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
Since the beginning of the last century various difficulties have been
raised in connexion with this subject, and various theories have been
invented for the purpose of removing the supposed difficulties. All
this speculation appears to have had its origin in the same source.
Until quite recent years it was assumed by every scholar that the stage
of the fifth century must have been of the same height and structure
as the later stage described by Vitruvius. But it was felt that the
dramas of the fifth century could not possibly have been written for
a theatre in which the actors were raised about twelve feet above the
level of the chorus. The relationship between actors and chorus in these
early dramas is far too close to allow it to be supposed that they were
separated by a barrier of this kind. Still, there was the testimony of
Vitruvius, who said the stage was about twelve feet high, and whose
measurements were supposed to apply to all theatres, early as well as
late. The first attempt to meet the difficulty was made by Hermann, at
the beginning of the century; and his theory was afterwards adopted and
developed by Wieseler. According to this view the chorus did not stand
upon the level of the orchestra, but upon a sort of subsidiary platform,
erected immediately in front of the twelve-foot stage. The height of
the platform, they said, was so arranged as to bring the chorus into
moderate proximity to the actors, without concealing them from the view
of the audience. This platform for the chorus was generally accepted by
writers upon the Greek drama until about ten years ago. Its existence
was defended, partly on general grounds, partly by an appeal to certain
passages in ancient authors. To take the ancient authorities first.
Hermann supposed that the platform was called ‘orchestra’ in a narrower
sense. He cited a passage in Suidas, where the orchestra is described
as coming next to the ‘skene’, and as being a wooden erection on which
mimes performed. But in this passage the context clearly proves that
the word ‘orchestra’ is used in its later sense as the ‘stage’.[455]
Wieseler endeavoured to prove that the platform for the chorus was
denoted by the word ‘thymele’. Now ‘thymele’, as we have seen, was a
word which had a great many meanings in connexion with the theatre. It
denoted, first, the altar of Dionysus; secondly, the orchestra; thirdly,
the stage.[456] If the passages are carefully examined in which it is
asserted that ‘thymele’ denotes a platform for the chorus in front of the
stage, it will be found that in the majority of them the word is much
more naturally explained as meaning the stage itself, or the orchestra.
In one or two cases the language used is apparently due to a confusion
between the different meanings of the term. In no case is there a clear
and definite description of a platform standing half-way up between the
orchestra and the stage.[457] If such a platform had really existed,
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