PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION

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

Since 1898 the inscriptions bearing upon the Greek drama have been the subject of thorough investigation at the hands of Prof. Edward Capps, Dr. Adolph Wilhelm, and others. The complete treatment of all the inscriptional evidence in the latter’s Urkunden dramatischer Aufführungen in Athen, just published, is an invaluable contribution to the history of the Greek theatre and drama, and I have made as much use of it as the time of its publication allowed, the revision of the present volume having been almost completed by that date. It was beyond the scope of the present work to embark on a full discussion of the points of detail on which the chief authorities on the inscriptions differ; but I have re-written many of the notes on these points, and have tried to give sufficient indications of the character of the evidence. Further, in re-writing Appendix B, as it was necessary to do in the light of recent work on the subject, I have thought it best to give the reader access to considerably more of the inscriptional material, though still omitting many fragments whose readings, date, or meaning were too uncertain to allow them to be of value to the ordinary student.

Puchstein’s book, Die griechische Bühne, above referred to, is the other work of first-rate importance in connexion with the Greek theatre which has appeared since 1898. There has been much controversy in regard to the theories contained in it, and Dr. Dörpfeld has published a reply to most of Puchstein’s contentions (Athenische Mittheilungen, 1903, 383 ff.). But though in several points of detail Puchstein’s position seems to be open to criticism, it is very difficult to believe that Dr. Dörpfeld has improved his case for his own theory; and I have followed both Mr. Haigh’s view and my own conviction, in not modifying in any essential point the opinions expressed in the last edition. I have, however, altered the expressions ‘Lycurgean’ and ‘Hellenistic’ in most cases where they were applied in the last edition to the stage-buildings of different periods, since Puchstein’s work makes it at least an open question whether some of the ‘Lycurgean’ work is not to be ascribed to an earlier period, and some of the ‘Hellenistic’ work to Lycurgus. Mr. Haigh’s manuscript notes show, I think, that he would have approved of this. The new section on Puchstein’s theory follows in most points the lines of Mr. Haigh’s article on the subject in the Classical Review. I have inserted a number of references to the writings of Puchstein, Dörpfeld, and others who have taken part in the controversy as to the stage-buildings; and I have in many cases written fresh notes upon these and other points which have come into dispute since 1898, or upon which fresh light has been thrown. In cases where I could find no warrant in Mr. Haigh’s own notes or writings for the views expressed, I have included these notes in square brackets, and I have, so far as I could, avoided inserting in the text anything with which I had reason to think he would have disagreed.

On one point on which there has recently been much controversy, the site of the Lenaeum, I have thought it best to relegate the discussion to a new Appendix; partly owing to its complicated character, and partly because I am not sure that Mr. Haigh would have entirely agreed with my views. He had not of course seen Miss Harrison’s Primitive Athens, and I do not think he had read some other recent writings on the subject, when he began to rewrite Chapter I; in particular, he seems not to have been acquainted with Nilsson’s Studia de Dionysiis Atticis—the most valuable contribution of recent years to discussions on the festivals. I have therefore allowed myself a fairly free hand in dealing with this topic. I am much indebted to Mr. W. H. Forbes of Balliol College for his kind criticisms on this part of my work.

The following are the principal writings which have been published since the last edition, and which I have been able to consult, besides those already named: E. Capps, papers in the American Journal of Philology, American Journal of Archaeology, and Chicago Decennial Publications, vol. vi; Miss Harrison, Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion; E. A. Gardner, Ancient Athens; Roberts and Gardner, Greek Epigraphy, vol. ii; Mazon, Sur le Proagon (Rev. de Philologie, 1903); A. Müller, Untersuchungen zu den Bühnenalterthümern, and papers in Philologus and Berlin. Philolog. Wochenschrift; Noack, Das Proskenion in der Theaterfrage (Philologus, lviii); Exon, A New Theory of the Eccyclema (Hermathena, xxvi); Dörpfeld, papers in Hermes and Athenische Mittheilungen; Frei, De certaminibus Thymelicis; Hampel, Was lehrt Aischylos’ Orestie für die Theaterfrage?; Flickinger, The meaning of ἐπὶ τῆς σκηνῆς in the Fourth Century B.C.; Engelmann, Archäologische Studien zu den Tragikern; P. Gardner, The Scenery of the Greek Stage (J. Hell. Stud., 1899); Devrient, Das Kind auf der antiken Bühne; Dignan, The Idle Actor in Aeschylus; Völker, Berühmte Schauspieler im griechischen Alterthum; J. W. White, An Unrecognized Actor in Greek Comedy (Harvard Stud. Class. Phil., 1906); Hense, Die Modificirung der Maske in der griechischen Tragödie; Körte, Das Fortleben des Chors im griechischen Drama (Neue Jahrb. für Philol., 1900); Navarre, Utrum Mulieres Athenienses scenicos ludos spectaverint; Römer, Über den litterarisch-aesthetischen Bildungsstand des attischen Theaterpublikums; Foucart, Le Culte de Dionysos en Attique; besides the reviews of many of these works, and the introductions and notes to Starkie’s, Rogers’s, Sharpley’s, and van Leeuwen’s editions of a number of plays of Aristophanes, and various articles in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encyclopädie.

A. W. PICKARD-CAMBRIDGE.

Balliol College, January, 1907.