The Theatre of Dionysus in Athens

396 Pages·1946·30.304 MB·English

by  A. W. Pickard-Cambridge

THE THEATRE
OF DIONYSUS IN
ATHENS
BY
A. W. PICKARD-CAMBRIDGE
D.Litt., LL.D., F.B.A.
HON. FELLOW OF BALLIOL COLLEGE
Thomas J. Bata tttjwy
UMIVERSH
TRENT V
PETERBOROUGH, ONTARIO
OXFORD
AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
1946
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
AMEN HOUSE, E.C. 4
LONDON EDINBURGH GLASGOW NEW YORK
TORONTO MELBOURNE CAPE TOWN BOMBAY
CALCUTTA MADRAS
GEOFFREY CUMBERLEGE
PUBLISHER TO THE UNIVERSITY
PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS, OXFORD
PREFACE
After the death of my friend Mr. A. E. Haigh, I was entrusted
with the revision of his work, The Attic Theatre, for a third
edition, which was published in 1907. At that time I shared the
view, which was then common to most English scholars, that the
theatre of the Classical epoch included a stage, raised above
the level of the orchestra which the chorus occupied, and that
the actors in tragedy and comedy performed almost entirely on
this higher level. But as the result of a number of visits to Athens
and of much further study of the subject, I became convinced
that as regards the drama of the fifth century Dorpfeld was right
in rejecting the raised stage, though as regards later periods I
could not always agree with him. I greatly regret that, owing to
the war, I have been unable to go through the present volume
on the spot, as I had hoped to do, but thanks to a fairly accurate
visual memory, refreshed by the extremely good illustrations of
other scholars, I trust that I have had the remains of the theatre
fairly clearly in my eye.
The work of Dorpfeld and Reisch, Das griechische Theater,
published in 1896, is still the necessary foundation of all study
of the subject. But two other works of great importance have
appeared since. The first is the Untersuchungen an griechischen
Theaternoi H. Bulle (assisted by K. Lehmann-Hartleben and other
distinguished scholars). This, published in 1928, embodies the
results of several months’ work and excavation in the Theatre of
Dionysus, and though it is often over-venturesome and uncon¬
vincing, it has raised important questions and contributed
materials for the solution of these and others. The second work
is the monograph of E. Fiechter, Das Theater in Athen, published
in three parts in 1935 and 1936, and based on exhaustive work,
carried out in the years 1927 to 1929 and 1933, in all parts of the
theatre except a portion of the auditorium and its walls. Fiech-
ter’s work is of first-rate importance owing to his minute and
careful examination of the extant remains, stone by stone, the
exactness of his records, and the lucidity of his exposition.
His drawings and descriptions (when a few slips and inconsis¬
tencies have been corrected) must be the basis of all future work,
and I have therefore adopted, in the plan and text of this
volume, his lettering and numbering in place of those of Dorpfeld,
vi Preface
which most scholars have followed hitherto. At the same time,
his work aims at being, not a critical history, but a Quellenaus-
gabe, an exhaustive account of the facts upon which such a
history must be founded, and when he does draw historical con¬
clusions, I have sometimes had to differ from him.
I must also mention with gratitude the work of two American
scholars, Professors Roy Flickinger and J. T. Allen, whose studies
have shown that accurate and comprehensive results in this
region of scholarship are not the monopoly of the German people.
For students who desire to see the theatre in its proper relation
to the Greek Drama as a whole, Flickinger’s Greek Theater (fourth
edition, 1936) is of the highest value.
The flood of controversy which followed the publication of the
great work of Dorpfeld and Reisch in 1896 continued unabated
for many years, and did not cease until DorpfekTs death at
Leukas in 1940. While not afraid to change some of his opinions,
if he thought the evidence sufficient, Dorpfeld maintained most
of his views unaltered and remained a doughty fighter to the end.
The Bibliography at the end of this volume will enable those who
desire to do so to follow the course of the controversy. In addi¬
tion to the countless articles contributed to periodicals by many
scholars, more substantial studies were produced by O. Puch-
stein, A. Muller, F. Noack, and A. Frickenhaus, and by Fiechter
himself in his earlier work on the architectural development
of the Greek theatre. The articles in Pauly-Wissowa’s Real-
Encyclopadie, s.v. Skene by A. Frickenhaus and s.v. Theatron
by C. Fensterbusch are also important. Dr. Margarete Bieber
laid all students of the subject under a debt of gratitude by the
publication in 1920 of her Denkmaler zum Theaterwesen im Alter-
tum, with its admirable illustrations. This is unfortunately out of
print, and its place is only imperfectly filled by her History of
the Greek and Roman Theater (1939). Problems raised by the
Athenian theatre have often been discussed by A. von Gerkan,
both in his fine book on the theatre of Priene (1921) and in
reviews and articles.
The present volume is almost entirely confined to the theatre
of Dionysus in Athens, and other theatres are mentioned only
for purposes of comparison or illustration. I have made no at¬
tempt to discuss the classification of the many ancient theatres
under types; this would need a very thorough and critical
description of each theatre, and the discussion has not so far
produced very illuminating results. But a comprehensive work
on the Greek and Roman theatres of which remains are extant
is much needed.
Nor have I attempted to include in this volume many matters
of great interest which are treated in Haigh’s Attic Theatre. On
some of these—the Dionysiac festivals, the inscriptional records,
the costumes of the actors, and other subjects—Haigh is now out
of date. I hope to write of these in a later work, if life and strength
are given me; but at the age of 73 one must not expect too
much. In this volume I have thought of the buildings of the
theatre mainly as a setting for the drama, and have not entered
into all of the endless arguments about such minute details of
the material structures as could have little or no human interest.
The continuance of such disputes by architectural specialists for
over fifty years is itself some indication that no conclusions are
to be expected. Further, I have not always thought it necessary to
refer to arguments raised in the course of the controversy and then
discussed and dropped. But I have tried to state the evidence
fairly on every point which appeared to be worth consideration.
I fear that my critics will complain that I have too often been
content—or, as I should say, compelled—to state my conclusions
in the form of probabilities or possibilities, instead of drawing
such definite and detailed pictures as others have often confidently
produced. I could not honestly do otherwise, though I may envy
others their gifts of imagination.
In studying the writings of scholars on this subject, I have
found certain assumptions continually (though not always ex¬
plicitly) made, which seem to me to be mere superstitions, and
contrary to what we know of human nature and freedom—such
as these:
that variations in structure always take place in a logical order,
and that the chronological order can be inferred from the
logical ;
that careless work in stone is only possible at late periods, and
that whatever is to be ascribed to the Classical age must have
been relatively perfect (even when buried underground);
that any structure which is found in stone must previously
have existed in wood;
that no artist (or architect) ever thought of anything for
Preface
Vlll
himself, but that whatever any artist embodies in his struc¬
tures or paintings or reliefs must have been ‘ derived' from
someone else.
But as the questioning of this last assumption might encourage a
sceptical attitude towards much that is dear to Archaeology and
Entwicklungsgeschichte, I had better not pursue the subject.
Whenever I have been conscious of an obligation to earlier
writers, I have tried to acknowledge it, but I cannot always dis¬
tinguish the points which in the course of fifty years have been
suggested by others and those which have occurred to me inde¬
pendently. I hope I shall be forgiven if the conditions of a time
of war have prevented me from obtaining formal leave to insert
every one of the illustrations which have been drawn from many
sources. Wherever it has been possible, the source has been
acknowledged, and I hope that the invariable generosity of
authors and publishers (of all nations) in this field has not led
me to presume too far in a matter in which, under other condi¬
tions, I should have been very scrupulous. In regard to the
illustrations generally I am greatly indebted to Professor J. D.
Beazley for advice and help, and for the careful drawing of a
number of Plans my gratitude is due to Dr. Bruno Ahrends, a
distinguished architect who has been a welcome guest in this
country during the war.
A. W. P.-C.
29 September 1946
CONTENTS
Page
Chapter I. THE THEATRE BEFORE LYCURGUS i
I. The Precinct of Dionysus ...... i
II. The Older Temple of Dionysus ..... 3
III. The Earliest Orchestra . ...... 5
IV. The Spectators in the Earliest Period of the Theatre . . 10
V. The ‘Periclean’ Theatre . . . . . 15
Chapter II. THE THEATRE BEFORE LYCURGUS; EVIDENCE
OF THE PLAYS.30
A. Aeschylus ......... 30
B. Sophocles ......... 47
C. Euripides ......... 52
D. Aristophanes ........ 59
Summary . . ... . . . . .68
Chapter III. SPECIAL PROBLEMS OF THE THEATRE BEFORE
LYCURGUS.75
A. The Prothyron ........ 75
B. The eKKVKXrjfxa ........ IOO
C. Scenery and Stage Properties ...... 122
Chapter IV. THE LYCURGEAN THEATRE . . . .134
appendix i. Note on the KaraTonrj and the Monument of Thrasyllus . 169
APPENDIX II. Note on the term TrapaoKrjViov .... 169
appendix hi. Two Italian Vases ...... 170
APPENDIX iv. On the Staging of New Comedy plays (Menander, &c.) . 172
Chapter V. THE HELLENISTIC THEATRE . . . .175
Note on Terminology . . . • ... . 215
appendix 1. On Pinakes, &c., in the Proskenion .... 217
appendix 11. On the Evidence of Certain Reliefs . . . 218
appendix hi. On the Evidence of Various Works of Art . . 220
APPENDIX IV. TrepiaKTOL ....... 234
appendix v. Dithyrambic Contests ..... 239
APPENDIX vi. Theatrical Contests outside Athens from the Third
Century b.c. ...... 240
Chapter VI. THE THEATRE IN THE ROMAN PERIOD . . 247
Chapter VII. SUMMARY ....... 265
BIBLIOGRAPHY.272
INDEX.279
4919 b
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
D.R. = Dorpfeld und Reisch, Das griechische Theater (Barth und von Hirst).
Fiechter, i, ii, iii = Fiechter, Das Dionysos-Theater in Athen, i, ii, iii (Kohlhammer).
General view of the Theatre of Dionysus. Photograph Messhildsanstalt.
Frontispiece
PLANS
I. The Precinct of Dionysus. Adapted from D.R.
II. Ziller’s Plan of the Theatre in 1863. ’E<p. Apy. 1863. at end
III. Remains of Theatre at present day (main portion). Fiechter, i.
FIGURES
1. Coin showing Odeum of Pericles. ’E<f>. Apy. 1914 p. 1
2. Plan showing position of Odeum. Based on Judeich, Topogr. v.
Athen2 (Beck) . . . . . ~ . p. 2
3. The Older Temple of Dionysus. D.R. . . . ■ P- 5
4. The earliest Terrace Wall (1896). D.R. . . . . p. 6
5. The earliest Terrace Wall (1923). Photograph by H. Butte, in
Fiechter, i . . . . . facing p. 6
6. The earliest Orchestra Terrace. Based on Fiechter, iii p. 7
7. Sketch-plan of Periclean Theatre
p. 16
8. Stones in W. Wall of Auditorium. D.R. .
p. 20
9. The Madness of Lycurgus (Column krater from Ruvo). Ann. d
Istituto, 1874, Tav. R.
p. 82
10. The Mourning of Niobe for her Children (Amphora of Panathenaic
shape, Naples). Heydemann, Niobe u. d. Niobiden (Berichte
Sachs. Gesellsch. 1873) • facing p. 82
ii- Orestes and the Furies (Calyx krater, Leningrad). Festschrift fiir
James Loeb (Bruckmann) .... facing p. 83
12. The Theft of the Palladium (Pelike, Naples). Ann. d. 1st 1858
Tav- M.Ip. 84
13. Antigone and Herakles (Amphora of Panathenaic shape from
Ruvo). Mon. d. 1st. x, pi. 26 . . . , facing p. 85
14. Iphigeneia in Tauris (Volute krater, Buckingham Coll.). Ibid
1V> P1- 5i.. 86
15. Iphigeneia in Tauris (Volute krater, Leningrad). Ibid, vi, pi. 66 p. 88
16. Iphigeneia in Tauris (Calyx krater, Moscow). Bull. Ital. i, pi. 7 . p. 89
17. Achilles Thersitoktonos (Volute krater, Boston). Amer. J. Arch.
1908, pl- 19 • • . . . facing p. 90
18. The Death of Neoptolemus (Volute krater from Ruvo). Ann. d
1st. 1868, Tav. E . . . . p 9i
List oj Illustrations
XI
ig. Iphigeneia in Tauris (Volute krater from Ruvo). Furtwangler-
Reichhold, Gr. V asenmalerei (.Bruckmann) . . facing p. 92
20. TheMourningforArchemoros (Volute krater from Ruvo). Decharme,
Euripide et Vesprit de son theatre, pi. 2 (after Heydemann) facing p. 93
21. The Revenge of Medea (Volute krater from Canosa). Furtwangler-
Reichhold ...... facing p. 92
22. The Death of Meleagros (Volute krater from Armentum). Bull.
Archeol. Napol. viii, pi. 6 . . . . p. 93
23. Pelops and Oinomaos (Situla in Villa Giulia). Ausonia, vii, pi. 2, 3
facing p. 94
24. Scenes in Hades (Volute krater from Canosa). Photograph '
lent by Professor Beazley . . . between
25. Other side of same krater. Photograph lent by Professor PP- 94~5
Beazley. .....
26. Scene in Hades (Volute krater from Altamura). Mon. d. 1st.
viii, pi. 9 . . - . . . p. 95
27. Scene in Hades (Volute krater from Ruvo). Wiener Vorlegeblatter,
E, pi. 3, 1 . . . . . . . p. 96
28. Scene in Hades (Volute krater, Leningrad). Ibid. E, pi. 4 . p. 97
29. Scene in Hades (Volute krater from Ruvo). Mon. ant. Accad. d.
Lincei 16, pi. 3 . . . . . p. 98
30. Europa and Sarpedon (Bell krater, New York). Photograph lent
by Professor Beazley ..... facing p. 104
31. Thetis, Hephaistos, and Aphrodite (Bell krater, New York).
Photograph lent by Professor Beazley . . . facing p. 105
32. Funeral Scene (Apulian amphora, Madrid). Leroux, Vases grecs
de Madrid [Feret et Fils) .... facing p. 112
33. The Ekkyklema according to Exon. Haigh, Attic Theatre3 . p. 120
34. The Astydamas basis. D.R. . . . ■ ■ p- 134
35. View of Auditorium. Photograph Alinari . . facing p. 138
36. Coin showing Auditorium. Haigh, Attic Theatre3,. . . p. 139
37. Section of lower part of Auditorium. Based on D.R. . . p. 14°
38. Sectional view of Auditorium seats. Based on D.R. . . p. 141
39. Front view of Central Throne. Photograph lent by Professor
Beazley ...... facing p. 142
40. Side view of Central Throne. Photograph Messbildsanstalt
between pp. 142-3
41. General view of Central Thrones. Photograph Messbildsanstalt
facing p. 143
42. Throne in Delos, front view. Melanges Holleaux [Picard) . p. 142
43. Throne in Delos, side view. Ibid. . . • • P- I43
44. Letters in Water Channel. Broneer, Classical Studies presented to E.
Capps [Princeton Univ. Press). . . ■ ■ P- I45
!
xii List of Illustrations
45. Excavations in Orchestra. D.R. P- 147
46. Remains of W. Paraskenion and structures to W. Based on
Fiechter, i P- 150
47. Part of W. Paraskenion showing positions of Columns. Based on
D.R. p. 152
48. View of W. Paraskenion from N. Butte, Unters. an gr. Theatern
(Verlag. Bayer. Akad. Wiss.) .... facing p. 152
49. Wall of W. Parodos. Ibid. .... facing p. 152
50. Fragment of Architrave, W. Paraskenion. D.R. . • P- 153
51. Ground-plan of E. Paraskenion. Based on Fiechter, i • P- 154
52. Sketch-plan of stage buildings of Lycurgean Theatre • P- 155
53. The Monument of Thrasyllus in 1761. Stuart and Revett,
ii ... .
Antiquities of Athens, between
54. Details of Monument of Thrasyllus. Wetter, Jahrb. Arch. pp. 168-9
1938, Anz. .... .
55. Fragment of Tarentine calyx krater (Wurzburg). Butte,
Eine Skenographie (de Gruyter) between
pp. 170-1
56. Fragment of Tarentine calyx krater (Wurzburg). Ibid. .
57. Ground-plan implied in Tarentine calyx krater. Ibid.. • P-
171
58. Campanian Bell krater (Louvre). Photograph in my possession
facing p. 172
59. Sketch-plan of Hellenistic Theatre ..... p. 176
60. Stylobate of Hellenistic Proskenion and Paraskenia. Based on
Fiechter, iii . p. 179
61. Dorpfeld’s restoration of Hellenistic Theatre. D.R. p. 186
62. Satyr relief in Conservatori Museum. Stuart Jones, Cat. of Con¬
servator i Museum ..... facing p. 196
63. Relief in Ince-Blundell Collection. Ashmole, Cat. of Ancient
Marbles at Ince-Blundell Hall .... facing p. 197
64. Plan of Theatre at Eretria. Based on Fiechter, Das Theater in
Eretria (Kohlhammer) . . . . . ■ p- 200
65. View of remains of Theatre at Eretria. Photograph Inst. Eretria
facing p. 200
66. Plan of Theatre at Megalopolis (restored). D.R. . . • P- 201
67. View of remains of Theatre at Megalopolis. J.H.S. Suppl. 1 (1892),
pl- • • ■ • • . . facing p. 202
68. Plan of Theatre at Priene. Von Gerkan, Das Theater von
Priene (Verlag fiir praktische Kunstwissenschaft) between
pp. 202-3
69. View of remains of Theatre at Priene. Ibid.
70. Plan of Theatre at Epidaurus. D.R.
. p. 203
7i View of Theatre at Epidaurus. Photograph Messbildsanstalt
facing p. 204
7 2 Plan of Theatre at Oropos. Based on Fiechter, Das Theater in
Oropos (Kohlhammer) . . . . . - p- 205