The most essential difference between the theatre which we are

considering and that of the fifth century lay in the substitution of

a tall and narrow stage for a low and comparatively deep one. This

change was far more important than a mere change of material from wood

to stone. The question naturally arises, what was the reason for the

alteration? The answer is to be found in the fact that the Greek drama

itself passed through a no less radical transformation at the same time.

In the course of the fourth century it was gradually transformed from a

choral to a non-choral drama. When we come to the third century we find

that the chorus, which once played the chief part both in tragedy and

comedy, had sunk into insignificance. It was often discarded altogether.

When retained, it had nothing to do but to sing interludes between the

successive acts. Its presence no more implied that the play was a choral

play than the presence of the band in a modern theatre implies that the

performance is an opera. The old intercourse between actors and chorus

was a thing of the past.[429] The low deep stage was no longer necessary,

to enable actors and chorus to converse together, or to supply room, when

required, for the presence of the chorus by the side of the actors. Under

these circumstances it would obviously be an advantage to make the stage

as high as possible, in order to improve the view of the upper rows of

spectators. The ancient theatres were of enormous size. At Athens, for

example, the topmost tier of seats was 300 feet distant from the stage,

and 100 feet above the level of the orchestra. In such a theatre, the

higher the stage, the better would be the view of the majority of the

audience. It was doubtless for this reason that the stage was raised to

about ten or twelve feet in the course of the third century. At the same

time its depth was necessarily diminished, in order that the spectators

in the lowest rows might be able to see down to the end of it. The loss

of depth was of no importance in the acting of a play, because of the

practical exclusion of the chorus from the stage.

In connexion with this subject a difficulty has been raised by some

scholars which deserves consideration. It is generally admitted that the

Vitruvian stage was well adapted for the later kind of drama. But from

the fourth century down to Roman times the theatre was used quite as much

for the revival of old plays as for the representation of new ones. It is

contended that the ancient plays, with their intimate connexion between

actors and chorus, could not possibly have been exhibited on a stage

which was raised twelve feet above the level of the orchestra. In answer

to this objection it may be pointed out that the only ancient plays which

were ever revived during the period with which we are now dealing were

those of Sophocles and Euripides. Aeschylus and Aristophanes had gone

out of fashion. The plays of Sophocles and Euripides could easily have

been adapted for the Vitruvian stage by excisions and modifications in

the choral part. If the chorus, as sometimes happened, took an important

share in the dialogue, its part on such occasions might be given to extra

characters on the stage. That the old plays were revised and adapted in

this manner at a later period is proved by the express testimony of Dion

Chrysostomus,[430] and there is no improbability in assuming that the

same practice had begun to prevail as early as the third century B.C.

It might, however, sometimes be necessary, during the revival of the

ancient dramas, to provide a means of communication between stage and

orchestra. In such cases temporary wooden steps were placed in front of

the proscenium. There is ample evidence for the use of this contrivance.

Pollux tells us that when the players entered by the orchestra they

ascended the stage by means of steps.[431] Athenaeus, the writer on

military engines, speaks of the steps which were placed in front of the

stage for the use of the actors.[432] Steps of this kind are depicted

in several vase-paintings from Magna Graecia, belonging to the third

century B.C., and representing theatrical scenes.[433] There is also

a wall-painting at Herculaneum, which shows us one of these flights of

steps standing by itself, with an actor’s mask at the top.[434] From

these indications we see that, although there was no permanent means of

communication between stage and orchestra in the Hellenistic theatres, a

temporary connexion could always be supplied when necessary.

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

The theory of Puchstein, already so often alluded to, ascribes to

Lycurgus the construction of the proscenium consisting of stone columns

and pinakes, and throws back to the end of the fifth century the

Lycurgean structures usually so called. His principal ground for this

change of date lies in the development which he traces in the form of

the columns in question.[435] He thinks it certain that the use of full

columns must have preceded that of half-columns, and that columns without

special contrivances for holding pinakes must be earlier than simple

ones. Thus the full columns of the proscenia of Athens, Sicyon, and the

Peiraeeus, which have no such contrivances, will belong to the earliest

period of stone proscenia; they will be earlier than those of Megalopolis

and Eretria, which have rims for holding the pinakes, and still earlier

than the plain half-columns of Epidaurus and the grooved half-columns

of Priene, Assos, Delos, Pleuron, Oropus, &c. The proscenia of Priene,

Pleuron, and Delos appear to belong to the third century B.C.; and

Puchstein accordingly throws back the Athenian columned proscenium to the

latter half of the fourth century, the time of Lycurgus. The theory is at

least plausible; but it is not certain. Development is not always in a

straight line or in logical order, and does not always require intervals

of many years between one stage and another; different experiments

may be tried simultaneously in different cases, and recurrence to old

types, or preservation of them after new ones have been invented, is a

common thing in the history of architecture. The form of the proscenium,

therefore, cannot be used with certainty as a chronological criterion,

though it may be very suggestive. It follows, in Puchstein’s view, from

the earlier dating of the stone proscenium, that the so-called Lycurgean

stage-building, with its deep side-wings, must have been erected some

time before Lycurgus, towards the end of the fifth or beginning of

the fourth century. The date which Puchstein suggests for the stone

proscenium at Athens is certainly more probable on _a priori_ grounds

than that given by Dörpfeld. According to Dörpfeld’s chronology, the

earliest stage-buildings at Athens were apparently later than those at

Eretria and other Greek cities. Dörpfeld has conceded that the old skene

at Eretria is of the fourth or fifth century, and may be older than the

Lycurgean.[436] But it is hard to believe that the city in which the

drama was first developed should not have been the first also to provide

itself with a permanent stage.

Professor E. A. Gardner also shows reasons of a technical character in

favour of the earlier date.[437] The foundations of the chryselephantine

statue of Dionysus by Alcamenes are of conglomerate and breccia.

Alcamenes was at work during the latter half of the fifth century; and

the later temple in the precinct below the theatre was built to contain

this statue. Now, as Professor Gardner points out, it is unlikely that

the Athenians would have undertaken so costly a work in the later part

of the Peloponnesian war. On the other hand, there is no trace of the

use of breccia in foundations in the Periclean age. The temple probably

therefore dates from the time between the Peace of Nicias in 421 B.C. and

the Sicilian expedition in 415 B.C. And if the temple was built then, it

is not unlikely that the theatre may have been begun at the same time.

The fact that the architectural technique of the theatre, particularly in

the use of conglomerate blocks, is the same as that of the temple points

the same way. The work may have begun about B.C. 420, and progressed

gradually and continuously up to the time of Lycurgus. The exact year in

which the higher stage was erected cannot, of course, be fixed.[438]

Puchstein also doubts whether the whole of the existing auditorium

was built in the time of Lycurgus.[439] There is a fragment of a wall

(not marked) in front of _a—a_ in the plan, which Dörpfeld does not

mention in his text, though he marks it in one of his plans.[440] This,

Puchstein suggests, is the supporting wall of an auditorium older than

the Lycurgean. Besides this he finds evidence of stone seats in the

fifth century. It has already been mentioned that a stone built into the

western wing of the auditorium contains a fifth-century inscription.[441]

This inscription consists of the words βολῆς ὑπηρετῶν, and was probably

part of a seat-step, reserved for the servants of the βουλή. If so, there

must have been a stone auditorium before the time of Lycurgus.

A further point in Puchstein’s theory concerns the height of the stage

in the building which he assigns to the fifth century.[442] The only

possible purpose of the deep side-wings was to enclose a stage. The

analogy of later theatres of the same type, such as those of Tyndaris

and Segesta, where traces of the stage still remain, render any other

conclusion indefensible. No other hypothesis has any support from any

monuments whatever. This stage may have been of wood, proscenium and all,

and this would account for its disappearance; or it may have had slight

stone supports, which might easily have left no trace. The height of

this old stage at Athens may be determined approximately by a comparison

with the almost contemporary stage-buildings at Eretria, where there is

evidence to show that the stage must have been not less than nine or ten

feet from the ground. But this does not mean that still earlier the stage

was not, as previously contended,[443] a comparatively low one, such

as would be suitable for the plays of Aeschylus and the earlier plays

of Aristophanes. Nor is the existence of a high stage about 400 B.C.

inconsistent with the presence of a chorus, as Dörpfeld thinks.[444] The

decision depends not on the presence of a chorus, but on the intimacy of

the connexion between the chorus and the actors. As long as they freely

commingled together, the stage must have been moderately low. But when

the chorus ceased to take any active part in the play, the raising of the

stage would do no harm, and would be an advantage, as giving the audience

a better view of the actors. Now it was precisely towards the end of the

fifth century that the chorus began to lose its old significance, and

to assume the functions of mere singers of interludes.[445] Hence there

would be nothing surprising if it were proved, and not merely rendered

likely, as by Puchstein, that at this date the stage began to be of a

greater height than formerly.

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

We have now followed the development of the stage-buildings from the old

wooden erections of the fifth century to the more solid and elaborate

structures of the Hellenistic period. All that remains is to trace their

history during the later ages of Roman supremacy. We have shown that

at Athens the stage-buildings were practically reconstructed after the

Roman fashion in the time of Nero. The same tendency had already become

prevalent in other places at a much earlier period. After the middle

of the first century B.C. most of the new theatres built by the Greeks

were constructed in the Roman style. The majority of the old ones began

about the same time to be altered and modified under Roman influence.

This latter process, however, was never carried out universally. It was

confined mainly to the more outlying parts of the Hellenic world, such

as Sicily and Asia Minor. In Greece proper it was a comparatively rare

occurrence. Athens and Argos are the only cities on the Greek mainland

which are known to have Romanized their theatres. Still, looking at

the Greek world as a whole, it may be said that from the time of the

Christian era the great majority of Hellenic theatres were adapted to

the Roman model. It was at this period that the stage-buildings began

to be constructed on a more lofty scale, and their front adorned with

the gorgeous architectural embellishments which we have previously

described. Some idea of their magnificence may be obtained from the

existing remains, and especially from those of the theatre at Aspendos,

which is well preserved. A restoration of part of the interior of this

theatre (Fig. 10) is here inserted.[446] The back-wall erected at Athens

in the time of Nero was of the same type, though smaller in size. Façades

of this imposing character may perhaps be thought too elaborate for the

back-wall of a theatre. When dramas were being performed, and they

were covered with painted scenery, their architectural beauty would be

concealed from the eyes of the spectators. But ancient theatres were

regularly used, not only for dramatic performances, but also for various

other purposes, both artistic and political. On such occasions, when the

stage was without scenic decoration, the architectural grandeur of the

back-wall would add greatly to the beauty of the stage-buildings, and

form a pleasing object to the eye. Probably, too, at many of the dramatic

exhibitions, when the action was laid before a temple or palace, painted

scenery was dispensed with, and the architectural façade supplied an

appropriate background.

[Illustration: FIG. 10.]

It will be seen from the illustration that in the theatre of Aspendos

there were five doors at the back of the stage. There was a large door

in the centre, and two smaller ones on each side. The same arrangement

was generally adopted in Graeco-Roman theatres. But Pollux and Vitruvius

speak of three doors as the regulation number.[447] Possibly, therefore,

the five doors of the later theatres were not all used during the

dramatic representations. When the stage was prepared for the performance

of a play, the two doors on the outside may have been covered up with

scenery; or temporary side-wings may have been erected in front of them.

Another noticeable feature in the theatre of Aspendos is the roof over

the stage. Traces of a similar roof are also found at Orange, and justify

the conclusion that in most theatres of the Roman type the stage was

covered over.[448] Whether the same practice prevailed in the Hellenistic

theatres there is no evidence to show. But the convenience of the

arrangement is so obvious, that we can hardly doubt that it began to be

employed at a comparatively early period.

In a large number of cases the process of Romanizing the Greek theatres

was not carried out completely. Many theatres, whether built or

reconstructed on the new model, still retained features which were

essentially Greek. This was the case at Athens. The Greek stage was

usually the same length as one diameter of the orchestra. The Roman stage

was twice as long, and extended some distance into the wings of the

auditorium on each side. There was no open space between the auditorium

and the side-wings; the place of the old Greek ‘parodoi’ was supplied

by vaulted subways. But at Athens, when the Neronian alterations were

made, the stage was not prolonged in the Roman style, but remained of the

same length as before. The entrances into the orchestra at _a_ and _g_

were thus left open (Fig. 3). In many other places, especially in Asia

Minor, the Romanization was of a still more partial kind. In theatres

such as those of Termessos, Perge, and Sagalassos the general outline

of the building was hardly affected by the change. The front line of

the stage was not pushed forward; the orchestra still remained nearly a

complete circle; open passages were left between the auditorium and the

stage-buildings. The only important alteration was in the size of the

stage, which was lengthened at each end, and deepened by throwing the

front of the stage-buildings farther back. The height of the stage was

but slightly diminished. In a Roman theatre it was usually five feet.

But the stages at Termessos, Sagalassos, and Patara vary from eight feet

to nine, and were therefore very little lower than the ordinary stage of

the Vitruvian type.[449]

These examples show how trifling in many cases was the difference between

the Graeco-Roman theatres and those of the purely Greek type. They also

throw some light on another question of considerable interest. In Roman

theatres all performances were confined to the stage; the orchestra was

given up to spectators of distinguished rank. It may be asked whether

the Greeks, when they built their theatres in the Roman style, adopted

the same custom. The answer seems to be that they did not. It is most

improbable that theatres should have been constructed in Asia Minor with

the old full-sized orchestra, unless this orchestra had been intended

as a place for choral performances. The fact that in many of these

theatres the stage was eight or nine feet high proves the same thing. If

the spectators had been placed immediately in front of it, their view

would have been very much obstructed. We know, too, that in the Athenian

theatre, even after the Roman stage had been introduced, the marble

thrones round the orchestra continued to be the chief seats of honour.

Hence it is evident that the orchestra must have been still a place for

the performers, and not a place for distinguished spectators. The chief

purpose of the Greeks, in Romanizing their theatres, was to provide

a deep and capacious stage for spectacles of the Roman type, such as

pantomimes and pyrrhic ballets. The old Greek performances were given as

before in the orchestra. As far as the drama is concerned, the orchestra

would seldom be required at this period, the lyrical part of tragedy and

comedy having now practically disappeared. But the choral and musical

competitions still flourished as vigorously as ever, and these were kept

to their original place, and not transferred to the stage.

§ 11. _Exceptional Stage-buildings._

The stage-buildings which we have hitherto described have been those

of the normal type. But there are several places in which peculiar and

exceptional structures were erected, either for reasons connected with

the nature of the ground, or for mere love of variety. Some of these may

be worth mentioning. The theatre at Pergamon was apparently built about

the beginning of the second century B.C.[450] But the stage-buildings,

instead of being made of stone, as was usual at that period, consisted

of temporary wooden erections, which were put up and taken down at

each festival. Stone blocks were let into the ground, with holes for

the reception of the beams by which the building was supported. When

the performances were over, the whole apparatus might be removed in a

short time. It was only at a later period that permanent stage-buildings

were constructed. The reason for this curious arrangement, according to

Dörpfeld, was to leave the way open to a temple in the neighbourhood.

As the auditorium lay on a terrace, with not much room in front of it,

permanent stage-buildings would have filled up the whole space, and

blocked the passage to the temple.

Another remarkable instance of deviation from the ordinary practice is

supplied by the theatre at Megalopolis.[451] In this theatre (Fig. 11)

the place of the stage-buildings was taken by a vast council-chamber,

called the Thersilion, which faced towards the auditorium. Its façade

consisted of a vestibule, 26 feet high, and resting on a flight of five

steps. Originally, when dramas were to be performed, a temporary wooden

stage was erected in front of the Thersilion. The foundation-wall for

a stage of this kind has been discovered, and lies at a distance of 24

feet from the columns of the vestibule. It is obvious therefore that

the vestibule cannot itself have formed the background. A stage 24 feet

across would have been far too deep for a Greek theatre. Temporary

scenic decorations must have been erected some feet in front of the

council-chamber. In later times a stone proscenium of the ordinary type

was erected on the site of the old wooden one. But when this was done,

it is probable that the Thersilion had fallen into ruins. Otherwise the

beauty of its appearance would have been altogether marred by the stone

structure in front of it.

[Illustration: FIG. 11.]

But the most peculiar of the stage-buildings which have hitherto been

discovered is that at Delos. A representation of the ground-plan (Fig.

12) is inserted on the next page.[452] This building consisted of a

single oblong room. In front of it was an ordinary proscenium, about

ten feet deep, and eight or nine feet high, resting on half-columns.

The spaces between the columns were filled, as usual, with painted

boards. The curious feature is that this same proscenium was continued

in a modified form round the rest of the building, so as to serve as a

portico. On the sides and in the rear it rested on rectangular pillars

instead of on columns. The spaces between the pillars were considerably

wider than the spaces between the columns, and were left open, instead

of being filled up with boards. Porticoes of this kind were often

erected close to the stage-buildings, as a shelter from the rain; but

the position of the one at Delos is altogether exceptional. Another

remarkable feature in this building is the fact that the proscenium was

open at each end, and was not even enclosed with a wall. When dramas

were being performed, wooden side-wings must have been put up for the

occasion.[453]

[Illustration: FIG. 12.]

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

In a Greek dramatic performance the relative position occupied by actors

and chorus was quite unlike anything to be seen in a modern theatre.

The actors appeared upon a raised platform, the chorus performed in the

orchestra underneath. When the actors were present, and the dialogue

was proceeding, the chorus stood with their backs towards the audience,

and their faces towards the stage.[454] In the early period the stage

was only of moderate height, and communication between stage and

orchestra was therefore a matter of no difficulty. Later on, when the

chorus began to be excluded from all share in the action, the stage

was raised several feet, and the actors were thus placed some distance

above the heads of the chorus. But both in the earlier and the later

period, and whether the stage was a high or a low one, there was always

a clearly marked distinction between the normal position of actors and

chorus respectively. This fact places prominently before us the radical

difference between a Greek chorus and that of a modern opera. It shows

us that in the groupings of actors and chorus in a Greek theatre there

could be none of that realistic imitation of ordinary life which is

sometimes seen upon the modern stage. To produce effects of this kind

would be impossible, where the chorus was standing beneath the actors,

and with their backs towards the audience. This position of the chorus

in the Greek theatre, which seems peculiar to our modern notions, was

not due to any abstract considerations of propriety, but was merely

the result of the peculiar circumstances under which the Greek drama

was developed. Originally the performance was almost entirely lyrical,

and the stage and the actors were a mere appendage. The chorus, being

the principal performers, and the most prominent object of attention,

occupied the central position in the orchestra. The actors were placed on

a stage behind them, so as to be visible to the spectators. Eventually

the dialogue between the actors completely overshadowed the songs of the

chorus, and the lyrical element in the performance was treated as a kind

of interlude. But the chorus still continued to occupy that prominent

position in the theatre which its original importance had assigned to it.

Since the beginning of the last century various difficulties have been

raised in connexion with this subject, and various theories have been

invented for the purpose of removing the supposed difficulties. All

this speculation appears to have had its origin in the same source.

Until quite recent years it was assumed by every scholar that the stage

of the fifth century must have been of the same height and structure

as the later stage described by Vitruvius. But it was felt that the

dramas of the fifth century could not possibly have been written for

a theatre in which the actors were raised about twelve feet above the

level of the chorus. The relationship between actors and chorus in these

early dramas is far too close to allow it to be supposed that they were

separated by a barrier of this kind. Still, there was the testimony of

Vitruvius, who said the stage was about twelve feet high, and whose

measurements were supposed to apply to all theatres, early as well as

late. The first attempt to meet the difficulty was made by Hermann, at

the beginning of the century; and his theory was afterwards adopted and

developed by Wieseler. According to this view the chorus did not stand

upon the level of the orchestra, but upon a sort of subsidiary platform,

erected immediately in front of the twelve-foot stage. The height of

the platform, they said, was so arranged as to bring the chorus into

moderate proximity to the actors, without concealing them from the view

of the audience. This platform for the chorus was generally accepted by

writers upon the Greek drama until about ten years ago. Its existence

was defended, partly on general grounds, partly by an appeal to certain

passages in ancient authors. To take the ancient authorities first.

Hermann supposed that the platform was called ‘orchestra’ in a narrower

sense. He cited a passage in Suidas, where the orchestra is described

as coming next to the ‘skene’, and as being a wooden erection on which

mimes performed. But in this passage the context clearly proves that

the word ‘orchestra’ is used in its later sense as the ‘stage’.[455]

Wieseler endeavoured to prove that the platform for the chorus was

denoted by the word ‘thymele’. Now ‘thymele’, as we have seen, was a

word which had a great many meanings in connexion with the theatre. It

denoted, first, the altar of Dionysus; secondly, the orchestra; thirdly,

the stage.[456] If the passages are carefully examined in which it is

asserted that ‘thymele’ denotes a platform for the chorus in front of the

stage, it will be found that in the majority of them the word is much

more naturally explained as meaning the stage itself, or the orchestra.

In one or two cases the language used is apparently due to a confusion

between the different meanings of the term. In no case is there a clear

and definite description of a platform standing half-way up between the

orchestra and the stage.[457] If such a platform had really existed,

it seems incredible that there should have been no mention of it. As

far, then, as ancient authorities are concerned, the theory as to the

existence of a platform for the chorus finds no support.

On general grounds there are several fatal objections to the theory. In

the first place, if it were correct, we should have to believe that the

Greeks first of all constructed an orchestra for the chorus to perform

in; then built a stage twelve feet high; then, finding they had made

their stage a great deal too lofty, got out of the difficulty by erecting

a platform each year, to bring the chorus within reach of the actors. To

suppose that the Greeks acted in this way would be to suppose that they

were altogether deficient in common sense. In the second place, it must

not be forgotten that the performances at the City Dionysia consisted

of dithyrambs as well as dramas. The dithyrambic chorus consisted of

fifty members, and stood in a circular position. They must therefore

have required a very considerable space for their performances. The

oblong platform in front of the stage would not have been large enough

to accommodate them, but would have been large enough to encroach very

extensively upon the orchestra, and to drive the dithyrambic choruses

into one end of it. That such was the case is most improbable. In the

third place, in the recently excavated Greek theatres there are no traces

of any appliances for the erection of the supposed platform. We should

have expected to find holes in the floor of the orchestra, and sockets

in the hyposkenion, for the reception of the beams by which the platform

was supported. But there is no theatre in which any such traces are to

be found. Fourthly, on the floor of the orchestra at Epidaurus a large

circle is marked out with a stone border immediately in front of the

stage (Fig. 6). It is difficult to resist the conclusion that this circle

was intended for the performances of the chorus. For these reasons,

combined with the silence of ancient writers, there appears to be no

doubt that the platform for the chorus in front of the stage must be

regarded as a fiction of modern times.

All the difficulties which this platform was invented to explain

will disappear, if we assume that the stage of the fifth century was

considerably lower than that of later times. It was only in the earlier

period of the drama that a close communication between actors and chorus

was required. In the subsequent epoch the existence of a lofty stage

presents no difficulty. And the assumption of a low stage for the period

of Aeschylus and his immediate successors is on general grounds the most

natural one. We are told that originally, when the drama was still a

lyrical performance, the coryphaeus used to mount upon a small table,

in the intervals between the odes, in order to converse with the rest of

the chorus. Later on, an actor was substituted for the coryphaeus. Later

still, in the course of the fifth century, a second and a third actor

were introduced. Now it is absurd to suppose that, while the coryphaeus

was replaced in this tentative way by a gradually increasing number of

actors, the old table on which he performed should have been suddenly

converted into a complete Vitruvian stage, twelve feet high, and fifty

feet long. It is much more natural to imagine that the development of

the stage was also a slow and experimental process, and that in the

fifth century its size was intermediate between the low table of the

sixth century and the tall proscenium of later times. The few traces of

archaeological evidence which we possess concerning the early stage are

distinctly in favour of this view. It is also supported by the well-known

description in Horace. Horace, in his account of the development of Greek

tragedy, tells us that Aeschylus ‘erected a stage on beams of moderate

size’.[458] Horace’s information, as we know, was derived from Greek

sources. Hence it appears that the ordinary Greek tradition favoured the

belief that the early stage was a low one, and that it contrasted in this

respect with the stage of later times.

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

Another theory of a far more revolutionary kind has been propounded in

recent years by Höpken[459], and amplified and developed by Dörpfeld.

Dörpfeld assumes, like Wieseler, that the proscenium of the fifth century

must have been of the same height as that described by Vitruvius. But he

gets out of the consequent difficulty by supposing that the proscenium

was intended, not as a stage for the actors, but as a background. He

denies the existence of a stage in purely Greek theatres either of the

earlier or of the later period. He believes that in all Greek theatres

the actors and the chorus performed together in the orchestra. The

proscenium represented the palace or other building before which the

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

behind the proscenium represented merely the sky. This theory has

been the subject of much discussion and controversy during the last

twenty years. As it has been accepted by several scholars, it will be

necessary to consider it in detail. I propose in the present section to

explain the grounds on which, as it seems to me, it must be regarded as

untenable; and to discuss at length the evidence on which the belief in

the existence of a Greek stage is founded. In dealing with this subject

it will be convenient to divide the period covered by the Greek drama

into two parts, and to consider first the later part, from about 300 B.C.

onwards; and then to return to the earlier period, that of the fourth and

fifth centuries. The evidence in the two cases is somewhat different, and

will be more clearly understood if taken separately.

1. THE LATER STAGE.—First, then, as to the later or ‘Hellenistic’ period.

Recent excavations, as was previously pointed out, have now given us a

fairly clear idea as to the shape and structure of the stage-buildings

during this period. We now know that from the beginning of the third

century onwards, or, if Puchstein is right, from a considerably earlier

date, the stage-buildings in an ordinary Greek theatre, though varying

in detail, conformed to the same general type. They consisted of a long

rectangular structure, in front of which was a narrow platform, usually

about twelve feet high and ten feet deep. This platform was called the

‘proskenion’. In the third century it appears to have been generally made

of wood. But in the course of the second and first centuries, or in the

fourth century, if Puchstein is right, a stone proscenium was substituted

for the old wooden ones in almost every theatre. What then was the

purpose of this proscenium, this long platform, twelve feet high and ten

feet deep, which we find in all Greek theatres after the fourth century?

For an answer to this question we naturally turn to Vitruvius, who wrote

a book about architecture towards the end of the first century B.C.,

and in the course of it gave a detailed description of Greek and Roman

theatres. Vitruvius tells us that every Greek theatre has a stage, and

that this stage is from ten to twelve feet high and about ten feet deep.

Its narrowness is due to the fact that it is only used by the actors in

tragedy and comedy; all other performers appear in the orchestra.[460] He

adds that the Roman stage is much lower and much deeper, and this for two

reasons. It had to be deeper, because all the performers appeared upon

it. It had to be lower, because in a Roman theatre the spectators sat in

the orchestra, and would not therefore have been able to see over the

top of a twelve-foot stage.[461] Here then we seem to have a clear and

final answer to our question. The proscenium which we find in all Greek

theatres after about 300 B.C., and in some perhaps a century earlier,

answers exactly to the description of Vitruvius. It must therefore have

been intended to serve as a stage.

Dörpfeld, it is well known, refuses to accept this conclusion. But his

method of dealing with the testimony of Vitruvius has changed since he

wrote his book on the Greek theatre. He then supposed that Vitruvius

had been guilty of an error. While admitting that he was correct in

his measurements of the Greek proscenium, he asserted that he had made

a mistake as to its purpose; that he had confused the background of

the Hellenistic theatre with the stage of the Roman.[462] But this

explanation is one which it is impossible to accept. It is absurd to

suppose that Vitruvius was mistaken. He was a professional architect,

writing about his own special subject, and writing at the very time when

many of these Greek proscenia were being erected. His remark about the

Greek stage is not introduced as an _obiter dictum_, but is made the

basis of the distinction which he draws between Greek and Roman theatres.

He had evidently therefore thought about the subject. But even if we

suppose that he could make a mistake of this kind, even if we suppose

that he had never been in Greece, and never seen a Greek play acted

there, still it is incredible that such an absurd error should have

remained uncorrected in his book. The connexion between Greece and Rome

was so intimate, that there must have been thousands of people in Rome

who had seen Greek plays performed in a Greek theatre, and knew how it

was done. If Vitruvius had made this absurd blunder, some one would have

been sure to point it out to him, and he would have had it corrected.

Since the publication of his book Dörpfeld has shifted his ground on

this question.[463] He now suggests a new method of explaining away

the testimony of Vitruvius. He supposes that Vitruvius, when speaking

of the stage in the Greek theatre, was referring, not to the ordinary

Greek theatre, but to the peculiar type of Graeco-Roman theatre found in

various cities of Asia Minor, such as Termessos and Sagalassos. These

theatres, as we have shown, exhibited a sort of transition between the

Greek and the Roman model. While their general design was Greek, their

stages were partially lowered and deepened, so as to come nearer to the

Roman practice.[464] In theatres of this kind Dörpfeld admits that the

actors performed upon the stage; and he contends that it is to them

that Vitruvius refers, and not to the regular Greek theatres, in which

the actors always appeared in the orchestra. But in the first place it

is difficult to believe that Vitruvius, when he speaks of the ‘Greek’

theatre, should mean something quite different. Why should he describe

as ‘Greek’ a type of building which was not found in Greece proper, and

which was essentially a combination of Greek and Roman attributes? In

the second place, the evidence of the existing remains is inconsistent

with the new hypothesis. Vitruvius says that the proscenium in the Greek

theatre should be from ten to twelve feet high, and in ordinary cases

about ten feet deep. Now what do we find in the remains of the regular

Greek theatres? We find that in the great majority of cases the height

and depth answer exactly to this description. But when we turn to the

Asia Minor theatres what do we find? The average height is from eight

to nine feet, the average depth from twelve to eighteen. In the face of

these measurements it is useless to contend that Vitruvius is alluding

to the Asia Minor theatres. The type which he describes is the ordinary

Hellenistic type.[465]

The two facts already mentioned—first, the fact that Vitruvius tells us

that every Greek theatre should possess a stage of a certain height,

and secondly, the fact that all Greek theatres after about 300 B.C. are

found to possess a stage corresponding to his description—these two

facts appear sufficient in themselves to decide the whole question. But

there is no lack of further evidence. Various ancient writers may be

cited as witnesses. Pollux, in his description of the Greek theatre,

says that ‘the stage is appropriated to the actors, the orchestra to the

chorus’.[466] Later on he says that the actors, when they ‘enter by the

orchestra, ascend the stage by means of steps’.[467] The scholiasts to

the extant dramas often speak of the performance in a Greek theatre as

being partly in the orchestra and partly on the stage. The commentator

on the Frogs asserts that the scene with Charon and the ferry-boat must

be ‘either upon the logeion, or in the orchestra’. Later on he says that

Dionysus here appears ‘not on the logeion, but in the orchestra’. The

scholiast on the Knights discusses the question why the sausage-seller

should ‘ascend from the parodos on to the logeion’. There are other

scholia to the same effect, which it would be tedious to quote.[468] In

these passages from the scholiasts and from Pollux the point to notice

is the following. They do not merely say that there was a stage in Greek

theatres, but they describe the performance as one partly on the stage,

and partly in the orchestra. Dörpfeld says they are all mistaken; that

they lived after the Christian era, and were confusing the Greek theatre

with the Roman. But this would not account for their mistake, if mistake

there were. In Roman theatres all performances were confined to the

stage; the orchestra was occupied by senators and other distinguished

persons. How then can Pollux and the scholiasts have got this notion of

a performance in which stage and orchestra were used at the same time?

There was nothing in the Roman practice to suggest it. It can only have

been derived from the Greek theatre. But apart from this, the suggestion

that Pollux and the scholiasts were misled by their recollection of Roman

customs is not a fortunate one. It implies that their writings were

the result of personal observation. But no one can read a page of them

without perceiving that they were merely compilations from Alexandrian

sources. The scholiasts in many cases mention their authorities, and

these authorities often go back as far as Aristophanes and Aristarchus,

and even beyond. They do indeed confuse the evidence a good deal, when

they try to reconcile different statements, or when they misapply

statements of earlier authorities to particular passages, and explain the

passages wrongly; but the statements themselves are due to Alexandrian

tradition, not to their own observations. When they say that Greek dramas

were performed partly on the stage and partly in the orchestra, it is

evident that the Alexandrians thought the same. The testimony of Pollux

and the scholiasts is really testimony of the third century B.C.

Another writer whose words appear to be decisive on this question

is Horace. His statement about Aeschylus, to the effect that he

‘erected a stage on beams (or posts) of moderate size’, has already

been quoted.[469] It is true that Horace is often inaccurate in his

description of the early Greek drama. It may be contended, therefore,

that his account of the reforms of Aeschylus is only of doubtful

authority. But one thing is certain, that Horace, in describing the

development of the Greek theatre, would never have mentioned the

erection of a stage, unless a stage had been a regular part of the

Greek theatres of his own day. Dörpfeld, in dealing with this passage,

offers two alternatives. He first suggests that ‘pulpitum’ means the

‘stage-buildings’. But he cites no authority for such a meaning, and

none is to be found. The word ‘pulpitum’ in Latin always means a stage

or platform. Then, if the first alternative seems unsatisfactory, he

suggests that Horace has made a slip, and that he was confusing the Greek

stage with the Roman.[470] But Horace, as we know, was for a long time

in Athens, and must have often seen Greek plays performed. It is hardly

conceivable, therefore, that he should have made a mistake on such a

simple matter as the presence or absence of a stage.

To turn next to the archaeological evidence. Excavations have brought to

light several facts which bear closely upon this subject of the stage.

The evidence derived from this source appears to be even more fatal to

the new theory than the literary testimony. One of the most convincing

proofs is that afforded by the structure of the stage-buildings at

Sicyon, Eretria, and Oropus.[471] We have seen that, according to

Dörpfeld’s view, the proscenium was the background, and the action of the

drama took place in front of it, in the orchestra. Obviously, if this

was so, the most important part of the stage-buildings must have been

the rooms immediately behind the proscenium, or in other words, behind

the back-scene. Now what do we find at Sicyon? We find that one-third of

the space behind the proscenium consisted of solid rock. The Sicyonians,

in order to save the expense of erecting a lofty auditorium, excavated

their theatre out of the rock to a depth of about twelve feet. But

they attached so little importance to the rooms behind the proscenium,

that they did not take the trouble to excavate the whole of this part.

They left one-third of it as it was. It was only when they came to the

first floor of the stage-building, the floor on a level with the top of

the proscenium, that they provided clear room from end to end of the

structure. Their conduct, on Dörpfeld’s theory, was very peculiar.[472]

But the people of Eretria acted in a still stranger manner. They too

excavated their theatre out of the rock. But they left the whole of the

space behind the proscenium unexcavated. Consequently at Eretria the

ground-floor of the stage-buildings was on a level, not with the floor

of the orchestra, but with the top of the proscenium. There could hardly

be a more decisive proof that at Eretria the actors appeared, not in

front of the proscenium, but on the top of it. Then there is the case

of Oropus. Here the stage-buildings were built upon the ground, and

the rooms behind the proscenium were originally open from end to end.

But later on the Oropians proceeded to fill up the greater part of the

space with earth, and left only a narrow passage immediately behind the

proscenium. Such conduct is irreconcilable with the supposition that the

proscenium was the back-scene.[473]

Another proof is afforded by the height of the proscenium. The normal

height, as already shown, was about twelve feet. But some proscenia, such

as those at Athens and the Peiraeeus, were as much as thirteen feet.

On the other hand others were considerably less. That of Oropus, for

instance, was only about eight feet high; and the columns which supported

the entablature were only six feet six inches.[474] On Dörpfeld’s view

these proscenia, with their architectural front, represented the palace

or other building before which the action took place. What then are we to

think of a palace about fifty feet long, and only eight feet in height?

The background at Oropus during the performance of a tragedy must have

been a most peculiar one. We should remember that the Greek tragic actor

walked upon ‘cothurni’, which added about six inches to his stature. He

also wore a mask with a lofty ‘onkos’, which raised his height by another

six inches. Consequently the Greek tragic actor, when equipped for the

stage, can hardly have stood less than about six feet six. This being so,

if Dörpfeld’s view is correct, it follows that the actor who took the

part of the king at Oropus must have been just about the same height as

the columns which supported the roof of his own palace. When he made his

entrance through the central door of the palace, he would have to bend

his head, in order to avoid knocking it against the cross-beams. Surely

the theory is a weak one which involves such ridiculous consequences. If

the Greeks had adopted a background of this absurdly diminutive height,

without any reason for doing so, this fact alone would have been strange

enough. But it must appear stranger still that, having once adopted it,

they should proceed to add about twelve inches to the stature of their

actors, in order to make the disproportion between the size of the actors

and the size of the palace still more preposterous.[475]

The reason which Dörpfeld gives for the lowness of the proscenium—the

background, as he calls it—is as follows. He says that such proscenia

were first erected at Athens in the fifth century, and were intended to

represent an ordinary house of that period. But the ordinary Athenian

house of the fifth century was, he asserts, about twelve feet high.[476]

To this theory there are several answers. In the first place, as we

have seen, some proscenia were only about eight or nine feet in height;

which is far lower than any ordinary Greek house, either at Athens or

elsewhere. In the second place there is no clear evidence to show that

the Athenian house of the fifth century was twelve feet high. From the

remains lately discovered at Delos it appears that in the better class

of houses there even the first story was more than twelve feet.[477]

But granting, for the sake of argument, that an Athenian house of the

fifth century was of the size which Dörpfeld supposes, it is difficult

to see what this has got to do with the height of the scenic background.

The Athenian theatre, we should remember, was developed originally as

a place for tragedy rather than as a place for comedy. The background

therefore must have been intended to represent, in most cases, a palace

or a temple. But why should this palace or temple have been made the same

height as an ordinary house? Moreover, the proportions must have appeared

extraordinary. A structure about fifty feet long, and twelve feet high,

would be altogether unlike any palace or temple. Dörpfeld replies to

this that it is impossible on the stage to represent buildings as large

as they really are; that in modern scene-paintings the representations

of palaces and temples are much reduced in size as compared with the

originals.[478] This is quite true. But they are reduced to scale, and

in a proper proportion. A modern scene-painter, in representing St.

Paul’s, would no doubt have to make his representation much smaller than

the actual St. Paul’s. But in diminishing the height he would diminish

the width at the same time. No modern scene-painter would produce a

temple fifty feet long and twelve feet high; nor can we suppose that the

ancients would have put up with a similar disproportion.

Again, there is the question as to the doors in the proscenium. If it was

the background, it ought to have had three doors, the usual number in

a Greek back-scene, as Pollux and Vitruvius tell us. But in most of the

proscenia discovered there is only one door. In two of the proscenia,

those at Megalopolis and Thespiae, there is no door of any kind. Even the

single door, when it is found, is very narrow for the central door of

the back-scene. At Epidaurus it is only four feet wide, at Oropus only 3

feet 8 inches, at Delos only 3 feet 3 inches.[479] A door so narrow as

this would be altogether unsuitable as the central door of the palace,

and quite inconsistent with the use of the ekkyklema. When we come to

the Graeco-Roman theatres, where the wall at the back of the stage has

in many cases been preserved, there we find everything corresponding

closely with the descriptions of the grammarians. There is always the

requisite number of doors, and the central door is of considerable width.

At Termessos it is about seven feet.[480] As regards the absence of the

three doors in the proscenium Dörpfeld gives the following explanation.

These Hellenistic proscenia, as we see from the remains, consisted of

an entablature resting on columns. The spaces between the columns were

filled in with wooden boards. Dörpfeld suggests that when doors were

required they might be provided _ad libitum_ by removing the intervening

boards.[481] But if three doors were regularly required in the dramatic

performances, it is most improbable that they should not have been

provided as a permanent fixture in the proscenium. It is most improbable

that the Greeks should have put themselves to the trouble of opening

out these temporary doors at each festival. In any case we can hardly

doubt that, if the proscenium had been the back-scene, the Greeks would

always have provided at least one permanent door, and would not, as at

Megalopolis and Thespiae, have erected proscenia in which there was no

door of any kind. The absence of a door in these two places seems to

prove conclusively that communication between the orchestra and the

space behind the proscenium was a matter of no importance.

[Illustration: FIG. 13.]

Another piece of archaeological evidence is supplied by the

vase-paintings found in the Greek cities of South Italy.[482] Two

specimens are here inserted.[483] These paintings, which have already

been briefly referred to, belong to the third century B.C. They represent

comic scenes acted by the Phlyakes. The Phlyakes were a sort of farcical

comedians, whose performances were not unlike those of the oldest Attic

comedy. In many of these paintings they are represented as acting on a

stage.[484] The stage, in most cases, is obviously made of wood, and

varies in character from a rude and simple platform to an erection

of some solidity. In one or two instances, however, it is a tall and

elaborate structure, apparently built of stone, and adorned with columns

in front, just like the proscenia we have been discussing.[485] Often

there is a flight of steps leading down to the orchestra.[486] In one

case the action is taking place partly on the stage and partly in the

orchestra. One of the actors is represented as actually ascending the

steps to the stage.[487] This evidence seems to prove beyond a doubt

that in the Greek cities of South Italy, during the third century B.C.,

performances were sometimes given in theatres with a tall stage, and

that both stage and orchestra were employed for the purpose, and were

connected by steps.

[Illustration: FIG. 14.]

Dörpfeld now admits that this was the case. But he contends that the

arrangement was an exceptional one, intended only for the farces of the

Phlyakes. For these performances, he allows, wooden stages were erected,

and the exhibition took place partly on the stage and partly in the

orchestra. But the regular dramas—the tragedies, and the comedies—were

performed solely in the orchestra.[488] All this, however, is the purest

assumption.[489] There is not a particle of evidence to support it. It

is altogether improbable that a different arrangement should have been

adopted in the case of these farces, and in the case of the regular

drama. Besides this, as we have already pointed out, in one or two of the

paintings the stage on which the Phlyakes are performing is apparently

a permanent stone erection, and not a mere temporary platform of wood.

It seems certain, therefore, that the Greeks of South Italy during the

third century B.C. provided a stage for their actors in all dramatic

performances; and, this being so, we can hardly doubt that the same was

the case in Greece generally.

One or two further objections to the new theory may be briefly mentioned.

If we look at the plan of the theatre at Epidaurus (Figs. 6 and 7), it

will be found that the stone border of the circular orchestra reaches to

within two or three feet of the proscenium. If the actors had performed

in front of the proscenium, they would have been sometimes inside the

stone border, and sometimes outside of it; and the whole arrangement

strikes one as awkward and unsymmetrical. Again, in the theatre at Delos

(Fig. 12), statues and other votive offerings were erected immediately in

front of the columns of the proscenium. The bases on which they rested

still remain.[490] But, if the proscenium had been the background, it

is difficult to suppose that this place would have been chosen for such

erections. When the proscenium was uncovered by scenery, and represented

an ancient palace, these votive offerings and statues would have been

altogether inappropriate as a part of the back-scene. When painted

decorations were to be set up, they would have formed an inconvenient

obstacle in the way of the mechanical arrangements. And if they were

required to serve as scenery, why were they only employed at Delos? The

probability therefore is that they were a mere architectural decoration

of the stage-front.[491]

We have now gone through the principal arguments, literary and

archaeological, which demonstrate the existence of a stage during the

Hellenistic period. It remains to consider the reasons which induce

Dörpfeld, in spite of this apparently overwhelming evidence, to deny the

existence of such a stage. And in judging this question we must remember

the fact already mentioned, that the chorus, at this time, had ceased

to take an active share in the play, and that its functions were hardly

more important than those of a band of musicians in a modern theatre.

To turn now to Dörpfeld’s reasons. He says, in the first place, that

these proscenia of the Vitruvian type would have been too narrow for

the performance of a play.[492] But their narrowness has often been

exaggerated, owing to inaccurate calculations. None of them, as it now

appears, were less than from nine to ten feet in depth.[493] But a stage

about ten feet deep, and from fifty to sixty feet long, would be amply

sufficient for the performance of a Greek play, when the chorus was

confined to the orchestra. The fact has been proved by actual experiment.

Most English scholars have probably seen the Greek plays produced in the

open-air theatre at Bradfield. The stage there is only ten feet deep and

thirty feet long. Yet every one who has been present at one of these

performances must admit that there was plenty of room upon the stage.

I am informed that on one occasion, in the funeral procession in the

Alcestis, as many as sixty people were brought upon the stage at the same

time, and without any inconvenient crowding.[494] It is clear then that

the Vitruvian stage, which was just as deep and twice as long as that

at Bradfield, would have been large enough to accommodate the chorus as

well as the actors in an ancient Greek drama, and would have been more

than large enough for the performance of a play in which the chorus was

practically confined to the orchestra.

Dörpfeld further objects that these Hellenistic proscenia were too high

to have served as a stage, since the spectators in the front rows would

have been too far below the actors to see the latter properly.[495] It

is only in the Asiatic theatres, where the front seats of the auditorium

were raised so as to give a good view of the actors, that he will allow

that the actors appeared on the high stage; in such cases the height of

the seats would make a ten-foot stage virtually equivalent to a five-foot

one, such as the Romans employed. But in the first place, we find that at

Mantinea also the lowest seats were raised four feet above the orchestra,

so that this is not a peculiarity of Asiatic theatres.[496] In the

second place, if these proscenia were too high for a stage, they would

have been much too low for a background. Their height varied from eight

to thirteen feet; and a stage of thirteen feet would be far less of an

anomaly than a back-scene of eight feet. Further, it has been shown by

Maass[497] that the height of the proscenium varies very regularly with

the distance of the proscenium from the central point of the circle of

the auditorium. The nearer this point, the lower the stage. The object

of this can only have been to accommodate the height of the stage to the

view of the audience. It would be inexplicable unless the actors were on

the top of the proscenium. It seems also to be proved that in most cases

the greater part of the actor’s person would easily be visible from the

greater number of seats,[498] including the lowest or front rows. When it

was necessary, as it was through the greater part of the fifth century,

for chorus and actors to communicate more or less intimately with one

another, the stage was lower, and the view from some seats therefore

less good; but when the chorus ceased to take a share in the dialogue, it

became both possible and natural to raise the height of the stage and so

improve the view.

Another objection of Dörpfeld’s is that in the existing proscenia there

is no trace of any means of communication between the stage and the

orchestra.[499] But we have shown that such communication was seldom

required at this time, owing to the insignificance of the chorus; and

that, when it was wanted, it was supplied by temporary wooden steps.

Dörpfeld replies that, if the stage was thirteen feet high, the steps

must have been so large as to project a long way into the orchestra, and

produce an unsightly appearance. But this result could have been avoided

without difficulty. Where the stage was exceptionally lofty, the steps

might have been placed in a parallel line to it. At Tralles, where there

is a proscenium of the Graeco-Roman type, and nearly ten feet high, such

steps are actually found, lying parallel to the stage, and on each side

of the door which leads out from the front wall of the stage into the

orchestra.[500] A similar arrangement might easily have been adopted,

when necessary, in the Hellenistic theatres.

In support of his theory Dörpfeld brings forward an argument based on

the theatre at Megalopolis (Fig. 11). We have already described the

peculiar construction of this theatre, in which the Thersilion took the

place of the ordinary stage-buildings. In front of the Thersilion, and

twenty-four feet distant from it, is the foundation-wall of a wooden

proscenium. This proscenium, however, appears to have been of later date

than the original theatre. Dörpfeld supposes that, before its erection,

the actors performed their parts immediately in front of the Thersilion,

and on the level of the orchestra. He bases his belief on the following

grounds. The façade of the Thersilion rested on a flight of five steps,

each about thirteen inches high. To one side of the Thersilion was

a building, apparently called the Skanotheka, and probably used for

storing the scenic decorations. In this building are the remains of a low

wall, running in the same straight line as the bottom of the flight of

steps, and about the same length as the stage must have been. Dörpfeld

supposes that this wall was used, in the original state of the theatre,

for working a ‘scaena ductilis’. He supposes that, when dramas were to

be performed, a wooden scene-painting was pushed out along this wall

immediately in front of the lowest step of the Thersilion, and served as

a background. The actors in front of it must have been on the floor of

the orchestra.[501] But this arrangement appears to be impossible. If

the back-scene had been placed in the position he supposes, immediately

in front of the steep flight of steps, the representation of dramas

would have been little short of ridiculous. The actor entering from

the back-scene would have had to come down these steps to reach the

threshold of the door. At first little more than his legs would have been

seen, at any rate by the spectators in the upper part of the theatre.

His whole person would hardly have become visible until he reached the

lowest step. For a tragic actor to make his entrance in this way would

have been far from dignified. Also, in plays like the Hippolytus and

the Alcestis, when a sick woman on a couch had to be carried out, it

would have been extremely awkward to have to carry her down a flight of

steps as steep as those at Megalopolis. The ekkyklema would, of course,

have been quite impossible to work. Again, it seems certain that the

supposed ‘scaena ductilis’ would itself be quite unworkable. Is it likely

that a huge painted board, more than a hundred feet long and more than

twenty-five feet high, was pulled out in front of the Thersilion to

serve as a back-scene? The ‘scaena ductilis’ (cf. Serv. ad Verg. Georg.

iii. 24), which Dörpfeld thinks was such as has been described, was

not a contrivance of this sort, but was a small affair, a variety of

the ‘scaena versilis’ or periaktos; it was drawn _apart_, to disclose

a new scene behind, and was not drawn across the stage. Moreover, the

construction of ancient theatres, even of those with side-wings, shows

that there was no room and no opportunity for the hauling to and fro

of huge boards such as Dörpfeld imagines. It is true that much remains

obscure in regard to the theatre at Megalopolis; but this solution at

least is out of the question.[502] Although, therefore, the Skanotheka at

Megalopolis may very likely have been used for the storage of scenery,

it is clear that this scenery, when used, cannot have been put up in the

place which Dörpfeld suggests.

Another argument against the ordinary theory is based by Dörpfeld on the

remains of the theatre at Delos (Fig. 12). We have shown that at Delos

the proscenium was continued, though in a different form, round the sides

and back of the stage-buildings.[503] Dörpfeld argues that it cannot

have been a stage, as it would be absurd to erect a stage all round the

stage-buildings.[504] If this is so, we might reply that it cannot have

been a background either, since it would be equally absurd to construct a

background in the same position. But as a matter of fact there is nothing

in the arrangement at Delos which conflicts in any way with the ordinary

opinion about the Greek stage. The erection at the sides and the back of

the stage-buildings, though of the same height as the erection in front,

was different in structure, and formed an open portico. The erection

in front was like the usual Hellenistic proscenium, and must have been

designed for the same purpose. If the proscenium in other theatres was

intended for a stage, it must have been intended for a stage at Delos.

Dörpfeld has a theory about the origin of the Roman stage, which he

brings forward as a strong argument in favour of his other views.

According to Vitruvius the Roman stage was developed out of the Greek.

The difference in size was due to the following reasons. The Romans

preferred to give up the orchestra to the spectators and to transfer

all performances to the stage. It was necessary, therefore, to deepen

the stage, in order to find room for the additional performers. It was

also necessary to lower it, in order to allow the spectators in the

orchestra to have a clear view.[505] Dörpfeld says that this account of

the matter is erroneous. According to his theory the Roman stage was

discovered by accident rather than by design. The Romans, when they

first began to adapt the Greek theatre to their own purposes, found

the orchestra too large, and consequently divided it in two. The half

nearest the auditorium they dug out to a depth of five feet, and placed

spectators there. The other half they used for theatrical and other

performances, just as it had been used by the Greeks. In this way they

found that they had got what was practically a stage five feet high; and

for the future, instead of digging out the nearer half of the orchestra,

they started on the level, and built a raised stage. The Roman stage

therefore represents, not the Greek proscenium, but the further half of

the Greek orchestra; and this fact proves that it was in the orchestra

that the Greek actors performed.[506] This theory is no doubt extremely

ingenious. But unfortunately it appears to be inconsistent with the facts

of the case. If it was true, we should expect to find the stage in all

Roman theatres occupying the site of one half of the Greek orchestra,

and the back of the Roman stage corresponding to the front of the Greek

proscenium. Now in the normal Roman theatre this is more or less the

case. The Romans eventually reduced their orchestra to a semicircle,

and brought their stage forward to the position described by Dörpfeld.

But the Graeco-Roman theatres of Asia Minor, to which we have already

referred, fail entirely to correspond to his hypothesis. These theatres

were among the earliest to be built in the Roman fashion, and might

therefore be expected, more than any others, to exemplify the process

of transition which he describes. But what do we find? We find that the

stage, so far from occupying one half of the orchestra, stands in exactly

the same position as the old Greek proscenium. The orchestra in these

theatres still forms nearly a complete circle. The stage is deepened by

pushing the back-scene more into the rear. Further than this, the height

of the stage is not five feet, as it ought to be, but from eight to nine

feet.[507] These examples seem to prove that Vitruvius is more correct

than Dörpfeld in his view of the matter; and that the Roman stage was

really a modification of the Greek. When we find in these Asia Minor

theatres a Roman stage standing in exactly the same position as the

proscenium in the Greek theatres, and differing only in being longer and

deeper, and two or three feet lower, we can hardly resist the conclusion

that the Greek proscenium was the prototype of the Roman, and that it was

intended for the same purpose.

The proscenium in a Greek theatre was called, among other names, the

‘logeion’ or ‘speaking-place’. It is so called by Vitruvius, and the word

‘logeion’ occurs in Delian inscriptions as early as the third century

B.C.[508]. This being so, we are naturally led to ask how this fact

is to be reconciled with Dörpfeld’s theory. If the proscenium was the

background, and not the stage, why should it have been called ‘logeion’

or the speaking-place? Dörpfeld gives the following answer. He says

that in Greek tragedies the gods, when exhibited in a supernatural

manner, used to make their appearance on the palace roof, or, in

other words, on the proscenium; and that it was therefore called the

‘theologeion’, or for shortness the ‘logeion’.[509] But this statement

will not bear examination. The usual device for revealing gods in

supernatural splendour was the mechane, and not the theologeion. Even

when the theologeion was employed, there is no evidence to show that it

was identical with the palace roof.[510] The contrivance for enabling

actors to stand on the roof of a palace or other building was called the

‘distegia’. Instances of its employment are rare. In the extant dramas

there are only eight or nine certain examples.[511] If, therefore, the

proscenium really represented the building in the background, the top

of it cannot have been called the ‘speaking-place’ because the actors

spoke from it. Eight or nine instances out of forty-four dramas are

insufficient to justify us in regarding it as a regular speaking-place.

The plain statement of Vitruvius, that the ‘pulpitum’ of the actors was

in Greek called ‘logeion’, Dörpfeld attempts to get round by supposing

that the place which had been the ‘theologeion’, or, more shortly,

‘logeion’—the speaking-place of gods—retained its name by a natural

conservatism when employed by actors. This is ingenious; but it is surely

far more natural to suppose that it was called ‘logeion’ all along

because it was the regular speaking-place for all actors, and not only

for occasional gods.[512]

We have now considered the principal arguments which can be brought

forward on either side concerning this stage question, as far as it

relates to the later period. Some minor points have been omitted; but

they would not affect the question very much either way. The result

appears to show that, at any rate as far as the later period is

concerned, the evidence in favour of a stage altogether outweighs any

considerations which can be adduced on the other side.

2. THE EARLIER STAGE. We now come to the earlier and more important

period, the period of the fifth century, when the drama was still in

reality a choral drama, and the fourth century, during which the chorus

was rapidly declining in importance, but was still commonly employed.

For the fourth century we have the testimony of Aristotle. Aristotle in

many places speaks of the songs of the actors as τὰ ἀπὸ τῆς σκηνῆς, in

opposition to the songs of the chorus, τὰ τοῦ χοροῦ.[513] Further he

speaks of the actor’s part as being played ἐπὶ τῆς σκηνῆς.[514] According

to the usual interpretation of these passages, he means that the actors

played their part ‘upon the stage’, and sang their songs ‘from the

stage’. Dörpfeld, however, proposes in these cases to translate the word

σκηνή as the ‘background’, and not as the ‘stage’. He supposes Aristotle

to mean that the actors performed ‘at the background’, and sang their

songs ‘from the background’. He denies that the two expressions imply the

existence of a stage.[515] Now the translations which he suggests may be

possible, as far as the Greek is concerned. But it is very difficult

to believe that they are the right translations in these particular

passages of Aristotle. Aristotle’s words seem to clearly imply that

there was some essential and conspicuous difference between the position

of the actors and that of the chorus.[516] But if, as Dörpfeld thinks,

they all performed together in the orchestra, there would be no such

distinguishing mark. It is true that the actors might, for the most part,

be rather nearer to the stage-buildings; and the chorus might, for the

most part, be rather more distant from them. But practically they would

be standing in the same place; there would be no pronounced difference.

Aristotle’s words appear to be explicable only on the supposition that

the actors appeared upon a stage, the chorus in the orchestra.

For the fifth century we have the evidence supplied by the use of certain

words in Aristophanes. In three places, where an actor is approaching

the back-scene, he is said to ‘mount up’ (ἀναβαίνειν).[517] In two

other places, where he is leaving the back-scene, he is said to ‘go

down’ (καταβαίνειν).[518] In all these passages there is nothing in the

circumstances of the drama to suggest that the action was taking place

on raised ground. The expressions can only refer, as the scholiast says,

to the stage. It has been proposed to translate the two words as ‘come

on’ and ‘depart’ respectively.[519] But such a usage of the terms is

otherwise unknown in Greek. Moreover, in one place—the scene in the

Knights—this translation is proved to be impossible. Here Demosthenes

calls out to the sausage-seller, ‘mount up here’ (ἀνάβαινε δεῦρο). He

then shows him the people, the markets, and the harbours; and tells

him that he will be lord of all. But this is not enough. He says, ‘you

have not seen all yet’, and bids him ‘mount up on to this table also’;

and then proceeds to show him the islands round about.[520] These words

show conclusively that ἀναβαίνειν must mean ‘mount up’ in the previous

passage, and likewise determine the meaning of this word, and of

καταβαίνειν, in the parallel passages.

The extant dramas have been carefully ransacked during the last few

years,[521] and it is not likely that many new points will now be

discovered. Much of the evidence that has been brought forward on

both sides of the question is really of little value. It depends upon

a too scrupulous and literal interpretation of the text, or upon a

forgetfulness of the fact that there is much that is conventional in all

dramatic performances. For instance, when old men are approaching the

palace, and complain of the steepness of the way, this fact is supposed

to be a proof of the existence of a stage.[522] It is suggested that

they enter by the orchestra, and that the ascent of which they complain

is the ascent on to the stage. But, if this was so, these old men must

have timed their entrance very exactly, so as to reach the foot of the

stage just when they came to the verses in which they began to grumble

about the ascent. And this, combined with the obvious inadequacy of the

ascent on to the stage to represent a really fatiguing road, would make

the whole proceeding rather ludicrous. It seems more natural to assume

that their remarks had no reference to the stage, and that the steepness

of which they complain was left to the imagination of the spectators.

Then again, the appearances of ghosts and spectres are cited as evidence

in favour of a stage. It is said that they could not be made to appear

from underground, unless there was a raised platform out of which they

ascended. Now there is no doubt that in the later theatre ghosts were

made to arise from beneath the earth. Pollux gives a description of the

mechanism by which it was done. But there is no certain proof that they

made their appearance in this way during the fifth century. It would be

unsafe, therefore, to infer anything from these spectral apparitions

concerning the structure of the early theatre. Again, there are those

scenes in which the chorus might be expected to enter the palace, but

fail to do so. For instance, when Medea’s children are being murdered,

and call out for help, the chorus, after proposing to rush to their

assistance, eventually remain where they are and sing an ode.[523] But it

is unnecessary, in this and in similar cases, to explain their inaction

by supposing that there was any difficulty in passing from the orchestra

to the palace because of the stage which lay between. A sufficient reason

is to be found in the fact that, if they had gone into the palace, the

scene of action would have been left empty.

It will be best to disregard all evidence of this inconclusive kind, and

to confine our attention to those points which really throw light upon

the question as to the relative position of actors and chorus during the

fifth century. The following facts seem to be established. It is evident

that the chorus sometimes entered and sometimes departed through the

back-scene. Instances are not very common; there are only about six in

the extant dramas.[524] Still, they undoubtedly occur. It is evident,

too, that the actors sometimes entered by the orchestra. They must have

done so when they entered along with the chorus, and they probably did

so when they entered in chariots or wagons.[525] This gives us about

seven instances where the actors came in by the orchestra. They may have

done so much more frequently. This is a point which will be considered

later on. But these seven cases are the only ones for which there is

any convincing evidence. On the other hand, it was a common thing for

actors and chorus to depart together through the orchestra. Many plays

end in this way, such as the Eumenides and the Septem. In Aristophanes

it is a favourite form of conclusion for actors and chorus to go off

through the orchestra in a joyful procession.[526] The general result

then is this, that it was plainly permissible in the fifth century for

the chorus to enter or leave by the back-scene, and for the actors to

enter or leave by the orchestra; though the last of these practices is

the only one of which there are many certain examples. But when we pass

on from these entrances and exits, and look at the rest of the play, we

find that it is very unusual, during the course of the action, for the

chorus to come on the stage, or for the actors to go into the orchestra.

The instances in which, apart from entrances and exits, the actors and

the chorus can be shown to have come into close physical contact with

one another, are remarkably few. We may mention, as examples, the scene

in which the chorus tries to prevent Creon from seizing Antigone, and

the scene where the farmers mount the stage to draw the statue of Peace

out of the well. Opinions may differ as to individual cases, but the

total number of instances of this kind does not amount, at the outside,

to more than about fifteen.[527] The conclusion we may draw from this

evidence is as follows. There was nothing in the fifth century theatre to

prevent the actors from moving into the place occupied by the chorus, and

there was nothing to prevent the chorus moving into the place occupied

by the actors. But, except when they were entering or leaving the scene

of action, they do not appear to have done so usually, but to have kept

apart from one another.

What then does all this prove as regards the stage? On the one hand, it

proves conclusively that the stage of the fifth century cannot have been

as high as the ordinary later or Hellenistic stage. If the fifth-century

stage had been twelve feet above the level of the orchestra, there would

have been the greatest awkwardness in actors and chorus passing from

one place to the other. But, on the other hand, it does not in any way

exclude the possibility of there having been a stage of some kind or

another. If we suppose that the fifth-century stage was lower and deeper

than that of later times, and that it was connected with the orchestra

by a long flight of steps, or by a sloping ascent, all difficulties

about the performance of the extant dramas disappear. Actors and chorus

could easily pass from stage to orchestra, or vice versa. The fact that

they so seldom came into contact with one another, except when entering

or leaving the theatre, is a strong confirmation of the view that there

was a stage of some kind, and that it was reserved in most cases for the

actors, while the usual place for the chorus was in the orchestra.

The main reason for the employment of a stage must have been to make the

actors clearly visible to the audience, and to prevent the view of them

being impeded by the chorus in the orchestra. A few feet of elevation

would be sufficient to produce this result. Dörpfeld, it is true, denies

that any such precaution was necessary. He denies that the actors, even

without a stage, would have been hidden from view by the chorus.[528]

But if we look at the plan of a Greek theatre, it is clear that if the

actors were in the orchestra, and the chorus stood in front of them, the

chorus must have obstructed the view of a great many of the spectators.

In fact we have ancient testimony to that effect. The tragic chorus stood

in three rows. We are told that the worst and most ungainly choristers

(the ‘laurostatae’, as they were called) were placed in the middle

row, because they were not clearly seen by the spectators.[529] But,

however the chorus stood, there could only have been _one_ row between

these ‘laurostatae’ and the audience. If, then, the actors had been in

the orchestra, with _three_ rows of choristers in front of them, the

obstruction to the view would obviously have been very much greater.

And it is important to remember that the spectators who would have

suffered most by this arrangement would have been the occupants of the

lowest tiers of seats. Now these seats were reserved as seats of honour,

and were confined to high officials and distinguished citizens. Hence,

if Dörpfeld’s theory is correct, the distinction which the Athenians

bestowed upon their leading citizens cannot have been one of very much

value. The benches which they assigned to them must have been the worst

seats for view in the whole theatre.[530]

Dörpfeld further objects that, if we suppose a low stage at Athens in the

fifth century, the history of the Greek stage becomes a very fantastic

and peculiar affair. We have first a stage of five or six feet, then in

the next period it rises to about twelve feet, then later on in the Roman

period it suddenly drops to five again. His own theory, he says, is much

simpler. There was no stage at all till the Roman period, and then a

stage of five feet was erected.[531] But the figures given by Dörpfeld

are quite fallacious. There was no sudden rise and fall of the kind he

describes. We have no means of determining the exact height of the stage

during the fifth century. But when we come to the later period we find

that it was not fixed at twelve feet, but varied from eight to thirteen.

There was no settled rule. Architects naturally tried new experiments.

Different heights were adopted in different places. Probably there was

just the same variety and love of experiment in the early period. Again,

when we come to the Roman period, we do not find that the height of the

stage was suddenly fixed at five feet. In many places it was as much as

eight or nine. Wherever we look in the history of the Greek theatre, we

perceive a gradual transition from one type of stage to another; and the

reasons for the successive changes are generally to be explained by the

varying circumstances of the contemporary drama.

The archaeological evidence on the subject of the early stage has already

been discussed.[532] Unfortunately it amounts to very little. The oldest

stage-buildings, being made of wood, have disappeared without leaving

any trace behind them. However, such evidence as can be obtained tends

to confirm the testimony of the dramas themselves, and to show that the

stage of the fifth century was lower and deeper than that of subsequent

times. There is also this point to be taken into consideration. The

existence of a lofty stage during the Hellenistic period and perhaps

from the fourth century onwards appears to be now proved by irresistible

testimony. This being so, it is altogether improbable on general grounds

that there should have been no stage at all during the preceding period.

To suppose that the Greeks began without any stage of any kind, and then

after so long a time suddenly erected a stage about twelve feet high, is

a most unlikely hypothesis. But if we imagine that a stage existed from

the first, and that it was a low one in the fifth century, and was then

gradually raised in consequence of the changed character of the drama,

the process becomes much more intelligible. The presence of a stage

during the later period is strong presumptive evidence in favour of an

earlier one.[533]

The last few years have been prolific in new theories on the subject of

the stage. Most of them may be regarded as developments or modifications

of Dörpfeld’s views. Before leaving this subject it may be well to give

a brief account of the more important of them. Bethe considers that

there can no longer be any doubt as to the existence of the Hellenistic

stage. He also agrees that the passages in Aristophanes prove the use

of a low stage at the time when Aristophanes wrote. But for the greater

part of the fifth century he denies its existence. He considers that

the first Greek stage was erected in 427 or in 426, and that this date

was an important epoch in the development of the theatre. He founds his

belief on the fact that after this date there is no further instance of

the use of the ekkyklema, while before this date there is no example of

the use of the mechane, the theologeion, and the drop-scene.[534] But,

in the first place, it is by no means clear why the presence or absence

of these contrivances should involve the existence or non-existence of

a stage. In the second place, his dates are open to question. There is

no proof, as we shall see later on, that the machinery which he mentions

was introduced or discontinued at the time specified. Another theory has

been put forward by Weissmann. He, too, accepts the Hellenistic stage,

but agrees with Dörpfeld that in the fifth century actors and chorus

performed on the same level. However, he thinks that the passages in

which old men complain of the steepness of the road prove that there must

have been a raised platform which they had to ascend. As one of these

passages—that in the Hercules Furens—is spoken by the chorus, he comes

to the conclusion that there was a large platform for actors and chorus

combined. This platform extended from the back-scene over a considerable

part of the orchestra, and on it stood the actors and chorus, both on

the same level.[535] To this it may be answered, that the evidence on

which he relies is far too slight a justification for such a sweeping

hypothesis. Also on general grounds it is inconceivable that the Greeks,

when they already possessed an orchestra which was admirably adapted

for choral performances, should have taken the trouble to erect a huge

platform on the top of it. Christ agrees in the main with Weissmann. He

accepts the Hellenistic stage for the later period, and also the platform

for the chorus in the orchestra during the fifth century. But he thinks

the passages in Aristophanes prove that the actors even then stood higher

than the chorus. He therefore supposes two stages: one immediately before

the back-scene, for the actors; and another larger and lower one in the

orchestra, for the use of the chorus.[536] He thus eventually comes

round to the same conclusion as Wieseler, though by a very different

process. His theory, however, is open to the same objections as that of

Weissmann. This orchestral platform is utterly improbable in itself, and

is unsupported by any sufficient evidence. Lastly, there is Robert’s

hypothesis. Robert denies the existence of a stage during the fifth

century; but supposes that one was erected in the course of the fourth

century for the performance of new plays, in which there was practically

no chorus. Henceforth new plays were acted on the stage, old plays in

front of it, in the orchestra.[537] But it is impossible to suppose that

in the same theatre, and at the same festival, the proscenium should have

served at one time as a stage, and at another time as a background. Nor

is there anything in the ancient authorities to support such a view.

§ 14. _Various Details._

To return to the subject of the construction of the theatre in general.

It is obvious that, considering the enormous size of the building, and

the immense numbers of spectators which it was intended to accommodate,

the greatest attention must have been bestowed upon its acoustic

properties. Vitruvius is most emphatic upon the necessity of keeping

this object in view, when choosing a site for a theatre. The situation

against the side of a hill, and the gentle and symmetrical upward slope

of the tiers of seats, are mentioned as qualities by which acoustic

excellence was ensured. The height of the stage-buildings was also of

great importance. It was found that the best results were obtained

by making them exactly the same height as the uppermost parts of the

auditorium.[538] That this was the ordinary practice during the Roman

period is proved by the remains of various theatres, such as those of

Aspendos and Orange. But whether, at any time during the Greek period,

stage-buildings were constructed on this enormous scale is very doubtful.

Another matter on which the ancient architects insisted was the wooden

flooring of the stage, which tended to make the voices of the actors more

audible. When Alexander the Great wished to have a stage built entirely

of bronze, it was pointed out to him that this material would be fatal

from the acoustic point of view.[539] Vitruvius mentions a peculiar

practice which was adopted for the purpose of adding resonance to the

voices of the actors. Hollow vessels of bronze, of different tones, were

suspended in niches in various parts of the auditorium. When a sound was

uttered of the same tone as that of any of the vessels, its resonance

was increased. He states that this custom, though not adopted in Rome,

existed in many Greek and Italian theatres; and that Mummius, after

his capture of Corinth, brought back several of these vessels from the

theatre there.[540] In the remains of the existing theatres no traces are

to be found of the niches he describes. It is probable that the whole

plan was merely an experiment adopted in a few special cases. As far as

Athens was concerned, no such extraneous assistance to the voice was

necessary. Experiments at the present day have shown that the acoustic

properties of the theatre of Dionysus are excellent; and this must have

been still more the case when the stage-buildings were standing. Probably

therefore, in spite of the vast numbers of the audience, the persons in

the back rows could hear the words spoken in the orchestra and upon the

stage much more clearly than might at first have been supposed.

Another point mentioned by Vitruvius in connexion with the theatre is

the advantage of erecting porticoes in the rear of the stage-buildings,

to serve as a shelter for the people in case of a sudden shower of rain,

and also for the convenience of the choregi. He adds that at Athens

there were three buildings close to the theatre, which served admirably

for this purpose. These were the Odeion, the temple of Dionysus, and

the Portico of Eumenes.[541] The Odeion here referred to was that built

by Pericles, which probably stood on the eastern side of the theatre,

though its exact site has not yet been determined with certainty.[542]

The temple of Dionysus mentioned by Vitruvius is apparently the older

of the two temples, marked _t_ in the plan, and lying to the south-west

of the stage-buildings. The Portico of Eumenes is supposed to have been

built by Eumenes II, in the beginning of the second century, and it is

thought that traces of it are to be found stretching westwards from the

theatre.[543] Immediately to the south of the stage-buildings are the

foundations of a long rectangular erection, belonging to the same date as

the stage-buildings themselves, and marked _s_ in the plan. This erection

was no doubt a portico, built in the fourth century for the purpose

described by Vitruvius. In the theatre itself there was no protection for

the general mass of the people either from the sun or from the rain. The

huge canvas awnings, suspended upon masts, which the Latin writers refer

to, were an invention of the Italians, and were only adopted in Greek

theatres at a very late period.[544]

The interior of the theatre at Athens was decorated with the statues

of various public persons, some distinguished, others not. In the

time of Lycurgus bronze statues were erected in honour of Aeschylus,

Sophocles, and Euripides.[545] Pausanias mentions that in his time

there were several statues of dramatic poets in the theatre, but, with

the exception of Sophocles, Euripides, and Menander, they were all

very obscure individuals.[546] The base of Menander’s statue, with an

inscription recording his name and the name of the sculptor, has been

discovered near the western parodos. Its original site, however, is

unknown.[547] Astydamas, the tragic poet, was voted a statue in the

theatre on account of the excellence of his tragedy called Parthenopaeus.

He wrote an epigram to be inscribed upon the base, regretting that

he had not been born in the time of the great tragic writers, so as

to be able to compete with worthy antagonists. The Athenians were so

disgusted with his conceit, that they refused to allow the epigram to be

inscribed, and the expression, ‘to praise one’s self like Astydamas,’

passed into a proverb.[548] The statue of Astydamas originally stood

at the inside corner of the auditorium on the western side, and there

was probably a corresponding statue on the eastern side.[549] One of

the grammarians says that there were also statues of Themistocles and

Miltiades in the theatre, each with a captured Persian standing beside

him. But his statement is probably a fiction, invented to explain the

passage on which he was commenting, and which he misunderstood.[550]

In later times, it is stated, a statue of Eurycleides the conjuror was

erected in the theatre.[551] It is probable that during the reign of

Hadrian thirteen statues of him were placed in the thirteen different

blocks of the auditorium. The inscriptions on the bases of four of these

statues have been found in the existing remains of the theatre.[552]

In addition to the statues, various votive offerings were erected in

the two side-entrances. Many of the bases were still in their original

position when the theatre was first excavated, but they have now mostly

disappeared. Four of them, however, still remain. One of them supported

the memorial erected by Xenocles in 306, to commemorate his services as

Agonothetes. The other three belong to the Roman period.[553] There were

also various inscriptions and tablets connected with theatrical affairs.

A copy of the decree of the Amphictyonic Council, conferring certain

privileges upon the Athenian actors, was inscribed on stone and put up in

the theatre.[554] Numerous records of dramatic and dithyrambic contests

were erected either in the theatre or in the immediate neighbourhood.

There were lists of the victors in all the competitions at the Lenaea and

the City Dionysia. There were lists of all the tragedies and comedies

ever produced in the theatre at Athens. There were lists of all the poets

and actors who had competed there, with the number of their victories

appended to each name. An account of these various records has already

been given at the end of the first chapter.

Before concluding this description of the theatre of Dionysus it may

be interesting to give some account of the various other purposes for

which it was used at different times, in addition to its primary object

as a place for dramatic representations and contests of dithyrambic

choruses. The recitations of the rhapsodists, and the competitions

between the harp-players, were also transferred to the same place from

the Odeion, in which they had been held previously.[555] Besides this,

various ceremonies unconnected with art took place in the theatre during

the festivals of Dionysus. Those which took place at the commencement

of the City Dionysia have already been mentioned.[556] The annual

cock-fight in commemoration of the Persian invasion was also held in the

theatre.[557] But the most important of the non-dramatic purposes for

which the theatre came to be used was that of a meeting-place for the

assemblies of the people. In the fifth and fourth centuries the regular

place of assembly was the Pnyx. But already at a very early period

special assemblies used to be held in the theatre after each festival

of Dionysus, to discuss matters connected with the festival.[558] These

semi-religious meetings probably paved the way for the later practice

of holding ordinary meetings there. As early as the year 411, on the

occasion of the overthrow of the Four Hundred, Thucydides mentions that

an assembly of the people was held in the theatre.[559] It was in the

theatre that the meeting was convened which condemned Phocion and his

friends to death in 317 B.C.[560] In 295 Demetrius, after capturing the

city, summoned a gathering of the people in the theatre.[561] These

meetings were all of a special character, and were not regular assemblies

of the people; but they served as precedents for the use of the theatre

for political, as opposed to religious and artistic, purposes. Similarly,

we are told on the authority of Aristotle that the Ephebi received their

shields and spears from the state at assemblies of the people in the

theatre.[562] After the middle of the third century the theatre became

the regular meeting-place. The Pnyx henceforward was only used for

assemblies for the election of magistrates.[563] In this later period

the theatre was also used for various exhibitions which seemed unworthy

of its character as a temple of Dionysus. Sword-swallowers, conjurors,

and exhibitors of puppet-shows are mentioned among the entertainers who

occupied the stage which had formerly been dignified by Euripides.[564]

But the greatest degradation which the theatre at Athens ever suffered

was when, under the influence of Roman custom, it was given up to

gladiatorial combats. This was a pollution which called forth indignant

protests from writers such as Philostratus and Dion Chrysostom.[565]