^{page 120 note 1} Narrative of a Journey in the Morea, p. 328. He must surely mean diameter though actually he says ‘radius,’ which is even less nearly correct. The radius, taken from the ascertained centre of the Orchestra to the inner edge of the blocks forming the sides of the water-channel round it, is 12·25 metres (slightly over 40 feet 2 in.).

^{page 120 note 2} Les Ruines des plus beaux Monuments de la Grèce, Pl. XIII.

^{page 121 note 1} I advisedly use this term to avoid the complications involved by the use of Proscenium, without intending to claim it as the only possible name for this wall. Dörpfeld-Reisch, Gr. Theater, p. 301, deny the correctness of Hyposcenium in the sense of ‘Buhnenvorderwand.’ If I appear to defy this view it is only through inability to find a suitable alternative. ‘Stage-front’ is scarcely standardised in the sense required.

^{page 122 note 1} See Fig. 6, and contrast it with Fig 8 (before removal of the Byzantine material).

^{page 122 note 2} See p. 132 below.

^{page 123 note 1} Certain exceptions will be noted as we proceed.

^{page 123 note 2} Or, more strictly, thirty-one if we restore one on the outer edge of the diazoma (cf. p. 126).

^{page 123 note 3} Excavations at Megalopolis, pp. 37 ff., and Fig. 24.

^{page 124 note 1} Whether these benches represent, as seems to be the case at Megalopolis, an addition to the original plan, is not yet clear. Certain indications point in that direction, and require to be further investigated.

^{page 125 note 1} Cf. Fig. 3, seat marked A.

^{page 125 note 2} The edges are too straight for this to be merely due to later breakage in every case.

^{page 126 note 1} At Epidaurus, with even more rows of seats than at Sparta, there is no lower diazoma.

^{page 128 note 1} § 4, P. 251 f.

^{page 129 note 1} But there is no need to infer that the clay embankment gave place again to the natural ground. On the contrary, the collapse of both extremities of the cavea is a further proof that it was ‘made’ ground.

^{page 130 note 1} Cf. B.S.A. xii. p. 402. The diameter of the semicircle which it forms is wrongly given as 104 m.; it is almost exactly 114 m. between the outer edges of the stones.

^{page 131 note 1} Op. cit., p. 328.

^{page 132 note 1} There seems to be a slight difference in the measurements in this respect. The return on the west is 33·70 m. from the (presumed) outer S.-W. angle, while that of the east wall is only 33 m. from the (presumed) outer S.-E. angle; thus they are respectively 36·30 and 37 m. from the axial line of the cavea and Orchestra, which seems exactly to divide the total distance of 140 m from angle to angle.

^{page 132 note 2} Fougères, Mantinée, p. 169 f.

^{page 134 note 1} The distances between these anathyroses are as follows (measured on centres and beginning on the left): 1–2, 2·80 m.; 2–3, 2·30 m.; 3–4, 2·50 m.; 4–5, 2·10m.; 5–6, 3·70 m. Much is to be said for the suggestion, due to Mr W. A. Sisson, of the British School at Rome, that they were primarily intended as guides to the masons who were to dress down the blocks finally; but that this was left undone.

^{page 134 note 2} Op. cit., p. 43, Fig. 32.

^{page 135 note 1} We have found, among fallen blocks from the wall, two coping-blocks, of different depth from back to front, ·49 and ·51 m. The former must belong, in view of our having found fallen blocks ·49 m. deep, presumably from the course directly below the coping.

^{page 136 note 1} The projecting moulding on the blocks of the west retaining-wall renders this far from impossible. It is well seen in Leroy's Plate XIII (op. cit.) but must have fallen since his visit.

^{page 137 note 1} Op. cit., p. 403.

^{page 139 note 1} For an example of the secondary centres on which the cavea of a theatre is laid out, cf. the plan of that at Epidaurus.

^{page 139 note 2} MrDickins, was wrong in saying ‘greenish marble,’ B.S.A. xii. p. 401Google Scholar. The red is Lapis Lacedaemonius.

^{page 139 note 3} Byzantine stone-robbers had penetrated in places nearly a metre below the level of the paving.

^{page 141 note 1} The cisterns in the E. stage-region, and the line of wall bounding it on the west.

^{page 141 note 2} For the name see above, p. 121, note 1.

^{page 141 note 3} The style of building is not unlike that of the best portions of the Roman Amphitheatre at the Orthia site.

^{page 142 note 1} Cf. Mau, Pompeii, p. 145, and Rizzo, Il Teatro Greco di Siracusa, p. 145 f., for traces of the niches of the Roman stage-front there, and other parallels.

^{page 142 note 2} As Dickins recognised, loc. cit.

^{page 143 note 1} This material must have been imported, as no granite is found in Greece. Cf. p. 147, below. Three of them can be seen in Fig. 9.

^{page 145 note 1} A few fallen fragments of small size were found opposite the centre of the wall.

^{page 145 note 2} Not less than ·30 m.; perhaps slightly more. We have only the foundations of the central pair preserved, and exact measurement is difficult.

^{page 147 note 1} The complete shafts are 3·50 m, in length; the upper diameter is ·43 m., the lower ·51 m.

^{page 147 note 2} White marble, diam. ·42 m., twenty-four flutes; if the height was to the diameter in proportion of : 1, this gives us 3·57 m. for the height of the shaft.

^{page 149 note 1} Our levels are shewn in terms of metres, etc., above sea-level.

^{page 149 note 2} Cf. p. 134, supra.

^{page 150 note 1} Cf. Dörpfeld-Reisch, Griech. Theater, p. 137. In view of the cutting at Sparta being semicircular in section it does not seem likely that it could have been for a screen.

^{page 150 note 2} Op. cit., p. 146 f., and Fig. 59.

^{page 151 note 1} We noted a much larger proportion of broken-up marbles and of bricks.

^{page 153 note 1} Cf. p. 149, supra.

^{page 153 note 2} B.S.A. xii. p. 400. We may also possibly have to modify the conclusions of Traquair (Ibid., p. 428 f.) regarding the date of this part of the fortress.

^{page 153 note 3} Ibid., p. 403, and p. 137 above.

^{page 154 note 1} B.S.A. xii. pp. 400, 477. Fourmont, however, described it as ‘prope Ecclesiam S. Nicolai.’

^{page 154 note 2} E.g. B.M.C. 63 ff., and 70. For an analysis of the coins found, see Note, p. 157.

^{page 154 note 3} The cuttings on the upper surface of the inscribed base of Lucius's statue shew that another block stood upon it.

^{page 154 note 4} Paus. iii. 14, 6; cf. Kjellberg, E., Eurykles, C. Julius, in Klio, xvii. pp. 44 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 155 note 1} The angle at which certain foundation-courses end off below the pilaster at the end of the W. retaining-wall seems to support this possibility.

^{page 155 note 2} Cf. B.S.A. xii. p. 404; xiii. p. 191 f.

^{page 155 note 3} That at Megalopolis stood clear on the other side of the stage.

^{page 155 note 4} Cf. p. 150 f. above.

^{page 156 note 1} It might well have been dedicated to himself and Maximianus. [A second fragment of the same architrave, found in 1926, contains the name [Γαλ]ερίψ Οὐαλεριψ Μαξιμιανῷ.]

^{page 156 note 2} I do not thereby imply that the fortifications should be dated as late as this. It does not seem necessary to do so, but this question must be set aside for later study.