Classical Association of Canada

The Element of in Theatrical Production a Reply to Professor Dale Author(s): W. Beare Source: Phoenix, Vol. 7, No. 2 (Summer, 1953), pp. 77-79 Published by: Classical Association of Canada Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1086138 Accessed: 13/02/2010 16:53
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cac. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Classical Association of Canada is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Phoenix.

http://www.jstor.org

THE ELEMENT OF "O1IZ IN THEATRICAL PRODUCTION A REPLY TO PROFESSOR DALE W. BEARE

ANY readers will no doubt symphasize with the view expressed by Professor E. A. Dale (Phoenix 6[1952] 76) that "according to the means provided and the taste of the director in different times and in different places, stage settings were designed and executed with various degrees of elaboration"; he "cannot understand Bywater's obstinacy in confining all effects to costume, when Sophocles is credited by Aristotle with the invention of aKicvoypatla (Poet. 1449a. 18) and the element of 6PIts is stressed for certain productions (Poet. 1453b, 1456a)" nor why I "should be so sure that the settings were invariably of great simplicity." For the Roman stage in the time of Plautus and Terence (which is the subject of my book) we have some external evidence in Livy and other writers to the effect that the theatre was a temporary affair. As for the evidence of the plays, all I have tried to do is "to describe the simplest arrangement which would enable these plays to be staged." As the writing must precede the performance, a passage in a play can never be direct evidence as to how that particular play was staged, whether at the first or at later performances: "the actor-manager no doubt had his own ideas-which may not have been those ot the dramatist, or of other managers" (Roman Stage 169). There is, however, the logical difficulty that if we frame a hypothesis of special staging for any one play, we must also be ready with an explanation of how the scenery was changed when it would be unnecessary or even inconvenient. As I have failed to discover any plausible theory of scene-changing for the period before the introduction of the drop-curtain, I have fallen back on the supposition of a permanent and neutral setting which made no pretence of realism and was, in fact, nothing more than the actors' house. Even when the curtain had been introduced and had made possible an elaborate setting such as that described by Apuleius (Met. 10. 29), it seems to have been a solid build-up (including a "mountain of wood") and not an arrangement of sliding screens (for which I know no evidence earlier than the very puzzling remarks of Servius on Georgics 3. 24, 25). But this reasoning, if valid, must apply to the Greek theatre as well. What then is the meaning of aKnvoypaoia?Here I follow PickardCambridge (Theatre of Dionysus 124) in supposing that "what Agatharchus did was to paint an architectural design in perspective on the flat background." This design would be permanently visible, whatever the play; it was intended, I suggest, to look pleasing, not to lend realism to the setting. I think this explains Polybius' remark (12. 28a) about the
M

77

78

THE PHOENIX

"differencebetween real buildingsand the views and compositionswe see

ev raLs aKrYvoypa4aOs;"he is thinking of the difference between real

columns and the effect given by clever painting. Athenaeus (12. 536) tells us that a picture of Demetrius Poliorcetes was painted on the prosceniumof the theatre of Dionysus, showing the king "ridingon the world." Quite clearly this was meant to be visible throughout the performanceof plays; yet to what play would such a backgroundhave been
suitable? The reference in Athenaeus 14. 614e,f, to a KwC0LKI) and aK1V?V a Tpa'yLKi TKqvVJ I take as meaning "the stage in comedy" and "the

stage in tragedy," without any necessary implication that the front of

the or MKvi7v scene-building was adapted to the special needs of tragedy
Nannion, or comedy. The nickname irpoaKipLov applied to the courtesan

which is the only evidence offered by Pickard-Cambridge (ibid. 157) for sliding screens, need mean nothing more than that she, like the front wall of the scene-building, was painted to look pretty. As for the aK 8pvr7 4OLVILKWattributed by Suidas to Phormos or Phormis, bepuarcowv both the reading and the interpretation are uncertain; K6rte questioned Kaibel's view (Bieber, History of the Greekand Roman Theatre 140, 258), and Pickard-Cambridge is quite sceptical (Theatre of Dionysus shown on the periacti, 122, n. 4). On the subject of the KaracXOi,acra I have given my view that they were conventional means of indicating the scenery in the neighbourhood (Roman Stage 245), a view which is, I think, suppported by Pickard-Cambridge (Theatre of Dionysus 237). Those who insist that in the nature of things the visible background must somehow have been adapted to the needs of the play might do well to consider some quite different theatrical tradition, such as that of China or India. In Sanskrit plays "the characters are surrounded by Nature, with which they are in constant communion. The mango and other trees, creepers, lotuses and pale red trumpet flowers, gazelles, flamingoes, bright-hued parrots and Indian cuckoos, in the midst of which they move, are often addressed by them and form an essential part of their lives" (Macdonell, Sanskrit Literature 354). "The reins being loosed, the chariot-horses run along as if with impatience of the speed of the deer" (Cakuntala, ed. Monier Williams 10). Yet the background consists merely of a curtain, divided in the middle, behind which is the actors' dressing-room; the flowers, the horses are left to the imagination. "It is somewhat curious that while there are many and minute stage directions about dress and decorations no less than about the action of the players, nothing is said in this way about change of scene" (Macdonell, ibid. 352). Not curious at all: the dresses and the actions are real, the change of scene is imaginary. Perhaps the curtain is ultimately derived from the Greek mime; its name, yavanika, is connected with yavana, "Ionian," "Greek." Gregory of Nyssa refers

THE ELEMENTS OF '"OnI2; IN THEATRICAL PRODUCTION

79

(Ep. 9, Migne 46. 10. 41) to actors giving the effect of a city by means of
curtains
(Or6XLI(K TrapaTaarwETalaTv 'l
rTjS opxiaTrpas 6t'iJlorJOTr17T Tr'VOS

aXffXluaTraacTrs).

What, then, does Aristotle mean by 6ors in the Poetics? The mere fact that plays are produced on the stage involves an element of spectacle Tirv ALpaItVL, avayKfrs av (t 7rpwrov VlAp (1449b: aerel56 7paTrroVTe 7TroLOWVTru
eZr rL 6OpWOv Tpa7uQ5s 6 rvS 6/ ewS KO6qCOS.The "means" of tragedy are

diction and music; the "manner" is spectacle (1450a). Yet spectacle, while effective (tkuxaoy&rKobv), is quite foreign to poetic art and requires the
skill rather of the cffKeUwoobs (1450b 28). Fear and pity are sometimes

produced by means of spectacle, sometimes by the arrangement of the incidents, which is the mark of a better poet. The plot should be so constructed that even without seeing the play anyone hearing of the incidents will thrill with fear and pity. To produce this effect through
64Is is inartistic and involves outlay on properties (Xoptyias beobevov,

1453b). In Poet. 1456 Aristotle is made by some editors to say that the fourth variety of tragedy is &oLs,"as for example the Phorcides and the
Prometheus Kai 'oaa Iv abov." But oils is merely a conjecture
vraOf7rLKr (like the stories

of Bywaters

for the ornsof AC. The three other varieties are the "complex," the
of Ajax and Ixion), and the i6oLKd, like the

Phthian Women and the Peleus. These are differences of theme; I do not see that the "spectacular" fits in very happily here as a fourth variety of tragedy. From the other references in the Poetics to 6i*s
no information can be gathered about stage scenery; the caKevoroL6s

is specifically a maker of masks in Knights 232. That these, with costume, would cost money (xopryias 6eo'/evov) and might give a spectacular effect I do not deny. But I still ask where is there evidence that the background was altered to suit the particular needs of a Greek play.