Since 1898 the inscriptions bearing upon the Greek drama have been the subject of thorough investigation at the hands of Prof. Edward Capps, Dr. Adolph Wilhelm, and others. The complete treatment of all the inscriptional evidence in the latter’s _Urkunden dramatischer Aufführungen in Athen_, just published, is an invaluable contribution to the history of the Greek theatre and drama, and I have made as much use of it as the time of its publication allowed, the revision of the present volume having been almost completed by that date. It was beyond the scope of the present work to embark on a full discussion of the points of detail on which the chief authorities on the inscriptions differ; but I have re-written many of the notes on these points, and have tried to give sufficient indications of the character of the evidence. Further, in re-writing Appendix B, as it was necessary to do in the light of recent work on the subject, I have thought it best to give the reader access to considerably more of the inscriptional material, though still omitting many fragments whose readings, date, or meaning were too uncertain to allow them to be of value to the ordinary student. Puchstein’s book, _Die griechische Bühne_, above referred to, is the other work of first-rate importance in connexion with the Greek theatre which has appeared since 1898. There has been much controversy in regard to the theories contained in it, and Dr. Dörpfeld has published a reply to most of Puchstein’s contentions (_Athenische Mittheilungen_, 1903, 383 ff.). But though in several points of detail Puchstein’s position seems to be open to criticism, it is very difficult to believe that Dr. Dörpfeld has improved his case for his own theory; and I have followed both Mr. Haigh’s view and my own conviction, in not modifying in any essential point the opinions expressed in the last edition. I have, however, altered the expressions ‘Lycurgean’ and ‘Hellenistic’ in most cases where they were applied in the last edition to the stage-buildings of different periods, since Puchstein’s work makes it at least an open question whether some of the ‘Lycurgean’ work is not to be ascribed to an earlier period, and some of the ‘Hellenistic’ work to Lycurgus. Mr. Haigh’s manuscript notes show, I think, that he would have approved of this. The new section on Puchstein’s theory follows in most points the lines of Mr. Haigh’s article on the subject in the _Classical Review_. I have inserted a number of references to the writings of Puchstein, Dörpfeld, and others who have taken part in the controversy as to the stage-buildings; and I have in many cases written fresh notes upon these and other points which have come into dispute since 1898, or upon which fresh light has been thrown. In cases where I could find no warrant in Mr. Haigh’s own notes or writings for the views expressed, I have included these notes in square brackets, and I have, so far as I could,