And observe how pure her morals: who, to notice first her dress,Enters not with filthy symbols on her modest garments hung,Jeering bald-heads, dancing ballets, for the laughter of the young.[101]
And observe how pure her morals: who, to notice first her dress,Enters not with filthy symbols on her modest garments hung,Jeering bald-heads, dancing ballets, for the laughter of the young.[101]
And observe how pure her morals: who, to notice first her dress,Enters not with filthy symbols on her modest garments hung,Jeering bald-heads, dancing ballets, for the laughter of the young.[101]
And observe how pure her morals: who, to notice first her dress,
Enters not with filthy symbols on her modest garments hung,
Jeering bald-heads, dancing ballets, for the laughter of the young.[101]
And Dr. Körte (op. cit., pp. 66 ff.) has collected ten passages in other plays of our poet which indicate that Aristophanes was not always so puritanical as he claims to be here. These conclusions are confirmed also by numerous representations, ofAttic workmanship, which are plausibly thought to depict actors in Old and Middle Comedy (Figs.17-19).[102]By the time of New Comedy, on the contrary, the phallus was apparently no longer worn, and the characters were garbed in the dress of everyday life. Now the Dorian mime or farce was widely cultivated in the Peloponnesus and Magna Graecia. The performers were individualized actors, not welded into a chorus. They wore the phallus, had their bodies stuffed out grotesquely both in front and behind by means of copious padding, and in general bear a very close resemblance to the comic actors at Athens (Figs.20and21).[103]Their performances were loosely connected, burlesque scenes, abounding in stock characters and enlivened by obscenity and ribald jests. Most authorities agree that the burlesque episodes (5) of Old Comedy are derived from this source. According to Aristotle,[104]the Megarians claimed that comedy originated with them about 600B.C.when a democracy with its resultant freedom of speech was established among them. It was even asserted that Susarion, the reputed founder of Attic comedy (seep. 38, above), came from Megara, but this claim isapparently unwarranted.[105]The fact remains, however, that Aristophanes and his confrères often speak of stupid, vulgar scenes or jokes as being “stolen from Megara.”[106]Though these words have been otherwise explained,[107]I believe that Megara, which is the nearest Dorian city to Attica, had something to do with the introduction of the histrionic element into Attic comedy. Of course, this does not mean that Megara is to be regarded as the inventor of Athenian comedy, for the comus was indigenous and received its development on Attic soil and the type of performance which came into being after the introduction of actors was quite unlike anything in Megara or any other part of the Dorian world.
Fig. 17.—Comic Actors and Flute-Players upon an Attic Vase in PetrogradSee p. 47, n. 1
Fig. 17.—Comic Actors and Flute-Players upon an Attic Vase in Petrograd
See p. 47, n. 1
Fig. 18.—An Attic Terra Cotta in Berlin Representing a Comic Actor.See p. 47, n. 1
Fig. 18.—An Attic Terra Cotta in Berlin Representing a Comic Actor.
See p. 47, n. 1
Fig. 19.—An Attic Terra Cotta in Munich Representing a Comic Actor.See p. 47, n. 1
Fig. 19.—An Attic Terra Cotta in Munich Representing a Comic Actor.
See p. 47, n. 1
Fig. 20.—Actors of Dorian Comedy upon a Corinthian Crater in ParisSee p. 47, n. 2
Fig. 20.—Actors of Dorian Comedy upon a Corinthian Crater in Paris
See p. 47, n. 2
With actors, impersonation became possible for the first time in Attic comedy. Besides the nondescript chorus and chorus leaders, there were now performers who could assume the identity of real or imaginary characters and carry a rôle or, by a change of mask, several rôles through the play. The importance of all this is too obvious to require amplification. It marked the birth of dramatic comedy at Athens. Through the introduction of actors, comedy became amenable to several other influences. Tragedy could at once make itself felt. A histrionic prologue could now be added, the comic prologue corresponding in length and function to the tragic prologue and first episode combined.[108]A real agon of actors now became possible, whatever use may have been made previously of the chorus leaders for this purpose. Furthermore, the new Megarian burlesque episodes (5) would naturally be separated by stasima (6) in imitation of tragedy. It would also be possible to insert an episode[109]between the parodus and the agon, as is done in Aristophanes’Plutus, vss. 322-486; or between the agon and the parabasis, as in Aristophanes’Knights, vss. 461-97; or to compose a second parabasis and to insert an additional episode between them, as in Aristophanes’Peace, vss. 1039-1126, etc. In addition to all this, tragedy would exert a constant influence in elevating and standardizing all parts of comedy alike.
Fig. 21.—Actors of Dorian Comedy upon a Corinthian VaseSee p. 47, n. 2
Fig. 21.—Actors of Dorian Comedy upon a Corinthian Vase
See p. 47, n. 2
But the restricted and even disconnected method of elaboration employed in earlier comedy, with its invective, lampoons, and obscene jests, would not suffice to fill so ample a framework. Therefore, it became necessary to broaden and deepen the plots; in fact, now for the first time in Attic comedy was it possible to have a plot worthy of the name. All this is implied in the words which have already been quoted from Aristotle (p. 35, above): “Developing a regular plot was a Sicilian invention, but of the Athenians the first to abandon the ‘iambic’ or lampooning form and to begin to fashion comprehensive themes and plots (καθόλου ποιεῖν λόγους καὶ μύθους) was Crates.” The reference in the first half of this sentence is to Epicharmus, whosename actually appears in Aristotle’s text at this point but without grammatical construction. Epicharmus was a resident of Megara Hyblaea in Sicily, whence he migrated to Syracuse about 485B.C.Like the Megarians on the Greek mainland, also the Sicilian Megarians laid claim to the honor of having invented comedy.[110]They based their pretensions on the fact that Epicharmus flourished and won his reputation before 486B.C., which was theterminus post quemfor the beginning of the official careers of Magnes and Chionides, who were the first poets of state-supported (as opposed to volunteer) comedy, at the City Dionysia in Athens. Epicharmus raised the Dorian mime in Sicily to literary importance, and seems to have improved upon the detached or but loosely connected scenes of his predecessors by stringing them together upon the thread of a common plot-interest. His plays had no chorus and did not touch upon his contemporaries or politics. Now Aristotle’s words concerning Crates must certainly be understood as indicating a resemblance between him and Epicharmus in at least some of these particulars. The expression which I have translated “to fashion comprehensive themes and plots” has been rendered “generalized his themes and plots” by Butcher, “to frame stories of a general and non-personal nature, in other words, Fables or Plots” by Bywater, and “composed plots or fables of a ‘universal’ character” by Cornford (op. cit., p. 217). Whatever other meaning may inhere in this phrase, I think that it must be taken to mean, first of all, that Crates, like Epicharmus, made all or, at least, most of the parts of his plays subservient to one connecting idea or plot; and it seems to me that the previous clause which refers to his abandonment of the “iambic” or lampooning form looks in the same direction. In my opinion, the invective of his predecessors had been episodic and unrelated to its context by any sequence of thought, often being expressed in passages like the following:
Shall we all a merry jokeAt Archedemus poke,Who has not cut his guildsmen yet, though seven years old;Yet up among the deadHe is demagogue and head,And contrives the topmost place of the rascaldom to hold?And Clisthenes, they say,Is among the tombs all day,Bewailing for his lover with a lamentable whine.And Callias, I’m told,Has become a sailor bold,And casts a lion’s hide o’er his members feminine.[111]
Shall we all a merry jokeAt Archedemus poke,Who has not cut his guildsmen yet, though seven years old;Yet up among the deadHe is demagogue and head,And contrives the topmost place of the rascaldom to hold?And Clisthenes, they say,Is among the tombs all day,Bewailing for his lover with a lamentable whine.And Callias, I’m told,Has become a sailor bold,And casts a lion’s hide o’er his members feminine.[111]
Shall we all a merry jokeAt Archedemus poke,Who has not cut his guildsmen yet, though seven years old;Yet up among the deadHe is demagogue and head,And contrives the topmost place of the rascaldom to hold?And Clisthenes, they say,Is among the tombs all day,Bewailing for his lover with a lamentable whine.And Callias, I’m told,Has become a sailor bold,And casts a lion’s hide o’er his members feminine.[111]
Shall we all a merry joke
At Archedemus poke,
Who has not cut his guildsmen yet, though seven years old;
Yet up among the dead
He is demagogue and head,
And contrives the topmost place of the rascaldom to hold?
And Clisthenes, they say,
Is among the tombs all day,
Bewailing for his lover with a lamentable whine.
And Callias, I’m told,
Has become a sailor bold,
And casts a lion’s hide o’er his members feminine.[111]
Here this abuse is dragged in a propos of nothing, and the three citizens who are assailed within a score of lines have no connection with the main theme of the play. It was this sort of thing, I venture to believe, that Crates discontinued; and Aristotle’s language does not require us to conclude that he relinquished scurrility altogether. It is usually thought, however, that Crates made no assaults of any kind upon his contemporaries but “generalized” his plots by treating imaginary, “ideal” characters in his plays. In other words, he is supposed to have anticipated to some extent the manner and material of New Comedy. I have no desire to combat this view, which simply advances a step beyond my own. The main fact, that of Crates’ having invented plot sequence in Attic comedy, can hardly be made a matter of dispute.
We are indebted to a late authority, Tzetzes, for the following statements:
But also Old Comedy differs from itself [i.e., falls into two types], for those who first established the institution of comedy in Attica (and they were Susarion and his successors) used to bring on the characters (πρόσωπα) in an undifferentiated crowd (ἀτάκτως), and laughter alone was the object sought. But Cratinus [a contemporary of Crates], succeeding them, put a stop to the confusion (ἀταξίαν) and set the characters (πρόσωπα) in comedy for the first time at three; and he added profit to the pleasure of comedy, lampooning the evildoers and chastising them with comedy as with a public scourge. But even he still shared in the archaic qualities and, slightly, in the confusion (ἀταξίας).[112]
But also Old Comedy differs from itself [i.e., falls into two types], for those who first established the institution of comedy in Attica (and they were Susarion and his successors) used to bring on the characters (πρόσωπα) in an undifferentiated crowd (ἀτάκτως), and laughter alone was the object sought. But Cratinus [a contemporary of Crates], succeeding them, put a stop to the confusion (ἀταξίαν) and set the characters (πρόσωπα) in comedy for the first time at three; and he added profit to the pleasure of comedy, lampooning the evildoers and chastising them with comedy as with a public scourge. But even he still shared in the archaic qualities and, slightly, in the confusion (ἀταξίας).[112]
Whatever the ultimate source of this notice, it contains much of value. In the first place, a distinction is correctly drawn between primitive comedy (Susarion to Cratinus;ca.565 toca.450B.C.) and Old Comedy (450 toca.385B.C.). The earlier period is marked by ἀταξία, which I refer to the practice of having characterless choreutae take part singly as if they were actors (seep. 44, above). Though still occasionally guilty of this practice, as even Aristophanes sometimes was, Cratinus regularly withdrew his choreutae from participation in the dialogue and reduced the performers to three. These three, however, were now real actors, as distinct from the chorus and chorus leaders, and played individualized rôles which demanded dramatic impersonation. The number three was doubtless due to contemporaneous tragedy in which the number of actors had recently been increased by Sophocles from two to three (seep. 167, below).[113]
A second difference between primitive comedy and Old Comedy is found in the use which was made of invective. If this development had not taken place, Old Comedy would not occupy the unique place which it now holds in the dramatic literature of the world. As we have just seen, the lampooning of primitive comedy was probably episodic and detached from the context, like that in Aristophanes’Frogs, vss. 416-30; awhole play was not devoted to one person, and no citizen was impersonated by an actor. Its object was merely to cause a laugh and it rarely served any useful purpose, certainly none for the public interests of the state. It was a natural outgrowth of the magical abuse of the old phallic processions. Now Old Comedy, on the whole, was just the reverse of this, and Cratinus seems to have been the innovator who, “generalizing” his plots by giving them a single theme, after the fashion set by Crates, devoted them solely or mainly to political and social questions and dragged his victims in person upon his stage.
When did these changes take place? First let it be noted how they mutually depend one upon another: neither tragedy nor the Sicilian mime could greatly influence early Attic comedy until actors, as distinct from a chorus, were introduced, nor could their influence be long delayed after the actors came. I think that these factors came to fruition not long before 450B.C.
a) Reverting to Aristotle’s words (quoted onp. 35, above), when are we to suppose that the Athenians began to “treat comedy seriously”? The most obvious answer would be, “486B.C., when comedy first received official recognition.” Chionides and Magnes are the poets of this period, and there is no reason to believe that they improved upon their immediate predecessors of the “volunteer” comedy otherwise than in a more worthy literary treatment of their plays. Aristophanes describes Magnes’ efforts in the following terms:
All voices he uttered, all forms he assumed, the Lydian, the fig-piercing Fly,The Harp with its strings, the Bird with its wings, the Frog with its yellow-green dye.[114]
All voices he uttered, all forms he assumed, the Lydian, the fig-piercing Fly,The Harp with its strings, the Bird with its wings, the Frog with its yellow-green dye.[114]
All voices he uttered, all forms he assumed, the Lydian, the fig-piercing Fly,The Harp with its strings, the Bird with its wings, the Frog with its yellow-green dye.[114]
All voices he uttered, all forms he assumed, the Lydian, the fig-piercing Fly,
The Harp with its strings, the Bird with its wings, the Frog with its yellow-green dye.[114]
It is plain that these words refer to plays by Magnes which were calledThe Lydians,The Gall-Flies,The Harpists,The Birds, andThe Frogs. These titles at once remind us of the animal masks which were so common in the comus (Figs.12-16). Of course, state supervision implies a certain amount of serious attention. Nevertheless I think that in this passage Aristotle had a later period in mind.
It was long ago pointed out that Attic comedies were not published before the time of Cratinus. The fact of publication shows that comedy was at last being treated with true seriousness and helps to explain the ignorance, in later times, with respect to certain points. Though the state records gave the names of comic victors from 486B.C.on, they did not include information upon matters of mere technique. For knowledge of this sort Aristotle (the ultimate source of Tzetzes) and all other ancient investigators were almost entirely dependent upon what they could glean from the editions of Cratinus, Crates, and their successors. Now the earliest texts available revealed the use of characters, prologues, and three actors as well as of the parodus, agon, parabasis, and exodus. Why did Aristotle specifically name the first group and not the second?
In my opinion, Professor Capps[115]has provided the correct answer. He maintains that Aristotle distinguished two kinds of ignorance concerning the history of comedy. In the first place, there was the Egyptian darkness which covered the period previous to 486B.C.For example, when Aristotle declared that comedy “already had certain forms” (σχήματά τινα) at this time, he could not have specified what these forms were; he was merely surmising that the fact of state supervision presupposed more or less definiteness of form. In the second place, there was the period of semi-darkness immediately after 486B.C.Tradition must have placed in this period the introduction of characters, prologues, and three actors, and so Aristotle singled them out for mention. But tradition had not handed down also the names of the innovators, and in the absence of texts it was impossible to probe the matter further. Needless to state, the situation regarding the other innovations, whether of this period or earlier, was much worse.
b) Though Thespis is said to have invented the prologue in tragedy, this statement is justly discredited (seep. 298, below); and no tragedy is actually known to have had one beforePhrynichus’Phoenician Women(476B.C.). Aeschylus’Suppliants(about 490B.C.) andPersians(472B.C.) have none. It is most unlikely that comedy should have anticipated tragedy in this feature.
c) Capps[116]has plausibly suggested that knowledge of Epicharmus’ achievements in comedy was brought to Athens by Aeschylus, who is known to have been in Sicilyca.476B.C., shortly after 472B.C., and for about two years before his death there in 456B.C.
d) The third actor was introduced into tragedy between about 468 and 458B.C., and it is more probable that the use of three actors in comedy was borrowed from tragedy than vice versa.
e) Cratinus won his first victory at the City Dionysia of 452B.C.and (f) Crates at that of 450B.C.Doubtless the activity of both men began somewhat earlier.
g) It is incredible that the state should have postponed official control of comedy at the Lenaean festival until about 442B.C., if the developments which we have been sketching had taken place long before.
h) The earliest comedian to refer to Megarian comedy is Ecphantides, whose first victory was won between 457 and 453B.C.Whenever Aristophanes “names any writers of ‘vulgar comedy’ who used the stale antics which he repudiates, these writers are his own predecessors and contemporaries of the Attic stage.”[117]This implies that the borrowing was a fairly recent occurrence.
i) Finally, Megara was actually under the sway of Athens during 460/59-446/45B.C.The opportunity for the exchange of ideas between Megara and Athens would naturally be most favorable at that time.
In view of the preceding considerations, I am of the opinion that actors were introduced into Athenian comedy shortly before 450B.C.
Fig. 22.—Ground Plan of a Greek Theater with Names of Its PartsSee p. 57, n. 3
Fig. 22.—Ground Plan of a Greek Theater with Names of Its Parts
See p. 57, n. 3
Fig. 23.—Cross-Section of a Greek Theater with Names of Its PartsSee p. 57, n. 3
Fig. 23.—Cross-Section of a Greek Theater with Names of Its Parts
See p. 57, n. 3
The Greek Theater.[118]—Since, as we have seen, both tragedy and comedy among the Greeks were choral by origin, the center of their theaters was a circular “dancing place” called anorchestra[119](ὀρχήστρα), in the middle of which stood athymele(θυμέλη) or “altar” (Figs.22 f.).[120]When an actor was added to the tragic choreutae, it became necessary to provide a dressing-room where he might change his mask and costume. This temporary structure was called a σκηνή (“hut”: our English word “scene”), andat first stood outside the spectators’ range of vision. Afterward it was brought immediately behind the orchestral circle and then served also as a background in front of which the dramatic action was performed. Its face was pierced by doors, usually three but sometimes only one, which were conventionally thought of as leading into as many different houses. The scene-building often had two projecting side wings calledparascenia(παρά, “beside” + σκηνή). The front of the scene-building and of the parascenia came to be decorated with a row of columns, theproscenium(πρό, “before” + σκηνή). The top of this proscenium was used by actors when they had occasion to speak from the housetop or were thought of as standing upon some elevation. In thecourse of time it was employed also for divinities, especially in epiphanies at the close of tragedies (seep. 292, below). Since this spot was never invaded by the singing or dancing of the chorus and was the only place reserved for actors exclusively, it came to be called thelogium(λογεῖον, from λέγειν to “speak”) or “speaking place.”[121]Behind the logium was the second story of the scene-building, known as theepiscenium(ἐπισκήνιον; ἐπί, “upon” + σκηνή); its front wall was pierced by one or more large doorways. Past each parascenium a “side entrance” orparodus(πάροδος; παρά, “beside” + ὁδός, “passage”) led into the orchestra. These entrances were used by the audience before and after the play, and during it by the actors (who could use also thedoors in the scene-building) and the chorus. The parodi were often framed by beautiful gateways (Figs.51 f.). The remainder of the orchestral circle was surrounded by the auditorium, the “theater” proper.[122]Chorus and actors stood on the same level in the orchestra or in the space between it and the scene-building. There was no stage in the Greek theaters until about the beginning of the Christian era.
But when the Greek theaters came under Roman influence and were provided with a stage, these technical terms naturally acquired a somewhat different significance (Figs.24and62-64).[123]The proscenium was still the columned wall in front of the scene-building, but it now stood upon the stage (at the rear), and the stage itself was the logium. Whenever theophanies required a still higher level, this was furnished by the top of the proscenium,[124]which was called thetheologium(θεολογεῖον; θεός, “god” + λογεῖον) or “speaking place of divinities.”[125]The space beneaththe stage, or its front wall alone, was known as thehyposcenium(ὑποσκήνιον; ὑπό, “beneath” + σκηνή).[126]There were now two sets of parodi, leading upon the stage and into the orchestra respectively. These two paragraphs are meant for purposes of orientation and are written from the standpoint of one who believes with Dörpfeld that in Greek theaters of the classical period actors and chorus normally moved upon the same level.[127]
Fig. 24.—Cross-Section of the Graeco-Roman Theater at Ephesus with Names of Its Parts.See p. 60, n. 2
Fig. 24.—Cross-Section of the Graeco-Roman Theater at Ephesus with Names of Its Parts.
See p. 60, n. 2
Fig. 25.—Theater at Oeniadae in AcarnaniaSee p. 61, n. 3
Fig. 25.—Theater at Oeniadae in Acarnania
See p. 61, n. 3
Fig. 26.—Theater and Temple of Apollo at DelphiSee p. 61, n. 4
Fig. 26.—Theater and Temple of Apollo at Delphi
See p. 61, n. 4
Fig. 27.—Theater at Megalopolis in ArcadiaSee p. 61, n. 4
Fig. 27.—Theater at Megalopolis in Arcadia
See p. 61, n. 4
Fig. 28.—Theater at Pergamum in Asia MinorSee p. 61, n. 4
Fig. 28.—Theater at Pergamum in Asia Minor
See p. 61, n. 4
Fig. 29.—Plan of the Acropolis at AthensSee p. 62, n. 2
Fig. 29.—Plan of the Acropolis at Athens
See p. 62, n. 2
A Greek town could hardly be so small or so remote as not to have its own theater and dramatic festival (Figs.25and70 f.).[128]The Greek theaters were regularly built upon a hillside and often commanded an outlook over a scene of great natural beauty and picturesqueness (Figs.26-28).[129]So far as such structureshave come down to us, the oldest is the theater of Dionysus Eleuthereus at Athens, and this is also the one of greatest interest to us, for the reason that in it were produced practically all the masterpieces of the greatest Greek dramatists (Figs.1and31-41).[130]It seems strange that this building should not have remained continuously known to men from ancient times until the present hour, but in fact its very location passed into oblivion for centuries. During mediaeval times and until well into the modern era it was thought that the theater or odeum of Herodes Atticus, a Roman structure of the second centuryA.D.and situated at the opposite end of the Acropolis, represented the Dionysiac theater of the classical period (Fig. 29).[131]The correct site was first pointed out by R. Chandler in 1765, and is clearly indicated by a bronze coin of imperial times which shows the relation subsisting between the theater of Dionysus and theParthenon (Figs.30 f.).[132]Excavations were conducted desultorily from time to time, beginning in 1841, but were not completed until the work under Dörpfeld’s direction in 1886, 1889, and 1895.
The oldest structure in the precinct of Dionysus Eleuthereus is the earlier temple (Fig. 32).[133]This was built in the sixth centuryB.C., possibly in 534B.C., when Pisistratus established the tragic contest. Here was housed the cult image of Dionysus which had been brought from Eleutherae.
Fig. 30.—Athenian Coin in the British Museum Showing the Parthenon and Outline of the Theater of Dionysus Eleuthereus.See p. 63, n. 1
Fig. 30.—Athenian Coin in the British Museum Showing the Parthenon and Outline of the Theater of Dionysus Eleuthereus.
See p. 63, n. 1
Fig. 31.—Parthenon and Theater of Dionysus; in Foreground Altar in Precinct of Dionysus Eleuthereus.See p. 63, n. 1
Fig. 31.—Parthenon and Theater of Dionysus; in Foreground Altar in Precinct of Dionysus Eleuthereus.
See p. 63, n. 1
Fig. 32.—Precinct of Dionysus Eleuthereus in Athens, Showing Dörpfeld’s Restoration of the Early Orchestra and of the Lycurgus Theater.See p. 63, n. 2
Fig. 32.—Precinct of Dionysus Eleuthereus in Athens, Showing Dörpfeld’s Restoration of the Early Orchestra and of the Lycurgus Theater.
See p. 63, n. 2
Fig. 33.—East Fragment of Wall Belonging to the Early Orchestra in Athens.See p. 65, n. 1
Fig. 33.—East Fragment of Wall Belonging to the Early Orchestra in Athens.
See p. 65, n. 1
Fig. 34.—West Fragment of Wall Belonging to the Early Orchestra in Athens.See p. 65, n. 1
Fig. 34.—West Fragment of Wall Belonging to the Early Orchestra in Athens.
See p. 65, n. 1
Somewhat later are the remains of the early orchestra. According to late notices,[134]the original place of holding theatrical performances in Athens was an orchestra in the old market place, the location of which has not yet been determined. At that period the audience sat upon “wooden bleachers” (ἴκρια), which are said[135]to have collapsed on the occasion of a contest between Aeschylus, Pratinas, and Choerilus in the seventiethOlympiad (about 499B.C.). In consequence, a new theater was constructed in the precinct of Dionysus, where the seats, though still of wood, could be supported in part by the south slope of the Acropolis. When the stone theater on this site was first brought to light, it was erroneously supposed that this was the structure which had been erected as a result of the accident just mentioned. As a matter of fact, practically all that remains of the first theater are certain fragments of the orchestra (Figs.33 f.).[136]These are sufficient to indicate that this orchestra was over seventy-eight feet in diameter and stood nearly fifty feet farther south than the later orchestra (Figs.32and32a).[137]As it receded from the Acropolis it was banked up to a maximum of about six and a half feet, leaving a declivity immediately behind it. The extant plays of this period show that for about thirty years no background of any kind stood in this declivity (seep. 226, below). Theatrical properties, such as a tomb, might be temporarily built at the center or to one side of the orchestra. If dressing-rooms were then provided for the actors and chorus they must have stood some distance away. In the absence of a back scene, the performers could enter only at the sides. These same entrances were used also by the spectators in assembling. Theseats, being of wood until the fourth century, have left no trace; but there can, of course, be no doubt of their position on the slope. Well up the side an ancient road cut the auditorium into an upper and lower section[138]and permitted ingress and egress for the audience at two additional points. The Athenian theater was somewhat unusual in having these upper entrances.
Fig. 32a.—Cross-Section of Precinct of Dionysus Eleuthereus in Athens, Showing Later and Early Temples and Early and Later Orchestras.See p. 65, n. 2
Fig. 32a.—Cross-Section of Precinct of Dionysus Eleuthereus in Athens, Showing Later and Early Temples and Early and Later Orchestras.
See p. 65, n. 2
About 465B.C., as the plays indicate,[139]a wooden scene-building was set up behind the orchestra, where the declivity had been.[140]The front of this was probably pierced by three doors, which might be conventionally thought of as leading to as many different buildings, and thus the number of entrances available for the actors’ use was more than doubled. This seemingly simple alteration produced profound changes in dramatic technique (seepp. 228-31, below). The scene-building of this period must be thought of as quite unpretentious: its material was wood, it probably consisted of but a single story, and I think it had neither parascenia nor a columned proscenium (Fig. 74; seep. 235, below). Its construction was flimsy enough for it to be capable of being easily rebuilt or remodeled to meet the scenic requirements of each drama, for of course it was not until long after the introduction of a scenic background that the plays were uniformly laid before a palace or temple. According to Aristotle, Sophocles was the inventor of scene-painting, and this is also said to have been invented during the lifetime of Aeschylus.[141]If these notices are correct, we must suppose that scene-painting was invented in the decade ending in 458B.C.and so under theatrical conditions such as have just been described. This would mean that at first the scenery must have been attached directly to the scene-building itself and not inserted between the intercolumniations of the proscenium columns.
The next building in the precinct seems to have been the later temple, slightly south of the earlier one (Fig. 32). Its substructure was of breccia (conglomerate), and its erection must be assigned to about the last quarter of the fifth centuryB.C.[142]An image of Dionysus by Alcamenes found its home here.
Fig. 35.—Outline of the Oldest Walls of the Scene-Building in AthensSee p. 67, n. 2
Fig. 35.—Outline of the Oldest Walls of the Scene-Building in Athens
See p. 67, n. 2
Of the same material are the foundations of the parascenia and of the front and back walls of the scene-building (Fig. 35),[143]and perhaps they are to be assigned to the same period as the temple which has just been mentioned.[144]The superstructure was still of wood, since the wide variation of scenic setting called for a background which could readily be adapted to changing needs. It is likely that the ten square holes in the rear foundation wall (Fig. 38) were intended to receive the supporting beams of such an adjustable structure.[145]Probably the scene-building now rose to a second story, a supposition which is confirmed by theuse of the crane or μηχανή (“machine”) in the extant plays of this period (seepp. 289and292 f., below). At about the same time a proscenium (also of wood) was erected before the parascenia and the intermediate front of the scene-building (seepp. 235 f., below), and painted panels of scenery could be fastened between its intercolumniations. In my opinion, we must suppose that such a proscenium stood far enough removed from the front of the scene-building[146]so that, when there was no occasion to fill the intercolumniations with panels, a porch or portico was automatically produced (its floor probably raised a step or two above the orchestra level), in which semi-interior scenes might be enacted (seepp. 238 f., below). It has even been maintained that a projecting vestibule was sometimes built out from the center of the proscenium in order to provide additional space of a semi-private sort (seepp. 236 f., below andFig. 73). Of course, no foundations for such a structure are found either at this period or subsequently, for the reason that permanent foundations for something which was only occasionally employed would have been unsightly and in the way for the greater part of the time. No fragments belonging to the orchestra of this period have been discovered (see next paragraph andp. 73). Moreover, the seating arrangements belong to the Lycurgus theater of the next century. Fortunately, however, there can be no doubt as to the relative position of these parts: it is apparent that the whole theater has been pushed some fifty feet farther north (Fig. 32), and the causes of this alteration are not hard to guess. In the first place, room was thus secured for the scene-building without occupying the space immediately in front of the earlier temple of Dionysus. In the second place, the slope of the Acropolis could now be employed more extensively as a support for the seats of the spectators. There are no means of determining whether this slight change in site was made at this period or about 465B.C., when the first scene-building was erected.