REPRESENTATION OF GREEK PLAYS IN GENERAL. 211 from which some 30,000^ of his worshippers gazed upon a spectacle instituted in his honour. Our theatrical costumes are intended to convey an idea of the dresses actually worn by the persons repre- sented, while those of the Greeks were nothing but modifications of the festal robes worn in the Dionysian processions 2. Finally, the modern playwright has only the approbation or disapprobation of his audience to look to; whereas no Greek play was represented until it had been approved by a board appointed to decide between the rival dramatists. It will be worth our while, then, to consider separately the distinguishing peculiarities of a Greek dramatic ex- hibition. We shall discuss the points of difference successively, as they relate to the time, the means, the j^lace, and the manner of per- formance; to which we shall add a few remarks on the audience and the actors. And first with regard to the time. Theatrical exhibitions formed a part of certain festivals of Bac- chus; in order, then, to ascertain at what time of the year they took place, we must inquire how many festivals were held in Attica in honom- of that God, and then detennine at which of them thea- trical representations were given. There have been great diversi- ties of opinion in regard to the number of the Attic Dionysia^: it appears, however, to be now pretty generally agreed among scholars that there were fom- Bacchic feasts ; in the sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth months respectively of the Attic year. I. The " country Dionysia," [to, Kar dypoix; Acovvcna,) were celebrated all over Attica, in the month Poseideon, which included the latter part of December and the beginning of January. This ^ Plato, Sympos. p. 175 E. 2 Miiller, Eumeniden, § 32, and Hist. Or. Lit, i. p. 393 new ed. ^ The I'eader who wishes to investigate the question fully is referred to Scaliger {Emendat. Temp. 1. p. ■29), Paulraier {Exercitat. in Auctorcs Girecos, pp. 617 — 619), Petit {Le(/g. AtticcB, pp. 112 — 117), Spanheim {Arr/um. ad Arisf. Ban. Tom. iii. pp. 122 sqq. ed. Beck), Oderici (Bissei-t. de Didasc. Marmorea, Eom, 1777, and in Marini, Jscriz. Alhane, Eom. 1785, pp. 161 — 170), Kanngiesser {Kom. JBuhne, pp. i6r — 170), and Hermann (Beck's A ristojiJi. Tom. v. pp. 11 — 28), who infer from the Scholiast, on Aristoph. Ach. 201 and 503, that the Lenaea were identical with the rural Diony- sia; to Selden (ad Marm. Oxon. pp. 35 — 39), Corsiui (F. A. ii. 325 — 3'29^ Euhnken (in Alberti's Hesych. Auctar. to Vol. I. p. 1000), Barth^lemy {Mem. de I' Acad, des Inscr. XXXIX. pp. 172 sqq.), Wyttenbach {Bihlioth. Crit. ii. 3, pp. 41 sqq.), Spalding {Ahhandl. d. Bcrl. Academic, 1804— 181 1, pp. 70 — 82), Blomfield (in Mus. Crit. ii. PP- 75 sqq.), and Clinton (^F. H. ii. p. 332), who identify the Lena?a and Anthesteria; finally, to Bdckh (Ahhandl. d. Berlin. Acad. t8i6, pp. 47 — 124), Buttmann (ad Dem. Mid. p. 119), and Dr Thirlwall (in the Phil. Mus. ii. pp. 273 fol.), who adopt the opinion stated in the text. Some arguments in favour of the second hypothesis have been brought forward by a writer in the Classical Museum, No. xi. pp. 70 sqq. 14—2
