« PreviousContinue »
1513. δίκα δ'θήγει
1514. θηγάναις μοῖρα
1516. εἴθε μ ̓ ἐδέξω-ἐπιδεῖν
1524. μεγάλων ἀδίκως
1602. ἐν κακοῖσιν
1606. ἔποικτον (gl. ἄξιον οἴκτου)
1611. δεσμὸς δὲ (gl. ἤγουν ἡ κάθειρα ξις)
1614. πήσας (gl. παθών)
1615. τοὺς ἥκοντας—νέον
1530. κάπτεσε (sic) κάτθανεν
Ibid. ὁ δυσφιλής κότῳ
1632. ἐπόψεται (gl. ΐδη)
1634. ἀλλὰ σὺν (gl. σοὶ δηλονότι)
1561. γενεὰν | κτεάνων mediis | 1642. ἀλλὰ κἀγὼ μὴν πρόκοπτος 1643. θανεῖν σε--ἐρούμεθα
1564. ἀποχρή μοι δ ̓ ἀλληλοφόνους | 1644. δράσομεν
1645. ὁ ἔρως
1560. δύστλητά περ
1575. αὐτοῦ τ ̓ ἀδελφὸν
1577. ἑστίας (gl. ἐπὶ τὴν οἰκίαν)
1621. ἠπίοις (gl. ἡμέροις)
1585. ἔθρυπτ ̓ ἄνωθεν ἀνδρακὰς (gl.
1591. τιθεὶς ἀρᾷ
1592. ὀλέσθη (gl. ἀπώλετο)·
1631. κριθῶντα (gl. πίονα ταῖς κρι
1646. ὕπαρχε. μηδὲν ἡματώμεθα 1647. στείχετε δ οἱ γέροντες π. δ. π. το
1648. ἔρξαντα καιρὸν
1649. εἰ δέ τοι &C.
1654. ἁμαρτῆτον κρατοῦντα.
1663. Abest καλῶς
Gloss. ad v. 929.
Εὕρηται καὶ κατέστραμμαι ἤγουν κατεβλήθην καὶ ἡττήθην, ὥστε ἀκούειν σου τάδε. ἤτοι ὑπακοῦσαι εἰς ταῦτα. ὃ δὴ ἀπὸ μεταφορᾶς τῶν πεπορθημένων καὶ κατεστραμμένων πολέων εἴρηται.
ad v. 99.
Ἡ φροντίς φησι, ποτὲ μὲν κακὰ διαλογίζεται περὶ τῶν ἀποδημούντων δηλονότι φίλων. ποτὲ δὲ θυσίας ποιοῦσα λαμβάνει χρηστὴν ἐλπίδα. ἥτις ἐλπὶς θεραπεύει τὴν τοιαύτην φροντίδα τὴν βιβρώσκουσαν τὴν ψυχὴν καὶ λυποῦσαν τὰς φρένας καὶ τὸν λογισμόν. τῆξις γάρ φησι καρδίας ἔμμονος λογισμός. λυπόφρενα δὲ γράφε. οὕτω γὰρ ἔχει πρὸς τὸ μέτρον ὀρθῶς. ́δέον δὲ εἰπεῖν καὶ λυπόφρενα, ἀσυνδέτως ἐπέφερεν.
Præfatio f. 2.
. οὔ καὶ τὰς αἰτίας αὐτοὶ λέγουσιν, ἐπενοήθη έμοιγε τῆς κοινῆς σημεῖον, διὰ τὴν τῶν πολλῶν πλάνην, καὶ οἶμαι καλὸν ἂν δόξαι τοῖς εὖ φρονοῦσιν. ἐπενοήθη δὲ διπλοῦν διὰ τὸ διπλήν τινα καὶ ταύτην ἔχειν τὴν δύναμιν ὅτε μὲν οὖν ἀντὶ βραχείας ὀφείλει λαμβάνεσθαι, σημεῖον ἐπενοήθη τοδί. L μακρὰ δηλονότι. καταρχὰς ἄνω βλέπων τὸ τοῦ ἰῶτα στοιχείου σημεῖον ἔχουσα. ὅτε δ ̓ ἀντὶ μακρᾶς, τοῦτο ἀνεστραμμένον οὕτωσι. Τ μακρὰ δηλονότι ἐν τῷ τέλει κάτω νεῦον τὸ τοῦ ἰῶτα σημεῖον ἔχουσα. Finis : οὐδὲν δὲ τῶν ἐγκειμένων ἴσασιν. [Exstant ante Aristophanem p. x. ed. Kuster.]
Γένος αἰσχύλου καὶ βίος. διωρθώθη δὲ παρὰ τοῦ σοφω *. θωμᾶ τοῦ μάγιστρος
Ημέτερον δημητρίου τοῦ τρικλινίου.
Ἴστεον ὅτι πάντα τὰ μέτρα πλὴν τοῦ δακτυλικοῦ, κατὰ διποδίαν μετρεῖται. [ante Aristoph. ibid.]
(Continued from No. VI. p. 215.)
WHEN I compiled the two papers upon the Greek theatre which appeared in the preceding Numbers of this Journal, I had not seen the learned and ingenious remarks of Hermann upon Aristotle's Poetics. He says that the Toai ueraßoλaí, which tragedy is said by Aristotle to have undergone, may be stated as follows:
a. The first form of tragedy was that, which proceeded from the singers of dithyrambs; not, as Bentley and Tyrwhitt suppose, consisting entirely of choric songs; but also of extemporal effusions, which the Chorus uttered, as they came into their mind.
b. The second form contained the extemporal effusions of Satyrs; to this is to be referred the proverb ovdev πρÒS TOV Atóvvσov, of which Zenobius (as quoted in our V. No. p. 74.) gives this account. "The Chorusses having been originally accustomed to sing a dithyramb to Bacchus, the poets afterwards having quited this custom, attempted to describe Ajaxes and Centaurs. Upon which the spectators taunting them said, This has nothing to do with Bacchus. On this account, therefore, they thought fit afterwards to introduce Satyrs, that they might not seem to forget the gods." So that the chorus of Satyrs seems to have been an intermediate step between the Dithyrambic Chorus, and the regular Tragic Chorus introduced by Thespis. This agrees with the expressions of Horace;
Carmine qui tragico vilem certavit ob hircum,
c. The third form was that used by Thespis, as described in our former paper. Pollux IV. 123. éλeo's ηv tpáπeľa ép ἣν πρὸ Θέσπιδος εἷς τις ἀναβὰς τοῖς χορευταῖς ἀπεκρίνατο. If this be true, it must have been one of the chorus, probably the Coryphæus, who mounted the chopping-block. This passage has escaped the notice of Mr. W. Schneider, who in a little book de originibus Comadia Grace,' published at Wratislaw in 1817. contends that when the actor spoke, the chorus took no part in the dialogues. See No. VI. p. 207.
d. The fourth, that of Phrynichus, the inventor of serious tragedy: see No. V. pp. 72. and 74. note.
e. The regular Satyric drama, as composed by Pratinas of Phlius see ibid.
f. The sixth stage was marked by the introduction of a second actor by Eschylus. See No. VI. p. 205.
g. The seventh, as augmented with a third actor by Sophocles.
2. Aristotle, Poet. §. XI. as corrected by Tyrwhitt, says, that plays with long irrelevant episodes were written by bad poets from want of skill, and by good poets on account of the judges; i. e. (as Hermann explains it1) that they might please
1 Hermann says, objecting to the old reading UTOKPITÁS, "Neque enim intelligi posse, quid histrionum interfuerit, ut fabulæ éreOodides in scenam producerentur ; ac minus etiam, cur poetæ cum laudis suæ dispendio illis gratificati sint; poetas certasse; hos renuntiatos victores, ut apud Plutarchum in Themistocle, p. 251. Θεμιστοκλῆς Φρεάριος ἐχορήγει· Φρύνικος ἐδίδασκεν· ̓Αδείμαντος ἦρχεν; nullam histrionis mentionem fieri." This extract from the earliest Didascaliæ does not, however, prove that the Actors were never commemorated. In later times, when acting became more of a distinct profession, and actors travelled from town to town to let out their talents, we know that their names were often commemorated, in company with that of the poets. The following Inscription is amongst the Oxford Marbles, p. 53.
ΥΠΟΚΡΙΤΗ͂ΣΕΡΜΟΦΑΝΤΟΣ . . .
VOL. II. No. 7.
the spectators, who required the plays to be of a certain length, and thereby obtain the suffrages of the judges, who were generally inclined to follow the popular opinion. He observes also, that it was an object with the contending poets to make their plays of nearly equal lengths.
3. I remarked (No. V. p. 88.) that the time allowed to each poet for the representation of his piece, was measured by the clepsydra. Hermann (in Aristot. p. 118.) thinks it incredible that this should have been the case, non enim fieri potuisset, quia sæpe eo in loco, in quo summa erat spectatorum exspectatio, finire cogerentur." If I understand the meaning of this objection, (of which I am not sure) I do not see the force of it; for if a certain number of hours were allowed to each poet, nothing could be more easy for him than to bring his pieces within the limited time. Indeed, if this were not the case, I do not perceive how a competitor could judge of the probable length of his adversary's tetralogy, which, according to the last observation, appears to have been the case. In the Orestean Tetralogy, the Agamemnon is very long; but the Choephoroe and Eumenides are both short; and perhaps if other tetralogies were exstant, we should find that the sum total of verses seldom differed by any considerable number'. At all events it is probable that some limits were assigned to each competitor. It appears that the theatres were filled with fresh audiences four times a day, (Theophrastus ap. Chardon de la Rochette Mélanges, II. p. 174.) Yet assuredly one set of competitors must have lasted longer than three hours; and in all probability this account refers to the time when the poets contended with single plays.
4. The successful poet, with the Choreutæ, sacrificed the vikia, to which his friends were invited3. And the Chora
1 Mr. Elmsley in his notes on the Medea, p. 71. speaking of the account which is given by Thomas Magister, that Euripides wrote 92 plays, 8 of which were satyric, says that it cannot be strictly true; for 92 plays make 23 tetralogies, each of which must have had a satyric drama. But is it certain that Euripides cast all his plays in tetralogies? Not necessarily; if our remarks in No. V. be well founded.
It is difficult to reconcile this with the fact stated by Plato Sympos. p. 175. E. viz. that the audience exceeded 30,000.
Plato Sympos. p. 173. A.