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
His whole person would hardly have become visible until he reached the
lowest step. For a tragic actor to make his entrance in this way would
have been far from dignified. Also, in plays like the Hippolytus and
the Alcestis, when a sick woman on a couch had to be carried out, it
would have been extremely awkward to have to carry her down a flight of
steps as steep as those at Megalopolis. The ekkyklema would, of course,
have been quite impossible to work. Again, it seems certain that the
supposed ‘scaena ductilis’ would itself be quite unworkable. Is it likely
that a huge painted board, more than a hundred feet long and more than
twenty-five feet high, was pulled out in front of the Thersilion to
serve as a back-scene? The ‘scaena ductilis’ (cf. Serv. ad Verg. Georg.
iii. 24), which Dörpfeld thinks was such as has been described, was
not a contrivance of this sort, but was a small affair, a variety of
the ‘scaena versilis’ or periaktos; it was drawn _apart_, to disclose
a new scene behind, and was not drawn across the stage. Moreover, the
construction of ancient theatres, even of those with side-wings, shows
that there was no room and no opportunity for the hauling to and fro
of huge boards such as Dörpfeld imagines. It is true that much remains
obscure in regard to the theatre at Megalopolis; but this solution at
least is out of the question.[502] Although, therefore, the Skanotheka at
Megalopolis may very likely have been used for the storage of scenery,
it is clear that this scenery, when used, cannot have been put up in the
place which Dörpfeld suggests.
Another argument against the ordinary theory is based by Dörpfeld on the
remains of the theatre at Delos (Fig. 12). We have shown that at Delos
the proscenium was continued, though in a different form, round the sides
and back of the stage-buildings.[503] Dörpfeld argues that it cannot
have been a stage, as it would be absurd to erect a stage all round the
stage-buildings.[504] If this is so, we might reply that it cannot have
been a background either, since it would be equally absurd to construct a
background in the same position. But as a matter of fact there is nothing
in the arrangement at Delos which conflicts in any way with the ordinary
opinion about the Greek stage. The erection at the sides and the back of
the stage-buildings, though of the same height as the erection in front,
was different in structure, and formed an open portico. The erection
in front was like the usual Hellenistic proscenium, and must have been
designed for the same purpose. If the proscenium in other theatres was
intended for a stage, it must have been intended for a stage at Delos.
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