The Attic theatre : $b a description of the stage and theatre of the Athenians, and of the dramatic performances at AthensHaigh, A. E. (Arthur Elam)
History
The Attic theatre : $b a description of the stage and theatre of the Athenians, and of the dramatic performances at Athens
Haigh, A. E. (Arthur Elam)
Athens (Greece) -- Intellectual life; Greek drama -- History and criticism; Theater -- Greece -- Athens -- History -- To 500
The most essential difference between the theatre which we are
considering and that of the fifth century lay in the substitution of
a tall and narrow stage for a low and comparatively deep one. This
change was far more important than a mere change of material from wood
to stone. The question naturally arises, what was the reason for the
alteration? The answer is to be found in the fact that the Greek drama
itself passed through a no less radical transformation at the same time.
In the course of the fourth century it was gradually transformed from a
choral to a non-choral drama. When we come to the third century we find
that the chorus, which once played the chief part both in tragedy and
comedy, had sunk into insignificance. It was often discarded altogether.
When retained, it had nothing to do but to sing interludes between the
successive acts. Its presence no more implied that the play was a choral
play than the presence of the band in a modern theatre implies that the
performance is an opera. The old intercourse between actors and chorus
was a thing of the past.[429] The low deep stage was no longer necessary,
to enable actors and chorus to converse together, or to supply room, when
required, for the presence of the chorus by the side of the actors. Under
these circumstances it would obviously be an advantage to make the stage
as high as possible, in order to improve the view of the upper rows of
spectators. The ancient theatres were of enormous size. At Athens, for
example, the topmost tier of seats was 300 feet distant from the stage,
and 100 feet above the level of the orchestra. In such a theatre, the
higher the stage, the better would be the view of the majority of the
audience. It was doubtless for this reason that the stage was raised to
about ten or twelve feet in the course of the third century. At the same
time its depth was necessarily diminished, in order that the spectators
in the lowest rows might be able to see down to the end of it. The loss
of depth was of no importance in the acting of a play, because of the
practical exclusion of the chorus from the stage.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account