8 5 8 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO 3 1822 02705 6217 I ^'BRARY ^^ OlEGO OF lllllliri^l'llllll?l'„9^V,^.0f"^'A.SAN 3 1822 02705 6217 DIEGO 7A SEMICENTENNIAL PUBLICATIONS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 1868-1918 a, a 3 fe THE GREEK THEATER OF THE FIFTH CENTURY BEFORE CHRIST BY JAMES TURNEY ALLEN •I PREFACE The following pages were written under great pressure during the troubled months of the summer of 1918. For many years the problem of the reconstruction of the fifth-century theater at Athens had had for me a strange fascination. No matter how far afield I might wander or how hopeless the quest might appear, invariabl}' I found myself yielding again to its spell and returning wdth new devotion to the tasks which it imposed. But the way led through a baffling intricacy of conjectures from which escape seemed forever barred. At length, however, in the spring of last year I suddenly realized that a clue to guide one out of a portion at least of this labyrinth of uncertainty had long been at hand, albeit unrecognized. The nature of this clue is set forth in chapter 3, and its dis- covery constitutes, as I still believe, a substantial advance in our knowledge of the theater of the fifth century. But it is doubtless too much to expect that all of the conclusions drawn therefrom will find general acceptance, particularly the attempted recon- struction of the Sophoclean scene-building (Fig. 31), regarding which I myself entertain many a misgiving. Quite apart, how- ever, from the particular thesis which I have sought to defend and the arguments adduced in its support, the discussion of the various theories regarding the early theater which have been advanced during the past thirty years will perhaps be not without value both to the general reader and to the student who may be seeking a guide to the hterature of this highly technical subject. The timely appearance of Professor Flickinger's able book The Greek Theater and Its Drama (University of Chicago Press, May, 1918) rendered unnecessary a full discussion of many matters which vi PREFACE would otherwise have been included. But the resulting brevity of the argument is no doubt a distinct advantage. I wish to thank the University of Chicago Press for the priv- ilege of reproducing a portion of figure 74 of Professor Flick- inger's book (Fig. 22). I am indebted also to the generosity of WiUiam Heinemann, London (G. P. Putnam's Sons, New York), for permission to quote from Dr. A. S. Way's admirable transla- tion of Euripides in the Loeb Classical Library; also to George Bell and Sons, London, for a similar favor with reference to the equally able translation of Aristophanes by Dr. B. B. Rogers. Finally, I regret that as yet I have been unable to procure a copy of Romagnoh's II Teatro Greco (Milan, 1918), but from reviews which I have seen I infer that the author does not treat in detail the problem to which this brief monograph is devoted. I re- gret also that I have not seen either Frickenhaus' Die altgriechische Buhne or Dorpf eld's reply published in Wochenschrift fur klassische Philologie, 1918. Bebkeley, California, May 12, 1919. CONTENTS CHAPTER I. Introduction .....•• II. The Fourth-century Theater at Athens . III. The Theater of the Fifth Century . IV. The Evidence of the Dramas ... V. Changes of the Setting .... VI. How were the Changes of the Setting Effected ? Theories ....••• VII. The Alleged Frothyron of the Vase-paintings VIII. The Origin of the Proskenion Various PAGE 1 20 43 69 79 95 107 Vll ILLUSTRATIONS PAGE 1. The theater at Epidaurus (from a photograph) . . Frontispiece 2. Plan of the theater at Thoricus (from Dorpfeld und Reisch, Das griechische Theater, figure 43) ....... 2 3. Gateway in the theater at Epidaurus, restored (from UpaKTiKo. ttjs ev 'AdiqvaLS dpxa-i-o\oyiKT]s eraipias for 1883) ..... 3 4. The theater at Athens (from a photograph) . . . facing 4 5. The theater at Priene (from a photograph) . . . facing 6 6. Phm of the fourth-century theater and the precinct of Dionysus Eleuthereus at Athens (after Dorpfeld, Das griechische Theater, Tafel 2, modified) ....... facing 8 7. Facade of one of the paraskenia of the Lycurgean theater (after Fiechter, Baugeschichtliche Entwicklung des antiken Theaters, figure 12) 9 8. Ground plan of the fifth-century skene of the theater at Athens as con- jecturally restored by Fiechter, op. ciL, figure 14 ... 11 9. Ground plan of the fourth-century skene of the theater at Athens as restored by Dorpfeld, op. cit., Tafel 2 . . . . .12 10. Ground plan of the fourth-century skene of the theater at Athens as restored by Fiechter, op. cit., figure 15 . . . . .13 11. Front elevation of the scene-building of the theater at Oropus as re- stored by Fiechter, op. cit., figure 2 . . . . . .14 12. The scene-building of the theater at Athens (first half of the fourth century) as restored by Fiechter, op. cit., figure 63 . facing 14 13. Ground plan of the Hellenistic scene-building at Athens, as restored by Dorpfeld, op. cit., figure 26 . . . . . . .15 14. Plan showing the remains of the theater at Athens in the fifth cen- tury (after Dorpfeld, op. cit., Tafel 3) 21 15. Portion of the retaining wall of the old orchestra-terrace (after Dorpfeld, op. cit., figure 6) ....... 22 16. Conjectural restoration of the theater at Athens before the erection of the scene-building (photograph from a model) . facing 22 ix ILLUSTRATIONS PAGE 17. Cross section of the theater at Athens, showing the orchestra, the position of tlie old temple of Dionj'sus and the difference in gradients of the Aeschylean and the Lycurgean theaters (in part after Dorpfeld, op. cit., figure 7) ..... 24 18. Stone with inscription found in the theater at Athens ... 25 19. Plans to illustrate different theories regarding the position of the scene-building in the early theater 29 20. Plan showing the relation of the fifth-century theater at Athens to that of the fourth century . • . . . . . .30 21 . Plan to illustrate the conjectural direction of the parodi and the front of the auditorium of the Aeschylean theater .... 33 22. The scene-l)uilding of the early fifth-century theater as restored by Flickinger, The Greek Tfieatcr and its Drama, figure 74 . .84 23. The scene-building of the fifth-century theater as restored by Dorpfeld (Cybulski, Tab. 12) facing 95 24. Vase-painting representing the vengeance of Medea ; from the Medea-vase at Munich (Baumeister, Denkmaler, figure 980) . 96 25. Vase-painting showing the palace of Pluto and Persephone and scenes in the underworld (Furtwangler u. Reichhold, Griechische Vasenmalerei, Taf. 10) ...... facing 99 26. Vase-painting based on a scene in the Iphige7iia among the Taurians ; from an amphora at Petrograd {Monnmenti deW Instituto, VI, Tav. 66) 100 27. Vase-painting from the Antigone-vase at Ruvo (Baumeister, Denk- maler, figure 88) ......... 102 28. Vase-painting from the Archemorus-vase at Naples (Baumeister, op. cit., figure 120) 103 29. The death of Meleager as depicted on a vase at Naples {Archaeolo- gische Zeiiung, 1867, Taf. 220) 105 30. Niobe and her daughter, from a painting on marble found at Pompeii {Halliaches Winckelmannaprogra^nrn, no. 24) facing 108 31. Conjectural reconstruction of the scene-building at Athens toward the close of the fifth century 113 THE GREEK THEATER OF THE FIFTH CENTURY BEFORE CHRIST INTRODUCTION Every Greek theater consisted normally of three parts : or- chestra, auditorium, and scene-building. But these component elements, though essential to the perfected structure, were co- joined by a process of accretion and never in the Hellenic type cohered to form a single architectural unit. The auditorium {diarpov) was the most conspicuous of these members, and in the majority of instances still remains the most prominent and impressive feature of the theaters whose ruins dot the landscape of the Hellenic world. Although usually somewhat larger than a semicircle and otherwise symmetrical, the auditorium was sometimes quite irregular in shape, as in the theaters at Delos and at Athens and in the tiny and wholly unique theater in the village of Thoricus on the southeastern coast of Attica (Fig. 2). Opposite the auditorium stood the skene {a-Kr^vq) or scene-building,^ which served as a background for the actors and provided accommodations for dressing rooms and for the storing of various stage properties. This structure was seldom, if ever, more than two stories in height - and was of a rectangular shape, and was connected with the auditorium, if at all, only by a gateway at either end. A handsome example of such a gate 1 The word meant originally "shelter," "hut." Some wi-iters employ the word "stage-building," but as the fifth-century theater had no stage (p. 36) this term is misleading and should be avoided. 2 See Fiechter, Die bawjescMchtliche Entwicklum/ des antiken Theaters (1914), p. 35. 1 2 THE GREEK THEATER was found in the beautiful theater at Epidaurus (Figs. 1, 3). Between the scene-building and the auditorium lay the orchestra area [opxw'^p*^, "dancing place") with its two approaches one from either side, known as the parodi (TrapoSos, "side entrance"), which served not only as passageways for the audience but as Fig. 2. — Plan of the Theater at Thorici's (After D'orpfeld). means of entrance and exit for chorus and actors as well. The surface of the orchestra was regularly of earth. ^ These several component elements are clearly shown in the plan of the fourth-century theater at Athens (Fig. 6). Not until Roman times, however, were they welded into a single structure possessing genuine architectural unity such as appears in the splendid theaters at Orange and Aspendus. In striking contrast with the Roman theaters and those which were reconstructed under Roman influence, the Greek theaters bespeak their humble origin and the evolutional character of 8 The elaborate marble and mosaic pavement in the orchestra at Athens dates from the Roman period. Roman also is the marble balustrade which forms a barrier between the orchestra and the auditorium (Fig. 4). INTRODUCTION 3 their development. In point of chronology the orchestra, origi- nally circular, was the earliest portion — the nuclear center of the aggregate. About its circle in the early days the spectators stood or sat during the performance of the choral dances, from which in course of time both tragedy and comedy evolved.* The ■.■■mumn«.ii^jm«.Hj« ,v. '■. . (j ' " !N^--l :T :ii!"; . ut Fig. 3. — Gateway in the Theater at Epidaurus (Restored). first addition to the orchestra was the auditorium, which con- sisted in early times in part of wooden seats (UpuL, "bleachers") erected for the purpose, in part no doubt of the rising ground of a convenient hillside. Later these simple accommodations gave way to elaborate structures of masoniy, though some theaters, notably that at Oropus, appear never to have abandoned the use of wooden bleachers. The last portion to be added was the ^ For the latest discussion of the origin of tragedy and comedy see Flickinger, The Greek Theater and its Drama (1918), pp. 1—56. See also Donald C. Stuart, "The Origin of Greek Tragedy," Trails. Amer. Phil. Assoc. XL VII (1010), 173 £f. 4 THE GREEK THEATER skene.^ This was originally constructed of wood or of some other perishable material and was wholly temporary in character. Not until the close of the fifth century or possibly even later was a skene of stone erected. In Hellenistic times the front of the lower storj' of the scene-building was regularly adorned with a row of columns, surmounted by an entablature and provided with doors or movable panels of wood in the intercolumniations. This fea- ture of the building was known as the proskenion, and the ques- tion as to its origin and its purpose is one of the most difficult, as well as one of the most important, problems in the history of the scene-building (p. 91). The best preserved example of an Hellenistic proskenion is found in the small theater at Priene in Asia Minor (Fig. 5). The process of development which has just been traced is shown most clearly in the case of the theater in the precinct of Dionysus Eleuthereus on the southeastern slope of the Acropolis at Athens, which so far as is known was the only Greek theater in existence in the fifth century before Christ (Fig. 6).^ Whether another existed at this time also in the Lenaeum, wherever the Lenaeum was,^ is disputed. But as we know nothing concerning it, we may dismiss it from consideration. The antecedents of this theater of Dionysus Eleuthereus are veiled in mystery. There are in our ancient sources certain vague references to an old orchestra in the market place where theatrical performances are said to have been held before the construction of the theater on the slope of the Acropolis.* No good reason 6 Fiechter's statement (op. cit., p. 12) that " bei einem antiken Theaterbau ist wohl stets das Skenengebaude zuerst in Angriff genommen worden, nachher erst der Zuschauerraum ' ' does not apply, and was not intended to apply, to the theater of the fifth centmy. 6 The theater at Eretria, as also that at Thoricus (Fig. 2), may date from the closing years of the fifth century. But this is very uncertain ; see Dorpfeld, Das (jriechische Theater, pp. 109, 113. ^ For a discussion of this difficult problem see Judeich, Topographie von Athen (1905), p. 26.3, note 10 ; also Haigh-Pickard-Cambridge, The Attic Theatre (ed. 3, 1907), pp. 368 ff. 8 riiotius, s.vv. iKpia, dpxM'rpa, and XrjvaTov. Compare also Plato, Laws, 817 c TV Jv'/ Af,*i/,,,T1 K X t Him''' #™fei*^']n /: z H INTRODUCTION 5 appears for disputing this testimony, but we know nothing more concerning the matter, not even the location of the market place itself. We are told, however, by the late lexicographer Suidas that about the year 499 b.c, on the occasion of a contest between the poets Aeschylus, Pratinas, and Choerilus, the wooden seats (I'/cpta) upon which the audience was sitting collapsed and that as a result of this accident "a theater was constructed."^ The precise meaning of this statement cannot be recovered. Very likely Suidas himself could not with certainty have elucidated it. But the inference is perhaps justifiable that until this mishap oc- curred the Athenians had been content to hold their choral and dramatic festivals in the market place, but that now they decided to construct an auditorium in a more favorable location. If this conjecture, which is adopted by a number of scholars, be sound, the theater in the precinct of Dionysus Eleuthereus dates from about the year 500 b.c. It may be, however, as others believe, that this site had been selected as early as the days of Pisistratus and Thespis (about 534 b.c.) and that the collapse of the bleachers mentioned by Suidas occurred here rather than in the market place. Be this as it may — the correct interpretation will perhaps never be known — the theater of Dionysus Eleuthereus became in course of time the only theater at Athens. It was here that Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides and Aristophanes, not to men- tion the host of other tragic and comic poets of the fifth century, presented most, if not all, of their plays. And it continued in use for dramatic and other performances and spectacles and for various pubUc functions for at least a thousand years. Moreover this theater on the southeastern slope of the Acropolis was the first Greek theater to be developed and became the pattern after and Hesycliius, s.v. i-rrl X-qvaii^ ayJjv. This old orchestra may have been the same as the orchestra in the Lenaeum. See the preceding note and Judeich, op. cit, pp. 303, 304. * Suidas, s.v., Uparlvas. 6 THE GREEK THEATER which, though with infinite variety of detail, all subsequent Greek and Roman theaters were modeled. Thus the fifth-century theater at Athens occupies a position of strildng importance in the history of architecture ; but more than this, because of its dramatic and other religious and secular associations, its appeal to the imagination far surpasses that of any other structure of its kind. The reconstruction of this ancient building is therefore a most fascinating problem. But it is a dark problem. Some of the factors necessary for its solution are entirely lacldng ; others again are shrouded in the obscurity of conflicting testimony and fragmentary evidence. In comparison the difficulties that pertain to the EUzabethan theater, perplexing as these are, are simple and easily solved. There are here no contemporaneous pictures corresponding to the rude sketch of the Swan or to the frontis- piece of Messalina. Stage directions too, which are so useful to the Shakespearean scholar, are few and inconclusive ; while even the evidence afforded by the theaters and plays of the suc- ceeding period is incomplete and uncertain. The portion of the problem that still presents the greatest difficulty centers about the skene or scene-building, which was constructed of wood and of other perishable materials, and of which therefore no fragment or trace remains. The points at issue concern not only its size, shape, appearance, and the like, but even its location, and have been the occasion of a protracted controversy. A complete solution of the difficulties involved is no doubt impossible of attainment. But a study of the ruins of the fourth-century skene and of the few surviving fragments of the fifth-century theater, supplemented by evidence derived from other kindred structures and from an examination of the dramatic literature of the fifth century, makes the recovery of some of the essential factors reasonably possible. This is the problem and these the questions with which this treatise is chiefly concerned. As a convenient point of departure INTRODUCTION 7 let us begin with a brief description of the fourth-century theater.^" We shall then turn back to the earlier structure and show that the remains of the fourth-century theater furnish a key for the reconstruction of certain features of the building as it existed in the days of Sophocles. An examination of the literary evidence will then be necessary, and this will lead in turn to a criticism of various theories which have been proposed. Out of this there will develop a discussion of the origin of the proskenion which is so prominent a feature of the Hellenistic theater. In conclusion we shall propose as a reasonable hypothesis that the proskenion was in point of origin the skene itself of the Aeschylean theater. 10 The history of the Athenian theater may be roughly divided into the follow- ing periods: (1) Tlie fifth century b.c. ; (2) tlie fourth and third centuries b.c. ; (.3) the second and first centuries b.c. — tlie Hellenistic period; (4) the first and second centuries a.d. — the Neroniau theater; and (5) the third and fourth centuries a.d. — the Phaedrian remodelment. The last two divisions taken together constitute the Roman period. For a description of the Hellen- i.stic and Roman reconstructions, see Dorpfeld, Das griechische Theater, pp. 7.3- 96; Haigh-Pickard-Cambridge, TAe^Wic T/tea^re (1907), pp. 87, 88 ; Flickinger, The Greek Theater and its Drama, pp. 70 ff. II THE FOURTH-CENTURY THEATER AT ATHENS" During" the fifth century B.C. the theater in the precinct of Dionysus Eleuthereus became by the processes of external accre- tion and expansion a structure of considerable magnitude. But even until the close of the century apparently both auditorium and scene-building alike continued to be unpretentious erections of wood.^- In sharp contrast with this earlier building the new theater of the fourth century was in the main an edifice of stone and marble. The date when this reconstruction was begun cannot at present be determined with certainty, but it appears " Selected bibliography : Dorpfeld und Reisch, Das griechische Theater (1896), pp. 36 ff. This book, in spite of repeated attacks by Bethe, Puchstein, Petersen, Furtwangler and others, still remains the most authoritative treatise on the Athenian theater. Puchstein, Die gnechisrhe Bllhne (1901), pp. 1-45, 100 ff., 1.31 ff. The author of this study according to his own confession (p. 2) ignored the evidence afforded by the dramatic literatiu'e. But not with impunity ; his conclusions are either wholly unsound or open to serious question. Reviewed by Dorp- feld in Athenische Mittheilungen, XXVIII (1903), .385 ff., and by Robert in Gottingische Gelehrte Anzeigen, CLXIV (1902), 413 ff. Furtwangler, "Zum Dionysostheater in Athen, " S.-B. d. philos.-philol. u. d. histor. Classe d. k. b. Akad. d. IFm., Miinehen (1901), pp.411 ff. Devoted chiefly to a disfussion of the date of the reconstruction of the theater. Haigh-Pickard-Cambridge, The Attic Theatre (ed. 3, 1907), pp. 86ft'. Although useful, this book is marred by many faults. Happily it has recently been superseded (see below). Fiechter, Die haugeschichtliche Entwicklung des antiken Theaters (1914), pp. 9 ff. and i^assim. A stimulating and beautifully illustrated treatise ; some of its conclusions, however, cannot be accepted. Flickinger, The Greek Theater and its Drama (1918), pp. 57 ff. This is not only tlie most recent discussion of the Greek theater and its problems, but without question also the best. For additional titles and other references see the following footnotes. 12 vSome scholars however, notably Puchstein (op. cit., pp. 138, 139), and Furtwangler (op. cit.), have maintained that the auditorium was reconstructed wholly or partially of stone before the close of the fifth century. It is possible further that the stone foundations of the fourth-century skene were laid before the year 400. For a discussion of this matter see the end of this chapter (p. 18). 8 '"■■ u/MtR TEMPLE DIONYSUS LLEUTHERtUS Fig. 6. — Plan of the Fourth-Century Theater and the Precinct of Dio- Ni'sus Eleuthereus at Athens (after Dorpfeld, Modified). THE FOURTH-CENTURY THEATER AT ATHENS 9 to have been brought to completion under the able administra- tion of Lyeurgus, who was finance minister of Athens between the years 338 and 326 b.c.^^ For this reason the fourth-century theater is frequently referred to as the theater of Lyeurgus or as the Lycurgean theater. ^^ A plan of this building together with the precinct of Dionysus is shown in figure 6. Be it noted however that the large colonnade which adjoins the scene-building is not a part of the theater itself but belongs rather to the precinct. .Iriff-iiririTrii i i m Fig. 7. — Doric Facade of one of the Paraskenia of the Lycurgean Theater AT Athens (after Fiechter). The orchestra-area was composed of two parts : its northern half was a semicircle ; its southern half, a rectangle. The por- tion inclosed by the auditorium was surrounded by an open gutter which was bridged by stone slabs placed opposite the aisles. The surface of the orchestra was of earth, and its diameter, as determined by the inner circumference of the gutter, was 19.61 ^3 See Pseudo-Plutarch, X Oratorum Vitae, 841 D and 852 C ; also Hyperides, Oral, deperd. 118 (Kenyon) ; Pausanias I, 29, 16 ; and CIA II, 240. !■* Puchstein (op. cit., pp. 131 ff. ) sought to prove that the erection of the permanent marble proskenion and the introduction of other changes in the scene-building, which Dorpfeld assigned to the Hellenistic period, were effected during the administration of Lyeurgus. But this hypothesis has met with little favor ; see Fiechter, op. cit, pp. 12, 13. Versakis (" Das Skenengebaude des Dionysos-Theaters,'' Jahrhuch d. arch. Instituts, XXIV (1909), pp. 194 ff.) tried, though in vain, to connect the figures of the Neroniau (and Phaedrian) frieze with this jjeriod (pp. 214 ff. ). 10 THE GREEK THEATER meters or sixty-four feet, four inches. This is equal to sixty Aeginetan- Attic feet of 12.87 inches (.327 m.) each, a fact that is beheved by Dorpfeld to be "significant as showing that the orchestra was the starting point in the measurements and not incidentally derived from some other part of the theater." ^^ As we shall see later (p. 31) the orchestra-area of the fifth-century theater had the same diameter. Whether the circle of the orchestra was ever made complete and indicated by means of a curbing, as in the theater at Epidaurus (Fig. 1), is not known. The parodi at their narrowest points were about eight and a half feet (2.60 m.) in width. ^'"^ The vast auditorium with its massive retaining walls, its row of handsome marble thrones and its tier upon tier of seats need not be described in detail. As the plan shows, it was quite irregu- lar in shape, and extended upward to the scarp of the Acropolis. It provided accommodation for at least fourteen thousand per- sons. ^^^ In ancient times a roadway which sldrted the AcropoUs close under its cliff had crossed the site of the theater. The earliest auditorium probably did not extend beyond this line (p. 23), but sooner or later the road came to be incorporated in the theater as a diazoma (passageway). In the Lycurgean audi- torium the level of this diazoma was about twenty-six feet above that of the original road (Fig. 17) and the sweep of its curve was consequently made greater that it might conform the more exactly to the contour of the tiers of seats. We may note further that the curve of the rows of seats in the lower portion of the auditorium was not the same as that of the orchestra. The spaces on either side between the gutter and the row of thrones grew gradually IB The quotation is from Flickinger {op. cit., p. 69), but is a paraplirase of Dorpf eld's statement {Das griechische Theater, p. .59). 16 It may be mentioned in passing that the scale of measurement given by Dorpfeld {op. cit., Taf. 2), is incorrect. It should be the same as that for Tafel 1 ; compare Tafeln 3 and 4. 1^ If only sixteen inches were allowed for each person the seating capacity wotdd have been about seventeen thousand (Dorpfeld, op. cit.. p. 44). THE FOURTH-CENTURY THEATER AT ATHENS 11 wider as one approached the parodi. This was no doubt a con- venient arrangement as faciUtating the entrance and exit of the spectators ; an explanation of its origin will be proposed in con- nection with the discussion of the earlier theater (p. 35). But the problems that concern the orchestra and the auditorium are simple indeed in comparison with those which confront us when we undertake to restore the scene-building. Many factors essential to its reconstruction have been lost beyond recovery. Extensive portions of the foundation walls and a few scattered bits of the superstructure alone have been preserved; the re- mainder can be restored only by conjecture. It was a large Fig. 8. Ground Pl.\n of the Fifth-Century Skene of the Theater at Athens as Conjectur.'Vlly Restored by Fiechter. rectangular structure one hundred fifty-two feet in length and twenty-one feet deep at the center. At the ends of this shallower portion two wings, each about sixteen and one-half feet in depth and twenty-three feet wide, and known as paraskenia, projected toward the auditorium. The front of each of the paraskenia was adorned with six small Doric columns and a simple Doric frieze (Fig. 7), from the fragments of which Dorpfeld was able to cal- culate with approximate accuracy the height of these projecting wings and therefore the height of the first story of the entire scene-building. This was about thirteen feet. The reconstruction, however, of these paraskenia is involved in difficulties. The massiveness of the foundations is puzzling, and would seem to have been intended for a more substantial superstructure than a colonnade. Possibly, as Fiechter sug- 12 THE GREEK THEATER gests/8 this had been at first a soHd wall (Fig. 8). The nature of the sides also is in doubt. From the appearance of a corner- piece of the architrave Dorpfeld concluded ^^ that the sides as well as the front were adorned with columns (Fig. 9). But Fiechter-" denies the validity of this conclusion and restores the sides rather as walls terminating in antae (Fig. 10). Dorpfeld further conjectured that a colonnade extended also along the front of the skene between the columnated parasketiia (Fig. 9), but this proposal also has been repeatedly and vigorously attacked, and no longer has the support even of Dorpfold himself.-^ What » W II| I I I 1 I I I I I I 10 tOM Fig. 9. — Ground Plan of the Fourth-Century Skene of the Theater at Athens as Restored by Dorpfeld. then was the appearance of this central portion of the skene f No one can say with certainty. The foundations furnish no clue. Instead of the three doors conjecturally restored by Dorp- feld (Fig. 9) on the analogy of the scene-building at Eretria, there may have been actually but one door ; while Fiechter has recently proposed an entirely different arrangement.- The front of the upper story of the Hellenistic theater at Oropus consisted of five large openings with four intervening piers (Fig. 11). The Hellenistic reconstruction of the theater at Ephesus had seven such 18 Op. cit., p. 10. 19 Bus griechische Theater, p. 65 and fig. 21. 20 Op. cit., pp. 100, 101. Compare also Puchstein, op. cit., pp. 100 ff., 131 ff. 21 Jahrb. d. arch. Inst., Ayizieger, XXVIII (1913). .38. 22 Op. at., pp. 34 ff., 66 ff. THE FOURTH-CENTURY THEATER AT ATHENS 13 openings, and traces of a similar construction are said to have been found also at Priene. From these facts Fiechter makes the precarious deduction that the fagade of the scene-building in the fourth century consisted in its central portion of a series of open spaces and massive piers. In conformity with this theory he explains the Hellenistic proskenion as an extraneous addition imported from southern Italy. A glance at his restoration of the Lycurgean .^Jcene (Fig. 12), however, is sufficient to insure its mi lllllllll M IIIIMI|IIIIIIMW,lll lirulllflllU V. IMI TMiiMiniiiiiiniii M I M I IWII I I I Ul ll lHIMIMimj Illlllllllllllinillllllllll o o o d o d ' o6"n5oo IIIIIIIIMIIII Iflfl m Fig. 10. — Ground Pl.\n of the Fourth-Century Skene of the Theater AT Athens as Restored by Fiechter. rejection, while the hypothesis by which he eliminates the embar- rassing proskenion is merely an adroit subterfuge (see further p. 109). The space inclosed by the fagade of the scene-building and the tAvo paraskenia, it is generally assumed, was occupied during the dramatic performances by a temporary erection of wood. According to certain scholars this was a stage (cf. Fig. 12) ; in the judgment of others, a variable background. Both views are based solely on conjecture ; not a trace of either of the assumed constructions remains to dispel uncertainty. But the advocates of the second theory have the stronger case. The assumption of a stage in the fourth century, as also in the fifth, is supported only by a series of unconvincing hypotheses and will not, I believe, be able much longer to weather the storm of criticism which it has provoked. 23 The alternative theory, like the first, appears 23 For an admirable presentation of the ars;uments on which this conckision is based, together with a brief bibliography of the controversy, see Flickinfjer, op. cit., pp. 78-103 and also pp. -59, 60. As will be seen below, however (p. 36), 14 THE GREEK THEATER in more than one form. According to Dorpfeld this background, to which he apphes the term proskenion, consisted at times of a row of posts or columns with panels between, at other times of more distinctively realistic erections, or again only of large painted screens (Schmuckwande). The dramas of this period, he observes, demanded for their adequate presentation several different types JU • u^Y^"D"aT□"D"□"?^□^^D"y^"□ D"y"ra"aYD"a^ t n3-n=n "U^^"a"D"Di rn u r~i Fig. 11. — Froistt Elevation of the Scene-Building at Oropus as Restored BY FlECHTER. of settings, from which he concludes that ''these various decora- tions must have been provided by means of movable proskenia of wholly different forms (Diese verschiedenen Dekorationen mussten durch bewegliche Proskenien von ganz verschiedener Form gebildet werden)."24 But the majority of those who beheve that a pro- skenion occupied the space between the paraskenia in the Lycurgean theater hold that it was already of the conventional type found I do not agree with the author in his interpretation of ava^alveiv and Kara^aiueiv (p. 91). For a statement of the arguments on the opposing side, see Haigh, op. cit., pp. 140 ff. The most recent defense of the stage-theory, so far as I am aware, is that by Petersen, Die attische Trayodie als Bild- und Buhnenkunst ru>15), pp. 539 ff. See my review of this treatise in Class. Phil. XIII (1918). 21 () ff. 2-» I)as griechische Theater (189fi), p. 376. See further page 92 below, where Dorpf eld's theory of the proskenion will be discussed in detail. SSSv">S^^ a X H « K X ^ < pq fa o z o a &:( o X a X THE FOURTH-CENTURY THEATER AT ATHENS 15 regularly in the Hellenistic scene-building, as at Oropus (Fig. 11), Priene (Fig. 5) and at Athens itself (Fig. 13). In other words, it was a simple colonnade with a flat, or nearly flat, roof, and the spaces between its columns could be closed by means of wooden panels {TrCvaKa) or left open in accordance with the varying scenic requirements. But the material of the entire structure was wood, not in part stone or marble as regularly in the Hellenistic period. -^ This theory is, I believe, the only one that can be considered tenable. It makes possible a saner explanation of the origin of the Hellenistic proskcnion than does any other hypothesis =H=|= 44=H 4= S U> 3«>M Fig. 13. — Ground Plan of the Hellenistic Scene-Building at Athens (after Dorpfeld). and is supported by the discovery of traces of a similar construc- tion in the theaters at Sicyon, Megalopolis, and elsewhere. More- over, there have been found certain Delian inscriptions of the early third century, which refer to the old wooden scene-building at Delos and which mention the proskenion and its panels.^^ This is sufficient to justify the assumption of a similar erection in the theater at Athens ; and that a proskenion of some kind was already in existence in the days of Lycurgus is proved by the 25 Puclistein assigned the permanent proskenion to the fourth century ; see above, note 14. It should be observed that some scholars, of whom Puchstein vras one, have accepted the assumption of a conventional proskenion in the fourth century, but have interpreted it as a stage, not as a background for the actors. This is merely one form of the stage-theory mentioned above ; see note 2.3. 26 The dates of these particular inscriptions are 290 and 282 b.c. See Homolle, Bulletin de corres. hell. (1894), 161 ff. ; Haigh, op. cit., pp. 379 ff. 16 THE GREEK THEATER fact that the famous courtesan Nannion, who is frequently men- tioned by fourth-century writers, was nicknamed " Proskenion, " "because," as Harpocration records,-^ "outwardly she appeared more comely." This rather enigmatic explanation is happily elucidated by the fuller statement in Athenaeus,^^ that "Nannion was called 'Proskenion' because she had a pretty face and adorned herself with rich garments and ornaments of gold, but when she removed her garments she was most ill-favored to look upon." Some scholars see in these statements a reference to painted scenery, but the Delian inscriptions mentioned above are sufficient to disprove this interpretation.-^ We assume then that a temporary wooden 'proskenion was employed in the fourth-century theater. It would be of the same height as the first story of the scene-building and its columns would harmonize with those of the two paraskenia. In the Hellenistic reconstruction, which so far as is known consisted chiefly in the erection of a permanent colonnade and in the cur- tailment of the paraskenia (Fig. 13),''''' the columns of the proskenion were set at a distance of about four feet back of the front line of the wings. And it is a reasonable conjecture that in the Lycur- gean scene-building also they occupied the same relative position. For, as will be shown in the next chapter (p. 30), up to this time at least, the development of the theater after its main features 2^ S.V. Ndcwov . . . A.VT Lcpdvris ok b vewrepos €v tw irepl eraipuiv ttjv 'Saviubv (pffffL UpoaKTjvLOv iTTOvofid^eadai Sia to '4t,i>}dev SoKeiv evp.opcpoT4pav e'lvai. 2^ XIII, 587 b : WpocrK-qvLOv eireKoKeiTO i] 'Ndvfioi', on TrpbawTrov re dcrreiov ei^e Kal ixpTJTo xpvcrl'OiS /cat ifiaTiois Tro\vT€\4cn, eKdvcra dk 9jv aiffxpoTdrr]. 29 Moreover this interpretation would be possible only if Nannion had been called (TKrivri, not wpouKr^viov. Furthermore, the expressions employed, eKdvaa and TO 'f^ixj0ev iVfxop(poT€pav (wliich implies to evSodfv alffxporepav), would hardly have been suitable if applied to painted scenes, but were entirely fitting if the speaker or writer had in mind a structure tliat within was rough and unfinished, but outwardly was pleasing to the eye. Petersen's explanation of the proskenion (op. cit., pp. -540 ff.) is quite impos- sible of acceptance. 30 Their facades were moved back about six and a (juarter feet. Fiechter {op. cit., pp. 9 ff.) defends Dorpfeld in this matter (Das grierldsche Theater, p. 63) and rejects the heresies of Bethe (Gottin. Gel. Anz. CLIX (1897), 720 ff.), Puchstein (op. cit., pp. 131 ff.), and Petersen (Jahrb. d. arch. Inst., XXIIl (1890), 3.3 ff.). THE FOURTH-CENTURY THEATER AT ATHENS 17 were once established had been conservatively evolutional in character rather than marked by radical changes.^^ So far nothing has been said about the upper story of the scene-building. That there was a second story is proved by the fact that even before the close of the fifth century certain plays demanded such a superstructure for their presentation (see p. 59). But regarding its size and appearance nothing is known. It may be, as Fiechter contends, that it resembled the upper portion of the Hellenistic scene-buildings at Oropus and Ephesus, the fagades of which, as we saw above, consisted of a series of large openings and piers (p. 13 and Fig. 11). But this is wholly conjectural. Within the main hall of the skene stood a row of supporting col- umns, apparently ten in number, but these are not certainly assignable to the Lycurgean period. ^^ There was also in this hall a massive foundation (Fig. 6), but its purpose still remains in doubt. Finally at the back of the hall there ran a low wall, in the upper surface of which were cut large rectangular holes at regular intervals. As an explanation of this mysterious con- struction Dorpfeld originally suggested that the upper story of the scene-building was of wood and that these holes were intended to receive its massive supporting beams. Later, however, he ventured the conjecture that in the early years of the fourth century the lower story was of wood and that this wall served as its support.^ Possibly, as Fiechter suggests, ^^ this wall was constructed before the close of the fifth century. But this is still quite uncertain. 31 As Flickinger remarks (op. cit., p. 70): "this fourth-century structure probably reproduced in stone the main outhnes of the earher theater in whicli the later tragedies of Sophocles and Euripides, and all the plays of Aristophanes were performed." I have shown in my article, " The Key to the Reconstruction of the Fifth-Century Theater at Athens" (Univ. Calif. Publ. Glass. Phil., V, 55 ff., May, 1918), that this is certainly the case. 52 Das griechische Theater, p. 61. 33 Das qrierJiische Theater, p. 61 ; Athenische Miiteilungen, XXXII (1907), 231. Versakis (Jahrb. d. arch. Inst.. XXIV (1909), 223, 224), argued that its purpose was to strengthen the rear wall of the skene. 34 Oj). cit.. p. 11 (see fig. 8, above). 18 THE GREEK THEATER At a distance of about sixty-five feet to the south of the scene- building were discovered the foundations of the new temple of Dionj'sus, for which the famous sculptor Alcamenes made a colossal chryselephantine statue of the god. Pausanias, who made an extended journey through Greece about the middle of the second century after Christ, mentions both the temple and the statue in his account of Athens (I, 20, 3). As Alcamenes flourished during the latter half of the fifth century, his last recorded work being a group to commemorate the victory of Thrasybulus and his compatriots over the Thirty Tyrants in 403, it is probable that this temple was erected either before the close of this century or very shortly thereafter. Its foundation con- sisted of blocks of breccia or conglomerate, a material that was not employed at Athens for this purpose until after the death of Pericles (429 B.C.). It follows therefore that the date of the temple falls between the years 425 and 390 b.c. Furtwangler ^^ and Gardner 3^ assign it to the Peace of Nicias (421—415 b.c). But possibly it was not erected until after the battle of Cyzicus (410 B.C.), when under the leadership of the demagogue Cleophon (410-404 B.C.) the Athenians for a brief interval, fatuously confident that the democracy had been completely restored, turned once more to the architectural adornment of their city. Among the activities of this period was included the completion of the beautiful temple on the Acropolis known as the Erechtheum. The bearing of this apparent digression is clear when we note that the foundations of the scene-building and of the adjacent colonnade were similar to those of this new temple. Moreover these three structures appear to have been arranged in accordance with a single plan ; the temple is virtually parallel to the portico and the skene.^'^ For these reasons the erection of the new theater 35 Op. cit., p. 413. 36 E. A. Gardner, Ancient Athens (1902), pp. 31, 435, 436. 37 Dorpfeld in Das griechische TJieater, Tafel 2, represents them as exactly parallel, but in Tafel 1, which is presumably more accurate (Judeich, Topo- graphie von Athen, 1005, p. 279, note 0), the lines slightly diverge. See also THE FOURTH-CENTURY THEATER AT ATHENS 19 is conjecturally assigned by some scholars to the closing decades of the fifth century.'^ Fiechter however accepts this conclusion only so far as concerns the foundations ; the scene-building itself may still have been a wooden structure.^^ Only the recovery of certain factors which are now missing will make a definitive deci- sion possible. Until then, as Fiechter rightly observes, we must continue to grope in the dark. Noack, Sktjvt; TpayiKri, Elne Studie liber die srenischen Anlagen aufder Orchestra des Aischylos und der anderen Trayikern (l'.tl.5), p. 1. 38 Furtwangler (op. cit.) proposed the years 421-41.S b.o. Gardner (op. cit, pp. 435, 436, 448) says "perhaps as early as 420 b.c." ; see also ruchstein, op. cit., pp. 131 ft". Diirpfeld had suggested the years 3-50-330 b.c. 39 Op. cit., pp. 11, 12. See also Flickiuger, op. cit., p. 67. Ill THE THEATER OF THE FIFTH CENTURY ^o The splendid theater of the days of Lycurgus and Menander, though built in the main of limestone and marble, admits of but a partial reconstruction. How much greater the difficulties encountered when we undertake to restore the less substantial building of the time of Pericles ! Of this structure almost nothing has been preserved ; yet this little when examined closely tells an extraordinarily fascinating story. Indeed even the meagerness of the remains is itself significant, for it proves beyond a doubt that the building was constructed in greater part of perishable materials. The foundations of our knowledge of the fifth-century theater were first securely laid by Dorpfeld when in the winter of 1885-86 he discovered beneath the inner end of the eastern parodus of the Lycurgean theater a curvilinear cutting in the bedrock and underneath the ruins of the scene-building two portions of an ancient retaining wall (Fig. 14, V, R, and Q, respectively). The stones which constitute the larger of these pieces of wall (R) ^ Selected bibliography : von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, "Die Biibne des Aisehylos," Hermes, XXI (1886), 597 ft". This was the tirst attempt to interpret the early plays of Aeschylus in accordance with Diirpfeld's discoveries ; it has exercised a profound influence upon subsequent discassions of Aeschylean draniatursiy. Todt, "Noch Einmal die Biihne des Aeschylos," Philoloyus, XLVIII (1880), 505 ff. ; reactionaiy and unconvincing. Dorpfeld und Keisch, Das griechische Theater (1896), pp. 24 ff., 176 ff., 366 ff. Haigh, The Attic Theater (ed. 3, 1907), pp. 80 ff. Noack, ^KTjvri TpayiK-q, eine Studie uher die scenischen Anlage auf der Orchestra des Aischijlos und der anderen Tragikern (1915) ; disappointing on the side of dramatic interpretation. Allen, "The Key to the Reconstruction of the Fifth-Century Theater at Athens," Univ. Calif. Pnbl. Class. Phil. V (1918), 55 ff. Flickinger, The Greek Theater and its Drama (1918), pp. 63 ff. For other references see the following footnotes. 20 THE THEATER OF THE FIFTH CENTURY 21 are carefully fitted together in the polygonal style of masonry and their exterior surface was evidently intended to be seen. This surface moreover forms a circular arc (Fig. 15) from which Dorpfeld was enabled to calculate to a nicety the diameter of the circle of which it was originallj' a portion. This was about twenty-four meters or about seventy-eight feet, nine inches. And when the circle thus indicated was described, it not only included the second piece of wall (Q) but passed over the cutting 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 OLD iTtMPLE [ PRECINCT OF Fig. 14. ♦*».««..-.,.U;;.-j 010NYSU6 ELtUTHtRElUS Pl.\n Showing the Remains of the Fifth-Century Theater at Athens (after Dorpfeld). in the rock at V as well. From these facts Dorpfeld drew the conclusion that there had anciently existed here a wall inclosing a circular space the southern portion of which formed a terrace. And as portions of the native rock within this circle were found standing almost to the level of the fourth-century orchestra, the surface of this old terrace must have been of approximately the same height. The southernmost arc of the terrace therefore stood about two meters or six and a half feet above the sloping terrain (Fig. 16), while its northernmost portion formed a sUght depression in the hillside. The material and the workmanship 22 THE GREEK THEATER " of the retaining wall show that this terrace cannot have been constructed much later than the year 500 B.C. and may have been built several decades earlier. Dorpfeld concluded therefore that this circular terrace was the orchestra of the early fifth- century theater, and this conclusion has met with universal acceptance. It is customary accordinglj- to refer to this terrace as the or- chestra, but for reasons which will be explained presently I shall adopt the designation ''orchestra-terrace." Whether it was originally designed to serve as the orchestra of the theater is not certain ; Gardner suggests that "possibly it was an early threshing floor." ^^ But it should be noted that the outer diameter of this terrace was ' about fourteen feet, five inches „ ,^ „ „ „ greater than that of the Ly- FiG. 15. — Ground Plan and Elevation •' OF A Portion of the Retaining Wall curgean Orchestra (p. 9), and (Fig. 14, R) of the Old Orchestra- r ,■, ii , .1 1 ,. Terrace (after Dorpfeld). further that the latter OCCU- • pied only in part the site of the orchestra-terrace. When the theater was reconstructed, therefore, it was moved about thirty feet to the north, ^^ so as to make room for the new scene-building and its adjacent colon- nade (Fig. 6) and to utilize to better advantage the dechvity of the Acropolis. At the same time its axis was shifted about eight feet toward the west (Fig. 14). ^1 E. A. Gardner, Ancient Athens (1902), p. 12.S. My colleague, Professor O. M. Washburn, doubts this, for the reason that threshing floors were regularly constructed in very windy places. ^^ This figure is obtained by measuring the distance between the inner curve of the gutter of the fourth-centuiy orcliestra and the northernmost arc of the orchestra-terrace. It is customaiy to state (Dorpfeld, op. cit., p. 28; so Flick- inger, op. cit., pp. 65, 68 ; and others) that the theater was moved northward about fifty feet, which is the distance between the southernmost points of the two circles. But this mode of reckoning can be shown, I believe, to be incor- rect (p. 32). tc fc ;« ^ O J a J s a 3 H J I < f^ > S^ Eh H H -H n -^ n ^ S 5 a a ^S< a a ^' z a a a z '^ Ph a <; H < a -< K z g K < a ^ H a a a <; -i^ K Ph K Ah a X < •^ a' 3 k-H K Si a K z H X w \_^' a a ^— 1 --3 z a ^ H z tc 1— 1 1 p -■; 1 Z tc H 1—1 5 Z a z d QD f^ THE THEATER OF THE FIFTH CENTURY 23 A little way down the slope, about thirty-six feet southwest of the terrace-wall, stood the small sixth-century temple of Diony- sus Eleuthereus (Figs. 14 and 16). In its cella was kept the ancient wooden statue of the god, which had been brought from Eleutherae to Athens and for whose priest was reserved the chief seat in the neighboring theater (Pausanias, I, 20, 2; and 38, 8). Excavations conducted in the central portion of the auditorium in the year 1889 revealed the fact that during the fifth century the natural slope of the hillside at this point had been gradually in- creased by the addition of successive layers of soil (Fig. 17). An examination of the fragments of pottery, which were discovered in the different strata, showed beyond question that the lowest of these layers must have been put in place before the middle of this century {i.e. before about 450 e.g.),"*^ and that the other strata were not superposed until later ; from which it is clear that, the acclivity of the early auditorium was not so great as in later times. The difference between the gradient of the Aeschylean theater and that of the fourth century is roughly indicated in figure 17. And the ancient roadway which crossed the site of the auditorium was gradually raised and the sweep of its curve increased until in the Lycurgean theater it formed a broad diazojna some twenty-six feet above its original level (p. 10, and Figs. 6 and 17). It appears therefore to be a reasonable conjecture that in the time of Aeschylus the auditorium did not extend beyond this road.*^ Apart from this early fill beneath the auditorium the vestiges of the orchestra-terrace are the only remains that can be assigned with certainty to the theater of Aeschylus. West of the terrace, however, were uncovered two pieces of an ancient wall (Fig. 14, D), which evidently had been erected early in the fifth century. But whether this wall was a part of the theater is not certain. Dorp- <8 Schneider, " Vase des Xenocles und Kleisophos, " Athen. Mitth., XIV (1889), 329 ff., especially p. 383 ; Dori^feld, Das griechische Theater, pp. 30, 31. 4^ So also Flickinger, op. cit., p. 66, note 1. s^»Eg >i o ^ O J O H H > [24] THE THEATER OF THE FIFTH CENTURY 25 feld conjectured that it may have been a retaining wall for the western parodus,*^ and I shall point out presently certain reasons for believing this explanation to be correct (see below, p. 33). The alternative suggestion that it may have been a portion of the auditorium can easily be shown to be untenable.*^ The pur- pose of two other pieces of ancient masonry which were discovered in the area of the theater (Fig. 14, B, and J) cannot be determined. Equally obscure is the significance of some traces of a foundation in the western parodus.*'' Gardner assigns them to the fifth- century theater and calls them "foundations of passage." ^ Puch- stein regarded them rather as a portion of the foundations of a pre-Lycurgean auditorium.*^ At the southwestern corner of the fourth-century auditorium was found a stone marked with the letters and A' and l:)earing an inscription written in the Attic alphabet of the latter half of the fifth century : BOAH^ YTTHPeXON, "of the servants of the senate" (Fig. 18). This stone was built into Fig. is. — Stone with Inscription . , , . Found IN THE Theater AT Athens. the wall m mverted position and had evidently been intended for another place and pur- pose. It has accordingly been accepted by a not inconsiderable number of scholars as evidence of the existence of a stone auditorium before the close of the fifth century.^'' But the rela- y's Op. cit, p. .31. Noack (op. ctt., p. 5) says: "Die Mauer D kann schlecht- erdings iiichts auderes als eine Stiitzmauei- fiir eineu Rampenweg bedeuten." 46 Origiually proposed by Diirpfeld (op. cit., pp. 28, 31), this explanation is frequently mentioned as a possibility, as by Judeich ( Topoyraplile von Athen (rj05), p. 276), and Haigh (op. cit., p. 8.5). ■i^ These lie immediately to the south of the retaining wall of the western wing of the auditorium (flg. li, CC). Diirpfeld (Das griecMsche Theater) indicates them in Tafeln 1 and 3, but does not mention them in his text. 48 Ancient Athens (1002), p. 436. 49 Die griecMsche BUhne (1901), p. 138. 50 So e.(7., Furtwangler, op. cit., pp. 414, 415 ; Puchstein, op. cit, pp. 138, 139 ; Miiller, Das attische Buhnenwesen (1902), pp. 35, 36. 26 THE GREEK THEATER tion of this stone to the theater is still prol^lematic, as is true also of still another fragment bearing the broken inscription KG PYON.^i As this inscription however does not admit of an interpretation and as the stone on which it appears was not found in the theater, it sheds no light upon our problem and may accordingly be dismissed from consideration. This completes the enumeration of the certain and the conjec- tural remains of the fifth-century theater. If this were the sum total of the evidence at our command, there construction of that early building would indeed be impossible. That it is at least partially feasible, we owe to the theater of the fourth century, whose ruins were described in the preceding chapter. Ever since the discovery of the old orchestra-terrace in'the winter of 1885-86 scholars have beUeved that the structure of which this was once a part must have come to resemble more or less closely the stone edifice that was erected in its place during the fourth century. But the failure to observe a certain striking relationship between the ruins of these two structures gave rise to a number of divergent hypotheses, no one of which could with positiveness be declared to be correct. The attitude of those who have attempted to solve the problem is reflected in the recent remark of Fiechter (which however in its context has reference specifically to the skene) : "what the building looked like, no one knows." ^" The chief points in dispute concern the shape and size of the audito- rium, the position of the parodi and the angle which these formed with the axis of the theater, and finally the location, size, and appearance of the scene-building. For years rival theories have been contending for the mastery with no umpire to decide the issue. The solution of some of these problems, however, has lain ready to hand, albeit unobserved, since the publication of Das griechische Theater three and twenty years ago. And it can be 51 CIA, IV (supp.), 555 b. 52 Die baugeschichtiiche Entwicklung des antiken Theaters (1914), p. 11. THE THEATER OF THE FIFTH CENTURY 27 demonstrated to a nicety that the Athenian theater during its development in the early centuries underwent no violent changes, but evolved by gradual stages from a structure of primitive sim- plicity to the splendid edifice which adorned the precinct of Dionysus in the days of Lycurgus and Menander. The starting point, the germ, as it were, of the whole, was the old orchestra- terrace which Dorpfeld discovered and brilliantly interpreted in the spring of 1886.^^ Before proceeding, however, to the explication of this solution let us pause to observe that in the early Aeschylean period a scene-building apparently had not yet been erected. The plays were performed on the orchestra-terrace without the aid of an artificial background ; an altar and a few simple accessories alone suggested the scene (see Fig. 16). The dressing booths for the actors at this period cannot have been either on or behind the terrace, but were presumably placed, as Reisch suggested," at the outer ends of the parodi, or at any rate at a considerable distance from the orchestra. But in course of time an erection of some kind was demanded, to serve in part as a scenic back- ground, partly as a screen to conceal the actors as they passed "behind the scenes" from parodus to parodus.^^ For, be it noted, ^ See my article "The Key to the Keconstruction of the Fifth-Centuiy Theater." *^ Das yriechische Theater, p. 194. 65 Mantziiis doubts this. See his History of Theatrical Art in Ancient and Modern Times; translated by L. von Cossel (1903), p. 130, note 1. He writes: " We feel qxiite sure that Dorpfeld is mistaken in his opinion (Das [irlechische Theater, p. 370), that the dramas necessitated a decorative background. Here, as everywhere, the expert dramatist adapts himself to the given conditions of the stage in all important matters, and the scenic conditions do not change in order to conform themselves to each special drama." He concludes therefore that the skene was erected at the rear of the orcliestra to serve at first as a dressing booth and to facilitate exits and entrances — a view that is shared by others also. But in my judgment this conclusion is debatable. Aeschylus and Sophocles were geniuses of the highest order and did not permit themselves to be hampered unduly by tradition, but were constantly trying new experiments and themselves creating new conditions, as witness the introduction of the second and the third actors. I believe therefore that the back-scene may have been originally added to serve as a background, not primarily as a dressing booth. See also Noack, op. cit., p. 18. 28 THE GREEK THEATER the parodi were at first the only means of entrance and exit for actors as well as chorus. The precise date when this innovation was made is not known, although there appears to have been a structure of some description as early as 472 b.c, the year in which Aeschylus presented his Persians. The fleeting reference (vs. 141) to "this ancient house" certainly suggests the presence of something to represent a building — a view that has had many champions, but has none the less been frequently and vigorously contested (p. 44). But several of Aeschylus' plays certainly demanded a hut or other building as a part of the setting, the most notable instances being found in the Orestean trilogy (ex- hibited in 458 B.C.), of which the Agamemnon and the Libatioti- hearers both require a palace and the Eumenides a temple. By the year 465 b.c. accordingly or thereabout a scene-building had been erected and was thenceforth available as a regular part of the scenic equipment. This is universally conceded. What was the nature and appearance of this structure and where was it placed? That it was much smaller than the scene- building of the fourth century and was a temporary erection con- structed of wood or other light and perishable materials is the all but unanimous belief.^^ But the question as to its location ^\^th reference to the orchestra-terrace is still a lis sub judice. Two views clamor for recognition. The first of these was proposed by Dorpfeld and is, in the words of its most recent advocate, that the "scene-building was erected immediately behind the orchestra, where the declivity had previously been" (Fig. 19a). ^^ Quite apart, however, from considerations of economy, this hypothesis involves one in a seemingly insuperable difficulty. For it implies 66 Haigh, however, supposes that the fifth-century skene was a " permanent structure" and was " not put up and taken down at each festival" (op. cit., p. 117). Petersen (Die attische Tragodie als Blld- und Buhnenkunst (1915), pp. 530 ff. ) perversely restores it after the pattern of the Graeco-Roman scene- building. 5^ Flickinger (op. cit., p. 228 ; so also p. 06, note 3) adds, " or in the south half of the old orchestra in case the (u-chestra was moved fifty feet nearer the Acropolis at this time." But that the position of the orchestra was not .shifted when the first scene-building was erected can easily be demonstrated (p. 31). THE THEATER OF THE FIFTH CENTURY 29 • — and the implication is complacently recognized by the adher- ents of this theory — that after the erection of the scene-building the orchestra still occupied the entire area of the orchestra-ter- race. But, as we saw above (p. 22), the outer diameter of this terrace was about fourteen feet, five inches larger than that of the Lycurgean theater ; and neither Dorpfeld nor any of his fol- lowers has ever been able to explain why the orchestra should have been reduced in size when the theater was reconstructed. The fourth-century theater was not smaller than its predecessor had been ; on the contrary there are reasons for believing that it Fig. 19. — Pl.\ns to Illustrate Different Theories Regarding the Position OF THE Scene-Building in the Early Theater. was actually larger (p. 10, and below, p. 35). This considera- tion is most disconcerting and casts a suspicion upon the validity of Dorpfeld's hypothesis. We shall soon discover additional reasons why this initial doubt must issue in disbelief. The opposing view, originally suggested by von Wilamowitz, was adopted and elaborated by Robert, and is that the scene- building was erected 07i the terrace rather than beyond it (Fig. 196).^* But precisely where the building was placed and what its dimensions were no one has succeeded in determining. Fiechter, 58 Von Wilamowitz, Rermes, XXI (1886), 605. Robert writes : " Aiif die Frage nach der Stelle des alteren Skeneiigebaudes giebt der AiLSgrabiuig.sbefund keiiie Antwort. . . . Ich bin in meiner alten Meinung \_Herifies, XXXI (181)6) , 550] , dass es die hintere Halfte der Orchestra einnahm, durch Diirpfelds eigene Darle- gungen nur bestarkt worden " {Hermes, XXXII (1897), 42.3). Cf. Barnett, The Greek Drama (1901), p. 74: " Somewliere in tlie furtliermost lialf of tlie orchestra." Noack also {op. cit., pp. 6, 7, 17, 40, 58, 59) places the early shene on the orchestra-terrace. 30 THE GREEK THEATER who has published the most recent architectural treatise on the development of the Greek theater, significantly begins his dis- cussion with the theater of the fourth century and makes no attempt to restore the earlier scene-building, weakly remarking : "There must have been an imposing (bedeutender) stage-building in the fifth century; but hardly in Aeschylus' time. We may n-e"^":;?1~l Fig. 20. — Plan Showing the Relation of the Fifth-Century Theater at Athens to that of the Fourth Century. conjecture that such a structure was erected about the year 427 b.c. . . . But what it looked like no one knows." ^^ The old orchestra-terrace, which may originally have been a threshing floor, as Gardner suggested (p. 22), was supported by a retaining wall whose thickness Dorpfeld indicated by two concentric circles.^" Now if the front portion of the Lycurgean 59 Op. cit., p. 11 (.see note 62, above). In figure 14 however (fig. 8, p. 11) he presents a " problematischer Grundriss des altesten Biihnengebaudes (Ergan- zungsversuch)." He means by this the building which he supposes was erected about the year 427. 60 Das griechische Theater, Tafelu 1 and 3. THE THEATER OF THE FIFTH CENTURY 31 scene-building together with the orchestra-circle, the diameter of which is determined by the inner boundary of the gutter (p. 9), be superimposed upon a circle of the exact size of the orchestra- terrace in such a manner that the corners of the paraskenia nearest the orchestra coincide exactly with the inner edge of the retaining wall, then the wall at the rear of the paraskenia and connecting them rests upon the retaining wall of the terrace at its southern- most point ; and furthermore the circle of the fourth-century orchestra falls just within the inner periphery of the larger circle at its northernmost point, as is shown in figure 20. Again, if a line be drawn between the paraskenia and at the same distance back from their front Une as the Hellenistic proskenion stood back of the Hellenistic paraskenia, which as we saw above was about four feet (p. 16), this fine is an exact chord of the outermost circle of the old terrace-wall (Fig. 20, fine AB). These striking facts are of the utmost significance. Such coincidences cannot have been accidental, and their discovery enables us for the first time to reconstruct this portion of the fifth-century theater. ^^ For it is clear, in the first place, that in the fifth century, — before the position of the theater was shifted, — there had been a structure of some kind on the orchestra-terrace, and that after this had been erected the north-south diameter of the area which remained available for the evolutions of the chorus was the same as the diameter of the fourth-century orchestra. In other words the Lycurgean orchestra was merely a counterpart of the orchestra which had been famiUar to Sophocles and Euripides and probably also to Aeschylus during the closing years of his career. What this structure on the terrace was, the erection of which thus deter- mined the size of the later orchestra, whether scene-building or proskenion or stage, must be made the subject of further inquiry. I may state, however, that in my belief it was the Aeschylean scene-building, and this I shall later attempt to prove (Chap. 8). 61 This paragraph is quoted with very shght change from my " Key to the Reconstruction of the Fifth-Century Theater. ' ' 32 THE GREEK THEATER But before entering upon the discussion of this point let us see what further conclusions may be drawn from the discovery that the Lycurgean scene-building and the orchestra coincide so exactly with the old orchestra-terrace of the fifth century. In the first place we now understand why the fourth-century paraskenia had a depth of five meters and stood twenty and one- half meters apart. These dimensions were determined by the size of the orchestra-terrace, and were retained when the theater was reconstructed. When this reconstruction took place, whether at the close of the fifth century or several decades earlier, is of course not clear and may never l)e determinable, but that it did not occur at the time when the scene-building was first in- troduced is proved beyond cavil. And the fact that when recon- structed the paraskenia had the same depth and stood the same distance apart as in the earlier structure makes entirely reasonable the conjecture that the paraskenia of the Sophoclean theater had corresponded also in their other dimensions to those of the theater of Lycurgus. If this be granted, the width of the fifth- century paraskenia was about twenty-three feet (seven meters), and their height, and therefore the height of the first story of the scene-building, about thirteen feet (p. 11). But further, the points where the parodi joined the orchestra- terrace are also established. Heretofore these have been as it were mere pawns, moved inconsequentially from place to place to suit the convenience of various theories. In fact, however, they were, I beUeve, a decisive factor in the development of the theater. When the first scene-building was erected in the days of Aeschylus its location was determined by the position of the parodi ; it must have been placed either on a line with these or at the most only a few feet to the rear. No other posi- tion, in my opinion, was practicable (see further, p. 112). Inci- dentally, too, the location of the parodi proves that the theater when reconstructed was moved only thirty feet to the north, not fifty feet as is stated by Dorpfcld (p. 22). THE THEATER OF THE FIFTH CENTURY 33 Unfortunately, however, the angle which the parodi formed with the axis of the theater, that is, their direction, is not free from doubt. Some have held that this was a right angle (Fig. 196) ; others, an obtuse angle with the vertex toward the audi- torium (Fig. 19a). But with the parodi in the position which we may now believe them to have had, the second assumption at least appears to be untenable. The parodus to the west of the terrace would on this hypothesis have passed over the old retain- ing wall (Fig. 14, D) which, as we saw above, was probably con- FiG. 21. — Plan to Illustrate the Conjectural Direction of the Parodi AND the Front of the Auditorium of the Aeschylean Theater. structed during the early years of the fifth century. If, however, we draw a line through the two extant portions of this wall and extend it to the orchestra-terrace, this line joins the latter just behind the northeastern corner of the western 'paraskenion, at the very point indeed where the assumed chord AB (Fig. 14) cuts the arc of the circle (Fig. 21). This striking coincidence may of course be merely accidental, but when we observe that a corre- sponding line drawn from the terrace-wall to the eastern edge of the precinct leads almost exactly to the same place as does the fourth-century parodus, the coincidence appears to become significant. For the eastern parodus of the Lycurgean theater led apparently to the end of the famous Street of the Tripods. 34 THE GREEK THEATER It was along this road that Pausanias passed on his way from the Prytaneum to the precinct of Dionysus (I, 20, 1), and he left the precinct by the same road in order to inspect the Odeum of Pericles, which stood a short distance to the east of the theater. A con- siderable portion of this street can still be traced by the remains of many of the dedicatory monuments which in ancient times lined its course. And the fact that similar monuments were set up in the parodi of the theater suggests that these passage- ways were in a sense a continuation of this road. Where the "Portal of Dionysus" (Andocides, De Mysteriis, 38) was situated, has, I believe, never been determined. But there is little doubt that it was on the eastern side of the precinct and probably, judging from the slope of the land, near its northeastern corner.^^ It appears therefore to be a not unreasonable conjecture that the main portal of the precinct stood at the end of the Street of the Tripods, and further that the eastern parodus of the theater was so arranged as to lead directly to this entrance-way and the road beyond. If these hypotheses have any semblance of like- lihood, we may conjecture that in the early days the lines of the parodi formed an obtuse angle whose vertex pointed away from the auditorium, and that later when the theater was moved nearer to the Acropolis this angle was reversed in order that the eastern parodus should still lead to the portal of the precinct. Should this be granted, it would follow that the front boundaries of the early auditorium extended in northerly directions from the orchestra-terrace, not in southerly directions as in the reconstructed building. These assumed relationships are indicated in figure 21. The fact that at first the seats of the auditorium were merely wooden bleachers (iKpia) would be an additional reason for mak-. ing the extremities of the wings cling as closely as possible to the 62 DOrpfeld, Das c/riechische Theater, p. 11 : "Naeh den Bodenverhaltnissen muss dies Thor nicht weit von der N. (). Ecke des Hieron gelegen haben." Judeich, Topogrnphie ran Athen, p. 282: "Man darf den . . . Haupteingang naeh dem Geliinde wie nach den schriftstellerischen Nachrichten mit Sicherheit avif der Ostseite vermuten." THE THEATER OF THE FIFTH CENTURY 35 hillside. Danger to life and limb would thereby be lessened and at the same time economy of construction greatly increased. However this may be, let us note in conclusion that the parodi in the early period sloped gently upward to the orchestra-terrace ^^ — a fact that appears to have a significant bearing upon the interpretation of certain passages in the fifth-century dramas (p. 38). There appears, accordingly, to be good reason for believing that in the time of Aeschylus the auditorium was not so large as in the later centuries (see also p. 10). And let us remember throughout this discussion that we are dealing with the formative period of the Greek theater, and that this building at Athens was the model after which all other Greek theaters were more or less closely patterned. It itself attained to completed form only as the result of gradual changes and repeated readjustments. This remark applies to still another feature of the Lycurgean auditorium and in fact of most of those which were constructed in Hellenic times. This is the divergence between the curve of the lower rows of seats and that of the orchestra-circle. As the seats in the Aeschylean period were arranged about the circle of the orchestra-terrace, this divergence appears to have been due originally to accident rather than to design (Fig. 20). This arrangement possessed such obvious advantages that it was retained and doubtless improved when the theater was recon- structed. The question as to the character of the structure which appears to have occupied the southern segment of the orchestra-terrace in the space between the paraskenia still remains for considera- tion. I have already stated that in my opinion this was the Aeschylean scene-building, and the reasons for this conclusion I shall set forth in my closing chapter. Let me state however ^ Das (/riechische Theater, pp. 188, 189, 367 ; Noack, op. cit., p. 5. But Noack's attempt (pp. 33 ff.) to prove that Aeschylus ordinarily made use of but a single parodus is most unconvincing. 36 THE GREEK THEATER that the theory that a stage occupied this space appears to me whoU}' untenable. The reasons why one cannot accept the assumption of a stage in the fifth-century theater are admirably summarized by Flicldnger in his recent book on the Greek theater,^* and need not here be repeated. As Flickinger remarks (p. 91) : "The only tangible argument for a stage of any height in the fifth century is afforded by the occurrence of the words dvu^atVctv (to ascend) in Aristophanes' Acharnians (vs. 732), Knights (vs. 149) and Wasps (vs. 1342), and Kara/^aivuv (to descend) in his Wasps (vs. 1514) and Women in Council (vs. 1152)." For man}' years these five passages have been bandied about as in a game of battledore and shuttlecock, but the attempt to inter- pret them as proofs of a raised stage ^^ or of a "difference in level between the orchestra and the floor of the proscenium colonnade" ^^ received its coup de mart at the hands of White as long ago as 1891.^^ In at least three of the passages in question ^^ the words "ascend" and "descend" appear to have the derived meaning "come on" and "go off" respectively, and they acquired these meanings, I beheve, from the fact that in the early theater the parodi sloped upward to the orchestra-terrace. 64 The Greek Theater and its Drama (1918), pp. 50, 00, 78 ff. See also Capps, "The Greek Sta<;e accordins? to the Extant Dramas," Trans. Am. Phil. Assoc XXII (1891), 5 ff. ; White, ""The Stage in Ari.stophane.s, " Harv. Stud. Class. Phil. II (1891), 1.59 ff. ; Reisch, Das griechische Theater (1896), pp. 188 ff. For the opposing view see Haigh, op. cit, pp. 140 ff. 65 See e.r/. Haigh, op. cit., pp. 166, 167 ; Feusterbiisch. Die Buhne des Aris- tophanes (1912), pp. 1 ff. 66 This is Flickinger's view (op. clt., p. 91). See also liees, "The Function of the Hpodvpov in the Production of Greek Plays," Class. Phil. X (1915), 128, and note 2. 67 Op. cit., pp. 164 ff. (note 25)-. White's interpretation of Wasps (vss. 1.341-43), however, is not conclusive. It may well be, as the scholiast remarks, that " the old man standing on something In'gh coaxes the woman to come to him" (ewi nvos fierewpov 6 -yepuiv icpeffTcbs wpocKaXetTaL irpocrKOpi.^6fj.evos rrjv iraipav). 68 The interpretation of Wasps (vs. 1.342) is in doubt (see note 28). In Wasps. (vs. 1514, oiTap Kara^ariov y' iw' avrovs p-oi) Kara^aivetv means in certamen descendere. The objection raised by an anonymous writer in the Litter arisches Centralblutt for 1894 (p. 443) that Kara^aiveiv when followed by iirl and the accusative cannot have this meaning, and l)y MuUer (Philologus, Supp. VII (1889-90), 10) that it may be so used of thini/s, as a prize or goal, but not of THE THEATER OF THE FIFTH CENTURY 37 In the Knicjhts (vss. 147 ff.) the two slaves, Demosthenes and Nicias, eager to find some means of ridding themselves of their cruel master Paphlagon, the leather-seller, have just read an oracle which states that "a sausage-seller ousts the leather-seller." Nicias exclaims : A sausage-seller ! ^^ Goodness, what a trade ! Where-ever shall we find one ? Demos. That's the question. Nicias. Why here comes one (irpoa-^pxeTai), 'tis providential surely, Bound for the agora. Demos, {calling) Hi, come hither, here ! You dearest man, you blessed sausage-seller ! Step up (dvdffaive) a savior to the state and us. S. S. Eh! What are you shouting at? Demos. Come here this instant And hear your wonderful, amazing luck. The scholia on the word dva/3uive in this passage are of peculiar interest. One scholiast remarks: "He means that the sausage- seller should come up from the parodus on to the stage" ; another adds: "Why from the parodus? This explanation is not neces- sary. It should be observed that 'to come up' means 'to come in upon the stage' just as 'to go down' means 'to retire from the stage'. This use of the words arose from the ancient practice."^" White writes : Here then is a commentator who believed, as the moderns also gen- erally have believed, that there was a stage in the time of Aristophanes, transmitting the tradition that the words dvajSalveiv and Karapalveiv when thus used by the poet had lost all sense of elevation and descent. Before Aristophanes' time they had become technical "stage" terms. This came about, he says, "from the ancient practice." He is referring to the tradi- persons (cited with approval by Fensterbusch. Die Buhne den Aristophanes (1912), p. 8) is merely captious criticism. 69 Translation of B. B. Rogers (George Bell ami Sons). '0 dm/Saii'e • iva^ (prjcriv. eK r^s napSSov eVt to Xoyuov dvafSfi. 5id ri odv iK ttjs irapodov ; tovto yap ovk dvayKalov. XeKriov ovv 6ti dvafiaiveiv iX^yero rd inl to Xoyeiov ilcTL^vai. & Kal TrpocrKeiTai. Xiyerai yap Kara^aiveiv to aTraXXaTTeadai. ei'Teudev dirb tov iraXaiov 'ddovs. . . . la's iv dv/j.eXr] 5e to dvajiaiveLv. See also Suidas, s.v. dvd^aive. For the form of the scholia in Codex Eavennas see Rutherford, Scholia Aristophanica, II, 18. 38 THE GREEK THEATER tion that when tragedy arose from the dithyrambic chorus and a ' ' speaker ' ' was first introduced the latter took his place upon the elevation afforded by the so-called eXeo? [sacrificial table] or 0vfx^\r] [altar-step]. This explanation, however, in spite of its antiquity (note 70) and its acceptance by a number of modern scholars, appears to me to be less likely than the one suggested above. When the actor in the pre-Aeschylean period mounted the table or the altar- step (assuming this tradition to be correct), he was already in the presence of the audience ; whereas if in the early years of the fifth century the dressing booths for the actors stood at the outer ends of the parodi and if the latter sloped up to the orchestra, nothing could be more natural than for the expressions "go up" and "go down" to acquire the meanings "go on" and "go off." This explanation at any rate exactly suits the passages from Aristophanes. In the Knights, for example, when Nicias catches sight of the sausage-seller and exclaims : "Why here comes one" (Trpoa-epx^raL) , the latter is still at a considerable distance down the parodus-slope. "Hi, come hither, here! (Scvpo 8cvpo)", shouts Demosthenes. "You dearest man, come up here (dva/3atve)." "Eh!" replies the fellow, stopping and staring vacantly toward the others, "What are you shouting at ? (ri eVrt; rt p.€ KaXure;) ". "Come here," answers Demosthenes, "and hear your wonderful amazing luck." Thereupon the sausage-seller advances into the orchestra-area and after setting down his dresser and his wares learns that he is to become the " mighty ruler of imperial Athens." Demos. You see those people on the tiers? S. S. I do. Demos. You shall be over-lord of all those people, The Agora and the Harbors and the Pnyx. You'll trim the generals, trample down the Council, Fetter, imprison, make the Town-hall your brothel. S. S. What, I ? Demos. Yes, you yourself. And that's not all. For mount you up upon the table here (iiravd^T]di Kdiri roijXeov Todl) And view the islands lying all around. '^ '1 Verses 162 ff., translation of Rogers. THE THEATER OF THE FIFTH CENTURY 39 It is generally assumed that when the sausage-seller is first addressed he has already appeared upon the scene, that is, that he is already in the orchestra. But the assumption is unnecessary and, I confidently beUeve, is wrong. So in the Acharnians (vss. 731, 732), when the Megarian comes to the market which Dicae- opolis has set up in the orchestra, and says to his children, whom he intends to garb as pigs and offer for sale : "Puir bairns o' a puirer feyther, Come up {&fj.lBaTe) to get yer bannock, an' ye may," '^ the little girls are following at a distance and have not yet reached the orchestra. The suggestion ^^ that the children mount a table to be exposed for sale is hardly plausible ; they have not yet been disguised. Equally unconvincing is the alternative explanation offered by Reisch that their father takes them into his arms. In any case this scene, like that in the Knights, affords no evidence for the presence of a stage, nor yet for a proskenion with a floor "raised a step or two above the orchestra level." ^* Dicaeopolis had arranged his market in the orchestra, not in the columned proskenion, and besides there is no evidence whatever that the proskenia had such a stylobate. The third passage {Women in Council, vs. 1152) Ukewise shows that there cannot have been a stage, as White (pp. 168 ff.) abundantly proved; (eV oo-o) Kara- /Satms) merely means "while you are departing." But whatever the origin of the use of (dva/8atVetv) and (Kara- /SatWv) as technical "stage" terms, the slope of the parodi affords, I believe, an adequate interpretation of at least two passages in Euripides in which actors complain of the steepness of the ascent.'^ Thus in the Electra (vss. 489 ff.) the aged guardian, now a shepherd, enters laden with gifts for Electra and her guests. " Translation of Tyrrell. 73 Starkie, ed., Acharnians, p. 154 ; Keisch, Das griechische Theater, p. 190. Reisch meutions the explanation adopted in the text but does not adhere to it. 7^ Flickinger, op. cit., p. 68. '"> So Reisch (op. cit, pp. 188, 189), but with vacillation. 40 THE GREEK THEATER While still in the parodus, albeit near its upper end, he pauses for a moment's rest and speaking to himself as he gazes in the direction of the cottage, where lives Electra, says : Where is my honored mistress, my loved child, Daughter of Agamemnon, once my charge? Steep to her house and difficult the ascent. Again he moves forward, saying to himself the while : With pain my age-enfeebled feet advance, Yet lab'ring onwards with bent knees I move To seek my friends. Nearing the house he sees Electra before the door and presents his gifts : O daughter, for mine eyes Before the house behold thee, I am come, Bringing this tender youngling from my fold, etc.'^ A similar scene occurs in the Ion (vss. 725 ff.). Creusa and an aged servant are on their way to the Temple of Apollo, Creusa slightly in advance of the old man who is toiling up the slope. As she reaches the orchestra Creusa turns and says : Thou reverend child-ward of my sometime sire Erechtheus, while he walked yet in the light, Bear up, and press to yon God's oracle. That thou mayst share ray joy, if Loxias King A boding-pledge of sons hath uttered forth. 'Tis sweet with friends to share prosperity : And if — which God forbid — if ill befall, 'Tis sweet to gaze in eyes of sympathy. Returning to the old man's side and graciously supporting his tottering steps she continues : Now thine old loving tendance of my sire I, though thy lady, render back to thee. As the two again move forward they engage in the following dialogue : ''^ Translation of R. Potter; the interpretation of the action is my own. THE THEATER OF THE FIFTH CENTURY 41 Old Servant My daughter, spirit worthy of noble sires Thou keepest, and thou hast not put to shame Thine old forefathers, chikh-en of the soil. Draw, draw me toward the shrines, and bring me on. Steep is the god-ward path ; be thou physician Unto mine age, and help my toiling limbs. Creusa Follow ; take heed where thou dost plant thy feet. Old Servant Lo there ! Slow is the foot, still by the mind outstripped. Creusa Try with thy staff the ground ; lean hard thereon. Old Servant Blind guide is this when mine eyes serve so ill. Creusa Sooth said ; yet yield not thou to weariness. Old Servant I would not, but my lost strength I command not. They are now before the temple and Creusa, turning, says to the chorus : Women, which do leal service at my loom And shuttle, show what fortune hath my lord Found touching issue, for which cause we came." Of course the steepness of the parodi was not so great as these scenes suggest; the poet exaggerates for the sake of dramatic effect. But the assumption that in these scenes the actors were silent until after they had attained the orchestra renders their " Translation of A. S. Way (Loeb Classical Library, 1912); as before, how- ever, the dramatic interpretation is my own. 42 THE GREEK THEATER interpretation more difficult. In any case they afford no justi- fication for supposing that the scene-building stood on a higher level than the orchestraJ^ Before pursuing this matter further, however, let us inquire what evidence the dramatic literature of the fifth century affords for the reconstruction of this building. To this inquiry the passages which have just been quoted form a fitting introduction. ■^8 Nor for the assumption of a "Chorbuhne" (Weissmann, Die scenische Auffilhrung der griechischoi Dramen des V. Jahrhunderts, 1893, p. 53). Two other passages in which an ascent is mentioned are The Madness of Heracles of Euripides, vss. 119 ff. and Aristophanes' Lysistrata, vs. 286. Both are lyrical, and the steepness is perhaps wholly feigned. IV THE EVIDENCE OF THE DRAMAS ^9 Our chief source of information regarding the types of back- ground in use in the fifth century and the various settings em- ployed are the texts of the plays themselves. These abound in hints of inestimable value, and yet owing to the almost com- plete lack of stage directions such evidence as may be gathered from a study of the texts must be used with caution. In some cases a reference is too fleeting to be of substantial service, or too vague to place a decision beyond the pale of uncertainty. Thus in the Persians of Aeschylus the mention of 'Hhis an- '9 Selected Bibliogi-aphy : Miiller, Lehrbuch der griechischen Buhnenalterthnmer (1886), pp. 107 ff., 136 ff. Although antiquated, this book is still a useful collection of material. As all subsequent treatises have been influenced by Dorpfeld's discoveries, the Buhnenalterthnmer may be said to close the pre-Diirpfeldian period. An announcement of the discoveiy of the fifth-century theater is given in the Nachtrdge, pp. 415, 416. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, '• Die Biihne des Aischylos,''' Hermes, XXI (1886), 597 ff. See note 40. Harzmann, Qiuiestiones Scaenlcae (1889). This dissertation is noteworthy as being the earliest attempt to classify the evidence of the dramas with refer- ence to the stage question ; its conclusions are wrong. White, "The Stage in Aristophanes," Harv. Stud. Class. Phil., II (1891), 159 ff. Excellent. Capps, "The Greek Stage According to the Extant Dramas," Trans. Am. Phil. Assoc. XXII (1891), 1 ff. A most useful treatise. Weissmann, Die scenische Auffllhning der Dramendes V. Jahrhunderts (1893). Prickard, "The Relative Position of Actors and Chorus in the Theatre in the Fifth Century b.c," Anu Jour. Phil. XIV (1893), 68 ff., 198 ff., 273 ff. Reisch, Das griechische Theater (1896), pp. 176 ff. Robert, "Die Szenerie des Aias, der Eirene und des Prom&theus,'''' Hermes, XXXI (1896), .530 ff. Bolle, Die Biihne des Sophokles (1902) ; Die Biihne des Aeschylus (1906). Haigh, The Attic Theatre (see note 11). Fensterbusch, Die Biihne des Aristophanes (1912). Noack, ^KijvT] TpaytKi^ (see note 40). Flickinger, The Greek Theater and its Drama (see note 11). For other titles see the following footnotes. 4.3 44 THE GREEK THEATER cient house" (toBc o-re'yos apxa-iov, VS. 141) is so indefinite and isolated that one may not be certain which building is intended, whether senate-house or palace, or even whether any building whatever was actually represented.^" Later in the same play the ghost of Darius rises from the tomb, but what the appearance of the tomb was and where it was placed cannot be determined.^^ So in the Peace of Aristophanes, although it is clear that two build- ings are represented, one the house of Trygaeus, the other the palace of Zeus, yet so vague are the hints afforded by the text that a minute consideration of the entire action of the play is necessary to show that the house of Zeus (t^v oIkluv ttjv tov Atd?, vs. 178) stands above that of Trygaeus, and even this conclusion is contested. ^- Or again a suspicious fullness of detail may characterize a description. An instance of this sort occurs in the Ion of Euripides. The background represents the temple of Apollo at Delphi (vs. 66), and the scene in which Ion singing the while honors the prophet-shrine with his matutinal service (KaXoV ye tov ttoVov, w | ^o2(3e, aoL irpo Soyu-wv Xarptvia | ti/awv pxivTelov eSpav VSS. 128—130) IS one of the most beautiful creations of this gifted poet : And I in the toil that is mine — mine now And from childhood up, — with the bay's young bough, ;■ And with WTeathed garlands holy, will cleanse 1 The portals of Phoebxxs ; with dews from the spring so The chorus propose to seat themselves in " this ancient house " and to de- liberate upon the possible fortunes of the war, but they are prevented from doing so by the entrance of the queen, and the proposal comes to naught. Scholars have long been divided over the question of the setting, many denying that a hou'^e was represented (so, most recently, Flickinger, op. cit, p. 226), others dissenting. Among the latter are von Wilamowitz (AischijloSj Interpretationen, 1914, p. 43) ; cf. Hemes, XXXII (1897), 283, and Petersen (Die attische Tra- godie, 1915, p. 554). 81 An Altarbau, Reisch, Das griech. Theater (1896), p. 196 ; a Teinpelchen in form, von Wilamowitz, Hermes XXXII (1897), 393 ; a x^m^ T'i?^ in the orches- tra, Harrison, Essays and Studies Presented to William JRidgeway (1913), pp 136 ff. *2 The divergent views regarding the scenic arrangements of this unique play are presented and discussed by Sharpley iij his edition of the Peace (1905), pp. 16 ff. THE EVIDENCE OF THE DRAMAS 45 Will I sprinkle the pavement, and chase far thence With the shaft from the string The flocks of birds ; the defilers shall flee From his offerings holy. Nor mother is mine Neither father ; his temple hath nurtured me. And I serve his shrine.**' But when the chorus Avith appropriate gesture {l8ov ravS', aOp-qaov, Aepvaiov vSpav, kt\., VSS. 190, 191 ; kol /xav tovS' aOprjaov, kt\., VS. 201) describes in song a series of sculptured groups which adorned that famous shrine (vss. 184-218), whether metopes, as most have held, or in part the more conspicuous portions of one of the pediment-groups, as Homolle would have us believe,^* are we to assume that the scene-buikling was actually so elaborately decorated? Probably not. Like the seashore in the Philodetes and the darkness and mud in the Frogs and the brilliant stars in the Rhesus and the moonlight in the Merchant of Venice, these sculptural adornments in the Ion were no doubt left to the imagination. So the "marble walls" of verse 206^^ are purely imaginary ; the scene-building of the fifth century was of wood. Indeed, even the pediment itself, assuming the correctness of Homolle's interpretation, may have been imagined rather than actually represented. The only known reference to a pediment in Greek dramatic literature of the fifth century, aside from this dubious instance in the Io7i and possibly one other in the Orestes, which will be discussed below (p. 64), is found in an isolated fragment of the Hypsipyle (Fragment 764; Nauck, Ed. 2) as restored by Valckenaer : ^^ 83 Verses 102-111 : translation of A. S. Way (Loeb Classical Library, 1912). 8* "Mnnmnentsfiiiurc^sdeDelphes," Bull, corres. hell., XXV (1901), 457-515 ; ibicl., XXV'I (1902), 587-639. For the literature of the subject see these articles. Weckleiii in his school edition of tlie Ion (1912) accepts in the main Homolle".s conclusions. 1'. Gardner writing in 1899 (Jour. Hell. Studies, XIX (1899), 263) stated that he believed that tlie iiroups beloncied to pediments, but were merely "fanciful and iina,?i nary and that \vc cannot press the text of FAU-ipides to prove that these subjects were really represented at Delphi." 85 relxfcri \atuoi(n. T5ut the word is in doubt. Murray reads TeLxe(T(TL ; Weck- lein adopts the anonymous conjecture TviroLai : Hermann manufactured riz/cato-i. 86 Diatribe in Euripidis Perditorum Dramatum Reliquias, p. 214. The res- 4G THE GREEK THEATER idori, TTpbs aidep ^^anlWriffai Kdpas ypaiTTOvs {t iv aieT)oi(Ti wpbiT^Xeipov rvirovi. Look, tlireet your ej^es toward the sky and gaze upon the painted statues in the gable. But this, like the descriptions of the sculptures in the Ion, may also be an appeal to the imagination rather than to sight. Euripides displays a lively interest in the arts and never misses an opportunity to mention details of architecture, sculpture and painting.^'^ Sophocles, on the other hand, rigidly excludes such matters from his dramas,^* and yet the plays of both were exhibited in the same theater under similar, if not indeed precisely the same, conditions. This striking dissimilitude between these poets springs no doubt from a difference of temperament, and its recog- nition counsels caution. The passages which have been cited suggest some of the diffi- culties that lie in the path of the interpreter, but with the exer- cise of due circumspection and by comparing play with play it is possible to glean from the texts a considerable body of reliable information regarding the outstanding features of the various backgrounds and settings that were in use in the fifth century. It is not our purpose to discuss these backgrounds and settings in minute detail, but rather to consider them in their larger aspects in order to determine, if possible, what light they may throw upon the character of the scene-building before which the plays were enacted. As it was customary to present a series of dramas in rapid succession (p. 76), the question of the changes of settings toration is substantially correct, as the fragment is quoted by Galen (XVIII, 1, 519) in illustration of the use of aier6s in the sense of "gable." 87 For a convenient treatment of this subject see Huddilston, The Attitude of the Greek Tragedians toward Art (1898). See also Petersen, Die attische Tra- godie als Bild- und Buhnenkunst (1915). ** The nearest approach is found in Fragment 1025 (Nauck, ed. 2), classed among the dubia et spuria : dvrjTol Si TToWol KapSig. ir\avd}fxevoi ISpvcrdfiecrda irrffxaTiov Trapaipvxv^ OeQv dydXixar' iK \[0wv ij xaXK^cui' •^ XpvffOTfVKTUv ij i\i^6s) and suppose that Da- naus mounts to the top of the altar. Von Wilamowitz (Aischylos, Interpreta- tlonen, 1914, pp. 6 ff.) conjectures that the altar is on the hill, which forms a sort of " Oberblihne. ■" It should be noted that wdyov -rrpoai^eiv (vs. 189) strictly means "take refuge at the hill," not on it, and I believe accordingly that there was some kind of a structure behind the altar and rising above it. THE EVIDENCE OF THE DRAMAS 51 be that these two plays do not belong in this group, as at the end of the Pro7netheus Bound Prometheus and the members of the chorus are hurled, precipice and all, into the depths of Tartarus. There is therefore in a certain sense a rear exit, but it is of a very exceptional form.^^ For the Oedipus Coloneus of Sophocles the setting is a sacred grove in whose depths Oedipus and Antigone conceal themselves on the approach of the chorus (vss. 113, 114). "Look!" sing the chorus, Look ! Who was it ? Where abides he ? In what nook or corner hides he — Of aU men — of all mankind the most presuming? Search about ! Spy him, there ! Seek him out everywhere. Some one has intruded on the sacred space ; I the bound searching round Cannot yet light upon his hiding place-^"" A setting similar to this is required for the latter half of the Ajax (vss. 814 ff. ; cf. vaTTos, vs. 892). '•'i In the mutilated Ichneutae of Sophocles a cave is indicated, but where it was placed and how it was represented are points that can not be certainly determined. It appears to have been underground, as both von Wilamowitz ^''- and Robert ^^^ pointed out. Miss Harrison favors a mound (x^/xa yrj<;) placed at or near the center of the orchestra. ^°^ The setting 99 See Flickinger, op. cit, pp. 227, 228. 100 Verses 119 ff. ; translation of Sir George Young. See Jebb, § 16. 101 Flickinger, op. cit., p. 244, supposes " that one of the side doors in the front of the scene-building was left open to represent the entrance to the glen, and that around and behind it were set panels painted to suggest the wotidland coast and the glen. Into this opening Ajax collapsed as he fell upon his sword." Others (Jebb, BoUe, etc. ) believe that trees and .shrubbery were placed before the scene-building. Whatever the setting, there is not a genuine rear exit in this portion of the play. 102 " Die Sptirhunde des Sophokles," Neue Jahrb. f. d. klass. Alterthum, XXIX (1912), 449 ff. He suggests an " ansteigeudes GelJinde." i«3 "Zu Sophokles' IXNETTAI," Hermes, XLVII (1912), 536. He supposes that the Charonian stairs were used. '"4 " Sophocles' Ichneutae. col. 9, vss. 1-7 and the dpu/xevov of Kyllene and the Satyrs," Essays and Studies Presented to William Eidi/eway (1913), pp. 136 ff. See also Pearson, Fragments of Sophocles I (1917), ff. 224 ft". 52 THE GREEK THEATER employed in the Persians and the Seven against Thebes of Aeschylus are in doubt. If a building formed the background in these plays, as some scholars hold, they belong of course in the first group. In the lake-scene of the Frogs the house (or houses?) which the scene-building represents, though visible, is ignored. The majority of the plays which have been preserved, and of the others about whose settings some knowledge may be gleaned from the fragments and from ancient commentators, make use of but a single entrance in the back-scene. A few employ two such entrances ; a still smaller number, three ; some, none at all. It follows that the statement which is repeated by many modern authorities, based on the testimony of Vitruvius and Pollux,'"^ that in the Greek theater the background was regularly provided with three doors is far too sweeping, or at least mislead- ing. The most that we can say, so far at any rate as the fifth century is concerned, is that the back-scene was so arranged that from one to three entrances could be provided as need required. When doors were employed they appear regularly to have opened outward. ^°^ Was the door (or doors) in the back-scene approached by a flight of steps? We may confidently answer that it was not. At the most there may have been a single step or sill ; there is no trustworthy evidence, either literary or archaeological, that may be cited in support of the assumption of a series of steps. The only passage in the extant dramas that seems to warrant such an assumption proves upon examination to be of illusory value. This passage is in the Iphigenia among the Taurians of Euripides, verses 96-103. Orestes and Pylades are seeking some means of entrance into the temple that they may steal the wooden image of the goddess, for which they have made their long and perilous voyage. After recounting the object of their mission, Orestes asks his companion what is to be done. According to the 105 Vitravius, V, 6 ; Pollux, IV, 124, 120. 106 Mooney, The House-door on the Ancient Stage (1914), pp. 42 ff. THE EVIDENCE OF THE DRAMAS 53 readings of the manuscripts the text of the passage is as follows : HvXdSri, av yap fiOL T0v5e (TvWrjTTTwp ttSvov, tL dpwfxev ; aix A precisely similar scene occurs in the Clouds, vss. 1 ff. These are a few of the passages in the extant dramas of the fifth century which imply the use of a portico as a part of the setting. ^-^ The manner in which this prothyron was indicated in the theater is a question which must be postponed until a later 118 Translation of Way, slightly altered. 119 Blass, Eumeniden (1907) and the majority of the earlier editors supposed that the eccyclema (p. 83) was used here. This is unnecessary. Von Wilamo- . witz, Aeschyli Tracjoediae (1!I14) merely remarks: " valvae templi aperiuntur." 120 So Blaydes. irpodvpov wpocrOirOXas 1', TrpoTri/Xoi' TrpoairvXas V, irpbcrdev irpo- iri/\ate Scalinger, irpodvpov TrpoirvXaie Bentley, etc. 121 For other examples see Rees (note 113). Legrand (Daos (1!)10), pp. 434 ff.) argues against the existence of a vestibule. He remarks (p. 443): "En somme, 58 THE GREEK THEATER chapter, but the importance of the vestibule as a feature of the setting should not be overlooked. Another feature that is given prominence in certain plays is a window. Thus in the Wasps, vss. 379, 380, a window is one of the means by which Philocleon attempts to affect his escape from the house : dXX' i^dipas 5ia ttjs dvpldos to KaXwdwv eira KaOifia d'^aas cravTbt' Kai rrjv \^vx^v ifiirXyjffdfxevos Aioireiffovs. So now to the window lash the cord, and twine it securely your limbs around. With all Diopeithes fill your soul, then let yourself cleverly down to the ground. '-- The preparations are soon completed, but just as the old man is about to slide down the rope he is discovered by his son, who calls to Sosias, the slave (vss. 398-99) : dvdpaiv^ dvtjffas Kara ttjv eripav Kai Taiffif (pvWdffi naie, ■fjv TTWS irpvixv7)v dvaKpovaTjTai TrXrjyeis rais eipfcriwi'ais. With branch and with bough up aloft instant go, at yon window take post, dost discern, lad ? With whip and with scourge his course retrograde urge, and drive the ship back to her stern, lad.^-' Philocleon, however, braves the beating and slides at once to the ground, where he is seized and hustled again into the house. The la localisation de scfenes comiques dans les irpbdvpa de quelque genre qu'ils soient demeure tr6s contestable." See also the translation by Loeb, The Neio Greek Comedy (1917), p. 354. But Legrand slights the evidence afforded by the tragedies. We should remember, however, that both tragedies and comedies were performed in the same theater and before the same scene-building. 122 Translation of Rogers. 123 Translation of Cumberland. The words Kara ttjv erepav are obscure. Cum- berland's translation, " at yon window," follows the old Latin version of Bergler (revised by Brunck): "Ascende in alteram fenestram." Tliis is probably in- correct. Van Leeuwen undei'stands the words to refer to the loose end of the rope: "Sosias per alteram funis extremitaten se attollit. " Von Wilamowitz ("Ueber die Wespen des Aristophanes," S.-B. d. Berl. Akad., 1911, p. 473) remarks: " auf der einem von beiden Seiten der Tliiir," i.e. on a curb-stone. He supposes that the window was directly over the door. The elpeffidivr] (vs. 399) hung over the door as a charm against pestilence and famine. It was an olive branch bound with wool and with various autumnal fruits. See Harrison, Proleyomena, pp. 79, 80. THE EVIDENCE OF THE DRAMAS 59 window, it is clear, was at a considerable distance from the ground, but not necessarily in an upper story, as was formerly assumed. Some of the houses uncovered at Delos have windows as low as four or five feet above the level of the road.^-* Another comedy in which a window, or windows, may have been used is the Eccle- siazusae or Wo77ieri in Council. Toward the end of the play (vss. 877 ff.) an old woman and a girl, both of them courtesans, carry on a scurrilous conversation. Each is peeping (TrapaKvxpaaa, vs. 884 ; TrapcLKvcfiO' ojo-irep yaXrj, VS. 924 ; Tt SiaKwrets, VS. 930) OUt of an opening on the watch for a lover. But whether both of these openings were windows, ^'-^ or one was a window (cf. vs. 961 : KaruSpafjiovaa W/v 6vpav avoL$ov), the other a door, is not clear from the text. A window is nowhere specifically mentioned. As regards the height of the scene-building in the fifth century the evidence afforded by the extant dramas is fairly clear. The majority of these require for their adequate presentation a struc- ture only one story high ; for a few, however, a second story or other similar superstructure is indispensable. There is no evidence for the use of a third story. ^-^ Certain late writers refer to this upper structure as the episkenion, but whether this term was already employed in the fifth century is not known ^^ and is unim- portant. Whatever its technical name may have been, it is referred to by the comic poet Plato, a younger contemporary of Aristophanes, in the line (Frag. 112, ed. Kock.) : opare t6 Sirjpcs vTrep, di^pes dui/xdrioi', olop a.

pvyu>v, ov TTiVCFOjxecrda rdv 66/xois ottcos e'xf'- But lo, the bars clash of the royal halls ! Hush ye : — there comes forth of her Phrygians one Of whom we shall learn what befell within.^'^ The majority of editors, however, justly hold these verses to be spurious, as did one of the ancient commentators, who declared them to be an interpolation inserted by the actors. These, he says, preferred to make their entrance through the door lest in leaping from above they should suffer injury. ^'^^ But whichever interpretation be adopted, it is clear, I think, that the evidence of these three dramas, the HypsipTjle, the Ion, and the Orestes, is too meager and uncertain to warrant a con- clusive judgment. There appears, however, to l3e no good reason for denying at least the occasional erection of a small gable roof to meet the playwright's needs. Dorpfcld, reljdng in part upon these passages, in part upon the supposed evidence of the late vase-paintings mentioned above (p. 55), reconstructed the scene-building of the fifth century with a gable over the central portion (Fig. 23, p. 95, below). He finds additional support for this reconstruction in the presence of certain holes (Diibel- locher) above the cornice of the proskenion at Priene, which he i'*! Compare also a scholium found iu the Codex Guelferbytanus : &\\ov /x^v oiKTjfiaTos inr€pTr7]drjaas to. ffreyr], ec aXXoj oe eXdwv Kai rjacpaKLfffxh'as evpwv ras TOVTOJV TTvXas, TO. TOVTOJV KXeWpa avvrpiipas e^rjXdei'. 142 Translation of Way. 143 rovTovs Toxjs Tpeis ctlxovs ovk S.v tls i^ fToi/xov ffvyx'^PVffeLei' Ei'piTr/Soi; eivai, dXXa /xaXXoi' tQv viroKpirCiv, oiTives, iva p.ri KaKOiraOibcnv diro tQv jSacnXfiwv dd/niov KaOaWofievoi, irapai'ol^ai'Tes eKvopevovrai^ kt\. The apparent stupidity of the reason assigned for the interpolation may per- haps he explained away by supposing that in the late Hellenistic or Graeco- Eoman theater the distance from pediment to ground was greater than in the tune of Euripides. Furthermore iu late times tlie scene-building was of stone and perhaps afforded no convenient opening through a pediment for the escape of the slave. THE EVIDENCE OF THE DRAMAS 67 supposes may have served to hold such a pediment in place. ^'*^ But this explanation is by many held to be unsound, while his restoration of the scene-building at Athens has met with but little favor. As regards the architectural and other adornment of the scene- building, Aeschylus and Sophocles are silent, while Aristophanes is provokingly chary of information. It is to Euripides alone that we must turn for enlightenment, but his descriptions, as of the sculptures in the Ion (p. 44), are sometimes so lavish as to arouse suspicion. His frequent references however, to columns {Iphigenia among the Taurians, vs. 128, Ion, vs. 185, Bacchae, vs. 591, The Mad Heracles, vs. 1038) ; the triglyph-frieze (Orestes, vs. 1372, Iphigenia among the Taurians, vs. 113,^^^ Bacchae, vs. 1214) ; andthe cornice (Iphigenia among the Taurians, vs. 129, Ion, vss. 156, 172, Orestes, vss. 1569, 1570, 1620) possess a verisimiUtude that challenges belief. And that color also was used in the adornment of the scene-building in conformity with the prevaiUng taste is not to be doubted. A hint of this is found in the Iphigenia among the Taurians, vs. 128, where the chorus speak of "the gilded cornice of thy pillared temple," and in the Ion, vss. 156, 157, where the shrine is spoken of as golden. One is reminded that as early as about the year 460, while Aeschylus was still producing plays, the artist Agatharchus had been employed to paint the Skene (note 178, p. 82) ; while inscriptions of the third century i« Jahrb. d. arch. Inst. XVI (1901), 32 ; ibid., Anzeiger, XXVin (1913), 40. This iuterpretatiou is .scornfully rejected by Fiechter (op. cit, pp. 32, 33, Anm. 3). 14= 6pa 8^ y' daw TpiyXixpwv 6iroi Kevbv \ d^/xas Kade?vai, "Ah, see ; far up, between each pair of beams | A hollow one might creep through " (Murray's translation). This is the traditional interpretation, but both text and interpretation are in doubt. Tpty\v(puv I think, meaiLS here the triglyph-frieze, as it does also in Bacchae, vs. 1214. My colleague, Professor O. M. Washburn, believes that eicno here means " within " in the sense of " beyond " or " behind," i.e., behind the frieze is an opening in the ceiling of the vestibule, by means of which one may make his way to the attic and so let himself down into the cella. See his paper " Iphigenia Taurica 113 as a Document in the History of Architecture," Amer. Jour. Arch. XXII (1918), 434 ff.; also "The Origin of the Triglyph Frieze," ibid., XXIU (1919), 33 ff. 68 THE GREEK THEATER pertaining to the theater at Delos more than once mention the use of painting (note 26, p. 15). At this point we may conclude this portion of our survey of the dramas. No attempt has been made to cite every passage bearing upon the character of the scene-building and of the set- tings that were in use ; and in the nature of the case what evi- dence there is, is fragmentary and much of it negative, or at least inconclusive. That which seems to possess a positive signi- ficance needs to be supplemented by a study of the changes of scene or locality in Greek dramas, particularly of those which may contribute to our understanding of the scene-building. To this subject we may now address ourselves. CHANGES OF THE SETTING ^^e That the Greek playwright did not regard unity of time and unity of place as coercive principles of dramatic technique has long been recognized. He observed them rather merely as natural and prevailing, albeit violable, traditions of his art. They were not submitted to as a strait-jacket of convention arbitrarily pre- scribed by an inscrutable authority ; but they were accepted as an appropriate and dignified vesture to be worn with an easy grace or laid aside at will. And had Castelvetro and Sidney and Boileau been more observant of the facts, it is scarcely conceivable that the bastard ''unities" would ever have been fathered upon Aristotle or erected into a dogma of dramatic art.^*^ For the facts are that in Greek drama there occur with con- spicuous frequency not only changes of scene or locality, but intervals of time as well. From the point of view of technique both are pertinent. Neglect of either would be a serious over- sight. But in a study of scenic arrangement disunity of time is i''6 Selected bibliography : Miiller, Griechische Bilhnenalterthumer (1886). See note 79. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, "Die Biihne des Aiscliylos," Hermes, XXI (1886), 597 ff. Dorpfeld nnd Reisch, Das griechische Theater (1896). Haigh, The Attic Theatre (see note 11). FeLsch. Quibus Artificiis Adhibitis Poetae Tragici Graeci Unitates Bias et Temporis et Loci Observaverint (1906). Schiibl, Die Landschaft auf der Buhne des 5, vorchristlichen Jahrhunderts (1912). J'en.sterbiLsch, Die Bnhrie des Aristophanes (1912). Flickinger, The Greek Theater and its Drama (1918). For other references see the following footnotes. 147 For an admirable discussion of this subject see Butcher, Aristotle's Theory of Poetry and Fine Art, chap. 7. 69 70 THE GREEK THEATER of slight importance and may safely be omitted. ^^^ Not so, how- ever, changes of place. These are of vital moment and demand a detailed examination. Changes of scene or locality occur both within plays and between them, and in both situations are equally instructive. Those which fall wuthin the plays ^^^ rarely involve a modification of the setting. The greater number are facilitated by the use of a multiple set, or else depend merely upon the suggestiveness of word and action and the visualizing power of the imagination, which schools both the poet's pen and the apprehending mind to give to airy nothing A local habitation and a name. An excellent example of the last genre is found in the Frogs of Aristophanes. ~ At the opening of the play the orchestra represents the road and an open space before the house of Heracles. Suddenly Charon, grim ferryman of the dead, appears rowing his tiny boat, and in a twinkling the orchestra becomes a la,ke. The presence of the boat and Dionysus' exclamation "Why, that's the lake, by Zeus!" (Xifivr) VT] Aia avTT] '(ttiv (vs. 181)) are alone sufficient to whisk the imagination of the audience to the Acherusian shores. With the disappearance of Charon and his boat the lake is for- gotten, and the orchestra becomes in turn the regions of the dead, dark and loathsome. Horrid specters hover in the air, while in the deep mire flounder such as have wronged a guest, - Or picked a wench's pocket while they kissed her, Beaten their mother, smacked their fathers' jaws, Or sworn perjurious oaths before high heaven.'^" 1*8 On this subject see Croiset, Histoire de la Litterature Grecque, HI (1899), 131, 132; Kent, "The Time Element in the Greek Drama," Trans. Am. Phil. Assoc. XXXVII (1906), 39 ff. ; Flickinger, op. cit., pp. 246 ff. 149 j'or changes of scene between plays see p. 76. "•i Vss. 146 ff. ; translation of Murray. CHANGES OF THE SETTING 71 Again the poet waves his wand, and darkness and mud give place to Ught most beautiful, and verdant meadows and groves of glossy myrtle, where the blessed "initiates" dance and sing in joyous revelry. Another shift, and Dionysus and his slave stand at the portals of Pluto's dwelling. A similar, but less extensive, series is found in the Acharnians of xVristophanes. The building which has represented the city residence of Dicaeopolis suddenly is imagined to be his country house, and the orchestra, which has represented the Pnyx, be- comes Dicaeopolis' farm. Words and actions alone indicate the imagined change (cf. v. 202 : a^w to. Kar dypovs eio-iwv Aiovvo-ta).^^^ Later, though with less abruptness, Athens again becomes the scene of action, and Pn^-x and farm give way to market place. Other examples of this type of change are easily found, espe- cially in comedy. Their significance lies in the vividness with which they illumine for us the primitive simpHcity of the early scenic arrangements. Instructive, too, in this regard is the use of the multiple set. Thus in the play last mentioned, the background represents the houses of Dicaeopolis, Euripides and Lamachus, while before them in the orchestra are placed benches and other properties to indicate the Pnyx.^^^ At the opening of the comedy DicaeopoHs, weary of the war ^ith Sparta, appears alone in the place of assem- bly. It is early morning {iwOivrj^, vs. 20) and he awaits with unconcealed impatience the coming of the Prytanes and the rabble. Finally after the lapse of several hours (/xecn^/A^pivot, vs. 40) these rush in pell-mell, the benches and the surrounding space are filled, and the assembly is called to order. The war party holds the whip hand and will brook no interference with 151 See Starkie's excellent comments, ed. Acharnians, pp. 24.5 ff. Quite gra- tuitous is van Leeuwen's suggestion {Acharnenses, 1901, p. 3) that Dicaeopolis celebrates the rural Dionysia in the town (in ipsa urbe celebrare parva Libe- ralia . . . figentem se rure versari) . 1" Fensterbusch, up. cit., pp. 11 ff., believes that there was a stage (cf. pp. 1 ff.). He concedes, however, that the Pnyx was in the orchestra. 72 THE GREEK THEATER its plans, until at length Dicaeopolis, exasperated and disgusted, has a happy inspiration. "A drop of rain has struck me!" he exclaims, and the meeting is immediately and unceremoniously adjourned (vs. 173). At verse 202, announcing that he "will go within (eio-twv) ^^^ and celebrate the rural feast of Dionysus," Dicaeopolis enters his house, which, as we saw above, is now imagined to be his country residence. Throughout the remainder of the play the benches and the bema of the Pnyx, though still included in the physical setting, are treated by both poet and audience as if they were non-existent. In similar manner, during the scene in the Pnyx, the house from which Dicaeopolis made his appearance is for the time being ignored, and the action is thought of as occurring not only not before the building, but not even in its immediate neighborhood. At the conclusion of the scene Dicaeopolis' remark, ''I shall go within," and his accompanying action restore the house once more to a prominent place in the setting. ^^^ In the Libation-bearers of Aeschylus occurs another example of this type. The background represents the castle of Clytaem- nestra and Aegisthus ; in incongruous proximity stands the tomb of the murdered Agamemnon. During the long scene at the tomb the presence of the castle is all but forgotten. But it is not quite forgotten, as the words of Orestes, ryvSe /xkv o-Tei'xetv eo-w (vs. 552), "She (i.e. Electra) must go within, " clearly show. ^^^ 153 1 do not agree with Droysen ( Quaestiones de Aristophanis re scaenica, 1868, p. 10), Starkie (notes ad loc. and also on Wasps, vs. 107), and others that elffiwv means " domum (i.e. rus) ibo." See van Leeuwen's note on Vespae, vs. 107. 154 So in the Frogs, during the central scenes the building which represents the house of Heracles is, as it were, forgotten. In the later portions of the play the same house, as 1 believe, does duty as the palace of Pluto. It is unnec- essaiy to assume, with some scholars, the existence of two houses side by side- .still less the use of screens or hangings to conceal the building during the inter, vening scenes. 155 Verrall (ed. Choephori, 189.3) mistranslates: " My sister here must go home," but he favors at least "two changes of the decoration" (Introd. p. xxxi). Tucker also (Choephori, 1901, p. xli) and Blass (Choephoren, 1906, p. 20) believe that during the scene at the tomb the palace was in some manner concealed from view. But the word ecrw with such verbs as (Treixei-f, Ko/xl^effdai, CHANGES OF THE SETTING 73 This remark, like Dicaeopolis' announcement in the Acharnians (vs. 202), indicates that the house, though far distant in imagina- tion, is actually visible and near at hand. By so ingenuous a hint is the way prepared for the ensuing change of scene. And that, even after the action has shifted to the castle (vss. 649 ff.), the tomb still remains visible in the orchestra is shown beyond a peradventure by the invocation of the chorus, "0 Sovereign Earth, and thou august mound that liest now upon the body of our king and admiral, now hearken; now send aid!"^^^ To remove so heavy a piece of stage-furniture before or during the choral ode (vss. 583 ff.) would occasion an awkward interruption, and thus seriously mar the artistic effect of the drama. The poet chooses therefore to leave the setting undisturbed until the end. If the principle suggested at the close of the preceding para- graph be sound, it should of course be applicable in all cases. But on this point we must plead ignorance. The most that can be said is that the only universally acknowledged instances of a change of the setting occur during the temporary absence of both chorus and actors. At first blush this striking synchronism of deserted "stage" with alteration of the set appears to be decisive. ^^''' The inference is tempting that under other conditions no interruption of the action, whether occasioned by the changing of structural background or the moving of heavy properties or the alleged shifting of painted hangings and screens, was countenanced. But etc., like the English "go within, " surely indicates the presence of the house. Compare Cho., vs. 949, Agam., vs. 1035, Oed. Tyr., vs. 92, Ant., vs. 578, Plut., vs. 231, EccL, vss. 510, 511, etc. Von Wilamowitz (Aeschyli TragOediae, 1914, p. 247) says : " regia usque ad v. 554 ignoratur, ignoranda etiam spectatoribus. ■" See also Felsch, op. cit., p. 13. 1^6 Vss. 723 ff. : tS TthrvLa x^'^^ «<'■"'■ ttStvl'' d/crTj | x'^l^"-'^'^^^ V ''^''i ^'^^^ It should be noted that the chorus is in the orchestra and presumably near the tomb. Tucker (see the preceding note) overlooks the signihcance of this passage. He writes (p. xli) : " I should prefer to suppose that the tomb was actually removed," etc. Blass {up. cit., p. 20) dissents. See also Niejahr, Progr. des Gijmn. zu Greifswald (1885), pp. xiii, xiv. '■''7 Compare Midler, op. cit., p. 102 : "Es ist selbstverstandlich, dass nicht nur die Schauspieler die Biihne, sondern audi der Chor die Orchestra beim Eiu- ti'eten einer Scenenverwandlung verlassen haben musste. " See also p. 161. 74 THE GREEK THEATER unfortunately this cannot be established. An attempted proof would issue only in a petitio principii. Of the changes of locality which involve a modification of the setting the most conspicuous instance occurring within the plays is found in the Eumenides of Aeschylus. This happens to be also the earliest example known. The backgromid represents at first the temple of Apollo at Delphi. In an impressive scene Apollo bids Orestes quit his shrine and go to Athens and there before a court instituted by Athena seek exculpation from the charge of murder. Shortly after his departure the Furies, who constitute the chorus of the play, set out in hot pursuit. Apollo retires into the temple, and the "stage" is deserted. This occurs at verse 234. The next verse reads: "Queen Athena, at the behests of Loxias am I come," and is spoken by Orestes as he sinks, weary and travel-stained, at the feet of the statue of the goddess, while the Furies reenter tracking like hounds upon the scent the blood-dyed footprints of their intended victim. Thence- forth Athens is the scene of the action. It is evident then that during the absence of chorus and actors the setting has been modified. But how simple the change ! A statue of Athena has been substituted for the symbols of Apollo, and possibly benches and other properties introduced for use in the court scene which is to follow (vss. 566 ff.).^^* Equally simple is the readjustment of the setting in the Ajax of Sophocles. During the first half of the play the scene represents the hut or tent of Ajax in the Greek encampment on the coast of the Troad. At verse 692, announcing that he "will seek out 158 Like the benches of the Pnyx in the Acharnians these may, however, have been put in place before the opening of the play. Their introduction during the ode which precedes the court scene (vss. 490-565) seems to me improbable (p. 73). But von Wilamowitz does not share this viev;. He says {Aeschyli Tragoediae, 1914, p. 310) : " Dum chorus saltat, in fronte scaenae sellae ponun- tur, ceteraque quibus in judicio opus est apparantur." So Blass (Eumeiiiden, 1907, p. 135) : "Die naclifolgende Gerichtsscene kann ich mir nur auf dem Areopage denken . . . also war wahrend des vorangehenden Stasimons wieder eine kleine Scenenverwandlung vorgenommen." But the scene of the trial was not certainly the Areopagus; see Ridii-eway. "The True Scene of the Second Act of the Eumenides," Class. Eev. XXI (1907), 163-68. CHANGES OF THE SETTING 75 some untrodden spot" and there bury his sword, "hatefullest of weapons," as token of submission to the gods, Ajax departs. But his ambiguous words and a message from Teucer affright Tecmessa, and she and the chorus hasten forth (vs. 814), "some to the westward bays, some toward the eastward," to "seek the man's ill-omened steps." At this point the scene is changed and becomes a lonely wooded glen (cf. x^P^^ do-Tt/3^, vs. 657 ; vd-n-ovs, vs. 892), to whose sheltering depths the despairing Ajax makes his way and there falls upon his sword, burying it indeed, as he truly said, but — in his own heart ! Here also, as in the Eumen- ides, the rearrangement of the setting was effected during the ab- sence of both chorus and actors, but precisely how it was ac- comphshed is not known. '^^ These two instances are generally referred to as the only ex- amples in Greek drama of a change of the setting during the prog- ress of a play.'®'' But by rights at least one other should be in- eluded. This occurs between verses 63 and 64 of the Eumenides. The aged priestess, terror-stricken at what she has beheld within the temple, totters from the scene. The "stage" is deserted and there ensues a brief pause in the action. Then suddenly the in- terior of the temjjle is disclosed and there are discovered Orestes clinging to the omphalos and Apollo, his protector, standing near 159 Some suppose that the trees and shubbery, which represent the woodland, were put in place before the beginning of the play ; so, for example, Schiibl, op. cit. Others, e.g., Bolle, Die BUhne des Sophokles (1902), p. 11, hold that the setting for the woodland scene was not arranged until after vs. 814. Equally divergent tou are the views regarding the removal of the tent. Piderit {Szenische Analyze des Sophukles SiUcke.'i Alas, 18-50) supposes that there was no change whatever. Bethe (Prolegomena, 1890, pp. 12.5 ff.) rehes upon the eccyclema. Reisch (op. cit., p. 212) suggests that the front wall of the tent was drawn aside to right and to left, thus disclosing the set for the wood- land glen, which had been previously arranged behind the scenes. Flickinger (op. cit., p. 244), supposes "that one of the side doors in the front of the scene-building was left open to represent the entrance to the glen, and that around and beliind it were set panels pauited to suggest the woodland coast and gleu." Alia alii. 160 Flickinger (op. cit., pp. 235, 250) thinlcs that he detects also in the Alcestis (vss. 747-860) " a slight change of scene" (= setting?). But he admits that the evidence is not clear. Petersen (op. cit., p. 561), cites this passage as evi- dence for the use of uppei-, as well as lower, parodi — an interpretation that will meet with little favor. See my review in Class. Phil. XIII (1918), 216 ff. 76 THE GREEK THEATER at hand with Hermes ; wliile about them in a gi'oup are seen the dark and hideous forms of the sleeping Furies. The way in which this disclosure was effected is not certain. Indeed, the explana- tions that have been offered are legion. '^^ But whatever the manner of its accomplishment, it constitutes, in my opinion, a genuine instance of a change of the setting. The new set continues in use until verse 234.^^2 Be this as it may, the evidence of the dramas seems to show that only on rare occasions did a change of scene within a play involve a modification of the setting. But between plays this must have been of frequent occurrence. For in the fifth century, at the greater Dionysia at least, there appear to have been regu- larly three series of dramatic performances, each series consisting of five plays and each constituting the program of a single day. True, the evidence is somewhat hazy, but this is to-day the pre- vailing interpretation. In other words, it is generally believed that on each of three successive days there were presented in rapid succession five dramas, and that each of these series was composed regularly of three tragedies, a satyr-play and a comedy. ^^^ 161 Many scholars, following the scholiast, assume the use of the eccyclema (p. 83) ; so most recently Flickinger (op. cit., pp. 286, 287). Others dissent (for example, Neckel, Das Ekkyklema, 1890, pp. 12, 13 ; Reisch, I)as griech. Theater, 1896, p. 244 ; Rees, "The Function of the Ilpdevpov in the Production of Greek Plays," Class. Phil. X (1915), 130.) In my judgment any explanation that involves the assumption that the Furies are not seen, be it ever so dimly, until after the departure of Orestes (vs. 93) or the disappearance (vs. 139) of the ghost of Clytaemnestra (e.g. G. Hermann, Opusc. VI, pt. 2, p. 163 ; Neckel, op. clt., p. 12 ; Reisch, op. cit, p. 243 ; Fhck- inger, op. cit., p. 287) is dramatically unsound. Niejahr (De Pollucis Loco qui ad Rem Scenicam Spectat (1885, p. 5) states clearly the reasons for this view. 162 See the preceding note (second paragraph) . For somewhat similar, though less striking, discoveries see the Ajax of Sophocles, vs. 346, where Ajax is shown within his tent ; and The Mad Heracles of Euripides, vs. 1029, where Heracles is seen within his house with the dead bodies of his wife and children at his feet. In these, and in other instances, many scholars assume that the eccyclema (p. 83) was used. But this is very doubtful ; see Neckel, Das Ekkyklema (1890), and Rees, " The Function of the npddvpov,'' etc., Class. Phil. X (1915), 129 ff. 163 The three tragedies and the satyr-play were together known technically as a didascalia (teaching, presentation), and were regularly the work of a single poet. That a comedy was presented on the same day as the didascalia has some- CHANGES OF THE SETTING 77 Even those who dissent from this view are unanimous in aclcnowl- edging that the tragedies and the satyric drama constituted a single group. So far as concerns scenic arrangements the point is not of vital importance. For it is clear that whether the series consisted of four plays or of five, one and the same set cannot have been employed throughout. The scene of the satyr-plays was often, if not indeed regularly, a country region with trees, rocks and the like, and frequently a cave. Comedy chose a variety of settings, while even in tragedy the usual background of house or temple was not uniformly employed (p. 49). Unfortunately no single series has been preserved entire, not even a didascalia. The nearest approach to such a series is found in the Orestean trilogy of Aeschylus consisting of the Agamemnon, the Libation-bearers and the Eumenides, and requir- ing as settings respectively a palace, a palace and tomb, a temple. But that the scenic requirements were not always so simple and uniform is shown beyond a doubt by the group of dramas pre- sented by Euripides in the year 431. This was composed, as the hypothesis (argument) to the Medea informs us, of the Medea, the Philoctetes, the Dictys and a satyric drama called the Har- vesters. The Medea is extant and requires as a background a house or palace, as did also without doubt the Dictys.^ ^'^ But for the Philoctetes it was a mountain side with a cave, as in the Philoc- tetes of Sophocles and probably also the Philoctetes of Aeschylus."^ This Bethe denied, insisting that the setting for the Philoctetes, as for the Medea and the Dictys, must also have been a house. ^""^ times been questioned, as by Reiscli, op. cit., p. 211 ; see also Mtiller, op. cit., p. 322. But the evidence appears to be against this view ; see Haigli-Pickard- Cambiidge, op. cit., pp. 10-24 ; also Flickinger, op. cit., pp. 197 ff. !«■> See Apoll. 2, 4, 1 and .3, and Wecklein, S.-B. d. k. b. Akad. der Wiss. z. Munchen, I (1888). 109 ff. There is no reason for doubting that a house formed the background, but complete proof is lacking. 165 See, for example, the remarks of Jebb, The Philoctetes of Sophocles, p. xv. KG Prolegomena (189(5), p. 200. He argues in the first place that not until about 420 did any play known to us recjuire a setting other than a building. He excludes of course the earliest dramas of Aeschylus and also the Cyclops, " well stiiv.e Zeit nicht feststeht. " Whatever force this dubious argument may 78 THE GREEK THEATER But his arguments will not bear examination, and the traditional assumption is fully justified.^" We may assume then that for this series of plays the scene was changed from a house (Medea) to a mountain side (Philoc- tetes), back again to a house (Dictys), and finally to a country region (Harvesters). What setting was demanded by the comedy that is beheved to have closed the clay's performances is not known, and is unimportant. So the Oedipus Coloneus of Sophocles ^\^th its sacred grove was in all probability preceded or followed by a play or plays which required a temple or other building as the background. And there can be no doubt that in the history of the fifth-century drama there were scores, perhaps hundreds, of similar instances in which several changes of the set were neces- sary in the course of a single day. once have possessed has since been nullified by the discovery of the Irhneutae of Sophocles (see Pearson, Fragments of Sopliocles^ I (1917), pp.230, 231). His second argument is that the word in the paraphrase of Dion C'hrysostom (or. lix) proves that in the Euripideau play the background represented a hut or house. But he deliberately suppresses the evidence of such passages as Philoc- tetes (Soph.), vs. 286 : (iaia ryd' vwb (rrey-Q and vs. 298 : olKovnipt] . . . aTiy-rj. In both of these, as in vs. 1262 (which Bethe cites), a-T^yij refers to the cave of Philoctetes. Compare also Antig., vss. 888, 1100 ; i'ragment (Soph.) 176, Nauck, ed. 2, and Cyclops, vs. 29. i'"'^ The suggestion of von Wilamowitz that Adesp. frag. 389, Nauck, ed. 2, : ovk f€VTos rod iyKUKX-qixaros), Clemens Alexandrinu.s, Protrepticus, 12, p. 418 Dind. {(TKevbs n virbTpoxov . . . ob (TTpecpoixivov). 84 THE GREEK THEATER ing and the whole revolved about a pivot after the manner of a butterfly valve ; ^^^ others adhere to the older theory of a trundle- platform; 1^^ while Fliekinger contends that the term was generic and that both types were used, the former until about the year 430 B.C. (see Fig. 22), the latter during the closing decades of the century. ^^^ Equally divergent are the theories regarding the extent to which the eccydema was employed. The extreme conservatives Fig. 22. — The Scene-Building of the Early Fifth-Century Theater (Flickinger). accepting the statements of the scholiasts assume its general use by Aeschylus and Sophocles as well as by Euripides and Aristophanes, not to mention the host of poets whose plays have been lost. The extreme radicals on the other hand deny the credibility of the scholia and reject the eccydema except when the evidence in its favor is overwhelming. Between these two positions there is every shade of oj)inion. It is largely a matter 184 See especially Exon, "A New Theory of the Eccydema," RermathenaXI (1901), 1.S3 ff., who assumes that tliere was a separate erryrlerna adjoining each of the three doors. For various anticipations of Exon"s theory see Reisch's ar- ticle on the eKKVKXrjua in Tauly-Wissowa, lieal-Encycl. der class. Altertumswiss., V (1!)03). 185 Rees, Class. Phil. X (1915), 134 ff., concludes that it was merely an easy chair or couch on wheels. 186 Op. cit., pp. 285 ff. He holds further that exostra {i^warpa) was but an- other and more specific name for the second type of the eccydema ; compare Pollux IV, 129 : T7)v 5i i^dbffTpav ravrbv tQ iKKVK\rifj.aTi vofiL^ovai ; also Hesychius: e^wcrrpa- iirl rrjs ^^v ;•■ / >•■, j:' "k 4 Fig. 30. — Niobe and hek Daughter, fkom a Painting on AIakble Found at Pompeii. THE ORIGIN OF THE PROSKENION 109 I. The proskenion was a stage. It was about twelve or thirteen feet in height and (1) erected some time in the fifth century; or (2) imported toward the close of the fourth century from southern Italy or elsewhere to replace a low stage ; or (3) resulted from the gradual elevation of a low stage. II. The proskenion was a background. (4) This was placed before the scene-building at first in many different forms, but gradually that form which had been employed to represent a house or palace ^^^ became the normal and dominant type ; or (5) was arbitrarily added at some time in the fifth century as a deco- rative screen ; or finally — my own thesis — (6) was in point of origin the Aeschylean skene itself. The first of these views, that the proskenion was erected in the fifth century as a stage, is the old doctrine, which overwhelmed by the smothering effect of Dorpf eld's discoveries and a more searching study of the fifth-century drama burned with steadily decreasing vigor during the closing decade of the nineteenth century, flared up for a moment in the pages of Puchstein,-^- and at last flickered out. The second theory was proposed by Fiechter.-^^ Wlien the proskenion was introduced, say about the year 319 b.c, and placed before the scene-building, the first story of the latter was raised and became henceforth the second story (cf. Figs. 11, 12) — an evasive and tendenzios hypothesis which it is impos- sible to accept. Fiechter's attempt to trace the architectural development of the theater breaks down at this point, as it does also in connection with the paraskenia (p. 13). The third view, that the proskenion resulted from the gradual elevation of a low stage, was the explanation adopted by Bethe, Haigh, Gardner, 231 Or, as Noack holds, the Vorhalle of a Telesterion ; see note 208, above. 232 Die yriechische Buhne (1901). p. 1.39: "die altere Btthne [about four meters high; cf. pp. 1,36, 137] van Atlien ebenso alt anziisetzen wie die von Eretria, in das 4. oder 5. Jahrhundert v. Chr., jedenfalls in die Zeit vor Lyl