editione, dum saepius retractat, inveniet aut dignum, dum id ipsum experitur, efficiet. But I now beg of you, not only to take a view of it in the whole, but distinctly to criticize it, with your usual exactness, in all its parts. When you have corrected it, I shall still be at liberty either to publish or suppress it. The delay in the meantime will be attended with one of these advantages, that while we are deliberating whether it is fit for the public view, a frequent revisal will either make it so, or convince me that it is not. Is this a translation in the style of any century, eighteenth or twentieth? Will any one who, to understand the Latin, needs a translation, derive any real help in his efforts, from this version? To raise this question I have deliberately refrained from citing the many instances in which the Latin has been completely misrepresented. C. K. A STUDY OF DIETETICS AMONG THE ROMANS (Concluded from page 61) The use of food substitutes was also known to the Romans. Indeed, if we may trust the comic poets, this art was not an unfamiliar one to the Greeks. For in Euphron one reads the story of a clever chef, Soterides, who deceived a king by his cooking. The season was winter, the sea far away, but the king of Bithynia was seized by a longing for anchovies. Soterides prepared and cooked turnips in such a way as to imitate the desired dainties, and so quenched the king's passion for fish. The more or less rigid regulations of the sumptuary laws must have started the custom of food substitutes at an early day at Rome, for these laws not only forbade the use of certain articles of diet, but also made the prices of other foods prohibitive, by setting a high value on dainties which were specially prized. If certain articles of diet were difficult to procure for certain occasions, were highly taxed or forbidden by law, one must find something to take their place. Moreover, the thing prohibited always becomes the thing desired; hence one must prevail on one's cook to prepare a dish which would resemble as closely as possible the forbidden dainties. We have Cicero as our authority for the fact that as early as his day Roman cooks were fully capable of supplying Hoover recipes. In a letter to a friend, Cicero says that he has been ill for several days from partaking at dinner of vegetables which his host had had prepared instead of meat, in order not to contravene a recent sumptuary law. These had been so highly seasoned, and so palatable, that Cicero, who was very cautious when mushrooms or oysters were set before him, had been tempted to indulge his appetite too greatly. He concludes the letter by saying, Ego, qui muraenis facile abstinebam, a beta et a malva deceptus sum. Posthac igitur erimus cautiores. Martial 45 tells the story of a Roman cook, Caecilius, who was able to metamorphose a product of the garden in such a way that from it he supplied the material for the first and second courses, and for the dessert as well. Then there is the story of Trimalchio's cook, Daedalus, who was such a wonderworker that he served on his master's table a dish which at first sight resembled a fat goose surrounded by fish and fowl of all sorts, but all these dainties were cunningly devised from a pig. No doubt this skilful cook could have prepared the same things from the products of the garden if he had cared to do so. In the present scarcity of sugar, it is interesting, at least, to remember that the Romans used honey for sweetening wine, making cake, and for all other purposes for which we commonly employ sugar. Apicius 47 says that meat may be kept fresh as long as one wishes by covering it with honey. With this device for preserving meat may be compared our own sugarcured hams. Martial48 offers a substitute for meat. His suggestion is that if one wishes to breakfast economically without the use of meat cheese is excellent. Even war breads are no new thing. In The Classical Journal 13.527 Professor M. E. Deutsch, of the University of California, calls our attention to the fact that in 48 B. C.49, during the Civil War with Pompey, Caesar's supply of wheat gave out and hunger pressed hard on his men. Not only did the soldiers accept barley and legumes as substitutes, but they even made bread from an edible root which they discovered5l. The purpose of food substitutes on the occasion just mentioned was decidedly practical and patriotic. On other occasions it was to avoid the tax legislation of the sumptuary laws, which placed a high price on certain articles of food. The aim was often to provide imitations of delicacies which were forbidden by these laws, or were difficult to obtain on account of the season, or distance from Rome. Sometimes the purpose of food substitutes may have been merely to glorify the cook's art. This seems to have been the case in the story of Trimalchio's cook. The more practical of the Romans aimed at the conservation of food. The Apicius, De Re Coquinaria, offers numerous recipes for preserving meat and fish, and for putting up fruit and vegetables of all kinds. Catos says that the housekeeper should diligently put up fruits of all varieties each year. He says also, 'Save the wind-fall olives as relishes for the servants', and again, 'Be careful to make the olives go as far as possible'. Perhaps some are inclined to think that the science of dietetics is one which belongs particularly to the modern world, but both Greek and Roman physicians wrote on this subject. Hippocrates, Xenocrates, Galen, and Celsus may be mentioned. Marquardt asserts 54 that in the time of the Empire the Roman menu was arranged partly according to the many dietetic theories of the physicians. There is little doubt that opinions expressed by them and by the Elder Pliny influenced the more frugal of the Romans in the arrangement of their menu, both in regard to the food which it contained and the order in which it was served. A closer study of the writings of the Roman physician Celsus convinces one of this fact. The purpose of the gustus, the first division of a formal Roman dinner, was to aid the digestion as well as to whet the appetite. Now Celsus gives a list of the foods which are especially helpful to the digestion; among other things he mentions lettuce, beets, mallows, asparagus, oysters, sea-urchins, mussels, onions, and fowl. If one were to examine a few examples of the gustus, it could be seen at a glance that these are the very articles of food which are found in that part of the meal. Furthermore, the drinking at a Roman dinner was in perfect accord with the theories of the dieticians. Mulsum, a honied wine, was drunk during the gustus, and the heavier wines were reserved until later in the meal. This was for purposes of digestion. Celsus says that mulsum should be served early in the meal, and in Athenaeus 56 one reads that men who drink hard before eating do not have good digestion. Horace says that it is a mistake to mix honey with strong Falernian, and that it is wise to drink mild mulsum at the beginning of the meal. 43See Meineke, 4.494. "Ad Fam. 7.26. 4511.31. 46 Petronius, Sat. 69-70. Suetonius, Jul. 68. 52 De Agri Cultura 168. 471.8. 4813.31. 80 Pliny, N. H. 19.144. Das Privatleben der Römer, 313. Ibid., 58. In his work on medicine Celsus gives rules for both the sick and the well. A sanus homo, he says 58, should bind himself by no rules, has no need of a physician, and should observe variety only in his manner of life. Certainly the menu of a formal Roman dinner must have been varied enough to please even Celsus. In modern days we are still emphasizing the necessity for variety in the menu. A recent editorial in The Journal of the American Medical Association warns us to beware of the calorie, and of advertisements for cereals, or other foods, which make the boast that thirty-five cents worth of the advertised product will furnish three thousand calories a day. Regard for the calorie only, says the writer, is apt to lead to a one-sided regimen, and such standards of menu-making are objectionable. However, while Celsus59 advises variety in diet, he does not advocate a complex menu, for he says that the most advantageous diet for a man is a simple one. Multiplicity of tastes is injurious. Horace 60 likewise says that the menu should be simple. Two principles which the Romans believed should be followed in menumaking were variety and simplicity. The many menus which they have left us prove that they seldom neglected the former; while they often strayed from the straight and narrow path of simplicity, this wandering was not due to lack of knowledge. Not only did the Romans believe in the wholesomeness of a vegetable diet in general, but they frequently mention specific vegetables to which were ascribed dietetic values. Lettuce in particular was considered very wholesome. Pliny61 recommends it as a dish 502.24. 581.1. 362.24. 60Serm. 1.6.114 f.; 2.2.70 ff. 37Serm. 2.4.24 f. 591bid. 6119.127-128. 65 particularly suited for summer because of its cooling and refreshing qualities. Indeed, he even goes so far as to say that once, when the Emperor Augustus was ill, his life was saved by his physician Musa, who allowed him to eat lettuce. This vegetable was considered soporific, and appetizing, and was thought to increase the blood. Martial mentions lettuce62, beets, and mallows64 as aids to digestion. Pliny says that onions are good for the stomach, and that they act upon the spirits. Celsus 66 recommends many vegetables. He says that lettuce and snails are among the articles of diet quae stomacho aptissima sunt. Horace 67 as well as Celsus bears witness to the wholesomeness of mallows. Shellfish shared with vegetables and fruits a place among wholesome articles of diet. Pliny 68 says that oysters are refreshing to the stomach, and that they restore the appetite. Celsus69 recommends oysters, mussels, snails, and sea-urchins. Diocles70 says that the best of all shellfish as aperients are mussels, oysters, scallops, and snails. Celsus considers also the comparative food values of different articles of diet. He thinks legumes and grains which can be made into bread the most nourishing of all foods. Second to these, but still very nutritious, are domestic quadrupeds, large wild beasts, all seamonsters, among them the whale, also honey and cheese. Not only did the Romans have special dietetic theories for the well, but they believed also that the ill should give careful attention to their food. Diet and medicine go hand in hand, says Celsus72. A method of treatment that cures by diet sometimes applies medicine, and one which combats a disease by medicine especially ought also to apply a rule of diet. He recommends that it is wise for those who are not healthy to take at the beginning of the meal the fruits which in his day were served at dessert. He says, however, that if one's digestion is good dessert does no harm. In certain books of his Natural History, Pliny, quoting from Greek physicians, ascribes medicinal properties to many vegetables. Many diseases, he says, may be cured by onions74, and even more by cabbage 75. To this common product of the garden Chrysippus devoted a whole volume. This is only the beginning of a long series of vegetables which possess healing qualities. Leeks are said to impart a wonderful clearness to the voice. The Emperor Nero76 used leeks and oil on certain days for this purpose. At that time he abstained from all other food. Pliny recommends radishes, to be eaten raw with salt, for certain diseases of the diaphragm. Elecampane was considered very good for weak stomachs. According to Pliny78, Julia Augusta ate it every day. So firmly did the Romans believe in a system of dietetics that Pliny asserts79 that food affected not only a man's health, but his disposition as well. Nor did they content themselves with merely giving rules for the sick and the well. They even took up the question of longevity. Pliny tells us that many persons attained extreme old age by eating bread soaked in wine, and allowing themselves no other food. Pollio Romilius lived to be one hundred years old. When asked by Augustus how he had attained this venerable age, he replied, 'by honey within, by oil without'. Diet in relation to weight was also considered. Pliny says81 that the person who wishes to gain flesh will do well to drink while taking food, but that those who wish to 'reduce' should refrain from drinking. Many of our popular ideas or current theories in regard to dietetics seem to reecho those of the Romans, or to be derived therefrom. Celsus2 says that there is more nourishment in bread than in any other food, especially in bread which is made from wheat. Pliny speaks of the merits of autopyrus or whole wheat bread. Petronius 84 makes Habinnas, who has just returned from a funeral feast, say that he ate there coarse bread of unbolted flour and that he liked it better than the white, as it was so strengthening and was good for him as medicine. In connection with bread, however, one theory is found which is opposed to the popular belief of modern times, for Athenaeus 5 tells us that all bread is more wholesome when it is eaten hot than when it is eaten cold. We are rather surprised to read in Pliny that water is more wholesome when it has been boiled, and that the best way to purify it is to boil it down to one-half. The Emperor Nero was aware of this fact; hence water for his daily draught was boiled, then cooled with snow. In contrast to the Emperor's luxuriousness there were even in those early days many medical men who asserted that the use of ice water, or its ancient equivalent, water cooled with snow, was highly injurious. An early edition of the Metchnikoff theory of sour milk and its beneficent qualities in prolonging man's life is probably found in Pliny87. It is said, he writes, that Zoroaster lived in the wilderness thirty years, on cheese which was prepared in such a way as to render him insensible to the advance of old age. Celsus thoughts, as do many of our own day, that the use of highly seasoned foods was injurious, as people are tempted by their agreeable taste to eat too much and also because condiments are in themselves unwholesome. It must be said that, judging by our one Roman cook book, the Apicius, De Re Coquinaria, the Romans were addicted to the use of condiments, and so were in need of a word of warning as to their bad effects. Just a few which may be mentioned from this work on the culinary art are pepper, which was lavishly used, caraway, fennel, thyme, coriander, mint, rue, 90 parlsey, mustard, anise, ginger, and last, but by no means least, assafoetida. There is found in Celsus 89 the current theory that sleep is promoted by lettuce and the poppy. To these soporific plants Celsus adds the mulberry and the onion. No reference is found to the carrot and its beautifying effect on the complexion, but in Pliny one reads that onions impart a florid color. An apple a day keeps the doctor a way, says a modern proverb; in Athenaeus, Diphilus recommends apples for digestion. In modern days Dr. Wiley tells us that the frying-pan is the greatest enemy of the American stomach. Celsus2 recognized this enemy long ago, for, in his directions for those who are not strong, he says that it is better for them to eat meat which has been boiled or roasted. I have not been able to locate in Latin literature any admonition to 'Fletcherize', but perhaps such advice was superfluous in a world where even those who were most miserly of their time spent three hours at dinner. We may conclude, then, that, although the Greeks and Romans did not speak in terms of calories, vitamines, proteids, fats, carbohydrates, they did have a system of dietetics, which was not merely a collection of old wives' tales, but was in many respects quite sound. It may be counted as one of the many things for which the modern world is far more indebted to the ancient than it realizes at the present day. THE HARCUM SCHOOL, Bryn Mawr. CORNELIA G. HARCUM. THE REX NEMORENSIS Very meager are the sources of our knowledge concerning the King of the Grove, the Priest of Diana of the Underworld at her temple by Lake Nemi, near Aricia. Everything which can be deduced, conjectured, imagined, or hazarded about him will be found in J. G. Frazer, Golden Bough, Volumes 1-2, particularly in 1.1-6. Not much else of any value exists in modern literature. In the Athenaeum, No. 3024, page 477 (October 10, 1885), is a valuable article, by Lanciani, on the Shrine of Diana Nemorensis. Something about the results of the excavations at the site of the temple will be found in the Bulletino dell' Instituto di Correspondenza Archaeologica, 1885, 149 ff. Something more is in J. G. Hartung, Der Religion der Römer, 2.211-217 (Erlangen, 1836). In Pauly's Real-Encyclopädie (Stuttgart, 1852), a are two articles of some value: Aricia, 1.2.1555; Trivia, VI.2.21471. Valuable also is what is said of Diana's Festival in L. Preller, Römische Mythologie, 1.278 ff. (Berlin, 1886). See, finally, W. H. Roscher, Ausführliches Lexicon der Griechischen und Römischen Mythologie, s. v. Diana, 1.1002-1011 (Leipzig, 1884). It should be noted, however, that the investigation on which this article is based terminated in July, 1914; something may have appeared since. 8022.114. 7922.111. 8123.41. 853.83. 892.32. 9020.42. 13.20. 922.2. The article Aricia, by Huelsen, in Wissowa's revision of Pauly, 1.2.822-823, adds nothing of importance (Stuttgart, 1896). Seven inscriptions have some bearing on our knowledge of the Rex Nemorensis. None of these can be said to tell us anything about him, but they refer to the cult of which he was hierophant, or to its temple. They are C. I. L. 3.1773; Orelli, 1453-1457, 2212. The genuineness of more than one of Orelli's sheaf is suspected. Some 20 passages in 16 authors concern the Rex or the cult of the temple: Cato (quoted by Priscian, Peter's Historicorum Romanorum Fragmenta, page 52); Dionysius 6.32; Festus, s. v. Manius; Gratius Faliscus 483-492; Hyginus, Fabulae 261; Martial 12.67; Ovid, Ars Amatoria 259-260, Fasti 3.263-272, 6.756; Pausanias 2.27; Servius on Vergil, Aeneid 2.116, 6.136, 7.515; Silius Italicus, Punica 4.366; Solinus 2.11; Statius, Silvae 3.1.52-60: Strabo 5.3.12; Sueto ius, Caligula 35; Valerius Flaccus, Argonautica 2.305; Vitruvius 4.8.4. In the scanty literature referred to above many more references will be found, but they concern Aricia or Diana or Hippolytus or Virbius, not the Rex. Of the 20 references given above six are important: Cato; Gratius Faliscus; Ovid, Fasti 3.263-272; Pausanias; Servius on Vergil, Aeneid 6.136; Strabo. EDWARD L. WHITE. UNIVERSITY SCHOOL FOR BOYS, Baltimore. REVIEWS The Greek Theater and its Drama. By Roy С. Flickinger. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press (1918). Pp. xxviii + 358. 80 Illustrations. $3.00. This book deserves the highest commendation. It is one of the most scholarly books in recent years on a classical subject. Professor Flickinger has devoted nearly twenty years to researches connected with the Greek drama. Even as a graduate student he published (1902) an article on The Meaning of ἐπὶ τῆς σκηνῆς in Writers of the Fourth Century (Decennial Publications of the University of Chicago 6.13-26), and, later, a very important dissertation (1904) on Plutarch as a Source of Information on the Greek Theater (University of Chicago Press). For the last ten years there has not been a single year in which one or more important articles on the drama did not appear from his pen. I emphasize this to show that the present volume, which embodies these papers in revised form, though twothirds of the book are new, represents the work of nearly a score of years. The book ought to appeal to all general as well as technical students of the drama, especially as it is written in a readable style and contains many medieval and modern parallels and quotations from many modern dramatic critics. It is a good sign that real works of scholarship can be produced in America even in war times. The book is neither literary nor strictly archaeological. There are already many books and articles on the literary criticism of the Greek drama and there remains to be written a satisfactory book giving all the archaeological material bearing on the Greek drama. Pro fessor Flickinger's volume rather deals with dramatic technique and with the technical background and environment of the Greek drama. It lays special stress on the peculiarities and conventions and the technical aspect of the Greek drama, showing how the Greeks overcame and put to good use the physical limitations. After a long introduction, of 117 pages, intended primarily for the Greek student, dealing with the origin of tragedy and comedy and the Greek theater, come chapters on The Influence of Religious Origin (119-132), The Influence of Choral Origin (133-161), The Influence of Actors (162-195), The Influence of Festival Arrangements (196-220), The Influence of Physical Conditions (221-245), The Influence of Physical Conditions (Continued): The Unities (246267), The Influence of National Customs and Ideas (269-283), and the Influence of Theatrical Machinery and Dramatic Conventions (284-317). Chapter IX (318-337) deals with Theatrical Records. The index of passages will enable anyone reading a particular play to turn to the pages where passages in that play are discussed, and the general index will be useful. The illustrations are in general excellent1, though the archaeologist naturally wishes more variety and misses many important theaters and theatrical scenes. In a review it would not be possible to discuss all the much-mooted questions taken up in this volume. The very crude and inaccurate sketch map in Fig. 2 (where for example Attica is labelled "Attic" and the island of Elaphonisos is drawn as part of the Malea peninsula of Laconia) and the primitive plan of the Acropolis in Fig. 29 are exceptions. Some of the illustrations would have been improved if taken from better and more up-to-date sources. So Fig. 73 should have been reproduced, not from the antiquated drawing in Baumeister, but from FurtwänglerReichhold, Griechische Vasenmalerei, Pl. 90, to which work (Pl. 48) credit should be given for the Duris psykter reproduced in Fig. 10 from Hõber, who of course took it from that source. Fig. 4, which shows, on a Naples crater, preparations for a Satyric drama, is likewise taken from Baumeister; nothing is said about Von Salis's excellent article on it, in the Jahrbuch 25 (1910), 126 f. For the British Museum cylix by Brygus (31) also refer to FurtwänglerReichhold, Pl. 47, rather than to Baumeister. For the theater at Priene (Figs. 63, 64, and 113, 115) there should be a reference to the official publication on Priene by Wiegand and Schrader, 235-257, and Pls. XVI-XVIII. The worst illustration is the last (333), an antiquated and inaccurate drawing of the statue of Euripides in the Louvre, with an alphabetical list of his plays, taken from Clarac. It gives an entirely inadequate idea of the original portrait of Euripides, and the inscriptions are wrong. ̓́Αλκηστις (this is given by Professor Flickinger [332] with an E for H) and Μελέαγρος, are complete. There are traces of the title of another play after Επέος, and the name Euripides does not occur on the stone (compare Giraudon photograph 1515, or Alinari photograph, or Lippold, Griechische Porträtstatuen, 49, Fig. 5). There are abundant bibliographical references throughout, and the latest and most significant works are cited. Unfortunately, two important articles in the Jahrbuch 32 (1917), 1-15 and 15-104, Zum Ursprung von Satyrspiel und Tragödie, by Frickenhaus, and Die Herkunft des Tragischen Kostüms, by Miss Bieber, were probably not accessible in time. That of Solmsen, on Σιληνός σάτυρος, τίτυρος, in Indogermanische Forschungen, 30 (1912), 449 ff., as wel as Kuhnert's article on Satyros and Silenos, in Roscher's Lexicon, and Bulle's Die Silene should have been cited and used in the discussion about satyrs. To the bibliography on the origin of tragedy (1) might be added Tieche, Der Ursprung der Trag die (Aarau, 1915); Wilamowitz's introduction to his translation of Euripides's Cyclops, and his Aischylos Interpretationen (1914), 2 and 240 ff.; Levi, Rivista di Storia Antica 12 (1908), 201; Nilsson, Die Dionysischen Feste der Athener, Jahrbuch 31 (1916), 323; D. C. Stuart, The Origin of Greek Tragedy in the Light of Dramatic Technique, Transactions of the American Philological Association 47 (1916), 173-204; and perhaps also articles in some of the dictionaries, such as Navarre's article on Tragoedia, in Daremberg et Saglio. On the dramatic art of Aeschylus, Sophocles and Menander, the articles of Professor Post in Harvard Studies 16 (1905), 15 ff., 23 (1912), 71-127, 24 (1913), 111 ff. might have been mentioned, though perhaps Professor Flickinger did not think them important enough. Suffice it to mention only a few points. Articles on the origin and development of the Greek drama will continue to be written so long as there is any interest in Greek; and until archaeology finds some conclusive evidence, the matter will be debated. Professor Flickinger discusses very sanely the ancient passages dealing with the origin of tragedy and comedy, especially those in Aristotle's Poetics, in which he rightly puts more trust than is put by Ridgeway and other modern writers, who transgress good philological practice in tracing tragedy back to ritual rites. He believes that tragedy did develop from the dithyramb and follows the traditional view that it was associated with the worship of Dionysus. He derives the name tragedy from the fact that the goat was the prize and was perhaps sacrificed by the winner. This seems very probable and was an ancient tradition, though certainly not earlier than the third century B. C., and the passage cited from the Parian Chronicle is a restoration, even if a very probable restoration. There is, however, also a distinct tradition that tripods were given as prizes (often on vases; compare Archäologische Zeitung 38 [1880], 182 f., Pl. 16; Graef, Die Antiken Vasen von der Akropolis, No. 654 A, Pl. 41). Frickenhaus, however, thinks that tragedy means goat-song and was named after the leader of the chorus of equine satyrs, who later themselves became goats like their leader, Silenus, who was originally a goat and who is so addressed in Sophocles's Trackers. In my article on the Greek drama in Hastings's Dictionary of Religion and Ethics, I favored Ridgeway's idea that tragedy was the song of goat-men, and I am still inclined to think that something can be said for the theory that the goatsatyr had something to do with the word tragedy, which first occurs in the time of Aristophanes, long after the time of the earliest vase with goat-satyrs (Fig. 9, about 450 B. C.). Representations of men in goat-skins or human goats occur even on Minoan seals, and men dressed as tragoi to impersonate a goat Dionysus may have performed in Dorian tragedy, whence the word may have been transferred to Attica, where the satyrs were of the Silenus type with human feet and may have been called tragoi. The Etymologicum Magnum, as well as a fragment of Aeschylus and a passage in Sophocles's Trackers, certainly refers to satyrs as goats. It would seem strange to name so important a branch of literature as tragedy after the goat as prize or sacrifice, and the analogy of such words as κωμῳδία, κιθαρῳδία, αὐλῳδία is against that interpretation of τραγωδίας. The discussion (24 f.) of representations in art of Sileni and Satyrs is not entirely satisfactory. Only seven vases, namely those that are inscribed, are mentioned as representing ithyphallic Sileni, including the François vase, which is wrongly called (24) an amphora, instead of a crater. But there are many others even showing Sileni with horses' hoofs, though uninscribed in the earlier black-figured ware (see for example, Sieveking, Die Königliche Vasensammlung zu München, Nos. 844, 868, 869, 894); but of Sileni or Satyrs with human feet there are countless examples on black-figured vases which date long before the red-figured vases of Duris and Brygus cited on page 31. Also in sculpture they exist, as for example in the poros gable of the old Dionysus temple, which dates before 500 B. C. (Athenische Mitteillungen, 11 [1886], Pl. 11). Professor Flickinger believes that the usual view that tragedy developed out of the dithyramb through satyrdrama is incorrect and that tragedy and the satyrdrama are separate developments from the dithyramb, a theory which explains away many inconsistencies in the usual view but which still lacks definite proof. It is a pleasure to see that an English book on the theater at last accepts the idea that the Greek actors acted in the orchestra. Here we have the first detailed sympathetic presentation in English of Dörpfeld's views. Professor Flickinger's views with regard to the proskenion and paraskenia may have to be changed in view of the important work of Professor J. T. Allen, who will soon publish a monograph on the Greek theater of the fifth century (cf. J. T. Allen, Key to the Reconstruction of the Fifth Century Theatre at Athens, in University of California Publications in Classical Philology 5. [1918], 55-58). Professor Flickinger does not agree with Dörpfeld's idea that the Neronian stage belonged to the high Graeco-Roman type, but thinks, as Dörpfeld originally argued, that it was about four feet nine and a half inches high and that stone steps led from the orchestra to the center of the stage, as in the Phaedrus theater. But the frieze of the Phaedrus stage has the heads knocked off almost all the figures and the Neronian stage from which it came originally must have been much more than six inches higher. I am sure that Dörpfeld believes, as Professor Flickinger does, that the Nero stage did not project so far into the orchestra as the Phaedrus stage, even if he has not indicated it. At any rate that was his belief when I last heard him lecture in 1909. The statement is made (86, 111) that Priene affords the sole instance of a Graeco-Roman hyposcenium having columns, but in many other cases there are columns and a proscenium in Greek theaters still used The Würzburg cylix, with the inscription which is interpreted as a mistake for σάτυρος, though it might be some peculiar barbarian proper name, Σάτρυβς, is wrongly said to be the earliest representa tion of a satyr in Attica (compare, for example, for similar figures, uninscribed, on earlier black-figured vases Nicole, Catalogue des Vases Peints du Musée National d'Athénes, No. 953, a blackfigured pyxis with satyr and four goats; Graef, Die Antiken Vasen von der Akropolis, No. 654 A, Pl. 42; Pottier, Louvre Album, Pl. 63; Sieveking, op. cit., Nos. 840, 841, 878, 881, 898, 924, and many others). I am very suspicious of this inscription, and Professor Flickinger bases too much on this one doubtful case. If the Würzburg figure with human feet is a satyr, it confirms my belief that such figures which occur so frequently even on black-figured vases of the sixth century were known as satyrs. Even the redfigured cylix which I published in the American Journal of Archaeology 21 (1917), 159 f. (to which no reference is made) and which I interpreted as a reminiscence of a satyr play has a satyr which, as that in the pediment of the Old Dionysus temple, is much nearer to the original ithyphallic satyr (compare Solmsen's etymology of satyr, 1. c.) than any of Professor Flickinger's examples and is nearly as old as, if not older than, the Wurzburg cylix, which might date later than 500 B. C. I am not sure that Fig. 9 (30), dated about 450 B. C., represents goat-satyrs. As Reisch (cited by Professor Flickinger also) has suggested, they may be Pans in some such comedy as Eupolis's Αἶγες; Pan is represented with goat hoofs on vases as early as 500 B. C., a mode of representation that surely influenced such scenes as that in Fig. 9. As regards the five Attic vases (Figs. 12-16) which depict comus revelers, they are far different in style, some black-figured, others red-figured, and cannot all date about 500 B. C. (38). Fig. 13 might date as early as 550 B. C., though of course some black-figured vases continued to be made after the introduction of the red-figured style about 530 B. C. Some of the red-figured ones might be even later than 486 B. C. |