CHAPTER VII

THE AUDIENCE

§ 1. _Composition of the Audience._

The theatre of Dionysus at Athens, during the period of the Lenaea and the City Dionysia, presented a spectacle which for interest and significance has few parallels in the ancient or the modern world. The city kept universal holiday. The various proceedings were in reality so many religious celebrations. But there was nothing of an austere character about the worship of Dionysus. To give freedom from care was his special attribute, and the sincerest mode of paying homage to his power was by a genial enjoyment of the various pleasures of life. At this time of universal merriment the dramatic performances formed the principal attraction. Each day soon after sunrise the great majority of the citizens made their way to the southern slopes of the Acropolis, where the theatre of Dionysus was situated. The tiers of seats rising up the side of the hill were speedily filled with a crowd of nearly twenty thousand persons. The sight of such a vast multitude of people, gathered together at daybreak in the huge open amphitheatre, and dressed for the most part in white, or in red, brown, yellow, and other rich colours, must have been exceedingly striking and picturesque. The performances which brought them together were not unworthy of the occasion. The plays exhibited at the festivals of Dionysus rank among the very noblest achievements of Greek genius. For beauty of form, depth of meaning, and poetical inspiration they have never been surpassed. It would be difficult to point to any similar example of the whole population of a city meeting together each year to enjoy works of the highest artistic beauty. It is seldom that art and poetry have penetrated so deeply into the life of the ordinary citizens. Our curiosity is naturally excited in regard to the tone and composition of the audiences before which a drama of such an exceptional character was exhibited. The object of the following chapter will be to bring together and present in one view all the available information upon this subject.

At the Lenaea, which was held in the winter, when travelling was difficult, the audience consisted almost exclusively of natives of Athens. The City Dionysia came about two months later, at the commencement of the spring, and attracted great crowds of strangers from various parts of Greece. Representatives from the allied states came to pay the annual tribute at this season of the year. It was also a favourite time for the arrival of ambassadors from foreign cities; and it was considered a mere matter of politeness to provide them with front seats in the theatre, if they happened to be in Athens during the celebration of the City Dionysia.[980] In addition to these visitors of a representative character, there were also great numbers of private individuals, attracted to Athens from all parts of Greece by the magnificence of the festival, and the fame of the dramatic exhibitions. Altogether the visitors formed a considerable portion of the audience at the City Dionysia. One of the great aggravations of the offence of Meidias was that his assault upon Demosthenes was committed in the presence of ‘large multitudes of strangers’.[981] Apparently the natives of foreign states were not allowed to purchase tickets for the theatre in their own name, but had to get them through an Athenian citizen.[982]

The composition of the purely Athenian part of the audience is a subject upon which a great deal has been written, the principal difficulty being the question as to the admittance of boys and women to the dramatic performances. In the treatment of this matter scholars appear to have been unduly biassed by a preconceived opinion as to what was right and proper. Undoubtedly Athenian women were kept in a state of almost Oriental seclusion. And the old Attic comedy was pervaded by a coarseness which seems to make it utterly unfit for boys and women. For these reasons some writers have gone so far as to assert that they were never present at any dramatic performances whatsoever.[983] Others, while not excluding them from tragedy, have declared that it was an impossibility that they should have been present at the performances of comedy.[984] But the attempt to draw a distinction between tragedy and comedy, in regard to the admission of boys and women to the theatre, will not bear examination. If they were present at one, they must have been present at both. The tragic and the comic competitions frequently took place upon the same days, and succeeded one another without any interval; and it is difficult to suppose that, after the tragedies were over, a large part of the audience had to be turned out before the comedies could begin. Moreover, if women and boys had been present at the tragedies, they would of necessity have been spectators of the satyric dramas, which were nearly as coarse as the comedies. It is useless therefore to endeavour to separate tragedy from comedy in the consideration of this question.

As a matter of fact the evidence upon the subject, if considered without prejudice, makes it practically certain that there were no restrictions of the kind suggested. The audience at the dramatic performances, whether tragic or comic, was drawn from every class of the population. Men, women, boys, and slaves were all allowed to be present. The evidence from ancient authors is too copious to be accounted for on any other supposition. There are three passages in Plato which in themselves are almost enough to decide the question. In one place, speaking of poetry in general, and more especially of tragedy, Plato says it is a kind of rhetoric addressed to ‘boys, women, and men, slaves, and free citizens without distinction’. In another place, where he is treating of the management of his ideal republic, he says there will be no great readiness to allow the tragic poets to ‘erect their stages in the market-place, and perform before women and children, and the general public’. A passage of this kind would have very little point, unless it was intended as a condemnation of the prevailing practice. In a third place he declares that if there was a general exhibition of all kinds of public amusements, and the audience were called upon to state what they were most pleased with, the little children would vote for the conjuror, the boys for the comic poet, the young men and the more refined sort of women for the tragic poet.[985] These three passages of Plato are hardly consistent with the supposition that the drama was a spectacle which boys and women were never allowed to witness.

In addition to the above evidence there are also several places in Aristophanes where boys and women are referred to as forming part of the audience. For instance, in the Clouds Aristophanes prides himself on having refrained from introducing the phallus ‘to make the boys laugh’. In the Peace he says that ‘both the boys and the men’ ought to wish for his victory in the contest, because of his boldness in attacking Cleon. In another part of the Peace, when some barley is thrown among the male part of the spectators, Trygaeus remarks that the women have not got any.[986] Other passages of the same kind might be quoted. That women were present at the New Comedy is proved conclusively by a letter of Alciphron, in which Menander is supposed to be writing to his mistress Glycera. In this letter he says that nothing is dearer to him than to be crowned with the ivy of Dionysus, as victor in the comic contest, ‘while Glycera is sitting in the theatre and looking on.’[987] Other pieces of evidence are as follows. In Lucian’s dialogue Solon tells Anacharsis that the Athenians educate their sons by taking them to tragedies and comedies, and showing them examples of virtue and vice, so as to teach them what to imitate and what to avoid.[988] In the Frogs there is the well-known passage in which Aeschylus taunts Euripides with the immorality of his plays, which have caused women of refinement to commit suicide from very shame. If women were never present at the performance of the tragedies of Euripides, there would be very little meaning in the reproach.[989] Then again we are told that when Alcibiades was choregus, and ‘entered the theatre’ dressed in a splendid purple robe, he was admired ‘not only by the men, but also by the women’.[990] The shameless person in Theophrastus smuggles his sons into the theatre with a ticket which belongs to some one else. The miser never takes his sons to the theatre except when the entrance is free.[991] The regulation of Sphyromachus, providing that men, women, and courtesans should sit apart from one another, can hardly have referred to any place but the theatre.[992] The cumulative effect of all these passages is difficult to resist. It is impossible to explain them all away by far-fetched interpretations. Even the story of the effect produced by the Eumenides of Aeschylus upon the audience—of the boys dying of fright and the women having miscarriages—such a story, though in itself a foolish invention, could hardly have originated unless women and boys had been regularly present at the theatre.[993] That they were admitted at a later period is proved by the direct evidence of inscriptions in the theatre of Dionysus, which show that in Hadrian’s time seats were specially reserved for priestesses and other women.[994] This fact would not of course be conclusive evidence as to the custom which prevailed in the classical period of Athenian history. But, as far as it goes, it tends to confirm the conclusions based upon the evidence of ancient authors.

No doubt at first sight it appears a very startling fact that women and boys should have been spectators of the Old Comedy. But it should always be remembered that the comedies performed at the festivals of Dionysus were a portion of a religious celebration, which it was a pious duty to take part in. Ribaldry and coarseness were a traditional element in the worship of Dionysus, handed down from rude and primitive times, and were not lightly to be dispensed with. The Greeks in such matters were thoroughly conservative. It was a feeling of this kind which caused the satyric drama to be developed side by side with tragedy, in order that the old licentious merriment of the satyrs might not be utterly forgotten. The coarseness of the Old Comedy, being a regular part of the celebrations in honour of Dionysus, might be witnessed by boys and women without degradation, though their presence at similar scenes in real life would have been regarded in a very different manner. Where the worship of the gods was concerned, the practice of keeping women in strict seclusion was allowed to drop into abeyance. Women and even girls were present at the phallic processions in honour of Dionysus.[995] Their appearance on such occasions was regarded as a mere matter of course. It need not therefore surprise us that women and boys should have been present in the theatre at the performances of the Old Comedy.

Whether they were ever present in large numbers is a further question. Even those writers who admit that their presence was not prohibited by law, generally add that the more respectable women would in all probability keep away.[996] But the only authority for such a notion is to be found in a couple of passages in Aristophanes, which represent the husband as present in the theatre, while the wife was at home.[997] There is nothing so unusual in an occurrence of this kind as to warrant any sweeping conclusions. Some people must necessarily have remained at home, from the mere fact that the theatre would not have been large enough to contain the whole population of Athens, if men, women, and children had all been present. But it is hardly probable, for the reasons already stated, that there was anything disreputable in a woman visiting the theatre. Reformers like Aristotle were in advance of ordinary public opinion in their feelings about such matters. Aristotle expresses a strong opinion that boys should be prevented from seeing or hearing any piece of coarseness or indecency.[998] Even if such ribaldry is an essential feature in the worship of any particular deity, he says that only men should be allowed to be present. The men should pay the proper homage to gods of this character on behalf of themselves, their wives, and their children; but boys should not be permitted to be witnesses of comedies and similar spectacles. This passage, in which Aristotle is combating the prevailing practice of the times, is an additional proof that boys were present at the performance of comedies, and shows clearly that when the worship of the gods was concerned ordinary public opinion did not consider such spectacles improper.[999]

Besides women and children it appears that slaves were occasionally present at the theatre. Plato in the Gorgias mentions slaves as one of the classes before which the tragic poets will not be allowed to perform in his ideal commonwealth.[1000] The shameless man described by Theophrastus takes the ‘paedagogus’ to the theatre, along with his sons, and crowds them all into seats which did not really belong to him.[1001] It is not, however, probable that the number of slaves among the audience was ever very great. Their presence would depend upon the kindness of their masters. But the two passages just quoted prove that there was no law to prevent their attendance.

§ 2. _Price of Admission._

The dramatic entertainments at Athens were provided by the state for the benefit of the whole people. The entrance was originally free, and every man was allowed to get the best seat he could. But, as the drama was extremely popular from the very first, the struggle for seats caused great disturbances. People used to come and secure places the night before the performance began; citizens complained that they were crowded out of the theatre by foreigners; blows and fights were of frequent occurrence. It was therefore decided to charge a small entrance fee, and to sell all the seats in advance. In this way the crush of people was avoided, and, as each man’s seat was secured for him, he was able to go to the theatre at a more reasonable hour.[1002] The price of a seat for one day’s performance was two obols. The same price appears to have been charged for all the different parts of the theatre, with the exception of the reserved seats for priests, officials, and other distinguished persons.[1003] A gradation of prices, according to the goodness and badness of the seat, would probably not have been tolerated by the democracy, as giving the rich too great an advantage over the poor.

Until the close of the fifth century every man had to pay for his place, although the charge was a small one. But the poorer classes began to complain that the expense was too great for them, and that the rich citizens bought up all the seats. Accordingly, a measure was framed directing that every citizen who cared to apply should have the price of the entrance paid to him by the state. The sum given in this way was called ‘theoric’ money. It used formerly to be supposed, on the strength of statements in Plutarch and Ulpian, that this theoric system was introduced by Pericles.[1004] But the recently discovered Constitution of Athens has now shown that it was of much later date. The originator of the grant was the demagogue Cleophon, who succeeded Cleon in the leadership of the democracy. The year in which he introduced it is not given; but it must have been in the interval between the death of Cleon in 422 and his own death in 404. The amount of the payment was two obols, the price of a single seat. It is said that soon afterwards Callicrates, another demagogue, promised to raise the grant to three obols, the object apparently being to provide an extra obol for refreshments.[1005] But this promise was probably never carried out, as two obols is the sum usually mentioned in later times as the theoric grant for a single day.[1006] Of course if the festival lasted for several days, and there were performances in the theatre on each of them, the amount given by the state would be increased in proportion. Thus certain authors speak of a grant of four obols, or of six; but they are referring no doubt to the sum given for the whole festival.[1007] The theoric money was distributed in the different townships. Every man whose name was entered on the town lists as a full citizen might claim his share.[1008] But it is probable that at first only the poorer classes applied. No one was allowed to obtain the grant unless he made his application in person. A certain Conon, who succeeded in getting the money in the name of his son, who was absent at the time, was fined a talent for the offence.[1009] In its original form this theoric system may seem not altogether indefensible. The theatrical performances were a sort of religious celebration, provided by the state; and it was unreasonable that any citizen should be debarred from attending them by poverty. But in the course of the fourth century the system was expanded and developed until it became a scandalous abuse. Grants were given, not only for the Dionysia, but for all the other Athenian festivals, to provide the citizens with banquets and means of enjoyment. The rich began to claim the money with quite as much eagerness as the poor. The military revenues were impoverished in order to supply the Theoric Fund, which had now grown to huge proportions. A law was passed making it a capital offence even to propose to divert this theoric money to any other purpose. As a consequence the resources of the state were crippled, and the people demoralized. The theoric question became one of the chief difficulties which Demosthenes had to deal with, in his efforts to rouse the Athenian people to action against Philip.[1010]

The tickets of admission in the ancient theatre appear to have generally consisted of small leaden coins stamped with some theatrical emblem.[1011] Such coins could easily be renewed and stamped afresh for the different festivals. Many of them have been discovered in modern times, both in Attica and elsewhere, and date from the fifth century down to the Christian era. The specimen which is here given (Fig. 32) contains a representation of three comic masks, with the name of the play, the Prophetess, inscribed above, and the name of the poet, Menander, underneath.[1012] In addition to these leaden coins certain tickets made of ivory or bone, and apparently connected with the theatre, have also been preserved. But they are far fewer in number than the leaden coins, and only date from the Christian era. They are found solely in Graeco-Roman districts. They are too elaborate and permanent in workmanship to have served as ordinary tickets, and were probably intended for the occupants of the reserved seats in the front rows. They usually contain some figure or emblem on the one side, and a description of the emblem in Greek on the other, together with a number in Greek and Latin. The specimen in the text (Fig. 33) exhibits the head of Kronos on the obverse, with the inscription ‘Kronos’ and the number thirteen on the reverse.[1013] The numbers never rise higher than fifteen, and cannot therefore refer to the individual seats in the different rows. Probably both the numbers and the emblems denote particular blocks of seats. We know that in the theatre at Syracuse certain blocks were called after the names of gods and princes, such as Hieron, Zeus, and Hercules; and that in the Roman theatre Germanicus gave his name to a particular block.[1014] It is a very plausible conjecture, therefore, that emblems like that of Kronos refer to some similar method of designation.

Besides the two kinds of ticket just described, a large number of bronze coins have been found in Athens and Attica, of which the exact significance is uncertain. But Svoronos, the latest writer on the subject, is inclined to think that they too were intended as marks of admission to the theatre.[1015] These coins date from the fourth to the second century B.C. On the obverse they are generally stamped with an image of Athene, or a lion’s head, or a group of owls. On the reverse there is a letter of the alphabet, either single, or repeated more than once (Fig. 34). Sometimes there is no symbol on the coin, but both the obverse and the reverse contain the same alphabetical letter or letters. It is possible, as Svoronos thinks, that these coins were theatrical tickets, and that the letters, of which there are at least fifty-two varieties, referred to various divisions of seats in the auditorium.

The receipts from the sale of places in the theatre went to the lessee. The arrangement in this matter was a peculiar one. The lessee was a person who entered into a contract with the state, by which he undertook to keep the fabric of the theatre in good repair, and in return was allowed to take all the entrance money. If he failed to keep the theatre in good condition, the state did the necessary repairs itself, and made him pay the expenses. He had to provide reserved seats in the front rows for distinguished persons, and it is uncertain whether the state paid him for these seats or not. For all the other portions of the theatre he was allowed to charge two obols and no more.[1016] Occasionally, towards the end of a performance, he seems to have allowed the people free admittance, if there was any room to spare.[1017]

§ 3. _The Distribution of the Seats._

When the theatre was full the audience numbered nearly twenty thousand persons. As to the arrangement of this enormous mass of people some few facts are known, and some inferences may be made; but the information is not very complete. The great distinction was between the dignitaries who had reserved seats in the front, and the occupants of the ordinary two-obol seats at the back. A gradation of seats with descending prices was, as previously stated, unknown to the ancient Athenians. The privilege of having a reserved seat in the theatre was called ‘proedria’, and was conferred by the state.[1018] From the large number of persons who enjoyed the distinction it is clear that several of the front rows must have been reserved; and this conclusion is confirmed by the inscriptions in the theatre, which show that seats were assigned to particular individuals as far back as the twenty-fourth tier from the front.[1019] The recipients of the honour, or at any rate the more prominent of them, were conducted in a solemn procession to the theatre each morning by one of the state officials.[1020]

Foremost among the persons who had seats in the front rows were the priests and religious officers connected with the different divinities. That they should be distinguished in this manner was only in keeping with the essentially religious character of the ancient Greek drama. An inscription referring to the theatre at the Peiraeeus, and belonging to the third or fourth century B.C., mentions the priests specially by name as the most conspicuous members of the class who had the ‘proedria’.[1021] The inscriptions upon the seats in the theatre at Athens, which represent for the most part the arrangement that existed during the reign of Hadrian, place the matter in a very clear light. They enable us to determine the occupants of sixty out of sixty-seven seats in the front row; and it is found that of these sixty persons no less than fifty were priests, or ministers connected with religion. Similarly, in the rows immediately behind the front row, a large number of places were set apart for the different priests and priestesses.[1022] Such was the arrangement in the time of Hadrian, and there can be little doubt that it was much the same in its general character during the period of the Athenian democracy.

Among state officials the nine archons and the ten generals had distinguished places in the theatre. In Hadrian’s time the archons occupied seats in the front row, and it is probable that this position was assigned to them from the earliest period.[1023] The generals were in some prominent part of the theatre, but the exact place is not known. The snob in Theophrastus was always anxious to sit as near to them as possible.[1024] Ambassadors from foreign states, as was previously pointed out, were generally provided with front seats, on the motion of some member of the Council. Demosthenes is taunted by Aeschines for the excessive politeness which he showed to Philip’s ambassadors on an occasion of this kind. The lessee of the theatre at the Peiraeeus, as appears from an inscription still extant, was ordered to provide the ambassadors from Colophon with reserved places at the Dionysia. The Spartan ambassadors were sitting in ‘a most distinguished part of the theatre’ when they considerately gave up a place to an old man for whom no one else would make room.[1025] The judges of the various contests sat together in a body, and would naturally be provided with one of the best places in the theatre.[1026] The orphan sons of men who had fallen in battle received from the state, in addition to other honours, the distinction of ‘proedria’. The same privilege was frequently conferred by decree upon great public benefactors, and was generally made hereditary in the family, descending by succession to the eldest male representative. An honour of this kind was bestowed upon Demosthenes.[1027]

With the exception of the reserved places in the front rows, the rest of the auditorium consisted of the ordinary two-obol seats. Concerning the arrangements adopted in this part of the theatre a few details have been recorded. It appears that special portions of the auditorium were set apart for the different classes of the community. There was a particular place for the members of the Council of Five Hundred, and another place for the Ephebi, or youths between the age of eighteen and twenty.[1028] The women were separated from the men, and the courtesans sat apart from the other women.[1029] It is probable that all the women sat at the back of the theatre, at a long distance from the stage. Foreigners also seem usually to have had a special place.[1030] The amphitheatre of seats was divided into thirteen blocks by the passages which ran upwards from the orchestra. It is very probable that in the arrangement of the audience each tribe had a special block assigned to it. The blocks of seats were thirteen from the first. The tribes were originally ten, though they were raised in later times to twelve and thirteen. It is possible that the three unappropriated blocks were assigned respectively to the Council, the Ephebi, and Foreigners.[1031] But the excavations in the theatre afford grounds for inferring that there was a connexion between certain blocks and certain tribes, and the thing is not improbable in itself.[1032] The tribal divisions played a large part in the various details of Attic administration, and an arrangement by tribes would have greatly facilitated the process of distributing the enormous mass of spectators among their proper seats.

Before leaving this part of the subject it may be useful to give a complete list of the priests and officials for whom the front row was reserved in later times. It is still possible, as already stated, to determine the occupants of sixty out of the sixty-seven seats; and the arrangement, with a few exceptions, is that of Hadrian’s time.[1033] The list of names is not without interest, as it enables us, better than any description, to form a general conception of the sort of arrangement which was probably adopted at an earlier period. It also affords a curious glimpse into the religious side of the old Athenian life, and helps us to realize the variety and multiplicity of priests, deities, and ceremonials. In the very centre of the front row, in the best place in the whole theatre, sat the priest of Dionysus Eleuthereus, on a throne of elaborate workmanship. A representation of the throne (Fig. 35) is inserted on the previous page.[1034] As the theatre was regarded as a temple of Dionysus, and the drama was a celebration in his honour, it was only fitting that his priest should occupy the most conspicuous and distinguished position. There is a reference to the arrangement in the Frogs of Aristophanes, in the scene where Dionysus is terrified by the goblins of Hades, and desperately appeals to his own priest for protection.[1035] Of the thirty-three seats to the left of the priest of Dionysus the occupants of twenty-six are still known, and were as follows:—

Priest of Zeus the Protector of the City. The Sacrificer. The Torch bearer. Priest of Pythian Apollo. The Hieromnemon.[1036] Priest and Chief Priest of Augustus Caesar. Priest of Hadrian Eleuthereus. King Archon. Chief Archon. Polemarch. The General. The Herald. Thesmothetes. Thesmothetes. Thesmothetes. Thesmothetes. The Sacred Herald. ... and Apollo. Diogenes the Benefactor.[1037] Priest of Attalus Eponymus. The Iacchus-carrier.[1038] Priest of Asclepius the Healer. Fire-bringer from the Acropolis.[1039] Priest of the People, the Graces, and Rome. Holy Herald and Priest. Priest of Apollo of Zoster.

All the thrones to the right hand of the priest of Dionysus have been preserved, and were occupied by the following persons:—

Interpreter appointed by the Pythian Oracle.[1040] Priest of Olympian Zeus. Hierophant. Priest of Delian Apollo. Priest of Poseidon the Nourisher. Priest of the Graces, and of Fire-bearing Artemis of the Tower. Interpreter chosen from the Eupatridae by the people for life. Priest of Poseidon the Earth-holder and Poseidon Erectheus. Priest of Artemis Colaenis. Priest of Dionysus the Singer, chosen from the Euneidae. Bullock-keeper of Palladian Zeus. Priest of Zeus of the Council and Athene of the Council.[1041] Priest of Zeus the Deliverer and Athene the Deliverer. Priest of Antinous the Dancer, chosen from the Company of Actors.[1042] Priest of Apollo Patrous. Priest of Dionysus the Singer, chosen from the Company of Actors. Priest of Glory and Order. Priest of Asclepius. Priest of the Muses. Priest of Zeus the god of Friendship. Priest of the Twelve Gods. Statue-cleanser of Zeus at Pisa. Priest of the Lycean Apollo. Statue-cleanser of Olympian Zeus in the City. Priest of the Dioscuri and the Hero Epitegius.[1043] Priest of Heavenly Nemesis. Priest of Hephaestus. Priest of Apollo the Laurel-wearer. Priest of Dionysus of Aulon. The Stone-carrier.[1044] Priest of Theseus. Bullock-keeper of Zeus the Accomplisher. Priest of Demeter and Persephone.

The priests enumerated here were the principal dignitaries in the Athenian hierarchy. Behind them sat a large gathering of inferior priests and priestesses. Their presence in such numbers at performances like the Old and Middle Comedy affords a curious illustration of the religious sentiment of the Athenians, and indicates clearly that the coarseness of the early comedy, and its burlesque representations of the gods and their adventures, did not constitute any offence against religion, but formed an appropriate element in the worship of Dionysus.

§ 4. _Various Arrangements in connexion with the Audience._

The performance of plays began soon after sunrise, and continued all day long without intermission. There was no such thing as an interval for refreshments; one play followed another in rapid succession.[1045] Apart from direct evidence upon the subject, it is manifest that, considering the large number of plays which had to be gone through in the time, any delay would have been out of the question. Consequently the spectators were careful to have a good meal before starting for the theatre.[1046] There was also a plentiful consumption of wine and various light refreshments in the course of the actual performances. The time for such an indulgence was during the tedious portions of a play, but when one of the great actors came upon the stage the provisions were laid aside, and the audience became all attention.[1047]

The theatre must have presented a bright and festive appearance. Crowns were worn in honour of Dionysus by the express command of the oracle.[1048] The gaily-coloured dresses of the spectators would add greatly to the brilliancy of the scene. At the same time the comfort of the audience was not very much consulted. The seats were of wood, or in later times of stone, and had no backs; the people had to sit there all day long, packed together as closely as was possible. Many men brought cushions and carpets with them. Aeschines draws a contemptuous picture of Demosthenes escorting Philip’s ambassadors to the theatre in person, and arranging their cushions and spreading their carpets with his own hands. The toady in Theophrastus, when he accompanies a wealthy man to the theatre, is careful to take the cushion out of the slave’s hands, and to insist upon placing it ready for his patron.[1049] There was no shelter from the sun. The theatre faced towards the south, and was entirely uncovered. But as the dramatic performances took place at the end of the winter, or early in the spring, the heat would not usually be excessive. Probably the sun was in many cases very welcome. If, however, any shelter was required, hats appear to have been worn, though the Athenians generally went bare-headed except upon a journey.[1050] It has been suggested that small awnings were sometimes erected upon rods by individual spectators for their own convenience, and that the ‘purple cloths’ which Demosthenes spread out for Philip’s ambassadors were awnings of this description.[1051] It is true that an awning was provided for the priest of Dionysus, as the chief dignitary of the meeting. But it is improbable that the same convenience was extended to any other members of the audience, at any rate in the period of the democracy. In Roman times awnings were erected for the front rows of spectators; but this was a late innovation.[1052]

To keep order among a gathering of about twenty thousand persons, crowded together in a comparatively small space, must have been a matter of some difficulty. Certain officers called ‘staffbearers’ were stationed in the theatre for the purpose.[1053] Superintendents were also appointed to maintain discipline among the numerous chorus-singers.[1054] Disturbances were not infrequent, and arose from various causes. Sometimes the rivalry between two choregi resulted in actual violence. For example, on one occasion, when Taureas and Alcibiades were competitors in a dithyrambic contest, a fight broke out between them, in the course of which Alcibiades, being the stronger man of the two, drove Taureas out of the orchestra.[1055] That the feeling between the choregi often ran very high has already been pointed out in a previous chapter. Disputes about seats were another fertile source of disturbance. With the exception of the front row, the individual places were not separated from one another, but the people sat together on the long benches. Such an arrangement was very likely to cause confusion. Demosthenes mentions the case of a highly distinguished citizen, who ran great risk of being put to death, owing to his having forcibly ejected a man from his seat. Personal violence in the theatre was regarded as a crime against religion, and was strictly prohibited. If any dispute arose, the proper course was to appeal to the officers; and the man who took the law into his own hands was guilty of a capital offence.[1056]

§ 5. _Character of Attic Audiences._

The Athenians were a lively audience, and gave expression to their feelings in the most unmistakable manner. The noise and uproar produced by an excited crowd of twenty thousand persons must have been of a deafening character, and is described in the most uncomplimentary language by Plato.[1057] It was exceedingly difficult for the judges to resist such demonstrations, and to vote in accordance with their own private judgement. The ordinary modes of signifying pleasure or disgust were much the same in ancient as in modern times, and consisted of hisses and groans on the one hand, and shouts and clapping of hands on the other.[1058] The Athenians had also a peculiar way of marking their disapproval of a performance by kicking with the heels of their sandals against the front of the stone benches on which they were sitting.[1059] Stones were occasionally thrown by an irate audience. Aeschines was hissed off the stage, and ‘almost stoned to death’, in the course of his theatrical career. There is an allusion to the practice in the story of the second-rate musician, who borrowed a supply of stone from a friend in order to build a house, and promised to repay him with the stones he collected from his next performance in public.[1060] Country audiences in the Attic demes used figs and olives, and similar missiles, for pelting unpopular actors.[1061] On the other hand, encores were not unknown, if particular passages took the fancy of the audience. Socrates is said to have encored the first three lines of the Orestes of Euripides.[1062]

If the Athenians were dissatisfied with an actor or a play, they had no hesitation about revealing the fact, but promptly put a stop to the performance by means of hisses and groans and stamping with the heels. They were able to do so with greater readiness, as several plays were always performed in succession, and they could call for the next play, without bringing the entertainment to a close. In this way they sometimes got through the programme very rapidly. There is an instance of such an occurrence in the story of the comic actor Hermon, whose play should naturally have come on late in the day; but, as all the previous performers were promptly hissed off the stage one after another, he was called upon much sooner than he expected, and in consequence was not ready to appear.[1063] If the tale about the comic poet Diphilus is true, it would seem that even the authors of very unsuccessful plays were sometimes forcibly ejected from the theatre.[1064]

A few scattered notices and descriptions, referring to the spectators in the Athenian theatre, show that human nature was very much the same in ancient times as at the present day. Certain types of character, which were generally to be met with among an Attic audience, will easily be recognized as familiar figures. There was the man of taste, who prided himself upon his superior discernment, and used to hiss when every one else was applauding, and clap when every one else was silent.[1065] There was the person who made himself objectionable to his neighbours by whistling an accompaniment to tunes which happened to please him.[1066] There were the ‘young men of the town’, who took a malign pleasure in hissing a play off the stage.[1067] There were the people who brought out their provisions during the less exciting parts of the entertainment.[1068] There was the somnolent individual who slept peacefully through tragedies and comedies, and was not even waked up by the noise of the audience going away.[1069] Certain indications show that the employment of the clâque was not unknown to Greek actors and poets. The parasite Philaporus, who had recently taken up the profession of an actor, and was anxious about the result of his first public appearance, writes to a friend to ask him to come with a large body of supporters, and drown with their applause the hisses of the critical part of the audience. Philemon, in spite of his inferior talents as a comic writer, is said to have frequently won victories from Menander by practices of this kind.[1070]

The character of the Athenian audience as a whole is well exemplified by the stories of their treatment of individual poets. Although they were willing to tolerate the utmost ribaldry upon the stage, and to allow the gods and sacred legends to be burlesqued in the most ridiculous fashion, they were at the same time extremely orthodox in regard to the national religion. Any atheistical sentiments, and any violations of their religious law, were liable to provoke an outburst of the greatest violence. Aeschylus on one occasion was nearly killed in the theatre itself, because he was supposed to have revealed part of the mysteries in the course of a tragedy. He was only saved by flying for refuge to the altar of Dionysus in the orchestra.[1071] Euripides also caused a great uproar by beginning his Melanippe with the line, ‘Zeus, whoever Zeus be, for I know not save by report,’ &c. In a subsequent production of a revised version of the play he altered the line to ‘Zeus, as is reported by truth’,[1072] &c. In the same way sentiments which violated the moral feeling of the audience were received with intense indignation, and sometimes resulted in the stoppage of the play. The Danaë of Euripides is said to have been nearly hissed off the stage because of a passage in praise of money.[1073] On the other hand, wise and noble sentiments excited great enthusiasm. Aristophanes was rewarded with a chaplet from the sacred olive because of the splendid passage in which he counsels mercy to the disfranchised citizens. Sophocles is said to have been appointed one of the generals in the Samian expedition on account of the excellent political wisdom shown in certain passages of the Antigone.[1074] The partiality of the Athenians for idealism in art is shown by the reception which they gave to Phrynichus’s tragedy of the Capture of Miletus, an historical drama in which the misfortunes of the Ionians were forcibly portrayed. So far from admiring the skill of the poet, they fined him a thousand drachmas for reminding them of the miseries of their kinsfolk, and passed a law forbidding the reproduction of this particular play.[1075]

The enthusiasm of the Athenians for the drama was unbounded. Nowhere was the theatre more crowded. In the words of one of the old historians, they ‘spent the public revenues on their festivals, were more familiar with the stage than with the camp, and paid more regard to verse-makers than to generals’.[1076] The speeches of Demosthenes are full of complaints in the same strain. The eagerness with which dramatic victories were coveted, and the elaborate monuments erected to commemorate them, have already been referred to in a previous chapter. It was not, however, till the middle of the fourth century that the devotion to this and similar amusements grew to such a height as to become a positive vice, and to sap the military energies of the people. The Athenians of the fifth century showed that enthusiasm for art and music and the drama was not inconsistent with energy of character. As a matter of fact the very greatest period of the Attic drama is also the period of the political supremacy of Athens.

As far as intelligence and discrimination are concerned, the Athenian audiences were probably superior to any audience of the same size which has ever been brought together. Their keen and rapid intellect was a subject of frequent praise among the ancients, and was ascribed to the exhilarating influence of the Attic climate.[1077] They were especially distinguished for the refinement of their taste in matters of art and literature, and for the soberness of judgement with which they rejected any sort of florid exuberance. That they were keenly alive to the attractions of beauty of form and chastened simplicity of style is proved by the fact that Sophocles was by far the most successful of their tragic poets. Though Euripides became more popular among the later Greeks, Sophocles in his own life-time obtained far more victories than any other tragic writer.[1078] At the same time it is easy to form an exaggerated idea of the refinement of an Attic audience. They were drawn from all classes of the people, and a large proportion were ignorant and uncultured. Plato speaks in the most disparaging terms of them, and charges them with having corrupted the dramatic poets, and brought them down to their own level.[1079] His evidence is perhaps rather prejudiced. But Aristotle, who had much greater faith in popular judgement, is not very complimentary. He divides the theatrical audience into two classes, the refined and cultured class on the one hand, and the mass of rough and ignorant artisans on the other. One of his objections to the profession of an actor or musician is that he must accommodate himself to the level of the ignorant part of his audience.[1080] He mentions examples in the Poetics of the low level of popular taste, from which it appears that the average spectator in ancient times was, like his modern counterpart, fond of ‘happy terminations’. He cared little for the artistic requirements of the composition; his desire was to see virtue rewarded, and vice punished, at the end of a play. Then again, a large part of the audience, Aristotle remarks, were so ignorant as to be unacquainted with the ordinary facts of mythology, which formed the basis of most tragedies. In judging a play, they paid more regard to the actor’s voice than to the poet’s genius.[1081] At the same time, in spite of depreciatory criticisms, it must be remembered that the true criterion of a people’s taste is to be found in the character of the popular favourites. The victorious career of Sophocles, lasting over more than fifty years, is a convincing proof of the fact that, at any rate during the fifth century, the dramatic taste of the Athenians was altogether higher than that of an ordinary popular audience.[1082]

APPENDIX A

The information concerning the dates at which the plays of the great Attic dramatists were produced, and the success which they met with in the competitions, is derived from various brief notices, which occur mostly in the Arguments prefixed to the different plays, and which were ultimately derived from Aristotle’s Didascaliae, or from other collections of the same kind (see chap. i. p. 47). A list of these notices is here appended:—

472 B.C.

Arg. Aesch., Persae: Ἐπὶ Μένωνος τραγῳδῶν Αἰσχύλος ἐνίκα Φινεῖ, Πέρσαις, Γλαύκῳ, Προμηθεῖ.

467 B.C.

Arg. Aesch. Septem: Ἐδιδάχθη ἐπὶ Θεαγενίδου ὀλυμπιάδι οηʹ. ἐνίκα Λαΐῳ, Οἰδίποδι, Ἑπτὰ ἐπὶ Θήβας, Σφιγγὶ σατυρικῇ. δεύτερος Ἀριστίας Περσεῖ, Ταντάλῳ, Παλαισταῖς σατυρικοῖς τοῖς Πρατίνου πατρός. τρίτος Πολυφράδμων Λυκουργείᾳ τετραλογίᾳ.

458 B.C.

Arg. Aesch. Agamemnon: Ἐδιδάχθη τὸ δρᾶμα ἐπὶ ἄρχοντος Φιλοκλέους, ὀλυμπιάδι ὀγδοηκοστῇ ἔτει δευτέρῳ. πρῶτος Αἰσχύλος Ἀγαμέμνονι, Χοηφόροις, Εὐμενίσι, Πρωτεῖ σατυρικῷ. ἐχορήγει Ξενοκλῆς Ἀφιδνεύς.

455 B.C.

Vit. Eurip. p. 4 Dindf.: Ἤρξατο δὲ διδάσκειν (ὁ Εὐριπίδης) ἐπὶ Καλλίου ἄρχοντος κατ’ ὀλυμπιάδα παʹ ἔτει αʹ, πρῶτον δ’ ἐδίδαξε τὰς Πελιάδας, ὅτε καὶ τρίτος ἐγένετο.

450 B.C. (?)

Arg. Eur. Rhesus: Ἐν μέντοι ταῖς διδασκαλίαις ὡς γνήσιον ἀναγέγραπται. Schol. Rhes. 529: Κράτης ἀγνοεῖν φησι τὸν Εὐριπίδην τὴν περὶ τὰ μετέωρα θεωρίαν διὰ τὸ νέον εἶναι ὅτε τὸν Ῥῆσον ἐδίδασκε.

438 B.C.

Arg. Eur. Alcestis: Ἐδιδάχθη ἐπὶ Γλαυκίνου ἄρχοντος ὀλυμπιάδι πεʹ, πρῶτος ἦν Σοφοκλῆς, δεύτερος Εὐριπίδης Κρήσσαις, Ἀλκμαίωνι τῷ διὰ Ψωφῖδος, Τηλέφῳ, Ἀλκήστιδι.

431 B.C.

Arg. Eur. Medea: Ἐδιδάχθη ἐπὶ Πυθοδώρου ἄρχοντος κατὰ τὴν ὀγδοηκοστὴν ἑβδόμην ὀλυμπιάδα. πρῶτος Εὐφορίων, δεύτερος Σοφοκλῆς, τρίτος Εὐριπίδης Μηδείᾳ, Φιλοκτήτῃ, Δίκτυϊ, Θερισταῖς σατύροις. οὐ σώζεται.

430 B.C. (?)

Aristid. vol. ii. p. 334 Dindf.: Σοφοκλῆς Φιλοκλέους ἡττᾶτο ἐν Ἀθηναίοις τὸν Οἰδίπουν, ὦ Ζεῦ καὶ θεοί.

428 B.C.

Arg. Eur. Hippolytus: Ἐδιδάχθη ἐπὶ Ἀμείνονος ἄρχοντος ὀλυμπιάδι ὀγδοηκοστῇ ἑβδόμῃ, ἔτει τετάρτῳ. πρῶτος Εὐριπίδης, δεύτερος Ἰοφῶν, τρίτος Ἴων.

425 B.C.

Arg. Arist. Acharnenses: Ἐδιδάχθη ἐπὶ Εὐθύνου ἄρχοντος ἐν Ληναίοις διὰ Καλλιστράτου· καὶ πρῶτος ἦν. δεύτερος Κρατῖνος Χειμαζομένοις· οὐ σώζονται. τρίτος Εὔπολις Νουμηνίαις.

424 B.C.

Arg. Arist. Equites: Ἐδιδάχθη τὸ δρᾶμα ἐπὶ Στρατοκλέους ἄρχοντος δημοσίᾳ εἰς Λήναια, δι’ αὐτοῦ τοῦ Ἀριστοφάνους. πρῶτος ἐνίκα· δεύτερος Κρατῖνος Σατύροις· τρίτος Ἀριστομένης Ὑλοφόροις.

423 B.C.

Arg. Arist. Nubes: Αἱ πρῶται Νεφέλαι ἐν ἄστει ἐδιδάχθησαν ἐπὶ ἄρχοντος Ἰσάρχου, ὅτε Κρατῖνος μὲν ἐνίκα Πυτίνῃ, Ἀμειψίας δὲ Κόννῳ.

422 B.C.

Arg. Arist. Nubes: Αἱ δὲ δεύτεραι Νεφέλαι ἐπὶ Ἀμεινίου ἄρχοντος.

Arg. Arist. Vespae: Ἐδιδάχθη ἐπὶ ἄρχοντος Ἀμεινίου διὰ Φιλωνίδου εἰς Λήναια· καὶ ἐνίκα πρῶτος. δεύτερος ἦν Φιλωνίδης Προάγωνι, Λεύκων Πρέσβεσι τρίτος. (See p. 21, n. 2).

421 B.C.

Arg. Arist. Pax: Ἐνίκησε δὲ τῷ δράματι ὁ ποιητὴς ἐπὶ ἄρχοντος Ἀλκαίου, ἐν ἄστει. πρῶτος Εὔπολις Κόλαξι, δεύτερος Ἀριστοφάνης Εἰρήνῃ, τρίτος Λεύκων Φράτορσι. τὸ δὲ δρᾶμα ὑπεκρίνατο Ἀπολλόδωρος ✱ἡνίκα ἑρμῆν λοιοκρότης✱. (See p. 41, n. 2).

415 B.C.

Ael. Var. Hist. ii. 8: Κατὰ τὴν πρώτην καὶ ἐνενηκοστὴν ὀλυμπιάδα ... ἀντηγωνίσαντο ἀλλήλοις Ξενοκλῆς καὶ Εὐριπίδης· καὶ πρῶτός γε ἦν Ξενοκλῆς, ὅστις ποτὲ οὗτός ἐστιν, Οἰδίποδι καὶ Λυκάονι καὶ Βάκχαις καὶ Ἀθάμαντι σατυρικῷ. τούτου δεύτερος Εὐριπίδης ἦν Ἀλεξάνδρῳ καὶ Παλαμήδει καὶ Τρῳάσι καὶ Σισύφῳ σατυρικῷ.

414 B.C.

Arg. I. Arist. Aves: Ἐδιδάχθη ἐπὶ Χαβρίου διὰ Καλλιστράτου ἐν ἄστει, ὃς ἦν δεύτερος τοῖς Ὄρνισι, πρῶτος Ἀμειψίας Κωμασταῖς, τρίτος Φρύνιχος Μονοτρόπῳ. Arg. II. Arist. Aves: Ἐπὶ Χαβρίου ... εἰς Λήναια τὸν Ἀμφιάραον ἐδίδαξε διὰ Φιλωνίδου.

412 B.C.

Schol. Arist. Ran. 53: Ἡ δὲ Ἀνδρομέδα ὀγδόῳ ἔτει προεισῆλθεν. Schol. Arist. Thesm. 1012: συνδεδίδακται γὰρ τῇ Ἑλένῃ.

411 B.C.

Arg. Arist. Lysistrata: Ἐδιδάχθη ἐπὶ Καλλίου ἄρχοντος τοῦ μετὰ Κλεόκριτον ἄρξαντος. εἰσῆκται δὲ διὰ Καλλιστράτου.

409 B.C.

Arg. Soph. Philoctetes: Ἐδιδάχθη ἐπὶ Γλαυκίππου. πρῶτος ἦν Σοφοκλῆς.

408 B.C.

Schol. Eur. Orest. 371: Πρὸ γὰρ Διοκλέους, ἐφ’ οὗ τὸν Ὀρέστην ἐδίδαξε.

409-407 B.C. (?)

Arg. Eur. Phoenissae: Ἐδιδάχθη ἐπὶ Ναυσικράτους (unknown, probably ‘suffectus’) ἄρχοντος ὀλυμπιάδ ... πρῶτος ... δεύτερος Εὐριπίδης, τρίτος ... ὁ Οἰνόμαος καὶ Χρύσιππος καὶ Φοίνισσαι καὶ ... σατυρ ... οὐ σώζεται. Schol. Arist. Ran. 53: διὰ τί δὲ μὴ ἄλλο τι τῶν πρὸ ὀλίγου διδαχθέντων καὶ καλῶν, Ὑψιπύλης, Φοινισσῶν, Ἀντιόπης;

405 B.C.

Arg. Arist. Ranae: Ἐδιδάχθη ἐπὶ Καλλίου τοῦ μετὰ Ἀντιγένη διὰ Φιλωνίδου εἰς Λήναια. πρῶτος ἦν· Φρύνιχος δεύτερος Μούσαις· Πλάτων τρίτος Κλεοφῶντι.

— B.C.

Schol. Arist. Ran. 67: Οὕτω γὰρ καὶ αἱ Διδασκαλίαι φέρουσι, τελευτήσαντος Εὐριπίδου τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ δεδιδαχέναι ὁμώνυμον ἐν ἄστει Ἰφιγένειαν τὴν ἐν Αὐλίδι, Ἀλκμαίωνα, Βάκχας.

401 B.C.

Arg. Soph. O. C.: Τὸν ἐπὶ Κολωνῷ Οἰδίποδα ἐπὶ τετελευτηκότι τῷ πάππῳ Σοφοκλῆς ὁ ὑϊδοῦς ἐδίδαξεν, υἱὸς ὢν Ἀρίστωνος, ἐπὶ ἄρχοντος Μίκωνος.

388 B.C.

Arg. Arist. Plutus: Ἐδιδάχθη ἐπὶ ἄρχοντος Ἀντιπάτρου, ἀνταγωνιζομένου αὐτῷ Νικοχάρους μὲν Λάκωσιν, Ἀριστομένους δὲ Ἀδμήτῳ, Νικοφῶντος δὲ Ἀδώνιδι, Ἀλκαίου δὲ Πασιφάῃ.

APPENDIX B

The Athenian inscriptions bearing upon the drama and dramatic contests are to be found, edited by Köhler, in the Corpus Inscriptionum Atticarum, ii. 2. pp. 394 ff., iv. 2. pp. 218 ff. Since their publication in this form much work has been done in reference to them by Wilhelm, Capps, and others. The following selection gives the most important inscriptions, with the conclusions which seem to be best warranted, omitting portions the restoration of which seems too uncertain to be useful.

The conjectural dates are inserted and conjectural supplements marked off by square brackets where the evidence is reasonably good: letters enclosed in round brackets simply expand the abbreviations contained in the inscription.

I. _List of victors in the City Dionysia_ (C. I. A. ii. 971, iv. 971).

The fragments have been arranged on the hypothesis that they formed part of an inscription in 15 columns of 140 or 142 lines each: Columns 1, 2, 7-12 and 16 have been lost, as well as the greater part of the remainder. Capps conjectures that the inscription began in 502-501, and that this date was that of the beginning of choregia in tragedy and dithyramb (Capps, Introd. of Comedy into the City Dionysia, p. 29). The heading, of which at present only twelve letters remain (more widely spaced than the rest of the inscription), seems to have extended over the head of the first 6 columns, and probably ran (Capps, l.c., p. 29)—

[ἀπὸ ........... ἐφ’ οὗ πρῶτ]ον κῶμοι ἦσαν τῶ[ν ἐν ἄστει Διονυσίων οἵδε ἐνίκων].

We next have fragments of Cols. III, IV, V (971 _a_, _f_).

Col. III. Col. IV. Col. V.

B.C. 473-2 B.C. 460-59

Ξ]ενοκλείδης ἐχορήγε[ι Πανδιονὶ[ς ἀνδρῶν Μ]άγνης ἐδίδασκεν. Κλεαίνετ[ος ἐχορήγει τραγῳδῶν κωμῳδῶν Περικλῆς Χολαρ(γεὺς) Θαρ[.. ἐχορήγει ἐχορή(γει) B.C. 447-6 Αἰσχύλος ἐδίδασκεν. ............ ...... 5 [ἐπὶ Χάρητος] (B.C. 472-1) [τραγῳδῶν] ...... ............ ......... ἐχορή(γει) ...... ............ ..... ἐδίδασκεν. Βίω[ν ἐχορήγει ............ ἐπὶ Φιλ]οκλεόυς (B.C. 459-8) κωμ[ῳδῶν ............ Οἰ]νηὶς παίδων, Ἀνδ[.... ἐχορήγει 10 ............ Δημόδοκος ἐχορήγε[ι Καλ[λίας ἐδίδασκε ...... ἐχ]ορήγει Ἱπποθωντὶς ἀνδρῶν τρα[γῳδῶν ... ς ἐδίδ]ασκεν. Εὐκτήμων Ἐλευ(σίνιος) Θα[...... ἐχορήγει ἐχορή(γει) [τραγῳδῶν] κωμῳδῶν Κα[ρκίνος ἐδίδασκεν ...... ἐχ]ορήγει Εὐρυκλείδης ἐχορήγει, ὑπ[οκριτὴς .... 15 Πολυφράσμω]ν ἐδίδασ(κεν). Εὐφρόνιος ἐδίδασκε. ἐπ[ὶ Καλλιμάχου ἐπὶ Πραξιέργο]υ (B.C. 471-0) τραγῳδῶν, (B.C. 446-5) Ἱπποθωντὶς πα]ίδων Ξενοκλῆς Ἀφιδαν(ῖος) ἐχορή(γει) ..... ἐχο]ρήγει Αἰσχύλος ἐδίδασκεν. ...... ων ἐπὶ Ἅβρωνος (B.C. 458-7) 20 ... ἐχ]ορήγ[ει Ἐρεχθηὶς παίδων, [κωμῳδῶν] ... Χαρίας Ἀγρυλῆ(θεν) ἐχορή[γει ... ἐχορήγ]ει Λεωντὶς ἀνδρῶν Δεινόστρατος ἐχο[ρήγει κωμῳδῶν 25 .... ἐχ]ορήγ[ει.

The next fragment (971 _b_) belongs to the years B.C. 423-1, and to Col. VII.

[κωμῳδῶν] ...... Παια[νιεὺς ἐχορήγει. Ἕρμιππ]ος ἐδ[ίδασκε τραγῳ]δῶν ... ω]ν Παιανιε[ὺς ἐχορή]γει, Με]νεκράτης ἐδί[δασκεν ὑπ]οκριτὴς Μυνν[ίσκος. ἐ]πὶ Αλκαίου (B.C. 422-1) Ἱπποθωντὶς παίδων Ἀρίσταρχος Δεκε(λεεὺς) ἐχορή(γει) Αἰαντὶς ἀνδρῶν, Δημοσθένης ἐχορήγει. κ]ωμῳδ[ῶν ..... ἐχορ]ήγ[ει

We next come to Col. XIII (fr. 971 _g_), B.C. 348-6.

[κωμῳδῶν] ..... [ἐχορήγει Ἄ]λεξις ἐδ[ίδασκεν. τραγῳδῶν Κλ]εόμαχος Ἀχα[ρν(εὺς) ἐχορήγει, Ἀ[σ]τυδάμ[α]ς ἐδ[ίδασκεν, ὑ[πο]κριτὴς Θ[ετταλός. ἐ]πὶ Θεμιστοκλέους (B.C. 347-6) Ἐρεχθηὶς παίδων. Διονυσ ....

The position of fr. 971 _d_ is uncertain; Capps places it B.C. 344-3, Wilhelm, 336-5 B.C. It belongs in any case to the latter half of the fourth century.

Κεκροπ[ὶς παίδων Διόφαν[τος ... ἐχορήγει Κεκροπὶς [ἀνδρῶν Ὀνήτωρ [ἐχορήγει κωμῳδ[ῶν Διοπείθ[ης .... ἐχορήγει Προκλεί[δης ἐδίδασκεν τραγῳδῶν

We next have two passages at the bottom of Cols. XIII, XIV (971 _e_), the years in the former being 343-1, and in the second 331-0.

Col. XIII. Col. XIV.

......... l. 126 ......... ἐ]πὶ Ἀριστ[ο]φάνους (B.C. 331-0) ......... Οἰνηὶς παίδω[ν [τραγῳδῶν] .... τος [Ἀχ]αρν[(εὺς) ἐχορή(γει) ..... ἐ]χορή(γει) Ἱπποθωντὶς ἀνδρ[ῶν l. 130 .... ἐ]δίδ[ασ]κε ...... ος [Π]ει[ρ]αιε[ὺς ἐχορή(γει) ὑποκριτὴς Ἀ]θηνόδωρος. κωμ]ῳδ[ῶν ἐπὶ Σωσιγένους (B.C. 342-1) ............... Αἰγηὶς παίδ]ων ............... ..... Δι]ομε[εὺς ἐχορ]ή(γει) τραγ]ῳ[δῶν l. 135 Ἱπποθωντὶς] ἀνδρῶν .... ἐκ Κοί]λης ἐχορή(γει) [κωμῳδῶν] ........ ης [ἐχορήγει ............... l. 140 [τραγῳδῶν] ........ ἐχ]ορ[ήγει Ἀστυδάμας ἐδί]δ[ασκεν

Finally, from near the top of Cols. XIV, XV (971 _h_) we have fragments from 341-0 and 330-28 respectively. Col. XIV includes a fragment first printed by Wilhelm, op. cit., p. 27.

Col. XIV. Col. XV.

............ ... ς Κε[.... τρ]αγῳδῶν ἐ[χορήγ]ει Ἀρρενείδης Παιανι(εὺς) ἐχο[ρήγει Θεόφιλος ἐδίδ[ασκεν] Ἀστυδάμας ἐδίδα]σκεν τραγῳδῶν ὑποκριτὴς Θεττα]λὸς Θ]ηραμένης Κηφισι[εὺς Ἐ]πὶ Θεοφράστο[υ (B.C. 340-39) ἐχορ]ή[γει [πα]λαιὸν δρᾶμ[α ..... .... κ]λης ἐδίδασ[κεν π]αρεδίδαξα[ν οἱ] κ[ω]μ[ῳδοί ὑπο]κριτὴς Ἀ]ντιοχὶς παί[δων .... Ἀθηνόδωρος ἐπὶ Κηφισοφῶντος, (B.C. 329-8) Ἱπποθωντὶς παί[δων

II. _Record of Comic Contests at the Lenaea_ (C. I. A. ii. 972, Col. I).

The inscription of which this forms a part consists of two columns, the first containing records of comic contests, the second of tragic contests, at the Lenaea. The date of the contests recorded in the first column has been generally taken to be B.C. 354-2: but Capps (The Dating of some Didascalic Inscriptions, Amer. Journ. of Archaeology, 1900, pp. 74 ff.) has shown almost conclusively that the true date is B.C. 290-8 (it is possibly a year or two later, see Wilhelm, Urkunden dramatischer Aufführungen in Athen, p. 52, as the date of Diotimus’ archonship is not absolutely certain). This column must have contained the last records of comic contests at the Lenaea which came within the plan of this inscription, as the next column begins the records of tragic contests. It would appear, therefore, that the date of the transcribing of this series of didascaliae upon stone was in all probability circ. B.C. 287. Capps conjectures (with much reason) that C. I. A. ii. 972 formed part of one great didascalic inscription arranged in the order (1) Tragedy at the Dionysia, (2) Comedy at the Dionysia, (3) Comedy at the Lenaea, (4) Tragedy at the Lenaea. The extant fragments, therefore, mark the junction of parts (3) and (4). The original stone is now lost, and the record depends on the copies of Fourmont and Le Bas, the latter being apparently the more trustworthy.

..... τέ(ταρτος) ....]στίδι ὑπε(κρίνετο) Ἀριστόμ]αχος. .... ης πέμ(πτος) Ἀνασῳζο(μένοις), ὑπε(κρίνετο) Ἀντ]ιφάνης. ὑπο(κριτὴς) Ἱερ]ώνυμος ἐνίκα. ἐπὶ Δι]οτίμου Σιμύλος (B.C. 289-8) ... σίᾳ ὑπε(κρίνετο) Ἀριστόμαχος. Διόδωρος δεύ(τερος) Νεκρῷ ὑπε(κρίνετο) Ἀριστόμαχος. Διόδωρος τρί(τος) Μαινομένῳ ὑπε(κρίνετο) Κηφίσιος. Φο]ινικ[ίδ]ης τέ(ταρτος) Ποητεῖ ὑπε(κρίνετο) .....]ης

III. _Record of Tragic Contests at the Lenaea_ (C. I. A. ii. 972, Col. II).

The second column of the fragment to which the last quoted list belongs; Köhler has fixed the date beyond question.

Π]ειρ[ιθόῳ ..... ὑπε(κρίνετο) ..... ὑπο(κριτὴς) [.... ἐνίκα ἐπὶ [Ἀστυφίλου ....... (B.C. 420-19) Ἀγα[μέμνονι ...... ὑπ[ε(κρίνετο) ...... Ἡρα[κ ...... Θησ[εῖ, ......, ὑπ[ε(κρίνετο) ... ὑπο(κριτὴς) [..... ἐνίκα ἐπὶ Ἀρχ[ίου ...... (B.C. 419-8) Τυροῖ, Τ ........., ὑπε(κρίνετο) Λυσικράτ(ης). Καλλίστρατος ...... Ἀμφιλόχῳ, Ἰξίονι ὑπε(κρίνετο) Καλλιππί[δης ὑπ]ο(κριτὴς) Καλλιππί[δης ἐνίκα ἐπ Ἀ]ντ[ι]φ[ῶ]ντος Σ ..... (B.C. 418-7) ....... π ......

IV. _Record of Tragic Contests at the City Dionysia_ (C. I. A. ii. 973).

παλαιᾷ.] Νε[οπτόλεμος Ἰφιγε]νείᾳ Εὐ[ριπί]δο[υ ποη(ταί)·] Ἀστυδάμας Ἀχι]λλεῖ, ὑπε(κρίνετο) Θετταλός, Ἀθάμαντι, ὑπε(κρίνετο) Νεοπτόλ[εμος, Ἀν]τιγόνῃ, ὑπε(κρίνετο) Ἀθηνόδω[ρος. Εὐ]άρετος [δεύ(τερος)] Τεύκρῳ, ὑπ]ε(κρίνετο) Ἀθηνόδωρος· Ἀχι]λ[λ]εῖ, [ὑπε(κρίνετο)] Θετταλός· ..... εῖ], ὑ[πε(κρίνετο) Νε]οπτόλεμος· ...... τ]ρί(τος) [Π]ελιάσιν, ὑπε(κρίνετο) Νεοπτ]όλεμος· Ὀρέστη[ι, ὑπε(κρίνετο) Ἀθη]ν[όδωρος· Αὔ[γῃ] ὑπε(κρίνετο) Θεττ[αλό]ς· ὑπο(κριτὴς) Νεοπτόλεμος ἐνίκ[α. ἐπὶ Νικομάχου· σατυρι(κῷ)· (B.C. 341-0) Τιμοκλῆς Λυκούργῳ· παλαιᾷ· Νεοπτόλεμ[ος Ὀρέστῃ Εὐριπίδου· π]οη(ταί)· Ἀστυδάμας Παρθενοπαίῳ, ὑπε(κρίνετο) Θετ[ταλός· Λυκά]ονι, ὑπε(κρίνετο) Νεοπτόλε[μος ...... οκλῆς δεύ(τερος) Φρίξῳ, ὑπε(κρίνετο)] Θετταλός· Οἰδί]ποδι, ὑπε(κρίνετο) Νεοπτόλ[εμος· ὑπο(κριτὴς) Θε]τταλὸς ἐνίκα. ἐπὶ Θεο]φράστου· σατυ[ρι(κῷ)· (B.C. 340-39) ..... Φορκίσ[ι. παλαιᾷ .... ό]στρ[ατος ....... Εὐ]ριπί[δου.

V. _Record of Comic Contests_ (festival uncertain).

This inscription (which he numbers 974 _c_) was found in 1901, and is published (with restorations) by Wilhelm, op. cit., pp. 43 ff.; it is a record of the years B.C. 313-11. Col. I only is printed below; the second column being too fragmentary.

ὑπε(κρίνετο) Ἀσκληπιόδ]ωρο[ς Μένανδρος] πέμ(πτος) Ἡνιόχῳ ὑπε(κρίνετο) Κάλ]λιππος πρεσβύτ(ερος) ὑπο(κριτὴς) Κάλλι]ππος νεώ(τερος) ἐνίκ[α ἐπὶ Πολέμ]ωνος παλαιᾷ (B.C. 312-11) ....... Θ]ησαυρῷ Ἀναξαν(δρίδου) ποη(τὴς) Φιλιπ]πίδης Μύστιδι ὑπε(κρίνετο) Ἀσκ]ληπιόδωρος Νικόστ]ρατος δεύ(τερος) .....]οσκόπῳ ὑπε(κρίνετο) Κ]άλλιππος νεώτε(ρος) Ἀμεινί]ας τρί(τος) Ἀπολειπούσει οὗτος ἔ]φηβος ὢν ἐνεμήθη ὑπε(κρίνετο) Ἀσκ]ληπιόδωρος Θεόφιλο]ς (?) τέταρτος Παγκρατιασ(τῇ) ὑπε(κρίνετο) ... ιπ]πος ........ πέμ(πτος) Π]αιδίῳ [ὑπε(κρίνετο) ....] ὑπο(κριτὴς) Ἀσκληπιόδωρο]ς ἐνίκ[α.

VI. _Record of Comic Contests at the City Dionysia_ (C. I. A. ii. 975).

The inscription consists of a number of fragments. The date of those numbered _a-e_ is tolerably certain; they range from about B.C. 190-160. The others, _f-i_, have been dated by Capps from about B.C. 308-260; but these dates and the restorations suggested by him are disputed by Wilhelm, who places the date of _f_, with a good deal of reason, only shortly before that of _a_, and also dates _g-i_ (not included in the present selection) much later. The first part of fragment _f_ is as follows:—

..... Ἐρχιεῦσιν ὑπε(κρίνετο) ...]μος (Ἱερώνυμος Capps, Νικόδημος Wilhelm.) ἐπὶ ......] οὐκ ἐγένετο ...... π]αλαιᾷ .......] Φωκεῦσι Φιλή(μονος) ποη(ταὶ) ...] κράτης Ἀπε (Κράτης Ἀπελεύθεροις Capps, ..... ὑ]πε(κρίνετο) Νικόδημος Ἀριστοκράτης Ἀπε- Wilhelm.) ...... Ἀ]νεψιοῖς.

Fragments _a-e_ are arranged as forming an inscription in five columns by Köhler (C. I. A.) as follows:—

Col. I. Col. II. Col. III. Col. IV. Col. V. 1st col. of _a_ 2nd col. of _a_ — — — 1st col. of _b_ 2nd col. of _b_ _c_ _d_ 1st col. of _e_ 2nd col. of _e_

Wilhelm arranges them as follows, op. cit., pp. 68 ff.:—

Col. I. Col. II. Col. III. Col. IV. 1st col. of _a_ 2nd col. of _a_ — — 1st col. of _b_ 2nd col. of _b_ _c_ _d_ 1st col. of _e_ 2nd col. of _e_ —

It is impossible at present to decide with certainty between the two arrangements. The former is here followed, but indications of Wilhelm’s arrangement are also given.

Col. I is too fragmentary to be intelligible. (It includes the 1st col. of a.)

Col. II (the 2nd col. of _a_).

Τιμ]όσ[τρατος] Λυτ[ρουμένῳ ὑπε(κρίνετο) Διογείτων· ὑπο(κριτὴς) Κράτης ἐνίκα ἐπὶ Συμμάχου οὐκ ἐγ[ένετο (B.C. 188-7) ἐπὶ Θεοξένου οὐκ [ἐγένετο (B.C. 187-6) ἐπὶ Ζωπύρου· [παλαιᾷ· (B.C. 186-5) Ἐράτων Με[γαρικῇ Σιμύλου (?) ποη(ταὶ) Λαίν[ης ... ὑπε(κρίνετο) .....

Then after an interval the 1st col. of _b_ (Wilhelm makes this a continuation of Col. I of _a_, and accordingly dates it _before_ the portion just given).

...... Ἐφήβοις ὑπε(κρίνετο) .....] ὑπο(κριτὴς) ..... ἐ]νίκα ἐπὶ ...... οὐ]κ ἐγένετο ἐπὶ ...... ο]υ· παλαιᾷ· ...... Μισογ]ύνει Μενάνδρου· ποη(ταὶ) ....]νης Ἀδελφαῖς ὑπε(κρίνετο) ....]ς ........ Δακτυλίῳ ὑπε(κρίνετο) .....]ων ..... Φιλ]αθην[αίῳ.

Col. III (2nd col. of _b_; according to Wilhelm, a continuation of Col. II, i.e. of the 2nd col. of _a_).

ποη(ταὶ) Κρίτων Ἐφεσίοις, ὑ]πε(κρίνετο) Σώφιλος· Παράμονος Ναυαγῷ, ὑπε(κρίνετο) Ὀνήσιμος Τιμόστρατος Φιλοικείῳ, ὑπε(κρίνετο) Καλλίστρατος· Σωγένης Φιλοδεσπότῳ, ὑπε(κρίνετο) Ἑκαταῖος· Φιλήμων νεώ(τερος) Μιλησίᾳ, ὑπε(κρίνετο) Κράτης. ὑπο(κριτὴς) Ὀνήσιμος ἐνίκ[α· ἐπὶ Ἑρμογένου οὐκ [ἐγέ]νετο. (B.C. 183-2) ἐπὶ Τιμησιάν[ακτος· π]αλαιᾷ· (B.C. 182-1) Φιλόστρατο[ς Ἀποκλε]ιομένει Ποσει(δίππου)· ποη(ταὶ) [Ἀρχικλῆς (?) Ναυ]κλῆρῳ, ὑπε(κρίνετο) ...... ........ σ]ιν [ὑπε(κρίνετο) .....] ...... Διαδικ]αζομένοις, [ὑπε(κρίνετο) ......] ...... μ]ένοις [ὑπε(κρίνετο) ......] ........ υ]μένῳ

Then an interval in which only a few letters are legible, the 1st col. of fragment _e_.

...... εὐ]εργετοῦντι [ὑπε(κρίνετο) ......] ....... ἐξ]απατῶντι, [ὑπε(κρίνετο) ......] ... ω]ν Συντ .... ὑπε(κρίνετο) .....]ης ..... Συναγωνι ... ὑπε(κρίνετο) ...]ίδης. ὑπο(κριτὴς) ... ξέ]νος ἐνί[κα ἐπὶ ... παλαι]ᾷ Προ ...

Col. IV (according to Wilhelm, Col. III), fragment _c_.

..... Μονοτ]ρόπῳ ............. ποη(ταὶ) .... Ἀν]ασῳζομέ- [νοις, ὑπε(κρίνετο) ...] ...... υμένῳ ὑπε(κρίνετο) ....]ος ...... Ἀγνοοῦντι, ὑπε(κρίνετο) Κριτόδ]ημος ...... Νε]μέσει, ὑπε(κρίνετο) Σώ]νικος· Παρά]μονος Χορηγοῦντι, ὑπε(κρίνετο)] Μόνιμος ὑπ]ο(κριτὴς) Κριτόδημος ἐνίκα. ἐ]πὶ Εὐνίκου οὐκ ἐγένε[το. (B.C. 169-8) ἐπὶ Ξενοκλέους· παλαι[ᾷ· (B.C. 168-7) Μόνιμος Φάσματι Μεν[άνδρου. ποη(ταί)· Παράμονος τεθνηκὼς ..... ις ὑπε(κρίνετο) Δάμων· Κρίτων Αἰτωλῷ, ὑπε(κρίνετο) Μόνιμος· Βίοττος Ποητεῖ, ὑπε(κρίνετο) Δάμων· Λάμπυτος .... ὑπε(κρίνετο) Κα[βείριχος (?) Ἐπικ[ράτης .....

Then after an interval 2nd col. of _e_.

ἐπὶ] Εὐερ[γ ..... οὐκ ἐγένετο (B.C. 164-3) ἐ]πὶ Ἐράστο[υ οὐκ ἐγένετο (B.C. 163-2) ἐπὶ Ποσει[δωνίου οὐκ ἐγένετο. (B.C. 162-1) ......... ἐπὶ Ἀρισ[τόλα· παλαιᾷ (B.C. 161-0) Ἡρακ[λε .... πο[η(ταί) .....

Col. V (according to Wilhelm, Col. IV), fragment _d_.

ὑπε(κρίνετο) Καβεί]ριχος· Ἐπ]ιγέ[ν]ης Λυτρουμένῳ ὑπε(κρίνετο) Καβείριχος· ὑπο(κριτὴς) Νικόλαος ἐνίκα· ἐπὶ Ἀνθεστηρίου οὐκ ἐγένε[το. (soon after B.C. 160) ἐπὶ Καλλιστράτου οὐκ ἐγένε[το. ἐπὶ Μνησιθέου· παλαιᾷ· Δάμων Φιλαθηναίῳ Φιλιππ[ίδου· πο(ηταί)· Φιλοκλῆς Τραυματίᾳ, ὑπε(κρίνετο) Καλλικράτης· Χαιρίων Αὑτοῦ καταψευδομέ[νῳ. ὑπε(κρίνετο) Δάμων· Βίοττος Ἀγνοοῦντι, ὑπε(κρίνετο) Δάμων· Τιμόξενος Συνκρύπτον[τι, ὑπε(κρίνετο) Καλλικράτης· Ἀγαθοκλῆς Ὁμονοίᾳ, ὑπεκρίνετο Νικόλ[αος.

VII. _Lists of tragic and comic poets and actors, and the number of their victories_ (C. I. A. ii. 977, iv. 977).

This inscription was no doubt based on the Νῖκαι τραγικαὶ καὶ κωμικαί of Aristotle, and afterwards carried on by additions into the second century B.C.; the order of the names is that of the first victory of each poet or actor at the contest in question, and each column of the inscription contained seventeen names. There are over thirty fragments, and it is not always possible to say whether the lists given in them refer to the Lenaea or the City Dionysia. The following selection of the fragments is based on Capps’s paper on this inscription in the Amer. Journal of Philology, xx. pp. 388 ff.: and on the fuller study by Wilhelm, op. cit., pp. 89 ff.

1. Tragic poets.

(_a_) At the City Dionysia.

Fragment _a_.

Αἰ]σχύλ[ος .. Εὐ]έτης Ι Πο]λυφράσμ[ων ... Νόθ]ιππος Ι Σοφ]οκλῆς ΔΠΙΙΙ ..... τος ΙΙ Ἀριστ]ίας

Fragment _b_.

..... ας .. Καρκί]νος ΔΙ Ἀστ]υδάμας Π[ΙΙ]Ι Θεο]δέκτας ΠΙΙ Ἀφαρ]εὺς ΙΙ .... ν . Ι .... ΙΙ

(_b_) Festival uncertain.

Fragment _c_.

...... ας Ι .... δης Ι ..... ράτης Ι Ἀστυδ]άμας .. .... ΙΙ

2. Comic poets.

(_a_) At the City Dionysia.

Fragments _i_ and _k_, together with two fragments first published by Wilhelm, l.c., p. 106, and arranged by him in three columns as follows:—

[ἀστικαὶ ποητῶν] Τηλεκλεί]δης ΙΙΙ Νικοφῶ[ν ... [κωμικῶν] .......] ς Ι Θεόπομπ[ος [Χιωνίδης ...] — Κη]φισό[δοτος — — ...] ι [... — Φερ[εκράτης .. — ]ς Ι Ἕρμ[ιππος .. — Ἀρι[στομένης .. Μάγνη]ς ΔΙ Εὔ[πολις ... ...... ο]ς Ι Κα[λλίστρατος .. Ἀλκιμέ]νη[ς] Ι Φρύ[νιχος .. .....]ς Ι Ἀμ[ειψίας .. Εὐφρόν]ιος Ι Πλά[των ... Ἐκφαν]τίδης ΙΙΙΙ Φιλ[ωνίδης .. Κρατῖ]νος ΠΙ Λύκ[ις Διοπ]είθης ΙΙ Λεύ[κων Κρά]της ΙΙΙ Καλλία]ς ΙΙ

The following new fragment is published by Wilhelm, p. 118.

Πο]σείδιππος ΙΙΙΙ .... Σατυρίων Ι Νίκαρχος Ι Πο ... Ἀ]πολλόδωρος ΙΙ Νικόμαχος Ι Ὀ ... Φιλ]ήμων ΠΙ Ἀριστοκράτης Ι ... Δαμ]όξενος Ι Λαίνης ΙΙΙ Φοινικ]ίδης ΙΙ Φιλήμω[ν

(_b_) At the Lenaea.

This list at present consists of fragments _d-h_, which have been arranged in four columns; one column must have preceded them in the original, and over the head of the lost column and the present first column the title of the list ran, of which only one or two traces remain. It probably (according to Capps) read thus:—οἵδε ἐνίκων τὰ Λήναια ποητῶν κωμικῶν (or τῶν κωμικῶν). The extant portions run as follows (including conjectural restorations; cf. Wilhelm, op. cit., p. 123). See addendum to p. 27, n. 1. According to Wilhelm the heading was Ληναικαὶ ποητῶν κωμικῶν.

I. II. III. IV.

Τὰ Λῆναι]α πο[ητῶν Πο ..... Ι Φίλιπ[πος ..] ΙΙ Θ .... κωμι]κῶν Με[ταγέ]νης ΙΙ Χορη[γός .. Δι .... ος Ι Ξ]ενόφιλος Ι Θεό[πομπ]ος ΙΙ Ἀναξα[νδρί]δης ΙΙΙ. Κλέα[ρχ]ος .. Τ]ηλεκλείδης Π Πολ[ύζηλο]ς ΙΙΙΙ Φιλέτα[ιρο]ς ΙΙ Ἀθηνοκλῆς .. 5 Ἀριστομένης ΙΙ Νικοφ[ῶν .. Εὔβουλος ΙΙΙ Πῦρ[ων] Ι Κρατῖνος ΙΙΙ Ἀπολ[λοφάν]ης Ι Ἔφιππος Ι Ἀλκ[ήν]ωρ Ι Φερεκράτης ΙΙ Ἀμ[ειψίας Ἀ]ντιφάνη[ς ΠΙΙΙ Τιμοκλῆς Ι Ἕρμιππος ΙΙΙΙ Νι[κοχάρης .. Μ]νησίμα[χος] Ι. ΙΙ Προκλείδης Ι Φρύνιχος ΙΙ Ξεν[οφ]ῶν Ι Ναυσ[ικράτ]ης ΙΙΙ. Μ[έν]ανδρος Ι.. 10 Μυρτίλος Ι Φιλύλλιος Ι Ευφάνη[ς .. Φ[ιλ]ήμων ΙΙΙ. Εὔ]πολις ΙΙΙ Φιλόνικος Ι Ἄλεξις ΙΙ ... Ἀπολλόδωρο[ς.. ..... ς Ι Ἀρ]ιστο[φῶν .. Δίφιλος ΙΙΙ. ..... Φιλιππίδης ΙΙ ..... Νικόστρατος.. ..... Καλλιάδης Ι ..... Ἀμειν[ία]ς Ι Κηφισόδω]ρος Ι. ..... (Διονυσόδωρος or Ἀσκληπιόδωρος, Wilhelm).

3. Tragic actors.

(_a_) At the City Dionysia.

Fragment _e′_.

ὑποκριτῶν τ[ραγικῶν ...... Ἡρακλεί[δης .. ...... Νικόμαχο[ς .. ...... Μυ[ν]νίσκος .. Ν ...... Σαώνδας ... Θε ...... Ανδ[ρων ΙΙ Α]σ ... Χ]αι[ρ]έ[σ]τρατος Ι. Ἀθην[όδωρος Μενεκ]ράτης .. Ἀρι[στόδημος .. Λεπ]τίν[ης ...

(_b_) At the Lenaea.

Fragments _o_, _z_, _x_ and _b′_, and two fragments published by Wilhelm, who puts all together as follows, op. cit., p. 144.

ὑποκριτῶν τραγικῶν Χαρίδημος .. . . . . . . . . . . Χαιρέσ[τ]ρατος Ι Φίλιππος ... . . . . . Ε[ Με]ν[εκρά]της Ι Φύτιος ΙΙ ..... μ]ος ΙΙ Βάκχ[... Λεπτίν]ης ΙΙΙ Εὐπόλεμο[ς .....]ς ΙΙ Στεμφ[ύλιος . . . . . Θρασύβο[υλος] Ι Ἐ[......]ς Ι Ξένων Ι Μυννίσκ]ος ΙΙ Ἀριστόδ[ημος] ΙΙ Ἀρ[ιστοφ]ῶν Ι Χαρίας [ Ἡρακλεί]δης Π Μίρων ΙΙ Πο ..... Ἀντιμέ[νης Νικόστρα]τος ΙΙΙ Κλ]εο[δάμα]ς Ι Ν ...... Τεισίλα[ς Θεόδωρος ΙΙΙ Ἀρχίας ... Γο[ργ ... Ἵππαρχος ΠΙ Πραξία[ς .. Νίκων ΙΙ .. Ἀμεινίας Ι Ἱερομν[ήμων] ΙΙΙ Ἀριστόνι[κος Ἀν]δροσθένης Ι Φιλ[... Πύρριχος [.. Νεο]πτόλεμος Ι Νικ[... Ἀγήτωρ Θεττα]λός ΙΙ Ἀρι[... Θηραμέν[ης .....]ς ΙΙ . . . . . Κλεῖτος Ἀριστ]ίων Ι ..... άδ]ης Ι

Fragment _l_ (previously assigned to the list of poets; but see Wilhelm, op. cit., pp. 161, 253, who dates the fragment before B.C. 375).

Σάτ]υρος ΠΙ Φι]λήμων ΙΙ Κα]λλίστρατ[ος ..

4. Comic actors.

Fragments _u_, _v_ (probably Lenaean, of the third century B.C.).

Ἀρισταγόρας Ι Πολυ[κλῆς .. Κάλλιππος ΙΙΙΙ Λυκίσ[κος Ἀ]σκληπιόδωρος Π Σωσικλ[ῆς. Π]ολύευκτος Ι Πολύζηλ[ος Π]υρραλεύς Ι Πυθάρατος Ι Μ]οσχίων ΙΙ Καλλίας ΙΙΙ ..μ...ν ΙΙ Μενεκ[λῆ]ς Ι Ἱ]ερώνυμος ΙΙΙΙ Δ[ημήτρ]ιος ΙΙ Ἀ]ριστόμαχος ΙΙΙ Πιτθεύς Ι Δέ]ρκετος Ι .. Ἡρακλείδης Ι[Ι.] . . . . . . . . . Φιλοκ[λῆς ... ρος ΙΙ Ἀριστοκράτης Ι . . . . Ἐμμενίδης Ι .... ΙΙ Αὐτόλυκος Ι Δ[ημο]κράτης Ι Φιλωνίδης Ι Φιλ[ο]στέφανος Ι Σωκράτης Ι Ἑρμόφαντος Ι

There are a good many other fragments, containing in some cases (fragments _f′_, _w_, _p_, and possibly _d′_, _g′_) the names of comic actors, while in other cases the nature of the list and its place in the inscription is uncertain: but the above will serve as specimens.

VIII. The following inscriptions are also of interest:—

1. C. I. A. ii. 1289. (Wilhelm, op. cit., p. 209; Capps, Am. Journ. Arch. iv. p. 76.)

Ὁ δῆμος ἐ[χορήγει ἐπὶ Ἀναξι]κράτους ἄρχοντος· (B.C. 307-6) ἀγωνοθέ[της Ξενοκλῆς Ξ]είνιδος Σφήττιος· ποιητὴς τραγῳδοῖς ἐνίκα [Φανόστρατος] Ἡρακλείδου Ἁλικαρνασσεύς, ὑποκριτὴς τραγῳδοῖς ἐνίκ[α .......]ν Εὐανορίδου Κυδαθηναιεύς, ποιητὴς κωμῳδοῖς ἐνί[κα Φιλήμω]ν Δάμωνος Διομειεύς, ὑποκριτὴς κ[ωμῳδοῖς ἐνίκα Κάλλιπ]πος Καλλίου Σουνιεύς.

2. Fragments (found in Rome) of a list of comic poets with their victories at each festival arranged according to the places they won (see Wilhelm, pp. 195 ff.).

(_a_) I. G. xiv. 1097.

ἐ]πὶ Ἀντιοχίδου Κύ[κλωψιν (?) ἐπὶ (B.C. 434) ......]ς κωμῳδίᾳ. δʹ ἐν ἄ[στει ἐπὶ ...... κω]μῳδίᾳ· ἐπὶ Τιμοκλέ[ους ... (B.C. 440) .....] ἐπὶ Θεοδώρου Σατύροις [ἐπὶ .... (B.C. 437) ..... Ὑπ]έροις σιδηροῖς· ἐπὶ Πυ[θοδώρου ... (B.C. 431) ....]οις. εʹ ἐπὶ Ἀντιοχίδου [.... (B.C. 434) Λ]ύσιππος ἐνίκα μὲν [ἐν ἄστει ἐπὶ Γλαυκίπ]που } _or_ Θεοπόμ]που } Καταχήναις [ἐπὶ .... (B.C. 409 or 410) .....]αις· αὗται μόναι σῶ[αι· .... ἐ]πὶ Διοφάντου Διονυ[σ ..... (B.C. 394) γʹ ἐν ἄσ]τει ἐπὶ Νικοτέλους (B.C. 390) δʹ ἐν ἄστ]ε[ι] ἐπὶ Λυσιμάχου [...... (B.C. 435) εʹ ἐν ἄστε]ι ἐπὶ Μορυχίδου [.... ἐπὶ (B.C. 439) ....... ο]υς Κολεοφόροις

(_b_) All but the last two lines probably refer to the comic poet Anaxandrides, as the plays named show. I. G. xiv. 1098.

..... ἐπὶ Χιώνος Μαι[νομένῳ (?) (B.C. 364) ἐπὶ Μόλωνος] Διονύσου γονα[ῖς, ἐπὶ (B.C. 361) Νικοφήμου] Ἀμπρακιώτιδι· γʹ ἐν [ἄστει (B.C. 360) ἐπὶ Φανο]στράτου Ἐρεχθεῖ, ἐ[πὶ .... (B.C. 382) ......]λεῖ, ἐπὶ Χαρισάνδρ[ου (B.C. 375) .... ἐπὶ ἱπ]ποδάμαντος Ἰοῖ· ἐ[πὶ Φρασι- (B.C. 374, 370) κλείδου] Ὀδυσσεῖ· ἐπὶ Κηφισοδ[ώρου (B.C. 365) .....] ἐπὶ Ἀπολλοδώρου Ἀγ[ροίκοις (?) (B.C. 349) ......]ξίππου· Λήναια ἐπ[ὶ ..... π]οιῷ, ἐπὶ Ναυσιγένους [.... (B.C. 367) ...... δʹ ἐ]ν ἄστει· ἐπὶ Χίωνος [ (B.C. 364) ... εʹ ἐν ἄστ]ει ἐπὶ Ἀγαθοκλέ[ους (B.C. 356) ........ ἐ]πὶ Θουδήμου Ἀ[.... (B.C. 352) ]ου Ἀντέρωτι [...... ...... ἐ]νίκα Λήναι[α .... .... βʹ ἦν] ἐν ἄστ[ει ...

APPENDIX C

THE ORIGINAL PLACE OF THE LENAEA

The question where the Lenaean contests took place before the building of the great theatre of Dionysus has been unfortunately complicated with other problems, of which no final solution can be given. For it has been customary to assume that the Lenaeum was identical with the temple of Dionysus ἐν Λίμναις, or at least that the latter was included in the Lenaeum; and thus all the disputes respecting the site of the temple ἐν Λίμναις have been regarded as applying also to the site of the Lenaeum. Hence the discussion of the evidence for the site of the Lenaeum is more difficult than it need be.

I. It is to be noticed in the first place, as Miss Harrison points out (Primitive Athens, pp. 96-7), that, on the one hand, none of those writers who themselves saw the temple ἐν Λίμναις (and indeed hardly any writers, the possible exceptions being considered below) speak of it as the Lenaeum or in connexion with the Lenaeum; while on the other hand, contemporary (and nearly all later) mentions of the dramatic contest at the Lenaea fail to connect it with the Λίμναι. And it is obvious that, as the precinct ἐν Λίμναις was only open once a year, on the 12th of Anthesterion (pseudo-Dem. in Neaer. § 76, see below), the Lenaeum cannot (any more than the temple or precinct of Dionysus Eleuthereus) have been absolutely identical with it, though the possibility is not thereby excluded that the Lenaeum may have been a larger precinct in a part of which the temple ἐν Λίμναις stood.

The passages referring to the ἐν Λίμναις, without reference to the Lenaeum, are Thuc. ii. 15; Aristoph. Ran. 211 sqq.; pseudo-Dem. in Neaer. § 76; and Phanodemus ap. Athen. xi. p. 465 a: there can also be little doubt that Paus. i. 20. 3 refers to the temple ἐν Λίμναις, though he does not name it. I make only such comments on these passages as are necessary for showing that they afford no ground for the identification of the Lenaeum and the ἐν Λίμναις.

(A) Thuc. ii. 15: τὸ δὲ πρὸ τούτου ἡ ἀκρόπολις ἡ νῦν οὖσα πόλις ἦν καὶ τὸ ὑπ’ αὐτὴν πρὸς νότον μάλιστα τετραμμένον· τεκμήριον δέ· τὰ γὰρ ἱερὰ ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ἀκροπόλει καὶ ἄλλων θεῶν ἐστί, καὶ τὰ ἔξω πρὸς τοῦτο τὸ μέρος τῆς πόλεως μᾶλλον ἵδρυται, τό τε τοῦ Διὸς τοῦ Ὀλυμπίου καὶ τὸ Πύθιον καὶ τὸ τῆς Γῆς καὶ τὸ ἐν Λίμναις Διονύσου, ᾧ τὰ ἀρχαιότερα Διονύσια τῇ δωδεκάτῃ ποιεῖται ἐν μηνὶ Ἀνθεστηριῶνι.

This passage can only be used to prove the ἐν Λίμναις identical with the Lenaeum (or closely connected) if we can identify the ἀρχαιότερα Διονύσια with the Lenaean festival or part of it. Gilbert, Dörpfeld, and others have attempted to do this. (It should be noted that, in the case of Dörpfeld and his followers, this attempt is secondary to an attempt to fix the temple ἐν Λίμναις at a particular spot, where he has discovered the remains of a precinct of Dionysus, containing a wine-press, ληνός.) They argue that the use of the comparative ἀρχαιότερα by Thucydides implies that he knew only of _two_ Dionysia, one the older, the other the later. The later must obviously be the Great or City Dionysia; and therefore the earlier, it is argued, must be the Anthesteria, Lenaea and Rural Dionysia, all regarded as one and the same festival; the place of the Anthesteria must therefore be the place of the Lenaea; and as a comparison of Thucydides with the pseudo-Dem. in Neaeram (below) proves that the place of at least one part of the Anthesteria—that which was celebrated on the 12th Anthesterion—was the ἐν Λίμναις, it follows that the Lenaea must also have taken place ἐν Λίμναις, not of course in the actual sanctuary of Dionysus, but close to it.

Now it can be shown (1) that the stress laid on the comparative is unwarranted, (2) that there are other grounds for refusing to identify the Anthesteria and the Lenaea.

(1) There are other passages in classical Greek literature in which the comparative of words denoting age, &c., is used of the oldest, not of two, but of several. Nilsson (Studia de Dionysiis Atticis, p. 54) collects the following, in addition to Homeric instances noted by Kühner-Gerth (Griech. Gramm. § 349, p. 3).

Lys. x. 5: ὁ γὰρ πρεσβύτερος ἀδελφὸς Πανταλέων ἅπαντα παρέλαβε καὶ ἐπιτροπεύσας ἡμᾶς τῶν πατρῴων ἀπεστέρησεν.

Lys. xiii. 67: ἦσαν τοίνυν οὗτοι, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, τέτταρες ἀδελφοί. τούτων εἷς μὲν ὁ πρεσβύτερος κτλ.

Xen. Cyr. v. 1. 6: ὡς δ’ ἡμῶν ὁ γεραίτερος εἶπε (where the context shows that a good many people were concerned. The reading γεραίτερος is far better supported than γεραίτατος).

Theocr. xv. 139: οὔθ’ Ἕκτωρ, Ἑκάβας ὁ γεραίτερος εἴκατι παίδων.

Other instances could probably be found, in spite of the tendency of grammarians and editors to force these cases into the supposed orthodox form, by emending the comparative to the superlative (as e.g. they have done in Aelian, Var. H. ii. 41).

All that the comparative really implies is that one individual case is separated off from the rest, and the rest treated as a single combined group. On this view the ἀρχαιότερα Διονύσια will be the older ceremony, the Anthesteria, as contrasted with the group well known to be recent, viz. the great popular festivals, the City Dionysia and the Lenaea. If πρεσβύτερος and γεραίτερος can be used of one brother as opposed to the rest, why not ἀρχαιότερα of one festival as opposed to the rest, these latter being grouped together in thought as recent in comparison with the one?

There is, further, a note by Prof. Capps in the Trans. Amer. Philol. Assoc. vol. xxxii, summarizing a paper in which he claims to distinguish the meaning of ἀρχαιότερα from that of παλαιότερα, to show that previous critics of Thucydides have confused them, and that on the true view of ἀρχαιότερα the view of Gilbert, Dörpfeld, &c., is impossible. But the paper has not been published as a whole.

(2) The Lenaea was celebrated in the month Gamelion, which in other places was called Lenaeon; the Anthesteria in Anthesterion. Gilbert’s attempt to prove that the names of the months were changed and the festivals transferred from one month to another breaks down entirely (Nilsson, l.c., pp. 1-37, disproves it completely), nor would the attempt have been made but for the necessity of providing some such explanation, if the two festivals were to be identified. The separation in time of the festivals is sufficient to disprove their identity.

Again, in C. I. A. ii. 834 b (pp. 516 ff.) we have the accounts of certain officials called ἐπιστάται Ἐλευσινόθεν καὶ ταμίαι τοῖν θεοῖν in the year B.C. 329-8. Col. II, containing the accounts ἐπὶ τῆς Πανδιονίδος ἕκτης πρυτανείας, includes in l. 46 ἐπιστάταις Ἐπιλήναια εἰς Διονύσια θῦσαι ΔΔ∸, and in l. 68 εἰς Χόας δημοσίοις ἱερεῖον ΔΔ𐅂𐅂𐅂. This proves that the Epilenaea (the same form occurs in Ath. Pol. ch. lvii, though it is altered by editors, and probably also in C. I. A. ii. 741) was a distinct festival from the Anthesteria, of which the Choes formed a part. (This was shown by Körte, Rhein. Mus. lii. pp. 168 ff., and Wachsmuth, Abh. der Sächs. Ges. der Wiss. xviii. pp. 40 ff.) A later inscription, C. I. A. iii. 1160, date c. B.C. 193-2, separates equally clearly the Lenaea from the Χύτροι (vide Nilsson, l.c., pp. 42-4): and Nilsson gives other passages quite as conclusive (l.c., p. 143), of which one is worth quoting, a gloss found in Photius, Suidas, &c., s.v. τὰ ἐκ τῶν ἁμαξῶν σκώμματα· ἐπὶ τῶν ἀπαρακαλύπτως σκωπτόντων. Ἀθήνησι γὰρ ἐν τῇ τῶν Χοῶν ἑορτῇ οἱ κωμάζοντες ἐπὶ τῶν ἁμαξῶν τοὺς ἀπαντῶντας ἔσκωπτόν τε καὶ ἐλοιδόρουν. τὸ δ’ αὐτὸ καὶ τοῖς Ληναίοις ὕστερον ἐποίουν.

It follows, therefore, that the Anthesteria, the ἀρχαιότερα Διονύσια of Thucydides, cannot be identified with the Lenaea, and that whatever may be proved from Thucydides as to the site of the temple ἐν Λίμναις, in which the former were partly celebrated, nothing follows in reference to the Lenaeum.

(B) Aristoph. Ran. 211 sqq.:

λιμναῖα κρηνῶν τέκνα, ξύναυλον ὕμνων βοὰν φθεγξώμεθ’, εὔγηρυν ἐμὰν ἀοιδάν, κοὰξ κοάξ, ἣν ἀμφὶ Νυσήιον Διὸς Διόνυσον ἐν Λίμναισιν ἰαχήσαμεν, ἡνίχ’ ὁ κραιπαλόκωμος τοῖς ἱεροῖσι Χύτροισι χωρεῖ κατ’ ἐμὸν τέμενος λαῶν ὄχλος.

The fact that the play was produced at the Lenaea (B.C. 405) cannot possibly be used to prove that the Lenaea and the Chutroi, at which the ‘Frogs’ profess to have raised their hymn to Dionysus (in the _past_, it is to be noticed), were the same festival.

(C) Pseudo-Dem. in Neaer. §§ 73 sqq.: καὶ αὕτη ἡ γυνὴ ὑμῖν ἔθυε τὰ ἄρρητα ἱερὰ ὑπὲρ τῆς πόλεως, καὶ εἶδεν ἃ οὐ προσῆκεν αὐτὴν ὁρᾶν ξένην οὖσαν, καὶ τοιαύτη οὖσα εἰσῆλθεν οἷ οὐδεὶς ἄλλος Ἀθηναίων τοσούτων ὄντων εἰσέρχεται ἀλλ’ ἢ ἡ τοῦ βασιλέως γυνή, ἐξώρκωσέ τε τὰς γεραρὰς τὰς ὑπηρετούσας τοῖς ἱεροῖς, ἐξεδόθη δὲ τῷ Διονύσῳ γυνή.... § 76: καὶ τοῦτον τὸν νόμον γράψαντες ἐν στήλῃ λιθίνῃ ἔστησαν ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ τοῦ Διονύσου παρὰ τὸν βωμὸν ἐν Λίμναις (καὶ αὕτη ἡ στήλη ἔτι καὶ νῦν ἕστηκεν, ἀμυδροῖς γράμμασιν Ἀττικοῖς δηλοῦσα τὰ γεγραμμένα).... καὶ διὰ ταῦτα ἐν τῷ ἀρχαιοτάτῳ ἱερῷ τοῦ Διονύσου καὶ ἁγιωτάτῳ ἐν Λίμναις ἔστησαν, ἵνα μὴ πολλοὶ εἰδῶσι τὰ γεγραμμένα· ἅπαξ γὰρ τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ ἑκάστου ἀνοίγεται, τῇ δωδεκάτῃ τοῦ Ἀνθεστηριῶνος μηνός.... § 78: =ὅρκος γεραρῶν.= ἁγιστεύω καὶ εἰμὶ καθαρὰ καὶ ἁγνὴ ἀπό τε τῶν ἄλλων τῶν οὐ καθαρευόντων καὶ ἀπ’ ἀνδρὸς συνουσίας, καὶ τὰ Θεοίνια καὶ τὰ Ἰοβάκχεια γεραίρω τῷ Διονύσῳ κατὰ τὰ πάτρια καὶ ἐν τοῖς καθήκουσι χρόνοις.

Here there is no hint of the Lenaeum or Lenaea at all.

(D) Paus. i. 20. 3: τοῦ Διονύσου δέ ἐστι πρὸς τῷ θεάτρῳ τὸ ἀρχαιότατον ἱερόν· δύο δέ εἰσιν ἐντὸς τοῦ περιβόλου ναοὶ καὶ Διόνυσοι, ὅ τε Ἐλευθερεὺς καὶ ὃν Ἀλκαμένης ἐποίησεν ἐλέφαντος καὶ χρυσοῦ.

(E) Athen. xi. p. 465 a: Φανόδημος δὲ πρὸς τῷ ἱερῷ φησι τοῦ ἐν Λίμναις Διονύσου τὸ γλεῦκος φέροντας τοὺς Ἀθηναίους ἐκ τῶν πίθων τῷ θεῷ κιρνάναι, εἶτ’ αὐτοὺς (v. ll. αὐτοῖς, αὐτοί) προσφέρεσθαι· ὅθεν καὶ Λίμναιον κληθῆναι τὸν Διόνυσον, ὅτι μιχθὲν τὸ γλεῦκος τῷ ὕδατι τότε πρῶτον ἐπόθη κεκραμένον.

Now it is clear that none of the above passages gives us any assistance towards the localization of the Lenaeum. Nor do the references to the Lenaic performances themselves. The festival is called Λήναια (Aristoph. Ach. 1155; Athen. p. 130 d, &c.): ἐπὶ Ληναίῳ ἀγών (Aristoph. Ach. 504): ἐπιλήναια Διονύσια (Ath. Pol. c. 57; C. I. A. ii. 834 b and probably 731), and we have such phrases as ἐπὶ Ληναίῳ νικᾶν, διδάσκειν, &c.: but in none of these cases is there any hint of the Λίμναι (e.g. Plat. Prot. 327 d; Dem. Meid. § 10).

For what reasons, then, drawn from literary evidence, has it been assumed that the Lenaea and the Anthesteria (partly held ἐν Λίμναις) were identical?

(1) The passage of Athenaeus above quoted has been compared with Anon. de Comoed. αʹ. l. 6 ff. (Kaibel. Fr. Com. p. 7) τὴν αὐτὴν (sc. τὴν κωμῳδίαν) δὲ καὶ τρυγῳδίαν φασὶ διὰ τὸ τοῖς εὐδοκιμοῦσιν ἐπὶ τῷ Ληναίῳ γλεῦκος δίδοσθαι, ὅπερ ἐκάλουν τρύγα, ἢ ὅτι μήπω προσωπείων ηὑρημένων τρυγὶ διαχρίοντες τὰ πρόσωπα ὑπεκρίνοντο. But the two passages refer to entirely different ceremonies. That of which Athenaeus speaks was part of the Choes, the first drinking of the new wine at the Anthesteria. The second refers to the prize of a bottle of new wine given to successful poets at the Lenaea; it is a conjectural explanation of the name τρυγῳδία. There is nothing whatever to show that the passages refer to ceremonies in any way connected, except the use of the word γλεῦκος in both.

(2) Hesychius: λίμναι· ἐν Ἀθήναις [ἇς] τόπος ἀνειμένος Διονύσῳ, ὅπου τὰ λαία ἤγετο. Editors generally, following Musurus, emend to Λήναια, but this is not proof. The true reading may be Λιμναῖα.

(3) The one passage which can be treated seriously is a Schol. on Aristoph. Ach. 961, explaining the origin of the Choes: εἰς τὴν ἑορτὴν τῶν Χοῶν· ἐπετελεῖτο δὲ Πυανεψιῶνος ὀγδόῃ· οἱ δὲ Ἀνθεστηριῶνος ⟨δω⟩δεκάτῃ. φησὶ δὲ Ἀπολλόδωρος Ἀνθεστήρια καλεῖσθαι κοινῶς τὴν ὅλην ἑορτὴν Διονύσῳ ἀγομένην, κατὰ μέρος δὲ Πιθοιγίαν Χόας Χύτραν. καὶ αὖθις. ὅτι Ὀρέστης μετὰ τὸν φόνον εἰς Ἀθήνας ἀφικόμενος (ἦν δὲ ἑορτὴ Διονύσου Ληναίου), ὡς μὴ γένοιτο ὁμόσπονδος ἀπεκτονὼς τὴν μητέρα ἐμηχανήσατο τοιόνδε τι Πανδίων ... καὶ ἀπ’ ἐκείνου Ἀθηναίοις ἑορτὴ ἐνομίσθη οἱ Χόες. This passage as it stands undoubtedly represents the Choes as instituted to form part of a festival of Dionysus Lenaeus. But our suspicions are aroused when we find that the other versions of the same story make no allusion to Dionysus Lenaeus. The corresponding expression in Schol. ad Aristoph. Eq. 95 (which Rutherford transfers to Ach. 961) is κατέλαβεν δὲ αὐτὸν (sc. τὸν Πανδίονα) εὐωχίαν τινα δημοτελῆ ποιοῦντα. (Other versions are Athen. x. p. 437 b; Plut. Quaest Symp. p. 613 b and p. 643 a; Schol. Tzetzae ad Lycophr. 1374; Suidas s.v. Χόες.) It is at least probable, therefore, that the parenthesis ἦν δὲ ἑορτὴ Διονύσου Ληναίου is an erroneous gloss by the compiler of the first-quoted scholium, whose state of mind in regard to the facts concerning the festivals mentioned is sufficiently indicated by the early part of the scholium. Rutherford has made plain the unreliability of the scholiasts on Aristophanes, and this single passage is of no value when compared with the weight of evidence against the identification of the two festivals. Nilsson (l.c., p. 57) may be right in his suggestion that Ληναίου is an error for Λιμναίου. ΛΗΝΑΙΟΥ and ΛΙΜΝΑΙΟΥ are very much alike, and the latter, being less familiar, might easily be changed into the former. Athen.