§ 1. General Character of the Scenery.
In the production of a play the chief objects on which care and money were bestowed were the training of the chorus, the payment of the actors, and the supply of suitable dresses. The scenery was never made a prominent feature of the exhibition. All that was required was an appropriate background to show off to advantage the figures of the performers. The simplicity in the character of the ancient scenery was a necessary result of the peculiar construction of the stage. The Attic stage, though from sixty to seventy feet long, was apparently never more than about fifteen feet in depth, and was still further contracted in after times. On a long and narrow platform of this kind, any representation of the interior of a building would be out of the question. All those elaborate spectacular illusions, which are rendered practicable by the great depth of the modern stage, were impossible. Nothing more was required than to cover over the wall at the back with a suitable view. Again, not only were the mechanical arrangements simple, but the number of scenes in use upon the Attic stage was very limited. Not only was a change of scene in the course of the same play practically unknown, but there was often very little difference between one play and another as regards the character of the scenery required. Each of the three great branches of the drama had a background of a conventional type, specially appropriated to itself, and this typical background was the one usually adopted. When therefore a series of tragedies was being exhibited, or a series of comedies, it must often have happened that the same scenery would do duty for several plays in succession.
The use of painted scenery, natural as it appears to us, was only invented very gradually by the Athenians. For a long time the erection at the back of the stage continued to retain its original character. It was regarded, not as a back-scene, but merely as a retiring-place for the actors. The notion of covering it over with painted scenery, in such a way as to make it represent the supposed scene of action in the play, was a development of comparatively late times. The old drama had no scenic background. The action was supposed to take place in some open region; the decorations were confined to such properties as could be put up on the stage; the wooden hoarding in the rear was nothing more than the front of the actors’ room. Things were still in this primitive condition when Aeschylus wrote his four earlier plays. The progress of the art of scenic decoration can be traced very distinctly by comparing these plays with his later tragedies. In the first four there is no mention of any scenery, no clear definition of the exact spot where the action is taking place. The scenic appliances are limited to properties erected in front of the hoarding. In the Supplices the scene is laid in an open district at some distance from the city. In the centre is an altar of the gods, at which the suppliants take refuge.[566] Otherwise there is a total absence of local colouring. In the Persae, the next in order of his plays, the action is also laid at a distance from the palace. The only object mentioned as actually in sight is the tomb of Darius.[567] In the Septem the performers are gathered together within the walls of Thebes beside an altar on some rising ground, from which the towers of the city are visible.[568] But there is no clear definition of the scene, and no mention of any palace or other building from which the actors make their entrance. In the Prometheus the action takes place in a rocky region of Scythia. But in all probability the cliff to which Prometheus is chained was merely built up upon the stage. There is nothing in the play to suggest an elaborate representation of the view. In these four plays the background was still a bare wall with doors for the actors. It had no scenic significance. But when we come to the Oresteia, the last dramatic production of Aeschylus, a great change is noticeable. The scene is now laid in front of a building which is clearly defined and frequently referred to. In the first two tragedies it is the palace of Agamemnon at Argos; in the third it is the temple of Apollo at Delphi, and later on the temple of Athene at Athens.[569] The contrast between these plays and the earlier ones, as regards local colour and allusions to the scene of action, is very marked and conspicuous, and denotes a considerable advance in the art of mounting a play. The old actors’ booth had now become a regular scenic background.[570] The bare hoarding was covered with painting, to represent a palace, or a temple, or whatever else might be required. This conclusion, which may be deduced from the extant dramas themselves, is confirmed by the ancient traditions as to the introduction of scene-painting. Aristotle says it was invented by Sophocles; Vitruvius apparently ascribes it to Aeschylus.[571] Whichever statement be correct, it is clear, from the fact of its being attributed to both poets, that it must have been introduced at that particular period when both were exhibiting upon the stage. It cannot be placed earlier than the first appearance of Sophocles in 468, or later than the last appearance of Aeschylus in 458. Moreover Sophocles, if he really invented it, is not likely to have done so immediately on his first appearance. The most probable date, therefore, is some period not very long before the production of the Oresteia, and subsequent to the production of the four early plays of Aeschylus.
By the middle of the fifth century, then, we may regard the use of painted scenery as fully established. Taking this date as our starting-point, it will be interesting to consider the question as to the number and character of the scenes most in use upon the Attic stage. Our principal authority will be the Greek plays still in existence. Vitruvius divides scenery into three classes—tragic, comic, and satyric. According to his description, the salient features in a tragic scene were columns, pediments, statues, and other signs of regal magnificence. In comedy the scene represented a private house, with projecting balconies, and windows looking out upon the stage. The scenery in the satyric drama consisted of a rustic region, with trees, caverns, mountains, and other objects of the same kind.[572] The above list is not intended to be an exhaustive one. It merely describes in general outline the type of scene which was most characteristic of each of the three great branches of the drama. At the same time, it is more exhaustive than might at first sight be supposed. If the extant Greek dramas are examined, it will be found that in the great majority of cases the scenery conforms to the general type described by Vitruvius. To take the tragic poets first. Twenty-five tragedies by Sophocles and Euripides have been preserved. In no less than seventeen out of the twenty-five the scene is laid in front of a palace or temple.[573] In all these cases the general character of the scenery would be exactly such as Vitruvius describes. The prominent feature would be a magnificent building, with columns, pediments, and statues. Of the remaining eight tragedies, there are four in which the scene consists of an encampment, with tents in the background.[574] The other four all require special scenery. In the Philoctetes the scene is laid in front of a cavern in a desert island. In the Ajax it is laid partly before the tent of Ajax, partly in a solitary quarter by the sea-shore. The background in the Oedipus Coloneus consists of a country region, with the sacred enclosure of the Eumenides in the centre. Finally, the Electra of Euripides is altogether exceptional in having its scene laid before a humble country cottage. On the whole, the evidence of the extant tragedies tends to confirm the statement of Vitruvius, and exemplifies the conventional character of Greek tragic scenery. In the great majority of instances the background would be an imposing pile of buildings, adorned with various architectural embellishments. As to the satyric drama, the Cyclops of Euripides is the only specimen of this class of composition which has been preserved. The scene there corresponds exactly to the descriptions of Vitruvius, and consists of a country region, with the cave of Polyphemus in the centre. There can be little doubt that in most satyric dramas the background was of much the same character. As the chorus always consisted of satyrs, whose dwelling was in the forest, the scene of the play would naturally be laid in some deserted country district. The scene in the New Comedy was almost invariably laid in front of an ordinary private house, as is proved by the adaptations of Plautus and Terence. As to the Old Comedy, in six out of the eleven comedies of Aristophanes, the background consists merely of a house, or of houses standing side by side.[575] In four others the principal part of the action takes place before a house. In the Thesmophoriazusae the scene consists of a house and a temple standing side by side. In the Lysistrata there is a private house, and near it the entrance to the Acropolis. In the Acharnians the opening scene takes place in the Pnyx; the rest of the action is carried on before the houses of Dicaeopolis, Euripides, and Lamachus. The scene in the Knights is laid partly before the house of Demos, and partly in the Pnyx. The only comedy in which the scenery is of an altogether exceptional character is the Birds, in which the background consists of a wild country region, filled with rocks, and trees, and bushes. It appears, therefore, that even in the Old Comedy there was not much variety in the scenery.
As regards the style of the ancient scene-painting, and the degree of perfection to which it was eventually brought, it is difficult to speak with any certainty. But in the fifth century, at any rate, there can be little doubt that the scenery was of the simplest description. Landscape-painting was still in its infancy, and altogether subordinated to the painting of the human figure. When landscapes were introduced into a picture, they were suggested rather than worked out in detail.[576] A city was represented by a few houses, a forest by a few trees, and so on. The paintings for the stage were probably of the same general type. The scenes most in use were front views of temples, palaces, and dwelling-houses. In such cases a rough indication of the different buildings would be considered sufficient. That they were depicted with any completeness and realism is far from likely, though the newly discovered art of perspective was undoubtedly applied to architecture and the painting of architectural scenes much earlier than to landscape.[577] It is true that the personages in the extant dramas often use words which seem to imply an elaborate architectural background. They speak of columns, triglyphs, cornices, and pediments.[578] In the Ion they even admire in detail the bas-reliefs with which the temple front was decorated.[579] But it is not certain that the objects mentioned were all of them actually represented upon the stage. Many of them may have been left to the imagination. As for natural scenery, there was probably very little of this in the early theatre. If the action was laid in a country region, as in the Philoctetes and the Oedipus Coloneus, and in the generality of satyric plays, the necessary effect might be produced by a few rocks, and trees, and other similar objects. In later times it was customary, when the background represented a palace or temple, to insert a landscape on either side.[580] Even in the plays of the fifth century there are occasional references to such landscapes. Helen, standing before the palace of the Egyptian king, points to the ‘streams of the Nile’ as flowing close by. The old man in the Electra, when he reaches the palace of the Atreidae, shows Orestes the country round about, with Argos and Mycenae in the distance. The Trojan captives descry, from the Greek encampment, the smoke and flames of burning Troy.[581] But here again we may doubt whether, on the contemporary stage, these places were really visible to the spectators. At any rate, if they were delineated at all, it was probably in a slight and symbolical fashion. As time went on the art of scenic decoration was much improved and elaborated. In the Hellenistic period it seems to have reached a fairly high degree of development. Natural phenomena were now depicted with more realism. Seas and rivers, earth and sky, are mentioned among the objects delineated. Even regions in Hades and Tartarus were represented upon the stage.[582] The progress of landscape-painting in general among the later Greeks naturally produced its effect upon the work of the scenic artists. But it would be an anachronism to attribute efforts of this ambitious kind to the contemporaries of Sophocles and Euripides.
The introduction of magnificent decorations appears to be always a later development in the history of the drama. On the Elizabethan stage the back-scene consisted of a bare wall, and anything in the way of spectacular effect was provided by the movements and groupings of the actors. To produce an impression by scenic means would have been alien to the taste of the Athenians of the fifth century. In the dramatic performances of that period the conspicuous feature was the chorus in the foreground, with its graceful arrangement and picturesque dresses. Above the chorus, on the narrow stage, stood the actors and mute figures, arranged in line, and dressed in brilliant colours. The long scene in the rear was so far decorated as to form a pleasing background, and show off the persons of the actors to advantage. But no attempt was made to produce a realistic landscape, or to convey the ideas of depth and distance. In its general effect the scene upon the stage resembled a long frieze or bas-relief, with the figures painted in brilliant colours, rather than a picture with a distant perspective.
§ 2. Mechanical Arrangements for the Scenery.
The scenery consisted of painted curtains or boards, attached to the wall at the back of the stage.[583] As the mechanical arrangements for fixing them up have not been described by any of the ancient writers, a detailed account of the matter is impossible. But some facts can be deduced from the testimony of the existing dramas. In every Greek play the action was supposed to take place in the open air. The scene was generally laid before some building or tent, or in a country district with a rock or cavern in the background. The upper portion of the painted scene represented merely the sky, and was probably the same in all dramas. The lower portion delineated the building or landscape which the particular play required. It used to be commonly supposed that this lower portion projected two or three feet in front of the upper; that the back-scene was not a flat surface from top to bottom, but that a narrow ledge or platform ran across from wing to wing about half-way up.[584] The object of this hypothesis was to provide room for the ‘distegia’. The distegia was a contrivance which enabled actors to take their stand upon the roof of a palace or private house.[585] Eight or nine instances of its use are to be found in the existing Greek plays. Thus the Agamemnon of Aeschylus opens with the watchman sitting upon the roof of the palace at Argos, and waiting for the beacon’s signal. In the Phoenissae of Euripides Antigone and the attendant mount upon the roof to get a view of the army encamped outside the city. In the concluding scene of the Orestes Hermione, Orestes, and Pylades are seen standing upon the roof of the palace. Examples also occur in comedy. In the Acharnians the wife of Dicaeopolis views the procession from the roof of the house. At the commencement of the Wasps Bdelycleon is seen sleeping upon the roof, and later on his father Philocleon tries to escape through the chimney. At the end of the Clouds Strepsiades climbs up a ladder to the roof of the phrontisterion, in order to set it on fire. In the Lysistrata Myrrhina and Lysistrata are seen upon the battlements of the Acropolis. The distegia may also have been used in that scene of the Supplices where Evadne appears upon the summit of a cliff, and then flings herself down.[586] In all these cases it used to be imagined that the standing-room for the actor was provided in the way described; that the lower part of the scene projected two or three feet, and so furnished a permanent platform in the background. But this theory is improbable on several grounds. We have seen that the distegia was only employed in comparatively few instances. It seems unlikely, therefore, that an elaborate structure of this kind should have been erected merely to meet these occasional requirements. Further than this, if the scene had been divided in half by a horizontal line, and the lower half had protruded several feet, this arrangement, though suitable enough when the background was a palace, would have been absurdly inappropriate when a country district was to be represented. It is also questionable whether the ancient stage was wide enough to permit the arrangement. If may have been possible in early times; but the Vitruvian stage, which was only ten feet across, can hardly have been encroached upon to the extent of two or three feet. It is far more probable that the back-scene was flat from top to bottom. This supposition is more in harmony with the simple style of the ancient scenery. As for the distegia, it was provided most likely by a projecting balcony or upper story, which might be introduced when required, without encroaching upon the narrow stage. Such balconies were not uncommon in Greek and Roman houses.[587] And that they were used in the theatre is expressly stated by Vitruvius, who tells us that the houses in comedy were of the type called ‘Maeniana’, or houses with projecting galleries.[588] In ordinary cases the distegia would resemble a structure of this kind. But where the surroundings were exceptional, as in the Lysistrata, it might easily be decorated in such a way as to conform to the rest of the scenery.
If the scene represented a dwelling-house, there were windows in the upper story, out of which the characters could peer upon the stage. Such windows are mentioned by Vitruvius, and instances of their use occur in the extant comedies. For example, Philocleon, in the Wasps, tries to escape out of an upper window, and in the Ecclesiazusae the old woman and the young girl are seen looking out of one.[589] It need hardly be remarked that the doors of the building represented by the painted scenery would correspond more or less closely with the permanent doors in the back-wall, so as to admit of easy ingress and egress to the actors. In the same way, if the scene was a cavern in a country region, the entrance to the cavern would be made to correspond with the central door in the wall at the back. Concerning the manner in which the scenery was finished off at the top nothing can be laid down for certain. It is not even known whether the stage was covered with a roof or not. But the analogy of Roman theatres, and the general convenience of the arrangement, are in favour of such a covering.[590]
§ 3. The Entrances to the Stage.
The question as to the number and the character of the entrances leading upon the stage is of some importance in connexion with the Greek drama. In order to avoid confusion in dealing with this subject, it is necessary to distinguish carefully between the permanent doors in the walls surrounding the stage, and the temporary doors or entrances which were left when the scenery had been put up. First, as to the permanent doors. We have shown already that the remains of the purely Greek theatres are so defective, that it is impossible, from the evidence which they supply, to come to any conclusion as to the number of these doors. But it is evident, from the statements of Pollux, that the Hellenistic type of theatre, which is the one he describes, must have possessed at least five such doors. It must have had three doors in the wall at the back of the stage, and two doors at the sides, one leading from each of the wings. Probably the same plan was adopted in the older buildings of the fourth and fifth centuries, whether of stone or wood. In later times, when the Graeco-Roman theatres were erected, the stage was considerably lengthened, and in consequence the number of the doors in the wall at the back was raised to five. But it has been pointed out in the last chapter that in all probability only three of these doors were used in the course of the actual performances, and that the two outer ones were either covered over by the scenery, or concealed by temporary side-wings of wood.[591]
The next point to be considered is the number of the entrances which had to be provided when the scenery was erected, and the stage was made ready for a dramatic performance. Pollux and Vitruvius, in speaking of the scenery and stage decorations, agree in saying that there were three doors at the back of the stage.[592] But this statement is much too universal. In the majority of cases, no doubt, there were three such doors. When the scene represented a palace, or temple, or dwelling-house, three doors appear to have been always used. But when the scene was of an exceptional character, the number of the entrances from the back of the stage would vary according to the requirements of the play. For instance, in the Philoctetes there would only be a single entrance, that from the cavern. In the first part of the Ajax the only entrance would be that leading out of the tent; in the second part there would be no entrance at all, the background consisting merely of a solitary region by the sea-shore. In the Cyclops, the only opening at the back of the stage was the mouth of Polyphemus’ cave. In such plays as the Prometheus of Aeschylus, and the Andromeda of Euripides, the background consisted of rocks and cliffs, and there was no entrance from that quarter. It is clear, therefore, that the statement that a Greek scene was provided with three doors or entrances at the back is not universally true, but only applies to the majority of cases.
Some details concerning the character of the three doors may be gathered from the statements in Pollux and Vitruvius.[593] When the scene was a palace, the central door was decorated with regal grandeur. The side-doors were supposed to lead to the guest-chambers. Occasionally one of the side-doors led to a guest-chamber, the other to a slaves’ prison. In comedy, the character and arrangement of the doors would vary considerably, according as the scene was laid in front of one, or two, or three dwelling-houses. In the last case, of which an example is supplied by the Acharnians, there would be one door for each of the three houses. Sometimes one of the side-doors represented the way into an outhouse, or workshop, or stable. Sometimes it led into a temple, as in the Thesmophoriazusae. In comedy, no doubt, there was much greater diversity as to scenic details than in tragedy.
A curious regulation concerning the usage of these three doors is mentioned by Pollux.[594] He says that the central door was reserved for the principal character, the door to the right for the secondary characters, the door to the left for those of least significance. It is plain that this statement must be taken with very considerable deductions. In the first place, it only applies to tragedy, and only to those plays in which the background represented a palace or similar building. Even then it cannot have been by any means universal. In fact it only applies to dramas of the type of the Oedipus Tyrannus, in which the principal character is at the same time a person of the highest rank. In such cases it is very likely that his rule about the doors was observed. It would be in harmony with the statuesque and conventional character of Greek tragedy. But there are many plays in which it would be absurd to suppose that any such regulation was adopted. For instance, in the Antigone it can hardly be imagined that the tyrant Creon entered only by a side-door, while the central door, with its regal splendour, was reserved for the oppressed heroine Antigone. Similarly, in the Electra, it is ridiculous to suppose that Clytaemnestra entered from the inferior part of the palace, Electra from the more magnificent. There can be no doubt that Pollux, in his statement about the doors, has been following his favourite practice, and has made a general rule out of a few special instances.
The openings at the back of the stage always led out of some building, tent, cavern, or other dwelling-place. They could only therefore be used by persons who were supposed to be inside the dwelling-place. People coming from the neighbourhood, or from a distance, had to enter the stage in a different way. For this purpose doors in the side-wings were provided.[595] The subject of these side-entrances on to the stage has been much discussed in recent years.[596] Many scholars have endeavoured to prove that they were a late invention, confined to the Hellenistic theatre, and that they never existed in the fifth century. They suppose that in the old Athenian theatre the only side-entrances were those in the orchestra, and that the actors who entered or departed otherwise than through the back-scene always used the orchestra for this purpose. Now it is no doubt true, as we have already shown, that they used it sometimes. There are about twenty cases in which actors and chorus leave together in a sort of procession, chiefly at the end of a play[597]; and there are two cases in which they enter together.[598] There are also those scenes—about five in number—when the actors enter in chariots.[599] On all these occasions it can hardly be doubted that the actors entered and departed through the orchestra. But the other examples which have been brought forward are entirely conjectural. It is said that, when the actors and the chorus were supposed to come from the same place, they must always have used the same entrance. In the Philoctetes, for example, Odysseus, Neoptolemus, and the chorus all come from the ship. If, therefore, the sailors entered by the orchestra, the two heroes must have done the same. But there is no necessity for such an assumption. It would be absurd to demand this minute accuracy in the representation of a play. Then there are cases where an actor on the stage sees another from a distance; but about ten lines intervene before the second actor comes near enough to enter into conversation with the first.[600] It is argued that he must have had a long way to go, and must therefore have come round by the parodos. But in all these places there is nothing to show that the person approaching was seen by the audience as soon as he was descried from the stage. He may have received his ‘cue’ some time after his advent was announced. It is common enough on the modern stage, when the scene is in the open air, for an actor’s approach to be announced some time before he actually appears. Also, there are several cases in the ancient dramas when an actor begins to converse with the people on the stage only two or three lines after he is first seen.[601] These passages might be cited to prove that he had only a short way to go, and must therefore have come in by the stage. But in reality all inferences of this kind are far too subtle to be of any value. We can hardly imagine the ancient dramatists counting the number of yards to be walked before they settled the number of verses to be spoken. Another set of instances are those in which a character, after coming into sight, takes a long time to reach the point he is aiming at. Euelpides and Peisthetaerus stumble about during the delivery of fifty-three lines before they reach the hoopoe’s dwelling-place. Dionysus and Xanthias converse for thirty-five lines before coming to the house of Hercules.[602] They too, it is said, must have entered by the orchestra, otherwise they would have reached their destination much sooner. But there is no need to suppose, in these and similar cases, that the characters were moving straight forward all the time. Any actors of ordinary experience would know how to arrange their progress in such a way as to come to the right place at the right moment. Lastly, there are scenes in which an actor, on making his entrance, fails to perceive at once another actor on the stage; or addresses the chorus before the actor; or is seen by the chorus before he is seen by the actor.[603] All this is said to prove that he must have come in by the parodos, and that the other actor was at first concealed from view by the intervening side-wings. But in the first place the ancient stage was so low and narrow that, as soon as an actor had fairly entered the orchestra, he could not fail to see the persons on the stage just as well as those in the orchestra. In the second place these arguments all depend on the same fallacy. They assume that in a dramatic performance, when an actor comes in, the question as to whom he shall see first, and which person he shall address first, is decided, not by the convenience of the poet, but by the science of optics. The experience of the modern stage is sufficient to prove that this is not the case.
It would be unsafe then to lay any stress on the instances just cited. The cases in which there are adequate grounds for supposing that the actors entered or departed by the orchestra amount to no more than about thirty. The question is whether these cases are sufficient to justify a wider inference. Are we to assume that, because the actors sometimes used the parodoi, they did so always? On the one hand it may be said that in the early theatre, with its low stage and easy communication between stage and orchestra, there was nothing to stand in the way of such a practice. On the other hand there is the fact that in the later Greek theatre the actors, when coming from a distance, usually entered by the side-wings.[604] Of course in this later theatre, with its twelve-foot stage, there were obvious reasons for doing so. Still, the existence of the practice in late times is a presumption in favour of its existence previously. Moreover, when side-wings had once been introduced, nothing could be more natural than to use them as entrances. The convenience to the actors would be very great. It is difficult to see why they should have been compelled to go all round by the parodoi when there was an easier mode of entrance close at hand. On the whole, therefore, it seems most probable that the side-entrances were generally used by the actors even as early as the fifth century, and that the orchestra was only employed in special cases, such as processions with the chorus.
As regards the use of these side-entrances the Athenians had a special regulation which was due entirely to local causes. The theatre at Athens was situated in such a position that the western side looked towards the city and the harbour, the eastern side towards the open country. In consequence of this fact the side-entrances upon the Athenian stage came to acquire a peculiar significance. If a man entered by the western side, it was understood that he was coming from the city where the scene of the action was laid, or from the immediate neighbourhood; or else that he had arrived from distant parts by sea, and was coming from the harbour. The eastern entrance was reserved for people who had journeyed from a distance by land. The same regulation was applied to the entrances to the orchestra. If a chorus came from the city, or the harbour, or the suburbs, it used the western parodos; if it came by land from a distance, it used the eastern.[605] It is obvious that at Athens, where play-bills were unknown, a conventional arrangement of this kind would be of great assistance to the audience, and would enable them to follow the action of the piece with greater ease and intelligence than they could otherwise have done. The custom originated in the topographical situation of the Athenian theatre, but was afterwards adopted in all other Greek theatres, and became a conventional rule of the Greek stage. The entrances to the right of the audience were used by persons from the neighbourhood; the entrances to the left by persons from a distance.
§ 4. Changes of Scene.
A change of scene during the actual progress of a play was a practice almost unknown upon the Greek stage during the classical period. In the extant tragedies only two instances are to be found, one in the Eumenides of Aeschylus, the other in the Ajax of Sophocles. It does not appear that in either case very much alteration in the scenery was required. In the Eumenides the earlier part of the action takes place in front of the temple of Apollo at Delphi, the latter part before the temple of Athene at Athens.[606] All that was here necessary was to change the statue in front of the temple. The background doubtless remained the same during both portions of the play. There is no reason to suppose that any attempt was made to depict the actual scenery of Delphi or of Athens. Such a supposition would be inconsistent with the rude and undeveloped state of scenic decoration during the Aeschylean period, and moreover minute accuracy of that kind was foreign to the Athenian taste. In the Ajax the play begins in front of the tent of Ajax, but ends in a solitary region by the sea-shore. Here again a very slight alteration in the scenery would have been sufficient. Probably in the opening scene the tent of Ajax was represented in the centre, and there may have been some slight suggestion of a coast view on either side. During the latter part of the play the tent would be made to disappear, leaving only the coast view behind. A change of this kind might have been easily carried out, without much mechanical elaboration. It is to be noticed that in each of the above cases, while the scenery was being changed, both orchestra and stage were deserted by the performers. In the Eumenides it was not until Apollo had retired into the temple, and the Furies had set out in pursuit of Orestes, that the change from Delphi to Athens took place. Similarly in the Ajax both Tecmessa and the chorus had disappeared in search of Ajax before the scene was transferred to the sea-shore.
The Old Comedy was a creation of the wildest fancy, utterly unfettered by any limitations of fact or probability. The scene of the action in the plays shifts about from one place to another in the most irregular fashion. All considerations of time and space are disregarded. But it may be taken for certain that on the actual stage no attempt was made to represent these changes of scene in a realistic manner. The scenery was no doubt of the simplest and most unpretending character, corresponding to the economical manner in which comedies were put upon the stage. In all the extant plays of Aristophanes a single background would have been sufficient. For instance, in the Frogs the action takes place partly before the house of Hercules, partly in Hades before the house of Pluto. The background probably represented the houses standing side by side, or a single house may have done duty for that of Hercules and that of Pluto in turn. The opening scene of the Acharnians takes place in the Pnyx; the rest of the play is carried on before the houses of Dicaeopolis, Euripides, and Lamachus. Most likely the three houses stood in a row, the Pnyx being sufficiently represented by a few benches upon the stage. The fact that the house of Dicaeopolis was supposed to be sometimes in the town, and sometimes in the country, would be of very little moment in a performance like the Old Comedy, where the realities of existence were totally disregarded. In the Lysistrata the action is rapidly transferred from the front of a house to the front of the Acropolis. In the Thesmophoriazusae it takes place partly before a house, partly before the temple of Demeter. It is not necessary, in either of these plays, to suppose any change in the scenery. The house and the Acropolis in the one case, and the house and temple in the other, would be depicted as standing side by side. In the Knights the background throughout the play consisted of the house of Demos; and the Pnyx, as in the Acharnians, was represented by a few benches. As far then as the Old Comedy is concerned it is probable that changes of scenery in the course of a play were seldom or never resorted to. In the New Comedy, to judge from the adaptations of Plautus and Terence, they appear to have been equally infrequent.
The only appliances for changing scenery that are mentioned by the ancient Greek writers are the ‘periaktoi’.[607] These were huge triangular prisms, revolving on a socket at the base. Each of the three sides of the prism consisted of a large flat surface, shaped like an upright parallelogram. One of these prisms was placed at each end of the stage, in such a manner as to fit in exactly with the scene at the back, and continue it in the direction of the side-wings. Each of the three sides was painted to represent a different view, but care was taken that in every case the painting should coincide exactly with the painting in the back-scene.[608] As the periaktos was turned round, it presented a different surface to the spectators. Accordingly it was possible, by revolving both the periaktoi, to make a change in the character of the scenery at each end of the stage, while the scene in the background remained the same as before. The periaktos to the right of the audience depicted views in the immediate neighbourhood of the city where the action was taking place. The periaktos to the left represented a more remote country. This fact corresponds exactly with the regulation already referred to, that the entrances to the right of the audience were reserved for people from the immediate neighbourhood, while people from a distance came in by the left.
The principal use of the periaktoi must have been to produce a change of scene in cases where the prominent feature of the background remained the same. For instance, if the action had been taking place in front of a temple or palace, and was to be transferred to a temple or palace in a different country, the requisite alteration might easily be carried out by means of the periaktoi. The building in the background would remain the same, but the scenery on each side would be altered. Occasions for using the periaktoi might sometimes occur during the course of a single play. But such cases, as we have seen, were extremely rare. It must have been chiefly in the intervals between successive plays that the periaktoi were employed. Most Greek tragedies and comedies took place before a temple, a palace, or a private house. If therefore a series of plays was being exhibited, it might be convenient to retain the same scene in the background, and produce the necessary distinction between the different plays by altering the scenery at each side. The usage of the periaktoi was regulated by a curious conventional custom. If only one periaktos was turned round, the alteration in the scenery was, of course, confined to one end of the stage. This was done when the change of scene was supposed to be a slight one, and was merely from one part of the same district to another. But when the action was transferred to an entirely new district, then both the periaktoi were turned round, and the scenery was changed at each end. The representation of scenery on the periaktoi was probably of the simple and symbolical character which marked Greek stage scenery in general; a rock would stand for a mountainous district, a waved blue line and a dolphin for the sea, a river god perhaps, holding a vessel of water, for a river.[609] Besides their use in effecting a change of scene, the periaktoi were also employed to introduce sea-gods and objects too heavy for the mechane. It is not said how this was managed. But it is possible that, of the two sides of the periaktos which were out of sight of the audience, one contained a small ledge or balcony, on which the sea-god took his stand. As the machine rolled round, he would come suddenly into view.[610]
It is difficult to say when the periaktoi were first introduced, and whether they were used at all during the classical period of the Greek drama. They are mentioned by one grammarian among a list of stage appliances which might be ascribed to Aeschylus,[611] and it is true that they might have been used in producing the change of scene in the Eumenides from the temple at Delphi to the temple at Athens. But they could have been easily dispensed with. In fact, as far as the extant Greek dramas are concerned, there are no occasions on which it is necessary to suppose that they were used, and there are no passages in which they are referred to.[612]
The periaktoi, as stated above, are the only appliances for changing scenery that are mentioned in Greek writings. Servius describes another kind of contrivance, by means of which the scene was parted asunder in the middle, and then drawn aside in both directions, so as to disclose a new scene behind.[613] But it is probable that this invention dated from comparatively late times. There is nothing in the existing Greek dramas to suggest that such a contrivance was in use during the classical period.
§ 5. Stage Properties, &c.
In addition to the scenery in the background, the stage was of course decorated with such objects and properties as were required by the particular play. Aeschylus is said to have been the first to adorn the stage in this manner.[614] If the scene was a palace or temple, statues of the gods were generally placed in front of it, and are frequently referred to in the course of the drama. For instance, there was the statue of Athene in front of her temple in the Eumenides, and the statues of the tutelary deities before the palace of the Atreidae in the Electra of Sophocles. In the Hippolytus there were two statues in front of the palace of Theseus, one of Artemis the huntress, and the other of Cypris, the goddess of love. When Hippolytus returns from the hunt, he offers a garland of flowers to the statue of Artemis, but refuses to pay any homage to the statue of Cypris, in spite of the remonstrances of his attendant. Again, in the country region depicted in the Oedipus Coloneus the statue of the hero Colonus stood in a conspicuous position.[615] Other examples of the practice of decorating the stage with statues are often to be met with both in tragedy and in comedy. Altars, again, were very common objects upon the Greek stage. In the Supplices of Aeschylus the fugitive maidens take refuge round an altar. The Oedipus Tyrannus opens with the spectacle of a group of Thebans kneeling in supplication before the altar of Apollo.[616] Another constant feature in the stage decoration was the stone obelisk in honour of Apollo of the Highways. It was an ordinary practice among the Greeks to place such obelisks in front of their houses. Their presence upon the stage is often referred to by the dramatic poets.[617] Various other objects were occasionally required by particular plays. There was the tomb of Darius in the Persae, and the tomb of Agamemnon in the Choephori. In the Oedipus Coloneus a rocky ledge was needed for Oedipus to rest himself upon. In the Acharnians and the Knights a few benches must have been erected upon the stage to serve as a rude imitation of the Pnyx. Walls, watch-towers, and beacon-towers are mentioned by Pollux; and the presence of other similar decorations and erections can be inferred from the extant tragedies and comedies.[618]
There was one piece of realism which the Greeks were not averse to, and that was the presence of horses and chariots in the theatre. We have already referred to the instances in tragedy where persons from a distance arrive in chariots drawn by horses or mules. The vast size of the Greek theatre made it peculiarly suitable for displays of this character. In the Agamemnon of Aeschylus, Agamemnon and Cassandra approach the palace in a chariot; Agamemnon remains seated there for a considerable time, while he converses with Clytaemnestra; he then dismounts and enters the palace, leaving Cassandra still in the chariot. In the Electra of Euripides, when Clytaemnestra comes to visit her daughter at the country cottage, she arrives in a chariot, accompanied by Trojan maidens, who assist her to dismount.[619] Animals for riding were also occasionally introduced. In the Prometheus there is the winged steed upon which Oceanus makes his entrance; and in the Frogs of Aristophanes Xanthias rides in upon a donkey.[620]
§ 6. The Ekkyklema.
Several mechanical contrivances are mentioned in connexion with the Greek stage. The most peculiar of these, and the one most alien to all our modern notions of stage illusion, is the ekkyklema.[621] We have seen that in a Greek theatre the action always took place in the open air, before some temple or dwelling-place. It was impossible to transfer the scene to the inside of the building because of the continual presence of the chorus in the orchestra. Still, it might sometimes happen that a powerful dramatic effect could be produced, if a deed accomplished indoors was exposed to view. The most natural way of doing this would have been to draw aside the back-scene, and reveal a portion of the interior. But in the Greek theatre, owing to the narrowness of the stage-buildings, such a device was hardly practicable. Even if the stage-buildings had been made deeper, there were obvious objections in the way. The relative position of the auditorium and the stage was such that, if a room had been opened out behind the back-scene, a large part of the audience would not have been able to see into it. In any case, the back part of the room would have been almost in the dark. Further than this, the whole arrangement was far too elaborate for the simple notions of the ancient stage-managers. For these reasons a more primitive device was adopted. Scenes inside the house or palace were revealed by means of the ekkyklema. This was a small wooden platform, rolling upon wheels, which was kept inside the stage-buildings. When it was required to be used, one of the doors in the background was thrown open, and it was pushed forward on to the stage. Upon it was arranged a group of figures, representing in a sort of tableau the deed or occurrence which had just taken place inside the building. It was mostly used in cases where a murder had been committed. The ekkyklema was rolled out upon the stage, and on it were seen the corpses of the murdered persons, the murderers standing beside them with the bloody weapons in their hands. It might be rolled through any of the three doors at the back of the stage. The contrivance was of course a purely conventional one, due to the necessities of the Greek theatre. All pretence of realism and illusion was abandoned. But this was a point on which the Greeks did not lay very much stress. In such matters custom is everything. To a modern spectator, used to elaborate stage effects, the device would appear intolerable. But the Greeks, living at a time when stage decoration was in its infancy, were less exacting in their demands. And when they had once accepted the ekkyklema as a conventional contrivance for exhibiting interiors their plastic genius would enable them to use it to the best advantage. The sudden spectacle of the murderer standing beside his victim’s body, with the instrument of death in his hands, might easily be formed into a most impressive tableau.
The ekkyklema was probably invented towards the middle of the fifth century, about the time when the actor’s booth was first converted into a regular back-scene. It is used twice in the Oresteia. In the Agamemnon, after the murder has been committed, the platform rolls out, and reveals the person of Clytaemnestra, standing over the dead bodies of Agamemnon and Cassandra. In the Choephori there is a parallel scene. Orestes is brought into view standing beside the bodies of Aegisthus and Clytaemnestra, and pointing to the net in which his father had been entangled and slaughtered many years ago. He is seized with frenzy, descends from the ekkyklema, and hastens away to the temple of Apollo at Delphi. The platform is then withdrawn into the palace.[622] During the rest of the century there are many instances of the use of the ekkyklema in tragedy. In the Ajax the interior of the tent is exposed to view by this contrivance; and at the end of the Antigone the body of Eurydice is exhibited, lying beside the altar at which she has stabbed herself. In the Hippolytus, after the suicide of Phaedra, her dead body is displayed upon the ekkyklema, and Theseus takes from it the letter in which she makes her charge against Hippolytus. In the Electra of Sophocles the door is thrown open at the command of Aegisthus, and the platform rolls out and exhibits Orestes and Pylades standing beside the corpse of Clytaemnestra, which is covered with a cloth. Aegisthus himself removes the cloth, and then Orestes and Pylades descend to the stage, and the platform is drawn back again. In the Hecuba the sons of Polymestor, who have been slaughtered inside the tent, are made visible to the spectators by means of the ekkyklema. In the Hercules Furens Hercules is exhibited lying prostrate between the bodies of his wife and children, with his face covered up, and his limbs chained to the broken column which he had thrown down in his frenzy. Amphitryon then comes out of the palace, and loosens his chains. Later on Theseus arrives, and uncovers his face and helps him to rise. He then descends to the stage, and the ekkyklema is rolled back into the palace. Lastly, in the Electra of Euripides, the bodies of Aegisthus and Clytaemnestra are shown to the audience by means of this device.[623]
The ekkyklema is also occasionally used in Comedy. Aristophanes, on two occasions, employs it in a burlesque sort of way, when he is introducing tragic poets on the stage. In the Thesmophoriazusae, Euripides and Mnesilochus call at the house of Agathon to borrow some female clothing. Agathon is rolled out on the ekkyklema, lends them some articles which are brought to him from inside the house, and then, when he is tired of their importunity, orders himself to be ‘rolled in again as fast as possible’. In the Acharnians Dicaeopolis goes to the house of Euripides to borrow a tragic dress. Euripides is upstairs in his study writing tragedies, and cannot come down, but allows himself to be rolled out, and supplies the necessary dresses.[624] These two passages in Aristophanes, where the mechanism of the apparatus is carefully emphasized in order to add to the ridicule, are very valuable as evidence concerning the structure of the ekkyklema. The device is also used in the Clouds to show the inside of the phrontisterion. The disciples of Socrates are seen hard at work on their studies, with globes, diagrams, black-boards, and other scholastic materials round about them. In the Knights, when the Propylaea is thrown open, and reveals a vision of ancient Athens, with Demos dressed up in the antique style, the spectacle may possibly have been produced by means of the ekkyklema.[625]
From the examples of the use of the ekkyklema which have just been cited we may gather some further particulars as to its character and construction. It appears that persons upon the ekkyklema could easily descend to the stage, and that persons on the stage could easily touch those on the ekkyklema. It follows that it must have been a low platform, not much above the level of the stage. As regards its length and breadth, it was evidently large enough to support several persons. At the same time it cannot have been of any very great size. Its width must have been less than the width of the doors in the background, to permit of its being rolled through them. Its depth cannot have been very great, because of the narrowness of the Greek stage. In the Acharnians, when Euripides is rolled out, he is represented as still sitting in his room upstairs. But it is unlikely, as some suppose, that in this case the platform was made taller than usual, to produce the effect of an upper story. As Euripides has to hand various articles to Dicaeopolis, who is standing on the stage, there cannot have been much difference of level between the two. The exact mechanism of the ekkyklema, however, remains uncertain. It is practically undisputed that the grooves or rails found at Eretria, running on to the later stage straight from its back-scene were intended for some such contrivance to run on.[626] On the other hand it has been argued from the use of certain words in the scholiast’s descriptions that the ekkyklema must have revolved on a pivot,[627] and it has been suggested that the mechanism was like that of which a diagram is given in the accompanying figure, where ss is the stage, ww the back-scene, a shows the ekkyklema at rest and not in use, b shows it in process of being rolled round for use, c shows it after being rolled out. This, however, finds no confirmation in anything in the ruins; the straight rails at Eretria are against it, and the words referred to may be explained by the use of a windlass or similar mechanism used in rolling out the ekkyklema. Judging from the width of the rails at Eretria, the width of the ekkyklema may have been about ten feet, and the doors must therefore have been rather larger. The suggested revolving ekkyklema might afford more standing room, but there is not sufficient evidence of its existence.