¹ ProfessorTurner, E.G.in his translation of the Misoumenos (Oxy, P. 33 [1968], 2656) renders 206–7;Google Scholar ‘Someone is rapping on the door’, 282 ‘The door is creaking’, and 442–3 ‘One of them is making a noise on the door’ (for the Greek text, see below).

Bibliography: Beare, W.The Roman Stage, 3rd ed. (London, 1964), pp.182 and 285–94;Google ScholarBecker, W.A.Charikles (Berlin, 1877), vol.1 pp.88–93 and Vol. ii, pp. 145–7;Google ScholarDale, A.M. ‘An Interpretation of Ar. Vesp. 136–210 and its Consequences for the Stage of Aristophanes’, JHS 77 (1957), 205–11;CrossRefGoogle ScholarChr.Dedoussi, ‘The Interpretation of THN ΘγPAN IIEIIAHXEN’, Hellenika 18 (1964), 6–10;Google ScholarChr. Dedoussi on Men. Samia 85–6 (1965); Diels, H.Parmenides, (Berlin, 1897), pp.117–23;Google ScholarDiels, H.Antike Technik, 3rd ed. (1924), pp.44–52;Google ScholarKlenk, H.Die antike Tür, (Diss. Giessen, 1924), pp.15–18;Google ScholarMooney, W.W.The House-Door on the Ancient Stage, (Diss. Baltimore, 1914);Google ScholarRobinson, David M.Excavations at Olynthus, Vol.8 (Baltimore, 1938) and Vol. x (Baltimore, 1941).Google Scholar

The following editions will be quoted: Men. Misoumenos, Karchedonios ed. Turner, E.G. (Oxy, P. 33 [1968)]; Samia, ed.Google ScholarAustin, C. (Berlin, 1969);Google Scholar Dyskolos, ed. Handley, E.W. (London, 1965);Google Scholar Plautus, ed. Lindsay, W.M. (Oxford, 1903).Google Scholar

I should like to express my gratitude to Professor W. G. Arnott, who read a typescript of this paper and improved it in several places.

² This large wall painting in a necropolis at Kyrene, to be dated probably 2nd cent, A.D., shows a number of various theatrical performers. For a long time it was lost and known only through a drawing published in 1827 by the French architect Pacho (reproduced, e.g., inPickard-Cambridge, The Theatre of Dionysus in Athens [1946], fig. 120;Google ScholarBieber, M.The History of the Greek and Roman Theater [1961], fig. 787),Google Scholar but it was rediscovered two years ago. The inscription we are concerned with accompanies a section of the painting which figures a youth speaking to a boy before a closed door. The reading I have given above is the result of a discussion with Miss Joyce M. Reynolds, who has examined the original carefully and to whom I am indebted for kind permission to publish the following preliminary details.

The inscription reads: (1) αλλεψοφηκενοπατηρ | (2) ηθυραπροερχεται | (3) ]κρουστ [.

In line 2, οε or οθ or 00 or οσ; possibly φχ. In line 3, possibly [8; υσ or υε or υθ or uo; possibly μ.[; perhaps κρούετα[ι or κρούομα[ι. The letters that Pacho read after .[ in line 3 (apparently αυτοσ) have completely vanished.

Line 3 is placed a little apart from lines 1 and 2 and seems to belong to a different context. The conjectural transposition of οπατηρ from the end of line 1 to the end of line 2 can be justified by the observation that lines 1 and 2 are immediately followed by another inscription (omitted by Pacho), which is virtually illegible but obviously written by a different hand : conceivably the scribe of our inscription found that he was running out of space in line 2 and therefore put the end of his text into the space available in line ι just above. There is also a possibility that in our inscription different hands operated at different times : the two alphas in ΑΛΛ and ΘΥΡΑ have a shape remarkably different from those inΠATHP and EPXETAI. The transmitted word order neither scans nor yields a reasonable sense, while our conjectural reading does both very neatly (for the sentence structure cf. Pap. Hibeh 6.1 ; for the apparent ‘split anapaest’ cf. Arnott, W.G.CQ, 7 [1957]. 189).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clearly the various inscriptions scrawled on the painting are not part of the original composition but were added later. I imagine that the conspicuous door suggested to somebody the idea of illustrating it by adding a current ‘door quotation’ from some comedy. This means that we should not expect a strict connexion between the picture and the text; in fact, if the young man were supposed to be speaking the words, we should expect the door to be open, as we shall see later.

³ Perik. 126 and Samia 567 are in troch. tetr.

⁴ Particularly Helladios in Phot. Bibl. 279, p. 535 b 26 Bekker. Less explicit are Moiris p. 200, 11 Bekker; Ammonios 277; Philetairos 112 Dain; Schol. Ar. Nub. 132 (see Men. fr. 766) and Plut. 1097; Schol. Lucian Soloec. 9; Suda s.v. κόπτειν; Thomas Magister 194, 14. Cf. Donatus on Ter. Ad. 788 cum pulsandae fores exituro foras, Demea sic eas pulsavit, ut et his ipsis irasci videretur.

⁵ Robinson, Olynthus Vol.8 pp.255–6Google Scholar (‘From the position of these stops and rebates it is clear that these doors, both single and double, opened inward; there is no reason to suppose that this was not the general rule at Olynthus . . . . Archaeological evidence that house doors opened inward is consistent.’); Wiegand, T. / Schrader, H.Priene. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen… (Berlin, 1904), p.305;Google ScholarChamonard, J.Exploration archéologique de Délos Vol.8 (Paris, 1922–24), p.264;Google ScholarHulot, J. / Fougères, G.Sélinonte (Paris, 1910), p.207.Google Scholar

⁶ Gerkan, A.v.Das Theater von Priene (München, 1921), p.123 n. 3.Google Scholar

⁷ He goes on: ‘Doch werden wir durch die literarischen Zeugnisse zu einer anderen Ansicht gebracht.ߣ The literary evidence will be discussed below. The quotations from Klenk on pp. 15 and 18, the list on pp. 16–17.

⁸ E.g. Gisela Richter, M.A.Perspective in Greek and Roman Art (1970), plates 156, 158, 187, 196, 197, 198, 218; M. Bieber (quoted above, n. 2), figs. 105, 115, 116, 266, 479, 492, 509.Google Scholar

⁹ A prohibition of such public obstacles is recorded in Aristotle Ath. Pol. 50. 2, but doors are not mentioned, unless we take θυρίδας; exceptionally to mean ‘doors’. For similar measures in Rome under Cato’s censorship cf. Liv. xxxix 44. 4 and Plut. Cato mai. 19 (doors not mentioned either).

¹⁰ For discussion see Dale, A.M.JHS, 77 (1957). 205ff., esp. 205–6; Beare, pp. 290–2;CrossRefGoogle ScholarMacDowell, D.M.Aristophanes Wasps (Oxford, 1971),Google Scholarad loca. While Beare, in an effort to keep strictly to the rule of the door opening inwards, is led to artificial solutions, Miss Dale stresses too much the point that the poet allowed a great deal of inconsistency and nonsense for the sake of fun and laughter. It is true that in such a vivid sequence of clowneries and jokes we should not examine the logical consistency too exactly, but on the other hand we should beware of allowing too odd absurdities and improbabilities, which would have puzzled the spectators instead of making them laugh; as Professor Handley has put it, ‘a puzzled or distracted spectator is, for the moment of being puzzled or distracted, a lost one’ (in Ménandre, Entretiens Hardt xvi [1970], p. 10).

¹¹ Philokleon, it is true, could force the door more easily if it opened outwards, but that is not essential.

¹² Becker, Vol. ii, pp. 145–7; Jebb o n Soph. Ant. 1186 (1891).

¹³ Cf. Jebb (1891) and Gerhard Müller (1967) ad locum.

¹⁴ But it cannot be completely excluded that ένδοϋναι here is used transitively (LSJ i 1), just as in the parallel account Plut. Mor. 597 d (De genio Socr. 32) (ó οΕκέτης) ώς … κελευσθείς άνοϊξαι τον μοχλόν άφεΐλε καΐ μικρόν ένέδωκε την θύραν, έμπεσόντες αθρόοι … ί εντο … έπΐ τόν θάλαμον, where ένέδωκε must mean ‘he yielded them the door’ (so that they could push it fully open).

¹⁵ Compare e.g. Diels, Parmenide, pp.117–23;Google ScholarRobinson, Olynthus, Vol.8, pp.252–5;Google Scholar5 and plates 70–2, and Vol. x, pp. 295–8 and plate 85.

¹⁶ For discussion see Diels, ParmenideS, pp.128ff.,Google Scholar and Antike Technik, pp. 45–52; Jacobi, H.Schumacher, Festschrift K. (Mainz, 1930), pp.220–30.Google Scholar

¹⁷ The text does not exactly say which part of the door caused the noise. Diels insists that it must be the bars (όχέϊς) when pushed back (άνέκοπτεν) ; but I find it difficult to imagine that this could result in such a tremendous noise.

¹⁸ Cf. Diels, Parmenide, p.121,Google Scholar and Antike Technik, p. 44 (with sketches); Robinson, quoted n. 15 above.

¹⁹ N. 26 below; Ciris 222; Verg. Aen. i 449 and Serv. ad loc., vi 573; Prop, iv 8, 49; Ov. Am. i 6, 49; etc. (Mooney, pp. 31 and 35; TLL s.v. cardo, col. 443, 1. 24).

²⁰ Menander, Das Schiedsgericht (Berlin, 1925), p. 96. Cf.L. Radermacher, L. on A-r. Ran. 604 (Wien, 1921), pp.228Google Scholar ‘“die Tür zum Knarren bringen”, indem man sie öffnet’ (quotation marks sic).

²¹ Cf. Schwyzer, E. / Debrunner, A.Griechische Grammatik, Vol. 2Google Scholar (München, Handb. d. Altertumswiss., 1950), p. 72.

²² But Herondas 7. 11 is wrongly filed under ‘II c. acc.’ in LSJ; the sense there is ‘Do you want admonitions (viz. thrashing, or chains) louder (μέζον ψοφεϋντα) than these oral ones?’ Cf. Plaut. Trin. 1011 cave sis tibi ne bubuli in te cottabi crebri crepent (or: ‘Do you want something sounding louder than these admonitions?’). I would suggest that in Soph. Ichn. 161 the verb likewise denotes the noise of thrashing: ‘You will for your very cowardice cry and resound with the cracking of lashes’; cf. Plaut. Mil. 445 iam crepabunt mihi manus, malae tibi, nisi me omittis.

²³ As far as we can see, the perfect tense is applied to supervening slaves only (twice slaves are announced in present tense), but this may be accident; I should not know how to account for such a principle of distinction.

²⁴ in this context is not found in New Comedy as yet.

²⁵ The same view has already been advanced by Körte, A.DLZ 14 (1924), 693;Google Scholar ‘Der … bezeichnet wohl … das Geräusch, welches das Zuröckstossen des schweren Türriegels im Hausinnern vor dem Offnen verursacht.’

²⁶ Barrett, W.S. on Eur. Hipp. 577–81 (1964).Google Scholar There are many passages in Roman Tragedy where not the lock, but either the whole door or the Cardines are said to make a noise: Ennius 82 saeptum altisono cardine templum; Pacuvius 133 stridunt foris, 214 valvae sonunt; Accius 29 valvae resonunt regiae, 470 valvas sonere sensi regias; Gracchus I cardo regium egressum indicans, 2 sonat impulsu regia cardo; Seneca Med. 177 cuius ictu regius cardo strepiti, Oed. 911 postes sonant, 995 sonuere fores, HO 254 sonuere postes. (Mooney, pp. 31, 35 and 39.)

²⁷ i pp. 88–9 and ii p. 147; cf. also Beare, pp. 292–3.

²⁸ E.g. St. 311 experiar fores an cubiti an pedes plus valeant.

²⁹ However cf. Ar. Ran. 38–9

τις τήν θύραν έπάταξεν ώς κενταυρικώς ένήλαθ' όστις.

Nub. 135–7

άμαθής γε νή Δί' βστις οΰτωσΐ σφόδρα άπεριμερίμνως τήν θύραν λελάκτικας καΐ φροντίδ' έξήμβλωκας

³⁰ Pp. 38–39. The other evidence on which Mooney bases his opinion, particularly his list of vase pictures pp. 47–8, is doubtful or downright wrong.

³¹ I am relying on LSJ.

³² Bull. Ryl. Libr. xlv (1962/63), 258.

³³ Hellenika xviii, 8, and The Samia of Menander, p. 36.

³⁴ De aedibus scaenicis comoediae novae (Leipzig, 1929), p. 22 n. 1.

³⁵ On Men. Dysk. 188 (1965).

³⁶ See n. 33.

³⁷ Entretiens Hardt xvi (1970), pp. 32–3.

³⁸ Cf. the vase pictures in Diels, Parmenides, pp. 147–50.

³⁹ For this second kind of hitting cf. Pindar Nem. x 71 Ζεύς έπ’ “Ιδα πυρφόρον πλαξε ψολόεντα κεραυνόν ‘hurled it on Mount Ida’; Kallim. Ait. fr. 75, 37 Pf. θαμεινοί πλήσσονται λινέαις ορτυγες έν νεφέλαις (sc. by the wind) ‘are pushed into the net’ (LSJ πλήσσω I 2).