DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.47233#0091
CHAP. IV.]
THE THEATRE.
75
different Arcadian tribes. These names fall into two classes. All alike are inscribed on the backs of
the seats, but some before and some behind. The latter form the earlier of the two classes, and date
probably from the second, but possibly from the third century b.c. They are on seats Nos. 2, 3,
4, 5, 6, 7, counting from east to west. At a later period, probably not before the Christian era,
a re-allotment took place ; for we have on the five central seats—viz. Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7—a fresh
list of names in later characters. These inscriptions are given in Chap. VII. No. I., where they are
fully discussed. Here we merely remark that only two of the tribal names (’Απολλωνία and
Τϊανία) occur in both classes of inscriptions, and only one (Tlavla) on the same seat in both.
But the seats of honour bear also another set of inscriptions ; and these last are of the
highest importance for determining both the date of the Theatre and the original level of the
orchestra. They are on the central and two end seats. That on the easternmost contains the full
dedication. :—
Inscriptions on
these seats :—
(1) Names of
tribes,
(2) Dedicatory
inscriptions.
’ Α,ντίοχος άγωνοθετήσας άνεθηκε το
(u)s θρόνο(υ}$ πάντας icai τον οχετόν.
Those on the central and westernmost seats are repetitions of the first three words of
this :—
Άντ/οχο? άγωνοθετησας ανεθηκε.
These inscriptions, like the others, are given in facsimile and fully discussed in Chap. VII.
No. I.; but it is necessary to say here that the writers of the present chapter fully agree with Mr.
Richards in considering the identity of the Άντ/οχο? of this inscription with Antiochus the famous
pancratiast, representative of the Arcadian league in the embassy to the court of Persia in 367 B.c.,
to be extremely probable. If this identification be correct, the seats of honour—and d fortiori the Importance of the
rest of the auditorium—cannot be assigned to a period much later than the middle of the fourth ^^date Tf^audb
century. But if the identification be regarded as too problematic, the purely epigraphical evidence, torium.
drawn from the forms and use of letters, is quite decisive in favour of a fourth century (probably
an early fourth century) origin.
Whether, then, the seats of honour are contemporary with the rest of the auditorium or Determination of
slightly later than it, both may be confidently assigned to the fourth century b.c., probably
date from some period between the foundation of the town (370 b.c.) and the middle of that
century.
In the above paragraph we have hinted at a possible difference of date between the seats of These seats pro-
honour and the auditorium. For the determination of the date of the latter this possible difference ^ter addition.^
is of small moment; for, since neither these seats nor the auditorium can be older than 370 b.c.,
the interval can in no case have been very great. But for determining the original level of the
orchestra the question has great importance, since the footboard of the lowest row of ordinary
seats, which would mark approximately the highest possible level of the orchestra 34 if the seats of
honour were not there, is from 16 to 17 inches higher than the footboard of these seats, and some 15
inches higher than the present orchestra level. Now it is our decided opinion that the seats of Original level of
honour are not part of the original plan, but a slightly later addition, and that the level of the
orchestra according to the original scheme was somewhat higher than at present, possibly as much
as 15 inches higher. Our reasons are three in number: (1) the separate dedication of the seats
of honour and the gutter distinctly point to such a theory; (2) the seats of honour at Megalopolis
occupy a position different from that which they occupy in other Theatres. At Epiclaurus, for
instance, where these seats most closely resemble our own, and at Athens, they are situated upon
the lowest arc which is included within the retaining wall of the auditorium, i.e. precisely in the
position of our lowest row of ordinary seats. This seems to us a strong reason for supposing
that the lowest ordinary row at Megalopolis was intended to be the lowest row of all, and that the
seats of honour—which, for convenience, we shall sometimes speak of as the ‘ inscribed benches ’—
34 Perhaps the actual level; but in many cases the
footboard of the lowest seats was some inches above the
level of the orchestra; e.g., at Athens the difference is
about 16 inches, and at Piraeus the difference is about 11
inches, the actual height of the step being about 9 inches
Πρακτικά, 1880, p. 50), and the rest of the difference being
made up by a slight slope. If the auditorium at Piraeus is to
be restored (as in Curtiusand Kaupert, Karten von Attika,
Text i. p. 67, section) without any seats of honour on the
lowest step, the difference of level is about twice as great.
On the other hand at Epidaurus and Eretria footboard and
orchestra are nearly at the same level. See also Mr.
Schultz’s comments on this matter (Chap. III.) and Fig. 24.
THE THEATRE.
75
different Arcadian tribes. These names fall into two classes. All alike are inscribed on the backs of
the seats, but some before and some behind. The latter form the earlier of the two classes, and date
probably from the second, but possibly from the third century b.c. They are on seats Nos. 2, 3,
4, 5, 6, 7, counting from east to west. At a later period, probably not before the Christian era,
a re-allotment took place ; for we have on the five central seats—viz. Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7—a fresh
list of names in later characters. These inscriptions are given in Chap. VII. No. I., where they are
fully discussed. Here we merely remark that only two of the tribal names (’Απολλωνία and
Τϊανία) occur in both classes of inscriptions, and only one (Tlavla) on the same seat in both.
But the seats of honour bear also another set of inscriptions ; and these last are of the
highest importance for determining both the date of the Theatre and the original level of the
orchestra. They are on the central and two end seats. That on the easternmost contains the full
dedication. :—
Inscriptions on
these seats :—
(1) Names of
tribes,
(2) Dedicatory
inscriptions.
’ Α,ντίοχος άγωνοθετήσας άνεθηκε το
(u)s θρόνο(υ}$ πάντας icai τον οχετόν.
Those on the central and westernmost seats are repetitions of the first three words of
this :—
Άντ/οχο? άγωνοθετησας ανεθηκε.
These inscriptions, like the others, are given in facsimile and fully discussed in Chap. VII.
No. I.; but it is necessary to say here that the writers of the present chapter fully agree with Mr.
Richards in considering the identity of the Άντ/οχο? of this inscription with Antiochus the famous
pancratiast, representative of the Arcadian league in the embassy to the court of Persia in 367 B.c.,
to be extremely probable. If this identification be correct, the seats of honour—and d fortiori the Importance of the
rest of the auditorium—cannot be assigned to a period much later than the middle of the fourth ^^date Tf^audb
century. But if the identification be regarded as too problematic, the purely epigraphical evidence, torium.
drawn from the forms and use of letters, is quite decisive in favour of a fourth century (probably
an early fourth century) origin.
Whether, then, the seats of honour are contemporary with the rest of the auditorium or Determination of
slightly later than it, both may be confidently assigned to the fourth century b.c., probably
date from some period between the foundation of the town (370 b.c.) and the middle of that
century.
In the above paragraph we have hinted at a possible difference of date between the seats of These seats pro-
honour and the auditorium. For the determination of the date of the latter this possible difference ^ter addition.^
is of small moment; for, since neither these seats nor the auditorium can be older than 370 b.c.,
the interval can in no case have been very great. But for determining the original level of the
orchestra the question has great importance, since the footboard of the lowest row of ordinary
seats, which would mark approximately the highest possible level of the orchestra 34 if the seats of
honour were not there, is from 16 to 17 inches higher than the footboard of these seats, and some 15
inches higher than the present orchestra level. Now it is our decided opinion that the seats of Original level of
honour are not part of the original plan, but a slightly later addition, and that the level of the
orchestra according to the original scheme was somewhat higher than at present, possibly as much
as 15 inches higher. Our reasons are three in number: (1) the separate dedication of the seats
of honour and the gutter distinctly point to such a theory; (2) the seats of honour at Megalopolis
occupy a position different from that which they occupy in other Theatres. At Epiclaurus, for
instance, where these seats most closely resemble our own, and at Athens, they are situated upon
the lowest arc which is included within the retaining wall of the auditorium, i.e. precisely in the
position of our lowest row of ordinary seats. This seems to us a strong reason for supposing
that the lowest ordinary row at Megalopolis was intended to be the lowest row of all, and that the
seats of honour—which, for convenience, we shall sometimes speak of as the ‘ inscribed benches ’—
34 Perhaps the actual level; but in many cases the
footboard of the lowest seats was some inches above the
level of the orchestra; e.g., at Athens the difference is
about 16 inches, and at Piraeus the difference is about 11
inches, the actual height of the step being about 9 inches
Πρακτικά, 1880, p. 50), and the rest of the difference being
made up by a slight slope. If the auditorium at Piraeus is to
be restored (as in Curtiusand Kaupert, Karten von Attika,
Text i. p. 67, section) without any seats of honour on the
lowest step, the difference of level is about twice as great.
On the other hand at Epidaurus and Eretria footboard and
orchestra are nearly at the same level. See also Mr.
Schultz’s comments on this matter (Chap. III.) and Fig. 24.