CHAPTER III

THE THEATRE

§ 1. _Introductory._

The theatre at Athens, whether regarded from the historical or the architectural point of view, is one of the most interesting buildings in the world.[305] It was apparently the first stone theatre erected in Greece, and may therefore be regarded as the prototype of all other ancient theatres, both Greek and Roman. It cannot indeed claim to have been contemporary with the most glorious period of the Attic drama. Recent investigations have shown that the greater part of it cannot be dated before the middle of the fourth century with any certainty. Still, it occupied almost exactly the same site as the old wooden theatre in which the plays of Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides were first exhibited. It no doubt reproduced in a more permanent form the main features and characteristics of that ancient theatre. It was itself the scene of those great revivals of Attic tragedy in the fourth century to which we have already alluded. In connexion with a building of such importance the smallest details are not without interest. The object of the chapter will be, firstly, to give an account of the existing remains and present condition of this theatre; secondly, to determine what must have been its original form and appearance, before the primitive design had been obscured by later alterations; thirdly, from the evidence thus collected, and from other sources, to draw such inferences as seem possible concerning the older theatre of the fifth century. It will be necessary at the same time to make occasional references to various other Greek theatres, both for the purpose of illustration and comparison, and also in order to fill up the gaps in our information caused by the ruinous condition of the Athenian theatre. Many of these other theatres have lately been excavated in a thorough and systematic manner, at Epidaurus, Megalopolis, Delos, Eretria, and elsewhere. The discoveries made in the course of the excavations have added greatly to our knowledge of the Greek stage.

[Illustration: _To face p. 78._

FIG. 2. THEATRE AT ATHENS, FROM THE NORTH.]

The construction and general arrangement of a Greek theatre differed widely from any form of theatre to be found at the present day. The Greek theatre was exposed to the open air, and had no roof or covering of any kind. It was generally built upon the slope of a hill in or near the city. It was of enormous magnitude, compared with a modern theatre, being intended to contain at one and the same time the whole theatre-going population of the city. The largest part of it consisted of the auditorium, or tiers of seats for the spectators. These seats rose one above the other like a flight of steps, and were arranged in the form of a semicircle with the two ends prolonged. The flat space at the bottom of the auditorium, corresponding to the stalls and pit in a modern theatre, was called the orchestra or ‘dancing-place’, and was used by the chorus only, the spectators being entirely excluded from it. At the further end of the orchestra, facing the tiers of seats, rose the stage and the stage-buildings. The stage was a long platform, much narrower than a modern stage, and was reserved for the actors, as opposed to the chorus. The open-air building, the performance in broad daylight, the vast crowds of spectators, the chorus grouped together in the centre, the actors standing on the narrow stage behind them—all these characteristics of a Greek theatrical exhibition must have combined to produce a scene to which there is no exact parallel at the present day. This fact should be kept clearly in view, in discussing all questions connected with the Greek stage. Many errors have been caused, and many unnecessary difficulties have been raised, owing to the failure to realize the essential difference between the external features of the ancient and the modern drama.

§ 2. _The old Wooden Theatres at Athens._

The type of theatre described above was of course only developed very gradually by the Athenians. It came into existence side by side with the growth of their drama. At first there was no permanent theatre. Attic tragedy grew out of the dithyrambs performed by choruses in honour of Dionysus. For such exhibitions all that was required was an orchestra, or circular dancing-place. The chorus performed in the middle, the spectators ranged themselves all round the ring. The first innovation was the introduction of a dialogue between the coryphaeus and the choreutae in the intervals of the choral odes. For the purpose of carrying on this dialogue the coryphaeus used to mount upon the sacrificial table which stood beside the altar in the centre of the orchestra.[306] Such sacrificial tables are often found in ancient vase paintings by the side of the regular altars, and were used for cutting up the victims, or for receiving various bloodless offerings such as cakes and vegetables.[307] Both the table and the altar were called by the same name, Thymele.[308] This table, on which the coryphaeus took his stand, surrounded by the choristers, was the prototype of the stage in the later Greek theatre. The next step in the development of the drama and of the theatre was the introduction of a single actor by Thespis. This actor took the part in the dialogue previously played by the coryphaeus. But the part was now much expanded and developed. The actor, instead of remaining in the centre of the orchestra throughout the performance, used to come and go, and appear in many roles in succession, using a different costume on each occasion. A booth was erected just outside the orchestra, for him to change his dress and mask in. The platform on which he stood during the delivery of the dialogue was removed from the centre of the orchestra, and placed immediately in front of the booth, to facilitate his exits and entrances. This change led inevitably to others. The chorus, which had previously stood in a circle round the coryphaeus, now drew themselves up in lines facing the actor’s platform, so as to converse with him in a natural manner. The spectators, instead of being ranged all round the orchestra, were confined to two-thirds of it. The remaining portion was taken up by the stage.

Such then was the arrangement of the theatre in the latter part of the sixth century. There was a booth with a small platform for the actor. In front of it lay the orchestra, occupied by the chorus. The audience sat in rows round the orchestra, facing the platform. At this early period the seats provided for the audience were only temporary erections. They were called ‘ikria’, and consisted of wooden benches rising in tiers one above the other, and resting on wooden supports.[309] The booth and platform were also mere temporary constructions of wood. But in these rude erections, hastily put up each year for the annual performances, were already to be found all the essential parts of the later Greek theatres. Nothing more was required than to change the material from wood to stone, and to introduce greater elaboration into the design. In course of time the old wooden benches developed into the magnificent amphitheatres of which the remains still survive. The booth and platform were converted into imposing stage-buildings. The recollection of their origin was preserved in their name. Even in the latest times, when the stage-buildings of a Greek theatre had come to be elaborate structures of stone, they were still called by the name ‘skene’, which means properly a booth or tent.

In this sketch of the early history of the Greek theatre one point deserves especial notice. The most important part of the whole building, and that which formed the starting-point in the process of development, was the orchestra, or place for the chorus. The auditorium and the stage-buildings were only later additions. In all theatres of purely Greek origin the orchestra continued to maintain its prominent position. All other parts were subordinated to it. The general conception of a Greek theatre was that of a building with a circular dancing-place in the centre, and with tiers of seats arranged round two-thirds of the ring, while the remaining side was occupied by the stage. The result was that all the spectators had an equally good view of the orchestra, while many of them had only a very poor view of the stage. This arrangement was no doubt quite natural at first, when the chorus was still the most conspicuous feature in the drama. But it may seem remarkable that it should have been retained in later times. We should remember, however, that ancient theatres were built, not only for the drama, but also for choral and musical competitions of the most various kinds. Among the Greeks these latter were held solely in the orchestra, and had nothing to do with the stage. As they far exceeded the dramatic performances in number, it was essential in a Greek theatre that every member of the audience should have a clear and direct view of the orchestra; the view on to the stage was a matter of secondary importance. In Roman theatres the case was different. Here all performances, choral, musical, and dramatic, were transferred to the stage; the orchestra was given up to the spectators. The arrangements were, therefore, considerably modified. The orchestra and auditorium were reduced in size to a semicircle.[310] The consequence was that the stage became a much more prominent object, and that all the spectators had a fairly good view of it.

To return to the wooden theatres of the sixth century. As regards the place in which they were erected, there is some difficulty. The remains of an old orchestra belonging to the sixth century were discovered not many years ago in the enclosure of Dionysus Eleuthereus at the foot of the Acropolis. It follows, therefore, as a matter of practical certainty that the dramatic performances at the City Dionysia must have been given from the first in this orchestra, within the enclosure of the god of the festival. No doubt in the same way the Lenaeum was the original site of the performances at the Lenaea;[311] but the site of the Lenaeum itself is much disputed. The most probable view is that it was in or adjoining the market-place: but it is not certain where the market-place itself lay.[312] There was an old proverb in use at Athens, by which a bad seat at any spectacle was called the ‘view from the poplar’. The grammarians, who apparently follow Eratosthenes, give the following explanation. They say that at the old dramatic exhibitions the wooden benches for the spectators reached as far as a certain poplar; and that the people who could not get seats on the benches used to scramble up the poplar.[313] It is possible that the story is an attempt to account by conjecture for a current proverbial expression; but it may represent a genuine tradition.

Till the end of the sixth century the Athenians were contented with the rough temporary erections just described. But in 499, the year in which Aeschylus made his first appearance, there was an accident at one of their dramatic performances. The wooden benches on which the spectators were sitting collapsed. In consequence of this accident, as Suidas tells us, they resolved to build a more permanent theatre.[314] It was generally supposed, until quite recent times, that the theatre here mentioned was the great stone theatre still in existence. But Dörpfeld has made it certain that at least a great part of this building is not earlier than the middle of the fourth century; and though Puchstein is possibly right in seeing traces of a stone theatre dating from the end of the fifth century, this does not take us back to the time of Aeschylus.[315] What then was the building to which Suidas refers? The answer to this question has been supplied by a recent discovery of a very interesting kind. On digging down into the earth foundations of the present auditorium it has been ascertained that these foundations consist of two layers. The upper one belongs to the fourth century, as is shown by the fragments of pottery embedded in it; the lower one is proved by similar evidence to be not later than the fifth.[316] It follows, therefore, that the Athenians must have built earth embankments for the support of the auditorium as early as the fifth century, and it is doubtless to this work that Suidas alludes. The innovation adopted in 499, in consequence of the accident, was not the erection of a stone theatre, but the substitution of solid earth foundations for the ‘ikria’ or wooden supports on which the seats had previously rested. The new theatre still resembled the old one, in that the benches and the stage-buildings were made of wood; but greater security and permanence were afforded by the erection of the embankments. The site chosen for this new theatre was the enclosure of Eleuthereus, where the City Dionysia, the most important of the dramatic festivals, was held. From this time forward all theatrical performances were transferred to the same enclosure. The Lenaeum was abandoned as a place of dramatic entertainment. The contrary opinion, that the old wooden theatre at the Lenaeum continued to be used for the Lenaean festival until the erection of the stone theatre in the fourth century,[317] is most improbable. The need for a secure auditorium in place of the previous ‘ikria’ would be felt just as much at the Lenaea as at the City Dionysia. But there is no trace or record of a permanent theatre at the Lenaeum. The recurrence of the expression ‘contests at the Lenaeum’ down to the latter part of the fourth century proves nothing.[318] The phrase might easily have been retained, after its local significance was gone, by a kind of survival common in all languages. In just the same way the performances at the City Dionysia were still distinguished from all others as performances ‘in the city’, when the reason for the distinction had long since disappeared.

A few faint traces of this theatre of the fifth century are still to be discerned amid the remains of the later building, and will be found indicated in the plan (Fig. 3).[319] The orchestra was the same as that which had already existed in the sixth century. Its position is determined by two fragments of the border, marked _q_ and _r_, and by some excavations in the rock at _i_. It lay a few yards to the south-east of the later orchestra. One peculiarity of this orchestra of the sixth and fifth centuries is that, when it was originally constructed, its southern portion stood about six feet above the level of the adjacent ground. It was, therefore, supported and enclosed on this side by a wall of the same height, to which the fragments _q_ and _r_ belong. Later on the inequality of level was removed by piling up earth along the border-wall. Probably this alteration was made towards the end of the sixth century, when stage-buildings began to be erected; though it is possible that at first the gap between the orchestra and the stage-buildings was merely covered over with a wooden flooring. A similar instance of an orchestra built on a slope, and ending on one side in a raised terrace, has been found at Thoricus.[320] But in this case, as there were no stage-buildings, the inequality was allowed to remain. Very likely the theatre was not used for dramatic purposes. As regards the auditorium of the fifth century, the earth embankments for the reception of the seats have already been described. Three pieces of ancient masonry, marked _k_, _l_, and _m_ in the plan, may perhaps be regarded as parts of the supporting walls which terminated these embankments on each wing. The stage-buildings, being made of wood, have left no trace behind them of any kind. Their probable character will be discussed later on.

It is evident, from the above description, that the theatre of the fifth century was a far less imposing structure than was once supposed. The result of recent excavations has been to modify largely all our previous notions as to the great period of the Athenian drama. In place of the majestic stone theatre, in which it was once thought that the plays of Sophocles and Euripides were produced, we have now to picture to ourselves a simple wooden building, resting on earth foundations, and devoid of all architectural ornament. The difference is no doubt a great one. Still, it is not perhaps so great as might appear at first sight. The impressiveness of the old Greek drama, regarded as a spectacle, depended on other considerations than the magnificence of the building in which it was exhibited. When the vast roofless amphitheatre was filled from end to end with the concourse of citizens and strangers, it would make little difference in the significance of the scene whether the benches were of wood or stone. The orchestra of a Greek theatre was always much the same in character, in the grandest as well as in the simplest theatres; and the graceful evolutions of the chorus under the open sky would be equally effective in both. The long scenic background, with its painted decorations, cannot have varied much in appearance, whether it rested on a wall of stone or on a wall of timber. Although, therefore, the theatre of the great Athenian dramatists was an unpretentious structure, as compared with those which were erected in after times, it is unnecessary to suppose that there was any corresponding inferiority in the outward splendour of the performances.

§ 3. _The Stone Theatre._

The stone theatre, which we have now to describe, is ascribed by Dörpfeld to about the middle of the fourth century. His reasons for assigning this date to it are as follows.[321] In all the older portions of the building, which belong to the original plan, there is a certain similarity in the style of the workmanship, and in the nature of the materials employed, which points to the fourth century as the date of erection. We have seen, too, that the upper foundations of the auditorium are proved to be not earlier than the fourth century by the fragments of pottery which they contain. Further than this, various minute pieces of evidence, leading to the same conclusion, have been discovered in different parts of the building. One of the stones used in the western wing of the auditorium bears, as a mason’s mark, the Ionic letter Omega—a letter which was not introduced into Athens before the year 403 B.C. (It must, however, be admitted that the argument drawn from this stone is not quite conclusive, as it is probable that the Ionic alphabet was in private use before the archonship of Euclides in 403.[322]) Another stone in the same wing contains an inscription, and has been built into the wall with the inscription inverted.[323] As the inscription itself is not earlier than the middle or end of the fifth century, the wall for which the stone was employed must obviously belong to a later period. Again, part of the basis of a statue has been found in the theatre, inscribed with the first half of the name ‘Astydamas’. The basis is shown by its shape to have fitted on to the inside corner of the west wing of the auditorium. As it is known that a statue of Astydamas was erected in the theatre about the year 340, it follows that this portion of the auditorium must have been finished at that date.[324] These archaeological indications are supported by literary evidence. A decree of the people has been preserved, belonging to the year 330 B.C., in which a vote of thanks is passed to a certain Eudemus of Plataea for lending a thousand yoke of oxen for ‘the construction of the Panathenaic race-course and the theatre’.[325] There is also the series of decrees and notices, referring to the finance administration of the orator Lycurgus, and ascribing to him, among other things, the ‘completion of the theatre’.[326] Lycurgus was finance minister between 338 and 326, and died about 325. The evidence shows beyond doubt that Lycurgus did important work in connexion with the theatre, and that the theatre was considerably changed, in the third quarter of the fourth century B.C.[327] But it has been recently argued by Puchstein that there are traces of a stone theatre of earlier date, which he assigns to the last years of the fifth century. He would throw back to this date a great part of the work generally termed Lycurgean, and would ascribe to Lycurgus the construction of the stage-buildings generally termed Hellenistic and assigned to the first or second century B.C. The evidence for this must be considered later. The theory is not improbable, and would solve some difficulties; but at the same time it is not so certain as to justify the definite rejection of the older view, and it will be more convenient to discuss it separately.[328]

In the so-called Hellenistic reconstruction of the stage-buildings which has been referred to, the essential feature was the building of a stone-columned proscenium or stage front, and it is this which Puchstein now refers to Lycurgus. In the first century A.D. the stage-buildings were again reconstructed. Part of the frieze still remains, with an inscription dedicating the work to the Emperor Nero.[329] About two centuries later a certain Phaedrus erected a new stage, and commemorated the fact by some verses on one of the steps.[330] At this point all traces of the history of the theatre are lost. During the Middle Ages it disappeared so completely from view that its very site was forgotten. For a long time modern travellers knew nothing upon the subject. The true site was first pointed out by Chandler in 1765. In 1862 excavations were commenced by the German architect Strack, and continued for three years. The theatre was again exposed to view, and large portions of it were found to have been preserved. Some further discoveries were made in 1877. Lastly, in 1886, 1889, and 1895 new excavations have been carried on under the direction of Dörpfeld, acting for the German Archaeological Institute. The result of these latest investigations has been to clear up many doubtful points in the history of the building, and the arrangement of its various parts.

The new theatre, like the old one, was erected in the enclosure of Dionysus Eleuthereus. This enclosure lay at the foot of the Acropolis, by which it was bounded on the northern side. Its southern boundary may possibly be identical with certain fragments of an old wall, marked x in the plan. Within the enclosure were two temples of Dionysus, of which the foundations have recently been discovered. The oldest, marked _t_, was the nearest to the Acropolis, and is assigned by Dörpfeld to the sixth century. It contained the ancient image of Dionysus Eleuthereus which was carried in the annual procession at the City Dionysia. The more recent temple (_u_) lay a few yards to the south of the old one. In it stood a gold and ivory statue of Dionysus made by Alcamenes towards the end of the fifth century. The temple itself was probably of the same date.[331] Near this temple are the remains of a square foundation (_w_), also of the fifth century, which possibly served as the basis for an altar.[332] The site chosen for the new theatre was almost identical with that of the old one, but lay a few yards further to the north-west. The reasons for this change were apparently twofold. By bringing the auditorium closer to the Acropolis, it was possible to make a more extensive use of the slope of the hill as a support for the tiers of seats. At the same time a larger space was left between the orchestra and the old temple of Dionysus, and so afforded more room for the stage-buildings. In one respect the position of the theatre differed from that usually adopted in later times. The auditorium faced almost directly towards the south. This arrangement was generally avoided by the Greeks, and Vitruvius expressly warns architects against the danger of adopting it, because of the terrible heat caused by the midday sun glaring into the concavity of the theatre.[333] But at Athens there were special reasons on the other side. If the theatre was to be built in the enclosure of Eleuthereus, the only natural position was along the slopes of the Acropolis, and facing towards the south. The rising ground supplied an excellent foundation for the central portion of the auditorium. The choice of any other situation would have involved the erection of costly and elaborate substructures. The Athenians, therefore, from motives of economy, preferred the southern aspect, in spite of its obvious disadvantages. The same course was also adopted in the theatres of Eretria and Syracuse.

In proceeding to describe in detail the form and construction of the theatre it will be convenient to take the different portions in succession. A Greek theatre is naturally divided into three parts, the auditorium, the orchestra, and the stage-buildings. In the following description the auditorium will be considered first, the orchestra next. The stage-buildings, as forming the most difficult part of the whole subject, will be reserved for the last.

§ 4. _The Auditorium._

The auditorium, or the portion of the theatre containing the seats for the spectators, was called the ‘cavea’ in Latin; but there was no technical name for it in Greek. In almost all Greek theatres it was built upon the side of a hill, so that the natural slope of the ground might serve as a foundation for the tiers of seats. At Athens, as we have seen, the rising ground at the foot of the Acropolis was utilized for this purpose, and supported the central part of the building. It was only at the two wings, on the east and west, that artificial substructures were necessary, in order to bring the back seats up to the proper height. The walls by which the auditorium was bounded on the outside have been preserved to a certain extent, and suffice to mark clearly the original shape of the building. On the western side of the theatre, from _a_ to _b_ in the plan (Fig. 3)[334], where a strong support was required for the embankment, a device was adopted which is still commonly employed at the present day. If a single wall had been erected, it must have been of enormous width. As a substitute two narrow walls were built in parallel lines, with cross-walls at intervals, and the intervening space was filled up with earth. Thus the same result was obtained at a less expense. Along the north-western curve of the theatre, between _b_ and _c_, a single wall proved sufficient, owing to the diminishing size of the embankment. At the point _c_ the rock of the Acropolis abutted upon the theatre, and was hollowed out into a regular curve. This is without doubt the portion of the theatre referred to by the ancients as Katatome, or ‘the Cutting’.[335] In the rock at this place is a natural grotto enlarged by artificial means, and 34 ft. long by 20 ft. broad. Here Thrasyllus erected an elaborate monument to commemorate his victory with a chorus of men in 319 B.C. In front of the grotto stood three columns supporting an entablature, and surmounted by a statue of Dionysus. On the architrave was an inscription recording the victory of Thrasyllus. Inside the grotto were statues of Apollo and Artemis destroying the children of Niobe. In modern times the grotto has been converted into a chapel of Our Lady. The columns and entablature were in excellent preservation when Stuart visited Athens, but they were shattered by a mine during the Greek revolution. Above the grotto are two columns, which were erected to commemorate victories with dithyrambic choruses. On the capitals can still be seen the holes made to receive the legs of the tripods.[336] After the Katatome the eastern boundary wall, from _f_ to _g_, is very peculiar in shape. But the reason of the irregularity has not yet been explained, owing to the scantiness of the remains in this part of the theatre. The two wings of the auditorium are terminated on the south by the walls marked _a-a_ and _g-g_. These walls are of unequal length, the eastern wall being about 111 ft., the western only 88 ft. They are not in the same straight line, but if continued inwards would meet in an obtuse angle in the orchestra. This arrangement was the one generally adopted by the Greeks.

[Illustration: FIG. 3. GROUND-PLAN OF THEATRE AT ATHENS.]

The above description, together with the plan, will give a fair idea of the general outline of the auditorium. If we compare it with the theatre of Epidaurus (Fig. 6), which was built at the end of the fourth century, and designed on one harmonious plan, we shall perceive at once the great inferiority of the Athenian theatre in point of grace and symmetry of outline. In most Greek theatres the auditorium was of the same width from one end to the other, and was shaped in a symmetrical curve. In the theatre at Athens the two wings of the auditorium are narrowed so considerably towards the south as to be less than half the depth of the central part. The outside boundary does not run in a regular curve, but is very much flattened where it encounters the rock of the Acropolis, and terminates in a straight line at each of the southern corners. But the strangest point of all is that the eastern wing, at its termination, is several yards wider than the western wing—an arrangement utterly destructive of symmetry of design. The theatre at Athens was built for use rather than for show. Its shape was determined by the conformation of the ground and by the situation of the adjoining rocks. Although, therefore, it is the most interesting of Greek theatres on account of its historical associations, in point of mere beauty it cannot take the highest rank.

We now come to the interior of the auditorium. The boundary between the auditorium and the orchestra is denoted by the dark line in the plan. It will be observed that in the theatre of Dionysus the inside boundary of the auditorium consists of a semicircle with the two ends prolonged in parallel straight lines. This was not the plan usually followed in Greek theatres. In most of the later theatres the two ends of the semicircle were prolonged in the same curve as before, so that the inside boundary of the auditorium formed about two-thirds of a regular circle. The effect of this arrangement was that the spectators sitting at the extremities of the two wings faced towards the centre of the orchestra, and away from the stage. Nor is this surprising. It was previously pointed out that in Greek theatres, where the choral and musical contests greatly outnumbered the dramatic, the orchestra was always the most important part of the whole building. But the arrangement adopted at Athens, of prolonging the two ends of the semicircle in a straight line, had the advantage of giving the spectators in the wings a much better view of the stage. The same plan was also adopted in the theatre of the Peiraeeus, and in the theatres of Assos, Acrae, and Termessos. At Epidaurus and Magnesia a third plan was pursued, differing from both the above. The two ends of the semicircle were prolonged, not in a straight line, nor yet in the same curve as before, but from a new centre, and with a longer radius, so that while they converged to a certain extent, they did not converge so much as in the ordinary Greek theatres. This arrangement, which may be regarded as a compromise between the other two, is perhaps the most beautiful of them all. It is apparently recommended by Vitruvius, though the passage in which he refers to it is extremely ambiguous and has been interpreted in various other ways.[337]

The interior of the auditorium consisted of a series of stone seats rising tier above tier in a gentle slope from the boundary of the orchestra to the outside extremities of the building. Immediately under the cliff of the Acropolis the seats were carved out of the living rock. With this exception they were made of Peiraic limestone. In some of the upper portions of the theatre they were fixed upon conglomerate foundations. But in most parts they were placed directly upon the bare earth, and were therefore easily capable of being removed. For this reason the greater number of them have disappeared, having been taken away during the Middle Ages for building purposes. All that remain are from twenty to thirty rows in the bottom of the theatre, and portions of a few rows at the top. From these, however, it is possible to obtain a clear conception of the style and arrangement of the auditorium. In order to make the following description more intelligible, an illustration is here inserted, consisting of a restoration of the extremity of the eastern wing (Fig. 4). In this illustration _a_ is the orchestra, _b_ the eastern entrance into the orchestra, _c_ the southern boundary wall of the east wing of the auditorium.[338]

[Illustration: FIG. 4.]

To proceed with the description of the seats. The lowest step of the auditorium rose about ten inches above the level of the orchestra, and then sloped gently upward towards the front row of seats, where it reached a height of fourteen inches. It was built of large slabs of stone, and formed a sort of passage between the orchestra and the seats. The curve of the seats did not coincide exactly with the curve of the orchestra, but was drawn from a centre rather more to the south, and receded slightly on the two wings. As a consequence the passage was wider at the sides than in the centre, the width at the sides being about eight feet, the width at the centre only four. The same variety of curve is found in the theatre at the Peiraeeus; and Dörpfeld supposes that it was adopted in order to give more room at the entrances of the passage, where the press of people would be the greatest.[339] The first row of seats was far superior to the others, and consisted of marble thrones with backs to them. Each throne was about 25 inches wide and 23 inches deep. In the centre was the throne of the priest of Dionysus, slightly larger than the others, and elaborately and beautifully carved. This throne, unlike the rest, was provided with a canopy resting on wooden posts, the holes for which are still visible. Many of the thrones, including that of the chief priest, had receptacles in front of them in which footstools might be placed. The thrones were originally sixty-seven in number, but only sixty of them are now preserved. Fourteen of these were no longer standing in their proper position at the time of the first excavations. Some of them had been designedly removed in Roman times, when certain alterations were made in the front row; others had been accidentally displaced. Most of them have now been restored to their original sites. That the thrones were erected at the latest by the time of Lycurgus appears to be proved by the excellence of the workmanship. Each of them has an inscription in the front, recording the title of the priest or official for whom the seat was reserved. These inscriptions are all of the Hellenistic or Roman period; but behind them are faint traces of older inscriptions, which may possibly go back to the fourth century. The practice of erecting superior seats in the first row for people of distinction was a common one in Greek theatres. At Megalopolis, for example, the front bench was provided with a back, though it was not divided into separate seats, as at Athens. In the theatre of Epidaurus there were three rows of superior workmanship, one at the bottom of the auditorium and two others half-way up the slope, one on each side of the longitudinal passage. But the most peculiar arrangement was that adopted at Oropus and Priene. At Oropus five magnificent thrones were placed inside the ring of the orchestra itself, and well in front of the lowest tier of seats, each throne standing a few yards distant from the other. At Priene a long stone bench with a back was erected in the same position, and in this bench five thrones were inserted at regular intervals.[340]

Immediately behind the line of thrones there was a vacant space about 33 inches wide. Then came what appears to be a small step. But Dörpfeld has shown that this step is merely the back part of an ordinary seat, of which the front portion has been removed. In the original theatre there was a regular tier of seats following closely on the thrones. But in later times the front half of this tier was taken away. The object of the change, as Dörpfeld thinks, was to open out a wide space for the reception of a row of wooden thrones, which might serve as a supplement to the marble ones.[341] After the step, which we have just described, began the first of the ordinary tiers of seats, which were continued in exactly the same style from this point up to the top of the building. The shape of the seats is very much the same as in other Greek theatres. Their dimensions are as follows. Each seat was 13 inches high, and was hollowed out slightly in front, so that the person sitting on it might have more freedom for his legs. The surface of the seat was 33 inches across, and was divided into three distinct portions. The first part was for sitting upon, and was 13 inches deep. The second part was 2 inches lower, and was intended to receive the feet of the persons upon the seat above. It was 16 inches across. The third part was merely a narrow edge, of the same level as the first part, and 4 inches deep. The height of the tiers, as we have seen, was 13 inches. If we add to this the 2 inches of the depression in front, it raises the height of the actual seat to 15 inches. A seat of this kind would be rather low for a man of average size. But it was the practice of the Greek spectator to provide himself with a cushion, which would raise the surface to a more comfortable level. The structure of the tiers in the manner described appears to have been due to a desire for economy in the use of space. In a Greek theatre, where an immense number of people had to be accommodated with seats in tolerable proximity to the orchestra and stage, it was necessary to place them as close together as possible. If the surface of each tier had been perfectly flat from front to back, the distance between the successive tiers must have been considerably increased, in order to obtain a height of 15 inches. The depression in the tiers provided the requisite height, while allowing a much smaller interval. Along the front of the rows of seats were two sets of vertical lines engraved in the stone. The lines in the first set were 13 inches apart; the lines in the second, which are rather fainter, were at intervals of 16 inches. Probably the second series of lines was intended to mark off the separate seats. In the first series the intervals are too narrow for this purpose, and can only have served as general measures of distance.

For the purpose of giving access to the different parts of the auditorium a series of passages ran in divergent lines, like the spokes of a wheel, from the orchestra up to the outside boundary. The passages were fourteen in number, and the two upon the extreme south at each side adjoined immediately upon the boundary walls. In theatres of large size, such as those of Epidaurus and Aspendos, it was usual to insert extra passages in the upper part of the auditorium. The manner in which they were arranged will be seen by looking at the plan of the Epidaurus theatre (Fig. 6). At Athens the upper portion of the building has so entirely disappeared that it is impossible to say whether it ever contained additional passages of this kind. But the great size of the theatre makes it probable that such was the case. These vertical passages were always very narrow, in order to save room. At Athens they were only about 27 inches in width, the result being that not more than one person could ascend at a time. The arrangement of the steps along the passages in the Athenian theatre was altogether exceptional, and is only paralleled at the Peiraeeus. In all other Greek theatres each tier of seats had two steps corresponding to it in the vertical passages. But at Athens, and also at the Peiraeeus, there was only one step for each tier of seats. As the seats were 13 inches high, while the steps were only 8½, it was necessary to make up the difference by building the steps with a sloping surface. The surface was furrowed over, to make the ascent more easy. The fourteen passages divided the auditorium into thirteen blocks. Such blocks were called ‘cunei’ or ‘wedges’ in Latin, because of their shape. In Greek they were called ‘kerkides’, from their resemblance to the ‘kerkis’, a tapering rod used in weaving.[342] The front row in each ‘kerkis’ contained five marble thrones, with the exception of the two ‘kerkides’ on the extreme south of each wing, which contained six thrones each; so that the total number of marble thrones was sixty-seven.

In addition to the vertical passages all Greek theatres of any size were also intersected by one or two longitudinal passages, called ‘praecinctiones’ in Latin. These passages divided the auditorium into sections, called ‘belts’ or ‘girdles’ in Greek technical terminology.[343] A passage of this kind may still be traced in the upper part of the theatre of Dionysus. Its course is determined by the foundations at _d_, by certain excavations in the rock at _e_, and by the two entrances at _b_ and _f_. The great width of the passage—about 15 feet—is explained by the fact that it was also intended to serve as a road. From ancient times there had been a road at the foot of the Acropolis, running from east to west. Traces of this old road have been discovered during the excavations of 1889, and lie about 26 feet below the level of the present auditorium. When its course was intercepted by the erection of the theatre, this passage was constructed on a larger scale than usual, to serve as a substitute. On ordinary occasions, when the theatre was empty, it would be used as a public highway.[344] That it formed a conspicuous object in the midst of the auditorium is shown by a coin in the British Museum (Fig. 5), which contains on one side a rude representation of the theatre at Athens.[345] On this coin, in spite of the roughness of the design, the passage stands out very prominently. Whether there was a second longitudinal passage in the Athenian theatre is uncertain. But the space to the north of the existing passage is so small when compared with the space to the south of it, that it seems reasonable to infer that there was another passage lower down, dividing the under part of the auditorium into two sections. It was the fashion in Roman theatres to erect a portico along the top of the auditorium, following the line of the uppermost tier of seats.[346] But there are no traces of such a portico in the theatre at Athens, or in any other theatre of purely Greek origin.

[Illustration: FIG. 5.]

The following facts and measurements will give some idea of the size and capacity of the Athenian theatre. The distance between the inside corners of the auditorium was 72 feet. The distance between the outside corners was 288 feet. In the centre of the auditorium, from north to south, it is calculated that there must have been 78 tiers of seats. Of course on each of the two wings the number of tiers would be considerably less than half that amount. The arrangements throughout were designed with the view of bringing together the largest possible number of people within the smallest possible compass. The vertical passages were little over 2 feet in width. The seats were constructed in such a manner that the spectators could be packed tightly together, without any space being wasted. As the theatre was in the open air the close crowding of the audience was no doubt much less intolerable than it would have been in a covered building. At the same time the situation of the spectator cannot have been a very comfortable one. He had to remain cramped up in one position, with no back to lean against, and with very little opportunity of moving his limbs. That the Athenians were willing to put up with such inconveniences for several days in succession is a proof of their enthusiastic devotion to music and the drama. The total number of people who could be accommodated in the theatre at Athens is shown by recent calculations to have been about 17,000.[347] The theatres at Epidaurus and Megalopolis held nearly the same number.[348] Plato, referring to the wooden theatre of his own time, speaks of ‘more than thirty thousand spectators’.[349] But this must have been an exaggeration. The old theatre of the fifth century is not likely to have been larger and more capacious than the theatre of Lycurgus.

The auditorium, unlike the rest of the building, was subjected to very little alteration in later times. The parts of it which are still preserved remain in much the same state as in the age of Lycurgus. The various successive changes in the style of the dramatic performances, while they led to corresponding changes in the orchestra and the stage-buildings, had naturally no effect upon the structure of the auditorium. A few innovations were introduced in the Roman period, mostly for the purpose of increasing the comfort of the more distinguished spectators. We have seen that in the old theatre the only person provided with a canopy was the priest of Dionysus. The same luxury was now extended to all the people in the front benches. An awning was erected on wooden posts to protect them from the sun. Three lines of holes for the reception of the posts may still be traced in the stone-work, one in front of the thrones, one behind, and one in the second row of ordinary seats. It seems that about this date there was an increase in the number of people for whom seats of honour were required. The front row of the ordinary benches was removed, in the way already described, to supply the necessary space. Single marble thrones were also set up here and there in the rows further back. Another change, which involved some disfigurement of the building, was made about the same time. A large stone basis, approached by steps, was erected in front of the sixth vertical passage, thus closing the approach to that passage, and also necessitating the removal of four of the marble thrones, which were placed elsewhere. The basis was probably intended as a sort of royal box, and held a special throne reserved for people of imperial rank. A similar basis was also erected, probably for the same purpose, behind the seat of the priest of Dionysus.

§ 5. _The Orchestra._

After the auditorium the next great division of the theatre is the orchestra. This was the name given to the flat surface enclosed between the stage-buildings and the inside boundary of the auditorium. It was called the orchestra, or dancing-place’, because in Greek theatres it was reserved for the performances of the chorus.[350] In later times it was also called the Sigma, because its shape resembled the semicircular figure which was adopted in the fourth century as the symbol of the letter sigma.[351] In one place the word ‘konistra’ is employed to denote the orchestra.[352] Konistra means properly the arena of a wrestling-school. It would hardly be applicable as a term for the early Greek orchestras, which were used for music and dancing, but not for gymnastic contests. Probably therefore this meaning of the word was of late origin, and first arose in the Roman period, when Greek theatres occasionally became the scene of gladiatorial contests. Among the Romans the orchestra was given up to the spectators, and the performances of singers and dancers took place upon the stage. Hence the later Greek commentators and grammarians often used the word ‘orchestra’ improperly to denote the stage, which in Roman theatres had now become the actual dancing-place. This later signification of the term has given rise to much confusion. When a Greek scholiast speaks of the orchestra, it is necessary to look carefully to the context, to see whether he means the stage, or the orchestra in its proper sense.[353]

The orchestra in the Athenian theatre is mostly of very late date, and contains but few traces of the original structure. Our knowledge of the early Greek orchestra has to be derived from other sources. Before proceeding to discuss this part of the subject, it will be convenient in the first place to give a brief description of the existing remains in the theatre at Athens. The only portion of the old orchestra of Lycurgus which has been preserved is the gutter. This gutter, which was intended to drain off the water from the tiers of seats, ran immediately inside the border-line of the auditorium. It was made of limestone, and was about a yard in width. At the western corner it was 31 inches deep, but increased in depth all the way round to the eastern corner, where the depth was 43 inches. Here it made a sudden drop of about a yard, and then ran off in a south-easterly direction underneath the stage-buildings. It had no covering, except opposite the vertical passages, where it was bridged over with slabs of limestone. Apart from this gutter the greater part of the present orchestra belongs to the time of Nero. At this date considerable changes were made. The stage was probably pushed forward as far as the two corners of the auditorium. The orchestra, having been thus largely reduced in size, was covered over with the marble pavement which still remains. This pavement consists for the most part of rectangular slabs, placed in lines parallel to the stage. But in the centre there is a large rhombus-shaped figure, bordered with two strips, and paved with small slabs also of a rhombus shape. In the middle of the figure is a block containing a small circular depression, which was probably intended to receive an altar of Dionysus. At the time when the pavement was constructed, the gutter was also covered over entirely with slabs of marble, with rosette-shaped openings at intervals. Some of these openings have been preserved, and are indicated in the plan. At the same time a marble balustrade was erected in front of the first step of the auditorium. It is marked by the dark line in the plan. Most of it is still standing, and consists of marble slabs bound together by iron clamps, and 43 inches high. The purpose of the balustrade must have been to serve as a protection to the spectators in the front rows, when the orchestra was given up to gladiatorial combats or similar exhibitions. After these innovations of the Neronian period the orchestra seems to have been untouched until about the end of the third century A.D., when Phaedrus erected his new stage. It was then made water-tight, for the purpose of holding mimic sea-fights in it. The gutter was filled up, and the rosette-shaped openings closed. Traces of the pipes used for letting on and letting off the water for the sea-fight have been discovered in various parts of the building.

In the course of recent excavations underneath the orchestra two discoveries have been made. It appears that at some unknown period certain tunnels of irregular shape, and too small to serve as passages, were bored through the rock, but filled up again as soon as made. Also, just in front of the Roman stage, the rock was cut away in a straight line, and the cutting was continued as far as the stage-buildings, the interval being filled up with earth. The purpose of both these works is quite uncertain.[354]

It will be seen, from the above description, that the remains of the Athenian theatre throw very little light upon the character of the ancient orchestra. Fortunately, during the last ten or fifteen years, a large number of other theatres have been excavated, which suffered less from reconstruction, and in which the orchestras have been left more or less in their original condition. The finest and best preserved of these is the theatre of Epidaurus, which was built at the end of the fourth century.[355] It is described by Pausanias as the most beautiful theatre in the world.[356] A plan of the building (Fig. 6) is here inserted, together with a view taken from the north-east (Fig. 7).[357] The evidence derived from this and other theatres will enable us to clear up many questions in connexion with the orchestra, to which the Athenian theatre supplies no answer.

[Illustration: FIG. 6.]

In the early Greek theatres, as already pointed out, the seats of the spectators were so arranged that every one had an excellent view of the orchestra, while the view of the stage was in many cases a very poor one. When the Romans gave up the orchestra to the spectators, and transferred all the performances to the stage, they made various alterations in the arrangement and proportions of the theatre. They largely diminished the size of the orchestra by bringing the stage several yards forward; and at the same time they cut off considerable portions from the two ends of the auditorium. In this way they were enabled to make the stage much deeper, so as to accommodate a larger number of performers. By shortening the wings of the auditorium they abolished those seats which looked away from the stage. Vitruvius gives some interesting directions for determining the proper proportions of a Greek and Roman theatre.[358] According to his figures the orchestra in a Roman theatre constituted an exact semicircle. The front line of the stage coincided precisely with the diameter of the orchestra. In a Greek theatre the stage was placed much further back. The distance between the central point of the front line of the stage and the central point in the opposite circumference of the orchestra was six-sevenths of the diameter of the orchestra. In a Greek theatre therefore, according to this statement, if the circumference of the orchestra was prolonged so as to form a complete circle, it would be found that the front line of the stage only intersected a very small portion of that circle. None of the existing theatres coincide exactly with the rules laid down by Vitruvius. Sometimes the stage stands further back than he directs, as at the Peiraeeus. Sometimes it reaches further forward, as at Megalopolis. But in most cases the deviation is very slight, and his description, taken as a general statement, may be regarded as approximately true. The fact is instructive. The largeness of the space allotted to the orchestra by the arrangement above described enables us to realize very clearly the subordinate position of the stage in Greek theatres.

[Illustration: _To face p. 104._

FIG. 7. THEATRE AT EPIDAURUS, FROM THE NORTH-EAST.]

Vitruvius in the above account uses the word ‘orchestra’ in its ordinary sense, to denote the whole space included within the border-line of the auditorium. But we may limit the meaning of the word, and confine it to the actual dancing-place, excluding the gutter which usually ran inside the auditorium. If this is done, it will be found that in many Greek theatres the circumference of the orchestra, when prolonged, forms a complete circle, without touching the stage. The theatre of Epidaurus (Fig. 6) offers a good example.[359] The dancing-place is here surrounded by a circular kerbstone, fifteen inches wide, which only reaches within a yard of the stage-buildings. It has been contended that all Greek theatres were constructed on this principle; that the stage was pushed back sufficiently far to allow the orchestra, in its narrower sense, to form a complete circle. The line of the orchestra might be marked out in stone, or it might not; but there was always room for it.[360] This, however, is an exaggeration. There are many Greek theatres, such as those of Delos, Assos, and Sicyon, in which the circle of the actual dancing-place could not be completed without encroaching upon the stage.[361] At Megalopolis (Fig. 11), if such a circle was completed, about a third of it would be intersected. Here the orchestra was unusually large, and the stage was therefore brought further forward, in order to be within a reasonable distance of the auditorium. These examples show that the Greeks had no pedantic feeling on the subject of the orchestra circle. No doubt in ancient times, before the development of the drama, their orchestras formed complete circles; and possibly they were enclosed all round with a kerbstone. The old orchestra at Athens seems to have been so encircled. But when regular theatres with stage-buildings began to be erected the architects appear to have discarded the stone border, and with it the imaginary circle, and to have contented themselves with allowing a sufficient space for the chorus, according to the requirements of each particular theatre. In many cases, as it happened, they left room enough for a full circle. At Epidaurus such a circle was actually marked out in stone. But this is the only known example; and there are several theatres in which the stage was so placed as to make a complete circle impossible.

At Athens, as we have seen, there was an interval of several feet between the front row of benches and the circuit of the orchestra. The interval was filled by a broad sloping step, which served as a passage to the auditorium. A similar passage is found at the Peiraeeus. But in most Greek theatres there was no passage of this kind, and the line of seats bordered immediately on the orchestra and the gutter by which it was encircled. The gutter was a regular feature in Greek orchestras, and was constructed in various styles. The Athenian type, with its broad and deep channel, and bridges at intervals, seems to have been exceptional and antique, and is not found elsewhere except at Sicyon and the Peiraeeus. In some places, such as Megalopolis, the gutter was much narrower, so as to need no bridges. At Epidaurus and Eretria, on the other hand, it was very broad and very shallow, and might be used as a passage to the auditorium in dry weather. The gutter at Epidaurus is no less than 7 feet across, and only 8 inches deep. The surface of the orchestra was in most cases, as at Athens, a few inches below the level of the front row of seats. It used often to be asserted that the surface was boarded over with planks. But this is an error, due to the fact that the Greek grammarians often used the word ‘orchestra’ to denote the stage.[362] The evidence of the theatres lately excavated shows that in almost every case the Greek orchestra consisted simply of earth beaten down hard and flat. It is true that the orchestra at Eretria was paved with slabs of limestone, and that at Delos, which lay on the rock, was covered with a ‘coating’ of some kind or another.[363] But in all other instances, as far as we know, the surface was merely of earth. Marble pavements are never found in Greek theatres, except when they had been built or reconstructed in the Roman fashion. Lines were sometimes marked on the floor of the orchestra, to assist the chorus in their evolutions.[364] Similar lines are used on the modern stage when complicated ballets are produced. Aristotle mentions cases of orchestras being strewed with chaff, and remarks that when this was done the choruses were not heard so well. But it is uncertain to what theatres or to what occasions he is referring.[365]

In every Greek orchestra there was an altar of Dionysus. The fact is proved by the express testimony of ancient writers, and also by the circumstance that the dramatic performances were preceded by a sacrifice.[366] However, there is only one theatre, that of Priene, in which any remains of an altar have been discovered. In this theatre, which was excavated for the first time in the year 1897, the altar is still found standing in its original position. It is placed just in front of the first row of seats, and exactly opposite the centre of the stage.[367] Whether this was the usual position of the altar in a Greek theatre seems doubtful. In the earliest period, when the drama was still a purely lyrical performance, the altar stood in the centre of the orchestra, and the chorus danced round about it. The evidence supplied by the remains at Athens and Epidaurus rather favours the view that in these theatres it still occupied the same position. In the middle of the theatre at Epidaurus there is a round stone, 28 inches in diameter, let into the ground, so as to be on the same level with the surrounding surface. In the middle of the stone is a circular hole. A similar hole, as we have seen, is found in the later Athenian orchestra. The only plausible explanation of these holes is that they were intended for the reception of small stone altars. It is probable, therefore, that the practice varied in regard to the situation of the altar. In some theatres, such as those of Athens and Epidaurus, it may have been placed in the middle of the orchestra, after the ancient fashion. In others, such as that of Priene, it may have been drawn further back towards the auditorium, so as to leave a clear space for the evolutions of the chorus. The altar of the theatre was called the Thymele, because of the sacrifices offered upon it. It is called by this name in a fragment of Pratinas.[368] In later times the use of the word was extended, so as to denote, not only the altar, but also the space round about it; and ‘thymele’ became a regular name for an orchestra.[369] Later still, when the Romans substituted the stage for the orchestra, the word ‘thymele’, having become identical in meaning with the word ‘orchestra’, was employed in similar fashion to signify the ‘stage’.[370]

In one or two Greek theatres subterranean passages have been discovered, leading from the stage-buildings to the middle of the orchestra. These passages are generally rather more than six feet in height, and from two to three feet wide. There is one in the theatre of Eretria, with a flight of steps leading down to it at each end.[371] Another has been found at Magnesia; but as only a small portion of it still remains, it is impossible to say where it began and where it ended, or whether it had any exit into the orchestra.[372] The passage at Sicyon is rather peculiar. A small drain runs underground from the auditorium to the centre of the orchestra, where it falls into a square tank. From the tank onwards there is a regular vaulted passage, which is continued as far as the back of the stage-buildings, and finally ends in a tunnel in the rock. Where it passes under the stage, a flight of steps leads down to it; but no traces of an entrance from the orchestra can be detected.[373] These three passages, when first discovered, were thought to have some connexion with the dramatic performances; and it was supposed that they might be used to enable ghosts to appear suddenly in the middle of the orchestra. But this theory seems to be untenable, for the following reasons. In the first place, no traces of such passages have been found at Athens, and Epidaurus, and other theatres where excavations have been carried on. But if they had been a regular contrivance in dramatic exhibitions, it is impossible to suppose that the Athenians would not have made use of them. Secondly, the passage at Sicyon not only reaches as far as the stage, but also runs right on to the back of the stage-buildings, where it would have been of no use for the purpose suggested. Thirdly, there is no decisive evidence that the passages at Sicyon and Magnesia opened out into the orchestra. Fourthly, similar passages of Roman workmanship have been discovered at Tralles and at Magnesia, the passage in the latter place having been substituted for the previous Greek one. But these Roman passages had no exit into the orchestra, as the remains clearly show. After running from the stage-buildings to the middle of the orchestra, they branched off to right and left like the letter T, and then stopped.[374] The fact then that the Romans built tunnels of this kind, which had no connexion with performances in the orchestra, is a strong reason for assuming that the Greeks might do the same. What the purpose of the tunnels was, whether Greek or Roman, has not yet been explained, and remains very mysterious.[375]

[Illustration: FIG. 8.]

In all Greek theatres the front of the stage-buildings was separated from the wings of the auditorium by a vacant space several feet in width. Two open passages, one on the right and one on the left, led into the orchestra. The passages were closed on the outside by large gates, and these gates formed the only architectural connexion between the auditorium and the stage-buildings.[376] In some theatres, such as those of Epidaurus and Assos, the gates which led into the orchestra stood side by side with other gates leading into the stage-buildings.[377] Sufficient remains of the gates at Epidaurus have been preserved to admit of a complete restoration of them. The present illustration represents the two gates on the western side of the theatre (Fig. 8). The gate to the right leads into the orchestra; that to the left leads into the stage-buildings.[378] In the Athenian theatre, owing to the defective character of the remains in this part, it is impossible to determine whether there were two gates on each side or only one. The passages at Athens measured nine feet across on the outside. But they grew gradually wider, as one approached the orchestra, because of the oblique position of the boundary walls of the auditorium. These orchestral passages answered a double purpose. In the first place, they formed the principal entrance to the theatre for the general public. In many theatres they were the only entrances. In Athens there were two others at the upper end of the auditorium; but the main approaches in all theatres were those between the auditorium and the stage-buildings. The spectators came in by the orchestra, and then ascended the vertical passages to their proper seats. In the second place, it was by these passages that the chorus entered the orchestra at the commencement of each play. The technical name for the passages was ‘parodoi’ or ‘eisodoi’.[379] In Roman theatres they were of course done away with, as the Roman stage was brought much more forward than the Greek, and the two ends coalesced with the wings of the auditorium. In place of the old open passages the Romans built vaulted entrances underneath the auditorium, and parallel with the stage. Later Greek writers, misled by the analogy of the Roman theatres, sometimes apply the terms ‘vault’ and ‘archway’ to the open side-entrances of the Greek theatre. But such language is inaccurate.[380]

§ 6. _Ruins of the Stage-buildings at Athens._

The third and last division of the theatre consists of the stage-buildings, the ‘skene’, as they were called. This word has a curious history in connexion with the drama. Originally it meant the booth or tent in which the single actor of the Thespian period used to change his costume. Then as this booth gradually developed into a large and elaborate structure, the word ‘skene’ extended its meaning at the same time, and came to be the regular term for the stage-buildings of a theatre.[381] Later on it began to be applied not only to the whole of the buildings, but also to the more important parts of them. It was used to denote the stage or platform on which the actors performed[382]; and also the back-scene, with its painted decoration, in front of which they stood.[383] Eventually it was employed as a general term for the scene of

## action, or for the portions or scenes into which a play was divided.[384]

These last three meanings of the word are still retained in its English derivative.

The question as to the structure of the stage-buildings in a Greek theatre is one of the greatest interest, because of its intimate connexion with many disputed points of dramatic history. Unfortunately, it is a subject upon which the information supplied by the existing ruins is very defective. In all the remaining theatres of purely Greek origin little has been left of the stage-buildings beyond the mere foundations, and it is impossible from such evidence to go very far in the process of conjectural reconstruction. Our knowledge of the upper part of the building has to be derived mainly from casual notices in the old grammarians. In treating this question it will be best to follow the same arrangement as in the case of the orchestra, and to begin by giving a short account of the ruins in the theatre of Dionysus at Athens. The stage-buildings at Athens were very frequently altered and reconstructed in the course of their history, and the task of distinguishing between the confused remains of the different periods has been by no means an easy one. The recent investigations of Dörpfeld have for the first time placed the matter in a fairly clear light. The results of his discoveries are indicated in the plan of the theatre already given.

The oldest stage-buildings, which Dörpfeld dates soon after the middle of the fourth century and Puchstein at the end of the fifth, are marked by cross-shading in the plan, and denoted by the letter _n_. They consisted, as will be seen, of a long and narrow rectangular structure. In the front, towards each end, were two projecting side-wings. The length of the building was 152 feet, and its depth, measured between the wings, 21 feet. The wings themselves were 25 feet wide, and projected about 17 feet on the inside. The roof of the building was originally supported by a line of columns running along the centre, of which some traces still remain. At the back of the building there was a low narrow wall, running immediately in front of the supporting wall, and fitted with square holes at regular intervals. The purpose of the wall is very obscure; but Dörpfeld conjectures that the upper story was of wood, and not of stone, and that it rested on wooden beams which were placed in these holes. Puchstein, on the other hand, believes that there was an upper story of stone. The evidence is not sufficiently clear to render a decision possible.[385] As regards the appearance of the building in the front nothing can be ascertained with certainty. The space between the side-wings evidently contained the stage, but no traces of it are to be found. It must therefore have been a temporary erection of wood. Dörpfeld supposes that the front of the two side-wings, and the front of the wall between them, were decorated with columns and entablatures about thirteen feet high.[386] But the evidence for this opinion is far from conclusive. It is founded on the fact that the stylobates used in the later side-wings were not originally designed for that position, but had obviously been used somewhere else before. Dörpfeld supposes, perhaps correctly, that they stood at first in front of the Lycurgean side-wings.[387] But this is no justification for assuming that the wall between the wings in the Lycurgean building was also decorated in the same way. The stylobate used for this part of the later building was a new one, and not an old one rearranged; and this fact seems to show that there was no such stylobate in the building of Lycurgus. Otherwise there would have been just as much reason for using it, as for using the two stylobates from the wings. On the whole then it is clear that we know very little about the old stage-building of the fourth or late fifth century beyond the shape of its ground-plan. As to its height, the material used in its upper stories, and the manner in which its front was embellished, there is no certain evidence.

The history of the stage-buildings during the next two hundred years or so is a blank. Nothing can be ascertained on this subject from the ruins. The first great alteration of which traces remain was carried out in the course of the first or second century B.C. according to Dörpfeld, the fourth century according to Puchstein. A permanent stone proscenium was then erected in the space between the wings. It is marked _o_ in the plan. The front of this proscenium consisted of a row of columns supporting an entablature. Its height, as may be calculated from the traces of the columns, was about 13 feet; its depth between 9 and 10 feet. It was covered on the top with a wooden platform, resting on beams, the holes for which are still visible in fragments of the architrave. In the centre of the front part of the proscenium was a door leading out into the orchestra. This door varied in width at different periods from 4½ to 5½ feet, but there is nothing to show which was the earlier and which the later of the two widths. Traces of a smaller door, to the west of the central one, have also been discovered; but there are no traces of a door to the east. As this new stage was only about ten feet deep, smaller side-wings were required. The old wings of the earlier theatre were therefore thrown back about 5½ feet, thus adding several feet to the width of the ‘parodoi’. Beyond the construction of the stone proscenium no further remains of new erections belonging to this reconstruction have been discovered; but it is probable that the upper part of the building was considerably altered at the same time.

The second great reconstruction of the stage-buildings took place in the reign of Nero, after a lapse of perhaps two hundred years. The whole of this part of the theatre was then adapted to the Roman fashion. An elaborate architectural façade, consisting of columns and entablatures, was erected at the back of the stage, the old Lycurgean wall _n_ being used as a foundation. A portion of the frieze from this façade is still in existence, and contains the dedication to Nero which has already been referred to.[388] Two of the columns are also preserved in part. Behind the columns and frieze a wall was erected, according to the Roman custom; and at the same time new side-wings were built, slightly diminishing the length of the whole structure. The foundations of these erections are marked _p_ in the plan. In Roman theatres, as we have seen, the stage projected much further forward than in the Greek. It was also reduced in height to five feet, so that the spectators in the orchestra might be able to see over the top. A stage of this type was doubtless erected in the Athenian theatre at the time of these reconstructions, though it has now entirely disappeared. But part of it seems to have been used for the existing stage, that of Phaedrus, by which it was replaced in the third century A.D. This stage, which is four feet three inches high, is adorned in front with a bas-relief. The bas-relief has obviously been constructed out of old materials, and has been much cut about, and curtailed several inches in height, before being placed in its present situation. It seems clear that it was intended originally for the Neronian stage, which must therefore have been about five feet high. The position of the front-wall in the Neronian stage cannot be determined from the ruins, but was probably much the same as in the stage of Phaedrus (_h-h_). One peculiarity of the Neronian reconstruction is the fact that the old Greek side-wings, with their rows of columns, were allowed to remain. But how they harmonized with the new Roman wings and columns it is difficult to conjecture.[389]

The last change of which we have any trace or record was that effected by Phaedrus about two centuries later. The stage was then lowered several inches, and the front-wall erected in its present position. Half of it still remains, together with a flight of steps leading down from stage to orchestra. Such steps were common in Roman theatres, and had no doubt existed previously in the Neronian theatre. The bas-relief, which had formerly been a continuous one, was cut into sections, and arranged with recesses at intervals, the recesses being filled with stone figures. One of these—a kneeling Silenus—has been preserved. As to the purpose of this reconstruction by Phaedrus there is much uncertainty. But Dörpfeld conjectures that it may have been due, partly to the ruinous condition of the old Neronian stage, partly to a desire to make the orchestra water-tight for the purpose of holding mimic sea-fights in the manner already described.[390]

§ 7. _The Earlier Stage-buildings._

We have now described the various traces of stage-buildings in the Athenian theatre down to the time of Phaedrus. It remains to consider the subject from a more general point of view, and to supplement and illustrate the previous narrative by evidence derived from other sources. The first and most interesting question concerns the structure of the stage-buildings during the great period of the Attic drama from Aeschylus to Aristophanes. On this point the existing remains throw very little light. Still there are a few general conclusions which seem to be fairly well established. It is evident, in the first place, that the stage-buildings from the fifth down to the middle of the fourth century, if Dörpfeld’s dates are adopted—those of the greater part of the fifth century, according to Puchstein—must have been made of wood, and not of stone. If they had been made of stone, it is difficult to believe that they would have left no traces behind them. As regards their shape, they probably resembled in general outline the earliest stone structure, and consisted of an oblong building with projecting side-wings. These side-wings were called ‘paraskenia’, because they lay on each side of the ‘skene’ or stage, and are actually mentioned by Demosthenes in his speech against Meidias as forming a part of the theatre at that time.[391] But though the stage-buildings of the fifth century were constructed of wood only, they must have been firm and substantial erections, and at least two stories in height. The use of such contrivances as the ‘mechane’ and the ‘theologeion’, by which gods were exhibited high up in air, would require buildings of not less than two stories, and of considerable solidity. Hence we may also conclude that they were permanent structures, and that they were not put up and taken down at each festival. No doubt, in the course of a century and a half, they were often renewed, and often changed and modified in detail, as experience suggested. During the first years of the fifth century, when there was only one actor, they must have been much smaller than they afterwards became, when the number of the actors had been raised to three. But after the middle of the fifth century, when they had reached their full size, it is unlikely that they should have been pulled down and re-erected more often than was rendered necessary by the mere process of decay. Whether the stage in these early buildings was protected by a roof or covering, running from one side-wing to the other, is uncertain. But a roof of this kind would have been a distinct advantage, for the purpose of concealing the crane-like mechanism by which the deus ex machina was exhibited.

To consider next the character of the early stage. The stage in Greek was called ‘skene’, for the reason already mentioned[392]; and ‘okribas’, because it consisted originally of a wooden platform.[393] It was also called ‘logeion’, or the ‘speaking-place’, because the actors stood there and carried on the dialogue. It was opposed to the orchestra, or dancing-place, in which the chorus went through their performances.[394] Another name for it was the ‘proskenion’, from its position in front of the ‘skene’, or back-wall.[395] As regards the shape of the early stage, there is even less archaeological evidence than in the case of the stage-buildings. The stage continued to be constructed of wood long after the rest of the building had begun to be made of stone. As a result, all traces of it have disappeared. But certain inferences may be drawn from the structure of the earliest stage-buildings represented in the ruins. If we look at the outline of these buildings (_n-n_), we shall see that the side-wings project about seventeen feet. But in the reconstruction which Dörpfeld assigns to the Hellenistic period, Puchstein to the fourth century, when a stone stage (_o-o_) was erected, the wings were drawn back about five feet on each side. It follows almost as a matter of certainty that the wooden stage of the earlier theatre must have been about fifteen feet deep, so as to fill up the space between the wings.[396] This conclusion is confirmed by the remains of the original stage-buildings at Eretria, which are the oldest hitherto found outside Athens, and which apparently belong to the same period as the earliest ruins found at Athens.[397] Here too we find the same outline and dimensions. There is a long narrow building, with wings projecting about seventeen feet on each side.[398] From this evidence we are justified in assuming that the early Greek stage was considerably deeper than the later one, and was not less than about fifteen feet across. As to its height, we have no information beyond that which is supplied by the existing dramas. These dramas however show that in the theatre of the fifth century it was easy for the actors on the stage to converse with the chorus in the orchestra; and that there was nothing to prevent actors and chorus from passing from stage to orchestra and from orchestra to stage whenever they desired. Hence the stage of the fifth century cannot have been raised many feet above the level of the orchestra. The object of the stage was to place the actors in a prominent position, and to ensure that they should not be hidden from view by the chorus in front of them. This purpose would easily be effected by a stage of only a few feet in height. Some easy means of communication between stage and orchestra must have been provided, to enable actors and chorus to pass to and fro. A long flight of steps, or a sloping ascent, may have been used for the purpose.

Such then, as far as we can tell, was the character of the stage and stage-buildings during the early period of the Greek drama. The stage-buildings consisted of a long and narrow rectangular structure, made entirely of wood, not less than two stories high, and with side-wings at each end. Between the wings was a platform about fifteen feet deep, and a few feet in height, connected with the orchestra by a flight of steps or in some similar way. This type of building lasted till the end of the fifth or middle of the fourth century. A new departure was then made. Stage-buildings began to be constructed of stone, at any rate in the lower stories. The earliest known examples are those at Athens and Eretria. But the stage itself still remained a wooden one.[399] Its depth was still about fifteen feet. As to its height we have no information.[400] The fourth century was a period of transition and development in the history of the Greek theatre; and it was probably during this century that various new experiments were made in the structure and arrangement of the stage and stage-buildings. But the first steps in the process cannot be traced in detail, owing to the lack of evidence. The final results of the various experiments, as exemplified in the theatres of a later period, will be discussed in the next section.

§ 8. _The later Stage-buildings of the pre-Roman period._

In describing the ruins of the stage-buildings in the Athenian theatre we showed that the first great alteration made in the older structure was the erection of a stone stage. This stage was about thirteen feet high, and from nine to ten feet deep, and was enclosed between shallower side-wings. The change effected at Athens is a type of similar changes which were carried out in most of the other Greek theatres with which we are acquainted. The recent excavations at Megalopolis, Delos, Eretria, and many other places, show that from the beginning of the second century onwards, and probably earlier, stone proscenia of the kind just described became a regular feature in ordinary Greek theatres.[401] Moreover there is evidence to prove that as early as the beginning of the third century proscenia made of wood, but resembling the later stone ones in height and depth, had begun to be erected in various cities. The theatre at Sicyon was built about this period, and the stage-buildings were to a large extent excavated out of the rock. The slopes which led up to the stage on each side, being cut out of the rock, still remain, and prove that the stage was about eleven feet above the level of the orchestra. The old wall which served as a foundation for the wooden proscenium is also

## partly preserved, and runs along the line of the later stone erection. In

it are holes for the posts on which the wooden stage was supported.[402] At Eretria, again, the theatre was reconstructed about the beginning of the third century, and the orchestra was sunk about eleven feet into the rock, but the stage-buildings were left at their original level. Hence the wooden stage built in front of them must have been eleven feet high.[403] The theatre at Priene is somewhat exceptional. Here there are the remains of a proscenium belonging to the third century, but built of stone like those of later times. This, however, is the only instance yet discovered of a stone proscenium which can be ascribed with certainty to such an early period.[404] From these various indications it seems probable that the tall and narrow stage of the later type began to become general at the close of the fourth century, though at first it was usually made of wood. In the course of the second and first centuries this wooden stage was replaced in most theatres by a permanent one of stone. The evidence derived from the ruins as to the size and shape of the later stage corresponds, in most cases, with the statement of Vitruvius, the Roman architect, who wrote about the end of the first century B.C. In his account of the Greek theatre of his own time he lays it down as a rule that the proscenium should be from ten to twelve feet high, and about ten feet deep.[405]

[Illustration: FIG. 8 A.]

From the numerous remains of these later stone proscenia which have been excavated during the last few years it is possible to obtain a fairly accurate conception of their general character. The upper surface, or stage proper, was made of wood. The front seems to have consisted in every case of a series of stone columns supporting an entablature. The spaces between the columns were filled in with painted boards or ‘pinakes’, these, like the stage, being made of wood for acoustic reasons.[406] The columns themselves were adapted sometimes more and sometimes less carefully, to the purpose for which they were required.[407] In some cases, as at Athens and Sicyon, they consisted simply of entire columns. In others, the columns were provided with rims running down the centre of each side, to hold the pinakes, as at Megalopolis and Eretria. In others, the place of the columns was taken by half-columns resting against pillars, as more convenient for holding the pinakes. These pillars were in some cases without grooves or projections for the pinakes, as at Epidaurus; in others, as at Priene, New Pleuron, and Delos, they were regularly provided with them.[408] A diagram is here given (Fig. 8 A, after Puchstein) representing the shapes of these supports. The row of pillars would not only serve as a support to the stage, but would serve as a background for the choral performances in the orchestra so far as one was needed.[409] Dörpfeld, who believes that the dramatic performances also took place entirely in the orchestra, supposes that the pinakes were painted in scenic fashion so as to serve as a background to the actors. There is not a particle of evidence to support this view.[410] Not only would a back-scene interrupted by columns be peculiar; but the accounts of the theatre of Delos in the third century B.C. appear to demonstrate that the pinakes were not used for this purpose. We find there that the joiner who made a single pinax received 30 drachmae, while the painter who painted two only received 3 drachmae 1 obol.[411] The smallness of the latter sum seems a clear proof that the painting was not of the artistic kind we should expect in a back-scene, but a very simple affair, suitable to the supporting wall of a stage. It is very probable that the pinakes were painted in imitation of folding-doors, or of wood-work divided into panels. Puchstein conjectures that the stone structures found at Priene and Termessos, made to resemble such doors or panelled work, are reminiscences of the earlier pinakes, and similar instances of vacant spaces made to imitate doors are common on Lycian grave[412] monuments and Pompeian wall-paintings. This architectural front was called the ‘hyposkenion’, from its position beneath the ‘skene’ or stage. Pollux says it was adorned with ‘columns and small statues’.[413] Statues, however, were not used as a decoration during the pre-Roman period. In Roman times they appear to have been sometimes inserted in the intercolumnia, in place of the painted boards. At Epidaurus, for instance, the space between the columns in the side-wings was filled in at some late period with groups of sculpture. At Delos, statues and other votive erections were placed along the front of the proscenium.[414] Possibly Pollux may be referring to these later customs; or he may have been thinking of the Roman stage, which was sometimes decorated in front with a sculptured frieze, like that of Phaedrus in the Athenian theatre. It is evident from the ruins that there was no permanent means of communication between the orchestra and the top of the stage. As regards the connexion with the interior of the stage the custom seems to have varied. At Priene there were three doors leading out into the orchestra.[415] At Athens the proscenium had one door in the centre, and another smaller one on the western side. But in most theatres there was only a single door, that in the centre; and this door varied in width from 3 feet 3 inches at Delos to 4 feet at Epidaurus.[416] At Megalopolis, however, and also at Thespiae, there is no door of any kind leading out from the front of the proscenium into the orchestra.[417] Probably most theatres had doors leading from the end of the stage-buildings into the ‘parodoi’ or side-entrances, though they cannot always be traced, owing to the scantiness of the remains. Their position would no doubt vary, according to the structure of the different theatres. At Epidaurus doors of this kind were placed immediately beyond the side-wings, at each extremity of the proscenium. The illustration which is here inserted (Fig. 9) will give a clear idea of the appearance of these proscenia. It represents a restoration of one end of the hyposkenion at Epidaurus. The front of the proscenium is denoted by the letter _a_, the side-wing by _b_, while _c_ marks the door leading out into the parodos.[418]

[Illustration: FIG. 9.]

In size these proscenia usually conformed to the rules of Vitruvius, and were about ten feet deep, and from ten to twelve feet high. But sometimes they were much lower than he directs. The proscenium at Oropus was only 8 ft. 2 in. in height, that at Priene only 8 ft. 8 in.[419] The proscenium at Delos is given variously as 8 ft. 3 in. and 9 ft. 2 in.[420] On the other hand, the stages at Athens and at the Peiraeeus were thirteen feet above the level of the orchestra.[421] The wings by which the stage was enclosed on each side sometimes projected a few feet beyond the front line of the proscenium, as at Athens. Sometimes, as at Eretria, there was no projection, and the front of the wings was continuous with that of the stage. In many theatres, again, such as those of Megalopolis and Sicyon, there were no permanent side-wings, and the stage was terminated at each end by a mere wall.[422] In such cases it is probable that during the dramatic performances temporary side-wings of wood were erected. The theatres of Epidaurus, Oropus, Sicyon, and the later buildings at Eretria exhibit a peculiar feature in the shape of certain ramps or sloping passages visible to the audience and leading up from the parodos and the outside of the stage-buildings to the door in the walls terminating the ends of the stage. The position of those ramps is clearly shown in the plan of the Epidaurian theatre (Fig. 6). It is possible that they were used by the chorus for the purpose of descending from the first floor of the stage-buildings to the entrance of the parodos. But probably they served mainly for the entrance of actors who represented persons supposed to be coming from a distance. The objection of Robert and Dörpfeld[423] that the actor would have to come up the ramps and wait at the door of the side-wings in view of the audience for his cue, before he could enter—which they justly say would be a ridiculous sight—assumes what it is quite unnecessary to assume, namely, that plays were performed without practice or proper stage-management. Very little rehearsal would be required in order that the actor’s arrival might be duly timed. A different device for the entrance of such actors is found at Priene and Assos. There are no side-wings, but the stage is rather longer than the back-scene or the buildings of which the back-scene formed the face, and is continued for some distance down each side of the buildings. The ends of the stage are terminated by a wall containing no door. The idea seems to have been that the persons supposed to come from a distance should make their way down one of the passages on each side of the skene, and so come round the corner of the stage. The theatres at Delos, Termessos, and Ephesus seem to have employed variations of this device.[424]

When we turn from the stage to the stage-buildings of this period, our information is very incomplete owing to the scanty nature of the ruins. But it is probable that the stage-buildings began about this period to assume a more imposing appearance than in former times. We have seen that in the case of the earlier buildings there is some doubt whether the upper stories were made of wood or of stone. After the beginning of the third century it is probable that stone began to be used for all stories alike.[425] The buildings must also have been of a considerable height, to allow of a suitable back-scene above the tall proscenium.[426] As to the decoration of the wall at the back of the stage nothing is known. In the later Greek theatres, built in the Roman fashion, this wall was constructed in an elaborate architectural design. It usually consisted of two or three rows of columns, rising one above the other, and each surmounted with appropriate entablatures and pediments. Its height was often as great at the top of the auditorium—an arrangement which was found to improve the acoustic properties of the theatre. Back-walls of this sumptuous character are still in part preserved in the Graeco-Roman theatres of Aspendos, Tauromenium, and various other cities. But it is uncertain how far they can be traced back into or beyond the Hellenistic period.[427] It is still keenly disputed whether the supporting walls for the stage-buildings, found in the ruins of different theatres, are really strong enough to bear the weight of two stories. As regards the doors which led from the back-wall on to the stage there is no positive evidence to be obtained from the existing ruins. But Pollux and Vitruvius state that they were three in number.[428]

The most essential difference between the theatre which we are considering and that of the fifth century lay in the substitution of a tall and narrow stage for a low and comparatively deep one. This change was far more important than a mere change of material from wood to stone. The question naturally arises, what was the reason for the alteration? The answer is to be found in the fact that the Greek drama itself passed through a no less radical transformation at the same time. In the course of the fourth century it was gradually transformed from a choral to a non-choral drama. When we come to the third century we find that the chorus, which once played the chief part both in tragedy and comedy, had sunk into insignificance. It was often discarded altogether. When retained, it had nothing to do but to sing interludes between the successive acts. Its presence no more implied that the play was a choral play than the presence of the band in a modern theatre implies that the performance is an opera. The old intercourse between actors and chorus was a thing of the past.[429] The low deep stage was no longer necessary, to enable actors and chorus to converse together, or to supply room, when required, for the presence of the chorus by the side of the actors. Under these circumstances it would obviously be an advantage to make the stage as high as possible, in order to improve the view of the upper rows of spectators. The ancient theatres were of enormous size. At Athens, for example, the topmost tier of seats was 300 feet distant from the stage, and 100 feet above the level of the orchestra. In such a theatre, the higher the stage, the better would be the view of the majority of the audience. It was doubtless for this reason that the stage was raised to about ten or twelve feet in the course of the third century. At the same time its depth was necessarily diminished, in order that the spectators in the lowest rows might be able to see down to the end of it. The loss of depth was of no importance in the acting of a play, because of the practical exclusion of the chorus from the stage.

In connexion with this subject a difficulty has been raised by some scholars which deserves consideration. It is generally admitted that the Vitruvian stage was well adapted for the later kind of drama. But from the fourth century down to Roman times the theatre was used quite as much for the revival of old plays as for the representation of new ones. It is contended that the ancient plays, with their intimate connexion between actors and chorus, could not possibly have been exhibited on a stage which was raised twelve feet above the level of the orchestra. In answer to this objection it may be pointed out that the only ancient plays which were ever revived during the period with which we are now dealing were those of Sophocles and Euripides. Aeschylus and Aristophanes had gone out of fashion. The plays of Sophocles and Euripides could easily have been adapted for the Vitruvian stage by excisions and modifications in the choral part. If the chorus, as sometimes happened, took an important share in the dialogue, its part on such occasions might be given to extra characters on the stage. That the old plays were revised and adapted in this manner at a later period is proved by the express testimony of Dion Chrysostomus,[430] and there is no improbability in assuming that the same practice had begun to prevail as early as the third century B.C. It might, however, sometimes be necessary, during the revival of the ancient dramas, to provide a means of communication between stage and orchestra. In such cases temporary wooden steps were placed in front of the proscenium. There is ample evidence for the use of this contrivance. Pollux tells us that when the players entered by the orchestra they ascended the stage by means of steps.[431] Athenaeus, the writer on military engines, speaks of the steps which were placed in front of the stage for the use of the actors.[432] Steps of this kind are depicted in several vase-paintings from Magna Graecia, belonging to the third century B.C., and representing theatrical scenes.[433] There is also a wall-painting at Herculaneum, which shows us one of these flights of steps standing by itself, with an actor’s mask at the top.[434] From these indications we see that, although there was no permanent means of communication between stage and orchestra in the Hellenistic theatres, a temporary connexion could always be supplied when necessary.

§ 9. _Puchstein’s Theory of the Stage-buildings._

The theory of Puchstein, already so often alluded to, ascribes to Lycurgus the construction of the proscenium consisting of stone columns and pinakes, and throws back to the end of the fifth century the Lycurgean structures usually so called. His principal ground for this change of date lies in the development which he traces in the form of the columns in question.[435] He thinks it certain that the use of full columns must have preceded that of half-columns, and that columns without special contrivances for holding pinakes must be earlier than simple ones. Thus the full columns of the proscenia of Athens, Sicyon, and the Peiraeeus, which have no such contrivances, will belong to the earliest period of stone proscenia; they will be earlier than those of Megalopolis and Eretria, which have rims for holding the pinakes, and still earlier than the plain half-columns of Epidaurus and the grooved half-columns of Priene, Assos, Delos, Pleuron, Oropus, &c. The proscenia of Priene, Pleuron, and Delos appear to belong to the third century B.C.; and Puchstein accordingly throws back the Athenian columned proscenium to the latter half of the fourth century, the time of Lycurgus. The theory is at least plausible; but it is not certain. Development is not always in a straight line or in logical order, and does not always require intervals of many years between one stage and another; different experiments may be tried simultaneously in different cases, and recurrence to old types, or preservation of them after new ones have been invented, is a common thing in the history of architecture. The form of the proscenium, therefore, cannot be used with certainty as a chronological criterion, though it may be very suggestive. It follows, in Puchstein’s view, from the earlier dating of the stone proscenium, that the so-called Lycurgean stage-building, with its deep side-wings, must have been erected some time before Lycurgus, towards the end of the fifth or beginning of the fourth century. The date which Puchstein suggests for the stone proscenium at Athens is certainly more probable on _a priori_ grounds than that given by Dörpfeld. According to Dörpfeld’s chronology, the earliest stage-buildings at Athens were apparently later than those at Eretria and other Greek cities. Dörpfeld has conceded that the old skene at Eretria is of the fourth or fifth century, and may be older than the Lycurgean.[436] But it is hard to believe that the city in which the drama was first developed should not have been the first also to provide itself with a permanent stage.

Professor E. A. Gardner also shows reasons of a technical character in favour of the earlier date.[437] The foundations of the chryselephantine statue of Dionysus by Alcamenes are of conglomerate and breccia. Alcamenes was at work during the latter half of the fifth century; and the later temple in the precinct below the theatre was built to contain this statue. Now, as Professor Gardner points out, it is unlikely that the Athenians would have undertaken so costly a work in the later part of the Peloponnesian war. On the other hand, there is no trace of the use of breccia in foundations in the Periclean age. The temple probably therefore dates from the time between the Peace of Nicias in 421 B.C. and the Sicilian expedition in 415 B.C. And if the temple was built then, it is not unlikely that the theatre may have been begun at the same time. The fact that the architectural technique of the theatre, particularly in the use of conglomerate blocks, is the same as that of the temple points the same way. The work may have begun about B.C. 420, and progressed gradually and continuously up to the time of Lycurgus. The exact year in which the higher stage was erected cannot, of course, be fixed.[438]

Puchstein also doubts whether the whole of the existing auditorium was built in the time of Lycurgus.[439] There is a fragment of a wall (not marked) in front of _a—a_ in the plan, which Dörpfeld does not mention in his text, though he marks it in one of his plans.[440] This, Puchstein suggests, is the supporting wall of an auditorium older than the Lycurgean. Besides this he finds evidence of stone seats in the fifth century. It has already been mentioned that a stone built into the western wing of the auditorium contains a fifth-century inscription.[441] This inscription consists of the words βολῆς ὑπηρετῶν, and was probably part of a seat-step, reserved for the servants of the βουλή. If so, there must have been a stone auditorium before the time of Lycurgus.

A further point in Puchstein’s theory concerns the height of the stage in the building which he assigns to the fifth century.[442] The only possible purpose of the deep side-wings was to enclose a stage. The analogy of later theatres of the same type, such as those of Tyndaris and Segesta, where traces of the stage still remain, render any other conclusion indefensible. No other hypothesis has any support from any monuments whatever. This stage may have been of wood, proscenium and all, and this would account for its disappearance; or it may have had slight stone supports, which might easily have left no trace. The height of this old stage at Athens may be determined approximately by a comparison with the almost contemporary stage-buildings at Eretria, where there is evidence to show that the stage must have been not less than nine or ten feet from the ground. But this does not mean that still earlier the stage was not, as previously contended,[443] a comparatively low one, such as would be suitable for the plays of Aeschylus and the earlier plays of Aristophanes. Nor is the existence of a high stage about 400 B.C. inconsistent with the presence of a chorus, as Dörpfeld thinks.[444] The decision depends not on the presence of a chorus, but on the intimacy of the connexion between the chorus and the actors. As long as they freely commingled together, the stage must have been moderately low. But when the chorus ceased to take any active part in the play, the raising of the stage would do no harm, and would be an advantage, as giving the audience a better view of the actors. Now it was precisely towards the end of the fifth century that the chorus began to lose its old significance, and to assume the functions of mere singers of interludes.[445] Hence there would be nothing surprising if it were proved, and not merely rendered likely, as by Puchstein, that at this date the stage began to be of a greater height than formerly.

§ 10. _The Stage-buildings in Roman Times._

We have now followed the development of the stage-buildings from the old wooden erections of the fifth century to the more solid and elaborate structures of the Hellenistic period. All that remains is to trace their history during the later ages of Roman supremacy. We have shown that at Athens the stage-buildings were practically reconstructed after the Roman fashion in the time of Nero. The same tendency had already become prevalent in other places at a much earlier period. After the middle of the first century B.C. most of the new theatres built by the Greeks were constructed in the Roman style. The majority of the old ones began about the same time to be altered and modified under Roman influence. This latter process, however, was never carried out universally. It was confined mainly to the more outlying parts of the Hellenic world, such as Sicily and Asia Minor. In Greece proper it was a comparatively rare occurrence. Athens and Argos are the only cities on the Greek mainland which are known to have Romanized their theatres. Still, looking at the Greek world as a whole, it may be said that from the time of the Christian era the great majority of Hellenic theatres were adapted to the Roman model. It was at this period that the stage-buildings began to be constructed on a more lofty scale, and their front adorned with the gorgeous architectural embellishments which we have previously described. Some idea of their magnificence may be obtained from the existing remains, and especially from those of the theatre at Aspendos, which is well preserved. A restoration of part of the interior of this theatre (Fig. 10) is here inserted.[446] The back-wall erected at Athens in the time of Nero was of the same type, though smaller in size. Façades of this imposing character may perhaps be thought too elaborate for the back-wall of a theatre. When dramas were being performed, and they were covered with painted scenery, their architectural beauty would be concealed from the eyes of the spectators. But ancient theatres were regularly used, not only for dramatic performances, but also for various other purposes, both artistic and political. On such occasions, when the stage was without scenic decoration, the architectural grandeur of the back-wall would add greatly to the beauty of the stage-buildings, and form a pleasing object to the eye. Probably, too, at many of the dramatic exhibitions, when the action was laid before a temple or palace, painted scenery was dispensed with, and the architectural façade supplied an appropriate background.

[Illustration: FIG. 10.]

It will be seen from the illustration that in the theatre of Aspendos there were five doors at the back of the stage. There was a large door in the centre, and two smaller ones on each side. The same arrangement was generally adopted in Graeco-Roman theatres. But Pollux and Vitruvius speak of three doors as the regulation number.[447] Possibly, therefore, the five doors of the later theatres were not all used during the dramatic representations. When the stage was prepared for the performance of a play, the two doors on the outside may have been covered up with scenery; or temporary side-wings may have been erected in front of them. Another noticeable feature in the theatre of Aspendos is the roof over the stage. Traces of a similar roof are also found at Orange, and justify the conclusion that in most theatres of the Roman type the stage was covered over.[448] Whether the same practice prevailed in the Hellenistic theatres there is no evidence to show. But the convenience of the arrangement is so obvious, that we can hardly doubt that it began to be employed at a comparatively early period.

In a large number of cases the process of Romanizing the Greek theatres was not carried out completely. Many theatres, whether built or reconstructed on the new model, still retained features which were essentially Greek. This was the case at Athens. The Greek stage was usually the same length as one diameter of the orchestra. The Roman stage was twice as long, and extended some distance into the wings of the auditorium on each side. There was no open space between the auditorium and the side-wings; the place of the old Greek ‘parodoi’ was supplied by vaulted subways. But at Athens, when the Neronian alterations were made, the stage was not prolonged in the Roman style, but remained of the same length as before. The entrances into the orchestra at _a_ and _g_ were thus left open (Fig. 3). In many other places, especially in Asia Minor, the Romanization was of a still more partial kind. In theatres such as those of Termessos, Perge, and Sagalassos the general outline of the building was hardly affected by the change. The front line of the stage was not pushed forward; the orchestra still remained nearly a complete circle; open passages were left between the auditorium and the stage-buildings. The only important alteration was in the size of the stage, which was lengthened at each end, and deepened by throwing the front of the stage-buildings farther back. The height of the stage was but slightly diminished. In a Roman theatre it was usually five feet. But the stages at Termessos, Sagalassos, and Patara vary from eight feet to nine, and were therefore very little lower than the ordinary stage of the Vitruvian type.[449]

These examples show how trifling in many cases was the difference between the Graeco-Roman theatres and those of the purely Greek type. They also throw some light on another question of considerable interest. In Roman theatres all performances were confined to the stage; the orchestra was given up to spectators of distinguished rank. It may be asked whether the Greeks, when they built their theatres in the Roman style, adopted the same custom. The answer seems to be that they did not. It is most improbable that theatres should have been constructed in Asia Minor with the old full-sized orchestra, unless this orchestra had been intended as a place for choral performances. The fact that in many of these theatres the stage was eight or nine feet high proves the same thing. If the spectators had been placed immediately in front of it, their view would have been very much obstructed. We know, too, that in the Athenian theatre, even after the Roman stage had been introduced, the marble thrones round the orchestra continued to be the chief seats of honour. Hence it is evident that the orchestra must have been still a place for the performers, and not a place for distinguished spectators. The chief purpose of the Greeks, in Romanizing their theatres, was to provide a deep and capacious stage for spectacles of the Roman type, such as pantomimes and pyrrhic ballets. The old Greek performances were given as before in the orchestra. As far as the drama is concerned, the orchestra would seldom be required at this period, the lyrical part of tragedy and comedy having now practically disappeared. But the choral and musical competitions still flourished as vigorously as ever, and these were kept to their original place, and not transferred to the stage.

§ 11. _Exceptional Stage-buildings._

The stage-buildings which we have hitherto described have been those of the normal type. But there are several places in which peculiar and exceptional structures were erected, either for reasons connected with the nature of the ground, or for mere love of variety. Some of these may be worth mentioning. The theatre at Pergamon was apparently built about the beginning of the second century B.C.[450] But the stage-buildings, instead of being made of stone, as was usual at that period, consisted of temporary wooden erections, which were put up and taken down at each festival. Stone blocks were let into the ground, with holes for the reception of the beams by which the building was supported. When the performances were over, the whole apparatus might be removed in a short time. It was only at a later period that permanent stage-buildings were constructed. The reason for this curious arrangement, according to Dörpfeld, was to leave the way open to a temple in the neighbourhood. As the auditorium lay on a terrace, with not much room in front of it, permanent stage-buildings would have filled up the whole space, and blocked the passage to the temple.

Another remarkable instance of deviation from the ordinary practice is supplied by the theatre at Megalopolis.[451] In this theatre (Fig. 11) the place of the stage-buildings was taken by a vast council-chamber, called the Thersilion, which faced towards the auditorium. Its façade consisted of a vestibule, 26 feet high, and resting on a flight of five steps. Originally, when dramas were to be performed, a temporary wooden stage was erected in front of the Thersilion. The foundation-wall for a stage of this kind has been discovered, and lies at a distance of 24 feet from the columns of the vestibule. It is obvious therefore that the vestibule cannot itself have formed the background. A stage 24 feet across would have been far too deep for a Greek theatre. Temporary scenic decorations must have been erected some feet in front of the council-chamber. In later times a stone proscenium of the ordinary type was erected on the site of the old wooden one. But when this was done, it is probable that the Thersilion had fallen into ruins. Otherwise the beauty of its appearance would have been altogether marred by the stone structure in front of it.

[Illustration: FIG. 11.]

But the most peculiar of the stage-buildings which have hitherto been discovered is that at Delos. A representation of the ground-plan (Fig. 12) is inserted on the next page.[452] This building consisted of a single oblong room. In front of it was an ordinary proscenium, about ten feet deep, and eight or nine feet high, resting on half-columns. The spaces between the columns were filled, as usual, with painted boards. The curious feature is that this same proscenium was continued in a modified form round the rest of the building, so as to serve as a portico. On the sides and in the rear it rested on rectangular pillars instead of on columns. The spaces between the pillars were considerably wider than the spaces between the columns, and were left open, instead of being filled up with boards. Porticoes of this kind were often erected close to the stage-buildings, as a shelter from the rain; but the position of the one at Delos is altogether exceptional. Another remarkable feature in this building is the fact that the proscenium was open at each end, and was not even enclosed with a wall. When dramas were being performed, wooden side-wings must have been put up for the occasion.[453]

[Illustration: FIG. 12.]

§ 12. _Wieseler’s Theory of the Greek Stage._

In a Greek dramatic performance the relative position occupied by actors and chorus was quite unlike anything to be seen in a modern theatre. The actors appeared upon a raised platform, the chorus performed in the orchestra underneath. When the actors were present, and the dialogue was proceeding, the chorus stood with their backs towards the audience, and their faces towards the stage.[454] In the early period the stage was only of moderate height, and communication between stage and orchestra was therefore a matter of no difficulty. Later on, when the chorus began to be excluded from all share in the action, the stage was raised several feet, and the actors were thus placed some distance above the heads of the chorus. But both in the earlier and the later period, and whether the stage was a high or a low one, there was always a clearly marked distinction between the normal position of actors and chorus respectively. This fact places prominently before us the radical difference between a Greek chorus and that of a modern opera. It shows us that in the groupings of actors and chorus in a Greek theatre there could be none of that realistic imitation of ordinary life which is sometimes seen upon the modern stage. To produce effects of this kind would be impossible, where the chorus was standing beneath the actors, and with their backs towards the audience. This position of the chorus in the Greek theatre, which seems peculiar to our modern notions, was not due to any abstract considerations of propriety, but was merely the result of the peculiar circumstances under which the Greek drama was developed. Originally the performance was almost entirely lyrical, and the stage and the actors were a mere appendage. The chorus, being the principal performers, and the most prominent object of attention, occupied the central position in the orchestra. The actors were placed on a stage behind them, so as to be visible to the spectators. Eventually the dialogue between the actors completely overshadowed the songs of the chorus, and the lyrical element in the performance was treated as a kind of interlude. But the chorus still continued to occupy that prominent position in the theatre which its original importance had assigned to it.

Since the beginning of the last century various difficulties have been raised in connexion with this subject, and various theories have been invented for the purpose of removing the supposed difficulties. All this speculation appears to have had its origin in the same source. Until quite recent years it was assumed by every scholar that the stage of the fifth century must have been of the same height and structure as the later stage described by Vitruvius. But it was felt that the dramas of the fifth century could not possibly have been written for a theatre in which the actors were raised about twelve feet above the level of the chorus. The relationship between actors and chorus in these early dramas is far too close to allow it to be supposed that they were separated by a barrier of this kind. Still, there was the testimony of Vitruvius, who said the stage was about twelve feet high, and whose measurements were supposed to apply to all theatres, early as well as late. The first attempt to meet the difficulty was made by Hermann, at the beginning of the century; and his theory was afterwards adopted and developed by Wieseler. According to this view the chorus did not stand upon the level of the orchestra, but upon a sort of subsidiary platform, erected immediately in front of the twelve-foot stage. The height of the platform, they said, was so arranged as to bring the chorus into moderate proximity to the actors, without concealing them from the view of the audience. This platform for the chorus was generally accepted by writers upon the Greek drama until about ten years ago. Its existence was defended, partly on general grounds, partly by an appeal to certain passages in ancient authors. To take the ancient authorities first. Hermann supposed that the platform was called ‘orchestra’ in a narrower sense. He cited a passage in Suidas, where the orchestra is described as coming next to the ‘skene’, and as being a wooden erection on which mimes performed. But in this passage the context clearly proves that the word ‘orchestra’ is used in its later sense as the ‘stage’.[455] Wieseler endeavoured to prove that the platform for the chorus was denoted by the word ‘thymele’. Now ‘thymele’, as we have seen, was a word which had a great many meanings in connexion with the theatre. It denoted, first, the altar of Dionysus; secondly, the orchestra; thirdly, the stage.[456] If the passages are carefully examined in which it is asserted that ‘thymele’ denotes a platform for the chorus in front of the stage, it will be found that in the majority of them the word is much more naturally explained as meaning the stage itself, or the orchestra. In one or two cases the language used is apparently due to a confusion between the different meanings of the term. In no case is there a clear and definite description of a platform standing half-way up between the orchestra and the stage.[457] If such a platform had really existed, it seems incredible that there should have been no mention of it. As far, then, as ancient authorities are concerned, the theory as to the existence of a platform for the chorus finds no support.

On general grounds there are several fatal objections to the theory. In the first place, if it were correct, we should have to believe that the Greeks first of all constructed an orchestra for the chorus to perform in; then built a stage twelve feet high; then, finding they had made their stage a great deal too lofty, got out of the difficulty by erecting a platform each year, to bring the chorus within reach of the actors. To suppose that the Greeks acted in this way would be to suppose that they were altogether deficient in common sense. In the second place, it must not be forgotten that the performances at the City Dionysia consisted of dithyrambs as well as dramas. The dithyrambic chorus consisted of fifty members, and stood in a circular position. They must therefore have required a very considerable space for their performances. The oblong platform in front of the stage would not have been large enough to accommodate them, but would have been large enough to encroach very extensively upon the orchestra, and to drive the dithyrambic choruses into one end of it. That such was the case is most improbable. In the third place, in the recently excavated Greek theatres there are no traces of any appliances for the erection of the supposed platform. We should have expected to find holes in the floor of the orchestra, and sockets in the hyposkenion, for the reception of the beams by which the platform was supported. But there is no theatre in which any such traces are to be found. Fourthly, on the floor of the orchestra at Epidaurus a large circle is marked out with a stone border immediately in front of the stage (Fig. 6). It is difficult to resist the conclusion that this circle was intended for the performances of the chorus. For these reasons, combined with the silence of ancient writers, there appears to be no doubt that the platform for the chorus in front of the stage must be regarded as a fiction of modern times.

All the difficulties which this platform was invented to explain will disappear, if we assume that the stage of the fifth century was considerably lower than that of later times. It was only in the earlier period of the drama that a close communication between actors and chorus was required. In the subsequent epoch the existence of a lofty stage presents no difficulty. And the assumption of a low stage for the period of Aeschylus and his immediate successors is on general grounds the most natural one. We are told that originally, when the drama was still a lyrical performance, the coryphaeus used to mount upon a small table, in the intervals between the odes, in order to converse with the rest of the chorus. Later on, an actor was substituted for the coryphaeus. Later still, in the course of the fifth century, a second and a third actor were introduced. Now it is absurd to suppose that, while the coryphaeus was replaced in this tentative way by a gradually increasing number of actors, the old table on which he performed should have been suddenly converted into a complete Vitruvian stage, twelve feet high, and fifty feet long. It is much more natural to imagine that the development of the stage was also a slow and experimental process, and that in the fifth century its size was intermediate between the low table of the sixth century and the tall proscenium of later times. The few traces of archaeological evidence which we possess concerning the early stage are distinctly in favour of this view. It is also supported by the well-known description in Horace. Horace, in his account of the development of Greek tragedy, tells us that Aeschylus ‘erected a stage on beams of moderate size’.[458] Horace’s information, as we know, was derived from Greek sources. Hence it appears that the ordinary Greek tradition favoured the belief that the early stage was a low one, and that it contrasted in this respect with the stage of later times.

§ 13. _Dörpfeld’s Theory of the Greek Stage._

Another theory of a far more revolutionary kind has been propounded in recent years by Höpken[459], and amplified and developed by Dörpfeld. Dörpfeld assumes, like Wieseler, that the proscenium of the fifth century must have been of the same height as that described by Vitruvius. But he gets out of the consequent difficulty by supposing that the proscenium was intended, not as a stage for the actors, but as a background. He denies the existence of a stage in purely Greek theatres either of the earlier or of the later period. He believes that in all Greek theatres the actors and the chorus performed together in the orchestra. The proscenium represented the palace or other building before which the

## action took place. The front-wall of the stage-buildings immediately

behind the proscenium represented merely the sky. This theory has been the subject of much discussion and controversy during the last twenty years. As it has been accepted by several scholars, it will be necessary to consider it in detail. I propose in the present section to explain the grounds on which, as it seems to me, it must be regarded as untenable; and to discuss at length the evidence on which the belief in the existence of a Greek stage is founded. In dealing with this subject it will be convenient to divide the period covered by the Greek drama into two parts, and to consider first the later part, from about 300 B.C. onwards; and then to return to the earlier period, that of the fourth and fifth centuries. The evidence in the two cases is somewhat different, and will be more clearly understood if taken separately.

1. THE LATER STAGE.—First, then, as to the later or ‘Hellenistic’ period. Recent excavations, as was previously pointed out, have now given us a fairly clear idea as to the shape and structure of the stage-buildings during this period. We now know that from the beginning of the third century onwards, or, if Puchstein is right, from a considerably earlier date, the stage-buildings in an ordinary Greek theatre, though varying in detail, conformed to the same general type. They consisted of a long rectangular structure, in front of which was a narrow platform, usually about twelve feet high and ten feet deep. This platform was called the ‘proskenion’. In the third century it appears to have been generally made of wood. But in the course of the second and first centuries, or in the fourth century, if Puchstein is right, a stone proscenium was substituted for the old wooden ones in almost every theatre. What then was the purpose of this proscenium, this long platform, twelve feet high and ten feet deep, which we find in all Greek theatres after the fourth century? For an answer to this question we naturally turn to Vitruvius, who wrote a book about architecture towards the end of the first century B.C., and in the course of it gave a detailed description of Greek and Roman theatres. Vitruvius tells us that every Greek theatre has a stage, and that this stage is from ten to twelve feet high and about ten feet deep. Its narrowness is due to the fact that it is only used by the actors in tragedy and comedy; all other performers appear in the orchestra.[460] He adds that the Roman stage is much lower and much deeper, and this for two reasons. It had to be deeper, because all the performers appeared upon it. It had to be lower, because in a Roman theatre the spectators sat in the orchestra, and would not therefore have been able to see over the top of a twelve-foot stage.[461] Here then we seem to have a clear and final answer to our question. The proscenium which we find in all Greek theatres after about 300 B.C., and in some perhaps a century earlier, answers exactly to the description of Vitruvius. It must therefore have been intended to serve as a stage.

Dörpfeld, it is well known, refuses to accept this conclusion. But his method of dealing with the testimony of Vitruvius has changed since he wrote his book on the Greek theatre. He then supposed that Vitruvius had been guilty of an error. While admitting that he was correct in his measurements of the Greek proscenium, he asserted that he had made a mistake as to its purpose; that he had confused the background of the Hellenistic theatre with the stage of the Roman.[462] But this explanation is one which it is impossible to accept. It is absurd to suppose that Vitruvius was mistaken. He was a professional architect, writing about his own special subject, and writing at the very time when many of these Greek proscenia were being erected. His remark about the Greek stage is not introduced as an _obiter dictum_, but is made the basis of the distinction which he draws between Greek and Roman theatres. He had evidently therefore thought about the subject. But even if we suppose that he could make a mistake of this kind, even if we suppose that he had never been in Greece, and never seen a Greek play acted there, still it is incredible that such an absurd error should have remained uncorrected in his book. The connexion between Greece and Rome was so intimate, that there must have been thousands of people in Rome who had seen Greek plays performed in a Greek theatre, and knew how it was done. If Vitruvius had made this absurd blunder, some one would have been sure to point it out to him, and he would have had it corrected.

Since the publication of his book Dörpfeld has shifted his ground on this question.[463] He now suggests a new method of explaining away the testimony of Vitruvius. He supposes that Vitruvius, when speaking of the stage in the Greek theatre, was referring, not to the ordinary Greek theatre, but to the peculiar type of Graeco-Roman theatre found in various cities of Asia Minor, such as Termessos and Sagalassos. These theatres, as we have shown, exhibited a sort of transition between the Greek and the Roman model. While their general design was Greek, their stages were partially lowered and deepened, so as to come nearer to the Roman practice.[464] In theatres of this kind Dörpfeld admits that the actors performed upon the stage; and he contends that it is to them that Vitruvius refers, and not to the regular Greek theatres, in which the actors always appeared in the orchestra. But in the first place it is difficult to believe that Vitruvius, when he speaks of the ‘Greek’ theatre, should mean something quite different. Why should he describe as ‘Greek’ a type of building which was not found in Greece proper, and which was essentially a combination of Greek and Roman attributes? In the second place, the evidence of the existing remains is inconsistent with the new hypothesis. Vitruvius says that the proscenium in the Greek theatre should be from ten to twelve feet high, and in ordinary cases about ten feet deep. Now what do we find in the remains of the regular Greek theatres? We find that in the great majority of cases the height and depth answer exactly to this description. But when we turn to the Asia Minor theatres what do we find? The average height is from eight to nine feet, the average depth from twelve to eighteen. In the face of these measurements it is useless to contend that Vitruvius is alluding to the Asia Minor theatres. The type which he describes is the ordinary Hellenistic type.[465]

The two facts already mentioned—first, the fact that Vitruvius tells us that every Greek theatre should possess a stage of a certain height, and secondly, the fact that all Greek theatres after about 300 B.C. are found to possess a stage corresponding to his description—these two facts appear sufficient in themselves to decide the whole question. But there is no lack of further evidence. Various ancient writers may be cited as witnesses. Pollux, in his description of the Greek theatre, says that ‘the stage is appropriated to the actors, the orchestra to the chorus’.[466] Later on he says that the actors, when they ‘enter by the orchestra, ascend the stage by means of steps’.[467] The scholiasts to the extant dramas often speak of the performance in a Greek theatre as being partly in the orchestra and partly on the stage. The commentator on the Frogs asserts that the scene with Charon and the ferry-boat must be ‘either upon the logeion, or in the orchestra’. Later on he says that Dionysus here appears ‘not on the logeion, but in the orchestra’. The scholiast on the Knights discusses the question why the sausage-seller should ‘ascend from the parodos on to the logeion’. There are other scholia to the same effect, which it would be tedious to quote.[468] In these passages from the scholiasts and from Pollux the point to notice is the following. They do not merely say that there was a stage in Greek theatres, but they describe the performance as one partly on the stage, and partly in the orchestra. Dörpfeld says they are all mistaken; that they lived after the Christian era, and were confusing the Greek theatre with the Roman. But this would not account for their mistake, if mistake there were. In Roman theatres all performances were confined to the stage; the orchestra was occupied by senators and other distinguished persons. How then can Pollux and the scholiasts have got this notion of a performance in which stage and orchestra were used at the same time? There was nothing in the Roman practice to suggest it. It can only have been derived from the Greek theatre. But apart from this, the suggestion that Pollux and the scholiasts were misled by their recollection of Roman customs is not a fortunate one. It implies that their writings were the result of personal observation. But no one can read a page of them without perceiving that they were merely compilations from Alexandrian sources. The scholiasts in many cases mention their authorities, and these authorities often go back as far as Aristophanes and Aristarchus, and even beyond. They do indeed confuse the evidence a good deal, when they try to reconcile different statements, or when they misapply statements of earlier authorities to particular passages, and explain the passages wrongly; but the statements themselves are due to Alexandrian tradition, not to their own observations. When they say that Greek dramas were performed partly on the stage and partly in the orchestra, it is evident that the Alexandrians thought the same. The testimony of Pollux and the scholiasts is really testimony of the third century B.C.

Another writer whose words appear to be decisive on this question is Horace. His statement about Aeschylus, to the effect that he ‘erected a stage on beams (or posts) of moderate size’, has already been quoted.[469] It is true that Horace is often inaccurate in his description of the early Greek drama. It may be contended, therefore, that his account of the reforms of Aeschylus is only of doubtful authority. But one thing is certain, that Horace, in describing the development of the Greek theatre, would never have mentioned the erection of a stage, unless a stage had been a regular part of the Greek theatres of his own day. Dörpfeld, in dealing with this passage, offers two alternatives. He first suggests that ‘pulpitum’ means the ‘stage-buildings’. But he cites no authority for such a meaning, and none is to be found. The word ‘pulpitum’ in Latin always means a stage or platform. Then, if the first alternative seems unsatisfactory, he suggests that Horace has made a slip, and that he was confusing the Greek stage with the Roman.[470] But Horace, as we know, was for a long time in Athens, and must have often seen Greek plays performed. It is hardly conceivable, therefore, that he should have made a mistake on such a simple matter as the presence or absence of a stage.

To turn next to the archaeological evidence. Excavations have brought to light several facts which bear closely upon this subject of the stage. The evidence derived from this source appears to be even more fatal to the new theory than the literary testimony. One of the most convincing proofs is that afforded by the structure of the stage-buildings at Sicyon, Eretria, and Oropus.[471] We have seen that, according to Dörpfeld’s view, the proscenium was the background, and the action of the drama took place in front of it, in the orchestra. Obviously, if this was so, the most important part of the stage-buildings must have been the rooms immediately behind the proscenium, or in other words, behind the back-scene. Now what do we find at Sicyon? We find that one-third of the space behind the proscenium consisted of solid rock. The Sicyonians, in order to save the expense of erecting a lofty auditorium, excavated their theatre out of the rock to a depth of about twelve feet. But they attached so little importance to the rooms behind the proscenium, that they did not take the trouble to excavate the whole of this part. They left one-third of it as it was. It was only when they came to the first floor of the stage-building, the floor on a level with the top of the proscenium, that they provided clear room from end to end of the structure. Their conduct, on Dörpfeld’s theory, was very peculiar.[472] But the people of Eretria acted in a still stranger manner. They too excavated their theatre out of the rock. But they left the whole of the space behind the proscenium unexcavated. Consequently at Eretria the ground-floor of the stage-buildings was on a level, not with the floor of the orchestra, but with the top of the proscenium. There could hardly be a more decisive proof that at Eretria the actors appeared, not in front of the proscenium, but on the top of it. Then there is the case of Oropus. Here the stage-buildings were built upon the ground, and the rooms behind the proscenium were originally open from end to end. But later on the Oropians proceeded to fill up the greater part of the space with earth, and left only a narrow passage immediately behind the proscenium. Such conduct is irreconcilable with the supposition that the proscenium was the back-scene.[473]

Another proof is afforded by the height of the proscenium. The normal height, as already shown, was about twelve feet. But some proscenia, such as those at Athens and the Peiraeeus, were as much as thirteen feet. On the other hand others were considerably less. That of Oropus, for instance, was only about eight feet high; and the columns which supported the entablature were only six feet six inches.[474] On Dörpfeld’s view these proscenia, with their architectural front, represented the palace or other building before which the action took place. What then are we to think of a palace about fifty feet long, and only eight feet in height? The background at Oropus during the performance of a tragedy must have been a most peculiar one. We should remember that the Greek tragic actor walked upon ‘cothurni’, which added about six inches to his stature. He also wore a mask with a lofty ‘onkos’, which raised his height by another six inches. Consequently the Greek tragic actor, when equipped for the stage, can hardly have stood less than about six feet six. This being so, if Dörpfeld’s view is correct, it follows that the actor who took the part of the king at Oropus must have been just about the same height as the columns which supported the roof of his own palace. When he made his entrance through the central door of the palace, he would have to bend his head, in order to avoid knocking it against the cross-beams. Surely the theory is a weak one which involves such ridiculous consequences. If the Greeks had adopted a background of this absurdly diminutive height, without any reason for doing so, this fact alone would have been strange enough. But it must appear stranger still that, having once adopted it, they should proceed to add about twelve inches to the stature of their actors, in order to make the disproportion between the size of the actors and the size of the palace still more preposterous.[475]

The reason which Dörpfeld gives for the lowness of the proscenium—the background, as he calls it—is as follows. He says that such proscenia were first erected at Athens in the fifth century, and were intended to represent an ordinary house of that period. But the ordinary Athenian house of the fifth century was, he asserts, about twelve feet high.[476] To this theory there are several answers. In the first place, as we have seen, some proscenia were only about eight or nine feet in height; which is far lower than any ordinary Greek house, either at Athens or elsewhere. In the second place there is no clear evidence to show that the Athenian house of the fifth century was twelve feet high. From the remains lately discovered at Delos it appears that in the better class of houses there even the first story was more than twelve feet.[477] But granting, for the sake of argument, that an Athenian house of the fifth century was of the size which Dörpfeld supposes, it is difficult to see what this has got to do with the height of the scenic background. The Athenian theatre, we should remember, was developed originally as a place for tragedy rather than as a place for comedy. The background therefore must have been intended to represent, in most cases, a palace or a temple. But why should this palace or temple have been made the same height as an ordinary house? Moreover, the proportions must have appeared extraordinary. A structure about fifty feet long, and twelve feet high, would be altogether unlike any palace or temple. Dörpfeld replies to this that it is impossible on the stage to represent buildings as large as they really are; that in modern scene-paintings the representations of palaces and temples are much reduced in size as compared with the originals.[478] This is quite true. But they are reduced to scale, and in a proper proportion. A modern scene-painter, in representing St. Paul’s, would no doubt have to make his representation much smaller than the actual St. Paul’s. But in diminishing the height he would diminish the width at the same time. No modern scene-painter would produce a temple fifty feet long and twelve feet high; nor can we suppose that the ancients would have put up with a similar disproportion.

Again, there is the question as to the doors in the proscenium. If it was the background, it ought to have had three doors, the usual number in a Greek back-scene, as Pollux and Vitruvius tell us. But in most of the proscenia discovered there is only one door. In two of the proscenia, those at Megalopolis and Thespiae, there is no door of any kind. Even the single door, when it is found, is very narrow for the central door of the back-scene. At Epidaurus it is only four feet wide, at Oropus only 3 feet 8 inches, at Delos only 3 feet 3 inches.[479] A door so narrow as this would be altogether unsuitable as the central door of the palace, and quite inconsistent with the use of the ekkyklema. When we come to the Graeco-Roman theatres, where the wall at the back of the stage has in many cases been preserved, there we find everything corresponding closely with the descriptions of the grammarians. There is always the requisite number of doors, and the central door is of considerable width. At Termessos it is about seven feet.[480] As regards the absence of the three doors in the proscenium Dörpfeld gives the following explanation. These Hellenistic proscenia, as we see from the remains, consisted of an entablature resting on columns. The spaces between the columns were filled in with wooden boards. Dörpfeld suggests that when doors were required they might be provided _ad libitum_ by removing the intervening boards.[481] But if three doors were regularly required in the dramatic performances, it is most improbable that they should not have been provided as a permanent fixture in the proscenium. It is most improbable that the Greeks should have put themselves to the trouble of opening out these temporary doors at each festival. In any case we can hardly doubt that, if the proscenium had been the back-scene, the Greeks would always have provided at least one permanent door, and would not, as at Megalopolis and Thespiae, have erected proscenia in which there was no door of any kind. The absence of a door in these two places seems to prove conclusively that communication between the orchestra and the space behind the proscenium was a matter of no importance.

[Illustration: FIG. 13.]

Another piece of archaeological evidence is supplied by the vase-paintings found in the Greek cities of South Italy.[482] Two specimens are here inserted.[483] These paintings, which have already been briefly referred to, belong to the third century B.C. They represent comic scenes acted by the Phlyakes. The Phlyakes were a sort of farcical comedians, whose performances were not unlike those of the oldest Attic comedy. In many of these paintings they are represented as acting on a stage.[484] The stage, in most cases, is obviously made of wood, and varies in character from a rude and simple platform to an erection of some solidity. In one or two instances, however, it is a tall and elaborate structure, apparently built of stone, and adorned with columns in front, just like the proscenia we have been discussing.[485] Often there is a flight of steps leading down to the orchestra.[486] In one case the action is taking place partly on the stage and partly in the orchestra. One of the actors is represented as actually ascending the steps to the stage.[487] This evidence seems to prove beyond a doubt that in the Greek cities of South Italy, during the third century B.C., performances were sometimes given in theatres with a tall stage, and that both stage and orchestra were employed for the purpose, and were connected by steps.

[Illustration: FIG. 14.]

Dörpfeld now admits that this was the case. But he contends that the arrangement was an exceptional one, intended only for the farces of the Phlyakes. For these performances, he allows, wooden stages were erected, and the exhibition took place partly on the stage and partly in the orchestra. But the regular dramas—the tragedies, and the comedies—were performed solely in the orchestra.[488] All this, however, is the purest assumption.[489] There is not a particle of evidence to support it. It is altogether improbable that a different arrangement should have been adopted in the case of these farces, and in the case of the regular drama. Besides this, as we have already pointed out, in one or two of the paintings the stage on which the Phlyakes are performing is apparently a permanent stone erection, and not a mere temporary platform of wood. It seems certain, therefore, that the Greeks of South Italy during the third century B.C. provided a stage for their actors in all dramatic performances; and, this being so, we can hardly doubt that the same was the case in Greece generally.

One or two further objections to the new theory may be briefly mentioned. If we look at the plan of the theatre at Epidaurus (Figs. 6 and 7), it will be found that the stone border of the circular orchestra reaches to within two or three feet of the proscenium. If the actors had performed in front of the proscenium, they would have been sometimes inside the stone border, and sometimes outside of it; and the whole arrangement strikes one as awkward and unsymmetrical. Again, in the theatre at Delos (Fig. 12), statues and other votive offerings were erected immediately in front of the columns of the proscenium. The bases on which they rested still remain.[490] But, if the proscenium had been the background, it is difficult to suppose that this place would have been chosen for such erections. When the proscenium was uncovered by scenery, and represented an ancient palace, these votive offerings and statues would have been altogether inappropriate as a part of the back-scene. When painted decorations were to be set up, they would have formed an inconvenient obstacle in the way of the mechanical arrangements. And if they were required to serve as scenery, why were they only employed at Delos? The probability therefore is that they were a mere architectural decoration of the stage-front.[491]

We have now gone through the principal arguments, literary and archaeological, which demonstrate the existence of a stage during the Hellenistic period. It remains to consider the reasons which induce Dörpfeld, in spite of this apparently overwhelming evidence, to deny the existence of such a stage. And in judging this question we must remember the fact already mentioned, that the chorus, at this time, had ceased to take an active share in the play, and that its functions were hardly more important than those of a band of musicians in a modern theatre. To turn now to Dörpfeld’s reasons. He says, in the first place, that these proscenia of the Vitruvian type would have been too narrow for the performance of a play.[492] But their narrowness has often been exaggerated, owing to inaccurate calculations. None of them, as it now appears, were less than from nine to ten feet in depth.[493] But a stage about ten feet deep, and from fifty to sixty feet long, would be amply sufficient for the performance of a Greek play, when the chorus was confined to the orchestra. The fact has been proved by actual experiment. Most English scholars have probably seen the Greek plays produced in the open-air theatre at Bradfield. The stage there is only ten feet deep and thirty feet long. Yet every one who has been present at one of these performances must admit that there was plenty of room upon the stage. I am informed that on one occasion, in the funeral procession in the Alcestis, as many as sixty people were brought upon the stage at the same time, and without any inconvenient crowding.[494] It is clear then that the Vitruvian stage, which was just as deep and twice as long as that at Bradfield, would have been large enough to accommodate the chorus as well as the actors in an ancient Greek drama, and would have been more than large enough for the performance of a play in which the chorus was practically confined to the orchestra.

Dörpfeld further objects that these Hellenistic proscenia were too high to have served as a stage, since the spectators in the front rows would have been too far below the actors to see the latter properly.[495] It is only in the Asiatic theatres, where the front seats of the auditorium were raised so as to give a good view of the actors, that he will allow that the actors appeared on the high stage; in such cases the height of the seats would make a ten-foot stage virtually equivalent to a five-foot one, such as the Romans employed. But in the first place, we find that at Mantinea also the lowest seats were raised four feet above the orchestra, so that this is not a peculiarity of Asiatic theatres.[496] In the second place, if these proscenia were too high for a stage, they would have been much too low for a background. Their height varied from eight to thirteen feet; and a stage of thirteen feet would be far less of an anomaly than a back-scene of eight feet. Further, it has been shown by Maass[497] that the height of the proscenium varies very regularly with the distance of the proscenium from the central point of the circle of the auditorium. The nearer this point, the lower the stage. The object of this can only have been to accommodate the height of the stage to the view of the audience. It would be inexplicable unless the actors were on the top of the proscenium. It seems also to be proved that in most cases the greater part of the actor’s person would easily be visible from the greater number of seats,[498] including the lowest or front rows. When it was necessary, as it was through the greater part of the fifth century, for chorus and actors to communicate more or less intimately with one another, the stage was lower, and the view from some seats therefore less good; but when the chorus ceased to take a share in the dialogue, it became both possible and natural to raise the height of the stage and so improve the view.

Another objection of Dörpfeld’s is that in the existing proscenia there is no trace of any means of communication between the stage and the orchestra.[499] But we have shown that such communication was seldom required at this time, owing to the insignificance of the chorus; and that, when it was wanted, it was supplied by temporary wooden steps. Dörpfeld replies that, if the stage was thirteen feet high, the steps must have been so large as to project a long way into the orchestra, and produce an unsightly appearance. But this result could have been avoided without difficulty. Where the stage was exceptionally lofty, the steps might have been placed in a parallel line to it. At Tralles, where there is a proscenium of the Graeco-Roman type, and nearly ten feet high, such steps are actually found, lying parallel to the stage, and on each side of the door which leads out from the front wall of the stage into the orchestra.[500] A similar arrangement might easily have been adopted, when necessary, in the Hellenistic theatres.

In support of his theory Dörpfeld brings forward an argument based on the theatre at Megalopolis (Fig. 11). We have already described the peculiar construction of this theatre, in which the Thersilion took the place of the ordinary stage-buildings. In front of the Thersilion, and twenty-four feet distant from it, is the foundation-wall of a wooden proscenium. This proscenium, however, appears to have been of later date than the original theatre. Dörpfeld supposes that, before its erection, the actors performed their parts immediately in front of the Thersilion, and on the level of the orchestra. He bases his belief on the following grounds. The façade of the Thersilion rested on a flight of five steps, each about thirteen inches high. To one side of the Thersilion was a building, apparently called the Skanotheka, and probably used for storing the scenic decorations. In this building are the remains of a low wall, running in the same straight line as the bottom of the flight of steps, and about the same length as the stage must have been. Dörpfeld supposes that this wall was used, in the original state of the theatre, for working a ‘scaena ductilis’. He supposes that, when dramas were to be performed, a wooden scene-painting was pushed out along this wall immediately in front of the lowest step of the Thersilion, and served as a background. The actors in front of it must have been on the floor of the orchestra.[501] But this arrangement appears to be impossible. If the back-scene had been placed in the position he supposes, immediately in front of the steep flight of steps, the representation of dramas would have been little short of ridiculous. The actor entering from the back-scene would have had to come down these steps to reach the threshold of the door. At first little more than his legs would have been seen, at any rate by the spectators in the upper part of the theatre. His whole person would hardly have become visible until he reached the lowest step. For a tragic actor to make his entrance in this way would have been far from dignified. Also, in plays like the Hippolytus and the Alcestis, when a sick woman on a couch had to be carried out, it would have been extremely awkward to have to carry her down a flight of steps as steep as those at Megalopolis. The ekkyklema would, of course, have been quite impossible to work. Again, it seems certain that the supposed ‘scaena ductilis’ would itself be quite unworkable. Is it likely that a huge painted board, more than a hundred feet long and more than twenty-five feet high, was pulled out in front of the Thersilion to serve as a back-scene? The ‘scaena ductilis’ (cf. Serv. ad Verg. Georg. iii. 24), which Dörpfeld thinks was such as has been described, was not a contrivance of this sort, but was a small affair, a variety of the ‘scaena versilis’ or periaktos; it was drawn _apart_, to disclose a new scene behind, and was not drawn across the stage. Moreover, the construction of ancient theatres, even of those with side-wings, shows that there was no room and no opportunity for the hauling to and fro of huge boards such as Dörpfeld imagines. It is true that much remains obscure in regard to the theatre at Megalopolis; but this solution at least is out of the question.[502] Although, therefore, the Skanotheka at Megalopolis may very likely have been used for the storage of scenery, it is clear that this scenery, when used, cannot have been put up in the place which Dörpfeld suggests.

Another argument against the ordinary theory is based by Dörpfeld on the remains of the theatre at Delos (Fig. 12). We have shown that at Delos the proscenium was continued, though in a different form, round the sides and back of the stage-buildings.[503] Dörpfeld argues that it cannot have been a stage, as it would be absurd to erect a stage all round the stage-buildings.[504] If this is so, we might reply that it cannot have been a background either, since it would be equally absurd to construct a background in the same position. But as a matter of fact there is nothing in the arrangement at Delos which conflicts in any way with the ordinary opinion about the Greek stage. The erection at the sides and the back of the stage-buildings, though of the same height as the erection in front, was different in structure, and formed an open portico. The erection in front was like the usual Hellenistic proscenium, and must have been designed for the same purpose. If the proscenium in other theatres was intended for a stage, it must have been intended for a stage at Delos.

Dörpfeld has a theory about the origin of the Roman stage, which he brings forward as a strong argument in favour of his other views. According to Vitruvius the Roman stage was developed out of the Greek. The difference in size was due to the following reasons. The Romans preferred to give up the orchestra to the spectators and to transfer all performances to the stage. It was necessary, therefore, to deepen the stage, in order to find room for the additional performers. It was also necessary to lower it, in order to allow the spectators in the orchestra to have a clear view.[505] Dörpfeld says that this account of the matter is erroneous. According to his theory the Roman stage was discovered by accident rather than by design. The Romans, when they first began to adapt the Greek theatre to their own purposes, found the orchestra too large, and consequently divided it in two. The half nearest the auditorium they dug out to a depth of five feet, and placed spectators there. The other half they used for theatrical and other performances, just as it had been used by the Greeks. In this way they found that they had got what was practically a stage five feet high; and for the future, instead of digging out the nearer half of the orchestra, they started on the level, and built a raised stage. The Roman stage therefore represents, not the Greek proscenium, but the further half of the Greek orchestra; and this fact proves that it was in the orchestra that the Greek actors performed.[506] This theory is no doubt extremely ingenious. But unfortunately it appears to be inconsistent with the facts of the case. If it was true, we should expect to find the stage in all Roman theatres occupying the site of one half of the Greek orchestra, and the back of the Roman stage corresponding to the front of the Greek proscenium. Now in the normal Roman theatre this is more or less the case. The Romans eventually reduced their orchestra to a semicircle, and brought their stage forward to the position described by Dörpfeld. But the Graeco-Roman theatres of Asia Minor, to which we have already referred, fail entirely to correspond to his hypothesis. These theatres were among the earliest to be built in the Roman fashion, and might therefore be expected, more than any others, to exemplify the process of transition which he describes. But what do we find? We find that the stage, so far from occupying one half of the orchestra, stands in exactly the same position as the old Greek proscenium. The orchestra in these theatres still forms nearly a complete circle. The stage is deepened by pushing the back-scene more into the rear. Further than this, the height of the stage is not five feet, as it ought to be, but from eight to nine feet.[507] These examples seem to prove that Vitruvius is more correct than Dörpfeld in his view of the matter; and that the Roman stage was really a modification of the Greek. When we find in these Asia Minor theatres a Roman stage standing in exactly the same position as the proscenium in the Greek theatres, and differing only in being longer and deeper, and two or three feet lower, we can hardly resist the conclusion that the Greek proscenium was the prototype of the Roman, and that it was intended for the same purpose.

The proscenium in a Greek theatre was called, among other names, the ‘logeion’ or ‘speaking-place’. It is so called by Vitruvius, and the word ‘logeion’ occurs in Delian inscriptions as early as the third century B.C.[508]. This being so, we are naturally led to ask how this fact is to be reconciled with Dörpfeld’s theory. If the proscenium was the background, and not the stage, why should it have been called ‘logeion’ or the speaking-place? Dörpfeld gives the following answer. He says that in Greek tragedies the gods, when exhibited in a supernatural manner, used to make their appearance on the palace roof, or, in other words, on the proscenium; and that it was therefore called the ‘theologeion’, or for shortness the ‘logeion’.[509] But this statement will not bear examination. The usual device for revealing gods in supernatural splendour was the mechane, and not the theologeion. Even when the theologeion was employed, there is no evidence to show that it was identical with the palace roof.[510] The contrivance for enabling actors to stand on the roof of a palace or other building was called the ‘distegia’. Instances of its employment are rare. In the extant dramas there are only eight or nine certain examples.[511] If, therefore, the proscenium really represented the building in the background, the top of it cannot have been called the ‘speaking-place’ because the actors spoke from it. Eight or nine instances out of forty-four dramas are insufficient to justify us in regarding it as a regular speaking-place. The plain statement of Vitruvius, that the ‘pulpitum’ of the actors was in Greek called ‘logeion’, Dörpfeld attempts to get round by supposing that the place which had been the ‘theologeion’, or, more shortly, ‘logeion’—the speaking-place of gods—retained its name by a natural conservatism when employed by actors. This is ingenious; but it is surely far more natural to suppose that it was called ‘logeion’ all along because it was the regular speaking-place for all actors, and not only for occasional gods.[512]

We have now considered the principal arguments which can be brought forward on either side concerning this stage question, as far as it relates to the later period. Some minor points have been omitted; but they would not affect the question very much either way. The result appears to show that, at any rate as far as the later period is concerned, the evidence in favour of a stage altogether outweighs any considerations which can be adduced on the other side.

2. THE EARLIER STAGE. We now come to the earlier and more important period, the period of the fifth century, when the drama was still in reality a choral drama, and the fourth century, during which the chorus was rapidly declining in importance, but was still commonly employed.

For the fourth century we have the testimony of Aristotle. Aristotle in many places speaks of the songs of the actors as τὰ ἀπὸ τῆς σκηνῆς, in opposition to the songs of the chorus, τὰ τοῦ χοροῦ.[513] Further he speaks of the actor’s part as being played ἐπὶ τῆς σκηνῆς.[514] According to the usual interpretation of these passages, he means that the actors played their part ‘upon the stage’, and sang their songs ‘from the stage’. Dörpfeld, however, proposes in these cases to translate the word σκηνή as the ‘background’, and not as the ‘stage’. He supposes Aristotle to mean that the actors performed ‘at the background’, and sang their songs ‘from the background’. He denies that the two expressions imply the existence of a stage.[515] Now the translations which he suggests may be possible, as far as the Greek is concerned. But it is very difficult to believe that they are the right translations in these particular passages of Aristotle. Aristotle’s words seem to clearly imply that there was some essential and conspicuous difference between the position of the actors and that of the chorus.[516] But if, as Dörpfeld thinks, they all performed together in the orchestra, there would be no such distinguishing mark. It is true that the actors might, for the most part, be rather nearer to the stage-buildings; and the chorus might, for the most part, be rather more distant from them. But practically they would be standing in the same place; there would be no pronounced difference. Aristotle’s words appear to be explicable only on the supposition that the actors appeared upon a stage, the chorus in the orchestra.

For the fifth century we have the evidence supplied by the use of certain words in Aristophanes. In three places, where an actor is approaching the back-scene, he is said to ‘mount up’ (ἀναβαίνειν).[517] In two other places, where he is leaving the back-scene, he is said to ‘go down’ (καταβαίνειν).[518] In all these passages there is nothing in the circumstances of the drama to suggest that the action was taking place on raised ground. The expressions can only refer, as the scholiast says, to the stage. It has been proposed to translate the two words as ‘come on’ and ‘depart’ respectively.[519] But such a usage of the terms is otherwise unknown in Greek. Moreover, in one place—the scene in the Knights—this translation is proved to be impossible. Here Demosthenes calls out to the sausage-seller, ‘mount up here’ (ἀνάβαινε δεῦρο). He then shows him the people, the markets, and the harbours; and tells him that he will be lord of all. But this is not enough. He says, ‘you have not seen all yet’, and bids him ‘mount up on to this table also’; and then proceeds to show him the islands round about.[520] These words show conclusively that ἀναβαίνειν must mean ‘mount up’ in the previous passage, and likewise determine the meaning of this word, and of καταβαίνειν, in the parallel passages.

The extant dramas have been carefully ransacked during the last few years,[521] and it is not likely that many new points will now be discovered. Much of the evidence that has been brought forward on both sides of the question is really of little value. It depends upon a too scrupulous and literal interpretation of the text, or upon a forgetfulness of the fact that there is much that is conventional in all dramatic performances. For instance, when old men are approaching the palace, and complain of the steepness of the way, this fact is supposed to be a proof of the existence of a stage.[522] It is suggested that they enter by the orchestra, and that the ascent of which they complain is the ascent on to the stage. But, if this was so, these old men must have timed their entrance very exactly, so as to reach the foot of the stage just when they came to the verses in which they began to grumble about the ascent. And this, combined with the obvious inadequacy of the ascent on to the stage to represent a really fatiguing road, would make the whole proceeding rather ludicrous. It seems more natural to assume that their remarks had no reference to the stage, and that the steepness of which they complain was left to the imagination of the spectators. Then again, the appearances of ghosts and spectres are cited as evidence in favour of a stage. It is said that they could not be made to appear from underground, unless there was a raised platform out of which they ascended. Now there is no doubt that in the later theatre ghosts were made to arise from beneath the earth. Pollux gives a description of the mechanism by which it was done. But there is no certain proof that they made their appearance in this way during the fifth century. It would be unsafe, therefore, to infer anything from these spectral apparitions concerning the structure of the early theatre. Again, there are those scenes in which the chorus might be expected to enter the palace, but fail to do so. For instance, when Medea’s children are being murdered, and call out for help, the chorus, after proposing to rush to their assistance, eventually remain where they are and sing an ode.[523] But it is unnecessary, in this and in similar cases, to explain their inaction by supposing that there was any difficulty in passing from the orchestra to the palace because of the stage which lay between. A sufficient reason is to be found in the fact that, if they had gone into the palace, the scene of action would have been left empty.

It will be best to disregard all evidence of this inconclusive kind, and to confine our attention to those points which really throw light upon the question as to the relative position of actors and chorus during the fifth century. The following facts seem to be established. It is evident that the chorus sometimes entered and sometimes departed through the back-scene. Instances are not very common; there are only about six in the extant dramas.[524] Still, they undoubtedly occur. It is evident, too, that the actors sometimes entered by the orchestra. They must have done so when they entered along with the chorus, and they probably did so when they entered in chariots or wagons.[525] This gives us about seven instances where the actors came in by the orchestra. They may have done so much more frequently. This is a point which will be considered later on. But these seven cases are the only ones for which there is any convincing evidence. On the other hand, it was a common thing for actors and chorus to depart together through the orchestra. Many plays end in this way, such as the Eumenides and the Septem. In Aristophanes it is a favourite form of conclusion for actors and chorus to go off through the orchestra in a joyful procession.[526] The general result then is this, that it was plainly permissible in the fifth century for the chorus to enter or leave by the back-scene, and for the actors to enter or leave by the orchestra; though the last of these practices is the only one of which there are many certain examples. But when we pass on from these entrances and exits, and look at the rest of the play, we find that it is very unusual, during the course of the action, for the chorus to come on the stage, or for the actors to go into the orchestra. The instances in which, apart from entrances and exits, the actors and the chorus can be shown to have come into close physical contact with one another, are remarkably few. We may mention, as examples, the scene in which the chorus tries to prevent Creon from seizing Antigone, and the scene where the farmers mount the stage to draw the statue of Peace out of the well. Opinions may differ as to individual cases, but the total number of instances of this kind does not amount, at the outside, to more than about fifteen.[527] The conclusion we may draw from this evidence is as follows. There was nothing in the fifth century theatre to prevent the actors from moving into the place occupied by the chorus, and there was nothing to prevent the chorus moving into the place occupied by the actors. But, except when they were entering or leaving the scene of action, they do not appear to have done so usually, but to have kept apart from one another.

What then does all this prove as regards the stage? On the one hand, it proves conclusively that the stage of the fifth century cannot have been as high as the ordinary later or Hellenistic stage. If the fifth-century stage had been twelve feet above the level of the orchestra, there would have been the greatest awkwardness in actors and chorus passing from one place to the other. But, on the other hand, it does not in any way exclude the possibility of there having been a stage of some kind or another. If we suppose that the fifth-century stage was lower and deeper than that of later times, and that it was connected with the orchestra by a long flight of steps, or by a sloping ascent, all difficulties about the performance of the extant dramas disappear. Actors and chorus could easily pass from stage to orchestra, or vice versa. The fact that they so seldom came into contact with one another, except when entering or leaving the theatre, is a strong confirmation of the view that there was a stage of some kind, and that it was reserved in most cases for the actors, while the usual place for the chorus was in the orchestra.

The main reason for the employment of a stage must have been to make the actors clearly visible to the audience, and to prevent the view of them being impeded by the chorus in the orchestra. A few feet of elevation would be sufficient to produce this result. Dörpfeld, it is true, denies that any such precaution was necessary. He denies that the actors, even without a stage, would have been hidden from view by the chorus.[528] But if we look at the plan of a Greek theatre, it is clear that if the actors were in the orchestra, and the chorus stood in front of them, the chorus must have obstructed the view of a great many of the spectators. In fact we have ancient testimony to that effect. The tragic chorus stood in three rows. We are told that the worst and most ungainly choristers (the ‘laurostatae’, as they were called) were placed in the middle row, because they were not clearly seen by the spectators.[529] But, however the chorus stood, there could only have been _one_ row between these ‘laurostatae’ and the audience. If, then, the actors had been in the orchestra, with _three_ rows of choristers in front of them, the obstruction to the view would obviously have been very much greater. And it is important to remember that the spectators who would have suffered most by this arrangement would have been the occupants of the lowest tiers of seats. Now these seats were reserved as seats of honour, and were confined to high officials and distinguished citizens. Hence, if Dörpfeld’s theory is correct, the distinction which the Athenians bestowed upon their leading citizens cannot have been one of very much value. The benches which they assigned to them must have been the worst seats for view in the whole theatre.[530]

Dörpfeld further objects that, if we suppose a low stage at Athens in the fifth century, the history of the Greek stage becomes a very fantastic and peculiar affair. We have first a stage of five or six feet, then in the next period it rises to about twelve feet, then later on in the Roman period it suddenly drops to five again. His own theory, he says, is much simpler. There was no stage at all till the Roman period, and then a stage of five feet was erected.[531] But the figures given by Dörpfeld are quite fallacious. There was no sudden rise and fall of the kind he describes. We have no means of determining the exact height of the stage during the fifth century. But when we come to the later period we find that it was not fixed at twelve feet, but varied from eight to thirteen. There was no settled rule. Architects naturally tried new experiments. Different heights were adopted in different places. Probably there was just the same variety and love of experiment in the early period. Again, when we come to the Roman period, we do not find that the height of the stage was suddenly fixed at five feet. In many places it was as much as eight or nine. Wherever we look in the history of the Greek theatre, we perceive a gradual transition from one type of stage to another; and the reasons for the successive changes are generally to be explained by the varying circumstances of the contemporary drama.

The archaeological evidence on the subject of the early stage has already been discussed.[532] Unfortunately it amounts to very little. The oldest stage-buildings, being made of wood, have disappeared without leaving any trace behind them. However, such evidence as can be obtained tends to confirm the testimony of the dramas themselves, and to show that the stage of the fifth century was lower and deeper than that of subsequent times. There is also this point to be taken into consideration. The existence of a lofty stage during the Hellenistic period and perhaps from the fourth century onwards appears to be now proved by irresistible testimony. This being so, it is altogether improbable on general grounds that there should have been no stage at all during the preceding period. To suppose that the Greeks began without any stage of any kind, and then after so long a time suddenly erected a stage about twelve feet high, is a most unlikely hypothesis. But if we imagine that a stage existed from the first, and that it was a low one in the fifth century, and was then gradually raised in consequence of the changed character of the drama, the process becomes much more intelligible. The presence of a stage during the later period is strong presumptive evidence in favour of an earlier one.[533]

The last few years have been prolific in new theories on the subject of the stage. Most of them may be regarded as developments or modifications of Dörpfeld’s views. Before leaving this subject it may be well to give a brief account of the more important of them. Bethe considers that there can no longer be any doubt as to the existence of the Hellenistic stage. He also agrees that the passages in Aristophanes prove the use of a low stage at the time when Aristophanes wrote. But for the greater part of the fifth century he denies its existence. He considers that the first Greek stage was erected in 427 or in 426, and that this date was an important epoch in the development of the theatre. He founds his belief on the fact that after this date there is no further instance of the use of the ekkyklema, while before this date there is no example of the use of the mechane, the theologeion, and the drop-scene.[534] But, in the first place, it is by no means clear why the presence or absence of these contrivances should involve the existence or non-existence of a stage. In the second place, his dates are open to question. There is no proof, as we shall see later on, that the machinery which he mentions was introduced or discontinued at the time specified. Another theory has been put forward by Weissmann. He, too, accepts the Hellenistic stage, but agrees with Dörpfeld that in the fifth century actors and chorus performed on the same level. However, he thinks that the passages in which old men complain of the steepness of the road prove that there must have been a raised platform which they had to ascend. As one of these passages—that in the Hercules Furens—is spoken by the chorus, he comes to the conclusion that there was a large platform for actors and chorus combined. This platform extended from the back-scene over a considerable part of the orchestra, and on it stood the actors and chorus, both on the same level.[535] To this it may be answered, that the evidence on which he relies is far too slight a justification for such a sweeping hypothesis. Also on general grounds it is inconceivable that the Greeks, when they already possessed an orchestra which was admirably adapted for choral performances, should have taken the trouble to erect a huge platform on the top of it. Christ agrees in the main with Weissmann. He accepts the Hellenistic stage for the later period, and also the platform for the chorus in the orchestra during the fifth century. But he thinks the passages in Aristophanes prove that the actors even then stood higher than the chorus. He therefore supposes two stages: one immediately before the back-scene, for the actors; and another larger and lower one in the orchestra, for the use of the chorus.[536] He thus eventually comes round to the same conclusion as Wieseler, though by a very different process. His theory, however, is open to the same objections as that of Weissmann. This orchestral platform is utterly improbable in itself, and is unsupported by any sufficient evidence. Lastly, there is Robert’s hypothesis. Robert denies the existence of a stage during the fifth century; but supposes that one was erected in the course of the fourth century for the performance of new plays, in which there was practically no chorus. Henceforth new plays were acted on the stage, old plays in front of it, in the orchestra.[537] But it is impossible to suppose that in the same theatre, and at the same festival, the proscenium should have served at one time as a stage, and at another time as a background. Nor is there anything in the ancient authorities to support such a view.

§ 14. _Various Details._

To return to the subject of the construction of the theatre in general. It is obvious that, considering the enormous size of the building, and the immense numbers of spectators which it was intended to accommodate, the greatest attention must have been bestowed upon its acoustic properties. Vitruvius is most emphatic upon the necessity of keeping this object in view, when choosing a site for a theatre. The situation against the side of a hill, and the gentle and symmetrical upward slope of the tiers of seats, are mentioned as qualities by which acoustic excellence was ensured. The height of the stage-buildings was also of great importance. It was found that the best results were obtained by making them exactly the same height as the uppermost parts of the auditorium.[538] That this was the ordinary practice during the Roman period is proved by the remains of various theatres, such as those of Aspendos and Orange. But whether, at any time during the Greek period, stage-buildings were constructed on this enormous scale is very doubtful. Another matter on which the ancient architects insisted was the wooden flooring of the stage, which tended to make the voices of the actors more audible. When Alexander the Great wished to have a stage built entirely of bronze, it was pointed out to him that this material would be fatal from the acoustic point of view.[539] Vitruvius mentions a peculiar practice which was adopted for the purpose of adding resonance to the voices of the actors. Hollow vessels of bronze, of different tones, were suspended in niches in various parts of the auditorium. When a sound was uttered of the same tone as that of any of the vessels, its resonance was increased. He states that this custom, though not adopted in Rome, existed in many Greek and Italian theatres; and that Mummius, after his capture of Corinth, brought back several of these vessels from the theatre there.[540] In the remains of the existing theatres no traces are to be found of the niches he describes. It is probable that the whole plan was merely an experiment adopted in a few special cases. As far as Athens was concerned, no such extraneous assistance to the voice was necessary. Experiments at the present day have shown that the acoustic properties of the theatre of Dionysus are excellent; and this must have been still more the case when the stage-buildings were standing. Probably therefore, in spite of the vast numbers of the audience, the persons in the back rows could hear the words spoken in the orchestra and upon the stage much more clearly than might at first have been supposed.

Another point mentioned by Vitruvius in connexion with the theatre is the advantage of erecting porticoes in the rear of the stage-buildings, to serve as a shelter for the people in case of a sudden shower of rain, and also for the convenience of the choregi. He adds that at Athens there were three buildings close to the theatre, which served admirably for this purpose. These were the Odeion, the temple of Dionysus, and the Portico of Eumenes.[541] The Odeion here referred to was that built by Pericles, which probably stood on the eastern side of the theatre, though its exact site has not yet been determined with certainty.[542] The temple of Dionysus mentioned by Vitruvius is apparently the older of the two temples, marked _t_ in the plan, and lying to the south-west of the stage-buildings. The Portico of Eumenes is supposed to have been built by Eumenes II, in the beginning of the second century, and it is thought that traces of it are to be found stretching westwards from the theatre.[543] Immediately to the south of the stage-buildings are the foundations of a long rectangular erection, belonging to the same date as the stage-buildings themselves, and marked _s_ in the plan. This erection was no doubt a portico, built in the fourth century for the purpose described by Vitruvius. In the theatre itself there was no protection for the general mass of the people either from the sun or from the rain. The huge canvas awnings, suspended upon masts, which the Latin writers refer to, were an invention of the Italians, and were only adopted in Greek theatres at a very late period.[544]

The interior of the theatre at Athens was decorated with the statues of various public persons, some distinguished, others not. In the time of Lycurgus bronze statues were erected in honour of Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides.[545] Pausanias mentions that in his time there were several statues of dramatic poets in the theatre, but, with the exception of Sophocles, Euripides, and Menander, they were all very obscure individuals.[546] The base of Menander’s statue, with an inscription recording his name and the name of the sculptor, has been discovered near the western parodos. Its original site, however, is unknown.[547] Astydamas, the tragic poet, was voted a statue in the theatre on account of the excellence of his tragedy called Parthenopaeus. He wrote an epigram to be inscribed upon the base, regretting that he had not been born in the time of the great tragic writers, so as to be able to compete with worthy antagonists. The Athenians were so disgusted with his conceit, that they refused to allow the epigram to be inscribed, and the expression, ‘to praise one’s self like Astydamas,’ passed into a proverb.[548] The statue of Astydamas originally stood at the inside corner of the auditorium on the western side, and there was probably a corresponding statue on the eastern side.[549] One of the grammarians says that there were also statues of Themistocles and Miltiades in the theatre, each with a captured Persian standing beside him. But his statement is probably a fiction, invented to explain the passage on which he was commenting, and which he misunderstood.[550] In later times, it is stated, a statue of Eurycleides the conjuror was erected in the theatre.[551] It is probable that during the reign of Hadrian thirteen statues of him were placed in the thirteen different blocks of the auditorium. The inscriptions on the bases of four of these statues have been found in the existing remains of the theatre.[552] In addition to the statues, various votive offerings were erected in the two side-entrances. Many of the bases were still in their original position when the theatre was first excavated, but they have now mostly disappeared. Four of them, however, still remain. One of them supported the memorial erected by Xenocles in 306, to commemorate his services as Agonothetes. The other three belong to the Roman period.[553] There were also various inscriptions and tablets connected with theatrical affairs. A copy of the decree of the Amphictyonic Council, conferring certain privileges upon the Athenian actors, was inscribed on stone and put up in the theatre.[554] Numerous records of dramatic and dithyrambic contests were erected either in the theatre or in the immediate neighbourhood. There were lists of the victors in all the competitions at the Lenaea and the City Dionysia. There were lists of all the tragedies and comedies ever produced in the theatre at Athens. There were lists of all the poets and actors who had competed there, with the number of their victories appended to each name. An account of these various records has already been given at the end of the first chapter.

Before concluding this description of the theatre of Dionysus it may be interesting to give some account of the various other purposes for which it was used at different times, in addition to its primary object as a place for dramatic representations and contests of dithyrambic choruses. The recitations of the rhapsodists, and the competitions between the harp-players, were also transferred to the same place from the Odeion, in which they had been held previously.[555] Besides this, various ceremonies unconnected with art took place in the theatre during the festivals of Dionysus. Those which took place at the commencement of the City Dionysia have already been mentioned.[556] The annual cock-fight in commemoration of the Persian invasion was also held in the theatre.[557] But the most important of the non-dramatic purposes for which the theatre came to be used was that of a meeting-place for the assemblies of the people. In the fifth and fourth centuries the regular place of assembly was the Pnyx. But already at a very early period special assemblies used to be held in the theatre after each festival of Dionysus, to discuss matters connected with the festival.[558] These semi-religious meetings probably paved the way for the later practice of holding ordinary meetings there. As early as the year 411, on the occasion of the overthrow of the Four Hundred, Thucydides mentions that an assembly of the people was held in the theatre.[559] It was in the theatre that the meeting was convened which condemned Phocion and his friends to death in 317 B.C.[560] In 295 Demetrius, after capturing the city, summoned a gathering of the people in the theatre.[561] These meetings were all of a special character, and were not regular assemblies of the people; but they served as precedents for the use of the theatre for political, as opposed to religious and artistic, purposes. Similarly, we are told on the authority of Aristotle that the Ephebi received their shields and spears from the state at assemblies of the people in the theatre.[562] After the middle of the third century the theatre became the regular meeting-place. The Pnyx henceforward was only used for assemblies for the election of magistrates.[563] In this later period the theatre was also used for various exhibitions which seemed unworthy of its character as a temple of Dionysus. Sword-swallowers, conjurors, and exhibitors of puppet-shows are mentioned among the entertainers who occupied the stage which had formerly been dignified by Euripides.[564] But the greatest degradation which the theatre at Athens ever suffered was when, under the influence of Roman custom, it was given up to gladiatorial combats. This was a pollution which called forth indignant protests from writers such as Philostratus and Dion Chrysostom.[565]

##