἐν ταῖς παραβάσεσι τῶν χορῶν
ᾄσματα, show that they were not merely spoken: the expression λέξοντας
ἔπη in Aristoph. Equit. 508 proves that they were not sung. See Christ,
Metrik, pp. 680 ff.
[796] Aristot. Probl. xix. 6 διὰ τί ἡ παρακαταλογὴ ἐν ταῖς ᾠδαῖς τραγικόν;
[797] Schol. Aristoph. Nub. 312, Vesp. 580; Aristoph. Eccles. 890-2.
[798] Sext. Empir. p. 751, 21; Aristot. Probl. xix. 43.
[799] Aristoph. Ran. 1286, 1304. Baumeister, Denkmäler, no. 422.
[800] Aristoph. Av. 226 ff., 659 ff.
[801] Lüders, Die dionysischen Künstler, pp. 187 ff. Schol. Aristoph.
Vesp. 582 ἔθος δὲ ἦν ἐν ταῖς ἐξόδοις τῆς τραγῳδίας χορικῶν προσώπων
προηγεῖσθαι αὐλητήν, ὥστε αὐλοῦντα προπέμπειν.
[802] See Baumeister, Denkmäler, nos. 422, 424; Journal of Hellenic
Studies, xi. plate 11 (reproduced in Fig. 28).
[803] Schol. Aristoph. Vesp. 582.
[804] Diod. Sic. xvi. 92 Νεοπτόλεμος ὁ τραγῳδός, πρωτεύων τῇ μεγαλοφωνίᾳ
καὶ τῇ δόξῃ.
[805] Alciph. iii. 48 τορῷ τινι καὶ γεγωνοτέρῳ φωνήματι χρησάμενος.
[806] Diod. Sic. xv. 7 ἐξαπέστειλε τοὺς εὐφωνοτάτους τῶν ὑποκριτῶν ...
οὗτοι δὲ τὸ μὲν πρῶτον διὰ τὴν εὐφωνίαν ἐξέπληττον τοὺς ἀκούοντας.
[807] Lucian, Nero 9 ὁ δ’ Ἠπειρώτης ἄριστα φωνῆς ἔχων, εὐδοκιμῶν δ’ ἐπ’
αὐτῇ καὶ θαυμαζόμενος λαμπροτέρᾳ τοῦ εἰωθότος.
[808] Plut. X orat. p. 848 B τοὺς ὑποκριτὰς ἔφη δεῖν κρίνειν ἐκ τῆς
φωνῆς. Diog. Laërt. vii. 20 τὴν μὲν φωνὴν καὶ τὴν δύναμιν μεγάλην ἔχειν.
Aristot. Rhet. iii. 1. Lucian, de Salt. 27 μόνης τῆς φωνῆς ὑπεύθυνον
παρέχων ἑαυτόν. Plat. Legg. 817 C καλλίφωνοι ὑποκριταί.
[809] Cic. div. in Caecil. § 48 ‘cum possit aliquanto clarius dicere ...
multum summittere, ut ille princeps quam maxime excellat’.
[810] Cic. de Orat. i. § 251.
[811] Aristot. Probl. xi. 22; Athen. p. 343 E.
[812] Plut. Aud. Poet. 18 B.
[813] Aristot. Rhet. iii. 2 διὸ δεῖ λανθάνειν ποιοῦντας, καὶ μὴ δοκεῖν
λέγειν πεπλασμένως ἀλλὰ πεφυκότως ... οἷον ἡ Θεοδώρου φωνὴ πέπονθε πρὸς
τὴν τῶν ἄλλων ὑποκριτῶν· ἣ μὲν γὰρ τοῦ λέγοντος ἔοικεν εἶναι, αἳ δ’
ἀλλότριαι.
[814] Lucian, Anachar. c. 23 αὐτοὶ δὲ (οἱ τραγῳδοὶ) μεγάλα τε ἐκεκράγεσαν
καὶ διέβαινον οὐκ οἶδ’ ὅπως ἀσφαλῶς ἐν τοῖς ὑποδήμασι ... οἱ δὲ κωμῳδοὶ
βραχύτεροι μὲν ἐκείνων καὶ πεζοὶ καὶ ἀνθρωπινώτεροι καὶ ἧττον ἐβόων.
[815] Philostrat. vit. Apoll. v. 8 (p. 171 Kayser) ἐπεὶ δὲ ἐξάρας τὴν
φωνὴν γεγωνὸν ἐφθέγξατο; Lucian, l.c. See also the passages quoted on p.
273.
[816] Pollux (iv. 114), speaking of tragic acting, says εἴποις δ’
ἂν βαρύστονος ὑποκριτής, βομβῶν, περιβομβῶν, ληκυθίζων, λαρυγγίζων,
φαρυγγίζων. Dem. de Cor. § 262.
[817] Cic. Orat. §§ 25, 27.
[818] Cic. de Orat. iii. §§ 195, 196, Parad. § 26.
[819] Antig. 76, Hel. 543, Androm. 529, Orest. 382, Hec. 339, &c.
[820] Phil. 819, Heraclid. 75, Ajax 865, Eur. Suppl. 1070, Troad. 36,
462. Polymestor (Hec. 1058) and the Delphic priestess (Eum. 34) speak of
themselves as crawling out on all fours. But it is unnecessary to suppose
that they actually made their entrance from the back-scene in this way.
[821] Aristot. Poet c. 26 ἡ μὲν οὖν τραγῳδία τοιαύτη ἐστίν, ὡς καὶ οἱ
πρότερον τοὺς ὑστέρους αὐτῶν ᾤοντο ὑποκριτάς, ὡς λίαν γὰρ ὑπερβάλλοντα
πίθηκον ὁ Μυννίσκος τὸν Καλλιππίδην ἐκάλει, τοιαύτη δὲ δόξα καὶ περὶ
Πινδάρου ἦν ... εἶτα οὐδὲ κίνησις ἅπασα ἀποδοκιμαστέα, εἴπερ μηδ’
ὄρχησις, ἀλλ’ ἡ φαύλων, ὅπερ καὶ Καλλιππίδῃ ἐπετιμᾶτο καὶ νῦν ἄλλοις ὡς
οὐκ ἐλευθέρας γυναῖκας μιμουμένων.
[822] Vit. Soph. ταῖς δὲ Μούσαις θίασον ἐκ τῶν πεπαιδευμένων συναγαγεῖν.
Aristot. Probl. xxx. 10 οἱ Διονυσιακοὶ τεχνῖται.
[823] Dem. Fals. Leg. § 315.
[824] Dem. Meid. §§ 15, 58-60.
[825] C. I. A. ii. 551.
[826] C. I. A. ii. 552.
[827] For a complete account of these guilds see Lüders, Die dionysischen
Künstler; Foucart, Les Associations religieuses chez les Grecs.
[828] Corn. Nep. praef. 5 ‘in scaenam vero prodire et populo esse
spectaculo nemini in iisdem gentibus fuit turpitudini’. Livy xxiv. 24 (of
Ariston the tragic actor) ‘huic genus et fortuna honesta erant; nec ars,
quia nihil tale apud Graecos pudori est, ea deformabat’.
[829] Aesch. Fals. Leg. §§ 15-19; Dem. de Cor. § 21.
[830] Dem. Fals. Leg. § 315, de Pace § 6; Diod. Sic. xvi. 92; Plut. Alex.
681 D.
[831] Plut. Alex. 669 D.
[832] Plut. X orat. p. 848 B. Gellius, N. A. xi. 9, gives the same story
about Aristodemus.
[833] Aristot. Prob. xxx. 10.
[834] Vit. Aesch.; Schol. Aristoph. Ran. 803, Nub. 1267.
[835] Aristot. Poet. c. 26.
[836] Xen. Symp. iii. 11; Plut. Ages. p. 607 D ἀλλὰ οὐ σύγε ἐσσὶ
Καλλιππίδας ὁ δεικηλίκτας;
[837] Macar. Cent. iii. 46; Prov. Coisl. 124.
[838] Rhet. Graec. vi. p. 35 (Walz).
[839] Plut. an sen. 785 C.
[840] Gell. N. A. vii. 5.
[841] Plut. de se laud. 545 F.
[842] Ael. Var. Hist. xiv. 40.
[843] Pausan. i. 37. 3.
[844] See above, p. 279.
[845] Diod. Sic. xvi. 92.
[846] Plut. Alex. 681 D.
[847] C. I. A. ii. 973.
[848] Plat. Rep. 395 B ἀλλ’ οὐδέ τοι ὑποκριταὶ κωμῳδοῖς τε καὶ τραγῳδοῖς
οἱ αὐτοί.
[849] Schol. Aristoph. Nub. 542; Plut. Aud. Poet. 18 B. [For an account
of all that is known of the celebrated Greek actors see Völker, Berühmte
Schauspieler im griech. Alterthum, 1899.]
[850] Aristot. Poet. c. 18.
[851] For details see the Tragic Drama of the Greeks, pp. 452 ff.
[852] Vit. Aristoph. p. 36 Dindf. The places for the interludes are
marked χοροῦ in the text (ll. 321, 626, 801, 958).
[853] Platon. de Comoed. p. 21 Dindf. οἱ δὲ τῆς μέσης κωμῳδίας ποιηταὶ
... τὰ χορικὰ μέλη παρέλιπον. Platon. p. 20 says the Aeolosicon of
Aristophanes had no chorus; but frag. 8 seems to show that it had.
Similarly the statement of Anon. de Comoed. p. 27 Dindf., that the Plutus
χορῶν ἐστέρηται, is not entirely true.
[854] Aristot. Pol. iii. 3 ὥσπερ γε καὶ χορὸν ὁτὲ μὲν κωμικὸν ὁτὲ δὲ
τραγικὸν ἕτερον εἶναί φαμεν, τῶν αὐτῶν πολλάκις ἀνθρώπων ὄντων. Eth. Nic.
iv. 6 κωμῳδοῖς χορηγῶν ἐν τῇ παρόδῳ πορφύραν εἰσφέρων. Athen. Pol. c. 56,
where the appointment of χορηγοὶ κωμῳδοῖς is described. This probably
implies a chorus; though not necessarily, as a choregus would be required
to meet the other expenses of a play. [Cp. Aeschin. in Tim. § 157 πρῴην
ἐν τοῖς κατ’ ἀγροὺς Διονυσίοις κωμῳδῶν ὄντων ἐν Κολλυτῷ καὶ Παρμένωνος
τοῦ ὑποκριτοῦ εἰπόντος τι πρὸς τὸν χορὸν ἀνάπαιστον (345 B.C.).] The
substitution of an agonothetes for the choregi at the end of the fourth
century may have been connected with the decline of the chorus. See
above, p. 55.
[855] Vit. Aristoph. p. 36 Dindf. τὸν Πλοῦτον γράψας, εἰς τὸ
διαναπαύεσθαι τὰ σκηνικὰ πρόσωπα καὶ μετεσκευάσθαι, ἐπιγράφει χοροῦ,
φθεγγόμενος ἐν ἐκείνοις ἃ καὶ ὁρῶμεν τοὺς νέους (i.e. Menander and
Philemon, cp. p. 35) ἐπιγράφοντας ζήλῳ Ἀριστοφάνους.
[856] Lüders, Die dionysischen Künstler, pp. 187 ff.
[857] Bull. Cor. Hell. xiv. p. 396; Körte, Neue Jahrb. 1900, pp. 83 ff.
[858] Anon. de Comoed. p. 27 Dindf.
[859] Poll. iv. 110. Pollux further states that the number continued to
be fifty until the Eumenides of Aeschylus was produced; and that the
people were so alarmed at the sight of the fifty Furies that they passed
a law reducing the number of the tragic chorus. The story is of course
a fiction, on a par with the statement in the Life, that Aeschylus was
banished to Sicily as a punishment for terrifying the people with his
Eumenides.
[860] Suid. s.v. Σοφοκλῆς; Vit. Soph. p. 2 Dindf.
[861] The decision of the question depends on the passage in the
Agamemnon, s.vv. 1344-71. There is no doubt that the twelve iambic
couplets, 1348-71, were delivered by twelve choreutae. The difficulty is
to decide whether the three trochaic tetrameters, 1344, 1346, and 1347,
were delivered by three additional choreutae, or by the coryphaeus.
Either view is plausible, and it seems impossible to determine the matter
without further evidence. The statement of Schol. Arist. Equit. 586, that
the chorus in the Agamemnon was fifteen in number, is merely an inference
from the passage just referred to. The statement of Schol. Aesch. Eum.
585, that the chorus in the Eumenides consisted of fifteen persons, is
simply grounded on the assumption that the number was the same as in
later times. In neither case is the evidence of any independent value.
[862] Fifteen is the number given in Poll. iv. 109; Suid. s.v. χορός;
Schol. Arist. Av. 298, Equit. 586; Schol. Aesch. Eum. 585. The number is
given as fourteen in Vit. Aesch.; Bekk. Anecd. p. 746; Tzetzes, Prolegom.
ad Lycophr. p. 254 M. The explanation of the discrepancy lies in the
fact that when the chorus is said to consist of fourteen members the
coryphaeus is not included.
[863] Tzetzes, l.c., τὴν δὲ τραγῳδίαν καὶ τοὺς σατύρους ἐπίσης μὲν
ἔχειν χορευτὰς ιαʹ (? ιδʹ). Id. apud Dübner, Prolegom. de Com. p. xxiv.
ἑκκαίδεκα δὲ σατύρων, τραγῳδίας. Though the numbers are wrong in both
passages, it is plain that the tragic and satyric choruses were of the
same size.
[864] Poll. iv. 109; Schol. Arist Av. 298, Acharn. 219; Bekk. Anecd. p.
746, &c.
[865] Lüders, l.c. pp. 187 ff. Wieseler, Denkmäler, xiii. 2.
[866] Pausan. i. 28. 6; Schol. Arist. Nub. 343; Baumeister, Denkmäler,
no. 422.
[867] Vit. Soph.
[868] Aesch. Agam. 75; Eur. Herc. Fur. 108.
[869] Eur. Suppl. 10, 97; Aesch. Choeph. 10, 11.
[870] Aesch. Suppl. 234-6 ἀνέλληνα στόλον | πέπλοισι βαρβάροισι καὶ
πυκνώμασι | χλίοντα; Eur. Bacch. 58.
[871] Aesch. Eum. 52; vit. Aesch. p. 4 Dindf.; Poll. iv. 110; Pausan. i.
28. 6.
[872] See Fürtwängler, Annali dell’ Instituto, 1877, pp. 225 ff., 449 ff.
[873] Hymn to Aphrodite, l. 262.
[874] Strabo, x. p. 471.
[875] Herod. v. 67.
[876] Journal of Hellenic Studies, xi. plate xi, from which the present
illustration is taken by permission of the Council of the Hellenic
Society.
[877] Wieseler, Denkmäler, vi. 3. Baumeister, Denkmäler, no. 424. In the
latter painting the tail and phallus are not visible; but this appears to
be merely owing to the position of the two satyrs. It can hardly be taken
as evidence that the tail and phallus had been discarded at this time.
[878] See Körte, in Bethe’s Prolegomena, pp. 339 ff.
[879] So Loeschcke, Athen. Mittheil. 1894, p. 522; Bethe, Prolegomena, p.
38.
[880] [Miss Harrison, Proleg. to the Study of Greek Religion, p. 421,
derives τραγῳδία from τράγος in the sense of ‘spelt’; but the derivation
is more than doubtful.]
[881] Frag. 207 (Nauck) τράγος γένειον ἆρα πενθήσεις σύ γε.
[882] Wieseler, Denkmäler, vi. 3.
[883] Cp. Hor. A. P. 221 ‘mox etiam agrestes Satyros _nudavit_’.
[884] Cyclops 80 σὺν τᾷδε τράγου χλαίνᾳ.
[885] See the list of titles of comedies in Meineke, Hist. Crit. Com.
Graec. pp. 269 ff.
[886] Arist. Acharn. 627 ἀλλ’ ἀποδύντες τοῖς ἀναπαίστοις ἐπίωμεν; Thesm.
656 τῶν θ’ ἱματίων ἀποδύσας.
[887] Schol. Aristoph. Nub. 343.
[888] Schol. Aristoph. Nub. 289.
[889] Poppelreuter, De Comoed. Atticae Primordiis, 1893, p. 15.
Loeschcke, Athen. Mittheil. 1894, p. 519. Cook, Journal of Hellenic
Studies, 1894, pp. 165 ff.
[890] So Poppelreuter, l.c. pp. 9-11. A copy of the vase is given on p. 8.
[891] Bollettino Archeologico Napolitano, Nuova Serie, v. tav. 7.
[892] Journal of Hellenic Studies, ii. plate xiv A.
[893] The illustration is taken, by permission of the Council of the
Hellenic Society, from the Journal of Hellenic Studies, ii. plate xiv B.
See Mr. Cecil Smith’s interesting article on the subject.
[894] Tzetzes, Prolegom. ad Lycophr. p. 254 M, τραγικῶν δὲ καὶ σατυρικῶν
καὶ κωμικῶν ποιητῶν κοινὸν μὲν τὸ τετραγώνως ἔχειν ἱστάμενον τὸν χορόν:
Bekk. Anecd. p. 746; Et. Mag. s.v. τραγῳδία; vit. Aristoph. (Dindf.
Prolegom. de Com. p. 36).
[895] Athen. p. 181 C.
[896] Poll. iv. 108, 109 καὶ τραγικοῦ μὲν χοροῦ ζυγὰ πέντε ἐκ τριῶν καὶ
στοῖχοι τρεῖς ἐκ πέντε· πεντεκαίδεκα γὰρ ἦσαν ὁ χορός. καὶ κατὰ τρεῖς μὲν
εἰσῄεσαν, εἰ κατὰ ζυγὰ γίνοιτο ἡ πάροδος· εἰ δὲ κατὰ στοίχους, ἀνὰ πέντε
εἰσῄεσαν ... ὁ δὲ κωμικὸς χορὸς τέτταρες καὶ εἴκοσιν ἦσαν οἱ χορευταί,
ζυγὰ ἕξ, ἕκαστον δὲ ζυγὸν ἐκ τεττάρων, στοῖχοι δὲ τέτταρες, ἓξ ἄνδρας
ἔχων ἕκαστος στοῖχος.
[897] Athen. p. 628 F.
[898] Schol. Aristid. iii. p. 535 Dindf. ὅτε εἰσῄεσαν οἱ χοροὶ πλαγίως
βαδίζοντες ἐποιοῦντο τοὺς ὕμνους καὶ εἶχον τοὺς θεατὰς ἐν ἀριστερᾷ αὐτῶν
καὶ οἱ πρῶτοι τοῦ χοροῦ ἀριστερὸν στοῖχον, p. 536 τοὺς οὖν καλοὺς τῶν
χορευτῶν ἔταττον εἰσιόντες ἐν τοῖς [τῶν] ἑαυτῶν ἀριστεροῖς, ἵνα εὑρεθῶσι
πρὸς τὸν δῆμον ὁρῶντες.
[899] Poll. ii. 161 τάχα δὲ καὶ ὁ ἀριστεροστάτης ἐν χορῷ προσήκοι ἂν
τῇ ἀριστερᾷ, ὡς ὁ δεξιοστάτης τῇ δεξιᾷ. Phot. s.v. λαυροστάται· μέσον
τοῦ χοροῦ· οἱονεὶ γὰρ ἐν στενωπῷ εἰσιν· φαυλότεροι δὲ οὗτοι. Hesych.
λαυροστάται· οἱ ἐν τοῖς μέσοις ζυγοὶ ... μὴ θεωρούμενοι. The ὑποκόλπιον
τοῦ χοροῦ, defined by Hesych. as τῆς στάσεως χῶραι αἱ ἄτιμοι, probably
included the whole file of laurostatae, though some scholars confine it
to nos. 7, 8, and 9.
[900] Plut. Conv. p. 678 D ὥσπερ χοροῦ, τοῦ συμποσίου τὸν κρασπεδίτην τῷ
κορυφαίῳ συνήκοον ἔχοντος. The κρασπεδῖται were also called ψιλεῖς; cp.
Suid. s.v. ψιλεύς· ἐπ’ ἄκρου χοροῦ ἱστάμενος: Hesych. s.v. ψιλεῖς· οἱ
ὕστατοι χορεύοντες.
[901] Hesych. s.v. ἀριστεροστάτης· ὁ πρωτοστάτης τοῦ χοροῦ. Poll. iv. 106
δεξιοστάτης, ἀριστεροστάτης, δευτεροστάτης, τριτοστάτης. [Cp. Menander
fr. 165 (Kock) ὥσπερ τῶν χορῶν | οὐ πάντες ᾄδουσ’, ἀλλ’ ἄφωνοι δύο τινὲς
| ἢ τρεῖς παρεστήκασι πάντων ἔσχατοι | εἰς τὸν ἀριθμόν, καὶ τοῦθ’ ὁμοίως
πως ἔχει. This probably means that the mute members of the chorus were
placed in the third file, the δεξιοστάται or τριτοστάται, whom Hesych.
calls ἔσχατοι (s.v. λαυροστάται· οἱ ἐν τοῖς μέσοις ζυγοὶ ... οἱ δὲ
ἐπιτεταγμένοι πρῶτοι καὶ ἔσχατοι).]
[902] Phot. s.v. τρίτος ἀριστεροῦ· ἐν τοῖς τραγικοῖς χοροῖς τριῶν ὄντων
στοίχων καὶ πέντε ζυγῶν, ὁ μὲν ἀριστερὸς πρὸς τῷ θεάτρῳ ἦν, ὁ δὲ δεξιὸς
πρὸς τῷ προσκηνίῳ. συνέβαινεν οὖν τὸν μέσον τοῦ ἀριστεροῦ στοίχου τὴν
ἐντιμοτάτην καὶ τὴν οἷον τοῦ πρωτοστάτου χώραν ἐπέχειν καὶ στάσιν.
The coryphaeus was also called χορηγός Athen. p. 633 A, χοραγός Plut.
Apophth. Lac. p. 219 E, ἡγεμών and ἡγεμὼν κορυφαῖος Dem. Meid. § 60,
χοροστάτης Hesych., χορολέκτης Ael. Hist. An. xi. 1, χοροποιός Xen. Ages.
ii. 17.
[903] Dem. Meid. § 60.
[904] Aristot. Met. iv. 11 ταῦτα δ’ ἐστὶν ὅσα πρός τι ἓν ὡρισμένον
διέστηκε κατὰ τὸν λόγον, οἷον παραστάτης τριτοστάτου πρότερον, καὶ
παρανήτη νήτης· ἔνθα μὲν γὰρ ὁ κορυφαῖος, ἔνθα δὲ ἡ μέση ἀρχή.
[905] See above, p. 271.
[906] Poll. iv. 109; Vit. Aesch. p. 4 Dindf.
[907] Arist. Av. 268-96.
[908] Arist. Lysist. 254, 319. In the Ecclesiazusae the chorus probably
entered together at l. 285. The extra women in the first scene were not
members of the chorus, but παραχορηγήματα.
[909] Arg. Aesch. Pers. τῶν δὲ χορῶν τὰ μέν ἐστι παροδικά, ὡς ὅτε λέγει
δι’ ἣν αἰτίαν πάρεστιν, ὡς τὸ “Τύριον οἶδμα λιποῦσα”. Schol. Eur. Phoen.
πάροδος δέ ἐστιν ᾠδὴ χοροῦ βαδίζοντος ᾀδομένη ἅμα τῇ εἰσόδῳ, ὡς τὸ “Σῖγα
σῖγα λεπτὸν ἴχνος ἀρβύλης τίθετε”. Aristot. Poet. c. 12 defines the
parodos as ἡ πρώτη λέξις ὅλου χοροῦ. He thus extends the meaning of the
word so as to include, not only entrance-songs in the proper sense, but
also those cases where the chorus enter in silence, and sing their odes
later on. [Masqueray, Théorie des formes lyriques de la tragédie grecque,
c. ii, analyses in detail the parodoi of the extant plays.]
[910] Other examples are the Prom. Vinct. of Aeschylus; the Philoctetes
of Sophocles; the Medea, Heracleidae, Troades, and Electra of Euripides.
[911] Müller (Die griech. Bühnenalt. p. 214), following Hermann (Opusc.
vi. 2, p. 144) supposes the whole chorus to have wheeled completely
round, so that the left file came to be nearest to the stage. He thinks
it more natural for the coryphaeus to have been immediately in front of
the stage, where he would be in a position to converse with the actors.
But he could do so equally well from the centre of the back row. And
it seems most improbable that care should have been taken, during the
entrance into the orchestra, to place the coryphaeus and best choreutae
in the line most conspicuous to the spectators, but that throughout the
rest of the performance they should have been stationed in a position
where the majority of the spectators would hardly have been able to see
them.
[912] Anon. de Com. (Dindf. Prolegom. de Com. p. 29); Vit. Aristoph.
(ibid. p. 36); Schol. Arist. Equit. 505.
[913] Schol. Arist. Equit. 505, Pax 733. As to the formation during the
latter part of the parabasis, it is almost certain that the chorus was
then divided into ἡμιχόρια. Two MSS. assign the strophe and antistrophe
to ἡμιχόρια in Nubes 563, 595, Vespae 1060, 1091, Aves 737, 769, and
the epirrhema and antepirrhema in Ranae 686, 717. See Arnoldt, Die
Chorpartieen bei Aristoph. pp. 180 ff. That the half-choruses stood
facing one another seems to be indicated by Hephaest. 14, p. 131, ἔστι
δέ τις ἐν ταῖς κωμῳδίαις καὶ ἡ καλουμένη παράβασις, ἐπειδὰν εἰσελθόντες
εἰς τὸ θέατρον καὶ ἀντιπρόσωπον ἀλλήλοις στάντες οἱ χορευταὶ παρέβαινον:
Anon. de Comoed. (Dübner, Prolegom. de Com. p. xx) ἀπελθόντων δὲ τῶν
ὑποκριτῶν πρὸς ἀμφότερα τὰ μέρη τοῦ δήμου ὁρῶν ἐκ τετραμέτρου δεκαὲξ
στίχους ἀναπαίστους ἐφθέγγετο, καὶ τοῦτο ἐκαλεῖτο στροφή.
[914] Poll. iv. 108. The temporary departure was called μετάστασις, the
return ἐπιπάροδος.
[915] Aesch. Eum. 235; Soph. Ajax 815.
[916] Eur. Hel. 327 ff.
[917] Eur. Alc. 746; Arist. Eccles. 310.
[918] Schol. Arist. Vesp. 580.
[919] See chap. v. pp. 270 ff.
[920] See especially Arnoldt, Die Chorpartieen bei Aristophanes (Leipzig,
1873), Die chorische Technik des Euripides (Halle, 1878), Der Chor
im Agamemnon des Aeschylos (Halle, 1881); Christ, Theilung des Chors
im attischen Drama (München, 1877); Muff, Die chorische Technik des
Sophokles (Halle, 1877), De choro Persarum (Halle, 1878), Der Chor in
den Sieben des Aeschylos (Halle, 1882); Hense, Der Chor des Sophokles
(Berlin, 1877), Ueber die Vortragsweise Soph. Stasima (Rhein. Museum,
xxxii); Zielinski, Die Gliederung der altattischen Komödie (Leipzig,
1885).
[921] In Poet. c. 12 he defines the πάροδος as ἡ πρώτη λέξις ὅλου χοροῦ,
implying that other odes were also sung by the whole chorus. If so,
the στάσιμα, which were far the most important of the other odes, must
have been so sung. Whether the expression ὅλα χορικὰ μέλη, applied to
the στάσιμα, means ‘sung by the whole chorus’, or merely ‘unbroken’, as
opposed to the κόμμοι, is uncertain.
[922] Schol. Eur. Alc. 79 ἐκ γερόντων Φεραίων ὁ χορός, διαιρεῖται δὲ
εἰς δύο ἡμιχόρια. That the anapaests in Ranae 354-71, which come in the
middle of the parodos, were spoken by the coryphaeus is proved by the
concluding lines (ὑμεῖς δ’ ἀνεγείρετε μολπὴν κ.τ.λ.), in which the rest
of the chorus is commanded to begin.
[923] When these short odes were of a lively character, they were
apparently called ὑπορχήματα by the grammarians, and regarded as a
separate class. But even stasima might be composed in the hyporchematic
style. It seems better, therefore, to regard ὑπόρχημα as a term
applicable, not to short lyrics only, but to any lyrics of a lively and
dance-like metre. See the Tragic Drama of the Greeks, pp. 357, 359.
[924] See the previous page.
[925] e.g. Arist. Ran. 382, Vesp. 1516, Thesmoph. 655, &c.
[926] Aesch. Agam. 1344 ff., Eum. 140 ff., Schol. ad loc. ἀναστήσει
αὐτὰς οὐκ ἀθρόως, μιμούμενος ἐμφατικῶς τὴν ἀλήθειαν, ἀλλ’ ἐγείρεταί τις
πρώτη, ὥστε μὴ ἀθρόως τὸν χορὸν φθέγξασθαι. Müller (Griech. Bühnenalt.
p. 218) is mistaken in citing the passage in the Lysistrata, 727-80, as
an example of the delivery of words by individual choreutae. The three
women who take part in the dialogue are not members of the chorus, but
performers upon the stage.
[927] Cp. the sensible remarks of the Schol. on Arist. Ran. 375 ἐντεῦθεν
Ἀρίσταρχος ὑπενόησε μὴ ὅλου τοῦ χοροῦ εἶναι τὰ πρῶτα· τοῦτο δὲ οὐκ
ἀξιόπιστον. πολλάκις γὰρ ἀλλήλοις οὕτω παρακελεύονται οἱ περὶ τὸν χορόν.
[928] Poll. iv. 107 καὶ ἡμιχόριον δὲ καὶ διχορία καὶ ἀντιχόρια. ἔοικε
δὲ ταὐτὸν εἶναι ταυτὶ τὰ τρία ὀνόματα· ὁπόταν γὰρ ὁ χορὸς εἰς δύο μέρη
τμηθῇ, τὸ μὲν πρᾶγμα καλεῖται διχορία, ἑκατέρα δὲ ἡ μοῖρα ἡμιχόριον, ἃ
δ’ ἀντᾴδουσιν, ἀντιχόρια. The Schol. on Arist. Equit. 589 has a curious
note to the effect that, when the chorus was divided into two halves of
different sex or age, the older or stronger half was always slightly more
numerous. In a comic chorus there would be 13 men to 11 women, 13 women
to 11 boys, and so on.
[929] Soph. Ajax 866 ff.; Eur. Orest. 1258 ff.
[930] See Arnoldt, Die Chorpartieen bei Aristophanes, pp. 180 ff., where
a list is given of the passages which are assigned to half-choruses by
Rav. and Ven., e.g. Acharn. 1150, 1162, Nub. 563, 595. Vesp. 1060, 1091,
Av. 737, 769, 1058, 1088, Eccles. 290, 301, Thesmoph. 659, Lysist. 321.
[J. W. White, Harvard Stud, in Class. Phil. vol. xvii, assigns a more
important part to the leader of the second semi-chorus in comedy than has
usually been recognized, but the evidence is not conclusive.]
[931] Bergk’s notion (Griech. Lit. iii. p. 131) that in Arist. Poet. c.
12 (κοινὰ μὲν ἁπάντων ταῦτα, ἴδια δὲ τὰ ἀπὸ τῆς σκηνῆς καὶ κόμμοι) ἴδια
= ‘sung by individuals or sections’ is clearly wrong. ἴδια = ‘not found
in all plays’, and the word to be supplied with ἁπάντων is δραμάτων, not
χορευτῶν.