Three studies in Athenian dramaturgy 9783110950533, 3110950537

Table of contents :
""Preface""
""Abbreviations""
""Introduction""
""I. The Fifth-Century Theatre of Dionysos""
""1. Points of Reference""
""1. The Three Earliest Stages""
""2. Dating""
""3. Reconstructions of the First Stage""
""2. The First Terrace""
""1. The Stones""
""2. Dörpfeld�s Reconstruction""
""3. Fiechter�s Opinions""
""4. A Rectilinear Theatre?""
""5. Travlos�s Reconstruction""
""3. Theatrical Features of the Early Stage""
""1. The “Pagos-B�hne�""
""2. The First Skene""
""3. Charon�s Ladder""
""4. Theatres in the Agora and the Lenaion?""
""5. Summary"" ""II. Change of Scene in Aischylean Drama""""1. Persai""
""2. Choephoroi""
""3. Eumenides""
""4. Conclusions""
""III. The Staging of Sophokles�s Aias""
""1. Data and Problems""
""2. Solutions""
""3. The Suicide""
""4. Concealing the Death""
""5. The Change of Scene""
""6. Conclusions""
""Indices""
""Key to Figures""

Citation preview

Scott Scullion Three Studies in Athenian Dramaturgy

Beiträge zur Altertumskunde Herausgegeben von Ernst Heitsch, Ludwig Koenen, Reinhold Merkelbach, Clemens Zintzen Band 25

m B. G. Teubner Stuttgart und Leipzig

Three Studies in Athenian Dramaturgy

Scott Scullion

m B. G. Teubner Stuttgart und Leipzig 1994

Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-Einheitsaufnahme Scullion, Scott: Three studies in Athenian dramaturgy / Scott Scullion. Stuttgart: Teubner, 1994 (Beiträge zur Altertumskunde; Bd. 25) ISBN 3-519-07474-5 NE: Scullion, Scott: [Sammlung]; GT Das Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt besonders fur Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen. © B. G. Teubner Stuttgart 1994 Printed in Germany Druck und Bindung: Röck, Weinsberg

INTRODUCTION All studies of Athenian dramaturgy necessarily depend in part on the view we take about the form of the Athenian stage. This has always been a matter of controversy, never more so than in the century since the theatre was excavated. In recent years two new theories have been propounded, and staging-programs for various plays based on them. The first of the three studies presented here reconsiders these and earlier reconstructions of the stage; the second and third proceed on this basis to discussion of a central issue in the study of drama, the means and principles by which the scene is set and changed in the tragedies. The relevant evidence is in the first part primarily archaeological, in the second and third primarily literary, but as the sequel will indicate the tendency to treat the plays on the basis of inadequate or faulty knowledge of the remains of the theatre has had some unhappy consequences. It is also possible to make progress in the study of the remains themselves. Doubt and disagreement are the hallmarks of current scholarship on the Theatre of Dionysos. It is important for the student of drama to have as clear a picture as may be possible of the facility provided for the production of the plays, but many recoil from the technicalities and apparently insoluble problems that stand in their way. I have therefore attempted in my treatment of the theatre to provide a clear and digestible guide to the remains and to the variety of interpretations to which they have been subjected; this has also been the best method of indicating what conclusions can reasonably be drawn, and why others should be rejected. Having disposed in the first study of certain propositions about the physical setting of the Aischylean tragedies, we proceed in the second to consider the philological problem of how often and on what principles the scene changes in them. Neglected evidence is brought to bear on the individual cases, and general principles of tragic scene-setting and change of scene are derived from them.

2

Introduction

The two new theories of the form of the stage have both been applied to the notorious staging-problems in Aias, of which the most central are the staging of the suicide and the change of scene. These and various subsidiary problems are closely connected, and are all treated in the third study. Our principle interest is the change of scene, and a new view of this completes and is partly based on the survey of early scene-setting and scene-change begun in the discussion of Aischylos. Our study of the ancient world is always also an encounter with the students who have preceded us, both the quick and the dead. In my treatment of these much-discussed topics I have tried to acknowledge my debts fully, but have also had the unpleasant task of expressing and justifying my disagreement with a very large number of scholars, from some of whom I have learned a great deal. I should like therefore to say here that I am aware that my own work must contain errors of fact and judgement, and to express the hope that it may nevertheless, or for that reason, inspire and help future students to bring us closer to the truth.

I

THE FIFTH-CENTURY THEATRE OF DIONYSOS It is now just over a hundred years since the earliest remains in the sanctuary of Dionysos Eleuthereus were uncovered by Wilhelm Dörpfeld, who excavated there in 1885-6,1889 and 1895. The ancient ruins had long been buried under a deep accumulation of soil. In the second half of the fifth century A.D. a small church was built in the east eisodos1 and the orchestra was walled off as its courtyard; by the middle of the eleventh century the "Rizokastro" wall round the foot of the Akropolis ran over the buried remnants of both church and theatre.2 When interest in the site of the ancient theatre revived it was assumed to have been in the location of the theatre of Herodes Attikos, until R. Chandler concluded in 1765 that it must have been on the southeast slope of the Akropolis. After unsuccessful excavations in 1841 and 1858-9 the auditorium was finally uncovered, by the architect J.H. Strack, in 1862, but neither Strack nor his successors in the Greek Archaeological Society published. Ernst Ziller's plan of 1877, improving on an earlier version of 1870, is still valuable for the condition of the Roman remains in his day.3 Dörpfeld extended excavation over the whole of the sanctuary, and went deeper to uncover the earliest remains.4 By April 1886, after the first 1 This is the accurate ancient term for the entrance-way traditionally called a parodos; the latter term strictly applies only to the entrance-song, and the distinction is useful: see Taplin 449; Martin L. West, Studies in Aeschylus (Stuttgart 1990 [Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 1]) 22 η. 42. 2 On the church see Ιωάννης Τραυλός," ΆνασκαφαΙ έν τφ Διονυσιακφ θεάτρφ," Πρακτικά (1951) 41-52; his Πίναξ 1 (facing 52) is a useful plan of the late antique and mediaeval states of the site, and Είκών 4 (46) reproduces an 1819 painting of the Olympieion and the southeast slope of the Akropolis. See also Travlos 549 fig. 686.8, 9. 3 It was accompanied by Leopold Julius's commentary: see Lutzow's Zeitschrift für bildende Kunst 13 (1877) 193; Ziller's plan is reproduced by Rechter (1. Taf. 11) and Pickard-Cambridge (Plan Π). 4 I have summarized the history of excavation on the site from Dörpfeld 1-3; Fiechter's account (1.8) is less full.

4

I The Fifth-Century Theatre of Dionysos

winter of excavation, he was already able to reach conclusions about the form of the earliest theatre, which he summarised in a letter to Albert Müller published the same year in Miiller's handbook on the Greek theatre: "Vor dem Bau des 4. Jahrhunderts gab es im Dionysosbezirk nur eine große kreisrunde Orchestra, von welcher unter dem Bühnengebäude noch Spuren erhalten sind. Ein festes Bühnengebäude hat aber im 5. Jh. nicht existiert, sondern nur eine aus polygonalen Steinen gemauerte Orchestra von ca. 24 m Durchmesser. Steinerne Sitzstufen gab es damals auch nicht, sondern man saß auf der Erde am Abhang der Akropolis oder höchstens auf Holzbänken. Der Tanzplatz lag direkt neben dem alten Dionysostempel, dessen Fundamente noch erhalten sind."5 These results came as a profound shock to the majority of scholars who had imagined the lost theatre of classical drama on the more elaborate lines suggested by later archaeological remains and the treatises of Pollux and Vitruvius. Wilamowitz was however delighted with this confirmation of his view that the late fifth-century theatre had wooden seats and that the grammarians knew only the "Lykourgan" theatre of the later fourth century.6 Dörpfeld published the remains and justified his conclusions in 1896. As his site plan7 shows, he found the confused result of the building, alteration and rebuilding of the theatre over the course of a millennium. Distinguishing, reconstructing and dating the various stages of this long development is no easy task, and not all of Dörpfeld's conclusions have survived subsequent scrutiny, which has been intense. The difficulties involved have combined with the fascination of the most famous of theatres to produce a vast and vigorous controversial literature. The aim of the present contribution is to reconsider the interpretation of the earliest remains, reconstructed by Dörpfeld as a "great circular orchestra." It is now generally agreed that these are the remains of the theatre in which most or all of fifth-century drama was produced. Belief in Dörpfeld's reconstruction was shaken in the 1920s and abandoned in the following decade in favour of the reconstruction of Fiechter, who republished the theatre in 1935. Dinsmoor defended Dörpfeld's view in 5

A. Müller, Die griechischen Bühnenaltertümer (Freiburg 1886) 415f.

6

Wilamowitz, "Bühne."

7

Dörpfeld Tafel ΠΙ, reproduced here as fig. 1.

Introduction

5

1951, and has been followed by Hammond, but both have introduced revisions of it. Fiechter's reconstruction has otherwise held the field, sometimes in its original form, but generally as the basis of more or less radical revisions. Thus all subsequent proposals are based either on Dörpfeld's views or on Fiechter's, and we will therefore need to reconsider carefully the points at issue between them. This will provide the framework for discussion of more recent variations. In a review of work on the theatre Hans-Joachim Newiger has lately spoken of "wir armen Philologen, im allgemeinem bestrebt, uns auf die Ergebnisse der besten Bauforscher zu stützen . . . " 8 The present study is the work of a poor philologist, and is based solely on published plans, photographs and accounts. Careful study of these leads to the conviction that the natural tendency to defer to the best Bauforscher—a tendency not only of philologists but of other Bauforscher—has in this case had unfortunate results. The work of Ernst Fiechter in particular has not been subjected to sufficiently critical scrutiny, even by those hostile to his views. His rejection of Dörpfeld's reconstruction of the earliest stage turns out to be based largely on preconception, and I believe that the trend of subsequent scholarship would have been very different if this fact had been recognised. Egert Pöhlmann has recently written, of Dörpfeld's reconstruction, "Man fragt sich, wie eine so wenig fundierte Hypothese in der communis opinio den Rang einer gesicherten Tatsache gewinnen und behalten konnte. Aufschluss hierüber bringt ein Blick auf die Forschungsgeschichte."' Thanks partly to Pöhlmann's article the recent trend is to regard Fiechter's rejection of Dörpfeld's view as "certain fact," and one might now take up the same question and programme in reference to Fiechter's hypothesis.

1. Points of Reference Our first need is basic orientation. I provide an overview of the three earliest stages, the reconstruction of the second and third of which are now generally agreed upon, and then discuss their dates. Finally, I focus on the 8 Hans-Joachim Newiger, Review of Melchinger, Das Theater der Tragödie, Gnomon 57 (1985) 401-8, at 401. 9 Egert Pöhlmann, "Die Proedrie des Dionysostheaters im 5. Jahrhundert und das Bühnenspiel der Klassik," MH 38 (1981) 129-46, at 133.

I The Fifth-Century Theatre of Dionysos

6

first stage, briefly summarizing the various attempts to reconstruct it and the current state of scholarship. 1. The Three Earliest Stages Neither Dörpfeld's nor Fiechter's site-plan is fully satisfactory, and I therefore reproduce both, as figures 1 and 2 respectively. I refer to features of the remains according to Dörpfeld's letters, with Fiechter's lettering and numeration added in parentheses.10 Like other writers on the theatre, I will use "north," "south," etc. as if the points of the diamond-shaped pattern on the extant orchestra corresponded to the points of the compass, which is not quite the case. There is no disagreement about what the oldest remains on the site are, only about the shape of the structure of which some of them formed part. They are: the foundations of the older temple of Dionysos (not on Dörpfeld's site-plan; at the south-west corner of Fiechter's); and four short stretches of wall, R (= SM 1), Q (= J 3), D (= SM 3), and SM 2 (discovered by Fiechter: midway between J 3 and SM 3 and slightly to the north of them).11 It is important to bear in mind the general lay of the land. The actingspace was built up over a sharp southward incline of the bedrock. The extant orchestra is about 91.45 m above sea-level, and just ca. 0.3 m above the bedrock,12 which seems to have been trimmed to accommodate it. On any view the early stage includes at least part of the southern half of the extant orchestra in its playing area, and we must therefore assume that it 10

Bieber 66 fig. 254 and Pickard-Cambridge Plan ΙΠ reproduce Fiechter's Gmndriß (1. Tafel I). A good plan of the whole of the theatre and sanctuary and its immediate vicinity is Wolfgang W. Wurster, "Die neuen Untersuchungen am Dionysostheater in Athen," Architectura 9 (1979) 58-76, 61 Abb. 3. See also Dörpfeld Tafel I, but note that on Tafel Π, the restored plan, the new temple of Dionysos has been inaccurately depicted as exactly parallel to the stoa (Dinsmoor 315), and that the scale should represent twenty meters, not ten (see R.C. Flickinger, "Some Problems in Scenic Antiquities," Philological Quarterly 5 [1926] 97-113, 106). The representation of the theatre on the map of the Akropolis area in Walther Judeich, Topographie von Athen2 (Munich 1931) Plan Π is small-scale but clear and serviceable. 11

Another wall at the far north end of the site, Η on Dörpfeld's Taf. I, probably had no connection with the theatre: see Dörpfeld 26. 12

These figures are taken from Dörpfeld's Taf. I and Taf. V (Durchschnitt). The extant orchestra has a slight rise towards the center (doubtless for purposes of drainage), where it is 91.6 m above sea-level.

1.1 The Three Earliest Stages

7

was also 91-91.5 m above sea-level. Wall R (= SM 1) lies on the bedrock13 at 89.58 m, Q (= J 3) on 20 cm of fill14 at 90.07, D (= SM 3) at 89.09, SM 2 at 90.17.15 The foundation of the old temple is at ca. 88.76 m. It is generally agreed that R (= SM 1) is part of a supporting wall for the leveled area that was the first stage, only the shape of the wall being in dispute. Since R lies at least 1.5 m below the level of the playing area, the wall must have been at least that high at this point. Over a 10 m stretch to the south of R the land drops a further meter, to about the level of the old temple. There are no traces of a skene or of the auditorium in this period. We will return to the reconstruction of such remains as there are. In the subsequent period the theatre is put on much firmer foundations. It will be useful for the reader to refer here to Fiechter's reconstruction, reproduced as fig. 5.16 This must however be used with caution; the size and placing of the orchestra in particular are wholly uncertain.17 A long hall has now been built, abutting the old temple at its western end: the north and south walls of the hall are labelled H-H and sHsH by Rechter; Dörpfeld's plan shows only the northern wall, and does not label it. The usual view is that the building was a stoa facing south into the sanctuary.1® Its northern wall is doubled on a common foundation, and the more northerly of the two has ten regularly-spaced sockets cut into it (S 1-S 10 Fiechter, drawn but unlabelled on Dörpfeld) over a stretch of ca. 28.6 m. Everyone now believes that these were designed to support upright timbers which formed part of a wooden skene. The sockets are centered on the projecting platform T, ca. 7 X 3 m.19 It seems likeliest that 13

See Fiechter 1.38.

14

Ibid. 1.39.

15

The sea-levels of Q and SM 2 have been calculated by collating Fiechter's measurements (on his 3. Taf. 16, reproduced here as fig. 3) with Dörpfeld's, and may therefore be slightly inaccurate. 16 Fiechter reconstructed also an intermediate stage (3. Taf. 17, here fig. 4), but almost no one has believed in this; see further below. 17 Note also that the shape outlined with a single thin line that passes across his orchestra circle is that of the stone skene of the subsequent period. 18 Fiechter's view, reflected on his reconstruction, was that it was a "Skenothek"; this again has won few if any adherents; see further below. 19 It should be noted that Fiechter finds a small discrepancy, 8-10 cm., between the axis centered on Τ and that centered on the sockets in Η (3.71, indicated on 3. Tafel 18, here fig. 5). This is of no great significance, save perhaps as an indication that we should not expect geometrical exactitudes.

8

I The Fifth-Century Theatre of Dionysos

the skene extended north from this back row of sockets, with further uprights sunk into the ground, and that platform Τ was inside it, serving as a foundation for the ekkyklema, the mobile platform that was extruded from the doorway to reveal interior scenes. Neither Τ nor H-H is preserved to its full height, the remains lying 0.5 m and more beneath the level of the playing area. This makes any more detailed reconstruction impossible. For example, if Τ supported the ekkyklema inside the skene, it is reasonable to suppose that something must have supported it outside; was this a reinforced area of a low wooden stage, a shallower (and therefore now lost) layer of stone at the surface of the playing area, or was the surface itself sufficiently sturdy that the wheels of the ekkyklema would not become stuck in it? Similarly, all we know about the skene is that it was about 28.6 m long; it may or may not have had projecting wings as in Fiechter's conjectural reconstruction. The final remnant of the second period is the base of the supporting wall of the south-west end or "analemma" of the auditorium, found under the extant western eisodos: C-C (= aA-aA). In the third period the southwest end was removed some two and a half meters to the north. For the third period we may refer again to a reconstruction of Fiechter's (fig. 7).20 The stone scene-building that has now been erected north of wall H-H comes to within a meter of the former south-west auditorium end C-C (= aA-aA), the outline of which Fiechter shows. Hence the new wall A-X (= wA-wA), allowing room for the western eisodos between it and the scenebuilding. 21 The new wall forms an architectural unity with the extant auditorium, including the prohedria, which therefore belongs to this third stage. 22 Only the general outline of the third period is relevant to our purpose, and I therefore go into no further detail.

20

Here again, cf. n. 16, we pass over an intermediate stage reconstructed by Fiechter (3. Tafel 19, here fig. 6); see further below. 21

It is often assumed that the older wall in the western eisodos must have had a counterpart in the eastern; this seems very likely, but no trace of it remains. 22 This was Dörpfeld's opinion, rejected for some years in favour of Fiechter's reconstruction, on which more below, but recently proved to be correct by Michael Maaß, Die Prohedrie des Dionysostheaters in Athen (Munich 1972 [Vestigia. Beiträge zur alten Geschichte 15]), whose view is endorsed by Wurster (above, n. 10) 60, the most recent excavator.

1.2 Dating

9

2. Dating The dating of these first three stages has varied widely;231 attempt here to draw reasonable conclusions from recent discussions and some observations of my own. The old temple of Dionysos is generally agreed to be a sixth-century structure. The earliest wall-fragments in the theatre are of polygonal masonry and consist principally of "Akropolis" limestone, which points to the sixth century or just possibly the early fifth.24 Dörpfeld claimed that the masonry of wall D (= SM 3) was more sophisticated than that of R (= SM 1), and concluded "Wenn man ein bestimmtes Datum angeben soll, würde man Mauer R wohl dem VI., Mauer D dagegen dem V. Jahrhundert zuschreiben."25 Dinsmoor agreed in finding a difference in the workmanship, but concluded that "neither in the masonry nor in the scanty records of pottery can I discern any evidence that a theater existed in the precinct of Dionysus Eleuthereus before 500 B.C." Dinsmoor seems to mean that there is no evidence pointing certainly to the sixth century, since he adds that "on the literary side we have explicit statements."26 These are lexicographical notices informing us that a collapse of the ΐκρια or "wooden seating" in the 70th Olympiad (500-497 B.C.) was the cause of the building of the theatre; it is assumed on the basis of other notices that these ϊκρια were in the Agora. Thus Dinsmoor's point seems to be that the remains are consonant with these notices. More recently Travlos has assigned both wall R and wall D to the sixth century, but he assumes that the structure they were part of served only as a dancing-place for the cult of Dionysos: only in the time of Perikles, contemporary with the building of his Odeion nearby, were the dramatic contests transferred here from the Agora.27 The various notices and the question of early performances of tragedy in the Agora are discussed in part 4 below. Leaving them aside here, it seems reasonable to conclude that on a strictly archaeological basis the 23

See Dinsmoor for summary of previous opinion.

24

A brief and authoritative discussion of Athenian building materials in the postscript "The Stones" in Wycherley, 267-77; on polygonal limestone see 269f. Dörpfeld 26 got this matter straight from the beginning, noting that polygonal masonry is "nur noch ausnahmsweise angewendet" in the fifth century. 25

Dörpfeld 26.

26

Dinsmoor 313 (difference in masonry: see also n. 52 below); 315 bis.

27

Travlos 537 with fig. 677.1.

10

I The Fifth-Century Theatre of Dionysos

remains of the first stage should be regarded as most probably sixthcentury, possibly early fifth. Vigorous controversy has lately attended the dating of the second stage. The principal factors are the building material of the stoa and the older eisodos-wall, and on the other hand certain suppositions about the relationship of the reconstruction of the stage to the building of the Odeion of Perikles and the new temple of Dionysos. To take the latter first, it has often been suggested that the second stage of the theatre was part of a coordinated reshaping of the whole area in the later fifth century. This involves the claims that the Odeion was built 446-442 B.C. or thereabouts, on evidence to be discussed in a moment, and the new temple about the same time, on the ground that it housed the gold and ivory image of the god made by Alkamenes, who seems to have been active in the last third of the century. The scanty remains of the Odeion are of little help in dating it. The dating to 446-442 B.C. ultimately relies on a single passage of Plutarch (Per. 13.9-11), which informs us that the Odeion was an imitation of the skene of the Persian king, that Perikles was the epistates of its construction, and that he laid down regulations for musical contests at the Panathenaia, which were henceforth held in it. Vitruvius (de arch. 5.9.1), however, says that Themistokles "roofed" (pertexit) the Odeion, using masts and spars from ships of the conquered Persian fleet. There are also Panathenaic vases that seem to show that musical contests formed a part of the festival long before Perikles's regulations. It has been plausibly suggested that Perikles was in some way reviving the musical contests, and restoring an Odeion that already existed.28 Plutarch quotes a fragment of Kratinos (73 KA) which makes Perikles wear the Odeion on his notoriously misshapen head, έπειδή τοΰστρακον παροίχεται. This is commonly associated with the ostracism of Thukydides in 443, and Kratinos's play dated to 442, but it could refer to the opportunity to ostracize in any year, and therefore cannot be used to date the play, let alone the completion of the Odeion. Kratinos's emphasis on Perikles's head and headgear is certainly consonant with the view that the politician had merely had the Odeion re-roofed, and it might well have been time to 28

J.A. Davison, "Notes on the Panathenaea," [JHS 78 (1958) 23-42, 82 (1962) 141-2 =] From Archilochus to Pindar (London 1968) 28-66, at 48-68; he lists the Panathenaic vases at 64fF.

1.2 Dating

11

do this if Themistokles had roofed it at its original construction with wood of Persian-war vintage. The imitation of a Persian model itself suggests an earlier date for the original construction, and Perikles would be restoring the most famous feature of the building, mentioned also by Pausanias (1.20.4). In sum, neither date for the original construction of the Odeion carries full conviction, but many will find the earlier more probable. The other feature of the alleged Periklean refurbishment of the theatre area is at least as dubious. In 1963 P. Kalligas found under the foundations of the new temple potsherds that, in Travlos's words, "proved that the temple could not be older than the mid-4th century B.C." 2 9 Newiger has objected that if this is true we are faced with the "mißliche Notwendigkeit" of assuming an "Interimsquartier" for the image made by Alkamenes (Paus. 1.20.3).30 We ought to exercise caution in the matter of Alkamenes: if Pausanias has here misattributed a work to this artist it would not be the first time,31 though we should perhaps reckon also with the possibility that Alkamenes may have made the image sometime early in the fourth century, since Pausanias (9.11.6) tells us he was the sculptor of a dedication inspired by the events of 403/2.32 The latter will not of course help us if the potsherds put the date in the 360s or 350s at the earliest.33 Relatively few sherds were found, and perhaps only further excavation will convince the sceptics, but we must at least provisionally accept a fourth-century date for the new temple. With this the case for a general reconstruction in the late

29

Travlos 537; see Π. Καλλιγάς, "Εργασία τοΰ Ίεροϋ Διονύσου Έλευθερέως," Αρχ. Δελτ. 18 (1963) Χρον. 12-18; the finds also reported by G. Daux, BCH 86 (1962) 640ff. The sherds were published by G. Dontas in Εφημ. (1960) 53. 30 Hans-Joachim Newiger, "Zwei Bemerkungen zur Spielstätte des attischen Dramas im 5. Jahrhundert v. Chr.," WS N.F. 10 (1976) 80-92, at 90. Travlos 537 conjectures that "as early as the 5th century B.C. there was either a second temple or some other cult building" to house the statue, which was then moved after the mid-4th century to the new temple. He cites "similar cases of classical cult statues standing in temples of later date." It seems very bold indeed to posit a third edifice that has left no trace whatsoever, and it is one thing to retain an older image in a new building, another to have an elaborate image made without comparably elaborate provision for housing it. 31 He ascribed the west pediment at Olympia to Alkamenes (5.10.8), an ascription nowadays rejected, see e.g. Beazley, CAH1 5.43If. 32 Thus it goes somewhat beyond the evidence to speak of "the late fifth-century gold-and-ivoiy statue" (Dinsmoor 315) or an image "das kaum nach 400 entstanden sein kann" (Newiger [above, η. 30] 90). 33

The value of these finds has been doubted also by Taplin 452 n. 3.

I The Fifth-Century Theatre of Dionysos

12

fifth century collapses, and our dating of the second stage of the theatre must therefore rest on the archaeological evidence alone. Here again opinion is sharply divided. The foundations of the stoa and the older eisodos-wall consist primarily of "breccia" or conglomerate stone.34 There is no doubt that this material only comes to be widely used in the fourth century,35 and Travlos dates the theatrical remains accordingly.36 Dinsmoor cites one late fifth-century parallel, the temple built at Rhamnous in 436-432, where conglomerate stones were used, not as foundation, but to underpin the floors. He suggests further that "probably its use in foundations was initiated by the economic stress of the Peloponnesian War," a suggestion found convincing by Newiger.37 The qualities of conglomerate as a building material seem however to have been self-recommending, and it became one of the most common materials for foundations.38 This, taken together with the fact that even on the most favourable view it is little in evidence in the late fifth century, disinclines one to accept Dinsmoor's war-hypothesis. Newiger points to the use of conglomerate in the monument of Dexileos in the 390s.39 This in itself is hardly a compelling reason for thinking that it may have been used in a major public building some years earlier, but it surely does cast doubt on the claim that such a use cannot be dated before the mid-fourth century. Newiger offers what seems a much stronger counter-argument to Travlos 34

For a discussion of this material see Wycherley 272f.

35

See Wycherley ibid., who appears to leave open the possibility that the foundations in the theatre are an early example, i.e. late fifth-century, of the use of conglomerate. Dörpfeld 37 had originally dated all of the remains with conglomerate to the fourth century; he at first thought that our second and third stages were a single stage. 36 Travlos 537. His restored plans seem to involve a curious contradiction of his stated view: in his fig. 685.3 (548), "Period of Lykourgos," he combines the foundation wall with timber sockets of our second stage with the extant auditorium, including the newer eisodos-wall, of our third stage. The older eisodos-wall seems to be represented only on his fig. 677.1 (540), "second half of the 5th c.," (reproduced here as fig. 12), but in a strangely truncated form that does not correspond to the remains: it ought to extend as far west as its successor, which Travlos has outlined. The remains of the older wall, however, consist entirely of conglomerate, and ought therefore by Travlos's strict rule to be fourth-century. 37

Dinsmoor 317; Newiger (above, n. 30) 87.

38

See Wycherley 273.

39

Newiger (above, n. 30) 87, citing Heide Froning, Rez. zu Werner Jobst, Die Höhle im griechischen Theater des 5. und 4. Jahrhunderts ν. Chr., in Gnomon 45 (1973) 78-84, at 79f.

1.2 Dating

13

in connection with the monument of the Eponymous Heroes. It would appear that on every other ground, literary and archaeological, this should be dated to the later fifth century; "under the monument, however, is an earlier base which cannot be older than the mid-4th century B.c., because conglomerate was used in it."40 Hence we are to suppose that the monument attested by Aristophanes (Knights 977-80; Peace 1183f.) was torn down, and for unknown reasons situated elsewhere, in front of the Bouleuterion, and that it was built there, over a conglomerate base of the mid-fourth-century that had previously served some other purpose, in time to be noticed by the author of the Ath. Pol. This is rather a lot to swallow, and in view of the Dexileos monument and the Rhamnous temple it is surely permissible to believe that the monument of the heroes was erected sometime in the 430s or a little earlier over a patch of conglomerate and remained henceforth in that position. Yet, precisely because of the conglomerate, it would be difficult to muster much confidence in this belief. It is clear then that the use of conglomerate stone in the foundations of buildings is first securely attested in the middle of the fourth century, and becomes very popular thereafter. It seems sensible to conclude that a proposed date for the second stage of the theatre is the likelier the closer it is to ca. 350. First half of the fourth century seems a reasonable guess; a dating in the later fifth century would seem to be special pleading. We do however have to reckon with the fact that the third stage is now I think universally agreed to be later fourth-century. Maaß's painstaking study of the prohedria of the extant auditorium has clearly demonstrated this, and put to rest Fiechter's theory that the extant prohedria is Augustan.41 This being the case, it is sensible to avoid assuming two major renovations in a short span of time by backdating the second stage to, say, the first third of the fourth century. A further argument from the sequence of stages may be considered here. Fragments of prohedria seats with late fifth-century inscriptions were reused as roof-slabs in the upper section of the underground drain that runs 40

Travlos 210; see in general Homer A. Thompson & R.E. Wycherley, The Agora of Athens (Princeton 1972 [The Athenian Agora 14]) 40, suggesting a previous location of the monument; cf. Wycherley 52f.; John M. Camp, The Athenian Agora (London 1986) 97-100; all of these accounts agree with Travlos. 41

See MaaB (above, n. 22) passim.

I The Fifth-Century Theatre of Dionysos

14

diagonally from the SE corner of the extant orchestra under the stone skene of the third stage and out through the stoa.42 Another fragment was found reused in the SW corner of the later west eisodos-wall.43 Dinsmoor argued that these stones, reused in the third stage, must have served their original purpose in the second, and that the inscriptions therefore date the second stage to the late fifth century. 44 This would certainly be a natural supposition, but it is equally possible that the prohedria seats were installed in the first-stage theatre in the late fifth century, were retained in a new position when the second stage succeeded just some thirty years later, and only came to be replaced when the extant third auditorium was constructed, with its curved stone seating. The fifth-century prohedria-components are rectangular, doubtless to correspond with the rest of the seating in the first and second stages, which was wooden. The seat-fragments cannot therefore be decisive, and the dating of the second stage to the first third of the fourth century remains the safest conclusion. It need hardly be added that though this proposal is the likeliest on present evidence it is by no means certain, and must be regarded as provisional. The upshot for our purposes is that the first stage of the theatre was probably the one in which not only early tragedy but all our extant fifth-century drama was first produced. The student of the classical dramatists will therefore turn with special interest to the various attempts to reconstruct this first stage.

3. Reconstructions of the First Stage Current handbooks of classical theatre tend to exhibit an extreme wariness when they touch upon this topic. The reconstruction of the first stage is so controversial that Blume, Simon and Gould have all preferred to give their readers a sense of the shape of the early Athenian stage by illustrating the considerably later theatre at Epidauros.4S They all explicitly endorse the 42 First uncovered and published by H. Bulle, Untersuchungen an griechischen Theatern (Munich 1928) 55-60 (W. Wrede, "Der Abzugskanal"); 61-3 (K. LehmannHartleben, "Steineme-Proedrieschwelle"), withTaf. 6 figg. 8-11 andTaf. 7. 43

See Dörpfeld 38 with 37 fig. 11.

44

Dinsmoor 323f.

45

Horst-Dieter Blume, Einführung in das antike Theaterwesen (Darmstadt 1978) 45f. with Taf. 1; Erika Simon, The Ancient Theatre (London 1982) 2f. with fig. 1; John Gould in P.E. Easterling & B.M.W. Knox, eds., The Cambridge History of Classical

1.3 Reconstructions of the First Stage

15

view that the central feature of the earliest theatre was a circular orchestra,46 a view at odds with the more recent trend to assume that like some other early theatres the first stage at Athens consisted of a rectilinear orchestra and auditorium. Newiger, once a stalwart defender of the reconstruction derived from Dörpfeld via Dinsmoor, has recently said "daß mir gegenwärtig . . . kaum ein Weg an der 'rectilinearen' Orchestra vorbeizuführen scheint,"47 citing studies by Gebhard, Butterweck and Pöhlmann. The remains of the first stage have been a battlefield virtually since they were first described by Dörpfeld in 1886; for fifty years after his study, however, the essentials of his reconstruction were accepted without question, and it was only with Fiechter's republication in 1935 that the way was opened to the present combination of general despair with vigorous infighting among the cognoscenti. Dörpfeld's reconstruction is traced on his site-plan (our fig. 1). He connected wall-fragments R (= SM 1) and Q (= J 3) as parts of a restored circular wall supporting the levelled area of a first orchestra circle. One further feature of the remains he regarded as a third evidence for his reconstruction; we have not yet discussed it because it can only be dated by inference. At the western end of the extant eastern eisodos the bedrock reaches a level just under that of the orchestra; Dörpfeld's restored circle runs parallel to and through the middle of a cutting that has been made in the surface of the rock, ca. 1 m wide and running more or less NW-SE, which he regarded as a bedding for the wall; it is sketched and labelled V on Dörpfeld's plan. The center of the restored circle is about 12 m south and 3 m east of the center of the extant orchestra. Dörpfeld assigned republication of the theatre to Fiechter, whose reconstruction of the first stage is markedly different (see our fig. 3). R (= SM 1) is restored as part of a bow-shaped retaining wall; on the terrace it Literature, Volume I Part 2: Greek Drama (Cambridge 1989: revised paperback issue of chapters 10-12 of the single-volume first edition of 1985), 'Tragedy in Performance" 629, at 9f. with fig. 1. Users of Gould should be warned that Plates 3a, 3b, 4a, 4b, and 4c on pp. 19-20 have all been reproduced backwards, and that pi. 4a is in the upper righthand comer of p. 20, pi. 4b in the upper left-hand corner (these two are discussed by Gould on p. 24). 46 47

Blume 47; Simon 3f.; Gould 9.

Newiger (above, n. 8) 406 n. 25; Wurster (above, n. 10) 60 has described the circular orchestra as a "nicht eindeutig beweisbares Wunschbild der mit Analogieschlüssen operierenden Forscher." The most recent supporter of this view is Rush Rehm, "The Staging of Suppliant Plays," GRBS 29 (1988) 263-307, at 276-8.

16

I The Fifth-Century Theatre of Dionysos

supports there is an orchestra circle considerably smaller than Dörpfeld's, with Q (= J 3) on its edge; V has disappeared entirely. Fiechter's orchestra is centered on the present axis of the theatre, whereas Dörpfeld's, as we just saw, was about 3 m east of it. Fiechter's reconstruction was taken over ten years later by PickardCambridge, whose 1946 book is still generally regarded as the "standard account" in English. Dinsmoor's 1950 defence of Dörpfeld's circular wall won some respectable adherents, but has had relatively little influence on non-specialists. Writers of handbooks and general studies of the drama nowadays tend, as we have seen, to avoid allying themselves with either side. Their assumption that the original orchestra was round is reconcilable with both, since Dörpfeld and Fiechter agreed in restoring a circular orchestra, differing only in its size and placing. Those who have recently favoured the restoration of a rectilinear orchestra and auditorium necessarily take the view that Fiechter was right to reject Dörpfeld's circular wall, which would be an insuperable obstacle to their proposals. To Fiechter's conjectural circular orchestra they can simply prefer conjectures of their own. Georg Butterweck alone has offered a plan reconciling his reconstruction with the remains, taking R (= SM 1) and Fiechter's SM 2 to be part of a (because of R not quite entirely) rectilinear retaining wall. Melchinger likewise reconstructs a predominantly rectilinear retaining wall, but places a circular orchestra on the terrace it supports. In this case the line of the wall westward from the southern end of R (= SM 1) is coordinated with wall D (= SM 3) rather than SM 2.48 Hammond, who completes our summary of recent opinion, accepts Dörpfeld's reconstruction in all essentials; his own variations on it we reserve for later consideration. 2. The First Terrace Against this background we may now proceed to a detailed treatment of the first stage of the theatre. We begin at the beginning, with a careful description of the remains that have figured in reconstructions of the first stage. Thence we pass to reassessment of the proposals of Dörpfeld and 48 Georg Butterweck, "Das Dionysostheater," Maske und Kothurn 20 (1974) 10547 draws his plan (126 Abb. 20) over Fiechter's revised reconstruction of the first stage (4.24 Abb. 6); on the latter see further below. Siegfried Melchinger, Das Theater der Tragödie (Munich 1974) Abb. 11.

2.1 The Stones

17

Fiechter, the results of which will enable us to pass judgement on various subsequent contributions. On this basis we will turn in part three to some attempts to describe in greater detail the features of this first theatrical space.

1. The Stones Our reconstruction of the fifth-century theatre rests on the foundation of some twenty stones disposed in four groups and badly battered by time. R (= SM 1) and D (= SM 3) are both, as we noted, polygonal and of "Akropolis"49 limestone. D is straight, but differently plotted on the siteplans:50 an eastward extension of it would, on Dörpfeld's plan, run into the southernmost stone of wall R, but on Fiechter's would intersect (the later) wall H-H at the westernmost timber-socket (S 10); on Dörpfeld's smallerscale Taf. I its line is different again, between the other two. These are considerable differences, and one awaits a definitive measurement.51 We will remember that Dörpfeld and Dinsmoor considered D to be in a slightly later style of masonry than the other early walls.52 Wall R (= SM 1) has been the linchpin of every reconstruction.53 Dörpfeld thought it curved, calculated from it a radius of "c. 12.0 m," and 49

The top of the Akropolis is a layer of this material, but it was actually quarried from other, nearby hills; the barathron NW of the Hill of the Nymphs may have been such a quarry. See Wycherley 269. Judeich (above, n. 10) 48 Abb. 7 provides a geological cross-section of Athens. 50

The only photograph of D (= SM 3) known to me is Fiechter 1.84 Abb. 76, which shows only the eastern part, Fiechter's plan differing markedly from Dörpfeld's over the stones fürther west aligned with D by Dörpfeld. 51 A complete set of balloon-photographs of the theatre was taken, with a view to the drawing of a new plan, in connection with the excavations begun in 1978; see Wurster (above, n. 10) 70. These excavations, a Greek-German enterprise, were discontinued (see Newiger [above, n. 8] 407 n. 30), but work on the theatre by the Greek Archaeological Service was going forward when I visited it in 1986, and we may perhaps hope for a new plan soon. 52 Dörpfeld 26; Dinsmoor 313; Fiechter 3.67 allows this possibility, but had argued against it a few pages earlier (3.59), not very convincingly. 53 Fiechter 1.39 Abb. 28 reproduces a copy of a pencil-sketch by Dörpfeld. For photographs see Roy C. Flickinger, The Greek Theater and its Drama (Chicago 19181, 19364) Fig. 33 facing p. 64; Fiechter 1.38 Abb. 27 (taken from the inside and so not very illuminating for our purposes); Elizabeth Gebhard, "The Form of the Orchestra in the Early Greek Theater," Hesperia 43 (1974) 428-40, PI. 89.a & b, which are far the best.

I The Fifth-Century Theatre of Dionysos

18

therefore concluded that it was part of a circle "etwa 2 4 m " in diameter.54 Fiechter too found it to be curved; "Berechnungen auf Grund von möglichst genauen Messungen würden eine mittlere Länge für den Radius von rund 12,15 m ergeben," but he notes that the curve is sharper to the south than to the north.55 In the most recent treatment, Elizabeth Gebhard notes that the face of the northernmost stone (sixth from the south) is over half broken off, and therefore leaves it out of consideration as regards the curve. The fourth and fifth stones from the south appear to her to form a straight line. This, in badly deteriorated remains of a single course of a polygonal wall, proves nothing, especially when the 4+ meters of the whole remain do indicate that the wall had a curve in it, and enabled earlier excavators independently to calculate radiuses differing by only 0.15 m. But of course one will allow it to Fiechter and Gebhard that the remains at R do not in themselves compel the conclusion that they were part of a circular structure. The fragment SM 2 unearthed by Fiechter consists of broken pieces of limestone, and runs ca. 1 m more or less NW-SE.56 All the other early wall-fragments consist of larger stones, and it must seem very unlikely that the heap at SM 2 formed the outer surface of a wall;57 it was surely fill behind a wall. Reserving treatment of wall Q for the moment, let us turn to the rock cutting V. This is not represented on Fiechter's groundplan, nor does he provide a photograph of it; V, he says, "kann durchaus nicht als eine ausgesprochene Fundamentgrube in Kreis-Segmentform angesprochen werden. Sie ist sehr unbestimmt verwischt ohne Richtung und deutliche Kanten und durchaus nicht kreisförmig." 58 His first reviewer, Schleif, thought otherwise, and moreover criticised Fiechter for dismissing V without providing evidence: "Fiechter kann sein Ergebnis (sc. that the orchestra was on the extant axis) allerdings nur erreichen, indem er die von 54

Dörpfeld 26f. with 27 Fig. 6; his detailed discussion begins with the last complete paragraph on 26: for "Mauer A" in the first line of it read "Mauer R." 55

Fiechter 1.38f.

56

Fiechter 1.41; photograph, Fiechter 1.40 Abb. 30.

57

Butterweck (above, n. 48) has not taken this into account in his reconstruction, perhaps encouraged by Fiechter's statement (1.41), "Der Zusammenhang mit SM 1 ist möglich, aber nicht zu beweisen." 58

Fiechter 1.39.

2.1 The Stones

19

Dörpfeld gesehene und gemessene . . . und auch heute noch sichtbare, muldenförmige Felseinarbeitung . . . als künstliche Abarbeitung leugnet und sie für eine natürliche Felsvertiefung mit unklaren Rändern erklärt, was nicht gut begründet ist; denn das müßte mit Zeichnung und Photographie geschehen."59 Dinsmoor also has testified to the existence of the cutting at V, and though he describes it as a "more sophisticated rock cutting" and as "unsuitable (sc. as a foundation-trench) for a polygonal wall," he makes no objection to Dörpfeld's depiction of it.60 Dörpfeld himself described it in 1923 as "sehr ungenau gearbeitet,"61 and so it appears on his plan. No photograph of this centrally important feature is known to me, and is perhaps the most urgent desideratum in the study of the theatre. Meanwhile we must surely reckon with it, and in the form sketched by Dörpfeld; among those who have seen it Fiechter is alone in regarding it as a natural formation. It cannot in itself be dated, but we shall see that it makes no sense to associate it with any period but the first. Finally, Q (= J 3). Dörpfeld excavated here a wall-fragment 1.85 m long, consisting of two stones, both badly deteriorated: the northerly one of soft white limestone,62 0.65 m long, the southerly of yellowish poros, 1.20 m long.63 These types of stone, which were probably quarried in the Peiraieus, were in use at Athens from the seventh century; Judeich says that the soft white stone began to be used in the sixth century, citing some parallels.64 The difference in material between Q and R (= SM 1) has sometimes been regarded as an obstacle to restoring them as parts of the

59

Hans Schleif, "Die Baugeschichte des Dionysostheaters in Athen," JDAI: AA 52 (1937) 26-51, at 26-7. Schleif had read proofs for Fiechter, and argued with him about points like this; see Maaß (above, n. 22) 24 with n. 82, who has examined the Fiechter Nachlaß. 60

Dinsmoor 313.

61

Review of James T. Allen, "The Orchestra-Terrace of the Aeschylean Theater," in Berl. Phil. Wochenschr. 43 (1923) 441-3, at 442. 62

Sometimes, as by Dörpfeld himself, called "poros," which is a general term for various sorts of stone that are essentially limestone (see Wycherley 270); all of these are softer than Akropolis limestone. 63 Fiechter's sketch (l.Abb. 29) shows the southerly stone in much better condition than it really was in; on top of it rests a breccia-block belonging to a later stage. 64

See Wycherley 271; Judeich (above, n. 10) 2, cf. 309.

I The Fifth-Century Theatre of Dionysos

20

same wall,65 but Dörpfeld and Dinsmoor offer parallels from the sixth century, or in one case from the early fifth, for the combination in retaining walls of this sort of poros/limestone with Akropolis limestone.66 Q was found with smaller pieces of hard limestone as a filling behind it, as was R.67 Dörpfeld described these stones as "so sehr beschädigt, dass man nicht mehr bestimmen kann, ob sie an ihrer Aussenseite einst rund waren," and Dinsmoor likewise described the wall as "so short and defaced that a curve is not discernible."68 Rechter, however, felt able to reach a definite conclusion: "Dieses Mäuerchen ist nicht gerundet, sondern geradlinig."69 A glance at a photograph of the stones will convince most that there is room for doubt about the original shape of the wall. Fiechter chose not to print a ^photograph of these controversial remains, and his sketch is no substitute; they may be seen in Flickinger's Greek Theater in a photograph taken in 1918 or earlier.70 Only one other photograph of Q is known to me, Gebhard's pi. 89.c, taken by her in July 1974.71 This photograph reveals a loss which no one seems to have noticed. Gebhard states in her text that the remain "is now composed of three stones"—namely the two principal stones and the "weiteres Bruchstück" mentioned by Fiechter—"with a total length of 1.85 m."—Fiechter's measurement. She photographs it with a tape-measure 65 Dörpfeld himself allowed that this might be felt as a difficulty; see Dörpfeld 28, where he suggested that the softer stones, i.e. Q, might not have been exposed to the elements, either as lying under a western eisodos ramp or with a layer of harder stone beside them forming the actual surface of the wall. In his review of Allen (above, n. 61) 442f. he is much more hesitant about connecting Q and R. 66

Dörpfeld's parallels are reported by Fiechter 3.58: by this time he had apparently overcome the hesitation mentioned in the previous note; Dinsmoor 312 n. 3. The Stoa Basileios in the Agora, excavated in 1970, shows a similar configuration: the rear (west) wall is polygonal limestone, the north the sort of yellowish Peiraieus poros we find in the southern part of Q; these walls are probably sixth-century, perhaps early fifth; see Wycherley 271f.; Camp (above, n. 40) 53-7 with 54 fig. 33. 67

The fill behind R was seen but accidentally removed during the excavation: see Dörpfeld 27. 68

Dörpfeld 27; Dinsmoor 312.

69

Fiechter 1.39.

70

Fig. 34, facing p. 64.

71

See Gebhard (above, n. 53) 432 n. 10; her description of Q (= J 3) is on 433; the quotation from Fiechter at 1.39.

2.1 The Stones

21

beside it to show that Fiechter was right to regard it as straight. But the picture shows that only the southerly stone with the Bruchstück on top of it remain: the soft white stone to the north has disappeared. It was plainly visible in the photograph printed by Flickinger and was seen by Fiechter in the mid-30s; it is hard to tell whether Dinsmoor actually saw it, or when.72 It is thus the case that sometime between 1935 and 1974 one of the most important of Athenian stones was removed from its original situation. As we shall soon see, Q has for fifty years been treated with unmerited contempt by scholars, and it is perhaps not surprising that none of them has noticed its diminishment.

2. Dörpfeld's Reconstruction Dörpfeld, as we noted, calculated that R (= SM 1) formed part of a circle with a radius of ca. 12 m, and connected this line with the wall-fragment Q (= J 3) and the rockcut bed at V. When one looks at his site-plan (our fig. 1) an excellent ground for the association of these three features is immediately apparent. Together with the early remains D (= SM 3) and SM 2, their orientation is at variance with that of all the other remains, which is based on the axis of the second and subsequent periods. Thus the remains of all the theatrical structures south of the auditorium, with the exception of the underground drain, run in straight lines either parallel or at right angles to the later axis, that is either N-S or E-W;73 Q & V (NW-SE) and R (NESW) therefore stand out sharply. It is clear from a glance at the plans that the reconstruction of a circle on the basis of these features has an obvious general plausibility. As for wall D (= SM 3), Dörpfeld supposed that it originally formed part of a support wall of a ramp on which the western eisodos rose to orchestra level, or, less probably, of the south-western end of an auditorium.74 In his 1886 letter to Müller, as we have seen, Dörpfeld already announced that his "große kreisrunde Orchestra" was "von ca. 24 m Durchmesser." For fifty years afterwards his reconstruction, and this 72 Dinsmoor 312; he may have been using Dörpfeld's plan, but probably saw the stone when he read "many of the modern investigations upon the spot in 1937" (309). Dinsmoor did not, pace Hammond, "More" 7, reexcavate the site. 73

1 remind the reader that our indications of direction are based on the convenient fiction that the present axis of the theatre runs N-S. 74 Dörpfeld 26-8.

22

I The Fifth-Century Theatre of Dionysos

dimension, was universally accepted, and other scholars naturally assumed that the circle outlined on his site-plan reflected the dimension cited in his text. This turned out not to be the case. In 1918 and 1919 the American scholar Allen published a "Key" to the reconstruction of the fifth-century theater: on the basis of Dörpfeld's plan he concocted the theory that what we now know as the third or Lykourgan stage, complete with skene and paraskenia, preserved in its somewhat different location the precise shape of the first stage of the theatre.75 The theory is of no interest now, because it assumes the view then still held by Dörpfeld that the Lykourgan stage was the direct successor of his first circle.76 Allen wished to associate Dörpfeld's orchestra-terrace, ca. 24 m in diameter, with the "Grundkreis" of the Lykourgan theatre, a highly artificial abstraction, following the line of the fronts of the thrones so long as this continues to be circular, and ca. 27 m in diameter. In his review of Allen, Dörpfeld made a startling admission: "Erstens ist die älteste Orchestra-Terrasse wahrscheinlich größer gewesen als 24 m, nämlich ebenso groß wie der Grundkreis des späteren Theaters, also 27 m. Der Durchmesser der ältesten Terrasse kann nämlich nicht genau gemessen werden und ist von mir in dem Plane I meines Theaterbuches zu etwa 26 m gezeichnet worden, ein Maß, das dem Durchmesser des Grundkreises des 4. Jahrh. von etwa 27 m schon fast gleichkommt."77 75 James T. Allen, "The Key to the Reconstruction of the Fifth-Centuiy Theater at Athens," UCPCP 5 (1918) 55-8; The Greek Theater of the Fifth Century Before Christ, UCPCP 7 (1919-1924) i-120, first published as UCPCP 7 fasc. 1 in 1919. 76

Thus one would have to suppose that the third stage was a return to the shape of the first, with the stage of quite different dimension based on the timber-sockets intervening (this, the fundamental objection to Allen's theory and others', seems to have been missed by Dinsmoor 313). The theory was at first welcomed by Döipfeld. In its revised form, "The Orchestra-Terrace of the Aeschylean Theater," UCPCP 7 (1919-1924) 121-8, first published as UCPCP 7 fasc. 2 in 1922, it was received more coolly by Dörpfeld, but appeared convincing to Flickinger (above, n. 10) 106-8, cf. 109-12 for Flickinger's speculations on why Dörpfeld's attitude had changed: the real reason was probably that he now accepted or suspected that the timber-socket stage had intervened, the fatal blow to Allen's theory; he certainly accepted this after his excavations two years later, see his report cited in n. 79 below, which seems to have been unknown to Flickinger. —The sort of geometrical fantasies indulged in by Allen, Flickinger and many of their contemporaries are only of antiquarian interest today, and I go into them no further: for the extensive bibliography of these various controversies see PickardCambridge 272-6; Melchinger (above, n. 48) provides useful potted versions of these and other contributions. 77 Review of the two works of Allen cited in n. 75 above, Berl. Phil. Wochenschr. 41 (1921) 1212-16, at 1213.

2.2 Dörpfeld's Reconstruction

23

Judge of the astonishment of scholars at the discovery that the circle they had for fifty years assumed to be 24 m in diameter was in fact 26. Allen shortly revised his theory, concluding that both the "Grundkreis" and the first circle were exactly 26.84 m in diameter. To this Dörpfeld replied in very strong terms, saying he felt it his duty to emphasize that "der Durchmesser der ältesten Orchestra aus mehreren Gründen nicht genau meßbar ist und keineswegs sicher etwa 27 m betrug. Die drei Grundlagen, auf denen dieses Maß beruht, sind nämlich sehr unsicher: Das kleine Stück der alten polygonalen Mauer ist so roh gebaut und so schlecht erhalten, daß man die Pfeilhöhe seines Bogens nur schätzen kann; jeder wird aus dem kurzen Stück einen anderen Durchmesser für den Kreis berechnen. Die zweite Grundlage, die Einarbeitung im Felsen am Ostrande der Terrasse, ist nicht nur sehr ungenau gearbeitet, sondern kann sogar verschieden erklärt werden; sie kann sowohl als Lager für die Mauer selbst wie auch als Wasserkanal außerhalb der Mauer gedient haben. Die dritte Grundlage, das schräge Mauerstück im südwestlichen Teile der Terrasse, besteht aus anderem Material als die Stützmauer selbst und darf daher nur unter Bedenken als zugehörig betrachtet werden. Wer will, kann sie sogar ganz ausschalten, wie ich schon früher (Das griech. Theater 1896, 28) gesagt habe."78 Dörpfeld here puts the best case he could make against his own reconstruction, but he does so in an effort to put a stop to the attempts of others to extort an exact dimension from the remains. Neither here nor subsequently did he abandon his theory,79 though some have read the passage as implying this. Pickard-Cambridge in particular, when in 1946 he took over Fiechter's reconstruction wholesale, submitted Dörpfeld, by then dead, to the indignity of being represented as having "virtually" given up his exploded theory.80 There is no excuse for this sort of misrepresentation, but it is clear that what Dörpfeld wrote in these two reviews

78

Dörpfeld (above, n. 61) 442-3.

79

It is restated e.g. in "Die im Januar 1925 im Dionysos-Theater in Athen unternommenen Grabungen," Πρακτικά (1925) 25-32, at 30. These excavations of the earlier western eisodos-wall C-C (= aA-aA) led Dörpfeld to accept that a "Periklean" second stage with a wooden Skene in the timber-sockets intervened between the first and Lykourgan stages. 80 Pickard-Cambridge 8 n. 2; so also e.g. Melchinger (above, n. 48) 15, Wurster (above, n. 10) 60 n. 13.

I The Fifth-Century Theatre of Dionysos

24

shook the faith of scholars in him and his reconstruction and put them in the mood to regard Fiechter and his as finally getting things straight. Yet Dörpfeld's discussion of the evidence for his circle is a fair statement of the facts. It is doubtless true that strictly on the basis of the material Q should only with hesitation be regarded as part of the same wall as R, but Dörpfeld perhaps goes too far when he suggests that it might be left out of the picture altogether. As we have seen, there are several contemporary examples of the combination of these sorts of stone in retaining walls, and some further considerations suggest that it is very difficult to dissociate Q and R. Dinsmoor observed that if R is used to restore a circle with a radius either of 12 m, as calculated from R by Dörpfeld, or of 12.15 m, as by Fiechter, the circle's "circumference will pass within a metre of the short western wall fragment (Q = J 3) and exactly parallel to it. It would be too much of a coincidence to suppose that this western fragment, in itself so short and defaced that a curve is not discernible, but appropriate in material, direction, and position, was anything else than part of the same circumference." Revising the calculation accordingly, he determines that a circle with a diameter of 25.50 m would include both fragments. This leaves the rockcut bed V just outside it, and Dinsmoor prefers not to readjust, but to conclude that V was "an external addition either for a drain outside the orchestra or for a platform or head of a ramp ascendipg to the old orchestra from the east parodos."81 He apparently prefers the latter idea, and assumes that D (= SM 3) supported a corresponding western ramp. The drain proposal, already put forward by Dörpfeld, will seem preferable to many, since the eisodos interpretation involves the assumption that the axis of the theater was quite different than in later periods, a point we shall return to. Dinsmoor's general contention seems entirely convincing, but becomes really compelling when put the other way round: what are we to make of Q if it is not part of the same wall as R? It cannot have been part of a scene-building, since the stone skene was an innovation of the Lykourgan period. It must be part of some sort of wall, and since it is a full meter or more below the orchestra-level it must have lain either on the border or outside of the terrace that everyone agrees was partially supported by fragment R. A glance at the site-plan indicates that it would 81

Dinsmoor 312-3.

2.2 Dörpfeld's Reconstruction

25

be absurd to suggest that the retaining wall of which R forms part ran back northward to the east of Q, leaving it outside the terrace. Nor, again, does it make any sense to suppose that within the retaining wall there was a second wall, also sunk to the level of the bedrock, running in a different direction. Thus Q must have been on the border of the terrace, or in other words part of the same wall as R; and the only natural way of restoring the line of a wall of which R and Q were parts is in the form of a circle. The same sort of reckoning applies to the rockcut bed at V—always with the proviso that we need a photograph and expert opinion as to whether it is artificial. This feature makes no sense except in relation to a circular wall of which Q and R form part. Its orientation is at odds with all the subsequent remains, and it will hardly have been cut into the rock to no purpose. Finally, the diameter of the circle. Dörpfeld stressed the difficulty of obtaining an exact measurement; this seems to have been largely due to his uncertainty about just where it should run. On his plan the 26 m circle is just outside of Q and down the middle of V. We notice that he has sketched the outline of an inner surface of the wall at R which would make it about 0.75 m wide. It is a reasonable guess that this conjecture was designed to produce a wall that would fit into the bed at V, which is ca. 1 m wide. But if it were embedded in V the line that corresponds to the outer surface of R ought to run along the outside limit of V. Allen saw this, and calculated that a circle 26.84 m in diameter would fulfill this condition and also run along the outside surface of Q;82 we can take his figure as approximately correct, bearing in mind that not only Dörpfeld but the remains themselves forbid the supposition that we have to do with a perfect circle. These circles are all plotted with V as a factor. Two independent calculations have been made from Q and R alone: Dinsmoor obtained his diameter of 25.50 m; the architect DeJong, employed by Flickinger, arrived at one of 25.26.83 Both of these will leave V just outside the circle. The 82 83

Allen "Orchestra-Terrace" (above, n. 76) 124-5 with figs. 1-2.

Flickinger (above, n. 10) 108, who says that DeJong's services were "in great demand for archaeological work of this nature," cites his results, as Dinsmoor 313 n. 4 rightly says, "without enthusiasm." Flickinger seems to have assumed that some single accurate result ought to be obtainable, not realizing that when each of the three remnants could not provide an exact arc, leaving one of them, V, out of the equation would substantially affect the result. Dinsmoor based his calculations on Dörpfeld's plan, DeJong seems to have used the stones themselves.

26

I The Fifth-Century Theatre of Dionysos

difference between them, given the nature of the remains, is minimal. It seems preferable to leave V outside, where it probably served as a drain,84 and therefore to regard the figures of Dinsmoor and DeJong as giving us the approximate diameter of the terrace. At V the wall would be much shorter than at R or Q, the rock at V being close to orchestra-level, and to the north of V the terrace will have been bounded by nothing more than a curb, if that. Seating will have been arranged around this curb, and probably outside the drain at V and some way to the south of it, though doubts about the axis at this period make it impossible to know the precise configuration of the auditorium. Dinsmoor added to his slightly modified version of Dörpfeld's reconstruction the striking suggestion that the earliest stage was on an axis corresponding to that of the Odeion of Perikles, which, being totally out of harmony with the present axis, would have been determined by the earlier.85 Reference may be made to Dinsmoor's fig. 2, reproduced here as fig. 9. He supports his thesis with the very dubious assumption that D (= SM 3) and V are remains of the original eisodoi. This can hardly be so, since on this axis D and V would enter the orchestra at quite different angles, and a line drawn from the entry point of one to that of the other would not be at right angles to the axis. Such an arrangement cannot perhaps be ruled out, but there is no positive argument here for Dinsmoor's axis. One would much more naturally assume that D, if it supported an eisodos, had a very close counterpart directly opposite it, whatever the axis may have been. The relationship with the Odeion, however, has a certain attraction, and may perhaps be supported by a further consideration, which indicates 84 The natural level of the rock at the western end of the extant eastern eisodos rises gently eastward. "A platform or head of a ramp ascending to the old orchestra from the east parodos" (Dinsmoor 313, my emphasis) therefore does not seem to be on the cards, but a drain would make good sense; other objections to regarding V as marking the position of the original eastern eisodos follow immediately in the text. 85

3 1 3. Whether the Odeion was built just after the Persian wars (see above) or in the 440s as Dinsmoor supposes, it was built within, and probably, pace Dinsmoor, long before the end of the period of the first stage. Hammond, "Conditions" 408-9 n. 44, who posits an original axis differing from the present in the same direction as Dinsmoor's but not so radically, regarded Dinsmoor's as "unlikely to be correct" because "a cavea based on so different an axis would lose much of the value of the slope." Given the difficulty of recovering either the size and nature of the original cavea or the original contours of a slope that has gone through various stages of artificial adjustment, this objection cannot in itself carry much weight, though one ought to bear it in mind.

2.2 Dörpfeld's Reconstruction

27

that in any case the earliest axis need not have been parallel to the later. If we assume that the axis of Dörpfeld's original circle differed less from that of the Odeion or was parallel to it, the later shift of both circle and axis becomes readily comprehensible. No edifice even remotely approaching the size of the first stone complex of stoa and skene-foundation could have been built across the skene end of the older circle and at right angles to its axis; the old temple would have obstructed this. An eastward shift was obstructed by the Odeion itself, and it was obviously undesirable and probably impossible to move the whole complex the very considerable distance closer to the Akropolis that would have been required to preserve the same axis, since this would have involved the removal of huge expanses of bedrock and a precipitous steepening of the auditorium. Given these restraints, the actual location of the first stone structure is the ideal minimal solution: the shifting of the whole complex slightly to the north and of its axis clockwise permits the stone building to be squeezed in against the north side of the old temple,86 while the shift slightly westward allows more room for the eastern half of the auditorium, which will now revolve clockwise to fill more of the space between the orchestra and the Odeion.87 It is of course true that if the original axis was not different, but parallel to the present one, the same constraints would lead to the same result; 88 but since the present axis is seen to be the result of either possibility it cannot in itself determine which possibility we should prefer. A major reorientation of the auditorium was involved either way, and until a more extensive examination is made of the fill, soil and bedrock beneath the extant auditorium we cannot even tell what axis would, other things being equal, best suit the natural configuration of the hillside. No

86

That the enclosed "room" fairly assumed to have constituted the western end of the stoa is a result simply of the close proximity to the old temple involved in this compromise makes highly dubious the notion that it was consciously designed to serve some specific purpose, theatrical or other. Yet scholars often assume some specific theatrical purpose, as most recently Blume (above, n. 45) 49: "Ein kleiner Teil (sc. der Säulenhalle) fand als Requisitenkammer Verwendung." 87 This involves the attractive possibility that a somewhat smaller segment of the wall of the Odeion that fronts on the theatre will originally have abutted the back of the auditorium. If the first circle was on the present axis even more of the Odeion wall would have been blocked. 88

As has long been recognized: see e.g. Dörpfeld 28, Fiechter 3.68.

28

I The Fifth-Century Theatre of Dionysos

conclusion can be drawn, but Dinsmoor's hypothesis ought for the present to be reckoned a real possibility.89 The remains, then, require the reconstruction of a circular terrace. They give us no assistance at all in imagining what sort of wooden skene was erected on it, a point to which we shall return. Dörpfeld was at first inclined to regard the terrace as identical with the orchestra proper, and certainly it seems to have passed through a period, ending sometime before the 458 B.C. production of the Oresteia of Aischylos, when no sort of building was erected on it. It is however quite a large circle, and it is easy to suppose that when the skene was thought of it was erected on the edge of the terrace opposite the auditorium. This seems a very much likelier procedure than the addition of a skene outside and round the terrace wall, where there was a drop of 2 m or so. It has often been objected, as by Pickard-Cambridge, that Dörpfeld's view "asks us to suppose that the supporting wall of the orchestra terrace coincided with the extreme edge of the circular orchestra itself, with no allowance for any margin between the latter and a drop of (probably) between 6 feet and 7 feet, and of course with no convenient space for the use of actors . . ,"90 The latter objection would apply also to the skene, but it is directed against a view Dörpfeld no longer held at the time Pickard-Cambridge wrote; before 1921 he had concluded that "auf der alten Orchestra-Terrasse des 5. Jahrh. ein etwas kleinerer Tanz- und Spielplatz vorhanden gewesen sein müsse, weil aus optischen und anderen Gründen ein Zwischenraum zwischen der untersten Sitzreihe und dem Platz der Tänze und des Spiels notwendig war," and that "der Umgang zwischen den beiden Kreisen sehr gut zur Aufstellung der Skene benutzt werden konnte."91 As for the danger of dancers toppling off the terrace, it is possible and surely likeliest that the wall here rose a meter or so above the orchestra-level. In sum, Dörpfeld's reconstruction appears to be the only plausible interpretation of the remains. Yet no work of his, nor Dinsmoor's article, are even cited in such standard bibliographies as those in Lesky, Die tragische Dichtung der Hellenen or the Oxford Classical Dictionary2 s.v. "Tragedy." This is the legacy of Fiechter, whom they do cite, and whose views we must now reconsider.

89 In this case we might prefer to regard wall D, according to Dörpfeld's (28) alternative suggestion, as part of the retaining wall of the first auditorium.

2.3 Fiechter's Opinions

29

3. Fiechter's Opinions Fiechter took over from Dörpfeld the project of republishing the theatre, and to this end conducted further excavations in 1927, 1929 and 1933. His sketches, plans and photographs of the actual remains are generally excellent, and still of fundamental importance. In a lecture of 1934 Fiechter made it plain that he could not accept his predecessor's reconstruction, 92 and in 1935-6 he published his own views. It has already been suggested that scholars have failed to examine Fiechter's volumes with a sufficiently critical eye. This is to some extent attributable to his rather disorganised presentation. The various stages of his thinking about the reconstruction of the various periods are scattered throughout the three volumes, almost always in four different places, and the sole mention of certain key aspects of his reconstructions may be made in any one of these places. As a result, scholars have tended to rely on his illustrations as a convenient summary of his views. This has meant that the arguments underlying his proposals have seldom been carefully weighed, or in other words that those who have accepted his opinions have done so largely on faith, and that even those hostile to his views have often failed to understand the procedures by which he arrived at them. This, given the enormous influence of Fiechter's books, is unfortunate, and a close look at his arguments is most illuminating. Fiechter was obsessed with geometry; he thought that a single geometrical scheme of the Theatre of Dionysos could be recovered from the remains of the various periods and had determined the form of each of them. In 1950 he published Nachträge to the earlier volumes in which he abandoned certain features of his earlier reconstructions. These, however, had already been widely accepted and disseminated, notably by PickardCambridge; the Nachträge were unknown to Dinsmoor when he defended Dörpfeld's circle, and have been little noticed since. Fiechter here maintained the essence of his reconstruction of the first stage, and in general admitted only minor revisions. On the subject of geometrical design he was completely unrepentant; this aspect of his argument had been 90

Pickard-Cambridge 8.

91

Dörpfeld (above, n. 77) 1213-14; for his earliest views on the fifth-century skene see Das griechische Theater 372-3 with Fig. 93. 92 "Archäologische Gesellschaft zu Berlin: Sitzung am 6. November 1934," JDAI: AA 49 (1934) 543-4.

I The Fifth-Century Theatre of Dionysos

30

criticised by several reviewers, though only with reference to the role it played in his assumption that a prohedria of a different shape had preceded the one we know. We find in the Nachträge a statement of faith in grand designs that summarises as it reaffirms the principles on which all of his reconstructions were based: "Trotz der Ablehnung von Seiten der archäologischen Wissenschaft halte ich daran fest, daß eine gewisse geometrische Grundlage sowohl in den Theatern als überhaupt bei allen antiken griechischen Kultbauten vorhanden ist. Es ist meine Überzeugung, daß in diesen Werken mehr Überlegung vorhanden ist, als man heute nur äußerlich feststellt. Überlegung sage ich im Sinne einer Brücke, die vom unermeßlichen Jenseits hinübergelegt werden darf zu dem meßbaren Diesseits, eine Brücke, die der Mensch nur bauen kann mit Hilfe der ewig gültigen Ausdrucksformen der Geometrie."93 With this statement in mind the reader may now consult Fiechter's "Geometrisches Planschema," reproduced here as fig. δ.94 We have placed it after his reconstructions, but it is significant that in Fiechter's book it precedes them. On this plan, the only part of the prohedria that corresponds to the remains is what Fiechter labels "römische Veränderung 1. Jh."; the "ursprüngliche Anlage des 5. Jahrhunderts" and "Lykurgs Veränderung 4. Jh." are both figments of his imagination. The extant auditorium is centered on a point slightly south of the center of the orchestra circle, which seems to be determined by the line of the drain; criticising Fiechter's "Gestrüpp von Mittelpunkten und Diagonalen" Schleif remarked: "Auf 7/Taf. 15 fehlt der einzige, wirklich meßbare Kreis, nämlich der Orchestrakreis auf der Innenkante des jetzigen Ringkanals."95 As we noted above, Maaß has shown that this arrangement of the auditorium is fourth-century;96 Fiechter wished to regard it as Roman, and against all the evidence "reconstructed" a Periklean period in which the auditorium was shaped like a horseshoe rather than a U, and its center point the same as that of its orchestra circle; "Lykurgs Veränderung" is another imaginary stage, forging a link between the real remains and the Periklean fantasy. The diameter of Fiechter's "Periklean" orchestra is determined by the distance between the inner walls of the paraskenia of the stone scene-building, which are regarded as 93

Fiechter 4.30-1, see also 4.33; his earlier defense of this proceeding is at 3.50-2.

94

Fiechter 3. Taf. 15.

95

Schleif (above, n. 59) 36.

96

Maaß (above, n. 22) passim, returning to the view of Dörpfeld.

2.3 Fiechter's Opinions

31

forming a significant geometrical pattern—not quite exact—with such features of the extant auditorium as the middle of the drainage ditch and the backs of the prohedria seats. Some further objections to this scheme are noted by Dinsmoor, who speaks of Fiechter's "strange and wonderful geometry."97 This whole reconstruction is arbitrary, and the dates assigned by Fiechter are no less so. He claims that the stone skene was already in place by the time of Perikles; this is, as we have seen, impossible on the ground of building material, and virtually no one has followed him in his dating, not even the loyal Pickard-Cambridge. The only explanation for Fiechter's dating—which as Dinsmoor points out is at odds with finds under wall HH of potsherds dating up to the late fifth century, reported by Kiibler in a contribution to Fiechter's own book98—is that he could not bring himself to believe that classical drama was played in such a primitive facility as our first stage. Both this and the assumption that all the stages of the theatre were based on his geometrical ideal are simply preconceptions. It will be noted that the orchestra circle Fiechter places within his Periklean auditorium—one wild conjecture based on another—is almost exactly the same size as the circle centered on letter Β in Fiechter's "Planschema." There is in fact no evidence allowing us to plot the size and location of the latter: it has in its turn been projected backwards from the conjectural orchestra circle of the conjectural Periklean auditorium. It is thus difficult to regard Fiechter's work as sober, accurate or reliable. If we now pass in review his reconstructions of the first stages— our three correspond to six of Fiechter's—this impression of unreliability will be confirmed. A glance at Taf. 16-7 (here figs. 3-4) of Fiechter's third volume shows that the axis of his earliest orchestra is established at right angles to wall Η of the following period and bisects it in the middle of platform T, which projects from Η and is contemporary with it. The point of bisection determines the southernmost point of the earlier orchestra, and its dimensions are established by the inner walls of the stone paraskenia of our third period, Fiechter's fourth and fifth. Dörpfeld had concluded that the change from earliest orchestra to stone building with proskenia had happened all at once, and supposed that the 97

Dinsmoor 325.

98

Dinsmoor 318; Ktibler in Fiechter 3.47-9.

I The Fifth-Century Theatre of Dionysos

32

timber-sockets across the front of wall Η had to do with some construction within the later edifice. Scholars generally, and eventually Dörpfeld himself, have since regarded these as evidence for an intermediary stage of temporary wooden skenai on and against a permanent stone foundation," but Fiechter sees the matter differently, positing a stag»; consisting of stone foundation, without sockets, supporting a stone skenotheke which would later for unclear reasons be replaced by the familiar stoa.100 In the next period, Fiechter's third, this structure is expanded forward by temporary wooden structures in the sockets. Two considerations sufficiently counter this theory. The doubling of the wall of his skenotheke-foundation, before the wooden extension was thought of and ''lerefore before the northerly wall had any purpose, is pointless; moreover, though Fiechter's reconstruction entails the attractive feature that a variety of stage-sets may be erected in the sockets,101 it is impossible to understand why such flexibility should afterward have been abandoned and why a stone edifice, once established, should ever have been replaced by a smaller building a few feet to the north.102 Even if this reconstruction could be accepted, it is absurd to imagine that T, whatever its supposed original purpose,103 transgressed the orchestra circle when it was built, that this circle had in fact as its southernmost point the bisection of the center of Τ by the line of wall H, and that the orchestra was only shifted northward with the advent of the wooden skene. Yet this is the arrangement on Fiechter's plans,104 99

See Dinsmoor 322-3 with n. 15. The stone foundation at the back is what Dinsmoor and Travlos call the "stoa," Dörpfeld the "Säulenhalle," Fiechter the "Skenothek" (in its earlier manifestation: see the following note) and Pickard-Cambridge the "hall." 100

See 3. Tafel 17 (our fig. 4) and his sketches, Abb. 30-1 (= Bieber [above, n. 10] 59, figs. 234-5). The question is discussed at 1.18, 89-90; 3.68-72. This skene survives until Fiechter's Lykourgan period; for the oddity of its replacement by a stoa see below. He has, so far as I can see, won no adherents. 101

See 3. Abb. 32-4 (= Bieber [above, n. 10] 60, figs. 241-2), sketches of a few of the "Fülle von Möglichkeiten beweglicher, leicht aufstellbarer Vorbauten" (3.87) which could be erected on the sockets forward of the permanent stone skenotheke. 102 Why not expand from the same site? Fiechter's vague justification for the move (3.70) is not in the least compelling. 103 Fiechter offers the proposals 'Treppe, Türe, Torbau, Tempelfront": an utterly vague conception, then. His idea could be improved by supposing that the building was wooden and that the projection Τ was designed to support an extended ekkyklema, but the objections noted in the text rule out the whole theory. 104 3. Tafeln 17 and 18 (our figs. 4 and 5). At 3.68 he says without further explanation that Τ "ragte vermutlich in den alten Spielplatz hinein." At 3.71 he says that

2.3 Fiechter's Opinions

33

and the reason for it, and for the whole of his unnecessary second stage, is perfectly clear: it is a necessary step in Fiechter's projection backwards o f the "geometry" of the later building to encompass the earliest orchestra. The authority for Fiechter's version of the latter has nothing to do with the appropriate stones; it begins with the "reconstructed" circle, 20.45-6 meters in diameter, inside the "Periklean" auditorium in the period of the stone skene. This dimension, derived of course from the Planschema, is then projected backwards to produce an exactly equivalent orchestra somewhat to the south for the period of the wooden skene and the older west eisodos wall. This doubly conjectural circle is exactly halved by the axis o f the theatre, which is proper, but the placement of its centre on the axis is determined by the arbitrary assumption that the line of the earlier western retaining wall of the auditorium, C-C (= aA-aA; contemporary with Η and T), will bisect the axis of the theatre precisely at the centre of this circle. 105 D i n s m o o r h i m s e l f adopted this m e t h o d o f Fiechter's in h i s o w n reconstruction of the second stage. 106 Yet the retaining walls are not aligned this "Überschneidung" will have been "nicht störend" and that only the larger socketed skene would come into conflict with the orchestra and necessitate the shift northward. I can find no acknowledgement that all of this is in the service of his assumptions about the dimensions and history of the orchestra. Yet it is obviously so: it would have been simpler to suppose that what Fiechter makes into two stages was in fact one, a change directly to skenotheke plus "Vorbauten," which would obviate the problem of Η anticipating its later function (though the objection in the text to the assumption that a stone building was abandoned would still apply). That he chooses to posit two steps can have only one explanation, that he found it necessary to coordinate the orchestra circle with the temple side of Τ so that he could further posit that it was in the same place in the previous period. It is notable that in the sketched reconstructions of his first skene (3. Abb. 30-1 [= Bieber 59 figs. 234-5]) Τ does not overlap the orchestra. 105

This assumption seems only to be mentioned in the Zusammenfassung at 1.90, where it is slipped in without justification: "Die Verschiebung des Mittelpunkts gegenüber dem Mittelpunkt der früheren Orchestra betrug, wenn man diesen im Schnittpunkt von der Linie aA mit der Mittelachse annimmt, etwa 5,10 m." 106

See his fig. 2, here fig. 9, and the discussion 327 with n. 25. Having thus determined the center of his orchestra Dinsmoor doubles the 12.74 m between it and the front of platform T, producing "a circle 25.48 m. (78 Doric Feet) in diameter, identical with the diameter of the old orchestra circle of the first theater" (327). This is the sort of "strange and wonderful geometry" he has criticised others for. The proposal that the dimensions of the old circle were recreated involves accepting the idea that the first orchestra filled the whole area of the first terrace, which was given up even by Dörpfeld—as it surely must be—for the period of the first skene. Thus in the later period of the first stage the orchestra itself must have had a diameter considerably less than 25.50 m, and the subsequent orchestra is unlikely to have been larger. It is also unsound to assume that platform Τ abutted the orchestra, which leaves no room for an acting area. Dinsmoor's proposal also involves having the drain within the orchestra, its outer side about a meter from the edge of the circle, a strange arrangement indeed.

34

I The Fifth-Century Theatre of Dionysos

with the centre of the orchestra in the extant Theatre of Dionysos, at Epidauros, or in the vast majority of Greek theatres,107 and we therefore cannot regard this as a principle of theatrical arrangement enabling us to reconstruct accurately the orchestra of the second stage. Fiechter's reconstruction for this period (our second, his third), then, is arbitrary in the extreme, but happens also to be workable, fitting fairly well with the remains, the southern edge of the orchestra separated from Τ by about three meters. But when Fiechter assumes a circle of the same dimensions for his preceding (second) orchestra, moves its edge to the rear of T, and assumes further that this in turn was preceded by a circle of the same size and in the same place, his proceeding is trebly arbitrary and implausible.108 Thus the first orchestra circle on Fiechter's terrace is a projection southward on the same axis and backward in time of its descendant in the fourth/fifth generation by Fiechter's reckoning or third by ours, which itself never existed. All of this indicates that when we consider Fiechter's reconstruction of the first stage we should do so in the knowledge that his first priority was to restore an orchestra reconcilable with the Planschema. Dörpfeld's terrace circle, the center of which was three meters east of the later axis, and which was not coordinated with either wall H-H or the Lykourgan paraskenia, was on these grounds unsuited to Fiechter's preconceptions. There are two reasons for the failure of scholars to understand that such was the genesis of Fiechter's first orchestra. The first is that neither his earliest nor his second orchestra—both in the same place, overlapping Τ—are plotted on the Planschema. The second, and clearly the more important, is that scholars have wrongly taken it that the dimensions and location of Fiechter's first orchestra are established by wall-fragment Q (= J 3). Even his critics seem simply to have looked at his plan, and gathered 107

Dinsmoor 327 n. 25 offers five analogies, among which Sikyon, Oropos and Ephesos appear not to be parallel, and New Pleuron and Megalopolis, but only if we use the inside of the retaining wall, approximately parallel. For plans see Bieber: Megalopolis 75 fig. 276; Oropos 112 fig. 427; New Pleuron 115 fig. 438; Ephesos 116 fig. 442; for Sikyon see Pickard-Cambridge 206 fig. 73. 108 In his discussion of the earliest orchestra Fiechter says: "Wenn sie etwa einen Durchmesser hatte, der dem späteren Spielplatz entsprochen hat, so muß sie von der Ecke des Tempels mindestens 13 - 15 m entfernt gewesen sein" (3.67). This is again (cf. η. 105) the sole verbal indication of his proceeding.

2.3 Fiechter's Opinions

35

from it some such position as follows: Rechter denied that Q (= J 3) was curved, and preferred to locate the earliest orchestra on the same axis as its successors, turning R (= SM 1), which appeared to him "nicht kreisförmig," into part of a bow-shaped terrace wall, employing D (= SM 3) to support the far side of a sort of ramp leading to a walkway parallel to the terrace wall and ascending eastward, and positing an orchestra about twenty and a half meters in diameter with a margin of just over four meters between its southerly end and that of the terrace wall.109 Q (= J 3) appears to Fiechter's critics to establish the border of this orchestra, and they take umbrage at the inconsistency involved, Fiechter insisting that the remnant is straight and therefore denying that it can form part of a circular wall, but saying that it may be part of a border and in fact placing it on the border of a circular orchestra with a much more intense curve than that of Dörpfeld's retaining wall.110 Schleif, and Dinsmoor after him, were sharply critical of this inconsistency, 111 but failed to note that the suggestion in the first volume that Q might be a border was expressly denied in the third.112 It is nevertheless true that it features in his plan on the border of his circle, but Schleif and Dinsmoor again fail to notice that this is simply an astounding coincidence. It may be regarded as fortunate for Fiechter that the stones at Q (= J 3) happen to lie on the border of the orchestra he projected backwards and without reference to them; subsequent scholarship, even hostile scholarship, has taken them as the physical basis for the circle, as integral to the reconstruction, and Fiechter's own discomfort with what was for him an anomaly, and his far-fetched attempt to explain them as a remnant of an unknown earlier construction, have gone unnoticed. What everyone seems to have forgotten, even though the fact is marked on Fiechter's own plan, is that Q lies over a meter beneath the orchestra-level. It would be absurd to suggest that a simple orchestra curb would be sunk to the level of the bedrock, and Fiechter, in accordance with his claim that it was straight, never suggested that it was a curb. What he does in fact do is leave it out of account altogether as a factor in the 109

Fiechter 1.38^1 and 3.66-8, esp. 67.

110

"Es mag tatsächlich der Rest einer altertümlichen Einfassung sein, aber es ist keine Kreismauer" (1.40). 111

Schleif (above, η. 59) 27; Dinsmoor 311.

112

Fiechter 3.67.

I The Fifth-Century Theatre of Dionysos

36

reconstruction. In the first volume he says "welchem Zweck das ältere Mäuerchen gedient hat, wie es zu datieren ist, bleibt ganz unsicher," and he simply ignores it. In the third volume he raised the possibility that it might have been part of a drain, but only to dismiss it. He then asks whether it may not be "der Rest einer noch früheren Gestaltung des Platzes," adding "wir müssen nach den Scherbenfunden annehmen, daß einst eine ältere Bebauung hier vorhanden war."113 This is special pleading. Fiechter seems to allude to the discussion of the sherds by Kübler, who mentions the results of German excavations under the orchestra in 1889: "In der Tiefe der Aufschüttung ist eine ältere Wohnschicht festgestellt worden (man vergleiche dazu die kleine Mauer bei J 3)."114 Following up his reference to Schneider's report on the excavations, one finds nothing but the sentence "Auch fand sich etwa ein halbes Dutzend teils konischer, teils trapezförmiger Gewichtsteine." 115 These do not sound like the sort of material from which Q is made, and do not seem to have been found in the shape of a wall; and it would perhaps be surprising to find a building where Q is, on steeply inclining bedrock. On the other hand we have mentioned a number of parallels for the combination of the materials of Q and R in retaining walls of the appropriate date, and if Judeich is right the soft white limestone of the lamented northerly stone of Q only began to be employed in the sixth century. The only reasonable conclusion is that Q, like R, D and SM 2, is a remnant of the first theatre. As we demonstrated in our discussion of Dörpfeld's view, a reconstruction that takes account of Q can only lead to his result. Fiechter's preconceptions required a different reconstruction, and he therefore ignored Q. He would not accept the idea that even a small, battered remnant of a single course of what was claimed to be a circular wall could fail to exhibit a regular curve, and it was presumably this that made the rejection of Dörpfeld's circle seem plausible to him. But, as we have seen, even if Q was straight it is impossible to regard it as anything but part of the same retaining wall as R. Thus Q and the Planschema could not be reconciled, and it can only have been his overwhelming loyalty to the latter that led Fiechter to the outrageous expedient of suggesting that the former ought to be ignored.116 The

329.

113

Fiechter 1.40; 3.67-8.

114

Kübler in Fiechter 3.49.

115

A. Schneider, "Vase des Xenokles und Kleisophos," AM 14 (1889) 329-48, at

2.3 Fiechter's Opinions

37

preconceptions that led Fiechter to dispose of Q were doubtless also responsible for his unique view of the rockcut bed V, which however was a somewhat easier victim. Two further points may be made. First, it strains credulity to suppose that a solitary remain of an earlier building should by coincidence conform so closely to any circle restored from the arc of R (= SM 1), even if we leave V out of account. Second, Fiechter's reconstructed terrace wall is a winding and totally asymmetrical affair in which R forms part of a gentle S-shaped curve, and this may well be thought a most unlikely form for a retaining wall or any prominent feature of a prestigious edifice to take; it certainly cuts a poor figure beside the old temple of Dionysos, of whose sanctuary it was intended to form a part. Fiechter's reconstruction enjoyed an immediate success. PickardCambridge in particular, though he alone seems to have understood that Q (= J 3) was being ignored and that Fiechter's placing of the orchestra was merely an assumption, took up the cause whole-heartedly. 117 In the Nachträge of 1950 Fiechter published a revised version of his reconstruction of the first stage; the orchestra circle has been removed, with the laconic comment "Auch die Größe, Form und Lage der ältesten Orchestra ist uns nicht bekannt."118 Q (= J 3) lies buried under the terrace, with no orchestra circle to disguise its anomalous status. Fiechter gave up the orchestra, but retained the reconstruction of the terrace that was specially tailored to fit it. Alas, none of this led anyone to a proper appreciation of his earlier reconstruction, and it has therefore been possible for many later scholars to repose their trust in the great Bauforscher and follow his example by ignoring Q. Fiechter's opinions are still widely accepted, especially by the advocates of a rectilinear theatre. This sort of reconstruction is all the rage at the present day, and we may now consider it, in the light of our results so far.

116 Maaß (above, n. 22) 24-5 publishes from the Fiechter Nachlaß an exchange of letters with Schleif that gives a stark indication of Fiechter's capacity for conveniently ignoring facts and obfuscating his own methods, arguments and claims. Maaß could perhaps have brought into sharper focus the dominating role of the Planschema in all of Fiechter's work on the theatre. 117 Pickard-Cambridge 7: "its (viz J 3) date and purpose being so far undeterminable"; and 8 on the orchestra. 118

Fiechter 4.24 with Abb. 6.

I The Fifth-Century Theatre of Dionysos

38

4. A Rectilinear Theatre? As noted above, the view that the first stage and auditorium were rectilinear relies on the assumption that Rechter was right to reject Dörpfeld's circle. A critical summary of the arguments offered by advocates of this new view will indicate current trends in the reception of the earlier work as well as demonstrating that the view itself is untenable. Gebhard, Butterweck and Pöhlmann all employ the same strategy in presenting their case. It is first argued that a circular wall cannot be reconstructed from the remains of the first theatre; this clears the way for two arguments in favour of a rectilinear design: the rectilinear fragments of the fifth-century prohedria recovered from the drain, and the analogy of various early rectilinear theatres. We may consider these two stages of argument separately. Butterweck and Pöhlmann adopt Fiechter's view that R (= SM 1) is more curved at one end than the other.119 Gebhard, we will remember, considered that the fourth and fifth stones from the south form a straight line, but left the northernmost stone out of account because most of its face is broken away; her conclusion that "the wall is composed of two segments, a straight one to the north . . . and a curved one to the south"120 thus goes beyond the evidence. Butterweck fails even to mention Q (= J 3); on the basis of the single stone that is left, Gebhard agreed with Fiechter that Q is straight, and concluded that "if it belonged to the old orchestra terrace wall, it was comparable to the northern segment of R = SM 1 and did not form part of a circle"; Pöhlmann accepts her view that it is straight, and says that it is "schon deswegen nicht mit R zu verbinden." He regards as a supporting argument the difference in material, "der sich freilich erklären Hesse."121 Butterweck is also silent about the rockcut bed V; Gebhard didn't see it and so left it out of account. Wurster had confirmed its existence by the time Pöhlmann wrote, but the latter's discussion is based on a misconception of it to which we shall return, and which vitiates his

119

Butterweck (above, n. 48) 113; Pöhlmann (above, n. 9) 131.

120

Gebhard (above, n. 53) 432.

121

Ead. 433; Pöhlmann (above, n. 9) 132-3.

2.4 A Rectilinear Theatre?

39

conclusion that it was associated with the construction of the present east eisodos.122 Having thus disposed of the circular orchestra, these scholars feel free to reconstruct a mainly rectilinear retaining wall, and devote the remaining wall-fragments to this end. Butterweck seems to accept the view that D (= SM 3) was part of a wall supporting the western eisodos. Gebhard and Pöhlmann suggest that it may be part of the western end of wall R, though neither provides a reconstruction of the site,123 and both fail to mention SM 2, which would not consort well with a wall including D and R. Butterweck does provide a plan, and regards SM 2 as the remnant of a more plausible western extension of R.124 Leaving aside V, there are four pieces to the puzzle that is the first stage of the theatre. Each of these scholars fails even to list one of them, and Gebhard and Pöhlmann regard as convincing a solution of the puzzle that leaves two of them unaccounted for. Butterweck, like Fiechter, manages to include three pieces, but does so by being willing to restore a wall that is entirely rectilinear apart from the only substantial remnant of it, R (= SM 1), which is wholly or partially curved. The wall of Gebhard and Pöhlmann requires less special pleading than this, as it includes an undeniably straight fragment; but to include this they are forced to leave not only Q (= J 3) but a second remnant, SM 2, buried under the terrace. Fiechter at least knew what he was about, and manufactured an argument for regarding Q as not in fact a piece of the puzzle. One may judge of the impact of his opinions by reflecting that his successors disregard this and sometimes another piece of the puzzle without feeling a need to justify their proceeding in any way. It may be stressed again that if a reconstruction takes all the remains into account R and Q must be restored as part of the same wall; that such a 122

Ead. 433; id. 131; the misconception is discussed in 3.1 below.

123

Pöhlmann has provided a sketch of the sort of auditorium, orchestra-area and skene he envisions in "Bühne und Handlung im Aias des Sophokles," AuA 32 (1986) 20-32, at 25 Abb. 5. His skene is about 30 Χ 15 m and runs the whole length of his sharply rectilinear auditorium; there are three doors in it. If other things were equal, it would seem to be just plausible that such a structure could have stood on a terrace bounded by a wall combining R and D. The axis of the theatre would not be too radically different in direction or position from the later one. We would be required to assume, however, that in the subsequent period the theatre was moved closer to the Odeion. 124 Gebhard (above, n. 53) 433; Pöhlmann (above, n. 9) 133; Butterweck (above, n. 48) 125 with Abb. 20.

I The Fifth-Century Theatre of Dionysos

40

wall would most naturally be circular; and that if it were it would run parallel to the bed at V and very close to it. Disregard of any of the remains is special pleading unless cogent reasons for it are offered, and recent assertions that Dörpfeld's reconstruction is untenable, and the attempts to replace it, must therefore be judged totally unconvincing. The further arguments offered in support of a rectilinear reconstruction—rectilinear seat-fragments and contemporary rectilinear theatres—may be dealt with briefly. The two arguments tend to be combined, although Pöhlmann and (somewhat more cautiously) Gebhard regard each as in itself convincing, and they must therefore be dealt with together. Both writers criticise Dinsmoor for restoring the seat-fragments as part of a circular auditorium composed of segments of straight seats.125 It is an obvious rejoinder to this criticism that the vast majority of the seats in the auditorium of which this prohedria formed part were wooden, and so far as I can tell no one has ever suggested that they would be curved, even if the auditorium was circular. The prohedria seats would thus be the same shape as all the others, and the fact that they are straight is therefore no argument against their forming part of a circular auditorium. Gebhard allows that the seats of the first stage were probably wooden and straight, and goes on to suggest that they "may have been arranged like the stone seats in the center section at Thorikos," that is in long parallel rows the width of the auditorium.126 Thorikos, the Attic deme, had a small, largely rectilinear theatre which is the analogy of choice among advocates of a rectilinear theatre at Athens. Gebhard later objects to Dinsmoor's reconstruction that "it would perhaps be simpler to suggest that the original wooden seats, arranged in straight parallel rows, were partly replaced in stone without changing their alignment."127 The possible arrangement on the model of Thorikos has here become a certainty, and the forcing of the analogy is indicative of the fact that the straightness of the seat-fragments in itself proves nothing. The analogy with Thorikos is often forced by these scholars. Gebhard says that the older western eisodos wall (or "analemma") "is comparable to 125 The reader will remember that Dinsmoor regards the second stage as late fifthcentury, and is restoring the auditorium retained by the older western eisodos wall; Gebhard and Pöhlmann regard these seats, surely rightly, as belonging to the first stage. The point makes little difference to our argument. 126

Gebhard (above, n. 53) 433.

127

Ead. 434.

2.4 A Rectilinear Theatre?

41

the west analemma at Thorikos";128 yet the obvious parallel for the old wall is its successor two meters to the north, and the most natural assumption is that like it the older wall retained a circular auditorium. Pöhlmann notes that a combination of letters and straight lines incised on the seat-blocks seems to separate the prohedria into individual seats about 70 cm wide, "wie in der Proedrie in Thorikos."129 This coincidence is no support for the notion that the Athenian seats were arranged like those in Thorikos; it merely proves that the Athenians and the Thorikians held similar views about the amount of space to be allotted to very important posteriors. It is a serious objection to the proposal of a rectilinear auditorium that it requires a very different sort of hillside than that appropriate to a circular cavea-auditorium.130 Fill here and trimming of the bedrock there can adjust a natural cavea to modest steepenings or shifts of axis, but it is quite another thing to cut a cavea like that of the extant auditorium into the kind of hillside that would naturally accomodate long, straight rows of benches. If we were operating in a vacuum the fact that there are no circular theatres contemporary with ours would suggest that a rectilinear arrangement was the likeliest possibility, though no more than that. But this argument cannot withstand the clear evidence of the remains, and we must conclude that the Athenian theatre took the lead in this as in other respects.

5. Travlos's Reconstruction It is convenient to consider briefly here the restoration by Travlos of the earliest periods, bearing in mind that he regarded the first not as a theatre but as a setting for cultic dance. We may refer to his plans, reproduced here as fig. 12. The first of these shows in outline the remains on which his semi-circular retaining wall is based. As Gebhard pointed out, he omits Q (= J 3) and V altogether.131 Collation of his plan with the site-plans will ™Ibid. 129 Pöhlmann (above, n. 9) 144. In fact, as his descriptions 140-2 indicate, the interval between the markings varies widely, and in one case is as little as 29 cm. They ought therefore to be more cautiously interpreted. 130 131

Hammond, "More" 8 has objected to these proposals on the same ground.

Gebhard (above, n. 53) 433. Travlos's plan of the later fifth-century theatre has had a prominent advocate inTaplin, who in Greek Tragedy in Action (Berkeley 1978) 10 fig. 1 illustrates the shape of the early theatre with an adaptation of Travlos's plan of the

I The Fifth-Century Theatre of Dionysos

42

indicate that like Fiechter and the others he has left Q well within his terrace wall. He also places his earliest theatre on an axis parallel to that of the extant theatre, but some 2 m west of it, which involves the dubious assumption that in the Lykourgan period the theatre was moved closer to the Odeion. The reconstructions of Fiechter and those who have been influenced by him will not stand up to close scrutiny. Dörpfeld's general view seems, on the basis of current knowledge of the remains, to be the only tenable one. With this established we may now review some attempts to sketch the first theatre in greater detail.

3. Theatrical Features of the Early Stage We consider here three topics: the suggestion that natural rock formations on the eastern side of the terrace formed part of the acting area; a recent attempt to determine with some exactness the shape and location of the earliest skene; and the notion that a trap-door or underground passage was available to the poets.

1. The "Pagos-Biihne" Various reconstructions of the first stage have involved a "rock-stage" or 'Tagos-Btihne" designed to correspond to certain indications in the texts of Aischylean plays. The chorus of Suppliants are told by Danaos that it would be best πάγον προσίζειν τόνδ' άγωνίων θεών (189), and it is clear that part of the acting area was meant to represent a rocky elevation with several statues of gods on it. The most frequent reference to a pagos is of course in Prometheus Bound.132 Hammond has connected with these the "akropolis" of Seven, which also has divine images on it (94, 211, 240, 264 etc.), and the δχθος which is the tomb of Dareios in Persai (648, 659f., cf. 684, 686).133 Melchinger further associates the στέγος άρχαΐον first theatre. Taplin 457, however, mistakenly represents Travlos as among those who have returned to Dörpfeld's theory. Travlos's plans are also reproduced in Wycherley 2089. From the point of view of performance, of course, the difference between Taplin's reconstruction and that advocated here is negligible; but it is worth getting the matter straight. 132

See PB 20, 117, 130, 272; cf. 31, 748, 968; the rock is described as "rough" or "jagged" at 283, 747,1016. 133

For discussion of all these passages see Hammond, "Conditions" 416-23.

3.1 The "Pagos-Bühne"

43

of Persai 141 with the rock-stage, but regards Prometheus as postOresteian—after the introduction of the skene—and therefore concludes that the rock in that play must have been artificial.134 Melchinger and Hammond independently suggested that an area of natural rock was employed as an acting-space in these early plays. Melchinger assumed that it was no longer in use at the time of the Oresteia, but Hammond regarded it as suitable for the representation of the tomb of Agamemnon in Choephoroi and the Areiopagos in Eumenid.es, and has recently maintained that the last extant drama in which its use can be detected is Sophokles's Aias, but that it was no longer available for Antigone.135 Where was this rocky area? The first scholar to suggest the employment of natural rock was in fact Flickinger, in a paper of 1930. He noted that Suppliants required a rocky area with statues, and the indication in lines 713-4 that it commanded an imaginary prospect of the sea unavailable to those in the orchestra. Flickinger proposed to situate this area along the eastern edge of Dörpfeld's terrace and inside it, bounded by a line running from the southernmost point of wall R to roughly the area of the rockcut bed V.136 "I have allowed the south portion of this segment," he says, "to follow the line of the orchestral wall for the reason that a declivity (of over six feet) lay outside the terrace at this point, but the north portion I have . . . allowed to extend over the bounds of the orchestral terrace, since space was there available for this purpose. In fact, this extension, if desired, could have spread farther east, since there was no declivity there. Rather, since the natural level at that point was higher, it would have formed an excellent πάγος from which to view the countryside or the sea"137 The area in question is that of the natural rock into which V was cut 134

See Melchinger (above, n. 48) 90-1 (Persai), 93-5 (Seven), 95-8 (Suppliants and fragments), 99 with 272 n. 82 (Prometheus and its dating). 135

Hammond, "More" 12-3.

136

See Roy C. Flickinger, "The Theater of Aeschylus," ΤΑΡΑ 61 (1930) 80-110, at 89 fig. 6. Flickinger was able to devote the whole of this area to the actors because he had adopted the view that at this period there was only a single eisodos, the western; this view has always been rejected by the majority of scholars. The line delimiting the area of the pagos is the product of elaborate geometrical designs, which among other things establish an axis parallel to the entrance wall of the old temple; the line in question is parallel to this axis. 137

Ibid. 89-90.

44

I The Fifth-Century Theatre of Dionysos

and of the extant eastern eisodos generally; the natural rise here was noted also by Melchinger, and can be seen in his Tafel 2. Melchinger's own Pagos-Bühne seems to include this area and an extension further to the south, but his conception is rather vaguely described.138 There seems however no reason to believe that there was ever natural rock above the orchestra-level very much to the south of the extant eastern eisodos; we will remember that at R the bedrock is 1.5 m or more below orchestra level, and continues to drop off sharply to the south.139 Melchinger's plans140 show that his retaining wall, restored from R and D, is the same as Gebhard's and Pöhlmann's. He places on the terrace, however, a circular orchestra. His auditorium is not symmetrical with the retaining wall, which especially after the introduction of the skene makes for a very awkward arrangement. A space between his orchestra and the part of the retaining wall from R northward seems to be intended to accommodate the pagos. Melchinger envisions this as a very substantial rock formation; he suggests for example that it had seats cut into it, like those known from the Pnyx, which could be used by the chorus of Persai at 140ff., and that the akropolis of Seven and pagos with statues of Suppliants were above these.141 He has apparently forgotten that Dörpfeld found fill behind R, not bedrock;142 and if the natural rock had ever risen to the orchestra level here, there would have been no reason, in this period or later, to cut it away to such a depth. Moreover, the level of the old temple is not reconcilable with the view that just ca. 8 m to the north and 25 m to the east of it the bedrock was once on a level some 4 m higher. We must surely assume a steady declination from V southwards. Melchinger's reconstruction cannot be accepted; he follows Fiechter in ignoring Q and V and Gebhard and Pöhlmann in ignoring SM 2, and his rock formation is not credible. It remains theoretically possible that the gentle rise in the area of the eastern eisodos could have been put to use as 138

See in particular Melchinger (above, n. 48) 15-24 and 82-90.

139

Melchinger's description of the lay of the land at 15-6 is inaccurate or unsupported at several points. 140

Melchinger (above, n. 48) 48-9 Abb. 11-3.

141

Melchinger (above, n. 48) 20-2; he illustrates his conception of the seats with a picture of those on Museion hill, Taf. 18. 142

mistake.

Dörpfeld 26-7. Hammond, "Conditions" 407 with n. 39 makes the same

3.1 The "Pagos-Bühne"

45

an acting area, but since this area is north of the center of the terrace it must seem much more likely that the natural rise provided a foundation for seating. There is in any case little indication that a natural rock formation was part of the acting-area of early tragedy. The requirements of Seven and Persai are adequately met by the terrace wall and the drop behind it, which would represent the height of the Theban akropolis and provide a place to erect a simple tomb from which Dareios could emerge by climbing steps or a ladder from outside. The furthest side of the playing-area from the audience certainly seems the most sensible place to erect images of the gods of any considerable size: they will not block the view of the actors from any part of the auditorium, and they, and any supplication of them, will be seen at their best head-on, as a tableau.143 The prospect of the sea and supplication of images required by Suppliants could be provided for in the same way. Here the spot is once called a pagos, but the terrace wall and the drop beyond it would surely represent this adequately. Apart from the Areiopagos, which appears not to have been represented on stage in any way,144 every other mention of a rock is in Prometheus—and the pagos to which Prometheus is nailed is obviously very different from the flat-topped pagos that holds Danaos, the chorus and several statues in Suppliants. In his recent restatement of his theory Hammond makes a spirited defence of the Aischylean authorship of the play from which almost all of his evidence comes.145 Few will follow him in this, but even if the play were pre-Oresteian it is so obviously sui generis in the matter of stage-production that one cannot assume that a device used in it was a permanent feature of the stage, least of all perhaps a type of rock that figures in only one or two later plays.146 Hammond's version of an acting area of natural rock is quite different from those of Flickinger and Melchinger. We may refer to plans taken from his earlier and later papers, reproduced here as figs. 10 and 11. These represent the setting for Eumenides and therefore include a skene, a feature 143 For general objections to the idea of a playing-area to the side see Thomas G. Rosenmeyer, The Art of Aeschylus (Berkeley 1982) 57; A.F. Garvie, in the introduction to his edition of Choephoroi, xliv. 144

See further Π.3 below.

145

Hammond, "More" 11-6.

146

West (following note) 135 n. 29 cites Euripides Andromeda and Peirithoos.

46

I The Fifth-Century Theatre of Dionysos

we will consider presently. The large rock he restores at V was in his view the principal acting-area in earlier tragedy and continued in use up to the time of Aias. It represented the Theban akropolis, the pagos of Suppliants, the rock to which Prometheus was bound, and the Areiopagos in Eumenid.es, and could be adapted to represent a tomb, as in Persai and Choephoroi. His view has been widely endorsed; Taplin, Wycherley, West and Newiger have found it attractive, though Taplin doubts that the rock was still there for the Oresteia.ul Hammond bases his proposals on Dörpfeld's results as defended and modified by Dinsmoor, and thus shows R and Q as parts of the circular retaining wall. He prefers to believe, however, that it was only later in the fifth century that the rock at V was artificially adjusted, and for the earlier period restores a large outcrop there. This restoration is unfortunately based on a misunderstanding of Dörpfeld's plan (here fig. 1), where a level 5 m expanse of the natural rock is sketched in at the western end of the extant eastern eisodos. Into this rock there has been incised a bedding or channel about 1 m wide and running roughly NW-SE, which is clearly depicted by Dörpfeld just to the right of its symbol V, with his restored circle running through the middle of it. It is this channel that has been cut from the native rock; neither Dörpfeld nor anyone else who saw it said that the whole surface into which it was cut was itself the result of artificial adjustment or levelling. Hammond's 5 m wide rock outcrop, rising considerably above the level, therefore has no basis in Dörpfeld's finds. Moreover, it is only the channel that is parallel to the circle and in an appropriate position to be related to it, and if we accept Dörpfeld's view V and the rock surface west of it must have been below orchestra-level throughout the first period. This would leave only the slight natural rise east of the channel at V available for a pagos, of the sort proposed by Flickinger.148

147 Taplin 448-9; Wycherley 212; M.L. West, "The Prometheus Trilogy," JHS 99 (1979) 130-148, at 135: West 135-40 proposes a staging of PB based on acceptance of Hammond's rock; Newiger (above, n. 8) 407. More recently, Hammond's view has been criticised by Garvie in the introduction to his edition of Choephoroi, xliii f.; Richard Hamilton, "Cries Within and the Tragic Skene," AJP 108 (1987) 585-99, at 596-8; and Rehm (above, n. 47) 270 n. 34; none of these scholars gets to the heart of the problem. 148

How much of this rise would actually be rocky we do not know; I have been unable to find a statement or plan of the precise configuration of the bedrock in the eastern eisodos.

3.1 The "Pagos-Bühne"

47

Hammond has taken statements about V-the meter-wide channel-to apply to the whole 5 m of rock depicted on the site-plan. His first reconstruction (our fig. 10) accurately depicts the relationship of Dörpfeld's circle and the 5 m area, but on the strength of Dinsmoor's recalculation of the circle, which left the cutting V just outside it, Hammond's new plan shows the whole of the 5 m area outside Dinsmoor's circle.149 Several scholars have been misled by Hammond. Pöhlmann, for example, speaks of "eine etwa 1 m breite Felsabarbeitung" that need not be explained as a "Fundamentgraben einer Ringmauer"—here is the real V. "Der dort ursprünglich anstehende Felsen musste vielmehr wegen der Anlage der Ost-Parodos entfernt werden"150—this confuses V with Hammond's levelled outcrop: Pöhlmann's explanation cannot account for the existence of the channel. The dramas themselves scarcely suggest that there was a pagos in the theatre, and Hammond's archaeological case for it is illusory. The only place it could have been is where Hammond or Flickinger place it. Hammond claims to have seen for himself "on the site that Dörpfeld's shaven base or rock at V was in fact still there."151 It is presumably difficult after thousands of years to be certain whether a rocky surface is naturally or artificially level. Some might therefore still be inclined to suppose that some sort of pagos was possible in this area, though if it were in the same place as Hammond's this would entail abandoning Dörpfeld's circle and leaving V unexplained. I therefore subjoin some further arguments against such an arrangement. By positing that a rock in this position was originally part of the acting-area Hammond is obliged to restrict the audience to an area round 149

On the earlier, more accurate plan Dinsmoor's circle would run between the 24 and 26 m circles of Dörpfeld that are drawn, but Hammond seems to have thought that the "slightly different orientation" of Dinsmoor's circle meant that it would run inside Dörpfeld's 24 m circle. He therefore concluded that "the reason for supposing t h a t . . . V was removed about 500 B.C. in order to accommodate the orchestra of the new theatre has been eroded away" ("Conditions" 409, referring to Dinsmoor 313; cf. "Conditions" 408 n. 44; "More" 31 with n. 86). The later plan also has wall D inaccurately oriented, and the eisodoi based on it are therefore quite different from their predecessors. 150

Pöhlmann (above, n. 9) 131; the references to Fiechter in his n. 13 are taken over from Gebhard (above, n. 53) 433 n. 11, who was referring to discussions both of Q and of V: Pöhlmann's note has to do with the latter, which is discussed on only one of the five pages he cites. 151

"More" 31.

48

I The Fifth-Century Theatre of Dionysos

considerably less than half of the orchestra,152 and even at that the visible area for acting against the rock is squeezed in within a meter of the southeastern end of the audience, which would make it difficult to see from other parts of the auditorium. We cannot be certain about the axis of the first stage, but it can hardly have been radically different from the present one. Even if there was once a large outcrop of rock here it would surely be a more obvious inference that it was removed to provide room for seating or as an obstacle to vision, which indeed it would still be for the easternmost spectators in Hammond's already drastically curtailed auditorium. Study of Hammond's plans with these objections in mind should bear them out. Flickinger's arrangement would require a still smaller auditorium.153 That there should exist any sort of acting-area on the side of the orchestra, let alone with the audience right on top of it, is a notion based solely on an analogy154 with Hammond's arrangement of a preceding theatre in the Agora, itself the product of guesswork.155 Hammond offers as confirmation a few vase-paintings, only two of which show a rock;156 the fact that the rock is to the left does not mean that it was a permanent fixture or where Hammond wants it, if indeed the vases have any relevance to the theatre at all. Note that on one of the vases the object in question is to the right.151 This last and the other relevant visual "evidence" depicts tumuli of various shapes and sizes; even if the location of the rock was a suitable acting-area, can we believe that construction of a tomb over and round a large and irregular rock would have been preferred to the simpler task of constructing a free-standing one, or using a pile of rocks, and putting it in some more visible location? The removal of such a tomb-structure from the rock between, for example, Choephoroi and Eumenides is likely to be a more complicated job than Hammond 152

He attempts to justify this at "Conditions" 410-1; for objections see ΙΠ n. 45

below. 153 Especially if the axis he posits, parallel to the entrance-wall of the old temple, were accepted. 154

Hammond, "Conditions" 409f.; Flickinger had reached a similar conclusion on the basis of his acceptance of the idea that there was only one eisodos, the western. 155

Ibid.. 400-4 with 402 fig. 1; on a theatre in the Agora see 4 below.

156

Ibid. 433 nos. 5 & 6, discussed again in Hammond & Warren G. Moon, "Illustrations of Early Tragedy at Athens," AM 82 (1978) 371-83, at 377 with fig. 7. Cf. the sound criticisms of Hamilton (above, n. 147) 598. 157

"Conditions" 433 no. 4 = "Illustrations" 378 fig. 8.

3.1 The "Pagos-Bühne"

49

supposes.158 A tumulus over the rock with space and means for an actor to get inside it and emerge from the top with dignity, such as Hammond supposes for Persai,159 will be a very complicated structure indeed, and a veritable skyscraper. If we admit the evidence of a fragmentary vase regarded by Hammond as illustrating it,160 the tomb would also involve logs and a large number of flaming incense-burners. Beazley, who first published the vase, drew the obvious conclusion that it is the logs of a pyre that are burning,161 and it is petitio principii when Hammond objects that "this is unacceptable, for any actor's clothing would have caught fire and he would have been severely burnt."162 The presence of a piper in Greek dress suggests that the vase may be relevant to the theatre, and may illustrate roughly the sort of tumulus that would be built for the stage, but it can hardly be assumed to be an absolutely accurate depiction of a single moment in Aischylos's Persai,163 and is no evidence at all for the proposed rock. The safest conclusion is that a rock formation never formed part of the acting-area of the first stage. The plays themselves by no means require such an arrangement, and the archaeological remains appear to rule it out. 2. The First Skene

Hammond has also suggested that the remains allow us to determine fairly exactly the location and size of the first Skene. He takes the fundamentalist view that the terrace and the orchestra are to be identified, and therefore considers it unlikely that at its advent the skene would have been placed "on the backward third" of the terrace: too little room would have been left for crowd-scenes or for a chorus of fifteen.164 158

"More" 23.

159

"Conditions" 423; "More" 16-21.

160

"More" 18f. pi. 1 = "Illustrations" 374 fig. 2a-e.

161

J.D. Beazley, "Hydria-Fragments in Corinth," Hesperia 24 (1955) 305-19 with plates 85-8, at 309 with pi. 85. 162

"Illustrations" 373, cf. "More" 17.

163

Line 684: Hammond, "More" 19.

164

Hammond, "Conditions" 413; "More" 11 with n. 20, where he justly criticises the reconstruction of West (above, n. 147) 138 with 139 fig. 2, which is a strange amalgam of the rock with what seems to be the "Periklean" (i.e. second stage) auditorium and a wide scene-foundation which corresponds to nothing in the remains.

50

I The Fifth-Century Theatre of Dionysos

Hammond then proposes an archaeological basis for locating the skene-front on the extreme southern edge of the terrace. He suggests that the absence of remains of the terrace wall south of Q and R is explained by the hypothesis that this section of the wall had been removed before the second-stage renovations. The skene was created by "removing the backmost part of the orchestra together with its supporting wall, building in its place a much larger rectangular foundation, and providing on it a platform, a back-stage and a back-entry."165 The result may be seen on his plans (our figs. 10-11); his estimated width of 18 m seems to reflect the length of a line between the two points at which the older wall bisects the later foundation H-H.166 This again is based on a misconception: Hammond has the impression that R, like Q, lies under the foundations of the whole of the second stage. This is not so. R abuts the face of wall H-H at a point about a meter above the lowest course of the latter.167 Thus not a single stone of the section of the older wall south of R could have remained in place when the stoa was built. This does not rule out the possibility that all or part of it had been removed earlier, but does mean that Hammond's theory must be reckoned no more than a guess. We have already seen that nothing prevents us assuming that the skene was erected on the terrace, which would have been by far the simplest procedure. Further than that the archaeological evidence forbids us to go.

Griffith, in the introduction to his edition of Prometheus, 30 n. 93, considered it unlikely that a rock would be left to obstruct the dance-floor, as in Hammond's first version it did. It is true that it would obtrude on the terrace, but there is no reason to believe that the orchestra proper could not have been reduced in size in order to accommodate the skene. The terrace surely never represented the irreducible minimum of space for tragic choruses; the much larger choruses of dithyramb must also have been provided for. 165

Hammond, "Conditions" 414.

166

In the terms of Hammond's proposal, this is somewhat arbitrary: he shifts the axis of the theatre, and his skene is therefore not parallel to H-H and must be somewhat narrower than 18 m; more importantly, the absence of wall-fragments between Q and the point at which the skene meets the line of the older wall is left unexplained. 167 Hammond, "Conditions" 407, 414; Wycherley 212 has been misled by Hammond. The relationship between the two may be clearly seen on Bulle's (above, n. 42) cross-section along the canal, reproduced e.g. by Anti & Polacco (below, n. 172) fig. 76.

3.3 Charon's Ladder

51

3. Charon's Ladder Pollux 4.132 informs us of the existence of Χαρώνιοι κλίμακες, underground passages from backstage giving access to the playing-area from below. Remains of substantial stone passages of this kind have been found in the fourth-century theatres at Eretria and Sikyon, where the egress is to the middle of the orchestra.168 It has often been held that the Athenian theatre had such a device, though there is no sign of it in the remains. A number of plays involving visitations from the underworld, such as Dareios's in Persai and Klytaimestra's in Eumenides, might have employed it if it existed, but could certainly be effectively staged without it.169 In some satyr-plays, Sophokles's Ichneutai for example, the chorus stamps on the ground to invoke some such personage as Kyllene, who then appears, and a number of vases show a female figure half out of the ground surrounded by satyrs:170 this seems the best argument for supposing that Charon's steps were in use at Athens, but again is not absolutely compelling.171 There seems to be no plausible archaeological basis for restoring Charon's ladder in the second and subsequent stages of the Athenian theatre.172 Whether it existed in the first stage is not easily decided. Several 168

See e.g. Pickard-Cambridge 200 fig. 64 and fig. 65 (Eretria), 206 fig. 73

(Sikyon). 169 Taplin 447-8 with 448 n. 2 provides a brief but excellent discussion of the extant and fragmentary plays that might have used Charon's ladder. He stresses Persai, which seems to me to call for it less urgently than e.g. Eumenides. 170

For the plays see Taplin ibid.·, for the vases Ernst Buschor, "Feldmäuse," SBAW (1937) 1-34; A.D. Trendall & T.B.L. Webster, Illustrations of Greek Drama (London 1971) 33-6. 171 The oldest vase of this type is an Attic red-figure volute krater of ca. 450 B.C. by the Painter of Bologna 279 in the Museo di Spina, Ferrara Τ 579 = ARV 428, discussed by Beazley (above, n. 161) 311-2 with pi. 88b, who describes the vase as showing "the central incident, freely rendered, of a satyr-play." The satyrs are not in stage-costume, and a young boy is among them. On these and other vases the emergence from the ground may be one of the features depicted by the painter in a more "realistic" way than was attempted on the stage. 172

Buschor (above, n. 170) 33-4, followed by Schleif (above, n. 59) 36-7 with Abb. 2 and Werner Jobst, Die Höhle im griechischen Theater des 5. und 4. Jahrhunderts ν. Chr. (Vienna 1970 [Sb. Öst. Ak. Wiss. phil-hist. Kl. 268.2]) 147 with η. 467, assumed that some cuttings under the extant orchestra were put to this use, though he hesitated to apply the name "Charon's ladder" to them. Schleif recognised that the cuttings were almost all too small to accommodate an actor, and suggested that they might have introduced fire or smoke into the orchestra. The haphazard pattern of the

I The Fifth-Century Theatre of Dionysos

52

scholars have pointed out that some sort of ditch or passageway might readily have been dug into the fill inside the terrace wall,173 or a hollow left under a platform in front of the skene with egress from it by a trapdoor.174 Any such contrivance must have been crudely made to have left no trace whatsoever, and we can surely rule out appearances from a cramped, dirty and possibly wet tunnel. The other suggestions may seem unlikely, but perhaps cannot be discounted altogether. It would certainly be odd that such an arrangement should be abandoned once it was available, and in the very period when a number of provincial theatres were installing something similar.

4. Theatres in the Agora and the Lenaion? We mentioned earlier a number of lexicographical notices which have led many scholars to believe that the earliest performances of tragedy took place in the Agora, and we hear in the same sources of a theatre in the sanctuary of Dionysos Lenaios, in whose honour the second Athenian dramatic competition was instituted in the 440s. Wilamowitz, in what remains the best discussion of the matter, rejected the Agora-theatre, but accepted that in the Lenaion.175 Little attempt has been made to reckon with Wilamowitz's arguments about the Agora; they are passed over in silence by most subsequent writers on the theatre, almost all of whom believe that drama was originally staged there.176 The alleged Lenaion-theatre has been cuttings, and their shallowness, speak strongly against all of these proposals: see Dörpfeld 56-8 with Fig. 18; Fiechter 1.52-3; Flickinger (above, n. 53)362; PickardCambridge 146 with 147 fig. 45, cf. 51. This is the only conceivable trace of Charon's ladder at Athens, and these last scholars Teject the attempt to restore it there. Carlo Anti & Luigi Polacco, Nuove ricerche sui teatri greci arcaici (Padua 1969) 129-59 with fig. 77 suggest that the orchestra level of the second stage was very considerably higher than that of the extant theatre in order to provide room for a large ditch or "fossa scenica" under a low wooden platform. This seems an incredible reconstruction, and would involve the odd consequence that the whole of this elaborate equipage was abandoned in the third period. 173

So Carl Robert in three articles in Hermes·. "Die Scenerie des Aias, der Eirene und des Prometheus," 31 (1896) 530ff., at 538-9, 542-50; "Zur Theaterfrage," 32 (1897) 421ff„ at 422-3; "Aphoristische Bemerkungen zu Sophokles' ΊΧΝΕΥΤΑΙ," 47 (1912) 536ff., at 539. See also Jobst (above, η. 172) ibid. 174

Hammond, "Conditions" 439 η. 96.

175

Wilamowitz, "Bühne," esp. 148-54.

176

In addition to Dinsmoor and Travlos (above, nn. 26-7) see e.g. A.W. PickardCambridge, revised by John Gould and D.M. Lewis, The Dramatic Festivals of Athens1

4.4 Theatres in Agora and Lenaion?

53

more extensively discussed, and here too subsequent opinion has tended to differ from Wilamowitz's. The question whether either or both of these dramatic facilities existed is clearly of fundamental interest, but sorting out and assessing the information provided by the lexicographers is, as usual with these sources, a difficult and dry task. Wilamowitz alone has come close to doing it justice, and there is room for further progress. Existing collections of the relevant evidence are either incomplete or plagued with small but important inaccuracies, and the affiliations of the various notices have not been clearly set out; I shall therefore attempt to meet these needs as the discussion proceeds. Most of the notices we have to do with ultimately derive from Hellenistic exegesis of old Attic comedy. The third-century Alexandrian scholar Eratosthenes explained references in the plays to ϊκρια or "wooden benches" used for seating in the theatre, and to "the view by the poplar/from the poplar." Two of the references to ϊκρια have come down to us: Aristophanes Thesm. 395f., ώστ' εΰθύς είσιόντες άπό των ΐκρίων I ΰποβλέπουσ' ήμας; and Kratinos F 360 ΚΑ, χαΐρ' ώ μέγ' άχρειόγελως όμιλε ταΐς έπίβδαις, I της ημετέρας σοφίας κριτής άριστε πάντων, I εύδαίμον' ετικτέ σε μήτηρ ΐκρίων ψόφησις. These passages cohere with the archaeological remains in making it clear that until sometime after 411, the date of Thesmophoriazousai, there were no stone seats, and indicate that ϊκρια was vox propria for the auditorium. The earliest extant versions of Eratosthenes's explanations of the 'benches' and the 'view from the poplar' associated with them are in Hesychios: Hesychios π 513 Schmidt παρ' αιγείρου θέα· Ερατοσθένης φησί, iki πλησίον αιγείρου τινός θέα· αίγειρος δέ έστι φυτοΰ είδος· έγγυς των ΐκρίων · εως ουν τούτου τοΰ φυτοΰ έξετείνετο και κατεσκευάζετο τά ϊκρια, α έστιν όρθά ξύλα, έχοντα σανίδας προσδεδεμένας οίον βαθμούς, έφ' αΐς έκαθέζοντο, προ τοΰ κατασκευασθηναι τό θέατρον. α 1695 Latte αιγείρου θέα· αίγειρος ήν Άθήνησι πλησίον τοΰ ίεροΰ, ενθα, πριν γενέσθαι θέατρον, τά ϊκρια έπήγνυον. θ 166 Latte θέα παρ' αΐγείρωι· τόπος αιγειρον εχων, οθεν έθεώρουν. ευτελής δέ έδόκει ή έντεΰθεν θεωρία· μακρόθεν γαρ ήν και εΰώνου ό τόπος έπωλεΐτο. (Oxford 1968) 37-40; Hammond, "Conditions" 390-4; Frank Kolb, Agora und Theater, Volks- und Festversammlung (Berlin 1981 [Dt. archäolog. Inst., Archäologische Forschungen 9]) 26-57, with full bibliography; West (above, n. 1) 21 n. 41.

54

I The Fifth-Century Theatre of Dionysos

ι 501 Latte ΐκρια· . . . τά έπι τοις ξύλοις κατασκευαζόμενα θεωρεία, και τά όρθά ξύλα, τά έπι της πρύμνης και πρώιρας, καΐ τά καταστρώματα αύτης, και τά ξύλινα οΰτως έλέγοντο Άθηνησιν, άφ' ων έθεώντο, προ τοΰ τό έν Διονύσου θέατρον γενέσθαι. Hesychios's direct source here is likely to have been Diogenianos, as Latte suggests ad loc., but the same Eratosthenic information came down through different channels to the Synagoge and the Souda: Anecd. 354.25 Bekker = 42.25 Bachmann αιγείρου θέα καΐ ή παρ' αϊγειρον θέα· Άθηνησιν αίγειρος ην, ης πλησίον τά ίκρία έπήγνυντο εις την θέαν προ τοΰ θέατρον γενέσθαι, οΰτω Κρατίνος. Souda αι 35 Adler αιγείρου θέα · αίγειρος ην Άθήνησι πλησίον τοΰ ίεροΰ, ενθα πριν γενέσθαι τό θέατρον τά ίκρία έπήγνυον · άφ· ης αιγείρου οί μη εχοντες τόπον έθεώρουν.177

The Synagoge is a major source for the Souda, but the latter has here drawn essentially the same information from some other source, where it appeared in exactly the same form as in Hesychios, who was not used directly by the compiler of the Souda. This is one of the few cases where a lemma in Hesychios is repeated verbatim in the later extant sources. In the specific tradition we are dealing with the Eratosthenic information offered by Hesychios appears in a somewhat different form elsewhere. Thus in the scholion to Aristophanes Thesm. 395f. which is the source for a notice in the Souda: Σ Ar. Thesm. 395f. άπό των ίκρίων · ώς ετι ίκρίων δντων έν τώι θεάτρωι και έν ταΐς έκκλησίαις έπΙ ξύλων καθημένων. πριν γάρ γενέσθαι τό θέατρον, ξύλα έδέσμευον και οΰτως έθεώρουν. Souda 1275 Adler ϊκρια· όρθά ξύλα ή σανιδώματα της νηός· και τά των θεάτρων, α ήσαν και έν ταΐς έκκλησίαις· έπι ξύλων γάρ έκάθηντο. πρίν γένηται τό θέατρον, ξύλα έδέσμευον και οΰτως έθεώρουν, followed by quotation of Thesm. 395f. And so also in a notice taken over from the Synagoge by the Souda and Eustathios:

177 The latter phrase, as Adler notes ad loc., has been transferred from Souda α 2952, printed below.

4.4 Theatres in Agora and Lenaion?

55

Anecd. 419.15 Bekker = 115.8 Bachmann άπ' αιγείρου θέα και παρ' αΐγειρον· ή άπό των έσχατων.178 αίγειρος γαρ έπάνω ην τοΰ θεάτρου, άφ' ης οί μή εχοντες τόπον έθεώρουν. Souda α 2952 Adler άπ' αιγείρου θέα και έπ' αΐγειρον · ή άπό των εσχάτων, αίγειρος γαρ έπάνω ήν τοΰ θεάτρου, άφ' ης οί μή εχοντες τόπον έθεώρουν. Eustathios ε 64 ην γοΰν φασιν αίγειρος Άθήνησιν έπάνω τοΰ θεάτρου, άφ' ης έθεώρουν οί μή έχοντες τόπον, δθεν και ή άπ' αιγείρου θέα έλέγετο. και παρ' αΐγειρον θέα, ή άπό των έσχάτων. και ην φασιν εΰωνοτέρα ή παρ' αΐγειρον θέα.179 Proper interpretation of all of these passages, as Wilamowitz saw, turns on the sense we attribute to the word θέατρον. In Eratosthenes's day the phrase προ τοΰ κατασκευασθηναι τό θέατρον might have four meanings: before any theatre was built, or before the Lykourgan, stone theatre known to him was built; or again before any auditorium, or the stone auditorium or "viewing-place," θέατρον, was built.180 As exegesis of such a text as Thesmophoriazousai 395f. the notices can only make sense if θέατρον refers either to the later theatre or to the later auditorium: the benches that required explanation were those in use in 411, long after some sort of theatre had been built. Almost all modern scholars apart from Wilamowitz have assumed that the word θέατρον must have meant to the author of this information exactly what "theatre" means to us.181 This, if true, makes nonsense of the notices: no fair-minded reader could deny that in them the θέατρον, however defined, is regarded as replacing the ΐκρια. If θέατρον means "any sort of theatrical facility in the sanctuary of Dionysos Eleuthereus" the information offered is self-evidently false, since the first "theatre" there was equipped with ΐκρια until at least 411. This is attested not only by the 178 The last two words are presumably neuter plural here, but it is natural to connect the phrase with the έσχατοι mentioned in Hesychios a 5716 Latte s.v. άπ' αιγείρων, discussed below. This is further indication that all of the notices treated so far ultimately derive their information from the same source. Cf. the following note. 179

The last clause may be compared with Hesychios θ 166 Latte ad fin.

180 Wilamowitz, "Bühne" 148-9 favoured the second view; he discusses the various usages of the word at 153 with n. 1. 181

Pickard-Cambridge (above, n. 176) 40 explicitly takes up this position; others seem unaware of the alternative.

I The Fifth-Century Theatre of Dionysos

56

unassailable evidence of Aristophanes, which was certainly known to the author of the notices, but by the institution of the αρχιτέκτων, the lessee of the theatre to whom entrance fees were paid and who, as his name implies, erected anew for each festival the seating it was his business to sell.182 We know that in the Peiraieus this official was still building the seating as late as ca. 360 B.C.; 1 8 3 in Athens the same title was retained even after the theatre had been equipped with stone seating,184 but it is instructive that in later sources the official is called θεατρώνης or θεατροπώλης. 185 There is no doubt that in an analogous way θέατρον displaced ΐκρια as vox propria for the auditorium, and when discussing both terms Eratosthenes doubtless relied on his readers to understand that they distinguished wooden from stone seats. In a notice on the theoric fund, Ulpianos notes that two obols were provided, one to furnish personal expenses, τον δέ άλλον παρέχειν εχωσι τώι άρχιτέκτονι τοΰ θεάτρου · ουδέ γαρ εΐχον τότε θέατρον δια λίθων κατεσκευασμένον. 186 The last phrase spells out what Eratosthenes must have meant by the word θέατρον, and ought to have been clear by contrast with the word ϊκρια. Again, if we reject this interpretation of the word we will be obliged to regard the notices not only as demonstrably false, but as convicted of falsehood by one of the texts they were designed to explain. That the renovated facility, and probably the auditorium in particular is meant is clear also from a close reading of the notices themselves. The words εφ' αίς έκαθέζοντο, προ τοΰ κατασκευασθήναι τό θέατρον in Hesychios π 513 Schmidt most naturally mean "on which they sat before the stone theatre-seating was built," each of the phrases clarifying the other; it would be a very compendious expression indeed if it meant "on which they sat (sc. to watch drama) before a theatre was built (i.e. in some location other than that of the present theatre)." The same is true of the phrase άφ' ών έθεώντο in Hesychios s.v. ΐκρια, where the use of the cognate verb is a still clearer indication that θέατρον is being used in its most specific sense. In Hesychios and the Souda s.v. αιγείρου θέα the 182

On the official and his activities see ibid. 266.

183

IG Π2 1176, esp. lines 11-16.

184

For the evidence see Pickard-Cambridge (above, n. 176) 266 n. 3.

185

Theophr. Char. 30.6; Pollux 7.199.

186

Ulpianos ad Dem. Olynth. 1.1, p. 32 Dindorf. Cf. Σ Lukianos Timon 49, also connected with a mention of the theoric fund: μήπω δέ τοΰ θεάτρου δια λιθίνων κοαεσκευασμένου κτλ.

4.4 Theatres in Agora and Lenaion?

57

poplar is described in terms that make it clear that a previous style of seating in the same location is being referred to. Given the number of sanctuaries in Athens, πλησίον του ιερού is useless as an indication of where the poplar was, unless we understand from ενθα, πριν γενέσθαι θέατρον (viz the stone auditorium), τά ϊκρια έπήγνυον that the sanctuary of Dionysos is meant. "There was a poplar close to the sanctuary where they constructed the wooden benches before there was a stone θέατρον." 187 Taken together, all the preceding notices present a tolerably clear picture: Before the construction of the Lykourgan theatre the audience were accommodated on wooden seats built on the slope of the Akropolis as far up as a certain poplar, in the vicinity of which there was standing-room providing a cheap but distant view. The Synagoge s.v. απ' αιγείρου θέα και παρ' αΐγειρον, with the Souda and Eustathios, explicitly places the poplar above the theatre, and refers to the view from there as άπό των έσχατων. It is not surprising that this quite specific sense of the word θέατρον was lost on some readers of Eratosthenes's explanation, and lexicographers often got into a muddle when they lacked information assumed by their source, or when distinctions clear to him escaped them. The result in this case is notices offering us more specific information about the ϊκρια than Hesychios, but in essentially the same words: Photios s.v. ϊ κ ρ ι α · τ ά έν τήι άγοραι ά φ ' ων έθεώντο τους Διονυσιακούς αγώνας πριν ή κατασκευασθήναι τό έν Διονύσου θέατρον. Eustathios γ 350, ΐστέον δέ, οτι ϊκρια προπαροξύτονος έλέγοντο καΐ τά έν τήι άγοραι, άφ' ών έθεώντο τό παλαιόν τούς Διονυσιακούς άγώνας, πριν ή σκευασθηναι τό έν Διονύσου θέατρον. οτι δέ τ ά τοιαύτα θέατρα θάλασσα κοίλη έλέγοντο, Παυσανίας δηλοΐ. Eustathios's last sentence suggests that the source here is the Atticist lexicographer Pausanias of the second century A.D., "the golden age of

187

T.B.L. Webster, "Staging and Scenery in the Ancient Greek Theatre," BRL 42 (1959-60) 493-509, at 493ff. concluded on the basis of this notice that the original theatre had the old temple as a background building. There is no trace of this in the remains, and one feels that it would have been rather thick of the Athenians to build bleachers when they might have used a natural slope a few meters away.

I The Fifth-Century Theatre of Dionysos

58

compilation." 188 How has the Agora entered the picture? Wilamowitz suggested that Pausanias had simply run together the first and third elements of the notice preserved as Hesychios s.v. ϊκρια: "Im Hesych ϊκρια stehen sie noch einzeln, τά έπι τοις ξύλοις σκευαζόμενα θεωρεία, wo aber die Erwähnung des Marktes ausgefallen ist, und τά ξύλινα οΰτως έλέγοντο Άθήνησιν, άφ' ών έθεώντο, προ τοΰ τό έν Διονύσου θέατρον γενέσθαι, beide getrennt durch die Erklärung von ϊκρια als Verdeck des Schiffes."189 This is not very convincing: Photios's άφ' ών έθεώντο τους Διονυσιακούς αγώνας πριν ή κατασκευασθήναι τό έν Διονύσου θέατρον is not only quite different from Hesychios s.v. ϊκρια but uses the verb, κατασκευασθήναι, we find for example in Hesychios s.v. π α ρ ' αιγείρου θέα; and both the carrying of the mistake over the definition as a ship's deck and the "falling out" of the Agora in Hesychios seem very strained assumptions. The reshuffling of information is evidently more complicated than Wilamowitz supposed. It seems much likelier that Pausanias was engaging in conscious compilation. The notices in Hesychios, derived from Eratosthenes by way of Diogenianos, seemed very odd if they were informing us that there was once a location other than that of the known theatre where drama was performed. Pausanias obviously took the phrase πρίν ή κατασκευασθήναι τό έν Διονύσου θέατρον in this sense, but has avoided awkwardness by spelling things out: before a theatre was built there were benches not "near a sanctuary" but "in the Agora," and from them they didn't simply "watch," they "watched the Dionysiac contests." Pausanias has supplied what, on his reading of the original text, had oddly remained unstated. If there was once a theatre in some place other than the sanctuary of Dionysos Eleuthereus, where was it? Pausanias opts for the Agora, and his reasons for doing so are not far to seek.

188 Wilamowitz, "Bühne" 149. In discussions of this question the Eustathios passage has usually been printed without the last sentence; this presumably accounts for Pickaid-Cambridge 12 n. 1 fmding Wilamowitz's identification of Pausanias as the source less than convincing. It is of course possible that only the term θάλασσα κοίλη comes from Pausanias, but even if this is so the earlier information must have come from another Atticist lexicographer of the period; in what follows I refer to Pausanias as the likeliest source and as representative of his type, not as the certain source. Photios offers elsewhere the uncontroversial notice θέαν παρ' αί'γειρον · την πόρρωθεν λεγουσιν · αίγειρος γαρ ήν των ίκρίων πλησίον. 189

Wilamowitz, "Bühne" 149f. n. 2.

4.4 Theatres in Agora and Lenaion?

59

Once it was assumed that Eratosthenes was being coy about the precise location of an earlier theatre, lexicographers such as Pausanias undertook to discover it on the basis of clues available to them in Eratosthenes himself or elsewhere in the scholarly tradition. Pausanias seems to have resorted to one or both of two such clues. It was a wellknown fact that ϊκρια were associated with the Agora: Athenaios 4.167F tells us that a hipparchos set up an ikrion for Aristagora at the Panathenaia, and Pollux 7.125 says ΐκριοποιοϊ δ' είσιν oi πηγνύντες τ ά περί την άγοράν ϊκρια. The second clue was offered by a notice which might seem to fix the location of the poplar; it is available to us as: Hesychios α 5716 Latte άπ' αιγείρων- Ά ν δ ρ ο κ λ έ α τον α π ' αιγείρων άντί τοΰ συκοφάντην, έπειδή [δέ] έκ της έν τήι άγοραι αιγείρου τά πινάκια έξήπτον, τουτέστιν έξήρτων, οί έσχατοι. It is quite possible that this notice provided some warrant for Pausanias's procedure. In the clause έπειδή έκ της έν τήι άγοραι αιγείρου τά πινάκια έξήπτον, τουτέστιν έξήρτων, οί έσχατοι the last two words seem to make little sense. Kolb suggests that they be taken in a sociological sense, "the lowest people," and regarded as a description of the sykophants. 1 9 0 This seems an improbably vague description for a lexicographer. When we remember that the Souda glosses άπ* αιγείρου θέα καΐ έπ' αϊγειρον as ή άπό των έσχάτων, explicitly placing the poplar "above the theatre," we will be inclined to think that oi έσχατοι in Hesychios does not belong to the clause that precedes it and would be complete without it, but is all that is left of a second gloss on άπ' αιγείρων that has to do with the poplar(s) above the theatre. 191 A version of this notice—perhaps already corrupted to some degree—may have led Pausanias on his way, or misled him. That there should have been a theatre in the Agora will have seemed to Pausanias, on general grounds, a perfectly reasonable inference. He will have been aware of the evidence for the existence of an orchestra in the 190 191

Kolb (above, n. 176) 35.

So Wilamowitz, "Bühne" 149-50 n. 2, and others cited by him. If οί έσχατοι means "those furthest away" it can hardly be made the subject of the verbs that precede it, pace R.E. Wycherley, Literary and Epigraphical Testimonia (Princeton 1957 [The Athenian Agora 3]) 220 no. 724; Hammond, "Conditions" 392: "since it was from the poplar in the Agora that the verdict-sheets were fastened, that is tied, by the most distant [spectators]." Hammond on this basis regards the notice as an indication that Eratosthenes placed the ϊκρια in the Agora.

60

I The Fifth-Century Theatre of Dionysos

Agora, which is solid and begins with Platon Apology 26D-E.192 Two further passages are of interest for us: Timaios Sophistes Lex. Plat. s.v. ορχήστρα· τό του θεάτρου μέσον χωρίον, και τόπος έπιφανής εις πανήγυριν, ενθα 'Αρμοδίου και Άριστογείτονος εικόνες; and Photios s.v. ορχήστρα· πρώτον εκλήθη εν τηι άγοραι είτα και του θεάτρου τό κάτω ήμίκυκλον · ου και οί χοροί ηιδον και ώρχοΰντο. It must have been by some such process that Pausanias arrived at his answer to the conundrum Eratosthenes's account seemed to present him with. Since most modern scholars have followed him, and in fact been led by his air of authority to assume that the Agora theatre is implicit in Eratosthenes's own words, it will be well to make some further points against this idea. Timaios and Photios, like Platon, make it clear that there continued to be an orchestra in the Agora after the building of the theatre, and, more importantly, Timaios and particularly Pollux (τά περι την άγοράν ϊκρια) describe an orchestra and ikria in the Agora that are not suited to accommodate dramatic performance. The Agora is almost perfectly flat, and the ikria here would necessarily be bleachers; they were evidently placed over a long stretch round the Agora, and would adequately seat a crowd spread out to view processions, dancing, and choral song, by night or by day. This sort of seating would not be appropriate for a large, compact audience watching actors and hearing their individual voices. We have further evidence that the Agora ikria were associated with processions: on both sides of the Panathenaic Way what may be postholes for the ikria have been uncovered.193 It may be objected that this evidence refers to a period when the dramatic performances alleged for the Agora had already been shifted to the theatre. But one must wonder whether the Agora was in any way suited to the erection of the sort of compact ikria, unlike those attested for it, required by drama. How many rows of seats high could the Athenians build a bleacher? Ten or fifteen at most? If this is approximately correct a theatrical audience in the Agora would have been small indeed. Nor is it easy to imagine how such an auditorium could be reconciled with the evidence on which it is based. If bleacher-^r/a reached as far as a poplar it is hard to understand how anyone in the vicinity of the tree could see 192 With which cf. Xen. Hipp. 3.2. Pickard-Cambridge (above, n. 176) 37f. accepts a theatre in the Agora on the same basis as that suggested here for Pausanias. 193

See e.g. Camp (above, n. 40) 45-6 with 45 fig. 28.

4.4 Theatres in Agora and Lenaion?

61

anything, since the back of the z£na-structure would block the view. If on the other hand the poplar was on a slope the evidence would make perfect sense. The foundation-holes for bleacher-i'jfcrz'a would need to be sturdy and deep, and it is again incomprehensible that not the slightest trace of such fixtures has been found, especially when foundations for the ikria along the procession-route have been. Then there is the other side of the coin. The archaeological evidence, as we have seen, makes it likely that the remains of the earliest theatre in the Eleuthereus sanctuary belong to the sixth century. It is an obvious inference that the theatre was built with the accommodation of tragedy in mind. In any event, if it was there in the later sixth century why would the Athenians choose to build enormous bleacher-ifcrta in the Agora—in a city that suffered from a shortage of timber—rather than make use of the splendid natural auditorium on the slope of the Akropolis? So much for Pausanias's conclusions. Other solutions to the puzzle were however possible: if the ikria or the poplar could not be located, perhaps the sanctuary near the poplar could (Hesychios=SoMd