Chapter I: 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 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 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 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_.