CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY The Departments of Greek, Latin, and Comparative Philol- ogy in the University of Chicago purpose to publish, at irregular - intervals, collections of papers, written by instructors and gradu- ate students of the University, upon subjects within the general domain of classical philology. ' The following instructors will constitute an .editorial com- mittee: — Wm. GarpnER Hate, for the Department of Latin. Paul Suorey, for the Departinent of Greek. Carv D. Buck, for the Department of Comparative Philology. - The University of Chicago STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY EDITED BY A COMMITTEE REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENTS OF GREEK, LATIN, AND COMPARATIVE PHILOLOGY PREPRINT FROM VOLUME I VITRUVIUS AND THE GREEK STAGE. By EDWARD CAPPS CHICAGO The Anibversitp Press of Chicago 1893 PRINTED BY The Anibersity Press of Chicago VITRUVIUS AND THE GREEK STAGE. The discussion of the past ten years on the subject of the stage in the Greek theatre has made substantial progress towards a definite settlement. It was begun by Hépken,* who held that, during the classical period, actors and chorus performed their parts together in the orchestra, which was brought up to the level of the low proscenium by the erection of a large semi- circular platform, the proscenium being used almost exclusively for the support of the heavy scenic appliances. Wilamowitz- Modllendorff? soon after attempted to prove that the four earliest extant plays of Atschylus were given in a circular orchestra about which the spectators sat or stood, there being no scena of any kind. The first to raise distinctly the issue of the existence or non-existence of an elevated stage in the classical Greek theatre was Dr. Dérpfeld, who has been the leading representative of the new theory ever since. By him arguments3 were advanced, drawn from extended investigations of the ruins of ancient theatres recently excavated, which up to this time have baffled all attempts to overthrow them, and which will necessitate an entire revision of previously accepted opinions upon the subject. ' De theatro attico saeculi a. Chr. quintt. Bonnae 1884. Hopken was treated with considerable severity by his early reviewers (Miiller, PA2/. Anz. XV, 525 ff. and Peter- sen, Wien. Stud. VII, 179 ff.), but his views have been steadily gaining ground of late, in spite of his somewhat faulty method. 2 Die Biihne des Aeschylus, Hermes XX1, 607 ff. 3First made public in the appendix to A. Miiller’s Buhnenalterthiimer ; stated more fully by Kawerau in Baumeister’s Dexkmdler s.v. Theatergebaiude, and by Dorpfeld him- self in his review of Haigh’s Attic Theatre in Berl. Phil. Woch. 1890, 467. The completest statement of the archzeological side of the question is found in Pickard’s Der Standort der Schauspieler und des Chors, Part I, Munich, 1892. The report of Dérpfeld’s lectures in the Athens "Edypepis of Oct. 27 and 29, 1891 contains addi- tional valuable matter. ‘ 3 4 STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY. The following statement is a summary of his views so far as they have been made public: None of the scena- buildings now standing in the theatre of Dionysus were built until the fourth century before Christ. The present cavea and the oldest part of the scena- buildings were completed by Lycurgus in the second half of the fourth century. The proscenium now standing was erected in the reign of Nero and altered during the time of Phzedrus, about 290 B. C. ( Of the theatre which preceded the theatre of Lycurgus a few traces are found. The orchestra was somewhat to the right of the present orchestra and considerably farther back. Its forward line rested on the slope of the Acropolis, and the space behind was built up to the same level, making the rear line about six feet above the solid earth. There is good evidence for concluding that there was no permanent scena- structure or proscenium what- ever connected with this orchestra. The character of the scene changed with each play, and a suitable proscenium was probably built for each occasion. The position of the cavea may be fixed by a few fragments of wall still remaining. The seats for the spectators were of wood. It was in this theatre that the plays of the great dramatists were presented. During the time of Lycurgus a stone scenae frons was built. It probably repro- duced in shape and position the temporary scenae frons which preceded it. No permanent proscenium was erected at Athens until some time after Lycurgus, and the time was correspond- ingly late at Epidaurus and elsewhere. This was during the _ period of the New Comedy, and except for revivals of old plays a only one scene was needed. The proscenium was about twelve ‘feet high, and its front was decorated with columns. A door in its centre opened directly into the orchestra without a change of level. Sometimes, as at Athens, there were two other doors, one on each side of the central door. In some theatres there was a large uriderground passage leading from behind the scena- buildings to the centre of the orchestra and terminating in a flight of steps. In view of these facts Dérpfeld has been led to the following conclusions : VITRUVIUS AND THE GREEK STAGE. 5 In the earliest theatre there was no proscenium and no stage for actors. Actors and chorus were both in the orchestra and on the same level. Their relations were not changed on the introduction of the scena-buildings and the proscenium. The decorated proscenium was simply the house front before which the action of the piece was laid. Entrances from the house were made through the doors in the proscenium; from else- where, both by actors and chorus, through the wdpodo. In the centre of the orchestra was the thymele, consisting of both Boyds and Biya. The Biya could-be mounted by actors when necessary. The top of the proscenium was used only as the roof of the house. In further support, Dorpfeld shows that the top of the proscenium could not have been a stage for actors, ay first, because of its narrowness,’ and secondly, because of its height above the orchestra.? Not the slightest evidence can be drawn from the ruins that steps ever existed leading from the orchestra to the top of the proscenium. Such steps would have marred the architectural effect of the proscenium front, would have rendered useless a large portion of the orchestra, and above all would not have allowed that free intermingling of actors and chorus which the dramas demand. : Both Hépken and Déorpfeld recognized from the first the value of corroborative evidence from the plays themselves. That abundant evidence was to be obtained from this source was at once apparent. Scholars had for a long time felt the incon- gruity between the natural suggestions of the dramas and the tra- ditional arrangements for their presentation. Jebb,3 Furley+ and Verrall5 each made some contributions to the material already + At Epidaurus it was less than ten feet wide, at Athens about seven and one-half feet, and still less in smaller theatres; about two feet of this would have to be given up for scenery. 2TIt was to meet this difficulty that G. Hermann suggested, on the strength of some ancient notices, a platform in the orchestra built up to within a few feet of the top of the proscenium. See Opusc. VI. 2, 153 ff, and Miller, Binenalt., 129. His view was universally accepted until recent years, but may now be regarded as completely demolished. See Haigh, Attic Theatre, 154; Pickard, 17. Oehmichen, however, still adheres to it. See p. 242 of his Buhnenwesen. 3 Class. Rev. I, 298. 4 Class. Rev. III, 85. 5 Class. Rev. IV, 223. Verrall suggests that the high Vitruvian stage was not introduced until about 431 B.C. It has been shown, however, that Aristophanes will admit of a high stage no more than A’schylus. See p. 6. 6 STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY. presented. Professor John Williams White’ then made a search- ing examination of Aristophanes, first refuting the arguments that had been raised by Miiller and Haigh? in favor of an elevated stage on the strength of some passages in Aristophanes ; then producing abundant evidence in favor of the proposition that ‘the comedies of Aristophanes could not have been performed on the stage of Vitruvius.” One must now regard this point as definitively settled. At about the same time I undertook to prove3 from an examination of the extant plays of all the great dramatists, (1) that a Vitruvian stage is highly improbable, if not impossible, during every period of the drama‘and in almost every play, as is shown by the movements of actors and chorus and by numerous scenes and situations; (2) that there is a total failure of positive evidence in favor of a stage, the few passages that may be adduced readily admitting of another interpretation ; and (3) that there is no scene in any of the extant dramas that could not be set in a stageless theatre, always easily and gen- erally much to the advantage of the play. Haigh’s hypothesis, that during the classical period the stage was only five or six feet high and was raised to the height required by Vitruvius only after the disappearance of the chorus from the drama, had previously been attacked by Verrall; by the two writers last mentioned it was shown to be untenable. Within the past year the dramas have again been searched for evidence on the question by two candidates for the higher degree at Munich, Pickard and Boden- steiner. Though their results have not been published at this writing, it is understood that they reaffirm and reinforce from different points of view those already obtained by others, and and that they are entirely favorable to Dérpfeld’s theory. * The ‘ Stage’ in Aristophanes, Harvard Studies for 1891. ? Biihnenalterthiimer, 108 f£ and The Attic Theatre, 144 ff. 3 The Stage in the Greek Theatre accordimg to the extant Dramas, published in the Transactions of the American Philological Association for 1891. 4 Part II of the dissertation of Pickard, adducing the evidence derived from the dramas. The writer has very kindly sent me pages of his manuscript, showing me the line of argument and his conclusions. The work of Bodensteiner is promised in the second Heft of Fleckeisen’s Jahrbiicher for 1893, and is entitled Szenische Fragen tiber aden Ort des Auftretens und Abgehens von Schauspieler und Chor im griechischen Drama. VITRUVIUS AND THE GREEK STAGE. 7 But from the first there has been no lack of serious opposi- tion to the new view. The arguments of Todt,? directed against Wilamowitz’s theory of the scenic arrangements of the early drama, seem to have established the fact that there must have been some kind of scena or dressing-room in the earlier plays of “Eschylus at least, and therefore that the spectators at this time no longer sat in a circle on all sides of the orchestra. He argues strongly in favor of an elevated stage, insisting that wherever in the drama we find an actor sinking through the floor, e. g. Pro- metheus and the ghost of Darius, there must have been either a corresponding elevation or a hollowing out of the ground beneath.. The latter he regards as impossible. But this objection is met, for some theatres, by the discovery of the underground passages opening into the orchestra; while at Athens the Prometheus scene could have been managed by means of the declivity behind the orchestra. Oehmichen,’ disregarding the evidence against a stage already adduced from the dramas, again cites a few scenes that had been satisfactorily explained on the new theory, again appeals to the grammarians and scholiasts, and finally asserts that the Greek literature contemporary with the drama always presupposes an elevated stage. He produces, however, only two or three citations,3 all of which admit of a * Noch einmal die Bihne des 2schylus, Philologus XLIII, 505 ff. His main argu- ments are presented and discussed by Miiller, Die neuen Arbeiten auf dem Gebiete des griechischen Biihnenwesens, Philologus 1891. 2 In a review of Pickard’s dissertation, Woch. fiir klass. Phil. 1892, 1137. 3 (1) Plat. Symp. 194 B éxpiBas, which he holds to be the Aoyefov in the Diony- siac theatre. But see Dorpfeld, Ber’. Phil. Woch. 1890, 470, and Rhode, Rhein. Mus. XXXVIII, 255. (2) daé and éml ris oxyvis (cf. Arist. Poetics 12), first cited by Richards, C7. Rev. V, 97. For an explanation of these phrases see Reisch’s review of Miiller’s Buhnenalt., Zeit. fiir dsterreich. Gym. 1887, 270 ff. To those should be added Xen. Cyr. 6. 1, 28, cited by S. Reinach, Rev. Crit. 1892, 450, in a review of my article favorable in general to the new theory. Since the above was written an interesting extract from a paper read by Professor E. Curtius before the Archzological Society at Berlin, entitled Orchestra and Buhne, has appeared in the Bert. Phil. Woch. No. 4. The advocates of the new doctrine are cautioned against overhaste in setting aside a well-established tradition, and a few considerations, which Professor Curtius believes to be of weight, are submitted to them. These considerations, however, are almost all of an esthetical nature rather pte Ls a 8 STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY. different explanation. His statement, if it has no further support than this, amounts to nothing. It is my belief that the contemporary literature will be found fully in harmony with the dramas themselves, and these are distinctly on the side of the new theory. The most serious difficulty in the way of the acceptance of the new theory is the explicit statement of Vitruvius that the Greek theatre had a stage from ten to twelve feet high. Dorpfeld and most of his followers have contented themselves with the belief that Vitruvius fell into error; that while he was in general a careful writer and followed good authorities, he was led in this instance, through the want of a classical model, into confound- ing the Greek proscenium or decorated house-front with the Roman proscenium or stage. A confusion of Aoyeiov with OeoAoyetov may have assisted in the error... Hépken showed more respect to Vitruvius’s intelligence but less to his writings, cutting out as interpolations all passages in which the terms scena, proscenium and scenae frons are not used with the meaning of ‘‘stage-build- ings,” ‘stage’? and ‘scena-wall’” respectively, and in which measurements are given in feet and not in terms of other parts of the building. Thus he rejects the objectionable ‘non minus pedum decem,” etc. Haigh,? who believes in a raised stage but recognizes the awkwardness of a very high one during the class- ical period, assumes a much lower one for that period and makes the directions of Vitruvius refer to the theatre of a later time. “ Now it is true that Vitruvius was probably writing of the Greek theatre as he saw it in his day, but there is nothing to show that the Greek theatre of any period had so high a stage; whereas than logical. It should be remembered that mere theories as to the early develop- ment of the drama and subjective ideas as to the poetic and esthetic significance and value of an elevated stage, however interesting in themselves, have no vital connection with the real question of the existence or non-existence of such a stage. t “Einige Schauspieler (namentlich der deus ex machina) traten allerdings oben auf dem pulpitum proscenii auf und daher konnte deiser Platz Theologeion oder auch kurz Logeion genannt werden. Aber Vitruy irrte, wenn er wirklich geglaubt hat, dass alle Schauspieler, getrennt vom Chor, oben in der grossen Hohe auftraten.” Dorpfeld in the letter quoted on p. 22, note 1. 2 Attic Theatre, 158. VITRUVIUS AND THE GREEK STAGE. 9 it did have a proscenium of the height prescribed by him. The difficulty, so far as Vitruvius is concerned, is in no way relieved by Haigh’s hypothesis. The most important attempt at explan- ation is that of Dyer,t who tries to reconcile the statements of Vitruvius with the facts established by Dérpfeld, by means of a new interpretation of the Roman architect’s vexed chapter on the Greek theatre. If such a reconciliation could be effected, those who still oppose the new theory and insist on a high stage would have their main support shattered, and yet would have compelled the defenders of the new theory to make material alterations in their views. Believing, however, that Mr. Dyer has not been successful in his vindication of Vitruvius, I have undertaken in this paper to point out the weakness of his position. It will be necessary to the following discussion to have before us the text of Vitruvius, and not only the passage which relates to the Greek theatre, but also, for reasons which will appear later, a portion of the chapter on the Roman theatre. I give the text of Rose and Miiller-Stribing. ROMAN THEATRE, V. 6 Ipsius autem theatri conformatio sic est facienda uti quam magna futura est perimetros medio conlocato circumagatur linea rotundationis, in eaque quattuor scri- bantur trigona paribus lateribus et intervallis, quae extremam lineam circinationis tangant...... ex his trigonis cuius latus fuerit proximum scaenae, ea regione qua praecidit cur- vaturam circinationis, ibi finiatur scaenae frons, et ab eo loco per cent- rum parallelos linea ducatur, que disiungat proscaenii pulpitum et or- chestrae regionem. imi, centro GREEK THEATRE, V. 8. In Graecorum theatris non omnia isdem rationibus sunt facienda, quod primum in ima circinatione ut in Latino trigonorum quattuor, in eo quadratorum trium anguli circina- tionis lineam tangunt. Et cuius quadrati latus est proximum scaenae praeciditque curvaturam cir- cinationis, ea regione designatur finitio proscaenii. Et ab earegione ad ex- ° tremam circinationem curvaturae par- allelos linea designatur, in qua con- stituitur frons scaenae, per centrumque orchestrae a proscenii regione paral- lelos linea describitur et qua secat circinationis lineas dextra ac sinistra in cornibus hemicyclii centra designa- 1 Vitruvius’ account of the Greek Stage, Jour. Hell. Stud. 1891, 356 ff. Io STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY. Ita latius factum fuerit pulpitum quam Graecorum, quod omnes artifices in scaena dant operam. In orchestra autem senatorum sunt sedibus loca designata. et eius pulpiti altitudo sit ne plus pedum quinque, uti qui in or- chestra sederint, spectare possint omnium agentium gestus. tur, et circino conlocato in dextro ab intervallo sinistro circumagitur circin- atio ad proscaenii sinistram* partem, item centro conlocato in sinistro cornu ab intervallo dextro circumagitur ad proscaenii dextram partem. Ita tribus centris hac descriptione ampliorem habent orchestram Graeci et scaenam recessiorem minoreque latitudine pul- pitum (quod Aoyeioy appellant)? ideo quod eo tragici et comici actores in scaena peragunt, reliqui autem arti- fices suas per orchestram praestant actiones itaque ex eo scaenici et themelici Graece separatim nominan- tur. eius logei altitudo non minus de- bet esse pedum decem, non plus duodecim. Contrasting the diversity of opinion among modern scholars who have attempted to interpret this passage with the agreement of the scholars of the early Renaissance, Dyer raises a presump- tion in favor of the latter, to whom, he thinks, Vitruvius was easier of approach, because ‘‘in those days the centre of interest was in things Roman far more than it is now.” Of these early scholars he selects Jocundus, the eminent Florentine scholar and architect, who, in his editions of Vitruvius,3 gives on this chapter two figures, accompanied by a key, from which we are to derive his interpretation. Where Jocundus is obscure, Dyer appeals to his pupil, J. C. Scaliger, who, it is assumed, accepted his master’s views regarding the theatre and Vitruvius. Interpreting Vit- The manuscripts all give here dextram and in the next sentence all but one give _ aextram. ‘Fvidently a correction must be made. Jocundus, on the strength of the one inferior manuscript, corrected the second dextram to sinistram (Dyer’s statement on this point p. 360 is not correct), But Marini emended the first dextram to sints- tram. Thus we avoid using the terms left and right now from the point of view of the spectator, now from that of the actor. See p. 17, note 3. 2 The parentheses are mine. 3 Venice, 1511; Florence, 1513; Florence, 1523. The key to the edition in 1513 is somewhat different from that of 1511, while that of 1523 is identical with that of 1511. But it cannot be claimed that Jocundus abandoned the view taken in the edition of 1513 (see Dyer, note 5), since it is probable that he died circ. 1515. VITRUVIUS AND THE GREEK STAGE. II ruvius with the help of these scholars Dyer finds that the term proscenium in ch. VIII was applied to the unused space in the Greek theatre lying between the wall of the scena or green-room building (frons scenae gg’ Fig. I, p. 14), and the decoration wall (finitio proscenii, ee’). Many scholars, from Perrault * to Dérp- feld, have used proscenium as applying only to the decoration wall erected on the line of the finitio proscenii ¢ ¢’. In fact, this front wall was by far the most important part of the proscenium, but Jocundus used the term in the wider sense. The two acces- sory arcs are drawn to mark on the finitio proscenii the lateral limits of the Aoyeiov,—a temporary wooden platform for the use of actors’, which projected from the forward line of the proscenium (e in Fig. II). In Fig. I of Jocundus the arcs should be extended until they cut the proscenium at the desired points. The Roman theatre was a development of the Greek, and received certain necessary modifications after the disappearance of the chorus from the drama. The pulpitum or stage became much larger in both dimensions, and received the name which had formerly belonged to the narrow unused space lying directly behind it—proscenium. What was originally known as the proscenium in the Greek theatre was now known as the scena. Therefore, when Vitruvius asks us to compare the two types of theatres we must bear in mind this difference in terms. The pulpitum or Aoyetov or stage of the Greek theatre, he says, is nar- rower than the pulpitum or proscenium or stage of the Roman theatre. The proscenii pulpitum of cf. VI does not enter into the comparison. This can be nothing else than a pulpitum pro- jecting into the orchestra from the centre of the proscenium, corresponding exactly to the Acyeiov in the Greek theatre. It is not actually found in any Roman theatre, but is suggested by Vitruvius, who is fond of things Greek, as an improvement, ‘‘a refinement, in practice not observed by his predecessors nor followed by his successors.” Translation of Vitruvius, second edition, Paris, 1684, note ad loc. 2Many writers have followed Jocundus in assuming a platform of this kind in front of the Greek proscenium, but none but Schneider, Das attische Theaterwesen 1835, and Dyer, have tried to bring it within the directions of Vitruvius. 12 STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY. Such, in outline, is Dyer’s explanation of Vitruvius, as derived through the medium of Jocundus. If well grounded, it affords relief to the difficulties in two respects. It acquits Vitruvius of the stupid blunder with which Dérpfeld has charged him—of displaying such ignorance of the architectural purpose of the various parts of the scena-buildings still extant in his day in theatres of the Greek type as to confound the Greek pros- cenium—the long narrow structure about twelve feet high, with columnated front, which served as the decorative mask for the scena-wall behind —with the large low proscenium - stage of the Roman theatre, and of describing the former structure as the stage for actors. It also provides for a stage in the Greek theatre, for which we have the direct testimony of other ancient antiquarians and scholars besides Vitruvius.’ Dyer, however, holds that the stage was a temporary wooden structure, thus accounting for the absence of remains which Dérpfeld makes so weighty an argument against the existence of a stage; more- over that it was so low as to be easily accessible, thus meeting the requirements of the plays themselves. On the other hand, he still attributes to Vitruvius the serious error, only less serious than that with which Dérpfeld charges him, of making the Aoyetov as high as the proscenium to which it was attached. No very sat- isfactory explanation of the origin of this error is offered. ‘‘We must either suppose, with Dérpfeld,” says Dyer, “that Vitruvius confused the doyeov with the Georoyeiov, but only so far as the dimension of height was concerned, or we must believe that our author had in mind such a theatre as that at Cuiculum (Djemila), where the level of the orchestra was considerably below that of the scena floor. This last would not be a Greek theatre, but a transitional type between the earlier Greek and the later or Roman theatre.” In answer to the latter suggestion, it should be said that it is altogether improbable that Vitruvius, with good Greek models before him, selected this out-of-the-way theatre in Africa as his type,—a theatre, too, that departed in many respects from the rules that the Roman architect lays down.’ * Pollux and many of the scholiasts to the dramatists. See Miiller, Bihnenalt., p. 24, notes I and 3. ?Oehmichen, Griechischer Theaterbau, p. 89. VITRUVIUS AND THE GREEK STAGE. 13 But this subtile and cleverly constructed theory of Dyer is built on weak foundations. In the first place, the presumption in favor of the early scholars falls to the ground when we find that they were as much at variance as modern scholars. The plans of Jocundus are radically different from the curious construction of Cesarianus,? also an architect of note; and the figures of Barbaro? are unlike both the others. These are the three most important interpretations of the sixteenth century. In view of this fact we must deny to Jocundus a greater influence in this question than is warranted by the intrinsic merits of his views. The following figures are taken from Jocundus’s edition of 1511,3 but are reduced toa uniform scale. I have omitted unim- portant details for the sake of greater perspicuity, and have added the extension of the arcs proposed by Dyer in Fig. I (the dotted lines oz and oy), the chord xy and the short arcs m and xin Fig. II., to assist in the comparison. The fact is that Dyer was unfortunate in his selection of Jocundus. He is compelled at the outset to do violence to his diagrams in order to gain support for his own views. In order to make out that Jocundus believed the purpose of the two accessory arcs zp and yg (Fig. 1) to be to fix the position of the Aoyeiov on the finitio proscenii, he is compelled to extend them until they touch the finitio proscenii at the desired points, x and r. He assumes also that Jocundus drew his arcs #f and yg, not from the /eft interval to the v#ght part of the proscenium and from the right interval to the deft side of the proscenium respectively, as Vitruvius directs, but from the 7igh¢ interval to the vight part of the proscenium and vice versa (z.e. from f to # and from g to y). Even if we could accept his explanation of this deviation from Vitruvius’s literal directions,—viz., that Jocundus found that he tEarliest translation of Vitruvius, Milan, 1521. Caesarianus was one of the prin- cipal architects of the Milan cathedral. His figures, however, are worthless for the interpretation of the passage. 2 Version of Vitruvius, Venice 1567. His plan is that of Perrault (1674), and, with the exception of the projecting logeion, also of Oehmichen (1886). 3 My thanks are due to Mr. F. Saunders for his kindness in having verified for me the measurements I had previously taken from the copy of this edition contained in the Astor Library, of which he is librarian. STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY. 14 h Pp c 0 b g | a a JN fer. ‘ XN e lL, a7 \ rym f aoe De f g = a g Fig. I. ce 0 s da mn d py fj coe one g © 00000 @ Fig. II. VITRUVIUS AND THE GREEK STAGE. 15 could make it clearer to his pupils by taking the right centre c, and drawing from the right interval at p to the right part of the proscenium at x, and so from the left centre 4, yet we could not accept an explanation which supposes that any sensible man, much less a Jocundus, who believed that it was the function of the two arcs to designate certain points 2 7 on the finitio proscenii would have drawn these arcs only as far as x andy. Surely Jocundus himself would make a serious protest against such a twisting and wrenching of his diagram by his modern admirer and supporter. If still another objection were needed it could be obtained by actual measurement of the distance x7 in Fig. I and of the length of the Aoyeiov ¢ in Fig. II. It would be found that the Aoyeiov is fully 60 per cent. longer than it would be if determined by the arcs as drawn by Dyer, extending from / to m (Fig. I) instead of from toy. In a theatre as large as that at Epi- daurus this difference would amount to about 15 ft. Although we see that Jocundus does not fix the position of the finitio pro- scenii precisely as directed by Vitruvius (it should be on the line « y, Fig. II), and although his figures in this matter also may not represent his views with absolute exactness, yet we cannot believe that he would have been so inaccurate as this in establishing the lateral limits of the Acyeiov, if he con- ceived this to be the purpose of the two arcs on which the peculiar construction of the Greek theatre so largely depends. Dyer quotes Scaliger as an exponent of Jocundus’s idea of the meaning of proscenium as applied to the Greek theatre: ‘That space on either side of the pulpitum reaching to the forward wall of the scena which was left vacant was called by the Greeks proscenium. Let no one opine that here were the sides of the scena.”” But no such statement is found in any work of Scaliger.* The original of which this purports to be a transla- tion is by another author, and runs as follows: Id spatium quod utrinque a pulpito ad extremam scenam vacuum relinquebatur Dyer quotes this as from Scaliger De Comoedia ac Tragoedia in Vol. III (it should be VIII) of Gronovius’s Thesaurus. It is found, however, on p. 1706 of the same vol- ume in an essay, ascribed to no author but simply ex optimis auctoribus collectus, entitled De fabularum, ludorum, theatrorum, scenarum ac scenicorum, antigua consuetudine libellus. The definitions of Scaliger I take from the essay cited by Dyer, p. 1535. 16 STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY. Graeci vocabant proscenium, ne quis existimet fuisse scenae latera. The phrase ‘ad extremam scenam’ can mean nothing else than ‘to the outer limits of the scena.” The.author of this rather bungling definition evidently had in mind exactly such a proscenium as Jocundus marks dd in Fig. II]. We do, however, find two definitions of proscenium in Scaliger’s essay: locus ante scenam, proscenium; in quo erant agentium discursiones; and, ante quas [porticus] proscenium apertum videbatur, in quo agebant (ut diximus) e scena egressi. According to Scaliger, therefore, the proscenium was not-‘‘a narrow, unused space in front of the scena,”’ but an open space used by the actors. The Vitruvian phrase, finitio proscenii, in which ‘proscenium’ clearly refers to a place with definite boundaries, compelled Jocundus to use proscenium in the restricted sense of Scaliger’s definition, viz: as the stage for actors; but he used it also in a larger sense as simply the space in front of the scena—this space naturally ending with the diameter which marked the beginning of the orchestra. This is seen both in the two figures illustrating the Greek theatre (2, Fig. I and dd, Fig. II) and inthe first figure accompanying the chapter on the Roman theatre. In this he marks the space d@ (corresponding to dd in Fig. II) as the proscenium ubi pulpitum excitatur. The same idea is shown in Fig. IH. Jocundus thought of the proscenium in the Greek theatre as an open space, apparently on the level of the orchestra, in which was erected to the requisite height the pulpitum for actors. We certainly find no warrant in Jocundus or Scaliger for such a proscenium as Dyer ascribes to them. In view of the proscenium marked dd in Fig. I], we cannot explain away the proscenium 7 in Fig. I as another device of the teacher for illustrating to his pupils the difference between the Greek pro- scenium and the Roman. The proscenium / Fig. I is abandoned in the edition of 1513 and called the frons scenae (see note 3, p. 10). Vitruvius himself, in his chapter on the Greek theatre, uses proscenium for the building bounded by ee and gg Fig. I, and the evidence of inscriptions? clearly limits the term, in its accepted use, to the forward wall of this building. *See Pickard, p. 24. VITRUVIUS AND THE GREEK STAGE. 17 So much for Jocundus on Vitruvius and for Dyer on Jocundus. It is clear that the Florentine gives us little light on the difficul- ties that beset this question. But inasmuch as the views expressed in the paper under discussion are in reality Dyer’s, for which he is bent on obtaining the support of Jocundus and Scaliger, let us test them by the words of Vitruvius himself. The language of Vitruvius is obscure in several places, but not so obscure as those have made it who have hinged their whole interpretation upon a rigorous definition of this word and that. The disastrous attempt to make centrum orchestrae* mean something else than the centre of the foundation circle, and the many futile efforts to get some specific local meaning for inter- vallum,? a general term, should warn us against applying to Vitruvius the rigorous rules of modern scientific language. For Vitruvius was not always strictly exact in his use of technical terms. Even the textual difficulty with dexter and sinister? is of little consequence to one who follows the general purpose of the writer. So far Dyer is right in his condemnation of the endless t Rode, in his plates to Vitruvius, Berl. 1801, took centrum orchestrae to be the point half way between the finitio proscenii and the opposite circumference of the orchestra toward the spectators. He was followed by Schonborn, Dre Skene der Hellenen, p. 50, and by A. Miiller, Phz/ologus 1866, p. 284. The error was pointed out by Wecklein, Przlologus 1872, p..437, and acknowledged by Miller, Jahrbucher f. cl. Phil- ologie 1872, p. 332. 2 Especially by Schénborn, l.c., p. 53, who held it to mean zdpodos in this place, and by-A. Miiller, Bahnenalt. p. 17, who believed that the word refers to one of the twelve “equal intervals” on the circumference of the ground circle. This view he retracts in Pkilologus 1892, p. 33. Oehmichen, Gr. Theat. p. 25, goes back to Schén- born’s view. 3 The opinions of scholars on these two words fall into two classes: (1) Those who have first adopted the text either of Jocundus or of Marini and have made their interpretation according to its requirements, and (2) those who have considered the construction of greatest consequence and have adopted the text that allowed this con- struction. A. Miiller furnishes a good example of both. He first adopted Jocundus’s text, and holding that the terms “left” and “right” must be from the point of view of the actor, he followed Schénborn in his peculiar interpretation of centrum orchestrae (Prhilol. 1866, p. 204). Marini’s text then becoming prominent in Miiller-Striibing’s edition, he adopts it and so is brought back from the centrum orchestrae aberration. He adds, however, that, if Jocundus’s text be right, dexter and sinister are used from two different points of view (/Jahrd. f. cl. Phil. 1872, p. 332). In 1891 (Philologus, p. 32) he argues as follows: (1) In a geometric construction such terms would be used 18 STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY. quibbling over the strict meaning of these “innocent and every day terms” which has characterized the discussion of this pas- sage. But he himself goes too far in his disregard of the meaning of words. While he himself insists on giving a forced meaning to proscenii pulpitum he utterly disregards the only possi- ble meaning of latitudo and thereby goes seriously astray. Schénborn* committed the same mistake of giving latitudo the meaning of longitudo. Miiller* recognizes that it strictly means width(we should say depth), but claims the right to use it as if it were longitudo on the ground that the greater width of the Roman stage appears only in relation to its length. The Greek pulpitum, he would say, is narrower and _ therefore shorter. Dyer does not discuss the word at all, though it is vital to his position. If latitudo does not mean “length,” either absolutely or relatively, his theory falls to the ground, for the wzdth of the Greek doyeiov, as Dyer understands it, is in no way affected by the construction of Vitruvius, but only that of the proscenium ; while in the Roman theatre, if proscenii pulpitum is what Dyer believes it to be, no directions whatever are given for the con- struction of the proscenium, with which Dyer contends that the projecting Greek doyedoy is compared. But Wecklein3’ has proved conclusively that latitudo cannot mean “length.” The language of Vitruvius can admit of no uncertainty here. It is the width (i. e. ‘depth’) only that is affected by the confining of the pulpitum between the chord and the diameter in chapter VI; and minore latitudine pulpitum of chapter VIII is but the complement of latius pulpitum of chapter VI. Moreover, in the latter chapter he gives directions for the length, /ongitudo, of the scena. Another point, vital to the discussion, Dyer takes for granted, —the radius to be used in drawing the accessory arcs, Miiller’s arguments for the radius of the original circle are strong so long as one does not look beyond the immediate context for the pur- from a single point of view throughout. (2) Vitruvius’s usage favors the point of view of the spectator. (3) Drawn in this way, the first arc can touch only the régA¢ part of proscenium. Hence we must reject Marini’s and adopt Jocundus’s text. Miller's. trouble throughout has been his inability to see the true purpose of the construction. Tle, p. 54. ? Jahrbiicher f. cl. Phil, CV, 232; cf. Biihnenalt., p. 19. 3 Philologus 1872, p. 436. VITRUVIUS AND THE GREEK STAGE. 19 pose of the two arcs, and does not attempt to apply his plan to the existing ruins. The greatest difficulty that those meet who assume the original radius is to decide what their arcs are for after they have drawn them. Jocundus,* apparently, used them to determine the position of the supporting wall of the cavea; Schneider and Dyer to mark the position of a projecting doyeor ; Miller to determine the length of the scena; Oehmichen that of the proscenium. Scarcely two of those who have taken this radius agree. But the ancient architect, familiar with the form of Greek theatres, had no such difficulty.’ The purpose of the arcs was to him so plain that he would not notice the omission of this detail. He would not think of asking ‘what radius?” but rather “what centres?” Vitruvius very carefully fixes the centres; the radius follows as a corollary. The best Greek theatres had orchestras of a horse-shoe shape. Fabricius? has pointed out that the main point of difference in the construction of the orchestras at Athens and at Epidaurus is in the centres taken from which to draw the lines which continue the sides of the Fig. LUI. Ground plan of theatre at Athens, semicircle toward the proscenium. At Athens (see Fig. IIT) the line is straight from the ends of the diameter to the pro- scenium ; the centres lie at infinity. The lines at Epidaurus? (see tI think we are compelled to suppose that Jocundus followed strictly the directions as to “left” and “right.” He therefore drew from x to / and from y tog (Fig I). The terminals # and g, which lie on the forward line of Jocundus’s proscenium 2, corre- spond exactly to o and s (Fig. II). I can see no other purpose in Jocundus’s arcs. 2 Rhein. Mus. 1891, 341. 3According to the measurements of Dérpfeld, Ipaxrixd rijs “Apxatodoyexiis “Erapias 1883, p. 46 ff. 20 STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY. oe ees et _ Fig. LY. Ground plan of theatre at Hpidaurus. Fig. IV) leave the line of the original circumference earlier and approach the proscenium in a very gentle curve; the centres lie below the diameter and inside the circumference of the ground circle. Vitruvius gives a fixed rule, easily followed, whereby the arcs leave the original circle at the ends of the diameter and Fig. V. Ideal planof Vitruvius. approach the proscenium in lines more curved than at Epidaurus, but much more graceful than at Athens (see Fig. V). The radius is equal in length to the diameter, and the centres lie at the ends of the diameter. The principle is the same for all. If we are not to close our eyes to the knowledge of the ancient ruins which we possess, and which Jocundus did not possess, we must agree that the purpose of the two arcs is thus to widen the orchestra and to spread apart the wings of the auditorium. In closing his directions for constructing a Greek theatre, Vitruvius sums up the three most important variations from the Roman type, and these variations are all accounted for in the preceding directions. The scena is farther back because it is on VITRUVIUS AND THE GREEK STAGE. aI the tangent, not the chord. The pulpitum is narrower because it is bounded by the tangent and the side of an inscribed square, instead of by the side of an inscribed triangle and the diameter. The orchestra is roomier for two reasons, chiefly because very much less of it is occupied by the proscenium, and secondarily because it is widened by the two arcs. To go beyond this in search of the purpose of the arcs is to go farther than Vitruvius has given us a right to go." As we have seen, Dyer maintains that Vitruvius conceived of the Greek theatre as having a long, narrow proscenium or masked front, and projecting from the centre of this a narrow movable platform for actors, the pulpitum or Acyeovy, to which he wrongly gave the same height as the proscenium. In the Roman theatre this Aoyefov was made larger and broader, and was five feet above the level of the orchestra, and received the name proscenium. This was the Roman theatre as it actually existed. But Vitruvius in his description insists on engrafting on the front of this proscenium a proscenii pulpitum in imitation of the Greek doyeiov attached to the Greek proscenium. This proscenii pulpitum must be kept distinct from the pulpitum - proscenium or Roman proscenium with which Vitruvius compares the Greek Aoyeiov. So Dyer; let us see what basis this interpretation has in Vitruvius. Dyer overlooks the fact that what Vitruvius has to say on This application of the two arcs is not a new one. It appeared as early as 1758 in Galiani’s edition. More scholars have agreed upon it than upon any other, Genelli, Marini, Gwilt, Leake, Wecklein, Hépken, Petersen, Kawerau, Fabricius, Jebb, Dérpfeld and others. Geppert and Donaldson produce the same figure, but not with the purpose of widening the orchestra. It will be noticed that many of these scholars have given special attention to architecture and to the study of the ruins. On the other side are Barbaro, Perrault, Rode, Schénborn, Miiller, Oehmichen and others, who draw their arcs to fix the length of the proscenium or scena, though they do not all agree as to the result. Schneider and Dyer belong to the second list, but are alone in attempting to determine the position of « projecting Aoyetov. Jocundus stands alone as regards his figure, and, so far as I understand him, in the purpose of his con- struction as well. the Greek theatre is added to the previous chapter only by way of illustration and commentary.” He is writing for the instruc- 2This important fact is emphasized by Oehmichen, Gr. Theaterbau, p. 2. 22 STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY. tion of the Roman architect who may be called upon to construct a Roman theatre. His purpose is practical, not antiquarian. Chapter VIII can only be understood in the light of chapter VI. It aims to bring out the principal points of difference between the Greek and the Roman theatres. The following is a summary of the portions of the two chapters that interest us now. In the ground-circle of the Roman theatre we are to draw four triangles; of the Greek, three squares. The chord parallel to the proposed scena buildings in the Roman theatre fixes the scenae frons (the decoration wall in the Roman theatre), in the Greek, the finitio proscenii or forward wall of the proscenium (the decoration wallin the Greek theatre) ; while in the Roman the forward line of the proscenium rests on the diameter (linea quae disiungat proscenii pulpitum et orchestrae regionem). In the Greek the frons scenae, which is not, as in the Roman thea- tres, the decoration wall, but simply a supporting wall before which the decoration wall or proscenium is erected, is fixed on the tangent. Consequently, he adds, the Roman pulpitum is wider than that of the Greek. Now there has been noth- ing in his description to affect the width of the Roman pulpitum except the fixing of its forward and rear boundaries. A glance at the diagram will show that this is what he means. The Roman pulpitum is wider than that of the Greek, because it is bounded by the diameter and the chord, while the Greek lies in the narrow space between the chord and the tangent. If, when he says that the diameter shall be the line which separates the proscenii pulpitum from the region of the orchestra, he does not mean to give the forward boundary for the proscenium, but of a pulpitum projecting beyond the proscenium, then he has given us no data from which to draw the conclusion that the pulpitum - proscenium or stage is wider than that of the Greeks. It follows that by proscenii pul- pitum he means nothing more than proscenium ™ (in its wider 7In note 10, p. 359, Dyer says: “If I rightly understand Dr. Dérpfeld’s view, which he has kindly communicated to me, he regards the fimitio proscenii as the for- ward line of the proscenium, then the proscenti pulpitum is the Aoyetov built in front of of this line. So far he agrees substantially with Fra Giocondo.” In reply to a letter of inquiry regarding the above statement, which seemed quite out of harmony with his VITRUVIUS AND THE GREEK STAGE. 23 and doubtless earlier sense, viz.: the whole building in front of the scena, and not merely its forward wall,—a restriction of a later period, see p. 16); and that when in chap. VIII he says that the Greek pulpitum is minore latitudine than the Roman, he refers again to the building made narrow by being bounded by chord and tangent, z. e., the Greek proscenium, which (or rather its roof) he understands to be a Aoyeiov for actors. He certainly does not refer to a projecting platform made shorter by the two accessory arcs. It is clear from the whole context that Vitru- vius uses the terms pulpitum, proscenium, proscenii pulpitum, and Aoyetov for the same portion of the theatre, except that Aoyeiov is a term peculiar to the Greeks. Furthermore, it can hardly be doubted that the phrase finitio proscenii in ch, VIII. is only a convenient substitute for the longer but more descriptive phrase of ch. VI, linea quae disiungat proscenii pulpitum et orchestrae regionem. Vitruvius believes not only that the Greek Aoyeioy was of the impossible height of twelve feet, but even that the narrow Greek proscenium roof was the Aoyeiov for actorsas much as the broad low Roman proscenium. Further proof that there was no projecting Aoyeov such as Dyer supposes is furnished by the ruins. At Epidaurus, Athens and elsewhere, there could have been no oyeov projecting from the centre of the proscenium, for the floor of the orchestra is on a level with the threshold of the central door of the proscenium. (See p. 4). If my understanding of the passage is correct, we must agree with Dérpfeld in ascribing a very discreditable blunder to Vitru- vius. Even Dyer is compelled to acknowledge for him a blunder only less serious. Dérpfeld holds that Vitruvius misunderstood both the name and the purpose of the Greek proscenium. Any other conclusion seems unavoidable. The theory of alow move- able Aoyefov in the classical Greek theatre is attractive as affording a happy compromise between the traditional view and the new; but it can find no support in Vitruvius, and at present it seems to be incompatible with the ruins as we have them. expressed views on the subject, Dr. Dérpfeld, with his accustomed courtesy, writes me that his understanding of proscenti pulpitum is not rightly represented in the above, and adds: “ Das proscenii pulpitum halte ich vielmehr ftir das Dach des Proskenion, nicht fiir ein Podium vor demselben.” ornell University Library Vitruvius and the Greek stage.