\ ■ ■ - f. ' PLUTARCH AS A SOURCE OF INFORMATION ON THE GREEK THEATER BY ROY CASTON FLICKINGER, Ph.D.'V SOMETIME FELLOW AND ASSISTANT IN GREEK AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO ( BOSTON COLLEGE LIBRARY CHESTNUT HILL, MASS, CHICAGO THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS 1904 9 “PA3Z03 Copyright 1904 The University of Chicago 131400 / August, 1904 TABLE OF CONTENTS. PAGE Preface. 4 Introduction.- 5-7 Criteria.8-9 Plutarch’s Method of Dealing with His Sources - - 10-22 a) Plutarch Compared with His Source - - - - 11 b) Plutarch Compared with Himself - - - 17 c) Plutarch Compared with Another User of the Same Source.- 19 d) Plutarch Compared with Other Evidence ... 20 Theatrical Terms in Plutarch.23-59 A. Qtarpop --------- - 23 B. ’0 px^fTpa. - -- -- -- -- - 26 C. Qvp.i\r] - -- -- -- -- - 28 D. 2 Krjvrj - -- -- -- -- - 38 E. HpOO’K'flVlOV - - - 51 F. IIc£po5o$ - -- -- -- -- - 53 G. Aoyetov - 54 Conclusion. - 60-64 3 PREFACE. My original plan was to collect and present all that Plutarch teaches us concerning the Greek drama and theater, with the secondary idea of discovering his literary method in dealing with incidents involving these subjects. It soon became apparent, however, that this was too large a theme for treatment in a doc¬ tor’s dissertation. Accordingly, I have restricted myself to his testimony on the theater alone and, still more particularly, to the consideration of his value as a witness on the theater. Thus, I have in hand an abundance of material which I hope to use in further studies in Plutarch. It is fitting in this place to express my gratitude to my teach¬ ers: to Professors Robert Baird and Daniel Bonbright, of North¬ western University, who directed my undergraduate studies in the classics; to Professor John A. Scott, of the same institution, who first encouraged me to graduate work; and to those to whom I am indebted for most of my graduate instruction, Professors Paul Shorey, William Gardner Hale, F. F. Abbott, George L. Hendrickson, and Edward Capps, of the University of Chicago, and more particularly to the last-named, who suggested this paper and has given me the benefit of his constant criticism and advice in its preparation. Roy C. Flickinger. Epworth University, Oklahoma City, Okla. 4 INTRODUCTION. Perhaps the most valuable permanent results already derived from the extensive and minute examination by competent archse- ologists of the numerous theater mins which have been unearthed in many parts of Greece during the past quarter-century are, firstly, the recognition of the fact that all ancient theaters are no longer to be classified under the two general Yitruvian types, “Greek” and “Roman,” but rather under a larger number of categories, varying according to time, place, and purpose; and, secondly, the necessity, which has arisen from the recognition of this fact, of submitting all the evidence, and especially the literary evidence, to a renewed critical examination. It is not enough to have traced the development in meaning of the various technical terms through a series of authors chronologically arranged, valu¬ able as this work is; first of all, the more important authors must themselves be singly studied in order that the nature and the proper application of the testimony they offer may be known. At the present time only a beginning has been made in this fundamental task without which a historical account of the Greek theater cannot be written. With the application of only such precautions as the nature of the evidence, often vague and allusive, often intelligible only by reference to the ruins or to later phrase¬ ological usage, demands, the extant plays and the fourth-century writers can, of course, be used unhesitatingly as witnesses for the contemporaneous theater at Athens. No reference in later writers, however, can be safely applied to the Athenian theater of the fourth and fifth centuries until such a course has been justified by a consideration of the author’s evidence in general and of the bearing of the particular passage. Thus, Noack , 1 for example, has made it seem very probable that Vitruvius depended mainly upon Asia Minor sources for his knowledge of Greek architecture, while Rohde 2 has thrown light upon the difficult questions of the sources 1 Cf. “ Das Proskenion in der Theaterfrage,” Philologus, Vol. LVIII (1899), pp. 1 if. 2 Cf. De Iulii Pollucis in apparatu scaenico enarrando fontibus (1870). 5 6 PLUTARCH ON THE GREEK THEATER followed by Pollux. These authorities are in a measure controlled by the study of their sources; but for most writers the considera¬ tion of the manner in which they treated their originals is equally important. Consequently, it is safe to say that, until the more prominent later authors who discuss or refer to the Greek theater shall have been critically examined in some such fashion, many of the vexing problems of Greek scenic antiquities will obtain no satisfactory solution . 1 It was with the purpose of contributing somewhat to this kind of preliminary investigation that the present study was undertaken. Plutarch is rich in allusions to the theater. Some of these allu¬ sions, seemingly to the Athenian theater of the fourth century, have caused no little difficulty to students of the subject. His works are so voluminous and so varied, range so freely in subject- matter from the earliest times to his own day, and touch upon so many different localities in the Graeco-Roman world, that few writers, on the one hand, have contributed more references to scenic institutions and scenic terminology in our handbooks, while few, on the other, need to be used with greater discrimination. And such caution is required in a still greater degree because of the uncertainty which necessarily attends the reconstruction of those theater ruins to which it is generally assumed that he refers. Whatever the age or location of the theater to which he seems to allude, his words cannot confidently be applied, for example, either to Dorpf eld’s or to Puchstein’s 2 reconstructions until the nature of the evidence he furnishes is determined. But once this is done, it may become possible to test by his evidence the correctness of the deductions which have been made from the existing ruins. To this end it is necessary to establish criteria by which his allu- 1 Schulze, “ Lukianos als Quelle fur die Kenntnis der TragOdie,” Jahrbiicher fiir clas- sische Philologie, Vol. CXXXV (1887), pp. 117 ff., was more interested in other sides of the question than in that involving theater construction and did not attempt to determine the applicability to various periods of the evidence supplied by Lucian; while Walden, “Stage Terms in Heliodorus’s Aethiopica,” Harvard Studies , Vol. V (1894), pp. 1 ff., gave a bare list of material which is itself limited in scope, belongs to a period of little interest, and involves no question of source or periods. Weissmann, Neue philologische Rund¬ schau (1899), pp. 394 f., and (1903), p. 606, pointed out that a separate treatment of the later writers was needed. Weissmann’s own article, “Die scenischen Anweisungen in den Scholien und ihre Bedeutung fiir die Btihnenkunde’’ (1896), perhaps approaches most nearly the aim of the present paper. ^DOrpfeld-Reisch, Das griechische Theater (1896), and Puchstein, Die griechische Bilhne (1901). INTRODUCTION 7 sions to theaters of his own day may be distinguished from those referring to earlier periods, and to consider how exactly he fol¬ lowed his sources when speaking of earlier theaters. We may then apply these results to the material which he provides, and in the light of his literary method may discuss more definitely the bear¬ ing of his testimony upon the terminology of the theater and upon its structural history. CRITERIA. It is obvious at the start that Plutarch will convey many items of information concerning other periods than his own. It is inevitable that any writer who describes antecedent events shall employ words and phrases which have been coined and have come into general use since the events treated; i. e ., he necessarily modernizes his account to a greater or less degree. On the other hand, he is likely to try to retain the technical terms of the period with which he is dealing and to use them in the meanings then current. Such an attempt is more to be expected in a modern than in an ancient writer, and is seldom completely successful. How far Plutarch makes this attempt and how far he succumbs to the tendency to modernize will appear only upon examination. In the meanwhile the material must be sifted in such a manner as to avoid possible error in either direction. It is apparent that all passages taken from those writings in which Plutarch or his friends appear as participants in the dialogue, or in which con¬ temporaneous events are described, must apply to the contemporary theater, unless the opposite is distinctly stated. Under the same category must be included also the passages which contain general allusions to the theater or its parts, or to matters involving the theater or its parts, and which are entirely inde¬ pendent of specific time, place, and occasion. In these passages (mostly figures of speech or parenthetical remarks) we must assume that Plutarch had in mind but one type of theater, and that, too, one which was perfectly familiar to his readers as well as to him¬ self. Therefore, if the principles laid down are sound, information drawn from passages of these two sorts (which for convenience will hereafter be referred to as “general”) should always be con¬ sistent with itself and should conform to that given us by other contemporaneous writers similarly situated. Contrariwise, all anecdotes or statements that are employed as having reference to a particular theater at a particular time or occasion before Plutarch’s day, and all sayings that are given as the bona fide 8 CRITERIA 9 utterances of persons antecedent to Plutarch, must be classified under a different category. Such passages (which will hereafter be referred to as “specific”) may contain information relative either to the theater of Plutarch’s day or to that of the period described, according to our author’s habit in such matters; until that has been discovered, they must be considered separately. PLUTARCH’S METHOD OF DEALING WITH HIS SOURCES. It is conceivable that Plutarch should have employed his originals in any one of four ways: (1) he may have reproduced them practically without change, as Athenaeus so often does, pre¬ serving accounts in their appropriate contemporaneous dress, or at least going astray only when his source did so likewise; (2) he may have felt free to alter his original to suit his pleasure, retaining the substance and perhaps the catchwords of the account before him, but introducing new turns of expression, and more picturesque and vivid details; (3) he may have gone still farther in his freedom of treatment and brought all technical allusions into accord with the terminology of his own day; and (4) he may have combined the last two methods, pursuing now one, now the other. On the first two hypotheses his theatrical references are to be used in explaining the theater structure and terminology contem¬ poraneous with the event described or with the source employed, when that was not contemporaneous; on the third, they give an insight into the theater of his own time; and on the fourth, he cannot safely be quoted as a source for scenic antiquities at all, except in cases where the exact condition of the theater to which he refers is independently known. In treating this topic there are four possible avenues of approach, viz.: by a comparison (a) of Plutarch with his source, when that is known and extant; ( b ) of Plutarch with himself, when he gives the same account in two or more places; (c) of Plutarch with some other writer who followed the same source; and (d) of Plutarch with other evidence which we possess, though his source is either not definitely known or not extant. It is apparent that, when it is perfectly certain what previous account Plutarch was using, (a) is the most profitable line of investiga¬ tion; though unfortunately we can rarely be confident that a 10 plutarch’s method of dealing with his sources 11 particular source was in fact followed. 1 Next in importance, and under the circumstances most satisfactory, is (b), which has never received due recognition as a criterion for use in this and many other cases where it would prove extremely important. The least convincing method is (c), which would be valueless without the others, but is useful as lending confirmation to them; while the value of (d) varies with the circumstances of each case. a) Plutarch compared with his source . 2 —There can be little 1 Cf. the controversy as to whether Plutarch used directly Aristotle’s Constitution of Athens. The early bibliography is given by Sandys. Wright’s arguments ( Harvard Studies , Vol. Ill [1892], pp. 25 ff.), even if accepted at full value, prove simply that Aristotle was not the main immediate source, and by no means that he was not an immediate source at all. His proofs are (1) that in the thirty-eight passages of the Solon which bear a resem¬ blance to the Resp. Ath. Aristotle is mentioned but once; (2) that the resemblances, the dis¬ similarities, and the discrepancies alike are intelligible only on the supposition that Plutarch was transcribing from some work in which an abridgment of these parts of the Resp. Ath. was embodied, and that in transcribing from this abridgment he interpolated foreign matter, which is inconsistent with the unabridged Aristotle; and (3) that the omission in the Themistocles of the characteristic anecdote of Themistocles, Ephialtes, and the Areopagus (Resp. Ath., c. 25) is unaccountable except on the hypothesis that the copy of Aristotle’s work used by Plutarch did not contain this story. As regards (3), we can scarcely consider ourselves infallible judges of what stories Plutarch would consider “characteristic” and illustrative of »}0os. Moreover, Plutarch often tells anecdotes elsewhere which do not occur in the Life of the hero concerned. Therefore we cannot expect that he should tell on every occasion all the appropriate stories known to him, nor yet assume that every anecdote he read or heard seemed to him equally memorable. Consequently, the omission of Aristotle’s anecdote in the Themistocles does not warrant the hypothesis set up. As to (2), the following pages will show to a certain extent what Plutarch was capable of in the treatment of a source. Furthermore, we must allow him the privilege of contaminotio, and that means that the resultant fusion would almost necessarily contain items inconsistent with any one of the primary accounts. Wright’s first argument ignores the fact that Plutarch habitually suppressed the authorities whom he most extensively followed (cf. Gudeman, The Sources of Plutarch's Life of Cicero [1902], pp. 4f.). The same objections hold good against Wilamowitz’s arguments (Aristoteles und Athen [1893], Vol. I, pp. 299 If.), which belong to the same three types and are not conclusive. Plutarch was probably familiar with the Resp. Ath. in its present form and used it on occasion. It is true that the more trivial narratives of the inferior writers supplied in greater abundance the matter he needed than did the great historians, but we need not suppose that he entirely neglected the latter for the outline of historical events or for controlling the minor authors. Failure to recognize Plutarch’s entire freedom in using his sources, both in reproducing them and in fusing them, may lead us to minimize his dependence upon standard authorities. It is not unlikely that we should not find any more striking resemblances than now, even if Theopompus and the rest were extant. Even the express warning in Nicias , 1, has not prevented our reducing Thucydides’s contribution to that Life to the vanishing-point (cf. Heidingsfeld, Quomodo Plut. Thuc. usus sit incompon. Nic. vita [1890], p. 24). Now, Plutarch was a stylist as well as a raconteur, and whenever he found a phrase that pleased him he reserved it in his memory for use. Thus the TO aAAo <7TpaTevp.a vi/CTjfley Karripax^V ra TeixiaVAara of THUC., VII, 6, 3, reappears in Fab. Max., 8, and Sertor., 19, in a totally different connection, and there are enough similar instances to show that Plutarch was a close student of the historian. Hitherto the study of the relationship between Plutarch and the Resp. Ath. has been con¬ fined to such passages as cover the same events; I have no doubt that a broader survey would reveal many points of stylistic indebtedness. 2 Since passages involving theatrical matters are alone sufficient and more to the point, the following examples are restricted to that field. 12 PLUTARCH ON THE GREEK THEATER doubt that Plutarch’s account of the bringing of the tidings of Leuctra to Sparta was derived from Xenophon, who is indeed mentioned in the same chapter. A comparison of the accounts, however, removes even the slightest doubt as to the relationship. 1 Xen., Hell., VI, 4,16. a yevofuvwv 8e tovtiov, b 6 pev €c? rrjv AaKeSai/xova ayye- XCjv to iraOos aefuKvetTaL c yv/xvo7ratSicov re ovary ; ttjs rcAev- ratas Kai d tov avSpiKov x°P°v ivSov ovtos • e oi 8e ZopoL, f €7TCt TjKOVaaV TO TTOl 6o Dear pip’ b 7raprjaav 8’ a7ro A evKTpivv ot ri)v avpifropav a7rayyeAA ovt€s. 6 ot 8c c<^opot, / KatVep evOvs ovtos KaTaavov<; on Si€(f)OapTaL ra Trpa.yp.aTa Kat T77V apxr)V a7roX(o\eKaaiv, g ovtc \opov i£eX6eiv elaaav ovrc to ayrjp a eopTrjs ptTafiaXelv TYJV 7ToX.LV, i aXXa Kar’ oiKiav twv tc^vcwtcov rot? TrpoarjKOvaL Ta ovopxxTa Trepuf/avTCS h avTol Ta 7rcpt t>)v 0€av Kat tov aya)va to»v ^opaiv C7rpaTTOv. A more detailed comparison of the corresponding sections, as they are indicated by the letters, gives a striking glimpse of Plutarch’s method: Clause a is purely transitional and has no counterpart in the biography. In b the singular participle is replaced by the plural, ec? Aa/ce&aipova by a7ro A ev/crpcov, irddos by avfujiopdv , and d^ucvelrai by 7 rapr/aav — all simple verbal changes. In c Plutarch has omitted TeXevrcua? and has written a prefatory statement which adds no fact except ^evcov ovaa pLeaTrj, which is of course too commonplace an observation to postu¬ late another source. These changes also are purely verbal or in the direction of picturesqueness. In d %opo0 is replaced by the 1 Cf. Heeren, De fontibus et auctoritate Vit. Paral. Plutarchi (1820), p. 47, and Haug, Die Quellen Plutarchs in den Lebensbeschreibungen der Griechen (1883), p. 56. 2 As a consideration of the genuineness of Plutarch’s writings would be out of place here, I have accepted all the Lives , and for the Moralia have followed the judgment of Bernardakis, who in his edition rejects sixteen of the seventy-eight essays in the first six volumes; his seventh volume (containing fragments, etc.) has nothing bearing upon the present study. Citations are to the editions of Sintenis (2d ed.) and Bernardakis (1888-96) respectively. plutarch’s method of dealing with his sources 13 plural, ev&ov by ev tw Oearpcp^ avSpucov is omitted, and aycovL^ope- vcov added—all being alterations without significance. The clauses marked e are identical. In / 0 W 09 /cara^avov^ is substi¬ tuted for rj/covaav, and for eXvirovvTO a on clause giving the men¬ tal picture that caused their Xvirrj. In g Plutarch employs i^eXOelv elao-av instead of i^r/yayov, and introduces the clause to ... . 7 r6\iv, which adds nothing to the thought. He amplifies h by the employment of his favorite ra irept /crX. periphrasis, but the general meaning is the same. Finally, in i o'uceiovs is replaced by 7 rpocnjKovcn, airehocrav by irep^avre^, and tear olkluv, a vivid detail, is added. In spite of all these verbal changes and this transposition of clauses, not a single item of consequence has escaped the biographer, while he has added several graphic touches, and he has, moreover, retained all the catchwords of the original; cf. ayyeXXco, yvpLvoTrcuSicu, % opo ?, ecfropoL, i^ayco (e^epxo- Plcll), and ra ovopara rcov reOveoircov. These similarities are entirely too close and too numerous to be explained on the hypothesis of an intermediate source, while at the same time the variations afford us an interesting insight into Plutarch’s literary method. It is equally certain that the description of the scene at the proclamation of Grecian liberty at the Isthmian games is taken from Polybius. 2 Polyb., XVIII, 46,1-10 (ed. Buttner-Wobst). a 8o£avT(ov Se tovtcov, b /cat tt}? ’lcrdfLiwv 7 ravYjyvpews eTreXOovaYjs, C /cat a^cSor thro Traces rrjs OLKovpevYjs rwv i7TLtatovs cvtc ov dTToarrjvaL tottwv /cat 7roAea>v, TOiv Sc SiopL^opevoiv ort rdiv pkv em- cf>avd)v ctvat Sokovvtcov t6ttu)v a7rooT7)crovTat, tovs 8e avTacriav piev l^orras eXarrcD, %peLav Flamininus , 10. b ’l&Opt (ov ovv ayopevojv C TrXrjOos pev avOpio 7ra>v ev Tto crraSta) Ka0rj(TTO tov yvpvLKov aydiva Oewpevoiv, d ota Sr] Sta xpovoiv ire- 7ravpevY)<; pev noXepuov TY)S 'EAAaSo? €7r’ eX7TL- ;0ovs eis to (TTaSiov C7rt tov ayaiva, / irpocXOiov 6 Kr}pv£ Kai o-ta)7rr;o-a/x,€vo? ra TrXrjO-q Sta tov o-aX7rtKTOV toSc Krjpvypi avrjyopcvarev' g fj crvyKXrjTO' 5 17 'Ptupaicuv /cat Titos Koivtios t TTparrjyos v7raTos> KaTa7roXcpi;cravTes fiacriXta $tXt7T7rov Kai MaKeSovas, dpovpr)TOvopoXoyy]TOV s, vopots xptupevovs tois 7raTptois, Kopiv0tovs, cfctuKcas, AoKpovs, Ev/3oeTs, ’Agatovs tovs ^ttuTas, Mayvr/Tas, ©CTTaXovs, Ilcppai/Jovs. /l Kporov S’ ev ap^ats ev^ctus e^atatov yevopc- vov, tivcs pev ovS’ rjKovaav tov Krjpvyp.aros, tivcs Sc 7raXtv aKOvetv ifiovXovro. to Sc 7roXv pepos Ttuv dv0p(i)7T(t)v Sia7rto’Tovpevov /cat Sokovv cos av ct Ka 0 ’ v7rvov olkovciv Ttuv Xeyopcvtuv Sta to 7rapaSo£ov tov trvp/ 3 aivovTOS, 7ras tis c£ aXXrp ; opp.rj<; i/3oa 7rpoayetv tov KrjpvKa Kat tov aaX- ttlkttjv eis petrov to crTaStov Kat Xcyetv 7raXtv V7rcp TtUV aVTCOV, (US pev epot SoKCl, fiovXo- pevtuv Ttuv olvO p;crapcvos Sta tov traX7rtKTOv tov Oopvfi ov, dvrjyopevcre TavTa Kat axravrcus tois 7 rpoaOev, ttjXlkovtov avve/3r] KarappayrjvaL tov Kporov tutrre Kat pr; paSttus av v7ro T7;v cvvotav ayayetv tois vvv olkovovctl to yeyovos* y tus Sc 7totc KareXrj^cv 6 Kporo s, Ttuv pev dOXrj- tg> v a7rAa)5 ovOcls ovoeva Aoyov €t^€V cri. / rrj (TaX 7 rtyyi Sc tritu 7 n;s ets a7ravTas StaSo^ct- tn;s 7 rpoeXOcov ets peVovo xrjpvt; dvet 7 rev, g oTi 'Ptupattuv 17 (Tiry- kXyjtos Kai Titos Kotv- \ » Ttos (TTpaT7/yos V7ra- tos, KaroLTroXep.rjo’av- tcs /^acrtXea tXt7T7rov Kat MaKcScvas, a(fnd- povpr)Tov<; Kal cXcv^cpovs Kat aefiopo- Xoyr;Tovs, vopots x/ 30 ^ pevovs Tots 7raTptots, Koptv^tovs, AoKpovs, 4>tuKcts, Ev/3ocas, ’Axatovs 0 t(UTas, Mayvr;Tas, ©CTTaXovs, IIeppai/3ovs. to pev ovv 7rptuTOV ov 7ravv 7ravTCS ovSc cra- t^>(us &rr)K.ov(Tav, aXX’ avtupaXos Kat Oopv- /3(uS?;S KLVYj(TL% r/v cv (TT aSttu ^avpa^ovTtuv Kat Sia7rvv#avopcv(vv Kat 7raXtv dvet7rcTv KeXevovTtuv' i tus S’ av^ts ^(rvxtas yevopevr;? avayaytuv o Krjpv$ TTjV <}>i0vr)v 7 rpo- OvpLOTCpov ets a7ravTas eyeycuvct Kai Sti;X^e to K?; pvypa, Kpavyrj pev a7rt(TTOs to pcye#os Sta ^apav c^tupet pex/ 01 OaXaTTYjs, k opOov Sc aveto-TT/KCt to OiaTpov, j ovocts de Xoyos ^v Ttuv ay(uvi£opcv(uv. plutarch’s method of dealing with his sources 15 The comparative compactness and vigor of the later narrative appear at a glance. Upon closer examination, however, the differences are still more striking. Clause a in Polybius is purely transitional, and consequently is omitted in the parallel account. In b the changes are verbal and in the direction of brevity. Clause c is pure exaggeration and rhetorical flourish, and is omitted entirely in the biographer. Clause cl is prolix and hopelessly retards the movement; accordingly, Plutarch has entirely rewritten it in a form which preserves all the essential ideas and does not interrupt the flow of the story. Verbal changes occur in e, aOpoLcrOevros being replaced by /caOrjaro , and avOpcoircov Oecopevcov and yvpvucov being added; but the result is a living picture, while the original was colorless. In / the words of the original are kept for the most part, though their order and grammatical forms are changed; avelirev replaces the longer periphrasis in Polybius. The proclamation itself (<7) is practically identical in both accounts. In h to TrpoiTov replaces iv appals', the lively and vivid phrase avcopaXos /cal 0 opv/ 3 cb 8 r]s Kivrjai the commonplace /cporov . . . . 7 evopevov; the single participle davpa&vrcov, the whole essence of to Se ... . avpfiaLVOVTOs; and nraXiv avenrelv /ceXevovrcov , the tedious 7 ras .... avrcov, which runs into &)? . . . . avayopevo- pevcov —a sprawling parenthesis which Plutarch wisely omits entirely, together with rives Be .... e/ 3 ovXovro above. In i Polybius makes an otiose repetition of the formula used in /, for which Plutarch simply substitutes avQis rjavxLas 7 evopevr)?; avayaycov .... 'jrpoOvporepov is an amplification of avrjyopevae . . . . 7 rpoaOev; Kpavyrj replaces /cporov ; amaro^ to peyeOos, the labored coo-re .... yeyovos; and the ovveftr] KarappayrjvaL of Polybius ; while Bia %apav , and especially p&xpi OaXam 7?, are points of life and interest that add in no small degree to the picture. Plutarch is alone responsible also for k —a realistic touch which entirely escaped the prosaic historian. Finally, in j the unnecessary cos . . . . /cporos clause is omitted, while aycovi^o- pevcov replaces aOXrjrcov, and the impersonal form of the verbal expression the personal. It thus appears that Plutarch has treated this passage with even more freedom than the previous one; yet the connection 16 PLUTARCH ON THE GREEK THEATER between them is shown by the ideas expressed, the general order of their arrangement, and the use of catchwords. Polybius abounds in repetitions and irrelevant and parenthetical remarks which seriously delay the recital. Plutarch has lopped off the unnecessary members, molded the remainder into a continuous whole, and added several details which make the scene a living reality, though they might have happened at any gathering at all similar and do not presuppose an eyewitness to suggest them to Plutarch. The most striking, and at the same time the most certain, instance in this category still remains to be discussed. Non posse suav., p. 1096 AB. tls x o P°S • • • • ovTios ev\ovTat. Plutarch was peculiarly fond of questions like this. One of his largest works, the Quaestiones conviviales, is entirely occu¬ pied with them. It is a priori probable, then, that he always kept a copy of the Problems within easy reach and had conned it many times. This circumstance, together with the fact that Aristotle is mentioned by name, argues against the use of an intermediate source. Yet the variations introduced are startling. A ia r l is represented by a simple rt, orav by av, a^vpaodcnaiv by a X v P a Ka Tacnce 8 dcrr)<; rj ai dp^r/arpai by r?}? op^rjarpa^ riov 1 Pal., Harleianus, and Ven. 2 read /coxa 0 ?, and the text has been suspected. Because of the Aristotelian original Wyttenbach suggested 6 x»po? . Reiske proposed 6 ^x°* and referred to Quaestt. conv ., p. 721B, where this word occurs in connection with . Plutarch has reversed the original, changing the subject and the point of view. Aaos refers to the audience instead of to the chorus, and rv^Aovrat, which is used not only of sight, but also of any of the senses, has reference to hearing. Thus “the people do not hear so well ” has replaced “ the chorus is not so easily understood.” Cf. SOPH., Oed. Rex, 371: tv<£Aos t<£ t’ ira rov re vovv ra t' og/aara el, and Hesychius : tvAos * riOfTai Kai avri rou /cuicfios. [Aristotle], Probl., XI, 25. SJ \ / V » A* Ota rt, orav a^upwoco- o’tv at opXfjcrTpaL, rjTTOV ot X°P 0i yeywvao'tv; plutaroh’s method of dealing with his sources 17 dearpcov, tjttov yey (bvacnv by ru^XoOrat, and ol %o/oot by 6 Xao?. There is not a single word of the original but has been omitted or altered either in form or construction. Yet nearly every word of Plutarch echoes something in the source—a thing well-nigh impossible if an intermediary had been used. Thus, whether it be supposed that Plutarch was quoting from memory or was purposely giving a paraphrase with Aristotle before him, the departures from the original and the echoes of it are equally instructive. b) Plutarch compared with himself. — Absolute certainty con¬ cerning Plutarch’s sources can in most cases never be attained. Consequently, the preceding section, though only the most un¬ doubted instances were there used, cannot be in itself conclu¬ sive. Therefore the comparison of Plutarch with himself proves of considerable value, for, though in one or two cases the diver¬ gences can be explained upon the basis of a different source, such a hypothesis becomes rapidly untenable with the multiplication of examples. A good parallel is afforded b De glor. Ath ., p. 348 F a 7rpos a (the theatrical equip¬ ment just mentioned and quot¬ ed on p. 34 , below) Ac ikuv avrjp aTrofiXeif/as ov kclkws elnev, b ok apapTavovaiv 'AOrjvcuoi peyaXa TY]V (TTTOvSrjV €19 T7)V 7TCuSiai/ K(XT- avaXicrKOvTes, C Tovrecrrt peyaXiov aTroaToXwv 8a- Travas Kat CTpaTevpaTaiv et^oSta Kara^oprjyovvT€rj o‘(i)poveLV ttjv ttoXlv /aera Tocr avrrjs pov< 2 v aTreXOeiv, d aXX’ alcrxyvopLevos tops TroXiras, el eva Tro)7rore r<2v inf avrov (f>o- vevo/ievcov rjXerjxios ct rl rots 'E/ca- xal ’AvSpop,a^s koikoTs 66rj(TeTaL 8axpvoiv. De Alex, fort., p. 334 A. a ’A Xe£av8pos 8’ 6 epatorv rvpavvo<; e (e8ei 8e tovto fiovov avrov xaXeiaOac xal fir) KaraKT^vveiv rrjv e7ra>vvp.iav) a Oewpevo s rpaywBov f epiraOearepov inf)’ fjBovrjs 81 ereOrj 7rpoS TOV OLKTOV. b ava.Trr)8r)crax eT0 tlmv cor¬ responds to Oclttov rj fidhrjv cnryet, and avaTrrjSgaa^ appears only in the second narrative. Clause c in the former report corre¬ sponds in function to the entirely different clause g of the latter, the diversity of conclusion being due to the different use which Plutarch made of the story in each case. In the first instance he is accentuating the tyrant’s cruelty in ordinary affairs by this account of his tender-heartedness in the presence of imaginary misfortunes, while in the second he is setting off Alexander the Great’s magnanimous treatment of artists of all sorts with the meanness shown them by Dionysius and other rulers. There is thus no need of assuming another source. It is not likely that either conclusion belonged to the original story, which probably contained no other details than that Alexander of Pherse left a certain theatrical performance because he did not wish his sub¬ jects to see him weeping. When other particulars were needed “ to point a moral or adorn a tale,” they were added according to circumstances . 1 In d alaxwopevo^ corresponds to hetvov elvat Aey cov, fjLrjSeva .... rjXerj/ca to t oaovrovs airocjfydTTwv, and ’ AvSpo/jLaxv^ to Tlo\v%evr)s. These changes are purely verbal, except the last, which seems to indicate that characteristically Plutarch sought to secure vividness by introducing into the story names of persons who figured directly or indirectly in the play, and chanced to select different persons each time . 2 c) Plutarch compared with another user of the same source .— As I have already stated, this is the least satisfactory method of investigating Plutarch’s use of his sources. Accordingly, I shall not waste time and space in securing results that could only confirm those more certainly obtained by other means. However, that this method leads to results which are in harmony with those reached in other ways will appear from a comparison of Demetr., 1 For an interesting account of how ancient authors remodeled stories to suit them¬ selves cf. Smith, American Journal of Philology , Vol. XXIII (1902), pp. 261II. and 361 If. 2 These examples perhaps suffice. However, An sent , p. 797D, and Praec. ger., p. 806A; De Alex, fort., p. 337 E, and An seni, p. 791 E; cf. p. 33 below; and De Alex, fort., p. 334 DEF, and Alex., 29, may also be profitably compared. 20 PLUTARCH ON THE GREEK THEATER 25, and Athen., 614 E, which are quoted together for another purpose on p. 49 below. d ) Plutarch compared with other evidence .—The three pre¬ ceding sections have given us an insight into Plutarch’s manner of dealing with his sources as regards form. They show that of the four possible courses suggested Plutarch at least did not follow the first; i. e., he did not preserve his originals literally. Because of our uncertainty regarding Plutarch’s sources for his theatrical references, this is as far as these methods will warrant us in going, and so we appeal to (d) to inform us which one of the last three courses the biographer pursued; viz., whether he retained the contemporaneous dress of the original, always brought the description into accordance with the facts of his own day regardless of historical accuracy, or did sometimes one, some¬ times the other. In other words, we shall now begin to consider his manner of dealing with his sources as regards substance. In Quaestt. conv ., p. 674D, Plutarch says that, when the stewards of the Pythian celebrations had added tragedy to the three contests established from the beginning (iirl rptal roZ? tcaOeaTOiaiv ef apxv**, avXrjrrj II vOucw /cal /ciOaptaTr) /cal /ccOapcpS «), they were unable to oppose the admission of all sorts of enter¬ tainment. Though the phrase which Plutarch uses for the first event (Iludt/co? avXrjTrjs) and its equivalent ( 7 TvOavXrj^) mean exactly the same thing in connection with this festival as the simpler term avXr]Tr)S, the two former did not come into use until imperial times, as Frei has shown. 1 In this small detail, there¬ fore, Plutarch has frankly adopted the terminology of his own time. Quaestt. conv., p. 724 A. Kat TO l SoKCO fXOL p,Vr)p.OVCVCLV €V TOtS ’AttikoTs aveyvionios cvay^os ort 7rpa>- tos ev ArjXo) ©rycreus aycoya 7rota)v aTrtairaac totvLKOs. . . . . Kat tov ©ryo'etus a vtov TrvvOd- vecrOcu (firjo'ovcnv, (Srtvt Aoyu) <£otvtKOs, ov Sdcfrvrjs ovB ’ eAatas, a.7re(nracr€v aywvoOeTiov. 1 De certaminibus thymelicis , pp. 60-62. Theseus, 21. TTOirjcraL 8e kclI aytoya <£ao"ty avTov (Theseus) £v Ar/Xu, Kat rot? vlkOhti Tore rrpwrov vP £kclvov cfjotvLKa Sodrj- vai. plutarch’s method of dealing with his sources 21 The passage from the Life and the first part of the quotation from the Moralia show that the source employed simply aydiva TTOieiv , and that aycovoderwv is due to Plutarch. In Plutarch’s time aycovoOerrp ? was the regular title given the directors of such fes¬ tivals. Consequently, inasmuch as Theseus was the mythical founder of the celebration, Plutarch thought it not too much to give him the title that was siding officer. Pericles , 9. iXaTTovptevos 8c (Pericles) ttXovto) Kail xprj/Aacriv, a<£’ wv ckcivos (Cimon) arcAap/Savc rovs 7revr]Ta<; 8ei7rvov re KaO’ rjfJLtpav rcu 8eopci/a> 7rape^a)V ’AOrjvaiiov Kal toi>s 7rpea/3vTepovcupiov, o7ra>s o7ra)pt£(ocriv oi (3ov\6fJLCVOL, TOVTOIS 6 HepLKXrjs KOLTCL- Srjpay(oyovpevos, TpcVcTai 7rpos rrjv twv $r)pocrL(ov Stavoprjv, avp/3ovXcv(rav- to? a vT(p AapuovtSov rov OlrjOev, dxs ’ApicrTOTcA^s IcrroprjKe. Kal ra^v Octo- ptKOLS Kal ScKaarLKols Xrjppaatv aXXais re ptcrOocfropa'is Kal xoprjytats paKTa rjv, 07ro)5 cerp to) /3ovXopevco Trjs 07rwpas a,7roAavctv. 7rpos 877 ravrrjv rrjv X°PV~ ytav C7TtAct7rop,cvos o Ilepi/cA^s rrj overta, crvpfiovXevcravTos avroj Aapco- VLOOV TOV (Jtrjuev .... C7TCI TOLS lOlOlS rjTTaTO, 8t8omt toTs 7ToAAois Ta avTwv, KareaKCvacre ptcOocfropa v toTs StKa- crraTs. On the strength of the first passage, it used to be stated in the handbooks that the theoric fund was established by Pericles (c/. Muller, Buhnenaltertliumer , p. 848), but the discovery of the Resp. Ath. has given us^the original passage which Plutarch was following (directly or indirectly) and the facts of the case, for Aristotle states explicitly (XXVIII, 3) that this fund was estab¬ lished by Cleophon. It is clear that Plutarch (or his intermediate source) has treated this passage in his accustomed manner, keeping many of the words of the original and the general substance of the thought, but working it all over so that the result is strictly his own. The only alteration worthy of mention is that he has 22 PLUTARCH ON THE GREEK THEATER amplified pucrOofyopav t ot? hucaarals into Oecopi/cois /cal Bi/cacm/cois \rip,pacrLV a\\ai<; re picrOo^opals /cal %oprjyiai ?. As these were the means nsed by Greek demagogues for centuries to ingratiate themselves with the people, he probably considered his expression a justifiable extension of Aristotle. Nevertheless, it constituted an anachronism. It is incomprehensible that he was really igno¬ rant of the author of the custom. 1 The cases of anachronism just adduced, 2 together with others which are considered later on, 3 suffice to prove that Plutarch was not in the habit of merely working over his originals, retaining the technical terms appropriate to the occasion. Although it might be reasonable on the strength of isolated instances to assume that some of these anachronisms were taken over by Plutarch along with the rest of his material, and are to be attributed to his source rather than to himself, yet the instances found in the field of scenic antiquities alone are too numerous and taken from sources too diverse to permit us to explain them all away by this hypothesis. Whether he modernized always or only occasionally will appear most clearly from a study of the “special” passages, where mod¬ ernization is least likely to occur. 1 The controversy over Plutarch’s use of the Resp. Ath. has caused me to consider these passages here rather than in (a) above. If we could be sure that Plutarch was quoting Aristotle directly here, we might assume that his memory had confused the names owing to their proximity in the source. Similarly, he assigns (Alcib ., 25) the murder of Phrynichus to Hermon, who is mentioned in another connection in the same chapter of Thucydides which contains an account of the murder (Thuc., VIII, 92). 2 The naive account in Solon , 29, differs from those mentioned above in that the anachronism was probably not intentional. We cannot expect Plutarch to have known that the first actor in tragedy was not introduced until after Solon’s death. Moreover, the care with which he explains that poets used to take rOles in their own plays indicates that he is striving for historical exactness. 3 Cf. pp. 24, 25, 26, 37, 38 (twice), 51 (twice), 52, 54, 56, 59, etc. THEATRICAL TERMS IN PLUTARCH. We are now in a position to examine the theatrical terms in Plutarch as they are divided into “general” and “specific” classes according to the principles above laid down. The investigation of theatrical terminology is, of course, no new subject. As early as 1870 Wieseler put the whole world of scenic investigators under obligation by his large collection of material in the Ersch-Gruber Encyclopadie, Vol. IV, pp. 159 ff. His classifications, however, are unacceptable today, because they are based largely upon the uncritical and unhistorical view of the Greek theater that prevailed until recent years. Since his day exhaustive treatises by Christ, 1 Muller, 2 and ReisclV have continued the work thus begun. No one can now labor in this field without incurring a constant indebted¬ ness to these scholars. Nevertheless, the very comprehensiveness of their articles and the natural concentration of their attention upon the earlier periods have left room for further investigation in the later writers. It is convenient to subdivide the material into sections corresponding to the different terms. A. Searpov* This is the only theatrical term about which substantial agree¬ ment has been reached. The primary meaning of the word was (1) “spectators” or “audience;” cf. Herod., VI, 21: e? Ba/cpva eirec re to Oerjrpov. The easiest transition from this meaning was to (2) “the space occupied by the audience,” i. e ., the cavea; cf. Xen., 1 Jahrbiicher fur classische Philologie, Vol. CXLIX (1894), pp. 27 ff. 2 Biihnenalterthiimer (1886) and Philologus, Supplementband VII (1899), pp. 3 £F. MUllee’s article, “Die neueren Arbeiten auf dem Gebiete des griech. Bfihnenwesens,” Philologus , Vol. VI (1892), pp. 1 ff., though not an exhaustive treatise on theatrical termi¬ nology like those cited in the text, contains much that has a bearing in this field. The same remark applies to Bodensteineb’s valuable “Bericht fiber das antike Btthnenwesen,” Bursiari's Jaliresbericht , Vol. XC (1896), pp. 1 ff. It is needless to add that Dfirpfeld’s exca¬ vations and his keenness in restoration and interpretation have also played a leading role in the critical study of the subject during the last quarter-century. 3 Zeitschrift fur die dsterreichischen Gymnasien, Vol. XXXVIII (1887), pp. 275 ff., and DObpfeld-Reisch, Das griechische Theater , pp. 283 ff. 4 Besides the authorities just cited, cf. Wilamowitz-MOllendoeff, Hermes , Vol. XXI (1886), pp. 602 ff. The limits of space and the scope of the present article prevent a full discussion in these introductory statements. 23 24 PLUTARCH ON THE GREEK THEATER Hell., VII, 4, 81: /careSlcotjav eh to pera%v rov fiovXevTTjpiov teal rod 777 ? 'Ecrrta? lepov kcll rov 7 rpos ravra 7 Tpoarjrcovro<; Oearpov, referring to Olympia, which never had a theater for scenic performances, so that here the cavea of the stadium is evidently meant. “The whole theater structure” (8) was the next meaning developed, this usage being common in inscriptions since the middle of the fourth century; cf. C. I. A., II, 573: tcara ra? avvOrj/cas ra? irepl to Oearpov. The meaning of a term is very easily transferred from place to that which is done in that place. Accordingly, the next significa¬ tion of Oearpov was (4) “theatrical performance” or “spectacle;” cf. schol. Arist., Vesp., 1291: e^yc^LGaro 6 K Xecov pytcen Selv Kcopcp- Sta? 67rl Oearpcov elaayecrOai (Rutherford). The last meaning was (5) “performance place;” cf. schol. Ran., 209: ov% opcovrai ev to) Oearpco ol Barpa^ot ovSe 6 ^opo'?, a\\’ eacoOev pupovvrat top? Barpa^ovs. a) “ General ” passages. —Most of these meanings are found in Plutarch. An excellent instance of (1) in a “general” passage is Quomodo adul., p. 63 A: coairep ol rpaycoSol %opo0 heovrai py rod Bypov Oecopovvros Imracovs d^y divas i%aivt)i aa\r)v enapag /cat 7repievey/ctov virorpopup u>vrj /cat flapeta Kara putepov crvvTeivtav /cat irapo^vvutv tov ?IX oy > ws ea/pa tf/pt/cjj /cat autitry KaTe\op.evov to OeaTpov, anopphf/ag to i/uanov /cat 7reptpp/j£ap.evos tov Xitu)vli)/cet/ eig tj\v yr)v means that he was standing in the orchestra and sank to the ground, was standing on the stage and fell to the orchestra, or simply collapsed upon the floor of the stage, must from the ambiguity of the language remain uncertain, though the first view seems most likely. Cf. also Timol., 10 and 38. 2 Plutarch’s source for Phocion , 19, was probably Duris; cf. Fricke, Defontibus Pint, et Nepotis in vita Phoc. (1883), pp. 22 f. BOSTON CHEST COLLEGE MB'&AWI NUT HILL, MA8& THEATRICAL TERMS IN PLUTARCH 27 autem senatorum sunt sedibus loca designata. In Roman writers of the late imperial period the term was used as meaning “stage;” cf. Isid., XVIII, 43: quipulpitus orchestra vocabcitur. The past tense contrasted with the present at the beginning of the sentence implies that Isidore is giving the usage of other times than his own. His statement is probably due to a misunderstanding. Nevertheless, the notion grew and became current in the Greek lexicographers of the Byzantine period. 1 a) The term occurs but twice in “general” passages. In Non posse suav ., p. 1096B, Plutarch cites Aristotle’s query as to the acoustic effect of chaff in the orchestra: rl hgirore rcov dearpcov av a%vpa rrjs op^arpa^ /caTaa/ceSdarjs rj %ow 6 Xao? t vcf)\ovTcu. Fortunately, the original form of the question is preserved, and Plutarch has altered it enough to make it certain that he would not have retained the word opxv crT P a without explanation, if it had acquired a different meaning since Aristotle’s day; cf. pp. 16 f., above. The only safe inference, then, is that its fourth-century meaning was still current. Elsewhere ( Quaestt. conv., p. 711B) a sophist is asked what form of entertainment (cue pod par a) he considers most appropriate for a symposium, and advises: raWa ptev iirl tt)V OvpteXrjv /cal rqv op^garpav i^eXavvetv, elcrdqetv 8e ... . tow iXacfrpoTaTovs (of Plato’s dramatic dialogues). N/cpoapara was a general term for all sorts of musical entertainment, some of which were undoubtedly orchestral, so that this passage need not imply a change of application in the term under consideration. But before it can be determined what forms of amusement are included under each word, and whether each term refers to a different part of the theater or both to a single part, the mean¬ ings and development of the word OvfieXr) must be considered; cf. pp. 28 fif., below. b) The sole instance of op^rfcrTpa in “specific” passages is Marcell ., 21, where Epaminondas is said to have called the 1 Mt)L,i,ER , s citations (Philologus, Spbd. VII, pp. 81-86) to prove that the usage came in earlier will not bear examination. Dio Cassius, LXII, 29 (cf. p. 59, n. 1, below), and LXIII, 22, are both fragments preserved in the epitome of Xiphilinus, who is known to have been careless. Schol. Aristoph., Equity 508, merely echoes the statements found in Tzetzes and others, and is evidently late, while the meaning of Ausonius, prolog. Lud. Sept. Sapient ., 3, is entirely too uncertain to admit of confident citation. It thus becomes unnecessary to decide whether the encroachment of the Roman stage on the orchestra or the transference of orchestral performances to the stage was the cause of this development in meaning. 28 PLUTARCH ON THE GREEK THEATER Boeotian plain the “orchestra of war” (to Bolcqtlov nreSiov V Apew? opxv aT P av )• [Pint.] Reg. et imp. apophih ., p. 193 E, which repeats the apophthegm and explains the figure as due to the country’s being “flat and spread out” (virriav real dvaTre'map.evqv), shows that Plutarch has preserved the original form of the state¬ ment. The metaphor itself and the adjectives used to explain it are best understood in case op^r/arpa had its original meaning, while the fact that Plutarch retains the term in this sense with¬ out elucidation shows that this usage had not yet become obsolete and that the meaning “stage” had not yet arisen. C. ©u/li eXr). 1 ®vpteXrj is probably to be derived from Oveiv , 2 originally meant “altar,” and was naturally applied to the altar in the center of the orchestra; cf. Eurip., Supply 63: eptoXov he^iirvpovs decov OvpteXas. The irpeo-ftvToho/coi OvpbeXat of iEsch., Suppl., 669, must also be taken to mean “altar,” but not necessarily that in the theater. Now, as the orchestra and its functions centered about the 6vpLeXrj , it was natural that this term should soon come to include the whole “orchestra” ( 2 ) (as it did the whole # 0 X 09 at Epidaurus; cf. Ephem. Arch., Yol. X [1892,] p. 69, 11. 106 and 143); cf. Pratinas apucl Athen., p. 617 C: tA i/ftpi? eptoXev iirl A to- vvaidha TroXvirdrcvya 6vpeXav; Furthermore, as any name given to the altar would necessarily include the foundation, steps, or underlying platform of it, in process of time these parts singly acquired this name even in opposition to the altar itself; cf. the Delian inscription in Bull. Cor. Hel., Vol. XIY (1890), p. 397: rrjv 6vg,eXr}v rov fioopLov. No further development was then needed to permit the use of 6vp.eXr) as a designation for any “platform” (3) ; cf. Plut., Alex., 67: avrov ptev ovv (Alexander) lttttol a^eSrjv i/coptt^ov o/ctcq ptera rcov eratpcov virep dvpLeXip > ev vfyrfXcp /cal nrepicfravei rrXaiaup 7re7T7iyvLa <;—a result toward which the popular association of 1 Besides the authorities already cited, cf. also Robert, Hermes , Vol. XXXII (1897), pp. 438 ff.; Frei, De cert, thym ., pp. 6 f.; and the consequent debate on the subject between Bethe and DOrpfeld, Hermes , Vol. XXXVI (1901), pp. 597 ff., and Vol. XXXVII (1902), pp. 24911. and 483 ff. 2 Though some would connect it with nOevai. The uncertainty was shared by ancient authorities; cf. Cramer, Anecd. Oxon., Vol. II, p. 449: Ov ^ eKat , oi f 3 ( i)fxoi ano rod OveaOau ij TiOeaOai ; Etymol. Gud., p. 226, 44; aud schol. Lucian, De saltat., 76 (Vol. V, p. 327, Lehmann). THEATRICAL TERMS IN PLUTARCH 29 dv/jLeXr] with OvpheXiov would largely contribute. As already noted, one of the easiest lines of development is from the meaning of place to that which is done in that place. Accordingly, OvpteXr] came to mean also (4) “orchestral or thymelic performance;” cf. the epitaph by Hedylus of the third century B. C., preserved in Athen., p. 176C: <^tovto^> 0eW 6 /jlovclvXos vi r’ i^piov 6 yXv/cv<; ol/cel avXr)Trjs, /jLl/jlcdv f) V Ov/jLeXycn Xapts, where the combination of p>ijicov with 6vpLeXrj(Ti shows that the latter has the meaning just suggested. 1 In the Roman theater, where the orchestral space was occupied by spectators and every kind of performance was pre¬ sented upon the stage, OvpLeXrj naturally came to mean “stage” (5). The same thing occurred in Asia Minor, where most of the thy¬ melic performances had been elevated above the level of the orchestra; cf. Artemid. of Ephesus, Onirocr ., II, 3, p. 84: y vvauceta 8e eadr /? ayapLots /zoVot? avpicpepec /cal Tot? eirl OvpbeXrjv ava- fiaivovcriV) the last phrase of which is explained by what immedi¬ ately follows: ol 8e 8ia to ev rg viro/cplaet eOos pteyaXas ipyacrta? /cal puaOovs Xrjy\rovTai. I find no evidence that the term was ever so used on the mainland of Greece. a) The study of Plutarch’s usage is best begun with Quaestt. conv ., p. 621 B : /coa pucorarov 8e ptot 8o/cel tolovtos cop (such a magister bibendi as has just been described) to avparoatov hta- /fivXdfjetv rjpiiv /cal pbrj 7rept6\Jrea6aL vvv piev hc/cXr\(Jiav STjpLO/cparucrjv vvv 8e cr^oXrjv cto^lcttov yevopLevr]v avOts Se /cv^evrrjpiov^elrd n rov a/crjvrjv /cal dvpLeXr]V. rj yap ov% opare too? ptev SrjpLaycoyovvTa' > /cal Suca^opie- vovs irapa Sehrvov, too? 8e pLeXertovras /cal dvaytyvaia/covTa^ avrwv Tuva avyypapLpLara, too? 8e piipLois /cal op^rjcrral^ aycovoOerodvras; The items in the first sentence balance very well with those in the second; to i/c/cX^atav correspond hrjptayooyovvTas and huca^opievovs ; to a^oXrjv ao(f)L(7TOv , pLeXercovras and dvaytyva/a/covTa^) to a/crjvgv, pbipLois; and to OvpteXrjv, op^rjcrraU. 2 Only /cv(3evrr)pLov is without amplification, and it was too plain to need it. This passage alone, then, would inform us that there was a contrast between the o-/cr)vrj 1 So far as I am aware, this meaning has never been recognized in the handbooks. 2MeAeraw is used of the school also in De poet, and,., p. 35 F, quoted on p. 34, below, and the same contrast between o-jojvjj and 0 u/ue'Ai 7 , and mimes and dancing occurs also in C. I. G ., 6750: 8o£av (ftaivaeacrav evl tricr)vaL elra Xopolai 7roAAd/cis ev 0VjU.eAa.is. 30 PLUTARCH ON THE GREEK THEATER and the 0itpeXrj, and that mimes belonged to the former and dancing to the latter; in other words, that OvpeXy still meant “orchestra.” We are now in a position to examine Quaestt. conv ., p. 711B, which was held in abeyance from p. 27). It will be remembered that a sophist had been asked what form of enter¬ tainment ( a/cpodfxara ) he considered most appropriate for a symposium, and advised: raXXa pev errrl rrjv OvpeXyv kcl'l rrjv opxv ar P av i^eXavvetv, elo-dyetv Se (the lightest of Plato’s dramatic dialogues). In the seventh Quaestio a visiting Stoic philosopher had enlarged upon the implied criticism in Plat., Sympos., 176E, of those who were unable to engage in edifying conversation at symposiums and had to resort to the use of flute-girls for enter¬ tainment. At the beginning of the eighth Quaestio Plutarch demanded of the sophist what form of entertainment he could commend, and received the answer quoted above. In the remainder of the Quaestio different speakers examine the suitability of various a/cpodpara. They reject tragedy, mimes, old comedy, and the Pyladean dance, and accept new comedy, the Bathyllean dance (out of respect for Xen., Sympos., II, 16), and the use of the cithara and flute. Now, d/cpodpara is a term as broad as povaacoi ” and included both scenic and thymelic performances. 2 Which of these did the sophist have in mind when he used raXXa ? Evi¬ dently the flute (the subject of debate in the preceding Quaestio), and probably only such other amusements as were in common use for that purpose; for the following discussion was theoretical, and few of the items there mentioned would have occurred to him in advance under the circumstances. Now, the most usual items included under dfcpodpara (c/. Wyttenbacli, Index Plut., s. v.) and the most common accompaniments of a symposium were aulodes, auletes, citharodes, citharists, etc.— i. e., thymelic per¬ formances—and the sophist need not have meant any other than these by raXXa. If this interpretation is correct, dvpeXrj and opxycrrpa mean the same thing and are here an example of 1 Cf. Quaestt. conv., pp. 674 E and 675 C, where both names are given to the same items. * Cf. C. I. G., 2820 : ev re toIs Kai ctktjvucois a-ywaiv ra npuiTevovra eu 777 ’Acri'aa/cpoap.ara avTT)i> npcorcos ayayovcav. THEATRICAL TEEMS IN PLUTARCH 31 Plutarch’s fondness for doublets, from which either term could be omitted without loss of sense. 1 In thorough accord with this interpretation is De Pyth. orac ., p. 405 D: /cal ov/c a^tovgev, y Oe&v ayyeXoi /cal /cypv/ces etVt, Xoyuccos e/caara /cal aacfrm (God in making known his will) (f>pd£eiv ryv 8e rys TLv0(a<; (frcovyv /cal ScaXe/crov wairep . e/c OvgeXys, ov/c avybwTOV ovSe Xtryv aXX' iv gejpco /cal oyrco) /cal irXdcr gan /cal pieracf>opals ovogarcov /cal geP avXov cfiOeyyogevyv irapeyeiv a^covgev. The use of hid\e/cTov and geP avXov seems to indicate clearly enough that the chorus, and consequently the orchestra, is referred to in the simile. Bernardakis’s conjecture (yopevTwv) to fill the lacuna of eight letters found in two Parisian manuscripts, if accepted, points in the same direction. The term is found twice more in “general” passages, which are best explained by reference to other instances, though they are not specific enough to yield a sure interpretation in them¬ selves; cf. De cup. divit ., p. 527 F: tC Xeyet?, d^eXrep\ o? ry$ 71 wai/cos ocf)€L\a>v 1 rapeXeiv ryv Troptfcvpav /cal tov /coo-gov, iva iravcry- rac rpvcfrwara /cal £ evogavovaa , Tyv ol/clav iraXiv /caXXa)7TL^6i<; a>? Oearpov y OvgeXyv rot? elatovai ; Elsewhere Plutarch says that the poor need not be ashamed to plead their poverty as an excuse for their inability to vie with the rich at public functions. He con¬ tinues ( Praec . ger., p. 822F): Sel Sy gaXurTa /cparelv eavrwv bv toZ? tolovtols /cal gyp els 7 rehla /carafiaiveiv 7 re^ov lirirevcn gayov- gevov gyp birl crrahia /cal OvgeXas /cal Tpaire^as 7 revyra ttXovctlov ? virep So^ys /cal SvvaaTeias Biaycovi&gevov. As stated, these passages are ambiguous, but probably refer to the orchestra and its splendid performances. An excellent instance of meaning (4) is afforded by Galba , 14: /cal tcl gev irpdira Trpocfrdoreis eyeiv tcl Nepcovos by/cXygaTa • vvv 8e TaXftav irpobihovai , riva (f)6vov gyrpos by/caXovvTas y cr(f)a9 67 rl cncyvys to fiapos viro/cpivoivTO /cal tov oy/cov tov avhpos —a characterization very suitable to the theatrical Demet¬ rius. Now, in all these passages except the first, though perhaps 1 Cf. Kaibel, Pauly-Wissowa Real-Encycls.v. Alexis: “Die Anecdote, Philemon und Alexis habe der Tod ftberrascht enl rfjs o-ktjvt}? dyto^i^ojuevoi/s Kal 7 rovrjTal .... /cal a/cevas /cal Trpoawirela /cal /3(opovs /cal prjxuvas arro a/crjvr}s Trepia/CTOvs /cal Tpiirohas emvacCovs /copti^ovTes * Tpayucol S’ avTols vnro/cpiTal . . . . avvLTCocrav .... a/cevwv Se /cal TrpoacoTrcov /cal %vctt(8cov aXovpycov /cal pLTjxavtov curb a/crjvgs /cal X°P°iroicov /cal Sopvcfropcov hvairpaypa- t 6 l»to? Xaos /cal x°P r )l^ a 7 roXvTeXrjs 'jrapaa/ceva^eaOco. “Scenic appli¬ ances” is all that the Greek demands here, and that is a colorless expression. These instances, then, are worthy successors of their prototypes in Aristotle. O l cnrb tt)s a/cr]vrj ? and OvpeXt/cot, 2 how- 1 As Libanius is not accessible to me, I am indebted to Nauck, Trag. Graec. Fragm ., (2d ed.), p. 200 for the reference and text. 2 It is noteworthy that o-ktjvuco? occurs but twice in Plutarch: once in an untheatrical sense, Otho, 6, and once in the spurious treatise, De musica, 31. The figurative use of ctuo-ktji'o? in De aud. poet., p. 27 F, is not noted in the dictionaries. It is used of Euripides, who is dubbed Sophocles’s “ tent-mate ” with reference to their professional fellowship as poets. THEATRICAL TERMS IN PLUTARCH 35 ever, have taken on a mutually inclusive meaning entirely foreign to fourth-century usage. In An seni Plutarch rebukes the men of his day for retiring from public life earlier than did not only the generals and statesmen of antiquity, but also the poets and actors. As examples of the latter class he cites Simonides, who won a dithyrambic triumph in his eightieth year; Sophocles, who com¬ posed the Oedipus Coloneus just before his death; Philemon and Alexis, who kept up their interest in their work till death actually came upon them; and Polus, who performed a notable feat of acting in his seventieth year. He continues, p. 785 C: ap ’ ovv ov/c aia^pov ean r (ov euro crrcTjvrjS yepovrcov tovs euro rov firjpaTOS cvyevvecrrepovs /cal tcov iepwv aXr]6d)<; b^LarapLevovs aydivcov curorCOeaQai to rroXirucov irpoacoirov , ov/c olS 9 oiroiov avTipberaXapu^dvovra ^; The “theatrical folk” whom Plutarch had just been discussing included tragic and comic poets, an actor, and (notably) a dithyrambic poet. Such a breadth of application would have been impossible in the fourth century. The statements that are made about Sulla’s boon companions, when put together, also produce interesting results. Sulla, 36: avvr/v (Sulla) ptiptOLS ywat^l ical /ciOapiarpiav; /cal dvpteXi- /cot? avOpdoiroi ? .... ovtol yap oi Tore Trap' avrco Swaptevot pteytarov rjaav , "Poocr/ao? o /ccopLcpSos /cal 6 dp^ipbipLOS /cal M Tjrpojdio^ 6 Xvatwhos. We are surprised to find a /ccopiwhos and an ap^tpupo^ classified under the generic term 6v/.leXt/coi. That the lysiode Metrobius should be so designated is, of course, in accord with the traditional meaning, but with this compare ibid., 2: M rjrpo^iov Se tcov euro a/cT)vr)s tlvos ipcov StereXeaev en veos wv. Again, in the same chapter Plutarch says: ware .... eirel /cvptos drrdvrwv (Sulla) Karearr], aw ay ay ovt a rwv euro G/cr\vr\s /cal Oearpov r ovs trapeordrov ? oarjpLe'paL 7 Tiveiv /cal SLaTrXrj/crt^eaOaL rot? a/cd>pip.aaL .... ware papua/bois /cal bp^rjarai^ TiOaaos elvai. Surely no clearer proof that these expressions were interchangeable, and that each included all the particulars of the others, could well be asked for. Therefore OvpLeXucos is equivalent to fiovai/coq. 1 It is now necessary to inquire the reason for the amalgamation of meanings in the case of OvpLeXucos and g/ctjvuco ?, and their equiva- 1 Cf. Josephus, Antiq. Iud., XV, 8: rots ev rfi novaticrj fiiayryi'o/xeVois ical 6vfj.e\ucoli Ka\ov- fjievo is. For the fact that hovacovLOv /caraaraOePTO ? ayopapopov, ra re aXXa rrj ? ap'xfis eirepeXelro {Cato Minor) /cal ra? 6 eas Buehrep iv tw dearpco, BiBoi/s /cal roh OvpieXucoh GTefyavovs pep ov xpvo-ovs, aXX’ cocnrep ev 'OXvpLrria, /cotlpcop . ... ip Be to) erepcp Oearpco K.ovpicop 6 Qacopiov avvdp%(ov e^opgyei 7 roXt/TeXco?* aXX’ i/celvov arToXeirropre 9 ol apOpco- 7 tol pLerefiaiVov ipravda /cal avveiraL^ov 7 rpoOvpcos vrro/cpipopepcp to ) <$>a(DVL(p top IBlcottjp /cal rip Y^arcopi top ay cop 06 err] p. From the lack of details the precise meaning of OvpeXucos here must, as Frei {op. cit., p. 9, n. 9) says, be left in uncertainty. One thing, how¬ ever, is clear—in a “specific” passage Plutarch has transferred the language of contemporaneous Greek customs to a Roman cele¬ bration to which they bore little relation. D. 'L/cr)prj. X /crjprj is etymologically connected with a/aa , ct/coto?, and a/cipop , and originally meant “booth” or “hut” for temporary use, without regard to the materials employed. The word does not occur in Homer, Hesiod, and the Homeric Hymns where /cXiaia is used in its stead; but when the tragedians treated Homeric subjects, they uniformly replaced the Homeric term with a/crjpy. In Soph., Ajax, 1407, where the poet for “local color” retained /cXiaia , the scholiast wrote G/crjprj as its equivalent. ZEschylus was the first extant writer to use g/ctjptj. The most frequent application of THEATRICAL TERMS IN PLUTARCH 39 the term was to military quarters—a use which persisted through¬ out Greek literature. But, of course, this application was not the only one. In the earliest dramatic performances, which were entirely choral, when no change of costume was necessary and the audience sat on all sides of the dancing-place, the members of the chorus came already dressed from their homes or neighboring houses. But when the development of the choral parts or the addition of an actor demanded a change of costume, a temporary booth was erected near the dancing-place for this purpose. A great step in advance was taken when the happy thought came, whether to Aeschylus himself or a contemporary, of bringing this booth still nearer the chorus and considering it the temporary * abode of the actor. 1 In the representation of camp scenes in the extant drama the dressing-room was so used, and its presence is often alluded to; cf. Soph., Ajax , 3 and 218; Eurip., Hec., 53, 99, and 733; Ion , 806 and 982; Troad ., 139 and 176; Iph. Aul., 12; etc. So long as Gtcrjvai was a correct untechnical designation for the structures used as dressing-rooms, or whenever the dramatic situation involved huts or booths, we cannot assume that the usage had become technical, and in the passages just cited both condi¬ tions obtain. Not until the dressing-rooms were built too sub¬ stantially to be longer called a/crjvai untechnically, and not until they were still so designated in plays which did not depict camp scenes, did cncr)vr) become a purely technical theatrical term. So far as is now known, Aristophanes was the first to take this step; cf. Pac ., 730-31: cos duiOacn /GAicrra 7T€/0l Tas (TKTJVaS 7rA.€lCTT(H kAcTTTCU KV7TTOL^€LV KCU KaK07T0LCLV and Thesmoph ., 655-58: Xpr] .... irepiOpi^aL Trjv 7rvKva 7racrav /cat ras crKrjv as Kat ras StoSovs SiaOpyja-aL. In neither of these plays does the scenic location demand the presence of booths. In the second passage the mingling of the real and imaginary situation is noteworthy. The scene buildings and the parodoi are actually present; the Pnyx is only the imagi- 1 Cf. Wilamowitz-MOelendorff, Hermes, Vol. XXI (1886), pp. 597 ff., and Vol. XXXII (1897), pp. 382 ff. 40 PLUTARCH ON THE GREEK THEATER nary location of the scene. Hence it is clear that cr/ajvrj has at last attained a technical theatrical meaning, viz., “scene building” (1). This seems to have been the only meaning in the fifth century, and it persevered as long as the Greek theater. An interesting example of this meaning is Plato, Laws , p. 817 C. A band of strolling actors is thought of as making appli¬ cation to the rulers of the ideal state for permission to perform; reply is made to them as follows: w Srj Bo^qre paBtm ye ovtcos v/Jbcis 7TOT6 Trap ’ fjpciv iaaecv l Ta TvevTe /cal et/coat TaXavTa yv feuyet* tov Se irvpyov, wairep Tpayucys cncyvys tcov %v\(dv Trayos eyovTcov , /cal ehcocnv avBpcov ical !The manuscripts assign eighty-six fragments to Democrates, whom modern scholars have been unable to identify, and therefore accredit the fragments to Democritus. This particular one Diels, Fragmente der Vorsokratiker , p. 425, considers spurious. It needs to be interpreted in connection with Palladas, Anth. Pal., X, 72: ctktjvt} na s 6 |3tos nal ita.iyvt.ov, and Shakespeare’s words: “All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players,” etc. (As You Like It, II, 7, 139 ft'.). Shakespeare’s “world” is the actual earth upon which men and women have their exits and their entrances. The life which they live is the play on the boards — exactly the thought of 6 /3to? cr/cr^r), which is guarded against mis¬ apprehension by nalyviov. Democritus’s idea is similar, but not identical. According to his figure, the world (feoerpo?) is a spectacle, the only means of access (irapofio?) to which is human life. Each man at birth gains admittance, views the pageant, and takes his depar¬ ture. The interpretation is defined by eZSes, which must refer to a spectator, not an actor. 2 Cf. the similar use of Spa/xa in arg. Ill Soph., Oed. Col.: eiri t initio Ko\wvu> to Spapa Kelrai, 3 The difficulty of this passage has been recognized for sometime; cf. Wieseler, Ersch- Grubei Enc., p. 208, n. 32, and Reinach, Revue critique, Vol. XXVI (1892), p. 450. 42 PLUTARCH ON THE GREEK THEATER ottXcov, tovtcdv iyevero eXarrov rj Trevrercaiherca raXavra ercdaTW ^evyet to aydrytov. The interpretation of the passage in detail would pass beyond the limits of this paper, and I must content myself with a mere outline. Wieseler (op. oil ., pp. 208 f., nn. 32 and 38) saw a reference to the ptyyavr); Reisch (Griechisches Theater , p. 284, and Zeit. f. d. ost. Gym., Yol. XXXVIII, p. 276), to the uprights of the scene building; and Muller (Philologus, Spbd. VII, pp. 25 ff.),to the upper story ( Oherbilhne ) of the stage—all interpre¬ tations inconsistent with the history of a/crjvrj and hard to reconcile with the meaning of the whole phrase in most of the other pass¬ ages where it occurs. ^reyvrj used alone in the context would natu¬ rally have been thought to refer to the (jrcyvr) arpaTuoTucr)-, Tpayucr) simply makes plain the reference. With much the same purpose t i)? afcrjvrjs ri)? ev tw 6 ear pep appears in the Delian inscription for the year 282 B.C.(Bull. Cor.Hell.,Yol. XVIII [1894], p. 162). Of course, the same certainty of application might have been obtained by the use of rcco purer) instead of Tpayucrj, for the same building served either purpose. “Its timbers had the thickness of those of a booth, the one used at tragedies (and comedies) I mean.” 1 When we remember that most Greek buildings were made of sun-dried brick, stone, or marble, and very few entirely of wood, we shall not be surprised that in choosing some wooden structure with which to compare the tower Xenophon found nothing else with which he could assume that Greeks as a whole were so familiar as the scene building. In my opinion, then, the phrase here is simply an extension of the primary meaning of areyvr). The difficulties involved in the small weights mentioned are no greater upon this interpretation than otherwise, and, I think, can be satisfactorily cleared up; but this must be reserved for another occasion. From the secondary meaning of arerjvy these phrases were also equivalent to rpayepSca and rccopLwBia. This meaning is found as far back as [Plato] Clitopho , p. 407A: eyco yap, &> 2c o/epare^, aol crvyyiyvopLevos TroXXa/cis i^eTrXyrropyv arcovarv , rcat piou ihorceLS rrapa Toe? aAXoc? avOponrov^ rcdXXicrTa Xeyetv, oirore eTnripLcov toc? 1 Cf. De aud. poet., p. 35 D: 6 Tpa-yiKos "ASpaarot, and De esu earn., p. 998 E: ttjv iv rjj rpayu>SLa-Mep6m]v. Of course, rpayiKr/ may be a gloss that has supplanted Qtarpucq in the text of Xenophon, hut such a supposition is unnecessary. THEATRICAL TERMS IN PLUTARCH 43 avOpcoTTOis, (b<77T€p e7rl a/crjvr) 9 1 rpayucr /? # 60 ?, vptvets XeyCOV 7 TOi (frepearde, wvOpcoTroi , a;t\. In later times the phrase was unques¬ tionably understood of the ptrjxavr). The misinterpretation was doubtless due to passages like that just quoted, in which there is a reference to the dens ex machina. In fact, it may be traced back to this very passage in the Clitopho with great plausibility, for Timaeus, Plat Lex., s. v. rpayucrj atcr^vrj , gives the following definition: Trr/ypa pterecopov , eft ov iv Oewv atcevr) Ttves 7 raptovres eXeyov, and this mistaken explanation Photius, s. v. rpayucr/ quotes word for word. Arrian, Dissert. Epict., Ill, 22, 26, echoing the passage under consideration, is evidently thinking of the MX av V, but at least has the merit of retaining the correct text. It is thus apparent that rpayucrj a/cTjvr/ early had two meanings: (a) “a scene building for tragic contests,” and (6) “tragic per¬ formance.” These meanings are easily derived and lie close to one another. Moreover, it is easy to understand how the mean¬ ing prjxavij arose in later times. But on Muller’s supposition that it meant ptrfxavri, or Oberbiihne , from the first, it is incom¬ prehensible how the phrase came to mean TpaywSta in Demetr., 28 (quoted on p. 46 below)—the solitary instance in all Greek literature! As the front wall of the scene building was the most conspicuous part to the audience, and as there the scenery was either applied or attached, this front wall alone, or finally the scenery itself, came to be called (r/crjvrj (3). When Aristotle says (Poet, 4) that Sophocles introduced scenery, the term that he uses —aicrjvoypafyia —implies that this meaning of aKrjvr/ was already in vogue. This, too, is the common interpretation put upon the expressions al eTrdvco a/crjvaL, at kcltcd cr/crjvaL, etc., in the Delian inscription iThe critical apparatus at my disposal does not record this variant which is mentioned by Wieseler ( Ersch-Gruber , p. 209, n. 38) and MCller ( Philologus , Spbd. VII, p. 27). The accepted text reads /u.rjxai'Tjs. The correct reading, however, is preserved in the lemma in Timaeus, Lex. Plat, (which can refer to no other passage in Plato), and Photius, and by the passage in Arrian, which is based upon this one. Another reason for suspecting the usual reading is that enl rarely occurs, but generally an'o firixavris ; cf. Lucian, Philops ., 29; Aristides, I, pp. 47 and 78; II, p. 190, and schol. ad. loc.; Bekker’s Anecd., I, 208, 9; Alexis apud Athenaeus 326 C; and [Demosth.], XL, 59, or e/c cf. Lucian, Hermot ., 86, and seven examples in Heliodorus; cf. Walden, Harvard Studies , Vol. V (1894), p. 43. A parallel to the construction and meaning is found in Aristot., Poetics , XIII, 6, p. 1453a: C7TC TUJV (TK7JV0)V KOLL TU)V aytOVCOV, 44 PLUTARCH ON THE GREEK THEATER (Bull. Cor. Hel ., Yol. XVIII [1894], p. 168), though I am not myself fully convinced that this and several other points in con¬ nection with the Delos theater have yet been satisfactorily explained. We must understand similarly the cr/cavoOy/ca of the theater at Megalopolis (Excav. at Megal ., supplement to the Jour. Hel. Studies (1892), p. 140, XXVIII), though the circumstances there were exceptional. The usage appears frequently in the later literature; cf. Dion Cass., LXIII, 6; Pans., II, 7, 5, etc. The phrase ei rl (airo) ri)? a/cr]vr)<; has already been discussed in another connection (pp. 32 ff.), where it appeared that the expres¬ sion had a tendency to go over to the secondary meaning of o-Krjvr} and mean little more than “in a play.” Another development in another direction has still to be noted. Many a meaning of words and phrases is entirely due to association of ideas. Thus a word may in the beginning have a certain meaning (let us call this x). A new meaning (let us call this y) may come to be associated with the original one (so that the meaning is now x-\-y). The original meaning may then be lost sight of (so that the result is simply y). It was precisely such a course that was pursued by this phrase in one direction. As already stated (cf. p. 32), it originally meant “on the playhouse side” (x, to apply our illustration), and often may be roughly translated so. It is easy to see how the new meaning arose. For example, cf. schol. Eurip., Hippol., 171: €7rl t?)? a/cr]vrj<; Sei/cvvrcu (to i/c/cv/c\r)fia ) ra evBov TTparro/ieva: “The eccyclema shows ‘on the playhouse side’ what is done within.” In this case iirl rrjs < 77071 ^ 7 ? not only has its old meaning (x ); there is also involved a strong contrast between the inner part of the scene building and those parts which were seen by the audience. The first member of the contrast was expressed by evSov; the second member (at least when such a collocation of words occurred for the first time) was not clearly expressed at all, but was easily implied in iirl t fj? cncTjvi /?. When we try to give a definite expres¬ sion to this latter opposing part, we can think of nothing better than “performance-place” or “scene” (4). So in such a sentence e ?rl rf}? a/crfvrjs by unavoidable implication meant both “on the playhouse side and in the performance-place” (x-\-y). It remains for us to see how the meaning (x) faded. A good illustration THEATRICAL TERMS IN PLUTARCH 45 occurs in schol. Arist., Nub., 344: Br/Xov ovv on brroaa iv rot? avco XeXe/crai %opuca , ov/c iirl Tij? (T/crjvr /? 0 W 0 ? rov %OjOo0 eiprjrai , aAA’ e£: “It is evident that the choral parts were said while the chorus was not ‘on the playhouse side and in the performance-place’ \x-\ -?/], but standing outside . . . , for those that had not yet flown down could not be within the performance-place [ 2 /]”. It is plain that the meaning ( x ) has entirely disappeared, else ivro? r?}? cncrjvrj ? would mean “within the scene building.” 1 Once established, this new meaning spread rapidly and soon became common in many other combinations. This new development included within its scope the space occupied by both chorus and actors; cf. schol. ZEsch., Eumen., 35: 7 rap' oXiyov eprj/Jios rj a/cgvT] ylverai, ovre yap 6 %opo ? 7 rco Trapecrnv, r) Te le'peca elcrrfxOev eZ? rov vaov. The usage is especially common in the dramatic scholia, but is not infrequently found in Lucian and other late writers. Owing to the difference of structure in the Roman theater, where the place of both actors and chorus was a raised stage, a/cTjvrj acquired that meaning also (5); cf. Pollux, IV, 127. A dis¬ cussion of the many other meanings of cr/crjvr) is not needed for understanding Plutarch’s usage. a) Of meaning (1) Plutarch furnishes several examples. Quaestt. C07iv., p. 621C, has already been quoted and discussed on p. 29, above. Another instance is Galba, 16: ra? Be Bcopeas, a? N epcov eBco/ce toZ? 7 repl cncgvgv /cal 7 raXalarpav /crX. Ol Trepl a/crjvr/v is, of course, equivalent to ol hrl (arro) rrjs a/crivr)<;, 2 “general” examples of which—viz., An sent, p. 785 C, and Sulla, 2 (twice)—have already been quoted on p. 35, above. “General” instances of €7rl (ebro) tt}? a/crjvris —viz., Quaestt. conv., 709D; An seni, p. 785B, and 791E; De Alex, fort., p. 337E; Demetr., 41; Theseus, 16; Amator., p. 757 A; De poet, aud., p. 35 F, and De glor. Ath., p. 348EF—have been cited on pp. 33 f., above. The primary significance of rpayt/crj a/cgvrj appears in Quornodo 1 Cf. schol. EUKIP., Hippol ., 776: e£dyyeAo? 6 ra nenpayp.eva evdov tjjs t Kapurpta , /cal 7rapa/3a\ov to Ovpiov rov \6yov , p,7j \d6rjs rov puvOov cbcrrrep eis yr\v h^o/ceiXas /cal to hpapia rovpibv erepav eyov or/crjvrjv /cal htaOecnvA Sulla’s narrative had a location and theme at variance with what Lamprias had just been saying. Still another instance of this usage is Theseus, 29: elal pevroi Xoyoi nrepl yapicov ©T^o-eo)? /cal erepoi , rrjv a/crjvrjv hiairefyevyores. Plutarch has just been relating Theseus’s relations with Phaedra, which had been dramatically treated by Euripides and others. He adds that Theseus had had other matrimonial experiences which had escaped representation on the scene. Of meaning (5) I find no example in Plutarch. h) Of meaning (1), viz., “scene building,” there are several instances ; cf. Araius , 23: avros diro tt)? a/crjvr/^ et? f.iecrov nrpor/XOe; and Demeir., 34: birXois pev avvecfypa^e rrjv cr/crjvrjv. 1 A passage of some interest is Phocion , 5: /cal pievroi /cal avrov irore rov A>(o/cicovd acn 7r\r)povpLevov rov Oearpov irepirrareiv viro cr/crjvrjv avrov ovra irpb? eavrqy rrjv hiavotav. This has usually been taken as meaning that Phocion was walking up and down “behind the scenes ,” 2 and that is undoubtedly the customary meaning of the phrase; cf. p. 50, below. Now, vrro denotes (to paraphrase Professor Gildersleeve’s 1 These two passages are discussed at length on pp. 56 ff. below. 2 Cf. Langhokne’s and Clough’s translations, and MCller, Philologus, Spbd. VII, p. 15. THEATRICAL TERMS IN PLUTARCH 49 phrase concerning eVt) “characteristic infraposition.” Conse¬ quently it must usually be rendered “beneath,” but also some¬ times “behind;” cf. Herod., I, 12; VII, 61; and IX, 96. This latter meaning is the one here required, but a priori the phrase might mean either behind the scene building or behind its front wall. Now, at Athens there was a colonnade behind the scene building since the time of the Lycurgus theater (Dorpfeld, Griechisches Theater , p. 60). Since this seems a more natural place for Phocion to be engaged in collecting his thoughts than behind the scenes, I prefer this interpretation. The phrase has this meaning also in Athen., p. 591 A, who mentions a statue of Eros which was vtto rrjv p Tpv ia vtov 7 ropvrjv cruxfrpove- crrepav efvat rrjs e/cetvov n^veAo7r7^s. Phylarchus apud Athen., p. 614 E. iAoyeAcos 8 k yjv /cat /XpppTpLOS 6 IIoAt opKrjTrjs, cos cf)rj(TL v\apxos iv Tip k-KTp rwv 'Icrroptcuv, os ye Kat rrjv Avcnpayov avXpv KU)p.LKrjp * “aAA’ f] Trap' ipol iropvp (noffjpovko’Tepov Tps 7rap’ eKetVa) II^veAoTr^s £77.” It is likely that Phylarchus was Plutarch’s source in this place (c/. Haug, Quellen Plutarchs , p. 74), and consequently the minor divergences such as 7 rpoep^o/iev7]v for e^tovaav, must be due to the latter. It is curious, however, that the biographer omits the first remark of Demetrius which led to the whole controversy, since he is usually fond of such things. 1 Tpayucrj GKrjvr) is opposed to Koofu/cr) cr/crjvr), which evidently must refer to a building of some sort because it is itself compared to an avXrj. The adjectives are used not simply to show that o-rcpvr} has a theatrical rather than a 1 A significant fact for Wright’s third argument; cf. p. 11, n. 1. 50 PLUTARCH ON THE GREEK THEATER military meaning, as in the Cyropaedia passage (pp. 41 f., above), but to add point to the jest. It is, in the first place, termed /coopu/crj because of the comic names borne by Lysimachus’s friends; 1 it is then given the epithet rpayacrj as an antithesis to Demetrius’s jibe, and because of his pompous manner of conducting himself; cf. Demetr., 41 (p. 33, above), and because harlots never were given a role in tragedy. Muller ( Philologus, Spbd. VII, p. 16) and Reisch (Griechisches Theater, p. 288) see in these passages a reference to the decoration. But this interpretation gives these phrases meanings of which there are no other examples and which would stand quite apart from their significance elsewhere. Moreover, in that case we should expect, not ifyevcu (7 rpoep^eadai) e/c, but hiefyevai or i^ievai hid; cf. Galha, 1, on p. 47, above. Inasmuch as Lamia cannot even figuratively be said to have come from a or Oberbilhne (the meanings which Wieseler and Muller propose for the Cyropaedia passage; cf. p. 42, above), while she was, of course, continually coming from Demetrius’s quarters, of which “tragic” was a very appropriate epithet, it is reasonable to sup¬ pose that cncyvy has its primary meaning. We have already seen that these phrases had this meaning in Demetrius’s time, and, as Plutarch uses them without explanation, it must have been cur¬ rent usage in his day also. Of meaning (2) there happens to be no instance in “specific” passages. For (3) cf. Aratus, 15: 7 rporepov .... rov Alyvirnov iOavpa^e (Aratus) 7 rXovrov .... vvvl he vn to a/crjvyv ecopa/ccos iravra to i/cel rrpdypLara rpaywhiav ovra /cal (j/cr\voypa<\>iav 0 X 0 ? r/yuv 'irpocr- /cexG0p7)/cev —words which are put in the mouth of King Antigonus. As just stated, this phrase means either “behind the scene build¬ ing” or “behind its front wall.” The latter is evidently the meaning here employed and is the more common; cf. schol. Arist., Nub., 294; schol. Ran., 257;schol. Aesch.,_E7fraen.,47; and Lucian, Nero, 9. The phrase has a stereotyped meaning “behind the scenes,” and is often opposed to inri (tt)?) cncyvr}^, “before the scenes;” cf. Philost., Vit. Soph., I, 9, 1: oh eVt a/cyvr]<; re /cal vn to a/cyvrjs xprj 7 Tpdrretv. 1 The point of Demetrius’s remark lay in the fact that slaves, who usually had short names, played a prominent part in New Comedy; cf. Bergk, Griechische Literatur-Ge schichte, Vol. IV, p. 141 , n. 57, and Neil’s edition of Arist., Equit ., p. 6, n. 1. THEATRICAL TERMS IN PLUTARCH 51 Of (4) there are two examples. In Aet. Rom., p. 289 D, Plutarch cites Cluvius Rufus in explanation of the term histriones: $rjcrl yap (Cluvius) . . . . XoipcoBrj voaov iv'Fcbprj yevopevrjv (in 364B.C.) irav- Ta? op.aA* ^a\/cow ’A \e%av8pov ev IleXX?; /3ov\opevov TroirjcraL to irpocncrjvtov ov/c etaaev 6 cos Bta^)6epoi)VTa tcov vi To/cpiroov ttjv cfxovgv. This passage has called forth much ingenuity in the attempt to discover whether the ancients thought a background or a floor had the more effect upon a person’s voice. That they attributed influence to the latter, Puchstein, relying mostly upon [Aristot. ] Probl., XI, 25 1 The addition is mine. The sentence stands in a series of five questions, each of which, with this exception, is introduced by tL or fiia t i; manifestly they ought all to be alike. THEATRICAL TERMS IN PLUTARCH 53 (p. 16, above), has shown. That the influence also of the former was recognized, however, cannot be denied. Too little attention has been paid to the fact that the inquiries as to the effect of chaff in an orchestra and of a brass proscenium are cited as examples of the questions which interested Aristotle, Theophras¬ tus, Dicaearchus, and Hieronymus. Apparently the underlying principles were not known to everyone; these cases required more than the generally-known theories of sound. It is clear that the objection to a brass proscenium did not present itself to Alexan¬ der in advance, though he had the best of teachers, and had received instruction in this particular branch as well; cf. Alex., 7. That Puchstein can cite more passages on the effect of a floor than on the effect of a background is a simple matter; the latter was a commonplace, while the former was not. Furthermore, we do not know whether the ancients considered the architect’s objection valid. The upshot of the whole matter is that this pas¬ sage cannot be quoted as evidence one way or the other. Con¬ sequently, there is no reason for an interpretation inconsistent with the meaning for the term in Plutarch which we have already established. F. napoSo?. In the fifth century the passages leading along the scene building and into the orchestra were known as BloBol; cf. Arist., Thesm ., 658, on p. 39, above; or efooSoi ; cf. idem, Nub., 326; Av., 296, and fr. 388, 2 (Kock). Later they received the name nrap- oBor, cf. Aristot. Nth. Nic., IV, 6, p. 1123a and [Democritus] fr. 249 on p. 41, above, and this name alone persisted. In theaters of the Romanized (Asia Minor) type the old irapoBoc led to the stage (by means of ramps) as well as to the orchestra. The desig¬ nation was employed also of the entrances to the stage from the side wings. а) It so happens that there is no instance of this word in Plu¬ tarch in a “general” passage. The usage is, of course, not doubted; cf. Pollux, IV, 126. 1 б) Two examples of nrapoBos are found in “specific” passages; J The term is used of the opening chorus of a play in De glor. Ath., p. 348 E, and An sent, p.785 A. 54 PLUTARCH ON THE GREEK THEATER cf. Arciius , 23: €7rta-T?7cra? (Aratus) rat? irapohoi^ etcarepwOev tovs y A%cuov<>, which evidently has the old meaning of orchestral entrances. The other instance is Demetr ., 34: /carafids (Deme¬ trius), (ocnrep oi rpaywhoi, Sea tco v avco irapoBcov. Now, at avco irdpo- Boi implies at /carco 7 rapohot. The latter could only be the parodoi par excellence; i. e., the entrances to the orchestra. In that case the upper paradoi may conceivably have been (1) the ramps leading from the orchestra paradoi to the logeion (i. e. of the Romanized theater with a stage; cf. Puchstein, Griechische Buhne , pp. 80 and 96), (2) the central doors in the proscenium, or (3) side entrances to the stage from the parascenia (cf. Puchstein, ibid., p. 98). Inasmuch as the ramps were scarcely the entrances tear e^oxv v for the rpaycphol, and the central doors could hardly be called side entrances, I incline to the last interpretation. In other words, Demetrius came from the parascenium upon the logeion (which is mentioned, in the context; cf. p. 56), and spoke thence. The very contrast between “upper” and “lower” shows that the Plutarch had a transitional type of theater in mind, since in the old style of theater all the entrances to the place of action were “lower,” and in the Roman theater they were all “upper.” This interpretation accords with the Nero theater of Plutarch’s day, but not with the Lycurgus theater. We have, then, another case of anachronism. G. A oyeiov. Etymologically \oyeiov means “speaking-place,” and it seems during its whole history to have been the vox propria for the place occupied by the speakers in the public assemblies—a fact which clearly appears from Praec. ger., p. 823 B: haWa/cr^v . . . . Trapeywv kavrov ov puepov rjpepas pepos eVl rov yS^aro? 7) tov \ oyelov TroXiTevopevos. The good citizen must spend much of his time in the law courts and the public assemblies. Here any reference to the \oyelov as the actors’ place is, of course, out of the question. The sophist Phrynichus (p. 250, Rutherford’s ed.), whose carefulness would scarcely allow us to suppose him mis¬ taken concerning the usage of his own time, states that tragic and comic actors performed in the logeion: erv pevrou, evOa pev fccopwSol 1 THEATRICAL TERMS IN PLUTARCH 55 /cal rpaywSol aycovt^ovTai, Xoyeiov epels • ev6a Se ol avXijral /cal ol X°p°h opxrjcrTpav /cal pr) Ovpe'Xrjv. Additional information for the same general period is afforded by the words firjpa 6er/rpov which appear in an inscription on the highest of the steps leading to the Phsedrus stage of the theater at Athens (C. I. A., Ill, 239). The conclusion that this stage was the speaking-place of the actors and orators in the third or fourth century A. D.— i. e ., was the Xoyeiov —is inevitable. An inscription from Patara for the year 147 A. D. carries us back a century or more— C. 1. G., 4283: OveiXta .... Upo/cXa TlarapU aveOrj/cev /cal /caOiepooaev . . . . r rjv tov Xoyeiov icaTacricevrjv /cal TrXd/ccoaiv — words which can hardly be understood of any other meaning that has ever been proposed for Xoyeiov than “stage.” Moreover, Yitruvius, V, 7, 2, supplies similar testimony for the beginning of the imperial period: habent .... Graeci .... pulpitum , quod Xoyeiov appellant. 1 On the other hand, there is good reason for believing that at Athens from the earliest times the orchestra served as the place of the speaker in assemblies which were held in the theater. Thus, from Isocr., De pace , 82 (p. 26, above), and Aesch., Ctes ., 156, 176, and 230, it appears that crowning and other public business was done in the orchestra. The latest reference occurs in Athenaeus, who preserves the contemporaneous account by Posidonius of the rise of Athenion to a tyranny at Athens in 88 B. C.; cf. Athen., p. 213 E: ol o^Xoi awSpapovres ek to Oearpov eXXovro tov ’A Orjvicova Grparqyov iirl twv ottXcov . /cal nrapeXOoov 6 TrepnraTrjTL/cos els rrjv dpxrjGTpav .... evxupiGTrjae re rot? 'AOrjvaLOis /cal e(j)r] ktX. It thus seems that about the beginning of the Christian era the speakers in the Greek assemblies, when held in the theater, were transferred from the orchestra to a raised platform, which was known as Xoyeiov. A difficulty arises, however, from the fact that Xoyeiov appears upon Delian inscriptions long before this. Thus for the year 279 B. C. {Bull. Cor. Hel., Vol. XVIII [1894], p. 162) occurs: et? to \o[ 7 e]toy 2 tt)? G/crjvr/^ . . . pov Terpdir^^uv; J The term occurs also in the scholia to Arist., Ran., 181 and 297, and Equit., 149, the writers of which must have had this same (Romanized) type of theater in mind. 2 The restoration has been doubted by Reisch and others on the ground that there is not room at the beginning of the line for these letters; but Dbrpfeld accepts it; cf. Gr. Theat., pp. 148 and 302. Homolle gave the reading A[oye]iov in his first publication of the stone and [Aoyejiov in his second; cf. Bull. Cor. Hel., Vol. XIV (1890), p. 401, and Vol. XVIII 56 PLUTARCH ON THE GREEK THEATER and for 180 B. C. (ibid,, p. 165): [%vXov .... /carexpv^V «?] rrjv Karaa/cevgv tcov iriva/ccov tcov 67 rl to Xoyelov. The dilemma thus arising has so far baffled everyone. To suppose that the orators occupied a different place at Delos than at Athens is highly improbable. The only hypothesis consistent with the known facts is that the term suffered a change of meaning (so Reisch, Griechisches Theater, p. 302), but precisely what its earlier meaning was has not yet been made out. a) Besides the instance already quoted (p. 54), Xoyelov occurs but once in “general” passages; cf. Theseus, 16: e’TTucparrjo-avTe^ ol rpayacol iroXXrjv cnro rov Xoyelov /cal tt}? a/cr/vf}? aBo^lav avrov (Minos) /career/ceBeaav. The collocation of words is similar to that in Pliny, Ep., IV, 25: ludibria scaena et pulpito dignaj and it is fairly certain that Xoyelov here means “stage.” Though the statement is not “specific,” yet, inasmuch as in the immediate context Plutarch has twice quoted Euripides as to the nature of the Minotaur, and Minos is known to have been treated dramat¬ ically by Sophocles in the AcuSaXo? and in the EapucoL (identi¬ fied by some with the MtW?), and by Euripides in the K pgres, it is evident that Plutarch has the latter half of the fifth century in mind and has assumed the presence of a logeion in that period. Such an assumption, however, is highly improbable upon any theory of the term’s history. 1 b) Aoyelov occurs but once in a “specific” passage; cf. Demetr., 34: ov tg>? ovv t ?)? 7ro\e&)9 (Athens) e’^oucr?;? elcreXOcov 6 A gpgrpto^ /cal /ceXevaas et? to Oearpov aOpoiaOgvai lavras, oVXot? gev avve- (f)pa^e rgv a/cgvgv /cal Bopvcf)6pov > to Xoyelov nrepieXafiev, avros Be /carafias, cbcrrrep ol rpaycoBol , Bia tcov avco TrapoBcov , en paXXov e/c’rre'irXgy pievcov tcov *AOgvalcov rrjv apxf)v rov Xoyov Trepan erroigcraro rov Beovs avrcov. The plan here described was a favorite in antiquity and is often mentioned; cf. Aratus, 23: irrel Be aacfra- Xco? eBo/cei rravra e%etp, /care/3acvev et? to Oearpov airo r r)? a/cpas, (1894), p. 162. The text above is due to Mr. D. M. Robinson, who has recently examined the stone and will soon publish his readings in an article in the American Journal of Philology. He kindly allows me to announce that Ac appears at the end of the preceding line, and that consequently there is ample space for two letters (of which traces can be seen) at the begin¬ ning of the second line. There is thus no reason to suspect the restoration. !The fact that Aoyeiov and o-/ct/vjj do not occur in [Plat.] Minos , pp. 319B-321 A, to which Plutarch is at least ultimately indebted for the thought, lends color to the supposition that he has added these details from the theater of his day. THEATRICAL TERMS IN PLUTARCH 57 irXrjOovs arretpov avppeovros i'rriOvpLiq rrj<; re oyfrecos avrov /cal rcov \6ycov , oh epeWe % prjaOac n r/oo? tov? Y^opivdiovs* err Lcrrr) eras he rah rrapohots e/carepcodev row? * Agatovs avros cnro rrjs a/crjVTjs eh peaov rrporjXde , .... hte^rfxde \6yov , and also Pelop., 29; Polyb., XI, 27, 6; and Polyaen., Strateg ., VI, 10. Now, in the Demetrius passage it is apparent that o7rA , ot ? avvecfrpage rrjv a/crjvrjv /cal to Xoyetov nrepieXafiev is merely an amplification of the eTnarrjcras rah 7 rapohois e/carepcodev of the Aratus episode, while the refer¬ ence to the upper parodoi and the rpaycohoC shows that Xoyelov means “stage.” The guards, then, were stationed in front of the stage, along the parodoi, and about the front of the scene build¬ ing— a description which ignores the fact that the Athenian theater had other entrances to the auditorium than those leading to the orchestra. The manner of Demetrius’s appearance is mooted. He is said to have “come down through the upper parodoi like the tragic actors.” We have already (p. 54) seen reasons for believing that these ai avco rrapohoi were passages from the parascenia opening upon the logeion. Demetrius, then, came from the parascenium upon the logeion and spoke thence. The expression used of Aratus (tWo ria/crjvr ]? eh pecrov irporfxOe) is colorless, and might mean that he came from the scene building either upon the logeion or into the orchestra. It is reasonable, however, to explain the one passage by the other. But this whole interpretation is liable to one objection—the word /carafias. In theatrical usage this word is said to have meant a7ra\\aTTe- crdac. l This explanation must be considered doubtful, however; and, furthermore, we have here a case, not of exit, but of entrance. On the other hand, the literal meaning of the term is inapplicable, since the passing from the scene building to the logeion involved no difference in level. 2 To obviate this difficulty Muller ( Phi - lologus , Supplementband VII, pp. 52 f.) maintains that Deme¬ trius descended the flight of steps that led from the logeion to 1 Cf. schol. Akist., Equity 148. But see the comments thereon by White, “ The ‘ Stage ’ in Aristophanes,” Harvard Studies , Vol. II (1891), pp. 164 ff.; by Capps, “The Stage in the Greek Theater according to the Extant Dramas,” Transactions of the American Philological Association , Vol. XXII (1891), pp. 64 if.; and especially by Bodensteiner, “Szenische Fra- gen,” Jahrhucher fiir classische Philologie, Supplementband XIX (1893), p. 700. 2 This point is entirely overlooked by Robert in his discussion of the passage, Hermes, Vol. XXXII (1897), pp. 448 £E. 58 PLUTARCH ON THE GREEK THEATER the orchestra. Against this view several objections must be urged: (1) these steps were in no sense side entrances; (2) we have reason to believe that there was only one such flight, and therefore Plutarch would have used the singular ( 8ia t?}? avco wapdBov) rather than the plural; (3) in theaters which had a stage, that was the more natural place for speaking; and (4) the phrase cbairep ol t pavt ev rrj d/cpo7roAei ei? riv uplcnv Kari^r)aav iv ’Apeto> 7rdyo>. For other cases of careless transcription cf. Themist., 10, where it is said that in 480 B. C. the Athenians sailed eis tt)v vr/aov, meaning Salamis, though that does not appear from the context ; and Pericles , 13, where we are told the musical contests were held /cal Tore /cat to v a\\ov \povov in the Odeum of Pericles. Now, Frei (De cert, thym., p. 12) has shown that toward the close of the fourth century these contests were transferred to the Dionysian theater. Plu¬ tarch’s source here is Ephorus (cf. Fowler, Harvard Studies, Vol. XII [1901], pp. 212 f., who gives the bibliography), who must have written this portion of his history before the trans¬ fer was effected. THEATRICAL TERMS IN PLUTARCH 59 have passed through only one of the parodoi, we must suppose that the plural is either a pluralis maiestatis or is due to the plural rpaywSoi. Such I conceive to be the meaning of Plu¬ tarch’s words, 1 and it accords perfectly with all we know of the theater of his time. Is it also a picture of what actually hap¬ pened in the fourth century? The uncertainty concerning the history and meaning of Xoyeiov and concerning the fourth-century theater forbids a posi¬ tive answer. Muller (Philologies, Supplementband VII, p. 53) and Robert ( Hermes, Vol. XXXII [1897], p. 447) reply affirma¬ tively and cite this account to prove the existence of a stage in the Lycurgus theater, while Reisch ( Griechisches Theater , pp. 302 and 281), Dorpfeld (ibid., pp. 348 and 395), and Noack (Phi¬ lologies, Vol. LVIII [1899], pp. 20 ff.) explain it away. To any believer in the Dorpfeld theory the passage must seem anachron¬ istic. Of course, the fact that \oyelov occurs in inscriptions as early as 279 B. C. shows that it may have been current (with some meaning other than “stage”) at Athens a quarter of a cen¬ tury earlier, and so may possibly have been in Plutarch’s source. In that case he simply retained the word in a different sense and added the “upper parodoi” and the rest. In view of my study of Plutarch’s methods, however, and of his comparative fondness for using \oyeiov* I consider this supposition unnecessary. The case is strikingly like Theseus, 16 (cf. p. 56 and n. 1, above), where the preservation of the source clearly shows the operation of the modernizing process. 1 1 know of but one other case of this verb’s being used in such a context; cf. Dio Cass., LXII, 29 (Xiphilinus) : koU nore nal knl rr\v rov Qearpov opxn^P^v kv navSrina) rtvi 0ea Kark^T] (Nero) icai avkyvw Tpwoca nva kavrov noirjuaTa, where the epitomizing process has left both the place and the circumstances uncertain. Dion’s own account would, I think, be in harmony with the explanation given in the text. 2 Plutarch seems to use \oyelov more than any other Greek writer. CONCLUSION. From the preceding study it is clear that Plutarch modernized not only in vague and indefinite allusions to past events (i. e ., in “general” passages), where nearly everyone occasionally lapses, but that also in specific references to a particular event at a par¬ ticular time and place in the past (i. e ., in “specific” passages) there are not a few instances where he has translated the account into the terms of his own day, while in no case has he preserved an obsolete word or meaning (unexplained) for the sake of historical accuracy. The conclusion is irresistible that in theatrical matters it was his invariable habit to modernize. This rule is, of course, subject to obvious modifications; e. g ., when he professedly gives a piece of antiquarian information, he states the facts regardless of later usage, and follows his source more closely . 1 Thus, when he says that in the time of Pericles musical contests were held in the Odeum (Perm., 13; cf. p. 58, n. 2, above), his statement is at variance with the practice of his time. Again, he often uses an unfamiliar or obsolete word and adds an explanation of it (c/. his elucidation of heucr^XUra^ in Ages ., 21). Still again, he often retains vague and indefinite expressions which could be used with almost equal propriety of any type of theater (cf. the curb ttJ? (r/crjvrjs ek fjLeaov nrporfxOe of Aratus, 23, on p. 57, above), and sometimes did this without noticing that, if such a phrase were pressed, it would prove at variance with the theater of his day (cf. the acfrri/cev ek TTjv 7 r/v to acbfia of Marcellus , 20, in p. 26, n. 1, above). But after all due allowances have been made, the fact remains that, whenever theatrical terms and institutions are mentioned inci¬ dentally and without explanation, and are not themselves the subject of discussion, he always adapts his authorities to current usage. Ignorance of this rule has caused an improper use of many passages in Plutarch. Thus, Muller (Buhnenalterthumer , p. 74) cites Phoc ., 34, to prove that assemblies were held in the theater in the fourth century; Aratus , 53 (ibid., p. 403), to prove 1 Cf. the introduction to the Siefert-Blass edition of Pericles, p. 65. 60 CONCLUSION 61 that thymelic performers belonged to the avvohoi of Dionysian artists during the Hellenistic period; and Peric., 9 (ibid., p. 348), to prove that the theoric fund was established by Pericles (cf. pp. 21 f., above). Similarly, Haigh (Attic Theatre, p. 76, 2d ed.) uses Phoc., 31, to show that the agonothesia was instituted in 319 B. C. And again, Robert (Hermes, Vol. XXXII (1897), pp. 448 ff.) and Muller (Philologus, Supplementband VII, p. 52) employ Demetr., 34, to prove the existence of a stage in the Lycurgus theater at Athens. Some of these contentions are demonstrably wrong, others are undoubtedly correct. The point which I wish to make is that conclusions concerning theatrical matters cannot thus be drawn from Plutarch’s incidental allusions to the customs and institutions of preceding periods. On the other hand, recog¬ nition of this rule will result in a qualification of the strictures that have often been passed upon the biographer. Plutarch had little confidence in the results attained in the field of chronology, and still less use for them. 1 His aim was not the discovery of the historical sequence of events so much as the portrayal of praiseworthy qualities. Consequently, the appositeness of a story to the character under consideration (cf. irpeirovra rep rjOet and con¬ text in Solon, 27) always seemed more important to him than the mere fact that the story was declared chronologically impossible. And in this it has remained for a modern historian 2 to vindicate his point of view and justify the place which he assigned to apocryphal anecdote. In addition to this, we find that he delib¬ erately sought vividness of presentation by modernizing his accounts and picturing his scenes amid the familiar surroundings of contemporaneous life. Thus, his temperament, purpose, and artistic sense combined to lead him from the straight path of historical exactness. The knowledge that this was conscious and intentional, and not due to ignorance, should do much to clear his reputation. 1 Cf. Wilamowitz-MOllendorff, Aristoteles und Athen, Vol. II, p. 290: “Plutarch ist ein stilistisch hervorragender, historisch urteilsloser, chronologisch unbekiimmerter Mann.” 2 Cf. Freeman, Historical Essays , Second Series, p. 276: “ He might even have gone on to say that an apocryphal anecdote often throws as much light on a man’s character as an authentic one; current stories about people are often, perhaps generally, exaggerated; but the peculiar qualities which are picked out for exaggeration are pretty sure to show what a man’s character really is.” 62 PLUTARCH ON THE GREEK THEATER It has already been said (p. 8 ) above, that in the “general” passages Plutarch must have had in mind one particular type of theater, and that, too, one which was as familiar to his readers as to himself; and that all information concerning it in such passages should be consistent with itself. Now, it results from Plutarch’s modernizing tendency that all this must be equally true of the “specific” passages as well. And that they are in perfect agreement with the “general” passages and with information furnished by other contemporaneous writers simi¬ larly situated has already appeared. In other words, all theatri¬ cal information in Plutarch refers to a single well-known type of theater. At this point it is well to recall what public Plutarch had in mind and with what theaters it was most familiar. The friends to whom he dedicated his works and who figure in his dialogues are all Greeks and Romans of more or less prominence . 1 We can assume, then, that by residence or travel they were all acquainted with the so-called Nero theater at Athens, and nearly all with the Pompey theater at Rome. Inasmuch as Plutarch expressly says (Pomp., 42) that the latter was of the Asia Minor type, and as the former was a Romanized form of the Greek (mainland) type, they may both be taken as examples of the same style. Exactly what information, then, does Plutarch give regarding these theaters? In the first place, they had a scene building or dressing-room (a/crjvr)), the wall or colonnade in front of which was known as the nrpo- cr/crjVLov. This 3 a 7i4 ^/(/ (TUr? 7/ / 1 JK i: >7 4^2. -57///2 * V *** / / HFC 1 3 1569 L. * *■ ^ n> ft 14 1? • • OCT 19 * >92 UP' c c MOV 1-4 -*-»•*. ■wt' 4T f) - o O 903 BOSTON COLLEGE 3594 4 8 1314(30 131 l ) ~ rthjA}^ Uj TIT pLf :’-k//> i~Jr^ y\ BOSTON COLLEGE LIBRARY UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS CHESTNUT HILL, MASS. Books may be kept for two weeks and may be renewed for the same period, unless re¬ served. Two cents a day is charged for each book kept overtime. 1 If you cannot find what you want, ask the Librarian who will be glad to help you. The borrower is responsible for books drawn on his card and for all fines accruing on the same.