Download Greek theatre scenography 7

Ch. II: Greek Theatre
Chapter II
GREEK THEATRE
If one writer from the fifth century B.C.E. had left a description of a performance of
tragedy or comedy, or if some vase painting depicted unambiguously the Theatre of Dionysus
with an assembled audience, library shelves today would have more room, and classicists and
theatre historians could devote themselves to other aspects of the ancient theatre. But, alas, no
such testimony exists. Such descriptions and visual evidence as we do possess come from the
fourth century onward, while the stone remains of the dozens of Greek theatres to be found from
Asia Minor to Sicily also postdate the period of the extant plays. The Theatre of Dionysus itself-where the classic plays were first presented at the Great Dionysia--underwent so many changes
during its nearly thousand-year existence that its origins are virtually obliterated. The visible
remains seen today are primarily from Roman renovations of the first through fifth centuries
C.E.1 In a remarkable period of less than 150 years (from the first tragic contest in 534 B.C.E. to
the death of Aristophanes c. 385; less than 100 years if we confine ourselves to the extant plays),
with virtually no known precedent, the Athenian society produced some of the most
sophisticated tragedy and comedy the world has ever known, yet the stage on which
Agamemnon, Medea, Oedipus, Electra, Lysistrata and their cohorts first revealed themselves to
an audience remains, largely, a mystery. The fifth-century physical theatre must be conjecturally
reconstructed from inconclusive archaeological remains, ambiguous visual evidence, some
satirical references in Aristophanes, subsequent scholarly writings, extrapolations from later
theatres, the demands of the known texts, and our general knowledge of theatre.
A study of this evidence--these clues to the mystery, as it were--points to the conclusion
that just as Aeschylus took the tragic form presumably invented by Thespis and shaped it into the
monumental classical tragedy of the fifth century, he likewise seized upon the physical and
scenic elements of the nascent Theatre of Dionysus and transformed them into a powerful tool
for the realization of those tragedies.
The Evidence
The study of Greek theatre, ironically, has been greatly distorted by the relatively wellpreserved and beautifully symmetrical theatre at Epidauros whose image has permeated
consciousness and come to dominate the collective idea of Greek theatre architecture. Epidauros,
in fact, has become a metonymy for Greek theatre. There is no question that this stunning
structure, with its perfectly circular orchestra, precisely symmetrical seating, and exemplary
acoustics, fulfills a classical ideal. The second-century C.E. Roman writer Pausanias noted as
much when he cited it as a theatre "most especially worth seeing." Though, he noted, it was
smaller than Megalopolis and could not equal Roman theatres for splendor, "for symmetry and
beauty what architect could vie with Polyclitus?"2
1
John Travlos, Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Athens (London: Thames and Hudson, 1971) 538.
2
Pausanias, Pausanias's Description of Greece. Vol.1. Trans. J.E. Frazer. (NY: Biblo and Tannen, 1965) 113
[Book II, Ch. xxvi].
1
Ch. II: Greek Theatre
But the theatre at Epidauros was built c. 300 B.C.E., and while it has been almost universally
accepted that all theatres which preceded Epidauros were either prototypes of this structure or
were striving for its classical perfection, the fact is that no known archaeological evidence
supports this concept. Recent scholarship, in fact, suggests that the theatre at Epidauros may
have been a radically new form or even an anomaly.
Virtually all the written documentation available to us post-dates the classical period.
Aristotle--inevitably but erroneously--is taken as a primary source. In one of the more popular
English editions of the Poetics, for instance, editor Francis Fergusson notes, "When Aristotle
wrote the Poetics . . . he had the Greek theater before his eyes."3 But it was not the theatre of
Aeschylus and Sophocles, not even the theatre of Aristophanes who died about the time Aristotle
was born. The Poetics, generally dated c. 335 B.C.E., was written some ninety years after his
ideal model, Oedipus Tyrannus, and nearly 200 years after Thespis appeared in the Agora. Other
descriptive materials, notably those from the Roman writers Vitruvius, Pollux, and Horace, come
from the full span of the Roman period and inevitably reflect prevailing theatrical conditions.4
The work of scholiasts and lexicographers comes from as late as the tenth century C.E.
Dependent as we inevitably are on these late texts, scholars have argued that the various writings
were based on a) more contemporary writings now lost;5 b) oral tradition and continuous modes
of production that preserved classical knowledge and practice; and c) extant theatre structures
which preserved or replicated classical structures. Thus, while almost all scholars acknowledge
discrepancies and inconsistencies in these antique and medieval writings, they nonetheless, and
with some reason, see a basis in these sources for reconstructing the Aeschylean theatre. But we
might note that with all the documentary evidence available to us about our own theatre, how
successful are we at recreating performances from 100 or 200 years ago, even 25 years ago, let
3
Francis Fergusson, "Introduction" to Aristotle's Poetics, Trans. S.H. Butcher (New York: Hill and Wang, 1961)
2.
4
A prime example of this historical myopia can be seen in Vitruvius [V,7] who claims that the logeion should be
"not less than ten feet nor more than twelve," and that actors perform on this stage while the chorus performs in the
orchestra. This obviously has nothing to do with the Aeschylean stage.
5
This is certainly true of the Suda, for instance, a 10th-century C.E. lexicon that includes references to the work
of Eratosthenes' lost 3rd-century B.C.E. work, On Ancient Comedy, which in turn must have been based on earlier
writings.
2
Ch. II: Greek Theatre
alone 700? Shakespeare, to take the most obvious example, has been in almost continuous
production for 400 years, and yet, even with the recent discovery of the foundations of the Globe
Theatre, we do not know for sure what his theatre looked like or how his plays were originally
produced. How quickly anecdote and apocrypha become received fact; how easily current
theatrical practices are assumed for those of an earlier era!
Archaeological excavations on the Theatre of Dionysus began in 1838, with the most
thorough exploration being done by Wilhelm Dörpfeld in the 1880s. Dörpfeld's archaeological
work remains highly regarded, but the archaeologists and classicists who deciphered the findings
were not, for the most part, theatre practitioners. As a result, interpretations and inferences were
sometimes based on limited understanding of theatre practice and production. The explication of
the findings was further clouded by the predominantly naturalistic style and the proscenium stage
that dominated European and American theatre at the time of the excavations. Not only were
domestic dramas of the day staged in painstakingly reconstructed rooms on such stages, but
melodramas created spectacular effects such as earthquakes, volcanoes, fires, and floods, while
so-called "illustrated" Shakespearean productions were filled with literal recreations of each
individual scene of a play (and often added processions, ballets, and spectacles that Shakespeare
merely referred to--or not) which also resulted in long and cumbersome scene changes. In such a
context, the description of the destruction of the palace in The Bacchae, for example, must have
seemed like an outline for Victorian spectacle drama, while shifts of locale implied in the texts
were often assumed to be accompanied by illusionistic scene changes. On the other hand, the
archaeologists also had Epidauros as a model and assumed that the early Theatre of Dionysus in
some way conformed to this later ideal. It was in such an environment that classical scholars
tried to make sense of what they found. To read the suggested reconstructions of the Greek
physical theatre and staging practices from the late nineteenth through mid-twentieth centuries is,
often, to read descriptions of contemporary theatre practices awkwardly situated in partially
understood classical structures.
Recent scholarship turns, quite rightly and logically, to the texts themselves. While the
plays can clarify a great deal, there are still problems ranging from corrupted texts to problems of
etymology to simple ambiguity. Here, too, many of the interpretive problems argued over by
scholars arise from a literal or naturalistic reading of the texts. Because the poet was also the
director, choreographer, and, at least through the mid-fifth century, the leading performer, there
was no need to include stage directions. As A.M. Dale has pointed out, this concentration of
artistic leadership suggests a significant aspect of reading the plays: Since the text is, in essence,
a blueprint of the productions, detailed descriptions of action or environment are left only for
what is unseen--there is no need for the playwright to describe what the audience already sees or
understands.6 Thus, descriptive dialogue serves as a Baedeker for the spectators. When Teucer
in Euripides' Helen, for instance, remarks on "this imposing palace. . . these royal precincts, that
magnificent pediment, [which] suggest the very house of Plutus, the temple of Wealth,"7 he is
6
A.M. Dale, "Seen and Unseen on the Greek Stage" in Collected Papers (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1969) 119.
7
Euripides, The Bacchae and Other Plays. Trans. Philip Vellacott (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1965) 127.
3
Ch. II: Greek Theatre
not providing directions for the stage carpenter but letting the audience know how to interpret the
neutral or conventionalized skene at this moment.
Finally, there are the extant remains of the theatres themselves. Performance spaces have
been identified from the Minoan civilization of Crete dating from the beginnings of the second
millennium B.C.E. Some scholars have termed these pre-fifth century performance spaces
"theatral areas"8 because, despite their theatrical configuration, there was either no specific
evidence of performance or because they were not exclusively or even primarily used for
dramatic presentations. Nonetheless, these theatral areas are clearly defined by a spectator area-often with stone, stadium-like seating areas--focused on an open (i.e., performing) space. There
are also remains of early sixth-century theatres in Thorikos, not far from Athens, and in Syracuse
in eastern Sicily
suggesting
that organized theatrical presentations were known in the Greek world prior to the beginnings of
the formal tragic contests. But, almost all the other stone ruins date from the fourth century
B.C.E. onward. The inevitable question is whether the Hellenistic theatres were merely
concretizations of earlier temporary forms, or whether they were a later point on an evolutionary
continuum. The Theatre of Dionysus, during the period of its greatest dramatic creativity, was
made of impermanent--perishable or transformable--materials. This suggests that during the
century or so in which the Athenian drama was dynamically growing and developing it was
abetted by a physical theatre that was equally mutable and experiencing a comparable evolution.
We know that the Greek theatres of the third and second centuries B.C.E. differed in certain
fundamental respects from their fourth-century predecessors; it is logical that those of the fourth
century, such as the Lycurgean Theatre of Dionysus, differed from their fifth-century
progenitors. Though the basic architectural vocabulary of orchestra, skene, and theatron
remained constant from at least the mid-fifth century onward, it would be a mistake to assume
that relationship and execution of these elements remained unaltered.
The Greek physical theatre went through five phases which may be designated as 1)
theatre in the Agora prior to 500 B.C.E.; 2) transitional or Aeschylean in which the theatre in
8
The term was coined by Arthur Evans who excavated Knossos. See Clifford Ashby, "The Case for the
Rectangular/Trapezoidal Orchestra," Theatre Research International 13 (1988): 4.
4
Ch. II: Greek Theatre
Athens moved from the Agora to the Precinct of Dionysus and began to take on standardized
features (c. 500-450 B.C.E.); 3) classical or Periclean theatre (c. 450-330)--the period of the
classical tragedies and comedies and the development of a permanent and standardized theatre
structure; 4) the Hellenistic or Lycurgean theatre (c. 330-200 B.C.E.) in which the stone theatres
were constructed; and 5) the period of Romanization in which Greek theatres were renovated to
incorporate Roman characteristics or in which new theatres combining Greek and Roman
qualities were constructed.
Acknowledging that we cannot, with total assurance or exactitude, reconstruct the early
phases of the ancient Greek theatre, we can nonetheless identify its major components, its
methods of operation, and suggest an evolution to the point where the evidence is more
substantial.
Theatre in the Agora
We must begin with the understanding that the ancient Greek theatre occurred entirely in
the open air; it was a large communal event that followed in the tradition of public assembly and
debate. The Assembly of the Athenian People held forth in the Pnyx, an outdoor, theatre-like
space west of the Acropolis; civic and commercial business was conducted in the open space of
the Agora, a place where Socrates also taught and debated. Thus, Athenian audiences were used
to a performance of confrontation in which the speakers would directly address the spectators in
the context of civic architecture and public topography; proximity, audibility, and clear sightlines
were essential. Furthermore, totally enclosed buildings that sealed off the outside world--the
norm for domestic, civic, and commercial architecture in much of the world today--was virtually
unknown in Attica. Our daily life tends to transpire within four walls and our theatre, therefore,
as A. M. Dale has noted, exists in a box.9 The daily civic and domestic life of ancient Greece not
only transpired outdoors but moved easily between interior and exterior space. An audience
accustomed to blurred distinctions between inner and outer worlds would not have been as
baffled by the fluid geography of much Greek theatre as many scholars seem to have been.10
Scenically, as it were, the background consisted of the open sky and the natural and man-made
features beyond the performers. When the theatre moved from the Agora to the Precinct of
Dionysus on the southwest slope of the Acropolis at the start of the fifth century B.C.E., the
"scenery" included boulders and hills, the Ilissos River, the city walls, as well as a profound
sense of the monuments of the Acropolis above and behind the audience as they sat on the
hillside. Such a tradition breeds a presentational, not representational scenography.
The origins of classical tragedy can be found in the presentations in the Athenian Agora.
Within the ancient Agora was a dirt-covered area of indeterminate shape designated as the
orchestra which literally means dancing place. Nothing remains to indicate its size or exact
location.11
9
Dale, 259.
10
Note, especially, Choephori and Eumenides where shifts from interior to exterior are seemingly continuous.
11
N.G.L. Hammond has suggested a location on the western side of the Agora against the Colonus Agoraeus and
between the Bouleuterion and the Altar of the Twelve Gods ["The Conditions of Dramatic Production to the Death
of Aeschylus," Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies, 13.4 (Winter 1972): 401-04]; others have placed it more
5
Ch. II: Greek Theatre
Agora
seen from
Akropolis
The fifth-century C.E. lexicographer Heschyius, citing Eratosthenes as a source,
described a bleacher-like seating arrangement and also suggested that some spectators used to
climb a tree for a better view of performances: "There is a view near a poplar . . . close to the
stands. Up to this tree, then, the stands extended and were set up, stands of upright timbers with
planks attached, like steps, on which they used to sit, before the theatre was built."12 Some sense
of these bleachers is provided by a vase painting by Sophilus
as well as by the anecdote from the Suda that during a
play by Pratinas, c. 500-496 B.C.E., "the ikria [stands] on which the spectators stood collapsed,
centrally within the Agora [see John Travlos, Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Athens (London: Thames and Hudson,
1971) 3], possibly where Agrippa later built his Odeion [Margarete Bieber, The History of the Greek and Roman
Theater, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1971) 54].
12
Hammond 391; see also John M. Camp, The Athenian Agora: Excavations in the Heart of Classical Athens
(London: Thames and Hudson, 1992) 46, who cites a similar description from Photius.
6
Ch. II: Greek Theatre
and it was on that account that a theatre was built for the Athenians."13
That the chorus danced on the ground of the orchestra is unquestioned, but where was the
actor? There is no necessary reason for the actor to be raised up on a stage, especially if the
spectators were on bleachers looking down, and since the protagonist in early tragedy interacted
directly with the chorus. However, there is the tradition, mentioned by Horace, of Thespis
performing on a wagon, and Pollux talks of both a thymele or altar and the eleos, "an ancient
table, which before Thespis' time they used to get upon and reply to the choristers."14 An eleos is
actually a butcher's table (such as that used by Eumaios the swineherd in Book XIV of the
Odyssey) and as a place for the butchering of sacrificial animals it would be a logical component
at festivals in the Agora and could be pressed into theatrical service. The word used for the
scene building that emerged in the fifth century is skene which initially meant hut or tent and was
analogous to the word "booth" as it applies to fairgrounds, thus suggesting a link with the booth
stage. Given the ancient tradition of the trestle or wagon stage for popular and traveling
performers, the legend of Thespis' cart, and the vase paintings depicting wagons in festivals, it is
not unreasonable--it is even probable--that such a stage was brought into the orchestra of the
Agora. But whether eleos or skene, we should assume something simple, conventional, and
emblematic.
By the end of the sixth century, then, the three basic components of the Greek theatre
were in place: the theatron or seating area, the orchestra, and the possibility of a skene.
The Orchestra
The orchestra is a unique feature of the Greek theatre. Virtually every other formal
theatre structure in history is organized around a raised stage, but the ancient Greek theatre is
centered upon an open space. The shape of the orchestra, however, has provoked passionate
debate, especially since the 1940s. Until then, at least, a circular orchestra was assumed. One
supporting argument was that tragedy evolved from dithyrambs which incorporated circular
dance patterns and therefore required a circular stage. But dances of any pattern can exist in any
space of sufficient size. (And it might be noted that scholars assume a linear pattern for tragic
dances; furthermore, many Greek folk dances of presumably ancient origin are more serpentine
than circular.) The assumption of a circular orchestra made the placement of the skene
problematic since it was assumed to lie outside the circumference of the orchestra. But there is
no reason why a skene could not exist within the boundary of an orchestra with choral dances of
any pattern occurring in the remaining space before the skene. Rather, it makes more sense to
think of the orchestra as a performing space that can assume a multiplicity of shapes and sizes
depending on the physical and topographical circumstances. A trestle stage or skene can thus fit
within an orchestra.
In 1947, Carlo Anti published Teatri Greci Arcaici da Minosse a Pericle in which he
posited that the classical theatres of Greece used a rectangular or trapezoidal orchestra. Since the
13
Quoted in Hammond, 396.
14
Quoted in A M. Nagler, A Source Book in Theatrical History (New York: Dover Publications, 1952) 8.
7
Ch. II: Greek Theatre
1970s, the rectangular/trapezoidal/irregularly-shaped school has begun to dominate. While some
scholars still vehemently insist upon a circular orchestra15 and others equivocate,16 the fact is
that there is simply no evidence for a circular orchestra prior to the fourth century, whereas there
are at least sixteen theatres through the fourth century whose archaeological remains definitely
fit the rectangular pattern.17
Those arguing in favor of circularity look to the remains of some 100 theatres with
partially circular orchestras. These structures, however, all date from the fourth century or later.
Furthermore, the assumption for over a century has been that these same theatres began with
fully circular orchestras that were truncated as the actor came to dominate over the chorus. The
presumption of an earlier full circle arose in part, of course, from Epidauros, and in part from an
erroneous belief that the orchestra evolved from threshing floors that served as stages for harvest
festival dances and choral performances.18 While the Roman architect Vitruvius, writing in the
first century B.C.E., shows a theatre based on the geometry of a circle, even his diagram
indicates an orchestra truncated by a skene.19 Moreover, Photius, defining the orchestra, says
that it first referred to "the orchestra in the Agora, and then as the name of the semi-circle at the
bottom of the theatre, where the choruses sang and danced."20 No ancient source illustrates or
describes a full-circle orchestra from the fifth century. The partial circles that remain can be
explained equally well, if not better, as evolutions from rectangles and trapezoids as they can as
truncations of full circles.
Other factors such as the linearity of the early wooden benches and, later, the very fact of
carving a theatre out of natural terrain whose topography would have a significant effect on the
size and shape of the orchestra, all argue against circularity. Ultimately, any theoretical
arguments must be evaluated in light of the fact that there is no archaeological evidence of a
circular orchestra in any Greek theatre prior to the fourth century.21
The Theatre of Dionysus
Sometime early in the fifth century B.C.E. performances relocated from the Agora to the
Precinct of Dionysus on the southwest hillside of the Acropolis--an area containing a small
15
See Hammond, "More on the Conditions of Production to the Death of Aeschylus," Greek, Roman, and
Byzantine Studies, 29 (1988): 6-9; see also Taplin.
16
See, for instance, Bieber, or the predominant American theatre history text, History of the Theatre by Oscar G.
Brockett.
17
Clifford Ashby, "The Case for the Rectangular/Trapezoidal Orchestra," Theatre Research International, 13
(1988): 1-20. The theatres include the Lenaion--located between the west slope of the Acropolis, the Pnyx, and the
Areopagus, where comedies were performed until the fourth century--as well as Thorikos and Syracuse. The anticircular argument is strongly supported by Rush Rehm (see bibliography for sources).
18
Rush Rehm has effectively shown why the threshing floor-orchestra analogy does not hold up well. See Greek
Tragic Theatre (London: Routledge, 1992) 33.
19
Vitruvius V,7.
20
Quoted in Hammond, "Conditions," 394. Italics mine.
21
See Ashby for a summary of the evidence.
8
Ch. II: Greek Theatre
temple and walled enclave with a sacred grove and an altar. The exact date or reason for the
move is not known, although it is usually attributed to the collapse of the ikria in the Agora in
first years of the fifth century. Such a date meshes well with archaeological finds on the
Acropolis and coincides with known dates of new building projects in the Agora district that
would have impinged on the orchestra. While the ostensible reason for the shift in venue may
have been public safety, it had the effect of removing performances from of a place of public
discourse and daily activity to a specialized locale associated with religious shrines, a place that
required a specific, if relatively short, journey. The Theatre of Dionysus--the first site in Athens
created primarily for theatrical performance--was carved out of the sloping hillside, and would
function as a performing space for the next 900 years. At this point, though, we cannot speak of
a theatre in the sense of a unified architectural structure; the Theatre of Dionysus was a piece of
transformed topography with seating and performing areas. In fact, there apparently was no word
for theatre in the modern sense.
Spectators at first may have stood, or more likely sat on the hillside. The natural slope of
the theatron was enhanced by piling on dirt to make it steeper. Wooden planks or benches--still
called ikria, as a line in Aristophanes' Thesmophoriazusae suggests22--may have been placed on
earthen terraces,23 thereby avoiding the potential dangers of a fragile bleacher structure. The
area at the base of the theatron needed to be leveled in order to accommodate the orchestra so a
retaining wall approximately six-feet high was constructed.
The only evidence as to the shape of
the earliest orchestra at this site are six stones uncovered by Dörpfeld lying in what appears to be
a curved line along the rear of the orchestra.24 Given an a priori assumption of circularity,
22
"The men come home from the benches [ikrion] of the theatre looking so sour . . . ." [v. 395; Loeb Edition].
23
A.W. Pickard-Cambridge, The Theatre of Dionysus in Athens (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1946) 14-15.
24
A seventh stone found by Dörpfeld has disappeared.
9
Ch. II: Greek Theatre
Dörpfeld used these stones to calculate an orchestra 26 meters in diameter.25 While no one
disputes that these stones are indeed from the original theatre, they can also be explained as part
of a retaining wall for an irregularly shaped or perhaps rectangular orchestra that conforms more
readily to the topography of the hillside. If the theatre at Epidauros had not been known at the
time of Dörpfeld's excavations, it is highly unlikely that anyone would have tried to fit these
stones into a circular configuration.
On the eastern side (either tangent to or within the old orchestra) are the remains of a
rock outcropping that was apparently leveled at some point to accommodate the playing space.
Classical scholar N.G.L. Hammond has made the fascinating suggestion that this rock (pagos)
was not leveled until a few decades after the theatre was first built and that it could have served,
therefore, as a stage and functioned for various locales in the early plays.26 While this theory
raises a staging problem in that it would place significant scenes and action off to stage right if
used as Hammond proposes, it nonetheless has great appeal and would certainly provide a
striking locale for "this unvisited lonely rock" in Prometheus Bound, as well as such sites as "this
rock of the assembled gods" to which Danaus invites the chorus to sit in Suppliants (188), or the
tomb of Darius in Persians. Since, as we shall see, there is significant doubt about the existence
of the skene in the early years of the Theatre of Dionysus, Hammond's proposal provides a
logical and attractive explanation for the frequent reference to rocky locales or mounds in the
early Aeschylean plays.
Assuming that the original Theatre of Dionysus had no skene, there was nothing to
enclose the field of vision. (Even a small skene would not have created a sense of architectural
enclosure or completion.) In such a theatre, then, the entrances of the chorus and actors were
prolonged and visible and constituted significant action that was of great scenographic
importance. Entry to the theatre was provided by two paths or eisodoi that approached the rear
of the orchestra from either side.27 Pollux stated that "the right [eisodos] leads from the country,
port, or city; but persons coming on foot from other parts, enter at the left,"28 but this claim
cannot be supported and is often contradicted in the extant plays. At the Theatre of Dionysus the
eisodoi sloped slightly upwards toward the orchestra. As a result, the audience could see the
chorus or characters approaching from a distance, coming slowly into view as if over a horizon-an important consideration because it meant that entrances via the eisodoi lacked the element of
surprise. Entrances were often announced by the chorus or other characters, thereby focusing the
audience on the new arrival while allowing the actor time to traverse the space. In Aeschylus'
Persians, for instance, the Chorus announces the arrival of the Queen:
But lo! she comes,
A light whose splendor equals eyes of gods,
25
William Bell Dinsmoor recalculated the diameter at 25.5 m.
26
Hammond, "Conditions" 409-10.
27
The term parados, meaning side road, is sometimes used as well. The term may have come from the Agora
where the entrance to the orchestra was possibly along the side of a building. Parados is also the term for the entry
ode of the chorus so to avoid confusion, eisodos is useful as the more generic and inclusive word.
28
Pollux, Onomastikon iv, 126-27, in Nagler, 8.
10
Ch. II: Greek Theatre
The mother of our king, I kneel.
Now all must address and salute her. [150-55]29
Confirmation of staging practices or scenography is provided again and again by Aristophanes
through parody or satirical reference and even eisodic entrances receive an Aristophanic
treatment. In The Clouds, for example, Socrates is pointing out the arrival of the Clouds to
Strepsiades who does not see them:
Soc: They are advancing in a throng, following an oblique path across the dales
and thickets.
Strep: Strange! I can see nothing.
Soc: There, close to the entrance [eisodon]. [vv. 324-26]30
The orchestra may have included a thymele or altar. Vitruvius states that those who
acted in the orchestra were called "thymelic," as opposed to the actors who acted upon a stage
and were called "scenic."31 Arguments have been set forth regarding permanent and nonpermanent altars, and whether a thymele used for ritual purposes might also be used in a
performance. There is simply insufficient information, but given the number of plays (including
those of Aristophanes) that require an altar and those that require locales such as a tomb for
which a centrally placed altar would serve well, a thymele seems a likely component from the
earliest days of the Theatre of Dionysus.32
The Development of the Skene
Much ink has been spilled over the question of the development of the skene or stage
building in the fifth-century theatre. Once again, there is no tangible evidence until the fourth
century B.C.E. at which time a stone foundation was constructed for a presumably wooden
building. A skene, with its possibilities for concealment, surprise, entrance and exit, suggestion
of offstage worlds, revelation, and multiple playing levels is too powerful a theatrical device not
to be used if it were available; and the fact remains that none of the extant plays prior to the
Oresteia (458 B.C.E.)--Persians, Seven Against Thebes, Suppliants, Prometheus--require a skene
though they do, variously, require a tomb or a rocky crag--all easily suggested by a thymele or
the pagos. If we bear in mind that all the component plays of a tetralogy would have flowed
rapidly and smoothly together, and that all the plays presented during the course of a festival
would have had the same basic resources, the fact that a playwright as skilled as Aeschylus did
not exploit the skene until the Oresteia suggests most strongly that it did not exist.
29
Trans. Seth G. Benardete. Oliver Taplin's superb study, The Stagecraft of Aeschylus, is devoted to the
investigation of entrances and exits. On pp. 70-75 he explores the relation of meter to various kinds of entrances.
30
Random House edition, 1938.
31
Vitruvius, V, vii.
32
The best discussion of the thymele can be found in Rehm, "The Staging of Suppliant Plays," Greek, Roman, and
Byzantine Studies, 29 (1988): 263-307.
11
Ch. II: Greek Theatre
A skene, unless functioning as a mere theatrical icon, implies a separation of actor and
chorus --a separation simply not supported by the texts. Actors and chorus, though having
different dramatic functions, shared the same physical space. Furthermore, acoustics would have
demanded that actors be at least in the center if not in the downstage part of the orchestra during
the episodes. Although Epidauros and most later theatres had near perfect acoustics that allowed
a whisper in the center of the orchestra to be heard in the farthest recesses of the theatron, this
was not the case in the Theatre of Dionysus in which the acoustics were less than ideal. An actor
standing in front of a skene some 25 m. from the front row of the theatron would have a difficult
time being heard.
And yet a nagging question remains. If an eleos or wagon was used in the Agora, would
it not have been used in the early Theatre of Dionysus as well? The most logical description of
the evolution of the Greek physical theatre is that a trestle stage was placed within or at the edge
of the orchestra which was elaborated upon and made permanent over time. Furthermore, an
absence of a skene presents a problem of simple staging logistics: Since tragedy before
Sophocles employed only two actors which necessitated the changing of masks and costumes-presumably out of the view of the audience--where was it done? One plausible solution is that a
skene--that is a tent or booth--was placed somewhere offstage (behind the sacred grove, behind
the pagos, along the eisodos somewhat out of view?) which functioned as a dressing room.33
As to why a skene-like structure did not transfer from the Agora to the Theatre of
Dionysus, one need only look at the different functions of the spaces. The Agora was a multipurpose, multi-function locale that incorporated buildings, monuments, shrines, and a major
road. It is not evident that the area known as the orchestra was clearly delineated in any way. In
such an environment some device was needed to establish a focal point for performance. It
could be utterly simple--an eleos or unpretentious cart--but it would unequivocally transform a
place of public commerce and civic activity into a theatre for a designated period of time. In the
Agora, the skene served as a convention or indicator of theatrical performance; its very presence
was an icon of theatricality.34 But the Theatre of Dionysus was already a designated and
demarcated performance space--the mere act of journeying to the theatre effected a
transformation in the spectator--and the Temple of Dionysus must have provided a kind of
architectural and spiritual focal point. Furthermore, given the vista beyond the orchestra and the
Acropolis looming behind the theatron, a rudimentary stage building would have been
insignificant. Therefore, whatever skene-like device may have existed in the Agora (and there is
no reason to believe one did not exist), the move to the Theatre of Dionysus apparently relegated
the skene to an offstage dressing room for the first few decades.
Thus, from the creation of the Theatre of Dionysus in the first decade of the fifth century
until the middle of the century the theatre most likely consisted of an irregularly-shaped
orchestra--terraced by a six-foot retaining wall but otherwise more or less conforming to the
topography of the hill--reached by two eisodoi, and a theatron consisting of wooden benches and
33
A modern, though banal, example can be seen in professional football stadiums where tents along the sidelines
function as dressing rooms for cheerleaders.
34
J. Michael Walton, defending the presence of a skene in the Theatre of Dionysus from the start, argues that this
is how it functioned prior to the Oresteia. [The Greek Sense of Theatre (London: Methuen, 1984) 48.]
12
Ch. II: Greek Theatre
earth. The orchestra may have included a thymele and there may have been a pagos to stage
right. A skene, if it existed at all, was most likely offstage as a dressing room. A radical shift
occurred in the 450s, with Aeschylus' trilogy, the Oresteia.
The Contributions of Aeschylus
The Oresteia (458 B.C.E.) is the first extant play that requires a door and a facade. There
are specific references to a palace, there are entrances and exits in and out of the palace, there are
sounds from within, and references to action within. The Watchman who opens Agamemnon and
the gods who appear in Eumenides suggest the need for a raised stage or rooftop. Choephori and
Eumenides change locales during the course of the action, almost with abandon: Choephori
begins at the tomb of Agamemnon, shifts to the exterior of the palace of Clytemnestra and
Aegisthus, then to the interior, and finally to the exterior again; Eumenides begins outside the
Temple of Apollo at Delphi, moves to the interior of the Temple, then to the Temple of Athena
in Athens, and concludes at the court of Areopagos. It is almost as if Aeschylus, having been
given a new toy, cannot play with it enough. While the shifting locales obviously require a
spatial fluidity, there is also a specificity of locale--these are not the more-or-less generalized
sites of the earlier plays. The skene provided specificity and fluidity without literalness. A few
lines of dialogue established place, thereby encouraging the spectators to project an imagined
location onto the facade of the skene.
The Oresteia has been prized, of course, as the only extant trilogy and it is admired for its
brilliant dramaturgy. What has largely been overlooked is the fact that its very dramaturgy
depends upon a fundamental understanding and exploitation of physical staging and
scenography. Aeschylus created a drama whose meaning, impact, and essential theatricality is
inextricably bound to the physical staging made possible only by the introduction of the skene.
Assuming, as I think we can, that an onstage skene was not employed until shortly before this
trilogy, then Aeschylus' achievement becomes even more monumental. Given the sophistication
and complexity of the Oresteia, it seems unlikely that this was the first use of the device;
presumably Aeschylus or a contemporary began to experiment with the skene previously. But
Aeschylus obviously saw its potential and made an artistic leap. When one realizes that
Aeschylus was near the end of his life and had been writing for nearly half a century when he
made this radical leap, the achievement is even more remarkable!
Once the device was introduced, it no doubt evolved rapidly. It is important to bear in
mind that the dramatic festivals were an annual event of brief duration. Thus, an idea introduced
one year could ferment and grow in the imaginations of the playwrights during the following
year. Because the skene was not a permanent or even semi-permanent fixture through most or all
of the classical period, it could be altered in shape, size, and features from year to year.
Horace--though based on what authority we do not know--says in Ars Poetica that
Aeschylus invented "the mask and comely robe [and] laid his stage on short planks." [279] And
while Aristotle in the Poetics attributes the third actor and scene painting to Sophocles,35
35
Poetics 4. Many scholars believe that this may be a later interpolation; cf. A.L. Brown "Three and ScenePainting Sophocles," Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society, 30 (1984): 1-8.
13
Ch. II: Greek Theatre
Themistius quotes Aristotle as attributing the third actor and okribantes to Aeschylus.36 If
okribantes refers to high-soled cothurni or wooden shoes, as is the common translation, then this
quote is undoubtedly spurious. If, however, the fourth-century understanding of okribantes was
a wooden platform from which actors or orators spoke, as Hammond suggests,37 then the two
quotes would further reinforce the idea that the skene was developed by Aeschylus.
The details of the fifth-century skene remain controversial. Scholars working backward
from later archaeological evidence and statements from Roman writers have argued for a skene
with two or three doors,38 paraskenia or side stages, and a low raised stage or logeion in front of
the skene. There is no evidence or need in any of the plays for these structures. All the extant
plays that require a door can be performed easily with one door39 which all evidence suggests
was a double door opening inward as it did in most Greek buildings of the time. Those plays
which involve changes in scene do so through deictic dialogue and theatre history has amply
demonstrated that audiences can readily follow and accept suggested and presentational scenes
as long as information is provided clearly and consistently. A flat roof on the skene capable of
supporting one or two actors, however, seems necessary as a site for characters and gods who
appear on high. Access to the roof would have been by means of an interior stair and trapdoor or
by exterior ladder.40
So, at least by the date of the Oresteia the Theatre of Dionysus employed a flat-roofed,
one-story skene, most likely made of wood, with a facade incorporating a single doorway.
The development of the skene had a more subtle, and ultimately more profound, effect on
dramaturgy than simply providing an increased variety of locales. It fundamentally altered the
rhythm of the tragedy. Prior to the introduction of the skene, all entrances--whether by the
chorus or the actors--had to be made via the eisodoi and therefore they unfolded over time.
Characters could be seen approaching, allowing the audience to anticipate their arrival, complete
with feelings of expectation, doom, horror, or optimism; the exit of a character or chorus could
take on the qualities of a final musical chord fading off into inaudibility. Such entrances and
exits continued to occur after the development of the skene, of course, especially with the chorus,
but characters could now appear suddenly and disappear quickly. A processional rhythm was
replaced with what we might call a cinematic rhythm with the simple introduction of the skene.
The intercutting of scenes facilitated by the skene had the effect of telescoping time and space.
36
See Taplin, 62.
37
Hammond, "Conditions," 411.
38
A major source of this view is Pollux who claimed that "the middle [door] opened either into a palace, grotto,
hall, or whatever was of first distinction in the play; the right-hand door
was a retreat for the next in rank; and the left, which had a very miserable aspect, led to some desolate temple, or
had no house." But this flies in the face of the texts themselves and would ultimately have been more confusing to
an audience than an overtly theatrical use of a single door.
39
A case has been made for at least two doors for comedy, especially in the plays of Menander (see Dearden and
Winter), but this takes us into the fourth century.
40
D.J. Mastronarde has outlined the various possibilities for entrances and exits from the skene roof. See "Actors
on High," Classical Antiquity 9.2 (1990): 259-60.
14
Ch. II: Greek Theatre
Dramatists were no longer confined--if they ever had been--to real time onstage.
Skenographia
The introduction of the skene allowed the development of what Aristotle refers to as
skenographia. Sometimes translated as scene painting, skenographia more accurately
encompasses all aspects of physical production. Pollux, in his second-century C.E.
Onomastikon, lists a host of stage devices, but two--the ekkyklema and the mechane or geranos-require particular attention, as does the question of scene painting.
The ekkyklema was a rolling platform for the revelation of tableaux. (By the fourth
century it may have been a pivoting platform.) The climactic moment of many tragedies
involves the revelation of a scene of death. In certain cases there is no reason why a body could
not simply be carried onstage, the theatricality of such a moment often derives from the sudden
and unencumbered revelation of the scene. Aeschylus seems to take full advantage of this new
possibility provided by the skene in the Oresteia. At the end of Agamemnon, Clytemnestra is
revealed standing over the bodies of her husband and Cassandra; a parallel scene occurs in the
next play of the trilogy, Choephori, with Orestes standing over the bodies of his mother and
Aegisthus. Although the scenes revealed are often "within the palace," merely opening the door
within the skene would not provide adequate sightlines to achieve the necessary dramatic effect;
furthermore, any character facing upstage toward the tableau or entering into the scene "within"
would become virtually inaudible. (If it were, indeed, a double door opening inward, the tableau
would of necessity be several feet behind the facade.) The general assumption is that a rolling
platform--the ekkyklema--was employed. When this was first used is not known. While it would
be tempting to attribute the development and exploitation of the device to Aeschylus, there could
be other means to achieve the effects in the Oresteia and there is no consensus on this matter.41
There is no question, however, that it was in use by the end of the fifth century, because
Aristophanes, our most reliable source, parodies the device in Thesmophoriazusae and
Acharnians.42
The combination of the skene and ekkyklema suggests once again the effect of
scenography on both the rhythm and dramaturgy of fifth-century tragedy. Though there is no
stricture against violence on the Greek stage (despite what later commentators believed) it was
seldom presented. Rather, an audience was led to a point of impending catastrophe, the
catastrophic event was related verbally, and finally the results were visually revealed in front of
the skene. In Plato's Ion, the elocutionist Ion describes the effect of his Homeric recitations on
an audience: "When I look down from the platform I see them weeping and showing signs of
terror and astonishment at my words."43 As H. C. Baldry has noted in his excellent book on the
41
Taplin argues that it was not used in Aeschylus' lifetime; 442-43.
42
In Thesmophoriazusae, Agathon is wheeled out at l. 95 and wheeled back in at l. 269. In Acharnians, l. 406ff.,
Euripides tells Dikaiopolis he is too busy to come down so he is wheeled out instead (literally "ekkyklemed"). The
joke would have been obvious to audiences familiar with Euripides' use of the device in his tragedies. The use of
the device is well-catalogued by Peter Arnott in Greek Scenic Conventions in the Fifth Century B.C. (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1962) Ch. 5.
43
In Literary Criticism: Plato to Dryden, 15.
15
Ch. II: Greek Theatre
Greek theatre, "A public accustomed to be so moved by recitation of the Iliad would find the
agonies of the dying Heracles . . . or the rending of Pentheus . . . far more vivid in the
messenger's account than through any realism that the Greek style of acting could achieve."44
Thus, a pattern of revealed effect rather than portrayed action evolved from (or perhaps
contributed to) the development of the physical stage.
The ekkyklema raises the inevitable question of interior and exterior. If a scene revealed
"within" is rolled "out," where are we? This is a modern question relevant only in a theatre of
naturalism and scenic illusion but of little consequence in classical times. At the moment the
ekkyklema rolled through the doors, interior and exterior worlds blended until it was necessary to
specify them again. In a sense, the very presence of the skene aided this transformation because
the scenic structure functioned as a focal point that united action and transformed the open space
of the stage into a theatrical space in which theatrical rules governed action and perception.
The appearance of gods, a conceit frequently employed by Euripides especially for the
resolution of dramatic situations, presented technical problems since the gods would not simply
walk through a door or march up an eisodos. The mechane or geranos was a crane-like device
supposedly used for flying. From the technical apparatus came the literary phrase for a contrived
ending: theos apo mechanes in Greek, "deus ex machina" in Latin--the god from the machine.
Even in the modern theatre, with its sophisticated machinery, flying is a difficult feat both
practically and aesthetically. A suspended individual or chariot has the easy potential for the
ludicrous, and unless done effortlessly and with precision, causes the audience to focus on the
safety of the performer rather than on the action of the character. In an open-air, roofless theatre,
illusion--in the sense of hiding the mechanisms and suspension wires--was not possible, though
presumably the crane itself and the crane operator (mechanopoios) would be hidden behind the
skene. It seems highly unlikely, therefore, that flying would have been used as a theatrical
device as early as the Oresteia and most scholars reject the idea of flying in Aeschylus. In all
likelihood it was used only sparingly throughout the fifth century. Euripides' Medea (431
B.C.E.) is the first play that seems to absolutely demand such a device.45
Whatever its origins, we know that the crane was definitely in use by the late fifth
century. Once again, it is Aristophanes who provides the evidence. Trygaeus, a character in
Peace, flies on a dung beetle to visit Zeus. His ride--as actor--is treacherous and in fright he
yells, "Machinist, take great care of me." Aside from the humor that derives from the
acknowledgment of the theatrical milieu, there may be humor in confirming the audience's
experience of such moments in tragedy. Flying is used or referred to in four other Aristophanic
comedies. But as Taplin has pointed out, Aristophanes' use of flying does not parallel all the
assumed uses in Euripides. There is, in fact, some thought that several Euripidean uses of the
mechane are interpolations of post-fifth-century practitioners.46
Scene painting provides yet another controversial problem. In Chapter IV of the Poetics,
44
H.C. Baldry, The Greek Tragic Theatre (NY: W.W. Norton & Co., 1971) 50.
45
See Mastronarde, "Actors on High," Classical Antiquity 9.2 (1990): 247-294.
46
See Taplin, 444-45. As Taplin notes, "the evidence of the plays themselves,especially when compared with
Aristophanes, leaves it far from sure that in the fifth century the theos apo mechanes was in fact apo mechanes."
16
Ch. II: Greek Theatre
Aristotle attributes scene painting to Sophocles, though some scholars think that this phrase
might not be Aristotle's but a later interpolation.47 Vitruvius, in Book VII of The Ten Books on
Architecture, on the other hand, says that "Agatharcus, in Athens, when Aeschylus was bringing
out a tragedy, painted a scene," [198] though he seems to be referring to perspective which
seems highly unlikely.
No doubt influenced by contemporary stage practice, modern translators defined
Aristotle's term skenographia as scene painting, but (assuming the phrase is indeed his) it is
probably closer to the idea of scenography--the total arrangement of the stage image.
Representational decor makes no logistical sense in the fifth century. As already noted, many of
the plays have internal changes of locale as well as changes from play to play within a tetralogy,
and, of course, changes from one tetralogy to the next. Given the need for the continuous and
rapid flow of the plays, scene changing by whatever means, seems unlikely, and there is no
evidence for scene-changing devices in the mid-fifth century as there are later.48 If any further
argument against scene painting were needed it could be found, negatively, in Aristophanes.
The comic playwright who parodied stage machinery, dramatic characters, tragic playwrights,
and literary devices, makes absolutely no reference to scene painting. It seems unlikely that if
scene painting existed in any way that might draw attention to itself, Aristophanes would not
have satirized it in some manner.
If Aristotle's reference to skenographia is legitimate, then it seems most likely that he was
referring to the development of scenography that resulted from the introduction of the skene.
The Periclean and Lycurgean Theatre
Most of the dozens of Greek theatres scattered across Asia Minor, the Greek archipelago,
and Sicily lie in various states of ruin, but for the most part they preserve their original
configurations. Scholars and archaeologists have been able to piece together these fascinating
puzzles at many sites, even aided in some later theatres by documents identifying the
architectural components. Athens, however, was from the start a dynamic city and even after it
ceased to be a commercial or political force in the ancient world, it remained an important
cultural center. As a result, the Theatre of Dionysus was in more or less continuous use--though
not always as a pure theatre--for nearly a millennium. The Theatre of Dionysus suggests a
history of constant transformation, adaptation, change, and renovation
47
A.L. Brown, "Three and Scene-Painting Sophocles," Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society, 30
(1984): 6.
48
It has been suggested that the contribution of Agatharcus--if indeed it was he--was to create a more-or-less
generic decor for the skene that would reinforce its theatrical iconicity. See Walton, 49.
17
Ch. II: Greek Theatre
which makes a precise reconstruction of
the theatre difficult. But its volatile history ultimately presents a panorama of the shifting style
of Greek theatrical presentation.
The first major changes were made by the statesman Pericles. Less than a century later,
the orator and statesman Lycurgus began the stone reconstruction of the theatre leading to
significant alterations.
In the fourth century, a theatre of the poet was substantially replaced by a theatre of the
actor, while a more naturalistic style emerged in both tragedy and comedy supplanting some of
the formalistic elements of earlier Greek theatre and production. New Comedy, with its
emphasis on domestic situations, took precedence over the more grotesque, literary, and political
Old Comedy. The general shift in style and the diminishing role of the chorus from the fourth
through second centuries B.C.E. led to an increase in the size and complexity of the skene, the
development of a significantly raised stage, a diminished orchestra, and the expanded use of
realistic elements of scenic decor. New theatres built around the ancient world, especially after
the fourth century, tended to be smaller than their pre-Hellenistic predecessors. This greater
intimacy was more appropriate to a theatre that privileged detailed scenery and the individual
actor.
The first major change in the Theatre of Dionysus began within a few decades of its
move to the Acropolis. When Pericles (c.495-29) built his Odeion to the east of the theatre in
446-442 B.C.E., it caused a westward shift of the theatre's axis. The orchestra was shifted north
northwest and cut more deeply into the hillside. This resulted in a steeper theatron which
required retaining walls or analemmata at the ends to shore up the seating bank.
18
Ch. II: Greek Theatre
The Odeion of Pericles is an early example of a relatively ignored aspect of Greek and
Roman performance, the roofed theatre.49 Pre-Hellenistic Greek architecture was limited by
post-and-beam technology which meant an inability to span large spaces and therefore resulted
in multi-columned halls for public assembly. The Odeion was quite large--the square structure
being approximately 200' on each side. There is no evidence that the early roofed halls--the
Telesterion at Eleusis (whose earliest version dates from the late seventh century B.C.E.), the
Thersilion at Megalopolis (c. 370 B.C.E.), or the Odeion of Pericles--were ever used for
specifically theatrical purposes, but like other so-called theatral areas, they provided for an
audience--George C. Izenour estimates the Odeion's capacity at 3000-4000--and a performing
space of some sort, if only for recitation or religious ceremonies. The Odeion of Pericles was
used, among other things, for announcements and presentations related to the dramatic contests
at the Great Dionysia. The columns, which hindered sightlines and limited playing space, would
seem to mitigate against the sort of performance held in the open-air theatres, but both the
Odeion and the Thersilion were contiguous with open-air theatres, implying a clear association
with theatrical activity and suggesting that some sort of performance was at least a possibility.50
In the case of the Thersilion, or Hall of the Ten Thousand, a wood-floored, columned porch was
attached to the north facade and also served as the logeion of the outdoor theatre of Megalopolis,
49
This topic has recently received a superb and thorough study by George C. Izenour. See Roofed Theaters of
Classical Antiquity (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992).
50
Izenour (p. 30) suggests the Odeion as a possible rehearsal hall.
19
Ch. II: Greek Theatre
itself one of the largest outdoor theatres of the Hellenistic period.51
There is no question that through the Hellenistic period--in fact, till the end of Roman
times--most audiences experienced theatrical performance in open-air structures as they did most
large-scale public assembly. But the roofed structures need to be kept in mind because certain
segments of the audience also had the experience of indoor performative activity to which to
compare the theatre. For such spectators, their perceptions would be shaped not only by the
performance itself but by a comparison of an enclosed and comparatively dark roofed structure
with the expansive outdoor spaces.
The transformation of the skene toward a larger, more permanent, and standardized
edifice began during the Peace of Nicias (421-15) in the midst of the Peloponnesian War. A
stoa, about 204' by 22', was constructed along the back of the orchestra, abutting the old Temple
51
Izenour, 36ff.
20
Ch. II: Greek Theatre
of Dionysus.
Built on a breccia foundation (not used in Athens until the late fifth century), it cut into rock on
the north and east sides of the theatre. It has been proposed that the stoa was used as a
skenotheke--a scenic storehouse--but that is not a widely accepted notion.52 Nonetheless, this
colonnaded hall or stoa provided a permanent architectural backdrop for all productions.
Within the stoa were steps leading up toward the orchestra and opening onto a stone
platform (generally referred to as Platform T because of its designation in archaeological plans)
about 10 3/4' square. Two post holes in this platform and eight vertical slots--four on either side
of T--in the stoa wall suggest that this platform served as a support structure for a wooden
skene.53
The question of paraskenia or projecting side stages is, not surprisingly, a vexing one.54
52
Bieber (p.60) outlines the arguments of Fiechter and Dörpfield supporting this view; Travlos takes a firm
negative stand. See Pickard-Cambridge, The Theatre of Dionysus in Athens, 24-28, for a full discussion of the
archaeological details of the stoa.
53
See Pickard-Cambridge, 21-22; Bieber, 60-62.
54
See Pickard-Cambridge, The Theatre of Dionysus in Athens, 169. The term is first used by Demosthenes in his
Oration Against Meidias.
21
Ch. II: Greek Theatre
The first visual evidence comes in two fourth-century vase paintings. One, a Tarentine Calyx
krater depicting the meeting of Pelias and Jason with two Peliades looking out, one from each
door opening from the back wall into the paraskenia. The other, a Campanian krater, depicts
Artemis, Iphegenia, Orestes, and Pylades from Iphegenia in Tauris, though apparently a different
version than Euripides extant play.55
The
paraskenia here represent the Temple of Artemis on the left and the priestess' house from which
Iphegenia steps on the right. Although there is no absolute proof that either of these paintings
are depictions of theatrical productions, the combination of subject matter and structure suggests
strongly that they are.56 Furthermore, they coincide in shape and function with the paraskenia
that are indicated by later stone foundations. It seems reasonable to assume, then, that by the late
fifth century or early fourth century, the paraskena was part of the wooden skene.
Lycurgus (c. 396-325 B.C.E.) controlled Athenian finances from 338 B.C.E. until his
death and he used his position to literally set contemporary theatre practice in stone. He not only
began the stone reconstruction of the Theatre of Dionysus, but he also authorized canonical texts
of Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides in an attempt to preserve classical theatre and halt the
inevitable transformations that occur in living productions. In the case of the physical theatre,
however, Lycurgus was unwittingly perpetuating the scenography of the late fourth century
rather than the fifth-century practices of Aeschylus and his followers.
55
See Pickard-Cambridge, 171, n.2.
56
Those who believe these are not depictions of performance point to the fact that the actors are not wearing
masks though this might be explained by the artist's primary interest in the story rather than the performance. Erika
Simon (The Ancient Theatre. Trans. C.E. Vafopoulou-Richardson. London: Methuen, 1982, 22ff.) makes the rather
curious suggestion that the scenic background on these vases do not represent three-dimensional architecture but
painted perspective backgrounds.
22
Ch. II: Greek Theatre
The theatron is the one part of the Theatre of Dionysus that essentially retains the
Lycurgean plan down to the present day. During the fifth century, the upper boundary of the
theatron was formed by a public road that ran above the Odeion and along the base of the
Acropolis cliff. As the wooden seats were replaced by stone benches Lycurgus added a third
"gallery" which required cutting back into the cliff. In 319 B.C.E. the choregic monument of
Thrasyllus was built into this cutting or katatome. The stone seating of the Lycurgean theatre,
though now curvilinear, never achieved the symmetry of other theatres because of the exigencies
of the topography. Once this upper section of seats was added, the road served as a diazoma
(literally, girdle) or wide aisle. The theatron was divided by twelve narrow stairways (each 27"
wide) into thirteen wedge-shaped sectors or kerkides. Plato, in Symposium, claims that the
theatre sat 30,000, but this number seems highly unlikely. Some extant rows show lines cut into
the stone about sixteen inches apart, perhaps indicating individual seats.57 If this was the case,
the Theatre of Dionysus could accommodate 17,000 persons if totally packed, though PickardCambridge places the total at about 14,000.58
In the front row of the theatron were sixty-seven marble "thrones" for priests and
officials, each inscribed with the name of the person whose seat it was. The existing thrones date
from the first century B.C.E. but appear to be copies of originals that can reasonably be dated to
the late fourth century.59 At some later point, the central throne for the Priest of Dionysus had a
canopy, though what effect this must have had on sightlines behind him is unknown.
In front of the thrones were a sloped pavement and a step, in front of which was a
drainage channel some three feet wide, and ranging from 2'11" to 3'7" deep. This channel was
essential to prevent the rainwater that would have cascaded down the stone theatron from
washing away the orchestra. Slabs were placed across the channel to allow access to the vertical
aisles. The channel also served, of course, as a demarcation for the front of the orchestra, giving
it a U shape.60 There is no evidence of any permanent surfacing so it is assumed that it was of
beaten earth, top dressed with chalk or clay.
The foundation of the skene from the Lycurgean theatre provides our first solid evidence
for the shape of the stage building, though much about its height and decor remain in dispute.
The Lycurgean skene was a long building parallel to and contiguous with the existing stoa, the
front of the stoa presumably forming the back wall of the skene. Platform T was enclosed within
this new building and Margarete Bieber conjectures that it might have served as a foundation for
mechanical equipment such as a crane.61 The foundation also indicates the existence of
57
Sixteen inches, though tight by modern standards of comfort and body size, was still considered adequate in
many theatres even at the beginning of this century.
58
The Theatre of Dionysus in Athens, 141.
59
See Pickard-Cambridge, 141-42.
60
The tendency of scholars has been to determine a circular orchestra based on the northern portion of the
channel. The diameter of such a circle would have been 19.61 m or 66'1" but an even 60 Greek feet. The exactness
of that latter number suggests that the diameter was not accidental. However, there is no reason why a circular
orchestra had to be inscribed. The fact that there is no evidence of circular markings--as there are in Epidauros-seems, once again, to reinforce the argument against the circular orchestra at the Theatre of Dionysus.
61
Bieber, 76.
23
Ch. II: Greek Theatre
paraskenia. It is important to note that the space between the paraskenia was still at orchestra
level.
It is frequently assumed that the stone skene merely made permanent the existing wooden
structure. But while the older skene must certainly have influenced the new construction, stone
architecture presents problems of a different order and magnitude than wood and requires
solutions provided by monumental architecture.62 A logical reconstruction of this skene posits a
flat roof that could function as a theologeion or platform for the appearance of gods or could
function as a proskenion stage--the more common arrangement in the third and second
centuries.63 The paraskenia, however, may have had sloping roofs. Rhys F. Townsend has
convincingly proposed the Stoa of Zeus in the Agora as a likely model for such a skene.
The chief architectural features of
Townsend's skene are an entablature and a colonnade along the central section.
The proskenion stage was a raised stage set on a colonnaded screen placed in front of a
two-story skene (hence, proskene, from which, ultimately, our "proscenium").
This form, a result of the increasing
62
See Rhys F. Townsend, "The Fourth-Century Skene of the Theatre of Dionysos at Athens," Hesperia 55 (1986):
434 ff.
63
"The colonnaded screen creates a false proskenion that may well have served as a prototype for this element
which only achieved its full development later. The Athenian skene can be viewed as a forerunner rather than as an
exception, thereby placing the Theatre of Dionysus more within the mainstream of the development of Greek stage
design, a position better in keeping with Athens' known role as the leader in Greek Drama." (Townsend, 436.)
24
Ch. II: Greek Theatre
emphasis upon actors over chorus--a trend encouraged by the production of New Comedy-generally replaced the paraskenion stage.64 The proskenion's position made the term
synonymous with facade, as demonstrated in a famous quote from Antiphanes in which he
compares the courtesan Nannion to a proskenion: she was lovely when covered in makeup and
jewelry, but ugly when unadorned.
The first clear example of this new form of skene is found at Priene (in modern-day
Turkey).
The theatre
was initially constructed c. 340 B.C.E., though the stone skene dates from the beginning of the
third century. The term proskene itself first appears in an inscription dated 280 B.C.E. from
another theatre on the Aegean island of Delos which asks the contractor to "see to screens
[pinakes] for the proskenion."65 Begun in wood c. 305 B.C.E., the theatre at Priene was
reconstructed in stone over a period of some fifty years.66 Other inscriptions refer to an
episkenion as well as to upper and lower paraskenia, thus confirming the two-story nature of the
stage house.
Although the earliest known examples of the proskenion stage occur outside Athens at
the start of the third century B.C.E., some scholars have suggested that the proskenion stage
began to appear in Athens by the late fourth century.67 Proskenion colonnades may have existed
64
For the relation of Old and New Comedy to the development of the stage see Dearden and Winter.
65
Peter Arnott, Greek Scenic Conventions in the Fift(+' 3
B.C. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962) 19.
66
See Bieber, 110-11.
67
F.E. Winter, "The Stage of New Comedy," Phoenix, 37 (1983): 38-47. Winter's argument rests in part on the
practicality of the proskenion stage for New Comedy and the fact that the majority of New Comedies were
25
Ch. II: Greek Theatre
at the theatres at Isthmia and Trachones (the latter near Athens) c. 325 B.C.E., and by about 300
B.C.E. at Thasos, Ephesos, Miletos, and possibly Epidauros.
The inscriptions at Delos and the more or less contemporary theatre at Oropos with their
references to pinakes (flats) and thyromata (openings in the facade for the placement of pinakes),
as well as the remains at Priene, provide evidence of some form of scene painting though its
exact nature remains unknown. Formalistic and emblematic decor remains a strong possibility,
but the movable nature of the pinakes suggests that the painted scenes were somehow specific to
the productions and thus may have indicated a trend toward scenic illusionism. Vitruvius and
Pollux, in addition to discussing pinakes, also identify katablemata--painted cloth or skins
thrown over a frame--and periaktoi which were revolving prismatic devices that could reveal a
series of scenes. Though the latter were well-documented in Roman theatre, their presence in the
Hellenistic theatre is conjectural; however, at the theatre at Elis stone sockets exist in the
thyromata that could accommodate the rods on which periaktoi might revolve. Pollux also
mentions the keraunoskopeion or lightning machine (a variant of the periaktos); the bronteion or
thunder machine; the hemikyklion, situated in the orchestra and used "to show afar off any
particular place of the city or persons swimming in the sea"; and the stropheion which shows
heroes "who are transformed to divinity or persons who had perished in a tempest or in war."68
There is no confirming evidence for any of these latter devices in Hellenistic theatres.
Pollux also mentions Charon's Steps--an underground passage from the skene to the
center of the orchestra or to the thymele--for the appearance of ghosts.
The Hellenistic theatres at Eritrea and Corinth have such passages, but they are not found
elsewhere.
The final phase of Greek theatre development is generally classified as Greco-Roman as
Roman culture and architecture began to exert significant force on the Greek theatre. These
theatres are typified by a severely truncated orchestra (though not quite the perfect semicircle of
the Roman theatre) and a raised stage, though not as high as the proskenion stage. This
development used to be seen by scholars as the logical evolution of the encroachment of the
skene upon the circular orchestra.69 But as we have seen, few, if any, theatres other than
premiered in Athens.
68
In Nagler, 9-10.
69
See, for instance, Allardyce Nicoll, The Development of the Theatre (New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich,
26
Ch. II: Greek Theatre
Epidauros ever had a circular orchestra, so the Greco-Roman theatre represents a diminishment
of the U or horseshoe-shaped space in front of the skene or proskene.
I would like to call these second-century theatres Vitruvian theatres, even though it
means identifying them by the Roman architect who described them a century later. Vitruvius
characterized the typical or ideal Greek theatre as derived from a circle in which three squares
are inscribed.
As can be seen from
Vitruvius' plan, the squares determine the boundaries of the proskene and skene, the dimensions
of the orchestra, and the position of the vertical aisles in the theatron. The theatres at Priene,
Ephesos, Delos, and Oropos fit this geometry closely, if not exactly. Vitruvius also declares that
the logeion (or proskenion stage) should be at a height of ten to twelve feet. The theatres at
Assos, Sicyon, Eretria, and Epidauros fit these measurements, while Oropos and Priene were
somewhat lower. The Theatre of Dionysus, befitting its size, was a bit higher.
An Afterword
The utter perfection of the theatre at Epidauros, built approximately the same time as the
theatres at Priene, Oropos, Ephesus, reaches out to us. Surely, one says, this geometric jewel
arising from the land where geometry was invented cannot be accidental. Surely, if we cannot
find the proof that earlier theatres fit this mold, it must be our fault as historians for failing to
find the missing evidence. But yet it remains--the first and only theatre with a clearly
demarcated circular orchestra. For all we know, its shape may have as much to do with its
proximity to the healing shrine of Asclepius as to its theatrical uses. If the theatre at Epidauros
marked a significant shift in theatre architecture, and if it was seen as ideal, then why wasn't the
Theatre of Dionysus, the most important theatre in Greece, reconstructed to fit this model in a
subsequent renovation? Although Epidauros (or the ideas that led to the design of Epidauros)
seemed to have some effect on later theatres outside Greece proper, the Theatre of Dionysus
continued to evolve in a more "Roman" direction. The most important theatre in antiquity never
conformed to nineteenth and twentieth-century ideals of Greek theatre.
1966) 19-20.
27
Ch. II: Greek Theatre
The later history of the Theatre of Dionysus can be summed up quickly. It was partially
destroyed by Sulla's invasion in 86 B.C.E. and rebuilt a few years later.70 During the time of
Nero (c. 60 C.E.) the stage was entirely rebuilt, though the height of the stage at this time is
unknown. Also during this time the orchestra was paved with marble. By the second century
C.E. the stage took on Roman dimensions--raised about six feet and much deeper than the Greek
logeion. The theatre ceased to function as such with the Herulian invasion of 267 C.E. although
it continued to function for other purposes until the end of the fifth century C.E. when a Christian
basilica was built in the eastern eisodos.

70
The material in this paragraph is derived from John Travlos, Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Athens (London:
Thames and Hudson, 1971) 538.
28