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]