full view of the people, took up the required position, and then began the dialogue. There would be a great sacrifice of illusion in such a mode of commencement. Besides this, the drop-scene would of course be a natural and obvious mode of concealing the stage from view while the scenery was being altered between the different plays. For these reasons it has been inferred that the Athenians cannot have done without one. But, on the other hand, it has already been pointed out that it is a great mistake to apply our modern notions of propriety to an ancient dramatic performance. The Greeks did not lay very much stress upon realism and illusion in their scenic arrangements. They were satisfied with simple and conventional methods of representing events upon the stage. Such devices as the ekkyklema and the periaktoi would never have been tolerated by them, if their aim had been to produce an illusion by the accurate imitation of real objects. Hence it is possible that in the dramas just referred to they were quite content for the actors to come forward and take up their position in full view of the audience, before the play actually commenced. That such a supposition is not inadmissible is proved by the custom of the early English drama. On the Elizabethan stage we know for a fact that there was no drop-scene, and that in many cases a tableau had to be arranged before the eyes of the spectators before the action could begin. Yet the audience of those days was not dissatisfied. The Athenians may have been equally indifferent in the matter of the drop-scene. At the same time there is no evidence to prove that such was the case. And the drop-scene is a very convenient device, and one that would naturally suggest itself. On the whole therefore it seems safest, until further evidence is forthcoming, to regard the question as an open one.[669] CHAPTER V THE ACTORS § 1. _Rise of the Actor’s Profession._