in more than one form. According to Dörpfeld this background, to which he applies the term proskenion, consisted at times of a row of posts or columns with panels between, at other times of more distinctively realistic erections, or again only of large painted screens (Schmuckwände). The dramas of this period, he observes, demanded for their adequate presentation several different types

FIG. 11. - FRONT ELEVATION OF THE SCENE-BUILDING AT OROPUS AS RESTORED BY FIECHTER.

of settings, from which he concludes that "these various decorations must have been provided by means of movable proskenia of wholly different forms (Diese verschiedenen Dekorationen mussten durch bewegliche Proskenien von ganz verschiedener Form gebildet werden)." But the majority of those who believe that a proskenion occupied the space between the paraskenia in the Lycurgean theater hold that it was already of the conventional type found

24

I do not agree with the author in his interpretation of dvaẞalveiv and Karaẞalvelv (p. 91). For a statement of the arguments on the opposing side, see Haigh, op. cit., pp. 140 ff. The most recent defense of the stage-theory, so far as I am aware, is that by Petersen, Die attische Tragödie als Bild- und Bühnenkunst (1915), pp. 539 ff. See my review of this treatise in Class. Phil. XIII (1918), 216 ff.

24 Das griechische Theater (1896), p. 376. See further page 92 below, where Dörpfeld's theory of the proskenion will be discussed in detail.

regularly in the Hellenistic scene-building, as at Oropus (Fig. 11), Priene (Fig. 5) and at Athens itself (Fig. 13). In other words, it was a simple colonnade with a flat, or nearly flat, roof, and the spaces between its columns could be closed by means of wooden panels (ívakes) or left open in accordance with the varying scenic requirements. But the material of the entire structure was wood, not in part stone or marble as regularly in the Hellenistic period.25 This theory is, I believe, the only one that can be considered tenable. It makes possible a saner explanation of the origin of the Hellenistic proskenion than does any other hypothesis

FIG. 13. GROUND PLAN OF THE HELLENISTIC SCENE-BUILDING AT ATHENS (AFTER DÖRPfeld).

and is supported by the discovery of traces of a similar construction in the theaters at Sicyon, Megalopolis, and elsewhere. Moreover, there have been found certain Delian inscriptions of the early third century, which refer to the old wooden scene-building at Delos and which mention the proskenion and its panels.26 This is sufficient to justify the assumption of a similar erection in the theater at Athens; and that a proskenion of some kind was already in existence in the days of Lycurgus is proved by the

25 Puchstein assigned the permanent proskenion to the fourth century; see above, note 14. It should be observed that some scholars, of whom Puchstein was one, have accepted the assumption of a conventional proskenion in the fourth century, but have interpreted it as a stage, not as a background for the actors. This is merely one form of the stage-theory mentioned above; see

note 23.

26 The dates of these particular inscriptions are 290 and 282 B.C. See Homolle, Bulletin de corres. hell. (1894), 161 ff.; Haigh, op. cit., pp. 379 ff.

27

fact that the famous courtesan Nannion, who is frequently mentioned by fourth-century writers, was nicknamed "Proskenion," "because," as Harpocration records, "outwardly she appeared more comely." This rather enigmatic explanation is happily elucidated by the fuller statement in Athenaeus, that "Nannion was called 'Proskenion' because she had a pretty face and adorned herself with rich garments and ornaments of gold, but when she removed her garments she was most ill-favored to look upon." Some scholars see in these statements a reference to painted scenery, but the Delian inscriptions mentioned above are sufficient to disprove this interpretation.29

We assume then that a temporary wooden proskenion was employed in the fourth-century theater. It would be of the same height as the first story of the scene-building and its columns would harmonize with those of the two paraskenia. In the Hellenistic reconstruction, which so far as is known consisted chiefly in the erection of a permanent colonnade and in the curtailment of the paraskenia (Fig. 13), 30 the columns of the proskenion were set at a distance of about four feet back of the front line of the wings. And it is a reasonable conjecture that in the Lycurgean scene-building also they occupied the same relative position. For, as will be shown in the next chapter (p. 30), up to this time at least, the development of the theater after its main features *Αντιφάνης δὲ ὁ νεώτερος ἐν τῷ περὶ ἑταιρῶν τὴν Νάννιόν φησι Προσκήνιον ἐπονομάζεσθαι διὰ τὸ ἔξωθεν δοκεῖν εὐμορφοτέραν εἶναι.

27 5.0. Νάννιον

28 XIII, 587 b: Προσκήνιον ἐπεκαλεῖτο ἡ Νάννιον, ὅτι πρόσωπόν τε ἀστεῖον εἶχε καὶ ἐχρῆτο χρυσίοις καὶ ἱματίοις πολυτελέσι, ἐκδῦσα δὲ ἦν αἰσχροτάτη.

29 Moreover this interpretation would be possible only if Nannion had been called σκηνή, not προσκήνιον. Furthermore, the expressions employed, ἐκδύσα and τὸ ἔξωθεν εὐμορφοτέραν (which implies τὸ ἔνδοθεν αἰσχροτέραν), would hardly have been suitable if applied to painted scenes, but were entirely fitting if the speaker or writer had in mind a structure that within was rough and unfinished, but outwardly was pleasing to the eye.

Petersen's explanation of the proskenion (op. cit., pp. 540 ff.) is quite impossible of acceptance.

30 Their façades were moved back about six and a quarter feet. Fiechter (op. cit., pp. 9 ff.) defends Dörpfeld in this matter (Das griechische Theater, p. 63) and rejects the heresies of Bethe (Göttin. Gel. Anz. CLIX (1897), 720 ff.), Puchstein (op. cit., pp. 131 ff.), and Petersen (Jahrb. d. arch. Inst., XXIII (1890), 33 ff.).