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 reason which Dörpfeld gives for the lowness of the proscenium—the
background, as he calls it—is as follows. He says that such proscenia
were first erected at Athens in the fifth century, and were intended to
represent an ordinary house of that period. But the ordinary Athenian
house of the fifth century was, he asserts, about twelve feet high.[476]
To this theory there are several answers. In the first place, as we
have seen, some proscenia were only about eight or nine feet in height;
which is far lower than any ordinary Greek house, either at Athens or
elsewhere. In the second place there is no clear evidence to show that
the Athenian house of the fifth century was twelve feet high. From the
remains lately discovered at Delos it appears that in the better class
of houses there even the first story was more than twelve feet.[477]
But granting, for the sake of argument, that an Athenian house of the
fifth century was of the size which Dörpfeld supposes, it is difficult
to see what this has got to do with the height of the scenic background.
The Athenian theatre, we should remember, was developed originally as
a place for tragedy rather than as a place for comedy. The background
therefore must have been intended to represent, in most cases, a palace
or a temple. But why should this palace or temple have been made the same
height as an ordinary house? Moreover, the proportions must have appeared
extraordinary. A structure about fifty feet long, and twelve feet high,
would be altogether unlike any palace or temple. Dörpfeld replies to
this that it is impossible on the stage to represent buildings as large
as they really are; that in modern scene-paintings the representations
of palaces and temples are much reduced in size as compared with the
originals.[478] This is quite true. But they are reduced to scale, and
in a proper proportion. A modern scene-painter, in representing St.
Paul’s, would no doubt have to make his representation much smaller than
the actual St. Paul’s. But in diminishing the height he would diminish
the width at the same time. No modern scene-painter would produce a
temple fifty feet long and twelve feet high; nor can we suppose that the
ancients would have put up with a similar disproportion.
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