« PreviousContinue »
speciem, perspectusque fenestris dispositos communium ædificiorum rationibus: Satyricæ vero ornantur arboribus, speluncis, montibus, reliquisque agrestibus rebus, in topiarii operis speciem deformatis."
The device of painting scenes to represent natural objects, is attributed by Aristotle to Sophocles; but to Eschylus by the author of his life. A particular, though rather confused account of the different scenes and machinery may be seen in Pollux IV. 129. (which it is not worth while to transcribe) or in Bulenger's Treatise de Theatris I. 14. It appears that in their devices for effect, they were not at all inferior to the stage machinists of the present day. They had their eiσkúkλnua, or rolling platform for sea gods, &c. their unɣávn or descending machine, on which the deities came down, their coλóyetov, or sky-platform, on which the same heavenly personages talked aloft; their yépavos or crane, by which the actors, as occasion required, were borne into the air by means of αἴωραι or ropes; their χαρώνιοι κλίμακες or Charon's ladder, which led to hell through the trap-doors, and by which the edwλa, or ghosts, came up. They had moreover a Bрovτetov, or artificial thundering machine, consisting of a vessel filled with stones, which was rolled along a sheet of copper; and their κεραυνοσκοπεῖον, which flashed lightning.
It appears from a passage of Aspasius, in his Commentary on Aristotle (IV. fol. 53. b. ed. Ald.) that there was much less of splendid ornament in comedy than in tragedy; the reason is, that comedy was for a long time very little thought of; dia To μn σπουδάζεσθαι ἐξ ἀρχῆς, ἔλαθεν.3
I have before observed, that we have no direct testimony to inform us how many dramatic pieces were represented in the same day; it may throw some little light upon the question to observe, that it appears from Theophrastus, that the theatres were filled at least four times in the same day.1
De Poetica, §. 10. 2. In editione Robortelli.
Aristot. Poet. §. 11.
4. Charact. 27. καὶ ἐν τοῖς θαύμασι (θεάμασι Schneider) τρία ἢ τέτταρα πλήρωματα ὑπομένειν, τὰ ᾄσματα ἐκμανθάνων. A passage which has grievously perplexed the critics. See Chardon de la Rochette, Mélanges, T. II. p. 174.
I will conclude with the following theatrical anecdote, extracted from a fragment of M. Cornelius Fronto, recently published from a MS. in the Ambrosian Library, by Signor Angelo Maio, T. II. p. 253. “Tragicus Esopus fertur non prius ullam suo induisse capiti personam, antequam diu ex adverso contemplaretur pro personæ vultu gestum sibi capessere ac vocem." We shall reserve for some future opportunity our remarks on other subjects connected with the history of the drama.
POPULATION OF ATHENS.
IN the first volume of this Journal, p. 541. some calculations were entered into, which tended to shew that the number of inhabitants contained in Athens about the fourth century before the Christian era, did not fall short of 100,000. The following observations may perhaps go some way towards deciding this question.
Demosthenes in his speech against the law of Leptines (§. 26. p. 37. ed. Wolf. 1789.) has the following remarkable passage.
"It will appear, upon consideration, that this Leuco has been our constant benefactor; and that too, in those respects where the city stands most in need of assistance. For you well know, that of all places, we are the most dependent upon foreign supplies of corn. Now the corn which is imported from Pontus equals, or rather exceeds in quantity, all that comes to us from other markets-and the number of medimni which come from Leuco (i. e. from Pontus) amounts to 400,000, as any person may ascertain by inspecting the corn-meter's returns."
We may therefore estimate the whole annual importation of corn into Attica at 800,000 medimni. Of this, two thirds were, by law, to be carried into the city,' or 533,333ł.
Thucydides (IV. 16.) tells us that the daily allowance to the Lacedæmonians blockaded in Sphacteria was two chances of
1. Aristotle ap. Harpocrat. v. 'Enqueλntýs.
wheat for each soldier, and one chanix for each servant. Now it appears from Herodotus (VI. 51.) that the Spartan kings, when they dined at home, had no more than two chanices for their allowance. The daily ration of the Athenian captives, confined in the Sicilian stone-quarries, was only two cotyle of flour, i. e. half a chanix. Whence, if there were no express testimony to the point, we might conclude that one chanix was the usual daily allowance for one man. But we have surer grounds for this determination. Herodotus (VII. 187.) intimates, and Diogenes Laertius (VIII. 17.) expressly says, that one chanix was a man's daily allowance, and a pretty good one too, being equivalent to somewhat less than two pounds. Hesychius. Χοίνικες, αἱ βαθεῖαι (παχεῖαι Philemon Ler. Technol.) πέδαι. kai ai ép nμépas Tpopal. Hence Alexarchus, who affected a phraseology of his own, used to call a chanix ǹuepoτpopis, as we are told in Athenæus (III. p. 98. E.). Hence also soldiers of the same mess were called ouoxoivikes (Plutarch. Sympos. Prob. II. 10.)
Now a medimnus contained 48 chanices, and consequently 71⁄2medimni would last a man 360 days or about an Attic year, and 533,333 medimni would suffice for 71,111 people; but it is not probable that women, children and slaves, who amounted to at least two-thirds of the whole population, consumed the same daily proportion as the freemen; and we shall be justified in estimating their consumption at an average of of a chanix each per diem. Put therefore x for the whole number of citizens, then
will represent the freemen, and
slaves, the daily consumption of corn will be
the yearly consumption,
xx, and this = 533,333 x 48,
2520 9 which is the number of chanices annually imported. This equation, being solved, gives for the value of x, 91,428
This calculation is of course a very rough one, but I think that it is likely to come within 10,000 of the real number of the inhabi
tants of Athens; and the result very nearly accords with that which had before been deduced from other considerations.
I might have taken notice that it seems probable from some passages of the Comedians, that I have considerably over-rated the average allowance of individuals in fixing it at a chanix per diem, but I was not willing to deal too largely in inferences.
IN limine ipso Epistolæ tuæ occurrit quæstio de loco Chrysostomi in Acta, περὶ τῆς Μονάδος, quam ipse non expouit, sed ex loco Anastasii Sinaitæ a te producto licet colligere ἐξακισχιλιοστὸν ἀριθμὸν Μονάδα apud calculones dictam fuisse: quod satis mirari non possum. Τοῦ δὲ θαυμάζειν ἡ ἄγνοιά μου airia. Nuspiam enim alibi legi: et absque Anastasio fuisset, quid esset illa Movas apud Chrysostomum, nulla conjectura assequi potuissem. Sed de sex millium numero, satis constat, veteres Theologos putavisse mundum duraturum tot millia, quot sunt dies Hebdomadis. Quia vero To éžańμepov opera creationis sibi vindicat, septimus autem dies quietem, propterea aiunt confidenter, sex millia quidem annorum duraturum mundum: sed septimum millenarium alii alias interpretantur: quod longum esset referre. Et Et propterea in sex ætates mundum distinguunt, propter senarium numerum; et ultima tempora præter illas sex ætates ad aliud referunt. Itaque quod legimus apud Hesychium, plane ex Theologis illis est, ut alia multa apud illum eruditissimum Glossographum. Μονὰς, ἀριθμὸς, ἢ ἓξ μοῖραι τῶν ἑπτάδων.
Vides tuam hanc μονάδα esse, eamque ἓξ ἐκ τῶν ἑπτά. Nam ita potius legendum, non ἑπτάδων : nisi dicamus τῆς ἑπτάδος omnes μovádas vocatas fuisse éπTádas: quod concedi potest. έπτάδας: Hoc unum certum est, Hesychium in animo habuisse, sex de septem millibus dici Mováda; cujus caussam quis reddere potest? Jam Chrysostomus Homilia VIII. in c. III. Epist. 11. ad Timotheum, qui est locus quem indicasti in tuis literis, άToπώτατα dixit: ὑπὸ τὸν ἑξακισχιλίων ἀριθμὸν ἅπαντα ἄγεσθαι, καὶ ἐν τούτου κανόνι πάντα μερίζειν, καὶ πολυπλασιάζειν: denique hunc numerum esse, in quo πάντα, ὥσπερ in cardine quodam oτpé eтai. Quæ verba si proposueris Logistæ cuidam vel mediocriter vel exquisite docto, vix est, quin te cum tuo auctore risu excipiat. Vere dicam. Ego multum faveo Chrysostomo, propter illud flumen eloquentiæ, quod nunquam lutulentum fluit, sed semper sibi simile est. Hoc tamen non possum dissimulare, quod in eo scriptore deprehendi, quum ab illis discessit, quæ ad sacram paginam pertinent, nihil puerilius, ne dicam inscitius esse illo. Quale est hoc, quum dicit sex millium numerum omnia comprehendere et omnes partitiones recipere, quum certe multæ sint, quas non recipiat, quales septem, et novem, ut alias taceam. Jocularia sunt. Longe absurdior, ineptior, et stolidior Anastasii sententia, qui et eadem dicit, et præter ista vult eum numerum πάσης ἀριθμητικῆς ἐπιστήμης σημαντικὸν esse. Ulteriusne potuit progredi, ut ludibrium deberet Logistis de trivio? Caussa tantæ imperitia est hallucinatio, quæ senarium numerum, cum sex millibus annorum confundit. Vetustissimi Patres, qui πepì è§anué pov scripserunt, aiunt merito in sex diebus âσav Tηv KTίow absolutam, quia senarius numerus est perfectus, quod ex partibus suis, quas aliquotas vocant, componatur, 1. 11. III. et propterea mysticum aliquid esse in sex millibus annorum, quos duraturo mundo attribuunt. Vide Augustin. de Trinit. lib. 4. eundem lib. 4. de Genesi ad literam: et alios. Ergo Ergo numerus sex est perfectus, et ex suis partibus constat: ὁ δὲ ἀντιστοιχῶν αὐτῷ ἀναγωγικῶς éğaкioxiλioσтos apiuos, nihil tale potest habere, quum ab uniἑξακισχιλιοστὸς tate ad decem, unus sit tantum perfectus numerus vi. a x ad c numerus XXVIII. à centum ad mille, ccccxcVI. ut est in propos. ultima Elementi IX. Quare vides et Chrysostomum, et, qui illum sequitur, Sinaitam Anastasium attribuisse sex millibus, quod senario simplici debebant, id est, 7', quod competit