Chapter 27

[101]Cf. Aristophanes’Clouds, vss. 537 ff. (Rogers’ translation). The original of “filthy symbols” is σκύτινον καθειμένον. It has therefore been suggested, especially since there seems to be an allusion to a phallus even in theClouds(vs. 734), that Aristophanes is not to be understood as discontinuing the use of the phallus altogether in this play, but merely as abandoning the φαλλος καθειμένος in favor of the less indecent φαλλὸς ἀναδεδεμένος. Both types are seen inFig. 17.[102]Figs. 17-19 are taken from Körte,op. cit., p. 69 (Fig. 1), p. 78 (Fig. 3), and p. 80 (Fig. 5), respectively. In Fig. 17 there are only three actors; the end figures are flute-players. Körte believes this scene to be taken from Middle Comedy. In Fig. 19 the phallus has been omitted.[103]Figs. 20 and 21 are taken from Körte,op. cit., p. 91 (Fig. 8), and Baumeister’sDenkmäler, Fig. 2099, respectively. The phallus has been omitted from some of the actors.[104]Cf. Aristotle’sPoetics1448a31 f.[105]Those who admit this claim rest under the necessity of placing the introduction of actors at this early date. This would mean that comedy had actors before tragedy did! On the other hand, the reader needs to be warned that I place the introduction of comic actors later than most writers.[106]Cf. Aristophanes’Wasps, vs. 57, and Kock,Comicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, I, 9 f., fr. 2 (Ecphantides), and I, 323, fr. 244 (Eupolis).[107]Von Wilamowitz’ skepticism with regard to Megarian comedy, however, has not gained many converts; cf. “Die megarische Komödie,”Hermes, IX (1875), 319 ff.[108]Cf. Navarre,op. cit., p. 268. The same fact is brought out more graphically in the lithographic table at the close of Zieliński’s book.[109]The episodes referred to in this sentence are more properly termed “mediating scenes” in contradistinction to the true episodes (5) which follow the parabasis (cf. White,The Verse of Greek Comedy, §§ 679 f.). Twenty-six connecting links of this sort occur in Aristophanes, twenty of them just before an agon or parabasis. Syzygies are also employed to extend the length of the play, especially in the first half (cf.p. 41, n. 1, above).[110]Cf. Aristotle’sPoetics1448a32-4.[111]Cf. Aristophanes’Frogs, vss. 416-30, Rogers’ translation. The original is more vulgar than would be tolerable in an English translation.[112]Cf. Kaibel,Comicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, p. 18.[113]Some would interpret this passage as meaning that Cratinus was the first to observe the aesthetic law that not more than three persons should participate in the same conversation (cf. Rees,The So-called Rule of Three Actors in the Classical Greek Drama, p. 9, n. 1). When the only speakers were the individual choreutae, who were twenty-four in number, such a restriction must have been unheard of. On the other hand, if it should prove true that Megarian actors were brought in before the time of Cratinus, then we must suppose that their number was at first in excess of three and was reduced to three by him. Of course, the use of but three actors in the tragedy and comedy of this period would automatically result in not more than three persons participating in a conversation and so in the observance of the aesthetic law. This statement, however, is subject to the qualification that the chorus leaders continued to have speaking parts both in comedy (seep. 44, above), and in tragedy (cf.pp. 164 f.and169, below), and that a fourth actor was occasionally employed (cf.pp. 171and182, below). In any case I am of the opinion that conscious formulation of the aesthetic law was not made until Hellenistic times (seepp. 187 f., below).[114]Cf. Aristophanes’Knights, vss. 522 f., Rogers’ translation.[115]Cf. “The Introduction of Comedy into the City Dionysia,”University of Chicago Decennial Publications, VI, 266 ff.[116]Cf. Columbia University Lectures onGreek Literature, p. 130.[117]Cf. Cornford,op. cit., pp. 179 and 193, n. 1; seep. 48, above.[118]It is unfortunate that there is at present no satisfactory book dealing with the Greek theater on the structural side. English readers are practically restricted to Haigh’sThe Attic Theatre, revised by Pickard-Cambridge in 1907, which devotes nearly one hundred pages to a summary and criticism of the different views. But this work has already been off the press for a decade and on the main issue, viz., as to whether the Greek theater of the classical period was provided with a raised stage for actors, makes too many concessions to the traditional view. For German readers, on the other hand, the situation is not a great deal better. Dörpfeld’s book has been before the public for over twenty years, and in the interim his opinions have necessarily changed on many points. He has promised a thoroughly revised second edition, which is demanded also by the excavation of additional theaters and by the publication of numerous special articles. But it is hardly likely that this promise will ever be redeemed. The only comfort is to be derived from the fact that, as works of major importance have appeared, Dörpfeld has promptly published critiques which have often been of such length as to furnish convenient restatements of his views. These more recent works in German, however, have attempted merely to force a modification of certain details in Dörpfeld’s position; they are in no wise calculated to serve as independent presentations of the whole matter or as a means of orientation for the uninitiated.From the extensive bibliographical material which is available it is manifestly impossible to cite more than a fraction here. The outstanding books are Dörpfeld-Reisch,Das griechische Theater(1896), defended against reviewers and partially modified in “Das griechische Theater Vitruvs,”Athenische Mittheilungen, XXII (1897), 439 ff., and XXIII (1898), 326 ff.; Puchstein,Die griechische Bühne(1901), answered by Dörpfeld inAthenische Mittheilungen, XXVIII (1903), 383 ff.; and Fiechter,Die baugeschichtliche Entwicklung des antiken Theaters(1914), summarized by its author and criticized by Dörpfeld inJahrbuch d. arch. Instituts, Anzeiger, XXX (1915), 93 ff. and 96 ff., respectively. Other important publications are von Wilamowitz-Möllendorff, “Die Bühne des Aischylos,”Hermes, XXI (1886), 597 ff.; Todt, “Noch Einmal die Bühne des Aeschylos,”Philologus, XLVIII (1889), 505 ff.; Capps, “Vitruvius and the Greek Stage,”University of Chicago Studies in Classical Philology, I (1893), 3 ff.; Bethe,Prolegomena zur Geschichte des Theaters im Alterthum(1896), and “Die hellenistischen Bühnen und ihre Decorationen,”Jahrbuch d. arch. Instituts, XV (1900), 59 ff. (answered by Dörpfeld in “Die vermeintliche Bühne des hellenistischen Theaters,”ibid., XVI [1901], 22 ff.); Petersen, “Nachlese in Athen: Das Theater des Dionysos,”ibid., XXIII (1908), 33 ff.; and Versakis, “Das Skenengebäude d. Dionysos-Theaters,”ibid., XXIV (1909), 194 ff., answered by Dörpfeld,ibid., pp. 224 ff. Still other titles will be cited as they are needed in the discussion. See alsop. 221, below. For reports on the excavations of various theaters the reader should consult the bibliographical references given by Dörpfeld-Reisch and Fiechter in their footnotes.[119]For a slight variability in the application of the word orchestra seep. 83and nn.1and2, below; see alsop. 72, n. 3.[120]Fig. 22 is specially drawn and does not exactly reproduce any single theatrical structure. Fig. 23 is taken, simplified and slightly altered, from Dörpfeld-Reisch,Das griechische Theater, Pl. VIII (a).[121]Dörpfeld claims that the name was given because the speakers stood there in addressing the public assemblies and that the same place was known as thetheologiumwhen used by divinities; cf.Athenische Mittheilungen, XXIII (1898), 348 f., and XXVIII (1903), 395, andJahrbuch d. arch. Instituts, Anzeiger, XXX (1915), 98. Reisch thought that logium was the name of some kind of special structure in the orchestra; cf.Das griechische Theater, p. 302. Inscriptions prove the presence of a logium in the Delian theater in 279B.C.(εἰς τὸ λογεῖον τῆς σκηνῆς) and 180B.C.(τὴν κατασκευὴν τῶν πινάκων τῶν ἐπὶ τὸ λογεῖον); cf. Homolle,Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, XVIII (1894), 162 and 165, and Robinson,American Journal of Philology, XXV (1904), 191; but they do not make its nature clear. Personally I am of the opinion that at Athens speakers always stood in the orchestra to address the public assemblies until the building of the Nero stage about 67A.D.; cf. Flickinger,Plutarch as a Source of Information on the Greek Theater(1904), p. 55, and seep. 102, below. My present view, therefore, is that logium suffered a change of meaning, being first applied to the top of the proscenium and being used for elevated action of various kinds, as explained in the text, and afterward being applied to the stage as the place of actors and public speakers. In either case, it referred to the same general part of the theater, viz., an elevated platform in front of the scene-building. But the original application of this term is one of the most perplexing problems in connection with scenic antiquities, and it is earnestly to be hoped that additional evidence may be brought to light which will unmistakably reveal its earlier history. The word does not appear in literature until Roman times (thrice in Plutarch), but then indisputably means “stage.” See next paragraph in text.[122]“Theater” (θέατρον) is derived from θεᾶσθαι, to “see,” and was originally applied to the space occupied by the spectators. The wider meaning was a natural but later development. It is customary to employ the Latin termcavea(“an excavated place”) to express the narrower meaning.[123]Fig. 24 is taken from Wilberg’s drawing, simplified by the omission of numerous details, inForschungen in Ephesos, II, Fig. 96. I am responsible for the addition of the names.[124]That this platform (or rather its equivalent in purely Roman theaters) might be conventionally regarded as the roof of the scene-building appears from SenecaMedea, vs. 973 (Medea speaking): “excelsa nostrae tecta conscendam domus,” and vs. 995 (Jason speaking): “en ipsa tecti parte praecipiti imminet.”[125]The word occurs only in Pollux,Onomasticon, IV, § 127.[126]Dörpfeld applies the term to the first story of the purely Greek (stageless) theater (seep. 100, below).[127]For a discussion of the technical terms from the traditional standpoint, cf. A. Müller, “Untersuchungen zu den Bühnenalterthümern,”Philologus, Supplementband, VII (1899), 3 ff. Many of the terms, notably σκηνή, have numerous secondary meanings; cf. Flickinger,Plutarch as a Source of Information on the Greek Theater, pp. 23 ff., and Scherling,De VocisΣκηνή,Quantum ad Theatrum Graecum Pertinet, Significatione et Usu(1906). Thymele is sometimes extended in application so as to denote the whole orchestra; hence θυμελικός was sometimes applied to purely orchestral performers (or their performances) in contradistinction to those who came into more immediate relationship with the scene-building and who were in consequence known as σκηνικοί (seepp. 96 f., below).[128]Fig. 25 is taken from a photograph by Professor D. M. Robinson.[129]Figs. 26 f. are taken from photographs by Dr. A. S. Cooley; Fig. 28 from one by Professor D. M. Robinson.[130]Fig. 1 is taken from a photograph furnished by Professor D. M. Robinson.[131]Fig. 29 is specially drawn and is based upon several different drawings.[132]Fig. 30 is taken from Wieseler’sTheatergebäude und Denkmäler d. Bühnenwesens bei den Griechern und Römern, Pl. I, Fig. 1, and is magnified two diameters as compared with the original coin. See also the medallion on the outside cover, which is reproduced from theBritish Museum Catalogue of Greek Coins, Attica, Megaris, Aegina, Pl. XIX, Fig. 8. Fig. 31 is from a photograph by Dr. A. S. Cooley.[133]Fig. 32 is redrawn, with slight alterations, from Dörpfeld-Reisch,Das griechische Theater, Pl. II. The age of the different remains is indicated in colors inibid., Pl. I.[134]Cf. Photius,s.v.ἴκρια. τὰ ἐν τῇ ἀγορᾷ, ἀφ’ ὤν ἐθεῶντο τοὺς Διονυσιακοὺς αγῶνας πρὶν ἤ κατασκευασθῆναι τὸ ἐν Διονύσου θέατρον; likewises.v.ληναῖον and ὀρχήστρα.[135]Cf. Suidas,s.v.Πρατίνας ... ἀντηγωνίζετο δὲ Αὶσχύλῳ τε καὶ Χοιρίλῳ, ἐπὶ τῆς ἑβδομηκοστῆς Ὀλυμπιάδος, ... ἐπιδεικνυμένου δὲ τούτου συνέβη τὰ ἴκρια, ἐφ’ ὧν ἑστήκεσαν οἱ θεαταί πεσεῖν. καὶ ἐκ τούτου θέατρον ᾠκοδομήθη Ἀθηναίοις. It is also possible that the orchestra in the precinct of Dionysus is somewhat earlier than is maintained in the text, possibly going back to the vicinity of 534B.C., and that it was the earlier and less substantial seats near it which collapsedca.499B.C.[136]Figs. 33 f. are taken from photographs by Dr. A. S. Cooley. The position of these stones is marked by B and C respectively in Fig. 32. Another arc of the same orchestral circle is indicated by a cutting in the native rock near the east parodus, A in Fig. 32.[137]Fig. 32ais taken from F. Noack, Σκηνὴ Τραγική,eine Studie über die scenischen Anlage auf der Orchestra des Aischylos und der anderen Tragiker(1915), p. 3.[138]Possibly the seats did not go back of this road at this period; they certainly did in the fourth century (Fig. 32).[139]Cf. Dignan,The Idle Actor in Aeschylus(1905), p. 13, n. 14.[140]Or in the south half of the old orchestra in case the orchestra was moved fifty feet nearer the Acropolis at this time (seep. 68, below).[141]Cf. Aristotle’sPoetics1449a18, and Vitruvius,De Architectura, VII, praefatio, § 11.[142]Dörpfeld, following Reisch, is willing to accept a date as early as 421-415B.C., cf.Das griechische Theater, pp. 21 f.[143]Fig. 35 is taken from Fiechter,op. cit., Fig. 14.[144]So Furtwängler, “Zum Dionysostheater in Athen,”Sitzungsberichte d. bayer. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu München, philosophisch-philologische u. historische Classe, 1901, p. 411; Puchstein,op. cit., pp. 137 ff.; E. A. Gardner,Ancient Athens, pp. 435 f. and 448; and Fiechter,op. cit., p. 11. Dörpfeld, on the contrary, would attribute these foundations to the Lycurgus theater in the next century; cf.Das griechische Theater, pp. 59 ff.[145]Cf. Dörpfeld, “Das griechische Theater zu Pergamon,”Athenische Mittheilungen, XXXII (1907), 231; but differently inDas griechische Theater, pp. 61 ff.[146]As in the Hellenistic theater (Fig. 38).[147]Except possibly at Thoricus (seep. 103, below).[148]Cf. pseudo-PlutarchX Oratorum Vitae, 841D and 852C.[149]Cf. Dörpfeld, “Das Theater von Ephesos,”Jahrbuch d. arch. Instituts, Anzeiger, XXVIII (1913), 38.[150]Dörpfeld, “Das Theater von Ephesos,” Jahrbuch d. arch. Instituts, Anzeiger, XXVIII (1913), 40 f.[151]Fig. 38 is taken from Dörpfeld-Reisch,Das griechische Theater, Fig. 26.[152]Cf.ibid., p. 63. This shift has been disputed by many but is defended by Fiechter,op. cit., pp. 9 ff.[153]Cf. Dörpfeld,Das griechische Theater, p. 89.[154]Cf. ibid., p. 89;Athenische Mittheilungen, XXII (1897), 459; XXIII (1898), 330 and 347; and XXVIII (1903), 414. For the Graeco-Roman stage seepp. 80 ff.and110 f., below.[155]Fig. 39 is from a photograph taken by Dr. Lewis L. Forman and furnished by Dr. A. S. Cooley. Owing to its change of function, in Roman times the orchestra was sometimes known as the κονίστρα (= the Latinarena); owing to its change of shape, it was sometimes called σῖγμα from its resemblance to the semicircular form of the Greek letter Ϲ.[156]Fig. 40 is taken from Dörpfeld-Reisch,Das griechische Theater, Fig. 32.[157]Fig. 41 is from a photograph belonging to Northwestern University; the stone steps at the left and another slab at the right do not appear in this view (seeFig. 39). For the latest interpretation and drawing of the frieze, cf. Cook,Zeus, I, 708 ff., and the pocket at end of his volume.[158]Fig. 42 is taken fromAthenische Mittheilungen, XXII (1897), 452.[159]Vitruvius, of course, speaks of Roman feet, which are equal to 11.65 English inches.[160]Fig. 43 is taken fromAthenische Mittheilungen, XXII (1897), 453. This drawing differs somewhat from that given inDas griechische Theater, Fig. 66, which was prepared while Dörpfeld was still of the opinion that Vitruvius was describing the Hellenistic theater and had misapprehended the function of its proscenium (seep. 81, below). He now includes the proscenium at the back of the stage in thescaenae frons.[161]Whateverscaenamay mean in Latin,in scaenain this context is at least equivalent to “on the stage.”[162]Cf.p. 61, n. 2, above andpp. 96 f., below.[163]Cf. PolluxOnomasticoniv, § 123: καὶ σκηνὴ μὲν ὑποκριτῶν ἴδιον, ἡ δὲ ὀρχήστρα τοῦ χοροῦ.[164]Cf.ibid., iv, § 127: εἰσελθόντες δὲ κατὰ τὴν ὀρχήστραν ἐπὶ τὴν σκηνὴν ἀναβαίνουσι διὰ κλιμάκων.[165]Dörpfeld’s views were first given general publicity in the Appendix to Müller’sLehrbuch der griechischen Bühnenalterthümern(1886), pp. 415 f., but were not published in full until 1896. They have suffered modification in several material points since then.[166]Cf.De Architecturav. 8, 2: “ita his praescriptionibus qui voluerit uti, emendatas efficiet theatrorum perfectiones.”[167]This is now Dörpfeld’s name for what he at first called the Asia Minor type; cf.Athenische Mittheilungen, XXVIII (1903), 389 and 414. The latter term was unfortunate as suggesting a geographical restriction which had no basis in fact.[168]Cf. PlutarchLife of Pompey, c. xlii.[169]It is significant that Vitruvius seems to have depended upon Asia Minor rather than the Greek mainland for his knowledge of Greek architecture; cf. Noack, “Das Proscenion in der Theaterfrage,”Philologus, LVIII (1899), 16 ff.[170]Cf.Athenische Mittheilungen, XXII (1897), 439 ff.[171]Cf.Athenische Mittheilungen, XXII (1897), 443, 449 f., and 454, and Fiechter,op. cit., pp. 59 ff.[172]It is easy to see why he should do so. When Hellenistic theaters were made over into Graeco-Roman structures, several rows of seats were often removed, resulting in a drop of several feet between the auditorium and the orchestra (seep. 116, below, andFig. 24). So distinct a line of demarcation could scarcely be ignored in favor of any less clearly marked boundary. In fact, the orchestra in the narrowest sense (see next note) was sometimes not indicated at all in the Graeco-Roman theaters.[173]The word is applied also to a still more restricted space which in some Graeco-Roman and most earlier theaters is marked off by a circular boundary.[174]Of course, Dörpfeld and Fiechter cite only a fraction of the instances available (others are given in Puchstein’s table,op. cit., p. 7), but it is to be inferred that they bring forward those which are most favorable to their own position and most difficult for their opponents to explain. For example, the proscenium of the Hellenistic theater in Athens was about thirteen feet (English) high, which exceeds Vitruvius’ maximum. Consequently Fiechter says nothing about it. In general, the Hellenistic proscenia were higher than the Graeco-Roman stages.[175]Doubtless for the reason that in the pitlike Graeco-Roman orchestra the smaller circle really was not needed and often was not indicated (seep. 83, n. 1).[176]Cf. Dörpfeld,Athenische Mittheilungen, XXVIII (1903), 403 and 405.[177]Cf. Bethe,Jahrbuch d. arch. Instituts, XV (1900), 71 f., and Dörpfeld,ibid., XVI (1901), 35 f.[178]Cf.Athenische Mittheilungen, XXVIII (1903), 424 ff. The arguments advanced in this article are reaffirmed as still valid inJahrbuch d. arch. Instituts, Anzeiger, XXX (1915), 99 ff.[179]Cf.Hermes, XXI (1886), 603.[180]Cf. “The Greek Stage According to the Extant Dramas,”Transactions of the American Philological Association, XXII (1891), 5 ff. Similar results were obtained by White, “The ‘Stage’ in Aristophanes,”Harvard Studies, II (1891), 159 ff.[181]Fig. 45 is from a photograph belonging to the University of Chicago. The inscription beneath the seat reads: “Of the priest of Dionysus Eleuthereus.”[182]Cf. scholium on vs. 299 of theFrogs: ἀποροῦσι δέ τινες πῶς ἀπὸ τοῦ λογείου περιελθὼν καὶ κρυφθεὶς ὄπισθεν τοῦ ἱερέως τοῦτο λέγει. φαίνονται δὲ οὐκ εἶναι ἐπὶ τοῦ λογείου ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ τῆς ὀρχήστρας.[183]Cf. Graeber,De Poetarum Atticorum Arte Scaenica(1911), p. 4.[184]Cf. Rees, “The Function of the Πρόθυρον in the Production of Greek Plays,”Classical Philology, X (1915), 128 and n. 2. For other interpretations consistent with a stageless theater, cf. White,Harvard Studies, II (1891), 164 ff., and Capps,Transactions of the American Philological Association, XXII (1891), 64 ff. A convenient summary from the pro-stage point of view may be found in Haigh,The Attic Theatre³, pp. 166 f.[185]Cf. Aristotle’sPoetics1456a29, and seepp. 144 ff., below.[186]Cf. White,op. cit., p. 167, note, and Robert, “Zur Theaterfrage,”Hermes, XXXII (1897), 447.[187]Seepp. 99,116 f.,134 f., and144-49, below. Cf. Capps, “The Chorus in the Later Greek Drama,”American Journal of Archaeology, X (1895), 287 ff.; Körte, “Das Fortleben des Chors im griechischen Drama,”N. Jahrbücher f. kl. Altertum, V (1900), 81 ff.; Flickinger, “ΧΟΡΟΥ in Terence’sHeautonand Agathon’s ΕΜΒΟΛΙΜΑ,”Classical Philology, VII (1912), 24 ff.; and Duckett,Studies in Ennius(1915), pp. 53 ff.[188]Seep. 147, below, and cf. Graf,Szenische Untersuchungen zu Menander(1914), p. 14. The same motive appears also in the fifth century, in Euripides’Phoenician Maids, vss. 192 ff., andPhaethon(Nauck,Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, p. 602, fr. 773, vss. 10 ff.); cf. Fraenkel,De Media et Nova Comoedia(1912), p. 71, and Harms,De Introitu Personarum in Euripidis et Novae Comoediae Fabulis(1914), p. 60; seep. 282, below.[189]The former phrase occurs in Aristotle’sPoetics1453a27, 1455a28, 1459b25, and 1460a15, and Demosthenes xix, p. 449, § 337; the latter in Aristotle’s (?)Poetics1452b18 and 25, Aristotle’sProblems918b26, 920a9, and 922b17, and Demosthenes xviii, p. 288, § 180. Cf. Richards,Classical Review, V (1891), 97, and XVIII (1904), 179, and Flickinger, “The Meaning of ἐπὶ τῆς σκηνῆς in Writers of the Fourth Century,”University of Chicago Decennial Publications, VI (1902), 11 ff., and “Scaenica,”Transactions of the American Philological Association, XL (1909), 109 ff.[190]Cf. Athenaeus, p. 211 B.[191]Cf. Diodorus Siculus xi. 10, PlutarchLife of Brutus, c. xlv, andLife of Demetrius, c. xxxii, and Lucian (?),Lucius sive Asinus, § 47.[192]Cf.American Journal of Philology, XVIII (1897), 120.[193]Cf. Aristotle’sPoetics1460a11-17.[194]Cf. Aristotle (?)Poetics1452b24 f.[195]Cf. Clemens Alexandrinus (Potter), p. 688, and Vitruvius viii, praefatio § 1. Incidentally it may be remarked that Euripides’ philosophizing and personal views are found in his choral odes no less than in the histrionic parts of his plays (seep. 140, below).[196]Cf. Frei,De Certaminibus Thymelicis(1900), pp. 14 and 15. The dissertation provoked a controversy between Bethe and Dörpfeld; cf. Bethe, “Thymeliker und Skeniker,”Hermes, XXXVI (1901), 597 ff., and Dörpfeld, “Thymele und Skene,”ibid., XXXVII (1902), 249 ff. and 483 ff.[197]Cf.Athenische Mittheilungen, XXVIII (1903), 420 f.[198]The Greek text has already been quoted on p. 78, nn. 1 and 2.[199]Cf.Clouds, vss. 1486 ff. A somewhat similar use of ladders is mentioned in Euripides’Bacchanals, vss. 1212 ff.

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

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

[104]Cf. Aristotle’sPoetics1448a31 f.

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

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

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

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

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

[110]Cf. Aristotle’sPoetics1448a32-4.

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

[112]Cf. Kaibel,Comicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, p. 18.

[113]Some would interpret this passage as meaning that Cratinus was the first to observe the aesthetic law that not more than three persons should participate in the same conversation (cf. Rees,The So-called Rule of Three Actors in the Classical Greek Drama, p. 9, n. 1). When the only speakers were the individual choreutae, who were twenty-four in number, such a restriction must have been unheard of. On the other hand, if it should prove true that Megarian actors were brought in before the time of Cratinus, then we must suppose that their number was at first in excess of three and was reduced to three by him. Of course, the use of but three actors in the tragedy and comedy of this period would automatically result in not more than three persons participating in a conversation and so in the observance of the aesthetic law. This statement, however, is subject to the qualification that the chorus leaders continued to have speaking parts both in comedy (seep. 44, above), and in tragedy (cf.pp. 164 f.and169, below), and that a fourth actor was occasionally employed (cf.pp. 171and182, below). In any case I am of the opinion that conscious formulation of the aesthetic law was not made until Hellenistic times (seepp. 187 f., below).

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

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

[116]Cf. Columbia University Lectures onGreek Literature, p. 130.

[117]Cf. Cornford,op. cit., pp. 179 and 193, n. 1; seep. 48, above.

[118]It is unfortunate that there is at present no satisfactory book dealing with the Greek theater on the structural side. English readers are practically restricted to Haigh’sThe Attic Theatre, revised by Pickard-Cambridge in 1907, which devotes nearly one hundred pages to a summary and criticism of the different views. But this work has already been off the press for a decade and on the main issue, viz., as to whether the Greek theater of the classical period was provided with a raised stage for actors, makes too many concessions to the traditional view. For German readers, on the other hand, the situation is not a great deal better. Dörpfeld’s book has been before the public for over twenty years, and in the interim his opinions have necessarily changed on many points. He has promised a thoroughly revised second edition, which is demanded also by the excavation of additional theaters and by the publication of numerous special articles. But it is hardly likely that this promise will ever be redeemed. The only comfort is to be derived from the fact that, as works of major importance have appeared, Dörpfeld has promptly published critiques which have often been of such length as to furnish convenient restatements of his views. These more recent works in German, however, have attempted merely to force a modification of certain details in Dörpfeld’s position; they are in no wise calculated to serve as independent presentations of the whole matter or as a means of orientation for the uninitiated.From the extensive bibliographical material which is available it is manifestly impossible to cite more than a fraction here. The outstanding books are Dörpfeld-Reisch,Das griechische Theater(1896), defended against reviewers and partially modified in “Das griechische Theater Vitruvs,”Athenische Mittheilungen, XXII (1897), 439 ff., and XXIII (1898), 326 ff.; Puchstein,Die griechische Bühne(1901), answered by Dörpfeld inAthenische Mittheilungen, XXVIII (1903), 383 ff.; and Fiechter,Die baugeschichtliche Entwicklung des antiken Theaters(1914), summarized by its author and criticized by Dörpfeld inJahrbuch d. arch. Instituts, Anzeiger, XXX (1915), 93 ff. and 96 ff., respectively. Other important publications are von Wilamowitz-Möllendorff, “Die Bühne des Aischylos,”Hermes, XXI (1886), 597 ff.; Todt, “Noch Einmal die Bühne des Aeschylos,”Philologus, XLVIII (1889), 505 ff.; Capps, “Vitruvius and the Greek Stage,”University of Chicago Studies in Classical Philology, I (1893), 3 ff.; Bethe,Prolegomena zur Geschichte des Theaters im Alterthum(1896), and “Die hellenistischen Bühnen und ihre Decorationen,”Jahrbuch d. arch. Instituts, XV (1900), 59 ff. (answered by Dörpfeld in “Die vermeintliche Bühne des hellenistischen Theaters,”ibid., XVI [1901], 22 ff.); Petersen, “Nachlese in Athen: Das Theater des Dionysos,”ibid., XXIII (1908), 33 ff.; and Versakis, “Das Skenengebäude d. Dionysos-Theaters,”ibid., XXIV (1909), 194 ff., answered by Dörpfeld,ibid., pp. 224 ff. Still other titles will be cited as they are needed in the discussion. See alsop. 221, below. For reports on the excavations of various theaters the reader should consult the bibliographical references given by Dörpfeld-Reisch and Fiechter in their footnotes.

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

[119]For a slight variability in the application of the word orchestra seep. 83and nn.1and2, below; see alsop. 72, n. 3.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[141]Cf. Aristotle’sPoetics1449a18, and Vitruvius,De Architectura, VII, praefatio, § 11.

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

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

[144]So Furtwängler, “Zum Dionysostheater in Athen,”Sitzungsberichte d. bayer. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu München, philosophisch-philologische u. historische Classe, 1901, p. 411; Puchstein,op. cit., pp. 137 ff.; E. A. Gardner,Ancient Athens, pp. 435 f. and 448; and Fiechter,op. cit., p. 11. Dörpfeld, on the contrary, would attribute these foundations to the Lycurgus theater in the next century; cf.Das griechische Theater, pp. 59 ff.

[145]Cf. Dörpfeld, “Das griechische Theater zu Pergamon,”Athenische Mittheilungen, XXXII (1907), 231; but differently inDas griechische Theater, pp. 61 ff.

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

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

[148]Cf. pseudo-PlutarchX Oratorum Vitae, 841D and 852C.

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

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

[151]Fig. 38 is taken from Dörpfeld-Reisch,Das griechische Theater, Fig. 26.

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

[153]Cf. Dörpfeld,Das griechische Theater, p. 89.

[154]Cf. ibid., p. 89;Athenische Mittheilungen, XXII (1897), 459; XXIII (1898), 330 and 347; and XXVIII (1903), 414. For the Graeco-Roman stage seepp. 80 ff.and110 f., below.

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

[156]Fig. 40 is taken from Dörpfeld-Reisch,Das griechische Theater, Fig. 32.

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

[158]Fig. 42 is taken fromAthenische Mittheilungen, XXII (1897), 452.

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

[160]Fig. 43 is taken fromAthenische Mittheilungen, XXII (1897), 453. This drawing differs somewhat from that given inDas griechische Theater, Fig. 66, which was prepared while Dörpfeld was still of the opinion that Vitruvius was describing the Hellenistic theater and had misapprehended the function of its proscenium (seep. 81, below). He now includes the proscenium at the back of the stage in thescaenae frons.

[161]Whateverscaenamay mean in Latin,in scaenain this context is at least equivalent to “on the stage.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

[168]Cf. PlutarchLife of Pompey, c. xlii.

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

[170]Cf.Athenische Mittheilungen, XXII (1897), 439 ff.

[171]Cf.Athenische Mittheilungen, XXII (1897), 443, 449 f., and 454, and Fiechter,op. cit., pp. 59 ff.

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

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

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

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

[176]Cf. Dörpfeld,Athenische Mittheilungen, XXVIII (1903), 403 and 405.

[177]Cf. Bethe,Jahrbuch d. arch. Instituts, XV (1900), 71 f., and Dörpfeld,ibid., XVI (1901), 35 f.

[178]Cf.Athenische Mittheilungen, XXVIII (1903), 424 ff. The arguments advanced in this article are reaffirmed as still valid inJahrbuch d. arch. Instituts, Anzeiger, XXX (1915), 99 ff.

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

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

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

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

[183]Cf. Graeber,De Poetarum Atticorum Arte Scaenica(1911), p. 4.

[184]Cf. Rees, “The Function of the Πρόθυρον in the Production of Greek Plays,”Classical Philology, X (1915), 128 and n. 2. For other interpretations consistent with a stageless theater, cf. White,Harvard Studies, II (1891), 164 ff., and Capps,Transactions of the American Philological Association, XXII (1891), 64 ff. A convenient summary from the pro-stage point of view may be found in Haigh,The Attic Theatre³, pp. 166 f.

[185]Cf. Aristotle’sPoetics1456a29, and seepp. 144 ff., below.

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

[187]Seepp. 99,116 f.,134 f., and144-49, below. Cf. Capps, “The Chorus in the Later Greek Drama,”American Journal of Archaeology, X (1895), 287 ff.; Körte, “Das Fortleben des Chors im griechischen Drama,”N. Jahrbücher f. kl. Altertum, V (1900), 81 ff.; Flickinger, “ΧΟΡΟΥ in Terence’sHeautonand Agathon’s ΕΜΒΟΛΙΜΑ,”Classical Philology, VII (1912), 24 ff.; and Duckett,Studies in Ennius(1915), pp. 53 ff.

[188]Seep. 147, below, and cf. Graf,Szenische Untersuchungen zu Menander(1914), p. 14. The same motive appears also in the fifth century, in Euripides’Phoenician Maids, vss. 192 ff., andPhaethon(Nauck,Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, p. 602, fr. 773, vss. 10 ff.); cf. Fraenkel,De Media et Nova Comoedia(1912), p. 71, and Harms,De Introitu Personarum in Euripidis et Novae Comoediae Fabulis(1914), p. 60; seep. 282, below.

[189]The former phrase occurs in Aristotle’sPoetics1453a27, 1455a28, 1459b25, and 1460a15, and Demosthenes xix, p. 449, § 337; the latter in Aristotle’s (?)Poetics1452b18 and 25, Aristotle’sProblems918b26, 920a9, and 922b17, and Demosthenes xviii, p. 288, § 180. Cf. Richards,Classical Review, V (1891), 97, and XVIII (1904), 179, and Flickinger, “The Meaning of ἐπὶ τῆς σκηνῆς in Writers of the Fourth Century,”University of Chicago Decennial Publications, VI (1902), 11 ff., and “Scaenica,”Transactions of the American Philological Association, XL (1909), 109 ff.

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

[191]Cf. Diodorus Siculus xi. 10, PlutarchLife of Brutus, c. xlv, andLife of Demetrius, c. xxxii, and Lucian (?),Lucius sive Asinus, § 47.

[192]Cf.American Journal of Philology, XVIII (1897), 120.

[193]Cf. Aristotle’sPoetics1460a11-17.

[194]Cf. Aristotle (?)Poetics1452b24 f.

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

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

[197]Cf.Athenische Mittheilungen, XXVIII (1903), 420 f.

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

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

Back to Index Next