The Attic theatre

In addition to the passages already mentioned, there are two other places in the extant dramas where the scholiasts say that the ekkyklema was employed. But they appear to have been mistaken in both cases. The first instance is in the Thesmophoriazusae. The action of this play begins before Agathon’s house, but after about three hundred lines is transferred to the front of Demeter’s temple, where the women hold their assembly. At this point there is a stage-direction to say that ‘the Thesmophorion is rolled out’.[628] If these words mean that the scene was laid in the interior of the temple, and that the ekkyklema was rolled out in order to represent it, the suggestion is undoubtedly wrong. It would be absurd to imagine that the rest of the play was transacted on a small platform like the ekkyklema. But possibly the author of the note was referring, not to the ekkyklema, but to some mechanism by which he believed that the necessary change of scene was brought about. The second place is the well-known scene at the beginning of the Eumenides.[629] The play opens with the speech of the priestess, delivered in front of the temple. Then, when she departs, the interior of the temple is suddenly brought into view, and shows us Orestes kneeling before the altar, with the sleeping Furies round about him, and Apollo and Hermes standing close by. To suppose, as the scholiast suggests, that this effect was produced by the ekkyklema, is hardly possible. The platform would have been far too small to accommodate a whole tragic chorus, together with three actors. At the same time, though the explanation of the scholiast appears impracticable, it is difficult to suggest any other way in which the scene might have been acted. We cannot assume that the back-scene was drawn apart, and disclosed the inside of the temple in a set-piece, after the modern fashion. This mode of revealing interiors was apparently never used on the Greek stage. If it had been possible, there would have been no need to invent the ekkyklema. It has been suggested that the spectacle was not really exhibited to the audience; that Apollo, Hermes, and Orestes appeared alone in front of the temple; that the ghost of Clytaemnestra called to the Furies through the temple door; and that it was not until then that the Furies came into sight, rushing out in obedience to her summons. But the general character of the scene, and the expressions used in the course of the dialogue, appear to be fatal to this supposition.[630] In fact, the difficulty is one for which no satisfactory solution has yet been found.

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.

A contrivance called the exostra is occasionally referred to by the grammarians, and is mentioned in a Delian inscription of the third century B.C. The name implies that it was something which was ‘pushed out’ upon the stage. The metaphorical use of the word in Polybius and Cicero proves it to have been a platform on which objects were exhibited in a conspicuous manner. It is probable, therefore, that the statement of the ancient writers is correct, and that the exostra was merely the ekkyklema under another name.[636]

§ 7. The Mechane and Theologeion.

Another appliance of even greater importance than the ekkyklema, and one very frequently employed upon the Greek stage, was the ‘mechane’ or Machine.[637] It consisted of a sort of crane with a pulley attached, by which weights could be raised or lowered. It was placed in the left or western corner of the stage, at the very top of the back-scene. It was used when the characters of a play had to appear or disappear in a supernatural manner. By its means a god or hero could be lowered from heaven down to earth, or raised up from earth to heaven, or exhibited motionless in mid-air. Sometimes the god was represented as sitting in a chariot, or on a winged steed; but in most cases he was simply suspended from the rope by means of a hook and bands fastened round his body. The strength of the mechane must have been considerable, since it was powerful enough to support two or three people at the same time. As to the way in which it was worked, and the manner in which the actors were made to disappear from view at the top of the stage, there is no information. Unfortunately the construction of the upper part of the stage-buildings is a subject about which we are entirely ignorant. It is useless therefore to hazard conjectures concerning the exact nature of the arrangements adopted. The grammarians also speak of two other contrivances, the Crane and the Fig-branch, as used for moving people through the air. But whether they were really distinct from the mechane is far from certain. The Fig-branch is said to have been designed specially for comedy. It appears, however, from the description to have been much the same as the mechane, and was probably only a comic name for it.[638] The Crane is described as an instrument for conveying the bodies of dead heroes up into the sky. Possibly the Crane also was merely another name for the mechane; or it may have been a separate contrivance, placed at the other end of the back-scene, and used exclusively for the removal of dead bodies. In any case it cannot have differed very much from the mechane in structure.[639] There are one or two passages in the ancient writers where the mechane is described as a ‘kind of ekkyklema’, and persons are said to have been rolled out by means of it.[640] It is uncertain in these cases whether the grammarians are confusing the two machines; or whether they are thinking of the theologeion, which, as we shall see later on, may have been worked by mechanism similar to that of the ekkyklema.

Examples of the use of the mechane are fairly common both in the extant dramas and in the records of the grammarians. At the same time there is often a doubt, when a personage makes his appearance on high, whether he was exhibited by means of this device or in some other way. For the present, therefore, we will confine ourselves to those cases where the person is described as moving through the air, and where it seems clear that, if any machinery was employed, it must have been the mechane. The earliest instance is probably that in the Prometheus. Oceanus descends on a ‘winged quadruped’, converses some time with Prometheus, and then rides away again, saying as he goes that his steed yearns to ‘skim with its wings the smooth paths of air’. We are told also that in the Psychostasia, the lost play of Aeschylus, the body of Memnon was carried by Dawn into the sky.[641] Both these instances have been doubted, but merely on general grounds, and without adequate reason. But there are two other supposed examples in Aeschylus which are far more open to question. There is the scene in the Eumenides where Athene arrives from Troas, and where it is thought that she descends from the sky. The language, however, in which she describes her journey is ambiguous and full of difficulty. In three successive lines she appears to say that she has walked, flown, and driven in a chariot.[642] It would be unsafe in a case like this to draw any inference as to the exact manner in which she made her entrance on to the stage. There is also the scene in the Prometheus where the Oceanides enter in a ‘winged car’, halt in front of Prometheus for about a hundred and fifty lines, and then, at his bidding, dismount from their ‘swift-rushing seat’ and descend into the orchestra.[643] Here, too, the mechane has been suggested. But it is scarcely credible that a whole tragic chorus should have been suspended in front of Prometheus during the delivery of a hundred and fifty lines. Even if the machinery had been strong enough to support twelve or fifteen choristers, the spectacle would have been ludicrous.[644] It is much better to suppose that the car was rolled in along the stage, its previous flight being left to the imagination of the spectators. After the time of Aeschylus there are many instances of the use of the mechane. Euripides often employs it to wind up his plays. At the end of the Andromache Thetis comes into view ‘voyaging through the bright air’. At the end of the Electra the Dioscuri arrive by a ‘path impossible to mortals’, and depart later on ‘through the regions of the sky’. Medea’s appearance with her children in the aerial car may be safely regarded as a further example, though there is no mention in this case of any ascent or descent.[645] The device is also introduced in other parts of a play. In the Hercules Furens Iris and Lyssa come down from heaven in a chariot; then Iris re-ascends, while Lyssa goes on into the palace. In the Bellerophon the hero rode up to heaven on the winged steed Pegasus; and in the Andromeda Perseus flew down through the air to the foot of the cliff where the heroine was chained.[646] The mechane is also parodied in many places by Aristophanes. In the Clouds, Socrates is seen hanging in a basket in mid-air, and studying astronomy. Iris, in the Birds, comes floating down from the sky in such an irregular and eccentric fashion that Peisthetaerus has the greatest difficulty in bringing her to a standstill. In a fragment of the Daedalus the actor who is going to ascend entreats the man in charge of the machinery to give him warning, before he begins to haul up the rope, by exclaiming ‘hail, light of the sun’. The ascent of Trygaeus upon a beetle in the Peace was intended as a parody upon the Bellerophon of Euripides. The speech of Trygaeus, in the course of his aerial journey, consists of a ludicrous mixture of phrases from the Bellerophon, shouts to the beetle to keep his head straight, and terrified appeals to the stage-manager to look after the security of the pulley.[647]

In addition to the mechane there was also another appliance in use upon the Greek stage for the purpose of exhibiting gods in a supernatural manner. It was called the theologeion, and represented the gods as stationary in heaven, and not as moving through the air. It consisted, apparently, of a narrow platform in the upper part of the back-scene.[648] Probably it was similar in construction to the ekkyklema, and was usually invisible, but was pushed forward through an opening at the back when required. It has been suggested that the theologeion was in reality nothing more than the palace roof. But this theory is hardly a plausible one. When the gods were to be exhibited in celestial splendour in the sky, it would have been undignified and incongruous to place them on the roof of a human habitation. Also the position of the theologeion is expressly described as being high up above the stage.[649] As regards its usage, the only recorded instance is that in the Psychostasia of Aeschylus. Zeus was there represented as sitting in heaven, holding scales in his hands, in which were placed the destinies of Achilles and Memnon respectively. On each side of him stood Thetis and Dawn, supplicating for the lives of their sons. The scene was in imitation of that in the Iliad, where Zeus weighs the fates of Achilles and Hector.[650] It is probable that the theologeion was also used in the Peace, in the scene where Trygaeus ascends to heaven, and converses with Hermes in front of the palace of Zeus.[651]

The relationship between the theologeion and the mechane has been much discussed during the last few years, and various theories have been brought forward on the subject. Some of the critics think the mechane was the older and more primitive device, and that the theologeion was invented towards the end of the fifth century, to serve as a substitute, and avoid the awkwardness of the previous arrangement.[652] Others take exactly the opposite view, and regard the theologeion as the simple contrivance of the early drama, and the mechane as a later and more picturesque piece of machinery.[653] Neither of these views can be maintained except by a somewhat arbitrary treatment of the evidence. We have clear testimony as to the existence both of the mechane and of the theologeion in the time of Aeschylus; and it seems uncritical to reject this testimony in the one case, and accept it in the other. As regards the question of priority, it is impossible to come to any decision, owing to the paucity of the early dramas which have been preserved. But there is one point which deserves consideration. We have seen that there are several cases at the close of a play in which the mechane was unquestionably used to introduce the god who solved the difficulties of the plot. The god’s arrival is described in language which leaves no doubt upon the subject. But there are many other cases in which he appears for a similar purpose, and in which he is simply described as standing in some elevated position, and nothing is said about any flight through the air.[654] There are also several plays at the end of which the god appears abruptly, without any notice as to his standing-place, or the manner in which he arrived; but in which it is evident, from the analogy of the other dramas, that he appeared above the heads of the ordinary actors.[655] In both these latter classes of play there is some uncertainty as to the nature of the machinery employed. The question may be raised whether, when there is no mention of any movement through the air, the god was introduced by the mechane or by the theologeion. Was he floated down from the sky, or pushed out through the back-scene? Some scholars maintain that the theologeion was the device used in these particular cases; and the supposition is no doubt possible. But, on the other hand, the fact that there is no allusion to the mechane in the course of the dialogue proves nothing as to its presence or its absence. There are many places in which, though the ekkyklema was obviously employed, the text contains no reference to it. Also it is clear that from the beginning of the fourth century the mechane became the regular contrivance for introducing gods at the close of a drama. Plato remarks that the tragedians, when in a difficulty, ‘have recourse to the mechane, and suspend their gods in mid-air.’ Antiphanes, the comic poet, ridicules the practice of hanging out the mechane at the end of a tragedy. Aristotle speaks of the mechane as the invariable device on such occasions. The phrase ‘deus ex machina’ appears already in the fourth century as a proverbial expression for an unexpected benefactor.[656] It seems more probable, therefore, that the mechane was regularly used, even in the fifth century, for the same purpose. We have several cases in which it must have been so employed, and none in which it is necessary to introduce the theologeion. The only known example of the use of the theologeion is that in the Psychostasia. Any further cases in which its presence is assumed must be purely conjectural.

Before leaving this subject a few remarks may be made on the general question of the appearances of the gods in tragedy. In the early drama the gods often played an important part in the action of the piece. They came down to earth and mixed with mankind after the old Homeric fashion. Their arrivals and departures might be conducted in a supernatural manner, but when they were once on the stage they moved about like ordinary human beings. Such is still the case in plays like the Eumenides of Aeschylus. But later on, as the tone of the drama became more entirely human, the gods began to be excluded more and more from any real share in the plot. Their occasional presence at the scene of action was managed with more dignity and splendour. It is rare to find them appearing side by side with human beings, as Athene apparently does in the Rhesus and in the opening scene of the Ajax.[657] The Bacchae is an exceptional case, since Dionysus is there disguised as a young man. But usually, in the later drama, the intervention of the gods was restricted to the beginning and the end of the play, when they came forward to speak the prologue and the epilogue. In such cases they no longer join with mortal men in the free and easy intercourse of the Homeric period. Their movements are more dignified and celestial. It is true that in the prologues, when they are alone, and no human beings have yet intruded on the stage, they make their entrance on foot, and walk the earth like ordinary men.[658] But at the end of the play, when the stage is occupied by mortals, they disdain to tread the same ground with them, and are exhibited in the sky by means of the mechane. Even in the prologues it appears that the same practice was introduced in the course of the fourth century, and that henceforth all apparitions of the gods, both at the beginning and the end of a play, were made equally supernatural.[659] This formal introduction of deities at the beginning and the close, which was now practically the sole survivor of the old divine participation in the drama, is the subject of a well-known criticism by Aristotle. He allows that it is perfectly legitimate, when the gods are carefully excluded from the action, and are brought in merely to give information about the past, or to predict the future. But he strongly censures the later practice of employing them at the end of a tragedy to solve the difficulties of the plot. He says that in a well-constructed play the conclusions should be the natural result of the preceding incidents, and there should be no need of any supernatural agency.[660] Euripides has generally been regarded as the chief offender against his rule, and as the author of the custom which he condemns. But it will be found, on examining his plays, that there are very few of them in which the god is really used as a last resort. There are only two instances in which he can be said to solve the problems of the situation. In the other cases he is introduced, not so much to set matters right, as to inform the characters of the destiny which awaits them. His function is confined to announcing the future course of events.[661] These, therefore, are what Aristotle would call permissible uses of the ‘deus ex machina’.

§ 8. Other Mechanical Contrivances.

Several other devices in use upon the Attic stage are briefly mentioned by Pollux, but his descriptions are so meagre and obscure that little can be inferred as to their exact character. Charon’s Steps was a contrivance for bringing ghosts and spectres up from the other world. It can hardly have been anything else than a flight of steps leading out upon the stage from underneath. The ‘anapiesma’ was used by river-gods, Furies, and other subterranean beings for the purpose of appearing above ground. The word ‘anapiesma’ seems to mean something which was pushed back. It is probable, therefore, that the contrivance was merely the ordinary trap-door of the modern theatre, through which the spectral being was raised on to the stage.[662] Whether these two devices were used as early as the fifth century is somewhat doubtful. There are few occasions in the extant plays and fragments where they would have been serviceable, and none where they are absolutely necessary. The ghost of Darius in the Persae arises out of his tomb, and the ghost of Achilles in the lost Polyxena of Sophocles apparently revealed himself in the same way.[663] In these two cases it is needless to suppose any special apparatus beyond the tomb itself. The ghost of Clytaemnestra in the Eumenides, and that of Polydorus in the Hecuba, may possibly have risen from underground. But there is nothing in the text of the plays to show that this was the case, and an entrance in the ordinary manner would have satisfied all requirements. Some critics suppose that in the Prometheus the punishment which had been threatened by Hermes was actually carried out before the eyes of the spectators, and that the tragedy ended with the disappearance of Prometheus beneath the stage. But a melodramatic conclusion of this kind seems far from probable, and out of keeping with the character of the ancient drama. It is more likely that when the play was over the actor simply walked off the stage, or was concealed from view by a curtain. Or he may have remained in position until the beginning of the next piece, the Prometheus Unbound, in which he was again represented as chained to a cliff. The ‘bronteion’ was a device for imitating the noise of thunder behind the scenes, and was of a very simple character. Pebbles were poured out of a jar into a large brazen vessel; bags were filled with stones and flung against a metal surface; or leaden balls were dropped upon a sheet of leather stretched tight.[664] The ‘keraunoskopeion’ was obviously intended to imitate lightning, though the description in Pollux is unintelligible. But Heron, the mathematician, speaks of a device used in automaton theatres, by which a plank, with a flash of lightning painted on a dark background, was shot out of a box into a receptacle below. Possibly Pollux may be alluding to an arrangement of this kind.[665] The ‘stropheion’ was some sort of revolving machinery, by which heroes were exhibited in heaven, or deaths at sea or in battle were represented. The ‘hemikyklion’ was semicircular in shape, and gave a distant view of a city, or of a person swimming in the sea. The ‘hemistrophion’ is merely mentioned by name, and no description of it is appended.[666]

The question whether a drop-scene was used in the Athenian theatre during the great period of the drama is one which has not yet been satisfactorily settled. In Roman theatres a drop-scene was invariably used between the different plays, the mechanism being exactly the reverse of that employed in modern times. When a play was going to begin, the curtain was let down into a narrow crevice in front of the stage, and at the end of the performance was drawn up again.[667] There can be no doubt that similar curtains were used in Greek theatres at a later period; but the question is whether they were used at Athens during the fifth and fourth centuries. There are no references to anything of the kind in the extant Greek dramas, and there are no passages in ancient writers which can be held to prove the existence of a drop-scene in the early Athenian theatre.[668] The question must therefore be discussed on general grounds. To our modern notions a drop-scene appears to be almost a necessity in the case of plays which commence with the actors already in position upon the stage. In the Greek drama such plays are not infrequent. For instance, in the opening scene of the Oedipus Tyrannus the Thebans are discovered kneeling at the altar before the palace of the king. In the Troades, when Poseidon comes forward to speak the prologue, he sees Hecuba stretched upon the ground in an attitude of despair. The Orestes of Euripides opens with Orestes stretched upon a bed in front of the palace, and his sister Electra watching beside him. Many other examples might be cited of plays which begin with the actors already in a fixed position. Unless, therefore, a drop-scene was used between the plays, it would have to be supposed that the actors came on the stage in 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]