were once established had been conservatively evolutional in character rather than marked by radical changes.31 So far nothing has been said about the upper story of the scene-building. That there was a second story is proved by the fact that even before the close of the fifth century certain plays demanded such a superstructure for their presentation (see p. 59). But regarding its size and appearance nothing is known. It may be, as Fiechter contends, that it resembled the upper portion of the Hellenistic scene-buildings at Oropus and Ephesus, the façades of which, as we saw above, consisted of a series of large openings and piers (p. 13 and Fig. 11). But this is wholly conjectural. Within the main hall of the skene stood a row of supporting columns, apparently ten in number, but these are not certainly assignable to the Lycurgean period.32 There was also in this hall a massive foundation (Fig. 6), but its purpose still remains in doubt. Finally at the back of the hall there ran a low wall, in the upper surface of which were cut large rectangular holes at regular intervals. As an explanation of this mysterious construction Dörpfeld originally suggested that the upper story of the scene-building was of wood and that these holes were intended to receive its massive supporting beams. Later, however, he ventured the conjecture that in the early years of the fourth century the lower story was of wood and that this wall served as its support.33 Possibly, as Fiechter suggests, 34 this wall was constructed before the close of the fifth century. But this is still quite uncertain. 31 As Flickinger remarks (op. cit., p. 70): "this fourth-century structure probably reproduced in stone the main outlines of the earlier theater in which the later tragedies of Sophocles and Euripides, and all the plays of Aristophanes were performed." I have shown in my article, "The Key to the Reconstruction of the Fifth-Century Theater at Athens" (Univ. Calif. Publ. Class. Phil., V, 55 ff., May, 1918), that this is certainly the case. 32 Das griechische Theater, p. 61. 33 Das griechische Theater, p. 61; Athenische Mitteilungen, XXXII (1907), 231. Versakis (Jahrb. d. arch. Inst., XXIV (1909), 223, 224), argued that its purpose was to strengthen the rear wall of the skene. 34 Op. cit., p. 11 (see fig. 8, above). At a distance of about sixty-five feet to the south of the scenebuilding were discovered the foundations of the new temple of Dionysus, for which the famous sculptor Alcamenes made a colossal chryselephantine statue of the god. Pausanias, who made an extended journey through Greece about the middle of the second century after Christ, mentions both the temple and the statue in his account of Athens (I, 20, 3). As Alcamenes flourished during the latter half of the fifth century, his last recorded work being a group to commemorate the victory of Thrasybulus and his compatriots over the Thirty Tyrants in 403, it is probable that this temple was erected either before the close of this century or very shortly thereafter, Its foundation consisted of blocks of breccia or conglomerate, a material that was not employed at Athens for this purpose until after the death of Pericles (429 B.C.). It follows therefore that the date of the temple falls between the years 425 and 390 B.C. Furtwängler 35 and Gardner 36 assign it to the Peace of Nicias (421-415 B.C.). But possibly it was not erected until after the battle of Cyzicus (410 B.C.), when under the leadership of the demagogue Cleophon (410-404 B.C.) the Athenians for a brief interval, fatuously confident that the democracy had been completely restored, turned once more to the architectural adornment of their city. Among the activities of this period was included the completion of the beautiful temple on the Acropolis known as the Erechtheum. The bearing of this apparent digression is clear when we note that the foundations of the scene-building and of the adjacent colonnade were similar to those of this new temple. Moreover these three structures appear to have been arranged in accordance with a single plan; the temple is virtually parallel to the portico and the skene. For these reasons the erection of the new theater 35 Op. cit., p. 413. 36 E. A. Gardner, Ancient Athens (1902), pp. 31, 435, 436. 37 Dörpfeld in Das griechische Theater, Tafel 2, represents them as exactly parallel, but in Tafel 1, which is presumably more accurate (Judeich, Topographie von Athen, 1905, p. 279, note 6), the lines slightly diverge. See also is conjecturally assigned by some scholars to the closing decades of the fifth century.38 Fiechter however accepts this conclusion only so far as concerns the foundations; the scene-building itself may still have been a wooden structure.39 Only the recovery of certain factors which are now missing will make a definitive decision possible. Until then, as Fiechter rightly observes, we must continue to grope in the dark. Noack, Zxnn Tрayıký, Eine Studie über die scenischen Anlagen auf der Orchestra des Aischylos und der anderen Tragikern (1915), p. 1. 38 Furtwängler (op. cit.) proposed the years 421-413 B.C. Gardner (op. cit., pp. 435, 436, 448) says "perhaps as early as 420 B.C."; see also Puchstein, op. cit., pp. 131 ff. Dörpfeld had suggested the years 350-330 B.C. 39 Op. cit., pp. 11, 12. See also Flickinger, op. cit., p. 67. III THE THEATER OF THE FIFTH CENTURY 40 The splendid theater of the days of Lycurgus and Menander, though built in the main of limestone and marble, admits of but a partial reconstruction. How much greater the difficulties encountered when we undertake to restore the less substantial building of the time of Pericles! Of this structure almost nothing has been preserved; yet this little when examined closely tells an extraordinarily fascinating story. Indeed even the meagerness of the remains is itself significant, for it proves beyond a doubt that the building was constructed in greater part of perishable materials. The foundations of our knowledge of the fifth-century theater were first securely laid by Dörpfeld when in the winter of 1885-86 he discovered beneath the inner end of the eastern parodus of the Lycurgean theater a curvilinear cutting in the bedrock and underneath the ruins of the scene-building two portions of an ancient retaining wall (Fig. 14, V, R, and Q, respectively). The stones which constitute the larger of these pieces of wall (R) 40 Selected bibliography: von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, "Die Bühne des Aischylos," Hermes, XXI (1886), 597 ff. This was the first attempt to interpret the early plays of Aeschylus in accordance with Dörpfeld's discoveries; it has exercised a profound influence upon subsequent discussions of Aeschylean dramaturgy. Todt, "Noch Einmal die Bühne des Aeschylos,” Philologus, XLVIII (1889), 505 ff.; reactionary and unconvincing. Dörpfeld und Reisch, Das griechische Theater (1896), pp. 24 ff., 176 ff., 366 ff. Haigh, The Attic Theater (ed. 3, 1907), pp. 80 ff. Noack, Σknyn Tpayikh, eine Studie über die scenischen Anlage auf der Orchestra des Aischylos und der anderen Tragikern (1915); disappointing on the side of dramatic interpretation. Allen, "The Key to the Reconstruction of the Fifth-Century Theater at are carefully fitted together in the polygonal style of masonry and their exterior surface was evidently intended to be seen. This surface moreover forms a circular arc (Fig. 15) from which Dörpfeld was enabled to calculate to a nicety the diameter of the circle of which it was originally a portion. This was about twenty-four meters or about seventy-eight feet, nine inches. And when the circle thus indicated was described, it not only included the second piece of wall (Q) but passed over the cutting DIONYSUS ELEUTHEREUS FIG. 14. - PLAN SHOWING THE REMAINS OF THE FIFTH-CENTURY THEATER AT ATHENS (AFTER DÖRPFELD). in the rock at V as well. From these facts Dörpfeld drew the conclusion that there had anciently existed here a wall inclosing a circular space the southern portion of which formed a terrace. And as portions of the native rock within this circle were found standing almost to the level of the fourth-century orchestra, the surface of this old terrace must have been of approximately the same height. The southernmost arc of the terrace therefore stood about two meters or six and a half feet above the sloping terrain (Fig. 16), while its northernmost portion formed a slight depression in the hillside. The material and the workmanship |