Papers of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens (1.1882-1883)

132

THE THEATRE OF DIONYSUS.

to assign them to the time of Lycurgus,* and he believes them to
have been erected to strengthen the older walls in front of them, so
that the foundations might thus be fitted to carry the stone building
which was then erected in place of a previous wooden one. But
these walls stand distinctly by themselves, and do not at all form a
united whole with io-ii, as they should do if they were intended to
bear the renovated structure of the fourth century. Except the
wall 14 (which, owing to the incomplete condition of the excavation
at this point, cannot be thoroughly examined), these walls are very
carelessly built, though the blocks of stone are large. In view of
these facts, I think it is very doubtful whether they date from any
time when good Hellenic work was in vogue. The opinion that the
first scene-structure was built of wood, though it is held by Julius
and many other scholars, and possibly may be correct, is still a theory,
which many refuse to accept.f

The wall 20-22 is the foundation wall of the postscenium. At
the back of this runs the wall 23-24, consisting at present of a single
course of Piraic stone, which rests upon the foundations of 20-22
(as shown in Fig. 1). The theory which Julius has proposed in
explanation of walls 12-13, 14, and 15, that they were added at the
time of Lycurgus to strengthen the older foundation, he applies also
to wall 23-24. This, in his opinion, was added to make the founda-
tion of the postscenium suitable for the more perfect building which
it is supposed was erected upon them during the fourth century. In
any case, it is evident that the wall 20-22 must always have had some
kind of a facing on the south side, since the structure, as shown in
the cross section, plainly betokens this. Accepting for the moment
the theory of Julius, that the wall 23-24 belongs to the building of
Lycurgus, the width of the block h shows that, from the very begin-
ning, it supported a broader wall than 20-22. The addition of so
broad a supporting wall as 23-24 would have necessitated a widening
of the foundation ; so that, if 23-24 was added in the fourth century
B.C., the block g must date from the same time. As to walls 12-13,

* See p. 237.

f For Julius's view, cf. Uhrlichs in Verhaiidl. der 20 Philol-Vers., 1861, pp.
45 f.; and Bursian, Allgemeine Encyklop'ddie: Griechische Kunst, Sec. LXXXII.
p. 449 ; and, for the opposite view, C. Curtius in Philogus, XXIV. pp. 261-283,
Zum Rcdner Lycurgus, section on the Theatre.