let us begin with a brief description of the fourth-century theater. 10 We shall then turn back to the earlier structure and show that the remains of the fourth-century theater furnish a key for the reconstruction of certain features of the building as it existed in the days of Sophocles. An examination of the literary evidence will then be necessary, and this will lead in turn to a criticism of various theories which have been proposed. Out of this there will develop a discussion of the origin of the proskenion which is so prominent a feature of the Hellenistic theater. In conclusion we shall propose as a reasonable hypothesis that the proskenion was in point of origin the skene itself of the Aeschylean theater. 10 The history of the Athenian theater may be roughly divided into the following periods: (1) The fifth century B.C.; (2) the fourth and third centuries B.C.; (3) the second and first centuries B.C.- the Hellenistic period; (4) the first and second centuries A.D. the Neronian theater; and (5) the third and fourth centuries A.D. - the Phaedrian remodelment. The last two divisions taken together constitute the Roman period. For a description of the Hellenistic and Roman reconstructions, see Dörpfeld, Das griechische Theater, pp. 73– 96; Haigh-Pickard-Cambridge, The Attic Theatre (1907), pp. 87, 88; Flickinger, The Greek Theater and its Drama, pp. 70 ff. II THE FOURTH-CENTURY THEATER AT ATHENS 11 During the fifth century B.C. the theater in the precinct of Dionysus Eleuthereus became by the processes of external accretion and expansion a structure of considerable magnitude. But even until the close of the century apparently both auditorium and scene-building alike continued to be unpretentious erections of wood.12 In sharp contrast with this earlier building the new theater of the fourth century was in the main an edifice of stone and marble. The date when this reconstruction was begun cannot at present be determined with certainty, but it appears 11 Selected bibliography : Dörpfeld und Reisch, Das griechische Theater (1896), pp. 36 ff. This book, in spite of repeated attacks by Bethe, Puchstein, Petersen, Furtwängler and others, still remains the most authoritative treatise on the Athenian theater. Puchstein, Die griechische Bühne (1901), pp. 1-45, 100 ff., 131 ff. The author of this study according to his own confession (p. 2) ignored the evidence afforded by the dramatic literature. But not with impunity; his conclusions are either wholly unsound or open to serious question. Reviewed by Dörpfeld in Athenische Mittheilungen, XXVIII (1903), 385 ff., and by Robert in Göttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen, CLXIV (1902), 413 ff. Furtwängler, "Zum Dionysostheater in Athen," S.-B. d. philos.-philol. u. d. histor. Classe d. k. b. Akad. d. Wiss., München (1901), pp. 411 ff. Devoted chiefly to a discussion of the date of the reconstruction of the theater. Haigh-Pickard-Cambridge, The Attic Theatre (ed. 3, 1907), pp. 86 ff. Although useful, this book is marred by many faults. Happily it has recently been superseded (see below). Fiechter, Die baugeschichtliche Entwicklung des antiken Theaters (1914), pp. 9 ff. and passim. A stimulating and beautifully illustrated treatise; some of its conclusions, however, cannot be accepted. Flickinger, The Greek Theater and its Drama (1918), pp. 57 ff. This is not only the most recent discussion of the Greek theater and its problems, but without question also the best. For additional titles and other references see the following footnotes. 12 Some scholars however, notably Puchstein (op. cit., pp. 138, 139), and Furtwängler (op. cit.), have maintained that the auditorium was reconstructed wholly or partially of stone before the close of the fifth century. It is possible further that the stone foundations of the fourth-century skene were laid before the year 400. For a discussion of this matter see the end of this chapter (p. 18). |