The ekkyklema seems to our notions such a rude device, that many critics have been led to deny its existence, at any rate during the classical period. They allow that it must have been used in later times, as it is described in detail by Pollux: but they refuse to believe that it could have been tolerated by the Athenians of the fifth century.[631] The evidence, however, in its favour is too strong to be set aside in this way. The passages in which it is parodied by Aristophanes correspond so closely with the descriptions of Pollux that they must obviously refer to the same mechanical device.[632] There are also the numerous other scenes in which an interior is revealed. It is difficult to see how the Greeks, with their peculiar stage arrangements, could have acted these scenes, except by some such contrivance as the ekkyklema. Those who deny its existence explain away these passages in various ways. They say that in many cases the bodies might have been carried out on to the stage, or arranged just outside the door, so as to be visible to the spectators. On other occasions they suppose that the back-scene was drawn aside, and showed the interior of the building. But there are several scenes to which none of these explanations would apply. In the Hercules Furens Hercules is shown chained to the broken column, and we cannot suppose that the column was carried out on to the stage. Nor can the spectacle have been exhibited inside the palace front. It must have been outside; since Amphitryon, as soon as Hercules begins to rouse himself, proposes to fly within the palace for refuge.[633] In the same way the scholars of Socrates cannot have been carried out, along with their globes and diagrams. Yet they too must have appeared upon the stage, and not inside the building; for it is explained to Strepsiades that they cannot remain long ‘in the open air outside’.[634] It is impossible, therefore, to account for these and other scenes in the way suggested.[635] They must have been effected by the ekkyklema. As for the objection that the ekkyklema was a device too clumsy for the refined taste of the fifth century, though admissible in later times, this is a kind of argument which is not supported by experience. The history of the drama in many countries shows that the greatest literary and dramatic excellence may coexist with the utmost simplicity and clumsiness in the stage arrangements. It was so in England and it was so in France. The drama of these two countries reached its highest point at a period when the art of stage decoration was in a most primitive condition. On general grounds it would be more reasonable to assume that the ekkyklema was impossible to the Hellenistic Greeks, than that it was impossible to the Greeks of the time of Sophocles. If the former could tolerate it, the latter are not likely to have made any difficulty.