PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION

My purpose in this book has been to collect and piece together all the available information concerning the outward features and surroundings of the old Athenian dramatic performances; in other words, to write a history of the Attic drama from the theatrical, as opposed to the literary, point of view. The subject is one which has been practically revolutionized during the last half-century, partly through the labours of various scholars in interpreting the notices of the old grammarians, but more especially owing to the rich discoveries of inscriptions relating to theatrical affairs, and the information supplied by excavations in the old Greek theatres. But in spite of the copious accession of fresh materials, it is now more than fifty years since any work has appeared in English, in which this particular department of Greek dramatic history has been treated in a comprehensive manner. The neglect is all the more remarkable, as the subject is undeniably of great interest and importance, and this for two reasons. In the first place it

is difficult to understand and appreciate the peculiar qualities of the existing Greek plays, without acquiring some knowledge of the circumstances under which they were produced, and the limitations within which the ancient dramatic poets had to work. In the second place, as the Attic drama was essentially a public institution, and formed one of the most conspicuous elements in the national life, the various details connected with its management are incidentally most instructive, because of the light which they throw upon the habits, feelings, and tastes of the old Athenians. It is owing to these several considerations that the present work has been undertaken.

Unfortunately, with the exception of a list of names and definitions in Pollux, and a few observations upon the theatre in Vitruvius, none of the ancient treatises, which dealt with the various portions of the subject, have been preserved. The materials have in consequence to be collected from the most[iv] multifarious sources—from casual remarks in ancient authors, from incidental references in the Greek dramas, from obscure and often contradictory notices in the scholiasts and grammarians, from old inscriptions, and the ruins of Greek theatres, from vases, statuettes, wall-paintings, and other works of art. In the treatment of questions which depend upon evidence of this intricate and complex character, it is inevitable that there should be much diversity of opinion, and that numberless opportunities should be afforded for ingenious conjectures and fanciful combinations. As a matter of fact the whole history of the Attic drama has been to a certain extent obscured by the mass of controversy and hypothesis to which it has given

rise. My purpose throughout the following pages has been to keep close to the original sources of information, to restrict myself to such facts as seem to be fairly well established by the evidence, and to clear the subject of all those fine-drawn theories and conjectures which have no definite foundation to depend upon. For every statement concerning the Attic drama I have been careful to quote the ultimate authority, and the plan which I have adopted, in the citation of evidence, has been as follows. Where a passage is appealed to in support of some mere matter of fact, about which there could be no particular difference of opinion, I have been content to simply give the reference. But in cases where the inference is more dubious, I have quoted the original authorities in full, so as to enable the reader to judge for himself as to the validity of the views adopted in the text. It would have been impossible, within the limits of a single volume, to discuss in detail all the points concerning which controversies have been raised. The more

important questions I have treated at considerable length; but as regards matters of minute detail and trivial interest, I have merely given my own opinion in the text, and appended a statement of the evidence in the notes.

The various books, articles, monographs, and dissertations, which have been written on the subject of the Attic theatre and dramatic performances, are numerous enough in themselves to constitute a considerable literature. It will be sufficient in the present place to mention those to which I have been principally indebted. Of writings in which the subject is treated as a whole the most important is Albert Müller’s Lehrbuch der[v] Griechischen Bühnenalterthümer (Freiburg, 1886)—a work which is conspicuous for the industry, learning, and sound judgement displayed in its compilation, and for the lucid manner in which an immense amount of information is compressed into a comparatively limited space. The exhaustive account which it contains of the bibliography of the subject is especially valuable. Another book which I have found of the greatest help is Schneider’s Das Attische Theaterwesen (Weimar, 1835). It consists mainly of a citation in full of all the ancient passages which refer to performances in the theatre; and although

Schneider’s own views and inferences are now mostly antiquated, and his collection of ‘Quellen’ requires to be supplemented, the work will always be most interesting and serviceable to students of the Attic drama. The description of the Greek dramatic performances in the third volume of Bergk’s Griechische Literaturgeschichte (Berlin, 1884) has been exceedingly useful and suggestive; and considerable assistance has been derived from the similar account in vol. ii. pt. 2 of Bernhardy’s Grundriss der Griechischen Litteratur (Halle, 1880).

As regards the separate portions of the subject, the following is a list of the treatises which I have found of most assistance. For the Dionysiac festivals: Böckh’s dissertation, Vom Unterschiede der Lenäen, Anthesterien, und ländlichen Dionysien, Berlin, 1816; A. Mommsen’s Heortologie, Leipzig, 1864. For the arrangements connected with the dramatic contests and the production of a play: Rohde’s article on the Proagon in Rhein. Museum, xxxviii. p. 251 ff.; Sauppe’s paper, Ueber die Wahl der Richter, &c., in Sächs. Gesellschaft der Wissensch. zu Leipzig, 1855; Petersen’s Preisrichter der grossen Dionysien, Progr. Dorpat, 1878; Lipsius, Ueber die dramatische Choregie, in Sächs. Gesell. der Wissensch., 1885. For the structure and arrangement of the theatre: Kawerau’s article Theatergebäude, in vol. iii. of Baumeister’s Denkmäler des klassischen Alterthums, 1888; Vischer’s Die Entdeckungen im Dionysostheater (Neues Schweizerisches Museum, 1863); Julius’s article, Das Theater des Dionysos (Zeitschrift für bild. Kunst, 1878); J. R. Wheeler’s

Theatre of Dionysus (Papers of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, vol. i); Kabbadias, on the theatre at Epidaurus, in Πρακτικὰ τῆς ἐν Ἀθήναις ἀρχαιολογικῆς ἑταιρίας, 1881 and 1883; the account of the Greek theatre by Wieseler in vol. 83[vi] of Ersch and Gruber’s Allgemeine Encyklopädie, 1866; Wieseler’s Theatergebäude und Denkmäler des Bühnenwesens bei Griechen und Römern, 1851; and Strack’s Das altgriechische Theatergebäude, Potsdam, 1843. On the question of the scenery: Niejahr’s Quaestiones Aristophaneae Scaenicae (Greifswald, 1877); Sommerbrodt’s De Aeschyli re scenica (in Scenica, Berlin, 1876). On the actors in the Greek drama, their costume, style, and mode of delivery: Grysar, De Graecorum tragoedia, &c. (Cöln, 1830); K. F. Hermann, De distributione personarum inter histriones in tragoediis graecis (Marburg, 1840); Beer, Ueber die Zahl der Schauspieler bei Aristophanes (Leipzig, 1844); Sommerbrodt’s two articles De Histrionibus and De Arte

Histrionum, in his Scenica; Wieseler’s Das Satyrspiel (Göttingen, 1848); Dierk’s two dissertations, De tragicorum histrionum habitu scaenico apud Graecos (Göttingen, 1883), Ueber das Costüm der griechischen Schauspieler in der alten Komödie (Archaeol. Zeitung, xliii); Christ’s Metrik der Griechen und Römer (Leipzig, 1879). On the subject of the chorus: K. O. Müller’s Dissertations on the Eumenides (Engl. transl., London, 1853); G. Hermann’s De choro Eumenidum (Opusc. ii. p. 129 ff.); Schultze’s De chori Graecorum tragici habitu externo (Berlin, 1857); Sommerbrodt’s De chori tragici principibus, in Scenica; and Arnoldt’s Die Chorpartieen bei Aristophanes (Leipzig, 1873).

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

Oxford, June, 1889.

[vii]

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION

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

the ground-plan and the two views of the theatre at Athens, which have been replaced by more accurate representations.

The number of books, treatises, and articles which have been written on the subject during the last few years is so great that it would be impossible to mention them all. I propose in the following list to specify only those which I have found most useful, and to which I am chiefly indebted. Many others will be referred to in the notes. The most important work of recent years on the Greek theatre is Dörpfeld and Reisch’s Das griechische Theater (Athens, 1896). The admirable and exhaustive account of the Theatre of Dionysus at Athens, which is given in this book, has superseded all previous descriptions. Dörpfeld appears to have now proved conclusively that the stone theatre at Athens was not earlier than the fourth century B.C., and his views on the subject have been followed in the present edition. The book also contains a valuable summary of the chief points of interest in other theatres recently excavated, and a complete exposition of Dörpfeld’s theory about the Greek stage. Some further developments and modifications of this theory will be found in two articles[viii]

lately published by Dörpfeld in the Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, 1896, p. 563 ff., and in Athenische Mittheilungen, 1897, p. 439 ff. After reading through Dörpfeld’s arguments, and those of other scholars who support his views, I am still of opinion that the old theory is the right one, and that the Greek actors performed on a stage from the first; though no doubt the stage of the fifth century was much lower than that of later times. Among other writings which deal with the subject of the Greek theatre as a whole I may mention the following:—Oehmichen, Das Bühnenwesen der Griechen und Römer, München, 1890; Navarre, Dionysos, Paris, 1895 (a lucid and well-written summary); the valuable articles by Prof. Jebb in Smith’s Dictionary of Antiquities (v. Theatrum), and by Prof. P. Gardner in Jevons and Gardner’s Manual of Greek and Roman Antiquities; and Bethe’s Prolegomena zur Geschichte des Theaters im Alterthum, Leipzig, 1896. This last book, though often rather fanciful in its conclusions, is full of useful information and interesting suggestions.

To turn to the treatises on special portions of the subject. The point which has been most discussed in recent years is the question of the stage. The following are among the more important articles which have been written in favour of Dörpfeld’s views:—White, The Stage in Aristophanes (Harvard Studies, ii. pp. 159-205); Bodensteiner, Scenische Fragen im griechischen Drama (Leipzig, 1893); Capps, The Chorus in the later Greek Drama (American Journal of Archaeology, x. 3. pp. 287-325), The Stage in the Greek Theatre (New Haven, 1891), Vitruvius and the Greek Stage (Studies in Classical Philology, Chicago, 1893, p. 3 ff). The opposite side of the question has been defended by Todt, Noch einmal die Bühne des Aeschylos (Philologus, 1889, p. 505 ff.); Curtius, Orchestra und Bühne (Berliner Philolog. Wochenschrift, 1893, p. 97 ff.); Prof. E. Gardner, A Plea for Vitruvius (Supplementary Papers of the Hellenic Journal, 1892, p. 92 ff.); Lechat, Épidaure (Paris, 1895, p. 215 ff.); Zacher, Die erhöhte Bühne bei Aristophanes (Philologus,

1896, p. 181 ff.); Chamonard, Bulletin de Corr. Hellénique, 1896, p. 294 ff. (an admirable criticism); and also in various reviews of Dörpfeld’s book, and especially by Bethe (Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen, 1897, pp. 701-28), and by A. Müller (Berl. Philolog. Wochenschrift, 1897, pp. 1121-31). Special views, which may be regarded as a sort of compromise between the[ix] ordinary theory and that of Dörpfeld, are advocated by Weismann in Die scenische Aufführung der griechischen Dramen (München, 1893), Zur Thymele-frage (Jahrb. für classische Philologie, 1895, pp. 673-9), Scenische Anweisungen, &c. (Bamberg, 1896); and by Christ in Jahrb. für classische Philologie, 1894, p. 27 ff., p. 157 ff., and Sitzungsberichte der bayer. Akad. der Wissenschaften, 1894, pp. 1-52. All these articles, together with others which might be mentioned, have been of great service in the preparation of the present edition. Opinions may differ as to the soundness of the views which they respectively advocate. But there can be no doubt that this exhaustive discussion of the

subject has brought to light many new facts, and cleared up many difficulties.

As regards the theatres which have been recently explored and excavated, I have consulted (in addition to Dörpfeld’s book) the following sources:—Hermann, Bohn, and Fränkel, Ausgrabungen zu Pergamon, Berlin, 1888, p. 40 ff. (theatre at Pergamon); Athen. Mittheilungen, 1894, p. 65 ff. (theatre at Magnesia); Papers of the American School of Archaeological Studies at Athens, 1888, pp. 1-34 (Thoricus); American Journal of Archaeology, 1891, p. 253 ff., 1895, p. 331 ff. (Eretria); Ibid. 1889, p. 267 ff., 1893, p. 388 ff. (Sicyon); Defrasse and Lechat, Épidaure, Paris, 1895 (Epidaurus); Schultz, Gardner, and Loring in Excavations at Megalopolis, Supplement to Hellenic Journal, 1892 (Megalopolis); Chamonard, Bulletin de Corr. Hellénique, 1896, p. 256 ff. (Delos); Athen. Mittheilungen, 1893, p. 404 ff. (Tralles); Lanckoronski, Städte Pamphyliens und Pisidiens, Wien, 1892 (contains a very valuable account, with excellent plans and illustrations, of certain Asia Minor theatres hitherto but little known); Schrader, Berl. Philolog. Wochenschrift,

April 16, 1898, pp. 508, 509 (a brief preliminary notice of the interesting theatre at Priene, lately excavated).

The subject of the choregic arrangements has been ably treated by Capps in his Dramatic Synchoregia at Athens (American Journal of Philology, xvii. 3. pp. 319-28), which I have followed in most points. For certain questions connected with the Dionysiac festivals I have consulted with advantage Körte’s article Zu Dionysos-Festen (Rhein. Museum, 1897, pp. 168-74), and Wachsmuth, Das Thukydideische Urathen (Abhandl. der Sächs. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, xviii. pp. 1-56). As for the costume of actors and chorus, the most valuable and[x] instructive of recent treatises are Körte’s Studien zur alten Komödie (Jahrb. des archaeol. Instituts, 1893, pp. 61-93), and his articles in Athen. Mittheilungen, 1894, p. 346 ff., and in Bethe’s Prolegomena, p. 339 ff.; Crusius, in Philologus, xlviii. p. 696 ff.; Poppelreuter, De Comoediae Atticae Primordiis, Berlin, 1893; Loeschcke, Athen. Mittheilungen, 1894, p. 519 ff.; and Bethe’s Prolegomena, p. 35 ff. Other articles on special points from which I have taken various suggestions are—Neckel,

Das Ekkyklema (Friedland, 1890); Cook, The Thymele in Greek Theatres (Classical Review, Oct. 1895); Reisch, Griechische Weihgeschenke (Wien, 1890); and Svoronos, Περὶ τῶν Εἰσιτηρίων (Journal International d’ Archéologie Numismatique, 1898, i. pp. 37-120). I should also mention Albert Müller’s Die neueren Arbeiten auf dem Gebiete des griech. Bühnenwesens (Philologus, Suppl. vi. 1891)—an interesting and judicious criticism of the various writings about the Greek stage which had appeared shortly before the publication of the article.

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

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

Oxford, July, 1898.

[xi]

PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION

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