got by the height of the cross-walls AF, A'F'. That on the east
is 0.28 m. above the proskenion-sty\oba.te; that on the west a trifle
less. The floors of the paraskenia must have had an upward incline,
for in the east paraskenion, starting from the cross-wall mentioned,
a ledge runs with a slope upward along the back-wall, and where
it ceases its line is continued, indicated by the different surface of
the stone above and below. The ledge arose as follows. When
the new upper part of the scaenae frons (hatched as " Late Wall—
Good " on plan) was built on the old foundation, since it was not
so thick as the wall it replaced, the prolongations of the latter in
the back-walls of the paraskenia projected beyond the new wall.
To remove this blemish the faces of these back-walls were cut
down until they corresponded to the new front line. This was
naturally done only down to the floor-level, below which the
wall was left intact, forming the edge mentioned. In the west
paraskenion there is no ledge, but, as in the east, a thick layer ot
roof-tiles and antejixae shows where the floor was. Above the
roof-tiles were blocks from the walls, i. e., the roof fell first and
the walls caved in on top. Below the cross-walls a step led to
the level prevailing back of the proskenion, which level in the
period of the marble proskenion was above that of the earlier
period, just as the orchestra was higher.
The height of the paraskenia is the next problem. That the
proskenion was Doric was determined by the excavators of 1891.17
A fragment of one of the columns shows that the visible front
part was channeled, while the back was left simply rounded, and
on each side a segment was cut off so as to make a flat surface
for the attachment of the pinakes. Among the finds of 1895 was
a" triglyph of bluish marble 0.20 m. wide and 0.31 m. high, with a
bit of metope on either side. The evidently corresponding Doric
geisa have mutules 0.204 m. long, with a distance of 0.048 m.
between them. From these Ave make out the combined width
of triglyph and metope as 0.504 m., three times which is 1.512 m.,
or just the axial distance of the columns of the proskenion,16 which
proves that the triglyph and the geisa come from the proskenion.
There were, accordingly, between each pair of columns two
17 Fossum's report, p. 87.
16 Ibid., p. 87.